The Twelve Fundamentals - Discussion on Lucretius Today Podcast

    I'd also like to submit the idea that the word "wiggle" is the best available English word to describe the seemingly-random movements of particles due to internal motion that lead to collisions. :)

    Recently, I've been thinking to myself that (outside of Epicurean discussions) I only ever invoke the word "swerve" when referring to (1) the object of "my car", and (2) "an intentional re-direct to avoid a collision". The clinamen is a proposition that explains why collisions occurred in the first place, so "swerve" in my vernacular is devilishly misleading.

    Other candidates might include "jerk", "shimmy", "twitch", and "wag". 8o

    Quote from Don

    Eikadistes raises a number of good questions above. My suggestion?

    1. Ignore both Dewitt and Clay
    2. Go through the letter to Herodotus oneself
    3. Come up with any number of foundational principles one wants because there's no way to know what those "12 Rudiments" were referring to.

    Both of their lists seem to focus on the makeup of the universe and the behavior of particles. In the middle of Epicurus' discussion on particle behavior, he goes on a tangent about the eidola and sense perception. DeWitt and Clay seem to omit any discussion of sense perception or the emission of films by compound bodies from their lists.

    Every list I've come across distinguishes the principle of things not magically appearing from things not magically disappearing, but to my modern eyes (familiar with the Law of Conservation of Mass), those two look the same. They are both describing the principle of object permanency, and they can both be justified by the same observation.

    I am not sure Epicurus would have seen those as separate propositions.

    That being said, I am definitely sure, based on the organization of text, that Epicurus meant to distinguish the propositions that "the universe has no edge" from "particles and space are unlimited", but those seem to be saying the same thing to my modern eyes (familiar with the Cosmological Principle of an isotropic universe).

    I am now wondering what criterion we might use to determine whether we are reading (what I'll call) a "main proposition", versus (what I'll call) a "sub-point" that can be derived from the main point.

    Quote from Nate

    I'd also like to submit the idea that the word "wiggle" is the best available English word to describe the seemingly-random movements of particles due to internal motion that lead to collisions. :)

    Recently, I've been thinking to myself that (outside of Epicurean discussions) I only ever invoke the word "swerve" when referring to (1) the object of "my car", and (2) "an intentional re-direct to avoid a collision". The clinamen is a proposition that explains why collisions occurred in the first place, so "swerve" in my vernacular is devilishly misleading.

    Other candidates might include "jerk", "shimmy", "twitch", and "wag". 8o

    "Twerk" might be even more potent. Particles "twerk".

    Though, I like to think of particles as being like a dog's tail ("wag"), leading to involuntary collisions due to a natural impulse that is beyond (or prior to) the conscious control of the dog. The image of someone twerking their thighs or wiggling their hips in a crowded club implies intentionality, which might be avoided when describing particles.

    Quote from Nate

    "Twerk" might be even more potent. Particles "twerk".

    While I like the humor inherent in "twerk" that term to me also hints at intentionality and two particles interacting with each other per Merriam Webster:

    sexually suggestive dancing characterized by rapid, repeated hip thrusts and shaking of the buttocks especially while squatting

    That said, I *really* like wiggle.

    If suggest fidget but that may involve intentionality. Harkening back to W Pennsylvania roots, I'd suggest "rootchy." Atoms can be "rootchy." Pennsylvania Dutch word meaning to be restless in one spot, be fidgety or squirm.

    Quote from Nate

    Agreed. Until someone can demonstrate better reason, I'm translating ΠAPEΓKΛIΣIΣ as "[the] wiggle".

    Don't get me wrong, I *really* like "wiggle" :) but...

    On a more serious note, do the atoms "wiggle" back and forth or do they veer off to one side or the other at random intervals? The connotation of "wiggle" is that they're vibrating. παρέγκλισις seems to imply the idea of diverging from a set path (hence, "swerve" I guess) but I fully agree with you that "swerve" has too much the flavor of intentionality. κλίσις had to do with bending, inclining, or even the turning of soldiers to the left or right (per LSJ). There was κλίνω bend, slant, lean, wander, stray. etc. The English word used for clinamen or ΠAPEΓKΛIΣIΣ should evoke a random, involuntary action on the part of the atom to deviate from a set direction, itself due to nothing more than the "weight" of the atom "falling" in a straight line.

    I should also add that this is all somewhat academic - fun! but academic - since atoms as we know them today are *not* the same ΑΤΟΜΟΙ about which Epicurus wrote 2,300 years ago. My take has always been that it's important to recognize that Epicurus was talking about everything in the universe being composed of matter without the need for any intervention from mystical, supernatural forces. Whether "atoms fall straight down" or not has no bearing on whether Epicurus's philosophy is applicable to living a modern life. What *does* have bearing and is directly applicable is whether we accept Epicurus's axiom that we live in a material universe which is ordered in such as way as to have no need of any divine "clockmaker" to make it all run. That, to me, is one of the primary imports of getting a handle on the Physics.

    Quote from Cassius

    Chris Fisher is if I recall one of the traditional Stoics. I give him credit at least for consistency over the "modern" stoics with whom he spars.

    I can certainly understand credit for consistency, but - oh - to *believe* the universe somehow has a plan and you are an integral part of that plan strikes me as the height of hubris and delusion. I find the fact that while there is no plan, no providence, no watchmaker(s), we are still here and can still find peace and awe and friendship and pleasure in this brief time of our existence to be an occasion for joy. The terrible happens, but it's not to test our resolve or whatever. It's just terrible! But it will pass. We grieve. We cry. But friendships and loved ones comfort. We take pleasure in memory. We find - sometimes days, sometimes years - later, pleasure still awaits us. Peace of mind returns. By some providential purpose and design?! No! Through prudent choices, or sometimes just patience to give ourselves time to see it again. I find the "I am an actor in a providential cosmic play, watch my virtuous suffering" to be repugnant. The universe does not "care" about me. There is no divine Providence mapping my fate. Thank the gods, I say, tongue firmly in cheek! I set sail on my own little boat, tossed on waves or sailing calm seas. But it's up to me to determine my course and to take responsibility. I recognize there are some for whom life *is* painful, lonely, and miserable. But that is not Fate or Providence for them to endure or to accept. I cannot help all people everywhere nor will I punish myself for that. That helps neither them nor me. But I also don't accept that they should "love Fate" and wait to see what Providence has planned for them.

    Atoms or Providence indeed! I plant my feet firmly in the real world and choose atoms!

    After reading my post from last night in the light of day, I can still feel my visceral reaction to that Stoic article. However, I ask the forum: Am I being too harsh?

    Epicurus certainly didn't spare his barbed words for people he disagreed with, but he also said it's better to believe in the gods than it is to accept hard determinism.

    To me, though, it seems like accepting one's Fate decreed by Providence is combining *both* the gods *and* determinism and trying to sit that fence must surely be uncomfortable in the end. But if they find pleasure in "believing" that, am I to point out the precariousness of their position?

    It seems to me that Epicurus also held that the best way to live was to understand how the universe actually works in reality.

    Thoughts welcomed (at the risk of hijacking this thread).

    I didn't find it too harsh. Probably most of the people I know and love hold to some variant of that idea, and I never want to come across as callous or cruel when talking to or about them, but if we cannot speak frankly about ideas then what's it all for?

    I had a similar reaction to that article.

    Taken seriously, it's the complete abdication of personal responsibility.

    How much evil/pain/suffering has been tolerated because of the belief that whatever happens is part of a providential plan that we must not oppose?


    However, we should remember that most people who hold these ideas are more sinned against than sinning (so to speak). The harshest criticism should be reserved for those who knowingly use these ideas to manipulate others.

    I just clicked through to read the article and see what Don was reacting about. I completely agree with Don. My comment about Chris Fisher deserving credit for consistency was aimed at my appreciation for the fact that he stands with those who consistently are honest about the roots of Stoicism in the theistic world. Absent a foundation as to the nature of the world, nothing else in a philosophy is going to make sense, and at least Fisher is honest that Stoicism is grounded in a theistic worldview, just like Plato and just like Aristotle.

    Of course I completely disagree with Fisher, but at least when you're honest about your worldview you aren't justifiably accused of misrepresentation about what you really believe. This isn't the time or place for a rant about "modern stoicism" but it's interesting to think about how likely it is that Aurelius and all the ancient stoics, who understand what their philosophy is based on, would probably be as upset at the "modern stoics" as they were at Epicurus - and probably more so. The ancient Stoics thought Epicurus was dead wrong, but at least they generally credited Epicurus about being honest about what he believed. And for that I can have more respect for ancient stoicism than for the modern variety that tries to avoid the issue.

    The only other comment I want to make right now is about this sentence from the article:

    Quote

    For the Epicureans, acceptance of providence invited the gods into the lives of humans, and this they believed was a primary source of psychological distress.

    This kind of formulation is bad enough coming from a stoic, but it's even more irritating to me because it probably is an accurate reflection of much modern writing about Epicurus - even from those on "our side." Yes, providence is a primary source of "psychological distress." But it's much more than that, and this is far downstream of the main issue.

    The whole providence argument is just *false,* and that's the starting point of the analysis. If providence were *true* even though painful, then it would be easy to reconcile it with Epicurean philosophy, because we often choose pain in order to avoid worse pain or obtain greater pleasure. The problem with "providence" is not that it is painful, but that because it is false it has no persuasive claim to be the foundation of the "best" life. The reason Epicurean philosophy is convinced of this conclusion is rooted in the physics and epistemology, not because Epicurus was fixated on avoiding "psychological distress" or any other kind of pain as an end in itself.

    That's why I think all of these various positions - the Fisher position, the modern Stoic position, and even some allegedly "friendly-to-Epicurus" positioning - is so damaging. If Epicureans were convinced that providence were true, there would be no more enthusiastic providentialists than Epicureans. It's because Epicurus had a theory of knowledge under which it's possible to be confident of what is "true" and what is "false" in important issues of life like this that Epicurus concluded that neither providence nor idealism nor anything else can supersede the faculty of pleasure that Nature gave us as the guide of life.

    Did you guys read Donald Robertson's reply? I will save you the effort as this is the conclusion:

    Quote from Donald Robertson

    Overall, I would say that the literature of ancient Stoicism suggests that Marcus Aurelius and perhaps also Epictetus believed that agnosticism or even atheism may have been consistent with the Stoic way of life. What I haven’t attempted to do here is to argue at length for the philosophical consistency of an agnostic (or atheistic) form of Stoicism. However, in this regard, I would begin by pointing to the argument that the central principle of Stoicism, that the only true good is wisdom (the cardinal human virtue or excellence), acceptance of which arguably does not require belief in God, and from which other Stoic principles may derive without the need for belief in God as an additional premise.

    I see this as totally and transparently unsatisfactory. Why is wisdom a good?

    And he doesn't even see the need to argue for philosophical consistency?

    While we are talking about this article I have another recurring gripe to mention and to combine with a praise:

    Quote

    The chasm between the providentially ordered cosmos of the Stoics and the random atomic universe of the Epicureans was deep and wide, and it could not be bridged.

    This gives me the opportunity to plug one of my favorite articles, A.A. Long's "Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism." I never like to use the word "random" and I don't think emphasis on that concept is consistent with Epicurean views of the universe. Better words would include "unordered" or anything that conveys the lack of central control, while "random" carries connotations that go beyond that and imply to many ears that some force of randomness (sort of like Fortune as a goddess). As Long argues in detail, most events in the universe operate mechanistically, and the swerve/wiggle/whatever does not 'break through" to our level of perception except in relatively rare instances (such as "free will" in higher animals. The great majority of things, and the reason science allows us to make repeatable observations, operate purely mechanistically and not subject to "random" variation.

    I highly recommend the Long article for his full argument.

    Link

    Quote from Don

    Eikadistes raises a number of good questions above. My suggestion?

    1. Come up with any number of foundational principles one wants because there's no way to know what those "12 Rudiments" were referring to.

    I did just that! I organized the major points I believe he proposes in his Epistle To Herodotus (38-44): “These brief sayings, if all these point are borne in mind afford a sufficient outline for our understanding of the nature of existing things.” (45.1). I identify each proposition according to whether or not it is textually followed by a counter-example.

    Epicurus’ Synopsis On Physics (to Herodotus):

    “Indeed it is necessary to go back on the main principles, and constantly to fix in one’s memory enough to give one the most essential comprehension of the truth.” (EH 36.1-2)

    “I who urge upon others the constant occupation in the investigation of nature, and find my own peace chiefly in a life so occupied, have composed for you another epitome on these lines, summing up the first principles of the whole doctrine.” (EH. 37.4-5)

      • 1. Things don’t just appear. (EH 38.10-11; DRN I 150-174)
      • 2. Things don’t just disappear. (EH 39.1-2; DRN I 215-224, 238)
      • 3. It’s always been this way. (EH 39.2-6, 44.6-7; DRN II 297-308, V 362-364)
      • 4. It’s all just things in space. (EH 39.7-40.6; DRN I 419-439, V 352-362)
      • 5. All things are made of particles. (EH 40.7-41.5; DRN I 483-503)
      • 6. Everything extends infinitely. (EH 41.6-10; DRN I 959-984)
      • 7. Particles and space are unlimited. (EH 42.1-42.5; DRN I 985-1021, II 339-40, 523-531)
      • 8. Particles have nearly unlimited shapes. (EH 42.6-42.12; DRN II 341-381)
      • 9. Particles move constantly, even when entangled. (EH 43.1-44.7; DRN II 309-333)

    “These brief sayings, if all these point are borne in mind afford a sufficient outline for our understanding of the nature of existing things.” (EH 45.1)

      • There are an infinite number of worlds. (EH 45.3-9)
      • Everything radiates tiny, sensible particles. (EH 46.1-47.2)
      • Particles are unsurpassably fine and fast. (EH 47.1-4, 61.11-13)
      • Particles flow at a continuous, instantaneous rate. (EH 48.1-6)
      • Particles can mix in the air and form illusions. (EH 48.6-11)
      • We see when particles emanate from things and hit our eyes. (EH 49.1-50.8)
      • “Truth” is a true opinion about sensations. (EH 50.8-52.4)
      • We hear when currents of particles stretch into our ears. (EH 52.5-53.8)
      • We smell when particles waft from things into our noses. (EH 53.9-53.13)
      • Particles have three qualities: shape, size, and weight. (EH 54.1-8; DRN II 748-752)
      • Particles have a maximum size. (EH 55.1-8)
      • Particles have a minimum size. (EH 56.5-59.12)
      • All positions are relative. (EH 60.1-12)
      • Particles move with equal speed when falling through the void. (EH 61.1-10)
      • Particles move imperceptibly, imcomprehensibly fast. (EH 46b.1-3)
      • Particles move even when entangled in compounds. (EH 62.1-47b.8)

    “Next, referring always to the sensations and the feelings <for in this way you will obtain the most trustworthy ground of belief>, you must consider that…” (EH 63.1-2)

      • The soul is made of particles. (EH 63.2-11)
      • The soul gives the body sensation. (EH 63.11-64.1)
      • The soul lives within the body. (EH 64.1-10)
      • The body cannot perceive without a soul. (EH 65.1-8)
      • The soul cannot perceive outside a body. (EH 65.8-67.9)
      • Only void is incorporeal. (EH 67.1-68.1)

    “Now if one refers all these reasonings and remembers when was said at the outset, he will see that they are sufficiently embraced in thse general formulae to enable him to work out with certainty on this basis the details of the sytem as well.” (EH 68.1-5)

