I have until now
just assumed that what Hoffmann calls idea is what we might call
representation and now this reading is verified: idea is for Hoffmann
a state of understanding, in which a
possible object is represented through a similarity of such state
with the object or through the effect of such object to
understanding. What is
striking is Hoffmann's rather cavalier assumption that representation
will surely correspond to what it represents. Of
course, he admits that all ideas do not represent their objects as
perfectly – an idea which shows all important properties of its
object, as it were, in one glance, is more perfect than an idea that
shows them only successively.
Just
like one would expect, Hoffmann thinks there are as many ideas as
there are powers of understanding. Thus, we have purely sensuous
ideas (sensation of a bike I am seeing), memorised ideas (memory of a
bike I have seen), ideas of ingenuity (say, an idea of a bike with a
different shape from usual) and finally, abstract ideas (idea of a
general structure of bikes). Of these, all ideas in which abstraction
has been complete and all the parts are distinguished are
non-concrete. Non-concrete ideas then consist of ideas with no parts
to abstract any more (simple ideas, such as the idea of a certain
colour) and of ideas which are combinations of abstracted ideas.
Concrete ideas then are ideas in which parts are not distinguished
from one another. Such concrete ideas could be of sensed individuals
(like an idea of an apple I am seeing), but they might also be
abstractions, albeit unclear abstractions (in this case we are
presenting e.g. virtue through a concrete example, but we cannot say
what makes this particular example an instance of virtue). Both
sensuous and abstract concrete ideas can then either represent only
an individual object or a group of such objects.
Hoffmann
leaves the discussion of concrete ideas here, since it is especially
abstract ideas that interest in discussion of logic. Abstract ideas
can, Hoffmann continues, be more or less undetermined depending on
how many characteristics one is thinking them to have. Of more
undetermined ideas we cannot say whether any individuals correspond
to it – it is difficult to say what counts as a good action, if
goodness of an action is defined only as an agreement with good
maxims. Then again, mere determination is also not an assured sign
for finding individuals
instantiating the idea – it might be that existence of something
corresponding to the idea is dependent on some external circumstances
that cannot be deduced out of the idea itself. Furthermore,
some abstract ideas or transcendentals could be used in all possible
worlds (all concepts of metaphysics would apply here), while others
describe only the actual world.
Abstraction
means for Hoffmann making distinctions, and an important
consideration from an epistemological point of view is whether what
is abstracted can truly exist in the manner it has been abstracted,
that is, whether distinctions made have some basis in something
external to understanding. Hoffmann points out that there are
actually four different questions one must consider. Firstly, we
should ask whether such distinction can be made at the level of
essences, that is, whether it is something that we can even think about. In
other words, when we abstract human will from the notion of freedom,
we can think of the two apart, because it is possible to think that
will might be deterministic. Then again, when we try to abstract such
notions like force and substance from one another, we quickly note
that force cannot even be thought without some substance, although
the distinction appears to suggest otherwise.
Secondly,
we could ask whether the distinction concerns real existence. We
might abstract good understanding from virtue and the distinction is
truly real, since there are people who have good understanding, but
are not virtuous. Then again, we might abstract human understanding
from its various powers and we might even think that understanding
could come without these powers, but the distinction would still be
just possible
– understanding does not actually
exist without these powers.
Thirdly,
we could ask whether the abstracted thing does exist within those
limits we assign to it in our thought. Thus, we can be fairly certain
that limbs of an animal do have those limits they appear to have, but
to separate a cylinder of water from ocean in our heads does not
indicate any natural distinction, even though the cylinder of water
could exist without the ocean. Hoffmann makes a passing suggestion
that this is where Leibnizian monadology goes astray. The point
appears to be that Leibniz leaps from thought of some ultimate units
of existence to the notion that these units would actually describe
natural division of reality, although it might well be that there are
no ultimate units naturally distinct from their surroundings.
Fourthly,
we could ask whether the supposed distinction does not merely
indicate the same object from different perspectives. Thus,
we can objectively abstract understanding from will, because these
things are different objects, while when we start to abstract
different perfections of God from one another, the distinction is
merely ideal, since all these perfections are merely different
perspectives to God himself. Hoffmann is especially keen to attack
Aristotelians and disparage the notion of different types of souls –
there are no separate vegetative, animal and rational soul in human
beings, but they all indicate merely different aspects of the same
soul.
