Buddhism, Epicureanism, and Stoicism

by Massimo Pigliucci

However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not
act on upon them? (Buddha)

It is folly for a man to pray to the gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself. (Epicurus)

Adapt yourself to the things among which your lot has been cast and love sincerely the fellow creatures
with whom destiny has ordained that you shall live. (Marcus Aurelius)

I have been pondering for a while that there are some striking similarities among the three
ancient philosophies of Buddhism, Epicureanism and Stoicism. Let me premise that I dont
know as much about the first as about the latter two, and even there Im certainly no expert, so
take what follows with a commensurately sized grain of salt.

Buddhism is the more complicated of the three, largely I think because it has a much
longer history as a live philosophy. It has therefore had significantly more time to develop
diverging schools of thoughts and interpretations. It is also different from Epicureanism and
Stoicism in belonging to the Eastern rather than the Western philosophical tradition, which
means that it is more imbued with mysticism and much less grounded in the Greek style of
logical argument (it is not by chance that Buddhism, but not the other two, is often referred to
as a religion, though even there the term only applies partially and only to some Buddhist
traditions).

Interestingly, all three philosophies arose in similar times, both chronologically and in terms of
social setting. The founder of Epicureanism was, of course, Epicurus, a historical figure about
whom we know a good deal. He lived between 341 and 269 BCE in Greece. Stoicism was
established, also in ancient Greece, by Zeno of Citium (334-262 BCE), who was therefore a
contemporary of Epicurus (indeed, the two schools were rivals throughout the Hellenistic and
Roman periods). The birth of Buddhism is much less clear, but it originated in the northeastern
Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE (so about one and a half centuries before
Epicureanism and Stoicism). Not as much is known about the actual life of its founder,
Siddhrtha Gautama, but there is no reason to believe that he was not an actual historical
figure and that the general course of his life took place along the lines accepted by tradition.

Perhaps more interestingly, though, all three philosophies arose and thrived in times of social
and political turmoil, within their respective geographical areas. This is relevant because I think
it may go some way toward explaining some of the similarities I am interested in. Of course,
Buddhism still thrives today, with hundreds of millions of followers. Epicureanism and Stoicism,
on the contrary, largely exist in textbooks, the main reason being Christianity: as soon as the
Christians took over the Roman empire they put their newly found political and military might
in the service of the one true god and persecuted both Epicureans and Stoics. Both schools
were officially abolished in 529 CE by the emperor Justinian I, that prick.

There are several interesting aspects of all three philosophies that I will simply ignore here,
particularly their more scientific ones (such as, most prominently, Epicurean atomism, which
was inherited from pre-Socratic thinkers like Leucippus, Democritus, Heraclitus and
Parmenides). I will concentrate instead on the metaphysics and ethics of the three schools. I
also need to add that I am quite skeptical of the attempts that various people make of
attributing almost miraculous scientific insights to ancient philosophies. Yes, the Epicureans
were talking about atoms, but that concept had very little to do with modern physics. The same
goes for the Buddhist idea that the self is an illusion, allegedly anticipating modern
neuroscience. Indeed, in the latter case, I think that treating the self as an illusion is a profound
mistake, based on a misunderstanding of neurobiology (but not of Buddhism, which really does
claim something along those lines!). But thats another story for another post.

Lets begin, then, with the basics of Epicureanism. Of the three, it was by far the least mystical
set of doctrines. Epicurus was a pretty strict materialist, and even though he believed in the
existence of a god, said god had nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of the universe or
human affairs, and indeed he was made of atoms just like everything else.
Thanks to sustained Christian slurring, we moderns associate Epicureanism with hedonism, but
Epicurus principle of pleasure had very little to do with sex, drugs and rock n roll. His basic idea
was that human suffering is caused by our misunderstanding of the true nature of the world (a
thought common also to Stoicism and Buddhism), and to our preoccupation with human
matters such as ironically sensual pleasures and political power. All of this, according to
Epicurus, interfered with the real goal of human existence, reaching a state that he
called ataraxia (which usually translates as tranquillity). To achieve ataraxia one has to
eliminate both bodily and mental pains, and particularly one has to conquer the fundamental
fears of death and punishment in the afterlife. Hence, Epicureanisms profoundly anti-religious,
and eventually anti-Christian, character. Indeed, Epicureans only social involvement was in the
fight against religion and superstition, which they regarded as a principal cause of human
unhappiness.

It seems to me that the Epicurean concept of ataraxia, as well as their teachings on how to
achieve it, are not that different in spirit (though they certainly are in detail) from the Buddhist
idea of nirvana, the highest happiness possible for a sentient being. Indeed, nirvana derives
from a Sanskrit word that means something along the lines of cessation of craving and
ignorance, an idea that both Stoics and Epicureans would have been very comfortable with
(though nirvana has a decidedly more mystical meaning than either the Stoics or especially the
Epicureans would have been comfortable with).

Basic Buddhist teachings begin with the Four Noble Truths. (I noticed that Buddhists have a
penchant for numbering things: there are four noble truths, the noble path is eightfold, there
are four immeasurables, three marks of existence, three jewels to seek refuge in, five
precepts for basic Buddhism, and so on. You get the idea.) The four noble truths are: i)
thatdukkha (suffering) originates from physical and mental illness, the anxiety engendered by
constant change, and a general dissatisfaction pervading all life forms; ii) that the origin
ofdukkha can be known by human beings, and that its roots are craving and ignorance (see
Epicureanism above!); iii) that the cessation of dukkha is indeed possible; and iv) that such
cessation is achieved through the noble eightfold path.

