Skip Nav

Doctoral dissertation online karl marx

doctoral dissertation karl marx

❶Marx-Engels Collected Works Volume 1.

doctoral dissertation help karl marx

My Account
doctoral dissertation help marx

Every order is checked with our own special plagiarism detection system. You are able to contact the certain department if you have a specific question. Feel free to look for the contact phone number and e-mails under the Contact us section. Free revisions for you! For more detailed info, check our Revision Policy. Ability to stay updated on the process of your order. You are able to ask for a refund if you are not satisfied with the work completed.

For more detailed info, please read our Money Back Guarantee in the separate section. There is a special offer for our customers! Become a customer of coolessay.

Toll-free for US and Canada:. Paper format words per page! Double spacing single spaced order is available We do not keep a database of the papers! The work we provide is original! All papers are completed from scratch! When you receive the completed work, you are able to use it in the following ways: As a source for additional ideas and research on the particular subject As a better understanding of the subject and assignment itself that you are required to complete As gain of new knowledge and exchange of any kind of experience The proper paraphrasing is acceptable.

All the materials ordered through our company cannot be resold or used in any other way, other than as a reference, assistance or help source only. But it is chance, which must be accepted, not God, as the multitude believe.

On all sides many short and easy paths to freedom are open. Let us therefore thank God that no man can he kept in life. It is permitted to subdue necessity itself.

True, it is claimed that Democritus also used the concept of chance, but of the two passages on this matter which can be found in Simplicius the one renders the other suspect, because it shows clearly that it was not Democritus who used the category of chance, but Simplicius who ascribed it to him as a consequence.

Democritus assigns, generally speaking, no cause for the creation of the world, he seems therefore to make chance the cause. The situation is similar in regard to the report by Eusebius that Democritus made chance the ruler of the universal and divine and claimed that here it is through chance that everything happens, whereas he excluded chance from human life and empirical nature and called its supporters foolish.

Ml In part, we see in these statements only a desire of the Christian bishop Dionysius for conclusion-forcing. In part, where the universal and divine begin, the Democritean concept of necessity ceases to differ from chance. Hence, this much is historically certain: Democritus makes use of necessity, Epicurus of chance. And each of them rejects the opposite view with polemical irritation.

The principal consequence of this difference appears in the way individual physical phenomena are explained. Necessity appears in finite nature as relative necessity, as determinism.

Relative necessity can only be deduced from real possibility, i. Real possibility is the explication of relative necessity. And we find it used by Democritus. We cite some passages from Simplicius. If somebody is thirsty and drinks and feels better, Democritus will not assign chance as the cause, but thirst.

For, even though he seems to use chance in regard to the creation of the world, yet he maintains that chance is not the cause of any particular event, but on the contrary leads back to other causes. Thus, for example, digging is the cause of a treasure being found, or growing the cause of the olive tree.

Chance, for him, is a reality which has only the value of possibility. Abstract possibility, however, is the direct antipode of real possibility. The latter is restricted within sharp boundaries, as is the intellect; the former is unbounded, as is the imagination. Real possibility seeks to explain the necessity and reality of its object; abstract possibility is not interested in the object which is explained, but in the subject which does the explaining.

The object need only be possible, conceivable. That which is abstractly possible, which can be conceived, constitutes no obstacle to the thinking subject, no limit, no stumbling-block.

Whether this possibility is also real is irrelevant, since here the interest does not extend to the object as object. Epicurus therefore proceeds with a boundless nonchalance in the explanation of separate physical phenomena. More light will be thrown upon this fact by the letter to Pythocles, later to be considered. Where the author of De Placitis philosophorum and Stobaeus quote the different views of the philosophers concerning the substance of the stars, the size and shape of the sun and similar matters, it is always said of Epicurus: He rejects none of these opinions, all could be right, he adheres to the possible.

Yes, Epicurus polemicises even against the rationally determining, and for precisely this reason one-sided, method of explanation by real possibility. Thus Seneca says in his Quaestiones naturales: Epicurus maintains that all these causes are possible, and then attempts in addition still other explanations. He blames those who claim that any particular one of them occurs, because it is rash to judge apodictically about that which can only be deduced from conjectures.

One can see that there is no interest in investigating the real causes of objects. All that matters is the tranquillity of the explaining subject. Since everything possible is admitted as possible, which corresponds to the character of abstract possibility, the chance of being is clearly transferred only into the chance of thought. We thus see that the two men are opposed to each other at every single step. The one is a sceptic, the other a dogmatist; the one considers the sensuous world as subjective semblance, the other as objective appearance.

He who considers the sensuous world as subjective semblance applies himself to empirical natural science and to positive knowledge, and represents the unrest of observation, experimenting, learning everywhere, ranging over the wide, wide world. The other, who considers the phenomenal world to be real, scorns empiricism; embodied in him are the serenity of thought satisfied in itself, the self-sufficiency that draws its knowledge ex principio interno.

But the contradiction goes still farther. The sceptic and empiricist, who holds sensuous nature to be subjective semblance, considers it from the point of view of necessity and endeavours to explain and to understand the real existence of things. The philosopher and dogmatist, on the other hand, who considers appearance to be real, sees everywhere only chance, and his method of explanation tends rather to negate all objective reality of nature. There seems to be a certain absurdity in these contradictions.

It hardly seems still possible to presume that these men, who contradict each other on all points, will adhere to one and the same doctrine.

And yet they seem to be chained to each other. The task of the next section is to comprehend their relationship in general. Democritus roundly identifies soul and mind, for he identifies what appears with what is true. And this is why Democritus, at any rate, says that either there is no truth or to us at least it is not evident.

And in general it is because they [i. For Empedocles says that when men change their condition they change their knowledge. By the way, the contradiction is expressed in this passage of the Metaphysics itself. Furthermore, they find Xenophanes, Zeno of Elea, and Democritus to be sceptics The first principles of the universe are atoms and empty space; everything else is merely thought to exist.

Democritus rejects qualities, saying: Cl Plutarch, Reply to Colotes, The atoms, which he Democritus calls "ideas Cl Comp. He [the wise man] will be a dogmatist but not a mere sceptic. Cfl Plutarch, Reply to Colotes, He Epicurus therefore said that all the semes give a true report. On the Highest Goods and Evils, I, vii. Epicurus holds that every impression and every phantasy is true.

Now in The Canon Epicurus affirms that our sensations and preconceptions and our feelings are the standards of truth Nor is there anything which can refute sensations or convict them of error: For what does Demacritus say?

For there is no generation from the non-existent, and again nothing can be generated from the existent, as the atoms are too solid to be affected and changed. From this it follows that there is no colour, since it would have to come from things colourless, and no natural entity or mind, since they would have to come from things without qualities Democritus is therefore to he censured, not for admitting the consequences that flow from his principles, but for setting up principles that lead to these consequences Epicurus claims to lay down the same first principles, but nevertheless does not say that "colour is by convention", and so with the qualities [ sweet, bitter] and the rest.

Cicero, On the Highest Goods and Evils, 1, vi. Democritus, being an educated man and well versed in geometry, thinks the sun is of vast size; Epicurus considers it perhaps two feet in diameter, for he pronounces it to be exactly as large as it appears. Diogenes Laertius, IX, Diogenes Laertius, [IX,] 46[].

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, X, p. And somewhere he Democritus says proudly about himself: According to Demetrius in his book on Men of the Same Name and Antisthenes in his Successions of Philosophers he Democritus travelled into Egypt to learn geometry from the priests, and he also went into Persia to visit the Chaidaeans as well as to the Red Sea.

Some say that he associated with the gymno sophists in India and went to Aethiopia. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, V, When Democritus lost his sight And this man believed that the sight of the eyes was an obstacle to the piercing vision of the soul, and whilst others often failed to see what lay at their feet, he ranged freely into the infinite without finding any boundary that brought him to a halt. It is related of Democidtus that he deprived himself of eyesight; and it is certain that [he did so] in order that his mind should be distracted as little as Possible from reflection.

Seneca, Works, II, p. I am still conning Epicurus If you would enjoy real freedom, you must be the slave of Philosophy. Eor the very service of Philosophy is freedom. Let no one he slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search thereof when he is grown old. Eor no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more.

Therefore, both old and young ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. Clement of Alexandria, IV, The case against the mathematici [or: Professors of Arts and Sciences] has been set forth in a general way, it would seem, both by Epicurus and by the School of Pyrrho, although the standpoints they adopt are different.

Epicurus took the ground that the subjects taught are of no help in perfecting wisdom And amongst them we must place Epicurus, although he seems to be bitterly hostile to the Professors of Arts and Sciences. Epicurus was not uneducated: Diogenes Laertius, X, Apollodorus in his Chronology tens us that our philosopher i. Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, I, xxvi [72]. Eor he Epicurus boasted that, he had never had a teacher. This I for my part could well believe, even if he did not proclaim it Seneca, Epistle LII, p.

And he gives special praise to these, for their impulse has come from within, and they have forged to the front by themselves. Again, he says, there are others who need outside help, who will not proceed unless someone leads the way, but who win follow faithfully. Of these, he says, Metrodorus was one; this type of man is also excellent, but belongs to the second grade. He spent all his life in Greece, notwithstanding the calamities which had befallen her in that age; when he did once or twice take a trip to Ionia, it was to visit his friends there.

Eriends indeed came to him from all parts and lived with him in his garden. This is stated by Apollodorus, who also says that he purchased the garden for eighty minae.

Hermippus relates that he entered a bronze bath of lukewarm water and asked for unmixed wine, which he swallowed, and then, having bidden his friends remember his doctrines, breathed his last. Epicurus [thinks] that the necessity of fate can be avoided Democritus preferred to accept the view that all events are caused by necessity.

He [Epkurus] therefore invented a device to escape from determinism the point had apparently escaped the notice of Democritus Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, I, pp. Democritus of Abdera [assumed] All things happen by virtue of necessity, the vortex being the cause of the creation of all things, and this he Democritus calls necessity.

Parmenides and Democritus [say] that there is nothing in the world but what is necessary, and that this same necessity is otherwise called fate, right, providence and the creator of the world. Leudppus [says] that everything [occurs] by necessity, this being fate. Men like to create for themselves the illusion of chance-an excuse for their own perplexity; since chance is incompatible with sound thinking. At the same time he keeps it away from human life and has decried as stupid those who proclaim it.

Indeed, at the beginning of his teachings he says: Eor they do not appreciate thinking as blissful, but chance as the most reasonable. Eor he sees that necessity destroys responsibility and that chance or fortune is inconstant; whereas our own actions are free, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach.

It were better, indeed, to accept the legends of the gods than to bow beneath the yoke of destiny which the natural philosophers have imposed. The one holds out some faint hope that we may escape if we honour the gods, while the necessity of the naturalists is deaf to all entreaties.

On all sides lie many short and simple paths to freedom; and let us thank God that no man can he kept in life. We may spurn the very constraints that hold us.

Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, 1, xx [ But what value can be assigned to a philosophy i. It is a belief for old women, and ignorant old women at that But Epicurus has set us free [from superstitious terrors] and delivered us out of captivity Their accepted doctrine is that in every disjunctive proposition of the form "so-and-so either is or not, one of the two alternatives must be true.

Accordingly he denied the necessity of a disjunctive proposition altogether. But also Democritus states, where he brings it up, that the different kinds must separate themselves from the totality, but not how and because of what reason, and seems to let them originate automatically and by chance.

Indeed, Democritus himself is supposed to have said that he would rather discover a new causal explanation than acquire the Persian crown. Epicurus rejects none of these opinions, [Marx added here: Epicurus says again that all the foregoing is possible.

Stobaeus, Physical Selections, I, p. Epicurus rejects none of these opinions, for he keeps to what is possible. Epicurus asserts that all the foregoing may be causes, but he tries to introduce some additional ones. He criticises other authors for affirming too positively that some particular one of the causes is responsible, as it is difficult to pronounce anything as certain in matters in which conjecture must be resorted to.

Part II, Chapter 5. However, we must observe each fact as presented, and further separate from it all the facts presented along with it, the occurrence of which from various causes is not contradicted by facts within our experience All these alternatives are possible; they are contradicted by none of the facts We must not suppose that our treatment of these matters fails of accuracy, so far as it is needful to ensure our tranquillity [ataraxy] and happiness.

The Declination of the Atom from the Straight Line Epicurus assumes a threefold motion of the atoms in the void. Both Democritus and Epicurus accept the first and the third motion. The declination of the atom from the straight line differentiates the one from the other. Cicero more than any other is inexhaustible when he touches on this theme. Thus we read in him, among other things: But then it occurred to him that if all atoms were thrust downwards, no atom could ever meet another one.

Epicurus therefore resorted to a lie. He said that the atom makes a very tiny swerve, which is, of course, entirely impossible. Erom this arose complexities, combinations and adhesions of the atoms with one another, and out of this came the world, all parts of it and its contents.

Besides all this being a puerile invention, he does not even achieve what he desires. He says that the atom, although thrust downwards by its weight and gravity, makes a very slight swerve. To assert this is more disgraceful than to he incapable of defending what he wants. Pierre Bayle expresses a similar opinion: Epicurus supposed that even in the midst of the void the atoms declined slightly from the straight line, and from this, he said, arose freedom It must he noted, in passing, that this was not the only motive that led him to invent this motion of declination.

He also used it to explain the meeting of atoms; for he saw clearly that supposing they fall] move with equal speed downwards along straight lines, he would never be able to explain that they could meet, and that thus the creation of the world would have been impossible. It was necessary, then, that they should deviate from the straight line. For the present I leave the validity of these reflections an open question. This much everyone will notice in passing, that the most recent critic of Epicurus, Schaubach, has misunderstood Cicero when he says: In the second place, he does not speak of accidental causes, but rather criticises the fact that no causes at all are mentioned, as it would be in and for itself contradictory to assume repulsion and at the same time accidental causes as the reason for the oblique direction.

At best one could then still speak of accidental causes of the repulsion, but not of accidental causes of the oblique direction. They foist upon Epicurus motives of which the one nullifies the other.

Epicurus is supposed to have assumed a declination of the atoms in order to explain the repulsion on one occasion, and on another freedom. But if the atoms meet without declination, then this is superfluous for explaining repulsion. We shall find in Lucretius, the only one in general of all the ancients who has understood Epicurean physics, a more profound exposition. We now shall consider the declination itself. Just as the point is negated [aufgehoben] in the line, so is every failing body negated in the straight line it describes, its specific quality does not matter here at all.

A falling apple describes a perpendicular line just as a piece of iron does. Every body, insofar as we are concerned with the motion of falling, is therefore nothing but a moving point, and indeed a point without independence, which in a certain mode of being-the straight line which it describes-surrenders its individuality [Einzelheit].

Aristotle therefore is correct when he objects against the Pythagoreans: The consequence of this for the monads as well as for the atoms would therefore be-since they are in constant motion! To begin with, if the void is imagined as spatial void, then the atom is the immediate negation of abstract space, hence a spatial point. The solidity, the intensity, which maintains itself in itself against the incohesion of space, can only he added by virtue of a principle which negates space in its entire domain, a principle such as time is in real nature.

Moreover, if this itself is not admitted, the atom, insofar as its motion is a straight line, is determined only by space and is prescribed a relative being and a purely material existence. But we have seen that one moment in the concept of the atom is that of being pure form, negation of all relativity, of all relation to another mode of being. We have noted at the same time that — Epicurus objectifies for himself both moments which, although they contradict one another, are nevertheless inherent in the concept of the atom.

