Chapter 2 Chapter 1 Introduction

Section 1 method The divine Plato and the astonishing Kant cried out together, presenting to the world a law which is the method of all philosophical inquiry and of all other sciences.They tell us that there are two principles that should be treated equally and that one must not be favored over the other.They are: the law of unity and the law of decomposition.The law of unity guides us to synthesize things into classes by observing the similarity and consistency of things, and then from class to species, from species to genus, and so on, until we finally reach the most general concept.This a priori maxim, the essence of our reason, is to be taken for granted that nature corresponds to it, and this assumption is expressed in the ancient idiom: "Do not increase the number of substances more than is necessary." As to the law of resolution , Kant expressed it as: "Do not lightly reduce the variety of entities." That is, it requires that the species belonging to the same synthetic concept be clearly distinguished from another species; higher species and lower species; we must be careful not to miss any of them, and not to classify the subspecies directly belonging to the concept of the genus, especially the individual: each concept allows subdivision , but none of them would be pure intuition.Kant teaches us that both of these maxims are a priori, fundamental principles of our reason, which presuppose an a priori correspondence between things and them.Plato seems to be expressing the same thought in his own way when he speaks of these laws, which Prometheus stole from heaven and hurled to us from the abode of the gods.

-------- ① Plato: pp. 219-223 of "Philippus". "Politics" pages 62 and 63. "Phaedrus" pages 361-363; Kant: "Postscript on Transcendental Argument"; F. M．Miller's English translation, pp. 551 et seq. Section 2 Application of this method in the existing situation Despite the weight of such claims, I find, however, that the second of these two maxims is almost never employed in a fundamental principle of the whole cognition, namely, the principle of sufficient reason.This is because, although the principle has long been frequently interpreted in a general sense, this interpretation has not sufficiently distinguished two quite different uses of the principle to give it a new meaning, So it is impossible to see the origin of the various faculties of thought.If we compare Kant's philosophy with all the philosophical systems that preceded him, we shall see that it is precisely in the observation of the power of thought that many of the inescapable mistakes of the predecessors are due to the application of the law of unity and neglect of the opposite. The Law of Decomposition, which, however, has produced great and rich results.Allow me, therefore, to quote a passage from Kant emphasizing the use of the law of resolution in the origin of our knowledge, as it supports my present efforts:—

"It is of the utmost importance to separate the various cognitions, which differ from each other in their nature and origin, since for practical purposes they are generally combined, and therefore , must be especially careful lest they be confused with each other. What the chemist does in the analysis of matter, and the mathematician in pure mathematics, is especially necessary to a philosopher, because it helps to keep him In the application of the distinction, clearly define the part that belongs to a special kind of cognition, as well as its unique value and function." ① --------

① See Kant, p. 842 of the First Rebellion. Section 3 Usefulness of this exploration If I succeed in showing that the principle which forms the subject of this inquiry arose not from one primary concept in our intellect, but from several in the first place, then I can conclude that as a The necessities of a firmly established a priori principle cannot in any case be exactly the same, but, on the contrary, are as many in necessity as the source of the principle itself.Anyone who bases a conclusion on this principle, therefore, should clearly designate on which necessary ground the conclusion is based, and give it a special name, such as the method I am about to suggest.I hope this is a way of promoting greater clarity and precision in philosophical inquiry; for I maintain that a high degree of clarity requires precise specification of every single formulation that is necessary, both to avoid errors and to prevent intentional Deception can also serve as a means of assuring us of a persistent and unalterable grasp of each newly acquired concept within the philosophical sphere, without fear of being discarded thereafter by discovering misunderstandings or ambiguities.True philosophers have indeed always contrived to obtain lucid expressions, to be like the waters of a Swiss lake--the deeper you look, the clearer you look through the calm surface, and the depth and clarity of the lake match each other--and not like Turbid torrential torrents."Clarity is the effective guarantee of philosophy," said the Marquis of Vavnagus. On the contrary, the language used by the pseudo-philosopher is in fact not used, as Talleyrand was, to cover his thoughts, but to To cover up the lack of ideas, this kind of people always put the responsibility on the readers for not understanding their system. In fact, the real reason should be attributed to their own chaotic thinking.This explains why the tone of certain authors, such as Schelling, often shifts from instruction to reproach, and even the reader is reprimanded for presupposing them to be lacking in understanding.

-------- ① Vauenargues Marquis (Vauenargues, 1715.8-1747.5), a French moralist and essayist. ② Talleyrand (M. de Talleyrand, 1754.2-1838.5), a French politician and diplomat. Section 4 The Importance of the Law of Sufficient Reason Since the principle of sufficient reason can be called the foundation of the whole science, its importance is obvious.Because it is through science that we can understand a concept system, that is, a whole of interconnected concepts, rather than a collection of unconnected and completely separate concepts.But what, if not the principle of sufficient reason, connects the parts of the system?What makes each science different from a pure collection is that the concepts of the sciences are derived one after another from their grounds.This Plato observed long ago: "Even if a point of view is correct, it has no value until someone proves it through a cause, which connects them." ③

-------- ③ Plato: No. 385 of Mano. Moreover, almost every science involves the process of deriving results from causes. The notion of consequences, and equally that of conclusions necessarily drawn from grounds, will be seen in this exploration.Aristotle expressed this idea as follows: "All speculative cognition or cognition with certain speculative elements is inseparable from causes and principles." "Why" must be asked everywhere, so we can safely call "why" the mother of all sciences. -------- ① See Aristotle: Volume I. Section 5 The law itself We intend to further explain that the principle of sufficient reason is a common expression of several a priori concepts.At the same time, this principle must be expressed in this or that formula.I think Wolf's expression is the most general: "Everything has a reason why it exists rather than why it doesn't."