You are on page 1of 3

TEST ON MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE REPRESENTATION

FIRST

RELATIONSHIP, NUMBER, TIME

| 1. - RELATION

THESIS, ANTITHESIS, SYNTHESIS

Since the understanding and extension of ideas are in inverse proportion to one another, one
must, if one pushes as far as possible the explanation of the particular general, that we
should end up with a term whose understanding be reduced to the last point. To speak a
language that more closely squeezes the nature of things, the analytic method, eliminating by
degrees all the complexity of the world, must ultimately come to a simple element in a pinch.
But let's take for ultimate element the being perfectly pure and empty or even, if you will,
nothingness, neither one nor the other presents the absolute simplicity that one had to reach.
Indeed being excludes nothingness and nothing excludes being, but it is impossible to find
any meaning to one or the other out of this function to exclude its opposite. But what does it
take to induce from there? It is, without a doubt, that every thing has its opposite because we
have just considered the case the most possible favorable to the discovery of a simple
absolute.

We will therefore accept as a primitive fact that we can in various ways, but always, it seems
he imposes himself with a singular force that all posed excludes an opposite, that any thesis
leaves out of it a antithesis and that the two opposites make sense only that they exclude
each other. But this primitive fact complete by another who is not less so. Since the two
opposites have meaning only one by the other, it have to be given together these are the two
parts of a whole. No doubt they are presented as exclusive from each other but it's a way of
calling oneself; and if, in the case of contradictory opposition, there is a particular difficulty in
understanding how two terms that completely suppress one another may to go with each
other, this difficulty, that "will only to dismiss at the right time, can not prevent us v to see the
fact of the union of opposites, because it overflows of many, since it extends to oppositions of
tones the degrees. So at the first two moments that 'we have already found in any notion, we
must add one third, Synthesis. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis, here, in its three phases the
simplest law of things. We will name it in one word Relation.

Developments.

A. The analytical method.


Some reservations that our company has (and we will do it ourselves. the next development),
we try, in this essay, to build by synthesis the representation. Or the synthetic method is
precisely the opposite of the ordinary process of thought. In the familiar conversation, as far
as yony admits some method, and either in the constitution or in science education, we only
do analyzes; or at least the analysis is the only operation which manifests itself in the great
day of consciousness. The syllogism, induction and judgment are, entirely or mainly, modes
of analysis. The syllogism, indeed, if we take it in its perfect type, bArbArA or CELEBRATE,
consists in assigning the minor or exclude mediately a predicate that is assigned immediately
by means of or immediately excluded. In other words the means has essentially or essentially
excludes such character the means finds himself in the minor so he brings it in, or in apart,
the character that by itself he possessed or excluded. From an immediate attribution one
passes to attribution a mediate but, whatever there is there a kind of movement, basically it's
still the same attribute that one relates to the same subject and consequently the syllogism is
an analytical operation. Does this mean that he does not suppose some synthesis? Not at all.
But he work on it and do not do it. Far from it On the contrary, it draws all its probative force
from persistence of the same affirmation or the same negation. Yes Socrates is mortal or not
infallible, it's because man is mortal or not infaUible. From the rest there is no vicious circle or
even no assertion insignificant because the syllogism is no longer we do not know what game
of words, or, if you will, what a formal exercise, where pure extension would take place of the
content of ideas. Do not take it at the foot of the so-called syllogisms which are only examples
of school. The major is not constituted in a normal way and that's why they do not make
sense. The true syllogism is that which starts from an immediate truth, or taken as t such, to
arrive at a mediate truth and that is not not vain he adequately expresses one aspect of
things. But it is clear from its well-understood nature that it is an analytical process. The real
role of induction is to provide us with majors and if there is one of the premises of the
syllogism that we can be tempted to look synthetic (at least sometimes) it is certainly the
major from which it would seem to result that one makes a synthesis when one induces. Now,
while being far from being false, this is not perfectly exact. Indeed, despite the capital part, in
this process, of the hypothesis, of the idea that comes to interpret the facts, we can not say
without reservations that induction consists of taking two separate terms and inventing a way
to unite them. It is important to consider this that it's not just the two facts that are given in the
experiment, but still, in a sense, their connection. Longevity and absence of gall are not
absolutely everything that the observation of reality provides and it can not be everything,
since we assume that the law to discover is at the bottom of the facts. There is, therefore, in
data of the experiment, some signs of the law which the suggest, then prove it. Induction is
only one good reading of the experience.Now, we can not refute any value to the opinion of
the thinkers who define it as an analysis of the experience. It is not necessarily a synthetic
operation because, even though that it infers synthetic relationships in and of themselves •
(and still is not always the case), happy to recognize syntheses all laites, she does not create
them. We can not be surprised, after that, that it passes easily, although perhaps wrongly, for
an all-analytical process. It is even better that the judgment is ready to the same qualification.
No doubt there is at the bottom of the thought of judgments of many types and, duly
examined, all would not be reduced to analyzes, but in its usual, conscious and logical form a
subject, an attribute and the éopule is, the judgment lends itself very may express syntheses.
I did not denature it it must be agreed that he always states the predicate to part, element of
the subject, and that is even for that the proposals are not reciprocal, at least as a rule. The
analytical method is or seems to be almost everywhere followed by ordinary thought; what's
surprising, after that, if we were tempted to see the unique method and if wanted to complete
it with another one is difficult managed to express himself and even to think with clarity?
However it is impossible to stick to it and despite appearances ordinary thought does not hold
on to it. No one for a long time no longer wants to associate with the Parmenides wager but
we still wait for a metaphysician which shows that Parmenides misunderstood the last
essence of the analytical method and it is strange that philosophers, who pursue with ardor a
sovereignly general formula in the extension of which would be all the laws of the world, do
not realize not that they go straight to the éléatisme.On can demonstrate in a pinch that the
analytical method taken for unique method leads to it. So if Elaestheticism is a condemned
doctrine, there must be another method that analysis. So we do not realize it, quickly and
invincibly, it slips into thought commonplace, to which scientific thought borrows its materials,
and perhaps also in scientific thought herself, a crowd of syntheses. Often indeed refrains
from bringing the judgments back to their logical form that we implement, and thanks to
copulae whose the meaning is not precise, a predicate is. reported to a subject of which no
analysis could make it go out, like when we say for example that there is no unity without
plurality. On the other hand we do not always examine with scruple the constitution of
concepts whose judgment and the syllogism is development. Sometimes even one. is done
and we must make a law to spread any examination of this kind. So we take the notions ready
made, knowing it or not, and with them we introduce a complex syntheses to provide a length
of deductions. That's the way it happens only sees the power of analysis and we do not know
limits.