the six enneads-第125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！


ng　the　same　object　to　more　categories　than　one：　in　so　far　as　it　is　a　magnitude…　a　magnitude　of　such　and　such　a　size…　it　will　belong　to　Quantity；　in　so　far　as　it　presents　a　particular　shape；　to　Quality。　　　　　It　may　be　urged　that　the　triangle　is　essentially　a　particular　shape。　Then　what　prevents　our　ranking　the　sphere　also　as　a　quality？　　　　　To　proceed　on　these　lines　would　lead　us　to　the　conclusion　that　geometry　is　concerned　not　with　magnitudes　but　with　Quality。　But　this　conclusion　is　untenable；　geometry　is　the　study　of　magnitudes。　The　differences　of　magnitudes　do　not　eliminate　the　existence　of　magnitudes　as　such；　any　more　than　the　differences　of　substances　annihilate　the　substances　themselves。　　　　　Moreover；　every　surface　is　limited；　it　is　impossible　for　any　surface　to　be　infinite　in　extent。　　　　　Again；　when　I　find　Quality　bound　up　with　Substance；　I　regard　it　as　substantial　quality：　I　am　not　less；　but　far　more；　disposed　to　see　in　figures　or　shapes　＇qualitative＇　varieties　of　Quantity。　Besides；　if　we　are　not　to　regard　them　as　varieties　of　magnitude；　to　what　genus　are　we　to　assign　them？　　　　　Suppose；　then；　that　we　allow　differences　of　magnitude；　we　commit　ourselves　to　a　specific　classification　of　the　magnitudes　so　differentiated。　　　　　15。　How　far　is　it　true　that　equality　and　inequality　are　characteristic　of　Quantity？　　　　　Triangles；　it　is　significant；　are　said　to　be　similar　rather　than　equal。　But　we　also　refer　to　magnitudes　as　similar；　and　the　accepted　connotation　of　similarity　does　not　exclude　similarity　or　dissimilarity　in　Quantity。　It　may；　of　course；　be　the　case　that　the　term　〃similarity〃　has　a　different　sense　here　from　that　understood　in　reference　to　Quality。　　　　　Furthermore；　if　we　are　told　that　equality　and　inequality　are　characteristic　of　Quantity；　that　is　not　to　deny　that　similarity　also　may　be　predicated　of　certain　quantities。　If；　on　the　contrary；　similarity　and　dissimilarity　are　to　be　confined　to　Quality；　the　terms　as　applied　to　Quantity　must；　as　we　have　said；　bear　a　different　meaning。　　　　　But　suppose　similarity　to　be　identical　in　both　genera；　Quantity　and　Quality　must　then　be　expected　to　reveal　other　properties　held　in　common。　　　　　May　the　truth　be　this：　that　similarity　is　predicable　of　Quantity　only　in　so　far　as　Quantity　possesses　＇qualitative＇　differences？　But　as　a　general　rule　differences　are　grouped　with　that　of　which　they　are　differences；　especially　when　the　difference　is　a　difference　of　that　thing　alone。　If　in　one　case　the　difference　completes　the　substance　and　not　in　another；　we　inevitably　class　it　with　that　which　it　completes；　and　only　consider　it　as　independent　when　it　is　not　complementary：　when　we　say　〃completes　the　substance；〃　we　refer　not　to　Subtance　as　such　but　to　the　differentiated　substance；　the　particular　object　is　to　be　thought　of　as　receiving　an　accession　which　is　non…substantial。　　　　　We　must　not　however　fad　to　observe　that　we　predicate　equality　of　triangles；　rectangles；　and　figures　generally；　whether　plane　or　solid：　this　may　be　given　as　a　ground　for　regarding　equality　and　inequality　as　characteristic　of　Quantity。　　　　　It　remains　to　enquire　whether　similarity　and　dissimilarity　are　characteristic　of　Quality。　　　　　We　have　spoken　of　Quality　as　combining　with　other　entities；　Matter　and　Quantity；　to　form　the　complete　Sensible　Substance；　this　Substance；　so　called；　may　be　supposed　to　constitute　the　manifold　world　of　Sense；　which　is　not　so　much　an　essence　as　a　quale。　Thus；　for　the　essence　of　fire　we　must　look　to　the　Reason…Principle；　what　produces　the　visible　aspect　is；　properly　speaking；　a　quale。　　　　　Man's　essence　will　lie　in　his　Reason…Principle；　that　which　is　perfected　in　the　corporeal　nature　is　a　mere　image　of　the　Reason…Principle　a　quale　rather　than　an　essence。　　　　　Consider：　the　visible　Socrates　is　a　man；　yet　we　give　the　name　of　Socrates　to　that　likeness　of　him　in　a　portrait；　which　consists　of　mere　colours；　mere　pigments：　similarly；　it　is　a　Reason…Principle　which　constitutes　Socrates；　but　we　apply　the　name　Socrates　to　the　Socrates　we　see：　in　truth；　however；　the　colours　and　shapes　which　make　up　the　visible　Socrates　are　but　reproductions　of　those　in　the　Reason…Principle；　while　this　Reason…Principle　itself　bears　a　corresponding　relation　to　the　truest　Reason…Principle　of　Man。　But　we　need　not　elaborate　this　point。　　　　　16。　When　each　of　the　entities　bound　up　with　the　pseudo…substance　is　taken　apart　from　the　rest；　the　name　of　Quality　is　given　to　that　one　among　them；　by　which　without　pointing　to　essence　or　quantity　or　motion　we　signify　the　distinctive　mark；　the　type　or　aspect　of　a　thing…　for　example；　the　beauty　or　ugliness　of　a　body。　This　beauty…　need　we　say？…　is　identical　in　name　only　with　Intellectual　Beauty：　it　follows　that　the　term　〃Quality〃　as　applied　to　the　Sensible　and　the　Intellectual　is　necessarily　equivocal；　even　blackness　and　whiteness　are　different　in　the　two　spheres。　　　　　But　the　beauty　in　the　germ；　in　the　particular　Reason…Principle…　is　this　the　same　as　the　manifested　beauty；　or　do　they　coincide　only　in　name？　Are　we　to　assign　this　beauty…　and　the　same　question　applies　to　deformity　in　the　soul…　to　the　Intellectual　order；　or　to　the　Sensible？　That　beauty　is　different　in　the　two　spheres　is　by　now　clear。　If　it　be　embraced　in　Sensible　Quality；　then　virtue　must　also　be　classed　among　the　qualities　of　the　lower。　But　merely　some　virtues　will　take　rank　as　Sensible；　others　as　Intellectual　qualities。　　　　　It　may　even　be　doubted　whether　the　arts；　as　Reason…Principles；　can　fairly　be　among　Sensible　qualities；　Reason…Principles；　it　is　true；　may　reside　in　Matter；　but　〃matter〃　for　them　means　Soul。　On　the　other　hand；　their　being　found　in　company　with　Matter　commits　them　in　some　degree　to　the　lower　sphere。　Take　the　case　of　lyrical　music：　it　is　performed　upon　strings；　melody；　which　may　be　termed　a　part　of　the　art；　is　sensuous　sound…　though；　perhaps；　we　should　speak　here　not　of　parts　but　of　manifestations　＇Acts＇：　yet；　called　manifestations；　they　are　nonetheless　sensuous。　The　beauty　inherent　in　body　is　similarly　bodiless；　but　we　have　assigned　it　to　the　order　of　things　bound　up　with　body　and　subordinate　to　it。　　　　　Geometry　and　arithmetic　are；　we　shall　maintain；　of　a　twofold　character；　in　their　earthly　types　they　rank　with　Sensible　Quality；　but　in　so　far　as　they　are　functions　of　pure　Soul；　they　necessarily　belong　to　that　other　world　in　close　proximity　to　the　Intellectual。　This；　too；　is　in　Plato's　view　the　case　with　music　and　astronomy。　　　　　The　arts　concerned　with　material　objects　and　making　use　of　perceptible　instruments　and　sense…perception　must　be　classed　with　Sensible　Quality；　even　though　they　are　dispositions　of　the　Soul；　attendant　upon　its　apostasy。　　　　　There　is　also　every　reason　for　consigning　to　this　category　the　practical　virtues　whose　function　is　directed　to　a　social　end：　these　do　not　isolate　Soul　by　inclining　it　towards　the　higher；　their　manifestation　makes　for　beauty　in　this　world；　a　beauty　regarded　not　as　necessary　but　as　desirable。　　　　　On　this　principle；　the　beauty　in　the　germ；　and　still　more　the　blackness　and　whiteness　in　it；　will　be　included　among　Sensible　Qualities。　　　　　Are　we；　then；　to　rank　the　individual　soul；　as　containing　these　Reason…Principles；　with　Sensible　Substance？　But　we　do　not　even　identify　the　Principles　with　body；　we　merely　include　them　in　Sensible　Quality　on　the　ground　that　they　are　connected　with　body　and　are　activities　of　body。　The　constituents　of　Sensible　Substance　have　already　been　specified；　we　have　no　intention　whatever　of　adding　to　them　Substance　bodiless。　　　　　As　for　Qualities；　we　hold　that　they　are　invariably　bodiless；　being　affections　arising　within　Soul；　but；　like　the　Reason…Principles　of　the　individual　soul；　they　are　associated　with　Soul　in　its　apostasy；　and　are　accordingly　counted　among　the　things　of　the　lower　realm：　such　affections；　torn　between　two　worlds　by　their　objects　and　their　abode；　we　have　assigned　to　Quality；　which　is　indeed　not　bodily　but　manifested　in　body。　　　　　But　we　refrain　from　assigning　Soul　to　Sensible　Substance；　on　the　ground　that　we　have　already　referred　to　Quality　＇which　is　Sensible＇　those　affections　of　Soul　which　are　related　to　body。　On　the　contrary；　Soul；　conceived　apart　from　affection　and　Reason…Principle；　we　have　restored　to　its　origin；　leaving　in　the　lower　realm　no　substance　which　is　in　any　sense　Intellectual。　　　　　17。　This　procedure；　if　approved；　will　entail　a　distinction　between　psychic　and　bodily　qualities；　the　latter　belonging　specifically　to　body。　　　　　If　we　decide　to　refer　all　souls　to　the　higher；　we　are　still　at　liberty　to　perform　for　Sensible　qualities　a　division　founded　upon　the　senses　themselves…　the　eyes；　the　ears；　touch；　taste；　smell；　and　if　we　are　to　look　for　further　differences；　colours　may　be　subdivided　according　to　varieties　of　vision；　sounds　according　to　varieties　of　hearing；　and　so　with　the　other　senses：　sounds　may　also　be　classified　qualitatively　as　sweet；　harsh；　soft。　　　　　Here　a　difficulty　may　be　raised：　we　divide　the　varieties　of　Substance　and　their　functions　and　activities；　fair　or　foul　or　indeed　of　any　kind　whatsoever；　on　the　basis　of　Quality；　Quantity　rarely；　if　ever；　entering　into　the　differences　which　produce　species；　Quantity；　again；　we　divide　in　accordance　with　qualities　of　its　own：　how　then　are　we　to　divide　Quality　itself　into　species？　what　differences　are　we　to　employ；　and　from　what　genus　shall　we　take　them？　To　take　them　from　Quality　itself　would　be　no　less　absurd　than　setting　up　substances　as　differences　of　substances。　　　　　How；　then；　are　we　to　distinguish　black　from　white？　how　differentiate　colours　in　general　from　tastes　and　tangible　qualities？　By　the　variety　of　sense…organs？　Then　there　will　be　no　difference　in　the　objects　themselves。　　　　　But；　waiving　this　objection；　how　deal　with　qualities　perceived　by　the　same　sense…organ？　We　may　be　told　that　some　colours　integrate；　others　disintegrate　the　vision；　that　some　tastes　integrate；　others　disintegrate　the　tongue：　we　reply　that；　first；　it　is　the　actual　experiences　＇of　colour　and　taste；　and　not　the　sense…organs＇　that　we　are　discussing　and　it　is　to　these　that　the　notions　of　integration　and　disintegration　must　be　applied；　secondly；　a　means　of　differentiating　these　experiences　has　not　been　offered。　　　　　It　may　be　suggested　that　we　divide　them　by　their　powers；　and　this　suggestion　is　so　far　reasonable　that　we　may　well　agree　to　divide　the　non…sensuous　qualities；　the　sciences　for　example；　on　this　basis；　but　we　see　no　reason　for　resorting　to　their　effects　for　the　division　of　qualities　sensuous。　Even　if　we　divide　the　sciences　by　their　powers；　founding　our　division　of　their　processes　upon　the　faculties　of　the　mind；　we　can　only　grasp　their　differences　in　a　rational　manner　if　we　look　not　only　to　their　subject…matter　but　also　to　their　Reason…Principles。　　　　　But；　granted　that　we　may　divide　the　arts　by　their　Reason…Principles　and　theorems；　this　method　will　hardly　apply　to　embodied　qualities。　Even　in　the　arts　themselves　an　explanation　would　be　required　for　the　differences　between　the　Reason…Principles　themselves。　Besides；　we　have　no　difficulty　in　seeing　that　white　differs　from　black；　to　account　for　this　difference　is　the　purpose　of　our　enquiry。　　　　　18。　These　problems　at　any　rate　all　serve　to　show　that；　while　in　general　it　is　necessary　to　look　for　differences　by　which　to　separate　things　from　each　other；　to　hunt　for　differences　of　the　dif