Epicurean Vs Lucretius Analysis

Chaos theory engages with the certain physical systems, which are extremely sensitive to the changes in initial conditions. The equations describing a system are highly interdependent. Therefore, even a small change in the system can result in a large effect on the later condition of the system. Since it is impossible to measure all the initial parameters exactly, the trajectory of the system’s operation is inherently indeterminate. That is, this theory is represented by the interdependence among constituents of a system and the uncertainty of the possible conditions of its stages of development. In the highly complex interrelatedness and indeterminacy, this cosmos evolves as a self-organizing creation through “the interplay of chance and law.” In that sense, as Ilya Prigogine and Stuart Kauffman hold, our cosmos is in the continuous process of the emergence of complexity and order in nonlinear systems at the edge of chaos. The dissipations and emergences of complexity and order in nonlinear systems go on and on in this cosmos. “Every beginning is a beginning-again.”

Born of different stations, languages and creeds, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who externally appear to be very different. Epictetus was born to a slave mother, sold as a slave himself and spent the majority of his youth as a slave in Rome. Seneca was born into money; he became tutor to a boy named Nero who later acquired position of Emperor of Rome in 54 A.D. Though these two men seem to be from very different worlds, they have a shared purpose in studying philosophy. The purpose of their writings was to teach people how to live well. Though they had a shared purpose, they suggested its achievement through different means. Epictetus professed an ‘expect the worst so you wont be disappointed when it happens’

In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’

Matter is defined by Lucretius as a primordial entity free of void and decay; they are the atoms that create entities. Atoms and primordial entities are synonymous with each other: the solidity of matter is called “procreant atoms, matter, seeds of things, or primal bodies, as primal to the world” (107-108). Lucretius uses all these words, emphasizing the simplicity of his philosophy. This simplicity is explained as he declares: “primal bodies are solid, without a void” (596). Because he believes that all entities are composed of primal bodies and a void, the primal body must be free of any void, thus giving substance to the object. He declares that entities are composed: “partly primal germs of things, and partly unions deriving from the primal germs” (566-567). This definition states that all matter consists of atoms, which, when combined, form molecules. Molecules, as defined by science, are the “unions” of atoms. This scientific principal is further explained: “So primal germs have solid singleness, which tightly packed and closely

In On the Nature of Things, Lucretius argues that not only is the whole of the human body (both tangible parts, like organs, and intangible concepts, like the soul) created from distinct types of atoms, but that this is the basis upon which an afterlife may be disproved.

In his only extant work, the poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Epicurean author Titus Lucretius Carus writes of the soul as being inseparable from the corporeal body. This view, although controversial in its opposition to the traditional concept of a discrete, immortal soul, is nevertheless more than a mere novelty. The argument that Lucretius makes for the soul being an emergent property of interactions between physical particles is in fact more compelling and well-supported now than Lucretius himself would have ever imagined.

As Epictetus opens his handbook with the line, “Some things are up to us and some are not up to us,” a precedent is set for the entire following of the nature in his teachings (Hackett, 5). We are not merely an individual seeking something better in life, but an individual who can control his/her own path as long as we follow the context of staying true to ourselves and not wandering outside of our own capabilities. “Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possessions, our reputations, or public offices, or, that is, whatever is not our doing,” is a prime example of what we cannot control, death being one of these (Hackett, 5). Our control is limited to what we can grasp and be in power of, and whatever is out of that reach should not be looked

In Part II, Cleanthes presents the argument from design through stating that nature resembles, although it much exceeds, the product of human design and intelligence. He believes that nature can be seen as “one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of less machines”, which in turn is similar to human inventions (Hume 15). Due to this similarity, it can be inferred through the rules of analogy that the causes of these products must also resemble one another. Thus, the author of nature must be similar to the mind of man. Cleanthes’s argument from design can be presented as:

It is the purpose of this essay to examine both Descartes’ Cogito argument and his skepticism towards small and universal elements, as well as the implications these arguments have on each other. First, I will summarize and explain the skepticism Descartes’ brings to bear on small and universal elements in his first meditation. Second, I will summarize and explain the Cogito argument, Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” (it should be noted that this famous implication is not actually something ever said or written by Descartes, but instead, an implication taken from his argument for his own existence). Third, I will critique the line of reasoning underlying these arguments. Descartes attacks

Born of different backgrounds, upbringings, and experiences, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who outwardly appear very different. Epictetus spent most of his youth as a slave while Seneca was born into money and became a tutor of Nero. Although these two men seem to be very dissimilar, they each shared a common purpose in studying philosophy and teaching people on how to live well. Each suggested different paths for how to do so. Epictetus suggests in his book, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, that living a life in accordance with nature could be achieved by living moderately. Seneca suggests in his work, Letters from a Stoic, that a happy man is self-sufficient and realizes that happiness depends only on interior perfection. Despite the differences, both Epictetus and Seneca are considered Stoics because of their shared belief in the idea that character is the only guarantee of everlasting, carefree happiness. The world outside ourselves will never give us happiness, nor will it be responsible for our unhappiness. It doesn’t matter what’s happening outside ourselves, Epictetus and Seneca claim that the only thing that matters is how we interpret those events. Further evaluating Seneca’s, Letters from a Stoic and Epictetus’s, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, we will clearly be able to differentiate the two in their ideas and opinions regarding stoicism and the keys to living a well, happy life.

People cannot control where they are born, the color of their skin, or who their parents are. They can control how they conduct themselves and the actions they take. Ethics encompass morality and the principles of right and wrong. In order for society to prosper we need ethical people working together toward a goal of integrity and compassion. Everyone has circumstances in their lives that they can and cannot control and knowing that is the key to living in harmony with themselves and others.

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher who lived during the height of the Roman Empire, 50 to 135 CE roughly. He was born a slave in modern Turkey. He was given his name from the Greek word επικτητος, meaning ‘acquired’ or ‘slave’. As a slave he was permitted to attend philosophy lectures, which were held by Stoics at the time. During his time as a slave, Epictetus’ leg was injured, either from torture or an accident, and, due to his familiarity with Stoicism, he was able to endure it. He got his freedom when Nero was appointed emperor; however, during the rule of Domitian, Epictetus was exiled and moved to Greece. He started a philosophy school where he continued to teach about Stoicism and eventually died. His student, Arrian, wrote and published his works: The Discourses and Epictetus’ shorter book, the Enchiridion, or The Manual.

"While we have discussed what both men see as the make up of the material world, it is equally important to take up how each man felt he could know what he knows about the universe. Mimicking a bit the structure of Parmenides? own writings, this section

The argument Renatus intends to make with this ideology is that every effect must contain the same properties as its cause, and vice versa (41). This point is the precursor to his first proof of the existence of God. The understanding is that a rock could not have been a rock unless the forces, by which it was created, also contained the qualities of a rock (41). Alternatively, as much as a substance can only exist as a result of something of equal perfection, for an idea to be derived from a cause different from its effect, the idea would have been created from nothingness. Therefore, because an idea is not (nor cannot be) nothing, it must always be the case that reality follows this cause and effect relationship (41).