PHENOMENA AND THINGS IN THEMSELVES
The distinction between phenomena and things in themselves can be best
approached by considering Kant's formulation of the alternative views
of the nature of space and time. "What are space and time? Are they
real existences? Or are they merely determinations or relations of
things, such, however, as would also belong to them in themselves,
even if they were not perceived, or are they attached to the form of
perception only, and consequently to the subjective nature of our
mind, without which these predicates can never be attributed to any
thing?"[1]
[1] B. 37, M. 23.
Of these three alternatives, the first can be ignored. It is opposed
to the second, and is the view that space and time are things rather
than relations between things. This opposition falls within the first
member of the wider opposition between things as they are in
themselves and things as they are as perceived, and Kant, and indeed
any one, would allow that if space and time belong to things as they
are in themselves and not to things only as perceived, they are
relations between things rather than things. The real issue,
therefore, lies between the second and third alternatives. Are space
and time relations between things which belong to them both in
themselves and also as perceived by us, or are they relations which
belong to things only as perceived?
To this question we may at once reply that, inasmuch as it involves an
impossible antithesis, it is wholly unreal. The thought of a property
or a relation which belongs to things as perceived involves a
contradiction. To take Plato's example, suppose that we are looking at
a straight stick, partially immersed in water. If we have not
previously seen the stick, and are ignorant of the laws of refraction,
we say that the stick is bent. If, however, we learn the effect of
refraction, and observe the stick from several positions, we alter our
assertion. We say that the stick is not really bent, but only looks or
appears bent to us. But, if we reflect at all, we do not express our
meaning by saying that the stick _is_ bent to us as perceiving, though
not in reality.[2] The word 'is' essentially relates to what really
is. If, therefore, the phrase 'to us as perceiving' involves an
opposition to the phrase 'in reality', as it must if it is to be a
real qualification of 'is', it cannot rightly be added to the word
'is'. To put the matter more explicitly, the assertion that something
_is_ so and so implies that it is so and so in itself, whether it be
perceived or not, and therefore the assertion that something is so and
so to us as perceiving, though not in itself, is a contradiction in
terms. The phrase 'to us as perceiving', as a restriction upon the
word 'is', merely takes back the precise meaning of the word 'is'.
That to which the phrase can be added is not the word 'is', but the
word 'looks' or 'appears'. We can rightly say that the stick looks or
appears bent to us as perceiving. But even then the addition only
helps to make explicit the essential meaning of 'appears', for
'appears' really means 'appears to us', and 'as perceiving' only
repeats the meaning of 'appears' from the side of the perceiving
subject as opposed to that of the object perceived. The essential
point, however, is thereby brought out that the phrase 'to us as
perceiving' essentially relates not to what a thing is, but to what it
looks or appears to us.
[2] Similarly, we do not say--if we mean what we say--of a
man who is colour blind that an object which others call blue
_is_ pink to him or to his perception, but that it _looks_
pink to him.
What, then, is the proper statement of Kant's view that space is a
determination of things only as they appear to us, and not as they are
in themselves? It should be said that things are not in reality
spatial, but only look or appear spatial to us. It should not be said
that they _are_ spatial for our perception, though not in themselves.
Thus the view properly stated implies that space is an illusion,
inasmuch as it is not a real property of things at all. This
implication, however, is precisely the conclusion which Kant wishes to
avoid. He takes infinite trouble to explain that he does not hold
space and time to be illusions.[3] Though _transcendentally ideal_
(i. e. though they do not belong to things in themselves), they are
_empirically real_. In other words, space and time are real relations
of _something_, though not of things in themselves.
[3] B. 44, 52, 53-4, 62-3, 69-70; M. 27, 31-2, 37-8, 41-2;
_Prol._, Sec. 13, Remark iii.
How, then, does Kant obtain something of which space and time can be
regarded as really relations? He reaches it by a transition which at
first sight seems harmless. In stating the fact of perception he
substitutes for the assertion that things appear so and so to us the
assertion that things produce appearances in us. In this way, instead
of an assertion which relates to the thing and states what it is not
but only appears, he obtains an assertion which introduces a second
reality distinct from the thing, viz. an appearance or phenomenon, and
thereby he gains something other than the thing to which space can be
attached as a real predicate. He thus gains something in respect of
which, with regard to spatial relations we can be said to have
_knowledge_ and not illusion. For the position now is that space,
though not a property of things in themselves, _is_ a property of
phenomena or appearances; in other words, that while things in
themselves are not spatial, phenomena and appearances _are_ spatial.
As evidence of this transition, it is enough to point out that, while
he states the _problem_ in the form 'Are things in themselves spatial
or are they only spatial as appearing to us?'[4] he usually states the
_conclusion_ in the form 'Space is the form of phenomena', i. e.
phenomena are spatial. A transition is thereby implied from 'things as
appearing' to 'appearances'. At the same time, it is clear that Kant
is not aware of the transition, but considers the expressions
equivalent, or, in other words, fails to distinguish them. For both
modes of stating the conclusion are to be found even in the same
sentence. "This predicate [space] is applied to things only in so far
as they appear to us, i. e. are objects of sensibility [i. e.
phenomena]."[5] Again, the common phrase 'things as phenomena' implies
the same confusion. Moreover, if Kant had realized that the transition
was more than one of phraseology he must have seen that it was
necessary to recast his argument.
[4] This is Kant's way of putting the question which should
be expressed by asking, 'Are things spatial, or do they only
look spatial?'
[5] B. 43, M. 26. Cf. _Prol._, Sec. 9 fin. with Sec. 10 init.
It may be said, then, that Kant is compelled to end with a different
distinction from that with which he begins. He begins with the
distinction between things as they are in themselves and things as
they appear to us, the distinction relating to one and the same
reality regarded from two different points of view. He ends with the
distinction between two different realities, things-in-themselves,[6]
external to, in the sense of independent of, the mind, and phenomena
or appearances within it. Yet if his _argument_ is to be valid, the
two distinctions should be identical, for it is the first distinction
to which the argument appeals.[7] In fact, we find him expressing what
is to him the same distinction now in the one way and now in the other
as the context requires.
[6] It should be noticed that 'things-in-themselves' and
'things as they are in themselves' have a different meaning.
[7] Cf. p. 55 and ff.
The final form of Kant's conclusion, then, is that while things in
themselves are not, or, at least, cannot be known to be spatial,
'phenomena,' or the appearances produced in us by things in
themselves, are spatial. Unfortunately, the conclusion in this form is
no more successful than it is in the former form, that things are
spatial only as perceived. Expressed by the formula 'phenomena are
spatial', it has, no doubt, a certain plausibility; for the word
'phenomena' to some extent conceals the essentially mental character
of what is asserted to be spatial. But the plausibility disappears on
the substitution of 'appearances'--the true equivalent of Kant's
_Erscheinungen_--for 'phenomena'. Just as it is absurd to describe the
fact that the stick only looks bent by saying that, while the stick is
not bent, the appearance which it produces is bent, so it is, even on
the face of it, nonsense to say that while things are not spatial, the
appearances which they produce in us are spatial. For an 'appearance',
being necessarily something mental, cannot possibly be said to be
extended. Moreover, it is really an abuse of the term 'appearance' to
speak of appearances _produced by_ things, for this phrase implies a
false severance of the appearance from the things which appear. If
there are 'appearances' at all, they are appearances _of_ things and
not appearances _produced by_ them. The importance of the distinction
lies in the difference of implication. To speak of appearances
produced by things is to imply that the object of perception is merely
something mental, viz. an appearance. Consequently, access to a
non-mental reality is excluded; for a perception of which the object
is something belonging to the mind's own being cannot justify an
inference to something beyond the mind, and the result is inevitably
solipsism. On the other hand, the phrase 'appearances of things',
whatever defects it may have, at least implies that it is a non-mental
reality which appears, and therefore that in perception we are in
direct relation to it; the phrase, therefore, does not imply from the
very beginning that the apprehension of a non-mental reality is
impossible.
The objection will probably be raised that this criticism is much too
summary. We do, it will be said, distinguish in ordinary consciousness
between appearance and reality. Consequently there must be some form
in which Kant's distinction between things in themselves and phenomena
and the conclusion based upon it are justified. Moreover, Kant's
reiterated assertion that his view does not imply that space is an
illusion, and that the distinction between the real and the illusory
is possible _within_ phenomena, requires us to consider more closely
whether Kant may not after all be entitled to hold that space is not
an illusion.[8]
[8] Cf. p. 93 and ff.
This objection is, of course, reasonable. No one can satisfy himself
of the justice of the above criticisms until he has considered the
real nature of the distinction between appearance and reality. This
distinction must, therefore, be analysed. But before this is done it
is necessary, in order to discover the real issue, to formulate the
lines on which Kant may be defended. 'The reality,' it may be urged,
'which ideally we wish to know must be admitted to exist _in itself_,
in the sense of independently of the perception, and consequently its
nature must be admitted to be independent of perception. Ideally,
then, our desire is to know things[9] as they are in themselves, a
desire sufficiently expressed by the assertion that we desire to know
things, for to know them is to know them as they are, i. e. as they
are independently of perception. Again, since the reality which we
desire to know consists of individuals, and since the apprehension of
an individual implies perception, knowledge of reality requires
perception. If in perception we apprehended reality as it is, no
difficulty would arise. But we do not, for we are compelled to
distinguish what things are, and what they look or appear; and what
they appear essentially relates to perception. We perceive them as
they look or appear and, therefore, not as they are, for what they
look and what they are are _ex hypothesi_ distinguished. And this fact
constitutes a fatal obstacle to knowledge in general. We cannot know
anything as it _is_. At least the negative side of Kant's position
must be justified. We never can know things as they are in themselves.
What then do we know? Two alternative answers may be given. It may be
held that the positive side of Kant's position, though indefensible in
the form that we know things as they appear to us, is valid in the
form that we know what things look or appear. This, no doubt, implies
that our ordinary beliefs about reality are illusory, for what things
look is _ex hypothesi_ different from what they are. But the
implication does not constitute an important departure from Kant's
view. For in any case only that is knowledge proper which relates to
things as they are, and therefore the supposed knowledge of things as
they appear may be discarded without serious loss. On the other hand,
it may be held that the positive side of Kant's position can be
vindicated in the form that, while we do not know things in
themselves,[10] we do know the appearances which they produce in us.
It is true that this view involves the difficulty of maintaining that
appearances are spatial, but the difficulty is not insuperable.
Moreover, in this form the doctrine has the advantage that, unlike the
former, it does not imply that the knowledge which we have is only of
illusions, for instead of implying that our knowledge is merely
knowledge of what things look but really are not, it implies that we
know the real nature of realities of another kind, viz. of
appearances. Again, in this form of the view, it may be possible to
vindicate Kant's doctrine that the distinction between the real and
the illusory is tenable within what we know, for it may be possible to
distinguish within appearances between a 'real' appearance[11] and an
'illusory' appearance.[12]'
[9] 'Things' is substituted for 'the reality which we believe
to exist independently of perception' in order to conform
to Kant's language. The substitution, of course, has the
implication--which Kant took for granted--that the reality
consists of a plurality of individuals.
