ENL 164: "Kelvin and Jarry: The Rationale of Making Rationality Ultra-Rational"

Kelvin and Jarry:

The Rationale of Making Rationality Ultra-Rational.

In comparing Lord Kelvin’s writings to Exploits and Opinions of Doctor Faustroll ‘Pataphysician by Alfred Jarry, one immediately notices how Dr. Faustroll enacts the thoroughness of science so exactly, and so rigorously that his science of ‘pataphysics takes on characteristics of the absurd. At first it seems a strictly satirical jab at the ideas behind modern science, but there is an element of respect for the ideas put forth in the unusual discussions and integration of Kelvin’s theories into the science of ‘Pataphysics. Jarry analyzes Kelvin’s ideas and supplants them into a realm of the absurd by exploring them so rationally that the ideas become irrational. In leaving the serious scientific implications intact, Jarry performs rational observation so intense it becomes ultra-rational, thereby transitioning into the realm of the absurd by using the measure of science on itself. By doing so he calls into question the very grounds of scientific reasoning and measurement, and Jarry exposes the inherent irrationality of that which is supposed to be rational about science, calling into question those things which sciences, and Kelvin, hold as truth.

One instance of Jarry’s emphasis on the ultra-rational scientific analysis is Dr. Faustroll’s absurd observations in his ‘pataphysical studies. Doctor Faustroll’s first telepathic letter to Lord Kelvin includes the observation that “The body is a more necessary vehicle because it supports one’s clothes, and through clothes one’s pockets” (247). In science it is the human body that is studied, but Dr. Faustroll sees the body only as a vehicle for the pockets in one’s clothes, without which one would not be capable of carrying their “centimeter” or measuring tool. This over-analysis of the purpose of closing takes the focus off of the human body and places it on the clothing merely for its usefulness is carrying a scientific tool. Clothing, an inorganic, senseless object, takes on usefulness not allowed by the limitations of the human body, the source of physical senses. Though the body is important, it is subservient to the clothing, as a “more necessary vehicle” but only a vehicle, nonetheless.

The body becomes a secondary concept to the ‘pataphysician, as Faustroll divorces the senses from the body when he dies, and is then “initiated into the science of all things…have reconquered all perception” (250). For Faustroll, the body is separate from the mind; death, which is understood as a cessation of physical sense, cannot stop him from his experimentation. The senses, at least in some form, are available to him after the death of his body, so it is perfectly reasonable for him to achieve ‘pataphysical understanding without the use of his earth-bound body. In contrast, Kelvin does not differentiate between the body and the senses, instead emphasizing the integration of the senses with the body and the mind when he states: “Now if I were to say that the weight of that piece of chalk is the fourth power of twenty miles an hour, I would be considered fit, not for this place, but for a place where people who have lost their sense are taken care of” (Brown 3). This ties together the body, mind and senses by pointing out that if the mind conceives of this absurd thought, and the body voices that thought as a serious consideration, then a body will put into a place where others “who have lost their sense” are taken. Kelvin also defines for the reader his stance on sanity, for those who are without sense consideration lack the ability to care for themselves, and thus must be institutionalized.

When Faustroll dies he expresses unhappiness at being separated from his ‘pataphysical tools when he telepathically writes: “I no longer had even my tuning fork. Imagine the perplexity of a man outside time and space, who has lost his watch, and his measuring rod, and his turning fork. I believe, Sir, that it is indeed this state which constitutes death” (248). Without his tools for measurement the scientist can no longer draw comparisons between two events, but a ‘pataphysician would hardly need the same tools for measurement in their studies that are similar to those of a scientist. However, without these measuring tools Faustroll is reduced a state that is similar to death, but contradictorily, he is making this comparison while in a state of death, so he is still making measurements of some kind. Death, as Faustroll explains, “is only for common people” but who those people are he does not say, except that he immediately agrees with Kelvin that “if one can measure what one is talking about and express it in numbers, which constitute the sole reality, then one has some knowledge of one’s subject” (247). The common person, based on this description, is one who has no concept of measurement and quantification, and therefore no concept of—in Faustroll’s case—‘pataphysics.

Jarry proposes that ‘pataphysics “will examine the laws governing exceptions” which is in contrast to modern science. Jarry proposes that:

[‘Pataphysics]… will describe a universe which can be…envisaged in the place of the traditional one, since the laws that are supposed to have been discovered in the traditional universe are also correlations of exceptions, albeit more frequent ones, but in any case accidental data which, reduced to the status of unexceptional exceptions, possess no longer even the virtue of originality. (192-193)

‘Pataphysics is content to examine each event on its own, and instead of attempting to correlate each event with others, allows them to be individual occurrences or objects. In this way, ‘pataphysics shows more consideration to the smallest details, analyzing the differences that exist between otherwise identical events. Instead of focusing on the ample similarities, the scarce differences are studied exhaustively, until the point where it is considered absurd by science. Science ignores the exceptions as anomalies, instead choosing to look for patterns and grouping the similar events together in an attempt to construct knowledge of the world. Where there are gaps in perception induction is used to create a rational, perfectly explainable, picture of the world. Based on measurements, history, previous knowledge, and perceived similarities, events are then lumped into various categories based on the similarities of the identical or nearly identical. It devotes energy to the discovery of new correlations which are based on the similarities of events rather than differences.

Measurement is the source of all similarities and differences, and so is the foundation of all scientific knowledge. Kelvin explains the importance of measurement in science when he writes:

The first step toward numerical reckoning of properties of matter, more advanced than the mere reference to a set of numbered standards, as in mineralogists scale of hardness, or to an arbitrary trade standard…is the discovery of a continuously-varying action of some kind, and the means of observing it definitely, and meaning it in terms of some arbitrary unit or scale division. (Brown 1)

Through measurement the scientist can relate to the world, and without it there is no basis for the correlation and categorizing of seemingly similar, albeit isolated events. By measuring an object a direct comparison is being made between two different objects, even though the second object might be absent, like through the use of a meter stick. In this way, the source of measurement is often something completely arbitrary, based on another object completely unrelated to those being measured. For example, Kelvin confirms the origins of the meter when he states that “The metre…was made originally as nearly as possible equal to the ten-millionth of the length of a certain quadrant of the earth” (Brown 4). Thus, all objects that are given a length in meters are compared to an arbitrary piece of earth determined by scientists as a basis for all forms of length measurement.

Though it makes sense to have the ability to compare the lengths of two separate objects in terms of numbers, the source of the meter could be considered absurd. Jarry, however, formulates a super-rational form a measurement that Dr. Faustroll totes as his source of ‘pataphysical measurement: “I carry on me the one thousand millionth part of a quarter of the earth’s circumference, which is more honorable than being attached to the surface of the globe by attraction” (249). This form of measurement may seem absurd, but it is a rational idea when considered with the arbitrary source of the scientific meter, and is in fact “more honorable” because it is a fraction of the circumference of the earth, rather than part of an arbitrary length of ground.

Measurement is one idea that both Kelvin and Jarry agree on, at least in terms of its importance to both science and ‘pataphysics. Kelvin argues:

…a first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and methods for practicably measuring some quality connected with it…when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about; but when you cannot measure it…it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely…advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be. (Brown 2)

Kelvin makes an epistemological claim that knowledge is defined by its ability to be measured in numbers, by quantity of some kind, though he does not explain what that quantity might be. Therefore, he argues, knowledge can only belong to a person who can measure quantitatively the matter they want to know and science cannot be understood without knowledge. This is the relationship that Kelvin defines between measurements supporting knowledge that, in turn, is the foundation for science. The problem with this relationship is address by Jarry by Dr. Faustroll’s obsession with measurement lending itself to the satire of Kelvin’s measurement-knowledge-science relationship. As knowledge is based on measurement, and is also the foundations for science, yet it is science that establishes the justification for measurement. This creates a circular argument, where each part relies on the other as justification for its conclusions. Jarry over-extends the relationship between measurement-knowledge-science by focusing on the hyperfine aspects of objects.

One example of this overextension of the relationship is Jarry’s description of Dr. Faustroll at the beginning of the novel. Faustroll is described as being born in “1898 (the 20^th century was (-2) years old)”, when he was sixty-three years old, and that he was “a man of medium height, or to be absolutely accurate, of (8 x 10¹⁰ + 10⁹ + 4 x 10⁸ + 5 x 10⁶) atomic diameters” (183). This exactness in his description is absurd in its accuracy, but by mentioning the preexistence of the 20^th century, Jarry puts Faustroll in the realm of the modern science, the golden age of exact measurement. He was conceived in the 19^th century, but it is the 20^th century that births him, and allows the over-rational absurdity of ‘pataphysics. By focusing on this birth of a century, Jarry is giving the reader a foundation for understanding Faustroll, and though this point in time might seem arbitrary, it is no less unusual than most other forms of scientific measurement. Even Kelvin points that:

“It is interesting, not only in respect to the ultimate philosophy of metrical systems, but also as full of suggestions regarding the properties of matter, to work out in detail the idea of founding the measurements of mass and force on no other foundation than the measurement of length and time” (Brown 3).

In giving not only this exact, albeit absurd, description of Faustroll, along with this unusual date and circumstances of his birth, Jarry is setting the stage for the reader to have a means of measurement to that which we already know. It does not matter that the measurements are absurd or impossible to comprehend; they are still a means for comparison, and a glimpse into the ultra-rational ‘pataphysics.

By making the move from rational to ultra-rational ‘pataphysics is suddenly considered absurdist in its approach to knowledge. Science makes equally absurd moves in its logic, but since the focus is on categories and patterns of information the average person can relate to it, making sense of the explanations given by science to explain the world around them. Kelvin, a widely regarded scientist, gives the example of the infinitesimal satellite, and proceeds to explain why it is a justification for comparison: “These somewhat pedantic words are justified, because “infinitesimal satellite” is nine syllables to express three or four sentences; that is our justification” (Brown 3). By condensing a paragraph down to a few syllables Kelvin is giving a perfect example of science at its best in the defining and categorizing of the even the words on the page. It can be argued that this condensation is just as absurd as any ultra-rationale supplied by a ‘pataphysician such as Dr. Faustroll, no matter how absurd the observations might seem. One standard of arbitrariness cannot be imposed on one form of study, only to be absent from another simply because one explains the world more or less rationally than another without calling into question the ethics of doing so.

Both authors make a claim about the source and value of knowledge, but they do so in very different ways. Kelvin defines knowledge in terms of measurement and quantification, as a support for knowledge, and knowledge, in turn, supports scientific, rational reasoning. Though Jarry also defines knowledge through a form of quantification, it is of a different kind. If ‘pataphysics is the science of the imaginary and particular, then the tools for measurement must also be imaginary or at least based on each and every instance of the particular. In this way, ‘pataphysics might seem arbitrary, but in fact is more rational than science in the rigorousness in which the observations are pursued to explain even the most mundane differences between objects. It may seem absurd to argue against something as simple as the nonexistence of identical objects, but it is also known, even by science, that no two objects in the world are identical. When this is realized, the study of every object and event as its own entity no longer seems absurd, and instead becomes a more rational idea than lumping objects and events into arbitrary categories based on nothing more than their seeming similarities.

Works Cited

Brown, Nathan. "Lord Kelvin, Popular Lectures and Addresses, Vol. 1" Course notes. ENL/STS 164: Writing Science. English/Science and Technology Studies 164. University of California, Davis. February 12, 2009.

Jarry, Alfred. Exploits and Opinions of Doctor Faustroll Pataphysician. Trans. Simon Watson Taylor. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1965.

ENL 164: "Angels in angles and other observations." Response to Crystallography by C. Bok.

I just want to talk about a few interesting passages that caught my eye while reading these poems.

First, the dedication at the beginning of the book caught my eye. There is a simple ninety degree angle drawn out with a line, and inside that angle it reads: "for the angel in the angle." It reminded me of several things, immediately of people who misspell the word "angel" with its geometric rearrangement. After my initial reaction, I thought about what he could have meant by rearranging the letters this way. I realized that there is an 'angel' in 'angle,' that is discovered by a simple rearrangement of letters. It made me feel a little silly for criticizing people for their innocent misspellings, and also put me in a right frame of mind for what was to come.

The next passage that caught my eye was on page 12:

A crystal is nothing more

than a breeze blowing sand

into the form of a castle

or a film played backwards

of a window being smashed.

It immediately reminded me of our discussion in class on Thursday about Bergvall's poem. I had written about liquids as a comparison for her poem, and the "trickling" of the letters on the page to form words by accident. Bok's description of a crystal is opposite of that observation: the accident is so elaborate and obvious it seems hardly an accident at all. A "film played backwards" implies that this is an event that has been staged, and planned to formation, and yet the description of "a breeze blowing sand" seems to undermine that very idea. It is also violent, with the "window being smashed" but also regal in "the form of a castle." It is complicated, these crystals, and it is an interesting comparison to be made just in one very short passage.

The final passage I will discuss is on page 53:

amethyst teeth grow into the yolk

of a geode, each interior crystal

a rock song of thought, an engram

forgotten inside a stone cranium.

I read an article on memory formation a long time ago, and the word "engram" triggered a memory while reading. Interesting that the term engram is defined in Merriam Webster's online dictionary as "a hypothetical change in neural tissue postulated in order to account for the persistence of memory." How appropriate that this word should evoke such ideas. Returning to the poem, I enjoyed the comparison of an amethyst crystal in a geode to the deep thoughts of a "stone cranium." The implications of a miner digging out those precious memories that were all but forgotten is a beautiful and compelling visual, and even more priceless than jewels are those memories that were once lost. Even the use of the word "yolk" implies an egg, which, when broken, will show the rich interior birthed by the fusion of crystal and rock.

ENL 164: "Letters or Liquids?" Response to the poetry of Caroline Bergvall.

There is something alluring about texts written illegibly, especially when those words are in such a serious "print" format, like poetry. It is like a puzzle, albeit a puzzle that has as many solutions as people who read it. Some works of literature are fantasic because they have no meaning that is universal, and instead offer only questions to the reader, who must accept the questions and try to find answers. In a work this abstract, it might be said the questions are infinite, leading to an even great number of answers, both of which are based solely on the interpretation of the reader.

The words in the poem border on inappropriate, but the reader must ask himself if the words are inappropriate, or if the reader just chooses to interpret them in this way. It takes a dirty mind to see the dirty--is that how the saying goes? Several times I would see something, only to stop myself, backtrack, and realize that what I saw was a word different, but subtly so. One page, 48, has words that form a shape like fluid trickling down the page, and the words formed within the letters could be interpreted as "gagging," "disgorging," "puke," "suck," "excrement," and "sack." Or, is it something else entirely? If so, I should probably get some help.

The meaning may not be immediate, and we may not be the ones to understand it, but there is meaning there. Perhaps the meaning is nothing more than making the reader consider for a moment that there is no meaning. Or maybe it is a commentary on our own understanding: we must find an interpretation or we're left unhappy with our ignorance. Whatever it is, I found this an interesting piece to read.

UWP 104D: "Online Versus On-Campus: Comparing eLearning and In-Person Delivery in College Classrooms"

Online Versus On-Campus:

Comparing eLearning and In-Person Delivery in College Classrooms

We are submerged in a culture that has embraced the technological age, which has gained momentum, fueling our want for new and exciting technologies. Want has become need, for those things that were only dreams of science fiction writers less than thirty years ago: wireless blue tooth headsets, notebook computers, touch screen cell phones, and wireless internet. Technology has bled over into education subtly, with entire campuses offering wireless internet, hybrid (internet and in-person delivered) courses, and courses entirely online. Online education, or eLearning, has quickly become the solution to recruiting and integrating the untraditional, the working, and the returning adult students into the college the college environment without putting demands on their time for commute and in-person lectures. The flexibility offered by online education is creating new opportunities for students who would not otherwise have the promise of education. However, there are drawbacks that must be considered by institutions before offering online curriculum such as costs, accessibility, effectiveness, the time that must be invested by both student and instructor, and what is lost and gained in the online classroom.

Costs of eLearning, for the institution and student, are one of the first considerations in the development of online curriculum. In the article “Cost Analysis of E-Learning: A Case Study of a University Program,” it is stressed that an institution must look at both the cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of eLearning programs, and that the two considerations are quite different. The author writes “many educators and decision-makers believe that the fact that e-learning can save costs is the major advantage of an e-learning program, because it is assumed that enhanced student enrollment would result in increased revenue and lower cost” (Wentling 2). Though it is true that online offerings have potential to bring in more students, even a larger variety of students, what is not considered is the costs of creating and implementing online curriculum effectively. Wentling goes on to point out that “Because of the high start-up and fixed costs, e-learning programs are more expensive than traditional classroom learning in the case of small enrollment” (3). Another study published by The Journal of Interactive Online Learning finds that for the development of a “3-semester hour online course required in excess of 700 hours of instructor and staff time” and that was not including technical support (Shaw 7). For online curriculum to be cost-effective and self sustaining the classes must have more students to monetarily compensate for the instructor having to spend more time planning and implementation, and to pay for the technical support. It is important for institutions to keep in mind the costs of online curriculum before making a long-term commitment to its implementation.

Costs play an important role in the effectiveness of the online classroom, including those costs to the students. A traditional classroom has desks facing an instructor and a chalk or dry erase board. Compare this to the online classroom which consists of a forum for students to post discussion topics and replies, and perhaps a small online chat room that is monitored by the instructor or a teacher’s assistant. This “classroom” is where most of the student-student and student-teacher interaction is supposed to take place. An institution that wants to create a more realistic online classroom may add live video capabilities, so the instructor may have video chats with students in real time. This technology, which would be very effective, can be expensive and also requires training for the instructor to be able to use it effectively. For a student, access to a computer that is workable and internet capable proves to be another hurdle. Often, institutions that serve a poorer public may have to provide open labs for students to be able to participate effectively in their online classes, but this still it not saving students the cost of transportation to campus.

Compared to the traditional classroom, where the teacher and subject are given most of the attention, and there are minimal distractions from the lecture topics, the online classroom has some drawbacks. For a student who is at home on their computer, distractions can become overwhelming, taking away from the effectiveness of the class: children are crying, dinner is cooking, parents are fighting, friends are calling, and these are psychological hindrances on the student who is trying to become actively involved in the online classroom. Students can also be discouraged if they are not comfortable the technological demands of the online venue. Students from a generation less familiar with home computers, especially older students and returning students, face a struggle to become comfortable in the online world. These students quickly fall behind in their online classes because of the atmosphere, which can be perceived as isolating and intimidating. Soon, feeling they are not welcome in the young, tech-savvy ranks of the computer literate, drop the class, and sometimes out of school altogether. Unfortunately, these are the same students who would benefit most from acclimation in an online environment: often they are returning to school to improve their career, which usually translates into a desire to be more computer literate and technologically oriented.

Online classes have been proven to be useful and effective in several ways. They offer convenience and a source of education for students who have limitations on their travel and time. Moreover, online courses have been proven an effective medium for education of students at college-level. According to a study done by Shujen L. Chang and Kathryn Ley at the University of Houston, Clear Lake, students can adapt to strenuous expectations in the online classroom by modifying techniques already used in traditional classrooms. The authors specifically address student’s use of printed materials, and found that the average test scores “favored the online sections only slightly” and that the two venues produced “comparable levels of student learning” (7). Another article found on eLearnMag.org addresses cheating in the online classroom, pointing out several tips that discourage cheating without the use of a proctor. “The increased risk of candidate cheating [in the online classroom] can be mitigated by a number of factors, including an expanded online test item bank and standardized test item development” as well as “instituting scheduled test-item refreshment policies and processes that ensure candidates do not see the same online items…generally decreasing the likelihood of information-sharing” (Eatchel 1). Students are learning as effectively as students in the traditional classroom, but can also be tested by rigorous standards that discourage cheating and encourage knowledge of the subject. eLearning utilizes different methods of teaching, but supplies students with the tools they need for success as they continue with their education.

Online curriculum in colleges can be an effective way to offer college education to a more diverse group of students who would otherwise see education as out of reach. Creating these opportunities might be time consuming and expensive to implement, but the outcome produces an innovative classroom experience that is comparable to the traditional classroom setting. With proper planning, the internet classroom provides students with the classes they need, with experience with computers and internet that some students are sorely lacking to be successful in our very technological world. eLearning offers the best of both worlds: effective education for students, in a technological forum, that allows students to experience communication in a new and quickly-emerging technology driven environment.

Works Cited

Chang, Shujen and Kathryn Ley. "A Learning Strategy to Compensate for Cognitive Overload in Online Learning: Learner Use of Printed Online Materials." Journal of Interactive Online Learning Vol 5, Num 1: Spring 2006 http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/5.1.8.pdf.

Eatchel, Nikki Shepherd. “Online Testing: Making it Count.” 2001. February 8, 2009 http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=best_practices&article=38-1.

Shaw, Dale and Suzanne Young. “Costs to Instructors in Delivering Equated Online and On-campus Courses.” Journal of Interactive Online Learning Vol 1, Num 4: Spring 2003 http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.4.2.pdf.

Wentling, Tim and Ji-Hye Park. “Cost Analysis of E-Learning: A Case Study of a University Program.” University of Illinois at Urbana –Champaign, 2002. February 8, 2009. http://learning.ncsa.uiuc.edu/papers/AHRD2002_wentling-park.pdf.

ENL 164: "Comparing [Alfred] Jarry to music,” a response to “Dr. Faustroll, Pataphysician.”

I hope this is not completely irrelevant, but this piece reminds me of the work of one of my favorite musical artists. Mike Patton, of Faith No More fame, has several interesting musical side projects that he has participated in and overseen since the demise of FNM. One project, in particular, Maldoror, is actually named after one of the works that is found in the collection of Dr. Faustroll: Lautréamont’s The Lays of Maldoror. However, many of his projects are great representations of ‘pataphysical ideas in music: Fantômas, Mr. Bungle, Tomahawk, Peeping Tom, and several albums done with the composer John Zorn.

These albums could (to varying degrees) be described as “aural insanity.” Some have seemingly random noises as part of a track, for example, several minutes of one album is just the sound of a clock ticking. I know some people would not consider this to be “music” but I have developed an ear for it; to me, it still “sounds” like music, and it is created to be a modernist idea of music, and a vision futuristic music. It is a fusion of several genres of music, including rock (guitars, drum set), jazz (horns, cymbals, scat singing), classical (strings, larger horns, especially seen in the Zorn works), and even elements of hip-hop, punk, and metal.

I think much of this work as ‘pataphysical implications, mostly due to the unusual and random nature of some of the sounds. Consider the conjuring of Faustroll in Book I, chapter 7: “Across the foliated space of the twenty-seven equivalents, Faustroll conjured up into the third dimension” (190) which continues with a list of items that are “conjured” from the 27 equal books. One could argue that musical and non-musical elements are “conjured” from their original purpose to create music. It also has elements of the clinamen, such as a quote of Book VI, chapter 34 describes the Painting Machine:

…Meanwhile, after there was no one left in the world, the Painting Machine…like a spinning top, it dashed itself against the pillars, swayed and veered in infinitely varied directions, and followed its own whim in blowing onto the walls’ canvas the succession of primary colors…(238)

Much like the painting machine randomly puts color around its canvas, the sounds used in the music seems just as random: musical representations of the work of the Painting Machine.

Thanks for reading, and I'm sorry for the length. I think I got carried away.

ENL 164: "Irrational Foundations of a Rational World"

Irrational Foundations of a Rational World

The philosophers Lucretius and Hume were both rationalist philosophers, developing theories based solely on what man can reason within their mind alone, deemphasizing the importance of the senses. In believing that the senses were inferior to reason both philosophers limited themselves to reasonable explanations, using their mind and limiting their senses, to describe not only the world around them, but also to explain the very origins of man, the earth, and indeed the universe. Lucretius’ use of the clinamen as an explanation for the beginning of life is similar to Hume’s explanation of induction, in that both thinkers pose theories that are built on arguments springing from the irrational. Both authors attempt to describe the rational world in a logical way, yet end up resorting to, or realizing that, it is ultimately irrational beginnings that underlie all their rational explanations of reality. Each explanation pulls from the absurd and irrational to describe the origins of the universe, thus ultimately creating a rational world from irrational origins.

Lucretius’ posed that the origins of life were explained by the slight tilt of atoms within a void, which he called the “clinamen,” and it is this swerve that created collisions and binding of atoms that formed all that we know. In the following, Lucretius describes clinamen, and the origins of being:

And a random point in space [the atoms] swerve a little,
Only enough to call it a tilt in motion.
For if atoms did not tend to lean, they would
Plummet like raindrops through the depts of space,
No first collisions born, no blows created,
So nature never could have made a thing. (220-225)

The important word in the above passage is “random,” for it seems completely irrational, and therefore contrary to a rationalist perspective, for an incident leading to all of life to be a consequence of a “random” swerve in the void. This random swerve, and especially his use of the word “random,” implies a lack of rational cause, purpose, or idea that was the force behind the swerve in itself. A rational perspective emphasizes the importance of reason driving all incidents in the world, and only what man can rationalize can be conceived. To propose an origin of the world based on the foundation of a single, irrational, random event contradicts the rest of the theory in its entirety, undermining the foundations before the rest of the arguments are even described.

Lucretius posits, subtly, the argument of the clinamen as just another rational proposition in his argument for atomic structure and formulations. However, unlike Lucretius, Hume does not approach induction as an infallible argument, instead quickly disputing the inductive rationale and posing the limitations of induction at the core of his argument. Hume writes that “The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it” (111). This is Hume’s fundamental flaw of induction, because induction can only be used with a foundation of experience to guide inductive conclusions. Experience cannot dictate the future, explains Hume, because if one did not have experience to dictate the outcome of a cause, then every effect would be subject to extreme doubt. Subsequently, Humans cannot understand the ultimate cause of all being without the ability to conceive of a cause based on an effect. After all, the “effect” that one perceives is, in many cases, entirely different from the cause: “It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance” (117). The ultimate cause, or root cause, cannot be derived from events that occur after the cause, just as future events cannot be predicted from previous.

Experience is weak forms of evidence used explain the relation between cause and the supposed perceived effects. One example of experience being weak evidence is the impossibility that any person can experience the beginnings of the universe, or even conceive of the beginnings of time. Humans have no experiences that can be reasonably used to describe these events, but it is only those experiences that can be used as evidence. This explanation then, is not satisfactory to describe the origins of being, and Hume realizes that these correlations are entirely arbitrary. He writes:

In a word, then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause, and the first invention or conception of it, a priori, must be entirely arbitrary…the conjunction of it with the cause must appear equally arbitrary…In vain, therefore, should we pretend to determine any single event, or infer any cause or effect, without the assistance of observation and experience. (111)

Hume’s induction plays a similar role to Lucretius’ clinamen because, though induction at first seems to be based in rational thought, ultimately there seems to be no rational foundations for it. Induction is based on experience, argues Hume, but experience is limited and cannot be applied to those events that have not, or cannot be experienced. Nor can the cause be drawn from the effect that we perceive, as the above quote describes, as is shown in everyday examples of what we consider to be cause and effect.

The shortcomings of each of the arguments are given different emphasis by each author. Lucretius does not attempt to explain the absurdity of his unexplained postulate. Of course it is not hard to understand why, because it is hard to explain the origins of life without the use of a higher power as a source of creation. Lucretius, however, rules out even that option early in Book Two with the assertion that “not for us and not by gods/was this world made. There’s too much wrong with it” (181-182). His theory of clinamen is as imperfect as the world itself, and it is the imperfect beginning that will birth the imperfect world. Hume realizes this when he writes that “one mistake is the necessary parent of another” (88). It is definitely reasonable for Lucretius to assume an irrational beginning for an irrational world, so the absurd becomes normal in light of this correlation. Hume, in contrast, approaches the limitations of induction confidently, and purposefully, exposing the weaknesses as more evidence of its certainty. He explains:

All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relations of Cause and Effect…And here it is constantly supposed, that there is a connexion between the present fact and that which is inferred from it. Were there nothing to bind them together, the inference would be entirely precarious. (109)

Much like Lucretius’ imperfect beginning, induction is another example of imperfect reasoning that seems to harbor the truth within its imperfections, for, even “the most ignorant and stupid peasants, nay infants, nay even brute beasts, improve by experience” (118).

Lucretius resorts to irrationality to prove his argument, and Hume realizes the irrationality of his argument, yet both authors are rationalists attempting to find rationale in the world. This only proves the absurdity of the world around us, and the relevance of a “science of the imaginary” that we find described by ‘pataphysics. Hume seems to realize this when he writes:

Hence we may discover the reason, why no philosopher, who is rational and modest, has ever pretended to assign the ultimate cause of any natural operation, or to show distinctly the action of that power, which produces any single effect in the universe…The most perfect philosophy of the moral or metaphysical kind serves only to discover larger portions of our ignorance. (111-112)

Lucretius also describes a ‘pataphysical idea when we writes:

Nothing’s so very easy to believe
Which at first does not seem incredible;
So too nothing’s so great or wondrous, whose
Wonder will not diminish, little by little. (1025-1028)

We are left with few arguments that give us knowledge, and many questions that take away what we thought we knew. Our foundations in science leave us with more answers than solutions, and the closer we come to the rational, the more irrational we become.

Works Cited

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. London: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Lucretius. On the Nature of Things: De rerum natura. Trans. Anthony M. Esolen. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.