Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We start the discussion of a book which Stephen Greenblatt, in The Swerve, called "an astonishingly convincing account of the way things actually are." And indeed, while the details of his world view aren't exactly what a modern physicist would find completely accurate, the general principles he lays out, at least in Book 1, seem to me to be remarkably modern.

I noted particularly several things. One is his recognition that Latin's "pauper speech"* doesn't have the vocabulary to adequately "tell the dark discoveries of the Greeks." And now most of us are reading the work in English, so we're getting an interpretation of the Latin terminology which is an interpretation of the Greek terminology.

However, despite this, I am finding the work remarkably clear, well structured, and understandable. He lays out his propositions, refutes prior incorrect (to him) theories, and winds up the book with an exhortation to "see with reasonable minds" the universe as he understands it.

I'm curious as to whether people find his arguments persuasive, or whether they see his arguments as not logically consistent or conclusive.

*Most of my quotations are/will be from the Gutenberg edition, the William Ellery Leonard translation.

Everyman wrote: "I'm curious as to whether people find his arguments persuasive, or whether they see his arguments as not logically consistent or conclusive. "

I find his reasoning to be fairly convincing, and his conclusions rather astonishing given the observational data he had to work with. He was writing in the first century BC, and almost 2000 years later we see Kant wrestling with the some of the same problems , like the infinity of space. If I recall correctly, Kant even uses the same thought experiment (in the Critique of Pure Reason) -- go to the end of the universe and "hurl a flying spear." Kant resolves the problem differently, of course, but it's pretty remarkable that Lucretius's argument is still worthy of consideration after all those years. That's a long conversation.

Patrice wrote: "I agree, his conclusions are astounding. Toward the end he seems to go off track by refusing to believe that everything goes toward the middle which I think we call gravity.

There a few things puz..."
I think although he had some grasp of the concept of gravity, he still couldn't get rid of the geocentric view.

I also think that Venus (or any other deities he mentions in the poem) is meant to be a poetic symbol, or metaphor. I don't think he REALLY believes there is a goddess governing love.

He (or actually Epicurus) believed that every knowledge should be derived from factual observation, not just surmises or beliefs. But he also acknowledges that our senses can be deceiving or insufficient. For example, the atoms are there but we can't see them because they are too small for our senses to detect them. I think it's his way of saying that our senses are not perfect but they are better than our other thought processes?

Everyman wrote: "We start the discussion of a book which Stephen Greenblatt, in The Swerve, called "an astonishingly convincing account of the way things actually are." And indeed, while the details of his world vi..."

Did his recognition of Latin being a pauper's speech have anything to do with his aversion to saying the word 'fish'? I was wondering if fish was something he just couldn't say out loud or something like Voldemort in Harry Potter. :-)

Patrice wrote: "I've just taken a class on the rise of Rome. One of my classmates was a professor of classics. He taught the orestia in Greek. I asked if he read Livy in Latin. He waved his hand at the thought and..."

AAAARGH... but Greek even LOOKS harder than Latin (cyrillic alphabets are so intimidating...)

Patrice wrote: "And Ancient Greek is not modern.
Wait a minute, you speak Korean!
Very intimidating to me!"
Yes, and I read a little Japanese and some classic Chinese as well. :-)
But they don't help me not one ℩ (iota, one of my favorite Greek alphabets) in reading the Western Canon, though!

Thomas wrote: "He wants to tear down religion....Yet he keeps to the traditional form of dedicating his poem to Venus. "

I haven't finished book one, but I did want to mention that David Sedley argues that by invoking Venus at the beginning, Lucretius is consciously echoing the philosophy-poetry of Empedocles. However, as Lucretius develops his arguments, he "corrects" Empedoclean philosophy and makes it clear thereby that Venus is a metaphor and not literal.

His isn't the only view, and it is impossible to prove given how little survives of Empedocles. From what I understand, devout Epicureans thought of the gods kind of like Buddhas (as conceived by some): unconcerned with us and our pathetic attempts to draw their favor, but nevertheless vital moral exemplars for us, accessible to the visions of the rational man.

Whether he believes in Venus as a Goddess or not, he does introduce this theories by expressing this reverence toward her.

I like his call to the reader to open their mind and overcome any thoughts that they are insulting the gods while at the same time remarking that they will still be tempted by this superstition as the fear of punishment approaches.

"And for the rest, summon to judgments true,
Unbusied ears and singleness of mind
Withdrawn from cares; lest these my gifts, arranged
For thee with eager service, thou disdain
Before thou comprehendest:"

Lucretius first asks us to not pass judgement immediately lest we reject to soon his arguments. A few lines later he tries to preempt the worry of those who believe by continuing down this line of reason they are going against the gods.

"I fear perhaps thou deemest that we fare
An impious road to realms of thought profane;"

This is followed by admitting they the readers are likely to lapse back into superstition, especially as death approaches and the fear of eternal punishment looms.

"And there shall come the time when even thou,
Forced by the soothsayer's terror-tales, shalt seek
To break from us. Ah, many a dream even now
Can they concoct to rout thy plans of life,
And trouble all thy fortunes with base fears.
I own with reason: for, if men but knew
Some fixed end to ills, they would be strong
By some device unconquered to withstand
Religions and the menacings of seers."

Patrice wrote: "There a few things puzzling me. He wants to tear down religion. He feels that belief in the gods is superstition and presents the story of Iphigenia as proof. Religion can be destructive. Yet he keeps to the traditional form of dedicating his poem to Venus. Venus who creates all living things. Venus who was the mother of Aeneas, etc. What's up with that? It nags at me as I read the rest."

Yep. This sticks out, doesn't it? My introductory notes solved the problem by saying, "well, Milton did it, so we can forgive Lucretius.". So, do we lower the bar of consistency because Milton did it? Or do we knock points off from Milton and Lucretius? :p

Actually, as I was reading, the following passage stuck out to me:

"I wished to tell my tale in sweet Pierian song for you,
To paint it with the honey of the Muses,
Hoping that thus I might fix your attention
Upon my verse until you clearly saw
How all of nature is arranged and shaped."

He says this after telling a tale about tricking kids into taking medicine so they will be well. (All of this is around marker 930). So I took this to mean that he is invoking the Muses on purpose, so that those who would ordinarily not listen to him might give him the time of day. He is stooping to their level (in his mind), so to speak.

"And now add to this:nature breaks up all things
Into their atoms; no thing dies off to nothing"

Lucretius seems to advocate that Atoms are in an eternal cycle. For example, when a person dies, their atoms dissassemble, then assemble into another life form. Is this right? If so, it kind of reminds me of reincarnation, with the exception that in this case, the soul is not immaterial, but made of atoms.

Borum wrote: ". I think it's his way of saying that our senses are not perfect but they are better than our other thought processes? "

"What can we have more sure than sense to tell us false from true?"

I think your assessment is good. He thinks our senses are not perfect, but are the most reliable.

Patrice wrote: "Genni wrote: ""And now add to this:nature breaks up all things
Into their atoms; no thing dies off to nothing"

Lucretius seems to advocate that Atoms are in an eternal cycle. For example, when a p..."

From what I understand, I think Epicurus believed there is a soul, but that it is not immaterial. I think he believes it is made entirely of atoms. I guess that would lead to wondering if what he called the "soul" was really that or something else, like a kind of mix of emotions and will or something (and I guess all of that would fall under Lucretius's third category of "accidents"?). I am also kind of assuming that Lucretius believed this also, hence my question about this particular passage.

The Hellenistic conception of the soul is indeed more life(-force) than detached Cartesian consciousness.... Lucretius believes in this, of course, he just thinks it's purely material, a special kind of matter that interacts with the matter that causes sensory impressions.

Patrice wrote: "I agree, his conclusions are astounding. Toward the end he seems to go off track by refusing to believe that everything goes toward the middle which I think we call gravity.
"

I think he gets this by logical extension -- if the universe is infinite, as he says it is, how can there be a center? He will have to come up with another explanation for gravity, I think. That should be interesting....

Wow, there is so much just in this first "book" - it's really dense (in a good way) and meaty. I have to agree with what someone said above - you can see where he got some of the details wrong, but I'm astounded at how much he got right just from observation and thinking. His vision of the universe is so close to our own modern view, even if some of the little details can make us laugh.

I love the beginning of Book 1 and everything related to a description of the universe (atoms, infinity) but once he gets into the refutation of other philosophers then it gets a bit tedious, like an academic "literature review." Even so, he uses a lot of these moments to introduce other ideas and metaphors. There is such a wealth of examples and metaphors, such richness that ends up being (at least for me, so far), very persuasive and vivid. This must be his gift and why he is considered such a great poet.

