Tidbits from Epicurus's own 'readers' digest version of his philosophy of science:

[capri0mni]

In my previous post, I wrote:

The more I see of Moffat's writing, the more I'm convinced he's an Epicurean philosopher -- and not in the "Iron Chef" sort of way. I approve.

And I realized that, although I was familiar with some of the basic ideas of Epicurean thought, it's been a long time since I've read any words actually ascribed to him or his followers. So I went a-hunting. And here are the passages that made me go: "A-Hah! Yes!" [/voice=Eleventh Doctor] in my head:

(From Letter to Menoeceus. [this is the bit that I'm reminded of most by Moffat's writings])

The wise man does not deprecate life nor does he fear the cessation of life. The thought of life is no offense to him, nor is the cessation of life regarded as an evil. And even as men choose of food not merely and simply the larger portion, but the more pleasant, so the wise seek to enjoy the time which is most pleasant and not merely that which is longest.

(From Letter to Herodotus [outlining his philosophy on natural science]):

The atoms are in continual motion through all eternity. Some of them rebound to a considerable distance from each other, while others merely oscillate in one place when they chance to have got entangled or to be enclosed by a mass of other atoms shaped for entangling.

Moreover, there is an infinite number of worlds, some like this world, others unlike it. For the atoms being infinite in number, as has just been proved, are borne ever further in their course. For the atoms out of which a world might arise, or by which a world might be formed, have not all been expended on one world or a finite number of worlds, whether like or unlike this one. Hence there will be nothing to hinder an infinity of worlds.

[W]e are bound to believe that in the sky revolutions, solstices, eclipses, risings and settings, and the like, take place without the ministration or command, either now or in the future, of any being who it the same time enjoys perfect bliss along with immortality. For troubles and anxieties and feelings of anger and partiality do not accord with bliss, but always imply weakness and fear and dependence upon one's neighbors.

(Aside: Epicurus believed in the actual reality of the gods. He just didn't believe the myths -- especially the ones that painted them as just as troubled as we are.)

(From Letter to Pythocles):

The rainbow arises when the sun shines upon humid air; or again by a certain peculiar blending of light with air, which will cause either all the distinctive qualities of these colors or else some of them belonging to a single kind, and from the reflection of this light the air all around will be colored as we see it to be, as the sun shines upon its parts. The circular shape which it assumes is due to the fact that the distance of every point is perceived by our sight to be equal; or it may be because, the atoms in the air or in the clouds and deriving from the sun having been thus united, the aggregate of them presents a sort of roundness.

Lightning too happens in a variety of ways. For when the clouds rub against each other and collide, that collocation of atoms which is the cause of fire generates lightning; or it may be due to the flashing forth from the clouds, by reason of winds, of particles capable of producing this brightness; or else it is squeezed out of the clouds when they have been condensed either by their own action or by that of the winds...

Comments

[pebblerocker]

I read about the Epicureans in a book of philosophy not long ago. It's amazing how accurate their science sounds to us! But since they were guessing just as much as anyone else, and had no way to prove what atoms and light actually do, was it just coincidence?

[capri0mni]

Well, in his letter to Pythocles, Epicurus basically admits he's just guessing when it comes to lightning, listing 4 or 5 different possible mechanisms by which lightning might occur. But the central points he was making (and the reason he's taught in modern philosophy classes, instead of physics classes), are that:

First, if you study the physical world closely, with all the senses and tools available to you (including, and perhaps even especially, your imaginative senses), and pay attention to what you learn from those observations (including your emotional responses), the idea that the world is made up of infinite, infinitesimal, particles* just makes a lot more sense than thinking of the world as made up of just four elements (Fire, Earth, Water, Air). Because, dammit, the world is just so much more complex and entangled and messy than that. So even though they were guessing, the guesses were all based on direct observation, and not taking received assumptions as given -- not exactly science as we understand it today, but maybe one step closer. This is what Epicurus learned and latched onto when he learned Democritus' atomism philosophy.

Second, if you accept that the world is made of atoms, you can explain phenomena of the world without blaming it on angry gods. That's why he's not too concerned over which lightning theory is correct; it's enough to know that Zeus is not out to get you because you've broken a rule you didn't even know existed.

Third, if you accept that the world is made of atoms, the logical conclusion is that the soul does not survive the body after death (it was the Doctor's speech to the Half-Face man in "Deep Breath" that convinced me Moffat is a Neo-Epicurean).

Fourth, if you accept the soul does not continue after death, than death is nothing to be afraid of -- 'cause the person who's died has no way to know she or he is dead: you can never be afraid or in pain if you don't exist.

Fifth, if there is no life after death, for either good or ill, you must accept that this is the only life we get. So take responsibility and make it the best one you can: look after your health, do things that make you happy, steer clear of debts, and cultivate healthy, balanced friendships. And, as when you visit a park, do what you can to leave this world a little bit nicer than when you found it, so that the people who come after you can have a pleasant life, too.

Again, Moffat's professed bafflement at why people think the ending of "Angels Take Manhattan" is tragic, and hate him for it, is another Epicurean trait. "Everybody knows that everybody dies." But before they died, Amy and Rory got to live a long, happy, and loving life together. I think what makes the Weeping Angels so terrible, in his mind, is not that they kill you, but that they force you to live out the rest of your life in isolation from all your friends and family. So when Amy turned her back on the Weeping Angel, and got reunited with Rory (as evidenced by the engraving on their tombstone), she defeated them.

*Since Epicurus taught that atoms were indivisible, he'd probably argue that what we call "atoms" is a misnomer. I think the theoretical quantum superstrings are a lot closer to the idea he's talking about.