Fanaticism and the Danger of Dogmatism in Political and Religious Thought: An Epicurean Reading
PD 40: “As many as possess the power to procure complete immunity from their neighbours, these also live most pleasantly with one another, since they have the most certain pledge of security, and after they have enjoyed the fullest intimacy, they do not lament the previous departure of a dead friend, as though he were to be pitied.”
The 21st century bears not only the marks of technological progress and communicative speed; it also carries the heavy shadow of resurgent fanaticism, religious intolerance, and dogmatic imposition. At the heart of the modern world - and especially in the Eastern Mediterranean - a rhetoric emerges that does not call for coexistence, but for absolute obedience; not for questioning, but for belief. A mode of thought that does not examine, but merely demands.
Within this landscape, Epicurean philosophy - grounded in pleasurable well-being, rational clarity, and freedom from fear - becomes a strikingly relevant proposition. Epicurus did not confront fanaticism with violence, but rather analyzed, interpreted, and dismantled it with sober reason. His work, continued by his successors, stands as both an antidote to dogma and a mirror of human dignity.
The aim of this paper is to explore how fanaticism and dogmatism function as mechanisms of psychic disturbance, how they oppose the very notion of eudaimonia, and how Epicurus’ final Principal Doctrine (40) can illuminate a path toward friendly coexistence - not only among peoples, but within the soul and mind of each person. At the same time, we will focus on the critical voice of the Epicurean Philodemus, who was among the first to diagnose the threat of a “barbaric incursion” of theocratic discourse into Greek philosophy.
“The fanatic does not listen - he fears. He does not reflect - he obeys. And behind the absolute, there always hides a soul trembling in the dark.”
Fanaticism is not born of knowledge, but of fear. And fear, according to Epicurus, is the first enemy of pleasurable eudaemonia: fear of death, of punishment, of abandonment by a higher power, of the loss of existential meaning. The fanatic believes out of necessity, not reflection; his faith is a shield against the unknown, not a cultivated good born of awareness.
Epicurus identifies the root of psychic disturbance in four fundamental fears:
> Fear of death > Fear of the gods > Fear of pain > Fear of unfulfilled desires.
The fanatic internalizes at least two of these: He believes the gods are punitive (fear of the gods), and that death is not an end but a judgment — and thus he is haunted by the prospect of condemnation.
Epicurus counters:
“Death is nothing to us.” “The gods are neither punitive nor benevolent; they dwell beyond the world, uninvolved in human affairs.”
This removal of fear is the first step toward ataraxia i.e. pleasure - and it is precisely what makes the Epicurean approach radically opposed to fanaticism, which thrives on the paralysis of thought induced by terror.
The fanatic does not seek dialogue. He does not wish to understand the other, but to dominate, convert, exclude - even exterminate. He does not question his beliefs or illusions, because they are clutched tightly to his sense of salvation.
Dogmatism functions as an ideological antidote to existential emptiness: it offers certainties - even false ones - and shields the mind from the dread of “not knowing what tomorrow brings.” The Epicurean does not respond with certainty, but with awareness of Nature’s limits; he does not soothe with promises, but dissolves fear through knowledge.
When fanaticism becomes socially entrenched, it transforms into a closed system of thought - and ultimately into a mechanism of domination. Fanatical discourse rejects phronesis (prudence) banishes doubt, equates difference with threat, and finally legitimizes violence as divine command or moral restoration. For Epicurus, this is the point where pleasure in life is lost and existence becomes distorted. Thought is replaced by mechanisms of submission.
Dogmatism and the Political Utopia
Dogmatism gives rise to cities without questions. Thought becomes law, and law becomes absolute law - and there, freedom ceases to exist. Dogmatism is not confined to religion; it also manifests as political utopia, as a system that imagines a perfect world without internal contradictions, based on a single “Truth.” In antiquity, the philosophical expression of this phenomenon was Plato’s Republic: a construct of ideas where people are ranked, the soul and body is divided, and wisdom is deified.
