{"collection":"Classics","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/cla/ari/ogc/ogc12.htm","path":"cla/ari/ogc/ogc12.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/ogc/ogc12.htm","text":"Since, then, we are looking for \u2018originative sources\u2019 of perceptible body; and since \u2018perceptible\u2019 is equivalent to \u2018tangible\u2019, and \u2018tangible\u2019 is that of which the perception is touch; it is clear that not all the contrarieties constitute \u2018forms\u2019 and \u2018originative sources\u2019 of body, but only those which correspond to touch. For it is in accordance with a contrariety-a contrariety, moreover, of tangible qualities-that the primary bodies are differentiated. That is why neither whiteness (and blackness), nor sweetness (and bitterness), nor (similarly) any quality belonging to the other perceptible contrarieties either, constitutes an \u2018element\u2019. And yet vision is prior to touch, so that its object also is prior to the object of touch. The object of vision, however, is a quality of tangible body not qua tangible, but qua something else-qua something which may well be naturally prior to the object of touch.\nAccordingly, we must segregate the tangible differences and contrarieties, and distinguish which amongst them are primary. Contrarieties correlative to touch are the following: hot-cold, dry-moist, heavy-light, hard-soft, viscous-brittle, rough-smooth, coarse-fine. Of these (i) heavy and light are neither active nor susceptible. Things are not called \u2018heavy\u2019 and \u2018light\u2019 because they act upon, or suffer action from, other things. But the \u2018elements\u2019 must be reciprocally active and susceptible, since they \u2018combine\u2019 and are transformed into one another. On the other hand (ii) hot and cold, and dry and moist, are terms, of which the first pair implies power to act and the second pair susceptibility. \u2018Hot\u2019 is that which \u2018associates\u2019 things of the same kind (for \u2018dissociating\u2019, which people attribute to Fire as its function, is \u2018associating\u2019 things of the same class, since its effect is to eliminate what is foreign), while \u2018cold\u2019 is that which brings together, i.e. \u2018associates\u2019, homogeneous and heterogeneous things alike. And moist is that which, being readily adaptable in shape, is not determinable by any limit of its own: while \u2018dry\u2019 is that which is readily determinable by its own limit, but not readily adaptable in shape.\nFrom moist and dry are derived (iii) the fine and coarse, viscous and brittle, hard and soft, and the remaining tangible differences. For (a) since the moist has no determinate shape, but is readily adaptable and follows the outline of that which is in contact with it, it is characteristic of it to be \u2018such as to fill up\u2019. Now \u2018the fine\u2019 is \u2018such as to fill up\u2019. For the fine\u2019 consists of subtle particles; but that which consists of small particles is \u2018such as to fill up\u2019, inasmuch as it is in contact whole with whole-and \u2018the fine\u2019 exhibits this character in a superlative degree. Hence it is evident that the fine derives from the moist, while the coarse derives from the dry. Again (b) the viscous\u2019 derives from the moist: for \u2018the viscous\u2019 (e.g. oil) is a \u2018moist\u2019 modified in a certain way. \u2018The brittle\u2019, on the other hand, derives from the dry: for \u2018brittle\u2019 is that which is completely dry-so completely, that its solidification has actually been due to failure of moisture. Further (c) \u2018the soft\u2019 derives from the moist. For \u2018soft\u2019 is that which yields to pressure by retiring into itself, though it does not yield by total displacement as the moist does-which explains why the moist is not \u2018soft\u2019, although \u2018the soft\u2019 derives from the moist. \u2018The hard\u2019, on the other hand, derives from the dry: for \u2018hard\u2019 is that which is solidified, and the solidified is dry.\nThe terms \u2018dry\u2019 and \u2018moist\u2019 have more senses than one. For \u2018the damp\u2019, as well as the moist, is opposed to the dry: and again \u2018the solidified\u2019, as well as the dry, is opposed to the moist. But all these qualities derive from the dry and moist we mentioned first.\u2019 For (i) the dry is opposed to the damp: i.e. \u2018damp\u2019 is that which has foreign moisture on its surface (\u2019sodden\u2019 being that which is penetrated to its core), while \u2018dry\u2019 is that which has lost foreign moisture. Hence it is evident that the damp will derive from the moist, and \u2018the dry\u2019 which is opposed to it will derive from the primary dry. Again (ii) the \u2018moist\u2019 and the solidified derive in the same way from the primary pair. For \u2018moist\u2019 is that which contains moisture of its-own deep within it (\u2019sodden\u2019 being that which is deeply penetrated by foreign moisture), whereas \u2018solidified\u2019 is that which has lost this inner moisture. Hence these too derive from the primary pair, the \u2018solidified\u2019 from the dry and the \u2018solidified\u2019 from the dry the \u2018liquefiable\u2019 from the moist.\nIt is clear, then, that all the other differences reduce to the first four, but that these admit of no further reduction. For the hot is not essentially moist or dry, nor the moist essentially hot or cold: nor are the cold and the dry derivative forms, either of one another or of the hot and the moist. Hence these must be four.","title":"Aristotle: On Generation and Corruption: Book II: Chapter 2","type":"page"}