III. Secluded Life with Friends Epicurus’s secluded life in the Garden demonstrates the pursuit of ataraxia thrives in an envi-ronment where unnecessary disturbances can be readily avoided and the blessings of friendship permeate. In fact, Epicurus advises us that “the purest security is that which comes from a quiet life and withdrawal from the many” (PD 14). For the reason that we cannot serve political inter-est without giving up individual freedom(Hibler 37), we should live in anonymity, staying away from the crowd in competing for unnecessary pleasures such as power and reputation, since they would bring unnecessary troubles that disturb our tranquility. In contrast with Plato who train students to develop "the technique of pure
…show more content…
The Epicurean means to achieve ataraxia have been accused as "shirking civic responsibility", which stand in opposition to Stoics who regards "'duty' and 'service' as the highest good", while Roman educator and writer Plutarch even criticizes Epicurus for making "a pleasant life impossible" due to his lack of altruism (Hibler 40, 41). However, as Hibler has rebutted, many wars and destructive schemes of the past are perpetuated based on an altruistic rationale which are supposed to be beneficial to mankind (41). For example, Hitler's Holocaust aimed at improving the life conditions of citizens and convinced many at that time for such purpose, but it in fact underlies the most distorted sense of ethnocentrism and inhumanity. On the other hand, an egoist such as Epicurus,who values his pleasure as the final end, does not fail in respecting others' lifestyles and in recognizing that it is "nobler and pleasan-ter to give than receive"(Hibler 41). In fact, Epicurus is not against others performing public ser-vice, but he feels, like Thoreau, that "doing good [for the public] does not agree with [his] consti-tution (Hibler 43). Thus, it is very important to stress the idea of individuality here--ultimate goal of ataraxia shall be achieve in accordance to people's natural …show more content…
Just as how we should endure pain for greater pleasure, it is necessary to base our friendship based on mutual trust and benevolence, be willing to take risk and sacrifice for a friend for the greater purpose of ataraxia. If we abandon our friends, our lives will be confounded with distrust and upset (VS 56-57). We should help friends when they are in need even when we realize that there is surely no return, since doing so is the best way to secure our pleasure(O'Keefe 302). In this way, hypothetically, even if we are betrayed by false friends, we will still have true friends to lean on and get help from. Such mutual care is definitely needed for the tranquility of mind of both parties. To resolve the second concern, it is helpful to examine Epicurus' statement that "we sympathize with our friends not through lamentation but through thoughtful attention" (VS 66). That is, when our friends are in trouble we should think about what we can do to help them but not let their misfortunes disturb us (Evans 421). Epicurus' own experience serves as the best illustration--when his best friend Metrodorus passed away, he did not show excessive mourning but instead commenmorated Metrodorus through the recollection of pleasant memories they had together. To argue against the third point, I shall mention that Ep-icurus has emphasized the value of friends is
The Epicurean means to achieve ataraxia have been accused as "shirking civic responsibility", which stand in opposition to Stoics who regards "'duty' and 'service' as the highest good", while Roman educator and writer Plutarch even criticizes Epicurus for making "a pleasant life impossible" due to his lack of altruism (Hibler 40, 41). However, as Hibler has rebutted, many wars and destructive schemes of the past are perpetuated based on an altruistic rationale which are supposed to be beneficial to mankind (41). For example, Hitler's Holocaust aimed at improving the life conditions of citizens and convinced many at that time for such purpose, but it in fact underlies the most distorted sense of ethnocentrism and inhumanity. On the other hand, an egoist such as Epicurus,who values his pleasure as the final end, does not fail in respecting others' lifestyles and in recognizing that it is "nobler and pleasan-ter to give than receive"(Hibler 41). In fact, Epicurus is not against others performing public ser-vice, but he feels, like Thoreau, that "doing good [for the public] does not agree with [his] consti-tution (Hibler 43). Thus, it is very important to stress the idea of individuality here--ultimate goal of ataraxia shall be achieve in accordance to people's natural …show more content…
Just as how we should endure pain for greater pleasure, it is necessary to base our friendship based on mutual trust and benevolence, be willing to take risk and sacrifice for a friend for the greater purpose of ataraxia. If we abandon our friends, our lives will be confounded with distrust and upset (VS 56-57). We should help friends when they are in need even when we realize that there is surely no return, since doing so is the best way to secure our pleasure(O'Keefe 302). In this way, hypothetically, even if we are betrayed by false friends, we will still have true friends to lean on and get help from. Such mutual care is definitely needed for the tranquility of mind of both parties. To resolve the second concern, it is helpful to examine Epicurus' statement that "we sympathize with our friends not through lamentation but through thoughtful attention" (VS 66). That is, when our friends are in trouble we should think about what we can do to help them but not let their misfortunes disturb us (Evans 421). Epicurus' own experience serves as the best illustration--when his best friend Metrodorus passed away, he did not show excessive mourning but instead commenmorated Metrodorus through the recollection of pleasant memories they had together. To argue against the third point, I shall mention that Ep-icurus has emphasized the value of friends is