Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature

The Difference Between the

by Karl Marx

DIS !"IME#

The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature by Karl Marx$ is a publication of E %Na# & Institute' This Portable Document (ile is furnished free and without any char)e of any *ind' "ny person usin) this document file$ for any purpose$ and in any way does so at his or her own ris*' Neither E %N"# & Institute$ the Editor$ nor anyone associated with E %N"# & Institute assumes any responsibility for the material contained within the document or for the file as an electronic transmission$ in any way' The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature by Karl Marx' E %N"# & Institute$ Electronic Philosophy !iterature+ the Editor$ Indonesia is a Portable Document (ile produced as part of an on)oin) student publication pro,ect to brin) )reat literature$ in En)lish$ to free and easy access of those wishin) to ma*e use of them' o-er Desi)n+ #owland opyri)ht . /001 #owland lassics

The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. with an Appendix
Written: March 1 !1" #irst Pu$lished: 1%&2" 'ource: Mar()En*els +ollected Wor,s -olume 1" Pu$lisher: Pro*ress Pu$lishers

Contents Dedication #oreword Part One: Difference etween the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature in General ." The 'u$/ect of the Treatise .." 0pinions on the 1elationship Between Democritean and Epicurean Physics ..." Difficulties +oncernin* the .dentity of the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Part Two: Difference etween the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature in detail +hapter 0ne: The Declination of the 2tom from the 'trai*ht 3ine +hapter Two: The 4ualities of the 2tom +hapter Three: Atomoi archai and atoma stoicheia +hapter #our: Time +hapter #i5e: The Meteors

Draft of new Preface

Foreword
The form of this treatise would ha5e $een on the one hand more strictly scientific7 on the other hand in many of its ar*uments less pedantic7 if its primary purpose had not $een that of a doctor8s dissertation" . am ne5ertheless constrained $y e(ternal reasons to send it to the press in this form" Moreo5er . $elie5e that . ha5e sol5ed in it a heretofore unsol5ed pro$lem in the history of 9ree, philosophy" The e(perts ,now that no preliminary studies that are e5en of the sli*htest use e(ist for the su$/ect of this treatise" What +icero and Plutarch ha5e $a$$led has $een $a$$led after them up to the present day" 9assendi7 who freed Epicurus from the interdict which the #athers of the +hurch and the whole Middle 2*es7 the period of realised unreason7 had placed upon him7 presents in his e(positions :16; only one interestin* element" <e see,s to accommodate his +atholic conscience to his pa*an ,nowled*e and Epicurus to the +hurch7 which certainly was wasted effort" .t is as thou*h one wanted to throw the ha$it of a +hristian nun o5er the $ri*ht and flourishin* $ody of the 9ree, 3ais" .t is rather that 9assendi learns philosophy from Epicurus than that he could teach us a$out Epicurus8 philosophy" This treatise is to $e re*arded only as the preliminary to a lar*er wor, in which . shall present in detail the cycle of Epicurean7 'toic and 'ceptic philosophy in their relation to the whole of 9ree, speculation" :1=; The shortcomin*s of this treatise7 in form and the li,e7 will $e eliminated in that later wor," To $e sure7 Hegel has on the whole correctly defined the *eneral aspects of the a$o5e)mentioned systems" But in the admira$ly *reat and $old plan of his history of philosophy7 from which alone the history of philosophy can in *eneral $e dated7 it was impossi$le7 on the one hand7 to *o into detail7 and on the other hand7 the *iant thin,er was hindered $y his 5iew of what he called speculati5e thou*ht par excellence from reco*nisin* in these systems their *reat importance for the history of 9ree, philosophy and for the 9ree, mind in *eneral" These systems are the ,ey to the true history of 9ree, philosophy" 2 more profound =

indication of their connection with 9ree, life can $e found in the essay of my friend >?ppen7 Friedrich der Grosse und seine Widersacher. :1@; .f a critiAue of Plutarch8s polemic a*ainst Epicurus8 theolo*y has $een added as an appendi(7 this is $ecause this polemic is $y no means isolated7 $ut rather representati5e of an espce7 :species ) Ed.; in that it most stri,in*ly presents in itself the relation of the theolo*isin* intellect to philosophy" The critiAue does not touch7 amon* other thin*s7 on the *eneral falsity of Plutarch8s standpoint when he $rin*s philosophy $efore the forum of reli*ion" .n this respect it will $e enou*h to cite7 in place of all ar*ument7 a passa*e from Da5id <ume:
2''' 3Tis certainly a *ind of indi)nity to philosophy$ whose sovereign authority ou)ht e-erywhere to be ac*nowled)ed$ to obli)e her on e-ery occasion to ma*e apolo)ies for her conclusions which may be offended at her' This puts one in mind of a king arraign'd for high treason against his subjects'4 5678

Philosophy7 as lon* as a drop of $lood shall pulse in its world) su$duin* and a$solutely free heart7 will ne5er *row tired of answerin* its ad5ersaries with the cry of Epicurus: Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who a irms o the gods what the multitude belie!es about them, is truly impious.:1%; Philosophy ma,es no secret of it" The confession of Prometheus: .n simple words7 . hate the pac, of *ods :2eschylus7 "rometheus #ound; is its own confession7 its own aphorism a*ainst all hea5enly and earthly *ods who do not ac,nowled*e human self)consciousness as the hi*hest di5inity" .t will ha5e none other $eside" But to those poor March hares who re/oice o5er the apparently worsened ci5il position of philosophy7 it responds a*ain7 as Prometheus replied to the ser5ant of the *ods7 <ermes:

Be sure of this7 . would not chan*e my state 0f e5il fortune for your ser5itude" Better to $e the ser5ant of this roc, Than to $e faithful $oy to #ather Beus" C.$id"D Prometheus is the most eminent saint and martyr in the philosophical calendar" Berlin7 March 1 !1

Part %ne+
Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature in 9eneral

The !u "ect of the Treatise 9ree, philosophy seems to ha5e met with somethin* with which a *ood tra*edy is not supposed to meet7 namely7 a dull endin*" The o$/ecti5e history of philosophy in 9reece seems to come to an end with 2ristotle7 9ree, philosophy8s 2le(ander of Macedon7 and e5en the manly)stron* 'toics did not succeed in what the 'partans did accomplish in their temples7 the chainin* of 2thena to <eracles so that she could not flee" Epicureans7 'toics and 'ceptics are re*arded as an almost improper addition $earin* no relation to its powerful premises" Epicurean philosophy is ta,en as a syncretic com$ination of Democritean physics and +yrenaic moralityE 'toicism as a compound of <eraclitean speculation on nature and the +ynical) ethical 5iew of the world7 to*ether with some 2ristotelean lo*icE and finally 'cepticism as the necessary e5il confrontin* these do*matisms" These philosophies are thus unconsciously lin,ed to the 2le(andrian philosophy $y $ein* made into a one)sided and tendentious eclecticism" The 2le(andrian philosophy is finally re*arded entirely as e(altation and deran*ement)a confusion in which at most the uni5ersality of the intention can $e reco*nised" To $e sure7 it is a commonplace that $irth7 flowerin* and decline constitute the iron circle in which e5erythin* human is enclosed7 throu*h which it must pass" Thus it would not ha5e $een surprisin* if 9ree, philosophy7 after ha5in* reached its Fenith in 2ristotle7 should then ha5e withered" But the death of the hero resem$les the settin* of the sun7 not the $urstin* of an inflated fro*" 2nd then: $irth7 flowerin* and decline are 5ery *eneral7 5ery 5a*ue notions under which7 to $e sure7 e5erythin* can $e arran*ed7 $ut throu*h which nothin* can $e understood" Decay itself is prefi*ured in the li5in*E its shape should therefore $e /ust as much *rasped in its specific characteristic as the shape of life" #inally7 when we *lance at history7 are Epicureanism7 'toicism and 'cepticism particular phenomenaG 2re they not the prototypes of the 1oman mind7 the shape in which 9reece wandered to 1omeG .s not their essence so full of character7 so 1&

intense and eternal that the modern world itself has to admit them to full spiritual citiFenshipG . lay stress on this only in order to call to mind the historical importance of these systems" <ere7 howe5er7 we are not at all concerned with their si*nificance for culture in *eneral7 $ut with their connection with the older 9ree, philosophy" 'hould not this relationship ur*e us at least to an inAuiry7 to see 9ree, philosophy endin* up with two different *roups of eclectic systems7 one of them the cycle of Epicurean7 'toic and 'ceptic philosophy7 the other $ein* classified under the collecti5e name of 2le(andrian speculationG #urthermore7 is it not remar,a$le that after the Platonic and 2ristotelean philosophies7 which are uni5ersal in ran*e7 there appear new systems which do not lean on these rich intellectual forms7 $ut loo, farther $ac, and ha5e recourse to the simplest schools)to the philosophers of nature in re*ard to physics7 to the 'ocratic school in re*ard to ethicsG Moreo5er7 what is the reason why the systems that follow after 2ristotle find their foundations as it were ready made in the past7 why Democritus is lin,ed to the +yrenaics and <eraclitus to the +ynicsG .s it an accident that with the Epicureans7 'toics and 'ceptics all moments of self)consciousness are represented completely7 $ut e5ery moment as a particular e(istenceG .s it an accident that these systems in their totality form the complete structure of self)consciousnessG 2nd finally7 the character with which 9ree, philosophy mythically $e*ins in the se5en wise men7 and which is7 so to say as its central point7 em$odied in 'ocrates as its demiurge H . mean the character of the wise man7 of the sophos H is it an accident that it is asserted in those systems as the reality of true scienceG .t seems to me that thou*h the earlier systems are more si*nificant and interestin* for the content7 the post)2ristotelean ones7 and primarily the cycle of the Epicurean7 'toic and 'ceptic schools7 are more si*nificant and interestin* for the su$/ecti5e form7 the character of 9ree, philosophy" But it is precisely the su$/ecti5e form7 the spiritual carrier of the philosophical systems7 which has until now $een almost entirely i*nored in fa5our of their metaphysical characteristics" 11

. shall sa5e for a more e(tensi5e discussion the presentation of the Epicurean7 'toic and 'ceptic philosophies as a whole and in their total relationship to earlier and later 9ree, speculation" 3et it suffice here to de5elop this relationship as it were $y an e(ample7 and only in one aspect7 namely7 their relationship to earlier speculation" 2s such an e(ample . select the relationship $etween the Epicurean and the Democritean philosophy of nature" . do not $elie5e that it is the most con5enient point of contact" .ndeed7 on the one hand it is an old and entrenched pre/udice to identify Democritean and Epicurean physics7 so that Epicurus8 modifications are seen as only ar$itrary 5a*aries" 0n the other hand . am forced to *o into what seem to $e microscopic e(aminations as far as details are concerned" But precisely $ecause this pre/udice is as old as the history of philosophy7 $ecause the differences are so concealed that they can $e disco5ered as it were only with a microscope7 it will $e all the more important if7 despite the interdependence of Democritean and Epicurean physics7 an essential difference e(tendin* to the smallest details can $e demonstrated" What can $e demonstrated in the small can e5en more easily $e shown where the relations are considered in lar*er dimensions7 while con5ersely 5ery *eneral considerations lea5e dou$t whether the result will hold when applied to details"

12

Opinions on the #elationship etween Democritean and Epicurean Physics

The way in which my *eneral outloo, is related to earlier points of 5iew will $ecome Auite o$5ious if a $rief re5iew is made of the opinions held $y the ancient authors concernin* the relationship $etween Democritean and Epicurean physics" "osidonius the $toic, Nicolaus and $otion reproach Epicurus for ha5in* presented the Democritean doctrine of atoms and 2ristippus8 teachin* on pleasure as his own"1 +otta the 2cademician as,s in +icero: IWhat is there in Epicurus8 physics which does not $elon* to DemocritusG True7 he modifies some details7 $ut most of it he repeats after him"J 2 +icero himself says similarly:
2In physics$ where he is the most pretentious$ Epicurus is a perfect stran)er' Most of it belon)s to Democritus: where he de-iates from him$ where he endea-ours to impro-e$ he spoils and worsens it'4;

2lthou*h many authors reproach Epicurus for aspersions a*ainst Democritus7 3eonteus7 accordin* to Plutarch7 affirms on the contrary that Epicurus honoured Democritus $ecause the latter had adhered to the true doctrine $efore him7 $ecause he had disco5ered the principles of nature earlier"! .n the essay %e placitis philosophorum Epicurus is called one who philosophises
1

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !" They are followed $y Posidonius the 'toic and his school7 and Nicolaus and 'otion """ :alle*e that; he CEpicurusD put forward as his own the doctrines of Democritus a$out atoms and of 2ristippus a$out pleasure" 2 +icero7 0n the Nature o the 9ods7 .7 ((5i :@3;" What is there in Epicurus8 natural philosophy that does not come from DemocritusG 'ince e5en if he introduced sonar alterations """ yet most of his system is the same"""" 3 .d"7 0n the Highest Goods and E5ils7 17 5i :21;" Thus where Epicurus alters the doctrines of Democritus7 he alters them for the worseE while for those ideas which he adopts7 the credit $elon*s entirely to %emocritus"""" .$id" :1@7 1 ; """ the su$/ect of Natural Philosophy7 which is Epicurus8 particular $oast" <ere7 in the first place7 he is entirely second)hand" <is doctrines are those of Democritus7 with a 5ery few modifications" 2nd as for the latter7 where he attempts to impro5e upon his ori*inal7 in my opinion he only succeeds in ma,in* thin*s worse"""" Epicurus for his part7 where he follows Democritus7 does not *enerally $lunder"

13

after the manner of Democritus"1 Plutarch in his &olotes *oes further" 'uccessi5ely comparin* Epicurus with Democritus7 Empedocles7 Parmenides7 Plato7 'ocrates7 'tilpo7 the +yrenaics and the 2cademicians7 he see,s to pro5e that IEpicurus appropriated from the whole of 9ree, philosophy the false and did not understand the trueJ"2 3i,ewise the treatise %e eo, 'uod secundum Epicurum non beats !i!i possit teems with inimical insinuations of a similar ,ind"
In the (athers of the hurch we find this unfa-ourable opinion$ held by the more ancient authors$ maintained' In the note I <uote only one passa)e from lement of "lexandria$; a (ather of the hurch who deser-es to be prominently mentioned with re)ard to Epicurus$ since he reinterprets the warnin) of the apostle Paul a)ainst philosophy in )eneral into a warnin) a)ainst Epicurean philosophy$ as one which did not e-en once spin fantasies concernin) pro-idence and the li*e'= But how common was the tendency to accuse Epicurus of pla)iarism is shown most stri*in)ly by Sextus Empiricus$ who wishes to turn some <uite inappropriate passa)es from &omer and Epicharmus into principal sources of Epicurean philosophy'>
!

Plutarch7 (eply to &olotes Cpu$lished $y KylanderD7 11& " 3eonteus """ writes """ that Democritus was honoured $y Epicurus for ha5in* reached the correct approach to ,nowled*e $efore him """ $ecause Democritus had first hit upon the first principles of natural philosophy" +omp" i$id"7 1111" 1 C.d"7D )n the $entiments o the "hilosophers7 -7 2367 pu$lished $y TauchnitF" Epicurus7 the son of Neocles7 from 2thens7 who philosophised accordin* to Democritus"""" 2 .d"7 (eply to &olotes7 11117 11127 111!7 11167 111@7 111%7 112& seAA" 3 +lement of 2le(andria7 *he +iscellanies7 -i7 p" =2%7 +olo*ne edition :2;" Epicurus also has pilfered his leadin* do*mas from Democritus" ! .$id"7 p" 2%6 :.7 11;" LBeware lest any man despoil you throu*h philosophy and 5ain deceit7 after the tradition of men7 after the elements of the world and not after +hristL :+ol" ii7 ; $randin* not all philosophy7 $ut the Epicurean7 which Paul mentions in the 2cts of the 2postles :2cts (5ii7 1 17 which a$olishes pro5idence """ and whate5er other philosophy honours the elements7 $ut places not o5er them the efficient cause7 nor apprehends the +reator" 6 'e(tus Empiricus7 Against the "ro essors C9ene5a editionD :.7 2@3;" Epicurus has $een detected as *uilty of ha5in* filched the $est of his do*mas from the poets" #or he has $een shown to ha5e ta,en his definition of the intensity of pleasures7) that it is Lthe remo5al of e5erythin* painfulL)from this one 5erse:

1!

.t is well ,nown that the more recent writers $y and lar*e ma,e Epicurus7 insofar as he was a philosopher of nature7 a mere pla*iarist of Democritus" The followin* statement of 3ei$niF may here represent their opinion in *eneral:
2%f this )reat man4 ?Democritus@ 2we scarcely *now anythin) but what Epicurus borrowed from him$ and Epicurus was not capable of always ta*in) the best'46

Thus while +icero says that Epicurus worsened the Democritean doctrine7 at the same time creditin* him at least with the will to impro5e it and with ha5in* an eye for its defects7 while Plutarch ascri$es to him inconsistency2and a predisposition toward the inferior7 hence also casts suspicion on his intentions7 3ei$niF denies him e5en the a$ility to ma,e e(cerpts from Democritus s,ilfully" But all a*ree that Epicurus $orrowed his physics from Democritus"

LWhen they had now put aside all lon*in* for drin,in* and eatin*"L :<omer7 ,liad7 .7 !=%; 2nd as to death7 that Lit is nothin* to usL7 Epicharmus had already pointed this out to him when he said7 LTo die or to he dead concerns me not"L 'o7 too7 he stole the notion that dead $odies ha5e no feelin* from <omer7 where he writes7

L8This dum$ day that he $eats with a$use in his 5iolent fury"L :.$id"7 KK.-7 6!;
1

3etter of -eibni. to +r. %es +ai.eaux7 containin* /some0 clarifications"""" :)pera omnia7; ed" 3" Dutens7 -ol" 27 p:p;" ==:)=@;" 2 Plutarch7 (eply to &olotes, 1111" Democritus is therefore to $e censured not for admittin* the conseAuences that flow from his principles7 $ut for settin* up principles that lead to these conseAuences"""" .f Ldoes not sayL means Ldoes not admit it is soL7 he is followin* his familiar practiceE thus he CEpicurusD does away with pro5idence $ut says he has left us with pietyE he chooses friends for the pleasure he *ets7 $ut says that he assumes the *reatest pains on their $ehalfE and he says that while he posits an infinite uni5erse he does not eliminate LupL and LdownL"

16

Difficulties Concernin$ the %dentity Of the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature
2part from historical testimony7 there is much other e5idence for the identity of Democritean and Epicurean physics" The principles H atoms and the 5oid H are indisputa$ly the same" 0nly in isolated cases does there seem to $e ar$itrary7 hence unessential7 difference" <owe5er7 a curious and insolu$le riddle remains" Two philosophers teach e(actly the same science7 in e(actly the same way7 $ut H how inconsistentM H they stand diametrically opposed in all that concerns truth7 certainty7 application of this science7 and all that refers to the relationship $etween thou*ht and reality in *eneral" . say that they stand diametrically opposed7 and . shall now try to pro5e it" 2" The opinion of Democritus concerning the truth and certainty o human 1nowledge seems hard to ascertain" +ontradictory passa*es are to $e found7 or rather it is not the passa*es7 $ut Democritus8 5iews that contradict each other" #or Trendelen$ur*8s assertion in his commentary to 2ristotelean psycholo*y7 that only later authors7 $ut not 2ristotle7 ,new of such contradictions7 is factually incorrect" .ndeed7 in 2ristotle8s "sychology it is stated: IDemocritus posits soul and mind :2erstand; as one and the same7 since the phenomenon is the true thin*"J C1D But in his +etaphysics he writes: IDemocritus asserts that nothin* is true or it is concealed from us"J C2D 2re not these passa*es of 2ristotle contradictoryG .f the phenomenon is the true thin*7 how can the true thin* $e concealedG The concealment $e*ins only when phenomenon and truth separate" But Dio*enes 3aertius reports that Democritus was counted amon* the 'ceptics" <is sayin* is Auoted: I.n reality we ,now nothin*7 for truth lies at the deep $ottom of the well"J C3D 'imilar statements are found in $extus Empiricus" C!D This sceptical7 uncertain and internally self)contradictory 5iew held $y Democritus is only further de5eloped in the way in which the relationship between the atom and the world which is apparent to the senses is determined" 1=

'ensuous appearance7 on the one hand7 does not $elon* to the atoms themsel5es" .t is not ob3ecti!e appearance7 $ut sub3ecti!e semblance :$chein;" IThe true principles are the atoms and the 5oid7 e!erything else is opinion, semblance"JC6D I+old e(ists only accordin* to opinion7 heat e(ists only accordin* to opinion7 $ut in reality there are only the atoms and the 5oid"JC=D Nnity therefore does not truly result from the many atoms7 $ut rather Ithrou*h the com$ination of atoms each thin* appears to $ecome a unityL"C@D The principles can therefore $e percei5ed only throu*h reason7 since they are inaccessi$le to the sensuous eye if only $ecause of their smallness" #or this reason they are e5en called ideas"C D The sensuous appearance is7 on the other hand7 the only true o$/ect7 and the aisthesis :sensuous perception; is the phronesis :that which is rational;E this true thin* howe5er is the chan*in*7 the unsta$le7 the phenomenon" But to say that the phenomenon is the true thin* is contradictory"C%D Thus now the one7 now the other side is made the su$/ecti5e and the o$/ecti5e" The contradiction therefore seems to $e held apart7 $ein* di5ided $etween two worlds" +onseAuently7 Democritus ma,es sensuous reality into su$/ecti5e sem$lanceE $ut the antinomy7 $anned from the world of o$/ects7 now e(ists in his own self)consciousness7 where the concept of the atom and sensuous perception face each other as enemies" Thus Democritus does not escape the antinomy" This is not yet the place to e(plain it" .t is enou*h that we cannot deny its e(istence" Now let us listen to Epicurus" *he wise man7 he says7 ta,es a do*matic7 not a sceptical position"C1&D Oes7 e(actly this ma,es him superior to all the others7 that he ,nows with con5iction"C11D I2ll senses are heralds of the true"JC12D INor is there anything which can re ute sensations7 neither li,e can refute li,e7 $ecause of their eAual 5alidity7 nor can unli,e refute unli,e7 $ecause they do not pass /ud*ment on the same thin*7 nor the concept7 $ecause the concept depends on the sensuous perceptions7JC13D as it says in the &anon" But while Democritus turns the sensuous world into sub3ecti!e semblance7 Epicurus turns it into ob3ecti!e appearance" 2nd here he differs 1@

Auite consciously7 since he claims that he shares the same principles but that he does not reduce the sensuous Aualities to thin*s o mere opinion"C1!D 'ince therefore sensation was in fact Epicurus8 standard7 since o$/ecti5e appearance corresponds to it: then we can only re*ard as a correct" conclusion that at which +icero shru*s his shoulder:
2The sun seems lar)e to Democritus$ because he is a man of science well -ersed in )eometry: to Epicurus it seems to be about two feet lar)e$ for he pronounces it as lar)e as it seems'4?6>@

B" *his di erence in the theoretical 3udgments of Democritus and Epicurus concernin* the certainty of science and the truth of its o$/ects mani ests itself in the disparate scienti ic energy and practice of these men" Democritus7 for whom the principle does not enter into the appearance7 remains without reality and e(istence7 is faced on the other hand with the world o sensation as the real world7 full of content" True7 this world is su$/ecti5e sem$lance7 $ut /ust $ecause of this it is torn away from the principle7 left in its own independent reality" 2t the same time it is the uniAue real o$/ect and as such has 5alue and si*nificance" Democritus is therefore dri5en into empirical obser!ation" Dissatisfied with philosophy7 he throws himself into the arms of positi!e 1nowledge. We ha5e already seen that +icero calls him a !ir eruditus :Man of 'cience;" <e is 5ersed in physics7 ethics7 mathematics7 in the encyclopedic disciplines7 in e5ery art"C1=D The catalo*ue alone of his $oo,s *i5en $y Dio*enes 3aertius $ears witness to his erudition"C1@D But since it is the characteristic trait of erudition to e(pand in $readth and to collect and to search on the outside7 we see Democritus wanderin* throu*h hal the world in order to acAuire e(periences7 ,nowled*e and o$ser5ations" I. ha5e amon* my contemporaries7J he prides himself7 Iwandered throu*h the lar*est part of the earth7 in5esti*atin* the remotest thin*s" . ha5e seen most climates and lands7 and . ha5e heard most learned men7 and in linear composition with demonstration no one surpassed me7 not e5en the so)called 2rsipedonapts of the E*yptiansEJC1 D 1

Demetrius in the <omonymois :+en o the $ame Name; and 2ntisthenes in the %iadochais :$uccessions o "hilosophers; report that he tra5elled to E*ypt to the priests in order to learn *eometry7 and to the +haldeans in Persia7 and that he reached the 1ed 'ea" 'ome maintain that he also met the *ymnosophists:2&; in .ndia and set foot in Ethiopia"C1%D 0n the one hand it is the lust for ,nowled*e that lea5es him no restE $ut it is at the same time dissatisfaction with true7 i" e"7 philosophical, 1nowledge that dri5es him far a$road" The ,nowled*e which he considers true is without content7 the ,nowled*e that *i5es him content is without truth" .t could he a fa$le7 $ut a true fa$le7 that anecdote of the ancients7 since it *i5es a picture of the contradictory elements in his $ein*" Democritus is supposed to ha5e $linded himself so that the sensuous light o the eye would not dar,en the sharpness o intellect"C2&D This is the same man who7 accordin* to +icero7 wandered throu*h half the world" But he did not find what he was loo,in* for" 2n opposite fi*ure appears to us in Epicurus" Epicurus is satis ied and bliss ul in philosophy. IOou must7J he says7 Iser5e philosophy so that true freedom will he your lot" <e who has su$ordinated and surrendered himself to it does not need to wait7 he is emancipated at once" #or to ser5e philosophy is freedom itself"C21D +onseAuently he teaches: I3et no one when youn* delay to study philosophy7 nor when he is old *row weary of his study" #or no one can come too early or too late to secure the health of his soul" 2nd the man who says that the a*e for philosophy has either not yet come or has *one $y is li,e the man who sa5s that the a*e for happiness is not yet come to him7 or has passed away"JC22D While Democritus7 dissatisfied with philosophy7 throws himself into the arms of empirical ,nowled*e7 Epicurus has nothing but contempt or the positi!e sciences, since in his opinion they contri$ute nothin* to true perfection"C23D <e is called an enemy o science, a scorner of *rammar"C2!D <e is e5en accused of i*norance" IBut7J says an Epicurean in +icero7 Iit was not Epicurus who was without erudition7 $ut those are i*norant who

1%

$elie5e that what is shameful for a $oy not to ,now ou*ht still to $e recited $y the old man"C26D But while Democritus see,s to learn from E*yptian priests7 Persian +haldeans and .ndian *ymnosophists7 Epicurus prides himself on not ha5in* had a teacher7 on $ein* self)tau*ht"C2=D There are some people7 he says accordin* to 'eneca7 who stru**le for truth without any assistance" 2mon* these people he has himself traced out his path" 2nd it is they7 the self)tau*ht7 whom he praises most" The others7 accordin* to him7 are second) rate minds"C2@D While Democritus is dri5en into all parts of the world7 Epicurus lea5es his *arden in 2thens scarcely two or three times and tra5els to .onia7 not to en*a*e in studies7 $ut to 5isit friends"C2 D #inally7 while Democritus7 despairin* of acAuirin* ,nowled*e7 $linds himself7 Epicurus7 feelin* the hour of death approachin*7 ta,es a warm $ath7 calls for pure wine and recommends to his friends that they $e faithful to philosophy"C2%D +" The differences that we ha5e /ust set forth should not $e attri$uted to the accidental indi5iduality of the two philosophersE they em$ody two opposite tendencies" We see as a difference of practical ener*y that which is e(pressed in the passa*es a$o5e as a difference of theoretical consciousness" We consider finally the orm o re lection which expresses relation o thought to being, their mutual relationship" .n *eneral relationship which the philosopher sees $etween world and thou*ht7 he merely ma,es o$/ecti5e for himself relation of his own particular consciousness to the real world" the the the the

Now Democritus uses necessity as a form of reflection of reality"C3&D 2ristotle says of him that he traces e5erythin* $ac, to necessity"C31D Dio*enes 3aertius reports that the 5orte( of atoms7 the ori*in of all7 is the Democritean necessity"C32D More satisfactory e(planations are *i5en $y the author of %e placitis philosophorum4
Necessity is$ accordin) to Democritus$ fate and law$ pro-idence and the creator of the world' But the substance of this necessity is the antitype and the mo-ement and impulse of matter'?;;@

2&

2 similar passa*e is to $e found in the "hysical $elections of $tobaeusC3!D and in the si(th $oo, of the "raeparatio e!angelica of Eusebius.C36D .n the Ethical $elections of 'to$aeus the followin* aphorism of Democritus is preser5edC3=D H it is almost e(actly repeated in the 1!th $oo, of Euse$iusC3@D: human $ein*s li,e to create for themsel5es the illusion of chance H a manifestation of their own perple(ity7 since chance :5u all; is incompati$le with sound thin,in*" $implicius similarly attri$utes to Democritus a passa*e in which 2ristotle spea,s of the ancient doctrine that does away with chance"C3 D +ontrast this with Epicurus:
2Necessity$ introduced b by some as the absolute ruler$ does not exist$ but some thin)s are accidental$ others depend on our arbitrary will' Necessity cannot be persuaded$ but chance is unstable' It would be better to follow the myth about the )ods than to be a sla-e to the heimarinene 5what has been decreed$ destiny8 of the physicists' (or the former lea-es hope for mercy if we do honour to the )ods$ while the latter is inexorable necessity' But it is chance$ which must be accepted$ not God, as the multitude belie-e'4?;1@ 2It is a misfortune to li-e in necessity$ but to li-e in necessity is not a necessity' %n all sides many short and easy paths to freedom are open' !et us therefore than* 9od that no man can he *ept in life' It is permitted to subdue necessity itself'4 ?=0@

The Epicurean -elleius in +icero says somethin* similar a$out 'toic philosophy:
ABhat are we to thin* of a philosophy in which$ as to i)norant old women$ e-erythin) seems to occur throu)h fateC ''' by Epicurus we ha-e been redeemed$ set free'4?=6@

Thus Epicurus e5en denies dis3uncti!e 3udgment so as not to ha5e to ac,nowled*e any concept of necessity"C!2D True7 it is claimed that Democritus also used the concept of chance7 $ut of the two passa*es on this matter which can $e found in 'impliciusC!3D the one renders the other suspect7 $ecause it shows clearly that it was not Democritus who used the cate*ory of chance7 $ut 'implicius who ascri$ed it to him as a conseAuence" #or he says: Democritus assi*ns7 *enerally

21

spea,in*7 no cause for the creation of the world7 he seems therefore to ma,e chance the cause" <ere7 howe5er7 we are concerned not with the determination o the content7 $ut with the orm used consciously $y Democritus" The situation is similar in re*ard to the report $y Euse$ius that Democritus made chance the ruler of the uni5ersal and di5ine and claimed that here it is throu*h chance that e5erythin* happens7 whereas he e(cluded chance from human life and empirical nature and called its supporters foolish"C!!D .n part7 we see in these statements only a desire of the +hristian $ishop %ionysius for conclusion)forcin*" .n part7 where the uni5ersal and di5ine $e*in7 the Democritean concept of necessity ceases to differ from chance" <ence7 this much is historically certain: %emocritus ma,es use of necessity7 Epicurus of chance" 2nd each of them re/ects the opposite 5iew with polemical irritation" *he principal conse'uence o this di erence appears in the way indi!idual physical phenomena are explained. Necessity appears in finite nature as relati!e necessity, as determinism" 1elati5e necessity can only $e deduced from real possibility, i"e"7 it is a networ, of conditions7 reasons7 causes7 etc"7 $y means of which this necessity re5eals itself" 1eal possi$ility is PM)):as it were;))Qthe e(plication of relati5e necessity" 2nd we find it used $y Democritus" We cite some passa*es from 'implicius" .f some$ody is thirsty and drin,s and feels $etter7 Democritus will not assi*n chance as the cause7 $ut thirst" #or7 e5en thou*h he seems to use chance in re*ard to the creation of the world7 yet he maintains that chance is not the cause of any particular e5ent7 $ut on the contrary leads $ac, to other causes" Thus7 for e(ample7 di**in* is the cause of a treasure $ein* found7 or *rowin* the cause of the oli5e tree"C!6D The enthusiasm and the seriousness with which Democritus "introduces this manner of e(planation into the o$ser5ation of nature7 the importance he attaches to the stri5in* to ascertain causes7 are nai5ely ; e(pressed in his a5owal: 22

I. would rather disco5er a new aetiolo*y than acAuire the Persian crown"JC!=D 0nce a*ain Epicurus stands directly opposed to Democritus" +hance7 for him7 is a reality which has only the 5alue of possi$ility" Abstract possibility, howe5er7 is the direct antipode o real possibility" The latter is restricted within sharp $oundaries7 as is the intellectE the former is un$ounded7 as is the ima*ination" 1eal possi$ility see,s to e(plain the necessity and reality of its o$/ectE a$stract possi$ility is not interested in the o$/ect which is e(plained7 $ut in the su$/ect which does the e(plainin*" The o$/ect need only $e possi$le7 concei5a$le" That which is a$stractly possi$le7 which can $e concei5ed7 constitutes no o$stacle to the thin,in* su$/ect7 no limit7 no stum$lin*)$loc," Whether this possi$ility is also real is irrele5ant7 since here the interest does not e(tend to the o$/ect as o$/ect" Epicurus therefore proceeds with a $oundless nonchalance in the e(planation of separate physical phenomena" More li*ht will $e thrown upon this fact $y the letter to Pythocles7 later to $e considered" 'uffice it here to draw attention to Epicurus8 attitude to the opinions of earlier physicists" Where the author of %e "lacitis philosophorum and 'to$aeus Auote the different 5iews of the philosophers concernin* the su$stance of the stars7 the siFe and shape of the sun and similar matters7 it is always said of Epicurus: <e re/ects none of these opinions7 all could $e ri*ht7 he adheres to the possible"C!@D Oes7 Epicurus polemicises e5en a*ainst the rationally determinin*7 and for precisely this reason one)sided7 method of e(planation $y real possi$ility" Thus $eneca says in his 6uaestiones naturales: Epicurus maintains that all these causes are possi$le7 and then attempts in addition still other e(planations" <e blames those who claim that any particular one of them occurs7 $ecause it is rash to /ud*e apodictically a$out that which can only $e deduced from con/ectures"C! D 0ne can see that there is no interest in in5esti*atin* the real causes of o$/ects" 2ll that matters is the tranAuillity of the

23

e(plainin* su$/ect" 'ince e5erythin* possi$le is admitted as possi$le7 which corresponds to the character of a$stract possi$ility7 the chance o being is clearly transferred only into the chance o thought. The only rule which Epicurus prescri$es7 namely7 that Ithe e(planation should not contradict sensationL7 is self)e5identE for to $e a$stractly possi$le consists precisely in $ein* free from contradiction7 which therefore must $e a5oided"C!%D 2nd Epicurus confesses finally that his method of e(plainin* aims only at the ataraxy:21; o sel 7consciousness, not at 1nowledge o nature in and or itsel "C6&D it reAuires no further clarification to show how in this matter7 too7 Epicurus differs from Democritus" We thus see that the two men are opposed to each other at e5ery sin*le step" The one is a sceptic7 the other a do*matistE the one considers the sensuous world as su$/ecti5e sem$lance7 the other as o$/ecti5e appearance" <e who considers the sensuous world as su$/ecti5e sem$lance applies himself to empirical natural science and to positi5e ,nowled*e7 and represents the unrest of o$ser5ation7 e(perimentin*7 learnin* e5erywhere" ran*in* o5er the wide7 wide world" The other7 who considers the phenomenal world to $e real7 scorns empiricismE em$odied in him are the serenity of thou*ht satisfied in itself7 the self)sufficiency that draws its ,nowled*e ex principio interno" But the contradiction *oes still farther" The sceptic and empiricist7 who holds sensuous nature to $e su$/ecti5e sem$lance7 considers it from the point of 5iew of necessity and endea5ours to e(plain and to understand the real e(istence of thin*s" The philosopher and dogmatist7 on the other hand7 who considers appearance to $e real7 sees e5erywhere only chance7 and his method of e(planation tends rather to ne*ate all o$/ecti5e reality of nature" There seems to $e a certain a$surdity in these contradictions" .t hardly seems still possi$le to presume that these men7 who contradict each other on all points7 will adhere to one and the same doctrine" 2nd yet they seem to $e chained to each other" The tas, of the ne(t section is to comprehend their relationship in *eneral":22;

2!

&OOTNOTE!
C1D

2ristotle7 0n the $oul, 17 p" Cpu$lished $y Trendelen$ur*D :27 !&! C<omer7 ,liad .7 !=%D7 2@)2%1" Democritus roundly identifies soul and mind7 for he identifies what appears with what is true"
C2D

,d., +etaphysics, .-7 6 :1&&%7 C<omer ,liad KK.-7 6!D 11)1 1" 2nd this is why Democritus7 at any rate7 says that either there is no truth or to us at least it is not e5ident" 2nd in *eneral it is $ecause they :i"e"7 these thin,ers; suppose ,nowled*e to he sensation7 and this to $e a physical alteration7 that they say that what appears to our senses must $e trueE for it is for these reasons that $oth Empedocles and Democritus and7 one may almost say7 all the others ha5e fallen 5ictims to opinions of this sort" #or Empedocles says that when men chan*e their condition they chan*e their ,nowled*e" By the way7 the contradiction is e(pressed in this passa*e of the +etaphysics itself"
C3D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 .K7 @2" #urthermore7 they find Kenophanes7 Beno of Elea7 and Democritus to $e sceptics"""" Democritus :says:; I0f a truth we ,now nothin*7 for truth is in a well"L
C!D

+omp" 1itter7 <istory of 2ncient Philosophy :in 9erman;7 Part .7 pp" 6@% seAA" :2nd impro5ed edition7 1 3=7 pp" =1% seAA";
C6D

Dio*enes 3aertius" .K7 !!" <is CDemocritus8D opinions are these: The first principles of the uni5erse are atoms and empty spaceE e5erythin* else is merely thou*ht to e(ist"
C=D

.$id"7 .K7 @2" Democritus re/ects Aualities7 sayin*: I0pinion says hot or cold7 $ut the reality is atoms and empty space"L
C@D

'implicius7 $cholia to Aristotle Ccollected $y BrandisD7 p" ! " """ yet he CDemocritusD does not really allow one $ein* to $e formed out of them7 for it is Auite foolish7 he says7 that two or more $ecome one" P" 6 1!" :"""; and therefore they CDemocritus and 3eucippusD said that neither the one $ecomes many nor do the many $ecome the truly insepara$le one $ut throu*h the com$ination of atoms each thin* appears to $ecome a unity"
C D

Plutarch7 (eply to &olotes7 1111" The atoms7 which he CDemocritusD calls 8ideas8.
C%D

+omp" 2ristotle7 1" c"

C1&D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 121" <e :the wise man; will $e a do*matist $ut not a mere sceptic"
C11D

Plutarch7 (eply to &olotes, 111@" #or it is one of Epicurus8 tenets that none $ut the sa*e is unaltera$ly con5inced of anythin*"

26

C12D

+icero7 0ne the Nature o the Gods, .7 ((5 :@&1" <e CEpicurusD therefore said that all the semes *i5e a true report"+omp" id"7 0n the Highest Goods and E5ils7 .7 5ii" CPlutarch7D 0n the 'entiments o the "hilosophers, .-7 p" 2 @ : 1" Epicurus holds that e5ery impression and e5ery phantasy is true"
C13D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 31" Now in The +anon Epicurus affirms that our sensations and preconceptions and our feelin*s are the standards of truth"""" 32" Nor is there anythin* which can refute sensations or con5ict them of error: one sensation cannot con5ict another and ,indred sensation7 for they are eAually 5alidE nor can one sensation refute another which is not ,indred $ut hetero*eneous7 for the o$/ects which the two senses /ud*e are not the sameE nor a*ain can reason refute them7 for reason is wholly dependent on sensation"
C1!D

Plutarch7 (eply to &olotes, 9. c" :111&)11111" <e :+olotes; says that Democritus8 words Icolour is $y con5ention7 sweet $y con5ention7 a compound $y con5entionL7 and so the rest7 Iwhat is real are the 5oid and the atomsL7 are an attac, on the senses"""" . cannot deny the truth of this7 $ut 1 can affirm that this 5iew is as insepara$le from Epicurus8 theories as shape and wei*ht are $y their own assertion insepara$le from the atom" #or what does Demacritus sayG That entities infinite in num$er7 indi5isi$le and indestructi$le7 destitute moreo5er of Auality7 and incapa$le of modification7 mo5e scattered a$out in the 5oidE that when they draw near one another or collide or $ecome entan*led the resultin* a**re*ate appears in the one case to $e water7 in others fire7 a plant7 or a man7 $ut that e5erythin* really is the indi5isi$le IformsL7 as he calls them :or: atoms7 IideasL7 as he calls them;7 and nothin* else" #or there is no *eneration from the non)e(istent7 and a*ain nothin* can $e *enerated from the e(istent7 as the atoms are too solid to $e affected and chan*ed" #rom this it follows that there is no colour7 since it would ha5e to come from thin*s colourless7 and no natural entity or mind7 since they would ha5e to come from thin*s without Aualities"""" Democritus is therefore to he censured7 not for admittin* the conseAuences that flow from his principles7 $ut for settin* up principles that lead to these conseAuences"""" Epicurus claims to lay down the same first principles7 $ut ne!ertheless does not say that Lcolour is $y con5entionL7 and so with the 'ualities /sweet, $itter; and the rest.
C16D

+icero7 0n the Highest Goods and E5ils7 17 5i" Democritus7 $ein* an educated man and well 5ersed in *eometry7 thin,s the sun is of 5ast siFeE Epicurus considers it perhaps two feet in diameter7 for he pronounces it to be e(actly as lar*e as it appears" +omp" CPlutarch7D 0n the 'entiments of the "hilosophers, ..7 p" 2=6"
C1=D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 .K7 3@" :2nd truly Democritus; had trained himself $oth in physics and in ethics7 nay more7 in mathematics and the routine su$/ects of education7 and was Auite an e(pert in the arts"
C1@D

+omp" Dio*enes 3aertius7 :.K7; !=:)!%;"

2=

C1 D

Euse$ius7 Preparation for the Gospel, K7 p" !@2" 2nd somewhere he CDemocritusD says proudly a$out himself: I. ha5e wandered throu*h a lar*er part of the earth than any of my contemporaries7 in5esti*atin* the remotest thin*s7 and . ha5e seen most climates and lands7 and . ha5e heard the most learned men7 and in linear composition with demonstration no one surpassed me7 not e5en the so)called 2rsipedonapts of the E*yptians7 whose *uest . was when already turnin* ei*hty"J #or he went as far as Ba$ylon and Persia and E*ypt7 where he also studied with the E*yptian priests"
C1%D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 .K7 36" 2ccordin* to Demetrius in his $oo, on Men o the 'ame Name and 2ntisthenes in his $uccessions o "hilosophers he CDemocritusD tra5elled into E*ypt to learn *eometry from the priests7 and he also went into Persia to 5isit the +haidaeans as well as to the 1ed 'ea" 'ome say that he associated with the *ymnosophists in .ndia and went to 2ethiopia"
C2&D

+icero7 *usculan %isputations7 -7 3%" When Democritus lost his si*ht"""" 2nd this man $elie5ed that the si*ht of the eyes was an o$stacle to the piercin* 5ision of the soul7 and whilst others often failed to see what lay at their feet7 he ran*ed freely into the infinite without findin* any $oundary that $rou*ht him to a halt" .d7 0n the Highest Goods and E5ils7 -7 ((i( : @;" .t is related of Democidtus that he depri5ed himself of eyesi*htE and it is certain that :he did so; in order that his mind should be distracted as little as "ossible from reflection"
C21D

3uc" 2nn" 'eneca7 Wor1s, ..7 p" 2!7 2msterdam7 1=@27 Epistle -..." . am still connin* Epicurus """ .f you would en/oy real freedom7 you must $e the sla5e of Philosophy"J The man who su$mits and surrenders himself to her is not ,ept waitin*E he is emancipated on the spot" #or the 5ery ser5ice of Philosophy is freedom"
C22D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 122" 3et no one he slow to see, wisdom when he is youn* nor weary in the search thereof when he is *rown old" #or no a*e is too early or too late for the health of the soul" 2nd to say that the season for studyin* philosophy has not yet come7 or that it is past and *one7 is li,e sayin* that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more" Therefore7 $oth old and youn* ou*ht to see, wisdom7 the former in order that7 as a*e comes o5er him7 he may $e youn* in *ood thin*s $ecause of the *race of what has $een7 and the latter in order that7 while he is youn*7 he may at the same time $e old7 $ecause he has no fear of the thin*s which are to come" +omp" +lement of 2le(andria7 .-7 6&1"
C23D

'e(tus Empiricus7 2*ainst the "ro essors, ,, 1" The case a*ainst the mathematici :or: Professors of 2rts and 'ciences; has $een set forth in a *eneral way7 it would seem7 $oth $y Epicurus and $y the 'chool of Pyrrho7 althou*h the standpoints they adopt are different" Epicurus too, the *round that the su$/ects tau*ht are of no help in perfectin* wisdom""""

2@

C2!D

.$id"7 p" 11 :.7 !%1" 2nd amon*st them we must place Epicurus7 althou*h he seems to $e $itterly hostile to the Professors of 2rts and 'ciences" .$id"7 p" 6! :.7 2@21" """ those accusers of *rammar7 Pyrrho7 and Epicurus"""" +omp" Plutarch7 That Epicurus 2ctually +a1es a Pleasant -i e .mpossi$le7 1&%!"
C26D

+icero7 0n the Highest Goods and E5ils7 .7 ((i :@21" NoM Epicurus was not uneducated: the real i*noramuses are those who as, us to *o on studyin* till old a*e the su$/ects that we ou*ht to $e ashamed not to ha5e learnt in $oyhood"
C2=D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 13" 2pollodorus in his +hronolo*y tens us that our philosopher Ci"e"7 EpicurusD was a pupil of Nausiphanes and Pra(iphanesE $ut in his letter to Eurydicus7 Epicurus himself denies it and says that he was self) tau*ht" +icero7 0n the Nature o the Gods, .7 ((5i :@2;" #or he CEpicurusD $oasted that" he had ne5er had a teacher" This . for my part could well $elie5e7 e5en if he did not proclaim it""""
C2@D

'eneca7 Epistle -,,, p" 1@@" Epicurus remar,s that certain men ha5e wor,ed their way to the truth without any one8s assistance7 car5in* out their own passa*e" 2nd he *i5es special praise to these7 for their impulse has come from within7 and they ha5e for*ed to the front $y themsel5es" 2*ain7 he says7 there are others who need outside help7 who will not proceed unless someone leads the way7 $ut who win follow faithfully" 0f these7 he says7 Metrodorus was oneE this type of man is also e(cellent7 $ut $elon*s to the second *rade"
C2 D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 1&" <e spent all his life in 9reece7 notwithstandin* the calamities which had $efallen her in that a*eE when he did once or twice ta,e a trip to lonia7 it was to 5isit his friends there" #riends indeed came to him from all parts and li5ed with him in his *arden" This is stated $y 2pollodorus7 who also says that he purchased the *arden for ei*hty minae"
C2%D

.$id"7 K7 167 1=" <ermippus relates that he entered a $ronFe $ath of lu,ewarm water and as,ed for unmi(ed wine7 which he swallowed7 and then7 ha5in* $idden his friends remem$er his doctrines7 $reathed his last"
C3&D

+icero7 )n Fate7 ( :227 23;" Epicurus :thin,s; that the necessity of fate can $e a5oided"""" Democritus preferred to accept the 5iew that all e5ents are caused $y necessity" .d"7 0n the Nature o the Gods, .7 ((5 :=%;" <e :Ep,urus; therefore in5ented a de5ice to escape from determinism Cthe point had apparently escaped the notice of DemocritusD"""" Euse$ius7 Preparation for the Gospel, .7 pp" 23 seAA" Democritus of 2$dera :assumed; """ that all7 the past as well as the present and the future7 has $een determined always7 since time immemorial7 $y necessity"
C31D

2ristotle7 0n the 9eneration of 2nimals7 -7 :@ '*$ 7 2)3;" Democritus """ reduces to necessity all the operations of Nature"

C32D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 .K7 !6" 2ll thin*s happen $y 5irtue of necessity7 the 5orte( $ein* the cause of the creation of all thin*s7 and this he CDemocritusD calls necessity.
C33D

CPlutarchD )n the $entiments o the "hilosophers, p" 262 :.7 261" Parmenides and Democritus :say; that there is nothin* in the world $ut what is necessary7 and that this same necessity is otherwise called fate7 ri*ht7 pro5idence and the creator o the world"
C3!D

'to$aeus7 Physical $elections, ,, " Parmenides and Democlitus :say; that e5erythin* occurs $y necessity, this $ein* ate, /ustice7 pro5idence :and the architect of the world;" 3eudppus :says; that e5erythin* :occurs; $y necessity7 this $ein* fate" #or he says """ nothin* ori*inates without cause7 $ut e5erythin* $ecause of a cause and of necessity.
C36D

Euse$ius7 Preparation for the Gospel, -.7 p" 26@" """ fate7 that """ for the others Ci"e"7 DemocritusD depends on these small $odies7 which are carried downward and then ascend a*ain7 that con*lomerate and a*ain dissipate7 that run away from each other and then come to*ether a*ain $y necessity,
C3=D

'to$aeus7 Ethical 'elections7 .. 1!;" Men li,e to create for themsel5es the illusion of chance)an e(cuse for their own perple(ityE since chance is incompati$le with sound thin,in*"
C3@D

Euse$ius7 Preparation for the Gospel, K.-7 p" @ 2" """ and he Ci"e"7 DemocritusD has made chance the master and ruler of the uni5ersal and di5ine7 and has claimed that e5erythin* happens throu*h chance" 2t the same time he ,eeps it away from human life and has decried as stupid those who proclaim it" .ndeed7 at the $e*innin* of his teachin*s he says: IMen li,e to create for themsel5es the illusion of chance)an e(cuse for their own follyE since it is natural that sound thin,in* is incompati$le with chanceE and they ha5e said that this worst enemy of thin,in* rulesE or rather7 they accept chance instead of thin,in* $y totally remo5in* and a$olishin* sound thin,in*" #or they do not appreciate thin,in* as $lissful7 $ut chance as the most reasona$le"L
C3 D

'implicius7 1" c"7 p" 361" The e(pression Ili,e the ardent doctrine that remo5es chanceJ seems to refer to Democritus""""
C3%D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 1337 13!" """ Destiny78 which some introduce as so5erei*n o5er all thin*s7 he lau*hs to scorn7 affirmin* rather that some thin*s happen of necessity7 others $y chance7 others throu*h our own a*ency" #or he sees that necessity destroys responsi$ility and that chance or fortune is inconstantE whereas our own actions are free7 and it is to them that praise and $lame naturally attach" .t were $etter7 indeed7 to accept the le*ends of the *ods than to $ow $eneath the yo,e of destiny which the natural philosophers ha5e imposed" The one holds out some faint hope that we may escape if we honour the *ods7 while the necessity of the naturalists is deaf to all entreaties" But he holds to chance7 not to a *od7 as the world in *eneral :hoi polloi; does """

2%

C!&D

'eneca7 Epistle :,,, p" !2" I.t is wron* to li5e under necessityE $ut no man is constrained to li5e under necessity"""" 0n all sides lie many short and simple paths to freedomE and let us than, 9od that no man can he ,ept in life" We may spurn the 5ery constraints that hold us"J Epicurus """ uttered these words""""
C!1D

+icero7 )n the Nature o the Gods, 17 (( :66)6=1" But what 5alue can $e assi*ned to a philosophy Ci" c"7 the 'toicD which thin,s that e5erythin* happens $y fateG .t is a $elief for old women7 and i*norant old women at that"""" But Epicurus has set us free :from superstitious terrors; and deli5ered us out of capti5ity""""
C!2D

.$id"7 .7 ((5 :@&;" <e Ci"e"7 EpicurusD does the same in his $attle with the lo*icians" Their accepted doctrine is that in e5ery dis/uncti5e proposition of the form 8so7and7so either is or not7 one of the two alternati5es must $e true" Epicurus too, alarmE if such a proposition as IEpicurus either will or will not be ali!e tomorrowJ were *ranted7 one or the other alternati5e would $e necessary" 2ccordin*ly he denied the necessity of a dis/uncti5e proposition alto*ether"
C!3D

'implicius7 1" c"7 p" 361" But also Democritus states7 where he $rin*s it up7 that the different ,inds must separate themsel5es from the totality7 $ut not how and $ecause of what reason7 and seems to let them ori*inate automatically and $y chance" .$id"7 p" 361" """ and since this man Ci" e"7 DemocritusD has apparently applied chance in the creation of the world""""
C!!D

+omp" Euse$ius7 1" c"7 K.-7 :plp" :@ 1)1@ 2" """ and this :said; one Ci" e"7 DemocritusD7 who had sou*ht 5ainly and without reason for a cause7 since he started from an empty principle and a faulty hypothesis7 and has ta,en as the *reatest wisdom the understandin* of unreasona$le :and foolish; happenin*s7 without seein* the root and *eneral necessity of thin*s""""
C!6D

'implicius7 1" c"7 p" 361" """ indeed7 when some$ody is thirsty7 he drin,s cold water and feels fine a*ainE $ut Democritus will pro$a$ly not accept chance as the cause7 $ut the thirst" .$id7 p" 361" """ for7 e5en thou*h he CDemocritusD seems to use chance in re*ard to the creation of the world7 yet he maintains that in indi5idual cases chance is not the cause of anythin*7 $ut refers us $ac, to other causes" #or instance: the cause of treasure tro5e is the di**in* or the plantin* of the oli5e tree"""" +omp" i$id7 p" 361" """ $ut in indi5idual cases7 he CDemocritusD says7 :chance; is not the cause"
C!=D

Euse$ius7 1" c"7 K.-7 @ 1" .ndeed7 Democritus himself is supposed to ha5e said that he would rather disco5er a new causal e(planation than acAuire the Persian crown"

3&

C!@D

CPlutarchD )n the $entiments o the "hilosophers7 ..7 p" 2=1 :13;" Epicurus re/ects none of these opinions7 :Mar( added here: ICi"e"7 opinions of the philosophers on the su$stance of the starsDL"; :for he ,eeps to; what is possi$le" .$id"7 ..7 p" 2=6 :21;" Epicurus says a*ain that all the fore*oin* is possi$le" .$id" :..7 22; Epicurus $elie5es that all the fore*oin* is possi$le" 'to$aeus7 Physical $elections, .7 p" 6!" Epicurus re/ects none of these opinions7 for he ,eeps to what is possi$le"
C! D

'eneca7 4uestions of Nature7 :-.7; KK7 :67; p" &2" Epicurus asserts that all the fore*oin* may $e causes7 $ut he tries to introduce some additional ones" <e criticises other authors for affirmin* too positi5ely that some particular one of the causes is responsi$le7 as it is difficult to pronounce anythin* as certain in matters in which con/ecture must $e resorted to"
C!%D

+omp" Part ..7 +hapter 6"

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 " <owe5er7 we must o$ser5e each fact as presented7 and further separate from it all the facts presented alon* with it7 the occurrence of which from 5arious causes is not contradicted $y facts within our e(perience"""" 2ll these alternati5es are possi$leE they are contradicted $y none of the facts""""
C6&D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 &" We must not suppose that our treatment of these matters fails of accuracy7 so far as it is needful to ensure our tranAuillity :atara(y; and happiness"

31

Part II+
%n the Difference between Democritean and Epicurean Physics In Detail

32

Chapter One: The Declination of the Atom from the !trai$ht 'ine
Epicurus assumes a three old motion of the atoms in the 5oid"C1D 0ne motion is the fall in a straight line7 the second ori*inates in the de!iation of the atom rom the straight line7 and the third is esta$lished throu*h the repulsion o the many atoms" Both Democritus and Epicurus accept the first and the third motion" The declination o the atom from the strai*ht line differentiates the one from the other"C2D This motion of declination has often $een made the su$/ect of a /o,e" &icero more than any other is ine(hausti$le when he touches on this theme" Thus we read in him7 amon* other thin*s:
2Epicurus maintains that the atoms are thrust downwards in a strai)ht line by their wei)ht: this motion is said to he the natural motion of bodies' But then it occurred to him that if all atoms were thrust downwards$ no atom could e-er meet another one' Epicurus therefore resorted to a lie' &e said that the atom ma*es a -ery tiny swer-e$ which is$ of course$ entirely impossible' (rom this arose complexities$ combinations and adhesions of the atoms with one another$ and out of this came the world$ all parts of it and its contents' Besides all this bein) a puerile in-ention$ he does not e-en achie-e what he desires'A?;@

We find another 5ersion in the first $oo, of +icero8s treatise )n the Nature o the Gods:
2Since Epicurus saw that$ if the atoms tra-elled downwards by their own wei)ht$ nothin) would be within our control$ for their motion would be determined and necessary$ he in-ented a means for escapin) this necessity$ a means which had escaped the notice of Democritus' &e says that the atom$ althou)h thrust downwards by its wei)ht and )ra-ity$ ma*es a -ery sli)ht swer-e' To assert this is more dis)raceful than to he incapable of defendin) what he wants'A?=@

"ierre #ayle e(presses a similar opinion:

2Before him4 ?i'e'$ Epicurus@ 2only the motion of wei)ht and that of reflection were conceded to the atom'''' Epicurus

33

supposed that e-en in the midst of the -oid the atoms declined sli)htly from the strai)ht line$ and from this$ he said$ arose freedom'''' It must he noted$ in passin)$ that this was not the only moti-e that led him to in-ent this motion of declination' &e also used it to explain the meetin) of atoms: for he saw clearly that supposin) they fall8 mo-e with e<ual speed downwards alon) strai)ht lines$ he would ne-er be able to explain that they could meet$ and that thus the creation of the world would ha-e been impossible' It was necessary$ then$ that they should de-iate from the strai)ht line'A?>@

#or the present . lea5e the 5alidity of these reflections an open Auestion" This much e5eryone will notice in passin*7 that the most recent critic of Epicurus7 $chaubach7 has misunderstood +icero when he says:
2The atoms are all thrust downwards by )ra-ity$ hence parallel$ owin) to physical causes$ but throu)h mutual repulsion they ac<uire another motion$ accordin) to icero ? e nature deorum$ I$ xx- 5$ D18@ an obli<ue motion due to accidental causes$ and indeed from all eternity'A?D@

.n the first place7 +icero in the Auoted passa*e does not ma,e the repulsion the reason for the o$liAue direction7 $ut rather the o$liAue direction the reason for the repulsion" .n the second place7 he does not spea, of accidental causes7 $ut rather criticises the fact that no causes at all are mentioned7 as it would $e in and for itself contradictory to assume repulsion and at the same time accidental causes as the reason for the o$liAue direction" 2t $est one could then still spea, of accidental causes of the repulsion7 $ut not of accidental causes of the o$liAue direction" #or the rest7 one peculiarity in +icero8s and Bayle8s reflections is too o$5ious not to $e stressed immediately" They foist upon Epicurus moti5es of which the one nullifies the other" Epicurus is supposed to ha5e assumed a declination of the atoms in order to e(plain the repulsion on one occasion7 and on another freedom" But if the atoms do not meet without declination7 then declination as an e(planation of freedom is superfluousE for the opposite of freedom $e*ins7 as we see in 3ucretius7C@D only with the deterministic and forced meetin* of atoms" But if the atoms meet without declination7 then this is superfluous for e(plainin* 3!

repulsion"1 maintain that this contradiction arises when the causes for the declination of the atom from the strai*ht line are understood so superficially and disconnectedly as they are $y +icero and Bayle" We shall find in 3ucretius7 the only one in *eneral of all the ancients who has understood Epicurean physics7 a more profound e(position" We now shall consider the declination itself" Rust as the point is ne*ated :au gehoben; in the line7 so is e5ery failin* $ody ne*ated in the strai*ht line it descri$es" its specific Auality does not matter here at all" 2 fallin* apple descri$es a perpendicular line /ust as a piece of iron does" E5ery $ody7 insofar as we are concerned with the motion of fallin*7 is therefore nothin* $ut a mo5in* point7 and indeed a point without independence7 which in a certain mode of $ein*)the strai*ht line which it descri$es)surrenders its indi5iduality :Ein.elheit;" 2ristotle therefore is correct when he o$/ects a*ainst the Pytha*oreans: IOou say that the motion of the line is the surface7 that of the point the lineE then the motions of the monads will also $e lines"LC D The conseAuence of this for the monads as well as for the atoms would therefore $e)since they are in constant motionC%D H that neither monads nor atoms e(ist7 $ut rather disappear in the strai*ht lineE for the solidity of the atom does not e5en enter into the picture7 insofar as it is only considered as somethin* fallin* in a strai*ht line" To $e*in with7 if the 5oid is ima*ined as spatial 5oid7 then the atom is the immediate negation o abstract space, hence a spatial point" The solidity7 the intensity7 which maintains itself in itself a*ainst the incohesion of space7 can only he added $y 5irtue of a principle which ne*ates space in its entire domain7 a principle such as time is in real nature" Moreo5er7 if this itself is not admitted7 the atom7 insofar as its motion is a strai*ht line7 is determined only $y space and is prescri$ed a relati5e $ein* and a purely material e(istence" But we ha5e seen that one moment in the concept of the atom is that of $ein* pure form7 ne*ation of all relati5ity7 of all relation to another mode of $ein*" We ha5e noted at the same time that H Epicurus o$/ectifies for himself $oth moments

36

which7 althou*h they contradict one another7 are ne5ertheless inherent in the concept of the atom" <ow then can Epicurus *i5e reality to the pure form) determination of the atom7 the concept of pure indi5iduality7 ne*atin* any mode of $ein* determined $y another $ein*G 'ince he is mo5in* in the domain of immediate $ein*7 all determinations are immediate" 0pposite determinations are therefore opposed to one another as immediate realities" But the relati5e e(istence which confronts the atom7 the mode o being which it has to negate, is the straight line" The immediate ne*ation of this motion is another motion7 which7 therefore7 spatially concei5ed7 is the declination rom the straight line" The atoms are purely self)sufficient $odies or rather $odies concei5ed in a$solute self)sufficiency7 li,e the hea5enly $odies" <ence7 a*ain li,e the hea5enly $odies7 they mo5e not in strai*ht7 $ut in o$liAue lines" *he motion o ailing is the motion o non7 sel 7su iciency. .f Epicurus therefore represents the materiality of the atom in terms of its motion alon* a strai*ht line7 he has *i5en reality to its form)determination in the declination from the strai*ht line7 and these opposed determinations are represented as directly opposed motions" -ucretius therefore is correct when he maintains that" the declination $rea,s the ati oedera7 :$onds of fate;C1&D and7 since he applies this immediately to consciousness7C11D it can $e said of the atom that the declination is that somethin* in its $reast that can fi*ht $ac, and resist" But when +icero reproaches Epicurus that 2he does not e-en attain the )oal for which he made all this up Efor if all atoms declined$ none of them would e-er combine$ or some would de-iate$ others would be dri-en strai)ht ahead by their motion' So it would be necessary as it were to )i-e the atoms definite assi)nments beforehand+ which had to mo-e strai)ht ahead and which obli<uely4$?6/@ 3=

this o$/ection has the /ustification that the two moments inherent in the concept of the atom are represented as directly different motions7 and therefore must $e allotted to different indi5iduals: an inconsistency7 $ut a consistent one7 since the domain of the atom is immediacy" Epicurus feels this inherent contradiction Auite well" <e therefore endea5ours to represent the declination as $ein* as imperceptible as possi$le to the senses; it ta,es place .n time7 in place unfi(t C3ucretius7 %e rerum nature7 ..7 2%!D" it occurs in the smallest possi$le space"C1!D
C13D

Moreo5er &icero7 C16D and7 accordin* to Plutarch7 se5eral ancient authors7C1=D reproach Epicurus for sayin* that the declination of the atom occurs without cause. Nothin* more dis*raceful7 says +icero7 can happen to a physicist"C1@D But7 in the first place7 a physical cause such as +icero wants would throw the declination of the atom $ac, into the domain of determinism7 out of which it was precisely to $e lifted" And then, the atom is by no means complete be ore it has been submitted to the determination o declination" To inAuire after the cause of this determination means therefore to inAuire after the cause that ma,es the atom a principle)a clearly meanin*less inAuiry to anyone for whom the atom is the cause of e5erythin*7 hence without cause itself" #inally7 #ayle7C1 D)supported $y the authority of Augustine7C1%D who states that Democritus ascri$ed to the atom a spiritual principle H an authority7 $y the way7 who in contrast to 2ristotle and the other ancients is without any importance)reproaches Epicurus for ha5in* thou*ht out the concept of declination instead of this spiritual principle" But7 on the contrary7 merely a word would ha5e $een *ained with this Isoul of the atomL7 whereas the declination represents the real soul of the atom7 the concept of a$stract indi5iduality" Before we consider the conseAuence of the declination of the atom from the strai*ht line7 we must draw attention to another7 most important element7 which up to now has $een entirely o5erloo,ed"

3@

*he declination o the atom rom the straight line is, namely, not a particular determination which appears accidentally in Epicurean physics. )n the contrary, the law which it expresses goes through the whole Epicurean philosophy, in such a way, howe!er, that, as goes without saying, the determination o its appearance depends on the domain in which it is applied. 2s a matter of fact7 a$stract indi5iduality can ma,e its concept7 its form)determination7 the pure $ein*)for)itself7 the independence from immediate $ein*7 the ne*ation of all relati5ity7 effecti5e only $y abstracting rom the being that con ronts itE for in order truly to o5ercome it7 a$stract indi5iduality had to idealise it7 a thin* only *enerality can accomplish" Thus7 while the atom frees itself from its relati5e e(istence7 the strai*ht line7 $y a$stractin* from it7 $y swer5in* away from itE so the entire Epicurean philosophy swer5es away from the restricti5e mode of $ein* where5er the concept of a$stract indi5iduality7 self)sufficiency and ne*ation of all relation to other thin*s must $e represented in its e(istence" The purpose of action is to $e found therefore in a$stractin*7 swer5in* away from pain and confusion7 in atara(y" C2&D <ence the *ood is the fli*ht from e5il7C21D pleasure the swer5in* away from sufferin*"C22D #inally7 where a$stract indi5iduality appears in its hi*hest freedom and independence7 in its totality7 there it follows that the $ein* which is swer5ed away from7 is all being., or this reason, the gods swer!e away rom the world7 do not $other with it and li5e outside it"C23D These *ods of Epicurus ha5e often $een ridiculed7 these *ods who7 li,e human $ein*s7 dwell in the intermundia :The spaces $etween the worlds7 literally: inter)worlds; of the real world7 ha5e no $ody $ut a Auasi)$ody7 no $lood $ut Auasi)$lood7C2!D and7 content to a$ide in $lissful peace7 lend no car to any supplication7 are unconcerned with us and the world7 are honoured $ecause of their $eauty7 their ma/esty and their superior nature7 and not for any *ain"

2nd yet these *ods are no fiction of Epicurus" They did e(ist" *hey are the Elastic gods o Gree1 art":23; &icero7 the (oman7 ri*htly scoffs at them7C26D $ut "lutarch7 the 9ree,7 has for*otten the whole 9ree, outloo, when he claims that althou*h this doctrine of the *ods does away with fear and superstition7 it produces no /oy or fa5our in the *ods7 $ut instead $estows on us that relation to them that we ha5e to the <yrcanian :2!; fish7 from which we e(pect neither harm nor ad5anta*e"C2=D Theoretical calm is one of the chief characteristics of the 9ree, *ods" 2s Aristotle says: IWhat is $est has no need of action7 for it is its own end"LC2@D We now consider the conse'uence that follows directly from the declination of the atom" .n it is e(pressed the atom8s ne*ation of all motion and relation $y which it is determined as a particular mode of $ein* $y another $ein*" This is represented in such a way that the atom a$stracts from the opposin* $ein* and withdraws itself from it" But what is contained herein7 namely7 its negation o all relation to something else, must $e realised, positi!ely established. This can only $e done if the being to which it relates itsel is none other than itsel 7 hence eAually an atom7 and7 since it itself is directly determined7 many atoms" *he repulsion o the many atoms is there ore the necessary realisation o the le( atomi7 :3aw of the atom; as 3ucretius calls the declination" But since here e5ery determination is esta$lished as a particular $ein*7 repulsion is added as a third motion to the former ones" 3ucretius is therefore correct when he says that7 if the atoms were not to decline7 neither their repulsion nor their meetin* would ha5e ta,en place7 and the world would ne5er ha5e $een created"C2 D #or atoms are their own sole o$/ect and can only $e related to themsel5es7 hence spea,in* in spatial terms7 they can only meet7 $ecause e5ery relati5e e(istence of these atoms $y which they would $e related to other $ein*s is ne*ated" 2nd this relati5e e(istence is7 as we ha5e seen7 their ori*inal motion7 that of fallin* in a strai*ht line" <ence they meet only $y 5irtue of their declination from the strai*ht line" .t has nothin* to do with merely material fra*mentation"C2%D

3%

2nd in truth: the immediately e(istin* indi5iduality is only realised conceptually7 inasmuch as it relates to somethin* else which actually is itself H e5en when the other thin* confronts it in the form of immediate e(istence" Thus man ceases to he a product of nature only when the other $ein* to which he relates himself is not a different e(istence $ut is itself an indi5idual human $ein*7 e5en if it is not yet the mind :Geist;" But for man as man to $ecome his own real o$/ect7 he must ha5e crushed within himself his relati5e $ein*7 the power of desire and of mere nature" 1epulsion is the irst form o sel 7consciousness, it corresponds therefore to that self)consciousness which concei5es itself as immediate)$ein*7 as a$stractly indi5idual" The concept of the atom is therefore realised in repulsion7 inasmuch as it is a$stract form7 $ut no less also the opposite7 inasmuch as it is a$stract matterE for that to which it relates itself consists7 to $e true7 of atoms7 $ut other atoms" #ut when , relate mysel to mysel as to something which is directly another, then my relationship is a material one" This is the most e(treme de*ree of e(ternality that can $e concei5ed" .n the repulsion of the atoms7 therefore7 their materiality7 which was posited in the fall in a strai*ht line7 and the form)determination7 which was esta$lished in the declination7 are united synthetically" %emocritus7 in contrast to Epicurus7 transforms into an enforced motion7 into an act of $lind necessity7 that which to Epicurus is the realisation of the concept of the atom" We ha5e already seen a$o5e that he considers the 5orte( CdiniD resultin* from the repulsion and collision of the atoms to $e the su$stance of necessity" <e therefore sees in the repulsion only the material side7 the fra*mentation7 the chan*e7 and not the ideal side7 accordin* to which all relation to somethin* else is ne*ated and motion is esta$lished as self)determination" This can $e clearly seen from the fact that he concei5es one and the same $ody di5ided throu*h empty space into many parts Auite sensuously7 li,e *old $ro,en up into pieces"C3&D Thus he scarcely concei5ed of the 0ne as the concept of the atom" Aristotle correctly ar*ues a*ainst him:

!&

2&ence !eucippus and Democritus$ who assert that the primary bodies always mo-ed in the -oid and in the infinite$ should say what *ind of motion this is$ and what is the motion natural to them' (or if each of the elements is forcibly mo-ed by the other$ then it is still necessary that each should ha-e also a natural motion$ outside which is the enforced one' "nd this first motion must not be enforced but natural' %therwise the procedure )oes on to infinity'A?;6@

The Epicurean declination of the atom thus chan*ed the whole inner structure of the domain of the atoms7 since throu*h it the form)determination is 5alidated and the contradiction inherent in the concept of the atom is realised" Epicurus was therefore the first to *rasp the essence of the repulsion H e5en if only in sensuous form7 whereas Democritus only ,new of its material e(istence" <ence we find also more concrete forms of the repulsion applied $y Epicurus" .n the political domain there is the co!enant7C32D in the social domain friendship7 which is praised as the hi*hest *ood"

!1

#00TN0TE'
C1D

'to$aeus7 "hysical $elections, 9, p" 33" Epicurus says """ that the atoms mo5e sometimes 5ertically downwards7 at other times $y de5iatin* from a strai*ht fine7 $ut the motion upward is due to collision and recoil" +omp" +icero7 )n the Highest Goods and E!ils7 .7 5i" CPlutarch7D )n the $entiments o the "hilosophers, p" 2!% :.7 12;" 'to$aeus7 1"c"7 p" !&"
C2D

+icero7 )n the Nature o the Gods7 17 ((5i :@3;" What is there in Epicurus8 natural philosophy that does not come from DemocritusG 'ince e5en if he introduced some alterations7 for instance the swer!e o the atoms of which . spo,e /ust now """
C3D

+icero7 )n the Highest Goods and E!ils, .7 5i :1 )1%;" <e CEpicurusD $elie5es that these same indi5isi$le solid $odies are $orne $y their own wei*ht perpendicularly downward7 which he holds is the natural motion of all $odiesE $ut thereupon this cle!er ellow, encounterin* the difficulty that if they all tra5elled downwards in a strai*ht fine7 and7 as . said7 perpendicularly7 no one atom would e5er he a$le to o5erta,e any other atom7 accordin*ly introduced an idea of his own in5ention: he said that the atom ma,es a 5ery tiny swer5e7) the smallest di5er*ence possi$leE and so are produced entan*lements and com$inations and cohesions of atoms with atoms7 which result in the creation of the world and all its parts7 and of all that is in them"
C!D

+icero7 )n the Nature o the Gods, .7 ((5 :=%)@&;" Epicurus saw that if the atoms tra5elled downwards $y their own wei*ht7 we should ha5e no freedom of the will7 since the motion of the atoms would he determined $y necessity" <e therefore in5ented a de5ice to escape from determinism Cthe point had apparently escaped the notice of DemocritusD: he said that the atom while tra5ellin* 5ertically downward $y the force of *ra5ity ma,es a 5ery sli*ht swerr5e to one side" This defence discredits him more than if he had had to a$andon his ori*inal position" +omp" +icero7 )n Fate7 ( :22)23;"
C6D

Bayle7 %ictionnaire histori'ue et criti'ue C<istorical and +ritical DictionaryD7 art" Epicurus"
C=D

'chau$ach7 0n Epicurus8 2stronomical +oncepts :in 9erman;7 in Archi! <r "hilologie und "=dagogie7 -7 !7 :1 3%7; p" 6!%"

C@D

3ucretius7 )n the Nature o *hings7 117 261 ff" 2*ain7 if all mo5ement is always interconnected7 the new risin* from the old in a determinate order """ what is the source of the free willG
C D

2ristotle7 )n the $oul7 .7 ! :!&%7 1)6;" <ow are we to ima*ine a unit :monad; $ein* mo5edG By what a*encyG What sort of mo5ement can $e attri$uted to what is without parts or internal differencesG .f the unit is $oth ori*inati5e of mo5ement and itself capa$le of $ein* mo5ed7 it must contain

!2

differences" #urther7 since they say a mo5in* line generates a surface and a mo5in* point a line7 the mo5ements o the psychic units must be lines"
C%D

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !3" The atoms are in continual motion"

'implicius7 1"c"7 p" !2!" """ the followers of Epicurus """ :tau*ht; eternal motion"
C1&D

3ucretius7 )n the Nature o *hings7 117 2617 263)266" """ if the atoms ne5er swer5e so as to ori*inate some new mo5ement that will snap the $onds of fate7 the e5erlastin* seAuence of cause and effect""""
C11D

.$id"7 ..7 2@%)2 &" """ there is within the human $reast somethin* that can fi*ht a*ainst this force and resist it"
C12D

+icero7 0n the Highest Goods and E5ils7 .7 5i :1%)2&;" """ yet he does not attain the o$/ect for the sa,e of which this fiction was de5ised" #or7 if all the atoms swer5e7 none will e5er come to cohere to*etherE or if some swer5e while others tra5el in a strai*ht line7 $y their own natural tendency7 in the first place this will $e tantamount to assi*nin* to the atoms their different spheres of action7 some to tra5el strai*ht and some sideways""""
C13D C1!D

3ucretius7 1"c"7 2%3"

+icero7 )n Fate, ( :22;" """ when the atom swer5es sideways a minimal space7 termed :$y Epicurus; elachiston :the smallest;"
C16D

.$id" 2lso he is compelled to profess in reality7 if not Auite e(plicitly7 that this swer5e ta,es place without cause""""
C1=D

Plutarch7 0n the &reation o the 'oul7 -. C-.7 p" 7 stereotyped editionD" #or they do not a*ree with Epicurus that the atom swer5es somewhat7 since he introduces a motion without cause out of the non)$ein*"
C1@D

+icero7 )n the Highest Goods and E!ils7 .7 5i :1%1" The swer5in* is itself an ar$itrary fiction Cfor Epicurus says the atoms swer!e without a cause7 yet this is a capital offence in a natural philosopher, to spea1 o something ta1ing place uncaused;" Then also he *ratuitously depri5es the atoms of what he himself declared to $e the natural motion of all hea5y $odies7 namely7 mo5ement in a strai*ht line downwards""""8
C1 D C1%D C2&D

Bayle7 1"c" 2u*ustine7 3etter 6="

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 12 " #or the end of all our actions is to $e free from pain and fear"
C21D

Plutarch7 That Epicurw 2ctually +a1es a "leasant -i e ,mpossible, 1&%1" Epicurus too ma,es a similar statement to the effect that the 9ood is a thin* that arises out of your 5ery escape from e5il""""

!3

C22D

+lement of 2le(andria7 The +iscellanies, ..7 p" !16 :21;" """ Epicurus also says that the remo5al of pain is pleasure""""
C23D

'encea7 0n Benefits7 .- :7!7 117 p" =%%" Oes7 and therefore 9od does not *i5e $enefits7 $ut7 free from all care and unconcerned a$out us7 he turns his $ac, on the world""" and $enefits no more concern him than in/uries""""
C2!D

+icero7 on the Nature o the Gods, 17 ((i5 := 1" """ you *a5e us the formula /ust now )9od has not $ody $ut a sem$lance of $ody7 not $lood $ut a ,ind of $lood"
C26D

i$id"" (i :1127 116)11=;" Well then7 what meat and drin,7 what harmonies of music and flowers of 5arious colours7 what deli*hts of touch and smell will you assi*n to the *ods7 so as to ,eep them steeped in pleasureG""" Why7 what reason ha5e you for maintainin* that men owe worship to the *ods7 if the *ods not only pay no re*ard to men7 $ut care for nothin* and do nothin* at allG IBut deity possesses an e(cellence and pre)eminence which must of its own nature attract the worship of the wise"J Now how can there $e any e(cellence in a $ein* so en*rossed in the deli*hts of his own pleasure that he always has $een7 is7 and will continue to $e entirely idle and inacti5eG
C2=D

