Untitled Essay, Research Paper

theme

Atomism:

Democritus

and

EpicurusPhilosophy 116October 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. Modern philosophers like Dr. Jones, allow for Epicurus’ swerve

theory since “given one swerve the system can develop, for it is plausible to suppose

that colliding atoms react in different ways. ‘Some leap back at great space apart,

others are thrust but a short way from the blow’” (Jones 88). Ambiguous as it

is, Epicurus could not logically come to another conclusion without violating his earlier

teachings. Another point on which the Atomists disagree is the nature of

qualitative differences such as weight and color. Although both Democritus and Epicurus

agree that atoms are without these qualities, their explanations of the phenomenon of

their existence are quite different. Democritus, attempting to maintain the integrity of Atomistic physics,

says that qualitative differences are, in fact, illusions. Neither atoms, nor empty space

possess these characteristics, therefore, Democritus concludes, they must be illusions. He

supports this theory by saying that the motion of the atoms that constitute the sensed

object causes some of the atoms of that object to be flung into the path of the atoms of

the sensory organ, which in itself is a collection of atoms in motion. Thereby, the

collision of the atoms which are moving from the object being sensed set the atoms of the

sense organ in motion. The motion perpetuates the illusion of qualitative variety. With

this argument, Democritus is able to account for the differences of opinion regarding an

objects’ qualities. What smells sweet to one, may smell foul to another. Antithetically, Epicurus attempts to explain sensory phenomenon in a

clearer way. His explanation, however, again deviates from the core declarations of

Atomism. Epicurus agrees that atoms themselves have no qualitative differences.

Nonetheless, he declares that groups of atoms can develop a quality such as color. He

theorized that the qualities we perceive are a by-product of the motion and collision

within atomic groups themselves. As the group moves, the qualities change. These qualities

Epicurus called “‘properties’ not ‘accidents’ of combinations or

collections of atoms. A property is a characteristic that some entity necessarily has; an

accident is a characteristic that is temporary and transient. Thus, in accordance with

these definitions, color is a property of atomic collections (for all such collection have

some color or other), and ‘red’ is an accident. Though a collection is

necessarily colored, it is not necessarily "red” (Jones 89). Therefore, Epicurus attributed the qualitative differences not to our

perception, but to the atoms themselves. We come to an impass here. We have already

decided that all that exists are atoms and empty space. Epicurus then goes on to state

that the qualities are not illusions, yet they do not exist as part of the atoms, nor do

they exist within the void. Where, then, are these qualities? Epicurus ambiguously calls

these qualities “accompaniments” yet never explains how they can exist outside

of reality and still be considered real.

Epicurus changed the doctrine of Democritus in many ways in an attempt

to clarify some of the more questionable postulations. Epicurus’ theory is not

necessarily superior, but certainly progressive. There is room for discourse on a variety

of the Atomists’ theories. Since they are the first school of thought from which we

have so much written record, there is bound to be divergence of opinion. The areas I have

discussed relate only the area of physics. Epicurus attempts to resolve some of the

dilemmas Democritus leaves unresolved in ethical and psychological dilemmas as well.