Search

The concept of metamorphosis (change of form, structure, or substance) is very frequently encountered in Ancient Greek and Roman literature. One of the most striking types of metamorphosis described in many myths is gender transformation, where a man becomes a woman or vice versa. Herein, we present a case of pubertal gender inversion, the marvelous story of the Cretan Leucippus, which not only inspired many ancient writers but also led to the development of a distinct, local, religious cult. A medical interpretation of the myth, whereby we attempt to establish a diagnosis for this case of heterosexual puberty, is also provided.

EnglishThe subject of this article is the antagonism among two philosophical “schools” developed from opposites principles: the ionian and italic “schools”. The former developed since Thales, passing through Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus... wich philosophy is called materialist. The second, from Parmenides, Zenon... till mainly Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, wich is called idealist. The proposal is a scheme rereading of this history and a minimun questioning of its consequences. Since the Antiquity it can be seeing that the philosophers used to reconize the existence of that antagonism and wittingly used to battle among themselves, and as the history tells, the victorious were the idealists. It is not a exaustiv study about each one of those philosophers but only a few, those that I consider the most exemplary in the beggining of the greek phillosphy. It is considered yet how this antagonism has been negligected by the manuals of philosophy history. As the only way to show it is through the texts and testimonials themselves of the philosopheres thinking, the lector will find with greater emphasis an analysis of the atomism development by Leucippus from Anaximenes philosophy, in the opposite way of the usual assertion according to wich atomism has been arised from Parmenides doctrine of the Being. portuguesO tema deste artigo e o antagonismo entre duas “escolas” filosoficas que se desenvolveram a partir de principios opostos: as “escolas” jonica e a italica. Aquela desenvolveu-se desde Tales em Mileto, passando por Anaximandro, Anaximenes, Heraclito, Leucipo, Democrito, Epicuro..., cuja filosofia se denomina materialista A segunda, de Parmenides, Zenao... ate, principalmente, Socrates, Platao e Aristoteles, cuja filosofia se chama idealista. O proposto e um esquema de releitura dessa historia e uma problematizacao minima das suas consequencias. Verifica-se que desde a Antiguidade os filosofos reconheciam a existencia desse antagonismo e conscientemente opunham-se entre si, numa luta cuja vitoria, a historia o conta, foi dos idealistas. Nao se trata de um estudo exaustivo de cada um desses filosofos, mas apenas alguns, aqueles por mim considerados mais exemplares da epoca dos primordios da filosofia grega. Ressalta-se, ainda, que esse antagonismo vem sendo recorrentemente negligenciado nos manuais de historia da filosofia. Como o unico meio para mostrar isso e o de evidenciar a incoerencia dos manuais a partir dos proprios textos e testemunhos desses filosofos, o leitor encontrara, com maior enfase, uma analise do desenvolvimento do atomismo em Leucipo a partir da filosofia de Anaximenes, ao contrario da afirmacao costumeira de que o atomismo se originou da doutrina do Ser de Parmenides.

Many genus-level changes to the classification of Trochilini were enacted in Stiles et al. (2017b). We have since found that two further genera therein emended each require replacement names. The first of these requiring a replacement name is Uranomitra Reichenbach, 1854 [March], which is herewith interpreted as an additional synonym of Saucerottia Bonaparte, 1850, along with its junior synonym Cyanomyia Bonaparte, 1854a [May]. We show that both must have the same type species, as originally designated, Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1822 = Ornismya cyanocephala Lesson, 1829. The second case in which a replacement name is required is Leucolia Mulsant & E. Verreaux, 1866, herewith interpreted as an additional synonym of Leucippus Bonaparte, 1850, with the same type species, Trochilus fallax Bourcier, 1843. We herein propose replacement names for both Uranomitra and Leucolia.

Athens after being defeated by Sparta in the Attic War is now under the despotic rule of the Thirty Tyrants. Socrates is on his way to see Theaetetus, the geometer, in search of news about his nephew Adeimantus and he meets Philodemos by chance in the Athenian agora who had that day heard Democritus and Leucippus both lecture on their atomic hypothesis. They both go to the house of Theaetetus which lies just outside of the city walls to discuss the meaning of atoms, of being and what is to be understood by the word fundamental.

