86 Testimonia sphere] is an angle all over, while the other has the sharpest angles, and heat and burning are produced by the angles, so they say. Now as far as motion is concerned, both are wrong; even if these are the most mobile of shapes, they are not mobile with the motion appropriate to fire. For the motion of fire is straight up, whereas these move in a circle, which is called rolling. Then if earth is a cube because it is firmly based and stable, yet is not stable everywhere but only in its own place, and moves from the place which belongs to another element if not prevented, as do fire and the rest, it is clear that fire and each of the elements will be a sphere or a pyramid when it is in the place belonging to another element, and a cube when in its own place. Moreover, if fire heats and burns because of its angles, all the elements will be productive of heat, though perhaps one more than another; for they all have angles, e.g., the octahedron and the dodecahedron. According to Democritus even the sphere, being a sort of angle, cuts, since it is mobile. So they will do so in different degrees. But it is obvious that this is false. A like consequence will be that mathematical bodies also cut and burn. For they too have angles, and they contain indivisible spheres and pyramids, especially if there are indivisible magnitudes, as they say. And if some do and some do not, they should say what the difference is, and not just say so as they do. Next, if what is burned is set on fire, and fire is a sphere or a pyramid, what is burned has to become spheres or pyramids. Let it be granted that cutting and dividing is a reasonable consequence of shape; however, that the pyramid should necessarily make pyramids or the sphere spheres is altogether unreasonable, like stipulating that a knife cuts things up into knives or a saw into saws. Next, it is absurd to assign fire its shape solely with reference to division, as it seems rather to compact and condense than to separate. It separates things of an unlike nature and condenses things of like, and the condensation is essential (for compacting and unifying is characteristic of fire) while the separation is accidental (for in condensing the like it expels the unlike). So it ought to have been assigned either with reference to both or rather with reference to condensation. [Cf. SIMPLICIUS Commentary on Physics 36.1-7.] 56. ARISTOTLE De Caelo 309al-18 Those who assert that the primary elements are bodies are better able [sc. than those who assert that they are planes, i.e., Plato] to maintain that the larger are heavier. But since that does not appear to be true of compound bodies, but we see that many which are smaller are heavier, e.g., bronze is heavier than wool, some think and say that the cause is different. They say that the void contained in the compound lightens the bodies and sometimes makes the larger lighter, since they have more void. And this is the reason

The Atomists -- Leucippus and Democritus

MACEDONIA is GREECE and will always be GREECE- (if they are desperate to steal a name, Monkeydonkeys suits them just fine) ΦΕΚ,ΚΚΕ,ΚΝΕ,ΚΟΜΜ...

The Atomists -- Leucippus and Democritus

MACEDONIA is GREECE and will always be GREECE- (if they are desperate to steal a name, Monkeydonkeys suits them just fine) ΦΕΚ,ΚΚΕ,ΚΝΕ,ΚΟΜΜ...