Why did Democritus believe that the atom is indivisible? Ancient philosophy: Democritus
The famous Greek philosopher Democritus accepts the thesis that being is something simple, meaning by it the indivisible - the atom ("atom" in Greek means "uncut", "uncut"). He gives a materialistic interpretation of this concept, thinking of the atom as the smallest physical particle that is not further divisible. Democritus allows for an innumerable number of such atoms, thereby rejecting the assertion that existence is one. Atoms, according to Democritus, are separated by emptiness; emptiness is non-being and as such is unknowable: rejecting Parmenides' claim that being is not plural.
Democritus, along with Leucippus, is considered one of the founders of ancient Greek atomism. At first glance, the doctrine of atomism is extremely simple. The beginning of all things is indivisible particles-atoms and emptiness. Nothing arises from a non-existent and is not destroyed into a non-existent, but the emergence of things is a combination of atoms, and destruction is a disintegration into parts, ultimately into atoms. Everything arises on some basis and out of necessity; the cause of its occurrence is a whirlwind, which is called necessity. We feel because “videos” get into us, separated from things. The soul is a collection of special atoms. The ultimate goal of a person is mental well-being, in which the soul is in peace and balance, not embarrassed by fear, superstition, or any other passion.
All that exists is atoms and emptiness. In the infinite emptiness-space, bodies infinite in number and shape move, combining with each other; the latter differ from each other in shape, order, rotation. The question arises - what makes us assert that there are some indivisible bodies, that matter is indivisible indefinitely? Leucippus and Democritus were attentive listeners of Zeno and neither the strengths nor the weaknesses of his reasoning escaped them, in particular, the content of the aporia against multitude: if you divide a body into an infinite number of parts, then either these parts will have no size - and then their sum, those. the original body will turn into nothing, or they will have magnitude - but then their sum will be infinitely large. But both are absurd. However, aporia does not arise if we assume the existence of a limit of divisibility - a further indivisible atom. Atoms are quite small, but the simplest observation shows that matter is really divisible into very small particles, not even visible to the eye. These are the grains of dust visible in a ray of light falling into dark room. “Democritus did not say that these specks of dust, visible through the window, raised (by the wind) (are those particles) of which fire or the soul consists, or that in general these specks of dust are atoms, but he said: “These specks of dust exist in the air, but since they are not noticeable due to their too small size, it seems that they do not exist, and only the rays of the sun, penetrating through the window, reveal that they exist. In the same way, there are indivisible bodies that are small and indivisible because their size is too small" (Leucippus).
This solves two problems at once. The multiplicity of existence no longer leads to contradictions: any body can be divided into a finite set of particles that have size, and then again composed of them. And the “being” of the Eleatics is embodied in the atom: it is one, indivisible, unchangeable, indestructible, meeting all the requirements of Parmenides’ “being”. There are just a lot of atoms. And in order for them to exist as a multitude, a void is necessary, which would separate one atom from another and make it possible for the atoms to move - movement. Emptiness is no longer the “non-existent” of the Eleatics, but existing nothingness.
Democritus, however, agrees with the Eleatics that only being is knowable. It is also characteristic that Democritus distinguishes between the world of atoms - as true and therefore cognizable only by reason - and the world of sensory things, which are only external appearances, the essence of which is atoms, their properties and movements. Atoms cannot be seen, they can only be thought. Here, as we see, the opposition between “knowledge” and “opinion” also remains. The atoms of Democritus vary in shape and size; moving in emptiness, they connect (“link”) with each other due to differences in shape: Democritus has atoms that are round, pyramidal, curved, pointed, even “with hooks.” This is how bodies that are accessible to our perception are formed from them.
Democritus proposed a thoughtful version of the mechanistic explanation of the world: for him, the whole is the sum of its parts, and the random movement of atoms, their random collisions are the cause of all things. In atomism, the position of the Eleatics about the immobility of being is rejected, since this position does not make it possible to explain the movement and change that occurs in the sensory world. In an effort to find the cause of movement, Democritus “splits” the single being of Parmenides into many separate “beings” - atoms, which he interprets materialistically.
The proof of the existence of emptiness by Democritus and the atomists in general boils down to the fact that, firstly, without emptiness movement would not be possible, since something filled cannot absorb something else into itself; secondly, its existence is indicated by the presence of processes such as compaction and condensation, which are possible only if there are empty spaces between bodies and their parts. Emptiness is absolutely homogeneous and can exist both containing bodies and without them. Moreover, it exists both outside bodies, containing them within itself, separating them from each other, and inside complex bodies, separating their parts from each other. Only atoms do not contain emptiness, which explains their absolute density - there is nowhere to insert a blade to cut an atom or split it.
As for the number of atoms in the world, Democritus recognizes it as infinite. And therefore, emptiness must also be infinite, because finite space cannot contain an infinite number of atoms and an infinite number of worlds consisting of them. It is difficult to say what is the first assumption here - the infinity of the number of atoms or the infinity of emptiness. Both are based on the argument that both the number of atoms and the size of the void are “no more such than another.” This argument also extends to the number of forms of atoms, which, according to Democritus, is also infinite.
The infinity of the world in space entails eternity in time and infinity (beginninglessness) of movement. Aristotle reports that Democritus argued: “the eternal and infinite has no beginning, but the cause is the beginning, the eternal is limitless, therefore asking what is the cause of any of these things, according to Democritus, is the same as looking for the beginning of infinity.” Thus, atomism recognizes the eternity of the world in time, infinity in space, the infinity of the number of atoms and the worlds made up of them.
Federal Agency for Education
Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
Kazan State Technical University
On the topic : "Teachings of Democritus. The concept of “atom”, “emptiness”.
Completed:
Khazova K.V.
Almetyevsk, 2007
Introduction
Democritus was born around 470-469 BC, died in the 4th century. BC He was
a younger contemporary of Anaxagoras and an older contemporary of Socrates. Democritus was a scientist
encyclopedist, the largest representative of the atomistic movement in
philosophy. He was originally from the city of Abdera, a Greek colony in Thracian
coast. Having received an inheritance, he went on a journey and visited a number of
countries (Egypt, Babylon, India). where he expanded his knowledge about nature and
person. Upon returning, he was condemned for wasted wealth (against
a lawsuit was brought against him for squandered inheritance). On
During the trial, Democritus read to the judges his essay “Mirostroy”,
and the judges recognized that in exchange for monetary wealth he had accumulated wisdom,
knowledge, was acquitted in court and even rewarded with money.
Democritus wrote about seventy works, but not a single one has reached us.
in full. There are fragments from them that give an idea of his teaching.
The basis of Democritus’s philosophical reflections is the idea of atomism, which
in its most general form has already appeared in ancient Eastern culture and which, as
Historians believe that it was adopted by Democritus from his teacher Leucippus. But
Briefly, this concept can be stated as follows. Democritus
believed that there are an infinite number of worlds; some worlds arise,
others die. They all consist of many atoms and emptiness. Emptiness -
between worlds and atoms. The atoms themselves are indivisible and devoid of emptiness. Besides
properties of indivisibility, atoms are unchangeable, do not have any
movements; they are eternal, are not destroyed and do not appear again. Number of atoms in
world endlessly. They differ from each other in four ways: 1) by
form, 2) in size, 3) in order and 4) in position. Yes, A is different
from P shape, AP from RA order, b from P position. The size of atoms is also
different; different on Earth they are small, so much so that the senses are not
able to perceive them. These are the specks of dust present in the room, invisible
usually, but noticeable in a beam of light shining into a dark room. Their
invisibility under normal conditions gives reason to believe that they are not
exist, in fact they exist; so are atoms. There are atoms
very different shapes (A and P, for example); they can be spherical, angular,
concave, convex, hook-shaped, anchor-shaped, etc. From different atoms and
their different numbers, through coupling, various things and worlds are formed. If
If they were in a state of rest, then the diversity of things would be explained
would be impossible. They, as independent elements, are characterized by movement. While
in motion, atoms collide with each other, changing the direction of movement;
one type of movement is a vortex. The movement itself is beginningless and not
will have an end.
Let us now move on to a more detailed study of the principles characteristic of
philosophy of Democritus.
Atomism of Democritus and paradoxes of Zeno
Zeno's paradoxes had a significant influence on Democritus. Democritus
tried to solve the question of the possibility of movement, introducing a different
premise: not only being, but also non-being exists. At the same time he thought
existence as atoms, and non-existence as emptiness. Democritus, apparently, sought with
using the doctrine of atoms, also propose a solution to the paradoxes of infinity
Zeno. In fact, in any body there exists something as big as you like, but
finite number of atoms, and therefore, it would seem, there should exist
objective limit of division, so that the aporias "Achilles" and "Dichotomy" must
as if to lose its power. However, Democritus' doctrine of atoms is not
provides grounds for overcoming the paradoxes of infinity, which are strictly
logical character. Democritus proposed his solution, bypassing that
the premise from which Zeno proceeded: he introduced such a simplification of the problem,
which was not allowed within the framework of Zeno posing the question, however
opened up the prospect of circumventing the difficulties that arose here. If the Eleatics
considered the problems of multiplicity and movement in an abstract theoretical way,
then the theory of Democritus from the very beginning was focused on explanation
phenomena of the empirical world. About how fruitful the proposed
Democritus's way of viewing nature is evidenced by the further development
science, in which the program of Democritus played a very important role.
Democritus clarifies the Pythagorean concept of the monad: after all, the Pythagoreans too
proceeded from the assumption of indivisible principles - units, but the question of
whether these units are material elements, physical
particles or just mathematical points that have no dimensions. A
Accordingly, they could not raise the question of the nature of the continuum. IN
in fact, if any line and its part, as well as any body, consists
of these indivisible units of unknown nature, it is also unclear whether it is finite or
an infinite number of these units will make up one or another segment or body.
For if these units are points “without parts,” then even an infinite number of them
does not form a quantity, if they are not mathematical points, but physical
“pebbles”, then in a body of a certain size there can be a large number of them, but
final number.
Zeno's paradoxes precisely revealed this problem. And now Democritus,
clarifying the Pythagorean concept of unit, he comes to the conclusion that “unit”
we need to think like physical body very small but finite in size. In this
case, any line segment, as well as any three-dimensional body, can
consist of a very large, but always finite number of indivisible physical
“monads” (“units”) - atoms.
Many historians of philosophy believe that the principle of atomism is aimed
against Anaxagoras' position on the unlimited divisibility of things. Such a point
views expressed, in particular, by V. Leinfelner. “The efforts of the atomists,” writes
he - are directed against the basic axiom of Anaxagoras, according to which all
things are infinitely divisible. From unities which, so to speak, are constantly
break, split, no body can be built; should
there exist minimal unities of an indivisible nature. Aggregation, like
dissociation requires minimal indivisible particles, atoms.” The question, however,
is complicated by the fact that Anaxagoras’s teaching about “seeds” also has a number of common
points with the theory of the atomists, so that it can be considered as
complementary to the atomism of Democritus. It did not arise by chance
dispute regarding who influenced whom: did Leucippus
Anaxagoras or Anaxagoras on Democritus. However, no matter
Did Democritus act as a critic of Anaxagoras, or did he borrow from
Anaxagoras some aspects of his doctrine of "seeds", rejecting others
aspects of this teaching, its purpose was to develop such
a doctrine of the structure of the continuum that would avoid the contradictions indicated
Zeno, and would clarify the Pythagorean idea of the “monad”.
As is known, Democritus was not the first to put forward the doctrine of atoms;
his predecessor was Leucippus, who supposedly lived from 500 to 440.
BC and was a contemporary of Pythagoras, Parmenides, Zeno, Anaxagoras.
There is important evidence from Aristotle regarding theoretical
sources of the emergence of atomism in general, including the atomism of Leucippus.
It does not contradict the assumption that the atomists developed their doctrine in order to
avoid the contradictions indicated by the Eleatics. Moreover, this is evidence
Aristotle sheds additional light on the situation in science in the 5th century. BC
“Most methodically,” writes Aristotle in his work “On the Origin and
destruction,” built their theory, guided by one general principle
when explaining phenomena, Leucippus and Democritus, based on what is consistent
nature as it is. Some of the ancients believed that it was necessary
(logically) so that being is one and motionless. For emptiness is not
exists, and in the absence of a separate void, movement is impossible, equal
just as there cannot be many objects if there is no something that would separate
them from each other... Based on such reasoning, some (scientists) came out
beyond the limits of sensations and neglected them, because they believed that it was necessary to follow
mind. Therefore they say that the whole is one and motionless... Note that with
From a logical point of view, all this is consistent, but from a factual point of view
such a view looks like the ravings of a madman. Leucippus was convinced that he had
there is a theory which, based on arguments consistent with feelings (at the same time
time) will not make it impossible either to arise, or to destroy, or
movement, nor multiplicity of things. Having recognized all this in accordance with the phenomena,
he, in agreement with those who prove the unity (of the whole), admitted that
movement is impossible without emptiness, and emptiness is non-existent, however,
no less real than what exists, but what exists directly
in the sense of the word, is filled. However, such a thing is not one, but
represents infinite in number (particles), invisible, due to
smallness of each of them. These particles rush around in the void, because the void
exists; when united, they give rise to (things), and
being separated, to destruction." Thus, Aristotle connects the appearance
atomism - and not only Democritus, but also Leucippus - with criticism of the teaching
Eleates; so that it is possible to think about movement, creation and destruction
things, Leucippus and Democritus admitted the existence of indivisible particles - atoms
And the void in which atoms move and without which they are unthinkable.
Atomism, therefore, does not arise as a result of empirical
observations (for example, the movement of the smallest grains of dust in a sunbeam), and in
as a result of the development of certain theoretical concepts. Empirical
observations are involved only later, for the purpose of demonstration, and play a role
visual models of atomistic theory. “The teaching of Democritus,” writes E.
Cashier, - arose not due to weakening, but, on the contrary, thanks to
strengthening the strict conceptual requirements of the Eleatics, thanks to their more precise
carrying out and their more consistent application to phenomena. He's trying
restore not the immediate sensory world - the latter more sharply than
ever before, is characterized as a product of untrue knowledge: it
cognizes and represents in solid logical outlines the entire general concept
experience and empirical existence.
In this sense, the teaching of atomists is a further step on the path
liberation of philosophical and scientific thinking from mythological
representations; early Pythagoreanism, trying to explain everything that exists with the help
numbers, to a much greater extent attracted mythological numbers to help them
images, than did the Eleatics, and even more so the atomists. However, at the same time, everyone
philosophers of the pre-Socratic period (with the possible exception of the Eleatics, yes
and then only partly) there is one common feature: lack of logical reflection
about their scientific and theoretical constructions. This feature of them
E. Cassirer also notes: “However, with all the freedom and breadth of vision... everything is up to
phases passed so far (Cassirer is referring to Greek philosophy before
Socrates) are characterized by a common boundary connecting them. They all turn
only on the product, and not on the process of this transformation. Clean function
conceptual thinking is still completely hidden behind its results and is not yet
achieves a separate, conscious determination."
Indeed, neither the Pythagoreans nor the atomists consciously
reflection on those scientific and philosophical concepts with
with the help of which they want to gain true knowledge about the world. There is, however,
fully conscious distinction between true knowledge and false knowledge and completely
consistent separation of those paths through which one gains
true knowledge, from the paths of “opinion”, “dark knowledge”. But never (even
eleates) this process is not subject to special analysis, thanks to
to whom this very “path of truth” opens.
Democritus(c. 460-370 BC) - ancient Greek philosopher, originally from Abdera. He traveled a lot, visited Egypt, Persia, India and acquired a significant amount of knowledge. For my long life became a multifaceted scientist and wrote over 70 works on various fields of knowledge - physics, mathematics, rhetoric, philosophy. He was a student of Leucippus, and borrowed the main provisions of the atomic theory from him, but developed them further. Following Leucippus, Democritus argues that everything that exists consists of atoms and emptiness. Atoms are indivisible particles. Atoms connect with each other and things are formed. They differ in shape, order and rotation. Atoms are one, indivisible, unchanging and indestructible. In addition to them, there is also emptiness, since without emptiness there would be no possibility of movement, as well as compaction and condensation. Emptiness is homogeneous in nature; it can separate bodies from each other, or it can be located inside the bodies themselves and separate individual parts of these bodies. Atoms do not contain emptiness; they differ in absolute density.
According to Democritus, there is an infinite number of atoms in the world. The number of atomic shapes is also infinite. At the same time, Democritus recognizes the eternity of the world in time and its infinity in space. He was convinced that there were many worlds, constantly arising and dying.
Atoms have the property of motion by nature, and it is transmitted through the collision of atoms. The movement is the main source of development. Democritus believes that there never was a primary movement, a first push, since movement is the way of existence of atoms.
He believed, following Leucippus, that not only nothing arises from nothing, as previous philosophers believed, but also that nothing arises without a cause. Everything happens according to strict necessity. Everything is determined by the mechanical movement of atoms. As Diogenes Laertius writes, for Democritus “everything is determined: the cause of every occurrence is a whirlwind, and he calls this whirlwind necessity.” For Democritus, there is no chance, everything has its cause, which means that it cannot be accidental. Even such a phenomenon as the intersection of two independent series of events that give rise to a random coincidence is called necessary by Democritus, since here too a causal chain of phenomena led to this event. Thus, Democritus stands on the position of rigid determinism, resulting from his recognition of mechanical movement as the only form of movement Vits B.B. Democritus
The shape and size of atoms is related to the question of the so-called amers, or “mathematical atomism of Democritus.” Democritus' mathematics differed from the generally accepted one. According to Aristotle, it “shaken mathematics.” It was based on anatomical concepts. Agreeing with Zeno that the divisibility of space to infinity leads to absurdity, to transformation into zero quantities from which nothing can be built, Democritus discovered his indivisible atoms. But the physical atom did not coincide with the mathematical point. According to Democritus, atoms had different sizes and shapes, figures, some were larger, others were smaller. He admitted that there are atoms that are hook-shaped, anchor-shaped, rough, angular, curved - otherwise they would not adhere to each other. Democritus believed that atoms are physically indivisible, but mentally parts can be distinguished in them - points that cannot be torn away, they do not have their own weight, but they are also extended. This is not zero, but the minimum value, then the indivisible, mental part of the atom - “amera”. According to some evidence, in the smallest atom there were seven amers: top, bottom, left, right, front, back, middle. It was math that agreed with the data sensory perception who said that no matter how small the physical body is - for example, an invisible atom - such parts in it can always be imagined, but it is impossible to divide ad infinitum even mentally.
Democritus made extended lines from extended points, and planes from them. The cone, for example, according to Democritus, consists of the finest lace, which is not perceptible to the senses due to its thinness, parallel to the base. Thus, by adding lines, accompanied by proof, Democritus discovered a theorem about the volume of a cone, which is equal to a third of the volume of a cylinder with the same base and equal height, and he also calculated the volume of a pyramid. Both discoveries were recognized by Archimedes Foundations of Philosophy.
Authors reporting Democritus' views had little understanding of his mathematics. Aristotle and subsequent mathematicians sharply rejected it, so it was forgotten. Some modern researchers deny the difference between atoms and amers in Democritus or believe that Democritus considered atoms to be indivisible both physically and theoretically, but the latter point of view leads to great contradictions. The atomic theory of mathematics existed; it was revived in the school of Epicurus.
Atoms are infinite in number, and the number of configurations of atoms is also infinite. This principle of “no more so than otherwise,” which is sometimes called the principle of indifference or heteroprobability, is characteristic of Democritus’s explanation of the Universe. With its help it was possible to justify the infinity of movement of space and time. According to Democritus, the existence of countless atomic forms determines the infinite variety of directions and speeds of the primary movements of atoms, and this in turn leads them to meetings and collisions. Thus, all world formation is determined and is a natural consequence of the eternal movement of matter.
Ionian philosophers already spoke about perpetual motion. The world is in perpetual motion, because in their understanding it is a living being. Democritus solves this issue differently. Its atoms are not animated. Perpetual motion is the collision, repulsion, cohesion, separation, displacement and fall of atoms caused by the original vortex. Atoms have their own primary motion, not caused by shocks: “shake in all directions” or “vibrate”. The last concept was not developed; Epicurus did not notice it when he corrected the Democritus theory of atomic motion, introducing an arbitrary deviation of atoms from a straight line.
Democritus considered the movement eternal natural state Space. In this case, the movement was interpreted strictly unambiguously as the mechanical movement of atoms in emptiness.
So, the essence of the teachings of Democritus boiled down to two main provisions:
- 1) Atoms are forever moving in the void surrounding them. In relation to the atom, the place it occupies is completely random.
- 2) All things are formed from a combination of atoms: all the diversity of the world stems from their combination and separation. Atoms, which are in constant motion, combine to form things. When atoms are separated, things die.
In his picture of the structure of matter, Democritus proceeded from the principle put forward by previous philosophy - the principle of the preservation of being “nothing arises from nothing.” He associated it with the eternity of time and movement, which meant a certain understanding of the unity of matter (atoms) and the forms of its existence. And if the Eleans believed that this principle applies only to “truly existing”, then Democritus attributed it to the real, objective the existing world, nature Vits B.B. Democritus The atomic picture of the world is not complex, but it is grandiose. The doctrine of atomic structure was the most scientific in its principles and the most convincing of all previously created by philosophers. It decisively rejected a lot of religious and mythological ideas about the supernatural world, about the intervention of the gods. In addition, the picture of the movement of atoms in the world's emptiness, their collisions and coupling is the simplest model of causal interaction. The Democritus picture of the world is already a pronounced materialism; such a philosophical worldview was, in ancient times, as opposed to the mythological worldview as possible.
Democritus gave great value sensory knowledge. He put forward the theory of outflow to explain the perception of external objects by the senses. According to this theory, so-called images, similarities of these objects, flow from objects. When they enter the eye, ideas about the object appear. Sensory cognition, according to Democritus, is not reliable knowledge. He calls knowledge through the senses “dark”; it is not true. The only true form of knowledge is knowledge through reasoning.
Explaining human mental activity, Democritus writes that the soul is a moving principle and an organ of sensation and thinking. In order to set the body in motion, the soul itself must be material and moving. It consists of atoms, therefore it is mortal, since after the death of a person the atoms of the soul also dissipate.
Democritus adhered to atheistic views, as evidenced by Plato. He believed that people came to believe in gods under the influence of the existence of formidable natural phenomena: thunder, lightning, solar and lunar eclipses.
According to their own political views Democritus was an ardent defender of Greek democracy, which opposed the aristocracy for a slave-owning form of government. He wrote: “Poverty in a democracy is as much preferable to the so-called welfare of citizens under kings as freedom is to slavery.” In ethics, Democritus proceeds from the individualistic principle. For him, the main thing is “the achievement of a good thought.” “A person of virtuous (pious) thought strives for just and lawful actions, in vigil and in sleep he is cheerful, healthy and calm.” Democritus considered persuasion to be the main means of ethical education.
“The one who uses stimulating and persuasive speech will be a better stimulant than the one who resorts to law and violence” Vits B.B. Democritus
The philosophy of Democritus played a huge role for all subsequent philosophy.
4. Atomistic doctrine of Democritus
The philosopher Democritus of Abdera reconciled the Eleatic and Heraclitian points of view. He carried out a synthesis of these two views. Just like Heraclitus, he believed that everything in the world is in motion, changes and is divided into parts, but, following the Eleatics, he also believed that Being can only be indivisible and unchanging. After all, Being is eternal, which follows from this very concept, and the eternal cannot be divisible, since that which consists of parts does not always exist (if the parts are together, it exists, but if they are separated, then it will not exist). Every thing consists of parts, Democritus believed, but each of its parts, in turn, also consists of parts, and so everything is divided for as long as desired. But if division is possible ad infinitum, if everything in general consists of parts and everything is divisible, then what can be called Being? What is divisible is not eternal, but everything is divisible, which means everything is not eternal, but Being can only be eternal, therefore, it does not exist at all. But Being cannot but exist, as follows from the concept itself. Therefore, it is necessary to assume that everything is divided not to infinity, but to a certain certain limit, beyond which division is impossible. That is, that there is a certain particle, albeit very small, but further indivisible. Being indivisible, it cannot be destroyed, because it does not consist of parts into which it can break up. It exists eternally, and therefore is the real basis of Being, its carrier, and represents Being itself. Divisible in Greek sounds like “tomos”. The negative particle in Greek is “a”. Therefore, the indivisible is “atomos” or “atom”. This word, as we see, was first used by Democritus, and for two thousand years it has existed in all Western languages. It is clear that the atom in modern sense- not at all the same as Democritus. Today this term denotes a very small element of matter, but by no means indivisible: we know that the atom consists of elementary particles and has a complex structure. For Democritus, the atom is necessarily indivisible and therefore eternal, something that can be considered true Being. After all, the only property of an atom is to always be. Even if he wanted not to be, he couldn't do it. The atom (indivisible) is doomed to unchanging existence, to Being. Democritus, in his teaching about the constant basis of all things - the atom - a particle of the universe that is eternal, indivisible and unchangeable - shares the view of the Eleatic philosophers.
But following Heraclitus, he believed the world was ever changing. The fact is that, according to Democritus, there are infinitely many atoms, they move in the void and, colliding, unite, exist together for some time, then, under the influence of new collisions, they separate and move again, interacting with each other. The connection of atoms leads to the birth of things, separation - to their death. All objects thus arise and are destroyed, and the world is an eternal movement and change. All things are completely different, but at the same time they are, by and large, one and the same, because they consist of the same atoms. The world's diversity is reduced to one basis - atoms moving in emptiness. Just as behind the diversity of the universe, in Thales there is a single principle - water, and in Anaximenes - air, in Pythagoras - number, so in Democritus - atoms. Why are things different from each other if they are made from the same material? Because the atoms from which they are formed are combined in each thing differently and in different proportions.
Any object is just a temporary combination of indivisible particles and exists only as long as they are together. Things - that is, that - are not, and therefore are not real Being, in other words, they generally, by and large, do not exist, but there is only what they consist of - a set of unchanging atoms. In the same way, the properties of things exist temporarily: there is no thing, and its properties are not there. They, therefore, also, by and large, do not exist, since they are only products of atomic combinations. Everything we see around us, says Democritus, is not really real reality. Behind the inauthentic world that surrounds us there is a real, but invisible to us, world of atoms and emptiness. He is the truly existing one, and everything that we perceive sensually is just his creation and therefore ephemeral, phantom, mirage, illusion. There are no mountains or celestial bodies, no water, no earth, no air, no plants and animals, says the Abdera thinker, there is neither cold nor warm, nor sweet, nor salty, nor white, nor green, there is nothing at all, but it only seems to us that all this There is. But the only things that truly exist are atoms and emptiness.
To illustrate Democritus’s atomistic picture of the world, let us give an analogy. Everyone is well aware of this type of fine art called mosaic: there is a set of colored pieces of glass or chips from which you can make one pattern or ornament or another, one or another combination. Let's make some kind of picture out of them, then break it and build another, and so on. Do all these drawings really exist? No, they don’t exist, they are only a possibility. But what really exists? Only this set of mosaic glass pieces and nothing more! Likewise, the universe, according to Democritus, is not things and their properties, but only the sum of atoms, which is the only reality.
Questions and tasks
1. Highlight the motives Eleatic philosophy in the Democritus system.
2. Try to explain the meaning of Democritus’ statement: if everything is divisible to infinity, then there is no Being.
3. What ideas of Heraclitus did Democritus borrow when building his philosophical teaching?
4. If atoms, by and large, are qualityless, then why does the real world formed from them in the teachings of Democritus have an infinite number of qualities and properties? Can we call it virtual reality from a Democritus point of view?
5. If atoms are intangible, then how do we know about their existence from the point of view of the Democritus system?
5. Socrates and the Sophists: maieutics versus relativism
In the 5th century BC In many cities of Greece, a democratic form of political life was established. This means that people were not appointed to various government positions, but were chosen through popular vote. Therefore, a person who aroused the sympathy of voters by successfully speaking to them in the people's assembly could occupy some responsible post. After all, in order for someone to be voted for, he had to be liked by the mass of the people, who collectively decided the political fate of certain candidates. It is clear that at this time the value of oratory and education in general increased greatly, since only an educated person with political eloquence could speak successfully before the people. But philosophers then had extensive knowledge in various fields (there were no separate sciences and arts, in the full sense of the word, in ancient times, and they were all replaced by philosophy, and philosophers were almost the only scientists at that time), to whom people began to turn with requests teach them various wisdoms, but above all, the ability to argue and prove, refute and convince.
Some philosophers began to take money for teaching and received the name sophists, that is, paid teachers of wisdom. They taught, first of all, rhetoric - various methods of proof and refutation, the art of conducting an argument and winning it, being able to influence the listener under any circumstances and achieve the desired effect. But in order to emerge victorious in all intellectual situations, you must have the ability to both prove and refute anything. Paid teachers of wisdom have invented various sophisms - outwardly correct proofs of obviously false propositions. For example, the sophism “Horned” sounds like this: “You have something that you did not lose; you didn’t lose your horn, that means you are horned.” Or the “Covered” sophism: a person is asked: “Do you know who is standing under this veil?” “I don’t know,” he answers. “This is your father,” they tell him, “it turns out you don’t know your father.” Or you ask someone, “Do you know what I want to ask you?” “I don’t know,” your interlocutor answers. Then you say to him: “Don’t you know that the Sun rises in the East?” “I know,” he says. “Aha,” you say triumphantly, “it turns out that you know, but at first you said that you don’t know, it turns out that you know what you don’t know.” But here is a more cunning sophism: what is better - eternal bliss or a sandwich? Of course - eternal bliss. And what could be better than eternal bliss? Nothing! And a sandwich is better than nothing, which means it's better than eternal bliss.
