DRN* reads like Ecclesiastes if it had been written by Nietzsche; it purpose being to cast down error and drive out superstition and generally propagate and promote cosmic meaninglessness. It is an excellent example of a closed-box system - a world-view that denies the existence of anything but that which is affirmed by empirical evidence, thereby ruling out God and, eventually, reason itself - Lucretius stubbornly insists on the desirability of his philosophy. The first premise of Epicurus, as set forth by Lucretius, is the immortality of nature, "Not wholly, then, doth perish what may seem/ To die, since from one thing doth nature build/ Another, nor will suffer aught to come/ To birth without the death of some thing else." Lucretius affirms that there cannot have been a creator, since �naught can come from naught;' but that, instead, nature has always existed, in perfect balance, never more nor less than it is today; though matter may fluctuate and combine diversely, its sum is always the same; matter is eternal. Gently at first, with but-Brutus-is-a-good-man-like tread, he chips away at his reader's belief in God or gods, until the hammer finally descends and he sets up nature as the only and ultimate deity.
Having attempted to prove the consequent meaninglessness of existence, Lucretius goes on to tell what it all means. It comes to this, he says, man's only got one pointless breath, so he may as well make it as satisfying as possible. But that doesn't mean he uses it on Hashish - and here is where most people go wrong about Epicurianism, believing that it advocates wild and profligate pleasure - but takes the course of the smoker, with gentler, longer and simpler enjoyment (and, I might add, the same sorry outcome). But what is the best way to enjoy simple pleasures? Lucretius advocates what I will call the way of the vegetable, affirming that since every great passion and pleasure eventually has pain involved - and the best way to be happy is to avoid pain - man's prime bet for contentment is not to do anything. "Can ye not see nature doth crave but this -/ that from distress the body may be free/ the mind at peace, apart from care and fear?" According to him, it would seem, that man is happiest who is deaf, dumb, blind, senseless, and without a nose: he would have no pain. This approach makes all activities requiring some sort of passion - politics, art, sex, emotional attachment and intellectual conviction - persona non grata. In short, every man who exists will be happier pretending he doesn't. That's the hope of Epicureanism. To �live the flower of life in passion,' to pursue deep feelings and deeper thoughts, is to Lucretius an utterly foreign idea. In addition to having mortal, logical imperfections, this philosophy is down-right wimpy.
On of the reasons DRN is considered a classic, �having such affinity with modern thought,' is that it shares many of the delusions of this so-called modern thought, and a very little of the truth. Within his epic philosophical poem, Lucretius foreshadows atomic theory, vaguely, but the idea is there. This is a great achievement, of course. But many take this as a ticket to his authority on all things scientific, citing with especial glee his endorsement of evolutionary theory (and poor Darwin thought he had something original!). Rarely, however, to these same people quote the terms in which he cases this endorsement, which, I believe, show the logical improbability and probable illogicality of the wholes mess. "Nor with design or reasoning shrewd did all/ The first beginnings take their posts/ Each in his proper place; nor yet, forsooth/ Did they by mutual compact fix upon/ Their several movements; but in numbers vast/ Shifting now Here, no There, throughout the Whole/ Harried by blows relentless down the course/ Of endless time, trying now this now that/ Of motion and of union, they at last/ Come into patterns such as those whereby/ This world of ours is built, and standeth fast." If I didn't know any better, I would suspect irony. Also, though Lucretius scientific authority is compounded by his foreshadowing of atomic theory, it is tarnished by seldom repeated fallacies he indulges in as frequently as happy prophecy. For example, the poem contains one rather vicious screed against the believers in gravity.
Because DRN ends with an account of a plague in Athens, it is assumed to be fragmented - surely no great philosophical poem as that could end of such a gloomy note. But is that the real outcome of all Lucretius' nihilistic arguments? For all the sugar-coated, honey-covered words about �simple pleasure' a closed-box system has one unavoidable, grim, chaff-burning feature; one incongruous element, which no pagan world-view can overcome - ultimate meaninglessness. The best summation of DRN, then, in Lucretius' own words, is "...evermore in ceaseless movement and from boundless space/ Bodies of matter churning endlessly/ Rise from the depths below..." A plague is a fitting end to such a philosophy.
©Copyright, 2004, Robert Quiller