The Absolute Beginner's Guide To Epicurus

Epicurus held that gods exist, but that gods are not supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, or many of the other things people often think about when they use the term "god."

Epicurus held that all things that exist are natural, and therefore gods cannot be supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, immortal by nature, or have any other supernatural attribute. There is a debate among scholars as to whether Epicurus identified specific gods with actual physical existence. It is possible that Epicurus was certain of their existence only as conceptual constructions of the human mind. In either case, Epicurus taught that in order to avoid the trap of supernatural religion, it is essential to have a proper conception of "gods" as totally natural but also totally uninvolved in human affairs.

Epicurus taught that the word pleasure should be interpreted extremely broadly, and that "pleasure" includes not only sensual stimuluation but also all other experiences and feelings which are not painful.

Epicurus held that there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain, and therefore all experiences of life which are not painful are held to be pleasurable. When Epicureans held that "Pleasure" is "the guide of life" or "the highest good," he is referring to Pleasure in this general two-fold sense, and not to any individual experience of a particular tyle of pleasure. "Pleasure" therefore includes not only all agreeable mental and physical experiences, but also all healthy and non-painful mental and physical functioning of regular day-to-day life.

Epicurus taught that the phrase "absence of pain" means the exactly same thing as the single word "pleasure."

Epicurus held that there are only two categories of feelings, pleasure and pain, and therefore that the absence of one implies the presence of the other. It is important to realize that the single word "pleasure" can refer to either (1) a single experience of pleasure, or (2) a general umbrella category of all possible pleasures of body and of mind. Epicurus talks about pleasure in both senses, but philosophically speaking, the major issue is whether the goal of life should be seen as "piety" or "virtue" or "pleasure." Therefore when Epicurus confronts this ultimate issue, and he wishes to refer to the wider conceptual perspective which includes all pleasures of every type, he regularly uses the phrase "absence of pain." For example, we generally say "ice cream is a pleasure" and not "ice cream is absence of pain." Nevertheless, when we are speaking about goals of life and guides for achieving them, the term "absence of pain" makes clear that we are talking about the general category and not any particular pleasure. In sum the goal of life is "Pleasure" as contrasted with "obedience to gods" or "ideal virtue," but the goal of life is not any particular pleasure.

Epicurus taught that "the highest pleasure" means that your whole experience is filled with pleasures without any mixture of pains.

Just as "pleasure" refers to all pleasures, rather than to any particular pleasure, the term "the highest pleasure" refers to an overall condition, rather than to any particular aspects of that condition. Epicurus taught that the "height" or "limit" of pleasure occurs when all pain is eliminated from one's total experience, which means by definition that the total experience is unmixed with any pains. This is again a conceptual perspective rather than a particular condition at a particular moment. On most occasions, as on the last day his life when Epicurus experienced both severe bodily pain from kidney disease accompanied by mental pleasure of being with his friends, as humans we must expect a combination of pleasures and pains. Epicurus held that the wise man will arrange his affairs so as to see that the pleasures of life are worth more than the pains ("to have more reason for joy than for vexation").

Epicurus taught that virtue is a tool for living happily and not an end in itself.

In contrast to the Stoics and most others of his time, Epicurus denied that virtue is absolute or an end in itself. Because Epicurus held the goal of life to be pleasure, Epicurus held virtue to be an instrument or tool for the purpose of living pleasurably. Most people in Epicurus' age and today angrily reject this viewpoint, but it is the logical conclusion of identifying that there can be but a single "goal" or "greatest good" in life, and that that single objective is not "virtue" but "pleasure."

Epicurus taught that after we die we never experience anything ever again.

Epicurus taught that human consciousness (the soul or spirit) dissipates from the body and ceases to exist when the body dies. As we no longer exist after death, we will never receive any reward or punishment for anything that we do in life. This does not mean that we should not be concerned about what happens to others after we die, or the time or manner of our death, because life is desirable, a painful death is undesirable, and it gives it gives us pleasure while we are alive to provide for the future of our friends, just as Epicurus wrote a will and provided for his school and the daughters of Metrodorus after his own death. After we die we no longer exist, and that is a state of nothingness to us in which we have no pain or pleasure of any kind.

Epicurus taught that everything in the universe is ultimately composed of atoms and void, but this does not mean that we should consider our world to be "unreal."

The view that "nothing exists except atoms and void" can be interpreted by some people to lead to skepticism and determinism, as it is reputed to have done in the case of Democritus. Epicurus vigorously rejected that view by emphasizing that what is "real" to us is given to us by our senses, and not by that which can never be seen or touched or felt in any way. Epicurus taught that we should look upon as "real" anything which can physically affects us. Bodies have properties and qualities of bodies which can affect us, and so they re "real" to us even though they are ultimately composed of atoms and void. As Professor David Sedley put it, "Almost uniquely among Greek philosophers [Epicurus] arrived at what is nowadays the unreflective assumption of almost anyone with a smattering of science, that there are truths at the microscopic level of elementary particles, and further very different truths at the phenomenal level; that the former must be capable of explaining the latter; but that neither level of description has a monopoly of truth. (The truth that sugar is sweet is not straightforwardly reducible to the truth that it has such and such a molecular structure, even though the latter truth may be required in order to explain the former)."

When Epicurus spoke of "worlds" he meant not just the Earth, but all that we see in the sky as well.

Epicurus taught that our "world" consists not only of the Earth, but also of the sun, moon, stars, and planets we see around us. Epicurus also taught that in addition to what we can see from Earth, there are an infinite number of other such worlds. Given the power of infinity of time and space, and the observation that Nature never makes only a single thing of a type, Epicurus held that the universe is full of worlds and full of life, some like ours and some very different from ours.

When Epicurus spoke of "atoms" he meant indivisible particles which move through space, which is not what we use the word "atom" to mean today.

As a philospher, Epicurus approached the nature of the universe conceptually, rather than with microscopes or with the advanced instruments we have today. Questions of how the universe is composed were highly charged with religious and philosophical meaning. Religionsts held that the universe was ultimately supernatural. Skeptics held that the universe was in flux and beyond comprehension by human senses. Determinists and fatalists argued that the universe was strictly mechanical. Some thought that motion and time are impossible - mere illusions - rather than real.

Epicurus built on Democritus' foundation to deepen the theory of atomism to account for all that our senses reveal to us. Seeing elemental particles as purely natural, Epicurus dispensed with supernaturalism. Seeing it to be well within human power to apprehend the fluctuations of bodies made of atoms through reasoned application of our senses, Epicurus dispensed with radical skepticism. Seeing that all things are not in fact predetermined, Epicurus postulated "the swerve" as an answer to mechanistic fatalism. In each case, Epicurus pointed out the inherent self-contradictions within the religionist, skeptic, and determinist positions. Whether or not you prefer to see Epicurean atoms as today's subatomic particles, or in some other way, the ultimate value of the Epicurean approach is its insistence that speculation about nature must always be brought into consistency with the evidence of the senses.

Epicurus developed a "canonical" approach in which theories about the unknown are always tested against the observations of the senses in order to reach well-grounded opinions we can consider to be true.

Epicurus is frequently considered to be an "empiricist," because of the emphasis that he placed on the senses. This can be confusing, however, because what Epicurus in fact held was that the senses are not themselves true opinions, but the tests by which we judge whether an opinion is true. The senses are a measuring stick, which is very different from our opinion of the thing being measured.

The three "legs" of the Epicurean Canon are the Five Senses (sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell), the Faculty of Prolepsis or Anticipation (an ability of the mind to recognize patterns), and the "Feelings" (pleasure and pain). Epicurus taught that humans are born neither with "innate ideas" nor as a "blank slate," but with faculties that allow us to make sense of our world and life happily within it.

Epicurus taught that the canonical faculties - including the five senses - report data to us without adding any opinion of their own.

The word "true" can have many shades of meaning, and among them is "true" in the sense of "honestly reported." As in the case of a witness in court, a witness may testify honestly with information that he or she observed, but that information may be only a part of the wider truth of a subject that the witness only partially or defectively observed. Epicurus taught that each of the canonical faculties - the senses, anticipations, and feelings - report what they receive honestly and without memory or intelligent bias. As such, all reports of the senses are entitled to being considered to be "true" in the sense of "honestly reported." Were this not the case, and if the senses knowingly reported falsehoods to us, there would be no way for us to have confidence that any conclusion assembled in our minds based on our senses is accurate, a conclusion which would lead directly to radical skepticism.

• Working solely with the science available two thousand years ago, Epicurus observed that nothing ever arises from nothing, and nothing is ever completely destroyed to nothing. From this Epicurus deduced the existence of atoms - elemental particles moving through empty space from which over time all things are made and return. Given that nothing we observe ever comes into existence except through pre-existing atoms, Epicurus concluded that the universe as a whole has always existed, and that while bodies come and go, there was never a time before the universe as a whole came into being.
• Given that the universe has always existed, we can firmly reject the contention that the universe was created at some point in time by supernatural forces. All that we see around us is a result of the natural movement of atoms through void over time. This does not mean that only the atoms are real, however, because Nature tells us that bodies made from atoms are also real . More than anything else, this commitment to the true reality of Nature, and the rejection of all notions of the supernatural, is the starting point for everything else in the Epicurean worldview.
• As Epicurus wrote to Herodotus: "Nothing is created out of that which does not exist: for if it were, everything would be created out of everything with no need of seeds." (Bailey - line 38) This is the way Epicurus teaches us to reason - always stating the evidence behind our conclusions, and never accepting any possibilities based on pure speculation or wishful thinking. The atomic basis of the universe explains how all that we see around us came into existence neither randomly or chaotically, but naturally as a result of elemental particles moving through space. The properties of atoms, and not the dictates of any supernatural forces, determines what can, and what cannot, come into being.
• Click here for a slideshow video explaining this doctrine . Find out more in our Physics Forum, our Wiki, and our Discussion Guide .

• Once Epicurus determined that the universe results from atoms moving naturally through void, he reasoned that the universe could not exist if the atoms were infinite in number but space were limited in size. If that were so, everything would be close-packed and nothing could move. Likewise, the universe could not exist if the atoms were limited in number but space were unlimited in size, If that were so, the atoms would never combine into bodies, any more that debris floating on a vast ocean could ever come together to form solid objects. Epicurus therefore deduced that universe is infinite in size - both the number of atoms and the extent of space are infinite in extent.
• From this Epicurus concluded that there can be nothing "outside" the universe as a whole, and so everything that exists is a part of the universe if it exists at all. This conclusion eliminates the possibility of supernatural forces existing "over" or "outside" the universe, and it focuses our attention on the tremendous implications of infinity. Given the infinity of atoms and space, all combinations of atoms which are possible can be expected to come into existence an infinite number of times and places. This does not mean that "anything" is possible, because some combinations of atoms are physically impossible. We know, for example,that there are no "Centaurs," or "Supernatural Gods," because it is Nature itself which sets the limits between what is possible and what is impossible.
• As Epicurus wrote to Herodotus: "These brief sayings, if all these points are borne in mind, afford a sufficient outline for our understanding of the nature of existing things. Furthermore, there are infinite worlds both like and unlike this world of ours. For the atoms being infinite in number, as was proved already, are borne on far out into space. For those atoms, which are of such nature that a world could be created out of them or made by them, have not been used up either on one world or on a limited number of worlds, nor again on all the worlds which are alike, or on those which are different from these. So that there nowhere exists an obstacle to the infinite number of the worlds." (Bailey, at 45). *Find out more [here](02-InfiniteUniverse.md).
• Click here for a slideshow video explaining this doctrine . Find out more in our Physics Forum, our Wiki, and our Discussion Guide .

• In his characteristic commitment to pursuing truth wherever it leads, Epicurus did not stop at denying the existence of supernatural places or gods. Epicurus observed that we see here on Earth that Nature never makes a single thing of a kind, and that things of a kind are distributed over a spectrum of primitive through advanced conditions. Epicurus therefore reasoned that from this that the universe is filled with other Earths, and other types of living beings, some of which are less advanced and some more advanced than humans. Here on earth we see that life struggles to extend its life and its happiness, and Epicurus deduced that throughout the universe there are beings even more successful at this than humans. We should therefore expect that the universe contains beings which are totally happy and totally deathless, and these beings deserve to be regarded as "gods," when we consider how that term should be accurately defined.
• Even though we do not observe such beings here on earth with our eyes and ears and other senses, our minds are disposed by Nature to realize that such beings are possible. We as humans benefit from identifying these beings as models which we can and do emulate to the extent possible as part of our natural striving to live more happy and healthy lives. Even more importantly, the identification of "gods" having no characteristics inconsistent with blessedness and imperishability enables us to grasp firmly that we have nothing to fear from such beings, as they are exclusively concerned with their own happiness.
• As Epicurus said to Menoeceus, "First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his incorruption or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and incorruption. For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision. But they are not such as the many believe them to be: for indeed they do not consistently represent them as they believe them to be. And the impious man is not he who popularly denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many. For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods. For men being accustomed always to their own virtues welcome those like themselves, but regard all that is not of their nature as alien." (Bailey at 123) *Find out more [here](02-InfiniteUniverse.md).
• Find out more in our Physics Forum , our Wiki, and our Discussion Guide .

• Given that the universe is entirely natural, contains nothing that is supernatural, we know that no gods have endowed us with immortal souls that can survive death. Epicurus therefore concluded that consciousness is an attribute of the body, and cannot survive outside the body, so our lives end forever at death. This obviously means also that there can be no punishment to fear, or reward to hope for, after death. This knowledge, rather than being cause for despair, frees us to pursue happiness. We are motivated by this, rather than depressed, because the realization that death is nothingness to us means that the reverse is also true: life is everything to us, and we should pursue it with all the vigor we can muster.
• The confidence that had no existence for the eternity that passed before we were born, and that we will have no existence for the eternity that will pass after we die, spurs us to focus on making the best use of the time that is available to us. As Epicurus wrote in Principal Doctrine 2, "Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us." Not only does Epicurean doctrine provide motivation to live in the here and now, it gives us strength to face the many painful challenges of life. Epicurus taught that pain is manageable if it continues for very long, and that pain is short if it is intense, but in no case does pain have the power to hold us in its grip indefinitely, because we always have the power to escape pain through death, where no punishment can reach us.
• But be clear: life is our most valuable possession, and this is not a sanction for suicide except in the most extreme of circumstances. Epicurus taught that it is a small man indeed who has many reasons for ending his own life. Instead, it is a call to bravery in facing adversity, because as Epicurus wrote to Menoeceus, "There is nothing terrible in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living."
• Find out more in our Physics Forum , our Wiki , and our Discussion Guide .

• During the brief span of life that is available to us there are no supernatural commandments to follow, and it is necessary for us to act wisely to identify the best life available to us. Therefore Epicurus held that there could be nothing more demoralizing than to think that we have no power over our actions and our future. Epicurus therefore singled out two belief systems as particularly false and harmful. The first falsehood is "Determinism" - the view that due to fate, supernatural forces, or even a purely mechanistic understanding of nature of atoms, we have no control whatsoever over our lives.
• Epicurus realized that Determinism is not only damaging, but demonstrably false. Against such mechanistic views of the universe Epicurus advanced not only the physics of "the swerve of the atom," but he also pointed out the self-contradictory nature Determinism. Epicurus cited this self-contradiction when he wrote: "The man who says that all things come to pass by necessity cannot criticize one who denies that all things come to pass by necessity: for he admits that this too happens of necessity." (VS 40) And as a practical matter, Epicurus pointed out that we do clearly have control over the supreme choice in life: we have the ability to end our lives at any time, so nothing can compel us to continue to live under necessity.
• Epicurus held that if we have the power to make this most important decision in life, we also have the power to control many other lesser aspects of life. Deterministic or fatalistic beliefs are poisons that must be avoided at all costs, so Epicurus wrote "For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation."
• Find out more in our Physics Forum , our Wiki , and our Discussion Guide .

