“OBSERVATION UPON THE FIRST 
ANTINOMY. 
“1. Upon the Thesis. 
“T have not sought after deceptions in these mutu- 
ally contradictory arguments in order, for instance (as 
it is termed), to advance an advocate’s proof, who 
avails himself of the imprudence of his opponent for 
his own advantage, and willingly sanctions his appeal to 
a misunderstood Jaw in order to establish his own un- 
just pretensions upon the refutation of it. Hach of 
these proofs is deduced from the nature of things, and 
the advantage set aside which the erroneous conclu- 
sions of Dogmatists could afford us on both parts. 
“T might, likewise, have been able to demonstrate 
according to appearance the Thesis, by reason of this, 
that I premised, agreeably to the custom of the Dog- 
matists, an erroneous conception as to the infinity of a 
given quantity. A quantity is infinite, beyond which 
no greater (that is, beyond the therein contained mul- 
tiplicity of a given unity) is possible. Now, no mul- 
tiplicity is the greatest, inasmuch as always one or 
more unities can still be added thereto. Consequently 
an infinite given quantity,—consequently, also (in re- 
spect of the elapsed series as well as of extension), an 
infinite world is impossible. It is, therefore, in both 
ways limited. I might, in such a way, have adduced 
my proof; but this conception does not accord with 
that which we understand by an infinite whole. It is 
not, thereby, represented so great as it is; conse- 
quently, also, its conception is not the conception of a 
maximum, but only, thereby, its relationship to an ar- 
bitrarily to be adopted unity is thought, in respect of 
which this relationship is greater than all number. 
Now, accordingly as unity is admitted greater or less, 
the infinite would be greater or less; but infinity, as 
it consists merely in the relationship to this given 
unity, would remain ever the same, although certainly 
the absolute quantity of the whole thereby would not 
be at all known—but as to which it is not here the ques- 
tion. 
““The true (transcendental) conception of infinity is 
that the successive synthesis of unity in the measure- 
926 INTELLECTUAL SYMBOLISM. 
“OBSERVATION. 
“2. Upon the Antithesis. 
“The proof of the infinity of the given cosmolo- 
gical series, and of the cosmological Whole, rests upon 
this: that in the opposite case a void time as well as 
a void space must constitute the limits of the world. 
Now, I am not ignorant that against this consequence 
excuses are sought for, inasmuch as it is pretended 
that there is a limit of the world in respect of time 
and space quite possible, without its being even requi- 
site to admit an absolute time before the beginning of 
the world, or an absolute extended space out of the 
real world, which is impossible. I am entirely satis- 
fied with the last part of this opinion of the philoso- 
phers of the Leibnitzian school. Space is merely the 
form of the external intuition, but no real object which 
can be envisaged externally, and no correlative of phe- 
nomena, but the form of phenomena themselves. 
Space, therefore, cannot absolutely (of itself alone) 
occur as something determining in the existence of 
things, since it is no object at all, but only the form of 
possible objects. Things, therefore, as phenomena, 
certainly determine space; that is, under all possible 
predicates thereof (quantity and relationship), they so 
operate that these or those belong to reality ; but con- 
versely, space, as something which subsists of itself, 
cannot determine the reality of things in respect of the 
quantity or form, because in itself it is nothing real. 
Consequently, a space (whether full or void)* may 
very well be limited by phenomena, but phenomena 
can never be dimited by means of a void space exter- 
nal to them. The same is also valid as to time. 
But all this being granted, it is still, nevertheless, in- 
dubitable that we must absolutely admit two nonenti- 
ties, void space out of the world, and void time before 
* ‘Tt is easy to be observed, that hereby it is intended to 
say, that void space so far as it is limited by phenomena—conse- 
quently that such within the world does not, at least, contra- 
dict the transcendental principles, and may, therefore, be ad- 
mitted in respect of the same (although its probability is not, 
on that account, directly maintained). 
