Titus Lucretius Carus is the third great representative of ancient, ancient Greek-Roman atomism, atomistic materialism - the pinnacle of ancient philosophy - after Democritus and Epicurus. Being the third (not counting other, minor atomists), Lucretius is unoriginal. Nevertheless, his work - the philosophical Latin-language poem “On the Nature of Things” - is the greatest document of materialist philosophy of all times and peoples. It consists of 6 books, it contains 7415 lines - dactylic hexameters (recall that the Iliad has 15,693 lines),

We know almost nothing about Lucretia as a person. Almost 500 years after Lucretius, at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century. n. e., Christian theologian Eusebius Jerome (c. 340-419/420) wrote about 95 BC in his “Chronology”. e., that this year “the poet Lucretius was born... He committed suicide at the age of forty-four” (Sarton G. A History of Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C. New York, 1959, P. 263). Thus, the limits of the philosopher's life are determined by 95 - 51. BC e. However, according to Virgil's biographer Donatus, it turns out that Lucretius died in 55 BC. e. and hence the generally accepted years of Lucretius’ life are considered to be 99-55 BC. e. Jerome speaks of Lucretius as the author of several books. He connects Lucretius with Cicero and claims that Cicero corrected the books of Lucretius, which is unlikely, since if we talk about form, then Cicero wrote in Latin prose, and Lucretius wrote in Latin verse, and if we talk about content, then Lucretius’s worldview is fundamentally different from the worldview Cicero, so Cicero had nothing to correct there, he could only cross out everything there. But it is true that Cicero read this great work. Cicero himself writes about this in a letter to his brother Quintus.

Jerome started a gossip about Lucretia, similar to the gossip of another Christian theologian Tertullian about another great materialist of antiquity. Tertullian argued that Democritus blinded himself because he could not see women without lust, and this interfered with his scientific pursuits. Jerome claims that Lucretius went mad from a love potion. In fact, in Rome at that time love spells were common, which were dangerous poisons that could, if not kill a person, then damage his mind. THESE potions were even banned under Sulla in 81 BC. e. special state law. The use of such a potion is attributed by the theologian to the materialist philosopher. But how then could a “madman” write “several books”? Jerome explains this by saying that Lucretius was crazy at times and wrote his books “between attacks of mental illness.” As for the suicide of Lucretius, in those days in Rome suicides were the order of the day. They were not condemned either morally or religiously.

Some hint about the personality of Lucretius is given by the fact that his poem is dedicated to a real person - the son of Sulla's son-in-law Memmius, whom he repeatedly addresses along the way. It is possible that Lucretius belonged to the highest din of Roman society during the time of Sulla.

Philodemus. As an Epicurean philosopher, Lucretius was not alone in Rome and in Italy in general. It is not a lonely peak, but the highest peak in the range. Lucretius's poem is the culmination of the Epicurean tradition that came to Rome and Italy in the 2nd century. BC e. - along with all Greek philosophy. The first Epicurean known to us in Rome was Caius Amaphignus. He wrote in Latin as a born Roman.

Later, Philodemus, a student of the Athenian Epicurean Zeno from Sidon, whom Cicero called “the luminary of Epicureanism,” moved to Southern Italy. During these times, the Athenian "Garden" continued to exist, and gave off a branch in the southern Italian city of Herculaneum. The school of Philodemus at Herculaneum existed for more than two centuries, and it perished along with Herculaneum when, on the morning of August 24, 79 AD. e. The catastrophic eruption of Vesuvius began. Lava flooded Pompeii, but did not reach Herculaneum. However, the volcanic eruption caused torrential rain, and the next day a huge wave of hot mud, reaching a height of 20 m, poured from the volcano. This mud flooded the city and buried it for many centuries. Only in the middle of the 18th century. The excavations of Herculaneum began. They continue to this day. The thick layer of volcanic mud turned out to be completely sealed. Therefore, it preserved human skeletons, their jewelry, wooden objects, scraps of clothing, food remains and, most importantly for us, papyri containing the works of Epicurus and Philodemus, as well as other texts. The Herculan Papyri were published in Naples in eleven volumes over a period of 58 years (1793-1855).

Philodemus is the author of the partially preserved works “On Holiness” (or “On the Gods”) and “On Signs and What They Signify” (or “On Induction”). In the first essay, Philodemus denies the doctrine of divine providence and shows that this false teaching is harmful to human society, since it ties people’s hands and puts blinders on their eyes. In his second work, Philodemus anticipates the main provisions of the inductive logic of the modern philosopher, the founder of the experimental sciences, the English materialist philosopher Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626), developing the inductive method of cognition - the method of similarities. It is possible that Philodemus was the teacher of Lucretius.

K. Marx about Lucretia. Lucretius's poem "On the Nature of Things" is not only scientific, but also piece of art. The early Karl Marx highly appreciates this burden both in terms of its content and in terms of its

forms. Marx, in his writing style and artistic style, contrasts Lucretius with the later Plutarch. According to K. Marx, Plutarch covers his petty self with snow and ice of morality, he is like winter nature covering his humiliation with snow and ice. Lucretius, on the other hand, is “a fresh, bold, poetic ruler of the world,” he is like spring nature, which “is exposed in spring and, as if conscious of its victory,” reveals all its charm to the gaze.

In fact, Lucretius, like Cicero, was careful about the form of presentation of his philosophy. Lucretius hopes that the “charm of the Muses”, “clear verse”, “sweet-sounding verses”, “sweet honey of poetry” will help to rivet the minds and attention of listeners and readers to the content of his teaching, which is not easy to understand. Lucretius recognizes himself as a popularizer, speaking about to myself: “I present a vague subject in completely clear verse” (I, 933-934) (Hereinafter quoted from the publication: Lucretius K. On the nature of things. M., 1983 (indicating the number of the “book” and the number of the line or lines in “ book")).

Lucretius even thinks that the poetic form of presentation can overcome the hatred that his teaching arouses among the crowd due to its severity: “Our teaching always seems too harsh to the uninitiated” and “it is hateful to the crowd” (I, 843 - 844). What is the severity of the teachings of Lucretius? And why does it cause hatred?

Lucretius himself explains it this way: He says about himself: “I teach great knowledge, trying to extract the spirit of man from the tight snares of superstition.” This is Lucretius’s highest calling, his duty, his destiny. He talks about this repeatedly. The above lines from book one are literally repeated in book four of the poem. Lucretius’s calling is extremely humane, because superstition gives rise to fear in the souls of people, so Lucretius sees his task as “driving fear out of the soul and dispelling darkness” (I, 146). It would seem that people should be grateful to the poet. But no. The teaching of Lucretius does not caress their ears. It is too truthful and clear, but “fools marvel and greet with loving respect Everything that they find hidden in the confusing sayings. They recognize it as true that it pleasantly caresses our ears.”

Lucretius is neither dogmatic nor skeptical. He is not dogmatic because he strives to prove his every thesis. If it is true that philosophy is a worldview that at least strives to speak the language of concepts, linking them into a logically coherent system and proving its theses, then the creation of Titus Lucretius Cara fully meets these requirements. Lucretius is not skeptical because he is convinced of the truth of his “great teaching,” which he directly calls “reliable.”

At the same time, Lucretius is also convinced that, in order to drive out fear from people’s souls, it is enough to show nature as it really is; this fear will be driven out by “nature itself with its appearance and its internal structure” (II, 61). That is why K. Marx says that in Lucretius nature is laid bare and reveals all its beauty to the eye.

Attitude to religion. Lucretius quite clearly and distinctly imagines his main enemy in his holy cause of liberating people from superstitions and unjustified fears associated with them. Lucretius's entire worldview is deliberately directed against the religious worldview. Lucretius completely rejects religion. She is a stronghold of superstitions, and thus of many troubles. Under the painful oppression of religion, the life of people on earth drags on ugly. Condemning religion, Lucretius calls it “vile” (II, 680). He is familiar with the idea that without religion, without fear of everything knowledgeable gods people will start committing crimes against each other. Let us recall that in Ancient Greece the sophist Critias thought so: although there are no gods, the one who invented them and introduced the religion associated with them did a good job, people fear the gods - these eternal witnesses from whom nothing can be hidden, and commit fewer crimes than if it were not for there was religion and fear of the gods and supernatural retribution. Lucretius does not agree with this concept. Addressing his addressee, Lucretius says, criticizing religion: “Here I am afraid of one thing, lest you somehow think that I am joining you in wicked teachings, entering the path of crime” (I, 80 – 82). And Lucretius objects: by rejecting the painful wrath of vile religion, we do not at all push people onto the path of crime. It is religion that pushes people onto this path, it is “religion that has given birth to more wicked and criminal acts.” Lucretius recalls how it was religious superstitions (and Lucretius does not distinguish between religion and superstition, as is often done; there is no true religion, every religion is a tangle of superstitions) forced Agamemnon to kill his daughter, who suffered the fate of “It is disgusting to be killed by the hand of a father, as sad victim, To send the ships a happy exit to the sea."

Lucretius speaks of the terrifying broadcasts of the prophets with their countless absurd nonsense, which violate the foundations of life and poison people with fear, expelling serenity from their souls. The activity of these prophets is such that it is difficult for a person to maintain the correct positions in his worldview; Addressing his addressee, Lucretius warns him that, under the influence of these broadcasts, he will be ready every hour to fall away from Lucretius, to abandon the truth... And this was so! The fundamentally true worldview of Lucretius, Epicurus, and Democritus was suppressed in the Roman Empire by the oppression of religious superstitions and philosophy degenerating into mysticism, which led to the ideological victory of Christianity, which imposed a “painful oppression” on the souls of people for thousands of years.

Lucretius strives to build a worldview based only on nature itself, on its laws. He has the concept of a law of nature. Everything that happens happens according to the laws of nature. Everything happens “without help from above” (I, 158), nothing happens “according to the divine will” (I, 150). It is in vain to turn to the gods and oracles for help. It is not at all by the will of the gods that some women, for example, are infertile. And here the gods will not help. The world was not created by gods for people.

Lucretius, refuting the current teaching about the creation of the world by God (as was the case, for example, with Plato, who taught that the cosmos was created by the demiurge mind), expresses the following argument: “... the whole world was not created for us and by no means by divine will.” existing world:

there are so many vices in him” (II, 180-181). The world is imperfect, nature exists on its own, nothing in the world is directly adapted to man, man is a part of the world, and not its goal and master, he is entirely subject to the laws of nature and cannot “surpass them... That is why the teaching of Lucretius seemed to the crowd harsh, destroying people’s illusions of being chosen among others natural phenomena. For Plato, the mind-demiurge, who is also God, creates the cosmos from eternal material, from matter. This is not the creation of the world by God out of nothing. This dogma, three centuries later, will be accepted by the Christian worldview; Lucretius, as it were, foresees this dogma and argues with it decisively, declaring: “Out of nothing nothing is created by the divine will” (I, 150).

Gods or God do not create the world. And they don’t control the world. Here Lucretius uses his doctrine of the infinity of the world, the Universe. The gods cannot control such an immense Universe. Lucretius writes about this very expressively: “Who would be able to control the vast Universe, who would firmly hold the tight reins of the Abyss with a skillful hand, Who would steadily lead the heavens and with the fires of the ether would be able to warm the fertile lands everywhere, Or at the same time be everywhere at all times, so that to bring darkness with clouds, and to beat the clear sky with thunder strikes, and to throw lightning, and sometimes to destroy their own Temples, and, hiding in the deserts, from there, fire arrows fiercely, and, often bypassing the guilty, often strike people, unworthy and innocent ? (II, 1095-1104). This rhetorical question does not require an answer. True, the religious theological worldview teaches that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient... He can do everything. But, Lucretius will say, such a god or such gods have too many things to do and worries. But this is not appropriate for the gods. Lucretius gives his image of the gods.

Gods. It is paradoxical but true that, while rejecting religion, Lucretius recognizes the existence of gods. Here, as in many other things, he follows in the footsteps of Epicurus. Epicurus frees the gods from all concerns about people and the world. Nature does not need gods. She herself creates everything of her own will according to her own laws. The gods live serenely and clearly in a calm world (see I, 1093-1094). Lucretius states that “all gods must, by their nature, always enjoy immortal life in complete peace, alien to our worries and far removed from them. They have everything and do not need anything from us; They have no need for good deeds, and anger is unknown” (II, 646-651). The gods of Epicurus-Lucretius, exiled by them to the “between worlds”, are idealized images of Epicurean-Lucretius wise people, this is the embodiment of that very serenity and carelessness, which are considered by Epicurus and Lucretius to be the ideal state of the human spirit, the spiritual inner mood of a person, but not just anyone, but a wise one who strives to get closer to the ideal, alienated and objectified in the images of the Epicurean gods.

Lucretius contrasts the serene gods with the ordinary, man, and ordinary people. They are also looking life path, but, looking for it, they are seriously mistaken. They are always worried. They compete in talents, argue about their origins, work all day and night to achieve great power and become rulers of the world. Their short life proceeds in danger and in darkness. Anyone who knows what nature really requires of a person looks at these people in the same way as someone who watches a storm at sea and a shipwreck from a solid shore, or like someone who, being himself out of danger, watches a battle. “It is sweet when the winds blow across the expanses of the sea, From solid ground to watch the misfortune that befalls another, Not because someone else’s torment will be pleasant for us, But because it feels sweet to feel out of danger” (II, 1-4) . “It’s sweet to look at the troops on the battlefield in a cruel Battle, when you yourself are not in any danger.”

“But there is nothing more gratifying than to occupy ourselves serenely

Bright heights, firmly strengthened by the mind of the sages:

You can look at people from there and see everywhere,

How they wander and, being mistaken, seek life’s path.”

“O you insignificant thoughts of people! Oh blind feelings!

In how many dangers does life take place, in what darkness?

This century is the most insignificant period! Is it really not visible?

What only nature cries for and what only demands,

So that the body does not know suffering, and the thought enjoys

A pleasant feeling away from the consciousness of care and fear?

This is the ideal of Lucretius. He expresses this ideal in the images of gods. These gods do not need people, their worship, cult, and therefore religion, priests, and oracles who supposedly guess their will, while they have no will in relation to people, for they they are indifferent, there is no need for prophets who predict the intentions of the gods, who have no intentions in relation to human history,

Main value. The main value that people have is their mind. In the mind true strength person. Without reason, a person's life passes in darkness and fear. Only reason can disperse superstitions, fear of death, fear and worries, which are not frightened by the sound of armor or formidable weapons, which are not timid before gold or power, but, on the contrary, “I remain? always boldly among kings and rulers” (P, 50). A person needs, first of all, common sense, otherwise there will be nothing to rely on in understanding nature; It is impossible to justify and prove everything, and there is no need to. Is it necessary to prove that bodies exist? Common sense speaks about the existence of bodies. Common sense is enough to recognize the obvious: the existence of bodies. But common sense alone is not enough, for in the world there are many non-obvious things, the knowledge of which must be achieved through reasoning. Therefore, sharp judgment is also necessary. Addressing his addressee, Lucretius says: “... stop, fearing only one novelty, rejecting Our teaching with your mind, but first examine it and weigh it with your sharp judgment; and if I turn out to be right, Surrender, and if I’m wrong, then rise up and refute it” (II, 1040-1044). Lucretius does not demand that his teaching be taken on faith. He calls for a scientific discussion, he is ready to face a refutation of his teaching, but not strong-willed, not authoritarian, but scientific, based on sharp judgment.

Attaching enormous importance to the testimony of the senses, Lucretius sees their limitations. This incompleteness of sensory perception must be filled by thought. Thought is limitless. The Universe is not given in sensory perception, for it is infinite, and it can only be grasped by infinite thought; “After all, since there are no boundaries to the space that lies outside, beyond the boundaries of our world, then we try to find out what is there where our thought rushes and our mind flies away, rising into the world of freedom” (II, 1044-1047). This free floating of the mind, which, however, does not break with common sense and the sensory picture of the world, and does not contradict feelings within the limits where they operate, is the main value of a person.

But for such free floating to be possible, freedom from the consciousness of care and fear is necessary. For such liberation, liberation from unnecessary needs is necessary. It is enough for our bodily nature not to suffer. But neither wealth nor power can save one from bodily suffering; a person equally rushes about from the feverish heat on patterned carpets and on rough bedding. You can find peace and rest for the body on the bank of a stream, under the branches tall trees, this does not require mansions with golden statues, night feasts, a carved gilded ceiling, silver and gold.

Attitude to the philosophical tradition. Lucretius is aware that in his teaching he is based on the Greek philosophical tradition, that he is translating the Greek philosophical worldview into the language of Latin culture, and this is not easy. He is concerned about terminological difficulties; he warns that “I will often have to resort to new words given the poverty of the language and the presence of new concepts” (I, 138-139). Citing the Greek term associated with the philosophy of Anaxagoras - “homeomerism”, Lucretius complains that “the poverty of our language and dialects does not allow us to convey this word” (I, 831-832), but he understands the meaning of this term, its essence and says: “...nevertheless, its essence is not at all difficult to express” (I, 833).

Lucretius passes over in silence the views of the Sophists, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, and skeptics. He takes into account only the materialist natural philosophical tradition in Greek philosophy.

He knows the teaching that the beginning of everything is water, as well as the teaching that the beginning of everything is air, as well as the teaching that the beginning of everything is earth, dualistic teachings that take air and fire or water and earth as the beginning. He knows the teaching of Heraclitus that the beginning of all things is fire, as well as the teaching of Empedocles about the four principles: fire, air, water and earth. He knows the teaching of Anaxagoras about homeomerisms as the beginnings of everything. Finally, he knows the teachings of Epicurus.

Lucretius has a sharply negative attitude towards all of the above teachings, except for the teaching of Epicurus. Only this one is true.

Lucretius fundamentally does not recognize the teachings of Heraclitus: “...those who believed that all things arose only from fire, and believed that fire was the basis of the world, It seems to me that they have deviated far from common sense. Their leader was Heraclitus, who started a battle, In the darkness the tongues of reproaches are famous, but his glory is greater among the empty than among the strict seekers of truth” (I, 635-640). Lucretius’s objections are thorough. It is not clear how such diverse things could be formed from fire. They either must remain fire, which is absurd, or fire must change its essence and turn into another entity, but this is tantamount to turning into nothing (loss of its essence) and emerging from nothing (emergence of another entity). It is absurd, and also absurd, to say that things are fire and that things are true. Between things there is not one other than fire...” (I, 690-691). Lucretius calls this “madness” (I, 692).

Lucretius speaks of Empedocles with great respect, and Sicily is glorified, but she did not give birth to anything more worthy than Empedocles, but “still he, and all those about whom we said earlier, who are both more insignificant than him and in many ways much lower, at least with inspiration they managed to discover a lot of valuable things. Yet, having reached the beginnings of things, they were wrecked..." (I, 734-736, 740). Their main mistakes are that they, while recognizing movement, did not allow emptiness, and also did not know the limit to division.

These shortcomings also apply to the teaching of Anaxagoras. In addition, the principles of Anaxagoras are unstable, they are in everything similar to mortal things, and, therefore, they themselves are mortal. Lucretius calls the teaching of Anaxagoras that everything exists in everything “subterfuge” and ridicules: “... then the grain, crushed by a heavy stone, should leave traces of blood on it constantly.”

Lucretius contrasts Epicurus with these natural philosophers. Only Epicurus knows the truth. True, Epicurus is named by name in the poem of Lucretius only once, when it is said that Epicurus with his talent surpassed and eclipsed all people, just as the Sun eclipses the stars (see III, 1042-1043). But the poem also contains anonymous praises of Epicurus. Thus, in the first book (66-79) Lucretius speaks of a Hellene, who was not intimidated by either the rumor of the gods, or lightning, or thunder, who, at a time when people’s lives were hideously dragged out by the painful oppression of religion, possessing spiritual determination, broke open the gate of nature and with his thought he covered boundless spaces and explained what could walk and what could not, explained what powers are given to things and what their limit is - a man who trampled on the very religion that tramples people. In book three, a man is praised who comprehended the essence of nights, thanks to whose thoughts “the fears of nonsense scatter, the walls of the world part” (III, 16-17), a man thanks to whom “all nature opened up everywhere and became accessible to thought” (III, 29-17). thirty). This man, in whom one cannot help but recognize Epicurus, evokes “divine joy” and even “sacred horror” in Lucretius. Epicurus is anonymously praised in the sixth book of the poem for the fact that “with truthful speech he cleansed people’s hearts and put an end to... both passion and fear...” (VI, 24-25,), proving that “the human race is completely It is in vain that the soul is agitated by sorrowful anxiety.”

Main problems. At the beginning of the poem, after the hymn to Venus (this is where the poem begins), Lucretius, addressing his addressee, says that “I am going to argue for you about the essence of the highest heavens and gods and explain the beginnings of things” (I, 54-55). To these problems we must add the problem of the soul, because the terrifying broadcasts of pop shackles, their absurd nonsense and threats relate, first of all, to the afterlife of people; it is in this existence that the prophets threaten them with eternal punishment. And until then, it is impossible to rebuff these superstitions and threats, while the nature of the soul is unknown: “... it is born together with the body or in those who were born, it is introduced after, Together with us it dies, dissolved by death, or to the Orc in darkness comes out to desert lakes, Or is embodied in other animals by the will of the highest...” (I, 112-116). These are the main problems facing Lucretius. We have already spoken about the gods. In addition to these problems, Epicurus raises a lot of questions, in some of which he

makes brilliant guesses. This is, for example, the question of heredity. Of the above main questions The most important thing is the question of beginnings. This question is the key to resolving all other problems, including the question of “what is the nature of the soul and spirit” (I, 131).

The main truth. The basis of Lucretius’s entire worldview is the law of conservation of being, formulated by Parmenides at the end of the 6th century. BC e. Lucretius speaks about this law repeatedly in different contexts and on different occasions, he never forgets about it. In the first book alone, the philosopher repeats this truth no less than six times: “Out of nothing nothing is created” (I, 150), “Out of nothing... nothing will be born” (I, 205), “...nature... brings nothing into nothing.” (I, 215-2I6), “It is impossible for things neither to go into nothing nor to grow back from nothing” (I, 875-858),

Matter. This main truth is revealed by the materialist as the eternity of matter: “... all matter exists forever.”

IF there were no matter, then every thing that perished would have perished completely and completely, and the world as a whole would have perished long ago. “But, with the destruction of things, the matter of bodies, Death is not capable of killing...” (II, 1002-1003). Nothing comes into matter from the outside and nothing leaves it. “No external force can invade matter. Consequently, no spirit, no demiurge, no god can treat matter as their material, creating the world, the cosmos from it. Matter is not material for immaterial forces, it is not created by them, it exists forever, it is always equal to itself. Everything that happens in nature happens in the womb of matter and according to the laws of nature.

The beginning. Now we move on to the central point in the teaching of Lucretius, to the doctrine of the beginnings of all things. THIS is at the same time a question about the structure of matter. These principles are called differently: generic bodies, seeds of things, primordial bodies, primordial principles, primary principles, creative bodies. They are indivisible, and therefore should be called atoms (“atomon” - “indivisible”), while Lucretius uses the Latin term - tracing paper. But Lucretius almost nowhere calls them atoms (in the Latin version). Indivisibility is one of the properties of these principles, which in Lucretius does not overshadow their other properties, although indivisibility, perhaps, is still their main property.

But no less important is the fact that these principles are eternal and unchanging. The main truth of Lucretius is realized in his teaching about eternity and immutability of principles. They do not contain anything changeable, otherwise the thesis that nothing comes from nothing and no one goes into nothing would not be valid. In Lucretius, the law of the wounding of being takes the form of the law of eternity and complete immutability of principles. These principles arise and do not die, they pass into each other, they do not change, they do not fall apart, they are absolutely solid, “strong, dense and weighty” (II, 100). Lucretius is convinced that “something indestructible must always remain, so that everything does not disappear completely, turning into nothing.”

This conviction of Lucretius does not correspond to the spirit and content of modern physics, which has not found such eternal and unchanging principles in nature. In the foundation of the world everything is as changeable as on its upper floors. As a result, the world floats and falls into oblivion. This is what Lucretius would say if he were alive today. He would be satisfied with the interconvertibility of the first principles. He allowed such interconvertibility only at the level of things consisting of origins.

Lucretius is trying to substantiate his image of the origins. They are indivisible, otherwise over the course of eternal time they would be so fragmented that they would turn into nothing. They are also indivisible because they do not contain emptiness. They are hard because if they were soft, it would be impossible to explain the existence of hard objects, while the existence of soft objects with hard principles is explainable due to the emptiness mixed with the hard principles. Lucretius says that “we want to build the whole world on immortal foundations, So that it can remain indestructible in its entirety, For otherwise you will turn into nothing (II, 859-864). The beginnings are further invisible. [proves the possibility of the existence of invisible bodies using the example of wind: it is invisible, but nevertheless corporeal, exerting a bodily effect on other visible ones

Physicality criteria. In Lucretius we find two main criteria of corporeality: in relation to the subject and in the relation of bodies to each other. In relation to the subject, the common property of all bodies is their perceptibility, their ability to set our senses in motion, “accessibility to touch.”

The objective property of the body is its ability to “react and not let in.” In addition, such a property as the ability to “press down” is indicated. But the question arises: can the first principles be considered bodies if they are invisible (due to their smallness)?

Heterogeneity of origins. Lucretius emphasizes that in nature everything is different: “Look at any individual, not separately in each breed, you will be convinced that they will all differ in figure. Otherwise, the children would not be able to recognize their mothers, Just like the mother’s cubs...” (II, 347-349). “If you finally take individual grains of cereals of any kind, then even here you will not find completely similar ones so that there are not at least some minor differences in them” (II, 371-374). “We notice the same difference among all kinds of shells, the bosom of the earth, where the soft waves of the sea kill the moisture of the sucking sand in the bend of the bay” (II, 374-376). They must also “The origins of things - since they are a product of nature, And were not created with the help of hands on one model, - Fly in different forms and be dissimilar in shape” (II, 378-379). So, the first principles differ from each other in shape and figure. They can be larger and smaller. Those that are smaller have greater mobility (so oil flows “lazyly”, perhaps because it consists of larger principles than water) and a greater degree of penetration (so light passes through the horn of a lantern, but rain does not pass, which means the first light is finer than the first principles of water, which in turn are finer, whose first principles are oils). However, the heterogeneity of the origins of things is not unlimited. “The origins of things... They are heterogeneous only up to certain limits, they come in forms” (II, 479-480), “with their characteristic equally small sizes, they do not allow significant differences in forms”, “the heterogeneity of figures in matter is also extreme” .

However, within a kind the number of first principles is innumerable, so that in general in nature an infinite, innumerable, infinite number of atoms exists from time to time.

All atoms (we will call them that for brevity, although Lucretius does not like this word), as heterogeneous, differ from each other in their movements, impacts, heaviness, combinations, positions, and spaces between themselves. They form various combinations- things.

Emptiness. However, for this to be possible, that is, for movements, intervals, impacts and collisions of principles, their combinations, to be possible, Lucretius thinks that emptiness is necessary. We don't perceive it. Therefore she is not the body. However, emptiness exists. We reach the fact of the existence of emptiness with our minds, based on the fact of movement given directly to us. If everything were completely filled with bodies, then movement would be impossible. Likewise, the porosity of things, when water seeps through a stone, and the passage of sounds (and sounds, like light, consist, we think Lucretius, also of primary bodies, which in relation to light means that Lucretius approached the semi-true corpuscular theory of light, regarding sound but he was completely mistaken), and the passage of food through the trunks of plants, etc. phenomena indicate the existence of emptiness, that is, a space not filled with bodies, whose property, as noted above, is to resist and not let in. The existence of emptiness is also indicated by the fact that for different bodies their weights are disproportionate to their volumes, which means that a lighter body contains more emptiness. Emptiness is weightless (I, 363) and yielding (II, 273), its general property, unlike bodies, is intangibility.

Duality of nature. So, “two things make up nature: firstly, bodies, and secondly, empty space. Where they stay and where they move will be different” (I, 420-421). There is no third nature that is not involved in the body and emptiness. Everything else is either properties or phenomena of bodies and emptiness. A property is something that cannot be separated or taken away without destroying the one whose property it is. Thus, weight is a property of stones, heat is a property of fire, humidity

The property of water, the general property of emptiness is imperceptibility, the property of all bodies is perceptibility [and again the question arises of how this can be reconciled with the position that the principles of things themselves are supersensible: “... lies far beyond the limits of our senses, the whole nature of principles” (II , 315-313), - but nevertheless they are bodies].

A phenomenon is something that can come and go without destroying that of which it is a phenomenon. These are events, actions that are not original in themselves, they are performed by bodies in certain places, they are phenomena of the body in space, in emptiness: “... all actions without exception have neither originality nor the same essence as a body. And they have no affinity with emptiness; But you rightfully call them phenomena of the Body, and also of the place in which everything happens.”

Time” Among the phenomena is Lucretius and time. He thinks that “time does not exist in itself,” time does not exist “outside the movement of bodies and rest” (I, 463). Nevertheless, Lucretius speaks of the infinity of time, but this is not the infinity of some independent entity along with bodies and space, but the infinity of processes taking place in nature, the infinity of movement.

Movement. The source of all movements that occur in space is the movement of the fundamental principles: “... the fundamental bodies are always restless in eternal motion” (II, 89-90), Lucretius tries to substantiate this most important thesis about the nature of things. The philosopher explains this first movement of the primary principles by the fact that the main bodies are in infinite space, in a yielding infinite void, where there is no bottom on which they could calm down: “for the bodies of the fundamental principles there is absolutely no rest anywhere, for there is no bottom, Wherever, Having stopped their flow, they settled down” (I, 992-994). Addressing his addressee, the philosopher-poet says: “In order for you to better understand that the basic bodies are always restless in eternal motion, remember that the Universe has no bottom anywhere, and there is nowhere for the original bodies to remain in place, since there is no end or limit space." Thus, Lucretius explains the reason for the eternal motion of the main bodies by the infinity of space. If the Universe is infinite in space, then “the primordial bodies, of course, are not given any rest anywhere in the vast emptiness” (II, 95 - 96).

But he points to two more reasons for the movement of the first bodies: their weight “the first principles of things are carried away by their own weight” and shocks. But the tremors, i.e. collisions of primary bodies serve rather as a cause of a change in the direction of movement (this is how billiard balls collide and fly apart), these movements are secondary; To collide, you must already have movement. Therefore, of these two reasons, movement from weight comes first, which overshadows the form of movement that was mentioned above: the kind of movement in which they “rest”, that is, they move in different directions, rushing about.

The paradox in the teachings of Lucretius is that he claims that there is no bottom in the void, but the main bodies have the property of pressing downwards (this, as we noted above, is one of the properties of any body), and their initial movement occurs “in a vertical direction downwards "

This is the very original movement of atoms - the movement with which they moved before the emergence of worlds. They are driven by their own weight (Lucretius has no concept of weightlessness,” and if there is, then only for emptiness, he does not know that the weight of a body is, according to his own terminology, not a property, but a phenomenon, i.e. he can to be and not to be, without destroying the body with its passing). Moving in emptiness, they move at the same speed, regardless of their weight (and the first bodies differ in their weight, because, being equally dense, they are different in size, which inevitably leads to a difference in their weights). This was the great guess of the philosopher-scientist. Aristotle, not recognizing emptiness (“nature is afraid of emptiness”), could not escape from the resistance of the environment, and therefore thought, and others followed him up to Galileo and Torricelli, that heavier bodies fall at a greater speed than lighter ones. But Lucretius had absolutely no concept of acceleration. His “main bodies” fall at the same speed regardless of weight, without increasing their speed. This movement ends with immeasurable speed (for the void offers no resistance), the speed of movement of the primary bodies occurs faster than the radiance of the Sun, i.e., greater than the speed of light. Lucretius, thus, not only approached the corpuscular theory of light, but also raised the question of the relationship between the movements occurring in the Universe and the speed of light, incorrectly admitting the movement of bodies faster than the speed of light.

Deviation. So, the primary bodies fall “in a vertical downward direction” with equal speeds without acceleration. In this case, collisions between them are impossible. And if so, then interactions are impossible, and thus the formation of worlds is impossible. And Lucretius, following Epicurus (but Epicurus does not have this in his surviving works), introduces what is perhaps the most amazing moment of his worldview - the involuntary deflection of falling atoms: “... carried away in the void, in a vertical direction downwards, Own weight the original bodies at some time in a place unknown to us begin to deviate slightly” (II, 217-219), or “primary bodies began to deviate, And not in due time and in a place hitherto unknown” (II, 292-293).

It must be emphasized that this slight deviation occurs at an unknown time and in an unknown place, that is, it is completely arbitrary, it is not due to any external cause, place or time.

Physics and ethics. Lucretius directly connects freedom in human behavior, free will, with the spontaneous deflection of atoms. The deviation of the main bodies breaks the fatal chain of causes and effects, destroys the laws of fate; without it, people would not be able to act as they wish, they would only be puppets. Of course, it also happens that people move as a result of an external push, under duress, but not always. The initial impetus can be one’s own will, which rebels against coercion and is able to fight it. The free purchases of people are like the free deflection of atoms: “How and where, tell me, did free will appear,

What allows you to go where everyone’s desire attracts, And allows you to change direction not in a known place And not at the appointed time, but according to the impulse of the mind?

that is, at a time not prescribed to us by someone and in a place not prescribed to us by someone. So, “the deviation of the primary principles” serves to “so that the mind does not do everything out of internal Necessity alone and so that it is not forced to only endure and endure and bow before it (necessity - A. Ch.) defeated” (11.289-291). Lucretius Car concludes not only from physics to ethics, but also from ethics to physics: since we have freedom, and this is a fact, then we must recognize the spontaneous deviation of the basic bodies in the very foundation of nature. And here he appeals to the basic law of existence: “... nothing, as we see, can arise from nothing” (II, 287), our freedom is not from nothing, it is conditioned by a special type of movement of the original principles.

Things. The origins can exist autonomously, as they all exist initially, before deviation, but they can also be in connection with each other, forming large, more or less stable, clusters of things, objects, bodies, the very bodies that common sense tells us about the existence meaning. These things are transitory, they arise and perish, but this does not mean that the law of conservation of being is violated and something arises from nothing and something turns into non-existence, because things consist of eternal and unchanging principles, of principles that have an immortal nature "(I, 236). The principles, forming diverse combinations, form the whole variety of things: “...every thing is formed by a combination of seeds” (II, 687), so that “although there are many common First Principles for things, they are nevertheless very different. They can remain among themselves in its entirety; So we have the right to say that the human Tribe is made up of different compositions, with abundant grain and thick groves” (II, 695-699). In other words, “all changes in matter - Meetings, movements, structure, its position and figures - Necessarily entail changes in things” (II, 1020-IU22). Various combinations, meetings, movements, structure, position of variously shaped and variously shaped primary bodies form heaven and earth, streams and seas, trees and animals. Considering fire as a body, i.e. sharing with all the ancients the erroneous understanding of fire, Lucretius seems to accept Heraclitus’s idea that fire can turn into other objects, but gives his own explanation for this, based on the doctrine of things and bodies as systems of primary bodies. Bodies arising from fire do not remain, in essence, fire, as Heraclitus thought, but simply “bodies exist, whose meetings, movements, structure, their positions and figures can generate fire, and by changing the order, they also change nature, and have neither their similarities..." (I, 684-687). It matters which primary bodies come into contact with which ones, what position they are in, what their movements are.

Throughout the entire poem there is a comparison of the first principles with letters, and the mother-in-law with words.

“Even in our poems, as you can see, many words constantly consist of many homogeneous letters, But both poems and words, as you will certainly admit, differ from each other in meaning, as well as in sound. You see how letters are strong in only one changing the order“As for the first principles, they have even more means for various things to arise from them” (I, 823 – 829).

When forming bodies, the principles do not stick together; they are always separated by emptiness. True, there may be connections between them, but only with their corresponding shapes and figures. In a collision, some primary bodies fly away far, while others fly to “only insignificant distances” (II, 101), “confused by the complexity of their very figures, being tenacious” (II, 102). These are all solid bodies: diamond, flint, iron, copper. On the contrary, air and sunlight

consist of particles that are not interlocked with each other, and therefore, when they collide, they scatter over considerable distances. But even being linked, the principles continue to be in motion, they neither

when they do not freeze in one place, are not at rest, only these movements are performed “secretly and hidden from view” (II, 128). Lucretius is speaking here in fact about the molecular movement with which what seems to be the calmest and coldest body is filled.

Further, flowing and liquid bodies consist of smooth and round particles, and smoke, fog and flame are sharp and, of course, not interlocked with each other. Sea water differs from fresh water in that it contains rough particles mixed with smooth particles. Smooth and rough particles can be separated, says Lucretius, positively, thus answering the question about the possibility of desalination sea ​​water is an important issue of our time.

However, the possibilities for combining primary bodies are not unlimited. Otherwise, monsters would arise, analogous to meaningless combinations of letters.

Interconvertibility without development. In nature there is a constant circulation of primary bodies, nothing disappears in it, but nothing arises from nothing, because “nature always revives one thing from another” (I, 263). By disintegrating into principles or changing their composition, when some primary bodies come and others go, or by changing their internal movements, etc., bodies turn into other bodies that are qualitatively different from them, so that “everything arises one from the other” (II, 874), for example, “streams and leaves, rich pastures pass into the cattle” (II, 875). In this sense, “the whole world is renewed forever” (II, 75), however, “there are no changes, but everything is unchanged” (I, 588).

This, of course, is a metaphysical thought, excluding the possibility of development, in particular the formation of new, hitherto non-existent bodies, for example, new species of animals, excluding biological, first of all, evolution. Also, the cultural progress of mankind, generally recognized by Lucretius, does not fit with this, when people, creating an artificial habitat, create new, hitherto non-existent things. Lucretius draws attention to only one aspect - the reproducibility over time of the same types of living nature, to heredity, which he explains by the immutability of the original principles, without highlighting here, of course, because the level of ranks of that time did not allow this, special principles that carry hereditary information - genes. Where can Lucretius get to this point, if in the 20th century. people denied the existence of such principles (in the Dictionary of Foreign Words (1950), the phrase “mythical theory of genes” was added to the word “myth” as an illustration)

However, Lucretius does not know that heredity does not exclude variability, and therefore absolutizes the first: if the first principles had changed, says the great thinker, then “the natural properties, character and life, and movements of the ancestors could not have been repeated so many times in individual breeds” (I , 597-598). But along with this, Lucretius has a brilliant guess, anticipating the teachings of Mendel, that the principles that carry, as we would now say, heredity, are not all realized at once in the next generation, they can be present in the next generation without manifesting themselves in any way , and manifest itself in subsequent generations, which is why his children may not be like their parents, their grandfathers, or even more distant ancestors. This, Lucretius literally says, happens because “the fathers in their own body they hide many first principles in a diverse mixture, from generation to generation from fathers to fathers following inheritance; This is how Venus produces children by drawing lots, and she revives the hair, voice, and face of ancestors in their descendants” (VI, 1220-1224). This “Venus draw” is wonderful! What is actually being said here is that in combinations of hereditary traits there is an element of chance, due to which all individuals of the same species differ from each other despite their general, of course, significant similarity to each other and in the absence of deformities (which, of course, can be the result of flaws in the hereditary code). But this is an accident. Lucretius, however, does not reach the idea that the “draw of lots of Venus” can give rise to such changes in the offspring that lead to the fact that one species gives birth to another, qualitatively different from it, to the idea of ​​mutability of the species themselves.

Primary and secondary qualities. Lucretius does not have such terms; this is the terminology of modern philosophy (Galileo spoke of “primary qualities”, and Locke also spoke of “secondary qualities”). But in essence, the problem of primary and secondary qualities was already posed by Democritus. Epicurus and Lucretius developed and detailed the solution to this problem that was given to it by Democritus, who thought that atoms have only shape, size, position, movement in space, i.e., what later came to be called “primary qualities,” but they have no smell, no color, no taste, i.e., what, together with sound and tactility, later came to be called “secondary qualities,” however, secondary qualities are related to the primary ones causally: secondary qualities are a consequence of the primary ones, but they are caused only by the impact of primary qualities on the subject, on the subject’s senses.

This idea was picked up by all the ancient atomists. According to Lucretius, the primordial bodies are devoid of color, taste, smell, but, differing in shape and figure, are capable, by influencing certain sense organs, of causing various sensations that we mistakenly attribute to the bodies themselves, but in fact, “primary bodies have no there is no color” (II, 737), proof of this is at least the fact that without light there is no color, and if so, then colors are not properties, but phenomena (according to the terminology of Lucretius), so that primary qualities can, perhaps, be bring closer to “properties”, and secondary qualities - to “phenomena”. Of course, the difference in the forms and figures of primary bodies can most easily explain the difference in touch and taste (this feeling is closest to touch), therefore Lucretius, proving the subjectivity of secondary qualities, begins with this: “... both honey and milky moisture On the tongue and in they feel pleasant in our mouth; On the contrary, wormwood with its bitterness or wild yarrow twist our lips with a disgusting taste. So it is easy to conclude that It consists of smooth and round particles that can give a pleasant sensation; On the contrary, what seems bitter and tart to us is formed from hooked particles, closely intertwined, and therefore it tears apart the paths to our feelings, causing injury to the body with its penetration” (P, 398-407). From taste Lucretius moves on to sound and color. He thinks that sound is generated in our organ of hearing in the same way as taste in the tongue, that sound consists of particles, and he distinguishes between the “squeal from a saw” and the sounds of the cithara, the latter consists of smooth elements, the former cannot consist of such particles. “Do not assume that from similar seeds come Colors that caress the eye with their beautiful colors. Just like those who hurt our eyes, making us water, or with their appearance arouse disgust in us” (II, 418-421). Also, stench and incense are caused by particles, primary bodies, and elements of various shapes. The general conclusion is this: “...everything that is both joyful and pleasing to the feeling must contain an initial certain smoothness; on the contrary, what is unbearable for the senses and seems harsh, That undoubtedly contains something rough within itself” (II, 422-425), Lucretius, of course, makes his task easier by proving the objectivity of secondary qualities, putting at the forefront such clearly subjective criteria as pleasant and unpleasant. It should also be noted that he not only explains the difference in sensations by the difference in the shapes of primary bodies, atoms, but also, completing a circle in the proof, through differences in sensations he proves the difference in the shapes of atoms: “. ..far from similar forms must be at the beginning, since they evoke different feelings” (II, 442-443).

It is necessary, further, to add that Lucretius does not limit himself to explaining the difference in sensations by differences only in the forms of the atoms themselves, but also attaches importance to their combinations. Color, of course, is subjective, but it changes not from the subject, but from the object, from the combination of the initial principle, depending on which initial principles enter into which combination and how they move mutually, therefore the body can, as it were, suddenly change its color, continuing to remain from the same elements: “So, if a storm begins to stir up the watery plains, the sea waves here become marble-white,” “an object that appears black, If its matter is mixed and changed. A routine began in her, and something went away and something was added, which may turn out to be shiny and white before our eyes.”

Lucretius proves that secondary qualities cannot be inherent in atoms, by the fact that secondary qualities are changeable, and if they were inherent in the first principles themselves, then they could not be eternal and unchangeable, could not constitute a solid foundation, a solid foundation, on in which diverse phenomena are played out, and everything would turn into nothing: “Every color, having changed, is capable of changing into any; But it is impossible for the first principles to act in this way, For something indestructible must always remain, So that everything does not disappear completely, turning into nothing” (II, 749-752).

After what has been said, we can return to the above problem - the criterion of a body is its perceptibility, but the beginning, “the whole nature of principles” “lies far beyond our senses” (II, 312-313), and this is the main thing: “... through invisible bodies are governed by nature" (I,328). The answer is that individual particles cannot be perceived (Lucretius has a guess about the “threshold of sensation”), but in large masses they are perceived, they are perceived as bodies - combinations of principles, although this perception is not similar to the principles themselves, is not an adequate image of them.

The problem of secondary qualities, it seems to me, was successfully solved by Aristotle when he used his innovation for this solution: the distinction between the actual and the potential. Of course, without light there is no color, but even in the dark a scarlet rose is scarlet in possibility; of course, when scarlet rose no one is looking, that is, the light reflected by it does not fall on the retina of the organ of vision; a scarlet rose is not scarlet, but it is potentially scarlet.

Evidence of the existence of supersensible bodies. Naturally, being supersensible, the first principles, like emptiness, cannot be cognized at the sensory level of cognition, but our senses give us such information about the world, show us such phenomena that cannot be explained unless we imagine the existence of supersensible bodies. We do not see how the wet body dries, but it dries nevertheless; we don’t see smells, but they are there; we do not see how the ring worn on the finger wears out from the inside, but it wears out... And these facts and many similar ones say, Lucretius claims, that at the basis of all things lie the smallest bodies inaccessible to our senses, primary bodies, atoms.

Origin of life. In the problem of the origin of life, which even modern science cannot solve, Lucretius takes fundamentally correct positions, which, of course, are of a general nature and scientifically

could have been discovered in the 1st century. BC e. at the then level of physics, chemistry and biology. Lucretius is not a hylozoist. It is clear to him that the principles themselves do not possess life. Therefore the problem of origin

life appears as the problem of the emergence of living things

from non-living things. Since for Lucretius the living is certainly also the sentient, the problem of the origin of the living from the inanimate is, on the other hand, the problem of the origin of the sentient from the insentient.

This is possible not because the primary bodies are endowed with life and feeling, but because “How and in the order in which the First Principles of things are combined with each other and what kind of motions they have?” (II, 884-885). Addressing his addressee, the philosopher asks: “What else confuses your mind and hesitates and makes it doubt,

How can principles deprived of feeling give birth to beings endowed with feeling? (II, 886 888). What is important here is “how small are those principles that give rise to sensations,” what form they are, and what positions, movements, order they have” (II, 894-896). Defending the idea of ​​the origin of living things from non-living things, Lucretius draws an analogy with fire, into which dry logs turn when they decompose in a flame. He points to the origin of the chick from the egg as proof of his thesis about the possibility of the origin of living things from non-living things (eggs). Sharing the general error about the possibility of direct generation of living things from non-living things, bypassing the egg, Lucretius believes that worms are supposedly directly generated from the earth. As a proof that primary bodies cannot have life and feelings, Lucretius considers, as in the case of secondary qualities, that life is transitory and feelings are changeable, therefore he who asserts that “that which is capable of feeling is created from what is endowed by it, giving it and principles, He at the same time recognizes the mortal essence behind the principles” (II, 902-904). If the beginnings had feelings, then they could laugh and cry, they could talk about their own first principles, but “if they are completely similar to mortals, then they themselves must consist of other elements, These are again from others, and the end you you can’t put it anywhere” (II, 980-982) - “this is all nonsense, and downright madness” (II, 985), “without any beginnings of those who laugh, you can laugh And understand and express reasoning in learned words, Not consisting of seeds and intelligent and eloquent" (II, 986-988).

Death. Death is the opposite of life. Death is not the transition of being into non-existence, since death has no power over the first principles and over matter as the totality of these first principles. Death dissolves only combinations of principles, as a result of which the living becomes inanimate, the sentient becomes insensible. But then life produces other combinations. Death and life are inseparable, everything that is made up of primordial principles has a limit, the death of the complex is fair and natural, but life is also natural. Specifically, “sometimes the life-giving forces of nature triumph, and sometimes death conquers them. Interfered with a funeral groan and the plaintive cry of children who saw the sun for the first time. There was no such night, no day, no morning, so that the crying of an infant was not heard, associated with the cry that accompanies death and the gloomy funeral rite” (II, 575-580).

Soul. But people believe that death affects only the body; the soul, as a special essence, is immortal, and it either goes into the underground kingdom of the dead or inhabits another body. We noted above that this is the most important problem for Lucretius, because the foundations of refuting the afterlife, and therefore religion, which is primarily a system of preparing a person for the afterlife, a system of intimidating people with this very life, a system that offers people their services to facilitate this very afterlife, which can be a terrible long-term, or even eternal suffering, but can also become a long-lasting, or even eternal pleasure, the description of which, however, is always paler than the description of suffering, as can be seen in the Divine Comedy "Dante, which is explained by the fact that our real earthly and only life is still closer to hell than to heaven.

Refutation of the doctrine of transmigration of souls (metempsychosis). Lucretius does this very convincingly. But this belief is widespread even today: The Pythagoreans believed in the transmigration of souls in Ancient Greece and Rome, and the Greek Orphics before them; it was developed by Plato, not to mention the wide and deep dissemination of this teaching in India, where it is known as the name of samsara. Lucretius shows the internal inconsistency of the teaching. If the soul, possessing an immortal nature, moved into our body, existing even before it, then “why then do we not remember the past life, do we not retain traces of events that happened before” (III, 672-673). They say that the soul forgets about its past incarnations, but in this case, the philosopher quite correctly notes, “if the spirit’s ability could change so much that it completely lost memory of everything that had passed, this, as I think, differs little from death. And that's why

we must make sure that the former souls have perished, and that

what now exists is now born” (III, 674 - 678). Lucretius also puts forward another witty argument against the theory of metempsychosis: “If the soul were immortal and eternally exchanged Body for body, then the temperament of animals would then be disturbed: They would often run away, frightened of attacks by horned Hinds, giant dogs, would tremble in the air in the heights a falcon would soar and fly into the distance, seeing a dove, the mind would leave people, they would understand wild animals"(III, 748-753).

In addition, and this is the main thing, the soul is so closely connected with the body that it is incomprehensible how it can penetrate all its organs like that if it is something that can come into and out of some container.

The structure of the soul. Lucretius boldly raises one of the most difficult problems that has worried the best minds of mankind for centuries.

In terms of complexity, this problem can only be compared with the sociobiological question of the relationship between the social and the biological in a person. We are talking here about a psychophysical problem, about the relationship between soul and body.

Lucretius, following Democritus and Epicurus, is convinced of the corporeality of the soul, so that the relationship of soul and body is the relationship of two bodies, of which one (soul) is in the other (body), and this is possible, since the body consists of primary principles separated by emptiness . In this emptiness the bodily soul is located. It consists of heat, particles of air, wind and a certain fourth essence (see III, 241), about which Lucretius does not say anything specific, indicating only that thanks to this fourth essence feelings and thoughts arise, more “There is no names, There is nothing finer and more mobile in nature, And there are no elements in anything smaller and smoother; The first in the members it excites movements of feeling. For, consisting of small figures, it moves first; Following it, heat and winds move, an invisible force, then the air, and then everything else” (III, 242-248).

This idea of ​​the soul as the bearer of feelings and mind (spirit) is somewhat at odds with what was said about feelings in the second book - here it turns out that feelings and mind are not a consequence of a special combination of first bodies, but are inherent in special first bodies, although not to everyone separately, but in their totality, and not separately from the body, but in connection with the body.

Lucretius proves that the soul cannot exist without the body, and a living body cannot preserve life without the soul. The soul, spirit, and mind grow together with the body, “afterwards, when the body has become loose from old age and the broken limbs have become decrepit from the years of omnipotence, the mind becomes lame, the tongue becomes tangled, the mind declines; Everything then disappears and everything dies at the same time. Consequently, the soul must finally completely decompose and, blooming like smoke, be carried away into the heights of the air. As we see, at the same time, as I pointed out, it is born with the body, grows and under the burden of old age disappears” (III, 451 -458). Lucretius draws attention to the fact that the state of the body is reflected in the state of the soul, so to speak, episodically; for example, by taking wine into the body, we change the state of the soul, not only do our legs become tangled, but the mind is also clouded: Likewise, when the body is sick, the spirit also suffers: “... since illness affects our body, then the Spirit often begins to wander,” express nonsense THOUGHTS" (III, 463-464). But Lucretius also allows for some independence of the spirit from the body, that is, one body from another body, and therefore it may be that “our spirit is sick, but the body is healthy and vigorous” (III, 109). After all, in the same way, one member can be sick, and the rest are healthy (otherwise death would occur as a disease of the whole body). Lucretius says: “I affirm that the spirit, which we also call the mind, where we have both living consciousness and reason, is only a separate part of a person, just as arms and legs or eyes make up parts of a living creature” (III, 94- 97). In connection with this thesis, Lucretius criticizes the understanding of the soul as the harmony of the parts of the body. If this were so, then it is not clear how the spirit can be sick while the body is healthy. The corporeality of the spirit and soul also proves that they move, but the body, the members of the body, can only be moved by the body.

Soul, spirit, mind. Above we used these terms as synonyms, and this had its basis due to the fact that in Lucretius they are inextricably linked: “spirit and soul are closely related to each other and form a single essence with themselves” (III, 137-138), but Still, there are differences between them. Lucretius identifies the spirit with reason or mind and places it in the middle of the chest, “the rest of the soul, which is scattered throughout the body, Moves by the will of the mind and is subject to its movement,” from which one can think that the spirit is a part of the soul, for there is spirit and “part the rest of the souls."

The paradox of the soul. The paradox of Lucretius’s teaching about the soul is that the soul, being a body, has no weight, but every body must have weight and “press down.” But here Lucretius cannot escape, he cannot go against the evidence: the weight of a deceased person is less than when he was alive, and yet he has lost his soul, which, having left the body, immediately dissipates: “Only only the spirit and soul, leaving him (the body) will move away, You will not notice any loss in his entire body, - It is unchanged in appearance and weight: death retains everything, Except only his vital feelings and hot heat” (III, 212-215). Lucretius tries to find a way out of this contradiction in the thought of the extreme smallness of the seeds of the soul: “... the spirit and soul by nature undoubtedly consist of extremely small seeds, For when they leave, they take nothing away from the weight” (III, 228-230), This, of course, is not a solution to the question: no matter how small the soul may be, it, being a body, must have weight, therefore Lucretius, betraying his thesis that the soul is part of the body, the body in the body, compares the soul with the aroma of fragrant oil or with a bouquet of wine, but this is much closer to the truth than the vulgar embodying of the soul and spirit, closer to the understanding of consciousness as a property.

Refuting the fear of death. The ancients, apparently, were frightened by both death as the cessation of life and death as the continuation of life. Therefore, Lucretius’s struggle with the fear of death is carried out in two directions: he proves that since the soul is mortal, then there is no afterlife and there is nothing to be afraid of death as a transition to some new unknown and terrible world, and he, and this is more difficult, proves that death is natural, and here he does not so much prove as ridicule those who are afraid to lose their lives. In addition, people are worried about what will happen to their body. Let's start with the last one: “... does the one who is alive imagine that after death his Body is tormented by birds and wild animals, does he feel sorry for himself? he is not able to separate himself and completely detach himself from the prostrate corpse: he sees himself lying in front of him and gives him his own feelings. He is indignant at the fact that he was born mortal, not realizing that in true death there can be no one who can live as if alive; to mourn your death, Seeing yourself tormented or burned” (III, 879-887). Such a person “unconsciously imagines that not all of him will perish after death” (III, 878).

Such a person thinks that after death he will have not only physical, but also mental torment, “after all, neither your joyful home nor your dear wife will ever accept you anymore, nor will your dear children come running to kiss you and fill your heart with joy. You are no longer able to contribute to the good and prosperity of your relatives” (III, 894-898). But such a person forgets that after death he will have no longing and no desire for all these benefits.

Here Lucretius completely ignores the fact that there is death before death, that even if it is not scary to die, then it is scary to die even in your imagination, foreseeing the inevitable end and parting with your loved ones and realizing that nothing can be done to help them. However, Lucretius himself feels this weakness of his position and begins to discredit life, portraying it from a negative side: “What we do not have seems to us desirable, But, having achieved it, we longingly seek another, And we are always languishing with an insatiable thirst for life.” (III, I082-1083).However, by continuing life one cannot achieve new pleasures. Nature says to such a person: “I don’t have anything that I could make and invent for you for joy: everything remains the same from eternity; Even if your body has not matured and your limbs have not weakened with age, everything still remains the same, If you are destined to survive generations of men, Or, better said, if you even avoid death altogether” (III, 944-949). So, the sweetest life cannot last forever - the boredom of repetition sets in.

Lucretius knows that people are not only worried about the loss of the joys of life, but also tormented by the knowledge that they will not exist in the future. He objects to this, reminding us that we don’t care much about the fact that we weren’t there in the past; we will not know any sadness in the future, just as we did not know it before we were born.

After death, we are not threatened by future historical catastrophes, wars, etc., just as we were not threatened by everything that happened before our life.

What appears to be fear of an afterlife, Lucretius refutes it, speaking about the mortality of the soul and that there is no afterlife.

Lucretius also takes into account the opinion of those who think that with the disappearance of faith in an afterlife, the fear of punishment will disappear and crime will increase. To this Lucretius decisively replies: “As for Cerberus, the Furies, and also Tartarus, devoid of light, which spews terribly flames from its mouth, This is not found anywhere, and certainly cannot be. Fear of punishment, but it exists during life for our Evil deeds according to deserts and punishment for crime” (III, 1011-1015).

All the people who once lived died, both small and great. Death is a natural phenomenon of nature, “For everything that has become obsolete is replaced by the new, and things are restored again, one from another, and no one goes into the dark abyss of the underworld, For the future generations need a supply of substance, But they will follow you, having completed their lives; And that’s why, like you, they perished earlier and will perish. Thus, one always invariably arises from the other. Life is not given to anyone as property, but only for a while...” (III, 964-972). Lucretius is especially indignant at the old man who clings to life, at whom nature shouts: “Neglecting what is available, you dream of what is not there” (III, 957), “throw away everything that is alien to your years, And indifferently give up your place for descendants: this is how it should be” (III, 961 – 962).

Lucretius contrasts life and death as mortal with immortal. Only death is immortal, it awaits everyone; “eternal death”, and “those who put an end to their lives are destined to remain in non-existence for an equally long time, and also those who died months and years earlier” (III, 1092-1094).

This is the harsh philosophy of Lucretius. That's why she was hated by the crowd. People still find it difficult to come to terms with the thought of their death. They need deception to console them, so the voice of Lucretius remained a voice crying in the wilderness, and those worldviews that promised people eternal life prevailed.

The infinity of the universe. In ancient times, the idea of ​​the finitude of the world prevailed. That's what Plato thought. Aristotle thought so too, with his completely unscientific and absurd cosmology. The Stoics, with their only world, thought so too. Lucretius was acutely aware that his worldview differed sharply from current ideas about the world. Therefore, turning to his addressee, Lucretius says: “In a new guise, appear before

The universe owes you” (II, 1025). Indeed, the picture of the world that Lucretius paints with his thought [“we try to find out what is there where our thought rushes And our mind flies away, rising in a free man” (II, 1045-1048)] is grandiose and majestic. The Universe is spatially unlimited: “... lying outside, beyond the boundaries of our world, There is no space of boundaries” (II, 1044-1045), “everywhere, in all directions On this side and on the other, and above and below the Universe has No limit” (III, 1048-1050), “everywhere around, endless space gapes” (II, 1053). Lucretius not only dogmatically postulates the infinity of space, but also tries to justify it: “There is no end on either side

the Universe, For otherwise it would certainly have an edge” (I, 958 – 959). And if there was an edge, then, once on this edge, could we throw a spear over this edge? There are two possible assumptions here: the spear flew behind

the edge of the Universe and something prevented the spear from flying. Both assumptions, the philosopher thinks, are absurd, “neither gives you a way out, and you must agree that the space of the Universe is endlessly stretched out” (I, 975 - 976). The spear will fly, but this means that it was not launched from the edge and this will happen every time, so that “the possibility of flight will always last indefinitely” (I, 983).

But in a spatially infinite Universe there must also be an infinite number of first bodies, otherwise the infinite and boundless Universe would simply get lost, “the matter of the entire totality, having broken all connections, All would then be carried away, scattered in the vast emptiness” (I, 1017-1018), and it “could never condense and give birth to anything, unable to gather together” (I, 1019-1020), in other words, “once somewhere you suppose a lack in bodies, Here the wide gates of death will open to things, And through them, carried away, matter will pour out in a crowd" (I, 1111 - 1113)

And if matter is abundant and there is plenty of space, then what prevents there from being other worlds besides our world? After all, “nature is invariably capable of knocking down the seeds of things together everywhere, collecting them in the same order as they are united here” (II, 1072-1074). Moreover, there is nothing unique in the world: people, mountain animals, and fish do not exist in one copy. “Consequently, we must admit that in the same way the sky, the sun, the moon and the earth, and the seas, and all other things are not alone” (II, 1084-1086).

Earth. Lucretius thinks that our world is in a state of decline and is approaching destruction. He sees evidence of this in the decline in soil fertility. The earth is singled out by Lucretius from among other material elements as that which contains the greatest number of the most diverse principles, which explains its fertility: “... since it contains the principles of many things, it can bring many things into the light in different ways.”

Lucretius describes the religious cult of the earth, widespread in Italy, and the myths associated with this cult, but decisively concludes that “No matter how beautiful and harmonious these wonderful legends are, there is no credibility in them.”

He is considered one of the brightest adherents of atomistic materialism, a follower of the teachings of Epicurus. He committed suicide by throwing himself on his sword.

At the dawn of the birth of Roman philosophical terminology, Lucretius in his main work - the philosophical poem “On the Nature of Things” (lat. De rerum natura ) - put his teaching into a harmonious poetic form. Following the theory of Epicureanism, Lucretius Carus postulated the free will of man, the absence of influence of the gods on people's lives (without, however, rejecting the very existence of the gods). He believed that the goal of a person’s life should be ataraxia, and he reasonably rejected the fear of death, death itself and the afterlife: in his opinion, matter is eternal and infinite, and after the death of a person, his body acquires other forms of existence. He developed the doctrine of atomism, widely propagated the ideas of Epicurus's physics, simultaneously touching on issues of cosmology and ethics.

For materialist philosophers of later times, it was Titus Lucretius Carus who is the main propagandist and doxographer of the teachings of Epicurus. His philosophy gave a powerful impetus to the development of materialism in antiquity and in the 17th-18th centuries. Among the prominent followers of Epicurus and Lucretius is Pierre Gassendi.

Links

• Titus Lucretius Carus in the library of Maxim Moshkov

Wikimedia Foundation.

2010.

See what "Lucretius Carus" is in other dictionaries: - (Lucretius Cams) (b. c. 96 BC - died Oct. 15, 55 after R. X.: committed suicide) - Rome. philosopher and poet. The most significant and active follower of Epicurus in Rome; in his unfinished highly artistic poem “De rerum... ...

Philosophical Encyclopedia LUCRETIUS CAR - (around 96 BC.55 AD, committed suicide), Titus Lucretius Carus, Roman poet and philosopher, author of the unfinished poem “On the Nature of Things,” published by Cicero, where Lucretius considers the emergence of the world based on the views of... ... Philosophy of Science and Technology: Thematic Dictionary

Titus (Titus Lucretius Carus) (b. between 99 95 d. 55 BC) other Roman. poet and philosopher. The author is a philosopher. poems On the nature of things (De rerum natura), which promotes materialism. teachings of Epicurus, ch. arr. his natural philosophy, setting as his goal... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Lucretius Carus- Titus (99/95 55 BC) other Roman. poet and philosopher. The author is a philosopher. poem “On the Nature of Things”, which promotes materialism. teachings of Epicurus, ch. arr. his natural philosophy, aiming to free man from the oppression of religion. According to L.K.,... ... Ancient world. encyclopedic Dictionary

Lucretius Carus- (c. 96 55 BC), poet and materialist philosopher, the most outstanding representative of the theory of atomicism in Others. Rome, follower of the teachings of Epicurus. Very little is known about L.K.’s life. Written in the didactic tradition. epic poem “De rerum... ... Dictionary of Antiquity

Lucretius Titus Lucretius Carus (lat. Titus Lucretius Carus, c. 99 55 BC) Roman poet and philosopher. He is considered one of the brightest adherents of atomistic materialism, a follower of the teachings of Epicurus. Committed suicide by throwing himself on... ... Wikipedia

- (lat. Titus Lucretius Carus, c. 99 55 BC) Roman poet and philosopher. He is considered one of the brightest adherents of atomistic materialism, a follower of the teachings of Epicurus. He committed suicide by throwing himself on his sword. At the dawn of its inception... ... Wikipedia

Lucretius, Car Titus- (lat. Titus Lucretius Carus) (c. 96 55 BC) Roman philosopher, poet, contemporary of the last century of the Roman Republic; translated into Lat. poetry, the teaching of the great materialist of Greece, Epicurus, who sought ways to liberate humanity from... ... Ancient world. Dictionary-reference book.

Lucretius Titus, Lucretius Carus (Titus Lucretius Carus), Roman poet and philosopher of the 1st century. BC e. The didactic poem “On the Nature of Things” is the only completely preserved systematic presentation of the materialist philosophy of antiquity; popularizes... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

LUCRETIUS Titus Lucretius Carus- LUCRETius, Titus Lucretius Carus, Roman poet and materialist philosopher of the 1st century. BC e. Didactic. the poem “On the Nature of Things” (edited by Cicero c. 54 BC) sets out the philosophy. system of Epicureanism.■ On the nature of things, [trans. F. Petrovsky], t.... ... Literary encyclopedic dictionary

Books

• On the Nature of Things, Titus Lucretius Carus. Lucretius's poem On the Nature of Things (1st century BC) represents one of the peaks of the philosophical thought of mankind and at the same time one of the peaks of Roman poetry. The poet is driven by passion...

Art. n. AD and are not very reliable). It is likely that Lucretius received a philosophical education at the then popular Neapolitan Epicurean school, headed by Philodemus.

One philosophical poem by Lucretius has survived, not published during his lifetime and, obviously, not completed. According to Suetonius, it was edited and published by Cicero (probably not Marcus Tullius Cicero, but his brother Quintus). Later it received the name “On the Nature of Things” (lat. "De rerum natura"), the name of which fully expresses its meaning. This work of Lucretius is the only completely preserved landmark of the materialistic thought of antiquity; it systematically and reasonably expounds ancient materialism and especially fully surpasses its achievements - the atomistic teaching of Epicurus.

The work of Lucretius is a didactic poem, popularizing philosophical ideas, a genre quite common for that era. Let us note that even before Lucretius, Manilius and Germanicus tried to present their astronomical views in a didactic poem. The poet Sallust in his poem "Empedocles" expounds the teachings of the ancient Greek natural philosophers. Putting philosophical meaning into the sounding form of hexameter, Lucretius himself explained why he writes in poetry: since scientific knowledge is difficult to perceive, it is necessary to facilitate the mastery of it with the help of poetry; Lucretius considered poetry one of the ways to disseminate knowledge. Each book is preceded by a poetic introduction, followed by an exposition of the relevant part of atomic philosophy. In the poetic design of philosophical material, comparisons predominate, sometimes developing into quite vivid descriptions, for example, eternal rebirth in nature, sheep, a stream, battle, the cult of Cybele, the plague in Athens. The Latin language of the poem is distinguished by both archaisms and some new formations caused by the need to convey philosophical concepts unfamiliar to the Romans. Lucretius's dactylic hexameter is smoother than that of Ennius or Lucilius, but falls short of the sophistication achieved only in the poetry of Virgil. Lucretius contributed to the development of a scientific literary language.

2. Philosophical views

Thus, Lucretius used all the main provisions of the Epicurean school, which it introduced into the atomistic teaching of Democritus ("deviation", recognition of hypotheses to explain the causes of certain phenomena, etc.). At the same time, Lucretius in his justification of atomism differed from Epicurus, who was limited to predominantly logical argumentation; Lucretius made the complex philosophical ideas of Epicurus accessible; he widely used comparisons and analogies between various processes living and inanimate nature, metaphors, etc.. This feature of the presentation of atomism in Lucretius is obviously connected with his desire to widely popularize atomistic theory, his epistemological concept and great confidence in the data of the senses and everyday practice.

4. Socio-historical views

Being a supporter of ancient democracy, Lucretius condemned the immorality of slave owners, opposed wars that separated civilians from work useful to society.

5. Atheism

A consistent conclusion from Lucretius's materialism was his atheism. Lucretius considered religious ideas about providence, miracles, etc. untenable. According to Lucretius, religion is superstition and prejudice, a product of ignorance and fear (I: 153), supporting which, it became the source of many evils and misfortunes, injustice and crimes. Lucretius saw the means of getting rid of religion in explaining the true causes of natural phenomena, in revealing the lies spread by the priests about the immortality of the soul and the afterlife. The soul, according to Lucretius, is bodily, it consists of the same atoms as the body, but more subtle. The soul is inextricably linked with the body. With the death of the body, the soul also dies. Death means the end of suffering. There is nothing in common between life and death. What frightens us in death is not destruction, but the inevitability of afterlife retribution, which is only superstition.

7. Works

• Titus Lucretius Car. On the nature of things / Translation by A. Sodomora. - Kyiv: Dnepr, 1988. - 191 p. ISBN 5-308-00201-0

History of natural science in the era of Hellenism and the Roman Empire Rozhansky Ivan Dmitrievich

Titus Lucretius Carus

Titus Lucretius Carus

In talking about Celsus's encyclopedia, we have somewhat violated the chronological presentation of the subject. Now it will be necessary to return again to the first century BC. e. - the century of M. T. Varro and M. T. Cicero - and focus on the most remarkable (and, undoubtedly, the most popular) monument of Roman science, namely the poem by Titus Lucretius Cara “On the Nature of Things” (De rerum natura) .

We know almost nothing about the life of Lucretius; We also do not know whether he wrote anything else other than his poem, which, in any case, was his main and most important creation. Based on information reported by later sources, we can conclude that Lucretius was born around 99–95. BC e. and died while still a relatively young man, being forty-four years old. The first statement that has come down to us about the poem of Lucretius belongs to Cicero. In February 65 BC. e. the great Roman orator wrote to his brother Quintus: “The poem of Lucretius is as you characterize it in your letter: it contains many glimpses of natural talent, but at the same time of art.” Among the authors of later times, Ovid, Virgil and Tacitus highly appreciated the poem. The poetic merits of the poem were undoubtedly the most important factor contributing to its widespread popularity. We will also talk about the extent to which these poetic virtues helped the author of the poem to present its scientific and philosophical content as clearly and clearly as possible.

The historical and philosophical value of Lucretius's poem lies in the fact that it represents the most complete and systematic presentation of Epicurean philosophy that we generally have. Let us recall that three letters have reached us from the founder of the Epicurean school (to Herodotus, Pythocles and Menoeceus), cited in the biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius and representing brief extracts from the main works of his that have not reached us; further, a collection of ethical maxims entitled “Main Thoughts” (?????? ?????); and a number of fragments, also mostly of ethical content. Without the poem of Lucretius, our knowledge of Epicurean philosophy and, in particular, Epicurean physics would seem much more meager.

The poem “On the Nature of Things” consists of six books. Let us briefly outline the contents of these books. For those who are familiar with the poem, this presentation may seem redundant, but for those who have not read it, it will give an idea of ​​the breadth and diversity of its content and may serve as an incentive to read it. We take the liberty of asserting that reading Lucretius's poem - even in translation - will be a source of inexhaustible pleasure for every inquisitive and receptive reader. And for many who read it in the original, it became a favorite book for life. Let us recall that one of the heroes of Anatole France’s novel “The Gods Thirst” did not part with the poem until last minutes before execution by guillotine.

The first book of the poem opens with an appeal to the goddess Venus, according to Roman legend, the ancestor of the Latin tribe. A contemporary of the tragic and bloody events of Roman history, Lucretius turns to Venus with his characteristic appeal:

Therefore, grant my words eternal charm,

Having in the meantime made cruel strife and war

And on earth and in the seas everywhere they became silent and still (I, 28–30)

After this, Lucretius invites the Roman figure Memmius, to whom this poem is dedicated, to strain his ears and mind in order to comprehend the meaning of the “true teaching” (verum rationem), which will be discussed in the poem. The concept of matter is immediately introduced, which is identified with the “seeds of things” (semina rerum) or “primary bodies” (corpora prima), i.e., in other words, with atoms.

The next passage is interesting for its anti-religious orientation. The poet recalls those times when people's lives were dragged out under the painful yoke of religion. Epicurus is praised for speaking out against religion and dispelling the darkness of ignorance that had until then obscured the minds of people. The possible charge of wickedness is refuted by pointing out that it was religion that gave rise to many wicked and criminal acts. People have a fear of natural phenomena, generated by ignorance of the causes of these phenomena and the belief that they occur by the will of the gods. In fact, nothing happens by divine will; everything that happens occurs naturally, and “nothing can arise from nothing” (nil posse creari de nilo). This position is substantiated with the help of a number of convincing arguments and is directly associated with the law of conservation of matter (nihil ad nihilum interire). Lucretius's argumentation was obviously borrowed from Epicurus (see, for example, the letter to Herodotus), although it is possible that it underwent a certain development in the poem.

Starting to present the foundations of atomism, Lucretius proves that the primary particles from which things are composed, or, as he says, “the beginnings of things” (primordia rerum), are inaccessible to vision due to their exceptional smallness. But not everything is filled with these particles; there is a void between them. Without emptiness there could be no movement, bodies could not be compressed and would not have different weights for the same volume. The various arguments given by Lucretius on this issue do not belong, of course, to him or even to Epicurus, but ultimately go back to Leucippus and Democritus. The same applies, obviously, to the characterization of atoms as absolutely dense, eternal, indestructible and unchanging bodies.

What follows is a historical and philosophical digression. The views of some pre-Socratic philosophers, primarily Heraclitus, Empedocles and Anaxagoras, have been severely criticized. Lucretius does not actually add anything new to the existing information about these philosophers, and in some cases (for example, when presenting the concept of Anaxagoras’ homeomory) he makes obvious inaccuracies.

The end of the first book is devoted to the substantiation of the provisions about the infinity of space and the innumerability of atoms. From the point of view of these provisions, a concept is criticized that recognizes the presence of a center in the Universe, postulates the division of elements into light and heavy, and admits the possibility of the existence of antipodes. Here the polemical arrows of Lucretius (or rather, Epicurus) are obviously directed against Aristotle, although the latter is not mentioned by name anywhere in the poem. It must, however, be taken into account that some of the provisions of Aristotelian cosmology were also shared by the Stoics, with whom the school of Epicurus conducted a long and fierce polemic.

The second book of the poem also begins with an introduction in which Lucretius sets out the main provisions of Epicurean ethics. He praises wisdom, calls? to moderation and peace of mind and opposes false passions, excesses and vain fears.

Following this, Lucretius proceeds to develop the principles of Epicurean atomism. Much space is devoted to the analysis of the movement of atoms, which is interpreted as their eternal and inalienable property. It is here that we find passages that still amaze physicists and allow us to talk about the anticipation of such things as molecular theory states of aggregation substances (II, 95-111), Brownian motion (II, 125-141), etc. Interesting considerations are expressed by Lucretius about the enormous speed of atoms in emptiness, far exceeding even the speed of light. We now know that the speed at which material bodies move can never exceed the speed of light, but, as academician wrote. S.I. Vavilov, “one should hardly study such a school exam for the two-thousand-year-old patriarch of atomism.”

Can we attribute these insights to the insight of Lucretius himself? Of course no. There is no doubt that he borrowed them from his teacher Epicurus, who largely repeated the ideas expressed by the founders of atomism - Leucippus and Democritus.

And ultimately, the guesses of the ancient atomists that amaze us should be attributed to the exceptional productivity of the atomistic hypothesis itself. The logical development of the principles of atomism, even in such an archaic form as we find in Democritus and Epicurus, made it possible to arrive at conclusions that were thousands of years ahead of the time when they were first formulated.

The next section of the second book is devoted to the specific postulates of Epicurean physics: that all atoms tend to fall downward at a constant speed (and, contrary to Plato and Aristotle, up and down are considered absolute directions, in no way dependent on our point of view) and that in their fall they imperceptibly and completely arbitrarily deviate from the vertical direction of movement. Of course, one can see in this idea an anticipation of modern physical theories (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), but one must take into account that it did not follow from the basic principles of atomism. The postulate about the arbitrary deviation of atoms from a rectilinear fall (clinamen - in Lucretius, ??????????? in Epicurus) was needed by Epicurus to substantiate the thesis of free will, which had no place in the strictly deterministic physics of Democritus.

To the number characteristic features Epicurean atomism also includes the assumption that each atom consists of several “smallest parts” (minimae partes or Cacumina; in Epicurus they are called accordingly ?? ???????? or ?? ????); Lucretius mentions them, however, already in the first book (I, 599–634). Since the sizes of atoms are strictly limited (this is also one of the differences between the atomism of Epicurus and the atomism of Democritus), each atom consists of several “smallest” ones inextricably fused with each other. Hence the conclusion is drawn that atoms cannot be infinitely varied in their shapes. “Indivisibles” cannot exist independently, separately from atoms; If we continue to draw parallels with modern microphysics, then they can most likely be likened to quarks.

Lucretius then moves on to what we would call the problem of primary and secondary qualities. Atoms differ only in their figures or shapes; As for such properties as colors, sounds, smells, warmth, softness, flexibility, looseness, etc., all of them are inherent only in “mortal” objects consisting of a large number of atoms.

The end of the book is devoted to substantiating the concept of the plurality of worlds. Worlds, like all other things, are born and die; The world in which we live will also perish, for, according to the inescapable law of nature:

...everything is becoming decrepit and little by little

Life's long journey, exhausted, goes to the grave

(II, 2173–2174).

The following books of Lucretius's poem can be discussed more briefly. The third book opens with an enthusiastic praise of Epicurus, after which Lucretius proceeds to consider the nature of the soul (anima) and the spirit or mind (animus or mens, respectively). Their nature is essentially the same: both consist of the finest, smallest and very mobile atoms; but if the seat of the spirit (mind) is the middle of the chest, then the soul is scattered throughout the body. The soul occupies a subordinate position in relation to the spirit: without the spirit it cannot remain in the members of the body and immediately dissipates.

Contrary to the opinion of Democritus, who believed that the atoms of the soul and body are numerically equal and alternate with each other (like ions of a crystal lattice, we would say), Lucretius argues that the atoms of the soul are not so numerous and are distributed less frequently in the body. The distance between two neighboring atoms of the soul corresponds to the minimum size of an object, the touch of which is still felt by our body.

The most important thesis of Epicureanism, proven by Lucretius with the help of a number of arguments, is that the spirit and soul are mortal; their constituent atoms scatter in space simultaneously with the death of the body. Fairy tales about the immortality of the soul and the existence of the afterlife instill in people the fear of death. We should not be afraid of death, for death is pure nothingness that awaits each of us. Does it matter when it comes - now or later? There is no point in clinging to life and begging for its extension, because the infinite duration of death is the same for everyone.

So you can live as many generations as you like,

Still, eternal death certainly awaits you.

Destined to remain in oblivion for the same long time

To those who put an end to their lives today, and also

To those who died months and years earlier

(III, 1090–1094).

