Scribe: Marcela
Crowe
These minutes were not
spoken; for another version, go to the spoken minutes
Professor
Hutchinson began the lecture on Epicureanism by drawing our attention to the
fact that throughout the past two lectures, we have examined both the basic
elements of the Epicurean physical system - as described by the poetry of
Lucretius and also, the general ethical philosophical stances of Epicureanism. These ethical stances should be viewed
as having been drawn from and reinforced by actual physical lessons.
After
reading from I.951-968 of On the Nature of Things, Hutchinson tells us that Lucretius argues that the
universe is necessarily boundless.
Therefore, there exists no fixed point of reference such as the centre
or any extremity. Consequently,
nothing within the void can ever be closer to the edge than anything else. Lucretius infers this point by
conducting a thought experiment.
Thought
experiments have a long history in the development of science. James R. Brown, a professor at the U of
T who gives lectures on, among other things, the Philosophy of Science, has
written an excellent book on the subject of thought experiments entitled Laboratory
of the Mind.
II.968-984,
Lucretius presents a scenario wherein someone throws a spear into the direction
of the furthest edge of space and asks his readers to hypothesis whether the
spear flies on and reaches the end or whether something could prevent the spear
from reaching its target. To
choose any one of these options however, would be to neglect the fact that
there exists no fixed boundary since the place where the spear began its flight
could never itself be at the end of the universe.
The
idea that the Earth is boundless and consequently, that there exists no
absolute grid was met with opposition often for biblical reasons. Hutchinson is skeptical of the
conclusion Lucretius draws from this classical dilemma since Lucretius’
argument rests on the assumption that the universe obeys third dimensional laws
of physics. If however, we are
three dimensional beings living in a four dimensional universe, the laws of
linear motion with reference to the nature of the universe may not hold true.
This is a very difficult
thought experiment to grapple with since the ability to think four
dimensionally is a privilege that only a few in this world enjoy. As it stands, the idea that matter
travels infinitely with the impossibility of it stopping does not prove the
boundlessness of the universe.
Under the physics of another dimension there exists the possibility that
space could be curved. As a
result, an object thrown from a marked point in one direction may end up at the
same marker but from its opposite end.
Lucretius’
view of the universe is in contrast with the geocentric ideas of the universe
which Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy and the Stoics supported. It is not coincidental that those who
adopt a geocentric view of the universe are also anthropocentric. If the cosmos is organized to serve our
planet, and if humans are the “greatest” beings on this planet,
then, it is no far stretch to suppose that the cosmos also serve man.
Indeed,
the manner in which one thinks about man’s place in the universe
determines many philosophical positions.
For instance, under a geocentric view of the universe it is much easier
to maintain that there exists absolute truths and order. Under Epicureanism however, man is
simply lost in this universe with no belief in eternal truths. Our understanding of our place within
the universe has such an effect on us that when the belief that the universe is
not created for us is shattered, our consciousness shifts seismically.
Stoics
and other philosophers criticize Lucretius’ argument since physical
evidence for a non-geocentric world view is not very good. For instance, Stoics thought the
abundance of game on Earth was an example of the generosity of the Gods. Bedbugs -- as things which ensure that
we wake up in the morning -- also have a positive function according to the
Stoics.
Along
with the boundlessness of space, the Epicurean world view also holds that the
function of atoms is to fall downward.
In the absence of any obstruction, heavy and light matter fall at the
same speed. In order that this
rigorous model of physics does not amount to a constant drizzle of atoms which
never interact with one another, the smallest modification of indeterminacy
must be added. Without this
modification there is no possibility for creation.
A
student asked Hutchinson how it is that there could exist downward motion if
there was not any upward motion. Hutchinson
informed the class that Epicureans believed that there was in fact downward
motion as well as upward motion. What
they did not believe however, was that there exited an absolute bottom or top. The directions extend infinitely. Another student then asked whether
Epicureans were “plateau-ists” since they thought everything falls
downward. Hutchinson said that
they were not. They did however,
reject the notion that everything moves towards the centre. This view was held by the Stoics and
since it is less intuitively obvious than what the Epicureans postulated, the
explanation of gravitation did not gain strength until the 17th
century with the theories of Galileo and Newton.
In
relation to what was being discussed prior to the student questions, Hutchinson
observed that the principle of indeterminacy was heavily criticized by Cicero. In fact, Cicero devoted an entire book
entitled On Fate, published in
the first century B.C.E. This book
distinguishes the terms fixed, fated and determined from one another. Since the Stoics have a thorough
doctrine of the existence of free will and consequently, human responsibility,
within a purely deterministic model, Hutchinson wishes to foot note this topic
for the later date in which we deal specifically with the Stoics.
Epicureans
take quite a different stand than the Stoics. Based on the technique of a subatomic reflection on the
theory of human responsibility, Epicureans fail to see how humans can be free
if things are entirely determined.
Free will, within the system of the human mind, is found in the wiggle
rooms of indeterminacy, so to speak.
These small pockets of indeterminacy allow the individual to change
things. In II.264-271 horses too
are attributed with the possession of the impetus to change. Although, free will comes from more
subtle changes within animals, animals nevertheless posses some degree of
indeterminacy.
The
Epicureans were ridiculed for these beliefs; however, interestingly, by the
1930s a physicist by the name of Eddington independently came up with a theory
quite akin to Lucretius’. Using
his knowledge of the discoveries made in the 1920s on quantum mechanics and
physics, Eddington maintained that the existence of free will can not be
reconciled with the Newtonian model of determinacy. In order to explain free will one must look towards
indeterminacies. Ultimately,
Eddington’s theory was not triumphant however, when Hutchinson speaks
with physicists about the beginning of the formed universe, he observes that
they also talk of chaos and indeterminacy.
Another
tenent of the Epicurean atomic theory is that the appearance of reality is
deceptive. From II.309-333,
Lucretius relays to us just that. Looking
down from a high mountain, things that are very distinct from each other up
close are seen as one and the same.
The questions thus remains for the individual, what would you rather be
on a battlefield or a meadow?
Hutchinson
ended the lecture by reading II.1-62 to illustrate the power and beauty of
Lucretius’ poetry.