ONE:In returning to one of the older cosmologies, the Stoics placed themselves in opposition to the system of Aristotle as a whole, although on questions of detail they frequently adopted his conclusions. The object of Heracleitus, as against the Pythagoreans, had been to dissolve away every antithesis in a pervading unity of contradictories; and, as against the Eleatics, to substitute an eternal series of transformations for the changeless unity of absolute existence. The Stoics now applied the same method on a scale proportionate to the subsequent development of thought. Aristotle had carefully distinguished God from the world, even to the extent of isolating him from all share in its creation and interest in its affairs. The Stoics declared that God and the world were one. So far, it is allowable to call them pantheists. Yet their pantheism was very different from what we are accustomed to denote by that name; from the system of Spinoza, for example. Their strong faith in final causes and in Providencea faith in which they closely followed Socrateswould be hardly consistent with anything but the ascription of a distinct and individual consciousness to the Supreme Being, which is just what modern pantheists refuse to admit. Their God was sometimes described as the soul of the world, the fiery element surrounding and penetrating every other kind of matter. What remained was the body of God; but it was a body which he had originally created out of his own substance, and would, in the fulness of time, absorb into that substance again.25 Thus they kept the future conflagration foretold by Heracleitus, but gave it a more religious colouring. The process of creation was then to begin over again, and all things were to run the same12 course as before down to the minutest particulars, human history repeating itself, and the same persons returning to live the same lives once more.26 Such a belief evidently involved the most rigid fatalism: and here again their doctrine offers a pointed contrast to that of Aristotle. The Stagirite, differing, as it would seem, in this respect from all the older physicists, maintained that there was an element of chance and spontaneity in the sublunary sphere; and without going very deeply into the mechanism of motives or the theory of moral responsibility, he had claimed a similar indeterminateness for the human will. Stoicism would hear of neither; with it, as with modern science, the chain of causation is unbroken from first to last, and extends to all phenomena alike. The old theological notion of an omnipotent divine will, or of a destiny superior even to that will, was at once confirmed and continued by the new theory of natural law; just as the predestination of the Reformers reappeared in the metaphysical rationalism of Spinoza.27The amphibian can set down on the water and shell pass the placealready theres somebody climbing out of the front cockpit onto the wingto grab the thing as they pass! Sandy muttered.
TWO:When a piece is placed on an anvil, and struck on the top side with a certain force, the bottom or anvil side of the piece does not receive an equal force. A share of the blow is absorbed by the inertia of the piece struck, and the effect on the bottom side is, theoretically, as the force of the blow, less the cushioning effect and the inertia of the pieces acted upon.In making designs it is best to employ no references except such as are carried in the memory. The more familiar a person is with machinery of any class, the more able he may be to prepare designs, but not by measuring and referring to other people's plans. Dimensions and arrangement from examples are, by such a course, unconsciously carried into a new drawing, even by the most skilled; besides, it is by no means a dignified matter to collect other people's plans, and by a little combination and modification produce new designs. It may be an easy plan to acquire a certain kind of proficiency, but will most certainly hinder an engineer from ever rising to the dignity of an original designer.