For Epicurus, this approach is not merely mistaken - it is profoundly dangerous, because:
- it turns philosophical discourse into Dogma,
- it relies on abstract ontologies (Ideas, Souls, absolute principles),
- and it cancels the tangible, everyday life in favor of an imaginary and non-existent “divine
As early as the 1st century BCE, the Epicurean Philodemus observed the dominance of idealistic doctrines that “orientalized” Greek philosophy. Plato’s teachings, fused with Eastern theosophy, transformed the philosopher into a priest and philosophical thought into mystical ritual.
Philodemus protests: “God-possessed men sacrifice to stones instead of statues... they believe the gods to be immutable and absolute necessary, Hades invincible and untamable.”
In essence, he describes a system of fear and dependence upon a divine Law that nullifies human freedom.
Epicurus rejects the political philosophy of the “ideal state.” He is not concerned with the perfect regimes, but with a calm, free and pleasant life among friends. That is why he says:
“The philosopher does not wish to rule, but to live wisely.”
“Justice is not a divine law, but a mutual agreement not to harm or be harmed.”
Where Plato builds hierarchies, Epicurus builds friendships. Where Plato believes salvation lies in submission to Logos with a capital “L,” Epicurus teaches that meaning resides in the now - in the earthly, the tangible and the real.
The danger of political idealism is that, in times of historical crisis, it easily becomes a tool of absolute power:
- Philosophy becomes priesthood,
- Dissent becomes heresy,
- The citizen becomes a subject of a “model slave,” rather than a bearer of freedom and unique experience.
Epicurus proposes a politics of release: Society must not control the soul; the mind must not bow before any Great Idea; and the philosopher must not deify the creations of his own imagination.
It is not only fear of the gods that threatens phronesis (prudence) - but also the exportation of fear through cultural invasion.
Philodemus and the Epicurean Response to Cultural Theocracy
Philodemus, a prominent Epicurean philosopher of the 1st century BCE, living in Rome and teaching within the Greek-speaking diaspora, recognized that he was not facing a mere metaphysical idealism - but rather an organized religious-cultural reconfiguration that introduced deeply foreign elements into Hellenism: theosophy, mysticism, ritual purifications, and fear of Hades.
He writes with a troubled heart:
“God-possessed men sacrifice to stones instead of statues, with drums and wild music. They regard these gods as immutable and absolute necessary, and Hades as invincible and untamable.” (Philodemus, On the Gods, I, 18.22)
This is not merely an aesthetic critique - it is an anthropological diagnosis. Philodemus records how forms of worship with Eastern origins - from Syria, Egypt, Judea - infiltrate Greek thought, reinforcing the cult of transcendence and the fear of divine punishment.
For the Epicureans, this marks a withdrawal of philosophy from reason and experience, and a reappearance of the primal fears that philosophy seeks to heal.
At the same time, we see the Jewish thinker Philo asserting that “Plato draws his wisdom from the Hebrew Scriptures,” while Numenius of Apamea famously declares: “What is Plato, if not Moses speaking Attic Greek?”
This phrase - the total fusion of Greek thought with a foreign sacred Logos - alarms only the Epicureans. It is no longer a matter of competing schools of thought, but of abandoning philosophy in favor of theology. The philosopher becomes a prophet; proof gives way to “divine insight.”
In Philodemus’ eyes, this shift is not a cultural encounter - it is an invasion. His phrase “Hades invincible and untamable” reveals the stark contrast in worldviews: for Epicurus, death is nothing to us. For Eastern theocentric thinkers, Hades becomes a courtroom, a punishment, a sentence - and with it, life loses its freedom.
Man no longer lives to feel, to create, to self-create - he lives only to be saved. This “life under the condition of eternity,” Epicurus considers a pathological deviation from nature.
In Principal Doctrine 40, Epicurus begins: “Those who were able to secure themselves, especially from their neighbors, lived most delightfully with one another, having the most certain guarantee.”
In this phrase is condensed Epicurus’ political and ethical proposal for a world where peace is not rhetoric, but a mode of being. This doctrine concerns not only friendship between persons, but also the capacity of people and societies to build relationships of trust as the foundation of a tranquil and flourishing life.
In contrast to Plato’s idealistic Republic, where people are ranked and ruled by philosopher-kings and “those who know,” Epicurus emphasizes that personal security depends primarily on the quality of those around us - not on power, but on mutual acceptance and friendly coexistence.
