the truth from either conjecture or desire. The heart then grasps it and necessarily recognizes that this case is like the other, submitting to the truth once the obstacle has been removed. The point is that examples are sometimes given to establish what leads to recognition, and sometimes to remove what obstructs it. Their purpose may be to impart knowledge, whether by forming a conception or assenting to a judgment; it may also be to encourage following that knowledge and acting upon it.

This is illustrated by the two angels who descended to David and said:

“Judge between us in truth, do not be unjust, and guide us to the right path. {22} This is my brother: he has ninety-nine ewes, while I have only one ewe. Yet he said, ‘Entrust her to me,’ and he overpowered me in argument. {23} He said, ‘He has certainly wronged you by demanding your ewe in addition to his own ewes’”—to the end of the verse [Sād 22–24].

Once David had passed judgment, it became clear that this was an example drawn for him, and he recognized his own situation. It is well known that proofs concerning a universal proposition yield an informed conception of that proposition. Here, however, there was no obstacle that might prevent him from recognizing and following the truth. Thus, drawing an analogy with a case free from that obstacle achieved the intended purpose.

Our present discussion, comparing space and its postulation with time and its postulation, belongs to this category. Regarding the disputed matter, the opponent has acquired a belief that may prevent him from conceiving what is to be established. Otherwise, both matters are, in reality, self-evident, innate, and necessarily known. That being so, we shall examine the analogy he has drawn.