Wilson characterizes Epicureanism as a form of both theoretical and practical thinking that started with Epicurus in the third century BCE and was developed especially by Lucretius in the first century BCE. She does not focus on the historical exegesis of the ancient texts, but rather devotes the bulk of her book to showing the relevance of Epicureanism to contemporary life. The central idea is that the main goal of living for each individual is pleasure. This distinguishes it from the Stoic view, which says that the main goals of living are wisdom and virtue. The differences between the Epicureans and the Stoics are sometimes elusive because they can overlap so much: we need to be wise and virtuous in order to achieve pleasure and if we live wisely and with virtue, then we will likely have a pleasurable life. Both approaches emphasize the need to control one’s own emotions in order to live well. Yet there are important differences between the two approaches, and Wilson’s book helps to clarify what they are.

The heart of Epicureanism in Wilson’s view is not in morality but rather in its scientific world view. It is a fundamentally empiricist and materialist approach that rejects not only ideas of an afterlife and other-worldly Gods, but also the idea that each person or the universe as a whole has a telos, or a preexisting purpose. It also rejects the idea that there are laws of morality built into the universe and that justice is objective. On the Epicurean view, justice and morality are important but they are also conventional human constructs dependent on the relationships and agreements that humans develop. 

So Epicureanism starts out being rather close to popular versions of existentialism. But it has a less agonized view of human nature: we don’t have to have crises of meaning, because we know that we enjoy a pleasurable life. We just have to be clear headed about how to achieve a pleasurable life both in our care of our own minds and bodies and also in our interactions with other people. 

Wilson argues that modern Epicureanism is exemplified by the life of a socially liberal and eco-conscious feminist philosopher — presumably the life she leads. This is not surprising but of course may make readers who have different political and ethical beliefs wonder whether her interpretation of Epicureanism is biased by her own life. It is rewarding to see her justifications of her claims, which are set out in simple terms even if her arguments are not entirely rigorous. 

It is plausible that it is good to keep one’s life simple and that a focus on acquiring possessions or becoming rich can interfere with one’s happiness. It is also plausible that being kind to others and not exploiting others may make one’s life more pleasant. But Wilson does not really address the issue of people who benefit greatly from exploiting other people or animals. Epicureanism is focused on gaining personal pleasure rather than maximizing the pleasure of society as a whole, as Utilitarianism is. Wilson takes a view that has a Utilitarian feel to it but doesn’t proclaim herself to be a Utilitarian explicitly. She tends to assume that there is no real divide between seeking personal pleasure and seeking the pleasure of the whole. She does endorse Hobbes, Rousseau and Marx as theoreticians whose work is relevant to Epicureanism. The arguments of those people about the way society functions is relevant to the individual, but there is a prior question is why an Epicurean should care about strangers, especially if the Epicurean is already comfortably off, maybe at the expense of others in society. Similarly, for many years people seem to have been happy to exploit animals with no real psychological costs to them, so what reason do they have to worry about minimizing pain of animals or extending their lives? It is not clear on her view. She does explicitly say there are no natural rights, and endorses a vaguely Utilitarian approach, but there is a fair amount of hand waving as to how she comes to her central moral ideas. Since Epicureanism is on her view basically anti-realist as a moral theory, she fails to explain why we should care about the weak and vulnerable if we are strong and fortunate.

Nevertheless, Wilson does make a case that a lot of sexism and oppression is based on factually incorrect assumptions about women and children, and so the justification of those kinds of harmful social arrangements fail. She does suggest that if trends continue then politics led by men will lead to the end of society as a whole, and that might be true, but it probably won’t happen in our lifetimes.

How to be an Epicurean will be interesting to those who want to learn about secular approaches to living. It gives some information about the ideas of the ancient Epicureans and it spells out a moderate materialist humanist approach to living in the world. But there’s not much there that is new or innovative here, and there is not a lot of detail. Very much for the reader who is completely new to this area of thought. 

© 2020 Christian Perring

Christian Perring teaches in NYC

Categories: Philosophical

Keywords: philosophy, epicureanism, happiness, ethics