THE LAUGHING PHILOSOPHER

(Democritus and Leucippus where two highly recognizable names in the USSR, where atomism was treated as a synonym of materialism, Marx and all, so what else could you expect for the forefathers of the atomist-materialist theory. My jocular tone in this case must not under any circumstances be seen as some sign of derision, as I regard very highly all efforts of the Soviet system to educate the citizenry in the best traditions of Western culture. Using materialism as a pretext to acquaint the public with the great Greeks? I see nothing wrong with such practice!)

Democritus of Abdera in Thrace (born ca. 460 BC; died in 370 BC) was most likely a pupil of Leucippus, and the co-originator of the belief that all matter is made up of various imperishable indivisible elements, which he called “atomos.” His work has come to us only in secondhand reports, oftentimes unreliable and conflicting. For this reason it is virtually impossible to tell which exactly of his revolutionary ideas can be attributed to him properly, and which have originated with Leucippus.

He is often referred to as the laughing philosopher, because of his genuinely sunny disposition. (In which nickname he is contrasted to Heraclitus, who is known as the weeping philosopher.) Not surprisingly, then, did Horace write, Si foret in terris, rideret Democritus. (Epistles, II-I-194.)

The best evidence on Democritus is provided by Aristotle, who wrote a monograph on him, of which only a few passages, quoted by other sources, have survived. Democritus is often perceived as having taken over and systematized the views of Leucippus, which considerably reduces his aura of pre-Socratic originality, but because we know so little about Leucippus, the latter’s credit for originality has rubbed off and passed on to Democritus. Thus, even though it is occasionally possible to distinguish some contributions as those of Leucippus proper, the overwhelming majority of reports point either to both of them, or to Democritus alone, and the developed atomist system is generally accepted as Democritean.

Diogenes Laertius lists a large number of works by Democritus in several fields, including ethics, physics, mathematics, music, and cosmology. Two works: the Great World System and the Little World System, are usually ascribed to Democritus, although Theophrastus reports that the former work is by Leucippus. There are more questions regarding the authenticity of Democritean ethical sayings. Two collections of these are recorded in the fifth-century anthology of Stobaeus, one ascribed to Democritus and another ascribed to an ambiguous philosopher Democrates, which may of course be just a corrupted name of Democritus himself. Thus, other sources attribute this work directly to Democritus, dispensing with the Democrates nonsense. As far as I am concerned, the existence of two philosophers called Democritus and Democrates, promoting the same original theory, with one of them, namely, the latter, otherwise unknown and undistinguished, is rather absurd and unworthy of further attention.

Chronologically Democritus was a younger contemporary of Socrates, but there are at least two compelling reasons why he should be treated as a pre-Socratic. First, he is always in tandem with Leucippus, who is a bona fide pre-Socratic. Secondly, he has a pre-Socratic mind, which identifies him as such with Nietzsche, who does not mention Leucippus at all, and with Bertrand Russell, who gives the following, unmistakably Nietzschean, characteristic of Democritus as a quintessential pre-Socratic:

“Democritus--- such at least is my opinion--- is the last of the great philosophers to be free from a certain fault which vitiated all later ancient and medieval thought. All the philosophers we have been considering so far (the pre-Socratics!) were engaged in a disinterested effort to understand the world. They thought it easier to understand than it is, but without this optimism they would not have had the courage to make the beginning. Their attitude was mainly genuinely scientific, when it did not merely embody the prejudices of their age. But it was not only scientific; it was imaginative and vigorous, filled with delight of adventure. They were interested in everything--- meteors and eclipses, fishes and whirlwinds, religion and morality… with a penetrating intellect they combined the zest of children.

From this point onwards, there are first seeds of decay in spite of previously unmatched achievement, then a gradual decadence. What is amiss--even in the best philosophy after Democritus-- is an undue emphasis on man, as compared with the universe. First comes skepticism, with the Sophists leading to a study of how we know, rather than to the attempt to acquire fresh knowledge. Then comes, with Socrates, the emphasis on ethics; with Plato, the rejection of the world of sense, in favor of the self-created world of pure thought; with Aristotle, the belief in purpose as the fundamental concept in science. After them, there was a decay of vigor and a recrudescence of popular superstition. It was not until the Renaissance that philosophy would regain the vigor and independence that characterize the predecessors of Socrates.”

Even Nietzsche could not have written a better apologia for the pre-Socratics, and on this glowing note, we see fit to close this entry.