The proof of this fundamental proposition rests entirely on the following momenta of argument.To all empirical cognition belongs the synthesis of the manifold by the imagination, a synthesis which is always successive, that is, in which the representations therein always follow one another.But the order of succession in imagination is not determined, and the series of successive representations may be taken retrogressively as well as progressively.
But if this synthesis is a synthesis of apprehension (of the manifold of a given phenomenon),then the order is determined in the object, or to speak more accurately, there is therein an order of successive synthesis which determines an object, and according to which something necessarily precedes, and when this is posited, something else necessarily follows.If, then, my perception is to contain the cognition of an event, that is, of something which really happens, it must be an empirical judgement, wherein we think that the succession is determined; that is, it presupposes another phenomenon, upon which this event follows necessarily, or in conformity with a rule.If, on the contrary, when I posited the antecedent, the event did not necessarily follow, I should be obliged to consider it merely as a subjective play of my imagination, and if in this I represented to myself anything as objective, I must look upon it as a mere dream.Thus, the relation of phenomena (as possible perceptions), according to which that which happens is, as to its existence, necessarily determined in time by something which antecedes, in conformity with a rule- in other words, the relation of cause and effect- is the condition of the objective validity of our empirical judgements in regard to the sequence of perceptions, consequently of their empirical truth, and therefore of experience.The principle of the relation of causality in the succession of phenomena is therefore valid for all objects of experience, because it is itself the ground of the possibility of experience.
Here, however, a difficulty arises, which must be resolved.The principle of the connection of causality among phenomena is limited in our formula to the succession thereof, although in practice we find that the principle applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous.For example, there is heat in a room, which does not exist in the open air.I look about for the cause, and find it to be the fire, Now the fire as the cause is simultaneous with its effect, the heat of the room.In this case, then, there is no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but they are simultaneous; and still the law holds good.The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and the succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment.But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen.Here it must be specially remembered that we must consider the order of time and not the lapse thereof.The relation remains, even though no time has elapsed.The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according to time.If, for example, I consider a leaden ball, which lies upon a cushion and makes a hollow in it, as a cause, then it is simultaneous with the effect.But I distinguish the two through the relation of time of the dynamical connection of both.For if I lay the ball upon the cushion, then the hollow follows upon the before smooth surface; but supposing the cushion has, from some cause or another, a hollow, there does not thereupon follow a leaden ball.
Thus, the law of succession of time is in all instances the only empirical criterion of effect in relation to the causality of the antecedent cause.The glass is the cause of the rising of the water above its horizontal surface, although the two phenomena are contemporaneous.For, as soon as I draw some water with the glass from a larger vessel, an effect follows thereupon, namely, the change of the horizontal state which the water had in the large vessel into a concave, which it assumes in the glass.
This conception of causality leads us to the conception of action;that of action, to the conception of force; and through it, to the conception of substance.As I do not wish this critical essay, the sole purpose of which is to treat of the sources of our synthetical cognition a priori, to be crowded with analyses which merely explain, but do not enlarge the sphere of our conceptions, I reserve the detailed explanation of the above conceptions for a future system of pure reason.Such an analysis, indeed, executed with great particularity, may already be found in well-known works on this subject.But I cannot at present refrain from ****** a few remarks on the empirical criterion of a substance, in so far as it seems to be more evident and more easily recognized through the conception of action than through that of the permanence of a phenomenon.