on sense and the sensible-第5章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




already　acquired。



　　That　Savours；　either　as　a　quality　or　as　the　privation　of　a



quality；　belong　not　to　every　form　of　the　Dry　but　to　the　Nutrient；　we



shall　see　by　considering　that　neither　the　Dry　without　the　Moist；　nor



the　Moist　without　the　Dry；　is　nutrient。　For　no　single　element；　but



only　composite　substance；　constitutes　nutriment　for　animals。　Now；



among　the　perceptible　elements　of　the　food　which　animals　assimilate；



the　tangible　are　the　efficient　causes　of　growth　and　decay；　it　is　qua



hot　or　cold　that　the　food　assimilated　causes　these；　for　the　heat　or



cold　is　the　direct　cause　of　growth　or　decay。　It　is　qua　gustable；



however；　that　the　assimilated　food　supplies　nutrition。　For　all



organisms　are　nourished　by　the　Sweet　＇i。e。　the　'gustable'　proper＇；



either　by　itself　or　in　combination　with　other　savours。　Of　this　we　must



speak　with　more　precise　detail　in　our　work　on　Generation：　for　the



present　we　need　touch　upon　it　only　so　far　as　our　subject　here



requires。　Heat　causes　growth；　and　fits　the　food…stuff　for



alimentation；　it　attracts　＇into　the　organic　system＇　that　which　is



light　＇viz。　the　sweet＇；　while　the　salt　and　bitter　it　rejects　because



of　their　heaviness。　In　fact；　whatever　effects　external　heat　produces



in　external　bodies；　the　same　are　produced　by　their　internal　heat　in



animal　and　vegetable　organisms。　Hence　it　is　＇i。e。　by　the　agency　of



heat　as　described＇　that　nourishment　is　effected　by　the　sweet。　The



other　savours　are　introduced　into　and　blended　in　food　＇naturally＇　on　a



principle　analogous　to　that　on　which　the　saline　or　the　acid　is　used



artificially；　i。e。　for　seasoning。　These　latter　are　used　because　they



counteract　the　tendency　of　the　sweet　to　be　too　nutrient；　and　to



float　on　the　stomach。



　　As　the　intermediate　colours　arise　from　the　mixture　of　white　and



black；　so　the　intermediate　savours　arise　from　the　Sweet　and　Bitter；



and　these　savours；　too；　severally　involve　either　a　definite　ratio；



or　else　an　indefinite　relation　of　degree；　between　their　components；



either　having　certain　integral　numbers　at　the　basis　of　their



mixture；　and；　consequently；　of　their　stimulative　effect；　or　else　being



mixed　in　proportions　not　arithmetically　expressible。　The　tastes



which　give　pleasure　in　their　combination　are　those　which　have　their



components　joined　in　a　definite　ratio。



　　The　sweet　taste　alone　is　Rich；　＇therefore　the　latter　may　be　regarded



as　a　variety　of　the　former＇；　while　＇so　far　as　both　imply　privation



of　the　Sweet＇　the　Saline　is　fairly　identical　with　the　Bitter。



Between　the　extremes　of　sweet　and　bitter　come　the　Harsh；　the



Pungent；　the　Astringent；　and　the　Acid。　Savours　and　Colours；　it　will　be



observed；　contain　respectively　about　the　same　number　of　species。　For



there　are　seven　species　of　each；　if；　as　is　reasonable；　we　regard　Dun



＇or　Grey＇　as　a　variety　of　Black　（for　the　alternative　is　that　Yellow



should　be　classed　with　White；　as　Rich　with　Sweet）；　while　＇the



irreducible　colours；　viz。＇　Crimson；　Violet；　leek…Green；　and　deep　Blue；



come　between　White　and　Black；　and　from　these　all　others　are　derived　by



mixture。



　　Again；　as　Black　is　a　privation　of　White　in　the　Translucent；　so



Saline　or　Bitter　is　a　privation　of　Sweet　in　the　Nutrient　Moist。　This



explains　why　the　ash　of　all　burnt　things　is　bitter；　for　the　potable



＇sc。　the　sweet＇　moisture　has　been　exuded　from　them。



　　Democritus　and　most　of　the　natural　philosophers　who　treat　of



sense…perception　proceed　quite　irrationally；　for　they　represent　all



objects　of　sense　as　objects　of　Touch。　Yet；　if　this　is　really　so；　it



clearly　follows　that　each　of　the　other　senses　is　a　mode　of　Touch；



but　one　can　see　at　a　glance　that　this　is　impossible。



　　Again；　they　treat　the　percepts　common　to　all　senses　as　proper　to



one。　For　＇the　qualities　by　which　they　explain　taste　viz。＇　Magnitude



and　Figure；　Roughness　and　Smoothness；　and；　moreover；　the　Sharpness　and



Bluntness　found　in　solid　bodies；　are　percepts　common　to　all　the



senses；　or　if　not　to　all；　at　least　to　Sight　and　Touch。　This　explains



why　it　is　that　the　senses　are　liable　to　err　regarding　them；　while　no



such　error　arises　respecting　their　proper　sensibles；　e。g。　the　sense　of



Seeing　is　not　deceived　as　to　Colour；　nor　is　that　of　Hearing　as　to



Sound。



　　On　the　other　hand；　they　reduce　the　proper　to　common　sensibles；　as



Democritus　does　with　White　and　Black；　for　he　asserts　that　the　latter



is　＇a　mode　of　the＇　rough；　and　the　former　＇a　mode　of　the＇　smooth；　while



he　reduces　Savours　to　the　atomic　figures。　Yet　surely　no　one　sense；　or；



if　any；　the　sense　of　Sight　rather　than　any　other；　can　discern　the



common　sensibles。　But　if　we　suppose　that　the　sense　of　Taste　is



better　able　to　do　so；　then…　since　to　discern　the　smallest　objects　in



each　kind　is　what　marks　the　acutest　sense…Taste　should　have　been　the



sense　which　best　perceived　the　common　sensibles　generally；　and



showed　the　most　perfect　power　of　discerning　figures　in　general。



　　Again；　all　the　sensibles　involve　contrariety；　e。g。　in　Colour　White



is　contrary　to　Black；　and　in　Savours　Bitter　is　contrary　to　Sweet；



but　no　one　figure　is　reckoned　as　contrary　to　any　other　figure。　Else；



to　which　of　the　possible　polygonal　figures　＇to　which　Democritus



reduces　Bitter＇　is　the　spherical　figure　＇to　which　he　reduces　Sweet＇



contrary？



　　Again；　since　figures　are　infinite　in　number；　savours　also　should



be　infinite；　＇the　possible　rejoinder…　'that　they　are　so；　only　that



some　are　not　perceived'…　cannot　be　sustained＇　for　why　should　one



savour　be　perceived；　and　another　not？



　　This　completes　our　discussion　of　the　object　of　Taste；　i。e。　Savour；



for　the　other　affections　of　Savours　are　examined　in　their　proper　place



in　connection　with　the　natural　history　of　Plants。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5







　　Our　conception　of　the　nature　of　Odours　must　be　analogous　to　that



of　Savours；　inasmuch　as　the　Sapid　Dry　effects　in　air　and　water



alike；　but　in　a　different　province　of　sense；　precisely　what　the　Dry



effects　in　the　Moist　of　water　only。　We　customarily　predicate



Translucency　of　both　air　and　water　in　common；　but　it　is　not　qua



translucent　that　either　is　a　vehicle　of　odour；　but　qua　possessed　of



a　power　of　washing　or　rinsing　＇and　so　imbibing＇　the　Sapid　Dryness。



　　For　the　object　of　Smell　exists　not　in　air　only：　it　also　exists　in



water。　This　is　proved　by　the　case　of　fishes　and　testacea；　which　are



seen　to　possess　the　faculty　of　smell；　although　water　contains　no　air



（for　whenever　air　is　generated　within　water　it　rises　to　the



surface）；　and　these　creatures　do　not　respire。　Hence；　if　one　were　to



assume　that　air　and　water　are　both　moist；　it　would　follow　that　Odour



is　the　natural　substance　consisting　of　the　Sapid　Dry　diffused　in　the



Moist；　and　whatever　is　of　this　kind　would　be　an　object　of　Smell。



　　That　the　property　of　odorousness　is　based　upon　the　Sapid　may　be　seen



by　comparing　the　things　which　possess　with　those　which　do　not



possess　odour。　The　elements；　viz。　Fire；　Air；　Earth；　Water；　are



inodorous；　because　both　the　dry　and　the　moist　among　them　are　without



sapidity；　unless　some　added　ingredient　produces　it。　This　explains



why　sea…water　possesses　odour；　for　＇unlike　'elemental'　water＇　it



contains　savour　and　dryness。　Salt；　too；　is　more　odorous　than　natron；



as　the　oil　which　exudes　from　the　former　proves；　for　natron　is　allied



to　＇'elemental'＇　earth　more　nearly　than　salt。　Again；　a　stone　is



inodorous；　just　because　it　is　tasteless；　while；　on　the　contrary；



wood　is　odorous；　because　it　is　sapid。　The　kinds　of　wood；　too；　which



contain　more　＇'elemental'＇　water　are　less　odorous　than　others。



Moreover；　to　take　the　case　of　metals；　gold　is　inodorous　because　it



is　without　taste；　but　bronze　and　iron　are　odorous；　and　when　the



＇sapid＇　moisture　has　been　burnt　out　of　them；　their　slag　is；　in　all



cases；　less　odorous　the　metals　＇than　the　metals　themselves＇。　S