In this Epicurus and Lucretius appear to have been true philosophers, and their intermediaries, who have been so much ridiculed7, were no other than the unresisting space in which Newton has demonstrated that the planets move round their orbits in times proportioned to their areas. Thus it was not Epicurus’ intermediaries, but his opponents, that were ridiculous. But when Epicurus afterwards tells us that his atoms declined in the void by chance; that this declination formed men and animals by chance; that the eyes were placed in the upper part of the head and the feet at the end of the legs by chance; that ears were not given to hear, but that the declination of atoms having fortuitously composed ears, men fortuitously made use of them to hear with — this madness, called physics, has been very justly turned into ridicule6.
Sound philosophy, then, has long distinguished8 what is good in Epicurus and Lucretius, from their chimeras9, founded on imagination and ignorance. The most submissive minds have adopted the doctrine of creation in time, and the most daring have admitted that of creation before all time. Some have received with faith a universe produced from nothing; others, unable to comprehend this doctrine in physics, have believed that all beings were emanations from the Great — the Supreme10 and Universal Being; but all have rejected the fortuitous concurrence11 of atoms; all have acknowledged that chance is a word without meaning. What we call chance can be no other than the unknown cause of a known effect. Whence comes it then, that philosophers are still accused of thinking that the stupendous and indescribable arrangement of the universe is a production of the fortuitous concurrence of atoms — an effect of chance? Neither Spinoza nor any one else has advanced this absurdity12.
Yet the son of the great Racine says, in his poem on Religion:
O toi! qui follement fais ton Dieu du hasard,
Viens me développer ce nid qu’avec tant d’art,
Au même ordre toujours architecte fidèle,
à l’aide de son bec ma?onne l’hirondelle;
Comment, pour élever ce hardi batiment,
A-t-elle en le broyant arrondi son ciment?
Oh ye, who raise Creation out of chance,
As erst Lucretius from th’ atomic dance!
Come view with me the swallow’s curious nest,
Where beauty, art, and order, shine confessed.
How could rude chance, forever dark and blind,
Preside within the little builder’s mind?
Could she, with accidents unnumbered crowned,
Its mass concentrate, and its structure round!
These lines are assuredly thrown away. No one makes chance his God; no one has said that while a swallow “tempers his clay, it takes the form of his abode13 by chance.” On the contrary, it is said that “he makes his nest by the laws of necessity,” which is the opposite of chance.
The only question now agitated14 is, whether the author of nature has formed primordial15 parts unsusceptible of division, or if all is continually dividing and changing into other elements. The first system seems to account for everything, and the second, hitherto at least, for nothing.
If the first elements of things were not indestructible one element might at last swallow up all the rest, and change them into its own substance. Hence, perhaps it was that Empedocles imagined that everything came from fire, and would be destroyed by fire.
This question of atoms involves another, that of the divisibility of matter ad infinitum. The word atom signifies without parts — not to be divided. You divide it in thought, for if you were to divide it in reality it would no longer be an atom.
You may divide a grain of gold into eighteen millions of visible parts; a grain of copper16 dissolved in spirit of sal ammoniac has exhibited upwards17 of twenty-two thousand parts; but when you have arrived at the last element the atom escapes the microscope, and you can divide no further except in imagination.
The infinite divisibility of atoms is like some propositions in geometry. You may pass an infinity18 of curves between a circle and its tangent, supposing the circle and the tangent to be lines without breadth; but there are no such lines in nature.
You likewise establish that asymptotes will approach one another without ever meeting; but it is under the supposition that they are lines having length without breadth — things which have only a speculative19 existence.
So, also, we represent unity20 by a line, and divide this line and this unity into as many fractions as you please; but this infinity of fractions will never be any other than our unity and our line.
It is not strictly21 demonstrated that atoms are indivisible, but it appears that they are not divided by the laws of nature.
点击收听单词发音
1 philosophical | |
adj.哲学家的,哲学上的,达观的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 admiration | |
n.钦佩,赞美,羡慕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 embroiled | |
adj.卷入的;纠缠不清的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 chimera | |
n.神话怪物;梦幻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 ridicule | |
v.讥讽,挖苦;n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 ridiculed | |
v.嘲笑,嘲弄,奚落( ridicule的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 chimeras | |
n.(由几种动物的各部分构成的)假想的怪兽( chimera的名词复数 );不可能实现的想法;幻想;妄想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 concurrence | |
n.同意;并发 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 abode | |
n.住处,住所 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 agitated | |
adj.被鼓动的,不安的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 primordial | |
adj.原始的;最初的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 copper | |
n.铜;铜币;铜器;adj.铜(制)的;(紫)铜色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 upwards | |
adv.向上,在更高处...以上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 infinity | |
n.无限,无穷,大量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 speculative | |
adj.思索性的,暝想性的,推理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 unity | |
n.团结,联合,统一;和睦,协调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |