Search Results
Search results 1-5 of 5.
-
From my perspective, you're reading too much into Lucretius's "there necessarily must be something that remains immutable." I think he's simply talking about the "seeds" or Epicurean "atoms/un-cuttables" of which there are supposed to be types. For Lucretius, the "immutable" somethings are "seeds" like smooth atoms and hooked atoms. These remain *unchanged* whether the smooth atoms are in water or wine; whether the hooked atoms are in iron or stone. These "seeds" remain unchanged. In a modern se…
-
I always forget these episodes are at least a week old for you as opposed to those of us just listening to them (Quote) I'm responding to the extended discussion starting at when you quoted DRN at 14:23 and then you ( Cassius ) said Lucretius is talking about an "ultimate particle of some kind that has unchanging characteristics" and Elayne says "there's no such thing as that." My contention is that Lucretius was simply talking about the Epicurean "un-cuttables" or "seeds" as Lucretius sometimes…
-
From what I can read from those categories, the ancient Epicureans would have had a lot of phenomena stuck at 2b whereas modern science, with its extension of the senses (e.g., microscopes, telescopes, etc), is able to have many more move into 2c. Major 2b ones that we still wrestle with are the deep structure and origin of the universe, the origin of life, etc. BUT we can literally see into deep space and "see" deep into matter at the interactions of atoms and molecules with experimentation and…
-
I'll admit I was out of my depth on Godfrey 's post on necessary and sufficient. This site helped explain it for me, especially the examples. Looking forward to 33.
-
An even more striking line from Cicero's Epicurean is: (Quote) He's going to use observation and evidence to the best of his ability. But... Do we hold the ancients' reasoning from their evidence to our standard of knowledge? Or do we approach them on their terms and limits? We know there are not "hooked atoms" and "smooth atoms" but do we applaud them for using their available observations (e.g., fishhooks in a box) and extrapolating a natural explanation of nature, free of supernatural and div…
