 |
Home |  |
Register | |
Login | |
FAQ | |
Contact Us | |
Logout |
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
Atomism: Democritus And Epicurus
Atomism: Democritus and Epicurus Atomism: Democritus and Epicurus Philosophy 116 October 17, 1996 In the Atomists, we see pluralism taken as far as it could possibly go. We see Democritus and Epicurus divide all the world, as well as the universe, into two categories; atoms and empty space. Everything else is merely thought to exist. The atoms are eternal, infinite in size and number and they are moving through the empty space. There is no motion without empty space. Both Democritus and Epicurus agreed that motion was impossible in a plenum, but it is here that their theories diverge. In the cause of the motion, we begin to see a variety of opinions. Both Democritus and Epicurus agreed that the “qualitative world of sense perception arises from the motion of qualitatively neutral atoms. They believe that the immense qualitative variety results from the ‘jostling' of atoms...as they collide and bounce apart, and so, constantly form new groupings” (Jones 84). They believe it to be a mechanical process occurring completely by chance. Furthermore, although new groupings are constantly being formed, only the few that can survive are considered the “right” combinations. These are the combinations we recognize through our senses as being “real”, although they are not. However, the way in which this complex motion begins is a source of controversy and disagreement amongst the Atomists. Democritus assumes that the atoms' motion is perpetual. The atoms are never at rest. He presumes that their nature is to move, thereby avoiding “the problem of explaining the origin of the complex motion of atoms by simply affirming that it is in their nature to move so” (Jones 85). He believes that atoms are born along with the whole universe in a vortex. The vortex is not an outside influence, but rather the motion of the atoms themselves. He never accounts for the initiation of this motion. He simply states that it is an inherent quality of the atoms themselves. Epicurus, on the other hand, wanted to find a reasoning behind the initial movement of the atoms; to find the cause of the initial collisions which start the creation process of the universe. Through observation of objects falling “down” within our limited perceptual space, Epicurus concluded that in the vastness of infinite space there can be no “down” since there is no point from which, or to which, an object (in this case an atom) is falling. Since an objects' natural state seemed to be rest, Epicurus decided that it was not motion, but lack thereof, that is in a things' true nature. Therefore it is motion which requires an explanation (Jones 85). Since it is agreed that the atoms must collide in order to form “objects” that possess different qualities, the frequency of these collisions must be infinitely large. How else can one account for the variety of objects recognized as “normal”? The space in which the atoms are traveling is large beyond our every conception of size, and the atoms are small on the very same scale. The probability of even two of these atoms colliding while they fall through the void is minute, if not non-existent. Epicurus attempts to explain these collisions with his “swerve” theory. In this, he holds there is an arbitrary, imperceptible swerve in the straight “ falling” path of the atoms. Rather than contribute the collisions to the nature of the atoms themselves, he is attempting to account for the frequency of collisions, and in effect increase the probability of two atoms colliding in infinite space. There are many problems with this postulation. In effect, it is no better an argument than Democritus' nature theory. If we begin to assume that events simply “happen” arbitrarily, we do not gain any deeper insight than we do by saying that these events are in the nature of things. Both of these positions lead us away from Atomism, since we are beginning to affirm the creation of something out of nothing, a position to which the Atomists are diametrically opposed.... This is ONLY a preview of the article. If you would like to view the entire document, you must subscribe to Academic Library. Please register below now!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Home | Register | Login | FAQ | Forgot Password | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Close Account | Contact Us | Logout Copyright 1998-2007 Academic Library. Academic Library is designed only to assist students and researchers in the preparation of their own work. Anybody who use our services are responsible not only for writing their own papers, but also for citing Academic Library as a source when doing so. By accessing and using this page you agree to the Disclaimer. If you wish to cancel your subscription to Academic Library, please click here. |
|
|