Epicurus and International Relations: In Search of the ‘World Garden’

Introduction

Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis said regarding International Relations Theory that it is ‘a field that has troubles enough of its own without my adding to them’ (Gaddis 2007: xi). International Relations Theory as a discipline aims to justify and explain the global system of nation-states in which we exist today. However, the idea of theory itself is problematic, and that of International Relations Theory even more so (Buzan 2018: 392–395). Orthodox International Relations Theories suffer from severe historical, ontological, and epistemological deficiencies (Walker 2022: 181–190) and are proving increasingly ill-equipped to deal with the fluidity of global politics (Ahmed 2011: 343–349). Early critiques of these theories emerged from within the same theoretical paradigms as those theories (Acharya 2011: 623–626) and, as such, suffered from the same assumptions that made mainstream theories unsuitable. The subsequently arisen Critical Theories in International Relations, such as Feminist International Relations and Green International Theory, have made many a successful prognosis of crises in International Politics, but have been observed to increasingly devolve into academia for academia’s sake (Jahn 2021: 1288–1290). In many ways, the current domination of Critical Theories in International Relations Theory has made the discipline more parochial and reductive than before (Sylvester 2013: 610–615).

The contemporary discipline of International Relations is characterized by a small number of theoretical perspectives that share multiple convergences and are not significantly dissimilar from one another (Smith 2013: 8). One thing that all these mainstream perspectives share is their intensive focus on the ‘state’ as the be-all and end-all of International Relations. This has caused the international structures of security, law, polity, economy, and organization to become distant from the human element (Peterson 2022: 31–32). This has further led to a trivialization of the value of human life and the normalization of large-scale state-enacted violence (Wilcox 2015: 17–29).

Dogmatic acceptance of mainstream theories has led to International Relations becoming a hollow discipline that can no longer be relied upon to explain ground-level changes in global realities (Snyder 2004: 61–62). This has led to mainstream International Relations becoming a misanthropic discipline, where institutions have become more important than humans themselves. The isolation of the political self within the international system is more prominent than ever before, characterized by the lack of concern for human lives in conflicts, whose continuance is encouraged for perpetuating the power of the nation-states and their ruling dispensations (Abozaid 2025: 11–14). Therefore, the need arises to constitute new theories that redefine the parameters of engagement for citizens in global politics. This article argues for the development of perspectives that enable ‘the people’ to re-enter International Relations. This process may take the form of starting from scratch by formulating new paradigms or revisiting the past for previously undiscovered insights (Keene 2017: 342–343). This article takes the latter direction to address the aforementioned issues.

By turning to Epicurus, we attempt to derive insights that will solve this ‘misanthropic gap’ in International Relations. Epicurus was an ancient Greek sage who pioneered one of the most important non-Socratic philosophical schools of thought in the Hellenistic world, which was later called ‘Epicureanism.’ Most of his works have not survived, yet even his limited corpus elicited reactions in the form of both criticism and praise from a wide range of intellectuals, ranging from Plutarch and Cicero to Marx and J.S. Mill. Epicurus was a critic of mainstream social traditions and dogmatic beliefs. He was a firm advocate for rationalism and encouraged prudence and empiricism among his followers. At the core of his philosophy was the idea that human beings could control their destinies and shape their lives in a way that would ensure peace for all individuals. He taught that humans were the locus and focus of their own existence. The Epicurean perspectives on the state, society, justice, and security help us enrich and augment our understanding of modern global politics by shifting the focus from institutions to individuals. By employing a qualitative and interpretivist framework to conduct a conceptual analysis of the primary sources of Epicurus and later Epicureans, in conjunction with subsequent scholarly exegesis, this article theorizes a new approach to International Relations. This Epicurean Theory of International Relations reimagines the meaning and potential of security in global politics, helping us evolve new standpoints to assess the changes in the international system.

Note on Sources

Primary sources regarding Epicurus are scarce. The most important among these are the Kyriai Doxai (cited as KD), a set of Epicurean sayings collated by Diogenes Laertius, and the Vatican Sayings (cited as SV), which were found in a manuscript in the Vatican Library in the late 19th century. Other works of Epicurus include the letters he wrote to Menoeceus, Pythocles, Herodotus, and Idomeneus. The recently discovered Herculaneum Papyri writings are still being deciphered. Most are attributed to Epicurus, though some belong to later Epicureans, such as Philodemus. Directly referenced translations of Epicurus’s writings are derived from Fundamental Books of Epicurus: Principal Doctrines, Vatican Sayings, and Letters (2021), translated by R.D. Hicks and R. Medeiros. References for fragments of Epicurean writings are derived from Hermann Usener’s Epicurea (1887).

