Episode 275 - Does Motion Provide Evidence For The Existence of God And Divinity Of The Soul?

Welcome to Episode 275 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we continue our series covering Cicero's "Tusculan Disputations" from an Epicurean viewpoint. This series addresses five of the greatest questions in philosophy, with Cicero speaking for the majority and Epicurus the main opponent:

1. Is Death An Evil? (Cicero says no and Epicurus says no, but for very different reasons)
2. Is Pain An Evil? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
3. Does the Wise Man Experience Grief and Fear? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
4. Does the Wise Man Experience Joy and Desire? (Cicero says no, Epicurus says yes)
5. Is Virtue Sufficient For A Happy Life? (Cicero says yes, Epicurus says no)

As we found in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On The Nature of the Gods," Cicero treated Epicurean Philosophy as a major contender in the battle between the philosophies, and in discussing this conflict and explaining Epicurus' answers to these questions, we will deepen our understanding of Epicurus and how he compares to the other major schools.

These week we turn our attention further to "Is Death An Evil," and we will read beginning in Section XXIII where the discussion continues with more about the Pythagorean / Platonic view of the human soul.

Our general discussion guide for Tusculun Disputations is here: https://handbook.epicureanfriends.com/notes/epicurea…html#org0c11d2e

And a side-by-side version with comments is here: https://epicureanfriends.github.io/tusculundisput…glish/section:5

Here is the heart of the argument regarding motion that we will want to address:

Quote

“That which is always moved is eternal; but that which gives motion to something else, and is moved itself by some external cause, when that motion ceases, must necessarily cease to exist. That, therefore, alone, which is self-moved, because it is never forsaken by itself, can never cease to be moved. Besides, it is the beginning and principle of motion to everything else; but whatever is a principle has no beginning, for all things arise from that principle, and it cannot itself owe its rise to anything else; for then it would not be a principle did it proceed from anything else. But if it has no beginning, it never will have any end; for a principle which is once extinguished, cannot itself be restored by anything else, nor can it produce anything else from itself; inasmuch as all things must necessarily arise from some first cause. And thus it comes about, that the first principle of motion must arise from that thing which is itself moved by itself; and that can neither have a beginning nor an end of its existence, for otherwise the whole heaven and earth would be overset, and all nature would stand still, and not be able to acquire any force, by the impulse of which it might be first set in motion. Seeing, then, that it is clear, that whatever moves itself is eternal, can there be any doubt that the soul is so? For everything is inanimate which is moved by an external force; but everything which is animate is moved by an interior force, which also belongs to itself. For this is the peculiar nature and power of the soul; and if the soul be the only thing in the whole world which has the power of self-motion, then certainly it never had a beginning, and therefore it is eternal.”

Now, should all the lower order of philosophers, (for so I think they may be called, who dissent from Plato and Socrates and that school,) unite their force, they never would be able to explain anything so elegantly as this, nor even to understand how ingeniously this conclusion is drawn. The soul, then, perceives itself to have motion, and at the same time that it gets that perception, it is sensible that it derives that motion from its own power, and not from the agency of another; and it is impossible that it should ever forsake itself; and these premises compel you to allow its eternity, unless you have something to say against them.

This will relate to the argument given by Thomas Paine here:

Thread

Thomas Paine's Article: "On The Existence of God"

My late reading into the Matthew Stewart book. combined with the fact that @Joshua and I are about to pick up on the topic of "motion" in the podcast (via Tusculun Disputations) reminded me of this article - "On The Existence of God by Thomas Paine. It's an example of the disappointment I feel in the deists not going all the way back to Epicurus, and I have to think that their failure to do so was a major part of what doomed their entire "deist" enterprise.

…

Cassius

April 2, 2025 at 10:56 AM

And the difference in presentation by Paine and Cicero probably affords a good clue on how to respond to it.

Paine states a key premise in question (that motion is not an inherent property of matter) as if it were a fact: "The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself."

While Cicero (at least in this excerpt) does not go so far as to directly state that matter does not move itself - he just implies it.

Epicurus states that atoms have properties of "weight," shape, and size, with weight apparently the motion aspect.

