Democritus' "Nothing is truly real but atoms and void" statement

This is a thread for discussion Democritus' position that nothing is truly real except atoms and void statement, especially in context with Diogenes of Oinoanda fragment 7:

Quote from Diogenes of Oinoanda

Fr. 7

Even Democritus erred in a manner unworthy of himself when he said that atoms alone among existing things have true reality, while everything else exists by convention. For, according to your account, Democritus, it will be impossible for us even to live, let alone discover the truth, since we shall be unable to protect ourselves from either fire or slaughter or [any other force].

Quote from Don

everything else is merely thought to exist.

Lots of definitional issues that play into all this and have to be clarified in order to avoid the many slippery slopes. Maybe one of the threshold ones is to get a grip on "exist." We tend to think that that which does not exist is of no relevance to us, and is purely imaginary even.

But what matters to us, according to Epicurus, is what we perceive through the senses (and also through the feelings and anticipations (?)).

So if we define "exist" to mean "has a permanent and unchanging nature" then truly nothing "exists" except atoms and void.

But if we define "exist" to mean things we can see, touch, taste, hear, and smell (and maybe what we can perceive through anticipations and the feelings of plain and pleasure) then the world around us absolutely qualifies as "existing" even though it is made up of atoms and void.

So we have this "scientific" vs "common understanding" issue again. It's perfectly proper to define the word "existing" in either way - subatomic scientists can use it one way, and therapists and real-world philosophers can use it another way. But woe to those who mix the meanings, and lead ordinary people to think that they don't really "exist' just because they themselves and human beings don't have a permanent and unchanging nature!

Was Democritus speaking purely scientifically, or was he wandering into "ethics" and suggesting that people shouldn't think in our world that anything really exists excepts atoms and void? Was the slipping down to the slope to Stoicism and thinking that we could through willpower make all our troubles go away by telling ourselves that our bodies and ourselves "aren't real?"

I tend to doubt Democritus himself was doing that, but I strongly suspect that others were making that argument, and Epicurus saw a need to take a stand and affirm to everyone that our lives demand that the things our senses reveal to us do in fact really exist-- and that they are indeed all we have.

So when it is said that "everything else is merely THOUGHT to exist" or "exists by convention" (which implies "consensus?) I can see Epicurus having a huge problem with that perspective as already over the ledge and halfway down the cliff toward radical skepticism and "nihilism."

But right or wrong as to these initial interpretations, all of this shows the huge importance of epistemology and a science of knowledge such as discussed by Epicurus (Herodotus) and Lucretius (mostly book 4).

I can agree with that for those of us who are confident of our understanding of the universe and the general desirability of life and the pursuit of pleasaurable living, but I think there is only a knife blade distance between that attitude and one of general despair, which is probably planted in the first place by religion and the false views of life promoted even by platonic-style humanism which promotes there being an absolute "good.". A lot of people are so "corrupted" by culture and education that they are easy prey to the destructive interpretations.

So I am agreeing with your point, and hoping that it too applies to Democritus as a laughing philospher, but even laughter itself can be caustic and despairing in some circumstances.

Wow this is very similar to the possibility of misinterpreting "absence of pain" as also a door to nihilism.

I doubt that blame for this lies with either Democritus or Epicurus. It lies with the fact that this is not a party game and there are lots of people who will take ones words and distort and misrepresent them for their own purposes.

Like that part of the speech in AFDIA talks about...the danger of leaving an open door to vice... There is no way to keep the message accurate over time without real living people who understand it continuing to promote it over time and protect it from misrepresentaton.

This is the quote from chapter seven of "A Few Days In Athens" I keep forgetting:

Quote from A Few Days In Athens Chapter Seven

“Zeno, in his present speech, has rested much of the truth of his system on its expediency; I, therefore, shall do the same by mine. The door to my gardens is ever open, and my books are in the hands of the public; to enter, therefore, here, into the detail or the expounding of the principles of my philosophy, were equally out of place and out of season. ‘Tell us not that that is right which admits of evil construction; that that is virtue which leaves an open gate to vice.’ This is the thrust which Zeno now makes at Epicurus; and did it hit, I grant it were a mortal one. From the flavour, we pronounce of the fruit; from the beauty and the fragrance, of the flower; and in a system of morals, or of philosophy, or of whatever else, what tends to produce good we pronounce to be good, what to produce evil, we pronounce to be evil.

So for example, if someone walks into a psychiatric hospital (which I am not sure the modern world is very far from being) and announces to everyone simply and with no further explanation:

"By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void."

Or:

"By pleasure we mean freedom from pain in the body and trouble in the mind."

That person would be IMHO creating much more havoc and disruption than leading to any benefit to the people hearing him. And in this case there would also not be any excuse in saying that he was simply speaking the truth even at the cost of being misunderstood. These statements standing alone without explanation "leave an open gate to vice" and "admit of evil construction" because they can be taken to mean the opposite of what we think Epicurus (and probably Democritus, if he was truly happy) meant to convey.

There's a reason that witnesses in court are asked to swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. People who don't have the full context of a statement will naturally take it out of context and in this case they would do so with disastrous result.

So to repeat I am not blaming Epicurus or Democritus for any errors of any kind. These statements in full context convey important points. And neither they nor any other philosopher can control what later generations choose to repeat from they things that they say and write.

All we can do ourselves is try to be sure that the things we say "do not admit of evil construction" or "leave an open gate to vice." Truncating the message too far can do exactly that, and that's what we are seeing in so many casual internet articles. And it's particularly important to avoid speaking obscurely when we are aware that there are legions of Stoics and Buddhists and other lingering in the outer rooms looking eagerly for ways to turn statements on their head, and to use to undermine the goal of pleasurable living rather than support it.

Quote from waterholic

Both Lucretius and Democritus agree on the fact that only atoms and void truly exist and the spirit too consists of atoms

Given what I write below I would be very hesitant to state the proposition that way - (that they both took the same position that only atoms and void truly exist). I would say that Democritus took that position but Epicurus did not, as he was working from a differnent perspective of what it means to "exist."

Quote from waterholic

A final note, Lucretius too refers to certain images or perceptions that appear not to "exist".

See I see both of those comments as relating to the extremely important issue of what we should take "exist" to mean.

If you are talking about dreams, someone correct me if I am wrong but I recall Epicurus/Lucretius as specifically saying that they do "exist" in that the have real impact upon us. But again that hinges on the meaning given to "exist."

So given the statement in Diogenes of Oinoanda my view would be that Epicurus took the very strong position that we should consider the world around us actually does "exist" even though it is ultimately made up of atoms and void, which alone have eternal and unchanging properties.

I know I may sound like I am being nitpicky but I don't think this point is minor, and thus its inclusion on the inscription. The entire "Canon of Truth" seems to be devoted to allowing us to define that which we perceive as "true" and there is only a thin shade of meaning (IMHO) between "true" and "real." If we can validate it with the canon of truth, my interpretation would be that Epicurus would say that it "exists" or at the very least that it is "true" which in this context I would take to be almost exactly the same thing (and maybe exactly the same thing).

I meant to add this earlier:

1) Joshua do you have a cite for the precise way you quoted " By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void."

I like that version as making a very clear point, but maybe that is someone's interpretation?

2) Also I know one of the first comments here was Don's "I'm not sure I completely disagree with Democritus." We then proceeded to discuss the details of what we think is correct. But we shouldn't skip over the question: "What point do we think Diogenes of Oinoanda was arguing?" Was Diogenes accusing Democritus of tending toward skepticism, and linking it to the disagreement with Aristotle as to the flux being too fast to perceive any details, and therefore being the slope to skepticism? Or does anyone see another possible point? If so, what?

I think one of the best ways to keep ourselves on track in studying Epicurus is for us to be sure we can articulate the point that was being made in the text before we decide if we agree or disagree with it. This is one of those texts that's probably not entirely clear on its face, and we need to be sure we all think it means the same thing.

This thread has me thinking back to what I think is very close to one of the (or the) ultimate points.

Epicurus seems to think that there is probably no greater plague on humanity than "otherworldiness." PD1 denounces the idea of a supernatural otherworldiness. PD2 denounces the idea of a heaven or hell otherwordiness. In emphasizing pleasure and pain, PDs 3 and 4 establishes the foundation for seeing that neither virtue nor platonic ideals nor anything other than the pleasure and pain of this world are of concern to us.

From that perspective, everything that focuses the mind on the importance of this life in this world is beneficial to us. Everything that distracts into thinking that this world is an illusion, or that minimizes the importance to us of this world, is detrimental.

It is certainly true from every atomistic perspective that only atoms and void have eternal unchanging existence. But we as humans are not eternal and unchanging beings. What matters to *us* is the world we have as we perceive it around us.

If a perspective about atomism assists us in a full understanding of our place in the universe and the way our world works, and allows us to tune our actions to live more happily, then it beneficial to our well-being and important for us to understand and remember.

If a perspective about atomism leaves out the fact that we are mortal and changing beings, and implies that our existence is somehow of lesser rank or less important than the atoms themselves, then that perspective is destructive to our well-being, and I would expect Epicurus to denounce that incomplete perspective just as he denounces supernatural religion or false claims of life after death.

HA!

1 - Thanks Joshua for the cite.

2 - Yes it is sort of a dilemma isn't it? I would think that also relates to the issue of speaking publicly in crowds, etc, and the general issue of speaking clearly. If you know the people you are talking to will not understand or accept your message, do you even talk to them? That's the reason (well, one of them) I don't invite myself onto the local nursing home circuit to tell all the 90 year olds that they have been wrong all their lives in religion and that their last breath will in fact be their last.

But really the important point in this discussion I think is that I do think Epicurus meant that he would speak fully and completely, even though it might not be understood, and that he would in fact strive to make himself as clear as possible. The issue here is not that these clips are incorrect in and of themselves - they are not. But they are not the "whole truth" that is relevant to the issue, and if we know that by speaking only part of the truth that the statement we make will be misconstrued, then I would think that we would strive to be as clear as possible and tell the whole truth that is less likely to be misinterpreted. But of course the caveat I have been trying to include is that at least in the case of Epicurus I feel like he did in fact speak the whole truth, and that the rest of it has been lost to us (for reasons that Cicero and other opponents would be to blame for). In the case of Democritus I presume it is more likely that Epicurus had the full texts of Democritus, so if the Epicureans felt like he needed to be criticized on that point, there might be more reason to defer to their judgment, since they probably knew more about what Democritus said than we know about what Epicurus said.