If you’ve read or listened to much Stoic
literature you’ll have heard of Epicurus and Epicureanism, usually in a negative
light. In this video I want to explain as clearly as possible what Epicureanism is,
consider whether it’s at odds with Stoicism, and give some suggestions on how to
productively view it from a Stoic perspective. Epicureanism is technically a hedonistic
philosophy, it teaches that the highest good is pleasure, but pleasure achieved through
freedom from pain* and tranquillity of mind** rather than through the types of sensual desires
that we commonly associate with Hedonism***. “When, therefore, we maintain
that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates
and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are
either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in
the body and from trouble in the mind.” Epicurus In practice therefore a true Epicurean life
usually entails self-discipline, simple living and the maintenance of strong friendships. Look
up the word Epicurean in the dictionary however and you’ll see its modern usage
is almost the exact opposite. Just like Stoicism its colloquial meaning has
drifted over the millennia, however unlike Stoicism this drift is largely the result of a
deliberate mischaracterization by early scholars. Before diving into the weeds, let’s do a
high-level comparison of both Stoicism and Epicureanism, for those of you with short
attention spans, this is the TLDR version. The Virtues, in the eyes of Epicureanism the
virtues are only good in so far as they help you attain pleasure and happiness, but
they are not good in and of themselves To the Stoics the virtues are the sole goods, specifically, Wisdom, Justice, Fortitude
and Temperance. They are their own rewards, and the fact that they tend to lead to
a happy life is an incidental benefit. Pleasure: Meaning comfort, wealth
and lack of pain. In the eyes of Epicureanism pleasure is the highest good,
it is what we should seek for a happy life. True pleasure is achieved through the elimination
of pain and fear. To that end it is characterized by: sufficient food, a comfortable dwelling,
peaceful relationships and temperance. To the Stoics, pleasure, wealth and lack of pains
are ‘preferred indfferents’, it’s better to have them than to not, but a good life can be lead
without them. They sometimes also argue we need to encounter hardships in life to test and strengthen
ourselves, as well as to practice our virtues. The Gods: To Epicureans maybe they exist, but
they are indifferent to us. Do not fear them, as fear disrupts tranquillity. To the
Stoics, they exist and impact our lives, nature is designed by Zeus, therefore
some degree of divine providence exists. “We are like a little appendage of Zeus,
and who is an appendage to question the plans of the whole body?” (Epictetus)
Superstition, magic and divination. To the Epicureans these are false. They are also sources
of fear, and since fear disrupts our happiness they should be actively avoided. The
Stoics agreed that these were false. On a cursory glance then Epicureanism places
pleasure above virtue and Stoicism does the opposite, and Epicureanism ignores God and
religion, whilst Stoicism teaches that a divine creator continues to impact
the world and should be revered. Given these pretty fundamental differences it’s
easy to see where the animosity comes from. Now if all you want is to understand the
difference then you can stop right here. But if you wish to understand why Epicureanism has
been so maligned and what it can still teach us, then listen on as we take a deeper
look at its history and teachings. “Stranger, you would do good to stay a while,
for here the highest good is pleasure...” First to the history
Epicurus was born in 341 BC, grew up on the Greek island of Samos and
studied under a follower of Democritus*. He did his military service at 18,
spent a number of years traveling and then began teaching philosophy
in Mytilene at about the age of 30 In 306 BC he returned to Athens and founded
what came to be known as his “Garden”, a place of recluse where he taught and lived out his
philosophy with close friends and students. It is above the entrance to this Garden that the famous
quote referenced by Seneca, is said to have hung. During Epicurus’ life Epicureanism and Stoicism
both grew in popularity and became dominant philosophies of the age. Epicureanism reached
its height around 70 BC and while popular in Rome it did draw more criticism than Stoicism
due to its teachings being seen to run counter to the Roman ideal of the manly virtues*.
Later it came under sustained attack from Christian scholars due its heretical views
on God and the soul, which could not be reconciled with Christianity. Epikoros is even
the Jewish term for heretic used in the Mishnah (part of the Oral Torah composed between 200 and
220 AD), and “Epicurus [and] all his followers” make an appearance in Dante’s Inferno in the sixth
level of hell, the one reserved for heretics. “Their cemetery have upon this side
With Epicurus all his followers, Who with the body, mortal make the soul”
- Dante’s Inferno, Canto 10 (1200 AD) By the early middle-ages
Epicureanism had faded completely, with Epicurus being considered a patron
of drunkards, whoremongers and gluttons. It wasn’t until the 15th century that some of
his texts resurfaced, and not until the 17th century that Enlightenment thinkers began to
take an active interest in reviving his ideas. Here’s Thomas Jefferson writing
to William Short in 1819 “As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurean.
I consider the genuine (not the imputed*) doctrines of Epicurus as containing
everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” –Thomas
Jefferson, Letter to William Short, 1819* In contrast Stoicism was broadly embraced by
Christianity and remained in Europe to some degree until its modern-day revival
What about Epicurus’ Other Works? It bares mentioning that philosophy aside,
Epicurus also took a wide interest in the study of science and nature in general. Whilst
living in his Garden he is said (by Diogenes) to have written some 300 treatises on topics
ranging from the theory of knowledge to physics, astronomy, and language. As an example
a few of the things he wrote about were: The atom
That the Universe is infinite That the Universe is not completely
deterministic at the atomic scale but contains elements of uncertainty and
probability (referred to as “swerve” by Epicurus) That Platonic forms were nonsense, and
that properties like sweetness or colour were not present in individual atoms but were
emergent properties as atoms came together. How the mind is a physical organ and
that our spirit is destroyed at death The idea of a Social Contract
as a basis of justice The formulation of ‘The Problem
of Evil’ argument, that is: Evil exists because God either is unwilling to
stop it, is unable to stop it, or doesn’t exist) References to the idea of ‘God of the Gaps’
arguments; that things like lightning and earthquakes were not signs of the gods, but
rather naturally occurring events, explainable if we simply study the natural world enough.
And that we could through the study of science, emancipate ourselves from irrational fears
and even develop a science of happiness. In a sense Epicurus was akin to an early
Humanist or even New Atheist in his outlook, and Epicureanism as a philosophy finds
most followers among such circles today. But nowow let’s take a deeper
look at Epicurean Philosophy Epicureanism holds pleasure as its highest good,
and Epicurus separated pleasures into two sorts: those that were active and those that were static. An active or Kinetic pleasure is felt when
one is in the process of performing an action, such as satisfying a desire or
removing a pain, for example eating. But after you finish eating you will be in a
state of contentment, you will feel satiated and satisfied. This static state Epicurus
referred to as a Katastematic pleasure. Epicurus appreciated the kinetic pleasures but is
said to have valued the Katastematic sort more. To him achieving an absence of pain
and a lack of disturbance of mind was what led to true happiness. “The magnitude of pleasure reaches
its limit in the removal of all pain.” Among pleasure and pain,
Epicurus also differentiated between the physical and the mental.
Physical pleasures and pains concern only the present, whereas mental pleasures and pains
also encompass the past (think fond memories or regret over past mistakes) and the future (that is
to say confidence or fear about what will occur). Now Katastematic pleasures come
in both physical and mental forms. Physically when free from physical disturbances,
such as hunger, thirst or ill health. And Mentally when free from negative
thoughts such as fear and worry. Achieving freedom from physical
disturbance was referred to as aponia, and achieving freedom from mental
disturbance was referred to as ataraxia. Since Katastematic pleasures require the
satisfying of desires and alleviating of fears, Epicurus set about defining and categorizing
the types of desire we experience. He divided them into three groups:
1. Natural and Necessary: 2. Natural and Unnecessary:
3. Unnatural and Unnecessary (the vain desires): He said we should pursue the first,
be open to but cautious of the second and avoid completely the third. Natural and Necessary desires are things such
as food, water and human company – These are difficult to eliminate but easily satisfied
and bring great pleasure when they are. What’s more they are usually necessary for life
or at least for a happy life. For this reason, we should always try to fulfil these desires as it
is only in satisfying them that we reach Aponia. Natural and Unnecessary desires are things like
luxurious food, fine clothes or sex – These are not necessary for life, and also not always easy
to satisfy. They are kinetically pleasurable, however they present a katastematic risk in that
the more we indulge in them the more of a habit we build around consuming them, then should they ever
become unavailable we risk losing our tranquillity due to an unfulfilled unnecessary desire.
