Imperceptible smallness

Use in the book

Aristotle's taste passage attributes to Empedocles flavours present in water but too small to be perceived. Smallness explains why presence need not produce a sensible effect. The report does not supply a lower size limit, a numerical threshold, or a claim that these constituents are atoms.

The pore-theory discussion at A872 gives a related but differently attributed example: passages in transparent bodies are invisible because small, though dense and ordered. That initial statement concerns a group of theorists before Empedocles is named. The comparison shows the explanatory usefulness of unobservable structure, but should not make both details equally secure personal doctrines. Most importantly, “not seen” and “not there” are not treated as equivalent; the witness's report allows physical constituents or structures beneath ordinary sensory discrimination.

Places to read

1. A 94 (testimony)Aristotle, On Sense and Sense-Objects. Explicitly attributes imperceptibly small flavours in water to Empedocles.
2. A 87 (testimony)2Aristotle, On Coming-to-be and Passing-away. Describes pores invisible through smallness in a broader report of pore theorists.

Translation in this edition

“Microscopic” is only a modern lookup label. The source gives no microscope, measurement method, or commitment to atomism, and A872's separate dispute about indivisible bodies must not be imported here.