Lucretius The Epicurean

Question

Lucretius The Epicurean

Reading:

The Nature of Things Book III "Mortality and the Soul," pp. 72-75 (lines 1-97), pp. 97-105 (lines 830-1094). Book IV "The Senses" pp. 136-143 (lines 960-1200). (Warning: Book IV is X-rated and misogynistic.)

Titus Lucretius Carus was born about 99 BCE and died in 50 BCE in his late forties. Little is known about his life except that he seems to have come from a wealthy family. He was known as an important poet in his own lifetime. But the manuscript for The Nature of Things, his only surviving work, disappeared for centuries, and was later rediscovered in a monastery in the 15th century. In the poem, Lucretius develops a materialist philosophy that is derived from the writings of Epicurus. We will be concerned with only two books where Lucretius discusses death and its relationship to living a good life and where he discusses the perils of love. Unlike Socrates, Lucretius claims that there is no afterlife and that accepting that this is true (understanding the nature of things) makes a good life possible.

 

Discussion-On Love

 

Lucretius is not a libertine, advocating what used to be called free love, sex without love. Rather he is claiming that sex is a harmless pastime, allowing for physical pleasure with little in the form of emotional distress. Emotional distress, he argues, comes from love, which he sees as a dangerous passion. He would agree with Shakespeare that "Love makes fools of us all." So, love should be avoided if you want to live a happy life. 

 

What is Lucretius's argument and what is your reaction? 

 

Do you think love is important for leading a happy life or is it, as Lucretius argues, a form of emotional derangement?

Answer 1

Lucretius's argument about love is that it is a dangerous passion that leads to emotional distress and should be avoided if one wants to live a happy life. He sees sex as a harmless pastime that provides physical pleasure without the emotional baggage of love. In his view, emotional distress arises from the desire for possession and fear of loss, which are inherent in romantic love.

My reaction to Lucretius's argument is that while there may be some truth to it, it is an oversimplification of the complexities of human emotions and relationships. Love can indeed be a powerful and sometimes dangerous emotion, but it can also be a source of great joy and fulfillment in life. It is not always a form of emotional derangement but can instead be a healthy and positive aspect of human experience.

Furthermore, reducing sex to a mere physical pleasure devoid of any emotional connection undermines the potential for intimacy and deeper connections in sexual relationships. While casual sex may be harmless in some cases, it is not a substitute for the emotional and physical intimacy that can be found in a loving relationship.

In conclusion, while Lucretius's argument about the dangers of love may have some validity, it is an oversimplification of the complexities of human emotions and relationships. Love can indeed be a source of great joy and fulfillment in life, and while it can sometimes be a challenging emotion to navigate, it is not inherently a form of emotional derangement.