The Testimony of Lucretius 63
they are afraid that if we believe that friendship is to be pursued for the
sake of our own pleasure, all of friendship might seem to be crippled.
So they say that people first meet, pair up, and desire to form associations
for the sake of pleasure, but that when increasing experience [of each
other] has produced the sense of a personal bond, then love flowers to
such a degree that even if there is no utility to be gained from the
friendship the friends themselves are still loved for their own sake. Indeed,
if we typically come to love certain locations, temples, cities, gymnasia,
playing fields, dogs, horses, public games (whether with gladiators or
animals) just because of familiarity, how much easier and more fitting is
it for this to happen in the case of human familiarity?- There are also those who say that there is a kind of agreement
between wise men, to the effect that they will not cherish their friends
less than themselves. We know that this can happen, and that it often
does happen; and it is obvious that nothing can be discovered which
would be more effective for the production of a pleasant life than this
sort of association.
From all of these considerations one can draw the conclusion that not
only is the case of friendship not undermined if the highest good is
located in pleasure, but also that without this no firm basis for friendship
could possibly be discovered.
The Testimony of Lucretius
The Epicurean Lucretius (first century B.c.) wrote an epic poem On
the Nature of Things in six books. It should be read in its entirety as
crucial evidence for Epicureanism. But two extracts are of particular
importance and so are included here.On the Nature of Things: 4.469-499 [1-27]
Moreover, if someone thinks that he knows nothing, he also does not
know whether this can be known, since he admits that he knows nothing.
So I shall not bother to argue with him, since he is standing on his head
already. But nevertheless, conceding that he does know this, I would also
ask the following question: since he has never before seen anything true
in the world, how does he know what it is to know and what it is not
to know? What could have created the conceptions of truth and falsity,
and what could have proven that the doubtful is distinct from what is
certain? You will discover that the conception of truth was originally
created by the senses, and that the senses cannot be refuted. For one