on sense and the sensible- 第1部分

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ON　SENSE　AND　THE　SENSIBLE





　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　by　Aristotle





　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　translated　by　J。　I。　Beare













　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　1







　　HAVING　now　definitely　considered　the　soul；　by　itself；　and　its



several　faculties；　we　must　next　make　a　survey　of　animals　and　all



living　things；　in　order　to　ascertain　what　functions　are　peculiar；



and　what　functions　are　common；　to　them。　What　has　been　already



determined　respecting　the　soul　　＇sc。　by　itself＇　　must　be　assumed



throughout。　The　remaining　parts　　＇sc。　the　attributes　of　soul　and



body　conjointly＇　　of　our　subject　must　be　now　dealt　with；　and　we　may



begin　with　those　that　come　first。



　　The　most　important　attributes　of　animals；　whether　common　to　all　or



peculiar　to　some；　are；　manifestly；　attributes　of　soul　and　body　in



conjunction；　e。g。　sensation；　memory；　passion；　appetite　and　desire　in



general；　and；　in　addition　pleasure　and　pain。　For　these　may；　in　fact；



be　said　to　belong　to　all　animals。　But　there　are；　besides　these；



certain　other　attributes；　of　which　some　are　common　to　all　living



things；　while　others　are　peculiar　to　certain　species　of　animals。　The



most　important　of　these　may　be　summed　up　in　four　pairs；　viz。　waking



and　sleeping；　youth　and　old　age；　inhalation　and　exhalation；　life　and



death。　We　must　endeavour　to　arrive　at　a　scientific　conception　of



these；　determining　their　respective　natures；　and　the　causes　of　their



occurrence。



　　But　it　behoves　the　Physical　Philosopher　to　obtain　also　a　clear



view　of　the　first　principles　of　health　and　disease；　inasmuch　as



neither　health　nor　disease　can　exist　in　lifeless　things。　Indeed　we　may



say　of　most　physical　inquirers；　and　of　those　physicians　who　study



their　art　philosophically；　that　while　the　former　complete　their



works　with　a　disquisition　on　medicine；　the　latter　usually　base　their



medical　theories　on　principles　derived　from　Physics。



　　That　all　the　attributes　above　enumerated　belong　to　soul　and　body



in　conjunction；　is　obvious；　for　they　all　either　imply　sensation　as　a



concomitant；　or　have　it　as　their　medium。　Some　are　either　affections　or



states　of　sensation；　others；　means　of　defending　and　safe…guarding



it；　while　others；　again；　involve　its　destruction　or　negation。　Now　it



is　clear；　alike　by　reasoning　and　observation；　that　sensation　is



generated　in　the　soul　through　the　medium　of　the　body。



　　We　have　already；　in　our　treatise　On　the　Soul；　explained　the　nature



of　sensation　and　the　act　of　perceiving　by　sense；　and　the　reason　why



this　affection　belongs　to　animals。　Sensation　must；　indeed；　be



attributed　to　all　animals　as　such；　for　by　its　presence　or　absence　we



distinguish　essentially　between　what　is　and　what　is　not　an　animal。



　　But　coming　now　to　the　special　senses　severally；　we　may　say　that



touch　and　taste　necessarily　appertain　to　all　animals；　touch；　for　the



reason　given　in　On　the　Soul；　and　taste；　because　of　nutrition。　It　is　by



taste　that　one　distinguishes　in　food　the　pleasant　from　the　unpleasant；



so　as　to　flee　from　the　latter　and　pursue　the　former：　and　savour　in



general　is　an　affection　of　nutrient　matter。



　　The　senses　which　operate　through　external　media；　viz。　smelling；



hearing；　seeing；　are　found　in　all　animals　which　possess　the　faculty　of



locomotion。　To　all　that　possess　them　they　are　a　means　of　preservation；



their　final　cause　being　that　such　creatures　may；　guided　by



antecedent　perception；　both　pursue　their　food；　and　shun　things　that



are　bad　or　destructive。　But　in　animals　which　have　also　intelligence



they　serve　for　the　attainment　of　a　higher　perfection。　They　bring　in



tidings　of　many　distinctive　qualities　of　things；　from　which　the



knowledge　of　truth；　speculative　and　practical；　is　generated　in　the



soul。



　　Of　the　two　last　mentioned；　seeing；　regarded　as　a　supply　for　the



primary　wants　of　life；　and　in　its　direct　effects；　is　the　superior



sense；　but　for　developing　intelligence；　and　in　its　indirect



consequences；　hearing　takes　the　precedence。　The　faculty　of　seeing；



thanks　to　the　fact　that　all　bodies　are　coloured；　brings　tidings　of



multitudes　of　distinctive　qualities　of　all　sorts；　whence　it　is　through



this　sense　especially　that　we　perceive　the　common　sensibles；　viz。



figure；　magnitude；　motion；　number：　while　hearing　announces　only　the



distinctive　qualities　of　sound；　and；　to　some　few　animals；　those　also



of　voice。　indirectly；　however；　it　is　hearing　that　contributes　most



to　the　growth　of　intelligence。　For　rational　discourse　is　a　cause　of



instruction　in　virtue　of　its　being　audible；　which　it　is；　not　directly；



but　indirectly；　since　it　is　composed　of　words；　and　each　word　is　a



thought…symbol。　Accordingly；　of　persons　destitute　from　birth　of　either



sense；　the　blind　are　more　intelligent　than　the　deaf　and　dumb。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2







　　Of　the　distinctive　potency　of　each　of　the　faculties　of　sense



enough　has　been　said　already。



　　But　as　to　the　nature　of　the　sensory　organs；　or　parts　of　the　body



in　which　each　of　the　senses　is　naturally　implanted；　inquirers　now



usually　take　as　their　guide　the　fundamental　elements　of　bodies。　Not；



however；　finding　it　easy　to　coordinate　five　senses　with　four　elements；



they　are　at　a　loss　respecting　the　fifth　sense。　But　they　hold　the　organ



of　sight　to　consist　of　fire；　being　prompted　to　this　view　by　a



certain　sensory　affection　of　whose　true　cause　they　are　ignorant。



This　is　that；　when　the　eye　is　pressed　or　moved；　fire　appears　to



flash　from　it。　This　naturally　takes　place　in　darkness；　or　when　the



eyelids　are　closed；　for　then；　too；　darkness　is　produced。



　　This　theory；　however；　solves　one　question　only　to　raise　another；



for；　unless　on　the　hypothesis　that　a　person　who　is　in　his　full



senses　can　see　an　object　of　vision　without　being　aware　of　it；　the



eye　must　on　this　theory　see　itself。　But　then　why　does　the　above



affection　not　occur　also　when　the　eye　is　at　rest？　The　true　explanation



of　this　affection；　which　will　contain　the　answer　to　our　question；



and　account　for　the　current　notion　that　the　eye　consists　of　fire；　must



be　determined　in　the　following　way：　Things　which　are　smooth　have　the



natural　property　of　shining　in　darkness；　without；　however；　producing



light。　Now；　the　part　of　the　eye　called　'the　black'；　i。e。　its　central



part；　is　manifestly　smooth。　The　phenomenon　of　the　flash　occurs　only



when　the　eye　is　moved；　because　only　then　could　it　possibly　occur



that　the　same　one　object　should　become　as　it　were　two。　The　rapidity　of



the　movement　has　the　effect　of　making　that　which　sees　and　that　which



is　seen　seem　different　from　one　another。　Hence　the　phenomenon　does　not



occur　unless　the　motion　is　rapid　and　takes　place　in　darkness。　For　it



is　in　the　dark　that　that　which　is　smooth；　e。g。　the　heads　of　certain



fishes；　and　the　sepia　of　the　cuttle…fish；　naturally　shines；　and；



when　the　movement　of　the　eye　is　slow；　it　is　impossible　that　that　which



sees　and　that　which　is　seen　should　appear　to　be　simultaneously　two　and



one。　But；　in　fact；　the　eye　sees　itself　in　the　above　phenomenon



merely　as　it　does　so　in　ordinary　optical　reflexion。



　　If　the　visual　organ　proper　really　were　fire；　which　is　the　doctrine



of　Empedocles；　a　doctrine　taught　also　in　the　Timaeus；　and　if　vision



were　the　result　of　light　issuing　from　the　eye　as　from　a　lantern；　why



should　the　eye　not　have　had　the　power　of　seeing　even　in　the　dark？　It



is　totally　idle　to　say；　as　the　Timaeus　does；　that　the　visual　ray



coming　forth　in　the　darkness　is　quenched。　What　is　the　meaning　of



this　'quenching'　of　light？　That　which；　like　a　fire　of　coals　or　an



ordinary　flame；　is　hot　and　dry　is；　indeed；　quenched　by　the　moist　or



cold；　but　heat　and　dryness　are　evidently　not　attributes　of　light。　Or



if　they　are　attributes　of　it；　but　belong　to　it　in　a　degree　so　slight



as　to　be　imperceptible　to　us；　we　should　have　expected　that　in　the



daytime　the　light　of　the　sun　should　be　quenched　when　rain　falls；　and



that　darkness　should　prevail　in　frosty　weather。　Flame；　for　example；



and　ignited　bodies　are　subject　to　such　extinction；　but　experience



shows　that　nothing　of　this　sort　happens　to　the　sunlight。



　　Empedocles　at　times　seems　to　hold　that　vision　is　to　be　explained



as　above　stated　by　light　issuing　forth　from　the　eye；　e。g。　in　the



following　passage：…







　　　　　　　　As　when　one　who　purposes　going　abroad　prepares　a　lantern；



　　　　　　　　A　gleam　of　fire　blazing　through　the　stormy　night；



　　　　　　　　Adjusting　thereto；　to　screen　it　from　all　sorts　of　winds；



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　transparent　sides；



　　　　　　　　Which　scatter　the　breath　of　the　winds　as　they　blow；



　　　　　　　　While；　out　through　them　leaping；　the　fire；



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　i。e。　all　the　more　subtile　part　of　this；



　　　　　　　　Shines　along　his　threshold　old　incessant　beams：



　　　　　　　　So　＇Divine　love＇　embedded　the　round　〃lens〃；　＇viz。＇



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　the　primaeval　fire　fenced　within　the　membranes；



　　　　　　　　In　＇its　own＇　delicate　tissues；



　　　　　　　　And　these　fended　off　the　deep　surrounding　flood；



　　　　　　　　While　leaping　forth　the　fire；　i。e。　all　its　more　subtile　part…。







　　Sometimes　he　accounts　for　vision　thus；　but　at　other　times　he



explains　it　by　emanations　from　the　visible　objects。



　　Democritus；　on　the　other　hand；　is　right　in　his　opinion　that　the



eye　is　of　water；　not；　however；　when　he　goes　on　to　explain　seeing　as



mere　mirroring。　The　mirroring　that　takes　place　in　an　eye　is　due　to　the



fact　that　the　eye　is　smooth；　and　it　really　has　its　seat　not　in　the　eye



which　is　seen；　but　in　that　which　sees。　For　the　case　is　merely　one　of



reflexion。　But　it　would　seem　that　even　in　his　time　there　was　no



scientific　knowledge　of　the　general　subject　of　the　formation　of　images



and　the　phenomena　of　reflexion。　It　is　strange　too；　that　it　never



occurred　to　him　to　ask　why；　if　his　th