|
Notes
Note 1, p. 131. The sentient organs, however, are constituted, &c.] The senses were formed, according to that age, from the elements—as the hearing from air, and the eye, which alone was supposed to have a special organ, from the purest part of the fluid secreted by the brain; and vision is the result, according to Aristotle, of refraction. Thus, Democritus[1] was held to be right in saying that the eye is water but to be wrong in supposing vision to be caused by reflection, (τὸ ὁρᾶν εἶναι τὴν ἔμφασιν) as vision is, not in the eye but, in the percipient; for "vision is refraction" (ἀνάκλασις γὰρ τὸ πάθος). Aristotle shews that, according to the admitted doctrines, these two elements only constitute the sentient organs of all animals which are perfect; and adds, as if to guard against a possible objection, that the mole has eyes although they may not be very apparent. It is then argued that, unless there is some kind of body or mode of impression different from all with which we are acquainted, no sense can be wanting; and Cuvier[2] adopted a similar argument to prove that no animal, unknown to Zoology, remains to be discovered.
Note 2, p. 132. And this we are able to do, &c.] This passage is elliptical and obscure; but, as "the relative is too closely connected with the example something sweet to admit of being separated," it may imply that the sight may, by colour and refraction, determine the quality of a particular fluid. But, as no sense can judge, excepting indirectly, of compound qualities, the perception of such is accidental, a kind of guess, that is, just as it would be in the case of a fair individual, in the example of Cleon's son.
Note 3, p. 133. The senses, however, do perceive casually, &c.] This passage remains, according to its wording, unintelligible, notwithstanding the attention bestowed upon it by commentators, because of the difficulty of attaching any sense to the assumption, that the senses can become as one. The comment "si unum et idem uno et eodem tempore a diversis sensibus percipitur, ni sensus in unum coalescunt," assumes but does not shew that the senses can so coalesce, and then judge of impressions made upon them individually. And thus here again is required a central organ, the common origin of the perceptive power of the senses, to which all impressions are to be referred and by which they are to be compared; and such an organ is the brain. But still, from the moment that we judge of more than a simple impression or a single idea, there is liability to error, as was observed and exemplified in the case of a fluid, which, from being bitter and yellow, is at once assumed to be bile because those are the known qualities of that fluid. Many of our errors arise, no doubt, in like manner, from our not sufficiently scrutinising the impressions derived from external objects.