PHILOSOPHY. 
236 
non has in thefe conftituent parts of matter, to explain the 
difference of the phenomena. We reduce all matter to 
earths, (as it were mere weight;) to falts, and coinbufti- 
bles, (as power ;) laftly, to water and air, (as vehicles and 
machines, by means of which the former operate ;) in 
order to explhin, according to the idea of a certain mecha- 
nifirt, the mutual chemical operations of matter. 
If we confider fubftance in its effects, and remark a 
total difference of them, we tliould at firft think that the 
Canfality (powers) of this fubftance itfelf is as different 
as its effedts are. Notwithftanding this, we always endea¬ 
vour to reduce thefe powers to a l'maller number than that 
of their effects, fince we fuppofe that feveral eft’edls may be 
the confequences of one and the fame caufality. Nay, we 
even project a fundamental power, by prefuppofing that 
all thefe effeffs arofe from one fingle power. Of the cor- 
redtnefs of this prefuppofition experience cannot convince 
us. We take, on the contrary, this Idea as a principle 
prior to experience, and judge of Nature accordingly. 
Reafon is a faculty to derive the particular from the 
univerfal. Now the univerfal may be either certain of 
itfelf, and given, in which cafe judgment only is re¬ 
quired in order to bring the particular under the univer¬ 
fal; or the univerfal is not given, in which cafe it can 
only be prefuppofed; and, in order to be affured of its 
certainty, it is not enough to be able to derive the given 
particular from the pre-fuppofed univerfal; we mull have 
feveral particular cafes, which all ftand under that pre¬ 
fuppofition, in order thus to be affured, in proportion to 
their number, of the corredtnefs of the prefuppofition. 
The former life of Reafon we fhall call apodvElical, the 
latter hypothetical. The hypothetical ufe of Reafon is only 
regulative, not conftitutive; as we can never be certain 
of the completenefs of the particular cafes, in order to be 
able to infer with fafety the univerfality of the pre-l'up- 
pofition. 
Reafon, in deriving from preceding example certain 
fundamental powers of fubftances, is hypothetical. It 
has merely the fyftematic unity here in view, which it by 
no means borrows from experience, but propofes to itfelf 
in order to confider experience according to a rule. As 
this unity is therefore only projected, it remains unde¬ 
cided whether it may not, after all, be foreign to experi¬ 
ence. We fnould therefore proceed quite unjuftifiably if 
vve ednfidered this merely hypothetical ufe of Reafon as 
conftitutive, and fhould think the unity thus merely pre¬ 
fuppofed as found in nature itfelf. Were we to ground 
upon a principle Inch a procedure, the principle would be 
tranfcendental, and a tranfcendental deduction would be 
requilite to prove its truth, which however is not poflible 
with refpeft to any Idea. 
It is however not to be denied, that the principle upon 
which we fupport ourfelves', while we feek this fyftematic 
unity in nature, appears to be tranfcendental, though it 
is not. For experience can in no inftance fhow us this; 
and, to refer to the fame examples, experience can never 
teach us that certain powers are fundamental powers. 
Uninftrudted by experience upon this head, we have it 
ftill in mind, and it appears to be the fame with this as 
with the principles of judgment; namely, that, as in 
thefe the Underffanding preferibes laws to Nature, fo 
Reafon alfo in this principle contains a rule to which the 
phenomena muft unavoidably conform. Secondly, this 
fyjlematic unity ferves to bring into connexion the adtions 
of the Underffanding; and, notwithftanding the Under- 
ftanding knows without it each fingle objedt, itill we eafily 
perceive, that only by the prefuppofition of this unity it 
knows tlie ednnexion of its knowledge, and thereby the 
fingle objedt by determinate marks. 
