Exploration of Epicurean Concepts of Justice, Contracts, & Not to Harm or Be Harmed

Discussions of the Epicurean community always bring me back to ask "What was the Epicurean community in Hellenistic times?" "What was The Garden (Ο Κήπος) like?" Here are my thoughts:

• Ο Κήπος was only partially residential. Epicurus and the senior "instructors" probably lived on the grounds or associated house. Many students visited, maybe daily as life allowed, then went back to their regular lives to live the philosophy.
• It was not a commune! Epicurus specifically started property was not held in common. That would imply mistrust, that aid would not be given if needed.
• It was situated on a major thoroughfare between the city walls and the Academy. It was not a remote retreat out in the hills.
• This also appears to be the case for other κήποι in other cities. They were accessible to the citizens of the polis.

Not sure if this is applicable to the current discussion, but it seemed like an appropriate place to drop it in.

Quote from Kalosyni

Since so much of what Epicurus wrote was lost, we can't know if back in Epicurus' time, his community had some sort of precepts that were taken or agreed upon.

That is an interesting question. How did you "convert" to being an Epicurean in ancient times? Was it formal? Or did you just show up at your local Garden and start attending lectures and celebrations? Hmmm... Back to the books!

Quote from Don

I also need to point out that, from my reading, personal pleasure and pain don't enter into Epicurus's formulation of justice in the PDs. There's no mention on them in PD31 to PD38. It's all about the basic agreement, contract, covenant, mutual benefit, etc.

I would say that the Pds on justice are closely analogous to, and should be understood to be part of, Epicurus' overall view on virtue (justice generally being considered a virtue). As such, justice is ultimately a tool for the pleasure of ourselves and our friends, in the same way as is wisdom and prudence and the rest. And that's why it is so clear in those PD's that when circumstances change, that which was deemed "just" before is seen to be no longer just.

Quote from Kalosyni

Since so much of what Epicurus wrote was lost, we can't know if back in Epicurus' time, his community had some sort of precepts that were taken or agreed upon.

I would expect that the Twelve Fundamentals and the Principal Doctrines probably served largely in that role, but yet presumably there were probably grades of agreement whereby those who were closest were held to higher standards. That would certainly make sense.

I came across this over on The Humanist in a review of Hiram's book:

Quote

Epicurus is famous for demanding that his followers swear an oath of loyalty: “I will be faithful to Epicurus according to whom it has been my choice to live.”

Tending the Epicurean Garden - TheHumanist.com

Ours is the age of science. We live in a time in which technology has performed such wondrous feats that many have come to believe, if only half consciously,…

thehumanist.com

Then, one of Cassius's sites gave me the citation:

Philodemus, On Frankness, fragment 45.9-11

Letter to Herodotus

Editions: Elemental Edition – Paraphrased in modern English to assist new readers in grasping the concepts before reviewing in greater detail. Reference…

epicureanfriends.com

The text of Fragment 45 runs:

Fr. 45: ...we shall admonish others with great confidence, both now and when those {of us} who have become offshoots of our teachers have become eminent. And the encompassing and most important thing is, we shall obey Epicurus, according to whom we have chosen to live, as even...

https://librosycultura2.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/filodemo-1998-on-frank-criticism-konstan-y-clay-griego-e-ingles.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiDobb0sZH1AhUUjYkEHc7kBSMQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3BQTMX-rvoiFIAdzhRXK5-

Ah that is one of those great divides of interpretation.

I would NEVER consider that phrase to be a "loyalty oath" -- I would immediately presume that it was much like the WWJD bracelets that Christians where almost in fun.

Yeah, it's not an oath in Philodemus's original text. Just a statement of how Philodemus sees how one applies Epicurus's teachings to his life... And how he thinks others in the community should, too.

