Leucippus and Democritus
As the Eleatic challenge to explain movement and variety in experience continued, later Pre-Socratics were forced to come up with particle theories to unify perception with their knowledge of the interdependence of all things. It was debated how much credit should be given to Leucippus of Miletus or Democritus of Abdera, who achieved some of those goals. “On the whole we might accept the assessment of Cicero; all our other evidence seems to show that the main theory was originated by Leucippus and accepted by Democritus, who worked out the details and introduced a few minor refinements.” Their lives spanned part of the 5th and 4th century BC. The lineages of who taught who are hard to prove, and being ‘taught’ in some cases could be more accurately defined as who was influenced by who. “Parmenides was a pupil of Xenophanes;…Melissus was a pupil of his, Zeno of his, Leucippus of his, Democritus of his…”
There is also debate on the authorship of the book the Great World-System, between Leucippus and Democritus, but most works in the pre-Socratic Atomistic canon are typically attributed to Democritus. Unfortunately, many purported texts have not survived. “Of his works, which according to the list preserved in Diogenes Laertius’ Life were many and encyclopedic in scope, including a complete account of the physical universe and works on subjects including astronomy, mathematics, literature, epistemology, and ethics, none survive.” Much of the theories of Atomism were discussed by Aristotle, which is why they have to be handled with caution since later philosophers were not just collecting facts about prior thinkers but actively critiquing them. Researchers tended to aim their attention towards what the pre-Socratic philosophers were struggling to try and move beyond in one arena or another.
“Aristotle plausibly regarded Leucippus’ theory of indivisible particles moving in the void as an attempt to answer the Eleatic dilemma.” That dilemma of course was trying to understand movement, change, and variety where some things had to be caused by other different things, when in Eleatic theory there shouldn’t be any space between things, so therefore there could not be any unlike things originating from other like things. On the other hand, a void provides spaces for movement and for the possibility that different elements could combine in different ways and explain the variety seen in perception. Melissus posited a void would need to exist, but in the end he didn’t think it did. Leucippus took that Eleatic platform and instead launched in that very direction, in which Empedocles and Anaxagoras also moved in, where indestructible matter could combine in different configurations. In this case now, those theories combined with a theory of a void so that atoms could finally have space to move. It required a belief in a void, which was just a negation of existence, that at the same time, exists in a way. “Leucippus and his associate Democritus declare the full and the empty [void] to be the elements, calling the former ‘what is’ and the other ‘what is not.’ Of these the one, ‘what is,’ is full and solid, the other, ‘what is not,’ is empty [void] and rare. (This is why they say that what is is no more than what is not, because the void is no less than body is.)”
At this early date, there wasn’t a concept of space as much as there being gaps between objects. “The atoms differ from each other, not in matter, but only in arrangement and shape: all ‘qualitative’ differences in objects (which are conglomerates of atoms), therefore, are dependent on quantitative and local differences alone…The differences are three: shape, arrangement, and position. For they say that what is differs only in ‘rhythm,’ ‘touching,’ and ‘turning’—and of these ‘rhythm’ is shape, ‘touching’ is arrangement, and ‘turning’ is position. For A differs from N in shape, AN from NA in arrangement, and Z and N in position. Concerning the origin and manner of motion in existing things, these men too, like the rest, lazily neglected to give an account.”
There was a partial account for motion, but they explained the effect without the cause. “Leucippus and Democritus said that their primary bodies, the atoms, are always moving in the unlimited void by compulsion…Democritus, saying that the atoms are naturally motionless, declares that they move ‘by a blow’…Democritus indicated a single type of motion, that due to vibration…No thing happens at random but all things as a result of a reason and by necessity…Nature employs to necessity…These atoms, which are separate from one another in the unlimited void and differ in shape and size and position, and arrangement, move in the void, and when they overtake one another they collide, and some rebound in whatever direction they may happen to, but others become entangled in virtue of the relation of their shapes, sizes, positions, and arrangements, and stay together, and this is how compounds are produced…They made the shapes unlimited, so that by reason of changes of the composite, the same thing seems opposite to different people, and it shifts position when a small amount is mixed in, and it appears completely different when one thing shifts position.”
