The philosophy of Epicurus was a major influence on my way of thinking. From a naturalistic (non-supernatural) view of the universe, to the importance of evidence from the senses in acquiring knowledge (empiricism), the primacy of matter (materialism), to the importance of individual happiness as the primary goal of life (based, as I interpret it, in respect for one’s own dignity), together with the importance of friendship and community to this end; the importance of savouring simple pleasures; a rejection of rampant consumerism; the psychological importance of a sense of agency, and the importance that concern for others instrumentally aligns with the happiness of the individual. On many of these matters, my thought has a distinctively Epicurean flavour.
On other issues, however, my thought does diverge from the Classical formulation of Epicureanism. I’d like to give a brief overview of some ways in which my own Neoepicurean approach differs from the ancient philosophy of Epicurus and his followers, while in my assessment staying broadly faithful to the spirit of the original.
Dogmatism and Authoritarianism
Epicurus was a dogmatist – that is, he believed that truth was something possible to find, and that he had found it, for all time. In addition to this, his followers tended to take his ideas as gospel and had a reluctance to seriously question them, leading to many Epicureans falling prey to a kind of religious dogmatism. Epicureanism became a rigid creed, not a set of hypotheses to be rigorously questioned and challenged. Related to this was the status of Epicurus viewed as a quasi-divine figure, as the Master whom his followers took his ideas without too much critical thought.
This is one area in need of modification in today’s world, for several reasons. First of all, although ancient Epicureanism anticipated modern science in many areas, it ultimately “failed to launch” as something as fully developed as modern science, instead degenerating into more like a religious creed. In some respects (concerning the shape of the earth – viewed as either flat, or round but you fall off the bottom; as well as the status of the Antipodes, the size of the sun, the importance of mathematics in the natural sciences, and other issues), Epicurean natural philosophy was notably inferior to other schools, and yet a dogmatic partisanship, encouraging followers to insulate themselves from other schools of thought, prevented the early science from taking the best from different schools, blossoming and maturing. The rigidity, dogmatism, and reverence for Epicurus as Master also played a role in this, which led to a strongly conservative trend in Epicurean philosophy, leading to a desire to conserve the dogmas of the Master instead of developing, improving and progressing thought. The somewhat arrogant attitude that Truth has been reached, thus the search is over, may have also played a role. Sadly, many modern revivalists of Epicureanism have indeed decided to ape these dogmatic and authoritarian tendencies from the original Garden.
In contrast to the dogmatism of the original school, I propose finding a middle ground between dogmatism and scepticism. This also applies to the need to embrace modern science and the scientific method as an outgrowth of something like Epicurus’ epistemology or Canon, in forming a modern scientific naturalist worldview – including its use of number and quantitative measurement, which clearly delivers the goods yet were mostly rejected by the ancient Epicureans. The extreme scepticism of Pyrrhonism is too far in the other extreme, and denies the possibility of all knowledge (including scientific knowledge), which is an absurd position to take in today’s world with the success of modern science-based technology. On the other hand, a bit of the suspension of judgement (in Greek: epoche) of the Pyrrhonists might come in handy as a countermeasure to extreme dogmatism – a position also argued by the likes of David Hume. Certainly, in everyday life we must make confident practical judgments, including on what (if any) philosophical principles we use to guide the decision-making process. Yet I would suggest avoiding the temptation of dogmatism, and the arrogant belief that we have arrived at truth for all time. Thought can only stagnate with such a stance, and it easily leads to maintaining delusions when it is coupled with insulating oneself from other schools of thought.
Epicurus’ epistemology or kanonikon consists in validation of knowledge derived from your own sense experiences and cognitive apparatus, together with an understanding of the role of emotion (the pleasure/pain mechanism). This is the standard by which judgments can be made – not “Epicurus said”. Taken to its logical conclusion, this undermines not only Epicurus as an authority, but also his specific formulation of epistemology, given that the very same faculties can also be used to further and refine one’s practical theory of knowledge. Thus, in the 21st century, thinking through a correct understanding of Epicurus’ Canon leads to a Neoepicureanism, not to an Epicurean Fundamentalism. From this stance, the authoritarianism of the original Epicurean school – with Epicurus as Master laying down his ideas dogmatically – is directly undermined through a logical development of the exact type of epistemology proposed by Epicurus himself.
