按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
is possible only as the limit of a space… consequently of a posite。
Space and time； therefore； do not consist of simple parts。 That
which belongs only to the condition or state of a substance； even
although it possesses a quantity （motion or change； for example）；
likewise does not consist of simple parts。 That is to say； a certain
degree of change does not originate from the addition of many simple
changes。 Our inference of the simple from the posite is valid
only of self…subsisting things。 But the accidents of a state are not
self…subsistent。 The proof； then； for the necessity of the simple；
as the ponent part of all that is substantial and posite； may
prove a failure； and the whole case of this thesis be lost； if we
carry the proposition too far； and wish to make it valid of everything
that is posite without distinction… as indeed has really now and
then happened。 Besides； I am here speaking only of the simple； in so
far as it is necessarily given in the posite… the latter being
capable of solution into the former as its ponent parts。 The proper
signification of the word monas （as employed by Leibnitz） ought to
relate to the simple； given immediately as simple substance （for
example； in consciousness）； and not as an element of the posite。 As
an clement； the term atomus would be more appropriate。 And as I wish
to prove the existence of simple substances； only in relation to；
and as the elements of； the posite； I might term the antithesis
of the second Antinomy； transcendental Atomistic。 But as this word has
long been employed to designate a particular theory of corporeal
phenomena （moleculae）； and thus presupposes a basis of empirical
conceptions； I prefer calling it the dialectical principle of
Monadology。
ANTITHESIS。
Against the assertion of the infinite subdivisibility of matter
whose ground of proof is purely mathematical； objections have been
alleged by the Monadists。 These objections lay themselves open； at
first sight； to suspicion； from the fact that they do not recognize
the clearest mathematical proofs as propositions relating to the
constitution of space； in so far as it is really the formal
condition of the possibility of all matter； but regard them merely
as inferences from abstract but arbitrary conceptions； which cannot
have any application to real things。 just as if it were possible to
imagine another mode of intuition than that given in the primitive
intuition of space； and just as if its a priori determinations did not
apply to everything； the existence of which is possible； from the fact
alone of its filling space。 If we listen to them； we shall find
ourselves required to cogitate； in addition to the mathematical point；
which is simple… not； however； a part； but a mere limit of space…
physical points； which are indeed likewise simple； but possess the
peculiar property； as parts of space； of filling it merely by their
aggregation。 I shall not repeat here the mon and clear
refutations of this absurdity； which are to be found everywhere in
numbers： every one knows that it is impossible to undermine the
evidence of mathematics by mere discursive conceptions； I shall only
remark that； if in this case philosophy endeavours to gain an
advantage over mathematics by sophistical artifices； it is because
it forgets that the discussion relates solely to Phenomena and their
conditions。 It is not sufficient to find the conception of the
simple for the pure conception of the posite； but we must
discover for the intuition of the posite （matter）； the intuition of
the simple。 Now this； according to the laws of sensibility； and
consequently in the case of objects of sense； is utterly impossible。
In the case of a whole posed of substances； which is cogitated
solely by the pure understanding； it may be necessary to be in
possession of the simple before position is possible。 But this does
not hold good of the Totum substantiale phaenomenon； which； as an
empirical intuition in space； possesses the necessary property of
containing no simple part； for the very reason that no part of space
is simple。 Meanwhile； the Monadists have been subtle enough to
escape from this difficulty； by presupposing intuition and the
dynamical relation of substances as the condition of the possibility
of space； instead of regarding space as the condition of the
possibility of the objects of external intuition； that is； of
bodies。 Now we have a conception of bodies only as phenomena； and；
as such； they necessarily presuppose space as the condition of all
external phenomena。 The evasion is therefore in vain； as； indeed； we
have sufficiently shown in our Aesthetic。 If bodies were things in
themselves； the proof of the Monadists would be unexceptionable。
The second dialectical assertion possesses the peculiarity of having
opposed to it a dogmatical proposition； which； among all such
sophistical statements； is the only one that undertakes to prove in
the case of an object of experience； that which is properly a
transcendental idea… the absolute simplicity of substance。 The
proposition is that the object of the internal sense； the thinking
Ego； is an absolute simple substance。 Without at present entering upon
this subject… as it has been considered at length in a former chapter…
I shall merely remark that； if something is cogitated merely as an
object； without the addition of any synthetical determination of its
intuition… as happens in the case of the bare representation； I… it is
certain that no manifold and no position can be perceived in such a
representation。 As； moreover； the predicates whereby I cogitate this
object are merely intuitions of the internal sense； there cannot be
discovered in them anything to prove the existence of a manifold whose
parts are external to each other； and； consequently； nothing to
prove the existence of real position。 Consciousness； therefore；
is so constituted that； inasmuch as the thinking subject is at the
same time its own object； it cannot divide itself… although it can
divide its inhering determinations。 For every object in relation to
itself is absolute unity。 Nevertheless； if the subject is reg