I Spit Upon the Noble: the Epicurean Critique of Love of Honor and the Origins of Modernity
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
I Spit Upon the Noble: The Epicurean Critique of Love of Honor and the Origins of Modernity The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation McNulty, John James. 2013. I Spit Upon the Noble: The Epicurean Critique of Love of Honor and the Origins of Modernity. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11181227 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA I Spit Upon the Noble: The Epicurean Critique of Love of Honor and the Origins of Modernity A dissertation presented by John James McNulty to The Department of Government in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Political Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2013 © 2013 John James McNulty All rights reserved. Harvey C. Mansfield John J. McNulty Dissertation Advisor: Harvey C. Mansfield John James McNulty I Spit Upon the Noble: The Epicurean Critique of Love of Honor and the Origins of Modernity Abstract Modern liberal democracies regard “pursuit of happiness” as one of the fundamental rights that governments are instituted to protect—but modern political thought has comparatively little to say about happiness itself. The modern view seems to suggest that happiness is something we ought to pursue in private, which would demote politics to an instrumental role. To understand and critique this view, I study one alternative—the philosophy of Epicurus, the ancient theorist of happiness in private life. Epicurus taught that the life of hēdonē or “pleasure” was the life of eudaimonia or “happiness.” He advised his followers to “live unnoticed”—that is, to shun political participation on account of its coercive, unpleasant character. Epicurus’ philosophy is often thought to be plainly anti-political. I argue—based on my study of Epicurean fragments and of the poem of Lucretius—that Epicureanism is, in fact, intensely political. Its hedonistic theory of the good is designed so as to deprecate love of honor and desire for public recognition: “I spit upon the iii noble,” Epicurus declares, “when it provides no pleasure.” Similarly, his physical theory describes a universe offering no support and no guidance for human politics. “Justice” has no intrinsic connection to the human end; it is a word we use to describe agreements for the sake of mutual advantage. Gone is the splendor of moral virtue, as depicted in Plato and Aristotle. I argue that early modern thought is in constant dialogue with Epicurean political philosophy. The moderns can, in general, be said to share Epicurus’ hostility to “the noble”— which they disparage as “pride” or “vainglory.” The more radical among them entertain Epicurus’ notion of an indifferent universe, and his account of human political origins. This is not, however, in order to advocate a return to an Epicurean policy of philosophic withdrawal. The modern strategy, as epitomized by Hobbes, is to attempt to solve the problems associated with political justice by advocating for the general adoption of a democratized form of hedonism. iv CONTENTS Acknowledgements vi PART ONE EPICUREAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY One THE CITY AND THE GARDEN 2 Two POLITICS AND PLEASURE 31 Three THE INDIFFERENT UNIVERSE 53 Four THE NATURE OF JUSTICE 79 PART TWO THE ORIGINS OF MODERNITY Five THE EPICUREAN REVIVAL 105 Six THOMAS HOBBES’S POLITICAL HEDONISM 156 Bibliography 180 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the Earhart Foundation's generous support, which encouraged me to continue my work on Epicurean philosophy, and facilitated my bringing of this project to a successful conclusion. Epicurus claimed to have been self-taught. It is my happy duty to go against his example, by acknowledging the many intellectual debts I owe—and particularly those I owe to the following individuals. Without their assistance, this project would not have come to fruition. The ideas put forward in this dissertation were, in many cases, developed or refined in conversations with my colleagues. To give a complete accounting would be almost impossible, but I would like to specifically recognize Adriana Alfaro, Jonathan Bruno, Susan Hamilton, Gladden Pappin, Rory Schacter, and Alex Wall. I also owe thanks to Daniela Cammack, Matt Landauer, and Will Selinger, with whom I read and discussed Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus in Greek. Additionally, I would like to thank those who commented on the excerpts of this project which I presented at meetings of the Harvard Political Theory Workgroup and the New England Political Science Association. I owe a great deal to each of my committee members. Eric Nelson provided invaluable commentary at every stage of the writing process. His critiques were incisive and bracing; I felt myself thinking at a higher level after each of our meetings. Richard Tuck was consistently generous with his time and knowledge, particularly during a decisive stage in the formulation of my thesis. It was during one of our conversations that I first vi began to appreciate the political significance of what I have come to call “the critique of love of honor.” My understanding of Epicureanism, and of much else, has benefited from the instruction and example of Harvey Mansfield. It was he who first called my attention to the political dimensions of Lucretius' text. He helped to guide me through the maze of early graduate school, and he has now seen this project through to its completion. I cannot adequately express the debts I owe to him as a teacher, and as an exacting—but unfailingly constructive—critic of my work. As should go without saying, any omissions or errors are the full responsibility of the author. vii PART ONE: EPICUREAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Chapter I: The City and the Garden Epicurus was one of the most important philosophers of the Hellenistic period, and the school of philosophy he founded—the Epicurean—was one of the most influential and enduring schools of Greek and Roman antiquity.1 Epicurean philosophy provides a systematic account of many of the topics traditionally addressed by the ancient schools: what we know and the conditions of our knowledge; the physical world and our place within it; life’s purpose and the way to attain happiness; the soul, the afterlife, and the nature of the gods. The Epicurean school is not, however, generally thought of as having made an important contribution to political philosophy. The purpose of this essay will be to argue that it has—that Epicurus and his followers put forward a distinctive political philosophy of considerable intrinsic interest and real historical influence. In the course of making this claim, I will analyze the dismissive arguments against Epicurean political philosophy, and offer my own interpretation of the surviving texts of the Epicurean school. I hope to show that these texts need to be understood against the background of ancient political thought—and the Socratic tradition, in particular. I will highlight significant areas of agreement between Epicurus and Socrates, while showing exactly where and why 1 Where available, quotations from the fragments of Epicurus are derived from the translations and texts provided by A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (hereafter LS, with section and text numbers indicated). I note cases in which I depart from Long and Sedley’s translations. I also supply references to the Greek text and translation of R.D. Hicks’ Loeb edition of Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers (hereafter DL). Quotations from Lucretius are taken from Cyril Bailey, Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex (hereafter DRN). I note cases in which I depart from Bailey's translation. I have consulted the selections from Lucretius' poem provided in LS and provide references where available. I have also consulted W.H.D. Rouse’s Loeb edition of Lucretius, On the Nature of Things (revised by M.F. Smith), and Walter Englert’s verse translation. 2 Epicurus departs from the Socratic consensus and proposes an alternative way of understanding the political things. To give an overview of my interpretation: I find that Epicurus makes important contributions to political philosophy in two general areas. The first follows from his ethics, the second, from his physics. In ethics, Epicurus attacks “love of honor” with a vigor and comprehensiveness which were unparalleled in ancient thought. The attack on love of honor provides the context for the vehement denunciation of “the noble” (to kalon) which I have taken for the first part of my title: Epicurus once declared, “I spit upon the noble, when it provides no pleasure.” He furthermore appears to have devoted substantial effort to the task of showing that “the noble” as such never provides authentic pleasure. This—much more than outright hedonism—is what distinguishes Epicurus from Socrates and the Socratic tradition. It is his first major contribution to political thought. In physics, Epicurus rejects any account of “purpose” in the natural world. His opposition to teleology leads him, in particular, to reject any attempt to find in nature a “guide” for human political affairs. There is no “plan laid up in heaven” which we can use as a paradigm for understanding politics or for ordering political life. In essential agreement with the pre-Socratics, Epicurus regards currently existing political arrangements as products of a long process driven by chance and necessity. He denies that any “political exercise of reason” could shake the grip of chance and necessity on human affairs—even in the best of circumstances.