Epicureanism

Core Principles of Epicureanism

Epicureanism is a philosophy developed during the Hellenistic period of Greek history. It was named after its founder, the Greek philosopher Epicurus in the 4th century BCE. Epicureanism revolves around two core concepts: ataraxia and aponia. The first, ataraxia, is a state of mental peace free from distress and anxiety. This is achieved not by indulging in extravagant pleasures, but by satisfying simple needs and cultivating meaningful relationships. For example, Epicurus described choosing food you enjoyed over the one which was highest in quantity as an example of utilizing moderation in order to be happier. The second concept is aponia, or the absence of physical pain. Epicurus believed that by fulfilling these two ideals we could achieve katastematic pleasure, which is pleasure in its highest form.

Additionally, Epicurus believed that fears—especially fear of the gods and fear of death—are major sources of human suffering. He argued that understanding the natural world through philosophy and science dispels these fears, allowing individuals to achieve ataraxia. Epicureanism asserts that the gods, if they exist, are indifferent to human affairs and thus should not be feared. On the other hand, if gods do not exist, then there is obviously no point in worrying or debating them either since they are simply fictitious. Epicurus also posited that death itself is not a bad thing. He argues that it cannot be a bad thing because it does not affect anyone living. To paraphrase his belief: if we are here then death is not, and if death is present then we are not. Essentially, he believed that because we never actually experience death and are unaffected by it, it cannot be a bad thing for us. He argued that the fear of death stemmed from a lack of reasoning and logic, and that when we discard flawed religious beliefs and assumptions, we can see that death is not negative as we are often taught.

Epicureanism vs. Hedonism

A common misconception is that Epicureanism and Hedonism are one and the same as they both prioritize pleasure. In reality, there is a meaningful difference between the two. In contrast to Hedonism, which promotes pleasure as an end in itself, Epicureanism distinguishes between necessary and unnecessary desires. Hedonists might pursue luxury and excess, while Epicureans argue that unnecessary desires lead to suffering. Epicurus also argued that we achieve this pleasure solely through the two tenets mentioned earlier: ataraxia and aponia. Hedonism on the other hand is much more broad in terms of what constitutes pleasure. We can now conclude that while Epicureanism is a form of Hedonism, it differs by emphasizing moderation and necessity over indulgence, meaning not all Hedonists are Epicureans.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

Another common comparison that is drawn is between Epicureanism and Stoicism. Stoicism is another major Hellenistic philosophy which has gained significant popularity recently online. While both advocate for inner peace and a rational approach to life, they differ significantly in their methods. Stoicism is a branch of virtue ethics, which holds that virtue is the highest good and encourages individuals to strive toward it. The choices they make are centered around being able to look back on a just and virtuous life. Epicureanism on the other hand is still a Hedonistic philosophy, meaning that the core still revolves around pleasure. We can now see that though Epicureans may make similar decisions to Stoics, they would be for noticeably different reasons.

Critiques of Epicureanism

One of the biggest critiques of Epicureanism and all Hedonistic philosophies is that by pursuing our personal pleasure, we are failing to take into account all the other people that our actions affect. Those who subscribe to Virtue Ethics often claim that by focusing on ourselves we can easily fall into the trap of overlooking how we may be negatively impacting others around us. They often assert that when we ascribe value to actions and good based on their utility to us, we ignore the utility that it may have in someone else’s eyes.

Another critique is that prioritizing personal tranquility over collective well-being can lead to societal stagnation. If individuals disengage from social issues to avoid distress, necessary reform may be hindered. When we think of the individual rather than the collective, we tend to stop pushing for societal progress as it is rarely the most pleasurable option in any given scenario. If people prioritize personal tranquility over engagement, they may become indifferent to injustice, avoiding activism or reform efforts because these pursuits often involve discomfort and conflict. While Epicureanism offers a path to personal peace, it risks creating a society that resists change in favor of stability.

The Relevance of Epicureanism Today

In a world where instantaneous pleasure can be found with just a few clicks, Epicureanism provides us with a more balanced perspective on life. It advocates for a moderate pursuit of pleasure, intellectual fulfillment, and mental tranquility. In a society dominated by consumerism and social media, its emphasis on simplicity and meaningful relationships can provide us with a framework to better appreciate life. By reasonably defining pleasure, Epicurus offers us a way to pursue it without allowing it to control our lives and decisions.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Epicureanism is a practical philosophy when it comes to helping individuals determine personal choices. Where it falls short, though, is when we look at society as a whole. When we all place our own pleasure, in whatever form we choose, at the forefront of our decision making process we inevitably overlook opportunities to improve circumstances for others. While Epicurus defines pleasure in a non-destructive way, an excessive focus on personal contentment risks stagnating social progress. A just society requires balancing individual peace with collective responsibility.