continuous empirical synthesis is enjoined； that； if the conditions
are not given； they are at least required； and that we are certain
to discover the conditions in this regress。
We can now see that the major； in the above cosmological
syllogism； takes the conditioned in the transcendental signification
which it has in the pure category； while the minor speaks of it in the
empirical signification which it has in the category as applied to
phenomena。 There is； therefore； a dialectical fallacy in the
syllogism… a sophisma figurae dictionis。 But this fallacy is not a
consciously devised one； but a perfectly natural illusion of the
mon reason of man。 For； when a thing is given as conditioned； we
presuppose in the major its conditions and their series；
unperceived； as it were； and unseen； because this is nothing more than
the logical requirement of plete and satisfactory premisses for a
given conclusion。 In this case； time is altogether left out in the
connection of the conditioned with the condition； they are supposed to
be given in themselves； and contemporaneously。 It is； moreover； just
as natural to regard phenomena （in the minor） as things in
themselves and as objects presented to the pure understanding； as in
the major； in which plete abstraction was made of all conditions of
intuition。 But it is under these conditions alone that objects are
given。 Now we overlooked a remarkable distinction between the
conceptions。 The synthesis of the conditioned with its condition；
and the plete series of the latter （in the major） are not limited
by time； and do not contain the conception of succession。 On the
contrary； the empirical synthesis and the series of conditions in
the phenomenal world… subsumed in the minor… are necessarily
successive and given in time alone。 It follows that I cannot
presuppose in the minor； as I did in the major； the absolute
totality of the synthesis and of the series therein represented； for
in the major all the members of the series are given as things in
themselves… without any limitations or conditions of time； while in
the minor they are possible only in and through a successive
regress； which cannot exist； except it be actually carried into
execution in the world of phenomena。
After this proof of the viciousness of the argument monly
employed in maintaining cosmological assertions； both parties may
now be justly dismissed； as advancing claims without grounds or title。
But the process has not been ended by convincing them that one or both
were in the wrong and had maintained an assertion which was without
valid grounds of proof。 Nothing seems to be clearer than that； if
one maintains： 〃The world has a beginning；〃 and another： 〃The world
has no beginning；〃 one of the two must be right。 But it is likewise
clear that； if the evidence on both sides is equal； it is impossible
to discover on what side the truth lies； and the controversy
continues； although the parties have been remended to peace
before the tribunal of reason。 There remains； then； no other means
of settling the question than to convince the parties； who refute each
other with such conclusiveness and ability； that they are disputing
about nothing； and that a transcendental illusion has been mocking
them with visions of reality where there is none。 The mode of
adjusting a dispute which cannot be decided upon its own merits； we
shall now proceed to lay before our readers。
Zeno of Elea； a subtle dialectician； was severely reprimanded by
Plato as a sophist； who； merely from the base motive of exhibiting his
skill in discussion； maintained and subverted the same proposition
by arguments as powerful and convincing on the one side as on the
other。 He maintained； for example； that God （who was probably
nothing more； in his view； than the world） is neither finite nor
infinite； neither in motion nor in rest； neither similar nor
dissimilar to any other thing。 It seemed to those philosophers who
criticized his mode of discussion that his purpose was to deny
pletely both of two self…contradictory propositions… which is
absurd。 But I cannot believe that there is any justice in this
accusation。 The first of these propositions I shall presently consider
in a more detailed manner。 With regard to the others； if by the word
of God he understood merely the Universe； his meaning must have
been… that it cannot be permanently present in one place… that is；
at rest… nor be capable of changing its place… that is； of moving…
because all places are in the universe； and the universe itself is；
therefore； in no place。 Again； if the universe contains in itself
everything that exists； it cannot be similar or dissimilar to any
other thing； because there is； in fact； no other thing with which it
can be pared。 If two opposite judgements presuppose a contingent
impossible； or arbitrary condition； both… in spite of their opposition
（which is； however； not properly or really a contradiction）… fall
away； because the condition； which ensured the validity of both； has
itself disappeared。
If we say： 〃Everybody has either a good or a bad smell；〃 we have
omitted a third possible judgement… it has no smell at all； and thus
both conflicting statements may be false。 If we say： 〃It is either
good…smelling or not good…smelling （vel suaveolens vel
non…suaveolens）；〃 both judgements are contradictorily opposed； and the
contradictory opposite of the former judgement… some bodies are not
good…smelling… embraces also those bodies which have no smell at
all。 In the preceding pair of opposed judgements （per disparata）；
the contingent condition of the conception of body （smell） attached to
both conflicting statements； instead of having been omitted in the
latter； which is consequently not the contradictory opposite of the
former。
If； accordingly； we say： 〃The world is either infinite in extension；
or it is not infinite （non est infinitus）〃； and if the former
proposition is false； its contradictory opposite… the world is not
infinite… must be true。 And thus I should deny the existence of an
infinite； without； however affirming the existence of a finite
world。 But if we construct our proposition thus： 〃The world is
either infinite or finite （non…infinite）；〃 both statements may be
false。 For； in this case； we consider the world as per se determined
in regard to quantity； and while； in the one judgement； we deny its
infinite and consequently； perhaps； its independent existence； in
the other； we append to the world； regarded as a thing in itself； a
certain determination… that of finitude； and the latter may be false
as well as the former； if the world is not given as a thing in itself；
and thus neither as finite nor as infinite in quantity。 This kind of
opposition I may be allowed to term dialectical； that of
contradictories may be called analytical opposition。 Thus then； of two
dialectically opposed judgements both may be false； from the fact；
that the one is not a mere contradictory of the other； but actually
enounces more than is requisite for a full and plete contradiction。
When we regard the two propositions… 〃The world is infinite in
quantity；〃 and； 〃The world is finite in quantity；〃 as contradictory
opposites； we are assuming that the world… the plete series of
phenomena… is a thing in itself。 For it remains as a permanent
quantity； whether I deny the infinite or the finite regress in the
series of its phenomena。 But if we dismiss this assumption… this
transcendental illusion… and deny that it is a thing in itself； the
contradictory opposition is metamorphosed into a merely dialectical
one； and the world； as not existing in itself… independently of the
regressive series of my representations… exists in like manner neither
as a whole which is infinite nor as a whole which is finite in itself。
The universe exists for me only in the empirical regress of the series
of phenomena and not per se。 If； then； it is always conditioned； it is
never pletely or as a whole； and it is； therefore； not an
unconditioned whole and does not exist as such； either with an
infinite； or with a finite quantity。
What we have here said of the first cosmological idea… that of the
absolute totality of quantity in phenomena… applies also to the
others。 The series of conditions is discoverable only in the
regressive synthesis itself； and not in the phenomenon considered as a
thing in itself… given prior to all regress。 Hence I am pelled to
say： 〃The aggregate of parts in a given phenomenon is in itself
neither finite nor infinite； and these parts are given only in the
regressive synthesis of deposition… a synthesis which is never
given in absolute pleteness； either as finite； or as infinite。〃 The
same is the case with the series of subordinated causes； or of the
conditioned up to the unconditioned and necessary existence； which can
never be regarded as in itself； ind in its totality； either as
finite or as infinite； because； as a series of subordinate
representations； it subsists only in the dynamical regress and
cannot be regarded as existing previously to this regress； or as a
self…subsistent series of things。
Thus the antinomy of pure reason in its cosmological ideas
disappears。 For the above demonstration has established the fact
that it is merely the product of a dialectical and illusory
opposition； which arises from the application of the idea of
absolute totality… admissible only as a condition of things in
themselves… to phenomena； which exist only in our representations；
and… when constituting a series… in a successive regress。 This
antinomy of reason may； however； be really profitable to our
speculative interests； not in the way of contributing any dogmatical
addition； but as presenting to us another material support in our
critical investigations。 For it furnishes us with an indirect proof of
the transcendental ideality of phenomena； if our minds were not
pletely satisfied with the direct proof set forth in the
Trancendental Aesthetic。 The proof would proceed in the following
dilemma。 If the world is a whole existing in itself； it must be either
finite or infinite。 But it is neither finite nor infinite… as has been
shown； on the one side； by the thesis； on the other