The First Philosopher of Populism

Epicurus as Proto-Populist

At this time, there’s tremendous political tension in many Western nations between two roughly equal camps. In one camp are most of the traditional political elites; in the other camp are the populists and a few counter-elites who have decided to join them.

In ancient philosophy, there was a similar elite/populist division. Philosophy is generally an elite pursuit, so pretty much all of the ancient schools of philosophy could be said to be part of the elite. All except one: the Epicureans.

The founders of nearly all of the schools of philosophy were part of the elite. Plato was an aristocrat and very selective about who could join his Academy. His student Aristotle was the tutor to the young Alexander the Great. Pyrrho was from a hereditary line of priests and was a philosopher in Alexander’s court. Zeno was a wealthy merchant who went on to study with several philosophers. The main exceptions were Antisthenes, the founder of Cynicism, and Epicurus.

Epicurus was a commoner. As a young man, he worked as an elementary school teacher - a low-status job. The elite could afford private tutors for their sons. The commoners sent their sons off to a school teacher for a few years for a primary education before the sons would join the workforce as teenagers.

Epicurus never received the kind of education the elite philosophers received. Then, as now, one can distinguish who received an elite education and who didn’t by their use of speech. It was obvious to elite readers that Epicurus’ written Greek was deficient. (Sextus Empiricus, Against the Professors, 1.1)

Worse than that was Epicurus’ rejection of whole fields of learning as having any relevance or value with respect to wisdom. He rejected everything we might call “language arts,” such as grammar, writing, and rhetoric. He rejected mathematics, music, and geometry. (Sextus Empiricus, Against the Professors, 1.1-3) He rejected literature. (Cicero, On Ends, II.4.12) He even rejected logic! (Cicero, On Ends, I.19.63, Seneca; Letters to Lucilius, 89.11)

Unsurprisingly, he was viewed as uneducated. (Cicero, On Ends, I.21, 71-72)

Epicurus seemed to pride himself on having done his own research, disclaiming any education, despite the fact that he was known to have studied with Pyrrho’s student Nausiphanes. Nausiphanes’ reward for his efforts was to be slandered by Epicurus, who said of him,

I think the loudmouths will suppose that I am a student of the jellyfish, having listened to him alongside some kids with hangovers…. He was really a lousy human being; he pursued the kind of things by which it is not possible to get to wisdom. (Sextus Empiricus, Against the Professors, 1.4)

Not that Nausiphanes received unique treatment here. As Cicero tells us,

But Epicurus himself made the most libelous attacks on Aristotle and violently abused Phaedo, the disciple of Socrates. He heaped whole volumes of invective on Timocrates, the brother of his own colleague Metrodorus, because of some petty disagreement on a philosophical point. He even showed no gratitude to Democritus, his own forerunner…. (On the Nature of the Gods, I.33.93)

Plutarch, too, says of the Epicureans,

…they made a collection of the most disgraceful terms to be found anywhere: ‘charlatanism’, ‘buffoonery’, ‘bragging’, ‘prostitution’ ‘assassin’, ‘loudmouth’, ‘hero of many of a misadventure’, ‘nincompoop’ – and showered it on Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagoras, Protagoras, Theophrastus, Heraclides, Hipparchia – indeed, what eminent name have they spared? (That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 2)

Perhaps this use of language will remind readers of the sayings of a certain cheeto-colored modern populist.

Epicurus had a grudge against the elites. He first began teaching philosophy at Mytilene but was forced to flee that town via a dangerous, stormy winter sea voyage because the local elites objected to his teachings. One could say that he was a conspiracy theorist, but that’s a bit unfair, as it did appear that there really was a conspiracy against him.

Perhaps he said something that pissed them off? Is it not a populist thing to do?

While anyone could join the Epicurean Garden, from the beginning, the charismatic leadership of Epicurus has dominated Epicureanism, much in the same way charismatic figures have dominated populist movements.

The Epicurean garden was explicitly isolationist. Its members wanted to get away from the contaminating influences of outsiders. While it was probably not an Epicurean slogan, “garden first” was their practice. As Epicurus’ Principal Doctrine #6 says, “To secure protection from men anything is a natural good, by which you may be able to attain this end.” One of the key elements of populism is a response to external threats, be they threats from oligarchs, impoverished immigrants, or Aristotelians.

Politically, the Epicureans were focused on what was advantageous, rather than on some abstract principles - an approach mirrored in populist politics. As Epicurean Principle Doctrine #38 says,

Where, provided the circumstances have not been altered, actions that were considered just, have been shown not to accord with the general concept in actual practice, then they are not just. But where, when circumstances have changed, the same actions sanctioned as just no longer lead to advantage, there they were just at the time when they were of advantage for the dealings of fellow citizens with one another; but subsequently they are no longer just, when no longer of advantage.

“Things haven’t turned out to our advantage. They’re unjust!” Is this not the central complaint of all populist movements?

While Epicureans are famously loath to involve themselves in politics, just because you’re not interested in politics doesn’t mean that politics isn’t interested in you. Populist politics can find much that is of common interest in Epicureanism.

As President Donald Trump might say,

Folks, let me tell you about Epicurus. Tremendous guy, really fantastic philosopher, nobody did it better. His Epicurean philosophy, it’s all about living the good life, enjoying the best pleasures, but smart, very smart, not overdoing it. Believe me. He knew how to make happiness great - the greatest - and he taught us to avoid pain, keep it simple, and live free. Nobody understood that better than Epicurus. Absolutely terrific!