the six enneads-第115章

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！


egree　perverse。　If　the　potential　holds　the　primacy　among　the　Existents；　its　actualization　becomes　impossible；　it　certainly　cannot　bring　itself　into　actuality：　either　the　actual　exists　previously；　and　so　the　potential　is　not　the　first…principle；　or；　if　the　two　are　to　be　regarded　as　existing　simultaneously；　the　first…principles　must　be　attributed　to　hazard。　Besides；　if　they　are　simultaneous；　why　is　not　actuality　given　the　primacy？　Why　is　the　potential　more　truly　real　than　the　actual？　　　　　Supposing　however　that　the　actual　does　come　later　than　the　potential；　how　must　the　theory　proceed？　Obviously　Matter　does　not　produce　Form：　the　unqualified　does　not　produce　Quality；　nor　does　actuality　take　its　origin　in　the　potential；　for　that　would　mean　that　the　actual　was　inherent　in　the　potential；　which　at　once　becomes　a　dual　thing。　　　　　Furthermore；　God　becomes　a　secondary　to　Matter；　inasmuch　as　even　he　is　regarded　as　a　body　composed　of　Matter　and　Form…　though　how　he　acquires　the　Form　is　not　revealed。　If　however　he　be　admitted　to　exist　apart　from　Matter　in　virtue　of　his　character　as　a　principle　and　a　rational　law　＇logos＇；　God　will　be　bodiless；　the　Creative　Power　bodiless。　If　we　are　told　that　he　is　without　Matter　but　is　composite　in　essence　by　the　fact　of　being　a　body；　this　amounts　to　introducing　another　Matter；　the　Matter　of　God。　　　　　Again；　how　can　Matter　be　a　first…principle；　seeing　that　it　is　body？　Body　must　necessarily　be　a　plurality；　since　all　bodies　are　composite　of　Matter　and　Quality。　If　however　body　in　this　case　is　to　be　understood　in　some　different　way；　then　Matter　is　identified　with　body　only　by　an　equivocation。　　　　　If　the　possession　of　three　dimensions　is　given　as　the　characteristic　of　body；　then　we　are　dealing　simply　with　mathematical　body。　If　resistance　is　added；　we　are　no　longer　considering　a　unity：　besides；　resistance　is　a　quality　or　at　least　derived　from　Quality。　　　　　And　whence　is　this　resistance　supposed　to　come？　Whence　the　three　dimensions？　What　is　the　source　of　their　existence？　Matter　is　not　comprised　in　the　concept　of　the　three…dimensional；　nor　the　three…dimensional　in　the　concept　of　Matter；　if　Matter　partakes　thus　of　extension；　it　can　no　longer　be　a　simplex。　　　　　Again；　whence　does　Matter　derive　its　unifying　power？　It　is　assuredly　not　the　Absolute　Unity；　but　has　only　that　of　participation　in　Unity。　　　　　We　inevitably　conclude　that　Mass　or　Extension　cannot　be　ranked　as　the　first　of　things；　Non…Extension　and　Unity　must　be　prior。　We　must　begin　with　the　One　and　conclude　with　the　Many；　proceed　to　magnitude　from　that　which　is　free　from　magnitude：　a　One　is　necessary　to　the　existence　of　a　Many；　Non…Magnitude　to　that　of　Magnitude。　Magnitude　is　a　unity　not　by　being　Unity…Absolute；　but　by　participation　and　in　an　accidental　mode：　there　must　be　a　primary　and　absolute　preceding　the　accidental；　or　the　accidental　relation　is　left　unexplained。　　　　　The　manner　of　this　relation　demands　investigation。　Had　this　been　undertaken；　the　thinkers　of　this　school　would　probably　have　lighted　upon　that　Unity　which　is　not　accidental　but　essential　and　underived。　　　　　27。　On　other　grounds　also；　it　is　indefensible　not　to　have　reserved　the　high　place　for　the　true　first…principle　of　things　but　to　have　set　up　in　its　stead　the　formless；　passive　and　lifeless；　the　irrational；　dark　and　indeterminate；　and　to　have　made　this　the　source　of　Being。　In　this　theory　God　is　introduced　merely　for　the　sake　of　appearance：　deriving　existence　from　Matter　he　is　a　composite；　a　derivative；　or；　worse；　a　mere　state　of　Matter。　　　　　Another　consideration　is　that；　if　Matter　is　a　substrate；　there　must　be　something　outside　it；　which；　acting　on　it　and　distinct　from　it；　makes　it　the　substrate　of　what　is　poured　into　it。　