I. Introduction
II. Agreement with the Atomists
A. Existance of Atoms
B. Atomic Theory and Void
C. Growth
III. Disagreement with the Atomists
A. Attack on the Atomic Theory
B. Action and Reaction
C. Sensation
D. Movement
E. Variations in Atoms
F. Theories of Infinity
IV. Conclusion
In Aristotle's writings, he makes many judgments on the theories of previous philosopher's works and theories. Often he will summarize a philosopher's theory and the theories of other philosophers that deal with the same subject and then criticize both of the theories by commenting on what he believes are paradoxes or just obvious errors that he believes that these theories contain. In this manner, Aristotle compared and contrasted many of the ancient Greek philosophers' works and ideas.
Much of Aristotle's commentary on the Atomists can be found in his treatises, but don't click on these unless you want the whole text of the work, On the Generation of Animals, Metaphysics, On the Heavens, Meteorology, Physics, On Sense and The Sensible, On the Soul, andOn Youth and Old Age, On Life And Death, On Breathing. In this paper, I will try to take the relevant material from each of theses works to discuss each of the topics.
In Metaphysics, Aristotle examines the atomic theory of Atoms and Void in 985B. In this section, he brought up the theory that atoms differ in shape, arrangement and position. Following his discussion of Atoms and Void, which it appears he agreed with, Aristotle assailed the Atomists for their lack of discussion of movement. He also felt that there were more than the three types of differences in atoms that Leucippus postulated. For my discussion of movement and the other forms of atoms theorized, follow me down my paper.
Another area that I wil examine is in Aristotle's broad references to the Atomists and his comments on their basic methods and ideas. In these comments, Aristotle often contradicts himself with respect to his feelings and beliefs about the Atomists and their works. First, in On Generation and Corruption, Aristotle states that Democritus was the only early philosopher to truly examine any subject in any great detail or depth.
Many of the later comments on the work of the Atomists come in the questioning of growth. How do things grow and what is the cause of things coming together and separating? Democritus and Leucippus believed that growth was the joining of small particles to other particles, disassociation the opposite. Apparently, Aristotle thought that this was a fairly accurate account of growth and death, for he discussed this topic when he stated his belief that Democritus examined the subjects in depth. He then goes on to discuss this view of growth with those of Plato that were espoused in The Timaeus, Again, for those of you who are drawing a blank you can see a short biography of Plato with a picture of his statue.
In this section ofOn Generation and Corruption, Aristotle compares the theory of the Atomists that growth is the combination of small particles and void with that of Plato in which growth is the addition of planes, as Plato postulates in the Timaeus 55.a. While both theories postulate the existence of atomic magnitudes, Plato postulated the existence of planes instead of the small various shaped solid particles of the Atomists. In this segment, Aristotle decided that Plato's theory was false and full of paradoxes. The main problem that Aristotle appeared to have with Plato's theory is the lack of any belief in the existence of the void; since, Aristotle said, in On Generation and Corruption, Book I.2, "Nothing except solids results from putting planes together: they do not even attempt to generate any quality from them."
Aristotle believed that the Atomists theory also contained many paradoxes, but that it was basically correct. In the segments that I found in which Aristotle discusses these theories, he did not discuss these paradoxes, but he does say that construction of these figures is possible by the variations that the atoms are capable of having. Later when we get to my discussion of movement, we can see more of Aristotle's beliefs on the variations of Atoms.
The next area in which I will make you wander is that of Aristotle's postulation of the true form of action and reacton, which is actually just a continuation of his discussion of growth with a slight variation. In this segment of his treatise, Aristotle used the two apparently dissenting views of the previous philosophers on what causes an action in another body to postulate his own view in hope of clarifying the discrepancy by showing that each is stating only a part of the truth. The first theory was that like is always unaffected by like, because neither is more apt to affect the other since they are alike and that unlikes or differents suffer action reciprocally by nature. The second theory, that of Democritus, who alone held it, was that likes react on each other since they must have something in common in order for them to react. So if apparent differents have reactions, they must have some common property.
Aritstotle thought that these two theories were both parts of a larger theory, one in which all actions and reactions are explained. The first part of his theory is that if something is completely alike and without any difference from each other, than neither one affects or is affected by the other. Therefore, things will not affect themselves. If they did have an affect there could be no originative substance. Aristotle believed that the same theory held true for complete dislikes, that a complete opposite could have no effect on its opposite. Although, to me, this appears to be incorrect, even in Aristotle's proof. He says book I.7, "The same consequence follows if A and B are absolutely `other,' i.e. in no respect identical. Whiteness could not be affected in any way by line nor line by whiteness-except perhaps `coincidentally', viz. if the line happened to be white or black; for unless the two things either are, or are composed of, `contraries', neither drives the other out of its natural condition." To me this sounds as if he is saying that adding black to white or white to black will have no effect on either, but when I mix them, I get grey. Maybe, I do not quite follow his argument, which is very possible, since it is Aristotle, but to me it seems very wrong. If after you read his proof, you think differently; you can comment on it in your critique of my paper. To get back to Aristotle's theory, he then says that the only things which can be affected by another are those that are alike in kind and different in species at the same time. In this proof, it appears that he corrected for my criticism of his previous proof, but I don't see the difference in the two cases. He now says that white is affected by black since they are alike in being colors, but different in hues. Finally, he said that "`contraries' and their `intermediates' are such as to suffer action and to act reciprocally-for indeed it is these that constitute the entire sphere of passing-away and coming to be." Now it appears that he is saying opposites do act upon each other. In this case, I believe that in his attempt to clarify a jumble of theories, he had just made the jumble more of a mess by attempting to compile and clarify these previously contradictory theories.
In respect to sensation, Aristotle also ridicules Democritus for his theories on sensation in Metaphysics and in On the Sense and the Sensible. He first mocked Democritus for his belief that knowledge is sensation. Aristotle does not say what knowledge is, but he does say that this view has taken all of the pre-Socratic philosophers victim. He then derided Democritus for his belief that all sensation was related to touch for the reason that "one can see at glance that this is impossible." Mostly the reasons that follow are that Aristotle believes that touch is not an acute enough sense to explain the abilities of the other senses. To see his complete argument, follow me over here to On the Senses.<
While in On the Sense and the Sensible, Aristotle did find a lot of fault with Democritus and his view of the senses, he did appreciate the fact that Democritus believed that the eye is made of water, but then, so no one thought that he would actually like someone else's theories, he attacked Democritus for his belief that the eye was a mirror. Fortunately, for those of us who dislike Aristotle a little bit, he reasons that the eye cannot be a mirror since then all things that reflect would have sight. Why this made sense in his head, I do not know, but it gives me a chance to correct Aristotle about sensation as touch. If you were to think about it pretty much all senses are a form of touch. If the sense of touch is a reaction to pressure or variances in the environment, then sound is touch because it is a reaction to the pressure of sound waves and taste to variances in bitterness, sweetness, sourness, or the like. Sight is a reaction to variance in light waves, but not really touch and smell really is not related, but taste and hearing are related to touch. Therefore, the know-it-all philosopher commentator, who attacked other philosophers and sometime comes up with outlandish theories of his own, is wrong in some of his own theories and the critique of others.
For those of you who did not follow the link for movement earlier on in the paper, this is where it would have brought you. For those of you who did follow the link, make sure you go back and read the intervening material, or maybe not if you find this project incredibly boring. To spice it up a bit, click here to be transported to a random place in the `net. If you really dislike it, you can go to the end of my final project or to the Greek Science Home page.
Back to movement. Aristotle's main problem with the Atomists, and Plato, in respect to movement, as postulated in Metaphysics, is that they do not give a precise reason for the original start of movement or what exactly it is. Aristotle appears to believe that movement did not have a beginning nor will it have an end, but he was also liable for not really explaining its start or existence. He has just postulated certain facts that he feels are evident and allows the reader to make his or her own deductions. In On the Heavens, Aristotle continues his discussion of movement and his belief that the Atomists should have explained its relation to their theories in greater detail. He believed that each of the simple bodies has a natural movement. In this discussion, Aristotle explained his beliefs about movement in greater detail than in the previous one. He believed that all bodies must have a natural movement or a natural rest. His complete theory can be seen in this fragment of On the Heavens.
Finally, we are returning to the variations in atoms that I alluded to so much. Aristotle finds fault with the Atomists is in that describing the difference between things. Democritus postulated that the difference between various substances could be found in the shape, position or arrangement of its atoms. Aristotle thought that besides these three were not a complete list of differences. In Metaphysics, Book VIII, he states, "But evidently there are many differences; for instance, some things are characterized by the mode of composition of their matter, e.g. the things formed by blending, such as honey-water; and others by being bound together, e.g. a bundle; and others by being glued together, e.g. a book; and others by being nailed together, e.g. a casket; and others in more than one of these ways; and others by position, e.g. threshold and lintel (for these differ by being placed in a certain way); and others by time, e.g. dinner and breakfast; and others by place, e.g. the winds; and others by the affections proper to sensible things, e.g. hardness and softness, density and rarity, dryness and wetness; and some things by some of these qualities, others by them all, and in general some by excess and some by defect. Clearly, then, the word 'is' has just as many meanings; a thing is a threshold because it lies in such and such a position, and its being means its lying in that position, while being ice means having been solidified in such and such a way. And the being of some things will be defined by all these qualities, because some parts of them are mixed, others are blended, others are bound together, others are solidified, and others use the other differentiae; e.g. the hand or the foot requires such complex definition. We must grasp, then, the kinds of differentiae (for these will be the principles of the being of things), e.g. the things characterized by the more and the less, or by the dense and the rare, and by other such qualities; for all these are forms of excess and defect. And anything that is characterized by shape or by smoothness and roughness is characterized by the straight and the curved. And for other things their being will mean their being mixed, and their not being will mean the opposite." Personally, except for the addition of time, I believe that this whole list of new differences was just a slightly different way of describing the three differences originally postulated by Democritus.
Aristotle critiqued some of the tenets of the Atomists' theory in a section of On the Heavens. The Atomists theorized that the primary masses are infinite in number, indivisible in mass and they cannot be transformed into each other. Therefore, there is one atomic shape for each element and these elements combine together to form the bodies around us. Aristotle argued that this was impossible because either there could not be an infinite number of primary bodies or the elements cannot be differentiated in this fashion. He thought that if the atomic bodies were not transformable, than how could the elements air, earth, and water be generated out of each other.
Another of Democritus' beliefs that Aristotle critiqued was that the sea is diminishing. In Book II of Meterology, Aristotle compares Democritus to Aesop. In this commentary, Aristotle writes "such a tale is appropriate to Aesop in a rage with a ferryman, but not to serious inquirers." A fairly harsh statement. From this original theory, Aristotle proposed that the sea would never diminish because the only possible way for all of the water to be removed would be by the action of the sun and the sun is not able to achieve this. In the process of refuting Democritus, he also refutes the beliefs of Xenophanes, who stated that the sea was receding since shells can be found in the mountains. Aristotle's reason for this was that the phenomenon was only due to a temporary excess of water.
In respect to the infinite, all of the philosophers had a lot to say. Aristotle also had his own theories and postulates them in Physics, Book III. Democritus and Leucippus believed in infinite particles in an infinite space. Aristotle mostly follows the previous philosophers; he is more of a compiler of the previous theories. He states that the infinite is limitless and cannot have a source since that would be a limit and it cannot have a beginning or an end for the same reason. He did not call it a primary source, instead he thought of it as working alongside a primary source, such as Mind or the Divine, to create all. In Book VIII, Aristotle continues with his premise of the infinite. In this instance he again examines the basis of the infinite but this time in respect to time. He states that since the infinite could not have a beginning then time must not have a beginning because nothing could come before if there was no time. Only Plato stated that time had a beginning; it came together with the universe in one instant of creation.
Before you go, if you would like to visit a random place on the web click here, (it's different everytime you click.)
