REFUTATION OF STOIC EXPLANATION OF EVAPORATION.

When water flows through wool, or when paper allows water to filter

through it, why does not the whole of the water pass through these

substances (without partly remaining within them)? If the water remain

therein partially, we shall not be able to unite the two substances

or masses. Shall we say that the qualities alone are confused (or,

mingled)? Water is not in juxtaposition with the paper, nor is lodged

in its pores; for the whole paper is penetrated thereby, and no

portion of the matter lacks that quality. If matter be united to

quality everywhere, water must everywhere be present in the paper.

If it be not water that everywhere is present in the paper, but only

(humidity which is) the quality of the water, where then is the water

itself? Why is not the mass the same? The matter that has insinuated

itself into the paper extends it, and increases its volume. Now this

augmentation of volume implies augmentation of mass; and the latter

implies that the water has not been absorbed by the book, and that the

two substances occupy different places (and do not interpenetrate each

other). Since one body causes another to participate in its quality,

why would it not also make it participate in its extension? By virtue

of this union with a different quality, one quality, united with a

different one, cannot, either remain pure, or preserve its earlier

nature; it necessarily becomes weaker. But one extension, added to

another extension, does not vanish.

Plotinos: Complete Works, v. 3 In Chronological Order, Grouped in Four Periods · 第 70 / 442 题