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
A51674	Father Malebranche his treatise concerning the search after truth The whole work complete. To which is added the author's Treatise of nature and grace: being a consequence of the principles contained in the search. Together with his answer to the animadversions upon the first volume: his defence against the accusations of Monsieur De la Ville, &c. relating to the same subject. All translated by T. Taylor, M.A. late of Magdalen College in Oxford.	Malebranche, Nicolas, 1638-1715.; Taylor, Thomas, 1669 or 70-1735.; Malebranche, Nicolas, 1638-1715. Traité de la nature et de la grace. English.	1700 (1700)	Wing M318; ESTC R3403	829,942	418

if they were just and good And none perhaps could forbear laughing if instead of the Definitions which Aristotle gives of Hunger and Thirst when he says that Hunger is the desire of what is hot and dry and Thirst the desire of what is cold and moist we should substitute the Definitions of those words calling Hunger the desire of that which coacervates things of the same nature and is easily contained within its own Limits and difficultly within others and defining Thirst the desire of that which congregates things of the same and different natures and which can hardly be contained within its own bounds but is easily kept within others Surely 't is a very useful Rule to know whether Terms have been well defined and to avoid mistakes in reasoning often to put the Definition instead of the thing defined for that shews whether the words are equivocal and the Measures of the Relations false and imperfect or whether we argue consequently If it be so what Judgment can be made of Aristotle's Arguments which become an impertinent and ridiculous Nonsence when we make use of that Rule and what may also be said of all those who argue upon the false and confused Ideas of the Senses since that Rule which preserves Light and Evidence in all exact and solid Reasonings brings nothing but confusion in their Discourses 'T is not possible to lay open the foolish Capriciousness and Extravagance of Aristotle's Explications upon all sorts of matters When he treats of simple and easie Subjects his Errours are plain and obvious to be discover'd but when he pretends to explain very composed things and depending on several Causes his Errours are as much compounded as the Subjects he speaks of so that it is impossible to unfold them all and set them before others That great Genius who is said to have so well succeeded in his Rules for defining well knows not so much as which are the things that may be defined because he puts no Distinction betwixt a clear and distinct and a sensible Knowledge and pretends to know and explain other things of which he has not so much as a distinct Idea Definitions ought to explicate the Nature of things and the words of which they consist must raise in the Mind distinct and particular Notions But 't is impossible to define in that manner sensible Qualities as Heat Cold Colour Savour c. When you confound the Cause with the Effect the Motion of Bodies with the Sensation that attends it because Sensations being Modifications of the Soul which are not to be known by clear Ideas but only by internal Sensation as I have explain'd it in the third Book it is impossible to fix to those words Ideas which we have not As we have Distinct Ideas of a Circle a Square a Triangle and therefore know distinctly their Nature so we can give good Difinitions of them and even deduce from our Ideas of those Figures all their Properties and explain them to others by such words as are fixed to those Ideas But we cannot define either Heat or Cold in as much as they are sensible Qualities because we know them not distinctly and by Ideas but only by Conscience and inward Sensation Neither must we define the Heat that is without us by any of its Effects For if we substitute such a Definition in its place we shall find that it will only conduce to lead us into Errour For Instance if Heat be defined what congregates homogeneous things without adding any thing else we may by that Definition mistake for Heat such things as have no Relation to it For then it might be said that the Loadstone collects the Filings of Iron and separates them from those of Silver because 't is hot that a Dove eats Hempseed when it leaves other Grain because that Bird is hot that a covetous Man separates his Guineas from his Silver because he is hot In short there is no impertinency but that Definition would induce one into it were he dull enough to follow it And therefore that Definition explains not the nature of Heat nor can it be imploy'd to deduce all its properties from it since by literally insisting upon it we should draw ridiculous Conclusions and by putting it instead of the thing defined fall into Nonsense However if we carefully distinguish Heat from its Cause though it cannot be defined in as much as it is a Modification of the Soul whereof we have no Idea yet its Cause may be defined since we have a distinct Idea of Motion But we must observe that Heat taken for such a Motion causes not always in us the Sense of Heat For Instance Water is hot since its Parts are fluid and in Motion and most probably it feels warm to Fishes at least 't is warmer than Ice whose Parts are more quiet but 't is cold to us because it has less Motion than the Parts of our Body what has less Motion than another being in some manner quiet in respect of that And therefore 't is not with reference to the Motion of the Fibres of our Body that the Cause of Heat or the Motion that excites it ought to be defined We must if possible define that Motion absolutely and in it self for then our Definition will be subservient to know the Nature and Properties of Heat I hold not my self oblig'd to examine farther the Philosophy of Aristotle and to extricate his so much confus'd and puzling Errours I have shewn methinks that he proves not the Existence of his four Elements and defines them wrong that his Elementary Qualities are not such as he pretends that he knows not their Nature and that all the Second Qualities are not made of them and lastly that though we should grant him that all Bodies are compos'd of the four Elements and the Second Qualities of the First his whole System would still prove useless for the finding out of Truth since his Ideas are not clear enough to preserve Evidence in all our Reasonings If any doubt whether I have propos'd the true Opinions of Aristotle he may satisfie himself by consulting his Books of the Heavens and of Generation and Corruption whence I have exextracted almost all that I have said of him I would relate nothing out of his Eight Books of Physicks because some learned Men pretend they are but a mere Logick which is very apparent since nothing but rambling and undetermin'd Words are to be found in them As Aristotle often contradicts himself and that almost all sorts of Opinions may be defended by some Passages drawn out of him I doubt not but some Opinions contrary to those I have ascrib'd to that Philosopher may be prov'd out of himself And I shall not warrant for him but it is sufficient for me that I have the Books I have quoted to justifie what I have said of him and I care little whether those Books are Aristotle's or not taking them for such as I find them upon the

as little as possibly it can 'T is upon this account it is easily perswaded that the Essences of things are in Indivisibili and that they are like Numbers as we have said before for that then it requires only one Idea to represent all the Bodies that go under the name of the same Species If you put for example a Glass of Water into an Hogshead of Wine the Philosophers will tell you the Essence of Wine still remains the same and the Water is converted into Wine That as no number can intervene between three and four since a true Unity is indivisible so 't is necessary the Water should be converted into the Essence or Nature of the Wine or that the Wine should lose its own That as all Numbers of Four are perfectly alike so the Essence of Water is exactly the same in all Waters That as the Number Three Essentially differs from the Number Two and cannot have the same Properties so two Bodies differing in Specie differ Essentially and in such wise as they can never have the same Properties which flow from the Essence and such like things as these Whereas if Men consider'd the true Idea's of things any thing attentively they would not be long a discovering that all Bodies being extended their Nature or Essence has nothing in 't like Numbers and that 't is impossible for it to consist in Indivisibili But Men not only suppose Identity Similitude or Proportion in the Nature the Number and essential Differences of Substances but in every thing that comes under their Perception Most Men conclude that all the fix'd Stars are fastned as so many Nails in the mighty Vault of Heaven in an equal distance and convexity from the Earth The Astronomers have for a long time given out that the Planets rowl in exact Circles whereof they have invented a plentiful number as Concentric Excentric Epicycles Deferent and Equant to explain the Phenomena that contradict their Prejudice 'T is true in the last Ages the more Ingenious have corrected the Errors of the Ancients and believe that the Planets describe Ellipses by their Motion But if they would have us believe that these Ellipses are regular as we are easily inclin'd to do because the Mind supposes Regularity where it perceives no Irregularity they fall into an Error so much harder to be corrected as the Observations that can be made upon the Course of the Planets want Exactness and Justness to shew the Irregularity of their Motions which Error nothing but Physicks can remedy as being infinitely less observable than that which occurs in the Systeme of exact Circles But there is one thing of more particular occurrence relating to the Distance and Motion of the Planets which is that the Astronomers not being able to discover an Arithmetical or Geometrical Proportion that being manifestly repugnant to their Observations some of them have imagin'd they observ'd a kind of Proportion which they term Harmonical in their Distances and Motions Hence it was that an Astronomer of this Age in his New Almagistus begins a Section intitul'd De Systemate Mundi Harmonico with these words There is no Man that 's never so little vers'd in Astronomy but must acknowledge a kind of Harmony in the motion and intervals of the Planets if he attentively considers the Order of the Heavens Not that he was of that Opinion for the Observations that have been made gave him sufficiently to understand the extravagance of that imaginary Harmony which has yet been the Admiration of many Authors Ancient and Modern whose Opinions are related and refuted by Father Riccioli It is attributed likewise to Pythagoras and his Followers to have believ'd That the Heavens by their Regular Motions made a wonderful Melody which Men could not hear by reason of their being us'd to it As those says he that dwell near the Cataracts of the Waters of Nile hear not the noise of them But I only bring this particular Opinion of the Harmonical Proportion between the Distances and Motions of the Planets to shew that the Mind is fond of Proportions and that it often imagines them where they are not The Mind also supposes Uniformity in the Duration of things and imagines they are not liable to Change and Instability when it is not as it were forc'd by the Testimonies and report of Sence to judge otherwise All Material things being extended are capable of Division and consequently of Corruption And every one that makes never so little reflection on the Nature of Bodies must sensibly perceive their Corruptibility And yet there have been a multitude of Philosophers who believ'd the Heavens though Material were Incorruptible The Heavens are too remote from our Eyes to discover the Changes which happen in them and there seldom any great enough fall out to be seen upon Earth which has been sufficient warrant to a great many Persons to believe they were really incorruptible What has been a farther confirmation of their Opinion is their attributing to the Contrariety of Qualities the Corruption incident to Sublunary Bodies For having never been in the Heavens to see how things were carried on there they have had no Experience of that contrariety of Qualities being to be found therein which has induc'd them to believe there were actually no such thing And hence have concluded the Heavens were exempt from Corruption upon this Reason That what according to their Notion corrupts Sublunary Bodies is not to be found in the higher Regions of the World 'T is plain that this Arguing has nothing of solidity for we see no Reason why there may not be found some other Cause of Corruption besides that contrariety of Qualities which they imagine nor upon what grounds they can affirm There is neither Heat nor Cold neither Drought nor Moisture in the Heavens that the Sun is not hot nor Saturn cold There is some probability of Reason to say That very hard Stones and Glass and other Bodies of like Nature are not corrupted since we see they subsist a long time in the same Capacity and we are near enough to observe the Changes that should happen to them But while we are at such a Distance from the Heavens as we are it 's absolutely against all Reason to conclude they don't corrupt because we perceive no contrary Qualities in them nor can see them corrupting and yet they don 't only say they don't corrupt but that they are unchangeable and incorruptible And a little more the Peripateticks would maintain That Celestial Bodies were so many Divinities as their Master Aristotle did believe them The Beauty of the Universe consists not in the Incorruptibility of its parts but in the Variety that is found in them and this great Work of the World would have something wanting to its Admirable Perfection without that Vicissitude of things that is observ'd in it A Matter infinitely extended without Motion and consequently rude and without Form and without Corruption might perhaps manifest

which is not like to that we see for Fire is often but in potentia in the Bodies that are made of it What signifie all these Peripatetick Discourses That there is Fire in all Bodies either actual or potential that is to say that all Bodies are compos'd of something we see not and the Nature of which is wholly unknown unto us Now we have made a very fair Progress But though Aristotle shews us not the Nature of Fire and other Elements of which all Bodies are made up yet one may imagine that he will at least discover their principal Qualities and Properties Let us also examine what he says upon that Account He declares that there are four principal Qualities which belong to the Sense of Touching viz. Heat Cold Humidity and Siccity of which all the other are compos'd He distributes those primitive Qualities into the four Elements ascribing Heat and Dryness to Fire Heat and Moisture to the Air Cold and Moisture to Water and Cold and Dryness to Earth He asserts that Heat and Cold are active Qualities but that Dryness and Moisture are passive He defines Heat What congregates Things of the same kind Cold What congregates Things either of the same or of different Species Moisture What cannot easily be contain'd in its own Limits but is easily kept within foreign Bounds and Dryness What is easily contain'd within its own Limits but will hardly be adapted to the Bounds of surrounding Bodies Thus according to Aristotle Fire is a hot and dry Element and therefore congregates Homogeneous Things is easily contain'd within its own Limits and hardly within others Air is a hot and moist Element and therefore congregates Homogeneous Things can hardly be kept within its own Limits but easily within others Water is a cold and moist Element and therefore congregates both Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Things is hardly contain'd within its own Limits but easily within others And lastly Earth is a cold and dry Element or such an one as aggregates Things both of the same and different Natures is easily contain'd within its own Limits but can hardly be adapted to others There you have the Elements explain'd according to the Opinion of Aristotle or the Definitions he has given of their principal Qualities and because if we may believe him the Elements are simple Bodies out of which others are constituted and their Qualities are simple Qualities of which all others are compos'd the Knowledge of those Elements and Qualities must be very clear and distinct since the whole Natural Philosophy or the Knowledge of all sensible Bodies which are made of them must be deduc'd from thence Let us then see what may be wanting to those Principles First Aristotle fixes no distinct Idea to the Word Quality It cannot be known whether by Quality he understands a real Being distinguish'd from Matter or only a Modification of Matter he seems one while to take it in the former and at another time in the latter Sense I grant that in the 8th Chapter of his Categories he defines Quality that by which Things are denominated so or so but that is not plain and satisfactory Secondly His Definitions of the four Primitive Qualities viz. Heat Cold Moisture and Dryness are either false or useless We will begin with his Definition of Heat Heat says he is that which congregates Homogeneous Things First Though that Definition should be true That Heat always congregates Homogeneous Bodies yet we cannot see how it perfectly explains the Nature of Heat Secondly 'T is false that Heat congregates Homogeneous Things for Heat dissipates the Particles of Water into Vapour instead of heaping them together It congregates not likewise the Parts of Wine or any Liquor or Fluid Body whatsoever even to Quick-silver On the contrary it resolves and separates both Solid and Fluid Bodies whether of the same or different Natures and if there be any the Parts of which Fire cannot dissipate it is not because they are homogeneous but because they are too gross and solid to be carry'd away by the Motion of the fiery Particles Thirdly Heat in reality can neither congregate nor segregate the Parts of any Body whatsoever for that the Parts of Bodies may be congregated separated or dissipated they must be moved But Heat can move nothing or at least it appears not that it can move Bodies for though we consider Heat with all the possible Attention we cannot discover that it may communicate to Bodies a Motion which it has not it self We see indeed that Fire moves and separates the Parts of such Bodies as lie expos'd to its Action but it is not perhaps by its Heat it being not evident whether it has any it is rather by the Action of its Parts which we visibly perceive to be in a continual Motion for these fiery Particles striking against a Body must needs impart to it somewhat of their Motion whether there is or is not any Heat in Fire If the Parts of that Body be not very solid Fire will dissipate them but if they be very gross and solid Fire can but just move them and make them slide one over the other And Lastly If there be a Mixture of subtile and gross Parts Fire will only dissipate those which it can push so far as to separate them from the others So that Fire can only separate and if it congregate 't is only by Accident But Aristotle asserts quite contrary Separating says he which some ascribe to Fire is but congregating Homogeneous Things for 't is only by Accident that Fire carries off Things of different Nature If this Philosopher had at first distinguished the Sensation of Heat from the Motion of the small Particles of which the Bodies called hot are composed and had afterwards defined Heat taken from the Motion of Parts by saying that Heat is what agitates and separates the invisible Parts or which visible Bodies are made up he would have given a tolerable definition of Heat though not full and satisfactory because it would not accurately discover the Nature of Motion in hot Bodies Aristotle defines Cold what congregates Bodies of the same or different Nature but that Definition is worth nothing for Cold congregates not Bodies To congregate them it must move them but if we consult our Reason we shall find that Cold can move nothing for we understand by that word either what we feel when we are cold or what causes our Sensation As to our Sensation 't is plain that it is merely Passive and can neither move nor drive any thing And as to the Cause of that Sensation reason tells us if we examine things that it is merely rest or a Cessation of Motion So that Cold in Bodies being no more than the Cessation of that sort of Motion which attends Heat 't is evident that if Heat separate Cold does not And therefore Cold coacervates neither things of the same nor of different nature since what cannot drive on Bodies cannot amass

them together In a word as it does nothing it must needs congregate nothing Aristotle judging of things by his Senses imagin'd Cold to be as positive as Heat and because the Sensations of Heat and Cold are both real and positive he supposes them both likewise to be active Qualities and indeed if we follow the Impressions of the Senses we shall be apt to believe that Cold is a very active Quality since cold Water congeals accumulates and hardens in a moment melted Gold and Lead when they are pour'd upon it from a Crucible though the Heat of those Metals be yet strong enough to separate the Parts of the Bodies which they touch 'T is plain by what has been said in the First Book concerning the Errours of the Senses That if we relye upon the Judgment the Senses make of the Qualities of sensible Bodies 't is impossible to discover any certain and undeniable Truth that may serve as a Principle to proceed in the Knowledge of Nature For one cannot so much as discover that way what things are hot and what cold amongst several Persons who touch luke-warm Water it feels cold to those that are hot and hot to those that are cold And if we suppose Fishes susceptible of Sensation 't is very probable that they feel it warm when all or most Men feel it cold It is the same with Air that seems to be hot or cold according to the different Dispositions of the Bodies of those that are exposed to it Aristotle pretends that it is hot but I fansie that the Nothern Inhabitants are of another Opinion since several learned Men whose Climate is as hot as that of Greece have asserted it to be cold But that Question which has made so much noise in the Schools will never be resolv'd as long as no distinct Idea shall be affixed to the Word Heat The Definitions Aristotle lays down of Heat and Cold cannot settle that Idea For Instance Air and even Water though never so hot and scalding congregate the parts of melted Lead together with those of any other Metal whatsoever Air conglutinates all sorts of Fat joyn'd with Gums or any other solid Bodies And he shall be a very formal Peripatetick who should think of exposing Mastich to the Air to separate the pitchy from the Earthy part and other compound Bodies to uncompound them And therefore Air is not hot according to the Definition which Aristotle gives of Heat Air separates Liquors from the Bodies that are imbued with them hardens Clay dries spread Linen though Aristotle makes it moist and so is hot and drying according to the same Definition therefore it cannot be determined by that Definition whether or no Air is hot It may indeed be asserted that Air is hot in reference to Clay since it separates the Water from the Earthy Part. But must we try all the various Effects of Air upon all Bodies before we can be assured whether there is Heat in the Air we breath in If it be so we shall never be sure of it and 't is as good not to philosophize at all upon the Air we respire but upon some certain pure and elementary Air not to be found here below of which we can very dogmatically assert with Aristotle that it is hot without giving the least Proof of it nor even distinctly knowing what we understand either by that Air or by the Heat ascribed to it For thus we shall lay down Principles scarce to be destroyed not because of their Plainness and Certainty but by reason of their Darkness and their being like to Apparitions which cannot be wounded because they have not a Body I shall not insist upon Aristotle's Definitions of Moisture and Dryness it being evident that they explain not their Nature For according to those Definitions Fire is not dry since it is not easily contained within its own limits and Ice is not moist since it keeps within its proper Bounds and can difficultly be adapted to external Bounds But if fluid be understood by the Word humid or moist it may again be said that Ice is not moist and that Flame melted Gold and Lead are very humid If by humid or moist be understood what easily cleaves to any thing Ice is not humid and Pitch Fat and Oil are moister than Water since they cleave to Bodies more strongly than it does Quick-silver is moist in that sense for it cleaves to Metals whereas Water is not perfectly moist since it cleaves not to most of them So that 't is unserviceable to have recourse to the Testimony of the Senses to defend the Opinions of Aristotle But without farther examining his wonderful Definitions of the four Elementary Qualities let us suppose that whatever the Senses teach us of those Qualities is incontestable let us muster up all our Faith and believe all those Definitions very accurate Only let it be allowed us to enquire whether all the Qualities of sensible Bodies are made of these Elementary Qualities Aristotle pretends it and he must do so indeed since he looks upon those Four primitive Qualities as the Principles of all the things which he intends to explain in his Books of Physicks He teaches us that Colours are produced from the Mixture of those Four Elementary Qualities White is produced when Moisture exceeds Heat as in old Men when they grow gray Black when Moisture is exhausted as in the Walls of Cisterns and all other Colours by the like Mixtures that Odours and Savours arise from different Degrees of Dryness and Moisture mix'd together by Heat and Cold and that even Gravity and Levity do depend thereon In short All sensible Qualities must needs be produced according to Aristotle by Two active Principles viz. Heat and Cold and composed of Two passive namely Dryness and Moisture that there may be some probable Connexion betwixt his Principles and the Consequences he draws from them However 't is yet a harder Task to persuade us of such things than any of those that have been hitherto related from Aristotle We can scarce believe that the Earth and other Elements would not be colour'd or visible if they were in their natural Purity without Mixture of those Elementary Principles though some learned Commentators on that Philosopher assert it We understand not what Aristotle means when he assures us that gray Hair is produced by Moisture because in old Men Moisture exceeds Heat though to illustrate his thought we put the definition instead of the thing defined For it looks like an incomprehensible piece of Nonsence to say that the Hair of old Men becomes gray because what is not easily contained within its own Limits but may be within others exceeds what congregates homogeneous things And we are as hard put it to believe that Savour is well explain'd by saying it consists in a mixture of Dryness Moisture and of Heat especially when we put instead of those words the Definitions given by that Philosopher as it would prove useful