about atomism.-english-gustav theodor fechner

7/27/2019 About Atomism.-english-Gustav Theodor Fechner.

1/18

About atomism.

OfG. Fechner.

A font for the defense of atomism against the attacks to which they the part subject

to the philosophers (titled: "On the physical and philosophical atomism") was to be

just completed by me and ready to pass the pressure, as my essay Spruce 's in thismagazine, which opposes atomism, approached. Since I had to be to advance to

objections, as she set the revered author, acted, I thought, to be able to limit myself in

the subject of their consideration of the addition of a note, and as I hereby, in the

main, the response to that essay claims do, I content myself here indicate some main

aspects of which may also be considered a voluntary disclosure of Scripture.

You will not deny that some aspects of the atomistic principle consists in the world

at large. The world body but is atomistic off of each other, but to the spirits of

atomistic each other. Of course, the world body are still divided, however, in any

spirit is much more distinguishable. If, therefore the essence of atomism in theimpossibility of further division and differentiation, the material and spiritual world is

not scheduled atomistic. Of course, the world body're ever bound by force, law, a

general order of nature into a unified whole, however, it is also for the spirits, each of

which knows only of himself, a spiritual order, and it makes wonder if not, indeed our

view argue that an omniscient consciousness is the band for all individual

consciousness. If, therefore the essence of atomism into decay and lack of awareness

ribbon, the material and spiritual world is not scheduled atomistic.

But it is not true but that the world body from great distances act on each other,

each individual spirit only to the immediate knows what is in him? Substituting the

nature of atomism in the physical areas in a spatial discretion powerful gifted masses

(it is also that just because you finally untie these masses into force) then the material

world scheduled atomistic large scale, and is given to the nature of atomism on

intellectual areas in there that each individual mind just to not know about the others,

the spiritual world is scheduled atomistic. Each individual spirit is himself

verknpfend as safe for a world of physical parts of the universal spirit of the

universe. (If the spirit out, the body breaks down,. The simplest idea, the simplest

sensation is the linking self-appearance or even appearing to link a game of physical

processes in the brain and nerves) so Substituting into it the essence of atomism thatthe physical, rather than to be bound by spiritual, was mentally empty or spirit is

apparent only as the result of an accidental mechanical play, the organic world is

predisposed not atomistic, but it remains true that the whole mental-physical

organism of man and animals at the same time the consciousness and the matter

occurred after discreetly each other; from this point of the organic world is still

scheduled atomistic.And cheap can now ask whether, after such atomism, or we say

instead, such a discretion, which is neither a divisibility and distinctness to Bottom

nor a band excludes the Up, allwrts see where we turn the eye, it is not subject to a

comprehensive and through further principle be carried out, as far as the eye cansee.


2/18

Anyway, if of atomism, atomism is mentioned, when even a subject of dispute is to

be made of it, is just look up carefully, what it is for a type to which it is if one of

those prohibited contents simply because in reality nowhere vorzufindenden types of

atomism, or actually occurring in reality kind of can not ask her if she is, but just how

far it is. You have to ask yourself before you argue whether or not those types

conceptions untriftig confused, mixed, or because they often, perhaps usually mixedpresent themselves, share the blame, and multiply, rather than improve them by using

the reprehensible in it discards the Unverwerfliche. But I mean, it's really true.

The ancients had a atomism, where the atoms was attributed absolute indivisibility,

where no uniform view of the world could come to pass, where name of a shortcut of

matter and their relationships through mind there was no question, but the

coincidence of the atoms of the mind do it yourself should make unnecessary, which

was not given to a possible defeasibility of the atomic concept in terms lying further

back. It is now more readily inclined to still have the same idea of atomism today, the

more one has come from the study of the ancients to their knowledge. But they nolonger fit the current atomic theory. It only fits the specter of what and many

philosophers in memory of those old atomism, in faith, her name means nor the old

thing, so like design of her, but not on what is considered atomism in physics and

chemistry today acts, and which probably still holds a tough aspect of the ancient

atomism - as should have had nothing but this Durable? It counts but also in the

history of philosophy - but not the whole structure, the whole tendency, the whole

meaning thereof, wherein no one will fail to recognize the inconsistency. Today's

atomism is even more cautious and much more modest than those old, she denies any

divisibility of matter's Indeterminate, is no higher general link in the way, will makeno mind, replace, deny, where do you find something of the kind in the

atomistic Cauchy 's,Poisson 's, W. Weber's etc, etc, it is merely in the sense of (last

made version of atomism same discretion that we see in fact between the heavenly

bodies on a large scale into the world body continues in's small, indeterminable, as it

turns out in the last resort, because it can not decide physics and chemistry, where

they appealed to the philosophy, only that they can decide it but it must also exist that

the discretion continue to be made to recognize the eye and microscope let .

Perhaps for such a limited view, dropping the most essential aspects of the ancient

atomic theory, which has a historical right to its name, and no longer claims as to tapon the principles of a clear, follow the right and careful empirical science and can

claim the metaphysical Last but not enough and goes, the name of atomism itself no

longer quite appropriate. But the name itself means an indivisible atom, and today's

atomism speaks expressly of composite atoms, thus contradicting his own name. It

may be, only one would be wrong of course, if you wanted to turn allegations which

may possibly make the name to the cause. Perhaps the atomism is in such a limited

sense, as it is conceived by the physicist, no object philosophical dispute. I do it

myself, and my only also, that they should not then deny philosophical. Maybe but

you can also really like more than a newer older Atomists have that on the solid, safeand Gestattende the limited view out into the guilt of the oldest atomism, the

Voreiligkeiten to a rapid conclusion, the lack of clarity in which to we have to move


3/18

rather than learned from the recent philosophy physics has lost. I admit it safe,

though, one would have all the more wrong to cause suffering to the innocent, strong,

safe and clear part of atomism among them, as I may have more than a newer

Atomists - and just are those to which we the most important achievements in the

atomism owe - which holds within the limits of allowable view. And common ground

can be down in a continuation of the world organization, we need to recognize up toneither something conceptually Unclear, are in themselves contradictory, experience

circuits inaccessible nor with any higher, conceptual and practical interests

Incompatible (which are about the allegations against which has to defend atomism),

if those continue only so happens that the tape by law, force, spirit, what is the Up,

Down and maintained by and for deeper speculation about the relationship of these

factors to each other and to matter still remains room. But this is the nature of today's

physical atomism, or I would rather say: the durable and clear page of today's

physical atomism. Because I do not deny, and have already recognized, and wants it

right to emphasize with even greater force that you can, including the same, are inconsideration for so many views and representations also an untenable and unclear

side of her and here to address a legitimate attack . So I want tospruce 's in further

contradict nothing more than that with his objections to that side of atomism,

atomism was ever rejected.

In fact, it is with the atomism as with many know things, they have a page of Safe,

festivals, clear, and a side of insecure, wavering, uncertain, and one must be very

careful not thrown together both and with the One the Other to discard. The cell as a

basic element of the organism is anything definite, clear, in the questions about the

meaning, origin, last constitution of the cells is much more uncertain and slurred, onemust not discard the insecure in the cell theory sake of the secure cell. The atom as a

fundamental element of the world is anything certain, clear, in the questions about

meaning, origin, last constitution of the atom is much more uncertain and

slurred. You do not discard the insecure in the atomic theory the sake safe

nuclear. You must not know how to express myself in my work, throw the baby out

with the bath water, thereby also adhere immediately to the right that you have not

even conceived this child. On the side of the safe, festivals, aware of the things

generally falls the Experiential and according to rules that have proven themselves in

the experience, exploitable, in the form of experience moderating imaginable, on the

side of the insecure, wavering, uncertain, the thoughts you are making about the

reason and nature of this experience moderating, even the lowest-lying, Last of the

things.So now the atomism has a positive, stable, strong, clear basic ingredients and

core through which all Atomists agree, based not merely on those vague, if not to be

despised reason that an organization who to Top is found, can be thought of

continued Down to the contrary, but not directly by experience, which is not

countless physically Certain and clear, but deducible according to rules of experience,

and in the form of experience moderating is still conceivable that physics can not

give up without all experience losing all concept clarity and abandon themselves to

the principles. But this is not yet the ultimate philosophical reason and heart of thematter, and by the physicist tries to respond to this, he falls though all difficulties prey


4/18

that all attempts to go back to one last behind the experience had been, arises from

this the uncertain, vague, fluctuating part of atomism, the all Atomists disagree, and it

is no wonder if the Atomists the philosophers as little satisfied herein, as he other

Atomists not satisfied and do not meet each other reciprocally as the philosophers

when they come to the same conditions.Now we should be glad if we can save the

variation in this general about what is behind most of the experience, somethingcertain and clear in the areas, which is the closest experience, and it rather as a guide,

that Mr. fluctuation be used as discard its certainty and clarity to that uncertainty and

lack of clarity sake. Who throws away the money because he does not know from

which shafts dug it, where and how it was shaped, what is the basic nature of gold or

silver, the money is there, you can pay for, so are atoms there, you can pay it, but

where it came from, where and how they have influenced what the basic nature of the

atoms, worein to analyze in the last analysis, one can argue about it. I say that atoms

are there, of course you can not see, but you can see the pores in the egg shell, the

vibrations of the air bei'm Schll, the vibrations of the ether bei'm not light, and canstill say they are because, so true but all of this is there are so true because the atoms,

it is the same way of the conclusion which leads to that and this, and by the one

denies, denying the other.

The most laborious work especially in modern times have enlightened us about the

structure and functions of the nervous system in all important relationships. The

brain, the nerves appear to the raw look as such a uniform mass, as the Dynamicist all

bodies appear, the microscope has this uniform mass dissolved in the finest fibers and

cells (ganglion balls), the sub-binding and Durchschneidungsversuche of

physiologists have taught that on the nerves must reproduce something in the form ofmovement, and the estimable investigationsDubois Reymond's have taught it have

raised at least to the highest probability that the physical persons in the nervous

system is electricity. All this is based on positive facts, is sometimes seen directly,

partly accessible to binding manner of the seen. We must rejoice that we have won

the. But the last connections of nerve fibers are only very incompletely known, the

ways in which related the mental functions with the physical nervous system, are still

in dispute and uncertainty, the nature of electricity, of ponderable matter itself, from

which the nervous system is, is ambiguous and dispute. Therefore it remains less true

that the brain, the nerves are initially dissolve into fibers that something is propagated

in them, which has the form of exercise that is employed falls under the same concept

as the workers in the lightning, electricity machine the galvanic column, the electric

ray, is all of that uncertainty on this Unsafe Safe thrown?

How, then, something certain Lying little further back, here is uncertain in the areas

of physiology behind the first experience, findable by a combination of many fine

observations and conclusions, and present, in the field of physics. What can definitely

find by combining many of his observations and conclusions based on it, the physics,

it is that the body does not have the continua, they seem to mind that they are to be

released into discrete groups of particles and these larger groups into smaller discreteparticles just as in force relationships are to each other as the discrete space and

celestial bodies in the sky just for analogous reasons appear to form a continuous


5/18

mass, as the stars in the nebula. I call the innocent, festivals, Safe and clear the

physical atomism. But how big, how small, as designed, but what finally are to be

taken at all the past or basic atoms, such as the concepts of matter, force,

impenetrability arise in relation to whether or not all matter, including that of the

atoms finally even in forces is solvable, which remain subjects of debate and of

philosophical dispute, and here among physicists prevail over any zulnglicheren,unanimous and klarern ideas as among philosophers.

But if the existence of large discrete masses in world space can be invalidated by

all this uncertainty does not, how can existence be made smaller invalid? Power

because the absolute size of a difference?

All previous philosophical objections to atomism that ofspruce is not excluded, but

are based in fact only against those wavering, uncertain, unclear part of atomism, the

grounds on which to those solid clear part supported them, are not touched , are not

even known by the philosophers sometimes not recognized in part or with superficial

Reject pushed aside, their relationship never seized by them, and therefore never felt

the power of this connection. And what philosophers would take the place of

atomism, even the whole, if possible, unclear, uncertain, fluctuating, than that vague,

uncertain part of atomism, as should secure clear of sacrificing them for the physicist

to those philosophical fluctuation entirely upon themselves.

It is still open! Would probably any a priori philosophy, especially with dynamic

principles, depending on who can come, that the brain, the base of the unified mind in

a maze, or I would rather say, is scheduled atomistic in a wonderful building of

individual fibers and cells that the homogeneous light undulations as well as the

homogeneous sounds are, no matter how one wants to take the last of the undulating

nature? Rather, it is certain that they latter, not delivered still stands today with

reluctance, probably some philosophy that does not care about science experience,

and the experience then of course the science does not care again. Yes that would

Philosiphie with the dynamic view of the space-filling only the discretion of the

world body a priori have to find? It takes the same not purely from the

experience? So you can see it, that is to find the empirical science Some of what the

philosophy ofa priori not find what they can not decide. Well, the question of how

far the world atomistic structure continues from top to bottom, whether in the visible

remains whether enough in Unsichtliche's also belongs to these issues. Just as wellthe philosopher could a priori to prove that the nebula is not further down into

discrete world body, but that the world body will not dissolve further down into

discrete atoms, that there already at the discretion of the first has be content. But

empirical science has determined in that relationship, to decide what neither the task

nor possibility for philosophy could or the philosophy which should seize as good as

they are, even if forced, the atomic disposition of the brain in fibers and cells must

seize the undulations of light, because they can not deny those without to stand out

attention.

Not without reason, I suppose in this paper as in my signature as often as the World

Outline broadly the undulations of light and small. For both of these examples seem


6/18

to me to contain a sufficient and already hitting reply to all objections against the

atomism of philosophers almost to himself. They are like two hands that it is

sufficient to only ever touching the Proteus of these objections of fixed again in order

to compel anew to abandon their indeterminacy to assume a definite form, and then

dissolve over again, two solid cliffs between foundations on which the liquid is

tottering ship of the dynamic arguments can not pass through it without fail at leastone of them. In fact, I think I can say that can bring absolutely no objection to an

invisible discretion and structure of matter, did not fail because he equally and in the

same sense already against the apparent discretion of the heavenly body or against the

invisible ripple of light, or both would be subject to both and yet can not be

levied. But should their existence does get added, then the whole theory of atoms

actually nothing more to lose, but only everything to gain, since the same examples

then covers, supports, brackets instead Widerspche a general and generally workable

world view will be.

It can, however, these examples still offer something more than merely negativeand dismisses annehmliche analogies. By atomism takes the chemistry, crystal

customer etc, the doctrine of the youngest ever to astronomy, the science of the

biggest, under the rule of the same general principles of balance and movement, by

means of which the natural science everywhere achieved clarity and success, and is

this related only to the consistent herewith contained system. Without the atomism

breaks this connection, and like him try by dialectical or other terms in his way again

to make the philosopher, this conceptual context is simply not scientific, if one fact

that different areas are linked conceptually, not the way through introduction and

conclusion from one place to another. The atomic theory has its main strength at all ina single stone of the arch of natural science, but in the essential contribution they

provide to the close cooperation of all, as the strength of the whole vault is their own

strength. One often thinks they have nothing more to have for themselves, as the

palpable ideas they the chemical proportions, the crystallization phenomena, the

cohesion of the expansion ratios and s . w. highlighted. But s o estimated the notion

clarity is that it carries for each of these appearance areas in specifics Dern, the bars

of this bundle would be individually easy to break, are entirely different but the

imagination z ONTEXT she mediates between all, and in you the same can occur with

the other appearance areas of earth and heaven, in itself, and even more so

therefore, because of this performance context a principles relating to the

consideration of the derivative of the conclusion justified. better on nothing more than

the science fits the Sprichwort: divide et impera , in that it divides the matter of the

world, they ruled the world,. fact that it shares the matter deeper and deeper, they

extend their rule into greater depth well as one connects the matter, decomposes the

science of matter.

A far more specific and more direct relationship between astronomy and as there is

but between wave theory and atomism atomism, s o that, if not for the acceptability of

both general relations, but the full feasibility of both s related olidarisch. Withoutatoms, the wave theory are no colors in the prism, no polarization. The most thorough

mathematical analysis and discussion have found that this theory can do nothing with


7/18

the view of the continuity of the light substrate (ether) on these phenomena, whereas

they are the basis of the atomistic view of implications of this theory. (. Cf. further

details in my signature) Now let it be noted: The wave theory explained or linked but

all still so manni g wrinkled and intricate phenomena of reflexion, single and double

refraction, due to the dynamic presentation style quite as well as on Due to the

atomistic, but just about those finer provisions that require a new realm varied andcomplicated phenomena, they can do nothing with the first. What does that

mean? Nothing else than the wave theory itself is on the right path, but with the

dynamic view we get stuck on half of this path, with the atomistic you take it to an

end.And so explains the dynamic view linked at all the phenomena only to such

boundaries, where the fine structure of matter not of influence is, in addition,

demonstrates the necessity of atomism.

The examples from the areas of imponderable, which provides the

Undulationslehre in this respect, my writing adds multiple examples from the areas of

the ponderable. The dynamic view is enough right there with you the rough and onlythe rough, roughly the same time the atomistic and the Fine and context of the rough

with the finest. The dynamic view makes a lot, but still leaves much to be desired,

and the atomic theory meets these requirements. With a mitt can be of course Some

also grab and do what can be access with the free articulated fingers and do, but not

all. This is the ratio of the matter. If one finds that it does not continue with the glove,

you put it off, this will be the fate of the dynamic view, and it is already in the areas

of natural science. Always hoping the dynamic view on substitutions will find in their

favor for the services of atomism yet. A view services to appeals to hopes, is

hopeless. Thus, it is as the most complete linkage as the finest development of scientific

disciplines, which atomism is required. And depends both together. For since the

nature of most fine Elaborated is really something, and depend on many phenomena

of this fine development, so science must also take this elaborate work in their

viewpoints and bills to einzubegreifen the study of these phenomena in their context.

Therefore, the need of atomism only became noticeable with the progress of

science has grown with it and continued walking. With the individual and roughly

one begins anywhere, with the most complete linkage and development includes

you. How atomism emerged from the progress of science in this direction, the moredistant the progress of atomism is inversely linked. Want to undo the atomism, ie the

science to undo. It will succeed when the rivers are running backwards. The

philosophy should be careful not to fall into the spokes of a wheel that rolls

inexorably. Now it rolls slowly, it will roll faster. It would be better if they either stop

the car of the natural sciences, on rushes forward this wheel, but once, nor draw, nor

can follow him on own feet, to the rear of building on them. Although she holds

suchA posteriori not worthy, but we see seriously, so everything was theira priori in

the contemplation of nature has always been only a backward glances to the traversed

from that car way, what is forward, they do not see, on the hardly through spilled seesthem away, and all passed through distance blurred her in the general, but because it

overlooks the slowly through spilled quickly with a glance, she says voranzueilen the


8/18

car, and as she looks in the opposite direction as the car goes, says them that he was

going mad, and always want to redirect him. I'm not saying that that should ever be

the position of philosophy to science, but that it is the position of the current

philosophy to it.

Even the borderline cases that occur in the contemplation of nature, it is sufficient

to atomistic better than the dynamic view. If a wire or thread through the departingtrain expands more and more and finally tears, so this is for the atomistic view only

the case where a from the beginning to the existing distance between the atoms by

continued solid growth increases so far that he, at one point First, is visible, which

coincides with a Unmerklichwerden dependent on the distance of the atoms

attractions that are noticeably visible only to small distances. If the wire is quite

uniform, and would be drawn uniformly, it would decompose at a certain point of the

train even in its atoms, which has nothing absurd. The dynamic view, which

considers the wire from the beginning to be continuous and the effect of the train only

as to the tightness of the effect could also be due to an infinitely greater train onlyexpect an infinite density reduction, and with the onset of discontinuity of the wire up

their own continuity solves she is forced to skip an atomistic mode of

conception. Because the discontinuity, which is otherwise denied by her everywhere,

but now suddenly turns at a certain point of the train and at some points of the

body. The atomistic view, according to which an invisible already existing crack

extends only up to the visual, is apparently the more flowing and can infer from what

is contrary to the dynamic. For a small crack invisible must be going through

continued enlargement finally extend to the visible, a non-existent can not

expand. The crack of the body as it is for the atomistic view only the visible signs andwonders, bringing them to the truth of what she is wearing invisible to the physical

eye also proves the microscope through which their invisibly small, suddenly in one

place Giant enlarged, stands before us, for the dynamic he is a pit into which they

fall. A very uniform and uniformly stretched body would have for her, but when they

can not even tearing wegleugnen, at all points at the same time tear, which is absurd

in fact. So if you could also skip that abyss, they would still fail at this new

conclusion.

And how is it that you tear a body not only, also can crush? After the dynamic view

you should only continue going compression, as expected there dilution. After theatomistic be easily explained as the arrangement is dependent on the structure of the

particles are destroyed by the pressure, the density grow itself to the direction of

stress, according to the vertical it may decrease until disappearance. After the

dynamic view but there is no arrangement of the particles, no different density in

different directions in a body

While it may be also the dynamic view no lack of expressions, tearing, how to

cover the crushing of the body, on terms which enter into relations with other

expressions. But it is certain that the continuity of the imagination and legality, which

is noted not only the need for a natural way of looking at the things, but also the basicrequirement of exact science, is not produced by all these terms that we only an

association of words , no extraneous context receive it.


9/18

Because one thinks at all, that the physicist who otherwise like to adhere to the

inspection, at once in the atomism would accept something contrary to all

appearances, if not binding reasons urged him to do so. He exchanged this sense the

role of the philosopher, this refers to all appearances, to have the microscope in many

cases the lie, the physicist refers to the method and the end, and he is rather the

philosopher herein. Although the philosopher also has deeper reasons against theatomism that even scoff all eyes certificate, but why then still make the eyes glow

against the physicist claims that if this does not open up Obvious it. If the physicist

remain just as physicists everywhere immediately upon inspection, it would still the

sun around the earth. The opposite of eye certificates is accessed rather here from him

Augenscheinlichem, thesimplestcombination of the entireeye certificate requests

here going beyond the immediate inspection. no different with the atomism . Of

course, in going over the inspection we can also go too far rashly or in the wrong

direction, and thus fall into the dark or misleading, so beware! But we need to go

over it anyway, otherwise we remain in the crude conception of the savage are, andthis is disarmed with the philosopher.

So I now distinguish first of all carefully in my writing safe and clear of the

uncertain and unclear parts of atomism. I put in a first part, thephysical atomic

theory , the reasons in detail together, which really needed the physicist to resolve the

apparent continuum into smaller discrete parts, 1) and put in a special chapter together

the sets of atomism, which, with reference to these Reasons can be considered to be

safe. I declare explicitly, because this is the thing, in fact the state that the physicists

until now no case is still able to say anything definite about the constitution of the last

atoms, I recognize that the question of the basic relationship of matter and force termposition of space filling and impenetrability it still remains unsettled, and only

maintain at the same time that this question can indeed be so well raised in regard to

the small discrete masses, as in regard to the great, the exists or not same but just

touched as little .

1) Excerpts are also some of those reasons in my Zentralbl. f Natural Sciences. and Anthropol. In

1854. Communicated No 26.

But I deny the philosophy neither the right nor the desire to engage on the field ofpure science of experience also with such issues, and concede that we are to deal with

it with the atomism of the request, moved one step closer are. And so I go, even in a

second part, thephilosophical theory of atoms(also from certain points of view in a

chapter of the first part), to questions of this kind, and seeking to show that the

physical atomism Vertiefbarkeit a philosophical and not without padlocking. This

second philosophical part alone, which exceeds the empirically demonstrable, can

now be exposed to philosophical attacks, you will find that the objections,

thesprucehave collected and other philosophers against atomism, do not hit him, so I

have no need myself against defend, and it can not be in my interest to me as adefender of other fundamental notions of atomism, which I do not agree to raise. But

this may be said, even if the way I like to deepen and complete the physical atomism


10/18

philosophical search, found not enough, would perhaps not even considered for

philosophical, so that there would be only the need of another depression, a different

conclusion; but not the physical atomism to secure their positive sentences are

invalid.

While I do not deny that already what I consider to be the physically safest of

atomism, the main proposition that the apparent continuum of crystals of water, air,ether initially divided into discrete, be incompatible with the fundamental views of

many philosophers can, but that does not prove the main theorem Untriftigkeit that,

but the Untriftigkeit this philosophical views. As true as any philosophy would

untriftig, which would deny the Zerfllbarkeit the world into discrete world systems

and world body despite the eye certificate, so true any will be untriftig, which will

deny the more Zerfllbarkeit the world body into discrete groups of atoms and atoms,

despite the conclusions that are based on the most common, and most profound

combination of weitgreifendste apparent.

But I give it to two things: one, that there can ever be only of relative security and

certainty of the question. Nothing more can be said as: What does the atomic theory,

is likely safer and clearer than anything the dynamic view can be put in their place, so

we must keep it as long as the relationship has not vice versa. Of absolute certainty

which attaches so much philosophy into things beyond the experience itself, and thus

the other but each philosophy has become a mockery, physics knows nothing; rather

believes the surer to go, the more it is a retention of uncertainty in all that exceeds the

direct experience of conscious will. Also that the earth rather goes around the sun,

than vice versa, nor has this backing of uncertainty, but greater than the probability of

it so much to support the opposite, that we are entitled to make the security right, andother considerations it. And secondly, I do not forget that, although there relatively

few, but still some physicists are who do not share the view that physics is bound by

the atomism. Well then, my font come into this relationship not only to philosophers

but also to those physicists contrary, which it is more cheap than have of the

prevailing philosophy in question can determine where they can determine nothing,

or everything philosophical spirit lacking the linking of facts, which granted the

atomism, neither require nor appreciate, or in the investigation of the reasons for

which the necessary atomism, are not received,., and each of these categories is one

of their representatives among physicists You will find also extensively discussed thispoint in my writing.

It is common ground at the atomic theory not only to the question of whether'm

satisfied by the atomistic view of the needs of the physicist, and they can find a

conclusion in itself, but also whether they enter into general views in a satisfactory

manner or be linked to such can, whether through a view that receives the atomic

theory in itself, or it is related, may be sufficient higher education ideological

interests, a self unanimous, edifying, prosperous world view can thus come to

pass. Yes, the philosopher, and it was looking a right to the core of the issue herein.

I give back to two things: First, that the atomismLeucippus 's andDemocrit's not

enough such requirements. But what would you say if the dynamic view should


11/18

therefore be discarded because this or that, especially because the oldest opinion does

not meet such requirements. Be at least atomismLeucippus 's the egg came the newer

atomism from, but the egg bursts, the bird flies, you do not toss and turn still the old

eggshell, after the bird has long been in other regions, and mean, if the already half

smashed completely smashed, you've done something.

I admit, secondly, that the prevailing philosophical systems by seeking to meet thehighest interests not find the atomism on their way. But what of the dominant

philosophical systems, our highest interests has really satisfied? Yes it is itself a part

of their non-satisfaction that they are with science so hard in conflict, and this conflict

depends on large part on the nuclear issue. Would it not be a welcome system which

satisfied the general and supreme interests rather with the inclusion of the interests of

science? But this is the atoms can not reject but need. Natural science is to tell the

body, the soul, the philosophy of knowledge. If you want to nourish the body with the

food of the soul, - and these are the volatile categories of philosophers instead of the

solid atoms, - stunted body and soul. Who will ever ever be able to prove that asplitting techniques of the world body into smaller discrete masses of our main

interests more reluctant than the world wide? What I say splitting techniques? Rather,

who will ever be able to prove that a system of large limbs lose value if the major

elements further divided into more's fine? But otherwise the physical atomism says

nothing. And even if a philosophical completion of atomism should say more and

demand and the dynamic concept of space-filling power so that finally would fall

completely, what does this term, or rather, this phantom from deliquescent, tumbling

into each other concepts to our salvation, contributed our clarity what cemented what

not rather in his vacillation, his troubles with drawn? Just read Schelling's,Hegel's,depictions of her students, and one may give the answer himself. I takeKantdoes

not, and the Dynamicist not take itself off if Untriftigkeit of uncertainty and the

dynamic basic concepts and constructions mentioned 2) is, yes None

ofKantand Schelling,Hegel, and the newest takes the other of it. But what is it to

say that everyone on their own to have the clarity and cogency to stand alone at the

level of insight says. Otherwise deemed to be clarity and cogency in science that even

Others find clear and cogent what they say, you can not storm the heavens by

mutually plunges from a height. The philosophers are indeed easy so to hand when

physicists can not find any clarity and conciseness in the philosophical arguments andevolutions of the dynamic view, accusing them against the greater philosophical

clarity and insight because of their blindness and obstinacy, but as the philosopher

same in this respect prove blindness and obstinacy against each other themselves, can

be sought even here no fault of the physicist, but only of the philosophers.

2) See including the head of exhibitions against Schelling's ideas ze Philos. nature. P 275 341, see works of

Hegel. VII page 68

Or is about the merit of that term on someone other than the knowledge field, andthere is so significant that we probably can sacrifice something of clarity and

consistency in its version for example? Granted it a nicer view of the world? Requires


12/18

the belief in God, immortality, and freedom of his? In short, what are finally the

higher interests of the general thinking, feeling, belief, which can be satisfied only

with the dynamic, not with the atomistic view?

I'm on this side of the question in my book. Seeking to show that if you only

understood as the atomism what it is in the best sense, at best, which is also has

maintained a, not as a fragmented, rather than a breakdown and that a continuation ofthe structure, the above is visible in's invisible down, not only a clearer and clearer

presentable, but also beautiful, edifying, more gradual, individualized, developed

richer and finer, more vivid belief in detention but the same unit is obtained than with

the dynamic view, and that with this belief can each of our highest, last and dearest

interests will be right, if already atomism, as directly relating only to the construction

of the physical world, can not presume to try to establish the harmony of the universe

from itself, enough so that in it's band performs the same and it helps convey. But

why this side of atomism was so little a-days? Simply because the philosophy that

they would have to days to get pushed all the atomism in the background and only adistorted image of them has pushed for it, but in physics there is not time and task of

atomism to showcase their beauty and with other teach together to make music, but to

covet the job.

These are in particular the question of how far the mental shortcut of existence is

compatible with an atomistic world view, I may perhaps something with my earlier

writings 3) refer, in which, although (as far as it is not physical ones) atomism not is

brought language because it does not belong there, but who have yet to have had all

the same atomistic view, which interprets in my latest journal in the backing and in

the background. I say that atomism does not belong in observations, where it is theupward glance from the physical to the spiritual world, because she does on only the

most thorough well in the physical world itself, the mind attaches itself at all nowhere

to atoms, but on systems and there are only a relationship of the mind to physical

systems, not atoms, but for that reason it does not contradict systems, but it requires

the same, and the atomic theory still looks as systems where the dynamic view has

only a blurred nature. "The spirit appears and asks what have I to do with you, and

the atoms say we spread our particulars of your unit under the law is the military

leader of our flock, but you're the king, in whose service he leads . " So my

writing. And so I have the idea that all of nature is an atomic system also can notprevent, as much, perhaps to give the Spirit more room, power, and law and about the

world than any Dynamicist, and the immanence of whole physical world itself in the

spirit or the spirit in the world, depending on which one wants to believe it (Zend-

Avesta, I. 422), so to find acceptable. Yes Stufenbaues the continuation of the world

from above to a final conclusion (by simple atoms), which remains finite even left no

band in the matter, it was just easier for me, the whole last band this transparent

building in the spirit to put down. The Light that goes through all the heavens

between the world body, penetrates and clears the world body itself until's innermost,

to the lowest depths, and what faces are for the outer appearance as an infinitemultiplicity of discrete single, the Zahllosigkeit the Krpermonaden ties, in self-

appearance to a mental Monas, but, as the Allsystem those monads to submit to


13/18

special systems, the intellectual Monas of space to organize special spiritual beings,

the particular systems knpfend, under, and how not uniform and individually

knotted and operating system elapses without an equally uniform and individually

geartetes System eternal consequences (you summarize only in its totality), so goes

the temporal life of no spiritual being, without entering into an eternal life, for the

uniform self-appearance of the soul now not linked to the rest , staying, thecelebrations of the system, but to the exchange, the emotion and the disassembly

sequence of impulses of Krpermonaden, the mind is not only her Verknpfendes,

but also material and shape of the link Changing a unit through the succession as by

the simultaneous component of the system of monads, which is subject to him

receiving end. But it is not my intention, a whole faith in extenso want to develop

here. One can find elsewhere in my writings. Enough that the atomism to all aspects

relating to the unit, magnitude, duration, development of mind, and to which

command us to keep moral and practical interests, knows so well to seize, as it would

be able somehow a contrary view.3)little book of life after death, Nanna, Zend-Avesta.

And there is nothing more that an atomistic view of the base of the mind comes

stead, as they can be grasped at all and make edifying?

I remembered the top of the atomistic structure of the brain predisposed. Well, if an

atomistic disponiertes brain is compatible with it or above prevailing spirit of why a

less atomistic predisposed world? Although the fibers and brain cells still sticking toeach other, but it is meant that the mind clings to this sticking? If the wonderful

structure of the brain itself thus less wonderful, inferior services for the mind to be

able that we continue the division into fibers and cells deeper than fibers and cells of

us think, and herewith a greater similarity of its structure with the large structure of

the universe itself . win Are not rather by the performance of the Gehirnbaues for the

mind and a spiritual ruler of Weltbaues brought into relationship?

Man pushes the highest spiritual dynamic of atomistic or if it turns out it is

objectively in the material world from itself? I do think the letters are scheduled

atomistic rather than dynamic. You can spell the Different and even the highestspiritual regions according to their different composition. So why can not the atoms

be letters, which signify according to their various compilation the Different and even

the highest in the spiritual areas? And when this letter has assets through their

dormant compilation, how much more will the atoms assets through the compilation

and exchange their movements? The higher ratios it may accept the higher spiritual.

If a symphony sounds, but we continue to see whether the instruments to exist in a

dynamic river or atomistic separation from each other, so is not in many instruments

of atomism still visible on; since there are strings, keys. About world harmony is no

longer possible when the atomism then also, Keys continues into the strings, andfinally the whole of nature is an instrument made from the finest, freest

keys? According to this mode of conception is the music that accompanies the dance


14/18

of the people, even just a dance from freest parts. After the dynamic mode of

conception, it consists in a round-Herzerren and pressing the irretrievably stuck to

each other matter, the dance of the body parts compared with the punch, able to run

fast to each convict laborer closed with each other.

Instead, arrange with abstract ambiguous words and concepts far-fetched

considerations about the possibility of finding an atomistic disposition of thecorporeal compatible with higher spiritual unity and meaning, keep it yourself but

above all to the nearest tangible examples of how they have been presented here, and

then his fancy notion of possibility rather than words to demonstrate a Unmlichkeit

where conflicting realities exist. Of course, you can also set the atomism in improper

connection to the spiritual, I say again, you hold yourself to such examples, then his

fancy terms, and you will escape the danger.

But we return to the matter, one constructs the world from the top of terms, and

since no single example of the generality of the concepts covered, you need to

construction of the world, one cares not even to such examples, instead of the most

comprehensive look at Such examples should determine the lowest entering into the

same general concepts. To enter into this deep physical page belongs to the atomism.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. If a wide and receptive Looking Up one taught

in the atomic system of the heavens, if you go with a science that knows exactly

close, and with the demand equal clarity than has the Up, Down to Anything see can,

in conclusion, to the benutzend what not to see, and when you looked around, and

everywhere organization, harmony, mind resting on atomistic burrows, such

knpfend could find, so you could be on such a document on general concepts of

being, the mind that matter, its weave and last peak ascending, come to no other

principles, as well as lay in their consequence of the atomistic structure of the world

again, only that philosophy would have it durchzubilden up to a limit where neither

experience nor sufficient empirical science. But nothing that offer all of those

examples, which fall in their entirety actually give the world almost already and they

are all in vain. Rather, the coarsest sensual appearances as a father, has generated

speculation as a mother to give birth to all of her own body believes that monster that

is called the dynamic nature view. I say wrong with a monster, how many! finally

almost the only nourish themselves that they devour each hand alternately.

Of course, between the heavenly bodies is by the physicists themselves nor the

continuous ether, however, between the brain fibers continuous moisture between the

letters continuous paper, between musical instruments continuous air; everywhere

initially only a relative discontinuity, an image, a character, a guide to absolute, but

rather the arms of Weiser of the goal, where he has to follow, the philosopher explains

the same end of the arm to the end of the path.

The physical atomism follows the Weiser's direction, it solves the apparent

continuum of intermediate means of ether, air, water, paper again into discontinuous;

she does not about merely at the behest of Weiser, because the relative has anabsolute, it's doing forced, because absolutely no other way is a continuation of that

which they have always followed, and were only on this clarity and success. Not the


15/18

relative discontinuity that presented itself naturally to their previous ways, without

being needed to close until their previous path itself, its principle of progress,

conclusion, is what compels them to further continue the atomism, it compels the

appearance of the continuum, which still has to dissolve further into

discontinuity. Whether of course this in turn is not only relative discontinuity, it is not

able to say, and so they can not defend the Dynamicist when he was inhis horror vacuibetween the atoms of the ether, the air, the water, the festivities once

again a finer continuous intends to build being that the physicist only cares nothing,

because it does nothing to him, that is nothing to link explanation of natural

phenomena. Can remain But in any case are the physicist not in the relative

discontinuity, as they initially presents itself, without condemning his science itself to

a standstill, and must say that if every higher interest compatible with a relative

discontinuity, such as those offered initially to even a depression to a further stage

will tolerate it. And not so much more than these two points, says the first part of my

writing. But I go on my part (the second part) the way that only the wise man of intuition,

then to pass the same direction continues the sage of the exact circuit had, finally the

sage of the idea that wants to close, following until the last goal which is the absolute

discontinuity easier, not further divisible essence, the only one site, no extension, will

have more in the room, hereby conceivable last, finest and clearest outline of the

world. I show how the absolute discontinuity and indivisibility of the elements of

matter to the absolute continuity and divisibility of space in which they are included,

also occurs in proportion to the supplement and the opposition; related and how much

absolute discontinuity and indivisibility itself. Also, if one takes pleasure in thedialectical formalism, hereafter easy matter as the negation or dialectical reversal of

the room or vice versa look like anything, if something depended on the atomistic be

formulated so good dialectical could, as the dynamic view, however, only the

successes, thereby also just as clear and just losing the reference to the natural

sciences that. Although, the discontinuous atom not only the continuous space, the

continuous time over, but it offers slightly following their viewpoint Trinity dar. The

atom is not continuously after that time by one, the space of infinitely many

directions.After the dynamic view of the continuity of matter coincides with the

space, and there is nothing with this trinity.

The hypostasis of other conflicting terms linked by being in solidarity with the

previous identity. The quintessential Discontinuous, hereby absolutely simple,

indivisible atom of matter is hereby also at the same time pure and simple, in itself,

by itself, Limited, is in itself nothing but limit; time and space, however, as the

absolutely continuous, infinite in Use Split, is also the absolutely unlimited, only

limitation of others when receiving end - the matter is simply to be unconnected, but

for all possible modes of connection Susceptible, the clearest terms the substance

accordingly (you confused but even the names of matter and material), time and

space the absolutely, in itself Affiliated and all material Unifying nothing but ties inand connection to other than himself, of a purely formal nature (so that she herself

has only known forms of intuition), - the atoms of the purely countable, but


16/18

Innumerable, and countability mediating all time and space, the purely measurable,

but immeasurable, and all measurability mediating - the atoms of the pure Intense,

only content-giving, the filling time and space, the purely Extensive, only content

receiving end, emptiness. After missing all of the dynamic mode of conception for

the one side of this world opposing the absolute terms hypostasis in the world,

however they do for other such recognized. By means of our atomism but gains not only this hypostasis, but hereby exercises

direct the narrowest, last and clearest link between the fundamental metaphysical

concepts, which are subordinated to the whole real world, a single node, linked by

identity, enlivened by contrast, structured trilogisch, closed and rounded. From this

metaphysical knot run and apart from all the threads of the physical world by

interwoven into innumerable relations. It then nothing prevents to put this

metaphysical knot the material world yet with a spiritual knot in relationship, so as to

tell the metaphysical body of the spiritual world unit itself to find it.

