Leucippus

La explicación tradicional del concepto de "vacío" (τò κενóν) en la filosofía antigua lo sitúa como una invención del atomismo de Demócrito y Leucipo o, incluso, del eleático Meliso de Samos. De esta manera se ocultan las profundas razones que pudieron llevar a la necesidad y surgimiento de un tal concepto, y aparece como si hubiera sido creado ex nihilo. En este artículo se pretende descubrir tanto el principio mitológico como el origen racional del concepto de "vacío" en la filosofía (...) presocrática, que lo sitúa como anterior a las historias contadas hasta ahora. Mediante dos columnas que intentan aprehender lo mismo desde puntos de vista distintos, se llegará a la conclusión de que el concepto de "vacío" fue definido en el inicio como diferencia y repetición. En contra de una determinada visión de la historia de la filosofía que ve a los "clásicos" y a los "modernos" como dos compartimentos separados e incluso enfrentados, en el curso de esta interpretación se establecerá un diálogo entre la doxografía presocrática y la filosofía contemporánea de Schelling, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schmitt, Irigaray, Derrida o Deleuze. (shrink)

What is Leucippus and Democritus’ theory of the beginning of life? How, if at all, did Leucippus and Democritus distinguish different kinds of living things? These questions are challenging in part because these Atomists claim that all living beings – including plants – have a share of reason and understanding. We answer these questions by examining the extant evidence concerning their views on embryology, the soul and respiration, and sense perception, thereby giving an overview of life and lifeforms in early (...) Greek atomism. We show, first, that the generation of all living beings happens through the combining of miniature copies of their parents’ atomic structures. Second, we argue that the Atomists take respiration to mark the beginning of life. Yet they do not consider respiration nor being ensouled to distinguish humans, animals, and plants from each other. Finally, because Leucippus and Democritus make little distinction between sense perception and thought, these too cannot sharply distinguish between different kinds of living beings. We conclude that Leucippus and Democritus advocated a less anthropocentric and more holistic view of the cosmos. (shrink)

The aim of my paper is to investigate Gorgias’ argument against motion, which is found in his Peri tou mē ontos and preserved only in MXG 980a1˗8. I tried to shed new light both on this specific reflection and on the reliability of Pseudo-Aristotle’s version. By exploring the so called “change argument” and the “argument from divisibility", I focused on the particular strategy used by the Sophist in his synthetikē apodeixis, which should be investigated in relation to the dispute between (...) monistic and pluralistic ontology. In this regard, the puzzle from “divisibility everywhere” and its connection with the void as not-being can provide new elements to grasp the philosophical background in which the Sophist moves. On the one hand, Gorgias’ argument against motion is part of a broader dispute on the divisibility/indivisibility of being; on the other, his original elaboration of this puzzle seems to be perfectly understandable within the controversy between Eleatics and Atomists, and coherent with the argumentative style of the Sophist. (shrink)

The theory developed by Leucippus (5th cent. BCE), Democritus (470/460-380 BCE), and later Epicurus (341-271/270 BCE) and his school is commonly defined as atomistic materialism. According to this theory, matter is the fundamental principle of existent and ever-evolving reality, and it is constituted of atoms. But whereas for the first atomists atoms were not so much a substance (ousia) as an ideal form (idea) through which they could explain sensible bodies and their movement, with Epicurus atoms effectively turned into a (...) substance. From a mathematical theory we come to a physical conception. (shrink)

This book examines the birth of the scientific understanding of motion. It investigates which logical tools and methodological principles had to be in place to give a consistent account of motion, and which mathematical notions were introduced to gain control over conceptual problems of motion. It shows how the idea of motion raised two fundamental problems in the 5th and 4th century BCE: bringing together being and non-being, and bringing together time and space. The first problem leads to the exclusion (...) of motion from the realm of rational investigation in Parmenides, the second to Zeno's paradoxes of motion. Methodological and logical developments reacting to these puzzles are shown to be present implicitly in the atomists, and explicitly in Plato who also employs mathematical structures to make motion intelligible. With Aristotle we finally see the first outline of the fundamental framework with which we conceptualise motion today. (shrink)

