Situating Agnosticism in Hellenistic Religions

A Study of Epicureanism’s Effect on Hellenistic Religious Thought

Seminar Paper
Submitted to

Centre for Comparative Religions and Civilisations

Jamia Millia Islamia
New Delhi - 110025

By
S M Mukarram Jahan
(ID: 202205943)

Under the Supervision of

Dr Annie KUNNATH
Centre for Comparative Religions and Civilisations
Jamia Millia Islamia
New Delhi - 110025

Date: 11 May 2023

 Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………...……………….iii

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..1

1. The State of Religious Thought in Hellenistic Age…………………………………5

2. Epicurus and Epicureanism………………………………………………..………15

3. Agnosticism in Hellenistic Age and Epicurus……………………………………..34

4. Epicurus and Eudaimonia………………………………………………………….40

5. Impact of Epicureanism on Hellenistic Religious Thought………………………49

Conclusion………………………………………………………….………………………..61

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………...…67
 ABSTRACT

This paper is a study of the social, political, and religious

conditions that influenced Epicurus to devise his philosophy. It

explores how these conditions influenced several schools of

philosophy to lean towards agnosticism and Epicureanism’s

difference from them. It also examines Epicurus’ prescription

of the method of life to attain eudaimonia and how it helped

people in living their lives against the backdrop of the

atmosphere of Hellenistic age. By a critical analysis of these

issues, the paper concludes by assessing the impact of

Epicureanism on the Hellenistic religious thought.

 Situating Agnosticism in Hellenistic Religions
A Study of Epicureanism’s Effect on Hellenistic Religious Thought

Introduction S M Mukarram Jahan

The Hellenistic civilisation was an era in history that began with the conquests of Alexander

the Great in 334 BCE till the emergence of Roman Empire and the rise of Augustus in 31

BCE. It was a period of transformation characterised by an explosion of knowledge of the

physical world, encounters with foreign cultures, religious reformation, and an alteration of

socio-political systems. In the religious sphere, the encounters of the Greeks with Eastern

religions gave rise to a syncretic evolution of the deities of the ancient Greek religion by

virtue of which there was an influx of Eastern traditions and deities who now came to be

either identified with Greek deities, or they were adopted by Greeks with their separate

identities. Many Greek deities also continued to maintain their separate identities. However,

there was also a trend among some elites, particularly led by philosophers, who either

rejected the religious dogmas or some philosophies were adopted as worldviews that replaced

religion. In reality, this trend was a reaction of different kinds to the broadened horizons

created by Alexander’s conquests.

Contrary to the modern understanding of individualistic emphasis of religion, the ancient

world perceived religion as essentially communal playing an important cohesive and civic

role. Among the ancient Greeks, there were official cults whose activities were patronised by

the Cité (city-state). This is because religion and State were intimately connected. Each city-

state had associated with itself a deity (sometimes more than one) that was regarded as the

guardian of that city. However, after Alexander effectively ended the autonomous status of

Greek cities, people became disenchanted with the traditional deities as the civic purpose of

religion became obsolete. A more personal aspect of religion that could provide guidance to
the individual soul came to be sought. The vacuum felt by people on account of irrelevance of

traditional religion and the rising need for individualistic guidance which seemed impossible

because of the distant nature of Olympic deities was filled in by several philosophers. We

find variegated trends during the Hellenistic age, ranging from complete rejection of religion

to polytheism. Although direct rejection was limited to a scintilla of philosophers, its

intellectual vitality is palpable. Even before the Hellenistic period, Anaxagoras, the pre-

Socratic philosopher, theorised that there were mechanistic principles behind the workings of

the universe independent of any divine causation. Sophists like Diogoras of Melos also began

to propagate doctrines that doubted conventional religious beliefs. While Diagoras may be

considered an atheist, another influential Sophist, Protagoras was an agnostic who exhibited

reluctance in clearly denying the existence of a divine power. Antisthenes, the forerunner of

the Cynics who are known to oppose all conventional values, often criticised religion. His

most potent rejection came of belief in multiple gods and goddesses, yet he maintained that

there was one God beyond all visible phenomena. These philosophies lent their voice to an

atmosphere of discontent in which it was being felt that the traditional civic religion of the

ancient Greeks was becoming distant for the common man and woman. The Hellenistic age

became a crucible for these kinds of yearnings to be vented out in the form of Epicureanism

and Stoicism.

The rise of Epicureanism as well as Stoicism in the Hellenistic age may be mainly attributed

to the new world order that came about as a result of Alexander’s conquests. The traditional

religious practices interacted with the oriental religions which also brought with it many

challenges. Epicureanism and Stoicism aimed at providing personal guidance with regard to

living a purposeful, equitable, contented, and a satisfactory life. The most important

characteristic of these philosophies was the pursuit of happiness (eudaimonia) of the

individual, and they thought of conduct to be of fundamental importance. Stoicism and

2
Epicureanism thus had several things in common but where their divergence pertained to was

the new world that Alexander had created. Whereas Stoics thought people should avail a

sense of belonging to the new world and the majority also felt that way, still many people felt

fearful and desired escape and Epicurus showed the way.

Epicureanism was the philosophical school founded by Epicurus (341-270 BCE) that

repudiated determinism and promoted hedonism, but in a controlled manner: mental pleasure

was favoured more highly than physical one, and the ultimate pleasure comes from freedom

from anxiety and mental pain, particularly the one arising from unnecessary fear of death

and/or of the gods and goddesses. Though Epicurus’ philosophy was limited to a small

section of society, his agnosticism was a challenge to the traditional Greek religion.

Religiosity, for Epicurus, could not be determined by fearing gods and goddesses and offering

sacrifices and rituals, but by the adoption and exhibition of virtue, which holds the key to

pleasure and happiness. This pleasure was not physical or sensual but intellectual pleasure as

mind was of utmost importance and a gateway to escape from worry. This philosophical

movement paved way for a type of renunciation characterised by active effort which could

help one attain eudaimonia.

This paper is divided into an Introduction, five chapters, and followed by the Conclusion.

Chapter I, The State of Religious Thought in Hellenistic Age, sheds light on the evolution of

religious thought in the centuries and decades leading up to the Hellenistic age and the arrival

of Epicurus. Since important fundamental questions regarding metaphysics, epistemology,

and theology were being discussed by philosophers way before Epicurus arrived at the scene,

and it is within the framework of these queries, ideas, and notions that Epicurus gave his

philosophy, we have taken a survey of this background along with the social, religious, and

political upheavals brought on by Alexander’s conquests at length. Chapter 2, Epicurus and

Epicureanism, presents a short biography of Epicurus and the key aspects of his philosophy

3
ranging from epistemology, theology, cosmology, hedonism, fear of death, and free will.

Since Epicureanism was not the only philosophy with agnostic leanings during the Hellenistic

age, in Chapter 3, Agnosticism in Hellenistic Age and Epicurus, we have presented a brief

account of other such schools like the Pyrrhonian sceptics, the Stoics, and Academic Sceptics,

and undertaken a comparative study of each of them with Epicureanism, thus highlighting the

points of similarity and differences. An idea that occupied the mental focus of many

influential Greek philosophers pertained to different ways to live a content and happy life

characterised by the overall wellbeing of the individual. Aristotle gave the term eudaimonia

even though the idea had been discussed before him (from the time of Socrates, at least).

Because Epicurus also made valuable contributions in this domain, and laid down a distinct

path toward attaining eudaimonia, we have discussed the history of the idea along with the

methods prescribed by various philosophers from the time of Socrates to Epicurus in Chapter

4, Epicurus and Eudaimonia. This Chapter is followed by the fifth and final Chapter, Impact

of Epicureanism on Hellenistic Religious Thought, assessing therein the influence of

Epicureanism on its contemporary religious thought. Lastly, there is a Conclusion that

presents a recap of the entire paper and evaluates its findings.

In this paper we have dealt with the following questions: what were the social, political, and

religious conditions leading up to the Hellenistic age in which Epicurus developed his

philosophy? Why did these conditions lead to the rise of various schools of philosophy with

agnostic inclinations and how was Epicureanism different from them? How did the concept

of eudaimonia help people live their lives during these conditions and how did Epicurus’ take

on it differ from others’? An analysis of these questions will allow us to assess the impact of

Epicureanism on its contemporary religious thought.

This paper has employed qualitative and descriptive methodologies to approach the

philosophical and historical issues raised in the previous paragraph. Primary as well as

4
secondary sources have been consulted and even though primary sources are scarce, best

effort was made to procure them. The historical aspects of the study have been carried out

through a historical method of research. A method of empirical phenomenology has been

used to study the philosophy of religion in addition to the study of beliefs, practices, and

experiences associated with Epicureanism as a lived religion/philosophy.

5
 1

THE STATE OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN HELLENISTIC AGE

The ancient Greek religion was based on the belief in a pantheon of anthropomorphic deities,

all functioning under the aegis of one supreme God, Zeus. The religion evolved over several

centuries and in its developed form lasted for more than a millennium (counting from the

time of Homer [c. ninth century BCE]). Whether the Greeks themselves realised it or not,

religion served a civic purpose. Religion was inseparably joined in the structure of the city.

Family and tribe were defined by common cults, cults of common ancestors, who worshipped

Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Demeter, Hestia, among other gods and goddesses. There was no

designated clergy, and magistrates carried out the function of leading prayers and sacrifices.1

The Greeks had associated each city with a particular deity as its protector and primacy in

worship in a particular city was given to the god/goddess joined to that city. They performed

rituals and sacrifices to please the gods and goddesses as they believed that failure to do so

would tantamount to risking the deity/deities’ reprisal and anger. It was not necessary that

only a particular deity was invoked to procure his/her aid, but any deity could be prayed to if

the Greeks had offered a suitable sacrifice to the deity. Thus, a series of festivals were

celebrated during the course of the year in each Greek city (polis) to secure the help of as

many deities as possible in whose honour the festivals were celebrated. People believed that

their success was a result of the gods and goddesses being well-disposed towards them and

misfortunes were attributed to the gods and goddesses’ displeasure towards mortals. The

Greeks realised that prayer and sacrifice, however plentiful, could not ensure that the gods

and goddesses would bestow success. Sacrifice was offered to Olympian deities at the altar,

1
Despite the absence of a designated clergy, there were some priests and priestesses who were attached to
particular temples and shrines like the oracle at Delphi who had attained an appreciable prestige and were thus
consulted on social, civic, and state matters. They were not, however, regarded as mediators between humans
and gods and goddesses, and there was no distinction between them and lay members of the society. Some
magistrates acted as priests and priestesses and vice versa (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., s.v.
“Priesthood”).
and different animals were offered to different deities. The elaborate system of temples,

altars, rituals, and prayers highlights the magnitude of religiosity in the day-to-day lives of

the people. The different festivals celebrated were mostly agrarian in origin and the

gatherings served a social aspect as ties of common religion for people were paramount.

The fifth century BCE brought with it an unrest within the intellectual circles of ancient

Greece pertaining to religion and other social norms. Questions about the role of the divine in

the world, connection between the divine and morality, and human destiny (these are personal

aspects of religion) were already being asked by philosophers of Ionia and Magna from a

century prior by then. The origin and arrangement of universe especially captured their focus.

For example, Anaxagoras (fifth century BCE) gave the concept of a spiritual First Principle

(Nous/Mind) which acted on matter and produced movement and order in it. This made the

spiritual First Principle a god. Philosophers then struggled to reconcile this First Principle

with the civic gods and goddesses who had no role to play in the origin and order of the

universe. Similarly, it was asked that how can there be so much injustice in the world in the

presence of Zeus. The belief in civic gods and goddesses also did not answer whether there is

an afterlife where present injustices would be settled. Others like Pythagoras (sixth century

BCE) laid greater stress on the personal facets of religion, that is, the problem of soul and its

destiny. Pythagoras dealt with it in such a manner that it had nothing to do with civic religion.

Finally, there was the concept of Moirai (Fates) in the Greek religious thought.2 It had

already become a source of philosophical inquiry and debate in the pre-Hellenistic age

2
In Greek mythology, the Fates, also known as the Moirai, were three sisters who controlled the destinies of
humans and deities. Their names and roles were 1) Clotho: The spinner. She spun the thread of life, representing
the beginning of a person’s life; 2) Lachesis: The allotter. She measured the thread of life, determining the
length of a person’s life; 3) Atropos: The cutter. She cut the thread of life, determining the moment of a person’s
death. The Fates were considered to be powerful and unyielding, and even the gods and goddesses themselves
were subject to their decisions. They were often depicted as elderly women, spinning and weaving the threads of
life, and were feared and respected by mortals and immortals alike.

7
because it raised questions about the nature of fate, free will, and moral responsibility. The

main issues pertaining to Moirai that troubled philosophers in the pre-Hellenistic age were:

1. Fate and free will: The concept of fate raised questions about the relationship between

fate and free will. If every individual had a predetermined destiny, then how much control

did they really have over their lives? This tension between fate and free will was a central

theme in many philosophical and literary works in the pre-Hellenistic age.

2. Moral responsibility: The concept of fate also raised questions about moral responsibility.

If an individual’s destiny was predetermined, then how could they be held accountable for

their actions? This tension between fate and moral responsibility was a common theme in

Greek tragedy, which often portrayed characters struggling to reconcile their fate with

their sense of moral duty.

3. Theodicy: The concept of Moirai also raised questions about the nature of the gods and

their relationship to human destiny. If the gods controlled the fate of every mortal and

immortal being, then how could they be considered just or benevolent? This tension

between fate and theodicy was a common theme in ancient Greek religion and

philosophy.

These questions would continue to be a source of philosophical inquiry and debate

throughout the Hellenistic and Classical periods.

These inquiries and movements met in Athens in the second half of fifth century BCE due to

the teachings of Sophists.3 This led to a crisis in Greek religion which could broadly be called

the conflict between civic and personal religion. All dogmas of civic religion were called into

question by philosophers. Some of the issues in addition to those related to Moirai that were

discussed were:

3
The Sophists were the teachers of philosophy and rhetoric in Greece in the Classical and Hellenistic periods,
associated in popular thought with moral scepticism and reasoning.

8
1. Relativism of civic deities: if traditional deities are inseparably linked with the city, and

their worship is an institution of Law, and gods and goddesses vary from city to city, then

their importance becomes relative and are not absolute.

2. Denial of Providence: is the First Principle (Mind) responsible for the order in the world,

or does it exist by Chance?

3. Problem of evil: how can there be order when there are injustices?

4. Paradox of injustice and absolution: if deities can be appeased with sacrifices, what is

there to stop a person from committing injustice if he knows that he will be forgiven later

by gods and goddesses when he makes sacrifice to them?4

It seems that civic religion triumphed at first as the State dealt severely with such ‘heretic’

thinkers whose attempt to answer these questions undermined the civic religion. An example

is served by the trial and death of Socrates who was charged with impiety (refusing to

recognise the deities recognised by the State) and corrupting the youth by encouraging them

to question traditional beliefs. Ultimately, it was Plato’s religious philosophy that not only

became the foundation of Hellenistic religious thought but also made the case for personal

religion. Plato introduced the idea of a hyper-cosmic God and this became the striking feature

of later religious belief: the First Principle order of things is the absolute supreme Being

beyond all sensuous and intellectual perception. That Being is the cornerstone of rational

order and the pillar and emblem of core ideas of civilisation which are Truth, Justice, Beauty,

and Good. This supreme Being is the hyper-cosmic God, who is indescribable, and the only

way to connect with it is through a special spiritual contact that transcends comprehension.

Later, Plato’s concept of hyper-cosmic God led to the worship of a cosmic god, the divine
4
Plato has expressed these reservations in his Laws wherein he talks about the Magnesians who were not
allowed to build shrines inside their houses because that would tempt them to think that if they commit a crime,
they can privately make a sacrifice to some deity and escape detection and punishment. Plato was apprehensive
that they would breach the law, at least in some cases, if they thought that “there are no gods, or that the gods
are not watching over them, or that even if they are watching, they can be bribed” (Richard Kraut, “Ordinary
Virtue from the Phaedo to the Laws,” in Plato’s Laws – A Critical Guide, ed. Christopher Bobonich (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 67.)

9
principle of the Cosmos.5 This doctrine had a substantial influence on Hellenistic religion,

specifically from the last third of the fourth century BCE. However, neither Plato nor

Aristotle had envisaged to subvert the traditional civic religion. They did not devise any

political organisation but the Greek city, or any status for a man but that of a free citizen in a

State of which the key governing principle was not the will of a monarch but the law held in

consensus. But the divorce between civic religion and personal religion was visible at once.

Effectively, a person could worship the gods and goddesses of the city being its citizen but as

a private person, he looked to a transcendent God who could satiate his demands of reason

and the needs of his soul. The need for this personal aspect of religion became ever so

growing following Alexander’s conquests. It is clear that under this system, the primary

support for civic religion lay in the city-state itself. But this connection between the deities

and the city made sense only as long as the city was free and autonomous. As soon as the city

lost its independence and no longer constituted a State but formed part of a bigger entity

whose monarch would make its decisions, then this essential modification in the status of the

city would bring a corresponding alteration in the civic religion.

The Platonic religion of a cosmic God gained momentum overtime. Due to the political

conquests of Alexander, there was a principal element of preponderance of personal religion.

This perception of religion became a significant part of intellectual equipment of every

citizen who sought to become educated during the Hellenistic age. It may be argued that

Alexander’s campaigns did not create but facilitated a religious movement which had begun

further back with Plato or even before him. The political activities of Alexander and his

5
A.J. Festugiure describes the process of how the hyper-cosmic God became the cosmic God: “The pre-
eminence of ideal reality is due to its immutability. The inferiority of visible objects is a result of their
incessantly changing. But, among visible objects there are some which always change in the same way, some
whose movement is always perfectly constant; these are the heavenly bodies. Now such a movement
presupposes a moving Soul endowed with Mind. There is then a divine Mind, mover of the heavens, and this
Mind is God” (A.J. Festugiure, Epicurus and His Gods (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 6).

10
successors served to eliminate constraints and establish favourable conditions for the

expansion and development of the religious heritage of Platonism.6

State of Religion in the Hellenistic Age

The political consequences of the events which occurred in the last third of the fourth-century

BCE can be confined essentially to two facts:

1. Subjection of Greek cities after Alexander’s conquests which entailed the rise of three

dynasties (Lagids/Ptolemies in Egypt, Seleucids in Asia [Asia Minor, parts of Syria and

eastern Asia], Antigonids in Macedonia), and the Hellenization of Eastern World;

2. Fusion between Greeks and barbarians.7

These factors combined together to affect the decay of civic religion and the rise of personal

religion especially the religion of the cosmic God.

Subjection of the Greek cities to the Hellenistic Monarchies

After the League of Corinth in 337-38 BCE, the Greek cities entered into an offensive and

defensive alliance with Philip II of Macedon and his successors which although guaranteed

the Greek cities their liberty and autonomy, it effectively ended their autonomy.8 Because of

this league the decision of peace or war now rested with Philip and his successors including

Alexander. For instance, Athens effectively lost her autonomy by the close of the Lamian

War9 in 322 BCE. The War effected the formal beginning of the Hellenistic period, ending

6
Festugiure, Epicurus, pp. 1-9.
7
The term ‘barbarian’ is used to refer to a member of a people not belonging to one of the great civilisations of
the Greeks or Romans.
8
The League of Corinth, also known as Hellenic League, was a confederation of Greek city-states established in
337 BCE by Philip II of Macedon. The purpose of the league was to provide a united front against potential
invaders, particularly the Persian Empire, and to promote peace and stability among the Greek city-states. The
cities which concluded an offensive and defensive alliance with Philip and his successors kept their liberty and
autonomy and, with some exceptions, enjoyed exemption from tribute and garrison. However, this was a forced
alliance for the Greek cities and they no longer had the decisions in questions of peace and war. In reality, it was
Philip (and later his son Alexander) who unilaterally decided the foreign policy of the league.
9
The Lamian War was a conflict that took place in Greece from 323 BCE to 322 BCE. It was named after the
city of Lamia in central Greece, where the decisive battle of the war was fought. The war was fought between a
coalition of Greek city-states, led by Athens and the Aetolian League, and the forces of Macedon, which were
led by Antipater, the regent for Alexander the Great's half-brother, Philip III Arrhidaeus. The coalition was

11
Greek autonomy, and the terms of surrender for the Greek cities that had lost were harsh.

Most of Athenian citizens were exiled and deprived of citizenship rights or sent as colonists

elsewhere. The governance of Athens came under the aegis of Macedonian generals like

Antipater (the regent for Alexander’s half-brother, Philip III Arrhidaeus).

These political upheavals had enormous repercussions upon the individual religious mind

because it had witnessed that divine protectors of Athens had terribly failed to defend their

city. Therefore, when Alexander in 324 BCE demanded that the Federated Greek cities

recognise him as God, there was not much opposition and Demosthenes10 even advised the

Assembly to recognise him as the son of Zeus because the civic religion came to witness a

disenchantment on account of disappointment in civic gods and goddesses who had failed to

protect their city. Many now believed that their deities did not care for humans and led their

own heavenly lives. It may have been an influence of this disenchantment that Euhemerus

towards the close of the fourth-century BCE records in Sacred History that “the theory that

the gods whom the Greeks worshiped were not immortal and powerful by nature, but were

originally mortal men who, because of their virtue and benefactions to mankind, were

worshiped as gods after their death”.11 This idea gained extraordinary success and Sacred

History became one of the most widely read books during the third and second-century BCE.

New Hellenistic gods and goddesses came to be added to the pantheon but it should be

recognised that all of this did not affect the actual ceremonies of worship of the traditional

formed in response to the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, which had created a power vacuum in
Greece and led to a series of revolts against Macedonian rule.
10
Demosthenes was an Athenian statesman and orator who lived from 384 BCE to 322 BCE. He is considered
one of the greatest orators in the history of ancient Greece and is known for his speeches that championed
Athenian democracy and opposed the expansionist policies of Macedon under Philip II and his son Alexander
the Great. However, Alexander’s military victories and the decline of Athenian power made it increasingly
difficult for Demosthenes to gain support for his cause. In 322 BCE, after the defeat of the Greek coalition in the
Lamian War, Demosthenes was charged with treason and took his own life rather than face trial and execution.
11
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Vol. II, Book IV, Chapter I, trans. C.H. Oldfather (London: William
Hienemann Ltd., 1967 reprint), p. 341. This was not an alien concept among the Greeks as many believed that
the Heroes in Greek mythology like Heracles, Achilles, Theseus, Perseus, Oedipus, etc. were originally nothing
but mortal humans whose tales of valour, wisdom, and skill so mesmerized the people that they deified them
later and honoured them with cults and shrines.

12
religion. In addition to the old festivals the Hellenistic age witnessed and addition of the new

ones: Soteria at Delphi, Museia at Thespiae, Asclepieia at Cis, Didymeia at Miletus, etc. This

reflects syncretism brought on by the Hellenistic age but it must be kept in mind that the

inner religious conviction especially among the educated public was going through an

evolution. Evidence like epigraphs and inscriptions suggest that scepticism spread wider and

wider as regards traditional beliefs about the fate of souls after death, for example. Life

beyond death was a concept considered to be no better than old wives’ tales and it was in the

second century CE that we find funerary epigraphy with signs of the promises of immortality.

It is also worth considering that the Greek city was not only a political entity but maintained a

close connection between the political and religious elements. Nomos (Law) was used to

signify civil law imposed by the Council and the Assembly, and also the traditional customs

which oversaw the behaviour of the citizens in matters of religion and morality. To worship

the city’s gods and goddesses, and devoting oneself to the city meant one and the same thing.

Therefore, it was possible to realise that the city had lost its soul when it lost its autonomy to

that of a simple principality in a wider State. Thus, the city no longer incentivised a higher

purpose and we can see that many citizens migrated to Greek colonies around the world like

Alexandria, Antioch, Seleucia, Ephesus, etc. Migration of the individual brought with it an

unprecedented experience of solitude for him and the individual’s reaction to it was

characterised by two features of the Hellenistic age.

 The first feature is the synthesis in Hellenistic age of those religious unions which met

together for the worship of a foreign deity. Priorly, the citizen used to worship the gods or

goddesses of one’s social group, like family and tribe, and he worshipped them without

reserve because they were the cults of his ethnic group. Now, whether in one’s own

country or elsewhere, one entered by one’s own free choice into groups entirely

autonomous of the city, the sole connection between the members being the devotion in

13
 common of a foreign deity (like Isis, Cybele, the Great Mother of Phrygians, etc.). Since

the foreign gods and goddesses were not bound to any city, there was no obligation to

worship them. If one went to them, it was for the drive of a personal religious conviction,

to satisfy a need of one’s soul.

 The second feature is the spread of the religion of a cosmic God. Under the influence of

Plato’s Timaeus and Laws, writings of authors like Epinomis, and Aristotle’s Eudemus,

people now sought to take pleasure in recognising the display of a divine intelligence

through the beautiful arrangement of heavens, the orderliness of movements of the

planets, etc. Following Plato, Aristotle points to the value and praises the satisfaction

gained from a theoretical or contemplative life. It also came to be believed that the human

soul by its constitution and origin was akin to the soul of the stars and we come from the

stars and it is the stars we return to after death. From here, the idea grew up of a city of

the world which is the real city. Since the earthly city did not offer any noble aim to live

for anymore, people sought to take refuge in the celestial city. There, they could achieve

accomplishment in thought and there they could find solace and the strength to bring the

movements of their souls into accord with those of the heavens. This attitude also is the

work of the individual conscience.12

The Fusion of Greeks and Barbarians

The fusion of Persians and Greeks was initiated by Alexander through matrimonial alliances

as well as the settling of Greek colonists in eastern regions. Consequently, there came to be a

constant contact between the colonists and the indigenous populations which also resulted in

the mixing of races. The Greeks had much to offer: their language, their law, their gymnasia,

in short everything appreciable which their culture comprised of. The people of the east also

brought with them a valuable element: a splendid civilization of a thousand years dominated

12
Festugiure, Epicurus, pp. 9-15.

14
by religion. In the domain of religion, Greeks were largely receptive and readily accepted and

worshipped the divinities of eastern peoples. This syncretism had a great effect on religion.

For Greeks, it helped widen the notion of the divine and they accepted that there were a

highly civilised people among the Aryans, the Persians, and the Romans, and if all such

people were united to merge into one single people to make one unitary city, it would form

the World City ruled over by the cosmic God. They came to believe that the particular gods

and goddesses of various cities or States were only regional manifestations of the same

unique divinity who was immanent in the entire universe.

