Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn - The Critique of Pure Reason; Part 18 lyrics

FOURTH CONFLICT OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS THESIS There exists either in, or in connection with the world--either as a Part of it, or as the cause of it--an absolutely necessary being PROOF The world of sense, as the sum total of all phenomena, contains a series Of changes. For, without such a series, the mental representation of The series of time itself, as the condition of the possibility of the Sensuous world, could not be presented to us.* But every change stands Under its condition, which precedes it in time and renders it necessary Now the existence of a given condition presupposes a complete series of Conditions up to the absolutely unconditioned, which alone is absolutely Necessary. It follows that something that is absolutely necessary must Exist, if change exists as its consequence. But this necessary thing Itself belongs to the sensuous world. For suppose it to exist out of and Apart from it, the series of cosmical changes would receive from it a Beginning, and yet this necessary cause would not itself belong to The world of sense. But this is impossible. For, as the beginning of a Series in time is determined only by that which precedes it in time, the Supreme condition of the beginning of a series of changes must exist In the time in which this series itself did not exist; for a beginning Supposes a time preceding, in which the thing that begins to be was Not in existence. The causality of the necessary cause of changes And consequently the cause itself, must for these reasons belong To time--and to phenomena, time being possible only as the form of Phenomena. Consequently, it cannot be cogitated as separated from the World of sense--the sum total of all phenomena. There is, therefore Contained in the world, something that is absolutely necessary--whether It be the whole cosmical series itself, or only a part of it ANTITHESIS An absolutely necessary being does not exist, either in the world, or Out of it--as its cause PROOF Grant that either the world itself is necessary, or that there is Contained in it a necessary existence. Two cases are possible. First There must either be in the series of cosmical changes a beginning Which is unconditionally necessary, and therefore uncaused--which is at Variance with the dynamical law of the determination of all phenomena In time; or, secondly, the series itself is without beginning, and Although contingent and conditioned in all its parts, is nevertheless Absolutely necessary and unconditioned as a whole--which is Self-contradictory. For the existence of an aggregate cannot be Necessary, if no single part of it possesses necessary existence Grant, on the other band, that an absolutely necessary cause exists out Of and apart from the world. This cause, as the highest member in the Series of the causes of cosmical changes, must originate or begin* the Existence of the latter and their series. In this case it must also Begin to act, and its causality would therefore belong to time, and Consequently to the sum total of phenomena, that is, to the world It follows that the cause cannot be out of the world; which is Contradictory to the hypothesis. Therefore, neither in the world, nor Out of it (but in causal connection with it), does there exist any Absolutely necessary being OBSERVATIONS ON THE FOURTH ANTINOMY ON THE THESIS To demonstrate the existence of a necessary being, I cannot be permitted In this place to employ any other than the cosmological argument Which ascends from the conditioned in phenomena to the unconditioned in Conception--the unconditioned being 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 The pure cosmological proof demonstrates the existence of a necessary Being, but at the same time leaves it quite unsettled, whether this Being is the world itself, or quite distinct from it. To establish The truth of the latter view, principles are requisite, which are not Cosmological and do not proceed in the series of phenomena. We Should require to introduce into our proof conceptions of contingent Beings--regarded merely 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 proper place for all such Arguments is a transcendent philosophy, which has unhappily not yet been Established But, if we begin our proof cosmologically, by laying at the foundation Of it the series of phenomena, and the regress in it according to Empirical laws of causality, we are not at liberty to break off from This mode of demonstration and to pa** over to something which is not Itself a member of the series. The condition must be taken in exactly The same signification as the relation of the conditioned to its Condition in the series has been taken, for the series must conduct us In an unbroken regress to this supreme condition. But if this relation Is sensuous, and belongs to the possible empirical employment of Understanding, the supreme condition or cause must close the regressive Series according to the laws of sensibility and consequently, must Belong to the series of time. It follows that this necessary existence Must be regarded as the highest member of the cosmical series Certain philosophers have, nevertheless, allowed themselves the liberty Of making such a