Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Lucretius, De rerum natura
>
Lucretius, Book 2
date
newest »
newest »
Theresa wrote: "How does Everitt define superstition? The catholic church before the reformation had some complicated ideas about how to get saved with the purchase of indulgences. Observers usually focus on the power and corruption of the institution of the church in this regard, but behind it were beliefs (or superstitions if you prefer). "The Catholic teaching on going to Heaven is really quite simple. Indulgences were never about being saved, but about going from Purgatory to Heaven more quickly (since everyone in Purgatory goes to Heaven). There were unfortunately misunderstandings due to misteaching, and abuses due to human nature (which also lead to misunderstandings), but that doesn't complicate Catholic teaching itself.
Nemo wrote @119: "… it is their unabashed praise of pleasure that is repellent to many people .. "Few things seem to be as obnoxious as pleasure. Especially if it consists of sitting in a Mediterranean garden, enjoying some (diluted) wine, discussing science and philosophy with friends! The Epicurean ideal, yuck! The only positive that can be said of this debauched lot is that they were at least not so brazen as to write the pursuit of happiness into their constitution!
No really, we must ask why (then and now) Epicureanism has been so often associated with license and selfishness. A good history of the reception of Epicureanism however, is still lacking. What I hear is that Cicero gave Rome a 'less than fair' account, and that the school was frowned upon during Augustus' revival of traditional religious values. Yet, until the end of the pagan period Epicureanism survived - emperor Hadrianus is said to have had Epicurean leanings.
From Saint Jerome comes the unlikely story that Lucretius was maddened by a love potion. And during the next centuries any remaining Epicurean was quickly despatched to Hell to test his cheeky assumptions. Dante duly reserved a place of honor for them in the sixth circle. Next comes Poggio with his transcription of DRN - but its content seems not to have been of particular interest to him! It is my impression that, different from Greenblatt’s story, the modern reception of Lucretius has been slow and hesitant.
For a long time poets and scientist were obliged to stress their repugnance of Lucretius’ materialism to justify their study of his poetics and science. Eventually atomism and materialism came to be - generally resp. widely - accepted (an interesting twist: dogmatic empiricists were the last ones still rejecting atomism). By that time science had moved far beyond the Greeks, leaving Lucretius for the philosophers to gnaw on. Can it be that some of Saint Jerome’s fury is still alive among the lovers of wisdom ?
Wendel wrote: "Few things seem to be as obnoxious as pleasure. Especially if it consists of sitting in a Mediterranean garden, enjoying some (diluted) wine, discussing science and philosophy with friends!Cicero, who is averse to Epicureanism, praises the culture of philosophical study. In fact, he named parts of his own villa after the Academy and Lyceum. The difference, if I understand him correctly, is that the Epicureans don't contribute to the greater good, but are social parasites living off the labour of other people, whereas the other philosophical schools are more ethically and socially responsible.
Wendel wrote: "From Saint Jerome comes the unlikely story that Lucretius was maddened by a love potion."
Readers can find evidence of a deteriorating mind in the DRN itself, which suggests to me that the story is probably true or that Lucretius suffered from some form of dementia in his later years. The clarify of thought and logic that is so evident in the first books disappears in the last books. The contrast is so pronounced that it is hard to dismiss.
The scholar who called Cicero 'less than fair' was clearly not averse of an understatement! And because Cicero - unlike most critics of Epicurus - knew what he was talking about, we must indeed question his motives. Epicureans had, in theory, little interest in politics. But in practice it is not so easy to see a difference with the Stoics. Cicero’s Epicurean friend Cassius was the first to plunge his knife in Ceasar, while Stoics were often pliant collaborators of the unfolding autocracy. Dante places Cassius together with the Stoic Brutus in the mouth(s) of Satan (Dante hated the regicides because he had to deal with an even worse tyrant, a theocratic pope).
Anyway, now that we are up to our necks in defamation I might as well throw in a nice little quote from Montaigne:
As for Cicero, I share the common opinion that, erudition apart, there was little excellence in his soul. He was a good citizen, affable by nature as fat jolly men like him frequently are; but it is no lie to say that his share of weakness and ambitious vanity was very great.
Wendel wrote: "The scholar who called Cicero 'less than fair' was clearly not averse of an understatement! And because Cicero - unlike most critics of Epicurus - knew what he was talking about, we must indeed question his motives..."Cicero considers the duty of an intellectual to dedicate himself to public service, not for self-interest or personal gain - the Epicurean motive, but for the just cause and demand of his country (On the Republic and Laws). According to the Cicero scholar D. R. Shackleton Bailey, it was this sense of duty that led him to remain in politics in the tumultuous final years of the Republic and lose his life for it. He was timorous by nature, but the fact that he overcame his personal weakness to answer the call of duty time and again showed his courage and nobility of spirit, imo.
Wendel wrote: "Dante places Cassius together with the Stoic Brutus in the mouth(s) of Satan (Dante hated the regicides because he had to deal with an even worse tyrant, a theocratic pope)."When reflecting on the assassination of Caesar, Cicero wrote, “The tyranny lives on, the tyrant is dead! We rejoice at his slaughter and defend his acts!” The death of one tyrant doesn’t lead to the abolition of tyranny, unless the people abolish the tyrant in themselves. The act of killing a tyrant does not necessarily prove the character of the killer.
Dante assigned Brutus and Cassius to the lowest circle of Hell, for treachery, not for regicide.
Nemo wrote: "self-interest or personal gain - the Epicurean motiveWhere did you get that from?
Epicurus argues that everything good will ultimately give pleasure and everything bad must result in pain. There is something to be said for this approach when it appears impossible to discern the good from the bad in any other way.Superficially this may remind us of the immorality of capitalism, but there is no invisible hand here. Epicurus’ system depends entirely on our capacity to focus on the long term - and his long term objects seem not so different from the goals proposed by other Greek thinkers.
Now one may object that Epicurus’ demands on our rationality are too high. That we are better off with a stern authority to keep us in line. In fact I have grave doubts about his optimism myself. These are things we could discuss.
But saying that Epicurus is about 'self-interest and personal gain' gives the impression that you - with Cicero and Saint Jerome - are in fact unwilling to consider his arguments.
This attitude towards Epicurus is not an incident, and therefore it needs an explanation.
@ 126: In the feudal scheme of things regicide was the highest form of treachery.
Wendel wrote: "@ 126: In the feudal scheme of things regicide was the highest form of treachery. "True, but Dante makes a distinction between regicide and treachery: treachery necessarily involves a violation of trust and beneficience, but regicide does not, which is maybe why he feels no compunction about damning a few popes to hell.
Wendel wrote: "Epicurus argues that everything good will ultimately give pleasure and everything bad must result in pain."This is such a huge topic that I don't know where to start or stop, but I'm willing to discuss with you as long as, well, it gives pleasure. :)
Everything good is ultimately pleasurable and everything bad ultimately painful. The major Greek thinkers agree on that point. However, the reverse is not true. Not everything pleasurable is good, nor everything painful bad. So we cannot discern the good from the bad by the pleasure and pain that accompany them.
I would agree with you that there is a demand on our rationality, but the Epicurean doctrine undermines rationality with its materialism and emphasis on the senses. "Long term" implies progress, but there is no progress in Lucretius' universe, only endless cycles. There is no incentive to look beyond the present.
I'm not familiar with St. Jerome, but Cicero did consider the Epicurean arguments for long term results in his book On Ends. (Erudition apart, he has the fairness of mind to present opposing arguments in their best form, and not stoop to straw men tactics.)
Everyman wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Motion is a change from one position to another, which implies that the positions themselves must be at rest."I think you're in danger of getting into Zeno's paradox..."
