PRINCIPAL DOCTRINE XIV – ANALYSIS & CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION
This work was authored by George Kaplanis, a retired notary and founding member of the Group for the Analysis and Experiential Application of Epicurean Philosophy Today (http://www.epicuros21.gr)
The work is structured in the following sections:
A. Interpretation -Translation
B. The Problem
C. The Many
D. Practical Application
A. INTERPRETATION – TRANSLATION
"Security from men, to a certain extent, is supported by power and wealth. But the most genuine form of security arises through tranquility and withdrawal from the many."
In other words, power and wealth serve — to a certain degree — as supports for one’s security in relation to others. But clear and genuine (let us say “in itself”) security is born from a quiet life and distancing oneself from the many.
A note on the dative term “exereistikē” (ἐξερειστικῇ), which is a predicate modifier of both “power” and “wealth.” It derives from the verb “exereidō,” meaning to furnish a support or prop — see also “ereisma” (a brace or support).
Put differently, power and wealth are supportive of security, without being the goal themselves. They may be considered secondary means toward an end — that end being protection from the threats of others.
The essential and indispensable means, however, are tranquility and withdrawal from the many. Epicurus placed these two together — they function side by side, shaping and reinforcing each other.
And since Epicurus acknowledges multiple causes (polla aitia), we can further say: We withdraw from the many — so that our tranquility is not "attacked" by them — yet we dwell among the few, those whose presence becomes a positive condition for our peace.
As always, Epicurus offers a coherent system, in which each element interrelates with, and conditions, the whole.
Now, on the matter of security: To be secure means not to be in danger, not to be under threat. But in its original sense, it also means to have a firm footing, a steady base, so as not to risk falling.
Desiring security, then, is a natural and necessary desire.
Thus, power and wealth may “brace” us — they are supports, not foundations. They are not the solid base of security, but only temporary reinforcements.
Epicurus, through his writings, never excluded the acquisition of power or wealth. In fact, he considered their acquisition desirable — as long as they serve as auxiliary means, and never as a central aim.
B. THE PROBLEM
I believe the issue with this Principal Doctrine lies entirely with the reader — particularly the modern reader.
Because a quick, unprocessed reading can give rise to impressions, and impressions, by nature, are unreliable. Let’s not forget: impressions are the main weapon of deceivers.
Let me insert here another translation of this same Doctrine, in which the word “exereistikē” was essentially omitted — as though it wasn’t even in the original text.
They “forgot” this beautiful word — crucial for understanding what Epicurus truly meant. And so, that forgetful translation ended up saying something else entirely, altering the core message of the Doctrine.
We must caution: on a first and superficial reading, this Principal Doctrine (XIV) seems to offer no positive view of wealth or power. It gives the impression: “Set aside power and wealth — if you want security from others, seek peace and stay away from the many.”
Furthermore, the terms “quiet” and “away from the many” tend to awaken a fast association — a reflex toward Byzantine monastic seclusion, and a longstanding question: Did Epicurus actually preach withdrawal from the world?
So, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if, after a quick read, someone claimed that Epicurus advises us to run far away from “the many” and go off somewhere by ourselves in order to enjoy some peace and quiet.
But analysis and reflection come with their own challenges: they require effort — because they consume energy.
Let us proceed, then, and tire ourselves out a bit if we must — looking at the matter more broadly, beginning with the issue of "the many." Always drawing, of course, from the phenomena — that is, actual facts.
As we mentioned earlier, the problem emerges initially from the very first reading. For example, in Principal Doctrine XXXI, Epicurus writes: > “Natural justice is a symbol of mutual advantage, to prevent people from harming one another or being harmed.”
Now, that phrase “to prevent harm… or being harmed” gave many people (myself included) the impression that it meant: “Do not harm so that you won’t be harmed,” in line with the ingrained maxim “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
The issue here won’t just stay at the level of comprehension — it will inevitably move into the realm of practical life: What do we do with this?
I recall, at a public talk on Epicurean philosophy (around 2008, if I’m not mistaken), my friend Manolis Giannakopoulos posed the following question:
“Someone has a modest income, a little house in the countryside, a small car, and a fishing boat. Does Epicurean philosophy teach that this is enough — and that therefore one should simply… be content with it?”
Well — what do you think? And more importantly — why?
As I recall, the responses ranged from affirmative nods to awkward silence.
Let’s consider a different case: Better rich and strong than poor and powerless.
So, the question arises: Could this, perhaps, be a teaching of Epicurean philosophy?
Could you answer that? Because someone once asked me: “Is this a trick question?”
And of course — it is a trick question.
But Epicurus would partially accept some aspects of it, and partially reject others. So the answer, naturally, would not be binary. It would be non-dual.
You see, our Christian–Marxist tradition has furnished us not only with beliefs, but also with a habit of thought — one that makes it harder for us to truly understand Epicurus.
Thus, Eastern Manichaean dualism and the either/or logic of that tradition — which continued into the Marxist worldview — makes it all too easy for people to accept a moral dichotomy like: “The poor are good — the rich are bad.”
A view thoroughly reinforced by all the old black-and-white Greek film dramas of the 1960s.
And after tons of Christian–Marxist catechism, fantasy becomes self-evident. From which spring entire arguments — unmoored from actual phenomena.
One such instance, deeply shaped by Christian bias, is the notion that Epicurean philosophy is ascetic.
I thought this issue had long been settled — but just this year, in 2021, a philosophy scholar revived the claim of “ascetic Epicureanism.”
And what about that line “the sage must study how to become wealthy”?
They read it — but they didn’t see it. And they didn’t see it because it's outside the perceptual field of Christian teachings.
(On that topic, I wrote a piece years ago entitled “Father Epicurus” — and I won’t revisit it now.)
Another example — this time of Marxist catechism and influence — is the idea that dialectical materialism is everything, that when we speak of Logic, we must mean Dialectic. Everything else can exist — so long as it stays silent. After all, anything outside the field of Marxist convictions is considered irrelevant.
It’s unbelievable — and yet real.
Let me inform you in advance: in 1923, during Stalin’s leadership, the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union published a book titled Dialectical Materialism, which codified Dialectic as the official doctrine of Communist parties worldwide — with Stalin’s seal of approval.
At a gathering of so-called “Epicureans,” two long-time members undertook to present us with “Epicurus’ Logic.” For over an hour, they parroted — word-for-word — that book... yes, the one with Stalin’s seal. Copy–paste. That’s right.
Believe it or not, they insisted that Epicurus had said exactly what was written in that 1923 treatise (!!). The incident is real — it happened in 2019 — and I record it here for future generations to laugh and learn.
And the audience? They were the “many” of Principal Doctrine XIV. But — there were also the few.
There are, of course, other premeditated omissions. Someone once took a fifteen-line text by Epicurus, isolated a single phrase, cut it in half, threw away one part, kept the other — and then used that fragment to “prove” that Epicurus meant the exact opposite of what he actually said.
And what was this in the end? It was the personal projection of the editor. As if we would ever allow Epicurus to hold an opinion contrary to ours — who does he think he is?
And naturally, someone may ask again: But what about the rest of the Epicureans? What did they do?
The others — well, they were the many. But there were the few.
In the end, the problem of “what Epicurus really said” doesn’t wait passively to be solved. It provokes different behaviors between the many and the few.
When Epicurus says in his Principal Doctrine to distance ourselves from the many, he is not suggesting we retreat into some isolated wilderness. That would contradict everything else in his teaching.
He’s telling us to be with the few — that is, with friends. Because there is no such thing as collective friendship.
C. THE MANY
The many are cowardly. That is why they idolize heroes — both real and fictional. Because heroes do what the many lack the courage to do. They do it on their behalf. And they are the few.
Of course, heroes emerge in extreme situations — matters of life and death. Thankfully, we don’t live under such conditions.
Especially in our case — those of us within the realm of philosophy — the standards are far from demanding. All it takes is some personal autonomy, one’s own opinion, the courage to express it, and a bare minimum of dignity.
And yet, the many don’t meet even these modest, self-sufficient standards. That’s confirmed, without doubt.
But — there are the few. And those few are the ones who allow us to live calmly, peacefully, and securely.
Let me share a paraphrase of what Fernando Pessoa wrote in his book “The Anarchist Banker,” where he outlines the problem with “the many.”
The anarchists, he says, wanted society to live according to their own principles — autonomy, freedom, and so on. They tried to achieve that through demonstrations, strikes, bombs, armed struggle… and in the end — nothing.
So, they decided to form a small society among themselves. Since they all agreed on the same principles, surely there would be no problem.
But then, some individuals appeared who believed they were above the others — that they had the unquestionable right to dominate and manipulate everyone else.
Naturally, there were also those who found it convenient to be manipulated… and soon, other behaviors emerged. There went autonomy. There went freedom. There went solidarity. And in the end — nothing.
We see this type of people — who drool at the chance to dominate others — in every domain. Lately, they’ve been revealed in the world of Theatre. But they exist — equally ruthless — in Sports, in Professional Associations, in Politics, and even in… Philosophy.
And they destroy, with great success, Theatre, Sports, Unions, Politics — and… Philosophy. You cannot feel secure around them. Because they will demand that you surrender your autonomy, your freedom, your dignity.
And the many will help them — because those things have already been surrendered.
D. PRACTICAL APPLICATION
This essay is primarily focused on Principal Doctrine XIV. Accordingly, I will not expand here on its practical application to society, politics, or economics. Such an endeavor would require drawing upon other positions within Epicurean philosophy — especially that of the Social Contract. This would, however, shift the center of gravity of the present work, something the Canon, as articulated by Epicurus in his Letter to Pythocles, would not permit.
What is needed is another — or rather, several other — essays, whose central themes would incorporate, only secondarily, the Principal Doctrine under examination.
Therefore, I will remain within the realm of the “Epicureans” to conclude this discussion.
I left the many behind. I found myself among the few — those who have their own opinion, and the courage to express it.
Together we formed the “Group for the Analysis and Experiential Application of Epicurean Philosophy Today.”
Epicurus is vindicated. Now, I breathe freely.
Thessaloniki, March 2021
Comments 2