take the
opposite
for granted.
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason
ie empirical, though it must still he in connection with it.
This happens from the fact, that for a given conditioned, reason demands absolute totality on the side of the conditions (to which the understanding submits all phsenomena), and thus makes of the category a transcendental idea.
This it does that it may be able to give absolute complete ness to the empirical synthesis, by continuing it to the uncon ditioned (which is not to be found inexperience, but only in the idea).
Reason requires this according to the principle, Ifthe conditioned is given, the whole of the conditions, and conserjucnt- ty the absolutely unconditioned, is also given, whereby alone the former was possible.
First, then, the transcendental ideas are properly nothing but categories elevated to the unconditioned ; and they may be arranged in a table according to the tales of the latter.
But, secondly, all the categories are not available for this purpose, but only those in which the synthesis con stitutes a series -- of conditions subordinated to, not co-ordi nated with, each other.
Absolute totality is required of reason only in so far as concerns the ascending series of the conditions of a conditioned ; not, consequently, when the question relates to the descending series of consequences, or to the aggregate of the co-ordinated conditions of these
? For, in relation to a given conditioned, con ditions are pre-supposed and considered to be given along with
it. On the other hand, as the consequences do not render possible their conditions, but rather pre-suppose them, --in the consideration of the procession of consequences (or in the descent from the giv? n condition to the conditioned), we may be quite unconcerned whether the series ceases or not ; and their totality is not a necessary demand of reason.
Thus we cogitate -- and necessarily -- a given time completely elapsed up to n given moment, although that time is not determinable by us. But as regards time future, which is not the condition of arriving at the present, in order to con ceive it ; it is quite indifferent whether we consider future time as ceasing at some point, or as prolonging itself to infinity. Take, for example, the series m, n, o, in which n is given as conditioned in relation to m, but at the same time as the condition of o, and let the series proceed upwards from
the conditioned n to m &c. ), and also downwards from the coitditiou to the conditioned (p, r, &c. ), -- must
? ? s
I
n
o
j,
(J,
k, i,
? 358 TOANSCENDENTAl DIALICTIO.
pre-rappose the former aeries, to be able to consider n as given, and a is according to reason (the totality of condition*)
possible only by means of that series. But its possibility does not rest on the following series o,p, q, r, which for this reason cannot be regarded aa given, but only ns capable of being given (dabilis).
I shall term the synthesis of the series on the side of the conditions -- from that nearest to the given phenomenon up to the more remote -- regressive ; that which proceeds on the side of the conditioned, from the immediate consequence to the more remote, I shall call the progressive synthesis. The former proceeds in antecedentia, the latter in consequent ia. The cosmological ideas are therefore occupied with the totality of the regressive synthesis, and proceed in antecedentia, not ? n consequentia. When the latter takes place, it is an arbi trary and not a necessary problem of pure reason ; for we re quire, for the complete understanding of what is given in a phsenomenon, not the consequences which succeed, but the grounds or principles which precede.
? In order to construct the table of ideas in correspondence with the table of categories, we take first the two primitive quanta of all our intuition, time and space. Time is in itself a series (and the formal condition of all series), and hence, in relation to a given present, we must distinguish a priori in it the antecedentia as conditions (time paat) from the consequentia
Consequently, the transcendental idea of the absolute totality of the series of the conditions of a given conditioned, relates merely to all past time. According to the idea of reason, the whole past time, as the condition of the
given moment, is necessarily cogitated as given. But as regards space, there exists in it uo distinction between progressus and regressus ; for it is an aggregate and not a <eries--its parts ex isting together at the same time. I can consider a given point of time in relation to past time only as conditioned, because this given moment comes into existence only through the past time -- or rather through the passing of the preceding time. But as the parts of space are not subordinated, but co-ordi nated to each other, one part cannot be the condition of the possibility of the other ; and space is not in itself, like time, c series. But the synthesis of the manifold parts of space -- (tht ? yntheses whereby we apprehend space) --is neverthelcsssuccts
(time future).
? ? ? SYSTEM OF COBMOLOGICAL IDEAS-
25il
live; it takes place, therefore, in time. and contains a series. Aud as in this series of aggregated spaces (for example, the feet iu a rood), beginning with a given portion of space, those which con tinue to be annexed form the condition of the limits of the for mer, -- the measurement of a space must also be regarded as a synthesis of the series of the conditions of a given conditioned. It differs, however, in this respect from that of time, that the side of the conditioned is not in itself distinguishable from the side of the condition ; and, consequently, reyressus ana progressus in space seem to be identical. But, inasmuch as one part of space is not given, but only limited, by and through another, we must also consider every limited space as conditioned, in so far as it pre-supposes some other space as the condition of its limitation, and so on. As regards limita tion, therefore, our procedure in space is also a regressus, and the transcendental idea of the absolute totality of the syn thesis in a series of conditions applies to space also ; and I am entitled to demand the absolute totality of the pheenomenal synthesis in space as well as in time. Whether my demand can be satisfied, is a question to be answered in the sequel.
Secondly, the real in space -- that matter, conditioned. Its internal conditions are its parts, and the parts of parts its
? remote conditions so that in this case we ? find
synthesis, the absolute totality of which demand of reason.
But this cannot be obtained otherwise than
division of parts, whereby the real in matter becomes either nothing or that which not matter, that to say, the simple. * Consequently we find here also series of conditions and a progress to the unconditioned.
Thirdly, as regards the categories of real relation between plienonienn, the category ofsubstance and its accidents not suitable for the formation of transcendental idea that
to say, reason has no ground, in regard to to proceed re- gressively with conditions. For accidents (iu so far as they inhere iu substance) are co-ordinated with each other, and do not constitute series. And, in relation to substance, they are not properly subordinated to but are the mode of existence of the substance itself. The conception of the sub
stantial might nevertheless seem to be an idea of the trans cendental reason. But, as this signifies nothing more than the conception of an object in general, which subsists in so far as
* Das Kinfache.
regressive
complete
? ? << 2
by a
is a
a
; is
a
it,
it,
is,
;
a
a
is ia
a
is
is a
? 260 TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC.
we cogitate in it merely a transcendental subject without any predicates ; and as tlie question here is of an unconditioned in the series of phenomena, -- it is clear that the substantia,, can form no member thereof. The same holds good of sub- stances in community, which are mere aggregates, and do not form a series. For they are not subordinated to each other as conditions of the possibility of each other; which, however, may be affirmed of spaces, the limits of which are never determined in themselves, but always by some other space. It therefore, only in the category of causality, that wc can find series of causes to given effect, and
which we ascend from the latter, as the conditioned, to the former as the conditions, and thus answer the question of reason.
Fourthly, the conceptions of the possible, the actual, and the necessary do not conduct us to any series, -- excepting ouly in so far as the contingent existence must always be re garded as conditioned, and as indicating, according to law of the understanding, condition, under which necessary to rise to higher, till in the totality of the series, reason arrives at unconditioned necessity.
There are, accordingly, only four cosmological ideas, cor
? responding with the four titles of the categories. can select enly such as necessarily furnish us with the synthesis of the manifold.
The absolute Completeness the
Composition
For we series
the given totality
all phenomena.
3.
2.
The absolute Completeness
of the Division
The absolute Completeness the
of
given totality in jili(enomenon.
4.
Origination a phenomenon,
The absolute Completeness
of the Dependence of the Existence
what changeable in a phenomenon.
Vfc must here remark, in the first place, that the idea of
? ? of is
aa
of of
of
a
of
is, a
of
1.
in
a
in
a
a
it is
a
in
? RrSTEtt OF COSMOLOOTOAL IDEAS. 2G1
Absolute totality relates to nothing but the exposition of phe nomena, and therefore not to the pure conception of a totality of things. Phenomena are here, therefore, regarded as given, and reason requires the absolute completeness of the condi tions of their possibility, in so far u these conditions constitute a series, -- consequently an absolutely (that in every respect) complete synthesis, whereby phenomenon can be explained according to the laws of the understanding.
Secondly, properly the unconditioned alone, that reason seeks in this serially and regressivcly conducted syn thesis of conditions. wishes, to speak in another way, to attain to completeness in the series of premisses, so as to render unnecessary to presuppose others. This uncondi
? tioned always contained the absolute totality when we endeavour to form representation of
the scriet, in thought.
But this absolutely complete synthesis itself but an idea for impossible, at least beforehand, to know whether any
such synthesis possible in the case of phsenomena. When we represent all existence in thought means of pure concep tions of the understanding, without any conditions of sensuous intuition, we may say with justice that for given conditioned the whole series of conditions subordinated to each other also given for the former only given through the latter. But we find in the case of phenomena particular limitation of the mode in which conditions are given, that is, through the successive synthesis of the manifold of intuition, which must be complete in the regress. Now whether this com pleteness sensuously possible, problem. But the idea of lies the reason -- be possible or impossible to con nect with the idea adequate empirical conceptions. There
fore, as in the absolute totality of the regressive synthesis of the manifold in phsenomenon (following the guidance of the categories, which represent as series of conditions to
given conditioned) the unconditioned necessarily contained
--
This unconditioned may be cogitated-- either as existing only in the entire series, all the members of which therefore vould >e without exception conditioned and only the totalit)
being still left unascertained whether and how this totality exists reason sets out from the idea of totality, although iu proper and final aim the unconditioned --of the whole series, or of part thereof.
? ? a it
it
a; is
a is
It
a
it
is aa
in is ;
it
is it
it
is a in
is abyis a
is,
is
it is
it of is ;
? 262 TIUNSCElTDEirrAL DIALECtlC.
absolutely unconditioned,--and in this ease the regressus is called infinite ; or the absolutely unconditioned is only a part of the series, to which the other members are subordinated,
but which is not itself submitted to any other condition. * Id the former case the series is a parte priori unlimited (without beginning), that infinite, and nevertheless completely given. But the regress in never completed, and can only be called potentially infinite. In the second case there exists first in the series. This first called, in relation to past time, the beginning of the world in relation to space, the limit
the world in relation to the parts of given limited whole, the simple relation to causes, absolute spontaneity (liberty) aud in relation to the existence of changeable things, absolute physical necessity.
? We possess two expressions, world and nature, which are generally interchanged. The first denotes the mathematical total of all phenomena and the totality of their synthesis -- in its progress means of composition, as well as division. And the world termed nature, when regarded as
dynamical whole --when our attention not directed to the
aggregation in space and time, for the purpose of cogitating
as quantity, but to the unity in the existence of phenomena. In this case the condition of that which happens called cause the unconditioned causality of the cause in
menon termed liberty the conditioned cause called in more limited sense natural cause. The conditioned in ex istence termed contingent, and the unconditioned necessary.
* The absolute totality of the series of conditions to given condi tioned always unconditioned because beyond there exist no other conditions, on which might depend. But the absolute totality of such
series only an idea, or rather problematical conception, the possibi lity of which must be investigated -- particularly in relation to the mode in which the unconditioned, as the transcendental idea which the teat subject of inquiry, may be contained therein.
Nature, understood adjecthf (Jbrmaliter), signifies the complex the determinations of thing, connected according to an internal princi ple of causality. On the other hand, we understand by nature, sul/ttanlive (materiahter), the sum-total of phainoinena, in so far as they, virtue of an internal principle of causality, are connected with each other throughout. In the former sense we speak of the nature of liquid matter, of fire, &c, and employ the word only adject ice while,
the objects of nature, we hav in our minds the idea of hole.
pheno
speaking of subsisting
? ? ;
: a
is ;
a
a is
a a it
;
a
if
a is
is
by
by
o
; of a
a
a
;
f
is
;
is
aa a
is
is
is
it
is by
is, it
it
is
it
f
;; in
is
? ANTITHETIC OF PUBE SEASON. 263
The unconditioned necessity of phenomena may be called natural necessity.
The ideas which we are at present engaged in discussing
I have called cosmological ideas ; partly because by the term world is understood the entire content of all phenomena, and our ideas are directed solely to the unconditioned among phenomena ; partly also, because world, in the transcendental sense, signifies the absolute totality of the content of existing things, and we are directing our attention only to the com pleteness of the synthesis --although, properly, only in re gression. In regard to the fact that these ideas are all tran scendent, and, although they do not transcend phenomena as regards their mode, but are concerned solely with the world of sense (and not with noumena), nevertheless carry their syn thesis to a degree far above all possible experience, --it still seems to me that we can, with perfect propriety, desig nate them cosmical conceptions. As regards the distinction between the mathematically and the dynamically unconditioned which is the aim of the regression of the synthesis, I should call the two former, in a more limited signification, cosmical conceptions, the remaining two transcendent physical concep tions. This distinction does not at present seem to be of par ticular importance, but we shall afterwards find it to be of some value.
ANTINOMY OF PURE REASON. Section Second.
Antithetic of Pure Reason.
Tuetic is the term applied to every collection of dogmatical propositions. By antithetic I do not understand dogmatical assertions of the opposite, but the self-contradiction of seem ingly dogmatical cognitions (thesis cum antithest), in none of which we can discover any decided superiority. Antithetic is not therefore occupied with one-sided statements, but is engaged in considering the contradictory nature of the general cognitions of reason, and its causes. Transcendental antithetic is an investigation into the antinomy of pure reason, its causes Rnd result. If we employ our reason not merely in the appli
cation of the principles of the understanding to objects of ex
? ? ? ? TnASCENDkNTAL DIALECTIC.
perience, but venture with it beyond these boundaries, there nrise certain sophistical propositions or theorems. These assertions liave the following peculiarities : They can find neither confirmation nor confutation in experience ; and each is in itself not only self-consistent, but possesses conditions of its necessity in the very nature of reason -- only that, un luckily, there exist just as valid and necessary grounds for maintaining the contrary proposition.
The questions which naturally arise in the consideration of
this dialectic of pure reason, are therefore : 1st. In what pro
positions is pure reason unavoidably subject to an antinomy ? '2nd. What are the causes of this antinomy? 3rd. Whether and in what way can reason free itself from this self-contra diction ?
A dialectical proposition or theorem of pure reason, must, according to what has been said, be distinguishable from all sophistical propositions, by the fact that it is not an answer to an arbitrary question, which may be raised at the mere pleasure of any person, but to one which human reason must neces sarily encounter in its progress. In the second place, a dia lectical proposition, with its opposite, does not carry the ap pearance of a merely artificial illusion, which disappears as soon as it is investigated, but a natural and unavoidable illusion, which, even when we are no longer deceived by continues to mock us, and, although rendered harmless, can never be completely removed.
? This dialectical doctrine will not relate to the unity of under standing in empirical conceptions, but to the unity of reason in pure ideas. The conditions of this doctrine are -- inasmuch as must, as synthesis according to rules, be conformable to the understanding, and at the same time as the absolute
unity of the synthesis, to the reason --that, adequate to the unity of reason, too great for the understanding, according with the understanding, too small for the reason. Hence arises mutual opposition, which cannot be avoided, do what we will.
These sophistical assertions of dialectic open, as were, battle-field, where that side obtains the victory which has been permitted to make the attack, and he compelled to yield
who has been unfortunately obliged to stand on the defensive. AVnd hence, champions of ability, whether on the right or or
? ? is
a
a
it
a if
is
it,
it is
it is
if it
it
? ANTITHETIC 01 PUBE &EA80K. 265
the wrong side, are certain to carry away the crown of victory, if they ODly take care to have the right to make the last attack, and are not obliged to sustain another onset from their opponent. We can easily believe that this arena has been often trampled by the feet of combatants, that many victories have been obtained on both sides, but that the last victory, decisive of the affair between the contending parties, was won by him who fought for the right, only if his adver sary was forbidden to continue the tourney. As impartial
umpires, we must lay aside entirely the consideration whether the combatants are fighting for the right or for the wrong side, for the true or for the false, and allow the combat to be first decided. Perhaps, after they have wearied more than injured each other, they will discover the nothingness of their cause of quarrel, and part good friends.
This method of watching, or rather of originating, a con flict of assertions, not for the purpose of finally deciding in favour of either side, but to discover whether the object of the struggle is not a mere illusion, which each strives in vain to reach, but which would be no gain even when reached, -- this procedure, I say, may be termed the sceptical me/hod. It is thoroughly distinct from scepticism --the principle of a technical and scientific ignorance, which undermines the foun dations of all knowledge, in order, if possible, to destroy our belief and confidence therein. For the sceptical method aims at certainty, by endeavouring to discover in a conflict of this kind, conducted honestly and intelligently on both sides, the point of misunderstanding; just as wise legislators derive, from the embarrassment of judges in lawsuits, information in regard to the defective and ill-defined parts of their statutes. The antinomy which reveals itself in the application of laws, is for our limited wisdom the best criterion of legislation. Far the attention of reason, which in abstract speculation does not
easily become conscious of its errors, is thus roused to the momenta in the determination of its principles.
But this sceptical method is essentially peculiar to trans cendental philosophy, and can perhaps be dispensed with in every other field of investigation. In mathematics its use would be absurd ; because in it no false assertions can long remain hidden, inasmuch as its demonstrations . must
always proceed under the guidance of pure intuition, and
? ? ? ? 27',
TltASSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC.
by means of an always evident synthesis. In experimental philosophy doubt and delay may be very useful ; but no misunderstanding is possible, which cannot be eaiily re moved ; and in experience means of solving the difficulty and putting an end to the dissension must at last be found, whether sooner or later. Moral philosophy can always exhibit its principles, with their practical consequences, in concreto --
at least in possible experiences, and thus escape the mistakes and ambiguities of abstraction. But transcendental pro positions, which lay claim to insight beyond the region of
? cannot, on the one hand, exhibit their abstract synthesis in any it priori intuition, nor, on the other,
expose a lurking error by the help of experience. Transcen dental reason, therefore, presents us with no other criterion, than that of an attempt to reconcile such assertions, and for this purpose to permit a free and unrestrained conflict be
tween them. A lid this we now proceed to arrange. *
THE ANTINOMY OF PUHE REASON. FIUST CONFLICT OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS.
