Democritus: atoms, emptiness and the reliability of our senses

What's really at stake

Democritus lived in the fifth and fourth centuries BC and is connected to Abdera. His own works are not kept as complete books. Our knowledge is based on fragments and messages from other authors, including Aristotle. It is not always clear which thoughts of Democritus itself, Leucippus or a broader atomic tradition come from.

That source problem is more than a footnote. An opponent can clearly describe a theory, but also take it from his own questions. That is why we must distinguish a reconstruction from a directly read argument. A striking modern summary is useful, as long as it is not presented as a lost book that we know verbatim.

Fullness and void

The atomists assume indivisible bodies and empty space. Differences in form, organization and position help explain how different observable things can arise. The components do not have to possess all the properties of the composite object. Thus change becomes understandable as a change in proportions and connections, rather than the creation of something out of absolutely nothing.

The idea is important because it allows for a different type of explanation. You don't have to understand a storm, stone or plant in the first place from a point of view. You ask how ingredients behave. It has not yet been demonstrated that any phenomenon can be explained by one simple mechanism. The philosophical shift is in the choice of the kind of answer you're looking for.

Why these atoms aren't our atoms

Antique atomism did not have the experimental methods, measuring equipment and mathematical models with which modern physics works. The word atom has a history, but a shared name does not make two theories identical. Contemporary chemical atoms also appear to have an internal structure, while indivisibleity was part of the antique representation.

We can therefore keep admiration and distance at the same time. It is impressive to use an invisible structure to explain visible change. It would be wrong to call immediately a discovery of current particle physics. An idea can be historically fruitful without subsequent science merely confirming that one idea.

The senses help and make it difficult

When the experienced characteristics of things depend on an underlying order, there is a problem of knowledge. How can we find out about this order when our access to the world runs through the senses? A distinction between experience and explanation only helps when you can also indicate why the explanation is better.

An everyday example is the colour of an object in different light. Experience changes, but it doesn't follow that perception is worthless. Just by comparing experiences, you can ask about the circumstances. This own comparison is not an antique trial of Democritus. She makes the philosophical problem visible: criticism of the senses often remains dependent on what they show us for her support.

A world without built-in purpose

A statement that does not begin with a cosmic purpose raises other questions about human life. Does the lack of an intention in the ingredients mean that human goals become meaningless? It's not gonna happen. You have to distinguish why something is happening and what people want to do with their lives.

That divorce helps to read Democritus next to the ethics schools. Epicurus later works with his own atomic natural theory, but at the same time has a strong view of a good life. Plotinus chooses a completely different starting point for the coherence of reality. The knowledge universe connects them to investigate those differences, not to suggest a straight line of development.

Think on for yourself

Take one experience that changes due to circumstances, such as taste, colour or temperature sensation. Formulate an explanation that goes beyond the first feeling. What new observations would make that explanation stronger? And what would make you reject her exactly?