| |
A Journal for Western Man |
|
----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Mr. Stolyarov's Articles on Helium.com ----------------------------------- Mr. Stolyarov's Articles on Associated Content ----------------------------------- Mr. Stolyarov's Articles on GrasstopsUSA.com ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
|
|
Epicurus
(341-270 BC), a major philosopher of the Hellenistic period, largely relied
upon Democritus for his materialistic and atomistic theory of nature. However,
he does modify Democritus' metaphysics because of its skeptical and
deterministic implications. Epicurus founded his physics based upon Democritus
but discovered that Democritus had no distinguishing ethical doctrine and,
therefore, had to formulate his own objective ethics. Epicurus went on to
formulate a self-centered moral philosophy in which the individual person is
the realm of moral enterprise. Metaphysics Epicurus held
that the only things that exist are corporeal bodies and void. He taught that
the elementary constituents of nature were discrete, solid, and indivisible
material particles (i.e., atoms) and empty space. He said that everything that
exists is made up of eternal atoms separately falling in space. The atoms are
of different shapes and sizes and have weight. He taught that atomic motion is
not solely the result of past motion and weight. Although subject to their past
motion and weight, occasionally and randomly atoms swerve to the side,
resulting in atomic collisions. This lateral swerve involves a small angle of
deviation from the original path. Objects in the world are therefore
conglomerations of atoms or macrooscopic bodies that can be explained in terms
of collisions, reboundings, and combinations of atoms. According to this
accidentalist atomism, worlds spontaneously emerge from the interaction of
innumerable small particles. Epicurus attempted to explain all natural
phenomena in atomistic terms through a naturalistic account of evolution from
formation of the world to the emergence of human societies. Some thinkers
interpret this to mean that he would have a difficult, but not impossible, task
in accounting for the persistent nature of objects and species (e.g., man). Death and the Soul Epicurus
used his radical, atomistic, and materialistic metaphysics to deny the
possibility of the soul's survival after death and its possible punishment in
the afterlife. He taught that soul atoms become disarranged at death and
therefore could no longer support conscious life. Upon death, the body
decomposes, and all of its atoms become dispersed throughout the air. At death,
a particular body, including the soul (or mind), becomes a number of distinct
atoms. The soul does not survive the death of the body. This is because a
person is an inextricable union of an atomistic body and an atomistic soul (or
mind). Epicurus is obviously the arch-enemy of any type of Cartesian dualism. Removing Sources of Anxiety Epicurus
maintains that gods exist and that they, too, must be material beings and the
result of purposeless and random events. These gods do not concern themselves
with human beings. They are in a perfect state of contentment and free of any
and all uneasiness. Only discontented beings act, and because gods are perfect
and totally contented, they are not involved in any manner in human affairs. The Swerve Epicurus
observed spontaneity and the ability to originate action in human beings, was
concerned with rational agency, and wanted to defend and preserve a person's
ability to use his reason to control his actions and to shape his character. He
therefore advanced the idea of the swerve in order to provide space for
voluntary undetermined action. Epicurus' notion of the swerve introduces
indeterminacy into the universe and argues for the possibility of action not
wholly deriving from the positions of the soul's constituent atoms. He says
that the swerve is necessary to preserve human freedom and to break the bonds
of determinism. The swerving of atoms to the side at uncertain times is thought
by Epicurus to save us from determinism. He maintains that the mind is
undetermined and capable of any motion up to the time when it actually moves.
Free volition permits each of us to move ourselves as we choose. Unfortunately,
Epicurus does not provide a detailed explanation on how the swerve actually
does preserve human freedom. It is problematic how the swerve can explain free
will. Ethics Epicurus' ethics can be viewed as a form of egoistic hedonism (or hedonistic
egoism). He states that nature compels all human beings to search for pleasure
and to avoid pain. Epicurus thus approached ethics from a biological (and
psychological) perspective. He said that human beings need health of the body
and calm of the soul and that freedom from pain and peace of mind imply a state
of rest and tranquility. It follows that the true test of pleasure is the
removal of all that gives pain. When a person reaches that goal he is in a
state of contentment and rest called happiness, eudaimonia, or
tranquility of mind (ataraxia). Reason and the Virtues For
Epicurus, reason is an instrument to help us live pleasurably. He taught that
not every pleasure has the same value or is choiceworthy. It follows that the
popular notion that Epicurean hedonism advocates a life of sensual delights is
incorrect. Epicurus said that a person must use his reason to calculate what is
in his best long-term self-interest and that prudence was the only real guide
to happiness. He held that philosophy is essential for successful human living
and that tranquil pleasures are superior to active ones. He also maintained
that the standard for determining and arranging one's values is the application
of reason to one's own life. Pleasures and Desires Epicurus
distinguished between kinetic (moving or process) pleasures and static
pleasure. Kinetic pleasures arise from movement and static pleasure involves
the state of satiety and involves rest. Kinetic pleasure is what we experience
when we are in the process of satisfying our desires and static pleasure is the
state of having satisfied our desires. Kinetic pleasures (aponia) are
physical and deal with the present and static pleasure (ataraxia)
involves an internal mental state in which fear, suffering, and agitation are
absent or removed and the soul is at rest. Epicurus divides pleasures and desires into (1) natural and
necessary (i.e., needs), (2) natural but unnecessary (i.e., wants) and (3)
unnatural and unnecessary (i.e., vain and empty) ones. He believes that the
more we can limit our pleasures and desires, especially to those that are the
most necessary and most natural, the more likely we are to attain sustainable
pleasure and happiness. The internal and external conditions required for each
person's survival are the components of Epicurus' idea of natural and necessary
pleasure or desire. Certain things are needed for a man's freedom from
disturbances and necessary for the individual's life itself. According to
Epicurus, pleasure is objective to the degree that it results from satisfying
the natural and necessary desires. Active Pleasure versus
Static Pleasure The relationship between active pleasures and static pleasure can be debated. It is not clear if a kinetic activity can lead to tranquility or vice versa or if a lively pleasure such as work or sex can be of value and lead to ataraxia. In order to look at this question I would like to begin by reproducing something I wrote regarding happiness several years ago on pages 47-48 of my 2002 book, Capitalism and Commerce. The following was written years before I encountered Epicurus' teachings: Happiness in a
comprehensive sense applies to one's life taken as a whole and thus arises from
having a coherent, rationally chosen stance regarding the proper way to spend
one's life. This is not the happiness we experience when we have obtained a
particular goal or object. Rather, such metalevel happiness is evident through
the holding of rational values with respect to the kind of life that is worth
living and is characterized by a feeling of tranquility regarding the way one
has lived and will continue to live his life. Metalevel happiness and
object-level perturbation are compatible. Happiness at a metalevel provides a
stable framework within which activity and striving are situated. A man who
holds rational values and who selects ends and means consonant with the nature
of existence and with the integrity of his own consciousness has achieved his
values – not his existential values, but the philosophical values that are
their precondition. Could Epicurus have meant something like the above? Static
pleasure can be viewed as: (1) the pleasure of being in a state of having
satisfied one's desires, (2) the pleasure of being in a state of not having
certain types of desires, and (3) the pleasure one has when functioning in the
natural state without interference. Given the third viewpoint, we could say
that a person's projects are significant and may involve static pleasure if
they engage the natural capacities of the unencumbered individual. Friendship, Justice and
Politics Epicurus values friendship highly as one of the best means of
attaining pleasure. He said that men are oftentimes troubled by fear of other
men and that friendship, which includes trust, helps to lessen the problem of
hostility of other men. In human friendships there exist elements of
protection, support, and help when needed. According to Epicurus, friendships
develop so that specific and tangible benefits can be obtained in our efforts
to maximize our pleasure. He states that although friendships arise because of
our desire for pleasure, our love for our friends grows as our friendships
advance and progress. No life can ultimately be satisfying unless it includes
friends. Friendship is thus a kind of quasi-contractual relationship by which
we love, and are loyal to, our friends. Epicurus understands that friendship
involves both its intrinsic attractiveness and the commitment of loyalty
founded upon a realistic assessment of security and tangible and intangible
gains and rewards that friendship confers to an individual. Life with, and
among, others can be expected to be good in Epicurus' benevolent universe. It
follows that friends should only ask one another to do what is just and
honorable. Epicurus
has a well-developed contractarian theory of justice in which justice is seen
as instrumental and laws are viewed as useful. Natural justice is a reciprocal
and advantageous pledge to neither harm others or to be harmed by them. For
Epicurus, the necessary and sufficient condition for the formation of civil
society is the invalidation of the initiation of force. He teaches that a
function of civil society is to deter those who might coerce and inflict pain
upon other individuals. 1. For more on this, see Martin Masse, "The Epicurean Roots of
Some Classical Liberal and Misesian Concepts," Le Québécois Libre,
no. 153 ( Recommend this page.
This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy. Click here to return to TRA's Issue CXXVIII Index. Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here.. Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.
|
|
|