The Philosophy of Redemption (Die Philosophie der Erlösung) [1] 9781494963262, 1494963264

Citation preview

Translated from German to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.com

The Philosophy of Redemption, Volume 1

Contents

On the history of this new edition Editorial note imprint The Philosophy of Redemption, Volume One

Preface Analytics of the cognitive faculty physics aesthetics

ethics

politics metaphysics Appendix: Criticism of the TeachingsKant's andSchopenhauer's

Preface Analytics of the cognitive faculty physics aesthetics

ethics

politics metaphysics

Final word

About the history of this new edition After I heard about Philipp Mainländer for the first time in Ludger Lütkehaus's book "Nothing", I really wanted to read his philosophy of redemption in the original. The difficulties I encountered inspired me to publish this book. The first problem was getting (affordable) access to the book. Antiquarian editions of the work are hard to find, and if they are, they come at horrendous prices. The new edition from 1996 costs just under 100 euros per volume, and even a selection from Ulrich Horstmann's work is currently sold used for around 40 euros. At least a library near me had a copy, but due to its age you could only borrow it from the reading room. This is where my second problem arose: the Fraktur script combined with the extremely outdated spelling made the text very awkward to read. I was unable to understand many Latin terms and quotations due to a lack of translation. As a result, at the beginning of 2012 I set myself the goal of creating an affordable ebook and paperback edition of the Philosophy of Redemption. All quotations should be translated and the most important foreign words should be explained. The spelling should be brought into line with modern ones. Then it took me quite a while until I actually tackled the project in July 2013 and started scanning. My goal for the first volume of this book has now been achieved; the second volume will appear during 2014.

My comments and the revision of the text are not intended to meet any special requirements other than my personal ones. For a scientific discussion of Mainländer, the original edition is still recommended. I hope that this new edition will make Philipp Mainländer accessible to a wider range of readers. I hope you enjoy reading

Lennart Piro Munich, January 2014 Literature:

Ludger Lütkehaus: Nothing. Farewell to being, end to fear. Haffmans Verlag at Two Thousand One, 2010 Philipp Mainländer: Writings in four volumes. Edited by Winfried H. Müller-Seyfarth, Hildesheim, Georg Olms 1996–1999

Philipp Mainländer: Philosophy of Redemption. A selection from the work, selected and with a foreword by Ulrich Horstmann, Frankfurt a. M., Insel 1989

Editorial note This new edition is based on the third edition, published by Jaeger'schen Verlags-Buch- und Kartenhandlung (C. Koenitzer's Verlag), Frankfurt a. M., 1894. The copy was scanned from the Baden State Library in Karlsruhe. Links to the pages according to the count of this text base (which corresponds to the count of the first edition in 1876) can be foundat the very end of the book . The spelling of all words follows the new German orthography from 1996. This does not apply to the text as a whole, as separate and combined spellings, upper and lower case letters, punctuation, outdated hyperlatives and dative 'e' have been retained. Scanning was carried out using a Zeutschel zeta overhead scanner. Text recognition (OCR) was carried out using the Tesseract software version 3.02.

imprint Editor:

Lennart Piro Wengleinstr. 3

81477 Munich Germany Information for quick contact: Email: [email protected] ISBN of the paperback edition: 978-1-49496-326-2

The

Philosophy of Redemption From

Philipp Mainländer

Anyone who has ever tasted criticism will forever be disgusted by all dogmatic nonsense.

—KANT

Philosophy has its value and dignity in the fact that it disdains all assumptions that cannot be justified and only includes in its data what is in the clearly given external world, in the forms that constitute our intellect to understand it and in the common consciousness of the one's own self can be reliably proven. — pCHOPENHAUER

First volume.

Preface Anyone who delves into the development of the human spirit, from the beginning of civilization to our days, will gain a strange result: he will find that reason initially always understood the undeniable power of nature in a fragmented way and personified the individual expressions of force, thus formed gods; then these gods merged into a single god; then, through the most abstract thinking, made this God a being that could no longer be imagined in any way; But finally it became critical, its fine fabric was torn apart and the real individual, the fact of inner and outer experience, was placed on the throne.

The stations on this path are: 1) polytheism, 2) monotheism - pantheism, a. religious pantheism, b. philosophical pantheism. 3) Atheism. Not all civilized peoples have made it all the way. The spiritual life of most has stopped at the first or second point of development, and the final stage has only been reached in two countries: India and Judea. The religion of the Indians was initially polytheism, then pantheism. (Later, very fine and important minds took control of religious pantheism and developed it into philosophical pantheism [Vedanta philosophy].) Then Buddha, the glorious son of a king, appeared and based atheism on his great teaching of karma Believeto the omnipotenceof the individual.

Likewise, the religion of the Jews was first crude polytheism, then strict monotheism. In it, as in pantheism, the individual lost the last trace of independence. Had, likeSchopenhauervery fitting

Noticed that Jehovah had sufficiently tormented his completely powerless creature, he threw it on the dunghill. Critical reason reacted to this with elementary violence in the sublime personality of Christ. Christ restored the individual to his inviolable rightsandbased on the same and on thatBelieveto the movement of the world from life to death (end of the world) the atheistic religion of salvation. That pure Christianity is, at its deepest, genuine atheism (i.e negationone with the worldcoexisting personalGod, but affirmationof a mighty breath blowing through the world pre-worldly deadDeity) and monotheism only on the surface, I will prove in the text. Exoteric Christianity became a world religion, and after its triumph no individual people ever experienced the spiritual development described above. On the other hand, alongside the Christian religion, in the community of Western peoples, Western philosophy went forward and has now come close to the third station. It followed on from Aristotelian philosophy, which was preceded by Ionian philosophy. In this, individuals werevisibleIndividualities of the world (water, air, fire) were made into principles of the whole, in a similar way to how individual observed activities of nature were made into gods in every primitive religion. Those in Aristotelian philosophy, through

Combination of all forms, the simple unity gained then became in the Middle Ages (pure Christianity had long since been lost) the philosophically trimmed God of the Christian church; for scholasticism is nothing other than philosophical monotheism. This then transformed throughScotus Erigena,Banini,Brunoand Spinoza into philosophical pantheism, which was influenced by a special branch of philosophy (critical idealism: Locke,Berkeley,Hume,Kant) on the one hand, to pantheism without a process (Schopenhauer), on the other hand, to pantheism with development (Schelling, Hegel) was further developed, i.e. taken to the extreme.

In this philosophical pantheism (it makes no difference whether the simple unity in the world is will or idea, or absolute or matter

is called) are currently moving, like the noble Indians at the time of Vedanta philosophy, the most educated people of all civilized peoples, whose basis is Western culture. But now the day for reaction has also come. The individual demands, louder than ever, the restoration of his torn and trampled but inalienable rights. This work is the first attempt to give it full meaning. The philosophy of salvation is a continuation of the teachingsKant 's and Schopenhauer's and affirmation of Buddhism and pure Christianity. It corrects and supplements those philosophical systems and reconciles those religions with science. It does not base atheism on any belief, like these religions, but, as a philosophy, on thatTo know, and that is why atheism was scientifically founded by her for the first time. It will also pass into the knowledge of humanity; because she is ripe for him: she has come of age.

PM

Analytics of cognitive ability The more widely known the data, the harder it is to combine them in a new and yet correct way, since an extremely large number of minds have already tried them and exhausted the possible combinations of them.

— pCHOPENHAUER

1.

True philosophy mustpurely immanentbe, that is, its substance as well as its limit must be the world. It must explain the world from principles that can be recognized in it by every human being and must not rely on extra-worldly powers, about which one can know absolutely nothing, nor powers in the world, which, however, cannot be recognized by their nature call. True philosophy must furtheridealisticbe, that is, it must not skip over the cognizing subject and speak of things as if they were exactly the same as the eye sees them and the hand feels them, independent of an eye that sees them, a hand that feels them . Before she dares to take a step towards solving the riddle of the world, she must have carefully and precisely examined the faculty of knowledge. It can result: 1. that the knowing subject produces the world entirely from its own resources;

2. that the subject perceives the world exactly as it is;

3. that the world is a product partly of the subject, partly of a ground of appearance independent of the subject.

The exit from the subject is therefore the beginning of the only sure path to truth. It is possible, as I may, indeed must, say here, that a leap beyond the subject leads the philosopher to it; But such a procedure, which leaves everything to chance, would be unworthy of a prudent thinker.

2.

The sources from which all experience, all knowledge, all our knowledge flows are: 1) the senses,

2) self-confidence. There is no third source. 3.

We first consider sensory knowledge. — A tree standing in front of me reflects the rays of light that hit it in a straight line. Some of them fall into my eye and make an impression on the retina, which the excited optic nerve passes on to the brain.

I touch a stone and the sensory nerves transmit the received sensations to the brain. A bird sings, creating waves in the air. A few waves hit my ear, the eardrum trembles, and the auditory nerve carries the impression to the brain. I breathe in the scent of a flower. It touches the mucous membranes of the nose and excites the olfactory nerve, which carries the impression to the brain.

A fruit excites my taste buds and they transmit the impression to my brain. ThefunctionThe sense is therefore: transmission of impressions to the brain. However, since these impressions are of a very specific nature and the product of a reaction, which is also a function, it is advisable to separate the sense into the sensory organ and the conductive apparatus. It would therefore be that functionof the sense organ simply in the production of the specific impression and the function of the conduction apparatus as above in the transmission of the specific impression.

4.

The sensory impressions externalized by the brain are called imaginations; the totality of these is theWorld as an idea. It breaks down into:

1) the vivid idea or, for short, the view; 2) the non-illustrative idea. The former is based on the sense of sight and partly on the sense of touch (feeling); the latter on the senses of hearing, smell and taste, and partly on the sense of touch. 5.

We now have to see how that worksvividImagination, the view, arises for us and begins with the impression that the tree made in the eye. Nothing more has happened yet. A certain change has taken place on the retina and this change has affected my brain. If nothing else happened, the process would end here, my eye wouldneversee the tree; for how could the slight change in my nerves be processed into a tree within me, and in what wonderful way should I see it? But the brain reacts to the impression and the cognitive ability that we haveunderstandingcall comes into action. The mind looks for them Caused the change in the sense organ and this transition from the effect in the sense organ to the cause is his alonefunction, is this Law of causality. This function is innate to the mind and lies in its naturebeforeof all experience, how the stomach must have the ability to digest before the first food comes into it. If it weren't for the law of causalitya priorifunction of the mind, we would never arrive at a view. The law of causality is, after the senses, the first condition of the possibility of representation and therefore lies a priori within us. On the other hand, however, the understanding would never be able to function and would be a dead, useless cognitive faculty if it were not stimulated by causes. Should the causes that lead to the perception

If effects lie in the senses, then they would have to be produced in us by an unknowable, all-powerful foreign hand, which immanent philosophy must reject. So all that remains is the assumption that causes in the sense organs that are completely independent of the subject bring about changes, that is, that they are independentthings in themselvesput the mind into action. So certainly the law of causality in us, namelybeforeof all experience, lies on the other side, so certain is the existence of things in themselves, independent of the subjecteffectivenessputs the mind into function in the first place. 6.

The mind looks for the cause of the sensory sensation and, by following the direction of the incident light rays, it arrives at it. However, he would not perceive anything if not in himself,beforeall experience,to form lie into which he pours the cause, as it were. One of these is space.

When one speaks of space, one usually emphasizes that it has three dimensions: height, width and depth and is infinite, that is, it is impossible to think that space has a limit and the certainty that its diameter never increases to come to an end is precisely its infinity. The fact that infinite space exists independently of the subject and that its limitation, spatiality, is part of the essence of things in themselves is a view that has been overcome by critical philosophy and originates from the naive childhood of humanity, which would be a useless task to refute. There is neither an infinite space nor finite spaces outside the viewing subject. But space is also not a pure a priori intuition of the subject, nor does the subject have a pure a priori intuition of finite spaces, through the assembly of which it could arrive at the intuition of an all-encompassing, unified space, as I will prove in the appendix.

The spaceas a form of understanding(there is no mention of mathematical space at this time) is aPoint, that is, space as a form of understanding can only be thought of in the image of a point. This point has the ability (or is precisely the ability of the subject) to limit the things in themselves that act on the relevant sense organs in three directions. The essence of space is therefore the ability to diverge into three dimensions into indefinite space (indefinite). Where a thing in itself stops working, space sets its limits, and space does not have the strength to do soto give expansion. He behaves completely indifferent to expansion. He is equally willing to limit a palace like a grain of quartz, a horse like a bee. The thing in itself certainlyhim to develop as much as it works. If, on the one hand, the (point) space is a condition of the possibility of experience, an a priori form of ours On the other hand, it is certain that every thing in itself is completely independent of the subjectsphere of effectivenesshas. This is not determined by space, but rather it invokes the space to limit it exactly where it ends. 7.

The second form which the mind uses to perceive the discovered cause is thismatter. It is also to be thought of in terms of the image of a point (the substance is not being discussed here). It is the ability to accurately and faithfully perceive every property of things in themselves, every special effectiveness of them within the shape drawn by spaceobjectify; because thatobjectis nothing other than the thing in itself that has passed through the forms of the subject. Without matter there is no object, without objects there is no external world.

With the intention of the above-mentioned division of the sense into sensory organ and conductive apparatus, matter is to be defined as the point where the transmitted sensory impressions, which are the processed special effects of visual things in themselves, unite. Matter is therefore the common form for all sensory impressions or the sum of all sensory impressions of things in themselvesillustrativeWorld.

Matter is therefore a further condition of the possibility of experience, or an a priori form of our cognitive ability. You stand, completely independently, the sum of the activities of a thing in itself, or, in a word, the Poweropposite. Insofar as a force becomes the object of a subject's perception, it isMaterial(objectified force); On the other hand, every force, independent of a perceiving subject, is free from matter andonlyPower. It is therefore worth noting that no matter how precise and photographically faithful the subjective form of matter is, the particular effects of a thing

reproduces in itself, the reproduction doestotally generic[1]is different from the force. The shape of an object is identical to the sphere of activity of the thing in itself on which it is based, but the force expressions of the thing in itself, objectified by matter, are not identical with these in their essence. There is also no similarity, which is why one can only use an image for clarification with the greatest reservation and say, for example: matter represents the properties of things, like a colored mirror shows objects, or the object relates to the thing itself like one Marble bust to a clay model. The nature of force is entirely different from the nature of matter. Certainly the redness of an object indicates a special property of the thing itself, but the redness is not consubstantial with this property. It is quite indubitable that two objects, one smooth and flexible, the other rough and brittle, give rise to differences which are grounded in the nature of the two things themselves; but the smoothness, the roughness, the flexibility and brittleness of objects have no essential identity with the relevant properties of the things themselves. We therefore have to explain here thatsubjectamain factorin the production of the external world, although it does not falsify the effectiveness of a thing in itself, but only accurately reflects what affects it. Accordingly, the object is different from the thing in itself, the appearance is different from what appears in it. Thing in itself and subject make the object. But not that oneSpaceis what distinguishes the object from the thing in itself, and neither is itTime, as I will show shortly, but thematter alone brings about the gap between what appears and its appearance, although matter behaves completely indifferently and neither puts any property into the thing in itself by its own means,

nor can it strengthen or weaken its effectiveness. It simply objectifies the given sensory impression and it makes no difference to it whether it has to represent the property of the thing in itself that underlies the brightest red or the softest blue, the greatest hardness or the complete softness; but she can only get the impressionof theirAccording to nature, and this is where the knife must be used in order to be able to make the right, extremely important cut through the ideal and the real. 8th.

The work of the understanding is completed with the discovery of the cause of the change in question in the sense organ and with its infusion into its two forms, space and matter (objectification of the cause).

Both forms are equally important and support each other. I emphasize that without space we would not have objects lying one behind the other, but that space can only apply its depth dimension to the tinted colors, shadows and light provided by matter. The mind alone has to objectify sensory impressions and no other cognitive faculty supports it in its work. But finished objectsthe mind cannot provide. 9.

The sensory impressions objectified by the understanding are not whole, but ratherPart-Imaginations. As long as the mind works alone which is never the case, since all of our cognitive faculties, some more, some less, always work together, but a separation is necessary here only those parts of the tree are clearly seen, which are the center the retina or places that are very close to the center. We therefore continually change the position of our eyes while looking at the object. Now we move the eyes from the root point to the very tip of the crown, now from right to left, now the other way around, now we let them slide countless times over a small flower: just to bring each part into contact with the center of the retina. On

In this way we gain a lot of individual, clear partial ideas, which, however, the understanding cannot combine to form an object. If this is to happen, they must transfer their understanding to another faculty of knowledgereason, be handed over. 10.

Reason is supported by three auxiliary faculties: thememory, the Judgmentand theImagination. All cognitive faculties are, in summary, humanSpirit, so that the following scheme results:

Thefunctionwhich is reasonSynthesisor connection asTask. From now on, whenever I talk about the function of reason, I will use the word synthesis, but use connection for the product, the connected thing.

Theshapeof reason is thatPresent. Thefunctionof memory is: storage of sensory impressions. Thefunctionof judgment is: compilation of what belongs together.

Thefunctionof the imagination is: holding on to what is visually connected by reasonPicture. Thefunctionof the spirit in general: to accompany the activity of all faculties with consciousness and to link their findings to the point of self-consciousness. 11.

In community with the power of judgment and imagination, reason stands in the closest relationship to the understanding for the purpose of producing view, which we are still exclusively dealing with.

First of all, the power of judgment gives reason the partial ideas that belong together. This connects them (i.e. those that belong to a leaf, a branch, or a trunk) little by little by always letting the imagination hold on to what is connected, adding a new piece to this image and letting the imagination hold the whole thing again etc. Then it connects the disparately related things, i.e. the trunk, the branches, twigs, leaves and flowers, in a similar way, repeating its connections individually and as a whole as necessary. Reason exercises its function on the rolling point of the present, so to speak, and time is unnecessary for this; but the synthesis can also take place in this: more details later. The imagination always carries what is connected from present to present, and reason adds piece by piece, always remaining in the present, that is, rolling forward at the point of the present.

The usual view is that the mind is the synthetic faculty; Yes, there are many who claim in good faith that synthesis does not take place at all, that every object is immediately understood as a whole. Both views are incorrect. The mind cannot connect because it only has one function: transition from the effect insensory organto the cause. But the synthesis itself can never fail, even if one only looks at the head of a pin, as keen introspection will show anyone; because the eyes will move, albeit almost imperceptibly. The deception arises mainly

from the fact that although we are aware of ready-made connections, we almost always carry out the synthesis unconsciously: firstly, because of the great speed with which both the most perfect sensory organ, the eye, receives impressions and the understanding objectifies them, and reason itself connects them; secondly, because we remember so little that, as children, we had to learn to use the synthesis gradually and with great effort, just as the depth dimension of space was initially completely unknown to us. How now, when we open our eyelids, we immediately perceive every object at the right distance and itself, in terms of its extent, without error, while it is an undisputed fact that the moon, the images of the room and the face of the newborn are visible to the newborn Mother, as blobs of color on a single surface, float close to our eyes, we now immediately grasp the objects, even the largest ones, as a whole in a rapid overview, whereas as infants we certainly only saw parts of objects and as a result of little practice Our judgment and imagination could neither judge what belonged together nor hold on to the partial ideas that had disappeared.

The illusion also arises from the fact that most objects, viewed from a suitable distance, draw their entire image onto the retina and the synthesis is thereby so facilitated that it escapes perception. But it becomes irresistible to an attentive self-observer when he approaches an object in a way contrasts with the fact that he does not completely overlook it, i.e. in such a way that perceived parts disappear as the synthesis progresses. It becomes even more apparent when we drive close to a mountain range and want to take in its entire shape. But it is most clearly recognized when we skip the sense of sight and let the sense of touch function alone, as I will show in detail using an example in the appendix.

Synthesis is an a priori function of the cognitive faculty and as such an a priori condition of the possibility of intuition. It faces, completely independently of itself, the unity of the thing itself, which forces it to connect in a very specific way. 12.

We have not yet completely explored the field of perception, but we must now leave it for a short time.

The visible world arises for us in the manner indicated. However, it should be noted that through the synthesis of partial ideas into objects Thinkdefinitely not in thatviewis brought. The connection of a given multiplicity of intuition is, of course, a work of reason, but not a work in concepts or through concepts, neither through pure a priori (categories) nor through ordinary concepts. However, reason does not limit its activity to the synthesis of partial ideas of the understanding into objects. It exercises its function, which is always one and the same, in other areas, of which we would first like to consider the abstract area, the area of reflection of the world in concepts.

The partial ideas of the mind that are combined to form whole objects or whole parts of objects are compared by the power of judgment. The same or similar things are put together by her with the help of the imagination and handed over to reason, which combines them into a collective unity, the concept. The more similar the summarized is, the closer the concept is to the clear and the easier the transition to a clear representative of it becomes. On the other hand, if the number of features on the combined objects becomes smaller and smaller and the concept therefore becomes ever broader, then it becomes even more distant from the viewer. However, even the broadest concept is not completely detached from its mother soil, even if it is only a thin and very long thread that holds it in place.

In the same way that reason reflects visible objects in concepts, it also, with the help of memory, forms concepts from all our other perceptions, which I will speak of below. It is clear that the concepts which are drawn from intuitive ideas are realized more easily and quickly than those which have their origin in non-intuitive ones; for just as the eye is the most perfect sensory organ, so too is the imagination the most powerful aid to reason. When the child learns the language, that is, when it absorbs finished concepts, it has to carry out the same operation that was necessary in the first place

to form concepts. It is only made easier for him by the finished concept. When it sees an object, it compares it with those it knows and puts things together that are similar. It therefore does not form a concept, but is only subsumed under a concept. If an object is unknown to it, it is at a loss and you have to give it the right term. — Reason then connects the concepts themselves to form judgments, that is, it connects concepts that the power of judgment has put together. Furthermore, it connects judgments to premises from which a new judgment is drawn. Your process is guided by the well-known four laws of thought on which logic is built.

In abstract areasthinksreason, and also at the point of the present and not in the presentTime. But we must turn to this now. By doing so, we enter an extremely important area, namely that oflinksbased on reasona priori forms and functions of the cognitive faculty. All the connections that we will get to know are at handExperience, i.e. created a posteriori. 13.

TheTimeis a combination of reason and not, as is usually assumed, an a priori form of cognitive ability. The child's reason brings about this connection in the realm of imagination as well as on the way into the inner world. We now want to let time arise in the light of consciousness and choose the latter path because it is the most suitable for philosophical investigation, although we have not yet dealt with the inner source of experience. If we detach ourselves from the outside world and immerse ourselves in our inner being, we find ourselves in a continuous rise and fall, in short, in an unceasing movement. I want the place where this movement touches our consciousnesspoint of movement to name. The form of reason floats on it (or sits as if screwed on), that is, the point ofPresent. Where the point of movement is, there is also the point of the present and it is always preciseabovethat one. He cannot rush ahead and he cannot lag behind: the two are inextricably linked.

If we now examine the process with attention, we find that we are always in the present, but always at the expense or death of the present; in other words, we move from present to present. As reason now becomes aware of this transition, it allows the imagination to capture the vanishing present and connects it with the emerging one. As it were, she pushes a solid surface under the rolling, flowing, intimately connected points of movement and the present, from which she reads the path traversed, and gains a rowmore fulfilled Moments, that is, a series of fulfilled transitions from present to present. In this way it acquires the essence and concept ofPast. If it then, remaining in the present - for this cannot separate it from the point of movement and push it forward - rushes ahead of the movement and connects the coming present with the one that follows it, then it gains a series of moments whichFulfillswill be, that is, it gains the essence and the concept ofFuture. Now she connects the past with the future into oneideal firmLine of indefinite length on which the point of the present rolls on, it has theTime. Just as the present is nothing without the point of movement on which it floats, so time is also nothing without the basis of real movement. The real movement is completely independent of time, or in other words: time real successionwould also take place without them ideal succession. If there were no knowing beings in the world, the existing things without knowledge would themselves be in restless movement. If knowledge occurs, time is only a condition for the possibility of movementrecognize, or also: the time is thesubjectiveScale of movement. In knowing beings, above the point of movement of the individual is the point of the present. The point of individual movement is therenext to the points of all other individual movements, ie all individual movements form a general movement of uniform succession. The presence of the subject always indicates exactly the point of movement of all things in themselves.

14.

With the important a posteriori connection time in hand, we go back to viewing. I said above that the synthesis of partial ideas is independent of time, since reason brings about its connections on the moving point of the present and the imagination holds on to what is connected. But the synthesis can also take place in time when the subject directs his attention to it. It's no differentChanges, which can be perceived at the point of the present. There are two types of change. The one isChange of locationand the other oneinternal change(drive, development). Both are united by the higher term: Movement.

If the change in location is such that it can be perceived as a displacement of the moving object against stationary objects, then its perception does not depend on time, but is recognized at the point of the present, like the movement of a branch, the flight of one Vogels.

For reflective reason, however, all changes without exception, like the perception itself, fulfill a certain period of time; but like intuition, the perception of such changes in location is not dependent on the consciousness of time; for the subject recognizes it directly at the point of the present, which is clearly noticeable. Time is an ideal union; it does not flow, but is an imaginary fixed line. Every moment that has passed is, as it were, frozen and cannot be moved a hair's breadth. Likewise, each future moment has its specific fixed place on the ideal line. But what moves continuously is the point of the present:heflows,nottheTime. It would also be completely wrong to say that this flowing away of the present is time; Because if you only pursue the point of the present, you never come to the idea of time: you always remain in the present. Man

must look back and forward and have fixed points on the shore, so to speak, in order to gain time for the ideal connection.

On the other hand, changes in location that cannot be perceived directly in the present and all developments are only recognized through time. The movement of the hands of a clock is beyond our perception. Should I now recognize that the sameIf the pointer was first at 6, then at 7, then I have to become aware of succession, that is, in order to be able to assign two contradictory predicates to the same object, I need time. The same applies to changes in location which, remaining in the present, I could have perceived but did not (shifting an object behind my back) and to developments. Our tree is blooming. If we now place ourselves in autumn and give the tree fruit, we need time to recognize the flowering tree and the fruit-bearing tree as the same object. The same object can be hard and soft, red and green, but it can only ever beoneof both predicates inonehave present. 15.

We have now covered the entire field of perception. Is it, that is, the totality of spatial-material objects, the entire world of our experience? No! It is just a section of the world as an idea. We have sensory impressions, the cause of which the mind, carrying out its function, looks for, but which it cannot shape spatially and materially. And yet we also have the idea of non-perceptible objects and therefore, first and foremost, the idea of a collective unity, the universe. How do we get there? Every mode of action of a thing in itself, insofar as it affects the senses for viewing (sight and touch), is objectified by the intellectual form of matter, that is, it becomes material for us. There is no exception in any way, and that is why matter is the ideal substrate of all visible objects, which in and of itself is without qualities, but in which all qualities must appear, similar to how space is without expansion, but surrounds all spheres of force.

As a result of this lack of quality in the ideal substrate of all visible objects, reason is presented with a similar diversity, which makes it a unitysubstanceconnected. Substance, like time, is oneConnectiona posteriori of reason on the basis of an a priori form. With the help of this ideal connection, reason adds matter to all those sensory impressions that cannot be poured into the forms of the understanding and in this way also arrives at the idea of incorporeal objects. These and the physical objects make up a coherent wholesubstantialobjects. Only now does the air, colorless gases, scents and sounds (vibrating air) become objects for us, even though we cannot shape them spatially and materially, and the sentence now has absolute validity: that everything that makes an impression on our senses is necessarily substantial. The unity of the ideal connection substance is opposed in the real area by the universe, the collective unity of forces, which is completely independent of it. 16.

The taste sensations remain. They do not lead to new objects, but to those that have already arisen through impressions on other senses. The mind only looks for the cause and then leaves the rest to reason. This simply performs its function and connects the effect with the already existing object, for example the taste of a pear with the material bite of it in our mouth. In general, only reason can recognize the various effects emanating from an object as flowing from a single sphere of force; for the understanding is not a synthetic faculty. —

If we now put everything together, we see that the idea is neither sensual, nor intellectual, nor rational, but ratherspiritualis. It is the work ofspirit, ieallcognitive ability. 17.

As I have shown above, all sensory impressions lead to objects, which in their entirety make up the objective world.

Reason reflects this entire objective world in concepts and thereby gains a world of abstraction alongside the world of immediate perception.

Finally it reaches a third world, the world of reproduction, which lies between the first two. Reason, separated from the outside world, reproduces everything perceived with the help of memory, and it either creates completely new connections or re-imagines what has disappeared precisely, but faded and weak. The process is exactly the same as with direct impressions on the senses. Reason does not remember at allwholeImages, smells, taste sensations, words, sounds, but just thatSensory impressions. With the help of memory, it creates an impression in the sensory nerves (and not at their tips, but where they lead into the part of the brain that we have to think of as the mind) and the mind objectifies it. If we accept our tree, the mind shapes the impressions that the memory has retained into partial ideas, the power of judgment puts these together, reason connects what has been put together, the imagination holds on to what is connected and a pale image of the tree stands before us. The extraordinary speed of the process must not, as I said, lead us to the false assumption that the objects are remembered immediately. The process is just as complicated as the creation of objects based on real influences on the senses. Dreams arise in a similar way. They are perfect reproductions. They owe their objectivity in general to the calmness of the sleeping individual and in particular to the complete inactivity of the ends of the sensory nerves. 18.

We now have to consider the rest of the important connections that reason brings about on the basis of a priori functions and forms of cognitive faculty.

The function of the mind is the transition from the effect in sensory organto the cause. He exercises it unconsciously, because the mind thinks not. Nor can it carry out its function the other way around and go from cause to effect, because only one effect sets it into activity, and as long as an object acts on it, that is, as long as the mind is in activity at all, it cannot deal with anything than with the cause found. Assuming he could think and wanted to go from cause to effect, at that moment the object would disappear and it could only be regained if the mind once again sought the cause for the effect. So the mind cannot expand its function in any way. But reason can. First, it recognizes the function itself, that is, it recognizes that the function of the mind is to look for the cause of a change in the sense organs. Then reason sets the path from thatCaused back to effect. So she recognizes two causal relationships: 1) the law of causality, that is, the law that any change in the sensory organsof the subject must have a cause; 2) that things in themselves affect the subject.

This exhausts the causal relationships of undisputed validity, because the knowing subject cannot know whether other beings know in the same way or whether they are subject to different laws. However, as laudable as the careful approach of critical reason is, it would be just as blameworthy if it gave up further penetration into the causal relationships here. She does not allow herself to be deterred and initially stamps the body of the knowing subject as an object among objects. Based on this knowledge, she arrives at an important third causal relationship. It expands the law of causality (relationship between the thing in itself andsubject) togeneral causality, which I bring into the following formula: It affects thing in itself on thing in itself and every change in one object must have a cause that precedes the effect in time. (I am deliberately keeping the thing in itself and the object separate here too, since we

recognize that thing in itself acts on thing in itself, but things in themselves can only be perceived by the subject as objects.) Through thegeneral causalityReason therefore links object with object, that is, general causality is a condition of the possibility of recognizing the relationship in which things in themselves stand to one another.

This is now the place to establish the concept of cause. Since thing in itself acts on thing in itself, there are only effective causes (causae efficientes), which can be divided into 1) mechanical causes (pressure and shock), 2) stimuli,

3) Motives.

The mechanical causes occur mainly in the inorganic kingdom, the stimuli mainly in the plant kingdom, the motives only in the animal kingdom. Furthermore, since man, by virtue of time, can look forward to what is to come, he can set goals for himself, that is, for man and only for him there are final causes (causae finales) or ideal causes. They are, like all other causes, effective, because they can only ever be effective if they are at the point of the present.

The term cause of opportunity is to be restricted to the fact that it only describes the reason that one thing in itself gives another to have an effect on a third. If a cloud that hid the sun moves away and my hand becomes warm, the removal of the cloud is the occasional cause, not the cause itself, of the warming of my hand. 19.

Reason further expands the general causality, which links two things (the active and the suffering) to a fourth causal relationship, which is effectiveness allThings in themselves include, toCommunityor interaction. The same says that every thing has a continuous effect, directly and indirectly, on all other things in the world, and thatat the same timeall others act on the same thing continuously, directly and indirectly, from which it follows that no thing in itself can have an absolutely independent effectiveness.

Just as the law of causality led to the positing of an effectiveness independent of the subject and general causality led to the positing of the influence of things in themselves on each other, independent of the subject, so the community is also only a subjective connection, by virtue of whichthe real dynamic context of the universe was recognizedbecomes. The latter would also exist without a knowing subject; but the subject could not do itrecognize, if it could not bring about the connection of the community within itself, or in other words: the community is the condition of the possibility of grasping the dynamic connection of the universe. 20.

Reason now only has to make one connection: that mathematical space. The (point) space differs essentially from the present in that it is completely sufficient to produce perception, while the present is not sufficient to recognize all the movements of things. It would therefore seem pointless to proceed to the construction of mathematical space, which is a connection a posteriori, like time. But this is not the case; for mathematical space is indispensable for human knowledge because mathematics is based on it, the high value of which will also be readily recognized by those who are not its friends. Not only is mathematics the unshakable basis of various sciences, especially astronomy, which is so extremely important for the culture of the human species, but it is also the cornerstone of art (architecture) and the basis of technology, which, in its further development, shapes the social relationships of people will be totally transformed.

Mathematical space arises when reason determines the point space to separate and then any pure spaces become a wholemore indefiniteExpansion connects. Here, as with the creation of entire objects, it proceeds from partial ideas.

Mathematical space is the only connection on an a priori basis that does not help to determine the thing in itself. Accordingly, in the real realm, it is not a thing in itself, nor a totality of such things, but that absolutely nothingopposite, which we cannot imagine in any other way than through mathematical empty space. 21.

Finally, among the many relationships that reason has with understanding, there is also this one:Appearance, that is, to correct the error of the understanding. So we see the moon on the horizon larger than it is in height, a rod broken in the water, a star that has already gone out, and all the stars in places where they are not actually located (because the earth's atmosphere refracts all light and the mind can only look for the cause of the sensory impression in the direction of the rays falling into the eye); We also think that the earth does not move, that the planets sometimes stand still or move backwards, etc., all of which the thinking reason corrects.

22. We now want to briefly summarize what has been said before.

The human cognitive faculty has: a. differenta prioriFunctions and forms namely: 1) the law of causality, 2) the (point) space, 3) the matter, 4) the synthesis,

5) the present, those onrealAreas, completely independent, face the following determinations of the thing in itself:

1) the effectiveness at all, 2) the sphere of effectiveness,

3) pure power,

4) the unity of every thing in itself,

5) the point of movement.

The human cognitive faculty has: b. various things brought about by reason on the basis of a priori functions and formsidealsconnections, or Connections: 1) the time,

2) general causality, 3) the community, 4) the substance,

5) the mathematical space. The first four correspond to the following determinations of things in themselves in the real area:

1) the real succession,

2) the influence of one thing in itself on another, 3) the dynamic context of the universe, 4) the collective unity of the universe.

The mathematical space is opposed to absolute nothingness. We have further found that the object is the appearance of the thing in itself, and that thematter alonebrings out the difference between the two. 23.

The thing itself, as far as we have examined it so far, isPower. The world, the totality of things in themselves, is a whole of pure forces, which become objects for the subject. The object is the appearance of the thing in itself, and although it depends on the subject, we have seen that it in no way falsifies the thing in itself. We can therefore trust experience. We are not yet concerned with what the force in itself is. For now, we will remain on the ground of the world as an idea and consider force in general, anticipating physics as little as possible. — The law of causality, the function of the mind, always only looks for the cause of a change in thesensory organs. Changes into the same

Nothing, so it rests completely. If, on the other hand, a sensory organ changes due to a real influence, the mind immediately comes into action and looks for the cause of the effect. Once he has found it, the law of causality, as it were, steps aside.

The mind, and this should be noted, is not in a position to further apply the law of causality and, for example, to ask about the cause of the cause, because it does not think. So he will never abuse the law of causality; It is also obvious that no other cognitive faculty can do this. The law of causality merely conveys the idea, that is, the perception of the external world.

If the discovered object changes under my eyes, the law of causality only serves to determine the cause of the new change sensory organ, not the change in the object: it is as if a completely new thing in itself had had an effect on me. Due to thelaw of causalitySo we can never ask, for example, about the cause of the movement of a branch that was previously motionless. We can only perceive the movement on the basis of this and only because, through the transition of the branch from the state of rest to that of movement, mysensory organhas changed.

Can we not ask at all about the cause of the movement of the branch? Certainly we can, but only because of thisgeneral causality, a connection of reason a posteriori; because only through this can we recognize the effect of object on object, while thatLaw of causalityjust the threads betweensubjectand the thing itself spins. So we have every right to ask about the cause of the movement of the branch. We find them in the wind. If we like it, we can ask further: first about the cause of the wind, then about the cause of this cause, etc., that is, we canCausality seriesform. But what happened when I asked about the cause of the moving branch and found it? I jumped off the tree, as it were, and grabbed another object, the wind. And what happened when I discovered the cause of this

found wind? I've simply left the wind and am standing in something completely different, like sunlight or warmth. From this it follows very clearly:

1) that the application of general causality always depends on things in themselvesderives,

2) that causality series always only connectsEfficacies of things in themselves, never thatthings themselvescontained within itself as members. If we also try (everyone for themselves) to continue to follow the causality series broken off above with heat, it will become clear to everyone that it is

3) is just as difficult,right oneTo form causal series than it seems easy at first glance, indeed it is quite impossible for the subject to start from any change, a correct one Causal series a parte ante[2]to produce an unhindered progression in indefinite.

The things themselvesare therefore never in a causal series, and I can search for the cause of theHisof a thing in itself neither on the basis of the law of causality nor on the basis of general causality; because if a thing in itself changes, which I have found as an object using the law of causality, and if I ask about the cause of the change using general causality, then general causality immediately leads me away from the thing in itself. The question: what is the cause of any thing in itself in the world, not only may, but itcannot be asked at all. From this it is clear that the causal relationships are never in our minds Past of things in themselves, and you show an incredible lack of awareness if you consider the so-called infinite causal series to be the best weapon against the well-known three proofs of the existence of God. It is the bluntest weapon there can be, in fact it is not a weapon at all: it is Lichtenberg's knife. And strange! The very thing that makes this weapon nothing also makes the proposed evidence untenable, namely causality. The opponents of the evidence claim straight away: the chain of

Causality is endless, without ever even trying, a series of fiftyrightto form limbs; and the authors of the evidence readily made theThingsto this worldOutlinesa causal series and then ask extraordinarily naively about the cause of the world. As above, it must be explained to both parties: general causality leadsneverin thePastof things themselves.

The seed is not thatCauseda plant; for seed and plant are not in onecausal, but in onegenetic Connection. On the other hand, one can ask about the causes that caused the seed to germinate in the earth, or about the causes that made the foot-high plant six feet high. But if you answer these questions, everyone will find what we found above, namely: that each of these causes comes from the plantderives. Eventually one will find the plant completely enmeshed in members of causal series, in which it never appears as a member. Is there no means of penetrating into the past of things? The mentioned genetic connection between seed and plant answers the question in the affirmative. Reason can Development seriesform something completely different thanCausal seriesare. These are created with the help ofcausality, those only with the help of theTime. Series of causality are the concatenated effectiveness of not one but many things; Development series, on the other hand, have to do with the existence of a thing in itself and its modifications. This result is very important. 24.

Now, based on science, let’s go with thissingle Path, which in the past of thingsFurther, we must reduce all series of organic forces to the chemical forces (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, phosphorus, etc.). Most natural scientists are unshakably convinced that it will be possible to reduce even these simple chemical forces, the so-called simple substances, to a few forces. However, for our investigation it is completely irrelevant whether this will happen or not, since it is an incontrovertible truth that we are onimmanentareas neverabout theMultiplicitywill reach unity. It is therefore clear that even three simple chemical forces would get us no further than

a hundred or a thousand. So let's stick with the number that the natural sciences of our day still give us. On the other hand, in our thinking we find not only no obstacle, but actually a logical compulsion, to at least reduce the multiplicity to its simplest expressionduality, because for reason, what underlies all objects is force, and what could be more natural than that, exercising its function, valid even for the present and all future, it combines the forces into a metaphysical unity? The diverse effectiveness of the forces could not prevent it from doing so, because it only has in mind the general, the effectiveness of every thing in itself, i.e. the essential equality of all forces, and its function consists solely in the diverse similarity, that gives her the power of judgment to connect.

However, we must not give in to it here, but rather, firmly looking at the truth, we must protect reason from a certain fall by strong restraint. I repeat: we can in the immanent field, in this world, neverbeyond the multitude. Even in the past, as honest researchers, we must not destroy diversity and must at least stick to the logical duality. Nevertheless, reason cannot be stopped from pointing out again and again the need for a simple unity. Your argument is the one already stated, that for themallForces that we keep separate, as forces, are fundamentally the same and therefore should not be separated. What should be done in this dilemma? This much is clear: the truth must not be denied and the immanent area must be preserved in its full purity. There is only one way out. In thePastwe are already there. So we give up the last of our powers, which we were not allowed to touch if we didn't want to become fantasiststranscendent areas flow together. It is apast, what has been, what has perished Territory, and with it is also thesimple unity passed and perished.

25.

By merging the multiplicity into a unity, we have, above all, thePower destroyed; because power only has validity and meaning in the immanent area, in the world. This already shows that we are different from thisbeingsonebeforeworldly unity cannot form an idea, let alone a concept. But the total unknowability of this pre-worldly unity becomes quite clear when we bring all a priori functions and forms and all a posteriori connections of our spirit before it, one after the other. She is the head of Medusa before whom they all freeze. At first the senses fail; because they can only react to the effectiveness of a force and the unity does not act as a force. Then the mind remains completely inactive. Here, yes basicallyonlyHere, the saying: the mind stands still, has full validity. He can neither apply his law of causality, since there is no sensory impression, nor can he use his forms space and matter, because there is no content for these forms. Then reason collapses impotently. What is supposed to connect them? What use is the synthesis to her? what is its form, the present, which lacks the real point of movement? What use is time to you, which, in order to be anything at all, requires real succession as a basis? In relation to simple unity, what should it do with general causality, whose task is to link the effectiveness of one thing in itself, as a cause, with the influence on another, as an effect? Can she use the important connection of community where there is no simultaneous intertwining of different forces, a dynamic connection, but where a simple unity directs the unfathomable sphinx eyes towards her? After all, what use is a substance that is only the ideal substrate for the diverse effectiveness of many forces?

And so they all faint! We can therefore only define the simple unity negatively, namely, from our current standpoint, as: inactive, without expansion, without distinction, unfragmented (simple), motionless, timeless (eternal).

But let us not forget and hold firmly that this enigmatic, absolutely unknowable simple unity with its transcendent domain has perished and nothing moreexists. At this realization

Let us stand up and return with fresh courage to the existing area, the only valid one, the clear and distinct world. 26.

From what has been said so far it follows that all series of developments, we may start from whatever we want, lead a parte ante into a transcendent unity, which is completely closed to our knowledge, an X, equal to nothing, and we can therefore say quite well that the World came into being from nothing. However, since on the one hand we give this unity a positive predicate, theexistence, although we cannot form the poorest concept of the nature of this existence, and on the other hand it is absolutely impossible for our reason to conceive of a creation from nothing, we are faced with one relativeNothing (nihil privative[3]), which can be described as a past, incomprehensible primal existence in which everything that is was contained in a way that we cannot understand.

This results in: 1) that all development series have a beginning (which, by the way, follows with logical necessity from the term development); 2) that there therefore cannot be infinite causal series a parte ante;

3) that allForces emergedare; for what they were in the transcendent realm, in simple unity, is completely beyond our knowledge. Only this we can say, that they had the very existence. Furthermore, we can say apodictically that in the simple unity they were not force; for power is the essence, the essentia, of a thing in itselfimmanentareas. But what the essence of the simple unity in which everything that exists was contained is, as we have clearly seen, hidden from our spirit for all time with an impenetrable veil. The transcendent realm actually no longer exists. But if we use our imagination to go back into the past to the beginning of the immanent realm, we can picture the transcendent next to the

immanent territory. But then both are separated by a gulf that can never be crossed by any means of the spirit. Only a single thin thread bridges the bottomless abyss: it is theexistence. On this thin thread we can transfer all the forces of the immanent realm to the transcendent: it can bear this burden. But as soon as the forces have arrived in the field beyond, they also cease to be forces for human thinking, and therefore the important sentence applies: Although everything that is did not arise from nothing, butbeforeworldly already existed, everything that is, every force, came into being as a force, that is, it had a specific beginning. 27.

We arrive at these results when we go back from any present being into its past. Now we want to examine the behavior of things at the progressive point of the present. First we look into the inorganic realm, the realm ofsimple chemical forces, such as oxygen, chlorine, iodine, copper, etc. As far as our experience extends, it has never happened that any of these forces, under the same circumstances, have shown other properties; Likewise, there is no known case where a chemical forcedestroyedwould have been. If I let sulfur enter into all possible compounds and emerge from all possible ones, it shows its old properties again and its quantity has neither increased nor decreased; At least, in the latter respect, everyone has the unshakable certainty that this is the case, and rightly so: for nature is the only source of truth and its statements alone are to be taken into account. She never lies, and when asked about the subject at hand, she always replies that nonesimple chemical force can pass.

Nevertheless, we must admit that skeptical attacks can be made against this statement. What answer would anyone want to give me if I said something like: It is true that until now, in a very general attack and without citing a single feature in the matter from which one could conclude the transience of the force objectifying itself in it no case has been reported where a simple substance was destroyed; but can you claim that the experience in all

future will teach the same? Cana priorisomething about themPower testify? Not at all; for the force is totally independent of the cognizing subject, is the real thing in itself. From the nature of the limitations of mathematical space even if this only exists in our imagination - the mathematician can draw sentences of unconditional validity for theFormalof things to themselves, because the point space underlying mathematical space has the ability to separate into three dimensions, and because every thing in itself is expanded into three dimensions. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether I come from a specific onerealSuccession in the essence of a thing in itself, or whether I am talking about it in theidealI translate succession, that is, I bring it into a temporal relationship; because the ideal succession keeps pace with the real one. But the naturalist is not allowed to take anything from the nature of the worldideals Connection substance to conclude what the force concerns; for I cannot repeat often enough that the essence of matter is different in every respect, toto genere, from the essence of force, although the latter expresses its properties down to the smallest detail in matter. Where the realstrength and theidealTouching matter, that is the important point from where the boundary between the ideal and the real must be drawn, where the difference between object and thing in itself, between appearance and the reason for appearance, between the world as idea and the world as strength, is evident. As long as the world exists, things in it will be expanded in three directions; As long as the world exists, these spheres of force will move; But do you know what kind of new - (new for you, not newly emerging) - natural laws a later experience will allow you to discover, which will also make the nature of power appear to you in a completely new light? For it is rock-solid that the innermost nature of force is never discussed a priori, but always only at the hands of theExperiencea statement is possible. But is your experience complete? Do you already have all the laws of nature in your hands?

What did they want to say to me?

The fact that such skeptical attacks can be made on the above statement must make us very cautious and determine us, the question is open for physics, but especially for metaphysics, in which the threads of all our investigations in the purely immanent field will converge to keep. But here, in analytics, where the thing in itself confronts us as something completely general, where we

Therefore, if we take the lowest standpoint for the thing in itself, we must unconditionally accept nature's statement that onesimplechemical force never goes away, approve.

If, on the other hand, we take a chemical compound, for example hydrogen sulfide, this force already existstransient. It is neither sulfur nor hydrogen, but a third thing, a tightly closed sphere of force, but a force that can be destroyed. If I break it down into its basic forces, it is destroyed. Now where is this peculiar force that made a very specific impression on me, different from both sulfur and hydrogen? she isdead, and we can quite well imagine that this connection will, under certain circumstances, disappear forever. In the organic realm the same thing is consistently the case. The difference between chemical compound and organism will concern us in physics; Here it is none of our business. Every organism consists of simple chemical forces which, like sulfur and hydrogen in hydrogen sulphide, are suspended in a single, higher, completely closed and unified force. If we bring an organism into the chemical laboratory and examine it, we will always find only simple chemical forces in it, whether it is an animal or a plant. What does nature say when we ask it about the higher power living in an organism? She says: the power is there as long as the organism lives. If it dissolves, so is the powerdead. She doesn't give any other testimony because she can't. It is a testimony of the utmost importance that only a darkened mind can distort. If an organism dies, the forces bound within it become free again without the slightest loss, but the force that has dominated the chemical forces since then is dead. Should it still live separately from them? Where is the destroyed hydrogen sulfide? where is the higher power of the burned plant or the killed animal? Are they floating between heaven and earth? Did they fly towards a star in the Milky Way? Nature, the only source of truth, can alone provide information, and nature says: they aredead.

As impossible as it is for us to imagine a creation from nothing, we can easily imagine that all organisms and all chemical compounds are destroyed forever.

From these considerations we draw the following results:

1) allsimpleChemical forces are, as far as our experience extends, indestructible;

2) all chemical compounds and all organic forces, on the other hand, are destructible.

