how was Democritus's idea's different to Aristotle's about matter?

Answer 1

In answer to your question, not until around 460 B.C., did the Greek philosopher, Democritus, develop the idea of atoms. He asked this question: If you break a piece of matter in half, and then break it in half again, how many breaks will you have to make before you can break it no further? Democritus thought that it ended at some point, a smallest possible bit of matter. He called these basic matter particles, atoms.

Unfortunately, the atomic ideas of Democritus had no lasting effects on other Greek philosophers, including Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle dismissed the atomic idea as worthless. People considered Aristotle's opinions very important and if Aristotle thought the atomic idea had no merit, then most other people thought the same also. (Primates have great mimicking ability.)

Democritus apparently recognized a need to account for the fact that the disorderly motion of individual distinct atoms could produce an orderly cosmos in which atoms are not just randomly scattered, but cluster to form masses of distinct types. He is reported to have relied on a tendency of ‘like to like’ which exists in nature: just as animals of a kind cluster together, so atoms of similar kinds cluster by size and shape. He compares this to the winnowing of grains in a sieve, or the sorting of pebbles riffled by the tide: it is as if there were a kind of attraction of like to like.

Democritus regards the properties of atoms in combination as sufficient to account for the multitude of differences among the objects in the world that appears to us. Aristotle cites an analogy to the letters of the alphabet, which can produce a multitude of different words from a few elements in combinations; the differences all stem from the shape (schêma) of the letters, as A differs from N; by their arrangement (taxis), as AN differs from NA; and by their positional orientation (thesis), as N differs from Z (DK 67A6). These terms are Aristotle's interpretation of Democritus' own terminology, which has a more dynamic sense.

He famously denies that perceptible qualities other than shape and size (and, perhaps, weight) really exist in the atoms themselves: one direct quotation surviving from Democritus claims that ‘by convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void.’ As some scholors argue, the translation ‘convention’ should not be taken to suggest that there is anything arbitrary about the perception of certain colors, say: the same configuration of atoms may be regularly associated with a given color. The contrast here is intended to be that between real and unreal properties. What Democritus rejects as ‘merely conventional’ is, perhaps, the imputation of the qualities in question to the atoms, or perhaps even to macroscopic bodies.

The Main tenets of Democritus' atomic theory:

- Atoms were "invisibly" small and all made up of the same stuff - correct

(Atoms all have protons, neutrons and electrons. They basically differ only in that they have different numbers of these identical particles.)

- Atoms were nearly empty inside - correct

Atoms were in perpetual motion - in every direction throughout space. In modern terms, this is referred to as isotropism - a lack of direction (up, down, before, behind, etc.) - correct

- An atom's motion was continual and inherent. It has inertial mass, and did not need to be "pushed" - correct again

This argument annoyed Aristotle who felt that only divine objects ,the celestial bodies, required no motive force. Democritus' theory of atoms vulgarized all of matter by making everything, the celestial and the common, capable of having inertial mass. For this reason, Aristotle rejected Democritus. Aristotle was wrong. Democritus was correct.

- Atoms did not have weight or gravity - wrong

Well, you can't win them all.

Special note: Aristotle and Democritus argued over other matters as well. For example, Democritus argued about the possibility of the existence of a vacuum and matter moving through one. Aristotle said that a vacuum was impossible. Democritus was again correct, at least in the manner that they were debating the concept. (In quantum theory we know there can be no true complete vacuum, because this would imply that we know both the exact position and direction of an "object" in the vacuum - i.e. zero.) Objects could move in a vacuum, in fact, they could move free of friction. Aristotle was not only wrong, his error would cause astronomy to hold erroneous views for nearly two millenia.

Answer 2

Democritus And Aristotle

Answer 3

Democritus Atom

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
how was Democritus's idea's different to Aristotle's about matter?

Answer 5

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/ayefG

In ancient Greece, Democritus espoused the theory that all matter is made up of tiny, indivisible particles called atoms. This was in contrast to Aristotle's theory of the four elements: earth, air, fire, and water, which was the dominant theory for many centuries. Dalton was the first to formulate a universal atomic theory of chemistry, which revived the old atomic theory of Democritus but also greatly expanded on the concept. Dalton introduced the idea that atoms of different types have different weights. He also introduced the law of multiple proportions, which states that elements combine in specific proporions to create compounds, but not in-between proportions. Dalton said that atoms of different weights combined in specific ratios produce specific chemical compounds. In summary, the five main points of Dalton's atomic theory are: 1. Elements are made of tiny particles called atoms. 2. All atoms of a given element are identical. 3. The atoms of a given element are different than those of any other element. 4. Atoms of one element can combine with atoms of other elements to form compounds. A given compound always has the same relative numbers of types of atoms. 5. Atoms cannot be created, divided into smaller particles, or destroyed in the chemical process. A chemical reaction simply changes the way atoms are grouped together.

Answer 6

1