* random kant *

However, what we have alone been able to show is that the paralogisms of pure reason can not take account of the phenomena, by virtue of pure reason. As will easily be shown in the next section, it is obvious that, then, natural causes exist in our hypothetical judgements, but the Categories, for example, would be falsified. By means of analytic unity, what we have alone been able to show is that natural causes constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a priori; thus, the practical employment of time can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like transcendental logic, it is a representation of ampliative principles. It must not be supposed that necessity has lying before it our judgements. On the other hand, the reader should be careful to observe that the Categories are by their very nature contradictory, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. The architectonic of practical reason is by its very nature contradictory.

As is evident upon close examination, let us suppose that, in the full sense of these terms, the discipline of natural reason is what first gives rise to the transcendental objects in space and time. Let us suppose that necessity is what first gives rise to our faculties. Thus, I assert that our judgements constitute the whole content for, thus, natural causes, by means of analysis. The reader should be careful to observe that, even as this relates to reason, the phenomena are just as necessary as the Categories, yet the transcendental aesthetic, for these reasons, is the mere result of the power of the architectonic of human reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Has it ever been suggested that, since none of the objects in space and time are a posteriori, it is not at all certain that there is a causal connection between time and natural causes? As is evident upon close examination, the Ideal of natural reason, certainly, abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge. The paralogisms of human reason, as I have shown elsewhere, exist in the Ideal. By means of our experience, natural causes, in accordance with the principles of necessity, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like time, they stand in need to speculative principles. This distinction must have some ground in the nature of the phenomena.

As is evident upon close examination, let us suppose that our sense perceptions, that is to say, occupy part of the sphere of time concerning the existence of the objects in space and time in general. So, we can deduce that general logic stands in need of the discipline of practical reason, by means of analysis. By virtue of practical reason, our a priori concepts exist in time. The transcendental unity of apperception is just as necessary as philosophy. We can deduce that the Transcendental Deduction is what first gives rise to pure logic. It must not be supposed that time can be treated like the discipline of pure reason, as is proven in the ontological manuals. I assert, what we have alone been able to show is that, that, in so far as this expounds the universal rules of the phenomena, the manifold, when thus treated as philosophy, teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of time, yet the objects in space and time constitute the whole content for the phenomena.

As we have already seen, applied logic is the mere result of the power of the transcendental aesthetic, a blind but indispensable function of the soul; thus, the phenomena have lying before them the noumena. What we have alone been able to show is that natural causes have lying before them general logic. It remains a mystery why the Ideal (and it is obvious that this is true) is just as necessary as the manifold. It is obvious that, indeed, natural causes exclude the possibility of the transcendental aesthetic. In view of these considerations, it is obvious that our faculties constitute the whole content for the transcendental unity of apperception, because of the relation between transcendental logic and the paralogisms of practical reason. The thing in itself, with the sole exception of the thing in itself, is the mere result of the power of the Ideal of natural reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, but our faculties are what first give rise to natural causes. The phenomena are just as necessary as our experience. I assert, in the study of the Transcendental Deduction, that our understanding, insomuch as the employment of the manifold relies on our hypothetical judgements, can not take account of the objects in space and time, by means of analytic unity.

As is shown in the writings of Hume, philosophy may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with time, and philosophy can not take account of, in reference to ends, the objects in space and time. What we have alone been able to show is that our ideas, as I have shown elsewhere, exist in our a posteriori knowledge, since all of the transcendental objects in space and time are inductive. Natural causes constitute the whole content for the noumena, yet the Ideal has nothing to do with the noumena. The Ideal of practical reason is what first gives rise to, in other words, the objects in space and time. The Transcendental Deduction, thus, should only be used as a canon for the paralogisms. It is not at all certain that, in reference to ends, the manifold is a representation of reason.

Hume tells us that, in other words, space should only be used as a canon for natural causes. The paralogisms, for these reasons, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like reason, they stand in need to disjunctive principles, as will easily be shown in the next section. Thus, it remains a mystery why our faculties, however, are the clue to the discovery of the Antinomies. The things in themselves are the clue to the discovery of the Categories. The Antinomies are what first give rise to the Transcendental Deduction, as is evident upon close examination.

As is proven in the ontological manuals, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that transcendental logic abstracts from all content of knowledge. It must not be supposed that the things in themselves, by means of philosophy, prove the validity of the Antinomies, as will easily be shown in the next section. Let us suppose that our understanding is what first gives rise to, therefore, our ampliative judgements; in the case of metaphysics, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is the key to understanding, that is to say, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. The noumena can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like space, they have lying before them deductive principles. Is it true that reason is the clue to the discovery of reason, or is the real question whether natural causes should only be used as a canon for the Transcendental Deduction? The paralogisms (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) stand in need to our knowledge. By means of analytic unity, our experience stands in need of the things in themselves; in the case of our understanding, the intelligible objects in space and time exclude the possibility of the Transcendental Deduction. It is not at all certain that natural causes, even as this relates to the employment of the discipline of human reason, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a posteriori, as is evident upon close examination. But this is to be dismissed as random groping.