Book: "Theory and Practice in Epicurean Political Philosophy" by Javier Aoiz & Marcelo Boeri

Thank you Fernando looks like a great find!

More enticement to read this book, from the introduction:

Quote

As aforementioned, chapters 4, 5 and 6 are more ‘informative’ and ‘doxographical’ in character, although, as will be seen, they provide historical and doctrinal data that help reinforce our view that the Epicureans were not indeed averse to political life. Chapter 4 faces a well-known subject: how Epicurus and Epicureanism were received already in antiquity. There we dispute the reading that three prominent ancient writers made of Epicurus and his followers. Our struggle is against the interpretive procedures employed by Cicero, Plutarch and Lactantius – who were very hostile to Epicureanism – while examining Epicurean views. Our purpose is to show how decisive these ancient writers were in forging the traditional negative image of Epicureanism, as well as how their version of Epicureanism contributed to demoting Epicurean political reflection. These writers share several characteristics that demonstrate clearly their destructive intentions as well as the harmfulness of their account of Epicurus: (i) the reconstruction of Epicurean views drawing from the absolutization of decontextualized or mutilated slogans, or through the omission of certain views; (ii) the consideration of Epicurean assertions based on the supposed ‘germs of danger’ they contain and their repercussions at the level of social practice; and (iii) the banalization of Epicurus’ hedonism. Indeed, these are the three interpretive resources most frequently used by Cicero, Plutarch and Lactantius when disparaging Epicureanism. At any rate, the important point in chapter 4 is that if our knowledge of Epicurean philosophy depended exclusively on people like Cicero or Plutarch, we would practically be unaware of the political component of the Epicurean study of nature, and of its contribution to the grounds of the Epicurean way of life.

Posted at Facebook:

Javier Aoiz | Universidad de Santiago de Chile - Academia.edu

Marcelo D. Boeri - John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation

Marcelo Boeri is a Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy at the University of the Andes in Santiago, Chile. Born in Buenos Aires, he…

www.gf.org

https://philpeople.org/profiles/marcelo-boeri

Just bumping this thread to see if anyone has read this and has any comments. It is still on my reading list.

We are planning to interview Dr. Boeri in the next ten days for a special edition of the Lucretius Today podcast, and interview hopefully Dr. Aoiz in the Spring. If you have any comments or questions you would like us to incorporate in the interview, please comment in this thread. Here are our current thoughts for what the interview is going to cover:

How Apolitical Were The Epicureans?   | Academia Page | List of his articles | ORCID | Best Bio Information at Guggenheim

Academia Entry for the book.

Contents of the book: Theory and Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy - Security, Justice, and Tranquility - Javier Aoiz and Marcelo Boeri

• Introduction
• 1 The Genealogy of Justice and Laws in Epicureanism
• 2 The City, the Natural Good and the Epicurean Promise of Security
• 3 Preconception, Justice and Usefulness in the Epicurean Contractual Political Model
• 4 Cicero, Plutarch and Lactantius as Readers of Epicureanism
• 5 The Epicurean Sage, the Issue of Justice and the Laws
• 6 The Greek Poleis, Rome and Its Illustrious Epicurean Citizens
• 7 Conclusions. Friendship, Law and Justice: The Epicureans and their Interest in Interpersonal Relations

Introduction

Today we welcome to our podcast Dr. Marcelo Boeri, who is a Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy at the University of the Andes in Santiago, Chile. Born in Buenos Aires, he received a B.A. degree from the University of Buenos Aires. After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Salvador in Argentina in 1995, he was appointed an Associate and, later, an Independent Researcher (1996-2003) at CONICET. He was also for a time an Associate Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University of Comahue (1997-98) and a Lecturer in Greek Philosophy (2000-01) at the University of Litoral (2000-01) before joining the faculty of the University of the Andes in 2003.

In addition to his teaching responsibilities, Mr. Boeri has conducted extensive research on ancient philosophies and philosophers both at his home institutions and as a visiting researcher at Georgetown University (1994-95) and at Brown University (2007), as well as a Junior Fellow at Harvard’s Center for Hellenic Studies (1999-2000) and as a visiting researcher at that institution (2004).

His publication of more than fifty-five papers and critical reviews on Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, as well as his co-editorship of the philosophical journal Méthexis (since 2001) and of the International Plato Studies series (since 2007) have firmly established him as one of the world’s leading authorities on ancient philosophy. This reputation has garnered him invitations to lecturer from the University of Navarra, Spain (1999); Boston College (2003); the Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaíso, Chile (2005, 2007); Trinity College, Dublin (2007); and the University of Rome Tor Vergata (2007); among others.

His impressive publication list includes “The Stoics on Bodies and Incorporeals” (Review of Metaphysics, 54 [2001], 723-52) and “Socrates, Aristotle, and the Stoics on the apparent and real good” (Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, vol. XX, ed. J. J. Cleary and G. Gurtler [Leiden: Brill, 2004]); he provided the introduction, analysis, and translation from Latin and Greek for Los estoicos antiguos. Sobre la virtud y la felicidad (Ed. U. de Chile, 2004); he contributed the article “The Presence of Socrates and Aristotle in the Stoic Account of akrasia” in Metaphysics, Soul and Ethics. Themes from the Work of Richard Sorabji (Oxford UP, 2005), which Ricardo Salles edited; and he wrote Apariencia y realidad en el pensamiento griego. Investigaciones sobre aspectos epistemológicos, éticos y de teoría de la acción de algunas teorís morales de la antigüedad (Buenos Aires: Ed. Colihue, 2007).