The fusion of Greeks and barbarians also led to the rise of mystery religions. Some mystery

religions already existed prior to the onset of the Hellenistic age, yet the syncretism

facilitated by Alexander’s conquests led to the introduction of new cults to the Hellenistic

world. Mystery religions were a group of religious practices characterised by secret rites,

initiation ceremonies, and a focus on personal salvation. They were syncretic in nature,

blending elements of Greek and non-Greek religious traditions. They typically involved the

worship of a specific deity or deities and promised their followers a path to salvation, often

through a process of initiation into the religion’s mysteries. The mystery religions also

offered their adherents a sense of community and belonging. Some of the most well-known

Hellenistic mystery religions include the cult of Dionysus,13 the Eleusinian Mysteries,14 the

cult of Isis,15 and the cult of Mithras.16

The Hellenistic mystery religions had a significant impact on Hellenistic religious thought, as

they introduced new ideas and practices that challenged traditional Greek beliefs and rituals.
13
The Dionysian cult focused on the worship of Dionysus, the god of wine and ecstasy, and its followers
engaged in ecstatic rituals and performances.
14
The Eleusinian Mysteries centred on the myth of Demeter and her daughter Persephone, and promised
initiates a vision of the afterlife.
15
The cult of Isis was devoted to Isis, the Egyptian goddess of fertility and motherhood, and promised initiates a
path to eternal life.
16
The cult of Mithras, which originated in Persia, was focused on the god of light and truth, and promised
initiates a path to personal transformation and salvation.

15
They laid more stress on personal salvation, an area where traditional Greek religion was

seriously handicapped as it focused more on appeasing the gods/goddesses and receiving

their favour. Since the mystery religions blended elements of Greek and non-Greek religious

traditions, it challenged the traditional Greek belief in the superiority of their own religious

practices and had the potential to open new avenues for religious exploration and innovation.

The mystery religions were characterised by secret rites and initiation ceremonies, which

provided their followers with a sense of exclusivity and belonging. This emphasis on

mysteries challenged the traditional Greek belief in the accessibility of the gods and

encouraged a more esoteric and elitist approach to religious practice. These traditions

promised their followers a path to personal transformation and salvation through the

performance of certain rituals and practices. This focus on personal transformation reflected a

growing interest in self-improvement and spiritual growth in Hellenistic society.17

The idea of a universal monarchy as conceived by Alexander and later realised in the Roman

Empire mitigated the importance of local particularism in favour of the rise of a universal

religion. The subjection of the Greek cities, the establishment of massive monarchies, and the

synthesis of Greeks and barbarians created the circumstances which allowed personal

religion, specifically, the philosophic religion of the universe and the cosmic God, to establish

itself. Yet, Alexander’s political actions only facilitated the growth of religion whereas it took

its rise from the needs of the individual’s spirit and the soul, from the need for a god who

could satisfy at once the demands of logical thought and the yearnings of the individual

conscience. If Plato is considered its originator, Alexander ensured its advance.

Finally, the most productive force in Plato’s cosmic religion is eros, the passionate force of

love which encourages the soul to go beyond the narrow earthly prison to get to other shores:

the world of the ideas or of the constellations of the heavens. Alexander was thought to be a

17
The Encyclopedia of World Religions, 2007 ed., s.v. “mystery religions.”

16
symbol of this creative power of eros. His impulse was always to go beyond, to cross the

limits which halted him: no barrier should stand in the way of his extraordinary spirit.

Similarly, the spiritual movement that emanated from Platonism is a journey towards eternity,

and escape. The unquenchable desire for something further which is always necessarily

assumed as better sums up the essence of the age.18

18
Festugiure, Epicurus, pp. 15-18.

17
 2

EPICURUS AND EPICUREANISM

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher particularly known for his philosophy of ethics, hedonism,

friendship, and retirement, who flourished during the Hellenistic civilisation. His school of

philosophy prospered for eight hundred years from the fourth century BCE till the fourth

century CE. In Athens, he founded the Garden in 306 BCE that managed to do well despite a

tough competition from other well-established schools of philosophy like the Academy of

Plato, Lyceum of Aristotle, and the Stoa of Zeno. It remained an influential centre for the

study and propagation of Epicurus’ teachings late into the Roman period. Its well-endowed

properties, steady traditions of teaching and doctrine, and generations of loyal advocates

helped towards its continued success.

Sources

Eminent biographer of the Greek philosophers, Diogenes Laertius (third-century CE) notes

that Epicurus was a prolific writer who composed about three hundred papyrus scrolls of

which only a few are extant. Diogenes himself has preserved verbatim Epicurus’s four works

carrying explanations of his physical theory, ethics, and exposition of celestial phenomena.

These include the Letter to Herodotus explaining Epicurus’ view of basic physics. The Letter

to Pythocles deals with astronomy, meteorology, and kindred phenomena. The Letter to

Menoeceus expounds Epicurus’ ethical theory. Finally, the Kuriai Doxai or ‘Key Doctrines’ is

a collection of excerpts from Epicurus based on ethics and epistemology.19 There is another

manuscript called the Sententiae Vaticanae which was compiled as a basic source of

Epicurus’ credo and its aim was to help Epicurus’ followers memorise his credo. The

philosophical writings of Cicero, usually critical of Epicurus, written about two centuries

after the time of Epicurus, record many of his important arguments. There are also scattered
19
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1998 ed., s.v. “Epicurus.”
citations and references in the works of Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, Seneca, and some

Aristotelian commentators. Epicurus’ Peri Physeos (On Nature) serves as the basic source for

Lucretius (d. 50 BCE) who rendered Epicurus’ atomic theory, epistemology, and social

thought into verse form in De Rerum Natura. Some of the works of the Epicurean,

Philodemus, who was a contemporary of Lucretius, along with damaged remnants of On

Nature were recovered in the eighteenth century from southern Italy. Several inscriptions

found in Turkey have also helped scholars construct the life and philosophy of Epicurus.20

Short Biographical Sketch

Epicurus was born to Athenian parents on the island of Samos (located on the west coast of

Asia Minor) in 341 BCE. His parents had arrived there as military settlers. Epicurus started

learning philosophy at the age of 14 when his teacher could not explain the concept of Chaos

in Hesiod’s Theogony. His first teacher in philosophy was Pamphilus of Samos, a Platonist.

From 327 – 324 BCE, Epicurus studied in the Ionian city of Teos, where he became a pupil of

Nausiphanes, a disciple of Democritus. Democritus is known for his atomic theory, and

Epicurus later adopted the theory (with some modifications) as a basis for a philosophical

system seeking ethical ends. When he was 18, Epicurus travelled to Athens for his two years

of mandatory military service, a prerequisite for Athenian citizenship. Here, he encountered

members of the Academy and the Lyceum. For the next ten years after his military service

was over, there is little record as to the engagements of Epicurus. However, it is known that

he stayed with his parents at Colophon for some time. He began to teach when he was 32,

first at Mytilene, and then at Lampsacus. Epicurus’ teaching career earned him several

followers at various places who later accompanied him to Athens where they set up the

Garden and became the means through whom the Epicurean school of philosophy would

develop. He met Hermarchus at Mytilene who later succeeded Epicurus as the leader of the

20
Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (2006)., s.v. “Epicurus.”

19
Athenian school. Other notable followers were Metrodotus, Polyaenus, Timocrates, Leonteus

and his wife Themista, Colotes, Idomeneus and his wife Batis, among others.

Epicurus along with these followers came to Athens in 306 BCE where he bought a house

and, in its garden, established his school which came to be called Ho Kepos or The Garden.

This was the time in Athens when the Academy of Plato and the Lyceum of Aristotle

dominated the cultural landscape of Athens and attracted the best students as well as those

who wanted to apply philosophy to politics and social life. Thus, the Garden (and later the

Stoa) entered into a direct rivalry with the established schools of philosophy and became an

epitome of endurance. Epicurus’ ways and teachings exhibited a marked difference from the

Academy and Lyceum. For instance, unlike both the schools, the Garden admitted women

and even a slave of Epicurus, called Mouse. It taught simplicity and avoidance of public life

and political activity. Half a pint of wine daily was allowed and members usually ate barley

bread. There was no sense of communal property and relationships between the members

were not always platonic, although the Stoic opponents sometimes accuse them of sexual

irregularity, an exaggeration.

In 270 BCE, Epicurus died a painful death at the age of 72 of prostatitis. Moments before his

death, he dictated a letter to Idomeneus – displaying his endurance of the pain he was

experiencing – as a testimony of remaining true to his philosophy of repose and calmness in

the agony of pain and death. Epicurus had willed his house, garden, and some funds for the

continued running of the school. Other finances were earmarked to honour Epicurus’

deceased family members, to commemorate him monthly, and celebrate his birthday

annually.21

Epicureanism

21
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th Revised ed., s.v. “Epicurus.’

20
The originality of Epicurus was an issue of debate particularly arising from conflicting

reports of “the agonistic context of ancient Greek philosophical rivalry and invective”.22 His

rivals charge him with plagiarising his theory of atomism from Democritus and hedonism

from the Cyrenaics.23 However, a critical study of Epicurus’ thought reveals that while there

is a palpable impact of various influences like atomism of Democritus, hedonism of

Cyrenaics, eudaimonism of Aristotle, and imperturbability of the sceptics, Epicurus gave his

theory while working in the context of an existing framework and added some remarkably

influential innovations.

Epicurus’ philosophical claims are rooted in his convergence of atomism, materialism,

empiricism, hedonism, and politics of solitary individualism. He propounds that his

arguments from the realms of physics, epistemology, psychology, and ethics as reciprocally

supportive. By espousing a materialist physical theory and addressing its implications,

Epicurus articulates a series of questions about the material foundations of perception and

thought, the instruments of choice and avoidance, and the prospect of free agency in a world

consisting of matter in motion that makes him distinct from such predecessors as Plato and

Aristotle. Moreover, he rejects their polis bound views of ethics and politics and offers

explanations of ethical motivation and political obligation firmly rooted in notions of

individual means and their mutual relations. Epicurus embraces fully the role materialism

plays in his system. He declares that without the fear of death or doubts concerning divine

influences on the natural world which make us unhappy, there would be no need to inquire

22
Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (2006)., s.v. “Epicurus.”
23
The Cyrenaics were a school of philosophy founded in the fourth century BCE by Aristippus of Cyrene, a
disciple of Socrates. The Cyrenaics were a hedonistic school of thought who believed that pleasure (Greek:
hedone) was the highest good in life. The Cyrenaics believed that pleasure was immediate and could be
experienced through sensory perception, rather than the more holistic and long-term view of pleasure held by
the Epicureans. They believed that the pursuit of pleasure should be the primary goal of life, and that pain
should be avoided at all costs. According to the Cyrenaics, pleasure was the only intrinsic good and pain was the
only intrinsic evil. The Cyrenaics placed a great emphasis on living in the present moment and enjoying
immediate gratification. They rejected the notion of long-term planning or delayed gratification, as this would
mean sacrificing present pleasure for future gain. They believed that life was short and should be lived to the
fullest, without worrying about the consequences.

21
into nature. Consequently, he denies both Aristotle’s passivity towards theoretical inquiry and

Socrates’ conception that ethical beliefs can be assessed independently from a comprehensive

understanding of nature. However, this does not mean he subscribes to a stringent pragmatic

comprehension of scientific accuracy. Instead, Epicurus asserts that we aspire for truth

instead of just assumptions which appear to be true when it comes to our scientific theories.

External matters may spur our inquiries into nature, yet this does not mean that either our

usage of evidence or techniques require alteration.

The crux of Epicurus’ philosophy is that eudaimonia (happiness, well-being) is the ultimate

goal of human life, and that this happiness can be achieved by living a life of pleasure

combined with the absence of pain (Greek: apatheia). However, Epicurus’ concept of

pleasure was not simply about physical or sensual pleasure, but rather a more holistic view

that emphasized the attainment of a state of tranquillity and contentment. According to

Epicurus, the greatest obstacles to happiness are fear and anxiety, which arise from the

uncertainty and unpredictability of the world. To overcome these obstacles, Epicurus taught

that one should seek to live a simple life and avoid unnecessary desires and attachments. He

also emphasized the importance of cultivating friendships and social connections, as these

relationships provide a sense of security and belonging. One of the key aspects of Epicurus’

philosophy is his rejection of the traditional Greek belief in the gods and goddesses as active

agents in the world. Instead, Epicurus believed in a materialistic worldview that rejected

supernatural explanations and emphasized the importance of scientific inquiry and

observation. He believed that the universe was made up of atoms that were constantly in

motion, and that all phenomena could be explained in terms of natural causes.

We shall now take a comprehensive survey of the defining features of Epicureanism.

Atomism and Materialism

22
Epicurus adopted his theory of atomism from Democritus (460 – 370 BCE). Democritus had

theorised that all matter consisted of tiny, indivisible particles called atoms, which were in

constant motion in a void and interacted with each other to form different substances.

However, this theory had led him to also believe in determinism and ratified the traditional

Greek belief in the role of Moirai (Fates), which held that all events in the universe were

caused by prior events and that everything was predetermined. According to Democritus, the

universe was infinite and eternal, and that there was no creator or divine intervention in the

world. The world was governed by natural laws that could be understood through observation

and reasoning.24

Epicurus adopted Democritus’ atomism without mentioning his name but also made

significant changes to it. He explained the nature of the universe and the behaviour of matter

in terms of the motion and interaction of atoms. There are two principal ideas in Epicurean

physics: body and space. Different bodies are formed by the number and arrangement of

atoms in them while space is what the bodies are in and what they move through. It is a three-

dimensional extension which persists whether occupied or unoccupied. When occupied it gets

called ‘place’, when unoccupied ‘void’, and when things move through it, ‘room’. Even

though the Epicurean atoms also are physically indivisible, they are not the smallest units of

extension. Each atom consists of minimal parts (minima) which are not just physically not

splittable but undividable in thought: nothing beyond these minima can be conceived of.

There is a fixed number of minima in each atom and the size and shape of each atom is

determined by the number and arrangement of these minima in each atom.25 Epicurean

atomism rejected the idea of final causes or divine intervention in the natural world, and

instead explained the behaviour of matter in terms of natural laws. According to Epicurus,

24
Benjamin Farrington, The Faith of Epicurus (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1967), pp. 7-8.
25
A.A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics (California: University of California Press,
1986), pp. 33-34.

23
atoms moved in straight lines until they collided with other atoms, and the properties of

matter were determined by the way in which atoms combined and interacted with each other.

Epicurus also repudiated the philosophical doctrine of determinism which we shall discuss

later.

Epistemology (Epicurean Canonic)

Epicurus, like Socrates, was content to say that the sense impressions were true, and that the

atoms made up the world. Epicurus emphasized the importance of sensory experience in the

acquisition of knowledge. He believed that knowledge came primarily through the senses and

that reason and logic were secondary to sensory perception (Norman W. DeWitt terms it as

“the dethronement of reason”26). Epicurus held that the senses provide one with reliable

information about the world around one and that this information forms the basis of one’s

knowledge. He argued that all knowledge is ultimately based on sense perception, even

knowledge gained through reasoning, because one’s reasoning is based on the information

provided by one’s senses. However, Epicurus also recognized that the senses can be fallible

and that one’s perceptions can be distorted by various factors such as distance, angle, and

lighting. Therefore, he believed that it was important to critically examine the sensory

experiences in order to determine their accuracy and to avoid being misled by illusions or

false perceptions. Epicurus also emphasized the importance of experience in the development

of knowledge. He believed that true knowledge could only be obtained through direct

experience, rather than through abstract reasoning or philosophical speculation. Epicurus

believed that some types of knowledge were beyond the scope of sensory experience, such as

abstract concepts like justice or virtue. In these cases, he argued that we could still obtain

knowledge through reasoning and reflection, but that this knowledge was secondary to

26
Norman Wentworth DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1964), p. 122.

24
sensory experience. He encouraged his followers to engage in the pleasures of life and to seek

out experiences that would enrich their knowledge of the world.27

Cosmology

Epicurus maintains that there is no deity with the capability to create or control, and that our

universe is one of countless others, having been formed as an unintended consequence of

immense atomic collisions. Evidence thought to be indicative of divine creation can be

understood systematically; for example, specific animal parts developed before they were

required and numerous organisms not suitable for survival perished (a forecast of Darwin's

theory of natural selection). Furthermore, major human developments such as language and

legislation – often attributed to divine forces – are organized renditions of behaviours with

their roots in human necessity and instinct. Epicurus’ cosmological concept is mainly rooted

in Presocratic ideas. Since atoms lack innate attractive forces, the geocentric cosmologies of

Plato, Aristotle and others which propose that heavy substances naturally tend to the centre

cannot be accepted. He considers “down” a definite orientation, so that all around the

universe items parallel to each other rather than to the middle of the spherical earth. For him,

the balance of the planet is not because it is located at the centre (there is no central point in

boundless space) but because of the cushioning effect of air beneath it.28

God

Epicurus argues that the world cannot be a result of divine engineering on various grounds.

Aside from the world’s distinct imperfection and the difficulty in determining a reason for its

construction by already contented beings, the genuine understanding of a deity is incongruous

with being a cosmic supervisor. A deity is a profoundly serene being, whereas duties of

27
DeWitt, Epicurus, pp. 121-32.
28
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1998 ed., s.v. “Epicureanism.”

25
supervision entail expressions of anger, favour, and unease. Epicurus believes that all humans

have a natural conception of god as an immortal, anthropomorphic being that is endowed

with blessedness. His view is that this understanding can sometimes be cloaked by false

beliefs, such as assigning to a god our own moral values – particularly those held by the

political society in which we live. Epicurus believes that we should strive to rediscover this

true conception of divinity, for it is also essential to rediscovering natural human tranquillity.

He states that gods and goddesses should be worshiped not to appease them, but so that we

can lead our lives in accordance with the values they represent – values which are

aspirational and to which we ourselves should strive. Given the Epicurean view that only

bodies and void exist independently, it can be difficult to fathom how a god – as an immortal

being – could exist anything other than as an atomic complex. This is further complicated by

the fundamental tenet that no composite body can be everlasting. Consequently, it seems

challenging to accept that a god, as an immortal biological being, could exist outside of this

framework.

A scholastic divergence of opinion exists in relation to the Epicurean theology. While most

scholars hold the belief that it is possible to interpret immortality for the Epicurean god in a

literal sense, providing that the deity exists beyond our world and is composed of ever-

replenishing visual ‘images’, some scholars instead advocate an idealistic viewpoint. This

asserts that god embodies our idealized state of being, and when sources depict god as a set of

visual ‘images’, it is indicative of an Epicurean psychological model in which all imagination

stems from external perception. Moreover, these images utilized to conceptualize god do not

necessarily require an objectively real entity; they may simply be ordinary locally generated

human images. In other words, Epicurus’ primary purpose in connecting god with a

collective stream of images was to reject the notion that deity was a tangible ‘solid body’.

Epicurus often discussed the ways in which people should conceptualize the character and

26
behaviour of a deity – the interpretation of which is able to be reconciled by both realists and

idealists. Neither stance can conclusively determine whether Epicurus and his disciples

maintained a theistic viewpoint or if Epicurus’ critics considered it to be atheistic. It ought to

be unmistakable, however, that god plays an ethical role in Epicurus’s system and identifying

god correctly is synonymous with becoming morally enlightened.29

Fear of Death

Epicurus proposed that philosophical inquiry, in its various forms, is motivated by our innate

human desire to understand why we experience unhappiness. This philosophical drive

towards knowledge particularly manifests when considering the fear of death. Epicurus

asserted that death should not be feared as it is the end of our physical existence and cannot,

therefore, bring us harm. Despite what he seemed to think was a rational conclusion,

Epicurus acknowledged that many people still feel a sense of dread when considering the end

of their lives and are negatively impacted by this irrational belief. To illustrate this position,

Epicurus constructed a logical argument he referred to as his symmetry argument. This

argument serves as a compelling exemplar for his conclusion that death should not be feared.

This is because if one tries to imagine one’s own death, one inadvertently transforms into a

kind of conscious eyewitness to it. As a result, one has the delusional experience of watching

as one is repeatedly robbed of the things one holds dear by death. However, one quickly

recognises the period prior to when one is conceived for what it is—a condition of

nothingness. Epicureans contend that regardless of one’s rationale, having unequal attitudes

towards two phases of one’s nonexistence that are equivalent is illogical and that one should

learn to treat both death and the period before one’s conception with the same degree of

indifference.

29
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1998 ed., s.v. “Epicureanism.”

27
This argument, without a doubt, raises questions about how we view the past and the future,

whether these general temporal attitudes apply to states that we are not consciously

experiencing, and how past or potential losses in the future might affect how people identify

themselves. Additionally, it could backfire. Instead, we might start to see the period of time

prior to conception as another regrettable condition of unrealized potentials, which would

only increase our worries. However, the main thrust of Epicurus’s critique of the fear of death

is an effort to show that any such concerns about our nonexistence are unfounded. His

deceptively simple observation that while we are present, death is not, and when death is

present, we are not, serves as the best illustration of his point. Epicurus maintains that one

must demonstrate who is affected, when the harm occurs, and how one is harmed in order to

specify how a condition of nonexistence negatively affects us. He contends that while these

queries are reasonable in terms of harm to existing subjects, there is no valid definition of

harm that can be extended to the non-existent. In no manner, given that harm, whether

defined as a lack or a loss of potential, only attaches to things that already exist.30

Philosophers have been challenged by the Epicurean claim that any conception of the harm of

death necessitates the existence of a subject of that harm to explore and clarify the

metaphysical status of the dead, the place of potential losses or deprivations in accounts of

personal identity, the nature of counterfactual propositions about future and past persons, and

the conception of time required to justify the intuition that death harms us. However

straightforward at first look, the literature that has been produced in response to Epicurus’

claim reveals that the conclusion is far from final.

Hedonism

Hedonism (Greek: hedone, pleasure) is a philosophical and ethical theory that emphasizes

pleasure as the ultimate goal of human life and action. According to hedonists, pleasure is the
30
Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (2006)., s.v. “Epicurus.”

28
only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad. Therefore, the goal of human life should

be to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The roots of hedonism can be traced back to

ancient Greek philosophy, where it was first developed by the philosopher Aristippus of

Cyrene. However, the most well-known form of hedonism is Epicurean hedonism, developed

by the philosopher Epicurus in the fourth century BCE.

One may question, as did many of Epicurus’s ancient detractors, how his justifications for the

innocuousness of death are consistent with another of his major assertions, that pleasure is

our ultimate goal. A hedonist should be afraid of the interruption and loss of pleasure that

death poses. It is necessary to first situate Epicurean hedonism in its prehistoric dialectical

background in order to comprehend its unique characteristics. Epicurus contends that

eudaimonia,31 or happiness, consists solely of pleasure, which is our ultimate purpose. A so-

called cradle argument, which holds that the study of infant behaviour demonstrates that we

inherently seek pleasure and avoid suffering, is another way he defends his ethical hedonism.

Surprisingly, Epicurus claims that since these pleasures adhere to non-subjective standards

and come from activities constrained by real, objective natural laws, they can be defined

objectively.32 According to the Epicureans, subjectivity towards pleasure and the good does

not satisfy the minimum criteria for eudaimonia set forth in early ethical arguments. He

asserts that because wishes can be divided into three different categories, they may be

evaluated objectively. Some cravings, like the desire for immortality or power, cannot be

satiated and are based on false notions, many of which have been ingrained by society.

Therefore, they are both unnecessary and unnatural. Additionally, since they have no natural

31
Eudaimonia is a Greek term that is often translated as “happiness” or “flourishing.” The concept of
eudaimonia has a long history in Greek philosophy, dating back to the ancient Greeks, and has been discussed
and debated by philosophers throughout the centuries. In ancient Greek philosophy, the concept of eudaimonia
was closely associated with virtue and living a good life. Eudaimonia has been dealt with separately in Chapter
4 (refer to pp. 43-51 of this paper).
32
Here, Epicurus disagrees with Aristippus who believed that happiness is subjective and different things impart
different levels of pleasure to different people.

29
boundaries and satisfying them would always leave you frustrated, they should be shunned as

potential sources of unhappiness. Other cravings, like those for sex or specific flavours of

delicious food, are normal yet needless. They are not required for happiness, but they can be

satisfied if the opportunity occurs. Indeed, if one is concerned by their loss or absence, they

might turn into causes of unhappy turmoil and suffering.

Finally, there are cravings that are both necessary and natural. These are easily satisfied and

have objective, natural bounds. One needs only a small quantity of bread to satisfy one’s

natural and essential desire for sustenance, and that desire, different from that for power or

immortality, has a natural limit. We can prevent the disappointments of seeking pleasures that

turn out to be ‘empty’ by concentrating on the fulfilment of natural and necessary needs and

by adjusting our desires to our circumstances. Instead, we can strive towards a natural level

of satisfaction that is completely devoid of both mental disturbance and physical discomfort.

Epicurus claims that this seemingly neutral state is the most pleasurable one that is

conceivable. Many people have argued that this statement regarding pleasure is contradictory

and that such a state only exists as a liminal stage between pleasure and pain. However, he

disputes the idea of any intermediary stages, contending that the highest form of pleasure is

the absence of pain and disturbance.

Since it goes against what most hedonists and non-hedonists agree are the main aspects of

pleasure, namely its intensity and unpredictability as a sensation, it is probably simple to

dismiss this as a ploy. However, Epicurus supports his position by stating that kinetic33

pleasures are distinct from katastemmatic34 pleasures. This distinction appears to capture two
33
Epicurus identified kinetic pleasure, which is associated with specific activities or experiences, such as eating
delicious food or enjoying a beautiful sunset. He believed that while kinetic pleasure can be enjoyable, it is
fleeting and does not lead to long-term happiness or contentment.
34
Epicurus defined katastemmatic pleasure as a type of pleasure that is stable, continuous, and not dependent on
external stimuli. According to him, katastemmatic pleasure is the absence of pain and disturbance, and is
achieved through the satisfaction of our basic needs and desires, such as food, shelter, and friendship. He
believed that once these basic needs are met, we can attain a state of tranquillity or ataraxia, which is
characterised by a sense of inner peace and contentment.

30
distinguishable features of pleasure, even though its exact force and the degree to which it

picks out two different forms of atomic movement are disputed. He contends that kinetic

pleasures develop as a result of the act of gratifying a desire. The states of enjoyment that

follow the satisfying of a desire are known as katastemmatic joys. In contrast to the reality

that there are many diverse ways to satiate cravings, most explanations of pleasure, according

to Epicurus, focus solely on the pleasures of doing so. The accompanying mood of

satisfaction and the absence of need or disruption that it denotes are what we value most

highly. The Epicurean responds to the criticism that Epicurus provides us with the pleasures

of a corpse by saying that the wise prefer not to have an itch to the pleasures of scratching.

Even more contentious is Epicurus’ claim that the ultimate state of pleasure is self-sufficient

and cannot be elevated in value by being prolonged. His detractors charge that this

explanation of pleasure seems suspiciously tailored to support his assertion that death does

not adversely affect a fulfilling existence. It provided his followers with a potent justification

for how, when properly understood, pleasure might satisfy the requirements that human

enjoyment be not only self-sufficient but also total and immune to all harm at the hands of

death.35

Virtues

Every aspect of Epicurus’ ethics exhibits an unmistakable faith in the persuasiveness of

reason. He lauds reason’s sober ability to focus each of our decisions on our ultimate welfare

and believes that reason may help us quickly overcome any worries that are the result of false

beliefs. He rejects, like Socrates, the idea that we might be aware of what is right but failing

to act on it due to either uncontrollable desires or irreparable flaws in our character. He

avoids Aristotle’s emphasis on the importance of habituating passions and character in the

paths of virtue, but he does not go as far as the Stoics in merely associating irrational

35
DeWitt, Epicurus, pp. 216-48.

31
impulses with false beliefs. According to Epicurus, the therapeutic value of reasoned

argument can change lives at any point and in any circumstance. His account of virtue is

heavily cognitive, as is to be expected. He maintains that all virtues, including justice, are a

form of logical prudence that are helpful in achieving and upholding a life of enjoyment.

While it is possible to argue that wisdom, bravery, and moderation are qualities that the

hedonist can benefit from, the other-focused requirements of justice appear more difficult to

uphold. We might assume that one may be unjust for pragmatic grounds. Why limit one’s

enjoyment for the benefit of others? Epicurean literature presents a variety of justifications

for justice that probably function best when taken to be addressed to both Epicureans and

non-Epicureans. For instance, several writings highlight the primary motivator for following

the law as the dread of being detected for doing anything illicit. Such a reason for existing

just does not mesh well with the image of the Epicurean, who is supposed to rid himself of all

unsettling worries and live in peace, and who, given the narrow scope of his required desires,

has little reason to break the law. Other writings extol the psychologically relaxing effects of

justice, which is hardly a reason for a non-Epicurean to seek out less peaceful encounters.

However, Epicurus’ explanation of the origins and nature of justice as a mutual agreement

among agents – neither to harm nor to be harmed (the Golden Rule) – has remained the most

important and significant part of his theory of justice. Interestingly, Epicurus rejects the

conventionalism of many later theorists in his particular articulation of the contractual theory

because he contends that contracts that do not represent mutual usefulness no longer

constrain. He emphasises the crucial link between the agents’ ongoing interests and the

contracts they have made by putting his theory of justice in the larger context of his

descriptions of virtue and pleasure.

32
Epicurus insists that being virtuous is the only way to happiness, despite the fact that he

disputes the intrinsic worth of virtue. However, many of his early detractors questioned

whether merely instrumental motivations could keep someone committed to virtue. His

description of friendship encounters a similar issue. Epicurus frequently uses the most lavish

language when describing friendship, and some later Epicureans say that a hedonist might

value his friends for their own sakes. But how can one keep up this ostensibly altruistic

devotion to friends if one’s motivations for making friends are firmly founded in one’s

personal pleasure? Later Epicureans had trouble solving the issue. Others countered that

friends might enter into mutually self-interested arrangements to respect each other’s

pleasures equally, while some agreed that if one properly focused on one’s own pleasure, one

could not treat a friend’s pleasures as one’s own. Some even went so far as to assert that

friendship might be valued in a sense that transcended personal egoistic pleasure. All of these

could be seen as reflecting a concern with the so-called hedonist conundrum. Only by

upholding the mutually beneficial principles of friendship and placing equal weight on our

friends’ joys as we do on our own can we obtain the pleasure we want from them. Instead of

focusing on our own pleasures, as hedonism would have us do, we should consider the

principles that make us happy. However, it is unlikely that Epicureans would view this as

proof refuting their theory. Instead, for them, valuing the pleasures of friends as highly as

their own reflects an advanced hedonist approach that they must fit, however uncomfortably,

within the parameters of their general theory.36

Free Will, Soul, and the Mind

We know that the traditional Greek religion deeply prescribed the belief in Moirai or Fates.

However, it is obvious that Epicurus seeks to make room in a mechanistic universe for our

ability to rationally discriminate between alternative options and our ability to pursue

36
DeWitt, Epicurus, pp. 307-10.

33
pleasure in a rational manner. Whether or not Epicurus was the first to formulate inquiries

regarding determinism and free will in their modern form, as many have claimed, is

debatable. Like Aristotle, he rejects the concept of Moirai and logical determinism37 as a

danger to reasoned deliberation and disputes the veracity of statements regarding contingent

future events. Similarly, he argues that rational deliberation and decision-making would lose

their effectiveness if the rules of atomic motion completely regulated everything in the

cosmos. Epicurus asserts that a tiny indeterminacy or swerve in the movements of atoms at

no particular time or space underlies the seeming efficiency of reason and liberates us from

the constraints of both logical and mechanistic fatalism. Such swerves disturb the unending

chains of causal interactions between atoms, breaking the bonds of inevitability. There are

numerous initiatives to comprehend the mechanics behind these arbitrary swerves and their

precise impacts on human behaviour. Some, for instance, believe that Epicurus’s explanation

contains the seeds of libertarian defences of free will, with each random atom movement

supporting an autonomous act of human volition.

Others have proposed more sporadic impacts by swerves on human actions or character

generally, concerned about the possibility of such a close link between micro and

macroscopic events. Some claim that Epicurus’s theory is emergentist38 or nonreductive in

such a way as to counteract the randomising effects of atomic indeterminism at the

macroscopic level. Swerves break atomic causal links without causing randomness in

emergent qualities, guaranteeing the effectiveness of reasoned thought and action. Some have

come to the conclusion that Epicurus’s primary concerns are free of such theoretical
37
Logical determinism is the philosophical view that everything that happens, including human actions and
decisions, is determined by logic and the laws of nature. Aristotle opposed this view and believed in the
existence of human free will. He argued that while there are certain necessary and immutable principles that
govern the universe, such as the laws of logic and physics, they do not determine every detail of human actions
and decisions.
38
Emergentism is a philosophical and scientific theory that suggests that complex systems and properties can
emerge from simpler and more basic components. It proposes that new and novel phenomena can arise through
the interaction and organization of simpler components, which cannot be reduced to the properties of those
components alone.

34
subtleties in light of these debates, and that attributing libertarian or emergentist viewpoints

to him is just anachronistic. Whatever the conclusion, it is undeniable that Epicurus has been

regarded as the most important ancient libertarian thinker since the early modern era.

In simple words, Epicurus rejected the concept of Fates and instead championed the idea of

free will. He believed that humans had complete control over their lives and that there was no

pre-determined destiny or divine intervention that shaped human affairs. In Epicurean

philosophy, the gods and goddesses were not involved in human affairs and did not interfere

with the course of nature. He believed that the universe operated according to natural laws,

which could be understood through reason and observation. Epicurus taught that individuals

were free to pursue their own happiness and that the key to a happy life was to avoid pain and

pursue pleasure. He believed that individuals had the ability to make choices that would lead

to their own happiness, and that the idea of fate was simply an excuse for people to avoid

taking responsibility for their own lives.

The theory of the soul or mind by Epicurus encounters similar issues. On the one hand, he

frequently expresses the desire to offer a rigid identity theory of mind and explains its

materiality by presenting a variety of arguments that materialism is the only theory that can

account for the causal interactions between the mind and the body. He also asserts that certain

sorts of atoms make up the mind and that these atoms’ unique characteristics are closely tied

to certain mental processes. For instance, the smoothness of some atoms explains how

quickly thoughts come to mind. Additionally, Epicurus adamantly maintains that mental

characteristics are actual properties and not merely coincidental happenings. Others have

argued that his commitment to a physicalist explanation not only necessitates reductionism

but that reductionism is fully compatible with his endorsement of the reality of macroscopic

35
entities. His strong commitment to the reality of macroscopic properties has been used as

evidence for anti-reductionism or emergentism.39

39
DeWitt, Epicurus, pp. 307-10.

36
 3

AGNOSTICISM IN HELLENISTIC AGE AND EPICURUS

The term ‘agnostic’ is understood today as a “the belief that the existence of any ultimate

reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable”40 or “a person who does not have a

definite belief about whether God exists or not.”41Agnosticism in this sense was not present in

the Hellenistic age. However, there were several schools of thought that emphasized

scepticism, doubt, and the limitations of human knowledge, which share some similarities

with the agnostic worldview. The Pyrrhonian sceptics, the Stoics, the Middle Academy, and

the Epicureans were the main streams of philosophers that had agnostic trends. They reserved

their scepticism over the existence or the role of the divine and several factors and sometimes

held common arguments. Pertinently, none of these schools were atheistic, expressly, they did

not outrightly deny the existence of the divine, although they doubted as to the role of the

gods in human affairs. The Pyrrhonian sceptics and philosophers from the Middle Academy

like Arcesilaus held in common that knowledge is uncertain due to the limitations of human

perception. They were known for their sceptical philosophy and the most important character

of which was that they doubted all established beliefs and dogmas. They desisted from

making dogmatic assertions and statements about an ultimate reality and expressed the

inability of the human mind to grasp the knowledge of the divine due to its constraints.

Arcesilaus, Stoics, and Epicureans held in common their doubts over the existence or the

interference of anthropomorphic civic gods in human affairs. Since the Stoics gave pre-

eminence to reason, it naturally resulted in the rejection of superstition which included

worship of anthropomorphic deities. All schools of philosophy agreed that the onus is on

40
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, ed. F.C. Mish, 2004 edition (Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated, 2004), s.v. “agnostic”.
41
Merriam-Webster’s Advanced LEARNER’S English Dictionary, ed. Stephen J. Perrault, 2008 edition
(Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2004), s.v. “agnostic”.
human beings to live fulfilling lives with ethical ends. We now explain briefly the attitude of

each of these schools towards God/gods, divinity, and its role in human affairs.

 Pyrrhonian Sceptics: Pyrrhonian scepticism was a school of philosophy eponymously

named after Pyrrho of Elis (260-370 BCE). Pyrrho’s philosophy was based on the idea

that knowledge that is certain is impossible to attain due to the limitations of human

perception and cognition. He argued that all knowledge claims were equally uncertain and

that it was impossible to distinguish truth from falsehood. In this sense, Pyrrho’s

scepticism was radical and all-encompassing. Pyrrho influenced later philosophers like

Sextus Empiricus (2nd-3rd century CE). Pyrrho’s views were considered radical for his

time, as religion played a significant role in Greek society and culture. He may also have

influenced the later development of agnostic and atheistic thought. Since he believed that

it was impossible to attain knowledge with certainty, he applied this scepticism to the

existence of the gods and religious claims. Pyrrho did not deny the existence of the gods,

but he argued that it was impossible to know for certain whether they existed or not.42

 The Stoics: Stoicism was a school of philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium (334/3-

262/1 BCE). Zeno’s philosophy emphasized the importance of reason, self-control, and

living in harmony with nature. He taught that virtue was the only good and that vice was

the only evil, and that the wise person would be unaffected by external circumstances,

remaining calm and serene in the face of adversity. The Stoics saw the universe as a

rational and orderly system, and everything that happens in it is a result of this rational

order. Human beings are part of this system, and their role is to live in accordance with

reason and the natural order. Because of their emphasis on reason and self-control, the

Stoics did not believe in superstition or in the worship of gods as anthropomorphic beings

with human emotions and desires (personal god). Instead, they believed in a single divine
42
Harold Thorsrud, “Piety and Theology in the Stoics, Epicureans, and Pyrrhonian Sceptics”, in The Routledge
Handbook of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. Kelly Arenson (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2020), pp. 262-71.

38
 principle or rational force that permeates the universe, which they called the Logos.

Stoics did not reject the idea of gods altogether, but they believed that the gods are part of

the rational order of the universe and are not concerned with human affairs. They believed

that the gods are indifferent to human happiness or suffering and that it is up to humans to

take responsibility for their own lives and to develop their own character.43

 Middle Academy: As we know, the Academy was founded by Plato in 387 BCE and it

was not created to disseminate a particular philosophical doctrine or dogma, but the

students were taught how to think (and not what to think). Aristotle also studied here for

twenty years (367-347 BCE) and then founded his own school of philosophy called the

Lyceum. Arcesilaus became the head of the Academy in 264 BCE. Arcesilaus is best

known for his sceptical approach to philosophy, which he developed in opposition to the

dogmatic teachings of his predecessors in the Academy. He believed that it was

impossible to know anything with certainty and that the search for knowledge should be

based on doubt and questioning rather than the acceptance of established beliefs.

Arcesilaus also argued against the Stoic doctrine of living in accordance with nature,

maintaining that the concept of nature was too ambiguous to be a reliable guide for

human action. Instead, he believed that the only way to live a good life was to cultivate a

sense of self-awareness and to refrain from making dogmatic assertions about the nature

of reality. Arcesilaus believed that knowledge of the divine was impossible to attain but

did not necessarily hold that all beliefs were equally valid. They argued that one should

suspend judgment on all matters until sufficient evidence had been gathered to support a

particular belief. Arcesilaus believed that religion had a role to play in human life, but that

this role was limited to providing a framework for ethical behaviour and promoting social

43
Thorsrud, “Piety and Theology”, pp. 262-71.

39
 harmony. This view would be consistent with his emphasis on self-awareness and the

cultivation of personal virtues as the key to living a good life.44

 Epicureans: Since we have already shed some light on the views of Epicurus on nature,

role, and existence of the divine, we shall recap the same here with brevity. Epicurus

rejected the idea of traditional Greek gods as anthropomorphic beings who interfered with

human affairs. Instead, he believed in a more abstract concept of the divine, which he

referred to as the ‘god’ or ‘gods.’ He believed that these gods were immortal and blessed

with perfect happiness, but they did not concern themselves with the affairs of mortals.

Epicurus argued that the gods were not responsible for the creation or maintenance of the

universe, and that the universe was instead the product of random and natural causes. He

believed that the gods did not punish or reward individuals after death, and that the soul

simply ceased to exist upon death. In essence, Epicurus believed that the gods existed, but

that they were not actively involved in human affairs or the workings of the universe.

Analysis

 Pyrrhonian sceptics versus Epicureans: The Pyrrhonian Sceptics were sceptical about

all knowledge claims, including religious claims, and they suspended judgment on

whether the gods existed or not. They argued that human beings are limited in their ability

to know anything with certainty, and that it was impossible to know whether the gods

existed or not. In this sense, the Pyrrhonians were truly agnostic when it came to religious

belief. The Epicureans, on the other hand, believed in the existence of the gods, but they

denied that the gods had any involvement in human affairs. They saw the gods as remote

and disinterested in the affairs of mortals. For the Epicureans, the gods were seen as

existing in a state of perfect bliss and were not concerned with human activities or moral

44
Renata Zieminska, “Argumentative Strategies of Pyrrhonian and Academic Skeptics”, in The Routledge
Handbook of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. Kelly Arenson (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2020), pp. 35-36.

40
 judgments. Epicureans believed that the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain

were the key to a happy life, rather than the worship of the gods or the performance of

religious rituals.

 Stoics versus Epicureans: Stoicism believed in a divine principle or rational force that

permeates the universe, which they called the Logos. Epicurus argues that the world

cannot be a result of divine engineering on various grounds. Epicureans believed that the

universe was made up of atoms and void, and that everything could be explained through

natural causes. Aside from the world’s distinct imperfection and the difficulty in

determining a reason for its construction by already contented beings, the genuine

understanding of a deity is incongruous with being a cosmic supervisor. A deity is a

profoundly serene being, whereas duties of supervision entail expressions of anger,

favour, and unease. Stoics and Epicureans agree in that they did not reject the idea of

gods entirely, but they believed that the gods were part of the order of the universe and

were not concerned with human affairs.

 Middle Academy versus Epicureans: Since Arcesilaus was a sceptic, he argued against

dogmatism and the acceptance of established beliefs. He advocated an approach of

questioning and doubting in all spheres of life including religion. He questioned religious

beliefs and predictably rejected the notion of absolute certainty in matters of faith.

Although Arcesilaus and Epicureans differ on the nature and acquisition of knowledge

(because unlike Arcesilaus, the Epicureans were not sceptics and believed that certain

knowledge was possible to attain through the use of the senses and the application of

reason), they are closely related when the Epicureans also rejected traditional religious

beliefs and practices, and instead advocated for a naturalistic approach to understanding

the world.

41
 4

EPICURUS AND EUDAIMONIA

The Greek term Eudaimonia literally translates to the state or condition of ‘good spirit’, and it

commonly denotes ‘happiness’ or ‘welfare’. Etymologically, eudaimonia is an abstract noun

derived from two words, eû (meaning ‘good’ or ‘well’) and daimon (meaning ‘dispenser’),

the latter referring to a guardian spirit. In terms of semantics, the term daimon comes from

the family of daimonai (to share) allowing the concept of eudaimonia to be thought of as an

“a good distributive divinity (a good spirit) and hence ‘a good share’”.45 Eudaimonia is “the

state of having an objectively desirable life, universally agreed by ancient philosophical

theory and popular thought to be the supreme human good. This objective character

distinguishes it from the modern concept of happiness: a subjectively satisfactory life”.46

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle is the first to specifically use the term eudaimonia even

though his predecessors have discussed the concept but used different terms.47 Aristotle

argues that everybody agrees that eudaimonia is the highest good for people, but that there is

a considerable disagreement on what type of life classifies as doing and living well.48 The real

difficulty arises when we try to specify just what kind of activities enable one to live well.

Aristotle himself presents various popular conceptions of the best life for human beings

which we have discussed separately.

Eudaimonia and Areté

45
Dictionary of Untranslatables – A Philosophical Lexicon, ed. Barbara Cassin, 2004 edition (Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004), s.v. “GLÜCK”.
46
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1998 ed., s.v. “Eudaimonia.”
47
Dictionary of Untranslatables – A Philosophical Lexicon, ed. Barbara Cassin, 2004 edition (Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004), s.v. “GLÜCK”.
48
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy), ed. Roger Crisp, (UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2004), I:4, pp. 5-6.
We now know that eudaimonia refers to a state of happiness or flourishing that comes from

living a virtuous life. Even though it is often translated as ‘well-being’ or ‘happiness,’ it goes

beyond mere pleasure or satisfaction. Instead, eudaimonia is the result of living a life that is

characterised by excellence and virtue. Areté, on the other hand, refers to excellence or virtue

itself. It is often translated as ‘excellence’ or ‘virtue,’ but it can also refer to other qualities

such as bravery, wisdom, or skill. Areté is achieved through the development of virtues such

as courage, wisdom, justice, and self-control.49

The relationship between eudaimonia and areté is that areté is seen as a necessary condition

for eudaimonia. In other words, in order to achieve eudaimonia, one must cultivate virtues

such as courage, wisdom, and justice. By developing these virtues, one becomes a better

person and is better able to live a life of flourishing and happiness. At the same time,

eudaimonia is seen as the ultimate goal of areté. In other words, the development of virtues is

not an end in itself, but rather a means to the end of living a happy and fulfilling life.

Eudaimonia and Happiness

Eudaimonia and happiness are related but not necessarily the same thing. Happiness, as it is

commonly understood in modern times, is often associated with pleasure or positive

emotions. In contrast, eudaimonia is a more comprehensive concept that encompasses a

broader range of human experience and includes factors such as personal growth, moral

character, and meaningful relationships. It involves a deep sense of fulfilment that comes

from living a life of purpose and meaning, which may include experiences of joy and

happiness, but also involves facing challenges, overcoming obstacles, and growing as a

person. It is not just a fleeting feeling of pleasure but a more enduring state of being that

comes from living a life that is aligned with one’s values and goals. Thus, while happiness is

49
Dictionary of Untranslatables – A Philosophical Lexicon, ed. Barbara Cassin, 2004 edition (Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004), s.v. “VIRTÙ”.

43
a component of eudaimonia, it is not the only or the most important component. Eudaimonia

is a more comprehensive and holistic concept that encompasses a broader range of factors

and experiences that contribute to a fulfilling and flourishing life.

CLASSICAL VIEWS

Socrates

Although Aristotle was the first to specifically use the term ‘eudaimonia’, others before him

concentrated much on how to lead a fulfilling and content life. Socrates believed that

eudaimonia was the ultimate goal of human life. However, he had a unique view on how this

could be achieved. Socrates believed that true happiness and well-being could only be

achieved through the cultivation of the inner self and the pursuit of virtue. For Socrates, the

pursuit of eudaimonia required the development of the inner self and the cultivation of virtues

such as wisdom, courage, justice, and self-control. Socrates also believed that the pursuit of

eudaimonia required a commitment to seeking the truth and living a just and ethical life. He

believed that the pursuit of virtue was not just a personal goal, but a way of serving the

greater good and contributing to the well-being of society as a whole.

Socrates believed that the pursuit of external pleasures and material possessions was a

distraction from the true goal of eudaimonia. He argued that many people pursued happiness

through external pleasures and material possessions, which were ultimately fleeting and

unsatisfying. Instead, Socrates believed that true happiness and well-being could only be

achieved through the cultivation of the inner self and the pursuit of virtue. Socrates believed

that the pursuit of eudaimonia required a constant examination of oneself and one’s beliefs.

He believed that true wisdom came from recognizing one’s own ignorance and seeking

knowledge and understanding. Socrates famously stated, “I know that I am intelligent,

44
because I know that I know nothing.”50 For Socrates, the pursuit of eudaimonia required a

commitment to seeking knowledge and understanding and a willingness to challenge one’s

own beliefs and assumptions. Socrates also believed that the pursuit of eudaimonia required a

commitment to living a just and ethical life. He believed that the pursuit of virtue was not just

a personal goal, but a way of contributing to the greater good of society. Socrates believed

that the purpose of human life was not just to achieve personal happiness, but to serve the

greater good and contribute to the well-being of society as a whole.

In crux, Socrates believed that eudaimonia was the ultimate goal of human life, which was

achieved through the cultivation of the inner self and the pursuit of virtue. He believed that

true happiness and well-being could only be achieved through the development of the inner

self and the pursuit of justice, truth, and ethical living. For Socrates, the pursuit of

eudaimonia required a constant examination of oneself and one’s beliefs, a commitment to

seeking knowledge and understanding, and a willingness to challenge one’s own

assumptions. Socrates believed that the pursuit of virtue was not just a personal goal, but a

way of contributing to the greater good of society.51

Plato

Plato wrote extensively on the concept of eudaimonia. He believed that eudaimonia was the

ultimate goal of human life. For Plato, eudaimonia was not just a feeling of pleasure or

contentment, but a state of being that was achieved through living a virtuous and meaningful

life. In Plato's philosophy, eudaimonia was not achieved through external pleasures or

material possessions, but through the cultivation of virtue, wisdom, and knowledge. He

believed that the highest form of knowledge was knowledge of the Forms, which were

perfect and eternal concepts that existed beyond the physical world. Plato believed that
50
John Burnet (ed.), Plato’s Euthyphro: Apology of Socrates and Crito, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979
reprint), Apology 22d.
51
John Burnet (ed.), Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology 30b.

45
human beings had an innate desire for eudaimonia, but that this desire was often misguided.

He argued that many people sought happiness through external pleasures, such as wealth,

power, and fame, which were ultimately fleeting and unsatisfying. Instead, Plato believed that

true happiness and well-being could only be achieved through the development of the inner

self and the realization of the ultimate reality that lies beyond the physical world.

Plato believed that the pursuit of eudaimonia required the cultivation of virtues such as

wisdom, courage, justice, and self-control. He believed that the human soul had three parts:

the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive. The rational part of the soul was associated with

wisdom and reason, the spirited part was associated with courage and honour, and the

appetitive part was associated with desire and pleasure. According to Plato, eudaimonia was

achieved when these three parts of the soul were in harmony and the rational part of the soul

was in control. He believed that the cultivation of virtues helped to bring the soul into

harmony, and that this was essential for achieving eudaimonia. Plato’s views on eudaimonia

were closely tied to his views on the nature of reality and the human condition. He believed

that the material world was a shadow or imitation of the ultimate reality that lay beyond it.

For Plato, the pursuit of eudaimonia was not just a matter of personal fulfilment, but a way of

coming closer to the ultimate reality and understanding the true nature of existence.

In summary, Plato believed that eudaimonia was the ultimate goal of human life, which was

achieved through the cultivation of virtue, wisdom, and knowledge. He believed that true

happiness and well-being could only be achieved through the development of the inner self

and the realization of the ultimate reality that lay beyond the physical world. For Plato, the

pursuit of eudaimonia was not just a personal goal, but a way of understanding the nature of

existence and coming closer to the ultimate truth.52

52
Richard Kraut, “Flourishing: The Central Concept of Practical Thought,” in Pursuing the Good: Ethics and
Metaphysics in Plato’s Republic, ed. Douglas Cairns et al. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), pp.
154-67.

46
Aristotle

Aristotle defined eudaimonia as a state of complete happiness and fulfilment that arises from

living a life of excellence, or Areté. Aristotle considered eudaimonia to be the ultimate goal

of human life. However, he had a different perspective on how this goal could be achieved

compared to Plato and Socrates. For Aristotle, eudaimonia was achieved through the

cultivation of virtues and the practice of good habits. He believed that humans have a specific

function or purpose, and achieving eudaimonia requires fulfilling that purpose. According to

Aristotle, the human function is to reason, and so the pursuit of eudaimonia requires the

cultivation of intellectual virtues such as wisdom and understanding. But he also believed that

the cultivation of moral virtues such as courage, honesty, and justice were also essential to

achieving eudaimonia.

Aristotle emphasized that eudaimonia was not just a feeling or emotion, but a state of being

that was achieved through a lifetime of virtuous actions and habits. He believed that

eudaimonia was not achievable through external factors such as wealth or pleasure, but rather

through the cultivation of internal qualities such as wisdom, self-control, and courage.

Aristotle’s view on eudaimonia was centred on the idea that it was a long-term and

sustainable state of well-being achieved through the cultivation of virtues and the practice of

good habits, rather than through the pursuit of external pleasures or material possessions. In

his work “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle presents various conceptions of the best life for

human beings, including a life of pleasure, a life of political activity, and a philosophical life.

 Life of pleasure: According to this view, the best life for human beings is one that is

focused on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. This could involve pursuing physical

pleasures such as food, drink, and sex, as well as other pleasures such as the enjoyment of

art or music. Aristotle, however, criticized this view as too narrow and superficial,

arguing that true happiness requires more than just the pursuit of pleasure.

47
 Life of political activity: This view holds that the best life for human beings is one that is

devoted to public service and political activity. This could involve holding political

office, participating in civic organizations, or advocating for social causes. Aristotle saw

some value in this view, but also noted that it could be difficult to achieve true happiness

through political activity alone, as it often involves conflict and compromise.

 Philosophical life: According to this view, the best life for human beings is one that is

devoted to the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge. This involves engaging in philosophical

inquiry and contemplation, seeking to understand the nature of reality, the human

condition, and the good life. Aristotle saw this as the highest and most fulfilling form of

life, arguing that it allows for the fullest expression of human potential and the attainment

of true happiness or eudaimonia.53

Epicurus

We have already shed some light on Epicurus’ views on hedonism in Chapter 2. For

recollection, hedonism emphasises that pleasure is the ultimate goal of human life and action

and that pleasure in the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad. Therefore, the

goal of human life should be to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Epicurus did not

however agree with Aristippus’ view of pleasure and believed it to be an objective state. The

types of cravings that are unnatural (like immortality) or give only temporary joys (like sex)

are subjective and empty and should not be pursued. Cravings which are necessary and

natural and can be easily satisfied are objective and have natural bounds. These can be

achieved by lowering our expectations by adjusting our desires to bare minimum. Epicurus

thus believed that eudaimonia, or happiness, was the ultimate goal of human life, and that it

could be achieved through a life of simplicity, pleasure, and friendship. Epicurus’ philosophy

of eudaimonia is unique in its emphasis on the importance of tranquillity and freedom from
53
Richard Kraut, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Nicomachean Ethics (Malden USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
2006), pp. 9-10.

