Abstract

The first of my preliminary arguments which Mr. Wild feels to be erroneous is that in which possibility is held to involve both being and non-being. In defending this thesis I return to the original problem to which it attempted a preliminary solution. The pervasiveness of contingency and change in human experience was first asserted, together with the demand that metaphysics explain, as best it might, all such data; with this much I understand Mr. Wild to agree in the opening paragraph of his critique. Further it was affirmed that through awareness of contingency and change, the understanding comes to possess the concepts of being and nonbeing, and can see that both contingency and change must involve these two concepts. With Mr. Wild I agree that "There is a gulf between being and non-being." To bridge this gulf, then, to mediate these terms, is the very function of possibility. It was this gulf that demanded an intermediate conception, and the characteristics attributed to this mediator were, at the outset, simply those which its function seemed to require. My whole preliminary account of the possible, then, was constructed strictly with this function in mind. Upon careful re-consideration of the matter, I find myself still holding that the bridging of this chasm between the simple non-being of an entity and the simple being of that same entity requires intermediation of precisely the sort that I first offered. How else can we proceed, either in thought or existence, from the non-being of X to the being of X, except by means of that which exceeds but has its basis in the former, and tends toward but falls short of the latter?