§4.7Πρὸς δὲ τὸ ποτέρως ἔχει δεῖ λαβεῖν τί σημαίνει τοὔνομα.
But with regard to which of the two ways it is, we must grasp what the name signifies.
δοκεῖ δὴ τὸ κενὸν τόπος εἶναι ἐν ᾧ μηδέν ἐστι.
For the void seems to be a place in which there is nothing.
τούτου δʼ αἴτιον ὅτι τὸ ὅν σῶμα οἴονται εἶναι, πᾶν δὲ σῶμα ἐν τόπῳ, κενὸν δὲ ἐν τόπῳ μηδέν ἐστι σῶμα, ὥστʼ εἶ που μὴ ἔστι σῶμα, οὐδὲν εἶναι ἐνταῦθα.
The reason for this is that people think that being is body, and all body is in place, and void is a place in which there is no body, so that if there is no body anywhere, there is nothing there.
σῶμα δὲ πάλιν ἅπαν οἴονται εἶναι ἁπιόν· τοιοῦτο δὲ ὃ ἂν ἔχῃ βάρος ἢ κουφότητα.
On the other hand, they think that all body is tangible; and such is that which has weight or lightness.
συμβαίνει οὖν ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ τοῦτο εἶναι κενόν, ἐν ὧ μηδέν ἐστι βαρὺ ἢ κοῦφον.
It results, therefore, by syllogism that the void is that in which there is nothing heavy or light.
ταῦτα μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν καὶ πρότερον, ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ συμβαίνει.
These things, then, as we also said before, result by syllogism.
ἄτοπον δὲ εἰ ἡ στιγμὴ κενόν· δεῖ γὰρ τόπον εἶναι ἐν ᾧ σώματος ἔστι διάστημα ἀπίοῦ.
But it is strange if the point is a void; for it must be a place in which there is an interval of a tangible body.
ἀλλʼ οὖν φαίνεται λέγεσθαι τὸ κενὸν ἕνα μὲν τρόπον τὸ μὴ πλῆρες αἰσθητοῦ σώματος κατὰ τὴν ἀρήν· αἰσθητὸν δʼ ἐστὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀρὴν τὸ βάρος ἔχον ἢ κουφότητα (διὸ κἂν ἀπορήσειέ τις, τί ἂν φαῖεν, εἰ ἔχοι τὸ διάστημα χρῶμα ἢ ψόφον, πότερον κενὸν ἢ οὔ;
At all events, the void seems to be spoken of in one way as that which is not full of a body sensible in respect of touch; and sensible in respect of touch is that which has weight or lightness (wherefore one might raise the difficulty: what would they say if the interval had color or sound? Is it void or not?
ἢ δῆλον ὅτι εἰ μὲν δέχοιτο σῶμα ἁπιόν, κενόν, εἰ δὲ μή, οὔ)·
Or is it clear that if it could receive a tangible body, it is void, and if not, it is not?).
ἄλ. λον δὲ τρόπον, ἐν ᾧ μὴ τόδε τι μηδʼ οὐσία τις σωματική.
In another way, it is that in which there is no individual thing nor any bodily substance.
διό φασίν τινες εἶναι τὸ κενὸν τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὕλην (οἵπερ καὶ τὸν τόπου τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο), λέγοντες οὐ καλῶς· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὕλη οὐ χωριστὴ τῶν πραγμάτων, τὸ δὲ κενὸν ζητοῦσιν ὡς χωριστόν.
Therefore some say that the void is the matter of body (the very people who also say that place is this same thing), though they do not speak correctly; for matter is not separable from things, whereas they seek the void as something separable.
ἐπεὶ δὲ περὶ τόπου διώρισται, καὶ τὸ κενὸν ἀνάγκη
τόπον εἶναι, εἰ ἔστιν, ἐστερημένον σώματος, τόπος δὲ καὶ πῶς ἔστι καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν εἴρηται, φανερὸν ὅτι οὕτω μὲν κενὸν οὐκ ἔστιν, οὔτε κεχωρισμένον οὔτε ἀχώριστον.
Since, then, we have determined concerning place, and the void must be place, if it exists, deprived of body, and we have said how place exists and how it does not, it is clear that a void in this sense does not exist, neither as separated nor as inseparable.
τὸ γὰρ κενὸν οὐ σῶμα ἀλλὰ σώματος διάστημα βούλεται εἶναι· διὸ καὶ τὸ κενὸν δοκεῖ τι εἶναι, ὅτι καὶ ὁ τόπος, καὶ διὰ ταὐτά.
For the void is intended to be not a body but an interval of a body; wherefore the void also seems to be something because place is so, and for the same reasons.
ἥκει γὰρ δὴ ἡ κίνησις ἡ κατὰ τόπον καὶ τοῖς τὸν τόπον φάσκουσιν εἶναί τι παρὰ τὰ σώματα τὰ ἐμπίπτοντα καὶ τοῖς τὸ κενόν.
For indeed motion in respect of place comes to be a resource both for those who assert that place is something besides the bodies that fall into it and for those who assert the void.
σἴτιον δὲ κινήσεως οἴονται εἶναι τὸ κενὸν οὕτως ὡς ἐν ᾧ κινεῖται· τοῦτο δʼ ἂν εἴη οἶον τὸν τόπον φασί τινες εἶναι.
And they think that the void is the cause of motion in the sense of that in which motion takes place; and this would be like what some say place is.
οὐδεμία δʼ ἀνάγκη, εἰ κίνησις ἔστιν, εἶναι κενόν.
But there is no necessity, if there is motion, that there be a void.
ὅλως μὲν οὖν πάσης κινήσεως οὐδαμῶς, διʼ ὃ καὶ Μέλισσον ἔλαθεν· ἀλλοιοῦσθαι γὰρ τὸ πλῆρες ἐνδέχεται.
In general, for any motion whatsoever there is no such necessity, which Melissus also failed to notice; for it is possible for that which is full to undergo alteration.
ἀλλὰ δὴ οὐδὲ τὴν κατὰ τόπον κίνησιν· ἅμα γὰρ ἐνδέχεται ὑπεξιέναι ἀλλήλοις, οὐδενὸς ὄντος διαστήματος χωριστοῦ παρὰ τὰ σώματα τὰ κινούμενα.
But indeed, neither is it necessary for motion in respect of place; for it is possible for things to give way to one another simultaneously, even though there is no interval separated besides the bodies in motion.
καὶ τοῦτο δῆλον καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν συνεχῶν δίναις, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν ὑγρῶν.
And this is clear both in the whirls of continuous things and in those of liquids.
ἐνδέχεται δὲ καὶ πυκνοῦσθαι μὴ εἰς τὸ κενὸν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ τὰ ἐνόντα ἐκπυρηνίζειν (οἷον ὕδατος συνθλιβομένου τὸν ἐνόντα ἀέρα), καὶ αὐξάνεσθαι οὐ μόνον εἰσιόντος τινὸς ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀλλοιώσει, οἷον εἰ ἐξ ὕδατος γίγνοιτο ἀήρ.
And it is also possible for things to be condensed not into the void but because they squeeze out what is in them (as when water is compressed, the air in it is squeezed out), and to grow not only by something entering but also by alteration, as when air is generated from water.
ὅλως δὲ ὅ τε περὶ τῆς αὐξήσεως λόγος καὶ τοῦ εἰς τὴν τέφραν ἐγχεομένου ὕδατος αὐτὸς αὐτὸν ἐμποδίζει.
In general, both the argument concerning growth and that concerning the water poured into the ashes obstruct themselves.
ἢ γὰρ οὐκ αὐξάνεται ὁτιοῦν, ἢ οὐ σώματι, ἢ ἐνδέχεται δύο σώματα ἐν ταὐτῷ εἶναι (ἀπορίαν οὖν κοινὴν ἀξιοῦσι λύειν, ἀλλʼ οὐ κενὸν δεικνύουσιν ὡς ἔστιν), ἢ πᾶν εἶναι ἀναγκαῖον τὸ σῶμα κενόν, εἰ πάντῃ αὐξάνεται καὶ αὐξάνεται διὰ κενοῦ.
For either nothing grows, or it does not grow by body, or it is possible for two bodies to be in the same place (thus they demand to solve a common difficulty, but they do not show that there is a void), or it is necessary for the whole body to be void, if it grows in every direction and grows through void.
ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς τέφρας.
And the same argument applies also to the ashes.
ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐξ ὧν δεικνύουσιν εἶναι τὸ κενὸν λύειν ῥᾴδιον, φανερόν.
That it is easy, therefore, to solve the arguments from which they show that the void exists, is clear.