Modern Epicureans as Anti-intellectuals

Current argument by some claim that there are certain matters settled and beyond dispute.  I agree that some issues come under this group:  the distance of the sun from the Earth, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  There are hundreds of others.  But there are some problems which science, for example, faces which are at least questionable. 

Lets change subjects for a moment and think about the ideas of Marcus Tullius Cicero.  He wrote a book, On the Nature of the Gods in 45 BC.  It consists of a dialogue between Cicero, his friends, Balbus, Velleius and Cotta.  Cicero narrates but hardly participates in the discussion.  As though he sits at the side, follows the conversation and thinks of what is said.

Velleius submits the argument of the Epicureans who argued that only things exist. And these things, atoms are constantly shifting about and that no object ever remains the same.  He carries his argument to all areas. God does not exists for God does not consist of atoms.  The ideas in your head can not be the same as those in mine.  Pleasure and pain determine how we act, why we act (because only atoms, physical objects interact).  Thus we seek pleasure but avoid pain.  No one does something for country because it is right but because there is some personal advantage for doing so.  Such as saving the country to protect one’s own property.  Any argument or piece of litarature outside of these limits is not worthy of study.

One of the characters in the dialogue, Balbus, a Stoic, critiques Velleius’ points.  Balbus makes the case that Epicureanism tends to be dogmatic- here is the list of what is true, learn it and then one will know; that here is no need for knowledge outside of what the senses provide, because Epicurus (the founder of Epicureanism) has transmitted to all posterity what is true and what is false; that Epicurus saw no need for examining any other system of thought or anyone else’s ideas; that any system which disputes Epicurus is not just wrong, but foolish; that Epicureanism has the tendency to argue that the matter is settled and case is closed.  Balbus is extensive in his arguments to refute Velleius and Epicureanism.  

But all this leads to a question about Epicureanism.  If it had gained ascendency and had the power to enforce its views, would it be tolerant of different views?  After all does dogma see any need for dispute?  Epicureanism never says that it appears to be correct but that it is correct. 

At the end of the dialogue, Cicero says that he favors the Stoics but realizes that upon further study, he may change his mind.

My concerns is that if only things exist and constantly change how can love or justice or courage be nailed down?  It would be like nailing jelly to a tree (as Dick Goddard used to say). In fact how can any aspect of life be understood in any way except as objects of matter?

It seems to me that modern liberals (I despise the use of that word- it is derived from Latin, liber-free, al- pertaining to. pertaining to the essence of what freedom is.  But it is the word in vogue, so here we go.)  modern liberals are much like the followers of Epicurus.  First they are followers, they deny any value to an idea which questions theirs.  They hurl snide remarks at those who offer a different perspective (as Velleius does in Cicero’s book), there is no need for discussion, no need for debate and certainly no need for study of anything but accepted liberal views.  In the end Epicureans and modern liberals are curiously anti-intellectual.  And had they ascended to indisputable preeminence, no ideas but their own would be tolerated.

It is interesting and telling that Epicureans saw little of value in Cicero’s ideas.  Yet, it was Cicero who took advantage of an opportunity to save the school in Athens which Epicurus set up, because Cicero felt that all systems of thought deserved a reading and study.  Ironic is it not?  Or is it?