Introductio

n
Epicurus (341 - 270 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher of the Hellenistic period. He was
the founder ancient Greek philosophical school of Epicureanism, whose main goal was
to attain a happy, tranquil life, characterized by the absence of pain and fear,
through the cultivation of friendship, freedom and an analyzed life. His
metaphysics was generally materialistic, his Epistemology was empiricist, and his Ethics
was hedonistic.

Elements of his philosophy have resonated and resurfaced in various diverse

thinkers and movements throughout Western intellectual history, including John
Locke, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826) and the
American founding fathers, and even Friedrich Nietzsche.

Lif
e
Epicurus was born in February 341 B.C. on the island of Samos in the Aegean Sea (off
the Ionian coast of Turkey). His parents, Neocles and Chaerestrate were both
citizens of Athens, but had emigrated to the Athenian settlement of Samos some ten
years earlier.

As a boy, he studied philosophy under the Platonist teacher Pamphilus for about four
years. At the age of 18, he went to Athens for his two-year term of military service. In
the meantime, his parents were forced to relocate from Samos to Colophon in Ionia
after the death of Alexander the Great, and Epicurus joined his family there after
the completion of his military service.

He studied for a time under Nausiphanes, himself a pupil of the Skeptic Pyrrho, but
by then a keen follower of the Atomism of Democritus. However, he found Nausiphanes
an unsatisfactory teacher and later abused him in his writings, and claimed to be
self-taught. He taught for a couple of years (in 311 - 310 B.C.) in Mytilene on the
island of Lesbos, but apparently caused unrest and was forced to leave. He then
founded a school in Lampsacus (on the Hellespont, modern-day Turkey) before
returning to Athens in 306 B.C.

In Athens, Epicurus founded The Garden, a school named for the garden he owned
that served as the meeting place of his Epicurean school, situated about halfway
between the Stoa of the Stoic philosophers and the Academy of the Platonists. During
his lifetime, his school had a small but devoted following, including Hermarchus,
Idomeneus, Leonteus, Themista, Colotes, Polyaenus of Lampsacus, and
Metrodorus of Lampsacus (331 - 277 B.C., the most famous popularizer of
Epicureanism). It was the first of the ancient Greek philosophical schools to admit
women (as a rule rather than an exception). With its emphasis on friendship and
freedom as important ingredients of happiness, the school resembled in many ways a
commune or community of friends living together, although, Epicurus also
instituted a hierarchical system of levels among his followers, and had them swear
an oath on his core tenets.

Epicurus never married and had no known children. He suffered from kidney
stones for some time, and eventually died, in 270 B.C. at the age of 72, as a result of
these stones and of a case of dysentery. Despite his prolonged pain, he remained
cheerful to the last, and his final concerns were for the children of his student,
Metrodorus.

After his death, communities of Epicureans sprang up throughout the Hellenistic world,
and represented the main competition to Stoicism until its eventual decline with the
rise of Christianity.

Back to Top
Work
Epicurus is supposed to have written over 300 books, but the only surviving complete
works that have come down to us are three letters and two groups of quotes, which
are to be found in the "Lives of Eminent Philosophers" of the 3rd Century
historian, Diogenes Laertius, and which present his basic views in a handy and
concise form. Other evidence comes from the ruined town of Oenoanda, where the
rich Epicurean follower Diogenes of Oenoanda had Epicurus' entire philosophy of
happiness inscribed on the stones of the town's stoa in the early 2nd Century AD. Also,
numerous fragments of his thirty-seven volume treatise "On Nature" have been
found among the charred remains at Herculaneum. However, our two most
important sources are reconstructions by the Roman poet and Epicurean Lucretius
(c. 94 - 55 B.C.) and the Roman politician Cicero (although the latter was generally
hostile toward Epicureanism).

Despite his insistence to the contrary, Epicurus was clearly influenced by the Atomism
of Democritus, believing that the fundamental constituents of the world were
indivisible little bits of matter (atoms) flying through empty space, and that
everything that occurs is the result of the atoms colliding, rebounding and becoming
entangled with one another, with no purpose or plan behind their motions (although,
unlike Democritus, he did allow for possible "swerves" in their paths, which allowed
for free will in an otherwise deterministic theory).

The philosophy of Epicureanism was based on the theory that the moral distinction
between good and bad derives from the sensations of pleasure and pain (what is
good is what is pleasurable, and what is bad is what is painful). Thus, moral
reasoning is a matter of calculating the benefits and costs in terms of pleasure and
pain. Unlike the common misconception that Epicureanism advocated the rampant
pursuit of pleasure, its goal was actually the absence of pain and suffering: when
we do not suffer pain, we are no longer in need of pleasure, and we enter a state of
perfect mental peace (or ataraxia), which is the ultimate goal of human life. He
therefore emphasized minimizing harm and maximizing happiness of oneself and
others, and explicitly warned against overindulgence because it often leads to pain.

Epicurus himself followed his practical philosophy in his own life: his house was very
simple, his clothes basic and his diet largely limited to bread, vegetables, olives and
water. Simple Epicurean communities, based on The Garden, were established all
across the ancient world, and his philosophies were popular for over 400 years.

Unlike the Stoics, Epicurus showed little interest in participating in the politics of the
day, since doing so usually leads to trouble. He instead advocated seclusion: getting
through life without drawing attention to oneself, without pursuing glory or
wealth or power, but rather anonymously, enjoying the little things like food, the
company of friends, etc. He counseled that having a circle of friends you can trust is
one of the most important means for securing a tranquil life, and that "a cheerful
poverty is an honorable state". In many ways, his Garden can be compared to modern
communes.

The foundation of Epicurus' Ethics is the Ethic of Reciprocity (or the Golden Rule),
which simply means "treat others as you would like to be treated", arguably the basis for
the modern concept of human rights. He introduced into Greek thought what was
then the radical concept of fundamental human Egalitarianism (he regularly
admitted women and slaves into his school). He was also one of the first to explicitly
endorse the idea of a social contract (that justice comes from a joint agreement
not to harm each other - see the section on Contractarianism), developed much later by
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, and the origins of Utilitarianism are often traced back to
Epicurus.

He was also one of the first Greeks to break from the god-fearing and god-
worshipping tradition of the time, and he caused something of a stir by claiming that
the gods do not concern themselves at all with human beings (although he did
affirm that religious activities are useful as a way to contemplate the gods and to use
them as an example of the pleasant life). He strongly believed that death was not to be
feared, because all sensation and consciousness ends with death, and so in death
there is neither pleasure nor pain.

Epicurus also formulated a version of the problem of evil, often referred to as the
Epicurean Paradox, questioning whether an omnipotent, omniscient and
benevolent god could exist in a world that manifestly contains evil (see the section
on the Philosophy of Religion). This was not aimed at promoting Atheism, but was just
part of his overarching philosophy that what gods there may be do not concern
themselves with us, and thus would not seek to punish us either in this or in any
other life.

Epicurus is a key figure in the development of science and the scientific method
because of his insistence believing nothing except that which can be tested through
direct observation and logical deduction. Many of his ideas about nature and
physics presaged important scientific concepts of our time.
Epicurus is one of the major philosophers in the Hellenistic period, the three centuries following
the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C.E. (and of Aristotle in 322 B.C.E.). Epicurus
developed an unsparingly materialistic metaphysics, empiricist epistemology, and hedonistic
ethics. Epicurus taught that the basic constituents of the world are atoms, uncuttable bits of
matter, flying through empty space, and he tried to explain all natural phenomena in atomic
terms. Epicurus rejected the existence of Platonic forms and an immaterial soul, and he said that
the gods have no influence on our lives. Epicurus also thought skepticism was untenable, and
that we could gain knowledge of the world relying upon the senses. He taught that the point of
all one's actions was to attain pleasure (conceived of as tranquility) for oneself, and that this
could be done by limiting one's desires and by banishing the fear of the gods and of death.
Epicurus' gospel of freedom from fear proved to be quite popular, and communities of
Epicureans flourished for centuries after his death.

Table of Contents
1. Life
2. Sources
3. Metaphysics

1. Arguments for the Existence of Atoms and Void

2. Properties of Atoms, Limitlessness of the Universe
3. Differences from Democritus

1. Weight
2. The Swerve
3. Sensible Qualities
ii.Mechanistic Explanations of Natural Phenomena
iii.The Gods
iv. Philosophy of Mind
v. Perception
b. Epistemology

i. The Canon: Sensations, Preconceptions, and Feelings

ii. Anti-skeptical Arguments

1. The "Lazy Argument"

2. The Self-refutation Argument
3. The Argument from Concept-formation
b. Ethics

i. Hedonism, Psychological and Ethical

ii. Types of Pleasure
iii. Types of Desire
iv. The Virtues
 v. Justice
vi. Friendship
vii. Death

1. The No Subject of Harm Argument

2. The Symmetry Argument
b. References and Further Reading

i. Collections of Primary Sources

ii. Recent Books on Particular Areas of Epicurus' Philosophy

1. Life
Epicurus was born around 341 B.C.E., seven years after Plato's death, and grew up in the
Athenian colony of Samos, an island in the Mediterranean Sea. He was about 19 when Aristotle
died, and he studied philosophy under followers of Democritus and Plato. Epicurus founded his
first philosophical schools in Mytilene and Lampsacus, before moving to Athens around 306
B.C.E. There Epicurus founded the Garden, a combination of philosophical community and
school. The residents of the Garden put Epicurus' teachings into practice. Epicurus died from
kidney stones around 271 or 270 B.C.E.

After Epicurus' death, Epicureanism continued to flourish as a philosophical movement.

Communities of Epicureans sprang up throughout the Hellenistic world; along with Stoicism, it
was one of the major philosophical schools competing for people's allegiances. Epicureanism
went into decline with the rise of Christianity. Certain aspects of Epicurus' thought were revived
during the Renaissance and early modern periods, when reaction against scholastic neo-
Aristotelianism led thinkers to turn to mechanistic explanations of natural phenomena.

2. Sources
Epicurus was a voluminous writer, but almost none of his own work survives. A likely reason for
this is that Christian authorities found his ideas ungodly. Diogenes Laertius, who probably lived
in the third century CE , wrote a 10-book Lives of the Philosophers, which includes three of
Epicurus' letters in its recounting of the life and teachings of Epicurus. These three letters are
brief summaries of major areas of Epicurus' philosophy: the Letter to Herodotus, which
summarizes his metaphysics, the Letter to Pythocles, which gives atomic explanations for
meteorological phenomena, and the Letter to Menoeceus, which summarizes his ethics. It also
includes the Principal Doctrines, 40 sayings which deal mainly with ethical matters.

Because of the absence of Epicurus' own writings, we have to rely on later writers to reconstruct
Epicurus' thought. Two of our most important sources are the Roman poet Lucretius (c. 94-55
B.C.E.) and the Roman politician Cicero (106-43 B.C.E.). Lucretius was an Epicurean who
wrote De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), a six-book poem expounding Epicurus'
metaphysics. Cicero was an adherent of the skeptical academy, who wrote a series of works
setting forth the major philosophical systems of his day, including Epicureanism. Another major
source is the essayist Plutarch (c. 50-120 CE), a Platonist. However, both Cicero and Plutarch
were very hostile toward Epicureanism, so they must be used with care, since they often are less
than charitable toward Epicurus, and may skew his views to serve their own purposes.

Although the major outlines of Epicurus' thought are clear enough, the lack of sources means
many of the details of his philosophy are still open to dispute.

3. Metaphysics
Epicurus believes that the basic constituents of the world are atoms (which are uncuttable,
microscopic bits of matter) moving in the void (which is simply empty space). Ordinary objects
are conglomerations of atoms. Furthermore, the properties of macroscopic bodies and all of the
events we see occurring can be explained in terms of the collisions, reboundings, and
entanglements of atoms.

a. Arguments for the Existence of Atoms and Void

Epicurus' metaphysics starts from two simple points: (1) we see that there are bodies in motion,
and (2) nothing comes into existence from what does not exist. Epicurus takes the first point to
be simply a datum of experience. The second point is a commonplace of ancient Greek
philosophy, derived from the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the principle that for everything
which occurs there is a reason or explanation for why it occurs, and why this way rather than
that).

First, because bodies move, there must be empty space for them to move in, and Epicurus calls
this empty space 'void.' Second, the ordinary bodies that we see are compound bodies--that is,
bodies which are made up of further bodies, which is shown by the fact that they can be broken
down into smaller pieces. However, Epicurus thinks that this process of division cannot go on
indefinitely, because otherwise bodies would dissolve away into nothing. Also, there must be
basic and unchangeable building blocks of matter in order to explain the regularities in nature.
These non-compound bodies are atoms--literally, 'uncuttables.' Only bodies and void exist per
se, that is, exist without depending for their existence on something else. Other things--such as
colors, time, and justice--are ultimately explicable as attributes of bodies.

b. Properties of Atoms, Limitlessness of the Universe

Because Epicurus believes that nothing comes into existence from nothing, he thinks that the
universe has no beginning, but has always existed, and will always exist. Atoms, too, as the basic
building blocks of all else, cannot come into existence, but have always existed. Our particular
cosmos, however, is only a temporary agglomeration of atoms, and it is only one of an infinite
number of such cosmoi, which come into existence and then dissolve away. Against Aristotle,
Epicurus argues that the universe is unlimited in size. If the universe were limited in size, says
Epicurus, you could go to the end of it, stick your fist out, and where your fist was located would
be the new 'limit' of the universe. Of course, this process could be reiterated an endless number
of times. Since the universe is unlimited in size, there must also be an unlimited number of atoms
and an infinite amount of void. If the number of atoms were limited, then the 'density' of atoms
in any region would effectively be zero, and there would be no macroscopic bodies, as there
evidently are. And there must be an unlimited amount of void, since without a limitless amount
of void, the infinite number of atoms would be unable to move.

c. Differences from Democritus

Up to this point, Epicurus is largely following the thought of Democritus, a pre-Socratic
philosopher and one of the inventors of atomism. However, he modifies Democritus' atomism in
at least three important ways.

i. Weight
The first is that Epicurus thinks that atoms have weight. Like Democritus, Epicurus believes that
atoms have the properties of size, shape, and resistance. Democritus explains all atomic motion
as the result of previous atomic collisions, plus the inertia of atoms. Aristotle, however, criticizes
Democritus on this point, saying that Democritus has not explained why it is that atoms move at
all, rather than simply standing still. Epicurus seems to be answering this criticism when he says
that atoms do have a natural motion of direction--'downward'--even though there is no bottom to
the universe. This natural motion is supposed to give an explanation for why atoms move in the
first place. Also, Epicurus thinks that it is evident that bodies do tend to travel down, all else
being equal, and he thinks that positing weight as an atomic property accounts for this better than
thinking all atomic motion is the result of past collisions and inertia.

ii. The Swerve

The second modification of Democritus' views is the addition of the 'swerve.' In addition to the
regular tendency of atoms to move downward, Epicurus thinks that occasionally, and at random
times, the atoms swerve to the side. One reason for this swerve is that it is needed to explain why
there are atomic collisions. The natural tendency of atoms is to fall straight downward, at
uniform velocity. If this were the only natural atomic motion, the atoms never would have
collided with one another, forming macroscopic bodies. As Lucretius puts it, they would 'fall
downward, like drops of rain, through the deep void.' The second reason for thinking that atoms
swerve is that a random atomic motion is needed to preserve human freedom and 'break the
bonds of fate,' as Lucretius says. If the laws of atomic motion are deterministic, then the past
positions of the atoms in the universe, plus these laws, determine everything that will occur,
including human action. Cicero reports that Epicurus worries that, if it has been true from
eternity that, e.g., "Milo will wrestle tomorrow," then presently deliberating about whether to
make it true or false would be idle.

iii. Sensible Qualities

The third difference between Epicurus and Democritus has to do with their attitudes toward the
reality of sensible properties. Democritus thinks that, in reality, only atoms and the void exist,
and that sensible qualities such as sweetness, whiteness, and the like exist only 'by convention.' It
is controversial exactly how to understand Democritus' position, but most likely he is asserting
that atoms themselves have no sensible qualities--they are simply extended bits of stuff. The
sensible qualities that we think bodies have, like sweetness, are not really in the object at all, but
are simply subjective states of the percipient's awareness produced by the interaction of bodies
with our sense-organs. This is shown, thinks Democritus, by the fact that the same body appears
differently to different percipients depending on their bodily constitution, e.g., that a 'white' body
appears yellow to somebody with jaundice, or that honey tastes bitter to an ill person. From this,
Democritus derives skeptical conclusions. He is pessimistic about our ability to gain any
knowledge about the world on the basis of our senses, since they systematically deceive us about
the way the world is.

Epicurus wants to resist these pessimistic conclusions. He argues that properties like sweetness,
whiteness, and such do not exist at the atomic level--individual atoms are not sweet or white--but
that these properties are nonetheless real. These are properties of macroscopic bodies, but the
possession of these properties by macroscopic bodies are explicable in terms of the properties of
and relations amongst the individual atoms that make up bodies. Epicurus thinks that bodies have
the capability to cause us to have certain types of experiences because of their atomic structure,
and that such capabilities are real properties of the bodies. Similar considerations apply for
properties like "being healthy," "being deadly," and "being enslaved." They are real, but can only
apply to groups of atoms (like people), not individual atoms. And these sorts of properties are
also relational properties, not intrinsic ones. For example, cyanide is deadly--not deadly per se,
but deadly for human beings (and perhaps for other types of organisms). Nonetheless, its
deadliness for us is still a real property of the cyanide, albeit a relational one.

d. Mechanistic Explanations of Natural Phenomena

One important aspect of Epicurus' philosophy is his desire to replace teleological (goal-based)
explanations of natural phenomena with mechanistic ones. His main target is mythological
explanations of meteorological occurrences and the like in terms of the will of the gods. Because
Epicurus wishes to banish the fear of the gods, he insists that occurrences like earthquakes and
lightning can be explained entirely in atomic terms and are not due to the will of the gods.
Epicurus is also against the intrinsic teleology of philosophers like Aristotle. Teeth appear to be
well-designed for the purpose of chewing. Aristotle thinks that this apparent purposiveness in
nature cannot be eliminated, and that the functioning of the parts of organisms must be explained
by appealing to how they contribute to the functioning of the organism as a whole. Other
philosophers, such as the Stoics, took this apparent design as evidence for the intelligence and
benevolence of God. Epicurus, however, following Empedocles, tries to explain away this
apparent purposiveness in nature in a proto-Darwinian way, as the result of a process of natural
selection.

e. The Gods
Because of its denial of divine providence, Epicureanism was often charged in antiquity with
being a godless philosophy, although Epicurus and his followers denied the charge. The main
upshot of Epicurean theology is certainly negative, however. Epicurus' mechanistic explanations
of natural phenomena are supposed to displace explanations that appeal to the will of the gods.
In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem
of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity
by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world.

Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular
conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and
happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the
world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no
concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia,
the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose
lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.

Ancient critics thought the Epicurean gods were a thin smoke-screen to hide Epicurus' atheism,
and difficulties with a literal interpretation of Epicurus' sayings on the nature of the gods (for
instance, it appears inconsistent with Epicurus' atomic theory to hold that any compound body,
even a god, could be immortal) have led some scholars to conjecture that Epicurus' 'gods' are
thought-constructs, and exist only in human minds as idealizations, i.e., the gods exist, but only
as projections of what the most blessed life would be.

f. Philosophy of Mind
Epicurus is one of the first philosophers to put forward an Identity Theory of Mind. In modern
versions of the identity theory, the mind is identified with the brain, and mental processes are
identified with neural processes. Epicurus' physiology is quite different; the mind is identified as
an organ that resides in the chest, since the common Greek view was that the chest, not the head,
is the seat of the emotions. However, the underlying idea is quite similar. (Note: not all
commentators accept that Epicurus' theory is actually an Identity Theory.)

The main point that Epicurus wants to establish is that the mind is something bodily. The mind
must be a body, thinks Epicurus, because of its ability to interact with the body. The mind is
affected by the body, as vision, drunkenness, and disease show. Likewise, the mind affects the
body, as our ability to move our limbs when we want to and the physiological effects of
emotional states show. Only bodies can interact with other bodies, so the mind must be a body.
Epicurus says that the mind cannot be something incorporeal, as Plato thinks, since the only
thing that is not a body is void, which is simply empty space and cannot act or be acted upon.

The mind, then, is an organ in the body, and mental processes are identified with atomic
processes. The mind is composed of four different types of particles--fire, air, wind, and the
"nameless element," which surpasses the other particles in its fineness. Although Epicurus is
reticent about the details, some features of the mind are accounted for in terms of the features of
these atoms--for instance, the mind is able to be moved a great deal by the impact of an image
(which is something quite flimsy), because of the smallness of the particles that make up the
mind. The mind proper, which is primarily responsible for sensation and thought, is located in
the chest, but Epicurus thinks that there is also a 'spirit,' spread throughout the rest of the body,
which allows the mind to communicate with it. The mind and spirit play roles very similar to
those of the central and peripheral nervous systems in modern theory.

One important result of Epicurus' philosophy of mind is that death is annihilation. The mind is
able to engage in the motions of sensation and thought only when it is housed in the body and the
atoms that make it up are properly arranged. Upon death, says Epicurus, the container of the
body shatters, and the atoms disperse in the air. The atoms are eternal, but the mind made up of
these atoms is not, just as other compound bodies cease to exist when the atoms that make them
up disperse.

g. Perception
Epicurus explains perception in terms of the interaction of atoms with the sense-organs. Objects
continually throw off one-atom-thick layers, like the skin peeling off of an onion. These images,
or "eidola," fly through the air and bang into one's eyes, from which one learns about the
properties of the objects that threw off these eidola. This explains vision. Other senses are
analyzed in similar terms; e.g., the soothing action of smooth atoms on the tongue causes the
sensation of sweetness. As noted above, Epicurus maintains that such sensible qualities are real
qualities of bodies.

4. Epistemology
Epicurus' epistemology is resolutely empiricist and anti-skeptical. All of our knowledge
ultimately comes from the senses, thinks Epicurus, and we can trust the senses, when properly
used. Epicurus' epistemology was contained in his work the 'Canon,' or 'measuring stick,' which
is lost, so many of the details of his views are unavailable to us. 4a. The Canon: sensations,
preconceptions, and feelings

Epicurus says that there are three criteria of truth: sensations, 'preconceptions,' and feelings.
Sensations give us information about the external world, and we can test the judgments based
upon sensations against further sensations; e.g., a provisional judgment that a tower is round,
based upon sensation, can be tested against later sensations to be corroborated or disproved.
Epicurus says that all sensations give us information about the world, but that sensation itself is
never in error, since sensation is a purely passive, mechanical reception of images and the like by
sense-organs, and the senses themselves do not make judgments 'that' the world is this way or
that. Instead, error enters in when we make judgments about the world based upon the
information received through the senses.

Epicurus thinks that, in order to make judgments about the world, or even to start any inquiry
whatsoever, we must already be in possession of certain basic concepts, which stand in need of
no further proof or definition, on pain of entering into an infinite regress. This concern is similar
to the Paradox of Inquiry explored by Plato in the Meno, that one must already know about
something in order to be able to inquire about it. However, instead of postulating that our
immaterial souls had acquaintance with transcendent Forms in a pre-natal existence, as Plato
does, Epicurus thinks that we have certain 'preconceptions'--concepts such as 'body,' 'person,'
'usefulness,' and 'truth'--which are formed in our (material) minds as the result of repeated sense-
experiences of similar objects. Further ideas are formed by processes of analogy or similarity or
by compounding these basic concepts. Thus, all ideas are ultimately formed on the basis of
sense-experience.

Feelings of pleasure and pain form the basic criteria for what is to be sought and avoided.

b. Anti-skeptical Arguments
Epicurus is concerned to refute the skeptical tendencies of Democritus, whose metaphysics and
theory of perception were similar to Epicurus'. At least three separate anti-skeptical arguments
are given by Epicureans:

i. The "Lazy Argument"

Epicurus says that it is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he
knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of
another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

ii. The Self-refutation Argument

If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that
nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes,
then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

iii. The Argument from Concept-formation

If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him
where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be
relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and
'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses.

5. Ethics
Epicurus' ethics is a form of egoistic hedonism; i.e., he says that the only thing that is
intrinsically valuable is one's own pleasure; anything else that has value is valuable merely as a
means to securing pleasure for oneself. However, Epicurus has a sophisticated and idiosyncratic
view of the nature of pleasure, which leads him to recommend a virtuous, moderately ascetic life
as the best means to securing pleasure. This contrasts Epicurus strongly with the Cyrenaics, a
group of ancient hedonists who better fit the stereotype of hedonists as recommending a policy
of "eat, drink, and be merry."

a. Hedonism, Psychological and Ethical

Epicurus' ethics starts from the Aristotelian commonplace that the highest good is what is valued
for its own sake, and not for the sake of anything else, and Epicurus agrees with Aristotle that
happiness is the highest good. However, he disagrees with Aristotle by identifying happiness
with pleasure. Epicurus gives two reasons for this. The main reason is that pleasure is the only
thing that people do, as a matter of fact, value for its own sake; that is, Epicurus' ethical
hedonism is based upon his psychological hedonism. Everything we do, claims Epicurus, we do
for the sake ultimately of gaining pleasure for ourselves. This is supposedly confirmed by
observing the behavior of infants, who, it is claimed, instinctively pursue pleasure and shun pain.
This is also true of adults, thinks Epicurus, but in adults it is more difficult to see that this is true,
since adults have much more complicated beliefs about what will bring them pleasure. But the
Epicureans did spend a great deal of energy trying to make plausible the contention that all
activity, even apparently self-sacrificing activity or activity done solely for the sake of virtue or
what is noble, is in fact directed toward obtaining pleasure for oneself.

The second proof, which fits in well with Epicurus' empiricism, supposedly lies in one's
introspective experience. One immediately perceives that pleasure is good and that pain is bad, in
the same way that one immediately perceives that fire is hot; no further argument is needed to
show the goodness of pleasure or the badness of pain. (Of course, this does not establish
Epicurus' further contention that only pleasure is intrinsically valuable and only pain is
intrinsically bad.)

Although all pleasures are good and all pains evil, Epicurus says that not all pleasures are
choiceworthy or all pains to be avoided. Instead, one should calculate what is in one's long-term
self-interest, and forgo what will bring pleasure in the short-term if doing so will ultimately lead
to greater pleasure in the long-term.
b. Types of Pleasure
For Epicurus, pleasure is tied closely to satisfying one's desires. He distinguishes between two
different types of pleasure: 'moving' pleasures and 'static' pleasures. 'Moving' pleasures occur
when one is in the process of satisfying a desire, e.g., eating a hamburger when one is hungry.
These pleasures involve an active titillation of the senses, and these feelings are what most
people call 'pleasure.' However, Epicurus says that after one's desires have been satisfied, (e.g.,
when one is full after eating), the state of satiety, of no longer being in need or want, is itself
pleasurable. Epicurus calls this a 'static' pleasure, and says that these static pleasures are the best
pleasures.

Because of this, Epicurus denies that there is any intermediate state between pleasure and pain.
When one has unfulfilled desires, this is painful, and when one no longer has unfulfilled desires,
this steady state is the most pleasurable of all, not merely some intermediate state between
pleasure and pain.

Epicurus also distinguishes between physical and mental pleasures and pains. Physical pleasures
and pains concern only the present, whereas mental pleasures and pains also encompass the past
(fond memories of past pleasure or regret over past pain or mistakes) and the future (confidence
or fear about what will occur). The greatest destroyer of happiness, thinks Epicurus, is anxiety
about the future, especially fear of the gods and fear of death. If one can banish fear about the
future, and face the future with confidence that one's desires will be satisfied, then one will attain
tranquility (ataraxia), the most exalted state. In fact, given Epicurus' conception of pleasure, it
might be less misleading to call him a 'tranquillist' instead of a 'hedonist.'

c. Types of Desire
Because of the close connection of pleasure with desire-satisfaction, Epicurus devotes a
considerable part of his ethics to analyzing different kinds of desires. If pleasure results from
getting what you want (desire-satisfaction) and pain from not getting what you want (desire-
frustration), then there are two strategies you can pursue with respect to any given desire: you
can either strive to fulfill the desire, or you can try to eliminate the desire. For the most part
Epicurus advocates the second strategy, that of paring your desires down to a minimum core,
which are then easily satisfied.

Epicurus distinguishes between three types of desires: natural and necessary desires, natural but
non-necessary desires, and "vain and empty" desires. Examples of natural and necessary desires
include the desires for food, shelter, and the like. Epicurus thinks that these desires are easy to
satisfy, difficult to eliminate (they are 'hard-wired' into human beings naturally), and bring great
pleasure when satisfied. Furthermore, they are necessary for life, and they are naturally limited:
that is, if one is hungry, it only takes a limited amount of food to fill the stomach, after which the
desire is satisfied. Epicurus says that one should try to fulfill these desires.
Vain desires include desires for power, wealth, fame, and the like. They are difficult to satisfy, in
part because they have no natural limit. If one desires wealth or power, no matter how much one
gets, it is always possible to get more, and the more one gets, the more one wants. These desires
are not natural to human beings, but inculcated by society and by false beliefs about what we
need; e.g., believing that having power will bring us security from others. Epicurus thinks that
these desires should be eliminated.

An example of a natural but non-necessary desire is the desire for luxury food. Although food is
needed for survival, one does not need a particular type of food to survive. Thus, despite his
hedonism, Epicurus advocates a surprisingly ascetic way of life. Although one shouldn't spurn
extravagant foods if they happen to be available, becoming dependent on such goods ultimately
leads to unhappiness. As Epicurus puts it, "If you wish to make Pythocles wealthy, don't give
him more money; rather, reduce his desires." By eliminating the pain caused by unfulfilled
desires, and the anxiety that occurs because of the fear that one's desires will not be fulfilled in
the future, the wise Epicurean attains tranquility, and thus happiness.

d. The Virtues
Epicurus' hedonism was widely denounced in the ancient world as undermining traditional
morality. Epicurus, however, insists that courage, moderation, and the other virtues are needed in
order to attain happiness. However, the virtues for Epicurus are all purely instrumental goods--
that is, they are valuable solely for the sake of the happiness that they can bring oneself, not for
their own sake. Epicurus says that all of the virtues are ultimately forms of prudence, of
calculating what is in one's own best interest. In this, Epicurus goes against the majority of Greek
ethical theorists, such as the Stoics, who identify happiness with virtue, and Aristotle, who
identifies happiness with a life of virtuous activity. Epicurus thinks that natural science and
philosophy itself also are instrumental goods. Natural science is needed in order to give
mechanistic explanations of natural phenomena and thus dispel the fear of the gods, while
philosophy helps to show us the natural limits of our desires and to dispel the fear of death.

e. Justice
Epicurus is one of the first philosophers to give a well-developed contractarian theory of justice.
Epicurus says that justice is an agreement "neither to harm nor be harmed," and that we have a
preconception of justice as "what is useful in mutual associations." People enter into
communities in order to gain protection from the dangers of the wild, and agreements concerning
the behavior of the members of the community are needed in order for these communities to
function, e.g., prohibitions of murder, regulations concerning the killing and eating of animals,
and so on. Justice exists only where there are such agreements.

Like the virtues, justice is valued entirely on instrumental grounds, because of its utility for each
of the members of society. Epicurus says that the main reason not to be unjust is that one will be
punished if one gets caught, and that even if one does not get caught, the fear of being caught
will still cause pain. However, he adds that the fear of punishment is needed mainly to keep fools
in line, who otherwise would kill, steal, etc. The Epicurean wise man recognizes the usefulness
of the laws, and since he does not desire great wealth, luxury goods, political power, or the like,
he sees that he has no reason to engage in the conduct prohibited by the laws in any case.

Although justice only exists where there is an agreement about how to behave, that does not
make justice entirely 'conventional,' if by 'conventional' we mean that any behavior dictated by
the laws of a particular society is thereby just, and that the laws of a particular society are just for
that society. Since the 'justice contract' is entered into for the purpose of securing what is useful
for the members of the society, only laws that are actually useful are just. Thus, a prohibition of
murder would be just, but antimiscegenation laws would not. Since what is useful can vary from
place to place and time to time, what laws are just can likewise vary.

f. Friendship
Epicurus values friendship highly and praises it in quite extravagant terms. He says that
friendship "dances around the world" telling us that we must "wake to blessedness." He also says
that the wise man is sometimes willing to die for a friend. Because of this, some scholars have
thought that in this area, at least, Epicurus abandons his egoistic hedonism and advocates
altruism toward friends. This is not clear, however. Epicurus consistently maintains that
friendship is valuable because it is one of the greatest means of attaining pleasure. Friends, he
says, are able to provide one another the greatest security, whereas a life without friends is
solitary and beset with perils. In order for there to be friendship, Epicurus says, there must be
trust between friends, and friends have to treat each other as well as they treat themselves. The
communities of Epicureans can be seen as embodying these ideals, and these are ideals that
ultimately promote ataraxia.

g. Death
One of the greatest fears that Epicurus tries to combat is the fear of death. Epicurus thinks that
this fear is often based upon anxiety about having an unpleasant afterlife; this anxiety, he thinks,
should be dispelled once one realizes that death is annihilation, because the mind is a group of
atoms that disperses upon death.

i. The No Subject of Harm Argument

If death is annihilation, says Epicurus, then it is 'nothing to us.' Epicurus' main argument for why
death is not bad is contained in the Letter to Menoeceus and can be dubbed the 'no subject of
harm' argument. If death is bad, for whom is it bad? Not for the living, since they're not dead, and
not for the dead, since they don't exist. His argument can be set out as follows:

1. Death is annihilation.
 2. The living have not yet been annihilated (otherwise they wouldn't be alive).
3. Death does not affect the living. (from 1 and 2)
4. So, death is not bad for the living. (from 3)
5. For something to be bad for somebody, that person has to exist, at least.
6. The dead do not exist. (from 1)
7. Therefore, death is not bad for the dead. (from 5 and 6)
8. Therefore death is bad for neither the living nor the dead. (from 4 and 7)

Epicurus adds that if death causes you no pain when you're dead, it's foolish to allow the fear of
it to cause you pain now.
Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based on the teachings of Epicurus, founded
around 307 B.C. It teaches that the greatest good is to seek modest pleasures in
order to attain a state of tranquillity, freedom from fear ("ataraxia") and absence
from bodily pain ("aponia"). This combination of states is held to constitute
happiness in its highest form, and so Epicureanism can be considered a form of
Hedonism, although it differs in its conception of happiness as the absence of pain,
and in its advocacy of a simple life.

Epicurus directed that this state of tranquillity could be obtained through knowledge
of the workings of the world and the limiting of desires. Thus, pleasure was to be
obtained by knowledge, friendship and living a virtuous and temperate life. He
lauded the enjoyment of "simple pleasures", by which he meant abstaining from
bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on Asceticism. He counseled that "a
cheerful poverty is an honorable state".

He argued for moderation in all things, so that when eating, for example, one
should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as
indigestion or the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the
future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual
partner, and Epicurus himself remained celibate. Even learning, culture and
civilization were discouraged, as they could result in disturbing one’s peace of mind,
except insofar as knowledge could help rid oneself of religious fears and
superstitions, such as the fear of the gods and of death.

Generally speaking, Epicureans shunned politics as having no part in the quest for
ataraxia and aponia, and likewise a potential source of unsatisfiable desires and
frustration, which was to be avoided. Like Democritus and Leucippus before him,
Epicurus was an Atomist, believing that all matter, souls and gods are all comprised
of atoms, and even thoughts are merely atoms swerving randomly.

Epicurus was one of the first to develop a notion of justice as a kind of social
contract, an agreement "neither to harm nor be harmed". He argued that laws and
punishments in society are important so that individuals can be free to pursue
happiness, and a just law is one that contributes to promoting human happiness.
In some respects, this was an early contribution to the much later development of
Liberalism and of Utilitarianism.

In modern popular usage, an epicure is a connoisseur of the arts of life and the
refinements of sensual pleasures, especially of good food and drink, attributable to a
misunderstanding of the Epicurean doctrine, as promulgated by Christian
polemicists.

Back to Top
History of Epicureanism
Epicureanism was originally a conceived by Epicurus as a challenge to Platonism
although, arguably, Democritus had propounded a very similar philosophy almost a
century earlier. Along with Stoicism and Skepticism), the school of Epicureanism later
became one of the three dominant schools of Hellenistic philosophy, lasting strongly
through the later Roman Empire. During Epicurus' lifetime, its members included
Hermarchus, Idomeneus, Colotes, Polyaenus and Metrodorus.

Lucretius (99 - 55 B.C.) was the school's greatest Roman proponent, composing an epic
poem, "De Rerum Natura" ("On the Nature of Things") on the Epicurean
philosophy of nature. The poet Horace (65 - 8 B.C.) and Julius Caesar (100 - 44 B.C.)
both leaned considerably toward Epicureanism.

After the official approval of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine (272 -
337) in 313 A.D., Epicureanism was repressed as essentially irreconcilable with
Christian teachings, and the school endured a long period of obscurity and decline.

In more modern times, the French philosopher and priest Pierre Gassendi (1592 -
1655) referred to himself as an Epicurean (and attempted to revive the doctrine), as did
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826) and the Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham.

Back to Top
Epicureanism and Religion
Epicureanism emphasizes the neutrality of the gods and their non-interference
with human lives, although it did not deny the existence of gods, despite some
tendencies towards Atheism. It conceived of the gods as blissful and immortal, yet
material, beings made of atoms, inhabiting the empty spaces between worlds in the
vastness of infinite space, too far away from the earth to have any interest in what
man was doing. It rejected any possibility of an afterlife, while still contending that
one need not fear death. It can be argued that the philosophy is atheistic on a
practical level, but avoids the charge of Atheism on the theoretical level, thus
avoiding the fate of Socrates, who was tried and executed for the Atheism of his beliefs.

The Paradox of Epicurus is the earliest known description of the "Problem of evil"
(see the section on Philosophy of Religion), and is a famous argument against the
existence of an all-powerful and providential God or gods. It can be stated: If God is
willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, then He is not omnipotent; if He is able, but
not willing, then He is malevolent; if He is both able and willing, then why is there
such a thing as evil; and if He is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God at
all?

There are interesting parallels to Buddhism, which similarly emphasizes a lack of

divine interference and has aspects of Atomism. Buddhism also resembles
Epicureanism in its temperateness, including the belief that great excesses lead to
great dissatisfaction.
Hedonism is the philosophy that pleasure is the most important pursuit of mankind,
and the only thing that is good for an individual. Hedonists, therefore, strive to
maximize their total pleasure (the net of any pleasure less any pain or suffering). They
believe that pleasure is the only good in life, and pain is the only evil, and our life's
goal should be to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

Psychological Hedonism is the view that humans are psychologically

constructed in such a way that we exclusively desire pleasure. Ethical
Hedonism, on the other hand, is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is
to maximize pleasure or happiness. It is the normative claim that we should always
act so as to produce our own pleasure.

Hedonism usually pre-supposes an individualist stance, and is associated with Egoism

(the claim that individuals should always seek their own good in all things).
Epicureanism is a more moderate approach (which still seeks to maximize happiness,
but which defines happiness more as a state of tranquillity than pleasure). A similar
but more altruistic approach results in Utilitarianism, the position that the moral
worth of any action is determined by its contribution to overall utility in maximizing
happiness or pleasure as summed among all people.

The Paradox of Hedonism (also called the Pleasure Paradox), points out that
pleasure and happiness are strange phenomena that do not obey normal
principles, in that they cannot be acquired directly, only indirectly and we often fail
to attain pleasures if we deliberately seek them.

The term "hedonism" is derived from the Greek "hedone" meaning simply "pleasure".
In common language, Hedonism has come to mean devotion to pleasure as a way of
life, especially to the pleasures of the senses, and is synonymous with sensualism,
libertinism, debauchery and dissipation.

Back to Top
History of Hedonism
Perhaps the earliest example of Hedonism (and one of the most extreme) was the
philosophy of the Cyrenaics, an early Socratic school founded by Aristippus of
Cyrene, in the 4th Century B.C. (although, arguably, Democritus had propounded a
very similar philosophy even earlier). The Cyrenaics emphasized one side only of
Socrates' teaching that happiness is one of the ends of moral action (Eudaimonism),
while denying that virtue has any intrinsic value. They maintained that pleasure was
the supreme good, especially physical pleasure, which Aristippus considered more
intense and preferable to mental or intellectual pleasures, and especially immediate
gratification, which he argued should not be denied for the sake of long-term gain.

Epicureanism is considered by some to be a form of ancient Hedonism. Its founder,

Epicurus, agreed that pleasure is the greatest good, but he identified pleasure with
tranquillity rather than bodily gratification, and emphasized the reduction of
desire over the immediate acquisition of pleasure. Thus, for Epicurus, the highest
pleasure consists of a simple, moderate life spent with friends and in philosophical
discussion. Epicurus was also careful not to suggest that we should live a selfish life
which impedes others from obtaining their own pleasure.

During the Middle Ages, Christian philosophers largely denounced Hedonism, which
they believed was inconsistent with the Christian emphasis on avoiding sin, doing
God's will, and developing the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity. However,
Renaissance philosophers such as Erasmus and Sir Thomas More revived Hedonism
to some extent, defending it on the religious grounds that pleasure was in fact
compatible with God's wish for humans to be happy.

Libertinism is a philosophy related to Hedonism, which found adherents in the 17th,

18th and 19th Centuries, particularly in France and Britain, including the 2nd Earl of
Rochester (1647 - 1680), the Marquis de Sade (1740 -1814) and the occultist
Aleister Crowley (1875 - 1947). Libertinism ignores, or even deliberately spurns,
religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behavior sanctioned by the larger
society, and encourages gratification of any sort, especially sexual.

The 19th Century ethical theory of Utilitarianism, propounded by the British

philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, developed and refined Hedonism,
concluding that we should perform whichever action is best for everyone ("the
greatest good for the greatest number"). Bentham believed that the value of a pleasure
could be quantitatively understood, while Mill preferred a qualitative approach
dependent on the mix of higher quality pleasures and lower quality, simple pleasures.

Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982), one of the biggest modern proponents of Egoism, has
rejected Hedonism as a comprehensive ethical system on the grounds that, although
pleasure can be the purpose of ethics, it cannot be the standard or guide to action,
as that would result in intellectual and philosophical abdication.

Contemporary Hedonists, as represented by an organization known as Hedonist

International, strive first and foremost for pleasure, as did their predecessors, but
with an additional emphasis on personal freedom and equality. Christian
Hedonism is a recent controversial Christian doctrine, current in some evangelical
circles, which holds that humans were created by God with the priority purpose of
lavishly enjoying God through knowing, worshiping and serving Him.