Harman has raised the question of who the most underrated philosopher might be in the history of philosophy. For me this would have to be Lucretius. Lucretius has it all: beautiful poetry, deep compassion, a powerful critique of injustice and superstition, a deep existential strain about the suffering that accompanies life, charming observations of nature and animals, a model of how to achieve peace of mind and overcome fear, and a universe that contains a little bit of turbulence. You’ll also find doctrines of evolution and emergence in there. But what I love most is that he asks such bizarre questions as a consequence of his ontology. Because he’s a materialist, any relation requires a causal connection. Thus, for example, vision can only take place if delicate entities fly through the air to excite the eyes. But wait! That takes time, entailing that we only ever see the past of things! Likewise we can hear sounds through walls. This must mean that all objects contain voids allowing the transport of particles. And how is it that water changes color when the wind blows across it? It must be that the atoms composing the water have different shapes and that the wind recombined them generating colors as emergent properties? And why is ice cream sweet and jalapenos spicy? The former must contain smooth round atoms, while the latter has spiky atoms. What glorious thoughts, and all in one slender volume!
September 2, 2010
September 2, 2010 at 7:28 am
[…] Levi VOTES FOR LUCRETIUS. Posted by doctorzamalek Filed in Uncategorized Leave a Comment […]
September 2, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Lucretius is a good candidate. He suffers the further ignominy of being taken as a mere means of access to the doctrines of Epicurus. Hence he’s often not taken seriously as an original thinker.
A good case could also be made for Sextus Empiricus as the most underrated philosopher. He’s often dismissed as a mere textbook compiler whose work happens to have survived.
September 2, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Yes, Lucretius is grand. This reminds me of a book a read recently–_Marx’s Ecology_ by John Bellamy Foster, which rethinks Marx’s work by closely examining his early influences, beginning with his dissertation on Epicurus. Have you read Foster? I found it extremely.
September 2, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Anyone read Lucretius in Latin? I’ve been thinking of doing so for a while now but the 50 buck edition of it has turned me off.
September 2, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Thanks for the tip, Kristine! I’ll have to track it down.
September 2, 2010 at 8:33 pm
I have read Lucretius in the original. The grammar isn’t too difficult, as is seemingly every Latin author apart from Cicero and Horace. But, a good commentary-for the non grammatical aspects: clarifications on certain influences, correspondences between authors/philosophers, and doctrinal issues-is useful. Don’t pay $50! That is too much. The Cambridge text (with commentary, notes, further reading, etc.) for book three is $30 new, $20 or less used.
September 3, 2010 at 4:45 pm
[…] Bell I’d like to add my favorite underappreciated philosopher to the list (as has been done here and here): Seneca. Seneca’s very underappreciation has become a source of his newly found […]
September 4, 2010 at 1:01 am
Cool! Thanks for the information Dillon. I can read most Latin fairly well so Lucretius sounds like it would be something I could do. I’m keeping an eye out for the cheap editions. Been looking at the Loeb one for some time. Looks like an old edition though.
September 4, 2010 at 11:40 pm
[…] Posted by larvalsubjects under Uncategorized Leave a Comment Based on a recommendation from Kristine in comments, I’ve picked up John Bellamy Foster’s book, Marx’s Ecology. I’m not very far into the book yet, but so far it is excellent. Often Marxist thought is […]
December 20, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Underrated?
Either Charles Sanders Peirce or Ludwig Wittgenstein.