The End of Epicurean Infinity: Critical Reflections on the Epicurean Infinite Universe

  • Frederik A. BakkerEmail author
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 48)


In contrast to other ancient philosophers, Epicurus and his followers famously maintained the infinity of matter, and consequently of worlds. This was inferred from the infinity of space, because they believed that a limited amount of matter would inevitably be scattered through infinite space, and hence be unable to meet and form stable compounds. By contrast, the Stoics claimed that there was only a finite amount of matter in infinite space, which stayed together because of a general centripetal tendency. The Roman Epicurean poet Lucretius tried to defend the Epicurean conception of infinity against this Stoic alternative view, but not very convincingly. One might suspect, therefore, that the Epicureans’ adherence to the infinity of matter was not so much dictated by physical arguments as it was motivated by other, mostly theological and ethical, concerns. More specifically, the infinity of atoms and worlds was used as a premise in several arguments against divine intervention in the universe. The infinity of worlds was claimed to rule out divine intervention directly, while the infinity of atoms lent plausibility to the chance formation of worlds. Moreover, the infinity of atoms and worlds was used to ensure the truth of multiple explanations, which was presented by Epicurus as the only way to ward off divine intervention in the realm of celestial phenomena. However, it will be argued that in all of these arguments the infinity of matter is either unnecessary or insufficient for reaching the desired conclusion.


  1. Algra, Keimpe. 1988. The Early Stoics on the Immobility and Coherence of the Cosmos. Phronesis 33: 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. 1995. Concepts of Space in Greek Thought. Leiden/New York/Cologne: Brill.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, James. 2001. Inference from Signs. Ancient Debates about the Nature of Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arnim, Hans von. 1903–1905. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta [= SVF], 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
  5. Arrighetti, Graziano. 1973. Epicuro: Opere. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  6. Asmis, Elizabeth. 1984. Epicurus’ Scientific Method. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1999. Epicurean Epistemology. In The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. Keimpe Algra, Jonathan Barnes, Jaap Mansfeld, and Malcolm Schofield, 260–294. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Avotins, Ivars. 1983. On Some Epicurean and Lucretian Arguments for the Infinity of the Universe. The Classical Quarterly 33: 421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bailey, Cyril. 1926. Epicurus, the Extant Remains. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 1947. Titi Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex: Edited with Prolegomena, Critical Apparatus, Translation and Commentary, 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bakker, Frederik A. 2016. Epicurean Meteorology: Sources, Method, Scope and Organization. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  12. Bénatouïl, Thomas. 2003. La méthode épicurienne des explications multiples. In Etudes épicuriennes, Cahiers philosophiques de Strasbourg 15, ed. Thomas Bénatouïl, Valéry Laurand and Arnaud Macé, 15–47.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, William Norris. 1994. The Limitation of Act by Potency in St. Thomas: Aristotelianism or Neoplatonism. In Explorations in Metaphysics: Being-God-Person, ed. William Norris Clarke, 65–88. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cornford, Francis M. 1935. Plato’s Cosmology: TheTimaeus of Plato. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Corsi, Federico Giulio. 2017. Il metodo delle molteplici spiegazioni in Diogene di Enoanda. Syzetesis 4 (2): 253–284.Google Scholar
  16. Darling, David. 2016. The Extraterrestrial Encyclopedia. Sarasota: First Edition Design Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dick, Steven J. 1996. The Biological Universe: The Twentieth Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate and the Limits of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Diels, Hermann A. and Walther Kranz, ed. 1951–1952. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
  19. Dowd, Matthew F. 2015. Fraction of Stars with Planetary Systems, fp, Pre-1961. In The Drake Equation: Estimating the Prevalence of Extraterrestrial Life through the Ages, ed. Douglas A. Vakoch and Matthew F. Dowd, 53–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Evans, James. 1998. The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fowler, Don P. 2002. Lucretius on Atomic Motion: A Commentary onDe rerum natura Book Two, Lines 1–332. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Furley, David J. 1989. Cosmic Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1999. Cosmology. In The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. Keimpe Algra, Jonathan Barnes, Jaap Mansfeld, and Malcolm Schofield, 412–451. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hammerstaedt, Jürgen, and Martin Ferguson Smith. 2014. The Epicurean Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda: Ten Years of New Discoveries and Research. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.Google Scholar
  25. Ierodiakonou, Katarina. 2011. Remarks on the History of an Ancient Thought Experiment. In Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts, ed. Katarina Ierodiakonou and Sophie Roux, 37–49. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  26. Inwood, Brad. 1981. The Origin of Epicurus’ Concept of Void. Classical Philology 76: 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kechagia, Eleni. 2010. Rethinking a Professional Rivalry: Early Epicureans Against the Stoa. The Classical Quarterly 60 (1): 132–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Konstan, David. 1972. Epicurus on “Up” and “Down” (Letter to Herodotus § 60). Phronesis 17: 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. 2014. Epicurus on the Void. In Space in Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. Graziano Ranocchia, Christoph Helmig, and Christoph Horn, 83–99. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. Leone, Giuliana. 2017. Diogène d’Œnoanda et la polémique sur les meteora. In Diogenes of Oinoanda: Epicureanism and Philosophical Debates, ed. Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Pierre-Marie Morel, and Refik Güremen, 89–110. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Liddell, Henry G., Robert Scott, and Sir Henry S. Jones, revis. 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Long, Anthony A. 1986. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Long, Anthony A., and David N. Sedley. 1987a. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 1987b. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lovejoy, Arthur O. 1936. The Great Chain of Being: A Study in the History of an Idea. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mash, Roy. 1993. Big Numbers and Induction in the Case for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Philosophy of Science 60 (2): 204–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Keefe, Tim. 2005. Epicurus on Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rouse, William H.D., transl., and Martin F. Smith, revis. 1992. Lucretius: De rerum natura (Loeb Classical Library 181). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sambursky, Samuel. 1959. Physics of the Stoics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 1962. The Physical World of Late Antiquity. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  41. Schmidt, Jürgen. 1990. Lukrez, der Kepos und die Stoiker: Untersuchungen zur Schule Epikurs und zu den Quellen von De rerum natura. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  42. Sedley, David N. 1976. Epicurus and the Mathematicians of Cyzicus. Cronache Ercolanesi 6: 23–54.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 1982. On Signs. In Science and Speculation: Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice, ed. Jonathan Barnes et al., 239–272. Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press/Editions De La Maison des Sciences De L’Homme.Google Scholar
  44. ———. 1989. Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World. In Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society, ed. Miriam Griffin and Jonathan Barnes, 97–119. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 1998. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ———. 1999. Hellenistic Physics and Metaphysics. In The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. Keimpe Algra, Jonathan Barnes, Jaap Mansfeld, and Malcolm Schofield, 355–411. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 2007. Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 2013. Lucretius. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta.
  49. Smith, Martin F. 1993. Diogenes of Oinoanda: The Epicurean Inscription. Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
  50. Spoerri, Walter. 1959. Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter: Untersuchungen zu Diodor von Sizilien. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt.Google Scholar
  51. Striker, Gisela. 1974. Κριτήριον τῆς Ἀληθείας. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen I. Philologisch-Historische Klasse 2: 48–110.Google Scholar
  52. Taub, Liba. 2009. Cosmology and Meteorology. In The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism, ed. James Warren, 124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Traphagan, John. 2015. Extraterrestrial Intelligence and Human Imagination: SETI at the Intersection of Science, Religion and Culture. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Usener, Hermann. 1887. Epicurea. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
  55. Verde, Francesco. 2013. Cause epicuree. Antiquorum Philosophia 7: 127–142.Google Scholar
  56. Warren, James. 2004. Ancient Atomists on the Plurality of Worlds. The Classical Quarterly 54 (2): 354–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wolff, Michael. 1988. Hipparchus and the Stoic Theory of Motion. In Matter and Metaphysics: Fourth Symposium Hellenisticum (Elenchos 14), ed. Jonathan Barnes and Mario Mignucci, 346–419. Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for the History of Philosophy and ScienceRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations