Last time we saw that thoughts were for
Wolff effects in soul connected with a consciouness of oneself and that sensations or perceptions as consciouness of things were a
subspecies of thoughts. A concept, then, is according to Wolff also
something in thought, namely, a representation (Vorstellung)
of something in thoughts. Wolff's definition thus points out two
essential characteristics of a concept: it is a mental event and not,
say, an abstract ontological structure, and it is connected to an
object that it represents.
Otherwise
Wolff allows for quite a variability in concepts. The object of the
concept or something represented (Sache) might
be either concrete or abstract. Furthermore, the means of
representation might differ e.g. from concrete images to mere words.
Hence, both a mental image of the Sun and a verbal explanation of
virtue fulfil the criteria of Wolffian concepts.
What I find
interesting is that Wolff appears to nominate perceptions as the
primary causes of our concepts. Sure, Wolff does recognise other ways to generate new concepts, such as abstraction or variation of
characteristics in known concepts. Yet, all these other methods
appear to demand that we already have some concepts from which to
produce new concepts, while only perceptions can create concepts
without the help of old concepts. Wolff leaves hence no room for the so-called innate ideas, which Locke had famously argued against. I
shall probably comment on this when I shall discuss the relationship
of Wolff's philosophy to empiricism.
Wolff does not just
define, but also classifies concepts into a hierarchy of more and
more perfect kinds of concepts. Wolff's classification was probably
not original, but based on the tradition of logic preceding him.
Still, Wolff was at least the first to translate these terms to
German. As the German logicians used the essentially same
classification and even Hegel comments on it, I shall introduce
Wolffian hierarchy in more detail.
Descartes had
spoken of clearness and distinctness as criteria for the reliability
of perceptions, but as far as I know, he had never properly explained
what he meant by these terms. Well, Wolff does that for him. Clear
(klar) concepts are for Wolff such that they allow us to
recognise things that they represent. If a concept is worthless for
this purpose, it is obscure (dunckel). Thus, Wolff suggests,
if we have seen a plant in a garden, but we cannot say whether we
have seen that same plant in another place, our concept of the plant
is obscure. Although the difference between obscure and clear
concepts appears simple, Wolff suggests that there is actually a
continuum of possible levels of clearness. Thus, we might be able to
distinguish the forementioned plant from a dandelion, but not
from a rose.
In a distinct
(deutlich) concept, the level of clarity is so high that we can
state what Wolff calls Merckmahle, by which the thing
represented by the concpt is recognised. Not all clear concepts are
distinct, which is proved by the case of colours. Primary colours are
undoubtedly quite clear concepts for anyone with a normal vision, as
we have no problem of separating e.g. blue from red. Still, we cannot
really say what distinguishes blue from red, apart from one being
blue and other red.
The notion of
Merckmahle is somewhat undistinct itself, although it was
widely used in the later German logical tradition and even by Kant.
Yes, we do know that they help to distinguish things, but it is
unclear what they are. Now, Wolff says in passing that Merckmahle
are nothing more than new concepts. Thus, a distinct concept is such
that can be distinguished from other concepts through yet another concept, just as we can distinguish a triangle from other polygons
through the concept of three that characterises the number of the
angles of a triangle. In other words, a distinct concept can be
defined.
The definition in question might be either nominal or real. We have earlier seen how Wolff distinguishes the two: nominal definitions merely analyse the meaning of a phrase, while real definitions tell how a thing described by such a phrase can be generated. It is probably the latter sort of definition Wolff is referring to, when he indicates microscopes as a tool for making our concepts distinct - microscopes cannot be used to analyse the nominal
meaning of a word, but they might come in handy, when we want to know
what a thing is made of.
The further stages
in the hierarchy of concepts merely add more Merckmahle to a
concept. In a full (ausführlich) concept, the given
Merckmahle allow us to recognise the thing represented in all
possible cases. That is, a mere distinct concept characterises a
thing, but a full concept will truly define and identify it. Finally,
in perfect (vollständig) concepts even the Merckmahle
are clear and distinct concepts, that is, even the components of the
definition can be further defined.
Wolff is keen to
advertise that his writings consists of perfect concepts, while the
concepts of his followers are often not even full – like Cartesian
concept of matter, which fails to distinguish matter from mere space
– and in some cases they are outright obscure. Wolff also provides a number of
examples of full concepts. Some of them are rather amusing, like
the concept of rain as many drops of water that fall side by side and
one after another from a cloud through air. Others are nowadays quite
controversial, like Wolff's concept of marriage as a union between a
man and a woman for the sake of conceiving and raising children.
Now, it is not
difficult to see that just like the notion of clarity, the notion of
perfectness comes also in grades, because we can always ask whether
the constituents of the definition can also be defined. Thus, a
concept that is perfect enough for mathematical purposes might still
require more analysis from the viewpoint of ontology. The natural
question is then whether the perfectness has any limit, that is,
whether there are concepts that can only be clear, but not distinct.
Wolff suggests that there must be, in case of both nominal and real
definitions. In nominal definitions the limit is reached when we find
words that are undefinable, for instance, when we cannot explain
anymore what green is, except by pointing out green objects. In case
of real definitions, on the other hand, the limit is reached when we
find things that cannot be generated – in effect, for Wolff, God.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti