THE “ATOM” AND THE “CHERRY”
We have already noticed that Socrates was not interested in the general question “What is there?” He was aware that earlier philosophers spent considerable intellectual energy trying to discover the basic stuff underlying the things that make up the inventory of nature.His own major interest was ethics because nothing is more important,he said,than learning how to develop one’s character.But the earlier question about what things are really like could not be avoided.It was a combination of sheer curiosity,and practical considerations that pushed this inquiry.On the practical side there was the question about what happens to a person when he dies? Does any aspect or part of him remain or become transformed? From the point of view of intellectual curiosity,what happens to a tree when it burns or disintegrates? Far more sophisticated questions were raised,as for example,“How is motion caused”,and “How did things come to be in the first place?”
The predecessors of Socrates gave some unusual answers to the question “What is there?” These answers are summarized in Aristotle’s（384-322 BC）Metaphysics,Book I.Here we will mention only a few.Thales（624-546 BC）thought everything is made of water,probably,says Aristotle,because “the nutriment of all things is moist… and that animal life is sustained by it…”（Today we know that the most complex organ in the human body,the brain,is 80 percent water.）Empedocles（490-430 BC）thought there was not just one but four basic kinds of stuff out of which things were made,namely,earth,water,fire and air.Pythagoras（580-500 BC）thought that the clue to everything is number,because everything can be analyzed according to its form.Later,Anaxagoras（500-428 BC）suggested that the nature of reality is best understood as a combination of mind and matter.
But the most fascinating theory about the nature of things was suggested by Democritus（460-360 BC）.His thought was that everything is made up of atoms.Today,we speak of these as “elementary particles”.Democritus described them as tiny,solid,unbreakable,invisible,and eternal.Everything in the universe consists of these atoms.Their size varies and therefore bodies consist of larger atoms whereas mind is explained by the motion of smaller,smoother and swifter atoms（or those particles or brain waves which make an impact on an electroencephalograph）.There is,then,only one kind of stuff,namely,matter.Nothing is ever lost because,although everything eventually comes apart,the atoms thus released find their way into other things.There were some practical consequences to this theory,as Lucretius（98-55 BC）pointed out later.There was no place in this theory for a “creator” since atoms had come together,it was supposed,basically by accident.This meant there was no special purpose in human existence and certainly no need to fear future punishment.What makes Democritus’s theory fascinating is that in revised form it provided the basic scientific understanding of nature well into the twentieth century.Only recently have atomic scientist succeeded in breaking up the nucleus of the atom.
At the other extreme,Bishop Berkeley（1685-1753）denied the existence of matter.How could he make such a startling claim? Our first reaction is to ridicule him.Dr.Samuel Johnson had great sport when he kicked a stone and said about Berkeley,“I refute him thus.” But Berkeley was aware of the radicalism of his thought,as we shall see in our discussion of metaphysics.Nevertheless,he asks us to consider whether we really have any knowledge of matter.Earlier,John Locke（1632-1704）had said that common sense tells us that when we see,for example,the qualities red,round,and soft,there must be something that has these qualities.That something he called “substance” or matter.He could not specifically define substance but said that “if any one will examine himself concerning his notion of pure substance in general,he will find he has no idea of it at all,but only a supposition of he knows not what support of such qualities…” Although substance according to Locke is “I know not what,” he nevertheless was convinced that there is solid substance—matter—under the various qualities we perceive through our senses.Berkeley challenged this idea of substance.
In his Third Dialogue between Hylas and Philonus,Berkeley develops the proposition that it is thought,that is,mind,and not matter that is the basic reality.His central point is that “to be is to be perceived.” If you eliminate perceptions,you eliminate what is perceived.He asks us to think about a cherry:
I see this cherry,I feel it,I taste it ：and I am sure nothing cannot be seen,or felt,or tasted：it is therefore real.Take away the sensations of softness,moisture,redness,tartness,and you take away the cherry.Since it is not a being distinct from sensations;a cherry,I say,is nothing but a congeries of sensible impressions,or ideas perceived by various senses：which ideas are united into one thing（or have one name given them）by the mind;because they are observed to attend each other.Thus,when the palate is affected with such a particular taste,the sight is affected with a red color,the touch with roundness,softness,etc.Hence,when I see,and feel,and taste… I am sure the cherry exists,or is real;its reality being in my opinion nothing abstracted from those sensations.But if,by the word cherry,you mean an unknown nature,distinct from all those sensible qualities,and by its existence something distinct from its being perceived;then,indeed,I own,neither you or I,nor any one else,can be sure it exists.
We are left with an interesting question,namely,“What is there?” Is it matter,or is mind,or is it a combination of the two? We will ask later on,What difference does it make?
As we pursue in greater depth these five major problems of ethics,politics,religion,knowledge,and metaphysics,we will consider the ideas of over thirty philosophers.Some of them are alive,while most of them lived ten,fifty,five hundred,or over a thousand years ago.Why should we study voices from the past? There are several reasons for doing so.For one thing,these philosophers were concerned with the same questions and problems which bother us today.These questions will not go away.Secondly,in some cases,no one else has discovered a better way of understanding or a clearer way of formulating answers to these questions.Third,human nature has not changed all that much over the centuries even though our cultural surroundings have been altered by technology.That is why Greek literature,Shakespeare’s plays,and the works of the great philosophers continue to have some relevance for us today.Fourth,by comparing the ideas of different historic periods,we can discover how philosophers reacted to,disagreed with,or modified the ideas of their predecessors.And fifth,by being aware of various unsuccessful attempts to solve some problems we will be less likely to make the same mistakes as we face new challenges and opportunities to shape philosophy.
（Selected from Elements of Philosophy：An Introduction ,by Samuel Stumpf,McGrew-Hill,Inc.）