Each feature is optional and does NOT increase the price per page. You can choose all of the features, any combination of the features, or choose your own features—it is completely up to YOU. The price per page does NOT increase, no matter how many features you choose.
You will be charged ONLY for the total number of pages that you order. If you would like a feature that is not listed at right, we will include that feature at your request. On a case-by-case basis, we can also research numerical formulas, solutions, causality, design, forecasting, data management, and statistical analysis using software SAS, SPSS, and Excel.
Whether you need a 5-page research proposal at master-level, or a page thesis at doctoral-level, our qualified professionals will meet your needs— guaranteed! On the other hand, Eusebius, or rather the Alexandrian bishop Dionysius, from whom he takes excerpts, contradicts himself; for in the same book we read that Democritus assumed as the principles of nature indivisible bodies perceptible through reason.
Democritus was not aware of the contradiction; he did not pay attention to it, whereas it was the chief interest of Epicurus. The second property of the Epicurean atoms is shape. But this determination also contradicts the concept of the atom, and its opposite must be assumed. Abstract individuality is abstract identity-to-itself and therefore without shape. The differences in the shape of the atoms cannot, therefore, be determinedly although they are not absolutely infinite.
This obviously negates again the determination of the shape, because a shape which no longer differs from another is not shape. Hence, once the atoms are brought into the realm of presentation, they must also have weight. But weight also directly contradicts the concept of the atom, because it is the individuality of matter as an ideal point which lies outside matter. But the atom is itself this individuality, as it were the centre of gravity presented as an individual existence. Eurthermore since weight belongs only to that atom which is different from the other, hence externalised and endowed with properties, then it is clear that where the atoms are not thought of as many in their differentiation from one another, but only in relation to the void, the determination of weight ceases to exist.
The atoms, as different as they may be in mass and shape, move therefore with equal speed in empty space. This has led to the assertions that only the conglomerations of the atoms are endowed with weight, but not the atoms themselves. He thus gave us the science of atomistics.
In Democritus, on the other hand, there is no realisation of the principle itself. He only maintains the material side and offers hypotheses for the benefit of empirical observation. Part II, Chapter 3: Atomoi archai and atoma stoicheia D Diogenes Laertius, X, For every quality changes, but the atoms do not change.
They must be kept far apart from the atoms, if we wish to provide the universe with imperishable foundations on which it may rest secure Democritus [acknowledged] but two: Epicurus added the third, to wit, weight, for he pronounced that it is necessary that bodies receive their motion from that impulsion which springs from weight Comp. Sextus Empiricus, Against the Professors, p.
He Democritus assigns a unique common nature of the body to all shapes; its parts are the atoms, which differ from each other in size and shape; for they have not only different shape but some of them are bigger, the others smaller. But each piece must, as we assert, have the same motion So that if it be weight that all possess, no body is, strictly speaking, light; and if lightness he universal, none is heavy.
Moreover, whatever possesses weight or lightness will have its place either at one of the extremes or in the middle region. Democritus seems to think there are three kinds of difference between things [atoms] ; the underlying body, the matter, is one and the same, but they differ either in rhythm, i.
Leucippus and his associate Democritus say that the full and the empty are the elements, calling the one being and the other non-being-the full and solid being being, the empty non-being whence they say being no more is than non-being, because the solid no more is than the empty ; and they make these the material causes of things. And as those who make the underlying substance one generate all other things by its modifications, supposing the rare and the dense to be the sources of modifications, in the same way these philosophers say the differences in the elements are the causes of all other qualities.
These differences, they say, are three-shape and order and position. But to attribute any and every size to the atoms does not help to explain the differences of quality in things; moreover, in that case atoms would exist large enough to be perceived by us, which is never observed to occur; nor can we conceive how such an occurrence should be possible, i.
Again, you should not suppose that the atoms have any and every size On the analogy of things within our experience w e have declared that the atom has size; and this, small as it is, we have merely reproduced on a larger scale. But they differed in that one of them i.
Stobaeus, Physical Selections, I, Plutarch, On the Sentiments of the philosophers, i, p. Aristotle, On Becoming and Decaying, 1, 8 , Plutarch, On the Sentiments of the Philosophers, I, p. Moreover, we must hold that the atoms in fact possess none of the qualities belonging to the world which come under our observation, except shape, weight, and size, and the properties necessarily conjoined with shape.
Plutarch On the Sentiments of the Philosophers, l. The like atoms of each shape are absolutely infinite. Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, 11, Since the varieties of form are limited, the number of uniform atoms must be unlimited. Otherwise the totality of matter would be finite, which 1 have proved in my verses is not so.
There is, further, another view-that of Leucippus and Democritus of Abdera-the implications of which are also unacceptable But they have never explained in detail the shapes of the various elements, except so, far as to allot the sphere to fire. Air, water and the rest If it were not so, some of the atoms would have to be of infinite magnitude. Within the narrow limits of any single particle, there can be only a limited range of forms Variation in shape goes with increase in size.
You cannot believe, therefore, that the atoms are distinguished by an infinity of forms The atoms move with equal speed, since the void makes way for the lightest and heaviest alike through all eternity When they are travelling through the void and meet with no resistance, the atoms must move with equal speed.
Neither will heavy atoms travel more quickly than small and light ones, so long as nothing meets them, nor will small atoms travel more quickly than large ones, provided they always find a passage suitable to their size; and provided that they meet with no obstruction.
But empty space can offer no resistance to any object in any quarter at any time, so as not to yield free passage as its own nature demands.
Therefore, through undisturbed vacuum all bodies must travel at equal speed though impelled by unequal weights. Although Epicurus had perhaps never thought about this experiment, he [still] reached, led by reason, the same opinion about atoms that experiment has recently taught us. This opinion is that all bodies Thus he was of opinion that all atoms, however much they may differ in size and weight, move with an equal velocity.
The former are the atoms recognisable only through reason and do not occupy space. According to these conceptions one might think that Epicurus did not attribute any spatial properties to the atom. I therefore consider these atoms as belonging to the second species, those that have developed out of the former but can still be regarded again as elementary particles of the bodies.
Let us look more closely at the passage which Schaubach cites from Diogenes Laertius. For instance such propositions that the All consists of bodies and non-corporeal nature, or that there are indivisible elements and other such statements.
Epicurus here teaches Pythocles, to whom he is writing, that the teaching about meteors differs from all other doctrines in physics, for example, that everything is either body or void, that there are indivisible basic elements.
It is obvious that there is here no reason to assume that it is a question of a second species of atoms. But this is quite out of the question.
Lor example, in the letter to Herodotus we read: Among bodies some are compound, others the things out of which the compounds are made, and these latter are indivisible and unchangeable However, if it is thought an antinomy that bodies perceptible only to reason should be endowed with spatial qualities, then it is an even greater antinomy that the spatial qualities themselves can be perceived only through the intellect.
Eor the rest it is by no means claimed in these passages that the original atoms are without size, shape and weight. On the contrary, weight alone is mentioned as a distinctive characteristic of the atomoi archai and aroma stoicheia. But we observed already in the preceding chapter that weight is applied only in regard to repulsion and the conglomerations arising therefrom. With the invention of the atoma stoicheia we also gain nothing.
It is just as difficult to pass from the atomoi archai to the aroma stoicheia as it is to ascribe properties directly to them. Nevertheless I do not deny such a differentiation entirely.
I only deny that there are two different and fixed kinds of atoms. They are rather different determinations of one and the same kind.
Before discussing this difference I would like to call attention to a procedure typical of Epicurus. He likes to assume the different determinations of a concept as different independent existences, just as his principle is the atom, so is the manner of his cognition itself atomistic.
Every moment of the development is at once. This procedure may be made clear by the following example. The infinite, to apeiron, or the infinitio, as Cicero translates it, is occasionally used by Epicurus as a particular nature; and precisely in the same passages in which we find the stoicheia described as a fixed fundamental substance, we also find the apeiron turned into something independent.
We find in fact three meanings of apeiron. Eirst, apeiron expresses for Epicurus a quality common to the atoms and the void. It means in this sense the infinitude of the All, which is infinite by virtue of the infinite multiplicity of the atoms, by virtue of the infinite size of the void. Nevertheless, it is singled out as a particular existence, even set up as a specific nature alongside the principles whose determination it expresses.
The granting of the form of existence to different determinations has not resulted in understanding of their difference. Eor Democritus the atom means only stoicheion a material substrate. The distinction between the atom as arche and stoicheion as principle and foundation belongs to Epicurus. Its importance will be clear from what follows. The contradiction between existence and essence, between matter and form, which is inherent in the concept of the atom, emerges in the individual atom itself once it is endowed with qualities.
Through the quality the atom is alienated from its concept, but at the same time is perfected in its construction. It is from repulsion and the ensuing conglomerations of the qualified. In this transition from the world of essence to the world of appearance, the contradiction in the concept of the atom clearly reaches its harshest realisation. For the atom is conceptually the absolute, essential form of nature. This absolute form has now been degraded to absolute matter, to the formless substrate of the world of appearance.
The atoms are, it is true, the substance of nature,! Insofar as it proceeds to reality, it sinks down to the material basis which, as the bearer of a world of manifold relations, never exists but in forms which are indifferent and external to it. This is a necessary consequence, since the atom, presupposed as abstractly individual and complete, cannot actualise itself as the idealising and pervading power of this manifold.
Abstract individuality is freedom from being, not freedom in being. It cannot shine in the light of being. This is an element in which this individuality loses its character and becomes material. For this reason the atom does not enter into the daylight of appearances!
The atom as such only exists in the void. The death of nature has thus become its immortal substance; and Lucretius correctly exclaims: When death immortal claims his mortal life De verum nature III, But the fact that Epicurus grasps the contradiction at this its highest peak and objectives it, and therefore distinguishes the atom where it becomes the basis of appearance as stoicheion from the atom as it exists in the void as arche — this constitutes his philosophical difference from Democritus, who only objectives the one moment.
This is the same distinction which in the world of essence, in the realm of the atoms and of the void, separates Epicurus from Democritus. However, since only the atom with qualities is the complete one, since the world of appearance can only emerge from the atom which is complete and alienated from its concept, Epicurus expresses this by stating that only the qualified atom becomes stoicheion or only the atomon stoicheion is endowed with qualities.
In the same way we must explain this expression in Plutarch, On the Sentiments of the Philosophers, I, p. That which cannot be divided in space is not therefore outside of space or without spatial relation. But it is impossible to conceive anything that is incorporeal as self-existent, except empty space. There is a difference, according to them i.
Similarly those who speak of the elements of bodies mean the things into which bodies are ultimately divided, while they are no longer divided into other things differing in kind; Plutarch, Reply to Colotes, 1 1 The same Epicurus asserts that there are four other natural beings which are immortal-of this sort are atoms, the vacuum, the infinite and the similar parts; and these last are- [called] homoeomerias and likewise elements.
Epicurus [thinks that] bodies are not to be limited, but the first bodies are simple bodies, and all those composed of them possess weight Stobacus, Physical Selections, 1, p.
Metrodoms, the teacher of Epicurus, [says] Again, the sum of things is infinite Moreover, the sum of things is unlimited both by reason of the multitude of the atoms and the -tent of the void. Now look at the sort of first principles [you People adopt] to account for generation: But the causes are the atoms or the elements.
Stobacus, physical Selections, I, p. Eor the same elements compose sky, sea and lands, rivers and sun, crops, trees and animals Moreover, the sum total of things was always such as it is now, and such it will ever remain.
Eor there is nothing into which it can change. Eor outside the sum of things there is nothing which could enter into it and bring about the change The whole of being consists of bodies These elements are indivisible and unchangeable, and necessarily so, if things are not all to be destroyed and pass into non-existence, but are to be strong enough to endure when the composite bodies are broken up, because they possess a solid nature and are incapable of being anywhere or anyhow dissolved.
It is clear, then, that he [Epicurus] also makes the worlds perishable, as their parts are subject to change. Lucretius, V, May reason rather than the event itself convince you that the whole world can collapse with one ear-splitting crack! It lies tremendously open and confronts them with a yawning chasm.
On the Difference between Democritean and Epicurean Physics In Detail Chapter Four Time Since in the atom matter, as pure relationship to itself, is exempted from all relativity and changeability, it follows immediately that time has to be excluded from the concept of the atom, the world of essence. For matter is eternal and independent only insofar as in it abstraction is made of the time moment.
On this Democritus and Epicurus agree. But they differ in regard to the manner in which time, removed from the world of atoms, is now determined, whither it is transferred. For Democritus time has neither significance nor necessity for the system. He explains time in order to negate it [aufzuheben]. Time itself offers proof that not everything need have an origin, a moment of beginning. There is something more profound to be recognised in this notion.
The imagining intellect that does not grasp the independence of substance inquires into its becoming in time. It fails to grasp that by making substance temporal it also makes time substantial and thus negates its concept, because time made absolute is no longer temporal.
But this solution is unsatisfactory from another point of view. Time excluded from the world of essence is transferred into the self-consciousness of the philosophising subject but does not make any contact with the world itself. Quite otherwise with Epicurus. Time, excluded from the world of essence, becomes for him the absolute form of appearance.
That is to say, time is determined as accidens of the accidens. The accidens is the change of substance in general. The accidens of the accidens is the change as reflecting in itself, the change as change. This pure form of the world of appearance is time. If I consider composition in terms of its being, then the atom exists beyond it, in the void, in the imagination. If I consider the atom in terms of its concept, then composition either does not exist at all or exists only in the subjective imagination.
For composition is a relationship in which the atoms, independent, self-enclosed, as it were uninterested in one another, have likewise no relationship to one another. Time, in contrast, the change of the finite to the extent that change is posited as change, is just as much the real form which separates appearance from essence, and posits it as appearance, while leading it back into essence. Composition expresses merely the materiality of the atoms as well as of nature emerging from them.
Time, in contrast, is in the world of appearance what the concept of the atom is in the world of essence, namely, the abstraction, destruction and reduction of all determined being into being-for-itself. The following consequences can be drawn from these observations. First, Epicurus makes the contradiction between matter and form the characteristic of the nature of appearance, which thus becomes the counter-image of the nature of essence, the atom.
This is done by time being opposed to space, the active form of appearance to the passive form. Second, Epicurus was the first to grasp appearance as appearance, that is, as alienation of the essence, activating itself in its reality as such an alienation. On the other hand, for Democritus, who considers composition as the only form of the nature of appearance, appearance does not by itself show that it is appearance, something different from essence.
Thus when appearance is considered in terms of its existence, essence becomes totally blended [konfundiert] with it; when considered in terms of its concept, essence is totally separated from existence, so that it descends to the level of subjective semblance.
The composition behaves indifferently and materially towards its essential foundations. Time, on the other hand, is the fire of essence, eternally consuming appearance, and stamping it with dependence and non-essence. Finally, since according to Epicurus time is change as change, the reflection of appearance in itself, the nature of appearance is justly posited as objective, sensation is justly made the real criterion of concrete nature, although the atom, its foundation, is only perceived through reason.
Indeed, time being the abstract form of sensation, according to the atomism of Epicurean consciousness the necessity arises for it to be fixed as a nature having a separate existence within nature. The changeability of the sensuous world, its change as change, this reflection of appearance in itself which constitutes the concept of time, has its separate existence in conscious sensuousness. Human sensuousness is therefore embodied time, the existing reflection of the sensuous world in itself Just as this follows immediately from the definition of the concept of time in Epicurus, so it can also be quite definitely demonstrated in detail.
In the letter from Epicurus to Herodotus time is so defined that it emerges when the accidentals of bodies, perceived by the senses, are thought of as accidentals.
Sensuous perception reflected in itself is thus here the source of time and time itself. Hence time cannot be defined by analogy nor can anything else be said about it, but it is necessary to keep firmly to the Enargie itself; for sensuous perception reflected in itself is time itself, and there is no going beyond it.
The reflection of the accidentals in sensuous perception and their reflection in themselves are hence posited as one and the same. Because of this interconnection between time and sensuousness, the eidola [images], equally found in Democritus, also acquire a more consistent status.
The eidola are the forms of natural bodies which, as surfaces, as it were detach themselves like skins and transfer these bodies into appearance. These forms of the things stream constantly forth from them and penetrate into the senses and in precisely this-way allow the objects to appear. Thus in hearing nature hears itself, in smelling it smells itself, in seeing it sees itself.
In Democritus this is an inconsistency, since appearance is only subjective; in Epicurus it is a necessary consequence, since sensuousness is the reflection of the world of appearance in itself, its embodied time.
Finally, the interconnection between sensuousness and time is revealed in such a way that the temporal character of things and their appearance to the senses are posited as intrinsically One.
For it is precisely because bodies appear to the senses that they pass away. Indeed, the eidola, by constantly separating themselves from the bodies and flowing into the senses, by having their sensuous existence outside themselves as another nature, by not returning into themselves, that is, out of the diremption, dissolve and pass away.
Hence the senses are the only criteria in concrete nature, just as abstract reason is the only criterion in the world of the atoms. Democritus was so strongly convinced that time is eternal, that, in order to show that not all things have an origin, he considered it evident that time has no origin. Similarly, time by itself does not exist It must not be claimed that anyone can sense time by itself apart from the movement of things or their restful immobility.
So you may see that events cannot be said to be by themselves like matter or in the same sense as space. Rather, you should describe them as accidents of matter, or of the place in which things happen. Stobaeus, Physical Selections, 1, 8. Epicurus [calls time] an accident, i. There is another thing which we must consider carefully.
We must not investigate time as we do the other accidents which we investigate in a subject, namely, by referring them to the preconceptions envisaged in our minds; but we must take into account the plain fact itself, in virtue of which we speak of time as long or short, linking to it in intimate connection this attribute of duration.
We need not adopt any fresh terms as preferable, but should employ the usual expression about it. Nor need we predicate anything else of time, as if this something else contained the same essence as is contained in the proper meaning of the word "time" for this also is done by some. We must chiefly reflect upon that to which we attach this peculiar character of time, and by which we measure it. No further proof is required: Eor this reason Epicurus compels us to think that an existing body consists of non-existing bodies, since he says that we have to think of the body as a composition of size and shape, resistance and weight Hence there must be accidents for time to exist, but for accidents to be present themselves there must be an underlying circumstance.
However, if no underlying circumstance exists, then there can be no time When this therefore is time, and Epicurus says that accidents are the nature [of time], then time, according to Epicurus, must be its own accident.
Again, there are outlines or films, which are of the same shape as solid bodies, but of a thinness far exceeding that of any object that we see To these films we give the name of "images" or "idols And those given off retain the position and arrangement which their atoms had when they formed part of the solid bodies We must also consider that it is by the entrance of something coming from external objects that we see their shapes and think of them.
For external things would not stamp on us their own nature Again, hearing takes place when a current passes from the object, whether person or thing, which emits voice or sound or noise, or produces the sensation of hearing in any way whatever.
This current is broken up into homogeneous particles, which at the same time preserve a certain mutual connection Again, we must believe that smelling, like hearing, would produce no sensation, were there not particles conveyed from the object which are of the proper sort for exciting the organ of smelling.
It is natural, therefore, that everything should perish when it is thinned out They neither go beyond the domain of empirical reflection, nor have they any more definite intrinsic connection with the atomic doctrine. Worship of the celestial bodies is a cult practised by all Greek philosophers. The system of the celestial bodies is the first naive and nature-determined existence of true reason [Vernunfi].
It is the solar system of the mind. The Greek philosophers therefore worshipped their own mind in the celestial bodies. Anaxagoras himself, who first gave a physical explanation of heaven and in this way brought it down to earth in a sense different from that of Socrates, answered, when asked for what purpose he was bom: For the observation of the sun, the moon and the heaven.
The One is God. Indeed, Epicurus opposes the outlook of the whole Greek people. Aristotle says it often seems that the concept provides evidence for the phenomena and the phenomena for the concept. Thus all men have an idea of the gods and assign the highest region to the divine, barbarians as well as Hellenes, and in general all who believe in the existence of the gods, evidently connecting the immortal with the immortal, for otherwise it is impossible.
Thus if the divine exists-as it actually does-then what we say about the substance of the celestial bodies is also correct.
But this corresponds also to sensuous perception, insofar as human conviction is concerned. Eor throughout the time that has passed, according to the memories handed down from people to people, nothing seems to have changed, either in heaven as a whole, or in any part of it.
Even the name seems to have been handed down from the ancients to the present time, and they assumed that which we also say. Eor not once, not twice, but an infinite number of times have the same views come down to us. Eor since the primary body is something different, apart from the earth and the fire and the air and the water, they called the highest region "ether", from thein aei [to run always], giving it the by-name: But the present teaching testifies that it is indestructible, ungenerated and not subject to any mortal ills.
In this way our concepts correspond at the same time to intimations about God. It is a tradition handed down from our ancestors and the ancients and surviving in the form of the myths of later generations, that the heavenly bodies are gods and that the divine encompasses all nature.
The rest was added in mythical form for the belief of the masses, as useful for the laws and for life. Thus the myths make the gods resemble man and some of the other living creatures, and invent similar things connected with and related to this. If we discard the additions and hold fast only to the first, namely, the belief that the primary substances are gods, then we must consider this as having been divinely revealed, and we must hold that after all sorts of art and philosophy had, in one way or another, been invented and lost again, these opinions came down to us like relics.
Epicurus, on the contrary, says: To all this we must add that the greatest confusion of the human soul arises from the fact that men hold that the heavenly bodies are blessed and indestructible and have conflicting desires and actions, and conceive suspicion according to the myths. One who at the same time is supposed to possess all bliss and indestructibility.
For actions do not accord with bliss, but they occur due to causes most closely related to weakness, fear and need. Nor is it to be supposed that some fire-like bodies endowed with bliss arbitrarily submit to these motions.
Epicurus, on the other hand, blames those who believe that man needs heaven. He finds the Atlas by whom heaven is supported in human stupidity and superstition. Stupidity and superstition also are Titans. The letter of Epicurus to Pythocles deals entirely with the theory of the heavenly bodies, with the exception of the last section, which closes the letter with ethical precepts.
Eor Epicurus this theory is a matter of conscience. Our study will therefore be based mainly on this letter to Pythocles. We shall supplement it from the letter to Herodotus, to which Epicurus himself refers in writing to Pythocles. In and for itself the theory of setting and rising, of position and eclipse, contains no particular grounds for happiness; only terror possesses those who see these things without understanding their nature and their principal causes.
But the theory of the meteors is also specifically different in comparison both with the method of ethics and with other physical problems, for example, the existence of indivisible elements and the like, where only one explanation corresponds to the phenomena.
For this is not the case with the meteor s. For the study of nature cannot be pursued in accordance with empty axioms and laws, It is constantly repeated that the meteors are not to be explained haplos simply, absolutely , but poilachos in many ways.
How then is it to be explained? Every explanation is sufficient. Only the myth must be removed, it will be removed when we observe the phenomena and draw conclusions from them concerning the invisible.
Hence analogy must be applied. In this way we can explain fear away and free ourselves from it, by showing the causes of meteors and other things that are always happening and causing the utmost alarm to other people.
These heavenly bodies may behave sometimes in one way, sometimes in another; this possibility conforming to no law is the characteristic of their reality; everything in them is declared to be impermanent and unstable. Thus while Aristotle, in agreement with other Greek philosophers, considers the heavenly bodies to be eternal and immortal, because they always behave in the same way; while he even ascribes to them an element of their own, higher and not subjected to the force of gravity; Epicurus in contrast claims the direct opposite.
He reasons that the theory of the meteors is specifically distinguished from all other physical doctrine in this respect, that in the meteors everything occurs in a multiple and unregulated way, that everything in them is to be explained by a manifold of indefinitely many causes.
Yes, in wrath and passionate violence he rejects the opposite opinion, and declares that those who adhere to only one method of explanation to the exclusion of all others, those who accept something Unique, hence Eternal and Divine in the meteors, fall victim to idle explanation-making and to the slavish artifices of the astrologers; they overstep the bounds of the study of nature and throw themselves into the arms of myth; they try to achieve the impossible, and exert themselves over absurdities; they do not even realise where ataraxy itself becomes endangered.
Their chatter is to be despised. Consciousness must understand that this is an absolute law. Since eternity of the heavenly bodies would disturb the ataraxy of self-consciousness, it is a necessary, a stringent consequence that they are not eternal.
But how can we understand this peculiar view of Epicurus? All authors who have written on Epicurean philosophy have presented this teaching as incompatible with all the rest of physics, with the atomic doctrine.
The fight against the Stoics, against superstition, against astrology is taken as sufficient grounds. And we have seen that Epicurus himself distinguishes the method applied in the theory of the meteors from the method of the rest of physics.
But in which definition of his principle can the necessity of this distinction be found? How does the idea occur to him? And he fights not only against astrology, but also against astronomy itself, against eternal law and rationality in the heavenly system. Einally, opposition to the Stoics explains nothing. Their superstition and their whole point of view had already been refuted when the heavenly bodies were declared to be accidental complexes of atoms and their processes accidental motions of the atoms.
Thereby their eternal nature was destroyed, a consequence which Democritus was content to draw from these premises. In fact, their very being was disposed of [aufgehoben]. But this is not yet the full difficulty. An even more perplexing antinomy appears. The atom is matter in the form of independence, of individuality, as it were the representative of weight.
But the heavenly bodies are the supreme realisation of weight. On 21 March Dana informed Marx that, due to the economic recession, only one article a week would be paid for, published or not; the others would be paid for only if published. Marx had sent his articles on Tuesdays and Fridays, but, that October, the Tribune discharged all its correspondents in Europe except Marx and B. Taylor, and reduced Marx to a weekly article. Between September and November , only five were published.
After a six-month interval, Marx resumed contributions in September until March , when Dana wrote to inform him that there was no longer space in the Tribune for reports from London, due to American domestic affairs.
In all, 67 Marx-Engels articles were published, of which 51 written by Engels, although Marx did some research for them in the British Museum. After the "failures" of , the revolutionary impetus appeared spent and not to be renewed without an economic recession. Contention arose between Marx and his fellow communists, whom he denounced as "adventurists".
Marx deemed it fanciful to propose that "will power" could be sufficient to create the revolutionary conditions when in reality the economic component was the necessary requisite. Yet, this economy was seen as too immature for a capitalist revolution.
Moreover, any economic crisis arising in the United States would not lead to revolutionary contagion of the older economies of individual European nations, which were closed systems bounded by their national borders.
When the so-called " Panic of " in the United States spread globally, it broke all economic theory models,  and was the first truly global economic crisis. Financial necessity had forced Marx to abandon economic studies in and give thirteen years to working on other projects. He had always sought to return to economics. However, the departure of Charles Dana from the paper in late and the resultant change in the editorial board brought about a new editorial policy.
The new editorial board supported an immediate peace between the Union and the Confederacy in the Civil War in the United States with slavery left intact in the Confederacy. Marx strongly disagreed with this new political position and in was forced to withdraw as a writer for the Tribune. In response to the bloody suppression of this rebellion, Marx wrote one of his most famous pamphlets, " The Civil War in France ", a defence of the Commune.
Finally in , Marx published A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy ,  his first serious economic work. This work was intended merely as a preview of his three-volume Das Kapital English title: Critique of Political Economy , which he intended to publish at a later date. The work was enthusiastically received, and the edition sold out quickly.
No longer was there any "natural reward of individual labour. Each labourer produces only some part of a whole, and each part having no value or utility of itself, there is nothing on which the labourer can seize, and say: By the autumn of , the entire first edition of the German language edition of Capital had been sold out and a second edition was published.
The Process of Circulation of Capital. The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole. This abridged edition was translated into English and published in in London, but the complete unabridged edition of Theories of Surplus Value was published as the "fourth volume" of Capital in and in Moscow. His Critique of the Gotha Programme opposed the tendency of his followers Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel to compromise with the state socialism of Ferdinand Lassalle in the interests of a united socialist party.
