Wolff's Latin logic makes the status of
concepts or Begriff much
clearer than its German counterpart just by using Idea
as one possible translation of the term. It is obviously ideas of
Locke Wolff has in mind, which suggests that Wolffian concepts are
predominantly mental images of objects. In light of this
imaginative character of many of Wolffian concepts, it is evident
that the already familiar classification of concepts according to their levels of clarity and distinctness need not mean
to indicate that it is all about how well defined our words are.
Instead, it might be all about making our mental images more
detailed: if we note the way the petals of a certain rose are formed,
we have made our concept of it more perfect.
Wolff reveals that
the levels of clarity are actually only one way to classify concepts.
Particularly, they form only a formal classification, in the sense
that their difference refers more to our cognition than to the things
the concepts represent. It thus appears reasonable to suppose that
there are also material classifications based on the represented
things and not on cognition. Before I introduce such classifications,
I will have to explain Wolff's use of some concepts borrowed from
ontology.
The notion of
essence should already be familiar from Wolff's German metaphysics.
While there essence was defined through modal notions, here Wolff
explains the concept simply as the constant kernel of immutable
characteristics in certain object. Although the difference is rather
obscure, Wolff supposes that not all immutable characteristics are
part of the essence. In addition to the essence, there are attributes
– a term of Cartesian origin – which are equally immutable, but
determined by the essence: for instance, if the three points of a
triangle define the essence of triangles, their attributes will
include at least the existence of three angles. Essence is, as it
were, the basic force regulating a thing, while attributes are necessary
effects of that force.
While essence and
attributes are immutable characteristics, modes – another Cartesian
concept – are mutable characteristics, like a colour that can be
painted over. Still, modes are at least inherent to the things and
not just mere relations to other things, which form then the utmost
level of inessentiality and corruptibility.
Now, if some
feature is mutable, it clearly cannot be used as a reliable sign for
the existence of something (a red ball can survive, even if we paint
it over with black). Thus, only essence and attributes can serve as
characteristic marks, used for differentiating e.g. animals from one
another. Indeed, we might even construct a concept that would contain
nothing else but these characteristics: Wolff calls such a concept
simple. Complex concepts, on the contrary, contain an abundance of
characteristics, some of which are not necessary for distinguishing
it from other objects (note that these characteristics need not be
just modes). It goes without saying that of all perceived and
imagined things we have complex concepts. Then again, all distinct
notions of genera contain only characteristic marks and are thus
simple (again, obscure and confused notions of genera might be
complex, because they might contain characteristics not necessary for
identifying a genus).
Related to the
notion of complexity is the notion of concreteness. Concrete notion
represents all characteristics of a thing, whether they are essential
characteristics, attributes, modes or even relations to other things.
A concrete notion is clearly always complex and all perceptions at
least are concrete (in imagination we do not represent e.g. all
relations of an apple). Then again, not all complex concepts are
concrete, as the case of a complex notion of a genus testifies. If a
concept is not concrete, it is abstract or represents only some
characteristics of a thing, abstracted or isolated from other
characteristics.
As I have already
remarked, Wolff has nominalistic tendencies and he especially
considers all talk of genera to be mere simplified talk of a number
of individual things. A group of things share only some
characteristics in the Wolffian ontology – there's no two
individuals with the exactly same characteristics. Thus, fictional
genera contain only some characteristics determinately. Individuals,
on the other hand, must be fully determined, which is then the
distinguishing characteristic of individuals for Wolff (we shall return to this point more fully in Wolffian ontology).
Now, some concepts
refer to a number of objects – these Wolff calls common concepts –
while others, the so-called singular concepts, refer only to one
individual. As it is easy to see, an individual concept is not
necessarily concrete. For instance, when I am imagining Obama, my
actual mental image is an amalgamation of the actual recordings and
images of Obama, but drops out some details that make perception
almost perfect: still, there's only one person my imaginations are
all about. Furthermore, a simple concept might also be singular: just
witness the inscription ”first black president of USA”, which
uses words that clearly characterize the person in question, while their combination points to no other persons.
Next time I'll
discuss some linguistic matters.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti