SCIENCE AND REVOLUTION 



he had no need of the hypothesis of a creator. 

 No better proof is required for the soundness of 

 this position, than the persistent silence, which 

 the theologians have maintained about Kant's 

 nebular hypothesis, while praising the dualistic 

 ethics and theory of understanding contained in 

 his second work, " The Critique of Pure 

 Reason," published in 1781. 



In order to appreciate Kant's philosophy fully, 

 this work must be compared with his " Critique 

 of Practical Reason," published in 1788. The 

 essence of his teaching in the former work is, 

 that the world of phenomena, such as we per- 

 ceive it, is entirely conditioned on the organiza- 

 tion of our senses. Owing to this fact, we can 

 never perceive the true nature of a thing, the 

 " thing in itself." There is only one universe, 

 and everything in it is regulated by natural laws, 

 operating as sternly as the law of gravitation. 

 The freedom of will cannot be demonstrated by 

 " pure " reason. The existence of a god and 

 the immortality of the soul cannot be ascertained 

 within the possible limits of experience. 



However, throughout the work there are scat- 

 tered passages stating the exact opposite. One 

 would be at a loss to understand what Kant was 

 ally driving at, if he had not given an expla- 



76 