The confusion of substance with simple chemical forces is as old as philosophy itself. The law of the persistence of substance is: "Substance is uncreated and imperishable." According to our investigations, the substance is oneidealConnection, based on the a priori form of understanding matter, and nature a whole of forces. The imaginary law would therefore read in our language:

All forces in the world are unborn and imperishable. However, we have found through honest research: 1) that all forces, without exception,developedare; 2) that onlysomePowers are imperishable. At the same time, however, we made the reservation that we should once again examine this immortality of simple chemical forces in physics and metaphysics. 28.

We have seen that every thing in itself has a sphere of force, and that it is not a vain illusion that the a priori intellectual form of space conjures up from its own means. Furthermore, through the extremely important connection of community, we recognized that these forces are in the most intimate dynamic connection, and thus arrived at a totality of forces, at a tightly closed collective unity. But here we have itFiniteness of the universeclaims, which now needs to be substantiated in more detail. Let us first be clear about the significance of the matter. Not a closed onefiniteimmanent area, which

but from all sides by oneinfinitewould be surrounded by transcendents, it is; but, since the transcendent area actually no longer exists, it is the only immanent area that still existsfinallyshould be. How can this seemingly bold claim be justified? We only have two paths ahead of us. Either we provide the proof with the help of imagination, or purely logically. — The point space, as I said above, is equally apt to give the limit to a grain of sand and to a palace. The only condition is that it is supposed to be said by a thing in itself, or in the absence of such a thing, by a reproduced sensory impression. Now we have a present world: our earth beneath us, and the starry sky above us, and to a naive mind it may therefore seem that the idea of a finite world is possible. But science destroys this delusion. With every day it expands the sphere of force of the universe, or, to put it subjectively, it daily forces the point space of the understanding to extend its three dimensions. The world is currently still immeasurably large, which means that the mind cannot yet set any limits to it. Whether he will achieve this remains to be seen. We must therefore refrain from visualizing the universe on a small scale in a similar way to how we make the shape of our earth comprehensible through plastic reproduction of the earth's surface, and we must actually say that we cannot reach our goal through imagination. So we cannot prove the finiteness of the world in a clear way. So all we are left with is inexorable logic.

And, in fact, it is extremely easy for her to prove the finitude of the world. The universe is not a single force, a simple unit, but a whole of finite spheres of force. Now I cannot give any of these spheres of force an infinite extension; because, firstly, I would thereby destroy the concept itself, then make the plural into the singular, that is, slap experience in the face. There is no room for any other sphere of force besides a single, infinite one, and the essence of nature would simply be abolished. A totalitymore finiteBut spheres of force must be necessaryfinallybe.

The objection to this would be that although only finite forces can be found in the world, there are an infinite number of finite forces,

consequently the world is not a totality, but rather infinite.

The answer to this is: All forces in the world are either simple chemical forces or combinations of them. The former are to be counted and furthermore all connections can be traced back to these few simple forces. As explained above, infinity cannot be a simple force, even if we can collectively describe each as immeasurably large. Consequently, the world is, fundamentally, the sum of simple forces, all of which are finite, that is, the world is finite.

Why does something in us rebel against this result again and again? Because reason with the form of understandingSpaceAbuse drives. Space only has meaning for experience; it is only an a priori condition of the possibility of experience, a means of knowing the external world. As we have seen, reason is only entitled to allow space to be separated on its own initiative (as one presses on the spring of a sword stick) if it reproduces or has to produce the pure intuition of a spatiality for mathematics. It is clear that the mathematician needs such space only in the smallest dimensions in order to demonstrate all his proofs; But it is also clear that it is precisely the creation of mathematical space for the mathematician that is the cliff where reason becomes perverted and abuses. Because if we strive to capture the logically assured finitude of the world (as best as we can) in an image and allow space to be separated for this purpose, perverse reason immediately causes space to extend its dimensions beyond the boundaries of the world to expand. Then the complaint becomes loud: we have a finite world, but in a space that we can never complete because the dimensions are constantly lengthening (or better: we have a finite world, but inabsolutely nothing).

There is only one remedy for this. We have to rely heavily on the logical finiteness of the world and on the knowledge that the point space, which is forced to expand into a limitless mathematical space, is a thing of thought,inexists in our head alone and has no reality. In this way we are immune and, with critical prudence, resist the temptation to indulge in lonely lust with our minds and betray the truth in the process.

29.

Likewise, only critical prudence can protect us from other great dangers, which I now want to explain.

As it is in the nature of point space that it is ofZeroindefinitely diverges into three dimensions, it is also in its nature to let any pure (mathematical) space become smaller and smaller until it is point space again, ie zero. Like the snail with its feelers, it withdraws its dimensions into itself and becomes an inactive intellectual form again. This subjective ability, called space, cannot be thought of as being any other way, because it is a condition of the possibility of experience and is unique to the external world, without which it has no meaning at all. But now even the stupidest person can see that a form of knowledge that, on the one hand, corresponds to the most diverse things (the largest and the smallest and... soonthe biggest,soonthe smallest) as objects, but on the other hand should also help to grasp the totality of all things in themselves, the universe, both in progression and in regression to zero,unlimitedhave to be; because if it had a limit for the separation, it could not create a real sphere of force beyond this limit; and if there were a limit before zero for the withdrawal, then all those spheres of force that lie between zero and this limit would be eliminated from our knowledge.

In the last section we saw that reason could abuse the limitlessness of the point space in the separation and arrive at a finite universe in an infinite space. Now we have to shed light on the abuse that reason makes with the limitlessness of space by going back to zero, or in other words: we are faced with thatinfinite divisibilityof mathematical space. If we imagine a pure space, such as a cubic inch, we can divide it into indefinite, that is, the receding of the dimensions to the zero point will always beprevented. We may share for years, for centuries, for millennia - we would always be faced with a residual space that can be divided again, etc. indefinitely. The so-called infinite divisibility of mathematics is based on this

Space, how the infinity of mathematical space is based on the separation in infinitum of the point space. But what do we do when we start from a certain space and divide it restlessly? We play with fire, we are big children who should be slapped on the wrist by any level-headed person. Or can our procedure not be compared to that of children who, in the absence of their parents, uselessly handle a loaded pistol that has a very specific purpose? Space is intended only for the knowledge of the external world; He should limit every thing in itself, be it as big as Mont Blanc or as small as an IV animal: that is its purpose, like that of the loaded pistol, to knock a burglar to the ground. But now we detach space from the outside world and thereby turn it into a dangerous toy, or as I said above, according to Pückler: we engage in “lonely lust” with our minds. 30.

The division into indefinite of a givencleanIncidentally, spatiality has an innocent side in that a thought thing, a spatiality, which only lies in the head of the sharer and has no reality, is shared. But its danger is doubled when the infinite divisibility of mathematical space is transferred, almost sacrilegiously, to the force, the thing in itself. The nonsensical beginning is immediately followed by punishment: the logical contradiction. Every chemical force is divisible; There is no objection to this, because experience teaches us this. But it existsbeforethe division is not made up of parts, is notAggregateof parts, because the parts becomereallyin the division itself. The chemical force is a homogeneous, simple force of absolutely the sameintensityand this is the basis of their divisibility, that is, each detached part is, in its essence, not in the least different from the whole.

If we now ignore the real division, which both nature according to its laws and humans accomplish in planned work for practical benefit, and whose result is always certain spheres of force, this remainsidle frivolousDivision.

Perverted reason takes some part of a chemical force, say a cubic inch of iron, and divides it in thought over and over again indefinitely, and finally becomes convinced that it would never come to an end, even if it were divided for trillions of years. At the same time, however, logic tells you that a cubic inch of iron is onefiniteSphere of force, impossibleinfinitecould be made up of many parts, and indeed that it was completely inadmissible infiniteto speak to many parts of an object;because only in the unhindered activity in the indefinite capacity of a cognitive facultythe document exists for theConcept of infinity, here in the unhindered progress of division, never,neveron realareas. So perverse reason can enter the cave at the hand of restless division, but once inside, it must always move forward. She can no longer return to the finite sphere of power from which she started. In this desperate situation, she now forcibly tears herself away from her leader and postulates thisatom, i.e. a sphere of force that should no longer be divisible. Of course it can now return to the cubic inch of iron by joining such atoms together, but at what cost: it has put itself in contradiction with itself!

If the thinker wants to remain honest, he must be prudent. Prudence is the only weapon against the abuse that a perverse reason is inclined to make of our cognitive abilities. In the present case, we are dealing with the real issueDivisibilityof chemical forces is not even questioned. But we are resisting them with all our might infiniteDivisibility of powers, because such can only be asserted if, in the most amazing way, the (moreover misused) essence of a cognitive faculty is transferred to the thing in itself; secondly against thecompositionof the forceSplit. So we reject the infinite divisibility of forceandthe atom. As I said above, a cognitive faculty musteveryoneThe forces that can occur in an experience that is supposed to set limits must necessarily be such that it can diverge without restriction and will not find any limits on the way back to zero. However, let us apply it one-sidedly, that is, detached from the experience for which it is solely intended, and make conclusions that we draw from its nature binding

thething in itself, then we come into contradiction with pure reason: a great evil! 31.

After all, we still have to use a critical spirit to escape from a danger that arises out of time. Time, as we know, is oneidealConnection a posteriori, obtained on the basis of the a priori form present, and is nothing without the basis of therealsuccession. With their powerful leadership we came to the beginning of the world, to the border of a vanished pre-worldly existence, the transcendent realm. Here she faints, here she flows into a pasteternity, which word is merely the subjective designationfor the lack of any and all real successionis.

Critical reason is modest; not so perverted reason. This brings time back to life and encourages it to rush on indefinitelywithoutreal base, regardless of the prevailing eternity. Here, more nakedly than anywhere else, is the abuse that can be committed with a cognitive faculty.Empty momentsare continually connected and a line is continued which had a firm, secure basis, real development, up to the transcendent realm, but which now floats in the air. We have nothing else to do here than to rely on pure reason and simply ban the foolish behavior. Even if a parte ante the real movement, whose subjective measure is time alone, had a beginning, this does not mean that it must have an end a parte post. The solution to this problem depends on the answer to the question: are simple chemical forces indestructible? For it is clear that if the simple chemical forces are indestructible, real motion must be endless. So it follows from this:

1) that the real movement has begun;

2) that real movement is endless. We make the latter judgment with the reservation of a revision in physics and metaphysics. 32.

In my opinion, these investigations and the earlier ones of our cognitive ability establish the real onetranscendentalor critical idealism who doesn't come withwordsalone, butreallyleaves things in themselves their empirical reality, that is, themexpansionand Movement, independent of the subject, fromSpaceandTime, admitted. His focus is on thematerialObjectification of thePower, and is he in that regard transcendental, which word the dependency of theobject from the subjectdesignated. More criticalOn the other hand, it is idealism because it curbs perverse reason (perversa ratio) and does not allow it:

a. thecausalityfor the productionmore infiniteto abuse ranks; b. theTimefrom its indispensable basis, real development, and turn it into one lineemptierto make moments that come from infinity and rush on into infinity; c. themathematical spaceand thesubstancefor more than just Thought thingsto hold, and d. Furthermore, to attribute infinity to this real space and absolute persistence to this real substance.

Furthermore, critical idealism allows even less perverse reason to be arbitrarytransmissionsuch fantasies on thethings in themselves and cancels their bold claims: a. the pureBeof things fall into the infinite causal series; b. the universe is infinite and the chemical forces are divisible into infinity or they are an aggregate of atoms; c. world development has no beginning; d.allPowers are indestructible.

The two judgments we had to make: 1) thesimplechemical forces are indestructible,

2) world development has no end, we declared it in need of revision.

We then have to add an important positive result that transcendental idealism brought us to a transcendent area that cannot bother the researcher because it no longer exists. In this way, critical idealism frees every honest and faithful observation of nature from inconsistencies and fluctuations and makes nature part againsingleSource of all truth, which no one, tempted by illusions and mirages, leaves unpunished: for he must languish in the desert. A guy who speculates Is like an animal on dry heath, Led around in circles by an evil spirit, And all around lies beautiful green pasture.

—GOETHE

33.

The most important result for our further investigations so far is: that things in themselves are substantial objects for the subject and, independent of the subject, moving forces with a certain sphere of effectiveness. We obtained it through careful analysis of the following Outsidedirected cognitive faculty, i.e. entirely based on the objective world; because we could just as easily have created the time gained on the way inwards on our bodies or in our consciousness from other things.

But nothing more can be achieved on the way outwards than the knowledge that the thing underlying the object is in itself a force of a certain extent and with a certain ability to move. What the force is in and of itself, how it works, how it moves - we cannot recognize all of this from the outside. The immanent philosophy would also have to end here if we only knew

subject would be; for what it would say on the basis of this one-sided truth about art, about the actions of people and the movement of all humanity would be of dubious value: it could be so and it could also not be so, in short it would lose the secure ground beneath itself and all courage, and would therefore have to stop her research. But the way out is not thatonly, which is open to us. We can penetrate to the innermost heart of power; because every human being belongs to nature and is a force themselves, and a self-confident force. The nature of powermustbe grasped in self-confidence. So we want to get out of there nowsecondsource of experience, the self-consciousness, scoop.

If we immerse ourselves in our inner being, the senses and the mind, the outwardly directed cognitive faculty, cease to function completely; they are, as it were, hung out and only the upper cognitive faculties remain active. We have no internal impressions for which we have to look for a cause that is different from them; Furthermore, we cannot shape ourselves spatially internally and are completely immaterial, that is, the law of causality does not apply to us and we are free of space and matter.

Although we are completely non-spatial, that is, we cannot see a shape within ourselves, we are not therefore a mathematical point. WefeelOur sphere of effectiveness is exactly as far as it goes, we just lack the means to shape it. The collective feeling of strength extends to the very tips of our body, and we feel neither concentrated in one point nor dissolving into indefinite, but rather in a very specific sphere. I will be this sphere from now onreal individualitycall it: it is the first cornerstone of purely immanent philosophy. If we examine ourselves further, we find ourselves in constant motion, as has already been explained above. Our strength is essentially restless and restless. We are never at absolute rest, even for the smallest part of a moment; because rest is death, and the smallest possible interruption of life would be the extinguishing of the flame of life. We are

therefore essentially restless; However, we only feel self-confidence when we are in motion.

The state of our innermost being, as it were, always touches consciousness as a real point of movement, or, as I said earlier, the present floats on the point of movement. We are always aware of our inner life in the present. If, on the other hand, the present were the main thing and the point of movement were therefore based on it, my being would have to be completely at rest during every intermittent period of my selfconsciousness (in faints, in sleep), that is, death would strike it and it could not rekindle its life. The assumption that the point of movement really depends on the present (and real movement also depends on time) is, like that that space gives things extension, just as absurd as it was necessary for the development of philosophy. by which I want to express that there cannot be a higher degree of absurdity. Now that reason becomes aware of the transition from the present to the present, it acquires, in the manner discussed earlier, time and at the same time the real succession, which from now on I see in relation to the real individualityreal movementI will call it: it is the second cornerstone of immanent philosophy.

It is the greatest deception one can be caught in if one believes that we are on the way inwards as we are on the way outwards. recognizingand the knower would be confronted by something known. We find ourselves in the middle of things in themselves, there can no longer be any talk of an object, and we directly grasp the core of our being, through selfconsciousnessFeeling. It is a direct perception of our being through the spirit, or better through the sensitivity. What is the power that is revealed at the core of our inner being? It is the will to live.

Whenever we take the path inward - may we find ourselves in apparent calm and indifference, may we tremble blissfully under the kiss of the beautiful, may we rage and rage in the wildest passion or melt into pity, may we "shout high to heaven" or "to be sad to death" we always have the will to live. We want

to be there, always to be there; because we existwant,arewe and because we want existence, we remain in existence. The will to live is the innermost core of our being; it is always active, although often not on the surface. In order to convince yourself of this, one puts the most exhausted individual in real danger of death and the will to live will reveal itself, bearing in every feature with terrible clarity the desire for existence: his craving for life is insatiable.

But if a person really no longer wants life, he immediately destroys himself through the act. Mostwishjust death, she wantnot him. This will is a developing individuality, which is identical to the moving sphere of activity found from outside. But he is through and through free of matter. I see this immediate perception of force on the way inward as free of matter as a seal that presses nature under my theory of knowledge. It is not space, not time, that distinguishes the thing in itself from the object, but matter alone makes the object a mere appearance that stands and falls with the cognizing subject. We consider the most important result of analysis to be totally independent of the subjectindividual,movingWill to live firmly in hand. It is the key that leads to the heart of physics, aesthetics, ethics, politics and metaphysics.

Remarks 1.