Graphic By Elli On Epicurus vs Plato On Creation of the Universe

Post by Elli at Facebook 07/26/22

True that has been confirmed, demonstrated, established, proven, tested and not contradicted by the phenomena. From Epicurus' LTH : "Nothing exists in the universe except bodies and space. We conclude that bodies exist because it is the experience of all men..." - except Plato who placed - in the supposed one and only created world of ours - a perfect animal that had the need of the company by other perfect animals. All is perfect then, and studying of natural science, and investigating the celestial phenomena, is a waste of time, as Socrates said through Plato again.

From the inscription by Diogenis of Oinoanda, we read:

"For example, it is false to believe that the gods, who are perfect, created this world because they had need of a city, or needed fellow-citizens. Nor did the gods create the world because they needed a place to live. To those who say such naive things, we ask in turn: “Where were the gods living beforehand?”

Those men who hold that this world was created uniquely by the gods, as a place for the gods to live, of course have no answer to this question. By their view, the gods were destitute and roaming about at random for an infinite time before the creation of this world, like an unfortunate man, without a country, who had neither city nor fellow citizens! It is absurd to argue that a divine nature created the world for the sake of the world itself, and it is even more absurd to argue that the gods created men for the gods’ own sake. There are too many things wrong, with both the world and with men, for them to have been created by gods!"

Responses at Facebook:

Rasul MammadovBefore Einstein and Heisenberg, Еpicureanism in physics was relevant. In modern physics, the platonic interpretation has won rather.

"Modern physics opposes the position of Democritus, Epicurus and takes the side of Plato, the Pythagoreans."
Heisenberg, "Physics and Philosophy."

Martin HuehneAdmin

I downloaded the book from
http://www.naturalthinker.net/.../Heisenberg,%20Werner%20...
and did not find the quote in there. Whereas Democritus is discussed in detail, Epicurus is not even mentioned.
Can you more precisely locate the quote?

From my memory of reading Heisenberg's memoirs 30+ years ago, I remember that Heisenberg saw indeed a stronger analogy between Plato's symmetries and modern physics than between Democritus' atomism and modern physics but stated as well that seeing these analogies is subjective because there are big differences in both cases.

I guess that Heisenberg did not even know where Epicurus differed from Democritus. The analogy between Epicurus' swerve and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle appears to be more obvious than the analogy between Plato's symmetries and the symmetries in modern physics.

Plato's philosophy rejects the scientific method on principle whereas Epicurus' philosophy anticipates it and is open to revision when observations refute older ideas.

Modern science has its roots in several of the ancient philosophical schools:

There is indeed an analogy between Plato's forms and mathematical models in physics as much as there is an analogy between Democritus' atoms and elementary particles of modern physics.

Skepticism is an inherent part of scientific progress.

By the way, I am a modern physicist and consider Epicurus' philosophy closest to modern physics among the ancient schools.

Elli I am sorry that I am not checking in to Facebook every day and I missed seeing it when you first posted it. Graphics like this are great for attracting the attention of casual browsers.

I am well and glad to see you check in here Elli! I talk a lot about you to our new friends here and hope you will drop by more frequently. You are our only contact with Epicurus' homeland!

Great to see that Elli!