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！
ration is the windpipe； and the organ to which this is related as means to end is the lungs。 The latter is the part of the body by which the temperature of land animals is raised above that of all others。 But what primarily requires the air drawn in by respiration is not only this but the region surrounding the heart。 That is why when animals breathe the air must penetrate inwards。 Voice then is the impact of the inbreathed air against the 'windpipe'； and the agent that produces the impact is the soul resident in these parts of the body。 Not every sound； as we said； made by an animal is voice （even with the tongue we may merely make a sound which is not voice； or without the tongue as in coughing）； what produces the impact must have soul in it and must be accompanied by an act of imagination； for voice is a sound with a meaning； and is not merely the result of any impact of the breath as in coughing； in voice the breath in the windpipe is used as an instrument to knock with against the walls of the windpipe。 This is confirmed by our inability to speak when we are breathing either out or in…we can only do so by holding our breath； we make the movements with the breath so checked。 It is clear also why fish are voiceless； they have no windpipe。 And they have no windpipe because they do not breathe or take in air。 Why they do not is a question belonging to another inquiry。 9
Smell and its object are much less easy to determine than what we have hitherto discussed； the distinguishing characteristic of the object of smell is less obvious than those of sound or colour。 The ground of this is that our power of smell is less discriminating and in general inferior to that of many species of animals； men have a poor sense of smell and our apprehension of its proper objects is inseparably bound up with and so confused by pleasure and pain； which shows that in us the organ is inaccurate。 It is probable that there is a parallel failure in the perception of colour by animals that have hard eyes： probably they discriminate differences of colour only by the presence or absence of what excites fear； and that it is thus that human beings distinguish smells。 It seems that there is an analogy between smell and taste； and that the species of tastes run parallel to those of smells…the only difference being that our sense of taste is more discriminating than our sense of smell； because the former is a modification of touch； which reaches in man the maximum of discriminative accuracy。 While in respect of all the other senses we fall below many species of animals； in respect of touch we far excel all other species in exactness of discrimination。 That is why man is the most intelligent of all animals。 This is confirmed by the fact that it is to differences in the organ of touch and to nothing else that the differences between man and man in respect of natural endowment are due； men whose flesh is hard are ill…endowed by nature； men whose flesh is soft； wellendowed。 As flavours may be divided into （a） sweet； （b） bitter； so with smells。 In some things the flavour and the smell have the same quality； i。e。 both are sweet or both bitter； in others they diverge。 Similarly a smell； like a flavour； may be pungent； astringent； acid； or succulent。 But； as we said； because smells are much less easy to discriminate than flavours； the names of these varieties are applied to smells only metaphorically； for example 'sweet' is extended from the taste to the smell of saffron or honey； 'pungent' to that of thyme； and so on。 In the same sense in which hearing has for its object both the audible and the inaudible； sight both the visible and the invisible； smell has for its object both the odorous and the inodorous。 'Inodorous' may be either （a） what has no smell at all； or （b） what has a small or feeble smell。 The same ambiguity lurks in the word 'tasteless'。 Smelling； like the operation of the senses previously examined； takes place through a medium； i。e。 through air or water…I add water； because water…animals too （both sanguineous and non…sanguineous） seem to smell just as much as land…animals； at any rate some of them make directly for their food from a distance if it has any scent。 That is why the following facts constitute a problem for us。 All animals smell in the same way； but man smells only when he inhales； if he exhales or holds his breath； he ceases to smell； no difference being made whether the odorous object is distant or near； or even placed inside the nose and actually on the wall of the nostril； it is a disability common to all the senses not to perceive what is in immediate contact with the organ of sense； but our failure to apprehend what is odorous without the help of inhalation is peculiar （the fact is obvious on making the experiment）。 Now since bloodless animals do not breathe； they must； it might be argued； have some novel sense not reckoned among the usual five。 Our reply must be that this is impossible； since it is scent that is perceived； a sense that apprehends what is odorous and what has a good or bad odour cannot be anything but smell。 Further； they are observed to be deleteriously effected by the same strong odours as man is； e。g。 bitumen； sulphur； and the like。 These animals must be able to smell without being able to breathe。 The probable explanation is that in man the organ of smell has a certain superiority over that in all other animals just as his eyes have over those of hard…eyed animals。 Man's eyes have in the eyelids a kind of shelter or envelope； which must be shifted or drawn back in order that we may see； while hardeyed animals have nothing of the kind； but at once see whatever presents itself in the transparent medium。 Similarly in certain species of animals the organ of smell is like the eye of hard…eyed animals； uncurtained； while in others which take in air it probably has a curtain over it； which is drawn back in inhalation； owing to the dilating of the veins or pores。 That explains also why such animals cannot smell under water； to smell they must first inhale； and that they cannot do under water。 Smells come from what is dry as flavours from what is moist。 Consequently the organ of smell is potentially dry。
10
What can be tasted is always something that can be touched； and just for that reason it cannot be perceived through an interposed foreign body； for touch means the absence of any intervening body。 Further； the flavoured and tasteable body is suspended in a liquid matter； and this is tangible。 Hence； if we lived in water； we should perceive a sweet object introduced into the water； but the water would not be the medium through which we perceived； our perception would be due to the solution of the sweet substance in what we imbibed； just as if it were mixed with some drink。 There is no parallel here to the perception of colour； which is due neither to any blending of anything with anything； nor to any efflux of anything from anything。 In the case of taste； there is nothing corresponding to the medium in the case of the senses previously discussed； but as the object of sight is colour； so the object of taste is flavour。 But nothing excites a perception of flavour without the help of liquid； what acts upon the sense of taste must be either actually or potentially liquid like what is saline； it must be both （a） itself easily dissolved； and （b） capable of dissolving along with itself the tongue。 Taste apprehends both （a） what has taste and （b） what has no taste； if we mean by （b） what has only a slight or feeble flavour or what tends to destroy the sense of taste。 In this it is exactly parallel to sight； which apprehends both what is visible and what is invisible （for darkness is invisible and yet is discriminated by sight； so is； in a different way； what is over brilliant）； and to hearing； which apprehends both sound and silence； of which the one is audible and the other inaudible； and also over…loud sound。 This corresponds in the case of hearing to over…bright light in the case of sight。 As a faint sound is 'inaudible'； so in a sense is a loud or violent sound。 The word 'invisible' and similar privative terms cover not only （a） what is simply without some power； but also （b） what is adapted by nature to have it but has not it or has it only in a very low degree； as when we say that a species of swallow is 'footless' or that a variety of fruit is 'stoneless'。 So too taste has as its object both what can be tasted and the tasteless…the latter in the sense of what has little flavour or a bad flavour or one destructive of taste。 The difference between what is tasteless and what is not seems to rest ultimately on that between what is drinkable and what is undrinkable both are tasteable； but the latter is bad and tends to destroy taste； while the former is the normal stimulus of taste。 What is drinkable is the common object of both touch and taste。 Since what can be tasted is liquid； the organ for its perception cannot be either （a） actually liquid or （b） incapable of becoming liquid。 Tasting means a being affected by what can be tasted as such； hence the organ of taste must be liquefied； and so to start with must be non…liquid but capable of liquefact