The unreasonable

Article metrics


I UNRESERVEDLY accept Prof. Clifford's disavowal of the meaning I attributed to his words concerning Kant's Antinomies, in his Address (Macmillan's Magazine, Oct. 1872). At the same time I cannot allow that the misprision was wholly due to my “exuberant imagination.” He said, “The opinion. .. is set forth by Kant. .. in the form of his famous doctrine of the antinomies,” &c. This ought to mean that the “doctrine of the antinomies” is one form of that “opinion;” and the opinion being, “that at the basis of the natural order there is something which we can know to be unreasonable,” I was fully justified by the mere words of the Address in the inference (which he disclaims) that he intended to ilentify the doctrine of the antinomies (the Antithetic, in fact) with that of the unreasonable basis of the natural order. How was I to know that the “something” was either (? which) “the transcendental object” or the world of noumena?

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

INGLEBY, C. The unreasonable. Nature 7, 302–303 (1873) doi:10.1038/007302b0

Download citation


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.