But sophistry alone is not enough. In order to win any dispute, a person must always be right. However, if the truth is the same for everyone, and the person arguing is not on its side, then he cannot possibly be right. This means that the only thing left for the sophist is to assume the existence of not one truth, but many. There are so many people, so many opinions, each person is his own truth. The famous sophist Protagoras of Abdera proposed a formula for such a view: “Man,” he says, “is the measure of all things.” That is, as it seems to someone, for everyone there is truth, which, thus, is completely subjective (depends on the subject - the person). There is nothing common and binding for everyone; there are no uniform principles or laws. Each of us sets for himself the rules and guidelines by which his life should flow. Any view is as true as it is false. Everything can be proven and disproved; opposite judgments are completely equivalent. You can say about everything: “This is both true and not true at the same time.” And everything in this case depends only on a specific person, who sets the criterion of truth and lies. This view is called subjectivism. But if there is nothing generally accepted, then no one can be either absolutely right or absolutely wrong, or rather, what seems true to one is false to another, what is important for someone leaves another completely indifferent, what is funny for one seems sad to another, and if something seems good to someone, another may well regard it as evil. It turns out that nothing can be said definitely, and everything in the world is relative. Thus, from the subjectivism of the sophists follows relativism - the position of the relativity of everything that exists and conceivable (relativus in Latin means relative).
Is it cognizable of a world in which there is nothing stable and universally binding, but everything is subjective and relative? Most likely, we don’t know. The merit of philosophical sophistry is that it paid considerable attention to the epistemological problem. Archaic philosophers from Thales to Democritus did not doubt the knowability of the world, so they were more concerned about questions about its structure (cosmological) and origin (cosmogonic). The sophists believed that before talking about the universe, we must first find out whether we can learn anything about it at all, or whether our destiny is to remain completely ignorant and therefore believe that what seems to us to be true is true. In answering this question, they leaned towards the second, and therefore a characteristic feature of their teaching is also agnosticism (gnosis - knowledge, and - a negative particle in Greek) - a statement about the unknowability of the world or skepticism (from the Greek skeptomai - I doubt) - doubt in the possibility his knowledge. So, for example, the sophist Gorgias of Leontius, who wrote the essay “On the Non-Existent or on Nature,” formulated his views in the form of three propositions: firstly, there is nothing; secondly, if something existed, it would be unknowable; thirdly, even if someone could know something, they could not transfer this knowledge to another.
The sophists are opposed by the famous Greek philosopher Socrates of Athens. Unlike them, he believed that truth, just like the Sun in the sky, illuminating everything and warming everyone, can only be one. It is the same for everyone, universally binding and objective, that is, it exists outside of us and regardless of our desires. We didn’t invent it and we don’t have to cancel it. This truth has been before us and will always be. Wherever he lives and whoever a person is, he cannot disobey it, because it is absolute. Just as, for example, all people, completely different, are united by the fact that they are all born and die, rejoice and grieve, breathe and feel the beating of their hearts, so we are all one and there are no differences between us in the face of one truth, diffused in everything, everything illuminating and pulsating in each human soul. If someone decides to claim that he does not obey it, does not recognize it, that he has his own individual truth, this will be self-deception, an attempt to turn away from the inevitable. It is impossible for any of us, Socrates believed, to renounce this truth common to all of us, just as it is impossible to renounce, for example, the fact that you are a person, just as you cannot renounce your own eyes, hands and feet, heart and mind.
What kind of truth is this? Where is she? What is it? In answer to these questions, Socrates says that it would be too presumptuous for any mortal to believe that he certainly knows this truth and can say exactly what it is. The only thing we can say is that there is such a truth. But to say that it is something already defined, completely known, once forever found and established, is impossible, because we're talking about about absolute truth, and man, as a far from imperfect being, can never achieve the absolute. Rather, on the contrary, the only thing we know for sure is about our own ignorance, about the difficulties that confront us when trying to know something. Therefore, one of the most famous sayings of Socrates was: “I only know that I know nothing.” But our ignorance of the truth does not mean that it does not exist. We simply don’t know what it is, and the urgent task of every person is precisely the search for this really existing truth, common to everyone, but completely unknown.
Moreover, any of us must search for it on our own, because no authority, no matter how respected, can know exactly what the truth is and, on this basis, lead others. And independent search is always fraught with doubts, contradictions and long thoughts, but only in this way - thorny and difficult - can a person, if not find the truth, then at least get closer to it. This method is called heuristic (from the Greek eurisko - I find). The philosopher, says Socrates, must assist the seeker in his endeavors: without offering ready-made answers, he only helps him navigate the vast element of thoughts and ideas into which he who wants to find something true enters. Therefore, the Socratic method is also maieutics (from the Greek maieutikos - midwife): the philosopher assists in the birth of truth, but his participation in this is by no means decisive, since it must still be born itself in the soul and mind of a person.
However, will people search for some unknown and distant truth if daily life Is it perfectly understandable to them and does not require any special thought at all? Let's say a person earns enough money to live comfortably, has honor and respect in society, he has familiar activities and confidence in tomorrow. What more? Why think about some not entirely clear immortality, the meaning of life, your purpose in the Universe, about duty, virtue and who knows what else, if everything is already good enough? The whole point is that the ordinary circle of life takes a person away from these thoughts, overshadows them, while they, perhaps, are the main ones, and everything everyday is vanity and nonsense, the illusion of life, the inauthenticity of existence. Socrates considered it necessary to constantly remind people that, in addition to the usual affairs, there are concerns of a higher order, otherwise we will completely get bogged down in earthly routine and completely forget about the present, true and imperishable, thereby losing the right to be called by the name of a person - a rational being, and therefore cannot help but think about the global and eternal. He compared himself to a gadfly that painfully stings a horse calmly grazing in a meadow, not allowing it to stand still, slowly grow fat, grow fat and go to waste. In his conversations, the Athenian thinker subtly led listeners to the understanding that no one can be completely satisfied with their life and with themselves, that there are no limits to questions, doubts and the desire for something more perfect. At the same time, he used techniques and methods that the sophists often resorted to: he put a person in an intellectual difficulty, puzzled him with contradictions, forced him to doubt the most obvious and assume the impossible. Only sophistry set as its goal to confuse the human mind, to confuse it in order to show the relativity and subjectivity of everything, while Socrates did the same in order to push a person through doubts and mental dead ends to the search for objective and eternal truth.
It is clear that not everyone liked such “harassments” of his. And just as a horse strives to smack an annoying gadfly, so the Athenians decided to get rid of the restless philosopher, who with his questions “ruined” people’s carefree lives. Organized against Socrates trial, accusing him of impiety - as if he does not honor the state gods, does not respect traditions and corrupts youth. It is clear that he did neither one nor the other, nor the third, but he was harshly condemned: Socrates drank the cup of poison. After the execution of the philosopher, his fellow citizens immediately repented and gave him all sorts of honors, as, however, always happens in such cases.
Socrates did not leave behind any writings, but we learn about him from the works of his contemporaries, as well as from the testimonies of numerous students and followers. The Athenian thinker did not write anything on principle, saying that a book is exactly as much as it contains, you cannot ask it about anything, you cannot argue with it, and no text will ever replace live human communication. He expressed his views orally, but not only conversations, but his whole life was philosophy. We can say that Socrates did not write down his own teaching, because the philosopher’s life path was the most vivid embodiment of his views, due to which he became a kind of symbol of philosophy, its pathos for centuries.
Questions and tasks
1. What are the historical conditions for the emergence of sophistry?
2. Who are the Sophists? How do the concepts of sage, philosopher and sophist differ from each other?
3. What is sophistry? Give examples of some sophisms. Determine which logical laws are violated when constructing sophisms?
4. What are the main philosophical ideas sophists? Expand the content of the concepts of subjectivism, relativism, agnosticism, skepticism.
5. What are the main philosophical ideas of Socrates? What is his opposition to sophistry?
6. What is maieutics? Why was Socrates often compared to the Sophists? What do their teachings have in common?
7. The famous sophist Protagoras wrote the essay “On the Gods”, main idea which contained the following statement: “I cannot know anything about the gods: neither that they exist, nor that they do not exist; too many things prevent me from learning this, and above all - the darkness of the subject and the brevity human life" What principle of sophistic philosophy underlies this statement?
An appeal to mysticism. Philosophy late Hellenism, freeing itself from the free-thinking of early Hellenism, took the path of the sacred, i.e. religious comprehension of the world. FEATURES OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY 1. Genesis of philosophy: the transition from myth to logos The transition from a socially homogeneous tribal society to a socially differentiated society led to a change in ways of thinking. ...
In decomposition is the material element of existence. And this is a brilliant takeoff of thought on a fundamentally new level philosophical comprehension of existence. Chapter 3. The emergence and characteristics of sophistry 3.1 Sophistry and philosophy of the sophists In the 5th century. BC e. in many cities of Greece to replace political power The power of slave-owning democracy came to the ancient aristocracy and tyranny. Development of its created...
Already from this we see how atoms in the minds of the ancient Greeks differ from what science saw in atoms in relatively recent times and what the science of our time puts into the concept of an atom or an elementary particle. For science of the 18th century. atoms are identical, homogeneous, point masses moving according to the laws of mechanics. Modern concepts of “chemical properties” and “reactivity” could not exist in the system of Greek atomism. The theory of the structure or structure of matter on which modern physical chemistry is based has nothing in common with the ancient understanding of form, and the concept of a “chemical bond” would forever remain incomprehensible to the Greek scientist. So, atoms - forms, eternally moving in an infinite void - are the common basis of all ancient atomism.
The creators of the first atomic theory in ancient Greece are considered to be Leucippus (beginning of the 5th century BC) and Democritus (about 460 - 370 BC) - a native of the Thracian port of Abdera. Democritus developed this teaching and extended it to all areas of knowledge. For many ancient Greek philosophers Democritus was an example of a scientist, theorist, and researcher who preferred the unselfish search for truth to all the blessings of life. His life is known to us from numerous stories and legends. One of these legends says that the philosopher blinded himself so that his mental attention, contemplating the movements of invisible atoms, would not be distracted by deceptive visions outside world. Democritus traveled a lot, acquired knowledge on various subjects, and conducted research in geometry, medicine, astronomy and grammar. He completed his work “Small Diakosmos” in 420 BC. e. Here the foundations of atomistic teaching were outlined in connection with the theories of the origin of the world and the Earth. Democritus accepted three basic postulates (atoms, emptiness and motion) as principles that explained physical phenomena. According to Democritus, one can no longer ask why this is so and not otherwise. We must accept these principles, just as in geometry we accept some unprovable axioms, in order to be able to then deduce numerous theorems from them.
“The beginning of the universe is atoms and emptiness... - this is how one of the later Greek writers conveys to us the teachings of Democritus. - And nothing arises from nothingness, nothing collapses into nothingness. And the atoms are countless in variety of greatness and multitude; they rush through the universe, whirling in a whirlwind, and thus everything complex is born: fire, water, air, earth.”1 The Roman writer Cicero says that Democritus’ atoms, that is, “indivisible due to the solidity of the body, rush around in endless empty space, in which there is no top, bottom, middle, end, or edge, and the atoms rush in empty space in such a way that as a result of collisions they adhere to each other, from which everything that is and is felt arises. This movement of atoms must be thought to have no beginning, but to exist eternally.”
