THE ATOMISTS AND SOPHISTS IN A NUTSHELL
In the previous post, we saw how early Greek philosophy ran into a problem. On one side was Heraclitus, who said the world was only change, and there was no such thing as entities (people, rivers, plants, etc.) On the other side was Parmenides, who said there was no such thing as change, and the world was made up of one "stuff", unmoving and constant. Both had sound arguments based on their pre-Socratic view that change was a contradiction, but both ideas were also clearly absurd, and needed to be changed. Enter the Atomists and Sophists, who tried to advance philosophy past this rut.
THE ATOMISTS
The Atomists attempted to reconcile the dichotomy of Parmenides and Heraclitus by abandoning Thales' idea of monism, and instituting what's called pluralism. Instead of saying the world was made of one "world stuff", they posited that it was made up of multiple stuffs, which today we know as "atoms". Different philosophers had different ideas about what these stuffs were in Greece, but the important thing is that it allowed them to explain change. An event like wood burning and becoming ash could be explained as different stuffs interacting and ending up with a different looking substance. However, they could still claim that nothing new came into and out of existence. This allowed them to both agree with Parmenides that "what is is, what is not is not", and also with Heraclitus that there is such a thing as change in this world.
The Atomists attempted to reconcile the dichotomy of Parmenides and Heraclitus by abandoning Thales' idea of monism, and instituting what's called pluralism. Instead of saying the world was made of one "world stuff", they posited that it was made up of multiple stuffs, which today we know as "atoms". Different philosophers had different ideas about what these stuffs were in Greece, but the important thing is that it allowed them to explain change. An event like wood burning and becoming ash could be explained as different stuffs interacting and ending up with a different looking substance. However, they could still claim that nothing new came into and out of existence. This allowed them to both agree with Parmenides that "what is is, what is not is not", and also with Heraclitus that there is such a thing as change in this world.
Empedocles (490-435 BC) was an early atomist that is credited with giving the idea that the world is made up of 4 "stuffs". These were earth, air, water and fire. That's about all that needs to be said of Empedocles.
Anaxagoras (510-428 BC) didn't think the 4 stuff theory explained the world very well. All the different sights, smells and tastes we experience surely can't be a result of only 4 elements, right? He instead thought that there were an indefinite number of stuffs making up the world. There was grass stuff, and olive stuff, rock stuff and grape stuff. While slightly more plausible than the earth, air, fire, water theory, this was a philosophical dead end. As we saw with Thales and the beginning of philosophic thought, the primary goal of philosophy was to find order among the great multiplicity in the world, the "one in the many". Explaining the world by saying grass is made of grass stuff, and grapes are made of grape stuff wasn't a particularly useful way of examining the world, and thus never really took off.
Democritus (460-370 BC) was also known as the "laughing philosopher" for his enjoyment of mocking other citizens.
LEUCIPPUS AND DEMOCRITUS
Little is known of Leucippus, but he was supposedly the teacher to Democritus, so it's not very clear who originated which idea among these two. However, Democritus is generally given most of the credit for these ideas, so if you can only remember one name, remember his. Democritus posited that everything we see in this world is made up of tiny particles that are solidly packed and uncuttable. One could cut a carrot in half, and half again, but eventually, even with a small enough knife, it would not be possible to cut anymore. The Greek word for uncuttable is "atomos", hence the modern word, atom. The entire world, Democritus said, was made up of atoms and "the void", which was empty space the atoms could move about in. This was more of a scientific idea than a philosophical one, but given the primitive nature of knowledge in the ancient world, philosophers often crossed into the scientific arena.
Little is known of Leucippus, but he was supposedly the teacher to Democritus, so it's not very clear who originated which idea among these two. However, Democritus is generally given most of the credit for these ideas, so if you can only remember one name, remember his. Democritus posited that everything we see in this world is made up of tiny particles that are solidly packed and uncuttable. One could cut a carrot in half, and half again, but eventually, even with a small enough knife, it would not be possible to cut anymore. The Greek word for uncuttable is "atomos", hence the modern word, atom. The entire world, Democritus said, was made up of atoms and "the void", which was empty space the atoms could move about in. This was more of a scientific idea than a philosophical one, but given the primitive nature of knowledge in the ancient world, philosophers often crossed into the scientific arena.
