The following paper examines critiques and contrasts the differences between Plato’s Timaeus Aristotle’s On the Heaven and Lucretius’s On The Nature of Things. All of these texts are comprised of a cosmological treaty of sorts which draws from observations on the nature of the universe. Both Plato and Aristotle translated the perfect order in the universes and the movement of celestial bodies to determine their differing ideas on order. In contrast Lucretius’s On The Nature of Things is a poem which is best described as coming from an epicurean philosophy which is based on freeing individuals from the bonds of servitude from the gods which manifested itself as either the terrors experienced in life or the possibility of eternal damnation.
On the one hand, in Timasus Plato writes that “Wherefore, using the language of probability, we may say that the world became a living creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God” . The personification of the universe is a particularly strong allusion in this dialog from Plato. Indeed, the fact that the universe moves in a clockwork fashion and adhere to the laws of nature provide the foundation for Plato to argue the universe is a rational being in its own right. On the other hand Aristotle’s notion of order in On the Heavens seems to adopt a slightly difference stance in regards to the question of order. Similarly to Plato, Aristotle considered the movement of the universe as living insofar as they had rational souls and adhered to principles of eternity and permanence. However, for Aristotle the notion of order seems to take more of a strict, rigorous position within his theory. Lucretius’s on the other hand questions whether the uniformity should be the driving force of philosophy, particularly when he states:
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"A Critique of Plato’s Timaeus and Aristotels On the Heavens".
“Now come: I will untangle for thy steps,
Now by what motions the begetting bodies,
Of the world‐stuff beget the varied world,
And then forever resolve it when begot”
Whereas Plato and Aristotle use the synchronised movement of the cosmos as a proof to the power of uniformity as a foundation of ethical action, Lucretius identified that guilt and pertinence are bounds of man which restrict his ability to be free by appealing to uniformity.
When considering both the majesty of the universe as a glimpse to the heavens coupled with its perfectly synchronised movements and orbits, the question between variety and uniformity naturally arise. As Plato says in Timasus a high value is placed on uniformity as a proof of the celestial bodies being considered rational being because of the sets of rules that seems exterior to the world that they follow. Thus, the nature of uniformity is argued to a greater extent in defining order through reason in the world. But as Lucretius highlights uniformity and the majestic dance of predictability can be used to subdue populations.
Necessity also plays an important role in both Timasus and On the Heavens. As Plato writes “The world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable and must therefore of necessity” . By making the relationship between an identified reasonable will in the movement of the celestial bodies to the necessity of mind is one of the strengths in Plato’s theory, as it opens up the discussion of order from a perspective of pure reason.
As a subsidiary point it is worth mentioning that there is a subtitle difference in language employed between Plato and Aristotle in these texts, particularly in the sense that on is a dialog between a conversation and the other an individual’s work and ideas. Departing from both of these works is Lucretius who presents his philosophy in the form of a poem which enables a resonance of his views as that of the common man.
In one way a conversation (in contrast to a statement) will always be immortalised, remembered and preserved as a disagreement rather than a statement of fact. The effect of this is very similar to the topic of this paper, particularly the division between empirical reality and detached reason.
Like many other philosophers Plato, Lucretius’s and Aristotle looked to the celestial heavens for answers. The familiar old sky that seems to move in complete synchronisation and predictability provides a framework for thinkers to reason beyond the empirically know world. The eternal movement of these bodies is mentioned by both Plato and Aristotle often to demonstrate the divide between reason and the physical, tangible world, while Lucretius poem reminds us that relying on absolute concepts can always be used to differing means.