Questions

1. Please tell us about your academic background or anything else about yourself that you think is relevant to an interest in Epicurus.
2. How did you first become interested in Epicurean philosophy?
3. What made you decide to take your interest in Epicurus' attitude toward engagement with society and politics to the level of writing a book about it?
4. You open your book with the statement: "At first glance, their programme seems to suggest – or, more precisely, to call for – a move away from society and politics, as suggested by the two famous Epicurean slogans ‘live unnoticed’ [λάθε βιώσας] and ‘do not participate in politics’ [μὴ πολιτεύσεσθαι]. This is how the adversaries of the Epicureans (mainly Cicero and Plutarch) presented their views in antiquity. But to distance oneself from contingent politics and society does not necessarily mean a solitary way of life or a lack of interest in society, the existence of which it certainly presupposes (or so we shall argue)." Can you summarize for us your conclusions about what Epicurus expected would in fact bet the proper way to approach these questions?
5. Let's first take "live unnoticed"....
6. And then take "do not participate in politics"
7. Epicurus complained in his own lifetime that his teachings were misunderstood and misrepresented. You have mentioned in your work that there is little contextual information about how the cliches about "living unknown" and "avoid politics" developed other than their use by opponents of Epicurus to criticize him. Can you tell us more about how we can use this same approach - that of examining the context in which misconceptions like this have arisen - to get a better understanding of Epicurean philosophy in general.
8. Another big problem you mention is that people like Cicero have "cherry-picked" the Epicurean materials and left out from the discussion major aspects of Epicurus' positions. For example you talk about how many of the Doctrines and sayings of Epicurus are devoted to discussing "security," and yet Cicero talks if those never existed. Do you have any thoughts or advice for how to use the information buried in the material left by anti-Epicureans such as Cicero or Plutarch to learn more about what Epicurus was really saying?
9. Often we run into people who have focused on reading Diogenes Laertius, Lucretius, and to some extent Cicero for their information about Epicurus, and many of those people are not familiar with the material in Plutarch. Could you give us your view of Plutarch and how best to approach his writings on Epicurus?
10. How do you see these issues as related to Epicurus' views on friendship, which Epicurus clearly stressed?
11. As we close can you let us know the best place for our listeners to find your book and to follow you and your work.

Onenski: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The book is unfortunately beyond my budget for now. I have read their essay "Cicero and his Clamorous Silences" (which can be accessed via the Academia.edu page linked by Cassius above).

I discovered that there is a paperback version coming out on August 22, 2024, on Bloomsbury. Far cheaper than the hardcover or Ebook versions.

Thanks for that information! Paperback much cheaper than ebook - that's pretty weird!

Reading this thread motivated me to order the book on Amazon. Thank you, all.

Pre-ordered it too

This is a topic on which the Epicurean philosophy often has to face with unfair criticism.

The critic (often Stoics to differentiate the both schools harsh):

"Epicureans are hiding in the garden with a few friends without interest in social/political/humankind issues as a whole because it could mean stress / adversity".

Instead justice/friendship (Philia) are essential virtues in Epicurean Philosophy and they engage when necessary (why engage if unneccesary ? Maybe for admiration / fame / empty ideas ? )

And I see friendship (Philia )in an wider sense like in the definition of Aristoteles (kindness to all humans/creatures) but with a practical limit (for example not for enemies, false friends, too harmful people, it is always balanced with prudence ).

I think prudence (phronesis ? ) and friendship (philia) are the two main virtues in Epicurean Philosophy.

Philia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"As Gerard Hughes points out, in Books VIII and IX of his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle gives examples of philia including:

young lovers (1156b2), lifelong friends (1156b12), cities with one another (1157a26), political or business contacts (1158a28), parents and children (1158b20), fellow-voyagers and fellow-soldiers (1159b28), members of the same religious society (1160a19), or of the same tribe (1161b14), a cobbler and the person who buys from him. (1163b35)^[2]

All of these different relationships involve getting on well with someone, though Aristotle at times implies that something more like actual liking is required. When he is talking about the character or disposition that falls between obsequiousness or flattery on the one hand and surliness or quarrelsomeness on the other, he says that this state:

has no name, but it would seem to be most like [philia]; for the character of the person in the intermediate state is just what we mean in speaking of a decent friend, except that the friend is also fond of us. (1126b21)

This passage indicates also that, though broad, the notion of philia must be mutual, and thus excludes relationships with inanimate objects, though philia with animals, such as pets, is allowed for (see 1155b27–31) though it considers its existence in the way of inanimate objects could also "inanimately love".

In his Rhetoric, Aristotle defines the activity involved in philia (τὸ φιλεῖν) as:

wanting for someone what one thinks good, for his sake and not for one's own, and being inclined, so far as one can, to do such things for him. (1380b36–1381a2)

John M. Cooper argues that this indicates:

that the central idea of φιλíα is that of doing well by someone for his own sake, out of concern for him (and not, or not merely, out of concern for oneself). [... Thus] the different forms of φιλíα [as listed above] could be viewed just as different contexts and circumstances in which this kind of mutual well-doing can arise.^[3]

Aristotle takes philia to be both necessary as a means to happiness ("no one would choose to live without friends even if he had all the other goods" [1155a5–6]) and noble or fine (καλόν) in itself. "

There is only one higher form of "love", "agape" but that is a love for/between humans an (supernatural) gods. Christians try to practice it for example in charity.

But it is maybe more limitless and maybe self-destructive as philia.

And without a supernatural god there is no agape in the sense of the definition. So here too meets (meta-)physics ethics

Lots of good information. Thank you Matteng!

The book arrived yesterday and I read the introduction and enjoyed it .

I'm already looking forward to the rest of the book. I think it clears up some prejudices, what is important because some people feel that the political/social aspects are missing or weak in Epicurus' Philosophy because of the hostile writings from the ancient Academics / Stoics.

For example, Massimo Pigliucci had Stoicism and Epicureanism in mind for his philosophy of life and chose Stoicism because he felt that these aspects were not given enough attention in Epicureanism but in Stoicism.

But you can see the tendency of Modern Stoicism to incorporate Epicurus' aspects into the worldview "Atoms or God => Atoms" and denying the Stoic God or more and more the instrumental character of virtue for example when they promote virtue for joy and tranquility.

I feel much the same way on each of your points Matteng. If you are so inclined to make comments here while you are reading the book, I feel sure those would be helpful to the group. The charge of "lack of engagement with society" is in my view not at all warranted, but it has been very damaging to the wider acceptance of Epicurean philosophy and needs to be dealt with aggressively. No self-respecting healthy young person is going to be willing to embrace Epicurean philosophy if they think that doing so requires them to withdraw from the world and "live in a cave." I think most of us here share our disagreement with that charge, to the extent that it seems ridiculous even to talk about the charge as if it were serious, but it certainly is a serious one and much work needs to be invested in driving it away as in VS46:

VS46. Let us utterly drive from us our bad habits, as if they were evil men who have long done us great harm.

I also got the book recently and read the intro and the first two chapters. I can see this not only touching upon political philosophy but also meta ethics. Ultimately a type of naturalism/realism with a strong element of subjectivism/relativism. It's kind of hard to fully describe it our modern philosophical terms. There's another book published this year that goes into Epicurean justice.

Also going through the podcast's episodes on the New Virtues chapter and the topic of justice will be interesting to compare.

I found that the authors do an exceptional job at providing readers with the latest archaeological findings from the ancient Epicurean world. A chunk of my investigation into early Epicurean communities around the Mediterranean comes from stone inscriptions that I have only found attested to in this book (at least, within the English-speaking world). It's a great resource.

I've finished the book, but I still have to digest it a bit.
What I like is:

• How he shows that Cicero, Plutarch and co. leave out certain teachings of Epicurus and reinforce their prejudices against his teachings or even start them in the first place

  
  

• Epicurus' teachings highlight how important laws and a social/political order are in order to meet natural/necessary needs, keyword security (contrary to the prejudice that Epicurus' teachings are against good morals and that he is an enemy of laws).

• It is shown that a political community contains both: security and danger and that motivation and circumstances are important when it comes to the question of political participation (yes for security, no for fame, empty ideas/needs)

  
  

• Epicurus' teachings go beyond what is socially necessary, Philia (friendship) is highlighted and that for a happy life the Epicureans emphasize that one should live honorably (which includes philanthropy, compassion, helpfulness, i.e. all social feelings and character traits.

• The fear of punishment exists to protect the Epicurean sage, he does not act virtuously out of fear but out of insight because it contributes to a happy life.

• What I am not yet sure about and although according to the book it did not represent a challenge for the Epicureans, I do feel that way is the story of Gyges' ring that makes you invisible.

Would someone who follows Epicurus' teachings commit injustices if they were never seen?

In the Stoic Oikeiosis doctrine (which Hermachus was inclined towards) one sees others more and more as belonging to oneself and wants their happiness too. But that is another topic, perhaps more theoretical.
It is often said that injustice towards others is more likely to arise from non-necessary needs, which the Epicurean sage does not have.
But what about natural/necessary needs? But this also includes ataraxia. This is also important to the Stoics. Needs for the body or "life" are less important to Stoics than to Epicureans.

But in the end it is always a matter of weighing things up and I still have to think about it a bit.

Quote from Matteng

Would someone who follows Epicurus' teachings commit injustices if they were never seen?

I would comment with VS7...

7. It is easy to commit an injustice undetected, but impossible to be sure that you have escaped detection.

ἀδικοῦντα λαθεῖν μὲν δύσκολον, πίστιν δὲ λαβεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαθεῖν ἀδύνατον.

PS. I'm crossing out easy because that isn't what the Greek says. It's *difficult* to commit an introduce undetected, but impossible to be sure that you've escaped detection.