Furthermore, Democritus said, these atoms acted exclusively according to the laws of mechanics. The Greeks didn't know the laws of physics yet, but had a rudimentary knowledge of them. Think of billiard balls, and how they act when struck. They must act a certain way, as they are "determined" by the laws of mechanics. According to the Atomists, this too is how the entire universe operates. All particles are moving around, determined by laws outside of themselves. Sometimes, this is referred to as "billiard ball metaphysics". While scientists to this day would agree that this is a proper way to explain the physical world, most people would object that this mechanistic action also applies to human actions and thoughts. The billiard balls might be determined, but surely the human who decides which one to hit isn't, right? Democritus would disagree. Humans are made up of the same atoms, and therefore operate under the same rules. We might think we have a choice about which billiard ball to hit, but really we're just as helpless to follow a determined course. This is known in philosophy as materialism, and the Atomists became the first thinkers in history to systematically hold this view. It's the philosophic view that all of reality is just matter in motion, and that everything, even human action and consciousness, can be explained entirely in physical terms. The Atomists even came up with "soul atoms" to explain human consciousness, although that did not have a lasting legacy in philosophy.
Epistemologically, the Atomists reached the inevitable conclusion that followed the metaphysics of materialism, which was that our senses are invalid. Democritus distinguished quantities from qualities. Quantities (like size, shape, weight, rate of motion) are real, but qualities (warm, soft, red) aren't. Since qualities are subjective, they can't be verified, and he referred to them as "convention". To quote Democritus:
"By convention, sweet is sweet. by convention, bitter is bitter. By convention hot is hot. By convention cold is cold. By convention color is color. But in reality, there are atoms and the void."
The impact of the Atomists on the physical sciences, particularly later on during the European Renaissance, was tremendously positive. They were the precursors to the development of chemistry, physics and biology. Unfortunately, their impact on philosophy was quite negative. Materialism and determinism are profoundly destructive philosophies when taken seriously, as they deny the nature of the human mind and reason itself. It renders man a mechanistic being, which negates any form of objective ethics (after all, if you are determined, there is no right or wrong, good or evil). As a philosophy, it ends up falling apart on itself when examined closely, as it has several logical inconsistencies. Nevertheless, it has been influential, particularly in more modern times as science has advanced. There are elements of it in Karl Marx's philosophy, as well as in the area of psychology, with those like B.F. Skinner attempting to explain human behavior as mechanistic, essentially complex billiard balls interacting in the world.
For more information, the philosophic errors of materialism and determinism were covered in detail on this website in Metaphysics Part 3 and Epistemology Part 2.
Epistemologically, the Atomists reached the inevitable conclusion that followed the metaphysics of materialism, which was that our senses are invalid. Democritus distinguished quantities from qualities. Quantities (like size, shape, weight, rate of motion) are real, but qualities (warm, soft, red) aren't. Since qualities are subjective, they can't be verified, and he referred to them as "convention". To quote Democritus:
"By convention, sweet is sweet. by convention, bitter is bitter. By convention hot is hot. By convention cold is cold. By convention color is color. But in reality, there are atoms and the void."
The impact of the Atomists on the physical sciences, particularly later on during the European Renaissance, was tremendously positive. They were the precursors to the development of chemistry, physics and biology. Unfortunately, their impact on philosophy was quite negative. Materialism and determinism are profoundly destructive philosophies when taken seriously, as they deny the nature of the human mind and reason itself. It renders man a mechanistic being, which negates any form of objective ethics (after all, if you are determined, there is no right or wrong, good or evil). As a philosophy, it ends up falling apart on itself when examined closely, as it has several logical inconsistencies. Nevertheless, it has been influential, particularly in more modern times as science has advanced. There are elements of it in Karl Marx's philosophy, as well as in the area of psychology, with those like B.F. Skinner attempting to explain human behavior as mechanistic, essentially complex billiard balls interacting in the world.
For more information, the philosophic errors of materialism and determinism were covered in detail on this website in Metaphysics Part 3 and Epistemology Part 2.
THE SOPHISTS
The Sophists were a professional class of philosophers in the 5th century BC. The most notable thinkers were Protagoras (480-410 BC) and Gorgias (483-375 BC). Essentially, they offered their teaching services for a fee to those who could afford them. They taught all sorts of subjects, but were known primarily for instructing people to win arguments, flatter the populace and gain political power, generally through deception. Think of them as modern day shyster lawyers. As such, they became despised by many in Greece, and the term today is still used to derogatorily refer to someone who is devoid of principle, and uses their cunning to deceive others. To their credit, the Sophists were more than corrupt philosophers, but we'll focus here on their contribution to original philosophical ideas, which have been extremely influential throughout history even to this day.
The Sophists were a professional class of philosophers in the 5th century BC. The most notable thinkers were Protagoras (480-410 BC) and Gorgias (483-375 BC). Essentially, they offered their teaching services for a fee to those who could afford them. They taught all sorts of subjects, but were known primarily for instructing people to win arguments, flatter the populace and gain political power, generally through deception. Think of them as modern day shyster lawyers. As such, they became despised by many in Greece, and the term today is still used to derogatorily refer to someone who is devoid of principle, and uses their cunning to deceive others. To their credit, the Sophists were more than corrupt philosophers, but we'll focus here on their contribution to original philosophical ideas, which have been extremely influential throughout history even to this day.
The Sophists were the first avowed skeptics in history. In philosophy, skepticism is not just being wary of accepting ideas and challenging people's beliefs. It's the view that no objective or certain knowledge is possible. What we think is knowledge is really just a hunch, a guess or a feeling. The Sophists epistemological basis for this was an all out attack on the senses. They argued that senses are subjective, and vary from person to person, and even within the same person. For example, a color blind man and a normal man will perceive some colors differently, so how can we trust our notion of color? Imagine a cold glass of water, a warm one and a piping hot one. If someone puts their hand in the cold one then in the warm one, they would say "that feels hot!". However, going from the steaming hot to the warm, they would likely remark how cool it felt. Even the same person's senses can give different sensations of the same object! Given this, how can we trust our sense of touch is accurate? The Sophists argued that because of this, no one can properly say "it is", only "it appears to me". As Protagoras said, "man is the measure of all things", meaning we don't perceive actual reality, we create our own reality, and that can't be trusted to be accurate. If you ever hear someone say a phrase like, "that may be true for you, but not for me", they are borrowing from the Sophist philosophy.
To quote Protagoras, "you can never perceive reality". This was the Sophist view, and from it they also determined reason was invalid, as reason depends on the senses and viewing reality. Gorgias summed up the skeptic philosophy pretty well with his observations:
To quote Protagoras, "you can never perceive reality". This was the Sophist view, and from it they also determined reason was invalid, as reason depends on the senses and viewing reality. Gorgias summed up the skeptic philosophy pretty well with his observations:
- Nothing exists
- If anything existed, you couldn't know it
- Even if you could know it, you couldn't communicate it
When the Sophists moved to ethics, things went from bad to worse. Since reason and human knowledge is invalid, they claimed, it's useless to use it to figure out one's ethics. Since no one can be sure of anything, certainly no one can claim to know what is ethically true, or come up with any objective moral guidelines. Even God couldn't be used as a justification, because no one knows if there's a God either. This brought in moral relativism, the notion that all desires and actions are ethically equal. "What's true for you isn't true for me." So how should a person live their life? Any way they want, acting on any desires they wish. To the Sophists, the ideal life would be putting on a veneer of virtue to win the praise and approval of society, while secretly living an underground life of roaring vice. Sophists regarded society as hypocrites, asserting that this was really everyone's moral goal, but we come up with ethical rules to keep others at bay.
In the political realm, the question then becomes what happens when people's desires conflict with one another? The Sophists answer was to beat the other over the head with a club before they beat you. Thrasymachus, a lesser known Greek Sophist, said it slightly more eloquently; "justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger". In other words, "might makes right". After all, when reason is thrown out the window, there's no use in arguing. In the absence of reason, the only option is to return to the law of the jungle, which is the inevitable result for any political philosophy that abandons reason. The "might makes right" notion isn't exactly exclusive to the Sophists as it has been practiced throughout history, but they were the first to present it in a systematic, well-thought out philosophy.
In the political realm, the question then becomes what happens when people's desires conflict with one another? The Sophists answer was to beat the other over the head with a club before they beat you. Thrasymachus, a lesser known Greek Sophist, said it slightly more eloquently; "justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger". In other words, "might makes right". After all, when reason is thrown out the window, there's no use in arguing. In the absence of reason, the only option is to return to the law of the jungle, which is the inevitable result for any political philosophy that abandons reason. The "might makes right" notion isn't exactly exclusive to the Sophists as it has been practiced throughout history, but they were the first to present it in a systematic, well-thought out philosophy.
LEGACY
The Atomists and Sophists both originated new ideas and attempted to advance philosophical knowledge, but both succeeded primarily in creating bigger philosophical black holes. The Sophist attack against the senses, human knowledge and certainty has been extremely influential to this day, as many philosophers and laymen have borrowed it in one way or another. Even though the philosophy is now available to refute it, many people, including scholars, still fall for the skeptic and materialist arguments to this day. Anytime you hear someone say, "no one can be certain of anything", or "there are no absolutes", this is a legacy of the Sophist philosophy. To properly combat these skeptic attacks, start with Epistemology Part 1 on this website and continue through Part 9 to have the proper ammunition.
In short, the error of the Sophists (and the Atomists) lies in regarding the senses as invalid. Once the senses are shot down as unreliable, the rest of philosophy falls down with it. While it might sound clever to say "no one can be sure of anything", it's also a contradictory and self-refuting argument. All one needs to do is to out-skeptic a skeptic, and ask how they can be sure that no one can be sure of anything. The skeptic is then forced to say "well of course I can't be sure", and then the absurdity becomes apparent. If you can't know anything, then there's no reason to attempt to learn anything, or to even open one's mouth. In fact, there was a Greek philosopher, Cratylus, who did just that. He regarded words as arbitrary and meaningless, so eventually he refused to talk, instead relying on wagging his finger. That is the end game of the skeptic philosophy if practiced consistently. It's a race to the bottom, and the one who is most skeptical becomes most worthless. Sophism was never practiced consistently in Greece, but the need and desire for a coherent philosophy that wasn't a dead end should be apparent. It was this crucial need for a philosophical breakthrough that ushered in the giants of Western Philosophy, namely Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, who would guide the world (for better and worse) to this very day.
The Atomists and Sophists both originated new ideas and attempted to advance philosophical knowledge, but both succeeded primarily in creating bigger philosophical black holes. The Sophist attack against the senses, human knowledge and certainty has been extremely influential to this day, as many philosophers and laymen have borrowed it in one way or another. Even though the philosophy is now available to refute it, many people, including scholars, still fall for the skeptic and materialist arguments to this day. Anytime you hear someone say, "no one can be certain of anything", or "there are no absolutes", this is a legacy of the Sophist philosophy. To properly combat these skeptic attacks, start with Epistemology Part 1 on this website and continue through Part 9 to have the proper ammunition.
In short, the error of the Sophists (and the Atomists) lies in regarding the senses as invalid. Once the senses are shot down as unreliable, the rest of philosophy falls down with it. While it might sound clever to say "no one can be sure of anything", it's also a contradictory and self-refuting argument. All one needs to do is to out-skeptic a skeptic, and ask how they can be sure that no one can be sure of anything. The skeptic is then forced to say "well of course I can't be sure", and then the absurdity becomes apparent. If you can't know anything, then there's no reason to attempt to learn anything, or to even open one's mouth. In fact, there was a Greek philosopher, Cratylus, who did just that. He regarded words as arbitrary and meaningless, so eventually he refused to talk, instead relying on wagging his finger. That is the end game of the skeptic philosophy if practiced consistently. It's a race to the bottom, and the one who is most skeptical becomes most worthless. Sophism was never practiced consistently in Greece, but the need and desire for a coherent philosophy that wasn't a dead end should be apparent. It was this crucial need for a philosophical breakthrough that ushered in the giants of Western Philosophy, namely Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, who would guide the world (for better and worse) to this very day.
