* random kant *

As any dedicated reader can clearly see, it must not be supposed that the things in themselves have lying before them, in the case of reason, the Categories. Since knowledge of the phenomena is a priori, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is what first gives rise to our sense perceptions. The reader should be careful to observe that the paralogisms of human reason can not take account of, when thus treated as the Ideal, our ideas; in the case of the architectonic of human reason, human reason, as I have shown elsewhere, is the mere result of the power of our understanding, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Let us suppose that the thing in itself constitutes the whole content for our concepts. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, natural causes would thereby be made to contradict our concepts, and metaphysics, as I have shown elsewhere, abstracts from all content of a priori knowledge. The objects in space and time exclude the possibility of the discipline of pure reason.

Since all of the noumena are analytic, it remains a mystery why, in particular, our understanding has nothing to do with philosophy. The manifold should only be used as a canon for the transcendental unity of apperception. Certainly, it is obvious that the Ideal of pure reason, in reference to ends, is the key to understanding the transcendental unity of apperception. Since some of our sense perceptions are a posteriori, it remains a mystery why, in reference to ends, our faculties are the mere results of the power of the discipline of natural reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, and the transcendental aesthetic, therefore, occupies part of the sphere of philosophy concerning the existence of our deductive judgements in general.

As will easily be shown in the next section, necessity, on the contrary, has nothing to do with formal logic. By means of analytic unity, our concepts (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is the case) prove the validity of reason. As will easily be shown in the next section, our sense perceptions can not take account of our faculties. Consequently, our a priori judgements would be falsified. The never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, in particular, can not take account of the thing in itself. Natural causes are the clue to the discovery of natural causes. The thing in itself teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of metaphysics.

Since all of our faculties are disjunctive, I assert, certainly, that, in respect of the intelligible character, necessity is just as necessary as, by means of general logic, the paralogisms of practical reason, but the transcendental objects in space and time abstract from all content of a priori knowledge. It must not be supposed that the phenomena are just as necessary as the employment of the paralogisms, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. Since all of the noumena are a posteriori, the paralogisms, in the full sense of these terms, abstract from all content of knowledge. The paralogisms (and Hume tells us that this is the case) are what first give rise to the objects in space and time. I assert, with the sole exception of the pure employment of our understanding, that, for example, pure reason is the clue to the discovery of our speculative judgements. Because of the relation between applied logic and our ideas, the paralogisms exclude the possibility of, certainly, the phenomena, and the discipline of pure reason proves the validity of necessity.

The reader should be careful to observe that the transcendental unity of apperception, that is to say, occupies part of the sphere of our understanding concerning the existence of natural causes in general, as is evident upon close examination. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, philosophy excludes the possibility of, in natural theology, the things in themselves. On the other hand, Aristotle tells us that the discipline of practical reason is the clue to the discovery of the paralogisms of natural reason. (As will easily be shown in the next section, I assert, therefore, that our experience exists in our understanding.) As will easily be shown in the next section, the Transcendental Deduction has nothing to do with the things in themselves; with the sole exception of the manifold, the Ideal can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our a priori knowledge, it can thereby determine in its totality disjunctive principles. Philosophy constitutes the whole content for our faculties, since knowledge of our ideas is a priori. This could not be passed over in a complete system of transcendental philosophy, but in a merely critical essay the simple mention of the fact may suffice.

Because of the relation between the manifold and the noumena, the things in themselves are what first give rise to the objects in space and time, but our understanding, then, can be treated like the transcendental aesthetic. The noumena should only be used as a canon for time, yet our ideas, by means of the practical employment of metaphysics, exist in the things in themselves. As will easily be shown in the next section, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, so far as regards human reason, time. By means of the Ideal, it must not be supposed that our a posteriori knowledge, in so far as this expounds the universal rules of the thing in itself, would be falsified, since knowledge of the things in themselves is a priori. Let us suppose that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions can thereby determine in its totality our concepts.