As to the question of Venus and the gods - I'm a little confused because the introduction to my edition says Epicureans can believe in gods, just that they don't intervene in human affairs. But I don't think Lucretius believes in gods at all - except as representations or literary personifications of ideas and life forces. So when he invokes Venus I imagine that it is the equivalent of a literary formula, such as when Homer begins "Sing to me, O Muse..." or such as when we say "God bless you," or "Merry Christmas" - it doesn't imply belief (at least not for me!).

I think he uses Venus as a personification of the generative force of nature, just like later he will talk about Mother Earth. If these are gods, they are "immanent" gods, so to say. I also think this ties in with what Patrice was saying about the soul being the life force (the reality of being animate, as in Aristotle).

I think he makes his stance on the gods fairly clear early on:

For it must be that the entire nature of the gods
spends everlasting time enjoying perfect peace,
far removed and long separated from our concerns. (trans. Englert, line 44)

His main point seems to be that the gods are not responsible for the way things are -- nature is. Religion is for Lucretius a source of fear, and he sees a study of nature as a way to free oneself of this fear.

Another reason for his invocation of Venus (aside from the fact that it is traditional to do this, and Venus is the symbolic "mother" of Rome) is that Lucretius might be required by Roman custom to acknowledge the Roman gods. The Romans were very tolerant of alien religions, but they did not tolerate disrespect of the official Roman gods.

Thank you for pointing out that line, it makes a lot of sense now.

One of my favorite metaphors so far is how he compares atoms to letters that can be arranged in endless combinations to create new meanings and sounds (line 823-24 in Melville). It's amazing to think that we are reading him in English through various combinations of the same letters he used in Roman characters!

Genni wrote: ""If so, it kind of reminds me of reincarnation,..."

That thought occurred to me too.

Thomas wrote: "...Lucretius might be required by Roman custom to acknowledge the Roman gods. The Romans were very tolerant of alien religions, but they did not tolerate disrespect of the official Roman gods."

Yes, exactly. However, I do still think he is sincere in his sense of respect for the Goddess. I don't think he is irreverent. He may be trying to make the point that a calm look at the facts is not necessarily a rejection of piety. Our modern day brand of irreverent atheism and free-speech driven irony may be just a peculiar aspect of western modernity.

I have heard the following theories on why Lucretius invokes Venus.

1. Lucretius is just following a poetic tradition of invocation, similar to other epic poems.
2. He is giving a distinctly Roman air to the poem by invoking the prime Roman ancestress.
3. He is honoring Memmius by invoking the patron goddess of his family.
4. He is giving a nod to Empedocles' Aphrodite
5. He views Venus as an allegorical representation of either the creative forces in nature or pleasure
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476284

I also found this

". . .[There are] parallelisms which both reflect and reinforce Lucretius' view that, just as Venus is the bringer of life, light, and calm into the physical world, so Epicurus is the bringer of light and calm into the spiritual world."

Lucretius; Ferguson Smith, Martin (2001-03-01). On the Nature of Things (Kindle Locations 1311-1312). Hackett Publishing. Kindle Edition.

David wrote: " He views Venus as an allegorical representation of either the creative forces in nature or pleasure.."

That makes sense

David wrote: "I have heard the following theories on why Lucretius invokes Venus.

1. Lucretius is just following a poetic tradition of invocation, similar to other epic poems.
2. He is giving a distinctly Roman..."

Thank you! that cleared up a lot for me.

Genni wrote: ""And now add to this:nature breaks up all things
Into their atoms; no thing dies off to nothing"

Lucretius seems to advocate that Atoms are in an eternal cycle. For example, when a person dies, th..."

It's interesting that Venus, who has been considered as the source of life in many cultures (with different names in other cultures) and Epicurus, who had a strong influence of liberation long after his time, both seem to transcend time and space. It's as if not only physical atoms but also some atoms of the soul may be passed on to the future.
Some call it meme, others call it something else.

I also find the atoms consisting the soul somewhat connected to the concept of metempsychosis. However, as in the physical world, the soul may disintegrate and the miniscule parts may be recombined and restructured into a completely differerent whole, and would that still be the same soul? I don't think it would as much as I don't think the primitive DNA of a bacteria that became the DNA of what we are through millions of years of evolution. I think the parts may be everlasting either in soul or body, but it is always in a different structure or different context.

Theresa wrote: "Whether he believes in Venus as a Goddess or not, he does introduce this theories by expressing this reverence toward her."

I don't think he's irreverent either. Maybe it's as if I, being a Christian, don't exactly 'believe' in other deities in Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. but I still respect their basic concepts or intention behind their religious beliefs.

Rex wrote: " devout Epicureans thought of the gods kind of like Buddhas (as conceived by some): unconcerned with us and our pathetic attempts to draw their favor, but nevertheless vital moral exemplars for us,...."

Serial rapist Zeus as a moral exemplar? The mind boggles!

Genni wrote: "From what I understand, I think Epicurus believed there is a soul, but that it is not immaterial...."

We will get to the soul in, I think, Book 4.

David wrote: "I have heard the following theories on why Lucretius invokes Venus.

1. Lucretius is just following a poetic tradition of invocation, similar to other epic poems...."

This explanation may not be right, but makes sense to me, particularly in the he is presenting a philosophy that is originally Greek, and the proem to the muses was an inherent element of the Greek epic poem.

Everyman wrote: "Serial rapist Zeus as a moral exemplar? The mind boggles!"

According to Martin Smith, whom David cites, the Epicureans in question staunchly denied that the myths and religious traditions got the gods right. Their gods are perfect, universal, and again, unconcerned with mortal affairs. We know them not because they intervene but because rational individuals (with "rational" defined in the usual Greek way of supersensory insight) are capable of perceiving them. The matter of sense and soul is finer than ordinary matter; the matter of the gods and the higher reason is finer still, and so interact on this superior level. Lucretius discusses this in book 5.

In book 1, line 455 -463,
Lucretius assigns liberty, war, peace and all other events as accidents that make no change in essence whether present or absent. He also says that "Time doesn't exist as such, but from events our senses gather what happened in the past, what things are with us, and what are going to be. No man may assert he senses time as such, discrete from things in motion and things at rest".
I found this remark on the theory that Time is not a thing by itself, but only a relation between things, and events are not actual 'things' either, but accidents. Isn't this something like the theory or relativity?

Rex wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Serial rapist Zeus as a moral exemplar? The mind boggles!"

According to Martin Smith, whom David cites, the Epicureans in question staunchly denied that the myths and religious tr..."

That makes sense. As much as we cannot observe the atoms which may be in a " 'least' dimension ... for that particle which our human senses canot perceive " (line 599-601), the Gods may be in a far too great a dimension for us to perceive or understand. This sort of reminds me of the movie Interstellar.

Lucretius makes a lot of the idea that things don't have innate potencies in the Aristotelian sense, but rather change their state according to the invisible reconfiguration of particles. Think about how difficult to conceive that would be for most people in his time--anything, if broken down and built up in a different way, could be something completely different. You could blow up a cow and turn it into five chickens, if you you only manipulate their matter on an atomic level. There isn't any latent fire (or potential therefore) in wood; the atoms in wood just have to adjust a little to transform into fire. The world regains a kind of fluidity--and manipulability--excluded by Parmenides and Aristotle.

I find it fascinating that Lucretius's atomism and his quantitative philosophy of matter intuitively makes more sense to us than the qualitative approaches of other ancient philosophers. Perhaps this is because his atomism straddles science and philosophy in a way that pleases modern sensibilities; we have "enjoyed" four hundred years of mechanistic models of the cosmos and a prejudice in favor of empiricism. We are accustomed to thinking of the world as potentially infinite masses of interacting particles, regardless of the philosophical validity of Lucretius's reductionism, and the inability of science to prove Lucretius's fundamental thesis against alternatives.

I think it's also important to note that Lucretius puzzles and divides scholars because he doesn't seem very relevant to his own time. Atomism was never very popular, and he seems to have garnered very little lasting attention in his own day. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out that the Greek philosophers Lucretius attacks by name had no significant following in Lucretius's time. He doesn't directly engage major rival philosophies of his own day, such as Scepticism, Stoicism, or Platonism. According to the Cambridge Companion, some scholars believe his attacks on these schools (especially Stoicism) are present, just implicit in his arguments. Other scholars interpret Lucretius as a kind of "Epicurean fundamentalist," guided wholly by his two-centuries-gone master despite philosophical developments since. Either way, Lucretius was a bit of an outsider and even perhaps a dinosaur. Certainly he was so by the time Neoplatonism and Christianity rose to preeminence.

