Epicurus was a strong advocate of free will. Even though Epicurus actively took part in religious activities, he still discarded the notion of God being an entity that is concerned with punishing evil and rewarding good deeds. The development of a pleasant and comfortable life, in his view, was the core purpose of life, and good and bad consequences could only be evaluated on the principles of pain and pleasure.
Epicurus believed that whatever serves to provide pleasure can be termed as good, and whatever leads to discomfort can be termed as bad. His goal was not to encourage his disciples to run after a selfish pursuit of pleasure, but rather to form a thinking that is not plagued with religious superstition and fear.
However, the philosophy seems to have also become popular among the not so elite Plebeian classes if we are to believe the aristocratically minded Cicero who mocks the philosophy for appealing to what in his mind were the uneducated common people. How did a convert to Epicureanism practice philosophy in the Garden? One important facet of being an Epicurean was learning the teachings of the school. What is the nature of the cosmos?
How do we obtain reliable knowledge? What is the best way of life as a human being? These teachings were not just about learning philosophical theory for its own sake.
Understanding the universe we live in and human nature was crucial to flourishing and living better lives. For example, learning that natural phenomena such as thunder and earthquakes have rational explanations is meant to protect us from fears caused by superstitions. Learning that we do not need to be rich or famous to be happy helps us overcome the longing for those unnecessary things which are out of our reach and be content with what we have.
To this end, study and memorization were techniques used to better integrate these teachings. Another major objective of a student in Epicureanism was to become a more ethical and wiser person by cultivating virtues and overcoming vices. Much of the Epicurean literature focused on describing negative personality traits and developing therapeutic methods to overcome them.
This literature presents us with philosophical arguments as well as vivid images of people subject to these emotions, often considered irrational and harmful, in order to persuade readers to work on morally improving themselves. This aim of achieving wisdom was also achieved by interacting with other members of the community in a practice called Frank Speech. Epicureans were expected to help each other in overcoming personality flaws and becoming better people. The bonds of friendship encouraged in the Garden required trust and honesty while giving out criticism or praise.
This was a difficult balancing act. For example, the two extremes of arrogance and a lack of self-confidence were to be overcome. One had to be careful to express honest criticism without being mean spirited. For instance, you will not talk to someone who is of gentle disposition in the same way you would someone who has a more aggressive personality.
Philodemus elaborates on questions such as these in his treatise, On Frank Speech. Within the Epicurean communities there was a hierarchy between teachers, more advanced in wisdom, and students in philosophy.
This hierarchy was not based on social class, which sometimes led to tensions when the student was of a higher social status than the teacher. A teacher was seen as a sort of doctor of the soul whose role it was to cure students and occasionally other teachers of their vices by mastering different techniques of Frank Speech.
This required experience and a capacity to lead by example and inspire trust, as such a position was never a given and had to be earned. Epicureans had a strong sense of community and for them this was absolutely central to living a good life. The Garden was not just a place for serious philosophical meditation and moral self improvement.
It was also a community that encouraged its followers to enjoy life and find comfort in friendship. The welcoming nature of the Garden was exemplified by the motto inscribed at its entrance. The Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca describes what it is like to be welcomed there:. They do not give drinks that make one thirstier, but quench thirst with its natural remedy, which comes free of charge. This quote emphasizes the spirit of moderation and contentment within the community.
This is not to say that luxury was excluded from the good life; rather that it is something that we must learn to live without and is to be appreciated on occasion. As Epicurus writes in his Letter to Menoeceus:. Long and David Sedley in their book, The Hellenistic Philosophers , in which the two argued in favor of the idealist position.
While a scholarly consensus has yet to be reached, the realist position remains the prevailing viewpoint at this time. Epicureanism also offered arguments against the existence of the gods in the manner proposed by other belief systems. The Riddle of Epicurus , or Problem of evil , is a famous argument against the existence of an all-powerful and providential God or gods. As recorded by Lactantius:. God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can.
If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak — and this does not apply to god. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them? This type of trilemma argument God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists was one favoured by the ancient Greek skeptics, and this argument may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an atheist.
According to Reinhold F. Glei, it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academical source which is not only not Epicurean, but even anti-Epicurean.
The earliest extant version of this trilemma appears in the writings of the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus. Parallels may be drawn to Jainism and Buddhism, which similarly emphasize a lack of divine interference and aspects of its atomism. Epicureanism also resembles Buddhism in its temperateness, including the belief that great excess leads to great dissatisfaction.
Epicurean physics held that the entire universe consisted of two things: matter and void. Matter is made up of atoms, which are tiny bodies that have only the unchanging qualities of shape, size, and weight.
Atoms were felt to be unchanging because the Epicureans believed that the world was ordered and that changes had to have specific and consistent sources, e. Epicurus holds that there must be an infinite supply of atoms, although only a finite number of types of atoms, as well as an infinite amount of void.
Epicurus explains this position in his letter to Herodotus:. Moreover, the sum of things is unlimited both by reason of the multitude of the atoms and the extent of the void. For if the void were infinite and bodies finite, the bodies would not have stayed anywhere but would have been dispersed in their course through the infinite void, not having any supports or counterchecks to send them back on their upward rebound. Again, if the void were finite, the infinity of bodies would not have anywhere to be.
Because of the infinite supply of atoms, there are an infinite amount of worlds, or cosmoi. Some of these worlds could be vastly different than our own, some quite similar, and all of the worlds were separated from each other by vast areas of void metakosmia. Epicureanism states that atoms are unable to be broken down into any smaller parts, and Epicureans offered multiple arguments to support this position.
Epicureans argue that because void is necessary for matter to move, anything which consists of both void and matter can be broken down, while if something contains no void then it has no way to break apart because no part of the substance could be broken down into a smaller subsection of the substance.
They also argued that in order for the universe to persist, what it is ultimately made up of must not be able to be changed or else the universe would be essentially destroyed. Atoms are constantly moving in one of four different ways. Atoms can simply collide with each other and then bounce off of each other. When joined with each other and forming a larger object, atoms can vibrate as they into each other while still maintaining the overall shape of the larger object.
When not prevented by other atoms, all atoms move at the same speed naturally downwards in relation to the rest world. This downwards motion is natural for atoms; however, as their fourth means of motion, atoms can at times randomly swerve out of their usual downwards path. This swerving motion is what allowed for the creation of the universe, since as more and more atoms swerved and collided with each other, objects were able to take shape as the atoms joined together.
Without the swerve, the atoms would never have interacted with each other, and simply continued to move downwards at the same speed. If it were not for the swerve, humans would be subject to a never-ending chain of cause and effect.
Epicureans believed that senses also relied on atoms. Every object was continually emitting particles from itself that would then interact with the observer. All sensations, such as sight, smell, or sound, relied on these particles. While the atoms that were emitted did not have the qualities that the senses were perceiving, the manner in which they were emitted caused the observer to experience those sensations, e. The atoms are not perceived individually, but rather as a continuous sensation because of how quickly they move.
Epicurean philosophy employs an empirical epistemology. Hicks, R. Epicurus, trans. Inwood, Brad and Gerson, L. Hutchinson, D.
0コメント