Both the rejection of space and time as objectiverealities and the adoption of
an additional coordinate, or ofidealist solutions like the existence of a
complementary realmof ideas, of the universal spirit or of will show that the
hostsof philosophical solutions to the issue of existence get far fromthe
immediate common sense. However, as soon as science gainsa safer ground in this
realm, the new cognitive models will largelyuse human thought and these models
will frame against a more accessiblerationality irrespective of their degree of
abstraction.
Given the apparently paradoxical side of theissue of existence, many scientists
are no longer tempted to approachit.
It is however strange to notice that reasonapplied to existence enforces a
necessary release out of existence,or the recognition of something beyond the
known existence andthe need to supplement this by an orthoexistence, in a more
comprehensiveexistence which will be referred to as "material world".
Alternatively, it may derive in supplementing this world withidea, spirit, will.
Of course, solutions so different in meaningand philosophical signification
depend on the scientific experiencein stock. Thinking in itself is however the
principal factor.
Kant eschewed any attempt at supplementingexistence, which is peremptory once
we accept space and time tobe objective phenomena in our universe. Nor has
today's sciencemanaged to establish a physical model for the deep
worldsupplementing our universe.
The easiest way to imagine something beyondspace and time is to think of an
"additional" coordinatefor the material world, as a model in the
language familiar tous. This idea stands as a physical necessity to our mind.
Of course,the idea of a coordinate should not be taken ad literam,
for it is a first approximation model of a deep material realitywhich we have
now to decode.
The idea of an additional coordinate has beensuggested in approaching existence
by philosophers and scientistsbut has been currently rejected. Descartes was
the first to raisethis issue but he subsequently rejected a possible
Vth coordinate,in addition to space and time, on grounds of being
absurd.
As Kant was both a philosopher and a scientist,it is no wonder that the issue
of existence did not appear absurdto him, and was to be approached by all means.
What was absurdto him were the conclusions reached by accepting space and time
as being within existence, within the things-in-themselves. Letus also note that
absurd contrary given by Berkely's solutionreducing everything to the subject
and rejecting any externalobjective reality. If the things-in-themselves contain
space andtime, Kant observes, "and reflect on the absurdities in whichwe
find ourselves involved ... we cannot blame for good Berkeleyfor degrading
bodies to mere illusory
appearances"2.
Against a whole world of absurdities, Kantnotes that "If we do not thus
make them (i.e. space and time)objective forms of all things, there is no way
left then to makethem subjective forms of our mode of intuition-external and
internal"3.
This quotation might explain why Kant soughtto get out of the deadlock by a
chosen solution, whichturned out to be ultimately refuted by the
entire scientific practice,though Kant's role in pushing science forward was
extraordinary.
Indeed, it seems that we can either assumean orthoexistence or reject the
objective reality of space andtime so that the world in its entire existence
should appear lessparadoxical. Is there any other rational solution left ?
WithKant, all that surrounds us immediately are actually things-in-themselves,
which cannot be cognized in full depth. They can only be cognizedunder their
phenomenal aspect which is more dependent on ourselvesrather than on the
thing-in-itself.
The Limit of the Thing-in-Itself9
