I am most definitely naturally drawn to Epicureanism because of its “bad boy” philosophical standing in the classical landscape. It contrasts so much to the Platonic view of “rising above our natural state,” which is something I’ve always made myself painfully aware of in an effort to avoid this mindset. It is accepting of the human condition and even celebrates it. How can we celebrate our current state of being, but also learn to do so in a thoughtful and “good” way? These are the things Epicurus tackles. Furthermore, it just seems to tie together a bunch of different ideas about life I’ve already had in the past. In fact, in Epicurus’ Letter to Menoeceus where he discusses the futile nature of a fear of death: Why fear something you will never see, and when you finally do see the thing, you will never fear? As you discussed in the video, as well, in seeing such an ancient cultural microcosm accept something so scientifically advanced as atomism, I can’t help but be drawn to their way of thinking.
The entire philosophy hinges on nuance and, as I imagine, is incredibly sensitive to being subject to misinterpretation. I see it similarly to how many consider Nietzsche a nihilist. Sure, sometimes there are nihilist undertones, sometimes a lot, but regardless the entire philosophical ensemble can not be condensed into one small word. Doing this undermines the whole endeavor of philosophical thought. Along these lines, I imagine the word Epicureanism is subject to is hedonism, a word, like nihilism, that has superficially present negative overtones. Living life in search of never ending pleasures will inevitably end in disaster. This is where the line must be drawn where you determine whether or not it is “good” to put the needs of your mind or body beyond the desire for immediate pleasure. In fact, this distinction is necessary to the ideas at hand and form the distinction between the hedonism most people imagine and the hedonai central to Epicureanism.
Another compelling aspect is the gods and their role in Epicureanism. These gods represented the prime state of being to the Epicureans, placing them in a role much like many other ideologies. However, there is a key feature to the gods that makes them different from the traditional sense: They demonstrate disregard to people. For, expressing concern would be contradictory to their infinite state of bliss within which they live. While this kind of life may seem desirable, an immediate consequence becomes apparent: How can total bliss, constant happiness, and continuous disregard be the desired state? It seems to be that these things ultimately just amount to being oblivious to life. In this state of being, the gods know not of their condition, for to be compelled to have knowledge of their current condition is to be concerned about ones state of mind (again contradictory to the entire idea). To me, this is no way to live. Without concern, one does not seek a better way to live. In fact, the entire distinction between choosing pleasure that brings “good” to yourself and others as opposed to the pleasure of natural indulgences is in nature seeded from a concern for the “good.” So, in this way, it seems contradictory. Concern is necessary in life.
There is immediately a very interesting concept that was discussed in the beginning of the video and throughout the excerpts: The idea that a belief in God is equivalent, in some ways, to the existence of God. It’s such an interesting idea to me, and it is especially interesting in the context of a book I’ve been reading called Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. There is considered an idea about the “imaginary structures” that exist in our lives. Nations, philosophies, ideologies, rights, laws… all of these things truly don’t exist physically. And yet, so there is so much evidence for their existence. There are churches everywhere to indicate the existence of Christian faith. What compelled all of these millions of people over the course of history to allocate the resources and section off all of this time in their lives, if not for something that exists and is real? An idea, really. A creation of the mind. But an idea that has implications, evidence of its existence even, out in the physical world. I’ve yet to confront this idea in my life, and it’s definitely providing me with the difficulty of truly understanding: What is real?
But this is also connecting to the discussion about which is the misunderstanding of nihilism in our contemporary society. Often I hear people conflate nihilism into a commentary about their lives (“everything is pointless… then why should I do this?”). I’ve always had a rule that when I hear the word “should,” immediately consider the moral or ethical framework of the statement, that is, consider the subjective nature of the origin of such a statement. In this example, the origin is nihilistic, but the statement is an ethical one in nature. How can one make an ethical (and thus subjective) statement from the standpoint of nihilism (a discussion on the lack of meaning present in the objective reality)? Well, I suppose, in a misunderstanding of what it really is. Along the lines of Man’s Search for Meaning, Frankl advocates for meaning as a foundation for psychological healing to occur. Even, as is stated in the video, Nietzsche thinks meaning should be present in life. The misunderstanding comes from a misidentification of these “imaginary structures” I discussed above as being real, physical things. These structures need to exist if we wish to live in a coherent society, but they need not be real. In the same way, meaning is required if one wishes to live a good life (Though I avoided the word should, even this statement is had from some kind of ethical framework about “what the good life should be” (there it is). I continue to ponder this idea, as it seems so obvious to be true to me, and yet is not necessarily so. Another example of how an imaginary thing need not be real in order to be necessary for growth.), regardless of whether or not meaning itself is something that exists in the universe. It exists like America exists, and if America is something that one finds easy to say is real, then so is meaning.
I suppose the root of objectivity is in what he discusses in The teachers of the purpose of existence (The Gay Science), that is, for “the preservation of the human race.” We have the amazing ability to distinguish the self and, in so doing, can easily find ourself explaining ethical reasoning as being for self-preservation. But what of species that have no understanding of the “self?” Their purpose a priori (surely) can not be of self-preservation. Thus, the natural motivation must be preservation of the race and not the individual. To those that find only religious reasoning to explain where “service” originates, I say look no further than here. But, to those that use this to show how it can justify genocides I’m not sure I can say much more. For, in the face of this observation, I’m confronted with the fact that there must be something on top of this natural motivation. Yet, the something does not exist. But, I suppose if I’ve learned anything here, it not existing shouldn’t matter. But there’s that word “should” again…