Conclusion of the Solution of the Psychological Paralogism
The dialectical illusion in rational psychology arises from our
Confounding an idea of reason (of a pure intelligence) with the
Conception--in every respect undetermined--of a thinking being in
General. I cogitate myself in behalf of a possible experience, at
The same time making abstraction of all actual experience; and infer
Therefrom that I can be conscious of myself apart from experience
And its empirical conditions. I consequently confound the possible
Abstraction of my empirically determined existence with the supposed
Consciousness of a possible separate existence of my thinking self;
And I believe that I cognize what is substantial in myself as a
Transcendental subject, when I have nothing more in thought than the
Unity of consciousness, which lies at the basis of all determination of
Cognition
The task of explaining the community of the soul with the body does not
Properly belong to the psychology of which we are here speaking;
Because it proposes to prove the personality of the soul apart from this
Communion (after d**h), and is therefore transcendent in the proper
Sense of the word, although occupying itself with an object of
Experience--only in so far, however, as it ceases to be an object of
Experience. But a sufficient answer may be found to the question in
Our system. The difficulty which lies in the execution of this task
Consists, as is well known, in the presupposed heterogeneity of the
Object of the internal sense (the soul) and the objects of the external
Senses; inasmuch as the formal condition of the intuition of the one is
Time, and of that of the other space also. But if we consider that both
Kinds of objects do not differ internally, but only in so far as the
One appears externally to the other--consequently, that what lies at the
Basis of phenomena, as a thing in itself, may not be heterogeneous; this
Difficulty disappears. There then remains no other difficulty than is to
Be found in the question--how a community of substances is possible;
A question which lies out of the region of psychology, and which the
Reader, after what in our an*lytic has been said of primitive forces
And faculties, will easily judge to be also beyond the region of human
Cognition
GENERAL REMARK
On the Transition from Rational Psychology to Cosmology
The proposition, "I think," or, "I exist thinking," is an empirical
Proposition. But such a proposition must be based on empirical
Intuition, and the object cogitated as a phenomenon; and thus our
Theory appears to maintain that the soul, even in thought, is merely
A phenomenon; and in this way our consciousness itself, in fact, abuts
Upon nothing
Thought, per se, is merely the purely spontaneous logical function which
Operates to connect the manifold of a possible intuition; and it does
Not represent the subject of consciousness as a phenomenon--for this
Reason alone, that it pays no attention to the question whether the
Mode of intuiting it is sensuous or intellectual. I therefore do not
Represent myself in thought either as I am, or as I appear to myself; I
Merely cogitate myself as an object in general, of the mode of intuiting
Which I make abstraction. When I represent myself as the subject of
Thought, or as the ground of thought, these modes of representation are
Not related to the categories of substance or of cause; for these are
Functions of thought applicable only to our sensuous intuition. The
Application of these categories to the Ego would, however, be necessary
If I wished to make myself an object of knowledge. But I wish to be
Conscious of myself only as thinking; in what mode my Self is given
In intuition, I do not consider, and it may be that I, who think, am a
Phenomenon--although not in so far as I am a thinking being; but in
The consciousness of myself in mere thought I am a being, though this
Consciousness does not present to me any property of this being as
Material for thought
But the proposition, "I think," in so far as it declares, "I exist
Thinking," is not the mere representation of a logical function
It determines the subject (which is in this case an object also) in
Relation to existence; and it cannot be given without the aid of the
Internal sense, whose intuition presents to us an object, not as a thing
In itself, but always as a phenomenon. In this proposition there is
Therefore something more to be found than the mere spontaneity of
Thought; there is also the receptivity of intuition, that is, my thought
Of myself applied to the empirical intuition of myself. Now, in this
Intuition the thinking self must seek the conditions of the employment
Of its logical functions as categories of substance, cause, and so
Forth; not merely for the purpose of distinguishing itself as an object
In itself by means of the representation "I," but also for the purpose
Of determining the mode of its existence, that is, of cognizing
Itself as noumenon. But this is impossible, for the internal empirical
Intuition is sensuous, and presents us with nothing but phenomenal data
Which do not a**ist the object of pure consciousness in its attempt
To cognize itself as a separate existence, but are useful only as
Contributions to experience
But, let it be granted that we could discover, not in experience, but in
Certain firmly-established a priori laws of the use of pure reason--laws
Relating to our existence, authority to consider ourselves as
Legislating a priori in relation to our own existence and as determining
This existence; we should, on this supposition, find ourselves possessed
Of a spontaneity, by which our actual existence would be determinable