Here you can see the debate between perception and theory and the beginnings of a scientific method, albeit very crude. “He holds that the substances are so small that they escape our senses.” When reality goes beyond perception, but manifests causes and effects, one is left with the predictive mind to explain what is going on without modern technologies to verify these particles. “Plato and Democritus supposed that only the intelligible things are true; Democritus <held this view> because there is by nature no perceptible substrate, whereas the atoms, which combine to form all things, have a nature deprived of every perceptible quality…A person must know by this rule that he is separated from reality…None the less he is found condemning them [the senses]. For he says, ‘we in fact understand nothing exactly, but what changes according to the disposition both of the body and of the things that enter it and offer resistance to it…There are two kinds of judgment, one legitimate and the other bastard. All the following belong to the bastard: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. The other is legitimate and is separated from this. When the bastard one is unable to see or hear or smell or taste or grasp by touch any further in the direction of smallness, <then the legitimate one enables us to carry on>.”
The atoms themselves also had to be indivisible at some point because an endless division of atoms would eventually give way to a belief that everything is just an illusion, but we are still very far away from modern ideas of density, gravity, dark matter, and subatomic particles, which would have vexed ancient minds even more. The mystery as to whether there really is an indivisible unit continues, despite the fact that we now have particle accelerators. We are still using theory to penetrate into areas deeply out of perception and also hidden from our best sensing technologies. These crude early theories of indivisible bodies could also describe wild and hard to imagine situations for these ancients. “Democritus says that the primary bodies (these are the compact things) do not possess weight but move by knocking against one another in the unlimited, and there can be an atom the size of the cosmos.”
These atoms also make up the perceiver and so these pre-Socratics thought that there may be soul atoms as well. “In reality we know nothing about anything, but for each person opinion is a reshaping [of soul atoms by the atoms entering from without.]” The frustration mounts especially when early physicians knew so little about diseases and the causes of most anything at that time. “Wretched mind, after taking your evidence from us do you throw us down? Throwing us down is a fall for you!” Regardless, any signs of health quickly led to more ethical forms of philosophy, which has to grasp suffering in all of its manifestations, big or small. “Cheerfulness arises in people through moderation of enjoyment and due proportion in life. Deficiencies and excesses tend to change suddenly and give rise to large movements in the soul. Souls which undergo motions involving large intervals are neither steady nor cheerful…Accept nothing pleasant unless it is beneficial.” Of course, most modern people are aware of how we can find bad things pleasant, and many things that are good for us are not pleasant. An early form of psychology and medicine can be seen here. “To all humans the same thing is good and true, but different people find different things pleasant.”
The main purpose for the Pre-Socratics was to focus less on the ethics found in later philosophers. Instead they had a strong desire to explain the nature of the universe and man’s place in it. Like Heidegger pointed out, they had a natural sense of wonder related to existence, which was an innocent freshness in perception, that was far from the jadedness of mastery, and modern technocracy. Ethical questions involve more of an attitude of searching for ways humans could rearrange the universe to improve well-being. Despite that, their observations of existence as is, bled into later philosophies of Epicureanism and later influenced Enlightenment philosophers towards the world of ethics. Having soul atoms, intelligent designs and a goal for physical and mental peace, a proto-religion, or psychology, is implicit. If the health of the person is the starting point of ethics, then any theories as to how to maintain well-being and longevity have a religious notion of reward and punishment, being that good actions lead to rewards and bad actions to punishments. If there’s an intelligent God, or Deity of some kind, then a parental projection onto those consequences can be made. The mystery of the limits of perception can also allow a theoretical God to be invisible and act in the nooks and crannies of human science and perception.
In worldly life, pleasures have many durations, and therefore what is peaceful and long lasting seems to be an early target for ethics. “Best for a person to live his life being as cheerful and as little distressed as possible. This will occur if he does not make his pleasures in mortal things…All those who make their pleasures from the belly, exceeding the right time for food, drink, or sex, have short-lived pleasures—only for as long as they eat or drink—but many pains.”
Euthumiē
Since many of Democritus’s writings were handed down summarized or paraphrased from other authors, there has to be some skepticism towards his authorship, but where maxims are considered more genuine, as per above, it’s not improbable that Democritus was deeply interested in ethics. In The Ethical Maxims of Democritus of Abdera, by Monte Johnson, Democritus states the goal of ethics to be euthumiē in his purported text On Contentment. Being a precursor to positive psychology, like that of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s balance of skills and challenges, as well as the Taoist notion of the value of controlled and efficient effort, as well as renunciation, Democritus advised that “the man trying to enjoy euthumiē should not do much—whether in public or private—nor, whatever he does, choose beyond his capabilities and nature; but he should be so much on guard that even when luck falls upon and leads him to thinking about getting more, he puts it aside and does not undertake more than he is capable of. For a good load is safer than a large load.”
The Secret Of The Golden Flower: https://rumble.com/v4ea5i6-the-secret-of-the-golden-flower.html
How to gain Flow in 7 steps: https://rumble.com/v1gvked-how-to-gain-flow-in-7-steps.html
He was also very aware of imitation and how role models could provide examples that were inappropriate for one’s skill level and stoke negative feelings, which hinted at the operation of object relations and the Oedipus Complex in the mind. He may have also seen the value of downward comparisons as a way to ward off envy. “One should (1) keep in mind one’s capabilities, and (2) be content with what one has, having few memories or thoughts of those who are objects of jealousy and admiration, by not focusing on them; but one should (3) observe the lives of those who are enduring hardship, concentrating on how immense their sufferings are. In this way the things one has and already possesses will seem great and enviable. And no longer would you suffer distress in your soul because of desiring for more. For a man who dwells in his thought and memory at all hours on those who are objects of admiration, and who are deemed blessed by other people, is always compelled to find new opportunities and, because of desire, to overshoot by doing desperate things which the laws prohibit. That is why one must not be in doubt about what needs to be, but enjoy euthumiē with respect to what needs to be, by comparing one’s own life with those who do worse. One must deem oneself blessed, keeping in mind the things those worse off suffer, and how much better than them one does going through life. For by holding fast to this maxim, you will go through life with more euthumiē and will drive away defects in your life that are not slight: envy, jealousy, and ill-will.”
Object Relations: Fear Of Success Pt. 2: https://rumble.com/v1gvuql-object-relations-fear-of-success-pt.-2.html
One of the ways to find this, as mentioned before in other episodes, is using what is negative in your life and looking at opposites for new goals to aim at. “Democritus says there is one end of everything and euthumiē is the most dominant, and that pains are the indicators of what is bad.” Because atoms are impermanent and unreliable, there’s also a minimalism in this philosophy. “Fortunate is he who enjoys euthumiē with respect to his moderate possessions, and unfortunate is he who does not enjoy euthumiē and feels upset with respect to his many possessions…Without sense they yearn for what is absent but neglect what they have, even when it is more valuable than what has gone.” Democritus also saw quality of life mainly in the realm of expectation and consciousness, as opposed to a focus on the quantity of goods. “Poverty and wealth are names for need and satisfaction, so he who lacks is not wealthy, and he who does not need is not poor.” This even extended into politics where the value of freedom, and the power to choose for oneself, and how it provides psychological well-being, could contend with any system where a philosopher king would provide most of the decision making for the populace. “Poverty in a state in which the people have the power is as much more to be chosen than so-called ‘prosperity’ under elites as freedom is than slavery.” This is a precious counterbalance to Plato’s portrayal of Socrates as viewing democracy as antithetical to happiness. Certainly, modern society ended up making a balance between Plato’s understanding of Laws to constrain power, and the affordance of freedom within those laws for citizens to enjoy.
The Presocratics: Pythagoras: https://rumble.com/v1gsugl-the-presocratics-pythagoras.html
Democritus didn’t want euthumiē to be considered a form of hedonism, but like with Aristotle, it was about moderation and balance. Euthumiē aims at mental peace, but it wasn’t a hermitic lifestyle, and his pleasure via downward comparison wasn’t meant to be a form of schadenfreude. Seeing the poverty in one’s community was to activate the feeling of gratitude for one’s current advantages. “Those who feel pleasure at their neighbor’s misfortunes fail to understand that the results of luck are common to all and that they lack a cause for their own joy.” Democritus also ventured into both regular justice as well as social justice as a way to make a cohesive community, and to protect a clear conscience. A clear conscience can also be preserved by facing duties that are unpleasant and putting them behind oneself. “The man enjoying euthumiē, who is carried on to just and lawful deeds, rejoices day and night, and is both confident and without concern. But whosoever does not reason about justice and does not do the things that need to be done, all such things are a deprivation of enjoyment whenever he calls any of them to mind, so he is afraid and reproaches himself…Those to whom something unjust is being done one must lend aid as much as one can and not look away; for to do this kind of thing is just and good…When those who have means undertake to contribute to those who do not, and to assist and to benefit them, herein at last is having pity and not being solitary, and they become comrades and defend one another, and the citizens are of one mind; and there are other good things, so many no one could enumerate them.”
Euthumiē manifests in a person when there is Eudaimoniē, having a good destiny, euthumia, wellbeing, not alarmed, euestō, welfare and balance, and ataraxia, less rumination, and athaumastia, not being negatively possessed by role models. These are all markers for Democritus of the Soul. “Happiness and unhappiness belong to the soul.”
All these attributes point to a person with agency who reflects on past behaviors and endeavors to improve them. It’s a self-reliance so that one doesn’t have to be led by the nose by other people and rely on punishments from the community in order to learn lessons. You’re not scaffolding your sense of self on others or treating authority figures as a crutch. “No one should have a sense of shame before other people more than a sense of shame before himself, nor be more prepared to work a bad deed if no one witnesses it than if everyone does; rather he should have a sense of shame before himself most of all and impose a law on his soul, so that he will do nothing mischievous.” He understood well the uselessness of laws when a community refuses to heed them in their own individual lives. All justice and enforcement vanishes when enough people let themselves get carried away in a community. Laws are truly tested then. “The laws would not prevent each person living according to his own will, if one did not maltreat another. For envy prepares a source of strife.” This is an important point. It’s better for people to behave because they want to, not because they have to. The more people police themselves, the less need there is for police. “Nature and teaching are nearly like. For teaching is transforming the human being, and by transforming, teaching creates a nature…For the sake of virtue, utilizing [urgency] and persuasion by reason is evidently stronger than by laws and necessity. For he who is kept from injustice by law will likely do wrong in secret, but he who is led to what must be done by persuasion will not likely do anything outrageous whether in secret or in broad daylight.”
Democritus’s ethics paved the way for later ethical debates and were precursors to modern therapy, which was always an undercurrent in philosophy and that influence made it easy for philosophy to bow out to psychology in the 20th century. Because of his thoroughness and humanity Democritus resonates with a modern readership.
The Presocratic Philosophers – Kirk & Raven: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780521274555/
A Presocratic Reader – Richard McKirahan: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9781603843058/
The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus: Fragments – C.C.W. Taylor: Paperback: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780802043900/
Annas, Julia. 2002. “Democritus and Eudaimonism,” in Caston and Graham, pp. 169–82.
Johnson, Monte Ransome, ‘The Ethical Maxims of Democritus of Abdera’, in David Conan Wolfsdorf (ed.), Early Greek Ethics (Oxford, 2020; online edn, Oxford Academic, 22 Oct. 2020)
Philosophy: https://psychreviews.org/category/philosophy03/