Taylor Hoogendoorn

Leucippus & Democritus

2.20.14

            Among my favorite books is A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. When I first read this book—humorously on the way to Baylor for freshman orientation—my mom was skeptical of my reading it due to Hawking’s intensely professed atheism. I saw the book in the opposite light; it helped me to realize the awesomeness of creation.

            Many philosophers speculate as to the underlying composition of nature. One of my favorite exercises is to compare their thoughts to my rudimentary understanding of modern science. Although Leibniz does the best job of any philosopher I’ve read, Democritus also does an admirable job. He does a good job of surmising an atomistic structure. Although modern science has broken “atoms” into many smaller parts and ultimately equated mass to energy, an atomistic framework is still used in many forms of analysis. I also really think that he hits the nail on the head with his idea of void. For Leucippus and Democritus, the void allows atoms to freely move about according to some form of reason. Empty space in modern science serves a similar purpose, as it is filled with a variety of forces that pull and push atoms to empty space.

            The two atomists also give a pretty compelling view of the nature of iron and lead. They are mostly correct when they relate the relative weights of the two materials to how tightly packed they are, density in modern terminology. They also make a strong observation as to why iron is harder than lead. It has to do with the internal structure of the material and how it bonds. It is always fun to see rational though pre-empt modern scientific discovery.