absolute necessity does not by any means depend on internal necessity；
and that； therefore； it must not be considered as synonymous with
it。 Of an opposite which is intrinsically impossible； we may affirm
that it is in all respects impossible； and that； consequently； the
thing itself； of which this is the opposite； is absolutely
necessary； but I cannot reason conversely and say； the opposite of
that which is absolutely necessary is intrinsically impossible； that
is； that the absolute necessity of things is an internal necessity。
For this internal necessity is in certain cases a mere empty word with
which the least conception cannot be connected； while the conception
of the necessity of a thing in all relations possesses very peculiar
determinations。 Now as the loss of a conception of great utility in
speculative science cannot be a matter of indifference to the
philosopher； I trust that the proper determination and careful
preservation of the expression on which the conception depends will
likewise be not indifferent to him。
In this enlarged signification； then； shall I employ the word
absolute； in opposition to that which is valid only in some particular
respect； for the latter is restricted by conditions； the former is
valid without any restriction whatever。
Now the transcendental conception of reason has for its object
nothing else than absolute totality in the synthesis of conditions and
does not rest satisfied till it has attained to the absolutely； that
is； in all respects and relations； unconditioned。 For pure reason
leaves to the understanding everything that immediately relates to the
object of intuition or rather to their synthesis in imagination。 The
former restricts itself to the absolute totality in the employment
of the conceptions of the understanding and aims at carrying out the
synthetical unity which is cogitated in the category； even to the
unconditioned。 This unity may hence be called the rational unity of
phenomena； as the other； which the category expresses； may be termed
the unity of the understanding。 Reason； therefore； has an immediate
relation to the use of the understanding； not indeed in so far as
the latter contains the ground of possible experience （for the
conception of the absolute totality of conditions is not a
conception that can be employed in experience； because no experience
is unconditioned）； but solely for the purpose of directing it to a
certain unity； of which the understanding has no conception； and the
aim of which is to collect into an absolute whole all acts of the
understanding。 Hence the objective employment of the pure
conceptions of reason is always transcendent； while that of the pure
conceptions of the understanding must； according to their nature； be
always immanent； inasmuch as they are limited to possible experience。
I understand by idea a necessary conception of reason； to which no
corresponding object can be discovered in the world of sense。
Accordingly； the pure conceptions of reason at present under
consideration are transcendental ideas。 They are conceptions of pure
reason； for they regard all empirical cognition as determined by means
of an absolute totality of conditions。 They are not mere fictions； but
natural and necessary products of reason； and have hence a necessary
relation to the whole sphere of the exercise of the understanding。
And； finally； they are transcendent； and overstep the limits of all
experiences； in which； consequently； no object can ever be presented
that would be perfectly adequate to a transcendental idea。 When we use
the word idea； we say； as regards its object （an object of the pure
understanding）； a great deal； but as regards its subject （that is；
in respect of its reality under conditions of experience）； exceedingly
little； because the idea； as the conception of a maximum； can never be
pletely and adequately presented in concreto。 Now； as in the merely
speculative employment of reason the latter is properly the sole
aim； and as in this case the approximation to a conception； which is
never attained in practice； is the same thing as if the conception
were non…existent… it is monly said of the conception of this kind；
〃it is only an idea。〃 So we might very well say； 〃the absolute
totality of all phenomena is only an idea；〃 for； as we never can
present an adequate representation of it； it remains for us a
problem incapable of solution。 On the other hand； as in the
practical use of the understanding we have only to do with action
and practice according to rules； an idea of pure reason can always
be given really in concreto； although only partially； nay； it is the
indispensable condition of all practical employment of reason。 The
practice or execution of the idea is always limited and defective； but
nevertheless within indeterminable boundaries； consequently always
under the influence of the conception of an absolute perfection。 And
thus the practical idea is always in the highest degree fruitful；
and in relation to real actions indispensably necessary。 In the
idea； pure reason possesses even causality and the power of
producing that which its conception contains。 Hence we cannot say of
wisdom； in a disparaging way； 〃it is only an idea。〃 For； for the
very reason that it is the idea of the necessary unity of all possible
aims； it must be for all practical exertions and endeavours the
primitive condition and rule… a rule which； if not constitutive； is at
least limitative。
Now； although we must say of the transcendental conceptions of
reason； 〃they are only ideas；〃 we must not； on this account； look upon
them as superfluous and nugatory。 For； although no object can be
determined by them； they can be of great utility； unobserved and at
the basis of the edifice of the understanding； as the canon for its
extended and self…consistent exercise… a canon which； indeed； does not
enable it to cognize more in an object than it would cognize by the
help of its own conceptions； but which guides it more securely in
its cognition。 Not to mention that they perhaps render possible a
transition from our conceptions of nature and the non…ego to the
practical conceptions； and thus produce for even ethical ideas
keeping； so to speak； and connection with the speculative cognitions
of reason。 The explication of all this must be looked for in the
sequel。
But setting aside； in conformity with our original purpose； the
consideration of the practical ideas； we proceed to contemplate reason
in its speculative use alone； nay； in a still more restricted
sphere； to wit； in the transcendental use； and here must strike into
the same path which we followed in our deduction of the categories。
That is to say； we shall consider the logical form of the cognition of
reason； that we may see whether reason may not be thereby a source
of conceptions which enables us to regard objects in themselves as
determined synthetically a priori； in relation to one or other of
the functions of reason。
Reason； considered as the faculty of a certain logical form of
cognition； is the faculty of conclusion； that is； of mediate
judgement… by means of the subsumption of the condition of a
possible judgement under the condition of a given judgement。 The given
judgement is the general rule （major）。 The subsumption of the
condition of another possible judgement under the condition of the
rule is the minor。 The actual judgement； which enounces the
assertion of the rule in the subsumed case； is the conclusion
（conclusio）。 The rule predicates something generally under a certain
condition。 The condition of the rule is satisfied in some particular
case。 It follows that what was valid in general under that condition
must also be considered as valid in the particular case which
satisfies this condition。 It is very plain that reason attains to a
cognition； by means of acts of the understanding which constitute a
series of conditions。 When I arrive at the proposition； 〃All bodies
are changeable；〃 by beginning with the more remote cognition （in which
the conception of body does not appear； but which nevertheless
contains the condition of that conception）； 〃All pound is
changeable；〃 by proceeding from this to a less remote cognition； which
stands under the condition of the former； 〃Bodies are pound；〃 and
hence to a third； which at length connects for me the remote cognition
（changeable） with the one before me； 〃Consequently； bodies are
changeable〃… I have arrived at a cognition （conclusion） through a
series of conditions （premisses）。 Now every series； whose exponent （of
the categorical or hypothetical judgement） is given； can be continued；
consequently the same procedure of reason conducts us to the
ratiocinatio polysyllogistica； which is a series of syllogisms； that
can be continued either on the side of the conditions （per
prosyllogismos） or of the conditioned （per episyllogismos） to an
indefinite extent。
But we very soon perceive that the chain or series of prosyllogisms；
that is； of deduced cognitions on the side of the grounds or
conditions of a given cognition； in other words； the ascending
series of syllogisms must have a very different relation to the
faculty of reason from that of the descending series； that is； the
progressive procedure of reason on the side of the conditioned by
means of episyllogisms。 For； as in the former case the cognition
（conclusio） is given only as conditioned； reason can attain to this
cognition only under the presupposition that all the members of the
series on the side of the conditions are given （totality in the series
of premisses）； because only under this supposition is the judgement we
may be considering possible a priori； while on the side of the
conditioned or the inferences； only an inplete and being； and
not a presupposed or given series； consequently only a potential
progression； is cogitated。 Hence； when a cognition is contemplated
as conditioned； reason is pelled to consider the series of
conditions in an ascending line as pleted and given in their
totality。 But if the very same condition is considered at the same
time as the condition of other cognitions； which together constitute a
series of inferences or consequences