CHAPTER

NECESSITY

BY what
sary
If
?

sign do
is

What

recognise that a thing the criterion of necessity ?

we

is

neces

we attempt to define necessity, we are led to

to

the concept of an absolute eliminate therefrom every

relation that subordinates the existence of

one thing
absolute
all

that of another as a condition.

all

Hence

possi of or of and so is no occasion there laws, bility things to inquire if it holds sway throughout the given

necessity excludes

synthetic multiplicity,

universe, which
that depend,

is

essentially a multiplicity of things

less,

more or

upon one another.

is

In

reality,
:

the problem under investigation

sign

the

following
necessity,

by what
i.e.

do we recognise
of a

relative

the

existence

necessary relation

between two things ? The most perfect type of necessary concatenation is the syllogism, in which we have a particular pro
position
it

shown
the

to result
it

from a general one because

implicitly

is

contained in

and consequently was

affirmed
itself

very moment the general proposition was affirmed. The syllogism, after all, is but

the proof of an analytical relation that exists between

Contingency of the Laws of Nature

genus and species, the whole and the part. Conse quently, where there exists analytical relationship, we find necessary concatenation. This concatenation,
however, per
proposition
se, is
is

a purely formal one. If the general contingent, the particular one deduced
all

from
sarily

it,

as such, at

events,

is

equally and neces

contingent.

It

is

impossible, by syllogism, to
real

obtain

demonstration
all

connecting

the conclusions with

sary in itself. conditions of analysis

simply by a major neces Is this process compatible with the

necessity,
?

of

From
for its

the analytical point of view, the

in
itself is

position wholly necessary

only pro that which has

in

formula

A = A. Any proposition
is

which the

attribute or predicate
is

the

case

even

if

from the subject, as one of the two terms results

different

from the decomposition of the other, leaves behind

a
synthetical

relationship

as

analytical
thetically

relationship.

Can

a counterpart of the syllogism reduce syn

analytical propositions to purely analytical

ones.

At the

outset,

we

find a difference

between the

propositions

we have

on which syllogism works and the one In the latter, the terms are con to reach.
;

in the others, by the copula nected by the sign = Is this a radical difference ? is.

copula is, used in ordinary propositions, is From the perhaps not unrelated to the sign =. standpoint of the extension of the terms the stand
point

The

of reasoning

it

means

that

the

subject

ex-

Necessity
presses

only a part of the predicate, a part whose The proposi relative magnitude is not indicated.
tion
"All

men

are

mortal"

signifies that the species

"

"man"

is

a part of the genus

mortal,"

and leaves

the relation

between the number of men and the

one.

number of mortals an indeterminate

relation

Were
n

this

known, one might say

"All

men = -

mortals."

progress of science, it may be added, consists in determining with greater accuracy and completeness the species contained in the genera, so that, in a
perfect science,

The

the sign
is.

=
The
.

would everywhere have

formula of this science
.

replaced the copula

would
etc.

be

A = B-fC + D +
A

.;

B=a+6+c
.
. .

.,

Substituting their values for B, C, D, = #-f$ + + should finally obtain:

this

etc.,

we
is

Now,

a purely analytical formula

is

and its parts but the relation between the analytical, reciprocal for multiplicity parts and the whole is synthetical
doubt the relation between
;

No

does not contain the reason of unity. And there is nothing to be gained by alleging that when we
replace a

+ b + c+

A = A,
Still,

for

by their values we obtain what science does is to consider A as a

.

decomposable whole and to divide

the objection
form,
will

it

into

its

parts.

be raised, the ideal ana

lytical

towards which science tends,

may be

conceived

otherwise.

The

effect

of interposing a

middle term
is

to divide in

between two given terms S and P two the interval resulting from their

io

Contingency of the Laws of Nature

Middle terms
will

difference of extension.

likewise

be interposed between S and

P,

M, between

and

and so
up.

on,

filled

The

gaps are completely from S to P will then be passing

until
all

the

way, we come back to the final essence A, with which everything will be connected by a chain of continuity.
imperceptible.

Continuing

in

this

This point of view, indeed, admits of the reduc tion of all propositions to the formula A is A. But
this

time the copula is cannot be replaced by the = for the interposition of any number what sign soever of middle terms cannot entirely fill up the
,

interval

between

the

particular

and

the

general.

The
a

transitions,

none the

less discontinuous

though becoming less sudden, are and so there is always

;

difference

of

extension

or

denotation

between

subject
It
is

and predicate.
therefore
to

relations

the

impossible to = A, formula

reduce
i.e.

particular
to

by analysis

arrive

at

the

demonstration

of

radical

necessity.

Analysis and syllogism demonstrate only derivative

necessity,
i.e.

the
a

impossibility

of a
is

certain

thing

being false be true.

if

certain

other thing

admitted to

Where
to

analysis

is

wrong,
is

in so far as
it

it

professes

be

self-sufficient,

that

admits

of nothing

beyond an identical proposition as a final explana tion, and is unable to reduce to such a formula the
propositions that have to be explained.
It is

useful

only

if

an identical proposition, made up of hetero-

Necessity

1 1

geneous elements, is supplied as its point of depart ure it demonstrates necessity only if it develops a Do such syntheses exist? necessary synthesis.
;

Experience, which offers no universal knowledge whatsoever in time and space and simply makes

known
reveal

the

external

relations

between

things,

may

necessary though it that all above else, Thus, may be necessary, a True, we might synthesis must be known a priori. have to find out whether such a synthesis is neces
sary from

constant

not

relations.

the

standpoint of things, as
outset,
for

it

is

for the

mind.
it

At the
necessary
to

however,

it

is

sufficient

that

be

the mind
its

for there
reality,

to

be

no
this

occasion

discuss

objective

since

discussion could only take place in

accordance with

the laws of the mind.

If,

things
laid

did

not

exactly

perchance, the course of conform to the principles

priori by the mind, we should have to conclude, not that the mind is mistaken, but that

down a

matter betrays
feeble
revolt

its

participation
order.

in

non-entity by a

against
to

How
priori
?

are

we

recognise that a judgment

is

For a judgment to be regarded as a priori, its elements, terms, and relation must not be derived
from experience.
as
for

That the terms may be considered

is

not

coming from experience, it them to be abstract. Experience,

and an abstract aspect.
I

not

enough
gives

after

all,

us no datum
crete

which does not present both a con

cannot gather up

12
in

Contingency of the Laws of Nature

a single intuition both the colour and the odour
the

of one and
tions

same

object.

The
the
of

boldest abstrac
extension,

may
by

be
the

no more

than

formed

understanding,

the

per subdivision

outlined by the senses. Moreover, experience itself of this extension by giving us sets us on the path

more or
to

less

abstract
duration,

distance,

data about things, according or intensity. That a term,

therefore,
it

may

be considered as laid

down a
neither

priori,

experience directly, a of nor intuition, by indirectly, by a pro process cess of abstraction.

Similarly, for

must proceed

from

a relation to be considered as laid

it

down a
as

priori,

is

not

enough

that

it

should set
intuitions,

up any kind of systematisation between

though experience supplied nothing that re sembled a system. To suppose an intuition abso lutely devoid of unity is to depart from the condi
tions

of

reality.

The most immediate

of
similar

perceptions
parts

imply

the

grouping together
is

and

the separation of dissimilar objects.

multiplicity,

pure

and
;

simple,
if
it
it

something

altogether

incon

ceivable

offers

may
is

lay hold

nothing upon which thought cannot be a datum of experience.

Actually, then, in the very objects perceived, there a certain degree of systematisation and so,
;

before affirming

that

a relation
is

of dependence, set

up between two terms, we must find out if this

from those

not

due
is

to

experience,

relation

radically distinct

we

are privileged to set

up.

This

rela-

Necessity
tion

must

radically differ

from those which experi

in

ence offers

us or which we can read

the

data

of experience. The field of experience, besides, defined:

relations.
it

may be
their

clearly

consists

of facts

and

observable

Facts
facts,

may be
By

divided

into

external

and

internal
their

those

subject.

proper to the being which is the senses we can become ac

;

quainted with the former

ness,

by empirical conscious

or

the

inner

sense,

we can apprehend
or
contiguity,

the

latter within ourselves.

Observable relations consist

of

relations

of resemblance

whether

simultaneous or successive.

A
if

synthetical

judgment
;

is

subjectively necessary,
it

stated a priori

but in
the

order that

may be

a
it

sign of necessity, from

standpoint of things,

must
stated

in

addition

affirm
it

some

necessary

relation

between
a

the

terms

compares.
relation

A
Now,

contingent
all its

would

major which pass on this

the objective

character to
relations

consequents.
exist

that

may
:

between

two

terms are
effect,

reducible to four
of

the

relations

of cause to
to
attribute,

means

to

end, of substance

and of
attri

whole
bute

to part.

The
finality.

relations of substance
to

to

and of whole
and

part

may be reduced

to

causality

In the last issue, then, there

remain only these relations of causality and finality. We cannot say regarding any end that it must necessarily be realised, for no event, of itself alone,
is

the whole of what

is

possible.

On

the contrary,

14

Contingency of the Laws of Nature

there are infinite possibilities apart from the event under consideration. The chances, then, of realis

ing this event compared with the chances of realis and so ing something else are as one to infinity
;

any given end, such as the uniformity with which phenomena succeed one an other, is, in itself, infinitely improbable and far from
realisation

the

of

being necessary.

Besides, even

if

an end

is

laid

down
mined
be

as one

that

must be
this

realised, the

means
not

to

be used with a view to

at

result

are

deter
equally

the

same
be

time.

Any end may

realised

by

different

may
True,

equally

means, just as any goal reached along different roads.

not
all

the
in

means

will

be alike simple or
such,

good
is

themselves.
interested
in

The
these
into

end, however, as
differences
is
;

not

and

the
exalt
real

reason
the

we take
itself

this

account

that

means

into a

secondary end v

we The

end by the means presupposes an agent capable of knowing, preferring, and accom and so it is not necessary per se. plishing
isation

of the

It

is

not the
cause,
if

same

in the

production of an effect
is

by

its

the word

cause
force.

given

its

strict

meaning as a productive

The
virtue

cause,

strictly
effect.

so

called,

is
it

only such
acts
solely
for

if

it

produces
of

an
its

Moreover,
it

by
the

nature;

cares

nothing

aesthetic or moral value of the

result.

Thus, there

are no grounds for admitting any degree of contin gency in the simple relation of cause to effect.

Necessity
This relation
is

the perfect

though unique type of

syntheses

primordial necessity. And so it is only to

a priori causal

that necessity, alike objective

tains
:

and subjective, apper

they alone are capable of producing wholly

necessary analytical consequences. To sum up, the criterion of the necessity of a relation is the possibility of reducing it analytically
to a subjectively

and objectively necessary synthesis.

The

principle of the necessary conjunction of things,

the magnetic stone

whose
only

virtue

is

transmitted

to

every

link,

can

be

the

priori

causal

synthesis.

Now,
establish

if

it

happened that
legitimacy
of

it

were impossible

to

syntheses as con stitutive or regulative principles of the knowledge of given things, would all necessity become delusive
the
like

or fallacious

Assuredly
a
radical

we should no
as

necessity,

longer be dealing with prevailing throughout the

given world, since,

though certain syntheses implied in experience were necessary per se, the mind, in the case in question, would not be in a
position
to ascertain
this.

even

Nevertheless, the

com

experience analysis might still manifest a certain kind of necessity the only one, indeed, usually followed by the positive sciences.
:

bination

of

and

be conceived that particular syn theses empirically given may be reduced to more
It

may,

in

fact,

general

syntheses,

and

these

latter

to

still

more

Contingency of the Laws of Nature

general ones, and so on, until we come to a more or less restricted number of practically irreducible The ideal would be to reduce every syntheses. thing to a single synthesis, one supreme law which would contain all the laws of the universe as
particular cases.

doubt these general formulae, founded on experience, would retain the character
of this
latter,
is

No

which

is

to

make known what

se.

is,

not what

incapable of not being.

to

Nothing could

prove them

be necessary per
a

They would,
between
change
all

however,
particular
detail

set

up

necessary

relation

facts,

as such.

The

slightest

in

would imply the overthrow of the universe.

We

accept the possibility of a necessity of fact along with the necessity of theory. The latter is present when the synthesis developed

may

therefore

by analysis is stated a priori by the mind and unites an effect to a cause. When this synthesis,
without
totality

being
of

known a priori, known facts and is

experience,
it

is

implied

in

confirmed

by

constantly being manifests, if not the

necessity of the whole, at

events the necessity of each part, on the supposition that all the other parts are realised.
all