Lucretius' Atomism

Lucretius' Atomist theory against men's fear of death contains the following main argument:

1. The universe which has no border consists of void and ultimate particles which compose objects;
2. Changes imply destruction;
3. Soul, the combination of mind and spirit, and body are therefore composed of ultimate particles;
4. When the soul leaves the body as deaths comes at it, it disseminates into scattered ultimate particles;
5. When soul decomposes, it ceases to exist, along with the body;
6. The person no longer exists when the soul ceases to exist;
7. A person can be harmed only when he exists in the harmful situation;
8. When a person is dead, he no longer exists;
9. A person should fear death if he can be harmed by death;
10. He cannot be harmed after death;
11. He should not fear death.

Q&As

Book II

[1] Identify the sentence, or sentences, that express what Lucretius is arguing for in this passage—in other words, that express the claim he is trying to convince you to believe.

“Nothing, therefore, returns to nothing, but everything dissolves, and return to the elements of matter.” [Line 147-149]

[2] In your own words, briefly explain what you think that sentence, or those sentences, mean. (Answer in 1–2 sentences.)

Given the Law of Nature, things cannot be destroyed into nothing; through changes of time, things are decomposed into small particles and are rearranged into new things.

[3] Lucretius gives several arguments in this passage: several pieces of reasoning, designed to convince you to believe the claim you have identified and explained in your answers to [1] and [2]. Identify the sentences that give any one of these arguments.

“But if through that space of ages past the elements that compose and reshape the universe that have survived, it is certain that they are endowed with an immortal nature. Therefore it is impossible for anything to return to nothing.” [Line 234-237]
“And so no visible object ever suffers total destruction, since nature renews one thing from another, and does not sanction the birth of anything unless she receives the compensation of another’s death.” [Line 263-265]

[4] In your own words, explain how the piece of reasoning that you have identified in your answer to [3] is supposed to convince you to believe the claim you have identified and explained in your answers to [1] and [2]. What reasons, or evidence, is Lucretius presenting in support of that claim? Why does he think that those reasons, or that evidence, should convince you that the claim is true? (Answer in 1 paragraph.)

The conclusion of the passage in discussion consists of two parts: that nothing can be completely destroyed; things are instead decomposed into small particles and the process of rearrangement of particles is how things in the world go on through generations. In order to argue that things cannot return into nothing, Lucretius enumerates a list of natural phenomena, and explains how they are all created based on sources from previous times. In the statement between line 234 and line 237, Lucretius states that if things can be destroyed or simply perish completely, given time is infinite, there would be nothing at all to forms new things and therefore nothing will be created at all. Also, as we can get from his earlier argument that nothing can be created out of nothing, some things have to exist in order to make it possible for things that are created in later time to be created. Therefore, things that previously existed cannot perish into nothing, and thus become nothing, and at any point in time, there has to be some things left in their smallest units, waiting to be rearranged and to be formed into some things new. At the last stage of his argument, Lucretius tells the process of rain disappears from the sky, but as a result nourishes things on the grounds and made them grow and prosper, and therefore foreshadows his argument that the birth of a new thing in nature is the recreation of another that previously existed.

Book III

Suppose an argument (a): "a person’s mind is an immaterial object that is a part of that person."

[1] Explain what the view you have chosen means, and how it differs from Lucretius’ view. Say which passage, or passages, in On the Nature of Things you are basing your answer on. (2–3 sentences)

View (a) means that mind, as an element of soul, is part of the human body, but does not physically exist in it. On the contrary, according to Lucretius, mind is part of the body and is material, and therefore responds to external and internal influences just as the body does. Basis:
i) Mind is a material part of a person’s body (general argument):
“For it is an observable fact that they impel the limbs, wrench the body from sleep… and since we perceive that all these operations imply touch, and touch in its turn implies matter… mind [consists] of material substance.” [Line 163-168]
ii) Mind is born, develops, and declines with the body [Line 446-447]
(1) Mind responds, along with a body, to a disease [Line 470-472]
(2) Mind can be cured of sickness and can respond to the influence of medicine [510-512]

[2] State one argument that Lucretius gives, or would give, against the view you have chosen. Again, say which passage, or passages, you are basing your answer on. (1 paragraph)

The derivation of Lucretius’ argument on the material nature of mind goes like this: [Line 163-168]
i) Mind is a part of a person’s body
ii) Impacts on a human body from an influence (“operations”) resulting from mind can be observable
iii) “Operations” can only be conducted through touching
iv) Only one material object can touch another
v) It is observable that mind has impact on a person’s body
vi) Body is material
vii) Mind is material
Therefore, if mind is immaterial, it is impossible for it to impact on a person’s body. Therefore it is not the case that mind is immaterial.

[3] Imagine that you want to defend the view you have chosen against the Lucretian argument you have stated in your answer to [2]. Explain how you would do so. For example, you might think that a premise of Lucretius’ argument is false; if so, explain which premise, and why you think it is false. Alternatively, you might think that a premise of Lucretius’ argument is not adequately supported; if so then, again, explain which premise, and why you think that Lucretius has not supported this premise adequately. As a third alternative, you might think that the premises of Lucretius’ argument are all true, but that they do not provide adequate support for his conclusion; again, explain why. (1 paragraph)

There are two flaws in Lucretius’ derivation. Premise iv) is inadequate because its ambiguity on the definition of “touch”, for it could imply a physical connection or one that is more abstract, but Lucretius did not elaborate on this distinction. Premise iii) is false because by saying, “operations imply touch”, Lucretius rules out the possibility of other ways in which mind influences body. First of all, touching may not be the only way; just that they are not easily observable does not mean other ways do not exist. Moreover, it is not impossible that a change in mind leads to a change in body is a logical causation that does not involve direct contact between the two. He rules out all other possibilities without disproving them, therefore it is not the case that “operations” can only be conducted through touching, and Lucretius’ argument against view (a) is not valid.