28 



with the single individual manifestations of compound objects, 

 before he knows what the universe and what nature in general 

 is? The particularized objects are but fleeting shadows in the 

 nature of general existence. One manifestation, one rational 

 principle or even one question which cannot be answered to 

 agree with the laws which our scientists have devised, destroys 

 the very foundation of the system they have built up by their 

 experimental knowledge; for the unity of the universe in nature 

 is perfectly absolute in all possible manifestations. Every 

 natural law, therefore, must be positively absolute in and for all 

 manifestations alike; there must be nothing to contradict such a 

 law either in manifestation or in intellectual conception. 



Let me attack the second basis of our scientists who are 

 dependent upon the conclusions of the knowledge of Mathema 

 tics. They should know that the knowledge of mathematics is 

 only a measurement to objects which are already in existence 

 known to us in their reality, as a help to us to erect signs and 

 landmarks on the road of wisdom. If we know and understand 

 the nature of things with our senses in their actual existence and 

 with our logical intellect their causes and effects in their general 

 existence, we may by the science of mathematics create for 

 ourselves landmarks on the road of wisdom. But without 

 knowing the true causes and effects of things in nature, the 

 landmarks we build by the science of mathematics lead us to 

 error. Descartes was nearly the beginner of the assertion that 

 the ideal of cognition is the mathematical, and being dependent 

 upon it was leaded in the greatest error. By an argument, 

 wherewith I intend to prove against Descartes, will also be 

 sufficiently proved against all our scientist?. 



Descartes says: 



&quot;Proposition 5. There are no atoms.&quot; 



&quot;Demonstration. Atoms, according to their nature, are 

 indivisible particles of matter (according to definition 3.) But 

 since matter subsists in extention (according to definition 2 of 

 this volume) which according to its nature is divisible, no matter 

 how small its particles may be (according to Axiom 9) every 

 particle of matter, be it ever so small, must according to its 



