Eleatic Pluralism

8/12/2019 Eleatic Pluralism

1/22

Eleatic Pluralismb yR.B.B. W a r d y (Cambridge)

IAccording to a well-entrenched and highly inf luent ial scheme forinterpretingthedevelopment ofancient philosophy, togroupEmpedocles, Anaxagoras and the atomists together as 4the post-Parmenideanthinkers9 is no mere exegetical convenience.1 That they come afterParmenides is not just a chronological fact: what they have to say isim po rtantly constrained by their acceptance of central Eleatic tenets .The individual contributions of these Presocratics together constitutea cohesive chapter of philosophical history because all of them either

endorse Parmenides' fundamenta l content ion,2 that in truthn o t h i n gcomes into or goes out of existence, or at the very least agree that1 Scholars na tura lly enough reveal their com m itme nt to the scheme in the ir choice

of chapter and section titles, e.g. THE I O N I A N RESPONSE (G. S. K i r k ,J. E. Raven , and M.Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers revised edit ion[Cambridge: 1983], hereafter KRS) and PARADISE R E G A I N E D fol lowingEleaticism's UTHESERPENT (Jonathan Barnes , The Presocratic Philosophersrevised edition [London: 1982]). Not that their al legiance is by any meansrestricted to expression in rubrics: Parmenides' metaphysics dominated fifth-century Ionian philosophy, w hich constitutes th e last stage ofPresocratic specula-tion. Individual, ingenious and oftencreativeas the leading Ion ian th ink ers were ,each of them is app ropriately seen as responding to his radical cr i t ique ofcommon-sense belief in the world about us and ... these post-Parmenideansystems are deliberately designed to take account of the findings of the Truth(mediated, in theatomists' case, by Melissus) ( K R S , 351, largely preservingth esubstance and tone of the or ig inal K irk and Raven) . That the revamped K RSwill serve as the handbook of a new generat ion of students is in itself e n o u g h toguarantee the currency of this type of interpretat ion.

2 This is not to im ply that Parme nidean ra ther than Melissan reasoning prom ptedrejection of the possibili ty of ex is tential change (sec K R S ' desc r ip t ion o f theatomists' s i tua t ion in the preceding note);one should perhaps speak of ageneral

s Eleatic'heritage ' , and in w h a t follows I shall in fact c o n c e n t r a t eon therepercus-s ions of an argument of Melissus ' .

9 A r c h Gesch P h i l o s o p h i c Bd 70


2/22

126 R . B . B . W a r d yt he r e m u s t b e s o m e t h i n g in the wor ld sat isfying h is demands forchangeles sness . T h u s one m i g h t conceive of the post-Eleatics as re-wri t ing or s u p p l e m e n t i n g the Way of Seeming, e i ther b y explainingh ow it is t h a t de lusive appearances occur or by offering a l ternat ivespecif ications of t hem (obvious ly th is divis ion of labour is artificiallynea t and c a nno t b e e xclus ive).Clearly, to believe t ha t t h i s is a llt he re is to t hese phi losophers w ouldbe to do an injust ice to the r ichness of their speculat ions and unfair lyto exaggera t e th e d e m a n d s of the d om inant interpre ta t ion, s ince th eimpl ica t ion i s not t ha t t he i r t hou gh t inc lude no m ore t h a n a recognitionof th e Eleat ic dismissal of genesis and des t ruc t ion, b u t r a ther that itcontains at leas t s o m u ch . N evert h e le s s an adherent of t h i s view ou ghtto concede tha t the f irs t criterion to be employed in evaluat ing thisphase o f Greek phi losophy should be a measure of the success of thevarious responses to ParmenidesSo far as the a t om i s t s 3 in part icular are concerned, an appropriatespecification of the s t andard scheme is to be f o u n d in Aristotle, th eoriginator of the t radit ion. I shall return to Aristotle s specific ideat h a t Leu c i pp u s a tt em p ted to e ffect a compromise between Eleatic argu-m e n t a t i o n and the percep tua l phenomena in due course; for the con-s t ruc t ion of the p roblem which I wish to confront , s imple recognit ionof th e a lm os t u nive rsally accepted claim of De Generatione et Corrup-tione (A8), th at the a tom is ts inher i ted a m ajor por t ion of their m etaphy-sics from Parmenides and his fol lowers , will suffice.According to this respected description of atomistic basics, theEleatic corners tone is left un touched insofar as t here is no coming tobe or pass ing away of the a toms themse lves . It is granted that mot ionis imposs ib le wi thou t void , b u t maintained that s ince what is nots o m e h o w is , locomot ion can and does occur. Zeno s divisibility di-l e m m a s a r e me t by t he in t roduc t ion of a to m is m s characteristic thesis.Fina l ly , s ince there is w h a t is not to divide u p homogeneous be ing,Leucippus and Democri tus are free to postulate the exis tence of am u l t i t u d e of bodies each of wh ich is like th e One ,4 perhaps s t imulatedby Mel i s su s conf ident avowal t ha t a p lural i ty per impossibile, h et h i n k s )w ou l d h a ve to b e like th at :

3 N o n e o f m y a r g u m e n t s will depend on any s upposed d i f f e rences be tween Leu-c ippus and D e m o c r i t u s , and I in tend them to apply to b o t h a t o m i s t s indif ferer f t ly;var ia t ions in r e fe rence a re accordingly a l toge the r casual.4 Ne e d le s s t o s ay my swif t r e s u m e h as sk i r ted a c l u s t e r o f f ear fu l ly t h o r n y d i f f icu l -t ies , b u t t h e y c a n safe ly be ignored so far as the present task is concerned.


3/22

Elealic Pluralism 127 (DK 30B 8).5 Thus Presocraticatomism seems to follow the pattern of post-Parmenidean response:although the arguments for monism and against motion are rejected,those banning genesis and destruction are respected, at least withregard to the system's elements, so that it might be characterised asan Eleatic pluralism, albeit in a sense vaguebut likely to prove weak .Since they apparently all failed to detect the flaws in hisdeductionand so w ere not capable of actually dism antlin g Parmenides' Truthw h a t philosophical challenge remained tostimulatethecontributors tothe Ion ian reaction? If the rejectionof thevery possibilityofexistentialchange is regarded as legitimate, then the p r imary difficulty wi thmonisticEleaticism is not somuchth e sheer bizarrenessof itspositivedoctrine as its total incapacity to cope with error. The world looks asthough it hasparts which alter in a great variety of ways , or rathermore strongly, allthatappears to us is am ultiplici tyofephemera:howcan the static One generate such appearances? The original Eleaticsm ay have got hold of the truth, but so long as they cannot accountfor falsity consistently wi th their endorsed theses, theyare liable to thecharge of incoherence.The Way of Seeming could routinelybe read in ant iqui ty6 (and onoccasion considerably more recently) as straight assertion by thoseconvinced that Parmenides w as compelled to give w ay before the forceof an undeniable, familiar reality.7Scholars sympa theticto histhough tcan do no better than plead for the consistency of his intent ionsonthe basis of a 'rhetorical' reading of the goddess's deceitful words8wi thou t explaining how i t might be that Parmenides can wi thou t

5 References totexts as in H. Dielsand W .Kranz , eds..Die Fragmente der Vorsokra-tiker (Z rich: 1951) (DK), unless otherw ise indicated.6 E. g. DK 28A 23(Hippolytus), 34 (Plutarch, Simplicius).7 ... 9 , , , , > ...(Aristotle ,Met 986B31-4).8 . g. A. A. Long, The principles of Parmenides 'cosmogony , Phronesis8(1963).90-107 and A. P. D.Mourelatos, T h e Route o f Parmenides (New Hav en: 1970).In Parmenides dilemma , Phronesis27(1982),1-12, M .M .M a c k c n / ic directlyconfronts the problem, b u t concludes that Parmenides posit ively embraced itsinsolubi l i ty: Monism requires tha t t h i n k i n g be indiscernible from being, anddenies that there are a plurali ty of th inkers .That is fata l to dialectic, and I h u sto the argument i tself . Pluralism allows for ind iv idua t ion ; bu t c o m m i t sus to thei r ra t iona l . This dilemma is the relation between th e Alcthcia and th e\ The


4/22

1 2 X R . B . B . W a r c i ye m b a r r a s s m e n t a f f o r d t o a ck n o w l e d g e e v e n t h e m e r e a p p e a r a n c e o fw h a t l i e i n s i s t s c an n o t b e . P l a t o d e p ict s a Z c n o w h o imp l ic i t ly c o n f e s s e shis m a s t e r s t r o u b l e : h e wi she s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t co n s e qu e n ce s evenmore ahsnrtl , Parm 1 2 8 D ) t h a n t h o s e e n t a i l e d b yP a n n e n i d e s h y p o t h e s i s f o l l ow f rom t h e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r e is ap l u r a l i t y .T h u s w e m ig h t s p e c u l at e t h a t E l e a t ic p l u r a l is m e vo l v ed a s an a t t e m p tto p r o v i d e t h e a rm o u r w i t h w h ich t o sh ie ld th e im m e n s e l y v u l n e r ab l eu n d e r s i d e o f P a r m e n i d e a n p h i l o s o p h y : t h e a t o m i s t s c o m e u p w i t h agene s i s o f f a ls e h o o d t o s u p ple m e n t t h e d e d u c t io n o f t r u th . A ccord ing lyw e s u p p o s e t h a t t h e y i n t r o d u c e th e i r h y p o th e s e s in t he bel ief t h a t t h eyare t h e m in im a l m o d i f ic a ti o n s r e qu i s it e f o r t he p rov i s ion o f an . So i n f o l l o w i ng up t h e t r ad i t i ona l in t e rp re ta t ion o f t h ea t o m i s t s w e w o u l d an t i cipa t e t h a t Dem o c r it e an ph i lo s o phy is central lyc o n c e r n e d w i t h , i f no t t he e xp l ana t i o n o f e r ro r , then a t least th ee s t a b l i s h m e n t o f i t s po s s ib i li ty , ra the r than w i th t ru th t r u t h is inlarge m e a s u r e a g iv en .T h e p r o b l e m w i th t h i s s t o ry a s u su a l ly t o l d is t h a t it u n c o m f o r t a b l ys u g g e s t s t h a t t h e a t o m i s t s pu t i n a v e ry p o o r p e r fo rmance . At f i r s tb l u s h i t w o u l d se em t ha t L eu c ippu s and Dem o c r it u s a re co n t e n t t oc o n t r a v e n e th e E l ea t ic b an in the i r concept ion o f m acroscopic ob ject ss o l o n g as t h e y o b e y it in the i r de scr ip t ion o f t he m icroscopic con s t i tu -e n t s o f t ho s e ob jec t s b u t w h y s hou l d th e d i f f e r ence in scale b e ad i f f e r ence r e l e v a n t t o t he a dmis s ib i l i ty o f g en u ine e x is t en t ia l change? Ishal l c l a im th a t s t u d en t s o f anc ien t ph i lo so phy a t t h i s junc tu re typical lye i t h e r fail t o pe rce ive the apparen t g rav i ty o f the a t o m i s t s pl ight , ori f t h e y d o r ecogn ize it , n eve r the l e s s sh i rk a f u l l c ons ide ra t ion o f t h eco n s equ ence s . The r e a r e tw o prim a facie cho ices: w e m us t e ither f igh tag a i n s t t h e n ow s tand ard v iew o f th i s st re tch o f ph il o soph ical h i s t o ryo r d e v e l o p a r e ad ing o f a t o m i s m n o v e l a t l eas t in i ts em pha s i s .I s h a l l a t t e m p t th e l a t t e r t a sk . Thus m y m o t i v a t i n g c o n t e n t i o n ist h a t a p o s i t io n c o m b i n i n g ad h e r e n ce t o t h e f avo u red exege tical s chemean d s o m e v e r s io n o f th e co n ve n t i o n a l i n t e rp re t a t io n o f a to m is m s ho u l db e occupied o n l y a s a las t resor t , s ince th is conjunc t ion presen t s a pairo f m a jo r p h il o s o p h e r s in a s u rpr is in g ly u n a t t rac t ive gu ise . Accord ing lyI o f f e r a d i s j u n c t io n : e i th e r e n d o r s e s o m e t h in g l ike m y r ead ing o fa t o m i s m o r j u n k th e i d ea o f a g ene ra l po s t -Parmen idean r eac t ion ; to

