按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
existence; which is preceded by a period in which nothing exists);
an existence which presupposes no other condition than that of time;
and; instead of limits of extension; boundaries of the universe。 But
the question relates to the mundus phaenomenon; 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; if it is limited; must necessarily
lie in the infinite void。 If this; and with it space as the a priori
condition of the possibility of phenomena; is left out of view; the
whole world of sense disappears。 In our problem is this alone
considered as given。 The mundus intelligibilis is nothing but the
general conception of a world; in which abstraction has been made of
all conditions of intuition; and in relation to which no synthetical
proposition… either affirmative or negative… is possible。
SECOND CONFLICT OF TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS。
THESIS。
Every posite substance in the world consists of simple parts; and
there exists nothing that is not either itself simple; or posed
of simple parts。
PROOF。
For; grant that posite substances do not consist of simple parts;
in this case; if all bination or position were annihilated in
thought; no posite part; and (as; by the supposition; there do
not exist simple parts) no simple part would exist。 Consequently; no
substance; consequently; nothing would exist。 Either; then; it is
impossible to annihilate position in thought; or; after such
annihilation; there must remain something that subsists without
position; that is; something that is simple。 But in the former case
the posite could not itself consist of substances; because with
substances position is merely a contingent relation; apart from
which they must still exist as self…subsistent beings。 Now; as this
case contradicts the supposition; the second must contain the truth…
that the substantial posite in the world consists of simple parts。
It follows; as an immediate inference; that the things in the
world are all; without exception; simple beings… that position is
merely an external condition pertaining to them… and that; although we
never can separate and isolate the elementary substances from the
state of position; reason must cogitate these as the primary
subjects of all position; and consequently; as prior thereto… and
as simple substances。
ANTITHESIS。
No posite thing in the world consists of simple parts; and
there does not exist in the world any simple substance。
PROOF。
Let it be supposed that a posite thing (as substance) consists of
simple parts。 Inasmuch as all external relation; consequently all
position of substances; is possible only in space; the space;
occupied by that which is posite; must consist of the same number
of parts as is contained in the posite。 But space does not
consist of simple parts; but of spaces。 Therefore; every part of the
posite must occupy a space。 But the absolutely primary parts of
what is posite are simple。 It follows that what is simple
occupies a space。 Now; as everything real that occupies a space;
contains a manifold the parts of which are external to each other; and
is consequently posite… and a real posite; not of accidents (for
these cannot exist external to each other apart from substance); but
of substances… it follows that the simple must be a substantial
posite; which is self…contradictory。
The second proposition of the antithesis… that there exists in the
world nothing that is simple… is here equivalent to the following: The
existence of the absolutely simple cannot be demonstrated from any
experience or perception either external or internal; and the
absolutely simple is a mere idea; the objective reality of which
cannot be demonstrated in any possible experience; it is consequently;
in the exposition of phenomena; without application and object。 For;
let us take for granted that an object may be found in experience
for this transcendental idea; the empirical intuition of such an
object must then be recognized to contain absolutely no manifold
with its parts external to each other; and connected into unity。
Now; as we cannot reason from the non…consciousness of such a manifold
to the impossibility of its existence in the intuition of an object;
and as the proof of this impossibility is necessary for the
establishment and proof of absolute simplicity; it follows that this
simplicity cannot be inferred from any perception whatever。 As;
therefore; an absolutely simple 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 antithesis has a more extended aim
than the first。 The first merely banishes the simple from the
intuition of the posite; while the second drives it entirely out of
nature。 Hence we were unable to demonstrate it from the conception
of a given object of external intuition (of the posite); but we
were obliged to prove it from the relation of a given object to a
possible experience in general。
OBSERVATIONS ON THE SECOND ANTINOMY。
THESIS。
When I speak of a whole; which necessarily consists of simple parts;
I understand thereby only a substantial whole; as the true
posite; that is to say; I understand that contingent unity of the
manifold which is given as perfectly isolated (at least in thought);
placed in reciprocal connection; and thus constituted a unity。 Space
ought not to be called a positum but a totum; for its parts are
possible in the whole; and not the whole by means of the parts。 It
might perhaps be called a positum ideale; but not a positum
reale。 But this is of no importance。 As space is not a posite of
substances (and not even of real accidents); if I abstract all
position therein… nothing; not even a point; remains; for a point
is possible only as the limit of a space… consequently of a posite。
Space and time; ther