The Laughter of Democritus

[Qoeleth]

The pre-Socratic, Democritus, is characterized as perpetually laughing. He was an atomist, believing that “nothing exists except atoms and empty space, everything else is opinion.” (Diogenes Laetrius)

Lucian characterizes his position, when he is questioned about why he laughs always:

Q: You there! what is the joke?
Democritus: You ask? You and your affairs are all one vast joke.
Q: So! You laugh at us? Our business is a toy?
Democritus: It is. There is no taking it seriously. All is vanity. Mere interchange of atoms in an infinite void.

Is the laughter of Democritus a reasonable response to an understanding of the world in a radically materialist way? If everything is in reality just swirling atoms in the void, is there anything worthy of anything other than laughter?

Is this the position of modern day ‘scientific rationalists’ (who, I assume, are basically atomists?) How is it that our modern day ‘atomists’ seem to have ideological agenda to push? Why don’t they, like Democritus, simply laugh at the play of atoms?

 

[Bagheera]

Is this the position of modern day ‘scientific rationalists’ (who, I assume, are basically atomists?)

No, that is not their position.

In the times of Democritus there was no science to speak of. A little bit of physics - mostly mechanics - was all they knew. No chemistry, no biology, no medical science, no economics, no sociology, no neurophysics, no informatics… nothing was available to them. Naturally we should not blame them for their ignorance, they simply did not know (and could not have known) any better. Today only the really uneducated / semi-educated ones (of whom there is a plentiful supply on these boards - though names will not be mentioned) “expect” that the complex phenomena should be “reducible” to the underlying levels of reality.

As the complexity grows, new, emerging attributes appear, which need their own explanation, and which cannot be reduced to the “previous” level. The complex attributes of the molecules cannot be reduced directly to the atoms, which are the “building blocks”. But they can be properly explained by the laws of chemistry. The complexity of biology cannot be reduced to physics and chemistry. Sociology cannot be reduced to biology. One needs to discover new relationships in order to explain the properties of “living” entities. And so on…

How is it that our modern day ‘atomists’ seem to have ideological agenda to push? Why don’t they, like Democritus, simply laugh at the play of atoms?

What “agenda”? Just because pleasure and pain cannot be reduced directly to the “dance” of electrons, it does not make them less real. As I said, only the uneducated people think along those lines - and they have absolutely no excuse for their willful ignorance.

 

[Qoeleth]

No, that is not their position.

In the times of Democritus there was no science to speak of. A little bit of physics - mostly mechanics - was all they knew. No chemistry, no biology, no medical science, no economics, no sociology, no neurophysics, no informatics… nothing was available to them. Naturally we should not blame them for their ignorance, they simply did not know (and could not have known) any better. Today only the really uneducated / semi-educated ones (of whom there is a plentiful supply on these boards - though names will not be mentioned) “expect” that the complex phenomena should be “reducible” to the underlying levels of reality.

As the complexity grows, new, emerging attributes appear, which need their own explanation, and which cannot be reduced to the “previous” level. The complex attributes of the molecules cannot be reduced directly to the atoms, which are the “building blocks”. But they can be properly explained by the laws of chemistry. The complexity of biology cannot be reduced to physics and chemistry. Sociology cannot be reduced to biology. One needs to discover new relationships in order to explain the properties of “living” entities. And so on…

What “agenda”? Just because pleasure and pain cannot be reduced directly to the “dance” of electrons, it does not make them less real. As I said, only the uneducated people think along those lines - and they have absolutely no excuse for their willful ignorance.

Perhaps I used ‘scientific rationalist’ mistakenly, when materialist would be a better term.
But don’t materialists believe that everything be reduced, if not to uniform atoms as Democritus believed, to physical or chemical processes?

But what I am saying is that a true materialist has no grounds for caring whether one species or the other becomes extinct, or a city is demolished, etc., since it is all just chemicals, and the elements themselves will be preserved.

To be far, perhaps equally a strict Platonist would have no grounds for caring either, since he would believe that the ‘forms’ of anything destroyed exists eternally anyway, and that souls are better off freed from matter.

 

[Bagheera]

Perhaps I used ‘scientific rationalist’ mistakenly, when materialist would be a better term.

The “label” does not matter. I am willing to respond to either of them.

But don’t materialists believe that everything be reduced, if not to uniform atoms as Democritus believed, to physical or chemical processes?

Not that I know of. I am as “materialist” as they come, but I understand that the “building blocks” are not “everything”. Just one example: take a bunch of carbon atoms, and observe the properties of the object. The properties will be totally different, based upon the “pattern” or “arrangement”. If the atoms form a flat, hexagonal pattern, you will get graphite. If they are organized into an octahedron, the result is diamond. They, of course share lot of physical properties (both would burn, if heated), but they have very different properties, too. Therefore the “reductionist” view is simply incorrect.

But what I am saying is that a true materialist has no grounds for caring whether one species or the other becomes extinct, or a city is demolished, etc., since it is all just chemicals, and the elements themselves will be preserved.

If you meet such a “materialist”, simply perform an experiment: “take a hot iron and press it against his body” and see if cares or not.

To be far, perhaps equally a strict Platonist would have no grounds for caring either, since he would believe that the ‘forms’ of anything destroyed exists eternally anyway, and that souls are better off freed from matter.

I don’t qualify to speak for a Platonist. But when I meet one, I always ask what is the “ideal, eternal form of a pile of excrement”, of which we can only produce an imperfect replica… so far I never received an answer. Oh, well…

 

[inocente]

Is this the position of modern day ‘scientific rationalists’ (who, I assume, are basically atomists?) How is it that our modern day ‘atomists’ seem to have ideological agenda to push? Why don’t they, like Democritus, simply laugh at the play of atoms?

Only the most extreme atomist philosopher, when kissing his baby daughter at bedtime, sees her only as dust, and should visit a psychiatrist immediately as he’s in no condition to look after a child.

I’d have thought the modern scientific view has little in common with any of the schools of atomist philosophy and is more connected with Aristotle’s “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.

 

[tonyrey]

The pre-Socratic, Democritus, is characterized as perpetually laughing. He was an atomist, believing that “nothing exists except atoms and empty space, everything else is opinion.” (Diogenes Laetrius)

Lucian characterizes his position, when he is questioned about why he laughs always:
Q: You there! what is the joke?
Democritus: You ask? You and your affairs are all one vast joke.
Q: So! You laugh at us? Our business is a toy?
Democritus: It is. There is no taking it seriously. All is vanity. Mere interchange of atoms in an infinite void.Is the laughter of Democritus a reasonable response to an understanding of the world in a radically materialist way? If everything is in reality just swirling atoms in the void, is there anything worthy of anything other than laughter?

Is this the position of modern day ‘scientific rationalists’ (who, I assume, are basically atomists?) How is it that our modern day ‘atomists’ seem to have ideological agenda to push? Why don’t they, like Democritus, simply laugh at the play of atoms?

Because they can’t see the wood for the trees. If everything has emerged for no reason from atoms - which are valueless and purposeless - everything is valueless, purposeless and meaningless. You can’t get blood from a stone nor can you get persons from particles…

 

[Perplexity]

I think Bagheera has probably already gave the best response, but I wanted to add how frustratingly common it is to find materialism being identified with the cooky eliminativism endorsed by the Churchlands. To help put this into perspective, it’d be like constantly running into people identifying Catholicism with the worst form of Christianity you can think of

 

[Bagheera]

Because they can’t see the wood for the trees. If everything has emerged for no reason from atoms - which are valueless and purposeless - everything is valueless, purposeless and meaningless. You can’t get blood from a stone nor can you get persons from particles…

There was no need to mention names…

 

[Bagheera]

I think Bagheera has probably already gave the best response, but I wanted to add how frustratingly common it is to find materialism being identified with the cooky eliminativism endorsed by the Churchlands. To help put this into perspective, it’d be like constantly running into people identifying Catholicism with the worst form of Christianity you can think of

Right on… but I have seen quite a few believers who actually advocated the view that “this world and whatever happens here does not matter at all when viewed from the perspective of eternity” (always in the context of the problem of needless suffering ). So it is not the materialists, rather some (not all) believers who express such a ludicrous view. Of course they only talk the talk, but never walk the walk. They are willing to “endure” other people’s extreme suffering, but when they have a little hemorrhoid, they grab the Preparation H, rather than offering up their “redemptive” pain…

 

[Qoeleth]

I think Bagheera has probably already gave the best response, but I wanted to add how frustratingly common it is to find materialism being identified with the cooky eliminativism endorsed by the Churchlands. To help put this into perspective, it’d be like constantly running into people identifying Catholicism with the worst form of Christianity you can think of

Right on… but I have seen quite a few believers who actually advocated the view that “this world and whatever happens here does not matter at all when viewed from the perspective of eternity” (always in the context of the problem of needless suffering ). So it is not the materialists, rather some (not all) believers who express such a ludicrous view. Of course they only talk the talk, but never walk the walk. They are willing to “endure” other people’s extreme suffering, but when they have a little hemorrhoid, they grab the Preparation H, rather than offering up their “redemptive” pain…

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to create a ‘straw-man’ of modern materialism.

In fact, I quite admire Democritus brand of materialism, though I don’t agree with it. It freed him from all worries and troubles.

If one only acknowledges the reality of ‘matter’ (i.e. chemical, atoms, ultimately protons, neutrons and electrons), OR if one only acknowledges the reality of the eternal (‘Being-in-Itself’), it seems one will be logically lead to a state of total indifference to worldly things. Surely, any state which allows one to disregard a hemorrhoid as meaningless is a good thing…

 

[StAnthonyPadua]

Right on… but I have seen quite a few believers who actually advocated the view that “this world and whatever happens here does not matter at all when viewed from the perspective of eternity” (always in the context of the problem of needless suffering ). So it is not the materialists, rather some (not all) believers who express such a ludicrous view. Of course they only talk the talk, but never walk the walk. They are willing to “endure” other people’s extreme suffering, but when they have a little hemorrhoid, they grab the Preparation H, rather than offering up their “redemptive” pain…

I am no philosopher but I think the OP’s point was not that Scientist thought everything in terms of atoms. I understood the OP as saying Scientist (who have no belief in anything transcendent) think of everything in terms of a purely naturalistic phenomena. So forces, particles, energy etc. Then they should also hold the view of Democritus. It is no reason to think that force which causes an electron flow in another entity of materials (which you call pain) or any other sort of interaction between matter and energy as things to avoid.

So in that sense, since all Scientists at least feel strongly about the advancement of knowledge (which itself is merely just an electro-chemical impulse of a pile of matter known as the brain (or perhaps more sophisticated than that), one should conclude that all materialists are usually hypocrites.

The point was not about the complexity or simplicity of the underlying basis of Maerialist Scientists but the entire meaninglessness of it.

 

[Bagheera]

If one only acknowledges the reality of ‘matter’ (i.e. chemical, atoms, ultimately protons, neutrons and electrons), OR if one only acknowledges the reality of the eternal (‘Being-in-Itself’), it seems one will be logically lead to a state of total indifference to worldly things.

I see absolutely no logic there. On the very contrary, if this world is “all there is”, this belief makes this world all the more “valuable” and precious.

