When blogging about Wolff's German
metaphysics, I described his idea of modalities through an analogy of
an ocean warmed by sun: possibilities swam like drops of water within
the ocean, and occasionally heat of the sun made one such drop rise
to the air of actuality. In this text I am going to dive deeper to
that ocean and describe in more detail its denizens or possibilities.
But before going into possibilities, I must begin with
impossibilities.
As should be familiar, Wolff defines
impossibility through the notion of contradiction: what is
contradictory cannot exist and vice versa. Impossibility is then also
identified with what in previous text was called nothing. Possibility
is defined as contradictory of impossibility, that is,
possibility is something or what is not contradictory.
Now the definition above gives a rather
good recipe for recognizing an impossibility – if a contradiction
pops up, it cannot be. On the contrary, it is still uncertain how one
can recognize something as possible, because it is more difficult to
know when something is without contradiction. Wolff himself mentions
that we can have a priori proofs that something is possible, which
might sound rather preposterous. Yet, one must remember that by a
priori Wolff actually means all sorts of demonstrations, which can
have empirical premisses. Indeed, Wolff appears to accept only
actuality of something as an undemonstrated justification of it's
possibility. Thus, we can learn that something is possible only by
showing where to find or how to make it actual or by demonstrating it
from the actual existence of something else.
What then are the possibilities and
impossibilities according to Wolff? Simply put, we can think of them
as lists of characteristics. Picture a huge paper full of
descriptions like ”triangular”, ”round”, ”square”,
”humanoid”, ”animal”, ”mushroom”, ”pouty”,
”frivolous”, ”intelligent”, ”rioting” and infinitely many
others. Circle some of these characteristics or determinations: if
the set of characteristics is such that all its members can belong to
a single entity, the set describes a possibility, if not, an
impossibility. Note that we then have more and less detailed lists –
a pair ”pyramid” and ”red” can be made more detailed by the
inclusion of characteristic ”coppery”.
Now, if you are aiming at possible
result, obviously circling some determinations will make it necessary
to circle also other determinations. For instance, if we accept
Euclidean geometry without further ado – and they did this back at
Wolff's time – circling description ”triangular” forces us also
to circle the description ”sum of angles equals two right angles”.
The first characteristic, as it were, determines the second, or using
terminology of the previous text, thing having this characteristic is
a sufficient reason for it having that characteristic.
Let us now assume that we have chosen a
set of characteristics, which are meant to define certain possible
thing. This set forms then the essence of the supposed possibility
(say, triangularity forms the essence of triangles). Clearly,
changing any characteristics that is part of the essence would change
the possibility (e.g. square wouldn't be a triangle anymore). In this
sense essence is always constant for the possibility it corresponds
to. This doesn't mean that e.g. triangular pieces of matter could not turn to square piece of matter: then this piece of matter just
wouldn't correspond to the essence of triangularity anymore. In
effect, when we speak of an essence of a thing, we must assume some
viewpoint from which to decide what is essential and what not for the
thing in question.
Note that just putting together
characteristics does not produce an essence, because such a list does
not necessarily refer to any possibility. What one must do is also to
show the possibility of this set of characteristics. We have just
seen that it is only through actuality that such a proof can be
effected. In fact, we need what Wolff has called a real definition,
that is, an account of how the thing to be defined can be generated.
Now, when we have determined an
essence, clearly also those characteristics determined by the essence
will be constant – they cannot change, unless the essence changes.
Such determined constant characteristics Wolff calls attributes (note
that it might be equally contextual what to takes as essence and what
as attribute). Some of these attributes are shared by things with
other essences – these Wolff calls common attributes – while
others are proper only for the things with that essence.
While essences and attributes are
constant for thing of a certain sort, there are characteristics that
are not, that is, modes. Thus, triangle could continue being
triangle, even if its colour would change. Clearly such a distinction
between essential and non-essential characteristics depends on the
perspective – while colour is not essential to a triangle, it would
be to a green triangle. Furthermore, the modes are not completely
separate from essential characteristics and attributes. In fact, some
sets of possible modes (say, a set of possible colours of a triangle)
clearly form an attribute of the thing in question (it is not
necessary that a triangle has any particular colour, but it must
definitely have some colour).
In addition to essential
characteristics, attributes and modes, things also have relations to
one another. A peculiar notion of Wolff, derived probably from
Leibniz, is the conviction that all relations could be reduced to
modes. In effect, this means that one need not discuss other things
when dealing with one thing. Thus, while essential characteristics
and attributes of a thing can be explained through one another, its
modes can be grounded on its other modes, current or past – that
is, all causal processes can be regarded as involving only one object
at a time.
Wolffian sea of possibilities is then
filled with such groupings of characteristics. Characteristics of one
thing cannot clash with one another, or otherwise there wouldn't be
any such thing. Yet, just by being a possibility, the thing still
isn't actual – one must still add something to make it actual. Kant
was later to criticize Wolff, because no addition of a new
characteristic could make possibility into actuality. Yet, here Kant
is clearly too harsh for Wolff, who knew that mere addition of
characteristic would no difference, but ”something else” is
required – what this something else, is purposefully left unsaid by
Wolff at this point of discussion, although later on it becomes
evident that it is the spark of God that makes everything actual.
So much for possibilities, next time I shall look at what Wolff has to say about identity.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti