第 15 节
作者:
匆匆 更新:2021-02-27 02:11 字数:9322
regarded as forces of empirical matter; are also based on the pure determinations here considered
of the one and the many and their inter…relationships; which; because these names are most
obvious; I have called repulsion and attraction。
Kant's method in the deduction of matter from these forces; which he calls a construction; when
looked at more closely does not deserve this name; unless any exercise of reflection; even
analytical reflection; is to be called a construction; and later philosophers of nature have in fact
given the name of construction to the shallowest reasoning and the most baseless concoction of
unbridled imagination and thoughtless reflection…and it is especially for the so…called factors of
attraction and repulsion that such philosophers have shown a predilection。
For Kant's method is basically analytical; not constructive。 He presupposes the idea of matter and
then asks what forces are required to maintain the determinations he has presupposed。 Thus; on
the one hand; he demands the force of attraction because; properly speaking; through repulsion
alone and without attraction matter could not exist;' and on the other hand he derives repulsion;
too; from matter and gives as the reason that we think of matter as impenetrable; since it presents
itself under this category to the sense of touch by which it manifests itself to us。 Consequently; he
proceeds; repulsion is at once thought in the concept of matter because it is immediately given
therein; whereas attraction is added to the concept syllogistically。 But these syllogisms; too; are
based on what has just been said; namely; that matter which possessed repulsive force alone;
would not exhaust our conception of matter。
It is evident that this is the method of a cognition which reflects on experience; which first
perceives the determinations in a phenomenon; then makes these the fondation; and for their
so…called explanation asumes correspnding basic elements or forces which are suppoed to
produce those determinations of the phenomenon。
With respect to this difference as to the way in which cognition finds the forces of repulsion and
attraction in matter; Kant further remarks that the force of attraction certainly just as much belongs
to the concept of matter 'although it is not contained in it'; this last expression is italicised by
Kant。 However; it is hard to perceive what this difference is supposed to be; for a determination
which belongs to the concept of anything must be truly contained in it。
What causes the difficulty and gives rise to this vain subterfuge; is that Kant from the start
one…sidedly attributes to the concept of matter only the determination of impenetrability; which we
are supposed to perceive by the sense of touch; for which reason the force of repulsion as the
holding off of an other from itself is immediately given。 But if; further; the existence of matter is
supposed to be impossible without attraction; then this assertion is based on a conception of
matter taken from sense perception; consequently; the determination of attraction; too; must come
within the range of sense perception。 It is indeed easy to perceive that matter; besides its
being…for…self; which sublates the being…for…other (offers resistance); has also a relation between
its self…determined parts; a spatial extension and cohesion; and in rigidity and solidity the
cohesion is very firm。 Physics explains that the tearing apart; etc。; of a body requires a force which
shall be stronger than the mutual attraction of the parts of the body。 From this observation
reflection can just as directly derive the force of attraction or assume it as given; as it did with the
force of repulsion。 In point of fact; if we consider Kant's arguments from which the force of
attraction is supposed to be deduced (the proof of the proposition that the possibility of matter
requires a force of attraction as a second fundamental force; loc。 cit。); it is apparent that their sole
content is this; that through repulsion alone matter would not be spatial Matter being presupposed
as filling space; it is credited with continuity; the ground of which is assumed to be the force of
attraction。
Now if the merit of such a construction of matter were at most that of an analysis (though a merit
diminished by the faulty exposition); still the fundamental thought; namely; the derivation of matter
from these two opposite determinations as its fundamental forces; must always be highly
esteemed。 Kant is chiefly concerned to banish the vulgar mechanistic way of thinking which stops
short at the one determination of impenetrability; of self…determined and self…subsistent puncticity;
and converts into something external the opposite determination; the relation of matter within
itself or the relation of a plurality of matters; which in turn are regarded as particular ones…a way of
thinking which; as Kant says; will admit no motive forces except pressure and thrust; that is; only
action from without。 This external manner of thinking always presupposes motion as already
externally present in matter; and it does not occur to it to regard motion as something immanent
and to comprehend motion itself in matter; which latter is thus assumed as; on its own account;
motionless and inert。 This stand…point has before it only ordinary mechanics; not immanent and
free motion。 It is true that Kant sublates this externality in so far as he makes attraction (the
relation of matters to one another in so far as these are assumed as separated from one another;
or matter generally in its self…externality) a force of matter itself; still; on the other hand; his two
fundamental forces within matter remain external to and completely independent of each other。
The fixed difference of these two forces attributed to them from that external standpoint is no less
null than any other distinction must show itself to be which; in respect of its specific content; is
made into something supposedly fixed; because these forces are only moments which pass over
into each other; as we saw above when they were considered in their truth。 I go on to consider
these other distinctions as they are stated by Kant。
He defines the force of attraction as a penetrative force by which one bit of matter can act directly
on the parts of another even beyond the area of contact; the force of repulsion; on the other hand;
he defines as a surface force through which bits of matter can act on each other only in the
common area of contact。 The reason adduced that the latter can be only a surface force is as
follows: 'The parts in contact each limit the sphere of action of the other; and the force of
repulsion cannot move any more distant part except through the agency of the intervening parts; an
immediate action of one part of matter on another passing right across these intervening parts by
forces of expansion (which means here; forces of repulsion) is impossible。'
But here we must remember that in assuming 'nearer' or 'more distant' parts of matter; the same
distinction would likewise arise with respect to attraction; namely; that though one atom acted on
another; yet a third; more distant atom (between which and the first atom; the second atom would
be); would first enter into the sphere of attraction of the intervening atom nearer to it; therefore the
first atom would not have an immediate; simple action on the third; from which it would follow
that the action of the force of attraction; like that of repulsion; is equally mediated。 Further; the
genuine penetration of the force of attraction could of necessity consist only in this; that every
part of matter was in and for itself attractive; not that a certain number of atoms behaved passively
and only one atom actively。 But we must at once remark with respect to the force of repulsion
itself that in the passage quoted; 'parts in contact' are mentioned which implies solidity and
continuity of a matter already finished and complete which would not permit the passage
through it of a repelling force。 But this solidity of matter in which parts are in contact and are no
longer separated by the void already presupposes that the force of repulsion is sublated; according
to the sensuous conception of repulsion which prevails here; parts in contact are to be taken as
those which do not repel each other。 It therefore follows; quite tautologically; that where repulsion
is assumed to be not; there no repulsion can take place。 But from this nothing else follows which
could serve to determine the force of repulsion。 However; reflection on the statement that parts in
contact are in contact only in so far as they hold themselves apart; leads directly to the conclusion
that the force of repulsion is not merely on the surface of matter but within the sphere which was
supposed to be only a sphere of attraction。
Kant assumes further that 'through the force of attraction; matter only occupies space but does not
fill it'; and 'because matter through the force of attraction does not fill space; this force can act
across empty space since there is no intervening matter to limit it'。 This distinction is much the same
as the one mentioned abo