THE SYSTEMATIC PERIOD (399 B. C.–322 B. C.)
=The Waning of the Greek National Spirit.= The Systematic Period
extends from the death of Socrates to the death of Aristotle. It
is only seventy-seven years long――about the same length as the
Anthropological and half as long as the Cosmological Period. It begins
with those sorry days after the Peloponnesian War and ends with the
supremacy of Macedonian power. The period was filled with ferocious
wars among the Grecian cities. First came the supremacy of Sparta, then
of Thebes (371–362 B. C.), then the invasion by Philip of Macedon and
the battle of Chæronea, 338 B. C. In 334 B. C. Alexander the Great
began the conquest of the Orient, which he accomplished in two years.
He thought by this that he could reunite the Greeks in a common cause.
He failed for two reasons. In the first place, as a Macedonian the
Greeks would not take him as a national representative. In the second
place, the Greek spirit was waning. The people had lost their glorious
ideals. Decay had set in. The worm was at the root of Greek life. Greek
art, literature, and statesmanship had passed.
=The Place of the Three Systematic Philosophers in Greek History.=
Nevertheless, when Greek national life was approaching dissolution,
science ripened its richest fruits and created its most comprehensive
systems of philosophy. These are connected with the names of Democritus,
Plato, and Aristotle. These great systems evidently cannot be accounted
for by the social conditions in which they appear. Neither the need nor
the demand of the disrupted Greece of these years would be a sufficient
cause to explain the appearance of a Plato or an Aristotle. The
interests of the Greek people became narrower as the interests of the
Greek philosophers became more broadly human. The intellectual tendency
of this short period was utilitarian and practical. The problems that
now interested the Athenians were the details of mechanics, physiology,
rhetoric, and politics. The field of science was now for the first time
systematized to logic, ethics, and physics――a classification which, we
shall find, will exist for many centuries. Sparta and Macedonia, not
Athens and Abdera, represent the spirit of the period.
If then Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle do not reflect the time in
which they live, what relation do they bear to Greek civilization?
They are not isolated and out of all relation to the life of the
Greek people. On the contrary, they are the most comprehensive and
the most profound expression of Greek life. One turns to them as the
most perfect representation of Greek culture. They are the intimate
expression of Greek thought, even if not of contemporaneous Greek
thought. They are the final statements of the two preceding periods,
projected into a time that had other interests. Democritus brought the
Cosmological movement to a close, was its final expression, and gave
it systematic form. Plato did the same for the Anthropological Period.
In Aristotle the systematic cosmology of Democritus and the systematic
ethics of Plato find a new meaning, in a closer union, under a more
coördinating principle. Aristotle was the last possible word of Greek
philosophy, for he systematized every branch known to the Greeks. He
not only evolved a speculative theory of the whole, but he organized
the special sciences. It must be further said that no one of these
three great Greeks could have produced the results each did produce, if
each had not been the leader of a school of many workers. Within each
school there must have been vigorous coöperation along lines according
to the inclination of the individual members. Thus each school
collected a vast amount of material which was worked over according to
the method and purpose of the leader.