Said noble eightfold path, in turn, is essentially a recipe to achieve the cessation of dukkhaand
eventually nirvana, the eight components being meant to be pursued in parallel, not
sequentially: 1) Right View, viewing the world for what it is, not as it appears to be (easier said
than done, but still); 2) Right Intention, the pursuit of renunciation, freedom and harmlessness;
3) Right Speech, speaking truthfully and without harming others; 4) Right Action, acting without
harming others; 5) Right Livelihood, living without causing harm; 6) Right Effort, that is making
an effort to improve oneself (yes, you will notice the recurring deployment of the notion of self
in Buddhism, despite the fact that it allegedly doesnt exist); 7) Right Mindfulness, which means
awareness of both how things are and of the reality within oneself (!); and 8) Right
Concentration, engaging in meditation or concentration of the right kind.

One of the most problematic Buddhist concepts, I think, is that of karma, which refers to a
cosmic force driving the cycle of suffering and rebirth of every being. The idea is that ones
actions during a lifetime determine ones rebirth at the next cycle. (I think that there is a
fundamental contradiction between the Buddhist rejection of the idea of an enduring self and
the very concept of beings that go through different lifetimes. Buddhists do have answers to
this objection, of course, but I find them extremely unconvincing.) The goal, so to speak, is to be
reborn on higher planes of existence (there are 31 of them, grouped in 6 realms), until
eventually one achieves enlightenment and escapes the cycle of rebirth altogether.

I say that karma is problematic for a variety of reasons. To begin with, it seems to be plucked
out of nowhere, with neither empirical or even logical support. It amounts to an automatic
cosmic scoring chart which will affect a new being who has, in fact, no memory of what his
predecessor actually did to gain positive or negative karma points. Ethically, it is hard to
imagine why one should be responsible for (or should gain from) the previous round in her or
his dependent arising.

Be that as it may, the idea that there is a cosmic framework within which we act is reminiscent
of (though it is quite distinct from) the Stoic idea of logos, which is a sort of universal reason
that determines the unfolding of events. For the Stoics too, the goal is to become clear about
reality, and a major objective is to develop a degree of self-control that allows one to overcome
destructive emotions (which arise precisely from errors of judgment about how the world
works). Again, the parallels with both Epicureanism and Buddhism seem obvious.

Stoics aimed not at getting rid of emotions (despite the popular caricature of Stoics as Spock-
like figures), but rather to channel them in a more productive direction. This was achieved
through a combination of logic, concentration and reflection, and eventually evolved into
various contemporary forms of cognitive behavioral therapy. (In this sense, both Buddhism
with its various meditative techniques and Stoicism have entered the realm of modern
practices, which can be pursued essentially independently of the philosophies that gave origin
to them.) The ultimate goal of the Stoic was apatheia, or peace of mind, which I think is akin to
both the Epicurean ideal of ataraxia and the Buddhist goal of nirvana (again, with due
consideration given to the significant differences in the background conditions and specific
articulation of the three philosophies). And of course Stoics too had a ready-made recipe for
their philosophy, in the form of a short list of virtues to practice (nothing compared to the
above mentioned panoply of Buddhist lists though!). These were: courage, justice, temperance
and wisdom.

I am sure one could continue with this conceptual cross-mapping for a while, and of course
scholars within each of the three traditions would object to or modify my suggestions. What I
am interested in here, however, is pursuing the further questions of what the common
limitations of the philosophies of Buddhism, Epicureanism and Stoicism are, as well as what
positive contributions they have made to humanity's thinking about (and dealing with!) the
universe.

I am inclined to reject both Buddhisms and Stoicisms metaphysics, being significantly more
happy with the Epicurean view of the world. I dont think there is any reason to think that
concepts like logos or karma have any philosophical substance, nor do they do any work in
actually explaining why things are the way they are. The Epicurean embracing of a materialist
metaphysics, instead, is in synch with the development of natural philosophy and eventually of
modern science. True, there are no atoms in the sense in which Epicurus and his predecessors
where thinking of them, and the free will-enabling swerve seems a rather arbitrary conceit
that has been superseded by better philosophical treatment of the problem it was supposed to
address. But all in all I think Epicurean metaphysics handily beats the other two.

However, of concern is the limited social engagement of all three philosophies. While they do
differ in degree on this count too, Buddhism, Epicureanism and Stoicism all preach a level of
detachment that seems alien to being human and that may easily lead to social disengagement.
On this issue, Im with David Hume (and with much modern neuroscience) when he argued
that emotions arent something to get rid of or overcome (or drastically alter), but instead they
are the very reason we give a crap about anything to begin with.
All three philosophies certainly imply a good measure of compassion for our fellow creatures,
but the Epicureans in particular expressly rejected involvement in politics, and their only social
engagement was manifested in their relentless attack on religion and superstition as the
primary causes of fear. The Stoics were opposed to slavery and preached brotherly love, but
their insistence on understanding and accepting whatever the logos set out easily slides into a
somewhat passive stance devoid of social action. And even in Buddhism it is hard to find much
in the way of political or social engagement, outside of a general attitude of compassion (and,
again, acceptance) for the suffering of creatures. I wont go as far as agreeing with Marx that
the point is not to understand the world, but to change it, but surely a positive philosophy has
to explicitly engage with how to improve the human condition, not just at the individual level,
but socially.

As I mentioned earlier, though, perhaps this common degree of passivity toward the social and
emphasis on the individuals understanding and acceptance of the world resulted from the fact
that all three philosophies were born at a time of social turmoil and uncertainty, when surely an
attitude of recoiling into ones internal world must have seemed like the only available option
in the face of events that were hard to control and that often resulted in painful consequences
for large swaths of society.