[10] 'Things in themselves' has here to be substituted for
'things as they are in themselves' in the statement of the
negative side of the position, in order to express the proper
antithesis, which is now that between two things, the one
known and the other unknown, and not that between two points
of view from which one and the same thing is known and not
known respectively.
[11] _Erscheinung._
[12] _Schein._
An implication of this defence should be noticed. The issue relates
to the nature of space[13], and may be stated in terms of it. For,
since space is a presupposition of all other properties which the
non-philosophical consciousness attributes to physical things, it
makes no difference whether we say that things _only appear_ heavy,
hard, in motion, &c., or whether we say that things _only appear_
spatial. In the same way it is a matter of indifference whether we say
that, though things are not heavy, hard, &c., their appearances are
so, or whether we say that, though things are not spatial, their
appearances are so. The issue, then, concerns the possibility of
maintaining either that things only appear spatial, or that the
appearances which they produce are spatial, while the things
themselves are not, or, at least cannot be known to be, spatial.
[13] We might add time also; but, for a reason which will
appear later (p. 139), it can be neglected.
The tenability of these alternative positions has to be considered
apart from the argument of the _Aesthetic_, for this, as we have seen,
breaks down. At the outset it is important to realize that these
positions are the product of philosophical reflection, and constitute
general theories of knowledge. As has been pointed out, the
distinction between appearance and reality first arises in our
ordinary or scientific consciousness.[14] In this consciousness we are
compelled to distinguish between appearance and reality with respect
to the details of a reality which, as a whole, or, in principle, we
suppose ourselves to know. Afterwards in our philosophical
consciousness we come to reflect upon this distinction and to raise
the question whether it is not applicable to reality as a whole. We
ask with respect to knowledge in general, and not merely with respect
to certain particular items of knowledge, whether we know or can know
reality, and not merely appearance. The two positions just stated are
alternative ways of answering the question in the negative. They are,
then, philosophical views based upon a distinction found in our
ordinary consciousness. Consequently, in order to decide whether the
distinction will bear the superstructure placed upon it by the
philosophical consciousness, it is necessary to examine the
distinction as it exists in our ordinary consciousness.
[14] I. e. the consciousness for which the problems are those
of science as opposed to philosophy.
The distinction is applied in our ordinary consciousness both to the
primary and to the secondary qualities of matter, i. e. to the size,
shape, position and motion of physical bodies, and to their colour,
warmth, &c. We say, for instance, that the moon looks[15] or appears
as large as the sun, though really it is much smaller. We say that
railway lines, though parallel, look convergent, just as we say that
the straight stick in water looks bent. We say that at sunset the sun,
though really below the horizon, looks above it. Again, we say that to
a person who is colour blind the colour of an object looks different
to what it really is, and that the water into which we put our hand
may be warmer than it appears to our touch.
[15] 'Looks' means 'appears to sight', and 'looks' is
throughout used as synonymous with 'appear', where the
instance under discussion relates to visual perception.
The case of the primary qualities may be considered first. Since the
instances are identical in principle, and only differ in complexity,
it will be sufficient to analyse the simplest, that of the apparent
convergence of the railway lines.
Two points at once force themselves upon our notice. In the first
place, we certainly suppose that we perceive the reality which we wish
to know, i. e. the reality which, as we suppose, exists independently
of our perception, and not an 'appearance' of it. It is, as we say,
the real lines which we see. Even the term 'convergent', in the
assertion that the lines look convergent, conveys this implication.
For 'convergent' is essentially a characteristic not of an appearance
but of a reality, in the sense in which something independent of
perception may be opposed as a reality to an 'appearance', which, as
such, presupposes perception. We can say neither that an appearance is
convergent, nor that the appearance of the lines is convergent. Only a
reality similar to the lines, e. g. two roads, can be said to be
convergent. Our ordinary thought, therefore, furnishes no ground for
the view that the object of perception is not the thing, but merely an
appearance of or produced by it. In the second place, the assertion
that the lines _look_ convergent implies considerable knowledge of the
real nature of the reality to which the assertion relates. Both the
terms 'lines' and 'convergent' imply that the reality _is_ spatial.
Further, if the context is such that we mean that, while the lines
look convergent, we do not know their real relation, we imply that
the lines really possess some characteristic which falls within the
genus to which convergence belongs, i. e. we imply that they are
convergent, divergent, or parallel. If, on the other hand, the context
is such that we mean that the lines only look convergent, we imply
that the lines are parallel, and therefore presuppose complete
knowledge in respect of the very characteristic in regard to which we
state what is only appearance. The assertion, then, in respect of a
primary quality, that a thing looks so and so implies knowledge of its
general character as spatial, and ignorance only of a detail; and the
assertion that a thing only looks or appears so and so implies
knowledge of the detail in question.
Attention may now be drawn to a general difficulty which may be raised
with respect to the use of the terms 'looks' and 'appears'. It may be
stated thus: 'If the lines are not convergent, how is it possible even
to say that they _look_ convergent? Must it not be implied that at
least under _certain_ circumstances we should perceive the lines as
they are? Otherwise, why should we use the words 'look' or 'appear' at
all? Moreover, this implication can be pushed further; for if we
maintain that we perceive the real lines, we may reasonably be asked
whether we must not under _all_ circumstances perceive them as they
are. It seems as though a reality cannot be perceived except as it
is.' It is the view to which this difficulty gives rise which is
mainly responsible for the doctrine that the object of perception is
not the reality, but an appearance. Since we do distinguish between
what things look and what they are, it would seem that the object of
perception cannot be the thing, but only an appearance produced by
it. Moreover, the doctrine gains in plausibility from the existence of
certain illusions in the case of which the reality to which the
illusion relates seems non-existent. For instance, if we look steadily
at the flame of a candle, and then press one eyeball with a finger, we
see, as we say, two candles;[16] but since _ex hypothesi_ there is
only one candle, it seems that what we see must be, not the candle,
but two images or appearances produced by it.
[16] Cf. Dr. Stout, on 'Things and Sensations' (_Proceedings
of the British Academy_, vol. ii).
This difficulty is raised in order to draw attention to the fact that,
in the case of the railway lines, where it can be met on its own
ground[17], this is because, and only because, we believe space to be
'real', i. e. to be a characteristic of reality, and because we
understand its nature. The distinction between the actual and the
apparent angle made by two straight lines presupposes a limiting case
in which they coincide. If the line of sight along which we observe
the point of intersection of two lines is known to be at right angles
to both lines, we expect, and rightly expect, to see the angle of
intersection as it is. Again, if we look at a short portion of two
railway lines from a point known to be directly above them, and so
distant that the effects of perspective are imperceptible, we can say
that the lines look what they are, viz. parallel. Thus, from the point
of view of the difficulty which has been raised, there is this
justification in general for saying that two lines _look_ parallel or
_look_ at right angles, that we know that in certain cases what they
look is identical with what they are. In the same way, assertions of
the type that the moon _looks_ as large as the sun receive
justification from our knowledge that two bodies of equal size and
equally distant from the observer _are_ what they look, viz. of the
same size. And in both cases the justification presupposes knowledge
of the reality of space and also such insight into its nature as
enables us to see that in certain cases there must be an identity
between what things look and what they are in respect of certain
spatial relations. Again, in such cases we see that so far is it from
being necessary to think that a thing must be perceived as it is, that
it is not only possible but necessary to distinguish what a thing
looks from what it is, and precisely in consequence of the nature of
space. The visual perception of spatial relations from its very nature
presupposes a particular point of view. Though the perception itself
cannot be spatial, it presupposes a particular point in space as a
standpoint or point of view,[18] and is therefore subject to
conditions of perspective. This is best realized by considering the
supposition that perfect visual powers would enable us to see the
whole of a body at once, and that this perception would be possible if
we had eyes situated all round the body. The supposition obviously
breaks down through the impossibility of combining two or more points
of view in one perception. But if visual perception is necessarily
subject to conditions of perspective, the spatial relations of bodies
can never look what they are except in the limiting case referred to.
Moreover, this distinction is perfectly intelligible, as we should
expect from the necessity which we are under of drawing it. We
understand perfectly why it is that bodies must, in respect of their
spatial relations, look different to what they are, and we do so
solely because we understand the nature of space, and therefore also
the conditions of perspective involved in the perception of what is
spatial. It is, therefore, needless to make the assertion 'Two lines
appear convergent' intelligible by converting the verb 'appears' into
a substantive, viz. an 'appearance', and then making the assertion
relate to an 'appearance'. For--apart from the fact that this would
not achieve the desired end, since no suitable predicate could be
found for the appearance--the assertion that the lines _look_ or
_appear_ convergent is perfectly intelligible in itself, though not
capable of being stated in terms of anything else.[19] If we
generalize this result, we may say that the distinction between
appearance and reality, drawn with regard to the primary qualities of
bodies, throughout presupposes the reality of space, and is made
possible, and indeed necessary, by the nature of space itself.
[17] Cf., however, p. 87 and pp. 89-91.
[18] This is, of course, not refuted by the reminder that we
see with two eyes, and that these are in different places.
[19] It is important to notice that the proper formula to
express what is loosely called 'an appearance' is 'A looks or
appears B', and that this cannot be analysed into anything
more simple and, in particular, into a statement about
'appearances'. Even in the case of looking at the candle,
there is no need to speak of two 'appearances' or 'images'.
Before we discover the truth, the proper assertion is 'The
body which we perceive looks as if it were two candles', and,
after we discover the truth, the proper assertion is 'The
candle looks as if it were in two places'.
We may now turn to the way in which we draw the distinction with
respect to the secondary qualities of physical things. It must, it
seems, be admitted that in our ordinary consciousness we treat these
qualities as real qualities of bodies. We say that a bell is noisy;
that sugar is sweet; that roses smell; that a mustard plaster is hot;
that the sky is blue. It must also be admitted that in our ordinary
consciousness we draw a distinction between appearance and reality
_within_ these qualities, just as we do _within_ the primary
qualities. Just as we speak of the right or real shape of a body, so
we speak of its right or real colour, taste, &c., and distinguish
these from its apparent colours, taste, &c., to some individual. We
thereby imply that these qualities are real qualities of bodies, and
that the only difficulty is to determine the particular character of
the quality in a given case. Yet, as the history of philosophy shows,
it takes but little reflection to throw doubt on the reality of these
qualities. The doubt arises not merely from the apparent impossibility
of finding a principle by which to determine the right or real quality
in a given case, but also and mainly from misgivings as to the
possible reality of heat, smell, taste, noise, and colour apart from a
percipient. It must also be admitted that this misgiving is well
founded; in other words, that these supposed real qualities do
presuppose a percipient, and therefore cannot be qualities of things,
since the qualities of a thing must exist independently of the
perception of the thing.[20] This will readily be allowed in the case
of all the secondary qualities except colour. No one, it may
reasonably be said, who is familiar with and really faces the issue,
will maintain that sounds, smells, tastes, and sensations of touch
exist apart from a sensitive subject. So much is this the case, that
when once the issue is raised, it is difficult and, in the end,
impossible to use the word 'appear' in connexion with these qualities.
Thus it is difficult and, in the end, impossible to say that a bell
_appears_ noisy, or that sugar _appears_ sweet. We say, rather, that
the bell and the sugar produce certain sensations[21] in us.
[20] Cf. pp. 72-3, and 91.
[21] _Not_ 'appearances'.
The case of colour, however, is more difficult. From the closeness of
its relation to the shape of bodies, it seems to be a real quality of
bodies, and not something relative to a sensitive subject like the
other secondary qualities. In fact, so intimate seems the relation of
colour to the shape of bodies, that it would seem--as has, of course,
often been argued--that if colour be relative to a sensitive subject,
the primary qualities of bodies must also be relative to a sensitive
subject, on the ground that shape is inseparable from colour.[22] Yet
whether this be so or not, it must, in the end, be allowed that colour
does presuppose a sensitive subject in virtue of its own nature, and
quite apart from the difficulty--which is in itself insuperable--of
determining the right colour of individual bodies. It must, therefore,
be conceded that colour is not a quality of bodies. But if this be
true, the use of the term 'look' or 'appear' in connexion with colour
involves a difficulty which does not arise when it is used in
connexion with the primary qualities. Bodies undoubtedly look or
appear coloured. Now, as has already been suggested,[23] the term
'look' seems to presuppose some identity between what a thing is and
what it looks, and at least the possibility of cases in which they are
what they look--a possibility which, as we have seen, is realized in
the case of the primary qualities. Yet, if colour is not a quality of
bodies, then, with respect to colour, things look what they never are,
or, in other words, are wholly different from what they look;[24] and
since it seems impossible to hold that colour is really a property of
bodies, this conclusion must, in spite of its difficulty, be admitted
to be true.
[22] Cf. p. 91 note.
[23] Cf. p. 82.
[24] It is assumed that there is not even plausibility in the
supposition of continuity or identity between colour proper
and its physical conditions in the way of light vibrations.
There remain, however, to be noticed two respects in which assertions
concerning what things look in respect of colour agree with
corresponding assertions in respect of the primary qualities. They
imply that what we perceive is a reality, in the sense already
explained.[25] Thus the assertion that the grass looks green implies
that it is a reality which looks green, or, in other words, that the
object of perception is a reality, and not an 'appearance'. Again,
such assertions imply that the reality about which the assertion is
made is spatial. The term 'grass' implies extension, and only what is
extended can be said to look coloured. If it be urged that what looks
coloured need only _look_ extended, it may be replied that the two
considerations which lead us to think that things only _look_ coloured
presuppose that they _are_ spatial. For the two questions, the
consideration of which leads to this conclusion, are, 'What is the
right or real colour of an individual thing?' and 'Has it really any
colour at all, or does it only look coloured?' and neither question is
significant unless the thing to which it refers is understood to be
spatial.
[25] I. e. in the sense of something which exists
independently of perception.
We may now return to the main issue. Is it possible to maintain either
(1) the position that only appearances are spatial and possess all the
qualities which imply space, or (2) the position that things only
appear spatial and only appear or look as if they possessed the
qualities which imply space? It may be urged that these questions have
already been implicitly answered in the negative. For the division of
the qualities of things into primary and secondary is exhaustive, and,
as has been shown, the distinction between 'appearance' and 'reality',
when drawn with respect to the primary qualities and to colour--the
only secondary quality with respect to which the term 'appears' can
properly be used[26]--presupposes the reality of space. Consequently,
since we do draw the distinction, we must accept the reality of that
which is the condition of drawing it at all. But even though this be
conceded--and the concession is inevitable--the problem cannot be
regarded as solved until we have discovered what it is in the nature
of space which makes both positions untenable. Moreover, the admission
that in the case of colour there is no identity between what things
look and what they are removes at a stroke much of the difficulty of
one position, viz. that we only know what things look or appear, and
not what they are. For the admission makes it impossible to maintain
as a general principle that there must be some identity between what
they look and what they are. Consequently, it seems _possible_ that
things should be wholly different from what they appear, and, if so,
the issue cannot be decided on general grounds. What is in substance
the same point may be expressed differently by saying that just as
things only _look_ coloured, so things may only _look_ spatial. We are
thus again[27] led to see that the issue really turns on the nature of
space and of spatial characteristics in particular.
[26] Cf. pp. 86-7.
[27] Cf. p. 79.
In discussing the distinction between the real and the apparent shape
of bodies, it was argued that while the nature of space makes it
necessary to distinguish in general between what a body looks and what
it is, yet the use of the term _look_ receives justification from the
existence of limiting cases in which what a thing looks and what it is
are identical. The instances considered, however, related to qualities
involving only two dimensions, e. g. convergence and bentness, and it
will be found that the existence of these limiting cases is due solely
to this restriction. If the assertion under consideration involves a
term implying three dimensions, e. g. 'cubical' or 'cylindrical',
there are no such limiting cases. Since our visual perception is
necessarily subject to conditions of perspective, it follows that
although we can and do see a cube, we can never see it as it _is_.
It _is_, so to say, in the way in which a child draws the side of a
house, i. e. with the effect of perspective eliminated; but it never
can be seen in this way. No doubt, our unreflective knowledge of the
nature of perspective enables us to allow for the effect of
perspective, and to ascertain the real shape of a solid object from
what it looks when seen from different points. In fact, the habit of
allowing for the effect of perspective is so thoroughly ingrained in
human beings that the child is not aware that he is making this
allowance, but thinks that he draws the side of the house as he sees
it. Nevertheless, it is true that we never see a cube as it is, and if
we say that a thing looks cubical, we ought only to mean that it looks
precisely what a thing looks which is a cube.
It is obvious, however, that two dimensions are only an abstraction
from three, and that the spatial relations of bodies, considered
fully, involve three dimensions; in other words, spatial
characteristics are, properly speaking, three-dimensional. It follows
that terms which fully state spatial characteristics can never
express what things look, but only what they are. A body may be
cylindrical, and we may see a cylindrical body; but such a body can
never, strictly speaking, _look_ cylindrical. The opposition, however,
between what a thing _is_ and what it _looks_ implies that what it
_is_ is independent of a percipient, for it is precisely correlation
to a percipient which is implied by 'looking' or 'appearing'. In fact,
it is the view that what a thing really is it is, independently of
a percipient, that forms the real starting-point of Kant's thought.
It follows, then, that the spatial characteristics of things, and
therefore space itself, must belong to what they are in themselves
apart from a percipient, and not to what they look.[28] Consequently,
it is so far from being true that we only know what things look and
not what they are, that in the case of spatial relations we actually
know what things are, even though they never look what they are.
[28] This consideration disposes of the view that, if colour
is relative to perception, the primary qualities, as being
inseparable from colour, must also be relative to perception;
for it implies that the primary qualities cannot from their
very nature be relative to perception. Moreover, if the
possibility of the separation of the primary qualities from
colour is still doubted, it is only necessary to appeal to
the blind man's ability to apprehend the primary qualities,
though he may not even know what the word 'colour' means. Of
course, it must be admitted that some sensuous elements are
involved in the apprehension of the primary qualities, but
the case of the blind man shows that these may relate to
sight instead of to touch. Moreover, it, of course, does not
follow from the fact that sensuous elements are inseparable
from our perception of bodies that they belong to, and are
therefore inseparable from, the bodies perceived.
This conclusion, however, seems to present a double difficulty. It is
admitted that we perceive things as they look, and not as they are.
How, then, is it possible for the belief that things _are_ spatial to
arise? For how can we advance from knowledge of what they look to
knowledge of what they are but do not look? Again, given that the
belief has arisen, may it not after all be illusion? No vindication
seems possible. For how can it be possible to base the knowledge of
what things are, independently of perception, upon the knowledge of
what they look? Nevertheless, the answer is simple. In the case of the
perception of what is spatial there is no transition _in principle_
from knowledge of what things look to knowledge of what things are,
though there is continually such a transition _in respect of details_.
It is, of course, often necessary, and often difficult, to determine
the precise position, shape, &c., of a thing, and if we are to come to
a decision, we must appeal to what the thing looks or appears under
various conditions. But, from the very beginning, our consciousness of
what a thing appears in respect of spatial characteristics implies the
consciousness of it as spatial and therefore also as, in particular,
three-dimensional. If we suppose the latter consciousness absent, any
assertion as to what a thing appears in respect of spatial
characteristics loses significance. Thus, although there is a process
by which we come to learn that railway lines are really parallel,
there is no process by which we come to learn that they are really
spatial. Similarly, although there is a process by which we become
aware that a body is a cube, there is no process by which we become
aware that it has a solid shape of some kind; the process is only
concerned with the determination of the precise shape of the body.
The second difficulty is, therefore, also removed. For if assertions
concerning the apparent shape, &c. of things presuppose the
consciousness that the things _are_ spatial, to say that this
consciousness may be illusory is to say that all statements concerning
what things _appear_, in respect of spatial relations, are equally
illusory. But, since it is wholly impossible to deny that we can and
do state what things appear in this respect, the difficulty must fall
to the ground.
There remains to be answered the question whether Kant's position is
tenable in its other form, viz. that while we cannot say that reality
is spatial, we can and must say that the appearances which it produces
are spatial. This question, in view of the foregoing, can be answered
as soon as it is stated. We must allow that reality is spatial, since,
as has been pointed out, assertions concerning the apparent shape of
things presuppose that they are spatial. We must equally allow that an
appearance cannot be spatial. For on the one hand, as has just been
shown, space and spatial relations can only qualify something the
existence of which is not relative to perception, since it is
impossible to perceive what is spatial as it is; and on the other hand
an appearance, as being _ex hypothesi_ an appearance to some one,
i. e. to a percipient, must be relative to perception.
We may say, then, generally, that analysis of the distinction between
appearance and reality, as it is actually drawn in our ordinary
consciousness, shows the falsity of both forms of the philosophical
agnosticism which appeals to the distinction. We know things; not
appearances. We know what things are; and not merely what they appear
but are not. We may also say that Kant cannot possibly be successful
in meeting, at least in respect of space, what he calls 'the easily
foreseen but worthless objection that the ideality of space and of
time would turn the whole sensible world into pure illusion'.[29] For
space, according to him, is not a property of things in themselves; it
cannot, as has been shown, be a property of appearances; to say that
it is a property of things as they appear to us is self-contradictory;
and there is nothing else of which it can be said to be a property.
[29] _Prol_., Sec. 13, Remark iii. (Cf. p. 100 note.) Cf. the
confused note B. 70, M. 42. (See Dr. Vaihinger's Commentary
on the _Critique_, ii, 488 ff.)
