It has taken Crusius this long to finally get to the definitions of two concepts mentioned in the very title of his book: necessity and contingency. Like definitions of modalities tend to do, Crusius’ are ultimately circular: necessary is what cannot be otherwise, while contingent is what could be otherwise. Yet, he at once gives a more substantial explanation of the terms, linked to causal terms: necessary is such that no cause could make it otherwise, while contingent is such that requires a cause making it so, without which it would be otherwise or not at all.
Crusius also suggests a criterion for recognising what is necessary and contingent: if we cannot think contradictory of something, it must be necessary, while if we can, it must be contingent. Crusius underlines that this criterion is not foolproof and definitely does not reveal the essence of necessity and contingency. Indeed, he points out, even a fatalist could think that a world might be otherwise, even if his worldview would mean that the world is necessarily what it is.
Crusius notes that necessity and contingency can concern both the essence and the existence of a thing. In case of essence, he clarifies, the question is whether a thing cannot have different properties, because changing them would make the existence of the thing impossible - this means that the essence is necessary.
Necessity and contingency of the existence of a thing, then, refer to the respective impossibility and possibility of the non-being of the thing. Crusius notes that necessary existence of a thing can be either independent necessity, where the thing exists continuously and is necessary in all circumstances, or consecutive necessity, where the thing exists necessarily in certain circumstances, when it is generated. Respectively, contingent existence of a thing can be either dependent contingency, where thing doesn’t always exist, but must have an origin, and consecutive contingency, where thing is generated in such a manner that it might have been otherwise or even not at all.
Crusius’s concepts of independent and consecutive necessity resemble the concepts of absolute and hypothetical necessity in Wolffian tradition. Yet, Crusius sees a difference. He defines absolute necessity as something, which as such cannot be otherwise. The most obvious type of absolute necessity, Crusius notes, is such where contradictory opposite of something contradicts the very principle of non-contradiction - something which many Wolffians also recognised - but it is not the only type, since similar forms of necessity should arise also from the other two basic principles.
The hypothetical necessity Crusius defines as such where something cannot be otherwise in certain circumstances that are based on a series of conditions, ultimately caused by something that at the moment of its occurrence could have happened otherwise. This concept of hypothetical necessity is obviously a form of consecutive necessity, but with a distinct characteristic that it is based on some free action. On the other hand, if no such free action is to be found behind consecutive necessity, then it will be, Crusius insists, just absolute necessity. This distinction is especially geared against the notion that God would have had to create the best possible world, without any free choice in the matter, which would make the existence of this world absolutely necessary.
Crusius thinks that only such things exist with absolute necessity, where their non-existence would contradict their essence - it is not yet made explicit, but he is clearly implying that only God fits this requirement. All other things are contingent or they could be thought to not exist, so they must have been generated by something else, that is, God. With something of a sleight of a hand, Crusius notes that since these other things cannot then be necessary in the absolute sense of the world - they could fail to exist - but they still have consecutive necessity, being necessitated by the creative act of God, this act of creation must have been free.
Crusius still has some loose ends to tie. Firstly, he notes that complex substances are always generated from their constituents, so that all absolutely necessary substances must be perfectly simple. Secondly, he defines moral versions of all the modal notions he has introduced: this is clearly something that influenced Kant in defining ethical categories of modality. Thus, Crusius begins from the notion of moral existence - what is a goal of a free person, or in effect, what should be - goes on to define moral impossibility - that something shouldn’t be - moral possibility - of which cannot be said that it should or that it shouldn’t be - and finally moral necessity - that something should be done, because of a presupposed goal. These notions and their somewhat strange definitions, where moral impossibility is not contrasted with moral necessity, but with moral existence, parallels closely Kant’s later division of the ethical categories of modality.
Crusius finally discusses the notion of coercion (Zwang), where the necessity of some action is caused by something outside the thing acting. He is especially interested to show that lack of coercion by an external thing still does not mean something would not be necessary - even an uncoerced necessity would be real necessity.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti