Atomism, ancient corpuscular physics . Strabon, speaking of the great learning of the Phoenicians, says ( Book XVI, p. 521, Geneva . See also Sextus Emp. adv. Math. page 367, Gen. edit .),

Pythagoras seems to have learned this doctrine in the East. Ecphantus, the famous Pythagorean (quoted by Stobaeus), says that the units of which Pythagoras thought everything was composed were nothing other than atoms; which Aristotle also states in various places. Empedocles, another Pythagorean, wrote that the nature of all bodies derives solely from the mixture and separation of particles ; and though he accepted the existence of the four elements, he claimed that they were themselves composed of atoms or particles. Lucretius is therefore right to praise Empedocles so highly, since his physics is, in several respects, the same as Epicurus’s. As for Anaxagoras, although he too was an atomist, his theory was more personal, stating that everything is composed of atoms of its own kind: so that bones are made of bone atoms, red bodies of red atoms, etc .

The doctrine of atoms was presented systematically only by Leucippus and Democritus. Before these two philosophers, it had been viewed only as a part of the philosophic system serving to explain the phenomena of bodies. The two philosophers went further and made this theory the foundation of a complete system of philosophy. This is what led Diogenes Laertius, and several other writers, to consider them as the theory’s inventors. Their names are generally associated.

There is no better way of forming a rounded idea of atomism than to read the famous poem by Lucretius. Here in a few words is the heart of this system, as we find it in the Latin poet and in the various passages of Cicero’s works where it is mentioned.

The world is new. Everywhere we look there are proofs of its newness. But the matter of which the world is composed is eternal. An immense (in fact, an infinite) quantity of hard, hooked, square and rectangular atoms or particles of all shapes have always existed. They are indivisible, continually in movement and striving to advance. All of them fall through empty space, and if they had continued in this way forever, they would have never joined together and the world would not exist. But some of these atoms happened to deviate a little from their paths, which squeezed and stuck some of them together, so that various bodies were formed, such as the sky, the sun, the earth, man, intelligence and a kind of freedom. Nothing was done by design. It must not be thought that men’s legs were created with the aim of carrying our bodies from one place to another; that fingers were provided with joints so we could grasp what we would need; that the mouth was given teeth to grind down food, or that the eyes were skilfully placed on supple and mobile muscles so that we could move them easily and see all around us in an instant. No higher intelligence made our bodies so that they would serve us, but on the contrary we make use of what we find as the need arises.

Everything has happened by chance; everything continues on alone; species perpetuate themselves by chance. One day everything will come to an end by chance. This is the basis of the whole system ( Hist. au ciel, volume II, page 211-212). It would be superfluous to waste time refuting such a tissue of absurdities; or if it were necessary to counter it, then one could consult the Anti-Lucretius written by Cardinal de Polignac.

The atomism of the ancients was pure atheism, but it would be wrong to shift this accusation to corpuscular philosophy in general. The example of Democritus, Leucippus and Epicurus, all three of whom were as great atheists as atomists, has led many people to believe that if one admits the existence of particles, then one must also reject belief in the existence of immaterial phenomena, such as the divinity and the human soul. Nonetheless, not only is pneumatology compatible with atomism , but they both have a good deal in common. The same philosophical principles that led the ancients to recognise the existence of atoms also led them to believe in the reality of immaterial things; and the same maxims that persuaded them that corpuscular bodies are not distinct entities from the substance of bodies, also persuaded them that souls are neither engendered with the body nor annihilated with its death. Those wanting more detailed proof on this question will find it in Le Système Intellectuel by Cudworth, and in the Extrait of M. le Clerc ( Bibl. chois. volume I, article 3 ). See also Corpuscular. This article is taken from a work by Mr Formey .