Thanks for sharing this here, and this is an interesting project that perhaps all Epicureans should take on
I was mainly inspired by Emily Austin's advice to actually write Epicureanism in order to appreciate it. Philodemus apparently said one should wrote criticisms of oneself and wrote down Epicurean doctrine to fully appreciate the tenets of Epicureanism.
I do a journal entry around every Eikas and I can attest it does wonders for mental and bodily health. Recommend others do it.
Could you provide your definitions for these terms, or is there an Epicurean text that groups these 4 virtues as essential?
Even though Epicurus himself didn't list these virtues both Torquatus and Philodemus both mention all these virtues (Philodemus mentioning even more) as essential. Torquatus chiefly mentions the four cardinal virtues as essential and gives detailed reasons to why from an Epicurean lens and Philodemus list these as essential but doesn't really give detailed reasons beyond avoiding pain. DeWitt and Philodemus list of virtues is what inspired my own recent list.
Philodemus lists all of these essential in "On Choices and Avoidances" (From Twentiers website) saying: it is impossible for one to live pleasurably) without living prudently and honourably and justly, and also without living courageously and temperately and magnanimously, and without making friends and without being philanthropic, and in general without having all the other virtues. For the greatest errors in choices and avoidances occur when some men perform each action while holding the opposite views, and thereby while being constrained by evils.
For Wisdom (Prudence) is the source of enlightenment and the guide to tranquility Torquatus says: For it is wisdom alone which expels sorrow from our minds, and prevents our shuddering with fear: she is the instructress who enables us to live in tranquility, by extinguishing in us all vehemence of desire.
Epicurus describes Prudence as the source of every other virtues saying: Practical wisdom is the foundation of all these things and is the greatest good. Thus practical wisdom is more valuable than philosophy and is the source of every other excellence, teaching us that it is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously For the excellences grow up together with the pleasant life, and the pleasant life is inseparable from them.
For Temperance, is it considered the thing which protects us from recklessness and ensures long term pleasure from indulging in bad desires. Torquatus says: For temperance is that which warns us to follow reason in desiring or avoiding anything. Nor is it sufficient to decide what ought to be done, and what ought not; but we must adhere to what has been decided. But many men, because they are enfeebled and subdued the moment pleasure comes in sight, and so are unable to keep and adhere to the determination they have formed, give themselves up to be bound hand and foot by their lusts, and do not foresee what will happen to them; and in that way, on account of some pleasure which is trivial and unnecessary, and which might be procured in some other manner, and which they could dispense with without annoyance, incur terrible diseases, and injuries, and disgrace, and are often even involved in the penalties of the legal tribunals of their country.
For Courage: Torquatus says it is the ability to endure pain for the sake of greater pleasures and be brave in the fact of death, holding to true reason saying: These considerations prove that timidity and cowardice are not blamed, nor courage and endurance praised, on their own account. The former are rejected because they bring pain, and the latter are coveted because they bring pleasure.
For Justice: Torquatus describes as a pact of agreeableness and ability to live securely and with goodwill among your neighbors saying: Men of sound natures, therefore, are summoned by the voice of true reason to justice, equity, and honesty. For those without eloquence or resources, dishonesty is not a good policy, since it is difficult for such men to succeed in their designs, or to retain their gains when once achieved. On the other hand, even for the rich and clever, generous conduct is more in keeping, because liberality wins them affection and good will, the surest means to a life of peace. Even more, there really is no motive for transgression, since the desires that spring from nature are easily gratified without doing any man wrong, while those desires that are imaginary can be resisted
It is kind of a reddit term so on second thought I'm gonna remove it.
Effort post just means something like long post with effort put in..
I am going to upload this to reddit on the Epicureanism subreddit, but I wanted you all have this version available to you first, since i know you all will appreciate it, and secondly, it as a token of gratitude to Cassius for the bold step of establishing an Epicurean community and to others for maintaining it, and what's more, for kind people in the forum being nice to me, above all a special mention you Bryan for his generosity to me, and to others personally helping to learn a lot, with special mention to Eikadistes for his seminal work. I know we are not supposed to favor any one part of Epicureanism over the others but for me, his analysis on virtue as inseparable goods of life is what allowed me to feel hope, gratitude, and joy and true piety and love for the first time. I hope this piece best expresses that gratitude.
Hope you guys enjoy!
"We often get asked questions about Epicurean morality and virtue, so I decided to write this long post in honor of the philosophy that gives me the greatest delight and to help those who are curious.
We are often slandered by Stoics and the religious as devaluing the virtues, as though treating them as “mere means” strips them of beauty. Truly, the virtues are means. But this does not devalue them in the least. On the contrary, by understanding the Epicurean conception of virtue as inseparable from living pleasantly, we learn to love virtue more deeply than anyone, because of the beautiful life it gives us. Unlike the vanity of the religious who promotes the virtues out of fear, or the Stoics who sing an empty name of virtue unconnected to the beuriful life they give, we Epicureans sing the song of virtue triumphantly as I wish to show.
So allow me to prove the slander wrong by speaking poetically, piously, and with utmost gratitude toward the virtues. To prove that the elegant praise of virtues do not belong only to the Stoics or the religious. It belongs to us as well. It is my hope that this clarifies our position and inspires delight in the teachings of Epicurus, even among those not yet come to the philosophy.
With that said, let us turn to the virtues and how they are necessary for living pleasantly.
Wisdom: The crown of the virtues and the source of every other virtue. Prudence teaches us how to choose and avoid the fine art of living, arming us with knowledge of every other virtue and guiding us toward a life full of pleasure. It shows us that the gods present no fear, death no worries, that the good is easy to obtain, and what is terrible is easy to endure. Without prudence, pleasure cannot be secured.
Honor: The gentle grace the guides us to life's pleasures. Honor is the wisdom of conducting oneself in a way that avoids needless offense and easily earns respect. We know that we cannot please everyone, only a fool would think this, but we by respecting reasonable customs and dignity of others, we can easily secure the goodwill and affection of our neighbors, a secure means of pleasure. In doing so, we may even soften hostility from fools and people filled with hatred, turning former rivals into allies through simple consideration and respect.
Justice: The ground beneath our feet, it gives us security from other men, allowing us to operate life free of anxiety, for injustice pollutes the mind, if not by the actual penalties of the law, than always by the fear of discovery, the association with vicious people we don't trust, the sacrifice of things that truly matter, the just hatred of our fellow men, and the guilty conscious stemming from acts of injustice.
Courage: The sword against the fears of pain and death. Courage allows us to endure temporary pain for greater pleasure. It strengthens us to act rightly under threat and even, if necessary, to die for a friend, since death itself is no evil, while a life preserved at the cost of betrayal is poisoned by distrust and inner turmoil. Courage destroys the fear of everlasting torment — for none exists. It dissolves the terror of death, which is nothing to us. It casts down the image of angry gods and opens the way to the greatest pleasures by removing fear at its root.
Temperance: The greatest armor of everlasting pleasure in life, it ensures we are safeguarded from our own follies by means of true reason, telling us to not choose pleasures which lead to pains many times worse than the pleasure they bring. Advising us against those vain and groundless desires for limitless wealth, fame, or power, and those natural desires that are hard to get or likely to cause pain.
Self-Sufficiency: Freedom itself, showing how easily we can resist the harm of relying on the unstable force of fortune, and reminding us how easy it is to procure that which is acquired by nature. Showing us how easy it us to free ourselves from the vain and groundless desires which stretch on to infinity and making even the poor man feel wealthy in every way that matters.
Making Friends: Of all that wisdom provides for living one’s entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is friendship. Friendship gives affection, security in danger, shared joy, and trust in adversity. It is among the greatest goods life offers. We must speak well of our friends, present or absent. Show gratitude in word and deed. Not reduce friendship to a transaction, nor pretend we expect nothing in return for mutual goodwill and hope strengthens the bond and thus life itself. For wisdom shows us that a poisoned friendship poisons life itself. But nothing enhance life more than a faithful friendship.
