Democritus simply used deductive logic to conclude that the atoms existed. He proposed that if you cut a thing in half, and then continue cutting the halves in half, eventually you will arrive at a particle that, if cut, would no longer be the original thing you began with. So he called this particle an "atomos", which means "uncuttable" in the Greek language. Democritus was also a determinist who believed that these atoms moved through a void directed by the laws of physics predetermined by previous causes. That included human thought and actions directed by the motion of atoms in the brain. So he believed that humans had no freewill. Epicurus was a follower of Democritus but disagreed with several of his beliefs regarding the properties of atoms and their behavior as they pass through a void. Primarily he disagreed with the determinism of Democritus and instead proposed that man does have freewill as a result of a "swerve" or random, indeterminate movement by the atoms resulting from their own causes. Although the swerve is not mentioned in any of Epicurus' remaining writings, it does appear in the book "On The Nature of Things" by Lucretius who was an Epicurean philosopher describing at length the philosophy of Atomism in poetic prose. This indeterminacy overcame the rigid determinism of Democritus by presenting a means in which the atoms movement could avoid being dependent on a previous cause, giving humans a capacity to make independent decisions through some freewill, but that there were certain behaviors that were indeed driven by a predetermined movement of the atoms, like hunger or the desire for sex compelled by hormonal conditions. But what really blows my mind about both these ancient philosophers is the level of discourse they were having regarding the nature of our reality and it's fundamental guiding principles that are not only still debated today, like freewill vs determinism, but how they were arguing the details about something only proven through deductive reasoning and no more! It can even be said that the "swerve" proposed by Epicurus, the random, indeterminate movement of an atom by it's own causes, is a precursor to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics describing our inability to have knowledge of both the position and trajectory of the electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom simultaneously because of how observation effects quantum states. In fact, much of Quantum Mechanics defies classical Newtonian Physics and indeed has a bit of a "swerve" to it as was the direction Epicurus seemed to be going in his quest for a natural explanation of freewill.
Dude I love this guy, Imagine if his works didn't get destroyed. He took a huge dump on the people who believe that there is a problem with the mind body split. But he knew that we can use our sciences to arrive at objective truths if we know about our preconceptions and faulty sciences. Truly magnificent! I'd like to kiss him. That would be the first person I'd speak to if i had a time maschine.
Maybe that is why he had such knowledge? If all of time happens in an instant, but we experience it as a linear flow, (time is a qualia) then it is possible.
Most ancient pholosophers had most of work destroyed. To a degree even if small one or maybe not so small, the library of Alexandria which was great concept, the destruction of it made alot of stuff disappear.
What an intuitive mind. It is astounding he was so right about so much. That there is a reality, beyond that which our senses can directly inform us of, is brilliant, and true. Chemistry for example, along with physics, and quantum physics. Interestingly, Hoffman's theory that there is another, deeper reality, than even quantum physics, mirrors Democritus. If true, reality could be like an onion, layer upon layer of different realities, altogether resulting in an aggregate reality. The one we experience.
I came up with my own version of atomic theory when I was 5 when I was wondering what stuff was made out of and thought that there was a limit to how small you could break things up to. It was that sense of childish wonder that led me to become fascinated by science.
Funny how atoms are only called "atoms" because scientists at the time thought they had reached the most fundamental level of matter. We should be calling what we now call "fundamental particles" atoms to stay true to the original meaning of that-which-can-no-longer-be-split.
came here to say the same, i wanted to punch this dude in the neck when he pronounced it, but that is just me being a douche bag , perhaps he did not know the proper pronouncement, which just makes this guy a shitty narrator for not properly researching how to pronounce the name of one of the best pranksters of all time.
If we are part of reality, then our senses, too, are a necessary part of the same reality. Thus it seems we complete exterior reality by bringing ourselves into contact with it. Thus we see red roses, smell their fragrance, taste honey. They are incomplete without what we bring.
Well, not really. See to Democritus reality is what we would call inter subjective, or merely a mutual agreement upon propositions. For D, we are merely agreeing that we and the world are this way. This is not enough to obtain "objective absolute" truth, but merely truth that is "absolute" in relation to what we have agreed upon.
Do you know if Atomos is ever translated as a split in absence. instead of unsplittable. Thats at least what I expected you to define it as when you defined a and tomos?
