The Philosophy of Epicurus.

The philosophy of Epicurus is neither religious nor supra-materialistic in form. It is devoid of moral grandeur and even more distressingly abandons the ambition of both Plato and Aristotle to discover the good life for man within the human community. For Aristotle, reason and speech naturally seek virtue and justice. In the Epicurean view, these are mere tools individuals utilize to secure pleasure or happiness. In this philosophy, we are not beasts in the menacing way that Aristotle used the term we are merely another animal in the world of nature.
Epicurus Vs. Aristotle On the Highest Good
    According to Epicurus, tranquility and freedom from fear, being the highest form of pleasure, can only be attained through knowledge, mutual friendship, and a moderate lifestyle. Simple pleasures which constitute periodic abstinence from sex and material appetites, meditation, and mental exercise are paths to the achievement of a state of tranquility. This state of tranquility is not synonymous with religious syllogism. It is freedom from the excesses of the world  excesses which disrupt the natural satisfaction of man. Overindulgence is the result of dissatisfaction  of the inability of the individual to enjoy the pleasure.
    Epicurus placed emphasis on the pleasures of the mind rather than on material pleasures. As such, when a person eats, the emphasis is not so much on what is or how much is eaten but with whom a person eats. Artificially produced desires were to be suppressed because these lead to depression and anxiety. The individual, rather than the community, is responsible for the pursuit of the highest pleasure, because it is the individual which benefits from these pleasures.
    For Aristotle, the highest good can be found in the political community. The individual alone cannot obtain the highest good because he is incapable of sustaining it. The political community, on the other hand, is the source of the highest good. Being the source, it is capable of sustaining itself. In the Politics, Aristotle wrote
Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good (136).
Thus, for Aristotle, the social good is greater than the individual good because its effects are more comprehensive than the former. If the highest good is somehow limited to one individual, then humanity itself could never be dissimilar from other animals (Aristotle, Politics). If the highest good is something which can be readily obtained, then such good is not a product of moderation (which is nature) but by excesses. In other words, it is impossible for the highest good to be overtly abundant or overtly simple. It can only be found in a political association  an association which is neither a product of material malevolence nor ignorance.
    The Epicurean view on pleasure is a form of hedonism, as far as emphasis on the efficacy of the intrinsic is concerned. Its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its emphasis on moderation though make it a lesser form of hedonism.
Epicurus Vs. Plato On Virtue
    Epicureanism is, to some political scientists, the absence of divine principles. Virtue itself has no value because it is both artificial and arbitrary (Epicurus, the Essential Epicurus). It is only beneficial when it serves as a means to gain pleasure. Indeed, if virtue is used to disperse happiness, then it becomes an evil. Reciprocity is likewise a tool for achieving happiness. It is neither divinely ordained nor inherently noble. Reciprocity is only functional because it contributes both to the satisfaction of the individual and the community. As Epicurus noted
Where without any change in circumstances the conventional laws, when judged by their consequences, were seen not to correspond with the notion of justice, such laws were not really just but wherever the laws have ceased to be useful in consequence of a change in circumstances, in that case the laws were for the time being just when they were useful for the mutual association of the citizens, and subsequently ceased to be just when they ceased to be useful (Epicurus 48).
    In The Republic, Plato defined four cardinal virtues wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. Wisdom is the ability to see the whole. Courage is the virtue of preserving or maintaining the efficacy of the whole. Moderation is the ability to control appetites. Justice is the tending of the soul  the virtue of knowing oneself. For Plato, these virtues are not artificial utilities they are, in essence, natural forms of reason. Reason is the primary element of virtue it is the guiding principle of utility. It is, thus, the formal end of happiness. Reason is also a definitive element of true justice. Individual justice must be equal to collective justice (note the contrast with Epicurus who valued the individual rather than the community. In The Republic, Plato declared
For mankind censure injustice, fearing that they may be the victims of it and not because they shrink from committing it. And thus, as I have shown, Socrates, injustice, when on a sufficient scale, has more strength and freedom and mastery than justice and, as I said at first, justice is the interest of the stronger, whereas injustice is a mans own profit and interest (Aristotle, Politics).
Epicurus Vs. Aristotle and Plato On the Divine
    Epicureanism emphasizes the neutrality of the divine beings  their non-interference in the activities of man. The gods possess souls souls are composed of atoms. Unlike humans, gods have eternal souls  the forces which bind the atoms of the gods together are beyond the grasp of human faculty. It is something mysterious and controversial. As such, the gods, unlike humans, are immortal  immune to death and suffering.
    It is therefore impossible for the gods to prevent evil, not because they were malevolent but because they lived in a perfect state of freedom. This perfect state of freedom is nonexistent in the material world. Evil is the absence of freedom  it is the immanent triumph of absolute materialism over purity. Hence, man must strive to emulate this state of freedom at the cost of material happiness.
    For Aristotle, the Divine Being is not merely a coalition of atomic particles He is the First Mover, Whom there is no imperfection and no potentiality. In a sense, God is all actuality. All other entities are composed of actuality and potentiality  a dualism which characterizes the inherent dualism of body and soul. As the Unmoved Mover, God is the Ultimate Cause of nature. He is infinite substance of the universe  His divine essence being present in creation  the result of His works of old. In essence, God is the material, formal, efficient, and final cause of things.
    Like Aristotle, Plato viewed God as the Pure Spirit  the creator of animate and inanimate things. He is the Great Idea which exhaled the spirit of life (ideas) into the material world. He constantly interferes with the activities of man  in the propagation of virtue and the protection of His laws. His essence is far removed from the nature of man because His essence is located in the World of Ideas.
Conclusion
    Epicurus philosophy is a simplistic approach to arriving at a formal definition of pleasure. This simplicity however bears more problems than solution. Epicurus simply ignored the principle of dualism in philosophy and ethics. His individualist approach on utility is insufficient to answer collective issues. As such, to many his philosophy seemed dull and devoid of philosophic grandeur.

0 comments:

Post a Comment