Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn - The Critique of Pure Reason; Part 16 lyrics

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