Ultimately Epicurus’ advice is to be open to them but to definitely avoid
becoming accustomed to them. (Incidentally this is similar to the Stoic
position which generally emphasises simple living, but also says not to be afraid of using
luxuries when they happen to be available) Finally, the Unnatural and Unnecessary
desires are things like: Power, wealth and fame - These are the vain desires, not
natural to human beings but conditioned into us by society. They are unnecessary and difficult
to satisfy because they have no natural limit; for example, if one chases after power, no
amount of power will ever be enough as it’s always possible to get more. Further, even as we
achieve them, we gain with them not only the fear of losing what we have gained, which manifests as
a mental pain, but also the anger and animosity of those around us who now envy our position.
As such they are unnecessary, insatiable and lead to pain and fear if achieved,
consequently they are to be utterly avoided. "If you live according to nature, you will
never be poor; if you live according to opinion, you will never be rich."
Or, in the words of Seneca: “Nature's wants are slight; the
demands of opinion are boundless.” Following these definitions, it can be
tempting to think of Epicurus as an Ascetic, someone who believes in the denouncement of all
worldly possessions in favour of spiritual goals, but he was not quite that extreme.*
“There is also a limit in simple living, and he who fails to understand this falls
into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance.” – Epicurus
Epicurus’ position revolved around minimizing sources of pain not in eliminating all sources
of pleasure or all physical possessions. If eliminating something caused more pain
than it alleviated, what was the point? Further he held that the majority of all kinetic
pleasure was achieved in the process of satisfying our most basic needs, and luxuries while
pleasant, brought minimal added value. To understand this, imagine quenching
your thirst with water on a hot day, and then imagine quenching it with any other
drink of your choice. It is the quenching that brings the lion’s share of the pleasure, and the
flavour of the liquid really just adds variety, moving the pleasure sideways so to
speak, rather than greatly increasing it. I quoted earlier this famous phrase that
hung above the entrance to Epicurus’ Garden. Consider now Seneca’s commentary on that garden “The caretaker of that abode, a
friendly host, will be ready for you; he will welcome you with barley-meal, and serve
you water also in abundance, with these words: ‘Have you not been well entertained?’
This garden does not whet your appetite; but quenches it. Nor does it make you more thirsty
with every drink; it slakes the thirst with a natural cure – a cure that requires no fee. It is
with this type of pleasure that I have grown old.” The true meaning then is that the
aim of the Garden was to quench your appetite with simple fare, and
put a stop to your unnecessary desires. It is this that brings about Epicurus’
highest good of lasting pleasure. Consider for a moment that there are people who
pride themselves on their refinement of taste, and say things like “I only accept the best
in life” – to Epicurus this was backwards; you experience pain when you
can't satisfy what you want, so to deliberately train yourself to want refined
things is simply setting yourself up for pain. Teach yourself instead to take pleasure and joy
in simple things and you will always be happy. This thought is echoed in
Stoicism, with Epictetus’ words: "I do not need [luxuries]; but you,
even if you acquire many possessions, need still others, and whether you will or
not, are more poverty-stricken than I am." Religion & Death
Satisfying our natural desires alone is not enough to achieve Ataraxia
and a tranquil mind. For this we must remove all mental anguish and worry. To this end Epicurus
taught that we must not fear death or the gods. Death because we would not be
conscious of it when it happened, and the gods because it was unlikely
that they paid any attention to us. “Death is nothing to us. When we exist,
death is not; and when death exists, we are not. All sensation and consciousness
ends with death and therefore in death there is neither pleasure nor pain. The fear of
death arises from the belief that in death, there is awareness.” - Epicurus
His argument around death is essentially identical to that of the
Stoics, and indeed many other philosophies. His argument when it came to the gods however was
quite different. He held that either they lived in utter blessedness completely free from care, or
that they cared greatly about human affairs and so fretted over our actions, in such a case
they were effectively in a state of fear*. He couldn’t believe they existed in a state of
fear so chose to believe they instead ignored us. As such he said we need not concern ourselves
with them and therefore not fear them either. (The Roman poet Lucretius proudly referred
to Epicurus as the: "Destroyer of religion". To me this has some eery foreshadowing
of Nietzsche’s lament that “God is dead” which he made some 2,000 years later, funnily
enough as Epicureanism was making a revival.) I want also to briefly touch on the
Epicurean approach to society because there is a glaring difference with Stoicism.
Epicurus practiced a principle of “lathe biosas” which meant to “live in obscurity”
or to not draw attention to oneself. Meaning one should in general withdraw
from taking an active role in society and certainly not engage in politics, as
such things are likely only to perturb us. Done on an individual level this is
sustainable, one can live a productive and happy life surrounded by friends and
family and away from society at large. However, at a societal level, the more people
that practice this, the fewer people there are to take charge of the running of the state,
resist barbarian invasions and generally act for the public good. I guess you could say
it relies on the world not coming to you. It’s true that Stoics like Seneca talk frequently
about “retiring” from public life and solely pursuing philosophy, however the Stoics in general
had a very strong notion of civic responsibility, duty and even speaking truth to
power, as they were driven not by outcomes but by virtuous behaviour itself.*
To them tranquillity of mind came second. What’s more, many Epicureans including Epicurus
himself were also celibate since they considered the complications and pains that came with
romantic relationships to outweigh the benefits. Taken together these two issues lead to an
interesting question as to whether Epicureanism is a sustainable philosophy for a society to practice
at large, as it would likely lead to a decrease in birth rate and, in antiquity at least, would leave
a society more vulnerable to aggressive neighbours or the more the proselytizing*
sorts of philosophies and religions. Given that western society today,
at least the non-religious parts, probably leans toward an amalgamation of hedonism
and Epicureanism it might be worth considering. So What does an Epicurean life look
like and is it opposed to Stoicism? Having looked at the principles we can say
that Epicureanism is technically hedonistic; however, it is probably more
useful to think of it as ‘Tranquillistic’. Its principle
goal is the elimination of pain, both physical and mental, and any other active
form of pleasure seeking comes second to that. A short summary of how to practice
Epicureanism then would be: Focus on absolutely satisfying your natural
needs: food, shelter and friendship. Withdraw yourself from sources of pain and
disquietude, such as fame, responsibility and public office, and don’t pursue wealth beyond
what is required to fulfil your basic needs. Focus on bringing your friends into your life more Work can be rewarding, provided
you’re not doing it for the money, but in order to work cooperatively with friends
or do something you feel is innately valuable. Practice self-discipline: pain and
sacrifice should be chosen if they will yield greater tranquillity later.
"And ofttimes we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains
for a long time brings us as a consequence a greater pleasure. While therefore all pleasure
because it is naturally akin to us is good, not all pleasure is choiceworthy, just as all pain
is an evil and yet not all pain is to be shunned" On a theoretical level Epicureanism directly
contradicts Stoicism in its belief that a divine creator does not impact the world, in
its suggestion to withdraw from civic duty, and in its elevating of pleasure over virtue.
