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.
64<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>True</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Evident</strong><br />
to suppose that, in <strong>the</strong> strict sense, <strong>the</strong>re are ideas of <strong>the</strong> non-being of a horse <strong>and</strong> of o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
non-beings <strong>and</strong> impossibilities. What Aristotle said remains true: we know privation, so to<br />
speak, “by means of its contrary”<br />
I hope this is enough to make my own position clear, even if you cannot feel that it<br />
settles <strong>the</strong> whole question once <strong>and</strong> for all…. 40<br />
VI<br />
To Oskar Kraus<br />
31 October, 1914<br />
… Both of us esteemed Marty incomparably more than anyone else—as a person <strong>and</strong><br />
as a thinker of <strong>the</strong> first importance.* Let us keep this point in mind when we discuss his<br />
criticism of my views, a critique in which Marty’s free spirit is so clearly manifest. He was<br />
quite right in not sparing <strong>the</strong> views of his former teacher, for that would not have been<br />
consistent with his love of truth, <strong>and</strong> he would want us to treat his own views in a similar<br />
way.<br />
Those of my opinions to which he took exception had developed gradually <strong>and</strong> only<br />
after repeated attempts at self-criticism. It could be, <strong>the</strong>refore, that it was I who prejudiced<br />
Marty against what I had said, for he heard me criticize my own opinions. But perhaps he<br />
would have done better had he told himself that only very important considerations could<br />
have led to such a deviation from my earlier opinions. One thing was obvious—namely,<br />
that I am not infallible—<strong>and</strong> this very fact might have suggested that my later opinions<br />
could also be wrong. It would be worthwhile to keep this possibility in mind <strong>and</strong> to decide<br />
<strong>the</strong>se questions on purely objective grounds <strong>and</strong> not by any appeal to authority.<br />
I shall try to set forth <strong>the</strong>se grounds for you in letters. I shall begin at once, today, by<br />
giving you what I believe to be a simple <strong>and</strong> rigorous proof of <strong>the</strong> fact that only things can<br />
be objects of our ideas <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore that only things can be objects of any type of mental<br />
activity at all.<br />
<strong>The</strong> proof is based upon <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> concept of having an idea—of having something<br />
before <strong>the</strong> mind—is one that is uniform; <strong>the</strong> term “thought”, <strong>the</strong>refore, is univocal <strong>and</strong> not<br />
equivocal. But it is essential to this concept that thinking be always a matter of thinking<br />
of something. If <strong>the</strong> term “something” were ambiguous, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> term “thought” would<br />
also be ambiguous. And <strong>the</strong>refore it is not possible to interpret this “something” as being<br />
at one time a thing <strong>and</strong> at ano<strong>the</strong>r time a non-thing; for <strong>the</strong>re is no concept which could be<br />
common to things <strong>and</strong> non-things.<br />
I would say that this proof is absolutely decisive. One may verify <strong>the</strong> result, again <strong>and</strong><br />
again, by analysing those cases in which a non-thing appears to be <strong>the</strong> object of a person’s<br />
thought. If you feel that <strong>the</strong>re is any such case that we haven’t yet touched upon, please<br />
let me know <strong>and</strong> I will be glad to carry out <strong>the</strong> analysis. Let us recognize that <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
* Anton Marty died on 2 October, 1914.—R.M.C.