From e835c53344b0972df76dcc3df72f6ace14d8bf6f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Karl Berry Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:15:48 +0000 Subject: kantlipsum 0.1 (18nov11) git-svn-id: svn://tug.org/texlive/trunk@24658 c570f23f-e606-0410-a88d-b1316a301751 --- Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/README | 40 + .../texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.pdf | Bin 0 -> 491953 bytes .../source/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.dtx | 3225 ++++++++++++++++++++ .../source/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.ins | 36 + .../texmf-dist/tex/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.sty | 3021 ++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 6322 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/README create mode 100644 Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.pdf create mode 100644 Master/texmf-dist/source/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.dtx create mode 100644 Master/texmf-dist/source/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.ins create mode 100644 Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.sty (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist') 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 Binary files /dev/null and b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/kantlipsum/kantlipsum.pdf differ 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> +\expandafter\def\csname ver@thumbpdf.sty\endcsname{} +\documentclass[a4paper,full]{l3doc} +\usepackage{bookmark} +% +%<*driver|package> +\GetIdInfo$Id: kantlipsum.dtx 0.1 2011-11-18 12:00:00Z Enrico $ + {Dummy text in Kantian style} +% +%<*driver> +\begin{document} + \DocInput{\jobname.dtx} +\end{document} +% +% \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 +% +% \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'. -- cgit v1.2.3