Lucretius Essay

Natura), Lucretius sought to address “superstitious fears and unscientific notions” that were embedded in his state’s (Rome) religion (450). He recalls the story of King Agamemnon having to sacrifice his daughter to appease Artemis. Upon this recollection, he makes the claim that religion is wicked. However, unlike Lucretius’s belief, true religious faithfulness, as it relates to the Biblical God, does not lead to wickedness, but rather offers redemption from the wicked. Titus Lucretius Carus (ca

B099785 Epicurus and Epicureanism (PGHC11181) Epicurus on the Gods: Realism or Idealism? Conflict between two interpretative parties. It is commonly accepted that in antiquity people always believed in gods regardless of their stature. Taking into consideration the different periods of history, there have been observed cases of incredulity and skepticism as far as the existence of Gods was concerned. The disbelief over gods and generally divergences on the traditional way of treating gods developed

expressed by people even if their preconceptions reflected their own natural goals. Lucretius protested against voices who presented gods as having evil intents and as prone to partiality and fury: “Unhappy human race, to attribute such behavior, and bitter wrath too, to the gods! What lamentations did they lay up for themselves in those days, what wounds for us, what tears for our descendants’’? Moreover, Lucretius stated: ‘‘Unless you expel these ideas from your mind and drive far away beliefs unworthy

Things, by Lucretius, he denied the idea that God was the creator

Lucretius’ beliefs and Philosophical Remedy In Lucretius’ poem, On the Nature of Things, Lucretius makes his famous claim that religion “subverts all reasoned thought / and turns your life to terror and confusion” (1.106-107). Since Lucretius is against the idea, his entire poem is completely based on providing facts and helping people cope with the idea of death. Since Lucretius was a man that believed in science, physics and logical reasoning, his claim against religion had a lot to do with

‘Something rather than nothing refers to’ the cosmological argument for the existence of God claiming that all things in nature; ‘something’ are dependent on something else for their existence. As Lucretius puts it in his first book De Rerum Natura, “by observing nature and her laws…her first principle: that nothing’s brought forth by any supernatural power out of naught” hence we arrive at nihil fit ex nihilo ‘nothing comes from nothing’ Therefore, this something must have caused. It would however

noting that both Aeschylus and Lucretius did a wonderful job at portraying the death of Iphigenia and expanding on the emotions of all persons involved. However, I believe the two did this in almost very different yet similar way. Aeschylus has a very passionate and poetic feel to his writing, conveying the sorrow and intensity in a very dramatic way; using a wonderful array of descriptive and emotional words to set the scene. On the other hand, you have Lucretius, who was very detailed and straightforward

The circumstance of one’s death determines the stature of the experience. The shared account of Epicurus and Lucretius unravel the merit of death, in the Philosophy and Death. There shared view is contrasted by the piece by Nagel. It is important to note that all three accounts are assuming the soul ceases to exist when the body perishes. Epicurus’ explanation is centered around death being nothing to humans, since the sense experience is deprived through death. This concedes, there is nothing in

world is Lucretius. What is strikingly modern about Lucretius’ analysis of death is that he incorporates science within religion. This conceptualization of religion within a scientific context is relative to modern thought. His works were read heavily within the 20th century which is the period where being non-religious was becoming increasingly popular. His philosophy does not contain the same fundamental features the majority of contemporary religions have like an afterlife. Lucretius writes

That is something that nobody can know without a doubt the answer to, but two philosophers, Epicurus and Lucretius, have built their own arguments on the common assumption that death is the total annihilation of the self. Therefore, if there is no life after death, we shouldn’t fear death itself. Epicurus creates his no harm argument on the fact that after we die we no longer exist. Lucretius takes another approach where he makes a comparison using non-existence before life. If we don’t consider