PROPOSITION XXXIV.

Transcendental Unity is not limited to Individual Unity, but extends to all Unity which is discoverable in Real Being.

PROLEGOMENON.

In the preceding Proposition, Numerical Unity was considered according to its usual acceptation, viz, as Quantitative Unity; in the present, it is taken in a wider sense, and is identified with singular or individual Unity as opposed to generic or specific. It is called singular or individual; because it is not communicable to many inferiors, as generic or specific Unity is. The term, Numerical, is applied to it; because it is, as it were, the measure of Multitude, or of Transcendental Number. It has been maintained, then, that Transcendental Unity is identical with Individual Unity; and it is against this opinion that the present Thesis is directed.

I. The proof is drawn from the nature of Transcendental Unity. For, as it has been repeatedly shown, Transcendental Unity is convertible with real Being. Hence, whatever kind of real Unity can be discovered in real Being, must find a place under Transcendental Unity. But there are other kinds of real Unity, discoverable in real Being, besides Individual Unity. Therefore, Transcendental Unity must not be limited to this latter.

That there are other forms of Unity, besides Individual, which are to be found in real Being, will be plainly seen after attentive consideration. For in the concept formed, for instance, of human nature, there is an intrinsic absence of division, and, therefore, a Unity which distinguishes and divides it off from all other natures of whatsoever kind. Nor is this notion so purely conceptual as to have no real objective concept corresponding with it. It is plain to common sense that the human mind, in forming the concept of human nature, represents something real and objective; although it is true that this objective reality is only to be found existing in singulars. So again, in the concept of human nature and other like Forms as relative Universals, i.e. as formally capable of being in many inferiors, though the logical element predominates; there is still, even here, an entitative reality, which distinguishes such concepts from Second Intentions, or mere creations of the intellect. The nature of the distinction between the conceptual and objectively real elements, discoverable in these two classes of concepts, will be considered in those Chapters of the present Book, which treat of these two kinds of Unity ex professo.

II. There is another confirmatory argument for the truth of this Proposition, which is derived from the nature of an adequate Attribute. For such an Attribute does not belong only to the inferiors that are contained under the common Subject of Attribution, but to the common Subject itself as well. Wherefore, Transcendental Unity is really predicable of Being itself, as well as of the inferior determinations contained under Being. But Being, as such, is not individual. Therefore, Transcendental must not be limited to Individual Unity.

DIFFICULTY.

Since Transcendental Unity is a proper Attribute of real Being, it follows that it likewise must be real, In the light of the doctrine already established by the earlier Thesis of this Chapter, the above conclusion becomes yet more apparent. For it has been shown that Transcendental Unity essentially includes Being in its formal concept, and only adds negation or privation of division; so that objectively Unity is identified with real Being. But all real Being, whether existing or possible, is singular; therefore, the Unity which is objectively identical with Being, must be singular or individual. Besides, as a fact, in the whole world of real Being there is no real Unity discoverable, save Individual Unity. Even possible Entity is conceivable as proximately and immediately capable of existence, only as individuated. Therefore, it would seem as though Transcendental were convertible with Individual Unity.

ANSWER. It may be conceded, (for it is undoubtedly true), that there is no real Being, existing or immediately capable of existing, which is not singular or individual. And yet there are other real Unities existing in those individual Beings, besides their individual Unity. And such other Unities, though not physically distinct or separable from that individual Being, are yet metaphysically and really, though not existentially, distinct. Take an instance: Napoleon is an individual Being. If he is considered existentially, or in the concrete, during any portion of his life; he exhibits a composite of many things, which at that given time are an integral, inseparable, part of himself. He has his height, weight, knowledge, aims, colour, habits, which are physically one with himself. Contemplate him now at an earlier period of his life. His height, weight, knowledge, aims, colour, habits, etc. are altogether different; yet for the time being they also are an integral, inseparable, part of himself. Besides all these, there is something which remains the same all the way through; otherwise, there would be no objective reason for knowing, and asserting, that it is the same Napoleon in both cases. There is, therefore, a real Unity here, which is in some way or other distinct from that concrete Individual Unity, designated in both instances, Napoleon. Yet such identity of Essence is at no time physically separable from that congeries of Accidents which, at any given time, really forms part of the individual entity, known by the name of Napoleon. So much will suffice, till the opportunity occurs for a more intimate investigation.