That the natural philofopher adopts ftich a principle in 
his reflections, not as an hypothecs, but as a tranfeendent 
principle, is evident from his way of proceeding. The 
chemift found that lie could reduce all the different fpe- 
cies of falts to two principal genera, namely, Acids and 
Alkalies ; now he endeavours to confider even this differ- 
A • 
ence as a mere variety of one and the fame matter. The 
various kinds of earths (the matter of ftone, and even of 
metal) he has attempted to reduce by degrees to three, 
and ultimately to two ; but ftill, not fatisfied with this, 
he could not diveft himfelf of the thought, that a fingle 
genus would comprehend them both. This principle is 
expreffedin the well-known rule, that we mult not unne- 
ceffarily multiply Elements, (entia praeter neceflitatem 
non effe multiplicanda;) by which we indicate that this 
fyftematic unity lies in natureitfelf, and may be ultimately 
difeovered by continued comparifon. If all the things 
in nature were fo thoroughly different from one another, 
not merely with regard to Quantity, but chiefly with re- 
f'pedt to the Blatter (finE) of the phenomena, that even the 
molt penetrating underffanding could not difeover the 
lead fimilarity bet ween any two phenomena; then there 
could be no conception of a genus , nay, no empirical 
conception, and no thinking, would be poflible. The 
bufinefs of the underffanding would then confift folely in 
bringing the variety of the intuition, by means of the 
Categories, to the reprefentation of an object in general; 
but by empirical conceptions it could however think no¬ 
thing at all. From this it appears that the principle of 
the homogeneity of the phenomena is tranfcendental, and 
that Reafon does not wait to difeover this uniformity in 
Nature, but anticipates and requires it. If we under- 
ltand Reafon rightly on this point, we fhall perceive this 
principle to be merely logical; a principle which does not 
determine the objedts, but only ferves as a guide to the 
Underffanding, to enable it to think the objects of expe¬ 
rience by empirical conceptions. 
To this principle of a genus another is oppofed, which 
requires variety and difference in the objects ; namely, the 
law of fpecification, which, as well as the former, has the 
appearance of being tranfcendental. According to this, 
the Underffanding feeks out, notwithftanding all apparent 
fimilarity of objects, the differences among them. Each 
genus muft contain different fpecies, each fpecies again 
different individuals; and, according to this principle, no 
one fpecies is confidered as the loweft, becaufe it is always 
a conception, from which to the intuition the number of 
the gradations muff be infinite. This law of fpecification 
might be thus expreffed ; Entium varietates non tumere ejfe 
minuendas. This law could not be borrowed from expe¬ 
rience ; but, on the contrary, it precedes experience, fince 
it determines the Underffanding in its empirical ufe, not 
to take fimilarity among objedts for a complete equality, but 
continually to feek for differences among them. We alfo 
perceive, that only under the prefuppofition as well of 
this law as of the former, the underffanding can be exer- 
cifed. For, as we are able only to think objects by empi¬ 
rical conceptions, (if we exclude theadtion by which an 
objedt in general is thought,) then under thefe again 
there muft be lower, otherwife therecould be nb thinking, 
but intuitions only would be met with. This principle 
is however only logical, and does not determine the ob¬ 
jects ; it is only a law which Reafon holds up to the Un¬ 
derffanding, fince it lias in view the extenlion of know¬ 
ledge. 
A third principle, which connects the two preceding, 
is the law of affinity. According to this, there muft be 
between the various fpecies of the fame genus an interme¬ 
diate fpecies. This law is however only logical; for we 
cannot expedt among the objedts themlelves that fuch a 
relationfliip of an infinity of intermediate members is to 
be met with, but that they muft conftitute a diferete 
quantity (quantum diferetum). Yet it has the appear¬ 
ance of a tranfcendental law (lex continui in natura), 
becaufe its execution alone renders the empirical ufe ot 
Underffanding poflible. 
The three principles of Reafon, the homogeneity of ob- 
jedts under a higher genus, the Variety of homogeneity 
under lower fpecies, and the Affinity of thefe fpecies them¬ 
lelves, are therefore fo many principles that Reafon pre- 
fents to the Underffanding in order that it may be under- 
ftanding. 
