Au livre XXV du Peri physeos, épicure met en œuvre une critique de Démocrite, l’accusant de s’ignorer lui-même et de soutenir une doctrine qui entre en contradiction avec ses actes. Pour Épicure, l’existence même de l’éloge et du blâme signifie que l’homme doit être considéré comme assumant, au moins partiellement, la responsabilité de son caractère acquis, de ses pensées et de ses actes. Le livre XXV du Peri physeos, pourtant, loin de prendre ses distances vis-à-vis de l’éthique de Démocrite, doit (...) être considéré comme un retour aux sources démocritéennes par Épicure et ce, par-delà les successeurs de Démocrite. L’étude des fragments et témoignages concernant Démocrite suggère en effet qu’il soutenait à la fois la thèse d’une constitution de l’âme exclusivement atomistique et la possibilité d’une transformation de l’âme par l’homme. On peut en conclure que ce n’est pas tant la perspective démocritéenne que rejette Épicure que la radicalisation déterministe effectuée par les démocritéens de la deuxième ou troisième génération. L’enjeu est donc pour Épicure, en restant fidèle à la physique et à l’éthique démocritéennes originelles, d’apporter des éléments qui permettent de justifier leur compatibilité au sein d’un même système, ce que Démocrite avait sans doute omis de faire. (shrink)

'Reason, Causation and Compatibility with the Phenomena' strives to give answers to the philosophical problem of the interplay between realism, explanation and experience. This book is a compilation of essays that recollect significant conceptions of rival terms such as determinism and freedom, reason and appearance, power and knowledge. This title discusses the progress made in epistemology and natural philosophy, especially the steps that led from the ancient theory of atomism to the modern quantum theory, and from mathematization to analytic philosophy. (...) Moreover, it provides possible gateways from modern deadlocks of theory either through approaches to consciousness or through historical critique of intellectual authorities. This work will be of interest to those either researching or studying in colleges and universities, especially in the departments of philosophy, history of science, philosophy of science, philosophy of physics and quantum mechanics, history of ideas and culture. Greek and Latin Literature students and instructors may also find this book to be both a fascinating and valuable point of reference. (shrink)

A fairly long (~15,000 word) overview of ancient theories of freedom and determinism. It covers the supposed threat of causal determinism to "free will," i.e., the sort of control we need to have in order to be rightly held responsible for our actions. But it also discusses fatalistic arguments that proceed from the Principle of Bivalence, what responsibility we have for our own characters, and god and fate. Philosophers discussed include Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, Carneades, Alexander of Aphrodisias, and Plotinus. (...) Plato is mentioned in passing a few times in connection with other philosophers. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to identify the upholders of the thesis reported by Plutarch, De Stoicorum repugnantiis 23, aimed to reject Stoic determinism. A brief introduction will be devoted to the relationship between this text and the more general context of the Stoic philosophy. Then, I will take into account the objection against Stoic determinism raised by some anonymous philosophers: according to it, causal determinism would be inconsistent with the choice among indistinguishables. Chrysippus replied that if that choice (...) were not determined, it would occur without causes; and this would be absurd. Then I will summarize the most likely hypotheses about the identification of Chrysippus’ opponents, and I will opt for Academics. Finally, I will try to conjecture the link between Plutarch’s passage and the debate among Stoics and Academics about indistinguishables, as we know it from other sources. (shrink)

This paper argues that Epicurus held a non-reductionist view of mental states that is in the spirit of Davidson's anomalous monism. We argue for this conclusion by considering the role that normative descriptions play in the peritropē argument from "On Nature" 25. However, we also argue that Epicurus was an indeterminist. We can know that atoms swerve because we can know that we make choices that are up to us and this is incompatible with the ancestral causal determination of mental (...) states by atomic processes. Epicurus escapes the traditional criticism of indeterminist libertarians because the swerve is not meant to explain how choices may be free. The anti-reductionist stance on the mental means that nothing about atomic processes could possibly explain any particular mental event. Moreover, because of the practical and therapeutic nature of Epicurean philosophy, it is not necessary that Epicurus provide an explanation of how the swerve subserves freedom of choice. We know all that we need to know for eudaimonia when we know that some choices are up to us. (shrink)