/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12283820]

Was Democritus actually retarded?

[Anonymous No.12283965]

>>12283820
no, he was a brilliant mind in a retarded society.

[Anonymous No.12283972]

>>12283820
Who the f-word knows? His corpus counted 350 books, nowadays we've got only fragments and summaries here and there.

[Anonymous No.12284623]

>intuitively grasp atomic theory
>proved right 2000 after your death
>brainlet noname calls your retarded

[Anonymous No.12284842]

>>12283820
t. Plato

[Anonymous No.12284857]

brehs... how the FUCK did he know?

[Anonymous No.12284893]

>>12284623
Yeah he didn't grasp shit, Democritus's atoms share nothing with actual atoms besides the name.

[Anonymous No.12284961]

>>12284893
>wow look how smart i am reading 10 words of a wikipage and calling someone a brainlet
he (with his atomist buds) was the first to theorize that the world was composed of indivisible and immutable material atoms (a unitary changless substance). he was only ((potentially)) wrong about them being infinite in number ie 1D (but this is how we still model simple atomic interactions much of the time anyway). also instead of an intelligent mind governing everything, he correctly believed they moved about in a void by their random collisions and in different combinations to make up all of the visible world

also he was correct that atoms were only quantitative and qualities were subjective human constructs and thus emergent properties.

epirucus and some others took this and correctly guessed that atoms do have mass and were instead finite, before it was possible to know such a thing

this guy has the biggest TOLD U SO in the history of humanity

[Anonymous No.12284971]

>>12284961
in fact scientists up until the 20th century didn't believe in a void, they believed in autistic betamale aether theories because of the wave nature of light. democritus even BTFO'd newton

[Anonymous No.12284978]

>>12284893
>>12284961
Based and btfopilled

[Anonymous No.12284989]

Democritus was right about literally everything, from cosmology to mathematics to epistemology to politics.

[Anonymous No.12284990]

>>12284842

[Anonymous No.12285005]

>>12284990
I'm not a STEM lord. Is Werner right?

[Anonymous No.12285006]

>>12284961
>he (with his atomist buds) was the first to theorize that the world was composed of indivisible and immutable material atoms (a unitary changless substance).
So he was wrong but in a way that would seem prophetic and right to brainlets 2500 years later.
>>12284989
We litteraly only have a billionth of what he wrote. Trying to garner insight on his actual ideas from what's left is an exercise more akin to a seance than to actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12285013]

>>12285005
In short Yes.
You go down enought, and things get lovercraftian fast.

[Anonymous No.12285031]

>>12284961
Okay I have a few questions

>he (with his atomist buds) was the first to theorize that the world was composed of indivisible and immutable material atoms (a unitary changless substance).
Here are you saying that Democritus (and I assume you as well) believe Matter to be reducible to atoms and atoms themselves are the "unitary and changless substance", that is, each individual atom being a "changless sibstance"? And by this concluding: Matter as such is merely the total aggregate of all atoms?

because here
>also he was correct that atoms were only quantitative and qualities were subjective human constructs and thus emergent properties.
would seem to suggest that. So I am asking: for you, Matter is purely a [i]quantity[i] of atoms?

[Anonymous No.12285046]

>>12285013
>lovercraftian
but lovecraftian things are BIG

[Anonymous No.12285215]

>>12285046
For you

[Anonymous No.12285288]

>>12283820
>the Virgin masturbatory philosopher vs the Chad ancient STEM

When will you Platocucks ever learn?