Life and literature in the Roman republicFrank, Tenney
History
Life and literature in the Roman republic
Frank, Tenney
Latin literature -- History and criticism; Rome -- Intellectual life
Beneath every statement of this series there lies a mass of careful
observation, tested by what John Stuart Mill calls the method of
“agreement and difference,” and these valid conclusions are in turn used
for the final induction that creation by miracle is unknown. Similarly,
in the third book, he demonstrates by use of the same logical process
that, since sickness, coma, age, poison, and whatever affects the body,
also affect the mind, the mind has actual contact with the body. The
standard method of “concomitant variations” is also used frequently as,
in the second book, where the argument runs thus: since heavy and light
bodies fall more nearly uniformly in thin air than in heavy water they
would fall at the same rate of speed in a vacuum. Except in the sixth
book, which follows sources closely, Lucretius’ wealth of examples seems
to come largely from his own store.
In truth, most of Mill’s categories of inductive methods are implicit in
Lucretius, for the Epicureans were in his day busily defending their
use of induction against the attacks of Stoics. The logical treatise
of Philodemus,[11] which of course Mill did not know, seems to have
been written very shortly after Lucretius’ death, and it is not at all
improbable that Lucretius had heard the lectures of Philodemus before
they were finally given to the public. In those lectures the author
dwells much on the validity of carefully chosen analogy, for in the
field of the unobservable—in evolutionary cosmology, in atomic theory,
and in psychology—metaphor and simile have always been and will always
be fruitful tools of science. But Philodemus finally insisted on the
necessity of basing all inductions on extremely careful observation,
of using only essential similarities and pertinent comparisons, and he
implied, even if he did not explicitly state it, that every test of
“agreement,” “difference,” and “residue” is necessary. Of course the
Epicureans fell into the fallacies of incomplete data, as all science
based upon inductive methods must, and as beginners they were obviously
impatient of delay and over-optimistic; but the correct forms of the
inductive processes were all in daily use and if Bacon and Mill had
known the treatise of Philodemus, which so well explains the picturesque
arguments of Lucretius, they would have shown more respect for the
“wisest of the ancients.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account