Analyzing Epicurus's 'Letter To Herodotus'

Sulaiman Saed Haruna
Third level attempt
Philosophy 25a

In the Letter to Herodotus, Epicurus gives a general account of Epicurean atomism. Of particular interest is its take on the nature of matter. The universe is made up of bodies and void.
The bodies represent matter, and Epicurus states that some bodies are a compound made up of entities that are atomic, unchangeable and do not get destroyed when the bodies they make up are being destroyed. It is better to think of it this way: if these atomic entities come together in a particular form we have a body, but when they separate into individual atomic entities then the body no longer exists. However, the atoms that previously made the body still exist. Epicurus believes that all bodies come to be from these atomic natures. These atomic natures were subsequently referred to as atoms. Atoms make up all of matter. At this point, we can infer that Epicurus believes matter can be divided, but only as far as to the atom. The goal of this essay is to analyze Epicurus’ argument that matter cannot be infinitely divisible.We would look at the premises in his argument from which

Consequently, it would eventually be destroyed into what is not per the destruction argument Epicurus agrees with. But would it always be the case that an infinitely divisible matter must certainly get destroyed into what is not? Certainly, it is possible that if matter divided infinitely it could be destroyed into other things. For instance, let consider a broken beer bottle. Inasmuch as we no longer consider it to be a beer bottle because it has undergone some sort of destruction, it could be called a weapon. Even though the beer bottle was destroyed, it didn't end up becoming non-being. Epicurus could have pointed this out. In my opinion to assume that if something is divided infinitely, then it is destroyed into non-being is a little weakness I identified in Epicurus’