epicurus and christ: divine life and the meaning of suffering
this past week i've been reading epicurus, philosopher of pleasure. epicurus lived in the fourth century b.c. and was more or less a contemporary of aristotle. he argued that happiness, or living well, consisted in a life of pleasure. he described pleasure as the first and innate good, and argued that things were good or bad in virtue of the amount of pleasure and pain they produced. he was, it seems, the forerunner (perhaps grandfather) of many later versions of hedonism, and also utilitarianism.
even during his own day, epicurus had trouble convincing people that when he claimed that pleasure was the goal of life, he didn't mean the pleasures of drink, music or sex (either separately or together). it isn't that epicurus forbade such pleasures, but rather he argued that real pleasure was the absence of pain in the body and the absence of disturbance in the soul. and this state could only be achieved by doing philosophy and physics (which were, of course, much less distinct from one another in his time). moreover, epicurus insisted that true pleasure was inseparable from the virtues, including temperance and justice.
so, it seems that epicurus was not in fact a resident of some kind of attic bourbon street, as our english word "epicurean" might suggest. interestingly, epicurus' project was also heavily theological (which, incidentally, meant that it was also heavily meteorological). epicurus thought that much of the disturbance in his neighbors' souls was caused by their fear of the gods, including a fear that the gods would send some calamity upon them or punish them after death. epicurus argued against the latter fear by trying to demonstrate that after death the soul, which is made up of atoms, dissipates, and so after death one experiences nothing. with regards to the fear of divine-sent calamity, epicurus insisted that the gods were perfectly blessed and indestructible. such beings, he argued, would not be subject to angers and whims, and thus they would never send destruction onto humans. what is more, if humans followed the way of philosophy and freed themselves from disturbance of the soul, then their existence could be somehow divine. that is, the epircurean life of pleasure and virtue is also a life of the kind of self-sufficiency, calm and blessedness which are hallmarks of the gods' life. thus, at the end of one of his letters outlining his philosohy, epicurus says that it is possible for mortal humans to live a life that is fit for immortal gods.
in thinking of a well-lived human life as being in some way divine, epicurus was, it seems, making a fairly common move for a greek philosopher. for example, diogenes the cynic is reported to have called good men images of the gods (θεων εικονας). and at the end of his nicomachean ethics, aristotle suggests that through contemplation it is possible to imitate, in a way, the life of the gods (who, for aristotle, spend their time in contemplation) and thereby to achieve a kind of immortality for mortals.
there is, of course, something related going on in the pages of the new testament. in the nt it is christ who is first and foremost the image of the invisible god (εικων του θεου του αορατου, Col 1:16), but also we (as christians) who are being renewed in his image. likewise, jesus, in the sermon on the mount, invokes god's impartiality as the model for his disciples, and the author of ephesians urges us to be imitators of god.
interestingly, however, paul's picture of how we participate in a kind of divine life comes close to being the opposite of epicurus' account. for epicurus, the mark of the gods is their freedom from pain and disturbance, and it is by becoming free from pain and disturbance that humans can have a sort of divine life. in contrast, it is precisely the suffering of christ which paul strives to imitate and in which he longs to participate: 'to know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made like him in death, that i might somehow reach the resurrection of the dead' (phil 3:10). likewise, for john, it is precisely in his suffering, death and resurrection that the glory of jesus is most displayed (e.g. john 12:23), and his suffering and death are the model for christian discipleship (12:24-26).
in the new testament, then, it seems that suffering has come to have new significance -to have, we might say, meaning. it is not that greek philosophers could not see some value in suffering; more than one talks about how his sufferings and trials were a benefit, because they brought him to philosophy. but here, the redemption/salvation found in philosophy is redemption from suffering, and suffering is 'meaningful' because it leads to that which removes it (or at least minimizes it). with christianity, however, it is almost as if the redemption in christ is redemption to suffering -the call is to share in his suffering, which is suffering even unto death. and in christianity, suffering itself is a locus for contact with the divine, a locus for imitation of the divine in christ.
perhaps, then, this is near the core of the christian message: that one is redeemed not (only?) from suffering, but in and through suffering. and that god is indeed blessed and indestructible, eternal and unseen, but in such a way that godself can be seen in and throuhg the sufferings life of our lord jesus, a man of sorrows.
even during his own day, epicurus had trouble convincing people that when he claimed that pleasure was the goal of life, he didn't mean the pleasures of drink, music or sex (either separately or together). it isn't that epicurus forbade such pleasures, but rather he argued that real pleasure was the absence of pain in the body and the absence of disturbance in the soul. and this state could only be achieved by doing philosophy and physics (which were, of course, much less distinct from one another in his time). moreover, epicurus insisted that true pleasure was inseparable from the virtues, including temperance and justice.
so, it seems that epicurus was not in fact a resident of some kind of attic bourbon street, as our english word "epicurean" might suggest. interestingly, epicurus' project was also heavily theological (which, incidentally, meant that it was also heavily meteorological). epicurus thought that much of the disturbance in his neighbors' souls was caused by their fear of the gods, including a fear that the gods would send some calamity upon them or punish them after death. epicurus argued against the latter fear by trying to demonstrate that after death the soul, which is made up of atoms, dissipates, and so after death one experiences nothing. with regards to the fear of divine-sent calamity, epicurus insisted that the gods were perfectly blessed and indestructible. such beings, he argued, would not be subject to angers and whims, and thus they would never send destruction onto humans. what is more, if humans followed the way of philosophy and freed themselves from disturbance of the soul, then their existence could be somehow divine. that is, the epircurean life of pleasure and virtue is also a life of the kind of self-sufficiency, calm and blessedness which are hallmarks of the gods' life. thus, at the end of one of his letters outlining his philosohy, epicurus says that it is possible for mortal humans to live a life that is fit for immortal gods.
in thinking of a well-lived human life as being in some way divine, epicurus was, it seems, making a fairly common move for a greek philosopher. for example, diogenes the cynic is reported to have called good men images of the gods (θεων εικονας). and at the end of his nicomachean ethics, aristotle suggests that through contemplation it is possible to imitate, in a way, the life of the gods (who, for aristotle, spend their time in contemplation) and thereby to achieve a kind of immortality for mortals.
there is, of course, something related going on in the pages of the new testament. in the nt it is christ who is first and foremost the image of the invisible god (εικων του θεου του αορατου, Col 1:16), but also we (as christians) who are being renewed in his image. likewise, jesus, in the sermon on the mount, invokes god's impartiality as the model for his disciples, and the author of ephesians urges us to be imitators of god.
interestingly, however, paul's picture of how we participate in a kind of divine life comes close to being the opposite of epicurus' account. for epicurus, the mark of the gods is their freedom from pain and disturbance, and it is by becoming free from pain and disturbance that humans can have a sort of divine life. in contrast, it is precisely the suffering of christ which paul strives to imitate and in which he longs to participate: 'to know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made like him in death, that i might somehow reach the resurrection of the dead' (phil 3:10). likewise, for john, it is precisely in his suffering, death and resurrection that the glory of jesus is most displayed (e.g. john 12:23), and his suffering and death are the model for christian discipleship (12:24-26).
in the new testament, then, it seems that suffering has come to have new significance -to have, we might say, meaning. it is not that greek philosophers could not see some value in suffering; more than one talks about how his sufferings and trials were a benefit, because they brought him to philosophy. but here, the redemption/salvation found in philosophy is redemption from suffering, and suffering is 'meaningful' because it leads to that which removes it (or at least minimizes it). with christianity, however, it is almost as if the redemption in christ is redemption to suffering -the call is to share in his suffering, which is suffering even unto death. and in christianity, suffering itself is a locus for contact with the divine, a locus for imitation of the divine in christ.
perhaps, then, this is near the core of the christian message: that one is redeemed not (only?) from suffering, but in and through suffering. and that god is indeed blessed and indestructible, eternal and unseen, but in such a way that godself can be seen in and throuhg the sufferings life of our lord jesus, a man of sorrows.
posted by micah at 11:15 AM
1 Comments:
interesting comparison. some christians seem to be epicureans at heart too. i wonder a lot about the suffering of the christian life, because it definitely is a special kind of suffering, and i wonder which of my sufferings actually fit into that category, y'know? anyway, good post. my favorite topic. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home