Plutarch7 *hat Epicurus Actually +a1es a "leasant -i e ,mpossible7 :11&&); 11&1" """ their theory """ does remo5e a certain superstitious fearE $ut it allows no /oy and deli*ht to come to us from the *ods" .nstead7 it puts us in the same state of mind with re*ard to the *ods7 of neither $ein* alarmed nor re/oicin*7 that we ha5e re*ardin* the <yrcanian fish" We e(pect nothin* from them either *ood or e5il"
C2@D

2ristotle7 )n the Hea!ens7 .f7 12 :2%2 ! )=;" """ while the perfectly conditioned has no need of action7 since it is itself the end""""
C2 D

3ucretius7 )n the Nature o *hings7 117 2217 223)22!" .f it were not for this swer5e7 e5erythin* would fall downwards li,e rain)drops throu*h the a$yss of space" No collision would ta,e place and no impact of atom on atom would he created anythin*" created" Thus nature would ne5er ha5e
C2%D

.$id"7 ..7 2 !)2%2" 'o also in the atoms """ $esides wei*ht and impact there must $e a third cause of mo5ement7 the source of this in$orn power of ours"""" But the fact that the mind itself has no internal necessity to determine its e5ery act and compel it to suffer in helpless passi5ity)this is due to the sli*ht swer5e of the atoms""""
C3&D

2ristotle7 )n the Hea!ens7 .7 @ )2@=a7 11" .f the whole is not :2@6 3&)2@=7 1; .f the whole is not continuous7 $ut e(ists7 as Democritus and 3eucippus thin,7 in the form of parts separated $y 5oid7 there must necessarily $e one mo5ement of all the multitude" """ $ut their nature is one7 li,e many pieces of *old separated from one another"
C31D

.$id"7 ...7 2 :3&&7 %)1@;" <ence 3eucippus and Democritus7 who say that the primary $odies are in perpetual mo5ement in the 5oid or infinite7 may $e

!!

as,ed to e(plain the manner of their motion and the ,ind of mo5ement which is natural to them" #or if the 5arious elements are constrained $y one another to mo5e as they do7 each must still ha5e a natural mo5ement which the constrained contra5enes7 and the prime mo5er must cause motion not $y constraint $ut naturally" .f there is no ultimate natural cause of mo5ement and each precedin* term in the series is always mo5ed $y constraint7 we shall ha5e an infinite process"
C32D

Dio*ones 3aertius7 K7 16&" Those animals which are incapa$le of ma,in* co5enants with one another7 to the end that they may neither inflict nor suffer harm7 are without either 3ustice or in3ustice" 2nd those tri$es which either could not or would not form mutual co5enants to the same end are in li,e case" There ne5er was an a$solute /ustice7 $ut only an a*reement made in reciprocal intercourse7 in whate5er localities7 now and a*ain7 from time to time7 pro5idin* a*ainst the infliction or sufferin* of harm"

!6

Chapter Two: The (ualities of the Atom

.t contradicts the concept of the atom that the atom should ha5e properties7 $ecause7 as Epicurus says7 e5ery property is 5aria$le $ut the atoms do not chan*e"1 Ne5ertheless it is a necessary conse'uence to attri$ute properties to atoms" .ndeed7 the many atoms of repulsion separated $y sensuous space must necessarily $e immediately di erent rom one another and rom their pure essence, i"e"7 they must possess Aualities" .n the followin* analysis . therefore ta,e no account of the assertion made $y $chneider and N<rnberger that IEpicurus attri$uted no Aualities to the atoms7 para*raphs !! and 6! of the letter to <erodotus in Dio*enes 3aertius ha5e $een interpolatedJ" .f this were truly so7 how is one to in5alidate the e5idence of 3ucretius7 Plutarch7 and indeed of all other authors who spea, of EpicurusG Moreo5er7 Dio*enes 3aertius mentions the Aualities of the atom not in two7 $ut in ten para*raphs: Nos" !27 !37 !!7 6!7 667 6=7 6@7 6 7 6% and =1" The *rounds these critics *i5e for their contention H that Ithey did not ,now how to reconcile the Aualities of the atom with its conceptL)are 5ery shallow"J :26; $pino.a says that i*norance is no ar*ument" :'pinoFa7 Ethics7 Part .7 Prop" 3=7 2ppendi(; .f one was to delete the passa*es in the ancients which he does not understand7 how Auic,ly would we ha5e a tabula rasaM Throu*h the Aualities the atom acAuires an e(istence which contradicts its conceptE it is assumed as an externalised being di erent from its essence. .t is this contradiction which mainly interests Epicurus" <ence7 as soon as he posits a property and thus draws the conseAuence of the material nature of the atom7 he counterposits at the same time determinations which a*ain destroy this property in its own sphere and 5alidate instead the concept of the atom" He there ore determines all properties in
1

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 6!" #or e5ery Auality chan*es7 $ut the atoms do not chan*e"3ucretius, )n the Nature o *hings7 ..7 =1) =3" They must $e ,ept far apart from the atoms7 if we wish to pro5ide the uni5erse with imperisha$le foundations on which it may rest secure """

!=

such a way that they contradict themsel!es" Democritus7 on the other hand7 nowhere considers the properties in relation to the atom itself7 nor does he o$/ectify the contradiction $etween concept and e(istence which is inherent in them" <is whole interest lies rather in representin* the Aualities in relation to concrete nature7 which is to $e formed out of them" To him they are merely hypotheses to e(plain the plurality " which ma,es its appearance" .t follows that the concept of the atom has nothin* to do with them" .n order to pro5e our assertion it is first of all necessary to elucidate the sources which here seem to contradict one another" .n the treatise %e placitis philosophorum we read:
2Epicurus asserts that the atoms ha-e three <ualities+ siFe$ shape$ wei)ht' Democritus only assumed two+ siFe and shape' Epicurus added wei)ht as the third'A6

The same passa*e is repeated word for word in the "raeparatio e!angelica o Eusebius"2 .t is confirmed $y the testimony of 'implicius3 and Philoponus7! accordin* to whom Democritus attri$uted to the atoms only difference in siFe and shape" Directly contrary stands 2ristotle who7 in the $oo, De *enerations et corruptions7 attri$utes to the atoms of Democritus difference in wei*ht"6 .n another passa*e Cin the first $oo, of %e caeloD Aristotle lea5es undecided the
1

CPlutarch7D )n the $entiments o the "hilosophers :.7 3;" Epicurus """ affirms that """ $odies are su$/ect to these three accidents7 shape7 siFe and wei*ht" Democritus :ac,nowled*ed; $ut two: siFe and shape" Epicurus added the third7 to wit7 wei*ht7 for he pronounced that it is necessary that $odies recei5e their motion from that impulsion which sprin*s from wei*ht +omp" 'e(tus Empiricus7 2*ainst the "ro essors, p" !21 :K7 2!&;" 2 Euse$ius7 "reparation or the Gospel, K.-7 p" @!% :1!1;" 3 'implicius7 1"c"7 p" 3=2" """*i5in* Ci"e"7 DemocritusD them Ci"e"7 the atomsD the difference with re*ard to siFe and shape"""" ! Philoponus7 i$id" <e CDemocritusD assi*ns a uniAue common nature of the $ody to all shapesE its parts are the atoms7 which differ from each other in siFe and shapeE for they ha5e not only different shape $ut some of them are $i**er7 the others smaller" 6 2ristotle7 )n #ecoming and %ecaying7 17 :32=7 1&;" """and yet he :Democritus; says Ithe more any indi5isi$le e(ceeds7 the hea5ier it isJ"

!@

Auestion of whether or not Democritus ascri$ed wei*ht to the atoms7 for he says:
AThus none of the bodies will be absolutely li)ht if they all ha-e wei)ht: but if all ha-e li)htness$ none will be hea-y'A6

.n his Geschichte der alten "hilosophie, (itter7 $asin* himself on the authority of 2ristotle7 re/ects the assertions of Plutarch7 Euse$ius and 'to$aeus"2 <e does not consider the testimony of 'implicius and Philoponus" 3et us see whether these passa*es are really so contradictory" .n the passa*e cited7 2ristotle does not spea, of the Aualities of the atom ex pro esso.:as someone who ,nows their profession; 0n the other hand7 we read in the ei*hth $oo, of the +etaphysics:
ADemocritus assumes three differences between atoms' (or the underlyin) body is one and the same with respect to matter$ but it differs in rhysmos$ meanin) shape$ in trope$ meanin) position$ or in diathige$ meanin) arran)ement'A;

This much can $e immediately concluded from this passa*e PM)) :Democritus does not posit the contradiction $etween the Auality of the atom and its concept;))Q" Wei*ht is not mentioned as a property of the Democritean atoms" The fra*mented pieces of matter7 ,ept apart $y the 5oid7 must ha5e special forms7 and these are Auite e(ternally percei5ed from the o$ser5ation of space" This emer*es e5en more clearly from the followin* passa*e of 2ristotle:
A!eucippus and his companion Democritus hold that the elements are the full and the -oid'''' These are the basis of bein) as matter' ,ust as those who assume only one
1

2ristotle7 )n the Hea!ens, 17 @ :2@=7 1)27 !)@;" But each piece must7 as we assert7 ha5e the same motion"""" 'o that if it $e wei*ht that all possess7 no $ody is7 strictly spea,in*7 li*htE and if li*htness he uni5ersal7 none is hea5y" Moreo5er7 whate5er possesses wei*ht or li*htness will ha5e its place either at one of the e(tremes or in the middle re*ion" 2 1itter7 History o 2ncient "hilosophy :in 9erman;7 .7 p" 6= 7 Note 2 :2d impro5ed edition7 1 3=7 p" =&27 Note 2;" 3 2ristotle7 +etaphysics7 -...7 2 :1&!27 11)1!1" Democritus seems to thin, there are three ,inds of difference $etween thin*s :atoms;E the underlyin* $ody7 the matter7 is one and the same7 $ut they differ either in rhythm7 i" e" shape7 or in turnin*7 i" e" position7 or in inter)contact7 i" e" order"

fundamental substance )enerate all other thin)s by its affections$ assumin) rarity and density as the principles of <ualitiesEin the same way !eucippus and Democritus also teach that the differences between the atoms are the causes of the other thin)s$ for the underlyin) bein) differs only by rhysmos$ diathige and trope '''' That is$ " differs from N in shape$ "N from N" in arran)ement$ G from N in position'46

.t is e5ident from this Auotation that Democritus considers the properties of the atom only in relation to the formation of the differences in the world of appearances7 and not in relation to the atom itself" it follows further that Democritus does not sin*le out wei*ht as an essential property of the atoms" #or him wei*ht is ta,en for *ranted7 since e5erythin* corporeal has wei*ht" .n the same way7 accordin* to him7 e5en siFe is not a $asic Auality" .t is an accidental determination which is already *i5en to the atoms to*ether with fi*ure" 0nly the di5ersity of the fi*ures is of interest to Democritus7 since nothin* more is contained in shape7 position and arran*ement" 'iFe7 shape and wei*ht7 $y $ein* com$ined as they are $y Epicurus7 are differences which the atom in itself possesses" 'hape7 position and arran*ement are differences which the atom possesses in relation to somethin* else" Whereas we find in Democritus mere hypothetical determinations to e(plain the world of appearances7 in Epicurus the conseAuence of the principle itself will $e presented to us" We shall therefore discuss in detail his determinations of the properties of the atom"

.$id"7 .7 ! :% 6$7 !)1%1" 3eucippus and his associate Democritus say that the full and the empty are the elements7 callin* the one $ein* and the other non) $ein*)the full and solid $ein* $ein*7 the empty non)$ein* Cwhence they say $ein* no more is than non)$ein*7 $ecause the solid no more is than the emptyDE and they ma,e these the material causes of thin*s" 2nd as those who ma,e the underlyin* su$stance one *enerate all other thin*s $y its modifications7 supposin* the rare and the dense to $e the sources of modifications7 in the same way these philosophers say the differences in the elements are the causes of all other Aualities" These differences7 they say7 are three)shape and order and position" #or they say the real is differentiated only $y IrhythmJ and Iinter)contactJ and Iturnin*JE and of these rhythm is shape7 inter)contact is order7 and turnin* is positionE for 2 differs from N in shape7 2N from N2 in order7 and B from7 N in position"

!%

First o all7 the atoms ha5e siFe"1 2nd then a*ain7 siFe is also ne*ated" That is to say7 they do not ha5e e!ery siFeE2 $ut only some differences in siFe amon* them must $e admitted"3C13D .ndeed7 only the ne*ation of the lar*e can $e ascri$ed to them7 the small7! H also not the minimum7 for this would $e merely a spatial determination7 $ut the infinitely small7 which e(presses the contradiction"6 1osinius7 in his notes on the fra*ments of EpicurusE therefore translates one passa*e incorrectly and completely i*nores the other7 when he says:
2In this way Epicurus tried to ma*e plausible the tenuity of the atoms of incredible smallness$ by sayin)$ accordin) to !aertius$ H$ ==$ that they ha-e no siFe'4D

Now . shall not concern myself with the fact that7 accordin* to Eusebius7 Epicurus was the first to ascri$e infinite smallness to the atoms7@ whereas Democritus also assumed atoms of the lar*est siFe H $tobaeus says e5en as lar*e as the world"
This$ on the one hand$ contradicts the testimony of !ristotle'1 %n the other hand$ Eusebius$ or rather the "lexandrian bishop
1

Dio*enes 3aertius K !!" """atoms ha5e no Auality at all e(cept shape7 siFe and wei*ht" """ further7 that they are not of any and e5ery siFeE at any rate no atom has e5er $een seen $y our senses" 2 .$id"7 K7 6=" But to attri$ute any and e5ery siFe to the atoms does not help to e(plain the differences of Auality in thin*sE moreo5er7 in that case atoms would e(ist lar*e enou*h to $e percei5ed $y us7 which is ne5er o$ser5ed to occurE nor can we concei5e how such an occurrence should $e possi$le7 i" e"7 that an atom should $ecome 5isi$le" 3 .$id"7 K7 66" 2*ain7 you should not suppose that the atoms ha5e any and e5ery siFe """ $ut some differences of siFe must $e admitted" ! .$id"7 K7 6%" 0n the analo*y of thin*s within our e(perience w e ha5e declared that the atom has siFeE and this7 small as it is7 we ha5e merely reproduced on a lar*er scale" 6 comp" i$id"7 K7 6 " 'to$aeus7 "hysical $elections, .7 p" 2@" = Epicurus7 #ra*ments C)n Nature7 .. and K.D7 collected $y 1osinius7 ed" By 0refli7 p" 2=" @ Euse$ius7 "reparation or the Gospel, K.-7 p" @@3 CParis ed"D" But they differed in that one of them Ci"e"7 EpicurusD assumed that all atoms were infinitely small and could therefore not $e percei5ed7 while Democritus assumed that some lar*e atoms e(isted too" 'to$aeus7 "hysical $elections, .7 1@" Democritus e5en says """ that an atom is possi$le as lar*e as the world" +omp" CPlutarch7D )n the $entiments o the philosophers7 i7 p" 236 117 31"

6&

ionysius$ from whom he ta*es excerpts$ contradicts himself: for in the same boo* we read that Democritus assumed as the principles of nature indi-isible bodies perceptible throu)h reason'6 This much at least is clear+ Democritus was not aware of the contradiction: he did not pay attention to it$ whereas it was the chief interest of Epicurus' The second property of the Epicurean atoms is shape'/ But this determination also contradicts the concept of the atom$ and its opposite must be assumed' "bstract indi-iduality is abstract identityEtoEitself and therefore without shape' The differences in the shape of the atoms cannot$ therefore$ be determined; althou)h they are not absolutely infinite'= It is rather by a definite and finite number of shapes that the atoms are differentiated from one another'> (rom this it is ob-ious that there are not as many different fi)ures as there are atoms$ D while Democritus assumes an infinite number of fi)ures'I If e-ery
%

2ristotle, )n #ecoming and %ecaying7 17 132! 7 3&1" """ in5isi$le """ owin* to their minuteness"""" 1 Euse$ius7 "reparation or the Gospel, K.-7 p" @!%" Democritus """ :assumed; as the principles of the thin*s indi5isi$le """ $odies percepti$le throu*h reason"""" +omp" CPlutarch7D 0n the 'entiments o the "hilosophers, .7 p" 236 :31" 2 Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 6!" Moreo5er7 we must hold that the atoms in fact possess none of the Aualities $elon*in* to the world which come under our o$ser5ation7 e(cept shape7 wei*ht7 and siFe7 and the properties necessarily con/oined with shape" comp" '" !!" 3 .$id"7 K7 !2" #urthermore7 the atoms """ 5ary indefinitely in their shapes" ! .$id"7 K7 !2" """ $ut the 5ariety of shapes7 thou*h indefinitely lar*er7 is not a$solutely infinite" 6 3ucretius7 )n the Nature o *hings7 ..7 613)61!" """you must ac,nowled*e a correspondin* limit to the different forms of matter"Euse$ius7 Preparation for the Gospel, K.-7 p" @!%" Epicurus """ :says; """ that the shapes of the atoms themsel5es are limited7 and not infinite"""" +omp" CPlutarchD )n the $entiments o the "hilosophers7 1"c" = Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !2" The li,e atoms of each shape are a$solutely infinite" 3ucretius7 )n the Nature o *hings7 117 626)62 " 'ince the 5arieties of form are limited7 the num$er of uniform atoms must $e unlimited" 0therwise the totality of matter would $e finite7 which 1 ha5e pro5ed in my 5erses is not so" @ 2ristotle7 )n the Hea!ens, ...7 ! :3&37 3)67 1&)16;" There is7 further7 another 5iew)that of 3eucippus and Democritus of 2$dera)the implications of which are also unaccepta$le"""" and further7 they say that since the atomic $odies differ in shape7 and there is an infinity of shapes7 there is an infinity of simple $odies" But they ha5e ne5er e(plained in detail the shapes of the 5arious

61

atom had a particular shape$ then there would ha-e to be atoms of infinite J si"e6: for they would ha-e an infinite difference$ the difference from all the others$ in themsel-es 5an sich8$ li*e the monads of !eibniF' This leads to the in-ersion of !eibniF3s assertion that no two thin)s are identical$ and there are infinitely many atoms of the same shape' This ob-iously ne)ates a)ain the determination of the shape$ because a shape which no lon)er differs from another is not shape'/ (inally$ it is hi)hly important that Epicurus ma*es weight the third <uality$; for in the centre of )ra-ity matter possesses the ideal indi-iduality which forms a principal determination of the atom' &ence$ once the atoms are brou)ht into the realm of presentation$ they must also ha-e wei)ht' But wei)ht also directly contradicts the concept of the atom$ because it is the indi-iduality of matter as an ideal point which lies outside matter' But the atom is itself this indi-iduality$ as it were the centre of )ra-ity presented as an indi-idual existence' Bei)ht therefore exists for Epicurus only as different weight, and the atoms are themsel-es substantial centres of )ra-ity li*e the hea-enly bodies' If this is applied to the concrete$ then the ob-ious result is the fact which old #rucker finds so amaFin)= and of which !ucretius assures us$> namely$ that the earth has no centre towards which e-erythin) stri-es$ and that there are no antipodes' (urthermore since wei)ht belon)s only to that atom which is different from the other$ hence externalised and endowed with properties$ then it is clear that where the atoms are not thou)ht of as many in their differentiation from one
elements7 e(cept so7 far as to allot the sphere to fire" 2ir7 water and the rest"""7 Philoponus7 1"c" They ha5e """ not only entirely different shapes"""" 1 3ucretius7 )n the Nature o *hings, ..7 !@!)! !7 !%1)!%27 !%6)!%@" """the num$er of different forms of atoms is finite" .f it were not so7 some of the atoms would ha5e to $e of infinite ma*nitude" Within the narrow limits of any sin*le particle7 there can $e only a limited ran*e of forms"""" """ if you wish to 5ary its form still further """ the arran*ement will demand still other parts"""" -ariation in shape *oes with increase in siFe" Oou cannot $elie5e7 therefore7 that the atoms are distin*uished $y an infinity of forms"""" 2 comp" Note 26D" 3 Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !! and 6!" ! Bruc,er7 .nstitutions o the <istory o "hilosophy :3atin7 1@!@;7 p" 22!" 6 3ucretius7 0n the Nature of Thin*s7 .7 1&61)1&62" &7 Memmius7 here you must *i5e up fully the $elief that all thin*s stri5e H as they say H to the middle of the world"

62

another$ but only in relation to the -oid$ the determination of wei)ht ceases to exist' The atoms$ as different as they may be in mass and shape$ mo-e therefore with e<ual speed in empty space'6 Epicurus thus applies wei)ht only in re)ard to repulsion and the resultin) compositions' This has led to the assertions that only the con)lomerations of the atoms are endowed with wei)ht$ but not the atoms themsel-es'/ 9assendi already praises Epicurus because$ led purely by reason$ he anticipated the experimentally demonstrated fact that all bodies$ althou)h -ery different in wei)ht and mass$ ha-e the same -elocity when they fall from abo-e to below'; The consideration of the properties of the atoms leads us therefore to the same result as the consideration of the declination$ namely$ that Epicurus ob,ectifies the contradiction in the concept of the atom between essence and existence' &e thus )a-e us the science of atomistics' In Democritus$ on the other hand$ there is no realisation of the principle itself' &e only maintains the material side and offers hypotheses for the benefit of empirical obser-ation'

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !3" The atoms mo5e with eAual speed7 since the 5oid ma,es way for the li*htest and hea5iest ali,e throu*h all eternity"""" =1" When they are tra5ellin* throu*h the 5oid and meet with no resistance7 the atoms must mo5e with eAual speed" Neither will hea5y atoms tra5el more Auic,ly than small and li*ht ones7 so lon* as nothin* meets them7 nor will small atoms tra5el more Auic,ly than lar*e ones7 pro5ided they always find a passa*e suita$le to their siFeE and pro5ided that they meet with no o$struction" 3ucretius7 )n the Nature o *hings7 ..7 236)23%" But empty space can offer no resistance to any o$/ect in any Auarter at any time7 so as not to yield free passa*e as its own nature demands" Therefore7 throu*h undistur$ed 5acuum all $odies must tra5el at eAual speed thou*h impelled $y uneAual wei*hts" 2 comp" +h" 3" 3 #euer$ach7 History o the Newer "hilosophy. :1 337 Auotations from; 9assendi7 1" c"7 KKK...7 No" @" 2lthou*h Epicurus had perhaps ne5er thou*ht a$out this e(periment7 he :still; reached7 led $y reason7 the same opinion a$out atoms that e(periment has recently tau*ht us" This opinion is that all $odies"""" althou*h 5ery different in wei*ht and $ul,7 ha5e the same 5elocity when they fall from a$o5e to $elow" Thus he was of opinion that all atoms7 howe5er much they may differ in siFe and wei*ht7 mo5e with an eAual 5elocity"

63

Chapter Three: Atomoi archai )indi*isi le principles+ and atoma stoicheia )indi*isi le elements+
$chaubach7 in his treatise on the astronomical concepts of Epicurus7 to which we ha5e already referred7 ma,es the followin* assertion: LEpicurus7 as well as Aristotle, has made a distinction $etween principles :An >nge; Catomoi archai7 Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !1D and elements Catoma stoicheia7 Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 =D" The former are the atoms reco*nisa$le only throu*h reason and do not occupy space"1 These are called atoms not $ecause they are the smallest $odies7 $ut $ecause they are indi5isi$le in space" 2ccordin* to these conceptions one mi*ht thin, that Epicurus did not attri$ute any spatial properties to the atom"2 But in the letter to <erodotus CDio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !!7 6!D he *i5es the atoms not only wei*ht $ut also siFe and shape"""" . therefore consider these atoms as $elon*in* to the second species7 those that ha5e de5eloped out of the former $ut can still $e re*arded a*ain as elementary particles of the $odies"3 3et us loo, more closely at the passa*e which $chaubach cites from Dio*enes 3aertius" .t reads: For instance such propositions that the All consists o bodies and non7corporeal nature, or that there are indi!isible elements and other such statements. Epicurus here teaches Pythocles7 to whom he is writin*7 that the teachin* a$out meteors differs from all other doctrines in physics7 for e(ample7 that e5erythin* is either $ody or 5oid7 that there are indi5isi$le $asic elements" .t is o$5ious that there is here no reason to assume that it is a Auestion of a second species
1

2metocha ,enou :'to$aeus7 Physical $elections, .7 p" 3&=; does not at all mean Ido not fill spaceJ7 $ut Iha5e no part o the 5oidJ7 it is the same as what at another place %iogenes -aertius says: Ithou*h they are without distinction of partsJ" .n the same way we must e(plain this e(pression in CPlutarch7D )n the $entiments o the "hilosophers, .7 p" 23=7 and 'implicius7 p" !&6" 2 This also is a wron* conseAuence" That which cannot $e di5ided in space is not therefore outside of space or without spatial relation" 3 'chau$ach7 1"c"7 :p;p" :6!%)66&"

6!

of atoms"1 .t may perhaps seem that the dis/unction $etween SThe 2ll consistin* of $odies and non)corporeal $odiesT and Sthat there are indi5isi$le elements esta$lishes a difference $etween soma and aroma stoicheia7 so that we mi*ht say that soma stands for atoms of the first ,ind in contrast to the atoma stoicheia" But this is Auite out of the Auestion" $oma means the corporeal in contrast to the 5oid7 which for this reason is called asomatonT"2 The term soma therefore includes the atoms as well as compound $odies" #or e(ample7 in the letter to <erodotus we read: SThe 2ll is $ody """ if there were not that which we call 5oid7 space and non)corporeal nature"""" 2mon* $odies some are compound7 others the thin*s out of which the compounds are made7 and these latter are indi5isi$le and unchan*ea$le"""" +onseAuently these first principles are necessarily of indi5isi$le corporeal natureT3 Epicurus is thus spea,in* in the passa*e cited first of the corporeal in *eneral7 in contrast to the 5oid7 and then of the corporeal in particular7 the atoms" $chaubach?s reference to 2ristotle pro5es /ust as little" True the difference $etween arche and stoicheion7 which the 'toics particularly insist upon7! can indeed also $e found in 2ristotle76 $ut he nonetheless assumes the identity of the two e(pressions"= <e e5en teaches e(plicitly that stoicheion denotes primarily the

1 2

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !!" i$id"7 K7 =@" But it is impossi$le to concei5e anythin* that is incorporeal as self)e(istent7 e(cept empty space. 3 .$id7 K7 3%7 !& and !1" ! .$id"7 -..7 :+h"; 1 :13!;" There is a difference7 accordin* to them Ci" e"7 the 'toicsD7 $etween principles and elementsE the former $ein* without *eneration or destruction7 whereas the elements are destroyed when all thin*s are resol5ed into fire" 6 2ristotle7 +etaphysics7 .-7 1 and 3" = +omp" 1" +"

66

atom"1 3eucippus and Democritus li,ewise call the Fullness and !oid. 2 .n 3ucretius7 in EpicurusT letters as Auoted $y Dio*enes 3aertius7 in the &olotes of Plutarch73 in 'e(tus Empiricus7! the properties are ascri$ed to the atoms themsel5es7 and for this reason they were determined as transcendin* themsel5es :sich selbst au hebend;" <owe5er7 if it is thou*ht an antinomy that $odies percepti$le only to reason should $e endowed with spatial Aualities7 then it is an e5en *reater antinomy that the spatial Aualities themsel5es can $e percei5ed only throu*h the intellect"6 #inally7 $chaubach7 in further support of his 5iew7 cites the followin* passa*e from 'to$aeus: SEpicurus :states; that the primary C$odiesD should $e simple7 those $odies compounded from them howe5er should ha5e wei*htT To this passa*e from 'to$aeus could $e added the followin*7 in which atoma stoicheia are mentioned as a particular ,ind of atom: CPlutarch"D %e placit. philosoph., .7 2!= and 2!%7 and 'to$"7 "hysical $elections7 .7 p" 6"= #or the rest it is $y no means
1

.$id"7 -7 3:1&1! 31)3!E 1&1!7 6)=;" 'imilarly those who spea, of the elements of $odies mean the thin*s into which $odies are ultimately di5ided7 while they are no lon*er di5ided into other thin*s differin* in ,indE """ for which reason what is small and simple and indi5isi$le is called an element" 2 .$id"7 .7 !" 3 Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 6!" Plutarch7 (eply to &olotes7 111&" """ that this 5iew is as insepara$le from EpicurusT theories as shape and wei*ht are $y their Ci"e"7 the EpicureansD own assertion insepara$le from the atom" ! 'e(tus Empiricus7 2*ainst the "ro essors, p" !2&" 6 Euse$ius7 Preparation for the Gospel, K.-7 p" @@3" """ Epicurus """ :assumed that; they :i"e"7 the atoms; cannot $e percei5ed"""" P" @!%" """ $ut they :i"e"7 the atoms; ha5e their own shape percei5a$le $y reason" = CPlutarch7D 0n the 'entiments o the Philosophers7 .7 p" 2!= :@1" The same CEpicurusD asserts that there are four other natural $ein*s which are immortal) of this sort are atoms7 the 5acuum7 the infinite and the similar partsE and these last are) :called; homoeomerias and li,ewise elements" 12" Epicurus :thin,s that; $odies are not to $e limited7 $ut the first $odies are simple $odies7 and all those composed of them possess wei*ht"""" 'to$acus7 "hysical $elections7 17 p" 62" Metrodorus7 the teacher of Epicurus7 :says; """ that the causes7 howe5er7 are the atoms and elements" P" 6" Epicurus

6=

claimed in these passa*es that the ori*inal atoms are without siFe7 shape and wei*ht" 0n the contrary7 wei*ht alone is mentioned as a distincti5e characteristic of the atomoi archai and aroma stoicheia " But we o$ser5ed already in the precedin* chapter that wei*ht is applied only in re*ard to repulsion and the con*lomerations arisin* therefrom" With the in5ention of the atoma stoicheia we also *ain nothin*" .t is /ust as difficult to pass from the atomoi archai to the aroma stoicheia as it is to ascri$e properties directly to them" Ne5ertheless . do not deny such a differentiation entirely" . only deny that there are two different and fi(ed ,inds of atoms" They are rather different determinations of one and the same ,ind" Before discussin* this difference . would li,e to call attention to a procedure typical of Epicurus" <e li,es to assume the different determinations of a concept as different independent e(istences" /ust as his principle is the atom7 so is the manner of his co*nition itself atomistic" E5ery moment of the de5elopment is at once"" transformed in his hands into a fi(ed reality which7 so to say7 is separated from its relations to other thin*s $y empty spaceE e5ery determination assumes the form of isolated indi5iduality" This procedure may $e made clear $y the followin* e(ample" The infinite7 to apeiron7 or the in initio7 as +icero translates it7 is occasionally used $y Epicurus as a particular natureE and precisely in the same passa*es in which we find the stoicheia descri$ed as a fi(ed fundamental su$stance7 we also find the apeiron turned into somethin* independent"1 <owe5er7 accordin* to EpicurusT own definitions7 the infinite is neither a particular su$stance nor somethin* outside of the atoms and the 5oid7 $ut rather an accidental determination of the 5oid" We find in fact three meanin*s of apeiron" #irst7 apeiron e(presses for Epicurus a Auality common to the atoms and the 5oid" .t means in this sense the infinitude of the
:assumes; """ four su$stances essentially indestructi$le: the atoms7 the 5oid7 the infinite and the similar parts7 and these are called homoeomerias and elements" 1 +omp" "1+"7

6@

"ll$ which is infinite by -irtue of the infinite multiplicity of the atoms$ by -irtue of the infinite siFe of the -oid'6 Secondly$ apeiria is the multiplicity of the atoms$ so that not the atom$ but the infinitely many atoms are placed in opposition to the -oid'/ (inally$ if we may draw from Democritus a conclusion about Epicurus$ apeiron also means exactly the opposite$ the unlimited -oid$ which is placed in opposition to the atom determined in itself and limited by itself'; In all these meanin)s Eand they are the only ones$ e-en the only possible ones for atomisticsEthe infinite is a mere determination of the atoms and of the -oid' Ne-ertheless$ it is sin)led out as a particular existence$ e-en set up as a specific nature alon)side the principles whose determination it expresses' Therefore$ e-en if Epicurus himself thus fixed the determination by which the atom becomes stoicheion as an independent ori)inal *ind of atomEwhich$ by the way$ is not the case ,ud)in) by the historical superiority of one source o-er the other$ e-en if Metrodorus 5/D8 the disciple of EpicurusEas it seems more probable to us J was the first to chan)e the differentiated determination into a differentiated existence=: we must ascribe to the sub,ecti-e mode of atomistic consciousness the chan)in) of separate moments into somethin) independently existin)' The
1

+icero7 )n the Highest Goods and E!ils7 .7 5i" """that which he follows the atoms7 the 5oid """ infinity itself7 that they :i"e"7 the Epicureans; call apeiria Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !1" 2*ain7 the sum of thin*s is infinite"""" Moreo5er7 the sum of thin*s is unlimited $oth $y reason of the multitude of the atoms and the )tent of the 5oid" 2 Plutarch7 (eply to &olotes, 9 1 1!" Now loo, at the sort of first principles :you People adopt; to account for *eneration: infinity and the 5oid )the 5oid incapa$le of action7 incapa$le of $ein* acted upon7 $odilessE the infinite disordered7 irrational7 )incapa$le of formulation7 disruptin* and confoundin* itself $ecause of a multiplicity that defies control or limitation" 3 'implicius7 1"c"7 P" ! " ! CPlutarch7D 0n the 'entiments o the "hilosophers, p" 23% :.7 6;" But Metrodorus says """ that the num$er of worlds is infinite7 and this can $e seen from the fact that the num$er of causes is infinite"""" But the causes are the atoms or the elements" 'to$acus7 physical $elections7 .7 p" 62" Metrodorus7 the teacher of Epicurus7 :says; """ that the causes7 howe5er7 are the atoms and elements"

)rantin) of the form of existence to different determinations has not resulted in understandin) of their difference'

#or Democritus the atom means only stoicheion a material su$strate" The distinction $etween the atom as arche and stoicheion as principle and foundation $elon*s to Epicurus" .ts importance will $e clear from what follows" The contradiction $etween e(istence and essence7 $etween matter and form7 which is inherent in the concept of the atom7 emer*es in the indi5idual atom itself once it is endowed with Aualities" Throu*h the Auality the atom is alienated from its concept7 $ut at the same time is perfected in its construction" .t is from repulsion and the ensuin* con*lomerations of the Aualified "atoms that the world of appearance now emer*es" .n this transition from the world of essence to the world of appearance7 the contradiction in the concept of the atom clearly reaches its harshest realisation" #or the atom is conceptually the a$solute7 essential form of nature" *his absolute form has now been degraded to absolute matter, to the ormless substrate o the world o appearance.
The atoms are$ it is true$ the substance of nature$6 out of which e-erythin) emer)es$ into which e-erythin) dissol-es/: but the
1

3ucretius7 )n the Nature o *hings7 17 2&) 21" #or the same elements compose s,y7 sea and lands7 ri5ers and sun7 crops7 trees and animals"""" Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 3%" Moreo5er7 the sum total of thin*s was always such as it is now7 and such it will e5er remain" #or there is nothin* into which it can chan*e" #or outside the sum of thin*s there is nothin* which could enter into it and $rin* a$out the chan*e"""" The whole of $ein* consists of $odies"""" !1" These elements are indi5isi$le and unchan*ea$le7 and necessarily so7 if thin*s are not all to $e destroyed and pass into non)e(istence7 $ut are to $e stron* enou*h to endure when the composite $odies are $ro,en up7 $ecause they possess a solid nature and are incapa$le of $ein* anywhere or anyhow dissol5ed" 2 Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 @3" """ and all thin*s are a*ain dissol5ed7 some faster7 some slower7 some throu*h the action of one set of causes7 others throu*h the action of others" @!" .t is clear7 then7 that he :Epicurus; also ma,es the worlds perisha$le7 as their parts are su$/ect to chan*e" 3ucretius7 -7 1&%)1 1&" May reason rather than the e5ent itself con5ince you that the whole world can collapse with one ear)splittin* crac,M .$id"7 -7 3@3) 3@6" it follows7 then7 that the doorway of death is not $arred to s,y and sun

6%

continuous annihilation of the world of appearance comes to no result' New appearances are formed: but the atom itself always remains at the bottom as the foundations; Thus insofar as the atom is considered as pure concept$ its existence is empty space$ annihilated nature' Insofar as it proceeds to reality$ it sin*s down to the material basis which$ as the bearer of a world of manifold relations$ ne-er exists but in forms which are indifferent and external to it' This is a necessary conse<uence$ since the atom$ presupposed as abstractly indi-idual and complete$ cannot actualise itself as the idealisin) and per-adin) power of this manifold' "bstract indi-iduality is freedom from bein)$ not freedom in bein)' It cannot shine in the li)ht of bein)' This is an element in which this indi-iduality loses its character and becomes material' (or this reason the atom does not enter into the dayli)ht of appearances6 or it sin*s down to the material basis when it does enter it' The atom as such only exists in the -oid' The death of nature has thus become its immortal substance: and !ucretius correctly exclaims+

When death immortal claims his mortal life C%e !erum nature ...7 =%D" But the fact that Epicurus *rasps the contradiction at this its hi*hest pea, and o$/ecti5es it7 and therefore distin*uishes the atom where it $ecomes the $asis of appearance as stoicheion from the atom as it e(ists in the 5oid as arche H this constitutes his philosophical difference from Democritus7 who only o$/ecti5es the one moment" This is the same distinction which in the world of essence7 in the realm of the atoms and of the 5oid7 separates Epicurus from Democritus" <owe5er7 since only the atom with Aualities is the complete one7 since the world of appearance can only emer*e from the atom which is complete and alienated from its concept7 Epicurus e(presses this $y statin* that only the Aualified atom $ecomes stoicheion or only the atomon stoicheion is endowed with Aualities"
and earth and the seaTs unfathomed floods" .t lies tremendously open and confronts them with a yawnin* chasm" 3 'implicius7 1"c"7 p" !26" 1 3ucretius7 ..7 @%=" """and the atoms do not emer*e into the li*ht""""

=&

Chapter Four Time

Since in the atom matter$ as pure relationship to itself$ is exempted from all relati-ity and chan)eability$ it follows immediately that time has to be excluded from the concept of the atom$ the world of essence' (or matter is eternal and independent only insofar as in it abstraction is made of the time moment' %n this Democritus and Epicurus a)ree' But they differ in re)ard to the manner in which time$ remo-ed from the world of atoms$ is now determined$ whither it is transferred' (or Democritus time has neither si)nificance nor necessity for the system' &e explains time in order to ne)ate it 5auf"uheben8' It is determined as eternal$ in order that J as !ristotle6 and Simplicius/ state J the emer)ence and passin) away$ hence the temporal$ is remo-ed from the atoms' Time itself offers proof that not e-erythin) need ha-e an ori)in$ a moment of be)innin)' There is somethin) more profound to be reco)nised in this notion' The ima)inin) intellect that does not )rasp the independence of substance in<uires into its becomin) in time' It fails to )rasp that by ma*in) substance temporal it also ma*es time substantial and thus ne)ates its concept$ because time made absolute is no lon)er temporal' But this solution is unsatisfactory from another point of -iew' Time excluded from the world of essence is transferred into the selfEconsciousness of the philosophisin) sub,ect but does not ma*e any contact with the world itself' Kuite otherwise with Epicurus' Time$ excluded from the world of essence$ becomes for him the absolute form of appearance' That is to say$ time is determined as accidens of the accidens' The accidens is the chan)e of substance in )eneral' The accidens of the accidens is the chan)e as reflectin) in itself$ the chan)e as chan)e' This pure form of the world of appearance is time';
1

2ristotle7 Physics7 -...7 1 :26l7 16)1@;" """in fact7 it is /ust this that ena$les Democritus to show that all thin*s cannot ha5e had a $ecomin*E for time7 he says7 is uncreated" 2 'implicius7 1"c"7 p" !2=" Democritus was so stron*ly con5inced that time is eternal7 that7 in order to show that not all thin*s ha5e an ori*in7 he considered it e5ident that time has no ori*in"

=1

omposition is the merely passi-e form of concrete nature$ time its acti-e form' If I consider composition in terms of its bein)$ then the atom exists beyond it$ in the -oid$ in the ima)ination' If I consider the atom in terms of its concept$ then composition either does not exist at all or exists only in the sub,ecti-e ima)ination' (or composition is a relationship in which the atoms$ independent$ selfEenclosed$ as it were uninterested in one another$ ha-e li*ewise no relationship to one another' Time$ in contrast$ the chan)e of the finite to the extent that chan)e is posited as chan)e$ is ,ust as much the real form which separates appearance from essence$ and posits it as appearance$ while leadin) it bac* into essence' omposition expresses merely the materiality of the atoms as well as of nature emer)in) from them' Time$ in contrast$ is in the world of appearance what the concept of the atom is in the world of essence$ namely$ the abstraction$ destruction and reduction of all determined bein) into bein)EforEitself' The followin) conse<uences can be drawn from these obser-ations' $irst$ Epicurus ma*es the contradiction between matter and form the characteristic of the nature of appearance$ which thus becomes the counterEima)e of the nature of essence$ the atom' This is done by time bein) opposed to space$ the acti-e form of appearance to the passi-e form' Second$ Epicurus was the first to )rasp appearance as appearance$ that is$ as alienation of the essence$ acti-atin) itself in its reality as such an alienation' %n the other hand$ for Democritus$ who considers composition as the only form of the nature of appearance$ appearance does not by itself show that it is appearance$ somethin) different from essence' Thus when appearance is considered in terms of its existence$ essence becomes totally blended 5konfundiert8 with it: when considered in terms of its concept$ essence is totally separated from existence$ so that it descends to the le-el of
3

3ucretius7 .7 !6%7 !=2)!=3" 'imilarly7 time $y itself does not e(ist"""" .t must not $e claimed that anyone can sense time $y itself apart from the mo5ement of thin*s or their restful immo$ility" .$id"7 17 !@%)! 2" 'o you may see that e5ents cannot $e said to $e $y themsel5es li,e matter or in the same sense as space" 1ather7 you should descri$e them as accidents of matter7 or of the place in which thin*s happen" 'e(tus Empiricus7 Against the "ro essors, p" !2&" <ere Epicurus calls time accident of accidents Csyrnptoma symptomatonD" 'to$aeus7 "hysical $elections, 9, " Epicurus :calls time; an accident7 i"e"7 somethin* that accompanies motions"

=2

sub,ecti-e semblance' The composition beha-es indifferently and materially towards its essential foundations' Time$ on the other hand$ is the fire of essence$ eternally consumin) appearance$ and stampin) it with dependence and nonEessence' $inally$ since accordin) to Epicurus time is chan)e as chan)e$ the reflection of appearance in itself$ the nature of appearance is ,ustly posited as ob,ecti-e$ sensation is ,ustly made the real criterion of concrete nature$ althou)h the atom$ its foundation$ is only percei-ed throu)h reason' Indeed$ time bein) the abstract form of sensation$ accordin) to the atomism of Epicurean consciousness the necessity arises for it to be fixed as a nature ha-in) a separate existence within nature' The chan)eability of the sensuous world$ its chan)e as chan)e$ this reflection of appearance in itself which constitutes the concept of time$ has its separate existence in conscious sensuousness' %uman sensuousness is therefore embodied time, the existing reflection of the sensuous world in itself' Lust as this follows immediately from the definition of the concept of time in Epicurus$ so it can also be <uite definitely demonstrated in detail' In the letter from Epicurus to &erodotus6 time is so defined that it emer)es when the accidentals of bodies$ percei-ed by the senses$ are thou)ht of as accidentals' Sensuous perception reflected in itself is thus here the source of time and time itself' &ence time cannot be defined by analo)y nor can anythin) else be said about it$ but it is
1

Dio*enes 3aertius7" K7 @2" There is another thin* which we must consider carefully" We must not in5esti*ate time as we do the other accidents which we in5esti*ate in a su$/ect7 namely7 $y referrin* them to the preconceptions en5isa*ed in our mindsE $ut we must ta,e into account the plain fact itself7 in 5irtue of which we spea, of time as lon* or short7 lin,in* to it in intimate connection this attri$ute of duration" We need not adopt any fresh terms as prefera$le7 $ut should employ the usual e(pression a$out it" Nor need we predicate anythin* else of time7 as if this somethin* else contained the same essence as is contained in the proper meanin* of the word LtimeL Cfor this also is done $y someD" We must chiefly reflect upon that to which we attach this peculiar character of time7 and $y which we measure it" @3" No further proof is reAuired: we ha5e only to reflect that we attach the attri$ute of time to days and ni*hts and their parts7 and li,ewise to feelin*s of pleasure and pain and to neutral states7 to states of mo5ement and states of rest7 concei5in* a peculiar accident of these to $e this 5ery characteristic which we e(press $y the word LtimeL" <e :i"e"7 Epicurus; says this $oth in the second $oo, )n Nature and in the -arger Epitome"

=3

necessary to *eep firmly to the Enar)ie itself: for sensuous perception reflected in itself is time itself$ and there is no )oin) beyond it' %n the other hand$ in &ucretius$ Sextus Empiricus and Stobaeus$6 the accidens of the accidens$ chan)e reflected in itself$ is defined as time' The reflection of the accidentals in sensuous perception and their reflection in themsel-es are hence posited as one and the same' Because of this interconnection between time and sensuousness$ the eidola 5ima)es8$ e<ually found in Democritus$ also ac<uire a more consistent status' The eidola are the forms of natural bodies which$ as surfaces$ as it were detach themsel-es li*e s*ins and transfer these bodies into appearance'/ These forms of the thin)s stream constantly forth from them and penetrate into the senses and in precisely thisEway allow the ob,ects to appear' Thus in hearin) nature hears itself$ in smellin) it smells itself$ in seein) it sees itself'; &uman sensuousness is therefore the medium in which natural
1

3ucretius7 )n the Nature of Thin*s7 1"c" 'e(tus Empiricus7 2*ainst the "ro essors, p" !2& :K7 23 7 2!&7 2!17 82!!1" """ accident of accidents"""" #or this reason Epicurus compels us to thin, that an e(istin* $ody consists of non)e(istin* $odies7 since he says that we ha5e to thin, of the $ody as a composition of siFe and shape7 resistance and wei*ht"""" <ence there must $e accidents for time to e(ist7 $ut for accidents to $e present themsel5es there must $e an underlyin* circumstance" <owe5er7 if no underlyin* circumstance e(ists7 then there can $e no time"""" When this therefore is time7 and Epicurus says that accidents are the nature :of time;7 then time7 accordin* to Epicurus7 must $e its own accident" +omp" 'to$aeus7 1"c" 2 Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !=" 2*ain7 there are outlines or films7 which are of the same shape as solid $odies7 $ut of a thinness far e(ceedin* that of any o$/ect that we see"""" To these films we *i5e the name of Lima*esL or Lidols ! " """ the production of the ima*es is as Auic, as thou*ht """ thou*h no diminution of the $odies is o$ser5ed7 $ecause other particles ta,e their place" 2nd those *i5en off retain the position and arran*ement which their atoms had when they formed part of the solid $odies"""" 3ucretius7 .-7 3&)32""" ima*esL of thin*s7 a sort of outer s,in perpetually peeled off the surface of o$/ects and flyin* a$out this way and that throu*h the air" .$id"7 .-7 61)62" """ $ecause each particular floatin* ima*e wears the aspect and form of the o$/ect from whose $ody it has emanated"

=!

processes are reflected as in a focus and i)nited into the li)ht of appearance'

.n %emocritus this is an inconsistency7 since appearance is only su$/ecti5eE in Epicurus it is a necessary conseAuence7 since sensuousness is the reflection of the world of appearance in itself7 its em$odied time"
(inally$ the interconnection between sensuousness and time is re-ealed in such a way that the temporal character of things and their appearance to the senses are posited as intrinsically 'ne' (or it is precisely because bodies appear to the senses that they pass away'6 Indeed$ the eidola$ by constantly separatin) themsel-es from the bodies and flowin) into the senses$ by ha-in) their sensuous existence outside themsel-es as another nature$ by not returnin) into themsel-es$ that is$ out of the diremption$ dissol-e and pass away' Therefore+ ,ust as the atom is nothin) hut the natural form of abstract$ indi-idual selfEconsciousness$ so sensuous nature is only the ob,ectified$ empirical$ indi-idual selfEconsciousness$ and this is the sensuous' &ence the senses are the only criteria in concrete nature$ ,ust as abstract reason is the only criterion in the world of the atoms'

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 !%" We must also consider that it is $y the entrance of somethin* comin* from e(ternal o$/ects that we see their shapes and thin, of them" #or e(ternal thin*s would not stamp on us their own nature """ so well as $y the entrance into our eyes or minds7 to whiche5er their siFe is suita$le7 of certain films comin* from the thin*s themsel5es7 these films or outlines $ein* of the same colour and shape as the e(ternal thin*s themsel5es"""" 6&" and this a*ain e(plains why they present the appearance of a sin*le continuous o$/ect and retain the mutual interconnection which they had with the o$/ect"""" 62" 2*ain7 hearin* ta,es place when a current passes from the o$/ect7 whether person or thin*7 which emits 5oice or sound or noise7 or produces the sensation of hearin* in any way whate5er" This current is $ro,en up into homo*eneous particles7 which at the same time preser5e a certain mutual connection"""" 63" """ 2*ain7 we must $elie5e that smellin*7 li,e hearin*7 would produce no sensation7 were there not particles con5eyed from the o$/ect which are of the proper sort for e(citin* the or*an of smellin*" 1 3ucretius7 )n the Nature o *hings7 ..7 11!6)11!=" .t is natural7 therefore7 that e5erythin* should perish when it is thinned out"""

=6

Chapter &i*e The ,eteors

.n*enious as %emocritus@ astronomical opinions may $e for his time7 they present no philosophical interest" They neither *o $eyond the domain of empirical reflection7 nor ha5e they any more definite intrinsic connection with the atomic doctrine" By contrast7 Epicurus@ theory of the celestial $odies and the processes connected with them7 or his theory of meteors Cin this one term he includes it allD7 stands in opposition not only to Democritus7 $ut to the opinion of 9ree, philosophy as a whole" Worship of the celestial $odies is a cult practised $y all 9ree, philosophers" The system of the celestial $odies is the first nai5e and nature)determined e(istence of true reason :2ernun t;" The same position is ta,en $y 9ree, self)consciousness in the domain of the mind :Geist;" .t is the solar system of the mind" The 9ree, philosophers therefore worshipped their own mind in the celestial $odies" Anaxagoras himself7 who first *a5e a physical e(planation of hea5en and in this way $rou*ht it down to earth in a sense different from that of 'ocrates7 answered7 when as,ed for what purpose he was $orn: For the obser!ation o the sun, the moon and the hea!en.1 :enophanes7 howe5er7 loo,ed up at hea5en and said: The 0ne is 9od"2 The reli*ious attitude of the "ythagoreans, "lato and Aristotle to the hea5enly)$odies is well ,nown" .ndeed7 Epicurus opposes the outloo, of the whole 9ree, people" Aristotle says it often seems that the concept pro5ides e5idence for the phenomena and the phenomena for the concept" Thus all men ha5e an idea of the *ods and assi*n the hi*hest re*ion to the di5ine7 $ar$arians as well as <ellenes7 and in *eneral all who $elie5e in the e(istence of the *ods7 e5idently connectin* the immortal with the immortal7 for otherwise it is impossi$le" Thus if the di5ine e(ists)as it actually does)then what we say a$out the
1

Dio*enes 3aertius7 117 37 1&" $ 2ristotle7 +etaphysics7 .7 6 :% = 7 26;" The 0ne is 9od"

==

su$stance of the celestial $odies is also correct" But this corresponds also to sensuous perception7 insofar as human con5iction is concerned" #or throu*hout the time that has passed7 accordin* to the memories handed down from people to people7 nothin* seems to ha5e chan*ed7 either in hea5en as a whole7 or in any part of it" E5en the name seems to ha5e $een handed down from the ancients to the present time7 and they assumed that which we also say" #or not once7 not twice7 $ut an infinite num$er of times ha5e the same 5iews come down to us" #or since the primary $ody is somethin* different7 apart from the earth and the fire and the air and the water7 they called the hi*hest re*ion LetherL7 from thein aei :to run always;" *i5in* it the $y)name: eternal time"1 But the ancients assi*ned hea5en and the hi*hest re*ion to the *ods7 $ecause it alone is immortal" But the present teachin* testifies that it is indestructi$le7 un*enerated and not su$/ect to any mortal ills" .n this way our concepts correspond at the same time to intimations a$out 9od"2 But that there is one hea5en is e5ident" .t is a tradition handed down from
1

2ristotle7 )n the Hea!ens, 17 3 :2@&$7 !)2!;" 0ur theory seems to confirm e(perience and to $e confirmed $y it" #or all men ha5e some conception of the nature of *ods7 and all who $elie5e in the e(istence of *ods at all7 whether $ar$arian or 9ree,7 a*ree in allottin* the hi*hest place to the deity7 surely $ecause they suppose that immortal is lin,ed with immortal and re*ard any other supposition as inconcei5a$le" .f then there is7 as there certainly is7 anythin* di5ine7 what we ha5e /ust said a$out the primary $odily su$stance was well said" The mere least with human e5idence of the senses is enou*h to con5ince us of" this at certainty" #or" in the whole ran*e of time past7 so far as our inherited records reach7 no chan*e appears to ha5e ta,en place either in the whole scheme of the outermost hea5en or in any of its proper parts" The common name7 too7 which has $een handed down from our distant ancestors e5en to our own day7 seems to show that they concei5ed of it in the fashion which we ha5e $een e(pressin*" 8Me same ideas7 one must $elie5e7 recur to men8s minds not once or twice $ut a*ain and a*ain" 2nd so7 implyin* that the Primary $ody is somethin* else $eyond earth7 fire7 air and water7 they *a5e to the hi*hest place a name of its own7 aither7 deri5ed from the fact that it Lruns alwaysL for an eternity of time" 2 .$id"7 ..7 1 :2 !a7 11)167 2 !7 2)6;" The ancients *a5e the 9ods the hea5en or upper place"7 8as $ein* alone immortalE and our present ar*ument testifies that it is indestructi$le and un*enerated" #urther7 it is unaffected $y any mortal discomfort """ it is not only more appropriate so to concei5e of its eternity7 $ut also on this hypothesis alone are we a$le to ad5ance a theory consistent with popular di5inations of the di5ine nature"

=@

our ancestors and the ancients and sur5i5in* in the form of the myths of later *enerations7 that the hea5enly $odies are *ods and that the di5ine encompasses all nature" The rest was added in mythical form for the $elief of the masses7 as useful for the laws and for life" Thus the myths ma,e the *ods resem$le man and some of the other li5in* creatures7 and in5ent similar thin*s connected with and related to this" .f we discard the additions and hold fast only to the first7 namely7 the $elief that the primary su$stances are *ods7 then we must consider this as ha5in* $een di5inely re5ealed7 and we must hold that after all sorts of art and philosophy had7 in one way or another7 $een in5ented and lost a*ain7 these opinions came down to us li,e relics"1 Epicurus7 on the contrary7 says:
To all this we must add that the )reatest confusion of the human soul arises from the fact that men hold that the hea-enly bodies are blessed and indestructible and ha-e conflictin) desires and actions$ and concei-e suspicion accordin) to the myths'/?D@ "s to the meteors$ we must belie-e that motion and position and eclipse and risin) and settin) and related phenomena do not ori)inate in them owin) to %ne rulin) and orderin) or ha-in) ordered$ %ne who at the same time is supposed to possess all bliss and
1

2ristotle7 Metaphysics7 K. CK..D7 :1&@! 317 3 )1&@!7 3;" E5idently there is $ut one hea5en"""" 0ur forefathers in the most remote a*es ha5e handed down to their posterity a tradition7 in the form of a myth7 that these $odies are *ods and that the di5ine encloses the whole of nature" The rest of the tradition has $een added later in a mythical form with a 5iew to the persuasion of the multitude and to its le*al and utilitarian e(pediencyE they say these *ods are in the form of men or li,e some of the other animals7 and they say other thin*s conseAuent on and similar to those which we ha5e mentioned" But if one were to separate the first point from these additions and ta,e it alone that they thou*ht the first su$stances to he *ods7 one must re*ard this as an inspired utteranceE and reflect that7 while pro$a$ly each art and each science has often $een de5eloped as far as possi$le and has a*ain perished7 these opinions7 with others7 ha5e $een preser5ed until the present li,e relics of the ancient treasure"
2

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 1" There is yet one more point to seiFe7 namely7 that the *reatest an(iety of the human mind arises throu*h the $elief that the hea5enly $odies are $lessed and indestructi$le7 and that at the same time they ha5e 5olitions and actions """ inconsistent with this $elief """ apprehendin* some e5il $ecause of the myths""""

indestructibility' (or actions do not accord with bliss$ but they occur due to causes most closely related to wea*ness$ fear and need' Nor is it to be supposed that some fireEli*e bodies endowed with bliss arbitrarily submit to these motions' If one does not a)ree with this$ then this contradiction itself produces the )reatest confusion in men3s souls'6 !ristotle reproached the ancients for their belief that hea-en re<uired the support of "tlas/ who+ 3In the places of the Best stands$ supportin) with his shoulders the pillar of hea-en and earth ?"eschylus$ (rometh'$ ;=7 ff'@' Epicurus$ on the other hand$ blames those who belie-e that man needs hea-en' &e finds the "tlas by whom hea-en is supported in human stupidity and superstition' Stupidity and superstition also are Titans' The letter of Epicurus to Pythocles deals entirely with the theory of the hea-enly bodies$ with the exception of the last section$ which closes the letter with ethical precepts' "nd appropriately$3 ethical precepts are appended to the teachin) on the meteors' (or Epicurus this theory is a matter of conscience' %ur study will therefore be based mainly on this letter to Pythocles' Be shall supplement it from the letter to &erodotus$ to which Epicurus himself refers in writin) to Pythocles';

#irst7 it must not $e supposed that any other *oal $ut atara(y and firm assurance can $e attained from ,nowled*e of the meteors7
1 D

.$id"7 K7 @="" Nay more7 we are $ound to $elie5e that in the s,y re5olution7 solstices7 eclipses7 risin*s and settin*s7 and the li,e7 ta,e place without the ministration or command7 either now or in the future7 of any $ein* who at the same time en/oys perfect $liss alon* with immortality" @@" #or trou$les and an(ieties """ do not accord with $liss7 $ut always imply wea,ness and fear and dependence upon one8s nei*h$ours" Nor7 a*ain7 must we hold that thin*s which are no more than *lo$ular masses of fire7 $ein* at the same time endowed with $liss7 assume these motions at will"""" 0therwise such inconsistency will of itself suffice to produce the worst distur$ance in our minds"
2

2ristotle7 )n the Hea!ens, ,,, 1 :2 ! 8 1 )2&1" <ence we must not $elie5e the old tale which" says that the world needs some 2tlas to ,eep it safe"
3

Dio*enes 3aertius7 K7 6" 'o you Ci"e"7 PythoclesD will do well to ta,e and learn them and *et them up Auic,ly alon* with the short epitome in my letter to <erodotus"

=%

either ta,en as a whole or in part7 /ust as from the other natural sciences"1C1&D 0ur life does not need speculation and empty hypotheses7 $ut that we should li5e without confusion" /ust as it is the $usiness of the study of nature in *eneral to in5esti*ate the foundations of what is most important: so happiness lies also in ,nowled*e of the meteors" .n and for itself the theory of settin* and risin*7 of position and eclipse7 contains no particular *rounds for happinessE only terror possesses those who see these thin*s without understandin* their nature and their principal causes"2 'o far7 only the precedence which the theory of the meteors is supposed to ha5e o5er other sciences has $een deniedE and this theory has $een placed on the same le5el as others" But the theory of the meteors is also speci ically di erent in comparison $oth with the method of ethics and with other physical pro$lems7 for e(ample7 the e(istence of indi5isi$le elements and the li,e7 where only one e(planation corresponds to the phenomena" #or this is not the case with the meteors"3 Their
1

.$id"7 K7 6" .n the first place7 remem$er that7 li,e e5erythin* else7 ,nowled*e of celestial phenomena7 whether ta,en alon* with other thin*s or in isolation7 as well as of the other sciences7 has no other end in 5iew than peace of mind and firm con5iction" .$id"7 K7 2" But mental tranAuillity means $ein* released from all these trou$les and cherishin* a continual remem$rance of the hi*hest and most important truths" 2 .$id"7 K7 @" #or our life has no need now of ideolo*ies and false opinionsE our one need is untrou$led e(istence" .$id"7 K7 @ " #urther7 we must hold that to arri5e at accurate ,nowled*e of the cause of thin*s of most moment is the $usiness of natural science7 and that happiness depends on this C5iF" on " the ,nowled*e of celestial phenomenaD" .$id"7 K7 @%" There is nothin* in the ,nowled*e of risin*s and settin*s and solstices and eclipses and all ,indred su$/ects that contri$utes to our happinessE $ut those who are well informed a$out such matters and yet are i*norant what the hea5enly $odies really are7 and what are the most important causes of phenomena7 feel Auite as much fear as those who ha5e no such special information)nay7 perhaps e5en *reater fear" 3 .$id"7 K7 =" We do not see, to wrest $y force what is impossi$le7 nor to understand all matters eAually well7 nor ma,e our treatment always as clear as when we discuss human life or e(plain the principles of ethics in *eneral """ for instance7 that the whole of $ein* consists of $odies and intan*i$le nature7 or that the ultimate elements of thin*s are indi5isi$le7 or any other proposition which ad)its only one e(planation of the phenomena to $e possi$le" But this is

@&

ori*in has no simple cause7 and they ha5e more than one cate*ory of essence correspondin* to the phenomena" #or the study of nature cannot $e pursued in accordance with empty a(ioms and laws"! .t is constantly repeated that the meteors are not to $e e(plained haplos Csimply7 a$solutelyD7 $ut poilachos Cin many waysD" This also holds for the risin* and settin* of the sun and the moon73 the wa(in* and wanin* of the moon7! the sem$lance of a face on the moon76 the chan*es of duration of day and ni*ht7= and other celestial phenomena" <ow then is it to $e e(plainedG E5ery e(planation is sufficient" 0nly the myth must $e remo5ed" it will $e remo5ed when we o$ser5e the phenomena and draw conclusions from them concernin* the in5isi$le"@C1 D We must hold fast to the appearance7 the sensation" <ence analo*y must $e applied" .n this way we can e(plain fear away and free oursel5es from it7 $y showin* the causes of meteors and other thin*s that are always happenin* and causin* the utmost alarm to other people"
not the case with celestial phenomena" ! .$id"7 K7 =" These at any rate admit of manifold causes for their occurrence and manifold accounts7 none of them contradictory of sensation7 of their nature" #or in the study of nature :physiolo*y; we must not conform to empty assumptions and ar$itrary laws7 $ut follow the promptin*s of the facts" 3 .$id"7 K7 %2" ! .$id"7 K7 %!" 6 .$id"7 K7 %6 and %=" = .$id"7 K7 % @ .$id"7 K7 1&!" 2nd :says Epicurus; there are se5eral other ways in which thunder$olts may possi$ly he produced" E(clusion of myth is the sole condition necessaryE and it will he e(cluded7 if one properly attends to the facts and hence draws inferences to interpret what is o$scure" .$id"7 K7 &" When7 therefore7 we in5esti*ate the causes of celestial phenomena7 as of all that is un,nown7 we must ta,e into account the 5ariety of ways in which analo*ous occurrences happen within our e(perience" .$id"7 K7 2" But mental tranAuillity means $ein* released from all these trou$les"""" <ence we must attend to present feelin*s and sense perceptions7 whether those of man,ind in *eneral or those peculiar to the indi5idual7 and also attend to all

@1

The *reat num$er of e(planations7 the multitude of possi$ilities7 should not only tranAuillise our minds and remo5e causes for fear7 $ut also at the same time ne*ate in the hea5enly $odies their 5ery unity7 the a$solute law that is always eAual to itself" These hea5enly $odies may $eha5e sometimes in one way7 sometimes in anotherE this possi$ility conformin* to no law is the characteristic of their realityE e5erythin* in them is declared to $e impermanent and unsta$le"1 *he multitude o the explanations should at the same time remo!e :aufhe$en; the unity o the ob3ect. Thus while Aristotle7 in a*reement with other 9ree, philosophers7 considers the hea5enly $odies to $e eternal and immortal7 $ecause they always $eha5e in the same wayE while he e5en ascri$es to them an element of their own7 hi*her and not su$/ected to the force of *ra5ityE Epicurus in contrast claims the direct opposite" <e reasons that the theory of the meteors is specifically distin*uished from all other physical doctrine in this respect7 that in the meteors e5erythin* occurs in a multiple and unre*ulated way7 that e5erythin* in them is to $e e(plained $y a manifold of indefinitely many causes" Oes7 in wrath and passionate 5iolence he re/ects the opposite opinion7 and declares that those who adhere to only one method of e(planation to the e(clusion of all others7 those who accept somethin* NniAue7
the clear e5idence a5aila$le7 as *i5en $y each of the standards of truth" #or $y studyin* them we shall ri*htly trace to its cause and $anish the source of distur$ance and dread7 accountin* for celestial phenomena and for all other thin*s which from time to time $efall us and cause the utmost alarm to the rest of man,ind"
.$id"7 K7 @" 'ome phenomena within our e(perience afford e5idence $y which we may interpret what *oes on in the hea5ens" We see how the former really ta,e place7 $ut not how the celestial phenomena ta,e place7 for their occurrence may possi$ly $e due to a 5ariety of causes" : "1 <owe5er7 we must o$ser5e each fact as presented7 and further separate from it all the facts presented alon* with it7 the occurrence of which from 5arious causes is not contradicted $y facts within our e(perience"
1

.$id"7 K7 @ " #urther7 we must reco*nise on such points as this plurality of causes or contin*ency"""" .$id"7 K7 =" These :celestial phenomena; at any rate admit of manifold causes for their occurrence"""" .$id"7 K7 @" 2ll thin*s *o on uninterruptedly7 if all $e e(plained $y the method of plurality of causes """ so soon as we duly understand what may he plausi$ly alle*ed respectin* them""""

@2

hence Eternal and Di5ine in the meteors7 fall 5ictim to idle e(planation)ma,in* and to the sla5ish artifices of the astrolo*ersE they o5erstep the $ounds of the study of nature and throw themsel5es into the arms of mythE they try to achie5e the impossi$le7 and e(ert themsel5es o5er a$surditiesE they do not e5en realise where ataraxy itself $ecomes endan*ered" Their chatter is to $e despised"1 We must a5oid the pre/udice that in5esti*ation into these su$/ects cannot $e sufficiently thorou*h and su$tle if it aims only at our own ataraxy and $liss"2 0n the contrary7 it is an a$solute law that nothin* that can distur$ atara(y7 that can cause dan*er7 can $elon* to an indestructi$le

.$id"7 K7 % " Whereas those who adopt only one e(planation are in conflict with the facts and are utterly mista,en as to the way in which man can attain ,nowled*e" .$id"7 K7 113" To assi*n a sin*le cause for these effects when the facts su**est se5eral causes is madness and a stran*e inconsistencyE yet it is done $y adherents of rash astrolo*y7 who assi*n meanin*less causes for the stars whene5er they persist in saddlin* the di5inity with $urdensome tas,s" .$id"7 K7 %@" 2nd further7 let the re*ularity of their or$its he e(plained in the same way as certain ordinary incidents within our own e(perienceE the di5ine nature must not on any account $e adduced to e(plain this7 $ut must he ,ept free from the tas, and in perfect $liss" Nnless this $e done7 the whole study of celestial phenomena will $e in 5ain7 as indeed it has pro5ed to he with some who did not lay hold of a possi$le method7 $ut fell into the folly of supposin* that these e5ents happen in one sin*le way only and of re/ectin* all the others which are possi$le7 sufferin* themsel5es to $e carried into the realm of the unintelli*i$le7 and $ein* una$le to ta,e a comprehensi5e 5iew of the facts which must $e ta,en as clues to the rest" .$id"7 K7 %3" """unmo5ed $y the ser5ile artifices of the astrolo*ers" .$id"7 K7 @" """we clearly fall away from the study of nature alto*ether and tum$le into myth" .$id"7 K7 &" Therefore we must """ in5esti*ate the causes of celestial phenomena7 as of all that is un,nown7 :""" 1 while as for those who do not reco*nise the difference $etween what is or comes a$out from a sin*le cause and that which may he the effect of any one of se5eral causes7 o5erloo,in* the fact that the o$/ects are only seen at a distance7 and are moreo5er i*norant of the conditions that render7 or do not render7 peace of mind impossi$le)all such persons we must treat with contempt" 2 .$id"7 K7 &" We must not suppose that our treatment of these matters fails of accuracy7 so far as it is needful to ensure our tranAuillity and happiness"

@3

and eternal nature" +onsciousness must understand that this is an a$solute law"1 <ence Epicurus concludes: $ince eternity o the hea!enly bodies would disturb the ataraxy o sel 7consciousness, it is a necessary, a stringent conse'uence that they are not eternal" But how can we understand this peculiar 5iew of EpicurusG 2ll authors who ha5e written on Epicurean philosophy ha5e presented this teachin* as incompati$le with all the rest of physics7 with the atomic doctrine" The fi*ht a*ainst the 'toics7 a*ainst superstition7 a*ainst astrolo*y is ta,en as sufficient *rounds" 2nd we ha5e seen that Epicurus himself distin*uishes the method applied in the theory of the meteors from the method of the rest of physics" But in which definition of his principle can the necessity of this distinction $e foundG <ow does the idea occur to himG 2nd he fi*hts not only a*ainst astrolo*y7 $ut also a*ainst astronomy itself7 a*ainst eternal law and rationality in the hea5enly system" #inally7 opposition to the 'toics e(plains nothin*" Their superstition and their whole point of 5iew had already $een refuted when the hea5enly $odies were declared to $e accidental comple(es of atoms and their processes accidental motions of the atoms" There$y their eternal nature was destroyed7 a conseAuence which Democritus was content to draw from these premises"2 .n fact7 their 5ery $ein* was disposed of :au gehoben;"3 The atomist therefore was in no need of a new method" But this is not yet the full difficulty" 2n e5en more perple(in* antinomy appears"
1

.$id"7 K7 @ " """ $ut we must hold that nothin* su**esti5e of conflict or disAuiet is compati$le with an immortal and $lessed nature" 2nd the mind can *rasp the a$solute truth of this" 2 +omp" 2ristotle7 )n the Hea!ens, 9, 1&" 3 .$id"7 17 1& :2@%$7 26)2=1" 'uppose that the world was formed out of elements which were formerly otherwise conditioned than as they are now" Then """ if their condition was always so and could not ha5e $een otherwise7 the world could ne5er ha5e come into $ein*"

@!

The atom is matter in the form of independence7 of indi5iduality7 as it were the representati5e of wei*ht" But the hea5enly $odies are the supreme realisation of wei*ht" .n them all antinomics $etween form and matter7 $etween concept and e(istence7 which constituted the de5elopment of the atom7 are resol5edE in them all reAuired determinations are realised" The hea5enly $odies are eternal and unchan*ea$leE they ha5e their centre of *ra5ity in7 not outside7 themsel5es" Their only action is motion7 and7 separated $y empty space7 they swer5e from the strai*ht line7 and form a system of repulsion and attraction while at the same time preser5in* their own independence and also7 finally7 *eneratin* time out of themsel5es as the form of their appearance" *he hea!enly bodies are there ore the atoms become real" .n them matter has recei5ed in itself indi5iduality" <ere Epicurus must therefore ha5e *limpsed the hi*hest e(istence of his principle7 the pea, and culminatin* point of his system" <e asserted that he assumed the atom so that nature would $e pro5ided with immortal foundations" <e alle*ed that he was concerned with the su$stantial indi5iduality of matter" But when he comes upon the reality of his nature Cand he ,nows no other 8nature $ut the mechanicalD7 when he comes upon independent7 indestructi$le matter in the hea5enly $odies whose eternity and unchan*ea$ility were pro5ed $y the $elief of the people7 the /ud*ment of philosophy7 the e5idence of the senses: then his one and only desire is to pull it down into earthly transience" <e turns 5ehemently a*ainst those who worship an independent nature containin* in itself the Auality of indi5iduality" This is his most *larin* contradiction" <ence Epicurus feels that here his pre5ious cate*ories $rea, down7 that the method of his theory $ecomes different" 2nd the pro oundest 1nowledge achie5ed $y his system7 its most thorou*h consistency7 is that he is aware of this and e(presses it consciously" .ndeed7 we ha5e seen how the whole Epicurean philosophy of nature is per5aded with the contradiction $etween essence and e(istence7 $etween form and matter" But this contradiction is resol!ed in the hea!enly bodies, the conflictin* moments are

@6

reconciled" .n the celestial system matter has recei5ed form into itself7 has ta,en up the indi5iduality into itself and has thus achie5ed its independence" #ut at this point it ceases to be a irmation o abstract sel 7consciousness. .n the world of the atoms7 as in the world of appearance7 form stru**led a*ainst matterE the one determination transcended the other and precisely in this contradiction abstract7indi!idual sel 7consciousness elt its nature ob3ecti ied. The a$stract form7 which7 in the shape of matter7 fou*ht a*ainst a$stract matter7 was this sel 7 consciousness itsel . But now7 when matter has reconciled itself with the form and has $een rendered self)sufficient7 indi5idual self)consciousness emer*es from its pupation7 proclaims itself the true principle and opposes nature7 which has $ecome independent" 2ll this can also $e e(pressed from another point of 5iew in the followin* way: +atter, ha5in* recei5ed into itself indi5iduality7 form7 as is the case with the hea5enly $odies7 has ceased to $e a$stract indi5idualityE it has $ecome concrete indi5iduality7 uni5ersality" .n the meteors7 therefore7 a$stract)indi5idual self) consciousness is met $y its contradiction7 shinin* in its materialised form7 the uni5ersal which has $ecome e(istence and nature" <ence it reco*nises in the meteors its deadly enemy7 and it ascri$es to them7 as Epicurus does7 all the an(iety and confusion of men" .ndeed7 the an(iety and dissolution of the a$stract)indi5idual is precisely the uni5ersal" <ere therefore Epicurus8 true principle7 a$stract)indi5idual selfconsciousness7 can no lon*er $e concealed" .t steps out from its hidin* place and7 freed from material mummery7 it see,s to destroy the reality of nature which has $ecome independent $y an e(planation accordin* to a$stract possi$ility: what is possi$le may also $e otherwise7 the opposite of what is possi$le is also possi$le" <ence the polemic a*ainst those who e(plain the hea5enly $odies haplos :simply7 a$solutely; that is7 in one particular way7 for the 0ne is the Necessary and that which is .ndependent)in) itself" *hus as long as nature as atom and appearance expresses indi!idual sel 7consciousness and its contradiction, the

@=

sub3ecti!ity o sel 7consciousness appears only in the orm o matter itsel . Where, on the other hand, it becomes independent, it re lects itsel in itsel , con ronts matter in its own shape as independent orm. .t could ha5e $een said from the $e*innin* that where Epicurus8 principle $ecomes reality it will cease to ha5e reality for him" #or if indi5idual self)consciousness were posited in reality under the determination of nature7 or nature under the determination of indi5idual consciousness7 then 8its determination7 that is7 its e(istence7 would ha5e ceased7 $ecause only the uni5ersal in free distinction from itself can ,now at the same time its own affirmation" ,n the theory o meteors there ore appears the soul o the Epicurean philosophy o nature. Nothin* is eternal which destroys the atara(y of indi5idual self)consciousness" The hea5enly $odies distur$ its atara(y7 its eAuanimity with itself7 $ecause they are the e(istin* uni5ersality7 $ecause in them nature has $ecome independent" Thus the principle of Epicurean philosophy is not the gastrology of Archestratus as &hrysippus $elie5es1 $ut the a$soluteness and freedom of self)consciousness ) e5en if self)consciousness is only concei5ed in the form of indi5iduality" .f a$stract)indi5idual self)consciousness is posited as an a$solute principle7 then7 indeed7 all true and real science is done away with :au gehoben; inasmuch as indi5iduality does not rule within the nature of thin*s themsel5es" But then7 too7 e5erythin* collapses that is transcendentally related to human consciousness and therefore $elon*s to the ima*inin* mind" 0n the other hand7 if that self)consciousness which ,nows itself only in the form of a$stract uni5ersality is raised to an a$solute principle7 then the door is opened wide to superstitious and unfree mysticism" 'toic philosophy pro5ides the historic proof of this" 2$stract)uni5ersal self)consciousness has7 indeed7 the intrinsic ur*e to affirm itself
1

2thenacus7 BanAuet o the 3earned7 ...7 1&!" """ 0ne """ must with *ood reason appro5e the no$le +hrysippus for his shrewd comprehension of Epicurus8 LNatureL7 and his remar, that the 5ery centre of the Epicurean philosophy is the Gastrology of 2rchestratus""""

@@

in the thin*s themsel5es in which it can only affirm itself $y ne*atin* them" Epicurus is therefore the *reatest representati5e of 9ree, Enli*htenment7 and he deser5es the praise of 3ucretius1:
Bhen human life lay )ro-ellin) in all men3s si)ht$ crushed to the earth under the dead wei)ht of reli)ion whose )rim features loured menacin)ly upon mortals from the four <uarters of the s*y$ a man of 9reece was first to raise mortal eyes in defiance$ first to stand erect and bra-e the challen)e' (ables of the )ods did not crush him$ nor the li)htnin) flash and )rowlin) menace of the s*y'''' Therefore reli)ion in its turn lies crushed beneath his feet$ and we by his triumph are lifted le-el with the s*ies'

The difference $etween Democritean and Epicurean philosophy of nature which we esta$lished at the end of the *eneral section has $een ela$orated and confirmed in all domains of nature" .n Epicurus7 therefore7 atomistics with all its contradictions has $een carried throu*h and completed as the natural science o sel consciousness" This self)consciousness under the form of a$stract indi5iduality is an a$solute principle" Epicurus has thus carried atomistics to its final conclusion7 which is its dissolution and conscious opposition to the uni5ersal" #or %emocritus7 on the other hand7 the atom is only the *eneral ob3ecti!e expression o the empirical in!estigation o nature as a whole. <ence the atom remains for him a pure and a$stract cate*ory7 a hypothesis7 the result of e(perience7 not its acti5e :energisches; principle" This hypothesis remains therefore without realisation7 /ust as it plays no further part in determinin* the real in5esti*ation of nature"

3ucretius7 0n the Nature o *hings7 17 =3)@&7 @%) &"

Draft of New Preface )-.+

The treatise that . herewith su$mit to the pu$lic is an old piece of wor, and was ori*inally intended as part of a comprehensi5e e(position of Epicurean7 'toic7 and 'ceptic philosophy" a 2t present7 howe5er7 political and philosophical arran*ements of an entirely different ,ind pre5ent me from $rin*in* such a tas, to completion" 0nly now the time has come in which the systems of the Epicureans7 'toics and 'ceptics can $e understood" They are the philosophers o self7consciousness. These lines will at any rate show how little has so far $een achie5ed towards sol5in* the pro$lem"

:late 1 !1 U early 1 !2;

@%