Beyond Good and Evil · Chapter
7 explained
The narrator explores the malice of philosophers, using Epicurus's stinging joke about Plato and the Platonists as a prime example.
What happens
The narrator explores the malice of philosophers, using Epicurus's stinging joke about Plato and the Platonists as a prime example. The joke labels them as 'flatterers of Dionysius' (tyrants' accessories) and 'actors,' attacking their grandiose, theatrical style—a style Epicurus lacked. The chapter questions whether Greece ever truly understood the 'garden-god' Epicurus, hinting at hidden motives like rage and envy behind his prolific writings.
Themes in this chapter
Critique of Traditional Philosophy
Exposes philosophical malice and the performative, inauthentic aspects of a major tradition (Platonism).
Psychology as the Fundamental Science
Probes the hidden psychological motives (envy, rage, ambition) behind Epicurus's attack and prolific writing.
Characters to notice
- Epicurus
Portrayed as malicious and envious; his joke ('Dionysiokolakes') attacks Plato's theatricality. He is the 'old schoolteacher of Samos' who wrote prolifically, possibly from 'rage and ambitious envy.'
- Plato
Target of Epicurus's joke; associated with a 'grandiose manner' and 'mise-en-scène style' that Epicurus scorned. Represents the theatrical, inauthentic philosopher.
- The Narrator
Introduces the theme of philosophical malice, analyzes Epicurus's motive, and poses a rhetorical question about historical understanding.
Key passages
“I know of nothing more stinging than the joke Epicurus took the liberty of making on Plato and the Platonists; he called them Dionysiokolakes.”
Epicurus's insult against Plato and his followers is the ultimate example of philosophical malice.
Establishes the chapter's core example.
“it is as much as to say, 'They are all actors , there is nothing genuine about them'”
The deeper meaning of the insult is that they are performers lacking authenticity.
Reveals the core accusation of inauthenticity.
“he was annoyed by the grandiose manner, the mise-en-scène style of which Plato and his scholars were masters—of which Epicurus was not a master!”
Epicurus's attack stemmed from irritation and envy towards Plato's theatrical, imposing style—a style he himself did not possess.
Analyzes the psychological motive behind the critique.
“He, the old schoolteacher of Samos, who sat concealed in his little garden at Athens, and wrote three hundred books, perhaps out of rage and ambitious envy of Plato, who knows!”
Epicurus, isolated in his garden, may have produced his vast body of work driven by bitter envy of Plato.
Speculates on the hidden drives behind philosophical production.
“Greece took a hundred years to find out who the garden-god Epicurus really was. Did she ever find out?”
It took Greece a century to begin to understand Epicurus's true nature, and even that understanding is questionable.
Ends with a question challenging historical perception and the philosopher's elusive essence.