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！
is； as we saw； an activity of what is imperfect； activity in the unqualified sense； i。e。 that of what has been perfected； is different from movement。 To perceive then is like bare asserting or knowing； but when the object is pleasant or painful； the soul makes a quasi…affirmation or negation； and pursues or avoids the object。 To feel pleasure or pain is to act with the sensitive mean towards what is good or bad as such。 Both avoidance and appetite when actual are identical with this： the faculty of appetite and avoidance are not different； either from one another or from the faculty of sense…perception； but their being is different。 To the thinking soul images serve as if they were contents of perception （and when it asserts or denies them to be good or bad it avoids or pursues them）。 That is why the soul never thinks without an image。 The process is like that in which the air modifies the pupil in this or that way and the pupil transmits the modification to some third thing （and similarly in hearing）； while the ultimate point of arrival is one； a single mean； with different manners of being。 With what part of itself the soul discriminates sweet from hot I have explained before and must now describe again as follows： That with which it does so is a sort of unity； but in the way just mentioned； i。e。 as a connecting term。 And the two faculties it connects； being one by analogy and numerically； are each to each as the qualities discerned are to one another （for what difference does it make whether we raise the problem of discrimination between disparates or between contraries； e。g。 white and black？）。 Let then C be to D as is to B： it follows alternando that C： A：： D： B。 If then C and D belong to one subject； the case will be the same with them as with and B； and B form a single identity with different modes of being； so too will the former pair。 The same reasoning holds if be sweet and B white。 The faculty of thinking then thinks the forms in the images； and as in the former case what is to be pursued or avoided is marked out for it； so where there is no sensation and it is engaged upon the images it is moved to pursuit or avoidance。 E。g。。 perceiving by sense that the beacon is fire； it recognizes in virtue of the general faculty of sense that it signifies an enemy； because it sees it moving； but sometimes by means of the images or thoughts which are within the soul； just as if it were seeing； it calculates and deliberates what is to come by reference to what is present； and when it makes a pronouncement； as in the case of sensation it pronounces the object to be pleasant or painful； in this case it avoids or persues and so generally in cases of action。 That too which involves no action； i。e。 that which is true or false； is in the same province with what is good or bad： yet they differ in this； that the one set imply and the other do not a reference to a particular person。 The so…called abstract objects the mind thinks just as； if one had thought of the snubnosed not as snub…nosed but as hollow； one would have thought of an actuality without the flesh in which it is embodied： it is thus that the mind when it is thinking the objects of Mathematics thinks as separate elements which do not exist separate。 In every case the mind which is actively thinking is the objects which it thinks。 Whether it is possible for it while not existing separate from spatial conditions to think anything that is separate； or not； we must consider later。
8
Let us now summarize our results about soul； and repeat that the soul is in a way all existing things； for existing things are either sensible or thinkable； and knowledge is in a way what is knowable； and sensation is in a way what is sensible： in what way we must inquire。 Knowledge and sensation are divided to correspond with the realities； potential knowledge and sensation answering to potentialities； actual knowledge and sensation to actualities。 Within the soul the faculties of knowledge and sensation are potentially these objects； the one what is knowable； the other what is sensible。 They must be either the things themselves or their forms。 The former alternative is of course impossible： it is not the stone which is present in the soul but its form。 It follows that the soul is analogous to the hand； for as the hand is a tool of tools； so the mind is the form of forms and sense the form of sensible things。 Since according to common agreement there is nothing outside and separate in existence from sensible spatial magnitudes； the objects of thought are in the sensible forms； viz。 both the abstract objects and all the states and affections of sensible things。 Hence （1） no one can learn or understand anything in the absence of sense； and （when the mind is actively aware of anything it is necessarily aware of it along with an image； for images are like sensuous contents except in that they contain no matter。 Imagination is different from assertion and denial； for what is true or false involves a synthesis of concepts。 In what will the primary concepts differ from images？ Must we not say that neither these nor even our other concepts are images； though they necessarily involve them？
9
The soul of animals is characterized by two faculties； （a） the faculty of discrimination which is the work of thought and sense； and （b） the faculty of originating local movement。 Sense and mind we have now sufficiently examined。 Let us next consider what it is in the soul which originates movement。 Is it a single part of the soul separate either spatially or in definition？ Or is it the soul as a whole？ If it is a part； is that part different from those usually distinguished or already mentioned by us； or is it one of them？ The problem at once presents itself； in what sense we are to speak of parts of the soul； or how many we should distinguish。 For in a sense there is an infinity of parts： it is not enough to distinguish； with some thinkers； the calculative； the passionate； and the desiderative； or with others the rational and the irrational； for if we take the dividing lines followed by these thinkers we shall find parts far more distinctly separated from one another than these； namely those we have just mentioned： （1） the nutritive； which belongs both to plants and to all animals； and （2） the sensitive； which cannot easily be classed as either irrational or rational； further （3） the imaginative； which is； in its being； different from all； while it is very hard to say with which of the others it is the same or not the same； supposing we determine to posit separate parts in the soul； and lastly （4） the appetitive； which would seem to be distinct both in definition and in power from all hitherto enumerated。 It is absurd to break up the last…mentioned faculty： as these thinkers do； for wish is found in the calculative part and desire and passion in the irrational； and if the soul is tripartite appetite will be found in all three parts。 Turning our attention to the present object of discussion； let us ask what that is which originates local movement of the animal。 The movement of growth and decay； being found in all living things； must be attributed to the faculty of reproduction and nutrition； which is common to all： inspiration and expiration； sleep and waking； we must consider later： these too present much difficulty： at present we must consider local movement； asking what it is that originates forward movement in the animal。 That it is not the nutritive faculty is obvious； for this kind of movement is always for an end and is accompanied either by imagination or by appetite； for no animal moves except by compulsion unless it has an impulse towards or away from an object。 Further； if it were the nutritive faculty； even plants would have been capable of originating such movement and would have possessed the organs necessary to carry it out。 Similarly it cannot be the sensitive faculty either； for there are many animals which have sensibility but remain fast and immovable throughout their lives。 If then Nature never makes anything without a purpose and never leaves out what is necessary （except in the case of mutilated or imperfect growths； and that here we have neither mutilation nor imperfection may be argued from the facts that such animals （a） can reproduce their species and （b） rise to completeness of nature and decay to an end）； it follows that； had they been capable of originating forward movement； they would have possessed the organs necessary for that purpose。 Further； neither can the calculative faculty or what is called 'mind' be the cause of such movement； for mind as speculative never thinks what is practicable； it never says anything about an object to be avoided or pursued； while this movement is always in something which is avoiding or pursuing an object。 No； not even when it is aware of such an object does it at once enjoin pursuit or avoidance of it； e。g。 the mind often thinks of something terrifying or pleasant without enjoining the emotion of fear。 It is the heart that is moved （or in the case of a pleasant object some other part）。 Further； even when the mind does command and thought bids us pursue or avoid