Here is some of his teachings embodied in paragraphs from the link.

“There are two kinds of knowing, the one he calls “legitimate” (gnesie: genuine) and the other “bastard” (skotie: obscure). The “bastard” knowledge is concerned with the perception through the senses, therefore it is insufficient and subjective. The reason is that the sense-perception is due to the effluences of the atoms (aporroai) from the objects to the senses. When these different shapes of atoms come to us, stimulate our senses according to their shape, and there from arise our sense-impressions. (Fr. 135, Theophrastus De Sensu 49-83).

The second sort of knowledge, the “legitimate” one, can be achieved through the intellect, in other words, all the sense-data from the “bastard” must be elaborated through reasoning. In this way one can get away from the false perception of the “bastard” knowledge and grasp the truth through the inductive reasoning. Therefore, the man after taking into account the sense-impressions, can examine the causes of the appearances, draw conclusions about the laws that govern the appearances, and find out the causality (aetiologia) by which they are related. This is the procedure of thought from the parts to the whole or else from the apparent to non-apparent (inductive reasoning).

“ But in the Canons Democritus says there are two kinds of knowing, one through the senses and the other through the intellect. Of these he calls the one through the intellect ‘legitimate’ attesting its trustworthiness for the judgement of truth, and through the senses he names ‘bastard’ denying its inerrancy in the discrimination of what is true. To quote his actual words: Of knowledge there are two forms, one legitimate, one bastard. To the bastard belong all this group: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. The other is legitimate and separate from that. Then, preferring the legitimate to the bastard, he continues: When the bastard can no longer see any smaller, or hear, or smell, or taste, or perceive by touch, but finer matters have to be examined, then comes the legitimate, since it has a finer organ of perception.” (Fr. 11 Sextus, Adv. Math. VII, 138).”

I like to compare this to say terms like worldview, natural philosophy and of course science.


Here are some reported sayings of Democritus.

"Repentance for shameful deeds is salvation in life."

"The man enslaved to wealth can never be honest."

"Many who have not learnt Reason, nevertheless live according to reason."

"It is better for fools to be ruled than to rule."

"Water can be both good and bad, of use and dangerous. To the danger, however, a remedy has been found: learning to swim."

The first one sort of reminds me of the story pertaining to the punishment Prometheus received for giving fire to man, subsequently freeing them from the gods, or the natures wrath, I don’t know the correct way to view it. Such people hold gravity on the formation of western cultural philosophy, such as science or theology, law, government and so on. Its somewhat amusing to me to go back and study them for that purpose. Its sort of like following the evolution of knowledge or human perception in all its individual fragments or what not.

So for debate then…

What impact do you think such views hold on America today if any?

Do you agree or disagree with overall with his view on reality? Also please explain.

Wiki link to debate matter

These are very, very broad questions, but I'll do the best I can.

If we take the philosophy of Democritus to mean that the senses are not perfect, then of course this is true. I deny, however, that human senses and their extensions (scientific instruments) cannot reveal "real" knowledge about the physical universe. One key to the success of the scientific method is that it does not depend on subjective, sensory impressions. You and I may not preceive what we both call "red" in the same way (and there seems no way we could ever know if we do or not), but we can agree that a beam of red laser light has a certain measurable wavelength.

The key to "real" knowledge, I think, is to make the best possible use of both information obtained through the senses and their extensions, and pure reason, keeping in mind at all times that both may be flawed. This is why peer review and the repeating of experiments and observations is critical to the scientific method.

The view that Democritus had of reality -- "nothing but atoms and the void" -- isn't too bad, for a simplistic description of the universe, but it fails to mention energy, which is just as real as matter. It also fails to make mention of the different levels of reality. Consider a chair. It is certainly true to say that the chair is "really" nothing but atoms and empty space, but it is also "really" a physical object upon which I can stub my toe. Both levels of reality are equally true.

The ethical system of Democritus (at least what has survived) seems to consist mostly of pithy sayings, most of which few would argue against.

The views of Democritus are reflected in modern America, and in the modern Western world, for that matter, in a mostly non-mystical view of the universe. Although he denies the "reality" of what we sense, he does not deny that an objective reality exists. He even hypothesizes that the "soul" is made up of atoms. In this way, he and certain other ancient Greek philosophers led the way to the modern Western materialistic philosophy.

I prefer Karl Popper's take on reasoning - that deductive reasoning is the only really useful kind, as it's the only one that starts from available data. Inductive reasoning has to begin with premises based on something other than the available data, therefore (while it can be useful) it is almost always less valid than the deductive path.

For example, if you have two arguments for a particular position, one deductive and one inductive, the deductive path will always be more trustworthy (assuming in all cases that the premises are all correct - always the weak spot in any argument).

In essence, Popper says that whatever inductive reasoning is, it isn't science.

He also has lots to say about falsifiability which, together with some other ideas, created the modern definition of science - the cause of many arguments of what should and should not be taught in school science lessons (e.g. creationism), but that's not the matter for debate here.

The trouble with this thinking (which, I believe, Popper himself identified) is that strict deductive logic cannot find anything really new - it has to be obvious from the data. Einstein's maxim that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration holds - science needs to be 99% deductive with the 1% of creativity (or inductivity) that allows for new ideas and new discoveries.

With this in mind, the impact of inductive reasoning on the modern USA is pervasive and, because it too often is unnacompanied by any deduction, pernicious.

What impact do you think such views hold on America today if any?

Why just America? Since the world has continually become smaller, the impact is across the globe.

But what impact? Seems like obvious observations, and maybe that's the impact. Classical Greek philosophy has become the foundation of modern thought worldwide.

Do you agree or disagree with overall with his view on reality? Also please explain.

The splitting of the two broad ways of knowing something is okay, but the labels suck. There is, and understandably so, no mention of archetypical memory or intuitive knowledge, and of course nothing about revealed knowledge. I suppose this could all be bundled into the subconscious.

I like Victoria's example of the chair. Yet the term chair means different things to different people. I might envision a dining room chair with a fancy pad on it, made of a dark wood. Others might think of a recliner, a Shaker, a Queen Anne, or any number of members in the group chair. Then there are the levels of an individual chair's existence outside of our minds: the energy that makes the material that makes the components that, when considered separately don't look like chairs at all, the craftsperson or machine that made the chair (the creator), and then the observer who identifies this thing as being a chair, a distinct object among many, and thus it's back in the mind again.

Another component of a chair is its utility. Generally, people sit on chairs (or in them, depending). But chairs can become weapons in old western bar fights, locks for doors by propping them underneath doorknobs, castles in the imaginations of children, stepladders for the risk-takers among us, ottomans for the improvisors, something to balance for the jugglers, a prop for acrobats, a defensive shield for lion tamers--the point is that an object's utility is not inherent but also bent by the creative parts of people.

Which brings up creativity. What the heck is that? Where does it come from? How come it exists at all?

How can fictional characters exist in the imagination so vividly, so completely, that they take on lives of their own? They do, and they often have dramatic effects in how life plays out for others.

So, strict demarcations between reality and fantasy blur, myth and fact. This blurring in turn is part of existence, and a common part. The deeper we plunge into the nature of the universe, the more that the mathematics suggest things that, on the surface, are illogical, like multiple dimensions.

It's undeniable that our senses can fool us and undeniable that scientific instrumentation can establish something like the wavelength of a particular shade of red. Current physics tells us that a grand portion of the universe is made up of energy that we can never detect, the dark energy, or matter, but it's really the same thing. We know of its existence by its effect, not by direct observation One Link Among Many.

Astoundingly, dark energy/matter is supposed to make up most of the universe! But we can't detect it. It's there because of what it does.

So, two people enter a room. One sits on a chair, which we can see and touch, and another sits on something we can't see or touch. Yet both are sitting. Could one of these people be right and the other wrong? That's impossible. Both are sitting! Might one be a trickster, using muscles to make it look like the person is sitting? That's possible. Let's asphyxiate the person and find out (relax, it's fiction). Hey! Still sitting, WTF???? Slumped over though, take a note. Something's different.

The ancient Greeks probably thought they had a good handle on the world, and they did for this place between infinities of large and small. Now we know more about how things work, and as we come to know, we get more questions. Some will probably never be answered, if not most, from this point of view.

Point of view is very important. A chair looks different from different angles, and that's sort of how knowing things works too.

Example: Seems two brothers in Africa came across a guitar. They didn't know how to play it, so they invented a method of tapping the strings and slapping the body. The technique has become a main part, and an amazing part, of modern music This Blows Me Away!

So, changing point of view can turn a guitar into something that sounds like keyboards and drums, all in one. Another older example is what the Hawaiians did with guitar after being introduced to it by the Spanish.

These examples are very appropriate because the guitar itself hasn't changed. It has always had this potential, and that potential has always existed even before the guitar was invented. Now the potential has become an undeniable part of reality.

That's how it works.