Weiter zum Inhalt

Atomism, Medieval

Emily Michael

Seiten 81 - 85

It is a common misperception that there were no atomistic theories during the medieval period. It is true that during the medieval period, after translations of Aristotle’s works became available and were introduced in the schools in the Latin West in the thirteenth century, scholastics commonly adopted an Aristotelian framework. As is well known, Aristotle raised objections to and rejected indivisible minimal units or atoms in two contexts. First, in Physics 6, he claimed that (1) no continuum is composed of indivisibles and maintained instead that a continuum is potentially infinitely divisible. There are no actual points in a line, instants of time, or units of motion. Second, in Aristotle’s view, (2) no physical substance is composed of primitive indivisible and unchangeable building blocks or atoms. Instead, prime matter and substantial form are the fundamental ontological principles of natural bodies. From this hylomorphic viewpoint, the generation of natural things is the consequence of a change from potentiality to actuality by means of a change in substantial form. Nonetheless, some scholastics were atomists.

1Department of Philosophy, City University of New York

1 Baffioni, C., (1982), Atomismo e antiatomismo nel pensiero islamico, Naples: Gianni e Figli.

2 Cross, R., (1998), The Physics of John Duns Scotus: The Scientific Context of a Theological Vision, Oxford: Clarendon.

3 Dutton, B., (1996), “Nicholas of Autrecourt and William of Ockham on Atomism, Nominalism, and the Ontology of Motion”, Medieval Philosophy and Theology 5, 63-85.

4 Crathorn, W., (1988), Quaestiones super librum sententiarum, ed. F. Hoffmann in Questionen Zum ersten Sentenzenbuch, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Band 29, Aschendorff, Münster.

5 Grant, E. & J. E. Murdoch, (1987), Mathematics and its Applications in Science and Natural Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Cambridge - London - New York: Cambridge University Press.

6 Grellard, C. & Aurélien, R. (eds.), (2009), Atomism in Late Medieval Philosophy and Theology, Leiden & Boston, Brill.

7 Kenny, A. (ed.), 1986, Wyclif in his Times, Oxford: Clarendon.

8 Kretzman, N. (ed.), 1982, Infinity and Continuity in Ancient and Medieval Thought, Ithaca & New York: Cornell University Press.

9 Lasswitz, K., (1890), Geschichte der Atomistik vom Mittelalter bis Newton, Hamburg: Leopold Voss.

10 Luthy, C.; Murdoch, J.E.; Newman, W.R (eds.), (2001), Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theory, Leiden-Boston-Koln: Brill.

11 Michael, E., (2003), “John Wyclif on Body and Mind”, Journal of the History of Ideas 64: 343-360.

12 Murdoch, J. E., (1957), Geometry and the Continuum in the Fourteenth Century. A Philosophical Analysis of Thomas Bradwardine’s Tractatus de Continuo, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin.

13 Murdoch, J. E., (1974), “Naissance et developpement de l’atomisme au bas Moyen Age latin”, in G. H. Allard et al (eds.), La science de la nature: theories et pratiques, Montreal & Paris, Institut d’etudes medievales – Vrin,11-32.

14 Murdoch, J. E., (1981), “Henry of Harclay and the Infinite”, in A. Maieru et al (eds.), Studi sul XIV seculo in memoria di Anneliese Maier, Rome, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 219-261.

15 Murdoch, J. E., (1982), “Infinity and Continuity”, in N. Kretzmann et al (eds.), The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 564-591.

16 Murdoch, J. E., (1984), “Atomism and Motion in the Fourteenth Century”, in E. Mendelsohn (ed.), Transformation and Tradition in the Sciences. Essays in Honor of J. Bernard Cohen, Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 45-66.

17 Murdoch, J. E. & Synan, E., (1966), “Two Questions on the Continuum: Walter Chatton, O.F.M and Adam Wodeham, O.F.M.”, Franciscan Studies 26, 212-288.

18 Nicholas, of Autrecourt, (1971), Universal Treatise, trans. I. Kennedy, R. Arnold & A. Millward, Milwaukee, Wisc: Marquette University Press.

19 Nicholas, of Autrecourt, (1939), Exigit ordo, ed. by J.R. O’Donnell, in “Nicholas of Autrecourt. Medieval Studies, I, 179-266.

20 Pabst, B., (1994), Atomentheorien des lateinischen Mittelalters, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

21 Pines, S., (1997), Studies in Islamic Atomism, ed. Tzvi Langermann, Israel, Magnes Press. Originally published in German in 1936.

22 Pyle, A., (1997), Atomism and Its Critics. From Democritus to Newton, Bristol: Toemmes Press.

23 Wyclif, J., (1869), Trialogus, ed. G. Lechler, Oxford, Clarendon Press, esp. 87-92. (Also printed in 1525 and 1753).

24 Wyclif, J., (1893), Tractatus de logica, ed. M. H. Dziewicki, 3 vols. London: The Wyclif Society.


Export Citation