Franz Brentano_The True and the Evident.pdf
Franz Brentano_The True and the Evident.pdf
Franz Brentano_The True and the Evident.pdf
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
xviii Introduction<br />
of view—just as in ethics <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of value—is nei<strong>the</strong>r autonomy nor heteronomy;<br />
it is orthonomy. <strong>The</strong> correct point of view for <strong>the</strong>oretical reason is nei<strong>the</strong>r Ptolemaic nor<br />
Copernican. Knowledge is not to be fitted to <strong>the</strong> things, nor are <strong>the</strong> things to be fitted to our<br />
knowledge. Certain judgements about <strong>the</strong> things, however, are judgements as <strong>the</strong>y ought<br />
to be; <strong>the</strong>y are justified in <strong>the</strong>mselves, seen to be correct, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong> norms<br />
for what is true <strong>and</strong> false, correct <strong>and</strong> incorrect. A judgement contradicting a judgement<br />
which constitutes knowledge cannot possibly be evident—that is to say, it cannot possibly<br />
constitute knowledge itself.<br />
Descartes intends precisely this point with his “Quod clare et distincte percipio verum<br />
est”; Spinoza is even clearer in Proposition 43 of Book II of <strong>the</strong> Ethics, where we find<br />
that <strong>the</strong> subtle questions about “logical presuppositions” have already been exposed <strong>and</strong><br />
repudiated. For he exclaims: “Who can know that he knows a thing unless first of all he<br />
knows <strong>the</strong> thing? That is to say, who can know that he has certainty with respect to a<br />
thing, unless first of all he does have certainty with respect to <strong>the</strong> thing? What can serve<br />
as a clearer <strong>and</strong> more certain norm of <strong>the</strong> truth than a true idea? As light reveals itself <strong>and</strong><br />
darkness, truth is <strong>the</strong> norm both of itself <strong>and</strong> of falsehood.”*<br />
<strong>The</strong> Sophist Protagoras expressed <strong>the</strong> creed of all subjectivists <strong>and</strong> relativists with his<br />
doctrine “Man is <strong>the</strong> measure of all things, of things that are that <strong>the</strong>y are, of those that are<br />
not that <strong>the</strong>y are not.”<br />
Nei<strong>the</strong>r Plato’s flight to <strong>the</strong> transcendent realm of ideas, nor <strong>the</strong> more mundane<br />
correspondence <strong>the</strong>ory of Aristotle, nor even <strong>the</strong> transcendental method of Kant <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Kantians with its “Copernican revolution”, could completely uproot <strong>the</strong> doctrine of<br />
Protagoras. But all <strong>the</strong>se attempts were necessary in order that proper correction to <strong>the</strong><br />
homo-mensura could finally be formulated: <strong>the</strong> one who judges with insight, that is to say,<br />
<strong>the</strong> one who knows, is <strong>the</strong> measure of all things, of things that are that <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>and</strong> of those<br />
that are not that <strong>the</strong>y are not. Here we have <strong>the</strong> Archimedean point from which both <strong>the</strong><br />
Ptolemaic <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Copernican <strong>the</strong>ories of knowledge may be uprooted. It is <strong>the</strong> logical <strong>and</strong><br />
epistemological<br />
<strong>The</strong> demise of <strong>the</strong> correspondence <strong>the</strong>ory, for <strong>Brentano</strong>, goes h<strong>and</strong> in h<strong>and</strong> with <strong>the</strong><br />
recognition that only things, or realia, can be thought, <strong>and</strong> that such irrealia as being<br />
<strong>and</strong> non-being, existence <strong>and</strong> non-existence, possibility <strong>and</strong> impossibility, states of affairs<br />
<strong>and</strong> truth, are mere fictions. And we may add to this, as already noted, <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong><br />
correspondence <strong>the</strong>ory involves a vicious circle. <strong>The</strong> essays <strong>and</strong> letters published here deal<br />
with <strong>the</strong> correspondence <strong>the</strong>ory partly in general terms <strong>and</strong> partly in <strong>the</strong> form of a polemic<br />
against Anton Marty <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> present editor. <strong>The</strong>y apply, even to a greater extent, to <strong>the</strong><br />
views of Meinong (compare <strong>Brentano</strong>’s Psychologie, vol. II, p. 158) <strong>and</strong> Husserl.<br />
Surely one ought to be able to see that nothing whatever is accomplished by <strong>the</strong><br />
assumption of <strong>the</strong>se ideal <strong>and</strong> unreal objects, states of affairs, eternal truths, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> highlyprized<br />
realm of “eternal values”. <strong>The</strong> assumption is totally incapable of dealing with<br />
relativism <strong>and</strong> scepticism. If Protagoras says of such “truths” <strong>and</strong> “values” that <strong>the</strong>y exist<br />
only for those who believe in <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong>y do not exist for those who reject <strong>the</strong>m,<br />
how is one going to be able to use <strong>the</strong> “eternal truth” against him? What else can one do<br />
* Compare <strong>the</strong> review, by Oskar Kraus, of Hermann Cohen, in <strong>the</strong> Deutsche Literaturzeitung,<br />
1929, No. 30.