‘Everywhere man blames nature and fate yet his fate is mostly but the echo of
his character and passion, his mistakes and his weaknesses.’
- Democritus
Democritus is the natural philosopher par excellence. Through his commitment to atomism, the ancient Greek thinker has provided us a fully naturalistic view regarding humanity. Though some subsequent thinkers might find his ideas dangerous – for Plato that was too materialistic; for Aristotle that was not continuous – classical atomism stood the test of time and it experienced an exciting revival in the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. A brief digression would be appropriate, because what happened at the later era has found a few parallels with the antiquity.
While the Pre-Socratic philosophers inquired into natural phenomena by giving up mythical explanations and divine intervention, the mechanical philosophers of 17th century interrogated nature by distancing themselves from the Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy prevalent in medieval Europe. The mechanical philosophers were the practitioners of natural philosophy, and they were often scientifically-minded and placed their trust in empirical methods for the acquisition of knowledge. Philosophers like Gassendi, Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Boyle and Newton were advocates of corpuscularianism – a theory that proposed corpuscles – groups of particles (rather than individual atoms) as the origin of all things. Like atoms, corpuscles could aggregate to form more complex structures. The resulting properties of the corpuscular structure, as perceived by our senses, would lead to different observable properties we could experience. In particular, John Locke was a philosopher who endorsed corpuscularianism. His epistemology took a lot of influence from this theory, and his idea was indeed very similar to the way how modern Chemistry works.
In Locke’s epistemology, ‘real essence’ and ‘nominal essence’ was distinguished. The ‘real essence’ of a thing was its corpuscular structure, which corresponded to its primary properties (like the ‘molecular structure’ of Chemistry). In contrast the ‘nominal essence’ of a thing was its properties that resulted from sense perceptions, corresponding to the secondary qualities (like how the chemical compound looked or smelt, for example). So in Locke’s theory the key of acquiring true knowledge was to start from an understanding of the real essence – the structure of corpuscular structure, the arrangement of the particles – and then moved up from the explanation of primary qualities to secondary qualities. The approach was not very different from an extrapolation of microscopic properties to macroscopic qualities commonplace in natural science.
It is important to note that, unlike modern physical sciences, philosophical atomism and corpuscularianism are not empirical per se, because there are no instrumentations that can verify the presence of atoms and particles. Many natural philosophers and scientists from the 17th century have attempted to use different empirical approaches to demonstrate the presence of atoms and corpuscles, yet they were mostly met with failure, either due to epistemological issues (for example, an attempt to extrapolate macroscale observations into micro-/atomic scale observations) or due to poor design of experiments (e.g. primitive microscopy and transport phenomena), resulting in invalid conclusions. It was only in later centuries that a conclusive demonstration of atomic theory for physical science would become possible.
Returning to Democritus. What did the ancient atomist tell us the nature of soul? Though described rather vaguely, Democritus believed humans possessed 2 kinds of atoms: soul atoms and body atoms. One soul atom corresponded with one body atom, and the atoms were all energetic in a sense that they travelled through the human body. Democritus also had other theories regarding various issues from vision to dreams, yet they were rather unbelievable by today’s standard. What is more important is a vision offered by both Leucippus and Democritus – that atoms were governed by necessity. The atomism from these thinkers was deterministic in nature, and it was very unfortunate that they have failed to specify what role chance might play in their worldviews.
The atomism I have described so far has a few implications for us to bear. Thus, for Democritus there was no Aeschylean cosmic justice, as in ‘The Oresteia’. There was not a notion that the Divine would eventually come to exert justice, just because the time has not yet come. Democritus’ atomist view was distinct, and caused some controversy, because that was not teleological (and that certainly troubled Aristotle in particular). In Democritus’ system that was not a wise and all-knowing spirit to guide us, nor did we have any final purposes for our existence. Atoms were moving through the void, yet they did not know what they were going to and what they would eventually become in the final stage. That made the contentious ideas of atomism even more nihilistic: if reality is all about a bunch of atoms shooting around the universe aimlessly, that what is the point of life? What do we need to guide ourselves to lead a moral and fulfilling existence? How the doctrines of atomism could be correlated to ethical considerations have always been a challenge for the thinkers from the school of atomism. Philosophers from later era, such as Epicurus and Lucretius, have tried very hard to compile a systematic worldview that accounted for the materialistic perspective and its potential moral implications. Democritus also has stated some implications of his metaphysics for ethics, and they were mostly organized as maxims.
Democritus, through his denial of teleological purposes and cosmic justice, took a more naturalistic view for human lives. In a view not very different from B. F. Skinner, the ancient philosopher believed our actions were the responses that originated from our interactions with the environment, rather than other spiritual factors. The behaviourist view would influence many materialists for the years to come. Democritus also advised his audience that the fear of gods was pointless. When humans did not use reason and observations to understand natural phenomena, like a thunderstorm, they would attribute these mysterious phenomena to superstitious explanations – like ‘Zeus is angry’ or ‘Hera is jealous’, and resulted in an unnecessary fear and worry. Democritus, among other fellow natural philosophers, might not be considered atheists in a strong sense, yet they all encouraged the people to focus on the real reason why the phenomena happened – the scientific reasons. Future generations of atomist like Epicurus and Lucretius would further elaborate this line of thought in their work.
‘A life without a feast is a long road without an inn.’
-Democritus
Democritus has told us a lot about atoms, yet he also had a real lot to say about ethics. Given the large amounts of ethical statement from him, and the doubt of completeness, it is very difficult to say if he has got a consistent moral philosophy. Nevertheless, by reading many of these thoughts of wisdom, one can easily picture Democritus to be a great personality, with sparks of humor and witticism throughout his writings. While the philosopher might have devoted his life to the study of nature, Democritean ethics were full of humanistic concerns. One should not be surprised by the aim of human life endorsed by the Laughing Philosopher - to have an optimistic outlook and to achieve a peace of mind. For Democritus, happiness for life was not merely about sensual pleasure and material wealth, it was acquired from a spiritual peace and freedom from perturbation of lives. Why not let Democritus speak for himself?
‘For joy and absence of joy is the boundary of advantage and disadvantage.’
Democritus maintained that prior to a life of joyfulness, one should exercise reason.
‘Reason is a powerful persuader.’
Democritus believed in education. He believed an opportunity to learn could counteract against misfortune.
‘Education is an ornament for the fortunate, a refuge for the unfortunate.’
‘The hopes of the educated are stronger than the wealth of the ignorant.’
‘Nature and teaching are similar, for teaching changes a man’s shape
and nature acts by changing shape.’
Thus he stressed the importance of avoiding bad influences in life.
‘Frequent association with the wicked increases a disposition to vice.’
‘When wealth comes from wicked deeds it makes the disgrace more conspicuous.’
Democritus cherished values like nobility, courage and self-confidence. He felt that these were the very qualities towards a fulfilling existence.
‘Great joys come from contemplating noble deeds.’
‘Courage makes disaster small.’
‘A good man takes no account of the censures of the bad.’
Yet he might have occasional charges of sexism, like many of the ancient thinkers.
‘To be ruled by a woman is the final insult of a man.’
Nevertheless, he thoughtfully advised us not to laugh at other’s misfortunes, lest that one day, that would be our turn to suffer.
‘Those who take pleasure in the disasters of their neighbors do not understand
how the affairs of fortune are complex to all, and they lack appropriate delight.’
Finally, a statement strangely suitable for the current situation in our world.
‘Do not suspect everyone – but be cautious and safe.’
(End of Part 2)
Concluding Remarks
Thus we arrive at the end of Conatus Classics 2020. I feel great to have started my first article on the history of thoughts in May, and have the motivation to write a number of articles about Pre-Socratic and Classical Greece, who I have always fascinated with and yet did not have a chance to talk about that in my previous articles. I will keep up the work and continue to share with you the ideas from these great minds who have ever graced human history!
by Ed Law
Conatus Classics
Thank you for your support!
Conatus Classics will see you again in 2021!
