Works › Letter to Pythocles
Work #1575 · Mature period

Letter to Pythocles

Epicurus's letter on meteorology and celestial phenomena — preserved in Diogenes Laertius X

Epicurus · c. 306-270 BC · Ancient Greek · Letter (preserved by Diogenes Laertius)

Tradition: Epicurean atomism / Hellenistic philosophy

Epicurus's 'Letter to Pythocles' — Epicurean meteorology and the multiple-explanations principle

Preserved in Diogenes Laertius's 'Lives of the Eminent Philosophers' X.84-116 (Diogenes Laertius's book X on Epicurus is the principal surviving source for the Epicurean tradition), 'Letter to Pythocles' is one of three surviving letters of Epicurus (with the Letter to Herodotus on physics generally, X.35-83; and the Letter to Menoeceus on ethics, X.122-135). The Letter to Pythocles treats meteorology and celestial phenomena: the rising and setting of stars; eclipses; lightning and thunder; comets; meteors; rainbows and halos; earthquakes; winds; tides; hail; snow; dew; ice. The letter exemplifies Epicurus's distinctive philosophical-methodological principle for natural philosophy: 'multiple explanations' (pleonachos tropos). Where direct sense-evidence is unavailable (as it generally is for celestial phenomena, which we observe from a great distance and cannot directly experiment on), Epicurus argues that we should not pick out one explanation as definitively true; rather, several mutually-compatible naturalistic explanations are to be admitted together. What we must rule out is only the superstitious-religious explanation that the celestial phenomena are signs from the gods or evidence of divine agency; all naturalistic explanations are acceptable. The methodological principle is distinctive in ancient natural philosophy and has been variously assessed: Lucretius repeats it extensively in 'De Rerum Natura' V-VI; modern philosophers of science have variously read it as proto-Popperian (admit all conjectures consistent with the evidence), as proto-Bayesian (probability distributions over explanations), and as a distinctive Epicurean position that does not map cleanly onto modern philosophical-scientific methodology. The letter is one of the principal sources for Epicurean philosophical-scientific method.

Author

Editions cited

  • Letter to Pythocles, in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers X.84-116
  • Loeb Classical Library: Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, vols. I-II, trans. R. D. Hicks (Harvard, 1925; revised 1972)
  • Modern translation in Brad Inwood and L. P. Gerson, The Epicurus Reader (Hackett, 1994)
  • Critical commentary: David Sedley, Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge, 1998); James Warren (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge, 2009)
Compare this work

School Embodiments

Materialism (Philosophical) · 22%
Naturalism · 22%
Epicureanism · 25%
Empiricism · 12%
Atheism / Secularism · 14%
Philosophy of Science · 8%
Atomism · 8%
Materialism (Philosophical) 22%

Atomist-naturalistic methodology for celestial phenomena.

"All these things proceed from natural causes, not from divine agency." (Letter to Pythocles, opening)
Naturalism 22%

Strongly naturalistic methodology.

"We must not introduce divine agency into the explanation of natural phenomena." (Letter to Pythocles, §97)
Epicureanism 25%

Mature Epicurean methodology — multiple explanations principle.

"Where direct evidence is unavailable, multiple compatible explanations may be admitted together." (Letter to Pythocles, §94)
Empiricism 12%

Empirical-evidential methodology.

"What the senses cannot decide, we may not arbitrarily decide either." (Letter to Pythocles)
Atheism / Secularism 14%

Anti-religious-superstition framework.

"Free from fear of the divine." (Letter to Pythocles, conclusion)
Philosophy of Science 8%

Early philosophy-of-science methodology — multiple explanations.

"All compatible natural-causal explanations." (Letter to Pythocles, §86)
Atomism 8%

Atomist tradition.

Internal Tensions

One of the three surviving letters of Epicurus; introduces the 'multiple explanations' methodology distinctive to Epicurean science. The methodology has been continuously productive in philosophy of science (its proto-fallibilist character anticipates aspects of modern philosophy of science) and in the history of ancient science (Lucretius's poetic-philosophical exposition in De Rerum Natura V-VI is the principal long-form Latin treatment of the framework).

⧖

I. Time

c. 306-270 BC. Epicurus lived c. 341-270 BC; the letter is from his mature teaching period at the Athenian Garden.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

Athens — Epicurus's residence at the Garden (Kepos) from c. 306 BC until his 270 BC death.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: not engaged Dimensionality: Three Locality: not engaged
◉

III. Matter

Single letter preserved by Diogenes Laertius. Length: ~30 pages in modern translations.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: not engaged
◎

IV. Observer

Mature Epicurus. The observer-philosopher is the founder of the Epicurean school at the height of his teaching career.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Impersonal
⚡

V. Energy

Pedagogical-naturalistic energies. The letter is addressed to Pythocles (a young student) as a summary of Epicurean meteorological-celestial doctrine for the student's reference.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible
⧉

VI. Information

Single letter. The 'multiple explanations' methodology is the central methodologically-distinctive material.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: not engaged

Personas that cite this work

Epicurus Titus Lucretius Carus

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

97%
Epicurus
29/30
97%
Titus Lucretius Carus
29/30
93%
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae
28/30
93%
Karl Marx
28/30
90%
C. D. Broad
27/30
90%
David J. Chalmers
27/30

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

73%
Milesian School
20/24
72%
LDS / Latter-day Saint Theology
21/24
71%
Presentism
21/24
69%
Manichaeism
20/24
69%
Deontological Ethics
21/24
68%
Virtual Realism
20/24
68%
Cartesianism
19/24
68%
Effective Altruism
20/24

How Letter to Pythocles resolves each dilemma

34 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 3 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 23 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
6 mainstream positions
Do you really choose? The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. 69% Are addicts responsible for their addiction? The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. 69% Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do? An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. 69% How much weight do future people deserve? Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much. 47% Is regret rational? The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing. 47% Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing. 47%
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is the world created from nothing? Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. 55% Is the physical world fully real? Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. 55% Does matter have intrinsic moral standing? Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. 55% What is money? Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. 54% What is a nation? A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. 54% What makes someone male or female? Sex is a real biological kind with given content. 54% Should we edit the human germline? Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. 54%
Observer · 37 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? — — Are the dead morally present to the living? — — Are there indivisible units of experience? — — Can prayer for someone far away affect them? — — Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? — — Could an AI have a mind that matters? — — Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? — — Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? — — Does history have a direction or meaning? — — Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? — — Does prayer change God's mind? — — How is knowledge of reality produced? — — If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? — — Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? — — Is memory stored or reconstructed? — — Is reality fundamentally digital? — — Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? — — Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? — — Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? — — What happens to "you" when you die? — — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? — — What makes someone the same person over time? — — Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? — —
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets? Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone. 51% Does deleting your data online destroy something real? Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys. 51% Could the dead, in principle, be brought back? The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible. 51% Is forgiveness ontologically possible? The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away. 51%
← #1574 A Writer's Diary All Works #1576 Vatican Sayings →