Philosophers

Thank you for your attention,dear colleagues!

PDE

it's blurry!  clearly and obviously and sharply blurry.  cool cool cool.  all best Pierre.  all best.

Pierre, Nice contrast between the philosophers and the background. The science of philosophy can contribute to some clearness in our existence but in general the reality of life and universe remain quite vague. Our brains have to evolve more for a better understanding. Interesting theme. Best regards, Marco

A beautiful result with a very nice background, Pierre!

I'm with Aristotle on this one--air, water, fire and earth!!!!  (Although being a scientist I guess I should have backed Democritus).   Nice choice of bg here!!   AJ

Hey, Mr Kraft,

thank you for your warning, but the background is deliberately blurred, displaced rather than blurred or as our friend Marco will say vague in the end!

PDE

Marco,

The science of philosophy as a scientists says below (AJ Bart) isn't a science at all if we judge by the four elements of everything depicted by the respectable Aristotle, kids in elementary school today know that he doesn't pick well the "elements" in chemical (scientific, that is) order!

Thank you for your contribution to the debate!

PDE

Thank you for your purely photographic, IE visual seeing of the matter, Ruud!

PDE

AJ,

As obvious from your input Aristotle had mixed it all so well that it proofs the philosophy isn't a science at all, furthermore if we know that he had one living (not long living, though) God among his disciples, nothing from Aristotle the scientist!

Thank you for reminding me of that fact!

PDE

As is typical of philosophical discussion, Aristotle and Democritus did not exactly see eye to eye.  Yet, the fact that the two gentlemen shown here seem to be of the same height amplifies how intently they are gazing into each other's eyes.  (OK, enough puns.)

Although Democritus was sometimes referred to as the laughing philosopher, he is dead serious here.  He and Aristotle must have been debating a metaphysical issue; if it had been something to do with the philosophy of photography, he's be laughing hilariously (or at least smiling).  It's a good thing you didn't also bring Plato into the frame, because he recommended that all of Democritus' books be burned.

Thanks for giving me a vehicle by which to visit ancient Greece once again.

My best always,

michael

Hi Pierre,

  Wonderful creative work of art, with great background.  Take care, Patsy

Michael,

I was always noticing the misty and confused learning and teaching of Aristotle while I preferred the serious approaching to the modern science of the laughing Democritus and there I place them in a debate which maybe and most likely didn't ever happen!

Thank you for your contribution to the "debate"

PDE

Thank you Patsy,

the background reminded me of some quasi science and I then remembered that I have what to put on such background! With the due respect for the philosophers I prefer the modern science!

PDE

Appreciate the concept, lighting and background.

 - Deb

Originally made with usual creativity. I like the clarity of the philosophers' statues against blurry b/g. Čestitke za ideju i vrlo efektnu prezentaciju u tvom stilu. Svako dobro, Pero!

Welcome, Debmalya and thank you for your visit and kind comment!

The lighting, you say and gave me an idea! I will put a bulb in the middle of the top of the picture since they seem to be lit from a source of light placed between them two!

PDE

Welcome to you too, Sreten!

The statues are as a matter of fact made of coins of 5 and 10 drachmas from the eighties! The lighting comes from my ring flash!

Pozdrav, majstore!

PDE

Who was Democritus, what did his theories on the atom entail?

He was a Greek philosopher born at Abdera in Thrace 460 BC- 370 BC. His theory of the atom suggested that the characteristics of an object were determined by the shape of the Atom. For example [1] sweet things are made out of smooth atoms while bitter things are made out of sharp atoms. “Democritus agreed that everything which is must be eternal, but denied that "the void" can be equated with nothing.”[2]

What other sorts of philosophies did he study?|

Some the philosophies that he studied were mathematics such as geometrics, Tangencies, Mapping, and Irrationals; along with minerals and plants in which he extracted the essence of herbs. He also studied astronomy; he even may have been the first one to propose that the universe contains many worlds.

How did Democritus and Aristotle agree/disagree on their theories of the atom?

Aristotle,(384-322 B.C.) who was a greek philosopher a student of Plato and a teacher of Alexender the Great believed that one could divide up a piece of matter an infinite number of times, that is, one never came up with a piece of matter that could not be further divided. He suggested that everything in the world was made up of some combination of four elements: earth, fire, water, and air. The elements were acted upon by the two forces of gravity and levity. On the other hand Democritus believed in the existence of an 'elementary particle', which he called the 'atom'. These atoms were indivisible, the smallest particle possible. He suggested that there were many different types of unchangeable atoms, each with its own shape and size, in constant motion. Matter, therefore, was made up of large numbers of different types of atoms.

Aristotle wrote quite extensively on physics, along with many other subjects. What work in physics is he most credited for?

Aristotle is generally credited with providing the most comprehensive ideas of how matter existed. He believed that there were four earthly elements: earth, water, air and fire. Each had its natural place determined by its weight. Earth, being the heaviest, "wanted" to be at the centre of the universe. Water was above the earth, with air above water, and then fire. This order makes intuitive sense. Solid ("earthy") bodies sink in water; if you release air under water the air bubbles to the surface; and flames leap upward during burning. (Wood could float even though it was a solid body, because it contained both earth and fire; the fire was released on burning.) The farther a body was from the earth, the more perfect it became. Hence the moon was the least perfect of the heavenly bodies, as could be seen by its uneven appearance, while the fixed stars were the most perfect of all, and were composed of a fifth element (the "quintessence") which had no weight at all.

In Aristotle's theories of physics, a moving body of any mass had to be in contact with a "mover", something which caused its motion, or it would stop. This mover could either be internal as for animals, or external as in the case of a bowstring pushing on an arrow. The arrow was kept in flight by air displaced from the front rushing to the back to fill the vacuum left by the arrow. Since Aristotle said that a vacuum was impossible ("nature abhors a vacuum"), this explanation of an arrow's motion was again internally consistent. However, because the stars were without mass, once they were put in motion by a "prime mover" they could continue to move by themselves.

How did the works of Aristotle and Democritis help to shape the modern atomic theory?

Both Aristotle and Democritis believed that atoms had smaller parts that make up the atoms, which later came to be called subatomic particles.

Well, Jorge, wasn't I right in my comment above?!

It took scholars about 22 centuries to oppose Democritus in one thing - atom IS divisible! The substance remains the same as he thought until today!

Aristotle only succeeded to fool the ancient and later the medieval scholars, Arab and European and didn't ever come to the truth about the substance of matter! He was only manipulating with wrong logic of the connections of the visible, for instance considered the fire an element and it is so close to the reasonable human mind that since almost everything can burn that it's a process!

Muchas gracias y saludos cordiales

PDE

old and new, the digital representation of thinking as background!

Yes, Maria!

As I said above, all started with the mistaken shot, too long exposure since the flash didn't fire and displaced keys on the keyboard!

Thank you for your comment!

PDE

Hey Pierre!

Given that these are photos of inanimate objects, it is striking to me how intensely focused their gazes are on each other...I will credit you with that one. I also find the mixed media element to be quite arresting. Lots to take in here! Very nice!

Tim

Hey, maestro!

You didn't read the comments, of course, busy man! Here isn't the picture which is much interesting, more the comments, they are educative, ha!

Thanks for taking the time my friend and Happy Easter!

PDE

Hi Pierre,

You are right, I had not read the comments. With someone who generates as many comments as you, I would have to set aside an afternoon just to say hello if I read them all! I did read through them just now. Wow!...a lot of stimulating conversation!!

Tim

Hola Pierre.

Excelente imagen de estos dos grandes filósofos. Te felicito.

Un cordial saludo, Joaquìn.