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.
Contents of Judgement, Propositions, Objectives, States of Affairs 67<br />
to his own consciousness. A person who denied God would not in <strong>the</strong> same thought be<br />
affirming him as something which is incapable of being denied. If it were not for <strong>the</strong> bias of<br />
those deep-rooted convictions which you have so often expressed to me, you could hardly<br />
be satisfied with <strong>the</strong> type of answer that you have given.<br />
<strong>The</strong> fact that you have lived so long with this conviction may thus be a disadvantage, but<br />
<strong>the</strong>re are compensations. Since you are in <strong>the</strong> position of one who has nursed a conviction<br />
for a long time <strong>and</strong> who continues to cling to it even after it has been emphatically rejected<br />
by o<strong>the</strong>rs whose judgement he respects, it may be assumed that you have carefully<br />
pondered all sides of <strong>the</strong> matter <strong>and</strong> that you will have no difficulty in answering a number<br />
of elementary questions. 43 May I ask you, <strong>the</strong>n, about one of <strong>the</strong> simpler examples of your<br />
supposed non-things? Let us consider, if we can, <strong>the</strong> being of a certain particular thing—<br />
say, <strong>the</strong> being of this individual person. If I ask whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> being of this person is to be<br />
distinguished from <strong>the</strong> person himself, <strong>the</strong>n, of course, you will say yes; <strong>and</strong> similarly you<br />
will have to say that <strong>the</strong> being of this person is distinguished from <strong>the</strong> being of <strong>the</strong> being<br />
of this person, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n, of course, that this fourth thing is distinguished from still ano<strong>the</strong>r,<br />
<strong>and</strong> so on ad infinitum, And now, since I am dealing with one who is so well-informed<br />
about <strong>the</strong> sort of entity that <strong>the</strong> being of this particular man is supposed to be, I may ask<br />
for still more information. <strong>The</strong> man himself is made up of head, torso, <strong>and</strong> extremities,<br />
<strong>and</strong> his head is made up of a nose, a mouth, two eyes, <strong>and</strong> two ears, <strong>and</strong> various smaller<br />
parts, <strong>and</strong> a continuity of limits. Do you say, <strong>the</strong>n, that <strong>the</strong> being of this man, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
being of this being, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> being of this being of <strong>the</strong> being, are composed, in a similar<br />
way, of <strong>the</strong> being of <strong>the</strong> being, <strong>and</strong> of <strong>the</strong> being of <strong>the</strong> being of <strong>the</strong> being, of <strong>the</strong> particular<br />
parts <strong>and</strong> limits which make up <strong>the</strong> man? Surely you would have to answer affirmatively.<br />
Assuming, <strong>the</strong>n, that you do, I go on to my next question. Would you say, of <strong>the</strong> being of<br />
<strong>the</strong> man, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> being of <strong>the</strong> being of <strong>the</strong> man, that <strong>the</strong>y are extended entities having <strong>the</strong><br />
same dimensions as <strong>the</strong> man himself? Would <strong>the</strong>y be included in a primary continuum<br />
which is three-dimensional <strong>and</strong> infinite in every direction—a continuum, however, which<br />
is not space, but which in one instance is <strong>the</strong> being of space, in ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> being of <strong>the</strong><br />
being of space, <strong>and</strong> so on? Since space is supposed to be a non-thing, <strong>the</strong>re would be no<br />
distinction between <strong>the</strong>se innumerable <strong>and</strong> ever-multiplying infinite primary continua <strong>and</strong><br />
space itself. I will only intimate here that one could construct an analogous argument with<br />
respect to time: one would have to assume that outside time <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong> being of each thing,<br />
<strong>and</strong> you would say that <strong>the</strong> being of <strong>the</strong> beings of <strong>the</strong>se things exist. Consequently, so far<br />
as I can see, you couldn’t put <strong>the</strong>se beings in time any more than you could put <strong>the</strong>m in<br />
space. But doubtless you have considered all this long ago, in feasting your eye upon <strong>the</strong><br />
majestic splendour <strong>and</strong> inexhaustible wealth of infinities which <strong>the</strong> doctrine of non-things<br />
has bestowed upon <strong>the</strong> world.<br />
A series of o<strong>the</strong>r questions arise. If <strong>the</strong> being of this particular man exists over <strong>and</strong> above<br />
<strong>the</strong> man himself, <strong>the</strong>n, over <strong>and</strong> above <strong>the</strong> man who is thought of only in general terms,<br />
<strong>the</strong>re will also exist <strong>the</strong> being of a man who is thought of only in general terms. Indeed,<br />
if <strong>the</strong> sentence “<strong>The</strong>re is this particular man” has a content that exists, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> indefinite<br />
sentence “<strong>The</strong>re is some man or o<strong>the</strong>r” would also have a content that exists. But now we<br />
may ask: How is <strong>the</strong> existence of <strong>the</strong> content of “<strong>The</strong>re is some man or o<strong>the</strong>r” to be related<br />
to <strong>the</strong> being of this definite man? Marty’s views about <strong>the</strong> universal man, so far as I know,<br />
are in complete agreement with mine. <strong>The</strong> universal as universal does not exist. General