Talk:Atomism

message: The first sentence of this section makes an assertion that Plato would have objected to the mechanistic materialism of atomism.  I'm wondering if there should
be a source to back up this assertion or if it should just be stated that he would likely have disagreed.  It seems to me that an opinion of what Plato would think is being injected in this instance.
Markhampton8 (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geometry and Atoms Section Suggestion 

message: This article should probably be broken up and linked to separate articles on classical atomism, Indain atomism, Rennaissance/Sci Rev atomism, and the late 19th century debates about atomism.
:I disagree.  It's a long article, but I think it makes sense to have the whole story together.--ragesoss 15:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's long because it contains a bunch of extra stuff.  Much of it (esp. Consequences for guiding one's life and Facing reality) sound like someone's philosophy paper rather than an encyclopedia article.  Reorganization and some trimming are in order I think.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, those two sections could probably be removed; I was mainly just defending the historical sections.  Of course, you should take my defense of those with a grain of salt as well, since I wrote section from "exile of the atom" to "atomic Renaissance".  In short, trimming good, splitting up bad.--ragesoss 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking up the article 

message: Is logical atomism related to memetics? Martin
: Wow!  Nice idea.  I like that.  My immediate reaction would be, Yes, logical atomism would be one example of memetics.  But then maybe a logician like Bertrand Russell would say, "Wait a minute, young men, logic supersedes the culture that memetics traces."  Interesting insight.  I will look around for some scholar, perhaps a modern logician, who sees some connection between memetics and logical atomism.  I have to run to a party first, though.! :))). Rednblu 01:28, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical atomism vs. memetics 

message: Is there any reason why Creationism vs. Evolution is in this article?  It seems to me to have little relevance to the rest of it.
--LaurenKaplow 22:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You made the right choice; it detracted seriously from the article.--ragesoss 15:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation vs. Evolution 

message: I shrunk down both pictures to a more appropriate size.  Uriah923 07:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture size 

message: Why are there only a few lines on the Timaeus, where Plato spells out his atomistic theory, and extensive discussion of his idea of forms and the Creator/Demiurge?
Most of the discussion of Epicurus could be reduced to a few lines -- the first paragraph would about do it.
And as for Aristotle, a discussion of his reasons for rejecting atomism would be appropriate.
This article needs a lot of work. --SteveMcCluskey 02:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato and Epicurus too 

message: In accordance with policy on Copyright violations, I have made a duplicate copy of this page on Talk:Atomism/Temp.  Reflecting policy, the page will remain listed for 7 days to allow discussion and resolution of this issue at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_June_3/Articles.  
As a first step in resolving this problem, I have removed the passages copied from [www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/ india_contribution/physics.html] from the new temporary copy.  (Incidentally, the remaining section on Indian atomism is shorter and seems much more coherent).
Any further edits should be made to Talk:Atomism/Temp or they may be lost when the article is restored. --SteveMcCluskey 14:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation 

message: At 05:51, 17 October 2006 SteveMcCluskey undit my edits by reverting to the previous version. As no reason has been given for the reversion, and as I think my edits are definite improvements, I have restored them. If someone else decides to again undo my edits, I will not again restore them. It would help if instead some Wikipedians familiar with the subject compared the versions and explained why they prefer one or the other.
--Ujm 02:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other issues to do with philosophy and atomism

message: What's with the incessant vandalism? Note that I am now watching this page ...
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strom (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Hi! I replaced the mention of Pythagora's journey to India, which I think was not really pertinent, with the reference of Democritus journey to India. Benio76 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection between Indian atomism and Greek atomism  

message: The article seems to imply that after Boyle atomism was a done deal. This is not so — it remained a controversy amongst emminent scientists up until the early 20th century (e.g. the Boltzmannians vs. the Machians). Even someone as modern as Einstein contributed directly to the debate with his paper on Brownian motion, which was intended to provide logical-perceptual evidence for atomism. Any article on atomism should be able to bring it a bit closer to our present period, as otherwise the reader will get a very skewed version of this bit of the history of science. --24.147.86.187 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern atomism issues

