友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!
恐怖书库 返回本书目录 加入书签 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 『收藏到我的浏览器』

on sense and the sensible-第6部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完,想下次继续接着阅读,可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能!




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'。 Silver



and tin are more odorous than the one class of metals; less so than



the other; inasmuch as they are water 'to a greater degree than the



former; to a less degree than the latter'。



  Some writers look upon Fumid exhalation; which is a compound of



Earth and Air; as the essence of Odour。 'Indeed all are inclined to



rush to this theory of Odour。' Heraclitus implied his adherence to



it when he declared that if all existing things were turned into



Smoke; the nose would be the organ to discern them with。 All writers



incline to refer odour to this cause 'sc。 exhalation of some sort';



but some regard it as aqueous; others as fumid; exhalation; while



others; again; hold it to be either。 Aqueous exhalation is merely a



form of moisture; but fumid exhalation is; as already remarked;



composed of Air and Earth。 The former when condensed turns into water;



the latter; in a particular species of earth。 Now; it is unlikely that



odour is either of these。 For vaporous exhalation consists of mere



water 'which; being tasteless; is inodorous'; and fumid exhalation



cannot occur in water at all; though; as has been before stated;



aquatic creatures also have the sense of smell。



  Again; the exhalation theory of odour is analogous to the theory



of emanations。 If; therefore; the latter is untenable; so; too; is the



former。



  It is clearly conceivable that the Moist; whether in air (for air;



too; is essentially moist) or in water; should imbibe the influence



of; and have effects wrought in it by; the Sapid Dryness。 Moreover; if



the Dry produces in moist media; i。e。 water and air; an effect as of



something washed out in them; it is manifest that odours must be



something analogous to savours。 Nay; indeed; this analogy is; in



some instances; a fact 'registered in language'; for odours as well as



savours are spoken of as pungent; sweet; harsh; astringent rich



返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 1
快捷操作: 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!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!