Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/885

 KANT 849 critical view. They are essentially tentative, and exhibit with unusual clearness the manner in which the difficulties of a received theory force on a wider and more comprehensive view. There can be no doubt that some of the special features of the Kritik are to be found in these precritical essays, e.g., the doctrine of the Aesthetik is certainly foreshadowed in the Dissertation of 1770 ; the Kritik, however, is no patchwork, and what appears in the Dissertation takes an altogether new form when it is wrought into the more com prehensive conception of the later treatise. The particular problem which gave the occasion to .the first of the precritical writings is, in an imperfect or particular fashion, the fundamental question to which the Kritik is an answer. What is the nature of the distinction between knowledge gained by analysis of notions and knowledge of matters of fact? Kant seems never to have been satisfied with the Wolffian identification of logical axioms and of the principle of sufficient reason. The tract on the False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures, in which the view of thought or reason as analytic is clearly expressed, closes with the significant division of judgments into those which rest upon the logical axioms of identity and contradiction and those for which no logical ground can be shown. Such immediate or indemonstrable judgments, it is said, abound in our experience. They are, in fact, as Kant presently perceived, the foundations for all judgments regarding real existence. It was impossible that the question regarding their nature and legitimacy and their distinc tion from analytic judgments should not present itself to him. Tire three tracts belonging to the years 1763-64 bring forward in the sharpest fashion the essential opposition between the two classes of judgments. In the Essay on Negative Quantities, the fundamental thought is the total distinction in kind between logical opposition (the contradictoriness of notions, which Kant always viewed as formed, definite products of thought) and real opposition. For the one the adequate explanation is found in the logical axiom of ana lytical thinking ; for the other no such explanation is to be had. Logical ground and real ground are totally distinct. &quot; I can under stand perfectly well,&quot; says Kant, &quot;how a consequence follows from its reason according to the law of identity, since it is discoverable by mere analysis of the notion contained in it. . . . But how something follows from another thing and not according to the law of identity, this I should gladly have made clear to me. . . . How shall I com prehend that, since something is, something else should be ?&quot; Real things, in short, are distinct existences, and, as distinct, not neces sarily or logically connected in thought. &quot; I have,&quot; he proceeds, &quot;reflected on the nature of our knowledge in relation to our judg ments of reason and consequent, and I intend to expound fully the result of my reflexions. It follows from them that the relation of a real ground to that which is thereby posited or denied cannot be ex- pessed by a judgment but only by means of a notion, which by analysis may certainly be reduced to yet simpler notions of real grounds, but yet in such a way that the final resort of all our cogni tion in this regard must be found in simple and irreducible notions of real grounds, the relation of which to their consequents cannot be made clear.&quot; The striking similarity between Kant s expressions in this Essay and the remarks with which Hume introduces his analysis of the notion of cause has led to the supposition that at this period of his philosophical career Kant was definitely under the influence of the earlier empirical thinker. Consideration of the whole passage is quite sufficient to show the groundlessness of this supposition. The difficulty with which Kant is presented was one arising in evitably from reflexion upon the Leibnitzian theory of knowledge, and the solution does not in any way go beyond that theory. It is a solution, in fact, which must have been impossible had the purport of Hume s empirical doctrine been present to Kant s mind. He is here at the point at which he remained for many years, accepting without any criticism certain fundamental notions as re quired for real cognition. His ideal of metaphysic is still that of complete analysis of given notions. No glimmering of the further question, Whence come these notions and with what right do we apply them in cognition ? is yet apparent. Any direct influence from Hume must be referred to a later period in his career. The prize essay On the Principles of Natural Theology and Morals brings forward the same fundamental opposition, though in a special form. Here, for the first time, appears definitely the dis tinction between synthesis and analysis, and in the distinction is found the reason for the superior certainty and clearness of mathematics as opposed to philosophy. Mathematics, Kant thinks, proceeds synthetically, for in it the notions are constructed. Metaphysics, on the other hand, is analytical in method ; in it the notions are given, and by analysis they are cleared up. It is to be observed that the description of mathematics as synthetic is not an anticipation of the critical doctrine on the same subject. Kant does not, in this place, raise the question as to the reason for assum ing that the arbitrary syntheses of mathematical construction have any reference to reality. The deeper significance of synthesis has not yet become apparent. In the Only Possible Ground of Proof for tlie Existence of God, the argument, though largely Leibnitzian, advances one step further towards the ultimate inquiry. For there Kant states as precisely as in the critique of speculative theology his fundamental doctrine that real existence is not a predicate to be added in thought to the conception of a possible subject. So far as subjective thought is concerned, possibility, not real existence, is contained in any judg ment. The year 1765 was marked by the publication of Leibnitz s post humous Nouvcaux Essais, in which liis theory of knowledge is more fully stated than in any of his previous tracts. In all probability Kant gave some attention to this work, though no special reference to it occurs in his writings, and it may have assisted to give additional precision to his doctrine. In the curious essay, Dreams of a Clairvoyant, published 1766, he emphasizes his previously readied conclusion that connexions of real fact are mediated in our thought by ultimate notions, but adds that the significance and warrant for such notions can be furnished only by experience. He is inclined, therefore, to regard as the function of metaphysics the complete statement of these ultimate, indemonstrable notions, and therefore the determination of the limits to knowledge by their means. Even at this point, where he approximates more closely to Hume than to any other thinker, the difficulty raised by Hume does not seem to occur to him. He still appears to think that experi ence does warrant the employment of such notions, and when there is taken into account his correspondence with Lambert during the next few years, one would be inclined to say that the Architckto- nik of the latter represents most completely Kant s idea of philo sophy. On another side Kant had been shaking himself free from the principles of the Leibnitzian philosophy. According to Leibnitz, space, the order of coexisting things, resulted from the relations of monads to one another. But Kant began to see that such a con ception did not accord with the manner in which we determine directions or positions in space. In the curious little essay, On the Ground of distinguishing Particular Divisions in Space, he pointed out that the idea of space as a whole is not deducible from the ex perience of particular spaces, or particular relations of objects in space, that we only cognize relations in space by reference to space as a whole, and finally that definite positions involve reference to space as a given whole. The whole development of Kant s thought up to this point is in telligible when regarded from the Leibnitzian point of view, with which he started. There appears no reason to conclude that Hume at this time exercised any direct influence. One may go still further, and add that even in the Dissertation of 1770, generally regarded as more than foreshadowing the Kritik, the really criti cal question is not involved. A brief notice of the contents of this tract will suffice to show how far removed Kant yet was from the methods and principles of the critical or transcendental philosophy. Sense and understanding, according to the Dissertation, are the two sources of knowledge. The objects of the one are things of sense or phenomena ; the objects of the other are noumena. These are absolutely distinct, and are not to be regarded as differing only in degree. In phenomena we distinguish matter, which is given by sense, and/orm, which is the law of the order of sensations. Such form is twofold the order of space and time. Sensations formed by space and time compose the world of appearance, and this when treated by the understanding, according to logical rules, is experi ence. But the logical use of the understanding is not its only use. Much more important is the real use, by which are produced the pure notions whereby we think things as they are. These pure notions are the laws of the operation of the intellect ; they are leges intellectus. Apart, then, from the expanded treatment of space and time as subjective forms, we find in the Dissertation little more than the very precise and definite formulation of the slowly growing oppo sition to the Leibnitzian doctrines. That the pure intellectual notions should be defended as springing from the nature of intel lect is not out of harmony with the statement of the Traumc eincs Geistcrsehers, for there the pure notions were allowed to exist, but were not held to have validity for actual things except on grounds of experience. Here they are supposed to exist, dissevered from experience, and are allowed validity as determinations of things in themselves. The stage which Kant had now reached in his philosophical de velopment was one of great significance. The doctrine of know ledge expressed in the Dissertation was the final form which the Wolffian rationalism could assume for him. and, though many of the elements of the Kritik are contained therein, it was not really in advance of the Wolffian theory. The doctrine of space and time as forms of sense-perception, the reference of both space and time and the pure intellectual notions to the laws of the activity of mind itself, the distinction between sense and understanding as one of kind, not of degree, with the correlative distinction between phenomena and noumena, all of these reappear, though changed and modified, in the Kritik. But, despite this resemblance, it seems clear that, so far as ihe Dissertation .is concerned, the way XTIT. icy