=The Fundamental Principle of the Systematic Period.= At the beginning
of this book attention was called to the difference between Greek,
Mediæval, and Modern thought. Greek thought was characterized as
objective. It is important to reiterate this objective significance of
Greek thought at this point, when we are about to discuss the teachings
of Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle. Plato’s theory is often called
an idealism and Democritus’ theory materialism, but they are not the
idealism and materialism of modern times. No terms have fluctuated
in their meanings more than such philosophical terms as these, as
can be judged from the fact that in the Middle Ages Plato’s doctrine
was called realism. The Greeks were not idealists in the sense that
Berkeley and Hegel were idealists. In general, it should be remembered
that when we speak of Greek art, Greek politics, Greek philosophy as
idealistic, they are not idealistic in the modern sense.[19]
The open-minded Greek sought to picture, to ascertain, to present. He
was not dominated by the wish to show how things should be. To know and
to understand, to explain by understanding the abiding reason in things,
to find out the fundamental principle in things rather than to adjust
it to the personal desires――this was the objective attitude of mind of
the Greeks. The Greek saw before he reasoned; he visualized his thought
in form before he subjected the form to rational analysis. The cosmos
was a harmony and an art before which he stood in contemplation rather
than in criticism. Human elements were found in it everywhere, but only
as parts of that cosmos. “The unity of the spiritual and the natural,
which Greek thought demands and presupposes, is the direct unbroken
unity of the classic theory of the world.”[20]
By whatever names the great theories of the Systematic Period are
called, we must remember that they did not depart from this objective
Greek point of view. At certain times the moorings of Greek thought
seem about to be shifted, as when Plato passes beyond the ancient Greek
attitude and anticipates Christian morality by flight from the world of
sense, and when Aristotle elaborates his doctrine of a transcendent god.
But the tie never breaks, and the Systematic philosophers remain Greek
and not modern. They have the Greek objective attitude of mind. The
inner consciousness does not stand with its attestations over against
all other things. The greatest of these philosophers never thought of
himself but as “bone of the bone and flesh of the flesh” of the world
surrounding him. In art the classic Greek “could obey but not surpass
nature”; in religion he worshiped beings that were only superior human
beings; in politics he was a member of a social whole. To Æschylus,
Pericles, Socrates, Protagoras, Aristophanes, Democritus, Plato, and
Aristotle alike, human nature is a part of the world and not _vice
versa_. The Greek mind interpreted nature rather than recreated it.
What, then, is the nature of the development of Greek thought, and
in what respect does the Greek Systematic philosophy differ from
the philosophy of the Greek Cosmologists? Greek philosophy in the
Cosmological Period starts with a conception of an objective harmony
of nature and spirit which is called hylozoism. Step by step in the
Anthropological and Systematic Periods that harmony becomes broken
into a dualism of mind and matter. The philosophy of this Systematic
Period is a dualism of the parts of one objective world, not a
subjective-objective antithesis. The realm of spirit lies side by side
with that of nature, and the separation and alienation never reached
the complete form that it did in the Middle Ages. The great Greek
Systematizers in part represent this dualistic tendency, in part are
a scientific effort to overcome it. “In spite of this tendency [to
a dualism] the original presupposition [a harmony between nature and
spirit] asserts itself in decisive traits; and we shall find that
the true cause of its incapacity to reconcile these contradictions
satisfactorily lies in its refusal to abandon that presupposition.
When that [unity] is canceled, there remains to it no possible way
of filling up a chasm which, according to its own standpoint, cannot
exist.”[21]
=A Summary of Greek Philosophy.= At this point a summary of Greek
objective philosophy will be helpful. The philosophical problem
that had been working itself out since Thales had been this: How may
we think the Being that abides amid the changes of phenomena? The
Cosmologists scrutinized physical nature and, without differentiating
nature and spirit, conceived abiding Being to be living matter. The
Anthropologists (except Socrates) doubted if there is any abiding
Being. Among the Systematic Philosophers a dualism for the first time
appears. Nature and spirit are differentiated, but both remain entirely
objective. Democritus regarded the material universe as abiding Being,
but in so large a way as to be able to construct upon it a psychology
and an ethics. Plato found abiding Being in the realm of the spirit, in
a group of moral and æsthetic entities. Aristotle attempts to overcome
the opposition between materialism and Platonism. To him abiding Being
is neither physical nature nor the spirit apart from physical nature.
Abiding Being to Aristotle is the spirit _in_ nature.
=Greek Philosophy (objective).=
1. The Cosmologists――Hylozoism.
Abiding Being is living nature――some form of living matter.
2. The Anthropologists――Relativism (except Socrates).
Being is not abiding, but consists of transitory mental states.
This is a form of what was called by the schoolmen Nominalism,
and summed up by the phrase _Universalia post rem_.
