The philosopher Epicurus (4th century BC Athens) believed that the purpose of philosophy was to achieve the happy life which he called ataraxia or indifference. He is quoted as saying “Be happy with little for being interested in and needing much brings unhappiness.” He established a school in his garden where the aim of students, both male and female, was to live a simple life in order to attain happiness. He conceived of happiness as the elimination of pain, both mental and physical.
Although unfairly credited with promoting unrestrained hedonism, in fact he believed that many of the bodily pleasures bought with them pain or had painful outcomes. He believed that it was better to live a virtuous life as the vices usually resulted in pain which should be avoided. It is similar to the idea promoted by Aristotle that everything should be done in moderation. Denial was as dangerous as excess.
He believed in a random world of atoms and that the world has come to exist by chance and not by divine decree. Gods were regulated to a far off sphere without any interest in mankind. He believed that religion promoted the idea that the dead were unhappy but he believed that the soul perishes with the body and that therefore death is not to be feared.
His views are similar to those of Buddha and Lao-Tzu who pre-dated him and Jesus who came after him, in that he emphasised minimising harm and maximising the happiness of oneself and others which is known as the Ethic of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule. I find his simple philosophy very refreshing, liberating and still applicable today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One can indeed argue that the only purpose of life is personal enjoyment and that all things we do can be traced to this: but I am not sure this is logically defensible as any "act" that smacks of altruism can simply be dismissed by saying that making others happy gives one enjoyment. Still makes sense though!
ReplyDeleteIndeed but Epicurus in fact believed in cultivating indifference and non-attachment to personal pleasures. Later his views were corrupted somewhat by the Romans who had a more robust view of life than those ascetic Greeks. I share the "eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow we may die" philosophy myself but I can see that in theory moderation is a good idea!
ReplyDeleteMaximising personal enjoyment is a little more complex than that: as a rational person also thinks forward into what will be the consequences, leading to the moderation. The tricky bit is working out the factor by which one discounts these consequences due to their level of uncertainty (tomorrow we die). It may well be that belief in a god is in fact rational even if one thinks that likelihood is low due to the huge(for some) fear of death that can potentially be offset by promise of after life. this can balance against the inconvenience during life as we know it As I said everything can be explained by maximising personal happiness. The Golden Rule is the same: if if carried out in a "pay it forward" form. Pure altruism does not exist.
ReplyDeleteI think you may be referring to Pascal's wager where he said you may as well believe in God as you have nothing to lose in this life except a bit of inconvenience but everything to gain after death. Play on the safe side!
ReplyDelete