He wrote that "the historical trend of our age is the fatal crisis which capitalist production has undergone in the European and American countries where it has reached its highest peak, a crisis that will end in its destruction, in the return of modern society to a higher form of the most archaic type—collective production and appropriation".
He added that "the vitality of primitive communities was incomparably greater than that of Semitic, Greek, Roman, etc. Marx and von Westphalen had seven children together, but partly owing to the poor conditions in which they lived whilst in London, only three survived to adulthood.
Longuet; — ; Jenny Laura m. There are allegations that Marx also fathered a son, Freddy,  out of wedlock by his housekeeper, Helene Demuth. Marx frequently used pseudonyms, often when renting a house or flat, apparently to make it harder for the authorities to track him down.
His friends referred to him as "Moor", owing to his dark complexion and black curly hair, while he encouraged his children to call him "Old Nick" and "Charley". Marx was afflicted by poor health what he himself described as "the wretchedness of existence"  and various authors have sought to describe and explain it.
His biographer Werner Blumenberg attributed it to liver and gall problems which Marx had in and from which he was never afterwards free, exacerbated by an unsuitable lifestyle. The attacks often came with headaches, eye inflammation, neuralgia in the head and rheumatic pains.
A serious nervous disorder appeared in and protracted insomnia was a consequence, which Marx fought with narcotics. The illness was aggravated by excessive nocturnal work and faulty diet. Marx was fond of highly seasoned dishes, smoked fish, caviare, pickled cucumbers, "none of which are good for liver patients", but he also liked wine and liqueurs and smoked an enormous amount "and since he had no money, it was usually bad-quality cigars".
From , Marx complained a lot about boils: The illness emphasised certain traits in his character. He argued cuttingly, his biting satire did not shrink at insults, and his expressions could be rude and cruel. Though in general Marx had a blind faith in his closest friends, nevertheless he himself complained that he was sometimes too mistrustful and unjust even to them.
His verdicts, not only about enemies but even about friends, were sometimes so harsh that even less sensitive people would take offence… There must have been few whom he did not criticize like this… not even Engels was an exception. According to Princeton historian J. Seigel, in his late teens Marx may have had pneumonia or pleurisy, the effects of which led to his being exempted from Prussian military service.
In later life whilst working on Capital which he never completed ,  Marx suffered from a trio of afflictions. A liver ailment, probably hereditary, was aggravated by overwork, bad diet and lack of sleep. Inflammation of the eyes was induced by too much work at night. Engels often exhorted Marx to alter this dangerous regime".
To arrive at his retrodiagnosis, Shuster considered the primary material: Professor Shuster claimed the diagnosis "can now be made definitively". Shuster went on to consider the potential psychosocial effects of the disease, noting that the skin is an organ of communication and that hidradenitis suppurativa produces much psychological distress, including loathing and disgust and depression of self-image, mood and well-being, feelings for which Shuster found "much evidence" in the Marx correspondence.
Following the death of his wife Jenny in December , Marx developed a catarrh that kept him in ill health for the last 15 months of his life. It eventually brought on the bronchitis and pleurisy that killed him in London on 14 March age 64 , dying a stateless person. There were between nine and eleven mourners at his funeral.
Several of his closest friends spoke at his funeral, including Wilhelm Liebknecht and Friedrich Engels. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep—but forever. Liebknecht, a founder and leader of the German Social Democratic Party, gave a speech in German and Longuet, a prominent figure in the French working-class movement, made a short statement in French.
Friedrich Lessner, imprisoned for three years after the Cologne communist trial of ; G. Lochner, whom Engels described as "an old member of the Communist League"; and Carl Schorlemmer , a professor of chemistry in Manchester, a member of the Royal Society and a communist activist involved in the Baden revolution.
Marx and his family were reburied on a new site nearby in November The tomb at the new site, unveiled on 14 March ,  bears the carved message: The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm remarked: All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre", and in The Capital he refers to capital as " necromancy that surrounds the products of labour".
Though inspired by French socialist and sociological thought,  Marx criticised utopian socialists , arguing that their favoured small-scale socialistic communities would be bound to marginalisation and poverty and that only a large-scale change in the economic system can bring about real change.
Marx believed that he could study history and society scientifically and discern tendencies of history and the resulting outcome of social conflicts.
Some followers of Marx therefore concluded that a communist revolution would inevitably occur. However, Marx famously asserted in the eleventh of his " Theses on Feuerbach " that "philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point however is to change it" and he clearly dedicated himself to trying to alter the world.
Like Tocqueville, who described a faceless and bureaucratic despotism with no identifiable despot,  Marx also broke with classical thinkers who spoke of a single tyrant and with Montesquieu , who discussed the nature of the single despot.
Instead, Marx set out to analyse "the despotism of capital". For Marx, the human nature — Gattungswesen , or species-being —exists as a function of human labour. Marx had a special concern with how people relate to their own labour power. Commodity fetishism provides an example of what Engels called " false consciousness ",  which relates closely to the understanding of ideology. By "ideology", Marx and Engels meant ideas that reflect the interests of a particular class at a particular time in history, but which contemporaries see as universal and eternal.
Put another way, the control that one class exercises over the means of production includes not only the production of food or manufactured goods, but also the production of ideas this provides one possible explanation for why members of a subordinate class may hold ideas contrary to their own interests.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The organisation of society depends on means of production. The means of production are all things required to produce material goods, such as land, natural resources and technology but not human labor.
The relations of production are the social relationships people enter into as they acquire and use the means of production. Marx differentiated between base and superstructure , where the base or substructure is the economic system and superstructure is the cultural and political system. On the other hand, he characterized capitalism as "revolutionising, industrialising and universalising qualities of development, growth and progressivity" by which Marx meant industrialisation, urbanisation, technological progress , increased productivity and growth, rationality and scientific revolution that are responsible for progress.
According to Marx, capitalists take advantage of the difference between the labour market and the market for whatever commodity the capitalist can produce. Marx observed that in practically every successful industry, input unit-costs are lower than output unit-prices. Marx called the difference " surplus value " and argued that it was based on surplus labour , the difference between what it costs to keep workers alive and what they can produce.
At the same time, Marx stressed that capitalism was unstable and prone to periodic crises. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class. A similar movement is going on before our own eyes The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring order into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property.
Marx believed that those structural contradictions within capitalism necessitate its end, giving way to socialism, or a post-capitalistic, communist society:. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Thanks to various processes overseen by capitalism, such as urbanisation, the working class, the proletariat, should grow in numbers and develop class consciousness , in time realising that they can and must change the system.
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. In this new society, the alienation would end and humans would be free to act without being bound by the labour market.
Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat". Marx viewed Russia as the main counter-revolutionary threat to European revolutions. To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood which we are being offered here on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply that hatred of Russians was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution [of ] hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution.
We know where the enemies of the revolution are concentrated, viz. Marx and Engels sympathised with the Narodnik revolutionaries of the s and s. In the first place the policy of Russia is changeless Its methods, its tactics, its manoeuvres may change, but the polar star of its policy — world domination — is a fixed star. In our times only a civilised government ruling over barbarian masses can hatch out such a plan and execute it.
There is but one alternative for Europe. Either Asiatic barbarism, under Muscovite direction, will burst around its head like an avalanche, or else it must re-establish Poland, thus putting twenty million heroes between itself and Asia and gaining a breathing spell for the accomplishment of its social regeneration.
Marx supported the cause of Irish independence. In , he wrote Engels: I now think it inevitable. The English working class will never accomplish anything until it has got rid of Ireland. English reaction in England had its roots Marx spent some time in French Algeria , which had been invaded and made a French colony in , and had opportunity to observe life in colonial North Africa.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: His account of British domination, however, reflects the same ambivalence that he shows towards capitalism in Europe. In both cases, Marx recognizes the immense suffering brought about during the transition from feudal to bourgeois society while insisting that the transition is both necessary and ultimately progressive.
He argues that the penetration of foreign commerce will cause a social revolution in India. There cannot remain any doubt but that the misery inflicted by the British on Hindostan [India] is of an essentially different and infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindostan had to suffer before. England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing In the political realm, these tendencies include Leninism , Marxism—Leninism , Trotskyism , Maoism , Luxemburgism and libertarian Marxism.
Working in the Hegelian tradition, Marx rejected Comtean sociological positivism in attempt to develop a science of society. Isaiah Berlin considers Marx the true founder of modern sociology "in so far as anyone can claim the title". Social theorists of the 20th and 21st centuries have pursued two main strategies in response to Marx.
Marx's Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy Editors' Footnotes and Preface, Image of Draft Preface.
Feb 17, · Doctoral Dissertation of Karl Marx — Chapter 1 Karl Marx The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Part One: Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Marx's Doctoral Dissertation – jstor cultivating important persons who could help him.
With topic creation topic sentences for paragraphs, you receive good results, without even mentioning excellent phd dissertation assistance karl marx customers write the best writers we. If you are struggling come to the phd dissertation assistance karl marx can easily provide you. Them in every examples on various business. Marx, Karl Doctoral Thesis The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. If you have additional files, you will upload them at the order page Development essays. A recurrent theme throughout the writings of Karl Marx from through is his attack on religion.
Doctoral Dissertation Help Marx doctoral dissertation help marx Karl Phd dissertation assistance karl marx although, if you and mental health doctoral dissertation karl . Marx’s texts, the thesis aims to provide a response to the question of which, if any, of Marx’s descriptions of communism provides the most feasible and desirable basis for a Marxian vision of the good life today.