When
breaking down systems into their smallest parts, there is some point where a
molecule is indivisible: “You must admit that the atom itself has an
indivisible form and quality. You
must allow that division is incompatible with the essence of all forms because
it destroys them” (160). This
seems to be opposite of the Aristotelian idea that the whole is more than the
sum of its parts. Here, it seems
that something that is indivisible is in its strongest form.
When
we look at the moment when molecules become microcosms, Bordeu states that the
molecules lose their individual identity: “Now each sensitive molecule had
its own identity before the juxtaposition, but how has it lost it, and how have
all these losses added up to the conscious individuality of the whole?” (178). This identity issue seems most
problematic to me because of the idea of a continuous versus contiguous
form. If worms and polyps are
better because they are more contiguous, we continuous humans delight ourselves
in being better than the worm with our consciousness. However, if the molecules lose individuality as they form
microcosms, then it seems to imply that the newly formed divisible being is not
as strong. The chain of being,
then, is entirely flipped on its head—with molecules being the top of the
chain, and Nature itself being at the very bottom.
Unless,
perhaps, any time a molecule loses its consciousness to become part of a larger
being, that new being becomes indivisible through its new collective identity. Though the idea of an individual mindset from a collective group seems oxymoronic, that may be
what Diderot meant when he said “division is incompatible with the essence of
all forms” (160).
As
I am in two minds, where do you come in on this debate?
I enter the arena on the side of the macroscopic. All matter in our universe must obey the thermodynamic property of entropy which, loosely stated, asserts that disorder in an isolated system must either remain constant or increase with the passage of time. As a system, the entire universe must follow this law. When taken to its logical endpoint this property results in a completely homogenous universe, with matter and energy exactly evenly distributed throughout the vast cosmos. Such a universe is devoid of stars, galaxies, life, even molecules of any kind. Clearly heat death (the name of this state for a universe) is not the pinnacle of existence.
ReplyDeleteInstead, I posit that the local pockets where entropy is reversed are the most important. Organization is allowed at the local scale. Humanity, our planet Earth, even our solar system and beyond are highly complex systems. The union of atoms into molecules, molecules into substances, substances into the visible world around us is worth more than a cloud of elemental hydrogen. We know now that every atom of hydrogen is the same as any other; they are exactly substitutable and likewise across the periodic table. It is the way in which the elements come together to form our world and our people that matters. The local pockets of order fighting an eternally doomed battle against the laws of thermodynamics are the most worthwhile, the most sacred of all.
I understand Brandon's point, but I have to wonder if being highly complex and ordered is really a good thing? The main goal of life is to create more life. A creature that cannot reproduce is not considered alive by scientific standards. The human population currently stands at over 6 billion, but there are millions more bugs and single-celled organisms. Humans are so frail that despite our assertion to being the most conscious creatures on the planet, we still succumb easily to death. Unlike the polyp, we cannot make new bodies. Unlike cockroaches,we can't be frozen or live without food for more than a week. Even though humans have a view that each person is unique, we are only unique to ourselves. The universe is much bigger than Earth and as Brandon points out, the universe will eventually be simply empty space. Whether or not humans were better than anything else won't matter much then.
ReplyDeleteIn this debate, I come in agreeing with the idea that a new being becomes indivisible in a collective group. We have seen group mentality at work many times, where individual characteristics are lost and a group notion takes hold. While Diderot gives the analogy of the bees congregating, we can also see samples of this phenomenon throughout history. One prime example that stands out is various military forces. They work as an able bodied machine, working in cohesion and losing all sense of individuality in order to support one another and have operations run smoothly. In the Triumph of the Will, a propaganda film by Leni Riefenstahl, we can see the Nazi soldiers moving in unison, chanting, and not breaking formation. They are completely in a group mindset and lost all individuality. We see individuality emerge when people are out of this collective group, but when they are in it there is one mind that appears.
ReplyDeleteIndivisibility can be understood in two very different ways, as the comments about have stated. It can either be seen as a strengthening element or one that is detrimental to a being or an organism. Human beings are continuous, as explained in the beehive analogy in D’Alembert’s Dream— we cannot function if we are taken apart. And as Amelia said, we cannot survive under extreme conditions. Humans are, however, capable of acting independently, as one unit outside of the group, and as a part of a larger force, as Alison stated. Are polyps? Is one capable of splitting in two and then having the two halves work together? I realize it may seem silly, but could it be that our ability to act as individuals and part of a group is the only thing that makes up for our fallibility?
Delete