On the positive side, I am a firm believer that philosophy is a continuous source of valuable
insight into the human condition, so I think most philosophies offer something that is worth
plucking and adding to the store of our collective wisdom. In the cases of these three, and
despite my reservations about their dearth of social engagement, there is quite a bit to be
recommended.

Epicureans insisted on the value of friendship, for instance, which I do believe is a fundamental
component of a flourishing existence. Their assault on fear-engendering superstition can also
be counted as one of their most enduring legacies. Both Buddhists and Stoics, for their part,
developed techniques to improve peoples mental well being, and there is good empirical
evidence that those techniques do work (though my personal preference is for the more
reflective Stoic approach rather than the overly meditative Buddhist one). And all three
philosophies have in common the idea that it is wise to attempt to understand the world as it
actually is, as opposed to the way it superficially appears to be (though, again, I think the
Buddhists were more off the mark than the other two, particularly the Epicureans).

In the end, I dont consider myself an Epicurean or a Stoic, and I am certainly no Buddhist. But
this does not preclude me from appreciating what some of the greatest minds of human
antiquity had to say to their fellow travelers. Their thoughts still resonate vibrantly more than
two millennia after they were first conceived, and that is no small accomplishment by any
human standard.

Posted by Massimo Pigliucci at 7:00 AM

Labels: Buddhism, Epicureanism, Massimo Pigliucci, Stoicism, wisdom

43 comments:

1.

K. W. B. DyamiFebruary 01, 2013 7:39 AM

Great ancient throwback

Re: self, no-self, Buddhism

I don't think your post does justice enough to the Buddhist's rejection of 'self'. The theory of anatman is
against the self-as-Atman, that is, a "constant", "unified", "substantial", or "permanent" self.

The positive account of self is one wherein the self is part of the interconnected world, and can be
thought of as similar to a 'wagon', in that a wagon does not have some "essence" beyond its parts.

I completely agree with that you briefly mentioned, that the reconciliation of Karma with Anatman can
seem somewhat like a patch job.

2.

dougsmithFebruary 01, 2013 7:57 AM

Thanks for that, Massimo. As you know (since we've been in contact on this) I blog for the Secular
Buddhist Association website (http://secularbuddhism.org/author/doug/ ); a general agreement with
skeptical claims regarding karma and rebirth make many of us interested in a "secularized" Buddhist
approach. That is, we're interested in a contemporary approach to Buddhist philosophy that rejects its
supernatural elements.

I have also written a short comparison between a secularized Buddhism and Secular Humanism:

http://secularbuddhism.org/2012/11/29/secular-humanism-and-secular-buddhism/

One point I must take issue with in your treatment, however, is the nature of the self in Buddhism. It's a
typical misunderstanding (even among some Buddhists) to claim that Buddhism is a philosophy of no-
self. To understand better what is going on, one must see the context. The Buddha was arguing against
the common Brahminical interpretation of the self as an everlasting, substantial "atman", which was the
focus of religious and soteriological importance. So when the Buddha is said to have rejected the self,
what he is rejecting is basically a Cartesian substantial soul.

In contrast, the Buddha proposed a more Humean (or nowadays we might say "Parfitean")
interpretation of the self as a bundle of mental functions, without a substantial core. Persistence
through time depended on causes and conditions, rather than being fixed by literal numerical identity.

The Buddha described his notion of the self as being a middle way between a substantial, Brahminical
"atman", and a complete non-self.

So for the Buddha the self was real. But its reality depended on causes and conditions, one of which was
an ongoing desire for existence, and the self's continual reification through karmic action.

As contemporary philosophical naturalists, we can reject the karmic story and the literal rebirth. What
we're left with is a notion that the self is real but causally constructed and impermanent.

One other small point regarding Buddhism's penchant for numbering: others have commented on this
as well. To an extent this is a feature of Eastern philosophy, and may have something to do with their
historical roots in memorization. But it is also a feature of the deep analytic tradition in Buddhism. The
Buddhist Abhidhamma, as well as many later schools of Buddhist thought in Tibet and elsewhere, are as
analytically rigorous as anything one might find in the West. Though intellectual history being what it is,
many of these schools developed in more esoteric or even obscurantist ways.

1.

Massimo PigliucciFebruary 01, 2013 8:13 AM

Doug,

thanks for the clarification about the self, it really helps! Now, has anyone told San Harris about it? ;-)

2.
dougsmithFebruary 01, 2013 9:53 AM

I should have said that the self is a bundle of mental *and physical* functions for the Buddha, since the
first of the five aggregates is "name-and-form". "Form" is physical form, and "name" is the name we give
to that form.

(The five aggregates are: name-and-form, feeling (like/dislike), perception, volition, consciousness.
These make up the conventional self for the Buddha, much like perceptions, ideas, and their relations do
for Hume).

3.

dougsmithFebruary 01, 2013 12:52 PM

Eh. To be clear, the five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness. Name-and-
form is another way to describe the self.

4.

K. W. B. DyamiFebruary 01, 2013 8:39 PM

Dougsmith:

Which of the Orthodox Hindu traditions do you believe actually argued for a "Cartesian"-like substantial
soul?
In my studies last semester, my prof argued that the dominant view of atman (from Advaita Vedanta
and others) was somewhat mis-characterized by the Buddha's "anatman", in that what was being
denounced wasn't actually posited as atman in the first place.

