Phillip Mitsis

I picked up this book hoping to find a well-thought out analysis of Epicurean thought. As Mitsis himself admits, that might not be entirely possible. So much of what we know about Epicurus' philosophical system comes from other sources -- like Cicero, who clearly didn't want to understand Epicurus' intent -- so it's almost impossible to construct a sound argument in favour of Epicureanism. In spite of this, Mitsis does a great job of arguing that Epicurus' ideas were in pursuit of something far more enduring than temporary pleasures.

Mitsis argues that though Epicureanism does demand the removal of pain and the pursuit of pleasure (as most hedonic philosophies do), that Epicurus' definition of pleasure is "the absence of pain". This could be interpreted as a philosophy for physical contentment and enjoying physical pleasures in moderation; a drastic departure from selfish and self-destructive hedonism.

Mitsis' attempt to defend his champion does fall short in one area, however; his inability to clearly define the differences between Epicureanism, Hedonism, and sensualism. He claims that Epicureans are more interested temperance then sensualists and calls sensualists "hedonic" (p. 40) I thought at first the small 's' at the beginning sensualist might be a typo since Epicureanism is itself a sensual philosophy (sensual meaning "of the senses" or "of the physical world"). I searched the footnotes for some reference to a particular philosophical group that may have taken this name but found nothing. He doesn't seem to realise that, unlike Epicurus, not all sensualists divide the world into pleasure and pain. Most of human experience is neither pleasurable, nor painful, so most modern sensualists have discarded the overly-simplistic view that world exists only in these terms.

Despite this, Mitsis' arguments make for interesting reading and open the door to a new evalution of Epicurus' original intentions.… (altro)