' ceed from the whole to the the universe. But the quesdetermined quantity of the tion relates to the mundus phaparts, but must demonstrate nomenon, and its quantity; and the possibility of a whole by in this case we cannot make means of a successive synthesis abstraction of the conditions of the parts. But as this syn- of sensibility, without doing thesis must constitute a series away with the essential reality that cannot be completed, it is of this world itself. The world impossible for us to cogitate of sense, if it is limited, must prior to it, and consequently necessarily lie in the infinite not by means of it, a totality. void. If this, and with it For the conception of totality space as the à priori condition itself is in the present case the of the possibility of phænorepresentation of a completed mena, is left out of view, the synthesis of the parts; and this completion, and consequently its conception, is impossible. 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. ANTINOMY OF PURE REASON. SECOND CONFLICT OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS. Thesis. Every composite substance in the world consists of simple parts; and there exists nothing that is not either itself simple, or composed of simple parts. PROOF. Antithesis. No composite 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 For, grant that composite composite thing (as substance) substances do not consist of consists of simple parts. In simple parts; in this case, if asmuch as all external relation, all combination or composition consequently all composition were annihilated in thought, of substances, is possible only no composite part, and (as, by in space; the space, occupied the supposition, there do not by that which is composite, exist simple parts) no simple must consist of the same numpart would exist. Consequent- ber of parts as is contained ly, no substance; consequent- in the composite. But space ly, nothing would exist. Ei- does not consist of simple ther, then, it is impossible parts, but of spaces. Thereto annihilate composition in fore, every part of the compothought; or, after such anni- site must occupy a space. But hilation, there must remain the absolutely primary parts of something that subsists without what is composite are simple. composition, that is, something It follows that what is simple that is simple. But in the occupies a space. Now, as former case the composite everything real that occupies a could not itself consist of sub- space, contains a manifold the stances, because with sub- parts of which are external to stances composition is merely each other, and is consequently a contingent relation, apart composite-and a real compofrom which they must still ex- site, not of accidents (for these ist as self-subsistent beings. cannot exist external to each Now, as this case contradicts other apart from substance), the supposition, the second but of substances,-it follows must contain the truth-that that the simple must be a subthe substantial composite in the stantial composite, which is world consists of simple parts. self-contradictory. It follows as an immediate The second proposition of inference, that the things in the the antithesis-that there exworld are all, without exception, ists in the world nothing that simple beings, that composi- is simple-is here equivalent to tion is merely an external con- the following: The existence dition pertaining to them, and of the absolutely simple canthat, although we never can not be demonstrated from any separate and isolate the ele-experience or perception either mentary substances from the external or internal; and the state of composition, reason absolutely simple is a mere must cogitate these as the pri- idea, the objective reality of mary subjects of all composi- which cannot be demonstrated tion, and consequently, as in any possible experience; prior thereto, and as simple it is consequently, in the ex substances. position of phænomena, 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 nonconsciousness 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 composite; while the second drives it entirely out of nature. Hence we were unable to demonstrate it from the T conception of a given object of external intuition (of the composite), 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. I. On the Thesis. II. On the Antithesis. When I speak of a whole, Against the assertion of the which necessarily consists of infinite subdivisibility of matsimple parts, I understand ter, whose ground of proof is thereby only a substantial purely mathematical, objecwhole, 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 recogthought), 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 abparts. It might perhaps be stract but arbitrary concepcalled a compositum ideale, 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 insubstances (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 à priori dething, 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 and time, therefore, do listen to them, we shall find Antithesis. Thesis. not consist of simple parts. ourselves required to cogitate, That which belongs only to in addition to the mathematithe condition or state of a cal point, which is simplesubstance, even although it not, however, a part, but a possesses a quantity (motion mere limit of space-physical or change, for example), like-points, which are indeed likewise 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 abthe 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 impossiself-subsistent. The proof, ble to undermine the evidence then, for the necessity of the of mathematics by mere dissimple, 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 mathesis 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 phathat 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 comof the simple, in so far as it posite, but we must discover is necessarily given in the com- for the intuition of the compoposite the latter being capa- site (matter), the intuition of ble of solution into the former the simple. Now this, acas its component parts. The cording to the laws of sensiproper signification of the bility, and consequently in the word monas (as employed by case of objects of sense, is utLeibnitz) ought to relate to terly impossible. In the case the simple, given immediately of a whole composed of subas simple substance (for ex-stances, which is cogitated ample, in consciousness), and solely by the pure understand not as an element of the ing, it may be necessary to be |