LOGIC

FROM

THE

GERMAN

OF
DOCTOR AND

EMMANUEL
LATE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF

KANT,
PURE PHILOSOPHY

M.

A.
Iff THX

VNIFERSITY

OF

KONINGSBERG,
OF SCIENCES

AND

MEMBER

OF

THE

ROYAL

ACADEMY

OF

BERLIN',

TO

WHICH

IS

ANNEXED

S"etd)

of "fe SLtfc anfc

SHftrittngg

BY

JOHN
INQUIRY
OF

RICHARDSON,
INTO THE GROUNDS OP PROOF fOR

AUTHOR

OF

CRITICAL

THE

EXISTENCE

GOD,

AND

INTO

THE

THEODICY.

JLonuort
PRINTED FOR W. SIMPK1N
AND R.

:
STATIONERS' COURT,

MARSHALL,

LUDGATE-STREET.

1819.

PREFACE
BY THE

TRANSLATOR.

IT is not

augmenting
For

the

sciences,but disfiguring
are

them, when
on
a one

their boundaries which

allowed and

to encroach
as

another.

reason,

logicis
and

science,

wherein
but the

nothing
formal

is

fully shewn
in it from their free

strictly proved
and
as we

rules of all abstract

thinking,
all ence, differfrom

by

consequence
as

of knowledge, objects
our

well
us

as

from

author

has

left

his of

logic

every
or

extraneous

admixture

either

ontological,

or or metaphysianthropological, cal psychological,

matter.

Whoever of the proper

the and

has

but

clear and
this

distinct

conception
soon

nature

of

science, will
between
the
more

cover dis-

great difference
treatises
on

Kant's

Logic

all former its

same

not subject,

only by

being

purer

and

but, systematical, method,

many

for all its scientific strictness

of of

by

its being

simpler, and trappings of

therefore
it to the mood

divested and

of the The

tinsel

of

figure.

translator
in

conceives

himself

warrantable

ing present-

English public.*

This

Treatise
a

on

Logic,

which

is intended

for

manual

for

lectures, is

posthumous

work,

and

it is the

editor Gottlob

PREFACE.

He

trusts

too, that candid

a

and
numerous
a

competent judges

not (unfortunately

very

body

in any
a

nation) will
system,
which

not

on repudiate,

review, slight

purged of much useless,though is now and which ostentatious,scholastic subtilty,

is

taught and
of

flourishes in all the

sities jprotestantuniver-

As to his labour (a very secondary Germany. consideration), by the way, it will, if it or he

any

lightthat

may

have

thrown he has and the

at

on

science

which (the critical philosophy), for years both in

to

been

ing studyshall

Germany
deserve

home,

hereafter
those

be found

approbation of

judges, be amply requited.

Benjamin Fesche
the
of

(doctorand privateteacher
of the

of

philosophy

in

of Koningsberg,fellow university

Learned
and

Society
friend of

Francfort
whom his

on we

the have

Oder, disciple, follower,

to thank

Kant)

for

having thus

lished pubfaithfully
The doctor has has in

illustrious
us

master's

manuscript.
he

promised

his in

Metaphysic also, which

own

likewise

manuscript
comes

Kant's

writing,and which,
intends
to turn

the moment
to

it

to
we

hand,

the translator

and

publish:
this

when

shall have

and complete of something systematical man's own, and

not

incomparably great
with which scraps,

be

any

led longer troub-

mutilated his

extracts, and
sense or

imperfect quotations,
only
serve

cannot

convey

and spirit,
a

to

ceive deof

the

public by givingthem

false

notion

of his method the

philosophising, by leadingthose totallyignorant of

of his

ples princi-

system

to

of prattle superficially
a

his

trine, profound docof his sublime

and

by making

mere

dogmatic jargon

science.

PREFACE*

When
and

the

arts

and

the

sciences

are

improved

words, than those which more enlarged, many become sufficed in their infancy, necessary, Nulli quibus ea$ qui res ignorarent,nomina, unquam,
The exprimerent qucesierunt.
.

author

found and
terms

the

technical the German critical

or

rather

the scientific words

of

of languageinadequateto his method liged oband was consequently philosophising,

new ones.

to coin

The

translator of

course

is reduced that

to

the

same

languageis not
tongue
;

in English; for necessity less copiousthan our lar vernacuor a

and

circumlocution

periphrastical

tends greatly to style

enfeeble

ing. reasonphilosophical

Should

any

critic,however,

or

philosopher,
to

whose

province it more
words
or

immediatelyis, deign
more

suggest

terms

of expressive his sole

the in,

meaning, than his may be, he, as his author's thoughts in an clothing
is, to render
of their
sense

aim,

Englishdress,
any mite fectation afto

without faithfully
to contribute

and novelty,

his

propagate

and

diffuse useful
this work

and

sublime the

ledge, knowto

will,should

have

fortune
those
more

survive the present edition, then

adopt

appositewords
; for

and

terms

with

and pleagratitude sure little

more

he, though in this instance

is far above translator, words.

than
a

mere

or logomachy,

about dispute

True

logic(saysWatts) does
words
to amuse

detail of hard

requirealong mankind, and to puff

not

VI

PREFACE.

up

the mind

with
some

empty

sounds

and

prideof

false
are

; yet learning

distinctions and every

our

terms

of art

necessary

to to

range

in conception

its proper

class,and

keep

from thoughts and in in fact do

common

confusion.

Though
like Mr.

we

may and

in conversation

Jourdain
who

(inMoliere's
prose it.

botii syllogize writings,it is, Bourgeois Gentilmore

homme),

spoke in

for
"

than

forty

years, without An

knowing

with the school form of ratiocination, acquaintance to every man however, is indispensable of
a

not

only of science, but

the (continues
to suffer this

liberal education.
now

The wise

world
as

is doctor)

grown

so

not

valuable science to be
so

engrossed
age,

by

the schools.
man

In

and polite
covet

so some

knowing an

every with

of

reason

will
it renders

acquaintance
dom to wisto

since logic, and

to

its

service daily

virtue, and

is subservient
as

the affairs

of

common

life,as well

to the sciences.

In

short, the study of the

in this

of logic tained conspecies cal compendium should, in the academiall

instruction, precede the studyof

like
who and
reason a

quarantine(so to say),which
a

philosophy, the disciple,

has
error

mind

and

prejudice of more into the territory enlightened of the sciences, must perform.
to

go out

of the land of

It is to be

hoped,
of

that

Kant's

accurate

and

found pro-

method

a small specimen philosophising,

PREFACE.

Vll

of

which

is

exhibited
from

in

this

work,,

will

meet

with vey's Har-

better

reception
doctrine
For who

our

philosophers, beginning,
that the
no

than from

did,
Hume

at

the

our

sicians. phyin

relates,,
reached

physician
of

Europe,
to

had his of

age

forty,
doctrine

ever,

the

end

of

life,
the

adopted
blood,

Harvey's
and that

of

the

circulation London

his

practice reproach
So
"

in

diminished

extremely
great
of and

from

the

incurred

by
is the

this

signal
in

discovery.
science,,
or

slow
when

progress

truth either

every

even

not

opposed
I
"

by
tf

factious

tious supersti-

prejudices
The

So

slow
is

growth

of

what

excellent
this

so

hard

T'attain

perfection

in

nether

world1/'

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

Page
f. It.

Conception of Logic Chief

Divisions Sketch

of

Logic.
a

Propounding
of
in it

Use

of

this
-

Science. ///.

of

History

17

Conception
considered mundane

of Philosophy according
to

General. the

Philosophy
and the

both Essential

scholastic

Conception.

and Requisites

Ends

of Philosophising.
Problems

The

most

general
-

and

the

chief
25
-

of
Sketch
in

this

Science.
a

IV. y.

Light

of

History of Philosophy
Intuitive
and

32

Cognition
;

general.
and

Discursive
and
their

nition Cogtinction DisPer"

42

Intuition
in

Conception)

particular.

Logical

and

Esthetical
-

fection of Cognition
VI.
Particular
A.

logical Perfections of Cognition.

as

Logical Perfection of Cognition

Do.
Do.
Do.

to

Quantity*
Relation

52

VII. VIII. IX.

B. G. D.

Do.
Do. Do.

6? 79
91

Quality*. Modality of
om

".

Probability.

Explanation

the

Probable.

tinction Disthematical MaDoubt

of Probability ft
and both and

Verisimilitude.

Philosophical
objective.

Probability.

subjectiveand
Critical Cast

Sceptical, Dogmatical,
Method

of

Mind

or

of

phising. Philoso115

Hypotheses
b

CONTENTS.

APPENDIX.

Ofthe

Distinction

of

theoretical

and

of practical

Cognition

122

LOGIC.

PART

THE

FIRST.

General

Doctrine

of
-

Elements.
125

See*

L II.

Of

Conceptions
~*

.141

of Judgments
of

160
-

III.

Syllogism

PART

THE

SECOND.

General

Doctrine

of

Method.

I.

Promoting
Definition,

the

logical

Perfection
and

of
the

Cognition

by

the

Jhe

Exposition^
~

Description
-

of
197

Conceptions.

APPENDIX.

//.

Promdting
Division the

the

Perfection Conceptions.

of

Cognition

by

the

logical
209

of

Sketch

of

Author's
-

Life
-

and

Writings
.

by

the

lator. Trans216
.

INTRODUCTION.

I.

Conception of
EVERY
as

thing in
the animated
to

nature,

as

well

in

the
or

inanimat
is done
cording* ac-

in

world,

happens
we

rules, though
falls the

do
to

not

always
laws is of

know vitation, gra-

them.

Water and

according
of

the

motion
to

walking
The

performed
fish
to

by

animals
the

according
bird in the

rules.

in

the

water,

air, moves

according
but
;
we
a

rules. of
is
no

All nature,, in

general,is nothing
to

coherence there
we

phenomena
where that rules The

according
want
we can

rules When

and

any

of rule.

think

find the

want,
are

only
to
us.

say

that, in

this case,

unknown exercise
to

of

our

powers

too
we

takes
observe
we

place

cording ac-

certain of

rules, which
them essays
at

without attain it
our

knowledge

first, till
a

by degrees by
powers, ourselves think for nay,
at

and

longer

use

of

make

them
we

(the rules) so
have

easy

to

last, that
in the

to great difficulty

of them

abstract. form of
a

Universal

grammar^
in
;

instance, is the
we

language
grammar

general.
and

But

speak

without

knowing

he,

10
who

INTRODUCTION.

speakswithout knowing it,has a grammar speaks according to rules, of which he is

The

and
not

sensible.

like understanding in particular,

in

all other

powers

rules,which

in its operationsto is bound general, standing we can Yes, the underinvestigate. considered
as

is to be

the

source

and

the

of rules in general. For, as of conceivingfaculty the sensitive faculty(sensualithe sensitivity, or of intuitions, the understanding tas*),is the faculty that is to say, of reducingthe is that of thinking, of representations desirous when the of ihe
senses

to rules.

It

fore is theresatisfied

looking for
them. The
source

rules, and

it has found

question then is,as

of

understanding is the
there
is not
use

rules,

on

what

rules it proceedsitself.
For the
our

least

doubt, but

we

can,

neither think,nor
than

otherwise, understanding
rules. But
we can

accordingto
rules of

certain

think

of these

conceive

again by themselves, that is,we can in them without their application, or

What
are

the abstract.

these

rules ? ing the understandor no

All the rules, according to which

proceeds, are,
The former
are

cither

necessary, which

contingent.
use

those, without
be

of the

\vould understanding without which

a

possible;the
use

latter those, of it would

certain determinate

As

the in

word
our

sensualityhas degenerated language, we

crave

from

its

original

meaning

leave

to

substitute

the word

to Sensitivity

express

the intuitive

faculty.

INTRODUCTION.

11

not

take upon

place. The
a

determinate the

pend rules, which decontingent of cognition, are as object

For

manifold there is

as
a

objectsthemselves.
of the moral

example,,
the matics, mathe-

use

understanding in

in The

metaphysics, in
the

philosophy,"c.
use are

rules of this

determinate particular aforesaid sciences

of

the

in understanding
;

gent contin-

because of that

this

or

whether think of we contingent, rules objectto which these particular it is

have reference.

But, when
we

we

set

aside the of

all the

cognition,which
reflect ral, gene-

must

borrow

from
the
use

entirely upon
we

merely, and objects the understanding in

which it, and
are

discover

those

rules of

ly absolute-

necessary
any without

in every

respect

without

ing regardcan

particularobjectsof
them
we
a

thinking;because
at all.

could

not

think

Hence

they be

known

of that is,independently priori,

all

experience;
of of the be

because

they comprise,
the condition

without of the

tinction disuse

merely objects,

it (theuse) whether in general, understanding it follows, that hence pure or empirical. And and the necessary its form rules of

the universal

thinking in
no

general
its matter.

can

regard

merely, by

means prehends com-

|dConsequentlythe science,
these universal and

which

necessary

rules, is
our

merely a

science of the form

of

of the And

of cognition
we can

or understanding,

thinking.
as

frame

to ourselves

an

idea of the
same manner

of a possibility that of
a

science of

that sort, in the

universal

12
which of

INTRODUCTION.

grammar,
bare that

contains in

nothing

more

than

the

form

language
the matter

belong to
science and

general,without of language.
laws of in

words

This

of the necessary of
same reason

standing the underof

general,or
mere

(what

amounts

to the

thing) the
name

form

ing of think-

in As

we general, a

Logic.
extends
to

science,, which

all

thinking in
of

without general,,

as regarding objects,

the matter

thinking, Logic is,

1, to be
other considered
as
as

the foundation

of

all the

sciences, and
all
use

the the

propedeytic (pre-exerciunderstanding.
But it all

tation)of
cannot,

of of

because

its

from totally abstracting

objects,
2, be
an

organon organon

of the sciences.
we

By
how
a

an

understand
to
we

the

direction

certain

cognitionis
the

be

brought about.
know previously

But, thereto it is
the of object according to

that required,

which cognition rules.

not

is to be

produced
of the sciences it the

certain
is

An
mere

organon

therefore

logic, because

gives to
The

presuppose their

the

exact

knowledge
of their
as
a

of

sciences, of

objects,and
for the

sources.

mathematics,

instance,

science

which
of
our

comprises

ground
respect
organon.

of
to
a

the

enlarging
use

cognition with
are
an

certain Whereas

of

reason,
as

excellent

logic,
of the
not be

it, the

universal

and understanding

of the use propedeytic of reason in general, must

INTRODUCTION.

13

made

to

go

into the sciences

a

and

to

matter, is but

universal

art of

their anticipate reason (canonica

Epicuri)
the form this view however for the

to make

of the

in generalsuitable to cognitions in and consequently understanding, be denominated

not
an

only to
serves,

organon,

which

for the the

enlarging,but merely
our

judging
a

and

regulatingof
laws

ledge. know-

3.

As

science which has

of the necessary laws

no use

of

ing, think-

without
or

of the which which be

understanding
are

of

reason

place, and
itself

by

quence conse-

the sole
can

conditions,on
or

ing the understand"

agree
laws

with and

consistent, the
its rightuse
a canon
"

cessary ne-

conditions

of

logic,
derstanding un-

however, is

canon.

And
reason,

it,as
must

of the
not

and

of

of

course

row borfrom
thing no-

either principles, any

from
\

any it
must
are

science, or

experiencewhatever
but laws
to the
a

comprehend
necessary
and

which priori,

pertain ap-

Some
in those

in general. understanding principles psychological logicians presuppose introduce absurd

we as

logic. But to into it, is just as

from

such

as principles

to take to

moral

life.

Were

take

philosophy principles

from
our

goes

that is, from the observations on psychology, should but see how thinkingwe understanding, and how it is under the various subjective on, and
to

impediments
lead

conditions; this
the

would

quently conse-

knowledge

of

merely

gent contin-

laws.

In

however, logic,

the

inquiryis after,

INTRODUCTION.

not

but contingent, how

we

necessary
are

rules; not
Hence the

how
must

we

think, but
rules but of

to

think. from of the all how

the

be taken, logic the

not
use

contingent,

from

necessary
in
to
us

understanding,

which

is found
want

without
not

logicwe
is and

know,
how

psychology. In the understanding

proceeded
in It in

thinks, and
how the
O

it has

hitherto

but thinking, is to teach that is. its

*

it shall

proceed
of the

thinking.

us use

right use
3

understanding,

agreeing with itself.

may

From derive that

the

of logicwe explication foregoing essential of properties this

the other

science,

it is, science
mere

41, a
as

of form

reason ;

as

to the

matter,
are

not not

to

the from

because

its

rules it has

taken

and experience,

because

reason

also for its

nition object. Logic, therefore, is a self-cogand understanding with In of reason,

not

of the
as

ever how-

to their faculties to the

as entirely

form.

but regard to objects, would not logic,we

and how

ask,
much

what
can

does it know

the
;

understandingknow,
or

cognition For that were with regard to self-cognition go ? its material use, and consequently belongsto metaphysic. In logic there is but the question,how itself? know does the understanding
how far does its As the
a

rational

science,

as

to both

the matter

and

form, logicfinally is,

a

5,

doctrine,or demonstrated
about the
common

theory. For, as
and,
as

it is

not occupied,

such, mere-

INTRODUCTION.

15 of

Jy empiricaluse
but laws

of

the

and understanding

son, rea-

about the universal and the necessary entirely it depends upon in general, of thinking

a priori,from which all its rules can principles, all nition be derived and proved to be that,to which cog-

of

reason

must

be

conformable.
a a

being, as By logic's
a

science
canon

priori or
use

as

doctrine,

to

be

held
is
mere

of

the

of the

it understanding, esthetic
canon

from essentially distinguished criticism of taste, has

norma

which,

as

not

(a law), but only a

for Esthetic of

(a pattern,or
consists the in rules of the the of

rule

merely

judging),which
with cognition the

universal
the

agreement.

contains

agreement
of the

the laws other

tive sensi-

on faculty ; logic,

hand,

rules

agreement

of of

with cognition
reason.

the laws of the has

never

and understanding

That
can we

but be

rical empia

and principles
or a a

of

course

ence sci-

doctrine, provided that

a

understand
on

by
derstanding un-

doctrine

dogmatical instruction
which without

principles by
the

priori,in

every any

thingis known
other information

received

from

experience,and
the yields

which desired

observance

givesus rules,whose perfection.

and
never

orators Many, particularly to reason

on

poets, have
been

tempted at-

taste, but
on a

able to
the
as
a

givea

decisive

judgment
formed has

it.

Baumgarten,
an

has philosopher,

plan of

esthetic

science.

But the

Home

the distinguished

esthetic that does

righter by

of Criticism, as appellation

16

INTRODUCTION.

the give any rules a priori,which determine but takes its rules like logic, judgment sufficiently, the empiricallaws, acand renders cording a posteriori,
not to which
we

know

the

more

imperfect and

the

more

more (beautiful), perfect

generalby
criticism

parison com-

only.

Logic,then, is more
canon,

than

mere

it is

which

afterwards

serves

for

that criticism,
use

of the judgment of all is,for the principle the

ness as

of

in general,, though but understanding with

of itsrightit is (logic)

respect
organon

to
as

the

mere

form,

as

little an Universal

universal grammar.
the of propedeytic all
use

as logic,

of

the

in understandingin general,is distinguished.,

another which

pointof view, from

the

transcendental

in logic.,
an

objectitself is representedas
whereas understanding, in general. objects

object logic

of the bare extends If

we

universal

to all

collect all the essential marks of the

which

pertain

to the full determination

we

conceptionof logic,
it :
to the matter, not
a

must

conceptionof givethe following

to the
mere

Logic,as

form, but
a

as

is a science necessary laws

of reason; of

science

prioriof

the

with regard,not to parthinking, ticular but in general to all objects ; by objects,

a

consequence
and standing
not ]y, that is,

science
reason

of the in

use right

of the under^

of
on

general,not subjective: ples, princiempirical(psychological)

but

how that

the

is,on

thinks, understanding how a priori, principles

ly, objectivethink.

it must

INTRODUCTION,

17

II.

ing. Principaldivisions of Logic."PropoundSketch Use of this Science. of a History of it.

" "

LOGIC

is

divided^

1,

into

the

analyticand
which
we

the

dialectic. all the

The tions opera-

discovers by dissecting, analytic, of in

reason,

general.
of the

It

perform in thinking of the is, therefore,, an analytic

of
reason,

form

understanding and
the

and

named justly the

necessary
our

logicof truth; because it contains rules of all (formal) truth, without

without It

which

is, cognition
in
a

regard

to

the

jects, ob-

untrue
more

itself. of

is nothing consequently

(ofthe formal dijudication of. our rightness cognition). trine Should this merely theoretical and universal docbe used as a practical art.,that is,as an orgait would of appearbecome a logic a dialectic, non, ance
than
canon

(ars sophistica, disputatoria )

from
a mere

which

arises ing accordof

a

abuse
bare

of the

when, analytic,
the appearance

to the true

form, logical
marks
with the

whose cognition the

must

however

be

taken

from
from In

agreement
times

consequently objects,
was

the matter, is fabricated. former the dialectic

art

studied with

great diligence*By this

false

were principles

18

INTRODUCTION.

propounded
it
was

under

the

appearance

of

truth, and
to

to them, endeavoured, conformably

tain mainthe

in appearance. thing-s

Among
counsellors
as

the Greeks and

dialecticians who
could the

were

the the

the orators, cause be-

lead

people

they pleased;

people can
it was logic, of the art of all

be deceived
at that

by
the

appearances. of appearance. under

Dialectic,then, was
In

time
a

art

for

time

propounded
so

the
all

name

and disputation, culture

long was
certain But
thing no-

and logic
to

philosophythe
every

of

praters,
can

fabricate
more an

appearance.
a

be

unworthy of
be

than philosopher, In this

the culture

of

art of that sort.

tion, significastead introduced in-

it must therefore, of

exploded;and, totally

it, a
into

criticism of this false appearance

logic.
two
: parts of logic

We
the

shall

have consequently

which analytic,
;

propounds

the formal

criteria of
marks

truth and does

and

the

which dialectic,
we
can

comprises the
this
a

the
not

rules,by which
agree
with be of

know, that something

In
sense

them.

the

lectic dia-

would

great

use

as

cathartic

of the

understanding. divided still, Logic is usually 2, into natural or popular,and artificialor

tific (logica scholastica). But this division is
or

sci-en-

improper.
is not
as

For

natural
an

logic,

that of

common

sense,

but logic,

pological anthrorules of

science, which,
the

it handles

the

natural

use

of the

and understanding

of reason,

INTRODUCTION.

19 out with-

that

are

known

but in the concrete, of of them in the

course

consciousness

abstract,has
but

only
or

Nothing empirical principles.

scientific and

artificial

then, logic,

as

science

of the

necessary

of the universal of the

rules of
use

natural

pendently which, indethinking, of the understanding

and

of reason,

jnust

by

the observation
a

though they can be found at first of that natural useonly,beknown

the
name

in the abstract
3.

deserves priori, division of

of

logic.

Yet and

another

is,that logic

retical into theo-

But practical.

this division too is wrong.

as

Universal from
as

which, logic,

a
a

mere

canon,

abstracts

all objects, cannot

have

practical part. This,

the

logic practical givesto

a

presuppose

knowledge

of

it is applied, to which were objects, minate denoin adjecto. Hence a contradiction we may logic ; for in every every science practical science we sal have a form of thinking. Univermust therefore be considered can as practical, logic in general, than a technic of learning nothingmore

certain sort of

an

organon

of the scholastic

method. has logic may

a

In consequence tical and

a

of this division

dogma
thod. me-

technical part.The
of

former

be termed

the doctrine

elements, the latter that of

technical

The
art logical

or practical

part of logic is a
and of the by there-

that treats of the of art and

arrangement
the

terms logical

in order distinctions,

to facilitate the

of operations

understanding.
the

In

neither

of the

parts, however, whether*

the dogmatical, must technical, or

the least attention

20

INTRODUCTION.

be

paid,either

to

the

or object,

to

the

thinking. In
divided,
A, into
we logic

the

latter reference

of subject logicmay be

pure

and

applied or
and consider

mixed.

In

pure

from the other separate the understanding of the mind what it does

powers itself.
as

by

Applied logicconsiders
with the other powers

the

understanding
mind, which direction,
the false

mixed

of the

influence its operations and

so

give it a

that it does it knows

not to

\vhich

proceed accordingto be the rightones.

or a

lawrs,

In strict propriety, mixed

not
we

appliedlogicmust

be termed consider it must be

logic. It
how
our on.

in which psychology, thinking usually goes on, not

is

how
must

go

At

last,indeed, it says what

the various

done, in order, under

to make a impedimentsand limitations, the understanding learn from it ; besides, we may \vhat promotes the rightuse of the understanding, its helpsor the correctors of logical faults and errors.

subjective of use right

But

it is

not

"which
a

every

part of the
be the It is

must

from psychology, be taken,is must thingin appliedlogic sciences,to which logic philosophical propedeytic. of
structing con-

propedeytic. For

said,that the technic, or the method

a

science, must

be

logic.But
In that have materials

that is in
case we

propounded in vain, nay, even

build

the applied

cious. perniwe

begin to
must

before

and

givethe form,
be

but the matter

is

\vanting.The
every science.

technic

propounded

in

INTRODUCTION.

21

with respect to, Finally the division of logicinto 5,,

and
to

that of the

common

that of the

we speculative understanding,

have be thus

observe, that this science

can

by no

means

divided. It cannot be
a

science
as a

of

the the

standing. underspeculative

For,
or

of the

of logic use speculative and sciences,

tion cognispeculative
it were
an mere

of reason,
not
a

organon

of other

propedeyto

tic,or

which pre-exercitation, of the

must

extend of
reason.

all

use possible

and understanding be logic is the the

a

Just
sense.

as

littlecan
sense

of production

common

This

rules of

in cognition

of knowing the faculty But logic must concrete. in thinking the abstract.

be

science

of the rules of human

as

The

universal

understandingmay

ever how-

of logic;and in it we object rules of speculathe particular from then abstract tive it is consequentlydistinguished and reason, of the speculative from the logic understanding. it may As to the propounding of logic, be, either or scholastic, popular. It,when it is suitable to the desire for knowledge, and to the culture of those, who to the capacities to treat the knowledge of the logical have a mind be assumed the rules
as a

science, is scholastic.
to

But the

it,when
wants

it of

descends

the have
to
a

capacities and
mind,
not

those, who
a

to
to

study logicas enlightentheir

the

science, but

use

it in order

is popular. understandings,

In

scholastic

22

INTRODUCTION.

propoundingthe in or universality,
the other

rules must the abstract

be
;

exhibited in the

in their

popular, on
concrete.

in the hand, in the particular, or

The

scholastic

popular; for popularway,

also. To

propounding is the basis of the nobody can propound any thingin a

but he who
can

do it more

ly profound-

conclude,
method.
a

we

here
method

distinguish propounding
we

from

By
be

understand

the way

in which be

certain

to object,

whose

it is to cognition It must and itself, be of

is to applied., from
as

known. completely of the science

taken
course,

the nature
an

order

of

determined thinkingthereby be

and

necessary,

cannot

altered.

signifies nothingbut the way of one's thoughts to others, in delivering

a

Propounding communicating or
order to
der ren-

doctrine
what

intelligible.
we

From
end of

have

said of the nature and

a

and the

of the
use

the logic,

value of this science

of

its studymay
a

be estimated

accordingto

and right

determinate

scale.
a

Logic is not
not
an

universal art of invention organ

on

or

covery; of dis-

of

truth;

nor

is it algebra,

by

whose

assistance

hidden

truths

may

be

vered. disco-

Yet

it
on as

is useful (logic)

and for

as indispensable

ticism cri-

cognition ;
of

or

as judging,

well of order

mon, com-

reason, speculative

in

not

to

instruct it,but to render

it correct,

and

to

make

it

consistent,, or

agree

with itself. For

the

logical

INTRODUCTION.

23
of

of principle

truth is,the

agreement

the understanding

with its own

universal laws.

of logic, with we regardto the history Finally, what follows : shall only mention The logicof the present day derives its origin from Aristotle's Analytic. That philosopher may be

considered
an

as

the father and method

of

He propounds logic.
it into

it as

organon,
His

divides

analyticand
and
tends ex-

dialectic.
to the

is very the most of

no

scholastic

unfoldingof
form the basis there
case

which

general tions concepof which folding, unlogic ;

;
mere

however,
every

is
runs

use

because

almost

thingin

this

into

subtilties, cept ex-

that the denomination the

of various

operationsof

is taken from it. understanding since the times of the Stagyrite, Besides, logic, it of matter; nor in point has not gainedmuch can But it may gain with redo so from its very nature. spect
to

accuracy,
but few
as

determinateness, and distinctness. sciences, which

not to be
can

There

are

attain any
more.

manent per-

state,so
those both has

altered

To

logicand metaphysicpertain. Aristotle omitted nothing to the of consequence belonging

are

we understanding; in or orderly

but

more

dical accurate, metho-

the science

of

logic. Organon
would
cept nothing ex-

It

was

believed, that

Lambert's But

much. augment logic

more

it contains

subtile divisions which, like all

are

tilties, rightsub-

but sharpen the intellect,

use.

of

no

material

24

INTRODUCTION.

Among
Leibnitz

the
and

modern

philosophers
who have

there

are

two,

Wolf,

introduced

sal univer-

logic.
Malebranche
matter not treat

and and

Locke,
the in the

as

they
of

handle

the do

of

cognition
of any

origin
proper best

conceptions,
sense.

logic

Wolfs
have

universal

logic

is the

we

have. for

Some instance

conjoined

it with

Aristotle's

logic,

Reusch.

Baumgarten,
respect,
made has

man,

who

has Wolfs

great

merit and

in

this

concentrated
on

logic,

Mayer

comments too

Baumgarten.
among
reflect For and his the modern the

Crusius but this

is numbered did
not

cians logiture na-

he

sufficiently on logic
contains

of

science.

physical meta-

principles,
bounds of of

consequently
he establishes and therefore

passes
a

the

logic

;
can

besides,
be

criterion

truth,

which
free

none,

gives

in

this In

respect
the

scope times have

to

all

extravagancies.
is
not
one

present
and
we

there
no

celebrated any the

new

logician,

occasion
it

for

coveries dis-

for

logic

because

comprises

form

of

thinking only.

INTRODUCTION.

25

in.

losophy of Philosophyin general. PhiConception considered according to both the scholastic and the mundane tion. Concepand Ends Essential Requisites of Philosophising. The most general and the chief Problems of this Science.
IT is sometimes

difficult 4o

what explain

is

derstood un-

by n science. But the science gainsin of its determinate pointof precision by the establishing and faults, which slip conception, many in when be distinguished the science cannot from
the sciences

allied to it,are

avoided.

to our Previously attempt to give a definition of the cha^ must however, we investigate philosophy, racter of the various cognitions themselves, and, as the philosophical of ones belongto the cognitions in particular, what is to be understood explain, reason, by the latter. The of reason torical are opposed to the hiscognitions from prinThose are cognitions ciples; cognitions. from data. But a cognition these, cognitions

may for

arise from

reason man

and of of

yet be

historical the

when,

example, a

letters learns

tions of the

reason

others,his

produc-* of them cognition

is merely historical.

Cognitions may

be

distinguished,
D

26
to 1, according

INTRODUCTION.

their which

only source,
this

from

that is,the origin, objective is possible.In a cognition either

or rational,

respect all cognitions are,

empirical ;
2,

according to
in which Considered

their
a

the way,
men.

that is, origin, subjective be acquired by can cognition the latter

under either

point

of

view,

the

are, cognitions

rational,or
may

in historical, have
be
a

whatever their

way

they

in themselves

taken nition cog-

therefore origin. A cognition of reason when objectively,

may

it is but

cal histori-

subjectively. rational cognitions It is pernicious to know some but indifferent to know others merely historically,
so.

The

mariner, for instance, knows

the rules of

from his tables; and that is historically navigation But, when the lawyer knows law enough for him. only, he is rendered very unfit indeed historically for a legislator. fora good judge, and utterly so the adduced distinction between the objecFrom tively it is and the subjectively rational cognitions, learn philosophy in a certain obvious, that one may By respect without being able to philosophise. he, who would become a philosopher, consequence exercise himself in making a free and not must merely an imitative and, so to say, a mechanical
use

of his

reason.

We

have

the cognitions of explained and principles;

a

reason

as

from cognitions

hence
are

it

follows*
two

that

they must

be

priori.

But there

spe-

INTRODUCTION.

27'

cies of
which

the mathematics and philosophy, cognitions, and yet very considerably both a priori, are

distinct. It is

maintained, that usually

former

the mathematics of

and

the as philosophy, latter of quality, are to the object. That of these

treats

the quantity,
one

distinct

from

another The upon

as

is however
cannot to

false.

tinction disthe

sciences

depend
every

extends object;for philosophy

to

sequently conthing1,

quanta too,
far the
as

and

the mathematics

do

so

likewise,as

every distinct
use

thing-has
sort
reason

quantum.

Nothing
reason
or

but

of

the in

cognition of
the mathematics

of the

of

and between
of

in

makes philosophy
sciences. from the other
mere

the

distinction specific

these
reason
on

is, The Philosophy

nition cog-

conceptions;the mathematics, hand, are, The cognition

of

of

reason

from
construct
a

the construction

conceptions.
we

We

conceptionswhen priori,without
intuition the

exhibit them when

by
we

intuition
exhibit
our use

experience,, or
which object,
The

by

corres*

ponds to
never
can

conceptionof
his
reason

it.

mathematician
mere

to according

tions conception construcreason

the

of used

never philosopher conceptions. In the

his

by

the

mathematics

is

in the

concrete
we

; the

intuition however
case

is not

but empirical,

in

this

make

for ourselves

something a priorithe objectof intuition. We that the mathematics have perceive,

of that philosophy, their

this advantage

cognitions are

INTRODUCTION.

while those intuitive; the

reason

of it are

but

discursive.
on

/Vticl.

of

our

more reflecting*

in quantities be
structed con-

the mathematics

is,that
a

by
cannot

intuition

quantities may priori; whereas

of

qualities

be exhibited

by

intuition.

Philosophyis
or

the

system

philosophical nitions, cogfrom

of the

of cognitions

reason

tions. concep-

That

is the scholastic the

Accordingto
is the
reason.

of this science. conception mundane losophy Phiconception, ends of human

science

of the ultimate

This
an is,

sublime

a digconception,gives nity,

that

absolute

value, to philosophy. And

intrinsic value, and

it is

it only really value

that is of

gives a
It is

to all other

cognitions.
is the
use

What usuallyinquired, and

as a

of

sophising philodered consiception con-

its scope

"

philosophyeven
the school

science

according to
sense

In

this

scholastic
to

of

the but

extends the mundane

address

only ;

philosophy to it,relatively
word
to

conception,extends
the

In utility.
a

the former

is therefore respectphilosophy

doctrine

of address; in the
this
reason.

latter, a
and

doctrine the

of

wisdom;

of legislatrix

reason,

in philosopher,

view,

not

the

but artificer,

the

of legislator

The

artificer of

reason

or,

as

Socrates

names

him,

the

philodox,endeavours
to the

knowledge, without

merely after speculative regardinghow much the

final end of human
rea-

kaowlcdge contributes

INTRODUCTION.

29
of

son

he of

gives rules
ends. The teacher

for

the

use

reason

for all
the

sorts

practicalphilosopher or
of wisdom both

sage,
and
sense.

the

by

doctrine

is the philosopher in the proper by example,, For philosophyis the idea of a perfect that shews
us

wisdom
reason.

the

final ends

of

human

To
are

in philosophy

the scholastic

sense

two

things

: requisite

The
reason

one,
;

sufficient stock of the

a

of cognitions of these idea of

a

the

other,
their

coherence systematic in conjunction the

or cognitions,

whole.
not Philosophy, only allows a strictly systematic the only science, which coherence, but is even

in the and

proper

sense

has

coherence

of

that

sort,

givesall
sense

other

sciences

unity. systematic
cosmicoj,
it may of the

But, with regard to philosophy accordingto the

mundane

(in

sensu

be
use a

maxim termed, A science of the highest

of
our

reason,

provided
internal

that

we

understand

by

maxim,
various For

the ends.

principleof
this of all

choice

between

in philosophy, of the reference

is the signification,
and cognition
reason,

ence sciuse

of all
to

of
as

reason

to

the

scope other

of human ends
are
a

which,

the

all highest,

subordinated,and

in which

they must
field of

to conjoin

unity.
this

The
sense,

in philosophy,

cosmopolitical

may

be

reduced

to the

: following questions

30

INTRODUCTION.

f 1. What
2.

can

we

know

What What

ought we
may is
man we

to do ?

S.

hope
?

for ?

4.
The the and

What

first

question is answered by philosophy, the

by metaphysic,
third

second

by religion,

the fourth all be

might
last one.
The

by anthropology.But theyat bottom to anthropoconsidered as pertaining logy;

the three refer to the first questions

because

must philosopher

therefore

be able

to

mine,, deter-

1, the

sources

%, the
use

knowledge, and the sphere of the possible of all knowledge,and finally,

of human of
most
reason.

geous advanta-

3,
The
most

the boundaries last is the

necessary, which
the

as

well

as

the

but about difficult,

no a

gives philodox

himself

trouble.
: requisite chiefly

To

two thingsare philospher

1, culture
use

of his

and talents, of ends

of
;

address, in order

to

them

for all sorts in the

use

2, habit

of all be

means

to whatever

ends ledge knowbut

Both hepleases.
one

must
never

united; for without

a

will

become
a

philosopher ;

knowledge alone,
all and cognitions into their human the
reason

unless

proper
a

abilities in with

conjunctionof sight unity and an inhighestends

never

agreement

the

of

be

superadded,will

constitute

philosopher.

INTRODUCTION.

31

In
name

cannot

cannot cannot philosophise, generalwhoever himself a philosopher. But philosophising and by the use be learned but by exercise,,
own reason.

of one's And

how

should ?

of philosophybe susceptible

ing be-

learned
go

thinker -Every philosophical

own

builds,
another;

to say, his
a

work

upon

the ruins

of

but

work,

stable in all its parts,has

never

yet been yet

were even

executed.

therefore, Philosophy,
be learned. But should

as

it is not there

given,cannot
one

suppose
learn

extant,

nobody, who
could be but

could it, his

then of it

say, that he is a
never

philosopher ; for
it is otherwise.

knowledge
science

historical. subjectively This

In the mathematics may

are

in
so

some

degree be
it may, laid up would

learned

for the

proofs in

it of

that every body maybe evident,

; and
on as a

convinced

them
as

account

of and

its
a

evidence, be,
stable doctrine.
on

it were,

certain

Whoever

learn to all the of

reason

must, philosophise

the

contrary,consider
histories of the
the exercise The for
true
use

systems

of

as philosophy
as

only,and

of objects

of

his

talent. philosophic
as

therefore, must, philosopher,

a a

thinker
not
a

himself, make
use

free

use

of

his reason,
But
not

an

imitative
use,
an

in

servile
a

manner. one
as

lectic dia-

that

is,such

tends

to

give cognitions
of wisdom. solutely ab-

appearance

only of
of the
mere

truth

and

This

is the business

but sophister; of dignity

with incompatible
as a

the

the

pher, philoso-

knower

and

teacher

of wisdom.

