conditions of all possible things gives rise to an ideal of pure
reason； which is quite distinct from the cosmical conception； although
it stands in relation with it。 Hence； as the paralogisms of pure
reason laid the foundation for a dialectical psychology； the
antinomy of pure reason will present us with the transcendental
principles of a pretended pure （rational） cosmology… not； however；
to declare it valid and to appropriate it； but… as the very term of
a conflict of reason sufficiently indicates； to present it as an
idea which cannot be reconciled with phenomena and experience。
SECTION I。 System of Cosmological Ideas。
That We may be able to enumerate with systematic precision these
ideas according to a principle； we must remark； in the first place；
that it is from the understanding alone that pure and transcendental
conceptions take their origin； that the reason does not properly
give birth to any conception； but only frees the conception of the
understanding from the unavoidable limitation of a possible
experience； and thus endeavours to raise it above the empirical；
though it must still be in connection with it。 This happens from the
fact that； for a given conditioned； reason demands absolute totality
on the side of the conditions （to which the understanding submits
all phenomena）； and thus makes of the category a transcendental
idea。 This it does that it may be able to give absolute pleteness
to the empirical synthesis； by continuing it to the unconditioned
（which is not to be found in experience； but only in the idea）。 Reason
requires this according to the principle： If the conditioned is
given the whole of the conditions； and consequently the absolutely
unconditioned； is also given； whereby alone the former was possible。
First； then； the transcendental ideas are properly nothing but
categories elevated to the unconditioned； and they may be arranged
in a table according to the titles of the latter。 But； secondly； all
the categories are not available for this purpose； but only those in
which the synthesis constitutes a series… of conditions subordinated
to； not co…ordinated with； each other。 Absolute totality is required
of reason only in so far as concerns the ascending series of the
conditions of a conditioned； not； consequently； when the question
relates to the descending series of consequences； or to the
aggregate of the co…ordinated conditions of these consequences。 For；
in relation to a given conditioned； conditions are presupposed and
considered to be given along with it。 On the other hand； as the
consequences do not render possible their conditions； but rather
presuppose them… in the consideration of the procession of
consequences （or in the descent from the given condition to the
conditioned）； we may be quite unconcerned whether the series ceases or
not； and their totality is not a necessary demand of reason。
Thus we cogitate… and necessarily… a given time pletely elapsed
up to a given moment； although that time is not determinable by us。
But as regards time future； which is not the condition of arriving
at the present； in order to conceive it； it is quite indifferent
whether we consider future time as ceasing at some point； or as
prolonging itself to infinity。 Take； for example； the series m； n；
o； in which n is given as conditioned in relation to m； but at the
same time as the condition of o； and let the series proceed upwards
from the conditioned n to m （l； k； i； etc。）； and also downwards from
the condition n to the conditioned o （p； q； r； etc。）… I must
presuppose the former series； to be able to consider n as given； and n
is according to reason （the totality of conditions） possible only by
means of that series。 But its possibility does not rest on the
following series o； p； q； r； which for this reason cannot be
regarded as given； but only as capable of being given （dabilis）。
I shall term the synthesis of the series on the side of the
conditions… from that nearest to the given phenomenon up to the more
remote… regressive； that which proceeds on the side of the
conditioned； from the immediate consequence to the more remote； I
shall call the progressive synthesis。 The former proceeds in
antecedentia； the latter in consequentia。 The cosmological ideas are
therefore occupied with the totality of the regressive synthesis；
and proceed in antecedentia； not in consequentia。 When the latter
takes place； it is an arbitrary and not a necessary problem of pure
reason； for we require； for the plete understanding of what is
given in a phenomenon； not the consequences which succeed； but the
grounds or principles which precede。
In order to construct the table of ideas in correspondence with
the table of categories； we take first the two primitive quanta of all
our intuitions； time and space。 Time is in itself a series （and the
formal condition of all series）； and hence； in relation to a given
present； we must distinguish a priori in it the antecedentia as
conditions （time past） from the consequentia （time future）。
Consequently； the transcendental idea of the absolute totality of
the series of the conditions of a given conditioned； relates merely to
all past time。 According to the idea of reason； the whole past time；
as the condition of the given moment； is necessarily cogitated as
given。 But； as regards space； there exists in it no distinction
between progressus and regressus； for it is an aggregate and not a
series… its parts existing together at the same time。 I can consider a
given point of time in relation to past time only as conditioned；
because this given moment es into existence only through the past
time rather through the passing of the preceding time。 But as the
parts of space are not subordinated； but co…ordinated to each other；
one part cannot be the condition of the possibility of the other；
and space is not in itself； like time； a series。 But the synthesis
of the manifold parts of space… （the syntheses whereby we apprehend
space）… is nevertheless successive； it takes place； therefore； in
time； and contains a series。 And as in this series of aggregated
spaces （for example； the feet in a rood）； beginning with a given
portion of space； those which continue to be annexed form the
condition of the limits of the former… the measurement of a space must
also be regarded as a synthesis of the series of the conditions of a
given conditioned。 It differs； however； in this respect from that of
time； that the side of the conditioned is not in itself
distinguishable from the side of the condition； and； consequently；
regressus and progressus in space seem to be identical。 But；
inasmuch as one part of space is not given； but only limited； by and
through another； we must also consider every limited space as
conditioned； in so far as it presupposes some other space as the
condition of its limitation； and so on。 As regards limitation；
therefore； our procedure in space is also a regressus； and the
transcendental idea of the absolute totality of the synthesis in a
series of conditions applies to space also； and I am entitled to
demand the absolute totality of the phenomenal synthesis in space as
well as in time。 Whether my demand can be satisfied is a question to
be answered in the sequel。
Secondly； the real in space… that is； matter… is conditioned。 Its
internal conditions are its parts； and the parts of parts its remote
conditions； so that in this case we find a regressive synthesis； the
absolute totality of which is a demand of reason。 But this cannot be
obtained otherwise than by a plete division of parts； whereby the
real in matter bees either nothing or that which is not matter；
that is to say； the simple。 Consequently we find here also a series of
conditions and a progress to the unconditioned。
Thirdly； as regards the categories of a real relation between
phenomena； the category of substance and its accidents is not suitable
for the formation of a transcendental idea； that is to say； reason has
no ground； in regard to it； to proceed regressively with conditions。
For accidents （in so far as they inhere in a substance） are
co…ordinated with each other； and do not constitute a series。 And；
in relation to substance； they are not properly subordinated to it；
but are the mode of existence of the substance itself。 The
conception of the substantial might nevertheless seem to be an idea of
the transcendental reason。 But； as this signifies nothing more than
the conception of an object in general； which subsists in so far as we
cogitate in it merely a transcendental subject without any predicates；
and as the question here is of an unconditioned in the series of
phenomena… it is clear that the substantial can form no member
thereof。 The same holds good of substances in munity； which are
mere aggregates and do not form a series。 For they are not
subordinated to each other as conditions of the possibility of each
other； which； however； may be affirmed of spaces； the limits of
which are never determined in themselves； but always by some other
space。 It is； therefore； only in the category of causality that we can
find a series of causes to a given effect； and in which we ascend from
the latter； as the conditioned； to the former as the conditions； and
thus answer the question of reason。
Fourthly； the conceptions of the possible； the actual； and the
necessary do not conduct us to any series… excepting only in so far as
the contingent in existence must always be regarded as conditioned；
and as indicating； according to a law of the understanding； a
condition； under which it is necessary to rise to a higher； till in
the totality of the series； reason arrives at unconditioned necessity。
There are； accordingly； only four cosmological ideas；
corresponding with the four titles of the categories。 For we can
select only such as necessarily furnish us with a series in the
synthesis of the manifold。
1
The absolute pleteness
of the
POSITION
of the given totality of all phenomena。
2
The absolute pleteness
of the
DIVISION
of gi