This teaching must ultimately provide a scheme by which everything that happens in the world can be easily explained. But for this it was necessary to exclude all uncertainty and randomness from the movement of atoms. Otherwise, it will be impossible to deduce (explain) this or that phenomenon from the movements of atoms. Democritus believed that although the movement of atoms is chaotic, in this chaos there is only one reason for the change in the movement of an atom - its collision with another atom. And if one could trace the path of an atom and know all the movements that result from such collisions, then it would be easy to predict everything that would happen in the world. Therefore, nothing can be accidental in the world, and we can trace the necessary conditionality of any “incredible” incident. Thus, “when a certain resident of the city of Abdera died because an eagle flying at that time dropped a turtle on his head, Democritus denied the accident of this event. He said that it was necessary at that very moment for the doomed man to leave the house, at such and such a moment for the eagle to feel hungry and go for prey, it was necessary, further, that the sun, which was setting, illuminated the bald head of a passerby and its reflection fell on the eyes of a flying eagle, who mistook the bald head for a stone and threw the turtle to break its shell.”
This system explained any event that could happen in the world. Therefore, Democritus says that he “would rather find one causal explanation than acquire the Persian throne for himself.” Blind fate, not pursuing any of its own goals, but not knowing anything about human goals, rules the world. This is precisely what has always confused later thinkers, and we will see further how other atomists avoid this conclusion.
Just as visible accidents are the result and manifestation of invisible necessity, the variety of sensory impressions can, according to Democritus, be explained on the basis of the doctrine of the combination of atoms. The fact is that the atom itself is neither warm nor cold, it is colorless and tasteless. Taste, smell, sound depend on the shape and arrangement of atoms. They
are the result of the interaction of atoms emanating from a thing and the atoms of the human body. Aristotle’s student Theophrastus says: “Democritus, attributing a form to each taste, considers the sweet taste to be round and large in size, while the sour taste is large in shape, rough, polygonal and not round. Pungent taste - true to its name - is sharp in the shape of its constituent atoms, angular, bent, narrow and non-round. Acrid taste - round, thin, angular and crooked. The salty taste is angular, large, bent and isosceles. Bitter is round, smooth, has a curvature, and is small in size. Fat is narrow, round and small.”
It is the peculiarities of the shape of atoms in various combinations that lead to a variety of qualities. Small, round, easily mobile atoms of fire penetrate everywhere, separate, tear everything apart (and thereby cause burning pain human body). Large, heavy and angular atoms of the earth are inactive, dense and easily stick together into one lump. Atoms in general can be curved, anchor-shaped, hooked, concave, convex, etc.
“In addition to their shape, atoms, according to Democritus, also differ in position or rotation, such as the letters E and Ш (the letter Ш is obtained from E by turning 90°), and in order or mutual arrangement, such as AB and BA. Figure, position and order are the three main sources of the varied shapes of objects that can be obtained by combining atoms into complex structures of real bodies. Comparing atoms with letters, and the formation of many real bodies from atoms with the composition of words and texts (for example, tragedy or comedy) from a small number of indivisible letters is a very accurate, deep and understandable comparison; it is often cited by atomists to explain their basic idea. The Roman atomist Lucretius says it best in his poem “On the Nature of Things”:
So in our poems, constantly, as you can see, many words consist of many letters of the same type,
But both poems and words, as you will certainly admit, differ from each other both in meaning and also in sound.
You see how strong the letters are just by changing the order.
As for the first principles, they have even more means for various things to arise from them.
Thus, with the help of atoms-letters, Democritus tries to read the book of nature. If there are many atoms and they are arranged densely, a heavy and dense body arises; sparsely arranged atoms create a light and soft body. The rarefaction of atoms is perceived as warming; on the contrary, condensation is perceived as cooling.
Democritus accepts four basic simple colors: white, black, red and green, the combination of which can produce any other color and shade. Since each simple color corresponds to homogeneous atoms, analysis of the color composition of a body could be used as a way to analyze the atomic composition of a body - similar to our spectral analysis.
Once formed, bodies, for example the Sun, Moon, Earth, can exist for quite a long time and act on each other. Thus, from the combination of solar heat, earthly moisture and silt, according to Democritus, fermentation and decay began, as a result of which the first plants were formed, and then also living organisms.
There is several evidence suggesting that Democritus thought to explain with the help of the atomic hypothesis not only life, but also the soul, the mind, and even the gods themselves, which he thought of as the most general, the most persistent and the most beautiful accumulations of atoms.
This is how the first picture of the world arises on the basis of atomistic teaching, a picture of an ever-moving patterned fabric of events and phenomena, folding and intricately changing in the endless whirling, interweaving, combination and separation of absolutely solid and unchanging, geometrically correct bodies. A picture reminiscent of the endless patterns of snowflakes, the flickering of dust particles in a sunbeam, as Lucretius tells about it:
Look: every time a ray of sunlight penetrates into our homes and cuts through the darkness with its rays, you will see many small bodies in the void, flickering, rushing back and forth in the radiant radiance of light; As if in an eternal struggle, they fight in battles and battles, They suddenly rush into battles in detachments, not knowing peace, Either converging, or separately, constantly scattering again. From this you can understand how tirelessly the First Principles of things are restless in the vast emptiness. Thus, small things help to understand great things, outlining ways for their comprehension.
However, this is something more than just a poetic image. This picture, in its physical mechanism, is, as we know, a picture of Brownian motion, and with the help of a very similar experiment they proved the reality of atoms in the 19th century. It is striking that the essence of the experience was already clear to Lucretius:
Know this: this universal wandering comes from the beginning, the First principles of things first move themselves,
Following them are bodies from their smallest combination. Those who are close, as it were, according to primary forces and principles, Receiving impulses hidden from them, begin to strive, Themselves to move, then forcing larger bodies, So, starting from the beginnings, movement little by little touches Our feelings and becomes visible to Us also in specks of dust it is something that moves in the sunlight, although the shocks from which it comes are imperceptible.
Although we do not find such an understanding in Democritus himself, he also gives a picture of the movement of dust particles in a solar ray.
You remember that for Democritus one point in understanding the atom is very important, namely: the atom is a body with an ideal geometric shape.
