DEMOCRITUS
ATOMISTIC
MATERIALISM
The founder of the
Atomist school of philosophy was probably Democritus's contemporary Leucippus,
but it was left to Democritus to develop the theory. Both philosophers came from Abdera. Virtually nothing remains of the writings of
Leucippus; and most of Democritus's surviving works are confined to
ethics. We owe our knowledge of Atomism
to a few of his other fragments but principally to the commentaries of
Aristotle (especially his On Democritus [fr. 208], quoted by Simplicius, and in On
Generation and Corruption, 316ff.). From a strictly historical point of view Democritus should not be
classified as a Presocratic, but philosophically Atomism relates to the
cosmology of the Eleatics rather than to the ethics of Socrates.
COSMOLOGY/ PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE
[1] Democritus argues that the
cosmos is composed of an
infinite number of atoms indivisible ('uncuttable') and
indestructible 'substances' (ousiai) composed of a common 'stuff' [a], and that its nature and change can
thereby be explained in terms of mechanical causation and the arrangements of
these particles [b]. They are in constant and eternal motion, have
mass, and are of various sizes. They do not combine into a single substance but
come together in a vortex and interlock for a limited time to form larger
objects. They remain like this until the
cohesion of the atoms is disturbed by an external force. Atoms also exist in a limitless space or void [c]. There has to be a void (a) for there to be motion, (b) to separate
the atoms. In this way the individuality
of the atoms is preserved. The void
itself is not a thing like an atom because it does not have any properties. Nevertheless the Atomists thought of it as
real. Humans, being also composed of
atoms, manifest the universe as a whole Democritus says man is a microcosm [d]. The atomist
theory is not based on scientific experiments, but it was proposed by
Democritus as an answer to the arguments of the Eleatics. Democritus also thought of the
interaction of atoms as eternal and
necessary [e] which seems to leave no room for
'freewill' [e].
KNOWLEDGE/ PSYCHOLOGY
[2] Democritus's views on knowledge were
developed largely in response to the Sophists. He accepted the
'effluence' theory but thought of
these particles as atoms
or images given off by objects [a]. Before they enter
the sense organs they are distorted by the air. He tried to account for perception in terms of the motion of these
images or differences in their surface texture. ['Secondary'] qualities such as colour and smell (as
against the actual physical properties of the atoms themselves) are therefore
all subjective or 'conventional' [nomos], and so we cannot know objects
as they really are [b]. Even 'mind' cannot give us the truth, as what might be
supposed to be 'mental', including the 'soul', itself consists of atoms [c] and can come into contact only with the atoms given off by objects. On the body's death the soul
atoms disperse [d].
ETHICS HEDONISM
[3] Democritus's ethics too was directed
against the Sophists. The end of conduct is happiness (eudaimonia), by which he meant not sensual pleasure but 'well-being' [a]. This is to be acquired by attending to
balance or harmony a weighing up of
the various pleasures. In this way, he
said, we can achieve
physical health and a certain calmness or 'cheerfulness' (euthumie) in the soul [b].
CRITICAL SUMMARY
Zeno had tried to show that
things can be divided up ad
infinitum. Democritus said that
atoms cannot be split. If by this he
meant that we cannot even imagine atoms as divisible, then it is difficult to
see how atoms could be said to have parts and be of different shapes and sizes.
To recognise an atom as being large would surely allow us to break it up into
something smaller in our thought. Some commentators have suggested that what
the Atomists were rejecting was Zeno's claim that anything which has a size
cannot be a genuine unit; and that they may well have believed the atoms to be
theoretically but not physically divisible. A thing could be supposed to have parts without being broken down into
them. According to Aristotle, however,
the Atomists did not accept divisibility in either sense. Another problem with atomism is that the atoms
are said to be eternal, but no explanation for their motion was put forward. There is also a difficulty in their
ethics. The Atomists' view of the
material world is that it is rather like a machine and that everything that
happens is determined and predictable. If as they supposed the human 'mind' is equally to be understood in
such materialist terms, then it might be argued that there could be no room in
their system for freedom of choice [a]. This would seem
to be inconsistent with exhortations that one should follow a particular kind
of life so as to achieve cheerfulness.
CONNECTIONS
Democritus