Piety: Far from the slander that Epicurus was a god-hating atheist, he taught a purified reverence. A proper conception of the gods, whether as ideals formed in the mind or as blessed beings existing beyond us, does not inspire fear. It inspires admiration of blessedness. The gods, rightly understood, are models of tranquility and immortality. They do not threaten. They do not punish. They show us what blessed existence looks like and how it is to get even with a mortal life. Truly I declare, with bread and water, friendship and wisdom, we may rival even the gods in happiness.
Frank Speech: How can we hope to improve ourselves and our friends unless we're willing to criticize and be criticized in open and free speech? We need the sympathy of our friends to sometimes save us from our faults and we need to show sympathy to our friends to better improve them. We must show patience, a proper understanding of what truly matters and what does not, and a understanding of our own faults as well as those of our friends in open and respectful dialouge to truly achieve the peaks of friendship and security.
Magnanimity: Tell me, how can we hate one who makes mistakes, when we know that we ourselves make mistakes? Magnanimity teaches forgiveness where forgiveness is deserved. It prevents punishments disproportionate to the crime. It transforms enemies into friends, earns goodwill and affection, and frees us from empty anger — that corrosion of the soul which disturbs and destroys what we most value. Resentment disturbs. Forgiveness restores peace.
Philanthropy: Unless we commit to helping others, we cannot reap the rewards of their goodwill. Thoughtful concern expands our circle of friends, enhancing both security and affection. A life of greed breeds righteous contempt. A life of generosity earns righteous respect. Enhancing our life immensely with simple acts of charity, courtesy, and love of mankind.
Faith: The radical skeptic, who rejects trust in life itself, is left paralyzed and confused. We must say, without some firm trust, life collapses into endless doubt, a fate worse than even a person who fears the Gods, since at least they have hope of deliverance. Rather we must have confidence to navigate life with clarity, confidence that we can have knowledge, that we can control our own destiny and some actions are up to us, that our senses reveal reality as it appears; that the gods do not punish, that death brings no suffering; that the good is easy to get and the evil to endure, that our friends are trustworthy, and that wisdom steadies us in misfortune. Without faith, there is paralysis. With it, there is peace.
Hope for the Future: Without hope, the present becomes bitter. Even if no deliverance from misfortune ever comes before death, the very act of hoping preserves sweetness in the present. Hope is defiance against despair. Even hope for goods after one’s death can be a blessing, as seen in Epicurus’ will, where he provided for the preservation of his community of friends, giving him joy on his last days. To prove the power of hope, tell me, who would you rather be at your final moment? One who still anticipates good and is delighted even in the worst misfortunes with anticipation of the future, or one who believes pleasure has forever passed them by? Hope strengthens the present. And if deliverance does come, hope is vindicated all the more.
Delight in the Past: Memory of past goods gives us our greatest guardianship against misfortunes. Another great act of defiance whenever life or men do us wrong. One should not look at the past with fear but rather take delight in the many pleasures we have had in life, every feeling of laughter, excitement, hope, joy, friendship, and affection we have felt. Epicurus himself proved this as he was dying painfully from kidney stones, he wrote that these pains, though extreme, were offset his past delight in his conversations with his friends. Delight in the past shows us not to feel dismay at the prospect of the missing future goods, but rather delight in all the goods of life that we did have, and even when death finally comes, go to the grave with a triumphant song that we have lived well.
Enjoyment of the Present: Yet none of this matters if we cannot enjoy the present. For just as life is diminished not only by hopelessness about the future or regret about the past, is it also poisoned by the failure to savor what is here. Wisdom teaches the good news of life, no one is too young, too old, too broken, or too imperfect to live a good life. Showing us that happiness is never out of season. Delight in the past. Hope for the future. But above all, enjoy the present.
Hope people enjoy this piece! For me the pleasure i got just from writing is enough for me, but if others enjoy it, all the better. Please never stop feeling delight in the simple art of living offered by Epicurean philosophy. For someone who has these virtues and the pleasures they bring is like a god walking among men."
