Meredith Barb PHIL 326 Andrew Garnar 6 August 2008 Patients diagnosed according to their individual parts or as a whole

Curiosity has fueled the development of physical sciences, but an interest in the ultimate nature of the physical world has dually facilitated a need for social sciences. The philosophical inquiry of the nature of the world has led people to question diverse ideas such as the concept of a single divine power, as well as wet objects becoming dry. Heraclites was one early philosopher who preferred the poetic language of philosophy and said, the road up and the road down are one and the same (McKirahan 1994). Yet, while philosophy often gets stereotyped as an ambiguous science, not all philosophers are so lyrical in their ideas. I, like atomists, prefer a more logical form of science with succinct definite answers. As a science-mind, all answers are put on a scale of right and wrong with no in between. The theme of atomism allows me to have such security, while being able to appreciate a social science; the downfall of this concrete theme seems to arise when viewed in terms of my aspirations along with my morals. The pattern of girls performing better in subjects of social sciences is far from true in my case. Performing well in the social sciences has never been a problem per say, but as a student who loves to learn I tend to find the arts and humanities less challenging. Currently, I am a rising senior in the department of Biological Sciences, majoring in

Microbiology. As a pre-medical hopeful, I have taken all the necessary courses to apply for medical school, including general chemistry, physics, organic chemistry, biochemistry and biology. I have enjoyed most, if not all of the science courses I have endeavored upon, but my passion is chemistry. Chemistry may seem difficult to those not initially attracted to the library, but those people obviously do not realize that chemistry is basic in that it is the study of building blocks. The basics of chemistry include protons, neutrons and electrons, which form atoms. These facts of chemistry cannot be denied, as they have proven time and again. John Dalton was an important figure in science, specifically chemistry, as he determined the unique atoms that compromise individual elements along with their relative weights facilitating the periodic table. Dalton was a major player not only in chemistry, but also in atomic theory. I have studied Daltons laws in school and know them to be true, yet my career goals seem to make the ideas of atomism hazy. I aspire to attend medical school in order to pursue a career in medicine. Although unsure of what field I will finally pursue, currently I am very interested in psychology and neurology, because I am fascinated by the mind. The problem therein lies with my future aspirations because although Dalton draws me towards thoughts of atomism, the mind draws me away as it is obvious that the mind should always be considered and thus diagnosed as a mind, and nothing less. The mind does not follow the regulations of atomism because thoughts, ideas, pain, and all the experiences of the mind cannot be separated from each other. In Science and Poetry, Mary Midgley attempts to delve into the question of accepted science, and how we can understand ourselves amidst these regulations. Her interpretation of how to accomplish is centered in the idea of atomism a notion that

the only way to understand anything is to break it into its ultimate smallest parts and to conceive these as making up something comparable to a machine (Midgley 2006). Atomism rose from the idea that there must be something that fully exists, with no mixture of nonbeing. This ultimate form of existence is the atom, and these existents cannot be subdivided, leading to the concept that there are no composite objects. This definition insinuates that human bodies do not exist but rather only the atoms which compromise them exist. Obvious ethical questions arise from this theme as it promotes the atomist view that the soul is nothing more than a special very small, fast-moving group of atoms that operate within the living being and help in sense and act upon the environment (McKirahan 1994). In summation, the atomist view leads to the solution that human beings are not unlike any other composite bodies and thus do not possess something which survives death. In a world with the increasing notion of anti-science, Midgley is able to show the importance of incorporating science and poetry together into our lives, as a form of compromise. The theory of breaking up a complicated machine into its component parts was successful in physical sciences, thus people attempted to apply it to social sciences. In the case of social sciences, reductivism did not work as planned. Psychiatrists cannot view their patients as simple physical mechanisms and behaviorist psychologists cannot study beings without accounting for their individual thoughts and feelings. Thus the division between mind and body Descartes writes about cannot be solved by simply letting the major partner swallow up the minor one (Midgley 2006). Obviously, it is impossible to wholly accept the theme of atomism, while attempting to pursue a medical career diagnosing the mind. Midgley does a great job in attempting to find stable ground

between wholly accepting or rejecting atomism. Psychology appears to be a nonscientific field because patients cannot be treated as mechanisms, but rather they must realize that the mind will never conform to the laws of matter. The main moral to be addressed is that social and psychological problems cannot be solved by imposing on them irrelevant patterns imported from the physical sciences, merely because they are seductively simple (Midgley 2006). If we take atomism for what it is with no criticism then it doesnt matter what we think and feel because our thoughts and feelings cannot have any consequences (Midgley 2006). Lucretius did not present atomism as a means to solve all scientific problems, but instead he presented it as a moral crusade to free the human race of the superstition and multiple gods of his time. Lucretius launched the notion of atomism as a weedkiller against religion, but readers of his work took it solve other issues. Thus atomism is useful in the fields of physical and social sciences, but it cannot be a cemented theme in our society because it directly interferes with studies of the mind as well and creates obvious ethical problems. The Enlightenment presented a specific time where people relied heavily on atomism because it promised social reliance on individualism and intellectual confidence in final simplicity, but while the ideas of these times remain to be useful, they cannot help us in all areas of life (Midgley 2006). As Midgley said: On the physical side, scientists no longer think in terms of hard, separate unchangeable at all but of particles that are essentially interconnected. And, on the social side, attempts to treat people as disconnected social atoms have repeatedly turned out very badly (Midgley 2006).

Rethinking the theme of atomism does not mean disregarding it, but rather finding a balance between its concepts, which will not induce moral illness or interfere with the ideas of diagnosing the human mind.

*word count is 1195 without the heading, title, or bibliography

Bibliography McKirahan, Richard D.1994.Philosophy Before Socrates. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishers. Midgley, Mary. 2006. Science and Poetry. New York: Routledge Classics.