kantlipsum 0.1 (18nov11)

git-svn-id: svn://tug.org/texlive/trunk@24658 c570f23f-e606-0410-a88d-b1316a301751

5 files changed, 6322 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/README b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/README
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..8017041cdf3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/README
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+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 0.1 of the package
+
+ Copyright 2011 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.ins
+kantlipsum.pdf
+
+ and of the derived file
+
+kantlipsum.sty
+
+To install the distribution:
+
+o run "latex kantlipsum.ins"
+o move "kantlipsum.sty" to locations where LaTeX will find
+  it (the FAQ on CTAN in /help/uktug-FAQ gives more
+  information about this magic place
+
+2011/11/18
+Enrico Gregorio
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.pdf b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..896c1159b96
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.pdf
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/source/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.dtx b/Master/texmf-dist/source/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.dtx
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..196b5be54ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.dtx
@@ -0,0 +1,3225 @@
+% \iffalse meta-comment
+%
+%% File: kantlipsum.dtx (C) Copyright 2011 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
+%%
+%% This file is part of the "kantlipsum bundle" (The Work in LPPL)
+%% and all files in that bundle must be distributed together.
+%% 
+%% The released version of this bundle is available from CTAN.
+%%
+%
+%<*driver|package>
+\RequirePackage{expl3}
+%</driver|package>
+%<*driver>
+\expandafter\def\csname ver@thumbpdf.sty\endcsname{}
+\documentclass[a4paper,full]{l3doc}
+\usepackage{bookmark}
+%</driver>
+%<*driver|package>
+\GetIdInfo$Id: kantlipsum.dtx 0.1 2011-11-18 12:00:00Z Enrico $
+          {Dummy text in Kantian style}
+%</driver|package>
+%<*driver>
+\begin{document}
+  \DocInput{\jobname.dtx}
+\end{document}
+%</driver>
+% \fi
+%
+% \title{^^A
+%   The \textsf{kantlipsum} package\\ Dummy text in Kantian style^^A
+%   \thanks{This file describes \ExplFileVersion
+%     last revised \ExplFileDate.}^^A
+% }
+%
+% \author{^^A
+%  Enrico Gregorio\thanks
+%    {^^A
+%      E-mail:
+%        Enrico DOT Gregorio AT univr DOT it^^A
+%    }^^A
+% }
+%
+% \date{Released \ExplFileDate}
+%
+% \maketitle
+%
+% \begin{documentation}
+%
+% 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}}.
+%
+% \section{Options}
+%
+% The package has three 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.
+% \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}
+%
+% 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.
+%
+% \subsection*{Note}
+%
+% This package is just an exercise for practicing with \LaTeX3
+% syntax. It uses the ``experimental'' packages made available by the
+% \LaTeX3 team.
+%
+% \end{documentation}
+%
+% \begin{implementation}
+%
+% \section{\pkg{kantlipsum} implementation}
+%
+% \iffalse
+%<*package>
+% \fi
+%
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\ProvidesExplPackage
+  {\ExplFileName}{\ExplFileDate}{\ExplFileVersion}{\ExplFileDescription}
+%    \end{macrocode}
+%
+% A check to make sure that \pkg{expl3} is not too old
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\@ifpackagelater { expl3 } { 2011/10/09 }
+  { }
+  {
+    \PackageError { kantlipsum } { Support~package~l3kernel~too~old. }
+      {
+        Please~install~an~up~to~date~version~of~l3kernel~
+        using~your~TeX~package~manager~or~from~CTAN.\\ \\
+        Loading~xparse~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 need also to declare a function |\kgl_number:n|
+% that is set by the \texttt{numbers} option; its default action is to
+% gobble its argument.
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\DeclareOption { par }
+  {\cs_set:Nn \kgl_star: { \c_space_tl }
+   \cs_set:Nn \kgl_nostar: { \par } }
+\DeclareOption{ nopar }
+  { \cs_set:Nn \kgl_star: { \par }
+    \cs_set:Nn \kgl_nostar: { \c_space_tl } }
+\DeclareOption{ numbers }
+  { \cs_set:Nn \kgl_number:n {#1~\textbullet\space} }
+\cs_new_eq:NN \kgl_number:n \use_none:n
+\ExecuteOptions{par}
+\ProcessOptions \scan_stop:
+%    \end{macrocode}
+%
+% The \pkg{xparse} package is required.
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\RequirePackage{xparse}
+%    \end{macrocode}
+%
+% \subsection{Variables and constants}
+% The |\l_kgl_start_tl| variable will contain the starting number for
+% processing, while |\l_kgl_end_tl| the ending number. The constant
+% |\c_kgl_total_tl| stores the total number of available pseudokantian
+% sentences.
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\tl_new:N \l_kgl_start_tl
+\tl_new:N \l_kgl_end_tl
+\tl_new:N \l_kgl_total_tl
+%    \end{macrocode}
+%
+% There are many other constants containing the various sentences,
+% declaring them is just a waste of time; they will be set later.
+%
+% \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~defined}
+  {The~control~sequence~#1~is~already~defined\\
+   I'll~ignore~it}
+%    \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}{
+  \group_begin:
+  \IfBooleanTF{#1}
+    { \cs_set_eq:NN \kgl_par: \kgl_star: }
+    { \cs_set_eq:NN \kgl_par: \kgl_nostar: }
+  \IfNoValueTF{#2}
+    { \tl_set:Nn \l_kgl_start_tl {1} \tl_set:Nn \l_kgl_end_tl {7} }
+    { \kgl_process:nn #2 }
+  \kgl_print:
+  \group_end:
+}
+%    \end{macrocode}
+% \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 |\kgl_number:n| and |\kgl_par:| and define the control
+%   sequence given as first argument to the pseudokantian sentence
+%   having the number given as second argument, which is stored in a
+%   constant named |\c_kgl_i_tl| (number~1) or |\c_kgl_ii_tl|
+%   (number~2) and so on, by converting the number to a Roman
+%   numeral. If the given control sequence is already defined we issue
+%   an error and don't perform the definition.
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\NewDocumentCommand{\kantdef}{mm}{
+  \group_begin:
+  \cs_set_eq:NN \kgl_number:n \use_none:n
+  \cs_set_eq:NN \kgl_par: \prg_do_nothing:
+  \cs_if_exist:NTF #1
+    { \msg_error:nnx {kantlipsum}{already-defined}
+        {\token_to_str:N #1}
+    }
+    { \cs_new:Npx #1 { \cs:w c_kgl_\int_to_roman:w #2 _tl \cs_end: } }
+  \group_end:
+}
+%    \end{macrocode}
+% \end{function}
+%
+% \subsection{Internal functions}
+% \begin{function}{\kgl_process:nn}
+%   The function |\kgl_process:nn| sets the variables
+%   |\l_kgl_start_tl| and |\l_kgl_end_tl|. 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:Nn \kgl_process:nn {
+  \tl_set:Nn \l_kgl_start_tl {#1}
+  \IfNoValueTF{#2}
+    { \tl_set:Nn \l_kgl_end_tl {#1} }
+    { \tl_set:Nn \l_kgl_end_tl {#2} }
+}
+%    \end{macrocode}
+%\end{function}
+%
+% \begin{function}{\kgl_print:}
+% The printing routine is in the function |\kgl_print:|; we start a
+% loop printing |c_kgl_|$x$|_tl| for all Roman numerals $x$ in the
+% specified range.
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\cs_new_protected:Nn \kgl_print: {
+  \int_set:Nn \l_tmpa_int {\l_kgl_start_tl}
+  \int_do_until:nNnn \l_tmpa_int > \l_kgl_end_tl
+    {
+     \cs:w c_kgl_\int_to_roman:w \l_tmpa_int _tl \cs_end: 
+     \int_incr:N \l_tmpa_int
+    }
+}
+%    \end{macrocode}
+% \end{function}
+%
+% \begin{function}{\kgl_newpara:n}
+% The |\kgl_newpara:n| function defines the constants storing the
+% sentences. It increments the counter |\l_tmpa_int| and defines, say,
+% |\c_kgl_xxxxii_tl| to expand to\\
+% |\kgl_number:n {42}|\meta{text of the 42nd sentence}|\kgl_par:|
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\cs_new:Nn \kgl_newpara:n {
+  \int_incr:N \l_tmpa_int
+  \tl_gset:cx {c_kgl_\int_to_roman:w \l_tmpa_int _tl}
+    {\exp_not:N \kgl_number:n {\int_to_arabic:n \l_tmpa_int}
+     \exp_not:n {#1\kgl_par:} }
+}
+%    \end{macrocode}
+% \end{function}
+%
+% \subsection{Defining the sentences}
+% We start a group where we set |\l_tmpa_int| to 0 and the category
+% code of the space to 10 so as not to be forced to write |~| for
+% spaces.
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\group_begin:
+\int_set:Nn \l_tmpa_int {0}
+\char_set_catcode_space:n {`\ }
+%    \end{macrocode}
+%
+% Then we provide all of the sentences with the pattern\\
+% |\kgl_newpara:n {|\meta{text}|}|
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.
+}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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}
+% 
+% Finally we close the group and issue in the log file a message
+% stating how many sentences are available.
+%    \begin{macrocode}
+\group_end:
+
+\msg_info:nnx{kantlipsum}{how-many}{ \int_to_arabic:n \l_tmpa_int }
+%    \end{macrocode}
+% \iffalse
+%</package>
+% \fi
+% \end{implementation}
+%
+% \PrintIndex
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/source/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.ins b/Master/texmf-dist/source/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.ins
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..abde3780f98
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.ins
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+\iffalse meta-comment
+
+File kantlipsum.ins Copyright (C) 2011 Enciro 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
+
+This file is part of the "kantlipsum bundle" (The Work in LPPL)
+and all files in that bundle must be distributed together.
+
+The released version of this bundle is available from CTAN.
+
+\fi
+
+\input docstrip.tex
+\askforoverwritefalse
+
+\preamble
+
+Do not distribute this file without also distributing the
+source files specified above.
+
+\endpreamble
+% stop docstrip adding \endinput
+\postamble
+\endpostamble
+
+\keepsilent
+
+\generate{\file{kantlipsum.sty} {\from{kantlipsum.dtx} {package}}}
+
+\endbatchfile
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.sty b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.sty
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..0cea7633394
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.sty
@@ -0,0 +1,3021 @@
+%%
+%% This is file `kantlipsum.sty',
+%% generated with the docstrip utility.
+%%
+%% The original source files were:
+%%
+%% kantlipsum.dtx  (with options: `package')
+%% 
+%% Do not distribute this file without also distributing the
+%% source files specified above.
+%% 
+%% File: kantlipsum.dtx (C) Copyright 2011 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
+%%
+%% This file is part of the "kantlipsum bundle" (The Work in LPPL)
+%% and all files in that bundle must be distributed together.
+%%
+%% The released version of this bundle is available from CTAN.
+%%
+\RequirePackage{expl3}
+\GetIdInfo$Id: kantlipsum.dtx 0.1 2011-11-18 12:00:00Z Enrico $
+          {Dummy text in Kantian style}
+\ProvidesExplPackage
+  {\ExplFileName}{\ExplFileDate}{\ExplFileVersion}{\ExplFileDescription}
+\@ifpackagelater { expl3 } { 2011/10/09 }
+  { }
+  {
+    \PackageError { kantlipsum } { Support~package~l3kernel~too~old. }
+      {
+        Please~install~an~up~to~date~version~of~l3kernel~
+        using~your~TeX~package~manager~or~from~CTAN.\\ \\
+        Loading~xparse~will~abort!
+      }
+    \tex_endinput:D
+  }
+\DeclareOption { par }
+  {\cs_set:Nn \kgl_star: { \c_space_tl }
+   \cs_set:Nn \kgl_nostar: { \par } }
+\DeclareOption{ nopar }
+  { \cs_set:Nn \kgl_star: { \par }
+    \cs_set:Nn \kgl_nostar: { \c_space_tl } }
+\DeclareOption{ numbers }
+  { \cs_set:Nn \kgl_number:n {#1~\textbullet\space} }
+\cs_new_eq:NN \kgl_number:n \use_none:n
+\ExecuteOptions{par}
+\ProcessOptions \scan_stop:
+\RequirePackage{xparse}
+\tl_new:N \l_kgl_start_tl
+\tl_new:N \l_kgl_end_tl
+\tl_new:N \l_kgl_total_tl
+\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~defined}
+  {The~control~sequence~#1~is~already~defined\\
+   I'll~ignore~it}
+\NewDocumentCommand{\kant}{s>{\SplitArgument{1}{-}}o}{
+  \group_begin:
+  \IfBooleanTF{#1}
+    { \cs_set_eq:NN \kgl_par: \kgl_star: }
+    { \cs_set_eq:NN \kgl_par: \kgl_nostar: }
+  \IfNoValueTF{#2}
+    { \tl_set:Nn \l_kgl_start_tl {1} \tl_set:Nn \l_kgl_end_tl {7} }
+    { \kgl_process:nn #2 }
+  \kgl_print:
+  \group_end:
+}
+\NewDocumentCommand{\kantdef}{mm}{
+  \group_begin:
+  \cs_set_eq:NN \kgl_number:n \use_none:n
+  \cs_set_eq:NN \kgl_par: \prg_do_nothing:
+  \cs_if_exist:NTF #1
+    { \msg_error:nnx {kantlipsum}{already-defined}
+        {\token_to_str:N #1}
+    }
+    { \cs_new:Npx #1 { \cs:w c_kgl_\int_to_roman:w #2 _tl \cs_end: } }
+  \group_end:
+}
+\cs_new:Nn \kgl_process:nn {
+  \tl_set:Nn \l_kgl_start_tl {#1}
+  \IfNoValueTF{#2}
+    { \tl_set:Nn \l_kgl_end_tl {#1} }
+    { \tl_set:Nn \l_kgl_end_tl {#2} }
+}
+\cs_new_protected:Nn \kgl_print: {
+  \int_set:Nn \l_tmpa_int {\l_kgl_start_tl}
+  \int_do_until:nNnn \l_tmpa_int > \l_kgl_end_tl
+    {
+     \cs:w c_kgl_\int_to_roman:w \l_tmpa_int _tl \cs_end:
+     \int_incr:N \l_tmpa_int
+    }
+}
+\cs_new:Nn \kgl_newpara:n {
+  \int_incr:N \l_tmpa_int
+  \tl_gset:cx {c_kgl_\int_to_roman:w \l_tmpa_int _tl}
+    {\exp_not:N \kgl_number:n {\int_to_arabic:n \l_tmpa_int}
+     \exp_not:n {#1\kgl_par:} }
+}
+\group_begin:
+\int_set:Nn \l_tmpa_int {0}
+\char_set_catcode_space:n {`\ }
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.
+}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.  }
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\kgl_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.}
+
+\group_end:
+
+\msg_info:nnx{kantlipsum}{how-many}{ \int_to_arabic:n \l_tmpa_int }
+%% 
+%%
+%% End of file `kantlipsum.sty'.