From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Breaking up the article[edit]

This article should probably be broken up and linked to separate articles on classical atomism, Indain atomism, Rennaissance/Sci Rev atomism, and the late 19th century debates about atomism.

I disagree. It's a long article, but I think it makes sense to have the whole story together.--ragesoss 15:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
It's long because it contains a bunch of extra stuff. Much of it (esp. Consequences for guiding one's life and Facing reality) sound like someone's philosophy paper rather than an encyclopedia article. Reorganization and some trimming are in order I think. — Laura Scudder 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, those two sections could probably be removed; I was mainly just defending the historical sections. Of course, you should take my defense of those with a grain of salt as well, since I wrote section from "exile of the atom" to "atomic Renaissance". In short, trimming good, splitting up bad.--ragesoss 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. — Laura Scudder 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Logical atomism vs. memetics[edit]

Is logical atomism related to memetics? Martin

Wow! Nice idea. I like that. My immediate reaction would be, Yes, logical atomism would be one example of memetics. But then maybe a logician like Bertrand Russell would say, "Wait a minute, young men, logic supersedes the culture that memetics traces." Interesting insight. I will look around for some scholar, perhaps a modern logician, who sees some connection between memetics and logical atomism. I have to run to a party first, though.! :))). Rednblu 01:28, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Creation vs. Evolution[edit]

Is there any reason why Creationism vs. Evolution is in this article? It seems to me to have little relevance to the rest of it.

--LaurenKaplow 22:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • According to the cultural anthropologists and the social anthropologists, one of the earliest secular explanations for how we got here was the 400 BC atomist Democritus who hypothesized the derivation of life from just atoms and void with no divine intervention. In addition, the creationist scholars see the atomists as the ones who started the Evolution vs. creation debate. Evidently, before Democritus, it was all creationism with divine intervention. And then after Democritus, it was Evolution vs. creationism. If you are interested in looking at the ancient creationist attacks against the secular explanations of atomism, the surviving creationist attacks are all collected in The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus, C. C. W. Taylor (Translator) (University of Toronto Press 1999) ISBN 0802043909. Apparently from their writings, the ancient creationists blamed the evolution vs. creationism debate on Democritus and his teacher Leucippus and on no one else. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 01:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So why doesnt the section say that? It seems the current piece is simply a brief overview of the evolution debate --Real World 05:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the section. The link between evolution and atomism is weak and only the first sentence was about atomism at all. That kind of content belongs in a different kind of article. If any disagrees and reverts, I won't change it back, unless consensus is reached. -- Kjkolb 10:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You made the right choice; it detracted seriously from the article.--ragesoss 15:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture size[edit]

I shrunk down both pictures to a more appropriate size. Uriah923 07:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

On Aristotle[edit]

Is the section on the political implications of Aristotlean ontology really appropriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 08:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Plato and Epicurus too[edit]

Why are there only a few lines on the Timaeus, where Plato spells out his atomistic theory, and extensive discussion of his idea of forms and the Creator/Demiurge?

Most of the discussion of Epicurus could be reduced to a few lines -- the first paragraph would about do it.

And as for Aristotle, a discussion of his reasons for rejecting atomism would be appropriate.

This article needs a lot of work. --SteveMcCluskey 02:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Curious, I am. Why wouldn't Epicurus's statements of what atomism is be important on a page about "atomism"? --Rednblu 16:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation[edit]

In accordance with policy on Copyright violations, I have made a duplicate copy of this page on Talk:Atomism/Temp. Reflecting policy, the page will remain listed for 7 days to allow discussion and resolution of this issue at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_June_3/Articles.

As a first step in resolving this problem, I have removed the passages copied from [ india_contribution/physics.html] from the new temporary copy. (Incidentally, the remaining section on Indian atomism is shorter and seems much more coherent).

Any further edits should be made to Talk:Atomism/Temp or they may be lost when the article is restored. --SteveMcCluskey 14:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Other issues to do with philosophy and atomism[edit]

At 05:51, 17 October 2006 SteveMcCluskey undit my edits by reverting to the previous version. As no reason has been given for the reversion, and as I think my edits are definite improvements, I have restored them. If someone else decides to again undo my edits, I will not again restore them. It would help if instead some Wikipedians familiar with the subject compared the versions and explained why they prefer one or the other. --Ujm 02:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


What's with the incessant vandalism? Note that I am now watching this page ...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strom (talkcontribs) 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Connection between Indian atomism and Greek atomism[edit]

Hi! I replaced the mention of Pythagora's journey to India, which I think was not really pertinent, with the reference of Democritus journey to India. Benio76 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern atomism issues[edit]

The article seems to imply that after Boyle atomism was a done deal. This is not so — it remained a controversy amongst emminent scientists up until the early 20th century (e.g. the Boltzmannians vs. the Machians). Even someone as modern as Einstein contributed directly to the debate with his paper on Brownian motion, which was intended to provide logical-perceptual evidence for atomism. Any article on atomism should be able to bring it a bit closer to our present period, as otherwise the reader will get a very skewed version of this bit of the history of science. -- 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. To omit figures such as Avogadro, Einstein on Brownian motion, and Jean Perrin (who experimentally confirmed Einstein's Brownian motion theory leading to their receiving the Nobel prize and converting sceptics of atomism such as Ostwald) is unforgivable! The first paragraph of History of chemistry#Disputes about atomism after Lavoisier is an example of possible content. I am not an expert though. --Davidc 15:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a sub-section on the 19th century atomic debates. --Mathew Rammer (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Science vs Philosophy?[edit]

I was drawn by the recent edit to look at the distinction drawn between atomism in science and philosophy:

"The word atom is understood in primarily two distinct ways: firstly, by the physical sciences; secondly, by philosophy. Atomism is traditionally associated with the latter,..."

I see two problems with this distinction:

First, by "physical sciences" the editors seem to mean the modern physical sciences, ignoring the fact that early "natural philosophers" who debated the nature of the material world (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Democritus, Descartes, Hobbes) are considered by most historians of science to have been doing physical science. Thus the attempt to separate "natural philosophy" from the "physical sciences" seems to be either a false dichotomy, or perhaps a dichotomy that needs to be more clearly defined.

Secondly, once we look at the boundary in this fashion, the claim that atomism is traditionally associated with philosophy (as opposed to physical science) doesn't seem to hold up.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

misleading, not true and not in the citations[edit]

Islamic corpuscularism

I cut this out because inner and outer layers are not corpuscularism also Newman is alone in finding corpuscularism in the 13th century alchemy (not the 8th). The quote from Moran is out of context. Levere does not mention corpuscularism.J8079s (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see your point on the early Islamic corpuscular doctrines, which were added by User:Jagged 85. However, later (17th c) corpuscularism is a well-established tradition that should be included. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian atomism[edit]

I don't know how is possibile to define a date about Indian atomism, the Indian culture until relatevely recent time was an oral culture with very hard system of memory transmission with strong exercises and declamations. The language was sanscrito vedico with a oral code. The grammar of Panini is dated during Hellenistic period. Only recently perhaps from late time of Persian empire before the Alessandro conquest, came to India the Aramaic alphabet !!! that is the base of Sanscito alphabet. How is possible affirm that the atomism of Gianismo is more ancient on Ionian atomism ??? Is more probable that is an hellenic influence from central asia and the book writed are subsequent like the schools of Nyaya and Vaisheshika. Nyaya Sutras, which were written by Aksapada Gautama from around the 2nd century CE ?

Michele —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources vary... The wording and placement are pretty modest all in all. 200 CE (plus) would be a very conservative point of view relative to the citations at hand.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is better to use a conservative date, if there isn't irrefutable evidence.

Michele —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

""" Sanskrit is written in an alphabet known as Devanagari. To trace its origin is to trace the development of writing in India. The source of most of the Indian alphabets is an ancient script known as Brahmi which, in the opinion of most scholars, is of Semitic origin, probably Aramaic. One of its many offshoots was the Gupta script, used throughout the powerful Gupta empire in the 4th-6th century CE. The Devanagari characters developed from a variety of Gupta, the earliest inscriptions appearing in the 7th century..... It is considered one of the most perfect systems of writing ever devised....""""" cit. The languages of the world of Kenneth Katzner. chap. Sanskrit Ok... The ancient inscriptions in Brahmi are dated from Asoka empire. Ok....

Pheraps the Nyaya Sutras, which were written by Aksapada Gautama are written in sanskrit language with Brahmi script ??? I am not a scholar of Indian history. There is someone that can answer this question?? Sorry for my bad english !!! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


In regard to: "It is better to use a conservative date, if there isn't irrefutable evidence."
Per our sourcing policy (WP:V), Wikipedia simply uses whatever the reliable sources (WP:RS) use. We don't address questions of "irrefutable evidence" here because the sources do that, (i.e. WP isn't about the truth: WP:VNT). If you can cite (not recite) some sources that say something different about the dates, then we can expand on the date discussion in the article... Per WP:NPOV, removing the statement is not an option unless you can demonstrate the currently cited sources are either unreliable (and should be removed) or that they're WP:FRINGE, in which case, WP:UNDUE weight is being given in the lead.
One option for discussion, (see WP:BRD), would be to use the range 800 BC - 400 BC, but in relation to the given sources, the original contributor's "6th century BC" seems both conservative and a fair enough summary for the lead, IMO.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Machine have summarised the Wiki policy very succinctly.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


I saw that the assertion of hypothetical dating VIII – IV century BCE of indian atomism is based on a sophism (analysis of a language structure based on sutras written on 2 century CE and after). In V-VI century BCE the atomism in Greece was mature. It is like to be a Renaissance painter that paints the personages of Symposium of Plato with Renaissance clothes. In Homer, Mycenaean heroes have classic gods, but we cannot say that this is exactly the religion at time of Agamemnon. The Linear-b tablets inform us about of the existence also of other gods. (1) In the archeology of the artifact give us only general information about the religion or philosophy. Often is difficult recognize a temple. And the analogy with modern ideas can lead to big mistakes. Without texts we don’t know the religion of Harappa and we don’t know the religion of Santorini civilisation. (Linear-A is not decoded) The first inscription in India is Asoka's edict that is in Brahmi and Magadhi language, (In India area, before, existing only Harappa script that actually isn’t decoded) [see Wiki eng.]. Some parts of Asoka's edict is written also in Greek and Aramaic. [see every encicl....].

Is better not to use “...The earliest references.....ecc..... “ citing Nyaya Sutras and Vaisheshika that are fixed in recent time during CE period. [see every encicl..]. In the same terms there are also hypothetical atomistic philosophers like Phoenician Macho Sidonio (1) (Mycenaean – Egyptian New Kingdom era XIV century BCE) and at moment I don’t remember but there are others that came from Assiria and Mesopotamia. But they don’t give us texts We know their existence from some texts written a millennium after. Is more ancient Orphism or Induism ? Greek or Sanscript ? I don’t know. But is sure that greek is written before of Sanskrit !! This is a fact.... The greek and sanskrit have the same origin this is also a fact....

Michele (sorry I know that I need to register)

PS: The contacts between Greeks and Indians and Mesopotamia and Egypts were like today. So often is impossible determine the origin of a Idea. Pythagoras probably as Ibn Battuta went in Italy, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India. We have some information of Induism even from Ciceron (De divina....), that disputes on origin Pythagoras's metempsychosis. Roman coins turned in India. ecc See philosopher Apollonio di Tiana I century CE that went to India and left us a text. Buddist philosophers of Asoka went in greece ecc. See the history of Indian Statuary.... ecc.

(1) some text you can find on Internet About Macho Sidonio in google books: Giornale pei letterati anno MDCCXLVII dedicato a Domenico Passionei.... stampato in Roma 1747 ecc You can see other Phisica vetus et vera... ecc It is easier to see also spanish Wiki....Mosco de Sidon: cit “e Tanto el filósofo, historiador y geógrafo griego Estrabón de Ponto (h.-64/-58 - h 19/25) como el médico y filósofo escéptico (pirrónico) Sexto Empírico (o Sexto el Empírico) (siglos II y III), le atribuyen el haber sido el primero en concebir el pensamiento atomista (o corpuscular) y, por ende, la creación del atomismo; sentando de esta manera en su persona, el origen de la filosofía atomista aproximadamente de un milenio antes de los filósofos presocráticos

(2) About the greek religion on linear-b tablets see: Walter Burkert, “Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassichen Epoche”, Berlin 1977 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Michele, this is not the right page to debate on philology, Linguistics, Archeology, paleography and ancient history. We are not here to prove whether sanskrit or greek or brahmi is older. Kindly discuss the same in their respective pages. Also do not indulge in Original Research. Please see the policy Wikipedia:No original research. Thanks.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My argoments are not original researches but teenager secondary school concepts.... To insist on the “.....Earliest reference back to ancient India... . appare first in Jainism...” does this engl. wikipedia article much " american Hippie " ( NPOV FAQ ) Conclusion: It is better to write “A atomism concept is present in the Janism religion..... and Induism probably from the origin of these religions..... is more neutral.

Michele —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

When we are discussing the chronology and history of atomism we have no option but to use the terms as "Earliest reference back to ancient India... . appeare first in Jainism...” Wikipedia is replete with such terms where we are dwriting something historical. If Atomism's first reference appeared in India and that is what is stated then it is perfectly neutral. Just because it does not meet your expectation, you cannot decide what is neutral and what is not.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

History is a science that is based on evidence: documents, archeological findings and other primary sources. The literary sources should be used with a critical point of view and in the political-social-economic context of their time. Secondary works is an interpretation of the sources and they should be controlled and verified. Unfortunately there are many books of fanta-history or with faith dogmas and they are not scientific. These books are usually based on selected sources to fit their already formed ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


That is why you have to use Reliable Sources.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


The texts and books of Presocratic philosopher are like the modern books. You know the idea of Kant because you have read a book of Kant. For ideas born in oral period and fixed in a more recent era is possible that there are modern influences. For oral sources often the identification of original idea and the dating became conjectures, as Old Testament and Homer, ecc. Ad ex. The philosophers of Nyaya school of logic when they begin to write their texts certainly they know Aristotle logic. The Indian schools refuse the atheistic atomism but probably during Asoka or Menandro (Milinda) Empire they know the greek atomism how the greek know the Buddhism.

I am finishing the discussion here, otherwise became infinite, your opinion is static and categorical and it is impossible to have a dialectic debate. "...The earliest..." is a superlative term and in history is a nonsense ! Take it off !!!!! It is better a ...'" probably from 6 century bce... "' I accept this form otherwise is as dating Genesys

Don't leave the oral and dogma faith to win upon written document and logic.

Certainly my poor english isn't clear. I find in internet a book that say the things that I try to support.

About Greek and Indian philosophy relations,%20Mrinalkanti%20(1981).%20Indian%20Atomism:%20History%20and%20Sources.%20Atlantic%20Highlands,%20New%20Jersey:%20Humanities%20Press.&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


Ps: There are also pseudo-historians that see atomism in Moses!!!

My dear friend, you yourself are culpable of what you are accusing me of. I am assuming good faith on your part but unfortunately you have come with an pre-determined agenda, which you tried first on pages of Jainism and now here. Of course the greeks were one of the pioneers of knowledge but remember one of the and not only (the way like you would like everyone to believe.) The term earliest reference is perfectly acceptable and the link provided by you is not excatly helpful.

Atomism is a specific occidental philosophy[edit]

Atomism is a specific greek and after occidental philosophy born in Ionia (Asia Minore) in very particular social and cultural situation. Is possible that other culture development similar idea, but surely without the relativistic implication of this philosophy, so i think that is better create a separate voice of greek atomism. In the article there isn't a mention of Anassagora, this philosophy is evolved into Epicureism during Roman Empire. A bible of this idea is the De Rerum Natura of Lucrezio Caro where there is the explanation of the universe without god with only the humana ratio. During the Christian period the books with atomism argoments disappears in monasters, and only with italian renaissance they are newly re-read. Par example Poggio Bracciolini discovered fragments of De Rerum Natura in the monaster of San Gallo (Switzerland). During the Illuminism before into masonry organisations to be protected (was very dangerous to speek of this arguments) and after in the universities with Gassendi, Newton, Boyle and others the atomism became a base of occidental philosophy of science and modern phisics. Atomism is a relativistic idea so it was persecuted from the church and the autorities and from philosopher with neoplatonic idea. And during late Roman Empire was outcast from Platonic and Aristotelic philosophers.

P.S. Anassagora thought that the sun was a simple and close star and around the others stars there were planets with inhabitants, so the man not was in the centre of the universe. The universe was energy (movements of atoms) and matter(atoms)and empty.

Michele—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michele, please follow your name with ~~~~ in order to sign your posts. Thanks.
I agree, it's apples and oranges, and that's OK... until such articles (about apples and/or oranges) can be fruitful and multiply.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Stop the edit waring Michele or your IP addresses will be blocked.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

a clarification[edit]

I have to make a clarification: according to Democrito the universe is empty. On the contrary according to Anaxagoras the universe is permeated by aethere and the latter explains the transmission of physical phenomenon. The Ionian atomism was heretic because for it, the universe is not metaphysical. The Universe isn’t god and there is no God in it or Dharma, transcendental energy, etc. The nous of the universe is only a cold imprescrutable mechanism. Atom is an evolution of the oldest concept of Arche (transcendental element) that exist in Hesiod and in Thales. Arche has various meanings: it can be infinitely big or small and indivisible and form the things. But the atom is not arche. Arche can be a part of holistic metaphysical organism or entity. The Ionian atom, as the modern atom, is a model (good or bad) to explain only physical phenomenon not to discovered God or other metaphysical questions ... Atomism is relativistic ! It is an accepted inability of the human logic and senses to know the whole !

There is also the hermetic tradition see Isaac Newton but is another thing it is a mysterical initiation on knowledge of the Ancients. Expl. three times hero Hermete. See pseudoepigraphics texts (Egyptian-Ptolemaic period). These texts were very important in the Renaissance and Illuminism. About Isaac Newton see The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy (Cambridge University Press, 1984),

Dear Elf, it need to understand how “atomism” this article want illustrate. About the "system of values" behind the use of certain citations I remain in my opinion. I prefer scientifically validated Encycl as Encycl. Brit. Wikipedia at moment risks to be the pulpit of organised sectarisms.

Michele PS. I have no expectations I am skeptic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michele, you prefer a scientifically validated encyclopedia? Have you tried searching for one on Google? I doubt the article has a '"system of values"' but it may have a hodgepodge of something. Could you be more specific about why you post to this talk page? Is this about the same issue as before? I thought the discussion was complete.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

organisation of the article[edit]

The organisation of the article is confused and cannot be used from a baby !!!

I would propose use cut and past:

1) A general description what is the atomism without cultural references, origin and other. (I would avoid comparisons).

2 Occidental Atomism: 2.1 atomism in Greek-Roman world (origin and introduction) 2.2 Leucippos 2.3 Democritos 2.4 Platone and atomism 2.5 Aristotele and atomism 2.6 Epicuro and atomism 2.7 Lucrezio atomism and De Rerum Natura 2.8 Medieval Europe atomism (exile) ref with Averroism 2.7 Renaissance until XIX sec. atomism

3 Islamic world atomism 3.1 Asharite atomism 3.2 Averroism

4 Indian atomism 4.1 atomism in India (origin and introduction) 4.2 Vaisesika-Nyaya school 4.2 Buddhism and atomism 4.3 Jaina school

XX century theories and modern atomic phisics [better in an other article]

Michele —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ps. it exists numerous fragments of Democrito texts why my reference is been cancelled is a classic lycean book used in italian school. We know from Trasillo (Tiberio empire) that Democrito writed 15 Tetralogie: 2 moral books 3 phisics books 4 ethiologic 3 mathematic 2 of music and 2 of tecnics. Of all of these arrive us numerous and no connect fragments.

Democrito. Raccolta dei frammenti, interpretazione e commentario. Testi greci e latini a fronte. Versione russa in appendice Ingrandisci Dettagli del Libro: Autore: Non Specificato Editore: Bompiani Genere: filosofia antica, medievale, orientale Collana: Il pensiero occidentale Curatore: Luria S. Traduttore: Krivushina A. - Fusaro D. Pagine: LIV-1738 ISBN: 8845258041 ISBN-13: 9788845258046 Data pubbl.: 2007

Michele, self–revert your changes per WP:BRD (and possibly WP:SIGN) if you'd like to contribute constructively.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Michele, this is wikipedia not a blog. If you want to do original research, pls get in touch with some scientific journal. If you insist on your edits, your IP will be blocked.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Michele/Andriolo: I'm sorry but I don't think your outline "cannot be used for a baby" either, (whatever that means... we're trying to build an encyclopedia here). Please amend your disruptive pattern of editing by making a clear and concise suggestion here on the talk page prior to making changes to the article. If there's a consensus in favor of your changes, they can be implemented. Otherwise, not.
Indian Chronicles: Sorry if I confused things by trying to accommodate Michele/Andriolo's "Strabo" contribution in a detail section. Unfortunately, I see it fails verification. It's probably best to continue using 22:39, 31 October 2010 as the baseline for WP:BRD because Michele/Andriolo had also removed (unrelated) sourced material from the lead.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But lead still looks a bit bigger. Maybe we can compact it.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


Dear Elf, I am sorry, I am learning how to use wikipedia. And I have a baby entusiasm to contribute to this encyclopedia and I believe that wikipedia can be a good instruments. I think that i will contribute in a language that i know better. For me is difficult to use good English and I haven't time for childrens and job. But I see that in Wikipedia there are the dangerous religious sectarian forms as Scientology case too. They use the source in ideological manner. The position of citation example out of contest. At this moment 11/12/2010 this article is trash, is impossible to use it. It is as a stupid puzzle without logical scheme. (It is like an italian "Minestrone")

Dear Indian or Indians. About verification of Strabo, you can go to a shop and buy the book is (Geography of Strabo)that it seems that you have never seen. It is possible to find it everywhere also in Amazon maybe also with english translation. Strabo is not a compilation of religious aphorisms or sutras but it is a historical book. A big part of the Mediterranean archeology is based on Strabon and Herodotus with objective evidence.

I have translated this texts that you can find into a book: "....Now, while it is easy to judge what others have written, the information given by Homer has need of a thorough critical inquiry, since he speaks as a poet...." (Strabone. Geography. Viii, 1, 1)

[2.000 yeas ago] Today there are persons that think with dogmas.


  book (ref.)---------------------Strabo (written)----------------------------------Mochus(oral)
  book (ref.)----Indian cronicle or commentaire (written II cent CE and after)----- VI cent (oral)

cannot stay together at the head of the page ?

About the debate with Indians

book (ref.)------------------------------------------------------- Democrito fragments (written)
book (ref.)----Indian cronicle or commentaire (written II cent CE and after)----- IV or VIII cent (oral)  

Δεν θα συνεχίσω τη συζήτηση αυτή που δεν οδηγεί πουθενά. Δεν είναι σοβαρό να γραφει κανείς για τον ατομισμό χωρίς να ξέρει ελληνικά. Προτιμώ να συζητήσω αυτό το θέμα με ανθρώπους που σκέφτονται.

If there are some classical student that will read this discussion will understand.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC) 
My Status: Still trying to decipher what Michelle has written and what he/she is trying to accuse me of.
Michele, You need to come out of your greek or occidental-centric world. Thanks for your translation of strabo. For your kind information, critical analysis, rationality and discriminative knowledge have been hallmarks of Indian civilisation before even Greeks started developing the western civilisation. But understand one thing: this article is about Atomism and not how great strabo and greeks were. Kindly stick to the topic. And stop accusing some one of being more than one persons. If you want to argue atleast play fair and stick to topic. You tried your luck on pages of Jainism doubting its antiquity and failed. You are like a frog in the greek well. Take your time in wikipedia as a learning experience.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an agreement Indian Chronicles rif atom talk page. --Andriolo (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not here.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why should it be different ? --Andriolo (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreement on Atom page was only for a cursory mention. Here we can put it up in detail. Please feel free to put up what is right as long as it is well referenced and pertains to the issue and don't indulge in Original Research. I will do the same.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a broken record. Why you contradict your philosophy ? For you it is possible to touch other parts of the Elephant or not ? Why for you, it is so important to have the chain “to be more ancient than other” it is so necessary for your philosophy ? The sentence that we have choice in atom article it is so bad for you ? Simply the sentence leaves free the question, it gives an hypothesis (shareable? It is no important) and finally respect the historical method and your belief. --Andriolo (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Heck, whats your you enjoy sparring with me. All I said that here we can put this in more detail as long as you reference it properly. Spacepotato is giving a clearcut reference, you are on the other hand giving your opinion and indulging in Original Research. One just needs to see your discussion on the talk page. Antiquity is not important for my philsophy. Truth is. As simple. Whatever may be our philosophy, let us stick to WP Policies for now. Unfortunately your arguments are more argumentum ad hominem rather than content related. Go ahead and make changes, no one owns this page.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this sentence that it is proposed from Spacepotato, and you?: References to the concept of atoms date back to ancient Greece and India. In India, the Ajivika, Jain, and Carvaka schools of atomism may date back to the 6th century BCE. (McEvilley, p. 317) The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools later developed theories on how atoms combined into more complex objects. (King, pp. 105-107) --Andriolo (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you feel like it please put it.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

References to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India and ancient Greece. In India, the Jain (1), Ajivika and Carvaka schools of atomism may date back to the 6th century BCE. (2) The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools later developed theories on how atoms combined into more complex objects. (3) In the West, the references to atoms emerged in the 5th century BCE with Leucippus, and Democritus.(4) Whether Indian culture influenced Greek or vice versa or whether both evolved independently is a matter of dispute. (5)

(1) Gangopadhyaya, Mrinalkanti. Indian Atomism: history and sources. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1981. ISBN 0-391-02177-X, p. ?

(2) Thomas McEvilley, The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies ISBN 1-58115-203-5, Allwarth Press, 2002, p. 317-321.

(3) Richard King, Indian philosophy: an introduction to Hindu and Buddhist thought, , Edinburgh University Press, 1999, ISBN 0748609547, pp. 105-107.

(4) The atomists, Leucippus and Democritus: fragments, a text and translation with a commentary by C.C.W. Taylor, University of Toronto Press Incorporated 1999, ISBN 0-8020-4390-9, pp. 157-158.

(5) Dick Teresi, (2003). Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science. Simon & Schuster, ISBN 074324379X. p. 213 (But it is possible to use McEvilley p. 317-321)

About Ancient China atomism, at moment I are unable to find this book: Needham, Joseph (1986), Science and Civilisation in China, 3, Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth, Taipei: Caves Books Ltd. Infact in the wikipedia article of Mohism (5TH century BCE (?)) there is this sentence: Similar to the atomists of Democritus, the Mo Jing stated that a point is the smallest unit, and cannot be cut in half, since 'nothing' cannot be halved.

Otherwise the sentence I think It can change in this manner: References to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India, Greece and China.....

What do you think ?

--Andriolo (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think first one is better. China will need better references. Anyways, go ahead and edit, later on if we feel we can always improve it--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I will put the sentence, can you help me to harmonize the notes and give the missing page about Gangopadhyaya. I will put also the sentence Whether Indian culture influenced Greek or vice versa or whether both evolved independently is a matter of dispute. (5) because so we can to close the door about this debate on this article, in future.

