Jump to content

Democritus: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
remving {{pp-semi-vandalism|small=yes}}
Complete overhaul of most of the article — will clean up tomorrow
Line 18: Line 18:
|influenced = [[Epicurus]], [[Lucretius]], [[Santayana]]}}
|influenced = [[Epicurus]], [[Lucretius]], [[Santayana]]}}


'''Democritus''' ({{lang-el|Δημόκριτος, ''Dēmokritos''}}, "chosen of the people") (ca. 460 BC - ca 370 BC) was a [[The Presocratics|pre-Socratic]] [[Hellenic civilization|Greek]] [[materialist]] [[philosopher]]. Also known as "The Laughing Philosopher", Democritus was a student of [[Leucippus]] and co-originator of the belief that all [[matter]] is made up of various imperishable, indivisible [[Classical element#Classical elements in Greece|elements]] which he called ''atoma'' (sg. ''atomon'') or "indivisible units", from which we get the English word [[Atomism|atom]]. It is virtually impossible to tell which of these ideas were unique to Democritus and which are attributable to Leucippus.
'''Democritus''' ({{lang-el|Δημόκριτος, ''Dēmokritos''}}, "chosen of the people") (ca. 460 BC - ca 370 BC) was . ", the , , the of

Democritus' exact contributions are difficult to disentangle from his mentor [[Leucippus]], as they are often mentioned together in texts. Their hypothesis on atoms is remarkably similar to modern science, and avoided many of the errors found in their contemporaries. Largely ignored in Athens, Democritus was nevertheless well-known to his fellow northern-born philosopher [[Aristotle]]. Plato is said to have disliked him so much that he wished all his books burnt.<ref>Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.64-65</ref> Many consider Democritus to be the "father of modern science".<ref>Pamela Gossin, ''Encyclopedia of Literature and Science'', 2002</ref>



==Life==
==Life==
Line 30: Line 33:


Popularly known as the Laughing Philosopher, the terms Abderitan laughter, which means scoffing, incessant laughter, and Abderite, which means a scoffer, are derived from Democritus.<ref name="brewer">{{cite book | last = Brewer | first = E. Cobham | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable | publisher = Avenel Books | date = 1978 (reprint of 1894 version) | location = Edwinstowe, England | pages = 3 | isbn = 0-517-259-21-4}}</ref>
Popularly known as the Laughing Philosopher, the terms Abderitan laughter, which means scoffing, incessant laughter, and Abderite, which means a scoffer, are derived from Democritus.<ref name="brewer">{{cite book | last = Brewer | first = E. Cobham | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable | publisher = Avenel Books | date = 1978 (reprint of 1894 version) | location = Edwinstowe, England | pages = 3 | isbn = 0-517-259-21-4}}</ref>
== Philosophy and science ==

Democritus followed in the tradition of Leucippus, who seems to have come from Miletus, and he carried on the scientific rationalist philosophy associated with that city. They were both strict determinists and thorough materialists who believed everything to be the result of natural laws. They both deny that anything can happen by chance. Unlike Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, the atomists attempted to explain the world without the notion of ''purpose'', ''prime mover'', or ''final cause''. For the atomists, questions should be answered with a mechanistic explanation ("What earlier circumstances caused this event"), while their opponents searched for teleological explanations ("What purpose did this event serve?"). The history of modern science has shown that mechanistic questions lead to scientific knowledge, while the teleological question does not. The atomists looked for mechanistic questions, and gave mechanistic answers. Their successors until the Renaissance became occupied with the teleological question, leading science up a blind alley. <ref>Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972</ref>
== Atoms and the void ==
Democritus agreed that everything which is must be eternal, but denied that "the void" can be equated with nothing. This makes him the first thinker on record to argue the existence of an entirely empty "void". In order to explain the change around us from basic, unchangeable substance he created a theory that argued that there are various basic elements which always existed but can be rearranged into many different forms. Democritus' theory argued that atoms only had several properties, particularly size, shape, and (perhaps) weight; all other properties that we attribute to matter, such as color and taste, are but the result of complex interactions between the atoms in our bodies and the atoms of the matter that we are examining. Furthermore, he believed that the real properties of atoms determine the perceived properties of matter--for example, something that is solid is made of small, pointy atoms, while something that has water like properties is made of large, round atoms. Some types of matter are particularly solid because their atoms have hooks to attach to each other; some are oily because they are made of very fine, small atoms which can easily slip past each other. In Democritus' own words:

''By convention there is sweet, by convention there is bitterness, by convention hot and cold, by convention color; but in reality there are only atoms and the void.''<ref>Hans Christian Von Baeyer, ''Taming the Atom: The Emergence of the Visible Microworld''
p.6
Published by Courier Dover Publications, 2000
ISBN 0486414477, ISBN 9780486414478</ref>

[[Image:Democrite.JPG|thumb|left|150px|''[[Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul]]'' by [[Léon-Alexandre Delhomme]], 1868]]
[[Image:Democrite.JPG|thumb|left|150px|''[[Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul]]'' by [[Léon-Alexandre Delhomme]], 1868]]
==Atoms ==
Aristotle tells us that this theory of matter, commonly called [[atomism]], was a reaction to [[Parmenides]], who denied the existence of motion, change, or the [[void]]. Parmenides argued that the existence of a thing implied that it could not have "come into being", because "[[nothing comes from nothing]]". Moreover, he argued, movement was impossible, because one must move into "the void" and (as he identified "the void" with "nothing") the void does not exist and cannot be "moved into". His main contribution to chemistry was the suggestion of the atom which he called "atomos".
The hypothesis of Leucippus and Democritus held everything to be composed of atoms, which are physically, but not geometrically, indivisible; that between atoms lies empty space; that atoms are indestructible; have always been, and always will be, in motion; that there are an infinite number of atoms, and kinds of atoms, which differ in shape, size, and temperature. Of the weight of atoms, Democritus said "The more any indivisible exceeds, the heavier it is." But their exact position on weight of atoms is disputed.<ref>Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.64-65</ref>


Aristotle criticized the atomists for not providing an account for how the original motion of the atoms could have begun, but in this they have been vindicated as more scientific than their critics. Even if a [[prime mover]] or creator is supposed, that force remains unaccounted for. The theory of the atomists is, in fact, more nearly that of modern science than any other theory of antiquity. However, their theories were not wholly empirical, and their belief was devoid of any solid foundation. The atomists can be viewed as having hit on a hypothesis for which, two thousand years later, some evidence happened to be found.<ref>Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.66</ref>
==Soul, sense, and reason==
===Void hypothesis===
Though intelligence is allowed to explain the organization of the world, according to Democritus, he does allow for the existence of a [[soul]], which he contends is composed of exceedingly fine and spherical atoma (now called atoms, as mentioned above). He holds that, "spherical atoma move because it is their nature never to be still, and as they move they draw the whole body along with them, and set it in motion." In this way, he viewed soul-atoma as being similar to fire-atoma: small, spherical, capable of penetrating solid bodies and good examples of spontaneous motion.
The void hypothesis was a response to the paradoxes of [[Parmenides]] and [[Zeno]], the founders of metaphysical logic, who put forth difficult to answer arguments in favor of the idea that there can be no movement. They held that any movement would require a void — which is nothing — but nothing cannot exist. The Parmenidean position was "You say there ''is'' a void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore there is not the void." The position of Parmenides appeared validated by the observation that where there seems to be nothing there is air, and indeed even where there is not matter there is ''something'', for instance light waves. The atomists agreed that motion required a void, but simply ignored the argument of Parmenides on the grounds that motion was an observable fact. Therefore, they asserted, there must be a void. On this point Aristotle was in agreement, and it survived in a refined version as Newton's theory of [[absolute space]], which met the logical requirements of attributing reality to not-being. Einstein and quantum theory provided the final definitive answer to Parmenides and Zeno — with the insight that space is a system of relations — and Newton's refinement is now considered superfluous.<ref>Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.69-71</ref>
==Ethics ==
The ethics and politics of Democritus come to us mostly in the form of maxims. He says that "Equality is everywhere noble," but he is not insightful enough to include women or slaves in this sentiment. Poverty in a democracy is better than prosperity under tyrants, for the same reason one is to prefer liberty over slavery. Those in power should "take it upon themselves to lend to the poor and to aid them and to favor them, then is there pity and no isolation but companionship and mutual defense and concord among the citizens and other good things too many to catalogue." Money when used with sense leads to generosity and charity, while money used in folly leads to a common expense for the whole society— excessive hoarding of money for ones children is avarice. While making money is not useless, he says, doing so as a result of wrong-doing is the "worst of all things." He is on the whole ambivalent towards wealth, and values it much less than self-sufficiency. He disliked violence but was not a pacifist: he urged cities to be prepared for war, and condoned the right of a society to execute a criminal so long as laws had not been explicitly drawn forbidding such action.<ref>Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.69-71</ref><ref>Jonathan Barnes, ''Early Greek Philosophy'', 1987</ref>


Goodness, he believed, came more from practice and discipline than from innate human nature. He believed that one should distance oneself from the wicked, stating that such association increases ones disposition to vice. Anger, while difficult to control, must be mastered in order for one to be rational. Those who take pleasure from the disasters of their neighbors fail to understand that their fortunes are tied to the society in which they live, and they rob themselves of any joy of their own. He advocated a life of contentment with as little grief as possible, which he said could not be achieved through either idleness or preoccupation with worldly pleasures. Contentment would be gained, he said, through moderation and a measured life; to be content one must set their judgment on the possible and be satisfied with what one has, giving little thought to envy or admiration. Democritus approved of extravagance on occasion, as he held that feasts and celebrations were necessary for joy and relaxation. He considers education to be the noblest of pursuits, more important than wealth, but cautioned that learning without sense leads to error.<ref>Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.69-71</ref><ref>Jonathan Barnes, ''Early Greek Philosophy'', 1987</ref>
Democritus explained senses along these lines as well. He hypothesized that different tastes were a result of differently shaped atoms in contact with the tongue. Smells and sounds could be explained similarly. Vision works by the eye receiving "images" or "effluences" of bodies that are emanated. He stated that, "Sweet exists by convention, bitter by convention, color by convention; but in reality atoms and the void alone exist." This means that senses could not provide a direct or certain knowledge of the world. In his words, "It's necessary to realize that by this principle man is cut off from the real." Later philosophers use this to deny that any reliable knowledge can be obtained, but Democritus felt differently:

{{quote|There are two forms of knowledge: one legitimate, one bastard. To the latter form belong all the following: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. The legitimate is quite distinct from this. When the bastard form cannot see more minutely, nor hear nor smell nor taste nor perceive through touch, then another, finer form must be employed. - Democritus, Fragment 11, The Symmetry of Life}}

One view purports that this finer form is reasoning, although Democritus does not explain reason's place in the atomistic view.

== Scientific interest ==
=== Mathematics ===
=== Mathematics ===
[[image:Cone_3d.png|thumb|250px|right|A right circular cone and an oblique circular cone]]
[[image:Cone_3d.png|thumb|250px|right|A right circular cone and an oblique circular cone]]
He was also a pioneer of mathematics and geometry in particular. We only know this through citations of his works (titled ''On Numbers'', ''On Geometrics'', ''On Tangencies'', ''On Mapping'', and ''On Irrationals'') in other writings, since most of Democritus' body of work did not survive the Middle Ages. Democritus was among the first to observe that a [[cone (geometry)|cone]] or [[pyramid]] has one-third the [[volume]] of a [[cylinder (geometry)|cylinder]] or [[prism (geometry)|prism]] respectively with the same base and height. Also, a cone
He was also a pioneer of mathematics and geometry in particular. We only know this through citations of his works (titled ''On Numbers'', ''On Geometrics'', ''On Tangencies'', ''On Mapping'', and ''On Irrationals'') in other writings, since most of Democritus' body of work did not survive the Middle Ages. Democritus was among the first to observe that a [[cone (geometry)|cone]] or [[pyramid]] has one-third the [[volume]] of a [[cylinder (geometry)|cylinder]] or [[prism (geometry)|prism]] respectively with the same base and height. Also, a cone
divided in a plane parallel to its base produces two surfaces. He pointed out that if the
two surfaces commensurate with each other, then the shape of the body would appear to be a cylinder, as it is composed of equal rather than unequal circles. However, if the surfaces do not commensurate, then the side of a cone is not smooth but jagged like a series of steps.<ref>Fragment 9, ''The Presocratics'', Philip Wheelwright Ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1966, p.183</ref>

=== Minerals and plants ===
[[Petronius]] in his [[Satyricon]] states that "Democritus... extracted the essence of every known herb and then devoted the rest of his life to researches into the properties of minerals and plants." <ref>Petronius. Satyricon. Trans. William Arrowsmith. New York: A Meridian Book, 1987.</ref>

=== Astronomy ===
Democritus was also the first philosopher we know who realized that the [[celestial body]] we perceive as the [[Milky Way]] is formed from the light of distant [[star]]s.{{Fact|date=March 2008}} Other philosophers, including later [[Aristotle]], argued against this. Democritus was among the first to propose that the [[universe]] contains many worlds, some of them inhabited:
<blockquote>"In some worlds there is no Sun and Moon while in others they are larger than in our world and in others more numerous. In some parts there are more worlds, in others fewer (...); in some parts they are arising, in others failing. There are some worlds devoid of living creatures or plants or any moisture."</blockquote>
[[Image:DemocritusLaughing.jpeg|right|thumb|[[Hendrick ter Brugghen]], "Democritus Laughing" (1629)]]

== Epistemology ==
The knowledge of truth according to Democritus is difficult, since the perception through the senses is subjective. As from the same senses derive different impressions for each individual, then through the sense-impressions we cannot judge the truth. We can only interpret the sense data through the intellect and grasp the truth, because the truth (aletheia) is at the bottom (en bythoe).

{{quote|And again, many of the other animals receive impressions contrary to ours; and even to the senses of each individual, things do not always seem the same. Which then, of these impressions are true and which are false is not obvious; for the one set is no more true than the other, but both are alike. And this is why Democritus, at any rate, says that either there is no truth or to us at least it is not evident.”(Aristotle, Metaphysics IV, 1009 b 7).}}

{{quote|Democritus .. says: By convention hot, by convention cold, but in reality atoms and void, and also in reality we know nothing, since the truth is at bottom.” (Fr. 117, Diogenes Laertius IX, 72).}}

There are two kinds of knowing, the one he calls “legitimate” (gnesie: genuine) and the other “bastard” (skotie: obscure). The “bastard” knowledge is concerned with the perception through the senses, therefore it is insufficient and subjective. The reason is that the sense-perception is due to the effluences of the atoms (aporroai) from the objects to the senses. When these different shapes of atoms come to us, stimulate our senses according to their shape, and there from arise our sense-impressions. (Fr. 135, Theophrastus De Sensu 49-83).

The second sort of knowledge, the “legitimate” one, can be achieved through the intellect, in other words, all the sense-data from the “bastard” must be elaborated through reasoning. In this way one can get away from the false perception of the “bastard” knowledge and grasp the truth through the inductive reasoning. Therefore, the man after taking into account the sense-impressions, can examine the causes of the appearances, draw conclusions about the laws that govern the appearances, and find out the causality (aetiologia) by which they are related. This is the procedure of thought from the parts to the whole or else from the apparent to non-apparent ([[inductive reasoning]]).
“ But in the Canons Democritus says there are two kinds of knowing, one through the senses and the other through the intellect. Of these he calls the one through the intellect ‘legitimate’ attesting its trustworthiness for the judgement of truth, and through the senses he names ‘bastard’ denying its inerrancy in the discrimination of what is true. To quote his actual words: Of knowledge there are two forms, one legitimate, one bastard. To the bastard belong all this group: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. The other is legitimate and separate from that. Then, preferring the legitimate to the bastard, he continues: When the bastard can no longer see any smaller, or hear, or smell, or taste, or perceive by touch, but finer matters have to be examined, then comes the legitimate, since it has a finer organ of perception.” (Fr. 11 Sextus, Adv. Math. VII, 138).

“ In the Confirmations .. he says: But we in actuality grasp nothing for certain, but what shifts in accordance with the condition of the body and of the things (atoms) which enter it and press upon it.” (Fr. 9 Sextus Adv. Math. VII 136).

“ Democritus used to say that 'he prefers to discover a causality rather than become a king of Persia'.” (Fr.118)

(Excerpt from Democritus' Gnoseology 'Handbook of Greek Philosophy: From Thales to the Stoics Analysis and Fragments', Nikolaos Bakalis, Trafford Publishing 2005, ISBN 1-4120-4843-5.

== Ethics ==
Although Democritus is best known as the propounder of atomism, most of his extant fragments actually relate to the field of [[ethics]]. The excerpts are notably fragments quoted by other authors (mostly [[Stobaeus]]) and attributed to Democritus, who is also known as "The Laughing Philosopher" (for laughing at human follies) and by his fellow citizens as "The Mocker". Modern scholars credit Democritus with being "the earliest thinker reported as having explicitly posited a supreme good or goal, which he called 'cheerfulness' or 'wellbeing', and which he appears to have identified with the untroubled enjoyment of life ([ [[Diels-Kranz|DK]] 68] B 188: 'Joy and sorrow are the distinguishing mark of things beneficial and harmful'...)."<ref>p. 125, C.C.W. Taylor, "Democritus", in C. Rowe & M. Schofield (eds.), ''Greek and Roman Political Thought'', Cambridge 2005.</ref> According to Democritus' philosophy, this supreme good was to be achieved through moderation in the pursuit of pleasure, distinguishing useful pleasures from harmful ones, and conforming to conventional morality. This seems to constitute "a recommendation to a life of moderate, enlightened [[hedonism]]" similar to that presented by Socrates in Plato's [[Protagoras (dialogue)|''Protagoras'']] and later made famous by [[Epicurus]].<ref>Taylor, "Democritus", p. 125.</ref>


He also wrote a treatise on [[irrational numbers]], but little is known as to its contents.<ref>Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.209</ref>
Among numerous examples of the Democritean ethical fragments are the following:
===Anthropology, biology, and cosmology===
His work on nature is known through citations of his books on the subjects, ''On the Nature of Man'', ''On Flesh'' (two books), ''On Mind, On the Senses'', ''On Flavors'', ''On Colors'', ''Causes concerned with Seeds and Plants and Fruits'', and ''Causes concerned with Animals'' (three books).<ref>Jonathan Barnes, ''Early Greek Philosophy'', 1987</ref> He spent much of his life experimenting with and examining plants and minerals, and wrote at length on many scientific topics. He believed that flavors were due to the shape of the atoms composing the taste; sharp if angular, crinkled, small, and fine; sweet if round and not too small, sour if large, many angled, and with as little roundness as possible; and so on.<ref>Petronius. Satyricon. Trans. William Arrowsmith. New York: A Meridian Book, 1987.</ref> Democritus thought that the first men lived an anarchic and animal sort of life, going out to forage individually and living off the most palatable herbs and the fruit which grew wild on the trees. They were driven together into societies out of fear of wild animals, he said. He believed that these early men had no language, but that they gradually began to articulate their expressions, and that they established symbols among themselves for every sort of object, thus making the interpretation in each instance intelligible to each other. He says that the earliest men lived laboriously, having none of the utilities of life, such as clothes, houses, fire, domestication, or farming. Democritus presents the early period of mankind as one of learning by trial and error, and says that each step slowly lead to more discoveries: they took refuge in the caves in winter, stored fruits that could be preserved, and through reason and keenness of mind came to build upon each new idea.<ref>Jonathan Barnes, ''Early Greek Philosophy'', 1987</ref><ref>Diodorus, ''Universal History'' I viii 1-7</ref>


Democritus held that the earth was round, and stated that originally the universe was comprised of nothing but tiny atoms, churning in chaos, until they collided together to form larger units, including the earth and everything on it.<ref>Jonathan Barnes, ''Early Greek Philosophy'', 1987</ref>
*Disease occurs in a household, or in a life, just as it does in a body." (DK 68 B 288)
*"Moderation increases enjoyment, and makes pleasure even greater." (DK 68 B 211)
*"The brave man is he who overcomes not only his enemies but his pleasures. There are some men who are masters of cities but slaves to women." (DK 68 B 214)
*"Proclus states that Pythagoras and Epicurus agree with Cratylus, but Democritus and Aristotle agree with Hermogenes, the former that names arise by nature, the latter that they arise by chance. Pythagoras thought that the soul gave the names, deriving them like images of reality from the mind. But Democritus thought that the proof of their chance origin was fourfold: (1) the calling of different things by the same name; (2)having several names for the same thing; (3)change of name; (4)lack of name."
*"Nature and instruction are similar; for instruction transforms the man."(DK 68 B 33)
*"If any man listens to my opinions, here recorded, with intelligence, he will achieve many things worthy of a good man, and avoid doing many unworthy things.(DK 68 B 35)
*"He who chooses the advantages of the soul chooses things more divine, but he who chooses those of the body, chooses things human." (DK 68 B 37)


== Notes ==
== Notes ==

Revision as of 03:57, 19 January 2009

`

Democritus
EraPre-Socratic philosophy
RegionWestern Philosophy
SchoolPre-Socratic philosophy
Main interests
metaphysics / mathematics / astronomy
Notable ideas
Atomism, Distant Star Theory

Democritus ([Δημόκριτος, Dēmokritos] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help), "chosen of the people") (ca. 460 BC - ca 370 BC) was born in Abdera in the north of Greece.[1] He was the most prolific, and ultimately the most influential, of the Presocratic philosophers: his atomic theory may be regarded as the culmination of early Greek thought.[2]

Democritus' exact contributions are difficult to disentangle from his mentor Leucippus, as they are often mentioned together in texts. Their hypothesis on atoms is remarkably similar to modern science, and avoided many of the errors found in their contemporaries. Largely ignored in Athens, Democritus was nevertheless well-known to his fellow northern-born philosopher Aristotle. Plato is said to have disliked him so much that he wished all his books burnt.[3] Many consider Democritus to be the "father of modern science".[4]