Literature Review

Modern scholarship has long dismissed Epicurean thought because Hellenic figures such as Plutarch and Cicero, as well as church theologians, were very critical of Epicureanism. Will Durant’s famous The Story of Philosophy (1926) makes a passing reference to Epicureanism as an ‘apathetic acceptance of defeat.’ The recognition of Epicurus as a thinker with enduring relevance began with A.A. Long and David Sedley’s The Hellenistic Philosophers (1987). Epicurus was accorded further recognition in academia due to the efforts of scholars such as Tim O’Keefe and Norman W. DeWitt.

From an International Relations standpoint, works on Epicurus are almost nonexistent. Molloy (2009) did examine how Epicurus’s influence shaped Hans Morgenthau’s ethics in International Relations. However, this article is concerned with the adaptation of Epicurean ideals in realist ethics rather than with providing a standalone Epicurean framework in International Relations.

The primary debate in Epicurean studies within the current milieu is centered around Epicureanism’s rejection of public life and insistence on living unnoticed (Lathe Biosas). However, the notion that Epicureanism is devoid of politics has been subsequently disproven by Schofield (2008), Brown (2009), Morel (2014), Christensen (2020), Roskam (2020), and Erler (2020). Another notable aspect of Epicureanism is its notion of justice. The modalities of Epicurean justice were covered by Chroust (1953), Armstrong (1997), O’Keefe (2001), and Thrasher (2013).

However, all the aforementioned works are concerned with Epicurean views on political philosophy and do not address International Relations. For the most part, there is no prior published work on proposing or expounding an Epicurean perspective on International Relations.

The Framework of Epicurean Philosophy

Epicurus remains one of the most influential theorists in the realms of metaphysics, ethics, and multiple other philosophical disciplines. Epicurus’s thought is characterized as Mechanist, Sensationalist, Materialist, and Atomist, which posits that the world consists of tangible particles that interact with each other through mechanical forces, these forces being experienced via sense perception. Epicurus was a Hedonist who believed that what was pleasurable was good and vice versa (Letter to Menoeceus, 129–130). However, he qualified hedonism with rationalism and prudence. Epicurean hedonism is more refined and moderated than other types of hedonistic thought.

The core aim of Epicurean ideation is Ataraxia. An exact translation of this concept is difficult, but it loosely refers to the complete absence of mental tribulations. The absence of bodily threats, which Epicurus called Aponia, is also important but takes a subsidiary role to Ataraxia. To attain Ataraxia is to seek contentment through freedom from disturbance and harassment concerning both the physical and mental faculties. The fulfillment or nonfulfillment of desires shapes the path to Ataraxia. Epicurus categorized desires into three categories: (a) natural and necessary, (b) natural though not necessary, and (c) neither natural nor necessary (KD 29, SV 20). The Epicureans shall primarily concern themselves with the fulfilment of natural and necessary desires (such as food, water, and shelter) because they are intrinsically pleasurable and can satisfy a person without the need to consider injunctions or conjunctions with other factors. Epicurean sages may, if they have the means, indulge in natural but not necessary desires, such as sex or desserts. However, Epicurus clearly states that sages must not, under any circumstances, seek the fruition of unnatural and unnecessary desires, such as fame or political power, which have no limitation or point of saturation. The pleasures obtained through such an exercise would do nothing except ruin one’s attempts at obtaining Ataraxia (Morel 2014: 472–475).

Ataraxia requires humans to develop prudence to distinguish between the various classes of pleasure. Prudence emerges from the human capacity to reason. Reasoning from an Epicurean standpoint is nothing but the organization of experiences by processing them in order. Epicurus is an empiricist because he believes that all our beliefs and knowledge are based on our personal sensory experiences. Epicureanism believes that all our ways of thought rely on the psychological implications of past experiences. Knowledge, to Epicureans, is an experiential organization of phenomena that aids in the advancement of ethical activity. Epicurus suggests that people will seek their own pleasure but will later develop the faculties to use their reason and realize that they need to cooperate with others in order to lead fruitful lives. This will encourage them to form a society based on their recognition of mutual needs. So, Epicurus also proposes that all functioning societies are founded on reason itself. One who masters the art of reason through the method of classifying phenomena based on experiences and uses it to achieve ethical perfection becomes an ‘Epicurean Sage’ (Cooper 1999: 486, 496–504). Therefore, Epicurus remarks, ‘the beginning and the greatest good is prudence … for from prudence are sprung all the other virtues’ (Molloy 2009: 103).

Epicurus on Human Nature, Society, State, and Justice

Epicurus and His Garden

Epicurus was active between the fall of Alexander’s empire and the rise of the Roman Republic. He was concerned with the degeneracy of humans in his contemporary society. He reasoned that humans could not reach their maximum potential due to fear and irrationality, which were often encouraged by religion, superstition, and other systems of false knowledge. To Epicurus, freedom from fear was essential for attaining Ataraxia, and this fearlessness necessitated abandoning conventional politics and developing a parallel mode of communal existence.

To realize this goal, Epicurus created his ‘Garden’ or Kêpos outside Athens, where he and the community of his followers lived. Slaves and women were not only allowed in the Garden but also played a crucial part in its vision for society (Fletcher 2012: 72–75). By living separately in a community of like-minded friends, Epicurus advocated for creating a public space beyond the confines of the polis, where the customs, laws, hierarchies, and politics of mainstream civilization did not hold weight (Christensen 2020: 314–316). The Garden is a commune of sages, acting as a fearless space outside the confines of idiosyncratic authority, where justice exists in self-perpetuation and people do not act on momentary impulses but on prudential wisdom.

Epicurus’s Garden is not only an ancient social experiment but also symbolizes the fulfillment of the conditions required for Ataraxia (Long 2006: 179). The location of the Garden outside the city embodies the fact that since there is no permanent social system for perpetual prosperity, an alternative apparatus can be created to attain happiness through reclusive living with true friends, in which all relations are governed by prudence, affection, and trust. Benjamin Farrington postulated that the Epicurean Garden is a form of society in which the state has already ‘withered away’ and that its ‘simple form of state was natural’ (Farrington 1967: 27).

The Epicurean community is primarily distinguished from other forms of social organization in that its members are together due to friendship (Philia), which is distinct from the traditional idea of ‘civic friendship’ of just getting along with each other (Brown 2009: 182–183). True Epicurean friendship is such that one friend does not feel that their survival is threatened by the other in any way (Armstrong 1997: 325).

Diogenes of Oenoanda explains that in an Epicurean Garden, people will live in true justice and mutual love, which means that laws will no longer be needed since they are required only for protection against harm, which is not a concern in the Garden (Armstrong 1997: 325–326). Justice in the Garden is independent of laws, as there is no threat of retaliation for disobeying rules; yet, people continue to follow the conventions out of prudence and mutual benefit (Brown 2009: 192–194). These conventions are not formally set up but instead arise from a tacit agreement to refrain from harming others due to the realization that harm to one person would disrupt Ataraxia for all members of the Garden (KD 32–34).

Christensen (2020) states that the Garden offers better security to its members than other political communities for three reasons. First, its constituents care for each other’s well-being as much as their own (SV 15), and they will seek to practice their Epicurean beliefs together to ‘live as gods among people’ (Letter to Menoeceus, 135). Second, because the Garden’s membership is not limited to free male citizens, it brings together everyone in pursuing Ataraxia, including women and slaves. This makes the Garden egalitarian and allows for the sharing of resources between them as and when needed. Finally, it secures justice by ensuring that its citizens practice prudence and avoid harming one another, rather than through a legal system of negative sanctions (Christensen 2020: 308–315).

Since Epicureans are expected to have controlled their desires, they should be able to produce all that they need within the Garden. The focus on basic needs allows the Garden to gain relative independence from the outside world. Not only do the Epicurean denizens not require any physical assistance from the outside, but their self-sufficiency also extends to being emotionally, socially, and politically independent from external entities. The simplicity of the Garden’s lifestyle frees its members from becoming subject to the rules of mobs or kings (SV 67) and grants them absolute personal security through the valuable virtues of wisdom and true friendship (Roskam 2020: 381–382). The members produce resources communally and consume them in a manner that prevents overindulgence; by sharing them based on individual need, which eliminates the urgency to compete for survival and uproots any cause of insecurity (Austin 2012: 120). Epicurus practically demonstrates the art of creating an alternative space that interacts with the outside world and performs the duties of civic existence (Roskam 2020: 383–391), all while not allowing the negative traits of public life to trespass into the communal space of the Epicurean Garden.

Anthropologists such as Clastres (1989), Sahlins (2017), and Stanish (2017) have demonstrated that state–society systems without centralized coercive law enforcement have existed and continue to exist among diverse groups worldwide. Consequently, the idea of an Epicurean Garden in the contemporary world, based on tacit agreement and shared consensus, cannot be dismissed as a utopian pipe dream. Epicurus himself believed that a Garden Community is possible across time and space, irrespective of scale:

Those who were best able to provide themselves with the means of security against their neighbours, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee, passed the most agreeable life in each other’s society. (KD 40)

Theorizing ‘Epicurean’ International Relations

It is essential to consider whether the application of Epicureanism to a 21st-century world may be an anachronism. The answer to this problem lies in the vast Modernist versus Ethno-symbolist debate. Modernists like Ernest Gellner believe that nation-states only emerged in the modern period and are limited to the paradigm of modernity. Ethno-symbolists, such as Anthony D. Smith, argue that the structures defining nation-states have premodern identifiers, such as ethnicity and culture, which have existed since the dawn of human civilization (Kerr 2021: 87–88). In Ethno-symbolism, nation-states have been enhanced by modernity but precede it. It is within this logic of argument that the Epicurean ideas of International Polity can be situated.

Epicurean International Relations places human beings and their communities at the center of analysis, and unlike structuralist International Relations frameworks, does not assume the state to be the sole locus of the discipline and its praxis. It rejects the notion that human nature is inherently insecure. While humans might be insecure at the start, as classical realists argue, their nature can be modified to control their senses and induce fearlessness, such that humans can override their instincts and secure Ataraxia by dissolving ignorance and assuming prudence. Epicurean International Relations emphasizes the ‘low’ politics of individuals and communities over the ‘high’ politics of states and world organizations. Epicurean International Relations Theory looks beyond the state to attain meaningful long-term peace.

In such a theoretical framework, the state is seen as an auxiliary institution and an instrument, removing it from its centrality in international relations. The preservation of the state is not considered the most important goal. If a state is unable to provide security or justice to its citizens, the citizens may isolate themselves from the state’s institutions or resist forcefully if the state itself directly threatens them. Since a state can also become a threat to its own people’s security, it must never be given so much loyalty that it becomes a threat to Ataraxia. The rights of states are to be treated as secondary to human rights, and national security is to remain subordinate to the pursuit of Ataraxia. This means that a state’s legitimacy in the global community will have to be tested against its ability to fulfill its domestic obligations. A state that can defend its individuals from enemies but cannot feed them is as much a failed state as a nation that cannot defend itself from invasion. In such cases, the dismantling of the state structure should be the obvious and natural solution and should be enacted without hesitation. Similarly, an international system must work directly to benefit people in order to be considered legitimate, lest it be dissolved.

Epicurean thought inverts the fundamental maxim of state power and national security. Epicureans believe that the accumulation of power for security should be limited only to securing basic mental and physical needs. If fear takes over, then as power increases, so does insecurity. For a state that is enslaved by fear, power will become inversely proportional to security. Actual securitization requires the removal of internal and external threats, which means protection from both physical violence (such as war) and structural violence (such as ignorance and poverty). Nonfulfillment of the promise of ‘true security’ and the failure to provide basic needs to people generate inequity and discontent. This leads to anarchy, violence, and hostility in both the international and national spheres. Rational states would seek peace, not power. Therefore, a state that seeks power beyond its means is irrational and becomes a threat to Ataraxia.

Epicurean International Relations rejects a one-dimensional view of global integration and asks us to reconsider if the march of globalization will triumph over all diversities. Epicureans believe that as connections between human communities grow, conflicts will increase because of the differing desires of human beings. If differing desires within a small community can create conflicts, the extrapolation of this phenomenon on the global stage will only beget more problems. Large-scale human connectivity is directly proportional to the cumulative amount of human conflict. Isolation in Garden communities that are based on reason is the only way to ensure peace among individuals and communities. Living separately from large-scale social engagement would ensure perpetual peace between people. Accordingly, isolationist states are more peaceful due to the minimization of contact.

Conflict caused by uncontrollable circumstances cannot be controlled. Those born of ignorance and fear can be avoided by rationality or open-mindedness. However, war becomes a critical problem when a state begins to engage in violent conflict to sustain itself and accumulate power. Here, the state begins to exercise its own agency beyond its constituents, which enables the perpetuation of an elitist, mafia-like, warmongering industrial complex (Peterson 2022: 51). Since war is neither natural nor necessary, entrance into violent confrontation must only occur if it maximizes pleasures for all individuals involved. Since this is impossible, war must be avoided and is seen as an aberration of the highest order. Its mundanity in the international system is to be challenged. Any action in International Relations, including war, is automatically mala fide if done based on presumptions, unsubstantiated beliefs, and in the absence of evidence.

Epicurus’s world is a World Garden, inclusive of many smaller Gardens, each governed by its own norms and rules. In each Garden, people work to establish Ataraxia through their limited means. Through many communal Gardens, a World Garden is envisioned, and through the Ataraxia of individuals, the peace of the greater world is attained.

Like all theories across disciplines, the Epicurean Theory of International Relations is subject to lacunae. First, all social science theories are incomplete and have exceptions and counterexplanations. As such, the application of the Popperian paradigm of falsifiability applies to Epicurean International Theory as much as it does to others. Until it is tested on those parameters, its complete truthfulness cannot be ascertained. Second, the application of Epicurean International Relations is contingent on the assumption that one accepts the ethno-symbologist explanation for the existence of states. To a modernist, this theory becomes inapplicable to the contemporary world. Third, there continues to be debate in International Relations on whether theories derived from past phenomena and history can and should be applied to the contemporary world at all (Hall 2017: 241–245). This ‘contextualism debate’ (Bain and Nardin 2017: 214–216) is particularly relevant in the case of Epicurean International Relations Theory because even though Epicureans themselves claimed that their philosophy is universal, a contextualist would see Epicureanism as linked to a particular period and would assert that it has no applicability beyond that. Fourth, a related question arises regarding the ‘practicality’ of Epicurean International Theory. However, this question is problematic because it prejudges the value of a theory based on the applicability of its suggestions, which is not the primary purpose of a theory in International Relations. While theories may offer advice, their primary function is to suggest better alternatives for understanding the workings of the world (Waltz 1979: 8–11), rather than making policy recommendations. Widely accepted International Relations theories, such as Realism and Feminism, despite their ubiquitousness, have not provided much ‘good’ actionable advice (Donnelly 2000: 2; Bell and Wegner 2025: 1–6, 14–17), and yet remain foundational. Judging the Epicurean International Relations Theory on this yardstick while accepting other theories that do not fulfill the same criterion is unscientific. Lastly, many experts in the field of International Relations have come to question the relationship between Philosophy on the one hand and International Relations on the other. There is a credible argument to be made that philosophizing has driven the discipline away from its ability to base its theories on historical evidence (Devetak 2017: 262–263, 266–269). However, it is worth noting that none of these critiques apply exclusively to Epicurean International Relations Theory, nor do they detract from the theory’s explanatory power and novel approach.

Conclusion

Considering the crises in the theory of International Relations, this article aimed to develop a framework for an Epicurean theorization of International Relations. The normalization of violence and the invisibilization of humans from global politics have created a misanthropic gap in the global polity. This article analyzes the fundamental precepts of Epicureanism to create an Epicurean Paradigm of International Politics, premised on Epicurus’s notions of human nature, society, public life, the state, security, and justice, to fill that gap. By making Ataraxia the central value around which we organize our state-society structures, we can create communities and institutions based on prudence. Prudence in individual and community relations makes it possible to mitigate inherent insecurities and cultivate pervasive justice by prioritizing improvements in the lives of citizens over the perpetuation of state power. The Epicurean Garden itself serves as a model for this type of social organization, providing a practicable alternative to modern nation-states. Epicurean International Relations places humans at the center of the international polity, bridging the misanthropic gap in the discipline and highlighting the possibility of constructing a better world with a curtailed propensity for violence.