wiki dissertation

Dissertation Structure & Layout 101: How to structure your dissertation, thesis or research project.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | July 2019

So, you’ve got a decent understanding of what a dissertation is , you’ve chosen your topic and hopefully you’ve received approval for your research proposal . Awesome! Now its time to start the actual dissertation or thesis writing journey.

To craft a high-quality document, the very first thing you need to understand is dissertation structure . In this post, we’ll walk you through the generic dissertation structure and layout, step by step. We’ll start with the big picture, and then zoom into each chapter to briefly discuss the core contents. If you’re just starting out on your research journey, you should start with this post, which covers the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis .

*The Caveat *

In this post, we’ll be discussing a traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout, which is generally used for social science research across universities, whether in the US, UK, Europe or Australia. However, some universities may have small variations on this structure (extra chapters, merged chapters, slightly different ordering, etc).

So, always check with your university if they have a prescribed structure or layout that they expect you to work with. If not, it’s safe to assume the structure we’ll discuss here is suitable. And even if they do have a prescribed structure, you’ll still get value from this post as we’ll explain the core contents of each section.  

Overview: S tructuring a dissertation or thesis

• Acknowledgements page
• Abstract (or executive summary)
• Table of contents , list of figures and tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature review
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Results
• Chapter 5: Discussion
• Chapter 6: Conclusion
• Reference list

As I mentioned, some universities will have slight variations on this structure. For example, they want an additional “personal reflection chapter”, or they might prefer the results and discussion chapter to be merged into one. Regardless, the overarching flow will always be the same, as this flow reflects the research process , which we discussed here – i.e.:

• The introduction chapter presents the core research question and aims .
• The literature review chapter assesses what the current research says about this question.
• The methodology, results and discussion chapters go about undertaking new research about this question.
• The conclusion chapter (attempts to) answer the core research question .

In other words, the dissertation structure and layout reflect the research process of asking a well-defined question(s), investigating, and then answering the question – see below.

To restate that – the structure and layout of a dissertation reflect the flow of the overall research process . This is essential to understand, as each chapter will make a lot more sense if you “get” this concept. If you’re not familiar with the research process, read this post before going further.

Right. Now that we’ve covered the big picture, let’s dive a little deeper into the details of each section and chapter. Oh and by the way, you can also grab our free dissertation/thesis template here to help speed things up.

The title page of your dissertation is the very first impression the marker will get of your work, so it pays to invest some time thinking about your title. But what makes for a good title? A strong title needs to be 3 things:

• Succinct (not overly lengthy or verbose)
• Specific (not vague or ambiguous)
• Representative of the research you’re undertaking (clearly linked to your research questions)

Typically, a good title includes mention of the following:

• The broader area of the research (i.e. the overarching topic)
• The specific focus of your research (i.e. your specific context)
• Indication of research design (e.g. quantitative , qualitative , or  mixed methods ).

For example:

A quantitative investigation [research design] into the antecedents of organisational trust [broader area] in the UK retail forex trading market [specific context/area of focus].

Again, some universities may have specific requirements regarding the format and structure of the title, so it’s worth double-checking expectations with your institution (if there’s no mention in the brief or study material).

Acknowledgements

This page provides you with an opportunity to say thank you to those who helped you along your research journey. Generally, it’s optional (and won’t count towards your marks), but it is academic best practice to include this.

So, who do you say thanks to? Well, there’s no prescribed requirements, but it’s common to mention the following people:

• Your dissertation supervisor or committee.
• Any professors, lecturers or academics that helped you understand the topic or methodologies.
• Any tutors, mentors or advisors.
• Your family and friends, especially spouse (for adult learners studying part-time).

There’s no need for lengthy rambling. Just state who you’re thankful to and for what (e.g. thank you to my supervisor, John Doe, for his endless patience and attentiveness) – be sincere. In terms of length, you should keep this to a page or less.

Abstract or executive summary

The dissertation abstract (or executive summary for some degrees) serves to provide the first-time reader (and marker or moderator) with a big-picture view of your research project. It should give them an understanding of the key insights and findings from the research, without them needing to read the rest of the report – in other words, it should be able to stand alone .

For it to stand alone, your abstract should cover the following key points (at a minimum):

• Your research questions and aims – what key question(s) did your research aim to answer?
• Your methodology – how did you go about investigating the topic and finding answers to your research question(s)?
• Your findings – following your own research, what did do you discover?
• Your conclusions – based on your findings, what conclusions did you draw? What answers did you find to your research question(s)?

So, in much the same way the dissertation structure mimics the research process, your abstract or executive summary should reflect the research process, from the initial stage of asking the original question to the final stage of answering that question.

In practical terms, it’s a good idea to write this section up last , once all your core chapters are complete. Otherwise, you’ll end up writing and rewriting this section multiple times (just wasting time). For a step by step guide on how to write a strong executive summary, check out this post .

Need a helping hand?

Table of contents

This section is straightforward. You’ll typically present your table of contents (TOC) first, followed by the two lists – figures and tables. I recommend that you use Microsoft Word’s automatic table of contents generator to generate your TOC. If you’re not familiar with this functionality, the video below explains it simply:

If you find that your table of contents is overly lengthy, consider removing one level of depth. Oftentimes, this can be done without detracting from the usefulness of the TOC.

Right, now that the “admin” sections are out of the way, its time to move on to your core chapters. These chapters are the heart of your dissertation and are where you’ll earn the marks. The first chapter is the introduction chapter – as you would expect, this is the time to introduce your research…

It’s important to understand that even though you’ve provided an overview of your research in your abstract, your introduction needs to be written as if the reader has not read that (remember, the abstract is essentially a standalone document). So, your introduction chapter needs to start from the very beginning, and should address the following questions:

• What will you be investigating (in plain-language, big picture-level)?
• Why is that worth investigating? How is it important to academia or business? How is it sufficiently original?
• What are your research aims and research question(s)? Note that the research questions can sometimes be presented at the end of the literature review (next chapter).
• What is the scope of your study? In other words, what will and won’t you cover ?
• How will you approach your research? In other words, what methodology will you adopt?
• How will you structure your dissertation? What are the core chapters and what will you do in each of them?

These are just the bare basic requirements for your intro chapter. Some universities will want additional bells and whistles in the intro chapter, so be sure to carefully read your brief or consult your research supervisor.

If done right, your introduction chapter will set a clear direction for the rest of your dissertation. Specifically, it will make it clear to the reader (and marker) exactly what you’ll be investigating, why that’s important, and how you’ll be going about the investigation. Conversely, if your introduction chapter leaves a first-time reader wondering what exactly you’ll be researching, you’ve still got some work to do.

Now that you’ve set a clear direction with your introduction chapter, the next step is the literature review . In this section, you will analyse the existing research (typically academic journal articles and high-quality industry publications), with a view to understanding the following questions:

• What does the literature currently say about the topic you’re investigating?
• Is the literature lacking or well established? Is it divided or in disagreement?
• How does your research fit into the bigger picture?
• How does your research contribute something original?
• How does the methodology of previous studies help you develop your own?

Depending on the nature of your study, you may also present a conceptual framework towards the end of your literature review, which you will then test in your actual research.

Again, some universities will want you to focus on some of these areas more than others, some will have additional or fewer requirements, and so on. Therefore, as always, its important to review your brief and/or discuss with your supervisor, so that you know exactly what’s expected of your literature review chapter.

Now that you’ve investigated the current state of knowledge in your literature review chapter and are familiar with the existing key theories, models and frameworks, its time to design your own research. Enter the methodology chapter – the most “science-ey” of the chapters…

In this chapter, you need to address two critical questions:

• Exactly HOW will you carry out your research (i.e. what is your intended research design)?
• Exactly WHY have you chosen to do things this way (i.e. how do you justify your design)?

Remember, the dissertation part of your degree is first and foremost about developing and demonstrating research skills . Therefore, the markers want to see that you know which methods to use, can clearly articulate why you’ve chosen then, and know how to deploy them effectively.

Importantly, this chapter requires detail – don’t hold back on the specifics. State exactly what you’ll be doing, with who, when, for how long, etc. Moreover, for every design choice you make, make sure you justify it.

In practice, you will likely end up coming back to this chapter once you’ve undertaken all your data collection and analysis, and revise it based on changes you made during the analysis phase. This is perfectly fine. Its natural for you to add an additional analysis technique, scrap an old one, etc based on where your data lead you. Of course, I’m talking about small changes here – not a fundamental switch from qualitative to quantitative, which will likely send your supervisor in a spin!

You’ve now collected your data and undertaken your analysis, whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. In this chapter, you’ll present the raw results of your analysis . For example, in the case of a quant study, you’ll present the demographic data, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics , etc.

Typically, Chapter 4 is simply a presentation and description of the data, not a discussion of the meaning of the data. In other words, it’s descriptive, rather than analytical – the meaning is discussed in Chapter 5. However, some universities will want you to combine chapters 4 and 5, so that you both present and interpret the meaning of the data at the same time. Check with your institution what their preference is.

Now that you’ve presented the data analysis results, its time to interpret and analyse them. In other words, its time to discuss what they mean, especially in relation to your research question(s).

What you discuss here will depend largely on your chosen methodology. For example, if you’ve gone the quantitative route, you might discuss the relationships between variables . If you’ve gone the qualitative route, you might discuss key themes and the meanings thereof. It all depends on what your research design choices were.

Most importantly, you need to discuss your results in relation to your research questions and aims, as well as the existing literature. What do the results tell you about your research questions? Are they aligned with the existing research or at odds? If so, why might this be? Dig deep into your findings and explain what the findings suggest, in plain English.

The final chapter – you’ve made it! Now that you’ve discussed your interpretation of the results, its time to bring it back to the beginning with the conclusion chapter . In other words, its time to (attempt to) answer your original research question s (from way back in chapter 1). Clearly state what your conclusions are in terms of your research questions. This might feel a bit repetitive, as you would have touched on this in the previous chapter, but its important to bring the discussion full circle and explicitly state your answer(s) to the research question(s).

Next, you’ll typically discuss the implications of your findings? In other words, you’ve answered your research questions – but what does this mean for the real world (or even for academia)? What should now be done differently, given the new insight you’ve generated?

Lastly, you should discuss the limitations of your research, as well as what this means for future research in the area. No study is perfect, especially not a Masters-level. Discuss the shortcomings of your research. Perhaps your methodology was limited, perhaps your sample size was small or not representative, etc, etc. Don’t be afraid to critique your work – the markers want to see that you can identify the limitations of your work. This is a strength, not a weakness. Be brutal!

This marks the end of your core chapters – woohoo! From here on out, it’s pretty smooth sailing.

The reference list is straightforward. It should contain a list of all resources cited in your dissertation, in the required format, e.g. APA , Harvard, etc.

It’s essential that you use reference management software for your dissertation. Do NOT try handle your referencing manually – its far too error prone. On a reference list of multiple pages, you’re going to make mistake. To this end, I suggest considering either Mendeley or Zotero. Both are free and provide a very straightforward interface to ensure that your referencing is 100% on point. I’ve included a simple how-to video for the Mendeley software (my personal favourite) below:

Some universities may ask you to include a bibliography, as opposed to a reference list. These two things are not the same . A bibliography is similar to a reference list, except that it also includes resources which informed your thinking but were not directly cited in your dissertation. So, double-check your brief and make sure you use the right one.

The very last piece of the puzzle is the appendix or set of appendices. This is where you’ll include any supporting data and evidence. Importantly, supporting is the keyword here.

Your appendices should provide additional “nice to know”, depth-adding information, which is not critical to the core analysis. Appendices should not be used as a way to cut down word count (see this post which covers how to reduce word count ). In other words, don’t place content that is critical to the core analysis here, just to save word count. You will not earn marks on any content in the appendices, so don’t try to play the system!

Time to recap…

And there you have it – the traditional dissertation structure and layout, from A-Z. To recap, the core structure for a dissertation or thesis is (typically) as follows:

• Acknowledgments page

Most importantly, the core chapters should reflect the research process (asking, investigating and answering your research question). Moreover, the research question(s) should form the golden thread throughout your dissertation structure. Everything should revolve around the research questions, and as you’ve seen, they should form both the start point (i.e. introduction chapter) and the endpoint (i.e. conclusion chapter).

I hope this post has provided you with clarity about the traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a comment below, or feel free to get in touch with us. Also, be sure to check out the rest of the  Grad Coach Blog .

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

36 Comments

many thanks i found it very useful

Glad to hear that, Arun. Good luck writing your dissertation.

Such clear practical logical advice. I very much needed to read this to keep me focused in stead of fretting.. Perfect now ready to start my research!

what about scientific fields like computer or engineering thesis what is the difference in the structure? thank you very much

Thanks so much this helped me a lot!

Very helpful and accessible. What I like most is how practical the advice is along with helpful tools/ links.

Thanks Ade!

Thank you so much sir.. It was really helpful..

You’re welcome!

Hi! How many words maximum should contain the abstract?

Thank you so much 😊 Find this at the right moment

You’re most welcome. Good luck with your dissertation.

best ever benefit i got on right time thank you

Many times Clarity and vision of destination of dissertation is what makes the difference between good ,average and great researchers the same way a great automobile driver is fast with clarity of address and Clear weather conditions .

I guess Great researcher = great ideas + knowledge + great and fast data collection and modeling + great writing + high clarity on all these

You have given immense clarity from start to end.

Morning. Where will I write the definitions of what I’m referring to in my report?

Thank you so much Derek, I was almost lost! Thanks a tonnnn! Have a great day!

Thanks ! so concise and valuable

This was very helpful. Clear and concise. I know exactly what to do now.

Thank you for allowing me to go through briefly. I hope to find time to continue.

Really useful to me. Thanks a thousand times

Very interesting! It will definitely set me and many more for success. highly recommended.

Thank you soo much sir, for the opportunity to express my skills

Usefull, thanks a lot. Really clear

Very nice and easy to understand. Thank you .

That was incredibly useful. Thanks Grad Coach Crew!

My stress level just dropped at least 15 points after watching this. Just starting my thesis for my grad program and I feel a lot more capable now! Thanks for such a clear and helpful video, Emma and the GradCoach team!

Do we need to mention the number of words the dissertation contains in the main document?

It depends on your university’s requirements, so it would be best to check with them 🙂

Such a helpful post to help me get started with structuring my masters dissertation, thank you!

Great video; I appreciate that helpful information

It is so necessary or avital course

This blog is very informative for my research. Thank you

Doctoral students are required to fill out the National Research Council’s Survey of Earned Doctorates

wow this is an amazing gain in my life

This is so good

How can i arrange my specific objectives in my dissertation?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Research Guide for CES Visiting Scholars

• Dissertations & Theses
• HOLLIS (and other) Catalogs
• Finding Primary Sources Online
• Outline of Primary Sources for History
• Periodicals/Articles
• Policy Reports
• Foreign Government & International Organization Documents
• News Sources

Dissertations

General sources, german, dutch, and scandinavian dissertations, electronic dissertations.

• Statistics/Data
• Archives and Manuscripts
• Visual Resources
• Other Collections at Harvard
• Research Centers
• Citing Sources & Organizing Research

This page lists resources for dissertations (general and RLL-related) along with information on electronic dissertations. In general, Harvard's Interlibrary Loan service cannot obtain dissertations; in many cases you'll need to acquire directly from the institution where the work was submitted. 

To find doctoral dissertations from North American universities and some European institutions, search:

Dissertations and Theses Full Text

This is the largest database with 2.7 million citations for Masters and PhD dissertations. Full text for most dissertations from 1997 on (at this writing, 1.2 million full text dissertations available for download in PDF format). Hosted by ProQuest. Use Harvard's Get It Interlibrary Loan link to request print dissertations.

  Harvard dissertations and theses

As above, most of these from 1997 are available via ProQuest.

Havard dissertations and theses since 2012 are also available in our online repository, DASH , and in HOLLIS. If a dissertation from 2012 forward is not available in full text, the author has placed an embargo on it (up to 5 years) and the library won't be able to obtain it, but you may be able to ask the author.

Use Harvard's Interlibrary Loan to obtain any theses and dissertations found by searching

Center for Research Libraries Catalog: Dissertations

Request item through Get It (ILL link)

To find print sources, search HOLLIS Classic: Subject beginning with... e.g. Dissertations, Academic--France--Bibliography.

dissonline.de Search for German and Swiss electronic dissertations and "Habilitationen." For dissertations that have not been digitized, search the catalog of the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek .

Gegnir (IS) Click on "Námsritgerðir" (Icelandic interface) or "Thesis search" (English interface) to limit to dissertations.

HELKA (FI) Select the Advanced Search and "Väitöskirja/Dissertation or Thesis" from the search box.

Det Kongelige Bibliotek/The Danish Royal Library (DK) Search on "thesis," "dissertation," or "afhandling" (the latter if you want dissertations in Danish) together with your search terms.

Libris (SE) Select "Dissertations" under "Type of publication" box to limit your search to dissertations.

Nasjonalbiblioteket (NO) Select "Post graduate theses" in the search box to limit your search to dissertations.

National Academic Research and Collaborations Information System (NARCIS): Promise of Science   (NL) The "Promise of Science" provides access to over 21,000 full-text doctoral e-theses from all Dutch universities. It is a subset of NARCIS and DAREnet. Dates of coverage vary, but dissertations are mostly from recent years.

Österreichische Dissertationsdatenbank (AU) This database references over 55,000 dissertations and theses held at Austrian Universities; select dissertations are available online.

Ongoing research and development in the e-sphere:

Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) , an inter national organization dedicated to promoting the adoption, creation, use, dissemination, and preservation of electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs).

The Guide for Electronic Theses and Dissertations A wiki maintained by the NDLTD ETD Revision Team. Addresses issues for submission and administration of e-dissertations, whether born-digital or digital versions of print documents.

The European Working Group of the NDLTD is the DART-Europe E-theses Portal (DEEP). Intended to be the single European portal for dissertations, DART-Europe is a collaboration of research libraries and library consortia, endorsed by LIBER (Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche).

• << Previous: News Sources
• Next: Biography >>
• Last Updated: Feb 22, 2024 4:08 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/ces

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

• EXPLORE Random Article

How to Write a Dissertation

Last Updated: December 21, 2021

This article was co-authored by Christopher Taylor, PhD and by wikiHow staff writer, Christopher M. Osborne, PhD . Christopher Taylor is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of English at Austin Community College in Texas. He received his PhD in English Literature and Medieval Studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 2014. This article has been viewed 87,049 times.

A dissertation is a book-length piece of original and substantial research that is submitted as part of a person’s candidacy for a doctoral degree. [1] X Research source Writing a dissertation is a long, challenging process. However, if you take the time to prepare physically, mentally, and academically, develop the right topic and strategy, and write in a steady,well-organized manner, you’ll greatly improve your odds of success, both for finishing the dissertation project and completing your degree.

Setting Yourself Up for Success

• A dissertation proves your ability to produce original research with original, substantial ideas and analysis. As a professional, you’ll be expected to contribute to your field by producing new ideas that address existing problems or issues. Your dissertation serves as your first major step.
• A dissertation also demonstrates your mastery of research design. It proves that you can perform research in a way that is acceptable for your discipline.

• Create a detailed schedule that includes both your larger research and writing goals and your smaller ones. Try to stick to the schedule as much as possible as you work.
• Set aside time to relax when it is not feasible to do work anyway. For example, listen to audiobooks or podcasts while you drive to school. Catch up on your favorite websites while you eat lunch and dinner. Exercise while waiting for search or test results.
• Sleep on a regular schedule. This will be incredibly challenging at times, but sleeping on a regular schedule will make you feel more energized and focused.

• Ease stress by exercising, listening to music, or watching funny videos. Look for activities like these that are easily fit into complex schedules.
• Try meditation, deep breathing exercises, mindfulness techniques, or other recommended stress-relief activities as well. If stress is getting the better of you, visit your school's counseling center (if available) or talk to a licensed therapist about helpful strategies.

• Some people work best in a closed off room with a desk, while others prefer working in the library or a cafe. Seek out advice from colleagues and friends, but also figure out which type of setup works best for you.
• Having a single dedicated workspace makes it easier to keep everything where you need it. However, some people work better if they move around among different workspaces. Again, this is up to your personal preference.

• Writing a dissertation isn’t just doing a really big and long project—it truly is a job in itself. By securing funding, you’ll be better able to view and treat it that way.
• Ask your department and advisor for guidance for the best sources of funding in your program and discipline.
• Generally, seek grants rather than loans. Fellowships from your university are also extremely helpful.

Determining Your Topic, Strategy, and Thesis

• You’ll need a topic that fits into the context of other work already done in your field of study. In some cases, you may need to explore different fields in order to find the right context for your work.
• Use your years of coursework and immersion in the field to come up with questions, concerns, or issues that consistently pique your interest.
• As you narrow down your list of potential topics, ask yourself things like: “What can I contribute that existing scholarship has not?”; “Is this topic too big (or small) in scope for a dissertation?”; “Am I ready to dedicate years of my life to this topic?”

• Choosing the right advisor can go a long way toward making your dissertation process a success. Think carefully about how you fit, not only in terms of research interests, but in personalities.
• Take your advisor’s guidance to heart as you narrow your general topic into a clear focus. However, keep in mind that this is your dissertation, so be willing and able to state and defend your case.

• Don’t ignore your committee members until it’s time to submit a draft. Draw on their experience and knowledge as you fine-tune your topic, develop your thesis, and conduct research. Remember, they’re part of your team!

• Let your research guide you to your thesis, instead of trying to force the research to fit your thesis.
• Treat researching, writing, and revising a dissertation as individual tasks. Don’t try to start writing when you’ve only done part of your research, or you’ll have trouble juggling the different tasks and may have to make major changes to your thesis along the way. [10] X Research source

Writing Efficiently and Effectively

• Your school or department may require you to compose a formal proposal or prospectus, which can help guide the organization of your dissertation. Check your department’s guidelines to find out what procedures you need to follow.
• A dissertation outline often follows the same basic form as shorter research papers, beginning with an introduction to the topic, giving some background, presenting research by previous scholars, presenting your own evidence, combating evidence which does not fit or contradicts you, and then wrapping up.
• There may also be a discussion of your methods, but where that goes and to what extent it is integrated into other sections will depend heavily on your discipline.
• Talk to your advisor and committee regarding the expected length and structure for dissertations in your program and field.

• Choose a time of day that works well for you. If you are too tired to write at night, write in the morning. If your brain takes half the day to boot up properly, write in the evening.
• If you’re suffering from writer’s block during your set-aside time, do some of the other “writing” that’s required in a dissertation. For instance, work on your bibliography, format your citations, or fine-tune your tables, graphs, or images.

• In most cases, dissertations should be written in an active voice and in the present tense. You want to make it clear that you are engaging directly with the source materials and related scholarship, and creating something new.

• Indecisive or conditional language makes your dissertation feel weaker. You do not want to say that your thesis is “probably” right or that this evidence is “maybe” significant. Stand by your assertions, even if they may not be as solid as you’d like. Make sure you thoroughly address limitations, challenges, and/or competing views to your claims in the text as well, though.
• Colloquial language, slang, overly informal language, contractions, and regionalized language are all typically poor choices for inclusion in a dissertation. Do not include them unless they are essential to your topic.

• In order to save time and keep track of your citations, cite your sources as you write. You can make this job easier by using bibliographic software such as EndNote, Zotero, or Refworks.
• You can emphasize when ideas are coming from you, and also that they are supported by others, through your phrasing and citing. For instance: “String cheese is delicious and fun because it's cheese and you can play with it. Further evidence of this can be found in Dr. Mickey’s and Dr. Minnie’s work on the subject.”
• Particularly bold claims or ideas that challenge accepted narratives definitely need to be cited. You need to build a strong base of support for such stand-out assertions.
• If there is any doubt in your mind about whether you should cite something, just cite it. The answer is probably yes anyway!

• Writing a dissertation is a back-and-forth process of writing, getting feedback, revising, getting more feedback, and so on. Don’t get frustrated—this is how it’s supposed to work!
• Peers who are also writing dissertations make a great resource for getting feedback. They’ll also be eager to commiserate about the occasional joys and ample frustrations of the process!

• Make sure to give yourself at least a few weeks to deal with formatting issues. Many universities have very strict formatting requirements, and you may need to make multiple rounds of corrections before you can get your dissertation approved for final submission.
• Your advisor can help guide you through the formatting and style requirements. Departmental or program secretaries are also often fantastic resources.
• Read through your work often to find spelling and grammar mistakes. Minor errors like these can disrupt the flow of your work and make your claims and analysis less compelling.

Expert Q&A

• If you ever feel that you are under so much pressure that you would prefer to plagiarize, talk with someone immediately, and seek help from your adviser and other people you trust. Cheating is never an answer, and you will always have to live in fear of being discovered if you do cheat. Just don't do it. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Only discuss the in-depth ideas for your dissertation with people you trust. If you tell everyone in academia all of your ideas, don't be surprised if someone else takes your idea and writes about it, too. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.dissertation.html
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/dissertations/
• ↑ https://chroniclevitae.com/news/370-the-no-fail-secret-to-writing-a-dissertation

About this article

To write a dissertation, start by creating on outline to establish the structure of the paper. Next, begin with an engaging, relatively accessible introduction to the topic. After the introduction, dive into other scholars’ relevant research, then introduce your own original evidence. Address disparities between your research and pre-existing research by arguing why your research is correct, then write a conclusion to wrap everything up. For some tips on citing your sources, keep reading! Did this summary help you? Yes No

Did this article help you?

• About wikiHow
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Thesis and Dissertation: Getting Started

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The resources in this section are designed to provide guidance for the first steps of the thesis or dissertation writing process. They offer tools to support the planning and managing of your project, including writing out your weekly schedule, outlining your goals, and organzing the various working elements of your project.

Weekly Goals Sheet (a.k.a. Life Map) [Word Doc]

This editable handout provides a place for you to fill in available time blocks on a weekly chart that will help you visualize the amount of time you have available to write. By using this chart, you will be able to work your writing goals into your schedule and put these goals into perspective with your day-to-day plans and responsibilities each week. This handout also contains a formula to help you determine the minimum number of pages you would need to write per day in order to complete your writing on time.

Setting a Production Schedule (Word Doc)

This editable handout can help you make sense of the various steps involved in the production of your thesis or dissertation and determine how long each step might take. A large part of this process involves (1) seeking out the most accurate and up-to-date information regarding specific document formatting requirements, (2) understanding research protocol limitations, (3) making note of deadlines, and (4) understanding your personal writing habits.

Creating a Roadmap (PDF)

Part of organizing your writing involves having a clear sense of how the different working parts relate to one another. Creating a roadmap for your dissertation early on can help you determine what the final document will include and how all the pieces are connected. This resource offers guidance on several approaches to creating a roadmap, including creating lists, maps, nut-shells, visuals, and different methods for outlining. It is important to remember that you can create more than one roadmap (or more than one type of roadmap) depending on how the different approaches discussed here meet your needs.

Dissertation Fellowships 2023-2024

• Edit source
• View history
• Recent changes

This page is for dissertation fellowships awarded for the academic year 2023–2024 (including research fellowships, dissertation completion fellowships, and other predoctoral opportunities).

• March 2024 note: THIS IS LAST YEAR'S PAGE. For updates on fellowships that start in Fall 2024, please go here: Dissertation Fellowships 2023-24
• New 7/30/23: Next year's page Dissertation Fellowships 2023-24 . N.B. I am changing the naming convention for this page to match all other pages on this wiki. The years in the title are the APPLICATION YEAR not the year the job/fellowship starts/runs. So the new year's page has almost the same name as last year's. Next year the name will match all other pages for that year.
• This is the page for dissertation fellowships to be awarded for the 2024-25 year: Dissertation Fellowships 2023-24
• Last year's page: Dissertation Fellowships 2022-2023
• Please add calls and information!

See also fellowship discussions at TheGradCafe: The Bank

• 1 RECENT ACTIVITY on Dissertation Fellowships 2023-2024
• 2 Fellowships for 2023-2024
• 3 AAUW American and International Fellowship
• 4 ACLS Dissertation Innovation Fellowship
• 5 ACLS / Mellon Dissertation Completion Fellowships
• 6 AERA Minority Dissertation Fellowship Program in Education Research
• 7 Alvin H. Johnson AMS 50 Dissertation Fellowships
• 8 American Academy in Rome, Rome Prize
• 9 American Philosophical Society Predoctoral Fellowship
• 10 American-Scandinavian Foundation (ASF) Fellowships & Grants for Americans
• 11 American Sociological Association Minority Fellows Program
• 12 Augustana College Diversity Fellowship Program
• 13 Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Research Fellowships, Harvard University
• 14 Boren Fellowship
• 15 Boston College AADS (African and African Diaspora Studies) Dissertation Fellowship
• 16 CAA Professional Development Fellowship
• 17 CAORC Mediterranean Regional Research Fellowship
• 18 CAORC Multi-Country Research Fellowship
• 19 Carter G. Woodson Pre-Doctoral/Post-Doctoral Fellowship (University of Virginia)
• 20 Carter Manny Award
• 21 CASVA Pre-Doctoral Fellowship, National Gallery of Art
• 22 Center for Engaged Scholarship Dissertation Fellowship
• 23 Center for Jewish History Dissertation Fellowship
• 24 Center for Military History Dissertation Fellowship
• 25 Center for Curatorial Leadership CCL/Mellon Foundation Seminar
• 26 Charlotte W. Newcombe Dissertation Fellowship
• 27 Chateaubriand Fellowship (STEM and HSS)
• 28 Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation Dissertation Fellowship
• 29 Consortium for Faculty Diversity (Dissertation and Postdoctoral Fellowship Fellowships)
• 30 Consortium for History of Science, Medicine, and Technology Dissertation Fellowship
• 31 Crystal Bridges Tyson Scholars Program
• 32 DAAD Graduate Research Fellowship
• 33 Dartmouth College Chávez/Eastman/Marshall Dissertation Fellowship
• 34 Dolores Liebmann Fellowship
• 35 Dumbarton Oaks Junior Fellowship
• 36 Emslie Horniman Anthropological Scholarship Fund
• 37 Ernest May Fellowship in History and Policy
• 38 Ford Foundation Dissertation Fellowship
• 39 Frederick Douglass Institute for African and African-American Studies Pre-doctoral Fellowship
• 40 Frick Anne L. Poulet Curatorial Fellowship
• 41 Fulbright IIE Study/Research Grants
• 42 Fulbright Hays DDRA
• 43 Gaius Charles Bolin Dissertation Fellowship
• 44 Getty Pre- and Postdoctoral Fellowship
• 45 Getty Library Research Grant
• 46 Graduate Women in Science National Fellowship Program
• 47 Harry Frank Guggenheim Emerging Scholar Award
• 48 Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies Academy Scholars Program
• 49 Henry Luce/ACLS Dissertation Fellowship in American Art
• 50 Hobart and William Smith - Fisher Center Predoctoral Fellowship
• 51 Home Grown Curatorial Fellowship
• 52 Horowitz Fellowship
• 53 Huntington Library Fellowship
• 54 IGCC Dissertation Fellowship
• 55 IHR Doctoral Fellowship (Scouloudi, Thornley, RHS)
• 56 Institute for Turkish Studies Dissertation Writing Grant
• 57 Ithaca College Pre-Doctoral Diversity Fellowship
• 58 Japan Foundation Japanese Studies Fellowship
• 59 Jefferson Scholars Foundation National Fellowship (UVA)
• 60 Jennings Randolph Peace Scholarship Dissertation Program
• 61 John Carter Brown Library Fellowships
• 62 Josephine de Karman Fellowship
• 63 H Center for Anatolian Civilizations Residential Fellowship
• 64 Kress Foundation History of Art Institutional Fellowships
• 65 Lake Institute Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship
• 66 Lewis and Clark Fund for Exploration and Field Research
• 67 Louisville Institute Dissertation Fellowship
• 68 Mabelle McLeod Lewis Memorial Fund
• 69 Marilyn Yarbrough Dissertation/Teaching Fellowship (Kenyon College)
• 70 Mellon-CES Dissertation Completion Fellowship in European Studies
• 71 Metropolitan Museum of Art, Art History Fellowships
• 72 Minerva-USIP Peace and Security Scholarship
• 73 Mitchem Dissertation Fellowship Program (Marquette University)
• 74 MIT SHASS Diversity Predoctoral Fellowship
• 75 Morgan Library Fellowships
• 76 NAEd/Spencer Dissertation Fellowship Program
• 77 NSF Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant
• 78 New York Botanical Gardens Humanities Institute Research Fellowship
• 79 Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study
• 80 Penn Predoctoral Fellowships for Excellence through Diversity
• 81 RBS-Mellon Society of Fellows in Critical Bibliography
• 82 Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation for Buddhist Studies/ACLS Dissertation Fellowship
• 83 Smith Richardson Foundation, World Politics & Statecraft Fellowship
• 84 Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program (SIFP) (Predoctoral)
• 85 SHAFR Marilyn Blatt Young Dissertation Completion Fellowship
• 86 Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) Research Grants
• 87 Soroptimist [Founder Region Fellowship]
• 88 SPFFA Bourse Marandon
• 89 SSRC Data Fluencies Dissertation Grant
• 90 Tobin Project Graduate Fellowship and Workshop
• 91 Tobin Project Prospectus Development Workshop
• 92 Tufts University Mellon Comparative Global Humanities Dissertation Fellowship
• 93 University of California @ Davis Provost's Dissertation Year Fellowship
• 94 UCLA Clark Library Predoctoral Fellowship
• 95 University of California Santa Barbara Black Studies Dissertation Fellowship
• 96 University of Southern California (USC) Shoah Foundation Center for Advanced Genocide Research Fellowships
• 97 UT Austin Harry Ransom Center Research Fellowships
• 98 Washington College - Part-time Fellowship in Literature, History, Culture, Art of the Americas before 1830
• 99 Weatherhead Fellowship (SAR Residential Fellows Program)
• 100 Wenner-Gren Dissertation Fieldwork Grant
• 101 Winterthur Dissertation Fellowship
• 102 Woodrow Wilson Dissertation Fellowship in Women's Studies
• 103 Yale ISS Smith Richardson Predoctoral Fellowship
• 104 Yale ISS Henry A. Kissinger Predoctoral Fellowship
• 105 General Discussion

RECENT ACTIVITY on Dissertation Fellowships 2023-2024 [ ]

Recent Edits

63.92.3.228: /* Ernest May Fellowship in History and Policy */ - 63.92.3.228 - 2024/03/05 19:49

5120j at 14:15, 4 March 2024 - 5120j - 2024/03/04 14:15

68.237.33.226: /* Carter G. Woodson Pre-Doctoral/Post-Doctoral Fellowship (University of Virginia) */ - 68.237.33.226 - 2024/03/04 03:42

24.103.98.23: /* NAEd/Spencer Dissertation Fellowship Program */ - 24.103.98.23 - 2024/03/01 13:12

119.110.68.177: /* Ernest May Fellowship in History and Policy */ - 119.110.68.177 - 2024/02/15 19:07

Subscribe to RSS Feed for This Page: http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Dissertation_Fellowships_2023-2024?feed=rss&action=history

View page history: https://academicjobs.wikia.org/wiki/Dissertation_Fellowships_2023-2024?action=history

Fellowships for 2023-2024 [ ]

Aauw american and international fellowship [ ].

Anthropology x2

American studies x1

Geography x1

Statistics x1

4/14 has anyone heard anything? Usually if the 15th falls on a Saturday they announce the results on the 14fh.

4/15: Website now says everyone will be notified on 4/17. So, two more days of waiting.

4/17 9 am ET: Rejection. Good morning! Really wish they told us why they rejected it.

4/17 9 am ET: Rejection! Same, I would love some feedback. Good luck everyone!

4/17 9 am ET: Designated as an alternate. Anyone know how often alternates are awarded funding? Any historical data?

I was an alternate last year and didn’t get it. I’m not sure how they decide it.

Did you hear of any alternates who did receive the award (or others who did not)? I do wish they would publish application count and acceptance rates or some other metrics to provide information about this process

4/17 9:00AM ET: Rejection. Nice way to wake up.....

ACLS Dissertation Innovation Fellowship [ ]

Applied: Art History

Applied: Gender Studies

Applied: U.S. History

Applied: French

Applied: History

3/15: Has anyone heard back? - nothing yet x7

3/17: eep, still nothing. do you think all 7 of us are rejects? lol

lol no one in my network has heard either! one of their webinars that I went gave me the vibe that they were p disorganised with this fellowship and kinda clueless abt what they wanted. plz ask around in your networks tho, this wait isn’t fun

• Agreed!!! The webinars were a mess and the instructions were super unclear. Very strange application. I'm in the humanities and it sure looks like the ACLS is starting to consolidate a lot of their grants, which is unfortunate. We are ALL competing for one award with loose parameters. Honestly, they are probably trying to review 8,000 applications that are all over the place in terms of quality and focus. The application also says late March, so I don't think it's over yet.
• Yup this seems like a guinea pig app cycle to define what they mean by “innovation” lol! Although there may perhaps not be that many applicants because it was quite poorly advertised (I think!). The app says late March? I didn’t know, that’s helpful!
• Like most of everything else specific about that application, that detail is buried. ;)
• Gender Studies person here: still nothing and agreed that this wait is 100% dreadful. Hard to apply for something that has no app cycle precedent and yet expects so much work up front for the app materials. :’)
• Thank you for this info! Fingers crossed for us all!

3/21: any news? - nope x9 - ngl I'm so close to mcfreakin' losin it - gaah same!

All I know is that something must happen by next week. -- yeah it says "end of March" so max a week more before we're put out of our misery ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

22/3: just got an acceptance email! Goodest luck to everyone else.x2

Me too. Can't believe this! Till 29th to accept or decline.

Congratulations! any other news? - I second that, CONGRATS y’all! Celebrate hard!

the email is asking for confirmation of acceptance as well as eligibility via your department/school by the 29th of March so I think that’s when they’ll be letting alternates know (?). it also says there were nearly 700 applicants this round.x2

Has anyone gotten an explicit rejection yet? I haven’t gotten any emails today and trying to gauge whether there’s any reason to hope, lol <-- I have the same question. Are they rolling out acceptances? If we haven't heard, are we rejected? etc...

3-23/ looking at previous years' threads, I think we still got a slim chance as alternates. But my guess is that they already sent all the acceptance letters yesterday (the two persons here, and another person on twitter, who later deleted the post...).

Yea, I know a bunch of people ragged on this in previous years but I still do not see the logic in sending out rejects way later. It's a bit odd. And I sort of feel like most people will accept the award given that this isn't during the completion stage where jobs and whatnot change people's plans. I think all the rest of us are all rejects! But at least there are more rejects than not rejects! And super congrats to those who did get it!

3/25--Has anyone heard anything about an alternative position? Nope x3

3/29 - I am still "waiting" to see if they officially notify alternates/rejections. So, if you're also doing that, just know you're not alone. I hope we get some kind of closure in the next 24-48 hours given the deadline to accept is today. x2

3/30 - ^ Update: Just received an official rejection via email and an offer to submit a request to view feedback. (x4)

4/6- Has anyone still not heard back (either acceptance or rejection)? I haven't received anything yet...<-- check with your grad program coordinator, there was a problem in some cases with the application and the "personal email" field got merged with the grad coordinator email. <--thanks for this. I don't see a grad coordinator email on my application print anywhere (and I'm not sure who that would be) but I'll email the OFA help email address.

ACLS / Mellon Dissertation Completion Fellowships [ ]

Aera minority dissertation fellowship program in education research [ ].

4/23- Anyone knows when they will notify the applicants?

[4/24] - I haven't heard anything but it seems like it should be around this time period so fingers crossed.

4/26 - Still haven't heard or seen anything posted anywhere. Assuming its a rejection as results are supposed to come out May 1st

5/1 - Still haven’t heard anything. Anyone else?

Haven't heard anything either. The big AERA conference wrapped up not too long ago and they're launching the virtual part 2 soon so maybe they're behind or acceptances already went out and rejections are coming out in May

5/2 - Same. I emailed them this morning asking when we might expect a decision.

^ Did they give any update on the notification timeline?

5/4 - I also emailed a couple weeks ago and still haven't heard back. Hopefully we will hear back soon after the virtual conference is over.

5/4 - No, they have not replied to my email yet :(

5/5 - Haven't heard anything. I don't even have any girl scout cookies to soothe me either.

[5/9] - Have not heard anything still. Anyone else?

5/9 - I saw online–posted 22 hours ago– that someone has received an acceptance for the 2023-2024 year. I imagine that means acceptance emails went out already.

5/10 - Notified that I was not awarded the fellowship but was offered a travel award

Alvin H. Johnson AMS 50 Dissertation Fellowships [ ]

American academy in rome, rome prize [ ].

Applied: art history x3 (I would love to know which fields the other two art historians applied to..."art history" is not a Rome Prize category. I am an art historian, too, but I applied in Ancient Studies. More info would be appreciated!)

02/14 - I'm one of the art historians above. I applied in Renaissance and early modern studies...and haven't heard anything yet regarding my application. (Update 02/16 - Just received a kind email letting me know I was not selected. Good luck to the others who applied!)

2/15 - ah ok, thank you!! I haven’t heard anything either. I would love to know which field the person who got the interview applied to, haha

Interview requested by email Feb. 6; for me I heard Jan 27

2/22 Update: interviews for all tracks were conducted yesterday, everyone should hear back by March 1.

3/1 - Early Modernist finalist here - I sadly received my rejection today.

American Philosophical Society Predoctoral Fellowship [ ]

American-scandinavian foundation (asf) fellowships & grants for americans [ ], american sociological association minority fellows program [ ], augustana college diversity fellowship program [ ], belfer center for science and international affairs research fellowships, harvard university [ ], boren fellowship [ ], boston college aads (african and african diaspora studies) dissertation fellowship [ ].

3/1- Rejection Email

CAA Professional Development Fellowship [ ]

1/20-- Informed of Honorable Mention

CAORC Mediterranean Regional Research Fellowship [ ]

Caorc multi-country research fellowship [ ], carter g. woodson pre-doctoral/post-doctoral fellowship (university of virginia) [ ].

-has anyone heard? They said March, so starting to wonder!

Carter Manny Award [ ]

Research Award (applied x1)

CASVA Pre-Doctoral Fellowship, National Gallery of Art [ ]

2/8 haven't heard anything yet

2/9 notified of rejection after the selection committee's final meeting on Feb. 4

Center for Engaged Scholarship Dissertation Fellowship [ ]

Applied (Psychology focus)

Sociology x1

2/17 Received rejection after the first round of reviews. Reviewer comments were not available.

3/14 - I haven't heard anything. Has anyone else?

3/14 - I still haven't heard anything (anthropology)

3/27- I know its been later in April that the notification comes out but still would be nice to have an official time frame....

4/11 - Any news?

(4/12) - Haven't heard anything. Seems like last year some folks learned if they weren't advancing to the final round around this time so maybe no news is good news?

[4/15] notified that I was selected as an alternate (weird that they did so on a Saturday???) and they're waiting to see if anyone declines their offer. Did not state where I was on the list but did say that there were 7 awardees and 5 alternates in total out of 140 applicants.

4/17 - Oh wow, I still haven't heard anything... Will be frantically refreshing my inbox all day. Congrats on getting selected as an alternate and fingers crossed for you!

^ Thanks! - I'm waiting on something else so will decline as soon as I hear from that so someone can take my spot!

^ Winners have been finalized and the announcement is going up on May 5th I believe

Center for Jewish History Dissertation Fellowship [ ]

Center for military history dissertation fellowship [ ], center for curatorial leadership ccl/mellon foundation seminar [ ].

Anyone heard back from them?

2/26 I haven't heard anything yet. x3

3/16 still nothing x 3

3.27 still nothing

3.28 request for interview

Charlotte W. Newcombe Dissertation Fellowship [ ]

World Art and Culture

Art History

Comparative Literature

2/28 - notified of finalist status (History of Science and Medicine)

2/28 - finalist notification at 6:55PM EST. (Musicology)

2/28 - notified of rejection (Philosophy) - congrats to the finalists!

2/28 - notified of rejection (Anthropology)

Chateaubriand Fellowship (STEM and HSS) [ ]

Applied (HSS)

5/10 Has anyone heard back? Any ideas when it might happen?

5/12 Accepted via email (hum/SS)

5/12 Waiting list (HUM)

5/17 Any STEM news?

5/18 Accepted via email (STEM)

Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation Dissertation Fellowship [ ]

Consortium for faculty diversity (dissertation and postdoctoral fellowship fellowships) [ ].

French studies

5/3 Anyone applied to this and has had any communication? For future reference, predoctoral fellowships are very very rare, I wish I hadn't wasted my time applying.

Consortium for History of Science, Medicine, and Technology Dissertation Fellowship [ ]

Crystal bridges tyson scholars program [ ].

Notifications went out in Feb

DAAD Graduate Research Fellowship [ ]

Dartmouth college chávez/eastman/marshall dissertation fellowship [ ].

3/8 interview Chavez

3/9 interview Chávéz, rejection 3/16

3/13 Received request for LOR/Marshall

Dolores Liebmann Fellowship [ ]

Dumbarton oaks junior fellowship [ ].

02/10: rejection received

Emslie Horniman Anthropological Scholarship Fund [ ]

Ernest may fellowship in history and policy [ ].

2/10 haven't heard anything yet/no change on the website

2/15 has anyone been in touch them? The portal said that results would be out by today.

3/5 still no word

Ford Foundation Dissertation Fellowship [ ]

Applied (Psychology)

Applied (Art History, American Art)

Applied (French Studies)

Applied (Art History, Latinx Studies/Latin America)

3/16 still nothing but final panel meetings are tomorrow. I imagine we'll all know very soon!

3/22 Results are rolling out today

3/22- Psychology focus: got an HM with very positive reviews :( I do think I messed up with my annotated bib (submitted an incomplete document) and struggled with condensing my dissertation which is huge.

3/22- humanities- rejection, one detailed comment with constructive criticism. Congrats to HMs and awardees!

3/22 – humanities – acceptance. Two reviewers comments out of 5.

Frederick Douglass Institute for African and African-American Studies Pre-doctoral Fellowship [ ]

Did anyone apply for this?

Frick Anne L. Poulet Curatorial Fellowship [ ]

Fulbright iie study/research grants [ ].

1/31 Semi-finalists were notified between early Jan and Jan 25 (the majority being the latter). There is a Slack with more information and some friendly discourse: https://app.slack.com/client/T038SRCUHJA/C038ZF1D6HH?cdn_fallback=2

Fulbright Hays DDRA [ ]

Gaius charles bolin dissertation fellowship [ ], getty pre- and postdoctoral fellowship [ ].

(2/10) No updates yet

3/8 Applied.

Anyone hear back?

Getty Library Research Grant [ ]

Graduate women in science national fellowship program [ ], harry frank guggenheim emerging scholar award [ ].

Musicology/Interdisciplinary

Interdisciplinary

6/9: Any rejections or acceptances so far? Has anyone been in touch with organization about this year's decision timeline?

6/9: I was in touch with them in April to confirm that my application was complete and eligible because I had not received an acknowledgment of my submission. They said we would hear “in June” but they did not specify when exactly. Given past years I think it’ll still take a while. I don’t expect to hear anything until maybe the end of next week or even later.

6/10: Thank you!

6/13 Called the office today. They said decisions will be communicated in the next week or so. Board meeting is this week.

6/13: Thanks for doing that! I expected as much, but it’s good to have some sort of timeline. Good luck to you! I will post as soon as I get a response, positive or negative. (x2! - 6/14)

6/14 Good luck to you as well! (x2)

6/15 Rejection received 9:55 am EST. Hope others fared better!

6/15: also received a rejection at 9:35 am EST

Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies Academy Scholars Program [ ]

Henry luce/acls dissertation fellowship in american art [ ].

1/30 Announcements for finalists have gone out. Alternates should hear back about whether or not they move to finalist status by the end of February.

How many of us applied this year?

2/8 and haven't heard anything. Guessing it's a lost cause then, right?

2/10: you could be an alternate. Decisions went out so early this year! I bet people are still finalizing plans/waiting to hear back on other fellowships & positions.

2/13: has anyone gotten a rejection notice yet? still radio silence over here...

2/14 I received a notification of my status as an alternate on 1/31 so fingers crossed that it pulls through in the next two weeks! They said they’d give a final answer by the end of Feb

3/1 Notification received

Hobart and William Smith - Fisher Center Predoctoral Fellowship [ ]

Home grown curatorial fellowship [ ], horowitz fellowship [ ], huntington library fellowship [ ].

• acceptance email arrived 7 March, details to come re: length of short-term fellowship. x2
• Has anyone received rejections yet? Thought they typically went out at the same time as acceptances?

IGCC Dissertation Fellowship [ ]

Ihr doctoral fellowship (scouloudi, thornley, rhs) [ ], institute for turkish studies dissertation writing grant [ ], ithaca college pre-doctoral diversity fellowship [ ].

Has anyone heard any updates? 2/19.

Japan Foundation Japanese Studies Fellowship [ ]

Jefferson scholars foundation national fellowship (uva) [ ], jennings randolph peace scholarship dissertation program [ ], john carter brown library fellowships [ ], josephine de karman fellowship [ ].

Any news for others?

H Center for Anatolian Civilizations Residential Fellowship [ ]

Kress foundation history of art institutional fellowships [ ].

• 5/9: notifications sent
• Leiden Leiden University Centre for the Arts in Society (LUCAS)
• London Courtauld Institute of Art & Warburg Institute (jointly administered)
• rejection sent in January
• Paris Institut national d'histoire de l'art (INHA) / National Institute for the History of Art
• Interviews set for beginning of March
• 3/15: notifications sent

4/24 - some people are still waiting to hear back. Any news for anyone?

• 4/28 - Still waiting to hear from KHI
• 5/8 - Still nothing from the KHI. Anyone else hear anything?

Lake Institute Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship [ ]

Lewis and clark fund for exploration and field research [ ], louisville institute dissertation fellowship [ ].

Applied 2/1

Mabelle McLeod Lewis Memorial Fund [ ]

3.27 - Placed on alternate list. “We expect to finalize the awards on/by April 21”

3/27 - rejected

5/02 - Does anyone have any updates?

Marilyn Yarbrough Dissertation/Teaching Fellowship (Kenyon College) [ ]

Feb 14, 2024 - any news on this fellowship? Any developments

3/2- Virtual Interview

3/3-Invited for On-Campus Interview at the end of the month.

Mellon-CES Dissertation Completion Fellowship in European Studies [ ]

Metropolitan museum of art, art history fellowships [ ].

2/5: Acceptances went out last week

Accepted x1

Minerva-USIP Peace and Security Scholarship [ ]

Mitchem dissertation fellowship program (marquette university) [ ].

Communication Studies

3/27--Anyone heard anything?

3/27–^nothing yet since verification of materials back in early march

4/14- anybody heard anything? As per their website: "Finalists will be notified by mid-March 2023 and invited to campus for interviews. Awards will be made by mid-April 2023."

4/18- contacted them, was told that due to large number of qualified applicants they need more weeks (unspecified number) to announce the fellows

5/3- any updates?

5/15- still haven't heard anything from them and portal still says "in progress."

5/25- for future applicants, still nothing as of May 25; was told that I would hear soon back in mid-April. Basically, no notification by mid-May is probably a rejection.

7/23- Notified that they decided not to take anybody for the 2023-2024 academic year. An earlier mention that this was even a possibility would have been much appreciated.

MIT SHASS Diversity Predoctoral Fellowship [ ]

Applied (Anthropology focus)

(3/9) Does anyone know when we hear back?

3/19 No, but the wiki for last year's says that people got a notification the first week of April. Personally I haven't heard anything.

^ 3/27 - Yeah me either. Was hoping for an earlier notification but hopefully we hear back in a week and a half.

(4/4) - Anyone hear back?

4/4-^Have not heard back yet--really hoping we hear back soon, need to make some plans for the second half of the year.

^ Same. Also does anyone know if the fellowship has to be in-person (or could it be virtual/hybrid)? I tried emailing and got no response

4/5 - Also waiting...MIT's spring break ended March 25 last year and March 31 this year, so we might also be a week later for notifications?

^ NOOOOOooo!!! Although now that I want it so bad its a guarantee I won't get it. Funding your education shouldn't be so annoying

- 4/12 - Anyone heard back?

(4/12) - Haven't heard anything. But one of my letters may of may not have gone through so no super hopeful at this point. Also makes sense if they're notifying a week later so we may possibly hear on the 14th?

4/12 - Haven't heard either. Seems like there are at least three of us checking here. Please post if you hear anything regardless of result!

4/14 Well, as always, I am on the verge of patiently waiting :) Really would like to hear a likely result of rejection and spend a few days of coping and carry on a new project. This timeline is stretching a bit too long!

4/14 ^^Same! No notification as of now. If we don't hear back today I guess we can just be sure that last year they just notified unusually early--it seems other years most people heard around April 20-24.

(4/14) - haven't heard either but didn't realize that they notified so late in previous years so that helps. I'm also waiting for CES as well and really don't want two back to back rejections :/

4/14 - Well, Today wasn't the day either. Please post if you hear anything next week.

4/17 - Another day has passed...

(4/19) - Anyone hear anything?

4/19 - Received a letter of acceptance today. They've asked me to accept within a week's time (I will be accepting) - I imagine they might roll out another wave if people decline.

^^Congrats! Also I'm going to assume a rejection on my end then as I haven't heard anything. Bummed but at least the wait is over.

4/19 I received an offer letter and will accept - congrats to those who are offered fellowships. At least this there is sort of an end to this application cycle.

4/19 congrats to the awardees! to the other person here, I have also not heard anything. According to past year pages they really take their time with the rejections, if they send them at all...

^^Yeah that's why I'm writing them off now. It seems like way too much of a desirable fellowship for anyone to decline. On to the other apps!

4/19 Haven't heard anything. Congrats to the awardees! Would you mind mentioning the department you applied to?

4/21 ^I saw someone on twitter in a philosophy program who got it. It seems most years they get a variety of disciplines. I think I am also giving up on this one, if we are on a waitlist at all it is going to take a week or two for people to decline and for them to send acceptances.

4/21 - Thanks for the info! It was a long shot for me (I'm in a psych department even though my work is more Women&Gender studies/anthropology) so I could have been disqualified right off the bat or not up to par and everything in between lol. Hope everyone else is able to find some source of funding though! We all have great, deserving work.

4/24 - Anyone thinks we'll get a notification this week (4/24 - 4/28) ?

4/24- ^I suppose it's possible if they haven't sent all acceptances yet (last year they took 8 grads, I believe) or if any of the people given a week to reply say no. I wish I had a notification of some sort, not knowing is just nerve-wrecking.

5/3 has anybody heard anything (either acceptance or rejection)? I reached out to them and they *do not* respond.

5/8 - I haven't heard anything either. Seems in previous years they took a very long time to send rejections.

5/8 ^ Haven't hear anything. I'm *this* close to send an email asking for updates.

5/9 ^ You should, I contacted the fellowship email and honestly I do not think they are checking that email address. I contacted a dean last night hoping that maybe that would lead to a response--none so far.

5/12 - I had emailed them twice prior to submitting my application for clarification about eligibility and requirements and received no response so I really don't think they check that inbox.

5/12- ^Hmm, they did reply to one of my emails but that was back in December 2022. Anyhow, no updates here and the semester is about to end. I received an internal fellowship that wants a decision by the 15th, so it is likely neither MIT nor Marquette above will work. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some communication from these deans! I don't need daily updates about the search but to leave people in the dark for 5 months is just incredibly unprofessional.

5/15 - No news as of today. Hopefully this is the week we are notified.

5/25 anybody received their rejection yet? Nothing here, I may never receive it tbh

5/31 ^ Actually just received an official rejection; the email seems mass-sent and written by ChatGTP but hey, at least it was sent.

^ Lol same, like a little more effort would be appreciated after they asked for a full chapter.

5/31 - generic rejection received

Morgan Library Fellowships [ ]

Naed/spencer dissertation fellowship program [ ].

4/20 - notification of award

3/2 - notification of semifinalist

**2/29 - notification of semifinalist

NSF Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant [ ]

New york botanical gardens humanities institute research fellowship [ ], notre dame institute for advanced study [ ], penn predoctoral fellowships for excellence through diversity [ ], rbs-mellon society of fellows in critical bibliography [ ], robert h. n. ho family foundation for buddhist studies/acls dissertation fellowship [ ].

03/11 haven’t heard anything. Anyone has any news?

Smith Richardson Foundation, World Politics & Statecraft Fellowship [ ]

Smithsonian institution fellowship program (sifp) (predoctoral) [ ].

2/8 haven't heard anything x4

2/10 Word is they are in the home stretch. Successful applicants should hear back in the next ~2 weeks, probably after CAA.

2/15: Anyone else now seeing 2 applications in their portal? One SIFP and one for the specific site

• No x3 to the 2 applications in the portal - do we think this means anything?
• Yes, also seeing two applications - the complete one and a new one marked 'incomplete' created today for a particular museum
• Yes, seeing two applications, second posted on 2/21, both are marked submitted. Did the accepted folks have this too? Or, am I being too optimistic?

2/17: Received a call of provisional acceptance. Award letters should be out by 3/1 (+1, via email, also on 2/17)

2/21: Still haven't heard anything and only 1 application visible in the portal (x3)

3/1: Portal updated and status changed. Alternates will hear before/by early April

4/11: Still waiting to hear about alternate status...

4/17: Still no news re: alternate status...

4/24: Finally received confirmation of rejection. Been waiting since "before or by early April."

SHAFR Marilyn Blatt Young Dissertation Completion Fellowship [ ]

Society for historians of american foreign relations (shafr) research grants [ ], soroptimist [founder region fellowship] [ ], spffa bourse marandon [ ], ssrc data fluencies dissertation grant [ ], tobin project graduate fellowship and workshop [ ], tobin project prospectus development workshop [ ], tufts university mellon comparative global humanities dissertation fellowship [ ], university of california @ davis provost's dissertation year fellowship [ ], ucla clark library predoctoral fellowship [ ], university of california santa barbara black studies dissertation fellowship [ ], university of southern california (usc) shoah foundation center for advanced genocide research fellowships [ ], ut austin harry ransom center research fellowships [ ], washington college - part-time fellowship in literature, history, culture, art of the americas before 1830 [ ], weatherhead fellowship (sar residential fellows program) [ ].

3/24 Has anyone heard anything?

3/28 received rejection by email -- good luck to anyone still being considered!

Wenner-Gren Dissertation Fieldwork Grant [ ]

Winterthur dissertation fellowship [ ], woodrow wilson dissertation fellowship in women's studies [ ].

1/30 Has anyone heard anything from this? The application confirmation email said finalists will be hearing back in January, so is no news bad news with this one?

1/31 - Rejected, over 150 applicants

1/31- heard finalist, requested official transcript

Yale ISS Smith Richardson Predoctoral Fellowship [ ]

Yale iss henry a. kissinger predoctoral fellowship [ ], general discussion [ ].

dissertation

• 1.1 Etymology
• 1.2 Pronunciation
• 1.3.1 Alternative forms
• 1.3.2 Derived terms
• 1.3.3 Translations
• 1.4 Further reading
• 2.1 Etymology
• 2.2 Pronunciation
• 2.3.1 Descendants
• 2.4 Further reading

English [ edit ]

Etymology [ edit ].

From Latin dissertātiō , from dissertō .

Pronunciation [ edit ]

• ( Received Pronunciation ) IPA ( key ) : /ˌdɪsəˈteɪʃən/
• ( General American ) IPA ( key ) : /ˌdɪsɚˈteɪʃən/
• Rhymes: -eɪʃən

Noun [ edit ]

dissertation ( plural dissertations )

• A formal exposition of a subject , especially a research paper that students write in order to complete the requirements for a doctoral degree in the US and a non-doctoral degree in the UK; a thesis . write a dissertation write up a dissertation hand in a dissertation complete a dissertation
• A lengthy lecture on a subject; a treatise ; a discourse ; a sermon .

Alternative forms [ edit ]

• diss ( clipping )

Derived terms [ edit ]

• all but dissertation
• dissertational
• dissertationist
• dissertator
• doctoral dissertation
• predissertation

Translations [ edit ]

Further reading [ edit ].

• John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner , editors (1989), “dissertation”, in The Oxford English Dictionary , 2nd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press , →ISBN .

French [ edit ]

Borrowed from Latin dissertātiōnem , from dissertō .

• IPA ( key ) : /di.sɛʁ.ta.sjɔ̃/

dissertation   f ( plural dissertations )

• dissertation , essay Synonyms: essai , composition , rédaction

Descendants [ edit ]

• “ dissertation ”, in Trésor de la langue française informatisé [ Digitized Treasury of the French Language ] , 2012.

• English terms derived from Proto-Indo-European
• English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *ser- (bind)
• English terms borrowed from Latin
• English terms derived from Latin
• English 4-syllable words
• English terms with IPA pronunciation
• English terms with audio links
• Rhymes:English/eɪʃən
• Rhymes:English/eɪʃən/4 syllables
• English lemmas
• English nouns
• English countable nouns
• English terms with collocations
• French terms borrowed from Latin
• French terms derived from Latin
• French 4-syllable words
• French terms with IPA pronunciation
• French terms with audio links
• French lemmas
• French nouns
• French countable nouns
• French feminine nouns
• Mandarin terms with redundant transliterations
• Japanese terms with redundant script codes
• Vietnamese terms with redundant script codes
• Requests for translations into Mandarin

Navigation menu

Kant's Inaugural Dissertation of 1770

De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et Principiis

Dissertation on the Form and Principles of the Sensible and the Intelligible World

• 1.1 Paragraph 1
• 1.2 Paragraph 2
• 2.1 Paragraph 3
• 2.2 Paragraph 4
• 2.3 Paragraph 5
• 2.4 Paragraph 6
• 2.5 Paragraph 7
• 2.6 Paragraph 8
• 2.7 Paragraph 9
• 2.8 Paragraph 10
• 2.9 Paragraph 11
• 2.10 Paragraph 12
• 3.1 Paragraph 13
• 3.2 Paragraph 14 OF TIME
• 3.3.1 COROLLARY
• 4.1 Paragraph 16
• 4.2 Paragraph 17
• 4.3 Paragraph 18
• 4.4 Paragraph 19
• 4.5 Paragraph 20
• 4.6 Paragraph 21
• 4.7.1 SCHOLIUM
• 5.1 Paragraph 23
• 5.2 Paragraph 24
• 5.3 Paragraph 25
• 5.4 Paragraph 26
• 5.5 Paragraph 27
• 5.6 Paragraph 28
• 5.7 Paragraph 29
• 5.8 Paragraph 30

SECTION I [ edit ]

ON THE IDEA OF A WORLD IN GENERAL

Paragraph 1 [ edit ]

As the analysis of a substantial composite terminates only in a part which is not a whole, that is, in a simple part , so synthesis terminates only in a whole which is not a part, that is, the world .

In this exposition of the underlying concept I have had regard not only to the marks pertaining to the distinct cognition of the object, but somewhat also to the two-fold genesis of the concept from the nature of the mind, which, being serviceable to a method of deeper metaphysical insight, by way of example appears to me not a little commendable. For it is one thing, the parts being given, to conceive the composition of the whole by an abstract notion of the intellect, and another thing to follow out this general notion considered as a problem of the reason by the cognitive sensuous faculty, that is, to represent it to one’s self in the concrete by a distinct intuition. The former is done through the class concept by composition , as several things are contained either under it or mutually, and hence by intellectual and universal ideas. The latter rests on the conditions of time, inasmuch as the concept of a composite is possible genetically, that is by synthesis , by the successive union of part to part, and falls under the laws of intuition . Similarly, a substantial composite being given, we easily attain to the idea of the simple parts by the general removal of the intellectual notion of composition; for what remains after the removal of conjunction are the simple parts. But according to the laws of intuitive cognition this is not done, that is, all composition is not removed, except by a regress from the given whole to any possible parts whatsoever—in other words, by an analysis again resting on the condition of time. [1] But since in order to a composite a multiplicity , in order to a whole, the allness , of parts is required, neither the analysis nor the synthesis will be complete; hence neither by the former will the concept of the simple part emerge, nor by the latter the concept of the whole , unless either can be gone through within a time that is finite and assignable.

But since in a continuous quantity the regress from the whole to assignable parts, and in an infinite quantity the progress from the parts to the given whole are endless , complete analysis in the one and complete synthesis in the other direction are impossible; hence neither the whole in the first case as to composition , nor the composite in the latter case as to totality can be thought completely in accordance with the laws of intuition. Unthinkable and impossible being vulgarly deemed to have the same meaning, it is plain why the concepts of the continuous as well as that of the infinite are rejected by most men as concepts whose representation according to the laws of intuitive cognition is impossible. Although I do not here champion these notions, especially not the first, which are considered exploded by many schools, still the following reminder is of the greatest moment. Those who use so perverse an argumentation have fallen into a grave error. [2] For whatever is repugnant to the laws of the intellect and reason is of course impossible, but that which being the object of pure reason does merely not fall under the laws of intuitive cognition is not so. For here the disagreement between the sensuous and the intellectual faculties, whose natures I shall presently explain, indicates nothing except that the abstract ideas which the mind has received from the intellect can often not be followed out in the concrete and converted into intuitions . This subjective difficulty generally feigns some objective repugnance and easily deceives the incautious, the limits by which the human mind is circumscribed being taken for those by which the essence of things themselves is contained.

Furthermore, as the argument from intellectual reasonings easily shows that substantial composites being given, whether by the testimony of the senses or otherwise, the simple parts and the world are also given, so does our definition point out causes contained in the nature of the subject why the notion of a world should not seem merely arbitrary and made up, as in mathematics, only for the sake of the deducible consequences. The mind intent upon resolving as well as compounding the concept of a composite demands and presumes boundaries in which it may acquiesce in the former as well as in the latter direction.

Paragraph 2 [ edit ]

In defining the World the following points require attention:

I. Matter (in the transcendental sense), that is, the parts which are here assumed to be substances . We might plainly be regardless of coincidence between our definition and the meaning of the common word, the question being, so to speak, of a problem arising in accordance with the laws of reasoning, namely, how several substances may coalesce into one, and on what condition rests this one’s being no part of another. But the force of the word World, as commonly used, of itself falls in with us. For no one will attribute accidents to the World as parts , but as determinations, states; hence the so-called world of the ego , unrestrained by the single substance and its accidents, is not very appositely called a World, unless, perhaps, an imaginary one. For the same reason it is not permissible to refer the successive series—namely, of states—as a part to the mundane whole; for modifications are not parts , but consequences of the subject. Finally, as to the nature of the substances constituting the world, I have not here called into debate whether they be contingent or necessary, nor do I hide such a determination unproved in the definition in order subsequently, as is sometimes done, to draw it thence by some specious argumentation. But I shall show further on that their contingency can be amply concluded from the conditions here posited.

II. Form , which consists in the co-ordination of the substances, not in their subordination. For co-ordinates are to be regarded as mutual complements to a whole, subordinates as effect and cause, or generally, as principle and consequence. The former relation is reciprocal and homonymous , any correlate in respect to any other being considered as at once determining and determined. The latter is heteronymous; on the one hand dependence only, causality on the other. This co-ordination is conceived as real and objective, not as ideal, and resting in the mere pleasure of a subject making up a whole by the summation of any multiplicity whatever. For the grasping of several things can by no contrivance be made a whole of representation , nor, for that reason, a representation of the whole . Therefore, if there be any totals of substances connected by no bond, a grasping of them together, the mind forcing the multiplicity into ideal oneness, will be called nothing more than a plurality of worlds comprehended in a single thought. But the connection constituting the essential form of a world is looked upon as the principle of the possible influences of the substances composing that world. For an actual influence pertains not to essence but to state, and the transitive forces, the causes of the influences, suppose some principle by which it is possible that the states of several things in other respects existing independently of each other are mutually related as consequences, which principle being abandoned, the possibility of transitive force in a world is an illicit assumption. And, furthermore, this form essential to the world is on that account immutable , and exposed to no vicissitude whatever. It is so in the first place for a logical reason, since any change supposes the identity of the subject with determinations succeeding one another in turn. Hence the world, remaining the same world through all the states succeeding one another, preserves the same fundamental form. For it does not suffice to the identity of the whole that all the parts be identical, the identity of characteristic composition is required also. But it follows especially from a real cause . For the nature of the world, which is the primary inner principle of whatever variable determinations may pertain to its state, never by any possibility being opposite to itself, is naturally, that is, by itself, immutable; hence there is given in any world whatever some form ascribable to its nature, constant and invariable, as the perennial principle of any contingent and transitory form pertaining to the state of the world. They who hold this disquisition superfluous are confuted by the concepts of space and time, conditions, as it were, given by their very own selves and primitive, by whose aid, that is to say, without any other principle, it is not only possible but necessary for several actual things to be regarded as reciprocally parts constituting a whole. But I shall show presently that these are plainly not rational notions, nor the bonds which they form objective ideas , but phenomena; and that though they witness, to be sure, some principle which is the common universal bond, it is not set forth by them.

III. Universality , which is the absolute allness of the appertaining parts. For, regard being had to any given composite, though it may be besides a part of another, still there always obtains a certain comparative allness, namely, that of the parts belonging to it as a particular quantity. But in this case whatsoever things are regarded as mutually parts of whatsoever whole, are understood to be conjointly posited. This absolute totality , apparently an everyday and perfectly obvious concept, especially when, as happens in the definition, it is enunciated negatively, when canvassed thoroughly becomes the crucial test of the philosopher. For it is scarce conceivable how the inexhaustible series of the states of the universe succeeding one another eternally be reducible to a whole comprehending all changes whatsoever. Since it is necessary to very infinitude to be without end , and hence no successive series is given but what is the part of another, completeness or absolute totality is by parity of reasoning plainly excluded. For although the notion of a part can be taken in a universal sense, and although everything contained under this notion, if regarded as posited in the same series, constitutes unity, yet the concept of the whole appears to exact their all being taken simultaneously , which in the case given is impossible. For, although to the whole series nothing succeeds, there is given in the succession no posited series to which nothing succeeds, unless it be the last. There will, then, in eternity be something which is last, which is absurd. Perhaps some may think that the difficulty which besets a successive infinite is absent from a simultaneous infinite , for the reason that apparently simultaneity plainly professes to embrace all at the same time . But, if the simultaneous infinite be admitted, the successive infinite also will have to be conceded, and the negation of the latter cancels the former. For the simultaneous infinite offers matters everlastingly inexhaustible to a successive progress in infinitum through its innumerable parts, which numberless series actually being given in the simultaneous infinite, a series though inexhaustible by successive addition could be given as a whole . In solution of the perplexing problem note; that both the successive and the simultaneous co-ordination of several things, since they rest upon the concept of time, do not pertain to the intellectual concept of a whole, but only to the conditions of sensuous intuition; hence though not sensuously conceivable, they do not on that score cease being intellectual concepts. For in order to the latter it suffices that co-ordinates be given, no matter how, and that they be thought of as all pertaining to a unit.

SECTION II [ edit ]

ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SENSIBLE AND THE INTELLIGIBLE GENERALLY

Paragraph 3 [ edit ]

Sensibility is the receptivity of a subject by which it is possible for its representative state to be affected in a certain way by the presence of some object. Intelligence , rationality, is the faculty of a subject by which it is able to represent to itself what by its quality cannot enter the senses. The object of sensibility is sensuous; what contains nothing but what is knowable by the intellect is intelligible. In the older schools the former was called phenomenon , the latter noumenon . To the extent to which knowledge is subject to the laws of sensuousness it is sensuous; to the extent to which it is subject to the laws of intelligence it is intellectual or rational.

Paragraph 4 [ edit ]

Since whatever is in sensuous knowledge depends upon the subject’s peculiar nature, as the latter is capable of receiving some modification or other from the presence of objects which on account of subjective variety may be different in different subjects, whilst whatever knowledge is exempt from such subjective condition regards the object only, it is plain that what is sensuously thought is the representation of things as they appear , while the intellectual presentations are the representations of things as they are . Now there is in sense representation something which may be called the matter , namely, the sensation , and in addition to this something which may be called the form , namely, the appearance of the sensible things, showing forth to what extent a natural law of the mind co-ordinates the variety of sensuous affections. Furthermore, as the sensation constituting the matter of sensuous representations argues, to be sure, the presence of something sensible, but depends as to quality on the nature of the subject, as the latter is modifiable by the object; exactly so does the form of that representation witness certainly some reference or relation among the sensuous percepts, but itself is not, as it were, the shadowing forth or outlining of the object, but only a certain law inherent in the mind for co-ordinating among themselves sensuous percepts arising from the presence of the object. For by form or appearance the objects do not strike the sense, hence in order that various sense-affecting objects may coalesce into some whole of representation, there is need of an inner principle of the mind by which, in accordance with stable and innate laws, that variety shall take on some appearance .

Paragraph 5 [ edit ]

To sensual cognition then pertains both the matter which is sensation and by which the knowledge is said to be sensual , and the form by which, even though we find it without any sensation, the representations are called sensuous . On the other hand, as to intellectual concepts, it is above all to be well noted that the use of the intellect, or of the superior faculty of the soul, is two-fold. By the first use are given the very concepts both of things and relations. This is the real use . By the second use they, whencesoever given, are merely by common marks subordinated to one another, the lower to the higher, and compared among themselves according to the principle of contradiction. This is called the logical use. The logical use of the intellect is common to all the sciences; the real use is not. For a cognition given in any wise is regarded either as contained under or as opposed to a mark common to several cognitions, and this either by immediate apposition, as in judgments in order to distinct cognition, or mediately, as in reasoning , in order to adequate cognition. Thus sensuous knowledge being given, sensuous percepts are by the logical use of the intellect subordinated to other sensuous percepts, as to common concepts, and phenomena to the more general laws of phenomena. In this connection it is of the greatest moment to note that cognitions must continue to be regarded as sensuous, no matter how great may have been the logical use of the intellect upon them. For they are called sensuous on account of their origin , not of their collation by identity and opposition. Hence, empirical laws, though of the greatest generality, are, nevertheless, sensual, and the principles of sensuous form in geometry, the relations in determinate space, however much the intellect arguing according to logical rules from what is sensuously given, by pure intuition, be employed upon them, do not for that matter pass beyond the class of sense-percepts. That in sense-percepts and phenomena which precedes the logical use of the intellect is called appearance , while the reflex knowledge originating from several appearances compared by the intellect is called experience . Thus there is no way from appearance to experience except by reflection according to the logical use of the intellect. The common concepts of experience are termed empirical , its objects phenomena , and the laws as well of experience as of all sensuous cognition generally are called the laws of phenomena. Empirical concepts, then, are not by a reduction to greater universality rendered intellectual in the real sense and do not transcend the species of sensuous cognition, but, however high abstraction may carry them, remain indefinitely sensuous.

Paragraph 6 [ edit ]

Now as to strictly intellectual concepts in which the use of the intellect is real . Such concepts both of objects and relations are given by the very nature of the intellect, are not abstracted from any use of the senses, and do not contain any form of sensuous knowledge as such. It is needful here to take note of the extreme ambiguity of the word abstract , which, in order not to confuse our disquisition on intellectual concepts, must be removed to begin with, for properly we should say abstract from some things , not abstract something . The former denotes that in a concept we give no attention to other matters in whatsoever way they may be connected with it; but the latter, that it is not given but in the concrete and so as to be separated from what it is conjoined with. Hence an intellectual concept abstracts from everything sensuous, it is not abstracted from sensuous things, and perhaps would be more correctly called abstracting than abstract . Intellectual concepts it is more cautious, therefore, to call pure ideas , and concepts given only empirically, abstract ideas.

Paragraph 7 [ edit ]

From the foregoing it will be seen that it is badly to expound the sensuous to call it the more confusedly known, and the intellectual the distinctly known. For these are only logical distinctions and plainly do not touch the data underlying all logical comparison. The sensuous may be exceedingly distinct, while intellectual concepts are extremely confused. The former we observe in the prototype of sensuous knowledge, geometry; the latter, in the organon of all intellectual concepts, metaphysics . It is evident how much toil the latter is expending to dispel the fogs of confusion darkening the common intellect, though not always with the happy success of the former science. Nevertheless, any cognition retains the marks of its origin, the former, however distinct, being called by genesis sensuous; the latter, no matter how confused, remaining intellectual, as for instance, the moral concepts, which are known not experientially but by the pure intellect itself. The writer fears that Wolf by the distinction between the sensuous and the intellectual, which to him is only logical, checked, perhaps wholly, and to the great detriment of philosophy, that noble enterprise of antiquity of discussing the nature of phenomena and noumena, turning us from the investigation of these to what are frequently but logical trifles.

Paragraph 8 [ edit ]

The primary philosophy containing the principles of the use of pure intellect is metaphysics . But there is a science propaedeutical to it, showing the distinction of sensuous cognition from intellectual, a specimen of which we present in this dissertation. Empirical principles not being found in metaphysics, the concepts to be met with in it are not then to be sought for in the senses, but in the very nature of pure intellect; not as connate notions, but as abstracted from laws whose seat is in the mind, by attending to the actions of the mind on the occasion of experience, and hence as acquired . Of this species are possibility, existence, necessity, substance, cause, etc., with their opposites and correlates, which, never entering as parts into any sensual representation, can by no means have been abstracted thence.

Paragraph 9 [ edit ]

The purpose of intellectual concepts is mainly twofold; in the first place refutative , by which they are of negative use, when, shutting off sensuous concepts from noumena, though not advancing science a hair’s breadth, they maintain however its immunity from the contagion of error. In the second place dogmatic , following which the general principles of pure intellect, such as are set forth in ontology or rational psychology, go forth into an exemplar inconceivable except by pure intellect, and the common measure of all other things considered as realities, namely, noumenal perfection . The latter is such either in the theoretical or in the practical sense. [3] In the former it is the highest being, God . In the latter sense, it is moral perfection . Moral philosophy , then, inasmuch as supplying the first principles of judgment , is not cognized except by pure intellect, and itself belongs to pure philosophy, and Epicurus reducing its criteria to deduction from the sense of pleasure or pain is rightly reprehended, together with some moderns following him a certain distance from afar, as Shaftesbury and his adherents. In any class of things having variable quantity the maximum is the common measure and the principle of cognition. Now the maximum of perfection is called ideal , by Plato, Idea—for instance, his Idea of a Republic—and is the principle of all that is contained under the general notion of any perfection, inasmuch as the lesser grades are not thought determinable but by limiting the maximum. But God, the Ideal of perfection, and hence the principle of cognition, is also, as existing really, the principle of the creation of all perfection.

Paragraph 10 [ edit ]

To man, no intuition of intellectual concepts is given, only symbolical cognition , and intellection is granted us only by universal concepts in the abstract, not by the concrete singular. For all intuition is restricted by some principle of form under which alone anything can be discerned by the mind immediately or as singular , and not merely conceived discursively by general concepts. This formal principle of our intuition—space and time—is the condition under which something can be an object of our senses, and hence as a condition of sensuous knowledge is not a medium for intellectual intuition. Besides, all the material of our cognition is given only by the senses, but the noumenon, as such, is not conceivable by representations drawn from sensations; hence the intellectual concept, as such, is destitute of all data of human intuition. For the intuition of our mind is always passive , and therefore possible only to the extent to which something can affect our senses. But the divine intuition, the cause—not the consequence, of objects, being independent, is the archetype, and hence perfectly intellectual.

Paragraph 11 [ edit ]

But although phenomena are properly the appearances of things, but not ideas, or express the inner and absolute quality of objects, their cognition is nevertheless of the truest. For in the first place, being apprehended sensual concepts, they, being consequences, witness the presence of the object, contrary to Idealism; and as regards judgments concerning that which is sensuously known, since truth in judging consists in the agreement of the predicate with the given subject, and since the concept of the subject as a phenomenon is given only by relation to the sensuous cognitive faculty, the sensuously observable predicates being given according to the same, it is plain that the representations of subject and predicate are made according to common laws, and hence give occasion for perfectly true cognition.

Paragraph 12 [ edit ]

All sense-objects are phenomena, but that which, not touching our senses, contains the form only of sensuality, belongs to pure intuition, that is, an intuition devoid of sensations, but not on that account, intellectual. Phenomena of the external sense are examined and set forth in physics; those of the internal sense in empirical psychology. But pure human intuition is not a universal or logical concept under which , but a singular in which all sensible objects are thought, and hence contains concepts of space and time, which, since they determine nothing concerning sensible objects as to quality , are not the objects of science except as to quantity . Hence pure mathematics considers space in geometry and time in pure mechanics . To these is to be added a certain concept, intellectual to be sure in itself, but whose becoming actual in the concrete requires the auxiliary notions of time and space in the successive addition and simultaneous juxtaposition of separate units, which is the concept of number treated in arithmetic . Pure mathematics, then, expounding the form of our entire sensuous cognition, is the organon of all intuitive and distinct knowledge, and since its objects are not only the formal principles of all intuition, but themselves original intuitions, it confers cognition both perfectly true, and the model of the highest degree of clearness to others. There is given, therefore, a science of sensual things , though being phenomena there is not given a real intellection, but a logical one only; hence it is plain in what sense those borrowing from the Eleatic school are to be thought to have denied a science of phenomena.

SECTION III [ edit ]

ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FORM OF THE SENSIBLE WORLD

Paragraph 13 [ edit ]

The principle of the form of a universe is that which contains the cause of the universal tie by means of which all substances and their states pertain to one which is called a world . The principle of the form of the sensible world is that which contains the cause of the universal tie of all things regarded as phenomena . The form of the intelligible world acknowledges an objective principle, that is, some cause by which it is the colligation of what exists in it. But the world regarded as phenomenon, that is, in respect to the sensibility of the human mind, acknowledges no principle of form but a subjective one, that is, a certain mental law by which it is necessary that all things qualified for being objects of the senses would seem to pertain necessarily to the same whole. Whatever be, therefore, the principle of the form of the sensible world, it will comprise only actual things in as far as thought of as possibly falling under sense-perception; hence neither immaterial substances, which as such are excluded by definition from the external senses altogether, nor the cause of the world, which, since by it the mind exists and has the power of sense-perception, cannot be the object of the senses. These formal principles of the phenomenal universe which are absolutely primary, universal, and, so to speak, the outlines and conditions of anything else whatsoever in human sensuous cognition, I shall now show to be two: time and space.

Paragraph 14 OF TIME [ edit ]

1. The idea of time does not originate in, but is presupposed by the senses . Whether things falling under sense-perception be simultaneous or in line of succession cannot be represented but by the idea of time; nor does succession beget the concept of time; it appeals to it. Hence the notion of time, though acquired by experience, is badly defined by a series of actual things existing one after another, for what the word after means I understand only by the previous concept of time. For those things are after one another which exist at different times , as those are simultaneous which exist at the same time .

2. The idea of time is singular , not general. For any time whatever is thought only as a part of one and the same unmeasured time. If you think two years you cannot represent them to yourself but in a mutually determinate position, and if they do not immediately follow one the other, you cannot think of them except as connected by some intermediate time. Which of different times is first and which later can be defined in no way by any marks conceivable by the intellect, unless you are willing to run into a circle, and the mind discerns it by no more than one intuition. Besides, we conceive of all actual things as posited in time, not as contained as common marks under a general notion of time.

3. The idea of time , therefore, is an intuition , and being conceived before all sensation as the condition of the relations occurring in sensible things, it is not a sensual but pure intuition .

4. Time is a continuous quantity and the principle of the laws of continuity in the changes of the universe. For a continuous quantity is one which does not consist of simple parts. But since by time are only thought relations without any mutually related data, there is in time—as a quantity—composition, which being conceived wholly removed leaves nothing over. But a composite of which, composition being removed, nothing is left, does not consist of simple parts. Therefore, etc. Any part of time, then, is time; and the simple things in time, namely, the moments , are not parts of it, but termini between which time intervenes. For two moments being given, time is not given, except as in them actualities succeed each other; hence, beside the given moment it is necessary that time be given in the latter part of which there is another moment.

The metaphysical law of continuity is this: All changes are continuous or flowing, that is, opposite states succeed each other only by an intermediate series of different states. For since two opposite states are in different moments of time, and some time is always intercepted between two moments, in which infinite series of moments the substance is neither in one assignable state nor the other, nor yet in none, it will be in different states, and so on infinitely.

The celebrated Kästner , calling in question this Leibnitzian law, [4] calls on its defenders to demonstrate that the continuous motion of a point around the sides of a triangle is impossible , it being necessary to prove this if the law of continuity be granted. Here is the demonstration required. Let the letters a b c denote the three angular points of a rectilineal triangle. If the point did move continuously over the lines ab, bc, ca , that is, over the perimeter of the figure, it would be necessary for it to move at the point b in the direction ab , and also at the same point b in the direction bc . These motions being diverse, they cannot be simultaneous . Therefore, the moment of presence of the movable point at vertex b , considered as moving in the direction ab , is different from the moment of presence of the movable point at the same vertex b , considered as moving in the same direction bc . But between two moments there is time; therefore, the movable point is present at point b for some time, that is, it rests . Therefore it does not move continuously, which is contrary to the assumption. The same demonstration is valid for motion over any right lines including an assignable angle. Hence a body does not change its direction in continuous motion except by following a line no part of which is straight, that is, a curve, as Leibnitz maintained.

5. Time is not something objective and real , neither a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation. It is the subjective condition necessary by the nature of the human mind for coordinating any sensible objects among themselves by a certain law; time is a pure intuition . Substances as well as accidents we co-ordinate whether according to simultaneity or succession by the concept only of time; hence the notion of time as the principle of form outranks the concepts of the former. Any relations so far as occurring in sense-perception, whether simultaneous or successive, involve nothing but the determination of positions in time, to wit, either in the same point or in different points of the latter.

Those who assert the objective reality of time either conceive of it as a continuous flow in what exists, without, however, any existing thing, as is done especially by the English philosophers, an absurd fiction, or as something real abstracted from the succession of inner states, as it has been put by Leibnitz and his followers. The falsity of the latter opinion, besides obviously exposing it to the vicious circle in the definition of time, and, moreover, plainly neglecting simultaneity , the most important consequence of time, disturbs all sound reason, because it demands instead of the determining of the laws of motion by the measure of time, that time itself, as to its nature, be determined by what is observed in motion or some series of inner changes, whereby plainly all certitude of rules is abolished. That we can estimate the quantity of time only in the concrete, namely, either by motion or by a series of thoughts , arises from the concept of time resting only on an inherent mental law, it not being a connate intuition; whence the act of the mind co-ordinating the impressions is elicited only by the aid of the senses. So far from its being possible to deduce and explain the concept of time from some other source by force of reason, it is presupposed by the very principle of contradiction, it underlies it by way of condition. For a and not-a are not repugnant unless thought of the same thing simultaneously , that is, at the same time; they may belong to the same thing after each other, at different times. Hence the possibility of changes is not thinkable except in time. Time is not thinkable by changes, but reversely. [5]

6. But although time posited in itself and absolutely be an imaginary thing, yet as appertaining to the immutable law of sensible things as such, it is a perfectly true concept, and the patent condition of intuitive representation throughout all the infinite range of possible sense-objects. For since simultaneous things as such cannot be placed before the senses but by the aid of time, and since changes are unthinkable except by time, it is obvious that this concept contains the universal form of phenomena, and that, indeed, all events observable in the world, all motions, all internal changes, agree necessarily with the temporal axioms of cognition which we have partly expounded, since only under these conditions can they become sense-objects and be co-ordinated . It is, therefore, absurd to excite reason against the primary postulates of pure time, as, for example, continuity, etc., since they follow from laws prior and superior to which nothing is found, and since reason herself in the use of the principle of contradiction cannot dispense with the support of this concept, so primitive and original is it.

7. Time, then, is the absolutely first formal principle of the sensible world . For all sensible things of whatsoever description are unthinkable except as posited either simultaneously or one after another, and, indeed, as if involved and mutually related by determinate position in the tract of unique time, so that by this primary concept of everything sensuous originates necessarily that formal whole which is not a part of another, that is, the phenomenal World .

Paragraph 15 OF SPACE [ edit ]

A. The concept of space is not abstracted from external sensations . For I am unable to conceive of anything posited without me unless by representing it as in a place different from that in which I am, and of things as mutually outside of each other unless by locating them in different places in space. Therefore the possibility of external perceptions, as such, presupposes and does not create the concept of space, so that, although what is in space affects the senses, space cannot itself be derived from the senses.

B. The concept of space is a singular representation comprehending all things in itself , not an abstract and common notion containing them under itself. What are called several spaces are only parts of the same immense space mutually related by certain positions, nor can you conceive of a cubic foot except as being bounded in all directions by surrounding space.

C. The concept of space, therefore, is a pure intuition , being a singular concept, not made up by sensations, but itself the fundamental form of all external sensation. This pure intuition is in fact easily perceived in geometrical axioms, and any mental construction of postulates or even problems. That in space there are no more than three dimensions, that between two points there is but one straight line, that in a plane surface from a given point with a given right line a circle is describable, are not conclusions from some universal notion of space, but only discernible in space as in the concrete. Which things in a given space lie toward one side and which are turned toward the other can by no acuteness of reasoning be described discursively or reduced to intellectual marks. There being in perfectly similar and equal but incongruous solids, such as the right and the left hand, conceived of solely as to extent, or spherical triangles in opposite hemispheres, a difference rendering impossible the coincidence of their limits of extension, although for all that can be stated in marks intelligible to the mind by speech they are interchangeable, it is patent that only by pure intuition can the difference, namely, incongruity, be noticed. Geometry, therefore, uses principles not only undoubted and discursive but falling under the mental view, and the obviousness of its demonstrations—which means the clearness of certain cognition in as far as assimilated to sensual knowledge—is not only greatest, but the only one which is given in the pure sciences, and the exemplar and medium of all obviousness in the others. For, since geometry considers the relations of space , the concept of which contains the very form of all sensual intuition, nothing that is perceived by the external sense can be clear and perspicuous unless by means of that intuition which it is the business of geometry to contemplate. Besides, this science does not demonstrate its universal propositions by thinking the object through the universal concept, as is done in intellectual disquisition, but by submitting it to the eyes in a single intuition, as is done in matters of sense. [6]

D. Space is not something objective and real, neither substance, nor accident, nor relation; but subjective and ideal, arising by fixed law from the nature of the mind like an outline for the mutual co-ordination of all external sensations whatsoever. Those who defend the reality of space either conceive of it as an absolute and immense receptacle of possible things, an opinion which, besides the English, pleases most geometricians, or they contend for its being the relation of existing things itself , which clearly vanishes in the removal of things and is thinkable only in actual things, as besides Leibnitz, is maintained by most of our countrymen. The first inane fiction of the reason, imagining true infinite relation without any mutually related things, pertains to the world of fable. But the adherents of the second opinion fall into a much worse error. Whilst the former only cast an obstacle in the way of some rational or noumenal concepts, otherwise most recondite, such as questions concerning the spiritual world, omnipresence, etc., the latter place themselves in fiat opposition to the very phenomena, and to the most faithful interpreter of all phenomena, to geometry. For, not to enlarge upon the obvious circle in which they become involved in defining space, they cast forth geometry, thrown down from the pinnacle of certitude, into the number of those sciences whose principles are empirical. If we have obtained all the properties of space by experience from external relations only, geometrical axioms have only comparative universality, such as is acquired by induction. They have universality evident as far as observed, but neither necessity, except as far as the laws of nature may be established, nor precision, except what is arbitrarily made. There is hope, as in empirical sciences, that a space may some time be discovered endowed with other primary properties, perchance even a rectilinear figure of two lines.

E. Though the concept of space as an objective and real thing or quality is imaginary, it is nevertheless in respect to all sensible things not only perfectly true , it is the foundation of truth in external sensibility. Things cannot appear to the senses under any form but by means of a power of the soul co-ordinating all sensations in accordance with a fixed law implanted in its nature. Since, therefore, nothing at all can be given the senses except conformably to the primary axioms of space and their consequences which are taught by geometry, though their principle be but subjective, yet the soul will necessarily agree with them, since to this extent it agrees with itself; and the laws of sensuality will be the laws of nature so far as it can be perceived by our senses . Nature, therefore, is subject with absolute precision to all the precepts of geometry as to all the properties of space there demonstrated, this being the subjective condition, not hypothetically but intuitively given, of every phenomenon in which nature can ever be revealed to the senses. Surely, unless the concept of space were originally given by the nature of the mind, so as to cause him to toil in vain who should labor to fashion mentally any relations other than those prescribed by it, since in the fiction he would be compelled to employ the aid of this very same concept, geometry could not be used very safely in natural philosophy, For it might be doubted whether this same notion drawn from experience would agree sufficiently with nature, the determinations from which it was abstracted being, perchance, denied, a suspicion of which has entered some minds already. Space , then, is the absolutely first formal principle of the sensible world , not only because by its concept the objects of the universe can be phenomena, but especially for the reason that it is. essentially but one, comprising all externally sensible things whatsoever; and hence constitutes the principle of the universe , that is, of that whole which cannot be the part of another.

COROLLARY [ edit ]

Here, then, are two principles of sensuous cognition , not, as in intellectual knowledge, general concepts, but single and nevertheless pure intuition , in which the parts, and especially the simple parts, do not, as the laws of reason prescribe, contain the possibility of the composite, but, according to the pattern of sensuous intuition, the infinite contains the reason of the part, and finally of its thinkable simple part or rather limit. For unless infinite space as well as infinite time be given, no definite space and time is assignable by limitation , and a point as well as a moment is unthinkable by itself and only conceived in a space and time already given as the limits. All primitive properties of these concepts are then beyond the purview of reason, and hence cannot intellectually be explained in any way. Nevertheless, they are what underlies the intellect when from intuitive primary data it derives consequences according to logical laws with the greatest possible certainty. One of these concepts properly concerns the intuition of the object; the other the state , especially the representative state. Hence space is employed as the type even of the concept of time itself, representing it by a line, and its limits—moments—by points. Time, on the other hand, approaches more to a universal and rational concept , comprising under its relations all things whatsoever, to wit, space itself, and besides, those accidents which are not comprehended in the relations of space, such as the thoughts of the soul. Again, time, besides this, though it certainly does not dictate the laws of reason, yet constitutes the principal conditions under favor of which the mind compares its notions according to the laws of reason . Thus, I cannot judge what is impossible except by predicating a and not-a of the same subject at the same time . And especially, considering experience, though the reference of cause to effect in external objects were to lack the relations of space, still in all things, external or internal, the mind could by the auxiliary relation of time alone be informed which is the first and which latter or caused. And even the quantity of space itself cannot be rendered intelligible unless, referring it to measure as to a unity, we set it forth in number, which itself is but multiplicity distinctly cognized by numeration, that is, by the successive addition of one to one in a given time.

Lastly, the question will arise in any one as if spontaneously, whether either concept be connate or acquired . The latter by what has been shown seems refuted already, but the former, smoothing the way for lazy philosophy , declaring vain by the citing of a first cause any further quest, is not to be admitted thus rashly. But beyond doubt either concept is acquired , not, it is true, abstracted from the sense of objects, for sensation gives the matter not the form of human cognition, but from the very action of the mind co-ordinating its sense-percepts in accordance with perpetual laws, as though an immutable type, and hence to be known intuitively. For sensations excite this act of the mind but do not influence intuition, neither is there anything connate here except the law of the soul in accordance with which it conjoins in a certain way its sensations derived from the presence of an object.

SECTION IV [ edit ]

ON THE PRINCIPLE OF THE FORM OF THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD

Paragraph 16 [ edit ]

Those who deem space and time to be something real and the absolute bond, so to speak, of all possible substances in space, hold nothing else to be required in order to conceive how an original relation can belong to several existing things as the primitive condition of possible influence and the principle of the essential form of the universe. For since whatever exists is, according to their opinion, necessarily somewhere, it seems to them quite superfluous to inquire why things are present to one another in a certain manner, since this is of itself determined by the universality of all-comprehending space. But this concept, besides relating as has been shown rather to the sensuous laws of the subject than to the conditions of the objects themselves, even granting it the greatest reality, still denotes nothing but the intuitively given possibility of universal co-ordination, leaving undealt with the question solvable only by the intellect: In what principle does this very relation of all substances rest, which intuitively regarded is called space? The question of the principle of the form of the intelligible world turns, therefore, upon making apparent in what manner it is possible for several substances to be in mutual commerce , and for this reason to pertain to the same whole, which is called world. We do not here consider the world, let it be understood, as to matter, that is, as to the nature of the substances of which it consists, whether they be material or immaterial, but as to form, that is to say, how among several things taken separately a connection, and among them all, totality can have place.

Paragraph 17 [ edit ]

Several substances being given, the principle of their possible intercommunication is not apparent from their existence solely , but something else is required besides from which their mutual relations may be understood. For on account of mere existence they are not necessarily related to anything, unless it be to their cause; but the relation of an effect to the cause is not intercommunication, but dependence. Therefore, if any commerce intervenes among them, there is need of an exactly determining specific reason.

The sham cause in physical influence consists in rashly assuming that the commerce of substance and transitive forces is sufficiently knowable from their mere existence. Hence it is not so much a system as rather the neglect of all philosophical system as a superfluity in the argument. Freeing the concept from this defect, we shall have a species of commerce alone deserving to be called real, and from which the whole constituting the world merits being called real, and not ideal or imaginary.

Paragraph 18 [ edit ]

A whole from necessary substances is impossible . For, since the existence of each stands for itself without dependence on any other, a dependence which in necessary substances clearly cannot befall, it is plain that not only does the intercommunication of substances (that is, the reciprocal dependence of their states) not follow from their existence, but as necessary substances cannot belong to them at all.

Paragraph 19 [ edit ]

The whole, therefore, of substances is a whole of contingent things, and the world consists essentially of only contingent things . Besides, no necessary substance is in connection with the world except as a cause with the effect, and, therefore, not as a part with its complements making up a whole, since the bond connecting parts is mutual dependence, which in a necessary being cannot occur. The cause, therefore, of the world is an extramundane being, and so is not the soul of the world, nor is its presence in the world local, but virtual.

Paragraph 20 [ edit ]

The mundane substances are beings from, another being; not from several, but all from one . For, suppose them to be caused by several necessary beings. In intercommunication there are not effects from causes alien to all mutual relation. Hence, the unity in the conjunction of the substances of the universe is the consequence of the dependence of all on one . Therefore, the form of the universe witnesses the cause of matter, and only the sole cause of all things is the cause of the universe , nor is there an architect of the world not at the same time its creator .

Paragraph 21 [ edit ]

If there were several primary and necessary causes together with their effects, their works would be worlds , not a world , since they would in no wise be connected into one whole. And vice versa, if there be several actual worlds without one another, several primary and necessary causes are given, so, however, as to give intercommunication neither to one world with another, nor to the cause of one with the world caused by another.

Several actual worlds without one another are not , therefore, impossible by the very concept , as Wolf hastily concluded from the notion of a complex or multiplicity which he deemed sufficient to a whole, as such, but only on condition that there exist but one necessary cause of all things . If several are admitted, several worlds without one another will be possible in the strictest metaphysical sense.

Paragraph 22 [ edit ]

If, as we validly conclude from a given world to a single cause of all its parts, we may similarly argue reversely from the given cause common to all to their interconnection, and hence to the form of the world—though I confess this conclusion does not seem as plain to me—then the primary connection of substances will not be contingent but by the sustentation of all by the common principle , necessary, and hence the harmony proceeding from their very subsistence founded in a common cause would proceed according to the usual rules. Such a harmony I term established generally; as that which does not take place except as far as any individual states of a substance are adapted to the condition of another is harmony established particularly; the communion by the former being real and physical , by the latter ideal and sympathetic . All communion, then, of the substance of the universe is eternally established by the common cause of all, and either established generally by physical influence—as amended; see paragraph 17—or adapted particularly to their states; and the latter either rests originally in the primary constitution of every substance or is impressed on the occasion of any change whatever; the first being called pre-established harmony , the latter occasionalism . If, then, on account of the sustentation of all substances by one, the conjunction of all constituting them a unit be necessary , the universal commerce of substances will be by physical influence , and the world a real whole; if not, the commerce will be sympathetic, that is a harmony without true commerce, and the world only an ideal whole. To me the former, though not demonstrated, appears abundantly proved by other reasons.

SCHOLIUM [ edit ]

If it were right to overstep a little the limits of apodictic certainty befitting metaphysics, it would seem worth while to trace out some things pertaining not merely to the laws but even to the causes of sensuous intuition, which are only intellectually knowable. Of course the human mind is not affected by external things, and the world does not lie open to its insight infinitely, except as far as itself together with all other things is sustained by the same infinite power of one . Hence it does not perceive external things but by the presence of the same common sustaining cause; and hence space, which is the universal and necessary condition of the joint presence of everything known sensuously, may be called the phenomenal omnipresence , for the cause of the universe is not present to all things and everything, as being in their places, but their places, that is the relations of the substances, are possible, because it is intimately present to all. Furthermore, since the possibility of the changes and successions of all things whose principle as far as sensuously known resides in the concept of time, supposes the continuous existence of the subject whose opposite states succeed; that whose states are in flux, lasting not, however, unless sustained by another; the concept of time as one infinite and immutable in which all things are and last, is the phenomenal eternity of the general cause . [7] But it seems more cautious to hug the shore of the cognitions granted to us by the mediocrity of our intellect than to be carried out upon the high seas of such mystic investigations, like Malebranche, whose opinion that we see all things in God is pretty nearly what has here been expounded.

SECTION V [ edit ]

ON THE METHOD RESPECTING THE SENSUOUS AND THE INTELLECTUAL IN METAPHYSICS

Paragraph 23 [ edit ]

In all sciences whose principles are given intuitively, whether by sensual intuition, that is, experience, or by an intuition sensuous, to be sure, but pure—the concepts of space, time, and number—that is to say, in the natural and in the mathematical sciences, use gives method , and by trying and finding after the science has been carried to some degree of copiousness and consonancy it appears by what method and in what direction we must proceed in order to finish and to purify it by removing the defects of error as well as of confused thoughts; exactly as grammar after the more copious use of speech, and style after the appearance of choice examples in poetry and oratory, furnished vantage-ground to rules and to discipline. But the use of the intellect in the sciences whose primitive concepts as well as axioms are given by sensuous intuition is only logical , that is, by it we only subordinate cognitions to one another according to their relative universality conformably to the principle of contradiction, phenomena to more general phenomena, and consequences of pure intuition to intuitive axioms. But in pure philosophy, such as metaphysics, in which the use of the intellect in respect to principles is real , that is to say, where the primary concept of things and relations and the very axioms are given originally by the pure intellect itself, and not being intuitions do not enjoy immunity from error, the method precedes the whole science , and whatever is attempted before its precepts are thoroughly discussed and firmly established is looked upon as rashly conceived and to be rejected among vain instances of mental playfulness. For, since here the right use of the reason constitutes the very principles and the objects as well, what axioms are to be thought of concerning them become primarily known solely by its own nature, the exposition of the laws of pure reason is the very origin of the science, and their distinction from spurious laws the criterion of truth. The method of the science not being practiced much nowadays, except what logic prescribes to all sciences generally, that fitted for the peculiar nature of metaphysics being simply ignored, it is no wonder that those who everlastingly turn the Sisyphean stone of this inquiry do not seem so far to have made much progress. Though here I neither can nor will expatiate upon so important and extensive a subject, I shall briefly shadow forth what constitutes no despicable part of this method, namely, the infection between sensuous and intellectual cognition , not only as creeping in on those incautious in the application of principles, but even producing spurious principles under the appearance of axioms.

Paragraph 24 [ edit ]

In substance the whole method of metaphysics as to the sensuous and the intellectual amounts to this precept; to take care not to allow the principles at home in sensuous cognition to outstray their limits and affect the intellectual concepts . For, since the predicate in any judgment enounced intellectually is a condition in the absence of which the subject is asserted to be unthinkable, the predicate hence being the principle of cognition, it will, if a sensuous concept, be only the condition of a possible sensuous cognition—and hence will square well enough with the subject of a judgment whose concept is also sensuous. But if it be applied to an intellectual concept, the judgment will be valid only according to subjective laws, and hence must not be affirmed objectively and predicated of the intellectual notion itself, but only as a condition in the absence of which the sensuous cognition of the given concept does not take place . [8]

Now, since the tricks of the intellect by the subordination of sensuous concepts as though intellectual marks may be called, analogously to the accepted meaning, a fallacy of subreption , the exchanging of intellectual and sensual concepts will be a metaphysical fallacy of subreption , the intellectualized phenomenon , if the barbarous expression be permissible, and hence I call such a hybrid axiom as palms off the sensuous as necessarily adhering to the intellectual concept, a surreptitious axiom . From these spurious axioms have gone forth, and are rife throughout metaphysics, principles deceiving the intellect. In order that we may have, however, a readily and clearly knowable criterion of those judgments, a touchstone, so to speak, by which to distinguish them from genuine judgments, and at the same time if, perhaps, they seem to cling tenaciously to the intellect, an assaying art by which we can justly estimate how much belongs to the sensuous and how much to the intellectual sphere, I think it necessary to go into the question more deeply.

Paragraph 25 [ edit ]

Here, then, is the principle of reduction for any spurious axiom: If concerning any intellectual concept something pertaining to time and space relations be predicated generally, it is not to be enounced objectively, but denotes only the condition without which the given concept is not knowable sensuously . That such an axiom is spurious, and, if not false, at least a rash and question-begging assertion, appears thus: the subject of the judgment being intellectually conceived pertains to the object, whilst the predicate, since it contains the determinations of space and time, pertains only to the conditions of human sensuous cognition, which, not adhering of necessity to any cognition whatsoever of the object, cannot be enounced concerning the given intellectual concept universally. The intellect’s being so readily subject to this fallacy of subreption comes of its being deceived under the plea of another and perfectly true rule. For we rightly suppose that that which can be cognized by no intuition whatever is utterly unthinkable and hence impossible. But since we cannot attain by any mental striving, even fictitiously, to any other intuition but that according to the form of space and time, it happens that we deem all intuition whatever impossible which is not bound by these laws, passing by the pure intellectual intuition exempt from the laws of the senses, such as the divine, by Plato called the Idea, and hence subject all possible given things to the sensual axioms of space and time.

Paragraph 26 [ edit ]

All sleights of substitution of sensuous cognition under guise of intellectual concepts, from which spurious axioms originate, can be reduced to three species, whose general formulae are the following:

1. The sensual condition under which alone the intuition of an object is possible, is the condition of its possibility .

2. The sensual condition under which alone data can be compared in order to form the intellectual concept of the object , is the condition of the very possibility of the object.

3. The sensual condition under which alone the subsumption of an object under a given intellectual concept is possible, is the condition of the possibility of the object .

Paragraph 27 [ edit ]

A spurious axiom of the first class is: Whatever is, is somewhere and sometime . [9] Now by this spurious principle all beings, even though they be intellectually cognized, are restricted in existence by the conditions of space and time. Hence people discuss all sorts of inane questions, such as concerning the places of immaterial substances—of which, for that very reason, there is no sensuous intuition, nor, under that form, any representation—in the corporeal universe, or the seat of the soul; and as they improperly mix sensual things with intellectual concepts, like square figures with round, it oftens happens that of the disputants one appears as milking a he-goat, and the other as holding the sieve under. The presence of immaterial substances in the corporeal world is virtual, not local, though thus improperly talked about. Space does not contain the conditions of possible mutual activities, except those of matter. What may constitute the external relations of forces in immaterial substances, as well among themselves as toward bodies, altogether escapes the human intellect, as was acutely noted, for instance, in a letter to a German prince by the clear-sighted Euler, otherwise a great investigator and judge of phenomena. But when people have arrived at the concept of a highest and extra-mundane being, they are fooled by these shadows flitting before the intellect to a degree beyond the force of language to express. The presence of God they figure to themselves as a local one, involving God in the world as if also comprised in infinite space, compensating Him for this limitation by a locality, so to speak, eminently conceived, that is, infinite. But it is absolutely impossible to be at the same time in several places, since different places are mutually without each other, and hence what is in several places is outside of itself, which implies being present to itself externally. But as to time, having not only exempted it from the laws of sensual knowledge, but transferred it beyond the limits of the world to the extra-mundane Being Himself as a condition of His existence, they involve themselves in an inextricable labyrinth. Hence they cudgel their brains with absurd questions, such as, for instance, why God did not make the world many centuries earlier. They persuade themselves that it is easy to conceive, to be sure, how God may discern what is present, that is, what is actual in the time in which he is , but how He may foresee what is future, that is, what is actual in the time in which He is not yet , they deem an intellectual difficulty; as if the existence of the Necessary Being descended through all the moments of an imaginary time, and, having already exhausted a part of His duration, saw before Him the eternity He was yet to live simultaneously with the present events of the world. All these difficulties upon proper insight into the notion of time vanish like smoke.

Paragraph 28 [ edit ]

The prejudices of the second species, since they impose upon the intellect by the sensual conditions restricting the mind if it wishes in certain cases to attain to what is intellectual, lurk more deeply. One of them is that which affects knowledge of quantity, the other that affecting knowledge of qualities generally. The former is: every actual multiplicity can be given numerically , and hence, every infinite quantity; the latter, whatever is impossible contradicts itself . In either of them the concept of time, it is true, does not enter into the very notion of the predicate, nor is it attributed as a qualification to the subject. But yet it serves as a means for forming an idea of the predicate, and thus, being a condition, affects the intellectual concept of the subject to the extent that the latter is only attained by its aid.

As to the first , as every quantity and any series whatever are distinctly known only by successive co-ordination, the intellectual concept of amount and multiplicity arises only by the aid of this concept of time, and never attains to completeness unless the synthesis can be gone through with in finite time. It is hence that the infinite series of co-ordinate things cannot be comprehended distinctly according to the limits of our intellect; it hence by the fallacy of subreption seems impossible. According to the laws of pure intellect any series of effects has its principle , that is, there is not given in a series of effects a regress without a limit; whilst according to sensual laws any series of co-ordinate things has its assignable beginning . These propositions, the latter of which involves the mensurability of the series, the former the dependence of the whole, are taken hastily for identical. In the same way, to the argument of the intellect , proving that a substantial composite being given so are the elements of composition, that is, the simple things, there is adjoined a supposititious one suborned from sensual knowledge, namely, that in such a composite there is not given an infinite regress in the composition of the parts, that is to say, that in any composite there is given a definite number of parts, a sense certainly not germane to the former, and hence substituted rashly for it. For that the quantity of the world is limited, not the maximum, that it owns a principle, that bodies consist of simple parts, can certainly be cognized rationally. But that the universe as to its mass is mathematically finite, that its age as elapsed can be given by measure, that the number of simple parts constituting any body whatever is a definite number, are propositions openly proclaiming their origin from the nature of sensual knowledge; however true they may be held to be, they bear the undoubted stigma of their origin.

As for the latter spurious axiom , it originates from a rash conversion of the principle of contradiction. For to this primitive judgment the concept of time adheres to the extent that contradictorily opposed data being given at the same time in the same thing, the impossibility is plain, which is enounced thus: whatever simultaneously is and is not, is impossible . Here, as the intellect predicates something in a case given according to sensual laws, the judgment is perfectly true and obvious. On the contrary, converting this axiom, saying: whatever is impossible is and is not at the same time , or involves a contradiction, we predicate through sensual knowledge something concerning the object of reason generally, thus subjecting the intellectual conception of the possible and the impossible to the conditions of sensual knowledge, namely, to the relations of time; which certainly is true enough of the laws restricting and limiting the human intellect, but cannot be conceded objectively and generally by any means. Of course, our intellect perceives no impossibility except where it can note the simultaneous enunciation of opposites concerning the same thing, that is, only where contradiction occurs. Wherever, therefore, this contradiction does not occur, there is no room for the judgment of impossibility by the human intellect. But that on this account it should be open to no intellect whatever, and hence that what does not involve contradiction is therefore possible , is concluded rashly by taking the subjective conditions of judgment for objective ones. It is for this reason that a host of fictitious forces , gotten up ad libitum , bursts, in the absence of self-contradiction, from any constructive, or, if you prefer, from every chimerical mind. For as a force is nothing but a relation of a substance a to something else b , an accident, as of a reason to the consequence, the possibility of any force does not rest in the identity of the cause and the effect, or the substance and the accident, and hence even the impossibility of forces made up falsely does not depend solely on contradiction . Therefore it is not permissible to assume as possible any original force unless the force be given by experience . Neither can the possibility be conceived a priori by any perspicacity of the intellect.

Paragraph 29 [ edit ]

The spurious axioms of the third kind from conditions proper to the subject whence they are transferred rashly to the object are plentiful, not, as in those of the Second Class, because the only way to the intellectual concept lies through the sensuous data , but because only by aid of the latter can the concept be applied to that which is given by experience, that is, can we know whether something is contained under a certain intellectual concept or not. To this class belongs the threadbare one of the schools: whatever exists contingently does at some time not exist . This spurious principle springs from the poverty of the intellect, having insight frequently into the nominal , rarely into the real , marks of contingency or necessity. Hence, whether the opposite of any substance be possible, an insight hardly obtained from a priori marks, is not otherwise known than by its being evident that at some time that substance was not; and changes rather witness contingency than contingency mutability, so that were nothing fleeting and transitory to occur in the world, a notion of contingence would hardly be possible in us. Therefore, though the direct proposition is perfectly true: whatever at some time was not is contingent , its converse indicates nothing but the conditions under which we can alone distinguish whether something exists necessarily or contingently. Hence if enunciated as a subjective law, which indeed it is, it should be enounced thus: Sufficient marks of contingency of that of which it is not evident that at some time it was not, are not, by common intelligence, given . This, however, tacitly deviates into an objective condition, as though in its absence there were no room for contingence; which being done, a counterfeit and erroneous axiom arises. For this world though existing contingently is sempiternal , that is, simultaneous with all time. It is a rash assertion that there was a time when it did not exist.

Paragraph 30 [ edit ]

To these spurious principles must be added some others of great affinity with them, not imparting to the given intellectual concept any blemish of sensuous cognition, but deceiving the intellect so as to take them for arguments drawn from the object, though they are commended to us only by the peculiar nature. of the intellect for the convenience of its free and ample use. Therefore, these as well as those enumerated above, rest in subjective reasons, although not in the laws of sensuous, but in those of intellectual cognition itself, namely, in the conditions under which it appears easy and quick to the mind to make use of its insight. I shall beg leave to throw in here, by way of conclusion, some mention of these principles, not as yet, as far as I know, set forth distinctly. I call, then, principles of convenience rules of judging to which we freely submit, and to which we adhere as if they were axioms, for the only reason that, were we to depart from them, scarcely any judgment concerning a given object would be permissible to our intellect . In this list belong the following: First , that by which we assume that everything in the universe is done according to the order of nature , which principle by Epicurus was proclaimed without any restriction, and by all other philosophers unanimously with extremely rare exceptions, not to be admitted but from supreme necessity. Still we thus affirm, not on account of possessing so ample a knowledge of the events of the world according to the common laws of nature, or because the impossibility or smaller hypothetical possibility of supernatural things is plain to us, but because departing from the order of nature there would be no use for the intellect, the rash citation of the supernatural being the couch of lazy understandings. For the same reason we take care to shut out from the exposition of phenomena comparative miracles , namely, the influence of spirits, since, as we do not know their nature, the intellect, to its great detriment, would be turned aside from the light of experience, by which alone it is able to provide for itself laws of judging, into the night of species and causes unknown to us. The second is the partiality for unity proper to the philosophical mind, whence this wide-spread canon has flown forth: principles are not to be multiplied beyond supreme necessity , to which we give in our adhesion, not because we have insight into causal unity in the world either by reason or experience, but as seeking it by an impulse of the intellect which seems to itself to have by thus much advanced in the explication of phenomena, by as much as it is granted to it to descend from the same principle to a greater number of consequences, The third of this kind of principles is: matter neither originates nor perishes; all the changes in the world concern form only; a postulate which on the recommendation of common sense has spread through all philosophical schools, not because it is to be taken as having been found so, or as having been demonstrated by arguments a priori , but because if we were to admit that matter itself is fleeting and transitory, nothing at all that is stable and lasting would be left any longer to serve for the explication of phenomena according to universal and perpetual laws, and hence nothing at all would be left for the exercise of the intellect.

This method, especially in respect to the distinction between sensual and intellectual knowledge, which, when reduced by more careful investigation to exactness, will occupy the position of a propaedeutical science, will certainly be of unlimited benefit to all intending to penetrate into the very recesses of metaphysics.

Note .—As in this last section the tracing out of the method occupies all the space at disposal, and the rules prescribing the true form of arguing concerning sensuous things shine by their own light and do not borrow it from the illustrative examples, I have thrown in but a cursory mention of the latter. For this reason it is not strange if some things should seem to have been asserted with more audacity than truth, they certainly calling, when a broader treatment shall be possible, for greater force of arguments. Thus, what is alleged in paragraph 27 on the locality of immaterial substances lacks an explication which, if the reader please, may be found in Euler in the place cited, Vol. II, pp. 49, 52. For the soul is not in communion with the body as being detained in a certain place in the latter, but a determined place in the universe is attributed to it, for the reason that it is in mutual commerce with some body, which commerce being dissolved all its position in space is removed. Its locality , therefore, is derivative and contingently applied to it, not primitive and a necessary condition of its existence, because whatever things cannot by themselves be objects of external senses such as man’s, that is, immaterial substances, are exempt altogether from the universal condition of externally sensible things , namely, space. Hence absolute and immediate locality may be denied to the soul, while yet hypothetical and mediate locality may be attributed to it.

Notes [ edit ]

• ↑ To the words analysis and synthesis a two-fold meaning is commonly given; for the synthesis is either qualitative , a progress in a series of subordinates from the reason to the consequence, or quantitative , a progress in a series of coordinates from the given part through its complements to the whole. Similarly, analysis, taken in the first sense, is a regress from the consequence to the reason , but in the latter meaning a regress from a whole to its possible or mediate parts , that is, to the parts of parts; hence it is not a division but a subdivision of the given composite. Synthesis as well as analysis are here taken only in the latter sense.
• ↑ Those who reject the actual mathematical infinite do not take much trouble. They frame a definition of the infinite from which they can shape out some contradiction. The infinite is said by them to be a quantity than which none greater is possible , and the mathematical infinite the multiplicity—of an assignable unit—than which none greater is possible. Having substituted greatest for infinite they easily conclude against an infinite of their own making, as a greatest multiplicity is impossible; or, they call an infinite multiplicity an infinite number , and show this to be absurd; which is plain enough, but a battle with their own fancy only. But if they would conceive of a mathematical infinite as a quantity which being referred to measure as unity is a multiplicity greater than all number; if, furthermore, they would take note that mensurability here denotes only the relation to the smallness of the human intellect, to which it is given to attain to a definite concept of multiplicity only by the successive addition of unit to unit, and to the sum total called number only by going through with this progress within a finite time, they would gain the clear insight that what does not fall in with a certain law of some subject does not on that account exceed all intellection; since an intellect may exist, though not a human one, perceiving a multiplicity distinctly by a single insight, without the successive application of measurement.
• ↑ Something is considered theoretically when we attend only to what belongs to the thing; practically, when we view what by liberty should be in it.
• ↑ Höhere Mechanik, p. 354.
• ↑ Simultaneous facts are not such for the reason that they do not succeed each other. Removing succession, to be sure, a conjunction is withdrawn which existed by the time-series. Yet thence does not originate another true relation, the conjunction of all things in the same moment. For simultaneous things are joined in the same moment of time exactly as successive things are joined in different moments. Hence, though time is of but one dimension, still the ubiquity of time, to speak with Newton, by which all things sensuously thinkable are some time , adds to the quantity of actual things another dimension, inasmuch as they hang, so to speak, on the same point of time. For designating time by a straight line produced infinitely, and the simultaneous things at any point of time whatever by lines applied in succession, the surface thus generated will represent the phenomenal world , both as to substance and accidents.
• ↑ As the necessity of conceiving space as a continuous quantity is easy to demonstrate, I pass it by. It is a consequence from this that the simple in space is not a part, but a limit. A limit generally, is that in a continuous quantity which contains the limited portion. Space not the limit of another is a solid. The limit of a solid is a surface, of a surface the line, of a line the point; hence there are three kinds of limits in space, as there are three dimensions. Two of these limits, the surface and the line, are themselves spaces. The concept of limit enters into no quantity besides time and space.
• ↑ The moments of time do not appear to follow one another, since if they did another time would have to be premised for the succession of moments; but by sensuous intuition the actual things appear to descend, as it were, through a continuous series of moments.
• ↑ The use of this criterion is fruitful and easy in distinguishing principles which enunciate laws of sensuous cognition only from those prescribing besides something concerning the objects themselves. If the predicate be an intellectual concept, its reference to the subject of the judgment, though this subject be thought of as an object of sense, always denotes a mark belonging to the object itself. If the predicate be a sensuous concept , then, since the laws of sensuous cognition are not conditions of the possibility of things themselves, it is not valid as to the subject of the judgment conceived intellectually , and hence it cannot be enounced objectively. Thus in the common axiom whatever exists is somewhere , as the predicate contains conditions of sensuous knowledge it cannot be enounced as to the subject of the judgment, namely, anything existing , generally; hence this formula as an objective rule is false. But converting the proposition, so as to make the predicate an intellectual concept, it becomes perfectly true; thus: whatever is somewhere, exists.
• ↑ Space and time are conceived as comprehending in them all things in any way offered to the senses. Hence, according to the laws of the human mind, the intuition of nothing is given except as contained in space and time . To this prejudice another may be compared which is not properly a spurious axiom but a play of the fancy, and which may be set forth in the general formula: In whatever exists are space and time , that is to say, every substance is extended and continuously changed . But though people of dense conception are bound firmly by this law of imagination, even they see readily that it pertains only to the efforts of fancy, shadowing forth to itself the appearance of things, not to the conditions of existence.

This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.

Public domain Public domain false false

• Kantian philosophy
• Works originally in Latin

Navigation menu