content is this； that through repulsion alone matter would not be spatial Matter being presupposed
as filling space； it is credited with continuity； the ground of which is assumed to be the force of
attraction。
Now if the merit of such a construction of matter were at most that of an analysis （though a merit
diminished by the faulty exposition）； still the fundamental thought； namely； the derivation of matter
from these two opposite determinations as its fundamental forces； must always be highly
esteemed。 Kant is chiefly concerned to banish the vulgar mechanistic way of thinking which stops
short at the one determination of impenetrability； of self…determined and self…subsistent puncticity；
and converts into something external the opposite determination； the relation of matter within
itself or the relation of a plurality of matters； which in turn are regarded as particular ones…a way of
thinking which； as Kant says； will admit no motive forces except pressure and thrust； that is； only
action from without。 This external manner of thinking always presupposes motion as already
externally present in matter； and it does not occur to it to regard motion as something immanent
and to comprehend motion itself in matter； which latter is thus assumed as； on its own account；
motionless and inert。 This stand…point has before it only ordinary mechanics； not immanent and
free motion。 It is true that Kant sublates this externality in so far as he makes attraction （the
relation of matters to one another in so far as these are assumed as separated from one another；
or matter generally in its self…externality） a force of matter itself； still； on the other hand； his two
fundamental forces within matter remain external to and completely independent of each other。
The fixed difference of these two forces attributed to them from that external standpoint is no less
null than any other distinction must show itself to be which； in respect of its specific content； is
made into something supposedly fixed； because these forces are only moments which pass over
into each other； as we saw above when they were considered in their truth。 I go on to consider
these other distinctions as they are stated by Kant。
He defines the force of attraction as a penetrative force by which one bit of matter can act directly
on the parts of another even beyond the area of contact； the force of repulsion； on the other hand；
he defines as a surface force through which bits of matter can act on each other only in the
common area of contact。 The reason adduced that the latter can be only a surface force is as
follows： 'The parts in contact each limit the sphere of action of the other； and the force of
repulsion cannot move any more distant part except through the agency of the intervening parts； an
immediate action of one part of matter on another passing right across these intervening parts by
forces of expansion （which means here； forces of repulsion） is impossible。'
But here we must remember that in assuming 'nearer' or 'more distant' parts of matter； the same
distinction would likewise arise with respect to attraction； namely； that though one atom acted on
another； yet a third； more distant atom （between which and the first atom； the second atom would
be）； would first enter into the sphere of attraction of the intervening atom nearer to it； therefore the
first atom would not have an immediate； simple action on the third； from which it would follow
that the action of the force of attraction； like that of repulsion； is equally mediated。 Further； the
genuine penetration of the force of attraction could of necessity consist only in this； that every
part of matter was in and for itself attractive； not that a certain number of atoms behaved passively
and only one atom actively。 But we must at once remark with respect to the force of repulsion
itself that in the passage quoted； 'parts in contact' are mentioned which implies solidity and
continuity of a matter already finished and complete which would not permit the passage
through it of a repelling force。 But this solidity of matter in which parts are in contact and are no
longer separated by the void already presupposes that the force of repulsion is sublated； according
to the sensuous conception of repulsion which prevails here； parts in contact are to be taken as
those which do not repel each other。 It therefore follows； quite tautologically； that where repulsion
is assumed to be not； there no repulsion can take place。 But from this nothing else follows which
could serve to determine the force of repulsion。 However； reflection on the statement that parts in
contact are in contact only in so far as they hold themselves apart； leads directly to the conclusion
that the force of repulsion is not merely on the surface of matter but within the sphere which was
supposed to be only a sphere of attraction。
Kant assumes further that 'through the force of attraction； matter only occupies space but does not
fill it'； and 'because matter through the force of attraction does not fill space； this force can act
across empty space since there is no intervening matter to limit it'。 This distinction is much the same
as the one mentioned above where a determination was supposed to belong to the concept of a
thing but not to be contained in it； here； then； matter is supposed only to occupy a space but not to
fill it。 There it is repulsion； if we stop at the first determination of matter； through which the ones
repel one another and so are only negatively related to one another； here that means； by empty
space。 Here； however； it is the force of attraction which keeps space empty； it does not fill space
by its connection of the atoms； in other words； it keeps the atoms in a negative relation to one
another。 We see that Kant here unconsciously realises what is implicit in the nature of the subject
matter； when he attributes to the force of attraction precisely what； in accordance with the first
determination； he attributed to the opposite force。 While he was busy with establishing the
difference between the two forces； it happened that one had passed over into the other。 Thus
through repulsion； on the other hand； matter is supposed to fill a space； and consequently through
repulsion the empty space left by the force of attraction vanishes。 In point of fact repulsion； in
doing away with empty space； also destroys the negative relation of the atoms or ones； that is；
their repulsion of one another； in …other words； repulsion is determined as the opposite of itself。
To this effacing of the differences there is added the confusion arising from the fact that； as we
observed at the beginning； Kant's exposition of the opposed forces is analytic； and whereas matter
is supposed to be derived from its elements； it is presented throughout the entire discourse as
already formed and constituted。 In the definition of surface and penetrative force both are assumed
as motive forces by means of which matter is supposed to be able to act in one or other of these
ways。 Here； therefore； they are represented as forces； not through which matter first comes into
being but through which matter； as an already finished product； is only set in motion。 But in so far
as we are speaking of the forces through which different bodies act on one another and are set in
motion； this is something quite different from the determination and relation which these forces
were supposed to have as ＇constitutive＇ moments of matter。
The same opposition of attractive and repulsive forces is made by their more developed form of
centripetal and centrifugal forces。 These appear to offer an essential distinction； since in their
sphere there is a fixed single one； a centre； in relation to which the other ones behave as not for
themselves； so that the difference between the forces can be linked to this presupposed difference
between a single central one and the others which are not independent relatively to it。 But if they
are to be used for explanation…for which purpose they are assumed to be （like the forces of
repulsion and attraction） in an inverse quantitative ratio so that the one increases as the other
decreases…then the phenomenon of the motion and its inequality ought to be the result of these
forces which were assumed for the purpose of explanation。 However； one need only examine the
accounts （any of them will do） of a phenomenon like the unequal velocity of a planet in its orbit
round the sun； based on the opposition of these forces； to become aware of the confusion which
prevails in such explanations； and the impossibility of disentangling the magnitudes of the forces； so
that the one which in the explanation is assumed to be decreasing can just as well be assumed to
be increasing； and vice versa。 To make this evident would require a lengthier exposition than
could be given here； but what is necessary for this purpose is adduced later on in connection with
the inverted relation。
Section Two： Magnitude （Quantity）
The difference between quantity and quality has been stated。 Quality is the first； immediate
determinateness； quantity is the determinateness which has become indifferent to being； a limit
which is just as much no limit； being…for…self which is absolutely identical with being…for…other…a
repulsion of the many ones which is directly the non…repulsion； the continuity of them。
Because that which is for itself is now posited as not excluding its other； but rather as affirmatively
continuing itself into it； it is otherness in so far as determinate being again appears in this
continuity and its determinateness is at the same time no longer in a simple self…relation； no longer
an immediate determinateness of the determinately existent something； but is posited as
self…repelling； as in fact having the relation…to…self as a determinateness in another something
（which is for itself； and since they are at the same time indifferent； relationless limits reflected into
themselves； the determinateness in general is outside itself； an absolutely self…external
determinateness and an equally external something； such a limit； the indifference of the limit within
itself and of the something