Epicureanism need not detain us.
Epicureanism thought that " the wise man fears not death, before which most men tremble; for, if we are, it is not; if it is, we are not."
Human survival is taught, but not ultimate immortality; and, as against Epicureanism, Stoicism on the whole tends to deny free will.
His Histoire des causes premieres was among the first attempts at a history of philosophy, and in his work on Epicurus, following on Gassendi, he defended Epicureanism against the general attacks made against it.
The happiness or satisfaction of the individual was the end which dominated this scepticism as well as the contemporary systems of Stoicism and Epicureanism, and all three philosophies place it in tranquillity or self-centred indifference.
Thus, with the exception of Epicureanism - which was always treated by Neoplatonism as its mortal enemy - there is no outstanding earlier system which did not contribute something to the new philosophy.
To identify Epicureanism with Cyrenaicism is a complete misunderstanding.
Epicureanism generally was content to affirm that whatever we effectively feel in consciousness is real; in which sense they allow reality to the fancies of the insane, the dreams of a sleeper, and those feelings by which we imagine the existence of beings of perfect blessedness and endless life.
The fundamental postulates of Epicureanism are atoms and the void (iiroya Kai Kevov).
The sage of Epicureanism is a rational and reflective seeker for happiness, who balances the claims of each pleasure against the evils that may possibly ensue, and treads the path of enjoyment cautiously.
About 150 B.C. Epicureanism established itself at Rome.
Lucretius is a proof, if any were needed, that Epicureanism is compatible with nobility of soul.
The position of Epicureanism as a recognized school in the and century is best seen in the fact that it was one of the four schools (the others were the Stoic, Platonist, and Peripatetic) which were placed on a footing of equal endowment when Marcus Aurelius founded chairs of philosophy at Athens.
A great deal of the best of the Renaissance was founded on Epicureanism, and in more recent times a great number of prominent thinkers have been Epicureans in a greater or less degree.
None the less his writings were committed to memory and remained the textbooks of Epicureanism to the last.
Wallace, Epicureanism (London, 1880), and Epicurus; A Lecture (London, 1896); G.
Even Epicureanism, which might appear concrete, was by him rightly designated abstract.
In Epicureanism logic is still less in honour.
In the case of Epicureanism we can happily judge of the tyranny of the literal tradition by a comparison of Lucretius with the recorded doctrine of the master.
The fragments that remain of the moral treatises of Democritus are sufficient, perhaps, to convince us that the turn of Greek philosophy in the direction of conduct, which was actually due to Socrates, would have taken place without him, though in a less decided manner; but when we compare the Democritean ethics with the post-Socratic system to which it has most affinity, Epicureanism, we find that it exhibits a very rudimentary apprehension of the formal conditions which moral teaching must fulfil before it can lay claim to be treated as scientific.
They thus endeavoured to resist Epicureanism even on the ground where the latter seems prima facie strongest; in its appeal, namely, to the natural pleasure-seeking of all living things.
This characteristic, however, is the key to the chief differences between Epicureanism and the more naïve hedonism of Aristippus.
No doubt it was rather the practical than the theoretical side of Epicureanism which gave it so strong a hold on succeeding generations.
His labours on Epicurus have a certain historical value, but the want of consistency inherent in the philosophical system raised on Epicureanism is such as to deprive it of genuine worth.
At the same time he holds, in opposition to Epicureanism, the doctrine of an immaterial rational soul, endowed with immortality and capable of free determination.
That his revival of Epicureanism had an important influence on the general thinking of the 17th century may be admitted; that it has any real importance in the history of philosophy cannot be granted.
They have been regarded as a fiction invented later by the enemies of Epicureanism, with the view of discrediting the most powerful work ever produced by any disciple of that sect.
His moral attitude is also far removed from that of ordinary ancient Epicureanism or of modern materialism.
In the last century cis of the Republic the two later Greek schools of Epicureanism and Stoicism laid hold on Roman society.
The influence of Epicureanism was wholly destructive to religion, but not perhaps very widespread: Stoicism became the creed of the educated classes and produced several attempts, notably those of Scaevola and Varro, at a reconciliation of philosophy and popular religion, in which it was maintained that the latter was in itself untrue, but a presentation of a higher truth suited to the capacity of the popular mind.
With one consent Epicureanism preaches that the death of the body is the end of everything for man, and hence the other world has lost all its terrors as well as all its hopes.