ipl-logo

Democritus Epistemology

765 Words4 Pages

The question of epistemology becomes difficult with Democritus in regards to his ultra-materialist stance. Knowledge is gained by observation which, although he claimed that the hard, unchanging atoms made up objects and provided the possibility for sight, was still unreliable based upon typical and non-typical observers as well as things that change, as in the sea. A way for Democritus to expound on this was that just as the atoms had their own shape and size, hence differing properties; so too do the beings that are receptive to these atoms and therefore depending on a person's reception an atom could be received in many ways. In this case, truth based on observation is subjective. Democritus felt that truth resided at 'the bottom,' and …show more content…

It is most likely due to his emphasis on cheerfulness although Seneca wrote a darker interpretation, saying that he would express his contempt for the foolishness of those around him by laughing at them. Democritus was also known as "the mocker." This laughter could have come as a result of his undying determinist and materialist composition. His ethics were centered on personal integrity and social responsibility with no unearthly or supernatural influences. This was another point of disagreement that Plato may have felt deeply. His emphasis on cheerfulness was an emphasis on the 'good' or an absence of fear. Instead of doing 'good' because there exists a fear of the law, Democritus felt that people were able to be driven by an interior motive to not shame themselves or others. The goodness in people was not instinctive but only produced through practice and discipline and that in the presence of the wicked, one has a tendency to do the same. Democritus' cheerfulness also took form in a kind of self-satisfaction albeit moderated and can be seen as being influential to Epicurus. Unfortunately for Democritus, he was publicly scorned and ridiculed by one of the greatest philosopher of his time, Socrates, who scathingly rejected his view of nature. It was not until centuries after his death around 370 B.C., that modern chemists and physicists confirmed the

Open Document