The central thesis of this paper is that Epicurus held that swerves of the constituent atoms of agents' minds cause the agents' volitions from the bottom up. "De Rerum Natura" 2.216-93 is examined at length, and Lucretius is found to be making the following claims: both atoms and macroscopic bodies sometimes swerve as they fall, but so minimally that they are undetectable. Swerves are oblique deviations, not right-angled turns. Swerves must be posited to account both for cosmogonic collisions quite generally (...) and for every "free volition," including those of animals. All volitions are fresh starts of macroscopic motion, caused by that "something in our chests" which later philosophers would call 'the faculty of will.' Since nothing can come to be from nothing, volitions must be caused from the bottom up by swerves, fresh starts in the mind's atoms motions caused by the atoms' inherent swerviness. This is what Lucretius is saying, and what Epicurus had to say in order to defend both libertarianism and atomism. Modern scholars are wrong, then, in rejecting the interpretation of Guissani and Bailey, which was crudely stated, but substantively correct. The rival interpretations of Furley, Fowler, and Englert do not do justice to Epicurus' libertarianism, and that of Sedley does not do justice to his atomism, which entails universal bottom-up causation. Epicurus did not himself draw much attention to his positive doctrine of the swerve, preferring to emphasize the untenability of the deterministic alternative. The notoriety of the doctrine in Cicero's day is due primarily to Chrysippus, who insisted that swerves cannot occur, since they would be 'uncaused' motions, and secondarily to Carneades and Zeno of Sidon. (shrink)

My dissertation is concerned with Epicurus' attempt to reconcile libertarianism and atomism. I begin by offering my solution to 'the problem of the swerve,' arguing that Lucretius is claiming that swerves cause volitions 'from the bottom up' and that the attempts of scholars to construct a better position for Epicurus to have held were doomed to fail, since this is the only position open to the libertarian atomist. ;I also examine the swerve's role in cosmogony, arguing that 'the cosmogonic argument' (...) for the swerve is an afterthought, 'the libertarian argument' being Epicurus' chief argument for the swerve. ;I discuss the physics of the swerve as a minimal, oblique deviation of an atom from its course. And I explore its implications: atoms move at a speed greater than one minimal unit of distance per minimal unit of time, and there are no minimal units of space. ;Returning to the question of the swerve's role in action, I argue that a typical action involves a series of volitions each caused by a plurality of swerves by atoms of the mind's 'fourth nature.' And I argue that one's power to move at will is directly sensed, though also known through one's innate $\pi\rho\acute{o}\lambda\eta\psi\iota\varsigma$ of one's freedom. ;In the second half of my dissertation, I turn to the question of responsibility. I examine Epicurus' remarks about 'what is due to us' . I examine Epicurus' argument that Democriteans are self-refuting in espousing determinism and 'eliminative materialism.' I explain that Epicurus rejects only Democritus' ontology, not his epistemology . I examine Epicurus' discussion in On Nature of our 'notion of responsibility' , our responsibility as $\alpha\pi o\gamma\varepsilon\gamma\varepsilon\nu\nu\eta\mu\acute \varepsilon\nu\alpha$ , and our responsibility for our thoughts of the $\tau\acute\varepsilon\lambda o\varsigma$ and 'the criterion' . I explain what Epicurus means by the $\tau\acute\varepsilon\lambda o\varsigma$: pleasure, "katastematic" and "kinetic" . And finally, I argue that Epicurus fails to meet the challenge of 'psychological determinism'. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 1':'3 for an integrated life (197). But he does not mention that for Plato the desire for knowledge and understanding, drawn to its objects, the Forms, is part of what accounts for this compulsion and its intensity. Listening to the Cicadas is an outstanding example of a philosophically sensitive, literary reading of a Platonic dialogue. Ferrari writes demandingly but beautifully, and his dialectical reading often has just (...) the effect he desires, to draw the reader into the Phaedrus's world. In addition, he is familiar with contemporary moral philosophy, moral psychology, and philosophy of action, and employs notions from Williams, Frankfurt, and others in sensible and helpful ways. The book should be accessible to a wide audience; the Greek is transliterated and translated, with virtually all technical discussion confined to notes. But although the series in which the book appears is well known to specialists in classics and classical philosophy, it is probably not familiar to philosophers generally and literary theorists. This is unfortunate, for Ferrari's work is an important one for all of these audiences. Micn^~t. L. MORCAN Indiana University, Bloomington Walter G. Englert. Epicurus on the Swerve and Voluntary Action. American Philological Assocation. American Classical Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Pp. x + 215. Cloth, $~ 1-95. Paper, $1 ~-95Though he has fallen from top billing (Aristotle and Epicurus on Voluntary. Action was the work's original title as a x981 Stanford dissertation), Aristotle has retained his prominence in Englert's only slightly revised text. Englert's thesis, in fact, is that the Epicurean "swerve was first developed in response to Aristotelian challenges to atomism in cosmology, physics, psychology, and physiology, and in particular, was meant to be the atomic equivalent of Aristotle's sumphuton pneuma in Epicurus's analysis of the voluntary actions of all living creatures" (145). My skepticism toward this assertion is based not so much on the doubtful availability of Aristotelian texts to Hellenistic philosophers (though Englert's depiction of Epicurus responding to specific passages of the De caelo, Physics, and De motu animalium certainly invites this objection) as on the following considerations: (a) Englert's Epicurus posits weight as an atomic property to counter Aristotle's objection that Democritean atoms have no natural motion with which forced motion might contrast. But why would Epicurus think Aristotle's objection any more forceful than we do? If Epicurus insists that atoms fall down, it is not from a metaphysical conviction that every body must have a natural locomotive tendency, but because of his empirical observation that things in fact fall. (b) Englert's Epicurus, casting about for a third cause of motion besides collisions and weight, stumbles upon Aristotle's description of "the accidental" (to sumbebekos) as an event without definite cause happening at an indeterminate time and place, and conceives of the swerve. But the similarity of the two doctrines is entirely superficial. The accident, for Aristotle, is the nonessential: man is not pale by nature, for instance, 124 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 28"1 JANUARY 1990 but "by accident," e.g., if he happens to stay indoors. If there is an analogue for this in Epicurus, it's in his notion ofsuraptomata. But what has this to do with the swerve? (c) Finally, Englert's Epicurus posits the swerve as an atomistic adaptation of the workings of Aristotle's sumphuton pneuma. (Does this mean the pneuma's motion is accidental? The relation of this thesis to the last is unclear.) The analogy of the expanding pneuma and the swerving atom is supposed to be that both are physical bodies whose motion marks a more or less "fresh start," breaking the otherwise deterministic causal chain. More or less? Englert speaks of a "delicate balance" in Aristotle's account "between a purely passive causal sequence" (from the stimulus of phantasia to the agent's response) and a "sequence involving a completely new beginning of motion" (93)- But what is this balance if not Stoic compatibilism, an endless causal chain balanced against the ascription of responsibility for personal initiative? Is Aristotle then a proto-Stoic? That is, does Aristotle believe that stimulus plus character determines response? Englert wants to say... (shrink)