The Atomists Academic Notes

The Atomists Leucippus and Democritus were the two men who founded atomism. Since they are frequently cited together and parts of Leucippus's writings were subsequently credited to Democritus, it is challenging to separate them. Leucippus, who appears to have lived in prosperity about 440 B.C., originated at Miletus and continued the Miletian school of scientific rationalist philosophy. He was greatly impacted by Zeno and Parmenides. There is so little information available about him that Epicurus, a later disciple of Democritus, was believed to have completely denied his existence; this notion has been renewed by some recent scholars. But Aristotle makes several references to him, some of which are even textual citations; it is hard to see how this would have happened if he had only been a fiction. Democritus is a somewhat more concrete figure. His date of birth was given as 432 B.C., when Anaxagoras was considered elderly. He was a native of Abdera in Thrace. His flourishing is thought to have occurred about 420 B.C. He made extensive trips throughout the southern and eastern regions in pursuit of knowledge; it's possible that he spent a significant amount of time in Egypt and that he went to Persia. Then he went back to Abdera and stayed there. Democritus, a contemporary of Socrates and the Sophists, is "superior to all earlier and contemporary philosophers in wealth of knowledge, and to most in acuteness and logical correctness of thinking," according to Zeller. For chronological reasons alone, he should be discussed somewhat later in our history. The challenge lies in how tough it is to break him away from Leucippus. Because of this, I rank him above Socrates and the Sophists, even though a portion of his philosophy was meant to be a response to Protagoras, a neighboring town resident and the most renowned Sophist. Democritus, on the other hand, claims: "I went to Athens, and no one knew me." For a long time, his philosophy was disregarded at Athens; Burnet notes, "It is not clear that Plato knew anything about Democritus." Protagoras, on the other hand, was welcomed with enthusiasm when he visited the city. Democritus, on the other hand, is well known to Aristotle because he was also an Ionian from the North. * Although Diogenes Laertius claims that Plato detested Democritus to the point where he wanted all of his works burned, Plato never makes reference to him in the Dialogues. He is much respected as a mathematician by Heath. Leucippus is credited with formulating the basic principles of the common philosophy of both Democritus and Leucippus, however it is difficult to separate them and not crucial to do so for our purposes. In an attempt to arbitrate between monism and pluralism, as represented by Parmenides and Empedocles, respectively, Leucippus, if not Democritus, was driven to atomism. Their viewpoint avoided most of the flaws that plagued Greek conjecture, and it was very similar to that of current science. They held the following beliefs: everything is made up of indivisible, physically unbreakable atoms; there is empty space between atoms; atoms are indestructible; atoms have always been in motion and always will be; there are an infinite number of atoms and even different types of atoms, with the only differences being in size and shape. Aristotle claims that the atomists also claimed that atoms differed in terms of heat, with the spherical atoms that make up fire being the hottest; in terms of weight, he quotes Democritus as saying that "the more any indivisible exceeds, the heavier it is." However, there is disagreement over whether the atomists' theories about atoms' original weight are true. Although there is debate among observers on the nature of the first motion, the atoms were always in motion. Some, including Zeller, maintain that the atoms were believed to be falling constantly and that the heavier ones fell more quickly, catching up to the lesser ones, causing hits and deflecting the atoms like billiard balls. This was undoubtedly Epicurus's perspective, since he attempted, however clumsily, to consider Aristotle's objections while basing his beliefs, for the most part, on those of Democritus. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that Leucippus and Democritus' atoms did not originally have weight. According to their idea, it is more likely that atoms first moved randomly, much like in the current kinetic theory of gases. Democritus asserted that there was no such thing as up or down in the boundless emptiness and likened the motion of atoms within the soul to that of motes in a sunbeam in the absence of wind. This is a far more sophisticated perspective than Epicurus', and I believe we may conclude it was Leucippus' and Democritus'. * Atomic groups began to create vortices as a result of collisions. The remaining steps were similar to those of Anaxagoras, but explaining the vortices mechanically as opposed to as the result of mental activity was a breakthrough. In the past, it was customary to criticize atomists for believing that everything happened by accident. Conversely, they were devout determinists who held that everything occurs in conformity with natural rules. Democritus categorically refuted the idea that anything may occur by accident. Even if Leucippus's existence is called into question, one item is known to have been spoken by him: "Naught happens for nothing, but everything from a ground and of necessity." It is true that he did not explain why the universe came to be the way it was; this may have been explained by chance. However, once the planet was created, mechanical principles fixed its subsequent evolution irreversibly. He and Democritus were chastised by Aristotle and others for failing to explain the atoms' initial motion, yet in this the atomists were more scientific than their detractors. Anywhere that causation begins is where it must begin, and the first datum cannot have a cause attached to it. Even if there is a Creator, there is still no way to account for the Creator Himself in the universe. In actuality, the atomists' thesis resembled contemporary science the most out of all the theories put out in antiquity. Unlike Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, the atomists attempted to explain the universe without adding the concepts of purpose or ultimate cause. An upcoming event serves as the "final cause" of an occurrence, meaning that it occurs for that reason alone. This idea is applicable to human affairs. The baker makes bread, but why? therefore there will be a hunger crisis. Why are railroads constructed? due to the desire of individuals to travel. Things in these situations are described by the function they fulfill. When we inquire, "Why?Regarding an event, we may be referring to one of two things. Maybe what we mean is: "What was the aim of this event?perhaps we may say: "What prior conditions led to this incident?A teleological explanation, or an explanation by final causes, is the response to the first question; a mechanical explanation is the response to the second. I fail to see how science could have known ahead of time which of these two questions it should be asking, or if it should be asking both. However, empirical evidence indicates that the mechanical inquiry yields scientific knowledge, but the teleological inquiry does not. The mechanists posed the mechanistic query and provided a mechanistic response. Up until the Renaissance, their successors led science into a dead end because they were more focused on the teleological question. There is a restriction that is frequently disregarded in philosophy and common thought with relation to both questions equally. Only certain aspects of reality, not the entirety of reality (including God), are subject to reasonable inquiry in any case. Regarding the teleological explanation, it often leads to a Creator, or at the very least, an Artificer, whose intentions are eventually fulfilled by the workings of nature. However, it is evident that a man's query is impious if he is so adamantly teleological as to inquire what function the Creator serves. It is also meaningless because, in order for it to have any significance, we would need to believe that the Creator was a super-Creator who fulfilled some higher purpose. Therefore, the idea of purpose is limited to reality and cannot be applied to the entirety of existence. There is a comparable case for mechanical explanations. Another occurrence causes another, which in turn causes a third, and so on. However, if we inquire into the origin of the whole, we are led back to the Creator, who has to be uncaused Himself. Therefore, there must be an arbitrary beginning to all causal explanations. For this reason, the atomists' theory is not flawed despite their failure to account for the atoms' initial motions. It cannot be assumed that their theories were only based on empirical evidence. The Greeks were ignorant of the chemical facts that have led to the present revival of the atomic idea. In the past, there wasn't a clear separation between logical reasoning and empirical observation. While it is true that Parmenides disregarded empirical truths, Empedocles and Anaxagoras integrated a significant portion of their metaphysics with findings like water clocks and spinning buckets. No philosopher seems to have questioned the possibility of establishing a comprehensive metaphysic and cosmology with a mix of extensive reasoning and a modicum of observation prior to the Sophists. By chance, the atomists came up with a theory for which some support was discovered over 2,000 years later, yet even in their day, their belief lacked a firm basis. * Like other philosophers of his era, Leucippus was preoccupied with figuring out how to balance Parmenides' arguments against the undeniable reality of motion and change. According to Aristotle, "Believing these opinions [of Parmenides] seems next door to madness when one considers the facts, even though they appear to follow logically in a dialectical discussion." Since some people are insane enough to discern no distinction between what is right and what looks right out of habit, no maniac appears to be so insane as to believe that fire and ice are "one." But Leucippus believed he had a theory that fit with sense experience and did not deny motion, plurality, or the coming-to-be and passing-away of things. He yielded to the Monists that motion could not exist without a vacuum, but he also made these concessions to the realities of sense. The end product is a notion that he puts out as follows: "What is in the strict sense of the word is an absolute plenum; the void is a notbeing, and no part of what is is a not-being." However, because of the minuteness of their weight, this plenum is unseen and