Life

Democritus was born in the city of Abdera in Thrace, an Ionian colony of Teos,[5] although some called him a Milesian.[6] His year of birth was 460 BCE according to Apollodorus, who is probably more reliable than Thrasyllus who placed it ten years earlier.[7] John Burnet has argued that the date of 460 is "too early", since according to Diogenes Laertius 9.41 Democritus said that he was a "young man (neos)" during Anaxagoras' old age (circa 440-428).[8] It was said that Democritus' father was so wealthy that he received Xerxes on his march through Abdera. Democritus spent the inheritance which his father left him on travels into distant countries, to satisfy his thirst for knowledge. He travelled to Asia, and was even said to have reached India and Ethiopia.[9] We know that he wrote on Babylon and Meroe; he must also have visited Egypt, and Diodorus Siculus states that he lived there for five years.[10] He himself declared,[11] that among his contemporaries none had made greater journeys, seen more countries, and met more scholars than himself. He particularly mentions the Egyptian mathematicians, whose knowledge he praises. Theophrastus, too, spoke of him as a man who had seen many countries.[12] During his travels, according to Diogenes Laërtius, he became acquainted with the Chaldean magi. A certain "Ostanes", one of the magi accompanying Xerxes was also said to have taught him.[13]

After returning to his native land he occupied himself with natural philosophy. He travelled throughout Greece to acquire a knowledge of its culture. He mentions many Greek philosophers in his writings, and his wealth enabled him to purchase their writings. Leucippus, the founder of the atomism, was the greatest influence upon him. He also praises Anaxagoras.[14] The tradition that he was friends with Hippocrates seems to have been based on spurious letters.[15] He may have been acquainted with Socrates, but Plato does not mention him and Democritus himself is quoted as saying, "I came to Athens and no one knew me."[16]. Though Aristotle viewed him as a pre-Socratic.[17], it should be noticed that since Socrates was born in ca. 469 BC (about 9 years before Democritus), it is very possible that Aristotle's remark was not meant to be a chronological one, but directed towards his philosophical similarity with other pre-Socratic thinkers.

The many anecdotes about Democritus, especially in Diogenes Laërtius, attest to his disinterestedness, modesty, and simplicity, and show that he lived exclusively for his studies. One story has him deliberately blinding himself in order to be less disturbed in his pursuits;[18] it may well be true that he lost his sight in old age. He was cheerful, and was always ready to see the comical side of life, which later writers took to mean that he always laughed at the foolishness of people.[19]

He was highly esteemed by his fellow-citizens, "because," as Diogenes Laërtius says, "he had foretold them some things which events proved to be true," which may refer to his knowledge of natural phenomena. According to Diodorus Siculus,[20] Democritus died at the age of 90, which would put his death around 370 BC, but other writers have him living to 104,[21] or even 109.[22]

Popularly known as the Laughing Philosopher, the terms Abderitan laughter, which means scoffing, incessant laughter, and Abderite, which means a scoffer, are derived from Democritus.[23]

Philosophy and science

Democritus followed in the tradition of Leucippus, who seems to have come from Miletus, and he carried on the scientific rationalist philosophy associated with that city. They were both strict determinists and thorough materialists who believed everything to be the result of natural laws. They both deny that anything can happen by chance. Unlike Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, the atomists attempted to explain the world without the notion of purpose, prime mover, or final cause. For the atomists, questions should be answered with a mechanistic explanation ("What earlier circumstances caused this event"), while their opponents searched for teleological explanations ("What purpose did this event serve?"). The history of modern science has shown that mechanistic questions lead to scientific knowledge, while the teleological question does not. The atomists looked for mechanistic questions, and gave mechanistic answers. Their successors until the Renaissance became occupied with the teleological question, leading science up a blind alley. [24]

Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul by Léon-Alexandre Delhomme, 1868

Atoms hypothesis

The hypothesis of Leucippus and Democritus held everything to be composed of atoms, which are physically, but not geometrically, indivisible; that between atoms lies empty space; that atoms are indestructible; have always been, and always will be, in motion; that there are an infinite number of atoms, and kinds of atoms, which differ in shape, size, and temperature. Of the weight of atoms, Democritus said "The more any indivisible exceeds, the heavier it is." But their exact position on weight of atoms is disputed.[25]

Aristotle criticized the atomists for not providing an account for how the original motion of the atoms could have begun, but in this they have been vindicated as more scientific than their critics. Even if a prime mover or creator is supposed, that force remains unaccounted for. The theory of the atomists is, in fact, more nearly that of modern science than any other theory of antiquity. However, their theories were not wholly empirical, and their belief was devoid of any solid foundation. The atomists can be viewed as having hit on a hypothesis for which, two thousand years later, some evidence happened to be found.[26]

Void hypothesis

The void hypothesis was a response to the paradoxes of Parmenides and Zeno, the founders of metaphysical logic, who put forth difficult to answer arguments in favor of the idea that there can be no movement. They held that any movement would require a void — which is nothing — but nothing cannot exist. The Parmenidean position was "You say there is a void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore there is not the void." The position of Parmenides appeared validated by the observation that where there seems to be nothing there is air, and indeed even where there is not matter there is something, for instance light waves. The atomists agreed that motion required a void, but simply ignored the argument of Parmenides on the grounds that motion was an observable fact. Therefore, they asserted, there must be a void. On this point Aristotle was in agreement, and it survived in a refined version as Newton's theory of absolute space, which met the logical requirements of attributing reality to not-being. Einstein and quantum theory provided the final definitive answer to Parmenides and Zeno — with the insight that space is a system of relations — and Newton's refinement is now considered superfluous.[27]

Ethics & politics

The ethics and politics of Democritus come to us mostly in the form of maxims. He says that "Equality is everywhere noble," but he is not insightful enough to include women or slaves in this sentiment. Poverty in a democracy is better than prosperity under tyrants, for the same reason one is to prefer liberty over slavery. Those in power should "take it upon themselves to lend to the poor and to aid them and to favor them, then is there pity and no isolation but companionship and mutual defense and concord among the citizens and other good things too many to catalogue." Money when used with sense leads to generosity and charity, while money used in folly leads to a common expense for the whole society— excessive hoarding of money for ones children is avarice. While making money is not useless, he says, doing so as a result of wrong-doing is the "worst of all things." He is on the whole ambivalent towards wealth, and values it much less than self-sufficiency. He disliked violence but was not a pacifist: he urged cities to be prepared for war, and condoned the right of a society to execute a criminal so long as laws had not been explicitly drawn forbidding such action.[28][29]

Goodness, he believed, came more from practice and discipline than from innate human nature. He believed that one should distance oneself from the wicked, stating that such association increases ones disposition to vice. Anger, while difficult to control, must be mastered in order for one to be rational. Those who take pleasure from the disasters of their neighbors fail to understand that their fortunes are tied to the society in which they live, and they rob themselves of any joy of their own. He advocated a life of contentment with as little grief as possible, which he said could not be achieved through either idleness or preoccupation with worldly pleasures. Contentment would be gained, he said, through moderation and a measured life; to be content one must set their judgment on the possible and be satisfied with what one has, giving little thought to envy or admiration. Democritus approved of extravagance on occasion, as he held that feasts and celebrations were necessary for joy and relaxation. He considers education to be the noblest of pursuits, more important than wealth, but cautioned that learning without sense leads to error.[30][31]

Mathematics

A right circular cone and an oblique circular cone

He was also a pioneer of mathematics and geometry in particular. We only know this through citations of his works (titled On Numbers, On Geometrics, On Tangencies, On Mapping, and On Irrationals) in other writings, since most of Democritus' body of work did not survive the Middle Ages. Democritus was among the first to observe that a cone or pyramid has one-third the volume of a cylinder or prism respectively with the same base and height. Also, a cone divided in a plane parallel to its base produces two surfaces. He pointed out that if the two surfaces commensurate with each other, then the shape of the body would appear to be a cylinder, as it is composed of equal rather than unequal circles. However, if the surfaces do not commensurate, then the side of a cone is not smooth but jagged like a series of steps.[32]

He also wrote a treatise on irrational numbers, but little is known as to its contents.[33]

Anthropology, biology, and cosmology

His work on nature is known through citations of his books on the subjects, On the Nature of Man, On Flesh (two books), On Mind, On the Senses, On Flavors, On Colors, Causes concerned with Seeds and Plants and Fruits, and Causes concerned with Animals (three books).[34] He spent much of his life experimenting with and examining plants and minerals, and wrote at length on many scientific topics. He believed that flavors were due to the shape of the atoms composing the taste; sharp if angular, crinkled, small, and fine; sweet if round and not too small, sour if large, many angled, and with as little roundness as possible; and so on.[35] Democritus thought that the first men lived an anarchic and animal sort of life, going out to forage individually and living off the most palatable herbs and the fruit which grew wild on the trees. They were driven together into societies out of fear of wild animals, he said. He believed that these early men had no language, but that they gradually began to articulate their expressions, and that they established symbols among themselves for every sort of object, thus making the interpretation in each instance intelligible to each other. He says that the earliest men lived laboriously, having none of the utilities of life, such as clothes, houses, fire, domestication, or farming. Democritus presents the early period of mankind as one of learning by trial and error, and says that each step slowly lead to more discoveries: they took refuge in the caves in winter, stored fruits that could be preserved, and through reason and keenness of mind came to build upon each new idea.[36][37]

