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