Partisanship
In Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to William Short, Jefferson declared himself an Epicurean and stated “I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” Yet he also acknowledged wisdom was to be found in the rival school of Stoicism. “Epictetus indeed, has given us what was good of the stoics”, he immediately followed this with, along with “Seneca [the Stoic] is indeed a fine moralist… giving us on the whole a great deal of sound and practical morality.” He concluded with the statement that “Epictetus [the Stoic] and Epicurus give laws for governing ourselves”, despite the many differences of opinion between these two philosophers and even outright hostility towards Epicurus on the part of Epictetus.
Modern psychological research, too, has vindicated the usefulness of therapeutic techniques derived from Stoicism as well as Epicureanism, including the Stoic prosoche (mindfulness of judgment), something which was apparently lacking in Epicurus’ Garden. It would be reasonable, then, to take wisdom from Stoicism as well as other traditions such as Buddhism, sifting the reasonable and useful from that which is less so, and using this to supplement a Neoepicurean approach. Yet many contemporary revivalists of Epicureanism baulk at doing this. Rather, they maintain a hostility to anything derived from the Stoic tradition (as well as other traditions like Buddhism), even those aspects vindicated by modern psychological research as being highly useful towards actual Epicurean ends (the long-range hedonic well-being of the individual). Such partisanship is irrational, cultish, and also feeds into the dogmatism and authoritarianism critiqued above. Rather than this closed-minded madness of insulating oneself from other schools of thought, under the arrogant delusion that Truth is limited to one’s own tradition (an attitude which smacks of religious fundamentalism), it would be far more fruitful to embrace a critical eclecticism, viewing all human traditions as a potential banquet of wisdom, and using standards of critical thought to cherry-pick different traditions and sift the grain from the chaff.
Free Will
Now for the issue of free will. The original Epicureans clearly believed that human free will transcends any cause-and-effect laws and breaks the bonds of determinism. The physical basis given for this was atoms swerving. This is a complex issue, however my assessment is that, while Epicurus hit on a good idea in proposing a form of indeterminacy (an idea which anticipated modern quantum mechanics), this fails to account for free will, a point which rival schools at the time gave their critiques of. Physical indeterminacy – whether based on the ancient theory of the atomic swerve, or the modern ideas of quantum mechanics – can only logically account for randomness, not anything like a non-random, non-determined free will – a notion which modern philosophers have critiqued as logically incoherent. A modern scientific naturalism is a far more realistic base today than relying on Epicurus’ ancient physics, which is highly out of date now (although still of historical interest). I fail to see how contra-causal free will (of the type proposed by Epicurus) is compatible with a modern scientific naturalism, such as that of this Facebook group. Such a modern scientific naturalism can be either a strict causal determinism, or it can include random indeterminacy, but not free will which breaks deterministic bonds and yet is non-random.
The psychological dangers of fatalism, however, are quite evident. One needn’t share Epicurus’ rejection of determinism to share his healthy aversion to being a “slave to fate”, which undermines agency. Research on the consequences of belief or disbelief in free will have vindicated Epicurus’ position here as to the very real psychological dangers of fatalism. Yet, determinism is not the same as fatalism (the belief “my choices have causes, but no effect – I am powerless”), despite often being confused. Philosophical approaches such as compatibilism (“my choices have causes, and an effect – so I affect my future”), proposed by philosophers such as Daniel Dennett, attempt to reconcile a sense of agency with determinism (also applying in a universe which includes purely random indeterminacy). To my mind, something like compatibilism is a far more viable solution to avoid the negative psychological effects of fatalism than any kind of dogmatic belief in contra-causal free will. Yet as with other issues, many modern revivalists of Epicureanism cling dogmatically to a belief in contra-causal free will. A more rational Neoepicureanism needn’t go down this route, however.