The history of the most common notions about atoms, the smallest particles that form matter, is usually traced back to the time of the ancient Indian philosophers Uddalak Aruni (8th century BC), Konad (6th century BC) (Dasgupta in History of Indian Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1922; Radhakrishnan in Indian Philosophy. Oxford University Press, New York, 1923), and the ancient Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus (460–370 BC). They represent the founders of an atomic theory of the universe and materialistic philosophy. The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BC) adopted this nuclear approach.

In this article, we start from the general thesis of the atomism – everything in the universe is composed by atoms – to assume an atomist reading of the ethical fragments of Democritus. If Leucippus and Democritus explain not only the beginning of the world, as well as the constitution of the soul and the body from the relation atom‑emptiness (to be‑not to be), this structure will also be applied to the ethical maxims that we know. Despite this, the relation soul‑body is one of superiority (the knowledge that drift of the sensations it’s obscure), it is also of interdependence, that leads Democritus to blame soul when body is only a tool of its vices or the need to take care of soul and body in the same way. However, it is in the soul that we must look for true knowledge (subtle), as well as the pleasures that value the man. From this relation, we will also analyse the consequences in the education as well as in the life in society.

The generic classification of the Trochilidae is unusually complicated because early authors, faced with a deluge of specimens with little or no data, often based species and genus names on superficial plumage characters derived from figured plates of varying artistic quality and reproduction. Working independently and with little knowledge of species distributions and with the fixation of type species for genera inconsistent or ignored, these authors produced a bewildering array of generic synonyms. The generic nomenclature of the largest and most recently derived clade of hummingbirds, the tribe Trochilini or “emeralds”, presents an unusually tangled web. Here we review the history of hummingbird generic nomenclature from Linnaeus to the present, giving detailed attention to two generic names that epitomize this confusion: Amazilia (the variety of spellings, supposed type species and circumscriptions makes for an especially complicated tangle) and Leucippus (for which nearly every successive author has advocated a different circumscription). Through application of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature, this review lays the foundation for a revision of the generic nomenclature of the emeralds to bring it into conformity with recent genetic studies elucidating the phylogeny of this clade.

Leucippus Bonaparte, 1850a Leucippus fallax (Bourcier, 1843), Published as part of Stiles, F. Gary, Remsen, J. V. & Mcguire, Jimmy A., 2017, The generic classification of the Trochilini (Aves: Trochilidae): Reconciling taxonomy with phylogeny, pp. 401-424 in Zootaxa 4353 (3) on page 422, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4353.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/1065706

The central issue for this paper is whether for Leucippus and Democritus, 1 the like to like principle, which is critical to cosmos formation once a vortex forms, operates outside of the vortices. Should we consider like to like in the early atomists to be akin to a ‘fundamental force’, with a universal application, as some commentators have suggested?3 Or should we rather consider it to be a sorting effect generated by certain types of motion, occurring only when those types of motion occur? As a matter of detail this is interesting in itself and it also bears on several important interpretive issues for Leucippus and Democritus. What are the intrinsic properties of atoms, if any, beyond their size and shape? Is the initial formation of a vortex a matter of necessity or a matter of chance? Is what happens in a cosmos a matter of necessity or chance? Although not immediately obvious, this will also raise issues concerning to what extent Leucippus and Democritus are committed to the principle of sufficient reason. I will argue that there are good theoretical and textual reasons to believe that like to like occurs only in the vortices. I will also argue that just as there are no preferred sizes and shapes for atoms for Leucippus and Democritus, no preferred distribution of the atoms in the void and there are no preferred times or places for vortex/cosmos formation either. This I suggest gives Leucippus and Democritus a coherent and interesting position relative to Parmenides. Where Parmenides denies multiplicity and raises sufficient reason issues about the time and place of cosmos formation, Leucippus and Democritus assert multiplicity but without preferred shapes and sizes of atoms and cosmogony without preferred times and places of cosmos formation. Of importance here will be an interesting paradox in cosmogony - if we begin with a uniform entity or uniform distribution of entities how does a non-uniform state such as a cosmos arise, while if we begin with a non-uniform entity or non-uniform distribution of entities how do we explain this non-uniformity?

O objetivo deste artigo é analisar os usos que Werner Heisenberg fez da filosofia grega em sua obra. Pretende-se relacionar tais usos não apenas com a argumentação interna presente nos textos do físico alemão, mas também com o contexto histórico, conflitos e debates entre as diversas interpretações da teoria dos quanta durante a primeira metade do século XX. Faremos, inicialmente, uma apresentação geral da teoria quântica e da presença da filosofia na obra de Heisenberg e, em seguida, um estudo de caso da apropriação que Heisenberg fez do pensamento de Leucipo, Demócrito, Heráclito, Platão e Aristóteles., The aim of this article is to analyze the uses Werner Heisenberg made of Greek philosophy in his works, and to relate such uses not only to the internal argumentation present in the texts of the German physicist, but also to the historical context, conflicts and debates between diverse interpretations of quantum theory during the first half of the 20th century. We shall first make a general presentation of the quantum theory and the presence of philosophy in the works of Heisenberg, followed by a case study of Heisenberg’s appropriation of the thought of Leucippus, Democritus, Heraclitus, Plato and Aristotle

In this article, we start from the general thesis of the atomism – everything in the universe is composed by atoms – to assume an atomist reading of the ethical fragments of Democritus. If Leucippus and Democritus explain not only the beginning of the world, as well as the constitution of the soul and the body from the relation atom‑emptiness (to be‑not to be), this structure will also be applied to the ethical maxims that we know. Despite this, the relation soul‑body is one of superiority (the knowledge that drift of the sensations it’s obscure), it is also of interdependence, that leads Democritus to blame soul when body is only a tool of its vices or the need to take care of soul and body in the same way. However, it is in the soul that we must look for true knowledge (subtle), as well as the pleasures that value the man. From this relation, we will also analyse the consequences in the education as well as in the life in society., Neste artigo partimos da tese geral do atomismo – tudo no universo se compõe de átomos – para assumir uma leitura atomista dos fragmentos éticos de Demócrito. Se Leucipo e Demócrito explicam não só a formação do mundo, bem como a constituição da alma e dos corpos a partir da relação átomo‑vazio (ser‑não ser) interdependentes, esta estrutura aplicar‑se‑á também às máximas éticas que deles conhecemos. Ainda que a relação alma‑corpo seja de superioridade (o conhecimento que deriva dos sentidos é obscuro), é também de interdependência que leva a culpar a alma quando transforma o corpo numa ferramenta dos seus vícios ou quando sublinham a necessidade de cuidar da alma e do corpo da mesma maneira. No entanto, é na alma que devemos procurar o conhecimento verdadeiro (subtil), bem como os prazeres que valorizam o homem. Partindo desta relação, analisaremos também as consequências na educação bem como na vida em sociedade.

The article is devoted to the classic period of the ancient history of the image. Here the classic image system is stripped of its protective linearities. The time of the image's permanent protective function, which it used to have in the geometric period in particular, has passed The rigid and classical artistic styles complete the formation of the ancient visual image system as harmonious and well-balanced which is supported by Empedodes' pluralistic imagery, Anaxagoras, Leucippus and Democritus' rnicroimagery and, primarily, by Plato's image conception

The subject matter of psychology captured the human imagination long before psychology became a science. Throughout antiquity, Chinese, Babylonian, Egyptian, Indian, Hebraic, and Persian scholars explored psychological topics ranging from sensation, emotion, and cognition to education, personality, and mental disorders. In ancient Greece, many enduring figures, including Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Leucippus, and Democritus, made contributions important to Western intellectual history. Rejecting popular supernatural explanations, Hippocrates (c. 460–c. 377 b.c.e.) introduced a naturalistic approach to medicine that encompassed both physical and mental illness. He also formulated the first classification system of mental disorders. Keywords: behaviorism; functionalism; Gestalt psychology; history; structuralism

