If, nevertheless, from any grounds whatever, universally valid
knowledge
(ympru; yvwiit) with Democritus, imar-finn with Plato) was
to be again set over against opinions, the sensualism of Protagoras must be abandoned and the position of the old metaphysicians, who distinguished thought (oWou), as higher and better knowledge, from perception, must l>e taken again (cf.
to be again set over against opinions, the sensualism of Protagoras must be abandoned and the position of the old metaphysicians, who distinguished thought (oWou), as higher and better knowledge, from perception, must l>e taken again (cf.
Windelband - History of Philosophy
Bekker (Berlin, 1816 f.
), Stallbaum (Leips.
1850), Schneider and Hirschig (Paris: Didot, 1846 ff.
), M.
Schanz (Leips.
1875 ff.
).
The following are among the most important names of those who have worked over these questions since Schleiermacher in his translation (Berlin, 1804 ff. )
1893. ]
J. Socher (Munich, 1820), C. Fr. Hermann
Chat. 3. ] The Systematic Period. 103
Heidelberg, 1839), E. Zeller (Tubingen, 1830), Fr. Suckow (Berlin, 1866), Fr. Susemihl (Berlin, 1866-58), E. Munk (Berlin, 1886), Fr. Ueberweg (Vienna, 1*«1), K. Schaarschmidt (Bonn, 1866), H. Bonitz (Berlin, 1876), G. Teich- afiller (Gotha, 1876 ; Leipsic, 1879; Breslau, 1881), A. Krohn (Halle, 1878), W. Lhuenberger (in Hermes, 1881), H. Siebeck (Freiburg i. B. 1889). [H. Jack- no in Jour. Phil. , X. , XL, and XIII. ; Archer-Hind's editions of Phcedo and
Timatms; reviewed critically by P. Shorey in Am. Jour. Phttol, IX. and X. ] [On Plato's philosophy, in addition to the above, W. Pater, Plato and Platon-'
us (Lond. and N. Y. 189;! ) ; J. Martineau, in Types of Ethical Theory (Lond. ud N. Y. 1886), also in Essays; Art. Plato in Enc. Brit. , by L. Campbell ; R. L. Neoleship, The Theory of Education in P. '» Pep. , in Hellenic a ; J. S. Mill in Essays and Discussions. ]
The writings which are considered genuinely Platonic are (a) youthful works, wtuch scarcely go beyond the Socratic standpoint : Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, Lftis, Laches (perhaps also Charmides, Hippias Minor, and Alcibiudes, I. ) ;
*) writings to establish his position with regard to the Sophistic doctrines: Prvtaooras, Gorgias, Euthydemus, Cratylus, Meno, Theattetus ; (c) main works . aieaded to present his own doctrine : Pha-drus, Symposium, Phado, Philebus, ud the Republic, whose working out, begun early and completed in successive strata, as it were, extended into the last years of the Philosopher's life ; (</) the vritinxs of his old age : Timaeus, the Laws, and the fragment of Critias. Among ih« doubtful writings the most important are the Sophist, Politicus, and Par- m*mides. These probably did not originate with Plato, but with men of his « ti"~>l who were closely related with the Eleatic dialectic and eristic. The first two are by the same author.
Cf. H. v. Stein, Siehen Biicher zur Geschiehte des Platonismus (Gottingen, 1961 fl. 1; G. Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates (Lond. 1866); A. E. Chaignet. La vie et lesecrits de Platon (Paris, 1873); E. Heitz, <0. Midler's Htsek. der griech. Lit. , 2. Aufl. , II. 2, 148-236).
Plato's school is called the Academy, and the time of its development, which -rarhr* to the end of ancient thought, and which was aided by the continued ;>«w»ion of the academic grove and the gymnasium existing there, is usually 'itrxied into three or five periods : (1) the Older Academy, Plato's most inime- datle circle of scholars and the succeeding generations, extending to about 260 u. r ; (2) the Middle Academy, which took a sceptical direction, and in which aa older school of Arcesilaus and a younger school of Carneades (about 160) are 4i»ururaished ; (3) the New Academy, which with Philo of Larissa (about 100) mrned back to the old dogmatUui, and with Antiochus of Ascalon (about twenty- bt? rears later) turned into the paths of Eclecticism. Concerning the two (or fcwxr i later forms cf. Part II. ch. 1. Later the Neo- Platonic school took posses-
u<ti of the Academy. Cf. Part II. ch. 2.
To the Older Academy belonged men of great erudition and honourable per-
•naatity. The heart* of the school were Speualppna, the nephew of Plato, Tawx utile of Chalcedon, Polemo and Crate* of Athens ; beside these, Philip of i >pus and Heracleldes from Pontic Heraclea are to be mentioned fnns; the older, and Crantor among the younger members. Less closely frhued with the school were the astronomers Eudoxus of Cnidos and the Pythagorean Archytaa of Tarentum. R. Heinze, Xenoerates (Leips. 1892).
Ar1e*,"H» of Stagira towers far above all his associates in the Academy "Wl TTfj Aa son of a Macedonian physician, he brought with him an inclina
tion toward medical and natural science, when, at eighteen years of age, he enured the Academy, in which as literary supporter and also as teacher, at first A rhetoric, he early played a comparatively independent part, without acting
rnotrarv to a feeling of reverent subordination to the master, by so doing. It was not until after Plato's death that he separated himself externally from the Academy, visiting, with Xenoerates, his friend Hermias, the ruler of Atarneus and aana in Mysia, whose relative Pythias he afterwards married. After an appar- •aiiy transient stay at Athens and Mitylene, he undertook, at the wish of Philip
Maeedon, the education of the latter's son Alexander, and conducted for item three years with the greatest results. After this, he lived for some years a his native city, pursuing scientific studies with his friend Theophrastus, and v^Mber with him, in the year 336, founded in Athens his own school, which ad ija seat in the Lyceum, and (probably on account of its shady walks) was caOed the Peripatetic School.
■if
it
104 The Greeks : Systematic Period. [Part I.
After twelve years of the greatest activity, he left Athens on account of political disturbances and went to Chalcis, where he died in the following year, of a disease of the stomach. Cf. A. Stahr, Aristotelia, I. (Halle, 1830).
Of the results of the extraordinarily comprehensive literary activity of Aris totle only the smallest part, but the most important part from the point of view of science, is extant. The dialogues published by himself, which in the eyes of the ancients placed him on a level with Plato as an author also, are lost with the
'exception of a few fragments, and so also are the great compilations which with the aid of his scholars he prepared for the different branches of scientific knowl edge. Only his scientific didactic writings, which were designed as text-books to be made the foundation of lectures in the Lyceum, are extant. The plan of execution in his works varies greatly ; in many places there are only sketchy notes, in others complete elaborations ; there are also different revisions of the same sketch, and it is probable that supplementary matter by different scholars has been inserted in the gaps of the manuscripts. Since the first complete edi tion prepared in ancient times (as it appears, on the occasion of a new discovery of original manuscripts) by Andronicus of Rhodes (60-50 b. c. ) did not separate these parts, many critical questions are still afloat concerning it.
Cf. A. Stahr, Aristotelia, II. (Leips. 1832); V. Rose (Berlin, 1854); H. Bonitz (Vienna, 1862 ff. ); J. Bernays (Berlin, 1863); E. Heitz (Leips. 1866 and in the second ed. of 0. Muller's Gesch. der griech. Lit. , II. 2, 236-321); E. Vahlen
(Vienna, 1870 ff. ).
This text-book collection,1 as it were, is arranged in the following manner :
(a) Logical treatises: the Categories, on the Proposition, on Interpretation, the Analytics, the Topics including the book on the Fallacies — brought together by the school as "Organon" ; (6) Theoretical Philosophy : Fundamental Science {Metaphysics), the Physics, the History of Animals, and the Psychology ; to the three last are attached a number of separate treatises ; (c) Practical Philosophy: the Ethics in the Nicomachean and Eudemian editions and the Politics (which likewise is not complete) ; (<J) Poietical or Poetical Philosophy : the Rhetoric and the Poetic.
Ft. Biese, Die Philosophic des Arintoteles (2 vols. , Berlin, 1836-42); A. Rosmini-Serbati, Aristotele Exposto ed Esaminato (Torino, 1868); G. H. Lewes, Aristotle, a Chapter from the History of Science (Lond. 1864) ; G. Grote, Aristotle (published from his literary remains, Lond. 1872).
[Trans, of the Psychology by E. Wallace (Camb. 1882) ; of the Ethics, by Peters (Lond. 1881), Welldon (Lond. and N. Y. ), Williams (Lond. 1876), Chase (Lond. 1877), Hatch (Lond. 1879); of the Poetics, by Wharton (Camb. 1883) ; of the Politics, by Welldon (Camb. 1888), Jowett (2 vols. , Oxford, 1886-88) ; of the Rhetoric, by Welldon (Lond. and N. Y. 1886) ; also tr. of all of the above and of the Metaphysics, Organon, and History of Animals in the Bohn Library. Editions of the Politics with valuable introduction by Newman (Oxford, 1887, 2 vols. ); of the Ethics, by A. Grant. Cf. also Art. in Enc. Brit. , Aristotle bv A. Giant; T. H. Green in Works; A. C. Bradley, A'* Theory of the State, in Hellenica. E. Wallace, Outlines of A. 's Phil, is convenient for the student. ]
§ 9. Metaphysics grounded anew in Epistemology and Ethics.
The great systematisers of Greek science exercised a swift but just criticism upon the Sophistic doctrine. They saw at once that among the doctrines of the Sophists but a single one possessed the worth of lasting validity and scientific fruitfulness — the perception theory of Protagoras.
1 Of the newer editions, that of the Berlin Academy (J. Bekker, Brandis, Rose, Usener, Bonitz), 6 vols. , Berlin, 1831-70, is made the basis of citations. The Parisian edition (Didot) is also to be noticed (DUbner, Bussemaker, Helta) 5 vols. , Paris, 1848-74.
Chat. 3, § ! >. ] The New Metaphysics. 105
1. This, therefore, became the starting-point for Democritus and for Plato ; and both adopted it in order to transcend it and attack the consequences which the Sophist had drawn from it. Both admit that perception, as being itself only a product of a natural process, can be the knowledge of something only which likewise arises and passes away as transitory product of the same natural process. Perception then gives only opinion (&6£a) ; it teaches what appears in and for human view (called vd^w in Democritus with a genuine Sophistic mode of expression), not what truly or really {ireg with Democritus, eVr«K with Piato) is.
For Protagoras, who regarded perception as the only source of knowledge, there was consequently no knowledge of what is. That he took the farther step of denying Being altogether and declaring the objects of perception to be the sole reality, behind which there is no Being to be sought for, — this " positivist" conclusion is not to be demonstrated in his case : the doctrine of " nihilism " there
no Being expressly ascribed by tradition only to Gorgias.
If, nevertheless, from any grounds whatever, universally valid knowledge (ympru; yvwiit) with Democritus, imar-finn with Plato) was
to be again set over against opinions, the sensualism of Protagoras must be abandoned and the position of the old metaphysicians, who distinguished thought (oWou), as higher and better knowledge, from perception, must l>e taken again (cf. 6). Thus Democritus and Plato both in like manner transcend Protagoras by acknowledg ing the relativity of perception, and looking to "thought" agaiu for knowledge of what truly is. Both are outspoken rationalists. 1
This new metaphysical rationalism yet distinguished from the older rationalism of the cosraological period, not only by its broader psychological basis, which owed to the Protagorean analysis of perception, but also in consequence of this, by another valuation of perception 'tself from the standpoint of the theory of knowledge. The earlier metaphysicians, where they could not fit the contents of perception into their conceptional idea of the world, had simply rejected them as deceit and illusion. Now this illusion had been explained (by Protagoras), but in such way that while sarrendering its universal validity the content of perception might yet claim at least the value of transient atid relative reality.
This, in connection with the fact that scientific knowledge was
Cf- Seat. Kmp. Adv. Math. VIII. 66. The doctrine of Democritus with nm^ri to " genuine " knowledge most ihaiply formulated in Sext . Kmp. Adv.
JMata. VII. 139. Plato'* attack upon the Protagorean sensualism found prin cipally in the Thtatetus, his positive rationalistic attitude in the Phtzdriu, Sym-
BrjmUic, and Phado.
is
is
»
2.
a
a
it
is
§
a
a
is
") is
(■•
106 Tlie Greeks: Systematic Period. [Part I.
directed toward the abiding " true " Being, led to a division in the conception of reality, and with this the fundamental need of explana tory thought came to clear, explicit consciousness, — a need which unconsciously lay at the basis of the beginnings of science. To the two kinds of knowledge — so Democritus and Plato taught — cor respond/two different kinds of reality: to perception a changing, relative, transient reality or actuality ; to thought a reality homo geneous, absolute and abiding. For the former Democritus seems to have introduced the expression phenomena; Plato designates it as the world of generation, ytWes : the other kind of reality Democ ritus calls ra tTttf ovra ; Plato, to ovtux; ov or obo-la [that which really
or essence].
In this way perception and opinion gain correctness which is
analogous to that of scientific thought. Perception cognises chang ing reality as thought cognises abiding reality. To the two modes of cognition correspond two domains of reality. 1
But between these two domains there exists for this reason the same relation, as regards their respective values, as obtains between the two kinds of cognition. By as much as thought, the universally valid act of consciousness, above perception, the knowledge valid only for individuals and for the particular, by so much the true Being higher, purer, more primitive, raised above the lower actuality of phenomena and the changing processes and events among them. This relation was especially emphasised and carried out by Plato for reasons hereafter to be unfolded. But appears also with Democ ritus, not only in his theory of knowledge, but also in his ethics.
In this way the two metaphysicians agree with the result which the Pythagoreans (cf. and had likewise won from their premises, viz. the distinction of higher and lower kind of reality. Nevertheless, in the presence of this similarity we are not to think of dependence in nowise in the case of Democritus, who was complete stranger to the astronomical view of the Pythag oreans, and scarcely in the case of Plato, who indeed later adopted the astronomical theory, but whose idea of the higher reality (the doctrine of Ideas) has an entirely different content. The case rather that the common, fundamental motive which came from the conception of Being propounded by Parmenides, led in these three quite different forms to the division of the world into sphere of higher and one of lower reality.
The pragmatic parallelism in the motives of the two opposed systems of Democritus and Plato reaches step farther, although
Best formulated in Plat. , Tim. 27 D ff. , eapeoially 29 <X
1
a
a
a
1) it
3.
is
is,
a
;
§ 5, 7,
is
§ a 6,
is
a
3, § 9. ] The New Metaphysics : Democritus, Plato. 107
bat a short step. To the world of perception belong, without doubt, the specific qualities of the senses, for these disclose their relativity in the fact that the same thing appears differently to different senses. But after we have abstracted these qualities, that which remains as in object for the knowledge of the truly actual, is primarily the form which things have, and both thinkers designated as the true essential nature of things the pure forms (l&au).
But it almost seems as though here they had nothing in common but the name, striking as this fact is ; for if Democritus understood by the l&iu, which he also called uxn^ra, his atom-forms, while Plato understood by his ! 8«u'or ub\j the conceptions corresponding to logical species (Oattungsbegriffe), then the apparently like state ment that the truly existent consists in " forms " has a completely different meaning in the two authors. For this reason we must here, too, remain in doubt as to whether we should see a parallel dependence upon Pythagoreanism, which, to be sure, had previously found the essence of things in mathematical forms, and whose influ ence upon the two thinkers may be assumed without encountering any difficulties in the assumption itself. At all events, however, if a common suggestion was present, it led to quite different results in the two systems before us, and though in both of them knowledge of mathematical relations stands in very close relation to knowledge of true reality, these relations are yet completely different with the respective thinkers.
4. The relationship thus far unfolded between the two rational istic systems changes now suddenly to a sharp opposition as soon as we consider the motives from which the two thinkers transcended the Protagorean sensualism and relativism, and observe also the consequences which result therefrom. Here the circumstance be comes of decisive importance, that Plato teas the disciple of Socrates, while Democritus experienced not even the slightest influence from the great Athenian sage.
With Democritus the demand which drives him to transcend the position of Protagoras grows solely out of his theoretical need and develops according to his personal nature, — the demand, namely, that there is a knowledge, and that this, if it is not to he found in perception, must be sought for in thought; the investigator of Nat ure believes, as against all the Sophistic teaching, in the possibility ef a theory that shall explain phenomena. Plato, on the contrary, sets out with his postulate of the Socratic conception of virtue. Virtue is to be gained only through Tight knowledge ; knowledge, however, is cognition of the true Being : if, then, this is not to be found in perception, it must be sought for through thought. For
108 The Greeks : Systematic Period. [Part L
Plato philosophy grows, according to the Socratic principle,1 out of the ethical need. But while the Sophistic friends of Socrates were endeavouring to give to the knowledge that constituted virtue some object in the form of a general life-purpose, the good, pleasure, etc. , Plato wins his metaphysical position with one stroke, by drawing the inference that this knowledge in which virtue is to consist must be the cognition of what is truly real, the oiWu, — as opposed to opinions which relate to the relative. In his case the knowledge in which virtue is to consist demands a metaphysics.
Here, then, the ways are already parting. Knowledge of the truly real was for Democritus, as for the old metaphysicians, essentially an idea of the unchangeably abiding Being, but an idea by means of which it should be possible to understand the derivative form of reality which is cognised in perception. His rationalism amounted to an explanation of phenomena, to be gained through thought; it was essentially theoretical rationalism. For Plato, on the contrary, knowledge of the truly real had its ethical purpose within itself; this knowledge was to constitute virtue, and hence it had no other relation to the world given through ception than that of sharply defining its limits. True Being has
for Democritus the theoretical value of explaining phenomena ; for Plato, the practical value of being the object of that knowledge which constitutes virtue. His doctrine as regards its original principle, essentially ethical rationalism.
Democritus, therefore, persevered in the work undertaken in the school of Abdera, — the construction of metaphysics of Nature. With the help of the Sophistic psychology he developed Atomism to comprehensive system. Like Leucippus, he regarded empty space and the atoms moving in as the true reality. He then attempted not only to explain from the motion of these atoms all qualitative phenomena of the corporeal world as quantitative phenomena, but also to explain from these motions all mental activities, including that knowing activity which directed toward true Being. Thus he created the system of materialism.
Plato, however, was led to the entirely opposite result by his attachment to the Socratic doctrine, which proved to be of decisive importance for his conception of the essential nature of science.
Socrates had taught that knowledge consists in general concep tions. If, however, this knowledge, in contrast with opinions, was to be knowledge of what truly, actually is, there must belong to the content of these conceptions that higher Being, that true essential
Set forth most clearly in the Meno, 96 fl.
per
1
5.
a
is
it
a
is,
Caar. 5, f 10. ] Syttem of Materialism : Demoeritus. 109
reality which, it was held, could be grasped only by thought, in contrast with perception. The " forms " of true reality, knowledge of which constitutes virtue, are the species or class-concepts ( Gattungs- begriffe), tl&yj. With this consideration, the Platonic conception of the - Idea" first gains its complete determination.
So understood, Plato's doctrine of Ideas presents itself as the summit of Greek philosophy. In it are combined all the different lines of thought which had been directed toward the physical, the ethical, the logical first principle (ip\yi or <f>vois). The Platonic
Idea, the species or class-concept, is firstly the abiding Being in the change of phenomena; secondly, the object of knowledge in the change of opinions ; thirdly, the true end in the change of desires.
But this oioui, from the nature of its definition, is not to be found within the sphere of what may be perceived, and everything cor poreal is capable of being perceived. The Ideas are then something essentially different from the corporeal world. True reality is
The division in the conception of reality takes on accordingly a fixed form ; the lower reality of natural processes or generation (yiytott), which forms the object of perception, is the corporeal world ; the higher reality of Being, which thought knows, is the incorporeal, the immaterial world, rorot votjtos. Thus the
PUtonic system becomes immaterialism, or, as we rail it after the meaning given by him to the word "Idea," Idealism.
it. In the Platonic system, accordingly, we find perhaps the most extensive interweaving and complication of problems which history has seen. The doctrine of Demoeritus, on the contrary, is ruled throughout by the one interest of explaining Nature. However
rich the results which this latter doctrine might achieve for this its proper end, — results which could be taken up again in a later, similarly disposed condition of thought, and then first unfold their whole fruitfulness, — at first the other doctrine must surpass this, all the more in proportion as it satisfied all needs of the time and united within itself the entire product of earlier thought. More points of attack for immanent criticism are perhaps offered by the Platonic system than by that of Demoeritus ; but for Greek thought the latter was a relapse into the cosmology of the first period, and it was Plato's doctrine that must become the system of the future.
S 10. The System of Materialism.
The systematic character of the doctrine of Demoeritus consists in the way in which he carried through in all departments of his work the fundamental thought, that scientific theory must so far
incorporeal.
110 The Greeks : Systematic Period. [Part L
gain knowledge of the true reality, i. e. of the atoms and their motions in space, as to be able to explain from them the reality which appears in phenomena, as this presents itself in perception. There is every indication (even the titles of his books would show this) that Democritus took up this task by means of investigations covering the entire compass of the objects of experience, and in this connection devoted himself with as great an interest to the psy chological as to the physical problems. So much the more must we regret that the greater part of his teachings has been lost, and that what is preserved, in connection with accounts of others, permits only a hypothetical reconstruction of the main conceptions of his great work, a reconstruction which must always remain defective and uncertain.
1. It must be assumed in the first place that Democritus was fully conscious of this task of science, viz. that of explaining the world of experience through conceptions of the true reality. That which the Atomists regard as the Existent, viz. space and the par ticles whirring in has no value except for theoretical purposes. It only thought in order to make intelligible what perceived; but for this reason the problem so to think the truly real that
may explain the real which appears in phenomena, that at the same time this latter reality may " remain preserved " as some thing that " " in derived sense, and that the truth which inheres in may remain recognised. Hence Democritus knew very well that thought also must seek the truth in perception, and win out of perception. ' His rationalism far removed from being in con tradiction with experience, or even from being strange to experience. Thought has to infer from perception that by means of which the latter explained. The motive which lay at the foundation of the mediating attempts following the Eleatic paradox of acosmism became with Democritus the clearly recognised principle of meta physics and natural science. Yet unfortunately nothing now known as to how he carried out in detail the methodical relation between the two modes of cognition, and how the process by which knowledge grows out of perception in the particular instance was thought by him.
