The Pre-Socratics Part 6: The Atomist Pluralists

There are two members of the Atomist Pluralist school: Leucippus and Democritus, and we shall deal with them together as one. This is because they are very similar in thought, and apparently some of the works have been misattribute to each other (possibly explaining why they are so similar).

Leucippus seems to be the older figure and was active possibly around 440BC. He was influenced by Parmenides and Zeno of Elea. Sadly, not much is known about him, and some of the ancient Greeks came to later deny his existence as myth, although modern scholars have reversed that theory.

Democritus is a much more definite person of whom much more is known. He was active around 420BC. He was certainly well travelled and praised by others of the time as being highly knowledgeable. He was a contemporary of Socrates and the Sophists (who I will cover in a later article). While in some ways then could be considered a post-Socratic, he is somewhat inseparable from Leucippus, and so firmly falls into the pre-Socratic camp.

The purposes of the Atomist Pluralist school of thought was to bridge the gap between the monism of Parmenides and the Pluralism of Empedocles. Their view ends up being remarkably similar to that of modern science, although, of course, lacking in subtly and mathematical backing. They thought that material was made of "atoms" – very tiny particles which were physically indivisible and indestructible. There is some space between the atoms. These atoms have always existed, there is an infinite number of them, and they are always in motion. They also thought there were different atoms of various sizes, shapes and weight which gave rise to the different properties of the bulk materials they make up.

The Atomist Pluralists were also determinists. They denied chance, and maintained that everything happened according to natural laws. However, they could also be therefore seen as a sort of anti-teleological school of thought. They denied that things exist for a "purpose" or a "final cause". When we ask "why" something happened, there tends to be two ways to interpret the question. One is a mechanical answer, and the other is a teleological answer. If I ask "why was this bread made?" we might answer in two ways – we could answer "because people will be hungry" or we could answer along the lines of "because the baker placed dough in the oven". One is in terms of future events it will serve, and the other in terms of the past events. Unfortunately, the teleological view was emphasised until the European Renaissance in the 13th and 14th Century, which significantly delayed the advancement of mechanical science.

In some ways then, the Atomist Pluralists can be seen as the first scientists, and their ideas regarding atoms are closer to modern science than we might imagine for something that was thought up in around 440BC. While it might be tempting to ascribe this to chance, I think the logic develops quite naturally. In this context, what Parmenides is talking about becomes more clear: a fixed amount of "stuff" in the universe which can not change in amount or substance but can transform into other forms, and it is made from some more basic "thing". However, while abstract and philosophical, Atomic Pluralism is a natural progression if one asks to define more precisely what all of this means.

Referneces

History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russel

Philosophy Before Socrates by Richard D McKirahan

History of Philosophy by A. C. Grayling

The Presocratic Philosophers by Jonathan Barnes

Preamble - Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Socrates