Truth and Science
GA 3
V. Knowing and Reality
[ 1 ] In concepts and ideas, we have “the given”, and at the same time, that which leads beyond the given. But this offers the possibility of also determining the nature of the remaining cognitive activity. [ 2 ] We have separated out and started with a part of the given picture of the world by a postulate, because this specific part lies in what knowing really is. This separation was only done to be able to understand cognition. At the same time, we must also be clear that we have artificially disrupted the unity of the worldview. We must realize that the segment we have separated from the given stands in a necessary connection with the content of the world, irrespective of our postulate. In this way taking the next step in epistemology is set up. It will consist of restoring the unity that was torn apart to make knowing possible. This restoration occurs in thinking about the given world. In the thinking view of the world, the unification of the two parts of the world's content indeed takes place, that which we see as given on the horizon of our experiences, and that which must be produced in the act of knowing which is also given. The act of knowing is the synthesis of these two elements. In each individual act of knowing, one of these appears as something produced in the act itself, added through it to what is merely given. Only at the beginning of epistemology itself does what is otherwise always produced appear as a given.
[ 3 ] The given world infused with concepts and ideas therefore is contemplation of things by thinking. Thinking is therefore actually the act through which knowledge is conveyed. Knowledge can only come about when thinking itself organizes the content of the worldview. Thinking itself is an action that brings forth an appropriate content in the moment of knowing. So insofar as the recognized content flows from thinking alone, it presents no difficulty for cognition. Here we just need to observe, and we have the essence given directly. The description of thinking is at the same time the science of thinking. In fact, logic was never anything other than a description of the forms of thinking, never a demonstrable science. Evidence only consists of a synthesis, a union of thoughts with other world content.
Gideon Spicker rightly says in his book Lessing’s Weltanschauung (p. 5), “Whether thinking is correct we can never experience, neither empirically nor logically.” I can add, that with thinking, all evidence stops, because evidence already presupposes thinking. One can certainly prove a single fact, but the evidence cannot prove itself. We can only describe what evidence is. In logic all theory is merely empiricism; in the science of logic there is only observation. But if we want to know something outside of our thinking, we can only do so with the help of thinking.
The essence of thinking is to approach something “given” and bring it out of the chaos into a systematic interconnection with the world picture. Thinking therefore approaches the given content of the world as the forming principle. The process begins with mentally separating certain details from the whole totality of the world, for nothing is initially separate in the given, for everything is in continuous connection. Thinking now relates these separate details to one another in accordance with the forms it produces, and ultimately determines what results from this relationship. Because thinking establishes a connection between two separate parts of the content of the world, it has not determined anything about them of its own accord. We must just wait and see what happens due to establishing the connection. This result is knowing about relevant parts of the world's content. If it were in the nature of the latter to express nothing at all about itself through that reference, well, then the attempt at thinking would fail and a new one would have to take its place. All knowledge is based on the human being’s bringing two or more elements of reality into the correct connection and grasping what results from this.
Through establishing a connection between two separate parts of the content of the world, thinking certainly has not determined anything about them of its own accord. We just must wait and see what happens due to establishing the connection. This result is knowing about the relevant parts of the world's content. If it were in the nature of the latter to express nothing at all about itself through that reference, well, then the attempt at thinking would fail and a new one would have to take its place. All knowledge is due to the human being bringing two or more elements of reality into the correct interconnection and grasping what results from this.
[ 4 ] There is no doubt that we make many such forlorn attempts at thinking, not only in the experience of seeing things with rigorous logical clarity (Wissenschaft), as the history of science teaches us sufficiently, but also in ordinary life. In the simple cases of forlorn error that we usually encounter, however, the right attempt takes the place of the wrong one so quickly that we don't become aware of the latter at all, or only rarely.
[ 5 ] Kant hovered over (schwebte) our progressive activity of thinking (connected as a hoof is to a cow, zum Behuf) in systematically structuring the world-content in his “synthetic unity of apperception”. But how little he become aware of the actual task of thinking is evident from his believing that the laws of pure natural science independent of any experience (a priori) can be derived from the rules by which this synthesis takes place. He failed to consider that the synthetic activity of thinking only prepares for acquiring the actual laws of nature. Let us imagine that we detach some content “a” from the world picture, and then another content “b”. If a lawful connection between “a” and “b” is to be recognized, thinking must first bring “a” into such a relationship with “b” that it becomes possible for the existing dependency to appear to us as a given. The actual content of a natural law only follows from what is given, and it is only up to thinking to create the opportunity through which the parts of the world picture are brought into such relationships; only then does their lawfulness becomes apparent. No objective laws follow from the mere synthetic activity of thinking.
[ 6 ] We must now ask what part thinking plays in establishing our scientific worldview, as opposed to the merely given worldview? From our presentation it follows that thinking attends to, worries about, concerns itself (besorgt) with connecting things lawfully. In our scheme above, let us assume that “a” is the cause and “b” is the effect. The causal connection between “a” and “b” could never become knowledge if thinking were not able to form the concept of causality. But to recognize “a” as a cause and “b” as an effect in an individual case, it is necessary that these two correspond to what is meant by cause and effect. The same applies to other categories of thinking.
[ 7 ] It will be useful here to refer to Hume's comments on the concept of causality in a few words. Hume says that the concepts of cause and effect have their origin merely by our habit,63t/n F. H. Jacobi, David Hume über den Glauben oder Idealismus und Realismus; Breslau 1787, and Hume, David (1748) Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding (1 ed.). London: A. Millar. meaning, that often one event is observed followed by another, and we become accustomed to thinking of the two in causal connection, then when we notice the first, we expect the second to occur. However, this view is based on a completely erroneous idea of the causal relationship. If I meet the same person over a series of days when I step out of the gate of my house, I will gradually get used to expecting the chronological sequence of the two events, but it will not even occur to me to find a causal connection here between my appearance and that of the other person in the same place. I will look at other parts of the world to explain the direct consequence of the facts mentioned. We do not determine the causal connection according to the temporal sequence, but rather according to the meaning of the parts of the world called cause and effect.
[ 8 ] Following from this (that thinking only carries out a formal activity in bringing about our scientific picture of the world), the content of any bit of knowledge cannot be fixed a priori before observation (before thinking's engagement with the given), but must emerge completely from the act of thinking. In this sense, all knowing is empirical. But it's hard to understand how it could be any different, as Kant's a priori judgments are basically not insights at all, but only postulates. In Kant's sense, one can only ever say that if a thing is to become the object of a possible experience, then it must conform to these laws. These are specifications that the subject makes to the objects. But one should believe that if we are to gain knowledge of what is given, then it must flow not from subjectivity, but from objectivity.
[ 9 ] Thinking says nothing a priori about the given, but it puts in place the forms on which the laws of phenomena come to light based on experience, a posteriori. [ 10 ] It is clear, that this view can make no difference a priori about the degree of certainty that an acquired cognitive judgment has. For certainty cannot be gained from anything other than the given itself. It can be objected that observation never says anything other than that some connection between phenomena takes place, but not that it must take place, and in the same case, always will take place. But this assumption is also erroneous. For if I recognize a certain connection between parts of the world picture, then in our sense it is nothing other than what results from these parts themselves. It is not something that I add to these parts, but something that essentially belongs to them, which therefore must always be there when they themselves are there.
[ 11 ] Only a view that considers all scientific activity to be merely using subjective maxims to link the elements of experience, which lie outside of the maxims, only such a view can believe that “a” and “b” can be linked today according to one law and tomorrow according to a different law (John Stuart Mill 64 t/n John Stuart Mill, System of Logic, 1843, “The most scientific proceeding can be no more than an improved form of that which was primitively pursued by the human understanding while undirected by science. (System, VII: 318-406) (1806–73). But anyone who understands that the laws of nature come from what is given, and are therefore what constitutes and determines the connection between phenomena, will not even think of speaking of a merely comparative universality of the laws obtained from observation. Of course, we do not mean to claim that the natural laws we have once assumed to be correct must necessarily be valid. But if a later case overturns a established law, then this is not due to the fact that the first time it could only be concluded with comparative generality, but rather because the conclusion was not completely correct at that time either. A genuine natural law is nothing other than the expression of a connection in the given picture of the world, and it does not exist without the facts that it regulates, just as these facts do not exist without the connection.
[ 12 ] We have characterized the nature of the act of knowing above, that given world thinking will be interfused with concepts and ideas. What follows from this? If the immediately given contained a complete whole, then such processing of it in cognition would be impossible and therefore unnecessary. We would then simply accept what is given as it is and be satisfied with it in this form. Only if there is something hidden in the given, which does not yet appear when we look at it in its immediacy, but only with the help of the order introduced by thinking, then the act of knowing is possible. What lies in the given before mental processing is not its full whole.
[ 13 ] This becomes even clearer when we look more closely at the factors that come into consideration in the act of knowing. The first of these is the given. Being given is not a property of the given, but only an expression of its relationship to the second factor of the act of knowing. What the given is according to its own nature remains completely obscure through this determination. The second factor, the content of the given that can be grasped, is found by thinking in the act of knowing as necessarily connected to the given. We now ask ourselves:
• Where is the separation between the given and the concept?
• Where is the union of these?
The answer to these two questions without doubt has been given in our previous examination. The separation exists only in the act of knowing, the connection lies in the given. From this it necessarily follows that the graspable (begriffliche) content is only a part of what is given, and that the act of knowing consists in uniting the components of the world picture that were initially given separately. The given world view therefore only becomes complete through that indirect kind of givenness that is brought about by thinking. Due to the form of immediacy, the world view initially appears in a completely incomplete form.
[ 14 ] Within the world-content, if the thought-content were united with the given at the outset, then there would be no knowing. For nowhere could the need arise to go beyond what is given. If we were to produce all the content of the world with our thinking and within it, then there would be just as little thinking. For we don't need to know what we produce ourselves. Cognition is therefore based on the content of the world having been given to us primordially in a form that is incomplete, that does not embody it completely, but that has a second essential side in addition to what it presents directly. This second, originally not-given side of the world's content is unveiled, uncloaked (enthüllt) through knowing. What appears to us separate and sundered (abgesondert) in thinking are therefore not empty forms, but a sum of characterizations (categories), which however are form-giving for the remainder of the world's content. Only the gained-by-knowing world-content gestalt, in which both sides are illustrated, can be called reality.
V. Erkennen und Wirklichkeit
[ 1 ] Begriffe und Ideen sind es also, in denen wir das gegeben haben, was zugleich über das Gegebene hinausführt. Damit aber ist die Möglichkeit geboten, auch das Wesen der übrigen Erkenntnistätigkeit zu bestimmen.
[ 2 ] Wir haben durch ein Postulat aus dem gegebenen Weltbilde einen Teil ausgesondert, weil es in der Natur des Erkennens liegt, gerade von diesem so gearteten Teile auszugehen. Diese Aussonderung wurde also nur gemacht, um das Erkennen begreifen zu können. Damit müssen wir uns aber auch zugleich klar darüber sein, daß wir die Einheit des Weltbildes künstlich zerrissen haben. Wir müssen einsehen, daß das von uns aus dem Gegebenen abgetrennte Segment, abgesehen von unserer Forderung und außer derselben, in einer notwendigen Verbindung mit dem Weltinhalte stehe. Damit ist der nächste Schritt der Erkenntnistheorie gegeben. Er wird darinnen bestehen, die Einheit, welche behufs Ermöglichung der Erkenntnis zerrissen worden ist, wieder herzustellen. Diese Wiederherstellung geschieht in dem Denken über die gegebene Welt. In der denkenden Weltbetrachtung vollzieht sich tatsächlich die Vereinigung der zwei Teile des Weltinhalts: dessen, den wir als Gegebenes auf dem Horizonte unserer Erlebnisse überblicken, und dessen, der im Erkenntnisakt produziert werden muß, um auch gegeben zu sein. Der Erkenntnisakt ist die Synthese dieser beiden Elemente. Und zwar erscheint in jedem einzelnen Erkenntnisakte das eine derselben als ein im Akte selbst Produziertes, durch ihn zu dem bloß Gegebenen Hinzugebrachtes. Nur im Anfang der Erkenntnistheorie selbst erscheint das sonst stets Produzierte als ein Gegebenes.
[ 3 ] Die gegebene Welt mit Begriffen und Ideen durchdringen, ist aber denkende Betrachtung der Dinge. Das Denken ist somit tatsächlich der Akt, wodurch die Erkenntnis vermittelt wird. Nur wenn das Denken von sich aus den Inhalt des Weltbildes ordnet, kann Erkenntnis zustande kommen. Das Denken selbst ist ein Tun, das einen eigenen Inhalt im Momente des Erkennens hervorbringt. Soweit also der erkannte Inhalt aus dem Denken allein fließt, bietet er für das Erkennen keine Schwierigkeit. Hier brauchen wir bloß zu beobachten; und wir haben das Wesen unmittelbar gegeben. Die Beschreibung des Denkens ist zugleich die Wissenschaft des Denkens. In der Tat war auch die Logik nie etwas anderes als eine Beschreibung der Denkformen, nie eine beweisende Wissenschaft. Der Beweis tritt erst ein, wenn eine Synthesis des Gedachten mit anderweitigem Weltinhalte stattfindet. Mit Recht sagt daher Gideon Spikcker in seinem Buche: «Lessings Weltanschauung» (S.5): «Daß das Denken an sich richtig sei, können wir nie erfahren, weder empirisch, noch logisch.» Wir können hinzufügen: Beim Denken hört alles Beweisen auf. Denn der Beweis setzt bereits das Denken voraus. Man kann wohl ein einzelnes Faktum, nicht aber das Beweisen selbst beweisen. Wir können nur beschreiben, was ein Beweis ist. In der Logik ist alle Theorie nur Empirie; in dieser Wissenschaft gibt es nur Beobachtung. Wenn wir aber außer unserem Denken etwas erkennen wollen, so können wir das nur mit Hilfe des Denkens, d.h. das Denken muß an ein Gegebenes herantreten und es aus der chaotischen Verbindung in eine systematische mit dem Weltbilde bringen. Das Denken tritt also als formendes Prinzip an den gegebenen Weltinhalt heran. Der Vorgang dabei ist folgender: Es werden zunächst gedanklich gewisse Einzelheiten aus der Gesamtheit des Weltganzen herausgehoben. Denn im Gegebenen ist eigentlich kein Einzelnes, sondern alles in kontinuierlicher Verbindung. Diese gesonderten Einzelheiten bezieht nun das Denken nach Maßgabe der von ihm produzierten Formen aufeinander und bestimmt zuletzt, was sich aus dieser Beziehung ergibt. Dadurch, daß das Denken einen Bezug zwischen zwei abgesonderten Partien des Weltinhaltes herstellt, hat es gar nichts von sich aus über dieselben bestimmt. Es wartet ja ab, was sich infolge der Herstellung des Bezuges von selbst ergibt. Dieses Ergebnis erst ist eine Erkenntnis über die betreffenden Teile des Weltinhaltes. Läge es in der Natur des letzteren, durch jenen Bezug überhaupt nichts über sich zu äußern: nun, dann müßte eben der Denkversuch mißlingen und ein neuer an seine Stelle treten. Alle Erkenntnisse beruhen darauf, daß der Mensch zwei oder mehrere Elemente der Wirklichkeit in die richtige Verbindung bringt und das sich hieraus Ergebende erfaßt.
[ 4 ] Es ist zweifellos, daß wir nicht nur in den Wissenschaften, wo es uns die Geschichte derselben sattsam lehrt, sondern auch im gewöhnlichen Leben viele solche vergebliche Denkversuche machen; nur tritt in den einfachen Fällen, die uns doch zumeist begegnen, der richtige so rasch an die Stelle der falschen, daß uns diese letzteren gar nicht oder nur selten zum Bewußtsein kommen.
[ 5 ] Kant schwebte diese von uns abgeleitete Tätigkeit des Denkens zum Behufe der systematischen Gliederung des Weltinhaltes bei seiner «synthetischen Einheit der Apperzeption» vor. Aber wie wenig sich derselbe die eigentliche Aufgabe des Denkens dabei zum Bewußtsein gebracht hat, geht daraus hervor, daß er glaubt, aus den Regeln, nach denen sich diese Synthesis vollzieht, lassen sich die Gesetze a priori der reinen Naturwissenschaft ableiten. Er hat dabei nicht bedacht, daß die synthetische Tätigkeit des Denkens nur eine solche ist, welche die Gewinnung der eigentlichen Naturgesetze vorbereitet. Denken wir uns, wir lösen irgend einen Inhalt a aus dem Weltbilde los, und ebenso einen andern b. Wenn es zur Erkenntnis eines gesetzmäßigen Zusammenhanges zwischen a und b kommen soll, so hat das Denken zunächst a in ein solches Verhältnis zu b zu bringen, durch das es möglich wird, daß sich uns die bestehende Abhängigkeit als gegebene darstellt. Der eigentliche Inhalt eines Naturgesetzes resultiert also aus dem Gegebenen, und dem Denken kommt es bloß zu, die Gelegenheit herbeizuführen, durch die die Teile des Weltbildes in solche Verhältnisse gebracht werden, daß ihre Gesetzmäßigkeit ersichtlich wird. Aus der bloßen synthetischen Tätigkeit des Denkens folgen also keinerlei objektive Gesetze.
[ 6 ] Wir müssen uns nun fragen, welchen Anteil hat das Denken bei der Herstellung unseres wissenschaftlichen Weltbildes im Gegensatz zum bloß gegebenen Weltbilde? Aus unserer Darstellung folgt, daß es die Form der Gesetzmäßigkeit besorgt. Nehmen wir in unserem obigen Schema an, daß a die Ursache, b die Wirkung sei. Es könnte der kausale Zusammenhang von a und b nie Erkenntnis werden, wenn das Denken nicht in der Lage wäre, den Begriff der Kausalität zu bilden. Aber um im gegebenen Falle a als Ursache, b als Wirkung zu erkennen, dazu ist notwendig, daß jene beiden dem entsprechen, was unter Ursache und Wirkung verstanden wird. Ebenso steht es mit anderen Kategorien des Denkens.
[ 7 ] Es wird zweckmäßig sein, hier auf die Ausführungen Humes über den Begriff der Kausalität mit einigen Worten hinzuweisen. Hume sagt, die Begriffe von Ursache und Wirkung haben ihren Ursprung lediglich in unserer Gewohnheit. Wir beobachten öfters, daß auf ein gewisses Ereignis ein anderes folgt, und gewöhnen uns daran, die beiden in Kausalverbindung zu denken, so daß wir erwarten, daß das zweite eintritt, wenn wir das erste bemerken. Diese Auffassung geht aber von einer ganz irrigen Vorstellung von dem Kausalitätsverhältnis aus. Begegne ich durch eine Reihe von Tagen immer demselben Menschen, wenn ich aus dem Tore meines Wohnhauses trete, so werde ich mich zwar nach und nach gewöhnen, die zeitliche Folge der beiden Ereignisse zu erwarten, aber es wird mir gar nicht einfallen, hier einen Kausalzusammenhang zwischen meinem und des andern Menschen Erscheinen an demselben Orte zu konstatieren. Ich werde noch wesentlich andere Teile des Weltinhaltes aufsuchen, um die unmittelbare Folge der angeführten Tatsachen zu erklären. Wir bestimmen den Kausalzusammenhang eben durchaus nicht nach der zeitlichen Folge, sondern nach der inhaltlichen Bedeutung der als Ursache und Wirkung bezeichneten Teile des Weltinhaltes.
[ 8 ] Daraus, daß das Denken nur eine formale Tätigkeit beim Zustandebringen unseres wissenschaftlichen Weltbildes ausübt, folgt: der Inhalt eines jeden Erkenntnisses kann kein a priori vor der Beobachtung (Auseinandersetzung des Denkens mit dem Gegebenen) feststehender sein, sondern muß restlos aus der letzteren hervorgehen. In diesem Sinne sind alle unsere Erkenntnisse empirisch. Es ist aber auch gar nicht zu begreifen, wie das anders sein sollte. Denn die Kantschen Urteile a priori sind im Grunde gar keine Erkenntnisse, sondern nur Postulate. Man kann im Kantschen Sinne immer nur sagen: wenn ein Ding Objekt einer möglichen Erfahrung werden soll, dann muß es sich diesen Gesetzen fügen. Das sind also Vorschriften, die das Subjekt den Objekten macht. Man sollte aber doch glauben, wenn uns Erkenntnisse von dem Gegebenen zuteil werden sollen, so müssen dieselben nicht aus der Subjektivität, sondern aus der Objektivität fließen.
[ 9 ] Das Denken sagt nichts a priori über das Gegebene aus, aber es stellt jene Formen her, durch deren Zugrundelegung a posterion die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Erscheinungen zum Vorschein kommt.
[ 10 ] Es ist klar, daß diese Ansicht über die Grade der Gewißheit, die ein gewonnenes Erkenntnisurteil hat, a priori nichts ausmachen kann. Denn auch die Gewißheit kann aus nichts anderem denn aus dem Gegebenen selbst gewonnen werden. Es läßt sich dagegen einwenden, daß die Beobachtung nie etwas anderes sage, als daß einmal irgendein Zusammenhang der Erscheinungen stattfindet, nicht aber, daß er stattfinden muß und in gleichem Falle immer stattfinden wird. Aber auch diese Annahme ist eine irrtümliche. Denn wenn ich einen gewissen Zusammenhang zwischen Teilen des Weltbildes erkenne, so ist er in unserem Sinne nichts anderes, als was aus diesen Teilen selbst sich ergibt, es ist nichts, was ich zu diesen Teilen hinzudenke, sondern etwas, was wesentlich zu denselben gehört, was also notwendig dann immer da sein muß, wenn sie selbst da sind.
[ 11 ] Nur eine Ansicht, die davon ausgeht, daß alles wissenschaftliche Treiben nur darinnen bestehe, die Tatsachen der Erfahrung nach außer denselben liegenden, subjektiven Maximen zu verknüpfen, kann glauben, daß a und b heute nach diesem, morgen nach jenem Gesetze verknüpft sein können (J. St. Mill). Wer aber einsieht, daß die Naturgesetze aus dem Gegebenen stammen, somit dasjenige sind, was den Zusammenhang der Erscheinungen ausmacht und bestimmt, dem wird es gar nicht einfallen, von einer bloß komparativen Allgemeinheit der aus der Beobachtung gewonnenen Gesetze zu sprechen. Damit wollen wir natürlich nicht behaupten, daß die von uns einmal als richtig angenommenen Naturgesetze auch unbedingt gültig sein müssen. Aber wenn ein späterer Fall ein aufgestelltes Gesetz umstößt, dann rührt dies nicht davon her, daß dasselbe das erstemal nur mit komparativer Allgemeinheit hat gefolgert werden können, sondern davon, daß es auch dazumal nicht vollkommen richtig gefolgert war. Ein echtes Naturgesetz ist nichts anderes als der Ausdruck eines Zusammenhanges im gegebenen Weltbilde, und es ist ebensowenig ohne die Tatsachen da, die es regelt, wie diese ohne jenes da sind.
[ 12 ] Wir haben es oben als die Natur des Erkenntnisaktes bestimmt, daß das gegebene Weltbild denkend mit Begriffen und Ideen durchsetzt wird. Was folgt aus dieser Tatsache? Wäre in dem Unmittelbar-Gegebenen eine abgeschlossene Ganzheit enthalten, dann wäre eine solche Bearbeitung desselben im Erkennen unmöglich und auch unnötig. Wir würden dann einfach das Gegebene hinnehmen, wie es ist, und wären in dieser Gestalt davon befriedigt. Nur wenn in dem Gegebenen etwas verborgen liegt, was noch nicht erscheint, wenn wir es in seiner Unmittelbarkeit betrachten, sondern erst mit Hilfe der vom Denken hineingebrachten Ordnung, dann ist der Erkenntnisakt möglich. Was in dem Gegebenen vor der gedanklichen Verarbeitung liegt, ist nicht dessen volle Ganzheit.
[ 13 ] Dies wird sogleich noch deutlicher, wenn wir auf die im Erkenntnisakt in Betracht kommenden Faktoren näher eingehen. Der erste derselben ist das Gegebene. Das Gegebensein ist keine Eigenschaft des Gegebenen, sondern nur ein Ausdruck für dessen Verhältnis zu dem zweiten Faktor des Erkenntnisaktes. Was das Gegebene seiner eigenen Natur nach ist, bleibt also durch diese Bestimmung völlig im Dunkeln. Den zweiten Faktor, den begrifflichen Inhalt des Gegebenen, findet das Denken im Erkenntnisakte als notwendig mit dem Gegebenen verbunden. Wir fragen uns nun: 1. Wo besteht die Trennung von Gegebenem und Begriff? 2. Wo liegt die Vereinigung derselben? Die Beantwortung dieser beiden Fragen ist ohne Zweifel in unseren vorangehenden Untersuchungen gegeben. Die Trennung besteht lediglich im Erkenntnisakte, die Verbindung liegt im Gegebenen. Daraus geht mit Notwendigkeit hervor, daß der begriffliche Inhalt nur ein Teil des Gegebenen ist, und daß der Erkenntnisakt darin besteht, die für ihn zunächst getrennt gegebenen Bestandteile des Weltbildes miteinander zu vereinigen. Das gegebene Weltbild wird somit erst vollständig durch jene mittelbare Art Gegebenseins, die durch das Denken herbeigeführt wird. Durch die Form der Unmittelbarkeit zeigt sich das Weltbild zuerst in einer ganz unvollständigen Gestalt.
[ 14 ] Wäre in dem Weltinhalte von vornherein der Gedankeninhalt mit dem Gegebenen vereinigt; dann gäbe es kein Erkennen. Denn es könnte nirgends das Bedürfnis entstehen, über das Gegebene hinauszugehen. Würden wir aber mit dem Denken und in demselben allen Inhalt der Welt erzeugen, dann gäbe es ebensowenig ein Erkennen. Denn was wir selbst produzieren, brauchen wir nicht zu er kennen. Das Erkennen beruht also darauf, daß uns der Weltinhalt ursprünglich in einer Form gegeben ist, die unvollständig ist, die ihn nicht ganz enthält, sondern die außer dem, was sie unmittelbar darbietet, noch eine zweite wesentliche Seite hat. Diese zweite, ursprünglich nicht gegebene Seite des Weltinhaltes wird durch die Erkenntnis enthüllt. Was uns im Denken abgesondert erscheint, sind also nicht leere Formen, sondern eine Summe von Bestimmungen (Kategorien), die aber für den übrigen Weltinhalt Form sind. Erst die durch die Erkenntnis gewonnene Gestalt des Weitinhaltes, in der beide aufgezeigte Seiten desselben vereinigt sind, kann Wirklichkeit genannt werden.
V. Cognition and reality
[ 1 ] Thus, it is in concepts and ideas that we have given that which at the same time leads beyond the given. This, however, offers the possibility of also determining the nature of the remaining cognitive activity.
[ 2 ] We have separated out a part from the given picture of the world by means of a postulate, because it is in the nature of cognition to proceed precisely from this part. This separation was therefore only made in order to be able to comprehend cognition. At the same time, however, we must realize that we have artificially torn apart the unity of the world view. We must realize that the segment separated by us from the given, apart from our demand and outside of it, is in a necessary connection with the content of the world. This is the next step in the theory of knowledge. It will consist in restoring the unity that has been torn apart in order to make knowledge possible. This restoration takes place in thinking about the given world. In the thinking observation of the world, the unification of the two parts of the world's content actually takes place: that which we survey as given on the horizon of our experiences, and that which must be produced in the act of cognition in order to be given. The act of cognition is the synthesis of these two elements. And indeed, in every single act of cognition one of them appears as something produced in the act itself, added by it to the merely given. Only in the beginning of epistemology itself does that which is otherwise always produced appear as a given.
[ 3 ] Pervading the given world with concepts and ideas, however, is thinking contemplation of things. Thinking is thus actually the act by which knowledge is conveyed. Only when thinking organizes the content of the world view of its own accord can knowledge come about. Thinking itself is an act that produces its own content in the moment of cognition. Insofar as the cognized content flows from thinking alone, it offers no difficulty for cognition. Here we need only observe; and we have given the essence directly. The description of thought is at the same time the science of thought. In fact, logic has never been anything other than a description of the forms of thought, never a proving science. Proof only occurs when a synthesis of thought with other world content takes place. Therefore, Gideon Spikcker rightly says in his book: "Lessings Weltanschauung" (p.5): "That thought is right in itself we can never know, either empirically or logically." We can add: All proof ends with thinking. For proof already presupposes thinking. It is possible to prove a single fact, but not proof itself. We can only describe what a proof is. In logic, all theory is only empiricism; in this science there is only observation. But if we want to recognize something apart from our thinking, we can only do so with the help of thinking, i.e. thinking must approach a given and bring it out of its chaotic connection into a systematic connection with the world picture. Thinking thus approaches the given world content as a forming principle. The process is as follows: first, certain details are mentally singled out from the totality of the world as a whole. For in the given there is actually no single thing, but everything is in continuous connection. Thinking now relates these separate details to each other according to the forms it has produced and finally determines what results from this relationship. By establishing a relation between two separate parts of the content of the world, thinking has not determined anything about them of its own accord. It waits to see what emerges of its own accord as a result of establishing the relation. Only this result is a realization about the relevant parts of the world content. If it were in the nature of the latter to express nothing at all about itself through this reference, then the attempt to think would have to fail and a new one would have to take its place. All knowledge is based on the fact that man brings two or more elements of reality into the right connection and grasps what results from this.
[ 4 ] It is undoubtedly true that we make many such futile attempts at reasoning, not only in the sciences, where the history of the same teaches us so well, but also in ordinary life; only in the simple cases which we mostly encounter, the right one so quickly takes the place of the wrong one that we do not or only rarely become aware of the latter.
[ 5 ] Kant envisioned this activity of thought derived from us for the purpose of systematically structuring the content of the world in his "synthetic unity of apperception". But how little he realized the actual task of thinking in this process is evident from the fact that he believes that the laws of pure natural science can be derived a priori from the rules according to which this synthesis takes place. He did not consider that the synthetic activity of thinking is only one that prepares the extraction of the actual laws of nature. Let us imagine that we detach some content a from the world-picture, and likewise another b. If it is to come to the realization of a lawful connection between a and b, thinking must first bring a into such a relation to b that it becomes possible for the existing dependence to present itself to us as given. The actual content of a law of nature thus results from the given, and it is merely up to thinking to bring about the opportunity by which the parts of the world picture are brought into such relations that their lawfulness becomes apparent. No objective laws follow from the mere synthetic activity of thinking.
[ 6 ] We must now ask ourselves, what part does thinking play in the production of our scientific world view as opposed to the merely given world view? It follows from our description that it is responsible for the form of regularity. Let us assume in our above diagram that a is the cause, b the effect. The causal connection between a and b could never be recognized if thought were not capable of forming the concept of causality. But in order to recognize a as cause and b as effect in the given case, it is necessary that these two correspond to what is understood by cause and effect. It is the same with other categories of thought.
