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！
that is。） Such objects are what we propose to call the special objects of this or that sense。 'Common sensibles' are movement； rest； number； figure； magnitude； these are not peculiar to any one sense； but are common to all。 There are at any rate certain kinds of movement which are perceptible both by touch and by sight。 We speak of an incidental object of sense where e。g。 the white object which we see is the son of Diares； here because 'being the son of Diares' is incidental to the directly visible white patch we speak of the son of Diares as being （incidentally） perceived or seen by us。 Because this is only incidentally an object of sense； it in no way as such affects the senses。 Of the two former kinds； both of which are in their own nature perceptible by sense； the first kind…that of special objects of the several senses…constitute the objects of sense in the strictest sense of the term and it is to them that in the nature of things the structure of each several sense is adapted。
7
The object of sight is the visible； and what is visible is （a） colour and （b） a certain kind of object which can be described in words but which has no single name； what we mean by （b） will be abundantly clear as we proceed。 Whatever is visible is colour and colour is what lies upon what is in its own nature visible； 'in its own nature' here means not that visibility is involved in the definition of what thus underlies colour； but that that substratum contains in itself the cause of visibility。 Every colour has in it the power to set in movement what is actually transparent； that power constitutes its very nature。 That is why it is not visible except with the help of light； it is only in light that the colour of a thing is seen。 Hence our first task is to explain what light is。 Now there clearly is something which is transparent； and by 'transparent' I mean what is visible； and yet not visible in itself； but rather owing its visibility to the colour of something else； of this character are air； water； and many solid bodies。 Neither air nor water is transparent because it is air or water； they are transparent because each of them has contained in it a certain substance which is the same in both and is also found in the eternal body which constitutes the uppermost shell of the physical Cosmos。 Of this substance light is the activity…the activity of what is transparent so far forth as it has in it the determinate power of becoming transparent； where this power is present； there is also the potentiality of the contrary； viz。 darkness。 Light is as it were the proper colour of what is transparent； and exists whenever the potentially transparent is excited to actuality by the influence of fire or something resembling 'the uppermost body'； for fire too contains something which is one and the same with the substance in question。 We have now explained what the transparent is and what light is； light is neither fire nor any kind whatsoever of body nor an efflux from any kind of body （if it were； it would again itself be a kind of body）…it is the presence of fire or something resembling fire in what is transparent。 It is certainly not a body； for two bodies cannot be present in the same place。 The opposite of light is darkness； darkness is the absence from what is transparent of the corresponding positive state above characterized； clearly therefore； light is just the presence of that。 Empedocles （and with him all others who used the same forms of expression） was wrong in speaking of light as 'travelling' or being at a given moment between the earth and its envelope； its movement being unobservable by us； that view is contrary both to the clear evidence of argument and to the observed facts； if the distance traversed were short； the movement might have been unobservable； but where the distance is from extreme East to extreme West； the draught upon our powers of belief is too great。 What is capable of taking on colour is what in itself is colourless； as what can take on sound is what is soundless； what is colourless includes （a） what is transparent and （b） what is invisible or scarcely visible； i。e。 what is 'dark'。 The latter （b） is the same as what is transparent； when it is potentially； not of course when it is actually transparent； it is the same substance which is now darkness； now light。 Not everything that is visible depends upon light for its visibility。 This is only true of the 'proper' colour of things。 Some objects of sight which in light are invisible； in darkness stimulate the sense； that is； things that appear fiery or shining。 This class of objects has no simple common name； but instances of it are fungi； flesh； heads； scales； and eyes of fish。 In none of these is what is seen their own proper' colour。 Why we see these at all is another question。 At present what is obvious is that what is seen in light is always colour。 That is why without the help of light colour remains invisible。 Its being colour at all means precisely its having in it the power to set in movement what is already actually transparent； and； as we have seen； the actuality of what is transparent is just light。 The following experiment makes the necessity of a medium clear。 If what has colour is placed in immediate contact with the eye； it cannot be seen。 Colour sets in movement not the sense organ but what is transparent； e。g。 the air； and that； extending continuously from the object to the organ； sets the latter in movement。 Democritus misrepresents the facts when he expresses the opinion that if the interspace were empty one could distinctly see an ant on the vault of the sky； that is an impossibility。 Seeing is due to an affection or change of what has the perceptive faculty； and it cannot be affected by the seen colour itself； it remains that it must be affected by what comes between。 Hence it is indispensable that there be something in between…if there were nothing； so far from seeing with greater distinctness； we should see nothing at all。 We have now explained the cause why colour cannot be seen otherwise than in light。 Fire on the other hand is seen both in darkness and in light； this double possibility follows necessarily from our theory； for it is just fire that makes what is potentially transparent actually transparent。 The same account holds also of sound and smell； if the object of either of these senses is in immediate contact with the organ no sensation is produced。 In both cases the object sets in movement only what lies between； and this in turn sets the organ in movement： if what sounds or smells is brought into immediate contact with the organ； no sensation will be produced。 The same； in spite of all appearances； applies also to touch and taste； why there is this apparent difference will be clear later。 What comes between in the case of sounds is air； the corresponding medium in the case of smell has no name。 But； corresponding to what is transparent in the case of colour； there is a quality found both in air and water； which serves as a medium for what has smell…I say 'in water' because animals that live in water as well as those that live on land seem to possess the sense of smell； and 'in air' becaus