This paper discusses views of vacuum proposed by Greek philosophers in the time span ranging from the 5th century B.C. to the 6th century A.D. The Eleatic Melissus (5th century B.C.) denied the existence of vacuum. The Early Atomist Leucippus, his followers and Epicurus asserted that the full (matter) and the empty (vacuum) are the irreducible elements of the universe. While the Early Atomists emphasized the metaphysical status of vacuum, which they defined as that which is ‘the nothing’ or ‘the non-existent’, Epicurus was mostly concerned with stating that it was a sort of fluid medium with an ‘intangible nature’, which allowed material objects to move within it by yielding to them. Plato held that a vacuum does not exist, apart from small interstices in matter. Aristotle rejected the existence of both vacuum and the motion of a body in it. Also, the Stoics denied its existence, except outside the cosmos. These philosophical views are compared with the notion of a vacuum relevant to a typical surface science experiment. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This paper is a piece of detective work. Starting from an obvious excrescence in the transmitted text of Simplicius's treatment of the foundations of Presocratic atomism near the beginning of his Physics commentary, it excavates a Theophrastean correction to Aristotle's tendency to lump Leucippus and Democritus together: Theophrastus made application of the oυ μαλλoν principle in the sphere of ontology an innovation by Democritus. Along the way it shows Simplicius reordering his Theophrastean source in his efforts to find material which will strengthen the contrast between Leucippus's atomism and Eleatic metaphysics. And it argues that in doing so he all but obliterates Theophrastus's attempt to point up the Democritean credentials of the oυ μαλλoν principle.

Any nuclear-medicine physician or scientist who historically traces the origin of nuclear medicine will encounter the name of Democritus to impress us with an inspiring vision. A disciple of Leucippus, Democritus was an esteemed philosopher-scientist, who introduced and developed the earliest concept of the atom in the late fifth/early fourth century BC. Curiously enough, the philosopher suffered from mental illness, which was cured by Hippocrates [1]. Thus, today’s nuclear medicine, with its influential prosperity, was remotely conceived by an atomist and a physician, and some 22 centuries elapsed before Robert Boyle, Antoine L. Lavoisier, and John Dalton refined the atomic concept afresh after the Renaissance [2]. The atom was so gestated to be born as the ‘radioactive celebrity’ of modern medicine in the mid-twentieth century when the cyclotron and atomic reactor were constructed to richly produce radioisotopes, along with the advent of gamma cameras, followed by SPECT and PET. Now these techniques are ardently being fused with anatomical imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and ultrasound, further exploring new horizons. Witnessing these great strides, the remarks pointed out by Sylvanus P. Thompson in 1897 [2] in praising the discovery of X-rays by Wilhelm C. Roentgen and radium by Marie and Pierre Curie hold true for nuclear medicine, too: “The discoverer is but the descendant of his scientific forefathers.” This is the way that nuclear medicine will grow eternally and it is hoped that Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (NMMI) will be a good messenger, faithful spreader and worthwhile archivist. Nuclear medicine has served, is serving, and will serve the needs of the sick by providing the unique qualitative and quantitative information on function, metabolism and molecular-genetic behavior that is characteristic of, and often specific to, organs and cells in normal and morbid conditions [3, 4]. The specificity and common value of nuclear medicine in diagnosing the diseases of the brain, heart, endocrine glands, musculoskeletal system, and other organs and organ systems are just one aspect of what have been achieved during the short period—still little more than half a century—after the Second World War. In addition, the use of potent radionuclides in the form of simple elements, salts, and pharmaceuticals have provided and will Yong-Whee Bahk, Honorary Editor

From atomic theory to combustion to petroleum refining, advances in the field of chemistry have changed our understanding of the natural world while at the same time producing energy and materials that fill everyday life. The roots of chemistry trace to ancient Greece when Democritus and Leucippus held that everything is composed of “atoms”, that are physically, but not geometrically, indivisible (ca. 440 BC). Aristotle declared the existence of only four elements: fire, air, water and earth, that all matter is made up of these four elements, and that matter had four properties: hot, cold, dry, and wet (ca. 300 BC).

