How long has SoFE been around?

The Society of Friends of Epicurus was founded on the 16th of February of 2013. For more about the SoFE, please enjoy the video SoFE: a philosophical community. We also have an About Us page.

What writings do you consider authoritative or canonical?

Our tradition emanates mainly from the Principal Doctrines and the Epistles to Menoeceus, Herodotus, and Pythocles, as well as Epicurus’ Final Will and Testament. Most of our sources ultimately came through Diogenes Laertius’ tenth book of Lives of Eminent philosophers. As secondary sources, we use the six books in Lucretius’ De rerum natura, the scrolls of Philodemus, and portions of Diogenes of Oenoanda’s Wall Inscription.

What do Epicureans believe?

Things are made of matter, our opinions should be based on the study of nature, friendships are sacred, and life should be lived pleasantly.

Is Epicureanism a religious identity?

Most of us see it as such. For more, please read the essay Epicureanism as a religious identity. The basic argument is that Epicurean philosophy fulfills the seven dimensions of religion recognized by anthropologist Ninian Smart. This includes ethics, community, scripture-like texts, a calendar, regular gatherings and traditions, rituals (particularly Eikas), etc.

For the purposes of legal challenges in courts, Epicurean philosophy also provides ethical and philosophical guidelines that could be defended in the court of law on the grounds that they are sincerely held beliefs. For instance, if there’s ever a case where a person might be forced by the state or by a Christian or Muslim majority to undertake some action which may be objectionable because there is no empirical evidence to justify it, or because empirical evidence contradicts it or deems it harmful, the individual could claim that he follows Principal Doctrine 24, which establishes a taboo of separation of that which is clear and evident from that which is not yet clear and evident.

How does one celebrate Eikas?

The SoFE guidelines include two elements: the Libation (this is simply a toast in memory of Epicurus and Metrodorus, as per Epicurus’ Final Will) and the Program (an educational component related to philosophy). Our Eikas programs usually last about two hours and are done via zoom. This video delves into Eikas in more depth

I am doing a student (or media) project and have questions?

Please feel free to contact us at friendsofepicurus@gmail.com.

How can I help promote Epicureanism, or help you in your mission? I want to volunteer?

Please feel free to contact us at friendsofepicurus@gmail.com and tell us about your skill set.

How can I join?

Our main virtual space is the Garden of Epicurus facebook group. From there, you would get invited to our Eikas zoom meetings. After over a year of fruitful and friendly participation, Friends are eligible for membership in the SoFE.

Hiram Crespo Q&A

The following questions were submitted to Hiram Crespo, founder of SoFE and author of Tending the Epicurean Garden and other books.

(RF says:) To what degree does aesthetics play within Epicurean philosophy?

From the founders, we have this saying:

I spit upon beauty and those who admire it, if it brings no joy. – Epicurean Fragment 512

He’s basically saying: “I spit on [aesthetics, art] if it does not produce pleasure“, so beauty is a potential means to pleasure. 

As to the ontological status of beauty, a Herculaneum scroll titled “Irrational Contempt” by the third Scholarch of the Athens Garden, Polystratus, argues that beauty and ugliness both are real and both exist as relational properties of bodies. He compares this to when a magnet attracts some rocks but not others, or when a plant heals some diseases but not others, or when peanuts give allergies to some people but not others. These relational properties are real, but require interactions between two or more bodies to take place. In this way, he argued that the subjective experience of beauty and ugliness can exist in nature, in the bodies.

Beyond this, I’d invite you to read “The Sculpted Word“, a book on Epicurean sculpture and plastic arts and how they’ve been historically used in the recruitment of new Epicureans. This is the most in-depth evaluation of Epicurean aesthetics I know of. A modern French thinker who has been influenced by Epicurus is Michel Onfray, who views art as a means for the creation of meaning and takes the time to focus on and critique nihilist, psychotic art, which he perceives as a misuse of the meaning-endowing power and purpose of art.

Beauty has a history. – Michel Onfray

Onfray criticizes nihilist songs and movies that offer “no overcoming”, and artifacts as “altars to consumerist nihilism”. Onfray likewise is critical of the view that art changes or informs history, arguing that instead “art comes from history”. Material conditions exist first, and only then do ideas emerge from those conditions that are able to create art. He is arguing for a materialist, non-Platonic aesthetic.

(RF says:) How should I deal with anger? 

A full review of Philodemus’ scroll on anger is beyond the scope of this Q and A, but a modern translation and commentary on the book is available from book sellers. 

To summarize: the basic technique is to pause, and to figure out if your anger is natural and rational (does the initial pang of indignation point to a natural and necessary good being deliberately denied to you?). If anger is neither rational nor natural, it’s easily discarded. If you endorse the natural and rational anger, then you may choose to make it productive, to channel it into a course of action that leads to net pleasure. This is how we transform the poison of anger into the medicine of pleasure.

(RF says:) How can I find peace in such a chaotic world? 

Study philosophy. Stay away from the news cycle. Spend lots of time with good, wholesome friends.

(RF says:) How do I stop the fear of death?

There are several therapeutic arguments in EP for dealing with death. Epicurus’ arguments concerning how death is non-sentience is found in Principal Doctrine 2 and in his Epistle to Menoeceus, where he argues from the ontological status of death as non-being by saying:

So death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist death is not yet present, and when death is present, we do not exist. Therefore it is relevant neither to the living nor the dead, since it does not affect the former, and the latter do not exist. Most people flee death as the greatest of bad things and sometimes choose it as a relief from the bad things of life. But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death.

Philodemus’ scroll On Death is a compilation of all the repercussions of PD2, and it’s also available in translation with commentary. Lucretius offers other therapeutic arguments: the symmetry argument compares the time after we die with the time before we are born. Both are eternal and, just as we do not remember what happened before birth, similarly we will not remember what happens after death. Another Lucretian argument compares death to sleep. A careful study of all these sources will help you to cognitively assimilate Principal Doctrine 2 in all its repercussions.

(JW says:) Perhaps some clarity on Epicurean attitudes to love and sex, as well as to political action?

The Epicurean Guides left this: 

[addressing a young man] I understand from you that your natural disposition is too much inclined toward sexual passion. Follow your inclination as you will, provided only that you neither violate the laws, disturb well-established customs, harm any one of your neighbors, injure your own body, nor waste your possessions. That you be not checked by one or more of these provisos is impossible; for a man never gets any good from sexual passion, and he is fortunate if he does not receive harm. – Vatican Saying 51

Which lists some of the potential dangers of passionate love, however some of the founders were themselves married, so clearly marriage can pass hedonic calculus and each individual must carry out his or her own calculus based on circumstances.

Concerning political action, Principal Doctrine 6 says that anything that we do for the sake of safety is naturally good (including some extent of involvement in politics), and Principal Doctrine 7 says that so long as we acquire safety from other men, we may have attained a natural good by political involvement, but if we do not, then we did not. So the key to consider is whether we are really pursuing a natural good, or an empty value.

(EJC says:) Can a person accept an Epicurean ethic without accepting an Epicurean metaphysic? 

We don’t have metaphysics, only physics, and ethics are intertwined with the physics in a manner that is coherent. So while you could benefit from the ethics, without the physics you’re not on firm ground and you may probably encounter cognitive dissonance. Pierre Gassendi was a Catholic priest who attempted to syncretize his faith with Epicurean philosophy, but his system was incoherent. It’s not clear to me whether Thomas Jefferson believed in the afterlife, but he did not believe in the supernatural and his view of God was deist. It’s possible that Jefferson equated God with Nature, in which case we have no quarrel with that, and in fact replacing God with “Nature” is probably the most honest way to reimagine God as an Epicurean without falling into incoherence.

(GB says:) Central things I feel some distance to, but wonder about, is (1) how I am meant to experientially understand natural/non-natural desires, and (2) how I am meant to experientially understand necessary/unnecessary desires?

The problem of what is defined as “natural” was controversial even in the days of the Scholarchs Demetrius Lacon and Zeno of Sidon, who deliberated about this subject. Here is the meleta (deliberation) we have from them on the ambiguity of “by nature”:

The Scholarch Zeno of Sidon and his entourage had explored the ambiguities deriving from different meanings of the term “natural” this way: Man is said to be “by nature” a procurer of food, because he does this by unperverted instinct; “by nature” susceptible to pain because he is so by compulsion; “by nature” to pursue virtue, because he does it to his own advantage.

According to Demetrius of Laconia, the expression “by nature” in Epicurus’ statement does not mean without perversion or distortion, but freely, without compulsion or force. He may have said this because other Epicureans were arguing that naturalness is opposed to perversion (by culture, by convention, by upbringing, or by association), and it’s possible that these other Epicureans were on to something.

Based on all these instances, we see various ways in which something may be natural: it may be unforced or uncompelled; it may be advantageous; it may be sound, based on correct views and a correct assessment of relevant factors; or it may be an unperverted reaction to an intentional offense.

Therefore, we cannot presume to have a conclusive answer on the meaning of “natural” today if even Scholarchs of direct lineage were deliberating on this over 2,000 years ago, but we can rely on their interpretations, so long as they are not mutually contradictory.

Principal Doctrine 30 gives us insights into what would be an unnatural desire: if you get no pain when it’s unsatisfied, it’s a vain and empty desire. Also, if you must pursue it with intensity or great effort, it’s unnatural, because natural desires are easy to get by definition. Those are the two criteria for unnatural desires.

Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless opinion; and it is not because of their own nature they are not got rid of but because of man’s groundless opinions.

Concerning unnecessary desires, Principal Doctrine 26 defines unnecessary desires (they do not lead to pain when unsatisfied) and says that if an unnecessary desire is harmful or difficult to get, we can easily get rid of it.

All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid of, when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem likely to produce harm.

So, based on all this, you should treat your desires as case studies and see to which ones these criteria apply, and practice Vatican Saying 71:

Question each of your desires: “What will happen to me if that which this desire seeks is achieved, and what if it is not?”

(EJC says:) What would be the purpose of devotional items for an epicurean? Are prayers offered to Epicurus? It seems like that wouldn’t be reconcilable with Epicurean Metaphysics and Epicurus’ views on death (i.e. the dead person not existing anymore)

Prayers are not offered to Epicurus, but the Doctrines are sometimes repeated and memorized. There is one fragment that demonstrates that ancient Epicureans offered this prayer to Nature itself: “We thank Divine Nature because she made the necessary things easy to get, and because the things that are hard to get she made them unnecessary”.

The SoFE accepts three interpretations of the gods as justifiable conclusions: the realist interpretation (gods are real, physical beings with bodies made of particles), the non-realist interpretation (gods are imagined constructs with ethical utility), and the atheist interpretation (gods do not pass the test of the canon and/or are not useful ethically).

The realists argue that the gods are real cosmic beings who emit particles that affect the psyche and give pleasure, but this view is challenged today by Epicureans who argue that, since the universe is expanding, the particles coming from extraterrestrial blissful beings would eventually stop reaching us.

The non-realists believe that, even if the gods do not exist, there are still benefits to pious practices, and they are interested in the psychosomatic effects of pious practices. This view is based on studies concerning chanting, meditation, and other pious practices that have health benefits. The reason why this view is justified is that Epicurus did say that to pray is natural, and one of the Vatican Sayings explains that the benefits of honoring a sage are for the one who does the honoring. Another reason why this view is justified, is that we have no evidence of the gods, but we do have evidence concerning the benefits of piety. Since our canon is based on epilogismos, or thinking pragmatically and based on evidence, therefore religious techniques are a legitimate way to practice Epicurean philosophy. Also, in this interpretation, the idea of theistic or non-theistic religion as art–or as a technique for living–can be explored.