άτομος is a combination of the negative term "α-" and "τομή," the term for "cut" that means "uncuttable". It's the absence of the ability to be cut or split, separate, divide or whatever.. Although i don't understand what split in absence means.. Could you explain for me please?
Wait I wanted to know who is the first between Democritus, Aristotle,plato,and Empedocles , can you align their timeline base on the atomic evolution ,from first to last of that 4 physics
Like the other philosophers of his time, Leucippus was concerned to find a way of reconciling the arguments of Parmenides with the obvious fact of motion and change. As Aristotle says: Although these opinions [those of Parmenides] appear to follow logically in a dialectical discussion, yet to believe them seems next door to madness when one considers the facts. For indeed no lunatic seems to be so far out of his senses as to suppose that fire and ice are “one”: it is only between what is right and what seems right from habit that some people are mad enough to see no difference. Leucippus, however, thought he had a theory which harmonized with sense-perception and would not abolish either coming-to-be and passing-away or motion and the multiplicity of things. He made these concessions to the facts of perception: on the other hand, he conceded to the Monists that there could be no motion without a void. The result is a theory which he states as follows: “The void is a not-being, and no part of what is is a not-being; for what is in the strict sense of the term is an absolute plenum. This plenum, however, is not one; on the contrary, it is a many infinite in number and invisible owing to the minuteness of their bulk. The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce passing-away. Moreover, they act and suffer action whenever they chance to be in contact (for there they are not one), and they generate by being put together and becoming intertwined. From the genuinely one, on the other hand, there could never have come to be a multiplicity, nor from the genuinely many a one: that is impossible.” It will be seen that there was one point on which everybody so far was agreed, namely that there could be no motion in a plenum. In this, all alike were mistaken. There can be cyclic motion in a plenum, provided it has always existed. The idea was that a thing could only move into an empty place, and that, in a plenum, there are no empty places. It might be contended, perhaps validly, that motion could never begin in a plenum, but it cannot be validly maintained that it could not occur at all. To the Greeks, however, it seemed that one must either acquiesce in the unchanging world of Parmenides, or admit the void. Now the arguments of Paimenides against not-being seemed logically irrefutable against the void, and they were reinforced by the discovery that where there seems to be nothing there is air. (This is an example of the confused mixture of logic and observation that was common.) We may put the Parmenidean position in this way: “You say there is the void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore it is not the void.” It cannot be said that the atomists answered this argument; they merely proclaimed that they proposed to ignore it, on the ground that motion is a fact of experience, and therefore there must be a void, however difficult it may be to conceive.* -A history of Western philosophy pg. 96-97, Bertrand Russell
can you discuss please what are the contributions of democritus in the atomic theory! please i need as soon as possible,because we have to prepare short role play about the contribution of democritus in atomic theory
He was anticipated by great Indian philosopher Kanada by at least 2 centuries. Also its possible he learnt his theory from India. Ancients have mentioned his travels in India.
@Dope Fiend uh, u might be talking about mushrooms or something because LSD was literally "CREATED" in around 1950s. And if you want to be technical, they were taking hallucinogenic drugs. Not lsd. becaus LSD was CREATED only recently. Understand?
