The EpicureanFriends Primer

Much of the confusion that surrounds Epicurus in the moden mind comes from the fact that Epicurus examined the foundations of common words such as "gods," "pleasure," and "virtue," and purged those words of false connotations that had been combined with the true.

Before we go into the most important examples, how do we know to be alert to this issue? We know that Epicurus used common words in non-standard ways because because some of the most respected authorities of the ancient world explicitly and repeatedly tell us so. For example, Cicero wrote the following in his work /On Ends (at 2:16) about Epicurus' use of the word pleasure as given by the Epicurean Torquatus:

“This, O Torquatus, is doing violence to one's senses; it is wresting out of our minds the understanding of words with which we are imbued; for who can avoid seeing that these three states exist in the nature of things: first, the state of being in pleasure; secondly, that of being in pain; thirdly, that of being in such a condition as we are at this moment, and you too, I imagine, that is to say, neither in pleasure nor in pain; in such pleasure, I mean, as a man who is at a banquet, or in such pain as a man who is being tortured. What! do you not see a vast multitude of men who are neither rejoicing nor suffering, but in an intermediate state between these two conditions? No, indeed, said he; I say that all men who are free from pain are in pleasure, and in the greatest pleasure too. Do you, then, say that the man who, not being thirsty himself, mingles some wine for another, and the thirsty man who drinks it when mixed, are both enjoying the same pleasure?”

Cicero further wrote in his work On The Nature of The Gods:

XVII You see therefore that the foundation (for such it is) of our inquiry has been well and truly laid. For the belief in the gods has not been established by authority, custom or law, but rests on the unanimous and abiding consensus of mankind; their existence is therefore a necessary inference, since we possess an instinctive or rather an innate concept of them; but a belief which all men by nature share must necessarily be true; therefore it must be admitted that the gods exist. And since this truth is almost universally accepted not only among philosophers but also among the unlearned, we must admit it as also being an accepted truth that we possess a 'preconception,' as I called it above, or 'prior notion,' of the gods. (_For we are bound to employ novel terms to denote novel ideas, just as Epicurus himself employed the word prolepsis in a sense in which no one had ever used it before._) We have then a preconception of such a nature that we beUeve the gods to be blessed and immortal. For nature, which bestowed upon us an idea of the gods themselves, also engraved on our minds the belief that they are eternal and blessed. If this is so, the famous maxim of Epicurus truthfully enunciates that "that which is blessed and eternal can neither know trouble itself nor cause trouble to another, and accordingly cannot feel either anger or favour, since all such things belong only to the weak."

There are many other examples:

As to the Redefinition of "Pleasure" : Cicero criticizes Epicurus' use of "pleasure" ( voluptas ) to include both physical pleasure and the "absence of pain" ( aponia), arguing that such redefinition is misleading. In De Finibus (Book II, 5.16), Cicero writes:

"Epicurus is constantly changing the meaning of words to make his case seem more plausible. He maintains that the absence of pain is the highest pleasure; but what man with any intelligence could ever call this ‘pleasure’?"

As to the Meaning of "Good" and "Virtue" : Cicero objects to Epicurus’ view that "virtue" ( virtus ) is not intrinsically good but only valuable as a means to achieve pleasure. He suggests this undermines traditional philosophical terminology:

"He says that virtue cannot exist without pleasure, nor pleasure without virtue; but how inconsistent and contradictory are such assertions! For if it is pleasure that constitutes the supreme good, what place is left for virtue?" ( De Finibus , Book II, 6.18)

As to the Ambiguity of Epicurus' use of "Pain": Cicero also criticizes the conflation of the absence of pain with a positive pleasure. In De Finibus (Book II, 8.25), he remarks:

"It seems absurd to use the term 'pleasure' for a state in which we merely feel no pain. By this reasoning, Epicurus has redefined language itself, making words mean what they do not naturally mean."

As to the Redefinition of "Natural Desires" : Cicero argues against Epicurus’ classification of desires into "natural and necessary," "natural and unnecessary," and "neither natural nor necessary." He suggests this categorization is artificial and complicates what should be simple:

"Epicurus distinguishes desires in a way that appears clever, but his subtle distinctions only serve to confuse the mind rather than clarify it. What could be simpler than understanding what we need and what we do not?" ( De Finibus , Book I, 13.41)

Other ancient authorities made similar criticisms. Here are several other notable examples:

Plutarch, a vocal critic of Epicurean philosophy, frequently targeted Epicurus' linguistic practices. In his essay Against Colotes , he accuses Epicurus of creating unnecessary confusion by redefining established terms. For example:

• Plutarch critiques the way Epicurus equates the absence of pain ( aponia ) with pleasure, claiming that this redefinition is an attempt to make his philosophy more palatable while abandoning traditional clarity.
• He also criticizes Epicurus for subordinating virtues to pleasure, stating that such a redefinition undermines the integrity of moral discourse.

"Epicurus reassigns to pleasure the name of every good, claiming that virtues derive their value only from their service to pleasure, and in doing so, he robs virtues of their independent worth." ( Against Colotes , 1122C)

Sextus Empiricus, in Outlines of Pyrrhonism , points out inconsistencies in Epicurean definitions, especially regarding "pleasure" and "pain." While Sextus primarily adopts a skeptical stance, he highlights how Epicurus' redefinitions deviate from ordinary language:

• He notes that equating the absence of pain with pleasure creates a linguistic paradox, as people traditionally view pleasure as an active state rather than a passive absence.

"By calling the mere removal of pain ‘pleasure,’ Epicurus distorts the common understanding of pleasure as an active sensation." ( Outlines of Pyrrhonism , Book III, 177)

Seneca, though a Stoic, critiques Epicurus' redefinitions in his letters. While he occasionally praises Epicurus' insights, he disapproves of how Epicurus manipulates language to suit his arguments:

• In Letters to Lucilius (Letter 92), Seneca challenges Epicurus' claim that tranquility (absence of disturbance) is the highest pleasure, arguing that this blurs the distinction between pleasure and peace of mind:

"Epicurus twists words to claim that tranquility, which even the Stoics hold dear, is pleasure. Yet tranquility is not pleasure but the condition that allows for its enjoyment."

Clement of Alexandria, a Christian critic of Epicureanism, accuses Epicurus of corrupting the moral vocabulary of his time. In Stromata , he argues that Epicurus' redefinition of terms like "pleasure" and "virtue" leads people astray:

• Clement writes that Epicurus’ use of words was designed to make hedonism seem respectable, masking its true implications.

"Epicurus renames vice as virtue by claiming that all virtues serve the pleasure of the body, thus misguiding those who seek moral clarity." ( Stromata , II.21)

Although Diogenes Laertius is generally sympathetic to Epicureanism in his Lives of Eminent Philosophers , he acknowledges that many critics took issue with Epicurus’ language:

• He notes that Epicurus was accused of rejecting traditional philosophical terminology and creating his own definitions, which alienated other philosophers.

"Epicurus’ habit of inventing definitions for terms like 'pleasure' and 'virtue' led many of his opponents to call him a corrupter of language." ( Lives of Eminent Philosophers , Book X, 4)

Of course Epicurus did not invent an entirely different language. Epicurus held that certain things in ordinary language are clear without need of elaborate definitions. It is sufficient, for example, to point to fire to understand that it is hot; to snow to understand that it is white, and to honey to understand that it is sweet. , but the bottom line is that not only did Epicurus himself in his own time complain about the way his words were being ignored or misused by his enemies, but the same controversy continued for the next two hundred years, to be preserved as part of the core discussion of Epicurus surviving from the ancient world.

There is nothing more important at the very beginning of the study of Epicurus than to come to grips with the fact that Epicurus uses important words in non-standard ways. Those who do not see how Epicurus' innovative use of words was controversial in his own time will not escape confusion and ambiguity in applying Epicurean philosophy today.

Of course Epicurus did not invent an entirely different language. Epicurus held that certain things in ordinary language are clear without need of elaborate definitions. It is sufficient, for example, to point to fire to understand that it is hot; to snow to understand that it is white, and to honey to understand that it is sweet.

More complicated things, however, are much more difficult to comprehend, and these require explicit logical explanation if we are to understand them. Such is the case, as we will find, with the important concepts like that of "Virtue," "Death," and "Gods." Even "Pleasure," which when referring to a feeling is plain, requires explanation when used as an ethical goal of life. For example, it is necessary to explain why even in the pursuit of Pleasure one will sometimes choose pain, when that choice brings us more pleasure than pain in total result. Cicero's Torqatus in On Ends:

[30] Every creature, as soon as it is born, seeks after pleasure and delights therein as in its supreme good, while it recoils from pain as its supreme evil, and banishes that, so far as it can, from its own presence, and this it does while still uncorrupted, and while nature herself prompts unbiased and unaffected decisions. So he says we need no reasoning or debate to shew why pleasure is matter for desire, pain for aversion. These facts he thinks are simply perceived, just as the fact that fire is hot, snow is white, and honey sweet, no one of which facts are we bound to support by elaborate arguments; it is enough merely to draw attention to the fact; and there is a difference between proof and formal argument on the one hand and a slight hint and direction of the attention on the other; the one process reveals to us mysteries and things under a veil, so to speak; the other enables us to pronounce upon patent and evident facts.

Epicurus is well known for rejecting conventional views of the nature of "things" by holding that the world is composed neither of "four elements" nor of "supernatural fire." Instead, Epicurus held that everything in the universe is composed of innumerable particles and void.

What is not so well known is that Epicurus also rejected conventional views of the nature of key philosophic terms such as Pleasure, Gods, Virtue, and Death. Just as Epicurus held that false presumptions underlay commonly-held but erroneous ideas in physics, Epicurus held that false presumptions also underlay conventional but erroneus ideas in ethics. Epicurus did not simply reject conventional assessments of pleasure, virtue, gods, and death, he rejected the conventional view of what those words even mean when rightly understood.

In the ancient world, prevailing philosophic schools refused to accept Epicurus' unconventional viewpoints. As a result, the leading schools pilloried Epicurus as at best a muddled thinker and at worst an immoral reprobate. Those attitudes prevail even today, but Epicurus' enemies are not alone in misinterpreting his views. The errors made by Epicurus' foes are matched those who believe themselves to be Epicurus' friends, but who ignore Epicurus' rejection of conventional ideas about key aspects of human life.

The truly revolutionary nature of Epicurean philosophy cannot be understood without seeing that Epicurus' doubled down on his rejection of conventional paradigms in natural science with rejection of conventional paradigms in ethics. Just as the rejection of elemental "earth, air, wind, and fire" leads to a revolution in physical science, the rejection of conventional views of the best way to live, the meaning of death, and the nature of gods leads to the Epicurean revolution in ethics. Pursuing such a revolution required Epicurus to explain what his enemies disparaged as an entirely new vocabulary of key terms, with the result that attempts to understand Epicurus without understanding his use of terms has exasperated both foes and well-meaning but misinformed friends alike for two thousand years.

Classical Epicurean Philosophy is a worldview that rejects many commonplace assumptions of other philosophies, including the prevailing views of "pleasure," "gods," "virtue," and even "good and evil." In Epicurean terms, pleasure embraces much more than sensory stimulation, "gods" exist but are not supernatural, and it is important to act "virtuously," but "virtue" is not desirable as an end it itself, but as a means of obtaining pleasure. Likewise, "Good" and "evil" are not abstract absolutes, but are ultimately evaluations based on sensations of pleasure and pain felt by real living things. "Practical Reason" is held to be essential for living wisely, but "dialectical logic" is rejected as misleading. It is a major goal of EpicureanFriends to explore Epicurean terminology in these and other areas so we can appreciate the philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it. For more on terminology and similar topics, check out our FAQ page. We also particularly recommend Episode 222 of the Lucetius Today Podcast where we discuss key terminology issues surrounding "happiness" and "pleasure" and "virtue."

In order to clarify the distinctive aspects of Classical Epicurean Philosophy for both new readers and regular members alike, we place special emphasis on a number of the most central aspects of Epicurean doctrine. These points include:

All of Epicurean philosophyus is erected upon the conclusion that the universe is composed of elemental particles moving through space. Our Physics forum is the place to discuss the nature of the universe, including all things within it, includes the natural "gods" which are part of it.

Canonics, often known as "epistemology," is closely related to physics. At the same time that we observe and derive our conclusions about the nature of the universe, we must examine what it means to "know" anything. What is truth? What is real? Is confidence in knowledge (or "certainty") possible? These are issues discussed in our Canonics forums, where we do not focus as much on "what" is true, but "how do we know what is true?"

Ethics is the application of Physics and Canonics to determine the best way to live.

The number one misunderstanding to correct - with nothing else being close in importance - is that of seeing that Epicurus' "absence of pain" does not mean "absence of activity." Instead, Epicurean "Pleasure" embraces every activity of human life that is not painful. The switch has to be made from thinking that Epicurus was preaching tranquility and asceticism as his goal to understanding it as it appears the ancients understood it: "Pleasure" includes every aspect of life that we find valuable, and given the shortness of life, every mental or physical activity that doesn't lead to "net pain" (when all consequences are considered) is in fact within the term "Pleasure." We even choose pain on a regular basis, when we expect the choice to eventually lead to net pleasure.

There is no reason whatsoever that every normal, vigorous, fundamentally healthy in mind and body, person of any age would not profit from realizing that there is no supernatural god, no absolute virtue, no ideal forms, nor any other supernatural or authoritative force to which we are required to conform, and that our happiness is predominantly in our own hands and within our own control.

Epicurean philosophy will start appealing to a much larger number people when we finally begin to push back against the Platonizing and Stoicizing and Supernaturalizing majority that dominates the world today. As long as the false focus on "tranquility" and "simplicity" and other aspects that are not ends in themselves remains the standard interpretation, Epicurean philosophy will remain in the shadows. However there is no "fate," and the fact that a vigorous Epicurean movement flourished in the ancient world shows that it is possible. What has happened once can happen again, and in fact since we know it is possible, we can infer that it has already happened and will happen in the future an infinite number of times.

The current misunderstandings of Epicurus are going to be difficult to change, and any changes will be slow and come only with lots of effort. But we today have offsetting technologies and situations that have never before been available in human history, so there's good reason to be hopeful that progress can be made. Even the work we are doing here together would have been impossible much more than a decade ago. it's now so much easier to share information and group-source the research and other work that needs to be done that it's a total game-changer. There are dark clouds of censorship and opinion suppression already here and more on the horizon, but they don't dominate yet, and there is hope that we can stay ahead of that censorship through even better technology.

That said, there are definitely different opinions about Epicurus even among those of us who are "activists" on the topic. From a personal point of view – almost a "self-help" kind of view - there are many benefits to "tranqulity" and "balance." In addition to those, however, "balance" and "tranqulity" are only a part of the benefit of Epicurean philosophy. Yes you definitely want "balance" and "tranquility"as you live your life and respond to its challenges. In addition, however, there are major philosophical issues that Epicurus was addressing that tend to get crowded out if one focuses only on "balance" or "tranquility" or any other single tool toward the ultimate goal. I suppose one might say that it is important to take a "balanced" approach even to balance, and to recognize that there are many other day to day decisions that must be made on which Epicurus had very many important things to say.

Many of these are very complicated philosophical problems require very uncomfortable decision-making given our current world circumstances. The more one thinks about it, the more the difficulty that faced Epicurus comes into focus. What single word, with what kind of definition, can possibly express adequately the complete meaning of "the highest good" or "the goal of life?" "Happiness" is far too ambiguous. It is claimed by far too many contradictory schools and viewpoints. Only "pleasure," which is tied tightly to the natural faculty of pleasure and pain, can do that job clearly. And even then, "pleasure" can full that role only if it is adequately placed in the context of holding that life itself is the irreducible requirement of anything that is desirable. Only In the context of seeing that life-after-death and supernatural realms are equally fictitious, can we see that any kind of life at all, so long as it is not dominated by pain, is worthy of being considered a happy one. Of course we each have opinions as to what type of pleasures suit us best, but it is "pleasure" that is the general category that makes life worth living. "Happiness" and many other words can be helpful, but only if they too are tightly tied to the natural feelings of pleasure and pain as Epicurus did. To cite what Torquatus says in On Ends, the wise man always has more reason for joy than for vexation.

