Who is democritus

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 flying in the face of at least one strand of commonsense when he claims that textures produce the appearance of hot or cold, impacts cause colour sensations. The lists of examples offered, drawing on commonsense associations or anecdotal experience, are attempts to make such claims persuasive.

Heat is said to be caused by spherical atoms, because these move freely: the commonsense association of quick movement with heating is employed. The jagged atoms associated with bitter taste are also said to be heat-producing: there, the association of heat with friction is invoked. It is not so much the specific intrinsic qualities—smooth or jagged shape—as the motion of those shapes that provides the explanation.

Aristotle sometimes criticizes Democritus for claiming that visible, audible, olfactory and gustatory sensations are all caused by touch DK 68A Quite how this affects the account of perception is not clear, as the sources tells us little about how touch is thought to work.

Democritus's philosophy contains an early form of the conservation of energy. In his theory atoms are eternal and so is motion. Democritus explained the origin of the universe through atoms moving randomly and colliding to form larger bodies and worlds.

There was no place in his theory for divine intervention. Instead he postulated a world which had always existed, and would always exist, and was filled with atoms moving randomly. Vortex motions occurred due to collisions of the atoms and in resulting vortex motion created differentiation of the atoms into different levels due only to their differing mass.

This was not a world which came about through the design or purpose of some supernatural being, but rather it was a world which came about through necessity, that is from the nature of the atoms themselves.

Democritus built an ethical theory on top of his atomist philosophy. His system was purely deterministic so he could not admit freedom of choice to individuals. To Democritus freedom of choice was an illusion since we are unaware of all the causes for a decision. Democritus believed that [ 3 ] Freedom from disturbance is the condition that causes human happiness, and this is the ethical goal.

Democritus describes the ultimate good, which he identifies with cheerfulness, as He wanted to remove the belief in gods which were, he believed, only introduced to explain phenomena for which no scientific explanation was then available.

Very little is known for certainty about Democritus's contributions to mathematics. As stated in the Oxford Classical Dictionary :- Little is known although much is written about the mathematics of Democritus. We do know that Democritus wrote many mathematical works. Diogenes Laertius see [ 5 ] lists his works and gives Thrasyllus as the source of this information.

He wrote On numbers, On geometry, On tangencies, On mappings, On irrationals but none of these works survive. However we do know a little from other references. Heath [ 7 ] writes:- In the Method of Archimedes , happily discovered in , we are told that Democritus was the first to state the important propositions that the volume of a cone is one third of that of a cylinder having the same base and equal height, and that the volume of a pyramid is one third of that of a prism having the same base and equal height; that is to say, Democritus enunciated these propositions some fifty years or more before they were first scientifically proved by Eudoxus.

There is another intriguing piece of information about Democritus which is given by Plutarch in his Common notions against the Stoics where he reports on a dilemma proposed by Democritus as reported by the Stoic Chrysippus see [ 7 ] , [ 10 ] or [ 11 ]. If a cone were cut by a plane parallel to the base [ by which he means a plane indefinitely close to the base ] , what must we think of the surfaces forming the sections?

Are they equal or unequal? For, if they are unequal, they will make the cone irregular as having many indentations, like steps, and unevennesses; but, if they are equal, the sections will be equal, and the cone will appear to have the property of the cylinder and to be made up of equal, not unequal, circles, which is very absurd. Partnership Opportunities.

What do science educators teachers, teacher leaders, science specialists, professional development staff, curriculum designers, school administrators need to know to create and support such experiences? Archimedes Archimedes was a Greek mathematician and engineer who lived between B.

His greatest contributions are in the field of geometry and in the development of war machines. Legend has it that Archimedes Aristotle Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who lived between B. He was one of the greatest thinkers of the world and his written works encompassed all major areas of thought. Aristotle mistakenly believed Democritus Democritus was a Greek philosopher who lived between B. Democritus believed that everything in the universe was made up of atoms, Eratosthenes Eratosthenes was a Greek scientist who lived from to B.

He studied astronomy, geography, and math. Eratosthenes is famous for making the first good measurement of the size of the Earth. He spent Plato Plato was a Greek philosopher who lived between B. He founded the Academy in Athens, a school which made many important scientific discoveries during ancient times.