Pertinent article on modern vs ancient Epicureanism: olavodecarvalho.org/epicurus-and-marx/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2SH-1ICGo7-Cew_BQi90852wbECqjBc1b0__Qw4FkEgR4ChfsDjaVNqTk_aem_kQmXB6KQuOEhUVWkFdJp8Q
@joub8600
14 күн бұрын
The relationship between atom and void is something that is never plausibly explained in the new materialism, where the genesis of the determinate universe is apparently often left to laws that are supposed to govern the determinate things in it. Perhaps in the future, there will also be laws for indeterminate things, the so-called quarks. That still leaves the problem, in its Cartesian iteration, of the connection between the intellect and thing. And the same spiel happens there. But that road we’ve been down many times. So a more sensible question would be, what the pre-Cartesian understanding of the problem is. How would Democritus have accounted for the atoms’ “being lost“?
@joub8600
14 күн бұрын
I mean, if a materialist cannot seriously appeal to chance, because he is speaking of mind, nor of any care or intention on the part of mind, then how can he account for the problem?
@satyricusm
14 күн бұрын
@@joub8600 Accounting for alienation in the absence of divine providence? There is no fundamental problem for the ancient materialist. Merely a "reality" to accept contemplatively. All problems are technical/superficial. D would probably not call atoms "lost," but simply fatefully there. They are lost if they can be found anew. To admit the loss is to cross the threshold of dread.
@joub8600
14 күн бұрын
@@satyricusm Then I’d already “lost” Democritus in my argument! Well, contemplative acceptance is in some fundamental sense not far removed from the Socratics on this point. Emanation is there, but it is not necessary. There’s no getting around that, even for the Medievals. It can be accepted with resignation or gratitude, but perhaps not explained.
@satyricusm
14 күн бұрын
@@joub8600 Hiatus defined by nature of mind. If the "void" is not providential, then all we have the right to aspire to is contemplative acceptance. Otherwise, human providence emerges as alternative. Civility would no longer be merely a mechanism facilitating my reaching harmony with "reality," but a living/poetic mandate. Hence the Platonic/Socratic ascent ("second sailing"). Socrates points not to atomistic/individual ideas in an indifferent mind, but to a community of ideas ordered providentially.
@joub8600
14 күн бұрын
@@satyricusm Will have to reflect more deeply on the first sentence of your reply. That is the question I intended to point at. No objections to the rest
Пікірлер: 7