Epicurus may have taken Carvaka and adapted it to a more practical framework- what you reckon?

[Buddha Dharma]

I've often noted the glaring similarities between Epicureanism and the Indian philosophy of Carvaka. For example, both of them were materialist, atomist, and hedonistic. They both believed in the verification of knowledge by what they saw as objective sense impressions. Like you touch a coffee cup and get the impression of it's general properties.

They both entertained agnosticism toward beliefs and premises you couldn't verify through the two means: impression and moral agreement.

However there are some differences too, like the Carvakans being more brashly hedonistic, as well as atheistic. Epicurus was a poly-deist and believed in natural hedonism, within the limits of nature as human reason can hash them out.

The Carvakans were more focused on the death aspect of the notion of one life, so they believed in maximum indulgence, sometimes despite consequences. Epicurus believed in one life too, but he thought it should be a pleasant one, and treated content pleasure as the standard for the universal good. He wanted everyone to have this happiness.

The only reason I wonder about a connection, besides the India-Greece exchanges of ancient times- is that Diogenes notes in Lives of Imminent Philosophers that the other Greek schools doubted the claims of Greek philosophical lineage made by Democritus and Epicurus.

I think the idea of Epicurus making Carvaka more workable is an interesting one.

 

[robocop (actually)]

As someone who found myself to be Epicurean, I think these differences are significant! I prefer Epicureanism to Carvaka a great deal.

My belief in what is "Gods" gets pretty technical. I have done a lot of work in my own version of Physics and my "Gods" are from it. It is very Epicurean and I marvel that we agree so much. I am also not hedonistic but contented. I find that I usually get the most pleasure from helping society.

 

[Augustus]

However there are some differences too, like the Carvakans being more brashly hedonistic, as well as atheistic. Epicurus was a poly-deist and believed in natural hedonism, within the limits of nature as human reason can hash them out.

Not that I know a great deal about it, but wasn't Epicurean hedonism more about the removal of desires than chasing pleasures?

As they are binaries, pleasure was ultimately 'absence of pain', so the best way to achieve pleasure was an ascetic removal of desire and attachments.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Yes, but Epicurus believed in simple pleasures as natural like 'just enough food'. Not sure I'd say ascetic. I noted that Carvaka was definitely more brash in it's hedonism. Their epistemology though is virtually identical.

Their real similarity comes in their skepticism. The Carvakans and Epicureans both agreed superstition is bad for humans, so it's no small detail that their verification methods are identical. They both accepted impression forming through contact with an object as a given.

It's possible there's an Indian connection because Diogenes says other Greek schools doubted Epicurean lineage. This isn't JUST fun speculation. There's a case.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

The India-Greece connection of ancient times really interests me. The extinct Greek Buddhism does also. I wonder a lot about which way all the ideas went. I really admire Epicurus though. I can't think of a more admirable figure in western antiquity. He was a good man and centuries ahead of general Greek culture in his societal ethos that could be called a kind of proto-humanism.

 

[Augustus]

He was a good man and centuries ahead of general Greek culture in his societal ethos that could be called a kind of proto-humanism.

I think that 'proto-humanism' is going a bit far. We often have a tendency to see things from the past as being more similar to things in the present than the actually are as part of a kind of progressive teleology.

Epicurean ethics were about avoiding things that could be a source of pain now or in the future. For example, celibacy was preferable to sex, politics was to be avoided and attachment to comforts was problematic as all were potential sources of future pain. Ancient philosophical empiricism was also different to modern scientific rationalism.

It's true to say that aspects of Epicurean philosophy influenced strands of thought that later influenced things that relate to humanism, but proto-humanism implies far too great a level of similarity about what is ultimately a very different philosophy.

 

[sayak83]

I've often noted the glaring similarities between Epicureanism and the Indian philosophy of Carvaka. For example, both of them were materialist, atomist, and hedonistic. They both believed in the verification of knowledge by what they saw as objective sense impressions. Like you touch a coffee cup and get the impression of it's general properties.

They both entertained agnosticism toward beliefs and premises you couldn't verify through the two means: impression and moral agreement.

However there are some differences too, like the Carvakans being more brashly hedonistic, as well as atheistic. Epicurus was a poly-deist and believed in natural hedonism, within the limits of nature as human reason can hash them out.

The Carvakans were more focused on the death aspect of the notion of one life, so they believed in maximum indulgence, sometimes despite consequences. Epicurus believed in one life too, but he thought it should be a pleasant one, and treated content pleasure as the standard for the universal good. He wanted everyone to have this happiness.

The only reason I wonder about a connection, besides the India-Greece exchanges of ancient times- is that Diogenes notes in Lives of Imminent Philosophers that the other Greek schools doubted the claims of Greek philosophical lineage made by Democritus and Epicurus.

I think the idea of Epicurus making Carvaka more workable is an interesting one.

Carvaka has more in common with Cyrenaics rather Epicureanism. Epicureanism is like a highly stripped down version of Buddhism for lay folks with Vaisesika atomism. Here is a sample.


When we say . . . that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul.

— Epicurus, "Letter to Menoeceus"

Epicurus was prescient in proposing the social contract theory of ethics and proposing that both atoms and souls have a component intrinsic variability in their actions that are acausal and non-deterministic (he called this the swerve) which made the universe non-deterministic and free will possible.

The current Western society is a mixture of Cyrenism and Epicureanism. In my opinion Epicureanism is the best philosophy the West has produced, period.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Carvaka has more in common with Cyrenaics rather Epicureanism. Epicureanism is like a highly stripped down version of Buddhism for lay folks with Vaisesika atomism. Here is a sample.


When we say . . . that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul.

