Epicureans: Friendship

abstractAncient writers, including philosophers such as Aristotle, often depict friendship as a source of pleasure; by contrast, in his Laelius de amicitia, Cicero describes such relationships as sweet and delightful, but never connects them with uoluptas, which for him is a largely negative term reserved for Epicurean doctrine. This paper argues that there is more to this pointed use of language than Cicero’s well-known dislike of Epicureanism. Considering first the Latin philosophical vocabulary of pleasure and then the vexed question of (...) what exactly qualifies as pleasure according to the Epicurean system, the paper makes the case that Cicero believed (probably correctly) that the pleasures of friendship as conceived of by himself and many ordinary language-users would not in fact qualify as instances of Epicurean uoluptas. If, as Epicurus appears to have held, all pleasures are either bodily or mental, and all mental pleasures are derived from bodily ones, then many activities experienced as pleasurable in and of themselves—including many traditional elements of friendship—are not in fact Epicurean pleasures. (shrink)

Commentators usually understand the Epicureans to take friends and friendship to be worthwhile because they help us to eliminate and/or manage our bodily and/or mental pains and thus come closer to achieving tranquility. However, this understanding leaves unexplained why friends and friendship might be worthwhile to an advanced Epicurean with few or no pains to manage or eliminate. In this paper, I remedy this deficiency by offering three explanations for why friends and friendship could and maybe would remain worthwhile even (...) to the Epicurean who achieves tranquility. Along the way, I explore some problems with each explanation and consider ways to overcome them. Notwithstanding these problems, I conclude that friends and friendship could and perhaps would be worthwhile even to the Epicurean with few or no pains. (shrink)

Lejos de ser lo político una cuestión secundaria o extraña a la filosofía epicúrea, se arguye de este ser un componente esencial de su pensamiento que se presenta en el trato de la amistad como rasgo característico e ineludible para el constructo social decara a los conflictos internos y externos de la Grecia del siglo IV a.C. Desde esta óptica, un interés por precisar el alcance ético-político de la φιλíα (filopolitismo) tan referido en la antigüedad, pero desde un filósofo al (...) que se le endilga la defensa de apoliticidad (O’Keefe,2010; Christensen, 2020), el actual estudio explora argumentos que hacen de ese término un fundamento práctico que ofrece las mejores condiciones para una vida social en tanto puede ofrendar patrones de conducta en lo que respecta a vínculos comunitarios. Para ello se recurre al análisis de textos que se conservan de Epicuro los cuales tienen un tratamiento de la amistad como la Carta a Meneceo (Ad Menoeceum), las Máximas Capitales (Ratæ Sententiae) y las Sentencias Vaticanas (Gnomologio Vaticano), pues se trata de un estudio documental el cual tiene por fin la revisión y análisis de fuentes bibliográficas. (shrink)

There seems to be universal agreement among Epicurean scholars that friendship characterized by other-concern is conceptually incompatible with Epicureanism understood as a directly egoistic theory. I reject this view. I argue that once we properly understand the nature of friendship and the Epicurean conception of our final end, we are in a position to demonstrate friendship’s compatibility with, and centrality within, Epicureanism’s direct egoism.

This article considers the significance of the Blessed Isles in Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra. They are the isolated locale to which Zarathustra and his fellow creators retreat in the Second Part of the book. I trace Zarathustra’s Blessed Isles back to the ancient Greek paradisiacal afterlife of the makarōn nēsoi and frame them against Nietzsche’s Platonic conception of philosophers as “commanders and legislators,” but I argue that they represent something more like a modern Epicurean Garden. Ultimately, I suggest that Zarathustra’s (...) Epicurean impulse toward withdrawal (whether into a sequestered friendship community or mountain solitude) undermines his Platonic attempts at great politics. (shrink)

This paper argues that Epicurean friendship is instrumental in value, and Epicurus’s varied claims about friendship can be understood as teaching strategies that are tailored to different levels of students. After rejecting an argument that presents Epicurean friendship as intrinsic, I outline Epicurus’s methodology of teaching and examine his specific claims regarding friendship as intended for either novice, intermediate, or advanced students. This approach allows Epicurus’s weaker and stronger claims regarding friendship to be viewed as gradually progressing students towards the (...) good life without deviating from the ethical hedonism that frames his entire philosophical project. (shrink)

Epicurus's claim that "death is nothing to us" is defended. The usual concepts of harm, loss and suffering do not apply in the case of death. Immortality need not be bad. Epicurean prudence does not recommend suicide. Some issues in applied ethics are also discussed: the right to life, egoistic friendship, wills, and life insurance.

In his 21 st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca tries to convince his student to retreat from public life by granting him the renown which Lucilius strives to achieve through political engagement in the field of philosophy instead: Three examples - Epicurus, Cicero and Vergil - illustrate that literary expressions of friendship, too, lead to lasting fame. Through this device, Seneca not only fashions himself as an author who has the literary power to exempt himself and his friend from oblivion; in (...) citing Vergil’s famous fortunati ambo, he also uses the background of the Nisus-and-Euralyus-episode to provoke intertextual tensions and highlight the urgency of his call to retreat from politics. (shrink)

This paper argues that Epicurean friendship is instrumental in value, and Epicurus’s varied claims about friendship can be understood as teaching strategies that are tailored to different levels of students. After rejecting an argument that presents Epicurean friendship as intrinsic, I outline Epicurus’s methodology of teaching and examine his specific claims regarding friendship as intended for either novice, intermediate, or advanced students. This approach allows Epicurus’s weaker and stronger claims regarding friendship to be viewed as gradually progressing students towards the (...) good life without deviating from the ethical hedonism that frames his entire philosophical project. (shrink)

Epicurean ethics has been subject to withering ancient and contemporary criticism for the supposed irreconcilability of Epicurus’s emphatic endorsement of friendship and his equally clear and striking ethical egoism. Recently, Matthew Evans (2004) has suggested that the key to a plausible Epicurean response to these criticisms must begin by understanding why friendship is valuable for Epicurus. In the first section of this paper I develop Evans’ suggestion further. I argue that a shared conception of the human telos and of what (...) is required to attain it structures the confidence that characterizes friendship. In the second part of the paper I return to two contemporary criticisms of Epicurean friendship. The first criticism focuses on the problem of free riders. The second criticism points to a seeming inconsistency in Epicurean doctrine. I suggest that both criticisms can be adequately addressed once we understand Epicurean friendship in greater depth. (shrink)

There has been a large amount of scholarly controversy over the precise nature of the motivations at play in the Epicurean accounts of justice and friendship, and whether any form of altruism or other-concern is compatible with Epicurean hedonist ethics. This paper addresses this tension between self- and other-concern from a novel angle, by examining the motivations behind Epicurean educational practice. What emerges is a rather complex motivational picture that reaffirms the Epicureans' philosophical commitment to egoism, but at the same (...) time shows it to be more nuanced and sensitive than one might expect given their theoretical postulates and the reaction of ancient critics such as Cicero. (shrink)

[ES] La amistad en Epicuro es procurada por la sabiduría. Además la amistad propicia la felicidad. La «sabiduría», un bien inmortal, conduce al hombre a buscar la «amistad», uno mortal. La sabiduría es un bien inmortal, y por tanto de dioses. Mas, si los dioses no intervienen en el curso del mundo, ¿qué sentido tienen para los epicúreos? La emulación. La divinidad es un modelo a imitar. Por la meditación se puede vivir como un dios entre humanos no sufriendo turbación (...) ni despierto ni en sueños. Con todo la amistad entraña peligros, aun eligiéndola por el placer, soportamos los mayores males por los amigos. Mas estos riesgos merecen la pena correrse, pues los perjuicios posibles, son menos indeseables que la ausencia de amistad. Goethe coincide con los epicúreos en la importancia que confieren a la experiencia del momento. Goethe también sitúa la amistad junto a la sabiduría y la felicidad, pero sólo aceptaba la amistad si intensificaba la sensación de vida, si los momentos que generaba eran razonables y felices. Conforme a ello se tratan sus relaciones con Lenz, Schiller, Charlotte von Stein y Christiane Vulpius, ejemplificadas en personajes de ficción como Mignon y Mefistófeles. [EN] Friendship according to Epicurus is procured by wisdom. Furthermore friendship makes happiness possible. Wisdom, an inmortal good, leads the man to seek for friendship, a mortal good. As an inmortal virtue, Wisdom is an attribute of the Gods. But if Gods have no role in world´s leading, what a sense have them for the Epicureans? The sense of Emulation. Divinity is a role model. Through meditation is possible to live like a God among humans, suffering no restlessness neither awake nor in dreams. Yet friendship involves risks. Even choosing it for the pleasure, we endure the greatest evils on account of friends. But these risks are worthy, because the potential damages are less undesirable than no friendship. Goethe agrees with the Epicureans in the importance they attach to the experience of the moment. Goethe situates friendship between wisdom and happiness, but he only approves friendship if it intensifies the feeling of life, if the moments procured by it are reasonable and happy. Accordingly this article shows Goethe´s relationships with Lenz, Schiller, Charlotte von Stein and Christiane Vulpius, exemplified in fiction-characters like Mignon or Mephistopheles. (shrink)

In “Friendship Amongst the Self-Sufficient: Epicurus” (this Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, June 2001), Andrew Mitchell explores the Epicurean view of the relationship between self-sufficiency and friendship by contrasting it with the views of Aristotle and the Stoics. Epicurus, Aristotle, and the Stoics do indeed have interestingly different views on friendship that are well worth comparing. Yet Mitchell’s characterization of Aristotelian friendship is misleading, his account of Stoic friendship is inaccurate, and his interpretation of Epicurean friendship is curiously imaginative but (...) ultimately rather strange. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Sex Talk Just Friends and Sex Too? Casual Sex History and Prevalence So, Why have Sex with a Friend? Communication in Friends with Benefits Relationships The Bottom Line.

The patristic tradition has long censured or denied debts to Epicurean thought. Thus it is surprising to find that Augustine requires and uses Epicurean arguments at three moments in the Confessions essential his theory of friendship: the pear tree incident, the death of his friend, and the decision not to form a philosophical community. I argue that the classical definition of friendship is inadequate to solve these problems. Furthermore, reworking Augustine’s theory of friendship with the use/enjoyment doctrine developed in The (...) Trinity fails to resolve them. Thus the problems raised in the Confessions cannot be exposed or solved through Augustine’s own theoretical framework. I argue that they are, however, central to the Epicurean theory of friendship, which addresses them specifically, and that the Epicurean insistence on the mortality of the soul produces the central problem for Augustine’s notion of friendship. (shrink)

Surveys the ideals of friendship in ancient Greco-Roman philosophy. The notion of the best friendship inevitably reflects the various conceptions of a good life.

This volume presents papers of a conference held in 2002 at the Rochester Institute of Technology. After a superficial introduction, eight chapters trace the legacy of Epicureanism from Philodemus, the philosopher who took up residence in the Roman town of Herculaneum in the shadow of Mount Vesuvius, to C.S. Peirce and, rather cursorily, eighteenth-century Russian theology. Three further chapters deal with Epicurus' ideas of friendship and death, and the last provides a brief description of the wall-sized Epicurean inscription in the (...) ancient city of Oenoanda (in modern Turkey), dating to the second century AD. (shrink)

This dissertation covers the social theories of Aristotle and Epicurus, in particular, their respective conceptions and uses of justice and friendship. In analyzing the use of these concepts in these respective authors, there is an implicit criticism of the Aristotlean conception in the surviving fragments of Epicurus' social theory. In particular, whether friendship or justice is the key social bond and whether the law can have any pedagogical role in shaping the moral character of citizens. In order to address this (...) implicit criticism, I have challenged a number of criticisms of these authors, in order to develop an interpretation of each thinker's social theory. (shrink)

Mitchell defends the Epicurean account of friendship. I argue that since Epicureans are hedonists who hold that all pleasures are good and all pains are bad, Epicureans would desert their friends in circumstances in which standing by their friends causes them pain.

Epicurus is strongly committed to psychological and ethical egoism and hedonism. However, these commitments do not square easily with many of the claims made by Epicureans about friendship: for instance, that the wise man will sometimes die for his friend, that the wise man will love his friend as much as himself, feel exactly the same toward his friend as toward himself, and exert himself as much for his friend's pleasure as for his own, and that every friendship is worth (...) choosing for its own sake. These claims have led some scholars to assert that Epicurus inconsistently affirms that friendship has an altruistic element. I argue that the Epicurean claims about friendship can be reconciled with egoism and hedonism in psychology and ethics. Friendship is valuable because having friends provides one with security more effectively than any other means, and having confidence that one will be secure in the future either is identical to ataraxia, or the grounds on which one has it. (shrink)

The Cyrenaics are hedonists who have difficulty finding a stable place in their theory either for one's life as a whole or for other‐concern. Epicurus tries to avoid their problems by his theories of friendship and of justice, with incomplete success. The Sceptics face problems in trying to claim that the Sceptic will be benevolent to others despite achieving tranquility as his final end.

Ever since classical times, both Greek and Roman, friendship as a philosophical topic has been on the wane. The only notable exception is Montaigne's essay which, however, owes much to classical treatments. This decline of philosophical interest in friendship is not easy to account for. Alasdair McIntyre's overall thesis in After Virtue seemingly affords him with a ready interpretation. The progressive atomization of society, together with the concurrent growth of individualism that characterizes the modern era, claims McIntyre, are responsible for (...) the demotion of friendship from the public to the private sphere. (shrink)