The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism

by James Warren (Editor)

This Companion presents both an introduction to the history of the ancient philosophical school of Epicureanism and also a critical account of the major areas of its philosophical interest. Chapters span the school's history from the early Hellenistic Garden to the Roman Empire and its later reception in the early modern period, introducing the reader to the Epicureans' contributions in physics, metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, ethics and politics. The international team of contributors includes scholars who have produced innovative and original research in various areas of Epicurean thought and they have produced essays which are accessible and of interest to philosophers, classicists, and anyone concerned with the diversity and preoccupations of Epicurean philosophy and the state of academic research in this field. The volume emphasises the interrelation of the different areas of the Epicureans' philosophical interests while also drawing attention to points of interpretative difficulty and controversy.

CONTRIBUTORS: Elisabeth Asmis, Catherine Atherton, David Blank, Eric Brown, Diskin Clay, Michael Erler, Christopher Gill, Pierre-Marie Morel, Tim O'Keefe, David Sedley, Liba Taub, Voula Tsouna, James Warren, Catherine Wilson, Raphael Woolf.

Genres: Philosophy, Reference, Nonfiction

356 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Vikram Kumar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not as introductory as the description entails, but clearly an impressive work. The articles present are detailed and well-researched. They also point out a wide selection of further reading.

[Walter. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good collection of niche academic articles.

Covers a lot of different angles from which you can approach Epicurus. I enjoyed the articles on Roman Epicureanism and how the philosophy gradually became a quasi-religion.

I went into this book thinking that the Epicureans were oppressed in Rome—based on Cicero’s writings. But the articles showed me that the situation was more nuanced and complicated. I hadn’t realized how popular Epicureanism was in Rome or how many powerful figures identified as Epicureans (Cassius, for example).

I would have liked a few more articles on early Christian encounters with Epicureanism (given that the Epicureans are mentioned by name in Acts 17:18) and on whether medieval Christianity’s integration of Platonism had anything to do with its suppression of Epicurus’ work.

Overall, though, I got a lot out of this book.

[Qx · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting and informative

not recommended for those without basic knowledge of philosophical schools and theories

writing can be unnecessarily hard to understand

but overall worth the effort of reading

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the principal doctrines, extant letters, and de rerum natura a while ago; I recently decided that Epicurus was one of my faves and I should maybe go back to some of his stuff. Like most of the Cambridge Companions I've read, this definitely gives you a good feel for how to start thinking about the figure in question. On this reading, a few new things stuck out to me.

- I recently read Gerrard Winstanley's The Law of Freedom in a Platform, and this sounds exactly like him:

The philosophically and morally attractive features of Epicureanism were its seamless integration of human beings into the rest of animated nature, the postulate of human equality that it implied, and the notion that pain and pleasure, both psychological and physical, *mattered*, regardless of who was experiencing them and what that person’s status or merits might be. The Epicurean presentation of law and justice as needing legitimation in terms of the benefits to men of submitting to authority was a rejection of de facto hierarchies.

There is a kind of critical social power in materialism and simple empiricism- a power to clarify common sense about what is good for people.

- There the potential in Epicureanism for a kind of cosmopolitanism, made explicit in the inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda:

Like Epicurus, Diogenes sees philosophy as a vade mecum for his fellow citizens and for passers-by from all over the world, seeing himself as a cosmopolitan. ‘Although various kinds of people live in various parts of the world, the whole world provides one land to all people, namely the entire earth, and there is a common house, the world'.

Epicurus gets accused of selfishness because of his hedonism, but really it's a very outward-facing philosophy. There's a case to be made that "two Epicurean aims, to communicate broadly and to alleviate anxiety" reveal a generous, nondiscriminating, altruist orientation to the whole project.

- I used to think of Epicurus as a kind of Spinozist when it came to the connection between knowledge and therapeutics. Basically, the better you understand the world, the more you realize it is good and there is nothing to fear about it. But there's actually a countervailing tendency too, which you can read in the Epistle to Herodotus. You shouldn't learn stuff if it's just going to stress you out.

In principle, sufficient understanding of cosmology and meteorology are available to ordinary people to alleviate their anxieties, simply by using common everyday techniques, involving using clear language, observations, and analogies to what is already familiar. In fact, Epicurus warns against gaining excessively detailed knowledge about phenomena: such knowledge may lead to further anxiety and contribute little to peace of mind. He explains: ‘when we come to subjects for special inquiry, there is nothing in the knowledge of risings and settings and solstices and eclipses and all kindred subjects that contributes to our happiness’.

The kind of knowledge you do want is "using common everyday techniques, involving using clear language, observations, and analogies to what is already familiar". I think of this as the difference between following breaking news closely and being able to explain in general terms what forces are at play in current events. I think it's actually more useful, in addition to being less stressful, to focus on the big picture rather than follow all the ups and downs.

- My understanding of Epicurus' political quietism was also challenged. I think it's a really good way of explaining it to say:

... he is not apolitical. Rather, he adopts counter-cultural politics, rooted in his need for friendship and justice.

He wasn't a hermit, he just didn't agree with the rat race of his day. You might say he advocated life in the interstices of capital. Oddly, Epicurus gets a shout-out in chapter one of Capital: "Trading nations, properly so called, exist in the ancient world only in its interstices, like the gods of Epicurus in the Intermundia". And Marx wrote his dissertation on Epicurus, which I might like to read.

Anyways, the political quietism was not an absolute ideal; it was only adopted insofar as it supported tranquility. It's nice to realize how many things about Epicureanism are practical or contingent as opposed to being dogmatic and universal.

[Wim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This companion gives a well balanced overview of the different aspects of Epicureanism.

Especially strong are the chapters on the atomism, physics principles underlying it’s philosophy

Also compelling is the depiction of the major representatives of this school as also the psychology and therapeutic value of it’s principles.

The part on ethics is for me least compelling

But overall a certain must to read and to reread

[reoccurrence]

Helpful overview of Epicurus’ philosophy