Edition ausblenden
De Anima

VIII.

[1] Abruptum alioquin et absurdum idcirco quid de corporalium eximere censu, quia ceteris corporalibus exemplis non adaequet. Et ubi proprietatum priuata discrimina, per quae magnificentia auctoris ex operum eorundem diuersitate signatur, ut sint tam discreta quam paria, tam amica quam et aemula? Siquidem et ipsi philosophi ex contrariis uniuersa constare condicunt secundum amicitiam et inimicitiam Empedoclis. [2] Sic igitur etsi corporalia incorporalibus obiacent, ipsa quoque ita inter se differunt, ut differentia species eorum ampliet, non genus mutet, ut sint corporalia, sic multa in dei gloria, dum uaria, sic uaria, dum diuersa, sic diuersa, dum his alii qualitatum sensus, alii illis, dum his alia alimenta, alia illis, dum haec inuisibilia, illa uisibilia, dum haec grauia, illa leuia. [3] Aiunt enim et idcirco animam incorporalem renuntiandam, quia digressa ea grauiora efficiantur corpora defunctorum, cum leuiora esse deberent, unius corporis pondere exempto, si anima corpus. Quid enim, inquit Soranus, si mare negent corpus, quia extra mare immobilis et grauis nauis efficitur? Quanto ergo ualidius corpus animae, quod tanti postea ponderis corpus leuissima mobilitate circumfert! [4] Ceterum etsi inuisibilis anima, et pro condicione corporis sui et proprietate substantiae et pro natura etiam eorum quibus inuisibilis esse sortita est. Solem noctuae nesciunt oculis; aquilae ita sustinent, ut natorum suorum generositatem de pupillarum audacia iudicent; alioquin non educabunt, ut degenerem, quem solis radius auerterit. [5] Est adeo alteri quid inuisibile, alteri non, quod non ideo incorporale sit, quia non ex aequo uis ualet. Sol enim corpus, siquidem ignis; sed quod aquila confiteatur, neget noctua, non tamen praeiudicans aquilae. Tantundem et animae corpus inuisibile carni, si forte, spiritui uero uisibile est. Sic Iohannes in spiritu dei factus animas martyrum conspicit.

Übersetzung ausblenden
A Treatise on the Soul

Chapter VIII.--Other Platonist Arguments Considered.

Besides, it would be a harsh and absurd proceeding to exempt anything from the class of corporeal beings, on the ground that it is not exactly like the other constituents of that class. And where individual creatures possess various properties, does not this variety in works of the same class indicate the greatness of the Creator, in making them at the same time different and yet like, amicable yet rivals? Indeed, the philosophers themselves agree in saying that the universe consists of harmonious oppositions, according to Empedocles' (theory of) friendship and enmity. Thus, then, although corporeal essences are opposed to incorporeal ones, they yet differ from each other in such sort as to amplify their species by their variety, without changing their genus, remaining all alike corporeal; contributing to God's glory in their manifold existence by reason of their variety; so various, by reason of their differences; so diverse, in that some of them possess one kind of perception, others another; some feeding on one kind of aliment, others on another; some, again, possessing visibility, while others are invisible; some being weighty, others light. They are in the habit of saying that the soul must be pronounced incorporeal on this account, because the bodies of the dead, after its departure from them, become heavier, whereas they ought to be lighter, being deprived of the weight of a body--since the soul is a bodily substance. But what, says Soranus (in answer to this argument), if men should deny that the sea is a bodily substance, because a ship out of the water becomes a heavy and motionless mass? How much truer and stronger, then, is the soul's corporeal essence, which carries about the body, which eventually assumes so great a weight with the nimblest motion! Again, even if the soul is invisible, it is only in strict accordance with the condition of its own corporeality, and suitably to the property of its own essence, as well as to the nature of even those beings to which its destiny made it to be invisible. The eyes of the owl cannot endure the sun, whilst the eagle is so well able to face his glory, that the noble character of its young is determined by the unblinking strength of their gaze; while the eaglet, which turns away its eye from the sun's ray, is expelled from the nest as a degenerate creature! So true is it, therefore, than to one eye an object is invisible, which may be quite plainly seen by another,--without implying any incorporeality in that which is not endued with an equally strong power (of vision). The sun is indeed a bodily substance, because it is (composed of) fire; the object, however, which the eaglet at once admits the existence of, the owl denies, without any prejudice, nevertheless, to the testimony of the eagle. There is the selfsame difference in respect of the soul's corporeality, which is (perhaps) invisible to the flesh, but perfectly visible to the spirit. Thus John, being "in the Spirit" of God, ¹ beheld plainly the souls of the martyrs. ²