Editing Epicurus (section)

===Ancient Epicureanism===
[[Image:Epicurus Louvre.jpg|right|thumb|Bust of Epicurus leaning against his disciple [[Metrodorus of Lampsacus (the younger)|Metrodorus]] in the [[Louvre|Louvre Museum]]]]
Epicureanism was extremely popular from the very beginning,{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=320}}{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|page=3}}{{sfn|Gordon|2012|page=1}} and rapidly spread beyond the Greek mainland all across the Mediterranean world.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=320}} Epicureans and admirers of Epicureanism revered Epicurus himself as a great teacher of ethics, a savior, and even a god.{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|pages=3, 31–32}} His image was worn on finger rings, portraits of him were displayed in living rooms, and wealthy followers venerated likenesses of him in marble sculpture.{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|pages=3, 32}} His admirers revered his sayings as divine oracles, carried around copies of his writings, and cherished copies of his letters like the letters of an apostle.{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|pages=3, 32}} On the [[Eikas|twentieth day of every month]], admirers of his teachings would perform a solemn ritual to honor his memory.{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|page=3}} Nonetheless, Epicurus was not universally admired and, within his own lifetime, he was vilified as an ignorant buffoon and egoistic sybarite.{{sfn|Barnes|1986|page=372}}{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|pages=3–4}} The overwhelming majority of surviving Greek and Roman sources are vehemently negative towards Epicureanism{{sfn|Gordon|2012|pages=1–2}} and, according to Pamela Gordon, they routinely depict Epicurus himself as "monstrous or laughable".{{sfn|Gordon|2012|pages=1–2}} He remained the most simultaneously admired and despised philosopher in the Mediterranean for the next nearly five centuries.{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|pages=3–4}} 

By the first century BC, Epicureanism had established a strong foothold in Italy.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=320}} The Roman orator [[Cicero]] (106 – 43 BC), who deplored Epicurean ethics, lamented, "the Epicureans have taken Italy by storm."{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=320}} Many Romans in particular took a negative view of Epicureanism, seeing its advocacy of the pursuit of ''voluptas'' ("pleasure") as contrary to the Roman ideal of ''virtus'' ("manly virtue").{{sfn|Gordon|2012|page=9}} The Romans therefore often stereotyped Epicurus and his followers as weak and effeminate.{{sfn|Gordon|2012|pages=9, 12–13}} Prominent critics of his philosophy include prominent authors such as the Roman Stoic [[Seneca the Younger]] ({{circa}} 4 BC – AD 65) and the Greek [[Middle Platonism|Middle Platonist]] [[Plutarch]] ({{circa}} 46 – {{circa}} 120), who both derided these stereotypes as immoral and disreputable.{{sfn|Gordon|2012|page=1}} Gordon characterizes anti-Epicurean rhetoric as so "heavy-handed" and misrepresentative of Epicurus's actual teachings that they sometimes come across as "comical".{{sfn|Gordon|2012|page=10}} In his ''De vita beata'', Seneca states that the "sect of Epicurus... has a bad reputation, and yet it does not deserve it." and compares it to "a man in a dress: your chastity remains, your virility is unimpaired, your body has not submitted sexually, but in your hand is a [[Tympanum (hand drum)|tympanum]]."<ref>{{Cite book|last=Seneca|url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_XIII|title=Of a Happy Life}}</ref>