Another possible solution to the free will dilemma may be to take agency as what psychologists call a “positive illusion”, a belief not scientifically grounded yet necessary for healthy psychological functioning. This works in a Neoepicurean framework given the value of mental health (leading to a pleasant existence) trumps concerns with “truth for its own sake”. Truth is still hugely important, however the importance of truth remains secondary and subservient to psychological health – which requires a sense of agency. Such a solution presents more intellectual honesty than adhering dogmatically to the position proposed by Epicurus.
Cosmology and Theology
Epicurus proposed an infinite universe, consisting of an infinite amount of indestructible atoms (fundamental particles) floating in an infinite amount of empty space. This universe was also viewed as eternal and having always existed, with no end and no beginning. Such a universe is home to an infinite number of purely physical immortal gods, themselves made of atoms.
This cosmology is brilliantly imaginative and, in my experience, quite soothing to ponder. The issue is that modern science – based on an empiricist epistemology which is rightly viewed as a successor to Epicurus’ kanonikon – provides strong empirical evidence against this view literally being true, and thus against it being taken dogmatically. While the known physical universe is clearly finite, whether or not the unknown portion of the universe is finite or infinite may well be unclear. Dogmatically asserting one knows it to be infinite, however, is contrary to modern science and thus both an ignorant and arrogant stance to take. Arguments offered by Epicureans for an infinite universe, such as the archery argument, fail to refute modern cosmology, which does not necessarily assert the existence of the kind of naive “boundary” which Epicureans attempted to refute, and thus constitute a straw man argument when offered against the views of modern science.
The view of an eternal universe has also fallen out of favour in modern science. Empirical evidence strongly favours the Big Bang model over the old Steady State model of the universe, which was much closer to what the ancient Epicureans had in mind. Prevailing scientific cosmology suggests that “time” itself as we know it has a beginning. “Nothing comes from nothing” remains a valid point however, as it is very difficult and counter-intuitive philosophically to explain how the universe could spontaneously emerge out of nothing. As David Hume suggested, however, a rigorous modern empiricism will call into question the absolute application of principles such as “nothing comes from nothing”, and while this is observable everywhere in Nature, it may be a stretch too far to rigidly apply this principle to the origins of the universe. None of our human experience directly includes the origin of universes.
On the existence of gods, to assert that immortal gods made of atoms literally exist, whose atoms have always held together and will always hold together for all eternity, is extremely fishy from a modern cosmological perspective, to say the least. For a modern revivalist of Epicureanism to assert such dogmas as true is likely to put off many thinking people from taking Epicureanism seriously. The existence of intelligent extraterrestrials (aliens) is something I consider possible, however am unwilling to commit to dogmatically. As for the “idealist” interpretation of the Epicurean gods, which asserts they are mental constructs – this is far more viable in a modern worldview, however such a view of mental projections of deities may be considered superfluous to many atheists today.
Far more important than the details, however, is the attitude taken to them. On cosmological questions I would argue that modern science trumps ancient philosophy, given its progressive, rigorous and empiricist approach to knowledge. To take the cosmology of ancient Epicureanism to be true today, dogmatically – which I have seen some people do – smacks of religious fundamentalism and a cultishness which is directly antagonistic to critical thought and a respect for truth. Thus the same principles apply here as to my broader critique of dogmatic Epicurean fundamentalism.
Ethics
When I use the term “ethics”, I refer to the Classical notion of “the good life” (in Epicurean terms, the pleasant life or happy life). Although here I am broadly in agreement with much of Epicurus, much as modern psychological research has vindicated that Epicurus was basically right about happiness, there are a couple of points I would like to address.
One of them concerns the issue of free will. If a Neoepicureanism switches from contra-causal free will to a compatibilist notion of free will, this will have some consequences for ethics. In some respects it will move a bit closer to Stoicism, while still avoiding being a “slave to fate”. The role of praise and blame will have to shift, for instance based more explicitly on a model of deterrence based on psychological conditioning, as opposed to vengeance based on contra-causal free will. The details of this are quite complex, and this is a subject which deserves to be fleshed out more thoroughly at a later date.
