DEATH PERSUADER: HEGESIAS

Well ok, that is riveting you are thinking, but who exactly is Hegesias of Cyrene?

Well Hegesias of Cyrene is a bit of a historical footnote as we really don’t know too much

about him. But what we do know is Hegesias was a Cyrenaic philosopher active around 290 B.C.E., who also happened to teach in Alexandria, and that his opinions were rather controversial to say the least.

Hegesias was given the nickname of Peisithanatos, meaning “Death-Persuader”. He is most known for his exceptionally pessimistic worldview, which culminated in his most prominent

work, Death By Starvation.

In Death By Starvation, the premise is the main character plans to starve himself to death, arguing to a friend that death is inherently more desirable than life. The book essentially argues there is only two states, pleasure and pain. Ideally, we want to live only in pleasure, however due to the fundamental flaws of the human character it is impossible to live free from pain.

He argues then, that the only way to avoid pain is to terminate the senses. But before I go on, it is important to note, it has been lost to time why exactly he thought starvation would be the best way to achieve this aim?

Certainly isn’t quick, certainly isn’t painless, and I feel there is a part of his overall philosophy that has been neglected by ancient historians who more caught up in the sensationalism of his stories, and as a result the larger picture of his overall philosophy has probably been lost forever.

So, do keep that in mind whenever anyone is speaking about Hegesias of Cyrene they are making assumptions based on incomplete texts, myself included. It is also worth noting that Hegesias, like so many supposed advocates of suicide, didn’t appear to have killed himself, at least not during the years he was at the height of his infamy, so again, I just want to state there is always the possibility there was more nuance to his philosophy than what has been recorded.

Most of the source information comes from a couple of hundred years after the event, at which point you can never be sure what is entirely accurate and what might be a sensationalist

ancient Daily Mail-like character assassination. Most people seem to incorrectly label Hegesias as a nihilist, but I think that is unfair given that he was a follower of Aristippus. With either Aristippus, or Aristippus the Younger – his grandson, founded the Cyreanic school of philisophy, which in itself argues the same, that there is only two states available; pleasure and pain, therefore the object of life is to live with more pleasure than pain. Which is pretty close to Hegesias’ fundamental philosophy, rather than just simply believing that all life is meaningless.

Now it’s easy to say Hegesias is just a nihilistic, depressive version of Hedonism, and that may

or may not be true.

But I personally believe Hegesias had merely accepted the concept of suffering as a fundamental part of human existence, be it through contact with Buddhist missionaries or simply through the realisation that life is quite often painful, and therefore that suffering must inherently be a part of the human experience.

Although it is worth noting that Hegesias wasn’t a pupil of Aristippus directly, with

the link according to Diogenes La�rtius, in his book ‘Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers’ written roughly 300 years after the time of Hegesias, he states:

“The disciples of Aristippus were his daughter Arete, Aethiops of Ptolemais, and Antipater

of Cyrene. The pupil of Arete was Aristippus the Younger, that being the grandchild of the first Aristippus, who went by the nickname of mother-taught or mother-pupil; his pupil would be Theodorus, known as The Atheist, and subsequently as “God.” Antipater’s pupil was Epitimides of Cyrene, his was Paraebates, and his pupils Hegesias, the advocate of suicide, and Anniceris, who ransomed Plato.”

He continues,

“Those then who adhered to the teaching of Aristippus, and were known as Cyrenaics held

the following opinions; They laid down that there are two states, pleasure and pain, the

former a smooth, the latter a rough motion, and that pleasure does not differ from pleasure

nor is one pleasure more pleasant than another.”

“One state is agreeable and the other repellent to all living things.”

It goes on,

“The school of Hegesias, as it is called, adopted the same ends, namely pleasure and pain. In their view there is no such thing as gratitude or friendship or beneficence, because it is not for themselves that we choose to do these things but simply from motives of interest, apart from which such conduct is nowhere found. They denied the possibility of happiness, for the body is infected with much suffering, while the soul shares in the sufferings of the body and is a prey to disturbance, and fortune often disappoints. From all this it follows that happiness cannot be realized.

