"Men are that they might have joy!" What is meant by that? Have we here the reappearance of the old Epicurean doctrine, "pleasure is the supreme good, and chief end of life?" No, verily! Nor any other form of old "hedonism" [38]--the Greek ethics of gross self-interest. For mark, in the first place, the different words "joy" and "pleasure." They are not synonymous. The first does not necessarily arise from the second, "joy" may arise from quite other sources than "pleasure," from pain, even, when the endurance of pain is to eventuate in the achievement of some good: such as the travail of a mother in bringing forth her offspring; the weariness and pain and danger of toil by a father, to secure comforts for loved ones. Moreover, whatever apologists may say, it is very clear that the "pleasure" of the Epicurean philosophy, hailed as "the supreme good and chief end in life," was to arise from agreeable sensations, or what ever gratified the senses, and hence was, in the last analysis of it--in its roots and branches--in its theory and in its practice--"sensualism." It was to result in physical ease and comfort, and mental inactivity--other than a conscious, self-complacence--being regarded as "the supreme good and chief end of life." I judge this to be the net result of this philosophy since these are the very conditions in which Epicureans describe even the gods to exist; [39] and surely men could not hope for more "pleasure," or greater happiness than that possessed by their gods. Cicero even charges that the sensualism of Epicurus was so gross that he represents him as blaming his brother, Timocrates, "because he would not allow that everything which had any reference to a happy life was to be measured by the belly; nor has he," continues Cicero, "said this once only, but often."