Tim O'Keefe

If you were introduced to ancient Greek philosophy in college, you probably were given a few dialogues of Plato and some selections of Aristotle to read and discuss in class. If the dramatized logic of Plato didn't turn you off completely from philosophy, then the convoluted, dry, uninspiring words of Aristotle probably did the trick. In all likelihood, Epicurus was not even mentioned. Fortunately for us, we now have Epicureanism by Tim O'Keefe, a clear, easy-to-read yet in-depth presentation of each aspect of the philosophy of Epicurus: his physics and metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, complete with many scholarly references.

O'Keefe writes in the introductory chapter "Plato and Epicurus are opposed on almost every important matter; as a first approximation, one will not go far wrong in viewing Epicurus as the anti-Plato." If this sound like a completely different way of pursuing philosophy than you were taught in college, you are absolutely correct. O'Keefe continues, "Epicurus holds that the most pleasant life is a tranquil one, free of fear and need." I only wish my boyhood environment and schooling emphasized tranquility, joy and freedom from fear and craving, rather than regimentation, mindless competition, and forced conformity. But, it is not too late for any of us. We can learn from Epicurus and O'Keefe's book is an excellent place to start.

In the chapter on Cosmology, O'Keefe notes, "Against most other cosmologists, they (the Epicureans) maintain that our world is only one of an infinite number of worlds coming to be and falling apart in a spatially infinite universe that has existed and will exist forever." And further on, "Our particular limited cosmos is only one of an infinite number of cosmoi (the plural of cosmos), each of which comes into existence and will eventually fall apart. But the universe as a whole has no beginning and no end; it has always existed and will always exist. And spatially, the universe stretches infinitely in all directions." Not too bad for philosophers living over two thousand years before the advent of modern physics and astronomy.

Of course, one of the biggest knocks against Epicurus, both during his own lifetime and continuing right up to our present day, is his equating the ultimate good with pleasure. But, as O'Keefe points out, Epicurus had a much refined and qualified concept of pleasure. We read: "Epicurean hedonism is an enlightened hedonism, which recognizes that one must be brave, temperate and wise in order to live pleasantly. But Epicurus is unusual in insisting that the virtues are only instrumental goods, good only for the sake of the pleasure they produce, instead of being good for their own sake. Likewise, philosophy itself is needed to attain pleasure, but has no intrinsic value." Let's be honest: Who of you reading this doesn't value and seek pleasure in life, even if your pleasure is the intellectual pleasure of reading philosophy or literature?

Toward the end of the book, O'Keefe writes, "The Epicureans are convinced that Epicurus is not merely the discoverer of many interesting and cogent arguments. Instead, he is the savior of humanity, and the only route to salvation from superstitious fears and empty desires is by fully accepting his message." To what degree is this applicable and true for our lives today? To explore this question and others, please read O'Keefe's work on Epicureanism. It will be, I can assure you, a most rewarding philosophical journey.… (altro)

If you were introduced to ancient Greek philosophy in college, you probably were given a few dialogues of Plato and some selections of Aristotle to read and discuss in class. If the dramatized logic of Plato didn't turn you off completely from philosophy, then the convoluted, dry, uninspiring words of Aristotle probably did the trick. In all likelihood, Epicurus was not even mentioned. Fortunately for us, we now have Epicureanism by Tim O'Keefe, a clear, easy-to-read yet in-depth presentation of each aspect of the philosophy of Epicurus: his physics and metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, complete with many scholarly references.

O'Keefe writes in the introductory chapter "Plato and Epicurus are opposed on almost every important matter; as a first approximation, one will not go far wrong in viewing Epicurus as the anti-Plato." If this sound like a completely different way of pursuing philosophy than you were taught in college, you are absolutely correct. O'Keefe continues, "Epicurus holds that the most pleasant life is a tranquil one, free of fear and need." I only wish my boyhood environment and schooling emphasized tranquility, joy and freedom from fear and craving, rather than regimentation, mindless competition, and forced conformity. But, it is not too late for any of us. We can learn from Epicurus and O'Keefe's book is an excellent place to start.

In the chapter on Cosmology, O'Keefe notes, "Against most other cosmologists, they (the Epicureans) maintain that our world is only one of an infinite number of worlds coming to be and falling apart in a spatially infinite universe that has existed and will exist forever." And further on, "Our particular limited cosmos is only one of an infinite number of cosmoi (the plural of cosmos), each of which comes into existence and will eventually fall apart. But the universe as a whole has no beginning and no end; it has always existed and will always exist. And spatially, the universe stretches infinitely in all directions." Not too bad for philosophers living over two thousand years before the advent of modern physics and astronomy.

Of course, one of the biggest knocks against Epicurus, both during his own lifetime and continuing right up to our present day, is his equating the ultimate good with pleasure. But, as O'Keefe points out, Epicurus had a much refined and qualified concept of pleasure. We read: "Epicurean hedonism is an enlightened hedonism, which recognizes that one must be brave, temperate and wise in order to live pleasantly. But Epicurus is unusual in insisting that the virtues are only instrumental goods, good only for the sake of the pleasure they produce, instead of being good for their own sake. Likewise, philosophy itself is needed to attain pleasure, but has no intrinsic value." Let's be honest: Who of you reading this doesn't value and seek pleasure in life, even if your pleasure is the intellectual pleasure of reading philosophy or literature?

Toward the end of the book, O'Keefe writes, "The Epicureans are convinced that Epicurus is not merely the discoverer of many interesting and cogent arguments. Instead, he is the savior of humanity, and the only route to salvation from superstitious fears and empty desires is by fully accepting his message." To what degree is this applicable and true for our lives today? To explore this question and others, please read O'Keefe's work on Epicureanism. It will be, I can assure you, a most rewarding philosophical journey.… (altro)