Why Is There No Epicurean Movement?

Notes on the Greco-Roman philosophy of pleasure

Stoicism is very much alive today. Despite its origin as an ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, thousands of people are actively involved in local groups, private practice, and international organizations.

Stoicism is spread via apps like Stoa, nonprofits such as Modern Stoicism, and media empires like the Daily Stoic.

Back in the day, the Stoics competed with rival philosophical schools – from the Skeptics, Platonists, Aristotelians, Cynics, and Epicureans.

Today, little remains of once-heated Greco-Roman ideological competition. Instead, other rival life philosophies have appeared and, by the numbers, the religious varieties won. But that’s another story.

The relevant question here is, why aren’t other ancient Greek and Roman philosophies as popular as Stoicism?

The question is easier to answer for some philosophical schools than others. Some have been subsumed by modern Stoicism. Cynicism and aspects of Aristotelianism are good candidates for this. While Platonism is perhaps too primordial or protean to form a movement.

Epicureanism is a different matter. It’s a distinct philosophy of life that is at odds with Stoicism. It was a serious rival in ancient times. No longer. For these reasons we should ask – why is there no Epicurean movement?

Philosophical Primer

The ancient Greek and Roman philosophies were fundamentally philosophies of life. Each worldview was an account of what a good life was and how to live it. In that way, they are like religions. Unlike religions, and perhaps to the detriment of their popularity, these philosophical schools had less well-defined institutions and communal practices.

In the ancient world, there was remarkable agreement on the idea that virtue or character was at the core of living a good life. The vast majority of the schools hold that someone who exemplifies courage, moderation, wisdom, and justice has mastered the most important aspect of human life.

Consider the Cynics. These philosophers held that virtue was the only thing of value. Everything else should be shunned. Hence, the sage of Cynicism, Diogenes, was known for living in a barrel with only a handful of possessions. When he saw a boy drinking water from a fountain with his hands he threw away his cup saying “A child has beaten me in the plainness of living.”

Contrast that demanding and focused life with the Aristotelians. For Aristotle, virtue was good, but to live well one had to have things outside of one’s character go well too. In Aristotle’s words, one cannot be happy in a torture rack. A good life is a virtuous one, but it’s also one of relative material and reputational success. Diogenes, on this account, did not obviously live well.

The Stoics took a middle position. Cheekily, we could say they inhabit the Aristotelian mean between Aristotelianism and Cynicism.

In their view, virtue was the only thing of value. Yet other states of affairs are naturally desirable. Character should never be traded off for material success, reputation, or pleasure. All things considered, it may be better (preferable) for someone to be successful, famous, or feel happy. Such things are not necessarily good. Many have been corrupted – or perhaps revealed – by material success or fame. These external things are “preferred indifferents.” They are better in the sense that they fulfill our natural wants and desires, but ultimately it’s how we use them that matters.

Against all three schools, the Epicureans held a completely different view.

According to Epicureans pleasure is the only thing of value and suffering is the only thing of disvalue. The contemporary use of the word “epicurean” like the term “stoicism” captures a shred of truth, even if it is largely misleading. “Epicurean” lifestyles are one’s full of fine wines and food. Epicurean lives, properly understood, are full of good experiences, yet Epicurus, the founder of the school, did not mandate the pursuit of pleasure. Instead, he advised that one do the opposite. Consider some of his lines:

He who is not satisfied with a little, is satisfied with nothing.

Self-sufficiency is the greatest of all wealth.

To live well, one should live a moderate life without demanding desires. Nothing in excess. A life that leads to ataraxia (tranquility) is a good one according to the Epicureans. What we may call a wantonly hedonistic life is not the Epicurean one, properly understood.

Epicureanism – a brief history

Born in 341 B.C. like many philosophers before him, Epicurus found himself in Athens. Unlike other philosophers, Epicurus stayed out of politics.

Instead, he cultivated community by teaching from his garden. In the words of Gary Zabel:

The Garden had a carefully-designed program of advertising and education to attract and instruct students, and those who accepted Epicurean teachings were encouraged to formally proclaim their Epicurean identity, build friendships with each other, revere the founders of the Garden as role-models, and celebrate specifically-Epicurean festivals.

The Garden was a formally flat and egalitarian organization. The fact that members were instructed to revere their leaders and that the philosophy was named after the founder is evidence that it, like every human organization, could not escape implicit hierarchies. Regardless, Epicureans were known for being less elitist than many Greek citizens, inviting women and slaves to participate in their community.

Perhaps the attitude of the Garden is best captured by the inscription welcoming guests:

Stranger, here you will do well to tarry; here our highest good is pleasure. The caretaker of that abode, a kindly host, will be ready for you; he will welcome you with bread, and serve you water also in abundance, with these words: "Have you not been well entertained? This garden does not whet your appetite; but quenches it."

Why There is no Epicurean Movement

For a time, Epicureanism was relatively popular in Rome.

It was adopted by aristocrats, philosophers, and poets. The Epicurean achievement of this age is De Rerum Natura, a work by the poet Lucretius which proclaims and explains the hedonistic philosophy.

Eventually, the movement fell out of favor. First, it flamed out in elite circles. Famous Epicureans lost political and cultural power and, as I’ll argue below, there are reasons to expect this. Then it faded out in general popularity as the wildfire of Christianity spread through the Empire.

Even still, Epicureans found a few champions throughout the years. Thomas Jefferson called himself an Epicurean – though he also held Epictetus’ Handbook in high regard. Marx wrote on Epicurean physics.

Today, there are several books advocating for a return to the Epicurean lifestyle. The promoter of Stoicism, Tim Ferriss, has said that he has “Epicurean tendencies.” John Sellars wrote both “The Pocket Epicurean” and “The Pocket Stoic”.

Yet it has failed to have a moment in the way other philosophies have. 

I believe that is because it is too quietest and is no longer novel. More seriously, it has serious theoretical problems.

Epicureanism is a philosophy of exit. It is the ideology of the garden. In advocating tranquility, it suggests a withdrawal from political life. This isn’t a criticism per se, but it does explain why it fell out of favor with many Roman elites. Much more popular were philosophies like Stoicism that included positive aspects of Epicureanism, like the management of desire, with the demand to act in civic life. Stoics advised emperors (Arius Didymus, Seneca), planned to assassinate them (The Stoic Opposition), and finally became emperors themselves (Marcus Aurelius). Each of these people was motivated by their life philosophy – the ideology of the garden was not enough.

That consideration, combined with the rise of the Christian religion may explain why Epicureanism fell out of favor. 

What explains why it hasn’t returned? Today the Epicurean philosophy does not fill a needed niche. There are two fundamental parts of Epicureanism: hedonism and virtue ethics. Both products are adequately produced in the marketplace of ideas. The Stoic movement is attractive to anyone interested in virtue ethics. Both modern and ancient Stoics adapt the best of other traditions while continuing to walk the middle path through Aristotelian and cynic philosophies. One need only look at the Roman philosopher Seneca repeatedly quoting Epicurus as ancient evidence: 

The thought for to-day is one which I discovered in Epicurus;  for I am wont to cross over even into the enemy's camp, – not as a deserter, but as a scout. He says: "Contented poverty is an honorable estate.”

Meanwhile, hedonism has found its advocates through utilitarians, a philosophy that advocates maximizing the amount of pleasure. Hedonists like John Stuart Mill followed in Epicurean footsteps by proposing more sophisticated versions of the philosophy than the crass dictum to feel good. In both Epicurean and Millian views, it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. All this is to say that the best hedonistic lifestyle is a sophisticated one, not one focused on merely base and low pleasures. Unlike Epicureanism, utilitarianism provides answers to political and social problems that large-scale societies provide. Whether or not they are good ones, is another matter, but they certainly offer more direction than a relatively vague hedonist virtue ethic.

So, apart from a deleterious focus on tranquility, it’s not clear what Epicureanism has to offer as a philosophy – which isn’t to say that there isn’t much practical wisdom in Epicurus or Lucretius.

The above points, as stated, are explanatory. They aim to explain why Epicureanism is no longer present, not justify that state of affairs.

What justifies Epicurean obscurity is the fact that hedonism is false. This is shown by two powerful problems with philosophy.

The first is that not all pleasures are good. We do not value the pleasure of a sadist torturing an innocent animal. It does not matter whether the pleasure is high or base, euphoric or tranquil.

To this object, Epicureans may reply that we don’t find such pleasures valuable because they lead to more suffering down the line. The idea that some pleasures are bad due to their effects is true enough. But the idea that “no pleasure is in itself evil” is mistaken. The key reason to resist this sadistic pleasure is that taking joy in another’s suffering is not intrinsically valuable. The sadist does not redeem their evil acts merely by feeling contented.

The second issue is that there are more goods than pleasure. To communicate this, the philosopher Robert Nozick, introduced the idea of a happiness machine:

Suppose there was an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Super-duper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, preprogramming your life experiences?... Of course, while in the tank you won't know that you're there; you'll think that it's all actually happening... Would you plug in?

Would you plug in? Maybe, maybe not. Building on this idea, similar thought experiments suggest that the idea that only pleasure matters is implausible. 

There is more value to this world than can be dreamed of in our experience.

For example, we care about the identity of our loved ones even if that does not cause suffering. In the myth of Zeus and Alcmene, Zeus takes on the form of Amphitryon, Alcmene’s husband, to make love to her. Whether or not that experience is euphoric doesn’t matter. Zeus would be acting wrongly even if Alcemene had never learned of his deception. 

Consider also the idea that the world where we are virtuous and feel happy is better than the world where we merely feel happy but are less virtuous. This is not explained if hedonism is true since the only things of value reside in feeling.

Epicurus stated:

It is impossible to live pleasantly without living prudently, honorably, and justly, and impossible to live prudently, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly.

This is likely not true, but even if it is, it’s a contingent fact of this world. If one could get ahead by living dishonorably the Epicurean would have no philosophical tools to explain why such a life would be any worse than an honorable one.

Such considerations strongly suggest that hedonism is false. If that’s true, then the key tenets of Epicureanism are false as well.

The Stoic idea that pleasure is a preferred indifferent makes more sense of the cases above. It’s not pleasure per se that’s valuable, but how it is used and when it is experienced. When pleasure conflicts with character, it should be forsaken.

Philosophy as a Way of Life

Despite these arguments and deep philosophical differences, it’s clear that Stoicism and Epicureanism are more alike in practice than they are different. This is especially so when today’s dominant philosophies are brought to mind. So perhaps Epicureanism can follow other ancient philosophies and join the big tent of modern Stoicism.

Consider this line from Epictetus:

What is the goal of virtue, after all, except a life that flows smoothly?

As noted above, Epicurus kept virtue central. In Thomas Jefferson’s “Syllabus of Epicureanism” he writes that “Virtue consists in 1. Prudence 2. Temperance 3. Fortitude 4. Justice.” These, of course, are the classical virtues emphasized by each ancient school. 

In a world emphasizing outcomes and processes over who one is, this is significant consilience. 

We should also grant credit to the Epicureans where it is due. On some topics, they possess more insight than rival schools. 

Here are two areas where that is so: nature and politics.

The Epicureans rejected the rosy view of the natural world. According to their philosophy nature was not driven by positive teleological forces. They resisted Aristotelian attempts to justify injustices by appealing to what was “natural.” In their view, nature was not essentially good. It was merely atoms in the void. Now, I wouldn’t throw out a teleological view of nature just yet. But the insight that nature is cruel, indifferent, and often ethically irrelevant is a good one.

Epicureans were (and are) criticized for being politically quietist. Epicurus advised his students to “live unnoticed.” This is no doubt a controversial claim, but many of us could arguably use more political passivity – as could the ancient Greeks and Romans. In Xenophon’s Memorabilia, Socrates finds himself talking to Glaucon, a young and ignorant person who desires to lead the Athenians. After asking him basic questions, Socrates learns, as he no doubts suspected, that Glaucon does not know basic facts about the Athenian military or economy. The typical person is more like Glaucon than Socrates.

Despite its lack of popularity and theoretical issues, Epicureanism has its advantages.

I hope to see other attempts to explain the Epicurean vacuum. To some extent, I wish to see the vacuum filled. It’s always good to have others join the project of doing justice to the best parts of ancient philosophy.

What is good is easy to get, and

What is terrible is easy to endure.

Epicurus

James Kierstead asked me this very question in a conversation on his Youtube Channel, Ancient and Modern. And see the discussion here:

James Kierstead @Kleisthenes2

Why is modern Stoicism apparently so much more of a thing (especially online) than modern Epicureanism?