About Mochus of Sidon, I don’t propose more. (Strabo call him atomist but He is important in Hermeticism) About Courpoularism and Hermeticism tradition I don’t propose more. Alchemy and Arché concept of Milesian thinkers haven’t the question of indivisibility.

Methodological question that I have propose so stupid when I was michele:

The modern atom is divisible, so I don’t know if it can to be considered it in atomism article. The western philosophy of atomism at moment is a died tradition, it is matter only for history. But I think the atomism tradition is in life in Indian schools because it is linked to religious tradition.

Forgive me. --Andriolo (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Atomism is a natural philosophy that developed in several ancient traditions. In the Western tradition, it dates back to Leucippus and his student Democritus in the 5th century BC.[1] These atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two fundamental principles, atoms (indivisible bodies) and void, (a vacuum, i.e. empty space).

I think that this black sentence is no more necessary. Can I delete it ? --Andriolo (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I change "these atomists...." with "the atomists...." in the head. --Andriolo (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction information in the article[edit]

In the introduction of the article, there is this statement: According to Aristotle, atoms are indestructible and immutable and there are an infinite variety of shapes and sizes. They move through the void, bouncing off each other, sometimes becoming hooked with one or more others to form a cluster. Clusters of different shapes, arrangements, and positions give rise to the various macroscopic substances in the world. And later on the article, there is a section "The rejection of atoms" that says Aristotle rejected the idea of atom. So which one is true? Did Aristotle support or reject the idea of atom? (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, the passage in the lead is misleading. It cites Aristotle for a description of atoms -- a concept that Aristotle described but rejected. I'm returning that passage to the state before this edit. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Universal approach[edit]

Not Aryan like.

There is a small problem: unfortunately "Middle East cannot be older than India" ;-). Try to insert it. I hope you'll be very patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC) (Andriolo) However: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Atomic Theory section inappropriate for Philosophic Atoms[edit]

It seems completely odd that the article chooses to conflate the notion of a philosophical atom with a scientific one. A philosophical atom has features which actual atoms do not such, e.g. being indivisible and immutable, which are not at all true of scientific atoms. The term "atom" in science denotes an entirely distinct concept and should be featured solely as an article for further reference with a disambiguation notice.

If no objections are raised I will change the article to reflect this. (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Altering it now. (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone altered the article back. I am removing it now again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

1.When adding a section to the talk page please do it at the end. It is customary for talk pages to follow chronological order. I've now moved this section to the end of the page.
2.The strict distinction of science vs philosophy is a modern concept and dichotomy which at minimum makes little sense historically, at least in this context; e.g. Newton's seminal work after all was named the Mathematical Principals of Natural Philosophy. Moreover if we were to follow such strict and imo anachrostic and arbitrary dichotomy, no ancient -or even not so ancient- "philosophical" or philosophical view, theory, practice, etc on whatever discipline would be anywhere relevant; e.g. since Kepler used the "God insired" Platonic solids on the Cosmos or since even after Newton, astronomy was still conflated for a period with astrology, one would have to erase from the astronomy article all the ancient -or not so ancient- parts-sections-history.
3. You could voice your objections by adding to the atomic theory section phrases expressing the science vs philosophy view or placing the whole atomic theory section(s) under e.g. a new super-section Atomism according to modern Science. Or if your objections are more strong than that you could argue more seriously; just disagreeing is not a real argument.
4. You may want to read about the -relatively- modern atomic theory controversy, the atomists vs the energeticians and how it relates to what we now call philosophy; I strongly suggest you read e.g. Poincare on Atoms and Atomism...
5. It's therefore certainly not complete odd "to conflate the notion of a philosophical atom with a scientific one". It may seem to you; but this in no way justifies a whole section blanking... Thanatos|talk|contributions 10:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the 20th century relevant?[edit]

Note: new to Wikipedia.

I am reading the page and the fourth paragraph begins, "However, in the 20th century..." Is this relevant? If people want to read about atomic theory, they can go to the atomic theory page. I don't feel it has much to do with atomism, the philosophy from the 5th century BCE.

Shelby thomas15 (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Atomism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)