Epicurus could be criticised as being overly ascetic, although this was not the case among all of his followers, and later developments among ancient branches of Epicureanism led to a less ascetic approach. Vatican Saying 63 expresses the view that “there is also a limit in simple living”, and one reading of the category of “natural and not necessary desires” also allows for a moderate approach to indulgence. Thus, it’s not too much of a stretch to arrive at something like the Buddhist Middle Way, rejecting both extreme asceticism and extreme hedonism, while staying faithful to the Epicurean tradition – yet without the need for the level of asceticism of Epicurus, which may be less necessary in more prosperous modern Western democracies, even among many less wealthy citizens.
The final point is one that was made by Friedrich Nietzsche, who critiqued Epicurus’ view of happiness as too negative and static, with its focus on the removal of pain and suffering and living simply. While a defence of the Epicurean view here can be to consider it from a medical standpoint, with the emphasis on treating problematic suffering, this remains a somewhat valid issue. The views of Aristotle and Nietzsche, by contrast, express the human drive to live maximally, dynamically, and unleash one’s potential, as mentioned in this article comparing Epicurus with Ayn Rand – something which appears to be somewhat lacking in Epicurus.
As one possible solution, a Neoepicureanism can perhaps modify this by extending the human needs (“natural and necessary desires”) to include something like the humanistic drive to self-actualisation of Abraham Maslow. This would also bring it closer to the modern Positive Psychology movement, which seeks to extend the humanistic psychology of the likes of Maslow with a stronger evidence base. In terms of modern psychology, a Neoepicureanism would primarily aspire towards the goal of long-range hedonic well-being, and aspects of human psychological well-being identified as “eudaimonic” or “non-hedonic” will be valued primarily as a means to the end of this goal.
Conclusion
In conclusion, my thought still includes many strongly Epicurean elements, after dealing with modernity and making what I consider the necessary modifications to the system for it to be credible and relevant today. I have chosen to focus on areas of disagreement here in order to rigorously distinguish my approach from that of Epicurus and classical Epicureanism, which I acknowledge as a precursor.
Despite the differences, however, my thought can be broadly placed in the modern stream of Epicurean-influenced ideas and thus perhaps in the broader Epicurean tradition as a whole, and therefore is best categorised as Neoepicurean.
- Mequa
On other issues, however, my thought does diverge from the Classical formulation of Epicureanism. I’d like to give a brief overview of some ways in which my own Neoepicurean approach differs from the ancient philosophy of Epicurus and his followers, while in my assessment staying broadly faithful to the spirit of the original.
Dogmatism and Authoritarianism
Epicurus was a dogmatist – that is, he believed that truth was something possible to find, and that he had found it, for all time. In addition to this, his followers tended to take his ideas as gospel and had a reluctance to seriously question them, leading to many Epicureans falling prey to a kind of religious dogmatism. Epicureanism became a rigid creed, not a set of hypotheses to be rigorously questioned and challenged. Related to this was the status of Epicurus viewed as a quasi-divine figure, as the Master whom his followers took his ideas without too much critical thought.
This is one area in need of modification in today’s world, for several reasons. First of all, although ancient Epicureanism anticipated modern science in many areas, it ultimately “failed to launch” as something as fully developed as modern science, instead degenerating into more like a religious creed. In some respects (concerning the shape of the earth – viewed as either flat, or round but you fall off the bottom; as well as the status of the Antipodes, the size of the sun, the importance of mathematics in the natural sciences, and other issues), Epicurean natural philosophy was notably inferior to other schools, and yet a dogmatic partisanship, encouraging followers to insulate themselves from other schools of thought, prevented the early science from taking the best from different schools, blossoming and maturing. The rigidity, dogmatism, and reverence for Epicurus as Master also played a role in this, which led to a strongly conservative trend in Epicurean philosophy, leading to a desire to conserve the dogmas of the Master instead of developing, improving and progressing thought. The somewhat arrogant attitude that Truth has been reached, thus the search is over, may have also played a role. Sadly, many modern revivalists of Epicureanism have indeed decided to ape these dogmatic and authoritarian tendencies from the original Garden.
In contrast to the dogmatism of the original school, I propose finding a middle ground between dogmatism and scepticism. This also applies to the need to embrace modern science and the scientific method as an outgrowth of something like Epicurus’ epistemology or Canon, in forming a modern scientific naturalist worldview – including its use of number and quantitative measurement, which clearly delivers the goods yet were mostly rejected by the ancient Epicureans. The extreme scepticism of Pyrrhonism is too far in the other extreme, and denies the possibility of all knowledge (including scientific knowledge), which is an absurd position to take in today’s world with the success of modern science-based technology. On the other hand, a bit of the suspension of judgement (in Greek: epoche) of the Pyrrhonists might come in handy as a countermeasure to extreme dogmatism – a position also argued by the likes of David Hume. Certainly, in everyday life we must make confident practical judgments, including on what (if any) philosophical principles we use to guide the decision-making process. Yet I would suggest avoiding the temptation of dogmatism, and the arrogant belief that we have arrived at truth for all time. Thought can only stagnate with such a stance, and it easily leads to maintaining delusions when it is coupled with insulating oneself from other schools of thought.
Epicurus’ epistemology or kanonikon consists in validation of knowledge derived from your own sense experiences and cognitive apparatus, together with an understanding of the role of emotion (the pleasure/pain mechanism). This is the standard by which judgments can be made – not “Epicurus said”. Taken to its logical conclusion, this undermines not only Epicurus as an authority, but also his specific formulation of epistemology, given that the very same faculties can also be used to further and refine one’s practical theory of knowledge. Thus, in the 21st century, thinking through a correct understanding of Epicurus’ Canon leads to a Neoepicureanism, not to an Epicurean Fundamentalism. From this stance, the authoritarianism of the original Epicurean school – with Epicurus as Master laying down his ideas dogmatically – is directly undermined through a logical development of the exact type of epistemology proposed by Epicurus himself.
Partisanship
In Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to William Short, Jefferson declared himself an Epicurean and stated “I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” Yet he also acknowledged wisdom was to be found in the rival school of Stoicism. “Epictetus indeed, has given us what was good of the stoics”, he immediately followed this with, along with “Seneca [the Stoic] is indeed a fine moralist… giving us on the whole a great deal of sound and practical morality.” He concluded with the statement that “Epictetus [the Stoic] and Epicurus give laws for governing ourselves”, despite the many differences of opinion between these two philosophers and even outright hostility towards Epicurus on the part of Epictetus.
Modern psychological research, too, has vindicated the usefulness of therapeutic techniques derived from Stoicism as well as Epicureanism, including the Stoic prosoche (mindfulness of judgment), something which was apparently lacking in Epicurus’ Garden. It would be reasonable, then, to take wisdom from Stoicism as well as other traditions such as Buddhism, sifting the reasonable and useful from that which is less so, and using this to supplement a Neoepicurean approach. Yet many contemporary revivalists of Epicureanism baulk at doing this. Rather, they maintain a hostility to anything derived from the Stoic tradition (as well as other traditions like Buddhism), even those aspects vindicated by modern psychological research as being highly useful towards actual Epicurean ends (the long-range hedonic well-being of the individual). Such partisanship is irrational, cultish, and also feeds into the dogmatism and authoritarianism critiqued above. Rather than this closed-minded madness of insulating oneself from other schools of thought, under the arrogant delusion that Truth is limited to one’s own tradition (an attitude which smacks of religious fundamentalism), it would be far more fruitful to embrace a critical eclecticism, viewing all human traditions as a potential banquet of wisdom, and using standards of critical thought to cherry-pick different traditions and sift the grain from the chaff.
