Friendship as a Commodity

Epicurus initiates his Principal Doctrines with an allusion to complacency and anti-activism. For one to be happy and eternal, one must avoid trouble by never causing trouble. The epicurean idea of escaping pain and fear to obtain happiness in itself provides a basis for nihilism and self-imposed ignorance. The tranquility defining his ideal state of mind necessitates the construction of human and ideological barriers to protect the mind against the caustic winds of social reality. I point this out because Epicurus focuses much on security, but never explicitly states the objects he believes need protecting. To Epicurus, one is justified using any means to protect one’s self from other humans. To this end, he not only means physical protection, but also mental protection. There is a distinction though, between which protection is needed more. Pain, he says, is a short lived experience for the body; a negligible phenomenon when compared to the amount of pleasure one procures in a lifetime. Mental injury, however, must produce significant damage. When one is introduced to a social philosophy that causes mental turbulence, tranquility may not be a reality again until social unrest is quelled. In the majority of social movements, this means revolution or at least change of some sort. Often, the unrest is produced by seemingly unjust laws. To this, Epicurus provides a defense of seemingly unjust laws by saying truly, any law that has proven to be just in at least one example was good. It may become unjust, but because of its usefulness at some point, who are we to complain? Epicurus wants us to avoid conflict. For the people that cannot in any way agree with us, that are opposed to us, we should not confront them; instead, we should distance ourselves. We should ignore the problem. More than anything, Epicurus wants to avoid ideological clashing. We need protection from influences and thoughts that may arouse in us a sense of action. Thus, he believes the most essential defense against those forces are friends. These friends are acquired via the individual’s wisdom, which I might argue are the individual’s beliefs. In order to uphold peace of mind, those friends most likely agree with the individual’s beliefs. Thus, the more friends one has, the better protected one becomes from external disagreements. One’s mind becomes sheltered from differing thought. One’s arguments are not political; instead, they are material, hollow, and unproductive. One does not gain anything from these friends. The friends are instead a commodity. An environment where one can continue believing everything is good, is right, is just. The friends are not to produce happiness, but to reduce fear of opposition. Is this what we believe the function of friendship should be? Is this why we agree with him that friendship is important?