I was thinking Nyya and Vaieika could be exceptions.. Thoughts?

Also, great contemporary work on Buddha-Advaita on (no)Self:

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199593804.do

And free sample chapter:

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780199593804.pdf

5.

dougsmithFebruary 02, 2013 9:00 AM

Hello KWB Dyami,

The tradition to which the Buddha taught in opposition predated Hinduism. It is known historically as
"Brahmanism", and was a Vedic tradition around the time of the earlier Upanishads. (Many of the
Upanishads post-dated the Buddha, as did Hindu texts such as the Mahabhrata and the Ramyana).

The most famous illustration I know of the Brahminic position about the atman would be in the
Chndogya Upanishad, with the statement "Tat tvam asi" or "You are that", which under the advaita
interpretation identifies the permanent self (atman) with universal being (Brahman).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi

This obviously has its differences from a traditional Cartesian self, but it is relevantly the same in
identifying the self as an everlasting substance.

That said, there were doubtless other, competing versions of the Brahminical self at the time. The
Buddha responds to several in his Brahmajla Sutta (Dgha Nikya 1).

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

6.

GadflyFebruary 04, 2013 11:26 PM

But, Buddhists in general DON'T reject metaphysical stances, contra both Sam Harris and alleged stances
of the Dalai Lama. (The Dalai Lama has, in places, indicated that if it's a pretty solid scientific statement
against the existence of reincarnation, he's staying with reincarnation, contra those who only tout other
statements of his.)

Because of this, I have to disagree with Massimo in one way, and say most types of Buddhism are
religious -- metaphysical beliefs + practices designed around such beliefs.

7.

GadflyFebruary 04, 2013 11:28 PM

To riff on Doug, and Batchelor ... how much metaphysics can you remove from Buddhism and still call it
Buddhism?

To turn Harris' version of Gnu Atheism on its head, I can take the book of Ecclesiastes, with little
trimming, and posit "secular Christianity" or "secular Judaism."

8.
Mal DamalieAugust 16, 2013 6:43 AM

Isn't "Secular Christianity" what Don Cupitt is doing with his "Sea of Faith" approach? Aren't many Jews
following a secular approach to Judaism? I keep on coming across the "I don't believe in God, but I'm still
Jew" comment.

3.

RiccardoFebruary 01, 2013 8:32 AM

Great post! As for the "numbering" thing in Buddhism, as a student of Chinese culture and philosophy I'd
like to note that it is not unique to Buddhism and not even originating from it, but it is an important
piece of Asian (particularly Sino-Tibetan) thought, which Buddhism probably inherited. The Chinese have
a real obsession with numbers, and have tons of numbered lists for almost anything you can imagine.

1.

dougsmithFebruary 01, 2013 9:50 AM

Hi Riccardo,

I doubt the numbering was inherited from Sino-Tibetan thought, since the numbering in the Canon
predated its Sino-Tibetan elaborations. That is, I believe it's consistent in both the Chinese Agamas and
the Pali Canon, both of which originated from the Prakrit oral tradition in the first centuries BCE in India.

4.

ciceronianusFebruary 01, 2013 12:20 PM

I'm a fan of the Stoics, and think Stoicism provides a sensible guide to living. As you no doubt are aware,
it seems to be enjoying a kind of renewal these days, even among professional philosophers (John Lachs,
Lawrence Becker for example). I don't think it's quite as disengaged from life and society as you may
think, though certain statements made by them may be interpreted as recommending disengagement.
With Epictetus, we must remember that what we read are the notes and impressions of his student
Arrian, though. Stoicism was very influential in the development of the law as we know it, particularly
the law derived from Roman law. Many of the great Roman jurists were Stoics.

I think you're correct that Buddhism, Stoicism and Epicureanism are related in certain respects. In fact,
Stoicism significantly influenced Christianity, which assimilated so much of ancient pagan thought and
religious beliefs.
 5.

= MJAFebruary 01, 2013 12:45 PM

Truth is much more simple than thought.

Be One,

6.

Seth_blogFebruary 01, 2013 2:39 PM

Nice post.

In addition to the comments on the Buddhist interpretation of 'no-self' I think the concept of inter-
dependent arising was giving short-shrift. This concept is very similar to the Taoist foundational concept
of complementary opposition and I think gives context to 'no-self'. I also think this insight is quite
relevant to current science such as quantum mechanics, and it's philosophical interpretations.

1.

Seth_blogFebruary 02, 2013 1:24 PM

I thought I would follow-up on my 1st post with an example since I'm not sure I stated it well.

Don Ross has a new paper out 'The World in the Data' that argues against the 'Many Worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics and for Bohrs 'Copenhagen' interpretation which is based on
complementarity. Central to the argument is the idea that relations are more fundamental than things.
Here is a relevant quote:

'the important real patterns in science are not reducible to facts about the intrinsic properties or natures
of individual objects.'

So I do think Buddhist and Taoist insights like 'interdependance' and 'complementary opposition' were
quite visionary although I too would not use the term 'miraculous'. They not only claim that relations are
more fundamental than things, but also give us I think a very useful framework for thinking about how
inter-relations unfold.

7.

M. Jason ReddochFebruary 01, 2013 3:36 PM

Another ancient philosophical tradition that would have fit well into your group of three is pyhhronist
skepticism. Supposedly Pyrrho met some yogis or Buddhists while traveling with Alexander the Great
and then brought it back to Greece. I doubt that this is exactly what happened, but there is a good
chance that there was contact between Buddhists and Greek philosophers around the time of
Alexander.

8.

M. Jason ReddochFebruary 01, 2013 3:47 PM

Also, although I agree that Epicureanism seems more compatible with secular modern values, I'm not
crazy about this type of approach where one pics good guys and bad guys and then makes the winners
(i.e. The Epicureans) the friends of posterity (i.e. us). Secular academics (and especially classicists) tend
to view Epicureanism this way, and it's funny that they are not willing to forgive the Stoics for the logos
or the Buddhists for reincarnation, but they are willing to forgive Epicureans for the swerve and the
particularly odd notion that the gods do exist but for some reason don't care about people. Let's also
not forget that Epicurus said we have dreams about gods because little tiny flecks of matter float into
our heads from outer space. By contrast, one could praise the Stoics for the idea of the logos because it
recognizes a clear order to the universe, a basic idea that modern science presupposes.

I'm impressed that ancient philosophers had any notion of an atom at all, but the ancient epicurean
notion of something that literally cannot be cut (a-tom) is not only inconsistent but totally at odds with
modern physics (in which there really isn't any hard matter or indivisible stuff). At best the Epicureans
foreshadowed Newtonian physics.

In a similar way as modern people praise Epicurus for the atom, you could also praise Buddhists for
foreshadowing psychology.

1.

Massimo PigliucciFebruary 01, 2013 5:52 PM

Jason,

you make good points, but just to make clear: my intent here wasn't to pick a winner, it was to explore
the similarities and to see what can be retained as good and valuable. I don't actually subscribe to any of
these philosophies in their entirety.

2.

M. Jason ReddochFebruary 01, 2013 8:38 PM

Massimo,
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate what you wrote and think this is a worthwhile endeavor. I'm a classicist
who works a good bit on Hellenistic philosophy and also a practicing Buddhist with a more secular
perspective, so I'm happy to have the chance to engage in this kind of east-west dialogue. My criticism
was definitely not that you are subscribing to Epicureanism, but you did clearly pick out Epicureanism as
the most valuable of the three. Even as someone who practices Buddhism and has a bias, I wouldn't pick
out Buddhism as the best of the three. As you mention, one big difference is that unlike Buddhism,
Epicureanism and Stoicism do not have unbroken traditions extending to the present day. I find
incredibly valuable insight from all sorts of (often conflicting) philosophical traditions, and if Epicureans
and Stoics had living traditions and created facebook pages, I'd probably 'like' both of them. And I would
definitely 'friend' Plato AND Aristotle. :)

If you don't know it already, you should take a look at A. Kuzminski's book Pyrrhonism: How the Greeks
Invented Buddhism. I don't agree with his historical argument but he points out a lot of interesting
similarities between Greek skepticism and Buddhism. I did a review of it a while back. Thomas McEvilley
has also written on this topic.

3.

GadflyFebruary 06, 2013 12:56 PM

Better yet, Massimo, IMO, read Miles Burnyeat's book on the history of skepticism, "The Skeptical
Tradition," if you haven't.

4.

Stratos LaspasFebruary 17, 2013 2:23 AM

Thanks for the great post, Massimo!

On a similar point on similarities (pun intended), I was very impressed recently, when I found that
statements such as "as above, so below" or "all is mind", which I always thought were "eastern", where
in fact ancient Greek. Mixing cultures after Alexander the Great produced very interesting results!

1) http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/history/hellenistic.htm
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
3) http://www.historum.com/asian-history/23396-greco-buddhism-unknown-influence-contribution-
greeks.html

9.

Philip ThriftFebruary 01, 2013 7:19 PM

One aspect of Buddhism is that it might be receptive to paraconsistent logic and dialetheism, though it's
not entirely clear (interview with Graham Priest @ www.3ammagazine.com/3am/logically-speaking/).
That might be a valuable aspect of Buddhism that can be useful.
 10.

Mark EnglishFebruary 01, 2013 7:55 PM

Stoicism may have been officially banned in the 6th century, but, as ciceronianus points out, much of it
was incorporated into mainstream Christianity. I think we need to give some credit to Christian thinkers
and institutions, not only for saving Greek texts but also for keeping elements of Greek philosophy,
including Stoic ideas, alive.

And modern science, with its more applied focus than Greek science, was unarguably largely a product
of the Western Christian tradition.

Naturally we tend individually to favor this or that strand of past traditions. However, it may be better
not to see our cultural and intellectual history as providing a smorgasbord of ideas from which we can
pick and choose, but rather as a complex, changing whole, with good and bad, rational and superstitious
all mixed up together (and often interdependent).

11.

brainoilFebruary 02, 2013 10:16 PM

One thing I admire about Buddhism is that once you buy their basic premises that there is a cycle of
rebirth and karma, it is remarkably consistent. Christianity is a much simpler religion and it has far more
contradictions.

Anyway, according to the traditional account of Siddhartha Gautama's life, he walked out of his mothers
womb and declared "I will become the king of the three worlds", or something like that. That can't be
right.

About karma. I think most people don't understand how nominalist Buddha was. Karma is an abstract
concept, and it doesn't exist out there in the universe anymore than an abstract triagle exists out there
in the universe.I think in this respect, he was very much like wave-function non-realists, who believe
that the wave-function is not real, but just an abstract model that is useful in explaining and predicting
observations. The only problem is, in the case of the wave-function, there really are observations it
explains. In the case of karma, there is none. The concept of karma had been developed by other
philosophers even before Siddhartha Gautama was born. I think they started with the notion that bad
things must happen to bad people, so they invented karma. Since it is obvious that this is not the case,
that good things happen to bad people sometimes and bad things happen to good people, they invented
samsara to explain that. Buddha took those concepts and refined them into a consistent body of
knowledge. In fact,I believe once he even took 64 other philosophies and explained why they were
wrong.
About non-self(anatman) and rebirth, yes there is a contradiction. I'm not sure why Buddha rejected the
notion of self (atman). It's one of those things that he realized while meditating. The idea is that self is
an illusion. This raised questions like if it is an illusion, who is seeing that illusion? Who feels like he has
memory and so on. To be honest, this is a challege even modern science face, in my opinion. None of my
constituent quarks has the same quantum state it had just a fraction of a second ago. In seven years, all
my cells will be replaced with new ones. So who am I? Why do I feel like there is some personal
continuity going on? No matter how difficult it is for science, it is even more difficult for Buddhism, due
to this rebirth thing.

12.

OneDayMoreFebruary 03, 2013 1:43 AM

Interesting post. You still haven't mentioned Owen Flanagan, though. Hmmm.

I think Buddhism has what I call the three ignoble lies: Karma, reincarnation and ineffable
enlightenment. Any system of thought that relies on these things (let alone the devils, and spirits of, say,
Tibetan Buddhism) cannot be considered a philosophy. It is, instead, a sneaky religion.

Flanagan makes a heroic attempt at an apologia of buddhism, and I think he fails. But at least he's very
lucid about the over reaching claims of brain studies purporting to prove that "mindfullness" and
"meditation" are the key to happiness.

13.

Massimo PigliucciFebruary 03, 2013 11:31 AM

Seth,

> Central to the argument is the idea that relations are more fundamental than things. <

Yes, Im familiar with Ross (and Ladymans) arguments for ontic structural realism, but, again, to draw
parallels between these ideas and Buddhism is similar to claim great insights for the Epicureans into
modern physics. I think its a stretch because the meanings of the terms used in modern physics vs those
ancient philosophies are very different, and because those philosophers had nothing like an articulated
theory (let alone empirical evidence!) for what they were claiming. At best these parallels are curious
footnotes to the history of human thought, but shouldnt be taken as a serious accomplishments of said
philosophies.

OneDay,
I dont mention Flanagan in the same way I dont mention any modern philosophers. The post was
simply meant to be a summary of my own musings on these three philosophies. That said, I do agree
with your take on karma, reincarnation and so forth. One of the reasons I dont like attempts like that of
Flanagan is because I think they are bound to be forced, picking, choosing and reinterpreting. And
whatever comes out at the other hand is nothing like Buddhism, Stoicism, or other ancient philosophies.
But that doesnt mean we should retain whatever positive insights those traditions had, and incorporate
them into *new* philosophies of our own making.

1.

mufiFebruary 03, 2013 2:02 PM

For whatever it's worth, I recall that Flanagan admits (e.g. in The Bodhisattva's Brain) that it might be
more appropriate to call "naturalized Buddhism" (i.e. the outcome of his naturalistic analysis of Buddhist
concepts) something other than "Buddhism."

After all, his stated objective is basically to separate the (philosophical) wheat from all of the
(superstitious) chaff.

That said, one can make too much out of the semantics here. If nothing else, it is a linguistic
convenience to describe, say, Gautama's version of virtue ethics as "Buddhist", so as to distinguish it
from, say, Aristotle's version. But if that's still too vague, then that's what adjectives are for (e.g.
"naturalized" and "secular").

BTW, Flanagan himself makes this comparison & contrast between the virtue ethics of Gautama (a.k.a.
"The Buddha") and Aristotle - particularly in how they each defined & envisioned well-being/flourishing.
I found it most enlightening (so to speak).

2.

dougsmithFebruary 03, 2013 2:33 PM

My main problem with Flanagan's approach is that he tried to find a single definition of happiness that
fit all of the multifarious sorts of Buddhism that have propagated down the millennia, from the Pali
Canon and Theravada tradition to Nagarjuna; from Mahayana and the old Tibetan tradition to
contemporary sociopolitical figureheads like the Dalai Lama. I think that's too big and undefined a
project, one that lends itself to oversimplification and misunderstanding. I'm not at all convinced there is
a single, simple definition of "Happiness-Buddha" that covers them. And if there is, a whole lot more
work needs to be done to find it.

Re. "picking, choosing, and reinterpreting" as Massimo puts it, that should be our aim in any approach to
contemporary philosophy and practice:
http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/01/29/on-subtracting-what-you-dont-like/

The issue for contemporary western philosophers, I think, is the near-complete unfamiliarity with the
Buddhist tradition, particularly in its earliest and most rigorous elements. The western tradition has
pretty well digested Hellenism over the last few centuries since the Renaissance, and philosophers like
Plato and Aristotle go farther back, forming a central part of Christian theology. Before we begin picking
and choosing from the East, let's at least get some detailed understanding of what was said and why.
Although people like Flanagan have made a start, I think much more needs to be done.

(And BTW, I assume, Massimo, that you meant to say "that doesn't mean we *shouldn't* retain
whatever positive insights those traditions had". Of course, in that we are in complete agreement).

Re. Buddhist notions of happiness, I've hung back a bit on the question of nirvana, since it's thorny. But
there is nothing that demands we take it as any more mystical or ineffable than Aristotle's eudaimonia.

3.

Massimo PigliucciFebruary 03, 2013 2:36 PM

Doug,

Indeed, I meant that we should be able to retain whatever has value in the project of updating or
building philosophies!

4.

