按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
of its three angles； is self…contradictory； but to suppose the
non…existence of both triangle and angles is perfectly admissible。 And
so is it with the conception of an absolutely necessary being。
Annihilate its existence in thought； and you annihilate the thing
itself with all its predicates； how then can there be any room for
contradiction？ Externally； there is nothing to give rise to a
contradiction； for a thing cannot be necessary externally； nor
internally； for； by the annihilation or suppression of the thing
itself； its internal properties are also annihilated。 God is
omnipotent… that is a necessary judgement。 His omnipotence cannot be
denied； if the existence of a Deity is posited… the existence； that
is； of an infinite being； the two conceptions being identical。 But
when you say； God does not exist； neither omnipotence nor any other
predicate is affirmed； they must all disappear with the subject； and
in this judgement there cannot exist the least self…contradiction。
You have thus seen that when the predicate of a judgement is
annihilated in thought along with the subject； no internal
contradiction can arise； be the predicate what it may。 There is no
possibility of evading the conclusion… you find yourselves pelled
to declare： There are certain subjects which cannot be annihilated
in thought。 But this is nothing more than saying： There exist subjects
which are absolutely necessary… the very hypothesis which you are
called upon to establish。 For I find myself unable to form the
slightest conception of a thing which when annihilated in thought with
all its predicates； leaves behind a contradiction； and contradiction
is the only criterion of impossibility in the sphere of pure a
priori conceptions。
Against these general considerations； the justice of which no one
can dispute； one argument is adduced； which is regarded as
furnishing a satisfactory demonstration from the fact。 It is
affirmed that there is one and only one conception； in which the
non…being or annihilation of the object is self…contradictory； and
this is the conception of an ens realissimum。 It possesses； you say；
all reality； and you feel yourselves justified in admitting the
possibility of such a being。 （This I am willing to grant for the
present； although the existence of a conception which is not
self…contradictory is far from being sufficient to prove the
possibility of an object。）* Now the notion of all reality embraces
in it that of existence； the notion of existence lies； therefore； in
the conception of this possible thing。 If this thing is annihilated in
thought； the internal possibility of the thing is also annihilated；
which is self…contradictory。
*A conception is always possible； if it is not self…contradictory。
This is the logical criterion of possibility； distinguishing the
object of such a conception from the nihil negativum。 But it may be；
notwithstanding； an empty conception； unless the objective reality
of this synthesis； but which it is generated； is demonstrated； and a
proof of this kind must be based upon principles of possible
experience； and not upon the principle of analysis or contradiction。
This remark may be serviceable as a warning against concluding； from
the possibility of a conception… which is logical… the possibility
of a thing… which is real。
I answer： It is absurd to introduce… under whatever term
disguised… into the conception of a thing； which is to be cogitated
solely in reference to its possibility； the conception of its
existence。 If this is admitted； you will have apparently gained the
day； but in reality have enounced nothing but a mere tautology。 I ask；
is the proposition； this or that thing （which I am admitting to be
possible） exists； an analytical or a synthetical proposition？ If the
former； there is no addition made to the subject of your thought by
the affirmation of its existence； but then the conception in your
minds is identical with the thing itself； or you have supposed the
existence of a thing to be possible； and then inferred its existence
from its internal possibility… which is but a miserable tautology。 The
word reality in the conception of the thing； and the word existence in
the conception of the predicate； will not help you out of the
difficulty。 For； supposing you were to term all positing of a thing
reality； you have thereby posited the thing with all its predicates in
the conception of the subject and assumed its actual existence； and
this you merely repeat in the predicate。 But if you confess； as
every reasonable person must； that every existential proposition is
synthetical； how can it be maintained that the predicate of
existence cannot be denied without contradiction？… a property which is
the characteristic of analytical propositions； alone。
I should have a reasonable hope of putting an end for ever to this
sophistical mode of argumentation； by a strict definition of the
conception of existence； did not my own experience teach me that the
illusion arising from our confounding a logical with a real
predicate （a predicate which aids in the determination of a thing）
resists almost all the endeavours of explanation and illustration。 A
logical predicate may be what you please； even the subject may be
predicated of itself； for logic pays no regard to the content of a
judgement。 But the determination of a conception is a predicate； which
adds to and enlarges the conception。 It must not； therefore； be
contained in the conception。
Being is evidently not a real predicate； that is； a conception of
something which is added to the conception of some other thing。 It
is merely the positing of a thing； or of certain determinations in it。
Logically； it is merely the copula of a judgement。 The proposition；
God is omnipotent； contains two conceptions； which have a certain
object or content； the word is； is no additional predicate… it
merely indicates the relation of the predicate to the subject。 Now； if
I take the subject （God） with all its predicates （omnipotence being
one）； and say： God is； or； There is a God； I add no new predicate to
the conception of God； I merely posit or affirm the existence of the
subject with all its predicates… I posit the object in relation to
my conception。 The content of both is the same； and there is no
addition made to the conception； which expresses merely the
possibility of the object； by my cogitating the object… in the
expression； it is… as absolutely given or existing。 Thus the real
contains no more than the possible。 A hundred real dollars contain
no more than a hundred possible dollars。 For； as the latter indicate
the conception； and the former the object； on the supposition that the
content of the former was greater than that of the latter； my
conception would not be an expression of the whole object； and would
consequently be an inadequate conception of it。 But in reckoning my
wealth there may be said to be more in a hundred real dollars than
in a hundred possible dollars… that is； in the mere conception of
them。 For the real object… the dollars… is not analytically
contained in my conception； but forms a synthetical addition to my
conception （which is