Moreover, life and death are each desirable in turn. But that there is anything naturally pleasant or unpleasant they deny; when some men are pleased and others pained by the same objects, this is owing to the lack or rarity or surfeit of such objects. Poverty and riches have no relevance to pleasure; for neither the rich nor the poor as such have any special share in pleasure.

Slavery and freedom, nobility and low birth, honour and dishonour, are alike indifferent in a calculation of pleasure. To the fool life is advantageous, while to the wise it is a matter of indifference. The wise man will be guided in all he does by his own interests, for there is none other whom he regards as equally deserving.”

i.e. be rich or poor, we experience pleasure and pain the same. The state of pleasure is agreeable, and desirable, the state of pain is not.

Therefore it can be concluded that pleasure is the absense of pain. Oh, and that we’re all egoistic, which is probably true. But the reason I put Diogenes work after my own personal opinion, is because as much as I really enjoyed Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, it is a bit like an ancient gossip magazine.

Mostly full of tidbits of information, and a brief overview of their thoughts and ideas. It is generally considered an uncritial and unphilosophical compilations, and it is generally adviced to take anything from that book to be taken with a grain of salt.

Diogenes doesn’t always site his sources, and when he does those sources have often been lost to time. A great example of this is when I mentioned Anniceris ‘who ransomed Plato’, that is the

words written by Diogenes, but in my research though, this cannot be true. He states he was a follow student of Hegesias, but this is 50 years after Plato has already died – so it seems likely whatever Diogenes was sourcing from, it was mistaken. The ransom incident has been, in modern times, possibly attributed to a famous, celebrated Charioteer, also named Anniceris, who was written about by Aelian.

The Buddhist connection, on the other hand seems to come down to the fact that around the height of Hegesias’ infamy the governors of Cyrene, Ophellas, and later Magas, both claim to have been recipients of Buddhist missionaries from the Indian King Ashoka. Just bare in mind the Indian connection is mostly connecting dots that might be there, it is entirely possible Hegesias came to these conclusions independently and we, at a later date, have abscribed this to Buddhists in order to fill in a gap or two.

Basically, as always, we won’t know for sure until we dig up more stuff out the ground. As we’ve discovered Hegesias argued that happiness is impossible to achieve and the avoidance of pain and sorrow should be considered just as important. However, given that eventually pain and sorrow are inevitable no matter your ranking, or tier in society, so therefore the only way to live without pain or sorrow was to commit suicide as death was neither pain or pleasure, but rather eternal termination of the senses.

He argues that wealth and poverty have no influence at all on pleasure, and that rich people are not affected by pleasure differently than poor people. Which, if you need a real world example for, you just have to look at Kurt Cobain, Robin Williams, or Chester Bennington. Not that I’m endorsing Hegesias’ worldviews, I’m just pointing out that this statement is as true as it ever was – money can’t buy you happiness… although admittedly, I’d rather cry myself to sleep in a mansion than in a box next to a train platform.

You could also say that Hegesias took the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism to it’s most radical conclusion. If he was in fact influenced by Buddhists, it could be argued that Death by Starvation was his way of transcending through the Four Noble Truths.

“The Four Noble Truths refer to and express the basic orientation of Buddhism, in a short expression it is: we crave and cling to impermanent states and things, which are Dukkha, incapable of satisfying and painful. This craving keeps us caught in Samsara, the endless cycle of repeated rebirth and dying, along with the Dukkha that comes with it. There is, however, a way to end this cycle namely by attaining Nirvana, the cessation of craving, whereafter rebirth and associated Dukkha will no longer arise again.”

If we take the philosopher’s approach to this, it is not hard to see how a man writing a

book called Death By Starvation could have been attempting to express a philosophy such

as the Four Noble Truths, albeit perhaps poorly.

But again, all of this is conjecture, and the Buddhist connection does seem to hinge

on what a court would consider circumstantial evidence at best. But if true would help connect a few dots, but as with everything, until we dig up a cache of ancient Greek scrolls from somewhere and get researchers in to look at them – it is quite possible we will never know all the facts surrounding this unusual footnote in history.

But I digress, Death By Starvation regardless of it’s influences or intentions would become quite controversial given the fact that 2’000 years ago, the people with the ability to read, and have access to such works of literature, or even the mentorship of such an established teacher would be a rarity.

So what I’m saying is, this was controversial probably mostly because of who it affected directly, rather than his ideas as a whole. Not entirely, of course, but it definitely was a part of it.

As according to Cicero around 300 years later, ‘Death by Starvation’ lead to reprecussions

for Hegesias both personally and professionally. The high number of suicides in particular among his students caused panic throughout the city, and as a result Hegesias would be permanently banned from teaching in Alexandria.

As alluded to previously, education at this level was only for the upper echelons of society.

This was the children of the top tier of Ancient Greek society, this top tier were outraged

that their children and heirs had resorted to suicide after reading the works of their

teacher.

Hegesias may even have the dubious honour of being the first teacher to ever be censored by a government when he was banned from teaching in Alexandria as a result of the suicides.

Ok, ok, how very depressing, but why was this footnote in history important?

Well, because I don’t think the point of Death by Starvation was to cause suicide among its readers, although that is conjecture, as so much has been lost to history it’s is impossible

to say anything concrete about the subject.

I think it’s an important footnote, because it helps highlight that no matter how you’re feeling, there will always have been someone who has felt that way before. Not I don’t condone or endorse taking such action, as I feel like death is inevitable anyway, so there’s no real need to accelerate that process.

But I do find it fascinating that people so long ago where writing and teaching about such subjects. It’s a bit of a heavy one for the soul, to sit questioning your own mortality, but hopefully that realisation, if nothing else, will give you the push needed to start planning, rather

than praying, for whatever it is you want to do with your life.

Complete happiness cannot possibly exist; for that the body is full of many sensations, and that the mind sympathizes with the body, and is troubled when that is troubled, and also that fortune prevents many things which we cherished in anticipation; so that for all these reasons, perfect happiness eludes our grasp. Moreover, that both life and death are desirable. They also say that there is nothing naturally pleasant or unpleasant, but that owing to want, or rarity, or satiety, some people are pleased and some vexed; and that wealth and poverty have no influence at all on pleasure, for that rich people are not affected by pleasure in a different manner from poor people. In the same way they say that slavery and freedom are things indifferent, if measured by the standard of pleasure, and nobility and baseness of birth, and glory and infamy. They add that, for the foolish person it is expedient to live, but to the wise person it is a matter of indifference; and that the wise person will do everything for his own sake; for that he will not consider any one else of equal importance with himself; and he will see that if he were to obtain ever such great advantages from any one else, they would not be equal to what he could himself bestow

None of this, however, is as strong as the testimony of Cicero,^[4] who claims that Hegesias wrote a book called Death by Starvation (Greek: ἀποκαρτερῶν), in which a man who has resolved to starve himself is introduced as representing to his friends that death is actually more to be desired than life, and that the gloomy descriptions of human misery which this work contained were so overpowering that they inspired many people to kill themselves, in consequence of which the author received the surname of Death-persuader (Peisithanatos). This book was published at Alexandria, where he was, in consequence, forbidden to teach by king Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC).

Hegesias

Magnanimous people seem disdainful. – Hegesias

Hegesias had a huge difference of opinion with Anniceris on what makes up the ideal life. Among his anti-social views, we find that he believed that the sage is like a king, has no peer and can’t have friends. He viewed all human relations as subject-object interactions and considered people to be merely instrumental. He also praised the virtue of detached enjoyment of courtesans and the treatment of women as sexual objects, with the understanding that the objectification was mutual.

Lampe argues that “hero ethics” was domesticated by philosophers, and that Hegesias embodies a sort of “heroic code”, where the philosopher is likened to a king. The traditional Greek heroic code involved good reputation, tokens of honor, competition, and violence. This heroic code does not seem particularly hedonistic, and in fact seems to generate great pain and bring ruin to the people.

