Epicurus

In this paper I shall offer new definitions for what seem to be the most dominant terms in Epicurus’ theory of pleasures - “kinetic” and “katastematic”. While most of the scholarly literature treats these terms as entirely concerned with states of motion and states of stability, I shall argue that the distinction concerns whether pain is or is not removed by this or that pleasure. As the removal of pain is a necessary condition for the Epicurean goal of ataraxia and (...) aponia, “katastematic” pleasure, having to do with the removal of pain, is the necessary pleasure pertaining both to the process of removing pain and to its result, namely the absence of pain, while “kinetic” pleasure is an unnecessary pleasure having nothing to do with the removal of pain, e.g. it starts after pain has been removed. If my analysis and interpretation prove correct, the two conventional classifications - “kinetic-katastematic” and “necessary-unnecessary” - turn out to be referring to the same phenomenon and are aspects of one classification. Moreover, this new interpretation resolves some of the main problems arising from our testimonia concerning “kinetic” and “katastematic” pleasures. (shrink)

Through a close reading of Plutarch’s Against Colotes 3-9, the paper reconstructs and interprets the original Epicurean criticism against Democritean epistemology and ontology, and in particular against Democritus’ theory of sensible qualities, and Plutarch’s twofold criticism of Epicurean epistemology, on similar grounds, and of the questionable exegetical and argumentative manoeuvres used by the Epicurean Colotes. In the process of interpreting Plutarch’s text, the paper reflects on the nature, motivation and plausibility of Plutarch’s own exegetical and argumentative strategies. Finally, the paper (...) suggests that a careful reading of Against Colotes will help us to put into focus the important question of whether, independently of their apparently opposite claims about the “reality” of secondary qualities, Democritus and Epicurus shared either a form of radical relativism or a form of commonsense “intersubjectivism” in their evaluations of ascriptions of such qualities to macroscopic objects. (shrink)

According to Kant Epicurean ethics is a “self-love” ethics, or “an ethics in pursuit of one’s own happiness.” He contends that such a conception of ethics cannot produce any morality in an objective sense. Epicurus contends that ataraxia, a state in which all bodily and mental disturbances are remedied is the ultimate goal of life. In this paper, I will try to show how by beginning the concept of pleasure Epicurus tries to erect a system of ethics which is based (...) on equality and justice. We will see that in this ethical system the attainment of happiness for an individual is necessarily bound with the happiness of the other individuals. And the attainment of pleasure or happiness is conditioned by virtue. In this regard, it would not be wrong to draw the conclusion that the ethical goal of Epicurus turns out to be ataraxia for all which thus refutes the Kant’s depiction of Epicurean ethics as self-love ethics. (shrink)

Epicurus observed nature with the aim to achieve serenity and a blissful life. This article discusses current knowledge, regarding the human brain in comparison to Epicurus’ understanding of human nature. The human brain actually consists of three interconnected brains that arose during evolution: the ‘reptilian brain’, the ‘mammalian brain’ and ‘the primate brain’. The philosopher emphasized on the fact that the basic needs of humans lay in instincts, and he determined the purpose of human life on emotional grounds and considered (...) prudence as the supreme agent of selection of physical needs and of satisfaction and preserva-tion of emotional balance through virtue and friendship. (shrink)

The Epicurean philosophy is based upon the theory of Democritus, who believed that everything is composed of ‘atoms’, physically but not geometrically indivisible, and lie in a void. Democritus paid a great deal of attention to the structure of the human body, the noblest part of which is considered to be the soul. These all-pervading souls - atoms perform in different functions. In this case, Epicurus and his followers believed that the soul, just like the body, was somehow material, consisting (...) of atoms as well. The body by keeping soul-atoms together without much dispersion allows them to vibrate with the motions that generate sensations. Lucretius also describes the atomic theory in his De rerum natura and observes the materiality of the soul. At last, Epicurean “pleasure” is the greatest good, but the one and only way to attain such pleasure is living modestly and be of the limits of one’s desires. This can lead everyone to attain a state of equanimity and freedom from fear of death, as well as absence of body pain. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. (shrink)

