Epicurean Coping Strategies, Epistemology

G. Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy: The Systems of the Hellenistic Age, trans. John R. Catan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985) 98, 120-121, 124.

[For Theophrastus in the fourth-third centuries B.C.E., t]he Stoics and Epicureans are deluded when they say that the wise man can be happy even when being tortured: where there is suffering and pain there is no happiness (98).

The teachings which came out of the [Epicurean] Garden can be summarized in a few general propositions: 1) reality is perfectly penetrable and knowable by the intelligence of man; 2) in the dimensions of reality there is space for the happiness of human beings; 3) happiness is the absence of pain and suffering, it is the peace of the spirit; 4) in order to achieve this happiness and this peace man needs only himself; 5) therefore he does not need the city-state, institutions, the nobility, wealth, and things in general, not even the Gods: man is completely autarchic (120-121).

Bignone: When anxiety about the supernatural overcomes, and earthly reality seems to be full of superstition and error, and true knowledge no longer inquires through the way of experience, but through mystical and religious apocalyptics (hence it will seem useless to worry about what can never be understood about the world and which will one day be revealed to us), when earthly existence itself is irredeemably condemned, and man aspires to nothing other than to leave it as soon as possible, only then will the philosophy of Epicurus vanish, as well as all the sunny realities of the ancient world (121).

Keep in mind that for Epicurus sensations are always, every one of them, true without any exceptions. In fact, if only one of the senses, even for only one time, were mistaken, then there could not be faith in any of the senses and the validity of sensation as such would collapse (124).

Epicureanism is often stereotyped with the slogan "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow may bring pain or death." That's how it was presented to me in my high school world history class, and maybe it's valid. I don't know.

But the above quotes indicate to me that Epicureanism was about more than having a good time. It wanted people to find happiness from within themselves, apart from many of the external things that are supposed to make us happy (e.g., money, status, relationships). It was concerned with this life, not an alleged afterlife. And it was interested in epistemology: the question of how we know what we know. Epicureans were distrustful of mysticism, religion, or a focus on the Platonic "forms" in the pursuit of knowledge. Rather, for Epicureans, our senses are an infallible guide to the world around us. Notice in the last quote that the Epicurean treats the senses as many Christian fundamentalists approach the Bible: if it's in error in one part, then how can we trust what it says about anything?

One thing that I don't understand about Epicureanism: it focuses on the senses, and yet it insists that a wise man can be happy even while he experiences bodily pain. How is this the case? Does the wise man ignore the pain he is sensing, while focusing on the positive?

As far as its stance on religion is concerned, I'm rather mixed. Paul also could find joy in the midst of his pain, but that's because he had faith in certain concepts: that God loved him, that Christ made him his own, that he had an important mission from God, and that he would inherit a blissful afterlife. What positive ideas would Epicureans give a suffering person to focus on?

I'm not saying that religion is absolutely necessary for a positive attitude, for perhaps one can choose to be in a good mood and not to let the bad weigh him down--to sever his "give a shit" cord. Maybe one can set his mind on the beautiful, the noble, and the humorous without the assistance of religion. Thinking about funny things in my life, on television, and in books puts me in a good mood! An atheist once told me that he had the internal resources to get through life alone, without a wife and kids. I wonder how he does this. And would his strategies resonate with the Epicureans?

Religion can also make one unhappy, especially when it makes people continually evaluate if they're good enough. For example, as I've shared here, there are many times when I do not know how my afterlife will turn out. Will I go to hell, and does hell involve eternal torment? Paul states in Galatians 5:19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (NRSV).

I have envy and anger. I guess I'm an adulterer, since Jesus said looking at a woman with lust is adultery (Matthew 5:28). So will I not enter the kingdom of God? The Puritans had a fun side, but no wonder there were many of them who became neurotic as a result of their religion, which continually made them insecure about whether they were a part of God's "elect"!

As far as the Epicurean stance on sensual epistemology is concerned, I think it's a little extreme. Our senses can deceive us, for there are such things as hallucinations. Add to that the possibility of us misinterpreting what we are seeing or hearing. But, just because our senses are not perfectly reliable, that doesn't mean that they're never reliable! Most of the time, they help us navigate our way through life quite well.

Can we say the same about the Bible? The Bible makes claims about a lot of things that I can't see, things that I can't evaluate one way or the other. I don't know the mind of God, unless God reveals himself. In the case of the Bible, I think fundamentalists make a valid point that, for us to be sure that any of it is correct, we must have assurance that all of it is correct. If the Bible says something is God's will, how could I evaluate whether it is true or false? But Epicureans wouldn't buy into the Bible, since they were more or less positivists. I doubt they'd be open to believing in the unseen!