learned[1] commentator, "Platonem in Timæo quam maxime obscurum illustrare, hujus loci non est."
Note 5, p. 32. But, in the first place.] These critical
objections cannot be fully realised without reference to
the leading opinions and arguments of the Timæus, which,
although, perhaps, at the time, regarded only as specula-
tions and now stand self-confuted as physics, are enshrined
in words which shall endure, until mankind cease to
find delight and instruction in pure and abstract studies.
The first objection raised by Aristotle is to the ascription
of magnitude to that anima (which is to be necessarily
inferred from its being divisible,) as well as to the
intelligence or mind, which is identified with it; for
magnitude would imply a material entity, and matter
conjoined with form and essence implies parts, and what-
ever has parts cannot either be self-existent, or indefinite
in duration. Another objection, much insisted upon, is
the movement in a circle, which cannot, it is said, be the
motion produced by the passions or appetites; but the
chief topic is resumed, and the mind is shewn to be,
like the thoughts which emanate from it, immaterial.
Aristotle's subject, however, unlike that of the Timæus,
was confined to the agent or principle, whatever it be,
which imparts motion and other vital properties to organ-
ised matter.
Note 6, p. 33. Now, there are limits to practical thoughts.] The origin[2] of whatever is original is in the
