Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T04:10:11.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Atom

from ENTRIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2016

Richard T. W. Arthur
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Lawrence Nolan
Affiliation:
California State University, Long Beach
Get access

Summary

Descartes ardently opposed atomism. His natural philosophy was appealing in part because it offered a well-worked-out plenist alternative (see plenum) to the atomist philosophies that were in vogue in his day – one that could take advantage of the atomists’ style of explanation of phenomena in terms of the size, shape, and motions of microcorpuscles, but without the need for the atomists’ dangerous metaphysics, which rendered an immaterial God and soul superfluous. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of Descartes’ views that have led readers to suspect that his opposition to atomism was not as absolute as his words suggested.

In his Principles of Philosophy (1644), Descartes explicitly rejects the two founding assumptions of atomism. First, he argues that it would be contradictory for there to be an absolute vacuum (AT VIIIA 50, CSM I 230–31); then he offers a demonstration of the impossibility of atoms, arguing that their existence would be contrary to the fact that matter is essentially divisible (see divisibility): “It is impossible that there should exist atoms, that is, pieces of matter that are by their very nature indivisible, as some philosophers have imagined. For … no matter how small we imagined them to be, they would necessarily have to be extended, and hence we could … recognize their divisibility” (AT VIIIA 51, CSM I 231). The fact that matter is necessarily extended precludes the kind of point atoms entertained by the Zenonists, whereas the divisibility of extension precludes something being both indivisible and extended, as were the atoms proposed by Descartes’ contemporaries Sebastian Basso, Daniel Sennert, Jean-Chrysostôme Magnen, and Pierre Gassendi. Descartes adds that even if God had made some particles “indivisible by any of his creatures,” he himself would still be able to divide them – a weak argument, to which Leibniz (2001, 25) responded, “This Gassendi would not have denied.”

Much more influential are Descartes’ arguments for the possibility of motion in a plenum. Against the atomists’ argument that a motion could not begin unless there were a void space for a body to move into, Descartes argues in the Principles that this objection is evaded if a ring of matter begins moving simultaneously; and against the objection that voids or condensations would be created by circulation of matter through unequal spaces, he argues that continuity can be preserved if the flow of matter through a space is swifter in inverse proportion to the width (i.e., cross-sectional area) of the space (AT VIIIA 58–59, CSM I 237–39).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Leibniz, G. W. 2001. Leibniz: The Labyrinth of the Continuum, ed. and trans. Arthur, R. T. W.. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ablondi, Fred. 2005. Gerauld de Cordemoy: Atomist, Occasionalist, Cartesian. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
Arthur, R. T. W. 2011. “Beeckman's Discrete Moments and Descartes’ Disdain,” Intellectual History Review 22:69–90.Google Scholar
Arthur, R. T. W. 2007. “Beeckman, Descartes and the Force of Motion,” Journal for the History of Philosophy 45: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorham, Geoffrey. 2008. “Cartesian Temporal Atomism: A New Defence, a New Refutation,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16: 625–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, John. 1977. “Descartes and the Scientific Revolution 1618–1634: An Interpretation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Atom
  • Edited by Lawrence Nolan, California State University, Long Beach
  • Book: The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon
  • Online publication: 05 January 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894695.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Atom
  • Edited by Lawrence Nolan, California State University, Long Beach
  • Book: The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon
  • Online publication: 05 January 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894695.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Atom
  • Edited by Lawrence Nolan, California State University, Long Beach
  • Book: The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon
  • Online publication: 05 January 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894695.015
Available formats
×