Welcome to Episode 190 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics. We are now in the process of a series of podcasts intended to provide a general overview of Epicurean philosophy based on the organizational structure employed by Norman DeWitt in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy."
This week we begin our discussion of Books One and Two of Cicero's On Ends, which are largely devoted to Epicurean Philosophy. "On Ends" contains important criticisms of Epicurus that have set the tone for standard analysis of his philosophy for the last 2000 years. Going through this book gives us the opportunity to review those attacks, take them apart, and respond to them as an ancient Epicurean might have done, and much more fully than Cicero allowed Torquatus, his Epicurean spokesman, to do.
This week we begin in Book One and we cover from the opening at Section I to the end of Section VII. Follow along with us here: Cicero's On Ends - Complete Reid Edition
We are using the Reid edition, so check any typos or other questions against the original PDF which can be found here.
As we proceed we will keep track of Cicero's arguments and outline them here:
Cicero's Objections to Epicurean Philosophy
Ha! We should communicate better, that was about as far as I get in my transcription on Saturday.
We can talk about the earlier part before that too, if you've reviewed it, but it was so generic I was concerned that it some of our podcast fans who are less interested in Roman history might revolt . But good to know that you read it because we definitely need to set some background before we get to the main Epicurean part.
One thing I noticed while typing was how repetitive he can be. But his defense of writing high literature in Latin is worth mentioning, because of its parallels with Epicurean writers like Amafinius, Rabirius, and of course Lucretius, and also because of our recent discussions on the Catholic Church's resistance to publishing in the vernacular.
Yes very good point. And it's sort of related to the point I was thinking about yesterday that that Lucretius makes over and over and over that it's not just "daylight" (which presumably means something like clear evidence) that brings the key insight, but by what must be something like "understanding" that comes from the study of nature. You can't "understand" if you can't read the arguments yourself, and "seeing" alone isn't enough.
Book One
[146] This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature; whose first rule shall take its start for us from this, that nothing is ever begotten of nothing by divine will.
Book Two
50 For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.
Book Three
74 For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark, and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered, not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature.
Bpok Six
40 For even as children tremble and fear everything in blinding darkness, so we sometimes dread in the light things that are no whit more to be feared than what children shudder at in the dark and imagine will come to pass. This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature. Wherefore I will hasten the more to weave the thread of my task in my discourse.
Ha! We should communicate better, that was about as far as I get in my transcription on Saturday.
Thinking about this further, we really should start at the beginning for the sake of continuity, but I don't think there's an awful lot that will occupy us for very long other than the sort of background points you are making.
And we have to decide what if anything to read, and if we do read anything, I suspect we should start with section V
QuoteAnd we have to decide what if anything to read, and if we do read anything, I suspect we should start with section V
That's a good question. Maybe throw it open to the forum? I don't have a strong opinion either way.
Does anyone who listens to the podcast have an opinion as to whether we should read the section of text before we start the discussion, as we did before DeWitt? Or should we just quote as needed, as we have been doing recently?
Yes that's a good question. I tend to think that some degree of reading of what we are talking about is helpful, but we did not do that with DeWitt primarily because his book was most commentary. When we are targeting the analysis of a particular text like we did with Lucretius or the letters to Epicurus, it makes sense to read them. This Cicero material is somewhere in between.
The quotes in our discussion of DeWitt's book were almost like reading the whole book anyway. When we went through Lucretius and the letters, we often fell short of finishing the intended section, reading the missed part again in the following session. Moreover, we still quoted in pieces as needed despite the initial reading.
I vote against reading the section before the discussion.
Cassius August 31, 2023 at 5:12 PM
The arguments we introduced in this episode are:
- As To Physics:
- Epicurus Borrowed from Democritus while at the same time reviling him;
- I:VI:20 As to the swerve and downward movement of atoms (which leads to Democritus' determinism);
- I:VI:20 As to Epicurus' rejection of infinite divisibility;
- I:VI:20 As to Democritus' view of the size of the sun (which leads to Democritus' skepticism) [Note: Cicero notes that the issue of images by which we see but also think comes from Democritus];
- As To Canonics / Epistemology / Logic:
- Epicurus does away with the process of division;
- Epicurus says nothing about subdivision and partition;
- Epicurus gives no method for constructing an argument;
- Epicurus does not show how to unriddle fallacies or clarify ambiguities;
- Epicurus places his criteria of objective truth in the senses and thinks that it destroys the senses to admit for a moment that they might err in any way;
- As to Ethics:
- The pursuit of pleasure as the goal belongs to Aristippus and was better and more frankly advocated by the Cyreniacs
- The Epicurean system is of such a character that no system is more unworthy of the human race, as “Nature has created and shaped us for higher aims.”
- The Torquatii did not look for bodily enjoyment or any pleasure when the ancestor wrenched the necklet from his foe, or punished his son.
- Cicero alleges that Epicureans do not value mental pleasure. [“What pleasure do you, Torquatus, or what does our friend Triarius here derive from literature, from records and the investigation of historical facts, from conning the poets, from learning by heart so laboriously so many lines? And do not say to me “Why, these very actions bring me pleasure, as theirs did to the Torquati” Never indeed did Epicurus or Metrodorus or any one possessed of any wisdom or any knowledge of the tenets of your school ever maintain such a position by such arguments. And when the question is asked, as it often is, why Epicureans are so numerous, I answer that there are no doubt other motives, but the motive which especially fascinates the crowd is this; they believe their chief to declare that all upright and honourable actions are in themselves productive of delight, or rather pleasure.”]
Episode 190 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available!
https://maa.org/press/periodic…hout%20citation.
I've long remembered this second quote from Albert Einstein, and had it in mind when we recorded this episode. I'm probably simplifying too much, but it seems to be saying an axiomatic mathematical discipline like geometry cannot be a perfect representation of the things in nature. This is a very nuanced and subtle argument, but for ancient thinkers like Pythagoras and his followers, geometry allowed them to deduce a priori that the number of the celestial spheres was 10 because 10 was the perfect number--it is the sum of a point (1), a line (2), a surface (3), and a volume (4).
Epicurus admired Euclid's unadorned literary style, but found no value in the claim that reasoning deductively from geometry could actually give you new information about nature. And while these and other disciplines have their uses, they are not and cannot be Canonic because they are not primary sources of information about the world, they are secondary. Their value as cognitive tools depends on our ability to evaluate their premises and conclusions using the senses, the feelings, and the prolepsis.
Cassius December 26, 2023 at 10:40 AM
Unread Threads
-
- Title
- Replies
- Last Reply
-
-
-
Mark Twain quote 4
- Don
December 3, 2024 at 10:39 PM - General Discussion
- Don
December 4, 2024 at 8:20 AM
-
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 70
4
-
-
-
-
November 2024 General Thoughts On What Epicurean Philosophy Means To Me. 3
- Cassius
November 29, 2024 at 11:25 AM - General Discussion
- Cassius
December 3, 2024 at 9:18 AM
-
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 291
3
-
-
-
-
Prolepsis / Anticipations As Epicurus' Answer to the MENO Problem 34
- Cassius
October 31, 2024 at 1:20 PM - General Discussion
- Cassius
December 1, 2024 at 6:38 AM
-
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 1.9k
34
-
-
-
-
Stoics Aren't Ascetics... It's Those Epicureans! 9
- Don
November 29, 2024 at 7:41 AM - General Discussion
- Don
November 29, 2024 at 7:18 PM
-
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 404
9
-
-
-
-
Epicurean Views On How To Integrate "Anger" Into A Healthy Life 17
- Cassius
April 1, 2022 at 5:36 PM - Philodemus On Anger
- Cassius
November 27, 2024 at 8:20 AM
-
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 3.1k
17
-