For a society, this means:
> Establishing mutual trust > Social cohesion > Choosing communication over imposition.
In this view, the “wall” against difference offers no real security; what does is just and human dialogue. Rather than proposing ideal states, Epicurus envisions a network of friendship, familiarity, and cooperation. If fanaticism produces people who “obey in order to be saved,” Epicurean Doctrine 40 fosters people who coexist in order to live well and pleasantly— this one, unique, and unrepeatable life.
Religious Fanaticism and Geopolitical Instability: An Epicurean Perspective
On a religious level, this means:
– Divinity need not assert itself through fear – A human being is not called to erase the Other in order to be justified – Otherness is not a threat, but an opportunity to enrich life.
In an age marked by conflict, Epicurean Principal Doctrine 40 proposes a foreign policy of friendship — not naïve embrace, but prudent, forward-looking solidarity.
For a state that has earned the trust of its neighbors has no need for weapons of terror. A society that builds relationships of friendship rather than suspicion approaches the pleasurable ataraxia of collective flourishing. And a citizen who does not fear their neighbor can begin to cultivate their own inner existential meaning in life.
Religious Fanaticism and Geopolitical Instability
Today, the fear of Hades returns under new names: geopolitical threat, “holy war”, dogmatic salvation. But the disturbance — old or new — is the same, and it always obstructs life.
In the Middle East — and far beyond — the presence of religious fanaticism as a structural element of conflict poses a challenge to peace, political stability, and human dignity. Ideologies based on “absolute divine truth” or a “singular divine command” consistently lead to:
- Demonization of the Other
- Justification of violence as moral duty
- Withdrawal from dialogue
- Substitution of politics with apocalyptic rhetoric
The ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the long-standing tensions with Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and other states, are fueled by a web of memory, national identity, and religious certainty. And within this climate, every attempt at rational resolution stumbles against the wall of “sacred justice.”
If Epicurus could observe this condition, he might say: “As long as people define security through the subjugation of the Other, they will live in perpetual disturbance.”
The Garden - as a space for the release of fear - cannot exist where the neighbor is seen as an eternal threat, and death is interpreted as divine judgment. This is why Epicurus’ final Principal Doctrine 40 is so subversive: it grounds security in trust, not in exclusion.
In modern societies, religious fanaticism often functions as a transcendent threat - not because the Other is merely different, but because they are perceived to deny or offend something Sacred and Absolute. Here, fear becomes a form of psychic possession; and societies become trapped in a siege mentality - politically, economically, educationally, and religiously.
Epicurus and the Politics of Fear: A Final Word
Epicurus would remind us:
“The god has no need of human defense. What man needs is freedom from fear of the divine.”
If we translate Epicurean thought into modern diplomacy, we find:
– Instead of preemptive strikes: preemptive alliances – Instead of eternal hostilities: sincere non-aggression pacts – Instead of isolating the “enemy”: coexistence through institutional cooperation and honesty.
This is not utopia - it is a strategy of phronesis (prudence): where strength is measured not by weapons, but by the ability to bring calm to one’s own country and to one’s neighbors.
Conclusion: The path humanity has followed reveals that fanaticism - whether religious or political/ideological - is a collective neurosis rooted in fear, obedience, and imagined salvations. Epicurus, centuries before modern theories of mass psychology or structural violence, had already discerned the core of the problem: where disturbance reigns, thought is paralyzed; and where thought is paralyzed, dogmatic and despotic power is born.
Faced with a humanity wandering among absolute truths, “sacred” doctrines, and idealistic political visions that deny individual experience, Epicurus proposes something deeper, more demanding, and more liberating:
- Liberation from the fear of the gods
- Understanding mortality as natural, not as threat.
- Rejection of violence - rhetorical or armed - as a means of resolution.
- Elevation of friendship, prudence, and justice as foundations of social cohesion and civilization.
Modern education and political thought must recover Epicurean philosophy - not as a relic of the ancient world, but as a living method of mental liberation. The goal is not to impose a new “correct” doctrine, but to restore the right questions, prudence, and the value of human life to the forefront.
If there is hope, it lies in the silences that came before the shouting - and in those who still choose to understand before they judge. If prudence seems weak, perhaps it is because the world has never truly endured the free mind!
