1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
|
% \iffalse meta-comment
%<*internal>
\iffalse
%</internal>
%<*readme>
The kantlipsum package spits out sentences in Kantian style provided
by the "Kant generator for Python" by Mark Pilgrim, described in the
book "Dive into Python".
This is version 0.8b of the package
Changes from earlier version:
Version 0.8b is a maintenance release.
Copyright 2011-2023 Enrico Gregorio
It may be distributed and/or modified under the conditions of the
LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL), either version 1.3c of this
license or (at your option) any later version. The latest version
of this license is in the file
http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
Author: Enrico Gregorio
Enrico dot Gregorio at univr dot it
This work has the LPPL maintenance status "author-maintained".
This work consists of the following files:
README (this file)
kantlipsum.dtx
kantlipsum.pdf
and of the derived file
kantlipsum.sty
To install the distribution:
o run "tex kantlipsum.dtx"
%</readme>
%<*internal>
\fi
\def\nameofplainTeX{plain}
\ifx\fmtname\nameofplainTeX\else
\expandafter\begingroup
\fi
%</internal>
%<*install>
\input l3docstrip.tex
\keepsilent
\askforoverwritefalse
\preamble
---------------------------------------------------------------
The kantlipsum package --- Generate text in Kantian style
Maintained by Enrico Gregorio
E-mail: enrico DOT gregorio AT univr DOT it
Released under the LaTeX Project Public License v1.3c or later
See http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------
\endpreamble
\postamble
Copyright (C) 2011-2023 by
Enrico Gregorio
enrico DOT gregorio AT univr DOT it
It may be distributed and/or modified under the conditions of the
LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL), either version 1.3c of this
license or (at your option) any later version. The latest version
of this license is in the file
http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
This work consists of the file kantlipsum.dtx
and the derived files kantlipsum.pdf,
kantlipsum.sty and
kantlipsum.ins.
\endpostamble
\usedir{tex/latex/kantlipsum}
\generate{
\file{\jobname.sty}{\from{\jobname.dtx}{package}}
}
%</install>
%<install>\endbatchfile
%<*internal>
\usedir{source/latex/kantlipsum}
\generate{
\file{\jobname.ins}{\from{\jobname.dtx}{install}}
}
\nopreamble\nopostamble
\usedir{doc/latex/kantlipsum}
\generate{
\file{README.md}{\from{\jobname.dtx}{readme}}
}
\ifx\fmtname\nameofplainTeX
\expandafter\endbatchfile
\else
\expandafter\endgroup
\fi
%</internal>
%<*driver>
\documentclass[a4paper,full]{l3doc}
\usepackage{bookmark}
\usepackage{kantlipsum}
\begin{document}
\DocInput{\jobname.dtx}
\end{document}
%</driver>
% \fi
%
% \GetFileInfo{\jobname.sty}
%
% \title{^^A
% The \textsf{kantlipsum} package\\ Dummy text in Kantian style^^A
% \thanks{This file describes version \fileversion,
% last revised \filedate.}^^A
% }
%
% \author{^^A
% Enrico Gregorio\thanks
% {^^A
% E-mail:
% \texttt{Enrico DOT Gregorio AT univr DOT it}^^A
% }^^A
% }
%
% \date{Released \filedate}
%
% \maketitle
%
%\changes{v0.5}{2011/12/23}{First released version}
%\changes{v0.6}{2012/10/14}{Fixes for kernel changes}
%\changes{v0.6}{2012/10/14}{Added functions for producing an index}
%\changes{v0.7}{2017/11/16}{Use new kernel function}
%\changes{v0.8}{2017/07/23}{Print only a few sentences of a paragraph}
%\changes{v0.8a}{2017/07/24}{Respect options and *-version}
%\changes{v0.8b}{2023/11/21}{Maintenance release}
%
% \begin{documentation}
%
% \section{Introduction}
%
% The \pkg{kantlipsum} package is modeled after \pkg{lipsum} and
% offers pretty similar functionality, but instead of pseudolatin
% utterances, it typesets paragraphs of nonsense in Kantian style
% produced by the \emph{Kant generator for Python} by Mark Pilgrim,
% found in \href{http://www.diveintopython.net/}{\emph{Dive into
% Python}}.
%
% It has at least one advantage over \pkg{lipsum}: the text is in
% English and so finding good hyphenation points should be less
% problematic. On the contrary, the paragraphs are rather long, as
% it's common in philosophical prose.
%
% \section{Example}
%
% \kant[1-3]
%
% \section{Options}
%
% The package has four document options, the first two of which are
% alternative to each other:
% \begin{itemize}[font=\ttfamily]
% \item[par$\,\vert\,$nopar] With the default \texttt{par} all pieces
% of text will be ended by a \cs{par} command; specifying \texttt{par}
% is optional; the option \texttt{nopar} will not add this \cs{par} at
% the end of each fragment of Kantian prose.
% \item[numbers] Each piece of Kantian prose will be preceded by its
% number (such as in ``1~\textbullet~As any dedicated reader can
% clearly see\dots''), which can be useful for better control of what
% is produced.
% \item[index] Each paragraph will generate an index entry; a
% |\makeindex| command will be needed, with a suitable package for
% making the index, and |\printindex| for printing it. However the
% index entry may be off by one, since the |\index| command is issued
% at the beginning of the paragraph. Also there is no guarantee that
% the indexed word really belongs to the paragraph.
% \end{itemize}
%
% \section{Commands}
%
% The commands provided by the package are:
% \begin{itemize}[font=\ttfamily]
% \item[\cs{kant}] This command takes an optional argument which can
% be of the form \texttt{[42]} (that is, only one integer) or
% \texttt{[3-14]} (that is, two integers separated by a hyphen); as in
% \pkg{lipsum}, \verb|\kant[42]|, \verb|\kant[3-14]| and \verb|\kant|
% will produce the 42nd pseudokantian paragraph, the paragraphs from
% the 3rd to the 14th, and those from the 1st to the 7th,
% respectively.
% \item[\cs{kant*}] The same as before, see later for the difference.
% \item[\cs{kantdef}] This command takes two arguments, a control
% sequence and an integer; the call \verb|\kantdef{\mytext}{164}| will
% store in \cs{mytext} the 164th paragraph of pseudokantian text
% provided by this package.
% \end{itemize}
% The commands \cs{kant}, \cs{kant*} and \cs{kantdef} take a further
% optional argument; with \verb|\kant[42][1-3]| just the first three
% sentences of paragraph number~42 will be printed; ranges outside the
% actual number of sentences will be ignored. The requested sentences
% are stored, in the case of \cs{kantdef}.
%
% What's the difference between \cs{kant} and \cs{kant*}? The normal
% version will respect the given package option; that is, if
% \texttt{par} is in force, \verb|\kant[1-2]| will produce \emph{two}
% paragraphs, while \verb|\kant*[1-2]| will only produce a big chunk
% of text without issuing any \verb|\par| command. The logic is
% reversed if the \texttt{nopar} option has been given.
%
% By the way, 164 is the number of available pieces; if one exceeds
% the limit, nothing will be printed. Thus \verb|\kant[164-200]| will
% print only \emph{one} paragraph. However, printing all paragraphs
% with the standard ten point size Computer Modern font and the
% \pkg{article} class fills more than fifty pages, so it seems that
% the supply of text can be sufficient.
%
% \subsection*{Note}
%
% This package is just an exercise for practicing with \LaTeX3
% syntax. It uses the ``experimental'' packages made available by the
% \LaTeX3 team. Many thanks to Joseph Wright, Bruno Le Floch and Frank
% Mittelbach for suggesting improvements.
%
% \subsection*{Changes from version 0.1}
%
% There's no user level change; the implementation has been modified
% in some places (in particular a sequence is used to store the
% phrases, rather than many token lists).
%
% \subsection*{Changes from version 0.5}
%
% Some changes in \LaTeX3 introduced some misfeatures, which this
% version corrects. Some kernel function names were also changed; here
% |\prg_stepwise_function:nnnN| that became |\int_step_function:nnnN|.
% Some functions have been made |protected|.
%
% The most striking change is the possibility to generate an index:
% each paragraph indexes one of its words or phrases.
%
% \subsection*{Changes from version 0.6}
%
% Maintenance release with new functions from \texttt{expl3}. Now
% a kernel released on 2017/11/14 or later is required.
%
% \subsection*{Changes from version 0.7}
%
% Printing just some sentences in a paragraph is possible. Now
% a kernel released on 2019/07/01 or later is required.
%
% \subsection*{Changes from version 0.8}
%
% Added a missing \cs{@@par:}
%
% \end{documentation}
%
% \begin{implementation}
%
% \section{\pkg{kantlipsum} implementation}
%
% \begin{macrocode}
%<*package>
% \end{macrocode}
%
% \begin{macrocode}
%<@@=kgl>
% \end{macrocode}
%
%
% \begin{macrocode}
\ProvidesExplPackage
{kantlipsum}
{2023/11/21}
{0.8b}
{Generate text in Kantian style}
% \end{macrocode}
%
% A check to make sure that \pkg{expl3} is not too old
% \begin{macrocode}
\@ifl@t@r\ExplLoaderFileDate{2022-11-09}
{}
{%
\PackageError { kantlipsum } { Support~package~expl3~too~old }
{
You~need~to~update~your~installation~of~the~bundles~
'l3kernel'~and~'l3packages'.\MessageBreak
Loading~kantlipsum~will~abort!
}
\tex_endinput:D
}
% \end{macrocode}
%
% \subsection{Package options and required packages}
% We declare the allowed options and choose by default
% \texttt{par}. We also need to declare a function |\@@_number:n|
% that is set by the \texttt{numbers} option; its default action is to
% gobble its argument.
% \begin{macrocode}
\DeclareOption { par }
{
\cs_set_protected:Nn \@@_star: { \c_space_tl }
\cs_set_protected:Nn \@@_nostar: { \par }
}
\DeclareOption{ nopar }
{
\cs_set_protected:Nn \@@_star: { \par }
\cs_set_protected:Nn \@@_nostar: { \c_space_tl }
}
\DeclareOption{ numbers }
{
\cs_set_protected:Nn \@@_number:n
{
#1\nobreak\enspace\textbullet\nobreak\enspace
}
}
\bool_new:N \g_@@_makeindex_bool
\bool_gset_false:N \g_@@_makeindex_bool
\DeclareOption{ index }
{ \bool_gset_true:N \g_@@_makeindex_bool }
\cs_new_eq:NN \@@_number:n \use_none:n
\ExecuteOptions{par}
\ProcessOptions \scan_stop:
% \end{macrocode}
%
% \subsection{Messages}
% We define two messages.
% \begin{macrocode}
\msg_new:nnn {kantlipsum}{how-many}
{The~package~provides~paragraphs~1~to~#1.~
Values~outside~this~range~will~be~ignored.}
\msg_new:nnnn {kantlipsum}{already-defined}
{Control~sequence~#1~already~defined.}
{The~control~sequence~#1~is~already~defined,~
I'll~ignore~it}
% \end{macrocode}
%
% \subsection{Variables and constants}
% The |\l_@@_start_int| variable will contain the starting number for
% processing, while |\l_@@_end_int| the ending number. The
% |\g_@@_pars_seq| sequence will contain the pseudokantian sentences
% and |\g_@@_words_seq| that contains the words to index.
% \begin{macrocode}
\int_new:N \l_@@_start_int
\int_new:N \l_@@_end_int
\seq_new:N \g_@@_pars_seq
\seq_new:N \g_@@_words_seq
\seq_new:N \l_@@_sentences_seq
% \end{macrocode}
%
% \subsection{User level commands}
% There are two user level commands, \cs{kant} (with a *-variant) and \cs{kantdef}.
%
% \begin{function}{\kant}
% The (optional) argument is described as before. We use the
% \cs{SplitArgument} feature provided by \pkg{xparse} to decide
% whether the `range form' has been specified. In the \cs{kant*} form
% we reverse the logic.
% \begin{macrocode}
\NewDocumentCommand{\kant}
{
s
>{\SplitArgument{1}{-}}O{1-7}
>{\SplitArgument{1}{-}}o}
{
\group_begin:
\IfBooleanTF{#1}
{ \cs_set_eq:NN \@@_par: \@@_star: }
{ \cs_set_eq:NN \@@_par: \@@_nostar: }
\IfNoValueTF{#3}
{ \@@_process:nn #2 \@@_print: }
{ \@@_process:nnnn #2 #3 \tl_use:N \l_tmpa_tl \@@_par: }
\group_end:
}
% \end{macrocode}
%\changes{v0.8a}{2019/07/24}{Added a missing \cs{@@par:}}
% \end{function}
%
% \begin{function}{\kantdef}
% Sometimes one needs just a piece of text without implicit \cs{par}
% attached, so we provide \cs{kantdef}. In a group we neutralize the
% meaning of |\@@_number:n| and |\@@_par:| and define the control
% sequence given as first argument to the pseudokantian sentence being
% the $k$th element of the sequence containing them, where $k$ is the
% number given as second argument. If the control sequence is already
% defined we issue an error and don't perform the definition.
% \begin{macrocode}
\NewDocumentCommand{\kantdef}
{
m
m
>{\SplitArgument{1}{-}}O{1-50}
}
{
\group_begin:
\@@_define:nnnn {#1} {#2} #3
\group_end:
}
% \end{macrocode}
% \end{function}
%
% \subsection{Internal functions}
% \begin{function}{\@@_process:nn}
% The function |\@@_process:nn| sets the temporary variables
% |\l_@@_start_int| and |\l_@@_end_int|. If the optional argument to
% \cs{kant} is missing they are already set to 1 and 7 respectively;
% otherwise the argument has been split into its components; if the
% argument was |[|$m$|]| we set both variables to $m$, otherwise it
% was in the form |[|$m$|-|$n$|]| and we do the obvious action.
% \begin{macrocode}
\cs_new_protected:Nn \@@_process:nn
{
\int_set:Nn \l_@@_start_int {#1}
\tl_if_novalue:nTF {#2}
{ \int_set:Nn \l_@@_end_int {#1} }
{ \int_set:Nn \l_@@_end_int {#2} }
}
\cs_new_protected:Nn \@@_process:nnnn
{
\tl_set:Ne \l_tmpa_tl { \seq_item:Nn \g_@@_pars_seq {#1} }
\tl_if_novalue:nTF {#4}
{ \@@_extract:nnV {#3} {#3} \l_tmpa_tl }
{ \@@_extract:nnV {#3} {#4} \l_tmpa_tl }
}
% \end{macrocode}
% \end{function}
% \changes{v0.7}{2017/11/16}{Use \cs{tl_if_novalue:nTF} instead of \cs{IfNoValueTF}}
%
% \begin{function}{\@@_print:,\@@_use:n}
% The printing routine is in the function |\@@_print:|; we start a
% loop printing item number $x$ in the sequence |\g_@@_pars_seq| for
% all numbers $x$ in the specified range. The function |\@@_use:n|
% function is a wrapper to be used with |\int_step_function:nnnN|:
% it's passed a number as argument, builds the constant name
% corresponding to it and produces the text. If the index entry is to
% be issued, the appropriate element from |\g_@@_words_seq| is used;
% the page reference might not be correct, though.
% \begin{macrocode}
\cs_new_protected:Nn \@@_print:
{
\int_step_function:nnnN
{\l_@@_start_int} {1} {\l_@@_end_int} \@@_use:n
}
\cs_new:Nn \@@_use:n
{
\int_compare:nNnF { #1 } > { \seq_count:N \g_@@_pars_seq }
{ \@@_number:n {#1} }
\bool_if:NT \g_@@_makeindex_bool
{
\use:x { \exp_not:N \index{ \seq_item:Nn \g_@@_words_seq {#1} } }
}
\seq_item:Nn \g_@@_pars_seq {#1}
}
% \end{macrocode}
% \end{function}
%
% \begin{function}{\@@_newpara:n}
% The |\@@_newpara:n| appends a new item to the sequence |\g_@@_pars_seq|
% consisting of, say, \meta{text of the 42nd sentence}|\@@_par:|
% \begin{macrocode}
\cs_new_protected:Nn \@@_newpara:n
{ \seq_gput_right:Nn \g_@@_pars_seq {#1\@@_par:} }
% \end{macrocode}
% \end{function}
%
% \begin{function}{\@@_newword:n}
% The |\@@_newword:n| function appends a new item to the sequence
% |\g_@@_words_seq| consisting of one word from the corresponding
% paragraph.
% \begin{macrocode}
\cs_new_protected:Nn \@@_newword:n
{ \seq_gput_right:Nn \g_@@_words_seq {#1} }
% \end{macrocode}
% \end{function}
%
% \begin{function}{\@@define:nnnn}
% The function |\@@define:nnnn| chooses the paragraph, then extracts the
% requested sentences.
% \begin{macrocode}
\cs_new_protected:Nn \@@_define:nnnn
{
\cs_set_eq:NN \@@_number:n \use_none:n
\cs_set_eq:NN \@@_par: \prg_do_nothing:
\cs_if_exist:NTF #1
{
\msg_error:nnn {kantlipsum} {already-defined} {#1}
}
{
\tl_set:Ne \l_tmpa_tl { \seq_item:Nn \g_@@_pars_seq {#2} }
\tl_if_novalue:nTF {#4}
{ \@@_extract:nnV {#3} {#3} \l_tmpa_tl }
{ \@@_extract:nnV {#3} {#4} \l_tmpa_tl }
\cs_new:Npe #1 { \l_tmpa_tl }
}
}
% \end{macrocode}
% \end{function}
% \begin{function}{\@@_extract:nnn}
% This function does the extraction by splitting the input at periods
% and then adding the requested sentences to another sequence that
% later can be used.
% \begin{macrocode}
\cs_new_protected:Nn \@@_extract:nnn
{
\seq_set_split:Nnn \l_@@_sentences_seq { . } {#3}
\seq_clear:N \l_tmpa_seq
\seq_map_indexed_inline:Nn \l_@@_sentences_seq
{
\int_compare:nT { #1 <= ##1 <= #2 }
{\seq_put_right:Nn \l_tmpa_seq { ##2 } }
}
\tl_set:Ne \l_tmpa_tl { \seq_use:Nn \l_tmpa_seq { .~ }. }
}
\cs_generate_variant:Nn \@@_extract:nnn { nnV }
% \end{macrocode}
% \end{function}
%
% \subsection{Defining the sentences}
% We start a group where we set the category
% code of the space to 10 so as not to be forced to write |~| for
% spaces.
% \begin{macrocode}
\group_begin:
\char_set_catcode_space:n {`\ }
% \end{macrocode}
%
% Then we provide all of the sentences with the pattern
% |\@@_newpara:n {|\meta{text}|}|
% \begin{macrocode}
\@@_newpara:n {As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Ideal of
practical reason is a representation of, as far as I know, the things
in themselves; as I have shown elsewhere, the phenomena should only be
used as a canon for our understanding. The paralogisms of practical
reason are what first give rise to the architectonic of practical
reason. As will easily be shown in the next section, reason would
thereby be made to contradict, in view of these considerations, the
Ideal of practical reason, yet the manifold depends on the phenomena.
Necessity depends on, when thus treated as the practical employment of
the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, time.
Human reason depends on our sense perceptions, by means of analytic
unity. There can be no doubt that the objects in space and time are
what first give rise to human reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {Let us suppose that the noumena have nothing to do
with necessity, since knowledge of the Categories is a
posteriori. Hume tells us that the transcendental unity of
apperception can not take account of the discipline of natural reason,
by means of analytic unity. As is proven in the ontological manuals,
it is obvious that the transcendental unity of apperception proves the
validity of the Antinomies; what we have alone been able to show is
that, our understanding depends on the Categories. It remains a
mystery why the Ideal stands in need of reason. It must not be
supposed that our faculties have lying before them, in the case of the
Ideal, the Antinomies; so, the transcendental aesthetic is just as
necessary as our experience. By means of the Ideal, our sense
perceptions are by their very nature contradictory.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the things
in themselves (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) are a
representation of time. Our concepts have lying before them the
paralogisms of natural reason, but our a posteriori concepts have
lying before them the practical employment of our experience. Because
of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the paralogisms would
thereby be made to contradict, indeed, space; for these reasons, the
Transcendental Deduction has lying before it our sense perceptions.
(Our a posteriori knowledge can never furnish a true and demonstrated
science, because, like time, it depends on analytic principles.) So,
it must not be supposed that our experience depends on, so, our sense
perceptions, by means of analysis. Space constitutes the whole content
for our sense perceptions, and time occupies part of the sphere of the
Ideal concerning the existence of the objects in space and time in
general.}
\@@_newpara:n {As we have already seen, what we have alone been able
to show is that the objects in space and time would be falsified; what
we have alone been able to show is that, our judgements are what first
give rise to metaphysics. As I have shown elsewhere, Aristotle tells
us that the objects in space and time, in the full sense of these
terms, would be falsified. Let us suppose that, indeed, our
problematic judgements, indeed, can be treated like our concepts. As
any dedicated reader can clearly see, our knowledge can be treated
like the transcendental unity of apperception, but the phenomena
occupy part of the sphere of the manifold concerning the existence of
natural causes in general. Whence comes the architectonic of natural
reason, the solution of which involves the relation between necessity
and the Categories? Natural causes (and it is not at all certain that
this is the case) constitute the whole content for the paralogisms.
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.}
\@@_newpara:n {Therefore, we can deduce that the objects in space and
time (and I assert, however, that this is the case) have lying before
them the objects in space and time. Because of our necessary ignorance
of the conditions, it must not be supposed that, then, formal logic
(and what we have alone been able to show is that this is true) is a
representation of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions, but the discipline of pure reason, in so far as this
expounds the contradictory rules of metaphysics, depends on the
Antinomies. By means of analytic unity, our faculties, therefore, can
never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because,
like the transcendental unity of apperception, they constitute the
whole content for a priori principles; for these reasons, our
experience is just as necessary as, in accordance with the principles
of our a priori knowledge, philosophy. The objects in space and time
abstract from all content of knowledge. Has it ever been suggested
that it remains a mystery why there is no relation between the
Antinomies and the phenomena? It must not be supposed that the
Antinomies (and it is not at all certain that this is the case) are
the clue to the discovery of philosophy, because of our necessary
ignorance of the conditions. As I have shown elsewhere, to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that our understanding
(and it must not be supposed that this is true) is what first gives
rise to the architectonic of pure reason, as is evident upon close
examination.}
\@@_newpara:n {The things in themselves are what first give rise to
reason, as is proven in the ontological manuals. By virtue of natural
reason, let us suppose that the transcendental unity of apperception
abstracts from all content of knowledge; in view of these
considerations, the Ideal of human reason, on the contrary, is the key
to understanding pure logic. Let us suppose that, irrespective of all
empirical conditions, our understanding stands in need of our
disjunctive judgements. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, pure
logic, in the case of the discipline of natural reason, abstracts from
all content of knowledge. Our understanding is a representation of, in
accordance with the principles of the employment of the paralogisms,
time. I assert, as I have shown elsewhere, that our concepts can be
treated like metaphysics. By means of the Ideal, it must not be
supposed that the objects in space and time are what first give rise
to the employment of pure reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is evident upon close examination, to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, on the contrary, the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is a
representation of our inductive judgements, yet the things in
themselves prove the validity of, on the contrary, the Categories. It
remains a mystery why, indeed, the never-ending regress in the series
of empirical conditions exists in philosophy, but the employment of
the Antinomies, in respect of the intelligible character, can never
furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the
architectonic of pure reason, it is just as necessary as problematic
principles. The practical employment of the objects in space and time
is by its very nature contradictory, and the thing in itself would
thereby be made to contradict the Ideal of practical reason. On the
other hand, natural causes can not take account of, consequently, the
Antinomies, as will easily be shown in the next section.
Consequently, the Ideal of practical reason (and I assert that this is
true) excludes the possibility of our sense perceptions. Our
experience would thereby be made to contradict, for example, our
ideas, but the transcendental objects in space and time (and let us
suppose that this is the case) are the clue to the discovery of
necessity. But the proof of this is a task from which we can here be
absolved.}
\@@_newpara:n {Thus, the Antinomies exclude the possibility of, on
the other hand, natural causes, as will easily be shown in the next
section. Still, the reader should be careful to observe that the
phenomena have lying before them the intelligible objects in space and
time, because of the relation between the manifold and the noumena.
As is evident upon close examination, Aristotle tells us that, in
reference to ends, our judgements (and the reader should be careful to
observe that this is the case) constitute the whole content of the
empirical objects in space and time. Our experience, with the sole
exception of necessity, exists in metaphysics; therefore, metaphysics
exists in our experience. (It must not be supposed that the thing in
itself (and I assert that this is true) may not contradict itself, but
it is still possible that it may be in contradictions with the
transcendental unity of apperception; certainly, our judgements exist
in natural causes.) The reader should be careful to observe that,
indeed, the Ideal, on the other hand, can be treated like the noumena,
but natural causes would thereby be made to contradict the Antinomies.
The transcendental unity of apperception constitutes the whole content
for the noumena, by means of analytic unity.}
\@@_newpara:n {In all theoretical sciences, the paralogisms of human
reason would be falsified, as is proven in the ontological manuals.
The architectonic of human reason is what first gives rise to the
Categories. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the paralogisms
should only be used as a canon for our experience. What we have alone
been able to show is that, that is to say, our sense perceptions
constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must
be known a posteriori. Human reason occupies part of the sphere of
our experience concerning the existence of the phenomena in general.}
\@@_newpara:n {By virtue of natural reason, our ampliative judgements
would thereby be made to contradict, in all theoretical sciences, the
pure employment of the discipline of human reason. Because of our
necessary ignorance of the conditions, Hume tells us that the
transcendental aesthetic constitutes the whole content for, still, the
Ideal. By means of analytic unity, our sense perceptions, even as
this relates to philosophy, abstract from all content of knowledge.
With the sole exception of necessity, the reader should be careful to
observe that our sense perceptions exclude the possibility of the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, since
knowledge of natural causes is a posteriori. Let us suppose that the
Ideal occupies part of the sphere of our knowledge concerning the
existence of the phenomena in general.}
\@@_newpara:n {By virtue of natural reason, what we have alone been
able to show is that, in so far as this expounds the universal rules
of our a posteriori concepts, the architectonic of natural reason can
be treated like the architectonic of practical reason. Thus, our
speculative judgements can not take account of the Ideal, since none
of the Categories are speculative. With the sole exception of the
Ideal, it is not at all certain that the transcendental objects in
space and time prove the validity of, for example, the noumena, as is
shown in the writings of Aristotle. As we have already seen, our
experience is the clue to the discovery of the Antinomies; in the
study of pure logic, our knowledge is just as necessary as, thus,
space. By virtue of practical reason, the noumena, still, stand in
need to the pure employment of the things in themselves.}
\@@_newpara:n {The reader should be careful to observe that the
objects in space and time are the clue to the discovery of, certainly,
our a priori knowledge, by means of analytic unity. Our faculties
abstract from all content of knowledge; for these reasons, the
discipline of human reason stands in need of the transcendental
aesthetic. There can be no doubt that, insomuch as the Ideal relies
on our a posteriori concepts, philosophy, when thus treated as the
things in themselves, exists in our hypothetical judgements, yet our a
posteriori concepts are what first give rise to the phenomena.
Philosophy (and I assert that this is true) excludes the possibility
of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, as
will easily be shown in the next section. Still, is it true that the
transcendental aesthetic can not take account of the objects in space
and time, or is the real question whether the phenomena should only be
used as a canon for the never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions? By means of analytic unity, the Transcendental
Deduction, still, is the mere result of the power of the
Transcendental Deduction, a blind but indispensable function of the
soul, but our faculties abstract from all content of a posteriori
knowledge. It remains a mystery why, then, the discipline of human
reason, in other words, is what first gives rise to the transcendental
aesthetic, yet our faculties have lying before them the architectonic
of human reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {However, we can deduce that our experience (and it
must not be supposed that this is true) stands in need of our
experience, as we have already seen. On the other hand, it is not at
all certain that necessity is a representation of, by means of the
practical employment of the paralogisms of practical reason, the
noumena. In all theoretical sciences, our faculties are what first
give rise to natural causes. To avoid all misapprehension, it is
necessary to explain that our ideas can never, as a whole, furnish a
true and demonstrated science, because, like the Ideal of natural
reason, they stand in need to inductive principles, as is shown in the
writings of Galileo. As I have elsewhere shown, natural causes, in
respect of the intelligible character, exist in the objects in space
and time.}
\@@_newpara:n {Our ideas, in the case of the Ideal of pure reason,
are by their very nature contradictory. The objects in space and time
can not take account of our understanding, and philosophy excludes the
possibility of, certainly, space. I assert that our ideas, by means
of philosophy, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of
this body must be known a posteriori, by means of analysis. It must
not be supposed that space is by its very nature contradictory. Space
would thereby be made to contradict, in the case of the manifold, the
manifold. As is proven in the ontological manuals, Aristotle tells us
that, in accordance with the principles of the discipline of human
reason, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions
has lying before it our experience. 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.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since knowledge of our faculties is a posteriori, pure
logic teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, indeed,
the architectonic of human reason. As we have already seen, we can
deduce that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the Ideal of
human reason is what first gives rise to, indeed, natural causes, yet
the thing in itself can never furnish a true and demonstrated science,
because, like necessity, it is the clue to the discovery of
disjunctive principles. On the other hand, the manifold depends on
the paralogisms. Our faculties exclude the possibility of, insomuch
as philosophy relies on natural causes, the discipline of natural
reason. In all theoretical sciences, what we have alone been able to
show is that the objects in space and time exclude the possibility of
our judgements, as will easily be shown in the next section. This is
what chiefly concerns us.}
\@@_newpara:n {Time (and let us suppose that this is true) is the
clue to the discovery of the Categories, as we have already seen.
Since knowledge of our faculties is a priori, to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the empirical objects
in space and time can not take account of, in the case of the Ideal of
natural reason, the manifold. It must not be supposed that pure
reason stands in need of, certainly, our sense perceptions. On the
other hand, our ampliative judgements would thereby be made to
contradict, in the full sense of these terms, our hypothetical
judgements. I assert, still, that philosophy is a representation of,
however, formal logic; in the case of the manifold, the objects in
space and time can be treated like the paralogisms of natural reason.
This is what chiefly concerns us.}
\@@_newpara:n {Because of the relation between pure logic and natural
causes, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that,
even as this relates to the thing in itself, pure reason constitutes
the whole content for our concepts, but the Ideal of practical reason
may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in
contradictions with, then, natural reason. It remains a mystery why
natural causes would thereby be made to contradict the noumena; by
means of our understanding, the Categories are just as necessary as
our concepts. The Ideal, irrespective of all empirical conditions,
depends on the Categories, as is shown in the writings of Aristotle.
It is obvious that our ideas (and there can be no doubt that this is
the case) constitute the whole content of practical reason. The
Antinomies have nothing to do with the objects in space and time, yet
general logic, in respect of the intelligible character, has nothing
to do with our judgements. In my present remarks I am referring to
the transcendental aesthetic only in so far as it is founded on
analytic principles.}
\@@_newpara:n {With the sole exception of our a priori knowledge, our
faculties have nothing to do with our faculties. Pure reason (and we
can deduce that this is true) would thereby be made to contradict the
phenomena. As we have already seen, let us suppose that the
transcendental aesthetic can thereby determine in its totality the
objects in space and time. We can deduce that, that is to say, our
experience is a representation of the paralogisms, and our
hypothetical judgements constitute the whole content of our concepts.
However, it is obvious that time can be treated like our a priori
knowledge, by means of analytic unity. Philosophy has nothing to do
with natural causes.}
\@@_newpara:n {By means of analysis, our faculties stand in need to,
indeed, the empirical objects in space and time. The objects in space
and time, for these reasons, have nothing to do with our
understanding. There can be no doubt that the noumena can not take
account of the objects in space and time; consequently, the Ideal of
natural reason has lying before it the noumena. By means of analysis,
the Ideal of human reason is what first gives rise to, therefore,
space, yet our sense perceptions exist in the discipline of practical
reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {The Ideal can not take account of, so far as I know,
our faculties. As we have already seen, the objects in space and time
are what first give rise to the never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions; for these reasons, our a posteriori concepts
have nothing to do with the paralogisms of pure reason. As we have
already seen, metaphysics, by means of the Ideal, occupies part of the
sphere of our experience concerning the existence of the objects in
space and time in general, yet time excludes the possibility of our
sense perceptions. I assert, thus, that our faculties would thereby
be made to contradict, indeed, our knowledge. Natural causes, so
regarded, exist in our judgements.}
\@@_newpara:n {The never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it
may be in contradictions with, then, applied logic. The employment of
the noumena stands in need of space; with the sole exception of our
understanding, the Antinomies are a representation of the noumena. It
must not be supposed that the discipline of human reason, in the case
of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, is
a body of demonstrated science, and some of it must be known a
posteriori; in all theoretical sciences, the thing in itself excludes
the possibility of the objects in space and time. As will easily be
shown in the next section, the reader should be careful to observe
that the things in themselves, in view of these considerations, can be
treated like the objects in space and time. In all theoretical
sciences, we can deduce that the manifold exists in our sense
perceptions. The things in themselves, indeed, occupy part of the
sphere of philosophy concerning the existence of the transcendental
objects in space and time in general, as is proven in the ontological
manuals.}
\@@_newpara:n {The transcendental unity of apperception, in the case
of philosophy, is a body of demonstrated science, and some of it must
be known a posteriori. Thus, the objects in space and time, insomuch
as the discipline of practical reason relies on the Antinomies,
constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must
be known a priori. Applied logic is a representation of, in natural
theology, our experience. As any dedicated reader can clearly see,
Hume tells us that, that is to say, the Categories (and Aristotle
tells us that this is the case) exclude the possibility of the
transcendental aesthetic. (Because of our necessary ignorance of the
conditions, the paralogisms prove the validity of time.) As is shown
in the writings of Hume, it must not be supposed that, in reference to
ends, the Ideal is a body of demonstrated science, and some of it must
be known a priori. By means of analysis, it is not at all certain
that our a priori knowledge is just as necessary as our ideas. In my
present remarks I am referring to time only in so far as it is founded
on disjunctive principles.}
\@@_newpara:n {The discipline of pure reason is what first gives rise
to the Categories, but applied logic is the clue to the discovery of
our sense perceptions. The never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the
content of the pure employment of the paralogisms of natural reason.
Let us suppose that the discipline of pure reason, so far as regards
pure reason, is what first gives rise to the objects in space and
time. It is not at all certain that our judgements, with the sole
exception of our experience, can be treated like our experience; in
the case of the Ideal, our understanding would thereby be made to
contradict the manifold. As will easily be shown in the next section,
the reader should be careful to observe that pure reason (and it is
obvious that this is true) stands in need of the phenomena; for these
reasons, our sense perceptions stand in need to the manifold. Our
ideas are what first give rise to the paralogisms.}
\@@_newpara:n {The things in themselves have lying before them the
Antinomies, by virtue of human reason. By means of the transcendental
aesthetic, let us suppose that the discipline of natural reason
depends on natural causes, because of the relation between the
transcendental aesthetic and the things in themselves. In view of
these considerations, it is obvious that natural causes are the clue
to the discovery of the transcendental unity of apperception, by means
of analysis. We can deduce that our faculties, in particular, can be
treated like the thing in itself; in the study of metaphysics, the
thing in itself proves the validity of space. And can I entertain the
Transcendental Deduction in thought, or does it present itself to me?
By means of analysis, the phenomena can not take account of natural
causes. This is not something we are in a position to establish.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since some of the things in themselves are a
posteriori, there can be no doubt that, when thus treated as our
understanding, pure reason depends on, still, the Ideal of natural
reason, and our speculative judgements constitute a body of
demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a
posteriori. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, it is not at
all certain that, in accordance with the principles of natural causes,
the Transcendental Deduction is a body of demonstrated science, and
all of it must be known a posteriori, yet our concepts are the clue to
the discovery of the objects in space and time. Therefore, it is
obvious that formal logic would be falsified. By means of analytic
unity, it remains a mystery why, in particular, metaphysics teaches us
nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the Ideal. The phenomena,
on the other hand, would thereby be made to contradict the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. As is
shown in the writings of Aristotle, philosophy is a representation of,
on the contrary, the employment of the Categories. Because of the
relation between the transcendental unity of apperception and the
paralogisms of natural reason, the paralogisms of human reason, in the
study of the Transcendental Deduction, would be falsified, but
metaphysics abstracts from all content of knowledge.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since some of natural causes are disjunctive, the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is the key
to understanding, in particular, the noumena. By means of analysis,
the Categories (and it is not at all certain that this is the case)
exclude the possibility of our faculties. Let us suppose that the
objects in space and time, irrespective of all empirical conditions,
exist in the architectonic of natural reason, because of the relation
between the architectonic of natural reason and our a posteriori
concepts. I assert, as I have elsewhere shown, that, so regarded, our
sense perceptions (and let us suppose that this is the case) are a
representation of the practical employment of natural causes. (I
assert that time constitutes the whole content for, in all theoretical
sciences, our understanding, as will easily be shown in the next
section.) With the sole exception of our knowledge, the reader should
be careful to observe that natural causes (and it remains a mystery
why this is the case) can not take account of our sense perceptions,
as will easily be shown in the next section. Certainly, natural
causes would thereby be made to contradict, with the sole exception of
necessity, the things in themselves, because of our necessary
ignorance of the conditions. But to this matter no answer is
possible.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since all of the objects in space and time are
synthetic, it remains a mystery why, even as this relates to our
experience, our a priori concepts should only be used as a canon for
our judgements, but the phenomena should only be used as a canon for
the practical employment of our judgements. Space, consequently, is a
body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a priori, as
will easily be shown in the next section. We can deduce that the
Categories have lying before them the phenomena. Therefore, let us
suppose that our ideas, in the study of the transcendental unity of
apperception, should only be used as a canon for the pure employment
of natural causes. Still, the reader should be careful to observe
that the Ideal (and it remains a mystery why this is true) can not
take account of our faculties, as is proven in the ontological
manuals. Certainly, it remains a mystery why the manifold is just as
necessary as the manifold, as is evident upon close examination.}
\@@_newpara:n {In natural theology, what we have alone been able to
show is that the architectonic of practical reason is the clue to the
discovery of, still, the manifold, by means of analysis. Since
knowledge of the objects in space and time is a priori, the things in
themselves have lying before them, for example, the paralogisms of
human reason. Let us suppose that our sense perceptions constitute
the whole content of, by means of philosophy, necessity. Our concepts
(and the reader should be careful to observe that this is the case)
are just as necessary as the Ideal. To avoid all misapprehension, it
is necessary to explain that the Categories occupy part of the sphere
of the discipline of human reason concerning the existence of our
faculties in general. The transcendental aesthetic, in so far as this
expounds the contradictory rules of our a priori concepts, is the mere
result of the power of our understanding, a blind but indispensable
function of the soul. The manifold, in respect of the intelligible
character, teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the
thing in itself; however, the objects in space and time exist in
natural causes.}
\@@_newpara:n {I assert, however, that our a posteriori concepts (and
it is obvious that this is the case) would thereby be made to
contradict the discipline of practical reason; however, the things in
themselves, however, constitute the whole content of philosophy. As
will easily be shown in the next section, the Antinomies would thereby
be made to contradict our understanding; in all theoretical sciences,
metaphysics, irrespective of all empirical conditions, excludes the
possibility of space. It is not at all certain that necessity (and it
is obvious that this is true) constitutes the whole content for the
objects in space and time; consequently, the paralogisms of practical
reason, however, exist in the Antinomies. The reader should be
careful to observe that transcendental logic, in so far as this
expounds the universal rules of formal logic, can never furnish a true
and demonstrated science, because, like the Ideal, it may not
contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in
contradictions with disjunctive principles. (Because of our necessary
ignorance of the conditions, the thing in itself is what first gives
rise to, insomuch as the transcendental aesthetic relies on the
objects in space and time, the transcendental objects in space and
time; thus, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions excludes the possibility of philosophy.) As we have
already seen, time depends on the objects in space and time; in the
study of the architectonic of pure reason, the phenomena are the clue
to the discovery of our understanding. Because of our necessary
ignorance of the conditions, I assert that, indeed, the architectonic
of natural reason, as I have elsewhere shown, would be falsified.}
\@@_newpara:n {In natural theology, the transcendental unity of
apperception has nothing to do with the Antinomies. As will easily be
shown in the next section, our sense perceptions are by their very
nature contradictory, but our ideas, with the sole exception of human
reason, have nothing to do with our sense perceptions. Metaphysics is
the key to understanding natural causes, by means of analysis. It is
not at all certain that the paralogisms of human reason prove the
validity of, thus, the noumena, since all of our a posteriori
judgements are a priori. We can deduce that, indeed, the objects in
space and time can not take account of the Transcendental Deduction,
but our knowledge, on the other hand, would be falsified.}
\@@_newpara:n {As we have already seen, our understanding is the clue
to the discovery of necessity. On the other hand, the Ideal of pure
reason is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known
a posteriori, as is evident upon close examination. It is obvious
that the transcendental aesthetic, certainly, is a body of
demonstrated science, and some of it must be known a priori; in view
of these considerations, the noumena are the clue to the discovery of,
so far as I know, natural causes. In the case of space, our
experience depends on the Ideal of natural reason, as we have already
seen.}
\@@_newpara:n {For these reasons, space is the key to understanding
the thing in itself. Our sense perceptions abstract from all content
of a priori knowledge, but the phenomena can never, as a whole,
furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like time, they are
just as necessary as disjunctive principles. Our problematic
judgements constitute the whole content of time. By means of
analysis, our ideas are by their very nature contradictory, and our a
posteriori concepts are a representation of natural causes. I assert
that the objects in space and time would thereby be made to
contradict, so far as regards the thing in itself, the Transcendental
Deduction; in natural theology, the noumena are the clue to the
discovery of, so far as I know, the Transcendental Deduction.}
\@@_newpara:n {To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that, in respect of the intelligible character, the
transcendental aesthetic depends on the objects in space and time, yet
the manifold is the clue to the discovery of the Transcendental
Deduction. Therefore, the transcendental unity of apperception would
thereby be made to contradict, in the case of our understanding, our
ideas. There can be no doubt that the things in themselves prove the
validity of the objects in space and time, as is shown in the writings
of Aristotle. By means of analysis, there can be no doubt that,
insomuch as the discipline of pure reason relies on the Categories,
the transcendental unity of apperception would thereby be made to
contradict the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions. In the case of space, the Categories exist in time. Our
faculties can be treated like our concepts. As is shown in the
writings of Galileo, the transcendental unity of apperception stands
in need of, in the case of necessity, our speculative judgements.}
\@@_newpara:n {The phenomena (and it is obvious that this is the
case) prove the validity of our sense perceptions; in natural
theology, philosophy teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the
content of the transcendental objects in space and time. In natural
theology, our sense perceptions are a representation of the
Antinomies. The noumena exclude the possibility of, even as this
relates to the transcendental aesthetic, our knowledge. Our concepts
would thereby be made to contradict, that is to say, the noumena; in
the study of philosophy, space is by its very nature contradictory.
Since some of the Antinomies are problematic, our ideas are a
representation of our a priori concepts, yet space, in other words,
has lying before it the things in themselves. Aristotle tells us
that, in accordance with the principles of the phenomena, the
Antinomies are a representation of metaphysics.}
\@@_newpara:n {The things in themselves can not take account of the
Transcendental Deduction. By means of analytic unity, it is obvious
that, that is to say, our sense perceptions, in all theoretical
sciences, can not take account of the thing in itself, yet the
transcendental unity of apperception, in the full sense of these
terms, would thereby be made to contradict the employment of our sense
perceptions. Our synthetic judgements would be falsified. Since some
of our faculties are problematic, the things in themselves exclude the
possibility of the Ideal. It must not be supposed that the things in
themselves are a representation of, in accordance with the principles
of philosophy, our sense perceptions.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is proven in the ontological manuals, philosophy is
the mere result of the power of pure logic, a blind but indispensable
function of the soul; however, the phenomena can never, as a whole,
furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like general logic,
they exclude the possibility of problematic principles. To avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the never-ending
regress in the series of empirical conditions is by its very nature
contradictory. It must not be supposed that our a priori concepts
stand in need to natural causes, because of the relation between the
Ideal and our ideas. (We can deduce that the Antinomies would be
falsified.) Since knowledge of the Categories is a posteriori, what
we have alone been able to show is that, in the full sense of these
terms, necessity (and we can deduce that this is true) is the key to
understanding time, but the Ideal of natural reason is just as
necessary as our experience. As will easily be shown in the next
section, the thing in itself, with the sole exception of the manifold,
abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge. The question of
this matter's relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.}
\@@_newpara:n {By means of the transcendental aesthetic, it remains a
mystery why the phenomena (and it is not at all certain that this is
the case) are the clue to the discovery of the never-ending regress in
the series of empirical conditions. In all theoretical sciences,
metaphysics exists in the objects in space and time, because of the
relation between formal logic and our synthetic judgements. The
Categories would thereby be made to contradict the paralogisms, as any
dedicated reader can clearly see. Therefore, there can be no doubt
that the paralogisms have nothing to do with, so far as regards the
Ideal and our faculties, the paralogisms, because of our necessary
ignorance of the conditions. It must not be supposed that the objects
in space and time occupy part of the sphere of necessity concerning
the existence of the noumena in general. In natural theology, the
things in themselves, therefore, are by their very nature
contradictory, by virtue of natural reason. This is the sense in
which it is to be understood in this work.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is evident upon close examination, let us suppose
that, in accordance with the principles of time, our a priori concepts
are the clue to the discovery of philosophy. By means of analysis, to
avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, in
particular, the transcendental aesthetic can not take account of
natural causes. As we have already seen, the reader should be careful
to observe that, in accordance with the principles of the objects in
space and time, the noumena are the mere results of the power of our
understanding, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, and the
thing in itself abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge.
We can deduce that, indeed, our experience, in reference to ends, can
never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the Ideal
of practical reason, it can thereby determine in its totality
speculative principles, yet our hypothetical judgements are just as
necessary as space. It is not at all certain that, insomuch as the
Ideal of practical reason relies on the noumena, the Categories prove
the validity of philosophy, yet pure reason is the key to
understanding the Categories. This is what chiefly concerns us.}
\@@_newpara:n {Natural causes, when thus treated as the things in
themselves, abstract from all content of a posteriori knowledge, by
means of analytic unity. Our a posteriori knowledge, in other words,
is the key to understanding the Antinomies. As we have already seen,
what we have alone been able to show is that, so far as I know, the
objects in space and time are the clue to the discovery of the
manifold. The things in themselves are the clue to the discovery of,
in the case of the Ideal of natural reason, our concepts. To avoid
all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, so far as
regards philosophy, the discipline of human reason, for these reasons,
is a body of demonstrated science, and some of it must be known a
priori, but our faculties, consequently, would thereby be made to
contradict the Antinomies. It remains a mystery why our understanding
excludes the possibility of, insomuch as the Ideal relies on the
objects in space and time, our concepts. It is not at all certain
that the pure employment of the objects in space and time (and the
reader should be careful to observe that this is true) is the clue to
the discovery of the architectonic of pure reason. Let us suppose
that natural reason is a representation of, insomuch as space relies
on the paralogisms, the Transcendental Deduction, by means of
analysis.}
\@@_newpara:n {As we have already seen, the Ideal constitutes the
whole content for the transcendental unity of apperception. By means
of analytic unity, let us suppose that, when thus treated as space,
our synthetic judgements, therefore, would be falsified, and the
objects in space and time are what first give rise to our sense
perceptions. Let us suppose that, in the full sense of these terms,
the discipline of practical reason can not take account of our
experience, and our ideas have lying before them our inductive
judgements. (Since all of the phenomena are speculative, to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the noumena
constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must
be known a posteriori; as I have elsewhere shown, the noumena are a
representation of the noumena.) Let us suppose that practical reason
can thereby determine in its totality, by means of the Ideal, the pure
employment of the discipline of practical reason. Galileo tells us
that the employment of the phenomena can be treated like our ideas;
still, the Categories, when thus treated as the paralogisms, exist in
the employment of the Antinomies. Let us apply this to our
experience.}
\@@_newpara:n {I assert, thus, that the discipline of natural reason
can be treated like the transcendental aesthetic, since some of the
Categories are speculative. In the case of transcendental logic, our
ideas prove the validity of our understanding, as any dedicated reader
can clearly see. In natural theology, our ideas can not take account
of general logic, because of the relation between philosophy and the
noumena. As is evident upon close examination, natural causes should
only be used as a canon for the manifold, and our faculties, in
natural theology, are a representation of natural causes. As is shown
in the writings of Aristotle, the Ideal of human reason, for these
reasons, would be falsified. What we have alone been able to show is
that the Categories, so far as regards philosophy and the Categories,
are the mere results of the power of the Transcendental Deduction, a
blind but indispensable function of the soul, as is proven in the
ontological manuals.}
\@@_newpara:n {The noumena have nothing to do with, thus, the
Antinomies. What we have alone been able to show is that the things
in themselves constitute the whole content of human reason, as is
proven in the ontological manuals. The noumena (and to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) are
the clue to the discovery of the architectonic of natural reason. As
we have already seen, let us suppose that our experience is what first
gives rise to, therefore, the transcendental unity of apperception; in
the study of the practical employment of the Antinomies, our
ampliative judgements are what first give rise to the objects in space
and time. Necessity can never furnish a true and demonstrated
science, because, like our understanding, it can thereby determine in
its totality hypothetical principles, and the empirical objects in
space and time are what first give rise to, in all theoretical
sciences, our a posteriori concepts.}
\@@_newpara:n {Our understanding excludes the possibility of
practical reason. Our faculties stand in need to, consequently, the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions; still, the
employment of necessity is what first gives rise to general logic.
With the sole exception of applied logic, to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that time, in view of
these considerations, can never furnish a true and demonstrated
science, because, like the Ideal of human reason, it is a
representation of ampliative principles, as is evident upon close
examination. Since knowledge of the paralogisms of natural reason is
a priori, I assert, consequently, that, in so far as this expounds the
practical rules of the thing in itself, the things in themselves
exclude the possibility of the discipline of pure reason, yet the
empirical objects in space and time prove the validity of natural
causes.}
\@@_newpara:n {Because of the relation between space and the noumena,
our experience is by its very nature contradictory. It is obvious
that natural causes constitute the whole content of the transcendental
unity of apperception, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. By
virtue of pure reason, our sense perceptions, in all theoretical
sciences, have lying before them human reason. In view of these
considerations, let us suppose that the transcendental objects in
space and time, in the study of the architectonic of practical reason,
exclude the possibility of the objects in space and time, because of
our necessary ignorance of the conditions. By means of philosophy, is
it true that formal logic can not take account of the manifold, or is
the real question whether our sense perceptions are the mere results
of the power of the transcendental aesthetic, a blind but
indispensable function of the soul? The objects in space and time are
just as necessary as the Antinomies, because of the relation between
metaphysics and the things in themselves. Human reason is a
representation of the transcendental aesthetic. In my present remarks
I am referring to the pure employment of our disjunctive judgements
only in so far as it is founded on inductive principles.}
\@@_newpara:n {What we have alone been able to show is that our sense
perceptions are the clue to the discovery of our understanding; in
natural theology, necessity, in all theoretical sciences, occupies
part of the sphere of the transcendental unity of apperception
concerning the existence of our faculties in general. The
transcendental aesthetic is what first gives rise to the never-ending
regress in the series of empirical conditions, as any dedicated reader
can clearly see. The transcendental unity of apperception is what
first gives rise to, in all theoretical sciences, the Antinomies. The
phenomena, consequently, stand in need to the things in themselves.
By means of analytic unity, necessity, on the contrary, abstracts from
all content of a priori knowledge. The phenomena (and it remains a
mystery why this is the case) are just as necessary as the Ideal of
human reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {As any dedicated reader can clearly see, our
experience is the clue to the discovery of philosophy; in the study of
space, the Categories are what first give rise to the transcendental
aesthetic. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the reader should
be careful to observe that, so regarded, the never-ending regress in
the series of empirical conditions, as I have elsewhere shown, is the
mere result of the power of the transcendental unity of apperception,
a blind but indispensable function of the soul, but our judgements can
be treated like time. We can deduce that the objects in space and
time are just as necessary as the objects in space and time.
Aristotle tells us that, even as this relates to time, the objects in
space and time, however, abstract from all content of a posteriori
knowledge. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain
that the phenomena (and it is not at all certain that this is the
case) stand in need to the discipline of practical reason; thus, our
knowledge, indeed, can not take account of our ideas.}
\@@_newpara:n {In the study of time, our concepts prove the validity
of, as I have elsewhere shown, our understanding, as any dedicated
reader can clearly see. As will easily be shown in the next section,
the reader should be careful to observe that, so far as regards our
knowledge, natural causes, so far as regards the never-ending regress
in the series of empirical conditions and our a priori judgements,
should only be used as a canon for the pure employment of the
Transcendental Deduction, and our understanding can not take account
of formal logic. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, to avoid
all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the Antinomies
are just as necessary as, on the other hand, our ideas; however, the
Ideal, in the full sense of these terms, exists in the architectonic
of human reason. As is evident upon close examination, to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, in other words, our
faculties have nothing to do with the manifold, but our faculties
should only be used as a canon for space. Our faculties prove the
validity of the Antinomies, and the things in themselves (and let us
suppose that this is the case) are the clue to the discovery of our
ideas. It remains a mystery why, then, the architectonic of practical
reason proves the validity of, therefore, the noumena.}
\@@_newpara:n {The paralogisms of practical reason can be treated
like the paralogisms. The objects in space and time, therefore, are
what first give rise to the discipline of human reason; in all
theoretical sciences, the things in themselves (and we can deduce that
this is the case) have nothing to do with metaphysics. Therefore,
Aristotle tells us that our understanding exists in the Ideal of human
reason, as is proven in the ontological manuals. Thus, our sense
perceptions (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) would
thereby be made to contradict space. I assert, on the other hand,
that, in reference to ends, the objects in space and time can not take
account of the Categories, yet natural causes are the mere results of
the power of the discipline of human reason, a blind but indispensable
function of the soul. By virtue of practical reason, it must not be
supposed that, that is to say, our faculties would thereby be made to
contradict philosophy, yet our a posteriori concepts, insomuch as the
Ideal of pure reason relies on the intelligible objects in space and
time, are by their very nature contradictory.}
\@@_newpara:n {Time, on the contrary, can never furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like the transcendental aesthetic, it
constitutes the whole content for ampliative principles, yet natural
reason, even as this relates to philosophy, proves the validity of the
thing in itself. As is evident upon close examination, the Ideal of
practical reason, when thus treated as the things in themselves, is by
its very nature contradictory; as I have elsewhere shown, our
understanding may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that
it may be in contradictions with the Ideal of practical reason. Since
all of the things in themselves are problematic, it remains a mystery
why, so regarded, our knowledge is the key to understanding our
problematic judgements, but our ideas (and to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case)
have lying before them our disjunctive judgements. In the case of the
Ideal, we can deduce that the transcendental unity of apperception
excludes the possibility of the manifold, as we have already seen.
Consequently, the Ideal of pure reason can be treated like the
phenomena. Let us apply this to the Transcendental Deduction.}
\@@_newpara:n {What we have alone been able to show is that our a
posteriori concepts (and it is obvious that this is the case) are what
first give rise to the transcendental unity of apperception. In the
case of necessity, the reader should be careful to observe that
metaphysics is a representation of natural causes, by means of
analysis. In all theoretical sciences, the phenomena (and the reader
should be careful to observe that this is the case) would thereby be
made to contradict natural reason. The transcendental aesthetic, in
the case of space, is by its very nature contradictory. By virtue of
human reason, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain
that the empirical objects in space and time exist in our judgements;
for these reasons, the Antinomies, by means of our experience, can be
treated like the architectonic of human reason. It must not be
supposed that our ideas have lying before them metaphysics;
consequently, the architectonic of pure reason, in all theoretical
sciences, would be falsified.}
\@@_newpara:n {The Transcendental Deduction stands in need of the
Ideal of pure reason, and the noumena, for these reasons, are by their
very nature contradictory. The objects in space and time have lying
before them our ideas. The transcendental unity of apperception,
indeed, proves the validity of our understanding. The architectonic
of human reason, so regarded, would be falsified, as is evident upon
close examination. Since knowledge of the noumena is a priori, Hume
tells us that, then, the Transcendental Deduction, when thus treated
as the architectonic of natural reason, abstracts from all content of
knowledge, but the objects in space and time, for these reasons, stand
in need to the transcendental aesthetic. By means of analytic unity,
natural causes exclude the possibility of, consequently, metaphysics,
and the discipline of pure reason abstracts from all content of a
priori knowledge. We thus have a pure synthesis of apprehension.}
\@@_newpara:n {Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions,
what we have alone been able to show is that formal logic can not take
account of the Categories; in the study of the transcendental
aesthetic, philosophy can thereby determine in its totality the
noumena. In all theoretical sciences, I assert that necessity has
nothing to do with our sense perceptions. Because of the relation
between our understanding and the phenomena, the Categories are what
first give rise to, so far as regards time and the phenomena, the
transcendental aesthetic; in view of these considerations, the
phenomena can not take account of the Antinomies. As is proven in the
ontological manuals, the objects in space and time (and to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) are
what first give rise to the Ideal. In natural theology, let us
suppose that the Transcendental Deduction is the key to understanding,
so far as regards the thing in itself, the Ideal, as any dedicated
reader can clearly see. This is the sense in which it is to be
understood in this work.}
\@@_newpara:n {It must not be supposed that, in respect of the
intelligible character, the Antinomies (and we can deduce that this is
the case) constitute the whole content of the phenomena, yet the
Categories exist in natural causes. The Ideal of natural reason, when
thus treated as metaphysics, can be treated like our faculties;
consequently, pure reason (and there can be no doubt that this is
true) is what first gives rise to our sense perceptions. The
paralogisms of practical reason exist in the objects in space and
time. As we have already seen, our sense perceptions stand in need to
space. Still, our a priori concepts, in the case of metaphysics, have
nothing to do with the Categories. Because of the relation between
the discipline of practical reason and our a posteriori concepts, we
can deduce that, when thus treated as the phenomena, our sense
perceptions (and there can be no doubt that this is the case) are what
first give rise to the discipline of practical reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {Thus, the reader should be careful to observe that the
noumena would thereby be made to contradict necessity, because of our
necessary ignorance of the conditions. Consequently, our sense
perceptions are just as necessary as the architectonic of natural
reason, as is shown in the writings of Galileo. It remains a mystery
why, when thus treated as human reason, our concepts, when thus
treated as the Categories, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like the Ideal, they are just as
necessary as synthetic principles, yet our sense perceptions would be
falsified. The noumena, in all theoretical sciences, can not take
account of space, as is proven in the ontological manuals. Since
knowledge of our analytic judgements is a priori, to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the paralogisms
constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must
be known a priori; in view of these considerations, the phenomena can
not take account of, for these reasons, the transcendental unity of
apperception.}
\@@_newpara:n {The reader should be careful to observe that, for
example, pure logic depends on the transcendental unity of
apperception. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, our a priori
concepts are what first give rise to the Categories. Hume tells us
that our ideas are just as necessary as, on the other hand, natural
causes; however, natural causes should only be used as a canon for our
faculties. For these reasons, to avoid all misapprehension, it is
necessary to explain that our ideas are the clue to the discovery of
our understanding, as is shown in the writings of Hume. (By virtue of
natural reason, the employment of our disjunctive judgements, then, is
by its very nature contradictory.) By virtue of natural reason, the
Categories can not take account of our hypothetical judgements. The
transcendental aesthetic teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the
content of, consequently, the transcendental unity of apperception, as
will easily be shown in the next section. We thus have a pure
synthesis of apprehension.}
\@@_newpara:n {The Antinomies have nothing to do with our faculties.
As is shown in the writings of Hume, we can deduce that, on the
contrary, the empirical objects in space and time prove the validity
of our ideas. The manifold may not contradict itself, but it is still
possible that it may be in contradictions with our a posteriori
concepts. For these reasons, the transcendental objects in space and
time (and it is obvious that this is the case) have nothing to do with
our faculties, as will easily be shown in the next section. What we
have alone been able to show is that the phenomena constitute the
whole content of the Antinomies; with the sole exception of
philosophy, the Categories have lying before them formal logic. Since
knowledge of the Antinomies is a posteriori, it remains a mystery why
the Antinomies (and there can be no doubt that this is the case) prove
the validity of the thing in itself; for these reasons, metaphysics is
the mere result of the power of the employment of our sense
perceptions, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. As I
have elsewhere shown, philosophy proves the validity of our sense
perceptions.}
\@@_newpara:n {What we have alone been able to show is that the
phenomena, so far as I know, exist in the noumena; however, our
concepts, however, exclude the possibility of our judgements. Galileo
tells us that our a posteriori knowledge would thereby be made to
contradict transcendental logic; in the case of philosophy, our
judgements stand in need to applied logic. On the other hand, to
avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the objects
in space and time exclude the possibility of, insomuch as pure logic
relies on the objects in space and time, the transcendental unity of
apperception, by virtue of practical reason. Has it ever been
suggested that, as will easily be shown in the next section, the
reader should be careful to observe that there is a causal connection
bewteen philosophy and pure reason? In natural theology, it remains a
mystery why the discipline of natural reason is a body of demonstrated
science, and some of it must be known a posteriori, as will easily be
shown in the next section. In view of these considerations, let us
suppose that our sense perceptions, then, would be falsified, because
of the relation between the never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions and the paralogisms. This distinction must have
some ground in the nature of the never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions.}
\@@_newpara:n {To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that time excludes the possibility of the discipline of human
reason; in the study of practical reason, the manifold has nothing to
do with time. Because of the relation between our a priori knowledge
and the phenomena, what we have alone been able to show is that our
experience is what first gives rise to the phenomena; thus, natural
causes are the clue to the discovery of, with the sole exception of
our experience, the objects in space and time. Our ideas are what
first give rise to our faculties. On the other hand, the phenomena
have lying before them our ideas, as is evident upon close
examination. The paralogisms of natural reason are a representation
of, thus, the manifold. I assert that space is what first gives rise
to the paralogisms of pure reason. As is shown in the writings of
Hume, space has nothing to do with, for example, necessity.}
\@@_newpara:n {We can deduce that the Ideal of practical reason, even
as this relates to our knowledge, is a representation of the
discipline of human reason. The things in themselves are just as
necessary as our understanding. The noumena prove the validity of the
manifold. As will easily be shown in the next section, natural causes
occupy part of the sphere of our a priori knowledge concerning the
existence of the Antinomies in general. The Categories are the clue
to the discovery of, consequently, the Transcendental Deduction. Our
ideas are the mere results of the power of the Ideal of pure reason, a
blind but indispensable function of the soul. The divisions are thus
provided; all that is required is to fill them.}
\@@_newpara:n {The never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions can be treated like the objects in space and time. What we
have alone been able to show is that, then, the transcendental
aesthetic, in reference to ends, would thereby be made to contradict
the Transcendental Deduction. The architectonic of practical reason
has nothing to do with our ideas; however, time can never furnish a
true and demonstrated science, because, like the Ideal, it depends on
hypothetical principles. Space has nothing to do with the Antinomies,
because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. In all
theoretical sciences, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that the things in themselves are a representation of, in
other words, necessity, as is evident upon close examination.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is proven in the ontological manuals, it remains a
mystery why our experience is the mere result of the power of the
discipline of human reason, a blind but indispensable function of the
soul. For these reasons, the employment of the thing in itself
teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the Ideal of
natural reason. In the case of transcendental logic, there can be no
doubt that the Ideal of practical reason is just as necessary as the
Antinomies. I assert that, insomuch as the Ideal relies on the
noumena, the empirical objects in space and time stand in need to our
a priori concepts. (It must not be supposed that, so regarded, our
ideas exclude the possibility of, in the case of the Ideal, the
architectonic of human reason.) The reader should be careful to
observe that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, our concepts
are what first give rise to our experience. By means of analytic
unity, our faculties, in so far as this expounds the contradictory
rules of the objects in space and time, are the mere results of the
power of space, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, and
the transcendental unity of apperception can not take account of,
however, our faculties. But at present we shall turn our attention to
the thing in itself.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is evident upon close examination, we can deduce
that the transcendental unity of apperception depends on the Ideal of
practical reason. Certainly, it is obvious that the Antinomies, in
accordance with the principles of the objects in space and time,
constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must
be known a posteriori. Because of the relation between the discipline
of pure reason and our a posteriori concepts, I assert that, for
example, metaphysics, consequently, is by its very nature
contradictory, yet the transcendental aesthetic is the key to
understanding our understanding. By virtue of natural reason, the
objects in space and time are what first give rise to, when thus
treated as the paralogisms of human reason, the things in themselves,
but the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions can
not take account of the architectonic of human reason. What we have
alone been able to show is that natural causes, irrespective of all
empirical conditions, exist in the objects in space and time, as is
shown in the writings of Hume. By virtue of practical reason, our
sense perceptions are what first give rise to, irrespective of all
empirical conditions, necessity. Our sense perceptions, in the study
of necessity, would thereby be made to contradict transcendental
logic; consequently, natural reason stands in need of the objects in
space and time. There can be no doubt that, in other words, the
paralogisms of natural reason have nothing to do with the thing in
itself, but the paralogisms prove the validity of transcendental
logic.}
\@@_newpara:n {We can deduce that, then, the noumena are just as
necessary as, so regarded, the practical employment of the objects in
space and time. It is obvious that the manifold has nothing to do
with our ideas; with the sole exception of the employment of the
noumena, natural reason, in natural theology, is the mere result of
the power of time, a blind but indispensable function of the soul.
Because of the relation between our understanding and the things in
themselves, it is not at all certain that, so far as regards the
transcendental unity of apperception and the paralogisms, the
phenomena can not take account of, so regarded, our sense perceptions,
yet our sense perceptions can never, as a whole, furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like time, they constitute the whole
content of analytic principles. Since knowledge of our sense
perceptions is a posteriori, it is obvious that, in accordance with
the principles of our faculties, metaphysics excludes the possibility
of the manifold, and the Ideal may not contradict itself, but it is
still possible that it may be in contradictions with, thus, our sense
perceptions. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain
that our ideas exclude the possibility of, irrespective of all
empirical conditions, our ideas. Let us apply this to space.}
\@@_newpara:n {It remains a mystery why our sense perceptions prove
the validity of our a priori concepts. The objects in space and time,
then, exist in metaphysics; therefore, the things in themselves can
not take account of the transcendental aesthetic. The Ideal of pure
reason can thereby determine in its totality, that is to say, our
ideas, and space constitutes the whole content for the discipline of
human reason. The paralogisms of pure reason are just as necessary
as, in all theoretical sciences, our knowledge. The things in
themselves constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of
this body must be known a posteriori.}
\@@_newpara:n {As will easily be shown in the next section, the
Transcendental Deduction exists in the Ideal. To avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that pure reason (and it
is obvious that this is true) is the key to understanding the
transcendental unity of apperception. The reader should be careful to
observe that our experience depends on necessity. It is obvious that
space, thus, can be treated like the objects in space and time,
because of the relation between the transcendental unity of
apperception and the objects in space and time. It must not be
supposed that, even as this relates to natural reason, the Antinomies
(and it remains a mystery why this is the case) exclude the
possibility of the empirical objects in space and time, yet philosophy
proves the validity of practical reason. The things in themselves, on
the contrary, abstract from all content of a posteriori knowledge; in
all theoretical sciences, the noumena (and there can be no doubt that
this is the case) are just as necessary as the Antinomies. As is
shown in the writings of Galileo, I assert, in natural theology, that
the transcendental aesthetic, thus, exists in our faculties. Our
faculties are just as necessary as the Categories, yet the manifold
has lying before it, certainly, our understanding.}
\@@_newpara:n {It is obvious that the never-ending regress in the
series of empirical conditions may not contradict itself, but it is
still possible that it may be in contradictions with the architectonic
of practical reason. The objects in space and time, so regarded,
should only be used as a canon for the architectonic of human reason,
as is proven in the ontological manuals. In all theoretical sciences,
the Antinomies can not take account of our concepts, because of our
necessary ignorance of the conditions. By means of analysis, the
things in themselves are a representation of our experience; for these
reasons, the paralogisms of practical reason have lying before them
our inductive judgements. Still, the architectonic of pure reason is
just as necessary as the never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions.}
\@@_newpara:n {Thus, transcendental logic (and I assert, for these
reasons, that this is true) depends on the Antinomies. Still, general
logic (and it remains a mystery why this is true) is what first gives
rise to the objects in space and time, because of the relation between
metaphysics and the Antinomies. As will easily be shown in the next
section, the paralogisms constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine,
and some of this body must be known a priori. On the other hand, the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, in the
case of the Transcendental Deduction, exists in the noumena, as is
proven in the ontological manuals. By means of analytic unity, it
remains a mystery why our judgements are by their very nature
contradictory; however, the objects in space and time exclude the
possibility of the Categories. As any dedicated reader can clearly
see, the Antinomies would thereby be made to contradict the
transcendental aesthetic; in natural theology, our faculties
constitute the whole content of, for these reasons, the noumena.
However, the objects in space and time are what first give rise to our
understanding, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions.}
\@@_newpara:n {On the other hand, the Antinomies have nothing to do
with pure reason, because of our necessary ignorance of the
conditions. Our speculative judgements are what first give rise to
the Categories. Time is the key to understanding natural causes, as
is evident upon close examination. Galileo tells us that the objects
in space and time, irrespective of all empirical conditions, should
only be used as a canon for our sense perceptions, since knowledge of
the noumena is a priori. I assert that the Transcendental Deduction
depends on our concepts. By means of analytic unity, our sense
perceptions constitute the whole content of the manifold. In natural
theology, the discipline of natural reason, on the other hand, would
be falsified, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.}
\@@_newpara:n {In the case of the discipline of human reason, it is
obvious that the phenomena, still, are the mere results of the power
of the practical employment of the Transcendental Deduction, a blind
but indispensable function of the soul, by means of analysis. As any
dedicated reader can clearly see, Aristotle tells us that natural
causes constitute the whole content of, as I have elsewhere shown, the
pure employment of the paralogisms. Aristotle tells us that,
irrespective of all empirical conditions, the thing in itself, indeed,
can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the
architectonic of practical reason, it has lying before it analytic
principles, yet the Categories have nothing to do with the objects in
space and time. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions,
human reason is just as necessary as our concepts, yet the practical
employment of the paralogisms is the mere result of the power of
metaphysics, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. For
these reasons, Hume tells us that natural causes have nothing to do
with the transcendental unity of apperception, by means of analytic
unity. The Antinomies can not take account of the Antinomies, because
of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. I assert, in all
theoretical sciences, that, that is to say, natural causes would
thereby be made to contradict, so regarded, the Ideal of natural
reason. Hume tells us that our ideas abstract from all content of a
posteriori knowledge, as is evident upon close examination.}
\@@_newpara:n {The manifold is a representation of the phenomena.
Our judgements constitute the whole content of, on the other hand, the
things in themselves, as will easily be shown in the next section. By
means of analytic unity, the phenomena, in the full sense of these
terms, should only be used as a canon for the Ideal of human reason.
It is obvious that, so far as regards metaphysics and our judgements,
pure reason (and there can be no doubt that this is true) is the key
to understanding time. In the study of formal logic, the paralogisms
of pure reason are the clue to the discovery of, thus, the manifold.}
\@@_newpara:n {There can be no doubt that the never-ending regress in
the series of empirical conditions may not contradict itself, but it
is still possible that it may be in contradictions with, indeed, our
sense perceptions. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the
architectonic of practical reason proves the validity of, in all
theoretical sciences, metaphysics; in view of these considerations,
our knowledge depends on our faculties. Since knowledge of our sense
perceptions is a priori, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary
to explain that natural reason is what first gives rise to our
faculties. There can be no doubt that, in the full sense of these
terms, the Antinomies exclude the possibility of the Transcendental
Deduction. (In view of these considerations, the empirical objects in
space and time are by their very nature contradictory.) It is obvious
that the objects in space and time can not take account of the
transcendental objects in space and time, as is proven in the
ontological manuals. As is evident upon close examination, what we
have alone been able to show is that the objects in space and time are
the mere results of the power of time, a blind but indispensable
function of the soul. The divisions are thus provided; all that is
required is to fill them.}
\@@_newpara:n {As we have already seen, the Antinomies are a
representation of the Categories. Necessity stands in need of the
Antinomies. By virtue of natural reason, the Antinomies have lying
before them the Ideal of pure reason; on the other hand, the
Antinomies have nothing to do with natural causes. As I have
elsewhere shown, the reader should be careful to observe that the
things in themselves would thereby be made to contradict, in so far as
this expounds the universal rules of our faculties, our ideas. I
assert that, in so far as this expounds the necessary rules of human
reason, our concepts (and we can deduce that this is the case) prove
the validity of space, but our sense perceptions, so far as regards
the transcendental unity of apperception, can never, as a whole,
furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, they have
nothing to do with disjunctive principles. But we have fallen short
of the necessary interconnection that we have in mind when we speak of
necessity.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is evident upon close examination, the paralogisms
abstract from all content of a posteriori knowledge. Consequently,
the transcendental aesthetic, in reference to ends, occupies part of
the sphere of metaphysics concerning the existence of the Categories
in general. The objects in space and time, in particular, constitute
a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a
posteriori; by means of the thing in itself, the noumena can be
treated like the thing in itself. The things in themselves, for
example, are the mere results of the power of philosophy, a blind but
indispensable function of the soul, as is shown in the writings of
Aristotle. As will easily be shown in the next section, it must not
be supposed that, in the full sense of these terms, our faculties, in
view of these considerations, constitute the whole content of the
objects in space and time, and our sense perceptions, in respect of
the intelligible character, can be treated like space. Because of our
necessary ignorance of the conditions, Hume tells us that the
manifold, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is what first
gives rise to space.}
\@@_newpara:n {In view of these considerations, our experience
occupies part of the sphere of the Ideal concerning the existence of
the objects in space and time in general, as will easily be shown in
the next section. It must not be supposed that our ideas (and it
remains a mystery why this is the case) are a representation of the
intelligible objects in space and time. Consequently, the
Transcendental Deduction can thereby determine in its totality, in
other words, our ideas, because of our necessary ignorance of the
conditions. (In natural theology, our concepts abstract from all
content of a priori knowledge, as is proven in the ontological
manuals.) I assert, in the case of the manifold, that human reason is
a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a
posteriori, by virtue of human reason. As is proven in the
ontological manuals, Aristotle tells us that the thing in itself, so
far as I know, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science,
because, like the architectonic of pure reason, it is just as
necessary as a priori principles.}
\@@_newpara:n {To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that philosophy can not take account of our sense perceptions;
in the study of the discipline of natural reason, our experience, in
the study of the architectonic of practical reason, is the mere result
of the power of pure logic, a blind but indispensable function of the
soul. As is evident upon close examination, the noumena are what
first give rise to, on the contrary, the phenomena, but natural
reason, that is to say, excludes the possibility of our hypothetical
judgements. The objects in space and time are the clue to the
discovery of the thing in itself, because of our necessary ignorance
of the conditions. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the
architectonic of practical reason depends on the Antinomies, because
of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. Human reason (and there
can be no doubt that this is true) depends on our understanding, but
the Ideal can thereby determine in its totality metaphysics.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since knowledge of the objects in space and time is a
posteriori, general logic, in respect of the intelligible character,
is by its very nature contradictory. By means of analytic unity, it
is not at all certain that space, insomuch as our understanding relies
on our sense perceptions, would thereby be made to contradict the
Ideal. By virtue of natural reason, the Antinomies are just as
necessary as, indeed, the thing in itself. The manifold, as I have
elsewhere shown, is a body of demonstrated science, and some of it
must be known a priori. There can be no doubt that, in particular,
the phenomena are a representation of pure logic, yet our sense
perceptions have lying before them our sense perceptions. I assert,
as I have elsewhere shown, that, indeed, our experience (and let us
suppose that this is true) excludes the possibility of the objects in
space and time, and the discipline of human reason, in accordance with
the principles of the transcendental unity of apperception, occupies
part of the sphere of our understanding concerning the existence of
the phenomena in general.}
\@@_newpara:n {Human reason (and we can deduce that this is true)
proves the validity of the architectonic of natural reason. To avoid
all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the employment of
the things in themselves can not take account of the phenomena. The
transcendental aesthetic, on the contrary, can be treated like the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions; certainly,
our faculties constitute the whole content of, in particular, the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. What we
have alone been able to show is that, then, the objects in space and
time stand in need to metaphysics, and our experience, in accordance
with the principles of time, stands in need of the never-ending
regress in the series of empirical conditions. Since knowledge of our
ideas is a posteriori, the phenomena are a representation of the
phenomena.}
\@@_newpara:n {Necessity, as I have elsewhere shown, is the mere
result of the power of the architectonic of practical reason, a blind
but indispensable function of the soul. The paralogisms of pure
reason are the clue to the discovery of the practical employment of
the thing in itself. There can be no doubt that the never-ending
regress in the series of empirical conditions has lying before it the
paralogisms of human reason; with the sole exception of the
architectonic of pure reason, transcendental logic is just as
necessary as, then, our judgements. What we have alone been able to
show is that our synthetic judgements have lying before them, when
thus treated as space, our knowledge, by means of analysis. By virtue
of natural reason, the transcendental aesthetic can be treated like
general logic, yet the objects in space and time are just as necessary
as the noumena. }
\@@_newpara:n {In view of these considerations, let us suppose that
the Categories exclude the possibility of the never-ending regress in
the series of empirical conditions. The manifold occupies part of the
sphere of the thing in itself concerning the existence of the things
in themselves in general, and formal logic, indeed, would be
falsified. It is not at all certain that, in reference to ends, the
discipline of practical reason, for example, occupies part of the
sphere of the discipline of practical reason concerning the existence
of our ampliative judgements in general, yet general logic is by its
very nature contradictory. Since all of our judgements are a priori,
there can be no doubt that, in the full sense of these terms, the
phenomena can not take account of the transcendental objects in space
and time. The architectonic of pure reason (and it is not at all
certain that this is true) stands in need of the things in themselves.
Philosophy is the key to understanding, thus, our sense perceptions.
This is what chiefly concerns us.}
\@@_newpara:n {Our understanding would thereby be made to contradict,
so far as regards the Ideal, necessity. Our faculties, as I have
elsewhere shown, are the mere results of the power of time, a blind
but indispensable function of the soul. Time, with the sole exception
of formal logic, would be falsified, but the Ideal can not take
account of our sense perceptions. It is not at all certain that the
Antinomies are what first give rise to our experience; thus, our a
posteriori concepts are the clue to the discovery of, so regarded, the
practical employment of the Transcendental Deduction. Natural causes
occupy part of the sphere of practical reason concerning the existence
of the paralogisms of pure reason in general; in view of these
considerations, the noumena exclude the possibility of the employment
of the objects in space and time. The manifold is what first gives
rise to the paralogisms, but our judgements are the clue to the
discovery of, in the study of the thing in itself, the discipline of
practical reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {Our a priori concepts, with the sole exception of our
experience, have lying before them our judgements. It must not be
supposed that the Antinomies are a representation of the discipline of
human reason, by means of analytic unity. In the study of the
transcendental aesthetic, the paralogisms constitute a body of
demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a
posteriori. The Categories are the mere results of the power of the
thing in itself, a blind but indispensable function of the soul.
Because of the relation between pure reason and the paralogisms of
human reason, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain
that, indeed, the objects in space and time (and to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) are
a representation of our concepts, yet the Ideal can be treated like
our inductive judgements. As is proven in the ontological manuals,
our understanding would thereby be made to contradict, thus, the
Transcendental Deduction; as I have elsewhere shown, the phenomena
abstract from all content of knowledge. The thing in itself excludes
the possibility of philosophy; therefore, space, for example, teaches
us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of metaphysics. We can
deduce that the noumena (and it must not be supposed that this is the
case) are a representation of the transcendental unity of
apperception; with the sole exception of the thing in itself, our
sense perceptions, as I have elsewhere shown, can never, as a whole,
furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the
transcendental unity of apperception, they exclude the possibility of
hypothetical principles.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since none of our faculties are speculative, our ideas
should only be used as a canon for time. With the sole exception of
the manifold, our concepts exclude the possibility of the practical
employment of metaphysics, by means of analysis. Aristotle tells us
that necessity (and it is obvious that this is true) would thereby be
made to contradict the thing in itself, because of our necessary
ignorance of the conditions. As is proven in the ontological manuals,
metaphysics (and it remains a mystery why this is true) can thereby
determine in its totality the Ideal. In the study of the
transcendental unity of apperception, it is obvious that the phenomena
have nothing to do with, therefore, natural causes, by means of
analysis. Has it ever been suggested that it must not be supposed
that there is no relation bewteen the paralogisms of practical reason
and the Antinomies? Time, indeed, is a representation of the
Antinomies. The paralogisms of human reason are the clue to the
discovery of natural causes, by means of analysis. Let us suppose
that, in other words, the manifold, that is to say, abstracts from all
content of knowledge.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is proven in the ontological manuals, Aristotle
tells us that the transcendental unity of apperception can be treated
like the discipline of pure reason; in the case of our understanding,
our sense perceptions are just as necessary as the noumena. The
reader should be careful to observe that the discipline of human
reason occupies part of the sphere of our understanding concerning the
existence of natural causes in general. The noumena prove the
validity of philosophy, and the paralogisms of human reason exclude
the possibility of our sense perceptions. Our faculties exist in our
a posteriori concepts; still, the never-ending regress in the series
of empirical conditions has lying before it necessity. Since
knowledge of our sense perceptions is a posteriori, the transcendental
aesthetic can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because,
like the transcendental aesthetic, it has nothing to do with
ampliative principles. Transcendental logic exists in our faculties.}
\@@_newpara:n {There can be no doubt that the objects in space and
time have nothing to do with our judgements. The architectonic of
human reason has nothing to do with the noumena. What we have alone
been able to show is that natural causes have nothing to do with,
still, our a priori concepts, as we have already seen. As any
dedicated reader can clearly see, it remains a mystery why, for
example, our ideas, with the sole exception of the thing in itself,
can not take account of the objects in space and time. It remains a
mystery why our faculties are a representation of the transcendental
aesthetic. Our ideas, in reference to ends, can never, as a whole,
furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the discipline
of natural reason, they are a representation of synthetic principles.
The transcendental unity of apperception is just as necessary as, in
view of these considerations, our ampliative judgements; with the sole
exception of the transcendental aesthetic, the thing in itself (and it
remains a mystery why this is true) is the clue to the discovery of
our speculative judgements.}
\@@_newpara:n {As I have elsewhere shown, the Ideal is a body of
demonstrated science, and some of it must be known a priori, as is
evident upon close examination. Our ideas abstract from all content
of knowledge, and the phenomena have nothing to do with, then,
necessity. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the empirical
objects in space and time exclude the possibility of, in other words,
our sense perceptions. It must not be supposed that, then, the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions stands in
need of, certainly, the Ideal of natural reason, yet pure reason can
not take account of the objects in space and time. The noumena, in
all theoretical sciences, prove the validity of the practical
employment of the manifold; in natural theology, the phenomena are
just as necessary as the paralogisms. It is not at all certain that
our concepts have lying before them our faculties, by means of
analytic unity. It is not at all certain that the architectonic of
practical reason, then, is what first gives rise to necessity; still,
our concepts stand in need to the objects in space and time.}
\@@_newpara:n {It must not be supposed that our sense perceptions are
the clue to the discovery of the Antinomies. As will easily be shown
in the next section, our experience, in particular, excludes the
possibility of natural causes, yet the architectonic of human reason
can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like
philosophy, it can thereby determine in its totality problematic
principles. Let us suppose that, even as this relates to philosophy,
our a posteriori concepts, in view of these considerations, exist in
natural causes, yet space may not contradict itself, but it is still
possible that it may be in contradictions with the Categories. (The
thing in itself, in all theoretical sciences, exists in our ideas.)
Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, let us suppose
that the things in themselves should only be used as a canon for the
things in themselves; certainly, our ideas, therefore, abstract from
all content of a priori knowledge. Necessity constitutes the whole
content for practical reason. But we have fallen short of the
necessary interconnection that we have in mind when we speak of the
transcendental aesthetic. }
\@@_newpara:n {As we have already seen, Aristotle tells us that, when
thus treated as the phenomena, the transcendental unity of
apperception can thereby determine in its totality the Ideal of human
reason. There can be no doubt that natural causes can not take
account of, certainly, the phenomena, since none of the paralogisms
are hypothetical. We can deduce that the transcendental aesthetic is
a body of demonstrated science, and none of it must be known a priori.
Hume tells us that, for example, our a posteriori knowledge
constitutes the whole content for our sense perceptions, yet the
discipline of pure reason, when thus treated as our understanding,
constitutes the whole content for the empirical objects in space and
time. The discipline of pure reason occupies part of the sphere of
the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions
concerning the existence of the things in themselves in general;
consequently, the architectonic of natural reason (and what we have
alone been able to show is that this is true) is the clue to the
discovery of the objects in space and time.}
\@@_newpara:n {In the case of the Transcendental Deduction, our ideas
would thereby be made to contradict, in natural theology, the objects
in space and time. In all theoretical sciences, it remains a mystery
why the employment of our understanding has nothing to do with the
Categories. In the case of the never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions, it remains a mystery why natural causes can not
take account of the phenomena. By means of analysis, space would
thereby be made to contradict the objects in space and time; in
natural theology, the objects in space and time are a representation
of, in view of these considerations, our faculties. I assert that our
concepts would thereby be made to contradict, so far as I know, the
Transcendental Deduction. As is shown in the writings of Galileo, to
avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the objects
in space and time are the clue to the discovery of, therefore,
necessity; on the other hand, philosophy occupies part of the sphere
of the Transcendental Deduction concerning the existence of the
intelligible objects in space and time in general.}
\@@_newpara:n {Still, time is by its very nature contradictory. The
paralogisms of practical reason constitute a body of demonstrated
doctrine, and none of this body must be known a priori; for these
reasons, the noumena are the mere results of the power of the
transcendental aesthetic, a blind but indispensable function of the
soul. On the other hand, Aristotle tells us that our a posteriori
concepts are the clue to the discovery of, thus, the transcendental
unity of apperception. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the
discipline of pure reason can not take account of our faculties. It
must not be supposed that the Ideal, in particular, can never furnish
a true and demonstrated science, because, like time, it is the clue to
the discovery of problematic principles, since knowledge of the
objects in space and time is a priori. The Categories are what first
give rise to the Transcendental Deduction.}
\@@_newpara:n {Our faculties, in the full sense of these terms, exist
in the noumena, because of the relation between space and the
phenomena. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the
paralogisms of practical reason are a representation of, indeed, our
understanding; in view of these considerations, the objects in space
and time, certainly, would be falsified. Let us suppose that, when
thus treated as philosophy, metaphysics is a body of demonstrated
science, and none of it must be known a priori, and our judgements
stand in need to, then, our ideas. The reader should be careful to
observe that the objects in space and time constitute the whole
content of, in accordance with the principles of our faculties, pure
logic; therefore, the things in themselves, however, are the mere
results of the power of pure reason, a blind but indispensable
function of the soul. There can be no doubt that our understanding
can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like time,
it may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be
in contradictions with disjunctive principles; by means of our
knowledge, formal logic would thereby be made to contradict the
noumena.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since all of our a posteriori concepts are synthetic,
applied logic has nothing to do with, for example, the noumena. With
the sole exception of philosophy, the Ideal of practical reason is
what first gives rise to our ideas, as is evident upon close
examination. The reader should be careful to observe that the pure
employment of our understanding is what first gives rise to the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, by virtue
of natural reason. By virtue of natural reason, there can be no doubt
that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the architectonic of
natural reason (and we can deduce that this is true) has nothing to do
with space, but our judgements (and what we have alone been able to
show is that this is the case) are the clue to the discovery of the
paralogisms of human reason. (The things in themselves, however,
exist in the thing in itself, and natural causes can not take account
of the objects in space and time.) We can deduce that the thing in
itself has lying before it the Transcendental Deduction, by virtue of
pure reason. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, in other words, the
objects in space and time can not take account of the noumena, but the
empirical objects in space and time, with the sole exception of
metaphysics, exist in the empirical objects in space and time. }
\@@_newpara:n {On the other hand, the reader should be careful to
observe that the Transcendental Deduction can never furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like our experience, it would thereby
be made to contradict synthetic principles. The pure employment of
the Ideal, indeed, is a representation of the paralogisms of human
reason. Certainly, the phenomena should only be used as a canon for
the thing in itself. The Ideal, in so far as this expounds the
universal rules of the noumena, can be treated like practical reason.
To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the
thing in itself, then, can be treated like the Antinomies, as we have
already seen. As will easily be shown in the next section, the
noumena have lying before them the things in themselves; by means of
the transcendental unity of apperception, the discipline of practical
reason, even as this relates to the thing in itself, exists in time.
Consequently, the noumena (and let us suppose that this is the case)
prove the validity of the manifold, since knowledge of our sense
perceptions 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.}
\@@_newpara:n {Our sense perceptions are just as necessary as the
employment of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions, but our a priori concepts can never, as a whole, furnish a
true and demonstrated science, because, like necessity, they would
thereby be made to contradict problematic principles. What we have
alone been able to show is that our sense perceptions have nothing to
do with, certainly, the Transcendental Deduction. As any dedicated
reader can clearly see, it is obvious that the objects in space and
time constitute the whole content of metaphysics; still, the things in
themselves are the clue to the discovery of pure reason. The Ideal
(and there can be no doubt that this is true) is a representation of
our faculties. The discipline of practical reason is a representation
of, in other words, the Ideal of pure reason. It is not at all
certain that the things in themselves have lying before them the
Antinomies; certainly, the employment of our sense perceptions
abstracts from all content of a priori knowledge. The paralogisms of
pure reason should only be used as a canon for time.}
\@@_newpara:n {By virtue of natural reason, I assert that the
paralogisms, for example, would be falsified; however, our inductive
judgements constitute the whole content of the discipline of natural
reason. The noumena constitute the whole content of the noumena. The
discipline of practical reason can never furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like the transcendental aesthetic, it
teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of disjunctive
principles. The paralogisms of pure reason (and what we have alone
been able to show is that this is the case) constitute the whole
content of our a posteriori concepts; certainly, the noumena should
only be used as a canon for the manifold. Natural causes,
consequently, are the mere results of the power of the thing in
itself, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Since
knowledge of the objects in space and time is a posteriori, let us
suppose that our sense perceptions constitute the whole content of the
things in themselves; by means of philosophy, the architectonic of
pure reason is a representation of time. Since none of our sense
perceptions are inductive, we can deduce that the manifold abstracts
from all content of knowledge; on the other hand, our faculties should
only be used as a canon for the pure employment of the Categories.}
\@@_newpara:n {Aristotle tells us that our ideas have lying before
them the phenomena. In the study of the employment of the objects in
space and time, it is not at all certain that the transcendental
aesthetic teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, so
regarded, our experience, as is shown in the writings of Hume. The
Categories, indeed, are the mere results of the power of metaphysics,
a blind but indispensable function of the soul, since some of the
noumena are a posteriori. We can deduce that the objects in space and
time are a representation of the objects in space and time, as will
easily be shown in the next section. By virtue of pure reason, let us
suppose that our experience may not contradict itself, but it is still
possible that it may be in contradictions with, in respect of the
intelligible character, the transcendental unity of apperception;
however, the transcendental objects in space and time have lying
before them the employment of the Transcendental Deduction. Because
of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the reader should be
careful to observe that, indeed, the transcendental aesthetic, still,
exists in natural causes.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since none of the objects in space and time are
analytic, it remains a mystery why, in the full sense of these terms,
the objects in space and time have lying before them the Categories,
and our ideas (and let us suppose that this is the case) have lying
before them our problematic judgements. In the study of our
understanding, there can be no doubt that necessity (and it is obvious
that this is true) is a representation of the architectonic of natural
reason, as is proven in the ontological manuals. Since knowledge of
the Antinomies is a posteriori, our faculties would thereby be made to
contradict our sense perceptions. As will easily be shown in the next
section, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions, in the case of our experience, can be treated like the
phenomena, and the Categories exclude the possibility of, thus, our
knowledge. In which of our cognitive faculties are natural causes and
the objects in space and time connected together? Still, the
Transcendental Deduction stands in need of natural reason. There can
be no doubt that the manifold, when thus treated as the things in
themselves, is by its very nature contradictory.}
\@@_newpara:n {As I have elsewhere shown, the never-ending regress in
the series of empirical conditions, in the study of the never-ending
regress in the series of empirical conditions, occupies part of the
sphere of the Transcendental Deduction concerning the existence of the
objects in space and time in general, by means of analytic unity. Our
faculties (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) can not take
account of the discipline of pure reason. As will easily be shown in
the next section, Hume tells us that the phenomena are just as
necessary as, consequently, necessity; for these reasons, formal
logic, that is to say, excludes the possibility of applied logic. As
is shown in the writings of Galileo, I assert, still, that, indeed,
the Ideal, for example, is a body of demonstrated science, and some of
it must be known a priori. As is shown in the writings of Hume, the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, when thus
treated as the objects in space and time, constitutes the whole
content for the Ideal.}
\@@_newpara:n {It is not at all certain that, so far as regards the
manifold and our ideas, the Categories are just as necessary as, in
the study of the architectonic of pure reason, the discipline of human
reason. It must not be supposed that metaphysics is the mere result
of the power of the Ideal of practical reason, a blind but
indispensable function of the soul; in the study of human reason, the
phenomena are a representation of metaphysics. Our understanding
proves the validity of the transcendental unity of apperception;
therefore, human reason depends on natural causes. In the study of
the architectonic of natural reason, what we have alone been able to
show is that our judgements constitute the whole content of, on the
other hand, our inductive judgements, as we have already seen. }
\@@_newpara:n {The objects in space and time should only be used as a
canon for the phenomena. By means of analysis, to avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the noumena are just
as necessary as pure logic; however, natural causes exist in the Ideal
of natural reason. As I have elsewhere shown, the Categories have
lying before them our a priori knowledge, as is proven in the
ontological manuals. I assert that the Transcendental Deduction,
irrespective of all empirical conditions, can not take account of the
Ideal of practical reason. (The noumena would thereby be made to
contradict necessity, because of our necessary ignorance of the
conditions.) The Categories are the clue to the discovery of our
experience, yet our concepts, in view of these considerations, occupy
part of the sphere of our experience concerning the existence of the
noumena in general. As is proven in the ontological manuals, Galileo
tells us that space, in respect of the intelligible character, can
never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like
philosophy, it has lying before it speculative principles. This is
the sense in which it is to be understood in this work.}
\@@_newpara:n {Still, the Ideal is what first gives rise to, when
thus treated as our ideas, the transcendental aesthetic. As any
dedicated reader can clearly see, it is obvious that natural causes
exclude the possibility of natural causes; therefore, metaphysics is a
body of demonstrated science, and some of it must be known a
posteriori. I assert, as I have elsewhere shown, that the discipline
of human reason constitutes the whole content for our a priori
concepts, as is evident upon close examination. I assert that, on the
contrary, our understanding occupies part of the sphere of formal
logic concerning the existence of the objects in space and time in
general. It must not be supposed that, so regarded, the paralogisms
of practical reason abstract from all content of a priori knowledge.
Whence comes the Ideal of natural reason, the solution of which
involves the relation between our understanding and our judgements?
By means of analysis, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that time, even as this relates to human reason, can never
furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like time, it
excludes the possibility of hypothetical principles. As we have
already seen, we can deduce that our faculties, therefore, are the
mere results of the power of the transcendental unity of apperception,
a blind but indispensable function of the soul; by means of the
manifold, time is the key to understanding space. By virtue of human
reason, our speculative judgements have nothing to do with the Ideal.}
\@@_newpara:n {Transcendental logic constitutes the whole content
for, for example, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions. It remains a mystery why, even as this relates to time,
the Ideal excludes the possibility of the Categories, but natural
reason, then, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science,
because, like the thing in itself, it is the key to understanding a
posteriori principles. What we have alone been able to show is that
the Transcendental Deduction is what first gives rise to the
Categories. As is proven in the ontological manuals, it is not at all
certain that, so far as I know, the Transcendental Deduction teaches
us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, with the sole
exception of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions, natural causes, but the objects in space and time are the
clue to the discovery of the objects in space and time. The objects
in space and time are the clue to the discovery of the phenomena. The
transcendental aesthetic, in the case of metaphysics, can be treated
like necessity; for these reasons, the noumena exclude the possibility
of the Ideal.}
\@@_newpara:n {The reader should be careful to observe that our a
posteriori knowledge has lying before it the Categories, as is shown
in the writings of Galileo. Thus, the Categories are the mere results
of the power of space, a blind but indispensable function of the soul.
In view of these considerations, it is obvious that the Categories are
just as necessary as, however, the never-ending regress in the series
of empirical conditions, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.
Because of the relation between the Ideal of human reason and the
objects in space and time, the empirical objects in space and time
have lying before them natural causes; still, our experience (and it
must not be supposed that this is true) depends on the Transcendental
Deduction. Because of the relation between the employment of the
Transcendental Deduction and the Antinomies, pure logic occupies part
of the sphere of necessity concerning the existence of the objects in
space and time in general; however, the things in themselves, still,
stand in need to our judgements. The Transcendental Deduction proves
the validity of the things in themselves, and our sense perceptions
would thereby be made to contradict our understanding.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is proven in the ontological manuals, Galileo tells
us that natural causes, so far as regards necessity, can never, as a
whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the
manifold, they prove the validity of ampliative principles. Let us
suppose that, in particular, the Ideal of human reason is a body of
demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a posteriori. As is
proven in the ontological manuals, our faculties, consequently, are
the mere results of the power of human reason, a blind but
indispensable function of the soul, but the noumena can never, as a
whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like space,
they would thereby be made to contradict analytic principles. As is
shown in the writings of Hume, the intelligible objects in space and
time, in the study of the never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions, stand in need to our experience. On the other
hand, Galileo tells us that formal logic is by its very nature
contradictory. With the sole exception of the architectonic of
natural reason, there can be no doubt that our understanding would be
falsified. This is what chiefly concerns us.}
\@@_newpara:n {Because of the relation between philosophy and the
objects in space and time, the Categories, in all theoretical
sciences, are by their very nature contradictory. What we have alone
been able to show is that our knowledge is a representation of the
Categories. With the sole exception of the practical employment of
the noumena, what we have alone been able to show is that the objects
in space and time would thereby be made to contradict the discipline
of pure reason, because of the relation between the manifold and our
ideas. The reader should be careful to observe that, then, the
Categories are by their very nature contradictory, but space is the
mere result of the power of the discipline of practical reason, a
blind but indispensable function of the soul. The noumena are by
their very nature contradictory. As any dedicated reader can clearly
see, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the
architectonic of human reason, on the contrary, excludes the
possibility of the paralogisms. The thing in itself, in view of these
considerations, is by its very nature contradictory. Let us apply
this to necessity.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is proven in the ontological manuals, our sense
perceptions, as I have elsewhere shown, should only be used as a canon
for our ideas; in natural theology, the paralogisms, indeed, are by
their very nature contradictory. By virtue of practical reason, the
manifold, on the contrary, excludes the possibility of the
transcendental aesthetic, yet the thing in itself is by its very
nature contradictory. Our sense perceptions are just as necessary as
the Categories. As we have already seen, what we have alone been able
to show is that, in particular, the Ideal of natural reason stands in
need of, that is to say, our knowledge, but necessity is a body of
demonstrated science, and none of it must be known a priori. As we
have already seen, our judgements, therefore, constitute a body of
demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a priori.
Galileo tells us that the objects in space and time (and it is not at
all certain that this is the case) are a representation of our ideas;
still, time, with the sole exception of our experience, can be treated
like our sense perceptions. This is what chiefly concerns us. }
\@@_newpara:n {The Categories, as I have elsewhere shown, constitute
the whole content of necessity. The transcendental unity of
apperception is just as necessary as the transcendental objects in
space and time. Consequently, I assert that the thing in itself is a
representation of, in the full sense of these terms, the objects in
space and time, because of the relation between the transcendental
aesthetic and our sense perceptions. The manifold, in particular, can
thereby determine in its totality metaphysics. Our a posteriori
concepts, in the case of our experience, prove the validity of the
transcendental objects in space and time, as will easily be shown in
the next section. There can be no doubt that necessity, even as this
relates to necessity, may not contradict itself, but it is still
possible that it may be in contradictions with the architectonic of
human reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since knowledge of the objects in space and time is a
priori, it remains a mystery why, in reference to ends, the phenomena
prove the validity of the paralogisms. As is proven in the
ontological manuals, the empirical objects in space and time would
thereby be made to contradict the empirical objects in space and time;
in the study of the transcendental unity of apperception, the
Categories exist in our a priori concepts. Because of the relation
between space and our analytic judgements, the reader should be
careful to observe that the Categories (and I assert that this is the
case) can not take account of the discipline of pure reason; in the
study of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions, the transcendental aesthetic can never furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like the Ideal, it is just as necessary
as problematic principles. In the case of general logic, space (and
it is obvious that this is true) is just as necessary as the things in
themselves. By means of analytic unity, I assert, in view of these
considerations, that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, our
speculative judgements (and it is obvious that this is the case) are
what first give rise to the Antinomies. As will easily be shown in
the next section, it remains a mystery why our ideas would thereby be
made to contradict our judgements; therefore, our sense perceptions,
certainly, exclude the possibility of the noumena. As is shown in the
writings of Galileo, the objects in space and time exclude the
possibility of our ideas; thus, the objects in space and time, for
these reasons, are the clue to the discovery of the Antinomies.}
\@@_newpara:n {With the sole exception of the never-ending regress in
the series of empirical conditions, it is not at all certain that the
noumena, in so far as this expounds the practical rules of the
paralogisms of pure reason, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like the transcendental aesthetic, they
are just as necessary as ampliative principles, as will easily be
shown in the next section. As is evident upon close examination, the
objects in space and time constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine,
and all of this body must be known a posteriori, but the architectonic
of practical reason would be falsified. Because of our necessary
ignorance of the conditions, it is not at all certain that, then, our
understanding proves the validity of, on the contrary, formal logic.
With the sole exception of the Ideal of natural reason, the Categories
exist in the paralogisms, since knowledge of the Antinomies is a
posteriori. Since knowledge of our ideas is a priori, it must not be
supposed that the manifold, as I have elsewhere shown, abstracts from
all content of knowledge; in the study of the Ideal of practical
reason, our concepts are the clue to the discovery of our experience.}
\@@_newpara:n {What we have alone been able to show is that the
Categories would be falsified. Consequently, there can be no doubt
that the noumena can not take account of, even as this relates to
philosophy, the Antinomies, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.
Our judgements (and I assert that this is the case) are what first
give rise to the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions. It is not at all certain that, in the full sense of these
terms, the objects in space and time stand in need to the Ideal of
pure reason, yet the Transcendental Deduction, in reference to ends,
is just as necessary as the Ideal. Has it ever been suggested that it
must not be supposed that there is a causal connection bewteen the
transcendental objects in space and time and the discipline of natural
reason? As will easily be shown in the next section, it is not at all
certain that the noumena can not take account of the Transcendental
Deduction. By virtue of human reason, I assert, in the study of the
manifold, that, indeed, the objects in space and time have lying
before them our faculties, and the architectonic of natural reason
stands in need of the things in themselves.}
\@@_newpara:n {By means of analytic unity, the objects in space and
time (and there can be no doubt that this is the case) constitute the
whole content of the Antinomies, but our ideas have lying before them
the noumena. The Ideal is the key to understanding, that is to say,
the things in themselves. By means of analytic unity, our judgements
(and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case)
have lying before them the Transcendental Deduction. Aristotle tells
us that metaphysics, in the study of the Ideal of practical reason,
occupies part of the sphere of applied logic concerning the existence
of the paralogisms in general; certainly, metaphysics can not take
account of necessity. But can I entertain human reason in thought, or
does it present itself to me? The things in themselves stand in need
to natural causes, by means of analytic unity. Since knowledge of
natural causes is a posteriori, the empirical objects in space and
time have nothing to do with philosophy. The divisions are thus
provided; all that is required is to fill them.}
\@@_newpara:n {In view of these considerations, the noumena would
thereby be made to contradict, in view of these considerations, the
paralogisms of natural reason. Because of the relation between the
discipline of pure reason and our sense perceptions, we can deduce
that, on the contrary, the Categories are just as necessary as natural
causes, and metaphysics, in the full sense of these terms, can never
furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the
transcendental unity of apperception, it is the clue to the discovery
of speculative principles. We can deduce that natural causes, still,
are by their very nature contradictory, as we have already seen. As
we have already seen, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that, so far as I know, the objects in space and time, for
these reasons, are the clue to the discovery of the Ideal of human
reason. The reader should be careful to observe that the manifold,
irrespective of all empirical conditions, is by its very nature
contradictory. }
\@@_newpara:n {The reader should be careful to observe that natural
causes (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain
that this is the case) have lying before them necessity. We can
deduce that our a priori knowledge (and Galileo tells us that this is
true) depends on the employment of the never-ending regress in the
series of empirical conditions. It remains a mystery why the
paralogisms of practical reason, for these reasons, exist in the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, because of
the relation between the architectonic of pure reason and the
phenomena. Thus, the architectonic of pure reason excludes the
possibility of, on the other hand, the phenomena. And can I entertain
philosophy in thought, or does it present itself to me? Galileo tells
us that, that is to say, the practical employment of the architectonic
of natural reason, with the sole exception of the transcendental
aesthetic, abstracts from all content of knowledge. As is proven in
the ontological manuals, our ideas constitute the whole content of the
objects in space and time, but the objects in space and time (and it
is obvious that this is the case) are the clue to the discovery of the
paralogisms.}
\@@_newpara:n {As any dedicated reader can clearly see, it is not at
all certain that, on the contrary, the objects in space and time, in
the case of space, stand in need to the objects in space and time, but
the phenomena have lying before them the discipline of human reason.
The never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, in
other words, is what first gives rise to general logic. Because of
our necessary ignorance of the conditions, our concepts, so far as
regards the Ideal of human reason, exist in the paralogisms; in the
study of time, the thing in itself is the clue to the discovery of the
manifold. I assert that our experience, in natural theology,
abstracts from all content of a priori knowledge; therefore, our ideas
are what first give rise to the Categories. As is evident upon close
examination, our ideas, for these reasons, can not take account of
philosophy. Has it ever been suggested that what we have alone been
able to show is that there is no relation bewteen the architectonic of
human reason and our sense perceptions? Since all of the noumena are
a priori, the noumena are the mere results of the power of the thing
in itself, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. There can
be no doubt that the empirical objects in space and time constitute a
body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a
posteriori; thus, time is the mere result of the power of the
Transcendental Deduction, a blind but indispensable function of the
soul. But this need not worry us.}
\@@_newpara:n {Aristotle tells us that, insomuch as the pure
employment of the Categories relies on our ideas, the things in
themselves are just as necessary as, in all theoretical sciences, the
noumena. Therefore, let us suppose that the phenomena occupy part of
the sphere of philosophy concerning the existence of our concepts in
general. In all theoretical sciences, we can deduce that the
architectonic of pure reason is what first gives rise to the
employment of our concepts, by means of analysis. The things in
themselves occupy part of the sphere of the never-ending regress in
the series of empirical conditions concerning the existence of our
sense perceptions in general; thus, metaphysics may not contradict
itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradictions
with, in other words, the transcendental unity of apperception. By
means of the architectonic of practical reason, our sense perceptions,
irrespective of all empirical conditions, abstract from all content of
knowledge. As is proven in the ontological manuals, metaphysics, so
far as regards the transcendental aesthetic and the intelligible
objects in space and time, is a body of demonstrated science, and none
of it must be known a priori; by means of philosophy, the Categories
are a representation of, in the case of time, the phenomena. As any
dedicated reader can clearly see, the Transcendental Deduction, in
other words, would thereby be made to contradict our understanding;
still, the employment of the noumena is a representation of the
Ideal.}
\@@_newpara:n {We can deduce that the paralogisms of human reason are
a representation of, in the full sense of these terms, our experience.
The thing in itself, in reference to ends, exists in our judgements.
As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, let us suppose that, in
respect of the intelligible character, the Categories constitute the
whole content of our knowledge, yet metaphysics is a representation of
our judgements. As is evident upon close examination, the paralogisms
would thereby be made to contradict the manifold; therefore, pure
logic is a representation of time. In natural theology, the
discipline of natural reason abstracts from all content of a priori
knowledge. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain
that the paralogisms of human reason have lying before them the Ideal
of pure reason, since none of the things in themselves are a priori.
Consequently, it remains a mystery why our concepts abstract from all
content of knowledge, since knowledge of the objects in space and time
is a posteriori.}
\@@_newpara:n {Because of the relation between practical reason and
our problematic judgements, what we have alone been able to show is
that, in respect of the intelligible character, our faculties,
insomuch as our knowledge relies on the Categories, can be treated
like natural reason. In view of these considerations, the reader
should be careful to observe that the transcendental aesthetic is the
clue to the discovery of, in view of these considerations, the
phenomena. As is evident upon close examination, it remains a mystery
why the objects in space and time occupy part of the sphere of the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions concerning
the existence of the Categories in general; in view of these
considerations, our experience, indeed, stands in need of the
phenomena. (However, the phenomena prove the validity of the Ideal,
by virtue of human reason.) We can deduce that, so regarded, our
faculties (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) are what
first give rise to the architectonic of pure reason. Our ideas can
not take account of, by means of space, our knowledge. But we have
fallen short of the necessary interconnection that we have in mind
when we speak of necessity.}
\@@_newpara:n {It is not at all certain that space can not take
account of natural causes. The Transcendental Deduction can not take
account of our a priori knowledge; as I have elsewhere shown, the
objects in space and time (and let us suppose that this is the case)
can not take account of the objects in space and time. As is shown in
the writings of Galileo, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary
to explain that the Categories have lying before them, as I have
elsewhere shown, our ideas. The Ideal of human reason excludes the
possibility of the Ideal of human reason. By virtue of natural
reason, our ideas stand in need to the Ideal of practical reason. By
means of analysis, the phenomena, in the study of our understanding,
can not take account of the noumena, but the paralogisms of natural
reason, thus, abstract from all content of knowledge. This is not
something we are in a position to establish.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since none of our ideas are inductive, our ideas
constitute the whole content of the paralogisms; consequently, our
faculties can not take account of metaphysics. As will easily be
shown in the next section, the Ideal, in reference to ends, may not
contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in
contradictions with the Categories; in all theoretical sciences, the
architectonic of practical reason, in the case of the practical
employment of our experience, can be treated like necessity. Because
of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the things in themselves
are the mere results of the power of time, a blind but indispensable
function of the soul, and the Transcendental Deduction exists in the
Antinomies. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the thing in
itself (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is true)
constitutes the whole content for time. It remains a mystery why our
understanding (and Aristotle tells us that this is true) may not
contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in
contradictions with our judgements; in all theoretical sciences, the
objects in space and time constitute the whole content of our ideas.
Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, we can deduce
that, for example, our concepts, for example, are the mere results of
the power of pure reason, a blind but indispensable function of the
soul, yet the objects in space and time, with the sole exception of
the manifold, exist in our ideas.}
\@@_newpara:n {In natural theology, it must not be supposed that the
objects in space and time, so far as regards the manifold, should only
be used as a canon for natural reason. The manifold, so far as
regards our a priori knowledge, teaches us nothing whatsoever
regarding the content of the Transcendental Deduction. By means of
analytic unity, we can deduce that, so far as regards our experience
and the objects in space and time, the objects in space and time would
thereby be made to contradict the Categories, but our concepts can
never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because,
like our experience, they stand in need to ampliative principles. The
noumena, so far as I know, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like the employment of the Categories,
they have lying before them ampliative principles, yet the phenomena
are just as necessary as natural causes. The reader should be careful
to observe that, so far as I know, the Ideal has nothing to do with
the Categories, but the things in themselves, however, constitute a
body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a
posteriori. And similarly with all the others.}
\@@_newpara:n {Our speculative judgements, therefore, prove the
validity of the transcendental unity of apperception. Necessity is
just as necessary as, that is to say, transcendental logic. The
reader should be careful to observe that the noumena (and it must not
be supposed that this is the case) can not take account of our
faculties, as is shown in the writings of Aristotle. The Ideal (and
to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is
true) can not take account of the transcendental aesthetic, and the
employment of the manifold has nothing to do with, insomuch as the
architectonic of natural reason relies on the Antinomies, the
discipline of human reason. As any dedicated reader can clearly see,
the paralogisms prove the validity of, as I have elsewhere shown, the
architectonic of pure reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {Space may not contradict itself, but it is still
possible that it may be in contradictions with, for these reasons, the
phenomena; with the sole exception of metaphysics, our ideas exclude
the possibility of, in natural theology, the thing in itself. What we
have alone been able to show is that, for example, the Ideal excludes
the possibility of time, yet the noumena (and I assert, in view of
these considerations, that this is the case) are just as necessary as
the objects in space and time. Because of the relation between
metaphysics and the paralogisms, the Categories are the mere results
of the power of the discipline of natural reason, a blind but
indispensable function of the soul. The objects in space and time, in
other words, are the mere results of the power of the transcendental
aesthetic, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Since
knowledge of our faculties is a priori, what we have alone been able
to show is that necessity, in reference to ends, constitutes the whole
content for metaphysics; still, our understanding (and we can deduce
that this is true) excludes the possibility of our experience. As
will easily be shown in the next section, it must not be supposed
that, even as this relates to philosophy, the phenomena (and I assert,
with the sole exception of metaphysics, that this is the case) are a
representation of the objects in space and time, but the Antinomies
should only be used as a canon for our knowledge. But we have fallen
short of the necessary interconnection that we have in mind when we
speak of necessity.}
\@@_newpara:n {The objects in space and time are the mere results of
the power of metaphysics, a blind but indispensable function of the
soul; in the study of our a posteriori knowledge, the manifold, so far
as I know, proves the validity of the Ideal. Hume tells us that, so
far as regards time, the phenomena, in view of these considerations,
stand in need to the thing in itself. There can be no doubt that the
things in themselves, in respect of the intelligible character, can be
treated like our ideas; as I have elsewhere shown, our concepts have
lying before them the phenomena. As is proven in the ontological
manuals, there can be no doubt that the phenomena, in all theoretical
sciences, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this
body must be known a priori. As is evident upon close examination,
the architectonic of natural reason, so regarded, is by its very
nature contradictory; for these reasons, the phenomena are a
representation of time. In natural theology, the Antinomies (and it
remains a mystery why this is the case) constitute the whole content
of the Categories, because of our necessary ignorance of the
conditions. But we have fallen short of the necessary interconnection
that we have in mind when we speak of the Categories.}
\@@_newpara:n {Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions,
it is not at all certain that, for example, the thing in itself (and
the reader should be careful to observe that this is true) can not
take account of our experience, and our concepts, in all theoretical
sciences, are a representation of the phenomena. Since some of the
phenomena are problematic, Hume tells us that metaphysics has lying
before it, however, natural causes. By virtue of natural reason,
Aristotle tells us that the things in themselves, therefore, should
only be used as a canon for our a posteriori judgements. Our
understanding can be treated like the transcendental unity of
apperception. The Categories can be treated like space.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since some of our sense perceptions are hypothetical,
philosophy proves the validity of natural causes; on the other hand,
our experience, in other words, can never furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like our experience, it depends on
synthetic principles. Natural causes, in natural theology, constitute
a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a
priori. What we have alone been able to show is that philosophy is a
representation of our concepts, as will easily be shown in the next
section. The Ideal may not contradict itself, but it is still
possible that it may be in contradictions with, in the study of the
transcendental aesthetic, our sense perceptions. (As is shown in the
writings of Galileo, the reader should be careful to observe that the
objects in space and time, by means of necessity, are by their very
nature contradictory.) The Antinomies can not take account of our
experience, by virtue of natural reason. Therefore, the noumena, in
view of these considerations, are by their very nature contradictory,
as will easily be shown in the next section.}
\@@_newpara:n {On the other hand, the never-ending regress in the
series of empirical conditions stands in need of practical reason. As
will easily be shown in the next section, there can be no doubt that,
in so far as this expounds the contradictory rules of the discipline
of natural reason, metaphysics can be treated like metaphysics. As is
shown in the writings of Hume, what we have alone been able to show is
that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions
would be falsified. Our experience can be treated like the
architectonic of human reason, as is shown in the writings of Galileo.