48
fear in achieving happiness. When Aristotle says that the eudaimonic life is one of virtuous

activity in accordance with reason, even Epicurus, who argues that the eudaimonic life is the

life of pleasure, maintains that the life of pleasure coincides with the life of virtue.

According to Epicurus, the key to achieving eudaimonia lies in hedonism, i.e., to avoid pain

and seek pleasure, but not just any pleasure. Like Aristotle, he creates a distinction between

pleasures of the mind (such as knowledge, friendship, and wisdom) and pleasures of the

body, but maintained that the pleasures of the mind were more important than physical

pleasures, as they provided a more enduring and fulfilling source of happiness. Epicurus

believed that the key to achieving eudaimonia was to eliminate unnecessary desires and

pleasures that lead to anxiety and pain. He believed that the pursuit of material possessions,

wealth, fame, and power only leads to anxiety and stress, and that true happiness and

contentment come from living a simple life free from these distractions.

Epicurus also emphasized the importance of living in the present moment and enjoying

simple pleasures such as friendship, food, and nature (“eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow

we die”). He believed that the pursuit of immediate pleasures was not inherently bad, but that

it should be balanced with an awareness of the potential long-term consequences of one’s

actions. For Epicurus, the pursuit of knowledge and understanding was also essential for

achieving eudaimonia. He believed that the study of philosophy helped to dispel fears and

anxieties by providing a rational understanding of the world and the nature of existence. This

understanding could help individuals to cultivate a sense of detachment from material

possessions and external circumstances, and to find contentment and peace within

themselves. Epicurus believed that the ultimate goal of life was to achieve ataraxia, which is

a state of tranquillity and freedom from fear. He believed that ataraxia could be achieved by

living a life of moderation and simplicity, and by developing a sense of detachment from

49
material possessions and external circumstances. He also believed that the key to the pursuit

of eudaimonia lies in ataraxia i.e. it could be achieved by living a life of wisdom, friendship,

and tranquillity.54

Epicurus saw the pursuit of eudaimonia as a deeply personal and individual process and

believed that each person must find their own path to happiness. Epicurus’ philosophy of

eudaimonia emphasized the importance of inner peace, contentment, and tranquillity in

achieving true happiness. He believed that the pursuit of material possessions and external

pleasures only leads to anxiety and stress, and that true happiness and contentment come

from living a simple life free from these distractions. He also emphasized the importance of

friendship and social connections, arguing that meaningful relationships were essential for

achieving eudaimonia. Through the pursuit of knowledge, wisdom, and friendship,

individuals can achieve a state of tranquillity and freedom from fear, which is the ultimate

goal of life according to Epicurus.

54
A.A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics (Berkeley, California: Duckworth, 1986), pp.
61-69.

50
 IMPACT OF EPICUREANISM ON HELLENISTIC RELIGIOUS THOUGHT

Civic Aspect of Traditional Religion

We know that the traditional Greek religion was an integral part of the civic life of the city,

and the gods were seen as protectors of the city and its people. The gods were worshipped in

temples and festivals, and their influence was felt in all aspects of daily life. However,

Epicureanism changed the status quo by challenging the traditional Greek beliefs and values,

including the belief in the gods and their role in human affairs. This rejection of the idea of

divine intervention in human affairs had profound practical implications for the relationship

between the city and religion. One way in which Epicureanism impacted the relationship

between the city and the traditional gods was by challenging the civic purpose of religion.

The traditional Greek religion served a civic purpose, as the gods were seen as protectors of

the city and its people. This gave the city a sense of identity and unity, and the religious

festivals and rituals served as important markers of the city’s cultural and social life.

However, Epicureanism rejected the idea of the gods as protectors of the city and its people,

and instead saw the universe as a natural system governed by natural laws. This meant that

the traditional role of religion as a source of civic unity and identity was challenged by

Epicureanism.

Another way in which Epicureanism impacted the relationship between the city and religion

was by challenging the traditional moral values associated with religion. The traditional

Greek religion emphasised the importance of honour, duty, and civic responsibility, and these

values were seen as more important than personal pleasure or happiness. Although

Epicureanism did not reject these traditional values of honour, duty, and civic responsibility,

it did emphasise the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the highest good in life.

This rejection of traditional values had practical implications for the relationship between the
city and religion, as the traditional values associated with religion were no longer seen as

absolute or universal.

Furthermore, Epicureanism challenged the traditional role of the city as a religious and

cultural centre. The city was no longer seen as the centre of the universe, but rather as a small

part of a larger natural system. This meant that the city’s traditions and customs were no

longer seen as universal or absolute, but rather as relative to the particular circumstances of

the city and its people. This relativism challenged the idea of a single, universal truth, and

this had practical implications for the relationship between the city and its religious practices.

In practical terms, the impact of Epicureanism on the relationship between the city and

religion was complex and varied. On the one hand, Epicureanism challenged the traditional

values and beliefs of the city, and this sometimes led to conflicts between Epicureans and the

authorities. On the other hand, Epicureanism also contributed to the development of a more

tolerant and pluralistic attitude towards religion, which allowed for greater diversity and

innovation in religious practices. For example, the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus

founded a philosophical school that was also a centre for the study and practice of Epicurean

philosophy in the city of Herculaneum in the first-century BCE. This school was open to

people of all backgrounds and social classes, and it was a place where people could explore

and experiment with new religious practices and ideas. Similarly, the city of Athens, which

was a centre of philosophical and cultural innovation during the Hellenistic period, continued

to be a centre for the development of new religious ideas and practices even as traditional

religious practices were challenged by Epicureanism and other philosophical schools.

Epicureanism challenged the traditional relationship between the city and the traditional

Greek gods by rejecting the idea of divine intervention in human affairs, challenging the civic

purpose of religion, and rejecting the traditional values associated with religion. This had

52
practical implications for shaping the religious thought of the Hellenistic age as well as the

relationship between the city and religion, as it challenged the idea of a single, universal truth

and led to a more tolerant and pluralistic attitude towards religion. While this sometimes led

to conflicts between Epicureans and the authorities, it also contributed to the development of

new religious practices and ideas, and allowed for greater diversity and innovation in

religious practices.

Superstitions

Epicurus gave importance to virtue, eudaimonia, and the ways to attain pleasure. However,

he did not undergird his philosophy by the existence or role of a cosmic God or traditional

civic gods/goddesses in human affairs and he made them irrelevant to human affairs.

According to Epicurus, the purpose of human life was to avoid pain and attain pleasure – not

just the fleeting pleasures of the body, but physical and intellectual contentment. His theory

of atomism makes the origin of the cosmos a consequence of intense atomic collisions and

that there is no deity with the power to create or control our universe. The traditional gods are

only beings in total blissfulness unbothered about human affairs. By eliminating the role of

the divine from the lives of the people, facilitated by his materialist, naturalist, and agnostic

philosophy, Epicurus played a key role in liberating the society from religious superstitions.

Epicurus thought that the goal of life is to attain pleasure, and that there are two self-imposed

beliefs that do the most to make our lives unhappy or full of pain. They are, a) the belief that

we will be punished by the gods for our bad actions, and, b) that death is something to be

feared. Both beliefs produce fear and anxiety and are completely unnecessary since they are

based on fictions. Epicurus asserts that certain sorts of a complex of atoms make up the soul

which disintegrate after a person dies. So, there is no afterlife. Again, while the gods do

indeed exist, being perfect and eternal they do not directly concern themselves with human

affairs. As such, we have no need to fear any punishment from them, nor do we need to spend

53
time in laborious acts of pious worship. He states that gods should be worshiped not to

appease them, but in awe so that we can lead our lives in accordance with the values they

represent – values which are aspirational and to which we ourselves should strive. As for

death, he points out that once sentient experience comes to an end there will be no sensation

of pain. As such, the fear of death is completely groundless. 

By removing the fear of the gods and fear of death from the minds of the people, Epicurus

encouraged the people to live a more this-worldly life leading to a eudaimonic life, that

comes through living a pleasurable, simple, equitable, just, wise, and responsible life. That is

why Epicurus is often associated with the sentiment of “eat, drink, and be merry, for

tomorrow we die.” However, as is evident, this interpretation is somewhat of a simplification

of his philosophy. Epicureanism played a role in establishing the value of the individual when

humanism arose as a backlash to religious authoritarianism. Another contribution was the

idea that it is inherent in human nature to pursue happiness, and that an ethical society should

allow every one of its members that opportunity.

Rejection of Moirai

One of the central themes of Epicurean philosophy was the rejection of fatalistic worldviews

and the emphasis on the importance of free will. In this context, Epicurus dealt with the issue

of the Fates, or Moirai, by rejecting their existence altogether and asserting that humans were

free to shape their own lives. Epicurus rejected this notion of predetermined fate and argued

that humans had complete control over their own lives. He believed that the universe was

composed of atoms and void, and that everything that happened was the result of natural

causes, rather than the will of the gods/goddesses or the Fates. There was no pre-determined

destiny or divine intervention that shaped human affairs, and that the universe operated

according to natural laws that could be understood through reason and observation.

54
Epicurus believed that individuals were free to pursue their own happiness and that the key to

a happy life was to avoid pain and pursue pleasure. He argued that individuals had the ability

to make choices that would lead to their own happiness, and that the idea of fate was simply

an excuse for people to avoid taking responsibility for their own lives.

Epicurus’ rejection of the Moirai (Fates) was a key aspect of his philosophy and had a

significant impact on Hellenistic religious thought. The Moirai were central to the ancient

Greek worldview, and were believed to control the destiny of all living beings. They were

viewed as a fundamental aspect of the natural order, and their power was thought to be

absolute and beyond human influence. Epicurus’ ideas about free will and individual agency

influenced subsequent Hellenistic philosophers, such as the Stoics, who also emphasised the

importance of personal responsibility and the ability of individuals to shape their own lives.

This rejection of fatalism and emphasis on individual agency had a lasting impact on Western

philosophy, and helped to lay the foundation for modern conceptions of personal

responsibility and free will.

Eudaimonia

In Hellenistic philosophy, the different schools of thought offered their own interpretations

and ideas about how to achieve eudaimonia, but most agreed that it was an important goal of

human life. Before Epicurus, many philosophers believed that eudaimonia was achieved

through external factors such as wealth, social status, and political power. For example,

Aristotle believed that eudaimonia could be achieved through a life of virtue and moral

excellence, which required external goods such as wealth and social status.

Epicureanism, however, offered a different perspective on eudaimonia. Epicurus rejected the

idea that external factors were necessary for human happiness and instead emphasized the

importance of inner peace and contentment. He believed that the ultimate goal of human life

55
was to achieve a state of tranquillity and pleasure, which he called ataraxia, through a life of

moderation and the pursuit of intellectual and physical pleasures that did not harm oneself or

others. This emphasis on individual autonomy and self-sufficiency challenged traditional

notions of eudaimonia and had a significant impact on subsequent philosophical thought. The

Stoics, for example, developed their own concept of eudaimonia that was influenced by

Epicureanism and emphasized the importance of inner peace and contentment over external

factors such as wealth and social status.

Furthermore, Epicureanism’s emphasis on moderation and the avoidance of excess also

challenged traditional beliefs about pleasure and desire. Epicurus believed that the pursuit of

pleasure should be guided by reason and wisdom, and that excessive indulgence in physical

pleasures could lead to pain and suffering in the long run. Thus, Epicureanism had a

significant influence on the understanding of eudaimonia in Hellenistic philosophy,

challenging traditional beliefs about happiness and well-being and emphasizing the

importance of inner peace and contentment. This had a lasting impact on Hellenistic thought,

and helped to shape the development of ethical and moral philosophy for centuries to come.

Mystery Religions

Although Epicureans did not actively seek to counter mystery religions, yet many elements of

their philosophy did not agree with the beliefs and practices of the latter. Despite their

obliviousness to the matter, Epicureans had an impact on educated elites because of their

emphasis on reason thereby discouraging them from joining any mystery religion (because

most people who joined the mystery cults were common masses). Following are some key

differences between the mystery cults and Epicureanism:

1. Belief in the supernatural: One of the most fundamental differences between

Epicureanism and the mystery religions is their view of the supernatural. Epicureans

56
 rejected the idea of gods who intervene in human affairs or punish people after death, and

instead believed that the universe is governed by natural laws. In contrast, the mystery

religions often placed a great deal of emphasis on divine intervention, supernatural

experiences, and mystical knowledge.

2. Role of reason: Epicureanism placed a strong emphasis on reason and empirical evidence,

and believed that knowledge should be based on observation and logical deduction. In

contrast, the mystery religions often placed a greater emphasis on faith, intuition, and

revelation.

3. Attitude towards death: Epicureans believed that death is simply the end of

consciousness, and that there is no afterlife or divine judgment. In contrast, the mystery

religions often promised their followers some form of immortality or divine reward in the

afterlife.

4. Approach to personal transformation: While both Epicureanism and the mystery religions

emphasized the importance of personal growth and transformation, they often differed in

their methods. The mystery religions often involved initiation ceremonies or rituals that

were intended to bring the participant into closer communion with the divine, while

Epicureans emphasized the importance of personal relationships, simple living, and the

cultivation of wisdom and virtue in order to achieve a fulfilling and meaningful life.

5. Attitude towards pleasure: Epicureans believed that pleasure was the highest good, but

emphasized the importance of pursuing long-term pleasure over short-term gratification.

In contrast, the mystery religions often viewed pleasure with suspicion or even as a

distraction from spiritual growth.

While both Epicureanism and the mystery religions were concerned with the nature of the

universe and the meaning of human existence, they represented fundamentally different

approaches to these questions. Epicureanism emphasized reason, empirical evidence, and the

57
pursuit of long-term pleasure, while the mystery religions often placed a greater emphasis on

faith, revelation, and supernatural experience.

Social Order

To understand the impact of Epicureanism on Hellenistic social order, it is helpful to examine

some specific ways in which this philosophy challenged traditional social structures and

values. First and foremost, Epicureanism placed a strong emphasis on the pursuit of

individual happiness and pleasure. Epicurus taught that the ultimate goal of human life was to

achieve a state of tranquillity and peace of mind, which could be attained by living a life free

from pain and anxiety and surrounded by good friends and pleasures. This focus on

individual happiness challenged traditional social hierarchies and values that prioritized duty,

honour, and obligation over personal fulfilment.

Furthermore, Epicureanism taught that happiness could only be achieved through the pursuit

of pleasure and avoidance of pain, regardless of social status or external circumstances. This

emphasis on personal experience and individual autonomy challenged traditional ideas about

social hierarchy, which were often based on birth, wealth, or political power. Epicureans

believed that anyone could achieve happiness and fulfilment, regardless of their social status

or station in life. Additionally, Epicureanism promoted the importance of friendship and

community as a means of achieving happiness. Epicurus believed that true friends were those

who shared common values and interests, rather than those who simply shared the same

social or political status. This emphasis on shared values and interests challenged traditional

social hierarchies and encouraged the formation of new social networks based on mutual

respect and admiration.

Finally, Epicureanism was critical of traditional Greek values of honour and glory, which

were often associated with military prowess and political power. Epicurus believed that the

58
pursuit of honour and glory was a form of false pleasure that ultimately led to anxiety and

suffering. Instead, he taught that true happiness could be found in a simple and virtuous life,

free from the stresses and anxieties of ambition and competition. Thus, the impact of

Epicureanism on Hellenistic social order was significant, as it challenged traditional ideas

about social hierarchy, duty, and honour, and promoted a philosophy of individual happiness

and fulfilment that emphasized personal experience and autonomy. Epicureanism encouraged

the formation of new social networks based on shared values and interests and encouraged

individuals to pursue their own happiness and pleasure, regardless of external circumstances

or social status.

59
 CONCLUSION

Epicurus arrived at the Hellenistic stage when it was going through a watershed moment. The

rise of Epicureanism is mainly to be attributed to the new world order that came about as a

result of Alexander’s conquests. The traditional religious practices interacted with the oriental

religions which also brought with it many challenges. Foremost, there was this rising feeling

that a person was not only a part of one’s city but primarily an individual who had a separate

identity, which required new guidance. Thus, Epicureanism aimed at providing this personal

guidance to the individual. Notwithstanding the fact that Epicureanism displayed a departure

from the traditional religious thought of the ancient Greeks, his philosophy remained limited

to only a specific segment of the Hellenistic society. Most of the students that studied in his

Garden were elites and majority of the common people either continued to follow the

traditional religion, or were attracted to the eastern cults. Yet, their joining of the eastern cults

may have also been influenced by Epicurus as well as other schools with agnostic tendencies.

However, it is true that both Epicureanism as well other religious trends in the Hellenistic age

were driven by the common man’s need for individual liberalism and a longing for personal

guidance.

Let us now briefly attempt to answer the questions that we had begun with in the

Introduction of this paper.55 Firstly, how did the social, political, and religious conditions of

the Hellenistic age influence the philosophy of Epicurus? We could sum up these conditions

and their role in shaping Epicureanism to cater to the needs of the people of the time in the

following terms: in the social sphere, the Hellenistic age witnessed the blending of diverse

cultures and the formation of cosmopolitan societies across the conquered territories. This

cultural syncretism fostered an exchange of ideas, philosophies, and lifestyles. Epicurus

embraced this cosmopolitan environment and advocated for a philosophy that transcended

55
Refer to Page 4 of this paper.
cultural and social boundaries, focusing on the pursuit of personal happiness and tranquillity.

The political changes and the decline of the traditional Greek city-state model in the

Hellenistic age brought about a shift towards individualism. With the loss of direct

democratic participation and the consolidation of power in the Hellenistic kingdoms,

individuals sought personal fulfilment and happiness. Epicurus’ philosophy emphasized the

individual’s ability to achieve inner peace and happiness through personal choices and self-

reflection, rather than relying on external political systems.

The Hellenistic age was marked by political upheaval, with the establishment and

fragmentation of various Hellenistic kingdoms. This period witnessed constant power

struggles, wars, and uncertainty. Epicurus sought to provide individuals with a philosophy

that focused on personal happiness and contentment, irrespective of the political turbulence.

His teachings emphasized self-sufficiency, inner peace, and the cultivation of virtues as a

means to navigate the instability of the time. The Hellenistic age saw a decline in the

autonomy of the traditional Greek city-states. This loss of local self-governance led to a

diminished sense of civic identity and political participation. In response, Epicurus’

philosophy shifted its focus from the political sphere to the individual’s pursuit of happiness

and tranquillity. He encouraged individuals to find fulfilment within themselves and their

immediate communities rather than relying on larger political structures.

The Hellenistic age brought about increased religious diversity and scepticism. As a result of

cultural exchange and exposure to different belief systems, there was a growing awareness of

various religious traditions and philosophies. Epicurus, while acknowledging the existence of

gods and goddesses, challenged traditional religious beliefs, and sought to liberate individuals

from the fears and anxieties associated with divine intervention and punishment in afterlife.

His teachings emphasized a rational understanding of the world, rejecting supernatural

61
explanations and encouraging critical thinking. The religious atmosphere of the Hellenistic

age, with its various mystery cults and salvation-oriented philosophies, influenced Epicurus’

emphasis on personal salvation and happiness. While rejecting notions of an afterlife and

divine punishment, Epicurus offered his followers a path to achieve peace of mind and

fulfilment in the present life through the pursuit of pleasure understood as tranquillity,

moderation, and the cultivation of virtues.

Secondly, we had also asked as to why did these conditions lead to the rise of various schools

of philosophy with agnostic inclinations and how was Epicureanism different from them?

The religious, social, and political conditions of the Hellenistic age fostered an era that saw

the rise of several schools of philosophy with agnostic inclinations including Epicureanism.

During this period of cultural exchange, political instability, and religious diversity, there was

an increased scepticism and questioning of traditional beliefs. These conditions led to the

emergence of philosophies that emphasized individual inquiry, personal autonomy, and

rational thought. The cosmopolitan and diverse nature of Hellenistic society fostered an

atmosphere of cultural exchange and intellectual curiosity. This led to scepticism and a

questioning of traditional beliefs, including religious and metaphysical ideas. Individuals

sought philosophies that could provide guidance and answers in this context of uncertainty.

As already stated, the Hellenistic age was also marked by political instability and the

fragmentation of power. As traditional political structures, such as the Greek city-states, lost

their autonomy, individuals turned inward and focused on personal happiness and fulfilment.

This shift in focus contributed to the rise of philosophies that emphasized individual well-

being and self-sufficiency. Religious diversity and syncretism were prominent in the

Hellenistic age, with the blending of various belief systems such as polytheism, atheism,

agnosticism, mystery religions, and the introduction of new religious practices imported from

the East. This environment gave rise to scepticism towards traditional religious dogmas and

62
an increased interest in philosophies that provided alternative explanations for the nature of

the world and human existence. While Epicureanism, Scepticism, and Cynicism were schools

of the Hellenistic age that shared agnostic philosophies entailing a critical attitude towards

traditional beliefs, they differed in their specific teachings and approaches. While there were

similarities in the agnostic inclinations of different schools, Epicureanism had distinct

features that set it apart. Epicureanism placed an emphasis on personal pleasure and the

pursuit of eudaimonia through rationality and virtuous living, while Scepticism and Cynicism

took more radical stances regarding knowledge, societal norms, and material possessions.

Thirdly, as regards the concept of eudaimonia, it played a significant role in guiding people’s

lives during the Hellenistic age. It was a central theme in various philosophical schools that

emerged during this period, including Epicureanism. However, Epicurus’ understanding of

eudaimonia differed from that of other philosophers of his time. During the Hellenistic age,

the political landscape underwent significant changes, leading to a sense of uncertainty and a

search for personal fulfilment. In this context, the concept of eudaimonia provided

individuals with guidance on how to live a meaningful and fulfilling life. It was often

associated with the cultivation of virtues, the pursuit of knowledge, and the development of

personal character. Epicurus approached the concept of eudaimonia from a distinctive

standpoint compared to other philosophers of his time. He emphasized pleasure as

tranquillity, simplicity, self-sufficiency, friendship, and the absence of fear as essential

components of eudaimonia. Epicurus believed that by adopting these principles, individuals

could achieve a state of contentment, inner peace, and true happiness in their lives.

Finally, Epicureanism had a significant impact on contemporary religious thought during its

time. Epicurus challenged the traditional civic aspect of religion that involved public rituals,

ceremonies, and worship of state gods and goddesses. He advocated for a more private and

personal approach to religious belief and practice. Epicurus emphasized individual autonomy

63
and the pursuit of personal happiness, encouraging people to focus on their own well-being

rather than participating in public religious activities. Epicurus rejected superstitions and

beliefs in supernatural intervention in human affairs. He argued for a rational understanding

of the world, based on natural causes and explanations, rather than attributing events to divine

or supernatural forces. Epicureans sought to liberate themselves from unfounded fears and

anxieties associated with superstitious beliefs, promoting a more rational and scientific

worldview. It naturally follows that Epicurus also discouraged people from believing in

fatalism, predeterminism, and Moirai. Instead, he emphasized the role of human agency and

free will in shaping one’s life. Epicureans believed that individuals had the power to make

choices and take actions that could influence their own happiness and well-being, rather than

being subject to an unchangeable predetermined fate. Since the mystery religions were

popular during the Hellenistic period, offering initiation rites and promising salvation or

spiritual benefits, Epicureanism diverged from these practices. Epicurus rejected the idea of

divine revelation and mystical experiences, advocating for a philosophy grounded in reason

and empirical knowledge. Epicureans sought to find fulfilment and happiness through

personal reflection, the cultivation of virtues, and the pursuit of tranquillity, rather than

relying on secretive rituals or mysteries. As regards mitigating the influence of mystery cults

among the masses, Epicurus may not have had much success because the teachings of these

cults attracted the masses in appreciable numbers. Epicureanism had implications for social

order and communal life. Epicurus advocated for a simple, self-sufficient, and harmonious

communal living based on friendship and shared philosophical pursuits. Epicureans sought to

create a supportive community of like-minded individuals who could collectively pursue

eudaimonia, promoting a sense of social harmony and well-being.

In brief, Epicureanism challenged the civic aspect of religion, rejected superstitions and

beliefs in divine intervention, questioned the concept of fate, diverged from mystery

64
religions, and proposed a communal life based on friendship and philosophical pursuits.

Epicurus and his followers promoted a rational and self-sufficient approach to life, seeking

personal happiness and tranquillity through individual agency and critical thinking.

65
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Book aids:
Burnet, John, ed. Plato’s Euthyphro: Apology of Socrates and Crito. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1979 reprint.
Crisp, Roger, ed. Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy). UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
DeWitt, Norman Wentworth. Epicurus and His Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1964.
Farrington, Benjamin. The Faith of Epicurus. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1967.

Festugiure, A.J. Epicurus and His Gods. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1956

Kraut, Richard, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Nicomachean Ethics. Malden USA: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, 2006.
Long, A.A. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. California: University of
California Press, 1986.

Papers:
Thorsrud, Harald. “Piety and Theology in the Stoics, Epicureans, and Pyrrhonian Sceptics”,
in The Routledge Handbook of Hellenistic Philosophy, edited by Kelly Arenson, pp.
262-271. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2020.
Kraut, Richard. “Flourishing: The Central Concept of Practical Thought,” in Pursuing the
Good: Ethics and Metaphysics in Plato’s Republic, edited by Douglas Cairns, Fritz-
Gregor Herrmann, Terry Penner, pp. 154-67. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
2007.
Kraut, Richard. “Ordinary Virtue from the Phaedo to the Laws,” in Plato’s Laws – A Critical
Guide, edited by Christopher Bobonich, pp. 51-70. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2010.
Zieminska, Renata. “Argumentative Strategies of Pyrrhonian and Academic Skeptics”, in The
Routledge Handbook of Hellenistic Philosophy, edited by Kelly Arenson, pp. 35-45.
New York: Taylor & Francis, 2020.
Dictionaries:
Dictionary of Untranslatables – A Philosophical Lexicon, edited by Barbara Cassin, 2004
edition. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004, s.v. “GLÜCK”,
“VIRTÙ”.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, edited by F.C. Mish, 2004 edition. Springfield, Massachusetts:

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2004, s.v. “agnostic”.
Merriam-Webster’s Advanced LEARNER’S English Dictionary, edited by Stephen J. Perrault,
2008 edition. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2004, s.v.
“agnostic”.

Encyclopaedias:
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th Revised edition, s.v. “Epicurus,” “Priesthood.”
Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition (2006)., s.v. “Epicurus.”
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1998 edition, s.v. “Epicurus”, “Eudaimonia.”
The Encyclopedia of World Religions, 2007 ed., s.v. “mystery religions.”

END

S M Mukarram Jahan,
PhD Research Scholar (ID: 202205943),
Centre for Comparative Religions and Civilizations,
Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi – 110025.
Email: s2205943@st.jmi.ac.in (smmiqbal99@gmail.com)
Ph.: +91-9796152569.
11 May, 2023

67