Discussion of Article - "Epicurus And The Pleasure Of Rebelling Against Plato"

Enjoyed this. Having recently finished reading Arenson, I appreciate how you wove her survey of Plato-Aristotle-Epicurus into your discussion. Since, as you point out, DeWitt's book is nearing its centenary, adding the more recent contributions of Arenson and Sedley makes (to my mind) the piece feel more complete.

A possible complicating question: do otherworldly philosophies such as Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Christianity hold an appeal because, under some circumstances and for some people, the idea of an eternal divine realm is pleasurable? Take Boethius, for example, awaiting torture and execution. KD4 might have provided consolation to him in those circumstances, but he apparently found ascent of the soul and theosis to be a more attractive possibility.

Assuming he derived genuine pleasure from holding these views--and, of course, we can't know--was be still misguided in his choice? And, if so, based on what criterion?

That's a great point you raise about Epicurus's view of hard determinism. Wonder if we can relate this also to his participatory attitude with regard to religious ceremonies.

The question interests me for a couple reasons. One is that I'm curious about the kind of experience my religious friends are having (not being religious myself). And I'm also interested in how Christianity may or may not have appropriated aspects of Epicureanism--this is something I recall DeWitt writing about in the later chapters of his book. My sense is that the Christians might have borrowed the Epicurean view of pleasure and grafted onto it the notion that you can join a blessed and incorruptible God through the intercession of Jesus. Which would certainly strike many as an appealing idea.

What do you think?

Quote from Robert

And I'm also interested in how Christianity may or may not have appropriated aspects of Epicureanism--this is something I recall DeWitt writing about in the later chapters of his book. My sense is that the Christians might have borrowed the Epicurean view of pleasure and grafted onto it the notion that you can join a blessed and incorruptible God through the intercession of Jesus. Which would certainly strike many as an appealing idea.

Regarding DeWitt's ideas, this may just be a "coincidence" of ideas, and not an actuality of there being a particular source. The only "blessed and incorruptible God" within Christianity would be in the Unitarian Universalist movement. Pretty sure that all others believe that God judges, punishes, and supernaturally heals and intervenes.

Quote from Cassius

But if we are allegedly devoted to reason as the best path to pleasure/happiness rather than pure luck (as again Epicurus says to Menoeceus) then we don't put our eggs in a basket we should know to be faulty and unlikely to get us to where we want to be. Thereefore for most people in most instances, we ditch the idea of getting to pleasure/happiness through religion like we ditch the idea of jumping off of cliffs thinking that we might fly.

Religion most often leans upon "reliance on God", "submission to God", "surrendering to God" -- all of which require a suspension of reason. And this leans toward a type of "skeptic" philosophy of life...after-all "God works in mysterious ways".

But for Epicurean philosophy we see that Vatican Saying 65 says: "It is foolish to ask of the gods that which we can supply for ourselves."

Quote from Cassius

I certainly agree I can see that that would be attractive to pursue - if it were true. I agree that what you're talking about probably happened to a degree, but like Lucian mentions in Alexander the Oracle Monger the authentic Epicureans who followed the full philosophy were probably the most resistant to it. And this is a caution against those who do nothing today but stress the "happiness" aspect of it -- if you don't also explain the nature of the universe and how to be confident about your conclusions then you'll fall prey to exactly the kind of thing you are talking about.

And I can't think of any better way to mistakenly prepare the ground for conversion to Christianity-like religion than to reduce Epicurean philosophy to nothing more than a version of don't fear god, don't fear death, what's good is easy to get and what's terrible is endurable.

Those who think that Epicurean philosophy boils down to nothing more than that are going to be the first to line up for the tent revivals of every charlatan who wanders into town because every aspect of that can be claimed to be delivered by Christianity.

Your point here reminds me of Lucretius's concern that inadequate understanding of the cosmos could lead some people to lapse back into superstition. (Book V, 65-91). In fact, in the light of what you've just written here, I can understand better why Lucretius devotes so much of his poem to physics.

And I agree with what you're saying about going beyond a few maxims--I feel this is true for any system of thought, really. Modern presentations of Stoicism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. often cherry-pick the cool-sounding wisdom and skip over the problematic cosmology. But that stuff comes to bite you past a certain point. Fortunately, for Epicureans, we have an essentially sound view of how the universe works, and this in turn supports the ethics.

Somewhat tangentially--but getting us back to Plato--I happened to see this piece over the weekend, in which the author suggests (towards the end) that misinterpretation of an NDE set Plato off in the direction of forms and disembodied virtue and what not. Probably too reductive, but maybe not entirely wrong.

Thank you for pointing me to DeWitt's essay--I'd forgotten about it and am adding it to my reading list.

Quote from Kalosyni

Regarding DeWitt's ideas, this may just be a "coincidence" of ideas, and not an actuality of there being a particular source. The only "blessed and incorruptible God" within Christianity would be in the Unitarian Universalist movement. Pretty sure that all others believe that God judges, punishes, and supernaturally heals and intervenes.

Religion most often leans upon "reliance on God", "submission to God", "surrendering to God" -- all of which require a suspension of reason. And this leans toward a type of "skeptic" philosophy of life...after-all "God works in mysterious ways".

But for Epicurean philosophy we see that Vatican Saying 65 says: "It is foolish to ask of the gods that which we can supply for ourselves."

At least from what I've seen, Christianity has this really odd wrinkle. On the one hand, God is perfectly good, without fault, and blessed--In Greek Orthodoxy, the word μακάρ is used, just as it is in Epicureanism (I have wondered if they stole it from Epicureanism). But, as you say, there's also the element of judgment and wrath.

I don't know how this contradiction can be resolved--and I get the sense that various Christian denominations don't agree either. An explanation that I've heard in Orthodox contexts is that it isn't God who is raging and punishing people--it's the people themselves who are removing themselves from God's blessedness.

Calvinists and the like have some other set of explanations and I don't get those at all.

I agree with you that religion tends towards unreason, but as a former Catholic school kid I should mention that Catholicism tries very hard to place its belief system on a rational footing. Whether they succeed in this is another question.

Quote from Robert

Catholicism tries very hard to place its belief system on a rational footing. Whether they succeed in this is another question.

They've been working on that since the Islamic scholars translated Plato and Aristotle from Greek into Latin. I don't see how they've succeeded in rationalizing their belief system in any way except for the social justice work they've done as a sideline to gaining converts. And that has nothing to do with their theology or Greek philosophy, in my opinion

Quote from Robert

I don't know how this contradiction can be resolved

This is a major problem with religious beliefs in general: They start from abstract assumptions first, so you can fit anything into them, even if it sounds contradictory.

For example, I live in a highly religious country. When something bad happens, like someone getting sick, people flock to god, because "god is good." If the person gets cured from the disease, people will say that god is good because of that. If the person dies, people will say that god is good because the person was allowed to rest. If the person survives, but ends up crippled in some way, people will say that god is good because the person survived and because he'll reward those who suffer. And, obviously, if you raise an objection, people will say that "god operates in mysterious ways."

The problem is that people assume that god exists in the first place, that he acts in the world, and that he is "good." Since this assumption comes first, even with no solid base to back it up, everything else can be made to fit it, even if doing so requires a lot of mental gymnastics.

Robert, you might be interested in a dialogue by Desiderius Erasmus called The Epicurean. That's not a great version of the text to read from, but unfortunately I'm not at home at the moment. Here's a seminal passage from a cleaner text:

Quote

[...] If they are Epicureans that live pleasantly, none are more truly Epicureans, than those that live holily and religiously. And if we are taken with Names, no Body more deserves the Name of an Epicurean, than that adorable Prince of Christian Philosophers; for Ἐπίκουρος in Greek signifies as much as an Helper. Therefor when the Law of Nature was almost erased by Vice; and the Law of Moses rather incited than than cured Lusts, when the Tyrant Satan ruled without Controul in the World, he alone afforded present Help to perishing Mankind. So that they are mightily mistaken that foolishly represent Christ, as by Nature, to be a rigid melancholick Person, and that he invited us to an unpleasant Life; when he alone show'd the Way to the most comfortable Life in the World [...].

Edit to add; It's possible that this is Erasmus' response to Lucian's high praise of Epicurus in his letter on Alexander the Oracle-Monger.

Erasmus collaborated with his friend and correspondent Thomas More on an edition of Lucian's dialogues.

Quote from Joshua

Robert, you might be interested in a dialogue by Desiderius Erasmus called The Epicurean. That's not a great version of the text to read from, but unfortunately I'm not at home at the moment. Here's a seminal passage from a cleaner text:

Quote

[...] If they are Epicureans that live pleasantly, none are more truly Epicureans, than those that live holily and religiously. And if we are taken with Names, no Body more deserves the Name of an Epicurean, than that adorable Prince of Christian Philosophers; for Ἐπίκουρος in Greek signifies as much as an Helper. Therefor when the Law of Nature was almost erased by Vice; and the Law of Moses rather incited than than cured Lusts, when the Tyrant Satan ruled without Controul in the World, he alone afforded present Help to perishing Mankind. So that they are mightily mistaken that foolishly represent Christ, as by Nature, to be a rigid melancholick Person, and that he invited us to an unpleasant Life; when he alone show'd the Way to the most comfortable Life in the World [...].

Edit to add; It's possible that this is Erasmus' response to Lucian's high praise of Epicurus in his letter on Alexander the Oracle-Monger.

Erasmus collaborated with his friend and correspondent Thomas More on an edition of Lucian's dialogues.

Christian ataraxia, eh? Yes, very intrigued by this text--and thank you for extricating that crucial passage. I've only just skimmed the rest at this point, but I notice that our buddy Hedonius starts off by rejecting Stoicism and the Peripatetics before making the case for a Christianized Epicureanism. That in itself is pretty interesting.

A question I wonder about, though, is whether this or similar lines of thinking existed around 300 C.E. Alternatively, (more than) a millenium later, are Erasmus and Gassendi crypto-Epicureans who are using Christianity as their cover?

Cassius-Yes, I think you're likely correct. Erasmus and so on were intelligent, well-read, and rational people, and thus had a motive for fashioning an intelligent, well-read, and rational Christianity.

For a time, this approach would also have served the interests of the Church--going back to the Roman Christian era, we encounter the idea that Christianity has transcended all the sects and, in doing so, unified philosophy. That leads to Platonism+Jesus, Stoicism+Jesus, Epicureanism+Jesus, etc.

I'm intrigued by the fact that Erasmus seems to be siding here with Diogenes of Oenoanda against the Stoics--I know very little of Erasmus and his writings, but I gather (thank you, AI) that he insisted on the importance of feeling and compared the Stoic sage to a marble statue. Maybe someone who has read "In Praise of Folly" can confirm this.