Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Lucretius, De rerum natura
>
Lucretius, Book 4
date
newest »
newest »
"If, too, men claim to know nothing, they don't know they know this either, admitting that they know nothing."Is this a jibe at Socrates? :-)
Genni wrote: ""If, too, men claim to know nothing, they don't know they know this either, admitting that they know nothing."Is this a jibe at Socrates? :-)"
I guess Lucretius didn't get the memo re: Socratic irony. :-)
His argument against skepticism is interesting though, and it might explain why he is willing to pose wild speculations as matters of fact.
Thomas wrote: "I guess Lucretius didn't get the memo re: Socratic irony. :-) His argument against skepticism is interesting though, and it might explain why he is willing to pose wild speculations as matters of fact. ."
Lol, indeed. He is very earnest and, unless I have missed something, is lacking in the humor department.
The entire passage from 470-520 reminded me of Thaetetus. I wish I had my copy of T so I could review some of his discussions on knowledge, but I recently moved and have no idea where it is currently. Anyway, if I remember correctly, the closest Socrates comes to a definition of knowledge (which he was not ultimately satisfied with), was Knowledge=belief plus account. Accounting would include the senses, but would also include reason or logic?
But Lucretius seems to think knowledge=sensory percption only. Is this correct? That if logic and sensory perception clash, then logic must be at fault?
I am still thinking about his assertion that if we do not accept senses as or most reliable source of information then all rational explanation crashes.
I guess I need to work through this section more...
Genni wrote: "But Lucretius seems to think knowledge=sensory percption only. Is this correct? That if logic and sensory perception clash, then logic must be at fault?."
I hadn't thought of Theaetetus, but that's a great connection to make here. I think Socrates would undermine Lucretius's confidence in short order, but that's the magic of Socrates.
I understand L. to be saying that the foundations of knowledge are built on sensory perception, but that knowledge does not end there. By reasoning from sensory foundations, through a process of extrapolation, we are able to understand things that we cannot sense -- such as atoms and how they behave and all the rest. But if the foundations of our knowledge are not secure (i.e. based on myths or the imagination) then no amount of reasoning will result in a true picture of the world.
Patrice wrote: "I found a note I had written when I first read this book. Is this platos effluvia? I looked it up and from a very brief review it does seem that Lucretius is borrowing this conceptfrom Plato. There..."I didn't remember the effluvia, but I looked it up and apparently Socrates uses it as an example of rhetoric "in the style of Gorgias" in the Meno. Meno likes the effluvia explanation because it is familiar to him. Socrates says the idea comes from Empedocles. (Meno, 76c)
It's interesting that Lucretius does not believe in evolution. It sounds like he does not believe in a final cause, or teleology at all. Neither did seeing exist before the light of the eyes arose
nor did beseeching with words exist before the tongue was created,
but rather the birth of the tongue came far sooner
than speech and the ears were created much earlier
than sound was heard, and in short all parts of the body
existed, I believe, before there existed a use for them.
Thus they were not able to evolve for the sake of using them. 4.836
So, was there such a thing as sight before there were eyes? If not, did the world just suddenly come into being as is, without change or a development stage, no assembly required?
Thomas wrote: ".I understand L. to be saying that the foundations of knowledge are built on sensory perception, but that knowledge does not end there. By reasoning from sensory foundations, through a process of extrapolation, we are able to understand things that we cannot sense -- such as atoms and how they behave and all the rest. But if the foundations of our knowledge are not secure (i.e. based on myths or the imagination) then no amount of reasoning will result in a true picture of the world. ."
I am really trying to understand L. but am utterly failing.
I don't see Lucretius's foundations as being secure. He claims starting from sensory knowledge, but has not used any sense (ha) in confirming the existence of atoms.
"And if our logic can't explain the reason
Why what is square close-by, when viewed afar
Looks round, we'd better say that faulty logic
Has rendered a false account of form, both times,
Than ever let manifest truth fall from our grasp.."
According to his theory, the senses are made from physical atoms and the mind is made from physical atoms. So why does he think the senses are more trustworthy than the mind?
How would Lucretius fare as a 21st century erotica author? :D
Thomas wrote: "It's interesting that Lucretius does not believe in evolution. I"If Lucretius does not believe in evolution, he is willing to say and conclude quite a few things that are consistent with it.
My version's notes say this:
When Epicurus attacked the teleological view that the organs of the body were created for the purposes that they serve, his main target will have been Aristotle. But, given that the Stoics, the chief opponents of the Epicureans in Lucr.’ s time, also held the teleological view, our author must surely be thinking of them as well. For the Stoic belief that divine providence is manifested in the design and structure of human beings, see Cicero DND 2.133– 150.He is not addressing speciation, but he is teaching a non-divinely driven, random mutation, and adaptability over time within man consistent with corresponding principles of evolution.
Lucretius; Ferguson Smith, Martin
Patrice wrote: "Isn't he saying the opposite? Seeing didn't exist before eyes.How could it?"
Yes, you're right. Obviously what an instrument does cannot come before the instrument itself.
What puzzles me is the idea that things come into being with no purpose; the senses don't develop toward any particular end, they just appear at random. It doesn't make sense to me intuitively because we can see how particular senses in certain animals are keener for specific environmental reasons, and we can see how they developed to that end. We have a lot more data than Lucretius had, so I don't want to be unfair to him, but I wonder if Lucretius would disagree with the idea that nature improves itself.
Genni wrote: "How would Lucretius fare as a 21st century erotica author? :D"When they make the movie, I bet the book will really take off.
David wrote: "He is not addressing speciation, but he is teaching a non-divinely driven, random mutation, and adaptability over time within man consistent with corresponding principles of evolution. "But doesn't adaptability imply purpose? In which case, it's no longer random?
Thomas wrote: "David wrote: "He is not addressing speciation, but he is teaching a non-divinely driven, random mutation, and adaptability over time within man consistent with corresponding principles of evolution..."Actually, evolution is a teleonomic process, not a teleologic process. So, adaptations arise without a prior purpose. They 'find' a use by chance that fits in some niche that enhances their survival.
I don't think Lucretius had Darwin's evolution per se in mind, though. I think he was more leaning toward the concept that nature does not 'serve' any purpose but is neutral. I think this is to show that divinity does not get involved or does not have any intentions for mankind's existence or activities.
Thomas wrote: "Genni wrote: ""If, too, men claim to know nothing, they don't know they know this either, admitting that they know nothing."Is this a jibe at Socrates? :-)"
I guess Lucretius didn't get the memo..."
That's right. He seems to be opposed to both the Platonists and the Cynics. It looked like Epicureans would rather have a multitude of explanations than nothing to deal with .
Genni wrote: "How would Lucretius fare as a 21st century erotica author? :D"Much better than 50 shades of gray. Seriously.
Thomas, Patrice, Borum,I am perplexed that #15 post seemed to imply some sort of purpose. My apologies for not being more clear. Purpose is neither my intention or what Lucretius argues. Instead he demonstrates objects created for a purpose by man:
Thus in the case of these instruments[a cup, a bed, a shield], which were invented to meet the needs of life, one is justified in believing that they were discovered for the purpose of being used.to contrast them with things that are independently created and then adapted for some use.
However, it is entirely different with all those things that were first created independently and suggested the notion of their utility afterward. And at the head of this class we see the sensory organs and the limbs. So I insist that you cannot possibly believe that they could have been created for the purpose of being useful to us.It reminds me of Sartre's "objects" that are created with a purpose, like paper cutters, and "subjects" (people) that are just created without a purpose, or a known purpose. In other words his famous mantra, "existence precedes essence."
Borum wrote: "That's right. He seems to be opposed to both the Platonists and the Cynics. It looked like Epicureans would rather have a multitude of explanations than nothing to deal with ."Epicurus has no interest in science on its own account; he values it solely as providing naturalistic explanations of phenomena which superstition attributes to the agency of the gods. When there are several possible naturalistic explanations, he holds that there is no point in trying to decide between them.
Russell, Bertrand (2004-02-24). History of Western Philosophy (Routledge Classics) (p. 236). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
David wrote: "He is not addressing speciation, but he is teaching a non-divinely driven, random mutation, and adaptability over time within man consistent with corresponding principles of evolution...."Actually, I was thinking pretty much the same stuff. It's just that I think his intended focus was not on 'evolution' or 'mutation' or 'adaptation' or 'creation' or even 'existence'. I think he was just trying to point out that nature is created or evolved without any purpose or divine intention. Since our lives belong to nature and our soul is made up of natural atoms, it may support his actual argument that we are also independent of any divine intention or intervention?
David wrote: "Borum wrote: "That's right. He seems to be opposed to both the Platonists and the Cynics. It looked like Epicureans would rather have a multitude of explanations than nothing to deal with ."Epicu..."
Thank you. I've GOT to read Bertrand Russell sometime soon. :-)
Borum wrote: "Genni wrote: "How would Lucretius fare as a 21st century erotica author? :D"Much better than 50 shades of gray. Seriously."
Lol. I haven't read it, but my close friend did. She told me not to waste my time and I haven't. :-) (at least, I don't think I have lol)
Thomas wrote: "Genni wrote: "How would Lucretius fare as a 21st century erotica author? :D"When they make the movie, I bet the book will really take off."
Ha. :-)
Genni wrote: "Borum wrote: "Genni wrote: "How would Lucretius fare as a 21st century erotica author? :D"Much better than 50 shades of gray. Seriously."
Lol. I haven't read it, but my close friend did. She tol..."
She was right. Good for you. I ditched the book in chapter 1. :-b
Borum wrote: "Actually, evolution is a teleonomic process, not a teleologic process. So, adaptations arise without a prior purpose. They 'find' a use by chance that fits in some niche that enhances their survival."Thanks, Borum. That makes sense, and it's definitely consistent with what Lucretius says in other parts of the book.
David wrote: "Thomas, Patrice, Borum,I am perplexed that #15 post seemed to imply some sort of purpose. My apologies for not being more clear. Purpose is neither my intention or what Lucretius argues. Instead ..."
Not your fault. I have Aristotle on the brain, as Patrice astutely observed. Sartre's comment, "existence precedes essence" helps too.
I have to wonder though if human existence isn't a little bit different, since we can choose by our actions what our "essence" will be. We can't choose our physical makeup or capacities, but we do choose what sort of people we want to be. Existence still precedes essence, but it doesn't define or limit it.
I just reached the end of book 4 and there's a comforting reassurance by Lucretius on how even the ugly ducklings can meet their soulmate by constantly 'boring through' the stone of a man's resistance with kindness, patience, neatness, and good taste.This made me smile in spite of myself. LOL
This is a nice touch after the somewhat seething and comical description of how men, blinded by love, will idealize their women in the most ludicrous way possible.
Now we know the real reason why the Christian church opposed Epicurean philosophy. To avoid conception, Lucretius leaves out any mention of abstinence and instead argues for more vigorous sex.
Patrice wrote: "But from what I hear the brain is very plastic and within genetic limits becomes what we need it to become.""Richard Dawkins and “The Purpose of Purpose” might be of some interest to you.
The sort of flexibility in determining behavior that a simulating, imaginative brain gives an animal, said Dawkins, makes for a double-edged sword. . .It is the nature of brain flexibility that makes subversion of that archi-purpose possible, such that re-programming of the brain can happen.http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/...
But we know, said Dawkins, that there is both flexibility and inflexibility involved. The flexibility to set a new goal, a neo-purpose, can be coupled with the inflexible drive to pursue that goal that was originally part of the adaptive archi-purpose program. . .Humans bred sheepdogs for herding sheep, yet what one sees in the herding behavior is an altered or reprogrammed version of the stalking behavior of wolves.
David wrote: "Now we know the real reason why the Christian church opposed Epicurean philosophy. To avoid conception, Lucretius leaves out any mention of abstinence and instead argues for more vigorous sex."Haha. Hardly.
I've been pretty sick this past week, which is why I haven't been participating. I did make it through the chapter. Lucretius's optical theory and doctrines of how the senses work seem rather convoluted and bizarre. Consider the whole discussion of how the rooster emits certain particles which "stab" the pupils of the lion (4:710-721).Still, Lucretius lays out some of his principles in their strongest form: "we do not allow that the eyes are in any way deceived. Their business is to observe the areas of light and shadow. But... [some things] can be decided only by the reasoning of the mind: the eyes cannot take cognizance of the real nature of things. Refrain, then, from foisting on the eyes the shortcomings of the mind" (4:379; Patrice quoted part of this one); "all sensations at all times are true" (4:499). For all that, he comes up with a lot of ways in which the "eyes" can be deceived; images can mix and recombine in the air, apparently, conjuring up ghosts and monsters, and it takes a clever mind to sort it out.
When he's referring to seed/semen, which he believes both men and women have, I gather he is actually referring to the life-particles? In that case, compare with Daoist heqi. According to some forms of Daoism, one can actually shorten one's life with too many ejaculations, because one is losing qi thereby. Conversely, some Daoists practiced techniques to come away from sex with a net gain in jing and qi.
Genni wrote: "How would Lucretius fare as a 21st century erotica author? :D"Poorly. Thank God that whole section is over.
David wrote: "Now we know the real reason why the Christian church opposed Epicurean philosophy. To avoid conception, Lucretius leaves out any mention of abstinence and instead argues for more vigorous sex."It is the world, not the Church, who is so obsessed with sex. If the Church opposed Epicurean philosophy specifically (I'm not familiar with what Epicurean philosophy is, but I'd love to know where the Church opposed it since you made that assertion) it is because Epicurean philosophy has holes in its reasoning.
Kenneth wrote: "David wrote: "Now we know the real reason why the Christian church opposed Epicurean philosophy. To avoid conception, Lucretius leaves out any mention of abstinence and instead argues for more vigo..."Fair enough, the world is obsessed with sex. It will be good to remember that the church is part of the world.
Epicurean Philosophy is the philosophy that Lucretious is arguing for in DRN. Please google it or check the background and resources for this reading, https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... and you will get a lot of great background information on DRN.
I will say The Epicureans, including Lucretius, sought to explain things in a naturalistic way to free people from the Roman religions/superstitions of the time. Since Epicurean philosophy makes strong arguments against religion you can see how the various churches might take a negative view as they came along later. Principles like, only matter and void exist, and nothing from nothing, did not sit well with some church doctrines.
My translation provides this example:
The Christian writer Arnobius, writing about A.D. 300, seems to have derived much of his information about Epicureanism from On the Nature of Things, and the strong attacks that his pupil Lactantius makes on Lucretius suggest that he regarded him as philosophically significant.
I find the way L. explains mental "images" rather curious. First he explains how images in dreams are formed and appear to move, and then how we are able to conjure up images at will. What is interesting to me is that the mind must be prepared to see whatever it sees, otherwise it won't be able to judge the truth of the image. So great is the mobility, so great the plentiful supply of things.
Thus when the the first image perishes and another is born
from there with a different position, the first seems to have changed its posture.
And since they are thin, the mind cannot see sharply
any except those to which it attends. So all which exist
besides perish, except those for which the mind has prepared itself.
It prepares itself, moreover, and hopes that it actually happens
that it sees what follows upon each thing, and there it happens.
He then says that in order to avoid self-deception, as in mistaking a dream for reality, "that you try to escape error by anticipating it anxiously, in order not to represent the clear vision of the eyes as created..."
This is similar to the problem that Socrates deals with in Meno, where he proposes the theory of recollection. But rather than referring back to eternal "forms," L. has faith in the senses alone. Mental images must align with our waking visual experiences to qualify as true. Is this adequate to explain more complex ideas? (I don't think the theory of recollection is entirely adequate either, but it seems more complete.)
Lucretius’ speculations are of great historical interest, but for me they are a chore to read. However, his discourse on passion woke me up - honi soit qui mal y pense. And I’m not on my own here: this passage, known as the "Tirade Against Love" (line 1050 onwards) is a classic within a classic. Dryden (who translated Lucretius) even deemed it "the finest description of sexual intercourse ever written." I’m not sure I would put it that way, but then, how would we put it? The Tirade needs careful and repeated reading, and even then probably not all questions will be answered. From a quick scan on the net it seems that the scholars are divided (nothing new here). Some seem to find the Tirade cheerful, others unbalanced, some say it’s conventional, others think it is very personal.
One thing is sure, love, for Lucretius, must be about atoms and atoms only. Just before the Tirade he describes sexual arousal as just a physical reaction. Though the poet can’t help himself to use the rather unscientific metaphor of a bleeding wound, it is clear that sex is nothing to worry about. A bodily function a man (this is all about men, unless otherwise indicated) needs to take care of (with moderation).
This indifferent attitude towards sex contrasts sharply with the intense fear of passion that follows it. When a man starts to confuse sexual attraction with love he is in grave danger. The simulacra (images, thin films of atoms emitted by the loved one, exercising a persistent influence on the lovers mind) take over and nothing remains of the ataraxia, the mental balance the Epicureans are after.
So a man must get rid of these simulacra: think of more worthy things, relieve yourself of sexual stress, concentrate on the less appetizing aspects of the loved one - do whatever it takes, but never let yourself be ensnared by passion. And then Lucretius really gets going, ranting against passion, against romance, against love:
... In the moment of possession
impassioned lovers waver, blunder, stumble:
they can’t decide where first to look and touch.
Whatever they seize, they crush, inflicting pain
of body; sometimes they press tooth into lip 1080
and kiss like a flail, for theirs is no pure pleasure:
in it are lash and goad, perforce to hurt
that object, whence this burgoning madness rose.
…
they hungrily size each other, mouth to mouth
the spittle flows, they pant, press tooth to lip—
vainly, for they can chafe no substance off 1110
nor pierce and be gone, one body in the other.
Lovers embracing like flails? And this horrible hunger cannot be stilled, there is no substance to be found in simulacra:
from a human face and soft, smooth skin
the body gets nothing to use but images— 1095
slight things, poor hopes the wind oft whips away.
As one in dreams who, thirsting, looks for water
but finds none that might cool his fevered flesh;
(he struggles to reach the fluid—vain mirage;
midway a roaring river he drinks and thirsts 1100
and find no artifice to assuage the pain ...
Moreover, a man enslaved by passion easily falls prey to the woman he loves. He will lose his happiness, his health, his fortune, but wins nothing:
... since in the midst of bubbling joys,
bitterness rises and turns bright bloom to pain,
sometimes when conscience sets the tooth of guilt 1135
to self for useless living and wasted years,
or a girl has tossed some doubtful word, and left it
fixed in our foolish heart like living fire,
or cast too free an eye upon some rival,
or shown a trace of mockery on her face. 1140
The passionate man ends up as a deluded and degraded fool, kissing the cold doorsteps of his beloved. And while it may be, says Lucretius, that not all women are wicked, the result is still the same. True lovers are painfully bound to each other, like amorous dogs in the street. Love is an illusion. Atoms run wild.
Much of this misogynistic suffering may be conventional in Rome, but I’m convinced that what we see here is also, just as Lucretius’ hate of religion, something personal. A trauma. If the the poet really believed the lover to be only a victim of atoms, I would have expected a more detached discourse. But we know nothing about the author, so we are free to form our own ideas. Not that it matters much, this is great literature. It is depressing, it is heartrending. It is of all time.
So, to wind up, if sex is just a bodily function and passion is to avoided at all costs, what should we do? It appears that the poet wants us to marry sensibly, procreate and hope that by our work and ways over time something like friendship may come to exist between man and wife. Where did we hear that before?
Translations: Copley
Very interesting discussion, Wendel. In some ways, this reminds me of early Christian polemics against marriage, but that's a complicated issue that doesn't have as much to do with sex as people tend to assume.Augustan law explicitly tried to incentivize marriage among the upper classes. Nevertheless, to Galen and other classical (and later medieval) authors, lovesickness was a medical disease, a kind of melancholy caused by an imbalance of humors and captivity to some passion. So "being in love" and "marriage" were not necessarily associated ideas; one was a madness for boys and slaves, the other an important social institution. I would imagine Lucretius's rhetoric is a reflection of this sort of thinking, combined with the philosopher's privileging of a life of leisure and contemplation over passionate attachments, even if he is an Epicurean.
Wendel wrote: "Much of this misogynistic suffering may be conventional in Rome, but I’m convinced that what we see here is also, just as Lucretius’ hate of religion, something personal. A trauma. If the the poet really believed the lover to be only a victim of atoms, I would have expected a more detached discourse. ..."It's interesting that in his discussion of the swerve in Book 2 he uses images of both desire and restraint to explain how atomic indeterminacy is connected to free will. They aren't sexual images as they are here, but it seems to be the same mechanism that he describes:
So you can see that a beginning of motion is created in the heart,
and comes forth first from the will of the mind,
and then is conveyed through the whole body and limbs.
Nor is it similar to when we are struck by a blow and travel forward
by the great strength and constraint of another.
For then it is clear that the whole matter of our entire
body moves and is seized against our will,
until the will reins it in throughout the limbs.
Now you see, don't you, that although an external force pushes many,
and often forces them to move forward and to be thrown headlong
against their will, there is something nevertheless in our breast
which is able to offer resistance and fight back? 2.269-280, Englert
It seems to me that what Lucretius is really opposed to is male passivity. Desire as a force that has control over a man, or love as a wound that a man suffers, are intolerable to him. The will is more important as a force of resistance than desire is one of attraction, despite the fact that without this attraction between atoms there would be no world to speak of.
He discusses instinct in the next book, but even there Venus "lessens the strength" of the human race while it makes propagation of the race possible.
Rex wrote: "I would imagine Lucretius's rhetoric is a reflection of this sort of thinking,.."Yes, Epicurean morality seems rather mainstream (for the upper class), on this point at least - though I still read something over and above conventionality in the 'Tirade".
Thomas wrote: "It seems to me that what Lucretius is really opposed to is male passivity.."Good point: Lucretius feels that the 'pleasure principle' dictates that a man should master his emotions. And the swerve operates in such ways that he should be able to do so. Woman, on the other hand, is passive by nature, like the birds and beasts of fields and forest. She cannot be held responsible, so the male must think and act for both.
Often she acts sincerely; seeking joy 1195
for them both, she sends him racing down love’s track.
Not otherwise, birds and beasts of field and forest,
cow, ewe, and mare, can move beneath their males;
their very female lust wells up and burns
and joys to feel and fondle their mounting lovers.
Up to this point Lucretius has paid scant attention to gender differences - it will be interesting to see if he makes up for this neglect in the last two books.
Probably my favorite quote thus far: "Again, if any one thinks that nothing is known, he knows not whether that can be known either, since he admits that he knows nothing." (p. 90, tr. Bailey)Lucretius continues to be fairly challenging to read, in great part because of the ups and downs of his fervent statements. The whole spiel about "flawed" women (including references to weight, height, and skin color) was uncomfortable to read, but then he finishes book 4 with the admission that sometimes it's character (or, if not that, then habit) which makes a person loveable, rather than outward attributes. Like his hard science, his soft science has these glimmerings of insight, despite being found among other, dated perceptions.
I just finished this book and my own reactions to it were split. It seemed very repetitive at times, which made it a slog. And yet, I was struck with the thought, did he really have the idea that light had the fastest speed?!! Quite a laurel, I would say, for him to think that.Then the diatribe against love...really?! Isn't love pleasurable ( for the most part), I thought Epicureans sought pleasure and the absence of pain. The emotion of love has all kinds of upsides for health and well-being. Surely, that would fit in with his philosophy. Not just the sex.
But we won't glide, we'll enjoy!