In the atomism of Leucippus and Democritus, as transmitted by Aristotle, elements are the atoms and everything else are atomic compounds. Still according to Aristotle, all of the physical features of sensible compounds must be traceable down to their elementary chemical constituents. He puts this same kind of demand to the atomic theory and considers that it falls short, because their impassive and immutable atoms cannot suffer the fundamental chemical processes that we witness in nature: generation and alteration. According to (...) Aristotle, there is the atomism of Leucippus and Democritus something we could name as a theory of differences. Chemical processes would not be real, but only the expression of the aggregation and segregation of atoms moving through the void. The differences observed in compounds and attested by the senses would be caused by differences between atoms and by their relative positions. In this paper, I explore this theory of differences, showing that it makes sense, but also that it is more complex than Aristotle’s initial suggestion. In atomism, not only the different geometric shapes of the atoms matter, but also the relationships that atoms establish among themselves, as well as the structure of the compound, which presupposes the void, and the atomic motion, summing up a total of seven fundamental differences that respond for most of the functions that Aristotle would like to find in the elements of a chemical theory. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss the use made by Aristotle of the term “element” when dealing with the atomist theory of Leucippus and Democritus. My goal is to verify which aspects of the atomist theory play the role of elements according to the definitions of Aristotle, who seems to have certain expectations regarding what can be designated as elements in the strict sense. One of them is the possibility of reciprocal transformation, the so-called “generation of elements”, which is the chemical (...) aspect at the level of the simple bodies that makes change possible at the level of sense-perceived bodies. Furthermore, I evaluate whether it is possible to find and whether it is adequate to speak of the presence of the four elements – fire, air, water and earth – in the atomist doctrine. (shrink)

In this article, we start from the general thesis of theatomism – everything in the universe is composed by atoms – toassume an atomist reading of the ethical fragments of Democritus.If Leucippus and Democritus explain not only the beginning of the world, as well as the constitution of the soul and the body from therelation atom-emptiness (to be-not to be), this structure will also beapplied to the ethical maxims that we know. Despite this, the relationsoul-body is one of superiority (the (...) knowledge that drift of the sensations it’s obscure), it is also of interdependence, that leads Democritusto blame soul when body is only a tool of its vices or the need to takecare of soul and body in the same way. However, it is in the soul thatwe must look for true knowledge (subtle), as well as the pleasures thatvalue the man. From this relation, we will also analyse the consequencesin the education as well as in the life in society. (shrink)

The testimonia concerning weight in early Greek atomism appear to contradict one another. Some reports assert that the atoms do have weight, while others outright deny weight as a property of the atoms. A common solution to this apparent contradiction divides the testimonia into two groups. The first group describes the atoms within a κόσμος, where they have weight; the second group describes the atoms outside of a κόσμος, where they are weightless. A key testimonium for proponents of this solution (...) is Aëtius 1.3.18. It apparently denies weight as a property of the atoms, and supposedly describes the atoms when they are outside of a κόσμος. I argue against this interpretive solution by demonstrating, first, that Aëtius 1.3.18 does not deny that weight is a property of the atoms. Second, I argue that the report does not describe the atoms when they are outside of a κόσμος. Although these are largely negative conclusions, I contend that we are not left without a solution to the present interpretive difficulty. Once our testimonia concerning weight in early Greek atomism are examined thoroughly, it is clear that there is no conflict among them. (shrink)

De início, apresentaremos a tese de Demócrito e Leucipo, segundo a qual o ser não é mais que o não-ser, tendo como contraponto o pensamento eleata acerca da inexistência necessária do não-ser. Esta discussão nos remete à oposição entre o pleno e o vazio que será posteriormente traduzida na oposição entre o ser e o nada. Desse modo, a oposição entre o pleno e o vazio é uma oposição que se desloca para o ser e o não-ser. Em seguida, faremos (...) a apreciação do escrito pré-crítico kantiano Ensaio para introduzir em filosofia o conceito de grandeza negativa, no qual distinguimos certo tipo de oposição tomada entre grandezas em geral que, acreditamos, poderia ser interpretado como estando de acordo com o posicionamento de Demócrito e Leucipo sobre o estatuto ontológico do não-ser como princípio equivalente ao ser, e não como sua contradição em sentido puramente lógico. Initially, we present the theory of Democritus and Leucippus whereby being is not more than the not-being, in contrast to Eleatic ideas about the necessary inexistence of the not-being. This discussion leads us to the opposition between the whole and the empty, which will then be transposed into the opposition between being and nothingness. Thus, the opposition between wholeand the empty is an opposition that moves to beingand not-being. Finally, we will make an assessment of the Kantian pre-critical essay Attempt to introduce the concept of negative magnitude into philosophy, in which we recognize a kind of opposition that, as we believe, would be interpreted as being in agreement with the position of Democritus and Leucippus regarding the ontological status of the not-being as an equivalent principle to the being, understood here not as a mutual contradiction in a purely logical sense. (shrink)

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.

The founder of atomic theory, according to Aristotle and Theophrastus, is Leucippus. His very existence has been called into question. Three of the best minds of nineteenth-century scholarship were embroiled in a vehement debate on this question, which thereupon became a cause célèbre, with scholars weighing in on both sides for the next half century. Ultimately this debate seems to have ended in stalemate and exhaustion rather than in any clear-cut decision. After briefly reviewing the debate, this article argues that (...) there are indications of an atomic theory different from Democritus's that can plausibly be attributed to Leucippus. It considers indications that the atomic theory was known in the mid-fifth century, and then tentatively explores Leucippus's contributions to atomism in a way that will illuminate Democritus's contributions. (shrink)

The world is configured in ways that seem systematically hospitable to life forms, especially the human race. Is this the outcome of divine planning or simply of the laws of physics? Ancient Greeks and Romans famously disagreed on whether the cosmos was the product of design or accident. In this book, David Sedley examines this question and illuminates new historical perspectives on the pantheon of thinkers who laid the foundations of Western philosophy and science. Versions of what we call the (...) "creationist" option were widely favored by the major thinkers of classical antiquity, including Plato, whose ideas on the subject prepared the ground for Aristotle's celebrated teleology. But Aristotle aligned himself with the anti-creationist lobby, whose most militant members—the atomists—sought to show how a world just like ours would form inevitably by sheer accident, given only the infinity of space and matter. This stimulating study explores seven major thinkers and philosophical movements enmeshed in the debate: Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Socrates, Plato, the atomists, Aristotle, and the Stoics. (shrink)

Encyclopedia article briefly summarizing the history of atomism from antiquity to modernity.

Epicurus’ debt to Democritus’ metaphysics is obvious. Even where Epicurus feels the need to modify Democritus’ metaphysics because of its skeptical or fatalist implications, he is working within Democritus’ general framework. The situation is quite different in ethics. Ancient critics of Epicurus claim that the Cyrenaics’ hedonism is the inspiration for his ethics, and in modern times, Epicurus’ ethics is usually viewed in the context of Aristotle’s eudaimonism.

This paper is a piece of detective work. Starting from an obvious excrescence in the transmitted text of Simplicius's treatment of the foundations of Presocratic atomism near the beginning of his "Physics" commentary, it excavates a Theophrastean correction to Aristotle's tendency to lump Leucippus and Democritus together: Theophrastus made application of the οὐ μ[unrepresentable symbol]λλον principle in the sphere of ontology an innovation by Democritus. Along the way it shows Simplicius reordering his Theophrastean source in his efforts to find material (...) which will strengthen the contrast between Leucippus's atomism and Eleatic metaphysics. And it argues that in doing so he all but obliterates Theophrastus's attempt to point up the Democritean credentials of the οὐ μ[unrepresentable symbol]λλον principle. (shrink)

The Epicurean philosophical system has enjoyed much recent scrutiny, but the question of its philosophical ancestry remains largely neglected. It has often been thought that Epicurus owed only his physical theory of atomism to the fifth-century BC philosopher Democritus, but this study finds that there is much in his ethical thought which can be traced to Democritus. It also finds important influences on Epicurus in Democritus' fourth-century followers such as Anaxarchus and Pyrrho, and in Epicurus' disagreements with his own Democritean (...) teacher Nausiphanes. The result is not only a fascinating reconstruction of a lost tradition, but also an important contribution to the philosophical interpretation of Epicureanism, bearing especially on its ideal of tranquillity and on the relation of ethics to physics. (shrink)

A new presentation of the evidence for the thought of Leucippus and Democritus, based on the original sources. Includes the Greek text of the fragments with facing English translation, notes, commentary, and complete indexes and concordances.

Stephen Makin offers an account of indifference arguments and the pre-Socratic atomism underpinned by this sort of reasoning. Used by Parmenides, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz, as well as some contemporary philosophers, indifference arguments start from claims about a balance of reasons or an absence of asymmetries. While some provide plausible support for strong conclusion, others produce no conviction.

v. 1. The beginnings of philosophy.--v. 2. The Eleatics and pluralists.