# XX: Against the Epicureans and Academics explained — Discourses

> Chapter companion for Discourses by Epictetus.

## What happens

Epictetus argues against Epicureans and Academics who deny objective truth, natural fellowship, and the reliability of the senses. He contends that even those who deny these things must use them in their arguments, revealing the self-contradictory nature of their positions. He criticizes Epicurus for undermining social bonds while still writing to persuade others, and the Academics for denying sense perception while relying on it in daily life. He warns that such teachings corrupt youth and undermine piety, justice, and civic virtue.

## Themes in this chapter

### Rationality and Self-Examination

Epictetus exposes the self-contradiction of those who deny truth or knowledge while using them in their own arguments, urging rational consistency.

### Social Duty and Friendship

He defends natural human fellowship against Epicurus' denial, arguing that social bonds are fundamental and must be preserved.

### Philosophy as Practical Discipline

Philosophy is not mere intellectual exercise but has real consequences for how one lives, affecting piety, justice, and civic life.

## Character check-ins

### Epictetus

The speaker who refutes Epicurean and Academic doctrines, emphasizing the self-evident nature of truth and human fellowship.

### Epicurus

Target of criticism for denying natural fellowship among rational beings while still writing to persuade others, thus contradicting himself.

### Lycurgus

Mentioned as the founder of Spartan laws and education, which instilled proper opinions about honor and duty.

### Zeus

Invoked by Epictetus in an exclamation about the futility of trying to convince those who are deaf to their own evils.

### Orestes

Compared to Epicurus: Orestes was agitated by the Erinyes, but Epicurus was roused by even more savage forces (nature) to write his doctrines.

## Key lines

> For instance, if a man should deny that there is anything universally true, it is plain that he must make the contradictory negation, that nothing is universally true.

If someone says nothing is universally true, they are still making a universal claim, which contradicts their own statement.

_Epictetus uses the classic self-refutation argument against skeptics._

> Thus Epicurus also mutilated all the offices of a man, and of a father of a family, and of a citizen and of a friend, but he did not mutilate human desires, for he could not;

Epicurus tried to strip away human roles like father, citizen, and friend, but he could not remove the natural desires that come with being human.

_Epictetus argues that human nature is inescapable, even for those who try to deny it._

> What a shame is this: when a man has received from nature measures and rules for the knowing of truth, and does not strive to add to these measures and rules and to improve them, but just the contrary, endeavors to take away and destroy whatever enables us to discern the truth?

It is disgraceful that humans, given natural tools for finding truth, try to dismantle those very tools instead of using them.

_Epictetus criticizes the Academics for undermining the senses and reason._

## Links

- HTML: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/discourses_se/chapters/xx-against-the-epicureans-and-academics
- Book: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/discourses_se
- All chapters: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/discourses_se/chapters