Search Results

Search results 1-4 of 4.

  • (Quote from waterholic) If you reduce everything to atoms and motion in a straight line, people think that that would lead to a totally mechanistic result, and so a straight line materialist such as Democritus would conclude that everything is in the grip of an iron "fate" that allows no room for personal decisions whatsoever. Cicero made this argument against Epicurus in criticizing the swerve as a departure and regression from Democritus.
  • You're right Onenski that I don't think we have had too many discussions in the past on this topic. I personally have not made myself an expert on the different theories that get packaged under the name "determinism" so (since it is late when I write this) I will see if others answer first before I reply further myself. I guess the key to unwinding this is going to be figuring out if this makes sense, which intuitively seems hard to follow: (Quote from Onenski)
  • (Quote from waterholic) Yes that will be key in unwinding the question. I can imaging the possibility based on those words that "fatalism" embodies a supernatural force guiding things, while determinism simply means everything is mechanical, but I would not rush to embrace those terms without a standard point of reference identifying them as such.
  • Onenski I should have thought of this earlier but one of my favorite articles in all my Epicurean reading bears on what you are talking about. It's "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism" by A A Long. Look for it here: Long: "Chance and Natural Law In Epicureanism" The bottom line (one among many) is that Long suggests that while the swerve is potentially operational at all times, it only "breaks through" to cause observable action in our world in the realm of higher living things who actually …