when grouped with its fellows

conceded to be of such a nature as necessarily to produce a different impression on our senses, when grouped with its fellows, from the impression produced by other atoms when similarly grouped, such primordial atoms do differ among themselves in precisely the same way for all practical purposes as do the primordial elements of Anaxagoras, The monistic conception towards which twentieth- century chemistry seems to be carrying us may perhaps show that all the so-called atoms are compounded of a single element. All the true atoms making up that element may then properly be said to have the same quality. but none the less will it remain true that the combinations of that element that go to make up the different Daltonian atoms differ from one another in quality in precisely the same sense in which such tangible substances as gold. and oxygen. and mercury. and diamonds differ from one another. In the last analysis of the monistic philosophy. there is but one substance and one quality in the universe. In the widest view of that philosophy. gold and oxygen and mercury and diamonds are one substance. and. if you please. one quality. But such refinements of analysis as this are for the transcendental philosopher. and not for the scientist. Whatever the allurement of such reasoning. we must for the purpose of science let words have a specific meaning. nor must we let a mere word-jugglery blind us to the evidence of facts. That was the rock on which Greek science foundered it is the rock which the modern helmsman sometimes finds it difficult to avoid. And if we mistake not. this case of the atom of Democritus is precisely a case in point. Because Democritus said that his atoms did not differ in quality. the modern philosopher has seen in his theory the essentials of monism has discovered in it not merely a forecast of the chemistry of the nineteenth century. but a forecast of the hypothetical chemistry of the future. And. on the other hand. because Anaxagoras predicted a different quality for his primordial elements. the philosopher of our day has discredited the primordial element of Anaxagoras. Yet if our analysis does not lead us astray. the theory of Democritus was not truly monistic his indestructible atoms. differing from one another in size and shape. utterly incapable of being changed from the form which they had maintained from the beginning. were in reality as truly and primordially different as are the primordial elements of Anaxagoras. In other words. the atom of Democritus is nothing less than the primordial seed of Anaxagoras. a little more tangibly visualized and given a distinctive name. Anaxagoras explicitly conceived his elements as invisibly small. as infinite in number. and as made up of an indefinite number of kinds--one for each distinctive substance in the world. But precisely the same postulates are made of the atom of Democritus. These also are invisibly small these also are infinite in number these also are made up of an indefinite number of kinds. corresponding with the observed difference of

More Like This

Recent Posts by Coco68wr15

Comments

In order to comment on BlogHer.com, you'll need to be logged in. You'll be given the option to log in or create an account when you publish your comment. If you do not log in or create an account, your comment will not be displayed.