3 ms·
>He presents the splendid argument that, if it had a boundary, then all the falling atoms would collect at the bottom. From this, it is clear that Lucretius res
by michannne 7y ago
>He presents the splendid argument that, if it had a boundary, then all the falling atoms would collect at the bottom. From this, it is clear that Lucretius respected the intuitive idea that there are absolute directions of up and down. By itself, this makes a globular Earth unfeasible because, unless perched right on the top, we’d slip off the sides.
I disagree with the author's point here. It seems to me Lucretius uses a bounded object as an example for his claim that the universe must be unbounded. A bounded object inherently has ups and downs, there is no mention on which direction either correspond to. What other phrasing could he have used?
A lot of what the author states actually seem to be grasps at straws.
- woodandsteel 7y agoHave you read Lucretius? If not, then you are not really in a position to make a claim as to what he was really thinking.
- michannne 7y agoAny reason as to why you'd single me out? I have read On the Nature of Things but what would make you question if I have? We can all contribute opinions, just as the author cannot read Lucretius' mind as to why he would choose to write the way he did
- woodandsteel 7y agoIn that case my comment was off target. I made it because you didn't state you had read the piece, but I guess I shouldn't have assumed that. I have not read Lucretius, but I assumed the author was correct because his overall views fit well with what I do know about the history of metaphysics. But perhaps he is mistaken in this particular case.