Scan barcode
chris_dech's review
2.0
Good ethics and a solid way of thinking about life, terribly random epistemology.
Unfortunately, Epicurus's understanding of knowledge, learning, and phenomena generally clouds what he says about ethics, so what he says becomes a mire of randomness.
Unfortunately, Epicurus's understanding of knowledge, learning, and phenomena generally clouds what he says about ethics, so what he says becomes a mire of randomness.
levininja's review
4.0
Wow. This book was nothing like I imagined it.
The ancient Greeks had two dominant schools of thought: the stoics and epicureans. Similar to how we have two main political parties in the USA and then constellations of other parties that, as independent as some of them try to be, are mostly seen in light of the two largest parties, that is my impression of what the clout of various Greek schools of thought had: stoicism and Epicureanism were the two main schools, and all the others—skepticism, hedonism, cynicism, etc.—were cast in light of those two.
How do stoicism and Epicureanism differ? They both ostensibly believed in the gods, they both believed in moderation (a quintessentially Greek ideal), and both were concerned with the question of how to live the best (most virtuous) life. But while the stoics believed in denying one’s emotions to do that, the epicureans believed in making decisions based on what would provide the most pleasure.
But that doesn’t mean what you think it means. First of all, contrary to what you might think, Epicurus didn’t advocate for enjoying the finest foods or the most sex or any of that; those were the Hedonists, and he was quite opposed. He actually advocated that if you only ate bread and water for your food, that was the best way to be happy, because then you would always be able to find what you were looking for and be satisfied.
Also, Epicurus defined pleasure in the negative: an absence of pain. Every source of positive pleasure must be weighed against how much pain it will produce later; every decision must be looked at from the long view of how it affects the individual. So getting drunk is seen as having the benefit of increasing pleasure at the time of drinking, but Epicurus would say that that decision would be morally wrong because the physical and/or emotional pain from the fallout would be greater than the pleasure of the drinking. I’m sure some people would disagree with him on that point, and to them he would probably say great: in that case, for you, it is morally imperative that you DO drink.
Yes, that’s a weird thing to wrap your head around: Epicurus based his system of ethics, of right and wrong, on what produces the most pleasure-minus-pain, over the long run, for the individual making the decision. This leads to the main “flaw” in his theory that led to it not being more widely adopted by politicians etc, because his philosophy was seen as rather solipsistic. That being said, he was a precursor to the idea of the social contract (the idea of how selfishly motivated people could form a mutually beneficial society based on recognizing that if we all abide by certain rules then it will benefit all of us—I’m butchering it but you get the point) that was later expounded by Thomas Hobbs over a thousand years later.
In fact, Epicurus is striking for how groundbreaking he was. He claimed to be building from scratch, relying on no one that came before him, much like David Hume, who fittingly also ties to Epicurus through the philosophy of empiricism.
Epicurus was a truly original thinker. He was very important in the philosophical field of epistemology (the philosophy of how we know things; vital for the history of science) and can be seen as a forerunner of materialism, humanistic ethics, and empiricism.
When was empiricism invented? There were great empiricist philosophers (starting with David Hume) in the enlightenment period, but in reality, the idea of determining what is true not based on intuitive ideas and reasoning, but rather on keen observation, was not new to them. They were building on Aristotle. And Aristotle, as it turns out, was merely iterating on Epicurus.
Another notable section of this book is fascinating because Epicurus developed most of the Greek thought on atoms (fundamental, indestructible particles), not Democritus, who did little more than come up with the basic idea. Epicurus developed a lot of good thoughts on it, and I wonder how he was able to be so accurate before they had electron microscopes/etc.
But I get ahead of myself. What exactly is this book?
Epicurus wrote over 300 treatises. Unfortunately almost all of them are lost to us, even his most major treatise (On Nature) and The Major Epitome (a condensed summary he wrote of On Nature). What we do have is parts of The Minor Epitome, a couple of letters that outline how his philosophy applies to specific concepts, a collection of quotes, and other peoples writings about him (most notably Laertius). This book is a collection of the best of those sources and had a lengthy introduction and lots of very enlightening end notes to help fill in gaps and understand his philosophy as a whole hand I’m eternally grateful for the scholars who put it together.
Although one thing I wish they would have done differently is reversed the order of the writings. They have laid this book out so that you have pages and pages of Epicurus going on about solar eclipses and atoms before you get to the more interesting and broader ethics.
Which brings me to the funniest thing about Epicurus! His goal was to provide people with mental peace of mind. That was what he considered the good life. Again when he talks about living a life in pursuit of pleasure, remember that he mostly considered the highest state of “pleasure” to be the absence of all pain. So far so good right? But it gets funny when you look at what he found necessary to do that.
So what are the types of pain we want to be free of, Epicurus? Well, we want to be free of physical pain. So he espoused eating a plain diet of bread and water, instead of pursuing richer fare and then experiencing pain whenever it could not be found. Ok, very interesting. What other types of pain? Well there’s the consequences of doing something illegal or hurtful to someone else: going to jail, being fined, having people slander you, etc. Ok.
And finally, there’s another type of pain which he found it very important to eliminate: the pain of not believing that the natural world is strictly materialistic and deterministic. Huh? He believed that peoples superstitions about the gods causing weather events or misfortunes etc caused great distress. And so he goes into great detail about trying to prove that lightning is likely not caused by Zeus throwing bolts around, but by natural phenomena. Which is interesting. But what’s really interesting is how essential he considered these beliefs to be to having peace of mind. He goes on and on at great length about all kinds of natural science topics (atoms and meteorology esp.) but not because it’s interesting…because that would violate one if his beliefs, that one should not indulge in curiosity…so instead he argues that it’s “necessary” to prove these things so that we don’t lie awake all night worrying about why the recent solar eclipse happened. Lol, my dude.
Regardless of how many people were lying awake worrying about eclipses (which, admittedly, people in ancient times did attach great portent to), he was a bit of a forerunner in the realm of natural sciences. He came up with multiple plausible explanations for different weather phenomena, some of which were stunningly close to the mark—he didn’t have the scientific instruments we have today but he was a very keen observer and clear thinker. Where direct evidence was lacking he would look for examples and precedents to back every theory of the natural world because one of his missions was to overturn the idea that the gods caused weather events.
So in summary: this book is nothing like what you think. There is a section of getting into the ethics and advice on how to actually live a happy life. Most of it’s about atoms swerving and natural sciences, to “put our minds at ease.” He was as close to atheist as you could stand to be in a time where everyone was supposed to be reverent of the gods. He was supposedly very pious with all the festivals/etc., but in his philosophy he relegates the gods to being basically laws of nature, deterministic, nothing like what we think of as a “god.”
I’m sad that so much of Epicurus’s original writings were lost. This detracts from the enjoyment of the work, although obviously that is no fault of the translator. I found the translation to be highly readable. I’m glad I read this, but it’s just an incomplete experience. I wish I could have read his main treatises.
The ancient Greeks had two dominant schools of thought: the stoics and epicureans. Similar to how we have two main political parties in the USA and then constellations of other parties that, as independent as some of them try to be, are mostly seen in light of the two largest parties, that is my impression of what the clout of various Greek schools of thought had: stoicism and Epicureanism were the two main schools, and all the others—skepticism, hedonism, cynicism, etc.—were cast in light of those two.
How do stoicism and Epicureanism differ? They both ostensibly believed in the gods, they both believed in moderation (a quintessentially Greek ideal), and both were concerned with the question of how to live the best (most virtuous) life. But while the stoics believed in denying one’s emotions to do that, the epicureans believed in making decisions based on what would provide the most pleasure.
But that doesn’t mean what you think it means. First of all, contrary to what you might think, Epicurus didn’t advocate for enjoying the finest foods or the most sex or any of that; those were the Hedonists, and he was quite opposed. He actually advocated that if you only ate bread and water for your food, that was the best way to be happy, because then you would always be able to find what you were looking for and be satisfied.
Also, Epicurus defined pleasure in the negative: an absence of pain. Every source of positive pleasure must be weighed against how much pain it will produce later; every decision must be looked at from the long view of how it affects the individual. So getting drunk is seen as having the benefit of increasing pleasure at the time of drinking, but Epicurus would say that that decision would be morally wrong because the physical and/or emotional pain from the fallout would be greater than the pleasure of the drinking. I’m sure some people would disagree with him on that point, and to them he would probably say great: in that case, for you, it is morally imperative that you DO drink.
Yes, that’s a weird thing to wrap your head around: Epicurus based his system of ethics, of right and wrong, on what produces the most pleasure-minus-pain, over the long run, for the individual making the decision. This leads to the main “flaw” in his theory that led to it not being more widely adopted by politicians etc, because his philosophy was seen as rather solipsistic. That being said, he was a precursor to the idea of the social contract (the idea of how selfishly motivated people could form a mutually beneficial society based on recognizing that if we all abide by certain rules then it will benefit all of us—I’m butchering it but you get the point) that was later expounded by Thomas Hobbs over a thousand years later.
In fact, Epicurus is striking for how groundbreaking he was. He claimed to be building from scratch, relying on no one that came before him, much like David Hume, who fittingly also ties to Epicurus through the philosophy of empiricism.
Epicurus was a truly original thinker. He was very important in the philosophical field of epistemology (the philosophy of how we know things; vital for the history of science) and can be seen as a forerunner of materialism, humanistic ethics, and empiricism.
When was empiricism invented? There were great empiricist philosophers (starting with David Hume) in the enlightenment period, but in reality, the idea of determining what is true not based on intuitive ideas and reasoning, but rather on keen observation, was not new to them. They were building on Aristotle. And Aristotle, as it turns out, was merely iterating on Epicurus.
Another notable section of this book is fascinating because Epicurus developed most of the Greek thought on atoms (fundamental, indestructible particles), not Democritus, who did little more than come up with the basic idea. Epicurus developed a lot of good thoughts on it, and I wonder how he was able to be so accurate before they had electron microscopes/etc.
