PDA

View Full Version : The 40 Doctrines Of Epicurus


Thomas Knierim
11th July 2003, 09:22 AM
Epicurus - Principal Doctrines

The "Principal Doctrines" (also sometimes translated under the title "Sovran Maxims") are a collection of forty quotes from the writings of Epicurus that serve as a handy summary of his ethical theory:

1. 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.

2. Death is nothing to us; for that which has been dissolved into its elements experiences no sensations, and that which has no sensation is nothing to us.

3. The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When such pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both together.

4. Continuous bodily pain does not last long; instead, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which slightly exceeds bodily pleasure does not last for many days at once. Diseases of long duration allow an excess of bodily pleasure over pain.

5. It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.

6. In order to obtain protection from other men, any means for attaining this end is a natural good.

7. Some men want fame and status, thinking that they would thus make themselves secure against other men. If the life of such men really were secure, they have attained a natural good; if, however, it is insecure, they have not attained the end which by nature's own prompting they originally sought.

8. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.

9. If every pleasure had been capable of accumulation, not only over time but also over the entire body or at least over the principal parts of our nature, then pleasures would never differ from one another.

10. If the things that produce the pleasures of profligate men really freed them from fears of the mind concerning celestial and atmospheric phenomena, the fear of death, and the fear of pain; if, further, they taught them to limit their desires, we should never have any fault to find with such persons, for they would then be filled with pleasures from every source and would never have pain of body or mind, which is what is bad.

11. If we had never been troubled by celestial and atmospheric phenomena, nor by fears about death, nor by our ignorance of the limits of pains and desires, we should have had no need of natural science.

12. It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn't know the nature of the universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure.

13. There is no advantage to obtaining protection from other men so long as we are alarmed by events above or below the earth or in general by whatever happens in the boundless universe.

14. Protection from other men, secured to some extent by the power to expel and by material prosperity, in its purest form comes from a quiet life withdrawn from the multitude.

15. The wealth required by nature is limited and is easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals extends to infinity.

16. Chance seldom interferes with the wise man; his greatest and highest interests have been, are, and will be, directed by reason throughout his whole life.

17. The just man is most free from disturbance, while the unjust is full of the utmost disturbance.

18. Bodily pleasure does not increase when the pain of want has been removed; after that it only admits of variation. The limit of mental pleasure, however, is reached when we reflect on these bodily pleasures and their related emotions, which used to cause the mind the greatest alarms.

19. Unlimited time and limited time afford an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason.

20. The flesh receives as unlimited the limits of pleasure; and to provide it requires unlimited time. But the mind, intellectually grasping what the end and limit of the flesh is, and banishing the terrors of the future, procures a complete and perfect life, and we have no longer any need of unlimited time. Nevertheless the mind does not shun pleasure, and even when circumstances make death imminent, the mind does not lack enjoyment of the best life.

21. He who understands the limits of life knows that it is easy to obtain that which removes the pain of want and makes the whole of life complete and perfect. Thus he has no longer any need of things which involve struggle.

22. We must consider both the ultimate end and all clear sensory evidence, to which we refer our opinions; for otherwise everything will be full of uncertainty and confusion.

23. If you fight against all your sensations, you will have no standard to which to refer, and thus no means of judging even those sensations which you claim are false.

24. If you reject absolutely any single sensation without stopping to distinguish between opinion about things awaiting confirmation and that which is already confirmed to be present, whether in sensation or in feelings or in any application of intellect to the presentations, you will confuse the rest of your sensations by your groundless opinion and so you will reject every standard of truth. If in your ideas based upon opinion you hastily affirm as true all that awaits confirmation as well as that which does not, you will not avoid error, as you will be maintaining the entire basis for doubt in every judgment between correct and incorrect opinion.

25. If you do not on every occasion refer each of your actions to the ultimate end prescribed by nature, but instead of this in the act of choice or avoidance turn to some other end, your actions will not be consistent with your theories.

26. All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid of, when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem likely to produce harm.

27. Of all the means which wisdom acquires to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is friendship.

28. The same conviction which inspires confidence that nothing we have to fear is eternal or even of long duration, also enables us to see that in the limited evils of this life nothing enhances our security so much as friendship.

29. Of our desires some are natural and necessary, others are natural but not necessary; and others are neither natural nor necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.

30. Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless opinion; and it is not because of their own nature they are not got rid of but because of man's groundless opinions.

31. Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.

32. Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm.

33. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.

34. Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which is associated with the apprehension of being discovered by those appointed to punish such actions.

35. It is impossible for a man who secretly violates the terms of the agreement not to harm or be harmed to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for until his death he is never sure that he will not be detected.

36. In general justice is the same for all, for it is something found mutually beneficial in men's dealings, but in its application to particular places or other circumstances the same thing is not necessarily just for everyone.

37. Among the things held to be just by law, whatever is proved to be of advantage in men's dealings has the stamp of justice, whether or not it be the same for all; but if a man makes a law and it does not prove to be mutually advantageous, then this is no longer just. And if what is mutually advantageous varies and only for a time corresponds to our concept of justice, nevertheless for that time it is just for those who do not trouble themselves about empty words, but look simply at the facts.

38. Where without any change in circumstances the things held to be just by law are seen not to correspond with the concept of justice in actual practice, such laws are not really just; but wherever the laws have ceased to be advantageous because of a change in circumstances, in that case the laws were for that time just when they were advantageous for the mutual dealings of the citizens, and subsequently ceased to be just when they were no longer advantageous.

39. The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life.

40. Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life with one another; and their enjoyment of the fullest intimacy is such that if one of them dies prematurely, the others do not lament his death as though it called for pity.

rich
11th July 2003, 10:51 AM
Posted on Jul 11 2003, 09:22 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epicurus - Principal Doctrines



Much to read, and a lot of wisdom to absorb in the 40 Doctrines. Easy reading Thomas. Thank you for posting. :)

DavidS
11th July 2003, 11:54 PM
Ditto.

Thanks, Thomas

Polaris
12th July 2003, 12:35 AM
6. In order to obtain protection from other men, any means for attaining this end is a natural good.

Any means?? That's sort of opening a Pandora's box, isn't it?

Perhaps I misunderstand the statement? :( :huh:

DavidS
13th July 2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 11 2003, 10:35 AM
Any means?? That's sort of opening a Pandora's box, isn't it?
Hi Polaris -

Good point. I, too, 'wondered' about that one. I would guess he meant self-defense·ively, not 'offensively', as may be read 'into' "40. Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life . . ."

Given the human emotional system and human mind's capacity for 'rationalization', however, I think the "any means" notion still opens a Pandora's box.

Ultimately, we get down to the issue of Jesus-Buddha-Gandhian principle of "non-violence". This raises some hypothetical Q's (anyone):

Would you personally be willing to 'kill' someone to 'protect' your own life if that was the only way 'possible'? or would you advocate and support such action?

How about, if that was the only way to protect the life of some other (presumably loved-n-valued) 'innocent'?

Would your 'judgment' differ if such 'someone' or such 'innocent' was not 'human'?

Whatever your 'position' on the above matters, what would be your philosophical -- ethical/moral or practical (to me they are one and the same) -- 'justification' for your positions on the above Q's? What, if any, would your criteriabe for making any differential assessments.

Considering that 'vegetables', as well as 'idiots' and 'crazies', are also life-forms, strikes me that Pandora's Box ends up being 'opened' no matter what one's positions may be on the above Q's. :unsure:

David

DavidS
13th July 2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Jul 10 2003, 07:22 PM
22. We must consider both the ultimate end and all clear sensory evidence, to which we refer our opinions; for otherwise everything will be full of uncertainty and confusion.

23. If you fight against all your sensations, you will have no standard to which to refer, and thus no means of judging even those sensations which you claim are false.
Strikes me that the above focuses on Body-Brain-based sensation-e·motion-mentation as the 'ultimate' reality, and therefore the 'best' criterion for 'good' 'living'.

This is in contrast with those who think of and view Spirit as the 'ultimate' reality. Epicurian 'wisdom' is thus different from the 'wisdom' of those who hold to the latter notion of 'ultimate' reality, or core-source of the quality of one's life-being, as reflected in the Gita, for instance, in Ch. 2:

"When a man has given up the desires of his heart and is satisfied with the Self alone, be sure that he has reached the highest state.

"The sage, whose mind is unruffled in suffering, whose desire is not roused by enjoyment, who is without attachment, anger or fear – take him to be one who stands at that lofty level.

"He who wherever he goes is attached to no person and to no place by ties of flesh; who accepts good and evil alike, neither welcoming the one nor shrinking from the other – take him to be one who is merged in the Infinite.

"He who can withdraw his senses from the attraction of their objects, as the tortoise draws his limbs within its shell – take it that such a one has attained Perfection.

"The objects of sense turn from him who is abstemious. Even the relish for them is lost in him who has seen the Truth."

sahyo
13th July 2003, 01:37 AM
happening not think violence or "non-violence" :)

Polaris
13th July 2003, 03:44 AM
Would you personally be willing to 'kill' someone to 'protect' your own life if that was the only way 'possible'? or would you advocate and support such action?

How about, if that was the only way to protect the life of some other (presumably loved-n-valued) 'innocent'?

Would your 'judgment' differ if such 'someone' or such 'innocent' was not 'human'?


Hi David,

You present a list of hypothetical questions to be sure!! :o

I couldn't sit here and answer any of them with any confidence and I really hope that I never find myself in a position to have to find out first hand how I'd react. Certainly I would have to assess the entire situation before deciding and since anyone of those question could occur in any number of situations then it becomes hard to calculate how I'd do.

I can tell you one thing with fairly strong conviction: If I were to find myself a passenger on a hi-jacked plane I would definately put my life on the line to stop the hi-jackers using any means I had available to me. And I can tell you I would be a real bitch about it!

Thomas Knierim
13th July 2003, 11:38 AM
David: Strikes me that the above focuses on Body-Brain-based sensation-e·motion-mentation as the 'ultimate' reality, and therefore the 'best' criterion for 'good' 'living'.

Well yes, you can hardly get more "physical" than hanging with Epicurus... Though it seems that his philosophy is more refined than what is traded today under the "hedonism" label.

David: Would you personally be willing to 'kill' someone to 'protect' your own life if that was the only way 'possible'? or would you advocate and support such action?

Hard to say. Like Polaris I hope never to encounter such a situation. I can't imagine what the outcome would be. Perhaps it is not the "you" shooting the villain, but the "you" is simply acting like a karmic cogwheel thus deciding the matter either in the villain's favor or yours, depending on the existing conditions.

Cheers, Thomas

a random hack
14th July 2003, 09:06 AM
20. The flesh receives as unlimited the limits of pleasure; and to provide it requires unlimited time. But the mind, intellectually grasping what the end and limit of the flesh is, and banishing the terrors of the future, procures a complete and perfect life, and we have no longer any need of unlimited time. Nevertheless the mind does not shun pleasure, and even when circumstances make death imminent, the mind does not lack enjoyment of the best life.


The Strawberry
A Zen Tale from Japan

There was once a man who was being chased by a ferocious tiger across a field. At the edge of the field there was a cliff. In order to escape the jaws of the tiger, the man caught hold of a vine and swung himself over the edge of the cliff. Dangling down, he saw, to his dismay, there were more tigers on the ground below him! And, furthermore, two little mice were gnawing on the vine to which he clung. He knew that at any moment he would fall to certain death. That's when he noticed a wild strawberry growing on the cliff wall. Clutching the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other and put it in his mouth.


Borrowed from http://www.storyarts.org/library/nutshell/...strawberry.html (http://www.storyarts.org/library/nutshell/stories/strawberry.html)

Would you personally be willing to 'kill' someone to 'protect' your own life if that was the only way 'possible'? or would you advocate and support such action?

How about, if that was the only way to protect the life of some other (presumably loved-n-valued) 'innocent'?

Would your 'judgment' differ if such 'someone' or such 'innocent' was not 'human'?

I think having doubts about your potential actions is a good thing.
Tho praps point 22 will help...

22. We must consider both the ultimate end and all clear sensory evidence, to which we refer our opinions; for otherwise everything will be full of uncertainty and confusion.

todd
1st July 2004, 08:37 AM
My own thoughts on the topics:

1. Blessed and indestructible - pretty complex concepts... indestructible implies an attempt, intention. If intention or even the thought about it exists implies in a way the lack peace, so even this kind of being can be source of trouble... I think we can elaborate here.
2. Death is everything to us. If I say that the phaenomenon of death is an endless passing in which you're reexperiencing your own life an infinite number of times, can anyone prove me the contrary.
If we are talking about afterdeath this is another topic.
3. Tell this to a masochist.
3.A. Is it about your pain or about others pain? The Christ concept fits here too.
4.That is absolutely false. I experienced terible pain myself (trygemen nevralgy) for long periods of time (days), and I can assure everyone - there is no pleasure in feeling your head cracking. The pain goes away slowly, there is no enjoyable revelation in the lack of pain.
There is also a different kind of pain I experienced but enjoyed - love pain, and there is a lot to tell here...
5. This is politics. I totally disagree. Honorable and justly means limits - your own or of the society you're living in. Limits can mean inner peace but I do not think that implies pleasure or happiness.
Wisely - here is the point/dilema - what is wise? was Socrates wise?

And so on.....too many topics at once...
I do not understand why do I have to disagree with everything... I sound so negative... and in fact I'm not

sahyo
1st July 2004, 09:10 AM
no don't sound negative, todd