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！
which is generated to be thenceforward indestructible； or for a thing which is ungenerated and has always hitherto existed to be destroyed。 Nothing that is by chance can be indestructible or ungenerated； since the products of chance and fortune are opposed to what is； or comes to be； always or usually； while anything which exists for a time infinite either absolutely or in one direction； is in existence either always or usually。 That which is by chance； then； is by nature such as to exist at one time and not at another。 But in things of that character the contradictory states proceed from one and the same capacity； the matter of the thing being the cause equally of its existence and of its non…existence。 Hence contradictories would be present together in actuality。 Further； it cannot truly be said of a thing now that it exists last year； nor could it be said last year that it exists now。 It is therefore impossible for what once did not exist later to be eternal。 For in its later state it will possess the capacity of not existing； only not of not existing at a time when it exists…since then it exists in actuality…but of not existing last year or in the past。 Now suppose it to be in actuality what it is capable of being。 It will then be true to say now that it does not exist last year。 But this is impossible。 No capacity relates to being in the past； but always to being in the present or future。 It is the same with the notion of an eternity of existence followed later by non…existence。 In the later state the capacity will be present for that which is not there in actuality。 Actualize； then； the capacity。 It will be true to say now that this exists last year or in the past generally。 Considerations also not general like these but proper to the subject show it to be impossible that what was formerly eternal should later be destroyed or that what formerly was not should later be eternal。 Whatever is destructible or generated is always alterable。 Now alteration is due to contraries； and the things which compose the natural body are the very same that destroy it。
Book II 1
THAT the heaven as a whole neither came into being nor admits of destruction； as some assert； but is one and eternal； with no end or beginning of its total duration； containing and embracing in itself the infinity of time； we may convince ourselves not only by the arguments already set forth but also by a consideration of the views of those who differ from us in providing for its generation。 If our view is a possible one； and the manner of generation which they assert is impossible； this fact will have great weight in convincing us of the immortality and eternity of the world。 Hence it is well to persuade oneself of the truth of the ancient and truly traditional theories； that there is some immortal and divine thing which possesses movement； but movement such as has no limit and is rather itself the limit of all other movement。 A limit is a thing which contains； and this motion； being perfect； contains those imperfect motions which have a limit and a goal； having itself no beginning or end； but unceasing through the infinity of time； and of other movements； to some the cause of their beginning； to others offering the goal。 The ancients gave to the Gods the heaven or upper place； as being alone immortal； and our present argument testifies that it is indestructible and ungenerated。 Further； it is unaffected by any mortal discomfort； and； in addition； effortless； for it needs no constraining necessity to keep it to its path； and prevent it from moving with some other movement more natural to itself。 Such a constrained movement would necessarily involve effort the more so； the more eternal it were…and would be inconsistent with perfection。 Hence we must not believe the old tale which says that the world needs some Atlas to keep it safe…a tale composed； it would seem； by men who； like later thinkers； conceived of all the upper bodies as earthy and endowed with weight； and therefore supported it in their fabulous way upon animate necessity。 We must no more believe that than follow Empedocles when he says that the world； by being whirled round； received a movement quick enough to overpower its own downward tendency； and thus has been kept from destruction all this time。 Nor； again； is it conceivable that it should persist eternally by the necessitation of a soul。 For a soul could not live in such conditions painlessly or happily； since the movement involves constraint； being imposed on the first body； whose natural motion is different； and imposed continuously。 It must therefore be uneasy and devoid of all rational satisfaction； for it could not even； like the soul of mortal animals； take recreation in the bodily relaxation of sleep。 An Ixion's lot must needs possess it； without end or respite。 If then； as we said； the view already stated of the first motion is a possible one； it is not only more appropriate so to conceive of its eternity； but also on this hypothesis alone are we able to advance a theory consistent with popular divinations of the divine nature。 But of this enough for the present。
2
Since there are some who say that there is a right and a left in the heaven； with those who are known as Pythagoreans…to whom indeed the view really belongs…we must consider whether； if we are to apply these principles to the body of the universe； we should follow their statement of the matter or find a better way。 At the start we may say that； if right and left are applicable； there are prior principles which must first be applied。 These principles have been analysed in the discussion of the movements of animals； for the reason that they are proper to animal nature。 For in some animals we find all such distinctions of parts as this of right and left clearly present； and in others some； but in plants we find only above and below。 Now if we are to apply to the heaven such a distinction of parts； we must exect； as we have said； to find in it also the distinction which in animals is found first of them all。 The distinctions are three； namely； above and below； front and its opposite； right and left…all these three oppositions we expect to find in the perfect body…and each may be called a principle。 Above is the principle of length； right of breadth； front of depth。 Or again we may connect them with the various movements； taking principle to mean that part； in a thing capable of movement； from which movement first begins。 Growth starts from above； locomotion from the right； sensemovement from in front （for front is simply the part to which the senses are directed）。 Hence we must not look for above and below； right and left； front and back； in every kind of body； but only in those which； being animate； have a principle of movement within themselves。 For in no inanimate thing do we observe a part from which movement originates。 Some do not move at all； some move； but not indifferently in any direction； fire； for example； only upward； and earth only to the centre。 It is true that we speak of above and below； right and left； in these bodies relatively to ourselves。 The referen