Epicurus - Biography

Epicurus (341 BCE – 270 BCE) was the founder of the Epicurean School of thought, and despite the rather fragmentary remnants of his writing, we can induce the lost elements of his thought from the works of his disciples, who, as a school, were notorious loyal to the words of their founder. Epicurus’ philosophy is, by ancient standards, a complete and interdependent system, comprised of an account of nature, evolution, knowledge and the goal of human life. His radical materialism breaches all of these fields, and thereby places him in conflict with Plato. Moreover, their disdain for formal logic brought them another giant as opponent, namely, Aristotle. The Epicurean philosophy, however, centered on the Epicurean life, one which is often made synonymous with resignation, passivity and Eastern thought. The Epicurean doctrine is divisible into four broad categories: physical theory, psychology and ethics, social theory and the Epicurean life.

Epicurus’ physical theory is a radical materialism, founded on two fundamental constituents: atoms and voids. As such it resonates with Democritus, who’s theory was devastated by Aristotle. Epicurus’ theory, therefore, had to account for the Aristotelian criticism of Democritus, namely, Aristotle criticizes Democritus on account of his notion of infinite void, and the idea of ‘minima’, i.e. entities of the smallest conceivable size, and their indivisibility. For example, Aristotle argued that if atoms were really indivisible then it is impossible for two atoms to ever partially pass one another, since this would demand a point within an indivisible, and thus contradict its being a minimum. This criticism is extended into the claim that Democritus would have to admit that motion too is also correspondingly discontinuous, and hence time as well. Aristotle’s criticism of the notion of infinite void is that it excludes the possibility of any spatial orientation, and cannot provide an account of why things fall.

The response to Aristotle’s criticism, by Epicurus was to distinguish between the atom and the minimal expense of matter. Atoms, he claimed, cannot be broken apart, despite the fact that they consist of such minima, which cannot stand on their own, but only in amalgamations composing atoms. Epicurus appropriated Aristotle’s point regarding time and motion, and claimed that they are in fact discontinuous, and that it is inappropriate to claim that an atom in moving over a minimal interval, instead, all we can say of atoms in motion is that they have moved. Epicurus also agreed with Aristotle that all atoms move with identical velocity. Although this claim proves problematic in certain senses, it also solves the problem of entropy, that is, it gives an account of why the universe never came to a halt.

Atoms, as microscopic objects are distinguished from macroscopic objects, which, unlike atoms within do not move in a uniform and fast velocity. The laws of motion are different at the atomic and the macroscopic levels. The motions of atoms within macroscopic objects is a further variation, that is, they are restricted and deflected by other proximate atoms, consequently their motion is best conceptualized as vibration. Epicurus’ physical theory operated with a limited number of elements and principles. He was unaware of concepts such as attraction and repulsion, or force. Without such elements and principles Epicurus’ theory could not escape all paradoxes. The fundamental elements are atoms and voids, and the principles were: things cannot come from nothing, and things are not destroyed into what is not. Moreover, reproduction, Epicurus taught, was not spontaneous and arbitrary, but orderly and determinate. Testimony and methodology, for Epicurus, were ultimately based on the sense, which are always reliable.

Atoms and bodies, i.e. amalgamations of atoms, corresponded to and complemented voids. That is, motion by both bodies and atoms was possible only on the conditions of voids. These primary elements, in various combinations, give rise to secondary properties, such as color, taste, etc., which are to be understood as epiphenomena of atomic combinations and motions in voids.

Epicurus’ extended his materialism all the way to the nature of the soul. The soul’s inclusion into strict materialism is based on two arguments: one, everything is made up of atoms and voids, and two, incorporeal entities could not be moved by other bodies, nor act themselves, and the soul certainly seems to do both. Soul atoms, however, we not concentrated in the brain, rather, they were spread throughout the body, with a disproportional distribution in the chest. The chest was the house of higher intellectual functions, for Epicurus, and it, through its rationality, was also the source of errors in judgment – the senses are, for him, impervious to error. Soul atoms, and the consequent corporeality of the soul, necessitated that Epicurus abandon the belief in an afterlife, whether full of divine punishment or justice. Moreover, the soul materiality implied that it was responsive to physical stimulation; this led Epicurus to the conclusion that the function of the human mind was nothing ‘higher’ than to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

Epicurus, and the school he founded, showed a disinterest for the formal logic of Aristotle and the Stoics. Consequently, they needed a wholly different way of providing a theory of belief formation, their theory, ultimately, was reductivistic and contained a combination of mysticism and naïve naturalism. Firstly, although mental contents were distinguished from sense data, they nevertheless found their way into the body in an identical manner. That is, simulacra were thought so tiny that they could penetrate directly into the mind (located in the chest). Certainly, this naïve permeation provided an answer to the riddle of dreams, but it was also meant to account for mental impressions and voluntary thoughts. Mental images, for Epicurus, held no privileged status. They were, like sense information, always true, hence, error was the consequence of associating impressions with wrong concluding beliefs. The obstacle to correct thought was ultimately language, and the illegitimate inference from sensation. The rational part of the mind, as the faculty that allows men to infer by analogy from the visible world to the invisible, is no different then the body, in so far as it too is subject to positive and negative experience. Fear is the most prominent negative mental state, especially the fear of unreal things such as death. The absence of such fear, Epicurus terms ataraxy. Epicurus lists two further positive states, joy and happiness, both of which are distinct from pleasure, which applies only to the physical. Joy is conceptualized as a neutral state free of negative dispositions, while happiness is as a form of pleasure in itself. The relation between the two positive states, is one of movement. That is, joy refers to the kinentic pleasure of moving towards happiness, which is a static pleasure. The precise dynamic between these two positive states was subject to interrogation by, among others, the Cyrenaics, who prescribed increasing pleasure, and thereby disturbed the calm distinction between the two.

Epicurus also makes a distinction between different types of desire. He classifies them as either natural, or empty, with natural being further divided between necessary and merely natural. Empty desires, Epicurus taught, cannot be satisfied anymore than unreal fears can be alleviated. Both are based on kenodoxia, i.e. empty belief, consequently they cause anxiety, and are the main source perturbation and pain in society as a whole.

Such a radical materialism, as that put forth by Epicureans, poses the threat of complete predetermination of nature and human life. Epicurus and his followers were not ignorant of this threat and sought refuge from predestination in the minute swerving and veering of atomic components. These tiny deviations afforded a certain level of randomness in an otherwise mechanistic universe, a randomness which provided the glimmer of liberty Epicureans needed. The deviations of atomic elements was also used by the Epicureans to resolve the cosmological problem of how to account for atomic collisions in an infinite universe of proportionally dispersed and uniformly moving atoms in the same direction.

A poem by Lucretius provides the majority of our knowledge of Epicurus’ thoughts on evolution and more broadly, society. Despite the indirect source, we can with assurance consider it an accurate account of Epicurus thoughts, given the school’s notorious conservatism and unwillingness to depart from the founder’s own teaching. Epicurus’ account of the development of society begins with the statement that originally human beings were solitary creatures, who did not communicate verbally, had no social institutions and even reproduced rather haphazardly. It is only with time, he claimed, that man was in a position to unite in larger groups and communities. Language and technical skills arose only following such grouping. Language, of course, for Epicurus, was the natural result of responses to different stimuli. Language’s standardization, the result of a long and arduous process, which culminated in an augmented vocabulary, improved clarity, and the introduction of a broader and specialized lexicon was the basis for the establishment of alliances and friendships. Early forms of social life, conditioned by a general scarcity of goods prevented excessive competition, and hierarchy in society. These scarcities, Epicurus imagined, resulted in a naturally imposed limitation on empty desires. Moreover, such early forms of life did not suffer the mental confusion resulting from the reliance on words.

Epicurus also blames the struggle over goods for perverting social relations. Epicurus also develops a certain genealogy of morality, arguing that with the rule of law, itself a consequence of a belief in the gods, caused a certain contamination of the natural blessings of life. The fear of gods, he argued, disrupted the tranquility or ataraxy, which is both natural to life, and constitutes the basis of happiness. Justice is nothing more than the capacity and or making agreements that no one will harm or wrong another.

Epicurus also linked a good life with virtue, namely, prudence, justice, and honor – prudence or wisdom being the chief virtue. An Epicurean sage, who, as such, possesses a correct reasoning about his needs and desires, along with the virtues prerequisite to a good life, would have no motivation for the empty pleasures which only bring pain, perturbation and anxiety to himself and society as a whole, chief of which is the pursuit of fame and money. Instead, an Epicurean sage contents himself with natural desires, which are easily satisfied.

The Epicurean life placed a priority on friendship, which although it had its beginnings in necessity and utility, was nonetheless chosen for its own sake. Friendship was something, again, for the wise, who would identify with their friends to the point of feeling their pain, and being ready to die for one another. Epicurus considered the task of philosophy to be nothing more and nothing less than a form of therapy for life, that is, against its difficulties and temptations. In fact, Epicureans deemed a life free of anxiety and open to natural pleasures as equal to that of gods’. Epicurus, and his followers, were famously content with little. They had a negative definition of both freedom and happiness, that is, as the result of ridding themselves of unreal fears and empty desires.