Paul Bishop and R. H. Stephenson, Friedrich Nietzsche and Weimar Classicism. Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2005.281 pp. Nietzsche's references to Goethe and Schiller include expressions of emphatic veneration, rote gestures of obeisance to two dominant representatives of the German Kulturgut, handy quotations culled from a widely familiar literary corpus, and criticism that occasionally turns bluntly dismissive. The latter stance becomes especially evident in the case of Schiller. In his early works, Nietzsche cites Schiller approvingly, as when he adopts his insights into the role of the tragic chorus in Die Geburt der Tragodie. In his later writings, by contrast, he rejects Schiller as an "Attituden-Held" whose idealism has improperly elevated his reputation in Germany above Goethe's (KSA 13:502).' "Seien wir Idealisten!" he urges mockingly in Der Fall Wagner, after all, that is how Schiller had himself anointed as a so-called Klassiker (KSA 6:25-26). Nietzsche's relation to Goethe is somewhat different. The figure who interests him is the late Goethe of Eckermann's Gesprache, in whom Ernst Bertram, writing in 1920, recognized one of Nietzsche's key "masks."2 Throughout his work, Nietzsche recurrently (even obsessively) invokes and speaks through Goethe as the representative of a magisterial, Hellenic culture of balance and selfdiscipline that he misses in the modern age.This ventriloquism is not without its tensions. In Gotzen-Dammerung, Nietzsche confirms his reverence for Goethe, but within a few pages also flatly states that Goethe misunderstood Greek culture ("verstand ... die Griechen nicht" [KSA 6:151-53, 159]). A note from the same period of composition identifies this failure-specifically, the inability to account for the role of the Dionysian in ancient Greece-with the very concept of the "classical" (KSA 13:235). In short, Nietzsche's relationship with the two main representatives of Weimar Classicism, one that has been freshly examined in this study by Paul Bishop-and R. H. Stephenson, is marked by considerable ambivalence. It is not unique, among the traditions linking German writers from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries, in defining itself through a debate over the meaning of "Greece," and over the nature of that imperative that ancient Greek culture and aesthetics have recurrently been assumed to constitute for a modern age.These traditions, in turn, would reveal new ambivalences as Nietzsche himself became in some problematic sense classical-a phenomenon perhaps best represented when the Nietzsche Archive was integrated into (or buried within) Weimar's Goethe-Schiller Archive in 1949. What are, then, the connections to which the conjunction in this book's title alludes? A guiding principle of the study is that "over and over again, at significant points in the development of his mature thought Nietzsche has recourse to the cardinal doctrines of Weimar Classicism" (88). The Kulturkampf waged by Goethe and Schiller is a "missing perspective" in the literature on Nietzsche, one without which "[his] thinking is distorted to the point of unintelligibility" (1). In particular, the authors focus on the "conception of aesthetic experience as a conciliation of the sensuous Dionysian and the formal Apollonian, borrowed from Weimar Classicism and placed at the heart of Die Geburt der Tragodie and Zarathustra" (2).To understand this genealogy is to recognize that the two texts are closely related, and that the latter work "has a single, coherent message," one that coincides with what Goethe called "das Evangelium des Schonen" (3). The first three chapters examine Die Geburt der Tragodie and Zarathustra, and are followed by a fourth chapter entitled "From Leucippus to Cassirer: Toward a Genealogy of 'Sincere Semblance.' " An appendix describes the biographical details of Nietzsche's work on Zarathustra. The logic of the book's structure is not entirely clear to me, suggesting as it does a set of aims and interests that are not fully reconciled, and that do not fit in any obvious way with the title. …

The issue of environmental behaviour necessarily raises questions about the opinions and images that ancient people had of nature generally. It appears that the Greeks' relationship with nature was fundamentally conflicting. On the one hand, there was the view of a gentle side of nature, including such images as helpful wood nymphs, springs and meadows, and a happy, carefree country life. On the other hand, there was that of the fearsome powers of nature – dark forests, raging streams, stormy seas and wild animals evoked fear and terror. The divine powers and demons who ruled here needed to be calmed by ritual. Agriculture meant an injury to nature, which required rites of expiation; these were also performed when cities were built. The religious respect for the environment was also expressed in the admiration for the fertility gods such as Demeter/Ceres, and the calendar of feast days, with their offerings of thanks and petition, such as the Thargelia in April/May at which the first-fruits were celebrated. Ritual offerings were also made to such climatic elements as the wind, rain and drought, to ensure good harvests. In addition to these more emotional, irrational views, however, there was also an investigation of the laws of nature. Ionian natural philosophy in the sixth century bc went beyond purely mythical thinking, and tried to explain the world rationally. Instead of holding the gods responsible for natural events, geophysical principles were explored. The doctrines of the four elements fire, air, earth and water by Empedocles of Agrigentum ( c . 495–435 bc ) and of the smallest indivisible elements, the theory of atomism proposed by Leucippus and his pupil Democritus of Abdera (460–370 bc ), were important initial approaches. At the same time, a distinct environmental determinism emerged, promoted particularly by the Hippocratic school of the fifth and fourth centuries bc , and especially reflected in Hippocrates' On Airs, Waters, and Places ( Peri aeron, hydaton, topon ).

