Principal Doctrines
tenants of Epicureanism
The Principal Doctrines (Greek: Κύριαι δόξαι, Kyriai doxai) are forty authoritative conclusions set up as official doctrines by the founders of Epicureanism: Epicurus of Samos, Metrodorus of Lampsacus, Hermarchus of Mitilene and Polyaenus of Lampsacus. The first four doctrines make up the Tetrapharmakos (Four Cures), which have sometimes been compared to Buddhism's Four Noble Truths.
Some of the Principal Doctrines ("PDs") are organized into groups and are meant to be studied together. PDs 10-13 discuss the Epicurean philosophy of science. PDs 18-21 explain the natural limits of desires and in time, and how the flesh is unable to learn these limits but the mind can. PDs 22-25 deal with the importance of the canon, or the Epicurean standard of truth. PDs 31-38 explain the Epicurean doctrines on justice based on mutual advantage and contractarianism. PDs 39-40 call for an intimate society of friends.
Since most of Epicurus' 37 books "On Nature" are lost to us, the Principal Doctrines are, together with Epicurus' Letters to Herodotus, Menoeceus, and Pythocles, the most authoritative writings in Epicureanism. The Principal Doctrines exemplify the Epicurean philosophers' practice of publishing summaries and outlines of their teachings for easy memorization.
The public source identifies “Principal Doctrines” as tenants of Epicureanism. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Principal, Doctrines and tenants.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Principal Doctrines”, the useful work is to connect “tenants of Epicureanism” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 11, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q107555736. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Principal Doctrines”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Principal Doctrines primary sources, Principal Doctrines archive and Principal research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Principal Doctrines”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Principal Doctrines” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.