An important distinction； however； exists between the dynamical
and the mathematical regress。 The latter is engaged solely with the
bination of parts into a whole； or with the division of a whole
into its parts； and therefore are the conditions of its series parts
of the series； and to be consequently regarded as homogeneous； and for
this reason； as consisting； without exception； of phenomena。 If the
former regress； on the contrary； the aim of which is not to
establish the possibility of an unconditioned whole consisting of
given parts； or of an unconditioned part of a given whole； but to
demonstrate the possibility of the deduction of a certain state from
its cause； or of the contingent existence of substance from that which
exists necessarily； it is not requisite that the condition should form
part of an empirical series along with the conditioned。
In the case of the apparent antinomy with which we are at present
dealing； there exists a way of escape from the difficulty； for it is
not impossible that both of the contradictory statements may be true
in different relations。 All sensuous phenomena may be contingent；
and consequently possess only an empirically conditioned existence；
and yet there may also exist a non…empirical condition of the whole
series； or； in other words； a necessary being。 For this necessary
being； as an intelligible condition； would not form a member… not even
the highest member… of the series； the whole world of sense would be
left in its empirically determined existence uninterfered with and
uninfluenced。 This would also form a ground of distinction between the
modes of solution employed for the third and fourth antinomies。 For；
while in the consideration of freedom in the former antinomy； the
thing itself… the cause （substantia phaenomenon）… was regarded as
belonging to the series of conditions； and only its causality to the
intelligible world… we are obliged in the present case to cogitate
this necessary being as purely intelligible and as existing entirely
apart from the world of sense （as an ens extramundanum）； for otherwise
it would be subject to the phenomenal law of contingency and
dependence。
In relation to the present problem； therefore； the regulative
principle of reason is that everything in the sensuous world possesses
an empirically conditioned existence… that no property of the sensuous
world possesses unconditioned necessity… that we are bound to
expect； and； so far as is possible； to seek for the empirical
condition of every member in the series of conditions… and that
there is no sufficient reason to justify us in deducing any
existence from a condition which lies out of and beyond the
empirical series； or in regarding any existence as independent and
self…subsistent； although this should not prevent us from
recognizing the possibility of the whole series being based upon a
being which is intelligible； and for this reason free from all
empirical conditions。
But it has been far from my intention； in these remarks； to prove
the existence of this unconditioned and necessary being； or even to
evidence the possibility of a purely intelligible condition of the
existence or all sensuous phenomena。 As bounds were set to reason；
to prevent it from leaving the guiding thread of empirical
conditions and losing itself in transcendent theories which are
incapable of concrete presentation； so it was my purpose； on the other
band； to set bounds to the law of the purely empirical
understanding； and to protest against any attempts on its part at
deciding on the possibility of things； or declaring the existence of
the intelligible to be impossible； merely on the ground that it is not
available for the explanation and exposition of phenomena。 It has been
shown； at the same time； that the contingency of all the phenomena
of nature and their empirical conditions is quite consistent with
the arbitrary hypothesis of a necessary； although purely
intelligible condition； that no real contradiction exists between them
and that； consequently； both may be true。 The existence of such an
absolutely necessary being may be impossible； but this can never be
demonstrated from the universal contingency and dependence of sensuous
phenomena； nor from the principle which forbids us to discontinue
the series at some member of it； or to seek for its cause in some
sphere of existence beyond the world of nature。 Reason goes its way in
the empirical world； and follows； too； its peculiar path in the sphere
of the transcendental。
The sensuous world contains nothing but phenomena； which are mere
representations； and always sensuously conditioned； things in
themselves are not； and cannot be； objects to us。 It is not to be
wondered at； therefore； that we are not justified in leaping from some
member of an empirical series beyond the world of sense； as if
empirical representations were things in themselves； existing apart
from their transcendental ground in the human mind； and the cause of
whose existence may be sought out of the empirical series。 This
