III. Epicureanism-Gross Materialism and Cessation of Soul

1. DEATH BRINGS PERMANENT CESSATION OF LIFE

CHECKJUMP At approximately the same time EPICURUS, of Athens (c. 342-270 B.C.), appeared, with his reactionary Epicureans. Imitating Aristotle’s Peripatetics, Epicurus purchased a garden in the heart of Athens, and founded his school. (See Tabular Chart A, page 532.) He held that the senses provide the sole criteria of truth. And, significantly enough, among other things he frankly called for an abandonment of belief in survival. His was a form of skepticism and utter materialism. And it likewise flourished for several centuries, beginning before and continuing after Christ.CFF1 610.3

Epicurus reasserted the materialistic atoms-concept first marcuscheck projected by Democritus. (See page 553.) Epicureanism also had a definite Cyreniac tinge. Epicurus did not attempt to deny the popular concept of the gods, but asserted that they had nothing to do with the affairs of the universe or of man. And he specifically denied any kind of immortality of the soul—conditional or natural. Epicurus contended that matter is uncreated and indestructible, and that activity is resident in all matter from eternity.CFF1 610.4

He taught that the primitive elements of matter are indivisible particles, or atoms, which are eternal and imperishable. These pass through various combinations, and progressively assume new forms and properties. Thus the worlds, infinite in number and infinitely varied, came to be.CFF1 611.1

2. WORLD FORMATIONS RESULT OF BLIND CHANCE

These atoms, he believed, are constantly forming new combinations and undergoing periodic dissolutions. But all this, he held, is produced by chance, ^{3838) See also Döllinger, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 361.} with no controlling intelligence. As noted, Epicurus regarded the universe as material, infinite in extent and eternal in duration. In fact, he recognized two kinds of existence—(1) that of bodies, and (2) that of void, space, or vacuum. But, we repeat for emphasis, he held that the world was produced by chance—^{3939) Draper, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 165-168.} the chance coming together, with adherence of atoms of infinite number, size, and shape. And further, beyond our world there are innumerable others, similarly appearing by accident. His was indeed a “fortuitous concurrence” of atoms concept!CFF1 611.2

As to the soul, in all this, at the death of the body the soul-atoms are scattered, having no shelter and abode, and the soul consequently ceases to exist. This understanding, Epicurus held, frees one from the terrors of Hades. He argued that death is nothing to us, for one “only is when death is not; where death is, he is no longer there.” ^{4040) Rohde, op. cit., p. 505.} Epicurus contended that the great evil that afflicts man is fear—fear of the gods, fear of death, fear of natural things, and fear of destiny. To eradicate these fears was the ultimate aim of his speculations. ^{4141) Döllinger, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 362.}CFF1 611.3

See 1 Corinthians 15:32 3. PLEASURE CANONIZED WITHOUT RESTRAINT

Life was therefore set forth as without divine sanction, without human responsibility, without existence hereafter, and with neither reward nor penalty for one’s words or acts during life. There was no moral constraint, no domain of conscience, no real standards or ethics, no divine authority or superintendence—and, we reiterate, man was said to be without a hereafter. Such was the radical nature of the Epicurean reaction against Platonism.CFF1 612.1

In all this fanfare Epicurus disparaged “science” and the predominant philosophy, and depreciated logic. Rejecting all mythical contentions and conceptions, and denying the supernatural he canonized pleasure, advising men to accept life as it comes, and enjoy pleasure while they may. His philosophy was therefore the art of enjoying the present life as the supreme end of man’s being, which he called the only “rational” attitude.CFF1 612.2

Epicurus felt no concern over death, or the power of the gods—holding they were only a “delusion.” The soul, which he taught is merely an aggregation of atoms, is resolved at death into its constituents. One can, of course, understand Epicurus’ revulsion against the crude mythical notions and puerilities of prior schools of philosophy. But his pendulum had swung to the opposite irrational extreme in denial.CFF1 612.3

4. SEPARATED SOUL UTTERLY CEASES

As We have seen, to Epicurus there was no reality but bodily reality—corporeal substance. Thus the “body” of the soul consists of subtle particles—the finest, lightest atoms. And it dissolves instantaneously upon death. A soulless body, he argued, is no heavier than one in which there is a soul. So he insisted that when the “connection between soul and body is fully severed, then the soul can no longer exist”—its constituent atoms being “dispersed in a moment.” ^{4242) Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, pp. 452-456.}CFF1 612.4

And Rohde states it thus: “The atomist doctrine renewed by Epicurus demanded in the most emphatic manner of its adherents that they should abandon the belief in personal survival.” ^{4343) Rohde, op. cit.: p. 504. Cf. Lucretius, book 3, on “Life and Mind.”}CFF1 613.1

5. MAY REAPPEAR AS ANOTHER PERSON

Epicurus thus clearly taught that when death occurs the soul-atoms and the body-atoms are separated, and the body finally dissolves. Consequently the separated “soul” disappears. It is blown away by the wind, as he put it, and disappears “like smoke” in the air. But the material elements are indestructible. They might, in fact, in the future combine, with the “life-stuff,” in another person.CFF1 613.2

But, he said, if so it would be as a new creature. The original man is obliterated by death, with no bond of consciousness between the two. The living creature is therefore but temporary, and death no longer concerns him. This proposition the Epicureans never tired of hammering home. The terrors of eternity cast no shadow over the life. One devotes himself to life without repining, filling every moment to the full. ^{4444) Rohde, op. cit., pp. 505, 506.}CFF1 613.3

See Acts 17:18 6. IRRECONCILABLE CLASHES BETWEEN STOICS AND EPICUREANS

The opposition of the Stoics to the Epicureans was occasioned by the extreme materialism and fortuitism of the latter. With Epicurus the universe was an aggregation of blind atoms, compacted and governed by an equally blind chance; with Zeno and his Stoics, it was a divine organism, vital in all its parts, and governed by the immutable decrees of Fate. With Epicurus the gods had nothing to do with human affairs, while with Zeno everything was controlled by superintending Providence.CFF1 613.4

The Stoics regarded nature as a product of design, whereas the Epicureans explained it as an entirely mechanical product. The Stoics adhered to fatalism, but saw God everywhere; the Epicureans, as irreligious free thinkers, held the theory of atoms and of necessity. ^{4545) Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 505.} Such were the irreconcilable differences of these two reactionary groups, both antagonistic to Platonism.CFF1 613.5