After such an inquiry, arrogant claims would have to be given up on both sides; but the sovereignty of reason over understanding and sense would be based upon a sure foundation.
We shall at present defer this radical inquiry and, in the meantime, consider for a little what side in the controversy we should most willingly take, if we were obliged to become partisans at all.As, in this case, we leave out of sight altogether the logical criterion of truth, and merely consult our own interest in reference to the question, these considerations, although inadequate to settle the question of right in either party, will enable us to comprehend how those who have taken part in the struggle, adopt the one view rather than the other- no special insight into the subject, however, having influenced their choice.They will, at the same time, explain to us many other things by the way- for example, the fiery zeal on the one side and the cold maintenance of their cause on the other; why the one party has met with the warmest approbations, and the other has always been repulsed by irreconcilable prejudices.
There is one thing, however, that determines the proper point of view, from which alone this preliminary inquiry can be instituted and carried on with the proper completeness- and that is the comparison of the principles from which both sides, thesis and antithesis, proceed.My readers would remark in the propositions of the antithesis a complete uniformity in the mode of thought and a perfect unity of principle.Its principle was that of pure empiricism, not only in the explication of the phenomena in the world, but also in the solution of the transcendental ideas, even of that of the universe itself.The affirmations of the thesis, on the contrary, were based, in addition to the empirical mode of explanation employed in the series of phenomena, on intellectual propositions; and its principles were in so far not ******.I shall term the thesis, in view of its essential characteristic, the dogmatism of pure reason.
On the side of Dogmatism, or of the thesis, therefore, in the determination of the cosmological ideas, we find:
1.A practical interest, which must be very dear to every right-thinking man.That the word has a beginning- that the nature of my thinking self is ******, and therefore indestructible- that I am a free agent, and raised above the compulsion of nature and her laws- and, finally, that the entire order of things, which form the world, is dependent upon a Supreme Being, from whom the whole receives unity and connection- these are so many foundation-stones of morality and religion.The antithesis deprives us of all these supports- or, at least, seems so to deprive us.
2.A speculative interest of reason manifests itself on this side.
For, if we take the transcendental ideas and employ them in the manner which the thesis directs, we can exhibit completely a priori the entire chain of conditions, and understand the derivation of the conditioned- beginning from the unconditioned.This the antithesis does not do; and for this reason does not meet with so welcome a reception.For it can give no answer to our question respecting the conditions of its synthesis- except such as must be supplemented by another question, and so on to infinity.According to it, we must rise from a given beginning to one still higher; every part conducts us to a still smaller one; every event is preceded by another event which is its cause; and the conditions of existence rest always upon other and still higher conditions, and find neither end nor basis in some self-subsistent thing as the primal being.
3.This side has also the advantage of popularity; and this constitutes no small part of its claim to favour.The common understanding does not find the least difficulty in the idea of the unconditioned beginning of all synthesis- accustomed, as it is, rather to follow our consequences than to seek for a proper basis for cognition.In the conception of an absolute first, moreover- the possibility of which it does not inquire into- it is highly gratified to find a firmly-established point of departure for its attempts at theory; while in the restless and continuous ascent from the conditioned to the condition, always with one foot in the air, it can find no satisfaction.
On the side of the antithesis, or Empiricism, in the determination of the cosmological ideas:
1.We cannot discover any such practical interest arising from pure principles of reason as morality and religion present.On the contrary, pure empiricism seems to empty them of all their power and influence.If there does not exist a Supreme Being distinct from the world- if the world is without beginning, consequently without a Creator- if our wills are not free, and the soul is divisible and subject to corruption just like matter- the ideas and principles of morality lose all validity and fall with the transcendental ideas which constituted their theoretical support.
2.But empiricism, in compensation, holds out to reason, in its speculative interests, certain important advantages, far exceeding any that the dogmatist can promise us.For, when employed by the empiricist, understanding is always upon its proper ground of investigation- the field of possible experience, the laws of which it can explore, and thus extend its cognition securely and with clear intelligence without being stopped by limits in any direction.