I don’t agree, but let’s talk about something else.
On atomism: the atomic theory of the pre-Socratics was just another in a series of essentially navel-gazing theories. Today we privilege and single out that theory for the obvious reasons, but it doesn’t deserve much more praise than the alternatives. The philosophers involved had absolutely no way to test it and in fact weren’t interested in doing so. And the alternatives were as convincing or more convincing, given the available evidence, as their speculation.
Agreed. There were good reasons from the “physics” of the day to reject atomism. If I remember correctly, Aristotle’s argument went something like this:
The existence of atoms requires the existence of a void.
How could atoms move around if there wasn’t any space for them to move to?
The speed of an object is determined by the “thickness” (density) of the medium it is travelling through.
If you drop a ball through the air (a very thin medium), it will move much faster than a ball dropped through water (a thicker medium) and faster still than a ball dropped through a jar of honey (a very thick medium).
A void doesn’t have any “thickness”.
If you dropped a ball through a void it would move infinitely fast.
Actual infinites are impossible.
Therefore, the void (and atoms which require a void) does not exist.
I think so. And there were other reasons, too, for Aristotle’s theory of the four elements to look more appealing than the atomism he was rejecting. For example, it attempted to explain hot and cold by incorporating them as basic qualities of the elements and giving some rules about how one can turn into the other. Taking hot vs cold and dry vs wet as the basic qualities, we have four possibilities:
hot and dry → fire
hot and wet → air
cold and dry → earth
cold and wet → water
Transitions between these four that change only one quality are easy and more common (like water->air by evaporation, or air->water by rain), while those that change both qualities (air<-->earth, fire<-->water) are harder, next to impossible. This actually corresponds to observed phenomena to some degree. The atomic theory had nothing of the kind and didn’t even attempt to account for things like temperature.
I don’t agree, but let’s talk about something else.
Agreed. There were good reasons from the “physics” of the day to reject atomism. If I remember correctly, Aristotle’s argument went something like this:
The existence of atoms requires the existence of a void.
How could atoms move around if there wasn’t any space for them to move to?
The speed of an object is determined by the “thickness” (density) of the medium it is travelling through.
If you drop a ball through the air (a very thin medium), it will move much faster than a ball dropped through water (a thicker medium) and faster still than a ball dropped through a jar of honey (a very thick medium).
A void doesn’t have any “thickness”.
If you dropped a ball through a void it would move infinitely fast.
Actual infinites are impossible.
Therefore, the void (and atoms which require a void) does not exist.
Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn’t it?
I think so. And there were other reasons, too, for Aristotle’s theory of the four elements to look more appealing than the atomism he was rejecting. For example, it attempted to explain hot and cold by incorporating them as basic qualities of the elements and giving some rules about how one can turn into the other. Taking hot vs cold and dry vs wet as the basic qualities, we have four possibilities:
hot and dry → fire
hot and wet → air
cold and dry → earth
cold and wet → water
Transitions between these four that change only one quality are easy and more common (like water->air by evaporation, or air->water by rain), while those that change both qualities (air<-->earth, fire<-->water) are harder, next to impossible. This actually corresponds to observed phenomena to some degree. The atomic theory had nothing of the kind and didn’t even attempt to account for things like temperature.