      • Properties do not exist without bodies (EH 68.6-69.1)
      • Properties are not incorporeal. (EH 69.1-69.3)
      • Properties define bodies. (EH 69.3-69.11)
      • Properties of bodies can change. (EH 70.1-71.11)
      • Time is neither a body nor a body’s property. (EH 72.1-73.6)
      • Worlds evolved from clumps of particles. (EH 73.7-73.12)
      • Worlds are similar yet diverse in nature. (EH 74.1-2)
      • Worlds host other kinds of plants and animals. (EH 74.2-6)
      • Civilizations evolve over time. (EH 75.1-2)
      • Languages evolve over time. (EH 75.6-76.7)
      • “The All” is NOT governed by a divine being. (EH 76.8-77.5)
      • Celestial objects are just collections of fire. (EH 77.5-12)
      • Happiness requires a clear understanding of nature. (EH 78.1-79.1)
      • Obsessing over mythic questions does not lead to happiness. (EH 79.1-80.3
      • Conclusions should cohere with evidence. (EH 80.1-80.11)
      • Confidence is knowing that you are not being dogged by a demon. (EH 81.1-82.3)
      • Trust your feelings and sensations; apply standards of judgment. (EH 82.4-82.10)

    “Here […] is my treatise on the chief points concerning the nature of the general principles, abridged so that my account would be easy to grasp with accuracy.” (EH 82.11-83.2)

    I think any attempt at justifying which 12 points make the ΔΩΔEKA is bound to hit a limit by a lack of sources. Epicurus easily makes a dozen observations about particle behavior, alone, without counting propositions regarding the universe, its contents, its age, its size, its expansiveness, and it's orientation. There could be easily two dozen.

    I am still curious if Epicurus proposed 12 because the 13th item on the listed was vastly less significant than the first 12, or, if, like the 40 ΔOΞAI, the 12 was a changing list based on the perceived needs of his students.

    Edited 3 times, last by Eikadistes (January 12, 2023 at 11:34 AM).

    Good work, Eikadistes . That's a good summary list. I started doing this a while back and never went back to finish. Thanks for taking the bull by the horns!

    A question and an observation:

    Are you positing a difference between these two?

    Quote from Nate

    Everything radiates tiny, sensible particles. (EH 46.1-47.2)

    Particles flow from things constantly. (EH 48.1-6)

    Those seem to be the same. I didn't realize that section on images/eidolon was so long.

    I'm still curious (and a curiosity likely never assuaged) as to what the 12 basics referred to: physics, sensations, etc. We have nothing other then those words εν ταις δοδεκα στοιχείωματα.

    Quote from Nate

    the 40 ΔOΞAI,

    I'm still not convinced that there are actually 40 Principal Doctrines. With the text initially being in prose form, I think some of those 40 split up thoughts needlessly, creating arcane sounding principles where it's better understood in the context of a paragraph. There was 12 something referred to in the text, but I don't remember ever reading an ancient source referring specifically to 40 Doctrines.

    Another good task for someone would be to reestablish the PDs in textual form and not a list.

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. Evidence of Survivors of Pompeii and Herculaneum 1

      • kochiekoch
      • November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM
    3. Replies
      1
      Views
      97
      1

    4. Don

      November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM

    2. “Better to lose the money because of me than to lose me because of the money.” 3

      • TauPhi
      • November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM
    3. Replies
      3
      Views
      224
      3

    4. Don

      November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM

    2. An Anti-Epicurean Article - "The Meaning of Life Is Not Happiness" (For Future Reference) 12

      • Cassius
      • November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM
    3. Replies
      12
      Views
      899
      12

    4. Pacatus

      November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM

    2. Was De Rerum Natura intended as satire? A lecture by THM Gellar-Goad. 14

      • Julia
      • November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM
    3. Replies
      14
      Views
      1.1k
      14

    4. Julia

      November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM

    2. New Slideshow: Nothing Comes From Nothing

      • Cassius
      • November 10, 2024 at 3:51 PM
    3. Replies
      0
      Views
      536