Paradoxes of atomism If it were possible to continue the division of matter indefinitely, I would have thought it more probable that this process could be carried out to infinity (thesis of infinite divisibility, contrary to atomistic antithesis). The problem is that we can not and do not have the colossal force to do this, because we are physically limited, we can only at most split up to a few fractions of sand, because we can not get the pieces too small to be divided again and so on , only the cosmic forces of the universe could make or a God out of infinite power. It results in unsustainable paradoxes and absurdities to defend the thesis of the existence of indivisible material entities / elements, the atoms, as they considered Democritus and Leucippus, a thesis that Aristotle correctly rejected. Why do we have to accept the existence of atoms if experience shows us that all compound bodies are divisible indefinitely to our last tactile-sensitive limits? If all the material elements are breakable into smaller parts, from the softest to the hardest, an iron bar when we hit it kneads and looses small pieces of metal and sparks of fire - energy, revealing its divisibility to us, why then do we have to to accept that atoms (indivisible fragments of matter) exist? This atomistic thesis leads us to the paradox well demonstrated by Anaxagoras and Aristotle, that the parts are greater than the sum of the whole, for the components of the self are indivisible and not eternal. The results are the only and most perfect to be realized in all corpus of corruptible and mortal, which results in the refutation of atomism by reduction to the absurd. Another paradox reveals itself is not a fact of existing atoms but is not necessarily indivisible, it is not necessary to prepare an atom for its existence, for who can be indivisible, the ultimate of existence, eternal, indestructible, immune to all sorts of shocks and destructions. Existing and eternal exist, to probe and to separate the various clusters in concentrated points without space, resulting in an inexistence of cohesion / physical concretion and consequent non-existence of visualizing the bodies and material bodies! In what results in a further logical - qualitative refutation of atomism, by a new reduction to the absurd. And finally, indivisible and eternal atoms unite with other equally indivisible and eternal atoms, through connections made of finite and divisible matter as is our physical - corporeal composition and that of all the animate and inanimate bodies of the world, is an absurd total in this thesis, for where would arise a divisible and finite matter that binds atoms, if these same atoms are all indivisible, eternal and indestructible particles? Of the very primordial atoms that gave birth to the whole universe? But would a finite and divisible matter arising from indivisible and eternal atoms not be an unacceptable corruption of the eternal and indivisible essence of atoms? An indivisible atom that gives rise to a divisible matter would not have to possess the germ of divisibility in its essence, revealing in the truth that it is no atom, but a corruptible and perfectly divisible matter, which would refute the very Democritean thesis of existence of atoms? Do you perceive so much of metaphysical absurdities, paradoxes, and idiosyncrasies that the theory of atoms has borne since over 2600 years ago? In the antithesis to the atomist theory, we can not observe and test the process of division ad infinitum, because obviously we have spatial and physical - temporal limits, but at least it is indirectly based on ordinary experience, being a much more rational and scientific hypothesis than considering the hypothesis of finite divisibility in final and eternal atoms, for we have no example of phenomenon or object observable in experience that is indivisible, indestructible, incorruptible, and eternal, whereas for the philosophical hypothesis of indefinite or infinite divisibility we have the support of a sensory experience that all objects, bodies and physical phenomena are divisible or decomposable into smaller, corruptible and destructible parts!
I'm truly sorry we do not have any of Democritus's works available. He seems like a genius thousands of years before his time. Just incredible.
And was it not Socrates who destroyed them
Don't feel bad. It's ok
@@aguafria9565 Plato wished his books being burned. He is definitely not a fan of freedom of speech. You will surely agree if you have read Republic
No man on earth shall ever blame you, lest they blame themselves. Time consumes all things.
Yes that's terrible to know all the knowledge of great people being lost in the void forever.
"Atoms and Void", a theory conceived in 5th century B.C.!: Awesome!
Exactly the same philosophy as Kanada, an ancient Indian philosopher at almost the same time. One might have been Influenced by the other.
And purely satanic nonsense
Yeah
Amazing 🙂
@@katijohnson8182 lel
Democritus simply used deductive logic to conclude that the atoms existed. He proposed that if you cut a thing in half, and then continue cutting the halves in half, eventually you will arrive at a particle that, if cut, would no longer be the original thing you began with. So he called this particle an "atomos", which means "uncuttable" in the Greek language. Democritus was also a determinist who believed that these atoms moved through a void directed by the laws of physics predetermined by previous causes. That included human thought and actions directed by the motion of atoms in the brain. So he believed that humans had no freewill.
Epicurus was a follower of Democritus but disagreed with several of his beliefs regarding the properties of atoms and their behavior as they pass through a void. Primarily he disagreed with the determinism of Democritus and instead proposed that man does have freewill as a result of a "swerve" or random, indeterminate movement by the atoms resulting from their own causes. Although the swerve is not mentioned in any of Epicurus' remaining writings, it does appear in the book "On The Nature of Things" by Lucretius who was an Epicurean philosopher describing at length the philosophy of Atomism in poetic prose. This indeterminacy overcame the rigid determinism of Democritus by presenting a means in which the atoms movement could avoid being dependent on a previous cause, giving humans a capacity to make independent decisions through some freewill, but that there were certain behaviors that were indeed driven by a predetermined movement of the atoms, like hunger or the desire for sex compelled by hormonal conditions.
But what really blows my mind about both these ancient philosophers is the level of discourse they were having regarding the nature of our reality and it's fundamental guiding principles that are not only still debated today, like freewill vs determinism, but how they were arguing the details about something only proven through deductive reasoning and no more! It can even be said that the "swerve" proposed by Epicurus, the random, indeterminate movement of an atom by it's own causes, is a precursor to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics describing our inability to have knowledge of both the position and trajectory of the electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom simultaneously because of how observation effects quantum states. In fact, much of Quantum Mechanics defies classical Newtonian Physics and indeed has a bit of a "swerve" to it as was the direction Epicurus seemed to be going in his quest for a natural explanation of freewill.
Harold Bloom proposes the 'swerve' as one of the ratios of poetry theory in 'The Anxiety of Influence'.
Only that indeterminate at a materialistic level is incoherent. Quantum mechanics is bum
Very well written
Great to rewatch these old episodes. Kind of scary how much I've forgotten in such a short time.
Heath2171 thats what happens when you hit yourself with a frying pan
Heath2171 Same! I find myself coming back to these videos (:
All of it is still stored there, the recalling of which will strengthen the pathways to recall.
It's pretty impressive considering a skeleton would lack a brain.
Dude I love this guy, Imagine if his works didn't get destroyed. He took a huge dump on the people who believe that there is a problem with the mind body split. But he knew that we can use our sciences to arrive at objective truths if we know about our preconceptions and faulty sciences. Truly magnificent! I'd like to kiss him. That would be the first person I'd speak to if i had a time maschine.
Maybe that is why he had such knowledge?
If all of time happens in an instant, but we experience it as a linear flow, (time is a qualia) then it is possible.
Most ancient pholosophers had most of work destroyed.
To a degree even if small one or maybe not so small, the library of Alexandria which was great concept, the destruction of it made alot of stuff disappear.
What an intuitive mind. It is astounding he was so right about so much. That there is a reality, beyond that which our senses can directly inform us of, is brilliant, and true. Chemistry for example, along with physics, and quantum physics.
Interestingly, Hoffman's theory that there is another, deeper reality, than even quantum physics, mirrors Democritus. If true, reality could be like an onion, layer upon layer of different realities, altogether resulting in an aggregate reality. The one we experience.
I came up with my own version of atomic theory when I was 5 when I was wondering what stuff was made out of and thought that there was a limit to how small you could break things up to. It was that sense of childish wonder that led me to become fascinated by science.
Did you think we were made up of tiny little hotdogs?
Your videos on the Presocratics were great. Thanks
The similarity of these two quotes of Democritus and Shakespeare is extraordinary. Is it conceivable that Shakespeare knew of Democritus?
The Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A great series of videos! To say it somewhat more philosophical: "Wonderful in it's form, terrific in it's content".
terrific in it's*matter
Funny how atoms are only called "atoms" because scientists at the time thought they had reached the most fundamental level of matter. We should be calling what we now call "fundamental particles" atoms to stay true to the original meaning of that-which-can-no-longer-be-split.
Brilliant series. Thank you so much for taking us on this journey
Thanks for your effort to make these videos.
Fantastic series! Thanks for spreading knowledge and wisdom. God knows we need it as much as ever.
God? Lol
@@theplayisoverapplaud176 Yes.
Fine man is how you pronounce his name, not feign man. Great videos, thanks.
came here to say the same, i wanted to punch this dude in the neck when he pronounced it, but that is just me being a douche bag , perhaps he did not know the proper pronouncement, which just makes this guy a shitty narrator for not properly researching how to pronounce the name of one of the best pranksters of all time.
Please post more videos about Presocratics. Thank You
Truly a brilliant guy for sure
Awesome video...very well done
Enlightening talk about an exceptionally intriguing and brilliant human.
If we are part of reality, then our senses, too, are a necessary part of the same reality. Thus it seems we complete exterior reality by bringing ourselves into contact with it. Thus we see red roses, smell their fragrance, taste honey. They are incomplete without what we bring.
Well, not really. See to Democritus reality is what we would call inter subjective, or merely a mutual agreement upon propositions. For D, we are merely agreeing that we and the world are this way. This is not enough to obtain "objective absolute" truth, but merely truth that is "absolute" in relation to what we have agreed upon.
This helps so much with school thx 😀
Democritus's idea of atoms,
maybe it was something he came up with during a conversation with other philosophers
?