In conclusion, it may be pointed out that the impossibility that
space[30] and spatial characteristics should qualify appearances
renders untenable Kant's attempt to draw a distinction between reality
and appearance _within_ 'phenomena' or 'appearances'. The passage in
which he tries to do so runs as follows:
[30] The case of time can be ignored, since, as will be seen
later (pp. 112-14), the contention that space is 'ideal'
really involves the admission that time is real.
"We generally indeed distinguish in appearances that which essentially
belongs to the perception of them, and is valid for every human
sense in general, from that which belongs to the same perception
accidentally, as valid not for the sensibility in general, but for a
particular state or organization of this or that sense. Accordingly,
we are accustomed to say that the former is knowledge which represents
the object itself, whilst the latter represents only the appearance
of the same. This distinction, however, is only empirical. If we stop
here (as is usual) and do not again regard that empirical perception
as itself a mere phenomenon (as we ought to do), in which nothing
which concerns a thing in itself is to be found, our transcendental
distinction is lost; and in that case we are after all believing that
we know things in themselves, although in the world of sense,
investigate its objects as profoundly as we may, we have to do with
nothing but appearances. Thus we call the rainbow a mere appearance
during a sunny shower, but the rain the thing in itself; and this is
right, if we understand the latter conception only physically as that
which in universal experience and under all different positions with
regard to the senses is in perception so and so determined and not
otherwise. But if we consider this empirical element[31] in general,
and inquire, without considering its agreement with every human sense,
whether it represents an object in itself (not the raindrops, for
their being phenomena by itself makes them empirical objects), the
question of the relation of the representation to the object is
transcendental; and not only are the raindrops mere appearances, but
even their circular form, nay, even the space in which they fall,
are nothing in themselves but mere modifications or fundamental
dispositions of our sensuous perception; the transcendental object,
however, remains unknown to us."[32]
[31] _Dieses Empirische._
[32] B. 62-3, M. 37-8. _Erscheinung_ is here translated
'appearance'.
Kant's meaning is plain. He is anxious to justify the physical
distinction made in our ordinary or non-philosophical consciousness
between a thing in itself and a mere appearance,[33] but at the same
time to show that it falls within appearances, in respect of the
philosophical distinction between things in themselves and appearances
or phenomena. The physical distinction is the first of which we become
aware, and it arises through problems connected with our senses.
Owing, presumably, to the contradictions which would otherwise ensue,
the mind is forced to distinguish between things and the 'appearances'
which they produce, and to recognize that they do not correspond. The
discrepancy is due to the fact that our perceptions are conditioned by
the special positions of our physical organs with regard to the object
of perception, and we discover its real nature by making allowance for
these special positions. We thereby advance in knowledge to the extent
of overcoming an obstacle due to the nature of our senses. But, this
obstacle overcome, philosophical reflection forces upon us another.
The thing which we distinguish in our ordinary consciousness from its
appearances is, after all, only another appearance; and although the
physical problem is solved concerning its accordance with our special
senses, there remains the philosophical problem as to whether this
appearance need correspond to what in the end is the real thing, viz.
that which exists in itself and apart from all perception. The only
possible answer is that it need not. We therefore can only know
appearances and not reality; in other words, we cannot have knowledge
proper. At the same time, our knowledge of appearances is objective to
the extent that the appearances in question are the same for every
one, and for us on various occasions; for the effects due to special
positions of our senses have been removed. If, therefore, we return to
the physical distinction, we see that the 'things' to which it refers
are only a special kind of appearance, viz. that which is the same for
every one, and for us at all times. The physical distinction, then,
being a distinction between one kind of appearance and another, falls
within 'phenomena' or 'appearances'.
[33] It should be noticed that the passage is, in the main,
expressed in terms of the distinction between 'things' and
'appearances', and not, as it should be, in terms of the
distinction between what things are and what things appear
or look.
Now the obvious objection to this line of thought is that the result
of the second or metaphysical application of the distinction between
reality and appearance is to destroy or annul the first or physical
application of it. To oppose the rain, i. e. the raindrops as the
thing in itself to the rainbow as a mere appearance is to imply that
the rain is not an appearance. For though what is opposed to a _mere_
appearance may still be an appearance, it cannot be called an
appearance at all if it be described as the thing in itself. If it be
only another appearance, it is the same in principle as that to which
it is opposed, and consequently cannot be opposed to it. Thus, if Kant
means by the rain, in distinction from the rainbow, the appearance
when, as we say, we see the circular raindrops, the title of this
appearance to the term thing in itself is no better than that of the
rainbow; it is, in fact, if anything, worse, for the appearance is
actual only under exceptional circumstances. We may never see the
raindrops thus, or in Kant's language, have this 'appearance'; and
therefore, in general, an appearance of this kind is not actual but
only possible. The truth is that we can only distinguish something as
the thing in itself from an appearance, so long as we mean by the
thing in itself what Kant normally means by it, viz. something which
exists independently of perception and is not an appearance at
all.[34] That of which Kant is really thinking, and which he _calls_
the appearance which is the thing, in distinction from a mere
appearance, is not an appearance; on the contrary, it is the raindrops
themselves, which he describes as circular and as falling through
space, and which, as circular and falling, must exist and have these
characteristics in themselves apart from a percipient. Kant's formula
for an empirical thing, i. e. a thing which is an appearance, viz.
'that which in universal experience and under all different positions
with regard to the senses is in perception so and so determined', is
merely an attempt to achieve the impossible, viz. to combine in one
the characteristics of a thing and an appearance. While the reference
to _perception_ and to _position with regard to the senses_ implies
that what is being defined is an appearance, the reference to
_universal_ experience, to _all_ positions with regard to the senses,
and to that which _is so and so determined_ implies that it is a
thing. But, plainly, mention of position with regard to the senses, if
introduced at all, should refer to the _differences_ in perception due
to the different position of the object in particular cases. There is
nothing of which it can be said that we perceive it in the same way or
that it looks the same from _all_ positions. When Kant speaks of that
which under _all_ different positions with regard to the senses is so
and so determined, he is really referring to something in the
consideration of which all reference to the senses has been discarded;
it is what should be described as that which _in reality and apart
from_ all positions with regard to the senses is so and so determined;
and this, as such, cannot be an appearance. Again, the qualification
of 'is so and so determined' by 'in perception' is merely an attempt
to treat as relative to perception, and so as an appearance, what is
essentially independent of perception.[35] Kant, no doubt, is thinking
of a real presupposition of the process by which we distinguish
between the real and the apparent qualities of bodies, i. e. between
what they are and what they appear. We presuppose that that quality is
really, and not only apparently, a quality of a body, which we and
every one, judging from what it looks under various conditions (i. e.
'in universal experience'), must believe it to possess in itself and
independently of all perception. His mistake is that in formulating
this presupposition he treats as an appearance, and so as relative to
perception, just that which is being distinguished from what, as an
appearance, is relative to perception.
[34] Hence Kant's protest (B. 45, M. 27), against
illustrating the ideality of space by the 'inadequate'
examples of colour, taste, &c., must be unavailing. For his
contention is that, while the assertion that space is not a
property of things means that it is not a property of things
in themselves, the assertion that colour, for example, is not
a property of a rose only means that it is not a property of
a thing in itself in an empirical sense, i. e. of an
appearance of a special kind.
[35] Cf. pp. 72-3.
Underlying the mistake is the identification of perception with
judgement. Our apprehension of what things _are_ is essentially a
matter of thought or judgement, and not of perception. We do not
_perceive_[36] but _think_ a thing as it is. It is true that we can
follow Kant's language so far as to say that our judgement that the
portion of the great circle joining two points on the surface of a
sphere is the shortest way between them _via_ the surface belongs
essentially to the thinking faculty of every intelligent being, and
also that it is valid for all intelligences, in the sense that they
must all hold it to be true; and we can contrast this judgement with a
perception of the portion of the great circle as something which,
though it cannot be said to be invalid, still differs for different
beings according to the position from which they perceive it. Kant,
however, treats the judgement as a _perception_; for if we apply his
general assertion to this instance, we find him saying that what we
judge the portion of the great circle to be essentially belongs to the
_perception_ of it, and is valid for the _sensuous_ faculty of every
human being, and that thereby it can be distinguished from what
belongs to the same perception of a great circle accidentally, e. g.
its apparent colour, which is valid only for a particular organization
of this or that sense.[37] In this way he correlates what the great
circle really is, as well as what it looks, with perception, and so is
able to speak of what it is for perception. But, in fact, what the
great circle is, is correlated with thought, and not with perception;
and if we raise Kant's transcendental problem in reference not to
perception but to thought, it cannot be solved in Kant's agnostic
manner. For it is a presupposition of thinking that things are in
themselves what we think them to be; and from the nature of the case a
presupposition of thinking not only cannot be rightly questioned, but
cannot be questioned at all.
[36] Cf. pp. 72-3.
[37] In the _Prol._, Sec. 13, Remark iii, Kant carefully
distinguishes judgement from perception, but destroys the
effect of the distinction by regarding judgement as referring
to what is relative to perception, viz. appearances.
NOTE ON THE FIRST ANTINOMY
Kant holds that the antinomy or contradiction which arises when we
consider the character of the world as spatial and temporal, viz. that
we are equally bound to hold that the world is infinite in space and
time, and that it is finite in space and time, is due to regarding the
world as a thing in itself. He holds that the contradiction
disappears, as soon as it is recognized that the world is only a
phenomenon, for then we find that we need only say that the world is
_capable_ of being extended infinitely in respect of time and
space.[1] Objects in space and time are only phenomena, and, as such,
are actual only in perception. When we say that a past event, or that
a body which we do not perceive, is real, we merely assert the
possibility of a 'perception'. "All events from time immemorial prior
to my existence mean nothing else than the possibility of prolonging
the chain of experience from the present perception upwards to the
conditions which determine this perception according to time."[2]
"That there may be inhabitants of the moon, although no one has ever
seen them, must certainly be admitted, but this assertion only means
that we could come upon them in the possible progress of
experience."[3] The contradictions, therefore, can be avoided by
substituting for the actual infinity of space and time, as relating to
things in themselves, the possible infinity of a series of
'perceptions'.
[1] B. 532-3, M. 315.
[2] B. 523, M. 309.
[3] B. 521, M. 308.
This contention, if successful, is clearly important. If it could be
shown that the treatment of the world as a thing in itself is the
source of a contradiction, we should have what at least would seem a
strong, if not conclusive, ground for holding that the world is a
phenomenon, and, consequently, that the distinction between phenomena
and things in themselves is valid.
Professor Cook Wilson has, however, pointed out that Kant's own
doctrine does not avoid the difficulty. For, though, according to
Kant, the infinity of actual representations of spaces and times is
only possible, yet the possibilities of these representations will be
themselves infinite, and, as such, will give rise to contradictions
similar to those involved in the infinity of space and time. Moreover,
as Professor Cook Wilson has also pointed out, there is no
contradiction involved in the thought of the world as spatial and
temporal; for, as we see when we reflect, we always presuppose that
space and time are infinite, and we are only tempted to think that
they must be finite, because, when maintaining that the world must be
a whole, we are apt to make the false assumption, without in any way
questioning it, that any whole must be finite.