Without the aid of the conditions of empirical intuition. We should also
Become aware that in the consciousness of our existence there was an
A priori content, which would serve to determine our own existence--an
Existence only sensuously determinable--relatively, however, to a
Certain internal faculty in relation to an intelligible world
But this would not give the least help to the attempts of rational
Psychology. For this wonderful faculty, which the consciousness of
The moral law in me reveals, would present me with a principle of the
Determination of my own existence which is purely intellectual--but by
What predicates? By none other than those which are given in sensuous
Intuition. Thus I should find myself in the same position in rational
Psychology which I formerly occupied, that is to say, I should
Find myself still in need of sensuous intuitions, in order to give
Significance to my conceptions of substance and cause, by means of which
Alone I can possess a knowledge of myself: but these intuitions can
Never raise me above the sphere of experience. I should be justified
However, in applying these conceptions, in regard to their practical
Use, which is always directed to objects of experience--in conformity
With their an*logical significance when employed theoretically--to
Freedom and its subject. At the same time, I should understand by them
Merely the logical functions of subject and predicate, of principle and
Consequence, in conformity with which all actions are so determined
That they are capable of being explained along with the laws of nature
Conformably to the categories of substance and cause, although
They originate from a very different principle. We have made these
Observations for the purpose of guarding against misunderstanding, to
Which the doctrine of our intuition of self as a phenomenon is exposed
We shall have occasion to perceive their utility in the sequel
CHAPTER II. The Antinomy of Pure Reason
We showed in the introduction to this part of our work, that all
Transcendental illusion of pure reason arose from dialectical arguments
The schema of which logic gives us in its three formal species of
Syllogisms--just as the categories find their logical schema in the
Four functions of all judgements. The first kind of these sophistical
Arguments related to the unconditioned unity of the subjective
Conditions of all representations in general (of the subject or soul)
In correspondence with the categorical syllogisms, the major of which
As the principle, enounces the relation of a predicate to a subject
The second kind of dialectical argument will therefore be concerned
Following the an*logy with hypothetical syllogisms, with the
Unconditioned unity of the objective conditions in the phenomenon;
And, in this way, the theme of the third kind to be treated of in the
Following chapter will be the unconditioned unity of the objective
Conditions of the possibility of objects in general
But it is worthy of remark that the transcendental paralogism produced
In the mind only a one-third illusion, in regard to the idea of the
Subject of our thought; and the conceptions of reason gave no ground to
Maintain the contrary proposition. The advantage is completely on the
Side of Pneumatism; although this theory itself pa**es into naught, in
The crucible of pure reason
Very different is the case when we apply reason to the objective
Synthesis of phenomena. Here, certainly, reason establishes, with much
Plausibility, its principle of unconditioned unity; but it very soon
Falls into such contradictions that it is compelled, in relation to
Cosmology, to renounce its pretensions
For here a new phenomenon of human reason meets us--a perfectly natural
Antithetic, which does not require to be sought for by subtle sophistry
But into which reason of itself unavoidably falls. It is thereby
Preserved, to be sure, from the slumber of a fancied conviction--which
A merely one-sided illusion produces; but it is at the same time
Compelled, either, on the one hand, to abandon itself to a despairing
Scepticism, or, on the other, to a**ume a dogmatical confidence and
Obstinate persistence in certain a**ertions, without granting a fair
Hearing to the other side of the question. Either is the d**h of a
Sound philosophy, although the former might perhaps deserve the title of
The euthanasia of pure reason
Before entering this region of discord and confusion, which the conflict
Of the laws of pure reason (antinomy) produces, we shall present the
Reader with some considerations, in explanation and justification of the
Method we intend to follow in our treatment of this subject. I term all
Transcendental ideas, in so far as they relate to the absolute totality
In the synthesis of phenomena, cosmical conceptions; partly on
Account of this unconditioned totality, on which the conception of the
World-whole is based--a conception, which is itself an idea--partly
Because they relate solely to the synthesis of phenomena--the empirical
Synthesis; while, on the other hand, the absolute totality in the
Synthesis of the conditions of all possible things gives rise to
An ideal of pure reason, which is quite distinct from the cosmical
Conception, although it stands in relation with it. Hence, as the
Paralogisms of pure reason laid the foundation for a dialectical
Psychology, the antinomy of pure reason will present us with the
Transcendental principles of a pretended pure (rational) cosmology--not
However, to declare it valid and to appropriate it, but--as the very
Term of a conflict of reason sufficiently indicates, to present it as an
Idea which cannot be reconciled with phenomena and experience
SECTION I. System of Cosmological Ideas
That We may be able to enumerate with systematic precision these ideas
According to a principle, we must remark, in the first place, that it
Is from the understanding alone that pure and transcendental conceptions
Take their origin; that the reason does not properly give birth to any
Conception, but only frees the conception of the understanding from the
Unavoidable limitation of a possible experience, and thus endeavours to
Raise it above the empirical, though it must still be in connection with
It. This happens from the fact that, for a given conditioned, reason
Demands absolute totality on the side of the conditions (to which the
Understanding submits all phenomena), and thus makes of the category a
Transcendental idea. This it does that it may be able to give absolute
Completeness to the empirical synthesis, by continuing it to the
Unconditioned (which is not to be found in experience, but only in
The idea). Reason requires this according to the principle: If the
Conditioned is given the whole of the conditions, and consequently the
Absolutely unconditioned, is also given, whereby alone the former was
Possible. First, then, the transcendental ideas are properly nothing but
Categories elevated to the unconditioned; and they may be arranged in
A table according to the titles of the latter. But, secondly, all the
Categories are not available for this purpose, but only those in which
The synthesis constitutes a series--of conditions subordinated to, not
Co-ordinated with, each other. Absolute totality is required of reason
Only in so far as concerns the ascending series of the conditions of
A conditioned; not, consequently, when the question relates to
The descending series of consequences, or to the aggregate of the
Co-ordinated conditions of these consequences. For, in relation to a
Given conditioned, conditions are presupposed and considered to be given
Along with it. On the other hand, as the consequences do not render
Possible their conditions, but rather presuppose them--in the
Consideration of the procession of consequences (or in the descent from
The given condition to the conditioned), we may be quite unconcerned
Whether the series ceases or not; and their totality is not a necessary
Demand of reason
Thus we cogitate--and necessarily--a given time completely elapsed up
To a given moment, although that time is not determinable by us. But
As regards time future, which is not the condition of arriving at the
Present, in order to conceive it; it is quite indifferent whether we
Consider future time as ceasing at some point, or as prolonging itself
To infinity. Take, for example, the series m, n, o, in which n is given
As conditioned in relation to m, but at the same time as the condition
Of o, and let the series proceed upwards from the conditioned n to m (l
K, i, etc.), and also downwards from the condition n to the conditioned
O (p, q, r, etc.)--I must presuppose the former series, to be able
To consider n as given, and n is according to reason (the totality of
Conditions) possible only by means of that series. But its possibility
Does not rest on the following series o, p, q, r, which for this
Reason cannot be regarded as given, but only as capable of being given
(dabilis)
I shall term the synthesis of the series on the side of the
Conditions--from that nearest to the given phenomenon up to the more
Remote--regressive; that which proceeds on the side of the conditioned
From the immediate consequence to the more remote, I shall call the
Progressive synthesis. The former proceeds in antecedentia, the latter
In consequentia. The cosmological ideas are therefore occupied with the
Totality of the regressive synthesis, and proceed in antecedentia, not
In consequentia. When the latter takes place, it is an arbitrary and
Not a necessary problem of pure reason; for we require, for the complete
Understanding of what is given in a phenomenon, not the consequences
Which succeed, but the grounds or principles which precede
In order to construct the table of ideas in correspondence with the
Table of categories, we take first the two primitive quanta of all our
Intuitions, time and space. Time is in itself a series (and the formal
Condition of all series), and hence, in relation to a given present
We must distinguish a priori in it the antecedentia as conditions
(time past) from the consequentia (time future). Consequently, the
Transcendental idea of the absolute totality of the series of the
Conditions of a given conditioned, relates merely to all past time
According to the idea of reason, the whole past time, as the condition
Of the given moment, is necessarily cogitated as given. But, as
Regards space, there exists in it no distinction between progressus and
Regressus; for it is an aggregate and not a series--its parts existing
Together at the same time. I can consider a given point of time in
Relation to past time only as conditioned, because this given moment
Comes into existence only through the past time rather through the
Pa**ing of the preceding time. But as the parts of space are not
Subordinated, but co-ordinated to each other, one part cannot be the
Condition of the possibility of the other; and space is not in itself
Like time, a series. But the synthesis of the manifold parts of
Space--(the syntheses whereby we apprehend space)--is nevertheless
Successive; it takes place, therefore, in time, and contains a series
And as in this series of aggregated spaces (for example, the feet in a
Rood), beginning with a given portion of space, those which continue
To be annexed form the condition of the limits of the former--the
Measurement of a space must also be regarded as a synthesis of the
Series of the conditions of a given conditioned. It differs, however, in
This respect from that of time, that the side of the conditioned is
Not in itself distinguishable from the side of the condition; and
Consequently, regressus and progressus in space seem to be identical
But, inasmuch as one part of space is not given, but only limited
By and through another, we must also consider every limited space
As conditioned, in so far as it presupposes some other space as
The condition of its limitation, and so on. As regards limitation
Therefore, our procedure in space is also a regressus, and the
Transcendental idea of the absolute totality of the synthesis in a
Series of conditions applies to space also; and I am entitled to demand
The absolute totality of the phenomenal synthesis in space as well as in
Time. Whether my demand can be satisfied is a question to be answered in
The sequel
Secondly, the real in space--that is, matter--is conditioned. Its
Internal conditions are its parts, and the parts of parts its remote
Conditions; so that in this case we find a regressive synthesis, the
Absolute totality of which is a demand of reason. But this cannot be
Obtained otherwise than by a complete division of parts, whereby the
Real in matter becomes either nothing or that which is not matter
That is to say, the simple. Consequently we find here also a series of
Conditions and a progress to the unconditioned
Thirdly, as regards the categories of a real relation between phenomena
The category of substance and its accidents is not suitable for the
Formation of a transcendental idea; that is to say, reason has no
Ground, in regard to it, to proceed regressively with conditions. For
Accidents (in so far as they inhere in a substance) are co-ordinated
With each other, and do not constitute a series. And, in relation to
Substance, they are not properly subordinated to it, but are the mode
Of existence of the substance itself. The conception of the substantial
Might nevertheless seem to be an idea of the transcendental reason
But, as this signifies nothing more than the conception of an object
In general, which subsists in so far as we cogitate in it merely a
Transcendental subject without any predicates; and as the question here
Is of an unconditioned in the series of phenomena--it is clear that
The substantial can form no member thereof. The same holds good of
Substances in community, which are mere aggregates and do not form a
Series. For they are not subordinated to each other as conditions of the
Possibility of each other; which, however, may be affirmed of spaces
The limits of which are never determined in themselves, but always by
Some other space. It is, therefore, only in the category of causality
That we can find a series of causes to a given effect, and in which
We ascend from the latter, as the conditioned, to the former as the
Conditions, and thus answer the question of reason
Fourthly, the conceptions of the possible, the actual, and the necessary
Do not conduct us to any series--excepting only in so far as the
Contingent in existence must always be regarded as conditioned, and as
Indicating, according to a law of the understanding, a condition, under
Which it is necessary to rise to a higher, till in the totality of the
Series, reason arrives at unconditioned necessity
There are, accordingly, only four cosmological ideas, corresponding
With the four titles of the categories. For we can select only such as
Necessarily furnish us with a series in the synthesis of the manifold
1
The absolute Completeness
Of the
COMPOSITION
Of the given totality of all phenomena
2
The absolute Completeness
Of the
DIVISION
Of given totality in a phenomenon
3
The absolute Completeness
Of the
ORIGINATION
Of a phenomenon
4
The absolute Completeness
Of the DEPENDENCE of the EXISTENCE
Of what is changeable in a phenomenon
We must here remark, in the first place, that the idea of absolute
Totality relates to nothing but the exposition of phenomena, and
Therefore not to the pure conception of a totality of things. Phenomena
Are here, therefore, regarded as given, and reason requires the absolute
Completeness of the conditions of their possibility, in so far as these
Conditions constitute a series--consequently an absolutely (that is, in
Every respect) complete synthesis, whereby a phenomenon can be explained
According to the laws of the understanding
Secondly, it is properly the unconditioned alone that reason seeks in
This serially and regressively conducted synthesis of conditions. It
Wishes, to speak in another way, to attain to completeness in the series
Of premisses, so as to render it unnecessary to presuppose others
This unconditioned is always contained in the absolute totality of the
Series, when we endeavour to form a representation of it in thought
But this absolutely complete synthesis is itself but an idea; for it is
Impossible, at least before hand, to know whether any such synthesis is
Possible in the case of phenomena. When we represent all existence in
Thought by means of pure conceptions of the understanding, without any
Conditions of sensuous intuition, we may say with justice that for a
Given conditioned the whole series of conditions subordinated to each
Other is also given; for the former is only given through the latter
But we find in the case of phenomena a particular limitation of the mode
In which conditions are given, that is, through the successive synthesis
Of the manifold of intuition, which must be complete in the regress. Now
Whether this completeness is sensuously possible, is a problem. But the
