56 /-18 to /-21
he has been criticized by many, and you [Epicureans] cannot find a way
out. The whole theory wobbles and limps. For what could be less plausible
than that my mind is struck by images of Homer, Archilochus, Romulus,
Numa, Pythagoras, and Plato, let alone by images faithful to the original
people! So how do those people [come to my mind]? And whose images
are these? Aristotle holds that the poet Orpheus never existed and the
Pythagoreans claim that the surviving Orphic poem was written by a
certain Cercon. But Orpheus, i.e., on your theory his image, often comes
into my mind. 108. And what about the fact that your mind and mine
receive different images of the same man? What about the fact that we
get images of things which never existed at all and never could have,
like Scylla and Charybdis? What about the fact that we get images of
people, places, and cities which we have never seen? What about the fact
that an image is instantly available as soon as I feel like it? What about
the fact that images come unbidden, even to those who are asleep. Velleius'
whole theory is nonsense! But you [Epicureans] impose these images not
just on our eyes, but on our minds too-that's how recklessly you blather
on! 109. And how careless it is. 'There is a steady succession of flowing
visual images so that the many produce the appearance of one.' I would
be ashamed to admit that I don't understand this, if you yourselves, who
defend this stuff, really understood it. For how do you prove that the
images move continuously, or if they do move continuously, how are
they eternal? 'The infinity of atoms keeps the supply up,' he says. So
does the same 'infinity of atoms' make everything eternal? You take
refuge in 'equal distribution' (let us use this term for isonomia, if you
will) and say that, since there exists a mortal nature, there must also
exist an immortal nature. By that reasoning, since men are mortal, there
should be some immortal men too, and since they are born on land, they
should also be born in water. 'And because there are forces of destruction,
there must also be forces of preservation.' Of course there are. But they
preserve things which exist; but I don't think those gods exist. 110.
Anyway, how do all your images of things arise from the atomic bodies?
Even if they existed, which they don't, they might perhaps bump into
each other and be shaken up by their collisions; but they could not impart
form, shape, colour, and life. Therefore you [Epicureans] utterly fail to
show that there is an immortal god.
Tusculan Disputations 3.41-42 [1-19]
- ... Are these your words, [Epicurus,] or not? In the book which
sums up your entire teaching you say this (and here I merely translate,
so that no one will think that I am making this up): "Nor do I know