Chapter

Void?

J. T. Vallance

in The Lost Theory of Asclepiades of Bithynia

Published in print October 1990 | ISBN: 9780198242482
Published online October 2011 | e-ISBN: 9780191680489 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198242482.003.0003
Void?

Show Summary Details

Preview

It was suggested that terms such as corpuscula and so on refer to the same fragile particles. This chapter argues that the fragility of Asclepiades’ corpuscles was something which set them apart from the indivisible atoms of Democritus and Epicurus. In the best modern account, Harig argues that Asclepiades was indeed a void theorist and by this time in antiquity, void came in many guises, often in highly sophisticated forms. In fact, calling them all ‘void’ is rather misleading, especially given the degree of involvement of prominent void antagonists in the debate. On the other hand, this kind of void is physically passive and has no power, but it gives the atoms their crucial room to move and Epicurus positively affirmed its existence.

Keywords: corpuscula; fragile particles; Asclepiades; corpuscles; indivisible atoms; Democritus; Epicurus; void

Chapter.  17345 words. 

Subjects: Ancient Philosophy

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.