There is another instance where this ancient intellectual does not seem to fit the profile of a pleasure-seeker. Hegesias claimed that happiness (eudaimonia) was impossible, and his pessimism was notorious for having influenced some of his listeners to commit suicide, according to spurrious surviving anecdotes.

Like Aristippus the Younger, Hegesias believed in a “comprehensive end”, which he defined as “no pain or distress”. He also did not differentiate between sources of pleasure and, in defence of his virtue of indifference, he once said:

It doesn’t matter how much money you have, the rich don’t experience pleasure differently from the poor … Fame and ignominy are (also) indifferent to pleasure.

He argued that when we disdain fame, we become self sufficient in honor, and that since most people lack the intelligence to judge whether or not we’re great, we should therefore live with indifference to fame (that is, lathe biosas).

He also argued (less convincingly) that slavery and freedom were equal and could afford similar amounts of pleasure. This, of course, is a questionable, perhaps a false, consolation.

Anniceris

Anniceris valued non-instrumental friends, respect for parents, action for one’s country, and gratitude. Anniceris was reacting against Hegesias in these respects, which concern the best means that lead to a life of pleasure.

His main disagreement with Hegesias had to do with the role of friends and the good will of others: he argued that, even if we initially acquire friends for utilitarian reasons–for advantage or benefit–ultimately these relationships evolve into a source of pleasure derived from the happiness and wellbeing of the other. Epicurus’ doctrines, when viewed against the backdrop of these controversies, are clearly a continuation and defence of Annaceris’ brand of hedonism. On the value of friends for their own sake and not as instruments, Lampe says:

Anniceris’ doctrine is not only consistent, it is a great improvement on the doctrine of his mainstream predecessors. It preserves the fundamental role of each individual’s experiences of pleasure and pain while simultaneously acknowledging the real psychological force and importance of normal human relationships.

SUICIDE AND OLD BOOKS

The idea that Goethe’s Sorrows of Young Werther made suicide fashionable among young Romantic Germans is, we now know, a mere legend. But there was one text that managed to drive many to suicide: not the Necronomicon, but the Apokarteron (The Man Starving Himself to Death) by Hegesias of Cyrene.

This is the essence of Hegesias’ teaching, in the words of Edgar Saltus:

Life seems pleasing  only to the fool; the wise regard it with indifference, and consider death just as acceptable….Death, is as good as life ; it is but a supreme renunciation in which man is freed from idle complaints and long deceptions. Life is full of pain, and the pangs of the flesh gnaw at the mind and rout its calm. In countless ways fate intercepts and thwarts our hopes. Contentment is not to be relied on, and even wisdom cannot preserve us from the treachery and insecurity of the perceptions. Since happiness, then, is intangible we should cease to pursue it, and take for our goal the absence of pain; this condition, is best obtained in making ourselves indifferent to every object of desire and every cause of dislike, and above all to life itself. In any event, death is advantageous in this, it takes us not from blessings but from evil.

https://haljohnsonbooks.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/suicide-and-old-books/

The Greek philosopher Hegesias of Kyrene once wrote a book entitled Death by Starvation or The Death-Persuader, which was essentially an argument for why everyone should just give up on life and kill themselves.

The book starts out with a man who decides that he is going to starve himself to death. All his friends come and beg him not to, saying everything they can to talk him out of it. The man responds by arguing that happiness is impossible and that it is much better to die than to live. He then proceeds to give a lengthy dissertation on the miseries and torments of life. His friends are persuaded and, not only do they let him kill himself, but they all kill themselves as well.

Thankfully, Hegesias’s book has not survived to the present day, which means it is extremely doubtful that anyone will ever read it again. Everything we know about it comes from what the later Roman orator Cicero says about it in his “On Contempt of Death,” the first dialogue in his Tusculan Disputations.

Cicero claims that Pharaoh Ptolemy II Philadelphus forbade Hegesias from teaching in Alexandria on account of him having written Death by Starvation. There is no word on whether or not Hegesias actually killed himself, but Cicero does claim that a large number of people who read his book did kill themselves because the book was so depressing. Once again, thankfully, all copies of Hegesias’s book have been lost.

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/?s=CYRENAIC+