The thing in itself proves the validity of the phenomena, as is shown
in the writings of Hume. Certainly, what we have alone been able to
show is that natural causes, in reference to ends, would be falsified.
But this need not worry us.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since some of the objects in space and time are
speculative, let us suppose that our sense perceptions are the clue to
the discovery of, in particular, our a posteriori knowledge. Since
knowledge of the transcendental objects in space and time is a
posteriori, what we have alone been able to show is that our a
posteriori concepts exclude the possibility of the never-ending
regress in the series of empirical conditions; by means of the
discipline of pure reason, our faculties are the clue to the discovery
of our a priori knowledge. Because of the relation between the
transcendental unity of apperception and the things in themselves,
there can be no doubt that our sense perceptions (and it is obvious
that this is the case) are what first give rise to the Categories. To
avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the
phenomena can not take account of, with the sole exception of the
transcendental unity of apperception, the noumena. Certainly, the
things in themselves are by their very nature contradictory, as is
shown in the writings of Galileo. Because of our necessary ignorance
of the conditions, we can deduce that, then, the thing in itself
constitutes the whole content for, still, the intelligible objects in
space and time, and space is the clue to the discovery of, in
particular, our a posteriori concepts. }
\@@_newpara:n {The Ideal of human reason has nothing to do with time.
As we have already seen, Aristotle tells us that, so far as regards
the Transcendental Deduction, the transcendental aesthetic, insomuch
as the practical employment of the never-ending regress in the series
of empirical conditions relies on the things in themselves, can never
furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the
transcendental unity of apperception, it excludes the possibility of
speculative principles, and the Ideal is a representation of our
experience. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the
phenomena (and Aristotle tells us that this is the case) are the clue
to the discovery of our speculative judgements; in all theoretical
sciences, our understanding, when thus treated as the noumena, is a
body of demonstrated science, and some of it must be known a priori.
We can deduce that our knowledge, for example, exists in the
transcendental unity of apperception. Consequently, I assert, by
means of general logic, that the transcendental unity of apperception
teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, consequently,
the Antinomies, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since all of our concepts are inductive, there can be
no doubt that, in respect of the intelligible character, our ideas are
the clue to the discovery of the transcendental unity of apperception,
and the paralogisms of natural reason should only be used as a canon
for our judgements. Still, I assert that the objects in space and
time have lying before them, by means of transcendental logic, the
Transcendental Deduction. Our faculties can be treated like our
experience; thus, our ideas have lying before them the objects in
space and time. Our judgements constitute a body of demonstrated
doctrine, and none of this body must be known a posteriori. Time can
be treated like the manifold. As any dedicated reader can clearly
see, the employment of the noumena proves the validity of, certainly,
human reason, and space excludes the possibility of general logic.
Let us suppose that, indeed, the Ideal of pure reason, even as this
relates to our a priori knowledge, is the key to understanding the
Antinomies, yet the employment of the pure employment of our a
posteriori concepts is what first gives rise to, in all theoretical
sciences, the noumena.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since knowledge of natural causes is a posteriori, it
is obvious that the transcendental unity of apperception is the mere
result of the power of the never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions, a blind but indispensable function of the soul;
in all theoretical sciences, natural causes exclude the possibility of
the noumena. Let us suppose that the transcendental objects in space
and time would thereby be made to contradict, so regarded, natural
causes. There can be no doubt that our understanding is the clue to
the discovery of the Ideal. Because of the relation between the Ideal
of pure reason and the Antinomies, the transcendental unity of
apperception, as I have elsewhere shown, can be treated like the
paralogisms, yet the phenomena are the clue to the discovery of the
Ideal. As I have elsewhere shown, I assert, in view of these
considerations, that our faculties, even as this relates to the thing
in itself, occupy part of the sphere of the Transcendental Deduction
concerning the existence of the Categories in general.}
\@@_newpara:n {As we have already seen, it is not at all certain
that, that is to say, the Transcendental Deduction is the clue to the
discovery of, in particular, our knowledge, yet the thing in itself
would thereby be made to contradict our faculties. As is proven in
the ontological manuals, it is obvious that, when thus treated as our
understanding, the Categories have nothing to do with our
understanding, yet the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions occupies part of the sphere of the architectonic of human
reason concerning the existence of the paralogisms in general. As
will easily be shown in the next section, general logic has nothing to
do with, in the full sense of these terms, the discipline of pure
reason. As is evident upon close examination, the Ideal of human
reason may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may
be in contradictions with the Antinomies. As will easily be shown in
the next section, the reader should be careful to observe that, even
as this relates to the transcendental unity of apperception, the
Categories, certainly, should only be used as a canon for the thing in
itself. This is not something we are in a position to establish.}
\@@_newpara:n {It is obvious that space depends on the things in
themselves. There can be no doubt that, in particular, the Ideal, in
so far as this expounds the practical rules of the phenomena, is just
as necessary as the transcendental unity of apperception. There can
be no doubt that the manifold can not take account of, so far as
regards the architectonic of human reason, the things in themselves.
Thus, it remains a mystery why space depends on the manifold. To
avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that our
understanding (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that this is true) is a representation of the Antinomies.}
\@@_newpara:n {By virtue of natural reason, the Antinomies are a
representation of metaphysics; in the case of the practical employment
of the transcendental aesthetic, the Categories are by their very
nature contradictory. It is not at all certain that the phenomena
have lying before them the objects in space and time, because of our
necessary ignorance of the conditions. Because of the relation
between applied logic and our faculties, it remains a mystery why our
ideas, consequently, exclude the possibility of philosophy; however,
the things in themselves prove the validity of, in the case of
metaphysics, the phenomena. By means of the transcendental aesthetic,
let us suppose that our ideas constitute a body of demonstrated
doctrine, and all of this body must be known a priori. Since all of
the objects in space and time are hypothetical, metaphysics is the key
to understanding the paralogisms, yet the Transcendental Deduction has
nothing to do with our a posteriori knowledge. There can be no doubt
that metaphysics is a representation of the transcendental unity of
apperception, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.}
\@@_newpara:n {There can be no doubt that our concepts, in accordance
with the principles of the noumena, are by their very nature
contradictory, as is shown in the writings of Galileo. Space is what
first gives rise to, in other words, the Antinomies, and space depends
on the Ideal. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions,
our experience, indeed, proves the validity of the noumena. Hume
tells us that the phenomena can not take account of transcendental
logic. The objects in space and time, thus, exist in the manifold.
In which of our cognitive faculties are the manifold and the
Categories connected together? As will easily be shown in the next
section, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that
metaphysics, on the contrary, occupies part of the sphere of the thing
in itself concerning the existence of our synthetic judgements in
general.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is evident upon close examination, I assert that,
so far as regards metaphysics, our knowledge proves the validity of,
on the contrary, the manifold, yet the objects in space and time are
what first give rise to, in the study of formal logic, the paralogisms
of pure reason. As will easily be shown in the next section, I
assert, in all theoretical sciences, that our understanding (and the
reader should be careful to observe that this is true) can not take
account of our sense perceptions. Because of the relation between the
Transcendental Deduction and our a priori concepts, the phenomena are
what first give rise to the intelligible objects in space and time,
and natural causes, indeed, abstract from all content of a priori
knowledge. By means of analysis, Galileo tells us that the Ideal has
lying before it, on the contrary, our sense perceptions. I assert,
for these reasons, that our knowledge stands in need of the things in
themselves, since knowledge of our faculties is a priori. But this is
to be dismissed as random groping.}
\@@_newpara:n {Our understanding can not take account of our
faculties; certainly, the never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions is what first gives rise to, therefore, the
things in themselves. It is not at all certain that, then, time
occupies part of the sphere of the Transcendental Deduction concerning
the existence of the paralogisms of practical reason in general. We
can deduce that the thing in itself, on the other hand, abstracts from
all content of knowledge. On the other hand, our a priori knowledge
has lying before it the practical employment of the Antinomies. The
employment of our sense perceptions is what first gives rise to the
Antinomies, but the Categories, for these reasons, are by their very
nature contradictory. In natural theology, it is not at all certain
that our sense perceptions can not take account of our knowledge, by
means of analysis. Thus, the Categories would thereby be made to
contradict the things in themselves, as any dedicated reader can
clearly see.}
\@@_newpara:n {The things in themselves are just as necessary as the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. As any
dedicated reader can clearly see, the architectonic of natural reason
(and it remains a mystery why this is true) can thereby determine in
its totality general logic. As will easily be shown in the next
section, natural causes are a representation of, on the contrary, the
Ideal of pure reason; as I have elsewhere shown, the things in
themselves, in particular, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine,
and none of this body must be known a priori. As we have already
seen, our ideas are the clue to the discovery of our faculties.
Whence comes applied logic, the solution of which involves the
relation between the noumena and the Transcendental Deduction?
Therefore, it is obvious that the empirical objects in space and time
can not take account of the noumena, because of our necessary
ignorance of the conditions. It is not at all certain that the
manifold stands in need of, for these reasons, the Antinomies, by
virtue of human reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {By virtue of practical reason, there can be no doubt
that our experience, still, occupies part of the sphere of the
manifold concerning the existence of our analytic judgements in
general; as I have elsewhere shown, the Categories can never, as a
whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, they are a
representation of synthetic principles. As is proven in the
ontological manuals, the Categories are what first give rise to,
consequently, our faculties. We can deduce that, insomuch as the
discipline of practical reason relies on our ideas, necessity can be
treated like the thing in itself, yet the noumena can never, as a
whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like time,
they are a representation of problematic principles. However, let us
suppose that the things in themselves are the clue to the discovery
of, consequently, our judgements, as we have already seen. Whence
comes time, the solution of which involves the relation between the
phenomena and the noumena? In the study of our experience, I assert
that the Ideal can not take account of the discipline of practical
reason, as is proven in the ontological manuals. The reader should be
careful to observe that the phenomena are what first give rise to the
Categories, by virtue of natural reason. As is proven in the
ontological manuals, the Ideal is a body of demonstrated science, and
some of it must be known a priori. This may be clear with an
example.}
\@@_newpara:n {The transcendental unity of apperception, so far as
regards the Ideal of practical reason and the noumena, abstracts from
all content of a posteriori knowledge, by virtue of human reason. To
avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, that is to
say, our inductive judgements have nothing to do with, in the case of
the discipline of human reason, the things in themselves, and the
paralogisms of natural reason are the clue to the discovery of the
Transcendental Deduction. It remains a mystery why the noumena, in
natural theology, would be falsified; however, the things in
themselves can not take account of the thing in itself. As any
dedicated reader can clearly see, philosophy, in the study of the
thing in itself, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science,
because, like the Ideal of practical reason, it proves the validity of
inductive principles, but our sense perceptions, with the sole
exception of necessity, are the clue to the discovery of the
transcendental unity of apperception. Let us suppose that the
Categories can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated
science, because, like the employment of philosophy, they have nothing
to do with hypothetical principles. Our ideas have nothing to do with
the transcendental aesthetic.}
\@@_newpara:n {In the case of philosophy, the Transcendental
Deduction proves the validity of necessity, by means of analysis. Our
sense perceptions have lying before them, certainly, our experience.
There can be no doubt that space (and it remains a mystery why this is
true) stands in need of the noumena. As I have elsewhere shown, the
transcendental unity of apperception has lying before it, irrespective
of all empirical conditions, the Transcendental Deduction. The
objects in space and time are the clue to the discovery of our
faculties, but the thing in itself, in accordance with the principles
of our experience, can be treated like the paralogisms. As is proven
in the ontological manuals, space has nothing to do with, thus, our
ideas, yet the things in themselves, in natural theology, can be
treated like the transcendental aesthetic.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is shown in the writings of Galileo, it remains a
mystery why, so far as I know, the phenomena are the mere results of
the power of the Ideal of pure reason, a blind but indispensable
function of the soul, but the paralogisms (and there can be no doubt
that this is the case) exclude the possibility of the transcendental
aesthetic. Our experience, in accordance with the principles of
transcendental logic, occupies part of the sphere of the manifold
concerning the existence of the Categories in general. Our sense
perceptions can not take account of the Ideal, by virtue of natural
reason. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the
objects in space and time (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is
necessary to explain that this is the case) would thereby be made to
contradict the pure employment of space; in the case of the discipline
of human reason, the Antinomies exclude the possibility of the
transcendental aesthetic. Has it ever been suggested that, as we have
already seen, it remains a mystery why there is a causal connection
bewteen the Ideal of human reason and the Ideal of human reason? What
we have alone been able to show is that the Antinomies, for these
reasons, stand in need to our judgements. Let us suppose that, in
accordance with the principles of the Ideal of practical reason, the
Antinomies prove the validity of space, but natural causes (and I
assert, for these reasons, that this is the case) would thereby be
made to contradict the transcendental unity of apperception. But the
proof of this is a task from which we can here be absolved. }
\@@_newpara:n {As is shown in the writings of Hume, the noumena
should only be used as a canon for the Categories. As is proven in
the ontological manuals, our sense perceptions, consequently, are by
their very nature contradictory; therefore, our experience (and it
must not be supposed that this is true) may not contradict itself, but
it is still possible that it may be in contradictions with the
architectonic of practical reason. We can deduce that the Categories
would thereby be made to contradict pure logic; for these reasons,
space is by its very nature contradictory. Formal logic is a
representation of our faculties. Metaphysics, insomuch as time relies
on the Antinomies, stands in need of space. Let us suppose that the
Antinomies constitute the whole content of our a priori concepts; on
the other hand, the Ideal of natural reason (and there can be no doubt
that this is true) is a representation of the manifold.}
\@@_newpara:n {I assert, certainly, that, irrespective of all
empirical conditions, the Categories are just as necessary as, on the
other hand, the thing in itself, yet the manifold proves the validity
of, on the other hand, the employment of the transcendental unity of
apperception. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions exists in
the architectonic of practical reason. As is evident upon close
examination, it remains a mystery why the things in themselves have
lying before them, that is to say, the Ideal; however, the
architectonic of natural reason exists in the Ideal of pure reason.
Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the noumena
exclude the possibility of, however, general logic; consequently, the
paralogisms of natural reason, when thus treated as our ideas, can be
treated like philosophy.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is evident upon close examination, our faculties
stand in need to the transcendental objects in space and time;
certainly, our ideas are a representation of the objects in space and
time. The reader should be careful to observe that the Categories
constitute the whole content of the paralogisms of human reason. By
means of analytic unity, space would be falsified; with the sole
exception of the manifold, necessity, even as this relates to our
understanding, has nothing to do with natural causes. Time is just as
necessary as, indeed, the phenomena. Thus, the noumena, consequently,
exclude the possibility of the Transcendental Deduction, by means of
analysis. Has it ever been suggested that, as we have already seen,
Aristotle tells us that there is a causal connection bewteen the
noumena and the things in themselves? The employment of the
Antinomies is the key to understanding our ideas.}
\@@_newpara:n {What we have alone been able to show is that the
employment of the transcendental aesthetic, still, exists in our sense
perceptions; as I have elsewhere shown, the phenomena exist in the
discipline of practical reason. Necessity (and Aristotle tells us
that this is true) has lying before it the objects in space and time;
in natural theology, our understanding, for example, proves the
validity of the objects in space and time. It is not at all certain
that our faculties, in the case of the thing in itself, are the clue
to the discovery of the Categories, as we have already seen. To avoid
all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, in reference to
ends, the Ideal would be falsified, and the Antinomies are a
representation of our a priori knowledge. (By means of analysis, to
avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, even as
this relates to the Ideal of practical reason, the phenomena
constitute the whole content of, in view of these considerations, our
knowledge, and the discipline of natural reason (and we can deduce
that this is true) is just as necessary as the manifold.) The reader
should be careful to observe that, indeed, our judgements can not take
account of our sense perceptions, but the thing in itself, so far as I
know, can not take account of our sense perceptions. Let us suppose
that our ideas are a representation of metaphysics.}
\@@_newpara:n {By virtue of human reason, the Ideal of pure reason,
in the full sense of these terms, is by its very nature contradictory,
yet necessity is the key to understanding metaphysics. The Categories
have nothing to do with, therefore, the phenomena. We can deduce that
our experience can be treated like our a priori knowledge; certainly,
the objects in space and time are what first give rise to philosophy.
Because of the relation between the architectonic of natural reason
and the Antinomies, space has nothing to do with our ideas, but the
manifold occupies part of the sphere of the transcendental aesthetic
concerning the existence of the phenomena in general. The paralogisms
of human reason are the clue to the discovery of, on the contrary, our
understanding.}
\@@_newpara:n {There can be no doubt that, in reference to ends, the
thing in itself excludes the possibility of the objects in space and
time, but the discipline of human reason is by its very nature
contradictory. It is obvious that, in other words, the manifold, in
so far as this expounds the practical rules of the thing in itself, is
the clue to the discovery of the things in themselves, yet our
experience has lying before it space. Our ideas would be falsified,
yet the thing in itself is just as necessary as the Antinomies.
Metaphysics exists in our speculative judgements. By means of
analysis, the phenomena are a representation of our faculties.}
\@@_newpara:n {The phenomena stand in need to our sense perceptions,
but our concepts are the clue to the discovery of formal logic. The
objects in space and time have nothing to do with the things in
themselves, as is evident upon close examination. Time teaches us
nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the noumena. It is not at
all certain that, so far as regards the manifold and the objects in
space and time, the Transcendental Deduction, therefore, occupies part
of the sphere of pure logic concerning the existence of natural causes
in general, but the things in themselves, consequently, are a
representation of the intelligible objects in space and time. The
Transcendental Deduction (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is
necessary to explain that this is true) depends on necessity, as we
have already seen. Consequently, it remains a mystery why our a
priori concepts, on the other hand, are what first give rise to the
Ideal of human reason, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.}
\@@_newpara:n {What we have alone been able to show is that, then,
the Ideal of human reason, in reference to ends, is the mere result of
the power of practical reason, a blind but indispensable function of
the soul, but the Ideal (and the reader should be careful to observe
that this is true) has lying before it our ideas. In the study of the
thing in itself, I assert, with the sole exception of the manifold,
that the Ideal of human reason is the clue to the discovery of the
practical employment of the Ideal of natural reason. As will easily
be shown in the next section, our ideas have lying before them the
Ideal of natural reason; thus, the Antinomies are what first give rise
to, indeed, the noumena. We can deduce that the Categories (and it is
obvious that this is the case) would thereby be made to contradict our
faculties. As we have already seen, it is not at all certain that
natural causes occupy part of the sphere of the architectonic of
natural reason concerning the existence of natural causes in general;
for these reasons, our ideas, in natural theology, occupy part of the
sphere of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions concerning the existence of our judgements in general. Yet
can I entertain the transcendental aesthetic in thought, or does it
present itself to me? In the study of the Ideal, the Ideal of pure
reason depends on time. However, our a priori judgements have lying
before them the employment of necessity, by means of analytic unity.
}
\@@_newpara:n {As will easily be shown in the next section, it is not
at all certain that the transcendental unity of apperception is the
key to understanding the things in themselves; certainly, the
Categories prove the validity of our faculties. Let us suppose that
the paralogisms of natural reason (and we can deduce that this is the
case) are a representation of the discipline of human reason. It
remains a mystery why practical reason can be treated like the
phenomena. (As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, there can be no
doubt that the Categories, in the study of the discipline of human
reason, exclude the possibility of the Categories.) As will easily be
shown in the next section, our ideas stand in need to our knowledge.
As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Antinomies exist in our a
posteriori concepts, yet the thing in itself can not take account of,
as I have elsewhere shown, the Categories. The question of this
matter's relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.}
\@@_newpara:n {It must not be supposed that, so regarded, our
experience, in particular, can thereby determine in its totality our
analytic judgements, yet necessity has nothing to do with, in
reference to ends, the discipline of human reason. It is not at all
certain that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions would thereby be made to contradict, in particular, pure
logic; with the sole exception of the Ideal, our ideas, that is to
say, should only be used as a canon for our judgements. Since some of
the Antinomies are disjunctive, the Transcendental Deduction can be
treated like the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions. In the case of the Transcendental Deduction, it is not at
all certain that the Ideal of natural reason, in view of these
considerations, can be treated like the architectonic of human reason.
The Antinomies (and Aristotle tells us that this is the case) exclude
the possibility of the Ideal of human reason; in the case of the
discipline of natural reason, necessity would thereby be made to
contradict, so far as I know, the Ideal of pure reason.
Transcendental logic is a representation of the Transcendental
Deduction; by means of the transcendental aesthetic, the thing in
itself can thereby determine in its totality the Ideal of pure reason.
In my present remarks I am referring to the never-ending regress in
the series of empirical conditions only in so far as it is founded on
hypothetical principles.}
\@@_newpara:n {The things in themselves prove the validity of, on the
other hand, transcendental logic; therefore, necessity has lying
before it, indeed, the paralogisms. What we have alone been able to
show is that our ideas constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and
all of this body must be known a priori. Our understanding has lying
before it, for these reasons, our ampliative judgements. Because of
our necessary ignorance of the conditions, it is obvious that time may
not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in
contradictions with, in view of these considerations, our ideas;
still, the practical employment of the transcendental objects in space
and time, that is to say, has lying before it the things in
themselves. Natural causes prove the validity of necessity.}
\@@_newpara:n {The reader should be careful to observe that our a
priori concepts, in other words, can never, as a whole, furnish a true
and demonstrated science, because, like general logic, they prove the
validity of hypothetical principles, by virtue of human reason. There
can be no doubt that, indeed, the Antinomies, in other words, would be
falsified, and the phenomena constitute the whole content of the
discipline of natural reason. The phenomena can not take account of,
in natural theology, the Ideal of practical reason. Time can never
furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like necessity, it
has nothing to do with a posteriori principles; in view of these
considerations, our a priori concepts stand in need to the discipline
of pure reason. Our ideas constitute the whole content of the objects
in space and time, but the Ideal, indeed, is the key to understanding
our understanding.}
\@@_newpara:n {As we have already seen, it is not at all certain that
the Ideal of pure reason is just as necessary as natural causes; in
the case of the Transcendental Deduction, our faculties, in natural
theology, abstract from all content of knowledge. The Categories can
never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because,
like the manifold, they have lying before them a posteriori
principles, but time is by its very nature contradictory. We can
deduce that the Categories, so regarded, are by their very nature
contradictory; for these reasons, time is what first gives rise to our
ideas. Still, is it the case that pure logic constitutes the whole
content for the Transcendental Deduction, or is the real question
whether the paralogisms exist in our experience? Still, natural
reason, so far as I know, would be falsified, because of our necessary
ignorance of the conditions. Our faculties would be falsified.}
\@@_newpara:n {The Ideal proves the validity of the objects in space
and time. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain
that our judgements are a representation of, however, the manifold.
The objects in space and time exclude the possibility of necessity.
The reader should be careful to observe that the Ideal, consequently,
abstracts from all content of knowledge. There can be no doubt that,
indeed, the objects in space and time would thereby be made to
contradict human reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {It is obvious that the transcendental unity of
apperception can be treated like the Ideal. I assert that applied
logic (and it is not at all certain that this is true) stands in need
of the objects in space and time; certainly, the Ideal of practical
reason is what first gives rise to the Categories. On the other hand,
our experience (and it remains a mystery why this is true) stands in
need of the transcendental unity of apperception. It remains a
mystery why the Antinomies prove the validity of metaphysics. There
can be no doubt that, in particular, the architectonic of pure reason,
in all theoretical sciences, can never furnish a true and demonstrated
science, because, like the manifold, it teaches us nothing whatsoever
regarding the content of hypothetical principles, but the phenomena,
with the sole exception of the transcendental aesthetic, have nothing
to do with philosophy. It is obvious that our understanding, that is
to say, is the mere result of the power of space, a blind but
indispensable function of the soul, by means of analytic unity. Since
knowledge of our sense perceptions is a priori, we can deduce that our
experience is what first gives rise to the architectonic of practical
reason. This may be clear with an example. }
\@@_newpara:n {I assert, consequently, that the Transcendental
Deduction would thereby be made to contradict our faculties, as will
easily be shown in the next section. Let us suppose that our ideas,
in the full sense of these terms, occupy part of the sphere of formal
logic concerning the existence of the noumena in general. To avoid
all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the
Transcendental Deduction, so far as I know, occupies part of the
sphere of the architectonic of practical reason concerning the
existence of the Antinomies in general; certainly, the paralogisms
occupy part of the sphere of the architectonic of natural reason
concerning the existence of our ideas in general. To avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the pure employment
of the architectonic of practical reason, still, is by its very nature
contradictory; consequently, the intelligible objects in space and
time would thereby be made to contradict the transcendental objects in
space and time. We can deduce that the thing in itself exists in the
Antinomies. As is evident upon close examination, the never-ending
regress in the series of empirical conditions depends on, therefore,
necessity. I assert that our judgements are a representation of the
noumena; on the other hand, the transcendental unity of apperception
teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, then, the
Ideal of pure reason.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is evident upon close examination, the things in
themselves are the clue to the discovery of the phenomena, and
philosophy (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is
true) teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the
phenomena. Still, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that natural causes (and it is obvious that this is the case)
have nothing to do with our faculties. To avoid all misapprehension,
it is necessary to explain that, irrespective of all empirical
conditions, the employment of the objects in space and time can not
take account of, that is to say, our concepts, but the never-ending
regress in the series of empirical conditions constitutes the whole
content for our sense perceptions. In the case of the discipline of
pure reason, let us suppose that general logic stands in need of the
Ideal of human reason, as we have already seen. The noumena prove the
validity of, in the study of transcendental logic, our understanding.}
\@@_newpara:n {Space (and what we have alone been able to show is
that this is true) stands in need of necessity, yet our understanding,
so far as regards the Ideal of practical reason, can never furnish a
true and demonstrated science, because, like the transcendental unity
of apperception, it has lying before it a priori principles. Since
some of our judgements are disjunctive, it remains a mystery why the
phenomena stand in need to the objects in space and time. In view of
these considerations, the Categories (and let us suppose that this is
the case) are just as necessary as the pure employment of the
phenomena. Let us suppose that the things in themselves, so far as I
know, abstract from all content of a posteriori knowledge. It is
obvious that, even as this relates to the thing in itself, natural
causes can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science,
because, like metaphysics, they are just as necessary as inductive
principles. The architectonic of practical reason (and it is not at
all certain that this is true) depends on the thing in itself, but the
objects in space and time, as I have elsewhere shown, are the mere
results of the power of the employment of the Antinomies, a blind but
indispensable function of the soul. By means of analysis, there can
be no doubt that, in reference to ends, natural causes are a
representation of, in respect of the intelligible character, time, and
the pure employment of the discipline of natural reason has lying
before it our experience.}
\@@_newpara:n {Still, it must not be supposed that our faculties are
a representation of the Ideal of practical reason, as is evident upon
close examination. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the
reader should be careful to observe that the objects in space and time
are the mere results of the power of time, a blind but indispensable
function of the soul; in all theoretical sciences, the Ideal is a
representation of, so far as regards the architectonic of natural
reason, our sense perceptions. Aristotle tells us that, in
particular, the objects in space and time, in the case of the
manifold, are a representation of the things in themselves, yet
natural causes stand in need to, irrespective of all empirical
conditions, the things in themselves. Certainly, the transcendental
unity of apperception, in accordance with the principles of the
intelligible objects in space and time, exists in our sense
perceptions. As we have already seen, the discipline of human reason
(and Galileo tells us that this is true) depends on the thing in
itself. Since some of natural causes are synthetic, the reader should
be careful to observe that, for example, the things in themselves (and
it is not at all certain that this is the case) are the clue to the
discovery of our concepts. But this need not worry us.}
\@@_newpara:n {The architectonic of natural reason is the key to
understanding, so far as regards our a posteriori knowledge and the
paralogisms, time; still, the Categories, with the sole exception of
the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, should
only be used as a canon for the transcendental unity of apperception.
However, the reader should be careful to observe that the noumena
exist in time. Because of the relation between space and the
phenomena, let us suppose that our ideas are the clue to the discovery
of our faculties. The phenomena constitute the whole content of the
phenomena, but the transcendental unity of apperception, on the other
hand, would be falsified. (As is evident upon close examination, it
must not be supposed that our a posteriori knowledge is by its very
nature contradictory.) There can be no doubt that the practical
employment of our problematic judgements can be treated like the
transcendental aesthetic. Aristotle tells us that our faculties have
nothing to do with the objects in space and time. We thus have a pure
synthesis of apprehension.}
\@@_newpara:n {Since none of the noumena are hypothetical, there can
be no doubt that, in particular, our knowledge, in other words, is the
clue to the discovery of the things in themselves. Therefore, the
Ideal is just as necessary as, then, the Ideal, as will easily be
shown in the next section. We can deduce that, then, our knowledge,
in respect of the intelligible character, is by its very nature
contradictory, and the noumena, in particular, are by their very
nature contradictory. The reader should be careful to observe that,
indeed, pure logic, still, is a body of demonstrated science, and none
of it must be known a posteriori, yet our speculative judgements exist
in the manifold. In the case of time, the Categories, by means of
transcendental logic, constitute the whole content of the things in
themselves, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.}
\@@_newpara:n {Transcendental logic can thereby determine in its
totality, consequently, our faculties, because of our necessary
ignorance of the conditions. Since some of the paralogisms are
analytic, there can be no doubt that, in reference to ends, the
Antinomies, for these reasons, constitute the whole content of
necessity, yet the things in themselves constitute the whole content
of our understanding. In view of these considerations, it is obvious
that the paralogisms are by their very nature contradictory, as any
dedicated reader can clearly see. In natural theology, our ideas (and
it remains a mystery why this is the case) have nothing to do with the
discipline of pure reason, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.
What we have alone been able to show is that philosophy occupies part
of the sphere of the Transcendental Deduction concerning the existence
of natural causes in general. Since knowledge of the phenomena is a
posteriori, our ideas, in all theoretical sciences, can be treated
like time, but our judgements are just as necessary as the Categories.
Our understanding is a representation of the objects in space and
time, and the paralogisms are just as necessary as our experience.}
\@@_newpara:n {Philosophy (and it must not be supposed that this is
true) is a representation of the never-ending regress in the series of
empirical conditions; however, the Antinomies have nothing to do with,
in the study of philosophy, the discipline of practical reason.
Because of the relation between philosophy and our ideas, it remains a
mystery why, so regarded, metaphysics depends on the employment of
natural causes. The pure employment of the Antinomies, in particular,
is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a
priori, but necessity is a representation of the Ideal. As will
easily be shown in the next section, it remains a mystery why the
Antinomies are what first give rise to the transcendental aesthetic;
in all theoretical sciences, the architectonic of pure reason has
nothing to do with, therefore, the noumena. The noumena are the clue
to the discovery of the Categories, yet the transcendental aesthetic,
for example, stands in need of natural causes. The Categories can not
take account of, so far as regards the architectonic of natural
reason, the paralogisms; in the study of general logic, the
transcendental unity of apperception, insomuch as the architectonic of
human reason relies on the Antinomies, can thereby determine in its
totality natural causes.}
\@@_newpara:n {As is shown in the writings of Hume, it remains a
mystery why our judgements exclude the possibility of the
transcendental aesthetic; therefore, the transcendental aesthetic can
not take account of the thing in itself. Our knowledge depends on,
indeed, our knowledge. It is not at all certain that space is just as
necessary as the noumena. Is it true that metaphysics can not take
account of the paralogisms of human reason, or is the real question
whether the noumena are by their very nature contradictory? On the
other hand, time constitutes the whole content for necessity, by means
of analytic unity. There can be no doubt that the phenomena have
lying before them metaphysics. As is proven in the ontological
manuals, it remains a mystery why space exists in the objects in space
and time; still, the noumena, in the case of necessity, constitute the
whole content of philosophy.}
% \end{macrocode}
%
% Now we define the sequence of index words.
% \begin{macrocode}
\@@_newword:n {Ideal}
\@@_newword:n {noumena}
\@@_newword:n {Aristotle}
\@@_newword:n {transcendental}
\@@_newword:n {metaphysics}
\@@_newword:n {reason}
\@@_newword:n {science}
\@@_newword:n {necessity}
\@@_newword:n {Categories}
\@@_newword:n {philosophy}
\@@_newword:n {knowledge}
\@@_newword:n {regress}
\@@_newword:n {paralogism}
\@@_newword:n {empirical}
\@@_newword:n {space}
\@@_newword:n {manifold}
\@@_newword:n {understanding}
\@@_newword:n {aesthetic}
\@@_newword:n {noumena}
\@@_newword:n {sphere}
\@@_newword:n {time}
\@@_newword:n {practical reason}
\@@_newword:n {perception}
\@@_newword:n {things in themselves}
\@@_newword:n {doctrine}
\@@_newword:n {regress}
\@@_newword:n {mystery}
\@@_newword:n {existence}
\@@_newword:n {contradiction}
\@@_newword:n {a priori}
\@@_newword:n {natural causes}
\@@_newword:n {analysis}
\@@_newword:n {apperception}
\@@_newword:n {Antinomies}
\@@_newword:n {Transcendental Deduction}
\@@_newword:n {phenomena}
\@@_newword:n {formal logic}
\@@_newword:n {soul}
\@@_newword:n {misapprehension}
\@@_newword:n {elsewhere}
\@@_newword:n {theology}
\@@_newword:n {employment}
\@@_newword:n {logic}
\@@_newword:n {practical reason}
\@@_newword:n {theoretical sciences}
\@@_newword:n {a posteriori}
\@@_newword:n {mystery}
\@@_newword:n {philosophy}
\@@_newword:n {things in themselves}
\@@_newword:n {experience}
\@@_newword:n {contradictory}
\@@_newword:n {Categories}
\@@_newword:n {perceptions}
\@@_newword:n {Galileo}
\@@_newword:n {apperception}
\@@_newword:n {empirical objects}
\@@_newword:n {judgements}
\@@_newword:n {phenomena}
\@@_newword:n {power}
\@@_newword:n {hypothetical principles}
\@@_newword:n {transcendental logic}
\@@_newword:n {doctrine}
\@@_newword:n {understanding}
\@@_newword:n {totality}
\@@_newword:n {manifold}
\@@_newword:n {inductive judgements}
\@@_newword:n {Transcendental Deduction}
\@@_newword:n {analytic unity}
\@@_newword:n {Hume}
\@@_newword:n {canon}
\@@_newword:n {knowledge}
\@@_newword:n {universal}
\@@_newword:n {section}
\@@_newword:n {body}
\@@_newword:n {ignorance}
\@@_newword:n {sense perceptions}
\@@_newword:n {natural reason}
\@@_newword:n {exception}
\@@_newword:n {ampliative judgements}
\@@_newword:n {experience}
\@@_newword:n {Categories}
\@@_newword:n {analysis}
\@@_newword:n {philosophy}
\@@_newword:n {apperception}
\@@_newword:n {paralogism}
\@@_newword:n {ignorance}
\@@_newword:n {true}
\@@_newword:n {space}
\@@_newword:n {Ideal}
\@@_newword:n {accordance}
\@@_newword:n {regress}
\@@_newword:n {experience}
\@@_newword:n {a priori}
\@@_newword:n {disjunctive}
\@@_newword:n {soul}
\@@_newword:n {understanding}
\@@_newword:n {analytic unity}
\@@_newword:n {phenomena}
\@@_newword:n {practical reason}
\@@_newword:n {cause}
\@@_newword:n {manuals}
\@@_newword:n {dedicated reader}
\@@_newword:n {a posteriori}
\@@_newword:n {employment}
\@@_newword:n {natural theology}
\@@_newword:n {manifold}
\@@_newword:n {transcendental aesthetic}
\@@_newword:n {close}
\@@_newword:n {full}
\@@_newword:n {Aristotle}
\@@_newword:n {clue}
\@@_newword:n {me}
\@@_newword:n {account}
\@@_newword:n {things}
\@@_newword:n {sense}
\@@_newword:n {intelligible}
\@@_newword:n {understanding}
\@@_newword:n {Categories}
\@@_newword:n {never}
\@@_newword:n {apperception}
\@@_newword:n {Ideal}
\@@_newword:n {need}
\@@_newword:n {space}
\@@_newword:n {virtue}
\@@_newword:n {Hume}
\@@_newword:n {still}
\@@_newword:n {whatsoever}
\@@_newword:n {even}
\@@_newword:n {sphere}
\@@_newword:n {position}
\@@_newword:n {ignorance}
\@@_newword:n {word}
\@@_newword:n {phenomena}
\@@_newword:n {theology}
\@@_newword:n {mystery}
\@@_newword:n {Categories}
\@@_newword:n {perception}
\@@_newword:n {power}
\@@_newword:n {experience}
\@@_newword:n {never-ending}
\@@_newword:n {analytic}
\@@_newword:n {itself}
\@@_newword:n {a priori}
\@@_newword:n {rule}
\@@_newword:n {Transcendental Deduction}
\@@_newword:n {empirical conditions}
\@@_newword:n {knowledge}
\@@_newword:n {disjunctive}
\@@_newword:n {transcendental}
\@@_newword:n {science}
\@@_newword:n {falsified}
\@@_newword:n {reader}
\@@_newword:n {blind}
\@@_newword:n {employment}
\@@_newword:n {discipline}
\@@_newword:n {function}
\@@_newword:n {careful}
\@@_newword:n {Aristotle}
\@@_newword:n {Categories}
\@@_newword:n {part}
\@@_newword:n {noumena}
\@@_newword:n {doubt}
\@@_newword:n {duck}
\@@_newword:n {Kant}
% \end{macrocode}
%
% Finally we close the group and issue a message in the log file
% stating how many sentences are available.
% \begin{macrocode}
\group_end:
\msg_info:nne {kantlipsum} {how-many}
{ \int_eval:n {\seq_count:N \g_@@_pars_seq} }
% \end{macrocode}
%
% \iffalse
%</package>
% \fi
% \end{implementation}
%
% \PrintIndex
|