He said so far so funny at 7:50
thank you for the enlightenment
Greater than 10000 reasonings of the mind is to sit still, straight and quiet and mediate upon god.
So much hullabaloo is made to try and prove evolution, but I do believe we just saw the proof of *devolution!*
Brilliant!Thanks!
Do you know if Atomos is ever translated as a split in absence. instead of unsplittable. Thats at least what I expected you to define it as when you defined a and tomos?
άτομος is a combination of the negative term "α-" and "τομή," the term for "cut" that means "uncuttable". It's the absence of the ability to be cut or split, separate, divide or whatever..
Although i don't understand what split in absence means.. Could you explain for me please?
@@pgchris87Εννοεί πως με το που κοόψεις 《split》φτάνεις στην ανυπαρξία 《absence 》.
Wait I wanted to know who is the first between Democritus, Aristotle,plato,and Empedocles , can you align their timeline base on the atomic evolution ,from first to last of that 4 physics
Parmenides said void is impossible. How did Democritus refute it?
Like the other philosophers of his time, Leucippus was concerned to find
a way of reconciling the arguments of Parmenides with the obvious fact of
motion and change. As Aristotle says:
Although these opinions [those of Parmenides] appear to follow
logically in a dialectical discussion, yet to believe them seems next
door to madness when one considers the facts. For indeed no lunatic
seems to be so far out of his senses as to suppose that fire and ice are
“one”: it is only between what is right and what seems right from habit
that some people are mad enough to see no difference.
Leucippus, however, thought he had a theory which harmonized with
sense-perception and would not abolish either coming-to-be and
passing-away or motion and the multiplicity of things. He made these
concessions to the facts of perception: on the other hand, he conceded to
the Monists that there could be no motion without a void. The result is a
theory which he states as follows: “The void is a not-being, and no part
of what is is a not-being; for what is in the strict sense of the term is an
absolute plenum. This plenum, however, is not one; on the contrary, it is
a many infinite in number and invisible owing to the minuteness of their
bulk. The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming
together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce
passing-away. Moreover, they act and suffer action whenever they
chance to be in contact (for there they are not one), and they generate by
being put together and becoming intertwined. From the genuinely one,
on the other hand, there could never have come to be a multiplicity, nor
from the genuinely many a one: that is impossible.”
It will be seen that there was one point on which everybody so far was
agreed, namely that there could be no motion in a plenum. In this, all alike
were mistaken. There can be cyclic motion in a plenum, provided it has
always existed. The idea was that a thing could only move into an empty
place, and that, in a plenum, there are no empty places. It might be contended,
perhaps validly, that motion could never begin in a plenum, but it cannot be
validly maintained that it could not occur at all. To the Greeks, however, it
seemed that one must either acquiesce in the unchanging world of
Parmenides, or admit the void.
Now the arguments of Paimenides against not-being seemed logically
irrefutable against the void, and they were reinforced by the discovery that
where there seems to be nothing there is air. (This is an example of the
confused mixture of logic and observation that was common.) We may put the
Parmenidean position in this way: “You say there is the void; therefore the
void is not nothing; therefore it is not the void.” It cannot be said that the
atomists answered this argument; they merely proclaimed that they proposed
to ignore it, on the ground that motion is a fact of experience, and therefore
there must be a void, however difficult it may be to conceive.*
-A history of Western philosophy pg. 96-97, Bertrand Russell
could you give me more of his theories
good
Is there any books available on Democritus 60 works.??
Unfortunately as with a many other early works they are lost. All that remains are references in other works.
Cool
can you discuss please what are the contributions of democritus in the atomic theory! please i need as soon as possible,because we have to prepare short role play about the contribution of democritus in atomic theory
That... ended quick
Was reading a book that mentioned his concepts of the atom and what not and needed to know how to pronounce his name smh
Thales was genius.
How many tokes of Oracle fumes did Democritus take to come up with atoms 2,500 years before Hiroshima ?
Bro Feynman is pronounced (Fine-men) not (Fane-men). Have some respect, dude won a Nobel
He was anticipated by great Indian philosopher Kanada by at least 2 centuries.
Also its possible he learnt his theory from India. Ancients have mentioned his travels in India.
Democritus seems to echo the philosophy of Guatama Buddha.
am i the only one who thinks these greek philosophers especially this guy are time travellers?
kuang lu . That's stupid lol
Yes
@Dope Fiend lsd wasnt even out until around 1950's and up
@Dope Fiend uh, u might be talking about mushrooms or something because LSD was literally "CREATED" in around 1950s. And if you want to be technical, they were taking hallucinogenic drugs. Not lsd. becaus LSD was CREATED only recently. Understand?
@Dope Fiend Calling me pathetic because I cured your ignorance. lol.
Be thankful, imbecile
but hey everything is divisible
Paradoxes of atomism
If it were possible to continue the division of matter indefinitely, I would have thought it more probable that this process could be carried out to infinity (thesis of infinite divisibility, contrary to atomistic antithesis).
The problem is that we can not and do not have the colossal force to do this, because we are physically limited, we can only at most split up to a few fractions of sand, because we can not get the pieces too small to be divided again and so on , only the cosmic forces of the universe could make or a God out of infinite power.
It results in unsustainable paradoxes and absurdities to defend the thesis of the existence of indivisible material entities / elements, the atoms, as they considered Democritus and Leucippus, a thesis that Aristotle correctly rejected.
Why do we have to accept the existence of atoms if experience shows us that all compound bodies are divisible indefinitely to our last tactile-sensitive limits?
If all the material elements are breakable into smaller parts, from the softest to the hardest, an iron bar when we hit it kneads and looses small pieces of metal and sparks of fire - energy, revealing its divisibility to us, why then do we have to to accept that atoms (indivisible fragments of matter) exist?
This atomistic thesis leads us to the paradox well demonstrated by Anaxagoras and Aristotle, that the parts are greater than the sum of the whole, for the components of the self are indivisible and not eternal. The results are the only and most perfect to be realized in all corpus of corruptible and mortal, which results in the refutation of atomism by reduction to the absurd.
Another paradox reveals itself is not a fact of existing atoms but is not necessarily indivisible, it is not necessary to prepare an atom for its existence, for who can be indivisible, the ultimate of existence, eternal, indestructible, immune to all sorts of shocks and destructions. Existing and eternal exist, to probe and to separate the various clusters in concentrated points without space, resulting in an inexistence of cohesion / physical concretion and consequent non-existence of visualizing the bodies and material bodies! In what results in a further logical - qualitative refutation of atomism, by a new reduction to the absurd.
And finally, indivisible and eternal atoms unite with other equally indivisible and eternal atoms, through connections made of finite and divisible matter as is our physical - corporeal composition and that of all the animate and inanimate bodies of the world, is an absurd total in this thesis, for where would arise a divisible and finite matter that binds atoms, if these same atoms are all indivisible, eternal and indestructible particles? Of the very primordial atoms that gave birth to the whole universe? But would a finite and divisible matter arising from indivisible and eternal atoms not be an unacceptable corruption of the eternal and indivisible essence of atoms? An indivisible atom that gives rise to a divisible matter would not have to possess the germ of divisibility in its essence, revealing in the truth that it is no atom, but a corruptible and perfectly divisible matter, which would refute the very Democritean thesis of existence of atoms?
Do you perceive so much of metaphysical absurdities, paradoxes, and idiosyncrasies that the theory of atoms has borne since over 2600 years ago?
In the antithesis to the atomist theory, we can not observe and test the process of division ad infinitum, because obviously we have spatial and physical - temporal limits, but at least it is indirectly based on ordinary experience, being a much more rational and scientific hypothesis than considering the hypothesis of finite divisibility in final and eternal atoms, for we have no example of phenomenon or object observable in experience that is indivisible, indestructible, incorruptible, and eternal, whereas for the philosophical hypothesis of indefinite or infinite divisibility we have the support of a sensory experience that all objects, bodies and physical phenomena are divisible or decomposable into smaller, corruptible and destructible parts!
I'll have what he smoked
2:30 ancient Che Guevara!? 😁
only if cristians never came to destroy the anchient greeks....
lol you mean the Romans?
Christianity did not destroyed ancient Greece, Byzantium university carried a tradition of philosophy. Stop oversimplifying stuff
ωχοχι
@@bobHAYES21 it's not oversimplified it's plain wrong. Some people...
@@gilgabro420 True if big
he also invented democracy
no
Wrong. Actually invented the critus.