ITS FAILURE. 8] 



facts and difficulties as it is the peculiar business of theory to explain. 

 Now it may be truly said, that in scarcely any one instance are the 

 answers, which Aristotle gives to his questions, of any value. For the 

 most part, indeed, he propounds his answer with a degree of hesitation 

 or vacillation which of itself shows the absence of all scientific distinct- 

 ness of thought ; and the opinions so offered never appear to involve 

 any settled or general principle. 



We may take, as examples of this, the problems of the simplest 

 kind, where the principles lay nearest at hand the mechanical ones. 

 " Why," he asks, 1 " do small forces move great weights by means of a 

 lever, when they have thus to move the lever added to the weight ? 

 Is it," he suggests, "because a greater radius moves faster?" " Why 

 does a small wedge split great weights ? 2 Is it because the wedge is 

 composed of two opposite levers?" "Why, 3 when a man rises from a 

 chair, does he bend his leg and his body to acute angles with hi* 

 thigh ? Is it because a right angle is connected with equality and 

 rest?" "Why* can a man throw a stone further with a sling than with 



u O 



his hand ? Is it that when he throws with his hand he moves the 

 stone from rest, but when he uses the sling he throws it already iii 

 motion ?" " Why, 5 if a circle be thrown on the ground, does it first 

 describe a straight line and then a spiral, as it fulls? Is it that the ait 

 first presses equally on the two sides and supports it, and afterwards 

 presses on one side more ?" " Why 5 is it difficult to distinguish a mu- 

 sical note from the octave above ? Is it that proportion stands in tho 

 place of equality ?" It must be allowed that these are very vague and 

 worthless surmises ; for even if we were, as some commentators have 

 done, to interpret some of them so as to agree with sound philosophy, 

 we should still be unable to point out, in this author's works, ay_clear 

 or permanent apprehension of the general principles which such an 

 interpretation implies. 



Thus the Aristotelian physics cannot be considered as otherwise than 

 a complete failure. It collected no general laws from facts ; and con- 

 sequently, when it tried to explain facts, it had no principles which 

 were of any avail. 



The same may be said of the physical speculations of the other 

 schools of philosophy. They arrived at no doctrines from which they 

 could deduce, by sound reasoning, such facts as thev saw : though thev 



/ O ' / O 



1 Mech. Prob. 4. Jb. is. a jh. 31. < Ib. K 



B Utpl "A\vx. 11- rirpi 'Apfiov. 1-1. 



VOL. 16 



