An Archaeology of Disbelief : The Origin of Secular Philosophy

218 Pages·2018·1.06 MB·English

by  Edward Jayne

An Archaeology of Disbelief
The Origin of Secular Philosophy
Edward Jayne
EDITEDBYELAINEANDERSONJAYNE
HamiltonBooks
Lanham•Boulder•NewYork•Toronto•Plymouth,UK
Copyright©2018byHamiltonBooks
4501ForbesBoulevard,Suite200,Lanham,Maryland20706
HamiltonBooksAcquisitionsDepartment(301)459-3366
UnitA,WhitacreMews,26-34StannaryStreet,
LondonSE114AB,UnitedKingdom
Allrightsreserved
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationInformationAvailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017955105
ISBN:978-0-7618-6966-5(cloth:alk.paper)—ISBN:978-0-7618-6967-2(electronic)
TMThepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsofAmerican
NationalStandardforInformationSciencesPermanenceofPaperforPrintedLibrary
Materials,ANSI/NISOZ39.48-1992.
ToElaine
Withoutherhelpthisbookwouldnothavebeenpossible

Contents
Preface vii
I. ix
II. xi
Introduction xiii
I.AnEconomicExplanation xiv
II.LossofTextualEvidence xv
III.FiveSecularistsWhoSurvived xvii
1 ThePre-SocraticPhilosophers 1
I.Thales(CA.624-546BC) 2
II.Anaximander(CA.610–546BC) 4
III.Anaximenes(CA.585-528BC) 6
IV.Xenophanes(CA.570–475BC) 7
V.PherecydesofSyros(CA.580-520BC) 9
VI.PythagorasandthePythagoreans(CA.570-495BC) 10
VII.Heraclitus(CA.540-480BC) 15
VIII.Parmenides(CA.515-450BC) 20
IX.ZenoofElea(CA.490–430BC) 22
X.MelissusofSamos(wonseabattlein441BC) 24
XI.Empedocles(CA.492–432BC) 26
XII.Anaxagoras(CA.500–428BC) 29
XIII.DiogenesofApollonia(CA.425BC) 34
XIV.Leucippus(CA.early5thcenturyBC) 36
XV.Democritus(CA.460–370BC) 40
XVI.FinalConsiderations 46
2 PlatoandtheAgeofPericles 53
I.Sophists 53
v
vi Contents
II.Protagoras(c.490-420BC) 56
III.Socrates(469-339BC) 57
IV.Plato(427–347BC) 59
3 EarlyAristotle(384-322BC) 67
I.ComparisonwithPlato 70
II.ChristianInterpolations 74
III.Physics 76
IV.Metaphysics 81
4 LateAristotle 87
I.DeCaelo(OnTheHeavens) 87
II.OnGenerationandCorruption 95
III.DeAnima(OntheSoul) 99
IV.NicomacheanEthics 106
V.Afterword 107
5 TheLyceumafterAristotle 111
I.Theophrastus(CA.371-287BC) 113
II.StratoofLampsacus(CA.335-287BC) 117
6 TheEpicureans 127
I.Epicurus(341-270BC) 127
II.Lucretius(CA.99-55BC) 134
7 Skepticism 147
I.Pyrrho(CA.360-270BC) 149
II.Arcesilaus(CA.316-241BC) 151
III.Carneades(214-128BC) 154
8 Cicero(106-43B.C.) 161
I.Academica 162
II.OntheNatureoftheGods 166
Epilogue 177
Notes 183
SelectiveBibliography 185
I.PrimaryTexts 185
II.SecondaryTexts 186
Index 189
Preface
SocrateswasexecutedforatheisminAthens,andotherancientphilosophers
such as Theophrastus and even Aristotle were confronted by the same pos-
sibility. Several centuries later many libraries seem to have been destroyed
by fire in order to eradicate all texts suggestive of secular philosophy, and
still later medieval Christian scribes and scholars resorted to textual censor-
shipwithcomparableresults.Suchextremeshaveofcoursebeenabandoned
since the Renaissance, but modern classical scholarship has effectively sus-
tained this dubious effort by ignoring or deemphasizing the materialist per-
spective of ancient secularists such as Democritus, Strato, Carneades and
evenAristotledespiteampletextualevidencetothecontrary.
At the turn of the twentieth century, the eminent classicist John Burnet
wentsofarastoexplainthattheprimaryachievementofearlyGreekphilos-
ophers consisted of “the faith that reality is divine” in the shared “effort to
satisfywhatwecallthereligiousinstinct.”1Ineffectheproposedthatancient
Greek philosophy served as an early version of religion dedicated to the
concept of existence as a product of one or more gods. The no less eminent
scholar, W.K.C. Guthrie, apparently shared this assumption as suggested by
hisreluctancetoacknowledgesecularanalysis.Hisfive-volumeset,AHisto-
ryofGreekPhilosophy,providesanoutstandinghistoricalanalysisofancient
classical philosophy, but his convictions as a lay minister at his college
chapel may have biased his analysis more than he realized. This tendency
seems likely, for example, when he suggested the possibility of shared am-
bivalence toward religious belief by both of the pre-Socratic philosophers,
ParmenidesandMelissus:
AgainstthosewhospeakofmysticismandproofsoftheexistenceofGod,itis
necessarytopointoutthat,evenifParmenidesandMelissusretained,almost
vii
viii Preface
automatically,thislegacyfromearlierthought,theirremainsshowthatitwas
oflittleimportancetothem.2
In simpler terms, religion was presumably retained by both philosophers
at least as common assumptions otherwise of little importance later in their
lives. Guthrie could obscure the religious disbelief of Melissus, as indicated
inapassagequotedbyDiogenesLaertiusinLivesofEminentPhilosophers:
Moreover,he[Melissus]saidthatweoughtnottomakeanystatementsabout
thegods,foritwasimpossibletohaveknowledgeofthem.”3
Thiswasasuccinctadmissionofagnosticism--ifnotatheism--andinfact
it anticipated the viewpoint of modern logical positivists including Bertrand
Russell,Guthrie’scolleagueatCambridge.
In contrast, Theodor Gomperz, the eminent Austrian classicist who lived
atthesame time as Burnet seemsto havesuggestedthelikelihood of Melis-
sus’impietywhenheaccusedhimofaninexcusabletransgression,butwith-
outgoingsofarastoidentifyit:
Gravefallaciesmustbelaidtohischarge,butthereisnottheleastgroundto
imputetohimanydeliberateimpostureoranydeceptionsavethedeceptionof
himself.4
Grave fallacies indeed! One can only suppose that Melissus’ refusal to
concede the necessary existence of gods was considered so extreme that it
had to be ignored except as an unspeakable transgression. Unfortunately,
however, this avoidance that Gomperz shared with Burnet and Guthrie
servedtoobscurethepivotalsignificanceofMelissus’primaryassumption—
the recognition that the combination of spatial and temporal infinitude, the
latteras already suggestedbyParmenides, seemsto eliminate thelikelihood
of transcendental godhead. Of necessity a functional god along with the
promise of an afterlife could only be possible as co-extensive portions of
material existence in its entirety. Melissus accordingly declared an assump-
tion implicit in ancient Greek philosophy from its very beginning, and in
doing so he bridged the gap from Parmenides’ holistic perspective asserted
byclassicalgoddesses atleastforliteraryeffect to theoutspokenatheismof
Democritus, Protagoras, and an assortment of Athenian Sophists, followed
by Aristotle and still later by Strato, Carneades and even Cicero. Unfortu-
nately,modernignoranceofthispredominantsecularassumptionthroughout
ancient Greek philosophy obscures an important historic linkage between
whatmightseemtwoseparateperiodsinthehistoryofancientGreekphilos-
ophy—pre-SocraticsecularphilosophyandAristoteliancosmologythatturns
outtohavebeenequallysecularoncesubmittedtocloseexamination.