The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 07 (of 11)
Thomas Hobbes · en
magnitudes; yet they do it not for fear of missing of the equality, but
to avoid inconvenience or trouble. But you (you, I say), that have no
definition of equals, neither received from others, nor framed by
yourselves, out of your shallow meditation and deep conceit of your own
wits, contend against the common light of nature. So much is unheedy
learning a hinderance to the knowledge of the truth, and changeth into
elves those that were beginning to be men.
Again, when men inquire the equality of two bodies in length, they
measure them by a common measure; in which measure they consider neither
breadth nor thickness, but how the length of it agreeth, first with the
length of one of the bodies, then with the length of the other. And both
the bodies whose lengths are measured, are successively in the same
place under their common measure. _Place_ therefore in lines also, is
the proper index and discoverer of equality and inequality. And as in
length, so it is in breadth and thickness, which are but lengths
otherwise taken in the same solid body. But now when we come from this
equality and inequality of lengths known by measure, to determine the
proportions of superficies and of solids, by ratiocination, then it is
that we enter into geometry; for the making of definitions, in
whatsoever science they are to be used, is that which we call
_philosophia prima_. It is not the work of a geometrician, as a
geometrician, to define what is equality, or proportion, or any other
word he useth, though it be the work of the same man, as a man. His
geometrical part is, to draw from them as many true and useful theorems
as he can.
You object secondly, that a pyramis may be equal to a cube whilst it is
a pyramis. True. And so also whilst it is a pyramis it hath a
possibility by flexion and transposition of parts to become a cube, and
to be put into the place where another cube equal to it was before. This
is to argue like a child that hath not yet the perfect understanding of
any language.
In the third and fourth objection, you teach me to define equal bodies
(if I will needs define them by place) by the _equality of place_, and
to say, _that bodies are equal that have equal places_. Teach others, if
you can, to measure their grain, not by the same, but equal bushels.