Posts by ScottW

Apologies if this is discussed in the podcast - I'll try to listen and catch up! There is a discussion on this topic in Plato's Laws, Book X. I asked Grok to summarize the chapter and it identified some key points:

Quote

Plato's argument for the existence of gods is central to Book 10, and it is structured around the concept of the soul as the first origin of motion. A detailed summary from a blog post highlights this argument (Great Books of the Western World: Plato: Laws [Book X]

1. There are things in motion.
2. Matter can move other matter but cannot move itself.
3. The soul can move itself and matter.
4. Therefore, the soul must have moved matter, and the soul moving the heavens is a god.

This argument positions the soul as prior to the body, a self-moving principle that supervises the cosmos, with the orderly movements of celestial bodies (e.g., earth, sun, stars) serving as evidence of divine intelligence.

Plato leads into his argument with this line of thought :

Quote

ATHENIAN: Quite true, Megillus and Cleinias, but I am afraid that we have unconsciously lighted on a strange doctrine.

CLEINIAS: What doctrine do you mean?

ATHENIAN: The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many.

CLEINIAS: I wish that you would speak plainer.

ATHENIAN: The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature, some by art, and some by chance.

CLEINIAS: Is not that true?

ATHENIAN: Well, philosophers are probably right; at any rate we may as well follow in their track, and examine what is the meaning of them and their disciples.

CLEINIAS: By all means.

ATHENIAN: They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art, which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial.

CLEINIAS: How is that?

ATHENIAN: I will explain my meaning still more clearly. They say that fire and water, and earth and air, all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order—earth, and sun, and moon, and stars—they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them

Display More

Anyway, I thought Plato's discussion here was interesting and helps to understand the 'political-theological' response to the physical theories of other philosophers, with the concept of the 'soul' and its motions as a key concern.

First, some explanatory context before I present some, at least to me, unexpected references to Epicurus in an early Christian apology by Tertullian titled “Against Marcion”.

As explained by Brave search’s AI:

“Tertullian, a Christian theologian and apologist, wrote a series of five books against Marcion, a prominent early Christian heretic. Marcion, a disciple of the apostle Paul, rejected the Old Testament and the God of the Old Testament, considering Him to be a cruel and unjust deity. Instead, he posited the existence of a separate, benevolent God, who was the creator of the New Testament.”

Marcion seems to have been active around 140-155 CE. “Against Marcion” was probably written around 208 CE.

I’ll quote Tertullian where he mentions Epicurus. The quotes below are translation's from the original Latin. I've just highlighted and italicized where I thought it helpful.

Book 1, Chapter 25:

“If (Marcion) chose to take any one of the school of Epicurus, and entitle him God in the name of Christ, on the ground that what is happy and incorruptible can bring no trouble either on itself or anything else (for Marcion, while poring over this opinion of the divine indifference, has removed from him all the severity and energy of the judicial character), it was his duty to have developed his conceptions into some imperturbable and listless god (and then what could he have had in common with Christ, who occasioned trouble both to the Jews by what He taught, and to Himself by what He felt?), or else to have admitted that he was possessed of the same emotions as others (and in such case what would he have had to do with Epicurus, who was no friend to either him or Christians?).

…

When, therefore, (Marcion's god) felt both a will and a desire for man's salvation, he certainly occasioned some concern and trouble both to himself and others. This Marcion's theory suggests, though Epicurus demurs.”

Book 2, Chapter 16:

“We are taught God by the prophets, and by Christ, not by the philosophers nor by Epicurus. We ... are very far from thinking as those do who refuse to believe that God cares for anything.”

Book 4, Chapter 15:

“Well, then, in this case, no sin ought to have been charged against the Jews: they were rather deserving of praise and approbation when they maltreated those whom the absolutely good god of Marcion, after so long a time, bestirred himself to destroy. I suppose, however, that by this time he had ceased to be the absolutely good god; he had now sojourned a considerable while even with the Creator, and was no longer (like) the god of Epicurus purely and simply.”

Book 5, Chapter 19:

“But (once for all) let Marcion know that the principle term of his creed comes from the school of Epicurus, implying that the Lord is stupid and indifferent; wherefore he refuses to say that He is an object to be feared.”

------------------------------------------

I found these references to Epicurus in this work to be curious. Nothing of Marcion’s original work survives beyond a few quotes in polemics like this one from his adversaries, so it seems difficult to tell if Tertullian was aware of Epicurean influences on Marcion, or if the parallels between Epicurus’ purported conceptions of God and Marcion’s were just a convenient rhetorical strategy to discredit him with Christian readers.

There are a number of other early works attempting to refute Marcion; Tertullian’s is the only one that I’ve read thus far. Likewise, I’ve scanned through Norman Dewitt’s “St. Paul and Epicurus” which makes no mention of Marcion, if I’m not mistaken.

Have we found in Marcion an unexpected friend, in the philosophical sense, of Epicurus? With such scanty evidence it’s difficult to say, but it’s interesting to me to see the influence of Epicurean teaching at this early stage of Christianity and that Tertullian felt the need to argue this way.

I did a quick search across the site and found a few references to Marcion in other forum posts so it seems others of us have had similar thoughts.

I hope you find this enjoyable!

Thank you all for your kind greetings!

Hello all! Just a quick review of how I got here. I started studying philosophy many years ago and came to Epicurus perhaps in an unusual way. I was pretty much reading everything by Leo Strauss and he mentions Epicurus (favorably?) in several of his books. I would say of all the philosophers, I've wrestled with Spinoza the most, on the questions of free will and determinism especially. What I find remarkable about Epicurus is that he came to a 'scientific' world-view and somehow rose above mythological and religious explanations of natural phenomena, as well as an epistemology and ethic that holds true thousands of years later. With all due respect to Spinoza, I can't accept, based on my own senses and experience, that all my actions are pre-determined by an infinite chain of causes. To me, Epicurus offers a reasonable and consistent view on this issue.

Sorry to ramble here somewhat, but I'm grateful for the effort that has gone into this site and the tremendous collection of resources it offers. And, I look forward to meeting like-minded friends here