After a short Cartesian detour on
the certainty of our own existence, Wolffian metaphysics began from
ontology – after all, one has to look at all things in general,
before one can say something about any particular thing. While
Wolff's choice of beginning appears almost inevitable, it is not as
easy to decide where to continue. Even if one is to leave God last as
the metaphysical object most remote from us, one must still determine
whether to start from ourselves or from the world around us. Wolff's
strategy is mixed: we do first start from ourselves, but then go on
with the world and afterwards return to discuss our own nature. What
is behind the reason to divide the treatment of human consciousness
in two parts?
The study of human nature or soul –
traditionally called psychology – was at the time of Christian
Wolff actually divided into two subdisciplines, empirical and rational
psychology. The subject matter of both disciplines was the same, but
they were distinguished by the method used. Empirical
psychology was based on experiences: it described e.g. what sort of
capacities one could find through observing oneself. Rational
psychology, on other hand, tried to go beyond experience by help of
deductions. Wolff is apparently following this division: he is
firstly listing all the characteristics of consciousness that are
apparent from introspection, and only after a digression to the world does he discuss what we can deduce of human consciousness beyond mere
experience.
The starting point of Wolff's empirical
psychology is then the same Cartesian idea of thinking, with which
the whole Wolffian metaphysics began. I have already remarked in an
earlier post that by thinking Wolff refers to all processes in which human being
is conscious of itself. Despite his Cartesian beginning, Wolff is
quick to point out that human beings appear to be involved also in
processes in which they are not conscious of themselves, in other
words, that the human minds are not necessarily conscious all the
time. A simple example is the state of dreamless sleep, where there is
no trace of self-consciousness to be found at all.
Wolff makes quickly the distinction
between two self-conscious states. In one type, we are conscious also
of other things beyond ourselves. We have already seen that Wolff has
characterised these other things as spatial and complex or as
constituted by other things. Now Wolff adds that there is one
particular thing that we are always conscious of, although it is
spatial and complex – this is obviously our own body.
Wolff is thus at the outset accepting a
dualism between consciousness and its body: body is something
different from the consciousness, although consciousness is – at
least according to our experience – constantly connected to it. The
obvious problem in such a dualistic notion is that it ignores the
centrality of the body for the consciousness and treats it like any
material object whatsoever, although one we are constantly aware of.
We shall see in a later text how this problem makes Wolff's theory of pleasure and
pain difficult to accept.
The consciousness of external objects
is in some cases connected to physical processes involving our body. For
instance, when I hear the voice of a violin, vibrations produced by
the playing of the violin reach my ear. Such a state of consciousness
Wolff calls Empfindung, and
as I have noted earlier, Wolff appears to include, in addition to
sensations, also perceptions under this notion. Still, Wolff's
Empfindung and the
corresponding capacity of Sinnlichkeit
are passive like the respective Kantian notions: consciousness cannot decide by
itself what it will sense, when it looks upon something.
Wolff's
apparent confusion is a fine example how unanalysed the pre-Kantian
psychological notions seem when compared with Kantian
classifications. Then again, while Kantian analyses might suggest the
idea that e.g. we could have sensations that are not components in
any perception, the seemingly careless style of Wolff never hides the
necessary interconnectedness of such components – individual
sensations are always just sensations of an object and thus
components of perceptions.
In
addition to other things, we are also conscious of ourselves. As
confusing as Wolffian account of Empfindung
is from a Kantian viewpoint, as confusing is his idea of
self-consciousness. Kant himself divided our consciousness of
ourselves into two aspects, roughly corresponding to aspects of our
consciousness of other things. Firstly, we have an capacity of inner
sense, which is like ”outer sense” in its passivity, and
secondly, we have a more active transcendental apperception. Wolff,
on the other hand, speaks simply of our self-consciousness without
any consideration of a possible complexity of that notion.
What
is more confusing is Wolff's reluctance to relate his account of
self-consciousness to his notion of Empfindung.
Wolffian sensation/perception is clearly connected to the human body,
but a possibility of a similar relation between self-consciousness
and body is not even mentioned. Undoubtedly Wolff's dualistic
presuppositions are the primary reason preventing him of even
conceiving this possibility, because he does not even try to argue
against it.
Indeed, when Wolff
himself accepts the idea that some sensations/perceptions might be so
faint that we are not consciously aware of them, he could not have
dismissed the corporeal nature of self-consciousness just on basis of
not being aware of any bodily processes, when thinking ourselves.
Furthermore, one might even argue with Hegel that internal processes
of human being have in some cases clear bodily manifestations, for
instance, in a headache we feel after a long spell of abstract
thinking.
Wolff's
incapability of explaining what observation of oneself involves is
especially fatal, because the very possibility of empirical
psychology is based on such a capacity of introspection. In fact,
Wolff's study of empirical psychology consists of Wolff remarking how
we can observe ourselves doing something and concluding that we have
a capacity for doing such a thing. One might note, by the way, how
this line of reasoning is dangerously close to interpreting the
capacities as modules separable from the ”soul” having these
capacities – something which Hegel was later to criticise.
No
matter how dubious Wolff's method of empirical psychology then is, we should still investigate what capacities or faculties he finds within human
mind: after all, the Wolffian psychological terminology will be
shared by later German philosophers. I shall continue with this task
in the next post, but for now I shall note an interesting point
that Wolff appears to accept the possibility of quantifying the
different faculties of human soul, somewhat like intelligence is nowadays quantified in the IQ score. Thus, Wolff speaks of several
faculties having different grades: remember that by grade Wolff means
a characteristic that is analogical to a spatial or numeric quantity
(of course, these grades are not static, because a person can e.g.
improve his capacity of remembering things). This possibility of
quantifying human capacities will be important for Kant in an attempt
to show why traditional proofs of the immortality of soul must fail –
and later on Hegel will criticise the very same notion Kant uses.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti