intuition… as intuited in space； and all changes in time… as
represented by the internal sense； are real。 For； as space is the form
of that intuition which we call external； and； without objects in
space； no empirical representation could be given us； we can and ought
to regard extended bodies in it as real。 The case is the same with
representations in time。 But time and space； with all phenomena
therein； are not in themselves things。 They are nothing but
representations and cannot exist out of and apart from the mind。
Nay； the sensuous internal intuition of the mind （as the object of
consciousness）； the determination of which is represented by the
succession of different states in time； is not the real； proper
self； as it exists in itself… not the transcendental subject… but only
a phenomenon； which is presented to the sensibility of this； to us；
unknown being。 This internal phenomenon cannot be admitted to be a
self…subsisting thing； for its condition is time； and time cannot be
the condition of a thing in itself。 But the empirical truth of
phenomena in space and time is guaranteed beyond the possibility of
doubt； and sufficiently distinguished from the illusion of dreams or
fancy… although both have a proper and thorough connection in an
experience according to empirical laws。 The objects of experience then
are not things in themselves； but are given only in experience； and
have no existence apart from and independently of experience。 That
there may be inhabitants in the moon； although no one has ever
observed them； must certainly be admitted； but this assertion means
only； that we may in the possible progress of experience discover them
at some future time。 For that which stands in connection with a
perception according to the laws of the progress of experience is
real。 They are therefore really existent； if they stand in empirical
connection with my actual or real consciousness； although they are not
in themselves real； that is； apart from the progress of experience。
There is nothing actually given… we can be conscious of nothing as
real； except a perception and the empirical progression from it to
other possible perceptions。 For phenomena； as mere representations；
are real only in perception； and perception is； in fact； nothing but
the reality of an empirical representation； that is； a phenomenon。
To call a phenomenon a real thing prior to perception means either
that we must meet with this phenomenon in the progress of
experience； or it means nothing at all。 For I can say only of a
thing in itself that it exists without relation to the senses and
experience。 But we are speaking here merely of phenomena in space
and time； both of which are determinations of sensibility； and not
of things in themselves。 It follows that phenomena are not things in
themselves； but are mere representations； which if not given in us… in
perception… are non…existent。
The faculty of sensuous intuition is properly a receptivity… a
capacity of being affected in a certain manner by representations； the
relation of which to each other is a pure intuition of space and time…
the pure forms of sensibility。 These representations； in so far as
they are connected and determinable in this relation （in space and
time） according to laws of the unity of experience； are called
objects。 The non…sensuous cause of these representations is pletely
unknown to us and hence cannot be intuited as an object。 For such an
object could not be represented either in space or in time； and
without these conditions intuition or representation is impossible。 We
may； at the same time； term the non…sensuous cause of phenomena the
transcendental object… but merely as a mental correlate to
sensibility； considered as a receptivity。 To this transcendental
object we may attribute the whole connection and extent of our
possible perceptions； and say that it is given and exists in itself
prior to all experience。 But the phenomena； corresponding to it； are
not given as things in themselves； but in experience alone。 For they
are mere representations； receiving from perceptions alone
significance and relation to a real object； under the condition that
this or that perception… indicating an object… is in plete
connection with all others in accordance with the rules of the unity
of experience。 Thus we can say： 〃The things that really existed in
past time are given in the transcendental object of experience。〃 But
these are to me real objects； only in so far as I can represent to
my own mind； that a regressive series of possible perceptions…
following the indications of history； or the footsteps of cause and
effect… in accordance with empirical laws… that； in one word； the
course of the world conducts us to an elapsed series of time as the
condition of the present time。 This series in past time is represented
as real； not in itself； but only in connection with a possible
experience。 Thus； when I say that certain events occurred in past
time； I merely assert the possibility of prolonging the chain of
experience； from the present perception； upwards to the conditions
that determine it according to time。
If I represent to myself all objects existing in all space and time；
I do not thereby place these in space and time prior to all
experience； on the contrary； such a representation is nothing more
than the notion of a possible experience； in its absolute
pleteness。 In experience alone are those objects； which are nothing
but representations； given。 But； when I say they existed prior to my
experience； this means only that I must begin with the perception
present to me and follow the track indicated until I discover them
in some part or region of experience。 The cause of the empirical
condition of this progression… and consequently at what member therein
I must stop； and at what point in the regress I am to find this
member… is transcendental； and hence necessarily incognizable。 But
with this we have not to do； our concern is only with the law of
progression in experience； in which objects； that is； phenomena； are
given。 It is a matter of indifference； whether I say； 〃I may in the
progress of experience discover stars； at a hundred times greater
distance than the most distant of those now visible；〃 or； 〃Stars at
this distance may be met in space； although no one has； or ever will
discover them。〃 For； if they are given as things in themselves；
without any relation to possible experience； they are for me
non…existent； consequently； are not objects； for they are not
contained in the regressive series of experience。 But； if these
phenomena must be employed in the construction or support of the
cosmological idea of an absolute whole； and when we are discussing a
question that oversteps the limits of possible experience； the
proper distinction of the different theories of the reality of
sensuous objects is of great importance； in order to avoid the
illusion which must necessarily arise from the misinterpretation of
our empirical conceptions。
SECTION VII。 Critical Solution of the Cosmological Problem。
The antinomy of pure reason is based upon the following
dialectical argument： 〃If that which is conditioned is given； the
whole series of its conditions is also given； but sensuous objects are
given as conditioned； consequently。。。〃 This syllogism； the major of
which seems so natural and evident； introduces as many cosmological
ideas as there are different kinds of conditions in the synthesis of
phenomena； in so far as these conditions constitute a series。 These
ideas require absolute totality in the series； and thus place reason
in inextricable embarrassment。 Before proceeding to expose the fallacy
in this dialectical argument； it will be necessary to have a correct
understanding of certain conceptions that appear in it。
In the first place； the following proposition is evident； and
indubitably certain： 〃If the conditioned is given； a regress in the
series of all its conditions is thereby imperatively required。〃 For
the very conception of a conditioned is a conception of something
related to a condition； and； if this condition is itself
conditioned； to another condition… and so on through all the members
of the series。 This proposition is； therefore； analytical and has
nothing to fear from transcendental criticism。 It is a logical
postulate of reason： to pursue； as far as possible； the connection
of a conception with its conditions。
If； in the second place； both the conditioned and the condition
are things in themselves； and if the former is given； not only is
the regress to the latter requisite； but the latter is really given
with the former。 Now； as this is true of all the members of the
series； the entire series of conditions； and with them the
unconditioned； is at the same time given in the very fact of the
conditioned； the existence of which is possible only in and through
that series； being given。 In this case； the synthesis of the
conditioned with its condition； is a synthesis of the understanding
merely； which represents things as they are； without regarding whether
and how we can cognize them。 But if I have to do with phenomena；
which； in their character of mere representations； are not given； if I
do not attain to a cognition of them （in other words； to themselves；
for they are nothing more than empirical cognitions）； I am not
entitled to say： 〃If the conditioned is given； all its conditions
（as phenomena） are also given。〃 I cannot； therefore； from the fact
of a conditioned being given； infer the absolute totality of the
series of its conditions。 For phenomena are nothing but an empirical
synthesis in apprehension or perception； and are therefore given
only in it。 Now； in speaking of phenomena it does not follow that；
if the conditioned is given； the synthesis which constitutes its
empirical condition is also thereby given and presupposed； such a
synthesis can be established only by an actual regress in the series
of conditions。 But we are entitled to say in this case that a
regress to the conditions of a conditioned； in other words； that a
continuous empirical synthesis is enjoined； that； if the conditions
are not given； they are at least requ