Atoms and Void

 

 

What we are

According to the atomists, a school of thought that sprang up from the teachings of Leucippus and Democritus in the 4th century BCE, it's quite clear what we are. All there really is, fundamentally speaking, is indivisible bodies from which everything else is composed and the empty space in which these tiny little "atoms" swerve. Initially, these atoms swerved in a random and haphazard way. But over time, some regularities manifested themselves. And these patterns came to be more regular and more robust: they would persist over time. In more modern language, we might say that these bundles of atoms acquired the property of being self-organizing. Over time, these bundles became more and more complex. Eventually, there were animals, plants, rocks, and of course humans—along with their human minds. On this view, there is no need for talk of souls. It could all be explained with little tiny particles swimming in the void.

This view, that minds are the product of complex material bodies (rather than non-physical souls) is known as materialism. Here's a more formal definition. Materialism is the view that the only things that exist are things that occupy space and things whose existence depends on things that occupy space. Bodies, of course, occupy space. And our minds depend on our bodies. And that's it. Nothing else is accepted into the materialist ontology, as can be seen in the epigraph above.

As you can probably guess, materialism is typically associated with atheism (since God is presumed to be non-physical) and naturalism (the view that the only valid explanations of natural phenomena are natural explanations). So, we can see that various theories we're covering naturally coalesce into camps. Materialism, atomism, empiricism, compatibilism (or hard determinism), and atheism cluster together quite nicely. In the other camp, dualism, rationalism, libertarianism, and theism tend to be held in tandem. These are, in other words, worldviews that are at odds with each other. Which one is right?

Storytime!

The history of atomism (and materialism) are fascinating in their own right, regardless of whether you think they are true or not. This is because atomism had its moment of glory during the Greco-Roman era, it then went dormant, and then it was re-discovered in the fifteenth century and helped usher in the Renaissance and Enlightenment (see Greenblatt 2011). I'll give you some of the highlights here.

As already mentioned, atomism was first expressed by Leucippus and his student Democritus in the 400s BCE. As the idea developed, schools of thought sprang up that accepted atomism as a central tenet, as was the case with Epicureanism. The Epicureans believed not only in atomism but also in hedonism (the view that the only thing that is good for its own sake is pleasure) and, of course, materialism. This view was well-defended by various devotees of Epicurus. We actually have a philosophical poem written by Lucretius which is an elegant defense of Epicureanism in general.

But Epicureanism was quite controversial. This is because, among other things, the Epicureans were, by the standards of their day, very impious (or irreligious). In fact, Epicurus himself denigrated ancient pagan religions. He argued that, because pleasure is the only good, if there are gods, then they would only be concerned with the pursuit of pleasure and not bother with the affairs of humans. Epicurus also provided a type of philosophical therapy to enable living well and not concerning yourself with death—a set of teachings that probably filled some spiritual void in the lives of some. So, not only was Epicurus ridiculing the religious practices of his day, but he was providing an alternative way of life(!).

Then came the rise of Christianity. In their opposition to Epicureanism, Christians took an interesting tact: they distorted Epicurus’ views. This is the moment in history when Epicurus is depicted as living a life of indulgence: binging on wine and food, living only for today, etc. And so, the prestige of Epicureanism, along with many other "pagan" philosophies petered out. Epicureanism, along with atomism, laid dormant for a thousand years.

But things wouldn't stay that way. In 1417, Poggio Bracciolini discovered a copy of Lucretius' defense of Epicureanism—the poem I mentioned earlier. When this poem was rediscovered, interest in atomist philosophy resurged. Some scholars, in fact, attribute, much of the spirit of the Renaissance and Enlightenment to a rekindled respect for this ancient "pagan" philosophy. This is not mere speculation. Various influential thinkers are known to have had copies of Lucretius' poem. For example, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas More, and Giordano Bruno all read the poem. Shakespeare had a copy of Lucretius. Michel de Montaigne was also very much influenced by Lucretius. Even Galileo’s work shows traces of atomism, as has been confirmed by recent analyses of his original texts (which are held in the Vatican archive). We owe a great deal to the atomist philosophers.

Decoding Materialism

###video goes here

Closing comments

Even though most scientists who study the mind assume something like materialism, there is still widespread disagreement about how we should understand the nature of our consciousness and, in particular, how it is that material brains can produce conscious mental states. This, by the way, is known as the hard problem of consciousness, and it is still an open question...

Is this to say that dualism still has a chance? It depends on what the standard is. If we want definite proof that it's false, then dualism is still technically standing, since there is no definitive argument that souls do not exist. Instead, there are epistemic challenges to dualism that people who don't believe in souls think that the dualists have failed to answer. If instead, we are ok with a more-or-less type of answer, then dualism isn't the favorite theory. Most philosophers are backing something like materialism (see Brown and Ladyman 2019).

But the debate isn't over, and there are still people arguing on both sides. But out of this debate was borne a new debate, a debate about the potential of creating artificial minds...

 

 

 

 

FYI

Suggested Reading: Robin Gordon Brown and James Ladyman, Chapter 1 of Materialism: A historical and philosophical inquiry