things can be divided, for in ancient Greek, atomon means an indivisible ( a-tomon ) thing. Since we have split the atom, a more accurate translation would be elementary particle . The way in which the microscopic atoms connect and interact determines the properties of ordinary things, seeking tranquility in the garden 47
such as their color, hardness, and chemical properties. Epicurus’ system was not completely deterministic, for he said that the atoms occasionally swerved for no reason.
The details of Epicurus’ physics are not especially relevant to our purpose here. What is important is that his worldview is qualitatively very similar to contemporary scientific materialism in that everything, including the human mind, is made of elementary particles. The atoms of the soul, said Epicurus, are finer and subtler than those of the body, but they are atoms nonetheless. This is similar to the contemporary scientific view that the mind is nothing but the electrochemical activity of the brain. Thus Epicurus’ ethics does not require any particular spiritual commitments and it is quite applicable in our secular world. It’s a good starting place for us. We can take up matters of the spirit later.
Epicurus insisted that his atomism did not exclude free will. Although, as we will see, he was no friend of the traditional Greek religion, he said, “It would be better, indeed, to accept the legends of the gods than to bow beneath destiny that the natural philosophers have imposed.”30 Exactly how free will fit into his atomic theory is not entirely clear from the surviving texts, but his position is similar to the modern philosophical theory of compatibilism , which argues that if you understand free will correctly, then you see that it is consistent with both (nondeterministic) modern physics and (deterministic) classical physics. The basic idea is that if my choices are a result of my beliefs, desires, purposes, values, etc., then my will is free, in the only meaningful sense of “free,” regardless of what the particles constituting me are doing.31
Classifying Desires
We can imagine a meeting between Epicurus and a dozen of his favorite students
in the Garden.32 They recline on couches, talking and enjoying olives, figs, nuts, and a little wine mixed with chilled water. On several of the couches couples recline together, including Metrodorus, one of Epicurus’ most distinguished friends, and his wife Leontion, a former courtesan.
“Epicurus,” says Metrodorus, “surely what separates wisdom from folly is the way
we make our free choices, and so this issue is central to philosophy, which is the love of wisdom. Now, you teach us that everything in the universe is atoms and void, but how does that help us decide what to choose and what to avoid ?”
Epicurus replies, “All animals choose pleasure and avoid pain; that is the way we
are made—the way our atoms are put together. In fact, we can say that pain is nature’s 48 seeking tranquility in the garden
signal to avoid something and pleasure is the signal to choose it. Pain and pleasure are not matters of opinion; they are facts of nature.”
Timocrates, Metrodorus’ older brother, waves his goblet and sighs, “It’s all so sim-
ple, isn’t it? Pleasure is the only good, and we should always pursue pleasure. Everything that Socrates and Plato said is just hot air.”
“My brother, you know that’s false. If that were all there were to it, our master’s
philosophy would be the crassest kind of hedonism—and I’ve heard that you some-
times spread that slander—but it is not. For example, he’s taught us that it’s often wise to avoid pleasures if they will lead to greater pain, and that it may be wise to endure pains in order to gain a greater pleasure.”
“That is correct,” Epicurus replies. “We must apply reason to the direct experience
of pleasure and pain, which includes mental pleasure or pain as well as physical pleasure or pain.