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！
。 The reason is that there is more void。 And this would also account for the fact that a body composed of a number of solid parts equal to； or even smaller than； that of another is sometimes larger in bulk than it。 In short； generally and in every case a body is relatively light when it contains a relatively large amount of void。 This is the way they put it themselves； but their account requires an addition。 Relative lightness must depend not only on an excess of void； but also an a defect of solid： for if the ratio of solid to void exceeds a certain proportion； the relative lightness will disappear。 Thus fire； they say； is the lightest of things just for this reason that it has the most void。 But it would follow that a large mass of gold； as containing more void than a small mass of fire； is lighter than it； unless it also contains many times as much solid。 The addition is therefore necessary。 Of those who deny the existence of a void some； like Anaxagoras and Empedocles； have not tried to analyse the notions of light and heavy at all； and those who； while still denying the existence of a void； have attempted this； have failed to explain why there are bodies which are absolutely heavy and light； or in other words why some move upward and others downward。 The fact； again； that the body of greater bulk is sometimes lighter than smaller bodies is one which they have passed over in silence； and what they have said gives no obvious suggestion for reconciling their views with the observed facts。 But those who attribute the lightness of fire to its containing so much void are necessarily involved in practically the same difficulties。 For though fire be supposed to contain less solid than any other body； as well as more void； yet there will be a certain quantum of fire in which the amount of solid or plenum is in excess of the solids contained in some small quantity of earth。 They may reply that there is an excess of void also。 But the question is； how will they discriminate the absolutely heavy？ Presumably； either by its excess of solid or by its defect of void。 On the former view there could be an amount of earth so small as to contain less solid than a large mass of fire。 And similarly； if the distinction rests on the amount of void； there will be a body； lighter than the absolutely light； which nevertheless moves downward as constantly as the other moves upward。 But that cannot be so； since the absolutely light is always lighter than bodies which have weight and move downward； while； on the other hand； that which is lighter need not be light； because in common speech we distinguish a lighter and a heavier （viz。 water and earth） among bodies endowed with weight。 Again； the suggestion of a certain ratio between the void and the solid in a body is no more equal to solving the problem before us。 The manner of speaking will issue in a similar impossibility。 For any two portions of fire； small or great； will exhibit the same ratio of solid to void； but the upward movement of the greater is quicker than that of the less； just as the downward movement of a mass of gold or lead； or of any other body endowed with weight； is quicker in proportion to its size。 This； however； should not be the case if the ratio is the ground of distinction between heavy things and light。 There is also an absurdity in attributing the upward movement of bodies to a void which does not itself move。 If； however； it is the nature of a void to move upward and of a plenum to move downward； and therefore each causes a like movement in other things； there was no need to raise the question why composite bodies are some light and some heavy； they had only to explain why these two things are themselves light and heavy respectively； and to give； further； the reason why the plenum and the void are not eternally separated。 It is also unreasonable to imagine a place for the void； as if the void were not itself a kind of place。 But if the void is to move； it must have a place out of which and into which the change carries it。 Also what is the cause of its movement？ Not； surely； its voidness： for it is not the void only which is moved； but also the solid。 Similar difficulties are involved in all other methods of distinction； whether they account for the relative lightness and heaviness of bodies by distinctions of size； or proceed on any other principle； so long as they attribute to each the same matter； or even if they recognize more than one matter； so long as that means only a pair of contraries。 If there is a single matter； as with those who compose things of triangles； nothing can be absolutely heavy or light： and if there is one matter and its contrary…the void； for instance； and the plenum…no reason can be given for the relative lightness and heaviness of the bodies intermediate between the absolutely light and heavy when compared either with one another or with these themselves。 The view which bases the distinction upon differences of size is more like a mere fiction than those previously mentioned； but； in that it is able to make distinctions between the four elements； it is in a stronger position for meeting the foregoing difficulties。 Since； however； it imagines that these bodies which differ in size are all made of one substance； it implies； equally with the view that there is but one matter； that there is nothing absolutely light and nothing which moves upward （except as being passed by other things or forced up by them）； and since a multitude of small atoms are heavier than a few large ones； it will follow that much air or fire is heavier than a little water or earth； which is impossible。
3
These； then； are the views which have been advanced by others and the terms in which they state them。 We may begin our own statement by settling a question which to some has been the main difficulty…the question why some bodies move always and naturally upward and others downward； while others again move both upward and downward。 After that we will inquire into light and heavy and of the various phenomena connected with them。 The local movement of each body into its own place must be regarded as similar to what happens in connexion with other forms of generation and change。 There are； in fact； three kinds of movement； affecting respectively the size； the form； and the place of a thing； and in each it is observable that change proceeds from a contrary to a contrary or to something intermediate： it is never the change of any chance subject in any chance direction； nor； similarly； is the relation of the mover to its object fortuitous： the thing altered is different from the thing increased； and precisely the same difference holds between that which produces alteration and that which produces increase。 In the same manner it must be thought that produces local motion and that which is so moved are not fortuitously related。 Now； that which produces upward and downward movement is that which produces weight and lightness； and that which is moved is that which is potentially heavy or light； and the movement of each body to its own place is motion towards its own form。 （It is best to interpret in this sense the common statement of the older writers that 'like moves to like'。 For the words are not in every sense true to fact。 If one were to remove the earth to where the moon now is； the various fragments of earth would each move not towards it but to the place in which it now is。 In general； when a number of similar and undifferentiated bodies are moved with the same motion this result is necessarily produced； viz。 that the place which is the natural goal of the movement of each single part is also that of the whole。 But since the place of a thing is the boundary of that which contains it； and the continent of all things that move upward or downward is the extremity and the centre； and this boundary comes to be； in a sense； the form of that which is contained； it is to its like that a body moves when it moves to its own place。 For the successive members of the scries are like one another： water； I mean； is like air and air like fire； and between intermediates the relation may be converted； though not between them and the extremes； thus air is like water； but water is like earth： for the relation of each outer body to that which is next within it is that of form to matter。） Thus to ask why fire moves upward and earth downward is the same as to ask why the healable； when moved and changed qua healable； attains health and not whiteness； and similar questions might be asked concerning any other subject of aletion。 Of course the subject of increase； when changed qua increasable； attains not health but a superior size。 The same applies in the other cases。 One thing changes in quality； another in quantity： and so in place； a light thing goes upward； a heavy thing downward。 The only difference is that in the last case； viz。 that of the heavy and the light； the bodies are thought to have a spring of change within themselves； while the subjects of healing and increase are thought to be moved purely from without。 Sometimes； however； even they change of themselves； ie。 in response to a slight external movement reach health or increase； as the case may be。 And sinc