Some questions after the 1st half of Lucretius’ On The Nature Of Things
Lucretius (via Epicurus) makes the claim that all-that-is is made up of atoms and void. Can this be proven? What constitutes a proof? Lucretius says that all religion is hocus-pocus and that the gods do not interact, nor do they have the power to do so, with Nature, yet he seems to admit gods do exist. For Lucretius, belief in atoms & void rejects the notion of the immortal soul. Belief in nothingness after death is ultimate freedom for Lucretius. For the greatest fear in the heart of Man is eternal punishment, and that fear comes from religion. How is the mind or heart of man convinced of the make-up of the universe, and whether or not divine beings interact with it? What will Lucretius do about good and evil except deny it, or declare it customary? And in either case, how can religion be evil when all-that-is is moving atoms?
Is Lucretius seeking a doctrine, an account of the world, in which he can be rid of the fear of death and eternal punishment? Is that the same effort of religion? Is Lucretius promoting of a new faith?
He claims his doctrine is based wholly on his senses. By our senses alone, can we make serious claims of what came before the presently sensed world or after it? Or is that conjecture alone? Do we have any alternatives to conjecture?
If all-that-is is really just atoms and void, then all beings, whatever motion they have, have come together by chance + motion in something called the swerve. In Lucretius account (or logos), all the atoms of the universe are raining, or falling. The universe is infinite so they fall forever; this provides motion. The unexplained “switch” or “bang” provides chance and change, some of these atoms swerve while falling, triggering the “creation” of the universe by bumping into each other, and combining in ways according to their physical make-up. Using the analogy of the alphabet, if atoms were letters, some letters would link up with other letters to make real words that could hold their forms. Other letters would link up but quickly fall apart, and by great amounts of time, those that held their forms built upon each other to create order and even sustain that order. So somehow what was completely chance became orderly, with a smaller amount of chance remaining, due to “free” atoms still bouncing around in an unorderly fashion.
Ultimately Lucretius doesn’t give us the why or even really the what of anything. Why swerve? Why order out of chance? Why does it hold and not fall apart? Nature is said to give order to things. Where does Nature come from?
Having read only half the work so far, answers may be coming. Lucretius makes a “scientific” account of the world, but, as was the task of the ancients, he has to give an account of the whole cosmos. In other words, if all are atoms and void, he must also say what Love is, what Death is, whether or not there is Good and Evil (is murder universally evil?), how a man should live regarding ethics, philosophy, justice… all things (again the whole cosmos). Modern efforts are divided in the name of efficiency, i.e. science and philosophy are different departments and don’t have the unity, or required consistency with one another, as was attempted in the past. Is this a freeing thing? Is the disunity of knowledge acceptable? Scientists go about making hypotheses and conclusions based on the method, do their results need to fit into an account of the whole cosmos?
Does epistemology undercut natural science? Since there is no such thing natural science without a scientist, that is a real human being, do we need to be able to understand the human being’s nature of knowing beforehand? If the mind can perceive and sense immaterial things, does that totter the entire structure of material science? Which department owns that (hint: philosophy)?
Can any materialist (scientific creation stories), compel a man to be unafraid of death? Are we trapped in a desire to live because are atoms move that way? Can we then tell ourselves not to be afraid, knowing that our atoms are (darwinianly) “afraid” in their own make-up?
To be continued…
Tumbling Links