F.A. Bakker, D.J. Bellis & C.R. Palmerino (eds.), Space, Imagination and the Cosmos from Antiquity to the Early Modern Period, 2018
In contrast to other ancient philosophers, Epicurus and his followers famously maintained the inf... more In contrast to other ancient philosophers, Epicurus and his followers famously maintained the infinity of matter, and consequently of worlds. This was inferred from the infinity of space, because they believed that a limited amount of matter would inevitably be scattered through infinite space, and hence be unable to meet and form stable compounds. By contrast, the Stoics claimed that there was only a finite amount of matter in infinite space, which stayed together because of a general centripetal tendency. The Roman Epicurean poet Lucretius tried to defend the Epicurean conception of infinity against this Stoic alternative view, but not very convincingly. One might suspect, therefore, that the Epicureans’ adherence to the infinity of matter was not so much dictated by physical arguments as it was motivated by other, mostly theological and ethical, concerns. More specifically, the infinity of atoms and worlds was used as a premise in several arguments against divine intervention in the universe. The infinity of worlds was claimed to rule out divine intervention directly, while the infinity of atoms lent plausibility to the chance formation of worlds. Moreover, the infinity of atoms and worlds was used to ensure the truth of multiple explanations, which was presented by Epicurus as the only way to ward off divine intervention in the realm of celestial phenomena. However, it will be argued that in all of these arguments the infinity of matter is either unnecessary or insufficient for reaching the desired conclusion.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Readers may explore the work of a variety of authors including Aristotle, Epicurus, Henry of Ghent, John Duns Scotus, John Wyclif, Peter Auriol, Nicholas Bonet, Francisco Suárez, Francesco Patrizi, Giordano Bruno, Libert Froidmont, Marin Mersenne, Pierre Gassendi, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel Clarke. We see how reflections on space, imagination and the cosmos were the product of a plurality of philosophical traditions that found themselves confronted with, and enriched by, various scientific and theological challenges which induced multiple conceptual adaptations and innovations.
This volume is a useful resource for historians of philosophy, those with an interest in the history of science, and particularly those seeking to understand the historical background of the philosophy of space.
Through a thorough investigation of the available evidence Bakker offers an updated and qualified account of Epicurean meteorology, arguing against Theophrastus’ authorship of the Syriac meteorology, highlighting the originality of Lucretius’ treatment of mirabilia, and refuting the oft-repeated claim that the Epicureans held the earth to be flat.
[Reviews: Francesco Verde in BMCR 2017.06.38; Federico Corsi in Syzetesis 4.1 (2017), 159-167; Liba Taub in Classical Review 68.1 (2018), 41-42; Christopher Gill in Phronesis 63.2 (2018), 211-212; Julie Giovacchini in Revue philosophique de Louvain 116.1 (2018), 130-132; Ada Bronowski in Classical Philology 114.2 (2019), 301-305.]
(Please refer to the published version)
(Please refer to the published version)
The three studies that make up this work each deal with another facet or subdiscipline of Epicurean cosmology. The first study is devoted to Epicurus’ method of multiple explanations, the second study compares the meteorological sections of Epicurus' Letter to Pythocles and Lucretius' De rerum natura with other ancient meteorological accounts as regards the range and order of subjects, and the third study investigates what shape the Epicureans assigned to the earth.
Met dit model kan een grote verscheidenheid aan stromingen worden beschreven. Uit oogpunt van chaos zijn alleen stromingen waarin neren optreden interessant. Na een inventarisatie van de verschillende stroomtypen, wordt één stromingsgeval uitgekozen voor verder onderzoek. Bij deze stroming wringt de doorgaande stroming zich tussen twee grote neren door. Aan de oevers bevinden zich twee stabiele en twee instabiele stuwpunten. Bij periodieke variatie van de windrichting in deze stroming blijken stabiele en instabiele variëteiten elkaar te snijden, hetgeen chaotische advectie impliceert. Poincaré-secties vertonen de karakteristieke structuur die reeds uit eerdere studies bekend was: rondom elliptische periodieke punten met periode één bevinden zich eilanden, waarin de beweging ordelijk is, terwijl daarbuiten, nabij de separatrices, chaotisch deeltjesbanen voorkomen. Door het ontbreken van uitwisseling tussen de eilanden en het chaotische gebied kan patchiness optreden. Deeltjes die ter plaatse van de eilanden worden geloosd blijven daar gevangen. Bij een instantane lozing in het instroompunt stromen de deeltjes uit in een aantal opeenvolgende golven met een herhalingstijd die overeenkomt met de omwentelingsperiode van de neren. Als de windrichtingsperiode groter wordt dan tweemaal de verblijftijd (bij de dan heersende stroomparameters), treden er weer ordelijke deeltjesbanen op, ook al is het stroomregime volgens alle andere criteria chaotisch, omdat dan alle deeltjes zullen zijn uitgestroomd voordat de wind eenmaal van richting is veranderd.
Ook door louter dispersie, zonder chaos, kunnen er afzonderlijke golven ontstaan in de verblijftijdsdichtheidverdeling. De secundaire golven blijven dan echter maar klein en lopen al snel in elkaar over. Bij combinatie van chaos en dispersie ziet men dat bij kortere perioden de dispersie overheerst als verspreidingsmechanisme, maar bij langere perioden de chaotische advectie."
Zeno’s conclusion, so contrary to the evidence of the senses, was rejected by most subsequent philosophers, who thus had to accept one of the two horns of Zeno’s dilemma: finite of infinite divisibility.
Leucippus and Democritus, convinced by Zeno’s argument against infinite divisibility, went for the first option, and introduced a minimal material unit, the atom, which they claimed did have spatial extension, despite its being indivisible.
Aristotle, on the other hand, strongly rejected the notion of indivisible extended bodies, which caused more problems than it solved, and instead went for the other horn of Zeno’s dilemma: matter was infinitely divisible after all, but only potentially so: never would a substance be actually divided to infinity and so consist of infinitely many parts.
Afterwards, the atomist position was revived by Epicurus, who modified the theory in response to certain points of Aristotle’s criticism, without, however, touching upon the most important point: the conceptual inconsistency of indivisible extension. Accordingly, Epicurus’ reformed atomism does not seem to have made a great impression on the adversaries of atomism, who could simply repeat the ancient arguments against Democritus.
In this lecture I will provide a sketch of the ancient debate about the divisibility of matter, and discuss some of the arguments brought forward in favour of and against each position. It will be shown that, however plausible some of the arguments may seem, in the end they were too much bound up with the general theory of their proponents to convince their critics.
Readers may explore the work of a variety of authors including Aristotle, Epicurus, Henry of Ghent, John Duns Scotus, John Wyclif, Peter Auriol, Nicholas Bonet, Francisco Suárez, Francesco Patrizi, Giordano Bruno, Libert Froidmont, Marin Mersenne, Pierre Gassendi, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel Clarke. We see how reflections on space, imagination and the cosmos were the product of a plurality of philosophical traditions that found themselves confronted with, and enriched by, various scientific and theological challenges which induced multiple conceptual adaptations and innovations.
This volume is a useful resource for historians of philosophy, those with an interest in the history of science, and particularly those seeking to understand the historical background of the philosophy of space.
Through a thorough investigation of the available evidence Bakker offers an updated and qualified account of Epicurean meteorology, arguing against Theophrastus’ authorship of the Syriac meteorology, highlighting the originality of Lucretius’ treatment of mirabilia, and refuting the oft-repeated claim that the Epicureans held the earth to be flat.
[Reviews: Francesco Verde in BMCR 2017.06.38; Federico Corsi in Syzetesis 4.1 (2017), 159-167; Liba Taub in Classical Review 68.1 (2018), 41-42; Christopher Gill in Phronesis 63.2 (2018), 211-212; Julie Giovacchini in Revue philosophique de Louvain 116.1 (2018), 130-132; Ada Bronowski in Classical Philology 114.2 (2019), 301-305.]
(Please refer to the published version)
(Please refer to the published version)
The three studies that make up this work each deal with another facet or subdiscipline of Epicurean cosmology. The first study is devoted to Epicurus’ method of multiple explanations, the second study compares the meteorological sections of Epicurus' Letter to Pythocles and Lucretius' De rerum natura with other ancient meteorological accounts as regards the range and order of subjects, and the third study investigates what shape the Epicureans assigned to the earth.
Met dit model kan een grote verscheidenheid aan stromingen worden beschreven. Uit oogpunt van chaos zijn alleen stromingen waarin neren optreden interessant. Na een inventarisatie van de verschillende stroomtypen, wordt één stromingsgeval uitgekozen voor verder onderzoek. Bij deze stroming wringt de doorgaande stroming zich tussen twee grote neren door. Aan de oevers bevinden zich twee stabiele en twee instabiele stuwpunten. Bij periodieke variatie van de windrichting in deze stroming blijken stabiele en instabiele variëteiten elkaar te snijden, hetgeen chaotische advectie impliceert. Poincaré-secties vertonen de karakteristieke structuur die reeds uit eerdere studies bekend was: rondom elliptische periodieke punten met periode één bevinden zich eilanden, waarin de beweging ordelijk is, terwijl daarbuiten, nabij de separatrices, chaotisch deeltjesbanen voorkomen. Door het ontbreken van uitwisseling tussen de eilanden en het chaotische gebied kan patchiness optreden. Deeltjes die ter plaatse van de eilanden worden geloosd blijven daar gevangen. Bij een instantane lozing in het instroompunt stromen de deeltjes uit in een aantal opeenvolgende golven met een herhalingstijd die overeenkomt met de omwentelingsperiode van de neren. Als de windrichtingsperiode groter wordt dan tweemaal de verblijftijd (bij de dan heersende stroomparameters), treden er weer ordelijke deeltjesbanen op, ook al is het stroomregime volgens alle andere criteria chaotisch, omdat dan alle deeltjes zullen zijn uitgestroomd voordat de wind eenmaal van richting is veranderd.
Ook door louter dispersie, zonder chaos, kunnen er afzonderlijke golven ontstaan in de verblijftijdsdichtheidverdeling. De secundaire golven blijven dan echter maar klein en lopen al snel in elkaar over. Bij combinatie van chaos en dispersie ziet men dat bij kortere perioden de dispersie overheerst als verspreidingsmechanisme, maar bij langere perioden de chaotische advectie."
Zeno’s conclusion, so contrary to the evidence of the senses, was rejected by most subsequent philosophers, who thus had to accept one of the two horns of Zeno’s dilemma: finite of infinite divisibility.
Leucippus and Democritus, convinced by Zeno’s argument against infinite divisibility, went for the first option, and introduced a minimal material unit, the atom, which they claimed did have spatial extension, despite its being indivisible.
Aristotle, on the other hand, strongly rejected the notion of indivisible extended bodies, which caused more problems than it solved, and instead went for the other horn of Zeno’s dilemma: matter was infinitely divisible after all, but only potentially so: never would a substance be actually divided to infinity and so consist of infinitely many parts.
Afterwards, the atomist position was revived by Epicurus, who modified the theory in response to certain points of Aristotle’s criticism, without, however, touching upon the most important point: the conceptual inconsistency of indivisible extension. Accordingly, Epicurus’ reformed atomism does not seem to have made a great impression on the adversaries of atomism, who could simply repeat the ancient arguments against Democritus.
In this lecture I will provide a sketch of the ancient debate about the divisibility of matter, and discuss some of the arguments brought forward in favour of and against each position. It will be shown that, however plausible some of the arguments may seem, in the end they were too much bound up with the general theory of their proponents to convince their critics.