Atom Swerving Vs Determinism

People believe that genuine freedom of choice is not always possible because our decisions and actions are determined by factors beyond our control. This view is known as Determinism. There is also an extreme form of determinism known as ‘hard determinism,’ in which they believe that every demeanor can be traced to a cause, although they may disagree about what those causes are. The idea of determinism poses a difficult issue to the concept of ‘free will’. Are we able to make free choices if all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by our own past and the physical laws of nature? Majority of us would like to believe that we have the freedom of will and are able to make decisions based on our own discretion but, I personally believe that the deterministic view holds true to a certain extent and that most of our actions are a result of a force that is beyond our comprehension. My purpose in this essay is to explain and critically analyze Baron d’Holbach’s view on determinism.

The first four Principal Doctrines, deal with anxiety in people’s lives, and how they should think. Epicurus, is telling people not to fear death, God, nor pains in one’s life because they do not last long and they are for the week. The problem with this way of thinking, is that it removes the true God from the person’s life. But, that is not what he is saying. He, “believed that the true life of pleasure consisted in an attitude of imperturbable emotional calm which needed only simple pleasures, a healthy diet, a prudent moral life, and good friends” (pg. 342). This is quit opposite of what people say of Epicureanism in today’s time.

Epicurus believed that the idea of pleasure was important but had to restrained. He contributed to modern hedonism. He created the garden a sort of ancient Utopia that he used as a base for his teachings and claimed that all were welcome but must reject their old lives and society. His guide to the good life included the use and creation of Tetrapharmakos, which had four points that people should live by to attain the good life. These included, God is nothing to fear, one if Epicurus’ biggest idea was in his riddle, if god is so powerful and willing to help others, then why does evil exist? And if is not so powerful and is not willing then why are they called gods and why are they worshipped? Death is nothing to worry about, there is not immoral

One of the main ideas that Epictetus was trying to get at with his control theory was the idea of wants and needs. Everybody wants more happiness than they can usually achieve, so instead

We have noted how Epictetus admonishes us to concentrate all our efforts on our will, on the way we make choices and decisions. The goodness or quality of people is a matter of the good-ness or quality of their will. To be good the will has to be such that it accords with nature, that is to say, it has to be such as it is intended to be by nature or God. But by nature, we are told, the will is intended to be free. Epictetus claims that he wishes it to be his main concern, up to the very last moment of his life, that his will be free. What is it for the will to be free?

Epicurus believed that we do not have the power over certain things but the things that we have power over can be cause action. Things that can require us to have power over such as making bad decisions or wrongfully thinking. Epicurus explains “The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, and unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others”. Things that are not in our control we tend to worry about the most such as poverty, wealth and reputations. As Epicurus describes, “Aiming therefore at such great things, remember that you must not allow yourself to be carried, even with a slight tendency, towards the attainment of lesser things”.

Epicurus was a hedonist, a materialist and a consequentialist who strongly believed that in order to attain the good life one must live a pleasant existence free of worry and pain. Through reflection of the concepts in Epicurus’s Letter to Menoeceus this paper will

One of these issues is the contradicting nature of swerve. Lucretius intended swerve to imply freedom and unpredictability that results in people having free will. The issue with this idea that makes it contradictory is that if people rely on swerve to obtain free will, wouldn’t the vessel (body) containing the free will, be reliant on the movement of atoms and therefore the vessel would not have free will at all. This is because the movement of the body is determined by the movements of atoms and therefore the mind would technically be hostage to the movement of atoms. Lucretius would reply to this by saying that the atoms do not determine the movements of the body but rather cause a motivation or energy of the brain that causes the movement.

Yes, it allows the world we see to come to be, but it further allows certain collection of atoms to not be dictated by physical parameters (i.e. configuration, type, and motion) of the preceding instance. Lucretius terms this ability to resist fate free will and the collection of atoms where the swerve creates free will heart or mind. Unfortunately, we do not get any description of how this comes to be, but let us see if we can actually formulate how the swerve only on select particles creates free will and the swerve on any other does

The Epicurean view of life is a positive one that I thoroughly agree with. Although it carries flaws, it is a just and reasonable way of living. It excludes any reason to be afraid or concerned about death, and also leads into living fruitful and enjoyable lives, now that we know there’s nothing to look forward to on the other side. Particularly when it comes to the potentially false promises of

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

I agree with his conception, because I believe that pleasure can solve the problems, and help people become better. I am very interested in Epicurus’ idea about self-sufficiency. In his opinion, self-sufficiency can let people be free. In my understanding this means people should

The ethics behind Epicureanism are very simple. Epicurus demonstrates that experience shows happiness is not best attained by directly seeking it. The selfish are not more happy but less so than the unselfish. This statement is very powerful for the simple person. Epicurus proves that if a person seeks to be happy he/she usually won't be able to find true happiness.

During Epicurus’s early years he looked towards other philosophers as an inspiration. Epicurus first discusses the idea and “importance of sensual pleasure” (50). To express these teachings Epicurus created a place where people could go to “study [the] pleasure” (51) that he preached about in his teachings. Many found this type of study to be morally uneasy, however, it consistently gained support, to many especially the wealthy. After some time, these places of study began to disappear. Epicurus then began to look at how one can achieve a happy and healthy life. To do this one must originally look towards what makes them unhappy and “dissatisfied” (54) in their lives whether that be their job or something else. Therefore, through Epicurus’s teachings one should not act “on first impulse” but look towards what our desires are telling us that we want in life. Epicurus looked at friendship to achieving a happy life. One must have a connection to others in order to feel complete in the world. Therefore, Epicurus lived amongst many friends where he noticed and expressed that “we don’t exist unless there is someone who can see us existing” (57) therefore, by having friends in our life we always feel that we are part of something in the world that is larger than ourselves. Epicurus also expresses that our friends “do not evaluate us… to worldly criteria” (57). Once one has friends who accept them and show unconditional love, one many look towards Epicurus’s view of freedom in finding happiness. One needs to be free of “everyday affairs and politics” (58) to live a happy life. From giving up these mundane affairs, Epicurus and his friends were able not be reliant on a “material basis” (58) but could find happiness on the simplicity of life. The next

To Epicurus happiness was the same as pleasure. And pleasure was freedom from bodily pain and mental anguish. He lived a simple life, owning only two cloaks and only eating bread and olives. With the occasional slice of cheese for a treat. He believed desire was a form of pain and therefore should be eliminated, and thus one should be satisfied with the bare minimum of what is needed to be happy. Therefore, while it was not a life of many desires, it was filled with the only pleasures you would need to be happy. There was a certain joy he found, in pure existence. Today’s society could learn a thing or two from this philosophy, most of which being living simply. It was better to take pleasure in simple things, rather than to chase pleasure.