1.Is Epicureanism, in fact, a closed system, and if it is, is this to its disadvantage?

My answer: Yes, it is a closed system of dogmatic philosophy and lifestyle and I see no disadvantage in this. Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy stated that the Epicureans “served a useful purpose by their protest against the increasing devotion of the later pagans to magic, astrology, and divination; but they remained, like their founder, dogmatic, limited, and without genuine interest in anything outside individual happiness. They learnt by heart the creed of Epicurus, and added nothing to it throughout the centuries during which the school survived.”
If you find a philosophy leading to happiness why should you change it or look further?
2.Further, to what extent do you think it is possible to disagree with historical Epicurean teaching and yet still realistically consider yourself “an Epicurean”?
My answer:I believe that if you accept and follow Epicurus’s core ethical teachings and practice them in your daily life you may call yourself an Epicurean, even if you disregard his physics and theology.
3.If you identify as an Epicurean, why do you do so in preference to, say, identifying as a Stoic, given that both traditions have effective techniques for achieving ataraxia/apatheia?
My answers:
Ataraxia does NOT equal apatheia – but this would be a topic for a new discussion.
Seneca and Marcus Aurelius borrowed generously from Epicurus and some of the psychagogical techniques and educational exercises of both schools were very similar, as pointed out by Hadot, Rabbow and others.
Besides the few similarities and the many important and very pertinent differences enumerated above by Bob we should also keep in mind that
- Stoicism changed a lot from Zeno’s materialism to Marcus Aurelius’s quasi-platonism
- Stoics never managed to make their determinism consistent with their belief in beneficent providence.
- Stoics never had anything like the Epicurean school-communities
- Stoics actively participated in power games whereas with Epicureans it was the exception
- Stoics always preached reason, virtue, and duty but seldom walked their own talk
- Stoicism was the philosophy of Greek aristocrats and Roman patricians whereas the followers of Epicurus were mostly higher middle class with no political ambitions.
In DeWitt’s words:” Epicureanism presented two fronts to the world, the one as repellent as the other was attractive. Its discouragement of the political career was repellent to the ambitious, its denial of divine providence to pious orthodoxy, and its hedonism to timorous respectability. Its candor, charity, courtesy, and friendliness were attractive to multitudes of the honest and unambitious folk.” (Epicurus and His Philosophy)

Bertrand Russell shows deep understanding of Epicuranism and Epicurus as a philosopher in his “History of Western Philosophy”.

Yet in “The Conquest of Happiness” – a wonderful litlle book of Epicurean inspiration – he ignores Epicurus almost totally. (He does NOT disparage him, though, as Epicurus did Nausiphanes.)

Does anybody have a clue why the basically Epicurean Russell ignored Epicurus in this work?

This is the question I have just ported on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=14290&uid=86711477873#!/topic.php?uid=86711477873&topic=14290

My hypothesis is that people are born as Epicureans but then they are re-educated. So we are all of us unwittingly Epicureans – basically.

see more here: http://newepicurean.com/

“A blessed and indestructible being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; so he is free from anger and partiality, for all such things imply weakness.” – The First Epicurean Principal Doctrine

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/?ref=home

My comment was this:

I agree with DeWitt in that Epicurus taught that the gods were not immortal but “only” indestructible” and that their “blessedness” was  -at least partly – due to the fact that they were “free from anger and partiality”. So the message of the 1st Principal Doctrine is: Do NOT fear the gods! At the same time I agree with Jaakko in that the gods through their “blessedness” or perfect ataraxia served as role models for Epicurean practitioners, who believed and proved that through daily practice the can “live like gods”.

• • pain
  • a lack of control over environmental circumstances, such as food, housing, health, freedom
  • social issues such as social defeat, relationship conflict, deception, break-ups
  • major events such as birth, death, marriage, and divorce
  • life experiences such as poverty, unemployment, exams, deadlines

Why are these very common issues and experiences perceived by many as threats? If they are so common, why are we not appropriately prepared for them? Is our failure to cope with the most common issues not a result of the malfunction of those whose responsibility it is to prepare us for life? Have our parents, teachers, educators and counselors all failed us?

Epicurus, the founder of the Epicurean school of philosophy and happiness-boosting life conduct, suffered all his life from a bladder pain that finally killed him. This fact, however, did not interfere with his pursuit of happiness, even though they had no pain relief medicines in 271 BCE.

So what was Epicurus’s secret?  His “four-part cure,” in Greek “tetrapharmakos,” can give us a hint:

Don’t fear the gods,
Don’t worry about death;
What is good is easy to get, and
What is terrible is easy to endure

But his anti-stress medicine could not be swallowed at once with a glass of water. His followers had to chew and digest it over many years in their communal educative life-schools. The effort must have been worthwhile since the Epicurean circles of friends flourished over 800 years from 300 BCE till 500 CE.

So how was Epicurus’s stress-prevention program practiced?

The Epicureans did not give up their possessions as the Pythagoreans did, since that would have prevented them from generously sharing their resources with each other. They did not rebel against the state and its institutions, as the Cynics did, since they relied on the state to protect them in exchange for performing their duties as citizens. (Epicurus himself went to Athens for his two-year term of military service at the age of 18.) They did not plot against rulers or attempt revolutions, as the Platonists did, since they believed that the exercise of political power beyond the bounds of their own self-administrative communes endangered their peace of mind, necessary for a good life in freedom and happiness. For the same reason they did not participate in state affairs, as the Stoics did. They kept a low profile according to one of their principles: “lathe biosas,” in English,” live unobtrusively” or “unnoticed.”

This is what they did: The happiness-seekers lived together in communities where they could individually and collectively promote each others’ progress on their pathways from pain to pleasure. They studied intensively Epicurus’s therapeutical writings and memorized the most important precepts so they had them ready at hand the moment the specific philosophical-psychological pill was needed. They gave each other feedback on their progress and those who were more advanced helped the others in the way modern life-coaches and trainers do through lectures, discussions, conversations, and practical activities.

How  can an Epicurean lifestyle prevent each of life’s main “stressors”? Through the education and continuous practice of stress-busting, happiness-boosting attitudes towards all the issues related to pain, fear, frustration experienced today as social defeat, relationship conflict, deception, break-ups, births, deaths, divorce, poverty, unemployment, exams, and deadlines.

I will take up these issues individually and describe how Epicureans dealt with them over eight centuries and how we can deal with them today.

 Other cultures are less congruent: they preach e.g. that  “The love of money is the root of all evil.” [1. Tim. 6, 10]  and that “It is as easy for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle as it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” [Matthew 19:23].   And yet they are surprised if somebody takes their moral rules seriously and tries to follow them.

 I grew up in another hypocritical culture under the so called communist state religion. Money was less of an issue there than “power and glory”. They preached the equality of all but in practice they produced a new privileged class for the few.

 At 16 I wanted to become a journalist and started working for a youth weekly. It soon turned out that the censors can turn an article or a report to the contrary of what I wanted to say. They also expected me to join the communist party and follow 2 or 4 year courses of ideological “studies”.  So at 17 I gave up this career plan of mine.

 At the University they proposed that I do postgraduate studies and join the faculty. This could have implied  an obligatory communist party membership and being an informant of the secret police (giving them information about my friends, neighbors, colleagues, even family members) so I chose to go to a village and teach there. As long as you did not aspire to a leading position you could get along and stay honest at the same time.

 We meet at class reunions and those who chose to collaborate with a régime they actually hated do not seem to be happy or satisfied. Many of them turned to alcohol, some of them committed suicide. Some are simply ostracized.

 Some of us managed to flee to West Europe or America or Israel. The majority of  these ex school mates fell victim to the rat race and now they are either burned out (if they were “financially successful”) or consider themselves losers and feel ashamed of it.  

 A minority of  5-10% refused to bargain their tranquility for money resp. status and power  - no matter whether they went on living under the communist state religion or opted to follow  the capitalist state religion. They are artists or craftspeople or small entrepreneurs.

 I wonder if the decision is any easier today for those young people who are aware of the option to choose stressFREEDOM instead of career.

Epicurus drew a clear distinction between

-    choosing a basic general attitude (diathesis) toward action in a given sphere and

-    choosing to do or not to do a given thing within that field.

Thus Epicureans were trained to make these two choices.

They were trained, for example, to first choose what attitude they will assume towards, for instance, death, the gods, pleasure and pain, necessity, fortune, political life, food, fame and friendship.

The choice of a basic and general attitude, however, by no means abolished the necessity of making individual decisions.

The proper attitude toward pain, for instance, is to regard it as inherently evil and to be avoided; nevertheless, in the individual case the lesser pain, such as that of the surgeon’s knife, is endured for the sake of the greater good.

Again, the proper attitude toward food is to prefer a simple diet, but this does not preclude and even approves the occasional indulgence.

In a series of articles I will touch upon those topics that are considered as possible sources of stress and therefore can act as happiness blockers. By showing the attitude Epicurean practitioners applied over 800 years, I hope to help today’s happiness-seekers to escape from the most dangerous happiness-blocker: stress.