Sextus Empiricus: Physics 383
tence of place, they proceed themselves to establish in a variety of ways
that place is non-existent, availing themselves of what appear to be the
weightiest positions among the dogmatists regarding place, those of the
Stoics and Peripatetics, in this way.
- The Stoics say that void is that which is not occupied by a thing
which is, but is such as to be occupied; or an interval empty of a body;
or an interval unoccupied by a body; and that place is an interval occupied
by a thing which is and coextensive with that which occupies it, calling
body a thing which is; space is an interval partly occupied by body and
partly not, although some say that space is the place of a large body, as
though the difference between place and space were one of magnitude. - It is said, then, that since they say that place is an interval occupied
by a body, how do they define 'interval'? Do they mean only the length
of the body or the breadth or the depth, or all three dimensions? If they
mean only one of these dimensions, then the place is not coextensive
with that of which it is the place, and besides, that which surrounds is
then part of that which is surrounded, which is altogether absurd. 126.
If, however, ['interval' means] all three dimensions, since neither a void
nor any other body having a dimension is assumed to be in that which
is called 'place,' but what is said to be in a place is only the body which
is composed of the dimensions (for these are length, breadth, depth) and
resistance, (which is said to be an accident of the three aforementioned
dimensions), then the body itself will be its own place, and the same
thing will be surrounding and surrounded, which is absurd. Therefore,
there is no dimension of place as an underlying subject. 127. For this
reason, it is not the case that place is something.
Further, this argument is advanced. Since the dimensions for each of
the [bodies] said to be in a place are not understood to be duplicated,
but rather length, breadth, and depth are each one, are these dimensions
of the body alone or of the place alone, or both? If they are only of the
place, the body will not have its own length, breadth, and depth, so that
the body will not be a body, which is absurd. 128. If they are of both, since
the void has no existence apart from the dimensions, if the dimensions of
the void are assumed to exist in the body, and are constituents of the
body itself, then the constitutents of the void will be what constitutes
the body. For, regarding the existence of resistance, it is not possible to
make a definite assertion, as we have suggested previously.^45 But since
only the dimensions appear to be in what is called the body, and these
[dimensions] are just those of the void and are the same as the void, then
the body will be a void, which is absurd. If, however, they are dimensions
of the body alone, there will be no dimensions of the place and therefore - PH 3.45 ff.