Читать книгу Fundamental Philosophy - Jaime Luciano Balmes - Страница 31

Table of Contents

269. It is even ridiculous to say that the cognitions of the sublimest philosophers may be reduced to this equation: A is A. This, absolutely speaking, is not only false, but contrary to common sense; but it is neither contrary to common sense nor false to say that all cognitions of mathematicians are perceptions of identity, which, presented under different conceptions, undergoes infinite variations of form, and so fecundates the intellect and constitutes science. For the sake of greater clearness we will take an example, and follow one idea through all its transformations.

270. The equation circle = circle (1) is very true, but not very lucid, since it serves no purpose, because there is identity not only of ideas but likewise of conceptions and expression. To have a true progress in science we must not only change the expression, but also vary in some way the conception under which the identical thing is presented. Thus, if we abbreviate the above equation in this form: C = circle (2), we make no progress, unless with respect to the purely material expression. The only possible advantage of this is to assist the memory, as instead of expressing the circle by a word, we express it by its initial letter, C. Why is this? Because the variety is in the expression, not in the conception. If, instead of considering the identity in all its simplicity in both members of the equation, we give the value of the circle with reference to the circumference, we shall have C = circumference × ½ R (3), that is, the value of the circle is equal to the circumference multiplied by one-half the radius. In the equation (3) there is identity as in (1) and (2), because it is affirmed in it that the value expressed by C is the same as that expressed by circumference × ½ R; just as in the other two it is expressed that the value of the circle is the value of the circle. But is this equation different from the other two? It is very different. What is the difference? The first two simply express the identity conceived under the same point of view; the circle expressed in the second member excites no idea not already excited by the first; but in the last, the second member expresses the same circle indeed, but in its relations with the circumference and radius; and, consequently, besides containing a sort of analysis of the circle, it records the analysis previously made of the idea of the circumference in relation to the idea of radius. The difference is not, then, solely in the material expression, but in the variety of conceptions under which the same thing is presented.

Calling the value of the relation of the circumference with the diameter N, and the circle C, the equation becomes: C = NR² (4). Here, also, there is identity of value; but we discover a notable progress in the expression of the second member, in which the value of the circle is given, freed from its relations with the value of the circumference, and dependent solely on a numerical value, N, and a right line, which is the radius. Without losing the identity, and only by a succession of perceptions of identity, we have advanced in science, and starting from so sterile a proposition as circle = circle, we have obtained another, by means of which we may at once determine the value of any circle from its radius.

Leaving elemental geometry, and considering the circle as a curve referred to two axes, with respect to which its points are determined, we shall have Z = 2Bx-x²(5); Z expressing the value of the ordinate; B the constant part of the axis of abscissas; and x the abscissa corresponding to Z. We have here a still more notable progress of ideas: in both members we now express the value, not of the circle, but of lines, by which we may determine all points of the curve; and we easily conceive that this curve, which was contained in the figure whose properties we determined in elemental geometry, may be conceived under such a form as belongs to a genus of curves, whereof it constitutes a species by the particular relations of the quantities 2x and B; thus modifying the expression by adding a new quantity, combined in this or that manner, we may obtain a curve of another species. If, therefore, we would determine the value of the surface contained in this circle, we may consider it, not solely with respect to the radius, but to the areas comprised between the various perpendiculars the extremities of which determine points of the curve and are called ordinates. It results from this, that the same value of the circle may be determined under various conceptions, although this value is at all times identical; the transition from one conception to another is the succession of the perceptions of identity presented under different forms.

Let us now consider the value of the circle dependent on the radius: this will give us C = function x (6). This equation enables us to conceive the circle under the general idea of a function of its radius, or of x, and consequently authorizes us to subject it to all the laws to which a function is subject, and leads us to the properties of their differentials, limits, and relations. By this equation we enter into infinitesimal calculus, the expressions of which present identity under a form which records a series of conceptions of long and profound analysis. Thus, expressing the differential of the circle by dc, and its integral by S. dc, we shall have C = S. dc, (7), an equation in which are expressed the same values as in circle = circle, but with this difference, that the equation (7) records immense analytical labors: it results from a long succession of conceptions of integral calculus, of differentials, and limits of the differentials of the functions, of the application of algebra to geometry, and of a multitude of elementary geometrical notions, algebraical rules and combinations, and of whatever else was needed to arrive at this result. Therefore, when we find the integral of the differential, and obtain by integration the value of the circle, it would clearly be most extravagant to affirm that the integral equation is nothing more than the equation circle = circle; but it is not so to say that at bottom there is identity, and that the diversity of expression to which we have come, is the result of a succession of perceptions of the same identity presented under different aspects. Supposing the conceptions, through which it has been necessary to pass, to be A, B, C, D, E, M, the law of their scientific connection may be thus expressed: A = B, B = C, C = D, D = E, E = M; therefore A = M.

271. What we have just explained cannot be well understood unless we recall some characteristics of our intellect, in which is found the reason of so great anomalies. Our intellect is so weak as to perceive things only successively: only after much study does it see what is contained in the clearest ideas. Hence a necessity, to which corresponds with admirable harmony a faculty that satisfies it: the necessity is of conceiving under various, and different, as well as distinct, forms, even the simplest things: the faculty is that of decomposing the conception into many parts, and multiplying in the order of ideas what in that of reality is only one. This faculty of decomposition would be useless were not the intellect, in passing through the succession of conceptions, to find means of connecting and retaining them: otherwise it would continually lose the fruit of its labors; it would slip from its hands as fast as it grasped it. Happily it has this means in signs either written, spoken, or thought; those mysterious expressions which at times not only designate an idea, but also are the compendium of the labors of a whole life, and perhaps of a long series of ages. When the sign is presented to us, we do not see certainly and with full clearness all that it expresses, nor why the expression is legitimate; but we know confusedly the meaning therein contained; we know that in case of necessity, it is enough for us to follow the thread of the perceptions through which we have passed, thus going back even to the simplest elements of science. In making calculations, the most eminent mathematician does not clearly see the meaning of the expressions he uses, except as they relate to the object before him; but he is certain that they do not deceive him, that the rules by which he is guided are sure; because he knows that at another time he established them by incontestible demonstrations. The progress of a science may be compared to a series of posts on which the distances of a road are marked: he who marked the numbers on the posts uses them without necessity of recalling the operations which led him to mark the quantity before him; he is satisfied with knowing that the operations were well made, and that he wrote the result correctly.

272. The proof of this necessity of decomposition, besides being fully established by the above example, is found in the elements of all instruction, where, under a form of demonstration, it is necessary to explain propositions which express simply the definitions or axioms that have been before established. For example: we find in the elementary works on geometry this theorem: all the diameters of a circle are equal; and we must, if we would have beginners understand it, give a demonstrative form to that which neither is nor can be any thing more than an explanation, and is almost a repetition of the idea of the circle. When we describe a circle, we fix a point around which we revolve a line called the radius; since then the diameter is nothing more than the sum of two radii continued in the same right line, the mere enunciation of the theorem would seem sufficient to show that it is evidently contained in the idea of the circle, and is as a sort of repetition of the postulate, on which the construction of the curve is founded: still it is not so, and it must be explained as if it were a proof; we must show the diameter to be equal to two radii, these radii to be equal, and at times repeat that this is supposed in its construction: in a word, it is necessary to employ many conceptions to show a truth, which ought to have been known by the simple intuition of one alone, as is the case when the geometrical powers of the intellect have acquired a certain strength and robustness.

273. We may now appreciate at its just value, the opinion of Dugald Stewart, who, in his Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind, says: "It may be fairly questioned, too, whether it can, with strict correctness, be said of the simple arithmetical equation, 2 plus 2 = 4, that it may be represented by the formula A = A. The one is a proposition asserting the equivalence of two different expressions; to ascertain which equivalence may, in numberless cases, be an object of the highest importance. The other is altogether unmeaning and nugatory, and cannot, by any possible supposition, admit of the slightest application of a practical nature. What opinion then shall we form of the proposition A = A, when considered as the representative of such a formula as the binomial theorem of Sir Isaac Newton? When applied to the equation 2 plus 2 = 4, (which in its extreme simplicity and familiarity is apt to be regarded in the light of an axiom:) the paradox does not appear to be so manifestly extravagant; but, in the other case, it seems quite impossible to annex to it any meaning whatever."[22] This philosopher does not observe that the pretended extravagance arises from his wrong interpretation of his adversaries' opinion. No one ever thought of denying the importance of the discoveries which prove different expressions equivalent: no one doubts that Newton's formula of the binomial is a great advance upon the formula A = A: but the question consists not in this, but in seeing whether Newton's formula of the binomial is any thing more than the expression of identical things; and whether even the merit of the expression is or is not the fruit of a series of perceptions of identity. Were the question presented under Dugald Stewart's point of view, it would be unworthy of discussion: for philosophy should not dispute upon things that are ridiculous as well as absurd.