EPICUREANISM. Epicureanism as a philosophical doctrine has its rise in the teach ings of its founder Epicurus, who was borne in 1 Samos in the year 342 or 341 R.c. He was the son of Neocles and Chnrestrata. His father's name being the same as that of the great states man Themistocles, suggested to the poet Menander a verse in which he contrasts the son of Neocles, who freed his country from slavery, with him who freed it from foolishness. In his early life, Epicurus taught in several in Asia Minor and in the year 306 came to Athens, where he founded a school of his own. By the subtle charm of his personality he at tracted to himself a group of admiring friends and followers who were not only devoted to the teacher but were also fired with enthusiastic zeal for his teaching. They were his corn panions and friends rather than his pupils. Their meeting place was the famous garden of= the master which has become so closely asso ciated with the very name of the school. After the death of Epicurus in 270 his followers car ried on his work and maintained the teachings and traditions of their leader with unabated earnestness and loyalty. Among the successors of Epicurus, the most conspicuous perhaps are Hermarchus, Dionysius, Apollodorus, Zeno and Phwdrus. But no one of his followers achieved marked distinction until we come to the time of T. Lucretius Carus, the interpreter and chief apostle of Epicureanism. Though a Roman, he had caught that Greek spirit which had been so brilliantly illustrated in the garden of Athens.
Epicureanism as a distinct school flourished with varying fortunes until a period as late as the century A.D. With the decay and dis appearance of the school, its influences how ever did not cease, but lived on, and will live; for Epicureanism represents an attitude of mind which will ever appeal most strongly to certain natures, and in a way to all natures. It is not in a strict sense of the phrase, a system of philosophy. It is rather a theory of life. It is essentially practical in its purposes, methods and results. So far, however, as Epicureanism may be called a system of philosophy, it falls into three parts — a system of canonics, of nature and of morality. By canonics is meant a system
which exhibits certain canons or tests of truth. With Epicurus the supreme test of truth was to be found in the sensations. It is the same thought as that which is contained in the old adage — seeing is believing. He held that only the actual facts of a sensory experience can furnish a scientific basis upon which to con struct a body of knowledge. The notions are to be regarded merely as generalized sensation; and all opinions are inferences which at the last analysis must rest upon simple sensations. The sensation as such, therefore, is the court of last appeal. Concerning his philosophy of nature, Epicurus taught that there were only natural causes. Any belief in supernaturalism he tegarded as a superstition which only a weak intellect could possibly entertain. As regards the constitution of matter, he followed Democ ritus in the essential features of his atomic ttleory of the universe. He did not follow, however, with complete rigor the logic of his materialistic conceptions, for he allowed that there must be a distinction between the irra tional, or more sensory part of the soul on the one hand, and on the other,d the rational part which he regarded as the superior and con trolling power of man's nature. Moreover, while denying the existence of the gods, as gods of pi-di-Fiance sustaining the forces of nature, and ruling the destinies of man, he nevertheless believed in their existence as beings apart and wholly separate from mundane affairs. From the standpoint of his ethical system, the gods were of very necessity beings supremely happy, and such they could not Vs, were they supposed to be in any way cognizant of the darker side of nature and the manifold ills of human life. Ac cording to Epicurus the great end to be attained through the study of nature was to disabuse the mind of any lurking superstition concerning the possibility of the supernatural.