would certainly be the case with contingent things； but it cannot be
with mere representations of things； the contingency of which is
itself merely a phenomenon and can relate to no other regress than
that which determines phenomena； that is； the empirical。 But to
cogitate an intelligible ground of phenomena； as free； moreover；
from the contingency of the latter； conflicts neither with the
unlimited nature of the empirical regress； nor with the plete
contingency of phenomena。 And the demonstration of this was the only
thing necessary for the solution of this apparent antinomy。 For if the
condition of every conditioned… as regards its existence… is sensuous；
and for this reason a part of the same series； it must be itself
conditioned； as was shown in the antithesis of the fourth antinomy。
The embarrassments into which a reason； which postulates the
unconditioned； necessarily falls； must； therefore； continue to
exist； or the unconditioned must be placed in the sphere of the
intelligible。 In this way； its necessity does not require； nor does it
even permit； the presence of an empirical condition： and it is；
consequently； unconditionally necessary。
The empirical employment of reason is not affected by the assumption
of a purely intelligible being； it continues its operations on the
principle of the contingency of all phenomena； proceeding from
empirical conditions to still higher and higher conditions； themselves
empirical。 just as little does this regulative principle exclude the
assumption of an intelligible cause； when the question regards
merely the pure employment of reason… in relation to ends or aims。
For； in this case； an intelligible cause signifies merely the
transcendental and to us unknown ground of the possibility of sensuous
phenomena； and its existence； necessary and independent of all
sensuous conditions； is not inconsistent with the contingency of
phenomena； or with the unlimited possibility of regress which exists
in the series of empirical conditions。
Concluding Remarks on the Antinomy of Pure Reason。
So long as the object of our rational conceptions is the totality of
conditions in the world of phenomena； and the satisfaction； from
this source； of the requirements of reason； so long are our ideas
transcendental and cosmological。 But when we set the unconditioned…
which is the aim of all our inquiries… in a sphere which lies out of
the world of sense and possible experience； our ideas bee
transcendent。 They are then not merely serviceable towards the
pletion of the exercise of reason （which remains an idea； never
executed； but always to be pursued）； they detach themselves pletely
from experience and construct for themselves objects； the material
of which has not been presented by experience； and the objective
reality of which is not based upon the pletion of the empirical
series； but upon pure a priori conceptions。 The intelligible object of
these transcendent ideas may be conceded； as a transcendental
object。 But we cannot cogitate it as a thing determinable by certain
distinct predicates relating to its internal nature； for it has no
connection with empirical conceptions； nor are we justified in
affirming the existence of any such object。 It is； consequently； a
mere product of the mind alone。 Of all the cosmological ideas；
however； it is that occasioning the fourth antinomy which pels us
to venture upon this step。 For the existence of phenomena； always
conditioned and never self…subsistent； requires us to look for an
object different from phenomena… an intelligible object； with which
all contingency must cease。 But； as we have allowed ourselves to
assume the existence of a self…subsistent reality out of the field
of experience； and are therefore obliged to regard phenomena as merely
a contingent mode of representing intelligible objects employed by
beings which are themselves intelligences… no other course remains for
us than to follow an alogy and employ the same mode in forming some
conception of intelligible things； of which we have not the least
knowledge； which nature taught us to use in the formation of empirical
conceptions。 Experience made us acquainted with the contingent。 But we
are at present engaged in the discussion of things which are not
objects of experience； and must； therefore； deduce our knowledge of
them from that which is necessary absolutely and in itself； that is；
from pure conceptions。 Hence the first step which we take out of the
world of sense obliges us to begin our system of new cognition with
the investigation of a necessary being； and to deduce from our
conceptions of it all our conceptions of intelligible things。 This
we propose to attempt in the following chapter。
CHAPTER III。 The Ideal of Pure Reason。
SECTION I。 Of the Ideal in General。
We have seen that pure conceptions do not present objects to the
mind； except under sensuous conditions； because the conditions of
objective reality do not exist in these conceptions； which contain； in
fact； nothing but the mere form of thought。 They may； however； when
applied to phenomena； be presented in concreto