on the soul-第4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！


so　produce　its　movements。　We　must　urge　the　question　whether　it　is　these　very　same　atoms　which　produce　rest　also…how　they　could　do　so；　it　is　difficult　and　even　impossible　to　say。　And；　in　general；　we　may　object　that　it　is　not　in　this　way　that　the　soul　appears　to　originate　movement　in　animals…it　is　through　intention　or　process　of　thinking。　　　It　is　in　the　same　fashion　that　the　Timaeus　also　tries　to　give　a　physical　account　of　how　the　soul　moves　its　body；　the　soul；　it　is　there　said；　is　in　movement；　and　so　owing　to　their　mutual　implication　moves　the　body　also。　After　compounding　the　soul…substance　out　of　the　elements　and　dividing　it　in　accordance　with　the　harmonic　numbers；　in　order　that　it　may　possess　a　connate　sensibility　for　'harmony'　and　that　the　whole　may　move　in　movements　well　attuned；　the　Demiurge　bent　the　straight　line　into　a　circle；　this　single　circle　he　divided　into　two　circles　united　at　two　common　points；　one　of　these　he　subdivided　into　seven　circles。　All　this　implies　that　the　movements　of　the　soul　are　identified　with　the　local　movements　of　the　heavens。　　　　　Now；　in　the　first　place；　it　is　a　mistake　to　say　that　the　soul　is　a　spatial　magnitude。　It　is　evident　that　Plato　means　the　soul　of　the　whole　to　be　like　the　sort　of　soul　which　is　called　mind　not　like　the　sensitive　or　the　desiderative　soul；　for　the　movements　of　neither　of　these　are　circular。　Now　mind　is　one　and　continuous　in　the　sense　in　which　the　process　of　thinking　is　so；　and　thinking　is　identical　with　the　thoughts　which　are　its　parts；　these　have　a　serial　unity　like　that　of　number；　not　a　unity　like　that　of　a　spatial　magnitude。　Hence　mind　cannot　have　that　kind　of　unity　either；　mind　is　either　without　parts　or　is　continuous　in　some　other　way　than　that　which　characterizes　a　spatial　magnitude。　How；　indeed；　if　it　were　a　spatial　magnitude；　could　mind　possibly　think？　Will　it　think　with　any　one　indifferently　of　its　parts？　In　this　case；　the　'part'　must　be　understood　either　in　the　sense　of　a　spatial　magnitude　or　in　the　sense　of　a　point　（if　a　point　can　be　called　a　part　of　a　spatial　magnitude）。　If　we　accept　the　latter　alternative；　the　points　being　infinite　in　number；　obviously　the　mind　can　never　exhaustively　traverse　them；　if　the　former；　the　mind　must　think　the　same　thing　over　and　over　again；　indeed　an　infinite　number　of　times　（whereas　it　is　manifestly　possible　to　think　a　thing　once　only）。　If　contact　of　any　part　whatsoever　of　itself　with　the　object　is　all　that　is　required；　why　need　mind　move　in　a　circle；　or　indeed　possess　magnitude　at　all？　On　the　other　hand；　if　contact　with　the　whole　circle　is　necessary；　what　meaning　can　be　given　to　the　contact　of　the　parts？　Further；　how　could　what　has　no　parts　think　what　has　parts；　or　what　has　parts　think　what　has　none？　We　must　identify　the　circle　referred　to　with　mind；　for　it　is　mind　whose　movement　is　thinking；　and　it　is　the　circle　whose　movement　is　revolution；　so　that　if　thinking　is　a　movement　of　revolution；　the　circle　which　has　this　characteristic　movement　must　be　mind。　　　If　the　circular　movement　is　eternal；　there　must　be　something　which　mind　is　always　thinking…what　can　this　be？　For　all　practical　processes　of　thinking　have　limits…they　all　go　on　for　the　sake　of　something　outside　the　process；　and　all　theoretical　processes　come　to　a　close　in　the　same　way　as　the　phrases　in　speech　which　express　processes　and　results　of　thinking。　Every　such　linguistic　phrase　is　either　definitory　or　demonstrative。　Demonstration　has　both　a　starting…point　and　may　be　said　to　end　in　a　conclusion　or　inferred　result；　even　if　the　process　never　reaches　final　completion；　at　any　rate　it　never　returns　upon　itself　again　to　its　starting…point；　it　goes　on　assuming　a　fresh　middle　term　or　a　fresh　extreme；　and　moves　straight　forward；　but　circular　movement　returns　to　its　starting…point。　Definitions；　too；　are　closed　groups　of　terms。　　　Further；　if　the　same　revolution　is　repeated；　mind　must　repeatedly　think　the　same　object。　　　Further；　thinking　has　more　resemblance　to　a　coming　to　rest　or　arrest　than　to　a　movement；　the　same　may　be　said　of　inferring。　　　It　might　also　be　urged　that　what　is　difficult　and　enforced　is　incompatible　with　blessedness；　if　the　movement　of　the　soul　is　not　of　its　essence；　movement　of　the　soul　must　be　contrary　to　its　nature。　It　must　also　be　painful　for　the　soul　to　be　inextricably　bound　up　with　the　body；　nay　more；　if；　as　is　frequently　said　and　widely　accepted；　it　is　better　for　mind　not　to　be　embodied；　the　union　must　be　for　it　undesirable。　　　Further；　the　cause　of　the　revolution　of　the　heavens　is　left　obscure。　It　is　not　the　essence　of　soul　which　is　the　cause　of　this　circular　movement…that　movement　is　only　incidental　to　soul…nor　is；　a　fortiori；　the　body　its　cause。　Again；　it　is　not　even　asserted　that　it　is　better　that　soul　should　be　so　moved；　and　yet　the　reason　for　which　God　caused　the　soul　to　move　in　a　circle　can　only　have　been　that　movement　was　better　for　it　than　rest；　and　movement　of　this　kind　better　than　any　other。　But　since　this　sort　of　consideration　is　more　appropriate　to　another　field　of　speculation；　let　us　dismiss　it　for　the　present。　　　The　view　we　have　just　been　examining；　in　company　with　most　theories　about　the　soul；　involves　the　following　absurdity：　they　all　join　the　soul　to　a　body；　or　place　it　in　a　body；　without　adding　any　specification　of　the　reason　of　their　union；　or　of　the　bodily　conditions　required　for　it。　Yet　such　explanation　can　scarcely　be　omitted；　for　some　community　of　nature　is　presupposed　by　the　fact　that　the　one　acts　and　the　other　is　acted　upon；　the　one　moves　and　the　other　is　moved；　interaction　always　implies　a　special　nature　in　the　two　interagents。　All；　however；　that　these　thinkers　do　is　to　describe　the　specific　characteristics　of　the　soul；　they　do　not　try　to　determine　anything　about　the　body　which　is　to　contain　it；　as　if　it　were　possible；　as　in　the　Pythagorean　myths；　that　any　soul　could　be　clothed　upon　with　any　body…an　absurd　view；　for　each　body　seems　to　have　a　form　and　shape　of　its　own。　It　is　as　absurd　as　to　say　that　the　art　of　carpentry　could　embody　itself　in　flutes；　each　art　must　use　its　tools；　each　soul　its　body。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4

　　There　is　yet　another　theory　about　soul；　which　has　commended　itself　to　many　as　no　less　probable　than　any　of　those　we　have　hitherto　mentioned；　and　has　rendered　public　account　of　itself　in　the　court　of　popular　discussion。　Its　supporters　say　that　the　soul　is　a　kind　of　harmony；　for　（a）　harmony　is　a　blend　or　composition　of　contraries；　and　（b）　the　body　is　compounded　out　of　contraries。　Harmony；　however；　is　a　certain　proportion　or　composition　of　the　constituents　blended；　and　soul　can　be　neither　the　one　nor　the　other　of　these。　Further；　the　power　of　originating　movement　cannot　belong　to　a　harmony；　while　almost　all　concur　in　regarding　this　as　a　principal　attribute　of　soul。　It　is　more　appropriate　to　call　health　（or　generally　one　of　the　good　states　of　the　body）　a　harmony　than　to　predicate　it　of　the　soul。　The　absurdity　becomes　most　apparent　when　we　try　to　attribute　the　active　and　passive　affections　of　the　soul　to　a　harmony；　the　necessary　readjustment　of　their　conceptions　is　difficult。　Further；　in　using　the　word　'harmony'　we　have　one　or　other　of　two　cases　in　our　mind；　the　most　proper　sense　is　in　relation　to　spatial　magnitudes　which　have　motion　and　position；　where　harmony　means　the　disposition　and　cohesion　of　their　parts　in　such　a　manner　as　to　prevent　the　introduction　into　the　whole　of　anything　homogeneous　with　it；　and　the　secondary　sense；　derived　from　the　former；　is　that　in　which　it　means　the　ratio　between　the　constituents　so　blended；　in　neither　of　these　senses　is　it　plausible　to　predicate　it　of　soul。　That　soul　is　a　harmony　in　the　sense　of　the　mode　of　composition　of　the　parts　of　the　body　is　a　view　easily　refutable；　for　there　are　many　composite　parts　and　those　variously　compounded；　of　what　bodily　part　is　mind　or　the　sensitive　or　the　appetitive　faculty　the　mode　of　composition？　And　what　is　the　mode　of　composition　which　constitutes　each　of　them？　It　is　equally　absurd　to　identify　the　soul　with　the　ratio　of　the　mixture；　for　the　mixture　which　makes　flesh　has　a　different　ratio　between　the　elements　from　that　which　makes　bone。　The　consequence　of　this　view　will　therefore　be　that　distributed　throughout　the　whole　body　there　will　be　many　so