We must, therefore, turn to the question, what is the manner of their generation from one another? Is it as Empedocles and Democritus say, or as those who resolve bodies into planes say, or is there yet another possibility? (1) What the followers of Empedocles do, though without observing it themselves, is to reduce the generation of elements out of one another to an illusion.They make it a process of excretion from a body of what was in it all the time-as though generation required a vessel rather than a material-so that it involves no change of anything.And even if this were accepted, there are other implications equally unsatisfactory.We do not expect a mass of matter to be made heavier by compression.But they will be bound to maintain this, if they say that water is a body present in air and excreted from air, since air becomes heavier when it turns into water.Again, when the mixed body is divided, they can show no reason why one of the constituents must by itself take up more room than the body did: but when water turns into air, the room occupied is increased.The fact is that the finer body takes up more room, as is obvious in any case of transformation.As the liquid is converted into vapour or air the vessel which contains it is often burst because it does not contain room enough.Now, if there is no void at all, and if, as those who take this view say, there is no expansion of bodies, the impossibility of this is manifest: and if there is void and expansion, there is no accounting for the fact that the body which results from division cfpies of necessity a greater space.It is inevitable, too, that generation of one out of another should come to a stop, since a finite quantum cannot contain an infinity of finite quanta.When earth produces water something is taken away from the earth, for the process is one of excretion.The same thing happens again when the residue produces water.But this can only go on for ever, if the finite body contains an infinity, which is impossible.Therefore the generation of elements out of one another will not always continue.
(2) We have now explained that the mutual transformations of the elements cannot take place by means of excretion.The remaining alternative is that they should be generated by changing into one another.And this in one of two ways, either by change of shape, as the same wax takes the shape both of a sphere and of a cube, or, as some assert, by resolution into planes.(a) Generation by change of shape would necessarily involve the assertion of atomic bodies.For if the particles were divisible there would be a part of fire which was not fire and a part of earth which was not earth, for the reason that not every part of a pyramid is a pyramid nor of a cube a cube.
But if (b) the process is resolution into planes, the first difficulty is that the elements cannot all be generated out of one another.
This they are obliged to assert, and do assert.It is absurd, because it is unreasonable that one element alone should have no part in the transformations, and also contrary to the observed data of sense, according to which all alike change into one another.In fact their explanation of the observations is not consistent with the observations.And the reason is that their ultimate principles are wrongly assumed: they had certain predetermined views, and were resolved to bring everything into line with them.It seems that perceptible things require perceptible principles, eternal things eternal principles, corruptible things corruptible principles; and, in general, every subject matter principles homogeneous with itself.
But they, owing to their love for their principles, fall into the attitude of men who undertake the defence of a position in argument.
In the confidence that the principles are true they are ready to accept any consequence of their application.As though some principles did not require to be judged from their results, and particularly from their final issue! And that issue, which in the case of productive knowledge is the product, in the knowledge of nature is the unimpeachable evidence of the senses as to each fact.
The result of their view is that earth has the best right to the name element, and is alone indestructible; for that which is indissoluble is indestructible and elementary, and earth alone cannot be dissolved into any body but itself.Again, in the case of those elements which do suffer dissolution, the 'suspension' of the triangles is unsatisfactory.But this takes place whenever one is dissolved into another, because of the numerical inequality of the triangles which compose them.Further, those who hold these views must needs suppose that generation does not start from a body.For what is generated out of planes cannot be said to have been generated from a body.And they must also assert that not all bodies are divisible, coming thus into conflict with our most accurate sciences, namely the mathematical, which assume that even the intelligible is divisible, while they, in their anxiety to save their hypothesis, cannot even admit this of every perceptible thing.
For any one who gives each element a shape of its own, and makes this the ground of distinction between the substances, has to attribute to them indivisibility; since division of a pyramid or a sphere must leave somewhere at least a residue which is not sphere or a pyramid.Either, then, a part of fire is not fire, so that there is a body prior to the element-for every body is either an element or composed of elements-or not every body is divisible.
