The World as Will and Idea, Vol. II — Arthur Schopenhauer, trans. Haldane & Kemp

glad to be rid ' of the old Kant with his Critiques, that they might drink the health of Leibnitz with all their hearts.

It is further to be remarked here, that as Kant was confessedly led to his doctrine of the a priori nature of the conception of causality by Hume's scepticism with regard to that conception, it may be that in the same way Kant's criticism of all speculative theology had its occasion in Hume's criticism of all popular theology, which he had given in his " Natural History of Religion," a book so well worth reading, and in the " Dialogues on Natural Religion.

Indeed, it may be that Kant wished to a certain extent to supplement this. For the first-named work of Hume is really a critique of popular theology, the pitiable condition of which it seeks to show ; while, on the other hand, it points to rational or speculative theology as the genuine, and that which is worthy of respect.

But Kant now discloses the groundlessness of the latter, and leaves, on the other hand, popular theology untouched, nay, even establishes it in a nobler form as a faith based upon moral feeling.

This was afterwards distorted by the philosophasters into rational apprehensions, consciousness of God, or intellectual intuitions of the supersensible, of the divine, &c, &c. ; while Kant, as he demolished old and revered errors, and knew the danger of doing so, rather wished through the moral theology merely to substitute a few weak temporary supports, so that the ruin might not fall on him, but that he might have time to escape.

Now, as regards the performance of the task, no critique of reason was necessary for the refutation of the ontological proof of the existence of God ; for without presupposing :he aesthetic and analytic, it is quite easy to make clear ;hat that ontological proof is nothing but a subtle playing ivith conceptions which is quite powerless to produce conviction. There is a chapter in the " Organon " of Aristotle .vhich suffices as fully for the refutation of the ontological Droof as if it had been written intentionally with that purpose. It is the seventh chapter of the second book of vol. n. Ip. 130 the i'" AncUyt. Post." Among other things, it is expressly said there : " to Be eivai ovk ovaiu ovSevi," i.e., existentia nunquam ad essentiam rei pertinet.

The refutation of the cosmological proof is an application to a given case of the doctrine of the Critique as expounded up to that point, and there is nothing to be said against it. The physico-theological proof is a mere amplification of the cosmological, which it presupposes, and it finds its full refutation only in the * Critique of Judgment." I refer the reader in this connection to the rubric, " Comparative Anatomy," in my work on the Will in Nature.

In the criticism of this proof Kant has only to do as we have already said, with speculative theology, anc limits himself to the School. If, on the contrary, he hat had life and popular theology also in view, he would hav« been obliged to add a fourth proof to the three he ha considered — that proof which is really the effective om with the great mass of men, and which in Kant's technics language might best be called the keraunological. It i the proof which is founded upon the needy, impotent, an< dependent condition of man as opposed to natural force? which are infinitely superior, inscrutable, and for the mos part threatening evil; to which is added man's nature inclination to personify everything, and finally the hop of effecting something by prayers and flattery, and eve by gifts. In every human undertaking there is somethin which is not in our power and does not come within ot calculations ; the wish to win this for oneself is the origi of the gods. " Primus in orbe Deos fecit timor " is an ol and true saying of Petronius. It is principally this pro< which is criticised by Hume, who throughout appears i Kant's forerunner in the writings referred to above. Bi those whom Kant has placed in a position of permanei embarrassment by his criticism of speculative theolo$ are the professors of philosophy. Salaried by Chrisfll governments, they dare not give up the chief article

II

p. 131