As
I already mentioned in the previous post, Hoffmann thinks abstraction
can be either causal or existential, that is, it might concern either
processes and e.g. separate cause from its effect, or it might
concern some wholes and divide it into its parts or constituents. Of
these two types, existential abstraction is in a sense more
fundamental, since all causal abstractions could be thought as
existential – we might ignore that we are dealing with a process
and consider e.g. a relationship of clouds and rain as a whole from
which both are abstracted. In this case we could speak of an
accidentally existential abstraction, in which the existentiality
depends only on the arbitrary whim of the abstracting cogniton. This
is an important distinction for the logic of judgements, since
existential abstractions reveal relations that can be expressed with
the form ”A is B”. Thus, Hoffmann is noting that even if we could
bring a sentence describing causal relations into such a form –
say, as in ”cloud IS the cause of rain” – this would just hide
the true form ”cloud causes rain” indicating the peculiarity of
causal relations.
Hoffmann
further divides existential abstraction into external and internal
abstraction. In external abstraction, what is abstracted doesn't
really inhere in the starting point or ground of abstraction, for
example, it indicates merely relations of a thing to other things or
is just a certain time and place in which the thing exists. In
internal abstraction, then, what is abstracted inheres in the ground
of abstraction, like figures, quantities and forces of a thing.
Internal abstraction is then divided into logical and properly
existential abstraction. In logical abstraction, what is abstracted
inheres in the whole abstracting ground, somewhat like animality
concerns the whole of human being, while in properly existential
abstraction, what is abstracted could exist apart from the other
parts of the whole, somewhat like soul and body could be separated in
a human being.
We
just mentioned the notion of the ground of abstraction, by which
Hoffmann apparently refers to the idea from which the abstraction
begins. Hoffmann notes that there always is some connection between
the ground of abstraction and that which is abstracted from it –
later, we shall see that this connection is the basis of our ability
to make judgements. Hoffmann notes that this connection might be
either a posteriori
and contingent or a priori
and necessary. This sounds
suspiciously like Kant's division of judgements into a
posteriori and a
priori types, and Hoffmann's
definitions appear to correspond with the Kantian notions. Thus, a
contingent connection between ground of abstraction and what is
abstracted is something we know based on experience, for instance,
just like we know human beings have blood circulation only through
observations. On the contrary, a necessary connection is something we
know based just on both of the ideas, for instance, when we know that
triangle is a figure.
What
is even more striking is that Hoffmann then divides the necessary
connection into two types that closely resemble the Kantian notions
of analytical and synthetic a priori
judgements. In fact, Hoffmann notes that the necessary connection
might be either identical – or as Hoffmann also calls it,
hypothetical – or then absolutely a priori.
In an identical connection, the abstraction is completely based on
the ground of abstraction, that is, what is abstracted is already
thought with the idea from which abstraction begins. Hoffmann notes
as an example a connection of rational animal with an animal, which
could clearly be expressed in a Kantian analytic judgement, but also
the mathematical relation of number 12 and its part 6. Then
again, an absolutely a priori
connection is not completely based on the ground of abstraction or
what is abstracted is not expressly thought with the idea from which
the abstraction begins, but instead, the abstracted element is
somehow connected to the ground of abstraction, although it is
essential to that ground. As a special example of such a connection,
Hoffmann mentions causal relations, but also the relation of a figure
to matter embodying it, which somewhat resembles Kant's first analogy
of experience.
We
are already seeing Hoffmann's enthusiasm with divisions. We have also
seen that these divisions are not meant to be mere empty
scholasticism, but important tools in making cognition more certain
and in avoiding faulty
reasoning. Indeed, we have seen Hoffmann engaging with Leibnizian and
Aristotelian philosophies and emphasising the importance and distinct
nature of causality that cannot be reduced to mere logical relations.
We shall see more of Hoffmann's careful analysis next time, when we
start with the relations of ideas.