David Sedley - "Creationism And Its Critics In Antiquity"

Quote from Godfrey

A Google search for "isonomia David Sedley" revealed the book Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity by David Sedley. It has what appears to be a pertinent chapter titled "Epicurean Infinity". https://books.google.com/books?id=SgRuJ…epage&q&f=false

It's always worth asking David Sedley

Thanks again to Godfrey for bringing this book to my attention. Its focus is much wider than Epicurus alone but it has excellent material on the Epicurean viewpoint. I am not going through it for the first time and so I am setting up this thread for future comments.

I will be adding comments to this thread as I review this book, and the first thing I see to address is this statement from Dr. Sedley about his interest in exploring the history of the debate about creationism. (The underlining is my own addition.)

Quote from Sedley - Creationism And Its Critics In Antiquity

My interest is in the arguments for and against divine creation and the appeals that were made to its explanatory power. In classical antiquity, these were formulated and deployed by a series of leading philosophers, nearly all of whom agreed, at least tacitly, that settling the issue is fundamental to establishing a proper relationship with the divine, and hence to the quest for human happiness. What is the value of conducting such a historical exercise? For my money, it lies precisely in treating both sides of the ancient debate with equal sympathy. The object is not to determine who was right, but to understand each position’s rationale from the inside. The potential rewards include new historical perspectives on the pantheon of thinkers who laid the foundations of western philosophy and science, perspectives which are likely to enhance our understanding of their ethics, their physics, and even in some cases their logic. But an equally rich recompense lies in the sheer intellectual exercise of thinking one’s way into lines of reasoning with which one may well at the outset have no intuitive sympathy, while establishing a matching critical distance from those one is inclined to favor.

This comment brings up a point we've discussed about how to treat not only Dr. Sedley about also most other academic writers on Epicurus.

Unlike the "series of leading philosophers" who almost all agreed that taking a position on the question of divine creationism is essential to human happiness, Academic Scholars like Dr. Sedley are not intent on answering questions about what leads to happiness. Instead, Dr. Sedley's goal is "not to determine who was right, but to understand each position’s rationale from the inside."

This comment reminds me of what Cicero records in his Academic Questions was the position of the Academic Skeptics in Book 2 Section 18 Yonge.

Quote

There remains this other statement of theirs, that for the sake of discovering the truth, one ought to speak against every side, and in favour of every side. I wish then to see what they have discovered. We are not in the habit, says he, of showing that. What then is the object of all this mystery? or why do you conceal your opinion as something discreditable? In order, says he, that those who hear us may be influenced by reason rather than led by authority. What if they are influenced by both? would there be any harm in that? However, they do not conceal one of their theories, namely, that there is nothing which can be conceived. Is authority no hindrance to entertaining this opinion? It seems to me to be a great one. For who would ever have embraced so openly and undisguisedly such perverse and false principles, if there had not been such great richness of ideas and power of eloquence in Arcesilas, and, in a still greater degree, in Carneades?

I'm very glad and appreciative that Dr. Sedley wrote his books.

I'm also glad and appreciative that Cicero wrote the books that he did.

But as far as I am concerned my goal is NOT knowledge for the sake of knowledge, nor is it to "understand each's position's rationale from the inside."

It's very very helpful to do exactly what Dr. Sedley and Cicero reference - to understand the important sides of the major arguments. That's the best way to understand the issues. But the purpose of conducting that investigation is for us to decide who was right so we can live the best lives possible. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not going to get us to where we want to be.

Quote

t appears that Sedley goes to great lengths to find the creation design theory in many early Ancient Greek philosophers: Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Socrates, Plato & Aristotle. Although the reviewer considers how Sedley twists his writings to fashion Aristotle as supporting creationism, in order to fit in with Sedley’s views on the prior philosophers.

I'm not sure exactly whether this statement by the reviewer is intended as criticism (it appears to be with "twist") but I see no reason to question Sedley's conclusions in what I have read so far. Anytime someone is postulating any kind of "active" force acting on something else which is not active, you're pretty much in creationism territory. I would certainly consider a "prime mover" to be in that same category.

And while it's correct to say that there is no chapter specifically naming Epicurus, the discussion of atomism that I have read so far does a good job of highlighting Epicurus' views and his distinctiveness from Democritus.

Yes if others read the book I would be interested in their comments too. And unfortunately you're right that I'm not aware of a public link with a free copy of the book so finding it will require digging or a library or both.

I expect to have much more to say as I read further, but I am reminded that I am also woefully behind on reading Sextus Empiricus, so I am having to split my time.

Time for another memorable point:

Sedley alleges that (at least in Greek thought) the first Creationist and first proponent of the Argument from Design was SOCRATES, as documented in Xenophon giving the following argument:

Quote from Sedley, Creationism And Its Critiics In Antiquity, Page 84

1. Representational artists are admirable creators, even though their products are not living beings.
2. If that which produces living beings does so by mere chance, it is not more admirable than representational artists. (Implicit reason: it manifests less intelligence than they do.)
3. If that which produces living beings does so by design, it is more admirable than representational artists. (Implicit reason: it is an intelligent creative artist, as they are, but a more admirable one, since its products are superior to theirs.)
4. To determine whether that which produces living beings does so by mere chance or by design, we must ask whether its products, living beings, are typical of the products of chance or of those of design.

Here we encounter for the first time the explicit disjunction of accident and design, offered as competing causal origins of life. The evidence of systematically purposive structures in nature is then cited by Socrates to discount the first alternative in favor of the second. And his clear, albeit implicit, conclusion is that the origin of life forms lies in a creator superior to any human creator. Do we not have here the earliest instance, or at least direct forerunner, of the Argument from Design?