For to say what are the ultimate substances out of which
an animal is formed, to state, for instance, that it is made of fire
or earth, is no more sufficient than would be a similar account in the
case of a couch or the like. For we should not be content with
saying that the couch was made of bronze or wood or whatever it
might be, but should try to describe its design or mode of composition
in preference to the material; or, if we did deal with the material,
it would at any rate be with the concretion of material and form.
For a couch is such and such a form embodied in this or that matter,
or such and such a matter with this or that form; so that its shape
and structure must be included in our description. For the formal
nature is of greater importance than the material nature.
Does, then, configuration and colour constitute the essence of the
various animals and of their several parts? For if so, what Democritus
says will be strictly correct. For such appears to have been his
notion. At any rate he says that it is evident to every one what
form it is that makes the man, seeing that he is recognizable by his
shape and colour. And yet a dead body has exactly the same
configuration as a living one; but for all that is not a man. So
also no hand of bronze or wood or constituted in any but the
appropriate way can possibly be a hand in more than name.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25