on the soul-第3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!
t。 Thales; too; to judge from what is recorded about him; seems to have held soul to be a motive force; since he said that the magnet has a soul in it because it moves the iron。 Diogenes (and others) held the soul to be air because he believed air to be finest in grain and a first principle; therein lay the grounds of the soul's powers of knowing and originating movement。 As the primordial principle from which all other things are derived; it is cognitive; as finest in grain; it has the power to originate movement。 Heraclitus too says that the first principle…the 'warm exhalation' of which; according to him; everything else is composed…is soul; further; that this exhalation is most incorporeal and in ceaseless flux; that what is in movement requires that what knows it should be in movement; and that all that is has its being essentially in movement (herein agreeing with the majority)。 Alcmaeon also seems to have held a similar view about soul; he says that it is immortal because it resembles 'the immortals;' and that this immortality belongs to it in virtue of its ceaseless movement; for all the 'things divine;' moon; sun; the planets; and the whole heavens; are in perpetual movement。 of More superficial writers; some; e。g。 Hippo; have pronounced it to be water; they seem to have argued from the fact that the seed of all animals is fluid; for Hippo tries to refute those who say that the soul is blood; on the ground that the seed; which is the primordial soul; is not blood。 Another group (Critias; for example) did hold it to be blood; they take perception to be the most characteristic attribute of soul; and hold that perceptiveness is due to the nature of blood。 Each of the elements has thus found its partisan; except earth…earth has found no supporter unless we count as such those who have declared soul to be; or to be compounded of; all the elements。 All; then; it may be said; characterize the soul by three marks; Movement; Sensation; Incorporeality; and each of these is traced back to the first principles。 That is why (with one exception) all those who define the soul by its power of knowing make it either an element or constructed out of the elements。 The language they all use is similar; like; they say; is known by like; as the soul knows everything; they construct it out of all the principles。 Hence all those who admit but one cause or element; make the soul also one (e。g。 fire or air); while those who admit a multiplicity of principles make the soul also multiple。 The exception is Anaxagoras; he alone says that mind is impassible and has nothing in common with anything else。 But; if this is so; how or in virtue of what cause can it know? That Anaxagoras has not explained; nor can any answer be inferred from his words。 All who acknowledge pairs of opposites among their principles; construct the soul also out of these contraries; while those who admit as principles only one contrary of each pair; e。g。 either hot or cold; likewise make the soul some one of these。 That is why; also; they allow themselves to be guided by the names; those who identify soul with the hot argue that sen (to live) is derived from sein (to boil); while those who identify it with the cold say that soul (psuche) is so called from the process of respiration and (katapsuxis)。 Such are the traditional opinions concerning soul; together with the grounds on which they are maintained。
3
We must begin our examination with movement; for doubtless; not only is it false that the essence of soul is correctly described by those who say that it is what moves (or is capable of moving) itself; but it is an impossibility that movement should be even an attribute of it。 We have already pointed out that there is no necessity that what originates movement should itself be moved。 There are two senses in which anything may be moved…either (a) indirectly; owing to something other than itself; or (b) directly; owing to itself。 Things are 'indirectly moved' which are moved as being contained in something which is moved; e。g。 sailors in a ship; for they are moved in a different sense from that in which the ship is moved; the ship is 'directly moved'; they are 'indirectly moved'; because they are in a moving vessel。 This is clear if we consider their limbs; the movement proper to the legs (and so to man) is walking; and in this case the sailors tare not walking。 Recognizing the double sense of 'being moved'; what we have to consider now is whether the soul is 'directly moved' and participates in such direct movement。 There are four species of movement…locomotion; alteration; diminution; growth; consequently if the soul is moved; it must be moved with one or several or all of these species of movement。 Now if its movement is not incidental; there must be a movement natural to it; and; if so; as all the species enumerated involve place; place must be natural to it。 But if the essence of soul be to move itself; its being moved cannot be incidental to…as it is to what is white or three cubits long; they too can be moved; but only incidentally…what is moved is that of which 'white' and 'three cubits long' are the attributes; the body in which they inhere; hence they have no place: but if the soul naturally partakes in movement; it follows that it must have a place。 Further; if there be a movement natural to the soul; there must be a counter…movement unnatural to it; and conversely。 The same applies to rest as well as to movement; for the terminus ad quem of a thing's natural movement is the place of its natural rest; and similarly the terminus ad quem of its enforced movement is the place of its enforced rest。 But what meaning can be attached to enforced movements or rests of the soul; it is difficult even to imagine。 Further; if the natural movement of the soul be upward; the soul must be fire; if downward; it must be earth; for upward and downward movements are the definitory characteristics of these bodies。 The same reasoning applies to the intermediate movements; termini; and bodies。 Further; since the soul is observed to originate movement in the body; it is reasonable to suppose that it transmits to the body the movements by which it itself is moved; and so; reversing the order; we may infer from the movements of the body back to similar movements of the soul。 Now the body is moved from place to place with movements of locomotion。 Hence it would follow that the soul too must in accordance with the body change either its place as a whole or the relative places of its parts。 This carries with it the possibility that the soul might even quit its body and re…enter it; and with this would be involved the possibility of a resurrection of animals from the dead。 But; it may be contended; the soul can be moved indirectly by something else; for an animal can be pushed out of its course。 Yes; but that to whose essence belongs the power of being moved by itself; cannot be moved by something else except incidentally; just as what is good by or in itself cannot owe its goodness to something external to it or to some end to which it is a means。 If the soul is moved; the most probable view is that what moves it is sensible things。 We must note also that; if the soul moves itself; it must be the mover itself that is moved; so that it follows that if movement is in every case a displacement of that which is in movement; in that respect in which it is said to be moved; the movement of the soul must be a departure from its essential nature; at least if its self…movement is essential to it; not incidental。 Some go so far as to hold that the movements which the soul imparts to the body in which it is are the same in kind as those with which it itself is moved。 An example of this is Democritus; who uses language like that of the comic dramatist Philippus; who accounts for the movements that Daedalus imparted to his wooden Aphrodite by saying that he poured quicksilver into it; similarly Democritus says that the spherical atoms which according to him constitute soul; owing to their own ceaseless movements draw the whole body after them and so produce its movements。 We must urge the question whether it is these very same atoms which produc