# 加载中...

• 博客等级：
• 博客积分：0
• 博客访问：175,310
• 关注人气：263
• 获赠金笔：0支
• 赠出金笔：0支
• 荣誉徽章：

## 231.精读《小逻辑》笔记128——概念论第229-232节

(2011-09-04 23:25:41)

### 杂谈

231.精读《小逻辑》笔记128——概念论第229-232节

Definition, Division and Theorem

§229

[a]When the object has been in the first instance brought by cognition into the form of the specific notion in general, so that in this way its genus and its universal character or specialty are explicitly stated, we have the Definition. The materials and the proof of Definition are procured by means of the Analytical method(§ 227).The specific character however is expected to be a 'mark' only: that is to say it is to be in behoof only of the purely subjective cognition which is external to the object.

（一）当对象在认识过程中首先被带到特定的一般概念形式内，从而这对象的类和它的普遍的规定性得到明白的表述时，于是我们便有了界说。这界说的材料和证明都是由于运用分析方法得来的（227节）但这界说里所表述的普遍规定性仍然只是一个标志，这就是说，对于对象只说出其外在标志，而所得到的只是主观的认识。

（对一事物有“界说”，只是说出客观对象的外在标志，所得到的只是主观认识。这些规定性都是分析得来的。）

Definition involves the three organic elements of the notion: the universal or proximate genus(genus proximum),the particular or specific character of the genus(qualitas specifica),and the individual, or object defined. The first question that definition suggests, is where it comes from. The general answer to this question is to say, that definitions originate by way of analysis. This will explain how it happens that people quarrel about the correctness of proposed definitions; for here everything depends on what perceptions we started from, and what points of view we had before our eyes in so doing. The richer the object to be defined is, that is, the more numerous are the aspects which it offers to our notice, the more various are the definitions we may frame of it. Thus there are quite a host of definitions of life, of the state, etc. Geometry, on the contrary, dealing with a theme so abstract as space, has an easy task in giving definitions. Again, in respect of the matter or contents of the objects defined, there is no constraining necessity present. We are expected to admit that space exists, that there are plants, animals, etc., nor is it the business of geometry, botany, etc., to demonstrate that the objects in question necessarily are. This very circumstance makes the synthetic method of cognition as little suitable for philosophy as the analytical: for philosophy has above all things to leave no doubt of the necessity of its objects. And yet several attempts have been made to introduce the synthetic method into philosophy. Thus Spinoza, in particular, begins with definitions. He says, for instance, that substance is the causa sui. His definitions are unquestionably a storehouse of the most speculative truth, but it takes the shape of dogmatic assertions. The same thing is also true of Schelling.

（得到界说的方法，多是分析的方法。要下界说的对象内容越是丰富，提供给我们观察的方面越多，这对象可能的界说也就越有差异。）

§230

[b]The statement of the second element of the notion, i.e. of the specific character of the universal as particularizing, is given by Division in accordance with some external consideration.

（二）对于概念的第二环节的陈述，亦即对普遍事物的规定性作为特殊化加以陈述，就是根据某一外在的观点去进行分类。

（对在普遍性/类之下的特性进行陈述，其依据是普遍事物在知觉中不同的表现。）

Division we are told ought to be complete. That requires a principle or ground of division so constituted that the division based upon it embraces the whole extent of the region designated by the definition in general. But, in division, there is the further requirement that the principle of it must be borrowed from the nature of the object in question. If this condition be satisfied, the division is natural and not merely artificial, that is to say, arbitrary. Thus, in zoology, the ground of division adopted in the classification of the mammalia is mainly afforded by their teeth and claws. That is so far sensible, as the mammals themselves distinguish themselves from one another by these parts of their bodies back to which therefore the general type of their various classes is to be traced. In every case the genuine division must be controlled by the notion. To that extent a division, in the first instance, has three members: but as particularity exhibits itself as double, the division may go to the extent even of four members. In the sphere of mind trichotomy is predominant, a circumstance which Kant has the credit for bringing into notice

（普遍性的进一步分类，则分类的依据乃是来自于客观，来自对象。由此，这种分类才是符合其概念的。——由此可以证明，分类并不是主观任性活动。）

Theorem

§231

[c]In the concrete individuality, where the mere unanalyzed quality of the definition is regarded as a correlation of elements, the object is a synthetic nexus of distinct characteristics. It is a Theorem. Being different, these characteristics possess but a mediated identity. To supply the materials, which form the middle terms, is the office of Construction: and the process of mediation itself, from which cognition derives the necessity of that nexus, is the Demonstration.

（三）在具体的个体性里，当界说中简单的规定性被认为是一种关系时，这对象便是许多有差别的规定的综合联系。——这就是一个定理。这些规定因为是不相同的，故它们之间的同一性是一种经过中介的同一性。要提供材料来构成中介环节，那就是“构造”的任务。而认识所赖以达到那种联系的必然性的中介过程本身就是证明。

（具体个体性，是综合了众多规定性，这些规定性通过个体而聚集在一起。它们的同一性还是中介的产物。）

As the difference between the analytical and synthetic methods is commonly stated, it seems entirely optional which of the two we employ. If we assume, to start with, the concrete thing which the synthetic method presents as a result, we can analyze from it as consequences the abstract propositions which formed the pre-suppositions and the material for the proof. Thus, algebraical definitions of curved lines are theorems in the method of geometry. Similarly even the Pythagorean theorem, if made the definition of a right-angled triangle, might yield to analysis those propositions which geometry had already demonstrated on is behoof. The optionalness of either method is due to both alike starting from an external presupposition. So far as the nature of the notion is concerned, analysis is prior, since it has to raise the given material with its empirical concreteness into the form of general abstractions, which may then be set in the front of the synthetic method as definitions.

（分析的方法在先，通过对众多经验的分析，而总结出一定抽象的概念，而这些概念，还是要在综合方法中得到广泛的分解界说。）

That these methods, however indispensable and brilliantly successful in their own province, are unserviceable for philosophical cognition, is self-evident. They have presuppositions; and their style of cognition is that of understanding, proceeding under the canon of formal identity. In Spinoza, who was especially addicted to the use of the geometrical method, we are at once struck by its characteristic formalism. Yet his ideas were speculative in spirit; whereas the system of Wolf, who carried the method out to the height of pedantry, was even in subject-matter a metaphysic of the understanding.

（如果只是按照抽象理智的方式，形成一些大前提，然后来时推论，却无法对大前提的合理性进行证明，则，并不能说它就是好的。）

The abuses which these methods with their formalism once led to in philosophy and science have in modern times been followed by the abuses of what is called 'Construction'. Kant brought into vogue the phrase that mathematics 'construes' its notions. All that was meant by the phrase was that mathematics has not to do with notions, but with abstract qualities of sense-perceptions. The name 'Construction(construing)of notions' has since been given to a sketch or statement of sensible attributes which were picked up from perception, quite guiltless of any influence of the notion, and to the additional formalism of classifying scientific and philosophical objects in a tabular form on some presupposed rubric, but in other respects at the fancy and discretion of the observer. In the background of all this, certainly, there is a dim consciousness of the Idea, of the unity of the notion and objectivity——a consciousness too that the idea is concrete. But that play of what is styled 'construing' is far from presenting this unity adequately, a unity which is none other than the notion properly so called: a perception is as little the concreteness of reason and the idea.

（康德的十二规定表格，并没有真正表达概念的统一性，同样也没有对主观何以有如此表格做出陈述。）

Another point calls for notice. Geometry works with the sensuous but abstract perception of space; and in space it experiences no difficulty in isolating and defining certain simple analytical modes.

To geometry alone therefore belongs in its perfection the synthetic method of finite cognition. In its course, however(and this is the remarkable point),it finally stumbles upon what are termed irrational and incommensurable quantities; and in their case any attempt at further specification drives it beyond the principle of the understanding. This is only one of many instances in terminology, where the title 'rational' is perversely applied to the province of understanding, while we stigmatise as irrational that which shows a beginning and a trace of rationality. Other sciences, removed as they are from the simplicity of space or number, often and necessarily reach a point where understanding permits no further advance: but they get over the difficulty without trouble. They make a break in the strict sequence of their procedure, and assume whatever they require, though it be the reverse of what preceded, from some external quarter——opinion, perception, conception, or any other source. Its inobservancy as to the nature of its methods and their relativity to the subject-matter prevents this finite cognition from seeing that, when it proceeds by definitions and divisions, etc., it is really led on by the necessity of the laws of the notion. For the same reason it cannot see when it has reached its limit; nor, if it have transgressed that limit, does it perceive that it is in a sphere where the categories of understanding, which it still continues rudely to apply, have lost all authority.

（那些思想范畴的表格，并不能给予对象以完备的解释。）

§232

The necessity which finite cognition produces in the Demonstration is, in the first place, an external necessity, intended for the subjective intelligence alone. But in necessity as such, cognition itself has left behind its presupposition and starting-point, which consisted in accepting its content as given or found. Necessity qua necessity is implicitly the self-relating notion. The subjective idea has thus implicitly reached an original and objective determinateness——a something not-given, and for that reason immanent in the subject. It has passed over into the idea of Will.

（真正的必然性，是自为的。）

The necessity which cognition reaches by means of the demonstration is the reverse of what formed its starting-point. In its starting-point cognition had a given and a contingent content; but now, at the close of its movement, it knows its content to be necessary. This necessity is reached by means of subjective agency. Similarly, subjectivity at starting was quite abstract, a bare tabula rasa.It now shows itself as a modifying and determining principle. In this way we pass from the idea of cognition to that of will. The passage, as will be apparent on a closer examination, means that the universal, to be truly apprehended, must be apprehended as subjectivity, as a notion self-moving, active, and form-imposing.

（认识，是人的主观构造出课题的必然性，这种方法必然南辕北辙：事物的必然性乃在于其自身，而不是人的主观。客体之必然性是在主观中透出其自己出来。）

0

• 评论加载中，请稍候...

发评论

以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板　电话：4000520066 提示音后按1键（按当地市话标准计费）　欢迎批评指正

新浪公司 版权所有