|
Objection 1: It would seem that light is a body. For Augustine
says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 5) that "light takes the first place
among bodies."Therefore light is a body.
Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Topic. v, 2)
that "light is a species of fire." But fire is a body, and
therefore so is light.
Objection 3: Further, the powers of movement, intersection,
reflection, belong properly to bodies; and all these are attributes of
light and its rays. Moreover, different rays of light, as Dionysius
says (Div. Nom. ii) are united and separated, which seems
impossible unless they are bodies. Therefore light is a body.
On the contrary, Two bodies cannot occupy the same place
simultaneously. But this is the case with light and air. Therefore
light is not a body.
I answer that, Light cannot be a body, for three evident reasons.
First, on the part of place. For the place of any one body is
different from that of any other, nor is it possible, naturally
speaking, for any two bodies of whatever nature, to exist
simultaneously in the same place; since contiguity requires distinction
of place.
The second reason is from movement. For if light were a body, its
diffusion would be the local movement of a body. Now no local movement
of a body can be instantaneous, as everything that moves from one place
to another must pass through the intervening space before reaching the
end: whereas the diffusion of light is instantaneous. Nor can it be
argued that the time required is too short to be perceived; for though
this may be the case in short distances, it cannot be so in distances
so great as that which separates the East from the West. Yet as soon
as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from
end to end. It must also be borne in mind on the part of movement that
whereas all bodies have their natural determinate movement, that of
light is indifferent as regards direction, working equally in a circle
as in a straight line. Hence it appears that the diffusion of light is
not the local movement of a body.
The third reason is from generation and corruption. For if light were
a body, it would follow that whenever the air is darkened by the
absence of the luminary, the body of light would be corrupted, and its
matter would receive a new form. But unless we are to say that
darkness is a body, this does not appear to be the case. Neither does
it appear from what matter a body can be daily generated large enough to
fill the intervening hemisphere. Also it would be absurd to say that a
body of so great a bulk is corrupted by the mere absence of the
luminary. And should anyone reply that it is not corrupted, but
approaches and moves around with the sun, we may ask why it is that
when a lighted candle is obscured by the intervening object the whole
room is darkened? It is not that the light is condensed round the
candle when this is done, since it burns no more brightly then than it
burned before.
Since, therefore, these things are repugnant, not only to reason,
but to common sense, we must conclude that light cannot be a body.
Reply to Objection 1: Augustine takes light to be a luminous body
in act---in other words, to be fire, the noblest of the four
elements.
Reply to Objection 2: Aristotle pronounces light to be fire
existing in its own proper matter: just as fire in aerial matter is
"flame," or in earthly matter is "burning coal." Nor must too
much attention be paid to the instances adduced by Aristotle in his
works on logic, as he merely mentions them as the more or less probable
opinions of various writers.
Reply to Objection 3: All these properties are assigned to light
metaphorically, and might in the same way be attributed to heat. For
because movement from place to place is naturally first in the order of
movement as is proved Phys. viii, text. 55, we use terms
belonging to local movement in speaking of alteration and movement of
all kinds. For even the word distance is derived from the idea of
remoteness of place, to that of all contraries, as is said Metaph.
x, text. 13.
|
|