Nature must not be forced

It must be gently persuaded

Peace and safety to all my readers this Eikas! For this month’s Eikas essay, I am focusing on a portion of VS 21 that reminds me of Taoist ethics. I will offer various clarifying sources and case studies, and encourage students to ponder and write their own meleta or outline about what they learn.

The Prolepsis of the Words

Nature must be persuaded, not forced. Vatican Saying 21

o biasteon ten fysis alla peisteon.

The word biasteon translates as to use force, apply force, inflict violence on, to force, constrain; and peisteon is to convince, persuade, to succeed through entreaty, and sometimes to mislead. Fysis means nature.

This statement that nature must not be forced, that it must be gently persuaded, is given almost as an oracle or commandment, without an immediate explanation or justification. I imagine that the series of conversations that led to this being a conclusive statement probably are documented in books that are lost to us. We can only try to infer how the Kathegemones concluded that actions that do not go against nature seem more effective, practical, and / or prudent, and that therefore nature must not be forced, but gently persuaded.

My first impression is that it seems that the Kathegemones’ intent is not to punish but to reform the character. I read into it an attitude that is less punitive, and more therapeutic or concerned with healing the soul. The practicality of the statement makes me think that this terse conclusion was arrived at after careful evaluation of practical encounters with plain facts.

The Sources

Let us look at the original context:

Nature must be persuaded, not forced. And we will persuade nature by fulfilling the necessary desires, and the natural desires too if they cause no harm, but sharply rejecting the harmful desires.

οὐ βιαστέον τὴν φύσιν ἀλλὰ πειστέον· πείσομεν δὲ τὰς ἀναγκαίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐκπληροῦντες, τάς τε φυσικὰς ἂν μὴ βλάπτωσι, τὰς δὲ βλαβερὰς πικρῶς ἐλέγχοντες.

The saying relates to the doctrines on the hierarchy of desires (Kyriai Doxai 26, 29 and 30), and provides additional instructions on how to carry out our choices and rejections based on them. By fulfilling the natural desires, we persuade (satisfy) nature and limit, discipline, and diminish the power of incessant desires.

Epicurus’ sermon on moral development contains a relevant passage where he speaks on the power struggle between the will and nature, which may help us to unpack the above saying:

There are many things which we do in fact with the contribution of our nature, many which we do without its contribution, many which we do while our nature is put in order by ourselves, and many in which our nature itself serves as guide. - Epicurus, Book 25 On nature (see all Fragments here)

These are the four categories of actions related to the distinction between that which is up to us and that which is up to necessity or nature. Our own agency and necessity are two of the three categories of causal responsibility mentioned in the Letter to Menoeceus (the other one is chance). The practices related to “nature must not be forced, but gently persuaded” relate to the first and (especially) to the third categories: that which we do with the contribution of nature, and that which we do while putting nature in order.

Case Studies

Let us consider various case studies. What happens when we follow this adage? What happens when we do not follow it? What happens when we force nature?

The most obvious case of choices and rejections that repress nature and produce harmful effects is the notorious case study of priestly celibacy. In recent years, reports have been made public placing the number of sexual abuse victims of the Catholic clergy in France at 333,000, and other countries have reported similarly industrial levels of sexual abuse. The Catholics are not the only group that has this problem. Other religious organizations that preach celibacy (like the Hare Krishnas) have had similar issues. Human beings need affection, including erotic love, and studies on the health effects of social isolation lead me to believe that friendship and (as strongly suggested by the high level of documented failure to practice celibacy) physical affection are both natural and necessary for health and happiness, and therefore must not be repressed; that individuals (perhaps some more than others) need to find a sexual outlet.

The beaver dam case study shows that when creatures are gently persuaded, action is more efficient and effortless. We see results with the least amount of imposition, harm, violation of freedom, and resistance. The beaver dam case study is from a documentary that I watched years ago, where residents of a certain riverside community were reporting problems with the local beaver population, which was interfering with the customary flow of the river and sometimes causing flooding. A scientist then decided to play a recording of running water at a particular location downstream, which the neighbors agreed was the ideal spot for beavers to build their dam. Driven by instinct, upon hearing the running water, beavers got to work in that location and built the dam at the site that created the least amount of conflict for humans. In this case, the beavers did what was in their nature to do: as soon as they heard the flow of water, they instinctively built a dam. Their nature was gently persuaded with no need for conflict, and this was a most efficient and effortless way of dealing with the problem of their disruption.

In Kyria Doxa 40, Epicurus encourages his disciples to either build a tribe or join a tribe, a koinonia (natural community), or an “intimate society of friends”. Tribalism is sometimes today seen as a source of conflict—which it often is—but I think Epicurus recognizes these natural drives of tribe and territoriality, and he encourages us not to repress them, but instead to try to channel them in the healthiest manner possible. In this case, he points the finger at friendship, and encourages us to frequently associate with the most wholesome friends we can find. Once again, we must not force this natural drive, but gently persuade.

Although VS 21 refers specifically to our process of self-care, I wonder if its possible interpretations do not exclude an ecological sensibility. Another case study is the case of the Biblical doctrine of dominion, which today is sometimes being interpreted by Christian extremists as a call to establish a theocracy. It’s based on verses like Genesis 1:28, where the divine character says: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” The Bible calls on mortals to have dominion over nature, and this endorses unsustainable practices that are leading to overpopulation and ecological disaster, including the mass extinction of entire branches of the tree of life. On the other hand, the Epicurean Kathegemones—with their regimen of control of desires and their adage that “nature must not be forced”—announce that we are not at war with nature. Epicureans are at peace with nature, or reconciled with nature.

There are obvious similarities between VS 21 and the Taoist doctrine of wu wei (“non-action”), which calls for correct and most efficient action that aligns with the natural flow of things. I believe that the entire tradition of pleasure ethics follows this logic. It seems to me that Taoist sages achieved similar insights or came to similar practical conclusions as the early Epicureans with their “nature must not be forced, but gently persuaded” concept, and this wisdom was gathered into their wu wei discourse. Like them, Epicurus uses hedonic calculus to apply these insights and related modes of operation in many fields. I won’t delve into the similarities with Taoism on this essay, but I invite students who are interested in the subject to read the Contemplations on Tao that have been published on the Society of Epicurus page.

Conclusion

In his Sermon on moral development, Epicurus explains that we must not follow our impulses irrationally. Among other things, this means that there are healthy, correct, and rational ways of following our natural impulses. I hope that the above meleta gives students thought-provoking conversation starters to consider what these are, to apply Epicurean ethics in their own choices and rejections, and to prudently consider when to cooperate with nature, when to follow its guidance, when to put it in order, and when it can be ignored.

Ancient Epicurean guides often invited students to write their own outlines and commentaries of the doctrines, and to paraphrase what they were studying in order to slowly develop expertise like Philodemus did with the Four Cures. I invite all sincere students to do this with VS 21 and its related Doxai, and to share and study this wisdom with others of like mind. I also want to thank all my subscribers for your continued support.

If you enjoyed this content, please share it with like-minded friends, subscribe, like, and comment! Happy Solstice and Happy Eikas!