How then can Epicurus give reality to the pure form-determination of the atom, the concept of pure individuality, negating any mode of being determined by another being?

Since he is moving in the domain of immediate being, all determinations are immediate. Opposite determinations are therefore opposed to one another as immediate realities. But the relative existence which confronts the atom, the mode of being which it has to negate, is the straight line.

The immediate negation of this motion is another motion, which, therefore, spatially conceived, is the declination from the straight line. The atoms are purely self-sufficient bodies or rather bodies conceived in absolute self-sufficiency, like the heavenly bodies.

Hence, again like the heavenly bodies, they move not in straight, but in oblique lines. The motion of failing is the motion of non-self-sufficiency.

If Epicurus therefore represents the materiality of the atom in terms of its motion along a straight line, he has given reality to its form-determination in the declination from the straight line, and these opposed determinations are represented as directly opposed motions. So it would be necessary as it were to give the atoms definite assignments beforehand: Epicurus feels this inherent contradiction quite well. He therefore endeavours to represent the declination as being as imperceptible as possible to the senses; it takes place In time, in place unfixt Lucretius, De rerum nature, II, Nothing more disgraceful, says Cicero, can happen to a physicist.

H21 But, in the first place, a physical cause such as Cicero wants would throw the declination of the atom back into the domain of determinism, out of which it was precisely to be lifted. And then, the atom is by no means complete before it has been submitted to the determination of declination. To inquire after the cause of this determination means therefore to inquire after the cause that makes the atom a principle-a clearly meaningless inquiry to anyone for whom the atom is the cause of everything, hence without cause itself.

Before we consider the consequence of the declination of the atom from the straight line, we must draw attention to another, most important element, which up to now has been entirely overlooked. The declination of the atom from the straight line is, namely, not a particular determination which appears accidentally in Epicurean physics. On the contrary, the law which it expresses goes through the whole Epicurean philosophy, in such a way, however, that, as goes without saying, the determination of its appearance depends on the domain in which it is applied.

As a matter of fact, abstract individuality can make its concept, its form-determination, the pure being-for-itself, the independence from immediate being, the negation of all relativity, effective only by abstracting from the being that confronts it; for in order truly to overcome it, abstract individuality had to idealise it, a thing only generality can accomplish. Thus, while the atom frees itself from its relative existence, the straight line, by abstracting from it, by swerving away from it; so the entire Epicurean philosophy swerves away from the restrictive mode of being wherever the concept of abstract individuality, self-sufficiency and negation of all relation to other things must be represented in its existence.

The purpose of action is to be found therefore in abstracting, swerving away from pain and confusion, in ataraxy. And yet these gods are no fiction of Epicurus. They are the Elastic gods of Greek art. This is represented in such a way that the atom abstracts from the opposing being and withdraws itself from it.

But what is contained herein, namely, its negation of all relation to something else, must be realised, positively established. This can only be done if the being to which it relates itself w, none other than itself, hence equally an atom, and, since it itself is directly determined, many atoms.

The repulsion of the many atoms is therefore the necessary realisation of the lex atomi, [Law of the atom] as Lucretius calls the declination. But since here every determination is established as a particular being, repulsion is added as a third motion to the former ones. Lucretius is therefore correct when he says that, if the atoms were not to decline, neither their repulsion nor their meeting would have taken place, and the world would never have been created.

And this relative existence is, as we have seen, their original motion, that of falling in a straight line. Hence they meet only by virtue of their declination from the straight line. It has nothing to do with merely material fragmentation.!

But for man as man to become his own real object, he must have crushed within himself his relative being, the power of desire and of mere nature. Repulsion is the first form of self-consciousness, it corresponds therefore to that self-consciousness which conceives itself as immediate-being, as abstractly individual.

The concept of the atom is therefore realised in repulsion, inasmuch as it is abstract form, but no less also the opposite, inasmuch as it is abstract matter; for that to which it relates itself consists, to be true, of atoms, but other atoms.

But when 1 relate myself to myself as to something which is directly another, then my relationship is a material one. This is the most extreme degree of externality that can be conceived. In the repulsion of the atoms, therefore, their materiality, which was posited in the fall in a straight line, and the form-determination, which was established in the declination, are united synthetically.

Democritus, in contrast to Epicurus, transforms into an enforced motion, into an act of blind necessity, that which to Epicurus is the realisation of the concept of the atom. He therefore sees in the repulsion only the material side, the fragmentation, the change, and not the ideal side, according to which all relation to something else is negated and motion is established as self-determination.

This can be clearly seen from the fact that he conceives one and the same body divided through empty space into many parts quite sensuously, like gold broken up into pieces.

Aristotle correctly argues against him: For if each of the elements is forcibly moved by the other, then it is still necessary that each should have also a natural motion, outside which is the enforced one.

And this first motion must not be enforced but natural. Otherwise the procedure goes on to infinity. Epicurus was therefore the first to grasp the essence of the repulsion — even if only in sensuous form, whereas Democritus only knew of its material existence. Hence we find also more concrete forms of the repulsion applied by Epicurus.

Part II, Chapter 2: Plutarch, On the Sentiments of the Philosophers, p. Since even if he introduced some alterations, for instance the swerve of the atoms of which I spoke just now He Epicurus believes that these same indivisible solid bodies are borne by their own weight perpendicularly downward, which he holds is the natural motion of all bodies; but thereupon this clever fellow, encountering the difficulty that if they all travelled downwards in a straight fine, and, as I said, perpendicularly, no one atom would ever he able to overtake any other atom, accordingly introduced an idea of his own invention: Epicurus saw that if the atoms travelled downwards by their own weight, we should have no freedom of the will, since the motion of the atoms would he determined by necessity.

He therefore invented a device to escape from determinism the point had apparently escaped the notice of Democritus: This defence discredits him more than if he had had to abandon his original position. Cicero, On Fate, x []. Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique Historical and Critical Dictionary , art. Cl Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, 1 1, ff. Again, if all movement is always interconnected, the new rising from the old in a determinate order Cl Aristotle, On the Soul, I, 4 [, ].

How are we to imagine a unit [monad] being moved? What sort of movement can be attributed to what is without parts or internal differences? If the unit is both originative of movement and itself capable of being moved, it must contain differences. Eurther, since they say a moving line generates a surface and a moving point a line, the movements of the psychic units must be lines. Cl Diogenes Laertius, X, The atoms are in continual motion.

Eor, if all the atoms swerve, none will ever come to cohere together; or if some swerve while others travel in a straight line, by their own natural tendency, in the first place this will be tantamount to assigning to the atoms their different spheres of action, some to travel straight and some sideways Cicero, On Fate, x [22].

Also he is compelled to profess in reality, if not quite explicitly, that this swerve takes place without cause For they do not agree with Epicurus that the atom swerves somewhat, since he introduces a motion without cause out of the non-being.

The swerving is itself an arbitrary fiction for Epicurus says the atoms swerve without a cause, yet this is a capital offence in a natural philosopher, to speak of something taking place uncaused].

Then also he gratuitously deprives the atoms of what he himself declared to be the natural motion of all heavy bodies, namely, movement in a straight line downwards Eor the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear. Epicurus too makes a similar statement to the effect that the Good is a thing that arises out of your very escape from evil Epicurus also says that the removal of pain is pleasure Sencea, On Benefits, IV [,4, 1 1, p.

Yes, and therefore God does not give benefits, but, free from all care and unconcerned about us, he turns his back on the world Well then, what meat and drink, what harmonies of music and flowers of various colours, what delights of touch and smell will you assign to the gods, so as to keep them steeped in pleasure? Why, what reason have you for maintaining that men owe worship to the gods, if the gods not only pay no regard to men, but care for nothing and do nothing at all?

Instead, it puts us in the same state of mind with regard to the gods, of neither being alarmed nor rejoicing, that we have regarding the Hyrcanian fish. We expect nothing from them either good or evil. If it were not for this swerve, everything would fall downwards like rain-drops through the abyss of space. No collision would take place and no impact of atom on atom would he created anything, created.

So also in the atoms But the fact that the mind itself has no internal necessity to determine its every act and compel it to suffer in helpless passivity-this is due to the slight swerve of the atoms If the whole is not [ , 1] If the whole is not continuous, but exists, as Democritus and Leucippus think, in the form of parts separated by void, there must necessarily be one movement of all the multitude.

Hence Leucippus and Democritus, who say that the primary bodies are in perpetual movement in the void or infinite, may be asked to explain the manner of their motion and the kind of movement which is natural to them. For if the various elements are constrained by one another to move as they do, each must still have a natural movement which the constrained contravenes, and the prime mover must cause motion not by constraint but naturally.

If there is no ultimate natural cause of movement and each preceding term in the series is always moved by constraint, we shall have an infinite process. Those animals which are incapable of making covenants with one another, to the end that they may neither inflict nor suffer harm, are without either justice or injustice. And those tribes which either could not or would not form mutual covenants to the same end are in like case. There never was an absolute justice, but only an agreement made in reciprocal intercourse, in whatever localities, now and again, from time to time, providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.

The Qualities of the Atom It contradicts the concept of the atom that the atom should have properties, because, as Epicurus says, every property is variable but the atoms do not change. Indeed, the many atoms of repulsion separated by sensuous space must necessarily be immediately dijferent from one another smdfrom their pure essence, i. If this were truly so, how is one to invalidate the evidence of Lucretius, Plutarch, and indeed of all other authors who speak of Epicurus?

I was happy to get appreciation words from my professor for the paper I submitted. Thanks EssaysChief and I will never forget the help that you gave me and I guarantee that I will come back to you again in my future I just wanted to send a message to say thanks.

Your written paper helped me to get top grade and thanks a lot I was really struggling to write my essay and asked essay writing help with EssaysChief. I am o happy to say that I got a good essay from them and good result for the assignment as well.

I am not good at writing generally and wanted to ask for writing help with this assignment writing service to write my research paper.

They provided me absolutely an outstanding paper. Thanks a lot to the writer and company. Thanks a lot EssaysChief for writing a good term paper for me. I enjoyed your service a lot. I loved the help from this writing service and I could impress my teacher.

I will indeed come back in future as well to if I need help with writing my assignments. Thanks a lot EssaysChief for making my essay excellent. I will definitely recommend your service to my friends as well. I got a professionally written dissertation from EssaysChief and they are so cooperative.

Thank you for all the efforts that you took to make my paper excellent. I appreciate your help greatly.

Writing Essays

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Full text of Karl Marx's Doctoral Thesis on the Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Doctoral Dissertation of Karl Marx Karl Marx Internet Archive.

Privacy FAQs

Feb 17,  · Doctoral Dissertation of Karl Marx — Chapter 1 Karl Marx The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Part One: Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Marx's Doctoral Dissertation – jstor cultivating important persons who could help him.

About Our Ads

is there a website for homework help Doctoral Dissertation Help Marx ways to start a research paper well written essay buy. dissertation on english literature Doctoral Dissertation Help Marx master dissertation dissertation abstract online law.

Cookie Info

how to find dissertations Doctoral Dissertation Karl Marx how to write medical paper homework help/10(). In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content. The Marxism of Marx's Doctoral Dissertation JOHN L. STANLEY ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF SCHOLARSHIP on Marx's doctoral dissertation is small in comparison to what has been done in regard to his later writings, interpretation of this earliest systematic work is not inconsequential for our understanding of the controversies .