More particularly, the theoretical explanation which Democritus
The very happv expression for this juur<if«r tA <pair6iumi. Cf. also Arist. Oen. et Corr. 832, a,
Hence, the expressions in which he recognised the truth in the phenome non e. g. Arist. Dt An. 404 27, and the like. To attempt, however, to construe out of this " sensualism" of Democritus, as has been attempted by E. Johnson (I'lauen, 18«8), contradicts completely the accounts with regard to his attitude toward Protagoras.
a
6
;*1
it
it is
I. 2,
it,
a
I.
is a
is
is
is
is
it
is
is '
Chap. 3, § 10. ] System of Materialism : Democritus. Ill
gave for the contents of perception consists, as with Leucippus, in the reduction of all phenomena to the mechanics of atoms. What appears in perception as qualitatively determined, and also as in volved iu qualitative change (dXAoiov/xt^ov), exists " in truth " only as a quantitative relation of the atoms, of their order, and their motion. The task of science is then to reduce all qualitative to quantitative relations, and to show in detail what quantitative rela tions of the absolute reality produce the qualitative characteristics of the reality which appears in phenomena. Thus, the prejudice in favour of khat may be perceived or imaged (anschauiich), as if spatial form and motion were something simpler, more comprehensible in themselves, and less of a problem than qualitative character and
alteration, is made the principle for the theoretical explanation of the world.
Since this principle is applied with complete systematic rigour to the whole of experience, Atomism regards the psychical life with all its essential elements and values as also a phenomenon, and the form and motion of the atoms which constitute the true Being of this phenomenon must be stated by the explanatory theory. Thus
matter in its form and motion is regarded as that which alone is truly real, and the entire mental or spiritual life as the derived, phenomenal reality. With this the system of Democritus first assumes the character of conscious, outspoken materialism.
2. In the properly physical doctrines, the teaching of Democritus presents, therefore, no change in principle as compared with that of Leucippus, though there is a great enrichment by careful detailed investigation. He emphasised still more sharply than his predeces sor, where possible, the thought of the mechanical necessity (dvayio/, which he also occasionally called Aoyos), in accordance with which all occurrence or change whatever takes place, and further defined this thought as involving that no operation of atoms upon one another is possible except through impact, through immediate con tact, and further, that this operation consists only in the change of the state of motion of the atoms which are also unchangeable as regards their form.
The atom itself as that which "is," in the proper sense of the word, has accordingly only the characteristics of abstract corpore ality, viz. the filling of a limited space, and the quality of being in motion in the void. Although all are imperceptibly small, they yet exhibit an endless variety of forms (JS«u or trxJPJlTa)- To form,
which constitutes the proper fundamental difference in the atoms, belongs in a certain sense also size ; yet it is to be observed that the same stereometrical form, e. g. the sphere, may appear in different
112 The Greeks: Systematic Period. [Part L
sizes. The larger the atom, the greater its mass ; for the essential quality of what is, is indeed materiality, space-claiming. For this reason Democritus asserted weight or lightness to be a function of size,1 evidently yielding to the mechanical analogies of daily life. In connection with these terms (/3opu and Koi)<^ov), however, we are not to think of the falling motion, but solely of the degree of mechani cal movability or of inertia. ' Hence it was also his opinion that as the atom-complexes whirled about, the lighter parts were forced out ward, while the more inert with their inferior mobility were gath ered in the middle.
The same properties communicate themselves as metaphysical qualities to things which are composed of atoms. The form and size of things is produced by the simple summation of the form and size of the component atoms ; though in this case, the inertia is not dependent solely upon the sum total of the magnitudes of the atoms, but upon the greater or less amount of empty space that remains between the individual particles when they are grouped together. The inertia depends therefore upon the less or greater degree of density. And since the ease with which particles may be displaced with reference to one another depends upon this interruption of the mass by empty space, the properties of hardness and softness belong also to the true reality that is known by thought.
All other properties, however, belong to things not in them selves, but only in so far as motions proceeding from things act upon the organs of perception ; they are " states of perception as it is in process of qualitative change. " But these states are also conditioned throughout by the things in which the perceived prop erties appear, and here the arrangement and the situation which the atoms have taken with reference to each other in the process of composition are of principal importance. 3
While, then, form, size, inertia, density, and hardness are properties of things irtrj, i. e. in truth, all that is perceived in them by the indi vidual senses as colour, sound, smell, taste, exists only vd/iwor diem, i. e. in the phenomenon. This doctrine, when taken up anew in the philosophy of the Renaissance (cf. Part IV. ch. 2) and later, was
1 As the most extensive exposition for this and for the following topic The- ophr. De Sens. 61 ff. (Doz. D. 516) is to be compared.
5 It is scarcely to be decided now whether the motion of their own, which Atomism ascribed to all the atoms as primitive and causeless, was thought ol by Democritus as conditioned already by the size or mass, so that the greater had, even from the beginning, possessed less velocity. At all events, these determinations held good for him within the sphere of the mechanical operation of the atoms on one another. What is larger can be pushed with greater diffi culty ; what is smaller can be pushed more easily.
» Cf. Arist Gen. et Corr. I. 2, 316 b 6.
Cbaf. 3, § 10. ] System of Materialism : Democritus. 113
designated as distinguishing between the primary and secondary fnalities of things, and it is desirable to introduce this expression htrre, since it corresponds throughout to the metaphysical and episte- nological sense in which Democritus made the Protagorean doctrine useful for his own purpose. While the Sophist would make all properties secondary and relative, Democritus admitted this only for the qualities perceived by special senses, and set over against these the quantitative determinations as primary and absolute. He there fore designated also as " genuine knowledge " the insight into the
primary qualities to be won through thought, while, on the contrary, perception which is directed toward the secondary qualities he termed " obscure knowledge " (yvrjvi^ — (XKorirj yvw/117).
3. The secondary qualities appear accordingly as dependent upon the primary ; they are not, however, dependent upon these alone, but rather upon the action of these upon the percipient agent. But in the atomistic system that which perceives, the mind or toul, can consist only of atoms. To be more explicit, it consists, according to Democritus, of the same atoms which constitute also the essence of fire: namely, the finest, smoothest, and most mobile.
These are indeed scattered also through the whole world, and in so far animals, plants, and other things may be regarded as animate, as having souls,' but they are united in largest numbers in the human body, where in life a fire-atom is placed between every two atoms of other sorts, and where they are held together by breathing.
Upon this presupposition, then, analogous, as we see, to the older systems, Democritus built up his explanation of phenomena from the true essence of things. That perception, and with the secondary qualities, arises from the action of things upon the fire- atoms of the soul. The reality which appears a necessary result of the true reality.