[ 7 ] It will be useful to refer here to Hume's remarks on the concept of causality in a few words. Hume says that the concepts of cause and effect have their origin merely in our habit. We often observe that a certain event is followed by another, and accustom ourselves to think of the two in causal connection, so that we expect the second to occur when we notice the first. But this view is based on a quite erroneous conception of the relation of causality. If, through a series of days, I always meet the same person when I step out of the gate of my house, I will gradually become accustomed to expect the temporal sequence of the two events, but it will not occur to me at all to establish a causal connection between my appearance and that of the other person in the same place. I will look at other parts of the world's content in order to explain the direct consequence of the facts mentioned. We do not determine the causal connection according to the temporal sequence, but according to the meaning of the parts of the world content designated as cause and effect.
[ 8 ] It follows from the fact that thinking only performs a formal activity in the creation of our scientific world view that the content of every cognition cannot be a priori determined before observation (the confrontation of thinking with the given), but must emerge completely from the latter. In this sense, all our cognitions are empirical. But it is also impossible to understand how this could be otherwise. For Kant's a priori judgments are basically not knowledge at all, but only postulates. In Kant's sense, one can only ever say: if a thing is to become the object of a possible experience, then it must obey these laws. So these are rules that the subject makes for the objects. However, one should believe that if we are to gain knowledge of the given, this knowledge must flow not from subjectivity but from objectivity.
[ 9 ] Thinking says nothing a priori about the given, but it produces those forms on the basis of which the lawfulness of phenomena appears a posterion.
[ 10 ] It is clear that this view about the degree of certainty that an acquired judgment of knowledge has, a priori can make no difference. For even certainty cannot be obtained from anything other than the given itself. It can be objected that observation never says anything other than that some connection of phenomena takes place, but not that it must take place and in the same case will always take place. But this assumption is also erroneous. For if I recognize a certain connection between parts of the world picture, it is in our sense nothing other than what results from these parts themselves; it is not something that I think in addition to these parts, but something that belongs essentially to them, which must therefore necessarily always be there if they themselves are there.
[ 11 ] Only a view which assumes that all scientific activity consists only in connecting the facts of experience according to subjective maxims lying outside them, can believe that a and b can be connected today according to this law, tomorrow according to that (J. St. Mill). But he who realizes that the laws of nature derive from the given, and are thus that which constitutes and determines the connection of phenomena, will not even think of speaking of a mere comparative generality of the laws obtained from observation. We do not, of course, mean to assert that the laws of nature once accepted by us as correct must necessarily be valid. But if a later case overturns an established law, this is not due to the fact that the same law could only be deduced with comparative generality the first time, but to the fact that it was not completely correctly deduced at that time either. A genuine law of nature is nothing other than the expression of a connection in the given picture of the world, and it is just as little there without the facts which it governs as these are there without it.
[ 12 ] We have defined it above as the nature of the act of cognition that the given world picture is interspersed with concepts and ideas through thinking. What follows from this fact? If the directly given contained a self-contained wholeness, then such a processing of it in cognition would be impossible and also unnecessary. We would then simply accept the given as it is and would be satisfied with it in this form. Only if there is something hidden in the given that does not yet appear when we look at it in its immediacy, but only with the help of the order brought into it by thinking, is the act of cognition possible. What lies in the given before mental processing is not its full wholeness.
[ 13 ] This will immediately become clearer when we look more closely at the factors that come into consideration in the act of cognition. The first of these is the given. Being given is not a property of the given, but only an expression of its relationship to the second factor of the act of cognition. What the given is by its own nature thus remains completely obscure through this definition. Thinking finds the second factor, the conceptual content of the given, in the act of cognition as necessarily connected with the given. We now ask ourselves: 1. where is the separation of the given and the concept? 2. where is the union of the two? The answer to these two questions is undoubtedly given in our preceding investigations. The separation exists only in the act of cognition, the union lies in the given. From this it necessarily follows that the conceptual content is only a part of the given, and that the act of cognition consists in uniting together the components of the world-picture that are initially given separately for it. The given world-picture thus becomes complete only through that indirect kind of givenness which is brought about by thinking. Through the form of immediacy, the world picture first shows itself in a completely incomplete form.
[ 14 ] If in the content of the world the content of thought were united with the given from the outset, then there would be no cognition. For nowhere could the need arise to go beyond the given. But if we were to produce all the content of the world with and in our thinking, then there would be no cognition either. For we do not need to know what we ourselves produce. Cognition is thus based on the fact that the content of the world is originally given to us in a form that is incomplete, that does not contain it completely, but has a second essential side in addition to what it directly presents. This second, originally not given side of the content of the world is revealed through cognition. What appears separate to us in thinking is therefore not empty forms, but a sum of determinations (categories), which are, however, form for the remaining world content. Only the form of the vast content obtained through cognition, in which both revealed sides of the same are united, can reality be called.