Crusius defines subordination or combination of concepts as a relation where one concept is where the other is also, at least under certain conditions. Subordination involves thus always two concepts: one of them is concrete, from which the other is abstracted, or then both concepts can be abstracted from one another.
Crusius divides subordination into relative and absolute subordination. The difference is rather simple: in a relative subordination, the subordinated concepts are represented through a predicate describing a relation (an example would be concepts of high and low), while an absolute subordination involves a natural combination of things that is not derived from the structure of our concepts (an example would be concepts of soul and understanding). Looking first at the relative subordination, Crusius notes that it concerns either an arbitrary relation, like that of people standing in a line, where one could begin from either end, or it is founded on something based on things themselves, for instance, when a mountain is designated as large and house as small compared to it.
Crusius also notes that from every absolute subordination could be abstracted a relative subordination, so that same concepts could be regarded as both relatively and absolutely subordinated: his example is that of father and son (a relative subordination), which involves also an absolute subordination of cause and effect. This means, he explains, that while sides of relation must exist at the same time, insofar as they are related (otherwise they wouldn’t be related), their absolute essences might still involve a difference of temporal priority: for instance, while parent as a parent must always have a child (otherwise they wouldn’t be a parent), parents still have existed before their children (just not as parents).
Such a temporal priority is not the only possibility, Crusius explains, but there could also be just a natural priority between concepts in a relative subordination: his example is divine understanding and divine will, neither of which can have existed without the other, although understanding is by nature prior to will. The final possibility, he concludes, is that the two concepts are just temporally simultaneous and by nature of equal worth, like two lines similar to one another.
I shall take a closer look at the different types of absolute subordination in later posts. For now, suffice it to say that Crusius divides absolute subordination into two classes: causal and existential subordination. He notes that this division is not completely exact, since causal relation can be arbitrarily represented also as existential subordination, say, when instead of pointing out that sun causes light we insisted on saying that sun is a light-giving body. Because of this possibility, Crusius concludes, we must be able to differentiate cases where concepts are by their nature existential abstracts from cases where they involve causal subordination.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti