Germans.  One can do no greater wrong to the whole of this exuberant and eccentric movement (which was really youthfulness, notwithstanding that it disguised itself so boldly, in hoary and senile conceptions), than to take it seriously, or even treat it with moral indignation.  Enough, however—­the world grew older, and the dream vanished.  A time came when people rubbed their foreheads, and they still rub them today.  People had been dreaming, and first and foremost—­old Kant.  “By means of a means (faculty)”—­he had said, or at least meant to say.  But, is that—­an answer?  An explanation?  Or is it not rather merely a repetition of the question?  How does opium induce sleep?  “By means of a means (faculty),” namely the virtus dormitiva, replies the doctor in Moliere,

    Quia est in eo virtus dormitiva,
    Cujus est natura sensus assoupire.

But such replies belong to the realm of comedy, and it is high time to replace the Kantian question, “How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?” by another question, “Why is belief in such judgments necessary?”—­in effect, it is high time that we should understand that such judgments must be believed to be true, for the sake of the preservation of creatures like ourselves; though they still might naturally be false judgments!  Or, more plainly spoken, and roughly and readily—­synthetic judgments a priori should not “be possible” at all; we have no right to them; in our mouths they are nothing but false judgments.  Only, of course, the belief in their truth is necessary, as plausible belief and ocular evidence belonging to the perspective view of life.  And finally, to call to mind the enormous influence which “German philosophy”—­I hope you understand its right to inverted commas (goosefeet)?—­has exercised throughout the whole of Europe, there is no doubt that a certain virtus dormitiva had a share in it; thanks to German philosophy, it was a delight to the noble idlers, the virtuous, the mystics, the artiste, the three-fourths Christians, and the political obscurantists of all nations, to find an antidote to the still overwhelming sensualism which overflowed from the last century into this, in short—­“sensus assoupire.” . . .

12.  As regards materialistic atomism, it is one of the best-refuted theories that have been advanced, and in Europe there is now perhaps no one in the learned world so unscholarly as to attach serious signification to it, except for convenient everyday use (as an abbreviation of the means of expression)—­ thanks chiefly to the Pole Boscovich:  he and the Pole Copernicus have hitherto been the greatest and most successful opponents of ocular evidence.  For while Copernicus has persuaded us to believe, contrary to all the senses, that the earth does not stand fast, Boscovich has taught us to abjure the belief in the last thing that “stood fast” of the earth—­the belief in “substance,” in “matter,” in the earth-residuum, and particle-atom:  it