Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	air_n	body_n	great_a	3,609	5	3.2611	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70185	Scepsis scientifica, or, Confest ignorance, the way to science in an essay of The vanity of dogmatizing, and confident opinion : with a reply to the exceptions of the learned Thomas Albius / by Joseph Glanvill ...	Glanvill, Joseph, 1636-1680.	1665 (1665)	Wing G828_pt2; ESTC R13862	52,781	100

that continually flow from all bodies especially the Magnetical and Sympathetick should find their way to the place they tend to To this I rejoyn briefly 1 what the Gentleman himself suggests were answer sufficient that the multiplying of difficulty doth not solve it For supposing the direction of the corpuscles of light and those mention'd Effluvia to be of a difficult apprehension as the continuance and regularity of those images in the Brain yet this only argues another defect in our Knowledge and so is a new evidence of the truth of my General Conclusion But 2 the proposed Instances are far more accountable then this before us For as to what concerns the light supposing with Des Cartes as is most probable that the action of Light consists in nothing but the conamen of the Aethereal matter receding from the centre of its motion The direct tendency of it to the Eye is no difficulty worth considering but as clear as the Light it self the subject of the enquiry or if the rays be Atomical streams and effluxes of the Sun there is no more difficulty in this Hypothesis neither then in the direct spouting of water out of a Pipe yea no more then in the beating of the waves against the sides of a Ship when it swims in the Ocean For there 's an whole Sea of Atomes which derive from the Fountain illuminant whose course can no more be diverted by those little bodies that swim up and down in the air then that of the Ocean can by those Sands Pebles Fishes and Rocks that are mingled with the waters And as for the other Instances of corporeal Emissions it would require to be prov'd that they perform all those feats that are ascrib'd to them whereas perhaps it is more likely that those strange operations are not Mechanical but Magical being effected by the continuity of the great Spirit of Nature which runs through all things or however to suppose this act of the Memory to be as clear as Magnetisme and Sympathies will be no great advantage to the belief of its certain Intelligibility At ego ipsum sic nodum scindo In majoribus ubi facilior A. est experiendi facultas palàm est multa pag. 73. THat what our Author has answer'd in this Period G. should resolve the difficulty is to me as great a wonder as the Mystery we are discoursing of And if the knot be cut 't is certainly by some occult and sympathetick Instrument for the gross of his Answer comes not near it The difficulty was How the Images of such an infinite of Objects as we remember should be kept distinct without confusion be brought forth when we have occasion and remanded back again into their own cells when they have done the errant they were sent for To which our Author saith no more but to this purpose if I understand him That if the Object stays not on the Sense it makes not impression enough to be remembred but if it be repeated there it leaves plenty enough of those Images behind it to confirm and strengthen the Knowledge of the Object In which radicated Knowledge if the Memory consist there would be no need of reserving those Atomes in the Brain or calling them forth upon occasion as the Hypothesis supposeth or if there be the difficulty is untouched Besides all which I might adde that if these material Images are a sufficient account of the Memory how will our remembrance of Distances Magnitudes Relations Words Metaphysical Notions and those of Immaterials which leave no such Idola in the Brain be accounted for Let this Gentleman tell me how Et erit mihi Magnus A. 10. Palàm est me in hâc Responsione Digbaeanam Methodum caeteris praetulisse Ipsius enim pag. 74. G. IF I am mistaken in the Opinion of Aristotle in this matter 1. I err with the great body of his Commentators and followers yea and all the Schools in Christendom who unanimously concurr in the assignment of the Doctrine of Intentional Species to their Master Aristotle So that if all the Peripateticks hitherto have been so grossly out in imposing an Opinion he never taught upon their ador'd Philosopher for ought I know there is no such thing as the Aristotelean Philosophy in the Universities of Europe For the taking in or denying these Intentional Species will make material and mighty alterations in the whole frame of the Hypothesis and I see not how the denial of them is consistent with the Aristotelean Doctrine of Qualities and Forms But 2. If Aristotle taught the Digbaean Philosophy as our Author sayes he taught the Atomical which is notoriously known to have been the way of Democritus and Epicurus which Aristotle frequently and professedly opposeth That Democritus taught the Atomical Hypothesis we have the affirmative of Aristotle to justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Leucippus and Democritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And neerer to our purpose that these solved the way of Sensation by material Images we have from Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Hypothesis Aristotle endeavours to confute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotle then thought the Doctrine of Sensation by corporeal Images absurd in Democritus and Epicurus and therefore certainly would not himself affirm it as he must do on the supposal of his having taught the same Hypothesis with Sir K. Digby about the Memory which is exactly the same with that of these Sages For that learned Knight affirms Sensation to be perform'd by driving of solid material bodies exceeding little ones that come from the Objects themselves they are his own words against that part of the brain where Knowledge resideth which same bodies rebounding thence into certain cells of the Brain perform the offices of the Memory as he has largely discourst upon the Subject Sir K. Digby then proceeds in the Corpuscularian method which Aristotle opposeth and particularly in the business of Sensation and consequently cannot be of his belief in his Hypothesis of the Memory which the learned Knight gives account of by the same material Idola which Aristotle laught at And doubtless the Memory is excited to action by the like Instruments as are the external Senses consonantly to that of Plato in his Phaedo speaking of the Senses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Aristotle himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think 't is clear then that Aristotle's Doctrine of the Memory is not the same with Sir K. Digby's And if I have been out in intitling the Opinion of Intentional Species to Aristotle my mistake is the more venial because the whole Army of his most devoted Sectators are deceived with me But our Author is more reprehensible in his mistake if it be one because he 's alone in his opinion And an Error hath by so much the more of guilt as it hath of singularity and self-assurance But whether this were Aristotle's Doctrine