CHAPTER XXI. THE EPICUREAN SYSTEM AS A WHOLE: ITS POSITION CHAP. XXI. It has often been urged against the Epicurean philosophy, that it is deficient both in coherence and consistency. Nor is this objection without founda- A. Inner tion, if by those terms a complete scientific ground- connection of the Epiwork, or a strictly logical development, is understood. curean After studying it, there certainly remains a feeling of teaching. dissatisfaction. It is not difficult to show in what contradictions Epicurus was involved; in professing at one time to trust the senses wholly and entirely, and yet going beyond the senses to the hidden causes of things; in despising logical forms and laws, and at the same time building up his whole system on deductions; in holding that all sensations are true, but yet maintaining that a portion of the realities which they represent as belonging to things is only relative. Nor were some of his other inconsistencies less; such for instance as his recognising at one time only natural causes and laws and ignoring any such thing as free will and imagination, and yet at another time, by the doctrine of the deviation of atoms and of the human will, elevating unexplained caprice to CHAP. the rank of law; his referring all pleasures and pains to bodily sensations, and yet calling mental states the higher and more important states; nay more, his going so far as to construct on a basis of selfishness rules and precepts of humanity, justice, love, faithfulness, and devotion. It ought not, however, to be forgotten that the Stoics, to whom the claim of clear and consistent thought cannot be denied, were involved in similar difficulties. The Stoics, like the Epicureans, built up a rational system on a basis of the senses. They too constructed an ideal theory of morals on a material groundwork of metaphysics. They too declared that universal law is the only active power, whilst they maintained that reality belongs only to the world of matter. They too deduced a strict theory of virtue from the principle of self-preservation; not to mention the inconsistent attitude which they assumed towards the popular religion. To deny to the Stoics a oneness and connectedness of system, would be felt to be doing them an injustice, notwithstanding their defects and inconsistencies. And can Epicureanism be fairly condemned, when its faults are essentially of the same kind (though a little more obvious) as those of the Stoics, without a single extenuating plea being admitted on its behalf? The strongest argument in favour of Epicureanism is that as a whole it does not pretend to rest upon an intellectual platform. Epicurus sought in philosophy a path to happiness, a school for practical wisdom. For him knowledge has only a secondary value, as being subservient to this end, and indeed both the tone and the mode of his intellectual activity was decided with a view to this end. In the case of the Stoics, however, it has been already seen that the comparative subordination of Logic and Natural Science to Moral Science, the going back to the older view of nature, the vindication of the truth of the senses and of the reality of matter, grew out of their peculiarly one-sided view of the scope of philosophy. In the case of Epicurus the same results appear; and in his case it is all the more remarkable, since Epicurus did not, like the Stoics, look for happiness in subordination to a universal law, but in individual gratification or pleasure. The knowledge of a universal law had not for him the same value as for the Stoics; and consequently Epicurus did not feel the same need of a scientific method as they had done. He could therefore rest content with the impressions of the senses, regarding them as the only unfailing source of knowledge. No necessity compelled him to advance from pure materialism to a view of matter in which it is described as possessing a soul and made to be the bearer of reason. In fact, the more exclusively everything was referred by him to mechanical causes, the more easily could he regard the individual as independent of all superhuman forces in his pursuit of happiness, and as purely relying on himself and his natural powers. No system in ancient times has so exclusively taken the mechanical view of nature as that of the Atomists. None, therefore, afforded such a strong metaphysical СНАР. XXI. CHAP. support to the Epicureans. For Epicurus it was as natural to build on the teaching of Democritus as for the Stoics to build on that of Heraclitus. But Epicurus, probably more under the influence of practical than of scientific considerations, destroyed by his theory of the derivation of atoms the consistency of the theory of Democritus. It is hardly necessary to notice here how the distinctive features of the Epicurean morals were developed out of their theory of happiness, in marked contrast to the Stoics' teaching. But the happiness of Epicurus does not depend upon sensual gratifications as such, but upon repose of mind and cheerfulness of disposition. Hence his theory of morals, notwithstanding its foundation in pleasure, bears a noble character, which is seen in its language as to the wise man's relations to the pains and desires of the body, to poverty and riches, to life and death, no less than in the mild humanity and the warm and hearty appreciation of friendship by the Epicurean School. The rationalising spirit of that School was certainly opposed to a religious belief which supposed an intervention of God in the course of the world, or the world's influence on man for weal or woe; but its appeal to the senses without criticism admitted belief in divine beings, from whom no such intervention need be feared. Nay, more, this belief seemed the most natural ground for explaining the popular belief in God. It satisfied an inborn and apparently keenly felt want by supplying an appropriate object of devotion, and a standard by which to test the accuracy of moral ideas. Hence, notwithstanding scientific defects and contradictions, the whole system of Epicurus bears a definite stamp. All the essential parts of that system are subservient to one and the same end. The consistent working out of a scientific view of nature is looked for in vain; but there is no lack of consistency arising from an undeniable reference of the individual to a definite and practical standard. CHAP. XXI. torical position of ism. tion to Stoicism. Looking to the wider historical relations of the B. HisEpicurean system, the first point which calls for remark is the relation of that system to Stoicism. EpicureanThe contrast between the two Schools is obvious; (1) Relaattention having been already drawn to it on all the more important points. It is likewise well known that a constant rivalry existed between the two Schools during their whole careers, that the Stoics looked down on the Epicureans, and circulated many calumnies with respect to their morals. For these statements proofs may be found in the preceding pages. Nevertheless the two Schools are related (a) Points of agreein so many respects, that they can only be regarded ment. as parallel links connected in one chain, their differences being varieties where the same main tendency exists. Both agree in the general character of their philosophy. In both practical considerations prevail over speculation. Both treat natural science and logic as sciences subsidiary to ethics-natural science specially in view of its bearing on religion. Both, however, attach more importance to natural science than to logic. If the Epicurean neglect |