32

INTRODUCTION.

For science is of
of wisdom

an

intrinsic value
as

as

an

organoa

only. But,
science is

to such, it is indispensable

it; so
without
we

that it may

well be maintained,
a

that

wisdom

shadow

of

which perfection

never

shall reach. hates science, but does that account, is named

a a

Who

not love

wisdom

the

lesson

misologist. Misology conjoined.

the but in the

commonly arisesfrom
and from
a

want

of scientificknowledge,

certain sort of

vanitytherewith
at

And

sometimes with
no

those, who

first cultivated
success,

sciences end

and great diligence

found

satisfaction in all their

fall knowledge,

into the fault of

misology. Philosophyis the only science,which

this internal satisfaction ; for it the sciences

can

yield
so

us

closes,

to

say, the scientific circle,and

then

tain ob-

first, by it,order
We
therefore in
to

and

cohesion.
the behoof of the
ercise ex-

shall

have, for
one's

for thinking

of self, 01 of
our

philosophising,
use

consider,more
the

the method

of
we

reason,

than

themselves,at propositions
IV.

which

arrive

by

it.

Light
IT

Sketch
occasions

of
some

Historyof Philosophy.
to difficulty
use

determine

the

bounds, where
ends
common

the the

common

of

the understanding

and

of speculative
reason case
a

it begins ; or, wheh

of cognition there is in this

becomes

philosophy.
criterion :

Yet

prettysure

The

knowledgeof

the universal in the abstract is

INTRODUCTION.

CK"

that of the universal in the concrete speculative, isspecognition "Philosophical cognition. common, and of reason, consequentlyit culative cognition
commences

when

the

common

use

of

reason

begins
in

to

make

essays in the
"

knowledge of
of the

the universal

the abstract From the it may in

this
common

determination
and the

tween distinction beof

son, rea-

use speculative

be

judged what

nation

made

the the

ning beginGreeks

philosophising. Of
the first to

all nations

began
the

philosophize.

For

they began
not

first to cultivate the of

of cognitions

reason,
;

by
of

the clew

images, but
nations

in the abstract

instead
to

which

other

never

endeavoured but

render

to themselves conceptionsintelligible

by images
of

in the concrete.
the Chinese and

And
a

there

are

nations,for instance,
treat

few

Indians,who
such the
as

things
not

taken

merely
of the
to

from

reason,

God,

tality the immordo

deavour en-

soul,and

many

like,but
of

the investigate

nature to
no

these in

objects
the stract. abtween bein

according to conceptionsand
In this the
use case reason

rules

they make
the

distinction and and that

of

in the concrete

the abstract.
some

Among

Persians
of
reason

the

bians Ara;

use speculative

is to be found

but from

they have

taken its rules from

In Zoroaster's of of

Aristotle,of
Zend-Avesta
be

course

the Greeks.
trace

not

the smallest

is to philosophy the esteemed

E

discovered.

That

holds

good

Egyptian wisdom

INTRODUCTION.

which,
mere

in

comparison

of the Greek

is philosophy,

trifle. With

regard to
after

the

mathematics this

too

the

Greeks

are

the
reason

first that cultivated

a

part of the cognition

as

of

scientific method; speculative

they
But
arose

have

demonstrated

every

theorem

from

ments. ele-

when

and the

where

the

first philosophicspirit be

among

Greeks,

cannot

properly
of

mined. deter-

The
reason,

first that and from

to

introduced whom the

the first

use

speculative
derived, is

steps of the human

are

understanding
Thales,
was a

scientific of the
too,

culture

the author

Tonic sect

He, though he
in

mathematician have

is, as the mathematics

general

guished distinalways preceded philosophy,

name

by
in

the

of

physicus.
every

Besides, the first philosophersdressed

thing
but than
even
a

images.
of

For

poetry, which

is
more

nothing

dress prose. with

reason,

thoughts in images, is
Hence
were men

ancient,
first to use,

obligedat
are

regardto things that

the

of merely objects and the

pure

language

of

imagery

poetic
that

style.Pheretzydes is
wrote

said to be

the first author

in prose. Eleatics followed

the lonians. of The

The

principle
the

of the Eleatic

philosophy and
In the
senses

its founder, Xenois illusion

;

phanes, is,
source

'

there

of truth lies in the

understanding only/

INTRODUCTION.

35

Among
Elea

the

of philosophers both

this school
as as a man a

Zeno
of

of

himself, distinguishes
acumen,

great

understandingand
Dialectic pure in the

and

lectician. subtile dia-

the art of the signified beginning stract with regard to abof the understanding use conceptions separated from all sensitivity. the many commendations of this art among those

Hence

the ancients. who

Afterwards, when

philosophers,
the senses,
cessarily ne-

of the testimony totally rejected attended into the

to many art

dialectic subtilties,

generated de-

every
a mere

pugning maintainingand of improposition. And thus did itbecome of for the who sophisters, had
a

exercise
on

mind

to reason

every

thing,and
of
name

studied to

give appearance
white.
a

the colour

truth, to make
of

black

For
man

which

reason

the

sophist, by
with
a

which

that could

and speak reasonably

proper
is become it the

knowledgeof
hated
name

every

and

subjectwas understood, and instead of contemptible,

Ionic of
rare

of the

is introduced.* philosopher

At

time
a

of the
man

school

there

arose

in

Great
erected

Greece
a

parts, who,
and It is

not

only
ject pro-

school,but formed
never

a accomplished

that
was

had

its like. He

born

in Samos. who
were

founded
in
an

who Pythagoras, of phia society losopher

united

alliance with
and Sophist

one

*In

Englishwe
was a

between distinguish

Sophister;
cious spe-

the former
or

teacher of wisdom
a

in

Athens,the latteris a
T.

but plausible

false reasoner.

36 another

INTRODUCTION.

by

the

law

of secrecy.

He
of hear

divided

his

auditors into

two
were

classes; those
allowed to

acusmatists

who (axsoyjux"xoo,

only,

and

those of acromatists
to ask

who (axwapaSowj),

were

ted permithe

too. questions

few

of his doctrines every

were

which exoteric.,
others
were

propounded to only,for some and friendship,

rest.

body ;

the

secret

destined to the members and esoteric,

of whom

of his alliance
an

he conceived

intimate

separated them
the and physics

He

made

from the entirely the vehicle theology the

of his secret

doctrines, by consequence
of the invisible.

doctrine

of the visible and various

Besides, he had

were thing nosymbols,which in all probability the Pythagoreansto but certain signs serving

communicate
The end

to their thoughts

one

another.
to have

of his alliance
to

seems

been

no

other,than
to moderate

from popular errors, religion purify

to introduce
more

tyranny, and
But this afraid

loyalty

into states.
to be

which alliance, been

the

gan tyrantsbe-

the

little before a destroyed society death, and this philosophical Pythagoras' dissolved, partly by the execution, partlyby of and the exile of the greater number flight

of, had

the allied.

The

few

that remained know

can

were

novices.

they did not we doctrines, particular

And,
as

much

say

Pythagoras' certain and nothing

have

of

determinate been

of them.
to

Many

doctrines
was

since
an

ascribed

Pythagoras,who

besides
are

excellent

mathematician, but which

certainly

counterfeited.

INTRODUCTION.

37
the Greek For it is

The

most

epoch of important
with Socrates.

phy philosohe, who

commences

gave
heads

the

and philosophic spirit

new

all the

speculative
And whose
a

quitea
the

direction practical among-

he
duct con-

is

almost

only one

mankind,

approaches nearlyto
Of in the his doctrines practice.!
;

the idea of that of

sage.
more

Plato,who occupiedhimself disciples

of

Socrates, is

the

most

eximious

and the

of

(founderof
hand

of Plato, Aristotle disciples peripatetic sect),who on the other the

improved speculative philosophy. Epicureans

enemies of
one

The
sworn

and

the

Stoics, who

were

the

another, followed
chief

Plato and
in
a

Aristotle

Those which

place the

good

ful cheer-

heart,
found

they term

these voluptuousness;

it in the

of the soul, greatness and the strength

or

by

which

all the agremens,

sweets

of

life, maybe
cal; dialecti-

with. dispensed

In

the speculative philosophy in moral, and dogmatical, which

Stoics

are

shew

in their
sown
were

cal practi-

principles, by
the most sublime

they have
that

the seeds of ed, harbourof the

sentiments

ever

uncommonly
of

great dignity.The
of Cittium. The the Greek

founder
most

Stoic school is Zeno

men are

celebrated

this school and

among

philosophers acquire the

may be

Cleanthes

Chrysippus.
never

The

Epicurean school
Stoics had.

could

reputationthe
said of the

But is

whatever

Epicureans,it

served certain, that they obin

the greatest moderation

enjoyment, and

38

INTRODUCTION.

were

the best natural

of philosophers

all the

thinkers

of Greece. We have bear still to

remark, that

the The from that

chief

Greek
of of

schools
Plato is

particular names.
he the

school the grove of

denominated, Academy,
in which that of

Academus,

taught;
the

Aristotle,
a (orovj),

Lyceum ;*
covered
;

Stoics, Porticus

passage,

from

which

rived word; stoic, is debecause he

the school of

Epicurus, Horti;
Plato's

taught in gardens.

academy
were

was

followed

by
his

three

other

academies,

which

founded

by

disciples.Speusippusfounded
and Carneades These

the

Arcesifirst,

laus the second,

the third.
to

academies

inclined
were was

scepticism.
of the On

Both

Speusippusand
of

Arcesilaus

cast sceptical
so.

mind,

and the

Carneades

yet

more

this

account

these acute, sceptics, also named the first academics.

dialectic
The

phers, philoso-

were

academics

then his

followed
successors.

Pyrrho, and great sceptic,

teacher, Plato himself, gave
many of his doctrines

Their

occasion

to that

by propounding

that reasons and contra so dialogically, pro without his decidingon them, though adduced were he was at other times very dogmatical. from Pyrrho, If we begin the epoch of scepticism
we

have

whole

school

of

who sceptics, way of

are

rially mate-

in distinguished

their

thinking and
de

The

Lyceum
from

(AyxsjovJ, says
to

Lucianus

Gymnasiis, is
T.

named

Apollo Luceus,

whom

it was

sacred.

I
INTRODUCTION".

39

by their making dogmatists, of reason, of all philosophical it the first maxim us" the To suspend one's judgment notwithstanding the of truth ; and laying down greatest appearance That philosophyconsists in the equili-* principle, and teaches us to discover illusion. brium of judging, of these sceptics But nothing more remains,than the
their method from the
two

works

of

Sextus

Empiricus, wherein

he

has

collected all their doubts. When Greeks

Romans In

philosophyafterward
to the
never

passed from

the

Romans, it was
were

not

enlarged ;

for the

but scholars.

Cicero is a disciple of philosophy speculative Antoninus the Plato, in moral a stoic. Epictetus, and philosopher,

Seneca

belongedas
There
were

the most
no

nent emiof

to the stoic sect.

teachers

natural
the

philosophy among
has left
us a

the Romans natural

except Pliny
the Romans gan, be-

elder,who

history.
Arabians

Culture

too, and

at last disappeared among succeeded, tillthe barbarity

in the sixth and the seventh

to the sciences

to apply centuries,

and to revive of

Aristotle. The

sciences

and then

the consideration recovered in

a

in particular, theStagyrite in the

themselves servile manner.

West,

but he

was

followed

In the eleventh

and

the twelfth centuries

the scholastics appeared ;

they

Aristotle and carry his subtiltiesto infinite. explain but mere They occupied themselves about nothing

abstractions.
was

This

scholastic method
the

of

false

losophis phire-

at supplanted

time of the

40
formation that
no

INTRODUCTION.

; and

then there

were

eclectics in

phy, philosoledge acknow-

is, thinkers for themselves, who school, but seek truth, and
it. its amendment the in

adopt it where

they find
But

owes philosophy

more

dern mo-

times,

to partly

greater study
has been these

of

nature,
with

of the to the conjunction partly the physics. The order, which in

mathematics

ed occasionhas

thinkingby
in the proper

the the

study of

sciences of

diffused itself over

branches particular Bacon ,is the

more

sophy philo-

sense.

first and modern

the

greatest
and

natural

of philosopher he treads attention

to

times.

In his researches calls the

the the

path of
and

perience, ex-

importance
of
It is however of speculative

and

the

of indispensableness the

observations truth amendment

experiments to

of discovery the

difficultto say whence

philosophy
not

comes.

Descartes
to

acquired
his

little merit
to

with

regard
he

it

by contributing
erected clearness

much

distinctness by give thinking

criterion of truth, which

and the evidence of

puts in the

knowledge.
and

Leibnitz, however,
among
reformers endeavours
to shew

Locke,

are

to be

bered num-

the

greatest and
our

the most times.

meritorious
The latter

of

in philosophy

to dissect the human

and understanding,
and what

what

powers

of the mind
or

tions opera-

of it belong to this he has

not

to

that of

cognition. But

and

his

investigation; procedure is dogmatical, thoughhis works

finished

the work

his

INTftODUfcTION.

41

have

that philoof this advantage, sophers productive ter begin to studythe nature of the mind betand more profoundly. As to the particular phising dogmaticmethod of philosobeen

to Wolf, it is very to Leibnitz and peculiar faulty. And there is so much illusion in it,that it is absolutely necessary to suspend the whole procedure, to introduce and, instead of it,

another

"

the
sists con-

method

of the

critical philosophising, which

into inquire the

in this, ' To

to dissect the whole itself,

son procedureof reafaculty, human cognitive

and

to

try how

far its boundaries

may

tend/* ex-

In

our

age the

are physics

in the most
indeed

flourishing
among the Later

state,and there
natural

are

great names

for instance, Newton. philosophers,

cannot philosophers

be mentioned at preproperly sent and cause beas distinguished permanent names; in this science is,so to say, in a every thing

continual
down. pulls In

flux.

What

the

one

builds up, the other

moral

we philosophy

have

not
as

made
to

greater
the metaphysics,

progress

than

the
as

ancients.
if we
were

But,
at
a

it seems
*

loss with

regard

It may

not be

is the founder of with

a

here to mention, that Kant himself improper the criticalphilosophy, a system, which begins and
a

most

accurate

of mind, profound philosophy

but

which, though it
former systems in

has obtained

long and justly supplantedall

our

Germany, is (to the great discredit of

it told) not yet known
F

matising dogT.

be sophists

in

our

island !

42
to the
a

INTRODUCTION.

of metaphysical truths. investigation

sort

At present

of indifference
seem

for this science

prevails ;

since

many

to

of contemptuously

speaking mere as metaphysical inquiries,

yet
me-

pridethemselves

in

And speculations. brains-beating is true philosophy. laphysic useless Our and age is that of criticism, of the critical essays and philosophy
to
we

must
our

see

what with

"willbecome

of

time

respect

to

in particular/ metaphysic

V.

Cognition in general. Intuitive and dis~ cursive Cognition ; Intuition and ception, Conand their Distinction in particular. Logical and Esthetical Perfection of Cognition.
has a two- fold reference ; first, cognition ject. reference to the object, secondly,that to the subALL
our

.a

refers It,in the former respect,

in the

to

tion; representauniversal

to consciousness,the latter,

condition of all

or knowledgein the genecognition ral is a representa(and which, properly speaking, tion that another representation is in us, T.)..

Those

who

do

not

read

German

will find

Kant's

critical

works
as

translated into Latin

Borne by professor

of

Leipsic. But,
better to

they are

it were very difficult of translation,

study
to be

them

in German.

They only give this

age

just title

earned ih$ age of criticism. T.

INTRODUCTION.

43 that

In "nd

every

matter, cognition
that be
at

is,the object,
we

form,

is, the way,

distance

in which
a

know for
use

the
ample, ex-

must object,
sees

If distinguished.
a a

savage

house, whose

he

does

not

know,

he
same

before has, in the representation

as another, who object,

him, the very

it

knows of

to determinately

be the

fitted for the

habitation

men. same mere

But,

as

to

form,

this

knowledge
It with the
once

of the
one

is distinct object

in both.

is

but with intuition,

the other at

intuition

and

conception.
distinction of the form
a

The upon

condition,which
If

depends cognition accompaniesall knowing

of
"

consciousness.

*I am

conscious
am

to
not

myselfof
condition

the

it is clear; if I representation,
As

it is obscure. of

consciousness
of

is the

essential

all logical form

and
not only, not

self, cognitions, logic can occupy itmust do so, with clear representations with obscure ones. consider in logic, We

how

arise,but representations
form. logical And
in

how

they agree

with the handle That

mere

cannot logic general their possibility. and representations

it leaves to the itself about the

It occuto do. pies metaphysics rules of thinking merely, about

the as syllogisms, is performed. It is means by which all thinking comes betrue, something precedesbefore a representation

conceptions,judgments, and

conception.

And
we

that

we

will

shew

in

its proper

place. But
arise.

shall not

How inquire
treats

presentations re-

Logic indeed

of kaow-

44

INTRODUCTION.

ing* ; because
tion however

in itthinking has
is not

place. Representa^

can

but cognition ways alcognition, to presuppose gives representation.And this ways not be explained.* For it would alabsolutely be

necessary

is

by

another

what explain representation.

to

representation

to which representations, only the lobe applied, rules can be distinguished gical may with regardto distinctness and to indistinctness. If
we
are

All clear

conscious

to ourselves of the whole

tion, representain

but not of the multifarious that is contained

is indistinct. it,the representation

For

the diluciinr

dation tuition We
we are

of the
:

thing, take first an

country house
to at

example by
a

discover conscious

distance.

If

ourselves, that the

have

by intuition is a house, we must of its different parts representation

For,
if
we

object ceived pernecessarily

the the
are see we

"windows, the doors, "c.

we parts,

did not

could

not to

see

the house

itself. But

not

conscious

ourselves
hence

of this is
our

of representation of representation

its various

parts,and

the

itselfan object
we

indistinct
an

one.

If

wish to have

instance

of indistinctness

in

the conception of beauty may serve conceptions, for the purpose. Everyone has a clear conception

of beauty. But various marks

;
.

occur

in this conception
must
-"
-

among
.

others, that the

-

beautiful
"
-

be
"
"

ifi

that Except by saying,

it is Internal determination

of the

mind, in any relation of time, in general. T.

INTRODUCTION.

45

of the senses, and that somethingthat is an object If we these cannot disentangle universally. pleases
and the various of it is An
term
a

other marks
never

of the beautiful our

ception con-

but indistinct.

of Wolf the disciples indistinct representation

confused
the

one.

But this

is not epithet

proper ;

because

oppositeof
that

confusion is an

ness,, is, not distincteffect of order,

and

but order.

Distinctness of

and

indistinctness

confusion;
an

every
one.

confused But
not

is of cognition
does proposition indistinct

course

indistinct

the

not

hold
a

conversely ,"
confused
no

every

is cognition

one.

For in

in cognitions,

which

there

is

multifarious
nor

to be met

with, there is, neither order,

sion. confu-

That which

is the
never

case

with all

simplerepresentations,
;

become
no

distinct

not

because
be
met

sion, confu-

but because in them.

but And
even
a

is to multifarious, therefore be

with
fused, con-

They
in

must

termed,

not

indistinct.
the

in composed representations, may be the distinguished,

of
sciousness, con-

which

of variety

marks

indistinctness often
not
as

proceedsfrom weakness
There
to

confusion.

maybe

ness distinctbe
scious con-

to the to

form, that is

say, I may

myselfas
;

to the multifarious to the matter

in the representation

but

as

the distinctness may becomes

decrease

when

the

degreeof

consciousness exists. And

smaller,though perfectorder
the
case

that is

with abstract

representations.

INTRODUCTION.

Distinctness itdelf may

a sensual First,,

be two-fold consists

one.

This

in the

sciousness con-

of the
see,

multifarious

by
as a

intuition.
whitish

We

for instance, the

from light entered

galaxy
the

streak ;
cessarily ne-

the rays of

stars single

in it must

have
was

into the

eye.
becomes

But

its representation

but

clear, and

first by the

distinct ; because discover the now we telescope in the galaxy: stars contained gingle Secondly,an intellectual one : Distinctness in distinctness of the understanding. or conceptions, This depends upon the dissection of the conception with it

respect to the multifarious

that is for
as

comprised
marks,

in

(the conception). There

in the

are,

tained example,con-

conception of

virtue

1
,

the

2, that of the adherence conception of liberty, to rules (of duty),and 3, that of the overcoming when of the inclinations, of the power pugnant they are reto those

rules.

When

we

thus resolve the

of conception

virtue into its single constituents,we

render But

it distinct to ourselves

justby

this

analysis.

distinct we add nothing rendering to a are conception; we but explain it. Hence in distinctness, amended to the not as conceptions

by

this act of

matter, but
If
two
we

as

to the form.
our

reflect on

with regardto cognitions

or capacities

the tuities, fa-

distinct fundamental essentially

those of and sensitivity of

understanding,
tween beour

whence

they arise,we
intuitions and

shall hit the distinction

conceptions. All

cogni*

INTRODUCTION.

47
are

lions,considered in this view,

or

either

intuitions,
source

conceptions. The

former

have

their

in

the

the power of intuitions ; the latter, sensitivity, in the understanding, the facultyof conceptions. the understanding This is the logical distinction between

and the
this

tinction disto which sensitivity, according that, on nothing but intuitions, yields Both conceptions. be considered mental fundain
ther ano-

but the contrary, nothing faculties may

however

pointof view and defined in another way ; the the understanding as a passivity or sensitivity receptibility, But self-active power. as a spontaneity, or of explication this mode is metaphysical, not logical. is usually And the sensitivity named the inferior faculty, the other hand, the the understanding, on the sensitivity superior gives the mere ; because materials for thinking, but the understanding poses disof them
and

reduces

them

to rules

or

tions. concep-

In the distinction between

or cognitions,

intuitive

and

sive discurtions, concep-

between
the

intuitions and

of the esthetical and variety is founded. of cognition of the logical perfection either to A cognition naay be perfectaccording, laws of the sensitive faculty, to those of the cogior tative it is esthetically case perfect, ; in the former esthetical perfection in the latter logically The so. and the logical therefore are of a discrepant sort; the latter the former* has relation to the sensitivity, of cognito the intellect. The perfection logical here

adduced,

48 tion depends upon consequence

course

INTRODUCTION.

its agreement with the

object ; By
can

upon

valid laws,and universally

of

judged accordingto rules a priori. The consists in the agreement of esthetical perfection and bottoms the cognition with the subject, upon the sensitive capacity peculiarto every single son. perIn the esthetical perfection, then, no objectively
be and

it would
manner

valid laws, relatively to which universally be judged of a priori in a universally valid

have place. general

for all thinking beingsin there

are

If,however,
which
in
an

universal laws of

sensitivity,

hold

for all thinking beings good,not objectively, for all humankind, general, yet subjectively,

esthetical
a

of

which comprisesthe ground perfection, a or universal, general, complasubjectively cency, may

be
senses

conceived.

This

is

beauty
"

what

and can be the object intuitively the laws of of a universal complacence3 because intuition are universal laws of sensitivity. By this agreement with the universal laws of the proper self-sufficient the sensitive receptibility

pleasesthe

Beautiful, whose
is

essence

consists in the
the

mere

form

from specifically distinguished

Agreeable^
charms
or

which

merely in pleases
can
on

the sensation be

by

nothingbut the private complacency. ground of a mere which And it is this essential esthetical perfection, and admits of perfection, comports with the logical
moving, and
that account

with being conjoined Considered under

it the best of any.

of view the esthetical this point

INTRODUCTION.

49

perfection may
another

with regardto that advantageous, But it, in to the logical essential beautiful, perfection. be
to it, if we respect,is disadvantageous
sider conessential un-

in the esthetical

perfection nothingbut

the

beautiful-^the
which in pleases the
mere

charming

or

the

moving,
ty. sensitivi-

sensation and
of the

not refers,

to the bare

form, but
and

to the matter

For

charms

in our perfection there alwaysremains between In general the esthetical and the logical of our cognition a sort perfection be fully of contest, which cannot put an end to. The wants to be informed, the sensitivity understanding ter desires insight, the latto be animated ; the former if theyare to instruct, capability. Cognitions, to entertain, be solid or profound must ; if theyare tiful, they must be beautiful. If a propounding is beaubut the sensitivity, but shallow, it may please is prothe understanding cannot found, ; if it conversely but dry, it can pleasethe understanding
not only,

moving can spoilthe logical and judgmentsthe most* cognitions

the

sensitivity.
of human

As the want "nd

of the

nature, however, and the

should

of cognition require,that we popularity must endeavour to unite both perfections, we with an esthetical cognitions in generalcapableof it, and are scholastic logically perfect cognition those

studyto furnish which perfection,

to

render

vour But in this endeapopularby the esthetical form. to jointhe esthetical and the logical perfection the following in our cognitions not neglect \ye must
G

50 rules

INTRODUCTION.

is 1,that the logical perfection

and perfections, therefore any
"

the basis of
not
;

all other

must

be

quite postponedor
the formal
with cognition the

sacrificed to

other

2, that

esthetical

perfection the agreement of laws of intuition "be carefully justin

that it the essential with be the tiful, beauthe least united
we

considered; because
which
can

be

logical
tious cau-

consists;3, perfection,
with
acts

must

very
a

charms

and

moving,by
obtains

which
an

tion cogni-

upon

sensation and

interest for

drawn herebythe attention is so easily then a which from the objectto the subject ; from influence the logical on fection pervery disadvantageous arise. of cognition must obviously which have place In order to make the distinctions, between the logical and the esthetical perfections of still more knowable, not only in the cognition, but in various particular points of view, general, them with regard to the shall compare \ve together of quantity, of quality, of relation, four chief points which the stress lies in the and of modality, upon of cognition. judgment on the perfection is perfect, when it A cognition 1, as to quantity, is universal ; 2, as to quality, when it (a cognition)

it; because

is distinct; 3, 4 and
as lastly,

as

to

relation, when

it is true; and

to

when modality,

it is certain.

Considered

in those

points of view, a
when quantity,

cognition
it (a

to as is logically perfect,

tion) cogni-

of the universality (universality objective when it has or of the rule) 3 as to quality, conception has

INTRODUCTION.

51

in the concepdistinctness (distinctness objective tion) it has objective to relation, when truth; ; as it has objective when and finally to modality, as

certainty.
To those esthetithe following logical perfections those

cal main

to perfections correspond relatively

: points

four

1, the
the

esthetical

This universality.
a

consists multitude which

in of

of applicableness
serve

to cognition

which objects,
can

for

examples,to by
which

its application

be

made, and
of

it may

also be

used

for the purpose

popularity ;
This is the distinctness
an

2,

the esthetical distinctness*

by intuition,whereby
conceptionis
or

formed abstractly

exhibited in the concrete

by examples,

illustrated ;

3, the

esthetical consists the

truth.
but in

A the

merely subjective
agreement
of the with the laws of the is nothing

truth,which
with cognition

subjectand
and

appearance
more

of sense,
a

by consequence

than

universal

appearance;

4,
what

the esthetical is necessary that in

certainty.This
consequence
of what is, is confirmed

depends
the

upon

testimony
sation sen-

of the senses, and In the

by both

experience. perfections justmentioned

two

parts,mul-

tifariousness and

With

whose harmonious unity, tion conjuncconstitutes perfection in general, alwaysoccur. the understanding the unity lies in the conception, with the
senses

in the intuition.

52
Mere
us.

INTRODUCTION;

multifariousness without
And hence
it is truth

unitycannot
of all of
our

fy satis-

the chief

tions; perfec-

because
to the

is,by

the reference

tion cognieven

in the

the ground of unity. And object, esthetical perfection truth alwaysremains

non,

the

conditio sine qua \vithout which Hence

needs

the chief

condition, negative
in the

nothingcan nobody hope

pleasetaste universally.
to

make

progress
his

if he has not belles lettres,

founded
as

in cognition
as

perfection. And, logical

the art of
a

well

the character, the

genius, betrays
of the

itself in

greatest
esthetical

possible union
is intended

with logical

the such

with respect to in general perfection

as

knowledge,

at

once

to

and edify

to entertain.

VI.

Particular

tion. Perfections of Cognilogical

A.

Logical Perfectionof Cognition as to and Extensive Quantity. Greatness. Greatness. intensive Copiousness and lity Profoundness or Importance and Fertiof Cognition. Determination of the Horizon of our Cognition.
.

THE

greatness (or quantum)

in
a

of

cognition may
extensive,

be
or

taken

two-fold

sense,

as,

either

intensive.

The

former

refers to the

sphere of

nition cog-

anci

consists consequently

in its abundance

INTRODUCTION.

53

to its (or multifariousness) ; the latter, variety contents, which regardthe great value ( Vielgultigof a importance and fertility keit) or the logical

and

provided cognition,

that of

it

is considered

as

the

ground
multa In the
them

of many

and

great consequences

( non

sed

multum).

enlarging of
to

our

or cognitions

in advancing

as perfection,

to their

extensive far
a

tum, quan-

it is

good
our

to

calculate
and
our

how

cognition
flection re-

agrees

with

ends the

capacities. This
of the horizon the is to

concerns

determination

horizon

of

our

cognitions, by
The the

which

be understood, of

adequateness of

quantum
the

all the
of the

to cognitions

and capacities

ends

subject.
The horizon may
be

determined,

the powers or .1., logically, accordingto the faculty

with respect of cognition

to

the interest
to

of

the far

derstanding. un-

We
can

have

here

judge
far
we

how
shall

we

go

in and

our

how cognitions, far certain

means

go in
with
a

them,

how for

cognitionsserve
these
;
or

view logical

to

to

those

pal princi-

as cognitions,

our

ends

2, esthetically, according
the interest of

to

taste

with

regard
his

to

feeling.
of the
in

Who

determines
to

zon horithe

endeavours esthetically, science

render
to the taste

accommodate

public, that general

to

is to say, to

it popular, or

acquire

such

cognitions communicated, only,asmaybeuniversally

5*
and

INTRODUCTION.

as
are

pleasethe
3,
to

class of the illiterate and

;

in which
"

they
and

interested

to practically, according-

the

with utility

regard

the

interest of the will.

The
to

practical
the ence^ influ-

horizon, if it is determined
which
a

according
has
on our

cognitbn
of the

is morality,

pragmaticaland
The horizon

greatest moment*
concerns
man

then

the
can

judgment
know,
of
to know.

and
what

the determination
he may
As

of what of what

know,
to the

and

he

ought

or theoretically

horizon

in

and particular" in this

it

determined logically ter only can be the matmay consider it

in hand

place" we
the

in,
of

either
view. With

the

or objective,,

subjective, point
horizon

regard

to the

the objects

is,either
wider

rational. historical, or
than the

The

former

is much

latter, nay,

it is has be

immensely great ;
no

for

our

historical

knowledge
may

bounds.

Whereas

the

rational horizon
be

fixed ; it for
of

determined

to that

sort

example may objects,to which the

be extended.

mathematical

cognition cannot
to

And
son, rea-

with respect
how far

the

philosophical cognitionof
can

reason

go

in it

priori, without

any
_.

experience.
:
.

KnowledgCj provided that

T.

it

serves

for

accomplishing

our

is (according to Kant) Pragmatical" belongs to design,

fare. wel-

INTRODUCTION.

55

to Relatively

the

the subject
a

horizon

is,either
ditional con-

the universal and

absolute, or

and particular

one. (a private)

By

the absolute the

and

universal horizon
of the

is to be of

understood the human in

can

congruence
those

boundaries

to cognitions

of all human

general.
as man

And in

therefore the
?

perfection What question,

now occurs.

man,,

know general, of the

The

determination
upon

privatehorizon
and

pends de-

various

conditions empirical

special
the
gard re-

for instance,of considerations,

of the

age, of sex, of rank, many

with

business

or

the

and profession, of
men

like.

class Every particular

to its

has,

special powers

of

stations

to peculiar

it ; every

knowledge, ends and head in proportion to

and of

the
its

of its powers individuality horizon. own we Finally,

sane

its station,
of
a

may
one

conceive

horizon of
latter

reason

and

of

of

science,which
to

in requiresprinciples, them
we

order

determine

to according

what

we

can

know

ly) (scientificalour

and

what
we we

cannot.

What what

cannot not
our

know know

is above
or

horizon occasion

need

have The

no

to

know,
tan

without

horizon.

latter however

with regard to this or to that relatively, of which privateend, to the attaining particular certain thing, cognitions might, not only contribute nohold but but
even
we

be

an

impediment.
not

For

no

tion, cognisee

though

may

always

be able

to

its

is absolutely useless utility,

in every

respect. It is

56 therefore both
with

INTRODUCTION.

an

unwise

and who

an

unjustreproach,
the

which

great men;

cultivate

sciences
shallow

with

laborious

are industry,

charged by
is the
use

pates, when
This
who

they ask, What questionmust by no

a

of

doingso?
about

means

be

put by those
the
a

have

mind A

to

occupy

themselves
it could

sciences.

science, suppose

throw

then useful on possible light matter, were any one ways is alperfect cognition enough. Every logically of some use which, though hitherto possible

unknown

to us,

will

perhaps be
ever

found

out

by

terity. pos-

Had

nothing been
should have,

considered

in the

culture of the sciences, but their material

we utility,

their gain,
nor

neither

arithmetic,

geometry.

is so ordered, understanding and thatit finds satisfaction in the mere insight, that arises from it. than in the advantage yet more made This observation was so early as by Plato.
man

Besides, our

A he

feels his
the

own

excellence
of

on

the

occasion

sees

meaning
see

having understanding.
envy
the brutes. of by are. cognitions be compared with their

Men,
The

who

do not

that, must
which
to

internal

value,

is not perfection, logical

external
As not

value -that

in.the

application.
our

that,which lies without

it
to

horizon, if we views,
as

need

know

according to
us,
no

our

not

being
relative

necessary
sense

is to
means

be

understood

in

only,by

in the if

absolute
we

one, not

that,
know

which lies below

our

horizon,

should
so

to as being it, pernicious

us, is to be

likewise.

INTRODUCTION.

57

With

view

to

the

of the boundaries

and to the determining enlarging (ihe demarcation) of our

are

rules following cognition.the

one

tobe recommended

must,, his horizon it

1, determine
than
not

he

can

do

early, yet not sooner, commonly does himself; which

year;
often

happen
not

before the twentieth

and easily

2,

alter it

(notgo by

from

one

thingto another);
3,
nor

not

measure

the horizon which

to

of others
no use

his own,
:

hold be

useless that audacious

;

is of

to him

it

would horizon

pretend to
one

determine

the

of others

because

does not

sufficiently
For

or their views; know,, either their capacities,

4, neither he, who last,and

do
not

extend

it, nor
too

limit

it,too much.
knows

would who
concern
on

know
the him

much,

nothingat
some

contrary thinks
often
deceives

things
as can

himself;
he

when,

for

thinks instance, the philosopher

do without and
we

history ;
should

endeavour,
determine
race

5,

to previously

the absolute the

horizon

of the whole
ture

human in

(asto

past and the fuscience The

time), and
to

particular,
the

6,

determine

place,which
of all
a

our

cupies oc-

in the horizon

knowledge.
map
;
a

versal uniences, sci-

encyclopedy,as
serves

universal

of the

for that purpose

7, in the
to

determination what

of

horizon particular of

for try carefully

branch

knowledgehe

58
has the

INTRODUCTION.

and greatestcapacity is

in what
or

he takes the less necessary

cannot

what greatestdelight;

more ;

with

regard to

certain

duties
;

what

consist

with the necessary

duties

and

finally,
than
to contract
our

more 8, always to enlarge

horizon.
In the For

general\ve need not of the sciences enlarging

the load does
room

be

apprehensivefrom
d'Alembert but
we are on

of what
us,

is.
at
son, reaa

not
our

oppress

loss for
on

for

knowledge. Criticism

sal and on historical works, a univerhistory which extends to human knowledge in spirit, nish gross, and not merely in detail,will always dimithing Nothe spherewithout lessening the matter. but the dross falls from the metal
or

the baser for

a

vehicle ; the veil, which

was

necessary

tain cer-

time,, drops. With

of history, which number
shorten the

the

enlargingof
new

natural

mathematics, "c.
matter

methods the found

the old

and

render

great
out.

of books the

unnecessary,

will be

Upon

of such new and prinmethods ciples discovery it will depend that we, without cloggingthe find every thing with their at pleasure can memory assistance. will he, who, like a genius Hence shall comprise history ways under ideas, which can al,

remain, deserve
To the

well of it.

of knowledge,with regard logical perfection to its sphere, ignorance, a negativeimperfection, of want, which, on aeor an imperfection remains.in,r "ountofthe limits of our understanding,

from separable

our

is opposed. knowledge,

INTRODUCTION*

59
jective sub-

We

may
and

consider under
an

ignoranceboth under pointof view. objective

one.

taken, ignoranceis,either 1, Objectively

or
a

terial, maa

formal

The

former that

consists in of

want

of

the latter^ in historical,

must not

rational,
any

cognitions.One
branch, but he

be

in quite ignorant

may

by
to

all

means

limit the historical

more

knowledge
or

in order

apply the

to the

tional, ra-

conversely.
a
a

2, In
learned,

subjective sense,
scientific, or
the limits of
a

ignorance is, either

one.

common

Who

tinctly dis-

sees

the field of for

we can

knowledge, consequently it begins"the philoignorance, where sopher,

example,
know
who
sees

and

proves

how

tle litof

with

respect

to the

structure

of the thereto data, requisite gold for want in a learned or manner. scientifically.,
on

is

norant igHe,

the

other

hand;

who of

is the

ignorant without
bounds
on

per-

the grounds specting and

so
man

of

ignorance
account,
Such knows himself like
to
a

givinghimself
in
a

any
a

trouble

that

is
a thing no-

vulgar,not
not
so

scientific, manner.
as can

does For

much
never

know,

that

he
to

one

represent

his

ignorance otherwise, than by science,

man,

blind

who

cannot

represent darkness
of

himself

tillhe gets eyesight.

The

knowledge
to

one's

ignorayce
makes

therefore
one mo*

givesus
crates'

presuppose

science,and

dest, whereas

imaginary knowledge puffs up.

a

So*

ignorance was

commendable

one

pro*

60

INTRODUCTION.

a knowledge of perlySpeaking, according to his own

his want avowal. deal

of knowledge,
quently Conseof knowledge,

those, who
and of what
are

possess

great

for all that astonished do

not

at the

quantum

they

know,

cannot

be

reproached

with
In

ignorance.

in things, whose ledge knowgeneralthe ignorance ; and it goes above our horizon, is inculpable be allowed (thoughbut in the relative sense) may of our with regard to the speculative use cognitive not above our lie, providedthat the objects faculty, horizon, but without it. But ignoranceis disgraceful it is very necessary which in things, to know
and
even

easy for

us. a

There

is however of

distinction between

being ignorant
notice of of

any

thing and
take
no

taking no
of
a

it.

It is good to

notice
us

great deal

that which

is not

good

for

to know.

Abstracting
abstract from

is still distinguished from

"

both.
no

We

when we cognition by which means

can
a

take
we

notice of its
it in the

tion, applicaabstract

obtain

and
as

then

consider

it the better in the universal

an

from what abstracting does not belongto our purpose in the knowledge of is useful and praiseworthy. a thing Logicians commonly are historically ignorant. Historical knowledgewithout determinate bounds is polyhistory Polymathyis occupied ; this puffs up. in the cognition of reason. Both historical knowledge extended without determiand knowledge of reason,

principle.Such

INTRODUCTION.

6l

nate

bounds, may be denominated

pansophy.To

hia"

knowledge the science of the instruments of which comprehends a critical learning-, philology, knowledge of books and of languages (literature and linguistic), belongs. which is Mere is,so to say, learning, polyhistory that of philosophy; wants or an eyclopic, eye and a cyclops of a mathematician, a historian,a is a schonatural historian, lar, a philologer or a linguist,
torical who that all The
ancients is

great

in all these them

branches,
be

but

holds,

on philosophy

may
the

humaniora,

by

which

with. dispensed knowledge of the

with taste,

that favours

the union

of science

and rudeness,and promotes communicability polishes is understood. wherein humanity consists, urbanity, then regardan instruction in what The humaniora for -the culture of taste conformablyto the serves To them, eloquence, patterns of the ancients. sical poetry,the knowledge acquiredby readingthe clasauthors, and many similar acquirements tain. perAll this humanistical sidered knowledgemay be conwhich to that part of philology, as belonging
is and practical, tends the
most

to the formation
mere

of

taste.

But, if we

separate the
in

the

humanist, we
from
one

shall find them

from philologist to be distinguished

the former of

another the

this,that

seeks

in

the

ancients

instruments those

the learning, of

latter, on
taste.

the other

hand,

of the formation

The

belles-lettrist the bell'esprit is a humanist or

62

INTRODUCTION;

accordingto contemporary patterns in'the livifrg; of learning? languages. He is therefore, not a man
"for
none ones"

but the dead but

a mere

languages
dilettante

are

at

present

learned of the

(connoisseur)
the He

knowledge
the
as

of

taste

according td
The

mode,

in \yithout standing

need

of the ancients.

might

be named
torian
most

ape
a

of the humanist
a

polyhis*
a man

be philologer
as a

and linguist
a

and of literature,, and

an

humanist,

classical scholar

expounder
is

of the classics.
a

He,

as

lologist phi-

cultivated,as

humanist,, civilized.

With

neracies regard to the sciences there are two degeof the reigning taste, pedantry and gallantry.
The
one

appliesto

the

sciences them them

for the

school
to their

and therebylimits merety,

use

with respect
for

the other the world

to applies

nothing
them

but

or society

and

therebyconfines
is of letters, is
a

with .respect to their matter. Either the

to the
man

pedant, as

man

opposed
of

of the world

and

man puflfed-up

letters without without science

in
;

the
or

knowledge of the world, that is, knowledge of Communicating his

considered
as a man as

he is to be

lity of abito the

a

general,but
and the end.
;

in forms

only,not
sense

sence es-

In the latter

he is

picker
of
is

of forms

limited

with

regard to

the

substance

he things,

considers

nothingbut
Hence

the outside.

He
a

the unfortunate of
a

imitation,or the caricature,of

may

man

methodical head.
the

pedantrybe

nominated de-

and painfulness

the uselew exaetriess

INTRODUCTION*

6S
forms. And form of

or

in nicety(micrology)
out

the scholastic method is to be

met

of the school

of that sort and in

with, not only among

among

the learned in other

but learning,, The what

other classes and

things.

or etiquette,

ceremony

of courts, in

society-^in
versation, con-

is it but

it is not

hunting after forms ? so. quiteso, though it seems

a

In the army

But

in often And

much dress, in diet,in religion,

dantry pe-

reigns.
in forms

exactness

suitable to the end

pro^ fection). per-

posed is profoundness(methodical,scholastic Pedantry

and of taste, For popularity. itself much is then
a mere
an

affected

ness, profoundthe

as gallantry,

courting of

probation apof

nothingbut an endeavours gallantry

the reader him and hard

affectation

but to render
not
so

agreeableto
as

therefore word.

to offend

with

To

avoid

extensive pedantry,

not only knowledge,

in the sciences themselves, but with

use,

regard to
himself
a

their

is
man

required.
of true is

For

which
can

reason

nobody

but

the

erudition

detach

from

which pedantry,

always the property of

to

limited

understanding.
In the endeavour
at perfection
once

procure

to

our

the cognition and profundity ed above-mentionof

of the

scholastic

of

without committing the popularity,

fault,either
an

of

an

effected
must

profundity,or
above
our
"

affected

we popularity,

all

things
"

look to the scholastic

of perfection of

i cognitio

the methodical

form

profundity and

then

first

64
take
care

INTRODUCTION.

how

we

can

render

the methodical

nition cog-

learned in the school

go

that is, popular, really

to communicable others, universally that the profundity be supplantedby the not may without popularity.For, the scholastic perfection,

easy

and

which

all science

were

nothingbut

toy, must

not

be sacrificed for the sake of the

or

popular perfection,

to

pleasethe people
must we popularity the ancients, for instance, Cicero's philosophical "e. ; the poets, Horace, Virgil, writings, the moderns, Hume, and many Shaftesbury,
to

But read

in order

learn

true

among

Others

men,

who

had

great intercourse
which intercourse
true

with

the

refined world, without

to possible

it is not

be

popular. For

quires repopularity

much

knowledge of
bition and
to
even

practical knowledge of the conceptions, of the

upon

the

world,
of

taste, and

the inclinations of men,

which, in the exhi*

in the choice of fit expressions quate adeattention of that usual is to be

sort to the

constant popularity,

bepacity ca-

towed.

condescendence
to the

of the publicand
which but
the scholastic of the
"

expressions, by
undervalued,
as

is perfection

not

the dress

thoughtsso
be
seen we

ordered,
and
draw

not

to

let the of
that

scaffold

what
"

is methodical

technical with
then
a

perfection

(as we

pencil lines, upon

them is in fact much
a

which

write, and

rub

of cognition out), this truly popular perfection

great

and

rare

which perfection,

trays be-

in insight

science.

And

it has, besides

INTRODUCTION.

65
that it

many

other

merits, this

one,

can

give a

into a thing. For the proofof the complete insight of a cognition leaves merely scholastic examination behind the

doubt, Whether
the

the examination

be not

and whether partial, granted it by

itselfbe of a value cognition school, like every body. The has its prejudices. proves imThe one common-sense, the other. It is therefore importantto try a with men, whose do not cognition understandings adhere This
to any

school. which the cognition

munication, comtension, ex-

of cognition, perfection by is qualified for

an

easy and be termed

universal

might also
or

the external

the extensive

providedthat
among As
one a

greatnessof a cognition* it (a cognition) is spread externally

of
men.

great number
are so

there

many
to

and
a

so

various

cognitions, they
to
tural na-

would
to

do

well

make

cording planfor himself,ac-

which

he

so

orders

the

sciences,as
and

may

agree the best with

All with

his ends

contribute
a

promote them.
connexion after

have cognitions
one

certain the

another.

If,in

vour endea-

the cognitions, this their enlarging attended be

rence cohe-

is not

to, the

result

of all

great
and

knowledge will
But if
one

makes all other

considers

nothingbut a mere science a principal as meanvS cognitions

a

rhapsody.
his end
complish only to acsystematical

it,he
character
to

introduces

certain

into his

knowledge.
our

And

in order

to

go

work, in

the

of enlarging
j

accordcognitions,

C6

INTRODUCTION.

ing to a planthat end proposed, we

of the
to which
a

is well ordered
must

and

suitable to the

try
one

to

learn that coherence A

cognitions among
is

another.

guidance
ences, the sci-

given by
regard to

the

architectonic

ences,, of the sci-

system accordingto ideas, in which

their and affinity
as

with

their
a

matical systeof

considered are conjunction, humanity. knowledge interesting As

to the

whole

intensive

greatness of
its

that cognition, and

is to

say, its in

weight or

great
as

value have

which, particular,
is

we

importance marked, alreadyrethe extensive, but these

from essentially distinguished

we copiousness, on

the few
-

mere

shall make

remarks 1, A

it

which cognition,
in the
use

refers to the of the

that greatness,

is,the whole
be

from distinguished

the

is to understanding, in the small (misubtilty

crology). that promotes the logical 2, Every cognition perfection, for to the form, is logically as important, proposition, example, every mathematical every Jaw of nature known, losophic right phidistinctly every importance explication. The practical
cannot

be

foreseen, but

must

be waited

for. portant, being imcides de-

3, A cognition maybe
and neither of
a

difficult without

vice

versa. nor

therefore Difficulty the against,

for,

portance value of the im-

greatness
The
more

or

or

cognition.This depends upon the of the consequences. the plurality the greater consequences a cognition

INTRODUCTION.

67
bo miu'e of the it,

is productive of,the
more

more

use

may

importantit is.
is
a

consequences

useless

without weighty cognition tic scholasspeculation ; the this nature.

for instance, is of philosophy,

VII.

B.

to as Logical Perfection of Cognition, Relation. Truth. Material and formal Criteria or logical Truth. of logical Truth. Falsity and Error. ance, Appearthe Source Means to as of Error.

avoid
TRUTH

Errors.
is
a

of cognition, chief perfection nay,

the

the essential and

condition indispensable
it is

of all in the

its perfection. Truth,

said, consists
the

agreement

of

with cognition
mere

object.
as

In

quence conse-

of this

nominal
to
can

definition,our

cogni

tion must, in order the

hold

good
than
must

true, agree with

object.But
no

we

compare
way,

the

objectwith
our

our

in cognition Our which

other

by

knowing
For,
us,
we as

it.

therefore cognition is not

near

confirm

but itself, the

sufficient for truth.

us

is out object
can

of

and

the

in cognition
our

never

but

judge
circle

agrees

Such
lele.

ject cognitionof the obwith the cognition of the object. in explaining the ancients named diawere logicians

whether

And

the

with this fault

by

the

always reproached who remarked, that sceptics,

68 it is with
should
to
a

INTRODUCTION.

that
a

definition of

truth
a

as just*

if

one

make

before deposition

court

and

appeal
has
a

witness, whom
to render

nobody

knows

but who

mind

himself
has

worthy of
called him

belief
as a

by

ing, maintainan

that he who honest

man.

witness, is

The

accusation

indeed

is well founded.

Only the solution of the aforementioned problem is absolutely impossible. The here is,Whether and how far there question
is
a

criterion of truth secure,

in the
? application

universal, and
For that is the

fit to be

used

meaning'

of the To
must

What question, be able to

answer

is truth ? this

important question,we
in
our

that, which distinguish

to

longs becognition
from object,

its matter

and

refers to

the
as

that which

the regards
a

mere

form,

that

condition,
no

without

which

would cognition

in

general be
the

at cognition

all. With

tween respect to this distinction beand

the

material objective in
our

subjective
tion ques-

formal

reference

the cognition,
ones particular

above
:

divides into the

1. Is there
a

two

universal
a

material

criterion of truth ?
one

and 2. Is there
A

universal

formal

universal material
;

criterion of truth

is not

sible posas a

it is even

in contradictory

itself. For,

in general, universal criterion that holds for all objects

itwould

need

to totally
a

abstract from

all difference of extend

to

them, and yet, as

material

to criterion,

in order to be able to determine this very difference,

whether

with cognition agrees directly

that

ob-

INTRODUCTION.

69

and not with to which it is referred, ject, any one in general nothingat all is said. ; by which object that deterIn this agreement of a cognitionwith minate object, to which it is referred, material consist. For a cognition, which truth must however is true, may with regard with regard to one object It is therefore be false. absurd to to other Objects require a universal material criterion of truth,

which

must

at once

abstract and

not

abstract from all

difference of

But,

if

objects. the inquiryis

after universal
there

formal may

teria criall

of truth, the decision, that

means

by

be

such, is easy.
the

For
of

formal

truth

consists
itself and

in entirely

agreement
from

cognition with
whatever objects And the

with from

total abstraction

all

all difference
criteria of

of them.
truth

universal

formal
but

consequently are

nothing

marks of the logical agreement of with itself, or (which is the same thing) cognition and of with the universal laws of the understanding universal
reason.

These
for

formal universal criteria, though

truth, are objective
non.

cient not suffias

to be

considered

its

conditio sine qua For the

with

Whether question, itself (asto the form) ? Whether

it agrees

the
must

-cognition agrees precedethe object? And

tion, questhat

with the

is the province of
The formal

logic. logic are,

criteria of truth in

of contradiction, 1, the proposition and.

70

INTRODUCTION.

2, that of sufficient reason.

of a cognition possibility logical is determined, by the latter the logical reality. To the logical truth of a cognition belong, that is, not reFirst,that it be logically possible, poignant to ilself. This signof the internal logical is only negative; for a cognition, truth however

By

the former

the

\vhich

is

repugnant

to

itself,is false, but, when

it

is not so, not

always

true ;

and,
that

founded, Secondly,that it be logically false that it have, a, grounds and, b, not

is,

quences. conse-

This

second

criterion of the external

coherence logical
or

truth, logical
with cognition of

relative to the

of

and consequences, grounds is positive And cognition,

of the rationalness

the

rules following

hold

here:

1, From
of the

the truth of the consequence

the

truth

a as ground may be inferred, but cognition false consequence flows : when one only negatively the cognition itself is false. For, from a cognition, would the groundtrue, the consequence be so -were

likewise
the

; because

the consequence

is determined

by
a

ground.
we

But

cannot

infer flows
draw

false consequenqe
true
;

when not : conversely from it a cognition,

is

for

we

can

true

inferences

from

false

ground.
2, When
true, the
all the

consequences
is true.

of

also cognition

are cognition but For, were

INTRODUCTION.

71

false in the cognition, a false consequence something have place. too would
From the but consequence
we

may
to

then

infer

ground,
We
can

without
infer from
a

being
the

able

determine

it.

only
one,

determinate

ground,
all the

that it
conse*

is the true

complex of

quenccs. The which

an,

former

mode

of
can

inference, accordingto
be but
a

the consequence

and negatively truth of

a

sufficient indirectly in

criterion

of the

is termed cognition,

the apagogical (modus logic

tollens).
This

procedure, of
has the

which

great

use
we

is made
need

in

geometry,
but
one

advantage, that
from
a

derive
prove

false consequence For

to cognition

its falseness. the earth is not and

example,

in order

to

evince,that

flat, we

need, without
but infer

adducingpositive
and

direct

reasons,

conclude

thus: Were the earth or apagogically, indirectly, be flat,the polestarwould equallyhigh everywhere
;

but

this is not flat.

the

case

therefore the

earth In

is not the

and direct other,the positive

mode the

of

ference in-

(modus
that the

ponens),

there

occurs

culty, diffi-

of the consequences be cannot totality known and that we therefore are not apodictically, led by this mode of illation but to a probable and a true cognition hypothetically (ahypothesis)according to the presupposition, quences consethat, when many
are

true,all the others may

be

so

likewise.

72 We then

INTRODUCTION.

may

laydown

here

three

as principles,

universal

criteria merely formal, or logical,

of

truth;

they are,
1, the
of principle
the for internal contradiction and

of

identity,

by

which

is of a cognition possibility

Hetermined

problematical judgments ;

%,
the

which of sufficient reason, principle upon of a cognition depends ; that reality (logical;
the
as

it is founded,

matter

for assertive judgments

of 3, the principle

the exclusive third

(principium
which
;

exclusi medii the

inter duo

in contradictoria),

is of a cognition necessity (logical) that we must necessarily judge so and

that

founded
not

wise, other-

is,that

the

is opposite

false
"

for apo-

dictical judgments. The held

contrary of truth truth, is

named
as

is falsehood An

which, if

it is

error.
as a

erroneous

(forerror

well
such

truth is
one,
as

only in

the

judgment ment) judg-

is therefore

takes the appearance

of truth for truth itself.

How
acts

truth is
on

here how

understanding known. its essential laws, easily

is, as possible,
in the formal the form
sense

the

But

error

of

the

word,

that is to say, how

to

of

thinkingcontrary
difficult to
to be

the

is is possible, understanding it is in

be

comprehended, as
how
own

generalnot
should
can

hended comprefrom its the

any

one

power We

deviate

essential laws.
errors

therefore

seek

ground of
itself and

just as

little in the
as

understanding

itsessential laws,

in

the limits of the

INTRODUCTION.

73
the of

in which understanding, that of but by no means other should

cause

ignorance,
Had
we no

error,

lies.

cognitive power,
never err.

than there

the

we understanding,
us

But of with

lies in

yet another

source indispensable

the sensitivity cognition, ; for and thinking

acts

which

us supplies

matter

accordingto
does. But
error by itself,

other from

laws,
the

than

the

understanding
in and

considered sensitivity
arise

cannot

neither; because

the

senses

never

judge.
of

The

ground
influence

the

of origin
no

all

error

must

"*on-

be sequently

looked

for

where

but

sible in the insenor,

of the

on sensitivity

the intellect

more

on accurately speaking,

makes

us

in

fluence judgment. This injudging hold merely subjective and

ones, grounds objective

by

consequence

take For

the

mere

appearance consists
is for
on

of truth for truth itself. very

essence

therein which

the

of

appearance
as
a

that

account

to

be

considered

ground
What

holdinga
error

false

true. cognition

makes

is possible which the

therefore

the

pearance, ap-

accordingto
in the In
a

merely subjective

judgment
certain

is

exchanged
the of the

for the

objective.
to that

sense

ded understandingtoo, proviattention requisite the appearance

that influence

it,for
of the

want

is led by sensitivity,

from arising of

it to hold

determinatives merely subjective

or

judgment objective ones,

is not
true

to

admit

that,
sen-

which

but

accordingto
K

laws

of, the

74
to ity,

INTRODUCTION.

be

trtie

accordingto
errors.

its own

laws, maybe

made

the author

of

Only
of the attribute

the fault of

ignorance then
the fault of

lies in the
error
we

limits
have
to

understanding ;
to ourselves.

Nature
us

has

denied

us

much

knowledge, she
of
our so

leaves
she

in the inevitable
not

ignorance
To
even

much
own
we

yet

does

occasion
and
to

error.

it

propensityto judge
are

decide of the

when

not

able

to do

so,
us.

because

tation limi-

of

our

faculties, leads

All

error

however,
can

into which but

the

human

standing undererro-

is fall,

and partial,
must

in every be

n^ous
true.

judgmentthere
For
a

always
an

something against
in
a

total

error

were

oppugnancy
of
reason.

the laws
With

of the

understandingand
what is true and
an distinguish

regard to

erroneous

our

Cognition, we cognition.
A

exact

from

crude

when cognition,

it is adequate to its
to its
; not object

or object, ror er-

when

with
has

respect

the smallest may

place,is

exact to

when it,

errors

be in it

with

an

impediment
distinction
of

the

is design,

crude. the stricter first it is

a

This

regardsthe larger or
our

determinateness sometimes

cognition,
determine
a

At

necessary

to

in cognition

in large?sphere, particularly in of reason cognitions (stride} determined.

historical

things. But
be

every
In the

thing

must

exactly

large determination
prater, propter.

it is said, a

is determined cognition

INTRODUCTION.

75
of

It

alwaysdepends
it shall be

upon

the purpose

cognition

whether

or crudely

exactlydetermined.
a

The
error,

largedetermination
but which has may

still leaves

latitude for

have

its determinate
a

bounds.
tion determinaters mat-

Error

when place especially

wide

is taken of

for

strict one,

for

instance, in

in morality,

which

every

thingmust
do
so are

ly be strict-

determined. the

Who

do not

named,

by

latitudinarians. English,
the
"

Prom
of

exactness,
as

cognition

congruent

to the

perfection objective is fully the cognition in this case as a subjective object the subtilty
as an
"

of it may stillbe distinguished. perfection of a thing,when A cognition discovers one what

in it

usually escapes
It
a

the attention

tile. of others, is sub-

a higher degree of consequently requires

attention and power.

greater exertion of the intellectual

all

Many

blame

subtilty ; because
it is

they

cannot

attain it.

But it in itself does honor

and

standing, to the under-

is, provided that

of

applied to might be
and
of

an

object worthy
necessary.
with

observation,
it,when
the and

even

meritorious
end

and
tained at-

But

same

less attention

effort of

standing, the underwe no

than

is used, is a useless expense,

are

fall into

which subtilties,

but difficult,

(nugce difficiles). utility

As
to the

the crude

is

opposed to
of error,

the exact, the gross is

subtile.
the nature

From

in whose

conception,

76 have

INTRODUCTION.

as

we

remarked, already
of truth

besides
as
an

the falsity, essential the

appearance

is contained is

mark,

the

truth of

rule, which following unfolds our cognition,

to

important to

itself :
error

In order

avoid

errors

(and no
at

is at least
so

inevitable, absolutely though it may

to the
cases,

be

relatively
ing, err-

in which for
to
us

it is,even
to

the risk of
must

unavoidable
to discover
or

and

judge)we the source explain

But have

endeavour
"

of them

pearance ap-

semblance.

that few

philosophers
to

have

done. the

They
errors

only

endeavoured

termine de-

themselves, without

shewing the
discovering
is of

appearance,
and much of be because the

whence

they
the
to

arise.

The

of solving

appearance,

however,

greater service
errors

ing truth, than the direct shewtheir

same source not can-

themselves, by which
nor can

stopped up,
it is not
errors

the

appearance,

known,
in other

be
cases.

prevented from
For, if we
stillremains

leading
are even

again to
convinced

of

having erred, there

which itself,

to us,
our

if the appearance
error,

forms

the basis of
we can

is not
to their

little as removed,.scruples,

duce ad-

justification. the appearance Besides,by explaining erring person

of
one
more a

we

do the will

sort

of

equity. For, nobody

some
one

allow, that he has erred without truth, which

acute

ance appeardeceived

perhaps might have

the
stress

; because

of the

affair

rests upon

grounds. subjective
when
the appearance
is obvious
to
com-

An

error,

INTRODUCTION.

nion

sense,

is termed of
must

an

or insipidity

The
one,

reproach
which of
we

is absurdity in avoid, particularly

absurdity always a personal

the
recting cor-

errors.

For

to

him, who
which

maintains forms the This

an

the absurdity, of this

pearance, ap-

basis

evident first
to

is -not falsity,

obvious.
to him.

appearance

must

be made maintain
more
can

obvious

If he
;

still continues but then

indeed it,he is insipid be done both with

nothing
of

him.

He

has

dered thereby ren-

himself

incapableand unworthy
and

all

farther instruction

refutation.

For

we

cannot,
is absurd

properlyspeaking, prove to a person all reasoning were ; in this case

we

that he

in vain. When

prove

the

we absurdity

speak
the

no

longer to
man.

the

erring person,
however,
ad
the

but

to

the

rational

Then,

of discovery

(deductio absurdity
be
even

absurdwri)is not
An
error insipid

necessary. may
so

likewise
much
;
as a as

named

such

one
serves

as

nothing, not
it for evinces
an
excuse

appearance,
error

gross

is

that,
a

which
want

ignorance in
attention.

common

or cognition

of

common

Error

in

is greater principles

than

that

in their

application.
An
the

external mark
our

or

an

external

test

of truth those
not

is
of herent in-

comparisonof
j

own

judgments
is

with

others

because
same

that

which in all

is subjective

in the the appearance

way may

others,by consequence

be

therebyexplained. Hence

INTRODUCTION.

is the with
error,

incompatibilityof
ours

the
as

judgments
an

of

others
mark

to

be
a

considered
hint
to

external
our

of in

and

as

investigate
to

proceeding
it
on

judging,
account.

but

not

immediately
may
manner

reject right
that in

that

For
in

we

perhaps

be

the

thing
pounding, pro-

and

wrong

the

only,

is, the

Common-sense
discover the that faults

is of

in
the

itself

too

touchstone,
of the

to

artificial
to

use

standing, under-

is to the

say,

put
use

one's

self
reason

right
by

in

thinking

or

in when

speculative
the
common

of

mon-sense, com-

understanding
of

is used

as

test

for

the

purpose

judging

of

the

Tightness

of

the

speculative.
rules
are.,

Universal

and

conditions
think the for

of

avoiding

error

in

general

l,To
self
in

one's of

self, 2, To
and The

conceive

one's
to

place

another,
one's self.

3,

Always
maxim

think

consistently with
for
one's

of the

thinking

self the one's

may

be

ed distinguishway
of

by

denomination
that of of

of

enlightened
self, in
;

thinking;
the

putting
the

thinking,
and that

in
of

place

another,

enlarged
with

always

thinking
or

consistently
solid.

one's

self,

the

consequential

IMTRODUCTION.

79

VIII.

C.

of Cognition as to logical Perfection Conception of a Quality. Clearness. Various Mark sorts in general. of Determination Marks. of the logical Essence of a Thing. Its Distinction Distinctness a from the real Essence. Estheti* higher Degree of Clearness. pance Discrecal and Logical Distinctness. between analytic and synthetic
9

Distinctness.
THE
human is cognition discursive
means
on

the side

of the

derstanding un-

that

is, it

is

acquiredby
a

of

which representations, which

means

make
to

ground
such. We

of

of that cognition consequentlyby

is common of

several
as

thing*,

marks,

know
A

thingsthen by
mark is in
a

marks

only.
makes
to the

thing that, which

or

up

part
a

of its

cognition ; ground By
and
means

(what

amounts

same)

representation, partial providedthat

as a

ed it is considerrepresen-

of

of cognition all

the whole
our

tion.

consequence all thinking is

of marks.

conceptions are
a

marks

nothing but

ing representof points

by
view:

Every mark

may

be

considered

in two

80

INTRODUCTION.
\

in itself; and representation as a as partialconception, Secondly, belonging,

a

First, as

to the
as a

whole

of representation of of cognition
as

and thereby thing,,

ground
of
a

this

All
are

marks, considered
twofold
The
to
use

thingitself. grounds of cognition,

an

either of
use

internal,or
in

of

an

external. in order

internal

consists

derivation,

the thing itself by marks, as its cognise grounds of cognition. The external consists in that we a can thing comparison,provided compare of marks according to with other things by means and of distinction.* the rules of identity tinctions, disAmong the marks there are many specifical classificationof the following in which those
are

founded

marks. or synthetic 1, Analytic

of conceptions form
to
ones

Those

are

tial par-

the actual in this

conception(which we

ourselves
of the

these, parconception), tial

whole merely possible

first formed former be
are

conception by
a

(which must

be consequently

thesis synceptions con-

of several

parts).

The

all

of reason,

the latter may

those

of

perience. ex-

2,
marks

Co-ordinate

or

subordinate. connexion

This
or

division of
under
one

regardstheir
marks,

beside

another.
The
*

if each

of

them

is

as represented

an

Not

but diversity,
sameness;

distinction

or

difference is the of similitude

contrary
or

of

or identity

is that diversity

ness. like-

Many

of

our

authors confound

these contraries. T.

INTRODUCTION.

81
co-ordinate
means

immediate
if
one

mark
is

of the

are thing,

and,
ther ano-

mark in the

only by represented
marks

of

subordinate. thing-,
so as

The
to amount
an

tion conjuncto

of the co-ordinate

the

whole
the

of

the

conceptionis

named

aggregate;
a

of conjunction the

the subordinate

ones,

series*

That,
makes

with
never

of the co-ordinate marks, aggregation of the conception, but which, up the totality empiricalconceptions, regard to synthetic
can

be

completed
of

The

series
or on

subordinate

marks

falls, a parte
insolvable

ante,

the side of the

cannot

grounds, upon
on

which conceptions, be farther

account

plicity of their simor

dissected

a it, parlepost.

with
is

respect
infinite

to the

consequences,
we

on

the other

hand,

because
.

have

highest genus,

but not

lowest With

species.
the

the
or as

of every new in conception synthesis of co-ordinate marks the extensive aggregation

same

diffused distinctness increases in the with the

manner

farther
of

of analysis marks

the

in conceptions intensive
or

the series

subordinate does.

the of

deep
as

distinctness

This
for the

sort

distinctness,

it

serves necessarily

or profundity solidity

the business of philosophy is chiefly cognition, in metaphysical ried carand, particularly perquisitions, to the highestpitch. marks. 3, Affirmative or negative By those we know what the thingis, by these what it is not. The negative marks.serve to keep us from/errors. of

INTRODUCTION.

Hence

are

theywhen
necessary

it is impossible to and of

err

sary, unneces-

and
cases

only, when
regard to
the

importance in those they keep us from an important

fall. For instance, easily conceptionof a being like God,,
may
are

error, into which

we

with
the
ment
f

negativemarks

very necessary

and

of

mo*

By affirmative marks

we

have

then

mind

to

derstand un-

marks

something; by negativeones (towhich all understand whatsoever be turned)only not to mismay

or

only not

to

err

in

it, even

should

we

learn to know

nothingof it. fertile 4, Important and

marks.
A mark is

or

empty

and

portant unim-

important

aud

fertile when

it is

of great and of numerous sequences, conground of cognition with regard to its internal use partly (the in the derivation.) use provided that it is sufficient,

iu order

to know

by

it

great

deal of external that

a

the
use

thing
(the
to

with itself; partly

use

in the
as

regard to its comparison) provided

the its

it

serves

know,
other

well

similitude

of

thingto

many

as things,

Besides,we
and

others. from many diversity the logical importance here distinguish must from the practical utility. fertility
"

5, Sufficient and

necessary

or

insufficient and

marks. contingent A mark, providedthat

the
j

it suffices
all other

always

to

tinguish discient suffi-

thing from

is things,

otherwise it is insufficient, as, for

example,

INTRODUCTION.

83 But the

the mark

of

of barking

the

dog.

sufficiency

of marks,

termined is to be deimportance, with reference to in a relative sense only, intended by a cognition. the ends, which are those, which must are Necessary marks finally alwaysbe to be met with in the thing represented.
as

well

as

their

Such

marks
to

are

termed

essential too, and

and

stand

posed op-

the

unnessential
the

may

be

from separated between

which contingent, conceptionof the thing. marks

there is

But

the necessary

yet a

distinction. Some
other
as

of

them of

belongto
the very

the

marks

same

thing as groundsof thing ; others again

consequences
The former

only of other marks. and constitutivemarks are primitive

sensu

in (essentialia denominated and

strictissimo )

the latter

are

attributes
to

(consectaria,rationata),
the
essence

pertain likewise

of the

thing,

but

onlywith
from three

that they must proviso,

first be derived

those its essential

parts; as, for instance,

a

the from

angles in

the

of conception

triangle
;
a

the three sides. unessential marks

The

also

are

of

twofold sort
of For

they regard either internal thing (modi), or its external

the mark of of
man

determinations relations.
an

ample, ex-

determination

denotes learning a master ; being

internal
a

or

servant,

onlyan
The
or or

external

relation of him.

complex of all the essential parts of a thing, the sufficiency of its marks to co-ordination as is the ssence subordination, notarum (complexus

84

INTRODUCTION.

primitivarum, interne conceptuidato siifficientium ; s complexus notarwn, conceptum aliquem primitive constituentiumj think But in this definition we must by no means
.

here of the real

essence
we

or

the
can

essence

of

nature
as

of

things,which
abstracts from

never

know. of

For,

logic

but
the

quence cognition, by consefrom the thingitself, in this science nothing be on the logical of things can essence possibl} know. For can easily carpet, And this we

all the matter

hereto
of all

farther than the knowledge belongs nothing ject obthe predicates, with regard to which an

is determined the real

essence

by

its

conception; whereas
the

to

knowledge of those predicates, as upon which, all that belongs determinative to its essence a depends,is required, If we chuse, for instance, to determine the logical
of the

thing(esserev

essence

of

body, we
marks

have
;
we

no

occasion need

to

seek for
our

the data to this in nature

to the

but turn

flection re-

which,

as

essential parts (cofc

mental constitute its fundastitutiva, rationes), originally

conception.
but

The

first

is nothing essence logical of ajl fundamental conception For the

the necessary marks of a thing(esse conceptusj. The firststep of the perfection of our cognition,
as

to

is then quality,

the clearness

of the
a

The

is a second distinctness

step,or

cognition. higherdegree

of clearness.

This consists in the clearness of the

marks.
In the firstplace, we here the
must

in

distinguish general
the estheticaJL

distinctness logical

from

INTRODUCTION.

85

The
upon is
a

former the

depends upon

the

the objective, marks. clearness

latter
That

clearness of the subjective, this a clearness by conceptions, The latter

by

tuition. in-

speciesof

distinctness

consist^

then

in

a a

mere mere

that is and intelligibleness, vivacity clearness

to say, in

by examples
are

in the

con^

crete

(formany

thingsthat

not

distinct may

be
are

and intelligible, conversely, many

things
with

that

difficultto be
to remote not

understood, because
whose
a

they refer
be

back

marks,

connexion

intuition is

but by possible

long series, may

often

distinct).
jective subis the
advantage the dis-

The

distinctness objective and obscurity,

occasions

conversely. Hende
but possible
to

logicaldistinctness
of the esthetical distinctness

seldom

esthetical,and, vice

versa,

the

by examples
often

and

likenesses,

which
to
a

are

not

quite adequate, but analogy only, is

taken

according
to

certain

hurtful

the

logical.And besides, examples in generalare not marks, and belong, not as parts to the conception, for the use intuitions of the but as conception intelonly. A distinctness by examples (themere is therefore of quiteanother sort, than ligibleness) marks. the distinctness as by conceptions cuity Perspiof both, the estheconsists in the conjunction tic tinctness. disor popular, with the scholastic or logical, head we understand For, by a perspicacious
the talent of and of
a

luminous

exhibition of abstract
to

suitable profound cognitions,

common-sense.

the

city capa-

of

86
In the second

INTRODUCTION.

as place,

to the

distinctness logical

in

it, if all particular,

make
up

the

marks,, which

collectively
reached A
ception, con-

taken

the whole be named

have conception.,
a

clearness, may
on

complete one.
may be of The

the

other
to

hand,
the

tinct,, completelydisits
ordinate, co-

with
or

regard

either totality

of its subordinate

marks.

sively extena ception, con-

complete or
which

sufficient distinctness of
termed of the

is also

sists amplitude, con-

in the total clearness

the co-ordinate subordinate

marks.
stitutes con-

The

total clearness
the

of

the

marks
"

complete intensively or profundity solidity.

The may former

distinctness

the

species of
the the

the

distinctness logical

be denominated

ternal external, the latter the in-

completenessof
This
reason can

clearness
the pure

of the marks. of conceptions

be

obtained

from

not

but only,and from arbitrarious conceptions, from empiricalones. extensive

The

greatness

or

quantum abundant,
the

of distinctness, is named

providedthat precision. The

make up

it is not

amplitude and
the

precision ther togeadequateness (cognitienem,

in the

adequate intensively cognition in the profundityconjoined with the in the adequate one extensively amplitude and of a the perfection precision,the consummate (consummata cognitionis perfectio}(as cognition consists. to quality) it is the business of logic Since (as we have alqua
rem

adcequat);and

INTRODUCTION.

87

readyremarked)to render clear conceptionsdistinct, it does so. the question now is, In what manner school place all the of the Wolfian The logicians section. rendering of cognitionsdistinct in their mer.e disBut the all distinctness
a

does

not

depend
It

upon

analysisof
in the

given conception.
those

thereby
are

arises with

regard to
marks,

marks

only, which
no

thought of
regard

conception,but by
which
are

means

with
to the

to the

first added

conceptionas parts of
That
sort of

the whole

possibleconception.
not by the arises,

which distinctness,
the of synthesis

but by analysis,

the is

marks,

is synthetic

distinctness.

And

there the

an consequently
: propositions

essential distinction between To form

a

two

distinct

conceptionand,
distinct

To

render

a conception

distinct.

For,
with

when

we

form

we conception, begin

the

parts and
case
means no

proceed
yet
the the

from exist

them
j we

to the

whole.
them

In this
first

marks of

obtain
this

by

synthesis. From

tic synthe-

procedure then
which,
as

to

the

distinctness arises, synthetic matter, enlargesthe conception by

a

that,which
or

is superadded to it as Both

mark

in the

(pure

empirical)intuition.
the natural in

the this

mathematician

and

philosopheruse

synthetic procedure
For well upoa
as

distinct. rendering the conceptions

all distinctness of the

us

properlymathematical,

of

all other

depends cognition, empirical,

88

INTRODtCTlOH.

an

enlargementof
marks.
when
we
no

it of

this sort

by

of synthesis

the

But,

render
means

our conception distinct,

as

cognition by by
same

increases,
The

to the

matter,
the

this
;

mere

dissection* form

matter

remains

only the

is altered

by our

doing nothingknow
with

but
a

better, or learningto distinguishing that, which

mere

clearer consciousness
As

lies in the
a

given
map the

conception. nothing more

mere

by

the
to

colouring of
itself;so

is added

the map

by

of the
not

of a given conceptionby Irceans clearing-up of its marks, the conceptionitself is analysis

increased

in the least.
of

objectsdistinct belongs to the the making of conceptions distinct, to the synthesis, In the latter the whole precedes the parts, analysis.
in the former the

The

making

parts precede the whole.

none

The

renders* philosopher Sometimes

when the

but

tinct. givenconceptionsdis-

one

even proceedssynthetically,

which conception,

he is

has

mind

to

der ren-

distinct in this manner,

has often
we are

alreadygiven.
marks

This

provided place in empirical propositions,

not

that

satisfied with

the

tained alreadycon-

in

given conception.
order
to

The

procedure.,in analytic
about
which

tinctness beget disbe

dering ren-

procedure only logic can

the chief in requisite the
more

is the occupied,
our

first and

distinct. cognitions
a

For

dis^

tinct

our

of cognition

thing is, the stronger and

INTRODUCTION*

89
be.

the
must

more

efficacious it can go
so

Only

the

not

far,as

at

last to

occasion

analysis the object

itself to vanish, Were

we we we

conscious could
our

to not

ourselves of all that which

but be astonished
at

know,

the

cognitions. As to the objective value of our cognitionin the following general, accordingto which degrees, it (our cognition) be increased in this respect, can

multitude

of

maybe

conceived:

is the first to one's self, something or degree of cognition knowledge ; self with consciousness or to one's Representing the second ;* PERCEIVING (percipere) something, KENNING' f something,or represent(noscere) ing to one's self something in comparison of other well as to distinction, to identity, the as as things

REPRESENTING

third

Kenning with consciousness,that is, COGNISING (cognoscerejsomething,the fourth. The brute kens objects, them. but does not cognize that is, cognising UNDERSTANDING (intelligerej, of conceptions, or by the understanding by means is the fifth. This is very of something, conceiving
*

Should

not

APPREHENDING,
a

or

into receiving

the

cal empiri-

consciousness have
f Must
not
we use

placehere

and

? T. precedeperceiving order
to

Kenning here, in
and cognition
or

tween bedistinguish

this degreeof true.