Thesis. Antithesis.
The world has a beginning The world has no beginning,
. n time, and is also limited in and no limits in space, but
possible experience,
regard to space.
Puoof.
Granted, that the world has
in relation both to time and space, infinite.
PilOOF.
For let be granted, that
has beginning. begin moment of time, ning an existence which
no beginning in time ; up to
every given
an eternity must have elapsed, preceded by time in which and therewith passed away an the thing does not exist. On infinite series of successive theabovesupposition, follows conditions or states of things that there must have been in the world. Now the infi time in which the world did nity of a series consists in the not exist, that void time. fact, that it never can be com- But in void time the origina
pleted by means of succes tion of thing impossible
The antinomies stand in the oracr of the four transceniental . beat above delaileU.
? ? '
a
;
it A a is
is,
aa
is a
is
a
a is,
it
it
? Then*.
>>hre synthesis. It follows iliat an infinite series already elapsed is impossible, and
that consequently a begin ning of the world is a ne cessary condition of its exist ence. And this was the first tiling to be proved.
As regards the second, let us
267
Antithuu.
because no part of any such time contains a distinctive con dition of being, in preference
to that of non-being (whether the supposed thing originate of itself, or by means of some
of its parts, and the total of such a quantity only by means
of a completed synthesis, or the repeated addition of unity to itself. Accordingly, to cogitate the world, which fills
not limited. We should there fore meet not only with re lation of things in space, but also relation of things to space. Now, ns the world an absolute whole, out of and beyond which no object of in tuition, and consequently no
tflRST ANTINOMY.
take the opposite for granted.
Id this case, the world must
he an infinite given total of
coexistent things. Now we
cannot cogitate the dimensions ment, let us first take the op of a quantity, which is not posite for granted -- that the given within certain limits of world finite and limited in an intuition,* in any other way space follows that must than by means of the synthesis^ exist in void space, which
* We may consider an undeter
mined quantity as a whole, when it
is enclosed within limits, although correlate to which can be we cannot construct or ascertain its discovered, this relation of the totality by measurement, that is, by world to void space merely the successive synthesis of its parts.
For its limits of themselves deter such relation, and conse mine its completeness as a whole. quently the limitation of the
t What is meant by tucntme world byvoid
synthetit must be tolerably plain If space, nothing. I am required to form some notion Consequently, the world, as of a piece of land, I may assume regards space, not limited, an arbitrary standard, -- a mile, or that infinite in regard an acre, --and by the successive ad to extension. *
dition of mile to mile or acre to acre
till the proper number is reached.
cvnttrvct for myself a notion of the
siie of the land. -- Tr.
other cause).
Consequently, many series of things may have a beginning in the world, but the world itself cannot have a beginning, and therefore, in
? relation to past time, infinite. As regards the second state
relation to no object. But
*
Space merely the form of e>>-
ternal intuition (formal intuition), and not real o':j>>ct wrtich ran b*
? ? is
is,
is
is
it a
a
ais,a a;is
isita ait is
is
is
? 268 TBASSCENDENTAL DIALZCTTC.
Them. ' Antithesis.
all spaces, as a whole, the suc ' externally perceived. Space, prior
cessive synthesis of the parts i to ill things which determine it (fill Off of an infinite world must be limit it), or, rather, which present an looked upon as completed, that empirical intuition conformable to
is, under the title of absolute space, is to say, an infinite time must nc thing but the mere possibility of be regarded as having elapsed external phenomena, in so far as in the enumeration of all co they either exist in themselves, or
existing things ; which is im can annex themselves to given in For this reason an tuitions. Empirical intuition
possible. therefore not composition of phie
infinite aggregate of actual nomeni and space (of perception and
things cannot be considered as empty intuition). The one not a given whole, consequently, the correlate of the other in synthe not as a contemporaneously sis, but they are vitally connected
whcle. The world is con the same empirical intuition, as mat given ter and form. If we wish to set one sequently, as regards extension of these two apart from the other -- in space, not infinite, but en space from phaenomena --there arise closed in limits. And this was all sorts of empty determinations of the second thing to be proved. external intuition, which are very far
from being possible perceptions. For example, motion or rest of the w orld in an infinite empty space, or determination of the mutual relation of both, cannot possibly be perceived, and therefore merely the predicate of notional entity.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE FlKST ANTINOMY.
On the Thesis. On the Antithesis.
In bringing forward these The proof in favour of the conflicting arguments, have infinity of the cosmical sue- not been on the search for so- cession and the cosmical con-
for the purpone of tent based upon the con availing myself of special plead- sideration, that, in the opposite ing, which takes advantage of case, void time and void the carelessness of the opposite space must constitute the limits party, appeals to misunder- of the world. Now am not stood statute, and erects its unaware, that there are some unrighteous claims upon an ways of escaping this conclu- unfair interpretation. Bothjsion. may, for example, proofs originate fairly from the be alleged, that limit to the
? phisms,
? ? a
It
a
a
I i|11,
I
a
a
is
is
a
is
a inisit,
a
? YIR8T ANrilTOMT.
269
Antithesis.
nature of the case, and the ad world, as rognrds both space
vantage presented by the mis takes of the dogmatists of both parties has been completely set aside.
The thesis might also have
been unfairly demonstrated,
by the introduction of an erro the actual world -- which neous conception of the infi impossible. am quite well nity of a given quantity. A satisfied with the latter part quantity is infinite, if a greater of this opinion of the phi than itself cannot possibly exist. losophers of the Leibnitzian The quantity is measured by school. Space merely the the number of given units-- form of external intuition, but which are taken as a standard not real object which can --contained in it. Now no self be externally intuited number can be the greatest, not correlate of pheno because one or more units can mena, the form of phseno- always be added. It follows menn itself. Space, therefore, that an infinite given quantity, cannot be regarded as abso
Tketit.
and time, quite possible, without at the same Hme hold ing the existence of an abso lute time before the
begin ning of the world, or an abso
lute space extending beyond
? consequently an infinite world (both as regards time and extension) is impossible. It
lutely and in itself something determinative of the existence of things, because not
therefore, limited in both self an object, but only the
respects. In this manner
might have conducted my
proof but the conception
given in does not agree
with the true conception of ble that, of all the possible an infinite whole. In this predicates of space (size and there no representation of relation), certain may belong to
its quantity,
large
conception
tion of maximum. We cogi determine real things regard tate in merely its relation to size or shape, for in
to an arbitrarily assumed unit, self not real thing. 'Space
relation to which than any number. 4S the unit which
greater (filled or void)* may there-
Now, just evident that what meant taken here that empty (pace, in to fai
form of possible objects. Con sequently, things, as pheno mena, determine space that
to say, they render possi
not said how reality. But we cannot affirm consequently its the converse, that space, as not the concep something self-subsistent, can
? ? is
it is
is
I
it, It is
a is
*
is
is
in
is,
a
ita it is is
;
it
it is
is in it
is ;
is
it
it i>> ;
it
it
;
it it
is
it a
I is
is
? 270 TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC.
Thesis. Antithesis.
greater or smaller, the infinite fore be limited by phenomena, will be greater or smaller ; but but phenomena cannot be the infinity, which consists limited by an empty space merely in the relation to this without them. This is true of given unit, must remain always time also. All this being the same, although the abso granted, it is nevertheless in lute quantity of the whole is disputable, that we must as- not thereby cognized. , sume these two nonentities,
The true (transcendental) void space without and void conception of infinity is : that time before the world, if we the successsive synthesis of assume the existence of eoe- unity in the measurement of a mical limits, relatively to space
? given quantum
completed . * Hence it follows,
without possibility of mistake, that an eternity of actual suc cessive states up to a given (the present) moment cannot have elapsed, and that the world must therefore have a beginning.
For, as regards the subter
fuge adopted by those who endeavour to evade the conse quence -- that, if the world is limited as to space and time, the infinite void must deter mine the existence of actual tilings in regard to their di mensions --it arises solely from
can never be or time.
In regard to the second part
of the thesis, the difficulty the fact that, instead of a sen
as to an infinite and yet elapsed
series disappears ; for the mani
fold of a world infinite in ex
tension is contemporaneously a real beginning (an existence, given. But, in order to cogi which is preceded by a period tate the total of this mani in which nothing exists) an ex fold, as we cannot have the aid istence which presupposes no of limits constituting by them other condition than that of selves this total in intuition, time ; and, instead of limits we are obliged to give some of extension, boundaries ot
account of our conception, as it is limited by plnenomena-- . which in this case cannot pro- space, that is, within t lie world --
* The quantum in this sense con does not at least contradict trans tains a congeries of given units, cendental principles and may there which it greater than any number fore, as regards them, be admi;teJ, --ami this is the mathematical con although its possibility cannot ou ception of the iu'nite. 1that account be affirmed.
suous world, an intelligible world-- of which nothing is known -- is cogitated; instead ot
? ? ? Thesis.
eeed from the whole to I lie determined quantity of the
parts, but must demonstrate the possibility of a whole by means of a successive synthesis of the parts. But as this syn thesis must constitute a series that cannot be completed, it is
271
Antithesis.
the universe. But the ques
tion relates to the mundu* phe nomenon, and its quantity and in this case we cannot make abstraction of the conditions of sensibility, without doing away with the essential reality of this world itself. The world of sense, limited, must
impossible
not means of totality.
For the conception of totality itself in the present case the
void. If this, and with space as the priori condition of the possibility of plieno-
representation
synthesis of the parts and this completion, and consequently its conception,
whole world of sense disap pears. In our problem this alone considered as given. The imnidus intelligibilis nothing but the general conception of
SECOND ANTINOMY.
for us to cogitate
prior to and consequently necessarily lie in the infinite
? of completed mena, left out of view, the
impossible.
ANTINOMY OF PURE REASON.
SECOND CONFLICT OF THB TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS.
Thesis.
Every composite substance the world consists of simple parts and there exists nothing that not either itself simple,
or composed of simple parts.
Proof.
Antithesis.
No composite thing the world consists of simple parts and there does not exist in the world any simple substance.
Proof.
Let be supposed that composite thing (as substance)
For, grant that composite
substances do not consist of consists of simple parts. In
world, in which abstraction has been made of all condi tions of intuition, and in rela tion to which no synthetical proposition -- either affirma
tive or negative -- possible.
? ? it
is
if
in
is; is by
in a;
is
is
;
is
a
is
a it, ;a
(I
it is
it
it,
? 272 TBAKBCEKDENTJU. DIALECTIC.
Thesis. Antithesis.
? imple parts ; in this case, if asmuch as all external relation, ? 11 combination or composition consequently all composition were annihilated in thought, 1of substances, possible only no composite part, and (as, by in space the space, occupied
the supposition, there do not by that which composite, exist simple parts) no simple must consist of the same num part would exist. Consequent ber of parts as contained ly, no substance ; consequent in the composite. But space
? nothing would exist. Ei does not consist of simple ther, then, impossible parts, but of spaces. There to annihilate composition in fore, every part of the compo thought or, after such anni site must occupy space. But hilation, there must remain the absolutely primary parts of something that subsists without
composition, that is, something
that simple. But in the
former case the composite everything real that occupies could not itself consist of sub space, contains manifold the stances, because with sub parts of which are external to
stances composition merely contingent relation, apart
from which they must still ex ist as sclf-subsistent beings. Now, as this cose contradicts the supposition, the second must contain the truth -- that the substantial composite in the world consists of simple parts.
follows as an immediate
inference, that the things in the
dition pertaining to them, --and of the absolutely simple can that, although we never can not be demonstrated from any
separate and isolate the ele experience or perception either
world are all, without exception,
simple beings, -- that composi
tion merely an external con the following The existence
substances from the external or internal and the state of composition, reason absolutely simple mere must cogitate these as the pri idea, the objective reality of mary subjects of all composi- which ennnot be demonstrated
mentary
what composite are simple. follows that what simple
occupies space. Now, as
each other, and consequently
composite --and real compo site, not of accidents (for these cannot exist external to each other apart from substance), but of substances, -- follows that the simple must be sub stantial composite, which self- contradictory.
The second proposition of the antithesis --that there ex ists in the world nothing that
simple -- here equivalent to
? ? is ; a
it a
It is
is
;
is :
ais a
is a isis
is
It
n
ly,
is is a
is
is a
;
it is
? 88COND AKTINOMT. 278
Theti*.
tion, and consequently, as in any possible experience;
prior thereto, --and as simple it is consequently, in the ex-
substances,
position of phenomena, with* out application and object. For, let us take for granted that an object may be found in experience for this trans cendental idea ; the empirical intt'. ition of such an object must then bo recognized to contain absolutely no mani fold with its parts external to each other, and connected into unity. Now, as we can-
inot reason from the non- consciousness of such a mani fold to the impossibility of its existence in the intuition of an object, and as the proof of this impossibility is noces-
I sary for the establishment and i proof of absolute simplicity ; ; it follows, that this simplicity \ cannot be inferred from any ! perception whatever. As, ! therefore, an absolutely sim
ple object cannot be given in any experience, and the world of sense must be considered as the sum-total of all possible experiences; nothing simple exists in the world.
This second proposition in the antithes s has a mere ex tended aim than the first. The first merely banishes the simple from the intuition of the composite ; while the se cond drives it entirely out of nature. Hence we were unable to demonstrate it t from the
Antitltetis.
? ? ? ? 274
TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC.
Them. I Antithesis.
' concept ion of a given object of
external intuition (of the com posite), but we were obliged to prove it from the relation of a given object to a possible
i experience in general. Ojbsebtations on the Second Antinomy.
I.
On the Thesis.
II.
On the Antithesis.
? When I speak of a whole,
which necessarily consists of infinite subdivisibility of mat simple parts, I understand ter, whose ground of proof is thereby only a substantial purely mathematical, objec whole, as the true composite ; tions have been alleged by the that is to say, I understand Monadists. These objections that contingent unity of the lay themselves open, at first manifold which is given as per sight, to suspicion, from the fectly isolated (at least in fact that they do not recog thought), placed in reciprocal nize the clearest mathematical connection, and thus consti proofs as propositions relating tuted a unity. Space ought to the constitution of space, in not to be called a compositum so far as it is really the formal but a totum, for its parts are condition of the possibility of possible in the whole, and not all matter, but regard them the whole by means of the merely as inferences from ab
parts. It might perhaps be stract but arbitrary concep called a compositum ideate, but tions, which cannot have any not a compositum reale. But application to real things. this is of no importance. As Just as if it were possible to space is not a composite of imagine another mode of in ? tibstances (and not even of tuition than that given in the real accidents), if I abstract primitive intuition of space ; all composition therein, -- no and just as if its << priori de thing, not even a point, re terminations did not apply to mains ; for a point is possible everything, the existence of only as the limit of a space, -- . which is possible, from the fact
consequently of a composite. : alone of its filling space. If we Space arid time, therefore, do listen to them, we shall find
Against the assertion of the
? ? ? OBaEBVATtONS ON TUB SECOND AKTIXOlir.
Thetis. Antithesis.
275
not consist of simple parts. ourselves required to cogitate, That which belongs only to in addition to the mathemati the condition or state of a cal point, which is simple -- substance, even although it not, however, a part, but a possesses a quantity (motion mere limit of space -- physical or change, for example), like points, wkich are indeed like wise does not consist of simple wise simple, but possess the parts. That is to say, a cer peculiar property, as parts of tain degree of change does not space, of filling it merely by originate from the addition of their aggregation. I shall not many simple changes. Our repeat here the common and inference of the simple from clear refutations of this ab the composite is valid only of surdity, which are to be found self-subsisting things. But everywhere in numbers : every the accidents of a state are not one knows that it is impossi self-subsistent. The proof, ble to undermine the evidence then, for the necessity of the of mathematics by mere dis simple, as the component part cursive conceptions ; I shall of all that is substantial and only remark, that, if in this composite, may prove a failure, case philosophy endeavours to and the whole case of this the gain an advantage over mathe sis be lost, if we carry the pro matics by sophistical artifices, position too far, and wish to it is because it forgets that the make it valid of everything discussion relates solely to phe that is composite without dis nomena and their conditions. tinction --as indeed has really It is not sufficient to find the now and then happened. Be conception of the simple for
sides, I am here speaking only the pure conception of the com of the simple, in so far as it posite, but we must discover is necessarily given in the com for the intuition of the compo posite -- the latter being capa site (matter), the intuition of ble of solution into the former the simple. Now this, ac as its component parts. The cording to the laws of sensi proper signification of the bility, and consequently in the word monas (as employed by case of objects of sense, is ut
? ought to relate to terly impossible. In the case the simple, given immediately of a whole composed of sub as simple substance (for ex stances, which is cogitated ample, in consciousness), and solely by the pure understand not as an elemeut of the ing, it may be necessary to ba
Leibnitz)
? ? ? 376
Thetis.
composite. As an element, the term atomus* would be
Antithesis.
in possession of the simple W fore composition is possible.
TRAWSCKNDEKTAL DIALECTIC.
more appropriate. And as I
wish to prove the existence of
simple substances, only in re nomenon, which, as an empi lation to, and as the elements rical intuition in space, pos
of, the composite, I might
term the antithesis of the se
cond Antinomy, transcenden
tal Atomistic. But as this
word has long been employed
to designate a particular theory
of corporeal pbenomena (mo- this difficulty, by presupposing leculte), and thus presupposes intuition and the dynamical a basis of empirical concep relation of substances as the tions, I prefer calling it the condition of the possibility of dialectical principle of Mona-
dology.
? A inaicaline formed by Kant,
instead of the common neuter ato- bodies. Now we have con
mon, which is generally translated
in the scholastic philosophy by the
terms imeparaiite, inditeernibile,
timpltx. Kant wished to have a
term opposed to moruu, and so hit ns the condition of all external upon this U7ra? Xiyi/ifvov. With phenomena. The evasion
Drmocriti s aropoc, and with Cicero therefore in vain as, indeed, alomuM is feminine. --Nttt *y Ko- we have sufficiently shown in
tnUtrauM.
our ^Esthetic. If bodies were things in thems, ies, the proof of the Monadists would be un exceptionable.
The second dialectical as sertion possesses the peculi arity of having opposed to dogmatical proposition, which, among all such sophistical statements, the only one that undertakes to prove the case of an object of experience,
But this does not hold good
of the Totum substantiate phe
sesses the necessary property of containing no simple part, for the very reason, that no
?
? For, in relation to a given conditioned, con ditions are pre-supposed and considered to be given along with
it. On the other hand, as the consequences do not render possible their conditions, but rather pre-suppose them, --in the consideration of the procession of consequences (or in the descent from the giv? n condition to the conditioned), we may be quite unconcerned whether the series ceases or not ; and their totality is not a necessary demand of reason.
Thus we cogitate -- and necessarily -- a given time completely elapsed up to n given moment, although that time is not determinable by us. But as regards time future, which is not the condition of arriving at the present, in order to con ceive it ; it is quite indifferent whether we consider future time as ceasing at some point, or as prolonging itself to infinity. Take, for example, the series m, n, o, in which n is given as conditioned in relation to m, but at the same time as the condition of o, and let the series proceed upwards from
the conditioned n to m &c. ), and also downwards from the coitditiou to the conditioned (p, r, &c. ), -- must
? ? s
I
n
o
j,
(J,
k, i,
? 358 TOANSCENDENTAl DIALICTIO.
pre-rappose the former aeries, to be able to consider n as given, and a is according to reason (the totality of condition*)
possible only by means of that series. But its possibility does not rest on the following series o,p, q, r, which for this reason cannot be regarded aa given, but only ns capable of being given (dabilis).
I shall term the synthesis of the series on the side of the conditions -- from that nearest to the given phenomenon up to the more remote -- regressive ; that which proceeds on the side of the conditioned, from the immediate consequence to the more remote, I shall call the progressive synthesis. The former proceeds in antecedentia, the latter in consequent ia. The cosmological ideas are therefore occupied with the totality of the regressive synthesis, and proceed in antecedentia, not ? n consequentia. When the latter takes place, it is an arbi trary and not a necessary problem of pure reason ; for we re quire, for the complete understanding of what is given in a phsenomenon, not the consequences which succeed, but the grounds or principles which precede.
? In order to construct the table of ideas in correspondence with the table of categories, we take first the two primitive quanta of all our intuition, time and space. Time is in itself a series (and the formal condition of all series), and hence, in relation to a given present, we must distinguish a priori in it the antecedentia as conditions (time paat) from the consequentia
Consequently, the transcendental idea of the absolute totality of the series of the conditions of a given conditioned, relates merely to all past time. According to the idea of reason, the whole past time, as the condition of the
given moment, is necessarily cogitated as given. But as regards space, there exists in it uo distinction between progressus and regressus ; for it is an aggregate and not a <eries--its parts ex isting together at the same time. I can consider a given point of time in relation to past time only as conditioned, because this given moment comes into existence only through the past time -- or rather through the passing of the preceding time. But as the parts of space are not subordinated, but co-ordi nated to each other, one part cannot be the condition of the possibility of the other ; and space is not in itself, like time, c series. But the synthesis of the manifold parts of space -- (tht ? yntheses whereby we apprehend space) --is neverthelcsssuccts
(time future).
? ? ? SYSTEM OF COBMOLOGICAL IDEAS-
25il
live; it takes place, therefore, in time. and contains a series. Aud as in this series of aggregated spaces (for example, the feet iu a rood), beginning with a given portion of space, those which con tinue to be annexed form the condition of the limits of the for mer, -- the measurement of a space must also be regarded as a synthesis of the series of the conditions of a given conditioned. It differs, however, in this respect from that of time, that the side of the conditioned is not in itself distinguishable from the side of the condition ; and, consequently, reyressus ana progressus in space seem to be identical. But, inasmuch as one part of space is not given, but only limited, by and through another, we must also consider every limited space as conditioned, in so far as it pre-supposes some other space as the condition of its limitation, and so on. As regards limita tion, therefore, our procedure in space is also a regressus, and the transcendental idea of the absolute totality of the syn thesis in a series of conditions applies to space also ; and I am entitled to demand the absolute totality of the pheenomenal synthesis in space as well as in time. Whether my demand can be satisfied, is a question to be answered in the sequel.
Secondly, the real in space -- that matter, conditioned. Its internal conditions are its parts, and the parts of parts its
? remote conditions so that in this case we ? find
synthesis, the absolute totality of which demand of reason.
But this cannot be obtained otherwise than
division of parts, whereby the real in matter becomes either nothing or that which not matter, that to say, the simple. * Consequently we find here also series of conditions and a progress to the unconditioned.
Thirdly, as regards the categories of real relation between plienonienn, the category ofsubstance and its accidents not suitable for the formation of transcendental idea that
to say, reason has no ground, in regard to to proceed re- gressively with conditions. For accidents (iu so far as they inhere iu substance) are co-ordinated with each other, and do not constitute series. And, in relation to substance, they are not properly subordinated to but are the mode of existence of the substance itself. The conception of the sub
stantial might nevertheless seem to be an idea of the trans cendental reason. But, as this signifies nothing more than the conception of an object in general, which subsists in so far as
* Das Kinfache.
regressive
complete
? ? << 2
by a
is a
a
; is
a
it,
it,
is,
;
a
a
is ia
a
is
is a
? 260 TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC.
we cogitate in it merely a transcendental subject without any predicates ; and as tlie question here is of an unconditioned in the series of phenomena, -- it is clear that the substantia,, can form no member thereof. The same holds good of sub- stances in community, which are mere aggregates, and do not form a series. For they are not subordinated to each other as conditions of the possibility of each other; which, however, may be affirmed of spaces, the limits of which are never determined in themselves, but always by some other space. It therefore, only in the category of causality, that wc can find series of causes to given effect, and
which we ascend from the latter, as the conditioned, to the former as the conditions, and thus answer the question of reason.
Fourthly, the conceptions of the possible, the actual, and the necessary do not conduct us to any series, -- excepting ouly in so far as the contingent existence must always be re garded as conditioned, and as indicating, according to law of the understanding, condition, under which necessary to rise to higher, till in the totality of the series, reason arrives at unconditioned necessity.
There are, accordingly, only four cosmological ideas, cor
? responding with the four titles of the categories. can select enly such as necessarily furnish us with the synthesis of the manifold.
The absolute Completeness the
Composition
For we series
the given totality
all phenomena.
3.
2.
The absolute Completeness
of the Division
The absolute Completeness the
of
given totality in jili(enomenon.
4.
Origination a phenomenon,
The absolute Completeness
of the Dependence of the Existence
what changeable in a phenomenon.
Vfc must here remark, in the first place, that the idea of
? ? of is
aa
of of
of
a
of
is, a
of
1.
in
a
in
a
a
it is
a
in
? RrSTEtt OF COSMOLOOTOAL IDEAS. 2G1
Absolute totality relates to nothing but the exposition of phe nomena, and therefore not to the pure conception of a totality of things. Phenomena are here, therefore, regarded as given, and reason requires the absolute completeness of the condi tions of their possibility, in so far u these conditions constitute a series, -- consequently an absolutely (that in every respect) complete synthesis, whereby phenomenon can be explained according to the laws of the understanding.
Secondly, properly the unconditioned alone, that reason seeks in this serially and regressivcly conducted syn thesis of conditions. wishes, to speak in another way, to attain to completeness in the series of premisses, so as to render unnecessary to presuppose others. This uncondi
? tioned always contained the absolute totality when we endeavour to form representation of
the scriet, in thought.
But this absolutely complete synthesis itself but an idea for impossible, at least beforehand, to know whether any
such synthesis possible in the case of phsenomena. When we represent all existence in thought means of pure concep tions of the understanding, without any conditions of sensuous intuition, we may say with justice that for given conditioned the whole series of conditions subordinated to each other also given for the former only given through the latter. But we find in the case of phenomena particular limitation of the mode in which conditions are given, that is, through the successive synthesis of the manifold of intuition, which must be complete in the regress. Now whether this com pleteness sensuously possible, problem. But the idea of lies the reason -- be possible or impossible to con nect with the idea adequate empirical conceptions. There
fore, as in the absolute totality of the regressive synthesis of the manifold in phsenomenon (following the guidance of the categories, which represent as series of conditions to
given conditioned) the unconditioned necessarily contained
--
This unconditioned may be cogitated-- either as existing only in the entire series, all the members of which therefore vould >e without exception conditioned and only the totalit)
being still left unascertained whether and how this totality exists reason sets out from the idea of totality, although iu proper and final aim the unconditioned --of the whole series, or of part thereof.
? ? a it
it
a; is
a is
It
a
it
is aa
in is ;
it
is it
it
is a in
is abyis a
is,
is
it is
it of is ;
? 262 TIUNSCElTDEirrAL DIALECtlC.
absolutely unconditioned,--and in this ease the regressus is called infinite ; or the absolutely unconditioned is only a part of the series, to which the other members are subordinated,
but which is not itself submitted to any other condition. * Id the former case the series is a parte priori unlimited (without beginning), that infinite, and nevertheless completely given. But the regress in never completed, and can only be called potentially infinite. In the second case there exists first in the series. This first called, in relation to past time, the beginning of the world in relation to space, the limit
the world in relation to the parts of given limited whole, the simple relation to causes, absolute spontaneity (liberty) aud in relation to the existence of changeable things, absolute physical necessity.
? We possess two expressions, world and nature, which are generally interchanged. The first denotes the mathematical total of all phenomena and the totality of their synthesis -- in its progress means of composition, as well as division. And the world termed nature, when regarded as
dynamical whole --when our attention not directed to the
aggregation in space and time, for the purpose of cogitating
as quantity, but to the unity in the existence of phenomena. In this case the condition of that which happens called cause the unconditioned causality of the cause in
menon termed liberty the conditioned cause called in more limited sense natural cause. The conditioned in ex istence termed contingent, and the unconditioned necessary.
* The absolute totality of the series of conditions to given condi tioned always unconditioned because beyond there exist no other conditions, on which might depend. But the absolute totality of such
series only an idea, or rather problematical conception, the possibi lity of which must be investigated -- particularly in relation to the mode in which the unconditioned, as the transcendental idea which the teat subject of inquiry, may be contained therein.
Nature, understood adjecthf (Jbrmaliter), signifies the complex the determinations of thing, connected according to an internal princi ple of causality. On the other hand, we understand by nature, sul/ttanlive (materiahter), the sum-total of phainoinena, in so far as they, virtue of an internal principle of causality, are connected with each other throughout. In the former sense we speak of the nature of liquid matter, of fire, &c, and employ the word only adject ice while,
the objects of nature, we hav in our minds the idea of hole.
pheno
speaking of subsisting
? ? ;
: a
is ;
a
a is
a a it
;
a
if
a is
is
by
by
o
; of a
a
a
;
f
is
;
is
aa a
is
is
is
it
is by
is, it
it
is
it
f
;; in
is
? ANTITHETIC OF PUBE SEASON. 263
The unconditioned necessity of phenomena may be called natural necessity.
The ideas which we are at present engaged in discussing
I have called cosmological ideas ; partly because by the term world is understood the entire content of all phenomena, and our ideas are directed solely to the unconditioned among phenomena ; partly also, because world, in the transcendental sense, signifies the absolute totality of the content of existing things, and we are directing our attention only to the com pleteness of the synthesis --although, properly, only in re gression. In regard to the fact that these ideas are all tran scendent, and, although they do not transcend phenomena as regards their mode, but are concerned solely with the world of sense (and not with noumena), nevertheless carry their syn thesis to a degree far above all possible experience, --it still seems to me that we can, with perfect propriety, desig nate them cosmical conceptions. As regards the distinction between the mathematically and the dynamically unconditioned which is the aim of the regression of the synthesis, I should call the two former, in a more limited signification, cosmical conceptions, the remaining two transcendent physical concep tions. This distinction does not at present seem to be of par ticular importance, but we shall afterwards find it to be of some value.
ANTINOMY OF PURE REASON. Section Second.
Antithetic of Pure Reason.
Tuetic is the term applied to every collection of dogmatical propositions. By antithetic I do not understand dogmatical assertions of the opposite, but the self-contradiction of seem ingly dogmatical cognitions (thesis cum antithest), in none of which we can discover any decided superiority. Antithetic is not therefore occupied with one-sided statements, but is engaged in considering the contradictory nature of the general cognitions of reason, and its causes. Transcendental antithetic is an investigation into the antinomy of pure reason, its causes Rnd result. If we employ our reason not merely in the appli
cation of the principles of the understanding to objects of ex
? ? ? ? TnASCENDkNTAL DIALECTIC.
perience, but venture with it beyond these boundaries, there nrise certain sophistical propositions or theorems. These assertions liave the following peculiarities : They can find neither confirmation nor confutation in experience ; and each is in itself not only self-consistent, but possesses conditions of its necessity in the very nature of reason -- only that, un luckily, there exist just as valid and necessary grounds for maintaining the contrary proposition.
The questions which naturally arise in the consideration of
this dialectic of pure reason, are therefore : 1st. In what pro
positions is pure reason unavoidably subject to an antinomy ? '2nd. What are the causes of this antinomy? 3rd. Whether and in what way can reason free itself from this self-contra diction ?
A dialectical proposition or theorem of pure reason, must, according to what has been said, be distinguishable from all sophistical propositions, by the fact that it is not an answer to an arbitrary question, which may be raised at the mere pleasure of any person, but to one which human reason must neces sarily encounter in its progress. In the second place, a dia lectical proposition, with its opposite, does not carry the ap pearance of a merely artificial illusion, which disappears as soon as it is investigated, but a natural and unavoidable illusion, which, even when we are no longer deceived by continues to mock us, and, although rendered harmless, can never be completely removed.
? This dialectical doctrine will not relate to the unity of under standing in empirical conceptions, but to the unity of reason in pure ideas. The conditions of this doctrine are -- inasmuch as must, as synthesis according to rules, be conformable to the understanding, and at the same time as the absolute
unity of the synthesis, to the reason --that, adequate to the unity of reason, too great for the understanding, according with the understanding, too small for the reason. Hence arises mutual opposition, which cannot be avoided, do what we will.
These sophistical assertions of dialectic open, as were, battle-field, where that side obtains the victory which has been permitted to make the attack, and he compelled to yield
who has been unfortunately obliged to stand on the defensive. AVnd hence, champions of ability, whether on the right or or
? ? is
a
a
it
a if
is
it,
it is
it is
if it
it
? ANTITHETIC 01 PUBE &EA80K. 265
the wrong side, are certain to carry away the crown of victory, if they ODly take care to have the right to make the last attack, and are not obliged to sustain another onset from their opponent. We can easily believe that this arena has been often trampled by the feet of combatants, that many victories have been obtained on both sides, but that the last victory, decisive of the affair between the contending parties, was won by him who fought for the right, only if his adver sary was forbidden to continue the tourney. As impartial
umpires, we must lay aside entirely the consideration whether the combatants are fighting for the right or for the wrong side, for the true or for the false, and allow the combat to be first decided. Perhaps, after they have wearied more than injured each other, they will discover the nothingness of their cause of quarrel, and part good friends.
This method of watching, or rather of originating, a con flict of assertions, not for the purpose of finally deciding in favour of either side, but to discover whether the object of the struggle is not a mere illusion, which each strives in vain to reach, but which would be no gain even when reached, -- this procedure, I say, may be termed the sceptical me/hod. It is thoroughly distinct from scepticism --the principle of a technical and scientific ignorance, which undermines the foun dations of all knowledge, in order, if possible, to destroy our belief and confidence therein. For the sceptical method aims at certainty, by endeavouring to discover in a conflict of this kind, conducted honestly and intelligently on both sides, the point of misunderstanding; just as wise legislators derive, from the embarrassment of judges in lawsuits, information in regard to the defective and ill-defined parts of their statutes. The antinomy which reveals itself in the application of laws, is for our limited wisdom the best criterion of legislation. Far the attention of reason, which in abstract speculation does not
easily become conscious of its errors, is thus roused to the momenta in the determination of its principles.
But this sceptical method is essentially peculiar to trans cendental philosophy, and can perhaps be dispensed with in every other field of investigation. In mathematics its use would be absurd ; because in it no false assertions can long remain hidden, inasmuch as its demonstrations . must
always proceed under the guidance of pure intuition, and
? ? ? ? 27',
TltASSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC.
by means of an always evident synthesis. In experimental philosophy doubt and delay may be very useful ; but no misunderstanding is possible, which cannot be eaiily re moved ; and in experience means of solving the difficulty and putting an end to the dissension must at last be found, whether sooner or later. Moral philosophy can always exhibit its principles, with their practical consequences, in concreto --
at least in possible experiences, and thus escape the mistakes and ambiguities of abstraction. But transcendental pro positions, which lay claim to insight beyond the region of
? cannot, on the one hand, exhibit their abstract synthesis in any it priori intuition, nor, on the other,
expose a lurking error by the help of experience. Transcen dental reason, therefore, presents us with no other criterion, than that of an attempt to reconcile such assertions, and for this purpose to permit a free and unrestrained conflict be
tween them. A lid this we now proceed to arrange. *
THE ANTINOMY OF PUHE REASON. FIUST CONFLICT OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS.
Thesis. Antithesis.
The world has a beginning The world has no beginning,
. n time, and is also limited in and no limits in space, but
possible experience,
regard to space.
Puoof.
Granted, that the world has
in relation both to time and space, infinite.
PilOOF.
For let be granted, that
has beginning. begin moment of time, ning an existence which
no beginning in time ; up to
every given
an eternity must have elapsed, preceded by time in which and therewith passed away an the thing does not exist. On infinite series of successive theabovesupposition, follows conditions or states of things that there must have been in the world. Now the infi time in which the world did nity of a series consists in the not exist, that void time. fact, that it never can be com- But in void time the origina
pleted by means of succes tion of thing impossible
The antinomies stand in the oracr of the four transceniental . beat above delaileU.
? ? '
a
;
it A a is
is,
aa
is a
is
a
a is,
it
it
? Then*.
>>hre synthesis. It follows iliat an infinite series already elapsed is impossible, and
that consequently a begin ning of the world is a ne cessary condition of its exist ence. And this was the first tiling to be proved.
As regards the second, let us
267
Antithuu.
because no part of any such time contains a distinctive con dition of being, in preference
to that of non-being (whether the supposed thing originate of itself, or by means of some
of its parts, and the total of such a quantity only by means
of a completed synthesis, or the repeated addition of unity to itself. Accordingly, to cogitate the world, which fills
not limited. We should there fore meet not only with re lation of things in space, but also relation of things to space. Now, ns the world an absolute whole, out of and beyond which no object of in tuition, and consequently no
tflRST ANTINOMY.
take the opposite for granted.
Id this case, the world must
he an infinite given total of
coexistent things. Now we
cannot cogitate the dimensions ment, let us first take the op of a quantity, which is not posite for granted -- that the given within certain limits of world finite and limited in an intuition,* in any other way space follows that must than by means of the synthesis^ exist in void space, which
* We may consider an undeter
mined quantity as a whole, when it
is enclosed within limits, although correlate to which can be we cannot construct or ascertain its discovered, this relation of the totality by measurement, that is, by world to void space merely the successive synthesis of its parts.
For its limits of themselves deter such relation, and conse mine its completeness as a whole. quently the limitation of the
t What is meant by tucntme world byvoid
synthetit must be tolerably plain If space, nothing. I am required to form some notion Consequently, the world, as of a piece of land, I may assume regards space, not limited, an arbitrary standard, -- a mile, or that infinite in regard an acre, --and by the successive ad to extension. *
dition of mile to mile or acre to acre
till the proper number is reached.
cvnttrvct for myself a notion of the
siie of the land. -- Tr.
other cause).
Consequently, many series of things may have a beginning in the world, but the world itself cannot have a beginning, and therefore, in
? relation to past time, infinite. As regards the second state
relation to no object. But
*
Space merely the form of e>>-
ternal intuition (formal intuition), and not real o':j>>ct wrtich ran b*
? ? is
is,
is
is
it a
a
ais,a a;is
isita ait is
is
is
? 268 TBASSCENDENTAL DIALZCTTC.
Them. ' Antithesis.
all spaces, as a whole, the suc ' externally perceived. Space, prior
cessive synthesis of the parts i to ill things which determine it (fill Off of an infinite world must be limit it), or, rather, which present an looked upon as completed, that empirical intuition conformable to
is, under the title of absolute space, is to say, an infinite time must nc thing but the mere possibility of be regarded as having elapsed external phenomena, in so far as in the enumeration of all co they either exist in themselves, or
existing things ; which is im can annex themselves to given in For this reason an tuitions. Empirical intuition
possible. therefore not composition of phie
infinite aggregate of actual nomeni and space (of perception and
things cannot be considered as empty intuition). The one not a given whole, consequently, the correlate of the other in synthe not as a contemporaneously sis, but they are vitally connected
whcle. The world is con the same empirical intuition, as mat given ter and form. If we wish to set one sequently, as regards extension of these two apart from the other -- in space, not infinite, but en space from phaenomena --there arise closed in limits. And this was all sorts of empty determinations of the second thing to be proved. external intuition, which are very far
from being possible perceptions. For example, motion or rest of the w orld in an infinite empty space, or determination of the mutual relation of both, cannot possibly be perceived, and therefore merely the predicate of notional entity.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE FlKST ANTINOMY.
On the Thesis. On the Antithesis.
In bringing forward these The proof in favour of the conflicting arguments, have infinity of the cosmical sue- not been on the search for so- cession and the cosmical con-
for the purpone of tent based upon the con availing myself of special plead- sideration, that, in the opposite ing, which takes advantage of case, void time and void the carelessness of the opposite space must constitute the limits party, appeals to misunder- of the world. Now am not stood statute, and erects its unaware, that there are some unrighteous claims upon an ways of escaping this conclu- unfair interpretation. Bothjsion. may, for example, proofs originate fairly from the be alleged, that limit to the
? phisms,
? ? a
It
a
a
I i|11,
I
a
a
is
is
a
is
a inisit,
a
? YIR8T ANrilTOMT.
269
Antithesis.
nature of the case, and the ad world, as rognrds both space
vantage presented by the mis takes of the dogmatists of both parties has been completely set aside.
The thesis might also have
been unfairly demonstrated,
by the introduction of an erro the actual world -- which neous conception of the infi impossible. am quite well nity of a given quantity. A satisfied with the latter part quantity is infinite, if a greater of this opinion of the phi than itself cannot possibly exist. losophers of the Leibnitzian The quantity is measured by school. Space merely the the number of given units-- form of external intuition, but which are taken as a standard not real object which can --contained in it. Now no self be externally intuited number can be the greatest, not correlate of pheno because one or more units can mena, the form of phseno- always be added. It follows menn itself. Space, therefore, that an infinite given quantity, cannot be regarded as abso
Tketit.
and time, quite possible, without at the same Hme hold ing the existence of an abso lute time before the
begin ning of the world, or an abso
lute space extending beyond
? consequently an infinite world (both as regards time and extension) is impossible. It
lutely and in itself something determinative of the existence of things, because not
therefore, limited in both self an object, but only the
respects. In this manner
might have conducted my
proof but the conception
given in does not agree
with the true conception of ble that, of all the possible an infinite whole. In this predicates of space (size and there no representation of relation), certain may belong to
its quantity,
large
conception
tion of maximum. We cogi determine real things regard tate in merely its relation to size or shape, for in
to an arbitrarily assumed unit, self not real thing. 'Space
relation to which than any number. 4S the unit which
greater (filled or void)* may there-
Now, just evident that what meant taken here that empty (pace, in to fai
form of possible objects. Con sequently, things, as pheno mena, determine space that
to say, they render possi
not said how reality. But we cannot affirm consequently its the converse, that space, as not the concep something self-subsistent, can
? ? is
it is
is
I
it, It is
a is
*
is
is
in
is,
a
ita it is is
;
it
it is
is in it
is ;
is
it
it i>> ;
it
it
;
it it
is
it a
I is
is
? 270 TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC.
Thesis. Antithesis.
greater or smaller, the infinite fore be limited by phenomena, will be greater or smaller ; but but phenomena cannot be the infinity, which consists limited by an empty space merely in the relation to this without them. This is true of given unit, must remain always time also. All this being the same, although the abso granted, it is nevertheless in lute quantity of the whole is disputable, that we must as- not thereby cognized. , sume these two nonentities,
The true (transcendental) void space without and void conception of infinity is : that time before the world, if we the successsive synthesis of assume the existence of eoe- unity in the measurement of a mical limits, relatively to space
? given quantum
completed . * Hence it follows,
without possibility of mistake, that an eternity of actual suc cessive states up to a given (the present) moment cannot have elapsed, and that the world must therefore have a beginning.
For, as regards the subter
fuge adopted by those who endeavour to evade the conse quence -- that, if the world is limited as to space and time, the infinite void must deter mine the existence of actual tilings in regard to their di mensions --it arises solely from
can never be or time.
In regard to the second part
of the thesis, the difficulty the fact that, instead of a sen
as to an infinite and yet elapsed
series disappears ; for the mani
fold of a world infinite in ex
tension is contemporaneously a real beginning (an existence, given. But, in order to cogi which is preceded by a period tate the total of this mani in which nothing exists) an ex fold, as we cannot have the aid istence which presupposes no of limits constituting by them other condition than that of selves this total in intuition, time ; and, instead of limits we are obliged to give some of extension, boundaries ot
account of our conception, as it is limited by plnenomena-- . which in this case cannot pro- space, that is, within t lie world --
* The quantum in this sense con does not at least contradict trans tains a congeries of given units, cendental principles and may there which it greater than any number fore, as regards them, be admi;teJ, --ami this is the mathematical con although its possibility cannot ou ception of the iu'nite. 1that account be affirmed.
suous world, an intelligible world-- of which nothing is known -- is cogitated; instead ot
? ? ? Thesis.
eeed from the whole to I lie determined quantity of the
parts, but must demonstrate the possibility of a whole by means of a successive synthesis of the parts. But as this syn thesis must constitute a series that cannot be completed, it is
271
Antithesis.
the universe. But the ques
tion relates to the mundu* phe nomenon, and its quantity and in this case we cannot make abstraction of the conditions of sensibility, without doing away with the essential reality of this world itself. The world of sense, limited, must
impossible
not means of totality.
For the conception of totality itself in the present case the
void. If this, and with space as the priori condition of the possibility of plieno-
representation
synthesis of the parts and this completion, and consequently its conception,
whole world of sense disap pears. In our problem this alone considered as given. The imnidus intelligibilis nothing but the general conception of
SECOND ANTINOMY.
for us to cogitate
prior to and consequently necessarily lie in the infinite
? of completed mena, left out of view, the
impossible.
ANTINOMY OF PURE REASON.
SECOND CONFLICT OF THB TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS.
Thesis.
Every composite substance the world consists of simple parts and there exists nothing that not either itself simple,
or composed of simple parts.
Proof.
Antithesis.
No composite thing the world consists of simple parts and there does not exist in the world any simple substance.
Proof.
Let be supposed that composite thing (as substance)
For, grant that composite
substances do not consist of consists of simple parts. In
world, in which abstraction has been made of all condi tions of intuition, and in rela tion to which no synthetical proposition -- either affirma
tive or negative -- possible.
? ? it
is
if
in
is; is by
in a;
is
is
;
is
a
is
a it, ;a
(I
it is
it
it,
? 272 TBAKBCEKDENTJU. DIALECTIC.
Thesis. Antithesis.
? imple parts ; in this case, if asmuch as all external relation, ? 11 combination or composition consequently all composition were annihilated in thought, 1of substances, possible only no composite part, and (as, by in space the space, occupied
the supposition, there do not by that which composite, exist simple parts) no simple must consist of the same num part would exist. Consequent ber of parts as contained ly, no substance ; consequent in the composite. But space
? nothing would exist. Ei does not consist of simple ther, then, impossible parts, but of spaces. There to annihilate composition in fore, every part of the compo thought or, after such anni site must occupy space. But hilation, there must remain the absolutely primary parts of something that subsists without
composition, that is, something
that simple. But in the
former case the composite everything real that occupies could not itself consist of sub space, contains manifold the stances, because with sub parts of which are external to
stances composition merely contingent relation, apart
from which they must still ex ist as sclf-subsistent beings. Now, as this cose contradicts the supposition, the second must contain the truth -- that the substantial composite in the world consists of simple parts.
follows as an immediate
inference, that the things in the
dition pertaining to them, --and of the absolutely simple can that, although we never can not be demonstrated from any
separate and isolate the ele experience or perception either
world are all, without exception,
simple beings, -- that composi
tion merely an external con the following The existence
substances from the external or internal and the state of composition, reason absolutely simple mere must cogitate these as the pri idea, the objective reality of mary subjects of all composi- which ennnot be demonstrated
mentary
what composite are simple. follows that what simple
occupies space. Now, as
each other, and consequently
composite --and real compo site, not of accidents (for these cannot exist external to each other apart from substance), but of substances, -- follows that the simple must be sub stantial composite, which self- contradictory.
The second proposition of the antithesis --that there ex ists in the world nothing that
simple -- here equivalent to
? ? is ; a
it a
It is
is
;
is :
ais a
is a isis
is
It
n
ly,
is is a
is
is a
;
it is
? 88COND AKTINOMT. 278
Theti*.
tion, and consequently, as in any possible experience;
prior thereto, --and as simple it is consequently, in the ex-
substances,
position of phenomena, with* out application and object. For, let us take for granted that an object may be found in experience for this trans cendental idea ; the empirical intt'. ition of such an object must then bo recognized to contain absolutely no mani fold with its parts external to each other, and connected into unity. Now, as we can-
inot reason from the non- consciousness of such a mani fold to the impossibility of its existence in the intuition of an object, and as the proof of this impossibility is noces-
I sary for the establishment and i proof of absolute simplicity ; ; it follows, that this simplicity \ cannot be inferred from any ! perception whatever. As, ! therefore, an absolutely sim
ple object cannot be given in any experience, and the world of sense must be considered as the sum-total of all possible experiences; nothing simple exists in the world.
This second proposition in the antithes s has a mere ex tended aim than the first. The first merely banishes the simple from the intuition of the composite ; while the se cond drives it entirely out of nature. Hence we were unable to demonstrate it t from the
Antitltetis.
? ? ? ? 274
TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC.
Them. I Antithesis.
' concept ion of a given object of
external intuition (of the com posite), but we were obliged to prove it from the relation of a given object to a possible
i experience in general. Ojbsebtations on the Second Antinomy.
I.
On the Thesis.
II.
On the Antithesis.
? When I speak of a whole,
which necessarily consists of infinite subdivisibility of mat simple parts, I understand ter, whose ground of proof is thereby only a substantial purely mathematical, objec whole, as the true composite ; tions have been alleged by the that is to say, I understand Monadists. These objections that contingent unity of the lay themselves open, at first manifold which is given as per sight, to suspicion, from the fectly isolated (at least in fact that they do not recog thought), placed in reciprocal nize the clearest mathematical connection, and thus consti proofs as propositions relating tuted a unity. Space ought to the constitution of space, in not to be called a compositum so far as it is really the formal but a totum, for its parts are condition of the possibility of possible in the whole, and not all matter, but regard them the whole by means of the merely as inferences from ab
parts. It might perhaps be stract but arbitrary concep called a compositum ideate, but tions, which cannot have any not a compositum reale. But application to real things. this is of no importance. As Just as if it were possible to space is not a composite of imagine another mode of in ? tibstances (and not even of tuition than that given in the real accidents), if I abstract primitive intuition of space ; all composition therein, -- no and just as if its << priori de thing, not even a point, re terminations did not apply to mains ; for a point is possible everything, the existence of only as the limit of a space, -- . which is possible, from the fact
consequently of a composite. : alone of its filling space. If we Space arid time, therefore, do listen to them, we shall find
Against the assertion of the
? ? ? OBaEBVATtONS ON TUB SECOND AKTIXOlir.
Thetis. Antithesis.
275
not consist of simple parts. ourselves required to cogitate, That which belongs only to in addition to the mathemati the condition or state of a cal point, which is simple -- substance, even although it not, however, a part, but a possesses a quantity (motion mere limit of space -- physical or change, for example), like points, wkich are indeed like wise does not consist of simple wise simple, but possess the parts. That is to say, a cer peculiar property, as parts of tain degree of change does not space, of filling it merely by originate from the addition of their aggregation. I shall not many simple changes. Our repeat here the common and inference of the simple from clear refutations of this ab the composite is valid only of surdity, which are to be found self-subsisting things. But everywhere in numbers : every the accidents of a state are not one knows that it is impossi self-subsistent. The proof, ble to undermine the evidence then, for the necessity of the of mathematics by mere dis simple, as the component part cursive conceptions ; I shall of all that is substantial and only remark, that, if in this composite, may prove a failure, case philosophy endeavours to and the whole case of this the gain an advantage over mathe sis be lost, if we carry the pro matics by sophistical artifices, position too far, and wish to it is because it forgets that the make it valid of everything discussion relates solely to phe that is composite without dis nomena and their conditions. tinction --as indeed has really It is not sufficient to find the now and then happened. Be conception of the simple for
sides, I am here speaking only the pure conception of the com of the simple, in so far as it posite, but we must discover is necessarily given in the com for the intuition of the compo posite -- the latter being capa site (matter), the intuition of ble of solution into the former the simple. Now this, ac as its component parts. The cording to the laws of sensi proper signification of the bility, and consequently in the word monas (as employed by case of objects of sense, is ut
? ought to relate to terly impossible. In the case the simple, given immediately of a whole composed of sub as simple substance (for ex stances, which is cogitated ample, in consciousness), and solely by the pure understand not as an elemeut of the ing, it may be necessary to ba
Leibnitz)
? ? ? 376
Thetis.
composite. As an element, the term atomus* would be
Antithesis.
in possession of the simple W fore composition is possible.
TRAWSCKNDEKTAL DIALECTIC.
more appropriate. And as I
wish to prove the existence of
simple substances, only in re nomenon, which, as an empi lation to, and as the elements rical intuition in space, pos
of, the composite, I might
term the antithesis of the se
cond Antinomy, transcenden
tal Atomistic. But as this
word has long been employed
to designate a particular theory
of corporeal pbenomena (mo- this difficulty, by presupposing leculte), and thus presupposes intuition and the dynamical a basis of empirical concep relation of substances as the tions, I prefer calling it the condition of the possibility of dialectical principle of Mona-
dology.
? A inaicaline formed by Kant,
instead of the common neuter ato- bodies. Now we have con
mon, which is generally translated
in the scholastic philosophy by the
terms imeparaiite, inditeernibile,
timpltx. Kant wished to have a
term opposed to moruu, and so hit ns the condition of all external upon this U7ra? Xiyi/ifvov. With phenomena. The evasion
Drmocriti s aropoc, and with Cicero therefore in vain as, indeed, alomuM is feminine. --Nttt *y Ko- we have sufficiently shown in
tnUtrauM.
our ^Esthetic. If bodies were things in thems, ies, the proof of the Monadists would be un exceptionable.
The second dialectical as sertion possesses the peculi arity of having opposed to dogmatical proposition, which, among all such sophistical statements, the only one that undertakes to prove the case of an object of experience,
But this does not hold good
of the Totum substantiate phe
sesses the necessary property of containing no simple part, for the very reason, that no
?
