Two Studies in the Greek Atomists (STUDY I: Invisible Magnitudes)(STUDY II: Aristotle and Epicurus on Voluntary Action).

From the library of Prof. Wolfgang Haase, long-time editor of ANRW and the International Journal of the Classical Tradition (IJCT). - Pencil inscription on endpapers and light rubbings, otherwise in good condition. - Content: The world-picture of the ancient Greeks was not a matter of common agreement but was the subject of energetic controversy through several centuries. Many different cosmologies were defended and rejected. But in the course of time the hitherto scattered conflicts began to resolve themselves into a struggle between two parties, which we may label �Atomists� and �Aristotelians.� As in the political struggle in modern democracies, the parties were able to accommodate some varieties of opinion, and could even borrow each other�s doctrines when the occasion demanded it. The borrowings, however, were not so heavy that the essential differences were obscured. Broadly speaking, the Atomists defended the atomic theory of matter, mechanical causation, the infinity of the universe, the plurality of worlds, and the transience of our world. The Aristotelians defended the continuous theory of matter, the supremacy of final causes, the finite universe, and the uniqueness and eternity of our world. The Atomist party, although in many ways it could claim descent from Empedocles and Anaxagoras, first attained its identity at the end of the fifth century, with Leucippus and Democritus ; their cause was taken up at the end of the fourth century by Epicurus, and again in Roman times by Lucretius. The opposite party consisted of Plato, Aristotle and his pupils, and the Stoics. The crucial area of the struggle lay in Aristotle�s attacks upon the Atomists and the Epicureans� attempts to rebut his critical arguments. The echoes of this battle were heard from time to time in medieval Europe, and it flared up again with great intensity in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is one of the most important parts of the legacy of classical thought. Yet it may be doubted whether it has been satisfactorily treated by classical scholars, who have rarely attempted to examine the conflict as a whole, and have often lost sight of it altogether, particularly in dealing with the Epicureans. This book does not contain the comprehensive history of this struggle that should some day be written, but only two preliminary studies. They are on unrelated subjects, and the only excuse for combining them is that they are both connected with the same theme. Both aim to explain difficult features of Epicureanism by viewing them as attempts to rebut or accommodate some arguments of Aristotle. They will be successful if they provoke others to take up this theme until perhaps between us we make it clear.Much of the work connected with this book has been done in the Institute of Classical Studies in the University of London, and I wish to express my gratitude to the staff for providing such a pleasant and convenient place to work. The University of Minnesota helped me when I was a Visiting Lecturer there by leaving me with a generous amount of leisure for my researches. I have had generous help from friends. Parts of this book have been read by Mr. M. F. Burnyeat, Dr. A. R. Lacey, Mr. I. R. D. Mathewson, Professor Otto Skutsch, and Professor T. B. L. Webster; I am most grateful for their critical comments, which have enabled me to correct many deficiencies. Professor G. E. L. Owen has given me much help and stimulus, both by his invaluable publications and by his swift and unerring dialectic. I am particularly grateful to Professor Gregory Vlastos for his constant encouragement and interest, and for his helpful criticisms of my manuscript. He has given much time to discussing it with me, and it has profited greatly from his comments. I am entirely responsible, of course, for the thesis of these two essays and for all the mistakes which remain. I wish to record my gratitude to the Princeton University Press, which has shown me great consideration, and particularly to Mrs. Dorothy Hollmann for the careful attention she has given to the production of this book.