Now I assert that all the difficulties one believes he finds in these questions, and with which, as dogmatic objections, one seeks to give the ap pearance of having a deeper insight into the nature of things than the common understanding can have, rest on a mere semblance, according to which one hypostatizes what exists merely in thoughts, and assuming it to be a real object outside the thinking subject takes the same quality, namely extension, which is nothing but appearance, for a property of external things subsisting even apart from our sensibility, and takes motion for its effect, which really takes place in itself outside our senses.