t e n s i o n b e t w e e n the two is not o n l y a necessary consequence of Parmenides'a r g u m e n t , b u t i s a consequencethat h e f o r e s a w a n d w i s h e d t o exploit (7 8 ).


5/22

Eleatic P lura l i sm 129the exten t tha t m y account (or a comparable a l te rna t ive) fails toconvince, w e should regard that po pula r idea as under threat beforeconc lud ing th at the ato m ists were indeed seriously concerned to de-velop a response to Eleatic ism which turns out adisappoin tment .M y procedure willbe as fo llows. First, I shall em ploy the conce ptualmate r ia l s of ancient atomism in order to delineate a thesis aboutthe dist inction between micro-consti tuents and macro-conglomeratesin tended to meet the challenge of a part icular Eleatic argument. Onlythen shal l I a t tempt to attr ibute such a stance to Democritus. I adoptthis order because the pert inent dox ograp hy is scanty, un inf orm ati veand actually misleading if I am correct in my major c la ims, astate of affairs itself significant and worthy of some explanat ion.Furtherm ore, since I m aintain that any al ternative reconstruction suffi-cient for salvaging the unitary overview of post-Parmenidean philoso-phy m ust at least ma tch m ine in strength, in the last ana lysis it perhap ssuffices to have version of radical atomism before us for inspection.That is to saythat the situation demands serious consideration of thepossibility that Leucippus and Democritus advocated a theory tha tdeserves to beregarded as Eleatic pluralism in a strong sense.

IIIn the course of his methodical negative description of the OneM elissus rules out the possibility of the rearrang em ent o f w h at is: forthe which was earlier does not perish, nor does a which is not come into being (DK 30B 7). The repercussions of hisr igour can hardly be exaggerated:9 this particular denial obliges an

9 Barnes denies that any of the later Presocratics recognised the u l l force ofMelissus' contention (216: his formu lation of the a rgum ent involves reference tothe arrangement of what is, over and above what is arranged). In hissumming-up of this philosophical epoch heconcludes: I do not th ink t h a tanyneo- Ion iangot a glimpse of the danger, or took any evasive ac tion (433), thedanger beingt h a t Melissus' denial forbids locomotion because it excludes change in relativeposi t ion. However, Barnes's case depends on the supposi t ion th at no nco- Ion ianin tent ional ly did avoid (or could have avoided?) reference to p a t t e rn s (432),where again these must bereal th ings const i tu tedby the i r ingredients 'posi t ionalrelations, so t ha t a to mic relational changemight be identical w i th , or at any raleresponsible for macroscopic real change. M y project is precisely to work ouihow the a to mis t s m ig h t have evaded the grave d i f f icu l ty which Barnes believesthey didn't even perceive, and to claim t h a i th is was indeed the i r s t ra tegy


6/22

130 R . B . B . W a r d ya t o m i s t i c l i l e a t i c lo a b s t a i n f r o m q u a n t i f y i n g o v e r m a c ro s c o pi c ag g r e -g a t e s o f m i c r o s c o p i c c o r p u s c l e s ( o r i n d e e d o v e r a n y group . R e a r r a n g e -m e n t o f w h a t i s c o n t r a ve n e s t h e b a n o n e x i s t e n t ia l c h a n g e , i f a c o n f ig u r-a t i o n i s a t h i n g o v e r a n d a b o v e , d i s t in c t f r o m , t h e e n t i t ie s c o n s t i tu t i n g t In o r d e r t o p a r r y t h e M e l i s s a n a r g u m e n t o n e m u s t m a ke o u t t h a tr e a r r a n g e m e n t p ro p e r l y u n d e r s t o o d i n v o l v e s ju s t r e l a t io n a l c h a n g e , i np o s i t i o n . M o r e o v e r , i f t e n a b l e t h is s t a n c e w i l l p r o v i d e th e b e g i n n i n g so f a d e f e n c e fo r P a r m e n i d e s : s in c e m e r e s p a ti a l s h i f t i s t y p ic a l l y m i s -c o n s t r u e d a s r e a l c h a n g e , a p p a r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t i n g E le a t ic re a s o n i n g ,g r o u n d s f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f h u m a n e rro r a n d i t s d i a g n o s i s b e c o m ea v a i l a b l e o n t h e a t o m i s t i c h y p o t h e s is .

H o w e v e r , t h e r e i s ju s t th e a p p e a r a n c e o f a c t u a l c h a n g e o n l y s o l o n gas i t i s a t l e a s t t h e o r e t i c a l l y p o s s ib l e to s u b s t i t u t e fo r eve ry o s t en s ib l er e f e r e n c e to a m a c ro s c o pi c o b je c t o r i t s c o r r e la t iv e a t o m i c c o n f i g u r a t io na d e s c r i p t i o n c a s t e x c l u s i v e l y in t e r m s o f a t o m s a n d t h e i r s pa t i a lr e l a t i o n s . O t h e r w i s e , o n e s o n t o l o g y c o n t a in s a f a t a l r e s id u e o f c h a n g e -a b l e , e p h e m e r a l t h i n g s , a n d t h e g a m e a g a in s t M e li ss u s i s l o s t . R e f u s a lto c o u n t e n a n c e groups o f a t o m s i s n ec e s s a ry to f e n d o f f t he cr i t ic ismt h a t a n e w i s a n i m p o s s i b l y n e w t h i n g it s not, in a sm u c h a sa n a r r a n g e m e n t , w h e t h e r o f a t o m s o r a n y t h i n g e ls e , d is so lve s i n t o t h es u m o f t h e r e l a t i o n s s u b s i s ti n g b e tw e e n t h e o n l y a u t h e n t i c b e i n g s , s in c et h e s e s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s a r e n o t t h e m s e l v e s . P ro p e r ly u n d e r s t o o d ,th e s u c c e s s i o n o f w h i c h c o n s t it u t e s th e d e l u s ive pl ay o f appear-a n c e i s s i m p ly r e l a ti o n a l c h a n g e , sa fe ly i n v o l v i n g n o a l t e r a t i o n o f t h ei n t r i n s i c p r o p e r t i e s o f w h a t r e a l l y i s , l e t a l o n e a n y s u b s t a n t i a l c o m i n gto b e o r p e r i s h i n g . T h e re i s n o m a c r o -w o r l d . Th e re i s a m i c ro -w o r ld ,b u t t h a t m e a n s t h a t t h e r e a re a t o m s , n o t g r o u p s o f th e m , a n d properd i s c o u r s e w o u l d r e f l e c t t h i s c r u c i a l f a c t b y r e s t r i c t i n g i t s r e f e rr in g t e rm sto i n d i v id u a l a to m s . Th e s o le f e a t u r e s o f a n o r d i n a r y m a c r o -d e s c r ip ti o nw h i c h s u r v i v e t r a n s c r i p t i o n i n t o t h e p r o p e r m i c r o -v o c a b u l a ry a re lu-r a l i t y a n d m o ve m e n t.Th e b e l i e f t h a t th e a t o m i s t s s h o u l d h a v e adopted s u c h a po s i t i o nf o l l o w s d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e y s in c e r e ly e n d o r s e d t h e t h e s i st h a t r e a l c h a n g e d o e s not,cannot o c c u r , a n d g r as pe d i t s r a m i f ic a t i o n s ,e spec ia l ly th e i m pl ic a t io n s o f M e li ss u s e l i m i n a ti o n o f r e a r r a n g e m e n t .A s p re v i o u s l y n o t e d , th e r e a r e g r o u n d s f o r s u p po s i n g that h i s d e d u c -

Thus a l t h o u g h my conclusionscontradicthis, Barnes s w o r k providesthedirects t i m u l u s f o r m i n e , a n d a l l students o f t h e Presocratics o w e h i m thanks f o rs t r e s s i n g the i n d e p e n d e n t importance of Melissus reasoning.


7/22

Elea t ic Plura l i sm 131t ions ra ther than the Parm enidean a rgum ents themselves were thep r i m a r y i n f l u e n c e on Le u c i ppu s a nd Democr i tus: they take up thechal lenge preserved in his fr.8 by asser t ing that there are m a n y thingseach of which possesses the immutable a t t r ibutes character ist ic of at r u e ent i ty , according to the inher i ted t ru th. But postu la t ion of ast rongly Eleat ic plural i ty does nothing to establ ish that the fam i l i a rstuffs cast igated by M elissus are real. His enu m erat ion of w ha t m erelyseems to be includes substances like earth, water, air , fire, iron andgold as well as qual i t ies l ike pale and dark. The a t tack embraces allordina ry objec ts and propert ies , and thu s und erm ines the c la im tha tw e see and hear and unders tand ar ight .It m i g h tbe supposed tha t thea tom ist ic hypotheses som ehow ensu rethe su rviva l of the m acro-wor ld and i ts inhab i tan ts on the groun dsthat composite objects a re ident ica l wi th the i r const i tuent a toms a ndvoid, and these are proper ly immutable . However , th i s cannot be so.A bit of gold is identical with i ts atoms taken not individual ly , bu tcollectively; the gold is theaggregate ,10 which is thus no less im pos sib lymutab le than any object considered in ordinary, non-a tomist ic t e rms.Viewed ar ight , the ident i ty of composi te wi th its const i tuents , so farfrom conf i rming its ac tua l i ty on the faul ty supposi t ion tha t it migh tinher i t the changelessness which its atoms severally possess, in factestablishes the unreali ty of those consti tuents as a groupThe atomists theory does not vindicate the apparent macroscopicworld even if it be re-described in accordance with that theory. W eshould not assume that they were concerned to protect Melissus 'original targets or to disavow hiscondem nat ion of the senses (perha psmore accurately, of the beliefs to w hich they give r ise). No th ingwhichchanges is real, or rather , no thing which really changes is real ifthis line of thought iscorrect, then Democri tus is not a reduct ionist .To qual i fy as such, he would have to reduce macroscopic objects tocollections of atoms and void:11 but he does not concede the rea l i tyof10 The idea that the gold irreducibly supervenes on the aggregate hard ly helps,

since it wouldeffectively block from the outset any hope t h a t a t o m i c ch ang e le s s -ness might somehow percolate up to the macroscopic level. F o r co m m en t o n th i sissue in general see the fol lowing note .11 M y posit ion is tha t the whole issue of reduct ionism is simply irrelevant to th ediscussion of Democritus, s ince if I am r ight then he docs no t even recognise theexistence of a n y t h i n g t h a t m i g h t be a c a n d i d a t efor r e d u c t i o n . The bel ief t h a t

D e m o c r i t u s is a reduc t ion i s t , indeed the f a t h e r of r e d u c t i o n i s m , is widespread,e .g.: Beca use phenomena l ob jec t s and proper t i es seemed to reduce to mere


8/22

1 3 2 R . U . B . W a r c l ys u c h c o l l e c t i o n s b e c a u s e t h e y a r c n o l e s s v u l n e r a b le t h a nt h es u p p o s e d lyr e d u c e d o b j e c t s t o M e l i s s a s ' a c c u s a t io n t h a t s u c h t h i n g s w o u l d b ei m p o s s i b l y c h a n g e a b l e .

O n e m u s t n o t a d m i t t h a t distinct c o n f i g u r a t i o n s e v o l v e o v e r t i m e .T h e a t o m i s t s d o n o t w i n i f t h e y m e r e l y s pe a k o f c o l l e c t i o n s o f a t o m sa n d v o i d i n s t e a d o f p e r c e p t i b l e , l a rg e -s c a l e t h i n g s , s i n c e s u c h c o l le c t i o n sd o n o t e x i s t . R a t h e r t h e y s uc ce e d in m e e t i n gM e l i ss u s ' c h a l l e n g e i ft h e yc a n ( i n a s e n s e t o b e d i s c u s s e d ) r e - d e s c r i b e a m a c r o s c o p i c o b j e c t a s af a c t i t i o u s a g g r e g a t e ' o n l y a r b i t r a r i l y e x t r i c a b le f r o m t h e c o n t i n u o u sl o c o m o t i v e p a t h s f o l l o w e d b y s o m e a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d g r o u p o fa t o m s . 1 2 I f , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , p o s i t i o n a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n i s n o t a r b i t r a r y ,i d e n t i t y c o n d i t i o n s fo r a g g r e g a t e s w h i c hforce r e c o g n i t i o n o f t e m p o r -a r i l y e x i s t e n t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s c a n n o t v e r ywel l b ei g n o r e d . F o r i n s t a n c e ,i f a t o m i c p a t t e r n p w e r e t o b e c o r r e l a t e d w i t h a m a n ( w h e t h e r o r n o ta n y r e d u c t i v e i d e n t i t y m i gh t b e i n q u e s t i o n ) , t h e n p w o u l d c o m e a n dc e a s e t o b e w h e n t h a t m a n d i d . F o r n u t s h e l l e f f e c t o n e c o u l d s a y t h a ta n E l e a t i c p l u r a l i s t a v o i d s d e p ic t in g t h e w o r l d f r o m t h e t o p d o w n n o t

c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f a to m s a n d v o i d , D e m o c r i t u s w a s i n c l i n e d to s u p p o s e that t h ea t o m s a n d v o i d w e r e r e a l w h i l e t h e p h e n o m e n a l o b j e c t s a n d p r o p e r t i e s w e r e n om o r e t h a n a r b i t r a r y c o n s t r u c t i o n s p la ce d u p o n t h e m b y h u m a n c o g n it iv eorgans( D a v i d S e d l e y , ' E p i c u r u s ' R e f u t a t i o n o f D e t e r m i n i s m ' , in . StudisulT epicureismo greco e romano o f f r t i a M ar cello Gigante, v o l . 1 [Naples: 1983], 5 [33]). S e d l e y p l a u s i b l y s u gg e s ts t h a t E p i c u r u s i s a n a n t i - r e d u c t i o n i s t , a n df u r t h e r s p e c u l a t e s t h a t in t h i s h e r e a c t e d a g a i n s t th e v i e w s o f t h e e a r l i e r a t o m i s t s .T h e a r g u m e n t t h a t E p i c u r u s r e a d D e m o c r i t u s a s a r e d u c t i o n i s t isa t tr a c t iv e , b u ts h o u l d n o t l e a d u s i n t o th e s a m e m i s t a k e . O n c e th e E l e a t i c b a n w a s fi n a l l y l i f t e d ,i t w a s p e r h a p s i n e v i t a b l e t h a t t h e s u b t l e t y o f D e m o c r i t u s ' r e s p o n s e t o i t w o u l db e i g n o r e d b u t t h i s i s to a n t i c i p a t e th e a r g u m e n t fo r a t t r i b u t i n g a s t r o n gE l e a t i c p l u r a l i s m t o t h e a t o m i s t s d e s p i t e t h e a p p a r e n t l y a d v e r s e i m p l i c a t i o n s o fm u c h o f t h e d o x o g r a p h y .

C f. t h i s p a r e n t h e t i c a l r e m a r k o f S a r a h W a t e r l o w , m a d e i n t h e c o n t e x t o f h e rd i s c u s s i o n o f A r i s t o t l e ' s d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e Elea t ic ' p a r a d o x o f b e c o m i n g ' : Ther e d u c t i o n o f a l l c h a n g e t o l o c o m o t i o n o f p a r t i c l e s m i g h t s e e m t o o f f e r a n o t h e rwa y o u t , s i n c e i t i sc l e a r t h a t in l o c o m o t i o n n o n e w thing( i . e . s u b j e c t o f c h a n g e )c o m e s t o b e . M o r e o v er t h e m a t h e m a t i c al c o n t i n u i ty o f a b s t r a c t m o t i o n e n t a i l s as e n s e in w h i c h a n e w a r r a n g e m e n t B o f p a r t i c l e s c a n n e v e r b e sa id to s u p e r s e d ea n y s i n g l e s p e c i f i a b l ed i ff e r e n t a r r a n g e m e n t A , s i n c e b e t w e e n a n y t w o t h e r e w a sa n o t h e r . T h u s B c o m e s t o b e n e i t h e r ' f r o m ' i t s e l f n o r ' f r o m ' a n y c o n d i t i o ndefinitely not i t s e l f , a n d s o t h e p a r a d o x c a n p e r h a ps b e a v o i d e d ( S a r a h W a t e r l o w ,Nature, Change and Agency in A ristotle s Physics,A Philosophical Study [ O x f o r d :1981], 12, n . 9).


9/22

Eleatic Pluralism 133on account of reduct ionist leanings, but just because there is no top.For him no th ing can in tervene between the level of s ingle atoms andthe fa ct i t iou s macrocosm, since argum ents that he endorses dictatet ha t there are no collections: in the Dem ocritean u niverse the individualrules supreme because it alone is.Granted t ha t the supposed aggregates o f a toms and void that appar-ent ly correspond to ordinary objects have turned out not to exist,might there nevertheless not be other microscopic groupings, not corre-lated with macroscopic ephemera, which enjoy the permanence thatMelissus demands? Expressed in l inguistic terms, the condit ion for theacceptability of such patterns would be that no description referringto them could incorporate any fe atures analogous to those whic h inord inary language permit dist inct ion between an object s history andthe rest of t ime. Obviously if we prove capable of discerning any suchproper patterns, w e shall hardly be tempted to assume that they areidentical with macroscopic things . There is not alwa ys the same m anbecause there is not alwa ys a m an , wh ile (and this wo uld be the essenceof the atomists response, were they to advocate the concept of apermanent atomic collection) there is a lway s a proper pat tern becausethe c on t inui ty of posi tional shift ensures that i t remains the same.But could this last-ditch attempt to retain existents above the levelof the incomposite individual achieve any w orthw hile resul t? Eleat icpluralism prohibi ts qua nt if icat ion over the m utable atom ic col lect ionswhich would correspond to the apparen tly chang eable thing s tha t weunreflectingly believe the senses presen t to us. Acceptance of thesephantom aggregates into our ontology would induce a fundamenta l lymistaken, ult imately incoherent view of the world, as if one were toforget that our perceptual freeze-frames crucially omit the ceaselessmovement of a sort of Democritean cinema. Were we only capable ofseeing it properly, perhaps with the eyes of the m ind , we w ould realisethat in that fi lm of reality a pat tern remains the same to the ex ten tthat it does not become definitely different. 1 3 But then of course oneis no t entitled to c laim more than that i t rem insindefinitely the same,and should confess that it is im possible to discern a singleconfigurat ionobjectively distinct from its predecessors and successors.Accordingly it might prove wisest to forgo t a lk o f ar rangementsaltogether. An ostensible reference to a pa t t e rn , if licit, is equivalen tto (at least the pretence of) a specification o f i n s t an t aneous a t o mi c13 Again cf. W alerlow s conjec ture (previous note) .