— Epicurus, "Letter to Menoeceus"

Epicurus was prescient in proposing the social contract theory of ethics and proposing that both atoms and souls have a component intrinsic variability in their actions that are acausal and non-deterministic (he called this the swerve) which made the universe non-deterministic and free will possible.

The current Western society is a mixture of Cyrenism and Epicureanism. In my opinion Epicureanism is the best philosophy the West has produced, period.

I find it interesting that you present Epicureanism as being a stripped down version of Buddhism, because in some ways it definitely is. Buddhist and Epicurean ideas about contentment are very similar. Even though Buddhists would warn about setting up pleasure as an ideal- given the nature of Epicurean pleasure, this probably is a difference more in semantics than in kind.

I also find it interesting you mention the Cyrenaics, and yes- I quite agree with you Epicureanism is the best philosophy the west has ever produced. I am very fond of aspects of it myself. Epicurus in my mind represents the most admirable figure of western antiquity.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@Augustus I acknowledge what you say about the dangers of imposing present ideas onto the past, and you're probably right.

Proto-humanism may be a bit far to call Epicureanism, but as you yourself acknowledged- there are aspects of humanism it inspired, which is what I was driving at. Epicurus believed in universal justice, by which of course I don't mean he thought humans could formulate an objective and perfect standard of justice. He didn't believe that, but he did believe justice can't be justice if it applies to some differently. I also said proto-humanism because of the fact that Epicurus saw the world through the scope of humanity, and not Greeks versus barbarians. He was like the Buddha in that way. Epicurus disapproved of his culture's misogyny to at least some degree, and he freed his slave in his will. Epicureans remembered this and didn't take slaves. Their school was also one of the first to admit non-Greeks into the ranks.

 

[Augustus]

Epicurus believed in universal justice, by which of course I don't mean he thought humans could formulate an objective and perfect standard of justice. He didn't believe that, but he did believe justice can't be justice if it applies to some differently.

Admittedly, I only have a superficial understanding of Epicureanism so I might well be wrong, but is this correct?

As I understand it, his theory of justice relates to ends rather than innate rights. Justice is good only insofar as it contributes to the absence of pain.

So rather than a universal justice there is simply contextually dependent ethics that either contribute to or detract from an individuals absence of pain.

The individual also aims to live justly not as an intrinsic good, but as it contributes to his own absence of pain.

In the Western tradition, that people are born with innate rights seems to be more a product of Christianity that developed gradually from creation mythology then eventually became secularised.

I also said proto-humanism because of the fact that Epicurus saw the world through the scope of humanity, and not Greeks versus barbarians.

Have you got any examples for this?

I think he argued against intrinsic hierarchies of humans which contrasted with many contemporary philosophies, but what were his views on a common humanity? For example, Humanism relies on a concept of humanity in its ethics 'for the good of humanity'.

Epicurus disapproved of his culture's misogyny to at least some degree, and he freed his slave in his will. Epicureans remembered this and didn't take slaves.

This again, imo, is quite different to a modern humanism. Freeing slaves on death was quite common and a world without slaves was not something that was envisioned in practical terms (as far as I am aware). Given the ends based ethics of Epicureanism, I imagine that slavery that reduced an individuals exposure to pain could be considered just.

Humanism is really a product of Christianity and diverse aspects of Greek rational philosophy (and perhaps gnosticism too). It is the combination, integration and feedback between these ideas that produced the overall philosophy.

If we put them side by side in a vacuum, Epicureanism and Humanism are pretty dissimilar. Although it was still an important influence of the later ideology.

It's like if you make a Singapore Sling which contains gin. If you put gin and a Singapore Sling side by side to compare and then drink them there are very few similarities. Yet gin is an integral part of the cocktail.

I agree with your overall idea regarding influence, but perhaps not with the degree to which we can expect to see close similarities between the 2.

Or perhaps I'm just being overly pedantic seeing as I think your main point is pretty much correct

 

[Curious George]

I've often noted the glaring similarities between Epicureanism and the Indian philosophy of Carvaka. For example, both of them were materialist, atomist, and hedonistic. They both believed in the verification of knowledge by what they saw as objective sense impressions. Like you touch a coffee cup and get the impression of it's general properties.

They both entertained agnosticism toward beliefs and premises you couldn't verify through the two means: impression and moral agreement.

However there are some differences too, like the Carvakans being more brashly hedonistic, as well as atheistic. Epicurus was a poly-deist and believed in natural hedonism, within the limits of nature as human reason can hash them out.

The Carvakans were more focused on the death aspect of the notion of one life, so they believed in maximum indulgence, sometimes despite consequences. Epicurus believed in one life too, but he thought it should be a pleasant one, and treated content pleasure as the standard for the universal good. He wanted everyone to have this happiness.

The only reason I wonder about a connection, besides the India-Greece exchanges of ancient times- is that Diogenes notes in Lives of Imminent Philosophers that the other Greek schools doubted the claims of Greek philosophical lineage made by Democritus and Epicurus.

I think the idea of Epicurus making Carvaka more workable is an interesting one.

I am not sure about this specific influence, but isn't the notion that eastern thought had a marked influence on Greek philosophy pretty much a standard and accepted theory?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The Carvakans and Epicureans both agreed superstition is bad for humans

Do YOU think superstition is bad?
A more general perspective always looks superstitious from a more detailed perspective.
If we eliminated superstition we would eliminate the first crude steps in the
process of understanding. So to consider superstitious bad, is itself
a pretty bad superstition! Ha! Now I've got myself in a twisty-bit of paradox.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@Jonathan Ainsley Bain I have no materialist framework by which to judge something superstitious. I accept there could be an unseen phenomenon behind just about anything. I'm not a materialist, and Buddhism isn't materialistic. In fact, for Buddhists- that the cosmos exists is strange and wonderful. Some monks have called it a magical display.