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I was drawn by the recent edit to look at the distinction drawn between atomism in science and philosophy:
:"The word atom is understood in primarily two distinct ways: firstly, by the physical sciences; secondly, by philosophy. Atomism is traditionally associated with the latter,..."
I see two problems with this distinction:
First, by "physical sciences" the editors seem to mean the modern physical sciences, ignoring the fact that early "natural philosophers" who debated the nature of the material world (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Democritus, Descartes, Hobbes) are considered by most historians of science to have been doing physical science.  Thus the attempt to separate "natural philosophy" from the "physical sciences" seems to be either a false dichotomy, or perhaps a dichotomy that needs to be more clearly defined.
Secondly, once we look at the boundary in this fashion, the claim that atomism is traditionally associated with philosophy (as opposed to physical science) doesn't seem to hold up.
--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science vs Philosophy? 

message: Islamic corpuscularism
:I cut this out because inner and outer layers are not corpuscularism also Newman is alone in finding corpuscularism in the 13th century alchemy (not the 8th). The quote from Moran is out of context. Levere does not mention corpuscularism.J8079s (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see your point on the early Islamic corpuscular doctrines, which were added by User:Jagged 85.  However, later (17th c) corpuscularism is a well-established tradition that should be included.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading, not true and not in the citations 

message: I have to make a clarification: according to Democrito the universe is empty. On the contrary according to Anaxagoras the universe is permeated by aethere and the latter explains the transmission of physical phenomenon.
The Ionian atomism was heretic because for it, the universe is not metaphysical. The Universe isn’t god and there is no God in it or Dharma, transcendental energy, etc. The nous of the universe is only a cold imprescrutable mechanism. Atom is an evolution of the oldest concept of Arche (transcendental element) that exist in Hesiod and in Thales. Arche has various meanings: it can be infinitely big or small and indivisible and form the things. But the atom is not arche. Arche can be a part of holistic metaphysical organism or entity. The Ionian atom, as the modern atom, is a model (good or bad) to explain only physical phenomenon not to discovered God or other metaphysical questions ... 
Atomism is relativistic ! It is an accepted inability of the human logic and senses to know the whole ! 
There is also the hermetic tradition see Isaac Newton but is another thing it is a mysterical initiation on knowledge of the Ancients.  Expl. three times hero Hermete. See pseudoepigraphics texts (Egyptian-Ptolemaic period). These texts were very important in the Renaissance and Illuminism. 
About Isaac Newton see The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy (Cambridge University Press, 1984),
Dear Elf, it need to understand how “atomism” this article want illustrate. About the "system of values" behind the use of certain citations I remain in my opinion. I prefer scientifically validated Encycl as Encycl. Brit. Wikipedia at moment risks to be the pulpit of organised sectarisms. 
Michele
PS. I have no expectations I am skeptic.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.59.107 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Michele, you prefer a scientifically validated encyclopedia? Have you tried searching for one on Google? I doubt the article has a '"system of values"' but it may have a hodgepodge of something. Could you be more specific about why you post to this talk page? Is this about the same issue as before? I thought the discussion was complete.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: a clarification

message: In the introduction of the article, there is this statement: According to Aristotle, atoms are indestructible and immutable and there are an infinite variety of shapes and sizes. They move through the void, bouncing off each other, sometimes becoming hooked with one or more others to form a cluster. Clusters of different shapes, arrangements, and positions give rise to the various macroscopic substances in the world. And later on the article, there is a section "The rejection of atoms" that says Aristotle rejected the idea of atom. So which one is true? Did Aristotle support or reject the idea of atom? 65.128.190.136 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, the passage in the lead is misleading.  It cites Aristotle for a description of atoms -- a concept that Aristotle described but rejected.  I'm returning that passage to the state before this edit. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction information in the article 

message: Not Aryan like.
There is a small problem: unfortunately "Middle East cannot be older than India" ;-). Try to insert it. I hope you'll be very patient.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.73.79 (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal approach 

message: It seems completely odd that the article chooses to conflate the notion of a philosophical atom with a scientific one. A philosophical atom has features which actual atoms do not such, e.g. being indivisible and immutable, which are not at all true of scientific atoms. The term "atom" in science denotes an entirely distinct concept and should be featured solely as an article for further reference with a disambiguation notice. 
If no objections are raised I will change the article to reflect this.64.131.157.208 (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.When adding a section to the talk page please do it at the end. It is customary for talk pages to follow chronological order. I've now moved this section to the end of the page.</br> 2.The strict distinction of science vs philosophy is a modern concept and dichotomy which at minimum makes little sense historically, at least in this context; e.g. Newton's seminal work after all was named the Mathematical Principals of Natural Philosophy. Moreover if we were to follow such strict and imo anachrostic and arbitrary dichotomy, no ancient -or even not so ancient- "philosophical" or philosophical view, theory, practice, etc on whatever discipline would be anywhere relevant; e.g. since Kepler used the "God insired" Platonic solids on the Cosmos or since even after Newton, astronomy was still conflated for a period with astrology, one would have to erase from the astronomy article all the ancient -or not so ancient- parts-sections-history. </br> 3. You could voice your objections by adding to the atomic theory section phrases expressing the science vs philosophy view or placing the whole atomic theory section(s) under e.g. a new super-section Atomism according to modern Science. Or if your objections are more strong than that you could argue more seriously; just disagreeing is not a real argument.</br> 4. You may want to read about the -relatively- modern atomic theory controversy, the atomists vs the energeticians and how it relates to what we now call philosophy; I strongly suggest you read e.g. Poincare on Atoms and Atomism...</br> 5. It's therefore certainly not complete odd "to conflate the notion of a philosophical atom with a scientific one". It may seem to you; but this in no way justifies a whole section blanking... Thanatos|talk|contributions 10:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Atomic Theory section inappropriate for Philosophic Atoms

message: Note: new to Wikipedia.
I am reading the page and the fourth paragraph begins, "However, in the 20th century..." Is this relevant? If people want to read about atomic theory, they can go to the atomic theory page. I don't feel it has much to do with atomism, the philosophy from the 5th century BCE.
Shelby thomas15 (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the 20th century relevant? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atomism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611053822/http://www.vernonpratt.com:80/conceptualisations/d06bl2_1mechanical.htm to http://www.vernonpratt.com/conceptualisations/d06bl2_1mechanical.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030802193611/http://webserver.lemoyne.edu:80/faculty/giunta/dalton.html to http://webserver.lemoyne.edu/faculty/giunta/dalton.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907134420/http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-39 to http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-39
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061221163403/http://people.umass.edu:80/schaffer/papers/Fundamental.pdf to http://people.umass.edu/schaffer/papers/Fundamental.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The jurist Frederic Harrison affirmed that atomistic theory aimed to remove the "distinction which the Eleatic school drew between the Absolute, or the only real existence, and the world of change around us."
Aristotle (Physics, 2045) demonstrated that an actual infinite can't exist in nature because any continous quantity is by definition divisible for an infinite number of times, generating a potential infinite, namely, a finite quantity which grows without any interruption. On the contrary, atomism stated that matters becomes indivisible from a certain point onwards, and therefore made possible the identification of the metaphysical unique God, conceived as an actual infinite, with the immanent space and time. This aspect can be eventually pointed out in the WP article with additinal references.Theologian81sp (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomism vs the trascendence of the Absolute 

message: Ancient Chinese also believed in atomism i have uploaded the article about it Hagemaruii (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese contribution on atomism 

message: Why is there no mention of Jain atomic theory in this article?  It is detailed in a variety of Jain texts, such as  Panchastikaya Sara, Tattvartha  Sutra, SARVARTHA SIDDHI,  DRAVYA SANGRAHA, and GOMMATA SARA JIVA KANDA among others.  See more details in the book COSMOLOGY OLD AND NEW by physicist G.R. Jain. 47.138.18.163 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no section on Jain Atomism? 

message: I will provide a link on ancient Chinese theory of atomism if it is genuine then you can make a article on it . https://www.jstor.org/stable/6621 Ppppphgtygd (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese atomism  

message: there is a claim that the philosopher Mosco de Sidon had discovered atomism century before ancient Greeks. Cuando de hyiopi (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mosco de Sidon 

message: Why was this deleted earlier?
In the West, the Greek philosopher known as DEMOCRITUS OF ABDERA (4th century BC) is credited as the one who first theorized about the existence of atoms.  His school of thought has been called “atomism”, however, the concept of atoms was entirely new to Greece, whereas it was an old concept in India dating back at least to Bhagavan Mahavira (599 to 527 BC) of Jainism.  At least 5 different ancient Greek and Roman historians wrote that Democritus traveled to India and studied there (as well as Babylonia and Egypt).  These historians include DIOGENES LAERTIUS, SUIDAS, STRABO (while citing Alexander the Great’s historian Megasthenes), AELIAN (Claudius Aelianus), and the early Christian theologian HIPPOLYTUS.  In fact, both Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus specifically stated that Democritus studied under the GYMNOSOPHISTS or “naked sages” of India who have been identified as none other than the naked Jain monks.  Hence, it is possible that Democritus of Abdera gained the idea of atomism, which was new to the Greeks, directly from the Jains in India.
Source:  Taylor, C.C.W.  THE ATOMISTS: LEUCIPPUS AND DEMOCRITUS - FRAGMENTS A TEXT AND TRANSLATION WITH A COMMENTARY.  University of Toronto Press, 1999. 47.138.18.163 (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: first of all there is no evidence of democritus visiting india as the first contact between the Greeks and the indians happened during the conquest of Alexander the great and the concept derived by Democritus has nothing to do with what Jain's thought about atoms.The atomic ideas of democritus is little similar to sage kanada who date was uncertain but it's more likely to of 2nd century CE or BCE according to various reliable sources. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democritus and Jainism 

message: 'Three hundred years after Epicurus, Lucretius in his epic poem On the Nature of Things would depict him as the hero who crushed the monster Religion through educating the people in what was possible in atoms and what was not possible in atoms. However, Epicurus expressed a non-aggressive attitude characterized by his statement: "The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life."'
The use of the word 'however' implies a contradiction, but there is no contradiction. Whoever wrote this apparently felt that the (proselytising?) atheism that Lucretius attributes to Epicurus is somehow 'aggressive' and that given that Epicurus expressed a general principle of non-aggression towards living beings in the given quote, he can't have been a (proselytising?) atheist. This makes no sense: telling people that some belief of theirs is false is not 'aggression', and the role that Lucretius ascribes to Epicurus does not in any way contradict the principle that is proclaimed in the quote by Epicurus himself. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange assertion of contradiction 

message: Moved small paragraph on Dharmakirti which doesn't seem to be directly related to reductionism from section "Reductionism" to the lead. It is not my intention to emphasize his importance. The same info is repeated in "Medieval Buddhism", so it didn't seem meaningful to move it there. The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) 16:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dharmakirti 

message: Everything except the small section "Reductionism" is in the History section, so I removed the heading "History" and upgraded all subheadings thereunder one level. The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) 20:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Cool that they even show up but (a), no, the early branch in the 12th-century renaissance did not have access to tons of Aristotle's texts and (b), if you're going to talk about them, you should probably include more about the School of Chartres and William of Conches who actually were atomists of a sort and had their own responses to various medieval objections to the concept. — LlywelynII 13:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholasticism