Aristotle's Relation to Democritus Reconsidered and Vindicated as Against the Criticism of Harold

341 Pages·2015·15.42 MB·English

by  Richard W. Baldes

Loyola University Chicago
Loyola eCommons
Dissertations Theses and Dissertations
1972
Aristotle's Relation to Democritus Reconsidered
and Vindicated as Against the Criticism of Harold
Cherniss
Richard W. Baldes
Loyola University Chicago
Recommended Citation
Baldes, Richard W., "Aristotle's Relation to Democritus Reconsidered and Vindicated as Against the Criticism of Harold Cherniss"
(1972).Dissertations.Paper 1159.
http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/1159
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please [email protected].
This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Copyright © 1972 Richard W. Baldes
ARISTOTLE'S RELATION TO DEI1TOCRITUS RECONSIDERED
AND VINDICATED AS AGAINST THE CRITICISM: OF
HAROLD CHERNISS
BY
RICHARD W. BALDES
DISSERTATION
SUBllIITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLiiIEHT OF THE REQUIREivIENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE OF
DEPAI~TMENT
CLASSICAL STUDIES OF LOYOLA UNIVERSITY
CHICAGO
1972
.....
VITA
Richard W. Baldes was born on September 12, 1930, in Chi
cago, Illinois, where he attended elementary schools and the
first two years of high school. He graduated from high school
in 1948 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he attended Concordia
College for two years.
Thereupon, in 1950, he entered Concordia Seminary, St.
Louis, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1952.
From 1952 to 1953 he attended Washington University in St.
Louis; and in 1953 he resumed his studies at Concordia Semi
nary and graduated from there in 1956, at which time he also
received a Bachelor of Divinity degree from that institution.
He served as a Lutheran minister in parishes at Lily,
Wisconsin, and at Plainfield, Illinois from 1956 to 1961.
In 1958 he entered Loyola University of Chicago as a
part-time .graduate student in the Department of Classical
Studies and was awarded a Master of Arts degree on February 7,
1962.
In 1961 he was awarded a National Defense Education Act
scholarship worked in fhe Origins of Western Civilization
an~
program at Loyola University of Chicago until 1963. During
this time he also taught on a part-time basis for the History
Department.
In 1963 he accepted the position of Instructor in the
Department of Classical Languages at the University of
Al~baina
at Tuscaloosa, Alabama. He has been teaching there since then
on a fUll-time basis.
He passed the eight examinations qualifying him as a
doctoral candidate at Loyola University of Chicago between
November of 1968 and November of 1969. He successfully de
fended his dissertation on December 20, 1971, and now plans
to be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the De
partment of Classical Studies on February 12, 1972.
ARISTOTLE'S RELATIONS TO DEMOCRITUS RECONSIDERED AND
VINDICATED AS AGAINST THE CRITICISM OF HAROLD CHERNISS
Richard W. Baldes, Ph. D.
Loyola University of Chicago, 1972
Director: Lothar Nurnberger, s. J.
Harold Cherniss has charged that Aristotle is guilty of
unfairness in both his reports and criticisms of Presocratic
philosophers. These charges--with reference to Democritus at
least--are without any real foundation. It can reasonably--in
the light of other ancient information which we have about
Democritus--be held that Aristotle's reports of his teachings
were accurate and that his criticisms were justified.
Aristotle's reports and criticisms of Democritus are
taken up in terms of four major issues which divide these two
men: the existence of permanent atomic units, the existence
of a void, a knowledge of reality by correspondence, and his
treatment of the four 'causes'.
Taking these points up in order, we observe that Aris
totle rightly points out that on none of these four issues was
Democritus' teaching warrented by the empirical facts. As to
the existence of atoms, Aristotle points out that there is no
'
reason why division must stop at a given degree of smallness,
that atomic doctrine is an unwarranted denial of the empirical
evidence which we have for continuity, and that atomism is
founded on a mistaken notion of the meaning of 'what is'.
2
Secondly, although void was posited to account for.mo
tion, it fails to do so. The existence of void as that which
is absolutely intactible cannot in principle be supported by
any real evidence. Void--like the atoms--was proposed because
.
.
of a mistaken notion of what 'what is' and 'what is not'
means.
Furthermore, if our knowledge of the real world of
atomically structured physical objects is by a correspondence
which is both vague and inconsistent, we are after all reduced
to relying on the very phenomena which the atomic theory had
