Epicureanism (Volume 7)

Ancient Philosophies

by Tim O'Keefe

This introduction to Epicureanism offers students and general readers a clear exposition of the central tenets of Epicurean philosophy, one of the dominant schools of the Hellenistic period. Founded by Epicurus of Samos (c. 341–270 BCE), it held that for a human being the greatest good was to attain tranquility, free from fear and bodily pain, by seeking to understand the workings of the world and the limits of our desires. Tim O’Keefe provides an extended exegesis of the arguments that support Epicurean philosophical positions, analyzing both their strengths and their weaknesses while showing how the different areas of Epicurean inquiry come together to make a whole. Lucid, witty, and entertaining, Epicureanism wears its knowledge lightly while offering a wealth of stimulating and humorous examples.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Classics

224 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2009

Reviews

[Glenn Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you were introduced to ancient Greek philosophy in college, you probably were given a few dialogues of Plato and some selections of Aristotle to read and discuss in class. If the dramatized logic of Plato didn't turn you off completely from philosophy, then the convoluted, dry, uninspiring words of Aristotle probably did the trick. In all likelihood, Epicurus was not even mentioned. Fortunately for us, we now have Epicureanism by Tim O'Keefe, a clear, easy-to-read yet in-depth presentation of each aspect of the philosophy of Epicurus: his physics and metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, complete with many scholarly references.

O'Keefe writes in the introductory chapter "Plato and Epicurus are opposed on almost every important matter; as a first approximation, one will not go far wrong in viewing Epicurus as the anti-Plato." If this sound like a completely different way of pursuing philosophy than you were taught in college, you are absolutely correct. O'Keefe continues, "Epicurus holds that the most pleasant life is a tranquil one, free of fear and need." I only wish my boyhood environment and schooling emphasized tranquility, joy and freedom from fear and craving, rather than regimentation, mindless competition, and forced conformity. But, it is not too late for any of us. We can learn from Epicurus and O'Keefe's book is an excellent place to start.

In the chapter on Cosmology, O'Keefe notes, "Against most other cosmologists, they (the Epicureans) maintain that our world is only one of an infinite number of worlds coming to be and falling apart in a spatially infinite universe that has existed and will exist forever." And further on, "Our particular limited cosmos is only one of an infinite number of cosmoi (the plural of cosmos), each of which comes into existence and will eventually fall apart. But the universe as a whole has no beginning and no end; it has always existed and will always exist. And spatially, the universe stretches infinitely in all directions." Not too bad for philosophers living over two thousand years before the advent of modern physics and astronomy.

Of course, one of the biggest knocks against Epicurus, both during his own lifetime and continuing right up to our present day, is his equating the ultimate good with pleasure. But, as O'Keefe points out, Epicurus had a much refined and qualified concept of pleasure. We read: "Epicurean hedonism is an enlightened hedonism, which recognizes that one must be brave, temperate and wise in order to live pleasantly. But Epicurus is unusual in insisting that the virtues are only instrumental goods, good only for the sake of the pleasure they produce, instead of being good for their own sake. Likewise, philosophy itself is needed to attain pleasure, but has no intrinsic value." Let's be honest: Who of you reading this doesn't value and seek pleasure in life, even if your pleasure is the intellectual pleasure of reading philosophy or literature?

Toward the end of the book, O'Keefe writes, "The Epicureans are convinced that Epicurus is not merely the discoverer of many interesting and cogent arguments. Instead, he is the savior of humanity, and the only route to salvation from superstitious fears and empty desires is by fully accepting his message." To what degree is this applicable and true for our lives today? To explore this question and others, please read O'Keefe's work on Epicureanism. It will be, I can assure you, a most rewarding philosophical journey.

[Percival Buncab · Rating 5 out of 5]

Epicurus was content with just water and bread. On the few times he wanted extravagance, he would say, “Spare me a little pot of cheese, so I may indulge when I wish.” Such is the man who taught pleasure is the highest good.

I’ve been into Stoicism for quite some time now. But the more I learn about their beliefs and practices, the more my reservations grow. So when I learned about Epicureanism and found it more reasonable, and how even the Stoics (one of their rivals schools) adapted several of their teachings, I knew I had to read a formal book about it. Hence, I read Tim O'Keefe’s Epicureanism.

I read this book immediately after I read the Epicurus Reader. What I love about reading ancient philosophers is how they are easier to understand than the modern philosophers. As a layman, I can read directly, for example, Epicurus’ writings and immediately understand what he meant without the need of any dumb-down explanation.

But we always learn much from also reading studies on a certain subject. It’s especially true with Epicureanism. Epicurus was said to be a prolific writer. Many of his works have been frequently cited by later ancient writers. Unfortunately, we lost in antiquity vast majority of his writings. So the best way to learn the most of Epicureanism is to read an updated study about it.

O’Keefe has written a fair presentation of Epicureanism, comparing it side-to-side with several of its rivals, like the Stoics and Skeptics. After reading this book, I have found myself to be more of an Epicurean than a Stoic. Although I also discovered a few reservations about Epicurean teaching (especially their pedagogy), I, so far, still find their philosophy closest to reaching eudaimonia.

This book is part of University of California Press’ Ancient Philosophies Series, which includes Stoicism. That’s the next book I plan to read after I finished reading the Big Three Stoics. I just finished reading all of Seneca’s moral letters, and I’m now reading Epictetus’ Discourses. I’m quite excited to read up to Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. I’m still in my journey of self-studying different practical philosophies. And so far, I just enjoy learning from all of them.

[Ana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pleasure without glut, and justice arising from a promise to care for one another. I expected a call to endless parties and was astonished to instead meet many of my own life philosophies, uttered thousands of years ago.

[Leo Horovitz · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the third book in the series that I've read (the other two being Cynics and Stoicism) and I have to say that it is my least favorite so far. That's not to say that it was bad, in fact, it was quite good (as the rating of 3 out of 5 stars would seem to indicate), but it has a few shortcomings, which I'll deal with in a minute.

Like the other two books mentioned above, it's a introductory text to a certain school of philosophy in Antiquity. Also like the other two, the focus lies on the philosophical ideas rather than the philosophers themselves, the history of the ideas, or the place of the movement in society at large. Here, one objection immediately comes to mind. The books on Stoicism and Cynicism didn't focus on the history of ideas, but nevertheless started with a quick overview of the philosophers and how the ideas evolved over the centuries. Nothing of the sort is found in this book. Instead, the lines of though and their development is dealt with in the different chapters dealing with the different parts of Epicurean philosophy. It is of course at least in part a matter of personal taste which one of these one prefers, but personally, I preferred to have a brief overview at the beginning to get some sense of orientation. Nevertheless, this is a minor point.

Somewhat more serious is my objection to aspects of the author's style of writing. The text tries to explain concepts through practical, pedagogical, everyday examples (which is welcome), but uses attempted humorous modern day references and borrows from personal reflections and opinions (less welcome) in a way that is a bit annoying and distracting from the issues at hand. I am not a proponent of a completely dispassionate, dry style of writing, but a writer needs to be careful not to stray to much from the actual issues and to become too personal when the subject matter is inherently non personal. The author fails to be sufficiently careful in this regard.

Another thing which seems a bit questionable is the exact way in which Epicurean though is related to other view of philosophy. Relating a certain school of thought to others is always a good idea, but it should be done in a way where a comparison is relevant. Some examples of obviously relevant comparisons are those between Epicurean (in this example) thought and other contemporary thinkers, commentators (both contemporary and later), and later or earlier thinkers who are not consciously commenting upon Epicurean thought (or, in the case of earlier thinkers, upon which the Epicureans are not consciously commenting) but which have ideas which are related to Epicurean thought. It is not that the author here brings up ideas which are completely irrelevant, it is just that he bring in discussion of ideas from philosophers far into the future which are only related to the general subject which is currently under discussion, for example ethics, without it being obvious how those ideas relate specifically to Epicurean thought. At least, this is sometimes how these references are presented, but maybe this is a misunderstanding on my part.

In any case, this criticism might give the impression of this being a bad review, giving the reader of it great cause for confusion considering the rating, but I bring these up only because I cannot find anything particularly good to point out about the book, whereas I can (apparently) bring up several slightly bad things to say. I need to point out though, that my criticism above is somewhat hesitant, and not to be taken too seriously, these are by no means serious concerns of mine regarding the book, they should be viewed more as slight shortcomings than serious flaws. Overall, I quite liked the book. It's a very easy read (at least for the reader who is somewhat familiar with philosophy and in particular ancient philosophy, those without this familiarity might be a little bit overwhelmed by names and terminology, not that the book is heavy in either) and a great introduction to and overview of one of the main schools of philosophy in the ancient world.

[Bart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent overview of Epicureanism; the chapter on 'pleasure' could've been a bit longer, though, as it plays such an important part in this particular philosophy. Then again, the (unfortunately limited) writings of Epicurus are pretty clear on this point.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting. I agree with this philosophy on a few points, but overall I found the work a little too scholarly for my tastes. A lot of time was spent reviewing the intellectual historical context. In a work like this I'm looking for distilled wisdom, rather then something exhaustive.

[Jay Ahn · Rating 4 out of 5]

When looking for modern books on Epicureanism, one will likely come across the works of Catherine Wilson. I found those to be a bit too opinionated, and find this book to be a superior introduction to the philosophy.

[Paul Beaulieu · Rating 4 out of 5]

O'Keefe gives an unbiased view of Epicureanism, presenting the strengths and weaknesses of its facets as well as the opposing arguments which have been presented by other schools of philosophy and he does it with creativity and a great sense of humour!

[Ammar · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Hell exists here on earth – in the lives of fools”

[John Peterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Death and Physics were information the rest was subpar

[Sophia Exintaris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well structured but skims so quickly over arguments and positions of philosophers are to be very difficult to remember anything at all.

[Ed · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was interested in epicurean materialism, as it influenced Gassendi. This lucid exposition describes this as well as discussing many other facets of epicureanism. O'Keefe makes the limits of the available sources as well as what critics of this philosophy have said. i was particularly interested that the highest good of epicureanism was tranquility and not hedonistic pleasure.

[Rodrigo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Epicureanism in general is an awesome philosophy. This book is a great introduction, short, concise and to the point with notes and references for digging deeper.

[Paul]

Or some book similar that introduces the philosophic thought

[Morabito · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as good as the other book of this series that I have read, namely the one on stoicism. But anyway a nicely done introduction giving a fairly interesting overview of Epicureanism.