Editing Epicureanism (section)

==Legacy==
===Later antiquity===
The early Christian writer [[Lactantius]] criticizes Epicurus at several points throughout his ''Divine Institutes'' and preserves the ''Riddle of Epicurus'', or ''[[Problem of evil]]'', a famous argument against the existence of an all-powerful and providential God or gods.<ref>God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak – and this does not apply to God. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful – which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?|Lactantius|De Ira DeorumLactantius, ''De Ira Deorum'', 13.19 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20150912180840/http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/epicurea.html Epicurus, Frag. 374, Usener]). [[David Hume]] paraphrased this passage in his ''[[Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion]]'': "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?"</ref> This type of ''[[trilemma]]'' argument (God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists) was one favoured by the ancient Greek [[philosophical skepticism|skeptics]], and this argument may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an [[atheist]].<ref name="larrimore">Mark Joseph Larrimore, (2001), ''The Problem of Evil'', pp. xix–xxi. Wiley-Blackwell</ref> According to [[Reinhold F. Glei]], it is settled that the argument of ''[[Theodicy|theodicy]]'' is from an academical source which is not only not Epicurean, but even anti-Epicurean.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Glei | first1 = Reinhold F. | year = 1988 | title = Et invidus et inbecillus. Das angebliche Epikurfragment bei Laktanz, De ira dei 13, 20–21 | journal = Vigiliae Christianae | volume = 42 | issue = 1 | pages = 47–58 | doi = 10.2307/1584470 | jstor = 1584470 }}</ref> The earliest extant version of this ''trilemma'' appears in the writings of the [[Pyrrhonism|Pyrrhonist]] philosopher [[Sextus Empiricus]].<ref>Sextus Empiricus, ''Outlines of Pyrrhonism'', 175: "those who firmly maintain that god exists will be forced into impiety; for if they say that he [God] takes care of everything, they will be saying that god is the cause of evils, while if they say that he takes care of some things only or even nothing, they will be forced to say that he is either malevolent or weak"</ref>

Epikoros is a Jewish term figuratively meaning "a heretic", cited in the [[Mishnah]], referring to one who does not have a share in the [[world to come]]<ref>[[Mishnah]], Seder [[Nezikin]], tractate [[Sanhedrin (Talmud)|Sanhedrin]], 10a</ref> Although [[rabbinic literature]] does not make any specific reference to the [[Greeks|Greek]] philosopher [[Epicurus]], it is apparent that the term is derived from the philosopher's name,<ref>{{cite web|title=Jewish Encyclopedia|url=http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1640-apikoros|publisher=Funk and Wagnalls|accessdate=2013-03-30}}</ref> in reference to his views which contradicted Jewish scripture, the strictly [[Monotheism|monotheistic]] conception of [[God in Judaism]] and the Jewish belief in [[Jewish eschatology#World to come|the world to come]].
[[File:Lucretius, De rerum natura.jpg|thumb|''[[De rerum natura]]'' manuscript, copied by an Augustinian friar for Pope [[Sixtus IV]], c. 1483, after the discovery of an early manuscript in 1417 by the humanist and papal secretary [[Poggio Bracciolini]]]]

===Middle Ages and Renaissance===
In [[Dante Alighieri]]'s ''[[Divine Comedy]]'', the Epicureans are depicted as [[Heresy|heretics]] suffering in the [[Inferno (Dante)#Sixth Circle|sixth circle of hell]]. In fact, Epicurus appears to represent the ultimate heresy.<ref>Trans. Robert Pinsky, The Inferno of Dante, p. 320 n. 11.</ref>

[[Francis Bacon]] wrote an [[wiktionary:apothegm|apothegm]] related to Epicureanism:

<blockquote>There was an Epicurean vaunted, that divers of other sects of philosophers did after turn Epicureans, but there was never any Epicurean that turned to any other sect. Whereupon a philosopher that was of another sect, said; The reason was plain, for that cocks may be made [[capon]]s, but capons could never be made cocks.<ref>Francis Bacon, Apothegms 280, [[wikisource:The Works of Francis Bacon, Volume 1/Apophthegms|The Works of Francis Bacon, Volume 1/Apophthegms]]</ref>  </blockquote>

This echoed what the [[Academic skepticism|Academic skeptic]] philosopher [[Arcesilaus]] had said when asked "why it was that pupils from all the other schools went over to Epicurus, but converts were never made from the Epicureans?" to which he responded: "Because men may become [[eunuch]]s, but a eunuch never becomes a man."<ref>[[Diogenes Laertius]], ''[[Lives of the Eminent Philosophers]]'' Book IV, Chapter 6, section 45 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D6</ref>

===Modern revival===
In the 17th century, the French Franciscan priest, scientist and philosopher [[Pierre Gassendi]] wrote two books forcefully reviving Epicureanism. Shortly thereafter, and clearly influenced by Gassendi, [[Walter Charleton]] published several works on Epicureanism in English. Attacks by Christians continued, most forcefully by the [[Cambridge Platonists]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cambridge Platonists {{!}} Seventeenth-Century, Rationalism, Theology {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cambridge-Platonists |access-date=2023-09-14 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref>

In modern times [[Thomas Jefferson]] referred to himself as an Epicurean:<blockquote>If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side. And I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gassendi's Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival sects.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://archive.org/stream/writingsofthomas10jeffiala/writingsofthomas10jeffiala_djvu.txt|title=Full text of "The writings of Thomas Jefferson;"|website=archive.org|access-date=2016-05-06}}</ref></blockquote>Other modern-day Epicureans were [[Pierre Gassendi|Gassendi]], [[Walter Charleton]], [[François Bernier]], [[Charles de Saint-Évremond|Saint-Évremond]], [[Ninon de l'Enclos]], [[Denis Diderot]], [[Frances Wright]] and [[Jeremy Bentham]].

In France, where perfumer/restaurateur Gérald Ghislain refers to himself as an Epicurean,{{cn|date=November 2023}} [[Michel Onfray]] is developing a [[post-modern]] approach to Epicureanism.<ref>[[Michel Onfray]], ''La puissance d'exister: Manifeste hédoniste'', Grasset, 2006</ref> In his 2011 book titled ''[[The Swerve]]'', [[Stephen Greenblatt]] identified himself as strongly sympathetic to Epicureanism and Lucretius. [[Humanistic Judaism]] as a denomination also claims the Epicurean label.

===Similarities with eastern philosophies===
Some scholars have drawn parallels between Epicureanism and some eastern philosophies that similarly emphasize atomism or a lack of divine interference, such as [[Jainism]], [[Charvaka]], and [[Buddhism]].<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iZQy2lu70bwC&pg=PA202|title=A Comparative History of World Philosophy: From the Upanishads to Kant|last1=Scharfstein|first1=Ben-Ami|date=1998|publisher=SUNY Press|isbn=9780791436837|page=202|language=en}}</ref> Epicureanism also resembles [[Buddhism]] in its belief that great excess leads to great dissatisfaction.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AD4rDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT105|title=Buddhism, Virtue and Environment|last1=Cooper|first1=David E.|last2=James|first2=Simon P.|date=2017|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781351954310|page=105|language=en}}</ref><ref name="Clayman33">Dee L. Clayman (2014), [https://books.google.com/books?id=ceLUAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA33 ''Berenice II and the Golden Age of Ptolemaic Egypt''], Oxford University Press, p.33</ref>

=== Misconceptions ===
In modern popular usage, an Epicurean is a connoisseur of the arts of life and the refinements of sensual pleasures; ''Epicureanism'' implies a love or knowledgeable enjoyment especially of good food and drink.

Because Epicureanism posits that pleasure is the ultimate good (''[[telos]]''), it has been commonly misunderstood since ancient times as a doctrine that advocates the partaking in fleeting pleasures such as sexual excess and decadent food. This is not the case. Epicurus regarded ''[[ataraxia]]'' (tranquility, freedom from fear) and ''[[aponia]]'' (absence of pain) as the height of happiness. He also considered prudence an important virtue and perceived excess and overindulgence to be contrary to the attainment of ataraxia and aponia.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Yet Epicurus referred "the good", and "even wisdom and culture", to the "pleasure of the stomach".<ref>Cyril Bailey, Epicurus: The Extant Remains, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926, p.131</ref>

While Epicurus sought moderation at meals, he was also not averse to moderation in moderation, that is, to occasional luxury.<ref>[[Diogenes Laërtius]], ''Lives of the Eminent Philosophers,'' Book X, Section 18</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.attalus.org/poetry/philodemus.html#11.44 |title=Philodemus: Epigrams (excerpted from The Greek Anthology 11.44)|publisher=Attalus}}</ref> Called "The Garden" for being based in what would have been a kitchen garden, his community also became known for its Eikas (Greek εἰκάς from εἴκοσῐ ''eíkosi'', "twenty"),<ref>Frischer, Bernard (1982), The Sculpted Word: Epicureanism and Philosophical Recruitment in Ancient Greece, Berkeley, California: University of California Press. pp. 42</ref> feasts of the twentieth (of the Greek month),<ref>{{cite book |last=Cicero |title=De Finibus Bonorum Et Malorum |url=https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Finibus/2*.html |page=II.101}}</ref> which was otherwise considered sacred to the god [[Apollo]], and also corresponding to the final day of the rites of initiation to the mysteries of [[Demeter]].<ref>DeWitt, Norman Wentworth (1964), Epicurus and His Philosophy, Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 104-105</ref>