3. The Systematic Philosophers.
Democritus――Materialism.
Being consists in material atoms, but regarded in so large
a way as to furnish a basis for a psychology and an ethics.
Plato――Objective Idealism.
Being consists of permanent moral and æsthetic concepts or
types. In mediæval philosophy Platonism was called realism
and was summed up by the phrase _Universalia ante rem_.
Aristotle――Conceptualism.
The abiding Being does not consist of material atoms nor
in spiritual types apart from matter, but is an unfolding
essence _in_ matter. This was usually called conceptualism
by the Schoolmen, and was summed up by the phrase
_Universalia in re_. Aristotle’s conception was as
difficult as it was important. He was not always clearly
a conceptualist, but sometimes appeared in the rôle of an
“objective realist.”
=Democritus and Plato――Their Similarities and Differences.= The
materialism of Democritus and the idealism of Plato were as opposed as
was possible within the realm of Greek thought. We must not exaggerate
their similarities, but they had at least four common characteristics.
_Their Similarities._
1. Both develop an outspoken rationalism,[22] which starts as a
reaction from the perception theory of Protagoras. They agree with
Protagoras that perception cannot yield truth, and so they turn away
from perception to the reason to find true knowledge.
2. Both develop a world of twofold reality. Perceptions are not
regarded by them as illusions, although perceptions are transitory.
Both make a new estimate of perceptions, and give to the world of
perceptions a relative value. There are therefore two kinds of reality:
the relative reality of the world of perceptions and the absolute
reality of the world of reason. The result in both is a broad theory
of knowledge.
3. In both, reality consists in a plural number of objective norms.
Both reach their conception of these norms in the same way. The
changing qualities of things are stripped away and the true reality
is discovered beneath. Both designate this true form by the same word,
idea (ἰδέα). To both, the forms are objective entities.
4. Both are attempts to overcome scientifically the dualism which had
emerged from the former hylozoism of Greek thought.
_Their Differences――The Development of the Meaning of Idea._ 1. But the
forms or ideas are so vitally different in the doctrines of these two
philosophers that they have nothing in common save the name. On the one
hand, Democritus took the word “idea” just as he found it in popular
speech. It is the shape of a visible thing, the geometrical form of
physical objects. It gets no new content in his hands, but is merely
the physical atom. With Plato, however, the word gets a new meaning. He
fills the form or idea with an ethical content. The idea as a quantity
becomes now a quality. The idea becomes an Idea. The forms of Plato are
logical species and teleological causes, while the forms of Democritus
are atom-complexes.[23] In both philosophers they are the norms of
reality. But while Democritus still keeps his forms as the realities
of physical nature, Plato conceives his forms to be true realities of
objective human nature.
2. This vital difference between the two philosophers may get some
explanation from the difference in the philosophical inheritance of
each. To be sure, they were contemporaries, both being born in the
Anthropological Period and both doing their most mature work in the
Systematic Period. Both, too, were acquainted with the philosophy of
the preceding time. But the ethical teaching of Socrates dominated
Plato, and through it he became the legitimate perfecter of the Greek
enlightenment and the anthropological movement. But what was the
influence of Socrates upon Democritus? It seems to have been nothing.
Why is Plato absolutely silent about Democritus when he mentions
other Greek philosophers? No one has yet been able to say. Democritus
stands at Abdera isolated from the ethical movement at Athens. The only
influence upon him from that movement came from Protagoras, who was
a member of the school at Abdera. Democritus is the finisher of the
Cosmological movement.
=The Life of Democritus= (460–370 B. C.). Democritus was twenty years
younger than Protagoras, about ten years younger than Socrates, and a
generation older than Plato. He was outlived by Plato; and Aristotle
was a young man when Democritus died. He was therefore contemporary
with the intellectual movement going on in Greece, with Athens as a
centre. While he does not appear to have come under the influence of
Socrates, he was well acquainted with the destructive epistemology of
the Sophists. Abdera, where he lived, is in Thrace, and seems to have
been outside the Anthropological movement at Athens. The school of
Leucippus was at Abdera; and Democritus was instructed in the Sophistic
doctrine directly from Protagoras, who was a member of the Atomistic
school before going to Athens. The three Systematic philosophers
were wide travelers, Democritus not less than Plato and Aristotle. He
traveled extensively through Greece, Egypt, and the Orient. He then
returned to Abdera and began his scientific activity. He remained five
years in Egypt, and came to know the greater part of western Asia.
He returned to Abdera about 420 B. C., and therefore did not begin
his teaching before he was forty years old. The length of time that
Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle took for their apprenticeship, and
the advanced age before they began their mastership, is remarkable.
Democritus was the greatest investigator of nature in antiquity, and
Aristotle used much of Democritus’ work for his own scientific writings.
The ancients admired the writings of Democritus, and the loss of them
in the fourth century after Christ is one of the most lamentable that
has happened to the literary documents of antiquity. His works were
extraordinary in number, and upon every known subject.
Democritus was the real exponent of the Atomistic school. The founder,
Leucippus, belonged to the Cosmological Period; Protagoras, the Sophist,
belonged to the Anthropological Period, and had great influence in the
development of the school at Abdera; but Democritus, in systematizing
the doctrines of Leucippus and in accepting the perception theory of
Protagoras, became its most notable representative. He was the great
systematizer of the Cosmologists, and yet he differed from all the
Cosmologists in embodying in his theory the results of the Sophistic
movement.
=The Comprehensiveness of the Aim of Democritus.= The reconstruction
of the philosophy of Democritus has always been difficult for the
historian because, from the originally great mass of his writings, only
fragments remain. The fragments show, however, many interesting things:
that he covered the entire range of experience in his investigations;
that he was quite as much interested in psychical as in physical
problems; that his contribution to epistemology was even greater than
to physics; and that he was interested in the atomic theory because
he believed that it was a working hypothesis for the explanation of
experience of every kind. This last characteristic shows the systematic
nature of his work and his right to stand with Plato and Aristotle.
Democritus fully realized that the task of science was to explain
experiences through a conception of reality. So he constructed his
conception of the atom in order that he might explain phenomena
intelligibly. He saw that no conception strange to experience or
against experience, like the Eleatic Being, would answer scientific
demands. A rational conception of absolute reality will have value only
as experience testifies to it and, on the other hand, as it explains
experience. Democritus valued his theory of the atoms because it seemed
to explain all phenomena. This construction of a single fundamental
rational principle for all kinds of phenomena shows how much more of
a systematic scientist he was than the Cosmologists.
=The Enriched Physics of Democritus――Hylozoism becomes Materialism.=
There is so great enrichment in elaboration and generalization in the
physical doctrine of Democritus over that of Leucippus that it amounts
to a change in principle. In all probability Leucippus, like other
Cosmologists, was a hylozoist, and did not differentiate matter and
life. He is to be grouped with the Reconcilers, or even with the
Eleatics, rather than with Democritus. Democritus was a materialist.
The period of forty years between himself and Leucippus had been the
rich period of the introduction of psychological investigation and of
the discrimination of psychical from physical processes. Materialism or
spiritualism is not possible in the historical development of the human
mind until it passes through just such a period of differentiation as
the Sophistic Enlightenment. Before such a period there is animism and
hylozoism; after such a period there is materialism and spiritualism of
various sorts. Matter must be discriminated from spirit before one of
the terms can be reduced to the other. So the hylozoistic pluralism of
Leucippus became in the hands of Democritus a realistic materialism,
pluralistic as well.
The reduction of all phenomena by Democritus to a _mechanics of
atoms_ was theoretically an enrichment of physics, for it anticipated
the underlying principle of modern physics. The apparent qualities
of things and the qualitative changes of things are conceived by
Democritus to be in truth only a quantitative relation of atoms. He
set before himself the task of explaining in detail how this or that
quality consists of atoms in mechanical motion. The mental life of
man must be explained in the same way. So too, wherever he could, he
emphasized more sharply than his predecessors the mechanical necessity
of the movement of atoms. Impact caused by contact of the atoms was
the cause of every occurrence and change. No event is to be explained
as the manifestation of some spirit, or referred to some spiritual
agency. Mechanical cause is behind every event; mechanical cause
is the unifying principle of the doctrine of Democritus; mechanical
cause is the reason for the chasm between the philosophy of Plato,
of Aristotle, and that of Democritus. It is the reason, too, why the
theory of Democritus was obscured until modern times. All teleological
conceptions and all hylozoistic and animistic ideas are expelled from
the theory of Democritus, on the assumption that spatial form and
motion are simpler and more comprehensible terms of explanation. Thus
for the first time we have a conscious _outspoken materialism_, and
for the first time the world is conceived to be a _universal reign of
mechanical law_.
The physical theory of Democritus also yielded a rich scientific
_explanation of the historical evolution of the universe_. The
universe, according to Democritus,――following the teaching of
Leucippus,――consists of two parts: the Plenum or self-moving,
qualitatively similar atoms; and the Void or empty space, in which the
atoms move. The Plenum, or the atoms, is Being; the Void is not-Being.
The atoms differ only in form and size;[24] they are infinite in number
and therefore are of an infinite number of forms and sizes; they are
imperceptibly small. The perceptible qualities do not belong to them,
but to their motions. Motion is an irreducible function of atoms,
and each atom, lawless in itself, is in flight through space. An
aggregation of atoms arises when the atoms meet in their cosmic flight.
The shock causes a vortex which draws more atoms into itself. Like
atoms are drawn together, and the heavy atoms press the fine fire-atoms
to the periphery. Thus innumerable worlds are formed, for any place
of the meeting of several atoms can be the beginning of a new world.
Sometimes small worlds are drawn into the vortices of large worlds,
and sometimes large worlds disintegrate in fatal collisions. The worlds
are therefore endless and in endless succession. The whole swings in
space like a ball; the rim of the whole consists of compact atoms; the
centre is filled with air. To much further length than we can go here
Democritus developed a theoretical description of cosmic evolution upon
the principle of mechanical necessity――and the description is almost
modern.
=The Materialistic Psychology of Democritus.= It is easy to understand
an explanation of the physical universe as atoms in motion; for our
modern scientific theories of nature are set in these terms, even if we
have transformed the Democritan static atom into a dynamic entity. It
is rather more interesting to follow such a materialist as Democritus
in his extension of the materialistic principle over upon the realm of
the mental life.
In the first place, Democritus conceives man to be part and parcel of
the world of atoms. Man is composed of all kinds of atoms. His body
consists of earth, water, and air atoms. His mind is made up of fire
atoms, which differ from the others in being the finest, smoothest,
and most mobile. On this account the fire atoms are the most perfect of
all. Psychical activity is the motion of fire atoms. They are scattered
throughout the universe, and wherever they are, there is life. They are
in plants and animals as well as in man. There is a larger collection
of them in man, and this shows his superiority over other living things.
In man there is a fire atom between every two other atoms, and the
whole is held together by breathing. The different forms of mental
activity are simply different forms of atomic motion.
In the next place, our atomic make-up involves the presence of other
atomic complexes, if we are to have any psychical activity. External
things must stimulate us. But these external things are atoms in action.
They can, however, influence us only by coming into contact with our
bodies. Only by impact on our bodies can they set in motion the fire
atoms which are scattered through our bodies. Every kind of knowledge
or mental life involves the participation of the fire atoms in us. Thus
mental activity involves two factors; the fire atoms within us and an
external group of atoms without us.
How did Democritus explain the varied mental life as the resultant of
these two factors? He employed the theory of effluxes, belief in which
he shared with his time. This is a purely physiological assumption,
originated by such Cosmologists as Empedocles, that somehow external
bodies send off emanations from themselves which strike upon our
bodies. Most objects in the world influence us at a distance and only
through the emission of these effluxes. Democritus conceived these
emanations to be little copies or “eidola” of the thing that sends them
off. To illustrate Democritus’ meaning: a tree is seen by me because
little trees, thrown off by it, hit my eye. This theory retained its
position in philosophical circles until after Locke. It persists in the
popular mind to-day. It is a general belief that a thought is a copy,
photograph, or image of the thing. The words “image” and “imagination”
betray their origin. It was believed by Democritus that such copies
set in motion the sense organs and through them the fire atoms. The
effluxes can, however, affect only those organs of the body that have
similar formation and similar atomic motions.
But the effluxes vary very much in the degree of fineness of their
atomic structure. There are all sorts, from very fine to very coarse.
Since the efflux must correspond to a particular sense if that sense
is to be affected by it, the effluxes that can affect the senses
vary respectively as to their fineness. Democritus was particularly
interested in the sensations of sight and hearing as examples of this.
None of the effluxes affecting the senses are as fine as those that
stimulate the reason. Unless they were the finest of all the effluxes,
they could not affect the fine motions of the fire atoms of the reason.
These finest “eidola” or effluxes are the true copies of things, and
the reason therefore alone knows things truly. Thought, on the one hand,
is precisely the atomic motion of the _direct_ impact of the finest
effluxes upon the fine fire-atoms of the soul. Sensation, on the other
hand, is atomic motion from the _indirect_ impact of the coarser grades
of effluxes upon the fire atoms. The reason knows reality directly.
Sensations are aroused in a roundabout way by the coarse effluxes
setting in motion the corresponding sense organ, which in turn sets
in motion the fire atoms. Thus does Democritus make the distinction
between thought and sensation in quantitative terms. Thus does he
reduce his psychology to a consistency with his metaphysical principle
of materialism.
=Democritus’ Theory of Knowledge――The World of Twofold Reality.=
Democritus would have been only one of the great Cosmologists, and he
would not have his place by the side of Plato and Aristotle, if his
materialism had illuminated no other subject than physics. Indeed, it
is doubtful if his physics would have been so grandly comprehensive
and unqualified had it not been strengthened by his discriminating
theory of twofold knowledge. He might have extended and systematized
his materialism so that it explained to the satisfaction of his time
both physical and psychical phenomena, and still have been a hylozoist,
like Leucippus, the founder of the Atomistic school. The problem
of knowledge――the problem of estimating our mental states――was as
incomprehensible to Leucippus as to the Eleatics. Democritus, however,
was a rationalist and realist like Plato and Aristotle. He recognized,
as did they, that there is a difference in epistemological values.
His universalized materialism did not prevent him from evaluating
our experiences from the same general point of view as the leader
of the Academy and the Stagirite. He felt that a twofold reality is
as consistent with materialistic principles as with idealism. So he
reduced all qualities to quantities, and then as quantities re-valued
and classified them. His chief contribution was to the subject of
epistemology and not to physics, and that is why he is treated among
the Greek Systematizers and not among the Cosmologists. Probably his
chief interest lay where he did his chief work.
The perception theory of Protagoras was the starting-point of both
Democritus and Plato. Both adopted it in order to transcend it and
make it of real significance. Democritus, upon the basis of his
materialistic psychology, admitted that sense-perception is only
a transitory process, and its knowledge must be as transitory. But
he did not agree with Protagoras that all knowledge is perceptual.
Sense-perception does yield only relative knowledge; but there is
another kind of knowledge that is not relative but absolute. This
is knowledge of the reason. Human beings have reason as well as
sense-perception. Thus is Democritus a rationalist, although a
materialist.
The contribution of Democritus to the theory of knowledge consists
in just this turn which he gave to Protagoras’ doctrine of perception.
The relativity of perception becomes in the Democritan theory a
different thing from what it was in the doctrine of the great Sophist.
To Protagoras perceptual knowledge is relative, and therefore of no
value in determining what is real. To Democritus perceptual knowledge
is relative, but it has a value,――a relative value. It gets this
relative value from the fact that the reason can determine absolute
reality. Perception is the contributor to the reason, and also in
turn is illuminated by the reason. In the same breath we may say that
Protagoras was a contributor to the theory of Democritus, and in turn
that the Protagorean relativism was illuminated by the Democritan
rationalism. The result was a twofold knowledge――in the language of
Democritus, “genuine knowledge” and “obscure insight.”
The objects corresponding to these two kinds of knowledge must be of
two kinds. On the one hand, the objects of the reason, or “genuine
knowledge,” are the genuine, primary, or real properties of the
atoms――for the atoms are reality to Democritus. These are form, size,
inertia, density, and hardness.[25] A study of these properties of
things is, therefore, a study of real objects. On the other hand, the
objects of perception or “obscure insight” are the properties of atoms
as perceived obscurely by the senses. These are color, sound, taste,
smell. They are the qualities or relative properties of things. A study
of these is a study of only what is relatively real. When materialism
was revived by the Renaissance, the former group of objects were called
“primary qualities” and the latter “secondary qualities.” These terms
have become classic, and have rendered permanent Democritus’ evaluation
of the objects of the two kinds of knowledge. Out of the fragments of
the teaching of the Cosmologists and the one-sided epistemology of the
Sophists, Democritus constructed contemporaneously with Plato, perhaps
antecedently to him, a theory of twofold knowledge.
=The Ethical Theory of Democritus.= The ethics of Democritus is
another example of his general principle of a mechanism of atoms. His
attempt to reduce all qualitative to quantitative relations, which
gives his theory a unique place in Greek thought, reaches its highest
distinction in his ethics. The influence of his ethical doctrine upon
the Epicureans, and possibly upon the Cyrenaics, shows its importance
in history. Furthermore, its high quality proves that a materialism
can offer inspiring ethical doctrines. Some have placed the ethics of
Democritus upon a level with the ethics of Socrates because, as it is
pointed out, he placed it upon an intellectual basis. The basal ethical
principle of Democritus may be stated thus: As true knowledge is the
ideal object of the intellect, so true happiness is the ideal object
of our conduct. The ethics of Democritus is eudæmonistic, like that of
Socrates.
Pleasures have fundamental differences. They are in every case the
results of atomic motions; but the atomic motions of the intellect
differ from those of the senses, and those of the senses differ from
one another. The fire atoms of the intellect are small, and have a
gentle, peaceful motion; the atomic motions of the senses are coarse
and violent, caused by the coarse effluxes of the objects that excite
them. Sense-pleasures are relative, like the perceptions. As perception
is obscure insight and gains the appearance and not the true reality,
so the pleasures of sense are transitory, uncertain, violent, and
deceitful. Intellectual pleasures are, like the intellect, real, true,
permanent, gentle, and peaceful. True happiness, the goal of human
activity, attends upon that right insight――upon the gentle atomic
motions of the intellectual life. On the other hand, the coarse atomic
motions of the senses disturb the intellectual calm, and are often
violent explosions. Democritus believed that knowledge of the atoms,
as the true explanation of the world, will give to the soul a measure
and a harmony, will guard it from excitement and make it possessor
of a peace which――to use his happy simile――is like the ocean calm.
Two ideals seem to stand before Democritus, which he did not try to
reconcile. Sometimes before his mind’s eye the ideal happiness is
purely intellectual pleasure and points toward asceticism. Sometimes he
speaks of happiness as the life of perfect self-control and temperance.
He never positively denies all value to sense-pleasure, but he gives
to sense-pleasure the relative value that he gives to the senses
themselves. In every case the ground of happiness is intellectual
refinement, and the ground of unhappiness the lack of it. The majority
of men are sensualists and are to be contrasted with the Wise Man, who
finds his happiness either in his individual life or in his friendship
with other Wise Men.