limitless in number rather than a single entity. There is a gap in which the many move. When they come together, they create comingto-be, and when they separate, they create passing-away. Additionally, they create by coming together and blending together, and they act and suffer anytime they have the opportunity to come into touch (since they are not one). It will be shown that there was one issue on which everyone was in agreement up to this point, namely that there could be no motion in a plenum. From the truly one, on the other hand, there could never have come to be a multiplicity, nor from the genuinely many a one: that is inconceivable. In this, everyone was in error. If cyclic motion has always been in a plenum, then it is possible. The theory was that an object could only move into an empty space, and there are no empty spaces in a plenum. It is possible to argue—and maybe with merit—that motion could never start in a plenum, but it is not possible to sustain—and with validity—that it could never happen at all. However, it appeared to the Greeks that one had to either accept the static reality of Parmenides or acknowledge the emptiness. Paimenides' arguments against the emptiness now appeared logically indisputable, and they were supported by the finding that air exists where there appears to be nothing. It cannot be said that the atomists answered this argument; they merely proclaimed that they proposed to ignore it, on the grounds that motion is a fact of experience and therefore there must be a void, however difficult it may be to conceive. This is an example of the confused mixture of logic and observation that was common. We may put the Parmenidean position in this way: "You say there is the void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore it is not the void." * Let's look at this problem's history since then. The first and most straightforward solution to get over the logical conundrum is to make a distinction between matter and space. This perspective holds that space is not emptiness, but rather has the characteristics of a container that may or may not be partially filled with stuff. This viewpoint is most explicitly presented by Newton, who asserts the existence of absolute space and, as a result, distinguishes absolute from relative motion. Aristotle states (Physics, 208 b): "The theory that the void exists involves the existence of place: for one would define void as place bereft of body." Although they may not have realized it, both sides in the Copernican controversy were committed to this view because they believed there was a difference between saying "the earth rotates from west to east" and saying "the heavens revolve from east to west." If all motion is relative, then these two statements are just different ways of saying the same thing, such as "James is the son of John" and "John is the father of James." However, if space is not substantial and all motion is relative, then we are left with the Parmenidean arguments against the void. Descartes claimed that since extension is the fundamental property of matter, matter exists everywhere. His arguments are essentially the same as those of the early Greek thinkers. According to him, extension is an adjective rather than a substantive; matter is its substantive, and it cannot exist without it. He believes that "empty space" is just as ridiculous as bliss devoid of a joyful sentient human. Though for quite different reasons, Leibniz too accepted the existence of the plenum and insisted that space is only a system of interactions. There was a wellknown debate on this topic between him and Newton, who was represented by Clarke. Until Einstein's theory gave Leibniz the definitive advantage, the debate remained unresolved. Though he still maintains that matter is essentially atomic, current physicists reject the idea of empty space. Something exists even in the absence of stuff, most notably light waves. The exalted position that matter formerly held in philosophy according to Parmenides' arguments is no longer held by it. It is only a means of organizing events; it is not an immutable substance. Certain occurrences, like light waves, fall into the category of objects that can be considered material. The world is made up of occurrences, each of which lasts just a little while. In this regard, contemporary science supports Heraclitus rather than Parmenides. But prior to Einstein and the development of quantum theory, it was on Parmenides' side. The contemporary understanding of space holds that it is a system of relations rather than a substance, as Leibniz believed, as Descartes believed, and as Leucippus and Democritus should have claimed. Whether this perspective is consistent with the presence of the vacuum is by no means obvious. Perhaps it can be reconciled with the void as an abstract logic issue. It is possible to argue that there is a certain amount of larger or smaller distance between any two objects, but that distance does not necessitate the presence of intermediary objects. However, it would be difficult to apply such a point of view in contemporary physics. Since Einstein, distance involves both time and space and is measured between occurrences rather than between objects. It is fundamentally a theory of causation, yet there is no action at a distance in contemporary physics. All of this, nevertheless, is grounded in empirical data rather than reasoning. Furthermore, the current perspective could not be expressed without reference to differential equations, rendering it incomprehensible to the ancient thinkers. Therefore, it would appear that the Newtonian theory of absolute space, which addresses the challenge of attributing reality to non-existence, is the natural progression of the atomists' viewpoints. There are no logical challenges to this idea. The main argument against absolute space is that it cannot possibly exist as a required hypothesis in an empirical science as it is completely unknown. The argument that physics can function without it is more pragmatic. However, the world of the atomists is still logically plausible and is closer to reality than any other ancient philosopher's universe. Democritus thoroughly developed his views, and some of the development is fascinating. He said that because there was no vacancy in an atom, it was all impermeable and indivisible. When cutting an apple with a knife, the blade must discover voids or empty spaces to pierce; otherwise, the apple would be eternally hard and hence physically indivisible. Every atom is a Parmenidean one, meaning that it is constant internally. Atoms are only able to move and collide with one another, and occasionally they will merge when they form forms that can interlock. They come in a variety of forms; for example, fire and the soul are both made of tiny spherical atoms. When atoms collide, vortices are created, which lead to the creation of bodies and eventually planets. * There are several worlds; some are expanding, some are collapsing; some could have one sun, one moon, or multiple. There is a beginning and an end to every planet. Colliding with a bigger planet has the potential to destroy a world. In a nutshell, Shelley's cosmology may be described as follows: worlds upon worlds are rolling continuously from creation to destruction, like river bubbles that sparkle, burst, and are carried away. The primordial slime gave rise to life. A live organism has some fire everywhere, but the majority of it is found in the breast or brain (although experts disagree on this point). Since thought is a type of motion, it may also generate motion in other places. Thought and perception are physical functions. There are two types of perception: perceptual and cognitive. The former type of perceptions are more likely to be misleading since they also rely on our senses, whereas the later type just depends on the objects experienced. Similar to Locke, Democritus maintained that while characteristics like weight, density, and hardness are actually present in the thing, characteristics like warmth, taste, and color are only the result of our sense organs. Democritus was an extreme materialist; as we have seen, he believed that mind was a physical process and that the soul was made up of atoms. The cosmos was made up of nothing but atoms according to mechanical principles, with no purpose. He argued against Anaxagoras' nous and against popular religion. In terms of ethics, he believed that happiness is the ultimate objective of life and that the greatest ways to achieve it are moderation and culture. He was against anything emotional and violent, including sex, which he claimed included the overpowering of awareness by pleasure. Although he thought poorly of women and did not want children since they interfere with philosophy, he cherished friendship. He had many similarities with Jeremy Bentham, including his admiration for democracy as defined by the Greeks. * I believe that Democritus was the last of the Greek philosophers to be free from a particular flaw that poisoned all subsequent ancient and medieval philosophy. Every philosopher up to this point has been involved in an objective pursuit of worldly understanding. They believed it to be simpler to comprehend than it actually is, but they would not have had the bravery to start if they had not had this hope. When their approach did not simply reflect the preconceptions of their day, it was, for the most part, truly scientific. However, it was not only scientific; it was also lively, creative, and full of the joy of exploration. Their interests ranged widely, encompassing meteors and eclipses, fish and whirlwinds, religion and morals. They coupled a keen intellect with a youthful enthusiasm for everything. After this, despite previously unheard-of accomplishments, there are initial signs of deterioration and thereafter a slow descent into decadence. What is wrong is an overemphasis on man in relation to the universe, even in the finest philosophy written after Democritus. Scepticism first appears with the Sophists, and instead of attempting to learn anything new, it leads to an investigation of our existing knowledge. The focus on ethics follows, first with Socrates, then with Plato, who rejects the world of sensation in favor of the self-created realm of pure thinking, and with Aristotle, who holds that purpose is the essential idea in science. Despite the greatness of Aristotle and Plato, their ideas had flaws that have proven to be extremely detrimental. Following their period, there was a decline in energy and a slow resurgence of common superstition. The triumph of Catholic orthodoxy brought forth a somewhat different perspective, but philosophy did not regain the vitality and independence of Socrates' forebears until the Renaissance.