In this respect they are clearly opposed. But on a practical level both and Epicureans
and Stoics can lead similar lives. In order to live a true Epicurean life, one
must actively practice Temperance, Courage and Fortitude in order to limit oneself to natural
and necessary desires, fashion a life around that at the expense of all else, and maintain
the self-discipline necessary endure pain now for greater tranquillity later. While virtue
practiced under the motivation of reward might not sit well with Stoics, on a purely practical
level the effect is the same, virtuous action. In Seneca’s words Epicurus was a brave man
who practiced an ‘effeminate’ philosophy. “In my own opinion, however, Epicurus is really a
brave man, even though he did wear long sleeves. Fortitude, energy, and readiness for battle are
to be found among the Persians, just as much as among men who have girded themselves up high.
Ultimately, the degree to which they are in agreement depends on whether you are looking at
theory or practice. In theory they differ a lot, in practice there is far more overlap. With
this in mind, what practical takeaways can Stoics and Epicureans take from one another
without sacrificing their core beliefs? “This is my own custom; from the many things which
I have read, I claim some one part for myself.” A takeaway for Stoics is to Genuinely assess
whether your true basic needs are met: Compared with antiquity, modern society is abundant, so for
most people food and shelter are not a problem. However, what is far harder these days is
community. Modern lifestyles can be severely isolating and consequently many people miss out on
the most fundamental human need of companionship. Ask yourself if this applies to you, and if
so, prioritise fixing it even at great material expense because holding on to money and luxuries
won’t have nearly as much effect on your life as being in a position to frequently interact
with your close friends. This courage to radically alter life to meet our “natural and necessary”
desires is a large part of Epicureanism. “Of all the means to ensure happiness throughout
the whole life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends.” - Epicurus
Secondly, and as an extension of that topic we can seek to remove sources of pain
before seeking out new sources of pleasure: – An example of this would be choosing to replace
a mundane object that is disrupting your life such as a faulty washing machine, before acquiring
a new luxury object like a flagship smartphone. In nearly all situations the pain and disturbance
caused by the faulty mundane object will outweigh the hedonic pleasure from the new luxury object.
So spend time appraising what things in your life are causing you pain and focus your resources on
fixing them rather than seeking out new pleasures. Both of these suggestions
seem obvious when stated, but really, it’s the prioritization of them
over other concerns that is the true challenge. And what can Epicureans take from the
Stoics without undermining their philosophy? Incorporating Stoicism as an Epicurean
First I would suggest recognising that however much you seek to remove pain from
the world, there will always be pain, and so learning to expect and endure it
can be as valuable as trying to remove it. Second, I would suggest that if what matters
is achieving a happy life, then sometimes just acting as if certain things are true can have
better results than acting as if they are not. For example, many religions preach that God is
always watching and so we should always be good. An atheist or Epicurean would reject that,
but a similar Stoic proposal is just to imagine from minute to minute that your
hero or ideal self is watching over you and let that affect your actions.
Both of these are the same idea, but one is inherently religious and the other is
just a thought experiment. The point is that both encourage you to live up to your best self
which is surely something you should want. Even if they are not literally true, there can
be value in acting as if they are, rather than rejecting them because they sound irrational.
And finally, I’d recommend thinking of virtuous action as a rule of thumb for good
outcomes. The world is extremely complicated and often we can’t rationally predict the result
of our actions, defaulting to virtuous action, even if painful in the moment, will tend
to lead to better results for everyone. All of these arguments are pragmatic,
intended only as a suggestion on how both sides can better practical results
without needing to change underlying beliefs. This has been a very brief examination
of Epicureanism, I’ve done my best to represent it concisely and accurately, and to
compare it in practical terms with Stoicism. Hopefully it helps in not only understanding
Epicureanism but making better sense of Seneca and Epictetus’ critiques of it. Personally, I found
the process very interesting as a glimpse into the development of western philosophy, how the
seeds of later philosophies like Utilitarianism, Contractarianism and Humanism were planted by
Epicurus in 300BC, but disappeared for thousands of years due to societal pressures, before
finally sprouting again in the Enlightenment. It also made me consider to what degree
our current society is inclined towards Epicureanism and to what degree that is
sustainable on a civilizational level. But, that is a thought for another day. I welcome
your thoughts and opinions in the comment section. Thank you for listening.
