Posts by Cassius

Quote from Patrikios

Since Epicurus saw himself as a healer, the Socratic/Platonic turning away from a deeper understanding of nature’s healing processes, would have horrified Epicurus.

I agree and I think "horrified" is in the vicinity of the right emotion. I don't think they considered this to be a mild disagreement to politely gloss over. It goes to the heart of everything, and in analogy to the way Lucretius describes theories that contradict the Epicurean view of the universe,** Socrates' approach opens the way to massive destruction and the Epicureans would have realized that.

**I'll have to look up that reference - can't remember it at the moment but it's something about positing the existence of something besides atom and void.

Cornelius - I presume you are aware of this statement by Torquatus in Cicero's "On Ends" to the effect that it is disgraceful not to have learned theses things as boys (children), but just in case you are not:

Quote from Cicero's On Ends Book One - Torquatus (Rackham)

[72] You are pleased to think him uneducated. The reason is that he refused to consider any education worth the name that did not help to school us in happiness. Was he to spend his time, as you encourage Triarius and me to do, in perusing poets, who give us nothing solid and useful, but merely childish amusement? Was he to occupy himself like Plato with music and geometry, arithmetic and astronomy, which starting from false premises cannot be true, and which moreover if they were true would contribute nothing to make our lives pleasanter and therefore better? Was he, I say, to study arts like these, and neglect the master art, so difficult and correspondingly so fruitful, the art of living?

No! Epicurus was not uneducated: the real philistines are those who ask us to go on studying till old age the subjects that we ought to be ashamed not to have learnt in boyhood.

Additional note to all:

I have moved the "Childhood Education and Parenting" subforum out of the "Ethics" section to the "Resources Activism and Engagement" section. Childhood Education and Parenting includes much more than just ethics, so it needs to be included as one of our primary "activism and engagement" topics.

Cornelius we currently have the following sub-forum on Childhood Education. There's not much there yet, but I'd love to see more. Please consider writing about your interests in this area:

Childhood Education and Parenting

Quote

an Italian student at the University of Rome in Primary Education (essentially, I'm studying to become an elementary and preschool teacher).

I am particularly glad to see this and hope you will at length contribute your thoughts on childhood education on Epicurean ideas.

The only comment I would add at this point is that this should include not only ethics but also canonics and physics, as those are the necessary foundations of the ethics.

I hope you'll expand your ideas in this area in future threads.

Welcome Cornelius!

Given your explanation of your user name and the questions that might be raised about the "prostitute" aspect I do think it would be best for you to shorten your user name in some way {perhaps CorneliusP but your choice...). Into the future most user who see "Peripateticus" will presume it is a nod to Aristotle and wonder how that fits into the forum purpose. Given your reasoning for the original choice this would appear to be a situation where the benefit of the inside joke is outweighed by the questions it willraise in the minds of others in the future.

Your enthusiasm is certainly welcome here, and your being Italian will no doubt be an asset. I look forward to hearing more from you as time goes by, and if you have any issues using the forum let us know.

Welcome Cornelius, who has sent me the following information about himself. He sounds fascinating and familiar with the forum rules, so for the time being we'll consider his name to indicate that he likes to exercise his legs, rather than as a statement of dedication to Aristotle!

Cornelius tells me:

Quote

Hi, I'm Francesco, an Italian student at the University of Rome in Primary Education (essentially, I'm studying to become an elementary and preschool teacher). Having attended liceo classico (a high school in Italy that requires rigorous study of Greek and Latin language and texts), since my sophomore year (around age 16) I've been extremely fascinated by Epicurus's thought and how it was later reworked in a profoundly artistic way by Lucretius. I distinctly remember how my first reading of the Epistle to Menoeceus genuinely brought me to tears at the end, with Epicurus's final exhortation urging his friend, "Take and practice these teachings, and you will be a god among mortals, for to this is comparable the joy of one who enjoys immortal goods."

I've had a difficult life, especially since early adolescence, and Epicurus, somewhat similarly to Lucretius's description, has always been a beacon of light in my life (along with several other thinkers, but Epicurus was certainly the first to strike me in this way). I still find the idea behind Tetrapharmakon, the detachment from harmful, "artificial," and purely "comfortable" goods and pleasures that only generate a profound dose of pain in man (and society as a whole), to be avant-garde. I find the Samian master's exhortation to pursue a simple life of simple pleasures, as well as his definition of pain and pleasure, enlightening, however simple it may seem to the contemporary eye. Even today, in moments of suffering or difficult decisions, I find myself repeating what has become a mantra for me: "Not all pleasures should be pursued because they can lead to greater pain, just as not all pains should be avoided because they can yield unforgettable pleasures." I believe there are no thinkers like Epicurus who have shaped my way of looking at the world, ethics, and personal care, except Jean Jacques Rousseau (whom I won't discuss, however, because I've clearly read the forum rules: I don't intend to express contemporary political opinions, nor "ontological" or "ideal" human life-state opinions); it's no coincidence that the (brilliant) starting idea of Epicurean philosophy was to care for a people like the Greeks, who had lost their identity as "free citizens of the polis" and become vassals and subjects of the Macedonian kingdom.

I believe his was the first explicit form of dissemination of applied philosophical thought, applied not so much as a search for truth but as a form of large-scale therapy open to anyone, for living a healthier life, physically, mentally, and even "spiritually" (by which I mean the balance that develops between the individual and the surrounding world once Epicurus' teachings have been properly assimilated, and to which I do not attach a religious value). I was immediately struck by the name of the forum, given the importance Epicurus placed on the concept of friendship, and I thought I could finally find a space where, even if only passively, I could meet like-minded people and perhaps find insights on how best to apply Epicurus' thought to everyday life.

Unfortunately, although I am surrounded by friends who are classicists like me, they are all mostly Stoic in their thinking, so, although there are points of connection between the two lines of thought, the conversation very often reaches an impasse. I apologize for the rather long introduction, even though a short one was requested, but I got carried away by what Horace would call "lactea ubertas," and I hope you'll forgive me for that.

Welcome Cornelius Peripateticus !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

I'm not sure whether this link is included in previous posts, but I see that the Athenians have a youtube page where various presentations can be accessed directly:

Welcome to Episode 323 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most 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 we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
   
This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective. We are focusing first on what is referred to as Book One, which provides an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and gives us an overview of the philosophical issues being dealt with at the time of Epicurus. This week will will continue in Section 5

Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:

• 
  

  

  Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

V.

I entreat you however, said Atticus, I entreat you to go on, Varro. For I am greatly attached to my own countrymen and to their works; and those subjects delight me beyond measure when they are treated in Latin, and in such a manner as you treat them. And what, said I, do you think that I must feel, who have already engaged to display philosophy to our nation? Let us then, said he, continue the subject, since it is agreeable to you.

A threefold system of philosophising, then, was already received from Plato. One, on the subject of life and morals. A second, on nature and abstruse matters. The third, on discussion, and on what is true or false; what is right or wrong in a discourse; what is consistent or inconsistent in forming a decision.

And that first division of the subject, that namely of living well, they sought in nature herself, and said that it was necessary to obey her; and that that chief good to which everything was referred was not to be sought in anything whatever except in nature. And they laid it down that the crowning point of all desirable things, and the chief good, was to have received from nature everything which is requisite for the mind, or the body, or for life. But of the goods of the body, they placed some in the whole, and others in the parts. Health, strength, and beauty in the whole. In the parts, soundness of the senses, and a certain excellence of the individual parts. As in the feet, swiftness; in the hands, strength; in the voice, clearness; in the tongue, a distinct articulation of words. The excellences of the mind they considered those which were suitable to the comprehension of virtue by the disposition. And those they divided under the separate heads of nature and morals. Quickness in learning and memory they attributed to nature; each of which was described as a property of the mind and genius. Under the head of “morals” they classed our studies, and, I may say, our habits, which they formed, partly by a continuity of practice, partly by reason. And in these two things was contained philosophy itself, in which that which is begun and not brought to its completion, is called a sort of advance towards virtue; but that which is brought to completion is virtue, being a sort of perfection of nature and of all things which they place in the mind; the one most excellent thing. These things then are qualities of the mind.

The third division was that of life. And they said that those things which had influence in facilitating the practice of virtue were connected with this division. For virtue is discerned in some good qualities of the mind and body, which are added not so much to nature as to a happy life. They thought that a man was as it were a certain part of the state, and of the whole human race, and that he was connected with other men by a sort of human society. And this is the way in which they deal with the chief and natural good. But they think that everything else is connected with it, either in the way of increasing or of maintaining it; as riches, power, glory, and influence. And thus a threefold division of goods is inferred by them.

[media]https://www.spreaker.com/episode/70491386/media

Episode 322 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Epicurean Moral Outrage Against Socrates"

[media]https://www.spreaker.com/episode/70342091/media

I should also point out that this quotation in post 7 is a long distance from the point where this thread started out, when your advocated "Joy" as the goal ("Neither "ataraxia" nor "not ataraxia", but "Joy as the goal").

That's because katastematic pleasure specifically does not include joy. As I cited above from Diogenes Laertius:

And Epicurus in the work on Choice speaks as follows: ‘Freedom from trouble in the mind and from pain in the body are static pleasures, but Joy and exultation are considered as active pleasures involving motion. '

If you believe that joy and exultation are an integral part of the Epicurean goal of life, then you specifically one would NOT limit the goal to only one kind of pleasure ("katastematic pleasure") as is implied in parenthetic construction in the sentence:

"the pursuit of pleasure is the path to eustatheia and happiness (katastematic pleasure or pleasurable state) (underline added)

The part you have quoted there Kalosyni will be read by some people be circular or worse. It does not specifically identify what "happiness" is apart from pleasure. Further, in equating happiness to "katastematic pleasure" in that last sentence, the part you quoted will be erroneously read by some to exclude "kinetic pleasure." That is a terrible misreading of the full picture, which is that ALL feeling that is not painful constitutes pleasure, and that a life of happiness is nothing more than a life of pleasure.

A more focused explanation of the issue of how to view the happy state in relation to pleasure can be found in Sedley's Epicurean vs Cyreniac Happiness, and through reading what Torquatus has to say about the issue in On Ends.

File

David Sedley - Epicurean vs Cyreniac Happiness

Eudaimonia, happiness, is a property of a whole life, not of some portion of it. (Link to Article at the Academia.edu website.)

Cassius

February 23, 2025 at 6:48 AM

Quote from Matteng

To be a pure egoist let you live painfully. To be pure altruist let you live painfully.

i strongly agree with this.

Quote from Kalosyni

I would like to propose a third way..."Joy as the goal" as I think that this puts a better spin on what is meant by "pleasure" in Epicurean philosophy...and I think it also leads to greater motivation to "get off one's bum" and make effort toward a good life. I do seem to remember that there is at least one reference to joy in the extant texts, but will need to track that down.

I agree that it is important to emphasize joy, and the failure to do so is a big problem in modern Epicurean discussion.

However, from Diogenes Laertius:

And Epicurus in the work on Choice speaks as follows: ‘Freedom from trouble in the mind and from pain in the body are static pleasures, but Joy and exultation are considered as active pleasures involving motion. '

Joy falls within pleasure, not the other way around. I'd say what you are describing is one of many ways to explain that pleasure has many facets, but "joy" cannot replace "pleasure" as the global term. There are many types of pleasure which are also an important part of the goal but which do not fall within "joy."

EpicureanFriends Side-By-Side Diogenes Laertius Ten

Welcome MCTIMKAT!

He tells me --

As I approach my 70th birthday, I have been reviewing my life up to this milestone point, and in so doing have developed a strong desire to consolidate the experiences of those years into a coherent philosophy of living to guide me through whatever years remain. While I don't think cherry-picking this or that element from the various philosophical schools in order to piece together an amalgam that suits me is wise, I do think that I need to assemble a coherent and compatible framework that I can follow with confidence that it is the one most beneficial to me. I enjoyed looking through your materials and resources, and know they will help me in that endeavor.

Welcome mctimkat

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from most other philosophies, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

We have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

To those reading along I would amplify what Daniel has said about 1000 times. He's approaching the subject as it is generally approached nowadays - sort of clinically. Yes indeed if you define 1 as "courage" and 2 as "justice" and "complete happiness" as "courage + justice" then you are completely happy if you have 1 and 2. You could likewise define 1 as oranges and 2 as bananas and complete happiness as "orange + bananas" and if you have 1 + 2 you have complete happiness. And if you're stupid enough to do that you'll never miss, because 1 + 2 are defined as equaling 3.

But isn't it clear that this is nonsensical? It SHOULD be clear, but when you start the chain with "everyone wants happiness" and you don't make CLEAR what you mean by happiness then you can draw every sucker into the world into your trap, and that is exactly what Stoicism does.

There are many good people who get taken in by Stoicism, and I am all in favor of treating them diplomatically, because most of us ourselves were one in thrall of their slights of hand - just as many today are taken in by religion.

Stoicism in the hands of the innocent is a tragedy, but in the hands of those who should know better, it's one of the worst crimes in the history of the world. Pythagoras and Socrates and Plato and others in their line set all this in motion, and the Stoics simply abstracted it further to an absurd extreme. Their line deserves the full blame for what has happened as a result.

Epicurus points the way out of that trap, and his answer is by going back to the beginning of their denunciation of the senses. When you use them properly to look at nature and see that NATURE is supreme (not prime movers, divine fire, or universal intelligence) then you see the way out of the trap is really very simple.

Don't go down this false path in the first place, and if you're already trapped in it retrace your steps as quickly as you can. Nature through the senses, anticipations, and feelings can lead you out of this trap, but looking to "Nature" alone isn't good enough. The Stoics and Aristotle alike both claim to look to Nature. It's only when you reject the idea that you or your chosen idol are over Nature and smarter than Nature that you are in tune with what Epicurus was teaching.

c

Matteng here is another example of that problem of granting false presumptions, this from Plato's Phaedo:

Quote

[100b] “There is nothing new,” he said, “in what I am about to tell you; but only what I have been always and everywhere repeating in the previous discussion and on other occasions: I want to show you the nature of that cause which has occupied my thoughts, and I shall have to go back to those familiar words which are in the mouth of everyone, and first of all assume that there is an absolute beauty and goodness and greatness, and the like; grant me this, and I hope to be able to show you the nature of the cause, and to prove [100c] the immortality of the psūkhē.”

Cebes said, “You may proceed at once with the proof, as I readily grant you this.”

Hell, no, Socrates!

I do NOT grant you that there is an "absolute" beauty and goodness and greatness!

Read onward from there, and you see what a trap you are drawn into by accepting these initial premises:

Plato, Phaedo, trans. Jowett - The Center for Hellenic Studies

Translated by Benjamin Jowett Adapted by Gregory Nagy, Miriam Carlisle, and Soo-Young Kim Persons of the Dialogue Phaedo, who is the narrator of the dialogue…

chs.harvard.edu

And you have to smile - or want to strangle Plato - at the audacity of statements such as this:

Quote

Echecrates
Yes, Phaedo; and I don’t wonder at their assenting. Anyone who has the least sense will acknowledge the wonderful clearness of Socrates’ reasoning.

So the most relevant section comes near the end, when Socrates feels challenged by the argument that the soul might be longer-lasting than the body, but still might not exist forever. The main part starts with this opening:

Quote

“Then I will tell you,” said Socrates. “When I was young, Cebes, I had a prodigious desire to know that department of philosophy which is called Natural Science; this appeared to me to have lofty aims, as being the science which has to do with the causes of things, and which teaches why a thing is, and is created and destroyed; [96b] and I was always agitating myself with the consideration of such questions as these: Is the growth of animals the result of some decay which the hot and cold principle contracts, as some have said? Is the blood the element with which we think, or the air, or the fire? or perhaps nothing of this sort – but the brain may be the originating power of the perceptions of hearing and sight and smell, and memory and opinion may come from them, and science may be based on memory and opinion when no longer in motion, but at rest. And then I went on to examine the decay of them, [96c] and then to the things of the sky above and the earth below, and at last I concluded that I was wholly incapable of these inquiries, as I will satisfactorily prove to you. For I was fascinated by them to such a degree that my eyes grew blind to things that I had seemed to myself, and also to others, to know quite well; and I forgot what I had before thought to be self-evident, that the growth of man is the result of eating and drinking; [96d] for when by the digestion of food flesh is added to flesh and bone to bone, and whenever there is an aggregation of congenial elements, the lesser bulk becomes larger and the small man greater. Was not that a reasonable notion?”

“Yes,” said Cebes, “I think so.”

“Well; but let me tell you something more. There was a time when I thought that I understood the meaning of greater and less pretty well; and when I saw a great man standing by a little one I fancied that one was taller than the other by a head; [96e] or one horse would appear to be greater than another horse: and still more clearly did I seem to perceive that ten is two more than eight, and that two cubits are more than one, because two is twice one.”

“And what is now your notion of such matters?” said Cebes.

“I should be far enough from imagining,” he replied, “that I knew the cause of any of them, indeed I should, for I cannot satisfy myself that when one is added to one, the one to which the addition is made becomes two, [97a] or that the two units added together make two by reason of the addition. For I cannot understand how, when separated from the other, each of them was one and not two, and now, when they are brought together, the mere juxtaposition of them can be the cause of their becoming two: nor can I understand how the division of one is the way to make two; for then a different cause [97b] would produce the same effect—as in the former instance the addition and juxtaposition of one to one was the cause of two, in this the separation and subtraction of one from the other would be the cause. Nor am I any longer satisfied that I understand the reason why one or anything else either is generated or destroyed or is at all, but I have in my mind some confused notion of another method, and can never admit this.