Many people today connect Epicurus with a sophisticated enjoyment of fine wine and cuisine. Is that correct?
I feel that if you listen closely on a quiet night you can hear the thumping of Epicurus spinning in his grave over the simplified reduction of his philosophies to expensive life styles. The reality is that he was firmly against luxurious lifestyles. Epicurus viewed food simply as a means remove the pain caused by hunger. “Plain dishes offer the same pleasure as a luxurious table, when the pain that comes from want is taken away.” Epicurus viewed the want (or need as we often define it today) to gain wealth as unnatural and unnecessary. Although wealth can certainly be seen as a tool for gaining pleasure, the pain that is associated with it (the loss of freedom, time with loved ones, and time to think) created greater pain and anxiety than it cured.
Epicurus and his small band of followers lived in Athens in a communal garden. They considered women and former slaves to be their equals, which was virtually unheard of at the time. They all took a vow to eschew the topsy-turvy politics of the day and strived for ataraxia and aponia or freedom from physical and mental troubles. The greatest and most reliable tool for achieving these was moderation.
How did Epicurus define pleasure?
Here’s a quote: “When we say that pleasure is an end, we do not mean the pleasure of the profligate or that which depends on physical enjoyment… we mean a state wherein the body is free from pain and the mind from anxiety.” So pleasure is defined as the cessation of pain. This guaranteed a moderate view of pleasure so as to defend one against profligation.
How would Epicurus react to our times?
Epicurus would be as appalled with the rampant materialism of today’s America as he was with that of ancient Athens. America as the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world is much like ancient Greece with many people deep in personal debt, grossly overweight and troubled by addictions. The prescription that Epicurus would give would be to separate one’s natural needs, from natural wants, and unnatural wants. What was natural and necessary to Epicurus included food, water and shelter but also friendship, freedom and thought, particularly about how to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Luxurious food and shelter were natural to want, but not necessary. Fame and fortune were both unnatural and unnecessary. To gain either is to lose a necessary good.
If Epicurus were alive today, how would he live? What would he drive?
Everyone in the garden would have chipped in and bought a communal vehicle that they could use to carpool but he would walk whenever possible. Working for gas money could cause more pain that the vehicle was worth, but if the walk were more painful than the work he would drive. If he did work, (which I doubt he would), he might open an anti-ad agency.
Why an anti-ad agency?
Some of his followers took out ads in the agora (marketplace) of Athens in the second century that warned against the lies and double talk of advertisements. Any money that Epicurus made from this venture would go to purchasing a communal home (simple but spacious) and the rest would be saved (not invested—he warned that investments can be lost and cause pain) to safeguard against the ills of being poor.
Jason Moulenbelt teaches Intro to Philosophy, Intro to Ethics – Business Ethics, Philosophy of Religion, Intro to World Religions, and Logic and originated an on-campus organization called The Think Factory www.thethinkfactory.net. To learn more about Lone Star College–CyFair, visit www.cyfaircollege.com