After all, I confess to that this metaphysical conclusion of physics, is the

assumption of a perfectly simple, discontinuous, limited material, countable,

intensive fundamental nature of matter and falls, no longer has the security of a

physics that can be drawn Everything experience and exact pursuance of the

experience can not prove it. And that is why I have this part of the considerations of

my work from the first, which is quite a physical ground, secreted, and particularly

presented as a second part of the philosophical attention.

That these simple creatures are of a different nature, asHerbart's, and a different

worldview builds it, I hardly need to say, especially since already some significant

points of difference brings an earlier essay of mine in this journal between the two

languages. A special chapter in my book, the relationship in this regard out yet

certain.

I try not finally to go to the train of thought of Dynamikers on the ground, by the

same time justified the term of its space-filling power, and the atomic theory is to be

excluded, not indeed, as I follow the windings of the dialectic in which this or that

philosopher thereby moved, who would follow all these ways, none of which follows

the other, but as I is unfounded, especially in the direction that has hidden or open

determined that all of these paths arrive at the same targets. It seems to me the: Thebodies express their existence only by their power, so why accept something else in

them, as a force, the force permeates the space, that penetrates the matter the room.

But if any clear view over but must hold the limit and discretion in the world body

of its space-penetrating power - who wants to ever else understand about heaven and

earth - and hereby allow discontinuous body of continuous force a point of

distinction, the force on real centralization, the may not again be called force must

relate, he must recognize that he has in relation to the large structure of the universe,

just as recognize in relation to the small, and the whole foundation of the dynamic

spatial performance collapses. The point that the limitation of the body arises fromthe conflict of attraction with a repulsive force, or what one might otherwise

substitute for this idea is just a continuation and development, not a support and


17/18

clarify those vague se argument, indeed increases with the other hand, which was

given to the one. Because if distance themselves from the conflict of the two forces

arbitrarily large and medium body, why not arbitrarily small, the atoms of the

physicist. Yes even our simple atoms could be justified on the idea that a so repulsive

and attractive force should be done at the same time satisfy. The absolute dispersion

of matter in simple atoms, so that nothing of matter adhering to each other,correspond to an absolute repulsion, the equally unlimited tendency of all to all the

attraction. Of all those executed separation of this band from all of the material

world, and both are limited reciprocal. With all the attraction of matter never comes

true to each other, because of the repulsion, which is part of their term and nature,

with all the repulsion of matter never comes truly from each other, is rather due to the

attraction, which is owned by the other side to their term and nature bound to bodies,

celestial bodies, one world. Why should this interpretation of both forces and their

conflict with the law of the two most completely preserved but also their interaction

seems worn completely account, be less possible than that which the dynamic viewuses, where there is not even a real separation of matter of one another comes, but

that seems to be required by the Repulsionsbegriff. In fact, it is at least just as well

possible, could just as well establish and develop dialectically, but will certainly last

just mean so little, and can be cleared up as little thoroughly, because it rests on the

same obscure reason. And as a victorious battle of atomism on such basis with the

dynamic view, would be; want to compete at all, only on such reason with her, would

be with her at the same time want to go to ruin. For as turning over the hand to all in

such arguments is different, and what may be to contact is safe to turn once.

The basic argument of the philosopher and the physicist can be modified to reducethe question of whether one should say, the forces penetrate the space with matter, or

matter permeates the space with forces. The philosopher comes from that of the

physicists of this word order of, or of any but an equivalent 4) . But it's only the

dispute over the outcome of a different word order, which could give no different

factual inferences occasion actually when you equally well an underlying Sachliches

would retain both word positions in the eye. But it appears that one of those word

orders from the outset in a clearer connection with the expressions with which we are

accustomed to call Sachliches in life and exact science otherwise, and therefore also

leads to clearer, and because the clarity depends on the cogency Gen. to cogentcogent conclusion to these conclusions is atomism. It depends on factual grounds,

that come into contact with the second (or their equally applicable) expression and

did not understand the meaning of the first, by means of the same is not expressed,

that also can not be found, because we would have to run the entire word use to it the

same adjust. We want it, the atomism will tolerate so well with the first than the

second speech, but their justification depends to no speech at all, but just the facts

that are meant thereby 5) .

4) This can also be expressed as the contrast: the philosopher says: The matter is based on a gathering of forces,

the physicist, however: The force is based on a gathering of matter in space.5) The speech of the physicist tolerate even just as another exposure Actual as the same on the other hand stillneeded. This shows that the concept of force depends on the concept of law . these, the qualifier is in my


18/18

writing the speech.

It seems to me the whole dynamic view finally to rely only on the blurring of a

difference, which is recognized as a de facto, and the perversion of language, with

which one is accustomed to call factual. Well it is no wonder that from timeimmemorial with the dynamic view is neither a clear nor sharp, yet delicate, yet

successful entrance into the natural conditions has to be achieved. What have done

with a dynamic view of nature in this respect naturalists, they did, in fact, only in so

far as the difference between the atomistic and dynamic view of nature does not make

itself felt.He does, however, as I have already said, just as in Subject to the last link

as finest elaboration of scientific disciplines asserted.Between them, however, can

still be a lot of merit.

Recently I noticed the title ofGliddo 'ns Types of Mankind's motto in the eye.

"Words are things" This motto is the motto of the natural sciences: By speaking of

atoms, it speaks of things. Today's philosophy often puts us into temptation, for

keeping the inverted theme "Things are words" her. It highlights the things on words,

as if they only would hereby Something and highlights on things by words, as if they

would hereby Nothing. The atoms you are nothing, despite all reality, what they

require, because even this interdependence of their canceled partly in words and

partly by words, and is not asked and not seen by the whole of the actual connexion

Bedingens.

about atomism.-english-gustav theodor fechner

Documents