Edited. Sorry.
Here's another link if above doesn't work.
As is typical I find a good article after making a post.
If anyone else is interested in this question I found a good article by Bill Wringe called "Epicurean Wills, Empty Hopes, and the Problem of Post Mortem Concern" which responds directly to Warren and defends Epicureanism. I think it rightly points that difference that only harmful empty beliefs are to be removed but hopeful ones not so much.
"I shall claim that although an Epicurean should regard fears about post mortem events as ‘empty’, it is reasonable for him or her to have a different attitude to hopes about post mortem events. It is rational to try to get rid of empty fears, since such fears are disturbing. By contrast, it is not necessarily rational to try to rid ourselves of hopes relating to post mortem events.”
Link to download file: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc…eiLNsDdofHv3o9G
But I've found that there are writers I almost always find to be insightful, such as David Sedley, and then here are others who aren't.
Agreed, I feel like a common thread to the less insightful commentators is ignoring Epicurus aim of being a moral reformer and therapist as DeWitt explains. Emily Austin also i feel understands this point of Epicurus mission. I think philosophers like Warren get too caught up in the mental image of Epicurus as a secluded grouch who's only concerned is with internal logic ignoring his main stated goal of ensuring people live pleasantly.
On the past for example he both encourages extreme gratitude for past goods and shuns being tormented by past evils, which sounds inconsistent, but only if you ignore his concern of pleasure as the chief good, not absolute internal logic like a dialectic. I feel like death is the same, his concern is fear, not absolute consistent logic.
A strong objection to Epicurus found in Cicero and discovered in Warren (2001): Epicurus' Dying Wishes is that writing a will, and providing for people after die, such as Diogene of Oenoanda stone writings cannot be justified with Epicurus claim that "death is nothing to us".
In particular Warren objects to the notion that we can derive pleasure from thinking that our loved ones will be okay after we die since this would arguably also admit that we can anticipate pain about things after we die which Epicurus seems to call groundless saying in letter to Menoeceus saying "For something that causes no trouble when present causes only a groundless pain when merely expected."
My own response would probably be that it is in fact groundless, agreeing with the criticism, but saying that if writing a will delivers pleasure and alleviates the natural pain of worry about loved ones after death, offering no pain to living and requiring little effort than why not? Just as we know sex, entertainment, and other natural and unessecary desires don't alleviate any more pain after sastifying all the natural and nessecary desires but if we still want them and are easy to get and cause no pain than why not? The reason we get rid of post-mortem fears is because they pain us while alive, but if post-mortem hopes please us than it's fine to have it and it passes the hedonistic calculus despite being metaphysically groundless like the natural and unnecessary desires.
Curious to see any thoughts on this.
Greeting Hania! Happy to have you.
Hope this appropriate for discussion. So i am getting really big into Epicurean iconography, just ordered a bunch of shirts and socks from the Epicurean Emporium but i would like some necklaces or rings, especially want a necklace, unfortunately they all seem really expensive and unsure quality, what's worse if i type "Epicurean necklace" it just shows something with no relation to Epicurus, with the whole Epicureanism is about fancy and shiny things (damn you slanderers).
I was curious if anyone knows any good sites for such things. Or is willing to make a sale or trade. Thanks.
He (sc. Metrodorus) [writes] that, although he likes the idea that the [best] life is the one that is [accompanied by tranquillity], peace, and cares that cause minimal trouble, it does not seem that this goal is achieved at least in this way, namely, if we avoid all those things over which, if they were present, we would sometimes experience difficulties and distress.
I originally awnsered yes but I think I would change my awnser to the third option. I think Philodemus's quote of Metrodorus best exemplifies the Epicurean viewpoint on this qoute. Essentially An Epicurean would wish that that statement was true, and should tty to apply it as best we can for a fuller life of pleasure, but sadly it in fact it isn't entirely true, as there are just some things which we will be pained by no matter how much we lower our expectations or how much wisdom we have (namely bodily pain).
Unfortunately I seemingly always work these times on Sunday. Hopefully I can eventually go, or maybe schedule something. Hope to see you all at some point.
He taught him, that any single study, however useful and noble in itself, was yet unworthy the entire employ of a curious and powerful intellect; that the man who pursued one line of knowledge, to the exclusion of others, though he should follow it up to its very head, would never be either learned or wise; that he who pursues knowledge, should think no branch of it unworthy attention; least of all, should he confine it to those which are unconnected with the business, and add nothing to the pleasures of life
Frances Wright for the win!
I wonder if another reason he potentially didn't try to refute poetry so much was because of the extreme religious diversity in ancient Hreece with some having very different views on Homer, who was not really seen as central to proving their religion to be true. (Zeno of citium interpreting it metaphorically for example) unlike today where the bible or Quran are seen as the proofs of religious faith, with various bad arguments.
Didn't really know where to put this thread.
So before I became a full fledged Epicurean I was quite addicted to academic study of the Bible and Quran. Not for religious reasons but to be confident in my own opposition to religion. When I saw things like the "minimal facts" argument about Jesus empty tomb or ressurection or the Quranic scientific miracles I looked to various sources in order to be confident in refuting them.
Would Epicurus approve of this, or would he think simply looking toward nature was enough and trying to refute obviously nonsense texts was a waste of time? I know he apparently disliked the study of Homer, seeing it as a waste of energy but I wonder if the field of modern apologetics would cause him to change his outlook if he were around today.
From an Epicurean perspective, a guilty conscience may be considered a preconception if it has arisen from socialization in one's group and not from religious indoctrination. Such a preconception may be more efficient than fear of punishment.
Can you elaborate more on this? Is the preconception (I prefer basic grasp from Inwood and Gerson) something like "I naturally care about the people I am socializing with". I recall Torquatus mentioning some Epicureans who took the view that friendship comes from familiarity and when why we die for them, is your view similar to that, we have a preconception of naturally caring about people we socialize with?
The underlined part of this quote is, for me, the key point. Guilt is experienced as pain. In evaluating the pleasures v the pains in any particular activity, if there is the potential for feeling guilt we would need to include that in our analysis.
VS71: Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?
This is probably the best way to look at it. If I fufill a desire to say become a murderer I may feel scared, isolated, or filled with regret but if I don't do those those things I simply have a minor pain of want which is easily dissolved.
More central would be - as you mention - the falsity of the religious / divine reason context of "guilt." I don't think Epicurus would embrace something he knew to be false regardless of its alleged practical benefits.
Agreed but with that said do you think a "feeling of guilt/disgust/shame" is something an Epicurean can hold as a genuine reason for virtuous activity or is it inheritantly reliant on a fallacy of "divine reason" or "fufilling our function", the same as how we would never accept claims about fearing offending God's will?
Unfortunately the great fallacy is that I feel disgust is both one of the major reasons people are good (most people are just genuinely disgusted at pedophilia for example, i think even Lucretius makes this point about children being one of the biggest reasons for law) but also it's also recognize it's of the biggest reasons (maybe the biggest reason) for why moral progress often takes so long, disgust or shame at the idea of breaking tradition, race mixing, irreligiousity, or not being "patriotic enough", making it a real double edged sword.
Epicurus was a very forward thinker in his analysis on the virtue of justice being beneficial mainly for the mind because you don't have to deal with the constant anxiety of getting caught and a wise person would have no need of injustice as seen in PD 1, 17, 34, and 35, instead of some absolute golden rule out there.
But did he or other Epicurean ever adress the more "guilt-driven" aspects of being moral (murders regret of killing) and would he (and others in this thread) approve of it as Epicurean, it is a noticeable absence from their discussion on justice and was wondering if the perhaps downplayed it because "guilt-driven" morality was mostly framed in a religious context like with Stoic and Platonist talk of violating divine reason and "feeling of guilt" not being universal enough for him (obviously psychopaths and masochists exist). Or perhaps I've missed it. Interested for any unconsted evidence of "guilty conscience" playing a role in Epicurean justice.
Interested for folks like Cassius and Don to give their takes on this.
