Read the words of Flavius. When Eodan claims that a Power has been with him, Flavius responds:
"'So you may think. But what educated man can take seriously those overgrown children on Olympus?...
"'I myself do not believe in any Power except chance.'" (p. 110)
But there is a Temple of Fortuna in Rome!
"'There are blind moieties of matter, obeying blind laws; only the idiot hand of chance keeps each cycle of centuries from being the same.'" (pp. 110-111)
A modern man in the Roman Republic! We basically agree with him. By "we," I mean the editorial position of this blog, by which I mean, "I." But we would express ourselves differently. Blindness is a defect in a member of a normally sighted species but it is inappropriate to apply the adjective "blind" to inanimate matter - except as a way to affirm that the motions of such matter are not consciously directed, which is what Flavius is doing.
Although some human beings are seen to be "idiots" when compared with more intelligent persons, chance is not idiotic because there is no question of its being intelligent. However, we can again agree with Flavius' underlying thesis that matter is not intelligently directed. If the gods did exist, then they also would have emerged from "blind," "idiot" Chaos. At least, the Olympian's grandfather, Uranus, did whereas Odin's grandfather emerged from pre-cosmic ice.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I agree with Flavius in dismissing with contempt the pagan gods. I disagree with his belief that "blind" chance rules all things. And I disagree that the universe somehow blindly popped into existence without a Creator who created the cosmos at the big bang.
Ad astra! Sean
"A modern man in the Roman Republic!"
Or is modernity essentially due to the rediscovery of Lucretius?
That is to a large extent the thesis of this book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swerve
Kaor, Jim!
What we are pleased to call "modernity" had far more complex origins, as Anderson discussed with nuance in IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS. Among other factors, a true science arose from the Christian belief that God respects His own laws.
Ad astra! Sean
It didn't.
PA argued that several factors combined to generate science. As I remember his argument, important inputs to scientific method were: the remnants of Roman engineering; Germanic pragmatism (not being afraid to get your hands dirty as slave owners would have been); logical hair-splitting refined by Scholastics for theological/philosophical argumentation. Logic is independent of content. The idea of an orderly universe would obviously have helped. We can see that one aspect of science could have led to others, starting, although not ending, with Greek speculations about material substances and atoms.
Saying modernity is due to the rediscovery of Lucretius would be at best an exaggeration. Saying Lucretius was an important contributor to the development of scientific thinking seems plausible to me.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: You omitted how the Greeks, with rare exceptions, were more interested in abstract theorizing which led nowhere. A point Anderson made.
Jim: I would have to read up on Lucretius, but I doubt his poem had much influence on the rise of a true science between 1200-1600.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course the Greeks preferred abstract theorizing. That's what I meant by slave owners not wanting to get their hands dirty. Greek natural philosophy (Thales) and analytic philosophy (Socrates) were two of the several inputs into what eventually became empirical science.
Paul.
Post a Comment