Aristotle disagreed with Democritus and offered his own idea of the composition of matter. According to Aristotle, everything was composed of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. The theory of Democritus explained things better, but Aristotle was more influential, so his ideas prevailed.
We had to wait almost two thousand years before scientists came around to seeing the atom as Democritus did. It is very interesting that Democritus had the basic idea of atoms, even though he had no experimental evidence to support his thinking. We also know that atoms can be further subdivided, but there is still a lower limit to how small we can break up that grain of sand.
Use the link below to answer the following questions:. Skip to main content. Atomic Structure. Search for:. Describe the discussion about matter. Describe the contribution Democritus made to our understanding of matter. What would the philosophers do? Figure 1. Into how small of pieces can you divide a grain of sand? Figure 2. Since the idea that something could come from nothing was generally agreed to be impossible, Parmenides argued that change is merely illusory. In response, Leucippus and Democritus, along with other Presocratic pluralists such as Empedocles and Anaxagoras, developed systems that made change possible by showing that it does not require that something should come to be from nothing.
These responses to Parmenides suppose that there are multiple unchanging material principles, which persist and merely rearrange themselves to form the changing world of appearances.
In the atomist version, these unchanging material principles are indivisible particles, the atoms: the atomists are often thought to have taken the idea that there is a lower limit to divisibility to answer Zeno's paradoxes about the impossibility of traversing infinitely divisible magnitudes Hasper Reconstructions offered by Wardy and Sedley argue, instead, that atomism was developed as a response to Parmenidean arguments.
The atomists held that there are two fundamentally different kinds of realities composing the natural world, atoms and void. They move about in an infinite void, repelling one another when they collide or combining into clusters by means of tiny hooks and barbs on their surfaces, which become entangled.
Other than changing place, they are unchangeable, ungenerated and indestructible. All changes in the visible objects of the world of appearance are brought about by relocations of these atoms: in Aristotelian terms, the atomists reduce all change to change of place. Macroscopic objects in the world that we experience are really clusters of these atoms; changes in the objects we see—qualitative changes or growth, say—are caused by rearrangements or additions to the atoms composing them.
While the atoms are eternal, the objects compounded out of them are not. Clusters of atoms moving in the infinite void come to form kosmoi or worlds as a result of a circular motion that gathers atoms up into a whirl, creating clusters within it DK 68B ; these kosmoi are impermanent.
Our world and the species within it have arisen from the collision of atoms moving about in such a whirl, and will likewise disintegrate in time. Schofield argues that this particular phrase originated with Democritus and not his teacher Leucippus.
By putting the full or solid and the void ontologically on a par, the atomists were apparently denying the impossibility of void.
Void they considered to be a necessary condition for local motion: if there were no unoccupied places, where could bodies move into? Melissus had argued from the impossibility of void to the impossibility of motion; the atomists apparently reasoned in reverse, arguing from the fact that motion exists to the necessity for void space to exist DK 67A7. It has been suggested that Democritus' conception of void is that of the temporarily unfilled regions between atoms rather than a concept of absolute space Sedley Some controversy surrounds the properties of the atoms.
They vary in size: one report—which some scholars question—suggests that atoms could, in principle, be as large as a cosmos, although at least in this cosmos they all seem to be too small to perceive DK 68A Many kinds of atoms can interlock with one another because of their irregular shapes and hooks at their surface, accounting for the cohesiveness of some compounds.
It is not clear whether the early atomists regarded atoms as conceptually indivisible or merely physically indivisible Furley The idea that there is a smallest possible magnitude seems to suggest that this is the lower limit of size for atoms, although notions like being in contact or having shape seem to entail that even the smallest atoms have parts in some sense, if only mathematically or conceptually.
There are conflicting reports on whether atoms move in a particular direction as a result of their weight: a number of scholars have tried to reconcile these by supposing that weight is not intrinsic to the atoms, but is a result of the centripetal tendencies set up in the cosmic whirl cf. O'Brien ; Furley , pp. Atoms may have an inherent tendency to a kind of vibratory motion, although the evidence for this is uncertain McDiarmid However, their primary movement seems to result from collision with other atoms, wherein their mutual resistance or antitupia causes them to move away from one another when struck.
Democritus is criticized by Aristotle for supposing that the sequence of colliding atoms has no beginning, and thus for not offering an explanation of the existence of atomic motion per se , even though the prior collision with another atom can account for the direction of each individual atomic motion see O'Keefe According to different reports, Democritus ascribed the causes of things to necessity, and also to chance.
Democritus apparently recognized a need to account for the fact that the disorderly motion of individual distinct atoms could produce an orderly cosmos in which atoms are not just randomly scattered, but cluster to form masses of distinct types.
He compares this to the winnowing of grains in a sieve, or the sorting of pebbles riffled by the tide: it is as if there were a kind of attraction of like to like DK 68B Although this claim has been interpreted differently e. Taylor b p. No attractive forces or purposes need be introduced to explain the sorting by the tide or in the sieve: it is probable that this is an attempt to show how apparently orderly effects can be produced without goal-directioned forces or purpose.
Democritus regards the properties of atoms in combination as sufficient to account for the multitude of differences among the objects in the world that appears to us. These terms are Aristotle's interpretation of Democritus' own terminology, which has a more dynamic sense Mourelatos This passage omits differences of size, perhaps because it is focused on the analogy to letters of the alphabet: it is quite clear from other texts that Democritus thinks that atoms also differ in size.
Taylor a. The contrast here is intended to be that between real and unreal properties Furley ; cf. Barnes , pp. One report indeed attributes to Democritus a denial that two things could become one, or vice versa DK 68A42 , thus suggesting that combinations are regarded as conventional.
Commentators differ as to the authenticity of Plutarch's report. However, Furley concedes that Plutarch at least understands the earliest atomists to be committed to the view that all combinations of atoms, as much as sensible qualities, should be understood as conventional rather than real Furley pp.
This would suggest that everything at the macroscopic level—or, strictly, everything available to perception—is regarded as unreal. The ontological status of arrangement or combination of atoms for Democritus is a vexed question, that affects our understanding of his metaphysics, his historical relationship to Melissus, and the similarity of his views to the modern primary-secondary quality distinction Wardy ; Curd ; Lee ; Mourelatos ; Pasnau Later atomists cite as evidence for this the gradual erosion of bodies over time.
These films of atoms shrink and expand; only those that shrink sufficiently can enter the eye. It is the impact of these on our sense organs that enables us to perceive.
Visible properties of macroscopic objects, like their size and shape, are conveyed to us by these films, which tend to be distorted as they pass through greater distances in the air, since they are subject to more collisions with air atoms.
The properties perceived by other senses are also conveyed by contact of some kind. Democritus' theory of taste, for example, shows how different taste sensations are regularly produced by contact with different shapes of atoms: some atoms are jagged and tear the tongue, creating bitter sensations, or are smooth and thus roll easily over the tongue, causing sensations of sweetness.
Theophrastus, who gives us the most thorough report of Democritus' theory, criticizes it for raising the expectation that the same kinds of atoms would always cause similar appearances. However, it may be that most explanations are directed towards the normal case of a typical observer, and that a different account is given as to the perceptions of a nontypical observer, such as someone who is ill.
Democritus' account why honey sometimes tastes bitter to people who are ill depends on two factors, neither of which undercut the notion that certain atomic shapes regularly affect us in a given way. One is that a given substance like honey is not quite homogeneous, but contains atoms of different shapes. While it takes its normal character from the predominant type of atom present, there are other atom-types present within. The other is that our sense-organs need to be suitably harmonized to admit a given atom-type, and the disposition of our passageways can be affected by illness or other conditions.
Thus someone who is ill may become unusually receptive to an atom-type that is only a small part of honey's overall constitution. Other observed effects, however, require a theory whereby the same atoms can produce different effects without supposing that the observer has changed.
The change must then occur in the object seen. Aristotle gives this as the reason why color is not ascribed to the atoms themselves. Lucretius' account of why color cannot belong to atoms may help clarify the point here.
We are told that if the sea's atoms were really blue, they could not undergo some change and look white DRN 2. This seems to assume that, while an appearance of a property P can be produced by something that is neither P nor not-P, nonetheless something P cannot appear not-P. Since atoms do not change their intrinsic properties, it seems that change in a relational property, such as the relative position of atoms, is most likely to be the cause of differing perceptions.
In the shifting surface of the sea or the flutter of the pigeon with its irridescent neck, it is evident that the parts of the object are moving and shifting in their positional relations. By ascribing the causes of sensible qualities to relational properties of atoms, Democritus forfeits the prima facie plausibility of claiming that things seem P because they are P. Much of Theophrastus' report seems to focus on the need to make it plausible that a composite can produce an appearance of properties it does not have.
Democritus is also said to have known Anaxagoras, Hippocrates and even Socrates himself though this remains unproven. During his time in Egypt, he learned from Egyptian mathematicians, and is said to have become acquainted with the Chaldean magi in Assyria.
In the tradition of the atomists, Democritus was a thoroughgoing materialists who viewed the world in terms of natural laws and causes. This differentiated him from other Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, for whom philosophy was more teleological in nature — i.
According to the many descriptions and anecdotes about Democritus, he was known for his modesty, simplicity, and commitment to his studies. One story claims he blinded himself on purpose in order to be less distracted by worldly affairs which is believed to be apocryphal. Democritus is renowned for being a pioneer of mathematics and geometry. He was among the first Greek philosophers to observe that a c one or pyramid has one-third the volume of a cylinder or prism with the same base and height.
While none of his works on the subject survived the Middle Ages, his mathematical proofs are derived from other works with contain extensive citations to titles like On Numbers, On Geometrics, On Tangencies , On Mapping , and On Irrationals. Democritus is also known for having spent much of his life experimenting with and examining plants and minerals.
Similar to his work in mathematics and geometry, citations from existing works are used to infer the existence of works on the subject. From his examination of nature, Democritus developed what could be considered some of the first anthropological theories. According to him, human beings lived short lives in archaic times, forced to forage like animals until fear of wild animals then drove them into communities.
He theorized that such humans had no language, and only developed it through the need to articulate thoughts and ideas. Through a process of trial and error, human beings developed not only verbal language, but also symbols with which to communicate i. Each step in this process led to more discoveries, more complex behaviors, and the many things that came to characterize civilized society.
In terms of astronomy and cosmology, Democritus was a proponent of the spherical Earth hypothesis. He believed that in the original chaos from which the universe sprang, the universe was composed of nothing but tiny atoms that came together to form larger units a theory which bears a striking resemblance to The Big Bang Theory and Nebular Theory.
He also believed in the existence of many worlds, which were either in state of growth or decay. In a similar vein, Democritus advanced a theory of void which challenged the paradoxes raised by his fellow Greek philosophers, Parmenides and Zeno — the founders of metaphysical logic.
According to these men, movement cannot exist because such a thing requires there to be a void — which is nothing, and therefore cannot exist. And a void cannot be termed as such if it is in fact a definable, existing thing.
0コメント