Idea of it lies in the reason--be it possible or impossible to connect
With the idea adequate empirical conceptions. Therefore, as in the
Absolute totality of the regressive synthesis of the manifold in a
Phenomenon (following the guidance of the categories, which represent it
As a series of conditions to a given conditioned) the unconditioned is
Necessarily contained--it being still left unascertained whether and
How this totality exists; reason sets out from the idea of totality
Although its proper and final aim is the unconditioned--of the whole
Series, or of a part thereof
This unconditioned may be cogitated--either as existing only in the
Entire series, all the members of which therefore would be
Without exception conditioned and only the totality absolutely
Unconditioned--and in this case the regressus is called infinite; or
The absolutely unconditioned is only a part of the series, to which the
Other members are subordinated, but which Is not itself submitted to
Any other condition.* In the former case the series is a parte priori
Unlimited (without beginning), that is, infinite, and nevertheless
Completely given. But the regress in it is never completed, and can only
Be called potentially infinite. In the second case there exists a first
In the series. This first is called, in relation to past time, the
Beginning of the world; in relation to space, the limit of the world; in
Relation to the parts of a given limited whole, the simple; in relation
To causes, absolute spontaneity (liberty); and in relation to the
Existence of changeable things, absolute physical necessity
[*Footnote: The absolute totality of the series of conditions to a given
Conditioned is always unconditioned; because beyond it there exist no
Other conditions, on which it might depend. But the absolute totality of
Such a series is only an idea, or rather a problematical conception, the
Possibility of which must be investigated--particularly in relation to
The mode in which the unconditioned, as the transcendental idea which is
The real subject of inquiry, may be contained therein.]
We possess two expressions, world and nature, which are generally
Interchanged. The first denotes the mathematical total of all phenomena
And the totality of their synthesis--in its progress by means of
Composition, as well as by division. And the world is termed nature,*
When it is regarded as a dynamical whole--when our attention is not
Directed to the aggregation in space and time, for the purpose of
Cogitating it as a quantity, but to the unity in the existence of
Phenomena. In this case the condition of that which happens is called
A cause; the unconditioned causality of the cause in a phenomenon is
Termed liberty; the conditioned cause is called in a more limited sense
A natural cause. The conditioned in existence is termed contingent, and
The unconditioned necessary. The unconditioned necessity of phenomena
May be called natural necessity
The ideas which we are at present engaged in discussing I have called
Cosmological ideas; partly because by the term world is understood the
Entire content of all phenomena, and our ideas are directed solely to
The unconditioned among phenomena; partly also, because world, in the
Transcendental sense, signifies the absolute totality of the content
Of existing things, and we are directing our attention only to the
Completeness of the synthesis--although, properly, only in regression
In regard to the fact that these ideas are all transcendent, and
Although they do not transcend phenomena as regards their mode, but
Are concerned solely with the world of sense (and not with noumena)
Nevertheless carry their synthesis to a degree far above all possible
Experience--it still seems to me that we can, with perfect propriety
Designate them cosmical conceptions. As regards the distinction between
The mathematically and the dynamically unconditioned which is the aim of
The regression of the synthesis, I should call the two former, in a
More limited signification, cosmical conceptions, the remaining two
Transcendent physical conceptions. This distinction does not at present
Seem to be of particular importance, but we shall afterwards find it to
Be of some value
SECTION II. Antithetic of Pure Reason
Thetic is the term applied to every collection of dogmatical
Propositions. By antithetic I do not understand dogmatical a**ertions
Of the opposite, but the self-contradiction of seemingly dogmatical
Cognitions (thesis cum antithesis), in none of which we can discover
Any decided superiority. Antithetic is not, therefore, occupied with
One-sided statements, but is engaged in considering the contradictory
Nature of the general cognitions of reason and its causes
Transcendental antithetic is an investigation into the antinomy of pure
Reason, its causes and result. If we employ our reason not merely in
The application of the principles of the understanding to objects of
Experience, but venture with it beyond these boundaries, there arise
Certain sophistical propositions or theorems. These a**ertions have
The following peculiarities: They can find neither confirmation
Nor confutation in experience; and each is in itself not only
Self-consistent, but possesses conditions of its necessity in the very
Nature of reason--only that, unluckily, there exist just as valid and
Necessary grounds for maintaining the contrary proposition
The questions which naturally arise in the consideration of this
Dialectic of pure reason, are therefore: 1st. In what propositions is
Pure reason unavoidably subject to an antinomy? 2nd. What are the causes
Of this antinomy? 3rd. Whether and in what way can reason free itself
From this self-contradiction?
A dialectical proposition or theorem of pure reason must, according
To what has been said, be distinguishable from all sophistical
Propositions, by the fact that it is not an answer to an arbitrary
Question, which may be raised at the mere pleasure of any person, but
To one which human reason must necessarily encounter in its progress. In
The second place, a dialectical proposition, with its opposite, does not
Carry the appearance of a merely artificial illusion, which disappears
As soon as it is investigated, but a natural and unavoidable illusion
Which, even when we are no longer deceived by it, continues to mock us
And, although rendered harmless, can never be completely removed
This dialectical doctrine will not relate to the unity of understanding
In empirical conceptions, but to the unity of reason in pure ideas. The
Conditions of this doctrine are--inasmuch as it must, as a synthesis
According to rules, be conformable to the understanding, and at the same
Time as the absolute unity of the synthesis, to the reason--that, if
It is adequate to the unity of reason, it is too great for the
Understanding, if according with the understanding, it is too small for
The reason. Hence arises a mutual opposition, which cannot be avoided
Do what we will
These sophistical a**ertions of dialectic open, as it were, a
Battle-field, where that side obtains the victory which has been
Permitted to make the attack, and he is compelled to yield who has been
Unfortunately obliged to stand on the defensive. And hence, champions of
Ability, whether on the right or on the wrong side, are certain to carry
Away the crown of victory, if they only take care to have the right to
Make the last attack, and are not obliged to sustain another onset from
Their opponent. We can easily believe that this arena has been often
Trampled by the feet of combatants, that many victories have been
Obtained on both sides, but that the last victory, decisive of the
Affair between the contending parties, was won by him who fought for the
Right, only if his adversary was forbidden to continue the tourney. As
Impartial umpires, we must lay aside entirely the consideration whether
The combatants are fighting for the right or for the wrong side, for
The true or for the false, and allow the combat to be first decided
Perhaps, after they have wearied more than injured each other, they
Will discover the nothingness of their cause of quarrel and part good
Friends
This method of watching, or rather of originating, a conflict of
Assertions, not for the purpose of finally deciding in favour of either
Side, but to discover whether the object of the struggle is not a mere
Illusion, which each strives in vain to reach, but which would be
No gain even when reached--this procedure, I say, may be termed the
Sceptical method. It is thoroughly distinct from scepticism--the
Principle of a technical and scientific ignorance, which undermines
The foundations of all knowledge, in order, if possible, to destroy
Our belief and confidence therein. For the sceptical method aims at
Certainty, by endeavouring to discover in a conflict of this kind
Conducted honestly and intelligently on both sides, the point
Of misunderstanding; just as wise legislators derive, from the
Embarra**ment of judges in lawsuits, information in regard to the
Defective and ill-defined parts of their statutes. The antinomy which
Reveals itself in the application of laws, is for our limited wisdom
The best criterion of legislation. For the attention of reason, which in
Abstract speculation does not easily become conscious of its errors, is
Thus roused to the momenta in the determination of its principles
But this sceptical method is essentially peculiar to transcendental
Philosophy, and can perhaps be dispensed with in every other field of
Investigation. In mathematics its use would be absurd; because in it no
False a**ertions can long remain hidden, inasmuch as its demonstrations
Must always proceed under the guidance of pure intuition, and by means
Of an always evident synthesis. In experimental philosophy, doubt and
Delay may be very useful; but no misunderstanding is possible, which
Cannot be easily removed; and in experience means of solving the
Difficulty and putting an end to the dissension must at last be found
Whether sooner or later. Moral philosophy can always exhibit its
Principles, with their practical consequences, in concreto--at least in
Possible experiences, and thus escape the mistakes and ambiguities of
Abstraction. But transcendental propositions, which lay claim to insight
Beyond the region of possible experience, cannot, on the one hand
Exhibit their abstract synthesis in any a priori intuition, nor, on the
Other, expose a lurking error by the help of experience. Transcendental
Reason, therefore, presents us with no other criterion than that of an
Attempt to reconcile such a**ertions, and for this purpose to permit a
Free and unrestrained conflict between them. And this we now proceed to
Arrange