10/22

134 R . B . B . W a r t l yp o s i t i o n . U c a n n o t r e a l l y r e f e r to th e e p h e m e r a l a p p a r e n t l yc o n s t i t u t e d b y g i v e n g r o u p i n g s o f a t o m s a t s o m e t i m e , b u t o n l y t o t h ea t o m s s o r e l a t e d . T h e s o l e p a t t e r n f o r w h i c h o n e m ig h t c l a im s tr ic ti n i v i u l i t y i s t h a t w h i c h c o m p r is e s e v e r y a t o m i n t he e n t i r e u n i v e r s e ,s ince i ta l o n e i s n o t s u b j e c t t o i n d e f i n i t e s h i f t i n t o a r ra n g e m e n t s n e i t h e rq u i t e th e s a m e n o r q u i t e d i f f e r e n t a t i t s e d g e s i t d o e s n t h a v e a n y ,an d s o p e r h ap s o u g h t n o t t o b e accepted i n a n y case.T h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f t h i s f ami l i a r w o r l d d i ss o lv e w i t h o u t re m a in d e ri n t o r e l a t io n s b e t w e e n im m u t a b l e m i cr o s co p i c e x is t e n ts . T h e a p p e a r a n -ce s w h i c h d e l u d e u s , l e a d i n g u s t o s u p p o s e t h a t t h e r e a re t h in g s w h i c ha c t u a l l y u n d e r g o c h an g e , a re t h em se lve s th e p r o d u c ts o f shif ts in theser e l a t i o n s a n d s o l es s t h a n r e a l. W i t h i n a r i go rou s Elea t i c l angu agei t i s n o t e v e n po s s i b l e to b e g i n to t a l k a b o u t th e m acrocosm whichseems t o b e . W e a re n o t s u s p i c io u s l y r e q u e s te d to c o n f o r m to thed i c t a t e s o f t h i s a u s t e r e d is c o u r s e s i m p ly to a v o i d t ro u b l e f o r P a rmen i -des : the a l l - i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r ence b e t w e e n r e a l c h a n g e a n d r e l a t i ona lc h a n g e p r o v i d e s a n a u t h e n t i c j u s t if i c a ti o n f o r t h e p r o h i b i t i o n .T h i s com ple t e s m y ske tch o f wha t I shou ld l ike D e m o c r it u s t o haveb e l i e v e d . It d e l i v e r s j u s t so m u ch a s i s r eq u i r ed i n o rd e r to account fo rthe m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n s to w h i c h o r d i n a r y p e o p l e a re l iab le . It a l lowso n e to s e e h o w o n a v i ew Elea t ic in m ore than nam e m i s takes a rep o ss i b l e . F u r t h e r m o r e , n o a l te rna t iv e , we ake r the s is , pe rm i tt ing a m o r eg e n e r o u s o n t o l o g y , c a n s u c c e s s f u ll y a v o i d t h e s n a re s o f M e lis su s a r g u -m e n t . U n t u t o r e d h u m a n i ty s b as ic b l u n d e r o c c urs w h e n w h a t a r e i nfac t r e l a t io n s a r e w r o n g l y r e g a rd e d a s t h in g s o v e r a n d a b o v e t h e irr e l a t a , w i t h th e d i sa s t r ou s conseq u ence that mere re la t iona l change isf a l l a c i o u s ly a s s im i la t ed to im poss i b l e r eal change . W ork ing ou t thed e t a i l s o f t h i s d i a g n o s i s i s o f s e cond a ry im por tance : g i ven tha t i nd i v i -d u a l a t o m s a re inaccessib le t o o u r a p p r e h e n s i o n , i t m igh t even b e t h ecase th a t o ne m u s t r e s t con ten t w i th the g ene ra l ana lys i s o f the d e lu s ivea p p e a r a n c e s a n d d o w i th o u t e x p la n a t io n s o f sp ec i f ic t y p e s o f e r r o r a n dp a r t i c u l a r m i s t akes . H oweve r , the s im ple , u nd e ta i l ed accou n t suff icesfo r t he s u p p l e m e n t a ti o n a n d p r o te c tio n o f P a r m e n i d e a n p h i lo s o p h y sco r e , and thu s wou ld e s t ab l i sh the va l i d i ty o f E lea t i c p lu r a l i sm on i t so w n t e r m s . I t r e m a i n s to a t te m p t to a t t r ibu te th i s success to Dem ocr i tu shimse l f .

llT h e d o x o g r a p h y p ro v i d e s so m e m e ag re e v i d e n c e w h i c h Imight exp lo i t in support

o f m y s t o r y , i n p a r t i c u l a r th e reportsthat De m o c r i tu s i n s is t e d t h a t th e d e r i v a t i o n


11/22

Eleatic Plura l ism 35of an au thent ic uni ty f rom a p lu r a l i t yis impossible and th a t only a toms and thevoid are real .14Co nfus ion se ts inwh e nonecon siders the ple thora ofin te rpre ta t ionsof these s t r iking (and puzzl ing) res tr ic t ions on offer, perhaps complementary, butnot even c lea r ly com pa t ib le . Obv ious lyIshould like to associate thisf a mo us d i c tumwi th Elea t ic p lura l i sma s def ined in the preceding section: only individual) a to msand th e void are real because an y th ing composi te wou ld fall foul of Melissus 's t r i ngen t argument against the possibili ty of rearrangement. Since there is not es t imony exp l ic i t lyto th iseffect, I shall reviewthe various glosses on thea tom ist icdenials , suggesting that someare inappropriate , others applicable butbest com binedwith m y reading.Perhaps the idea that composites on ly seem to b e but are not really unities couldunderp in the unreality thesis , but if so one must expla inwhy i t should be supposedt h a t macroscopic things lack un i t y and whyth is defec t should und erm ine the ir c la imto existence. It migh t be felt tha t on a certain reading satisfaction of this secondrequireme nt is easy. Legi t imate en t i ties are obviously not jus t s imple m anifo lds:there are not 'really ' any f locks of birds per se because all that is required tocons t i tu te some flock is a number of birds, and it apparently persists despiteconsiderable and freque nt changes in membership. The very fact th at we are irremedi-ably vague on the survival conditions for such groups testifies to the ir dubiousstatus (cf. the discussion of indefinite, 'pe rmanent ' atomic patterns in the lastsection). Therefore what remains obscure on this hypothesis are the atomistsgrounds for believing that all macroscopic things lack organisational or structuralun i t y ,e. g.that despiteappearancesthereisno th ingtochoose inthis respect betwe enthe bird and the f lock.O fcoursesuch a stance would be doomed from the outset: wilfully to insist tha ta bird is merely a random assor tment of ingredients , corpuscular or otherwise,would be perversely to saddle oneself with an untenable view of organisms asfortuitousaggregates. This thesis is comparable with the consequences which Aris -14 No strict unity from a plurality: Aristotle, G C A 8(325A35-6); DK 68A 37(Simplicius); 68A 42(A ristotle , Met. Z13,1030A9-10). Alexander ' s c la im tha ton th eDemocritean model true mixture does not occur (68A 64) might preserveacomparable denial on the part of theatomists,although it could simply reflectth e fact that a collocation ofdiscrete micro-particles is not a genuine from the Peripatetic point of view.N o th in gbutatomsand thevoid arereal:DK 67A 32(Ae tius);68A49(Galen);68A 57 (Plutarch); 68B 9 (from Sextus); 68B 125 (from Galen) ; Plutarch , adv.

Colot .11JOE-F. In 67A32 real renders ra ther than | , but thereport clearly derives from the original group expressing the/ con t ras t(indeed in 68A 49 Galen employs in conjunct ion with th e q u o t e d ,perhaps narrowly atomistic technical terms).68A 57,which d is t inguishesbetweenthe mere appearance ( & ) of macroscopic complexes and a tomic being ( ), followsclosely after Plutarch 'su n iq u eversion of the / opposi-t ion (to be discussed in the following).


12/22

1 3 6 R . B . H . W u r d yl o l l e e x t r a c t s f r o m t h e R m p e do e l e a n s c h em eo fd e v e l o p m e n t a n d c o n s i d e rsa reductioo f t h a t t h e o r y Physics i i . 8 ) it w i l l n o t d o t o a s s u m e t h a t D e m o c r i t u s o f h i s o w na c c o r d e m b r a c e d s u c h u n a t t r a c t i v e a n d u n m o t i v a t c d p r o p o s i t i o n s .

A c c o r d i n g l y w e m i g h t t u r n t o t h e c o n j e c t u r e t h a t t h e a t o m i s l s d e n i e d t h e u n i ty a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e r e a l i t y ) o f m a c r o s c o p ic c o m p l e x o b je c t s n o t a s a r e s u l t o fi n s e n s i t i v i t y t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f v a r io u s s t ru c t u re s o r p r i n c i p l e s o f o r g a n i s a t i o nd i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e m f r o m m e r e h e a p s , b u t r a t h e r a t t h e p r o m p t i n g o f r e d u c t i o n i s ta m b i t i o n s . T h e n e w idea is t h a t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e b i r d c o n s i s t s o f n o t h i n gb u t a t o m s a n d v o i d , t h a t it is e x h a u s t iv e l ycomposed o f a f u n d a m e n t a l p l u r a l it y ,e n t a i l s t h a t it is n o t h i n gb u t a c o l l e c t i o n o f a t o m s a n d v o i d . O f c o u r s e t o a r g u e ins u c h a f a s h i o n w o u l d b e t o c o m m i t a t r a n s p a r e n t r e d u c t i o n i s t f a l l a c y , s o t h a t w es h o u l d f a l l b a c k o n t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o n l y if n o t h i n g e l s e i s t o be f o u n d .

H o w e v e r o n e c o u l d o b je c t t h a t t h i s l in e o f r e a s o n i n g is h a p p i l y s u p e r f l u o u sb e c a u s e t h e a t o m i s t s ' E l e a t i c le g a cy w o u l d h a v e in c l in e d t h e m t o t h e b e lie f t h a ta n y t h i n g w h ic h is a p l u r a l i ty(e . g . a c o m p le x , w h e t h e ra s t r u c t u r e d w h o l e o r a l o o s ec o l l e c t i o n ) ipso facto c a n n o t b e a u n i t y in a n y s e ns e w h a t s o e v e r , p re c is e ly b e c a u s et h e y f a i l e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n s u c h s e n s e s . T h e e v id e n c e f o r t h is c la im w o u l d b ea n e x t r a p o l a t i o n f r o m S o c r a t e s ' r e j o i n d e r t o Z e n o Farm. 129B C ) t h a t t h e r e i sn o t h i n g o d d i n o b j e c t s ' b e in g b o t h o n e a n d m a n y in d i f f e r e n t r e s p e c t s b y v i r t u e o fp a r t i c i p a t i o n in b o t h U n i t y a n d P l u r a l i t y . E v i d e n t l yP l a t o i m p l i e s th t t h e or ig ina la n t i - P a r m e n i d e a n p l u r a l i s t s w e r e b l i n d to such a p o s s i b i l i t y ( w h i c h Z e n o i n h i sp o l e m i c a l z e a l r e c o g n i s e d b u t c o n c e a l e d ? ) .1 5T h u s o n e m i g h t c o n c l u d e t h a t u n d e r th e m i s l e a d i n g i n f l u e n c e o f Z e n o n i a np a r a d o x e s t h e a t o m i s t s a r g u e d a s f o l l o w s f o r t h e t h e s i s t h a t n o t r u e u n i t y c a n c o m ef r o m a p l u r a l i tyas a bas is f o r t h e d e n i a l o fr e a l it y to m a c r o s c o p i cc o m p o s it e o b j e c t s .I f a n a p p a r e n t l y s in g l e s o m e t h in g i s i n a n y w a y c h a r a c t e r i s e d b y p l u r a l i t y , t h e n itw o u l d per impossibile b e a t o n c e o n e a n d m a n y , o r r e a l l y isj u s t a p l u r a l i t y p u r ea n d s i m p l e . B u t s in c e w h a t e v e r i s , i s a u n i t y , o n t h i s l a t t e r o p t io n it w o u l d b en o t h i n g i n it s o w n r i g h t ; in e i t h e r c a s e it d o e s n o t a c t u a l l y e x i s t .1 6T h u sD e m o c r it u s '

15 T h a t P l a t o d o e s n o t m e n t i o n / ? r 0 - P a r m en i d ea n p l u r a l i s t s w h o c o n c e d e d th ev a l i d i t y o f t h e Z e n o n i a n d i l e m m a s is n e i t h e r h e r e n o r there , s ince h e n o t o r i o u s l yo m i t s a l l m e n t io n o f t h e a t o m i s t s t h r o u g h o u t h is c o r p u s .16 B a r n e s s ee m s to a t t r i b u t e s o m e s u c h r e a s o n i n g t o t h e a t o m is t s . R e m a r k in g t h a t(o n h is i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) t h e y c a n n o t h a v e r e c o u rs e t o a n E l e a t i c r a t i o n a l e f o r t h eu n r e a l i t y thes i s (444) , h e w r i t e s : A n y t h i n g t h a t t r u l y e x i s t s i s o n e t h i n g , a u n i t y ;m a c r o s c o p i c o b j e c t s a re c o n g l o m e r a t i o n s o f a to m s ; n o c o n g l o m e r a t i o n o f o b j e c t sc a n e v e r c o n s t i t u t e o n e t h i n g , a u n i t y ; h e n c e m a c r o s c o p i c o b j e c ts d o n o t t r u l ye x i s t . T h a t , I s u p p o s e , i s t h e m e t a p h y s i c a l f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e A t o m i s t s ' v i e w t h a tm a c r o s c o p i c o b j e c t s a re u n r e a l (4 45: w h a t r e l a t i o n , if a n y , t h i s c l a i m b e a r s tot h e e a r l i e r s u g g e s t i o n ( 2 2 5 ) t h a t m a c r o s c o p i c objec t s a re u n r e a l i n a s m u c h a sa u t h e n t i c p h y s i c a l b o d ie s a r e n e c e s s a r il y solidislef t o b s c u r e ) . T h is i s h a r d l y l u c i d .Since h e fa i l s t o e x p l a i n why h e s u p po s e s D e m o c r it u s d e n i e d t h a t a c o n g l o m e r a -t i o n o f o b j e c t s c a n e v e r c o n s t i t u t e o n e t h i n g , a u n i t y , w h e t h e r o n a c c o u n t o f


13/22

E l e a t i c P l u r a l i s m 137p o s i t i o n d e r iv e s f ro m n e i th e r a c o n c e rn to r e sp e ct th e ba n o n r e a l c h a n g e n o rr e d u c t i o n i s t l e a n i n g s , b u t r a t h e r o r i g i n a t e s in a l o g ic a l m i s c o n c e p t io n f o s t e re d( i n n o c e n t l y o r n o t ) b y Z e n o , a n e r r o r p r i m i t i v e y e t n e v e r th e l e s s g e n u i n e l y t r o u b l i n gbefore P l a t o go t to w o r k .M y r e s p o n s e to these accounts o f the a t o m i s t i c c o n v i c t i o n t h a t n o t r u e u n i t y ,a n d t h u s n o a c tu a l e x i s t e n t , i s c o m p le x , i s q u i t e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . G i v e n t h a t n o n eof o u r s o u r c e s i n f o r m s u s o f th e r e a s o n s t h a t De m o c r i tu s a d d u c e d fo r the a d o p t i o no f t h i s m a n i f e s t l y s ign if ican t v iew, gu ided b y a n o bv io u s p r in c ip l e o f exegc t ica lc h a r i l y w e o u g h t t o a d o p t t h a t c a n d i d a t e e x p l a n a ti o n f rom t h e r a n g e o f p l a u s ib i l i t yw h i c h d oe s h im m o s t c r e d i t . I f th i s i s the a p p r o a c h t o be f o l lo we d , th e n c l e a r ly m yr e a d i n g ( i f poss ible) is p re fe rable , s ince ra the r than accus ing th e a t o m i s t s o f f a u l t ylogic o r a v e r y c r u d e r e d u c t i o n i s m , i t a t t r ibu te s to th e m a n a r g u m e n t o f a p iecew i t h r e a s o n i n g t h a t I h a v e c l a i m e d t h e y s h o u l d in cons is tency have endorsed.A c c o r d i n g to t h e i r t h e o r y a c o m p le x wo u ld c o n s i s t o f a co l lec t ion o f a t o m s a n dv o id ; bu t s inc e s u c h c o l l e c t io n s w o u ld be s u b je c t to r e a r r a n g e m e n t , wh ic h M e l i s s u sh a d e s t a b l i s h e d c a n n o t o c c u r , th e re a re n o n e . T h u s o n ly a n in c o m p o s i t e i n d i v i d u a lis a u n i t y , be c a u s e g ro u p in g s a r e n o t r ea l , s ingle th in gs .Ho we v e r , m y a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s th e logical and t h e r e d u c t i o n i s t f a l l acy a c c o u n t sneed not be the s a m e : w h i l e , a s I h a v e e x p l a i n e d , E l e a t i c p l u r a l i s m is s i m p l yin c o m p a t ib l e wi th a d v o c a c y o f a r e d u c t io n i s t p ro g ra m m e , I need no t in s i s t t h a t i tc o u ld n o t be c o m bin e d wi th a be l i e f , in s pi r e d by Z e n o , th a t u n i t y m u s t b e a b s o l u te .In t h a t c a s e p e r h a p s th e a to m is t s m ig h t h a v e a rg u e d d ia l e c t i c a l l y o n be h a l f o fE l e a t i c i s m t h a t e v e n on the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e i s a p l u r a l i t y ( i . e . t h a t t h e r e a reg ro u p s o v e r a n d a b o v e th e i n d iv id u a l s s u p p o s e d ly th e i r m e m be rs ) , n o co l lec t ionc o n s t i t u t e s a r e a l u n i t y . B u t according to t h i s s t o r y D e m o c r i t u s a t t e m p t e d d o u b l yt o d i s c o m f i t h i s o p p o n e n t s by s e e k in g to wr in g e m ba r ra s s m e n t f rom the conse-q u e n c e s o f a h yp o th e s i s wh o s e v a l id i ty he d id not in propri person concede noconf l i c t w i t h E l ea t ic p lu ra l i s m a r i ses . So if we re jec t th e r e d u c t io n i s m in t e rp re t a t io n ,w h i c h l a c k s c o m p e l l in g g ro u n d s fo r i t s a d o p t i o n , D e m o c r i t u s d o c t r in e c o n c e rn in gu n i t y i s a t th e v e ry l e a s t c o n s i s t e n t wi th , i f n o t a c tu a l ly p ro m p te d by , a th e o ryc o n s t ru c t e d in o r d e r to avo id the a d m is s io n o f r ea l change .S o m u c h for thei m p l i c a t io n s of the first set ofsugges t ive doxograp hica l repor ts th e v e rd ic t m u s t r e m a in u n c le a r , bu t c e r t a in ly do es n o t e n d a ng e r th e pos s ib i l i ty t h a tas a m a t t e r o f h is to r ica l f ac t the anc ien t a tom is ts indeed advoc a ted a ve rs ion ofE l e a t i c p l u r a l is m . T he r e m a i n i ng e vi de n c e w h i c h m i g h t tell i n m y f a v o u r , p re se rvedin th e f o r m u l a e r e c o r d i n g a c o n t r a s t be twe e n m ic ro s c o p ic r e a l i t y a nd m a c r o s c o p i cc o n v e n t i o n a l i t y , y i e ld s r a th e r m o re d e c i s iv e p o s i t iv e in d ic a t io n s . Ho we ve r , in o r d e rto g l e a n th i s b e n e f i t f ro m th e f r a g m e n t s I m u s t f i r s t t a k e i s s u e w i t h a c u r r e n t l yp o p u l a r r e a d i n g o f the r e s t r i c t io n o f t r u e be in g to a t o m s a n d t h e void based o nt h es e )/ d i s t i n c t i o n s .

r e d u c t i o n i s t s y m p a t h i e s o r t h e Z e n o n i a n p u z z l e s o r s o m e t h i n g e lse , B a r n e s d o esn o t m a k e c l e a r i f he t h i n k s t h a t th e a t o m i s t s h a d good g r o u n d s fo r t h e i r be l ief


14/22

1 3 8 R . B . B . W a r d yB a r n e s n l l c m p l s to e x p l a i n I h e a t o m i s t s ' c o n t r a s l in t e r m so f a d i v i s i o n h e d r a w s

b e t w e e n , o n t h e o n e h a n d , p r i m a r y ( i . c . ne ce ssary) an d p r o p e r q u a l i t i e so f bodies( i . e . d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f d e t e r m i n a b l e p r i m a r y features) , and s e c o n d a r y p h y s i c a lq u a l i t i e s o n t h e o t h e r .1 7 H e s u g ge s ts t h a t D e m o c r i l u s d e n i e d t h a t a t o m s p o ss es ss e c o n d a r y q u a l i t i e s for the sake o f e x p l a n a t o ry e c o n o m y an d s i m p l y be cause som eo f t h e m , a t l e a s t , c a n n o t c h a r a c t e r i s e th e corp usc l e s (3 74) . Hav i n g as se m b le d h i sL o c k e i u n m a c h i n e r y B arne s se ts it to w o r k o n the a n c i e n t u n r e a l i t y th e s i s : An easygloss s u g g e s t s i tse l f : if i m p r o p e r s e c o n d a r y q u a l i t i e sc a n b e accoun te d for by wayof p r i m a r y an d p r o p e r q u a l i t i e s , t h e n a c o m p l e t e a c c o u n t of th e real world needm e n t i o n n o i m p r o p e r s e c o n d ar y q u a l i t i e s a t al l ; fo r e ve ry fact e xp re s s i b l e b y as e n t e n c e of the form ' m a c r o s c o p i c ob j e c t M h asQ*' i s e q u a l l y , a n d m o r e f u n d a m e n -t a l l y , e x p r e s s i b l eb y a se n te nce o f t h e form ' A t o m s At , A2, .. . , h a v i n gQt, Q2, .. . ,are a r range d in p a t t e r nP' (374). In orde r to m a k e s e n s e o f t h e ch o i ce o f as the general te rm for the secondary and unreal , he f ina l ly appends to h i s readingth e i de a th a t All improper secondary qual i t i e sa re e x p l i cab leby way of quali t ies;and th e e x p l i c a t i on reve a ls th a t th e y a re a l l m i nd-de p e nde n t (376).18

T h e p r o b l e m w i t h t h i s i n f lu en t i a l reading is j us t t h a t it is u n m o t i v a t e d an da n a c h r o n i s t i c , o r ra th e r l ack i ng an y m ot i va t i o n conne c te d w i th conce rns e ve nt ange n t ia l l y re l e van t to D e m ocr i te an p h i losop h y , un le s s o n e begs th e ques t ion withth e c l a i m t h a t a n c i e n t a t o m i s m w as essential ly a project inr e d u c ti o n i s m . I t borrow sm u c h of i t s ap p e a l from th e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t i s t o be cons trued as m i n d -d e p e n d e n t once th a t g los s is p e rm i t te d , t h e t e m p ta t i on to accept the al leged

7 H a v i n g f o rm u l at e d w h a t h e labe ls pr inc ip le (D3) Q is if and on ly if Qise i th e r a p r i m ary o r a p rop e r qua l i ty o f bod ies B a r n esdoes register acaveatI d o n o t m e a n t h a t t h e A t o m i s t s exp l ic i tly em braced (D3) there i s no traceof an y such de f i n i t i on in t he d o x o g r a p h y ; but I th i nk th a t (D 3 ) i s t he thesisw h i c h b e s t e x p l a i n sth e a tom i s t a t t i tude to a t o m s an d qual i t ies (373) . M y rivali n t e r p r e t a t i o n isa d m i t te d l y n o less speculative , b u t ha s t he advantage o f c h i m i n gin w i th a t t r i b u t i o n t o t h e a t o m i s ts o f a v i e w o n 'real' change ( i t i s unreal ) thatp e r m i t s t h e m a success in c o n f r o n t i n g th e Eleat ic chal lenge which Barnes deniest h e m (see th e preceding note) .

18 I foc us m y cr i t i c i sm on B arnes not because h i s vers ion of such a s tory i s infe r ior ,b ut r a t h e r in response to h i s e xce p t i ona l ly unam bi guous e xp re s s i on o f th i s l inet h o u g h t , o f te n ap p are n t ly e ndorse d en passant (e. g. Sedley as quoted in note 11).K R S ' a t t r i b u t i o n to L e u c i p p u s o f a ne ga t i ve a t t i tude tow ards th e de l iverances o fthe senses inso far as they sugges t tha t ex i s ten t ia l change occurs (410 1 1 ) i s ve ryclose t o m y s ta r t i ng-p o i n t . T h e i r fu r th e r i de a th a t D e m o c r i t u s e labora te d th i si n h e r i t e d cr i t i que , r e l e ga t i ng al l (p o te n t i a l ly?) conf l i c t i ng a p p e a r a n c e s to thec o n v e n t i o n a lcategory in am o v e a g ai n s t Protagorean re la t i v i sm ,isagain u n ex c ^p-t i o n a b l e , an d e v i d e n t ly c o m p a t ib l e w i t h m y o w n reading. However the i r des ig-n a t i o n o f t h e i tems c lass i f ied as in f r a g m e n t 9 as secondary qual i t i e s(411) i s n o t e x p l a i n e d an d p e r h a p s casual .


15/22

Eleat ic Plural ism 139Lockeian parallel becomes overpower ing .1 9 But of course that is not w h a t means (I do not intend to suggest that Barnes, or any other advocate of an exegesisresembling his , pretends otherwise), of itself means conven tional , and inthe first ins tance w e o ugh t to assume no th ing more than th a t in seekingan under -s t an d i n g of i ts import as a philosophical term wi th a quasi - technical status. (Thisis to neglect the trivial i ty tha t all conven t ions are in an unex ci t ing sense dependen ton h um an minds for thei r creation and m aintenanc e, but tha t i s a point i r relevantto the evaluat ion of Barnes 's in terpretat ion.)Plu ta rch ' s version of the / contrast is un i q ue in its accurate reflectionof th e atomists ' unreali ty thesis in its u l l s t rength: , (adv. Coloi.1110E-F).20 We must not automat ical ly d ismiss this formulat ion as aberrant and19 This is not to deny that there are subjectivist analyses of what Democritusclassifies as merely to be found in the doxography , e. g. thisc o m m e n tof Galen's (D K 68A 49): . , ' , '' ''4 \' , '' ,

', ,. It is not par t of mybrief toarguethat according to the atomists the sensible characters ofmacroscopic objects (fo ra start)areno t somehow imposed on theworldb y theh u m a n m i n d .M yco mp l a in tis that Barnes does n o t h i n g to draw a connection between theco n ven t i o n a lcategory 's nature as a mental (social?) construct and i tsrecommended definit ionas the class of improper, secondary qualities, and invi testh e suspicion thath e isplaying on the conjunction of theses in the texts of Locke which inspi re hisconjecture to foist a similar doctr inal combination on Democritus.20 Unfor tunate ly the text is not certain, al though the case for the significance ofth e adv. Colot . quota t ion luckily does not depend on emendation. Immedia te lyafter the crucial word, , there i s a lacuna in the manuscr ipts ,whichWyttenbach suggests be stopped with . This is perhaps preferable toth e Loeb editors ' , since on Wyttenbach's conjecture th econven-t i ona l series culminates, as it should, wi th the inclusion of all complexes :see theapp aratu s in B. Einarson and P. H. De Lacy, eds., Plutarch s M oralia, vo l . xiv(London: 1967).It is all too easy to dismiss the singular nature of Plutarch's version; forexample, the punctua t ion of the Loeb t rans lat ion su rrept i t ious ly br ings it in toline wi th the other reports: ... 'colour is by convent ion, sweet by c o n v e n t io n /a compound by conven t ion , and so the rest, 'wha t is real are the void and theatoms'... . Professor Sandbach once actuallywent to thelengthofrecomm end ingt ha t itself bee limin ated (see the Loeb appara tus ) , but did so in th ebelief that Democr i tus could have had no reason ford e n y i n gtherea l i ty ofa t o m i ccombinat ions , and confesses the palaeographical improbab i l i t y of t h ec o r r u p t i o nof his suggested i n to (pr ivatec o m m u n i c a t i o n ).


16/22

1 4 0 R . B . B . W a r d yp r e s u m e h a t i h c o r ig i n a l c a t e g o r y o f w h a t i s) w as restr icted t o qua l i t i e s , r e ly ingi n p a r t i c u l a r o n t h e co r r e c t n e s s o f S c x t u s q u o t a t i o n (6 8 B 9 ) . if s u s p i c i o n s h o u l d fallo n an y s o u r c e , S e x tus r e l i a b i l i t y c o m e s i n t o q u e s t i o n r a th e r t h a n P l u tarc h s , s i n ce h i sJes i re to p o r t ra y D e m o c r i t u s a s a n a n c i e n t p r o t o - P y r r h o n i s t m i g h t very we l l e n c o u r a g eh im to e x p l o i t h i s ma t e r i a l i n a m i s l e a d i n g ly n a r r o w f a s h i o n . O f co ur se D e m o cr i tusis a s cep t i c w i t h regard to the appearances , according to a r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r s t a n d i n go f s c e p t i c i sm , a nd o f co ur se Sextus e v ide n ce m ake s i t ce r ta in that h e den ies t le stth e rea l i ty o f the p r o p e r t ie s e n u m e r a te d . H o w e v e r , if w e n o t e t h a t Sextus in terest inth e a t om i s t i c t h es i s w o u l d p r o b a b l y n o t e x t e n d b e y o n d i ts appar e n t o v e r lap w i t hi n d e p e n d e n t l y m o t i v a te d w o r ri e s a b o u t th e re l iab i l i ty o f the senses, w e hav e suff ic ientreason t o tak e Plutarc h s addi t ion se r ious ly and en ter ta in the po ss ib i l i ty that i tpreserves a h i n t o f D e m o c r i t u s a l l e g ian ce to Eleat ic p l u r a l i sm . 2 1

To sum up t he po s i t iv e i n d ic a ti o n s : f i rs t, f rom P lu t ar ch , t he co mpr e he n s iv e c la imt h a t everything macr o sco p ic i s m e re l y O n m y hypo t he s i s t h i s is because th em u t a b i l i t y o f a l l c o m b i n a t i o n s r e n d e r s t h e m u n r e a l ; to s uppo se that there actual lyare e i t h e r m e n o r g r o u p s o f a t o m s is a r b i t ra r i ly to impo se a m akebe l i eve(becausei m p o s s i b l e ) c o n v e n t io n o n r ea l i ty . Second,perhaps th e re ject ion o f co m ple x u n i t ie sf o l l o w s f rom th e a t te m p t to av o id po s t u la t i n g th e ex is tence o f a n y p lural i ty . Final ly ,o n e m i g h t s p e c u l a t e t h a t th e neat d iv is ion o f t he factors he ld respons ib le f o r theappearance ofmacroscopic change in to in t r ins ic atomiccharacteristicsandrelationalfeatures i s sug g e s t iv e , a l t ho ug h far f rom conc lus ive . Shape , s ize and maybe we ightare i n t ri n s i c , a r ra n g e m e n t , p o s i ti o n an d n u m b e r are r e lat ional ; change in in tr insicp r o p e r ti e s , w h i c h w o u l d in d e ed b e real, is f o r b i d d e n . T h e poss ib le support fo r Eleaticp l u r a l i s m i n t he an c ie n t so ur ce s i s adm i t te d ly n o t p l e n t i fu l : i n t he fo l l o w in g se c ti o n ,w h e r e I s h a l l c o n f r o n t th e m u c h m o r e i m p o s i n g n e g a ti v e im p l ic a ti o n s o f t hedoxogra-p h y , I sha l l a l so a t t e mpt t o acco un t fo r t he l ack o f he lp t o b e fo un d .

IVTo put the d iff iculty as b l u n t l y as po s s i b l e : If the a tomists areu l t ima t e Eleat ics i n the fash ion descr ibed, w h y d o n t th e sources say

21 Barnes asks: Does f re e z in g w at e r chan g e f ro m b e in g transparent to b e in g opaque?Doesg rass in h ig h sum m e r chan g e f ro m g re en to b row n? Transparency an dopacity,green an d b r o w n a r e no t 4real quali t ies; they exist on ly c b yconvention'. Thenp e r h a p s th e chan g e s are s imi lar ly un r e a l , o ccur r in g o n ly b yconvention'.Does th ew o r l d c o n t a i n pp rent chan g e s f r o m g r e e n t o b r o w n , o r genuine changes f romapparen t g reen to a p p a re n t b r o w n ? As far as I can see, th e Abderites d id n o tposethese ques t ions ; nor did they grasp th e impor tance o falteration i n the neo-Ioniana n s w e r to Elea (4345) . Barnes fails to grasp th e impor tance o f Plutarch'st e s t i m o n yan d ev iden t ly assum esthatSextus'catalogu e is accu ratelycomprehensive.Dem oc r itus w ou ld rep ly tha t there are on ly apparen t , i . e . re lational changes green is an apparen t qual i ty n o t because it is secondary, b u t precisely because itsau th en t i c i ty w o u l d e n t a i l th e imposs ib le occurrence o f real change.


17/22

Eleatic Plural ism 141as m uch? In pa rt icular , why don t they explici tly rem ark tha t atom icaggregates, which a re easily supposed to be acceptable reductive re-place m ents for ord ina ry objects, are in fact inad m issible for the reasonsrecounted? The beginnings of an answer become apparent if we recon-sider the mora l of Parmenides fate a t the hands of the ancient histor-ians of philosophy (see nn. 6 and 7). The doxographers freely ex t rac tclaim s from ei ther part of his poem which they indiscrim inately ascribeto him as endorsed doctrine. In our opinion this is wan ton ly todisregard the al l-important distinction between the Truth and the god-dess s instructively deceitful account of mortal opinion, al though weconcede that the precise workings of the s tratagem remain obscure.What is the origin of this fundamental distortion in the sources?Aristotle tell ingly informs us that Parmenides w as compelledto followthe appearances: tha t is, as I interpre t this intrig uin g desc ription, evenif he did not honest ly own up and abandon h is deduct ion underpressure from the palpable truth of th ings, Parmenides m ust seriouslymean wha t he says in the latter half of his poem, where his ideas a re(relatively) sensible. As an initial defence of my reading I suggest thatin parallel fashion the ancient authorit ies fail accurately to express theactual nature of atomistic metaphysics and epistemology because theytake it very much for granted that the core tenet of Eleaticism. theimpossibili ty of real change, is a dead letter. The y ro utin ely m isrep-resent Democritus, often as the advocate of the s imple-minded reduc-t ionism which I have been a t pa ins to dismiss from serious considera-tion.In order to deepen this critical estimation of the s tandard por t rayalof philosophers within the Eleatic tradition it will prove useful tosubjectAristotle s exposition of the origins of a tomism DeG enerationeet Corruptione A8) to suspicious scrutiny. His a nalysis is gen erallyaccepted as pretty convincing: indeed, some commentators comedangerously close to according it canonical status w i thout a cknowledg-ing the full extent of their reliance on this single inf luent ia l t ext . It isindeed of a high qual i ty and not l ightly to be set aside, but we shouldat least quest ion Aristot le s fam ous exp lan at io n of Leuc ippus motives.

Aristot le asserts that Leucippus was concerned to effect a compro-mise between the appearances and E l ea t i c a rgumenta t ion . B ut can th i sclaim as it stands be correct? Perhaps the a tomis t t h o u g h t he hadarguments which , in saying things in agreement w i th percept ion, d idnot abol ish motion or the p lura l i ty of w h a t is. However, t h a t is no t toagreetha t L euc ippus m ust have regarded h imself a s r e - ins ta t ing a u t h e n -tic c oming to be and pass ing away - r a t he r he seeks to show how10 A r c h (icsth Phi losophic B d 70


18/22

1 4 2 K . B . B . W a r d yt h i n g s c o u l d look t h a t w a y . T h e r u l i n g p u r p o s e o f t h e a t o m i s t s e n t e r -pr i se i s l o e n r i c h t h e o r i g i n a l E lea t ic o n t o lo g y a n d a l l o w s o m e m i n i m a lv l i i t y t o t h e de l i v e ran ce s o f t h e s en s es w i t h o u t c o u n t en a n c i n g g e n u i n ec h a n g e s . V iewed as an a t t e m p t a t r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , t h e ir e x t en s i o n o f t h er a n g e o f p e r m i s s i b l e t h i n g s an d h a p p e n i n g s m a y b e ju d g e d d i s a p p o i n t -i n g l y s m a l l : a l l t h a t r e m a i n s o f m a n i f o l d a p p e a r a nc e i s p l u r a l i t y an dm o t i o n . A r i s t o t l e s a c c o u n t g l o s s e s o v e r t h e m e a gr e e x t e n t o fLeu-e i p p u s o s t e n s i b l e c o nc e s s i o ns t o t h e appearances n o t nearly suff i-c i e n t for h i s h y p o t h e s i s to serve as a l e g i t i m a t ecomprom ise be tweenth e s e nse s an d r e a so n . T h e Per ipa te t ic presen ta t ion o f a t o m i sm as ar e c o n c i l i n g projec t h as been a l lowed to p a s s m u s t e r far too eas i ly.

I n fact A r i s t o t l e c l a i m s w h a t o n e would expec t h i m t o s a y f o rp h i l o s o p h e r s w h o en joy h i s qual i f ied approval , t h a t th ey are r at h e r likeh i m s e l f . A n A r is t o t e l i an d u l y cons iders t h e s u g g e s ti o n s o f t h e wise an dth e i n d i c a t i o n s o f p e r c e p t i o n , n icely ba lances compet ing ideas aga ins teach o t h e r , sagely e l i m i n a t es t h e c o n v e n i e n t l y t i n y re s id u e o f i n t rac tabled i s a g r e e m e n t an d luc id ly presen t s a con servat ive th eory wh ich preservesth e b e s t i n t h e d iverse sources o n w h i c h h e draws. S ince Ar i s to te l ianp h i l o s o p h y i s an ar t o f c o m p r o m i se , h e na tural ly pays Leuc ippus th ec o m p l i m e n t o f a t t r i b u t i n g t o h i m a m o t i v a t i o n o f w h i c h h e h i g h l ya p p r o v e s , al th o u g h t h e a t o m i s t s v a l i an t efforts failed t o u n t ie t h e k n o tw h i c h A r i s t o t l e h i m s e lf l a ter unravel s . B u t t h e p lura l i s t Elea t ic s mus th a v e b e en r a t h e r m o re u n c o m p r o m is i n g t h a n t h a t t he i r a im was toa c c o u n t f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f error, n o t t o concede even t h e par t ialt r u t h o f t h e ontologic lc la ims o f Parmen ides oppon en t s , i l l i c i t ly extra-p o l a t i n g f rom th e senses acceptable tes t imony regarding t h e exis tenceo f p lu ra l i ty an d m o t i o n to t h e unacceptable occurrence o f real change.I t m i g h t be o b je c te d t h a t t h i s i s j u s t wh a t A r is t o t l e sa ys about t h em o t i v a t i o n o f a t o m i s m . B u t h i s a c t u a l f o r m u l a t i o n , t ha t Le u c i p p u si m a g i n e d h e h a d a r gu m e n t s wh i c h , a gr e e i ng wi t h se nse p e r c e p t i o n( ), would not do away wi thg e n e r a t i o n o r p e ri s h i n g ( ),is i nd e e d m i s l e a d i ng . Th e a t o m i s t i c a g reem en t w i t h th e senses comesto t h i s : t h e y d e v el o pa m e t ap h y s i c s w h i c h c an accommodate perceptuala p p e a r a n c e w i t h o u t a b a n d o n i n g E l e a t i c f u n d a m e n t a l s . T h a t man-o e u v r e i n v o l v e s 'not d o i n g a w a y w i t h e xi s t en t i al c h a n g e o n l y i n s o f a ras i t a l low s for th e pos s ib i l i ty of mist kenly su p p o s in g thatsuchc h an g eoccurs . (The t a c t i c i s no t u n l i k e t h a t whe r e by a h a r d d e t e r m i n i s trecogn i ses th e subjective p h e n o m e n o n o f free will an d achieves agree-m e n t w i t h t h e appearan ces b y p o s t u l a t i ng t h a t m e re ly e pi s t em i c p o s s i -b i l i t y suff ices f o r t h e e x p l a na t i o n o f o u r feel ings .) A r is t o t l e s


19/22

Eleat ic Plura l i sm 143 wrongly suggests a m u c h m o r e significant concessionto the p h e n o m e n a .

The passage continue s, ... [argum ents which] wou ld not do a w a ywith ei ther generat ion or perishing or movement or the p lu r a l i ty ofw h a t is ; bu t and are for the a tomis t s in a categoryent i re ly dist inct f rom existential change. Since they real ly are, theyt r u l y are not 'done away with ' , a nd serve to account for the concededappearance ofand.Aristotle 's words im proper ly suggesto therwisebecause for h im the appearances together with their indica-t ions of real change a re m anifes t ly ver id ica l , not jus t 'apparent'.Ar i s -tot le 's highly influential and skewed port ra i t of a tomism as aproject of reconciliation is the first stage in the doxography's misrepre-senta t ion ofDemocritus' philosophical inspiration whichisresponsiblefor subsequent confusion concerning then a t u re and eventhecoherenceof hisattitude towards theappearances. If it be protested that thisi sspecial pleading prompted solelyby thedesire toexp la in away aw kwardevidence, one might respond that we are happy to dism iss very s im i larreports concerning Eleat icism's founder, and that alike privilege ough tto beextended to his most subtlesuccessor.

Another potent ia l source of embarrassment i s the var ious reportsrecord ing Democritus' detai led atomist ic account of the m e c h a n is m sofperc eption,Theophrastus' eSensuinpar t icular , s ince they corr e la tea t o m s w i t h the macroscopic objects and proper t ies that I cla im a rerejected by Democr i tus as unrea l . For example , when Theophras tus(DK 68A 135) asserts that according to the Democr i t ean theory ofvision the air between the eye and the object of s ight is con trac tedand s tamped by the object seen and theseer , he c lea r ly t akes it forgranted that the a tomis t s ' theory involved reference to macroscopicobjects of perception (similar instances are of course to be fo u n dt h ro u g h o u t the ancient reports).In response w e should again indulgein a he al t hy suspic ion t h a t thedoxographers s im ply d is regarded the Elea t i c ob l iga t ionsof thea t o m i s t sand were insensi t ive to the original dialect ical context wherein thesetheor ies of perception were propounded. That is , D e m o c r i t u s m i g hton the one h a n d h a v e c o m m i t t e d h imse l f to the possibi l i ty inprincipleof r e f o r m u l a t i n g his perceptual analyses so as to avoid any confl ictwith the restr ict ion of rea l i ty to i n d i v i d u a l a t o m s , but on t h e o th e r1


20/22

144 R . B . B . W a r d yh a v e p c r m i l l c d h i m s e l f a r a n g e o f f l e x i b l e d i a l e c t i c a l s t r a tegies o n t h es t r e n g t h o f t h a t t h e o r e t i c a l t r a n s l a t i o n . P e r h a p s t h ea t o m i s ts ' t r e a t m e n to f th e s e n s e s t o o k i tss t a r t f r o m th e n e c e s s a r y c o n c e s s i o n t h a t p e o p l e d oo n I h e b a s i s o f t h e i r p e r c e p t u a l e x p e r ie n c e s' i nf e r ' (o r p r e - t h e o r e t i c a l l ya s s u m e ) th ee x i s te n c eo fm u ta b l es u b s t a n c e sa nd p r o p e r t i e s , a nd o f f e r edc a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o ns o f t h e s e n s a t i o no f i n t e n t i o n a l obj ec t s w h i c hm e r e lyse e m t o b e . H o w e v e r , th e o s t e n s ib l y a w k w a r d r e f e r ri ng te r m s o f t h i sp o r t i o n o f t h e t h e o r y la c k e x i s t e nt ia l i m p o r t . T h e i r e m p l o y m e n t ise x c u s e d b y t h e need to e n g a g e th e a t te n t i o no f p o s s i b l e c o n v e r ts t o t h eE l c u t i c t r u t h a nd a l l a y d o u b t s a b o u t th e p r o s p e c t s f o r a s a t i s f a c t o r yd i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e u n i v e r s a l l y f a m i l i a r p h e n o m e n a r e s i s t a n t t o t h eo r i g i n a l P a r m e n i d e a n a t ta c k . E v i d e n t ly th e s a c r i f i c e s in e x p r e s s i v er i g o u r d e m a n d e d b y t h e d u t y t o e x t i r p a t e a n t i - E l e a t i c e r r o r w o u l dr e n d e r a t o m i s m v u l ne r a b l et o s u b s e q u e n t d i s t o r t i o n .A s i d e - b e n e f i t o f t h i s r e a d i n g ist h a t i t suggests a m e a ns o f d i s p o s i n go f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h D e m o c r i tu s ' e x c l us i v e r e l ia n c e o n in t r ins ica t o m i c d i f f e r e n t i a e i n h i s a e t i o l o g y o f p e r c e p t i o n . O n t h e s t a n d a r di n t e r p r e t a t i o n , o ne m i g h t v e r y w e l l feel d i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h t h i s f e a t u r eo f th e a c c o u n t . A good r ed uc t ioni s t should r ea l i se that h e c a n a n dm u s t a v a i l h i m s e l f o f th e e m e r ge n c e o f h i g h e r -o r d e r p r o p e r t ie s a t le v e lsa b o v e b a s e in o r d e r a d e q u a t e l y to e x p l a i n th e u nr e d uc e d p h e n o m e n a .T h e c o m p l a i n t t h e n i s t h a t D e m o c r it e a n r e d u c ti o ni s m i s w o e f u l lyd e f e c t i v e b e c a u s e i t a t t e m p t s t o c o m p o s e m a n i f e s t l y i na d e q u a te a n a -l y s es d r a w i n g s o l e l y o n b a s e -l e v e l a t o m i c c h a r a c t e ri s ti c s . B u t a c c o r d i ngt o m y h y p o t h e s i s D e m o c r i tu s i s n o t a r e d u c t i o n is t , a n d s o tr i v i a l l y n o ta b a d o n e . B e c a u s e a ny a c c e p t a b l e c a n d i d a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f p e r c e p t i o nm u s t b e s u s c e p t i b l e , a t l e a s t in p r i n c i p l e , to t r ans la t ion in to a f i n a la c c o u n t m a k i n g r e f e r e nc e o n ly to i n d i v i d u a l a t o m s a n d t h e v o i d ,D e m o c r i t u s p r o p e r l y a b s t a i ne d f r o m e m p l o y i ng n o n-e x i s te n t a to m ic a s e s s e n t i a l p o s t u l a t e s i n h i s t h e o r y o f sensa t ion .F i n a l l y , o ne m i g h t s u p p o s e t h a t D e m o c r ite a n c o s m o go n y p o se s a ni n s u r m o u n t a b l e p r o b l e m f o r m y r e a d i n g s u r e l y t h i s i s t he c o m i n gto b e a nd p a s s i n g a w a y o f m a s s iv e a to m i c c om p le x e s A n y o f t h ed o x o g r a p h i c a l r e p o r t s o f th ea t o m i s ts 'v i e w son t h e f o r m a t io n o f w o r l d ss e e m s i n c o n v e n i e n t : a c c o r d i n g to t h e m a ll L e u c i p p u s a nd D e m o c r i t u sc h e e r f u l l y q u a n t i f i e d o v e r i n t h e c o s m i c se ns e , e n o r m o u s p a t -t e r n s w h i c h p e r i o d i c a l l y a r is e a n d p e r i s h t h r o u g h o u t t h e u n li m i te dv o i d . A p l u r a l i tyo f a t o m s c om e s t o ge th e r a nd p r o d u c e s asingl w o r l d -g e n e r a t i n g ( a l r e a d y th e d e s c r i p t i o n is h a r d l y c o ns i s te n t w i t h th es e v e r i t y o f t h e E l e a t i c r e s t r i c t i o n s o n t a l k o f patterns r e h e a r s e d i n


21/22

Eleal ic P lura l ism 145section II), succeeded by the first spherical s tru ct ur e, etc., as cosm icevolut ion progresses.

again recommend placing these narratives in a perspective whichdiscourages any au tomatic presumption that the atomists are necessar-ily commit ted to the existence of discrete, finite patterns that undergogenuine change. Expressed in a properly regimented Eleatic languagewhose referring terms range over nothing but individual atoms, cosmo-gony would no longer even seem to involve real , only a shiftin the relations subsisting between a very great number of intrinsicallyim m utab l e particles. Much more obviously than in the case of thetheory of perception effecting this translation would prove an imprac-t icable task: there a re too ma ny atoms, unma nageably related accordingto position. B ut that some regimentation isn t practically feasible doesnot and perhaps should no t prohibit theoretical allegiance to thetranslation project this is a position occupied by some phi loso phe rsof science, and perhaps the ancient atomists adopted an a na logousatt i tude. Furthermore, a phi losopher convinced that some portion o ford inary discourse is radically misleading in its logical and ontolo gica limplications may nevertheless condone its use as innocuous so long asone recognizes that such talk is loose and inaccurate. Both Empedocles(DK 31 8) and Anaxagoras (DK 59B 17) m ake this point w i th regardto standard locutions for coming and ceasing to be. Dem ocri tus m igh tvery well have employed the same strategy, especially since f u l l y ex-panded,proper expression according to his standards is b eyond hu m ancapacity.

VIOne might fear that whatever the final, judicious verdict on thereliabilityof the doxog raphy, on the possibili ty of a pervasive, d is tort iveselectivity in the reports Eleatic pluralism as I have sketched it is inany case fa r from constituting even a l imited phi losophical ideal. Ifthere are not re lly any composite things, how can Democri tus t h i n kcorrectly, ourselves, incorrectly? How can anyone perceive or t h ink?

Indiv idual atoms are not sensate. If groups of them are, then a tleast one set of apparent macroscopic objects does not dissolve a w a y :individual m inds . To a t tempt to do a w a y w i th oneself phi losophical lyis futile, to commit oneself to the effort, i ncoheren t - someoneisa t tempt ing metaphysical suicide. This is to l aunch a post-Cartes ian a t tack: one i s charg ing t h a t , inorder to m a k e a c lean sweep, Democri tus w ou ld be obliged f u t i l c l y lo


22/22

146 R . B . B . W a r d yd e n y t h e C o g i t o . N e v e r t h e l e s s , it w l l n o t d o t o a t t e m p t to excuse h isneg l ec t of the l o o m i n g d a n g e r o f se l f - re f u ta t io n o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a tt h i s is a ty pe o f a r g u m e n t w i t h w h i c h n e i t h e r th e atomis t n o r h i sc o m p e t i t o r s w e r e famil iar . Sextus i n f o r m s us t h a t D e m o cr i t u s h i m s e l fm a i n t a i n e d th e falsi ty of the P r o t ag o r e an d o c t r i n e t h a t e v e r yappear-a n c e ist r u e . vi i .389 90, and cf .adv. Colot.110 9 A ) . N o m at t e r t h a t t h e s e r e p o r t s m i g h t p r o v e s u s p e c t in detai ls ;w e are bes t advised to assume that a Democr i tus advocat ing a vers ionof E l e a t i c p lura l i sm w o u l d be wel l a w a r e of the p e n a l t y t h e r e b y in -c u r r e d .M i g h to n e n o tth e n specula te tha t suchar e a l is a ti o n w o u ld a b u n d a n t -l y suffice for the m o t i v a t i o no f D e mocr i t us ' epistemological pessimism(DK 68B 6, 10, 117) , w hose occas ion o therw ise rem ains obscure , an dp e r h a p sa c c o u n t for the n o t o r i o u s nihi l i smo f h issuccessor M etro do rus(DK 70B 1)? To proclaim n o o n e k n o w s w h e th e r w e k n o w o r n o t , o reven w h e t h e r t h e r e is or i s no t a n y t h i n g , w o ul d b e a n a p t expressionof th e p r o f o u n d d i l e m m a i n h e r i t e d by the f o l l o we r s o f Parmenides ,t h a t to embrace and expound h i s t ru th inev i tab ly en ta i l s succumbingto error , i f o n l y by ins tan t ia t ing i t. I f so , our reaction to the u l timateu n t e n a b i l i t y o f Dem o c r i t u s ' s tance ought to be admira t ion for h i sc o m b i n a t i o n o f dexter i tyin formulat ingh is unreal i ty- thes is an d hones tyin c o n f e s s i n gits s igna l defect; o n m y hypothes i s h e h a s af ter a ll great lyi m p r o v e d o n t h e s h e e r inexpl icabi l i ty of the appearances given th eresources o f E l e a t i c m o n i s m . I submit that Eleat ic plural ism is aphi losophica l sys tem o f cons ide rab le in t r in s ic in te res t , an d t h a t it isw h a t D e m o cr i t u s s h o u l d h av e m ai n t a i n e d ; i f he d id n o t , t h e n w em u s t ques t ion our suppos i t ion th a t the repercuss ions of P a r m e n i d e s 'd e d u c t i o n s h ap e a n en t i re epoch i n t h e h i s t o r y o f p h i l o s o p h y .22

22 A n e a r l i e r v e r s i o n o f t h i s paper w a s read a t t h e C a m b r i d g e 'B ' C l u b . I a mt h a n k f u l f o r t h eaudience s incisive cri t ic isms o n t h a t occasion, a n d h a v e d e r i v e df u r t h e r h e l p f r o m d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h M . F . B u r n y e a t , N . C . D e n y e r , a n d G . E . R .L l o y d .

Eleatic Pluralism

Documents

Transcript of Eleatic Pluralism