If the thing in itself is the will, the will, considered apart from its appearance, lies outside time and space and knows no plurality
If the thing in itself is the will, then the will, as such and considered apart from its appearance, lies outside time and space and accordingly knows no plurality.
Ist nun dieses Ding an sich, wie ich hinlänglich nachgewiesen und einleuchtend gemacht zu haben glaube, der Wille; so liegt er, als solcher und gesondert von seiner Erscheinung betrachtet, außer der Zeit und dem Raum, und kennt demnach keine Vielheit, ist folglich einer
Now if this thing in itself, as I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated and made evident, is the will, then it, as such and considered apart from its appearance, lies outside time and space, and accordingly knows no plurality, and is consequently one
§ 25, the third sentence. The text draws it conditionally, »Ist nun dieses Ding an sich ... der Wille; so liegt er«, with the antecedent qualified as what Schopenhauer believes he has »hinlänglich nachgewiesen und einleuchtend gemacht« in § 21 (c-schopenhauer-will-alone-is-thing-in-itself); the statement keeps the conditional and does not discharge it. It is the conclusion of the checked argument a-schopenhauer-will-knows-no-plurality, atom for atom. The sentence goes on, »ist folglich einer; doch ... nicht wie ein Individuum, noch wie ein Begriff Eins ist«, which § 23 already states (c-schopenhauer-will-groundless-and-one, »wie schon gesagt«); that further step, from no plurality to unity, is not in this claim or in the argument.