Publisher Summary Aristotle's own testimony, and that from several other ancient sources, suggests that alternative theories reach back to Thales' claim that the elemental substance underlying all one sees is water. Fellow natural philosophers from Miletus speculate that it might better be conceived as air, or even as some “indefinite” underlying substrate. Through the sixth and into the fifth century BCE the names of Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides figure prominently in any account of the pre-Socratic natural philosophers. And Aristotle is not alone in suggesting that these theories culminate in alternatives associated with Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and the earliest Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus. This is a well-known and oft-told story featuring the accumulative experience that repeatedly suggested attention be paid to water and air, and also to earth and fire as the most elemental types of material substance, and also featuring the self-conscious realization that rational discourse requires eliminating contradictory claims, and rational accounts require attention to causal narratives as well as characterizing basic components.

The founder of atomic theory, according to Aristotle and Theophrastus, is Leucippus. His very existence has been called into question. Three of the best minds of nineteenth-century scholarship were embroiled in a vehement debate on this question, which thereupon became a cause célèbre, with scholars weighing in on both sides for the next half century. Ultimately this debate seems to have ended in stalemate and exhaustion rather than in any clear-cut decision. After briefly reviewing the debate, this article argues that there are indications of an atomic theory different from Democritus's that can plausibly be attributed to Leucippus. It considers indications that the atomic theory was known in the mid-fifth century, and then tentatively explores Leucippus's contributions to atomism in a way that will illuminate Democritus's contributions.

Modern science includes a detailed theory of atoms and their structure. That theory, which goes well beyond what is directly observable, is nevertheless vindicated by experiment, living up to the stringent standards distinctive of science since its emergence in the seventeenth century. Speculations about an atomic structure of matter were prominent in the speculations of the Ancient Greek philosophers. However, it is very misleading to see the theories of the likes of Democritus as an anticipation of modern atomism. It is also a mistake to see modern atomism as emerging as a result of the development of its ancient precursor over the centuries. The methods of experimental science are quite distinct from the methods involved in the development of philosophical matter theories, from those of Leucippus and Democritus up to those of the seventeenth-century mechanical philosophers and beyond. A scientific version of atomism did not emerge until well into the nineteenth century and we learn much about the nature of science by appreciating this.

The Abderite philosophers Leucippus and Democritus sought to solve many of the problems facing Greek thought in the fifth century B.C. by taking all things to be made up of atoms of matter moving in a void. One of the major controversies surrounding their work is whether their atomism was logical or merely physical. Did they consider their atoms to be mathematically indivisible? An important cause of difficulty here is that Democritus seems to have been fully involved in the mathematics of his day' and to have been aware of the discussion of infinite divisibility and points with no magnitude, found, for example, in the paradoxes of Zeno.2 It seems unlikely that such a man would cheerfully hold that his atoms could have shape without having parts and without having magnitude. The different shapes of atoms was a major part of his physical theory, which makes it difficult to see how he could have held that they were partless and thus mathematically indivisible. On the face of it, the Abderites would have done more towards solving the logical problems of the day if the indivisibility of their atoms had been more than merely physical. It would, therefore, be convenient to have a mathematical interpretation of indivisibility which did not involve complete lack of magnitude and shape. I hope to show that A. David Kline and Carl A. Matheson3 provide a modern and revitalized version of something very close to the very arguments which Leucippus and Democritus advanced.