saltus (metabasis eis allo gonos). From the changes In the world they have concluded their empirical contingency, that Is, their dependence on empirically-determined causes, and they thus Admitted an ascending series of empirical conditions: and in this they Are quite right. But as they could not find in this series any primal Beginning or any highest member, they pa**ed suddenly from the empirical Conception of contingency to the pure category, which presents us with A series--not sensuous, but intellectual--whose completeness does Certainly rest upon the existence of an absolutely necessary cause. Nay More, this intellectual series is not tied to any sensuous conditions; And 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 In the pure sense of the categories, that is contingent the Contradictory opposite of which is possible. Now we cannot reason from Empirical contingency to intellectual. The opposite of that which is Changed--the opposite of its state--is actual at another time, and is Therefore possible. Consequently, it is not the 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 phenomenon 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 understanding; And that it cannot, therefore, conduct us to the fact of the existence Of a necessary being. Change proves 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 phenomena ON THE ANTITHESIS The difficulties which meet us, in our attempt to rise through the Series of phenomena to the existence of an absolutely necessary supreme Cause, must not originate from our inability to establish the truth of Our mere conceptions of the necessary existence of a thing. That is to Say, our objections not be ontological, but must be directed against The causal connection with a series of phenomena of a condition which is Itself unconditioned. In one word, they must be cosmological and relate To empirical laws. We must show that the regress in the series of Causes (in the world of sense) cannot conclude with an empirically Unconditioned condition, and that the cosmological argument from the Contingency of the cosmical state--a contingency alleged to arise from Change--does not justify us in accepting a first cause, that is, a prime Originator of the cosmical series 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 supreme being, demonstrated in the antithesis--and with equal Strictness--the non-existence of such a being. We found, first, that a Necessary being exists, because the whole time past contains the series Of all conditions, and with it, therefore, the unconditioned (the Necessary); secondly, that there does not exist any necessary being For the same reason, that the whole time past contains the series of All conditions--which are themselves, therefore, in the aggregate Conditioned. The cause of this seeming incongruity is as follows. We Attend, in the first argument, solely to the absolute totality of the Series of conditions, the one of which determines the other in time, and Thus arrive at a necessary unconditioned. In the second, we consider On the contrary, the contingency of everything that is determined in The series of time--for every event is preceded by a time, in which the Condition itself must be determined as conditioned--and thus everything That is unconditioned or absolutely necessary disappears. In both, the Mode of proof is quite in accordance with the common procedure of human Reason, which often falls into discord with itself, from considering an Object from two different points of view. Herr von Mairan regarded The controversy between two celebrated astronomers, which arose from A similar difficulty as to the choice of a proper standpoint, as a Phenomenon of sufficient importance to warrant a separate treatise On the subject. The one concluded: the moon revolves on its own axis Because it constantly presents the same side to the earth; the other Declared that the moon does not revolve on its own axis, for the same Reason. Both conclusions were perfectly correct, according to the point Of view from which the motions of the moon were considered SECTION III. 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 a 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. In the application of them, however, and in the advancing Enlargement of the employment of reason, while struggling to rise from The region of experience and to soar to those sublime ideas, philosophy Discovers a value and a dignity, which, if it could but make good its Assertions, would raise it far above all other departments of human Knowledge--professing, as it does, to present a sure foundation for our Highest hopes and the ultimate aims of all the exertions of reason The questions: whether the world has a beginning and a limit to its Extension in space; whether there exists anywhere, or perhaps, in my Own thinking Self, an indivisible and indestructible unity--or whether Nothing but what is divisible and transitory exists; whether I am a free Agent, or, like other beings, am bound in the chains of nature and fate; Whether, finally, there is a supreme cause of the world, or all our Thought and speculation must end with nature and the order of external Things--are questions for the solution of which the mathematician would Willingly exchange his whole science; for in it there is no satisfaction For the highest aspirations and most ardent desires of humanity. Nay, it May even be said that the true value of mathematics--that pride of human Reason--consists in this: that she guides reason to the knowledge of Nature--in her greater as well as in her less manifestations--in her Beautiful order and regularity--guides her, moreover, to an insight into The wonderful unity of the moving forces in the operations of nature Far beyond the expectations of a philosophy building only on experience; And that she thus encourages philosophy to extend the province of reason Beyond all experience, and at the same time provides it with the most Excellent materials for supporting its investigations, in so far as Their nature admits, by adequate and accordant intuitions Unfortunately for speculation--but perhaps fortunately for the Practical interests of humanity--reason, in the midst of her highest Anticipations, finds herself hemmed in by a press of opposite and Contradictory conclusions, from which neither her honour nor her safety Will permit her to draw back. Nor can she regard these conflicting Trains of reasoning with indifference as mere pa**ages at arms, still Less can she command peace; for in the subject of the conflict she has a Deep interest. There is no other course left open to her than to reflect With herself upon the origin of this disunion in reason--whether it may Not arise from a mere misunderstanding. After such an inquiry, arrogant Claims would have to be given up on both sides; but the sovereignty Of reason over understanding and sense would be based upon a sure Foundation We shall at present defer this radical inquiry and, in the meantime Consider for a little what side in the controversy we should most Willingly take, if we were obliged to become partisans at all. As, in This case, we leave out of sight altogether the logical criterion of Truth, and merely consult our own interest in reference to the question These considerations, although inadequate to settle the question of Right in either party, will enable us to comprehend how those who have Taken part in the struggle, adopt the one view rather than the other--no Special insight into the subject, however, having influenced their Choice. They will, at the same time, explain to us many other things By the way--for example, the fiery zeal on the one side and the cold Maintenance of their cause on the other; why the one party has met with The warmest approbations, and the other has always been repulsed by Irreconcilable prejudices There is one thing, however, that determines the proper point of view From which alone this preliminary inquiry can be instituted and carried On with the proper completeness--and that is the comparison of the Principles from which both sides, thesis and antithesis, proceed. My Readers would remark in the propositions of the antithesis a complete Uniformity in the mode of thought and a perfect unity of principle. Its Principle was that of pure empiricism, not only in the explication Of the phenomena in the world, but also in the solution of the Transcendental ideas, even of that of the universe itself. The Affirmations of the thesis, on the contrary, were based, in addition to The empirical mode of explanation employed in the series of phenomena On intellectual propositions; and its principles were in so far Not simple. I shall term the thesis, in view of its essential Characteristic, the dogmatism of pure reason On the side of Dogmatism, or of the thesis, therefore, in the Determination of the cosmological ideas, we find: 1. A practical interest, which must be very dear to every right-thinking Man. That the word has a beginning--that the nature of my thinking self Is simple, and therefore indestructible--that I am a free agent, and Raised above the compulsion of nature and her laws--and, finally, that The entire order of things, which form the world, is dependent upon a Supreme Being, from whom the whole receives unity and connection--these Are so many foundation-stones of morality and religion. The antithesis Deprives us of all these supports--or, at least, seems so to deprive us 2. A speculative interest of reason manifests itself on this side. For If we take the transcendental ideas and employ them in the manner which The thesis directs, we can exhibit completely a priori the entire Chain of conditions, and understand the derivation of the Conditioned--beginning from the unconditioned. This the antithesis does Not do; and for this reason does not meet with so welcome a reception For it can give no answer to our question respecting the conditions of Its synthesis--except such as must be supplemented by another question And so on to infinity. According to it, we must rise from a given Beginning to one still higher; every part conducts us to a still smaller One; every event is preceded by another event which is its cause; and The conditions of existence rest always upon other and still higher Conditions, and find neither end nor basis in some self-subsistent thing As the primal being 3. This side has also the advantage of popularity; and this constitutes No small part of its claim to favour. The common understanding does not Find the least difficulty in the idea of the unconditioned beginning of All synthesis--accustomed, as it is, rather to follow our consequences Than to seek for a proper basis for cognition. In the conception of an Absolute first, moreover--the possibility of which it does not inquire Into--it is highly gratified to find a firmly-established point Of departure for its attempts at theory; while in the restless and Continuous ascent from the conditioned to the condition, always with one Foot in the air, it can find no satisfaction On the side of the antithesis, or Empiricism, in the determination of The cosmological ideas: 1. We cannot discover any such practical interest arising from pure Principles of reason as morality and religion present. On the contrary Pure empiricism seems to empty them of all their power and influence If there does not exist a Supreme Being distinct from the world--if the World is without beginning, consequently without a Creator--if our wills Are not free, and the soul is divisible and subject to corruption just Like matter--the ideas and principles of morality lose all validity and Fall with the transcendental ideas which constituted their theoretical Support 2. But empiricism, in compensation, holds out to reason, in its Speculative interests, certain important advantages, far exceeding any That the dogmatist can promise us. For, when employed by the empiricist Understanding is always upon its proper ground of investigation--the Field of possible experience, the laws of which it can explore, and thus Extend its cognition securely and with clear intelligence without being Stopped by limits in any direction. Here can it and ought it to find and Present to intuition its proper object--not only in itself, but in all Its relations; or, if it employ conceptions, upon this ground it can Always present the corresponding images in clear and unmistakable Intuitions. It is quite unnecessary for it to renounce the guidance of Nature, to attach itself to ideas, the objects of which it cannot know; Because, as mere intellectual entities, they cannot be presented in Any intuition. On the contrary, it is not even permitted to abandon Its proper occupation, under the pretence that it has been brought to A conclusion (for it never can be), and to pa** into the region of Idealizing reason and transcendent conceptions, which it is not required To observe and explore the laws of nature, but merely to think and to Imagine--secure from being contradicted by facts, because they have not Been called as witnesses, but pa**ed by, or perhaps subordinated to the So-called higher interests and considerations of pure reason Hence the empiricist will never allow himself to accept any epoch of Nature for the first--the absolutely primal state; he will not believe That there can be limits to his outlook into her wide domains, nor pa** From the objects of nature, which he can satisfactorily explain by Means of observation and mathematical thought--which he can determine Synthetically in intuition, to those which neither sense nor imagination Can ever present in concreto; he will not concede the existence of a Faculty in nature, operating independently of the laws of nature--a Concession which would introduce uncertainty into the procedure of the Understanding, which is guided by necessary laws to the observation of Phenomena; nor, finally, will he permit himself to seek a cause beyond Nature, inasmuch as we know nothing but it, and from it alone receive an Objective basis for all our conceptions and instruction in the unvarying Laws of things In truth, if the empirical philosopher had no other purpose in the Establishment of his antithesis than to check the presumption of a Reason which mistakes its true destination, which boasts of its insight And its knowledge, just where all insight and knowledge cease to Exist, and regards that which is valid only in relation to a practical Interest, as an advancement of the speculative interests of the mind (in order, when it is convenient for itself, to break the thread of our Physical investigations, and, under pretence of extending our cognition Connect them with transcendental ideas, by means of which we really know Only that we know nothing)--if, I say, the empiricist rested satisfied With this benefit, the principle advanced by him would be a maxim Recommending moderation in the pretensions of reason and modesty in its Affirmations, and at the same time would direct us to the right mode Of extending the province of the understanding, by the help of the only True teacher, experience. In obedience to this advice, intellectual Hypotheses and faith would not be called in aid of our practical Interests; nor should we introduce them under the pompous titles of Science and insight. For speculative cognition cannot find an objective Basis any other where than in experience; and, when we overstep its Limits our synthesis, which requires ever new cognitions independent of Experience, has no substratum of intuition upon which to build But if--as often happens--empiricism, in relation to ideas, becomes Itself dogmatic and boldly denies that which is above the sphere of its Phenomenal cognition, it falls itself into the error of intemperance--an Error which is here all the more reprehensible, as thereby the practical Interest of reason receives an irreparable injury And this constitutes the opposition between Epicureanism and Platonism Both Epicurus and Plato a**ert more in their systems than they know. The Former encourages and advances science--although to the prejudice of The practical; the latter presents us with excellent principles for the Investigation of the practical, but, in relation to everything regarding Which we can attain to speculative cognition, permits reason to append Idealistic explanations of natural phenomena, to the great injury of Physical investigation 3. In regard to the third motive for the preliminary choice of a party In this war of a**ertions, it seems very extraordinary that empiricism Should be utterly unpopular. We should be inclined to believe that the Common understanding would receive it with pleasure--promising as it Does to satisfy it without pa**ing the bounds of experience and its Connected order; while transcendental dogmatism obliges it to rise to Conceptions which far surpa** the intelligence and ability of the most Practised thinkers. But in this, in truth, is to be found its real Motive. For the common understanding thus finds itself in a situation Where not even the most learned can have the advantage of it. If it Understands little or nothing about these transcendental conceptions, no One can boast of understanding any more; and although it may not express Itself in so scholastically correct a manner as others, it can busy Itself with reasoning and arguments without end, wandering among mere Ideas, about which one can always be very eloquent, because we know Nothing about them; while, in the observation and investigation of Nature, it would be forced to remain dumb and to confess its utter Ignorance. Thus indolence and vanity form of themselves strong Recommendations of these principles. Besides, although it is a hard Thing for a philosopher to a**ume a principle, of which he can give to Himself no reasonable account, and still more to employ conceptions, the Objective reality of which cannot be established, nothing is more usual With the common understanding. It wants something which will allow it To go to work with confidence. The difficulty of even comprehending A supposition does not disquiet it, because--not knowing what Comprehending means--it never even thinks of the supposition it may be Adopting as a principle; and regards as known that with which it Has become familiar from constant use. And, at last, all speculative Interests disappear before the practical interests which it holds dear; And it fancies that it understands and knows what its necessities And hopes incite it to a**ume or to believe. Thus the empiricism of Transcendentally idealizing reason is robbed of all popularity; and However prejudicial it may be to the highest practical principles, there Is no fear that it will ever pa** the limits of the schools, or acquire Any favour or influence in society or with the multitude Human reason is by nature architectonic. That is to say, it regards all Cognitions as parts of a possible system, and hence accepts only such Principles as at least do not incapacitate a cognition to which we may Have attained from being placed along with others in a general system But the propositions of the antithesis are of a character which renders The completion of an edifice of cognitions impossible. According to These, beyond one state or epoch of the world there is always to be Found one more ancient; in every part always other parts themselves Divisible; preceding every event another, the origin of which Must itself be sought still higher; and everything in existence is Conditioned, and still not dependent on an unconditioned and primal Existence. As, therefore, the antithesis will not concede the existence Of a first beginning which might be available as a foundation, a Complete edifice of cognition, in the presence of such hypothesis, is Utterly impossible. Thus the architectonic interest of reason, which Requires a unity--not empirical, but a priori and rational--forms a Natural recommendation for the a**ertions of the thesis in our antinomy But if any one could free himself entirely from all considerations Of interest, and weigh without partiality the a**ertions of reason Attending only to their content, irrespective of the consequences which Follow from them; such a person, on the supposition that he knew no Other way out of the confusion than to settle the truth of one or Other of the conflicting doctrines, would live in a state of continual Hesitation. Today, he would feel convinced that the human will is free; To-morrow, considering the indissoluble chain of nature, he would look On freedom as a mere illusion and declare nature to be all-in-all. But If he were called to action, the play of the merely speculative reason Would disappear like the shapes of a dream, and practical interest would Dictate his choice of principles. But, as it well befits a reflective And inquiring being to devote certain periods of time to the examination Of its own reason--to divest itself of all partiality, and frankly to Communicate its observations for the judgement and opinion of others; so No one can be blamed for, much less prevented from, placing both Parties on their trial, with permission to end themselves, free From intimidation, before intimidation, before a sworn jury of equal Condition with themselves--the condition of weak and fallible men