But I get ahead of myself. What exactly is this book?
Epicurus wrote over 300 treatises. Unfortunately almost all of them are lost to us, even his most major treatise (On Nature) and The Major Epitome (a condensed summary he wrote of On Nature). What we do have is parts of The Minor Epitome, a couple of letters that outline how his philosophy applies to specific concepts, a collection of quotes, and other peoples writings about him (most notably Laertius). This book is a collection of the best of those sources and had a lengthy introduction and lots of very enlightening end notes to help fill in gaps and understand his philosophy as a whole hand I’m eternally grateful for the scholars who put it together.
Although one thing I wish they would have done differently is reversed the order of the writings. They have laid this book out so that you have pages and pages of Epicurus going on about solar eclipses and atoms before you get to the more interesting and broader ethics.
Which brings me to the funniest thing about Epicurus! His goal was to provide people with mental peace of mind. That was what he considered the good life. Again when he talks about living a life in pursuit of pleasure, remember that he mostly considered the highest state of “pleasure” to be the absence of all pain. So far so good right? But it gets funny when you look at what he found necessary to do that.
So what are the types of pain we want to be free of, Epicurus? Well, we want to be free of physical pain. So he espoused eating a plain diet of bread and water, instead of pursuing richer fare and then experiencing pain whenever it could not be found. Ok, very interesting. What other types of pain? Well there’s the consequences of doing something illegal or hurtful to someone else: going to jail, being fined, having people slander you, etc. Ok.
And finally, there’s another type of pain which he found it very important to eliminate: the pain of not believing that the natural world is strictly materialistic and deterministic. Huh? He believed that peoples superstitions about the gods causing weather events or misfortunes etc caused great distress. And so he goes into great detail about trying to prove that lightning is likely not caused by Zeus throwing bolts around, but by natural phenomena. Which is interesting. But what’s really interesting is how essential he considered these beliefs to be to having peace of mind. He goes on and on at great length about all kinds of natural science topics (atoms and meteorology esp.) but not because it’s interesting…because that would violate one if his beliefs, that one should not indulge in curiosity…so instead he argues that it’s “necessary” to prove these things so that we don’t lie awake all night worrying about why the recent solar eclipse happened. Lol, my dude.
Regardless of how many people were lying awake worrying about eclipses (which, admittedly, people in ancient times did attach great portent to), he was a bit of a forerunner in the realm of natural sciences. He came up with multiple plausible explanations for different weather phenomena, some of which were stunningly close to the mark—he didn’t have the scientific instruments we have today but he was a very keen observer and clear thinker. Where direct evidence was lacking he would look for examples and precedents to back every theory of the natural world because one of his missions was to overturn the idea that the gods caused weather events.
So in summary: this book is nothing like what you think. There is a section of getting into the ethics and advice on how to actually live a happy life. Most of it’s about atoms swerving and natural sciences, to “put our minds at ease.” He was as close to atheist as you could stand to be in a time where everyone was supposed to be reverent of the gods. He was supposedly very pious with all the festivals/etc., but in his philosophy he relegates the gods to being basically laws of nature, deterministic, nothing like what we think of as a “god.”
I’m sad that so much of Epicurus’s original writings were lost. This detracts from the enjoyment of the work, although obviously that is no fault of the translator. I found the translation to be highly readable. I’m glad I read this, but it’s just an incomplete experience. I wish I could have read his main treatises.
mnsanchez3748's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
2.0
alexi_a_s's review against another edition
4.0
Livre très court au premier abord mais dense en intérieur. Cette œuvre permet de comprendre en peu de pages le concept d’Épicure sur le bonheur. Le vocabulaire est accessible, les thèmes abordés intéressants et de ce sont des recommandations qui peuvent être appliquées dans nos vies de tous les jours. Même si je n’ai pas forcément été d’accord avec 100% des idées développées, il y en a pas mal qui m’ont fait réfléchir.
tweakedenigma's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
hellhoundharry's review
1.0
Can I be honest? I skimmed through most of it. 240 pages and the first 90 pages are introduction. Followed by about 70 pages of letters to Herodotus among others. And they are mostly about physics, and not the art of happiness. And the rest is abbreviations, notes, selected biography and index.
anarcho_zymurgist's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
I do rather like Epicurus. His philosophy on maximizing personal happiness seems like it should be fairly straightforward, yet it is so refreshing to read compared to his contemporaries. He also has some surprisingly accurate hypotheses on atomic theory, among other natural phenomena. Sadly, since the ancient Greeks did not have the same technology or attitude towards the scientific method as later scientists, these hypotheses remain untested, dogmatic assertions. They are, however, a far cry from the comparatively laughable attempts at metaphysics by his philosophical opponents. Unfortunately, the works of Epicurus remain today mostly in fragments, making the limited length my main critique of the text. I admit I got most of my enjoyment out of the (quite informative) introduction.
annaelle's review against another edition
4.0
certainement un petit livre très intéressant et plein de sagesse