Joachim Darjes: Elements of metaphysics 2 (1744)

The second volume of Darjesian metaphysics begins with empirical psychology – or pneumatics, as Darjes prefers to call it – that is, explication of things we can experience in ourselves. The starting point for Darjes is the observation that we have in us something that resembles things that are not part of myself. In other words, we have representations, through which we are conscious of objects. Having a representation and being conscious of it, Darjes insists, is still not completely identical – we can have obscure, unconcious representations, while consciousness brings clarity to representations.

An important aspect of representation and cognition Darjes emphasises is the spontaneity behind it: my representations continue sometimes as vividly as before, sometimes not, and it is up to my attention whether they do. Furthermore, I can direct my attention successively to different aspects of the object of my cognition, that is, I can reflect this object. While consciousness makes representation clear, refection makes it distinct. This state of distinctness, Darjes insists is something we can only achieve while awake, and indeed, Darjes defines being awake as a possibility to reflect.

Darjes notes that sometimes reflection is hindered by associations awakened by something we find in the reflected object. This association is connected with the capacity of cognition to reproduce earlier representations. Another faculty – memory – is then required for recognising reproduced memories.

We have mentioned so far only representations of individual things, but we can also compare and contrast objects. Thus, it is possible to represent also connections between things – these things are similar or not equal or one might be the cause of the other.

An important subset of representations Darjes touches upon are sensations or representations of things that induce mutations in me, that is, objects of our senses or sensibles. Darjes notes that sensations can be divided according to the different parts of body the sensible object affects – the same object is represented differently, when it affects ear and when it affects eyes. Following Wolffian tradition, Darjes calls the part of cognition dealing with all these different kinds of sensations inferior cognitive faculty. A partial reason for this evaluative nomenclature must be that sensations are distracting – reflecting on an object becomes impossible, because sensation of another object might be stronger and prevent our reflection.

Darjes notes that there is no guarantee that we would sense or represent all things that affect our body, and indeed, he suggests that there must be some further reason explaining why we sense something. Analogically, we might represent things that can induce changes in my body, while they are not actually inducing such changes. This is the faculty of imagination, which Darjes includes also under inferior cognitive faculty. He, furthermore, divides objects of imaginations into, firstly, phantasms, which are complete objects that can be also sensed, and figments, which are combinations of parts that can be sensed.

The inferior cognitive faculty can only represent things that affect us, thus, it cannot be used for representing e.g. essences of things or universals. This task, Darjes says, must be left for superior cognitive faculty, which represents things in an insensible manner, that is, in such a manner that it isn't and even cannot be sensed. Darjes doesn't go into further details as to how this insensible cognition happens, but notes only that it is possible through the faculty of reflection. Through reflection and the use of signs, cognition forms universal and distinct concepts. If the concepts concern things in themselves, without relations to other things, we are speaking of intellect or understanding, while if they concern relations between things, we are speaking of reason. It is good to note that while it it easy to conceptually represent connections between things, Darjes admits that the inferior faculty has something analogous to reason, through which it can also represent connections.

Before moving to the next part, concerned with appetites and aversions, we might very briefly note what Darjes has to say about habit. The basis of habit, he suggest, is repetition of representations and operations involved with them. This repetition makes concepts stronger and thus makes cognising them more easy.

Hoffmann: Study of reason – Distinct cognition

Hoffmann thinks we should not be interested of ideas just for their own sake, but because these ideas refer to things – either actual or merely possible things. Thus, clarity of ideas is not required just for the sake of distinguishing ideas, but because of distinguishing things through the ideas. Yet, the clarity of ideas is still not sufficient for distinguishing things. For instance, we might have a clear definition of fluids, which would still be unable to distinguish fluids properly from other things – say, the definition might apply to also to sand. It thus makes sense to separate from mere clarity the full distinctness of ideas, that is, their ability of letting properly distinguish things that they refer to.

Hoffmann does not so much consider what distinction means for ideas, but discusses more different ways to confuse distinctions. The mildest form of confusion occurs when we are in some level aware of a distinction, but in another respect fail to use this distinction properly. This happens particularly in two cases. Firstly, we might be well capable of distinguishing individual examples of certain ideas, but we might fail in explaining what this distinction consists of in abstraction from individual examples. Secondly, we might have the opposite problem, that is, we might abstractly differentiate between some ideas (e.g. virtue and vice), but be incapable of distinguishing concrete examples of such ideas (we might be unable to say whether an action was virtuous or vicious).

A more dire confusion occurs, when we are convinced of the existence of a distinction that does not actually exist. In some cases such a confusion might be merely verbal, and Hoffmann is quick to blame Wolff for raising such mere verbal distinctions: for instance, Wolff's definition of possibility cannot be even used to decide whether fictions like golden mountains are possible. A somewhat more substantial confusion happens when the distinction is ideal, that is, something we can think, but which doesn't occur in actual existence – Hoffmann mentions some medieval theories of blood circulation as an example of such distinction. Even a real distinction might be uncharacterised in the sense that one couldn't apply such a distinction in special cases.

Moving on, a false distinction might be inadequate in the sense that one might know only a genus or other abstract feature, which is not enough for making a proper distinction. Hoffmann mentions especially Wolffian definition of necessity as an opposite of impossibility: if the definition is taken to its extremes, one could then say that the sentence ”triangle has five angles” as a sort of opposite of impossible sentence ”triangle has four angles” would be necessary. Another type occurs when one tries to distinguish a genus from one of its species, like when Wolff distinguishes absolute and hypothetical necessity, although, Hoffmann thinks, Wolffian hypothetical necessity as a necessity dependent on some (previously necessary) thing is just a form of absolute necessity. Finally, a false distinction might be based on mere abstract mental opposition – like when we distinguish a person's desire for happy life and a person's desire for good life – or it might be based on some ambiguity of concepts – like when metaphysics is defined both as a study of most general features of all beings and as a study of primary entities behind all beings.

In addition to mild confusion and false distinction Hoffmann also points out the possibility of logical ambiguity, in which one fails to see distinction that truly exists. Such logical ambiguity differs from verbal ambiguity, in which one is quite well aware that one word is used in two different senses. Logical ambiguity can result from confusion of words – like when Wolff uses word ”necessity” both of the opposite of impossibility and of the final ground of all things – but it is always something we are not aware of.

Still, not all logical ambiguities are caused by verbal confusions, but the idea of some genus might truly be equivocal and refer to many different genera. A simple case of such equivocation happens when one is incapable of abstracting from individual instances when thinking of a genus. Thus, one might think virtue sometimes as virtue towards oneself, sometimes as virtue towards other people, without noticing their difference.

A more serious case of logical ambiguity arises when one fails to note that an idea is heterogenous, that is, when different species of same genus have slightly different essential structure – an example of such heterogenity was correspondence, which was different in the relation between picture and original and in the relation between text and author's intention. Hoffmann notes that Wolffian notion of complex things is such a heterogenous idea. Wolff thinks that the essence of all composite entities is based on the particular arrangement of the parts, but this is true only of such machines, like clocks, in which removal of one piece causes the destruction of whole clock, while a lump of clay remains a lump of clay, no matter how much you rearrange the parts. Similarly heterogenous is the notion of infinite division, in which people often confuse potentially infinite with actually infinite division. Further example is also provided by Leibnizian monadology, which doesn't notice that while physical units can be actually separated from one another, this need not hold of metaphysical units.

Finally, logical ambiguity might be caused by the subtlety of conditions, on which the distinction is based. Such conditions might be material abstractions, that is, they might be true part of the idea from which the abstraction is made (e.g. animality is a material abstraction in relation to humanity). Thus, one might deny that the existence of collision of laws, because one fails to recognise the difference between contradictions and collisions. Contradiction occurs when we try to think two opposite at the same time – thus, it would be contradictory that a law would explicitly deny what the other law commands. Then again, collision concerns forces or causes – two different laws might assign different motives for action, which might in particular cases pull to opposite directions.

The subtle conditions might also be reflective abstracts, that is, they might be more the result of the act of abstraction (e.g. genus is a reflective abstraction in relation to humanity). Thus, being in general might refer either to genus of all things whatsoever or to a vague entity that is supposedly identifiable with all individual entities and should thus be called God, and pantheistic thinkers might confuse the existence of the first with the existence of the second.

This concludes Hoffmann's investigation of confused distinctions and also his investigation of ideas in separation from one another. Next on the menu is his study of combinations of ideas.

Hoffmann: Study of reason – Clear as mud

Hoffmann begins a new topic by noting a familiar experience. Picture yourself a shadowy evening, when light is already beginning to fade away, walking in an unfamiliar environment. Ahead of you is a building, but you cannot really say what colour it is. You must have seen buildings of similar colour before, but you just cannot say in these conditions whether it is, say, brown or red. The idea of the colour of the building lacks clarity or it is obscure.

We might first notice a bit of terminological difficulty. What I have here called clarity, is called deutlichkeit by Hoffmann. In case of Wolffian tradition, I have usually translated deutlich as distinct, while clear I have reserved for the word klar. Turns out, Hoffmann uses another word, distinct, which it is just convenient to translate as distinct, and as Hoffmann doesn't use the word klar, I chose to use clear for deutlich in this case. In any case, although Hoffmann's and Wolff's two pairs of concepts share similarities, they ultimately refer to different distinctions.

Hoffmann means by clarity the capacity to distinguish an idea from other ideas and thus to identify it, if we happen to think about it in different times; the opposite of clarity is then obscurity (dunckelheit). It should come as no surprise that Hoffmann points out different levels and modes of clarity. The most external of these types is the verbal clarity of words, in which we recognise words used by speaker or writer. Verbal clarity, of course, doesn't mean that the thoughts expressed by the words are clear, and Hoffmann is eager to suggest that Wolffians often manage to get only to the level of verbal clarity.

Somewhat more substantial is what Hoffmann calls objective or external clarity, which essentially means the clarity an idea has in relation to a particular person thinking about it. This is undoubtedly dependent on the person involved, and e.g. a book containing thoughts that are as such quite clear might be truly obscure to a person who has insufficient cognitive skills to follow the argument of the book.

Distinct from the objective clarity is then the internal clarity of the ideas, or as Hoffmann also calls it, ideal clarity, and it is this type of clarity that is a topic proper for logic. Why is it then important to obtain ideal clarity? Hoffmann points out that only through clear ideas can we hope to distinguish objects, because obscure ideas might ambiguously refer to various objects. Now, because objects are differentiated by their qualities, clearer ideas must somehow helps us to discern more of the inherent qualities of things. This is an important criterion for clarity of ideas. In many cases we just cannot see directly the inherent qualities of things, but must satisfy ourselves with some analogies or symbolic presentations. Indeed, Hoffmann goes so far as to suggest that we can have truly clear ideas only of material things, and perhaps only of their mathematically expressible characteristics, while e.g. all ideas of spiritual things are inherently obscure, because we can characterise them only negatively, i.e. by telling that they are not material, or through qualities common with material substances.

The connection of clarity with inherent qualities provides Hoffmann also with a criterion for intelligible philosophy. If we cannot know any qualities of a thing, we cannot even think or have any idea of it. Thus, Hoffmann criticises Leibniz, because latter's monads have only relational characteristics: they are subjects or have a relation to a force and they are constituting level in relation to matter etc. In comparison, Hoffmann notes that idea of God is defined by many qualities, such as omnipotence and omnipresence.

Ideal or internal clarity comes in three different varieties, two of which are fundamental and all of which are required for a complete clarity. First variety is what Hoffmann calls vulgar existential clarity, which means simply put just a capacity to exemplify certain idea through sensations – e.g, when we can show what redness is like. Like the name implies, vulgar existential clarity is not enough for scientific purposes, but it is important, because only through such clarity should we be convinced of the existence of some thing corresponding to an idea. One can e.g. use analogies to make up for the loss of liveliness in non-sensational matters, but such analogies cannot guarantee any existence. It is no surprise that Leibnizian monadology is expressed as a warning example – analogy of two clocks does explain perfectly the relation of soul and body, but it still remains mysterious, whether anything existent corresponds with this idea.

The second type Hoffmann calls essential clarity, in which the idea is to see how well analysed some idea is, that is, to distinguish various parts and aspects in the idea and then combine them into a totality (note how this essential clarity means essentially what Wolffians had called distinction). Hoffmann notes that some sensuous ideas, such as those of colours, we cannot analyse in this manner, due to inherent limitations of our understanding, but otherwise one should try to analyse everything one perceives to make one's cognitive state as perfect as possible.

Essential clarity, Hoffmann tells, is dependent on what he calls logical existential clarity, which means having a clear idea of abstract ideas in separation from all other ideas. Indeed, having a clear idea of a defined structure, one must have clear idea of the parts of the definition, and once again due to inherent limits of human cognition, we must ultimately in the course of analysis face ideas that we cannot define, except by using the very ideas as a part of the definition. These basic ideas would thus be what Kant later calls categories, and the list which Hoffmann provides seems quite familiar, although it has only seven ideas: unity, diversity/multiplicity, negation, external connection, causality and subsistence. All the Kantian categories of relation might be said to be present in some form, categories of quantity lack only totality and categories of quality is represented by mere negation. The most glaring omission are the categories of modality, which Hoffmann has already stated to be too ambiguous.

Notion of clarity is then important as defining the limits of intelligibility. Yet, mere clarity itself does not make for a good cognition, as we shall see in the next post.

Phantastic faculties

I have studied Wolff's idea of imagination in an earlier post quite extensively, but I still feel there's some possibility for clarifying the role of this faculty in more detail. Especially I shall have to emphasise its role as still officially one of the lower faculties, but even so, on a higher level than mere sensation as such.

Imagination, then, is supposed to be the faculty that reproduces ideas of certain individuals, even if they are absent. The reproduced ideas created by imagination Wolff calls phantasms. They are thus to be distinguished from sensuous ideas, which could not be produced without the presence of some concrete thing corresponding to these ideas. Still, there could be no phantasms without any sensations. That is, Wolff ascribes to Lockean principle that mind without experience would be like a blank slate without anything written on it.

I have already noted about the similarity of Wolffian distinction between sensations and phantasms and Humean distinction between impressions and ideas. Like Hume, Wolff also notes that phantasms or products of imagination are less vivid and have fewer details. Then again, this is actually positive according to Wolff and speaks in favour of phantasms. The vividness of sensations makes it difficult to concentrate on them: if we try to look at a beautiful painting, a sudden honk from car horns outside the window can ruin our aesthetic experience. The lack of unnecessary details in phantasms, on the other hand, helps to make them clearer, which is a requirement e.g. for mathematical thinking. True, phantasms can also be confused by sensations, and a honking car horn will make it difficult to follow mathematical constructions imagined in your head. Yet, even this obstacle can be circumvented, as soon as one finds a dark room isolated from all external stimuli.

The lack of sensations thus helps us to concentrate on our phantasms. Indeed, when all sensations have been cut out, phantasms become more vivid, which explains, according to Wolff, the seeming substantiality of our dreams. Like all experiences, dreams come with different levels of clarity, starting from a completely dreamless sleep and ending with lucid dreams, in which we are aware that we are dreaming.

Imagination as a faculty of producing phantasms is thus important for its own sake, but it also provides materials for other faculties, Wolff continues. Firstly, phantasms are more in our control than sensations are. In fact, a given phantasm can be, as it were, divided into its constituent phantasms – we can imagine a human head, independently of its body. Furthermore, we can also combine different phantasms, attaching a human head onto a body of a horse, thus creating the phantasm of a centaur. This is the work of what Wolff calls inventive faculty, which is responsible, among other things, all the works of fiction.

Secondly, we can use phantasms as indicators for something we have sensed or in general experienced at some past point of time. This is the task of memory, which Wolff clearly says not to be any container of images or memories. Instead, memory is actually a name common to various interacting faculties, which, for instance, recognise a sensation or phantasm as resembling something that we have witnessed, or produce phantasms of things we have witnessed.

Imagination, together with its related faculties, forms then a second level in the hierarchy of faculties in Wolffian psychology of cognition. Together with sensation, they form the lower level of cognition, in which imagination appears clearer than the multifarious and uncontrollable sensations. This does not mean that sensations could not be basis of clear and even distinct experiences, as becomes clear in the next post, where I will move to consider the higher levels of cognition.

Sensational cognition

After proving that soul or consciousness exists and that we can in some measure study it, Wolff begins to discuss the theoretical or cognitive part of soul. I might notice, by the way, that this is a rather common ordering, and indeed, I have never seen a philosophical study of consciousness begin with volition. The custom goes all the way back to Aristotle's De Anima, and presumably every philosopher has just copied his predecessors in this matter.

Before actually beginning to study any cognitive faculties, Wolff defines certain notions common to all of them, starting from the concept of faculty itself. Scholars of German philosophy are often so ingrained in the language of faculties that they fail to ask even what is meant by a faculty. Wolff actually defined the term already in his ontology, where it was explicated as any active potentiality, that is, any possibility to do something that was actually engaged with actualising this possibility. In other words, faculties of soul or mind are just capacities of mind to do something, but also not passive. Instead, they are active or actually use what they can do.

After faculty, Wolff continues by describing what is meant by clarity and distinctness of perceptions or representations. The notions themselves I have explicated quite sufficiently for a number of times: clarity means for Wolff ability to distinguish a perception, while distinctness means ability to recognise partial perceptions that help to distinguish the whole perception. I could still note one more time that these concepts should not be read as forming a strict division to e.g. clear and unclear perceptions. Instead, they work more as defining a scale of clarity and distinctness: we can distinguish an object with various accuracy in different situations, and analysis required for distinctness might reveal further characteristic marks. This notion is further backed up by the fact that Wolff calls clarity of perception light of soul – light does not form a clear division with darkness, but between light and total darkness there are many shadows and gray areas.

These very same perceptions can also be called ideas, although Wolff prefers defining idea as a representation, in which we are especially interested of the object represented: that is, when we talk of perceptions, we talk of an act of subject, but when we talk of ideas, we talk of individual objects. Concepts, on the other hand, are representations of general characteristics of things, of genera and species. Cognition, then, means acquiring ideas and concepts of various things, that is, conceiving what things and their characteristics are. Cognition can then have various levels of clarity, but Wolff places the most important distinction on whether the ideas and concepts involved are distinct, that is, analysed into further ideas and concepts. Cognition with distinct ideas and concepts is in Wolffian psychology on a level higher than cognition with obscure and confused ideas and concepts, that is, one should aim at analysing one's ideas and concepts.

Wolff begins the study of cognition from faculties of lower level. Wolff's choice reflects a natural development – we begin with confused and even obscure ideas, which little by little become clearer and more distinct. Thus, it is no wonder that Wolff begins with sensations, which presumably are the beginning of all cognition. Sensations are also the link of human cognition to the external physical world. An important element of this world is our own body that appears constantly attached to us and seems to be in continuous correspondence with certain perceptions (note how Wolff avoids the question whether this correspondence is explained by actual interaction between body and human mind or whether there is no interaction between them – such questions will be tackled in rational psychology). Sensation, then, is defined by the special correspondence between human mind and sensory organs of the body, that is, sensation is a perception that can be understood by basis of changes in these organs (even if they are not caused by these changes).

Because sensation is studied by Wolff in a part dedicated to the lower part of human cognition, it becomes natural to ask if Wolff completely discarded sensation as without any value and completely obscure. Yet, the idea of clarity and distinctness as a scale instead of division makes it possible that sensation could rise in clarity and even gain some distinctness. This is especially shown to be true by Wolff's investigation of attention and reflection, but even sensations themselves contain levels of clarity – a stronger sensation is also clearer than a weaker sensation. A further value of sensations lies in their relative freedom from arbitrary whims of human mind. Thus, if one is looking at some spot, one cannot just choose what one is seeing. The only way to control what one senses is to move to another spot or at least look to somewhere else.

So much for sensations, next time I shall turn to imagination.

Intuitive and symbolic cognition

Both Leibniz and Wolff divided cognition into two kinds: intuitive and symbolic. I've had some difficulties clarifying to myself how these two relate to the progression from sensations through imagination and memory to intellectual faculties of understanding and reason, so it feels a bit helpful to see what Bilfinger has to say about the issue.

The basic definitions deriving from Leibniz are pretty straightforward: intuitive cognition is caused by attending the nature of things directly, while symbolic cognition is connected to things only via mediation of signs. Leibniz then had supposed that composite concepts are usually cognized symbolically: after all, analysis of concepts into its constituents happens usually through signs, e.g. if I define square as a rectangle with all sides equal, the definition would be expressed verbally. Primitive concepts, on the other hand, might be cognized either intuitively or symbolically: e.g. point could be defined either by looking at points or by saying what one means when speaking of a point.

Furthermore, all distinct concepts – that is, concepts that can be analysed into clear concepts or into concepts through which we can distinguish objects – must be based on intuitive concepts. In other words, if we had an analysed concept, in which we would know all the constituent concepts only through further linguistic explications, somewhere along the line we would have to use a circular explication, which clearly wouldn't help to distinguish any objects. Thus, an analysis or explication that is successful should at some point meet some cognitions which are directly connected to things. Intuitive cognition is therefore a necessary ingredient of good cognition: if our cognition is not grounded on things, it might well deteriorate into a shamble of contradictions and meaningless expressions.

From the perspective on what Leibniz has to say, intuitive cognition is essential to well-founded science. What good is symbolic cognition then? Bilfinger answers by turning into Wolff's account. While symbolic cognition cannot by itself be a source of true cognition, it can be used in inferring truths from known truths. In particular, symbolic cognition is required whenever we want to move to general truths about classes of objects: we cannot literally be effected by any class of objects, because classes are not real entities. Thus, symbolic cognition makes it also possible that the Leibnizian ideal of an algebraic art of thinking could be one day found. In addition, symbolic cognition is also useful in transmitting cognition from one person to another: we cannot share intuitions, but we can share signs and symbols.

Interesting here is how the division of cognition into intuitive and symbolic kinds corresponds better with Kantian division of sensibility/intuition vs. spontaneity/understanding than Wolff's own division of sensations and concepts. Indeed, Kant's famous statement that intuition without understanding is blind, while understanding without intuition is empty, could be easily translated into the Leibnizian-Wolffian statement that intuitive understanding by itself is blind, because it cannot be generalized, while symbolic understanding by itself is empty, because it fails to connect cognition with actual things. Of course, Kant doesn't call his intuitions and concepts alone cognitions, but reserves this name only for the result of the interplay of the two.

So much for Bilfinger's take on Wolffian psychology, next time I'll discuss his notes on Wolffian natural theology and especially the problem of evil.

Christian Wolff: Remarks on Reasonable thoughts on God, the world and the human soul, also on all things in general - Fragments of empirical psychology

It is especially in Wolff's comments on empirical psychology where his wish to show the usefulness of his theories becomes evident. Wolff emphasizes that he has especially found two different types of faculties in human mind: cognitive and volitional. The study of cognitive capacities should generally help to improve our mental capacities and particularly help us to find a proper methodology for science. Wolff makes here some barbed strikes against Lange's Mental medicine, which he dismisses as a useless piece of charlatanry that wouldn't help anyone know anything.

Wolff's strategy for improving cognitive capacities is based on his attempt to quantify all mental capacities: capacity of memory can be quantifies by the number of new things a person can hold in his mind at the same time etc. On this quantitative basis Wolff can then make such useful recommendations as that capacities of concentration are improved in the morning, when there are still less distractive stimuli. Wolff's quantification goes in some cases further than with some previous philosophers. For instance, while Descartes thought that all people have an equal light of reason, Wolff states that this light varies according to natural capacities.

The aim of the education of cognitive capacities is to make one's ideas more distinct, that is, analysed. Although Wolff does define sensations in terms of distinctness, this does not mean that he would want to base science in some non-empiricist manner, which has become increasingly clear. Indeed, Wolff merely suggests that we should continue to analyse or conceptualize our individual sensations and so transform them into experience. Wolff thus wants to say that experience is something more than mere sensation: in a somewhat rasist comment Wolff even says that Hottentots, Lapponians and Samoyeds don't really have reliable experiences, although they undoubtedly sense things. The conceptual analysis of sensations turns them into experiences, which then can act as basis of scientific axioms.

Wolff appears to admit that the cognitive capacities of human mind are in some sense unfree. This is clear with sensations: we cannot choose that we'll see green, when we focus our gaze on a certain piece of grass. Furthermore, in case of conceptual reasoning there are also certain restrictions: if we are following a line of reasoning, the conclusion isn't haphazard, but follows from the premisses, perhaps true some psychological necessitation.

In contrast, Wolff emphasizes that human will is definitely free and capable of undetermined choice – an answer to the accusation of Wolff being a determinist. As we saw earlier, Wolff suggests that a person cannot will to do something he is not motivated to do, but that he can emphasize some motivation over the others. True, even the volitional part of human mind can become unfree, if mind is slave to its own affections. Still, this state of slavery does not prevent the possibility of a truly free action. Indeed, it is just such a task of becoming as free as possible that makes the study of volitional part of the mind important for morality and ethics.

Next time I'll turn to Wolff's comments on cosmology.