Example

“The limits of [Epicurus’] approach are, however, plain: not only in the instrumental conception of justice — well enough, perhaps, in a community of friends but less than adequate for a wider world — but also in the narrow boundaries of the world itself, its absence of concern for all but a few nearby people. The whole world cannot organize into little Epicurean communities; such communities are always parasitic upon the economic and political life of the larger world. How, then, is that world to live? Epicurus does not say.” ¹

Refutation

There are a number of problems with this argument, chief among them:

• An Epic does not avoid pain at all cost; an Epic avoids pain when it maximizes her pleasure to do so in her context.
• The saying “live unknown,” the fundamental building block of this argument, is poorly sourced
• Epicurus did not teach that people should always live unknown (and did not himself live unknown)

Let’s dig into these points in further detail.

An Epic avoids pain when it maximizes her pleasure to do so

This is the most common misconception of epicureanism and it’s the most important to clarify. An Epic does not avoid pain at all costs, an Epic avoids pain when it maximizes our pleasure to do so within our context. If suffering and pain is required in order to maximize pleasure within our context, an Epic must face that pain and suffering.

Keep in mind, as always, that the individual decides what course of action will maximize their pleasure — it is a subjective decision.

You can read more about this misconception in The Unhealthiness of Avoiding Pain.

Epicurus did not teach that people should “live unknown”

Epicurus did not teach that people should always live unknown and withdraw from public affairs. Epicurus himself certainly did not live unknown, and many Epicureans, including Epicurus himself, were closely involved in influencing public matters.

Epicurus was well-known in Athens, and he and his followers carried on public discourse with many other philosophers. He built and directed an enterprise that spanned the Roman world, wrote prolifically and argued the tenets of his philosophy publicly.

The followers of Epicurus kept the Garden for hundreds of years, and epicureans devoted large parts of their lives to outreach to others. The Epicurean school was still receiving favor from emperors as late as 178AD (when Marcus Aurelius himself endowed ten thousand drachmas to the school). ²

Prominent epicureans often engaged in politics. One interesting set of examples are Cassius Longinus — famous for plotting against Julius Caesar — who was a Roman Senator, and his enemy Julius Caesar (who is generally understood among academics to be an epicurean, although the evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive).

Other notable epicureans from sourced material include Lucius Torquatus, a Consul (“the highest elected political office of the Roman Republic” according to Wikipedia) and the Epicurean representative in Cicero’s De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum; and Gaius Velleius, a Senator (the Epicurean representative in Cicero’s De Natura Deorum).

The “live unknown” phrase does not appear in any letter of Epicurus, nor the poem of Lucretius, nor the wall of Oenoanda, and comes to us without any context whatsoever.

Diogenes of Oenoanda did, however, take perhaps the most political stance a person can take when he inscribed his wall “to help also those who come after us”:

“Not least for those who are called foreigners, for they are not foreigners. For, while the various segments of the Earth give different people a different country, the whole compass of this world gives all people a single country, the entire Earth, and a single home, the world.” ³

This view of politics is the logical result of the epicurean worldview. There is no one inherently more important than another, and no external truth by which we all must abide.

The saying “live unknown” is poorly sourced

The “live unknown” phrase does not appear in any letter of Epicurus, nor the poem of Lucretius, and comes to us without any context whatsoever.

The origin of this notion is a “fragment” that comes to us via Plutarch’s Moralia. The fragment is “λάθε βιώσας” (lathe biosas) and is usually translated as “live unknown.” ⁴

“Plutarch was a Platonist, but was open to the influence of the Peripatetics, and in some details even to Stoicism despite his criticism of their principles. He rejected only Epicureanism absolutely.” ⁵ (emphases mine]

From this single mention by an avowed opponent of Epicureanism, a narrative is built that continues to this day (usually understood in short-hand as something like “epicureans refrain from engaging in politics”).

Now on the other hand, from the source material that comes down to us, we understand very clearly that one of the fundamental propositions of epicureanism is that there is no one right way to live. That context matters.

Plutarch himself admits, “even Epicurus thinks that those who are desirous of honour and glory should not rust in inglorious ease, but use their natural talents in public life for the benefit of the community at large, seeing that they are by nature so constituted that they would be more likely to be troubled and afflicted at inaction, if they did not get what they desired.”¹

And while it might be true that in a particular context ancient Epicureans advised others not to engage in politics — may even have said, as we might, that politics can cause anxiety — we don’t know exactly how “lathe biosas” should be translated or for whom it was meant and in what context.

Remember that epicureanism is a way of thinking, not a defined program. It’s not “refrain from politics” it’s “if engaging in politics maximizes your pleasure within your context, engage in politics.”

If an Epic stays out of politics it is because refraining brings them greater net pleasure in their current context. In other contexts, for example when a tyrant is taking over the your country (threatening your way of life, livelihood, etc), the correct course of action may be to join the fray.

Some other important points to keep in mind:

The argument ignores the fact that Epicurus was one of the earliest philosophers to describe the “social contract” which is the basis for all modern democracies. This concept is famously written in the Declaration of Independence, one of the great political statements of all time:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The idea that a culture built on extracting value from the lower classes on the economic ladder and transferring it to the higher classes, would have the audacity to call any other way of thinking “parasitic” would be laughable if it wasn’t so true. For all of recorded history our great civilizations have preyed on the masses by reiterating their duty, chastising their desires, inflaming their superstitions and inspiring division and hatred of the “other,” etc.

It is clear that the argument that there is an epicurean injunction against engaging in politics is poorly sourced, doesn’t align with the vast majority of sources and can’t be reconciled with the actions of epicureans themselves.

1. ^α Weekend Epicureanism? by Massimo Pigliucci.
2. ^α From A History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy by Eduard Zeller 1883.
3. ^α Archaeology Magazine, August 2015 In Search of A Philosophers Stone
4. ^α Plutarch’s Moralia, Book XIV Essay 77: Is the Saying “Live in Obscurity” Right? (Ει καλώς είρηται το λάθε βιώσας – An recte dictum sit latenter esse vivendum)
5. ^α More on Plutarch on Wikipedia