On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and On the Will in Nature: Two Essays (revised edition)
Schopenhauer · en
This law of the continuity and gradual taking place of all changes
which Aristotle was thus the first to lay down and prove, we find
stated three times by Kant: in his "Dissertatio de mundi sensibilis et
intelligibilis forma," § 14, in the "Critique of Pure Reason,"[111] and
finally in his "Metaphysical First Principles of Natural Science."[112]
In all three places his exposition is brief, but also less thorough
than that of Aristotle; still, in the main, both entirely agree. We can
therefore hardly doubt that, directly or indirectly, Kant must have
derived these ideas from Aristotle, though he does not mention him.
Aristotle's proposition--οὐκ ἔστι ἀλλήλων ἐχόμενα τὰ νῦν ("the moments
of the present are not continuous")--we here find expressed as follows:
"between two moments there is always a time," to which may be objected
that "even between two centuries there is none; because in Time as
in Space, there must always be a pure limit."--Thus Kant, instead of
mentioning Aristotle, endeavours in the first and earliest of his
three statements to identify the theory he is advancing with Leibnitz'
_lex continuitatis_. If they really were the same, Leibnitz must have
derived his from Aristotle. Now Leibnitz[113] first stated this _Loi
de la continuité_ in a letter to Bayle.[114] There, however, he calls
it _Principe de l'ordre général_, and gives under this name a very
general, vague, chiefly geometrical argumentation, having no direct
bearing on the time of change, which he does not even mention.
[111] Kant, "Krit. d. r. Vern." 1st edition, p. 207; 5th edition,
p. 253. (English translation by M. Müller, p. 182.)
[112] Kant, "Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft."
End of the "Allgemeine Anmerkung zur Mechanik."
[113] According to his own assertion, p. 189 of the "Opera philos."
ed. Erdmann.
[114] _Ibid._ p. 104.
CHAPTER V.
ON THE SECOND CLASS OF OBJECTS FOR THE SUBJECT AND THE FORM OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON WHICH PREDOMINATES IN IT.
§ 26. _Explanation of this Class of Objects._