Upload
likaikalifica
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 De La Contingence Des Lois de La Nature Chapter 1
1/10
CHAPTER I
NECESSITY
BY what sign do we recognise that a thing is neces
sary ? What is the criterion of necessity ?
If we attempt to define the concept of an absolute
necessity, we are led to eliminate therefrom everyrelation that subordinates the existence of one
thingto that of another as a condition. Hence absolute
necessity excludes all synthetic multiplicity, all possi
bility of things or of laws, and so there is no occasion
to inquire if it holds sway throughout the given
universe, which is essentially a multiplicity of things
that depend, more or less, upon one another.
In reality, the problem under investigation is the
following : by what sign do we recognise relative
necessity, i.e. the existence of a necessary relation
between two things ?
The mostperfect type
ofnecessary
concatenation
is the syllogism, in which we have a particular pro
position shown to result from a general one because
it is contained in it and consequently was implicitlyaffirmed the very moment the general propositionitself was affirmed. The syllogism, after all, is but
the proof of an analytical relation that exists between
8/14/2019 De La Contingence Des Lois de La Nature Chapter 1
2/10
8 Contingency of the Laws of Nature
genus and species, the whole and the part. Conse
quently, where there exists analytical relationship,we find necessary concatenation. This concatenation,
however, per se, is a purely formal one. If the general
proposition is contingent, the particular one deduced
from it, as such, at all events, is equally and neces
sarily contingent. It is impossible, by syllogism, to
obtain demonstration of real necessity, simply by
connecting all the conclusions with a major neces
sary in itself. Is this process compatible with the
conditions of analysis ?
From the analytical point of view, the only pro
position wholly necessary in itself is that which hasfor its formula A = A. Any proposition in which theattribute or predicate is different from the subject, as
is the case even if one of the two terms results
from the decomposition of the other, leaves behind
a synthetical relationship as a counterpart of the
analytical relationship. Can syllogism reduce syn
thetically analytical propositions to purely analytical
ones.
At the outset, we find a difference between the
propositions on which syllogism works and the one
we have to reach. In the latter, the terms are connected by the sign = ; in the others, by the copulais. Is this a radical difference ?
The copula is, used in ordinary propositions, is
perhaps not unrelated to the sign =. From the
standpoint of the extension of the terms the stand
point of reasoning it means that the subject ex-
8/14/2019 De La Contingence Des Lois de La Nature Chapter 1
3/10
Necessity 9
presses only a part of the predicate, a part whose
relative magnitude is not indicated. The proposition "All men are mortal" signifies that the species"man" is a part of the genus
"
mortal," and leaves
the relation between the number of men and the
number of mortals an indeterminate one. Were this
relation known, one might say : "All men = - mortals."n
The progress of science, it may be added, consists in
determining with greater accuracy and completeness
the species contained in the genera, so that, in a
perfect science, the sign = would everywhere have
replaced the copula is. The formula of this science
would be A = B-fC + D + . . .; B = a + 6 + c . . .,etc. Substituting their values for B, C, D, etc., we
should finally obtain: A = -f + + . . . Now, isthis a purely analytical formula ?
No doubt the relation between A and its partsis analytical, but the reciprocal relation between the
parts and the whole is synthetical ; for multiplicitydoes not contain the reason of unity. And there is
nothing to be gained by alleging that when we
replace a + b + c+ . . . by their values we obtainA = A, for what science does is to consider A as adecomposable whole and to divide it into its parts.
Still, the objection will be raised, the ideal ana
lytical form, towards which science tends, may be
conceived otherwise. The effect of interposing a
middle term M between two given terms S and Pis to divide in two the interval resulting from their
8/14/2019 De La Contingence Des Lois de La Nature Chapter 1
4/10
io Contingency of the Laws of Nature
difference of extension. Middle terms will likewise
be interposed between S and M, between M andP, and so on, until all the gaps are completelyfilled up. The passing from S to P will then be
imperceptible. Continuing in this way, we come
back to the final essence A, with which everythingwill be connected by a chain of continuity.
This point of view, indeed, admits of the reduc
tion of all propositions to the formula A is A. Butthis time the copula is cannot be replaced by the
sign=
,for the interposition of any number what
soever of middle terms cannot entirely fill up the
intervalbetween
theparticular and the general.
The transitions, though becoming less sudden, arenone the less discontinuous
;and so there is always
a difference of extension or denotation between
subject and predicate.It is therefore impossible to reduce particular
relations to the formula A = A, i.e. by analysis toarrive at the demonstration of radical necessity.
Analysis and syllogism demonstrate only derivative
necessity, i.e. the impossibility of a certain thing
being false if a certain other thing is admitted to
be true.Where analysis is wrong, in so far as it professes
to be self-sufficient, is that it admits of nothing
beyond an identical proposition as a final explana
tion, and is unable to reduce to such a formula the
propositions that have to be explained. It is useful
only if an identical proposition, made up of hetero-
8/14/2019 De La Contingence Des Lois de La Nature Chapter 1
5/10
Necessity 1 1
geneous elements, is supplied as its point of depart
ure;
it demonstrates necessity only if it develops a
necessary synthesis. Do such syntheses exist?
Experience, which offers no universal knowledge
whatsoever in time and space and simply makes
known the external relations between things, mayreveal constant though not necessary relations.
Thus, above all else, that it may be necessary, a
synthesis must be known a priori. True, we mighthave to find out whether such a synthesis is neces
sary from the standpoint of things, as it is for the
mind. At the outset, however, it is sufficient that
it be necessary for the mind for there to be no
occasion to discuss its objective reality, since this
discussion could only take place in accordance with
the laws of the mind. If, perchance, the course of
things did not exactly conform to the principleslaid down a priori by the mind, we should have to
conclude, not that the mind is mistaken, but thatmatter betrays its participation in non-entity by a
feeble revolt against order.
How are we to recognise that a judgment is apriori ?
For a judgment to be regarded as a priori, its
elements, terms, and relation must not be derived
from experience. That the terms may be consideredas not coming from experience, it is not enoughfor them to be abstract. Experience, after all, givesus no datum which does not present both a con
crete and an abstract aspect. I cannot gather up
8/14/2019 De La Contingence Des Lois de La Nature Chapter 1
6/10
12 Contingency of the Laws of Nature
in a single intuition both the colour and the odour
of one and the same object. The boldest abstractions may be no more than the extension, performed by the understanding, of the subdivision
outlined by the senses. Moreover, experience itself
sets us on the path of this extension by giving us
more or less abstract data about things, accordingto distance, duration, or intensity. That a term,
therefore, may be considered as laid down a priori,it must proceed from experience neither directly,
by a process of intuition, nor indirectly, by a process of abstraction.
Similarly, for a relation to be considered as laiddown a priori, it is not enough that it should set
up any kind of systematisation between intuitions,
as though experience supplied nothing that re
sembled a system. To suppose an intuition abso
lutely devoid of unity is to depart from the condi
tions of reality. The most immediate perceptions
imply the grouping together of similar parts and
the separation of dissimilar objects. A multiplicity,pure and simple, is something altogether incon
ceivable ; if it offers nothing upon which thought
may lay holdit
cannot be a datum of experience.Actually, then, in the very objects perceived, there
is a certain degree of systematisation ; and so,
before affirming that a relation of dependence, set
up between two terms, is not due to experience,we must find out if this relation is radically distinctfrom those we are privileged to set up. This rela-
8/14/2019 De La Contingence Des Lois de La Nature Chapter 1
7/10
Necessity 1 3
tion must radically differ from those which experience offers us or which we can read in the data
of experience.
The field of experience, besides, may be clearlydefined: it consists of facts and their observable
relations. Facts may be divided into external and
internal facts, those proper to the being which is
their subject. By the senses we can become acquainted with the former ; by empirical conscious
ness, or the inner sense, we can apprehend the
latter within ourselves. Observable relations consist
of relations of resemblance or contiguity, whether
simultaneous or successive.
A synthetical judgment is subjectively necessary,if stated a priori ; but in order that it may be a
sign of necessity, from the standpoint of things, it
must in addition affirm some necessary relation
between the terms it compares. A major which
stated a contingent relation would pass on thischaracter to all its consequents. Now, the objectiverelations that may exist between two terms arereducible to four : the relations of cause to effect,
of means to end, of substance to attribute, and of
whole to part. The relations of substance to attribute and of whole to part may be reduced to
causality and finality. In the last issue, then, there
remain only these relations of causality and finality.We cannot say regarding any end that it must
necessarily be realised, for no event, of itself alone,is
the whole of what is possible. On the contrary,
8/14/2019 De La Contingence Des Lois de La Nature Chapter 1
8/10
14 Contingency of the Laws of Nature
there are infinite possibilities apart from the event
under consideration. The chances, then, of realising this event compared with the chances of realis
ing something else are as one to infinity ; and so
the realisation of any given end, such as the
uniformity with which phenomena succeed one an
other, is, in itself, infinitely improbable and far from
being necessary. Besides, even if an end is laid
down as one that must be realised, the means to
be used with a view to this result are not deter
mined at the same time. Any end may equallybe realised by different means, just as any goal
may equally be reached along different roads.True, the means will not all be alike simple or
good in themselves. The end, however, as such,is not interested in these differences ; and the
reason we take this into account is that we exalt
the means itself into a secondary end v The realisation of the end by the means presupposes an
agent capable of knowing, preferring, and accom
plishing ; and so it is not necessary per se.
It is not the same in the production of an effect
by its cause, if the word cause is given its strict
meaning as a productive force.The cause, strictly so called, is only such if it
produces an effect. Moreover, it acts solely byvirtue of its nature; it cares nothing for the
aesthetic or moral value of the result. Thus, there
are no grounds for admitting any degree of contin
gency in the simple relation of cause to effect.
8/14/2019 De La Contingence Des Lois de La Nature Chapter 1
9/10
Necessity 1 5
This relation is the perfect though unique type of
primordial necessity.And so it is only to a priori causal syntheses
that necessity, alike objective and subjective, appertains : they alone are capable of producing wholly
necessary analytical consequences.
To sum up, the criterion of the necessity of arelation is the possibility of reducing it analytically
to a subjectively and objectively necessary synthesis.
The principle of the necessary conjunction of things,the magnetic stone whose virtue is transmitted to
every link, can only be the a priori causal
synthesis.
Now, if it happened that it were impossible to
establish the legitimacy of like syntheses as con
stitutive or regulative principles of the knowledgeof given things, would all necessity become delusive
or fallacious ?
Assuredly we should no longer be dealing with
a radical necessity, as prevailing throughout the
given world, since, even though certain syntheses
implied in experience were necessary per se, the
mind, in the case in question, would not be in a
position toascertain this.
Nevertheless, the combination of experience and analysis might still
manifest a certain kind of necessity : the only one,
indeed, usually followed by the positive sciences.
It may, in fact, be conceived that particular syntheses empirically given may be reduced to more
general syntheses, and these latter to still more
8/14/2019 De La Contingence Des Lois de La Nature Chapter 1
10/10
1 6 Contingency of the Laws of Nature
general ones, and so on, until we come to a more
or less restricted number of practically irreducible
syntheses. The ideal would be to reduce every
thing to a single synthesis, one supreme law which
would contain all the laws of the universe as
particular cases. No doubt these general formulae,founded on
experience,would retain the character
of this latter, which is to make known what is,not what is incapable of not being. Nothing could
prove them to be necessary per se. They would,
however, set up a necessary relation between all
particular facts, as such. The slightest change in
detail would imply the overthrow of the universe.
We may therefore accept the possibility of anecessity of fact along with the necessity of theory.
The latter is present when the synthesis developed
by analysis is stated a priori by the mind and
unites an effect to a cause. When thissynthesis,
without being known a priori, is implied in a
totality of known facts and is constantly beingconfirmed by experience, it manifests, if not the
necessity of the whole, at all events the necessity
of each part, on the supposition that all the other
parts are realised.