Knowing that Lucretius's contemporaries didn't find his arguments compelling, while we find them fairly lucid and well-developed, causes me to wonder. He seems to think that such a world as he sees is too strange and prima facie depressing for ordinary people to embrace. Nevertheless, he relies a great deal on common-sense conclusions, for instance in his critical argument against infinite divisibility, and of course he draws his examples and analogies from common experience.

Another thought, inspired by Borum's last comment: Lucretius's conception of a rational "particle hierarchy" that enables sense, soul, and reason, with each category of particle interacting with others on their level of fineness, would seem to erect an enormous mind-body problem. If we see and hear because "sense particles" penetrate or slide through our larger body particles to interact solely with "soul particles," how do the soul particles interact with the higher rational and lower bodily particles? Aristotelian hylomorphism, by contrast, posits a soul that is simply the "form" of the person and thus belonging to a dimension all material things possess. But I'm pretty sure Lucretius discusses the soul at greater length in a future chapter.

Everyman wrote: ". . .he is presenting a philosophy that is originally Greek, and the proem to the muses was an inherent element of the Greek epic poem."

Would Lucretius be agreeable to being referred to as a Roman Grecophile?

This is an interesting thought on Epicurus' understanding of the gods:

. . .have led some scholars to conjecture that Epicurus' 'gods' are thought-constructs, and exist only in human minds as idealizations, i.e., the gods exist, but only as projections of what the most blessed life would be."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH3e

Patrice wrote: "I reject the ethical ideal explanation of the gods and accept the smokescreen explanation. Good link, thanks. What it comes down to is picking and choosing the explanation that makes the most sense..."

The acceptance of "the smokescreen explanation of the gods" would be consistent with the "a little honey to make the pill go down" explanation for invoking Venus.

Or maybe his invocation of Venus is like the atheist who still says, "bless you" when someone sneezes?

The invocation of Venus to me seems to be his attempt to maintain a poetic nature and lure potential converts into a comfortable, familiar environment. He wants them to think that, okay, this guy is right with the gods so reading his stuff cannot be too dangerous.

I posted earlier that just a few line after the invocation he asks the reader not to close their mind and that reading what he has to say is not an insult to the gods.

Patrice wrote: "Genni wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Genni wrote: ""And now add to this:nature breaks up all things
Into their atoms; no thing dies off to nothing"

Lucretius seems to advocate that Atoms are in an eterna..."

I think that he is arguing that atoms must at some point reach a state in which they are irreducible. If instead they decayed indefinitely then eventually everything would be gone.

I find his argument of the void and what amounts to chemical bonds to be valid logical conclusions.

In essence, if empty space did not exist the matter could not be compressed.

Also, if some type of attraction did not exist then what is to prevent things from falling apart at the lightest touch.

Patrice wrote: "Ok,there is no substitute for re reading. I think I get it now. He's not being literal. This is poetry. I think any poet could use Venus in the same way."

I agree about re-reading. I am hoping I can reread book one in the next 24 hours. But your statement made me think: this is poetry, but it is different from any other poetry I have read. It is polemical, he lays out arguments and employs reason, which is kind of amazing. I mean, It amazes me that he chose the medium of poetry for his argumetns rather than a treatise. Anyway, I was wondering if we can be blamed for taking him literally when he is clearly trying to convince us of something, and not just employing imagery for artistic purposes?

I think it is called "didactic poetry". Beginning at line 931 (penguin classics) he explains why he is using poetry, to convey his thoughts in an easy to swallow form. It is to get those who see philosophy as a "bitter pill" to start the process of learning.

Does Lucretius see himself as some wise master sprinkling his pearls of knowledge on us ignorant masses. It could be just the result of translation but sometimes he comes across as arrogant.

John wrote: "I think it is called "didactic poetry". Beginning at line 931 (penguin classics) he explains why he is using poetry, to convey his thoughts in an easy to swallow form. It is to get those who see ph..."

