Concludingremarks
In this chapter we have tried to answer the question ‘how apolitical were Epicurus and the Epicureans'. We use the term ‘apolitical' in a broad sense to refer to political participation and social interaction.
We first show how Cicero, Epictetus and Plutarch attribute to the Epicureans a theoretical and practical disinterest in political communities that translates, in their view, into a refusal to participate in politics and minimal social interaction. Their argumentation is highly rhetorical, as is usual in the philosophical diatribes of antiquity. Cicero, Epictetus and Plutarch base the apoliticism of the Epicureans on their refusal of the natural sociability of human beings. They derive this refusal from the egoistic hedonism which they ascribe to famous slogans (‘live unnoticed', ‘do not participate in politics'), from the precepts of conduct of the wise Epicurean, and their criticisms of great politicians of the past. However, they do not deal with the context or meaning of these slogans, maxims and criticisms in Epicurus' work, thought and life. The argumentation of Cicero, Epictetus and Plutarch ignores the political approaches of the Epicureans and relegates the assessment of the motivations and ambitions of politics which, at least since Socrates, was not marginal but inherent to the process of philosophical selfdefinition in Greece. For Cicero and Plutarch, dedication to politics constitutes the most fulfilling way of life, and so the Epicureans' conception of the exercise of politics is the antipode to their conviction. The polemical strategy of these adversaries of Epicureanism, we state, involves historical levity, since they were not interested in scrupulously reporting the Epicurean lifestyle but simply in dismissing it. In sections 2, 3 and 4 we have been concerned precisely with presenting heterogeneous testimonies of the lifestyle of Epicurus and of numerous Epicureans that refute the apoliticism that has traditionally been attributed to them. First of all, we have shown how the testimonies about Epicurus' life and his testament do not paint a picture of a person shut away in the Garden and isolated from the life of Athens, but of someone who, while refusing to participate actively in politics, respected the laws and institutions of the city, participated in its worship and piety, integrated family relationships into the exercise of philosophy, and cultivated numerous and heterogeneous friendships, including with influential politicians. Furthermore, on the basis of Epicurean texts and epigraphic documents from various Greek cities, we have shown how numerous Epicureans belonging to the upper classes served as advisers of kings, distinguished diplomats, ambassadors, priests of imperial and local cults, and even as prophets, without their status as Epicureans disqualifying them from such functions. Finally, we present several examples of illustrious Roman Epicureans who were involved in the most important political events in Rome in the first century âñ and highlight that Philodemus in On the Good King According to Homer is concerned with showing how the Epicurean philosopher can be useful and advise the ruler. In sum, the testimonies analysed paint a much more complex and interesting picture of the theoretical and practical relationship between Epicurus (and the Epicureans) and their political communities than the anti-Epicurean tradition has largely succeeded in imposing on later interpretations.
More on the topic Concludingremarks:
-
Contemporary philosophical research -
Fundamentals of philosophy -
Logic -
Philosophy of Science and Technology -
Political philosophy -
Social philosophy -
-
Conflictology -
Ecology -
Economy -
Finance -
History -
Law -
Medicine -
Philosophy -
Religious studies -