Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	cold_a	hot_a	moist_a	5,424	5	10.2024	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51660	Malebranch's Search after the truth, or, A treatise of the nature of the humane mind. Vol. II and of its management, for avoiding error in the sciences : to which is added, the authors defence against the accusations of Monsieur de la Ville : also, the life of Father Malebranch, of the oratory of Paris, with an account of his works, and several particulars of his controversie with Monsieur Arnaud Dr. of Sorbonne, and Monsieur Regis, professor in philosophy at Paris, written by Monsieur Le Vasseur, lately come over from Paris / done out of French from the last edition.; Recherche de la vérité. English	Malebranche, Nicolas, 1638-1715.; Sault, Richard, d. 1702.	1695 (1695)	Wing M316; ESTC R39697	381,206	555

Elements not being clearly known it is impossible to discover the Nature of the Bodies which are composed of them This Philosopher says true that there are four Elements Fire Air Water and Earth But he does not clearly know the Nature of them He gives no distinct Idea of them Nay he will not have his Elements to be composed of the Fire Air Water and Earth that we see for in short if it were so we should at least have some Knowledge of them by our Senses It is true in many Places of his Works he endeavours to explain them by the Qualities of Heat and Cold Humidity and Driness Weight and Lightness But this manner of Explication is so impertinent and ridiculous that I cannot conceive how so many learned Men should be satisfied with it 'T is what I am going to prove Aristotle in his Book of the Heavens pretends that the Earth is the Center of the World and that all Bodies which he pleases to call simple because he supposes them to move by their own Nature must be moved by simple Motions He affirms that besides the Circular Motion which he maintains to be simple and by which he proves that the Heavens he supposes to move Circularly are a simple Body that there is only two which are simple The one descending or from the Circumference to the Center the other ascending or from the Center to the Circumference That these simple Motions agree with simple Bodies consequently that the Earth and Fire are simple Bodies one of which is absolutely heavy and the other absolutely light But because Heaviness and Lightness may meet in one Body either absolutely or in part he concludes that there are also two Elements or simple Bodies one of which is heavy in part and the other light in part viz. Water and Air. This is the Method he takes to prove that there are four Elements and no more It is evident to such as examine Mens Opinions by their own Reason that all these Propositions are false or at least they can never pass for clear and indisputable Principles of which we have very clear and distinct Idea's and which may serve for the Foundations of Physicks It is certain that there is nothing more absurd than an Essay to establish the Number of Elements by Imaginary Qualities of Weight and Lightness In saying without any Proof that there are some Bodies which are heavy others light through a Principle in their own Nature For if we may speak without proving what we say we may affirm that all Bodies are naturally heavy and that all endeavour to approach to the Center of the World as the Place of their Rest And we may on the contrary maintain that all Bodies are Naturally light and have a Tendency to the Heavens as the Place of their greatest Perfection For if we object to him who says all Bodies are heavy that Air and Fire are light he can only answer that Fire and Air are not light but only less weighty than Earth and Water and that is the Reason they seem light It is so with these Elements as if a Piece of Wood which seems light in Water not because it is light of it self since it falls down when it is in the Air but because the Water which is more heavy makes it ascend and bears it up If on the contrary we should object to one who would maintain that all Bodies are Naturally light that Earth and Water are heavy he would likwise answer that these Bodies seem heavy because they are not so light as others which surround them That Wood for instance seems heavy in the Air not because it is heavy since it swims when it is in the Water but because it is not so light as Air. It is therefore ridiculous to suppose these Principles indisputable that Bodies are heavy or light in their own Nature On the contrary 't is plain that all Bodies have not the Power of Motion in themselves and that 't is indifferent to them whether they are moved upward or downward East or West North or South or any other Way we can conceive But if according to Aristotle there are four Elements such as he wishes them to be Two Naturally heavy and two Naturally light viz. Fire Air Earth and Water What Consequence can we draw from thence to discover the Knowledge of the Universe These Four Elements are not such Fire Air Water and Earth as we see they are quite different we know them not by our Senses and still less by Reason because we have no distinct Idea of them I mean we know all Natural Bodies are composed of them since Aristotle has said it But the Nature of these compounded Bodies is unknown to us and we cannot discover them but by knowing the Four Elements or simple Bodies which compose them for we know the compound only by the simple Fire Aristotle says is Naturally light the ascending Motion is simple Therefore Fire is a simple Body since Motion must be proportioned to what it moves Natural Bodies are compounded of simple Bodies Therefore there is Fire in all Natural Bodies But a Fire which is not like to that we see for Fire is often only in Power in Bodies which are compounded of it What is it these Periparetick Discourses teach us That there is Fire in all Bodies either Actual or Potential that all Bodies are composed of something which we do not see and whose Nature we are unacquainted with We see then that here is very much advanced But if Aristotle does not discover to us the Nature of Fire and the other Elements of which all Bodies are composed probably we may imagine he has discovered at least the chief Qualities and Properties of them We shall further examine what he says thereof He declares to us there are four principal Qualities which belong to the Sense of feeling l. 2. c. 2 3. de gen corrupu Heat Cold Moist and dry of which all others are composed In this manner he distributes these first Qualities to the Four Elements To the Fire he gives Heat and Dryness to the Air Heat and Moistness to the Water Coldness and Humidity and to the Earth Coldness and Dryness Chap. 2. He affirms Heat and Cold to be active Qualities and Dryness and Humidity to be passive ones He thus defines Heat That what collects things of the same kind Cold which assembles all things either of the same or of a different kind Moisture that which is not easily contained in its own Bounds but in Foreign Limits and Dryness that which is easily contained in its own Bounds and not easily in the Limits of the Bodies that are about it Thus according to Aristotle Fire is a hot and dry Element 'T is therefore an Element which collects things of the same Nature which is easily contained within its own Limits and difficultly in the Limits of Forreign Bodies The Air is an hot and moist Element and therefore assembles

things of the same kind and is not easily contained in its own Limits but in that of others Water is a cold and moist Element which gathers things together both of the same and of a different Nature which is hot easily contained within its own Bounds but in that of others And in fine the Earth cold and dry and therefore collects things of the same and of a different Nature which is not easily contained in its own Bounds and very difficultly in that of others Here the Elements are explained according to the Sentiment of Aristotle or according to the Definitions he has given of their chief Qualities and because if we will believe him the Elements are simple Bodies whereof all others are compounded the Knowledge of these Element and their Qualities must be most clear and distinct since all Physicks or the Knowledge of Sensible Bodies which are composed of them ought to be deduced from thence Let us see then what is defective in these Principles First Aristotle joyns no distinct Idea to the Word Quality We know not whether by Quality he means a real Being distinct from Matter or only the Modification of Matter It seems sometimes as if he meant it in one Sense and sometimes in another It is true in the Eighth Chapter of Categories he defines Quality to be that which causes a thing to have such or such a Name but that will not satisfie our Demands Secondly the Definitions he gives of his four first Qualities Heat Cold Moist and Dry are all false or useless This is his Definition of Heat Heat is that which assembles things of a like Nature First we do not see that this Definition perfectly explains the Nature of Heat although it should be true that Heat collects all things of the same Nature But secondly it is false for Heat does not collect all things of the same Nature Heat does not assemble the Parts of Water it rather dissipates them into a Vapour Nor does it assemble the Particles of Wine or those of all other Liquors or fluid Bodies whatever Nor even those of Quicksilver On the contrary it resolves and separates all solid Bodies and even Fluids although of a different Nature And if there are any whose Parts Fire cannot dissipate 't is not because they are of the same Nature but because some are too gross and too solid to be raised by the Motion of the Parts of Fire In the third place Heat indeed can neither assemble nor dissipate the Parts of any Body whether Homogeneous or Heterogeneous For to assemble to separate or dissipate the Parts of any Body it must move them Now Heat can move nothing or at least 't is not evident that Heat can move Bodies For although we consider Heat with all the Attention possible we can only discover that it may communicate to Bodies a Motion which it has not in it self Yet we see that Fire moves and separates the Parts of Bodies that are exposed to it It is true but it may be it is not from its Heat for even it is not evident that it has any at all 'T is rather by the Action of its Parts which are visibly in a continual Motion It is plain that the Parts of Fire which strike against any Body must communicate a Part of their Motion to it whether there is Heat in Fire or not If the Parts of this Body are but a little solid and gross the Fire cannot move them and make them slip one upon another In short if they are a Mixture of subtle and gross ones the Fire can only dissipate those that it can push strong enough to separate intirely from the rest Thus Fire can only separate them and if it assembles them 't is merely by Accident But Aristotle pretends quite the contrary Separation says he which some attribute to Fire is only a resembling of things of the same kind De gen corr l. 2. c. 2. for 't is only by Accident that Fire dissipates things of a different kind If Aristotle had at first distinguished the Sentiment of Heat from the Motion of the Particles whereof the Bodies we call Heat are composed and had afterwards defined Heat taken for the Motion of the Parts by saying Heat is that which agitates and separates the invisible Parts whereof visible Bodies are composed he would have given a tollerable Definition of Heat Nevertheless it would not perfectly have contented us because it would not precisely have discovered to us the Nature of the Motion of hot Bodies Aristotle defines Coldness to be that which assembles Bodies of the same or of a different Nature This Definition is good for nothing For 't is false that Cold assembles Bodies To assemble them it must move them but if we consult Reason 't is evident Cold can move nothing In Effect by Cold he means either what we feel when we are cold or that which causes the Sensation of Cold. Now it is plain that the Sensation of Cold can move nothing since it can push nothing What it is that causes Sensation we cannot doubt when we examine things by our Reason for 't is only Rest or a Cessation from Motion So Cold in Bodies being only a Cessation from this Sort of Motion which accompanies Heat it is evident that if Heat separates yet Cold does not Thus Cold assembles neither things that are of a like or different Nature for what can push nothing can assemble nothing In a Word as it does nothing it collects nothing Aristotle judging of things by the Senses imagines Cold is also positive as well as Heat because the Sensations of Heat and Cold are both real and positive And he also thinks that these two Qualities are active And indeed if we follow the Impression of our Senses we have Reason to believe that Cold is a very active Quality since cold Water congeals reassembles and in a Moment hardens melted Gold or Lead after a little is poured upon them although the Heat of these Metals is great enough to separate the Parts of any Body they touch It is evident by what we have said of the Errors of the Senses in the first Book that if we rely only upon the Senses to judge of the Qualities of Sensible Bodies it is impossible to discover any certain and undoubted Truth which can serve as a Principle to assist us in the Knowledge of Nature For by this Method only we cannot discover what things are hot and what cold For of many Persons who should touch Water that is luke-warm some of them would think it hot and others cold Those that are of a hot Constitution would think it cold and those that are of a cold would think it hot And if we supposed Fish capable of Sensation 't is very probable they would think it hot when all Men think it cold It is the same with the Air it seems hot or cold according to the different Dispositions of the Bodies that are exposed

to it Aristotle pretends 't is hot but I believe those that dwell towards the North are of another Mind since many learned Men whose Climate is not colder than that of Greece have maintained it to be cold But this Question which has always been considerable in the Schools has never been sufficiently resolved to affix any distinct Idea to the Word Heat The Definitions Aristotle gives of the Words Heat and Cold can fix no Idea to them The Air for instance and even Water though never so hot and scalding reassembles the Parts of melted Lead with those of any other Metal whatever Air collects all Fatness in Gums and other solid Bodies And one must be a Peripatetick indeed to think of exposing Mastich to the Air to separate the Ashes from the Pitch or any other compounded Bodies to dissolve them again The Air then is not hot according to the Definition Aristotle gives of Heat Air separates Liquors from Bodies which are imbibed in it hardens Dirt and dries Linnen that is extended in it although Aristotle makes it moist The Air therefore is hot and drying according to this same Definition We cannot then determine the Air to be hot or cold by this Definition We may affirm it is hot in respect to Dirt since it separates the Water from the Earth that is mixed with it But must we try all the divers Effects of Air upon all Bodies to know whether or no there is Heat in the Air we breath If so we can never know any thing of it the shortest Way therefore is not to Philosophize at all upon the Air we breath in But upon a certain Pure and Elementary Air which is not to be found here below and positively affirm with Aristotle that 't is hot without giving any Proof of it or even without knowing distinctly what we mean by this Air or by this Heat For this Way we shall give Principles that will not easily be overthrown not because of their Evidence and Solidity but because they are obscure like Phantoms which cannot be hurt because they have no Substances I shall not here stay upon the Definitions that Aristotle gives of Moisture and Dryness because it is plain enough that he has not explained the Nature of them For according to these Definitions Fire is not dry since it is not easily contained within its own Bounds and Ice is not moist since it is contained within its own Bounds and is not easily accommodated to the Limits of other Bodies It is true Ice is not moist if by moist he means fluid But if we understand it so we may say Flame is very hot as well as melted Gold or Lead It is likewise true that Ice is not moist if by moist we mean that which easily sticks to things that touch it but in this Sense Pitch Fat and Oyl are much more humid than Water since they stick more strongly than Water In the same Sense Quicksilver is moist for it sticks to Metals and even Water is not perfectly moist for it cleaves not to the Generality of Metals We must not then recur to the Testimony of the Senses to defend the Opinions of Aristotle But let us no further Examine the marvelous Definitions that this Philosopher has given us of the four Elementary Qualities and let us suppose also that all whatever the Senses tell us of these Qualities is indisputable Let us further excite our Faith and believe that all these Definitions are most just Let us only see if it be true that all Qualities of Sensible Bodies are compounded of these Elementary Qualities Aristotle pretends it and he ought so to do since he looks upon these four first Qualities as the Principles of those things he would explain in his Books of Physicks He teaches us then that Colours are engendered of the Mixture of die four Elementary Qualities that white is produced when Humidity surmounts Heat as when Old Men turn Grey Black when Humidity is overcome by Dryness as in the Walls of Cisterns and all other Colours by the like Mixtures that Tasts and Smells are also produced by a different Mixture of dry and moist caused by Heat and Cold that even Lightness and Heaviness depend upon it In a Word according to Aristotle it is necessary that all Sensible Qualities should be produced by the two Active Qualities of Heat and Cold and be compounded of the two Passive moist and dry that there may be some probable Connection between his Principles and the Consequences he draws from them However it is yet more difficult to perswade our selves of all these things than of all those that we have hitherto related of Aristotle We shall have some Trouble to believe that the Earth and other Elements would not be coloured or visible if they were in their Natural Purity and without any Mixture of Elementary Qualities although the learned Commentators of this Philosopher assures us of it We comprehend not what Aristotle means when he affirms the Whiteness of the Hair to be produced by Humidity because the Humidity of Old Men is stronger than their Heat although to endeavour to clear him of the Thought we put the Definition in the Place of the thing defined For it seems to be an incomprehensible Piece of Nonsence to say the Hairs of Old Men turn White because that which is not easily contained in its own Limits but in the Limits of other Bodies surmounts what assembles things of the same Nature Nor have we less Difficulty to believe that Taste is well explained when he says it consists in the Mixture of Dryness Humidity and Heat chiefly if we put instead of these Words the Definitions this Philosopher has given of them as it would be useful to do if they were good And it may be also that we could not forbear laughing instead of the Definitions of Hunger and Thirst that Aristotle gives of them by saying that Hunger is the Desire of Heat and Dry and Thirst the Desire of Cold and Moist we should substitute the Definition of these Words calling Hunger The Desire of what assembles things of the same Nature and of what is easily kept within its own Limits and difficultly in the Limits of others and define Thirst the Desire of what assembles things of the same and of different Natures and of what cannot be easily contained in its own Limits but easily in the Limits of others Certainly 't is a very useful Rule to discover if we have defined Terms well and not to deceive our selves in our Reasonings only often to put the Definition in the Place of the thing defined For by that means we know whether the Terms are equivocal and the Measures of the Relation false and imperfect Or if we reason consequently This being granted what can we say of the Arguments of Aristotle which become an impertinent and ridiculous Piece of Nonsence when we make use of this Rule And what must we say likewise of all those that reason