rejected.
Finally, Democritus' atomism, since it recognizes only
an infinite series of absolutely determined forced motions,
makes of all the universe an utterly mechanical device with
absolutely no distinction between mechanical and natural
even.ts, between animate and inanimate objects--a distinction
which seems obvious.
Copyright @by Richard W. Baldes
1972
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1
The Problem (1)--The IJiethod (9)
CHAPTER I. WHAT CONSTITUTES A REAL UNIT? • • • • • • • • 13
The Problem (13)--The Terminoloe;Y (16)--Democritus
Posits the Atom as the Unit (24)--Excursus: Against
•rJathematically Indivisible' ( 42 )--liiore on Democritus'
Atom as the Unit (49)--Aristotle's Criticism: Against
the Denial of the Unity of the Physical Object (57)
--Aristotle's Criticism: 'Division Everywhere' Holds
(64)--Excursus: On Aristotle's I:Iinimae Partes (72)
--Aristotle's Criticism: 'What is' Has many meanings
(75)--Concluding Remarks (78)
CHAPTER II. THE PROBLEm OF PLACE 80
• • • • • • • • • • • •
Introduction (80)--Criticism of the 'Internal Void'
(83)--The Internal Void and Locomotion (97)--The Void
Considered as Separate (108)--Separate Void by Itself
(132)
CHAPTER III. ON THE STRUCTURE OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS, SOUL,
SENSE-PERCEPTION, AND KNOWLEDGE •••••• 145
Introduction (145)--The Structure of Physical Objects
(149)--The Soul (201)--Sense-perception (210)--The
Intellect and Genuine Knowledge (241)
CHAPTER IV. ON FORiiIAL, EFFICIENT, AND FINAL 'CAUSES' • • 261
Introduction (261)--The Formal Cause (267)--The
Efficient Cause (278)--Chance and Necessity (294)
--The Final Cause (309)
smm CONCLUDING RErtiARKS 323
et • • • • • -• • • • • • • • • • •
A LIST OF WORKS CITED • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 327
INTRODUCTION
The Problem
In 1935 Harold Cherniss published his well-known book,
1
Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy. Its general
tendency is to show that Aristotle's reports of the teachings
of the Presocratic philosophers are not to be implicitly and
naively trusted, because Aristotle is guilty of verbal misrep-
resentations of texts which we possess, guilty, in fact, of
conflicting passages on the san1e point, of "wilful misrepresen
tation" (page 352), of trying to twist and distort Presocratic
theories in order to set them into bold relief and thus more
firmly establish his ovm theory.
But this is no new discovery on Cherniss' part; the prob-
lem had been recognized for at least some thirty years at the
2
time of the publication of his book. Cherniss' work is in
that respect merely the systematic culmination of those earlier
efforts. But the mere fact that Cherniss has had predecessors
in his serious doubts about Aristotle's reliability in regard
1
Harold Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic
Philosophy (reprint, Nevi York: Octagon Press, 1954).
'
2
The reviewer of Cherniss' book in Revue de Tiletanhysiaue
et Horale, XLIV (1937), supplement to the April issue, pp.
~
11-12, points out that Rivaud was the first to recognize the
problem. Others who questioned Aristotle's reliability in this
respect likely go back even further in time, but that is not
important.
1
•
2
to the Presocratics has not yet and is not likely to lessen the
impact of this work in the area of Presocratic scholarship.
Much is to be said for its insights, for its exhaustive schol
arship, and for its relentless adherence to its central thesis.
It is not likely soon to have a rival of the same scope.
Indeed, Cherniss' efforts to cast into bold relief the
tendentiousness of ancient literary reports of the Presocratics
has already long since found imitation and continuance in the
work of J. B. McDiarmid.3 The latter contends in substance
that Theophrastus is not to be trusted either as an independent
source of information on the Presocratics, but that he rather
uncritically repeated what Aristotle had said and has at times
conflated two distinct reports by Aristotle. Thus, instead of
helping us better to understand Presocratic teachings and the
ories, Theophrastus only confuses the issue and is "even less
trustworthy than Aristotle,. (page 133) himself.
But this approach has implications not only for the re
ports of Aristotle and Theophrastus themselves, but also for
the bulk of the doxographic tradition, which in one way or an
other seems to be basically dependent on Aristotle and Theo
phrastus. Thus, to cast doubts on the reports of Aristotle and
Theophrastus is to cast that same sort of--and perhaps even
more on the'doxographic tradition as a whole,
serious-~doubt
in which, if conjecture on that score is correct, there are
3John B. r.IcDiarmid, "Theophrastus on the Presocratic
Causes, 11 Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, LXI (1953),
85-156.