philosophy expert only.

Epicurus Commentary

Section 1:

Epicurus begins his exposition of hedonism with a particular cosmology—that is, with a comprehensive and rational account of the ultimate nature of the cosmos, or universe. The cosmology we speak of is called atomism, which comes from the ancient Greek word atomos, meaning “uncuttable” or “indivisible.” According to atomism, the universe (and everything in it) is composed of an infinite number of atoms combining and separating in the infinite void. Atoms are the most basic building blocks of reality. They are eternal—they are neither created nor can they ever be destroyed. Thus it makes no sense to ask “where did the atoms come from?” or “why does anything exist at all?” Atoms do not come from anywhere, since they have always existed and always will exist.

 

Epicurus believes that atomism is the most common-sense approach to understanding reality. The fact that there are only material things, or bodies, is confirmed by the experience of all men. It impossible, he says, to even conceive of anything besides bodies and the empty space (void) through which those bodies move. Now it is true that many people believe in incorporeal (i.e., non-bodily) souls, not to mention angels and gods. But Epicurus finds this belief rather silly, since our senses do not allow us to perceive anything that is not a body. In fact, even when we try to imagine angels and gods, we invest them with a human shape or form, as if they were some kind of spiritual body, which is a contradiction in terms (because to be a real, existing being, it must have the power of acting and being acted upon, and only corporeal beings are capable of this). No, says Epicurus, the only real beings are material things. (From this observation he makes the logical deduction that if you divide bodies into halves you will at some point reach a body that is so simple that it can no longer be divided into anything smaller—this is the atom.) Everything else (immaterial gods, souls, angels, demons, spirits, etc.) is the product of our vivid imaginations. The sooner we realize this, the better off we will all be.

 

There are two types of bodies: compounds, which are clusters of two or more atoms, and then the actual atoms out of which those compounds are formed. As we pointed out already, the atoms are indestructible. The constellations of atoms, or compounds, on the other hand, are not indestructible: at some point they will cease to exist as particular compounds. Let us use you as an example: You, as a human being, are a highly complex bundle of perhaps trillions of atoms arranged in a particular configuration. But you have not always been such as you are now. At some point you did not exist: the atoms that now make up your body existed somewhere else in nature (perhaps in the plants and animals your parents used for food around the time of your conception). Then you were born. You went through childhood and adolescence, and now you are in adulthood. Eventually you will grow old, whither, and die, at which point the atoms that make up your body will disperse back into nature (worms will nibble away at your rotting corpse, then birds will consume the worms, and scavengers will consume the birds when they die, and so on). But what remains constant throughout this perpetual cycle of life and death is the eternal, indestructible atoms which make up the multiplicity of compound bodies inhabiting the natural world.

 

According to atomism, compounds are formed when atoms collide against one another and become hooked with one or more atoms to form a cluster. Those same clusters then combine with others to produce the enormous variety of substances we encounter in the world—from inanimate objects, such as rocks and minerals, all the way up to the wide gamut of animal species, including human beings. Ultimately, the many worlds that make up the cosmos, and even the cosmos itself, owe their existence to the chance collisions of an infinite number of atoms.

 

 

Section 2:

Because Epicurus is an atomist, he regards every aspect of the human being, including the soul, as having a corporeal (or bodily) nature. Now what precisely, you might ask, is the human soul? According to Epicurus, the soul is the power or faculty in us that makes possible not only sensation (hearing, sight, touch, smell, taste), but also thought itself, or reason. More generally, the soul is a kind of “life force” that “animates” (from the Latin anima, meaning soul) otherwise lifeless bodies. In other words, it is the soul that distinguishes living from non-living things. If your soul were to vanish all of a sudden, you would be reduced to a lifeless corpse. 

 

Epicurus claims that the soul, just like the body, is composed of atoms. But whereas the human body is composed of densely packed clusters of relatively large, rough atoms, the soul is composed of exceedingly fine and smooth atoms, “resembling wind with a certain admixture of heat.” The soul atoms suffuse the entire bodily structure, from the top of the head to the tips of the toes and everything in between. Think of the human being as a wet sponge: the sponge itself is the bodily structure (bones, tendons, tissues, organs, etc.) and the water within the sponge would be the soul atoms diffused throughout the body. Although the soul may be the organ of all perception and thought, it is important to recognize that the soul atoms can only make sensation possible when working in and through the rest of the body. In other words, the body by itself is incapable of producing sensation. The same holds true with respect to the soul atoms: both soul and body need to be working together if there is to be sensation.

 

This has major implications for Epicurus: for if death means the dissolution of the human body, which in turn involves the dispersal of the soul atoms, then there is no possibility of sensation post mortem. If Epicurus is right, then there is no afterlife, because when we die we lose consciousness forever. Death is deprivation of sensation, and nothing more. We no longer have to worry about going to Hell (nor can we anticipate going to Heaven, for that matter). For Epicurus, as we will see, this realization becomes the cornerstone of the highest state of being of which humans are capable: tranquility of soul.

Section 8:

Our covenants, or agreements, are valuable only to the extent that we abide by them. It is here that justice and injustice acquire their original meaning and significance: “when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust: and the definition of INJUSTICE, is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust, is just.” But in order to ensure compliance, there must be “some coercive power, to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishment, greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant…” The coercive power Hobbes speaks of is the civil government, or commonwealth.

 

 

Section 9:

The laws of nature can be neatly summed up in Hobbes’ Golden Rule: “Do not that to another which thou wouldest not have done to thyself,” which is in stark contrast to Christ’s version: “Do unto another as thou wouldest have others do unto thyself.” The latter version promotes charity and compassion, whereas the former merely advises against harming others, not out of any concern for their well being, of course, but purely out of a selfish regard not to be harmed oneself. This revised Golden Rule is peculiarly modern, and can be seen everywhere, from such platitudes as “honesty is the best policy,” to the injunction to obey traffic laws on the grounds that “the life you save may be your own.”

 

 

Section 10:

Hobbes’ commonwealth invests certain rights and faculties in the sovereign or ruling power, which may be comprised of one, few, or many individuals, depending on “the consent of the people assembled.” First, once the people enter into a covenant, they cannot dissolve or otherwise alter it without the sovereign’s permission. Secondly, the sovereign, as the origin of the covenant, can never be guilty of violating it, since he is not bound by it. Thirdly, because a majority of consenting voices declared a sovereign, whoever may have dissented must now consent with everyone else, for by voluntarily entering into deliberations with the others, he has “tacitly covenanted, to stand to what the major part should ordain…” Sixthly, the sovereign must exercise the power of censorship in order to prevent ideas and opinions that are destructive to the peace from reaching men’s ears. For, Hobbes explains, “the actions of men proceed from their opinions; and in the well-governing of opinions, consisteth the well-governing of men’s actions, in order to their peace, and concord.” The only relevant criterion for invoking the censorship rule is not the truth-value of the idea in question, but rather its likely effect on peace and stability in the commonwealth. Seventhly, the sovereignty has the power to establish what Hobbes calls propriety, or the range of permissible and impermissible actions: “These rules of propriety, or [mine] and [yours], and of good, evil, lawful, and unlawful in the actions of subjects, are the civil laws; that is to say, the laws of each commonwealth in particular.” The laws, in other words, contain within themselves the entire moral framework that guides each and every subject in the commonwealth.

 

 

Section 11

One of the great “diseases” of civil society is the “seditious doctrine” that “every private man is judge of good and evil actions,” or what in contemporary language is known as ethical relativism. This may be true in the anarchic state of nature, but otherwise “it is manifest, that the measure of good and evil actions, is the civil law.” One may wonder why Hobbes so vehemently opposes the freedom of each individual to define good and evil for himself; “From this false doctrine,” he explains, “men are disposed to debate with themselves, and dispute the commands of the commonwealth; and afterwards to obey, or disobey them, as in their private judgments they shall think fit; whereby the commonwealth is distracted and weakened.” The same holds true for liberty of conscience, which tends to have a similar effect on social order whenever the subjects’ private judgments happen to conflict with the civil laws, which latter in Hobbes’ commonwealth assume the role of a surrogate conscience, ensuring thereby concord and law-abidingness.

 

 

Section 12:

The sovereign is responsible for making clearly stated laws that are for the good of the people:

 

For the use of laws, which are but rules authorized, is not to bind the people from all voluntary actions; but to direct and keep them in such a motion, as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires, rashness or indiscretion; as hedges are set, not to stop travelers, but to keep them on their way.

 

The civil laws do not repress all voluntary action, but rather direct and channel human activity so as to prevent men from harming one another. In the final analysis, Hobbes’ entire political project is dedicated to establishing “the safety of the people.” The goal, however, is not “a bare preservation, but also all other contentments of life, which every man by lawful industry, without danger, or hurt to the commonwealth, shall acquire to himself.” The only other option is a total breakdown of the commonwealth, and therewith a return to the “calamity of a war with every other man, which is the greatest evil that can happen in this life…”

1. Although Epicurus is a hedonist, he is clearly opposed to vulgar hedonism. Can you find additional arguments for or against the theory of vulgar hedonism? Is it not terribly “ judgmental” for us to claim that some pleasures are “higher” or “ lower” than others? Shouldn’t we just tolerate and accept differences of opinion in this area? Or does it make more sense to argue that there is a natural hierarchy of pleasures and pains?

2. Epicurus believes that fear of divine retribution is the greatest source of fear and anxiety. Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not?

3. Epicurus argues that the best and happiest way of life is one in which one seeks to satisfy on the most basic, natural and necessary desires. Do you agree that embracing such a life of simplicity (no honor, fame, luxury or wealth) is really more conducive to happiness and tranquility than trying to “keep up with the Joneses”? If you said “yes,” then are you already taking measures to live in the Epicurean manner?