* random kant *

We can deduce that the noumena, for these reasons, prove the validity of the phenomena. The reader should be careful to observe that natural causes, on the other hand, exclude the possibility of the Categories. By virtue of human reason, our concepts have nothing to do with, with the sole exception of the transcendental aesthetic, the Categories, and our experience is a representation of our ideas. In the case of the architectonic of natural reason, there can be no doubt that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, indeed, has lying before it the Antinomies, because of the relation between the manifold and the Antinomies. It is obvious that, then, pure reason, in accordance with the principles of the manifold, is what first gives rise to the things in themselves, yet space can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the discipline of pure reason, it has lying before it synthetic principles. By means of analysis, let us suppose that, as far as I know, the discipline of practical reason has nothing to do with, therefore, the thing in itself, and space, on the contrary, would be falsified.

In view of these considerations, metaphysics, as far as I know, depends on our a posteriori judgements, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. Metaphysics excludes the possibility of the Antinomies, by means of analysis. However, it remains a mystery why our knowledge would be falsified. Has it ever been suggested that there can be no doubt that there is a causal connection between the things in themselves and our sense perceptions? Because of the relation between our experience and our faculties, the transcendental aesthetic is the clue to the discovery of natural causes, but the phenomena are the clue to the discovery of, as far as I know, our ideas. Our faculties have nothing to do with our sense perceptions, and necessity, therefore, should only be used as a canon for the manifold.

For these reasons, it remains a mystery why our understanding is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of it must be known a priori. Our sense perceptions constitute the whole content for the manifold; certainly, time depends on our a priori concepts. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, there can be no doubt that, for example, our sense perceptions, in natural theology, are a representation of necessity, but the objects in space and time are the mere results of the power of time, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. The Ideal of practical reason exists in the discipline of practical reason; thus, metaphysics, in other words, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of it must be known a priori. Whence comes time, the solution of which involves the relation between the Ideal and our concepts? By virtue of natural reason, our understanding is what first gives rise to our a posteriori concepts. Aristotle tells us that philosophy (and it is obvious that this is true) stands in need of the Categories; what we have alone been able to show is that, the pure employment of necessity, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is just as necessary as the things in themselves. I feel I have sufficiently shown this to be true.

As is proven in the ontological manuals, there can be no doubt that philosophy constitutes the whole content for our faculties; for these reasons, the transcendental unity of apperception is by its very nature contradictory. As will easily be shown in the next section, the noumena, consequently, stand in need to the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. I assert that the manifold constitutes the whole content for our knowledge. (By means of analysis, our ideas have lying before them our synthetic judgements, but the discipline of practical reason is the key to understanding, in so far as this expounds the contradictory rules of the transcendental aesthetic, natural causes.) On the other hand, reason, in accordance with the principles of the things in themselves, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our a priori knowledge, it may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with speculative principles, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. The things in themselves are a representation of our faculties; thus, the phenomena (and I assert, with the sole exception of general logic, that this is the case) have nothing to do with our a priori knowledge.

Our faculties are a representation of our ideas, as is shown in the writings of Hume. The paralogisms of human reason, in natural theology, prove the validity of our faculties. As will easily be shown in the next section, there can be no doubt that, as far as I know, the Ideal is just as necessary as the Ideal of practical reason. Since some of our sense perceptions are synthetic, the reader should be careful to observe that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, however, abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge; consequently, space occupies part of the sphere of the Ideal of human reason concerning the existence of our sense perceptions in general. Space, insomuch as philosophy relies on our judgements, is a representation of our knowledge. Metaphysics is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of it must be known a priori. As will easily be shown in the next section, our experience stands in need of the Antinomies, yet philosophy is the mere result of the power of the discipline of natural reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul.