As to the existence of pure natural science, or physics, perhaps many may still express doubts. But as to metaphysics, the miserable progress it has hitherto made, and the fact that of no one system yet brought forward, far as regards its true aim, can it be said that this science really exists, leaves any one at liberty to doubt with reason the very possibility of its existence. Respecting these sciences, as they do certainly exist, it may with propriety be asked, how they are possible?-for that they must be possible is shown by the fact of their really existing. How is pure mathematical science possible? In the solution of the above problem is at the same time comprehended the possibility of the use of pure reason in the foundation and construction of all sciences which contain theoretical knowledge à priori of objects, that is to say, the answer to the following questions: For he would then have perceived that, according to his own argument, there likewise could not be any pure mathematical science, which assuredly cannot exist without synthetical propositions à priori-an absurdity from which his good understanding must have saved him. Against this assertion, destructive to all pure philosophy, he would have been guarded, had he had our problem before his eyes in its universality. According to his conclusions, then, all that we term metaphysical science is a mere delusion, arising from the fancied insight of reason into that which is in truth borrowed from experience, and to which habit has given the appearance of necessity. On the contrary, he stopped short at the synthetical proposition of the connection of an effect with its cause (principium causalitatis), insisting that such proposition à priori was impossible. Among philosophers, David Hume came the nearest of all to this problem yet it never acquired in his mind sufficient precision, nor did he regard the question in its universality. Upon the solution of this problem, or upon sufficient proof of the impossibility of synthetical knowledge à priori, depends the existence or downfall of the science of metaphysics. That metaphysical science has hitherto remained in so vacillating a state of uncertainty and contradiction, is only to be attributed to the fact that this great problem, and perhaps even the difference between analytical and synthetical judgements, did not sooner suggest itself to philosophers. The proper problem of pure reason, then, is contained in the question: “How are synthetical judgements à priori possible?” For in this manner, we not only facilitate our own labour, inasmuch as we define it clearly to ourselves, but also render it more easy for others to decide whether we have done justice to our undertaking. It is extremely advantageous to be able to bring a number of investigations under the formula of a single problem.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |