Difference and Reality per the Atomists

The two founders of atomism, Leucippus and Democritus, took the well accepted ideas of Parmenides about the being and the non-being. They claimed that all that we see is composed of small elements, the atoms, these are the being. Another component of the physical world is the void, the non-being. Atoms, as product of random motion, enter void to give it a sense of being. What separates the theory of the Atomists from Parmenides is that their atoms are unlimited in amount, compared to Parmenides’ being as one and whole.

I would like to briefly explore what I think are fundamental implications of two of the concepts covered by the atomists’ theory. I would like to give my opinion on the implications of the atomists idea of atoms birthing difference and their idea of what they consider real.

The different combinations of atoms give rise to the different things seen. Assuming that all combinations of atoms give rise to differences can have consequences on how we view equality. Can equality exist, then, for the atomists? They claim that the atoms are made of the same material, but that by interacting together they give rise to a final unique product.  Saying that there are many differences might make us feel greatly different from our neighbors. So issues with tolerance can arise. But on the other hand, it can help us better accept our differences by giving an answer to why differences exist; it is part of our nature and our building blocks.

The second idea of theirs that made me reflect is their stand on reality. Atomists tell us that it is the atoms and voids that are real, only they are real. The world as we see it is not real. So, are we able to discover truth? For the atomists truth seems unreachable, like Democritus’ aphorism says “(68B6) A person must know by this rule [kanon: measuring stick, standard] that he is separated from reality.” Only by looking at the atoms and void is that we can find truth, per the Atomists. This can conflict with the nature of the human soul. What about our sensations, feelings, belief, our minds? They become invaluable to the eye of the atomists. This is a radical change for the presocratics who have been praising the human soul and the divine so far, before the atomists arrived. The Atomists skew away from the human mind. But as we know nowadays we can see atoms and voids with microscopes. Is reality according to appearance still valid?

When I read this about them, I thought about the famous saying by Descrates: I think, therefore I am. The mechanistic theory of the Atomists seem to me like the ones who installed separation between people believing not because of material matters but because of a mind that gives us life through thought.