The atheist interpretation is modern, and rejects the utility of piety as well as the ontological status of the gods. This view is respected, in part, because Philodemus said in his scroll On Piety that everyone should be considered impious, insofar as no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of the gods.

(from Caleb) I’m curious about your thoughts on why Stoicism seems to have gotten legs and taken off a lot faster than Epicureanism in modern times. 

I think Stoicism is familiar to people who come from Christianity because they have come to accept Divine Providence, and many Christians practice Stoicism (for ex. The “serenity prayer”) without knowing they’re practicism Stoicism. And so people from a Christian background might consider Stoicism as a familiar way of thinking. Perhaps if more Christians were aware of the intersection between ancient Epicurean and Christian communities, they might think of Epicurus as a familiar figure. 

One additional factor is that–as Michel Onfray has argued in his counter-history of philosophy–there have been attempts to erase Epicurus from history by both Platonists and Christians, and in academia. Lucian’s comedy Alexander the Oracle Monger shows that some ancient Pagans took to burning The Principal Doctrines after being mocked by Epicureans, so there was additional sectarian hostility from Pagans.

However, rather than focus on why other philosophies get more attention, I would challenge Epicureans to become more visible and to share Epicurean memes, teachings, and essays with others of like mind, as Epicurus advised in his Letter to Menoeceus. If more of us add visibility to Epicureanism, then EP will be more visible and people will have more opportunities to learn about it.

(from Caleb) I’m curious about how a modern Epicurean would address a circumstance in which it was fairly well empirically demonstrated that one of the traditional Epicurean tenets was inaccurate (hedonism, the afterlife, free will). I’m not implying that this has happened (or even could in one of those cases). I’m mostly curious about how one would navigate a situation when research no longer supports a defining teaching. 

As to hedonism being “inaccurate”, I’m not sure how this would even be demonstrated. Pleasure and pain are experienced with enargeia (immediacy, clarity) and are subjective, so how can they be “inaccurate”? 

As to the afterlife, NDE (near-death experience) research shows that the brain produces visionary experiences when deprived of oxygen, so it seems like our bodies have the wisdom to die in a manner that diminishes suffering. The visions people have when they report NDE’s are tied to what’s happening in the brain and do not prove the supernatural claims they often make (which are mutually contradictory, anyway). I’m not sure what would constitute evidence for an afterlife, since anyone having enargeia / clarity of its apprehension would have to be dead. Lucretius rejects the idea of reincarnation, by asking why we do not retain memory of previous lives.

Concerning free will, it’s not clear how it could be proven that we do not have free will, because for all practical purposes we observe choices, avoidances and rejections being made. The description of the natural process of choices and avoidances in the particles or bodies does not prove that choices do not exist, it merely shows a natural mechanism by which they happen. If one were looking for a non-natural mechanism for choices to happen, then one would be chasing a ghost. Epicurus replied to these challenges by saying that, judging by the logic of the question, the person who concluded that there is no choice and the person who concluded the opposite were pre-determined to conclude this way, and this does not change the practical repercussions of their views. Perhaps others have more satisfying answers to this.

It seems that the Epicurean attitude towards these questions has to do with the level of rigor with which we admit evidence for the claims being made, and with the nature and interpretation of said evidence.

One final note must be made here concerning the self-updating of beliefs in an evidence-based worldview. Epicurean beliefs are based on the evidence of nature, and the Epicurean canon (standard of truth) is empirical and pragmatic. If the evidence points to new data and new theories, we will continue to adjust our ideas about the nature of things, as all evidence-based thinking does. In this way–and unlike religious worldviews–Epicurean cosmology continues expanding and evolving, for instance, with exoplanetary and neuroplasticity research.

Most importantly, we will continue applying our methods of philosophy (pragmatic and therapeutic, for the healing of the soul) rather than turn to speculative methods.