The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and WrongBrentano, Franz
Philosophy
The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong
Brentano, Franz
Ethics
[A] Supplementary note. What is here said of the general applicability
of the existential form holds good only with the one manifest
limitation, in respect of judgments which are really completely
simple. In expressing such judgment logic has always made use of
the categorical form; in common life they are often applied as the
expression of a plurality of judgments based upon each other. This
is clearly the case in the proposition, “this is a man.” In the
demonstrative “this” the belief in existence is already included; a
second judgment then ascribes to him the predicate “man.” Similar
cases are frequent elsewhere. In my opinion it was the original
purpose of the categorical form to serve as a means of expressing
such double judgments (Doppelurteile), which recognize something
while affirming or denying something else of it. I also believe that
the existential and impersonal forms have, by a change in function,
proceeded from this form. This does not alter its essential nature:
a lung is not a swim-bladder (Fisch-blase) even though it has
developed therefrom, and the word “kraft” is none the less a merely
syncategorematic word (Cf. Mill, _Logic_, i. 2, § 2), even though its
origin may be traced to a substantive.
In yet another direction Miklosich appears to me to have limited too
narrowly the applicability of his subjectless propositions. We have
heard that such propositions constitute “an excellence in a language,”
“respecting which all languages are very far from being able to boast”
(p. 26). This, however, appears scarcely credible if it be true, as in
another passage he has so convincingly shown, that there are and always
have been judgments which do not consist in any combination of two ideas
with each other, and which therefore it is impossible to express by
means of a connexion of a subject with a predicate (p. 16). From this
must follow, not merely, as Miklosich _affirms_, the necessary existence
of subjectless propositions generally, but further (which he _denies_)
the existence of such propositions in all languages.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account