nature； dialectical； it is from their misemployment alone that
fallacies and illusions arise。 For they originate in the nature of
reason itself； and it is impossible that this supreme tribunal for all
the rights and claims of speculation should be itself undeserving of
confidence and promotive of error。 It is to be expected； therefore；
that these ideas have a genuine and legitimate aim。 It is true； the
mob of sophists raise against reason the cry of inconsistency and
contradiction； and affect to despise the government of that faculty；
because they cannot understand its constitution； while it is to its
beneficial influences alone that they owe the position and the
intelligence which enable them to criticize and to blame its
procedure。
We cannot employ an a priori conception with certainty； until we
have made a transcendental deduction therefore。 The ideas of pure
reason do not admit of the same kind of deduction as the categories。
But if they are to possess the least objective validity； and to
represent anything but mere creations of thought （entia rationis
ratiocinantis）； a deduction of them must be possible。 This deduction
will plete the critical task imposed upon pure reason； and it is to
this part Of our labours that we now proceed。
There is a great difference between a thing's being presented to the
mind as an object in an absolute sense； or merely as an ideal
object。 In the former case I employ my conceptions to determine the
object； in the latter case nothing is present to the mind but a mere
schema； which does not relate directly to an object； not even in a
hypothetical sense； but which is useful only for the purpose of
representing other objects to the mind； in a mediate and indirect
manner； by means of their relation to the idea in the intellect。
Thus I say the conception of a supreme intelligence is a mere idea；
that is to say； its objective reality does not consist in the fact
that it has an immediate relation to an object （for in this sense we
have no means of establishing its objective validity）； it is merely
a schema constructed according to the necessary conditions of the
unity of reason… the schema of a thing in general； which is useful
towards the production of the highest degree of systematic unity in
the empirical exercise of reason； in which we deduce this or that
object of experience from the imaginary object of this idea； as the
ground or cause of the said object of experience。 In this way； the
idea is properly a heuristic； and not an ostensive； conception； it
does not give us any information respecting the constitution of an
object； it merely indicates how； under the guidance of the idea； we
ought to investigate the constitution and the relations of objects
in the world of experience。 Now； if it can be shown that the three
kinds of transcendental ideas （psychological； cosmological； and
theological）； although not relating directly to any object nor
determining it； do nevertheless； on the supposition of the existence
of an ideal object； produce systematic unity in the laws of the
empirical employment of the reason； and extend our empirical
cognition； without ever being inconsistent or in opposition with it…
it must be a necessary maxim of reason to regulate its procedure
according to these ideas。 And this forms the transcendental
deduction of all speculative ideas； not as constitutive principles
of the extension of our cognition beyond the limits of our experience；
but as regulative principles of the systematic unity of empirical
cognition； which is by the aid of these ideas arranged and emended
within its own proper limits； to an extent unattainable by the
operation of the principles of the understanding alone。
I shall make this plainer。 Guided by the principles involved in
these ideas； we must； in the first place； so connect all the
phenomena； actions； and feelings of the mind； as if it were a simple
substance； which； endowed with personal identity； possesses a
permanent existence （in this life at least）； while its states； among
which those of the body are to be included as external conditions； are
in continual change。 Secondly； in cosmology； we must investigate the
conditions of all natural phenomena； internal as well as external；
as if they belonged to a chain infinite and without any prime or
supreme member； while we do not； on this account； deny the existence
of intelligible grounds of these phenomena； although we never employ
them to explain phenomena； for the simple reason that they are not
objects of our cognition。 Thirdly； in the sphere of theology； we
must regard the whole system of possible experience as forming an
absolute； but dependent and sensuously…conditioned unity； and at the
same time as based upon a sole； supreme； and all…sufficient ground
existing apart from the world itself… a ground which is a
self…subsistent； primeval and creative reason； in relation to which we
so employ our reason in the field of experience； as if all objects
drew their origin from that archetype of all reason。 In other words；
we ought not to deduce the internal phenomena of the mind from a
