Epicurus – Tetrafarmakos – An Interpretation

In summation, Epicurus outlined four “anxieties” inherent in the human condition and the following four “cures”.

Anxieties:

• The fear of God
• The fear of Death
• The fear of not being able to acquire the basics in life.
• The fear of bad things happening

Cures (or conditions to aim for) to these anxieties:

Metrodorus

Anxiety 1 – The Fear of God

“Αρχή Σοφίας ονομάτων επισκεψις”-

The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms – (Socrates).

For Epicurus, the God(s) were, if anything, beings that did not have anything to do with the creation of the world and did not interfere with it. As supreme beings, Gods knew only happiness and lived in between the different universes. He declared: “A happy and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness” (Hicks 2009) The God(s) for Epicurus did not serve any other purpose apart from offering an image of the ideal state of ataraxia (tranquility), for us to emulate. But why did he perceive God(s) to have nothing to do with this world or the creation of the universe? His refutation reverberates through the eons:

“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing, Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing, Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing, Then why call Him God?”, Epicurus

Hence, since Epicurus perceives evil to exist, but God(s) are tranquil, eternal and devoid of anger and weakness, then God(s) did not create the world nor do they interfere with it, by definition.Therefore, the anxiety about being judged every moment or spending years to figure out how someone else would desire one to live one’s life, is unreasonable. Hence, autonomy to self-govern one’s life based on the Epicurean principles such as, “seeking pleasure and avoiding pain” for him or herself and his or her fellow human beings is enough and sufficient.

On this matter, Yalom (2008) contends that the existentialist fear is the hidden or obvious cause of a plethora of psychological conditions e.g. anxiety. Hence, this has to be dealt with, in order to be overcome. Unless we face our fear of Death and focus on consciously alleviating it, it will continue festering. Moreover, the question of Death in today’s technologically advanced world receives no convincing answer but rather the problem is exacerbated instead.

As Mihaly Csikszentmihaly, psychologist and academic, suggests:

“The shields that have worked in the past—the order that religion, patriotism, ethnic traditions, and habits instilled by social classes used to provide—are no longer effective for increasing numbers of people who feel exposed to the harsh winds of chaos. The lack of inner order manifests itself in the subjective condition that some call ontological anxiety, or existential dread. Basically, it is a fear of being, a feeling that there is no meaning to life and that existence is not worth going on with” (2008)

Hence, Epicurus contribution to this eternal question remains as current, as ever.

Anxiety 3 – The fear of bad things happening.

“Continuous pain does not last long in the body; on the contrary, pain, if extreme, is present a short time, and even that degree of pain which barely outweighs pleasure in the body does not last for many days together”. (Hicks 2009)

Epicurus contends that when the pain is potent it usually lasts for a short period and when it is mild it could last for longer. Not believing in Karma or the afterlife, allowed Epicurus to remove the fear of theodicy from the equation. In the words of J. H. Holmes

“The universe is not hostile, nor yet is it friendly, it is simply indifferent.”(Csikszentmihalyi 2008)

For Epicurus, however, chance plays a role. If someone actively pursues the “maximization of pleasure and avoidance of pain” he or she will receive some comfort in the fact that they, themselves, could potentially control and change their circumstances and that there is no one out there “to get them”.

Epicurus, leading by example, put together his school of thought called, “The Garden”, and declared and lived by his principles. Epicurus also noted that it is the attitude we take towards things that is important and promoted the Heracletian saying: “Bad witnesses are the eyes and ears of men with barbarous souls”, as did Epictetus, a Stoic philosopher, through statements such as, “men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them“.

Epicurus preferred to focus on the things he could change without worrying too much about the things outside of his sphere of influence. He declared, ΛΑΘΕ ΒΙΩΣΑΣ- “Live Unobtrusively”.

Anxiety 4 – The fear of not being able to acquire the basics in life.

“Nature’s wealth at once has its bounds and is easy to procure; but the wealth of vain fancies recedes to an infinite distance” (Hicks 2009).

This is one of the most potent moments in his philosophy as it is clear that it talks straight to the centre of the consumerist society of 300 BCE as well as that of today. His dictum that

“Nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little”

may hold true today just as it did in Epicurus’ time. We can view the connection between the two eras through the work of Pitrim Sorokin.

Sorokin divided “Western Civilization”, as we refer to it today, into three distinct epochs based on the set of priorities that justified the goals of existence that each held. Sorokin defines these epochs, as:

i) the “sensate” (where the organisation of one’s goals is done around the concepts of pleasure and practicality),

ii) the “ideational” (where the focus is on abstract principles, asceticism, and transcendence of material concerns), and

iii) the “idealistic” (which is a combination of the “sensate” and the “ideational” i.e. acceptance of a concrete sensory experience with a reverence for spiritual ends) phases of culture.

Sorokin supports the view that Epicurus’ era and our modern world belong to the same cultural phase, as that of, “the sensate”. Hence, Epicurus’ answers to the questions and fears of the “sensate” society of 300 BCE become relevant today, as well.

Csikszentmihalyi explains the elements of “the sensate” epoch as follows:

“the Sensate cultures are integrated around views of reality designed to satisfy the senses. They tend to be concerned primarily with concrete needs. In such cultures, art, religion, philosophy, and everyday behaviour glorify and justify goals in terms of tangible experience. People in a sensate culture are not necessarily more materialistic, but they organize their goals and justify their behavior with reference primarily to pleasure and practicality rather than to more abstract principles. The challenges they see are almost exclusively concerned with making life easier, more comfortable, more pleasant. They tend to identify the good with what feels good and mistrust idealized values” (Csikszentmihalyi 2008).

Today, in some cases, consumerism has replaced the meaning of life. Epicurus, although a materialist, promoted the idea:

“I possess things, I am not possessed by them”.

Today, meaning is sought to be filled through material possessions and consumption styles by many, and may even provide a sense of identity.

Erich Fromm, famous psychologist, provides the following insight into this case in point:

CONCLUSION

Castoriadis cautions however that, Ancient thought should not be viewed as a protype or a model for emulation, but rather as a lifegiving force that can and should inspire us and prompt us to review these eternal questions and revisit them anew, considering the knowledge accumulated through the centuries and what holds true to us (Castoriadis 1999).

This echoes the words of another famous writer, Nikos Kazantzakis, who said that, “we are only faithful to tradition, when we surpass it” (Στεφανάκη 1997).

Έρρωσο (May you have strength)

BIBLIOGRAPHY