Accueil
https://jonathandavidgarner.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ancient-philosopher-lucretius-epistemology-of-empiricism/
"Book 4 moves the focus to the soul’s powers.
4.26–215. Lucretius starts by setting out the theory of simulacra—atom-thin and lightning-fast ‘images’ that stream from the surfaces of solid objects (or sometimes form spontaneously in mid air) and enter the eyes or mind to cause vision and visualization.
4.216–1059. The basic theory is then applied to sense-perception, and above all to vision and visualization, including dreams. (The non-visual senses are addressed too, even though, technically speaking, they rely not on simulacra but either on direct contact with their object or on other kinds of effluence.) Lucretius devotes a substantial section to describing optical illusions, which his atomic theory claims to be able to account for without sacrificing its fundamental position that it is never the senses that lie, only our interpretations of their data. Indeed, he defends this latter Epicurean paradox by deploying a classic self-refutation argument against the sceptical alternative: to deny that we have access to knowledge through the senses (its only possible entry route) is a philosophical stance that disqualifies its own adherents by depriving them of any possible grounds for its assertion (4.469–521).
Although cognitive mechanisms provide the main focus, a variety of other animal functions, including nutrition and locomotion, are covered by this part of the book. Among the gems is a digression attacking the teleologists’ mode of physiological explanation (4.823–57). To explain bodily limbs and organs on the model of artefacts, as divinely created for the sake of their use, is a misapplication of the craft-nature analogy. Artefacts were invented for the better fulfilment of functions that already existed in nature—cups to facilitate drinking, beds to improve sleep, weapons for more effective fighting. No analogous story can be told about e.g., the eye being created for seeing, because before there were eyes there was no such function as seeing."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lucretius/#Phy
"For Lucretius, an encounter with a physical bodyis distinct from an encounter with the simulacrum of the same body. Thereis an irreducible difference between bodies and their images as well asbetween things in themselves and the perceptions of these things. In short,sense perception and imagination necessarily involve imitations or simula-cra. Desire, in turn, is rarely (if ever) fulfilled due to this frustrating distinc-tion between an object of desire and its simulacrum. In this sense, Lucretiusforegrounds the alienation and disappointment involved in desire, an alter-native to idealizing accounts of love. And crucially, in this account of natureand perception, Lucretius privileges neither the body nor the simulacrumof the body. Accordingly, for so many of Hock’s poets,De rerum naturaoffersa powerful critique of idealism, particularly Renaissance Platonism and Neo-platonism. Moreover, for Lucretius, body and simulacrum alike belong tonature. Poetry and other representative endeavors deal in simulacra. Thus,poetry is not a derivative exercise that is separate from a more primary orideal nature. In a real sense, poetry and language alike pertain directly tonature, reinforcing the importance of the medium ofDe rerum natura,soimportant to early modern readers."
-Russ Leo, "Jessie Hock, The Erotics of Materialism. Lucretius and Early Modern Poetics", Modern Philology 2022 120:2, E33-E36.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/36444516_Lucretius_and_the_History_of_Science
https://classics.washington.edu/events/2017-03-02/materialist-theories-perception-belief-gods-and-question-centaurs-lucretius-and
"Book 4 moves the focus to the soul’s powers.
4.26–215. Lucretius starts by setting out the theory of simulacra—atom-thin and lightning-fast ‘images’ that stream from the surfaces of solid objects (or sometimes form spontaneously in mid air) and enter the eyes or mind to cause vision and visualization.
4.216–1059. The basic theory is then applied to sense-perception, and above all to vision and visualization, including dreams. (The non-visual senses are addressed too, even though, technically speaking, they rely not on simulacra but either on direct contact with their object or on other kinds of effluence.) Lucretius devotes a substantial section to describing optical illusions, which his atomic theory claims to be able to account for without sacrificing its fundamental position that it is never the senses that lie, only our interpretations of their data. Indeed, he defends this latter Epicurean paradox by deploying a classic self-refutation argument against the sceptical alternative: to deny that we have access to knowledge through the senses (its only possible entry route) is a philosophical stance that disqualifies its own adherents by depriving them of any possible grounds for its assertion (4.469–521).
Although cognitive mechanisms provide the main focus, a variety of other animal functions, including nutrition and locomotion, are covered by this part of the book. Among the gems is a digression attacking the teleologists’ mode of physiological explanation (4.823–57). To explain bodily limbs and organs on the model of artefacts, as divinely created for the sake of their use, is a misapplication of the craft-nature analogy. Artefacts were invented for the better fulfilment of functions that already existed in nature—cups to facilitate drinking, beds to improve sleep, weapons for more effective fighting. No analogous story can be told about e.g., the eye being created for seeing, because before there were eyes there was no such function as seeing."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lucretius/#Phy
"For Lucretius, an encounter with a physical bodyis distinct from an encounter with the simulacrum of the same body. Thereis an irreducible difference between bodies and their images as well asbetween things in themselves and the perceptions of these things. In short,sense perception and imagination necessarily involve imitations or simula-cra. Desire, in turn, is rarely (if ever) fulfilled due to this frustrating distinc-tion between an object of desire and its simulacrum. In this sense, Lucretiusforegrounds the alienation and disappointment involved in desire, an alter-native to idealizing accounts of love. And crucially, in this account of natureand perception, Lucretius privileges neither the body nor the simulacrumof the body. Accordingly, for so many of Hock’s poets,De rerum naturaoffersa powerful critique of idealism, particularly Renaissance Platonism and Neo-platonism. Moreover, for Lucretius, body and simulacrum alike belong tonature. Poetry and other representative endeavors deal in simulacra. Thus,poetry is not a derivative exercise that is separate from a more primary orideal nature. In a real sense, poetry and language alike pertain directly tonature, reinforcing the importance of the medium ofDe rerum natura,soimportant to early modern readers."
-Russ Leo, "Jessie Hock, The Erotics of Materialism. Lucretius and Early Modern Poetics", Modern Philology 2022 120:2, E33-E36.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/36444516_Lucretius_and_the_History_of_Science
https://classics.washington.edu/events/2017-03-02/materialist-theories-perception-belief-gods-and-question-centaurs-lucretius-and
