"Peace and Safety" vs. "Conflict and Danger"

I made the following post initially in response to a private conversation, and I credit Don for researching into the background of this and helping me decide to change my opinion on it. I need to go back and cite as well the parts in DeWitt where he references this, but for now I'll just include the cite that this issue derives from from I Thessalonians 5:3:

1 Thessalonians 5:3 - Bible Gateway

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.

www.biblegateway.com

"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." (KJV)

ὅταν γὰρ λέγωσιν Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια τότε αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς ἐφίσταται ὄλεθρος ὥσπερ ἡ ὠδὶν τῇ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν

I don't recall DeWitt praising "Peace and Safety" as a slogan that Epicureans *should* use, but I recall that he expressed the opinion that this quotation was a direct reference to Epicureans in fact actually using this regularly, thus leading Paul to be alluding to them in this passage. I still don't doubt that the allusion does encompass the Epicureans at least in part, but I now have a different view of the full effect of what Paul was saying.

In past years after reading that I picked up that analogy and used it myself in my writing about Epicurus. I can't go back and change the past, but if I had it to do over again given my present knowledge I would not do so, and I don't plan to use it in the future either.

In general I am fairly tolerant of DeWitt finding references to Epicureans in Paul, and I don't doubt that there might be some basis that Epicureans made statements like "Be Safe" as we do today. But in the overall context I think this "Peace and Safety" passage was intended as a non-flattering reference and isn't appropriate to be picked up positively.

Even if DeWitt is correct that the Biblical passage was intended to be a reference to Epicureans, at this point I would see the intent behind the reference be slanderous. It's effect is more like See? All those guys are concerned about is avoiding any moment of pain! rather than anything worth following at face value.

Yes it is true that absence of pain = pleasure, but that doesn't mean that we always choose Peace and Safety. The goal is pleasure, so just as we sometimes choose pain in pursuit of pleasure, we must sometimes choose Conflict or Confrontation and Danger when that choice will lead to greater pleasure.

Conflict and Danger is what people like Epicurus or Diogenes of Oinoanda chose when they stood up against the "... common disease, as in a plague" of "...false notions about things" which was spreading among increasing numbers of people "...for in mutual emulation they catch the disease from one another like sheep." (fragment 3)

So at this point for me hearing the phrase "Peace and Safety" serves mainly as a reminder that we would not have Epicurean philosophy today if the founders and many other Epicureans along the way had not often chosen "Conflict and Danger." I don't think we can fully appreciate what the ancients thought it meant to be Epicurean unless we see that sometimes the same thing is required of us.

It's possible that "Confrontation" works better than "conflict" because"conflict" sounds more like physical combat, while "confrontation" sounds both mental and physical. For style purposes, "conflict and danger" works better, along the lines of "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger," but it needs to be made clear that the intellectual conflict is even more important than the physical. Either word works given the right context.

DeWitt's References

It may be observed in passing that St. Paul quoted the words Peace and Safety as catchwords of the Epicureans, to whom he refused the honor of mention by name.⁶⁹ In this collocation Peace signified harmonious relations with neighbors while Safety meant the security of the man as a citizen, the sort of safety that Paul himself enjoyed by virtue of Roman citizenship.

St. Paul in I Thessalonians 5 identified the Epicureans by their catchwords Peace and Safety. In this collocation Peace has reference to amicable relations with neighbors, while Safety refers to the security of person and property for the citizen. The best means of obtaining the latter, according to Epicurus, was to withdraw from the multitude and live a retired life, but he thought it equally important to put forward what he called the "false opinions" on the topic, as in Authorized Doctrine 7: "Some men have chosen to become celebrities and to be in the public eye, thinking thus to achieve security from the attacks of men." He does not explicitly label this a false opinion but leaves the inference to be drawn: "Consequently, if the lives of such men are safe, they have reaped the end of Nature, but if their lives are not safe, they lack that for the sake of which at the outset they reached out by the instinct of Nature." They are not free nor in control of their environment; they have placed their happiness at the mercy of a fickle populace.

It is also manifest that he looked chiefly to friendly diplomacy to keep the environment in control. Good will is a catchword of his creed no less than Peace and Safety. It is a precondition of Peace and Safety. He wrote, for instance: "A life of freedom cannot amass great wealth because of success in this being difficult apart from servitude to mobs or monarchs but it does enjoy all things in uninterrupted abundance; if, however, now and then great wealth does fall to its lot, it would gladly disburse this to win the good will of the neighbor."

The followers of Epicurus after his death, though diligent cultivators of peace and safety, continued to display the same belligerency as their founder. According to Lucian it was chiefly the Epicureans who summoned up courage to defy Alexander the False Prophet, and the only man to accuse him to his face on a specific charge was an Epicurean, who almost paid for his daring by his life.¹¹⁷ Upward of a century before the date of this alleged occurrence it was the Epicureans in Thessalonica who by their derision aroused the indignation of St. Paul, then prophesying the second coming of Christ. In his retort he denied them the honor of mention by name but identified them adequately by those catchwords of their creed, "Peace and Safety."¹¹⁸ It may be added that the Epicureans, as usual, were in the right; the prophecy was not fulfilled.

Both Thessalonica and Corinth must have been strongholds of Epicureanism. We must learn to read between the lines. Paul had been preaching at Thessalonica about the second coming of Christ, and prophecy always aroused the scorn of the Epicureans, who denied all participation of the gods in the affairs of man. The answer of Paul to these scoffers is to condemn them to instant annihilation: "For when they shall say Peace and Safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape." ^3e The Epicureans were not accorded the honor of mention by name, but Peace and Safety were catchwords of their sect. It was part of their ethics to live a retired life apart from the turmoil of the courts and the market place and so to seek security from the malice and injury of other men. Paul follows up the quarrel and predicts the coming of Antichrist, the model for which was Antiochus Epiphanes, the archenemy of his race and the patron of the hated Epicureans.³⁷

Quote from Don

But I'm highly skeptical of the Epicurean putting themselves in harm's way needlessly or recklessly.

Right - nothing would ever be done needlessly or recklesslessly.

But would Epicureans confront Alexander the Oracle-Monger? Yes they did, though Lucian seems to think that one did so on a poor choice of locations. And Lucian himself called for an Epicurus or Democtritus to expose the fraud.

And would Epicureans devote book after book to exposing and denouncing the errors of other schools and of religions?

Absolutely yes they did.

Would Cassius Longinus cite Epicurus himself in support of the actions he and other Epicureans like Panza took against Caesar and Antony? Yes he did.

So there is a time and season for both peace and safety and conflict and danger, all judged and weighed prudently through Epicurean principles.

That's why I wanted to clearly state that I no long er think its a good idea to consider "Peace and Safety" as a catchword -- overemphasis on "peace and safety" can be just as harmful as overemphasis of any other intermediate goal toward the ultimate goal of pleasure.

Torquatus' examples of the actions of his own ancestors also provides a good example that is exactly on point.

Yes definitely that illustration of Epicurus using wisdom and courage to stand up to the gods glowering down from the sky is a good example of conflict / confrontation and probably willingness to accept danger as well (danger not from the gods but from the fraudulent priests).