"the encompassing and most important thing is that we shall obey Epicurus according to whom we have chosen to live,"

I agree this is more of a WWJD reminder than any oath. Epicureans can have their own SFOTSE bracelets anyway

I was thinking that was a reference in Seneca, so I could be thinking wrong. Do you have a particular cite for it in Philodemus beyond what you quoted above? I am always more skeptical of Philodemus quotes too due to the uncertainties of the text.

One can easily imagine how these disagreeable interpretations get started, depending on whether one is sympathetic or not.

There's no contradiction between these two positions, because that's our position here:

(1) ALWAYS use your own mind to your fullest ability and NEVER take as accepted anything on authority or without evidence that you consider to be persuasive.

(2) We want our own community of friends who believe the way we do, and we're going to have a set list of standards that everyone pretty much needs to adhere to -- and if you don't come around over time, you're going to want to look elsewhere for a community.

Both of those are I think absolutely consistent with one another, and I feel sure that Epicurus saw that just like anyone else would see it who wants to run an organization. I feel sure he had some version of his pretty close to both (1) and (2). But he also would have known that you can't run a school that is nothing but a debate society among people who don't agree on core values. You can't have a Organization of those pledged to undermine all organizations."

Quote from Cassius

I was thinking that was a reference in Seneca, so I could be thinking wrong. Do you have a particular cite for it in Philodemus beyond what you quoted above? I am always more skeptical of Philodemus quotes too due to the uncertainties of the text.

That link in my post has the full PDF of Philodemus's On Frank Speech. It's in Fragment 45.

The SFOTSE is Seneca:

Quote

(Seneca’s Letters, Book I- Letter XXV) But do you yourself, as indeed you are doing, show me that you are stout-hearted; lighten your baggage for the march. None of our possessions is essential. Let us return to the law of nature; for then riches are laid up for us. The things which we actually need are free for all, or else cheap; nature craves only bread and water. No one is poor according to this standard; when a man has limited his desires within these bounds, be can challenge the happiness of Jove himself, as Epicurus says. I must insert in this letter one or two more of his sayings: “Do everything as if Epicurus were watching you.” (Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus) There is no real doubt that it is good for one to have appointed a guardian over oneself, and to have someone whom you may look up to, someone whom you may regard as a witness of your thoughts. It is, indeed, nobler by far to live as you would live under the eyes of some good man, always at your side; but nevertheless I am content if you only act, in whatever you do, as you would act if anyone at all were looking on; because solitude prompts us to all kinds of evil. And when you have progressed so far that you have also respect for yourself, you may send away your attendant; but until then, set as a guard over yourself the authority of some man, whether your choice be the great Cato or Scipio, or Laelius, – or any man in whose presence even abandoned wretches would check their bad impulses. Meantime, you are engaged in making of yourself the sort of person in whose company you would not dare to sin. When this aim has been accomplished and you begin to hold yourself in some esteem, I shall gradually allow you to do what Epicurus, in another passage, suggests: “The time when you should most of all withdraw into yourself is when you are forced to be in a crowd.”

Quote from Cassius

I would say that the Pds on justice are closely analogous to, and should be understood to be part of, Epicurus' overall view on virtue (justice generally being considered a virtue). As such, justice is ultimately a tool for the pleasure of ourselves and our friends, in the same way as is wisdom and prudence and the rest. And that's why it is so clear in those PD's that when circumstances change, that which was deemed "just" before is seen to be no longer just.

Hmm 🤔 I'm not entirely convinced, but I'll entertain your post.

As an exercise, I put PD31 to PD38 together as paragraphs and also threw in PD17 (see if y'all can pick it out ) to get away from looking at them as discrete thoughts.

Quote

Natural justice is a covenant for mutual benefit, to not harm one another or be harmed. Justice does not exist in itself; instead, it is always a compact to not harm one another or be harmed, which is agreed upon by those who gather together at some time and place. There is neither justice nor injustice with regard to those animals that do not have the power of making a covenant to not harm one another or be harmed similar to those peoples who have neither the power nor the desire of making a covenant to not harm one another or be harmed.

Injustice is not bad in itself, but only because of the fear caused by a suspicion that you will not avoid those who are appointed to punish wrongdoing. One who acts aright is utterly steady and serene, whereas one who goes astray is full of trouble and confusion. It is impossible to be confident that you will escape detection when secretly doing something contrary to an agreement to not harm one another or be harmed, even if currently you do so countless times; for until your death you will be uncertain that you have escaped detection.

In general, justice is the same for all: what is mutually advantageous among companions. But with respect to the particulars of a place or other causes, it does not follow that the same thing is just for all.

Among things that are thought to be just, that which has been witnessed to bring mutual advantage among companions has the nature of justice, whether or not it is the same for everyone. But if someone legislates something whose results are not in accord with what brings mutual advantage among companions, then it does not have the nature of justice. And if what brings advantage according to justice changes, but for some time fits our basic grasp of justice, then for that time it is just, at least to the person who is not confused by empty prattle but instead looks to the facts. When circumstances have not changed and things that were thought to be just are shown to not be in accord with our basic grasp of justice, then those things were not just. But when circumstances do change and things that were just are no longer useful, then those things were just while they brought mutual advantage among companions sharing the same community; but when later they did not bring advantage, then they were not just.

I will say that when you say:

Quote from Cassius

And that's why it is so clear in those PD's that when circumstances change, that which was deemed "just" before is seen to be no longer just.

I think the reason (which is started in the PD) is that something is no longer just is when it's no longer mutually beneficial and no longer adheres to the "basic grasp of justice" which, as I see it, is to neither harm nor be harmed.

Quote from Don

I think the reason (which is started in the PD) is that something is no longer just is when it's no longer mutually beneficial and no longer adheres to the "basic grasp of justice" which, as I see it, is to neither harm nor be harmed.

Ok this is going to help because I think we need to focus on this issue, which I was starting on when I called 'harm" ambiguous:

Who gets to decide whether some is being "harmed" or not? I don't think there can be much of any absolute standard on that, and it's difficult to decide where the limit might be, given the rest of Epicurean philosophy.

Because I think we all end up at the same position if we agree that "harm" is very subjective and relative. If we think "harm" can be defined objectively, then we're looking at an absolute standard of justice which I don't think Epicurus would allow.

In the end, the only thing that is desirable in itself is pleasure and the only thing undesirable in itself is pain, so just at there is no objective "good" but pleasure, there is going to be no objective "bad" but pain.

Agree or disagree?

Quote from Cassius

Because I think we all end up at the same position if we agree that "harm" is very subjective and relative. If we think "harm" can be defined objectively, then we're looking at an absolute standard of justice which I don't think Epicurus would allow.

Broken record that I am, I'm going back to the Greek text of the PDs. There word consistently throughout those PDs to talk about natural justice, the nature of justice, to describe the compact, etc. is βλάπτω.

Principal Doctrines, by Epicurus

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, βλάπτω

If Epicurus or the early Epicureans wanted to use a word less "ambiguous" than βλάπτω to convey another meaning, they would have. Whether we think the English translation of "harm" is ambiguous doesn't matter. We need to grapple with why βλάπτω is the word chosen to convey the "basic grasp of justice" throughout those PDs and its connection to what is δίκαιος "just, right, etc."

Quote from Kalosyni

Cassius and Don and Matt (and anyone else)

I hope we can preserve and continue the discussion of ethics and justice, and continue exploring.

We can resurrect this thread is anyone's interested:

Thread

Toward A Better Understanding of Epicurean Justice And Injustice (With Examples of "Just" and "Unjust")

[ADMIN NOTE: This new thread was started so as to contain the responses to the following post, which is itself a response by Don to a post by Elayne. Please check Elayne's post in the original thread for past context. As per the title I gave the new thread, it would be good to produce some hypothetical examples of "just" and "unjust" so we can begin to see the common themes.]



[…]

Okay, this is helpful for me to flesh out my thinking if y'all will bear with me...

I would say this specific…

Don

March 21, 2021 at 9:34 PM