Arguments Against
These are common arguments levied against Epicureanism. Epics endeavor to "find what is right, not to be right" -- so here on Epic Swerve we take these arguments head on, for our own benefit (strengthening our own conviction). Not incidentally this is a cornerstone of Epicurean philosophy. In addition, opponents of Epicurus -- from as far back as the time of Cicero -- have (successfully) employed the tactic of taking bits and pieces out of context and manipulating them into illogical conclusions. In part this is why Epic Swerve exists, because it is very difficult to carve through the misinformation. Below we have collected and named many of the common arguments found when learning about this philosophy. It makes sense to have answers at the ready for each of them, so that one’s confidence not be shaken.
|
The “living unknown is parasitic” argumentThe argument generally goes something like this: Epicurus urged his followers to “live unknown” — that is, to avoid politics/social life because being involved in politics results in pain. Epicureans are therefore parasitic on their society. Read more |
|
|
The "intrinsic harmlessness of wrongdoing"The argument generally goes like this: in epicureanism, there is nothing inherently bad about wrongdoing (rape and murder, to take extreme examples). Therefore (the accuser often adds), epicureans are the worst. Read more |
|
|
The “unhealthiness of avoiding pain”The argument goes something like: Epicureans pursue pleasure, but since achievement and ambition require pain, Epicureans are neither ambitious nor capable of great achievement; worse, since they avoid pain they are weak and undisciplined. Also known as “Epicureans Lack Ambition” and “Epicureanism is Passive,” this is both an argument and a misunderstanding. Read more |