In carrying out this doctrine Democritus took up and refined the theories of perception advanced by his predecessors. The effluxes (ef. above, 3) which proceed from things to set in motion the
organs and through them the fire-atoms, he called images (ct&oAa), and regarded them as infinitely small copies of the things. Their impression upon the fire-atoms perception, and the similarity between the content of this perception and its object was held to be secured thereby. Since impact and pressure are the essence of all the mechanics of the atoms, touch regarded as the most primitive sense. The special organs, on the contrary, were regarded as capable of receiving only such images as corresponded to their own forma
tion and motion, and this theory of the specific energy of the sense was worked out very acutely Demooritus. From this
is by
is
it
f 6,
is
is,
it
114 The Greeks: Systematic Period.
The following are among the most important names of those who have worked over these questions since Schleiermacher in his translation (Berlin, 1804 ff. )
1893. ]
J. Socher (Munich, 1820), C. Fr. Hermann
Chat. 3. ] The Systematic Period. 103
Heidelberg, 1839), E. Zeller (Tubingen, 1830), Fr. Suckow (Berlin, 1866), Fr. Susemihl (Berlin, 1866-58), E. Munk (Berlin, 1886), Fr. Ueberweg (Vienna, 1*«1), K. Schaarschmidt (Bonn, 1866), H. Bonitz (Berlin, 1876), G. Teich- afiller (Gotha, 1876 ; Leipsic, 1879; Breslau, 1881), A. Krohn (Halle, 1878), W. Lhuenberger (in Hermes, 1881), H. Siebeck (Freiburg i. B. 1889). [H. Jack- no in Jour. Phil. , X. , XL, and XIII. ; Archer-Hind's editions of Phcedo and
Timatms; reviewed critically by P. Shorey in Am. Jour. Phttol, IX. and X. ] [On Plato's philosophy, in addition to the above, W. Pater, Plato and Platon-'
us (Lond. and N. Y. 189;! ) ; J. Martineau, in Types of Ethical Theory (Lond. ud N. Y. 1886), also in Essays; Art. Plato in Enc. Brit. , by L. Campbell ; R. L. Neoleship, The Theory of Education in P. '» Pep. , in Hellenic a ; J. S. Mill in Essays and Discussions. ]
The writings which are considered genuinely Platonic are (a) youthful works, wtuch scarcely go beyond the Socratic standpoint : Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, Lftis, Laches (perhaps also Charmides, Hippias Minor, and Alcibiudes, I. ) ;
*) writings to establish his position with regard to the Sophistic doctrines: Prvtaooras, Gorgias, Euthydemus, Cratylus, Meno, Theattetus ; (c) main works . aieaded to present his own doctrine : Pha-drus, Symposium, Phado, Philebus, ud the Republic, whose working out, begun early and completed in successive strata, as it were, extended into the last years of the Philosopher's life ; (</) the vritinxs of his old age : Timaeus, the Laws, and the fragment of Critias. Among ih« doubtful writings the most important are the Sophist, Politicus, and Par- m*mides. These probably did not originate with Plato, but with men of his « ti"~>l who were closely related with the Eleatic dialectic and eristic. The first two are by the same author.
Cf. H. v. Stein, Siehen Biicher zur Geschiehte des Platonismus (Gottingen, 1961 fl. 1; G. Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates (Lond. 1866); A. E. Chaignet. La vie et lesecrits de Platon (Paris, 1873); E. Heitz, <0. Midler's Htsek. der griech. Lit. , 2. Aufl. , II. 2, 148-236).
Plato's school is called the Academy, and the time of its development, which -rarhr* to the end of ancient thought, and which was aided by the continued ;>«w»ion of the academic grove and the gymnasium existing there, is usually 'itrxied into three or five periods : (1) the Older Academy, Plato's most inime- datle circle of scholars and the succeeding generations, extending to about 260 u. r ; (2) the Middle Academy, which took a sceptical direction, and in which aa older school of Arcesilaus and a younger school of Carneades (about 160) are 4i»ururaished ; (3) the New Academy, which with Philo of Larissa (about 100) mrned back to the old dogmatUui, and with Antiochus of Ascalon (about twenty- bt? rears later) turned into the paths of Eclecticism. Concerning the two (or fcwxr i later forms cf. Part II. ch. 1. Later the Neo- Platonic school took posses-
u<ti of the Academy. Cf. Part II. ch. 2.
To the Older Academy belonged men of great erudition and honourable per-
•naatity. The heart* of the school were Speualppna, the nephew of Plato, Tawx utile of Chalcedon, Polemo and Crate* of Athens ; beside these, Philip of i >pus and Heracleldes from Pontic Heraclea are to be mentioned fnns; the older, and Crantor among the younger members. Less closely frhued with the school were the astronomers Eudoxus of Cnidos and the Pythagorean Archytaa of Tarentum. R. Heinze, Xenoerates (Leips. 1892).
Ar1e*,"H» of Stagira towers far above all his associates in the Academy "Wl TTfj Aa son of a Macedonian physician, he brought with him an inclina
tion toward medical and natural science, when, at eighteen years of age, he enured the Academy, in which as literary supporter and also as teacher, at first A rhetoric, he early played a comparatively independent part, without acting
rnotrarv to a feeling of reverent subordination to the master, by so doing. It was not until after Plato's death that he separated himself externally from the Academy, visiting, with Xenoerates, his friend Hermias, the ruler of Atarneus and aana in Mysia, whose relative Pythias he afterwards married. After an appar- •aiiy transient stay at Athens and Mitylene, he undertook, at the wish of Philip
Maeedon, the education of the latter's son Alexander, and conducted for item three years with the greatest results. After this, he lived for some years a his native city, pursuing scientific studies with his friend Theophrastus, and v^Mber with him, in the year 336, founded in Athens his own school, which ad ija seat in the Lyceum, and (probably on account of its shady walks) was caOed the Peripatetic School.
■if
it
104 The Greeks : Systematic Period. [Part I.
After twelve years of the greatest activity, he left Athens on account of political disturbances and went to Chalcis, where he died in the following year, of a disease of the stomach. Cf. A. Stahr, Aristotelia, I. (Halle, 1830).
Of the results of the extraordinarily comprehensive literary activity of Aris totle only the smallest part, but the most important part from the point of view of science, is extant. The dialogues published by himself, which in the eyes of the ancients placed him on a level with Plato as an author also, are lost with the
'exception of a few fragments, and so also are the great compilations which with the aid of his scholars he prepared for the different branches of scientific knowl edge. Only his scientific didactic writings, which were designed as text-books to be made the foundation of lectures in the Lyceum, are extant. The plan of execution in his works varies greatly ; in many places there are only sketchy notes, in others complete elaborations ; there are also different revisions of the same sketch, and it is probable that supplementary matter by different scholars has been inserted in the gaps of the manuscripts. Since the first complete edi tion prepared in ancient times (as it appears, on the occasion of a new discovery of original manuscripts) by Andronicus of Rhodes (60-50 b. c. ) did not separate these parts, many critical questions are still afloat concerning it.
Cf. A. Stahr, Aristotelia, II. (Leips. 1832); V. Rose (Berlin, 1854); H. Bonitz (Vienna, 1862 ff. ); J. Bernays (Berlin, 1863); E. Heitz (Leips. 1866 and in the second ed. of 0. Muller's Gesch. der griech. Lit. , II. 2, 236-321); E. Vahlen
(Vienna, 1870 ff. ).
This text-book collection,1 as it were, is arranged in the following manner :
(a) Logical treatises: the Categories, on the Proposition, on Interpretation, the Analytics, the Topics including the book on the Fallacies — brought together by the school as "Organon" ; (6) Theoretical Philosophy : Fundamental Science {Metaphysics), the Physics, the History of Animals, and the Psychology ; to the three last are attached a number of separate treatises ; (c) Practical Philosophy: the Ethics in the Nicomachean and Eudemian editions and the Politics (which likewise is not complete) ; (<J) Poietical or Poetical Philosophy : the Rhetoric and the Poetic.
