To demonstrate the exist- The difficulties which meet ence of a necessary being, I us, in our attempt to rise through cannot be permitted in this the series of phænomena to the place to employ any other existence of an absolutely nethan the cosmological argu-cessary supreme cause, must ment, which ascends from the not originate from our inabiconditioned in phænomena to lity to establish the truth of the unconditioned in concep- our mere conceptions of the tion-the unconditioned being necessary existence of a thing. considered the necessary condition of the absolute totality of the series. The proof, from the mere idea of a supreme being, belongs to another principle of reason, and requires separate discussion. That is to say, our objections must not be ontological, but must be directed against the causal connection with a series of phænomena of a condition which is itself unconditioned. In one word, they The pure cosmological proof must be cosmological, and redemonstrates the existence of late to empirical laws. We a necessary being, but at the must show that the regress in same time leaves it quite un- the series of causes (in the settled, whether this being is world of sense) cannot conthe world itself, or quite dis- clude with an empirically untinct from it. To establish conditioned condition, and that the truth of the latter view, the cosmological argument principles are requisite, which from the contingency of the are not cosmological, and do cosmical state-a contingency not proceed in the series of alleged to arise from change phænomena. We should re-does not justify us in acquire to introduce into our cepting a first cause, that is, proof conceptions of contin- a prime originator of the cosgent beings-regarded merely mical series. as objects of the understanding, and also a principle which enables us to connect these, by means of mere conceptions, with a necessary being. But The reader will observe in this antinomy a very remarkable contrast. The very same grounds of proof which established in the thesis the existence of a su that the proper place for all such preme being, demonstrated in arguments is a transcendent the antithesis-and with equal philosophy, which has unhap- strictness-the non-existence. pily not yet been established. of such a being. We found, But, if we begin our proof first, that a necessary being cosmologically, by laying at exists, because the whole time the foundation of it the series past contains the series of all of phænomena, and the regress conditions, and with it, therein it according to empirical fore, the unconditioned (the laws of causality, we are not at necessary); secondly, liberty to break off from this there does not exist any necesmode of demonstration and to sary being, for the same reason, pass over to something which that the whole time past conis not itself a member of the tains the series of all condiseries. The condition must tions-which are themselves be taken in exactly the same therefore, in the aggregate, signification as the relation of conditioned. The cause of the conditioned to its condi- this seeming incongruity is as tion in the series has been follows. We attend, in the taken, for the series must con- first argument, solely to the duct us in an unbroken re- absolute totality of the series gress to this supreme condi- of conditions, the one of which tion. But if this relation is determines the other in time, sensuous, and belongs to the and thus arrive at a necessary possible empirical employment unconditioned. In the second, of the understanding, the su- we consider, on the contrary, preme condition or cause must the contingency of everything close the regressive series ac- that is determined in the series cording to the laws of sensi- of time- for every event is bility, and consequently must preceded by a time, in which belong to the series of time. the condition itself must be It follows that this necessary determined as conditionedexistence must be regarded as and thus everything that is the highest member of the unconditioned or absolutely cosmical series. necessary disappears. In both, Certain philosophers have, the mode of proof is quite in nevertheless, allowed them-accordance with the common selves the liberty of making procedure of human reason, such a saltus (μετάβασις εις which often falls into discord λλo yéves). From the changes with itself, from considering : in the world they have con- an object from two different cluded their empirical contin- points of view. Herr von geney, that is, their depend- Mairan regarded the controence on empirically-determined versy between two celebrated causes, and they thus admitted astronomers, which arose from an ascending series of empi- a similar difficulty as to the rical conditions: and in this choice of a proper stand-point, they are quite right. But as as a phænomenon of sufficient they could not find in this importance to warrant a sepaseries any primal beginning rate treatise on the subject. or any highest member, they The one concluded the moon passed suddenly from the em-revolves on its own axis, bepirical conception of contin- cause it constantly presents gency to the pure category, the same side to the earth; which presents us with a the other declared that the series-not sensuous, but intel- moon does not revolve on its lectual whose completeness own axis, for the same reason. does certainly rest upon the Both conclusions were perexistence of an absolutely ne- fectly correct, according to the cessary cause. Nay, more, this point of view from which the intellectual series is not tied to motions of the moon were conany sensuous conditions; and sidered. is therefore free from the condition of time, which requires, it spontaneously to begin its causality in time. But such a procedure is perfectly inadmissible, as will be made plain from what follows. - Thesis. contradictory opposite of the former state. To be that, it is necessary that in the same time in which the preceding state existed, its opposite could have existed in its place; but such a cognition is not given. us in the mere phænomenon of change. A body that was in motion A, comes into a state of rest non-A. Now it cannot be concluded from the fact that a state opposite to the state A follows it, that the contradictory opposite of A is possible; and that A is therefore contingent. To prove this, we should require to know that the state of rest could have existed in the very same time in which the motion took place. Now we know nothing more than that the state of rest was actual in the time that followed the state of motion; consequently, that it was also possible. But motion at one time, and rest at another time, are not contradictorily opposed to each other. It follows from what has been said, that the succession of opposite determinations, that is, change, does not demonstrate the fact of contingency as represented in the conceptions of the pure under.. standing; and that it cannot, therefore, conduct us to the fact of the existence of a necessary being. Change proves Antithes Thesis. Antithesis. merely empirical contingency, that is to say, that the new state could not have existed without a cause, which belongs to the preceding time. This cause even although it is regarded as absolutely necessary -must be presented to us in time, and must belong to the series of phænomena. ANTINOMY OF PURE REASON. Of the Interest of Reason in these Self-contradictions. WE have thus completely before us the dialectical procedure of the cosmological ideas. No possible experience can present us with an object adequate to them in extent. Nay, more, reason itself cannot cogitate them as according with the general laws of experience. And yet they are not arbitrary fictions of thought. On the contrary, reason, in its uninterrupted progress in the empirical synthesis, is necessarily conducted to them, when it endeavours to free from all conditions and to comprehend in its unconditioned totality, that which can only be determined conditionally in accordance with the laws of experience. These dialectical propositions are so many attempts to solve four natural and unavoidable problems of reason. -There are neither more, nor can there be less, than this number, because there are no other series of synthetical hypotheses, limiting à priori the empirical synthesis. The brilliant claims of reason striving to extend its dominion beyond the limits of experience, have been represented above only in dry formulae, which contain merely the grounds of its pretensions. They have, besides, in conformity with the character of a transcendental philosophy, been freed from every empirical element; although the full splendour of the promises they hold out, and the anticipations they excite, manifests itself only when in connection with empirical cognitions. Ju the application of them, however, and in the advancing en |