simple thinking substance； but deduce them from each other under the
guidance of the regulative idea of a simple being； we ought not to
deduce the phenomena； order； and unity of the universe from a
supreme intelligence； but merely draw from this idea of a supremely
wise cause the rules which must guide reason in its connection of
causes and effects。
Now there is nothing to hinder us from admitting these ideas to
possess an objective and hyperbolic existence； except the cosmological
ideas； which lead reason into an antinomy： the psychological and
theological ideas are not antinomial。 They contain no contradiction；
and how； then； can any one dispute their objective reality； since he
who denies it knows as little about their possibility as we who
affirm？ And yet； when we wish to admit the existence of a thing； it is
not sufficient to convince ourselves that there is no positive
obstacle in the way； for it cannot be allowable to regard mere
creations of thought； which transcend； though they do not
contradict； all our conceptions； as real and determinate objects；
solely upon the authority of a speculative reason striving to
pass its own aims。 They cannot； therefore； be admitted to be real
in themselves； they can only possess a parative reality… that of
a schema of the regulative principle of the systematic unity of all
cognition。 They are to be regarded not as actual things； but as in
some measure analogous to them。 We abstract from the object of the
idea all the conditions which limit the exercise of our understanding；
but which； on the other hand； are the sole conditions of our
possessing a determinate conception of any given thing。 And thus we
cogitate a something； of the real nature of which we have not the
least conception； but which we represent to ourselves as standing in a
relation to the whole system of phenomena； analogous to that in
which phenomena stand to each other。
By admitting these ideal beings； we do not really extend our
cognitions beyond the objects of possible experience； we extend merely
the empirical unity of our experience； by the aid of systematic unity；
the schema of which is furnished by the idea； which is therefore
valid… not as a constitutive； but as a regulative principle。 For
although we posit a thing corresponding to the idea… a something； an
actual existence… we do not on that account aim at the extension of
our cognition by means of transcendent conceptions。 This existence
is purely ideal； and not objective； it is the mere expression of the
systematic unity which is to be the guide of reason in the field of
experience。 There are no attempts made at deciding what the ground
of this unity may be； or what the real nature of this imaginary being。
Thus the transcendental and only determinate conception of God；
which is presented to us by speculative reason； is in the strictest
sense deistic。 In other words； reason does not assure us of the
objective validity of the conception； it merely gives us the idea of
something； on which the supreme and necessary unity of all
experience is based。 This something we cannot； following the analogy
of a real substance； cogitate otherwise than as the cause of all
things operating in accordance with rational laws； if we regard it
as an individual object； although we should rest contented with the
idea alone as a regulative principle of reason； and make no attempt at
pleting the sum of the conditions imposed by thought。 This
attempt is； indeed； inconsistent with the grand aim of plete
systematic unity in the sphere of cognition… a unity to which no
bounds are set by reason。
Hence it happens that； admitting a divine being； I can have no
conception of the internal possibility of its perfection； or of the
necessity of its existence。 The only advantage of this admission is
that it enables me to answer all other questions relating to the
contingent； and to give reason the most plete satisfaction as
regards the unity which it aims at attaining in the world of
experience。 But I cannot satisfy reason with regard to this hypothesis
itself； and this proves that it is not its intelligence and insight
into the subject； but its speculative interest alone which induces
it to proceed from a point lying far beyond the sphere of our
cognition； for the purpose of being able to consider all objects as
parts of a systematic whole。
Here a distinction presents itself； in regard to the way in which we
may cogitate a presupposition… a distinction which is somewhat subtle；
but of great importance in transcendental philosophy。 I may have
sufficient grounds to admit something； or the existence of
something； in a relative point of view （suppositio relativa）；
without being justified in admitting it in an absolute sense
（suppositio absoluta）。 This distinction is undoubtedly requisite； in
the case of a regulative principle； the necessity of which we
recognize； though we are ignorant of the source and cause of that
necessity； and which we assume to be based upon some ultimate
ground； for the purpose of being able to cogitate the universality
of the