Did someone say Zeno's paradox?
http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-01-31
Nemo wrote: " but Dante makes a distinction between regicide and treachery: treachery necessarily involve..."You are mistaken: vassalage was a sworn relation, the breach of which was treachery by definition. So Dante places Cassius and Brutus as regicides in the ninth circle.
Nemo wrote: "This is such a huge topic that I don't know where to start or stop, but I..."Nemo, you have completely and utterly convinced me of the correctness of my position :-).
Copley says in the introduction to his translation: "…of all the philosophies of antiquity, Epicureanism—the basis of Lucretius’ poem—was the one with which Cicero had the least patience and which he least bothered to understand". He was certainly not the last to show this attitude. Or the first. Or the worst offender. The question is what caused this blind wrath.
Maybe it’s the cold nature of materialism, or the difficult obligation to find moral standards within ourselves. Or the (misplaced I think) fear that 'pleasure' will not include duties to the community. Or Epicurean sectarianism and Lucretius’ unbearable evangelizing. Or again maybe it is just Epicurus' common sense that does not accord with the mindset of people drawn to philosophy?
Anyway, these I find interesting questions, actually more so than the philosophy itself. Though Epicurus has become one of the two Greek philosophers that I will explore a bit further for their own sake, and not only for their possible influence outside the philosophical domain.
But we will not agree, and it may be best to wind this thread up before we start moving in circles. I'm sure that before long we will find another, more profitable, issue on which we can disagree.
Wendel wrote: "Copley says in the introduction to his translation: "…of all the philosophies of antiquity, Epicureanism—the basis of Lucretius’ poem—was the one with which Cicero had the least patience and which he least bothered to understand""Did Copley give any proofs that Cicero didn't bother to understand Epicureanism despite writing at least three books on the subject? Why did Cicero prepare and publish Lucretius' transcript in Rome after the latter's death?
Conscience is widely considered a moral standard within ourselves. Much fewer people object to that form of autonomy, as opposed to the pleasure-driven, if the latter can be considered as such.
Pleasure and personal gain might include duties and benefits to the community, when there are no conflicts between them, but what happens when there is a direct conflict, when duties to the community mean the loss of one's wealth, reputation, and even one's life?
I'm interested in discussing the philosophy itself, as well as arguments for and against it. For this is a learning experience for me. But, only as long as it gives pleasure to the other discussants. :)
P.S. Just out of curiosity, who is the other philosopher you're interested in?
Wendel wrote: "Nemo wrote: " but Dante makes a distinction between regicide and treachery: treachery necessarily involve..."You are mistaken: vassalage was a sworn relation, the breach of which was treachery by..."
Regicide is not limited to vassals in the Middle Ages. There are no sworn relations between the citizens and the tyrants who usurp power. Dante condemned the popes for usurping power.
Nemo wrote: "Wendel wrote: "Copley says.."* It's not only Copley.
* Did Cicero edit L's writing? We only have Jerome's word for that.
* We all must make choices, an Epicurean recognizing that his 'pleasure' depends on being part of a community might make more sacrifices than a Stoic arguing that it's all pre-ordained anyway - I'm not in a position to argue one way or the other, the point is that we should not make easy assumptions based on the word 'pleasure'
* Aristotle (of course)
Wendel wrote: "* It's not only Copley."It doesn't excuse him, or anyone else, for making claims about people without giving proofs.
Aristotle (of course)
I thought it was Sextus Empiricus. :)
Aristotle argued against the atomists, from whom Epicurus received his natural philosophy; he defended "pleasure", though not in the same sense used by the Epicureans.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
On Ends (other topics)On the Republic / On the Laws (other topics)
Pensées (other topics)
That's an interesting piece of logic.
Lucretius' materialism leads him to believe that everything has its origin in the atoms. Therefore, the existence of free will proves that the atoms must swerve on its own, independent of any chain of cause and effect. But, wait a minute, this also means that the "free-will" of man is dependent on the swerve of the atoms, there is a chain of cause and effect from atoms to man's free-will, and therefore man's will is not free.