Can Epicureans have a public life? a political theory?

Great Debates
1

Well, reading Epicurus, it’s a pretty enticing theory. You know, the whole pleasure without things. Just pure, unhedonistic pleasure. I agree with it, too, to the extent that I understand it.

There’s one catch: It seems as though one has to completely seperate himself from the rest of the world in order to succeed. Is that right? I mean, Epicurus himself warns about love even because it can cause enormous pain (which is obviously not pleasure, which is the telos of a happy life). Didn’t he build gardens on the outskirts of town to get away?

I’m just curious if I have to leave my girlfriend, my family, and go live alone in the country to be Epicurean. Though, I don’t want to be a politician, do I have to give up paying attention to politics to be Epicurean? Is there an Epicurean political strategy?

2

I don’t know a lot about Epicureanism, but you make it sound a lot like Buddhism. Is there a difference?

3

After some time, all of this stuff seems to sound exactly the same.

I think there are a lot of Buddhist and Christian ideas (as I understand them) in Epicureanism.

The central idea is that pleasure is the sole telos (end, purpose) in life, but it’s not the same idea of pleasure as in hedonism. This is not a pleasure found in objects or actions.

His works for the most part are pretty short (especially the Maximes Capitales and his various letters to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus).

Lucritius wrote on The Nature of Things, which is a poem of epicurean ideals.

Here’s a good site where you can find all of this:
http://www.epicurus.info/etexts.html

4

Scratch the “actions” from “This is not a pleasure found in objects…” I was thinking along the lines of having sex with anyone you want or something like that, but of course there are other actions that are good concerning Epicureanism.

Another thing, the Buddhist idea of ridding yourself of desire seems pretty similar to Epicureanism.

5

From the Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism:

Based on that, I would infer that there is no such thing as “Epicurean politics” as such. Avoiding politics might not be absolutely incumbent on a good Epicurean – but probably the safest course, since politics is such a turbulent business and incompatible with Epicurean tranquility.

6

Crap. Guess there’s no hope for me as an Epicurean…I mean…sex?

7

It looked to me like abstaining from sex was an application of Epicureanism, but not essential. If you are capable of enjoying sex without becoming unbalanced, I don’t see why you couldn’t.

8

Okay…then there is hope…

I’m all about balance.

Now, about the politics…I gotta figure that out…

9

I have found great similarities between Buddhism and Epicureanism myself. I’ve wondered if there was not a cross-fertilization of ideas during ancient times that has been lost to the shadows of time. An essence of both is that ‘life is for the living’, and thus a concern more for the tangible physical world over the intangible metaphysical or supernatural realms. Yet on the whole, I find Buddhism seeks a non-attachment, but not a total disengagement with the material world, not out of sense that it is ‘undesirable’ in itself, but that attaching undue importance to the tangible, yet impermanent world leads to ‘undesirable’ ends.

Epicureanism strikes me as the ideal life for the lay Buddhists, those who belief in the tenets of Buddhism, but for whatever reasons decide not to seek Enlightenment and join a monastery - at least this time around. They both emphasize finding the Middle Way between too much and too little. Epicureanism strikes me as more aesthetic in its approach. Perhaps it is only me, but a fictional character that struck me as very Epicurean was Inspector Morse, especially in his love for Wagner and a cask-drawn ale, as both represented the greater achievements of the civilized world.

I have not read the Epicurean philosophers in a while, but Buddha advocated a renunciation from the ‘normal’ world for those who wish to seek enlightenment, he realized that such a path was not for all his followers, and he had many lay followers/supporters. With regard to them, he emphasized compassion and humility, yet the five main tenets applied to all of his followers:

  1. Do no harm to living beings
  2. Do not take that which is not given
  3. Avoid sexual misconduct
  4. Be honest, avoid deception (fight ignorance :slight_smile: )
  5. Avoid intoxicants :frowning:

This page gives a good synopsis. (Warning a LITTLE LOUD at the beginning)

Historically, Buddhism had been more apolitical than I like, but it is consistent, as it seeks development more on a personal level, than a social one.

In general, I find much of my political views influenced by Buddha’s teachings, which when broken down fall into essentially:
a) promote social justice
b) promote sustainable/non-exploitive economics
c) advocate a libertarian government
d) advocate pacifist/diplomatic solutions

I would argue, I do argue, that an Epicurean politics would be very much along the same lines.

10

The more I study the world, East and West, ancien and modern, I’m starting to think that throughout history, in a lot of different parts of the world, various people were all arriving at generally the same conclusions about things.

11

Slight hijack, but your the OP, so - Actually I see the opposite. Other than at the most basic consensus that a society needs to exist - respect for property, a general sense of trust among the population that your neighbors wont kill you in the middle of the night, etc., most societies have developed very distinct philosophies. Confucianism has a radically different view of society than the Greco-Roman tradition. Native American and native African societies were tribal/clan-based, but similarities end fairly quickly when you study the actual cultures. Respect for propery is an essential part of a functional society, but the justifications and beliefs regarding property vary widely. I would say that in prehistoric times, most societies seemed to share a very similar animist tradition that still exists in various parts of the world - Madagascar, Japan (Shintoism), Native Americans. But most ‘civilizations’ went their own separate ways after that.

I see the similarity between Epicurus and Buddha an exception rather than a norm.

12

That idea is something that I’m still learning how to explain. It might just be from desire to see similarity that I see similarity. I’ve gotten in trouble on other posts for making comments like that.

I’m talking about the comparisons within cultures, that are similar to others in other cultures. If you look at the relation between Confucianism and Taoism, for instance, then analyzed it in respect to contrasting ideas in other cultures, that’s where the similarities arise.

The problem (and it’s a big one, I understand) is that I don’t yet have the vast knowledge or capacity to recall minutia that I wish I had to back this up. It basically amounts to me studying different cultures and religions and having a lot of “that’s just like…” or “their relation is like…”

I probably should obstain from saying things like this until I know better.

13

If I recall correctly, the main difference between the Epicurists and the Stoics is that the former were more inner directed, and felt no compunction about—in fact, tried to avoid—being part of the body politic.

14

Stoics, OTOH – the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic. He apparently saw no contradiction between that and running a government. His last word on his deathbed was equanimitas. Equanimity. “Don’t let it get to you.” Not much different from the Epicurean ideal of tranquility.

15

Notice the overwhelming number of cites in my last post. :slight_smile: Please don’t abstain from stating your viewpoints.

IANAAnthropologist/Sociologist/or Historian. I just read alot. Conclusions are only as strong as their evidence. If I have them I present them. My arguments above are based more on unquantifiable experience. If I were to write a paper for publication I would build a far stronger case then that. But my positions are based on my experiences - I decided to join the SDMB since it is a great place to test the conclusions reached from those experiences. If ya wanna see if an idea is gonna sink or swim, ya first gotta put in the water.

That said, I can see the point you make. It is definitely worth exploring, and I hope you continue to do so.

16

Very different, and almost diametrically opposed (and the Epicureans and Stoics hated each other, btw). Epicureans worried about what was personally good for them, and what would make them happy. Stoics worried about what was good for the world as a whole and what would be best for that. That’s why Epicureans avoided politics and Stoics didn’t…Epicureans said that a politician could never be happy, so no Epicurean could be a politician, while Stoics said that, even though an individual might not like politics, he had a moral duty to participate to help his community.

The Epicureans said the universe was random, governed by chance, and that there was no purpose to events. Stoics said that the universe was ordered, almost organic, and governed by universal natural and moral laws,

Epicureans said that to be happy, someone should try to ignore pain and unpleasantness, while Stoics said that a person should train himself to be indifferent to pain and unpleasantness.

As for the earlier comments made by someone that Buddhism is similar to Epicureanism, I think it’s really more similar to Stoicism. If you want to find an Indian analog to Epicureanism, I’d say Carvaka is most similar.

17

Perhaps Epicureanism is closer to Taoism? (I recall a Taoist fable about a sage who was offered a government office; he immediately ran to the nearest river to wash out his ears, and a peasant berated him for polluting the river.)

18

Holy crap…that’s me. I’m a stoic. I get so worked up about things going on in the news (which is politics, for the most part) that my girlfriend asks me, “Why don’t you just quit paying attention? Why do you like it so much, anyway?”

“I hate it!” I always tell her, “but once I know that people are doing the thing’s they’re doing, I can’t stop paying attention and doing what I can to fix what I see as detrimental. I feel like it’s my duty.”

Damnit. I want to be an Epicurean. Epicurus had it easy. He didn’t have the internet.

PS - Captain Amazing, can good Epicureans really hate?

19

We’re saying the same thing. I was drawingh a distinction between the Stoics and the Epicurists. You’re right, the Stoics embraced being part of and playing an active role in the community. The Epicurists were happier to remove themselves from it.

20

BTW, how did “epicure” come to be a rough synonym for “gourmet”?