These lines, filled with calm resignation, end the third book of Lucretius’ poem.

The fourth book is devoted mainly to the problem of sensory perceptions. After a short introduction, Lucretius expounds the famous theory of images or ghosts (imagines or simulacra in Latin, ?????? or ????? in Epicurus). This theory itself was not an original invention of Epicurus; as all ancient authorities testify, it was entirely borrowed from Leucippus and Democritus. But in Lucretius, as a conclusion from this theory, we find the purely Epicurean idea of ​​​​the infallibility of feelings. Senses cannot give false evidence about the world around us; It is not the feelings, but the mind that is to blame for all mistakes and delusions. Along with vision, other sources of sensations are considered - hearing, taste, smell. An explanation for dreams is given.

The fourth book ends with a discussion about the feeling of love, striking in its emotionality. Love for Lucretius is “madness and grievous grief”; he writes about her with undisguised hatred. This passage of the poem was apparently dictated by the deeply personal and not very happy experiences of the author.

The fifth book is of particular interest to us because it contains we're talking about about various aspects of atomistic cosmogony. The thesis about the mortality of our world and everything that it contains is formulated in lines filled with solemn grandeur:

First of all, look at the seas, the lands and the skies;

All these three natures, three separate bodies, Memmius,

Three so various shapes and three main plexuses

Will disappear one day, and stood for many years

The community will collapse then, and the structure of the world will perish

And since the world and all its parts are mortal, they cannot have a divine nature. The deification of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly bodies is, according to Lucretius, one of the most absurd prejudices. All luminaries arose naturally and will someday die. Next, the cosmogonic concept of Epicurus is outlined, the main provisions of which go back to Leucippus and Democritus. However, in some details it departs from the teachings of the founders of atomism. Moreover, Epicurus, who emphasized that “in the knowledge of celestial phenomena ... there is no other goal than serenity (????????)”, there are statements repeated by Lucretius that even the ancient philosophers must have seemed archaic and anti-scientific. So, for example, Epicurus (and after him Lucretius) believed that the sizes of the Sun and Moon cannot differ significantly from what they seem to us (among the Pre-Socratics, only Heraclitus expressed similar views). As Cicero wrote on this occasion, “Democritus, as an educated man and an expert in geometry, considers the Sun to be of great size, but to Epicurus it seems perhaps a foot in size, because he thinks that it is as it appears, and unless a little more or less." This absurd point of view was in conflict with all the data of astronomy of that time, but it corresponded to the fundamental position of Epicurus that sense perceptions cannot deceive us. Epicurus and his followers considered the earth to be something like a flat cake located in the center of a sphere enclosing our world (remember that, according to the teachings of atomists, there can be an infinite number of such worlds). In this matter, their views did not differ from the views of Leucinpus and Democritus. But already in the era of Epicurus these views were hopelessly outdated. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, the idea of ​​the spherical shape of the Earth was finally established in Greek science, and in the 3rd century. BC e., that is, almost two centuries before Lucretius, Erarosthenes determined with great accuracy the circumference of the globe. But these results were simply ignored by the Epicurean school.

In relation to celestial phenomena, Epicurus adhered to a peculiar pluralistic position. He believed that each of these phenomena can be explained in different ways, and all these explanations are, in principle, equal, because we are not given the true reason to know. In a letter to Pythocles, he justifies this position by the fact that only it gives us true serenity; in this regard, he calls not to be afraid of the “slavish intricacies of astronomers.”

This point of view is also accepted by Lucretius. So, for example, to explain the phases of the Moon, Lucretius considers the following hypotheses equally valid: 1. The Moon borrows its light from the Sun, and depending on its position in relation to the Sun and to us, we see different parts of the lunar disk illuminated.

2. The moon has its own light. With this assumption, it is possible: a) that a dark body, invisible to us, rotates with it, which obscures first one and then another part of the lunar disk; b) that only one half of the Moon glows, but the Moon turns to us first on one side or the other.

3. Every day there is a birth new Moon, having different shapes.

We know that only the first of these hypotheses is true. Greek astronomers, contemporaries of Epicurus and Lucretius, also knew this. But Epicurus and his followers had an amazing ability to ignore the achievements of contemporary science. This can be partly explained by the complete ignorance of the Epicureans in the field of mathematical disciplines. One way or another, this attitude of the Epicureans was one of the reasons why Epicurean philosophy found few supporters among the most educated circles of Hellenistic and Roman society (see the above remark of Cicero), and subsequently generally lost all influence. Lucretius's poem was readily read and even admired, but this did not at all mean agreement with fundamental principles its author.

In a similar “pluralistic” way, Lucretius explains such facts as the change of day and night, the unequal length of days and nights in different seasons, solar and lunar eclipses etc. We will not dwell in more detail on all these explanations: in many of them one can notice echoes of pre-scientific, naive ideas, but, in fact, they do not have historical and scientific significance.

But along with this, in the same fifth book we can find curious considerations and insightful guesses, related, however, not to cosmology, but to the problems to which the second part of the book is devoted: to the emergence of animals and humans, to the history of human society and to the development of culture . The extent of Lucretius's dependence on Epicurus in these matters is unclear, for we do not know the writings of Epicurus in which these problems would be reflected. The description of the emergence of animals and humans reveals Lucretius’s familiarity with the views of a number of Pre-Socratics - Anaximander, Empedocles, Archelaus, Democritus, and also, possibly, with the treatises of the Hippocratic Code. As for the history of human society, here we do not know the predecessors of Lucretius at all. It is curious that in this part Lucretius does not resort to “pluralistic” explanations, but directly and unequivocally expresses the opinions that he considers correct. Rejecting the legend of the Golden Age and other mythological fantasies, Lucretius, with his characteristic imagery, depicts the primitive state of man, when people did not yet know either clothing or housing and led a miserable existence, eating acorns and berries and hunting wild animals. The changes that took place in a person’s life are described when he began to dress in skins, build huts, communicate using language, and make fire. The reasons for the emergence of religious beliefs are analyzed. The passage dedicated to the discovery of metals subsequently attracted the attention of M. V. Lomonosov, who translated it into Russian. Subsequent stages of human development were, according to Lucretius, associated with the domestication of animals (horses and livestock), with the emergence Agriculture and crafts, with the invention of the arts. Then man learned to build ships, lay roads, and erect cities. In short, Lucretius gives a broad (and in its main features correct) picture of the evolution of mankind, painted with the bright strokes of a great and thoughtful artist.

The sixth - last - book of the poem is devoted mainly to meteorological and geological phenomena. Sources for this book could include, in addition to Epicurus (the letter to Pythocles only partially covers the content of the sixth book), the works of Posidonius, as well as Greek popular science compilations compiled on the basis of the corresponding works of Aristotle, Theophrastus and other authors. The second part of the book develops a “meteorological” theory of the origin of diseases, which is believed to go back to the follower of Epicurus, the famous physician Asclepiades of Bithynia, who lived in Rome in the era of Lucretius. The book ends with a vivid picture of an epidemic that took place in Athens in 430 BC. e. and described by Thucydides in the History of the Peloponnesian War. After this, the poem ends suddenly. It is possible that it remained not completely finished.

Such is this amazing poem, which has no analogues in the history of world literature. Many scientists have studied it from a variety of angles - philological, literary, aesthetic, historical and philosophical, etc. Leaving aside all these aspects, we will emphasize only two points, the most significant, as it seems to us, for a historian of science.

1. Although the poem “On the Nature of Things” is dedicated to the presentation of Greek scientific and philosophical doctrine and was written on the basis of exclusively Greek sources, in general it should be considered an extremely characteristic monument of Roman science. And the point here is not only that it is written in Latin. As in the writings of other Roman scholars - be it Varro or Cicero, Celsus or Seneca, in the poem of Lucretius we find few original thoughts, own ideas(the exception is, perhaps, only the second part of the fifth book, and this is not accidental: history has always been closer and more understandable to the Roman way of thinking than theoretical natural science), but Lucretius finds a truly artistic form for presenting other people’s ideas. For Roman authors - be they scientists, historians or essayists - literary form was always of great importance. All the writers mentioned above were brilliant stylists, while such great Greeks as Aristotle and Theophrastus cared primarily about the accuracy of the presentation of their thoughts, and not at all about the style of their prose. As for Lucretius, it’s not enough to call him a stylist (we don’t know his prose at all), he was “simply” a highly talented poet. A rich poetic imagination allowed him to present even the most abstract ideas of the atomistic doctrine in a visual and figurative form. Let us cite the famous passage where Lucretius explains why in macroscopic (in modern terminology) bodies we do not notice the movement of atoms:

...For it lies far beyond our senses

All nature began. Therefore, since they are not available

While they are visible to our eyes, their movements are hidden from us.

Even what we are able to see hides

Often their movements are at a distance far from us:

Often thick-fleeced sheep graze along the hillside,

Slowly walking to where they are in the fat pasture

Fresh grass beckons, sparkling with diamond dew;

The well-fed lambs jump there and frolic, butting heads.

From a distance all this seems to us to have merged together;

It’s like a motionless white spot on a green slope.

Also, when, running, the mighty legions quickly

Everywhere across the field they scurry about, imagining an exemplary battle,

The shine from their weapons rises to the sky, and everywhere

The earth sparkles like copper, and from the tread of heavy infantry

The hum is heard all around. Shocked by screams, the mountains

They echo them loudly, and the noise rushes to the heavenly constellations;

Riders gallop around and suddenly in a fast onslaught

They cross the fields, shaking them with loud stomps.

But on high mountains there is certainly a place where

It seems like a spot, motionless sparkling in the field

(II, 312–332).

Lucretius should be judged not as a scientist who expressed his ideas in poetry (such were Parmenides and Empedocles), but as a remarkable poet, whose only theme was the philosophical teaching of Epicurus. This explains both the advantages and disadvantages of his poem. What a pity that in our time there is no poet who could so talentedly express in verse the foundations of Einstein’s theory of relativity or the quantum mechanical theory of the atom! 2. Lucretius’s enormous merit to Roman and European science in general was the creation of Latin scientific and philosophical terminology (this merit, however, he shares with Varro and Cicero). Lucretius himself was well aware of the importance of this task, which he, for example, writes about in the following lines of his poem:

I have no doubt that the teachings of the dark Greeks

It will be difficult to express clearly in Latin verses:

The main thing is that I will often have to resort to new words

Given the poverty of language and the presence of new concepts...

When presenting the content of the poem, we gave examples when Lucretius successfully found Latin equivalents of Greek terms. He did not always succeed in this, and sometimes he resorted to Latin transcription of Greek words. So, for example, trying to explain Anaxagoras’s concept of homeomerism, Lucretius writes:

Anaxagoras, now we will consider “homeomerism”,

What do the Greeks call her, and let us pass on this word

The language and dialects of our poverty does not allow...

In the time of Lucretius, Greek was still firmly the international scientific language, and it continued to largely maintain its position until the fall of the Roman Empire. But over time, the situation began to change. At least in Western Europe, the Latin language began to gain a dominant position - first in such areas as law, history, theology (the latter was facilitated by the fact that Latin, from the time of Augustine, became the official language of the Western European Christian Church, which later received the name Catholic ). And in the Middle Ages, Latin became the only language in which science and philosophy were explained. One of the pioneers of Roman science, who gradually prepared the hegemony of the Latin language, was undoubtedly the poet and philosopher of the 1st century. BC e. Titus Lucretius Car.