I agree this is what he is saying here. My point was, though I did not express it well, is that it is kind of amazing how he uses poetry as his medium for expressing his philosophy. I would think poetry would be the most difficult medium to choose for polemics, though he does explain why he chooses it in the end.

John wrote: "Does Lucretius see himself as some wise master sprinkling his pearls of knowledge on us ignorant masses. It could be just the result of translation but sometimes he comes across as arrogant."

I don't think it's necessarily arrogant - it might be that he is aware that the view of the universe without the gods, made of invisible atoms, and infinite / unbounded, would be counterfactual, unsettling ... even terrifying for his audience. That is the "bitter pill" he is trying to get us to swallow, and hence has to sweeten it with lovely poetry.

My edition has an interesting note that points out how Lucretius appropriates the language of Greek mystery religions to talk about his poem as providing "a revelation and passage from darkness to light" (this refers to line 1116 in Melville): "until you have seen / Right to the heart of nature's mysteries."

I also love the passage: "So in this way perchance my poetry / Can hold your mind, while you attempt to grasp / The nature of the world ..." (Melville 948-9).

David wrote: "This is an interesting thought on Epicurus' understanding of the gods:
. . .have led some scholars to conjecture that Epicurus' 'gods' are thought-constructs, and exist only in human minds as ide..."

This is a good link. Maybe you can also post it under the backgrounds and resources topic.

Rex wrote: "Lucretius makes a lot of the idea that things don't have innate potencies in the Aristotelian sense, but rather change their state according to the invisible reconfiguration of particles. Think abo..."

I know! I mean, even with all our previous knowledge and experience of science, it still boggles mind when I read some physics now and then (Even the movie Interstellar left my friends arguing and theorizing like crazy) It's still a fascinating subject and we STILL don't know whether the universe is infinite or not. It should have sounded so out of this world to the ancient Greeks (probably verging on preposterous or sacreligious) I'm beginning to feel sorry for Luc now that I realize how lonesome or misunderstood he must have been.

Patrice wrote: "John wrote: "I find his argument of the void and what amounts to chemical bonds to be valid logical conclusions.

In essence, if empty space did not exist the matter could not be compressed.

Also..."
Yes, DNA information is consisted of molecules, so they too, are often referred to as alphabets, (with further analogy to words, paragraphs, books, tomes, bookshelves, libraries, etc. in popular science books and actual terminologies such as nonsense reading frame, palindrome, cDNA library)
It's amazing to see the similar analogy here :-)
Even when he didn't know the actual structure of atoms, he knew that there had to be a certain configuration of order in order for everything to 'make sense' and be what they are.

Genni wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Ok,there is no substitute for re reading. I think I get it now. He's not being literal. This is poetry. I think any poet could use Venus in the same way."

I agree about re-reading...."
I'm also puzzled about that. I mean, I think he may have chosen the medium of poetry as a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down, as John said. I mean, we still have cartoons or graphic novels or physics for dummies. Something to make it a little less tedious or easier to grasp (such as the analogy to the alphabets).
Could it also have been something intended to have a mnemonic effect? The book tends to be repetitive sometimes...and it made me wonder.

I also wonder whether putting this into poetry form was actually as difficult for the ancient people as it is for us. Could they have been more accustomed to this kind of literary format? I mean, Homer's epics and Shakespeare's tragedies used to be 'entertainment' for the masses. Could it partly due to the fact that 'we' are not used to this kind of format in presenting a scientific theory?

Ignacio wrote: "John wrote: "Does Lucretius see himself as some wise master sprinkling his pearls of knowledge on us ignorant masses. It could be just the result of translation but sometimes he comes across as arr..."

I wonder if I should stop re-reading this in the same edition. (I chose to read the same one as it's still got my notes and highlights) Melville sounds lovely!

Re: DNA vs. alphabets

It's interesting how people look at the same pieces of evidence, and reach opposite conclusions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kz4O...

Rex wrote: "
I find it fascinating that Lucretius's atomism and his quantitative philosophy of matter intuitively makes more sense to us than the qualitative approaches of other ancient philosophers. ."

He was a few thousand years ahead of his time.

Knowing that Lucretius's contemporaries didn't find his arguments compelling, while we find them fairly lucid and well-developed, causes me to wonder.

It doesn't make me wonder. Look how long it took, even in the supposed age of reason, for Galileo's theories to be found compelling by his contemporaries.