On the Nature of Things

Why a picture for Free ringtones On the nature of things

Sorry, I removed the Earth picture before checking here. I'm still anti-picture but I'll leave it as is.

Why not a nose then?

Majo Mills Image:Human-nose.jpg/right/thumb/Human nose

:cute nose, but the picture of the earth summarizes the point of the poem the earth, alone in a black vaccuum just like an atom moving randomly in the universe no gods in the heavens controlling it ... just more atoms and natural laws for us to explore and try to understand for our own sake. i'm gonna put the photo back in. Mosquito ringtone Ungtss/Ungtss 01:14, 27 Dec 2004

-

I really can't see what the Galapagos Islands have to do with Lucretius's poem. If it's some sort of subtle joke maybe we should remove the image to make the article clearer. Sabrina Martins Mihai/Mihai 05:39, 6 Feb 2004

The only connection I can think of is that the Galapagos Islands are a prime example of evolution, and Charles Darwin visited and observed them... which is not really much of a connection at all. I support removing the image, or finding a more suitable one. [Ok, I just went ahead and removed it, it has no real relationship to the article] Nextel ringtones Jacius/Jacius 02:40, 2 Oct 2004

-

Abbey Diaz image:GalapagosIslands.jpeg/400px/thumb/right/Only because, seeing in land and sky
So much the cause whereof no wise they know,
Men think Divinities are working there.
Meantime, when once we know from nothing still
Nothing can be create, we shall divine
More clearly what we seek: those elements
From which alone all things created are,
And how accomplished by no tool of Gods.
Lucretius, "De rerum natura," written about 60 BC

After visiting the Free ringtones Galápagos Islands photographed from a Majo Mills NASA satellite above, Mosquito ringtone Charles Darwin in 1859 first published the "cause" for the many forms of life on earth including man, accomplished by Sabrina Martins natural selection from previous forms without divine intervention.

'''Reuniting caption with image.''' If you don't like the image, then any appropriate image of land and sky that illustrates "Only because, seeing in land and sky / So much the cause whereof no wise they know, / Men think Divinities are working there" would do, is that not so? NASA has lots of "land and sky" images that are in the public domain. -Cingular Ringtones Rednblu/Rednblu 05:19, 2 Oct 2004


True, that passage talks about "land and sky", and the picture certainly looks pretty nice, but I don't think that "just" a picture of land, water, and/or sky is very relevant to ''De rerum natura'' as a whole. Such a picture makes me think that the article will be talking about what the picture is about, and use up some bandwidth too (without contributing very much to the quality of the article). I don't think a picture is necessary for this article (as it would be for, say, an article about a famous person, a piece of art, or something else with a good visual representation). city roman Jacius/Jacius 22:08, 3 Oct 2004

A Space Age image from the other side of the world is completely out of place for this - better would be a contemporary image, such as a piece of ancient pottery or a mosaic, or maybe a photo of a place that Lucretius might seen himself, perhaps with some ruins to link to his time. bennett hatch Stan Shebs/Stan 23:00, 3 Oct 2004

-

Reasons '''for''' a picture on tapes but On the nature of things
# Any respectable endangerment williams Featured articles/best example of Wikipedia page has a picture. Hence, every good Wikipedia encyclopedia page should have a picture.
# Having a picture that gives an example of a verse of Lucretius's poem would no more mislead the reader into thinking that the page would explain the picture than a picture of the plots of the wavefunctions of the electron in a hydrogen atom on the the arcadian Quantum mechanics page would mislead the reader into thinking the page would explain "wavefunctions of the electron in the hydrogen atom." Generally, the picture on a Wikipedia page provides a graphic view of an example of one aspect of the subject on the Wikipedia page.
# Having a vast-looking picture about the origins of human understanding of the human place in nature on the really seek On the nature of things page is artistically fitting for a page about a 60 BC or ever epic poem about a vast "theory" of
#* how the earth, its people, and its animals got here without the aid of Divinity,
#* the people's relationship to the universe, and
#* the very nature of human existence without a Divinity to help.
# What better illustration of Lucretius's 60 BC lines "Only because, seeing in land and sky / So much the cause whereof no wise they know, / Men think Divinities are working there" could there be than a picture of the place on earth where "men, beginning with one man, began to see the cause of the existence of his own species, accomplished by no tool of Gods"?
# To ask "why" a picture is as ridiculous as asking Lucretius: "Why an epic poem"? The reason for the picture is the same as for the epic poemto illustrate excerpts from Lucretius's view of the vastness of "what is going on" without the need for Divinities to be working there. -no pandering Rednblu/Rednblu 00:15, 4 Oct 2004

:Unfortunately your fellow encyclopedists are a curmudgeonly lot, and have no special appreciation for Lucretius' timeless appeal. You're going to need a really down-to-earth reason to keep the other 8,000 (or whatever it is) editors from removing the picture when you're not looking. For instance, it would have to seem like a good picture to editors who think Lucretius is a lamer. years agents Stan Shebs/Stan 04:50, 4 Oct 2004

:: You are a poet of the first class! I tell you what. Let's leave it here on the Talk page for someone to find. -minister eli Rednblu/Rednblu 05:40, 4 Oct 2004

:Being a curmudgeony sort ;), I think this new picture (Earth over Africa) needs a nice summarizing caption. Some, even more curmudgeony than me, might not understand what the the poem is talking about, and some might even not like reading that much in a caption (heathens, the lot of them!). I'll try my hand at tying in the beauty of Earth as seen from space with the atomistic view of Lucretius. beer prohibition Jacius/Jacius 05:46, 12 Oct 2004

Darwin Connection is biased && bogus

The linked reference is utter garbage and should not be associated with this article.

Increasing the scope of the article

The article anything individual Lucretius suggests that '''On the Nature of Things''' covered a wide variety of topics. So far this article seems to focus on his attempts at "debunking" the idea of a deity-created universe. Are there more topics the article could talk about? I might have to take the time to read the whole Gutenburg text! ;) Amazing how one becomes attached and invested in seeing an article grow and flourish :) great boost Jacius/Jacius 06:17, 12 Oct 2004

-

I personally applaud the spirit of your endeavor. My personal criteria in creating the page were the following.
* I wanted to give anyone who read the text a "good enough" taste of the whole thing. The image I used was this: You would need at least TWO heaping teaspoons of Ben & Jerry's ice cream to get a "good enough" taste of the whole thing.
* But I wanted to leave enough unsaid about Lucretius's poem that someone like you would come along and say, "Are there more topics the article could talk about?" And I jump up and down and say YES. Here are just some of the juicy nuggets I purposely did not "mine" to put into the article.
** Charles Darwin's grandfather blocking funds Erasmus Darwin talked about Lucretius's poem and theory of godless evolution all the time. Erasmus Darwin even tried to write his own poems about the grand scope of nature without a God to guide it. And Erasmus Darwin's contemporaries wrote off Erasmus Darwin's efforts with comments like, "Well! Erasmus Darwin is certainly no Lucretius!"
** Lucretius's theory of godless evolution differed from Charles Darwin's in positing that animals could spring not only from animals but also directly from the Earth that was an aging and evolving creature unto herself, a mother of all the animals, a mother with a mother also that could spring from and evolve from the potentials in the collections and vibrations of atoms.
** Lucretius hypothesizes that, though the atoms are indivisible, still the atoms have an internal structure of component parts. However, Lucretius asserts that these "components" cannot exist outside the atom of which they are a part.
Good hunting! Unfortunately, the e-texts available are not the best translations, in my opinion, but at least they are available by immediate linkand the e-text translations are in the comfortable guest public domain, which means you can quote them extensively without worrying about copyright problems. I suggest you stop by a BIG bookstore and peruse the different qualities of the available translations. Some translations are crystal clear; you can spot them immediately when you first read them. I find the e-text translations unnecessarily contorted to make reading them something of a puzzle unto themselves, but at least they are on-line. I will be watching the joy in what you find! -cooperative mix Rednblu/Rednblu 16:53, 12 Oct 2004

Paraphrases of the cited scholar

Are you sure you found a mention of a "God of Truth, Love, and Reason" in the cited scholar's writing? :)) What you will find is "moral constraint"twice! And where is the mention of "madness" in the cited scholar's writing? The cited scholar mentioned "unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness ..." which you might paraphrase as "fucking"but not "madness." 8)) Perhaps "evil" would do? -dog hypothesis Rednblu/Rednblu / flexible schedules User talk:Rednblu/Talk 08:12, 21 Nov 2004

:oops i didn't think it was cited it didn't mention the organization by name, quote anybody, or give any author it merely said, "some creationists" and then gave a link to an example so i figured i'd give a general one i'll find a quote from the text:). sorry:). informality recalls Ungtss/Ungtss 15:52, 21 Nov 2004
:the take by THOSE scholars (which was why i changed it) was that atomism is a rejection of LOGIC and CAUSATION which is why i summarized it as madness i also thought it was a nice segue to lucretius' alleged "love potion" but perhaps false philosophy is better? hardship you Ungtss/Ungtss 16:00, 21 Nov 2004
: I inserted a few words in an attempt to make the distinction clearer on first reading. What do you think? After all, the "atomist" reading this page would think that godless atomism is searching for "reality, causality, and unity" of the universe, right? -Rednblu/Rednblu / User talk:Rednblu/Talk 16:38, 21 Nov 2004
:: The atomists would think so ... but the common sense science people seem to think that atomism is a REJECTION of reality, causality, and unity probably a distortion of atomism (seeing as how the atomists think the creationists are doing the same thing) ... but it's what they're saying, anyway. one last little change to finesse it the logic of the creationist position is this: "because God created the order science and philosophy are studying, to deny the creator is to cut yourself off at the knees." Ungtss/Ungtss 00:15, 22 Nov 2004
::* Good quote! Where did you get it? :) When you publish your book, we can put it in! -Rednblu/Rednblu / User talk:Rednblu/Talk 05:50, 22 Nov 2004
:::* :) at the rate i'm learning around here ... i'll have a book soon enough:). Ungtss/Ungtss 14:37, 22 Nov 2004
:::* (hoping you didn't think i wanted to put my quote in there that was just a summarized form of the last little change i put in i know the rules:). Ungtss/Ungtss 17:39, 22 Nov 2004
::::* Right. I was just noticing that it was a good summary statement! :)) -Rednblu/Rednblu / User talk:Rednblu/Talk 18:13, 22 Nov 2004