Epicureanism was a notoriously conservative philosophical school;{{sfn|Barnes|1986|page=367}}{{sfn|Erler|2011|page=9}}{{sfn|Fish|Sanders|2011|pages=1–2}} although Epicurus's later followers did expand on his philosophy, they dogmatically retained what he himself had originally taught without modifying it.{{sfn|Barnes|1986|page=367}}{{sfn|Erler|2011|page=9}}{{sfn|Fish|Sanders|2011|pages=1–2}} In the first and second centuries AD, Epicureanism gradually began to decline as it failed to compete with Stoicism, which had an ethical system more in line with traditional Roman values.{{sfn|Jones|2010|pages=320–321}} Epicureanism also suffered decay in the wake of [[Christianity]], which was also rapidly expanding throughout the Roman Empire.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} Of all the Greek philosophical schools, Epicureanism was the one most at odds with the new Christian teachings, since Epicureans believed that the soul was mortal, denied the existence of an afterlife, denied that the divine had any active role in human life, and advocated pleasure as the foremost goal of human existence.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} As such, Christian writers such as [[Justin Martyr]] ({{circa}} 100–{{circa}} 165 AD), [[Athenagoras of Athens]] ({{circa}} 133–{{circa}} 190), [[Tertullian]] ({{circa}} 155–{{circa}} 240), and [[Clement of Alexandria]] ({{circa}} 150–{{circa}} 215), [[Arnobius]] (died {{circa}} 330), and [[Lactantius]] (c. 250-c.325) all singled it out for the most vitriolic criticism.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} In spite of this, DeWitt argues that Epicureanism and Christianity share much common language, calling Epicureanism "the first missionary philosophy" and "the first world philosophy".{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|pages=8, 26–33}} Both Epicureanism and Christianity placed strong emphasis on the importance of love and forgiveness{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|pages=31–32}} and early Christian portrayals of [[Jesus]] are often similar to Epicurean portrayals of Epicurus.{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|pages=31–32}} DeWitt argues that Epicureanism, in many ways, helped pave the way for the spread of Christianity by "helping to bridge the gap between Greek intellectualism and a religious way of life" and "shunt[ing] the emphasis from the political to the social virtues and offer[ing] what may be called a religion of humanity."{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|pages=8, cf. 26–33}}

====Epicurean paradox<!--'Epicurean paradox', 'Riddle of Epicurus', and 'Epicurus' trilemma' redirect here-->====
[[File:Painting of David Hume.jpg|thumb|The most famous version of the [[problem of evil]] is attributed to Epicurus by [[David Hume]] (''pictured''), who was relying on an attribution of it to him by the Christian apologist [[Lactantius]]. The trilemma does not occur in any of Epicurus's extant writings, however. If Epicurus did write some version of it, it would have been an argument against divine providence, not the existence of deities.{{sfn|Hickson|2014|pages=26–27}}]]
{{see also|Problem of evil#Epicurus|Trilemma#Epicurus' trilemma|Epicurus' paradox}}
{{Theodicy}}
The '''Epicurean paradox'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> or '''riddle of Epicurus'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> or '''Epicurus' trilemma'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> is a version of the [[problem of evil]]. [[Lactantius]] attributes this [[trilemma]] to Epicurus in ''De Ira Dei'', 13, 20-21:

<blockquote>
God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is [[wikt:envious|envious]], which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?
</blockquote>

In ''Dialogues concerning Natural Religion'' (1779), [[David Hume]] also attributes the argument to Epicurus:

<blockquote>
Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?
</blockquote>

No extant writings of Epicurus contain this argument.{{sfn|Hickson|2014|pages=26–27}} However, the vast majority of Epicurus's writings have been lost and it is possible that some form of this argument may have been found in his lost treatise ''On the Gods'', which Diogenes Laërtius describes as one of his greatest works.{{sfn|Hickson|2014|pages=26–27}} If Epicurus really did make some form of this argument, it would not have been an argument against the existence of deities, but rather an argument against divine providence.{{sfn|Hickson|2014|pages=26–27}} Epicurus's extant writings demonstrate that he did believe in the existence of deities.{{sfn|Hickson|2014|pages=27}} Furthermore, religion was such an integral part of daily life in Greece during the early Hellenistic Period that it is doubtful anyone during that period could have been an atheist in the modern sense of the word.{{sfn|Hickson|2014|pages=27}} Instead, the Greek word {{lang|grc|[[:wikt:ἄθεος|ἄθεος]]}} (''átheos''), meaning "without a god", was used as a term of abuse, not as an attempt to describe a person's beliefs.{{sfn|Hickson|2014|pages=27}}