Now, I am compelled to favor a strange return to Kant. In Hume there is no Truth, but what is called Factionalism. He denies the possibility of knowledge outright saying that what we call causality is merely something we give that name. Kant says, after thinking it though much more seriously than the youthful Hume or any Englishman was then able, causality would not be what we meant if it was not true analytically. The movement of feet produce a certain effect, they cause a kind of noise, for instance. The rain causes the earth to become moist. Schopenhauer denies both these accounts and says it is the will that will causality to be. Hume says, to reiterate, there is no causality. Kant says causality simply names that which it names, for that is what we have always meant. Schopenhauer says the reality of the link between two events is that we take it as real, ergo we will to regard it as the cause. This may be conserved to happen deep in the instincts or drives, or, better, in the transcendental region beyond the empirical.
It is clear that, in this case, it is not sufficient that something come first, and another thing come after, for it to be a cause of the latter thing. Day does not cause night in the sense of a physical law. The physical laws, finally, about 1850 or so, were generally beginning to be clearly separable from the opinions of reason and the imagination. however, it is doubtful whether the full partitioning of the is from the ought was ever carried out. And today the imagination still holds sway in the belief about the free standing physical laws which are willed under various learned understanding, some of Herculean difficulty to grasp according to immediate learned modification of our intuitions.
It is clear that beings truth much in some sense be god for the human being, otherwise its claim on humans would give out. Contrary to this it is imagined by a tacit sort of metaphysics that one can speak of a region of being without humans. For instance the distant past, or some far solar system. Such claims are correct, but always refer back to the current understanding, and at bottom are no different than pointing out that objects are behind our head even when we don't see them. No account of a supposed independence brings us to truth, except that all be regarded as independent including the inner working of the dream and the so-called value. Everything floats in the field of the ultimate cause. The field of the ultimate cause can never be honed or refined such that part of what is can be set outside it, in favor of the qualified physical laws, as in the now popular account. Truth must, thereby, belong to that being which does not know where it is, or when it is, or who.