Notes on The Swerve, Greenblatt
Spends the first half of the book setting the stage, and in a not very chronological manner. I found this part of the book slow going. What was the purpose of this? Gets much more interesting on p. 185 when he starts to discuss, in detail, Lucretius' philosophy.
New York Review of Books review challenges the one dimensional view of the church offered by Greenblatt in the book suggesting that the church was filled with corruption.
Lucretius believed, like Epicurus, that life should be devoted to happiness and that happiness was peace of mind unfettered by "fantastical" believes like God, the soul, life after death, etc. Living in the now.
Most notions of God are purposeful--the Gods do something for humans. It wouldn't be worth it to believe in God if they were simply uninterested beings.
Lucretius was writing this in 55 BCE (Buddha was born in 560BCE or so), so if these alternative approaches to the world were available why did people turn away from them and adopt religion, and more particularly, Christianity, which is punitive, mean spirited and based on fear? G suggests it is because they desired comfort that comes from believing there is purpose and meaning in the universe itself. G states, "humans are gripped by illusions f the infinite--infinite pleasure and infinite pain. The fantasy ofinfinite pain helps to account for their proneness to religion: in the misguided belief that their souls are immortal and hence potentially subject to an eternity of suffering, humans imagine that they can somehow negotiate with the gods for a better outcome" (p. 197). But why do humans believe there is eternal or infinite suffering in the first place? Because life was so difficult?
Love is also simply a delusion that causes suffering and pain. We desire to consume the other when such consumption is impossible.
How would the world have been different if instead of turning towards Christianity, Constantine adopted Epicurean philosophy?
L argued there were "swerves" in the universe when the atoms veer off path slightly so that the universe is not predetermined. It is these swerves that lead to free will (p. 199-200).
"Understanding the nature of things generates deep wonder", G summarizing L. But if this is true than why aren't more people engaged in understanding? L argues that the exercise of reason is available to all, but if this is the case, why do so many people resist it or not develop it in the first place? Seems like reason is not actually that easy to develop.
New York Review of Books review challenges the one dimensional view of the church offered by Greenblatt in the book suggesting that the church was filled with corruption.
Lucretius believed, like Epicurus, that life should be devoted to happiness and that happiness was peace of mind unfettered by "fantastical" believes like God, the soul, life after death, etc. Living in the now.
Most notions of God are purposeful--the Gods do something for humans. It wouldn't be worth it to believe in God if they were simply uninterested beings.
Lucretius was writing this in 55 BCE (Buddha was born in 560BCE or so), so if these alternative approaches to the world were available why did people turn away from them and adopt religion, and more particularly, Christianity, which is punitive, mean spirited and based on fear? G suggests it is because they desired comfort that comes from believing there is purpose and meaning in the universe itself. G states, "humans are gripped by illusions f the infinite--infinite pleasure and infinite pain. The fantasy ofinfinite pain helps to account for their proneness to religion: in the misguided belief that their souls are immortal and hence potentially subject to an eternity of suffering, humans imagine that they can somehow negotiate with the gods for a better outcome" (p. 197). But why do humans believe there is eternal or infinite suffering in the first place? Because life was so difficult?
Love is also simply a delusion that causes suffering and pain. We desire to consume the other when such consumption is impossible.
How would the world have been different if instead of turning towards Christianity, Constantine adopted Epicurean philosophy?
L argued there were "swerves" in the universe when the atoms veer off path slightly so that the universe is not predetermined. It is these swerves that lead to free will (p. 199-200).
"Understanding the nature of things generates deep wonder", G summarizing L. But if this is true than why aren't more people engaged in understanding? L argues that the exercise of reason is available to all, but if this is the case, why do so many people resist it or not develop it in the first place? Seems like reason is not actually that easy to develop.
Comments
Post a Comment