clearly　perceived；　and　external　reality　or　existence。　“Thereby　an　end　is　put　to　doubt；　as　if　it　could
  be　the　case　that　what　appears　quite　evident　to　us　should　not　be　really　true。　We　can　thus　no　longer
  have　any　suspicion　of　mathematical　truths。　Likewise　if　we　give　heed　to　what　we　distinguish　by　our
  senses　in　waking　or　in　sleeping；　clearly　and　distinctly；　it　is　easy　to　recognize　in　each　thing　what　in　it
  is　true。”　By　saying　that　what　is　rightly　and　clearly　thought　likewise　is；　Descartes　maintains　that　man
  comes　to　know　by　means　of　thought　what　in　fact　is　in　things；　the　sources　of　errors　lie　on　the　other
  hand　in　the　finitude　of　our　nature。　“It　is　certain；　because　of　God’s　truth；　that　the　faculty　of
  perceiving　and　that　of　assenting　through　the　will；　if　it　extends　no　further　than　to　that　which　is　clearly
  perceived；　cannot　lead　to　error。　Even　if　this　cannot　be　in　any　way　proved；　it　is　by　nature　so
  established　in　all　things；　that　as　often　as　we　clearly　perceive　anything；　we　assent　to　it　from
  ourselves　and　can　in　no　wise　doubt　that　it　is　true。”　（23）
  All　this　is　set　forth　very　plausibly；　but　it　is　still　indeterminate；　formal；　and　shallow；　we　only　have　the
  assertion　made　to　us　that　this　is　so。　Descartes’　method　is　the　method　of　the　clear　understanding
  merely。　Certainty　with　him　takes　the　first　place；　from　it　no　content　is　deduced　of　necessity；　no
  content　generally；　and　still　less　its　objectivity　as　distinguished　from　the　inward　subjectivity　of　the
  ‘I。’　At　one　time　we　have　the　opposition　of　subjective　knowledge　and　actuality；　and　at　another
  their　inseparable　union。　In　the　first　case　the　necessity　of　mediating　them　enters　in；　and　the　truth　of
  God　is　asserted　to　be　this　mediating　power。　It　consists　in　this；　that　His　Notion　contains　reality
  immediately　in　itself。　The　proof　of　this　unity　then　rests　solely　upon　the　fact　of　its　being　said　that　we
  find　within　us　the　idea　of　complete　perfection；　thus　this　conception　here　appears　simply　as　one
  found　ready　to　hand。　With　this　is　compared　the　mere　conception　of　God　which　contains　no
  existence　within　it；　and　it　is　found　that　without　existence　it　would　be　imperfect。　This　unity　of　God
  Himself；　of　His　Idea；　with　His　existence；　is　undoubtedly　the　Truth；　in　this　we　find　the　ground　for
  holding　as　true　what　is　for　us　just　as　certain　as　the　truth　of　ourselves。　As　Descartes　proceeds
  further　we　thus　find　that　in　reality　everything　has　truth　for　him　only　in　so　far　as　it　is　really　an　object
  of　thought；　a　universal。　This　truth　of　God　has　been；　as　we　shall　see；　expressed　even　more　clearly
  and　in　a　more　concise　way　by　a　disciple　of　Descartes；　if　one　may　venture　to　call　him　so　—　I　mean
  Malebranche　（who　might　really　be　dealt　with　here）；　（24）　in　his　Recherche　de　la　vérité。
  The　first　of　the　fundamental　determinations　of　the　Cartesian　metaphysics　is　from　the　certainty　of
  oneself　to　arrive　at　the　truth；　to　recognize　Being　in　the　Notion　of　thought。　But　because　in　the
  thought　“I　think；”　I　am　an　individual；　thought　comes　before　my　mind　as　subjective；　Being　is　hence
  not　demonstrated　in　the　Notion　of　thought　itself；　for　what　advance　has　been　made　is　merely　in　the
  direction　of　separation　generally。　In　the　second　place　the　negative　of　Being　likewise　comes　before
  self…consciousness；　and　this　negative；　united　with　the　positive　I；　is　so　to　speak　implicitly　united　in　a
  third；　in　God。　God；　who　before　this　was　a　non…contradictory　potentiality；　now　takes　objective
  form　to　self…consciousness；　He　is　all　reality　in　so　far　as　it　is　positive；　i。e。；　as　it　is　Being；　unity　of
  thought　and　Being；　the　highest　perfection　of　existence；　it　is　just　in　the　negative；　in　the　Notion　of　this；
  in　its　being　an　object　of　thought；　that　Being　is　contained。　An　objection　to　this　identity　is　now　old　—
  Kant　urged　it　likewise　—　that　from　the　Notion　of　the　most　perfect　existence　more　does　not　follow
  than　that　in　thought　existence　here　and　now　and　the　most　perfect　essence　are　conjoined；　but　not
  outside　of　thought。　But　the　very　Notion　of　present　existence　is　this　negative　of　self…consciousness；
  not　out　of　thought；　—　but　the　thought　of　the　‘out　of　thought。’
  2。　Descartes　accepts　Being　in　the　entirely　positive　sense；　and　has　not　the　conception　of　its　being
  the　negative　of　self…consciousness：　but　simple　Being；　set　forth　as　the　negative　of
  self…consciousness；　is　extension。　Descartes　thus　separates　extension　from　God；　remains　constant
  to　this　separation；　unites　the　universe；　matter；　with　God　in　such　a　way　as　to　make　Him　its　creator
  and　first　cause：　and　he　has　the　true　perception　that　conservation　is　a　continuous　creation；　in　so　far
  as　creation　as　activity　is　asserted　to　be　separated。　Descartes　does　not；　however；　trace　extension　in
  a　true　method　back　to　thought；　matter；　extended　substances；　stand　over　against　the　thinking
  substances　which　are　simple；　in　as　far　as　the　universe　is　created　by　God；　it　could　not　be　as　perfect
  as　its　cause。　As　a　matter　of　fact　the　effect　is　less　perfect　than　the　cause；　since　it　is　that　which　is
  posited；　if　we　are　to　remain　at　the　conception　of　cause　pertaining　to　the　understanding。　Hence
  according　to　Descartes　extension　is　the　less　perfect。　But　as　imperfect　the　extended　substances
  cannot　exist　and　subsist　through　themselves　or　their　Notion；　they　thus　require　every　moment　the
  assistance　of　God　for　their　maintenance；　and　without　this　they　would　in　a　moment　sink　back　into
  nothing。　Preservation　is；　however；　unceasing　re…production。　（25）
  Descartes　now　proceeds　to　further　particulars；　and　expresses　himself　as　follows：　“We　consider
  what　comes　under　consciousness　either　as　things　or　their　qualities；　or　as　eternal　truths　which　have
  no　existence　outside　our　thought〃　—　which　do　not　belong　to　this　or　that　time；　to　this　or　that　place。
  He　calls　these　last　something　inborn　within　us；　something　not　made　by　us　or　merely　felt；　（26）　but
  the　eternal　Notion　of　mind　itself　and　the　eternal　determinations　of　its　freedom；　of　itself　as　itself。
  From　this　point　the　conception　that　ideas　are　inborn　（innat？　ide？）　hence　proceeds；　this　is　the
  question　over　which　Locke　and　Leibnitz　dispute。　The　expression　“eternal　truths”　is　current　even
  in　these　modern　times；　and　it　signifies　the　universal　determinations　and　relations　which　exist　entirely
  on　their　own　account。　The　word　‘Inborn’　is　however　a　clumsy　and　stupid　expression；　because
  the　conception　of　physical　birth　thereby　indicated；　does　not　apply　to　mind。　To　Descartes　inborn
  ideas　are　not　universal；　as　they　are　to　Plato　and　his　successors；　but　that　which　has　evidence；
  immediate　certainty；　an　immediate　multiplicity　founded　in　thought　itself　—　manifold　conceptions　in
  the　form　of　a　Being；　resembling　what　Cicero　calls　natural　feelings　implanted　in　the　heart。　We　would
  rather　say　that　such　is　implied　in　the　nature　and　essence　of　our　mind　and　spirit。　Mind　is　active　and
  conducts　itself　in　its　activity　in　a　determinate　manner；　but　this　activity　has　no　other　ground　than　its
  freedom。　Yet　if　this　is　the　case　more　is　required　than　merely　to　say　so；　it　must　be　deduced　as　a
  necessary　product　of　our　mind。　We　have　such　ideas；　for　instance；　in　the　logical　laws：　“From
  nothing　comes　nothing；”　“A　thing　cannot　both　be　and　not　be；”　（27）　as　also　in　moral　principles。
  These　are　facts　of　consciousness　which　Descartes　however　soon　passes　from　again；　they　are　only
  present　in　thought　as　subjective；　and　he　has　thus　not　yet　inquired　respecting　their　content。
  As　regards　things；　on　which　Descartes　now　directs　his　attention；　the　other　side　to　these　eternal
  verities；　the　universal　determinations　of　things　are　substance；　permanence；　order；　&c。　（28）　He　then
  gives　definitions　of　these　thoughts；　just　as　Aristotle　draws　up　a　list　of　the　categories。　But　although
  Descartes　laid　it　down　formerly　as　essential　that　no　hypotheses　must　be　made；　yet　now　he　takes
  the　conceptions；　and　passes　on　to　them　as　something　found　within　our　consciousness。　He　defines
  substance　thus：　“By　substance　I　understand　none　other　than　a　thing　（rem）　which　requires　no　other
  something　for　existence；　and　there　is　only　one　thing；　namely　God；　which　can　be　regarded　as　such　a
  substance　requiring　no　other　thing。”　This　is　what　Spinoza　says；　we　may　say　that　it　is　likewise　the
  true　definition；　the　unity　of　Notion　and　reality：　“All　other”　（things）　“can　only　exist　by　means　of　a
  concurrence　（concursus）　of　God；”　what　we　still　call　substance　outside　of　God　thus　does　not　exist
  for　itself；　does　not　have　its　existence　in　the　Notion　itself。　That　is　then　called　the　system　of
  assistance　（systema　assistenti？）　which　is；　however；　transcendental。　God　is　the　absolute　uniter　of
  Notion　and　actuality；　other　things；　finite　things　which　have　a　limit　and；　stand　in　dependence；　require
  something　else。　“Hence　if　we　likewise　call　other　things　substances；　this　expression　is　not　applicable
  both　to　them　and　to　God　univoce；　as　is　said　in　the　schools；　that　is　to　say　no　definite　significance
  can　be　given　to　this　word　which　would　equally　apply　both　to　God　and　to　the　creatures。”　（29）
  “But　I　do　not　recognize　more　than　two　sorts　of　things；　the　one　is　that　of　thinking　things；　and　the
  other　that　of　things　which　relate　to　what　is　extended。”　Thought；　the　Notion；　the　spiritual；　the
  self…conscious；　is　what　is　at　home　with　i