Democritus held that the earth was round, and stated that originally the universe was comprised of nothing but tiny atoms, churning in chaos, until they collided together to form larger units, including the earth and everything on it.[38]

Notes

  1. ^ Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.64-65
  2. ^ Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy, 1987
  3. ^ Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.64-65
  4. ^ Pamela Gossin, Encyclopedia of Literature and Science, 2002
  5. ^ Aristote, de Coel. iii. 4, Meteor. ii. 7
  6. ^ Diogenes Laërtius, ix. 34, etc.
  7. ^ Diogenes Laërtius, ix. 41
  8. ^ p. 194, Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato, London: Macmillan, 1955.
  9. ^ Cicero, de Finibus, v. 19; Strabo, xvi.
  10. ^ Diodorus Siculus, i. 98
  11. ^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, i.
  12. ^ Aelian, Varia Historia, iv. 20; Diogenes Laërtius, ix. 35.
  13. ^ Tatian, Orat. cont. Graec. 17. "However, this Democritus, whom Tatian identified with the philosopher, was a certain Bolos of Mendes who, under the name of Democritus, wrote a book on sympathies and antipathies" - Owsei Temkin, 1991, Hippocrates in a World of Pagans and Christians, page 120. JHU Press.
  14. ^ Diogenes Laërtius, ii. 14; Sextus Empiricus, adv. Math. vii. 140.
  15. ^ Diogenes Laërtius, ix. 42
  16. ^ Diogenes Laertius 9.36 and Cicero Tusculanae Quaestiones 5.36.104, cited in p. 349 n. 2 of W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, Cambridge 1965.
  17. ^ Aristotle, Metaph. xiii. 4; Phys. ii. 2, de Partib. Anim. i. 1
  18. ^ Cicero, de Fin. v. 29; Aulus Gellius, x. 17; Diogenes Laërtius, ix. 36; Cicero, Tusculanae Quaestiones v. 39
  19. ^ Seneca, de Ira, ii. 10; Aelian, Varia Historia, iv. 20.
  20. ^ Diodorus Siculus, 14.11.5
  21. ^ Lucian, Macrobii 18
  22. ^ Hipparchus ap. Diogenes Laërtius, ix. 43
  23. ^ Brewer, E. Cobham (1978 (reprint of 1894 version)). The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Edwinstowe, England: Avenel Books. p. 3. ISBN 0-517-259-21-4. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  24. ^ Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972
  25. ^ Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.64-65
  26. ^ Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.66
  27. ^ Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.69-71
  28. ^ Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.69-71
  29. ^ Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy, 1987
  30. ^ Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.69-71
  31. ^ Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy, 1987
  32. ^ Fragment 9, The Presocratics, Philip Wheelwright Ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1966, p.183
  33. ^ Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972, p.209
  34. ^ Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy, 1987
  35. ^ Petronius. Satyricon. Trans. William Arrowsmith. New York: A Meridian Book, 1987.
  36. ^ Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy, 1987
  37. ^ Diodorus, Universal History I viii 1-7
  38. ^ Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy, 1987

See also

References

  • Bailey C. (1928) The Greek Atomists and Epicurus. Oxford
  • Bakalis Nikolaos (2005) Handbook of Greek Philosophy: From Thales to the Stoics Analysis and Fragments, Trafford Publishing, ISBN 1-4120-4843-5
  • Barnes J. (1982) The Presocratic Philosophers, Routledge Revised Edition
  • Burnet J. (2003) Early Greek Philosophy, Kessinger Publishing
  • Guthrie W. K. (1979) A History of Greek Philosophy – The Presocratic tradition from Parmenides to Democritus, Cambridge University Press.
  • Kirk G. S., Raven J. E. and Schofield M. (1983) The Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge University Press, Second edition.
  • Melchert, Norman (2002). The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. McGraw Hill. ISBN 0-19-517510-7.
  • Ancilla To The Pre-Socratic Philosophers, translated by Kathleen Freeman.
  • Pyle, C. M. (1997). 'Democritus and Heracleitus: An Excursus on the Cover of this Book,' Milan and Lombardy in the Renaissance. Essays in Cultural History. Rome, La Fenice. (Istituto di Filologia Moderna, Università di Parma: Testi e Studi, Nuova Serie: Studi 1.) (Fortuna of the Laughing and Weeping Philosophers topos)
  • Petronius. Satyricon. Trans. William Arrowsmith. New York: A Meridian Book, 1987.


Template:Persondata

Template:Link FA