Environmental Thought in Antiquity

Moodle Forum Post:

The Constant Gardener: Epicurus and His Principles

I have learned about Epicurus and his followers in the few philosophy courses I have taken and am vaguely familiar with the basis of his theories. I think his underlying dependence of the senses to be effective, they are in fact how we perceive the world, and they can and should be rooted in fact and reality. That being said, he does give merit to our perspective which is what shapes our interpretation of the facts and information our senses are constantly collecting. The podcast gave an example of a tower which is square appearing round from a distance and argued that the senses were not failing it was just our understanding of the information given the conditions by which it was received. I think it would be interesting to explore the gap in constant trust of the world around us with the perceptions by which we end up viewing it from and the implications this would have on different ideas.

I also find the disagreement between Aristotle and Epicurus about the proportions of the world to be very interesting. While Aristotle claimed that the theorical existence of the earth was made off of the basis that it was full and as things interacted, they were pushing other materials out of their way, Epicurus argues that if this was true then nothing would truly be able to move and that displacement is not possible. I think these two different strains of thought can be revealing and applicable to the way ancient people viewed the environment. I find that Aristotle’s view gives much more merit to the existence of other things, life being included. Individual items have more of a presence and purpose which I believe translates to life and the environment. Epicurean thought gives more merit to us ourselves. The environment outside of our body is made up of emptiness and space by which we can move into. This philosophy aligns so well with the justification of our use and exploitation of our environment because the emphasis is placed on humans themselves instead of a greater wholistic universe. 

           Another section that caught my attention was how Lucretius justified the idea of invisible particles or particles that humans are unable to see. I've taken science classes and know about modern science's definitions of atoms and matter, but I loved that he used the senses to justify their existence. Lines 299 through 304 mention smell, feeling, and hearing. How do we smell something if we don't see it approach our nostrils? We don't see heat but we definitely feel it. One of the podcasts mentions how Lucretius essentially believed that the senses could not be wrong. I also thought the part about even the most solid of materials being porous. One of the ways he backed that was chill that reaches the bones. How does it do that if the body is not porous? He also mentions that people were acknowledging the loss of substance by observing wear and tear on stone paths, bronze statues that were being rubbed, and water hollowing stone, but humans are unable to see those particles leaving at any given time. I was just really fascinated by how he had such good examples to back his ideas.

In “The Constant Gardner”, around the beginning the man speaking brings up how knowledge was thought to be obtained. He claimed that they thought knowledge was obtained through sensation. This could mean looking at an object, but I took sensation as something reacting with our body. For example, holding something in our hand, or tasting something. To me, this is like kinesthetic learning. By doing something with your hands and being interactive with it, you are learning. 

Then I start to think more and realize that you can experience a sensation through hearing a wonderful song, or seeing a breathtaking view. I would agree that knowledge can come from sensation. I think we are more likely to gain more knowledge from a sensation rather than just reading a textbook or going to a lecture. That’s why incorporating different aspects into a class helps. This would go back to the kinesthetic learning though. For example, an UES professor will have a better time teaching their students about the earth if they take their students on a hike. This allows for students to experience something different and have a shot at taking in more information and referring to real life experience. 

     As I read from book one I found myself starting to consider these theories Lucretius was putting forth and though ideologically some have missed the mark some still remain curiosities for many. I did find it interesting to learn however that Lucretius was mainly translating the ideas of Epicurus into Latin and that subsequently some of the greek words surrounding different schools of philosophy were lost in their Latin translation. Even more curious is the Epicurean's rejection of the ideology that all gods are happy and that one should fear death or disfavor from the gods but still choosing to make Epicurus a divine figure. So many of the texts we have read now speak about the influence of the gods on the environment in which the Greeks lived so it was odd to read a text that rejects the notion of divine involvement and instead speaks to human's ability to make choices.