Phronesis 41 (3):305-317 (1996)

Tim O'Keefe
Georgia State University
The 'swerve' is not supposed to provide a temporal 'starting point' (archê) of collisions, since Epicurus thinks that there is no temporal starting-point of collisions. Instead, the swerve is supposed to provide an explanatory archê of collisions. In positing the swerve, Epicurus is responding to Aristotle's criticisms of Democritus' theory of motion.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1163/156852896321051648
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,700
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Epicurus.David Konstan - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Epicurus on Truth and Falsehood.Alexander Bown - 2016 - Phronesis 61 (4):463–503.
Lucretius' Arguments on the Swerve and Free-Action.Basil Evangelidis - 2019 - Landmarks in the Philosophy, Ethics and History of Science.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
89 ( #116,155 of 2,432,305 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #55,754 of 2,432,305 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes