PHILOSOPHY. 
Confequently, the objedt muft correfpond to the Category, 
and not the Category to the objedt. 
From this view of the refult of the prefuppofition that 
the objedt of the cofmological ideas is given, namely, that 
it cannot at all be conceived as art objedt given in the in¬ 
tuition, the fallacy of the prefuppofition itfelf is evident. 
However, this folves not yet the Antinomy, fince it ftill 
appears.to be neceflary to affume, that the unconditioned 
of the Thelis is given when the unconditioned of the An> 
tithefis is not given, and converfely. 
Sedt. VI. Transcendental Idealism, as the Key to the 
Solution of Cofmological Dialectics. 
In Tranfcendental Efthetics it has been clearly fhown, 
that the objedts of intuition are not the things in themfelves, 
which the Underftanding only thinks under the notion of 
a neceflary unity, and of which it knows that it cannot at 
all think them by its Categories, though it conliders them 
as the fubftrata of the objedts of the intuition. This 
fyftem, which we call Critical or Transcendental 
Idealism, we have carefully endeavoured to diftinguifh 
from Empirical Idealifm. The latter denies the exigence 
of objects in fpace, but the critical idealifm has demon- 
ftrated this exiftence in defiance of it. When, however, 
we refledt, that Time and Space, confidered in themfelves, 
are no objedts, and have objedtive reality only in reference 
to the obje&s which are given in them, they are confe¬ 
quently in themfelves nothing more than the conditions 
of the intuitions of objedts: hence follows that thefe ob¬ 
jects are nothing, if we abftradt from the intuition in 
which alone they are given. Tranfcendental Analytics 
have refolved the underftanding itfelf into its elements, 
and thereby brought an adtion to our confcioufnefs which 
confifts in the thinking of an objedt. The moft general 
reprefentation of an object is that of the neceflary unity 
of confcioufnefs. However, if nothing had been given 
whofe variety is thought as univerfally valid and necefla- 
rily connedted, this neceffary unity of confcioufnefs would 
only be a thing of thought. Now objedts can only be 
given to us under the conditions of Time and Space; that 
is, the thinking of the objedtive unity is only poffible in 
a variety reprefented in Time and Space, whofe connexion 
the Categories reprefent as univerfally valid. The empi¬ 
rical idealifm fays u'e deceive ourl’elves if we think that to 
our reprefentations of objedts in fpace real objedfs cor¬ 
refpond j according to the Critical Idealifm we do not 
deceive ourfelves in fo thinking, fince the empirical con¬ 
fcioufnefs of our exiftence in Time proves the exiftence 
of the objedts in Space. But then we fhould err if we be¬ 
lieved that the objedts of the intuition, independent of the 
intuition of them, are particular beings. We diftinguifii 
the intuition of the objedts from the intuited objedts 
themfelves; and indeedit is not a fuperfluous queftion, 
whether there really are objedts in fpace that correfpond 
to our reprefentations; which Berkeley anfwered in the 
negative. For it is poffible to make a diitindtion wdiether 
that exifts in fpace to which we aferibe exiftence, or 
whether every tiling is a mere modification of our own 
fubjedt. We know thefe intuited objedts as they are in 
themfelves, and the knowledge of them conftitutes expe¬ 
rience, by means of which we gradually develop all nature. 
But this aggregate of the objedts of experience is however 
not a whole of the things in themfelves, (independently 
of their intuition), of vyhich no knowledge is poffible, 
becaufe they are not given to us. If we confound the 
aggregate the phenomena with the whole of the things 
in themfelves, and fay that the things in themfelves are 
given to us, whereas it is only the objedts of intuition 
that are fo given, then arifes a conflidt of Reafon with 
itfelf, which will be removed by a complete underftanding 
of its caufe, as will foon appear. 
.We diftinguifii the objects of intuition from the intu¬ 
ition itfelf, which is a fadt of confcioufnefs. But, becaufe 
we make this diftindtion, we muft not imagine that we 
have diftinguifhed the things in themfelves from their 
223 
reprefentations; and, becaufewe have proved'theexiftence 
of the objedts in fpace, we muft not fuppofe that we 
meant the exiftence of the things in themfelves. The 
exiftence of the objedts in Space, as well as in Time, is cer¬ 
tain ; and we live in a real and not in an imaginary world 
of things around 11s. But thefe are merely objedts in ex¬ 
perience, and are only given in it, and not prior to it. If 
we fpeak of objedts that we have never experienced, as of 
objedts of experience, then we confider them as objedts to 
which the progrefs of experience may perhaps lead. Of 
the inhabitants of the moon no one has had any expe¬ 
rience; but neverthelefs they, or their non-exiftence, are 
objedts of experience, becaufe they are confidered, though 
only problematically, according to the laws of intuition 
and of thinking. Now, if we think any preceding time, 
or any time very remote from the prefent moment; or a 
place in fpace which is far from any certain place; ora 
finall part of matter numerically exprefled; or a caufe 
between which and a certain event we adopt a great num¬ 
ber of intermediate caufes ; or an exiftence as the con¬ 
dition of another conditioned exiftence which lies far 
from its condition ;—yet all thefe objedfs belong to the 
fphere of experience, even though we may never have ex¬ 
perienced them, nor ever could experience them, fince 
they are thought conformably to the laws of experience. 
But, if we think the whole of elapfed time, or infinite 
fpace, &c. is it poffible that thefe are to be confidered as 
objedfs of experience ? The empirical fynthefis can furely 
never complete them. What do we do therefore in main¬ 
taining, with regard to the world, according to fome cof¬ 
mological idea, the abfolute totality of the conditions ? 
We confider this as an objedt that is given, without its 
being given in the intuition; that is, we confider it no 
longer as an objedf of experience, but as a thing in itfelf. 
As, however, we do not remark this deviation from expe¬ 
rience, we treat an objedt that is no objedt of experience 
as if it were one. The following fedtior. will diftindtly ex¬ 
plain this Dialedtic of Pure Reafon. 
Sedt. VII. Critical Solution of the Cofmological Conflict of 
Reafon with itfelf. 
The dialedtic fyllogifm on which the wdiole Antinomy 
refts is the following : “ If the conditioned is given, then 
the whole feries of its conditions is alfo given.” Now 
objedts of Senfe are given to us as conditioned ; therefore 
the whole feries of the conditions of thefe objedts is alfo 
given. We (hall therefore, according to this conclufion 
of Reafon, obtain unconditioned objedts in the intuition 
according to the diverfity of the conditioned in experience, 
whofe condition is thought by the very fame Category. 
In the firft place, it is certain that with the conditioned 
the condition is alfo given. If by fome Category fome- 
thing given in the intuition is thought as conditioned, it 
already lies in the conception of if, that the condition 
is alfo an objedt given in the intuition. 
Secondly, it is alfo certain that, when we mean by ob¬ 
jedts the things in themfelves, and therefore the reprelenta- 
tion of objedts is merely the problematical thought of the 
neceflary unity of confcioufnefs, though no objedtive con¬ 
nexion of a given variety exifts, that, if thefe objedts are 
conditioned, then alfo the feries of their conditions is 
pre-fuppofed as complete. For we hereby underftand 
objedts as the mere Underftanding thinks them; and, as 
we abftradt from the intuition in w'hich alone objedts can 
be given to us,Hie following pofition is analytical; that, 
it lomethingis thought as conditioned, this pre-fuppofes 
the totality of all the conditions under which w-e think it 
conditioned. But, if the queftion concerns an objedt 
given in the intuition, confequently the fynthefis of a 
given which is thought as neceffary by a Category, then it 
is clear, that prior to the completed fynthefis no objedt 
can be conceived as given. A remote caufe of a certain 
event I may perhaps attain by empirical fynthefis by the 
afliftance of iiiftory, though it may never form a part of 
my experience, and I may therefore think an objedt as 
given ; 
