Democritus apparently recognized that his view gives rise to an epistemological problem: it takes our knowledge of the world to be derived from our sense experience, but the senses themselves not to be in direct contact with the nature of things, thus leaving room for omission or error.
A famous fragment may be responding to such a skeptical line of thought by accusing the mind of overthrowing the senses, though those are its only access to the truth DK68B Other passages talk of a gap between what we can perceive and what really exists DK 68B6—10; But the fact that atoms are not perceptible means that our knowledge of their properties is always based on analogy from the things of the visible world.
Moreover, the senses report properties that the atoms don't really possess, like colors and tastes. Thus the potential for doubt about our knowledge of the external world looms large. Arguments of this form were used for sceptical purposes, citing the conflicting evidence of the senses in order to raise concern about our knowledge of the world de Lacy Democritus does not seem to be pursuing a consistently skeptical program, although he does express concern about the basis for our knowledge.
Some scholars take this to be a deflationary attack on traditional theology as based on mere images Barnes , pp. Although atomism is often identified as an atheist doctrine in later times, it is not clear whether this is really Democritus' view. The reasons for supposing that there are indivisible magnitudes apparently stem from the problems posed by Zeno of Elea. Some of Zeno's paradoxes concern the difficulty of crossing a finite magnitude if it is understood to be infinitely divisible, i.
The atomists may have sought to avoid these paradoxes by supposing that there is a limit to divisibility. It is not clear, however, in what sense the atoms are said to be indivisible, and how the need for smallest magnitudes is related to the claim that atoms are indivisible.
Furley suggests that the atomists may not have distinguished between physical and theoretical indivisibility of the atoms Furley , p. The physical indivisibility of the atoms seems to be independent of the argument for indivisible magnitudes, since the solidity of atoms—the fact that there is no void within them—is said to be the reason why they cannot be split. The existence of void space between atoms is cited as the reason why they can be separated: one late source, Philoponus, even suggests that atoms could never actually touch, lest they fuse DK 67A7.
Whether or not Democritus himself saw this consequence, it seems that atoms are taken to be indivisible whatever their size. Presumably, though, there is a smallest size of atom, and this is thought to be enough to avoid the paradoxes of infinite divisibility.
A reductio ad absurdum argument reported by Aristotle suggests that the atomists argued from the assumption that, if a magnitude is infinitely divisible, nothing prevents it actually having been divided at every point. The atomist then asks what would remain: if the answer is some extended particles, such as dust, then the hypothesized division has not yet been completed.
If the answer is nothing or points, then the question is how an extended magnitude could be composed from what does not have extension DK 68A48b, Democritus is also said to have contributed to mathematics, and to have posed a problem about the nature of the cone. He argues that if a cone is sliced anywhere parallel to its base, the two faces thus produced must either be the same in size or different. If they are the same, however, the cone would seem to be a cylinder; but if they are different, the cone would turn out to have step-like rather than continuous sides.
Although it is not clear from Plutarch's report how or if Democritus solved the problem, it does seem that he was conscious of questions about the relationship between atomism as a physical theory and the nature of mathematical objects. The reports concerning Democritus' ethical views pose a number of interpretative problems, including the difficulty of deciding which fragments are genuinely Democritean see above, section 1. In contrast to the evidence for his physical theories, many of the ethical fragments are lists of sayings quoted without context, rather than critical philosophical discussions of atomist views.
Many seem like commonsense platitudes that would be consistent with quite different philosophical positions. Thus, despite the large number of ethical sayings, it is difficult to construct a coherent account of his ethical views. Annas notes the Socratic character of a number of the sayings, and thinks there is a consistent theme about the role of one's own intellect in happiness Annas The sayings contain elements that can be seen as anticipating the more developed ethical views of Epicurus Warren It is also a matter of controversy whether any conceptual link can be found between atomist physics and the ethical commitments attributed to Democritus.
Vlastos argued that a number of features of Democritus' naturalistic ethics can be traced to his materialist account of the soul and his rejection of a supernatural grounding for ethics Vlastos Taylor is more sceptical about the closeness of the connection between Democritus' ethical views and his atomist physics Taylor a, pp.
The reports indicate that Democritus was committed to a kind of enlightened hedonism, in which the good was held to be an internal state of mind rather than something external to it. The good is given many names, amongst them euthymia or cheerfulness, as well as privative terms, e. Some fragments suggest that moderation and mindfulness in one's pursuit of pleasures is beneficial; others focus on the need to free oneself from dependence on fortune by moderating desire. Several passages focus on the human ability to act on nature by means of teaching and art, and on a notion of balance and moderation that suggests that ethics is conceived as an art of caring for the soul analogous to medicine's care for the body Vlastos , pp.
Others discuss political community, suggesting that there is a natural tendency to form communities. Although the evidence is not certain, Democritus may be the originator of an ancient theory about the historical development of human communities. In contrast to the Hesiodic view that the human past included a golden age from which the present day is a decline, an alternative tradition that may derive from Democritus suggests that human life was originally like that of animals; it describes the gradual development of human communities for purposes of mutual aid, the origin of language, crafts and agriculture.
Although the text in question does not mention Democritus by name, he is the most plausible source Cole ; Cartledge If Democritus is the source for this theory, it suggests that he took seriously the need to account for the origin of all aspects of the world of our experience. Human institutions could not be assumed to be permanent features or divine gifts. The explanations offered suggest that human culture developed as a response to necessity and the hardships of our environment.
It has been suggested that the sheer infinite size of the atomist universe and thus the number of possible combinations and arrangements that would occur by chance alone are important in the development of an account that can show how human institutions arise without assuming teleological or theological origins Cole Although here, as on other questions, the evidence is less than certain, it is plausible that Democritus developed a powerful and consistent explanation of much of the natural world from a very few fundamentals.
For the reception and subsequent history of Democritean atomism, see the related entry on ancient atomism. Diels and W. A fuller presentation of the evidence for Democritus, with commentary in Russian: Solomon Luria, Demokrit , Leningrad, He called these small pieces of matter " atomos ," the Greek word for indivisible. Democritus, theorized that atoms were specific to the material which they composed.
It is further argued that as a reward for his service, the Persian monarch gave his father and other Abderites gifts, and left several Magi among them. Democritus was apparently instructed by these Magi in astronomy and theology.
After his father had died, Democritus used his inheritance to finance a series of travels to distant countries. Desiring to feed his thirst for knowledge, Democritus traveled extensively across the known world, traveling to Asia, Egypt and according to some sources venturing as far as India and Ethiopia. His writings include descriptions of the the cities of Babylon and Meroe in modern-day Sudan. Upon returning to his native land, he occupied himself with the study of natural philosophy.
His wealth allowed him to purchase their writings, and he wrote of them in his own works. In time, he would become one of the most famous of the pre-Socratic philosophers.
Leucippus of Miletus had the greatest influence on him, becoming his mentor and sharing his theory of atomism with him. 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. If the football game is to be played this coming weekend, all we can do is offer opinions as to its outcome.
The ancient Greek philosophers did a lot of discussing, with part of their conversations concerning the physical world and its composition. There were different opinions about what made up matter. Some felt one thing was true while others believed another set of ideas.
Since these scholars did not have laboratories and had not developed the idea of the experiment, they were left to debate. Whoever could offer the best argument was considered right. However, often the best argument had little to do with reality. One of the on-going debates had to do with sand. The question posed was: into how small of pieces can you divide a grain of sand?
The prevailing thought at the time, pushed by Aristotle, was that the grain of sand could be divided indefinitely, that you could always get a smaller particle by dividing a larger one and there was no limit to how small the resulting particle could be. Since Aristotle was such an influential philosopher, very few people disagreed with him. However, there were some philosophers who believed that there was a limit to how small a grain of sand could be divided.
0コメント