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！
principles； and are formed out of the elements； now things are apprehended either by mind or science or opinion or sensation； and these same numbers are the Forms of things。 Some thinkers； accepting both premisses； viz。 that the soul is both originative of movement and cognitive； have compounded it of both and declared the soul to be a self…moving number。 As to the nature and number of the first principles opinions differ。 The difference is greatest between those who regard them as corporeal and those who regard them as incorporeal； and from both dissent those who make a blend and draw their principles from both sources。 The number of principles is also in dispute； some admit one only； others assert several。 There is a consequent diversity in their several accounts of soul； they assume； naturally enough； that what is in its own nature originative of movement must be among what is primordial。 That has led some to regard it as fire； for fire is the subtlest of the elements and nearest to incorporeality； further； in the most primary sense； fire both is moved and originates movement in all the others。 Democritus has expressed himself more ingeniously than the rest on the grounds for ascribing each of these two characters to soul； soul and mind are； he says； one and the same thing； and this thing must be one of the primary and indivisible bodies； and its power of originating movement must be due to its fineness of grain and the shape of its atoms； he says that of all the shapes the spherical is the most mobile； and that this is the shape of the particles of fire and mind。 Anaxagoras； as we said above； seems to distinguish between soul and mind； but in practice he treats them as a single substance； except that it is mind that he specially posits as the principle of all things； at any rate what he says is that mind alone of all that is simple； unmixed； and pure。 He assigns both characteristics； knowing and origination of movement； to the same principle； when he says that it was mind that set the whole in movement。 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 attri