Free Will
Now for the issue of free will. The original Epicureans clearly believed that human free will transcends any cause-and-effect laws and breaks the bonds of determinism. The physical basis given for this was atoms swerving. This is a complex issue, however my assessment is that, while Epicurus hit on a good idea in proposing a form of indeterminacy (an idea which anticipated modern quantum mechanics), this fails to account for free will, a point which rival schools at the time gave their critiques of. Physical indeterminacy – whether based on the ancient theory of the atomic swerve, or the modern ideas of quantum mechanics – can only logically account for randomness, not anything like a non-random, non-determined free will – a notion which modern philosophers have critiqued as logically incoherent. A modern scientific naturalism is a far more realistic base today than relying on Epicurus’ ancient physics, which is highly out of date now (although still of historical interest). I fail to see how contra-causal free will (of the type proposed by Epicurus) is compatible with a modern scientific naturalism, such as that of this Facebook group. Such a modern scientific naturalism can be either a strict causal determinism, or it can include random indeterminacy, but not free will which breaks deterministic bonds and yet is non-random.
The psychological dangers of fatalism, however, are quite evident. One needn’t share Epicurus’ rejection of determinism to share his healthy aversion to being a “slave to fate”, which undermines agency. Research on the consequences of belief or disbelief in free will have vindicated Epicurus’ position here as to the very real psychological dangers of fatalism. Yet, determinism is not the same as fatalism (the belief “my choices have causes, but no effect – I am powerless”), despite often being confused. Philosophical approaches such as compatibilism (“my choices have causes, and an effect – so I affect my future”), proposed by philosophers such as Daniel Dennett, attempt to reconcile a sense of agency with determinism (also applying in a universe which includes purely random indeterminacy). To my mind, something like compatibilism is a far more viable solution to avoid the negative psychological effects of fatalism than any kind of dogmatic belief in contra-causal free will. Yet as with other issues, many modern revivalists of Epicureanism cling dogmatically to a belief in contra-causal free will. A more rational Neoepicureanism needn’t go down this route, however.
Another possible solution to the free will dilemma may be to take agency as what psychologists call a “positive illusion”, a belief not scientifically grounded yet necessary for healthy psychological functioning. This works in a Neoepicurean framework given the value of mental health (leading to a pleasant existence) trumps concerns with “truth for its own sake”. Truth is still hugely important, however the importance of truth remains secondary and subservient to psychological health – which requires a sense of agency. Such a solution presents more intellectual honesty than adhering dogmatically to the position proposed by Epicurus.
Cosmology and Theology
Epicurus proposed an infinite universe, consisting of an infinite amount of indestructible atoms (fundamental particles) floating in an infinite amount of empty space. This universe was also viewed as eternal and having always existed, with no end and no beginning. Such a universe is home to an infinite number of purely physical immortal gods, themselves made of atoms.
This cosmology is brilliantly imaginative and, in my experience, quite soothing to ponder. The issue is that modern science – based on an empiricist epistemology which is rightly viewed as a successor to Epicurus’ kanonikon – provides strong empirical evidence against this view literally being true, and thus against it being taken dogmatically. While the known physical universe is clearly finite, whether or not the unknown portion of the universe is finite or infinite may well be unclear. Dogmatically asserting one knows it to be infinite, however, is contrary to modern science and thus both an ignorant and arrogant stance to take. Arguments offered by Epicureans for an infinite universe, such as the archery argument, fail to refute modern cosmology, which does not necessarily assert the existence of the kind of naive “boundary” which Epicureans attempted to refute, and thus constitute a straw man argument when offered against the views of modern science.
The view of an eternal universe has also fallen out of favour in modern science. Empirical evidence strongly favours the Big Bang model over the old Steady State model of the universe, which was much closer to what the ancient Epicureans had in mind. Prevailing scientific cosmology suggests that “time” itself as we know it has a beginning. “Nothing comes from nothing” remains a valid point however, as it is very difficult and counter-intuitive philosophically to explain how the universe could spontaneously emerge out of nothing. As David Hume suggested, however, a rigorous modern empiricism will call into question the absolute application of principles such as “nothing comes from nothing”, and while this is observable everywhere in Nature, it may be a stretch too far to rigidly apply this principle to the origins of the universe. None of our human experience directly includes the origin of universes.
On the existence of gods, to assert that immortal gods made of atoms literally exist, whose atoms have always held together and will always hold together for all eternity, is extremely fishy from a modern cosmological perspective, to say the least. For a modern revivalist of Epicureanism to assert such dogmas as true is likely to put off many thinking people from taking Epicureanism seriously. The existence of intelligent extraterrestrials (aliens) is something I consider possible, however am unwilling to commit to dogmatically. As for the “idealist” interpretation of the Epicurean gods, which asserts they are mental constructs – this is far more viable in a modern worldview, however such a view of mental projections of deities may be considered superfluous to many atheists today.
Far more important than the details, however, is the attitude taken to them. On cosmological questions I would argue that modern science trumps ancient philosophy, given its progressive, rigorous and empiricist approach to knowledge. To take the cosmology of ancient Epicureanism to be true today, dogmatically – which I have seen some people do – smacks of religious fundamentalism and a cultishness which is directly antagonistic to critical thought and a respect for truth. Thus the same principles apply here as to my broader critique of dogmatic Epicurean fundamentalism.
Ethics
When I use the term “ethics”, I refer to the Classical notion of “the good life” (in Epicurean terms, the pleasant life or happy life). Although here I am broadly in agreement with much of Epicurus, much as modern psychological research has vindicated that Epicurus was basically right about happiness, there are a couple of points I would like to address.
One of them concerns the issue of free will. If a Neoepicureanism switches from contra-causal free will to a compatibilist notion of free will, this will have some consequences for ethics. In some respects it will move a bit closer to Stoicism, while still avoiding being a “slave to fate”. The role of praise and blame will have to shift, for instance based more explicitly on a model of deterrence based on psychological conditioning, as opposed to vengeance based on contra-causal free will. The details of this are quite complex, and this is a subject which deserves to be fleshed out more thoroughly at a later date.
Epicurus could be criticised as being overly ascetic, although this was not the case among all of his followers, and later developments among ancient branches of Epicureanism led to a less ascetic approach. Vatican Saying 63 expresses the view that “there is also a limit in simple living”, and one reading of the category of “natural and not necessary desires” also allows for a moderate approach to indulgence. Thus, it’s not too much of a stretch to arrive at something like the Buddhist Middle Way, rejecting both extreme asceticism and extreme hedonism, while staying faithful to the Epicurean tradition – yet without the need for the level of asceticism of Epicurus, which may be less necessary in more prosperous modern Western democracies, even among many less wealthy citizens.
The final point is one that was made by Friedrich Nietzsche, who critiqued Epicurus’ view of happiness as too negative and static, with its focus on the removal of pain and suffering and living simply. While a defence of the Epicurean view here can be to consider it from a medical standpoint, with the emphasis on treating problematic suffering, this remains a somewhat valid issue. The views of Aristotle and Nietzsche, by contrast, express the human drive to live maximally, dynamically, and unleash one’s potential, as mentioned in this article comparing Epicurus with Ayn Rand – something which appears to be somewhat lacking in Epicurus.
As one possible solution, a Neoepicureanism can perhaps modify this by extending the human needs (“natural and necessary desires”) to include something like the humanistic drive to self-actualisation of Abraham Maslow. This would also bring it closer to the modern Positive Psychology movement, which seeks to extend the humanistic psychology of the likes of Maslow with a stronger evidence base. In terms of modern psychology, a Neoepicureanism would primarily aspire towards the goal of long-range hedonic well-being, and aspects of human psychological well-being identified as “eudaimonic” or “non-hedonic” will be valued primarily as a means to the end of this goal.
Conclusion
In conclusion, my thought still includes many strongly Epicurean elements, after dealing with modernity and making what I consider the necessary modifications to the system for it to be credible and relevant today. I have chosen to focus on areas of disagreement here in order to rigorously distinguish my approach from that of Epicurus and classical Epicureanism, which I acknowledge as a precursor.
Despite the differences, however, my thought can be broadly placed in the modern stream of Epicurean-influenced ideas and thus perhaps in the broader Epicurean tradition as a whole, and therefore is best categorised as Neoepicurean.
- Mequa
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
