Has the meaning of friendship changed since the times of Epicurus

    I am reading Living for Pleasure by Emily Austin. A lot of thought has gone into structuring Epicurean ideas into a more comprehensible format. So far a very rewarding experience.


    Two somewhat disturbing observations though:


    1. On friendship: the kind of tranquility or safety in friendship may actually no longer exist at least in the Western society. I had the fortune to live in a more traditional society with under-developed institutions. Fridendship there was necessary, all-consuming and omnipotent. You want to find a good dentist, parking spot, decent job, a cemetery plot, resolution to a business conflict, even a legal dispute - you simply need friends. And your friends know this. This means your daily routine is to collect and dish out favours.

    I have also lived in (North) Western Europe for several decades. Institutions have by now replaced the need for friends: from insurance to therapy, from life coaching to moving houses - everything is regimented, itemised and priced to perfection. "Friends" are reserved for idle chitchat on inofensive topics with a very clear understanding that anything else is outside "the scope".

    The question is, is it even possible to have a living experience of friendship in the Epicurean sense these days?


    2. On virtue: the only other discontent I have about the book is the distinct impression that it is written as a "justification of Epicurus" for stoics. The detailed analysis why living an Epicurean lifestyle is not selfish and can be virtuous at times misses the point, sounding nearly apologetic.

    Quote from waterholic

    The detailed analysis why living an Epicurean lifestyle is not selfish and can be virtuous at times misses the point, sounding nearly apologetic.

    Rhetorical question, not limited to this book: "Isn't that (sounding apologetic) a problem of just about every book and article written about Epicurus in the last 2000 years?"


    I definitely agree that "sounding apologetic" is a big problem in general, and I wish I could point to books or articles that I think are free of that problem. I will say that this is one reason for my appreciation of Norman DeWitt - if there is a book on Epicurus that is largely free of "sounding apologetic" about Epicurus, it is that one.


    So I do agree with your comment as written, but at the same time I will quickly add that I think "Living for Pleasure" is probably one of the least apologetic books on Epicurus I have read in a long time, which is why I like it so much.


    I wonder if you (or others) can think of books which are less apologetic?


    As for the definition of friendship I think that's a great question. The points you raise point out the problem - what do we (or Epicurus) really mean by "friendship"? I gather there are some specific references to what it means in Aristotle, but I am not sure about other writers. I wish that parallel to Gosling & Taylor's "The Greeks on Pleasure" there were a similar book with similar research on "The Greeks on Friendship."

    Cassius thank you, I thought it was just my feeling.


    Quote from Cassius

    So I do agree with your comment as written, but at the same time I will quickly add that I think "Living for Pleasure" is probably one of the least apologetic books on Epicurus I have read in a long time, which is why I like it so much.

    To be clear, I very much enjoy the book. It's well structured and draws from the "correct" sources. Certainly better than many other recent/modern books. I guess I wish it could be more.


    I haven't thought about the "apologetic" nature of the texts before, so I can't compare, but the DeWitt reference is interesting, I will revisit.


    Quote from Cassius

    The points you raise point out the problem - what do we (or Epicurus) really mean by "friendship"?

    I really struggle with this. Even if we find the accurate description of what social dynamic Epicurus implied in his definition of friendship to conclude that it is an essential element of a pleasant life, chances are, that social dynamic is no longer replicable in modern times. There is still academic benefit in researching the meaning of friendship in antiquity. But for us the likelihood of missing out on an essential part of the philosophy today is disheartening.

    Yep I was just remarking in another thread that we can't hold ourselves to a standard of omniscience, and we just have to do the best we can with what is available.

    Quote from waterholic
    I had the fortune to live in a more traditional society with under-developed institutions. Fridendship there was necessary, all-consuming and omnipotent.Y

    ou want to find a good dentist, parking spot, decent job, a cemetery plot, resolution to a business conflict, even a legal dispute - you simply need friends. And your friends know this. This means your daily routine is to collect and dish out favours.

    That situaltion is very interesting (and I would wonder perhaps people were not very close friends). And doesn't sound very fun.


    Here in the US when I lived in Oregon, I was part of a Buddhist Zen group. It was through knowing people there that I found a studio apartment (converted garage in a house). And a few other things with which I got help, just by mentioning my problem, people gave good suggestions. So being part of a religious community has a benefit, founded on mutual support arising from common religious beliefs, and others become a kind of second family. So I think it could have been somewhat like this for Epicureans back in the past.

    Quote from waterholic

    Even if we find the accurate description of what social dynamic Epicurus implied in his definition of friendship to conclude that it is an essential element of a pleasant life, chances are, that social dynamic is no longer replicable in modern times. There is still academic benefit in researching the meaning of friendship in antiquity.

    I actually envision it to be very similar to what I experienced in the Buddhist community that I was a part of. The problem was that I came to realize that Buddhist philosophy didn't work anymore for me, so it didn't make sense for me to continue with the community.


    The community had a core group who did much of the work of making things run efficiently (a board of directors, teachers, and Zen priests/trainees). And then two other levels of involvement which I would call intermediate/dedicated students. And then the newer students or occasional attendees. And there were times to study together and times to celebrate with community meals and movie nights.

    Quote from Kalosyni

    That situaltion is very interesting (and I would wonder perhaps people were not very close friends). And doesn't sound very fun.

    I may have described it in slightly exaggerated colours, but in essence that setup is not very different from a religious community. Friendship is still based on common, albeit secular, beliefs and shared interests. But there is of course no shared understanding of unnatural/extravagant desires, quite the opposite. A shared purpose is advancement of "our people" in all senses, which can cause misery.


    Looking at a Buddhist community, I can assume there is a similar issue: the shared purpose (whatever it is). When does a common purpose overshadow an individual's preference for a pleasant, simple and unnoticed life?

    You know, even in a shared community (monks in a monastery) there are no doubt degrees of "friendship." You can have all the shared values in the world and still in the end not "click" with someone. So I would think that aspect of friendship would have to be considered in these discussions too.

    Quote from Cassius

    You can have all the shared values in the world and still in the end not "click" with someone. So I would think that aspect of friendship would have to be considered in these discussions too.

    That was probably a frequent topic of frank speech back in the Garden!