按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
bad odour cannot be anything but smell。 Further； they are observed to be deleteriously effected by the same strong odours as man is； e。g。 bitumen； sulphur； and the like。 These animals must be able to smell without being able to breathe。 The probable explanation is that in man the organ of smell has a certain superiority over that in all other animals just as his eyes have over those of hard…eyed animals。 Man's eyes have in the eyelids a kind of shelter or envelope； which must be shifted or drawn back in order that we may see； while hardeyed animals have nothing of the kind； but at once see whatever presents itself in the transparent medium。 Similarly in certain species of animals the organ of smell is like the eye of hard…eyed animals； uncurtained； while in others which take in air it probably has a curtain over it； which is drawn back in inhalation； owing to the dilating of the veins or pores。 That explains also why such animals cannot smell under water； to smell they must first inhale； and that they cannot do under water。 Smells come from what is dry as flavours from what is moist。 Consequently the organ of smell is potentially dry。
10
What can be tasted is always something that can be touched； and just for that reason it cannot be perceived through an interposed foreign body； for touch means the absence of any intervening body。 Further； the flavoured and tasteable body is suspended in a liquid matter； and this is tangible。 Hence； if we lived in water； we should perceive a sweet object introduced into the water； but the water would not be the medium through which we perceived； our perception would be due to the solution of the sweet substance in what we imbibed； just as if it were mixed with some drink。 There is no parallel here to the perception of colour； which is due neither to any blending of anything with anything； nor to any efflux of anything from anything。 In the case of taste； there is nothing corresponding to the medium in the case of the senses previously discussed； but as the object of sight is colour； so the object of taste is flavour。 But nothing excites a perception of flavour without the help of liquid； what acts upon the sense of taste must be either actually or potentially liquid like what is saline； it must be both （a） itself easily dissolved； and （b） capable of dissolving along with itself the tongue。 Taste apprehends both （a） what has taste and （b） what has no taste； if we mean by （b） what has only a slight or feeble flavour or what tends to destroy the sense of taste。 In this it is exactly parallel to sight； which apprehends both what is visible and what is invisible （for darkness is invisible and yet is discriminated by sight； so is； in a different way； what is over brilliant）； and to hearing； which apprehends both sound and silence； of which the one is audible and the other inaudible； and also over…loud sound。 This corresponds in the case of hearing to over…bright light in the case of sight。 As a faint sound is 'inaudible'； so in a sense is a loud or violent sound。 The word 'invisible' and similar privative terms cover not only （a） what is simply without some power； but also （b） what is adapted by nature to have it but has not it or has it only in a very low degree； as when we say that a species of swallow is 'footless' or that a variety of fruit is 'stoneless'。 So too taste has as its object both what can be tasted and the tasteless…the latter in the sense of what has little flavour or a bad flavour or one destructive of taste。 The difference between what is tasteless and what is not seems to rest ultimately on that between what is drinkable and what is undrinkable both are tasteable； but the latter is bad and tends to destroy taste； while the former is the normal stimulus of taste。 What is drinkable is the common object of both touch and taste。 Since what can be tasted is liquid； the organ for its perception cannot be either （a） actually liquid or （b） incapable of becoming liquid。 Tasting means a being affected by what can be tasted as such； hence the organ of taste must be liquefied； and so to start with must be non…liquid but capable of liquefaction without loss of its distinctive nature。 This is confirmed by the fact that the tongue cannot taste either when it is too dry or when it is too moist； in the latter case what occurs is due to a contact with the pre…existent moisture in the tongue itself； when after a foretaste of some strong flavour we try to taste another flavour； it is in this way that sick persons find everything they taste bitter； viz。 because； when they taste； their tongues are overflowing with bitter moisture。 The species of flavour are； as in the case of colour； （a） simple； i。e。 the two contraries； the sweet and the bitter； （b） secondary； viz。 （i） on the side of the sweet； the succulent； （ii） on the side of the bitter； the saline； （iii） between these come the pungent； the harsh； the astringent； and the acid； these pretty well exhaust the varieties of flavour。 It follows that what has the power of tasting is what is potentially of that kind； and that what is tasteable is what has the power of making it actually what it itself already is。
11
Whatever can be said of what is tangible； can be said of touch； and vice versa； if touch is not a single sense but a group of senses； there must be several kinds of what is tangible。 It is a problem whether touch is a single sense or a group of senses。 It is also a problem； what is the organ of touch； is it or is it not the flesh （including what in certain animals is homologous with flesh）？ On the second view； flesh is 'the medium' of touch； the real organ being situated farther inward。 The problem arises because the field of each sense is according to the accepted view determined as the range between a single pair of contraries； white and black for sight； acute and grave for hearing； bitter and sweet for taste； but in the field of what is tangible we find several such pairs； hot cold； dry moist； hard soft； &c。 This problem finds a partial solution； when it is recalled that in the case of the other senses more than one pair of contraries are to be met with； e。g。 in sound not only acute and grave but loud and soft； smooth and rough； &c。； there are similar contrasts in the field of colour。 Nevertheless we are unable clearly to detect in the case of touch what the single subject is which underlies the contrasted qualities and corresponds to sound in the case of hearing。 To the question whether the organ of touch lies inward or not （i。e。 whether we need look any farther than the flesh）； no indication in favour of the second answer can be drawn from the fact that if the object comes into contact with the flesh it is at once perceived。 For even under present conditions if the experiment is made of making a web and stretching it tight over the flesh； as soon as this web is touched the sensation is reported in the same manner as before； yet it is clear that the or is gan is not in this membrane。 If the membrane could be grown on to the flesh； the report would travel still quicker。 The flesh plays in touch very much the same part as would be played in the other senses by an air…envelope growing round our body； had we such an envelope attached to us we should have supposed that it was by a single organ that we perceived sounds； colours； and smells； and we should have taken sight； hearing； and smell to be a single sense。 But as it is； because that through which the different movements are transmitted is not naturally attached to our bodies； the difference of the various sense…organs is too plain to miss。 But in the case of touch the obscurity remains。 There must be such a naturally attached 'medium' as flesh； for no living body could be constructed of air or water； it must be something solid。 Consequently it must be composed of earth along with these； which is just what flesh and its analogue in animals which have no true flesh tend to be。 Hence of necessity the medium through which are transmitted the manifoldly contrasted tactual qualities must be a body naturally attached to the organism。 That they are manifold is clear when we consider touching with the tongue； we appreh