Ft. Biese, Die Philosophic des Arintoteles (2 vols. , Berlin, 1836-42); A. Rosmini-Serbati, Aristotele Exposto ed Esaminato (Torino, 1868); G. H. Lewes, Aristotle, a Chapter from the History of Science (Lond. 1864) ; G. Grote, Aristotle (published from his literary remains, Lond. 1872).
[Trans, of the Psychology by E. Wallace (Camb. 1882) ; of the Ethics, by Peters (Lond. 1881), Welldon (Lond. and N. Y. ), Williams (Lond. 1876), Chase (Lond. 1877), Hatch (Lond. 1879); of the Poetics, by Wharton (Camb. 1883) ; of the Politics, by Welldon (Camb. 1888), Jowett (2 vols. , Oxford, 1886-88) ; of the Rhetoric, by Welldon (Lond. and N. Y. 1886) ; also tr. of all of the above and of the Metaphysics, Organon, and History of Animals in the Bohn Library. Editions of the Politics with valuable introduction by Newman (Oxford, 1887, 2 vols. ); of the Ethics, by A. Grant. Cf. also Art. in Enc. Brit. , Aristotle bv A. Giant; T. H. Green in Works; A. C. Bradley, A'* Theory of the State, in Hellenica. E. Wallace, Outlines of A. 's Phil, is convenient for the student. ]
§ 9. Metaphysics grounded anew in Epistemology and Ethics.
The great systematisers of Greek science exercised a swift but just criticism upon the Sophistic doctrine. They saw at once that among the doctrines of the Sophists but a single one possessed the worth of lasting validity and scientific fruitfulness — the perception theory of Protagoras.
1 Of the newer editions, that of the Berlin Academy (J. Bekker, Brandis, Rose, Usener, Bonitz), 6 vols. , Berlin, 1831-70, is made the basis of citations. The Parisian edition (Didot) is also to be noticed (DUbner, Bussemaker, Helta) 5 vols. , Paris, 1848-74.
Chat. 3, § ! >. ] The New Metaphysics. 105
1. This, therefore, became the starting-point for Democritus and for Plato ; and both adopted it in order to transcend it and attack the consequences which the Sophist had drawn from it. Both admit that perception, as being itself only a product of a natural process, can be the knowledge of something only which likewise arises and passes away as transitory product of the same natural process. Perception then gives only opinion (&6£a) ; it teaches what appears in and for human view (called vd^w in Democritus with a genuine Sophistic mode of expression), not what truly or really {ireg with Democritus, eVr«K with Piato) is.
For Protagoras, who regarded perception as the only source of knowledge, there was consequently no knowledge of what is. That he took the farther step of denying Being altogether and declaring the objects of perception to be the sole reality, behind which there is no Being to be sought for, — this " positivist" conclusion is not to be demonstrated in his case : the doctrine of " nihilism " there
no Being expressly ascribed by tradition only to Gorgias.
If, nevertheless, from any grounds whatever, universally valid knowledge (ympru; yvwiit) with Democritus, imar-finn with Plato) was
to be again set over against opinions, the sensualism of Protagoras must be abandoned and the position of the old metaphysicians, who distinguished thought (oWou), as higher and better knowledge, from perception, must l>e taken again (cf. 6). Thus Democritus and Plato both in like manner transcend Protagoras by acknowledg ing the relativity of perception, and looking to "thought" agaiu for knowledge of what truly is. Both are outspoken rationalists. 1
This new metaphysical rationalism yet distinguished from the older rationalism of the cosraological period, not only by its broader psychological basis, which owed to the Protagorean analysis of perception, but also in consequence of this, by another valuation of perception 'tself from the standpoint of the theory of knowledge. The earlier metaphysicians, where they could not fit the contents of perception into their conceptional idea of the world, had simply rejected them as deceit and illusion. Now this illusion had been explained (by Protagoras), but in such way that while sarrendering its universal validity the content of perception might yet claim at least the value of transient atid relative reality.
This, in connection with the fact that scientific knowledge was
Cf- Seat. Kmp. Adv. Math. VIII. 66. The doctrine of Democritus with nm^ri to " genuine " knowledge most ihaiply formulated in Sext . Kmp. Adv.
JMata. VII. 139. Plato'* attack upon the Protagorean sensualism found prin cipally in the Thtatetus, his positive rationalistic attitude in the Phtzdriu, Sym-
BrjmUic, and Phado.
is
is
»
2.
a
a
it
is
§
a
a
is
") is
(■•
106 Tlie Greeks: Systematic Period. [Part I.
directed toward the abiding " true " Being, led to a division in the conception of reality, and with this the fundamental need of explana tory thought came to clear, explicit consciousness, — a need which unconsciously lay at the basis of the beginnings of science. To the two kinds of knowledge — so Democritus and Plato taught — cor respond/two different kinds of reality: to perception a changing, relative, transient reality or actuality ; to thought a reality homo geneous, absolute and abiding. For the former Democritus seems to have introduced the expression phenomena; Plato designates it as the world of generation, ytWes : the other kind of reality Democ ritus calls ra tTttf ovra ; Plato, to ovtux; ov or obo-la [that which really
or essence].
In this way perception and opinion gain correctness which is
analogous to that of scientific thought. Perception cognises chang ing reality as thought cognises abiding reality. To the two modes of cognition correspond two domains of reality. 1
But between these two domains there exists for this reason the same relation, as regards their respective values, as obtains between the two kinds of cognition. By as much as thought, the universally valid act of consciousness, above perception, the knowledge valid only for individuals and for the particular, by so much the true Being higher, purer, more primitive, raised above the lower actuality of phenomena and the changing processes and events among them. This relation was especially emphasised and carried out by Plato for reasons hereafter to be unfolded. But appears also with Democ ritus, not only in his theory of knowledge, but also in his ethics.
In this way the two metaphysicians agree with the result which the Pythagoreans (cf. and had likewise won from their premises, viz. the distinction of higher and lower kind of reality. Nevertheless, in the presence of this similarity we are not to think of dependence in nowise in the case of Democritus, who was complete stranger to the astronomical view of the Pythag oreans, and scarcely in the case of Plato, who indeed later adopted the astronomical theory, but whose idea of the higher reality (the doctrine of Ideas) has an entirely different content. The case rather that the common, fundamental motive which came from the conception of Being propounded by Parmenides, led in these three quite different forms to the division of the world into sphere of higher and one of lower reality.
The pragmatic parallelism in the motives of the two opposed systems of Democritus and Plato reaches step farther, although
Best formulated in Plat. , Tim. 27 D ff. , eapeoially 29 <X
1
a
a
a
1) it
3.
is
is,
a
;
§ 5, 7,
is
§ a 6,
is
a
3, § 9. ] The New Metaphysics : Democritus, Plato. 107
bat a short step. To the world of perception belong, without doubt, the specific qualities of the senses, for these disclose their relativity in the fact that the same thing appears differently to different senses. But after we have abstracted these qualities, that which remains as in object for the knowledge of the truly actual, is primarily the form which things have, and both thinkers designated as the true essential nature of things the pure forms (l&au).
But it almost seems as though here they had nothing in common but the name, striking as this fact is ; for if Democritus understood by the l&iu, which he also called uxn^ra, his atom-forms, while Plato understood by his ! 8«u'or ub\j the conceptions corresponding to logical species (Oattungsbegriffe), then the apparently like state ment that the truly existent consists in " forms " has a completely different meaning in the two authors. For this reason we must here, too, remain in doubt as to whether we should see a parallel dependence upon Pythagoreanism, which, to be sure, had previously found the essence of things in mathematical forms, and whose influ ence upon the two thinkers may be assumed without encountering any difficulties in the assumption itself. At all events, however, if a common suggestion was present, it led to quite different results in the two systems before us, and though in both of them knowledge of mathematical relations stands in very close relation to knowledge of true reality, these relations are yet completely different with the respective thinkers.
4. The relationship thus far unfolded between the two rational istic systems changes now suddenly to a sharp opposition as soon as we consider the motives from which the two thinkers transcended the Protagorean sensualism and relativism, and observe also the consequences which result therefrom. Here the circumstance be comes of decisive importance, that Plato teas the disciple of Socrates, while Democritus experienced not even the slightest influence from the great Athenian sage.
With Democritus the demand which drives him to transcend the position of Protagoras grows solely out of his theoretical need and develops according to his personal nature, — the demand, namely, that there is a knowledge, and that this, if it is not to he found in perception, must be sought for in thought; the investigator of Nat ure believes, as against all the Sophistic teaching, in the possibility ef a theory that shall explain phenomena. Plato, on the contrary, sets out with his postulate of the Socratic conception of virtue. Virtue is to be gained only through Tight knowledge ; knowledge, however, is cognition of the true Being : if, then, this is not to be found in perception, it must be sought for through thought. For
108 The Greeks : Systematic Period. [Part L
Plato philosophy grows, according to the Socratic principle,1 out of the ethical need. But while the Sophistic friends of Socrates were endeavouring to give to the knowledge that constituted virtue some object in the form of a general life-purpose, the good, pleasure, etc. , Plato wins his metaphysical position with one stroke, by drawing the inference that this knowledge in which virtue is to consist must be the cognition of what is truly real, the oiWu, — as opposed to opinions which relate to the relative. In his case the knowledge in which virtue is to consist demands a metaphysics.
Here, then, the ways are already parting. Knowledge of the truly real was for Democritus, as for the old metaphysicians, essentially an idea of the unchangeably abiding Being, but an idea by means of which it should be possible to understand the derivative form of reality which is cognised in perception. His rationalism amounted to an explanation of phenomena, to be gained through thought; it was essentially theoretical rationalism. For Plato, on the contrary, knowledge of the truly real had its ethical purpose within itself; this knowledge was to constitute virtue, and hence it had no other relation to the world given through ception than that of sharply defining its limits. True Being has
for Democritus the theoretical value of explaining phenomena ; for Plato, the practical value of being the object of that knowledge which constitutes virtue. His doctrine as regards its original principle, essentially ethical rationalism.
Democritus, therefore, persevered in the work undertaken in the school of Abdera, — the construction of metaphysics of Nature. With the help of the Sophistic psychology he developed Atomism to comprehensive system. Like Leucippus, he regarded empty space and the atoms moving in as the true reality. He then attempted not only to explain from the motion of these atoms all qualitative phenomena of the corporeal world as quantitative phenomena, but also to explain from these motions all mental activities, including that knowing activity which directed toward true Being. Thus he created the system of materialism.
Plato, however, was led to the entirely opposite result by his attachment to the Socratic doctrine, which proved to be of decisive importance for his conception of the essential nature of science.
Socrates had taught that knowledge consists in general concep tions. If, however, this knowledge, in contrast with opinions, was to be knowledge of what truly, actually is, there must belong to the content of these conceptions that higher Being, that true essential
Set forth most clearly in the Meno, 96 fl.
per
1
5.
a
is
it
a
is,
Caar. 5, f 10. ] Syttem of Materialism : Demoeritus. 109
reality which, it was held, could be grasped only by thought, in contrast with perception. The " forms " of true reality, knowledge of which constitutes virtue, are the species or class-concepts ( Gattungs- begriffe), tl&yj. With this consideration, the Platonic conception of the - Idea" first gains its complete determination.
So understood, Plato's doctrine of Ideas presents itself as the summit of Greek philosophy. In it are combined all the different lines of thought which had been directed toward the physical, the ethical, the logical first principle (ip\yi or <f>vois). The Platonic
Idea, the species or class-concept, is firstly the abiding Being in the change of phenomena; secondly, the object of knowledge in the change of opinions ; thirdly, the true end in the change of desires.
But this oioui, from the nature of its definition, is not to be found within the sphere of what may be perceived, and everything cor poreal is capable of being perceived. The Ideas are then something essentially different from the corporeal world. True reality is
The division in the conception of reality takes on accordingly a fixed form ; the lower reality of natural processes or generation (yiytott), which forms the object of perception, is the corporeal world ; the higher reality of Being, which thought knows, is the incorporeal, the immaterial world, rorot votjtos. Thus the
PUtonic system becomes immaterialism, or, as we rail it after the meaning given by him to the word "Idea," Idealism.
it. In the Platonic system, accordingly, we find perhaps the most extensive interweaving and complication of problems which history has seen. The doctrine of Demoeritus, on the contrary, is ruled throughout by the one interest of explaining Nature. However
rich the results which this latter doctrine might achieve for this its proper end, — results which could be taken up again in a later, similarly disposed condition of thought, and then first unfold their whole fruitfulness, — at first the other doctrine must surpass this, all the more in proportion as it satisfied all needs of the time and united within itself the entire product of earlier thought. More points of attack for immanent criticism are perhaps offered by the Platonic system than by that of Demoeritus ; but for Greek thought the latter was a relapse into the cosmology of the first period, and it was Plato's doctrine that must become the system of the future.
S 10. The System of Materialism.
The systematic character of the doctrine of Demoeritus consists in the way in which he carried through in all departments of his work the fundamental thought, that scientific theory must so far
incorporeal.
110 The Greeks : Systematic Period. [Part L
gain knowledge of the true reality, i. e. of the atoms and their motions in space, as to be able to explain from them the reality which appears in phenomena, as this presents itself in perception. There is every indication (even the titles of his books would show this) that Democritus took up this task by means of investigations covering the entire compass of the objects of experience, and in this connection devoted himself with as great an interest to the psy chological as to the physical problems. So much the more must we regret that the greater part of his teachings has been lost, and that what is preserved, in connection with accounts of others, permits only a hypothetical reconstruction of the main conceptions of his great work, a reconstruction which must always remain defective and uncertain.
1. It must be assumed in the first place that Democritus was fully conscious of this task of science, viz. that of explaining the world of experience through conceptions of the true reality. That which the Atomists regard as the Existent, viz. space and the par ticles whirring in has no value except for theoretical purposes. It only thought in order to make intelligible what perceived; but for this reason the problem so to think the truly real that
may explain the real which appears in phenomena, that at the same time this latter reality may " remain preserved " as some thing that " " in derived sense, and that the truth which inheres in may remain recognised. Hence Democritus knew very well that thought also must seek the truth in perception, and win out of perception. ' His rationalism far removed from being in con tradiction with experience, or even from being strange to experience. Thought has to infer from perception that by means of which the latter explained. The motive which lay at the foundation of the mediating attempts following the Eleatic paradox of acosmism became with Democritus the clearly recognised principle of meta physics and natural science. Yet unfortunately nothing now known as to how he carried out in detail the methodical relation between the two modes of cognition, and how the process by which knowledge grows out of perception in the particular instance was thought by him.
More particularly, the theoretical explanation which Democritus
The very happv expression for this juur<if«r tA <pair6iumi. Cf. also Arist. Oen. et Corr. 832, a,
Hence, the expressions in which he recognised the truth in the phenome non e. g. Arist. Dt An. 404 27, and the like. To attempt, however, to construe out of this " sensualism" of Democritus, as has been attempted by E. Johnson (I'lauen, 18«8), contradicts completely the accounts with regard to his attitude toward Protagoras.
a
6
;*1
it
it is
I. 2,
it,
a
I.
is a
is
is
is
is
it
is
is '
Chap. 3, § 10. ] System of Materialism : Democritus. Ill
gave for the contents of perception consists, as with Leucippus, in the reduction of all phenomena to the mechanics of atoms. What appears in perception as qualitatively determined, and also as in volved iu qualitative change (dXAoiov/xt^ov), exists " in truth " only as a quantitative relation of the atoms, of their order, and their motion. The task of science is then to reduce all qualitative to quantitative relations, and to show in detail what quantitative rela tions of the absolute reality produce the qualitative characteristics of the reality which appears in phenomena. Thus, the prejudice in favour of khat may be perceived or imaged (anschauiich), as if spatial form and motion were something simpler, more comprehensible in themselves, and less of a problem than qualitative character and
alteration, is made the principle for the theoretical explanation of the world.
Since this principle is applied with complete systematic rigour to the whole of experience, Atomism regards the psychical life with all its essential elements and values as also a phenomenon, and the form and motion of the atoms which constitute the true Being of this phenomenon must be stated by the explanatory theory. Thus
matter in its form and motion is regarded as that which alone is truly real, and the entire mental or spiritual life as the derived, phenomenal reality. With this the system of Democritus first assumes the character of conscious, outspoken materialism.
2. In the properly physical doctrines, the teaching of Democritus presents, therefore, no change in principle as compared with that of Leucippus, though there is a great enrichment by careful detailed investigation. He emphasised still more sharply than his predeces sor, where possible, the thought of the mechanical necessity (dvayio/, which he also occasionally called Aoyos), in accordance with which all occurrence or change whatever takes place, and further defined this thought as involving that no operation of atoms upon one another is possible except through impact, through immediate con tact, and further, that this operation consists only in the change of the state of motion of the atoms which are also unchangeable as regards their form.
The atom itself as that which "is," in the proper sense of the word, has accordingly only the characteristics of abstract corpore ality, viz. the filling of a limited space, and the quality of being in motion in the void. Although all are imperceptibly small, they yet exhibit an endless variety of forms (JS«u or trxJPJlTa)- To form,
which constitutes the proper fundamental difference in the atoms, belongs in a certain sense also size ; yet it is to be observed that the same stereometrical form, e. g. the sphere, may appear in different
112 The Greeks: Systematic Period. [Part L
sizes. The larger the atom, the greater its mass ; for the essential quality of what is, is indeed materiality, space-claiming. For this reason Democritus asserted weight or lightness to be a function of size,1 evidently yielding to the mechanical analogies of daily life. In connection with these terms (/3opu and Koi)<^ov), however, we are not to think of the falling motion, but solely of the degree of mechani cal movability or of inertia. ' Hence it was also his opinion that as the atom-complexes whirled about, the lighter parts were forced out ward, while the more inert with their inferior mobility were gath ered in the middle.
The same properties communicate themselves as metaphysical qualities to things which are composed of atoms. The form and size of things is produced by the simple summation of the form and size of the component atoms ; though in this case, the inertia is not dependent solely upon the sum total of the magnitudes of the atoms, but upon the greater or less amount of empty space that remains between the individual particles when they are grouped together. The inertia depends therefore upon the less or greater degree of density. And since the ease with which particles may be displaced with reference to one another depends upon this interruption of the mass by empty space, the properties of hardness and softness belong also to the true reality that is known by thought.
All other properties, however, belong to things not in them selves, but only in so far as motions proceeding from things act upon the organs of perception ; they are " states of perception as it is in process of qualitative change. " But these states are also conditioned throughout by the things in which the perceived prop erties appear, and here the arrangement and the situation which the atoms have taken with reference to each other in the process of composition are of principal importance. 3
While, then, form, size, inertia, density, and hardness are properties of things irtrj, i. e. in truth, all that is perceived in them by the indi vidual senses as colour, sound, smell, taste, exists only vd/iwor diem, i. e. in the phenomenon. This doctrine, when taken up anew in the philosophy of the Renaissance (cf. Part IV. ch. 2) and later, was
1 As the most extensive exposition for this and for the following topic The- ophr. De Sens. 61 ff. (Doz. D. 516) is to be compared.
5 It is scarcely to be decided now whether the motion of their own, which Atomism ascribed to all the atoms as primitive and causeless, was thought ol by Democritus as conditioned already by the size or mass, so that the greater had, even from the beginning, possessed less velocity. At all events, these determinations held good for him within the sphere of the mechanical operation of the atoms on one another. What is larger can be pushed with greater diffi culty ; what is smaller can be pushed more easily.
» Cf. Arist Gen. et Corr. I. 2, 316 b 6.
Cbaf. 3, § 10. ] System of Materialism : Democritus. 113
designated as distinguishing between the primary and secondary fnalities of things, and it is desirable to introduce this expression htrre, since it corresponds throughout to the metaphysical and episte- nological sense in which Democritus made the Protagorean doctrine useful for his own purpose. While the Sophist would make all properties secondary and relative, Democritus admitted this only for the qualities perceived by special senses, and set over against these the quantitative determinations as primary and absolute. He there fore designated also as " genuine knowledge " the insight into the
primary qualities to be won through thought, while, on the contrary, perception which is directed toward the secondary qualities he termed " obscure knowledge " (yvrjvi^ — (XKorirj yvw/117).
3. The secondary qualities appear accordingly as dependent upon the primary ; they are not, however, dependent upon these alone, but rather upon the action of these upon the percipient agent. But in the atomistic system that which perceives, the mind or toul, can consist only of atoms. To be more explicit, it consists, according to Democritus, of the same atoms which constitute also the essence of fire: namely, the finest, smoothest, and most mobile.
These are indeed scattered also through the whole world, and in so far animals, plants, and other things may be regarded as animate, as having souls,' but they are united in largest numbers in the human body, where in life a fire-atom is placed between every two atoms of other sorts, and where they are held together by breathing.
Upon this presupposition, then, analogous, as we see, to the older systems, Democritus built up his explanation of phenomena from the true essence of things. That perception, and with the secondary qualities, arises from the action of things upon the fire- atoms of the soul. The reality which appears a necessary result of the true reality.
In carrying out this doctrine Democritus took up and refined the theories of perception advanced by his predecessors. The effluxes (ef. above, 3) which proceed from things to set in motion the
organs and through them the fire-atoms, he called images (ct&oAa), and regarded them as infinitely small copies of the things. Their impression upon the fire-atoms perception, and the similarity between the content of this perception and its object was held to be secured thereby. Since impact and pressure are the essence of all the mechanics of the atoms, touch regarded as the most primitive sense. The special organs, on the contrary, were regarded as capable of receiving only such images as corresponded to their own forma
tion and motion, and this theory of the specific energy of the sense was worked out very acutely Demooritus. From this
is by
is
it
f 6,
is
is,
it
114 The Greeks: Systematic Period.