A recent piece in this journal by Morgan and Taylor made the case that C. Memmius is not to be seen as an active prosecutor of Epicureanism but rather as an Epicurean himself, who merely has disagreed with the grimly orthodox Epicurean sect in Athens. As such, Memmius’ building intentions for Epicurus’ home could have been to create an honorary monument or possibly even construct a grander locus for pilgrimage and the practice of Epicureanism. This note adds to their findings (...) by considering allusions to De Rerum Natura found in Fam. 13.1 and the implications of Cicero speaking to Memmius in Lucretius’ striking language. Cicero expresses his judgement on De Rerum Natura, famously, at QFr. 2.10.3, Lucreti poemata ut scribis ita sunt, multis luminibus ingeni, multae tamen artis. sed cum ueneris, uirum te putabo si Sallusti Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo, and Memmius, of course, is the addressee of De Rerum Natura. This Lucretian language, unremarked on by previous scholars, points to the shared literary culture of Cicero and Memmius as well as Memmius’ own ability to recollect and contextualize the references. By echoing Lucretius in this letter, Cicero hints at Memmius’ sophistication and learning, underscores Lucretius’ own fervent devotion to Epicurus’ strictures, and suggests the need for Memmius to achieve ataraxia, at the very least, in regards to his building plans and the furore it is causing in Athens. (shrink)

Epicurus had a distinctive position on pleasure: the greatest possible pleasure consists in the absence of pain. The pain in question may be physical or psychological. Not to be hungry, cold, or otherwise distressed is the greatest pleasure that the body can know; to be free of fear, particularly the kind of vague, undirected anxiety that Lucretius called cura, is the most pleasant state that the mind can achieve. As Lucretius exclaims, "Do you not see that our nature cries out (...) for nothing other than that pain be absent from the body and that it may enjoy in the mind pleasant sensations, far from anxiety and fear?". Beyond this, Epicurus avers, pleasures can only be varied, not increased. Epicurus further... (shrink)

Plutarch is committed to geometric atomism, the Platonic theory that derives the material elements from regular polyhedric shapes. An essential feature of this theory is that qualitative properties are not primitive, but supervene on more fundamental, quantitatively describable properties, such as the size, shape, mass or weight of the atoms, their solidity, position, arrangement and kinetic interactions. Plutarch recognises that the geometric account provides the causal explanation for phenomenal and other qualitative properties. He praises Plato and Democritus for their theoretical (...) accomplishment in this domain. Yet in his reply to Colotes, he criticises Epicurus and Democritus because of their atomism, and claims that it is not possible to derive qualities from qualityless atoms. Plato’s theory is different, he claims, as it does not make the primordial corpuscles qualityless and unchanging. I examine three possible explanations for this discrepancy: Plutarch’s argument against Democritus serves purely polemical purposes; Plutarch is not fully aware of the theoretical force and import of geometric atomism; he disposes of a more sophisticated account of geometric atomism, containing assumptions unknown to us that save the model from the objections directed at Democritus. (shrink)

Comparisons betw western philosophies are uncommon and this, among other things, hinders global philosophical discourse. Thus, in this essay I want to compare the philosophies of the Buddha and Epicurus for similarities, particular in regard to what I call "negative happiness." Once I have establish this, I want to give a brief critique of negative happiness, which subsequently amounts to a selective critique of Buddhism and Epicureanism.

The three studies that make up this work each deal with another facet or subdiscipline of Epicurean cosmology. The first study is devoted to Epicurus’ method of multiple explanations, the second study compares the meteorological sections of Epicurus' Letter to Pythocles and Lucretius' De rerum natura with other ancient meteorological accounts as regards the range and order of subjects, and the third study investigates what shape the Epicureans assigned to the earth. [For an updated version of this thesis, see Frederik (...) A. Bakker, Epicurean Meteorology: Sources, Method, Scope and Organization, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016]. (shrink)

We will discuss some of the central themes of the care of the self in epicureanism, making an articulating the considerations of Michel Foucault to the contributions of Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud. Epicurus will provide us a better understanding of the care of the self and of the existence's aesthetics through the comprehension of the  nature science should be placed on as related to happiness, its main goal.

Explores the role of eliminating fear in Epicurean ethics and physics, focusing on techniques to eliminate the fear of death and the fear of the gods.

Epicurus’ philosophy grew out of his life experiences, contacts, polem­ics, journeys and other activities. Apart from such great works as the monumental On nature in 37 books, Epicurus authored also various extracts, principle doctrines, sayings and letters. The letters, while addressed to many students and friends, were for him a very important tool of propagating his own philosophy. Epicurus’ fascinating Letter to Menoeceus can be regarded as a manifesto of his philosophy of life. In historiography, it is often characterized as (...) an expo­sition of his ethics, even though Epicurus probably did not use the term himself. To better capture the composition and spirit of this work, the Greek text of the letter has been somewhat rearranged here: for the sake of clarity, ample spaces and special paragraphs have been provided, and appropriate headings have been introduced in the Polish translation. (shrink)

Diogenes Laertius reports that the Epicurean sage will pity slaves rather than punish them. This paper considers why a hedonistic egoist would feel pity for her subordinates, given that pity can cause psychological pain. I argue that Epicureans feel bad for those who lack the natural good of security, and that Epicureans’ concern for others is entirely consistent with their hedonistic egoism: they will endure the pain of pity in order to achieve the greater pleasure of social cohesion and to (...) avoid the greater pain of social conflict. According to Epicureans, our feelings for fellow humans prevent us from becoming savages, unable to enter into trustworthy compacts to promote our safety. (shrink)

Owing to an oversight on the part of Springer, Chapter 3 was initially published as a regular chapter. However, this is an Open Access chapter.

Hedonism as an idea is a theory, according to which happiness is ultimate good and unhappiness is the ultimate evil. Materialist schools of thought, which generally believe in hedonism, have various expressions in different human cultures. Hindu culture is no exception, because there is a distinctive school of philosophy in this culture, called Charvaka, which considers pleasure as the only meaning and aim of life, due to having materialistic school of thought. Epicurean philosophy in Greece is the closest school to (...) Charvaka. These two philosophies formed schools with a hedonistic nature, which could attract many people over centuries in spite of their many enemies and great oppositions. A comparative study of hedonism in these two philosophies through available library resources shows that both of them believe man should be happy and enjoy life completely, because they apparently believe only in the validity and existence of material world, explain man’s existence on the basis of his material dimension, and reject any kind of existence afterlife. There are, however, some differences between these two philosophies. Epicureans are completely different with a particular sect of Charvakans in terms of their view about the meaning and kinds of pleasure. Furthermore, Epicureans regard higher happiness and pleasure more as the absence of pain, unlike the followers of Charvaka who regard physical pleasures as the only valid ones. The main aim of Charvakans is to deepen and extend the scope of pleasure, whereas Epicureans seek to reduce the pain as much as possible. (shrink)

My principal purpose in writing this article is to explore some key elements in the thought of Bradley and Schopenhauer, and to do so by using their respective views on death, and more specifically the relation of those views to Epicureanism, as a focal point. The article divides into three main sections. First I outline the Epicurean position, and discuss how it manifests within the work of Schopenhauer and Bradley. Secondly, I attempt to show how these two philosophers’ thoughts on (...) death cohere with their overall metaphysics. And, thirdly, I draw attention to the hedonic component in the Epicurean argument, and discuss an objection to the argument that has been proposed by Thomas Nagel on anti-hedonic grounds. In my concluding remarks I highlight the most significant ways in which Bradley and Schopenhauer divert from the central Epicurean claim, and from one another. (shrink)

Mitchell defends the Epicurean account of friendship. I argue that since Epicureans are hedonists who hold that all pleasures are good and all pains are bad, Epicureans would desert their friends in circumstances in which standing by their friends causes them pain.

I review this fine collection of articles on ancient ethics ranging from the Presocratics to Sextus Empiricus. Eight of the nine chapters are published here for the first time. Contributors include Charles H. Kahn on "Pre-Platonic Ethics," C. C. W. Taylor on "Platonic Ethics," Stephen Everson on "Aristotle on Nature and Value," John McDowell on "Some Issues in Aristotle's Moral Psychology," David Sedley on "The Inferential Foundations of Epicurean Ethics," T. H. Irwin on "Socratic Paradox and Stoic Theory," Julia Annas (...) on "Doing Without Objective Values: Ancient and Modern Strategies," and Susan Sauvé Meyer on "Moral Responsibility: Aristotle and After." There is also an introductory essay by the editor, Stephen Everson. I summarize and then critique each chapter in this rather lengthy review. (shrink)