• The second poisonous doctrine that Epicurus identified is known to us today as Radical Skepticism. Skeptics hold that nothing in life can be known with confidence. The Skeptics of Epicurus' time argued, primarily due to their contention that the senses cannot be trusted, that we can never be certain of anything, and at most some things are "probable." Even something as obvious as the expectation that if you jump off a canyon wall you will fall to your death is not certain to such philosophers, it is merely "probable."
• Epicurus saw that this confidence-destroying doctrine suffers much the same flaw as Determinism - it is self-contradictory nonsense. Anyone who is ridiculous and absurd enough to advocate that "nothing can be known" is taking you for a fool, because he expecting you to accept that he knows that "nothing can be known." Epicurus held that that such arguments should not be taken seriously, any more than you should seriously accept the argument from a living person that it would be better never to have been born.
• Lucretius spoke for Epicurus in writing: " Again, if any one thinks that nothing is known, he knows not whether that can be known either, since he admits that he knows nothing. Against him then I will refrain from joining issue, who plants himself with his head in the place of his feet. And yet were I to grant that he knows this too, yet I would ask this one question; since he has never before seen any truth in things, whence does he know what is knowing, and not knowing each in turn, what thing has begotten the concept of the true and the false, what thing has proved that the doubtful differs from the certain? [Book 4:469]
• Find out more in our Canonics Forum , our Wiki, and our Discussion Guide .

• If Skepticism and Determinism are false, what did Epicurus advocate instead? Epicurus saw that much of the error of conventional thinkers arises from their contention that the faculties given us by nature are incapable of ascertaining truth, and that we need divine revelation or abstract syllogistic logic to determine what is really true. Epicurus vigorously rejected these assertions, and held that the faculties given to us by nature - the five senses, the feelings of pleasure and pain, and the mental anticipatory faculty of prolepsis - are fully sufficient for living in accord with nature.
• Epicurus identified that the perceptions of our natural faculties are not at all the same thing as the opinions which we form after processing those perceptions in our minds. Our natural faculties report their perceptions to the mind "truly," in the sense of "honestly," without adding any overlay of opinion of their own. Neither the eyes nor the ears nor any other faculty have any memory, and they simply relay to the mind what they perceive at any moment. it is in the mind where the perceptions are stored and turned into opinions about what is being perceived, and it is the mind which must undertake the task of processing the perceptions accurately. The eyes do not tell our minds what they see and the ears do not tell our minds what they hear, and so on – truth and error is in the mind, not in the faculties given by nature.
• The task of determining truth is that of the mind, which requires that we understand both nature and how our faculties process the perceptions provided to us by nature, because our faculties alone are our direct contacts with outside reality. As Lucretius wrote as to our "feelings" in general: " For that body exists is declared by the feeling which all share alike; and unless faith in this feeling be firmly grounded at once and prevail, there will be naught to which we can make appeal about things hidden, so as to prove aught by the reasoning of the mind." (Book 1:418)
• Find out more in our Canonics Forum , our Wiki, and our Discussion Guide .

• Skepticism and Determinism do not exhaust the list of lies and errors plaguing humanity. Epicurus saw that false priests and philosophers have erected a false ideal - "virtue" - as the goal of life. Epicurean philosophy has shocked the sensibilities of conventional thinkers for two thousand years by committing itself boldly to the conclusion that "virtue" is not absolute or an end in itself, and that Nature alone provides us the proper guide of life.
• As with "gods," Epicurus held that "virtue" is a useful concept, but one that has been drastically misunderstood. True "virtue" is not something given by divine revelation, or through logical analysis of ideal forms, but is instead simply a set of tools for living the best life possible. Epicurus held that virtue is not the same for all people, or the same at all times and places, but that instead what is virtuous varies with circumstance, according to whether the action is instrumental for achieving happiness. Good and evil are not absolutes, but instead consist in sensation, as Epicurus explained to Menoeceus: "Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation. And therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the craving for immortality." (124)
• Likewise, even something as highly regarded as justice is not absolute, but observable only in practical effects: "In its general aspect, justice is the same for all, for it is a kind of mutual advantage in the dealings of men with one another; but with reference to the individual peculiarities of a country, or any other circumstances, the same thing does not turn out to be just for all." (PD36)
• Find out more in our Ethics Forum , our Wiki, and our Discussion Guide .

• As if Epicurus had not sufficiently shocked conventional sensibilities by dismissing the existence of supernatural gods, and rejecting the pursuit of virtue as an end in itself, Epicurus tripled down on his philosophic revolution by holding that "Pleasure" is not something disreputable, but is indeed the Guide of life. Pointing out that in a universe in which there are no supernatural gods or absolute standards of virtue, it is still necessary to determine how we should live, Epicurus of course looked to Nature, and saw that Nature gives living beings only Pleasure and Pain by which to determine what to choose and what to avoid
• Flagrantly disregarding the wrath of the orthodox, Epicurus proclaimed Nature quite literally gave humanity "nothing" but Pleasure and Pain as guides. While there are many shades of feeling, all of them resolve down to being categorized pleasurable or painful, and there are no in-between, mixed, or third alternatives. As Epicurus' biographer summarized, "The internal sensations they say are two, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature, and the one is akin to nature and the other alien: by means of these two choice and avoidance are determined.“ (Diogenes Laertius 10:34)
• Epicurus did not consider this to be wordplay or wishful thinking, but the foundation on which to erect the highest and best way of life. Epicurean philosophy always looks to Nature rather than to wishful thinking, and so the Epicureans taught: "Moreover, seeing that if you deprive a man of his senses there is nothing left to him, it is inevitable that Nature herself should be the arbiter of what is in accord with or opposed to nature. Now what facts does she grasp or with what facts is her decision to seek or avoid any particular thing concerned, unless the facts of pleasure and pain? (Torquatus in Cicero's On Ends 1:30)
• Find out more in our Ethics Forum , our Wiki, and our Discussion Guide .

• One might think that stirring philosophers, priests, and politicians to exasperation on the topics of "Gods," and "Virtue" would be enough of a revolution for any one philosopher. But Epicurus's commitment to the truth led him to drive forward to correct the erroneous view of "Pleasure" as well. While virtually everyone before him had properly understood "pleasure" as including sensory stimulation, Epicurus saw this definition as perversely narrow. Epicurus therefore turned to clarifying how the term "pleasure" properly applies to more than sensory stimulation, just as the term "gods" properly applies only to non-supernatural beings.
• Epicurus realized that since Nature has given us only two feelings, if we are alive and feeling anything at all we then are feeling one or the other of the two. That means if we are not feeling pain, what we are feeling is in fact pleasure. This means that "Pleasure" involves much more than the sensory stimulation, which we have been trained by priests and virtue-based philosophers to consider the only meaning of the term. Once we understand that all experiences in life that are not painful are rightly considered to be pleasurable, Epicurus taught us that we can then use the term "Absence of Pain" as conveying exactly the same meaning as "Pleasure." The benefit of this perspective is that Pleasure becomes something that is widely available through a myriad of ways of life that do not require great pain to experience. Pleasure becomes a workable term to describe the goal of life, and a life of continuous pleasure in which pleasures predominate over pain becomes possible for all but the very few who face extreme circumstances (and even they need not face more pain than pleasure indefinitely.)
• Just as we should understand "gods" to refer to living beings who are blessed and imperishable, and "virtue" to refer to actions which lead to happiness, we should understand "pleasure" to refer to all experiences of life that are not painful. Torquatus preserves for us this explanation: "Therefore Epicurus refused to allow that there is any middle term between pain and pleasure; what was thought by some to be a middle term, the absence of all pain, was not only itself pleasure, but the highest pleasure possible. Surely any one who is conscious of his own condition must needs be either in a state of pleasure or in a state of pain. Epicurus thinks that the highest degree of pleasure is defined by the removal of all pain, so that pleasure may afterwards exhibit diversities and differences but is incapable of increase or extension.“ (On Ends 1:38)
• Find out more in our page dedicated to The Epicurean View of Pleasure , our Ethics Forum , our Wiki, and our Discussion Guide .

• As we close this list of some of Epicurus's most important doctrines, by now it should be no surprise that Epicurus held that life is very desirable. How could he reason otherwise, given that life is a necessity for the experience of pleasure, and pleasure is what Nature has given us as the goal to pursue? But Epicurus knew that humanity is not only fearful of death, but that we covet so strongly the possibility of living forever that we are constantly tempted by mystical claims offering us false promises of eternal life. Epicurus saw that he needed to answer that challenge, and deal with the concern that the inevitable death of our friends and ourselves constitutes a stain on life which forever spoils our happiness. Such a negative view of life was unacceptable to Epicurus, and he pointed out that death in fact does not deprive us of nearly so much as we think it does.
• Epicurus explains to us that his philosophy allows us to see that no matter how long we live, unlimited time can contain no "greater" pleasure than limited time. This is because time (duration) is only one aspect of pleasure. It makes no more sense for us to seek the longest time of life as the greatest pleasure as it would for us to measure the largest quantity of food at a banquet as being the best way to eat. While time is a relevant dimension, time is not at all the complete picture of pleasure, because pleasure involves not just time but intensity, and the part of the our experience that is affected; and in the end the "best" pleasure is a subjective assessment. Epicurus tells us we can see this by considering the person at a banquet, as already mentioned. Epicurus wrote to Menoeceus that the wise man at a banquet will choose not the most food, but the best food, and held that our desire should not be for the longest life, but the most pleasant life.
• When you remember the Epicurean worldview that there is no supernatural god, no absolute virtue or right and wrong to which we must conform, we can see that the decision as to what is the best life - the most complete life for us - is a matter for us to decide, and that time is neither the most important factor nor the determiner of our decision. Epicurus teaches us to compare our lives to a banquet, or to a jar that we are filling with water. What we should want to do is not to eat the most food, or continue pouring water into the jar after it is full, but to see that the "fullness of pleasure" and the completeness of life is something that we can retain despite our limited lifespans. No jar can be filled more full than full, and no life can be made more complete than complete: once we see that our target is a "complete" life, then "variation" - or the continuous adding-on of new pleasurable experiences – does not make the experience any more pleasant. And since it is pleasure that Nature gives us as our goal, Epicurean philosophy gives us a fighting chance - if we work to understand it and apply it properly - to consider our lives to be complete and in no need of unlimited time.
• Find out more in our Ethics Forum , our Wiki, and our Discussion Guide .

• The best life results when we hold firmly and consistently to the major doctrines of Epicurus, and when we reject all that is inconsistent with them. This requires study and effort, and in a world full of anti-Epicurean opinions, it is not for the faint-hearted. For those who are persuaded by Epicurus' teachings, the path is clear.

• As "Torquatus" summarized for us in Cicero's "On Ends:"

  "The truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because death is apart from sensation, and pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance. When in addition we suppose that such a man is in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better?"

• Therefore Epicureans will turn time and again to his major doctrines:

- Nothing Can Be Created From Nothing.
- The Nature of Gods Contains Nothing That Is Inconsistent With Incorruption and Blessedness.
- Death Is Nothing To Us.
- There Is No Necessity To Live Under the Control Of Necessity.
- He Who Says "Nothing Can Be Known" Knows Nothing.
- All Sensations Are True.
- Virtue Is Not Absolute Or An End In Itself. All Good And Evil Consists In Sensation.
- Pleasure Is The Guide Of Life.
- By Pleasure We Mean All Experience That Is Not Painful.
- Life Is Desirable, But Unlimited Time Contains No Greater Pleasure Than Limited Time.