Seth_blogFebruary 03, 2013 4:23 PM

Massimo,
I know of your familiarity with Ladyman & Ross as it was through your blog that I became aware. Thanks
for that.

It may be my philosophical naivite, but I think the the Taoist idea of complentary opposition is much
more than a curious footnote. My understanding is that Bohr and Pauli were both interested in the
writings of Lao Tsu. It seems to me there is applicability across the sciences. Terrence Deacons model of
life from non-life is based on the idea of systems complementing each other through mutual constraint.
In phisiology the general pattern of negative feedback systems reflect the same principle.

Whenever ideas have regions of conflict, like those you recently discussed between utilitarianism and
virtue ethics I think there is often a usefulness to be found in the way they necessarily mutually
constrain each other. I also think this concept can help us to see the value in uncertainty and to guard
against the confirmation bias.
Others here are better equipped to the discuss the Buddhist principle of interdependence then me. I
may be stretching the Taoist concept of complementary support but I don't think I am. Just as the
argument in realism points to the unreasonable effectiveness of science, I think that the principle of
complementary support has an unreasonable reach of applicability.

I'm not a Taoist but am biased towards this particular concept.

5.

GadflyFebruary 05, 2013 10:07 AM

To Doug Smith .... and Buddhism wasn't the only "reform movement" ca 600-500 BCE. There was an
Indian skeptic movement, there was Jainism, and then there was reform within Hinduism.

14.

Mark SloanFebruary 03, 2013 3:01 PM

Massimo, it is an interesting proposal that all three philosophies advocate limited social engagement
specifically because they arose and thrived in times of social and political turmoil.

However, as social animals, the biology based components of our emotional experience of durable well-
being were selected for by the reproductive fitness benefits of engagement in groups. So I expect that
achieving durable well-being is unlikely without some level of social engagement. This does not
contradict your point about the three philosophies limited social engagement. But it does suggest that
the most prudent take-away message is to optimize social engagement group size for the local social
circumstances, and I would add individual personality, rather than blindly adopt the level of engagement
originally advocated in a different age.

Understanding durable well-being and what to do to maximize it is nicely illuminated by the goals of
the three philosophies as you describe them: Stoic apatheia or peace of mind, Epicurean ataraxia or
tranquility, and Buddhist nirvana or cessation of craving and ignorance. My thoughts on how to
increase durable well-being in a culture have been focused on optimizing enforced cultural norms
(moral codes) regarding engagement with other people to maximize the benefits (mainly the
psychological benefits) of that engagement. Your post reminds me of the obvious importance to
personal durable well-being, independent of enforced moral codes, of our internal attitudes toward our
circumstances as advocated by the three philosophies.

15.
IlkkaFebruary 03, 2013 4:16 PM

Epicurus didn't advocate social disengagement. He advocated disengagement from _politics_. And for a
good reason: in his time politics was lethal... literally. Instead he urged people to be good friends and
neighbors, to follow justice, and in general to "live unnoticed." It was much better for ataraxia than
wanton meddling in politics.

The reason that you think that the only social engagement Epicureans had was criticism of religion, is
that christianity was a main target... This bias has nothing to do with Epicurus' actual philosophy.

And finally the reason that these three resemble each other is that by Epicurus' time there was flow of
people and ideas between Greece and India through the campaigns of Alexander the Great, and because
Epicureanism was influential on stoicism, e.g. Marcus Aurelius is about fifty-fifty Epicurean and stoic.

1.

Massimo PigliucciFebruary 03, 2013 11:53 PM

Ilkka,

You are correct, but to me disengagement from politics means disengagement from a large chunk of the
social. And yes, it is sensible advice in turbulent times, but certainly a rather passive way to deal with
those times.

2.

IlkkaFebruary 04, 2013 8:07 AM

Passive perhaps. But what were the risks? Socrates was _voted_ to death. The original 'democracy' in
action... And it says much of Socrates' sanity that he accepted the sentence. This is the type of politics
that was the norm in Epicurus' time. And by 'passivity' he survived in the same city to leave behind a
school that lasted 600 years. I don't think that 'passive' is the correct word here.

Today the stakes of politics might not be as high on an individual level, but they are harmful
nonetheless. For instance, the teaching of evolution in the US is threatened by politics in Texas,
women's rights are in peril because misogynists are still being elected into office... Here in Finland we
just had _two_ major corruption trials end. An MP was found guilty and sentenced to prison
(suspended)... And he is _still_ an MP.

If politics were an important chunk of the social (which it isn't), it would be a chunk *deserving* of being
cut out.
 3.

Tom D.February 05, 2013 11:24 AM

Ilkka,

May I butt-in on this conversation?...

Isn't politics inescapable? If you try to make a statement that is non-political, you *implicitly* make a
political statement in favor of the status quo (things are fine the way they are -- no need to comment on
them). Not to comment on Slavery as it is going on all around you is to implicitly condone Slavery.

You point out the deleterious effects of politics (anti-evolution groups, women's rights in peril) -- but
aren't the effects of non-action just as deleterious (or more so?) Dante said that the darkest places in
hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis.

Remember, women only recently *obtained* their rights in the U.S. through political action. Evolution is
taught today due in part to political action (the Monkey Trial, etc.).

It seems to me that rights aren't handed out due to the kindness of the ruling class, but are won by hard
fought political action -- that's how Slavery was ended, and most rights obtained in the first place.

It seems to me that people who advocate cutting politics out of the picture are lobbying for the
preservation of the status quo -- a very politically conservative message.

4.

IlkkaFebruary 05, 2013 11:37 PM

Tom,

I think your definition of politics is too broad, and so the concept becomes empty. If anything and
everything is political, then nothing is...

I'm sure that you've commented on many ills of this world, but which have you not? And therefore you
have condoned them? I don't think that non-commenting can be seen as condoning in any important
sense. It simply isn't humanly possible to systematically comment on every aspect of the world. You
must take a stand on the issues that come across _your_ life, but that isn't politics... it's ethics.

Dante's words, as well as any hell, are fiction. I have _never_ come across a situation where politics was
ahead of morality... most often it's dead weight slowing ethical progress. And I'm sure that politics has
caused more moral crises than it has ever solved.

Women didn't gain their rights... they've had all the rights since the days of Homo Habilis. What they
gained was freedom from the political suppression of their rights. Democracy is a terrifying thing when
it's fueled by misogyny and sense of entitlement. Epicurus' school, btw, had equality for women from
the beginning (by cutting out politics).

If everyone ceased doing politics (as the Epicureans urge) the status quo would be swept away
overnight. The first thing to go would be the power of lobbyists...

5.

Tom D.February 06, 2013 10:44 AM

Illka,

I dont mean to be argumentative. I am interested in what you write, and would like you to clarify some
things if you would.

You wrote,
You must take a stand on the issues that come across _your_ life, but that isn't politics... it's ethics.

How do you distinguish between politics and taking a stand on ethical issues? Epicurus himself said,
Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering. It would seem
to me that making an argument with a view towards relieving human suffering is a bona fide example of
politics.

If my definition of politics is too broad, isnt your definition too narrow?

You seem to equate politics with everything evil, and forget that politics can lead to many positive
changes. (i.e. the establishment of teaching evolution, not just political criticism of the teaching of
evolution).

I read this article (Epicurus on Politics: So What?, see

http://shaunmiller.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/epicurus-on-politics-so-what/)

Im not expert enough on Epicurus to know if the author accurately summed up the Epicurian
philosophy, but the article indicates that Epicurus believed that politics never leads to any meaningful
change and should be avoided for that reason.

What is your point of view on political comment vs. ethical comment? Do you agree with the notion that
politics never leads to meaningful change?
Thanks for your comments.

6.

IlkkaFebruary 08, 2013 4:34 PM

"How do you distinguish between politics and taking a stand on ethical issues?"

Taking a stand is a question of speech: Stating one's opinion, Approving or disapproving an action or
statement, etc.
Politics is a matter of acting to effect the government: lobbying, calling elected representatives, trying to
run for office, trying to effect legislation... etc.

Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering.

Epicurus' statement here is more broad than mere politics. Philosophy was for him a kind of mental
hygiene: the cleaning away beliefs and irrational fears that cause suffering. The warning against politics
is a part of this relieving of suffering. In general, politics tend to cause more suffering than solve it, so we
should refrain from it.

"If my definition of politics is too broad, isnt your definition too narrow?"

Perhaps narrow, but I haven't seen a convincing argument that my (or Epicurus') definition is 'too'
narrow. To me it makes a practical distinction between politics and not-politics, without leaving out
anything important.

"You seem to equate politics with everything evil, and forget that politics can lead to many positive
changes."

There are many things that are 'evil' but not political. Discussion here is about politics, though.

I don't deny that some effects of politics can be positive, but I deny that politics are a _necessary_
condition of such effects. The dangerous thing about politics is that if you seek positive things through it,
you *must* accept the negatives too. If you want to be consistent in your beliefs, that is... Letting
politics control the teaching of science (e.g. evolution) is to make it a game of popularity. And when you
lose that game you have only yourself to blame. Never let the wrong side define the rules... :)

"http://shaunmiller.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/epicurus-on-politics-so-what/)"

Epicurus' argument against politics in general was wider than merely lack of "meaningful change". There
was also the factor of letting other people dominate your Happiness, and pursuit thereof. For instance,
it's harmful to the politician to place their life, work, status, livelihood, self-esteem, etc. in the hands of
voters (they are a fickle lot, vulnerable to the propaganda of others... *coughfoxnewscough*). It's
equally harmful for the voters to put their lives in the hands of the politicians... who are vulnerable to
the lobbyists.

"What is your point of view on political comment vs. ethical comment?"

A comment is a comment... and most comments can be seen as both. There is little to be gained by
trying to define individual comments either way. Generally the criterion should be action taken on the
comment.

"Do you agree with the notion that politics never leads to meaningful change?"

No, I don't. 'Never' is an absolute. And only the Sith deal in absolutes.

16.

Mike HollidayFebruary 03, 2013 6:07 PM

You can add to the list the Taoism of Chuang Tzu, who wrote in the era known as The Warring States
Period (475-221 BCE). There is the same negative attitude to the emotions, limited social engagement,
and rejection of political involvement.

On the emotions, I prefer the rather more nuanced approach of the novelist J G Ballard, who once
wrote: "I believe in the death of the emotions and the triumph of the imagination." Provocative stuff!
The point is that, unlike the imagination, the emotions channel our actions onto well-determined paths
(that's precisely why we have them!) They're all right in their place - the immediate family, say - but in
the 21st century they restrict us. Particularly fear, anger, and desire. "They reinforce the status quo.
They set up a kind of tyranny rather like the psychology of a very small child, which may be entirely
governed by passionate emotions that are in fact very limiting." There seems to be a lot of that in
political discussions ...

17.

Brantley MoateDecember 23, 2013 8:54 PM

Your understanding of karma is incorrect. It is the oversimplified Western view of Karma. Rather than try
and explain, I think it is just easiest to point you toward this Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism