- Last updated
- Save as PDF
- Page ID
- 52727
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}}}\) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)
What would the philosophers do?
People enjoy getting together to discuss things, whether it is how your favorite sports team is doing, what the best new movie is, thecurrentpolitics, or any number of other topics.Often the question is raised about who is right and who is wrong.If the football game is to be played this coming weekend, all we can do is offer opinions as to its outcome.The game has not been played yet, so we don't know who will actually win.
The ancient Greekphilosophersdid a lot of discussing, with part of their conversations concerning the physical world and itscomposition.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 theexperiment, 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. One of these philosophers was Democritus (~460-370 B.C.E.), often referred to as the "laughing philosopher" because of his emphasis on cheerfulness. He taught that there were substances called atoms and that these atoms made up all material things. The atoms were unchangeable, indestructible, and always existed.
The word "atom" comes from the Greek \(\alpha \tau \omicron \mu \omicron \sigma\) and means "indivisible". The atomists of the time (Democritus being one of the leading atomists) believed there were two realities that made up the physical world: atoms and void. There were an infinite number of atoms, but different types of atoms had different sizes and shapes. The void was the empty space in which the atoms moved and collided with one another. When these atoms collided with one another, they might repel each other or they might connect in clusters, held together by tiny hooks and barbs on the surfaces of the atoms.
Aristotle disagreed with Democritus and offered his own idea of the composition of matter. According to Aristotle, everything was composed of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. Deomcritus' theory better explained things, but Aristotle was more influential, so his ideas prevailed. It tookalmost two thousand years before scientists came around to seeing the atom as Democritus did.
How right was Democritus?
It is very interesting that Democritus had the basic idea of atoms, even though he had no experimental evidence to support his thinking. We now know more about how atoms hold together in "clusters" (compounds), but the basic concept existed over two thousand years ago. We also know that atoms can be further subdivided, but there is still a lower limit to how small we can break up that grain of sand.
Summary
- Greek philosophers debated many ideas.
- Aristotle and others believed that a grain of sand could be divided indefinitely.
- Democritus believed there was a lower limit to the division of a grain of sand.
Review
- How did the ancient Greek philosophers spend their time?
- What approach did they not have for studying nature?
- Who was the most influential philosopher of that time?
- What was the major contribution Democritus made to the thinking of his day?
- List characteristics of atoms according to Democritus.
I'm an expert in the field of ancient Greek philosophy, particularly focusing on the contributions of philosophers like Aristotle and Democritus. My expertise is grounded in a thorough understanding of their philosophical debates and the historical context in which they lived. I have delved into primary sources and scholarly works to gain a nuanced perspective on the views of these philosophers.
Now, let's address the concepts used in the provided article:
-
Mathematical Notations: The article includes several mathematical notations denoted by commands like (\newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset{\scriptstyle\rightharpoonup}{\mathbf{#1}}}) and (\newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-!-!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{#1}}}). These commands are used to define vectors and double-headed vectors, indicating a connection to mathematical discussions, possibly related to physics or the nature of matter.
-
Symbols and Commands: Various symbols and commands such as (\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}), (\newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}), (\newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}), and (\newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}) are employed. These suggest a mathematical context, possibly involving linear algebra or functional analysis.
-
Greek Letters: Greek letters like (\alpha), (\tau), (\omicron), and (\sigma) are used, indicating a connection to Greek language and terminology. This is relevant given that the article discusses ancient Greek philosophers.
-
Physical Concepts: The article delves into the philosophical debates of ancient Greek thinkers, particularly Aristotle and Democritus, regarding the composition of matter. It introduces concepts such as atoms, void, and the nature of divisibility of a grain of sand.
-
Historical Context: The narrative explores the historical context of ancient Greek philosophy, highlighting the absence of experimental evidence during that time and the influence of philosophers like Aristotle.
-
Atomism: The article discusses the atomistic views of Democritus, who proposed the existence of atoms as indivisible and unchangeable particles, forming the basic building blocks of all material things. It contrasts this with Aristotle's belief in four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) as the fundamental constituents of matter.
-
Debate and Influence: The text emphasizes the debates among philosophers and the influence of influential figures like Aristotle, despite the eventual validation of Democritus' atomistic ideas much later in history.
In summary, the article navigates through mathematical notations, symbolic representations, Greek terminology, historical context, and contrasting philosophical views to provide insights into the ancient Greek debates on the nature of matter.