Surely, any state which allows one to disregard a hemorrhoid as meaningless is a good thing…

That is the point: no one can do that. No amount of rationalizing can override the physical pain, and pretend that it is “pleasurable”. Most masochists do not crave pain - they like “make-belief” discomfort as a game. I am aware that believers think that we are “more” than biological entities, but even that (unsubstantiated) belief cannot deny that we are biological entities, TOO. And as such we are subject to the biological pleasure / pain mechanism. We are “programmed” to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Of course this “programming” is not perfect. There are some sick people who wish to be exposed to some intense pain, to be crucified in order to “play Jesus”, to emulate his “passion”. But even these people arrange for a “loophole”, to be taken off the cross, when the pain becomes too much.

Let me explain differently. There are some people who “profess” to be solipsists. Of course, they cannot be solipsists and SAY it, too. Whom are they talking too? To themselves? Then they are clinically insane. To others? Then they are not solipsists. By the same token, whose who profess that this existence does not matter, AND yet they get nutrition, or try to seek pleasure, or try to avoid pain are the real hypocrites.

Why do you go to a dentist when you have a toothache? In the “greater scheme of things” it does not matter. When you get to “heaven”, it will be irrelevant. Yet you seek remedy, I am very sure of that, and you consider yourself a rational person, don’t you? Why are you “surprised” that a materialist also likes pleasure and prefers to avoid pain?

 

[StAnthonyPadua]

Why do you go to a dentist when you have a toothache? In the “greater scheme of things” it does not matter. When you get to “heaven”, it will be irrelevant. Yet you seek remedy, I am very sure of that, and you consider yourself a rational person, don’t you? Why are you “surprised” that a materialist also likes pleasure and prefers to avoid pain?

The trip to the dentist is because we are told that wanting to part from ones dental pain is a good to desire. It is not necessary but if one chose to part from that pain, it is not a bad thing.

So the assumption is that all the material world is ordered toward one end by a Transcendent being and we must strive to do what is pleasing for him as well as prepare ourselves to spend eternity with him. So one can see the visit to the dentist as a way to alleviate ones pain in order to better perform some evangelizing work or prayers.

The religious person will want to enforce these views on everyone because that is the true purpose of everything.

From the materialist point of view, its arbitrary. There is no purpose but what we make of it. There is no real purpose for us to even not interfere with the purpose of another. So it is hypocritical for a materialist to tell their view to others and try to convince others because it is a made up purpose that they follow themselves.

 

[1AugustSon7]

No, that is not their position.

In the times of Democritus there was no science to speak of. A little bit of physics - mostly mechanics - was all they knew. No chemistry, no biology, no medical science, no economics, no sociology, no neurophysics, no informatics… nothing was available to them. Naturally we should not blame them for their ignorance, they simply did not know (and could not have known) any better. Today only the really uneducated / semi-educated ones (of whom there is a plentiful supply on these boards - though names will not be mentioned) “expect” that the complex phenomena should be “reducible” to the underlying levels of reality.

As the complexity grows, new, emerging attributes appear, which need their own explanation, and which cannot be reduced to the “previous” level. The complex attributes of the molecules cannot be reduced directly to the atoms, which are the “building blocks”. But they can be properly explained by the laws of chemistry. The complexity of biology cannot be reduced to physics and chemistry. Sociology cannot be reduced to biology. One needs to discover new relationships in order to explain the properties of “living” entities. And so on…

Otherwise known as Formal Causes.

And no, the ancients were not as ignorant as you (rather ignorantly) suppose. Aristotle criticized Democritus’s atomic theory because he (i.e. Democritus) did not allow atoms to change in nature. Modern atomists didn’t either until nuclear physics. So now it is Aristotle who is laughing.

Other ideas that those ignorant and pre-Socratic ancients proposed: Evolution (Empedocles), which not only explained the diversity of living things based on happenchance and the survival of the fittest, but even posited some primordial soup (‘primal all-generative’) from which the first living things emerged; Materialism (as a rule all of the pre-Socratics), the mother of modern science (and until emerging properties (a.k.a formal causes) were granted there was no difference); and Atomism (Democritus), as we have said. Also scepticism was rampant and for verbatim the same reasons. Also the idea that the universe emerged from some chaotic convulsion and only took shape and form after a long time and then only randomly and accidentally.

In other words, the ignorant pre-Socratics who cannot be blamed for their stupidity believed the exact same things you were taught in school. Therefore they were either really smart - and we have only just now recovered the sublimity of their thought - or, otherwise, they were really stupid and ignorant as you say, but with the somewhat embarassing consequence that so are we - minus, however, many excuses.

 

[Qoeleth]

I see absolutely no logic there. On the very contrary, if this world is “all there is”, this belief makes this world all the more “valuable” and precious.

That is the point: no one can do that. No amount of rationalizing can override the physical pain, and pretend that it is “pleasurable”.

Of course, we are all programmed to ‘care’ about what happens, and to be interested in the world. That is why we need philosophy- to help moderate this. I mean, the whole point of philosophy is to help us deal with sorrow and become more peaceful, isn’t it, and so become less likely to be angry, sad, jealous, prejudiced?

No one seems to have any sympathy for Democritus, except for me, a ‘believer’…

 

[tonyrey]

Because they can’t see the wood for the trees. If everything has emerged for no reason

There is a need to justify the laughter of Democritus. Otherwise he and his disciples don’t have the last laugh…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**tony

There is a need to justify the laughter of Democritus. Otherwise he and his disciples don’t have the last laugh… **

And, surely, he who gets the last laugh gets the best laugh!

 

[tonyrey]

**tony

There is a need to justify the laughter of Democritus. Otherwise he and his disciples don’t have the last laugh… **

And, surely, he who gets the last laugh gets the best laugh!

And the longest because it doesn’t end on our deathbed!

 

[Bagheera]

Of course, we are all programmed to ‘care’ about what happens, and to be interested in the world.

Clarification: I used quotation marks around the word “programmed”, to indicate that I do not mean the existence of a conscious “programmer”. We are biological beings, with a special nervous system; which includes a pleasure/pain center.

If our biological “setup” would be different, our priorities would be also different. If we had regenerative powers like the planaria, then losing a limb would be no reason for concern. If the world would be a Gaia-like organism, then there would only be a “global” consciousness, and the loss of an individual would be insignificant (just like we do not care about trimming our fingernails). If we would be tree-like organisms, then we would not worry about losing a branch and the leaves on it. To sum up: our preferences, our “likes” and “dislikes” all come from our biological “setup”.

Let’s consider another example: “Just because we shall be hungry tomorrow again, it is not illogical to eat today. Moreover, it is not illogical to choose a juicy steak over a piece of stale bread, even if both will provide nutrition and both will end in the same place - the toilet bowl”. Just because something is ephemeral, it is not “logically” insignificant.

That is why we need philosophy- to help moderate this. I mean, the whole point of philosophy is to help us deal with sorrow and become more peaceful, isn’t it, and so become less likely to be angry, sad, jealous, prejudiced?

I have no idea what kind of a role “philosophy” is supposed to play here.

No one seems to have any sympathy for Democritus, except for me, a ‘believer’…

Since he was wrong, all we can do is . Aristotle thought that the brain is simply the organ to cool the blood. Should we feel any “special sympathy” for him? It is a good thing to learn about their mistakes, so we can avoid them toady. But otherwise they belong to the dustbin of history. It is funny (actually it is pretty sad) that the church keeps on basing its teachings on those outmoded and obsolete ideas. (By the way, not everything is obsolete what was developed back then. The theorems of the ancient mathematicians still shine in their full glory.)

 

[tonyrey]

If everything has emerged for no reason from atoms - which are valueless and purposeless - everything is valueless, purposeless and meaningless. You can’t get blood from a stone nor can you get persons from particles…

It is significant that no one has attempted to justify this absurd hypothesis. Silence implies assent - or impotence…