Cicero says this is explained by Plato in Phaedrus -- that dialogue is here:

Phaedrus (Jowett) - Wikisource, the free online library

Phaedrus, by Plato

Includes this:

Quote

The soul through all her being is immortal, for that which is ever in motion is immortal; but that which moves another and is moved by another, in ceasing to move ceases also to live. Only the self–moving, never leaving self, never ceases to move, and is the fountain and beginning of motion to all that moves besides. Now, the beginning is unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning; but the beginning is begotten of nothing, for if it were begotten of something, then the begotten would not come from a beginning. But if unbegotten, it must also be indestructible; for if beginning were destroyed, there could be no beginning out of anything, nor anything out of a beginning; and all things must have a beginning. And therefore the self–moving is the beginning of motion; and this can neither be destroyed nor begotten, else the whole heavens and all creation would collapse and stand still, and never again have motion or birth. But if the self–moving is proved to be immortal, he who affirms that self–motion is the very idea and essence of the soul will not be put to confusion. For the body which is moved from without is soulless; but that which is moved from within has a soul, for such is the nature of the soul. But if this be true, must not the soul be the self–moving, and therefore of necessity unbegotten and immortal? Enough of the soul’s immortality.

We'll need to parse this because it would appear that Epicurus would probably agree with some of this, but not all.

For reference, a Chatgpt summary of Phaedrus:

In Plato's Phaedrus, the major arguments revolve around the nature of love (eros), rhetoric, and the soul. Here’s a summary of the key themes:

1. The Nature of Love (Eros):
   • Socrates’ Speech on Love: Initially, Phaedrus presents the idea of love as a powerful and noble force. Socrates, in his speech, challenges the traditional view of love. He argues that true love, or divine madness, comes from the gods and can lead the soul toward greater understanding and virtue.
   • The Role of the Lover and the Beloved: Socrates describes the relationship between the lover and the beloved as one where the lover aims to guide the beloved’s soul toward the good. Love is depicted as a form of divine madness that can inspire individuals to seek truth and beauty.
2. The Myth of the Soul:
   • Socrates elaborates on the idea that the soul is immortal and undergoes cycles of reincarnation. The soul is drawn to the divine and seeks to return to the Forms, especially the Form of Beauty, which it glimpses during moments of deep love. This connection between love and the soul's journey is central to understanding why love can be seen as a guiding force.
3. Rhetoric and the Art of Persuasion:
   • The Power of Rhetoric: In the dialogue, Socrates and Phaedrus discuss the role of rhetoric and its potential to either lead people toward truth or manipulate them for personal gain. Socrates critiques rhetoricians who rely on persuasion without understanding the true nature of their subject matter.
   • Rhetoric as a Skill for the Good: Socrates suggests that rhetoric should be used to guide the soul toward truth, not just to win arguments. The best rhetorician is one who understands the nature of the soul and uses this knowledge to persuade others toward justice and virtue.
4. The Ideal Speaker:
   • An important section of the Phaedrus concerns the idea of the ideal speaker or rhetor. This person is someone who knows both the truth and the soul of their audience. Effective rhetoric is not just about delivering a persuasive speech but also about understanding the nature of the soul and the specific needs of the audience.
5. The Role of Philosophy:
   • The dialogue ultimately suggests that philosophy is the highest form of knowledge and the true goal of love is to lead one’s soul toward wisdom and the contemplation of the Forms, especially the Form of Beauty.

In short, Phaedrus explores the intersection of love, rhetoric, and the soul, arguing that both love and rhetoric, when properly understood and applied, can guide individuals toward higher understanding and truth.

I scanned Phaedrus -- it covers lots of ground but only a portion is about the soul.

In finishing it I was surprised to see this statement right at the very end, which I seem to remember Epicurus flatly contradicts (according to Diogenes Laertius, I think):

PHAEDRUS to SOCRATES (after Socrates offers a parting prayer to the gods):

"Ask the same for me, for friends should have all things in common."

Edit - Yes - very early in DLX:

Quote

[11] Indeed, he says, they were satisfied with half a pint of wine, and for the most part drank water. He adds that Epicurus did not recommend them to put their belongings into a common stock, as did Pythagoras, who said that ‘Friends have all in common.’ For to do so implied distrust: and distrust could not go with friendship. Epicurus himself says in his letters that he was content with nothing but water and a bit of bread.