If Epicurean philosophy is ever to again duplicate the success it found in the ancient world, Epicurean students will need to address the whole spectrum of what Epicurus had to say. There are very many excellent minds in the modern Greek Epicurean world and I hope over time we can engage with more people around the world who are interested in this project. That will involve everyone including especially younger people who are not so easily taken in by thinking that "tranquility" is enough of a goal for their lives. On the other hand, neither will they embrace "Pleasure" unless it is explained to them the sweeping nature of the term in Epicurean philosophy. I am convinced, however, that the texts support ample support for the interpretations of "tranquility," "pleasure," "virtue" - and yes, even "gods," which Epicurus advocated. As SillyApe said, it's not going to be easy, and many texts have been lost, but what remains - combined with the same common-sense reasoning Epicurus exhibited - are more than enough to reconstruct what is needed.

We always recommend that readers consult the original works of Epicurus, and we maintain here a collection of Ancient Epicurean Texts, including Diogenes Laertus Book 10 (which contains all of Epicurus' Letters), Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, and many others.

For people who are brand new to Epicurus, we recommend that you start with the two books we recommend most: Epicurus and His Philosophy by Norman DeWitt, and Living For Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life by Emily Austin:

1. The most sweeping, thorough, and innovative "textbook" of Epicurean philosophy available is Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy." No other book presents the full sweep and detail of the philosophy as well as this one. The opening chapter of DeWitt's book can be read for free here, and an article ("Philosophy For The Millions") summarizing DeWitt's perspective is here*.*
2. The most current and best general introduction to Epicurean ethics is Dr. Emily Austin's “Living For Pleasure.” This is a very readable introduction to Epicurean ideas on how to live that is consistent with the general approach here at EpicureanFriends. Our 2023 interview with Dr. Austin on the Lucretius Today podcast is a good introduction to her book.

There are of course other goods books about Epicurus, and we maintain a section of our forum devoted to disssion of them here. A word of caution is appropriate: There are many different interpretations of Epicurus, and many of them "adulterated" with Stoic, Buddhist, Judeo-Christian, Platonic, or other philosophies and religions, according to the preferences of their authors. We recommend that those seeking to understand Epicurus start with Epicurus and His Philosophy and Living For Pleasure, and then review Diogenes Laertius Book Ten and Lucretius, before moving to other works. The DeWitt and Austin books provide a firm grounding in classical Epicureanism, and they point out where the reader can expect to find controversies elsewhere as to what Epicurus really taught.

The full list we recommend for students of Epicurus is as follows:

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. "Living For Pleasure" by Emily Austin
3. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
4. “*On The Nature of Things*” - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature")
5. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - An article by Boris Nikolsky
6. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
7. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
8. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
9. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
10. A Few Days In Athens” - Frances Wright - with the criticisms referenced here.
11. Lucian of Samosata - Lucian mentions Epicurus in a number of articles, but among the best are Alexander the Oracle-Monger*,* Hermotimus, and others listed here.
12. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on the history of the Epicurean Canon)
13. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom by David Sedley, an in depth exploration of how Lucretius interpreted Epicurus
14. The Sculpted Word by Bernard Frischer, a study of Epicurean bronzes and marbles from the ancient world.
15. Haris Dimitriadis' "Epicurus' And The Pleasant Life"
16. Consider also the following essays/lectures/letters:
    1. The Letter of Cosma Raimondi
    2. Norman DeWitt's "Philosophy For The Millions"
    3. John Tyndall's Belfast Address
    4. An essay on Lucretius from George Santayana's Three Philosophical Poets
    5. Prof. Ian Johnston's Lecture on Lucretius
    6. Lucy Hutchinson's Letter to the Earl of Anglesey, disavowing her very early translation of Lucretius

Here is a "library" page at NewEpicurean.com with links to where many additional translations are available for free on the internet.

Profile of Past Reading

Discussion of this FAQ entry at EpicureanFriends.com is here.