Why a “New” Cyrenaicism?

It may interest some readers to know why we may adopt a “new” Cyrenaicism, and what is intended by this modifying adjective. I have in mind three distinct, yet entangled, reasons for adopting the label, and I’ll proceed from least to most essential. 

1. Walter Pater: 

It is no secret that my philosophical project is highly influenced by the aestheticism of Walter Pater, who dedicated a chapter in his historical novel Marius: The Epicurean to describing the protagonist’s ideological wrestling with quasi-hedonistic sensibilities and strong religio-moral intuitions, and he titled this important section “New Cyrenaicism”. Pater creatively reinterprets Cyrenaic doctrines to serve his narrative purposes, and in so doing, breathes new life and meaning into what is commonly regarded as a rather empty-headed sophistical movement. Although the popular shallow impression of Cyrenaicism is false, Marius’ complex adaptation of philosophical ideas nevertheless struck a chord with me, due not only to shared aesthetic concerns, but also because Pater builds up from the basic foundational principles of the ancient school while widening the scope of interest to address then-contemporary Victorian moral issues. Such a move is not only interesting and engaging, I believe it is also necessary, for reasons I will explore in the following sections. Moreover, when we investigate the evolution of Cyrenaicism in Greece, we find that this practice of creative reinterpretation was also a common historical process, with the schools of Theodorus, Anniceris, and Hegesias marking significant departures from the orthodox philosophy of the Metrodidact. For these inspirational reasons, I decided that New Cyrenaic was an appropriate label for my philosophic foundations, although my interests are significantly wider than Pater’s.

2. Modern Updates: 

Ancient Cyrenaicism died out somewhere in the 3rd Century BCE, and although the basic philosophical commitments remain timeless, our modern context calls for a fresh perspective on the Good Life, a re-evaluation of what is possible to us, and countless additional questions of application. In addition to surveying the situation afresh, there has also been incredible, revolutionary intellectual progress made in the intervening years. Our understanding of ourselves and the world around us is far superior to that of the Ancients, and we must adapt ourselves accordingly. We also face social, cultural, scientific, and interpersonal situations that Aristippus and his descendants could never have imagined. It would not only be ludicrous to dogmatically restrict our scope to that which interested early Cyrenaics, it would also be diametrically opposed to the core spirit of Cyrenaic practice. Although we do follow the foundational attitude of our philosophical ancestors, applying these insights to modern challenges requires significant interpretive development. Due to the requirements of an updated outlook, it is fitting to call our Cyrenaicism comparatively “new”. 

3. Philosophical Expansion:

Cyrenaic philosophy, while incredibly useful and clarifying as a foundational basis, is admittedly limited, which is both a strength and a weakness. Due to the main concerns of the original Cyrenaics, revolving around pragmatic ethical guidance, philosophical inquiry itself remained quite bare, and even the epistemology is comparatively underdeveloped. If we understand that the proper goal of life is not theoretical speculation, but engagement with the world in pursuit of happiness, we see that this emphasis of attention is both appropriate and necessary. Nevertheless, while this focus prevents idealistic dead-ends, and was not unusual for the early Greek context in which it appeared, philosophical theory has also developed significantly since the early Cyrenaics were active, and provides an opportunity to gain greater clarity and precision over our foundational commitments. We must also operate within the current theoretical paradigm, which contains far more precise terminology, original and updated argumentative styles, and a whole cast of competitive challengers. Even the systems that sprung up with near-contemporaries, such as those of the Academy, the Lyceum, or the Garden, offered a more sophisticated approach to systematising and justifying beliefs, and lacking a familiarity with other philosophical schools can place us at a disadvantage and cloud our judgement. In addition, while we could continue to fight the ghost of dead enemies, it is not really modern Stoics, Peripatetics, or Epicureans that we should be worried about critiquing, as the old Cyrenaics may have been. In today’s climate, these groups are better counted as allies, such is the shift of context and beliefs. Arriving at a deeper understanding of our own situation also provides practical and experiential benefits, both proactive and defensive. For this reason, the final goal of this project is to strengthen Cyrenaic philosophy through dialogue with other philosophical movements, while conducting an expansive and reconstructive investigation into the basic principles, in an effort to approach Cyrenaicism on an updated footing and enhance the ethical guidance this philosophy can supply, which is the true fruit of inquiry.