?

the

degee of holding highest

word have
we

j? Knowing (scirc
T.

what

other

in

lish Eng-

$0

INTRODUCTKm.

distinct
many for

from

comprehending.
we

We

can

conceive

of

things, though example,

is shewn
a

cannot

comprehend
whose

them,

perpetuwn
in the mechanics.

mobile,

bility impossi-

Cognising
fperspicerej
We
reach

something
or

by
an

reason,

or

PERSPECTIN"

having
in

insight

into

it, is the
our

sixth.

this and

few

things,
the
more

and

cognitions
them

grow
towards

fewer

fewer,
in

we

advance

perfection

point

of

value.
that

COMPREHENDING

something,
priori,
seventh is but in the

is, cognising
sufficient
to
our

it

by

reason

degree
the

purpose,

is the

and

last.
that

For is to

all

our

Comprehending
for
a

relative,
;
we

say,

cient suffithing no-

certain

purpose

comprehend
than what

absolutely.
mathematician for

Nothing

more

the

demonstrates
that all the he lines

can

be
in

comprehended;
circle
are

instance,

the

portional. prohow has

And
it

yet
so

does
a

not

comprehend
as
a

happens,

that

simple
Hence

figure
field

circle

these
or

properties.
the that

is the

of much

conceiving
greater,

of

understanding
of

in

general
or

than

comprehending

of

reason.

INTRODUCTION'

91

IX.

Logical Perfectionof Cognition as to Modality. Certainty. Conception of of Holding-true in general. Modes Believing, Holding-true Opining and suasion. PerConviction and Knowing. Reserving and Suspending a Judgment. Previous Judgments. Pre+ judices, their Sources and their chief
.

Sorts.

property of cognition; objective the judgment, by which something is represented true to an as understanding and (the reference therefore is subjective, to a particular a subject), holding-true.
TRUTH
is
an

HOLDING-TRUE
a

is in
an

of general

twofold
certain the

nature

certain
or

and

uncertain.

The

holdingness conscious-

true

of
or

is conjoined with certainty, the uncertain, on necessity; that of

the other

hand,
of the

with uncertainty, the

or contingency,

of possibility either
or

contrary.

The

latter

again is,

well as objectively as insufficient, subjectively cient. suffibut insufficient, subjectively objectively That is termed opinion this must be named
-,

belief.
There
are

three consequently

sorts or

modes

of

92

INTRODUCTION.

and : holding-true opining-, believing, knowing. The first is a problematical, the second an assertive, and
we

the third

an

apodictical, judging. For,

in

what

merelyopine we
but

judginghold
we

with

ness conscious-

problematical;what
for (valid one's

believe,, assertive,
but
as

jnot

as

objectively necessary,
so

however,

jectively sub-

only); and what we know, a^odictically and certain,that is, universally for every body) ; even objectively (valid necessary
suppose
ing-true this certain holdto which itself, object truth. For refers, were a merely empirical distinction of the holding-true according to the the modes
concerns

self

this

three the
of

just mentioned judgment with regardto subsumption of

a

nothing

but

the

criteria subjective judgment under objective

the

rules.*
Our

true, holding immortality

but
act

for
as

instance, is
if
we

if we merely problematical,

were

immortal;
we
are

but and

assertive, provided we
it
were

believe,that
we

so;

if apodictical

all

knew,

that there is a life after the present.

Between
there is
a

and knowing, then, believing, opining, material

distinction,which

we

shall here

explain more

and more at large. closely 1. OPINING, or holding-true on a ground of neither subjectively, ficient, sufnor cognition, objectively

may

be

considered

as

previousjudging,

Sirbsumpting is?rankingunder
T.

given rule (easvg

INTRODUCTIDN.

93

ad interim}, which (sub conditione suspensiva

not can-

well be
we an assume

dispensedwith.
and than

We
be

must
aware

opine before
of

maintain, but
a

holding
our

opinion more

mere

opinion

In all

we cognising

for the most

we

part begin with opining.

obscure

Sometimes
truth ; truth
;
a

have

an

presagement*
contain

of

thing seems
are

to

us

to

marks
we

of

we

sensible of

its truth before

nise cog-

it with

determinate
has
mere

certainty. opiningplace?
"

But

when

Not

in any

of the sciences

that contain in the the

a priori; by cognitions

consequence

neither in

mathematics, ethics, but

in

nor

in the

nor metaphysics,,

empirical
think of
be

cognitions only, in
such

the
a

in psychology,and physics,

like; for it is

to palpableabsurdity

opining a priori.
more

And
to

in

fact

nothing would
the

than laughable, In

opine only
as

matics. in the mathe-

them,

as

well

in

metaphysics
to

and
or
never

in moral
not to

is either the object philosophy,

know,

know.
but

Hence

can

matters

of

opinion

which
to
us

of a cognition of experience, objects in itself, but impossible is possible cognition tions only from the empiricallimitations and condibe of
our

to facultyand according cognitive

the sess. pos-

degree of
The

it

depending
of the

upon

them,

which

we

ether

modern

natural

philoso-

The

literaltranslation is Presension, but

as

the Translator

fers pre-

sagement

more referring

to the

understanding, by

which

onlywe

can

discover truth.

T,

y*

INTRODUCTION.

of opinion. matter phers, for example, is a mere For of this, of every opinion in general, ever whatas it may be, we perspect, that the contrary may

perhaps be proved :
is therefore

in this case holding-true well as subjectively, sufficien inas objectively,

Our

be though it,considered in itself, may rendered complete. 2. BELIEVING, or holding-true 'on a ground

which

is

but insufficient, objectively

subjectively
to

has sufficient,

reference
not not

to

with regard objects,

which

we

can,

only
so

know
as

nothing,but opine

nothing,nay,
but be
to think rest is
a

much that

merely certain,
of such

pretendprobability, it is not contradictory

we

free
a

in the manner objects which holding-true,

do.

The

is not
a

necessary

but

with
a

practicalview given

quently priori; consewe

moral

of that holding-true grounds in such a manner,

which
as

assume

on

to

be

certain,

that the

contrarynever
not
a

can

be

proved.*
of

is Believing of

source particular

cognition. It

is

sort

incomplete holding-truewith
when

consciousness, and
a

tinguished, dis-

considered
those the

as

limited to

sort particular

of

or objects(credibilia

of belief

only),from
it as
a

not opining,

by

the

degree,but by
The

which relation,

bears cognition
a

acting.
niust
not

in order merchant, for instance, there is

to make

bargain,

merely opine, that

We have

something to be gainedby
the
at undertaking
a

is sufficient for it, that is, that his opinion

venture.

theoretical

(of cognition
with

the

in sensible), all that

which which

we

can

attain
name

and certainty,

regard to
be

we

can

human

this must cognition

possible* We

have similar certain

in-practical " priori laws; totally cognitions

INTRODUCTION.

95

Matters of belief then are,

I/

not

of objects

pirical em-

cognition.Hence
but these
al-e

can

tbe historical belief,

Bounded

in

as a prnciple(liberty), supersensible

of practical reason, principle

in ourselves,
an

i'ut

reason practical

is a

with regardto causality

the likewise supersensible, object the sensible world theoretical reason

that

chief power,

good, which
yet nature
as

is not the

in possible
our

by

our

of object

must
or

monize har-

with it; for it is necessary, feet of this idea should be met

the consequence

ef*
We

with in the sensible world.

ought therefore
We
we

to act

in order to realize this end.

traces

find in the sensible world

the Cause

of

wisdom

of art ; and

that believe,

of the world works

with moral wisdom is sufficient of

that for

too to

for the chief

good.

This is a
We

which holding-true,
stand in
no

acting,that is,a belief.

moral

need

accordingto acting,
reason

laws, for they are

of the moral

givenby practical
a

only; but
Wisdom

we

stand in need

assumption of

preme Su-

for the

objectof

our

will, to which we,

avoid directing reference of

besides the
our

mere

of our rightfulness This

is

actions,cannot
a

ends.

not objectively

necessary

our

arbitrament, yet objectof

the
a

the chief

good

is

subjectively necessarily

the

good (every human)

of acquisition
reason

will,and the belief in its

attainableness is necessarily for it. presupposed Between

a

cognition by experience(u
is
no

teriori) postween be-

and
the

by

(tt priori) there

an

mean.

But

of cognition

and object

the
an

mere

of presupposition
a

its possibility, there is a mean,

either

ground, or empirical
reference to
a

ground
whose

of

reason

to assume

with its possibility

cessary ne-

of extending

the field of
us.

possible beyond those, objects

This does necessity
not

is possible to cognition the

reason

obtain

but when

is cognised and practically sary necesas practical object

;

by

for, to

assume

any

thing in behalf of the

mere

is alwayscontingent. Thi* enlargementof theoretical cognition, of an object is that of the practically necessary presupposition of the chief good as the object of the arbitrament, possibility by

consequence

that of the conditions of this

(God, possibility

li-

96

INTRODUCTION.

commonly
proper

so

named,
and
as

not

be termed be

in the belief,
*

sense,

such

opposedto knowing
to necessity, subjective

berty,and immortality). This

the of the object on reality
of the will. This is the

is

sume as-

account
casus

of the necessary determination

extraordinariust without
itself with is of
use

which

reason practical

cannot

maintain

regard to

its

necessary its
own

end, and

the It

favor necessitatis
can no acquire

to it here iii

judgment.
what

but only object logically, this idea which

to pertains

oppose
it

impedes it in

the

use

of

practically.
This belief is the of assuming the objective of f eality necessity chief
the possibility ject of its obgood),that is,

conception (ofthe
as
an

of the object

arbitrament have
no

necessary d

priori* When

we

consider actions
we

only,we
to
we

occasion for this belief.

But if
the end

have

mind

reach
must

by

actions the

possessionof

possible by them,
I
can

assume,

that this end

is quite ble. possimy

end

only say,
laws I

that I find
to liberty

myself necessitated by
a

accordingto
as

of
can

assume

chief else

good

in the world

but possible,

necessitate

nobody

by grounds(belief
extend

is

free)*
The belief of
reason can consequently never

to

cal theoreti-

cognition ; for merely opinion.

edritss

in it the
It is

is insufficient holding-true objectively

reason

of merely a presupposition

with

but absolutely view. subjective, necessary practical,

The

mind-

accordingto
determinate

moral

laws

leads to

an

of object

the arbitrament the at* the

by

pure

reason.

The

assuming of
the
a

fainableness of this
cause

and consequently of object

a

of reality

of

its attainableness is necessary

moral
a

belief,or

holding-true, completion subjective

to

which

is free and

with

moral

view ^p the

of its ends.

Fides

faith speaking, is,properly

one

in

pacto,

or

confidence in
other"

another, that the

The

one

will

keep his word

the

faith and belief.

former, when the pactum is made,

when the latter,

it is to be concluded.

IHTEODUCTION.

97

knowing. Holding-tru* neither as to the degree, on testimonyis distinguished, from true by to the species, as nor holdingone's own experience. of the cogof belief,II, objects Nor are matters nition oretical either of theof reason a priori), (cognition for example,, in the mathematics cognition, in moral and the metaphysics, of the practical^ or philosophy.
because it may
a

itselfbe

Mathematical
on

truths of
error

reason

may

be believed is partly

because testimonies,,

in this case,

not

but

be easily can discovered; easily possible, partly phical Philosothey cannot be known in this manner. truths of
reason,
on

the other be
mere

hand,

cannot
;

be

so

much

as

believed; they must

not

only known

for

does philosophy
as

admit

of

persuasion.

of the practical of objects cognition in moral philosophy in particular, the rights reason and the duties, a mere belief can just as little have be quitecertain whether must place. We thing someis rightor wrong, to duty or conconsonant trary licit or illicit. In moral things to it, nothing be done at a venture can at ; nothing resolved on the risk of infringing the law. For instance, it is not enough for a judge merely to believe,that one accused of havingcommitted has committed a crime
to the

And,

is (so to say) the proreason According to analogy practical from the act, the good expected miser,man, the proiniesarjr, \\wprommum.
N

98 it. He
must

1KTRODUCTIOK.

know

it (juridically), or he

is not

fluenced in-

by
III. is

conscience. the the holding-true of objects, which

Only

free, that necessarily

is to say, not determined

are

by

grounds of truth, which

of the nature
are

ent independobjectively

and

of the interest of the

subject,
merely
may be

matters

of belief. does belief

Hence

afford,because

of

the

subjective grounds, no
communicated and

conviction,which
universal from

commands

assent, like

the

conviction

which

proceeds

knowing.
a

only can

be certain of
or

of the

and validity

tability of the immuposition, pro-

my
the

belief practical of reality

me,
a

in the truth of is that

thing

which,
a

with

regard to
without
who
to

the placeof only supplies

nition, cog-

beingitself a cognition.
not
assume

He,

does

that, which

it is impossible

is

morallynecessary to presuppose, terest of moral inA want : morallyunbelieving

the basis of this sort moral
more

know

but

always forms
The
man

of

dulity. increof
a

greater the
the all

mindedness will lively

is, the firmer and

be in

his belief

that, which
interest to

he finds himself
assume or

forced

from in
a

the

moral

presuppose

practically necessary

view.
a

3. KNOWING

fscirejis holding-true on
is both

ground

and subjecobjectively tively or sufficient, it is as certainty, accordingly founded, either in experience (one's own, as well that of others communicated), as in reason, is or

of

which cognition,

INTRODUCTION.

99 This distinction consequently

cither empirical, or

rational:

refers to both
reason,

the sources,
our

experienceand

knowledgeis drawn. of The rational certainty (or rather the certainty phical reason) is again,either mathematical, or philosofrom which all
;

that is intuitive,this discursive.

The because

mathematical
an

is certainty

named

ETIDENCE;

is clearer, than a cognition discursive one. Though the mathematical and the of reason in themselves are philosophical cognitions of certainty the species is distinct equallycertain, intuitive in them.
one., prooriginal vided from our own that we are certain of something if we and a derived one, so are by the experience, minated denoexperienceof others; the latter is usually

The

is an empirical certainty

certainty. of rational certainty The (or rather the certainty from the empirical reason) isdistinguished bytheconrs that isconjoined sciousness of the necessity with it;it is therefore an apodictical whereas theemcertainty, is but an assertive one. We are rationally tain cerpirical of what we would have perspected of a priori, without all experience. Hence course tions may our cogniof experience, and yet their certainty regardobjects
and rational, provided empirical that we certain proposition an cognise empirically from principles a priori. of reason of every thing we cannot Certainty have ; but, when it is possible for us to have it, must it to the empirical we prefer certainty. be
at
once

the historical

100 Ail is certainty

one,

INTRODUCTION.

either

mediate,

or

an

diate imme-

a proof, requires is capable and stands in need of none. or Though in our is certain but mediately, 3o much cognition be something that is, onlyby a proof,there must certain, and all our indemonstrable,or immediately certain promust set out from immediately cognition positions.

that is to say,

it either

proofs, upon' which all the mediate certainty rect, of a cognition depends, are either direct,or inditruth by its we a apagogical.When prove of it; and when we we givea direct proof grounds, of the contrary infer the truth of from the falsity an a apagogical.But if the latter proposition, torily be contradicshall hold good, the propositions must For or diametrically opposedto one another. but contrarily ther two propositions opposedto one anois the may be both false. A proof,which
The

groundof mathematical

is termed a DEMONSTRATION, certainty, and that, which is the ground of philosophical The essential an ACROMATICAL proof. certainty,

parts of every proof in

its form
;
or

generalare
the

its matter

and

consequence.* the complexof cognition, as a sysBy a SCIENCE Jt is opposed to the common Utn, is to be understood. that is,the complex of cognition, cognition, a mere as aggregate. A system dependsupon an idea of the whole, which precedes the parts ; in
the

argument and

That argument, which truth

is the

principal groundof perspect-

ting the
Hcrvvt

of

the is named, by logicians, proposition,

probandi. T.

IHTRODUCTIOX.

101

the other hand, or in the on cognition, the parts precede the mere aggregate of cognitions,, historical sciences and science^ There whole. are

the

common

of

reason.

In
but

science the there

not

cognitions only, quently by them ; consethingsrepresented

we

often know

the

may
is not

be
a

science of that

our

tion cogni-

of which The
nature

knowing.
has

universal result of what

and of the

been

said of the

is. That speciesof holding-true

either
we or logical,
are

all When

our

cognitionis
we

practical.
of all subjective

know,

that

divested

is suffi* holding-true cient, we are CONVINCED or on objective logically, grounds (theobjectis certain).

grounds and yet

that the

The

on completeholding-true grounds, subjective

however,

which

in

view practical

ones,

is likewise

but (itis certain), And this

jective equal to obconviction,only not logical (I am certain). practical

are

conviction practical

or

moral

belief

is

knowing we listen, do not, in believing to contrary grounds, but we because in it objective grounds are not concerned, is.* but the moral interest of the subject
*

often firmer than all knowing. In

This

conviction practical the proper

sense,

then

is the belief of

reason,
as

whicb such

only,in
in

must

be

named

belief and

opposed to knowing
the belief

and

to all theoretical and

can

conviction logical

general;because it never

be raised to

knowing. Whereas
we

common!) termed historical must, as not be distinguished from knowing ; observed,

of theoretical species
or

have

already
it, as
a

because

Iroldiag-true, logical nray

itself be

102
To conviction

INTRODUCTION.
on holding-true

PERSUASION,

insufficient ther
game

they are

grounds, which we do not know wheat the or merely subjective objective

often

time, stands opposed.

Persuasion conscious
such
reasons
a

precedes
of
we

conviction.

We

are

to

ourselves that

many
cannot

but cognitions

in
the jective. subable
flect, re-

manner,

judge whether
or objective,

of We

our

are holding-true

therefore

must,
reach

in

order

to

be

from

mere

to persuasion

conviction, first

that

is, see

to what

and belongs,

then
are

a cognition cognitive power that is, prove investigate, or sufficient,

whether
with

the

reasons

insufficient,
satisfied with

regard to the object. Many reflect,but persuasion, some

knows
what

rest

few

investigate.

Whoever
neither
nor

easilyconfound
himself
to to be

does pertainsto certainty and conviction, persuasion

allow

persuaded.

There

is

terminati deis

which approbation,

determinative

composed
and this do

of both

and subjective grounds, objective

mixed
not

effect the

greater number
to

of

kind man-

disentangle. as Though every persuasion,

knowing.
of others
facts of
our

the

form

(for-

We

can

assume

an

empirical truth
if
we

on

the

testimony

with
own

the

same

as certainty,

had
sort

attained it
of

by

experience.
as
or

In the

former

empirical
the

knowing,
The

as

well

in the latter, there is something fallacious. mediate

historical

knowing depends upon empirical

To the

certitude of the testimonies. witness

of requisites

an

tionable unexcep-

sufficient capacity and

integrity belong.

INTRODUCTION.

103
seems cognition

maliterjis, if
to

an

uncertain
to

by

it

be certain, false,it, as
be
true.

the matter thus is it

(materia-

liter), may
from

And

distinguished
an certain un-

opinion,which,

if it is held certain,is

cognition. The of holding-true (in believing) sufficiency either by betting, or by may be put to the test to the making oath. To the former comparative, is of objective latter absolute,sufficiency reasons however, when they necessary, instead of which sufficient do not exist,an absolutely subjectively is valid or holds good. holding-true We often use the phrases, To yield to one's judgment; to reserve, to suspend or to give up one's note, to deseem judgment. Those and similar phrases that there is somethingarbitrarious in our judging,by our holding somethingtrue, because The question have a mind to do so. here therefore we
is,Whether
? judgments

volition have

an

influence

on

our

The

will has
;

no

influence
it were

on

diately immeholding-true
When it is

otherwise

very absurd.
we

said, We
but
our

believe

what willingly

wish, it signifies
the

father
an

good wishes, for instance, those of with regardto his children. Had the
influence be
and
on

wHl
we

immediate
we

our

conviction of what

wish,
a

should

constantly forming chimeras

would
then

of

happy state,
are

true.

But the will cannot

contest
our

always convincing proofs,

and
our

hold them

which

contraryto

wishes

tions. inclina-

.HH'

INTRODUCTION,

But, as

far
to the

as

the

will

either excites the understanding

of a truth,or withholds investigation it from it, we must grant it (thewill) an influence the use of the understanding, and quence i"n by conseit depends conviction itself, on as mediately BO much upon the use of the understanding But as to the suspending of our judgor reserving ment in particular, it consists in the intention not to allow a merely previous judgment to become a is a judgA'PREVI. us JUDGMENT one. determining ment, that there are by which I represent to myself, for the truth of a thing, than reasons more against

but it,

that these
or

reasons

do

not

suffice

to
we

mining deter-

definitive judgment,

by

which

decide
a

Previous judgingthen is for truth. directly with consciousness. merelyproblematical The with
a

ing judgplace
sons reaver ne-

reservation
twofold

of

judgment
either
to

may

take

design;

seek for the

or
.

of the
to

determining judgment
the former
a case

in order

judgfr. In

the
one

of suspension

the

judgment is named
scepticdisclaims

critical

( suspensio juFor sceptical.

the true

dicii Indus; atoria); in the latter,a the

all judging; whereas

for sufficient reasons if he has not philosopher,, somethingtrue., but suspends his judgment. holding Tosuspend one's judgment accordingto maxims, which is not found but at an exercised judgment, an reservation of our advanced age, is required. The approbation is in general a very difficult thing, is so desirous of because our understanding partly

INTRODUCTION/

105

itself with knowitselfand of enriching ledge enlarging have alwaysa because we parti} by judging, than to others. to certajnthings, greater propensity his apto retract has been often obliged But whoever probation spect and is therebygrown prudentand circumfor fear of it so does not bestow quickly, of retracting his judgment beingunder the necessity
afterward. and
a

This
reason

retraction
of

is

always

tion, mortifica-

being diffident
here

of all other

knowledge.
We
have stillto notice

that,

to

let one's in

judgment
suspense,
an

remain
are

in

dubio, and

to let it remain
we

not

identical.

In this

alwaystake*

interest in the
our

thing;
and
or

but in that it is not

our

always

suitable to the

end

interest to decide whether

thingis true
to

not.

Previous

judgments are
the all
use

very necessary,

nay,

dispensable in-

meditation

and

in understanding investigationFor they serve

of the

all
to

guide it
means

in them

and

to

furnish

it with

various

When

we

meditate

on

an

we object

must

always
of jects obways al-

and, as it were, judge previously the cognition we are tp acquire.

are

get
And

the scent if one's

must

inventions
a

and

he discoveries,

make

thoughtsare conceived by previous judgments maxims

of
a

previousplan for himself; Hence employed at random.

else his

may

be

for the investigati

too;

thing. They might be named anticipations because one anticipates hisjudg-"

106
,

INTRODUCTION.

merit

of

it. and

Such
even

before he thing judgments are rules how

to

knows

what

must

determine

therefore
an

of

great utility ;

judge of

previously object

might be given.
be distinguished must from Prejudices previous judgments. Previous judgments; if adopted as principles, dered are PREJUDICES. Every prejudiceis to be consiof erroneous as a principle judgment, and not but erroneous prejudices, judgments arise from prejudices. The false cognition, arises from a which therefore be distinguished must from its prejudice, the prejudice. The bodement of dreams, source, for example, is in itself not a prejudice, but an error, which arises from the received general rule : falls out according What to expectation a few times, does so always or is for ever And* to be held true. this principle, from of dreams which the bodement flows, is a prejudice. sometimes true are previous judgPrejudices ments for principles for us or ; only their serving The reason determiningjudgments, is wrong. of this illusion is to be looked for in subjective held objective from a grounds' being falsely ones, of reflection that must want precede all judging. several cognitions, for For, though we may assume certain propositions, out withthe immediately instance, them, that is, without provingthe investigating out withconditions of their truth, we judge of nothing that is to say, without comparinga reflecting,

INTRODUCTION.

107

with 'cognition
or

the
we

IF

faculty(thesensitivity cognitive whence it must needs arise. understanding) this reflection, assume judgments without
the
even

has investigation For judging for subor jective principles place,prejudices, held reasons, Falsely objectiveones, arise

which

is

necessary

when

no

thereFrom. The

fountains principal
custom
or

oF

prejudices are,
inclination.
on
our

tation,, imi-

and assuetude,
a a

Imitation

has

universal

influence
to to

ments; judgthat,
Mie

For it is which others

strong

reason

hold
so.

true

have

What does is right. As to prejudice, arise From which the prejudices, custom, they can. be extirpated derstanding, lay length oF time only,by the untle stoppedand detained by littleand litin judging standing's by contrary reasons; by the underbeing therebybrought by degrees to an opposite way oF thinking. But iF a prejudiceoF in imitation custom too, it is difficult to originates the person who is filled with it. A prejudice cure From imitation
to

given out every body

be

Hence

may

likewise
oF

be
reason

named,
or

propenchanism me-

sion

the

passive use
instead

to the

oF reason, under

oF its

(reason's)spontaneity
must

laws.
an

Reason

is From

active
the
use

which principle,

take

nothing
when
But the

its pure

of others, not even, authority is concerned, From experience. oF

a

indolence

great many

makes

them

chuse rather to tread in the

than oF others, Footsteps

108

INTRODUCTION.

to take the trouble of

their exercising
never can

own

ual intellect-

faculties.

Such

men

be but

copiesof

others, and
would remain

were

every
ever

body
upon

of the

this sort, the world

same

for

spot without
cessary nehighly youth, as it is

making farther
and

progress.

It therefore is
to confine

important not
to
so mere

done, usually
There
accustom
are us

imitating.
which things,
of imitation

many

contribute
and

to

to

the maxim
a

thereby
To

to make

reason

soil fertile in

! predudices

such
1.

aids of imitation

pertain,
are

FORMULES,
serves

which
a

rules, whose
for imitation. of the
ease

sion expres-

for
very

pattern

Besides,
in tricate in-

they are
endeavour
2

useful for the purpose therefore

and propositions,
to find out
or

most

acute

rules of this sort. express

a

SAYINGS,
sense

which aphorisms,
so

nant pregthe

with be

that great precision,

words.

it seems

sense

cannot

in fewer comprised
must

These

ings say-

which (dicta},
to whom
a

alwaysbe
a

taken from

others,
cause be-

certain

is ascribed,serve, infallibility

of this

for authority,
are
or

rule and
xar'

la-w.

The

dicta of the bible 3. SENTENCES,

of and
a

denominated

s"o%ryy sayings.
as

propositions, which,

ductions pro-

selves themjudgment,recommend often,by the energy of the thoughts they

mature

contain, maintain
4

their credit for centuries.

are
a

CA.VONS, which
that
serve

universal basis to the

didascalic propositions and sciences,,

for

express

and well digested something

sublime.

That

INTRODUCTION.

109
be

they
in
a

may

pleasethe

more,

they may
and,

expressed

sententious

manner,
or

5.

PKOVERBS,
common-sense,

rules of

judgments.
serve
none

As

adages, which are popular of its or expressions lar popusuch merely provincial sitions propothe

but
not

vulgarfor
among

sentences

and
more

canons,

they are
the

used

those

of

liberaleducation.
From aforesaid
three

universal

sources

of ticular par-

and especially from imitation, prejudices, many

have prejudices touch
ones
:

their

issue.

We

shall here
common

on

the

following only,as

the most

I.

of authority. Under Prejudices

this head

may

be ranked,
a,
a

the

person.

of arisingfrom the authority prejudice in things When that depend upon we,
upon

experience and
upon
on

testimonies, build
other persons, of

our we

ledge knownot can-

the

of authority be this

that

account

accused
sort

any

prejudice;
a

for

in

things
must,
as

of
we

the

authority of
ing, understandwhen

person

cannot

experience every thing;

our
own

ourselves and

embrace

it with of
our

be the foundation
we

judgments. But,

of others the ground of our authority with of reoson, holding-true regard to cognitions these cognitions we assume mere a on prejudice. For truths of reason hold anonymously ; relatively
to them

make

the

the

questionis,not

Who

said it,but What It is. of

no conse-

is said (non

quis,sed quid)?

110 whether

INTRODUCTION.

quence
or

not;

but

tion cognitionbe of a noble extracdice yet the propensionto the preju-

from arising
common,
own

the

of great men authority of

a as

is very of one's

partlybecause
is described
to

the

limitation

partlyfrom insight,,
us

desire of

that, imitating
thority au-

which

great. Besides, the

to flatter
our

of the person
an

serves

indirect
a

manner.

As, for

vanityin instance, the subjects

of

of

potent despot are

proud

being

treated
himself
are

all
so thing no-

alike far

by him,
in

for the least may the

as greatest,

consider both

equalwith

of them'

comparison
admirers the

of the illimited power of

a

of

their

ruler; the

great

man

if equal,

merits, which
to

selves judge themthey may possess

as

among
in

themselves, are

be considered

cant insignifiHence do

comparisonof
to the

his

pre-eminence.
great
the
men

the

highlyfinished
a

extolled

feed the propensity

a

of prejudice
more

of authority

person

not

little on

b_,The
multitude.
are

ground. of a from the authority arising prejudice To this prejudice the populace in particular
one

than

inclined. the

judge of
man,
on

they, not being able and merits, abilities, knowledge of

For

to
a

rather the

abide

by

the

judgment
What

of

multitude,

that, presupposition
be
true. to

every

body

says

must

Yet

this

with

them of

nothingbut in which religion,

they relyupon

judgment has reference historical things; in matters

they themselves
are

terested, in-

the

judgment of
are ignorant

the learned.

It is remarkable, that the

in

general

INTRODUCTIONS

111

in prepossessed
on sense.

favor of

and learning,
are
so

ed, that the learnof

common-

the

other

hand,

in favor

When he has

all the endeavours

of

man

of letters,after
circle of the

pretty well
not

gone him

through the
the of

sciences,do
heat

afford

proper

satisfaction,

last grows

diffident those be

learning,particularly
which the whose
taphysics. me-

with

regard

to

speculations,in
rendered

conceptionscannot
foundation
is not

sensible, and

solid, as, for example, in the

as

But,
must objects

he thinks the be
to

key

to truth

in

tain cer-

be it

found
so

somewhere,
in vain in

he,
the

after

having

looked

for

long

way

of the scientific

seeks investigation,

it in

mon-sense. com-

But

this

hope
the

is very
reason

fallacious; for when

can

the

cultivated
with

of faculty

effectuate
certain

nothing Every
in But

regard to
in the

cognitionof

things,the
little. the decisions
",

uncultivated
where of

will

do certainly

it just as

metaphysicsthe appeal to
is
can

common-sense
no case

quiteinadmissible
exhibited
so.

because

them

be

in the concrete. In it not but

in moral the
reason

rules

it is not philosophy be given in the can

only all practical

the

concrete,
moreuse

reveals

itself in

general
common

clearlyand
of
derstanding, un-

by rightly
does the

the organ than

of the that

by

of the

Hence speculative.

common

understandingoften judge rightei:

than morality, the

of matters

of

speculative.

112 The

INTRODUCTION.

"

c.

of prejudice

the

In

this class of of
to
a

the prejudices

of tfte age. authority of antiquity prejudice

We
no

is one
reason

the

principal ones.
for
too

doubt

have it is

of antiquity; but judge favourably

a

only
bounds

reason
we

moderate pass,

reverence,

whose

but
to

often

by
of

ancients, so
the

say, treasurers

making and cognitions

our

the of

the sciences,, raising

to
an

relative value

of their writings

absolute

one., and

ourselves trusting
esteem

blind^
so

ly to

their

guidance.
to

To

the

ancients

is, to excessively
years of

reduce

the

understanding to
use

its

infancyand
And
we

neglectthe
lie under all the
a

of one's
mistake

own

talent.
we

would

great

if
so

should
a

believe/that
manner,
as

ancients

wrote

in

classic reached and

as

those, whose
As time

us,

have

done. but

writingshave sifts every thing,

an

nothing
that

that, which
may
no

is of

intrinsic without ancients

value, is preserved,we
reason,
we

presume,

not

possess

of writings

the

but the

best.
are

There
the

several

reasons

for the

begettingand

of the prejudice of antiquity. maintaining When something exceeds expectationaccording

a

to

universal
this is the find

rule, one

at

first wonders
passes
to to

at

it and

then That
we

wondering
case

often

admiration.

with

regard

the

ancients, when

in

them of

something that, consideringthe

the time in which
reason

circumstances

they lived, we
lies in

did not

look for.

Another

this

cir-

INTRODUCTION.

113

knowledge of the ancients and and having read much; of antiquity shews learning that and insignificant which, common as the things
cumstance,
that the have

study of the ancients respect. may be in themselves, always procures the ancients A third reason is,the gratitude we owe for havingbroken the ice for us to much knowledge.
been drawn from the For which it should
seem

to equitable

hold them
we

in

but veneration, particular exceed.

a

whose

measure

often

fourth of

certain envy cope the

cannot

with

is to be sought in finally one's contemporaries. Whoever the moderns, praises at their expense
reason

ancients to the skies, that

the

moderns him.*

may

not

be able to raise themselves

above

The

The

is the contraryto that of novity prejudice of antiquity and the prejudice in its authority and then
;

favor fell now

of the

at the beginparticularly ning

century before the last,when

declared for the moderns.

the celebrated

Fontenelle

With

respect to

of enlargement, it susceptible cognitions for

us

is very natural

to

put

more

confidence
But this

in the

moderns, than in the ancients.

has

onlya
we

foundation it a

as

mere

judgment previous judgment

it becomes
a

If

make

determining one,

judice. pre-

This

last

reason

seems

to quite applicable

our

author's
of their is
now

own

enemies,
into the

and

envy

to

be the
as

only

secret

spring
old
man

impotent opposition. But,

sunk grave,
"

this venerable

Envy

will

drop her snakes, and

stern-

eyed Fury'sself will

melt."

T.
P

114

INTRODUCTION.

2, Prejudices

from
one

self-love,
holds the

or

logicalegotism,,
agreement
of others
as

according
own

to

which with

of
an

his
necessary un-

judgment

the

judgments

criterion themselves
a

of truth.
a

They,

they

fest manirs

by
of
own

certain
own

predilection to understanding,
are

what

production
one's

one's

stance,, for inthe

system,

opposed

to

judices pre-

of

authority.
is it
or

Whether

good
even

and
to

adviseable
favor them
?

to

let It

dices prejuis astonishing,

remain,
that this
one

in

our

age
to

such

questions,especially

with

regard

favoring prejudices,should
one's

still be much
as

put.

Favoring
one

prejudices, is just
a

as

deceiving

with

good
may

view.
be

To

leave
for

prejudices untouched,
\vho
can

however,
about of
to

done;

occupy the it is not with

himself

discovering and
every
labour "is
at

about But
pation extir-

removing
\vhether

prejudices
adviseable

body?
their

all one's

might?
are

another difficult
to

question.
be and
come; over-

Old

and

rooted because

prejudices

they exculpate
own

themselves

are,

as

it were,,

their

judge.
to

And excused

prejudices letting by saying, that

their

remain mischief

is endeavoured would be this

be

occasioned

by
"

extirpation.

But, admitting
will be

mischief;

it (this

extirpation)

productive of great good

hereafter.

INTRODUCTION;

115

X.

Probability. Explication of the Proba* Distinction billties. of Probability Mathematical and from Verisimilitude. PhilosophicalProbability. Doubt both and objective. Sceptical, subjective Dogmatical, and Critical ing Way of ThinkMethod or of Philosophising. Hypothesi

THE

doctrine
are

of the

knowledge of
as an

the

ties probabili-

which
to

to be

considered

approximation

certitude,belongsto the doctrine of the certainty

our

of

knowledge.
PROBABILITY,,
a on holdiug-true a

By

insufficient
to

grounds,but
ones,

which the

have

greater relation

cient suffi-

than

understood. from

grounds of the contrary,is to be we By this explication distinguish bability promere VERISIMILITUDE or

likelihood, a

on holding-true

insufficient
the

grounds, provided that

the be than

they are
The

greater,than

grounds of

contrary.
either that of the be

ground
or

of

holding-true may
of the two

jectively ob-

subjectively, greater,
Which

contrary.
out

it is cannot

found

but the

with

by comparing the grounds of holding-true sufficient grounds ; for then the groundsof
those of the contrary

are holding-true greater,than

116
be.

INTRODUCTION.

can

In

the ground of holding-true probability the

therefore holds
other

in verisimilitude,, on objectively, Verisimilitude hand, only subjectively.

is

an probability only a greatness of persuasion, proximatio apto certainty.Probability must always

have

scale.

For,
with is

as

we

are

to compare

cient the insuffiwe

grounds
know
how
much

the

sufficient ones,

must
no

to certainty.But requisite
mere

scale is necessary in it we compare

to

verisimilitude

because

the

insufficient grounds,not
those of of the

with

the sufficient ones, The either

are

but with

contrary.

points (momenta) homogeneous,

former,
as or

the

in

the

be probability may heterogeneous. If they mathematical cognition,

they must
the

be numbered

; if the

latter,as in the phito according impediments

to

tesophical, pondered,that is,estimated

effect;but
this after

in the mind.
but

The

removing the latter yield relation no

of
one

ty, certainther. ano-

onlythe

relation

verisimilitude to

that the mathematician Kfence it follows,

can

only
grounds phical philosoon

determine

the

relation of insufficient
the

to the sufficient

For, in holding-true. be cannot probability cognition,

of the

estimated

account

of heterogeneity
to

the

grounds; stamped.

in it In the

the

weights,so

say,

are

not

all

strict

it can propriety,

therefore

be said but of

than that it is more the probability, half of certainty. But of probability. Much has been said of a logic the relation of the injjt is not possible ; for,when

mathematical

INTRODfFCTHW.

lit
be

sufficient groundsto the sufficient ground cunnot

mathematically weighed,no
And
ever
can

rules of

are

of any

ance. assist-

no

universal

rules that
a

what* probability
error

be
on

given, except
one

the

does

not

happen
must

side, but

ground

of

agreement
two

be in the sides
err

object;as
in

also that, when

an

posite opan

both

equal number
for

and

equaldegree,the
DOUBT
mere

truth lies in the middle.

of holding-true
a

is

contrary reason

impediment to it,which
or

may

be

either

jectively, sub-

considered. is someDoubt times objectively taken subjectively state of an irresolute a as the knowledge of the insufficienc as mind, and objectively of the reasons for holding-true. In the

latter respect it is named

reason objective

an

OBJECTION,

that

afi is,

of

held holding a cognition

true

false. valid contrary reason merely subjectively is a SCRUPLE. As to it, does one holding-true
A

for
not

know

whether

the

impediment

to

is holding-true

but subjectively, for instance, or grounded objectively, in custom, and suchlike. onlyin inclination,

We
and

doubt

without

being able

to

explainourselves

with determinately without

doubtingand
this
reason

of regard to the reason being able toperspectwhether but in the subject. such
ples, scru-

lies in the

If it shall be

itself, or object to remove possible

they must
determinateness

be raised to the distinctness and of

an

the

objection. For
to

is certainty

broughtto

distinctness and

completenessby

Ob-

118

INTRODUCTION.

and nobody can jections

be

certain of it can
or

less thingun-

contrary
how
far
one

reasons,

by
the

which
truth

be determined
near

is from And
;

how

it,are
answer

assigned.
every
must
arose.

it is not it must be

enough merely to
resolved the

doubt be

too, that

is,it

made

comprehensible how
; the
cases

scruple

If that is not
not removed

clone,the scrupleis only put

seed indeed
to

but off,

of

mains. doubtingstillrewe

In whether the

many

cannot

know
us

impediment

holding-truein

ha*

or objective grounds, and consequently subjective the scruple the false cannot remove by discovering because can our we tions, cognicompare appearance; but often with one not always with the object,

another
one's

only.

It is therefore

modest

not

to

offer

but as doubts. objections of doubting,which There is a principle consists with the view of in the maxim, to treat cognitions uncertain and of shewing the im* them rendering of coining of at certainty/ This method possibility of mind, or is the scepticalcast philosophising of It is opposed to the dogmatic way SCEPTICISM. dence which is, a blind confithinking,or DOGMATISM, in the facultyof reason's enlarging itself a priori by mere conceptions,barely from the seeming success."
* '

Both

methods,
For
we

when

they

become

universal,are

faulty
to

there is much
cannot

which

knowledge,with respect and proceed dogmatically; by

its giving over all

the on scepticisai,

other hand,

INTRODUCTION.

119 efforts to

affirmative baffles al! cognition,

the possession of
a

our

quire ac-

knowledge of the certain. But pernicious this scepticism is, the sceptical as farther is understood method, providedthat nothing than the mode of treating as uncertain by it, something in and of reducing it to the greatest uncertainty the hope of thus tracingtruth, is both useful and suitable to the end proposed. This method then is., a mere correctly suspensionof judging. speaking, It is very useful to the CRITICAL procedure,by that method which of philosophising, whereby we the sources assertions or of our of our investigate and the grounds upon which pend/ objections they de'

is to
a

be understood

;"

method,

which

fords af-

physicsscepticism has which is not place. Only that cognition, neither mathematical,nor empirical, phy, pure philosocould it. Absolute have occasioned cism sceptiIt gives out every thing for appearance, from truth and of therefore distinguishes appearance
course

In

hope of coming at the mathematics and

truth. the

must

have
a

mark

of distinction ; truth ;

ly consequent-

presuppose

knowledge of
of

by

which

it

contradicts itself.

We
is
a

have
mere

noticed already

that probability,

it

And approximation to certainty.

case can our

that

is likewise the

with
arrive

by

which

we

in particular, hypotheses an apodictical at, never

in certainty

but alwayssometimes a knowledge, sometimes a smaller degreeof probability greater, only.

120 A

INTRODUCTION.

HYPOTHESIS

is A
true
;
as

of holding

truth of

aground

of the consequences
true presupposition

judgmentof the for the sake of the sufficiency of a or, shorter, The holding
a

the

ground.

All founded

true holding

in the

hypothesesis consequently asa presupposition's beingsufficient,

we

in

as consequences. ground,to explainother cognitions,

For in that
from

case

infer the truth of the

ground
of

that of the consequence.

But, as
cannot
an

this mode

inference,as above-mentioned,
criterion of truth and
but certainty
an

lead to

ficient givea sufapodictical of

when

all the

possible consequences
all the

assumed
never

ground are
can

true, it is obvious

that, as

we

that
never

quences, consepossible hypotheses, hypotheses always remain full certainty at whose we is,presuppositions, The arrive. of a hypothesis, can probability

determine

however,
have
the

may,

when occurred

all the
to us,

consequences,
can

which

hitherto

be

on explained

ground,increase and raise itself to presupposed For in such a case there an analogonof certainty. is no reason why we should suppose, that all the from it. be explained cannot possible consequences therefore submit to the hypothesis, In this case we if it were as quite certain, though it is not so but by
induction.
And in every

yet somethingmust

be

certain apodictically

hypothesis ; itself. The of the presupposition I. possibility When, for example, we suppose a subterraneous
fire for the of earthquakes and explication of vol-

INTRODUCTION.

121

canos

; a

fire of that
an

sort must

be

if possible,
But

not

as justas flaming1,

ardent

body.

for the behoof

an

of certain
of the internal

other in

phenomena
which the

to make

mal ani-

earth,

the circulation

of
a

the
mere

fluids
not

causes
a

heat, is

to erect

fiction and
but feigned,

not

hypothesis.For possibilities ; these

The
the assumed
a

realities may
must

be

be certain.

2. flow

The

consequence.

rightfrom
becomes

must consequences ground ; else the hypothesis

mere

chimera.
an

3.

The

unity.

It is

essential

of requisite
in need

and stand that it be but one hypothesis, for its support. no hypotheses subsidiary
we

of

the assistance loses very

hypothesi the necessity under of calling in. are it thereof several other hypotheses, by much of its probability For the more
a

If in

consequences

that
the

may
more

be

inferred from

thesis hypofewer,

there are, the de

more

it is ; probable

the

improbable.
for

The

of Tycho hypothesis
not
;

Brahe,

instance, did

suffice to the
he therefore

ex

of planation several
new

many

phenomena
it may be

used

hypothesesfor
case

the purpose

of

ting1. complethe

In this

that conjectured,

cannot adopted hypothesis

be the

genuine ground.
is
a

Whereas
from

the

Copernical system
(so far
as

hypothesis,
to

whici) every thing that is intended

it it has hitherto have be

be

ex.

plainedby
us)
of may

occurred
no

to

explained. In
sciences, which

it we

occasion

subsidiary hypotheses.
There
are

do not allow of

hypo-

123

INTRODUCTION.

theses;

as,

for

example,

the mathematics natural

and

the

in metaphysics. But hypotheses

are

philosophy

both useful and

indispensable.

APPENDIX.

Of
A

the Distinction

of theoretical practicalCognition*
denominated
not

and

of

is cognition
to

in practical

distinction contra-

but only the theoretical,

the

culative spe-

cognition. Practical cognitions either

1.

are,

Imperativesand

in

this view

opposed

to

the

itheoretical

cognitions comprise, ; or 2. the grounds to possible and are imperatives, in this view opposed to the speculative cognitions. in general that By IMPERATIVE every proposition free action, by which a certain expresses a possible is to be realized, is to be understood. end Every is then, which contains cognition, imperatives,
PRACTICAL

and

to

be

termed

so

in contradistinc-

The

distinction made, what

in the critical

between philosophy,

what

is practical and
to.

belongs to

the

praxis,must

be well
we

attended in view
when
we

We

consider

when something theoretically

have

that

only, which
on

pertainsto

thing,but practically,
it

reflect

what

ought to pertainto

through liberty.
the

of procedure represented in Theory is, Principles

to Praxis,Application
cases

general; sician, phyT.

in experience. A occurring

for instance, when

to his

he endeavours

to cure

his

cording acpatients

of exercises the praxis theory,

medicine.

INTRODUCTION,

tton

to the

theoretical
such

cognition.
as

For
not

CAL THEORETI-

are cognitions

express, what

what

must

be

and for

have
an

ought to be, but their object, not an

the

consequently acting,but a being of

the

is ;

existing.
Jf
on

contrary we

oppose

c'ognit practical
ical be theoret-

tions to the too, from them

as

speculatives ones, they may can provided that imperativesThey

are

be deduced
in this
re?-

then,

considered
or

spect,

to

the value

(in polentia)

practical. By
stand

SPECULATIVE

objectively^ under* we cognitions

can

those,from
or

which

no

rules of conduct

be

derived,

which

imperatives.In
great number
of

grounds for possible there are a for_example, theology,

comprise no
the like

merelyspeculative sitions. propothat sort then

are

of Speculative cognitions

always
considered
same

theoretical ;

but

not not

conversely ; speculative ;

every

theoretical

cognitionis
under

it may,

another

pointof view,
the

be at the

time

practical.
at last to
our

Every thing tends

the value practical of tendence of all that

practical ;

and

cognitionconsists
is theoretical and their
use.
one

in this

which

of all value
the

with regard to speculation

however is not
an

This

inconditional
use practical

but

when

end,

to which

the

of the

is cognition

directed, is an

inconditional
and

end.

MORALITY
end

is the

only
which

inconditional every

ultimate
of
on our

use practical

to (scope), cognitionmust

and be referred, finally

we

that account

denomi-

124

IK1RODUCTION.

nate

morality
philosophy,
therefore

the

absolute which
has

practical. morality
way
of

And
for

that

part

of

its

object,
named

must

be,

by
;

eminence,
every
its other

PRACTICAL

PHILOSOPHY

though
have

sophical philopart,
use

science that

may
a

always
direction
for

practical practical
ends.

is, may
the And erected thus

contain theories
much

to

the

of

realizing
to

certain

with

regard
of

cognition,
now

as

pre
to

paratory

to

the

study

logic.
a

We

proceed

logic

itself,

dry,

but

short

science.

PART

THE

FIRST.

General

Doctrine

of

Elements.

SECTION

THE

FIRST.

Conceptions.

Conception

in

general

and

its Distinction

from
ALL with

Intuition.

Cognitions,that is, representationsreferred

consciousness
or

to

an

object,are

either

tions, intui-

conceptions.
is
a

An

intuition
notas

single,a conception
or

sal univer-

(per

communes)

reflected-on

(disur-

siva), representation..
The
termed

cognition

or

knowledge by conceptions
opposed
the

ii

(cognitiodiscursiva) or cogitation. thinking

I. The
as

Scholion

conception

is

to

in"

tuition ; for that,

or
a

aforesaid, is a universal
that

sentation repreis
com-

representationof

which

Very

little
to

and reflection, the fault of

very

slightknowledge

of

logic

will suffice of

shew

treatingPerception hi
of

this section T.

the Doctrine

of Elements

instead

Conceptions,

126
mon

LOGIC.

to several

a objects, consequently tion, representabe contained that it can in various provided

ones.

2. It is
of
common

mere

to speak of universal tautology or conceptions; a fault, which nates origi-

in

wrong

division

of

versal, conceptionsinto unithe tions concep-

and particular,

single. Not
use,
can

themselves,but their

be thus divided.

2.

Matter
Matter
and

and
form

Form
are

of Conceptions.
be in every distinguished the
matter

to

conception. The
j

object is

of the

ception con-

the

its form. universality,

3.

Empirical and
is conception one. (intellectualis) A

Pure
an

Conceptions.

which
to

the

An
cannot

or a empirical, pure A pure conception is one, is not taken from experience, but arises, as matter too, from the understanding1. idea is a conceptionof reason, whose object be met with in experience.*

either

As

in

our

language

far

too

vague

sense

is affixed to

the

word

of Idect, the following gradation

used representation and

in the

will shew criticalphilosophy

its proper

Platonic original determination

of

meaning

that is, Representation,

internal

CONCEPTIONS.

127

Scho. I. An
senses

form

arises out of the conception empirical of experience, by the comparison of the objects and obtains by the understanding merely the of these concepof universality. The reality tions whence they, depends upon actual experience,
are

as are

to their matter,

drawn.
the

But, whether

thera

pure

conceptionsof
of all

which, understanding,
the

as

such, entirely spring from

pendently intellect inde-

tigate. must invesmeta physic experience,

lead of reason, or ideas, can conceptions all these must be at all ; because to no real objects comprehended in a possible experience. But they of reato guidethe understanding son serve by means and to the use of its with regard to experience 2. The

our

mind in any relation of time, in general, is the genus. ranks. consciousness, the

Under
sation Sen-

it Perception, with a representation

is
a

which perception,

refers to

subjectonly, as the objective perception.

former
has
an

modification of his state; This is either Intuition or reference to the

one,

Cognition,an

Conception*The
be

diate imme-

objectand is single ;
mark, which
as

the latter,a mediate

common

by

means

of

may

to

several

things,
in origin

conception is,
pure, and
a

mentioned

in the

text, either
it has its

or empirical,

pure

that conception, provided

understanding only (not in the pure image of the is styled sensitive faculty) A conception from notions, a Notion.
fthich surmounts

the

the
a

nf possibility

the reach

of

is experience, accustomed
hear

termed

an

Idea, or

conceptionof

reason.

To

one

to this accurate

distinction it must

be

to insupportable
an

the
so

representation of the ted colour named

much
as

idea ; it cannot

be named

notion,
un

or

conceptionof the understand-

ing (See Kant's

Criticism

pure

Reason). T.

128

LOGIC.

and rules in full perfection,

to

that all possishew,, ble

and that of experience, thingsare not objects the principles of its possibility do not hold of things in themselves, of objects of experience as nor even in themselves (in se). things An idea contains the

archetypeof
idea
as

the

use

of the verse, uni-

for instance, the understanding, which

must

of
a

the

be necessary, not

constitutive

for the empirical of the understanding, use principle but as a regulative in behalf of the thorough one herence coof the empirical of our intellect. It is use then
to

be

considered order

as

necessary

fundamental

in conception,
or

either to

complete objectively.,
And
an

of subordination to consider the intellectualoperations,

as

interminate
be obtained

or

unbounded.

idea

cannot

by composition ; for
part.
Yet
there
are

in it

the whole
to which
case

is before the
an

ideas,
is the

has place. That approximation

the mathematical

with

ideas,or
the the

those of the
are

mathematical

dynamical ones that are heterogeneous to all concrete conceptions'; because the whole is distinct from these conceptions^ not as to quantity (as in the mathematical tions), concepbut as to quality.
We
cannot

generationof from materially distinguished

whole, which

furnish any theoretical

prove the

jective idea with ob-

of any reality objective it theoretical idea, but the idea of liberty ; because is the condition of the moral law whose is, reality of the idea of God axiom. The reality so to say, an
or reality

cannot

be

and proved but by it (liberty)

therefore

CONCEPTIONS.

with
there

view only,that is, so practical

were a

to

act,

as

if

God

consequentlyfor
those especially

this

jpurpose
the
;

only.
In all

sciences,

of reason,
or

idea of the science

is its universal all the of

sketch

contour

of

course

the

sphere of
an

that cognitions the

to

long befirst

to

it.

Such
to

idea

whote, the
consider in
a

thingwe
is

have

look for and

ence, sciof

architectonic,as, for
of law.

example, the

idea

the science

humanity, that of a perfect comthat of many other momv^alth, that of a happy life, is wanting to most men. things, Many men have the common idea of (to use whit no expression) ing they would be at; hence do they proceedaccordto instinct and to authority.
idea

The

of

4.

Conceptions given (" priorior posteriori} and factitious Conceptions.

a
.

All
or

conceptions are,
ones.
a

as

to

the matter, either

are

given,
a

factitious

The

former

given either

or priori,

posteriori.
those

All

or empirical conceptions, are

given a posteriori,

named

of experience conceptions ; those

notions. givena priori, Scho.

as conception is always factitious. representation, a R

I. The

form

of

sive discur-

130

LOGIC.

5.

Logical Origin of Conceptions.

The
of conceptions, as origin reflection and upon
to

the

mere

form,,
from

depends upon

abstraction

the difference of the

And representation. What

thingsbetokened by a certain consequently the question.

constitute a of the understanding operations to the same thing) conception, or (which amounts of a conceptionfrom given belong to the begetting ? naturally occurs representations here.

abstracts from all the logic all the of cognition matter or from by conceptions, it cannot of thinking, matter weigh the conception but with regardto its form, that is,but subjectively how it determines an object by a mark, but 5 not be referred to several objects. Universal it can how has to investigate not the by consequence logic how of conceptions, not source conceptions arise but how given representations as representations, in thinking; it is 'all one ther whebecome conceptions these conceptions contain any thing either

Sch.o, I, As universal

taken

from

or experience,or fictitious,

taken

from

the nature of
"

gin oriunderstanding. This logical the origin to their mere form as conceptions" the
a

of

consists in the reflection,by which

common.

tion representacom-

to

several
that

objects(conceptus
form,
which is

munis)
to

arises,as
In

require^
but

judgment.

logic

therefore

nothing

CONCEPTIONS.

131 is considered

the

distinction of

reflection

in the

conceptions.
2. The

matter,

with respectto their of conceptions origin according to which a conceptionis either

or empirical/

arbitrable,or

it is fhe intellectual,

of metapliysic to province

consider.

6.

Logical Acts of Comparison,ofReflection and of Abstraction. (

"

acts of logical to their as conceptions

The

1,

the

sentations

by which understanding, form are engendered, are, comparison, or the comparing of reprewith one another jn relation to the unity
the
'

of consciousness;

2,

the

how reflection, or reflecting be

various
in
one

re* sciousness; con-

presentations may

comprehended
the

and, finally, 3, the abstraction,or

of all that separation are givenrepresentations distinguished

by which
from
one

the

another.

Scho.

1.

In

order

to
we

form
must

from conceptions be able these

to

presentations re-

then,
to

compare,

reflect,and

to

abstract; for

three the

logical
essential

operationsof
and

the

are understanding

the universal

conditions of the

of engendering
see,

every
a

conception in general. We birch,a lime, and an oak.

these
we objectstogether

for
we

ple, exam-

When

first

compare

mark,

that

they

132
arc

IOGIC.

different from
arms,

one

another

in

respect to

the
stract ab-

trunk,the

the branches, the leaves, and

"c. ; ifi this figure, obtain the conception manner of a tree. we % The word abstraction is not alwaysused right stract, (inGerman) in logic. We must say, not to abbut to abstract from, something. When,
for

from

their siz", their

instance, we cloth,We
from

think of the red colour from

onlyof
we

scarlet

abstract

the cloth ; if

abstract
a

the colour too and

we general,

conceive

of the scarletas still more

substance in

abstract from

and determinations,

our

is thereby come beconception the

yet more
the

abstract. For

of the differences of
or

the number greater leftout of a conceptidn, things

greaterthe number of the determinations in it abstracted from, is,the more abstract the conception.
in abstracting conceptions, strict propriety, be termed abstracting o"es, that is to say, conceptions, in which several abstractions The conception of body,for instance, Is, occur. abstract not an piroperly speaking, conception; from body itself we can by no means for, abstract, eke we Jhoufd not have a conception of it. But, ia order to have it, we abstract must by all means from the size, the colour, the rigidity or the fluidity,
iita

Hence

should

word, from

all the The

specialdeterminations
most

of

bodies. particular
is

abstract
common

conception
with any

that,which

has

nothing in

of sornev thingdistinct from it It is the conception is distinct from rt, and of course tiling ; for nothing with it. not any thingin common lias

CONCEPTIONS.

condition, on negative be genecan which universally Valid representation rated the positive reflection are ; comparison and straction conditions. For no conceptionis produced by ab3. Abstraction
is but the
;

this but finishes that and

confines it witb*

in its determinate

bounds.

7.

Matter
EVERY
in
of

and

Sphere of Conceptions.
a

is contained partial one, the representation of things;but, as the ground that is, the mark, these things are cognition,
as conception,

contained

under

it.
matter

In

the

former

has conception

; in

the

respectively latter, a sphere.

a

The
one

matter
a

and

the

sphere of

bear conception
more

another

converse

-relation. The

conceptioncontains
and itself, vice
versa.

under

the less it contains in it,

the universal validity or universality, of a conception,depends upon the conception's not a partial being, one, but a ground of cognition.

Scho.

The

8.

Greatness
THE

of the Sphere of Conceptions.

a

sphere of

conception is
of that things it is.
a

the

greater, the
under it and

greater the number

can

rank

be

of by thought

Scho.

As

it is said of

ground

in

that general,

IS*
it contains

10GIC.

the consequence
a

be said of

wise it; it may likeconception that it, as a ground of

under under obtained it all those from things, of

contains cognition,

which

it has been the

v

by
it

means

for in stance

conceptionof
under

metal
as

abstraction^ contains gola"

every
tion, concep-

silver, copper,
as a

"c.

For,

valid representation, universally comprises that which several representations of different things have in common, all these things,, which are in this view "contained under it,may be representedby it. of a conception. And justthat constitutes the utility The greater the 'Wumber be reof thingsthat can presented is,the greater its sphere. by a conception The conceptionof body, for example, has a greater than that of metal1 ": sphere,
"

9.
"

;;00

iSil;

Superiorand InferiorConceptions*
Conceptions,if they
'which conceptions,
inferior ones,
are a

have

under

them
are

other itamed

in

relation to them

denominated
remote

marjt of

mark,

A ones. superior ception conmark, is a superior

a

; a
an

in respect to conception,

remote

mark,

inferior one.
Scho.
As

superiorand
but in various
an

inferior

are conceptions same

so

termed taken

the respectively,

very

tion, concepat
once a

references, may
one.

be

and superior
man,

inferior

i The

conception of
of conception

in respectto the for instance, is,

CONCEPTIONS.

135
that of animal,

centaur,
an

to but, in respect superior,

one.

inferior

10.

Kind
A

(genus} and Sort (species}.

to its inferior, is, superior conception relatively named to its superior, an inferior, relatively genus
-y

species.
Generic
and

special conceptions are, like superior

not distinguished,
as

and inferior ones,

to
one

their
ther ano-

nature, but with regard to their relation to

ftermine subordination.

quo,

or

ad

quod)

in the

logical

11.

Highest
That genus,
summumnon
a

Genus
which

and
is not

lowest
a

Species.

(genus
which

est

is the highest species, and that species, species);

is not

genus,

is the lowest

(species, qua

non

est genus,

est

infimaj.
to

According
there
can

the

law
a

of

however, continuity,
nor
a

be

neither

lowest,

proxime

species.
Scho. If
we

conceive
to

of
one

series of several

con*

subordinated ceptions

another, for example, iron, metal, body, substance, thing, we may obtain
for every
a

higher and higher genera;

to

is always, species

be considered

as

genus

with

regard

to

136

LOGIC.

its inferior conception, for instance, the of

a man

of

with regard to learningat last

that

conception of a philosopher,
that cannot
we

tillwe

arrive at
one

genus

be

species again.

And

of that sort
at

must
a

reach; because there must finally from which, as higherconception,

ca"o

last be

such, nothing
the

be

farther abstracted without

whole

ception's con-

vanishing. But

in

the

whole

series of

there is no and of genera such thingas a species fowest conception under which a lowest species, or is contained; beother conception or species cause no
one

of that sort

could not
a

nmied.

For,

if

we

have

be detei*possibly which we conception,

distinctions, apply immediatelyto individuals, specific either which pay There

no we

dp

not

or notice,

to which to

we

attention,may
are no

exist with

respect

it.

but comparatively conceptions for use, which have obtained this signification, it as by convention,providedthat we are agreed were, in a certain matter. not to go deeper of the special to the determination Relatively and of the generic then, this universal conceptions,

lowest

faw-^There
but species;

is a

genus
are
"

that
no

cannot

be any

more

there

but species

what

may

come be-

genera

again

holds

good,

12.

Larger
A

and

nate stricter Conceptions. Alter-

Conceptions.
is also named conception superior narrower. a stricter or inferior,
a

larger ;

an

"
"

.'.

CONCEPTIONS.

137

"

which Conceptions,

J .orlsS
have the
same

sphere, are
ones.

distinguished by the

name

of alternate

"n"3

j3
en

Relation
the
The

to the superior, of the inferior of larger to the stricter, Conceptions.

inferior

conceptionis
more

not

contained

in the the
perior su-

superior;for
;

it contains is contained the

in itselfthan

but

under of

it ; because

the

superior contains
inferior.

ground

of cognition

the

Again, the
not

one

is larger than cognition

more

the
we

other,
not can-

because

it contains that
"

under

it" for

know
other

but because stillmore

it contains

under

it the

and conception

than it.

14.

Universal

Rules

relative

to

the Subordination

of Conceptions.
With
it, the c 11

regard to
-

the
u

logical sphere
:

of

conceptions

rules following

u hold

J, What

agrees

with

or

is repugnant to the agrees which with

are
or

perior supugnant re-

likewise conceptions,
to all the

is

inferior ones,

ed contain-

under

those

and,
agrees with
or

2,
to

What conversely,

is

repugnant
or

allinferior conceptions, likewise agrees with

to their
ones. superior

is

repugnant

138 Scho. from

LOGIC.

Because

that,in

which

things agree,
particular ones,
with
or

flows
which
we

their universal

and that, in properties,

they are
cannot to
or

from different,

their

conclude
an

that,What

agrees

is repugnant

inferior

likewise conception, inferior

agrees

with

is

repugnant
it to

to other
a

which conceptions,

belongwith
we

superiorone.

Exempli gratia,
does not agree

cannot

which conclude,that that, does not with

with man,
"Ufi

angelsneither.
15.

Conditions

of the Origin of superior and straction of inferior Conceptions: logical Aband

Determination.

By continued logicalabstraction higher and higher conceptionsarise; and, on the other hand, determination lower and lower by continued logical The greatest possible abstraction yields the ones. abstract the most or conception that one, highest
"

from
of
as

which
away.

no

farther determination The

can

be

thought

highestfinished
deter
no

determination

would

yield a thoroughly determined

omnimode
which

conception
that

(conceptum
be conceived

minatum),

is,a
can

to conception^,

farther

determination

to be

added.

single thingsonly or individuals are intuitions only, as determined, cognitions thoroughly but not as mined deterbe thoroughly can conceptions, deterlogical ; in regard to the latter the
As

Scho.

CONCEPTIONS.
"

139 finished

niinatiori
(fi

never

can

be

considered

as

15

II n.

wj.
/? i 10.

MS

in of Conceptions
"

the Abstract

and

in

the Concrete.

Every conceptionmay be used both universally and particularly (in abstracto and in concrete!). The inferior conception is used in the abstract in the conto its superior crete relatively ; the superior, to its inferior. relatively
Scho.
not
so

1. The
to

words, abstract and concrete,

the

refer

much

conceptions in
abstract different

themselves
to their

(for
use*

every And

is an conception
this may

one),as

again have

accordr degrees,

then inglyas a conception is treated,now more, id est, accordingly or less, abstractedly concretely,
as

sometimes either
a

more,

sometimes

fewer, determinations
the abstract

are
use

omitted,or superadded. By
nearer

conceptioncomes
on

the

highestgenus,
nearer

by

the concrete,

the other

hand,

the individual.

2. Which

use

of

the conceptions,
"

abstract

or

the

concrete, is the
on

this

? preferable Nothing can point. The value of the one that of the other.

be decided
is not to

be

estimated

than less,

abstract

we conceptions

cognisein
ones,

many

By very things
;
we a

little; by very
the other.

concrete
we

in few

much things

what consequently
on

gain on the one side whicfy has conception,

lose

great

140

LOGIC,

sphere,is
many
in it.
we

so

very useful,as
then
there

it

can

be

appliedto

but things; In the

is the less contained

for instance, conceptionof substance, of

so

do not conceive
3. The
art

much,

as

in that of chalk. in

of

consists popularity the

the hitting
abstract

relation between
and that

representationin
in

the

in the

concrete

the

same

; cognition

therefore between

the

conceptionsand
of
as

bition, their exhi-

whereby the
regard
as

maximum

with cognition, to

well

to

the

sphere

the

matter

is

attained,

"

"

141

GENERAL

DOCTRINE SECTION
THE

OP

ELEMENTS,

FIRST.

Judgments.
17.

Explication of
A
JUDGMENT

Judgment

in General.
the

is the

of representation

of the

consciousnes

of various

unity or representations

of their relation provided that representation they make up a conception.

18.

the

Matter
Matter
and

and
form

Form

of Judgments.
every

to pertain

judgment as

its

very constituents. which

are

The

matter

consists in the cognitions,

of consciousness

in the unity givenand conjoined in the judgment; the form of the

judgment, in the determination of the way in which the various representations, as such, belongto one
consciousness.

19.

Objectof logicalReflection Form of Judgments.

"

the

mere

abstracts from every real or objective logic it can occupy distinction of cognition, itself as little about the matter of judgments,as about that of consider has to conceptions. It consequently

As

142

LOGIC.

merelythe

distinction of

judgments with regard to

their bare form.

20.

Logical Forms of Judgments Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Modality

: *

The

distinctions of
may

Judgments \vith respect

to the

to

their form
of

be reduced

four

main

points

of relation, of quality, and of modality, quantity, with regard to which justas many various sorts

of judgmentsare

determined.

St.

Quantity of Judgments Universal,particular,^ single.

:

As
or

in

quantity, judgments are either universal, the subject as or single; particular, accordingly in the the judgment is either quite included
to
or predicate,
"

notion of the

excluded

from

it,or

but

to Relatively

the

distinction

of
:

judgments
How
many

as

to their mere

form
are

the

following questionsoccur
with the of this

representations
as

compared
not? What

unity ?

Are

they exhibited
With

conjoined degree
two

or

sort

conjunction is it?

what The
two

of

is holding-true

conjunction conceived
of the

of?

firstregard the internal

the relations
to
one

of judgments, the properties

last

another,and
rather have
Plurative.

judgmentsto

the cognitive

faculty.
f Our
in

T. these

author would

judgments, when
on reasoning

used

termed metapliysic, in the 20th

See his

this subject

of paragraph

his PROLEGOMENA

turned

by the

Translator.

JUDGMENTS.

143 from
it. In

in

part included in it,in part excluded

judgment the sphere of one conception is comprehended quite .within that of another; in the particular is coma prehended part of one conception under the sphere of another; and ia the which has no sphere at all,is a conception, single consequently comprehended merelyas a part under the sphereof another conception.
to the form, are as Single judgments, to be esteemed in the use equalto universal ; for in both the predicate holds with regardto the subject without exception.For example,in the single proCaius is mortal, an exception can have position, All men as little, as in the universal place just one,
are

the universal

Scholion I.

mortal. 2. With

For

there
to

is but the

one

Caius.

of a cogniuniversality tion, sal a real distinction between generaland univerdoes not conhas place,but which cern propositions axe those which logic. General propositions

respect

contain and

somethingof
therefore
not

the

universal

of certain of

jects obthe

sufficient conditions

Proofs for instance, the proposition, subsumption, in a solid manner must be made tions ; universal proposiare such, as maintain something of an object

universally.
3. Universal

rules are

either

or synanalytically, thetically

universal.
;

Those
to

abstract them

from of

tinctions the discourse

these

attend

and

determine
an

The more simple regardto them. sality univeris cogitated, the sooner analytical object is possible. in consequence of a conception

with

144 4. When
universal

LOGIC.

without propositions,
*

know.

*"

ing them in the concrete, cannot be perspectedin their universality, they cannot serve for a rule, and
hold lieuristically in the apcannot consequently plication, but are only problems for the universal in particular grounds of that which is firstknown Whoever has For example,tlie proposition, cases. the truth,speaks interest in lying and knows no in is not to be perspected truth ; this proposition know tation the limibecause its universality; cannot we
to

the

condition

of the

disinterested

person

lie from can by experience ; namely,that men interested motives ; which proceedsfrom their lying observation to morality. An not adhering firmly of human that teaches us to know the frailty na-

but

ture.

particular judgments it is to be noticed that,if theyshall be capableof beingperspected by

reason,
an

5. Of

and

therefore

have

rational,not

intellectual (abstracted) form, the

a

be Let
-_
^.

than conception, larger(latior) the predicatebe always = O

merely must subject the predicate.

the
"

subject

|_1,thus:
.

it is a
to

ing judgment; for somethingbelongparticular that flows from reason"But a is b, somethingnot b"
let it be thus:

JUDGMENTS.

145

every a, at least when

it is less than under b

;

b, but

not when

greater,can
it is but

be contained

by consequence

particular. fortuitously

QualityofJudgments Affirmative, tive, negain definite.

:
''

quality, judgments are either affirmative, indefinite. In an affirmative or or or negative, the subject is thoughtof under the one positive is placed sphere of a predicate negative, ; it, in a without the sphere; anil, in an indefinite, in put withthe sphereof a conception, which lies without the sphereof another conception.
to

As

Scho.

1.

The

indefinite

judgment

shews

not

is not contained under the sphere only that a subject its sphere of a predicate,but that it lies without somewhere in the indefinite sphere; this judgment therefore
as represents the sphere of the predicate

limited.

we

Every possible thingis either A, or not A. If say, Something is not A, exempti gratia,The
soul is not mortal. indefinite Some
men are

human

not

terati. li-

judgment. For by it it is determined beyond the definite sphere of A but that not to what conceptionthe object belongs,
it perly belongsto the sphere without A, which is,probut the bordering not a sphere at all, speaking, of a sphere on the indefinite or bounding itself.
T

This is an

146

LOGIC.

Though
of
a

the exclusion
is
a

is

negation,the
of limited

limitation
Hence
are

conception

positiveoperation.

bounds 2.

positive conceptions

objects.
of every

of the Accordingto the principle

the sphere (exclusi tertii) either of

exclusion
one

third

conception

to another, is, relatively

exclusive,or inclusive.
the form of the

Rut,

as

logichas
with

to

do

merely with
as conceptions

judgment, not
the

the

to their matter,

distinction of the
does
not

indefinite

from
to this

the

negative

judgments
3.

appertain

science.

In

negative judgments
copula ;
in

the

negation always
the

affects the
but the

indefinite, not

copula,
stance circum-

predicate
is

is affected the

by

it ; which

expressed

best in Latin.

23.

Relation

of Judgments:

pothet hyCategorical,
eithei

disjunctive.
As
pr
to

relation, judgments

are

categorical,
given
either

or hypothetical,

The disjunctive.
are

sentations repreone

in another in the

judgment
unity
of
or subject, as
a

subordinated

to
as

consciousness
as

the

predicateto
antecedent*
divided

the
or

the of

consequent
the division

to the
to

member the

the

conception. By
are

first relation

cal categori-

judgments
and

determined,
third

by

the

second

thetical hypo-

by

the

disjunctive.

JUDGEMENTS.

147

Judgments. Categorical
In these the
their matter
;

and subject the

the

make predicate
the

up

form, by which

relation

(of

the subject between agreement or of disagreement) is and is determined and the predicate expressed, termed the

copula.
up
must

Scho.
of other
as

judgments make Categorical

from this
that both
we

the matter
not

and hypothetical ent than differjudgments are nothingmore disjunctive therefore and dresses of categorical can ones, pend be all reduced All the three judgmentsdeto them. functions of distinct logical essentially upon cussed the understanding, and consequentlymust be disdistinction. to their specific according

judgments ; but several logicians do,

think,

25.

Judgments. Hypothetical
The
which
matter
are

of these

consists of

two

judgments,
and

connected

togetheras
one

antecedent

consequent.
contains the

The

of these

ground,is the
stands

judgments, which antecedent (priusj; the

consequence the representation

other, which
to

in the relation of

and that, the consequent (posterius); of this sort of connexion

of both

ments judg-

of togetherformingthe unity

consciousness

148

LOGIC.

is named

the

consequence,

which

makes

up

the

form

of

Scho.

hypothetical judgments. I. What the copula is to categorical ments, judgthe

consequence

is to

hypothetical ones,
a

their form.
2, Some
think it easy
a

to transform

cal hypothetiticable practheir

to proposition
;

because In

But it is not categorical. they are quite distinct by

categorical judgments nothingis but every thingassertive ; whereas problematical,

very
nature.

in

the consequence tive ones, hypothetical onlyis asserIn the latter we therefore or positive. may false judgments together in this two connect ; for affair is the tightness in the conthe whole case nexion"the form

of the consequence
of these

upon

which

the There

logicaltruth
is
an

judgments depends.
these
two

essential distinction between

All bodies : are divisible, and, If propositions bodies are composed, they are divisible. In former the

all

the
the

thing is

maintained
on a

directly ; it in

latter is maintained

problematically expressed

condition

only.
26.

Modes

of Connexion
:

in

ments Judghypothetical
and
in

Modus
of
:

ponens
connexion the

Modus

tolkns.

The

form

hypothetical judgments
(modus ponens)

is twofold and

layingdawn

the

fmodus annulling

tollensj.

JUDGMENTS.

149
or

I. When

the antecedent
determined

ground

is true, the

consequent
When
or

by

it is likewise true.

This

is denominated
%.

the modus the

ponens
is

consequent

false,the

dent antece-

ground

is likewise felse ; the modus

"

fallens.

27.

DisjunctiveJudgments.
A

judgment,
to

when

the

parts of the sphere of

one

given* conception
whole
or
a

determine
as

another

in

the

whole

complements, is disjunctive.
28.

Matter

and

Form

of
"x

disjunctive Judg"/

C5

ments. The several

givenjudgments, of which judgment is composed, constitute

are

the disjunctive its matter,

and

named

the

members

of

or disjunction

opposition.lathe
determination
as

that itself, disjunction the

is,in the

of the relation of of the whole

various

ments, judgthe divided

members

sphere of

cognition excludingone
these

another, the form

of

judgmentsconsists. Scho. All disjunctive judgments various judgments as in the commerce

and do not of

then of

represent
a

sphere
the limitation

produce

any

judgment regardto

but

by

the other with

the whole

sphere;

they consequentlydetermine

the relation of every

150

LOGIC.

judgment
to

to

the

whole

sphere, and
of member but

thereby the judgment

a

relation, which
one

these

members
one

have disjunction in this with

as

another.

Not

therefore

determines

another
are

proviso,
a

that all the members whole in

a

in

commerce

parts of

sphere

of

without cognition,
can

which

nothing

certain reference

be

thoughtof.

29.
.

Peculiar

Character

of disjunctive Judg*
i/

*/

merits.
character of all disjunctive peculiar ments, judgto distinction, as whereby their specific the pointof relation, from the others,in particular from the categorical is determined, consists ones, in this, that all the members of disjunction are blematical projudgments, of which nothing else is thought, than that they, as parts of the sphere of each the complement of the other to a cognition, the whole (complementum ad totum), taken together, are equal to that sphere. And hence it foh

The

lows, that the

these the

truth

must

be

contained

in

one

of

to problematical judgments or (what amounts same thing)that one of them must hold assertively
;

because

besides

them

the
on

sphere of cognition
the
ditions given consequence by concan

comprehends nothingmore
and the
one

is opposed to the other

they only, and

true.

but

one

of them,

be

JUDGMENTS.

151

Scho.

In

categorical judgment
as a

the

thing,whose
of the

is considered representation

part

sphere

of

another
as

subordinate

contained
;

is considered representation, under this its superiorconception in the of in

to

consequently
here the the

subordination
the

of
pared com-

the

spheres
with
we

part
But

part

is

whole.

ments judgdisjunctive
all the parts taken
the

go

from

the whole is contained

together.
the
must

What

under

sphere of
a"y
one

conception,is likewise
parts of
be the
a

contained

under

of

this

sphere. Accordinglythe sphere

When
we,

first divided.

for

instance,
man
a

form either

judgment, disjunctive
mere

'a

learned

is
thematician/ ma-

historian,or
we

or philosopher,

determine

by it, that
parts
of

these the
one

ceptions, con-

as

to the

sphere,are
no

sphere
ther, ano-

of the

learned, but by
and that

means

parts of

taken, they, collectively

are

plete. com-

That

in

judgments, not disjunctive

conception, as
contained

the in

sphere of
the

the divided
of the

sphere
under
one

but that which divisions,

is contained under the

the divided the members

conception,as
of

contained

of

is considered, division,

following

scheme

of the

comparison

between render

and categorical the

matter
more

disjunctive judgments may

intuitive In under
:

categorical judgments,
b,
and

is what

is contained

likewise under

152
In
ones disjunctive

toaic.

x,

contained
or

tinder
so

a,

is

tained con-

under

either

b"

c, and

on

# The shews

j"
therefore
of the

division in
not

disjunctive judgments
all the

the co-ordination

parts of the whole

In
one
ceptions, con-

conception,but
these

parts of its sphere.

judgmentswe
in

cogitate many

things by

conception;
for

those, one

example, the

thing by many definite by all the

marks

of co-ordination.

30.

Problematical, Modality of Judgments assertive, apodictical.

:

As

to

modality, by

which

pointthe

relation

of

the whole

is determined, faculty judgment to the cognitive or judgments are either problematical, The ones, assertive,or apodictical. problematical
are mere

accompanied
and the

with

the

consciousness with that that of

of

the
lity, rea-

the assertive possibility, with apodictical

of the

the

necessity
the

of

judging.
Scho. I.

The

modality consequentlyshews

way

only,in

with

nied something is maintained or dein a judgment : whether nothing is nwle out ment, regard to the truth or the untruth of a judgin the problematical as judgment, The soul

which

JUDGMENTS.

may

be immortal with The

or

whether in
;

is something; the assertive whether the

the

mined deter-

regard to it, as
soul is immortal
is

ment, judgtruth
cessity, ne-

or

of

judgment
as

expressed with
This
actual the
or

of dignity

in the immortal.

apodictical judgment,The
determination of

soul the

must

be

or merely possible

necessary truth

quently conseno

means

2.

judgment itself only,by the thing, which is judged of. In problematical judgments, which may
concerns

be

said to be

those, whose
between

matter

is

given

with

the

relation possible the than

3.

the

and predicate

the subject,

must subject always have a the predicate. Upon the distinction between

smaller

sphere,
and

probable

judgments the true distinction between tinction, judgments and propositionsdepends, which diswith in falsely which
we

assertive

the

regard to those, was formerlymade mere expressionby words, without

not

could

judge at

all.

In

judgment
the

the relation of various

to representations

of consciousness
in
a

is conceived
on proposition,

of

merely as
other

unity matical; probleas

the

hand,

assertive.

is a problematical proposition Ere

we

diction contra-

inadjecto
must

have much

we proposition,

judge ;
out,
a

and

we

judge of
we

that

we

cannot
we

make

but

which

must

do

the moment

determine

It is however judgment as a proposition. before we sume asgood to judge problematically the judgment as assertive, in order to prove
y

154. And

LOGIC.

it in this" way.
our

it is not assertive
%

always

necessary

to

purpose

to have

judgments.

31.

Expoundable Propositions.
and a both an affirmation in which Propositions, but in an occult manner, negationare comprised, but the that the affirmation is made distinctly, so
are expoundable. negationcryptically, stance), In the expoundable proposition Scho. (for in-

Few
a

men

are

learned, there lies,1, but in

hidden
are men

manner,

the

judgment, Many negative

one,

men

not

learned; and, 2, the affirmative

learned.
As the nature of

Some

are

able expoundconditions

upon depends entirely propositions of

two

language,

on

which

we

can

express

laconically
may
pounded, ex-

judgments at once, the remark, that there be in our language judgments,which must be belongsto grammar, not to logic.
32.

Theoretical
Theoretical
an

and

practicalPropositions.
refer to does
not

objectand
to

those, which are propositions what determine belongs or

belong
express

it ;

practicalones3
as

again, those,
the necessary

which
dition con-

the of
an

action, whereby,

Scho.

is possible. this object object, propositions Logic has to handle practical

JUDGMENTS.

155

as

to

the form

only,which
ones.

in this

respect

are

posed op-

to the theoretical
as

Practical this view moral

propositions
distinct from

to

the

matter,

and

in

ones, speculative

belong to
33.

philosophy.

Indemonstrable

and

Demonstrable

sitions. Propothose

Demonstrable

or

evincible
not
so

are propositions

of proof; those capable

are

named

strable. indemon-

certain judgments Immediately and therefore

to

are

ble,, indemonstraas

be

considered

elemental

propositions.
34.

Principles.
certain judgments Immediately
termed
a

priorimay

be

fundamental
that other

or propositions can

positions, provided

judgments
cannot

be

evinced

by them,
to any

but

they themselves

be

subordinated
are

other

judgment. They on that account principles (beginnings).

35.

minated deno-

Intuitive

and Axioms

Discursive and

Principles:

Acroams.

are Principles

either intuitive, or discursive. The

156

LOGIC.

former
or

may

of

course

be

exhibited
are

by intuition,
axioms;

immediate

and representation, be

named

the latter cannot

and

may

be

expressedbut by conceptions, of by the appellation distinguished

36.

acroams.

Analytic and
Those
the with of identity the notion the

Synthetic Propositions.
dependsupon certainty conceptions(of the predicate
are subject),

whose propositions,

of the

analytical.
in tity, that iden-

Those,

whose

is not certainty

founded

must

be named every

synthetical.
x, to

Seho. I. To

which

the

extension body (a 4- b) belongs, is an example of an analytic proposition. To

of conception also belongs (hi) ;

every

x,

to

which

the

conception of body

attraction (c) too belongs (a 4- b)belongs, ; is an The synthetic one. example of a synthetic sitions propoincrease the cognition rnaterialiter ; the analytic

merely formaliter.Those comprehend determinations; these, nothing but logical cates. prediones,

2, Analyticprinciples, are being discursive,

axioms. Nor
are ones synthetic

not

but when neither,

intuitive. 37.

Tautological Propositions.
The of identity may the be either

conceptionsin analytic ments judgan or an one. explicit implicit

JUDGMENTS.

157
are analyticpropositions

In

the

former

case

the

tautological. Scho I. Tautologicalpropositions are

empty,
use or

virtually
of
no

void of consequence; Such

man a

for

they are
For if

whatever.

is, for instance,

is
man,
a

the tautological
we a

A proposition.

man.

can

say
we

nothing more
know

of

than

that he is

man,

Whereas

of him at all.* nothing more identical propositions are implicitly

or

not

void of consequence

useless ; for

predicate,which
of the

lies infolded

they render in the (implicite)

the
ception con-

clear by development (exsubject,

plicatio). void 2. Propositions

from because those

of consequence void of
sense,

must

be
are

tinguished disso

which

they regard
named

the

determination

of what

is

commonly

occult

qualities.
38.

Postulate
A

and

Problem.

is a practical immediatelycertain postulate determines which a a or principle, proposition, action, whereby it is presupposed,that the possible certain. it is immediately way of performing

Some
to

modern

German the

have philosophasters

had

the

rance assu-

layclown
which
T.

'I am proposition, tautological

I/

as

ciple, prinbe

from

all science

and

all human

knowledge must

derived.

158
,

LOGIC.

Problems
a

are

demonstrable
or a

that propositions

quire re-

direction
an

rule for their way

solution,or those
of

that express is not

action, whose"

beingperformed

immediately certain.
may be theoretical
too postulates

Scho.

I. There of of

for the behoof

of the existence

reason. practical

Such

as

those of
a

God,
are

of

moral

and liberty,

future world, which

in
2.
a

theoretical

cessary hypothesesne-

view. practical

To

problem
what

there

belong, I,
be

the

question,
the in which

which

contains

is to

performed, 2,
manner,

which resolution,
what is be

comprises the

performed can
that, when
what

monstratio be done, and, 3, the dewe

shall have

proceeded
be formed. per-

in such

manner,

is

required will

39.

Theorems,

Corollaries, Lemmas,
Scholia.

and

Theorems
and

are

theoretical
need of
a

propositions capable
proof ;
Corollaries and of
a

standingin

immediate consectaries,

consequences

ding precetive na-

proposition ; Lemmas,
in the
as mere

not propositions

science, in
but

which

they are

presupposed
;

evinced,

taken from

other

sciences

Scholia,

illustrativepropositions, which

do consequently
of the

not

belongas
Scho. The

members thesis and

to

the whole

system.
are es-

the

demonstration

JUDffMEKTS.
*

1,59
every
and these

sential and
distinction

universal between

points of
theorems

theorem. corollaries
are

The may

besides be

placed in this, that

but those
a

immediately

concluded,

drawn

from

certain immediately

propositions by

series of consequences.

40.

Judgments of Perception
A
an

and

Experience.

judgment of perception is merely subjective; objective judgment from perceptionsis a judgment of experience.
A

Scho.

judgment

from one's In
on

mere

perceptions

is

hardly possiblebut by expressedas

we
a

representation's being

perception.
red this

perceivinga steeple,
it ; but
cannot

perceivethe
For
a

colour
not

say,

it is red.

were

judgment^ only an empirical

rical empiobtain

but

judgment

of

that is,an experience,

we
a

judgment, by
the warmth is warm, is
on

which

conceptionof
stone
we

object.For example,In touching a

;
a

feel
stone

judgment

of

perception;
a

the of

the other the

hand,

judgment
is

ence. experiject subject; the obtion, percep-

In
must

latter, what
considered of
as

merely

in

the

not
a

be

belonging to
is the the

for

judgment
the

experience

whence

conception of
luminous
or

objectarises,for
in the holder. of the be-

instance, Whether
moon,
or

points move
in the eye

in the

atmosphere,

160

LOGIC.

General
.

Doctrine

of
THIRD.

Elements.

SECTION

THE

Syllogisms.
41.
" .

Syllogism
BY
we syllogising

in

.general*
that

understand
one

function

of from

thinking, by
another.
A

which

judgment
deduction

is derived

syllogism(or an

argumentation) in
of
one

neral ge-

is consequently the

judgment

from

another.

Immediate
All
An

and

Mediate
either

Syllogisms.
or

syllogismsare
immediate

immediate,

mediate.

syllogism ( consequentia immeof

one

diata) is

the deduction
an

judgment judgment.

from A
a

ther ano-

without

intermedial
the

gism, sylloment judgis

for the
diate. me-

when,

besides other

conception, which
are

contains,
purpose of

conceptions

used

a cognition from deriving

them,

SYLLOGISMS.
i

161

43.

of the Understanding, of Syllogisms and of Judgment.

are syllogisms too ; whereas understanding

son, Rea-

Immediate

of the stiled syllogisms all mediate

ones are

those either of reason,

or

of

judgment.
first.

We

shall

here treat of the immediate

/.

ones

ofthe Understanding. Syllogisms

44.

Peculiar

Nature

of the Syllogisms of the Understanding.

of
all immediate

The

essential character
and the

gisms syllotirely en-

of their possibility consist principle

mere

judgments: of the judgments (thesubwhile the matter ject and the predicate) remains invariably the same. Scholium I. By the form, only and by no means by the matter of the judgments'being altered in the immediate these syllogisms guished distinare syllogisms,
an

in

alteration of the

form

of the

from
are new

all mediate
as an

ones,

in vfhich
too
;

the

ments judga a as

distinct

to

the matter

because

as conception

intermedial

judgment, or
to

middle

term,, must

survene

in order

iafer tlieone
we example,,

judgment from
argue,, All This
men

the other.
are
an

When,
;

for

mortal

therefore Caius. is mortal.

is not
"*

immediate
x

syllogism.For

we,

"'...'

162
for the

LOGIC.

stand inference,

in need
man;

of the intermedial

judgment,
2. An

Caius

is

but

by

this

new

ception con-

the matter

of the

judgments is altered.

judgment, it is true, may be thrown in the syllogisms of the understanding too; but then it is merelytautological. As, for instance, in the immediate All men are mortal; syllogism:
some men are
men

intermedial

therefore
is
a

some

men

are

tal. mor-

The

middle

term

tautological proposition.

45.

Moods

of

the

Syllogisms of
the

the

standing. Under-

"understanding go through all the classes of the logical functions of judging, and are in their principal determined consequently moods or forms by the pointsof quantity, of quality* of relation,and of modality. Upon that the following division of these syllogisms depends :
46.

The

of syllogisms

I
.

Syllogismsof the Understanding (with regard to the Quantity of Judgments J

per Judicia suhalternata.
In these

of the understanding both the syllogisms and the particular judgmentsare distinct as to quantity,

judgment is deduced to the principle : The

from

the universal agreeably

inference of the particu-

SYLLOGISMS.

163

lar from

the universal holds

fab universali
.

ad particulars

valet Scho.
A

consequential
it is contained
;

judgment, when
subaltern

under

another, is termed

as,

for
ones

judgments under
is fallible ;
some some man man

universal
is fallible.
"

example, ticular par(Every man

man

No

lible; is infal-

is not infallible. T.).

47. 2.

(with Syllogismsof the Understandingregard to the Quality of Judgments} per

Judicia
In

opposita.

of this form of the understanding syllogisms of the judgments the quality the alteration regards considered with respect to opposition.As this opposition the particular may be a threefold one, it yields division of the immediate tradictorily by consyllogising vand by opposed judgments,by contrary ones. subcontrary of the understandingby equiScho. Syllogisms pollent in strict proprietybe judgments cannot named has place syllogisms ; for no consequence in them ; they are rather to be considered as a mere

substitution
same

of

the

words,

which
means

denote the
as

the

very

conception, by which
remain
are

judgments
the

themselves

unaltered

even

to

form.

Not
men

all
are

men

virtuous, for instance, and. Some

Both

not

virtuous.

judgments

express

the

very

same

thing.

1 64

LOGIC.

48.

a.

Syllogismsof
Judicia
In
of syllogisms
are

Understanding per contradictorie oppo"ita.

the
the

understanc^ngby judgments

contradictorily opposed to one another, and, as such,,constitute the genuinepure opposition, the truth of the one of the contradictory ments judgwhich
is inferred from the

conversely.
has

For

the

of the other, and falsity which genuine opposition,

neither contains syllogisms, nor less,than what belongs to opposition. more, of the exclusive third to the principle Agreeably, be true; but both repugnant judgments cannot fore therethey can justas littlebe. both false. When

'place in

these

the

one

is true, the

other
same

is

false, and
"

versely con-

is (All logic is not the

same

the

repetitionsome

gic lo-

T,). repetition.
49.

b.

Syllogisms of the Understanding ^Judicia contrarie opposita.

opposed judgments are those, the Contrarily
which the affirmative, universally of them negative. As the one the the is other

per

one

of

versally uni-

expresses

more,

than than

other, and
mere

as

in,what
the

it expresses

more,

of negation
never can

sity other, the falboth

may

lie, they

be

true, but

SYLLOGISMS.

1'65

may

be

both

false.

With
the

regard
inference

to

these the holds is

trary con-

judgments then,
of the
not
one

of
other
man

falsity
;

from

the

truth

of

the

but

conversely (Every enlightened

prejudices;
no

divested of

of

enlightened man

is divested

T.). prejudices.

50.

c.

Syllogisms of
Judicia

the

Understanding

per

subcontrarieopposita.
are

Subcontrarilyopposed judgments
the
one

judgments,

of which denies may

the
:

affirms
or

or

denies

what particularly

the

other

affirms

particularly.
but
cannot

As

they

be

both

true,

be
with

both
gard re-

false, only
to

following
When
the
;

conclusion
one

holds

them the In

of these
not

propositions

is

false,
Scho,

other the

is true

but

conversely.
no

subcontrary judgments
;

pure
or

strict

oppositionobtains
of the
same

for

it is the

not

denied what is

firmed af-

objects in

one

affirmT
in

ed

or

denied

of the other.
men are

Exempli
learned;
which

gratia,
therefore

the

syllogism:Some
men
are

some

notJearned

"

that,

is denied of the
same

in

the
men

latter in the

judgment,
former.

is not

maintained

166

IOGIC.

51.
*

3. Syllogisms of the

(with Understanding

regard
per sionem.

to

the Relation
conversa,

of Judgments)
sive per

Judicia

Cower-

8}THogisms by conversion regardthe and consist in the transposirelation of judgments tion and of the predicate of the subject in both judgments of the one ; so that the subject judgment is of the other,and conversely made the predicate No virtue is vice ; no vice is virtue. T.) (thus,
Immediate
.

52,

Pure

and Altered
either the

Conversion.
of quantity the

In conversion

ments judgas

is altered, or former
case

it remains

unaltered.

In the is
to

the converted from the

(conversum)
altered
case

distinct quantity and the

(convertentej, converting
an

conversion

is termed

one

(conversion con-

versio per

in the accidens);
a

latter

the

is named

pure

one

(conversio simpliciter
is
"

tails) (Take
B is A. No
A

this is B

example,Every A
;
some

B;

some

B is not A A is not B

Every A

is

B^ every B A. T.).

is A.

Some

; some

B is not

53.

Universal

Rules

of Conversion.

of the understanding to the syllogisms Relatively rules hold: by conversion the following

SYLLOGISMS.

167

cannot be affirmative judgments Universally converted but per accidens ; for in them the predicate and consequently is a larger some conception, in the conceptionof the of it only is contained subject. 2. But all Universally negative judgmentsmaybe the subject converted ; for in them is simpliciter taken out of the sphereof the predicate. Just so 1. are,

affirmative propositions pliciter simparticularly convertible;for in these judgmentsa part is subsumpted under the of the sphereof the subject the sphere of a part of predicate, by consequence the predicate may be subsumpted under the subject. affirmative judgments Scho. 1. In universally the it is contained under the sphereof the as subject, of the preis considered as a contentum predicate, dicate.
3. All

We
but thus, All

therefore cannot
men

argue,

for

instance,
mortal

are

mortal ;
the of

some consequently

of those contained
are men.

under
reason

of conception

But

the

negative universally

convertible is, that two being simpliciter judgments' conceptions universally repugnant to one another,

repugn

one

another in the

same

sphere.

assertive judgments may universally be simply converted. But the ground of that lies not in their form, but in the peculiar of their quality for example, the judgments: All that matter; which
is immutable is necessary, and

2. Several

All that which

is necessary is immutable.

168
.

tosic.

54.

4.

Syllogisms of the Understanding (with regard to the Modality of Judgments} per Judicia tfontraposita.
The form
of the immediate

position by contrasyllogism consists in that metathesis of the judgments, by which the quantityremains the same, but the is altered. These syllogisms, ing quality by their turnassertive judgment to an apodictical an gard one, reof judgments. nothingbut the modality

55.

Universal
With

Rule

of Contraposition.

the following versal uniregard to contraposition

rule holds
:

ply affirmative judgmentsmay be simuniversally that as contraposed. For, when the predicate, which contains the subjectunder it, consequently the wh61e

All

sphere,is denied,
likewise be
so

that is, the part of it,

must subject,

(Every A
non

is

thus
non

I,Every contraposed, B is A. T.).

The
metathesis and
to

is

non

B, may be A; 2, No

(Scho I.

that
one

judgments by then are so by contraposition

as

of

sion conver-

far opposed

another,

that

alters

the

quantity

this nothing but only,

the

T.), quality,

SYLLOGISMS.

16(J
refer syl log-isms

(2. These

forms

of immediate

merely to categorical judgments. T.).*

11.

Syllogismsof
56.

Reason.

Syllogism of
A of syllogism of condition
reason

Reason
is the

in General.
cessity ne-

knowledgeof the a proposition by the subsumption of under a given universal rule.

57.

its

Universal

Principle of
Reason.

all

Syllogisms of
which the be

The
of all

universal

principle, upon
this formula

validity
deter-

syllogising by reason

depends,
:

may

minatelyexpressedin

While in

we

have

the alteration of the

bare

form

of the

ments judgmains re-

these
same,

in view, and syllogisms

no

while
two

their matter

the mentS)
than

other

of affinity

judghypothetical
the

what

consists in

and changing the hypothesis

thesis, is
smoke
can

cogitable. For
if there between affinity

instance, If there is fire,there is

there
is fire.

and
no

is smoke,
a

But

there

be

and disjunctive is neither

another

ment. judg-

In
to quality

disjunctive judgments there

be considered.
two

nor quantity

As

the relation, which

they bear

one

another, is that of
one

of the validity conceptions,the objective

that of the

of which

excludes T.

other, it allows of

no

cal logi-

distinction.

170
What under ranks under

LOGIC.

condition

of

rule, ranks

the rule itself. The

Scho.

We the and

versal of reason premisesa unisyllogism its condition. rule and a subsumption under thereby cognisethe conclusion a priori not in
as on

but single,
as

comprehended
a

in the

universal
And

necessary

certain under

condition.

this,
and is

that every

thing ranks
by

the universal

determinable
of

universal

rules, is the very

ple princi-

or of necessity. rationality

08.

Constituents
To

of

Syllogism of
reason

Reason.

every

of syllogism

the

three following

essential

parts belong:
rule, which
is named

1,

universal

the

major
sub-

proposition ;
2, the proposition, by which
a

is cognition

sumpted
and

under

the condition

of the universal the minor

rule,

which

is denominated the

proposition
denies

(and sometimes
the of predicate

assumption); and,
either affirms the
or

which 3, the proposition, the rule of

subsumpted cognition,
or

isnamedtheconclusion
The the
two

(orinference

illation).
termed

first

propositions conjoinedare
,

premises.

(For instance, Every thing composed

is mutable

(major); bodies
are

are

composed (minor); ergo

dies bo-

mutable

(conclusion). T ).

SYLLOGISMS.

Scho.

A The

rule

is

an

assertion of the

or

universal
to the

tion. condi-

relation
say, the how rule.

condition
under

assertion,
ponent ex-

that

is to of

this

ranks

that, is the

By
the

the

subsumption
has

we

mean,,

the

knowledge

that

condition The

place (somewhere).
is,the conjunction of
under the
1

consequence
been

that

which with

has the

subsumpted
of the
rule.

condition

assertion

59.

Hatter
The
the that

and
matter

Form
of
;

of Syllogisms of
of
reason

Reason.
in

syllogisms
form,
the

consists

premises
it

the

in the

conclusion,

provided

comprises
I.

consequence.

Scho. the then

In

every

syllogism
must

of first

reason

then and
pudiation re-

truth
the

of the

premises
of the

be

proved,
In the the

Tightness
of but
a

consequence*
reason never

syllogism of
the

clusion, con-

either the

premises, or rejected.
of
reason

the

consequence,

must ".

always be
In every the

first

syllogism
moment

the and

conclusion
the
quence conse-

is

given

the

premises

are.

172

LOGIC.

60.

Division
to

of the Syllogisms of Reason (as Relation} into categorical, cal, hypothetiand disjunctive.
rules

contain objective (judgments) unityof the consciousness of the multifarious of cognition ; a condition,on which one cognition consequently Only belongswith another to one consciousness. either three conditions of this unity are cogitable the subject of the inherence of the marks,,or as as the ground of the dependence of one cognition of the parts in upon another, or as the conjunction division ) There therefore be can a whole (logical

All

sorts of universal rules (proposias just many of one tiones majoresj,by which the consequence judgment from another is obtained. And in that the division of all syllogisms of reason into categorical, and disjunctive, is founded. hypothetical, Scho. I. The vided be diof reason can syllogisms neither to quantity for as every major is a rule, by consequence something universal whether as to nor quality for it is equipollent the conclusion is affirmative or negative to modality for the conclusion is always nor as companied acwith the consciousness of necessity, and of course has the dignity of an apodictical tion. proposiNothing therefore but the relation,as the only possible ground of division (fundamentum diof the syllogisms of reason, remains. visionisj
" " "

but

"

"

SYLLOGISMS.

2. of

bold Many logicians reason only ordinary ;

But

the and

categorical syllogisms
all the others foundation
and
extra*

ordinary.
For

it is without

false.

all these

three

of equally are species productions

rightfunctions of reason, and which from one alike essentially distinguished

61.

functions another.

are

between categorical, Proper Distinction and disjunctive Syllogisms hypothetical, of Reason.

That
which is distinctive in these three the of species
gorical cate-

syllogism*lies in
; in

major proposition.In
a

the major is syllogisms

categorical sition propoblematical pro-

hypothetical ones,
one;

or hypothetical

and

in

a disjunctive. disjunctive,

62.

Categorical Syllogisms of Reason.

In

every

there categorical syllogism

:

are

three

(termini) principal conceptions 1,

the

predicate in

the the

conclusion

which
because

ception con-

is denominated has
a

major
the

term;

it

greater sphere

than

subject ;

Whenever

Syllogism

is

simply mentioned,
reason or a

we

derstand always un-

by

it a

of syllogism

ratiocination.

T.

174

LOGIC.

2,

the

in (subject)

the

conclusion, whose
term
;

tion concep-

is named

the minor

and,
receives the

3,

an

intermedia]

mark,
term

which

lation appelgument) ar-

of the middle
;

(and sometimes
it
a

of the

because

by

is subsumpted cognition

under

the condition I. This in

of the rule. of the

terms

Scho.

distinction

has

not

place but

categorical syllogisms ; because by

the
means

they
in the

only

conclude

of

a,

middle
a

term

but by others,

subsumption of
the

proposition presented retively asser-

in problematically in the minor.

major and
stiled the
and

(2. The
matter;
and the

three

are propositions

proxime

the three

terms, the remote;

extremes.

the

major

minor, the

T.).

63.

Principle of categoricalSyllogismsof
Reason.
The
and the
:

principle, upon

which

both

the

possibility

of all categorical depend, syllogisms validity

is this

What
with the of

agrees

with the
and

mark what

of
is

thing,agrees
to the

thingitseJf ;
a

repugnant

mark

thing,is repugnant to the thing itself rei ipsius (nota notce est nota nota, ; repugnans
rei From

repugnat
Scho.

ipsi).
the

principle justlaid
be

down

the

tum Dicand it

de omniet

/ZM//O may

deduced, easily

SYLLOGISMS.

175
for

can

therefore

hold

as

neither the firstprinciple

of reason, for categorical in nor ones syllogisms particular. The genericand the special versal uniare conceptions marks of all the thing's that rank under them. the rule,, What Consequently agrees or is repugnant the species, to the genus or agrees or is repugnant
to all the
or

that are objects the species, holds. de omni

et

contained

under

the genus

And

this rule is the very

Dictum

nullo. 64.

Rules

for

the

CategoricalSyllogisms of
Reason.
and the

From

the nature

of categorical principle

rules for them flow : the following syllogisms neither 1. In every categorical syllogism
nor

more,
; for

fewer terms,
we

than

three, can

be contained

in it

two conceptions (thesubject conjoin and the predicate) by an intermedial mark. 2. The premises must not be all negative (ex purls negativisnihil sequitur ); for the subsumption in the minor proposition, that a cognias it expresses, tion must

ranks

under

the condition

of the

rule,must

be

affirmative.
2.

Nor

must

all the

premisesbe particular positions proquitur) se-

neither
;

nihil (ex purisparticularibus

were no a

else there

rule, that is,no

versal uni-

whence proposition, could

4.

particular cognition
the

be inferred.

The

conclusion

always follows

weaker

176

LOGIC.

that is, the negative and the premises, in the premises, particular as it is named proposition the weaker

part of

the

(cvncategorical syllogism clusio sequiturpartem debilioremj.

Hence

part of the

if,
of the

5,

one

premisesis

negative proposition, negative;and,

the conclusion

must

likewise be

6,

if one

of the

premisesis a particular tion., proposialso must be

particular; the major must be 7) In all categorical syllogisms the minor universal, a particular, proposition ;
it follows
:

the conclusion

and hence

8, and
to

that the conclusion must relatively finally, follow the major, to quanbut, relatively quality tity, the minor proposition.

Scho. That
and negative

the conclusion
the

must

alwaysfollow

the

in particular proposition

the premises,

is easy to be If
we

make

the

perspected. and minor proposition particular

under the rule that the
;
we

say, Some

is contained

can

say

in the conclusion

but nothing
some

of predicate
we

the

rule agrees with

because

have

not

And when under the rule. subsumptedany more for the rule (the have a negativeproposition we major),we must make the conclusion too negative. For, when the majorproposition says, Of all that which
one

ranks under

the

condition
;

of the rule

some

must predicate

be denied

the

conclusion

must

likewise

deny

the

of predicate

that

(the subject),

which

has been

subsumpted under

the condition of

the rule.

SYLLOGISMS.

177

65.

Ptire

and

impure categorical Syllogisms of Reason.

or

is pure categorical syllogism

an

simplewhen
is

in

it neither
nor

immediate

consequence
of the
are

intermixed,

the

order legitimate who

premises altered, (for

therefore

instance, Those,
cannot
cannot
an

guiltyof pious frauds,

j
;

be be

acceptableto acceptableto
a

God
him

hypocrites

otherwise it is termed

impure or

complex

one

(ratiocinium impurum,

s*

hybridum).
66.

thesis Impure Syllogismsof Reason by the Metaof the Propositions. Figures.

Those
arise from the transpowhich syllogisms sition and in which therefore the of the propositions to be of these is not the legitimate are one,
as

order

considered

impure.

This

case

occurs

in what

is

commonly

named

the three

last figures of the

gorical cate-

ratiocinations.

67.

Four

Figures of Syllogisms.
four modes of the

those By figures distinction

whose syllogising,

is determined and premises

by

disposition particular
are conceptions,

of the

of their

to

understood.

178

LOGIC.

68.

Determinative
various
The

of their Distinction Disposition; of the middle

term,
upon

by

the

Term.

middle

whose

the disposition occupy

great stress
either and subject in both the

of the

business

depends, may

1, in the
in

the place of the major proposition the minor that of the predicate ; or 2, the

premisesthe place of

predicate ; or finally,

or 4, and 3, in both the place of the subject;

in the and four

the place of the predicate major proposition that of the subject.By these in the minor
cases

the distinction

of the
the

four

is determined. figures the conclusion,

term
;

Let S

denote

of subject the middle

and P its predicate,

M.

the
:

scheme

of these four

figures may

be thus erected

69. Rule

for

the

first"as

the

only legitimate.
the

Figure.
The
a

rule of the first figure is,That minor

an

major be

the universal,

affirmative

proposition.

SYLLOGISMS.

179
rule of all categorical the

And,

as

that must

be the universal

it is obvious, that in general, syllogisms first figure is the

one, only legitimate

which which reduced

form*

the basis of all the

others, and

to

they, if by
the

they

shall

have of the

must validity,

be

metathesis Scho.

premises.
have
a

The

tirst figure may of every

conclusion

of

every

and quantity
are

quality. In
of
a

the other form

;

there figures
some

but conclusions
are

certain

moods

of them

here
not

excluded.

That
that vent preas

shews, that these

there
are

are figures

perfect,but
moods,

in them

certain

which restrictions, all the which

;

the

being in firstfigure (thus,All that

the conclusion's human soul is a

in
a

is rational is therefore

the spirit ;

soul is rational
"

the human
a
gative ne-

spirit or
the

this (take

instance of
can

Nothing syllogism) by time,

ergo the duration of

immutable
of God
cannot

be

sured mea-

duration God

is immutable measured

be

by

time.

T.)

70.

Condition

of the of the Reduction last Figures to the firstOne.

of validity the which mode or right legitimate of

three

The

condition of the
a

three of

last
tiocinating ra-

on figures,

in each is possible

them, is,That

the

middle

term

obtain

in

the

a propositions place,

180 whence their

LOGIC.

order

may

arise

by

means

of

mediate im-

consequences
first figure. Hence the three last

accordingto
have
we

the rules of the

for

the

rules following

: figures

71.

Rule
In the second

of

the second
minor

Figure.
stands
so

the figure

the right, that it may

major
remain

must

therefore

be converted That

universal.
it

however

is not

possible
but In both

but when

(themajor)is universally negative ;

be is

it,if affirmative, must

Cases

contraposed.

the conclusion

negative(sequitur partem
That, is, figure
is
to

debiliorem.)
Scho. the mark the

The
of
a

rule of this

which
to

thingis repugnant,
Here
a

repugnant
and is

thing itself.
to

we

must

convert

say,

That,

which
; or

mark
we

is
must

repugnant,
convert

repugnant
conclusion

to this mark

the
a

thus, That,
the

to

which

the mark

of

thingis

nant, repug-

thing itself is repugnant

to ;

consequently

thing (For example, Nothing is simple; of course perishable nothing simple is soul is simple; therefore perishable; the human
the here human is not soul what
to be

it is repugnant to the

is not is

perishable. The
what
there is

question right

said, but

bly indispensaa

necessary consequence,
of the

thoughtif
illative
or

shall be

The

conclusive

capacity

consists argumentation evidently

in the sim-

SYLLOGISMS.

181

ply

converted

member

in

italics, by whose

tion, inserdundant. re-

itself is rendered however, the syllogism

T.).
72.

Rule
In the third

of the
the minor

Third

Figure.
stands

the major figure

must

right;by
from

consequence

be

converted; yet so
result

fhat
This

an

affirmative

proposition may
but possible

it.

however

is not

when

tive the affirma-

the conis particular clusion proposition ; consequently is particular. What rule of this figure Scho. The is,, agrees or is

repugnant

to

mark,, agrees
which
or

or

is

repugnant
We

to

some

under things,
firstsay
:

this mark

is contained.

must

agrees

is repugnant to all that which All (For instance, rational

men

is contained
are

under

this mark
men
are

sinners; all
some

quently beings; conse-

rational

beings are

men;

therefore
ing reasonmeans

some

rational
is not

beings are sinners. Which but by consequential regularly

accidens in italics.

of

the conversion per

T.).

73.

Rule
When
in this it
same manner

of the fourth Figure.

the major is universally gative, nefigure be simply converted ; and in the
as

may

particular ; consequently the conclusion is negative. Whereas the major, if it is universally be converted cannot affirmative,

the minor

182
but pei\ accidens

LOGIC.

or

contraposed;
either

the

conclusion
If the of

therefor*

"

is either is not
a

or negative. particular,

conclusion
the

converted

metathesis

or premises,

conversion

of both of them, must

take

place.
In this
to
we figure

Scho.

thus, The syllogize

term,

dicate pre-

adheres

the

middle

ject this to the sub-

the subject to consequently (ofthe conclusion), the its

predicate ;
converse

which

however In order

is not

the case,

but

follows.

to render

that possn and

ble, the major must

versa,

be

made

the

minor,

vice
in
jor ma-

and

the

conclusion

converted

; because to the
run

the former
term

alteration the minor

is turned

(The negativesyllogismmust
is learned
some ;
no consequently

thus:
man quently conse-

No
is
a

dunce

learned

dunce;
some

learned
are

men

are

pious;
; therefore

piousmen
are

learned

some

pious men
in this
to be

not

dunces.
not

Affirmative

syllogisms
ed attempt-

are figure

when possible ; they,

run

framed, all
are

into

the first figure, quently conse-

useless, and

have

properly been

long-

T.).* repudiated.

The

ancient
to

and logicians
out

the scholastics moods possible

used
of

their utmost
in syllogizing

endeavours
these

find

all the

four

which figures,

by strange words, they distinguished

whose

gathered from these lines : meaning is easily

SYLLOGISMS.

183

74.

Universal
From

Result

of the three last

rules for the three

Figures.
last

the adduced

figures
sion concluis

it is obvious,

1,

that there

is

affirmative universally
that the

in neither of either

them, and

conclusion

or particular ; negative an

2, that in each of them

not

immediate

consequence,
be is implied,

shewn, but which must explicitly intermixed ; that consequently,

3, all these
three last modes of

syllogizing must,

Asserit A, negat E ;
Asserit

verum

universaliter ambo.

I, negat O
a

sed

ambo. particulariter the

Whoever

has

mind

to admire

and diligent
see

to

regret the
and
Art

fruitless labours

of the

ancients, will
in Watts's author

the

moods

the of

figures amply Thinking.

/, Ot only are

discussed

Logic and
errs

in Kanie's

But

the former
are

when

he says (page 259)

that the consonants

and neglected the

that

vowels At E, t/iefour
A

regardediu

words. artificial

proof of

the

however, is, that in Cesare and Fescontrary of this assertion,

tinot for instance,the first consonants,
form
to be

C and

F, shew

to what

of

of syllogism

the firstfigure that of the second

the

is figure

reduced, and consequentlypoint out

which
the

natural order of
conclusion is

the

in conceptions, The

knowledge of
the

the

begotten.

consonant,

of both s, in the firstsyllables

words

and every where

;

else,denotes

simpleconversion
metathesis. what

of the

ments judgcident; ac-

the p, in

Darapti
to have

and

Fefapton
the

the conversion

per

them,
doctor either
seems

in

Camestres,

That

then the

ignored or,

is more

probable,

has but over-looked.

T.

184
can syllogism

LOGIC.

as

no

pure named

have but

more

than three terms,

be

not

pure,

(rat. impure syllogisms

hyb.J*
75.
2.
A

HypotheticalSyllogismsof Reason
ratiocination hypothetical
a

is, as

tioned, above-men-

that syllogism

has

hypothetical tion proposiconsists of two

a

for its major. It therefore

an we

positions, proin

antecedent

and

consequent;

it
or

argue

to according

the modus

either ponens,

toltens.
Scho. 1. then Hypothetical syllogisms have
no

It

is,says

our

author

in his treatise

on

The

false

of subtilty of

the four this

one

syllogistic Figures, easy

who firstwrote it as
a

to discover
a

the firstoccasion

He, subtilty.

in three lines below syllogism and tried what of places would

another, considered
the
result
was

chess-hoard
the he

be

of the
as

of transposition
when surprised
a

the middle
a
tional ra-

term,

and
sense

much

perceived,that
an

was

produced, as
as especially

person

that discovers
the

gram anaas

is.

It isjust as

childish to be
it is

with over-joyed

one,

with the other,

forgot,that nothing new

in

but point of distinctness,

only an

indistinctness is introduced.
to

But

it is the lot of the human and inquisitive

to fail on
to

understanding either
or impertinencies,

be

iously anx-

to catch
one

rashly
half

at

too great and objects

build castles in the air. The

chuse and of the

of the multitude

of thinkers
animals

number

666,
the

the other

either the

originof
The the

plants,"r
both

of mysteries
cording fall, is,ac-

Providence.
to

error,

into

which

classes
a

difference of their

heads,of

very

different

sort.

T.

SYLLOGISMS.

18.5
them but the

middle term, and consequence

their of the

nothing is shewn in of one proposition

consequence
is
a

another.

In

major
is of the

of two

propositions,
latter
a a clusion, con-

the former

of which

premiss, the
minor is in

expressed. The
If A

tion transformaa

condition problematical

cal categori-

proposition (Thus,
B

fore is, B is ;. A is ; therebut

is.

And,

If A

is, B is ;

B is not ; ergo

A is not
2.

T,).
the

From

hypothetical consisting syllogism's having

but from the
a

but of two

without propositions,, be
seen,

middle

term, it may
not
a

that it is,accurately speaking,

reason,

of syllogism

rather
an

an

mediate im-

consequence and form

a

evincible
as

antecedent
or

consequent,

to

either

matter

the

(consequentiaimmediata
et

demons

trab His
mater

[ex
iam

antecedents
vel

v el quoad consequente"]

quoad formamj. of Every syllogism

proof only or
the

reason

must

be

proof. Now ground

the of

carries hypothetical syllogism

in it the

argument.
be
a

it is Consequently
reason,

clear, that

it cannot

of syllogism

76.

The
The

Principleofhypothetical Syllogisms.
of principle
;
"

tionatum

ground : A negations rationati

the

the

ratione

ad

ra-

ad

negationem

valet consequentia, is rationis,

of hyprinciple potheti

syllogisms.

186

LOGIC.

77.

3.
In and

Disjunctive Syllogisms of Reason.

these the

major

is

disjunctiveproposition
must

consequently, as such,
or

have

members

of

division
In

disjunction.
argue
of the either from the

syllogisms we disjunctive
of the
the
one

the

truth

member
or

disjunctionto
of falsity of this
one.

of falsity
members is done

others,
one

from

all the

except

to the

truth

That

by
the

the

modus

ponens

forponendo tollentem}, ponentem).

this

by

modus
All taken of

tollcns the

(or tollendo
of

Scho.

1.

members

one disjunction,

excepted,

together, make
this
to
one.

up

the

tory contradica

opposite

Consequently
when
the
one

tomy, dicho-

according
true

which be

of them
versa,

is
has

the

other

must

false and
form
or

vice

place here
What
is

(The
A,
C.

universal

of this
;

is, syllogism
13 ; it is

is either

B,

is not

therefore 2:
members

T.).
of
more

All

ratiocinations disjunctive
of then disjunction
a

than

two

are,
true

ing, properly speakdistinction is

can

For polysyllogistic.
but
more

be

bimembris,
than
are

and

the
;

logicaldivision
but the the membra

nothing
subdivifor

bimembris

dentia
the sake

put among

membra

dividentia

of

brevity.

SYLLOGISMS.

187

78.

Syllogisms. Principle of the disjunctive

It is the of principle the exclusive

third

ne-

gatione unius
mationem

contradictorie
;
"

oppositum ad ajfirad nega-

alterius alterius
"

positions unius

tionem

valet

consequentia.
79.

Dilemma.
A dilemma

is a

T.^ feriens. utrinqucz a hyor pothetic syllogism,, disjunctive hypothetically (argumentum

argument,
whose

consequent

is

junctive dis-

judgment.
whose

The

consequent
;

is

proposition, hypothetical is the major proposition disjunctive,

affirms, that
is is the the

the

minor

consequent conclusion,
consequentia). conse-

(per omnia
that the

membra)

false,and
so.

antecedent

(A

remotione valet

quentisad negationem antecedents

Scho.

(The

universal
or

form
how

of

dilemma, trivision of di-

lemma,

tetralemma,
there

many

members

soever or

may

be, is this,If A is either B,

nor

C,
A

or

is; but neither B,

G,

nor

fore is ; there-

is not. and

T.)

The it the

ancients

valued the dilemma

much

named
to

cornutus. syllogismus

They by
tioning men-

knew

how

put

an

opponent
he could

to

straits

every

thingthat

have possibly

course re-

to, and then refuted

it all to him.

In every

188

LOGIC.

he adoptedthey pointed out many ties difficulopinion to him. artifice not to reBut it is a sophistical fute ties; but to point out difficulpropositions directly, which
most

artifice may

be

used

in many,,

nay,

in

things.
we

If

chose

immediatelyto

declare

false

every

it is an easy thing,in which there are difficulties, the playto reject every thing. It is good to shew lusory ilof the contrary ; but it is somewhat impossibility when the incomprehensibility of the contrary is held its impossibility. dilemmas The therefore, snaring. are captiousor enthough consequential, very They may be used not only to defend culties true propositions, but to impugn true ones by diffistarted against them.

SO.

Formal
A

and cry

ofReason. ptical Syllogisms

of reason in due* form (ratiocinlum syllogism which not onlycontains every formate) is a syllogism to the matter, but is properly as thing requisite The and completely expressed as to the form* are opposed to the formal ones. cryptical syllogisms placed, disAll those, in which either the premises are
or one

of them

is

omitted,
the

or

the

middle be

term

only conjoinedwith
as

conclusion, may
A

considered
the second

or cryptical

hidden.
one

of syllogism

sort, in which
reserved

of the

is not premises

but expressed

in the mind,

is

defective

SYLLOGISMS.

189

or (an imperfect raeme

mutilated)one,

or

an

enthy-

truncatus). (syllogismus
a

That

of the third

sort, is

contracted
me

(Scho. Let enthymeme

:

syllogism. give you these

instances

of

an

Anthony
for it does
a

must

therefore Anthony is a profligate ; has be despised. Whoever mitted commust

murder
not

die. any

The

soul
-9

is
an

indivisible,

occupy

space

is

example of

contracted

syllogism. T.).
III.

of Judgment. Syllogisms
81.

Determining'and ReflectingJudgment.
The of Judgment faculty the is twofold
;

the

deter-

terminingand
from

The reflecting.
to the

former

goes

the universal
to particular

from ; the latter, particular

:

the

the universal the

This

is but

of subjective it proceeds

validity ; for
from
a mere

universal,to which
an

the

is nothing but particular, the

cal, empiri-

analogon of

universality. logical,

82.

Judgment. Syllogismsof (the reflecting)

They
at
are

certain

modes argumentative

of

arriving

universal

from particular ones. conceptions

are

They

therefore but of the

functions

not

of

the and

judgment; reflecting
not

determining, consequently
the

they

determine

the

object, but

way

of it.

in of it, thinking

order to obtain the

knowledge of

190

LOGIC,

83.

The
The
are

Principleof
which

these
the

Syllogisms.
of judgment syllogisms many do not

in principle,

founded,
a

is

That this.,

agree
longs be-

in

one

without
to many

common

ground, but
is necessary

that what
on
a

in this way

common

ground.
Scho, As the
that
of judgment bottom syllogisms principle, theycannot be held immediate upon
ones.

84.

Induction

the two Species Analogy of Judgment. of Syllogism, and

"

Judgment, whilst
to the

it

general,in

order

from

experience, of
many and

proceedsfrom the particular to gathergeneral judgments not a priori, infers course

a

either from

of all things

sort,

or

from

many

determinations the
same

sort

agree,
same

pertain to

the

in which things of properties, that they the others, provided principle.The former species the

of inference

is named

by induction, syllogism
infers ad particulari

the latter that

accordingto analogy.
then the
a

Scho.

I.

Induction

universale

accordingto

of rendering principle

universal : (empirically) of a species, things agrees

What
to

agrees
the
rest

to too.

many logy Ana-

infers the total from the

resemblance particular

SYLLOGISMS.

of two

of specification things, accordingto the principle : Things of a sort, of which we know many agreeingmarks, agree in the other marks that we know in some of this sort,but do not perceive things in other things. Induction extends the empirically given from the particular to the universal with the other hand, on regardto many objects ; analogy, of a thing to several of the very the given properties
same

thing.
;

One
one

in many,

therefore in others

in all

tion induc-

many

in

(thatis

too),therefore
the

the

rest

in it:

analogy.

For
the

example,
of

ment argu-

for of is a the

from immortality,

completeunfolding
every

of predispositions

nature

creature,

to analogy. syllogism according

In the the

however, according to analogy, syllogism is not required, of the ground (per ratio) identity
conclude
to analogynothingbut according
tional rawe

We

inhabitants of
cannot

the moon,

not

men.

And

conclude

tertium 2.

accordingto analogy beyond comparationis.

reason

the

of Every syllogism
are

must

yield necessity.

Hence

of analogy not syllogisms but logical reason, presumptionsor empirical gisms; sylloand by induction we obtain general, but not universal propositions. of judgment are 3. These useful and syllogisms for the purpose of enlarging our indispensable nition cogof experience. But, as they afford empirical tion, only,we must use them with great caucertainty
iril

induction

and

193

LOGIC.

85.
.

Simple

and

of Compound Syllogisms
Reason.
it consists of but
of several
one

A ratiocination when is simple ; when

gism, syllo-

pound.* comsyllogisms,

86.

Ratiocination. Polysyllogistic
A in compound syllogism,
are

which
mere

the various

logisms syl-

not conjoined

by
a

co-ordination,

but

that is, as by subordination, is termed

consequences,

grounds and as concatination of syllogisms

(ratiocinatio poh/syllogistica).
87.

and Episyllogisms. Prosyllogisms

In the series of in
a we compound syllogisms may argue to way, either from the groundsdown

twofold

the consequences,

or

from

these up to

those.

The

former

is

done

latter, by by episyllogisms ; the

prosyllogisms.
in the series of syllogisms, is that episyllogism, whose syllogism, premissis the conclusion of a proof a syllogism, which has the syllogism of course
"

An

premissof
*

the former

for its conclusion.

whose premises are compound syllogism,

goes

contracted

gisms, syllo-

under the denomination of

T. Epichireme.

SYLLOGISMS.

193

Sorites.
of several abridgedsyllogisms consisting syllogism conclusion, is named a rites soproducing one or (or heap),which may be either progressive, ascend (Goclenian),accordinglyas we regressive from the more remote grounds proxime to the more A
or

descend

from

the

more

remote

ones

to

the

more

proxime,
89.

Categoricaland Hypothetical Sorites.

The
as progressive

sorites may That hypothetical.

as ones a as

series of
a

gressive or) re(retrograde or again be either categorical, consists of categorical tions proposipredicates ; this, of hypothetical
as

well

the

series of consequences,

90.
\

Fallacy. Paralogism.
A

Sophism.

which, though it has the appearance syllogism, of a rightone for it,is false in point of form, is of that nature, when termed a fallacy. A syllogism himself deceives with one it, is a paralogism; and
when
he endeavours
to deceive

others with

it,a

phism.* so-

There
use

is, says Kant in

the treatise
means

ther aforementioned, yet ano-

of the

art : by syllogistic

of it to

puzzlethe

ques-

1 94
,

LOGIC.
i

Scho. about
are

The
the
art

ancients
of

occupiedthemselves framing sophisms.

;

much Hence
so-

there

many

of them

for which
;

instance, the
the middle
a

in jrfiismct figures dictionis,

is taken secundum

term

in

different

sense

the

sophisma

dicto the

quid ad
which

dictum

wherein simpliciter,
;

necessary

limitation
one

is omitted decides
a

acci(the fallacia

dentis, in

with

regardto

the

sential es-

of properties

subjectaccording to
;

thing some-

vel in
a

merely accidental amphibolic,by which syllogism ; non

of
a causa cause

sophisma amliguitatis
four pro
terms causa,
are

concealed
or

the

signing as-

false

(post hoc,

ergo

propter

hoc); sophisma sensus compositiet divisi or the of the context, when two are expressions falsifying
used tionis the in
a

different

signification ; sophisma ignoraquestion,or

elenchi, that is, mistaking the

merely pretended contrary conclusion (quithe insidious or proquo); sophysma polyzeteseos, difference sophisma heterozcteseos,or the inquestioning;
and finally the by importunity; assuming of a false argument (sophisma falsii medii s. fallacia the ut causcej,wherein non causa is faulty. T.). consequence obtained

tion

so

as

to

get the better of the unwary

use

in

learned
the
not

contest..

But,

as

this

belongs to
be

the
very

gymnastics of

learned (an
contribute

art which

may

otherwise

useful,but does

much

to the

I shall pass of truth), advantage

it by in silence. T.

SYLLOGISMS.

195

91.

Leap
A

in

Syllogising.

in syllogising or provingis the leap(saltus) conjunction of the one premiss with the conclusion,
so

that the other any

is left out.

leap

of this

sort,

add the wanting premiss body may easily the in thought,is regular (legitimus] ; but, when (illegitimus). subsumption is not clear, irregular mark is connected with a thingwith? In it a remote when
out
an

intermedial niark.

Petitio

Principii.

Circulm

in Probando.
stand under-

prin.)we (pet. By begging the question

for the purpose of an argument, assuming, certain one, though a proposition as an immediately he it requires when a proof. And lays the one, which proposition, foundation
to its own

he

has

mind

to

prove,
a

as

of proof,is guilty

circle in

proving.
Scho. Acirclein
;

provingis often

difficult to be detected
the oftenest

and

this fault is the

were

committed usually

justwhen example,
word

proofsare
the

difficult. (Would it not, for

be the

to scriptures

proved to
church,
the

be the
and the

of God

by
the

the

of authority
to

of authority
as

church

be be
a

proved by

tures scrip-

the word

of God"

circle ? T.). glaring

196

LOGIC.

93.

Probatio

plus

et

minus

probans.
well
too

proof
It,
in

may the

prove
latter

too

much,
proves

as

as

tle. litof

case,

part

only

what what

is
is

to

be

proved,

but,

in

the

former,

extends

to

false. A

Scho.
and

proof

that is not
?

proves
to

too

little

may

be

true,
does it

consequently
too

be

rejected.
more

But,
is
true

prove
that is

much false. That

it

proves For

than
the

and
;

then
'

instance,
has
not

proof life,
this

against
cannot

suicide,
take it

whoever

given
;

away/
not

proves

too

much

for,
It

on

ground,
false.

we

could

kill

any

animal.

is

therefore

PART

THE

SECOND.

General

Doctrine

of

Method.

94.

Manner
ALL
must

and

Method.
and

cognition
be of

or

knowledge
to
a

whole
of

of rule

it
is

conformable

rule.
rule

(Want
is
either

want
manner

reason). (free),
or

And

this

that

of

that

of method

(coactive).

(Scholion. propounding,
which
has in
no

Manner
that other

(modus

aestheticus) is,
of
one's

in

conjunction
standard,
than

thoughts,
the

the

feeling of

unity

the

exhibition.

T.).

95.

Form

of
as

Science.
must

Method.
be
a

Cognition,
method.

science,
as

arranged
is
as a

after whole

For,
a

aforesaid,
and

science

of

cognition as
It

system

not

merely
a

an

gate. aggrewhich is
to

therefore

requires

cognition,

systematical, consequently
digested rules.

disposed according

198

LOGIC.

96.

Doctrine

of

Method

"

its

Object and
in has logic

End.
As the doctrine
of elements the elements
a

of gtnd the conditions of the perfection

nition cogthe ence sci-

for its matter

other

the doctrine
to treat

of

method,
of

as a

has part of logic,, in

or general,

of the form of

of the

way

proceeding in cognitionin
a

order

to connect

the multifarious of

science.
97.

Means

of Promoting the logical tion Perfecof Cognition.

doctrine of method
we

The
which

must

shew

the

way,

in

attain the essential in its

Now of cognition. perfection

of cognition perfections logical

the most consist

its profundityand distinctness.,

as

tematical sysof
a

order, so
science. The

to

make
of

up

the

whole

doctrine

method

therefore

has

to pointout the means, chiefly by which of cognition are promoted.

these perfections

98.

Conditions

of

the

Distinctness

of Cognition.

The
in

distinctness of
a

and their conjunction cognitions whole depend upon the dissystematical

METHOD.

199
is

tinctness of the
contained The
as

with regard to what conceptions

as

well in them

under

them.
of
ceptions con-

distinct is

consciousness

of the matter

promoted by

their

and exposition of their

their

definition
on

the distinct consciousness their

sphere,
We tinctness dis-

the

contrary, by
the of

division. logical
of

shall first handle

means

promoting

the

with respect to conceptions

their matter.

I, Promotion
nition

Perfection of Cog*of the logical

the

the Exposition, and Definition, Description of Conceptions.

by

the

99.

Definition.
distinct and adequate sufficiently conception (conceptus rei adequatus in minimis terminis ; complete determinatusj. Scho. A definition only is to be considered as a conception; for in it the two most logically perfect essential perfections of a conception, distinctness and the completeness and the precision in distinctness of distinctness), united. are (thequantity
A

definition is a

100.

Analytic and
All definitions are

SyntheticDefinition.
either of
or synthetical. analytical,
a

The

former

are

those
a

givenconception \

the

those latter,

of

factitious one.

200

LOGIC.

101.

Given

and

Factitious
and
a

Conceptions priori posteriori.

a

The
are

of given conceptions

an

definition analytic
the factitious

so

either
ones

of

or a priori, posteriori ; and definition are so a synthetic

formed

likewise. 102.

Synthetic Definitionsby Exposition or by Construction.

The
which of of synthesis the the factitious

from conceptions,
that

definitions synthetic

arise,is either
that of

or (of phenomena),, exposition

tion. construc-

The

latter is the the

of conceptions bitrarily arsynthesis that of those formed

formed,

former

that is, from given phenomena, as their empirically, vel per synmatter vel a priori (conceplus factitii thesin empiricam). The mathematical conceptions formed ate the arbitrariously ones.

Scho.
and

All definitions of the mathematical

"

tions concep-

if definitions
"

could of the

always have placein

of conceptions rience expe-

empirical conceptions
must
as

to

the

framed. For, synthetically conceptionsof the latter species, for

then be

of example, the empirical conceptions of air and in such

water, of fire,
lies

like, we

have

not

to dissect what

them, but

to learn to know

what by experience

be-

METHOD.

to iong-s

them.

All

empirical conceptions must

as

therefore

be considered

factitious ones,

but whose

is empirical, not arbitrable. synthesis

lioiiqoono','
103.
v

Definitions. Impossibility of empirically synthetic

As
not

of the empirical conceptions is synthesis and as such never but empirical, arbitrable, can the

be
more

complete (becausewe
marks of
a

may

discover

more

and

by experience), conception they

arbitrable

cannot

be defined.

Scho.
are

None

but the

conceptionsthen
definitions of necessary, and

of being defined. Such capable them as are not alwayspossible, but

must

as

precede all that provided that

which

is said

by

means

of

an

arbitrable

conception,mightbe
we

named

tions, declara-

declare
of what
case

our we

thoughts by
understand

them
a

or

give an
And

account

by

word.

that is the

with mathematicians-

104.

AnalyticalDefinitions by the Dissection of Conceptions given priori or riori. postea a

No
or
a

whether given conceptions, given a prior* be defined but by analysis Foi can posteriori,

LOGIC.

cannot given conceptions

be

made

distinct but when If all

their marks the the

not

are

rendered

clear. successively rendered

;

given conceptionare distinct conceptionis completely

a

marks

of

clear,

and

if it does

comprise
this
a

too

many

arid marks, it is precise,

from

definition of the As
we

conceptionarises.
be certain

Scho.
whether
we

cannot

by

any of
a

trial

have
a

exhausted

all the marks

given

conception by
are

all analytic finitions decomplete analysis, held uncertain.

to be

105.

Expositions and
All conceptions therefore
must

Descriptions.
cannot

be defined,

nor

they be
are

so.

There

to approximations

the definition of

tain cer-

which are approximations partly conceptions, descriptions. expositions, partly The expounding of a conceptionconsists in the of its marks coherent (successive) representation provided that they are found by analysis. of a conception The is its exposition, description that it is not precise. provided Scho.
or

1.

We

can

expound
former

either

conception,
by J
analysis,

experience.
f
,

The
":"-:.."

is done

the

latter
2.

by synthesis.
has not

Exposition therefore
to

place but
are

with

regard
distinct

given conceptions,which
is

rendered de-

by it; therebyit

from distinguished

M.ETHOD,

203 of representation
titious fac-

duration, which

is

distinct

conceptions.
As

it is not

to always possible
as
a

make

the

analysis
ere

complete; and
it becomes

dissection

in

generalmust,,
an
a

complete, be incomplete ;
of of
a
a

incomplete
true

as part exposition,,

definition,is

and

useful
never

exhibition
remains which
we

conception.
the idea of
a

definition

here

but

logical perfection
with respect
has
not

must

endeavour

to reach.

3.
to

take placebut cannot Description given. It empirically conceptions

any
terials ma-

determinate

rules and

contains

nothingbut

the

for definition.

106, Nominal
"

and

Real

Definitions.
we

By
have which of its other
are

mere

nominal

definitions
contain the

understand

those
we

which definitions,
chosen
to

that signification
name

give a

certain

and arbitrarily,

therefore denote

nothingbut .merely to

objectorserve

being logical it from distinguish

the other

the

objects. Real definitions,on

which definitions,
in point object,
as

hand,

those the

suffice to the

cognition

of

of its internal

tions, determina-

they

shew

the

of it (theobject) possibility

from

internal

marks.
a

Scho.
to

I. When

cient sufficonceptionis internally

is so a distinguish thing, it certainly but it, when not internally externally; sufficient,

204 nevertheless be

LOGIC.

may

namely, in
with other is not
2.

ence, referso in a certain externally the comparison of the definite the illimited external the internal. of ciency suffi-

things. But

without possible

Objectsof experienceadmit
1 he nominal logical the

merelynominal given

definitions.

definitions of

taken from an are understanding attribute or adjunct; the real definitions,again, from the essence of the thing, from the firstground of possibility. latter therefore comprehend, The what always belongs to a thing,its real essence. be named real Merely negativedefinitions cannot because ones; negativenotes may, justas well as

of conceptions

thing from other things, but cannot for the cognition of to its internal possibility. a thing as In moral philosophyreal definitions must al~ ways be soughtfor ; and all our endeavours must be directed to that object. In the mathematics there
serve
a

affirmative ones,

for the distinction of

are

real

for definitions;

the definition of

an

trable arbi-

conception is always real.

3. A definition, when
which
concrete
are

it

the

objectcan be is genetical ; all the

givesa conception,by exhibited a prioriin the

mathematical tions defini-

of this nature.

107.

Chief Requisites of Definition.

The essential and
a

the universal

of requisites
be

the

of perfection

definition in

general,may

cons:-

METHOD

205
of pointsof quantity,

dered

under

the

four

main

and of modality of relation, ; quality, with regard to the sphere of 1, as to quantity, a definite (definitum) a definition and a definition,
must

be alternate

and consequently a conceptions,

definition neither definite

;

wider,

nor

narrower,

than

its

2,
well

as as as

to
a

a definition quality, conception. precise

must

be

an

ample as
be tautological
as

3,

to
;

relation,a is, the

definition must marks of

a

not

that

definite must, from

its

be distinct grounds of cognition, finally, the marks must 4, as to modality,

it; and

be necessary

and therefore not

Scho.

such

as

are

added the the

by experience.

The the
and

condition, That

genericconception

and

conceptionof

distinction specific

(genus
the

make must specificaj* differentia up finitions deto the nominal definition,holds but relatively in the comparison, and not to the real ones

in the deduction. 108.

Rules
In

for

the

Proving of Definitions.
four
are operations

proving definitions
words, distinction
even

to

be

The

and

difference,
In
a

are

usually con*
ever, howstyle the

founded,

in

works. philosophical
is
never

correct

the former
aad

used but when the

of treating

objects
when

of the

of operations
sense.

but the latter, understanding,

cf those ef

T.

206

LOGIC.

performed;

it must

be

whether investigated

finition, de-

1, considered
2,
as as as
a

as

is true proposition,,
;
;

conception,distinct
distinct

3,
4,

a an

conception,ample

and,
that

ample conception,determinate,
the

is,

to adequate

thingitself.
109.

Rules
The
to the

for
very

the
"

Framing

of Definitions.
are

same

which operations,
to

requisite performed
I, seek

are proving of definitions,

be

in the
true

framing of

them.

To

this end

then

2, propositions,
do not

seek those, relatively to whose

the conception and
pare com-

we predicate

always presuppose
conception of
and
not

of the them

3, thing,
with the

collect several of them

the

whether whether

they be adequate;
the
one

4 and

thing itself see finally,

other, or

mark

does

lie in the

is not subordinated

to it. to

Scho.
these

1. It is

hardlynecessary
ease we

mention, that

rules hold
As in that

definitions to analytical relatively

never
can

only.
the forth
were

be

certain
must

of
set

analysis' having been

a a

complete,we only, and

this limitation

definition definition. distinct and

from

as

an

essay

but
we

as

if it
use rollaries co-

With
a

may
draw

it

as

true

conception and
We

its marks.

may

say,

That,

to

which

the

of conception

the definite agrees,

the de-

METHOD

20?
the

fmition exhaust 2.

agrees

to, but,

as

definition does

not

the whole

definite,not conversely.

the

of the definite in the definition the conception Using* in the definite as a foundation laying; ; or is defining; definition, by a circle (circulus in
.

) definiendo
We
now come

to

treat

of the

means

of

ting; promo-

the distinctness their

of

with respect to conceptions

sphere. of
the Division logical

II. Promotion

by

the

Perfectionof Cognition of Conceptions.

110.

Conceptionof

the

Logical
under

Division.
it
;
a

contains Every conception

ous, multifari-

provided that
with which that

it is concordant The

and

provided
of
a

that it is distinct also.

determination

ception con-

regard to
are

all the

possible tions, representait with

a

contained
one

under

proviso
tinct is, dis-

they are
from
one

opposed to

another,
name

that

logical division of the conception. The ception superiorconis termed the divided conception(divisum),
and the inferior
are conceptions

another, bears the

of the

termed

the members

of division

(membra

dwidentia)
a

Scho.
it
are

1. To

dissect

conception and

to

divide
the

therefore
a

very

distinct

operations.By

dissection of
in

what we see conception it{by analysis); by the division we

is contained

consider what

LOGIC.

is contained

under

it.

In

this

case

we

divide the

sphere of
The
of

the

conception,not
so

the

conception itself.

division is therefore
a

far from
the members

beinga

tion dissec-

conception,that
more

of division
ception. con-

rather contain

in

them, than the divided

2.

We
and

ascend

from

inferior to superior tions concepdescend from these to in

may
"

afterwards

ferior ones

by division.
in.

Universal
In every

Rules

Division* of the logical

a

division of

care conception

must

be

taken,
1, tliatthe members
or

of division exclude
one

one

ther ano-

be

opposed to
a

another

that

they,

(conceptum superior conception and that they, cwnmunum), 3, collectively taken, make up the sphereof the
divided
or conception

2, rank under

be

equalto

it. be

Scho. The
from
one

members
not

of division must

separated
a

by a mere opposition. contradictory,

another

contrary,but by

Codimsion
The
are

and

Subdivision.
"

various with

divisions of
various

made

which conception, by views, are distinguished

a

METHOD.

209
and the division of the
a

the

name

of

codivisions

members

of division is denominated
1. A
;

subdivision.
to

Scho.

subdivision may
be

be

continued

definite in-

but it may

division goes likewise to of

finite. A. cocomparatively in conceptions indefinite, especially

experience;for
? conceptions be

who

can

exhaust

all the

relationsof
2. A

codivision

may

said

to

be

division

of the conceptionsof the to the variety accordingof view), and a subdivision same (thepoints object

that of the

pointof

view itself.

113.

Dichotomy
A division into two
of
more

and

Polytomy.
pellation goes under the apof consisting

members
but
name

dichotomy ;

it,when
of

than

Scho. the sole

polytomy. is I. All polytomyis empirical ; dichotomy division accordingto principles a priori ;

two, takes the
the
one. only primitive

By

consequence

For

the

members
and than
2.
non

of division must the

contrary of
it a

ther opposed to one anoevery A is nothingmore

be

A.
in

Polytomy,as is requisite, cannot

of knowledge

the

object

tomy taughtin logic. But dichoof contradiction only, requiresthe principle without knowing the conception, which we have a be

mind

to

divide,as

to the

matter.

stands Polytomy
a

in need

of intuition; either intuition

2
D

as priori,

in

210
the mathematics
or sections),

LOGIC.

(forexample,

the division of conic in the

empiricalintuition,as

tion descripcording ac-

of nature
to

(physiography).Yet
of principle the

the division

the

a priori synthesis

has

as Trichotomy; I, the conception,

the

condition,
ter of the lat-

2, the conditionate, and, 3, the deduction

from
the former.

J14.

Various
As to method and several
treatment

Divisions

of Method.
the elaboration
are

in particular, in itself,

of scientific cognition, there

we

chief

of it, which species

shall here
:

duce ad-

to according

the

division following

115.

I.
The

or Popular Scientific

Method.
guished is distinit sets out

scientific from the

or

scholastic

method

popularin this,that
and

from

fundamental

elemental

propositions ; the

That ones. interesting aims at solidity and therefore removes or profundity, in view. ; this has entertainment every thingforeign These two methods then are distinguished Scho. and not as to the mere ing propoundas to the species, is consequently in the method ; and popularity

latter, again,from

usual and

distinct from

that in the

propounding.

METHOD,

21 1

116. 2.
or Fragmentary Systematical

Method.

The
or

is opposed to systematical When method. rhapsodistical

the
one

fragmentary has thought

to a method, and when his method is then accordingexpressed in the propounding and the transition made and from one to another distinctly proposition delivered, he has treated a cognition systematically. Whereas, though one has thoughtafter a method,

arranged the propounding methodically, is rhapsodistical. such a method Scho. The systematical propounding is opposed the methodical is to the to the fragmentary, as just thinks methodically tumultuary, Who may pound pronot

but

either

way.

The

in a fragmentary or systematically, propounding, externally fragmentary,

in is aphoristical. itself,

but methodical

1 17

IT

3.
The

Analyticor SyntheticMethod.

method .iscontradistinguished to the analytic That begins with the conditionate and the synthetic. founded and proceedsto the principles (a principiatis ad principia) the other hand, goes ; this, on

from

the

to principles

the consequences

or

from the
be nominated de-

simpleto
the

the

compound.

The

former

may

the regressive (retrograde), method. progressive,

the

latter

212 Scho. The

LOGIC.

analyticmethod
or

is
or

usually named
and discovery, the end of popularity but

the heuristical the

that of invention of instruction. is

more

that synthetic the

To

method analytic

adequate ;

to

that of the scientific and

elaboration systematical
so.

of

more cognitionthe synthetic,

118.

4.
The science
of
a

or Syllogistic

Tabellary Method.
which
a

former is

is that

method, accordingto
in
a

propounded

series

or

concatenation

The syllogisms.

latter, that, according to which

in its

system that is already finished is exhibited

cohesion.

whole

119. 5.
The

Acroamatic method, when

the be

or

Erotematic
teaches

Method.

one

is acroamaonly, erotematical.

tical ; but, when

The

questionstoo,
into the

latter may
and

divided

or dialogical

So-

cratical
are

catechetical, accordinglyas
either
to

the questions

directed
to the

the

or understanding,

merely
Scho.

memory.
cannot

One

teach

but erotematically

by
and procally; reci-

the

Socratic
must
so

dialogue,in questionand
that it
seems

which
answer

both
one

master

scholar

another if the

in

it

as

scholar

were

himself

the master.

This

dialogueinstructs

METHOD.

Q13

by

means

of

questions,
his
own

by

making
of

the

disciple
and But

quainted ac-

with

principles
attention
to

reason,

by
one

calling;
cannot

and

fixing
by
the

his

them. of

teach

common

mode

catechising;
which catechetic he has

he

can

only

interrogate

about

that

taught

acroamatically. adapted
to

Hence

is

the

thod me-

empirical
to

and

historical
of

knowledge
reason.

only;

but

the

dialogic,

cognitions

120.

Meditation.

By

it

reflection understood. well

or

methodical
Meditation

thinking
must

or

tation cogi-

is

accompany
to

all

reading
that

as

as

all

learning
make in after

and
;

it

it

is

quisite, re-

we

should

previous
order
or

inquiries,
methodize

and

then
that

put is,

our

thoughts
them

them,

conjoin

method.

ib

dd)

^fli^bsm
1o

vd

^noitestfp

to
)Iw

enesr

aoeaai

gdfqianh
"notts
e

b"l

";:

yl leaiioiaid

buB

ifiDiiim^

ol

;v!no

-igoo

to

^gfii^nidj

luolboriiom

10

noi^oftai laiabnc/

Ji

noitoiibol/:
.

ei

;gnin*:
'iq
10

^"i
to

9"Ifim
ni

bfnoda

9w

JsriJ

wbio

atdguoriJ
ai^d?

100

fi

aailii

niono-j)

APPENDIX.

SKETCH

OP

THE
O8

AUTHORS

LIFE

AND

WRITINGS
lo'tnj.,

BY

THE

TRANSLATOR. rfT
"

De

mortuis

nil nisi

verum.

EMMANUEL

KANT of the
of

was

born
of the

in

Koningsberg,
on

the

metropolis

kingdom
April
in

Prussia,
year
one

the

twen*

ty-second day
seven

thousand low
were

hundred
but his

and

twenty-three* ;

of

tion; extrac-

parents,
industrious.

though obscure,

both

virtuous His their way

and

father
name

(descendent
with
a

of
a

Scotch saddler
not

family that spell

in
a

C)

was

very
in the

small en silk-

; our

hero, consequently,
of

nursed

lap

affluence,

but

himself

tlie sole

architect

of his fortune.

See

page
on

xliii of

the

Preface

to

the

second

edition

of

his

Criticism

pure

Reason.

QI6

APPENDIX.

"

Let

highBirth triumph!
but

What in
a

can

be

more

great?

Nothing
He school

Merit

low

estate.0

was

taught to
received,
at

read the

and

to

write of of

at

free*

j
a

expense

his

maternal

uncle,

shoemaker,

the rudiments

cal his academithe year

to

education
one

at Frederic's
seven

thousand

hundred

College;and, in and forty,went

the

where he was in his native city, entirely university bred, and from which, as he in his Anthropology informs
us,

he

never

travelled

farther

than

to

Pil-

law

once

by

water.

The
most

early part of
men

his

like life,

that of

the lives of

of

deep learningand

abstract

science,

tion, havingbeen passed in hard studyand close applicaof incident but few materials and littlevariety yields for the biographer. His was intended for the church, studied originally and took orders. divinity accordingly, His regular he began finished, course academical the world as a private tutor in a clergyman's family,
and
count
was

afterwards

a appointed

titular governor
we

to

children Kaiserlingk's had

not

for, as
of

have

been

told, he

the
more

care

of any of

thenr,though
tender and principles
"

nobody
minds,

could
or

be

capable
them of virtue.

forming
the

of

into instilling
and

the Yet

the love of wisdom

abilities are
but
As

not

only not requiredfor

less fit for it." mild and amiable

greatest this office,

render

man

he

was

of

of disposition,

APPENDIX.

217

equal temper or good-humour,modest, of great manners, well-bred, or of polished affable, equanimity, cheerful, an agreeablefacetious companion, and of of the feast of reason fond of conviviality, extensive reading the flow of soul," and, from and an possessed uncommonly retentive memory,
"e

of
the

an

inexhaustible fund countess, amiable,

of anecdote, the count

and

vated cultielegantin manners, and enlightened themselves,in whose society in general, well as in that of modest women he as took great delight, desirous of his were naturally
^

and instructive conversation,conceived entertaining became his patrons, /or him, generously a friendship and gave him that sinecure,partlywith a view of the pleasure of his excellent society(fbr enjoying Kant was the vital principle the enlivener of or every that partly society),
to

he

might have

sufficient leisure

cultivate his

rare

his extraordinarily talents, tive, ac-

vigorous, penetrating,and
mind. And his he

comprehensive

did not

eat

the bread

of idleness with

or

bury

but prosecuted his studies talent,

unwearied

attention

and gone

indefatigable diligence.Having sedulously

over

the whole
master

circle of

the sciences

and

made

himself and

of them

all, he found

the

mathematics

physic)the
gave
up the confined

and metaphilosophy(logic to his cast of mind; and most congenial of theology, as a sphere too profession pure

for the active exertion of his mental

energy,

for his wide

range

and great depth of

2E

thought.

AFPtNDIX.

His
j^.

custom

was

to

employ

the

morning

and

noon forethe
an

to studyand writing-, and to eveningfrom society,

in

withdraw
amuse

early in
for

himself

hour
and

or

two

in

readingsometimes
then
a

memoirs history,

travels, sometimes
now
a

poetry,
and
son,
even
a

and

biography, voyages and play, by way of relaxation,

as

good novel,such
which he often

Sir Charles and

a

Grandi-

work
an

read

praisedmuch.
taste

Hehad

delicate and exquisitely

a

very correct
nor

for the fine arts, but neither the

turn

leisure

for

acquirement
one

of

superficial accomplishments.
seven

In the year six he

a

thousand

hundred
of
on

and

fifty-

took

the
gave

degree

of Master

Arts,* opened
the mathema-

class,and
on

public lectures
on

matics,
was

and logic,

both

easy and

livery metaphysics. His dethe graceful; he possessed the attention of his

ditors, au-

the

art

not

only of commanding
but
of and his

impressinghis
lectures

doctrines
on

deeply

in

their minds;
and
on

moral

philosophy

moral and

in particular religion were sublime.

teresting highly in-

In that situation, however, he, for all his talents both

man

natural

and

acquired, was
mentioned.
talents he

long eclipsed by
name

of very
to

inferior parts, whose here

does Kant's

not

deserve
was

be

But
were

time

not

lost ; for his

expanding continually

themselves, and
"

was
"

constantlyrumi" ,
_ "

In

Germany
the

the

degree of M.

A. is
us.

much

greater

dignity

among

than it is with learned,

APPENDIX

219
It

'on nating

his

new

system.
solar forth
at

was

(to use

what some-

florid the
sun,

a allegory)

eclipse. And
"

he, like

shone

last in his hid

full meridian

splendour. His opponents heads," and their opinionsand

and vanished the world At chair

their

diminished
were

doctrines He

persed, dis-

like vapour.

minates alone illu-

with his beneficent

rays.
called
to

lengthour
of and

philosopherwas
a

fillthe

wisdom,

station which
so

his

ties superiorabilihe in

talents had

afterwards
the year
was one

graced so
thousand doctor the

long merited, and which and much He, dignified.

seven

hundred

and

seventy,
pure

created

and

of regius professor

in philosophy

of Koningsberg. university
one

And,
and

in

the

year

thousand

seven

hundred of
no

the Royal Academy eighty-six,

chose him
one

of Sciences

Berlin

of their members.

They
on

doubt

intended

to

confer
soon

mark

of honor

the

but professor;

it

was

found, that his beinga

fellow of their
redounded
to

celebrated thoughitjustly is, society,

their honor.

Having now reached the summit of his ambition* and wishing for nothing than leisure to digest more his critical system, of science to gain the heights
"

and

of

ment virtue/' he refused several placesof emoluother that dignities

were

and

offered him. hundred

and

So
seven THE

earlyas
he
TRUE WITH

the year seventeen coup

THE

fortyON THER TOGEOP

his published

d'essai,THOUGHTS
LIVING ON

ESTIMATION
A FEW

OF

POWERS;
THE

OBSERVATIONS

POWER

220
BODIES
at

PREFACE

IN

GENERAL

; in

which, he, by repudiating,

of these the thoughts the age of foiir-and-twenty, the two celebrated men, Leibnitz, Wolf, Bulfinger,

Herman Barnoullis,
be the most
acute

and

others, proves

himself

to
tural na-

metaphysician and

the ablest is

of his time. His motto philosopher Seneca),Nihil magis prcestandum est pecorum

(from
ne

quam

ritu

sequamur qua eundum

antecedentium sed qua

itur,

gregen%,

pergentes, non
No
name,

however

famous, should
to

it oppose

the
lue va-

of truth, is (sayshe) discovery

;

be held of any for

us

the track of

reason

is the

only one
are

to

follow in. That weapons invective and

the reader
:

at tacks personal

not Kant's

will

see

from

these
in

his

cluding con-

words few
one errors

I have

succeeded

a perceiving am

in this

Leibnitz's

theory,it is true, yet I

debtors
;

of

great

man's

for I should have

effectuated
law of

without the nothing for which we continuity,

which

clue of the excellent

have this immortal

of only means In short labyrinth. in my is the

discoverer to thank, and

the finding though the

way
matter

out

of

this

has fallen out

to
me

favor, the
small, that
herself
so

share I
am
as

of honor
not to

that remains

is so

afraid of Ambition's

demeaning

far

grudge me

it.

Both

this work

and

his

subsequent publications
the
latent truth ledge know-

will shew, that the after which

of discovery

the greatest masters vain has been

of human reserved

sought longin

for him.

APPENDIX*

221

His

GENERAL
or
an

PHYSIOGONY

AND

THEORY

OP

THE
me-

HEAVENS,
chanical

Essay on

the Constitution

of the

ton's Originof the Universe accordingto NewPrinciples, appeared in the year one thousand
hundred In which work he fifty-five. profound astronomical knowledge, coaand there and
are more

seven

evinces his

with great probability, that jectures,

yond becentric ec-

Saturn's orbit other

than
nearer

planetsmore
thus

Saturn, by consequence
Herschel

nearer

and

the cometary property, and

on foretells,

theoretical

grounds,what and-twenty years after with

the

discovered

sixlescope, te-

the assistance of the

existence

of

Uranus

(the Georgian

and planetor Herschel)

its satellites. Kant's

theory by

with

regard to
recent

Saturn's

ring too

is confirmed

Herschel's
It cannot

discoveries.
to interesting
men

but

be

of

science to
one

compare

the construction

of the
to

heavens, which
say, with the

great

man

has

perceived,so

copic teles-

eye of his mind, laws from the with

the
man

accordingto the Newtonian birth of the celestial bodies, original

of

construction
has

the

heavens

as

another

great
This
was

exhibited it according to

telescopic
abstruse,
Lamthis

observations.

publication, beingrather dry

at

and

but littleknown
of

first; the

celebrated

bert is accused

havingtaken
the

advantageof
reason

circumstance; and
very the
same

that not without

for the
of

of theory the

constitution systematical the

of universe,

galaxy,of

nebula, "c.

is

APPENDIX,

advanced

in his

CosmologicalLetters, which
seventeen
so

he

publishedin
one,, and

the year

hundred

with which

he made
one

great a
this

sixtyfigure.
that the

and

Kant

himself, in
of

of his

works, says,

agreement

the

with those which years ago,

in the

man ingenious I communicated teen to the public sixwhich agreement is to be perceived

thoughtsof

very

smallest

strokes, increases

my

sumption, preceive re-

that
more

this delineation

will hereafter ad

confirmation.

Sic redit

dominum,

4c. In the year

one

thousand

seven

hundred THE

and
ONLY
OF

he presentedthe publicwith sixty-three

POSSIBLE
THE one

ARGUMENT
OF

FOR

THE

DEMONSTRATION
this which treatise,

EXISTENCE
of his

GOD.

In

is

only a

Kant was dogmaticalworks (for even dogmatisttill he reached the transcendental

his later

station in

work, CRITICISM

ON

PURE

SON); REA-

in this

nothingbut
support of

wherein extremelyrecondite treatise, an argument (or ground of proof) in of the existence of the

the demonstration

or Deity is pretended to, the greatest acuteness is possible all that which and to be persubtility, formed and by the theoretical by mere conceptions of proof of the existence mode of that Being,will be found ; in which field nothing speculative apobe concertain on this head can dictically possibly

contained. He
two here methods does of
not

allow

but of the

of possibility

proofof

the existence of the All suffi-

APPENDIX.

223

cient

When

and the cosmological. Being,the Ontological in and completeness exactness are logical
the former mode of

hand,
when

proof

is the

better, but,

justconcepcomprehension to the common tion, and the power liveliness of impression,, beauty,
nature
are

of

moving the moral springs of human so, the preferenceis to be grantedthe

But,
as

latter.
in this
beaten un-

that

proof is
to

not

to be
or

found

path (the
we

theoretical
the broad

speculative field),
of

must

turn or,

highway
have is
a

practical
to

reason,

in other
;

words,
God

recourse

the

moral

argument
it is

for, as
can

moral be
a

the being,
moral
one.

proof of

his existence

only
not

Though

absolutely necessary
existence, it is
be
demonstrated.

to convince

one's

self of His

equally necessary
Indeed
it is not, that strictness

that it should for want

of intuitive is

of data, susceptible the evidence

can

which

to requisite

of mathematical

demonstration. the
use speculative

Nor
of
our

it

by

any

effort of
ther. nei-

reason

be confuted

The this
have
men

teteological contemplations in interspersed work are and edifying, highly interesting and a great tendency to corroborate (the minds of in general)in the belief in the Eternal Bein"\
later doctrine and
more

Kant's
on

profound sentiments
all
are subjects

this the most

of important

to be

found

in the

aforementioned

Criticism and

in

his

other

works, systematical
moral

wherein

essential service to

he, by rendering science, to the true en*

224

APPENDIX.

of the human lightening

to the cause
a

mind, and by consequence

of

of truth and

virtue, proves himself

hundred and

great benefactor He,

in the year

to mankind.
seventeen

seventy,
the

excited the attentionof the

thinking part of
MUNDI
"T

lic pub-

DE dissertation, by his inaugural

BILIS

SENSI-

ATQUE

INTELLTGIBILIS

FoRMA

PlllNCIPHS

the most

remarkable

phenomenon
Newton's

in the

philosophic
NATURAwith said,
prises com-

hemisphere since
LIS

PHILOSOPHISE
It may be

PitiNCipiA MATHEMATICA, this work

greattruth,that,in
the creative

of Kant, which
idea and

architectoric

complete
a

foundation

of his future system, the

the of
acumen
a

of profundity

Newton,

of

Leibnitz, the solid argumentation

the

systematic ment arrangeit perfect.It of a Wolf to render conspire niches in alone entitles his statue to distinguished "Others the temples of Science and of Fame.
Hume,
are

and

fond of Fame, but Fame He had attained the age of

ON PURE

is fond of him." his ere fifty-eight

TICISM CRI-

REASON
one

made

its first appearance

seven

in

the

year

thousand
most
was

hundred

and

eighty-one.This, the
work
that
ever

abstract

physical metaprofound

written, and which

the

Germans,

cism, The Critiby way of eminence, name, is unquestionably the triumph of intellect. It comprehends, in one of eight volume octavo

hundred "whole
of the

close-printed eighty-four pages, his theoretical system, the complete investigation of the sensitive faculty, of the understanding, procedure
and of the of faculty
reason

and

itself.

APPENDIX.

825

philosophy wingsof all false speculative above the sphere of possible that attemptsto soar trines are clipped.Tn it the doceffectually experience of atheism, of free thinking of materialism, all of and of unthinking superstition, jncredulity, to society, be universally which pernicious may well as those of idealism and of scepticism, as to the schools which are dangerousmore especially to the public and can hardly be ever communicated in general, overthrown. are quite from his other This single abstracting publication, of Morals ; Criticism on Judgworks (Metaphysic ment Criticism on Reason ; "c. ; all practical ; this perspicacious me^ distinguishes masterpieces), critic as both and subtile philosophical taphysician of his native country,and the pride the ornament of letters.* And of the republic informs history us, that Nature, though bountiful to the human to produce a as race, is not so lavish of her favors, of mental powers every of such supereminence man
In it the

century.
His
were

METAPHYSICAL

ELEMENTS

OF

THE

PHYSICS

in the year seventeen hundred and published of They contain the pure principles eighty-six. of corporeal nature Somatology.The metaphysic is first treated of 5 then the mathematics are applied
to

the doctrine of bodies,which but by philosophy

*

cannot

become

tural na-

them.

In this inimitable
informed
me,

The made

late professor Beck himself

so

of Rostock
master

that Kant

bad

much

of his

before subject
nor

he

this Criticism, that he neither corrected printed

the

transcribed it to

of it,but manuscript ihepres*.

sent

it sheet
2 F

by sheet

as

he wrote

226 treatise he has

APPENDIX,

fullyexhausted

the

of subject

metaphysical somatology.
The
table of the

(not those categories

of the

of Aristotle,

that
but his

enumeration puerile trifling he has used

a as

predicates,*
for the

own)
has

only

scheme

completenessof
He

metaphysical system. reduced these (what he with

to
as a

modesty
as

names)
to

elements

four

heads

Under

the first of

which, motion,
its

pure

quantum,
any

is considered what

without composition, and this head

of qiiality

is

moveable,
my;
the under

is denominated

Phorono-

the second

it (motion), as is considered

belongingto
the
name

of quality
an

matter,

under

of

head under

motive and hence is this originally power, of Dynamics ; distinguished by the appellation with the third, matter that quality is considered motion in relation to itself, and this by its own is termed
or

head

the Mechanics the rest of matter

to

and under

the

fourth,

the motion
with

is determined of

reference

the

mode

merely or representation,
is Phenomenology-

and modality,

the title of this head

On

this great work,

perhaps the
men

of all his

works,
the

none

but who

of

profound science,of deep

most
can a

science, and
pronounce;
rnatia. and the

few

reason,
seem

venture
mere

to

to all others

it will

gallihundred
to be

This little octavo

book

of

but

one

author fifty-eight pages proves its eminent only man that ever possessedmathematical
*

and

Amieus

Aristotdts, sed magis arnica veritas.

APPENDIX.

knowledge united metaphysical

and that
ever

gree, dehighest reflected (philosophised) discursively in the

the mathesis.
to

profoundlyon
And thus much
as

the and

first of of

writingsof

this

prince of
works what has

mathematicians

philosophers.A
all his

or completedescription

review fill a

cal systematiBut
that

would been
extant

alone here in

thick

volume.

said may

suffice to shew,
it is to be

they are
too to

Germany, and,
do
not to stand

hoped,
ready al-

will induce

those,who

think

themselves
of
more

knowing

in need

ledge, knoweasy,

studythem.

The

task indeed

is not

but

it will reward

the labour of the

abundantly.*
CRITICAL

Kant
so

is the founder
to

PHILOSOPHY,

other it from distinguish systems or of philosophising, modes tillit shall be universally be but one allowed, that there cannot (true) sophy. philoAs
constant

named

this vast

system,

the

rich harvest

of the lean Hercu-

meditation, and study,reflection,

of
some

labour the whole

fifty years,

and

which
now

embraces

is sphere of philosophy,

taught in
and

all the protestant universities of

Germany,

but

"

To the

it may study this system effectually,

be advisable

to

low fol-

plan, which

Descartes

holds

so

to indispensable
:

the at*

of right insights, and taining

the have
set out

which

is this

To

forget,during
one

study of

new

doctrine,

all the

conceptions that
the
same

may
to

to formerlyacquired relatively
on

and subject,
mere

the

road

of

truth

without

any

guide but

sane

reason.

228 little known

cannot

APPENDIX.

yet in Great

Britain

and

Ireland, it
it

in

improperto give a slight conceptionof this place.

is, then,
a

be

It

new

method all former

of

philosophising,
is founded of faculty of this
SOPHY; PHILO-

which, distinct from

in
a

methods,

most

accurate

dissection of the whole

bounds

the utmost cognition, determining and denominated faculty, TRANSCENDENTAL from

must

which
set out.

mental

anatomy

all true

sophy philo-

This choked

modern the weeds

method

of

has quite philosophising

of all former
the

systems and

tinue (tocon-

the research.

cleaned figure)

ground
seem

of intellectual somewhat in such

aggerated ex-

This

assertion
not
j

may

to those
as

much

conversant

quisitions per-

these

but

the destruction

of all false

accomplished by just reasoning systems is infallibly

founded mind.
in
an

accurate

and

of deep philosophy

It is

to know, interesting

that Hume's
cause

hint relative of effect was

slumber

to

the

conceptionof the
roused Kant from
gave

connexion

of

and

what

first

what occasion reform

Beat

he
to

calls

dogmatic
reform
man's
nor

of many

years, and
means

this total

in

philosophy, by
on

of which

that

celebrated

doubt,

which
any of

neither

Reid,

nor

tie,nor
throw of

Oswald,

nor Priestly,

their followers, could

not

ever

the least
common-sense

is fully resolved, light, that

however

with

the

aid

they extol

so

much,

but with

that of pure

reason

after the method

of the critical

philosophising.

APPENDIX.

229

Whoever

reads

Kant's transcendental

in fyis (contained Prolegomenato the and in his Criticism on Reason) pure

philosophy Metaphysics*
with the
quisite re-

degree
allow,
that his that
ever

of attention

and

of reflection must ablest is

tomist ana-

of being the reputation dissected the human

seems even

mind

firmly
todo,
to

established.He
his but and subject,
to

to

have

exhausted fully
for
us

left nothing material

read,

to

understand,

to

admire, and

be

for grateful This

his

labours. inestimably precious is philosophy

most

profound transcendental onlythe most sublime, hut the

sciences.
at taphysic

not

useful

of afl
me. thing no-

Were all were

it not

laid as

foundation, no
could
recur

we possible,

to

for first principles, never

reach,

in the

sophic philo-

field, beyond empiricalscience,which, like

the bust in La but
no

Fontaine's

fable, has
difficultand
can

fine head.*

brains.
the most
;

It is however

the
more

most

stract ab-

of all science the reflex act of the

for what

be

so, than

of the intellectual mind, the turning

on

eye inwards
is learning
not
a

its

own

? operations

A little
taste

dangerous thing ;

drink

deep or

of the Pierian

intoxicate the

spring. There shallow draughts brain, and drinking deep sobers us

;

again. and justly said by Pope Beautifully

for

superfi-

Tranglated into
be

English by

the author

of

this Sketch, and

xv

ill soon

published.

230

APPENDIX.

cial knowledge elates

or

puffs up,
reason

but

profound (by
oar

shewing
and

the

very limited stretch of

cultivated

faculties,
with
re.

that the most

cannot,

gard to the essential ends of humanity, advance a standing) undersingle step farther,than the most common abates our ches pride or arrogance, and teaus modestyand humility.
In this admirable
a quite new

system (in his Criticism on Judgment)

theoryof taste,of
both of
nature

the

beautiful,
vanced art, is ad-

and

of the

sublime,of

and

; and

the doctrine

ends, handled
In the Groundwork
the Criticism
on

of philoor teleology, sophical after the most masterly thod. me-

for the

Metaphysicof practicalReason, and

he
treats

rals, Mothe

Metaphysicof Morals,
moral
which philosophy and

of his

system of
and

he divides

into ethics pure

law,
of

is the first that

''

laysdown

principles

morality.
In those

works it is clearly evinced, incomparable that the Heteronomy of the arbitrament is, (that the dependence upon laws of nature, to follow some
one

incentive
not

or

when inclination, but the direction

the will for

self itgives

the law.

the rational
can

observance

of

pathological laws) never

com-

the universally prise form, and not only legislative be the basis of any obligation, cannot but is, though the action,which results from the maxim of heteronomy, should be legal, even contrary to the of pure quently conseprinciple practical reason,
to the moral

mindedness.

APPENDIX.

All upon but and

a

the

matter

of

rules practical

ever

depends

it nothing conditions, which yield subjective for rational beings, conditional universality all those conditions turn on the pivot of the
one's
own

of principle

happiness.

The

of principle
were can

happinessmay afford maxims, but, even universal happiness the object,never

\

the such

ones,

asare'fit for laws the

of the will. of the

All

determinatives possible

will

are

either
or

and merely subjective,

therefore

empirical,
ternal. in-

and objective

rational; either external, or

all principles of heteronomy are following : education the constitution (accordingto Montaigne), (after Mandeville), the physical sense cording (acthe moral sense to Epicurus), Hutche(after to the Stoics and Wolf,) (according son), perfection and the will of the Deity (after Crusius and other moralists).All material principles theological are unfit for the supreme moral law. totally
In the aforementioned

The

works

it is likewise

proved,

that the of the and

Autonomy (the universal self-legislation will is the only principle of all moral laws
The but maxim
the

of the duties suitable to them.

of law
a us

self-love of

(prudence) advises
what

merely;
not

commands. morality

Is there

however
for

great distinction between

to

is advisable do?

do, and what

we

are

to obliged

It is difficult
to know
-,

and

a knowledgeof requires

the world

how

to act

on

the

of heteronomy principle

but

quite

232 easy to the most how

to act on

APPENDIX.

common

understanding to
autonomy.
pure In
reason a

know

that

of

word, The
is the

formal

of principle practical

only

fitfor practical laws (whichmake principle possible of moraand for the principle lity a duty of actions) in

general.*

This

new

system, which

is

reallythe victoryof
takes the of liberty
"

human
mending recom-

reason,

the author
once

of this Sketch
to the
our

more

notice

of the learned.

In

cal politiThis,

pointof
us, but in
a

view

insular situation

is highlyadvantageous to very hurtful.

and literary
our

scientific one,

however,
not

were

literatiless
them

not (what foreigners supine, haps per-

accuse unjustly

of Does
world

so proud, and being)

less

tional, na-

might
made in the The
as we so

be

obviated. the whole

not

the

commonwealth

of
are

learningembrace

Whatever
to

conquests

kingdom
Germans

of truth,
are
as

they belong
to justice

humanity
our

in general.

well

with acquainted admire

literature But it is
are
fortunately, un-

ourselves, and
with
us;
we

do it the in

it.

not

know general

but little of theirs,and

ignorantof totally
the German

their best

works. philosophical the

For,

nothingbut
press, with
a

the very refuse of few

of productions
our

is transplanted to exceptions,
were printers were men

island. could
were

and Formerly publishers and

of

letters,
It for

judge for themselves,

well worth
a

interested in science.
to learn German

British of
a

while philosopher's

the sole purpose

studying the key

to
more

critical philosophy ; for that science than for fully

to

language,as Latin,would

it is

either Greek and

or

certainly repay
I
am

him

his time be

labour.
wards to-

Mean-while, if

fortunate

enough

instrumental

the genuineseeds transplanting

of that of

to philosophy

this

country, I shall enjoythe consciousness

to the

essentially contributing

dissemination of real science, and

therefore of

not

APPENDIX.

233
the Bounds of bare is

Arid in The

Religionwithin

Reason,

sublime signally

there publication,

doctrine philosophical worthy of taught a purified the notice of enlightened rational beings. Kant, in this work, shews, that the New Testament, explained

agreeably to
contains
a

established

moral

principles,
can

pure

moral

religion.No
or

other
a

sibly poshave

stand

the test of time

or

have

right to

its issue in the catholic

universal

Nothing but ignoranceor

furnish

monkish

of man. religion can superstition other form of fish sel-

confessors in the
this and
none

cause

of any

belief; and
views

but

those

influenced

by

blind zeaor lots,, bigots, who all deaf, or unwilling to listen, to the are sacred dictates of reason of morality, or obligations can possibly deny. sectaries and

Many

divines

and by profession

all

theological
a

as moralists, they are

heteronomists,,make

use

of

reason

that

pervertsit,and thereby,thoughnot
subvert

tentional inof

morality.* But

the author

havingtravelled
useless member
*

in vainer of

of not

a passive or being altogether

society.
we

By

moralists theological

understand

those who,

ously previlaw

assuming
from

the existence of

God,

derive the moral

mediately im-

his

will; by which

the procedure
is
on

universal self-

legislative power
The moral

of pure

reason practical

quitedestroyed.
its

on theologist,

the other the

hand,
law

indispensable
abso-

unfolds liberty, condition,

reason

moral

out

of the universal

of man,

and

God postulates

and

as immortality

APPENDIX.

the
as

great work

under

review

himself distinguishes
but moral
a

not

only

strict

autonomist
a

pure

list rationa-

in matters
as

of

belief,or
most

and theologist,
reasoner,
as

the

and justest

profound

well of

as

the most

and systematical writer consequential have

ever

any
of

of those, who
and morality of

treated

of the

subjects
more
positors, ex-

religion.
and than

The

critical philosophy perhaps has had commentators,,

epitomists during the

the have

space

of

twenty years, systems

It
of

Platonic
had

and

the

Aristotelian
centuries.

united

during

many
in

fixes a grand epoch unquestionably

science and the of history And

both

the

annals

the

progress

of the human

understanding.

every

and competent judge will join us with unprejudiced pleasurein paying this gratefultribute of praise

(that

f(

envy

dare

not

'to call") flattery

the

manes
:

of the matchless

founder

of this noble of

system

That

he, being undoubtedlythe father

a

metaphysicas
as

science, and

the

discoverer
of pure

as

well

the
as

first
no

teacher other

of the doctrine
man ever

and morality,

left

so posterity

valuable

legacy,

lately necessary
The and
Ethics

conditions
not

of

the

of possibility
the

its fulfilment.
man

do

extend

beyond
even

reciprocalduiies of
the idea of the

subsist

by

themselves

without

Supreme

lead Being, but iufallibly

whose Religion, maxim
of essence,

to, the very

sublimation

of

morality,
ments, command-

considered, consists in the subjectively

moral all duties
as

dischargingour
which
crowns

Divine

and

morality.

APPENDIX.

235

has

to just right

be held the

the

luminaryof

the learned

world,

and

to bear

palm of

science unrivalled

perhaps for
cannot

ever.

If it is a fact, that,objectively considered, there

be but
one

and (true)philosophy, Kant's method

it is

stubborn

fact,that

of critical philo-

overthrown phisinghas totally

philosophical unacquaintedwith it, systems, can one, any himself with the title of philosoventure to dignify pher,
all former in the proper
so sense

of the be

word

? If he

sumes pre-

to

do,

it must and
an

indeed,
t(

rance through a happy ignooverweening self-flattery.

own

Seest thou
more

man

wise

in his

conceit ? There

is

hope
what

of

fool,than

of him/' said of Kant's temper be

From
or

alreadybeen of mind it may disposition

as

has

easily gathered,

that
means

he,
a

to his

manners a

or

behaviour, was
teacher

by

no

or cynic,

churlish snarling
was

of virtue,

and, though he
stoic,had
ness.

in

some

essential
or severity
was

a points morosean

not

the least taint of

The

of the anachorfte austerity in his composition, and be

not

gredient in-

neither

lived in
self him-

tub like the currish

from the world

the frequented

Diogenes,nor like a torpid monk,

that
tc

secluded but

habitually
he
was

best company,

of which

the

very soul, and

well aware,

happinessand

The from

Cynics,

or

the

followers

of

Diogenes,derived their
in which Cynosarges,

name

the suburb

of Athens called the

theytaught.

236
true
are philosophy

APPENDIX.

of the
was

kind."
persons

Besides, he
,

smiling visited by all constantly

as distinction,

and social still,

of

rank, by
men

all travellers of

well

as

by all
of the

of eminence

in every

whose line,

admiration

ledge he, by his hospitality, by his great know-

world, and by his rich and edifying

on

conversation

every

never topic,

failed to

excite,

from

always received the tribute of due all proud of havinghad an esteem, and who were tinguished with so disof seeing and of conversing opportunity
whom he
a

character.

That

our

sublime master

could

sometimes

unbend

his mind That

to

in

is a specimen : too, the following writing is destined

to rule

the husband
were

and

the wife

obey, we,
nature,

it not
St. Paul's

by

have

pointed out sufficiently ing. for maintainauthority

of his miscellaneous I, says Kant, in one works, would, in the languageof gallantry (yetnot

without

truth), say,
govern.

that the

wife

should rule and

of the husband

the husband
must

The

conduct

shew, that he has the welfare of his wife above

at things

all

heart.

But, as
like

he must much

know

tion the situahe

can

of his affairs better, and how

money

afford to

spend, he,

dutiful minister, first

with the orders of his monarch, who thinks complies of nothing but pleasure and perhaps wishes to build in a palace ; onlythat at present there is no money
the

that treasury,

certain

be

"c. ; so supplied, she pleases, but

must wants pressing ever that her majesty may do whatthat her this condition only, on
more

minister shall furnish her with the

means.

APPENDIX.
_

237
it evinces
as a

And
noble and the

this

incident,as biographical
of
as spirit,

independence
inflexible

well that

manly
pion cham-

firmness

of

mind

characterises
zealous

and betrays a philosopher,, practical in the

cause

of

and truth,, morality,

to

religion,
:

we

conceive, deserves
of

be

here

recorded and

The

present king

Prussia's
a

father

predecessor,
for
timents sen-

by

the

of instigation

clerical he would
on

sent hypocrite, retract

some

Kant, and

that desired,

in expressed

his work

Your

majesty(answershe) may as you please. J am your

But
no

religion." disposeof my person majesty'sfaithful, subjectand

can me

moral

and obedient, respectful, power

a on on

dutiful
earth

vant. ser-

control
to recant

my
a

or thoughts

has

right to compel
any
or

sentiment single
reason or

that subject but

flows from what

my
I

to
"

deny
To

even

to conceal

deem

truth.

the honor farther

of the absolute monarch

ever

No be it related,
to

was interruption

given,

the free

of publication

all the works

of the Prussian

Socrates. His

having led
to

life adds single

another

ous illustri-

instance

lord Verulam's best

remark

relative to
and

bachelors

Certainlythe
for the
or

works,

those of from

greatest merit
the unmarried
were

have proceeded public,

men.

childless
a

All Kant's

pursuits
ture. na-

of obviously He devoted

or metaphysical

intellectual

himself
we,

to
even

the sciences
in this

and

to

literature. But
a

entirely Sketch, light

more

have

had

proof of

his

having made

his

par-

238
ticuJar addresses lie

APPENDIX.

to

Philosophy,
to

"'

the

fair/' whom
throne of

has certainly

elevated

the

very

reason.

delicate constitutional a Notwithstanding very with frame of body (for he was by no means gifted with those of the mind),* and as corporalqualities
a

life passed in laborious

studyand

intense

tion, medita-

and of going to bed early, betimes, of constant occupation,of temperance^ rising of regular exercise on foot, of tranquillity

he,

by

means

of

of

mind, and

of cheerful

retained society,

the

use

of his mental

his intellectual activity and faculties, till the age of

vigour,almost unimpaired
and

seventy,
life of

had

attained

the

advanced

period of

eighty years and upwards before he, on the twelfth day of February in the year one thousand eight hundred and with an seized four, was apoplexy that occasioned his speedy dissolution, ed and numberwith the purified that live bis freed spirit spirits
for
ever.

He

was

of

little stature, his thorax for the

or

chest

so

narrow

as

scarce

to leave
a

room

play of

his

lungs, and, when

ing walk-

alone, in
^

thoughtfulmood,
of

stoopedvery much, especially

by Hopwood,
copy of
an graving en-

the

decline

life." The

sketched portrait
is the

which is the

to this work, frontispiece

by Lips of
likeness of Kant

Weimar

from

an

a striking original painting,

at the age

of seventy-one,by Wernet
to peculiar

of Berlin.
he

f The
nwde way, but
we

only circumstance
one

Kant's
a

diet,is,that

meal

day, his dinner;

to

habit,which, by the

do not

think conducive

longevity*.

APPENDIX.

While

Kant
that

stood upon
terrors

the verge
to the

of this

world,
not

Death,
armed

king of
any
He

was guilty,

with
to

but thing terrific, made this

the

prince of
to

peace,
time the
or a

him.

the awful transition from

scene earthly corporeal

to

from eternity,

world, intelligible
composure of with
a

with with

mind,
the

philosophical serenity the dignity peculiarto

wise

man,

calmness, fortitude and resignation

of

virtuous mind
reason

deeplypenetrated with
Supreme
to

firm belief of and in

a

in the

Intelligence,
longation pro"

future of
our

state, the
moral

life

the or spiritual,

existence death."

infinite.

tue Vir-

alone On that

has

majestyin

melancholyoccasion by
which
an

the decease

whole of that
so

city of
lent exceltained they sus-

Koningsberg, lamenting the

a

man,
a

they conceived

national and

loss,went irreparable
of all ranks and the

into
of all

deep mourning, and people

ages
in town this sad their and from

ing neighbourhood,bewailwith

catastrophe and
flocked
was more

settled

sorrow

in.

countenances,

interment, which
of
an a

to his promiscuously like the pompous ture sepul-

proud

emperor,

than

the

plain funeral
fine medal
ments endowthe
one

of

humble
Soon

philosopher.
after that mournful
event
a

in

honor

of his
was

great

worth

and

uncommon on

struck in Berlin ; it has

name

side

his
on

image and
the
reverse

with the year

of his

and nativity,

Pallas in her

is

and representedsitting

an holding

owl

hand, right

with this motto,

240 Altius
of his field volantem

APPENDIX.

arcuit

an

allegorical designation
boundaries
the
to the

having marked out of empirical science,

of
reason

proper

determined
restrained
to the

sphere of

speculative philosophy, or
use speculative

merely of possible objects

the

experience.
-"

What

boots it o'er

thy hallo w'd

dust

pileor laurePd bust ? Since by thy hands, already rais'd on high, We to the sky." see a fabric tow'ring
.

To

heap

the graven

The
as
on

true most

criticism sublime
he

on

his moral

character,as well
can

the

panegyric that

be

made

him, is, That

to

and endeavoured earnestly stedfastly to make practisewhat he professed,

the

moral

law, the great comprehensive rule

his actions.
or

of

duty, the springof

so

For, his

life was., trine, docas

to say,

comment

illustration to his pure

was

and

almost
to

exemplifiedit,or
as

led

nearlyup
of
a

he, by precept it,consequently

near

and
or

by example, came
the wise perfectly inherent frailty
he

the idea of
man,

a as

sage,

and

virtuous the human

perhaps
allows.

in
a

nature

So that

sibility proofof the feaconspicuous of acting (asfar perhaps as a mortal is capable of acting) moral principle on ; by his pure

givesus

active,useful,and
how
to

immaculate

life he

teaches

us

live,by his invaluable instruction and moral

to grow

lessons how

wiser and

better,and

by

his

APPENDIX.

241
die.

memorable

death

how

to

Quid virtus

et
emplar ex-

quid sapientiapossit,utile proposuitnobis

Kanten.
The way
to

excel
et

is,, unquestionably optima

proponere,
of

quccque
in

exempla

imitandum

yet it,
man,

strict propriety, is not

the conduct

any

how

good

soever we

it may

be, but

the

self moral law itour

by
or as

which

should strive to
lives.

direct

actions of it
man

to

our regulate

Not

the

conduct

it is,

but therefore, be
a

the idea

of what

ought
up
as

to

be,

can

or patternfor imitation,

set

the

standard
as

But,
bad
us,
as as

our

judgment or comparison. in generalare neither so good nor so we friends or our enemies usually represent
of moral
or

the virtue

is but
to

the

of the best of us goodness does not fall, for absolute perfection relative, man huin this transitory lot of man as no life, moral

can portrait

we

have

envious

paintedwithout some shade, made inquiryamong those every possible fame and of Kant's well-earned hating
be
"

that excellence other

they

cannot

he had reach,'1 (for

and

no

enemies, but

was

esteemed

beloved by
find

every
out
a

body
spot

who

was

acquaintedwith him) to
character

in his

or reputation,

in the

of the world, and all that they can layto opinion bordered on avahis charge is,that his economy rice, this imputasordid parsimony. But even tion or and his friends deny, say it is an aspersion, or stricteconomy maintain, that his rigidfrugality but in early the effect of urgent necessity, lifewas

242

APPENDIX.

that, at
means,
or

later4 period, he, when

of possessed

the

did not suffer his increase of fortune

to

to contract

harden

his heart
to

(for an
and

ample
to

fortune
the

is sometimes

apt
so on

contract

harden

heart), but,
was

far from

wanting brotherlylove,
occasions, beneficent
not to

generous
honest
to

proper

the
men,

industrious
be

poor,

however

"

before

vanityor ostentation, but from motive his of duty, bestowed a sense or in private, denied them charity nothing but his name/' and that his principles not only laid were
seen/'
out
f"

of

down heart.

in his

head, but
as was

written
a man

and

settled in his

For,

he

was

of
his

good heart,
or

his

benevolence

active, and
but

sympathy

low-feelin fel-

warm,

by
reason,

his

which

or always regulated verned gounderstanding,always ruled by hi^ the study of superiorfacultyit was

his whole
on

life to

and cultivate,
on

to

exercise

freely

all

and subjects

all occasions, to

the utmost

of his power.
et

Virum

sua Simplicitate et suis, Reipublicce, sibi,

Sapientiasua simplicem, sapientem ! O Virum utilem

humano Generi
!

In

fine,it is easy

grateful posterity, edified and enlightened sophy, by the critical philoand not biassed by the jealousy or rivalry
to
a

that foretell,

but

too

prevalent among
Kant's be

contemporary authors,
and

will, when

illiberal opponents
buried

their livion, ob-

superficial writingsshall
and time

in utter

shall have

allayed envy,

embalm

APPENDIX.

243

him

in

their

remembrance,

and,
not

actuated
of

by

nerous ge-

emulation
his

only,
of

fail

acknowledging
works

great

merit,
and

doing

his his

invaluable due

full

justice,

of

bearing

memory

respect

THE

END.

ERRATA.
P.
as
"

10

1. 30
1.

after faculty Logic

and is 29
a

insert

T.

"[p.
of
reason

12

1. 29
not
as

after
to

as

it, insert form,

and 23
"

p. 16 the

22

read

science
on

the

mere

but there

matter;"
not

1. 28 be
a

for
"

read

according
1. 24 read
insert

to

"

p. 30

1. 22

should

paragraph
p. 48 1. 10
a comma
"

p. 34

Pherecydes
a

of
"

Syros

p" 33

1. 7 read methods

(TTQa," insert

after general
1. 24.
"

comma

p. 58
"

1. 18 p. 59
ma com-

qfter
1. 7

after genius
read 85

insert

comma

after branch after

of"

insert 1.

comma

p. 73 1. 29
are
"

which

anderase

the

p. 76

14/or

is read
"

p.

1. 25
rest

after both
insert

insert this
"

of" p. 100

p.

931.28

read

preaagement
"

p.

94

1. 15

after

in

1. 30

readperspecting
insert

p. 108
"

1. 10 read

prejudices
"

p.

117

1. 23

selves after our-

distinctly

p.

125
1. 19

1. 5 insert
erase

star

after Conceptions
"

p.

132 8.

I. 17 read
erase

abstract"
comma

p. 133

the

comma

after being
1. 5 177

"

p.
t in
"

135.1.

the

after distinguished"

p. 162 p.

after

in inset
;

p. 174i

1. 1 read "p.
212

the

subject(in the conclusion)"

for
the
a

1. 9

after him
read He"

insert

T.)
1.
a

"

1. 17

read
comma

he"

p. 216
"

1. 17 1.9
a

for His

p.

204

24

after concrete
"

insert

p. 205
insert

after conception
comma
"

insert

colon semiread ing Be-

1. 11
p. 222

after tautological
1. 23 colon read and is
"

p. 206
p. 223

1. 17 1. 1

for

be

are"

subtilty"
read

1. 30

read
"

All-suffi" p. 244

after
"

insert

Cosmological
a

1. 11 read eundum
"

Kant's
p. 222
comma

p. 22S

'. 4

read

Bernoulli
dele
the

1. 9 insert
"

comma

after after law,

1. 10
"

after
p. 233
"

dominum 1. 27

comma

p. 240

1. 9

hands
on

dele the

after hand,

read

nnfolds

the moral

its
a

indispensable condition
"

liberty, out
Kaims'"

"e."

p. 234

1. 24

after man

insert

^comma

p.

183 1. 16 read

Hamblin,

Printer, Garlick-hiH.