But　if　God　is　lodged　in　Matter　and　by　being　involved　in　Matter　is　himself　no　more　than　a　substrate；　he　will　no　longer　make　Matter　a　substrate　nor　be　himself　a　substrate　in　conjunction　with　Matter。　For　of　what　will　they　be　substrates；　when　that　which　could　make　them　substrates　is　eliminated？　This　so…called　substrate　turns　out　to　have　swallowed　up　all　that　is；　but　a　substrate　must　be　relative；　and　relative　not　to　its　content　but　to　something　which　acts　upon　it　as　upon　a　datum。　　　　　Again；　the　substrate　comports　a　relation　to　that　which　is　not　substrate；　hence；　to　something　external　to　it：　there　must；　then；　be　something　apart　from　the　substrate。　If　nothing　distinct　and　external　is　considered　necessary；　but　the　substrate　itself　can　become　everything　and　adopt　every　character；　like　the　versatile　dancer　in　the　pantomime；　it　ceases　to　be　a　substrate：　it　is；　essentially；　everything。　The　mime　is　not　a　substrate　of　the　characters　he　puts　on；　these　are　in　fact　the　realisation　of　his　own　personality：　similarly；　if　the　Matter　with　which　this　theory　presents　us　comports　in　its　own　being　all　the　realities；　it　is　no　longer　the　substrate　of　all：　on　the　contrary；　the　other　things　can　have　no　reality　whatever；　if　they　are　no　more　than　states　of　Matter　in　the　sense　that　the　poses　of　the　mime　are　states　through　which　he　passes。　　　　　Then；　those　other　things　not　existing；　Matter　will　not　be　a　substrate；　nor　will　it　have　a　place　among　the　Existents；　it　will　be　Matter　bare；　and　for　that　reason　not　even　Matter；　since　Matter　is　a　relative。　The　relative　is　relative　to　something　else：　it　must；　further；　be　homogeneous　with　that　something　else：　double　is　relative　to　half；　but　not　Substance　to　double。　　　　　How　then　can　an　Existent　be　relative　to　a　Non…existent；　except　accidentally？　But　the　True…Existent；　or　Matter；　is　related　（to　what　emerges　from　it）　as　Existent　to　Non…Existent。　For　if　potentiality　is　that　which　holds　the　promise　of　existence　and　that　promise　does　not　constitute　Reality；　the　potentiality　cannot　be　a　Reality。　In　sum；　these　very　teachers　who　deprecate　the　production　of　Realities　from　Nonrealities；　themselves　produce　Non…reality　from　Reality；　for　to　them　the　universe　as　such　is　not　a　Reality。　　　　　But　is　it　not　a　paradox　that；　while　Matter；　the　Substrate；　is　to　them　an　existence；　bodies　should　not　have　more　claim　to　existence；　the　universe　yet　more；　and　not　merely　a　claim　grounded　on　the　reality　of　one　of　its　parts？　　　　　It　is　no　less　paradoxical　that　the　living　form　should　owe　existence　not　to　its　soul　but　to　its　Matter　only；　the　soul　being　but　an　affection　of　Matter　and　posterior　to　it。　From　what　source　then　did　Matter　receive　ensoulment？　Whence；　in　short；　is　soul's　entity　derived？　How　does　it　occur　that　Matter　sometimes　turns　into　bodies；　while　another　part　of　it　turns　into　Soul？　Even　supposing　that　Form　might　come　to　it　from　elsewhere；　that　accession　of　Quality　to　Matter　would　account　not　for　Soul；　but　simply　for　organized　body　soulless。　If；　on　the　contrary；　there　is　something　which　both　moulds　Matter　and　produces　Soul；　then　prior　to　the　produced　there　must　be　Soul　the　producer。　　　　　28。　Many　as　are　the　objections　to　this　theory；　we　pass　on　for　fear　of　the　ridicule　we　might　incur　by　arguing　against　a　position　itself　so　manifestly　ridiculous。　We　may　be　content　with　pointing　out　that　it　assigns　the　primacy　to　the　Non…existent　and　treats　it　as　the　very　summit　of　Existence：　in　short；　it　places　the　last　thing　first。　The　reason　for　this　procedure　lies　in　the　acceptance　of　sense…perception　as　a　trustworthy　guide　to　first…principles　and　to　all　other　entities。　　　　　This　philosophy　began　by　identifying　the　Real　with　body；　then；　viewing　with　apprehension　the　transmutations　of　bodies；　decided　that　Reality　was　that　which　is　permanent　beneath　the　superficial　changes…　which　is　much　as　if　one　regarded　space　as　having　more　title　to　Reality　than　the　bodies　within　it；　on　the　principle　that　space　does　not　perish　with　them。　They　found　a　permanent　in　space；　but　it　was　a　fault　to　take　mere　permanence　as　in　itself　a　sufficient　definition　of　the　Real；　the　right　method　would　have　been　to　consider　what　properties　must　characterize　Reality；　by　the　presence　of　which　properties　it　has　also　that　of　unfailing　permanence。　Thus　if　a　shadow　had　permanence；　accompanying　an　object　through　every　change；　that　would　not　make　it　more　real　than　the　object　itself。　The　sensible　universe；　as　including　the　Substrate　and　a　multitude　of　attributes；　will　thus　have　more　claim　to　be　Reality　entire　than　has　any　one　of　its　component　entities　（such　as　Matter）：　and　if　the　sensible　were　in　very　truth　the　whole　of　Reality；　Matter；　the　mere　base　and　not　the　total；　could　not　be　that　whole。　　　　　Most　surprising　of　all　is　that；　while　they　make　sense…perception　their　guarantee　of　everything；　they　hold　that　the　Real　cannot　be　grasped　by　sensation；…　for　they　have　no　right　to　assign　to　Matter　even　so　much　as　resistance；　since　resistance　is　a　quality。　If　however　they　profess　to　grasp　Reality　by　Intellect；　is　it　not　a　strange　Intellect　which　ranks　Matter　above　itself；　giving　Reality　to　Matter　and　not　to　itself？　And　as　their　〃Intellect〃　has；　thus；　no　Real…Existence；　how　can　it　be　trustworthy　when　it　speaks　of　things　higher　than　itself；　things　to　which　it　has　no　affinity　whatever？　　　　　But　an　adequate　treatment　of　this　entity　＇Matter＇　and　of　substrates　will　be　found　elsewhere。　　　　　29。　Qualities　must　be　for　this　school　distinct　from　Substrates。　This　in　fact　they　acknowledge　by　counting　them　as　the　second　category。　If　then　they　form　a　distinct　category；　they　must　be　simplex；　that　is　to　say　they　are　not　composite；　that　is　to　say　that　as　qualities；　pure　and　simple；　they　are　devoid　of　Matter：　hence　they　are　bodiless　and　active；　since　Matter　is　their　substrate…　a　relation　of　passivity。　　　　　If　however　they　hold　Qualities　to　be　composite；　that　is　a　strange　classification　which　first　contrasts　simple　and　composite　qualities；　then　proceeds　to　include　them　in　one　genus；　and　finally　includes　one　of　the　two　species　＇simple＇　in　the　other　＇composite＇；　it　is　like　dividing　knowledge　into　two　species；　the　first　comprising　grammatical　knowledge；　the　second　made　up　of　grammatical　and　other　knowledge。　　　　　Again；　if　they　identify　Qualities　with　qualifications　of　Matter；　then　in　the　first　place　even　their　Seminal　Principles　＇Logoi＇　will　be　material　and　will　not　have　to　reside　in　Matter　to　produce　a　composite；　but　prior　to　the　composite　thus　produced　they　will　themselves　be　composed　of　Matter　and　Form：　in　other　words；　they　will　not　be　Forms　or　Principles。　Further；　if　they　maintain　that　the　Seminal　Principles　are　nothing　but　Matter　in　a　certain　state；　they　evidently　identify　Qualities　with　States；　and　should　accordingly　classify　them　in　their　fourth　genus。　If　this　is　a　state　of　some　peculiar　kind；　what　precisely　is　its　differentia？　Clearly　the　state　by　its　association　with　Matter　receives　an　accession　of　Reality：　yet　if　that　means　that　when　divorced　from　Matter　it　is　not　a　Reality；　how　can　State　be　treated　as　a　single　genus　or　species？　Certainly　one　genus　cannot　embrace　the　Existent　and　the　Non…existent。　　　　　And　what　is　this　state　implanted　in　Matter？　It　is　either　real；　or　unreal：　if　real；　absolutely　bodiless：　if　unreal；　it　is　introduced　to　no　purpose；　Matter　is　all　there　is；　Quality　therefore　is　nothing。　The　same　is　true　of　State；　for　that　is　even　more　unreal；　the　alleged　Fourth　Category　more　so。　　　　　Matter　then　is　the　sole　Reality。　But　how　do　we　come　to　know　this？　Certainly　not　from　Matter　itself。　How；　then？　From　Intellect？　But　Intellect　is　merely　a　state　of　Matter；　and　even　the　〃state〃　is　an　empty　qualification