Democritus simply used deductive logic to conclude that the atoms existed. He proposed that if you cut a thing in half, and then continue cutting the halves in half, eventually you will arrive at a particle that, if cut, would no longer be the original thing you began with. So he called this particle an "atomos", which means "uncuttable" in the Greek language. Democritus was also a determinist who believed that these atoms moved through a void directed by the laws of physics predetermined by previous causes. That included human thought and actions directed by the motion of atoms in the brain. So he believed that humans had no freewill. Epicurus was a follower of Democritus but disagreed with several of his beliefs regarding the properties of atoms and their behavior as they pass through a void. Primarily he disagreed with the determinism of Democritus and instead proposed that man does have freewill as a result of a "swerve" or random, indeterminate movement by the atoms resulting from their own causes. This indeterminacy overcame the rigid determinism of Democritus by presenting a means in which the atoms movement could avoid being dependent on a previous cause, giving humans a capacity to make independent decisions through some freewill, but that there were certain behaviors that were indeed driven by a predetermined movement of the atoms, like hunger or the desire for sex compelled by hormonal conditions. But what really blows my mind about both these ancient philosophers is the level of discourse they were having regarding the nature of our reality and it's fundamental guiding principles that are not only still debated today, like freewill vs determinism, but how they were arguing the details about something only proven through deductive reasoning and no more! It can even be said that the "swerve" proposed by Epicurus, the random, indeterminate movement of an atom by it's own causes, is a precursor to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics describing our inability to have knowledge of both the position and trajectory of the electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom simultaneously because of how observation effects quantum states. In fact, much of Quantum Mechanics defies classical Newtonian Physics and indeed has a bit of a "swerve" to it as was the direction Epicurus seemed to be going in his quest for a natural explanation of freewill.
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy No problem! I have studied materialism and early atomism for many years now, having read many books on the subject. Currently studying Philosophy of Mind and Quantum Mechanics. Always happy to elaborate in detail on topics that I am familiar with!
@@michaelhoward3048 That's awesome, If I am ever doing a video in the future relating to these topics I may just send you a message to get your thoughts when doing my research!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy Be happy to help. I also am very familiar with Neo-Platonism, Plato's Theory of Forms and Parmenides Third Man Argument against it, Plato's Dialogues, Socrates, the Socratic Method and how to use it, The Trial and Execution of Socrates, Socrates speculations on Death, and Idealism in general. Also know a lot on the Presocratics in general, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Democritus, and Anaximander specifically.
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy 0° latitude receives the greatest amount of perpendicular energy neither created nor destroyed into our system. A leg of our star is always touching 0° latitude in reference to the observer. The energy travels the deepest at the equator and is stored under the mass in which you stand on. As you move to 45° north and 45° south you have an equal amount of energy entering the mass as an observer, as you get to the North Pole and what we perceive is the South Pole you now are at these points only once a year and at some points a leg of the star is never touching these points so if I were to imagine the best I can this energy could be stored in our system as an inverted pyramid slanted as time only moves forward in reference to the observer. We use our star coming into our system as a scale factor for all the cosmos, we are currently increasing the angle of entry into the system 3° over 41,000 years as observers. We have actual particles coming into the planet they take 10 to 14 days to reach us allegedly and smash into the planet at over a million miles an hour they would turn around to leave but the star is always shining into the system neither created nor destroyed... The particles tunnel and our filtered through the mass in which you stand on and the latitude determining the total amount of stored energy under the mass in which you are the observer. As the filtered energy is going to leave based off your latitude and the total amount of energy received it is going to predetermine the spin and 45° north will have an equal spin as it breaks the surface tension of the mass as 45° south, In an opposite direction as the energy is neither created nor destroyed. The air is getting thinner per inverse square The further you get from the mass as an observer eventually you reach the ionosphere and due to Pauly exclusionary principle the electrons are all neutralizing to the same mass and end up with an equal up spin as well as downspin and you get a glitch in time as it's flowing like a river a brief moment bosons are built above your head as space is neutralizing to time the hidden variable. I think mother Earth is the original computer to build all the cosmos and we think we're part of something bigger due to military air superiority post world war II. I think that equal up spin and downspin is the proverbial firmament. Gravity is the depression of the exiting energies as the photon absorbs and re-emites after the constructive and destructive wavelengths break the ionosphere and the delay the energy breaking the surface of the mass in an electron versus positron pair keeps clashing e equals MC squared is in reference to the constructive wavelengths as the strings are moving to the CMB which appears to expand as we increase the angle of entry into the system. Dark Energy is moving through the delay to the constructive wavelength from the destructive wavelength and to the destructive wavelength from the construct of wavelength actively moving through space-time which would equate something on your periodic table of elements but it never has the compression because it's all at the star and the constructive wavelength either that or moving it from the destructive wavelength to equals MC squared and the way in which the planet appears to spin like Venus and Uranus spinning retrograde is just the fact that the triangle tips you vector through the delay are returning from the CMB and the string is spinning retrograde in reference to your alleged orbital mechanics... Last but not least is the complete destructive wavelength playing throughout the delay and your dark matter not actively moving through space-time yet would equate something in your periodic table of elements and supporting space itself It's why that hypothetical sun in the distance collapses into a black hole there was probably never any mass to begin with.. The string is now in the negative and dark matter has collapsed to that point and the delay has caught up with the observer as the string is now in the negative being pulled apart by dark energies supporting other e = mc squared constructive wavelengths either coming or going and all scale factors even while moving down south use the unit of miles per hour how do we actually know 1 mile down south is the same as 1 mile up north... Like I said we use our star as the scale factor for everything so what comes in must come out and when it does it has a cause and effects It can explain gravity it can explain dark energy and it can explain dark matter in a heliocentric exit against the cause and effects in your system. Gravity is always leaving Earth and always trying to step back to earth at the same time You no longer have gravitational lift which you think is centrifugal force within the local gravity calculator because the greatest amount of perpendicular energy was at 0° latitude and like throwing a rock into a body of water The splash is biggest where the rock lands and if I throw that rock into the body of water at 22° across the unit of time it will have a smaller splash to the CMB then when I throw that same rock into the body of water at 25° also a different path while traveling through the medium as far as contact points go in both situations as we actively changing angle of entry 3° over 41,000 years and have only been studying expansion for how long? We look at the CMB here on Earth today we wait 5 years we look at the CMB again and say it is expanded that much... What if we've really never been to the moon and I'm philosophizing the ISS is stuck within the ionosphere riding a wave of energy leaving our system and calling it orbital mechanics... Any questions just ask.... You can even check out positive lightning strikes which equate for less than 5% of the strikes here on Earth that strike up to 25 miles from the cloud it uses as a ladder most likely H2O coming together holding that extra positive ion being the path of least resistance for this energy condensing time neutralizing above your head into a rock that falls from the sky and we run up thinking it came from outer space... I mean every magician knows it's easier to pull off the trick with the strobe light on so if I was to lay a program of vectors all based off our star coming into the system was there even any Mass to begin with with spooky action... I think the micro has caught up with the macro I thought we had to go back to Aristotle I think we got to kick it back even further than that to a time before the moon and then you can explain the angle of entry linking up under the mass or a constructive wavelength in space and we will never be at the same spot twice in reference to orbital mechanics the singularity is under your feet and we are all in tune with that God particle as the photon absorbs and remits off the mass with you the observer every electron within your optic nerves neutralizing to the same mass interpreted as electromagnetic pulses within your brain as wavelengths for you to perceive colors as your brain oscillates between 9 and 16 Hertz never EMP locked due to the forward momentum of time... Let me know how I did in the unified theory of everything.
I always saw Demo as my favorite philosopher of the Ancient Greek times. Valued friendship, enjoyed having parties, and embraced scientific thought; in short, a great man and mind.
Well said, I have heard that gaiety is wiser than wisdom! If this is true than I would certainly say Democritus may be the wisest of the pre-socratics. Thank you for taking the time to watch!
In his great Epicurean poem "The Nature of Things," Lucretius cited compelling empirical evidence in support of atomism. For example, the way an odor can permeate a closed room from outside can only be explained by the penetration of tiny invisible particles.
My first view of your Atomist and Thales video was great fun and liked your creative background use of cut-and-paste collages. not sure but if you like do a video about the philosophers of the Greeks is similar. It's great to find your sight, are you skilled in Greek and Hellenistic history also? Do you have any videos on the philosophy of Hinduism, or Amide Buddha on TH-cam also?
You forgot to mention that he travelled to India. In India there was already Atomic concept. Hindus claim it was Kanād who postulated the Atomism and some others claim it was Jain. However, my own literature review says it was Buddha. I put the age of Buddha before Cyrus ll and Thales. Buddha used the term Anu for atom but his immediate desiples used parmanu. According to Buddhism, in one finger tip or in one cubic inch there might be 576,108,288 atoms.
I had read that he may have been to India; however what I read was that this was doubtful. Some later sources claim that he did in fact visit there, but I had left it out because the textbook that I was using raised doubt on the claim. Regardless, the information you supplied here was incredibly insightful and I think I can take your word for it. Thank you for the information! Cheers!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy Thanks lots for your willingness of consideration. Yes, I have also read that many scholars doubt about Democritus and Pythagoras's Indian expedition. However, I couldn't find any valid reason of doubt? Can you help to understand it ? If it is so, why can't we rethink about the authenticity and historicity of so called Democritus fragments? Many times I found the continuity of colonial prejudice.
Of course, acceptance of differences is one mark of a gentlemen, at least that's what they say haha. I am unsure if it has anything to do with prejudice; however this it not out of the ball park. I would say it mostly has to do with the fuzzy boundaries surrounding the Democritus character. It is similar with almost all Pre-socratic philosophers as well as with most great thinkers from B.C.E. I am no scholar on early Greek texts so I couldn't say for sure and I think there isn't a man or woman alive who could. We can only speculate and interpret whatever is available to us as accurately as possible. Again thank you for the awesome insight!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy Hi, Good Morning from Brazil! First of all I should confess that I have limitations: I am without my MacBook (mechanical failure), my old eyes are not good on mobile texting even though I am doing it for time pass during lockdown. And the second limitation is I am an Anthropologist, neither a historian nor a philosopher. Being an a student of anthropology, I was/ am interested in the history of knowledge. I read few years back, Thomas McEvilly' s book 'The Shape of Ancient Thoughts' where he has mentioned about the prejudice towards eastern philosophies and religions. By the way, I don't know about the exact reason why those scholars believe that Pythagoras and Democritus did not travel to India! Can you help me? Thanks!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy There're indeed no evidences that Democritus ever travelled to India. Buddhist atomism is a 6th c. *AD* concept and very similar to Aristotle's theory, thus has nothing to do with Democritus' atomic hypothesis. Also, Democritus' atomic theory is pretty much straightforward: atoms and void. As you pointed out on your video: By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void. This is as straightforward as it gets. No interpretations needed.
We give early scientists and philosophers a lot of gruff for being completely and totally wrong about things, but this guy actually just found out about atoms by THINKING. Wicked cool
Mostly from observation, such as when one observes that when cutting an object in half it gets smaller, and smaller still as you continue to repeat the action. This is my speculation, observation and simple experiment! Cheers friend!
You are really really good at editing! I wish I was as good at it as you. How are you doing it? I wish I could use is editing to tell philosophicals histories as well.
Thank you for the kind words! It takes time to learn the editing software, but mostly it just takes the desire to learn about the philosophies yourself, to read every day. I am no professional editor or writer, but I am improving; everyone starts somewhere.
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy I get it, I think. Yes, both of these thing takes time. I really enjoy your work and I hope I can make something like you but in another dic. someday :) What software do you use?
Thank you for the question, it is what we call the group of philosophers, particularly from ancient Greece, who believed the world to be composed of atoms.
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy It's partially such a trait, concerning words rather than sentences, among others. Just notice: 1.) 0:06f: end of "superior" mangled by its first "r" largely being skipped; 2.) 0:08f: equivalent case for the "r"s of "contemporary"; 3.) 0:10: "wealth" has a vowel much like the one in "all"; 4.) 0:13: "t" of "correctness" practically inaudible; 5.) 0:16: end of "discovering" flattened / mangled; 6.) 0:33: "r" of "various" practically inaudible; 7.) 0:34: "havim" instead of "have him". It means a considerable strain to decipher words thus pronounced. Perhaps this weakness has a basis of a more generally psychological nature, given that when you raise your voice to stress aspects of the content, you seem to produce passages that are better intelligible.
@@HansDunkelberg1 you really took your time with this, well I will do my best to improve these aspects. Though I know that I am not the best speaker, often I speak quickly and with little emphasis. I work in the medical field and I find that my patients often have a difficult time understanding me secondary to this. Thanks for the input!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy I'm active in the lingual field, anyway - as a creator of narrative prose and as a reincarnation of authors like Cato Major, Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Charlemagne, Goethe, and Gerhart Hauptmann. Perhaps now that I have you, it's the right opportunity to disperse also that latter sort of knowledge into your domain. From now on, when a patient maintains that he is Charlemagne you should give him even less credit (apart from the possibility that it will be I). When someone says he remembers an other earlier life, though, perhaps you can take him a little more seriously. I'm currently proving the phenomenon (an origin of which in outer space can be inferred from comparisons between the Soviet Union and Mars), on a strictly mathematical foundation. The Internet makes it possible, just as it enables to spread such discovery despite its potentials for a revival of conflicts, on occasions like the one at hand.
Atomos was the Greek word Democritus called them. It means "uncuttable". "tomos" means to cut or slice. The prefix "A" thus means without. Like asexual or apolitical. Democritus proposed that if you cut a thing in half, then keep cutting the halves in half, eventually you get to a particle that, if cut, you would no longer have the thing you started with. So he called this particle an "atomos" meaning uncuttable. They used atomos in their language, and in English it was been translated as atom.
@@Rabmcm32 Having thought on this a bit more it seems likely that when Democritus called the atom "uncuttable" he was simply declaring that the bedrock of the material universe had been reached and cutting the atom necessarily tears the fabric of reality apart, negating existence itself into void and thus violating a universal law that there is something rather than nothing. And he was correct. If we split the atom matter is converted to energy according to E=Mc2 and the particle that once existed within the material universe does no more and only a void remains.. I think in calling them "uncuttable" Democritus was defining a necessary condition of existence, that there is something rather than nothing. So calling the atoms "uncuttable" was not necessarily declaring a fact regarding the properties of atoms but an a priori condition of the atoms existence.
![ไลฟ์สุ่ม iPhone 295 บาท... โกงมั้ย?[ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.97 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gdstHEE4UUE/mqdefault.jpg)
Democritus simply used deductive logic to conclude that the atoms existed. He proposed that if you cut a thing in half, and then continue cutting the halves in half, eventually you will arrive at a particle that, if cut, would no longer be the original thing you began with. So he called this particle an "atomos", which means "uncuttable" in the Greek language. Democritus was also a determinist who believed that these atoms moved through a void directed by the laws of physics predetermined by previous causes. That included human thought and actions directed by the motion of atoms in the brain. So he believed that humans had no freewill.
Epicurus was a follower of Democritus but disagreed with several of his beliefs regarding the properties of atoms and their behavior as they pass through a void. Primarily he disagreed with the determinism of Democritus and instead proposed that man does have freewill as a result of a "swerve" or random, indeterminate movement by the atoms resulting from their own causes. This indeterminacy overcame the rigid determinism of Democritus by presenting a means in which the atoms movement could avoid being dependent on a previous cause, giving humans a capacity to make independent decisions through some freewill, but that there were certain behaviors that were indeed driven by a predetermined movement of the atoms, like hunger or the desire for sex compelled by hormonal conditions.
But what really blows my mind about both these ancient philosophers is the level of discourse they were having regarding the nature of our reality and it's fundamental guiding principles that are not only still debated today, like freewill vs determinism, but how they were arguing the details about something only proven through deductive reasoning and no more! It can even be said that the "swerve" proposed by Epicurus, the random, indeterminate movement of an atom by it's own causes, is a precursor to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics describing our inability to have knowledge of both the position and trajectory of the electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom simultaneously because of how observation effects quantum states. In fact, much of Quantum Mechanics defies classical Newtonian Physics and indeed has a bit of a "swerve" to it as was the direction Epicurus seemed to be going in his quest for a natural explanation of freewill.
Thank you for taking the time to construct such a response! I am positive that more than just I will find it helpful, cheers friend.
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy No problem! I have studied materialism and early atomism for many years now, having read many books on the subject. Currently studying Philosophy of Mind and Quantum Mechanics. Always happy to elaborate in detail on topics that I am familiar with!
@@michaelhoward3048 That's awesome, If I am ever doing a video in the future relating to these topics I may just send you a message to get your thoughts when doing my research!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy Be happy to help. I also am very familiar with Neo-Platonism, Plato's Theory of Forms and Parmenides Third Man Argument against it, Plato's Dialogues, Socrates, the Socratic Method and how to use it, The Trial and Execution of Socrates, Socrates speculations on Death, and Idealism in general. Also know a lot on the Presocratics in general, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Democritus, and Anaximander specifically.
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy 0° latitude receives the greatest amount of perpendicular energy neither created nor destroyed into our system. A leg of our star is always touching 0° latitude in reference to the observer. The energy travels the deepest at the equator and is stored under the mass in which you stand on. As you move to 45° north and 45° south you have an equal amount of energy entering the mass as an observer, as you get to the North Pole and what we perceive is the South Pole you now are at these points only once a year and at some points a leg of the star is never touching these points so if I were to imagine the best I can this energy could be stored in our system as an inverted pyramid slanted as time only moves forward in reference to the observer. We use our star coming into our system as a scale factor for all the cosmos, we are currently increasing the angle of entry into the system 3° over 41,000 years as observers. We have actual particles coming into the planet they take 10 to 14 days to reach us allegedly and smash into the planet at over a million miles an hour they would turn around to leave but the star is always shining into the system neither created nor destroyed... The particles tunnel and our filtered through the mass in which you stand on and the latitude determining the total amount of stored energy under the mass in which you are the observer. As the filtered energy is going to leave based off your latitude and the total amount of energy received it is going to predetermine the spin and 45° north will have an equal spin as it breaks the surface tension of the mass as 45° south, In an opposite direction as the energy is neither created nor destroyed. The air is getting thinner per inverse square The further you get from the mass as an observer eventually you reach the ionosphere and due to Pauly exclusionary principle the electrons are all neutralizing to the same mass and end up with an equal up spin as well as downspin and you get a glitch in time as it's flowing like a river a brief moment bosons are built above your head as space is neutralizing to time the hidden variable. I think mother Earth is the original computer to build all the cosmos and we think we're part of something bigger due to military air superiority post world war II. I think that equal up spin and downspin is the proverbial firmament. Gravity is the depression of the exiting energies as the photon absorbs and re-emites after the constructive and destructive wavelengths break the ionosphere and the delay the energy breaking the surface of the mass in an electron versus positron pair keeps clashing e equals MC squared is in reference to the constructive wavelengths as the strings are moving to the CMB which appears to expand as we increase the angle of entry into the system. Dark Energy is moving through the delay to the constructive wavelength from the destructive wavelength and to the destructive wavelength from the construct of wavelength actively moving through space-time which would equate something on your periodic table of elements but it never has the compression because it's all at the star and the constructive wavelength either that or moving it from the destructive wavelength to equals MC squared and the way in which the planet appears to spin like Venus and Uranus spinning retrograde is just the fact that the triangle tips you vector through the delay are returning from the CMB and the string is spinning retrograde in reference to your alleged orbital mechanics... Last but not least is the complete destructive wavelength playing throughout the delay and your dark matter not actively moving through space-time yet would equate something in your periodic table of elements and supporting space itself It's why that hypothetical sun in the distance collapses into a black hole there was probably never any mass to begin with.. The string is now in the negative and dark matter has collapsed to that point and the delay has caught up with the observer as the string is now in the negative being pulled apart by dark energies supporting other e = mc squared constructive wavelengths either coming or going and all scale factors even while moving down south use the unit of miles per hour how do we actually know 1 mile down south is the same as 1 mile up north... Like I said we use our star as the scale factor for everything so what comes in must come out and when it does it has a cause and effects It can explain gravity it can explain dark energy and it can explain dark matter in a heliocentric exit against the cause and effects in your system. Gravity is always leaving Earth and always trying to step back to earth at the same time You no longer have gravitational lift which you think is centrifugal force within the local gravity calculator because the greatest amount of perpendicular energy was at 0° latitude and like throwing a rock into a body of water The splash is biggest where the rock lands and if I throw that rock into the body of water at 22° across the unit of time it will have a smaller splash to the CMB then when I throw that same rock into the body of water at 25° also a different path while traveling through the medium as far as contact points go in both situations as we actively changing angle of entry 3° over 41,000 years and have only been studying expansion for how long? We look at the CMB here on Earth today we wait 5 years we look at the CMB again and say it is expanded that much... What if we've really never been to the moon and I'm philosophizing the ISS is stuck within the ionosphere riding a wave of energy leaving our system and calling it orbital mechanics... Any questions just ask.... You can even check out positive lightning strikes which equate for less than 5% of the strikes here on Earth that strike up to 25 miles from the cloud it uses as a ladder most likely H2O coming together holding that extra positive ion being the path of least resistance for this energy condensing time neutralizing above your head into a rock that falls from the sky and we run up thinking it came from outer space... I mean every magician knows it's easier to pull off the trick with the strobe light on so if I was to lay a program of vectors all based off our star coming into the system was there even any Mass to begin with with spooky action... I think the micro has caught up with the macro I thought we had to go back to Aristotle I think we got to kick it back even further than that to a time before the moon and then you can explain the angle of entry linking up under the mass or a constructive wavelength in space and we will never be at the same spot twice in reference to orbital mechanics the singularity is under your feet and we are all in tune with that God particle as the photon absorbs and remits off the mass with you the observer every electron within your optic nerves neutralizing to the same mass interpreted as electromagnetic pulses within your brain as wavelengths for you to perceive colors as your brain oscillates between 9 and 16 Hertz never EMP locked due to the forward momentum of time... Let me know how I did in the unified theory of everything.
I always saw Demo as my favorite philosopher of the Ancient Greek times. Valued friendship, enjoyed having parties, and embraced scientific thought; in short, a great man and mind.
Well said, I have heard that gaiety is wiser than wisdom! If this is true than I would certainly say Democritus may be the wisest of the pre-socratics. Thank you for taking the time to watch!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy no problem my friend
"But around 420-"
*two philosophers looking absurdly stoned*
In his great Epicurean poem "The Nature of Things," Lucretius cited compelling empirical evidence in support of atomism. For example, the way an odor can permeate a closed room from outside can only be explained by the penetration of tiny invisible particles.
My first view of your Atomist and Thales video was great fun and liked your creative background use of cut-and-paste collages. not sure but if you like do a video about the philosophers of the Greeks is similar. It's great to find your sight, are you skilled in Greek and Hellenistic history also? Do you have any videos on the philosophy of Hinduism, or Amide Buddha on TH-cam also?
I still can't believe how good this theory was for the time. Amazing
One often ponders what his contemporaries thought of his claims upon hearing them for the first time.
Dude! This is exactly what I’m thinking. It’s bonkers.
I always learn a new perspective on history as well
Awesome!
You forgot to mention that he travelled to India. In India there was already Atomic concept. Hindus claim it was Kanād who postulated the Atomism and some others claim it was Jain. However, my own literature review says it was Buddha. I put the age of Buddha before Cyrus ll and Thales. Buddha used the term Anu for atom but his immediate desiples used parmanu. According to Buddhism, in one finger tip or in one cubic inch there might be 576,108,288 atoms.
I had read that he may have been to India; however what I read was that this was doubtful. Some later sources claim that he did in fact visit there, but I had left it out because the textbook that I was using raised doubt on the claim. Regardless, the information you supplied here was incredibly insightful and I think I can take your word for it. Thank you for the information! Cheers!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy Thanks lots for your willingness of consideration. Yes, I have also read that many scholars doubt about Democritus and Pythagoras's Indian expedition. However, I couldn't find any valid reason of doubt? Can you help to understand it ? If it is so, why can't we rethink about the authenticity and historicity of so called Democritus fragments? Many times I found the continuity of colonial prejudice.
Of course, acceptance of differences is one mark of a gentlemen, at least that's what they say haha. I am unsure if it has anything to do with prejudice; however this it not out of the ball park. I would say it mostly has to do with the fuzzy boundaries surrounding the Democritus character. It is similar with almost all Pre-socratic philosophers as well as with most great thinkers from B.C.E. I am no scholar on early Greek texts so I couldn't say for sure and I think there isn't a man or woman alive who could. We can only speculate and interpret whatever is available to us as accurately as possible. Again thank you for the awesome insight!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy Hi, Good Morning from Brazil! First of all I should confess that I have limitations: I am without my MacBook (mechanical failure), my old eyes are not good on mobile texting even though I am doing it for time pass during lockdown. And the second limitation is I am an Anthropologist, neither a historian nor a philosopher. Being an a student of anthropology, I was/ am interested in the history of knowledge. I read few years back, Thomas McEvilly' s book 'The Shape of Ancient Thoughts' where he has mentioned about the prejudice towards eastern philosophies and religions. By the way, I don't know about the exact reason why those scholars believe that Pythagoras and Democritus did not travel to India! Can you help me? Thanks!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy There're indeed no evidences that Democritus ever travelled to India. Buddhist atomism is a 6th c. *AD* concept and very similar to Aristotle's theory, thus has nothing to do with Democritus' atomic hypothesis.
Also, Democritus' atomic theory is pretty much straightforward: atoms and void.
As you pointed out on your video: By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void.
This is as straightforward as it gets. No interpretations needed.
Thank you!
You are very welcome, thank you for taking the time to watch!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy I love philosophy. Does that make me a lover of the love of wisdom or just simply a philosopher? 😊
Great video thank you
Thank you for taking the time to give this feedback, always happy when someone enjoys my work!
Bruh, how did he deduce atoms? He also basically called relativity by claiming there is no direction in the void. Amazing
We give early scientists and philosophers a lot of gruff for being completely and totally wrong about things, but this guy actually just found out about atoms by THINKING. Wicked cool
Gravity. And time, our star, our mass building the void.
How in the world did this man figure this out over 2000 years ago ?
Mostly from observation, such as when one observes that when cutting an object in half it gets smaller, and smaller still as you continue to repeat the action. This is my speculation, observation and simple experiment! Cheers friend!
You are really really good at editing! I wish I was as good at it as you. How are you doing it? I wish I could use is editing to tell philosophicals histories as well.
Thank you for the kind words! It takes time to learn the editing software, but mostly it just takes the desire to learn about the philosophies yourself, to read every day. I am no professional editor or writer, but I am improving; everyone starts somewhere.
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy I get it, I think. Yes, both of these thing takes time. I really enjoy your work and I hope I can make something like you but in another dic. someday :)
What software do you use?
Adobe Premiere Pro, thanks again for your support!
What do we mean by atomism please!?
Thank you for the question, it is what we call the group of philosophers, particularly from ancient Greece, who believed the world to be composed of atoms.
No sex? I pass bro 😔
Would be quite the difficult task! Certainly not for everyone.
He didn't say no sex, Democritus just personally tended to avoid it. But even that doesn't mean he was celibate.
greek friendship is just gay sexe
The speaker pronounces many words quite little distinctively.
I am not quite sure I understand. Are you meaning to say my voice tapers off at times toward the end of sentences?
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy It's partially such a trait, concerning words rather than sentences, among others. Just notice:
1.) 0:06f: end of "superior" mangled by its first "r" largely being skipped;
2.) 0:08f: equivalent case for the "r"s of "contemporary";
3.) 0:10: "wealth" has a vowel much like the one in "all";
4.) 0:13: "t" of "correctness" practically inaudible;
5.) 0:16: end of "discovering" flattened / mangled;
6.) 0:33: "r" of "various" practically inaudible;
7.) 0:34: "havim" instead of "have him".
It means a considerable strain to decipher words thus pronounced. Perhaps this weakness has a basis of a more generally psychological nature, given that when you raise your voice to stress aspects of the content, you seem to produce passages that are better intelligible.
@@HansDunkelberg1 you really took your time with this, well I will do my best to improve these aspects. Though I know that I am not the best speaker, often I speak quickly and with little emphasis. I work in the medical field and I find that my patients often have a difficult time understanding me secondary to this. Thanks for the input!
@@LetsTalkPhilosophy I'm active in the lingual field, anyway - as a creator of narrative prose and as a reincarnation of authors like Cato Major, Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Charlemagne, Goethe, and Gerhart Hauptmann. Perhaps now that I have you, it's the right opportunity to disperse also that latter sort of knowledge into your domain. From now on, when a patient maintains that he is Charlemagne you should give him even less credit (apart from the possibility that it will be I). When someone says he remembers an other earlier life, though, perhaps you can take him a little more seriously. I'm currently proving the phenomenon (an origin of which in outer space can be inferred from comparisons between the Soviet Union and Mars), on a strictly mathematical foundation. The Internet makes it possible, just as it enables to spread such discovery despite its potentials for a revival of conflicts, on occasions like the one at hand.
I don't believe atomists or atoms are the exact words used in the original Greek text.
Atomos was the Greek word Democritus called them. It means "uncuttable". "tomos" means to cut or slice. The prefix "A" thus means without. Like asexual or apolitical.
Democritus proposed that if you cut a thing in half, then keep cutting the halves in half, eventually you get to a particle that, if cut, you would no longer have the thing you started with. So he called this particle an "atomos" meaning uncuttable.
They used atomos in their language, and in English it was been translated as atom.
@@michaelhoward3048 Well said.
@@michaelhoward3048 And yet in modern atomism (atomic theory) they are “cuttable.”
@@Rabmcm32 Indeed. But then the original thing will now be gone..
@@Rabmcm32 Having thought on this a bit more it seems likely that when Democritus called the atom "uncuttable" he was simply declaring that the bedrock of the material universe had been reached and cutting the atom necessarily tears the fabric of reality apart, negating existence itself into void and thus violating a universal law that there is something rather than nothing.
And he was correct. If we split the atom matter is converted to energy according to E=Mc2 and the particle that once existed within the material universe does no more and only a void remains.. I think in calling them "uncuttable" Democritus was defining a necessary condition of existence, that there is something rather than nothing.
So calling the atoms "uncuttable" was not necessarily declaring a fact regarding the properties of atoms but an a priori condition of the atoms existence.