PHILO 
at Theology by means of fpeculation, muft neceflarily be 
futile. For, Firft, I have no right to infer from intellec¬ 
tual contingency a caufe, becaufe the law of caufality is 
only a law of the empirical ufe of underftanding; and 
according to this, the contingency, whence the inference 
proceeds to the caufe, mull; be an objedt of experience; 
for fuch a one only can be obtained by a Change. Second¬ 
ly, in this conclufion the conception of caufe lofes all 
meaning ; for the principle of experience, that to every 
change in the phenomena fomething permanent forms the 
foundation, allows of no exception. Though we may be 
able to think the non-exiftence of fubftances, their exi¬ 
ftence at all times muft be admitted. By the admiffion of 
the caufe of intellectual contingency, the exiftence of this 
contingency is not therefore in the firft inftance granted ; 
becaufe all fignification of the conception Caufe confifts in 
this, that its effect has begun. Nor would the inference 
from the empirical contingent to an intelligible be in any 
way fupported. The caufe of every change is an objedt 
of experience; its caufality is likewife a change whofe 
caufe is to be fought in experience. This empirical 
regreflion, therefore, never leads to a caufe that prefup- 
pofes no condition. The original being would belong to 
the objedts of experience, if the pofition of Caufality were 
to lead to it; but it would then be neceffarily conditioned, 
like all thefe objedts. Bur, even if we wifhed to ground 
the tranfition from the world of phenomena to an intelli¬ 
gible world upon this law, this conclufion would only 
lead to a caufe which would be proportionate to that 
effedl which is given to us as an objedt of experience. 
We (hould ftill therefore be only able to infer a very 
powerful and a very wife being, which would not fatisf'y 
the demand of the Theological Idea. Indeed it muft be 
admitted that this very being may alfo be the molt perfedt; 
but it is not the phylico-theological proof which renders 
this affumption necefiary. It may indeed add energy to 
other proofs, fince it fupports fpeculation by intuition ; 
but of itfelf it can never furnilh a ftridt proof. Now, 
though it is not poflible to give any fpeculative proof of 
the exiftence of the higlieft being, ftill the utility of the 
fpeculative ufe of Reafon itfelf, with regard to the deter¬ 
mination of the idea of an original being, is by no means 
to be denied. If the affumption of the exiftence of God 
is a poftulate of Reafon in a pradlical point of view, as 
will hereafter be Ihown, then the merit of tranfcendental 
philofophy will confift in the purification of the concep¬ 
tion of this being from every thing heterogeneous, and in 
making it thereby more fit for the purpofe of pradlical 
reafon. If pradlical reafon, for inftance, poftulates the 
prefuppofition of the omniprefence of God, the determi¬ 
nation of this prefence, as of an objedt of intuition, 
would not correspond with the pradlical intention; for, 
according to this, Reafon would be limited to the condi¬ 
tions of Time and Space, whereas that intuition can only 
befatisfied by theaflumption of an entirely unconditioned 
prefence. Now this can only be attained by tranfcenden¬ 
tal philofophy ; which reprefents the Ideal ns a being not 
given in the intuition, feparating from it the conditions 
under which an objedt can be given to us, and thereby 
annihilating Time and Space as the conditions of its 
prefence, although it is not able to reprefent this merely 
intelligible ohjeli in any other manner but as given. 
Appendix to Transcendental Dialectics. 
Of the Regulative Ufe if the Ideas of Pure Reafon. 
.The refult of the inveftigations of Tranfcendental 
Dialedlics has been, that the tranfcendental ideas can have 
no tranfeendent ufe. Since no objedts of experience can 
ever correfpond to thefe ideas, the objedts to which alone 
they can refer muft be fuch as can never come into expe¬ 
rience. It is impoftible to infure to thefe ideas objedtive 
reality, becaufe this can be granted to fuch conceptions 
only whofe objedt can be given in the empirical intuition. 
But now the queftion is, whetherit be not poflible to make 
of thefe ideas an immanent ufe in another refpedt, and 
SOPHY. 235 
whether this ufe is not their whole deftination. Their 
tranfeendent ufe, which we have found inadmiflible, con¬ 
fifts in referring them to real objedts. In doing this we 
fhould need to be jullified by a tranfcendental dedudtion, 
like that of the Categories. Now, as we cannot derive 
the objedtive reality of thefe ideas from the principle of 
the conditions of experience, fo we can as little effedl this 
on tranfcendental principles. Now we may prevjoufly 
fuppofe, that, as the tranfcendental ideas are not artificial 
fidtions, but are difeovered by reafon itfelf, in its progrefs 
in the empirical regreflion from condition to condition, a 
juft, that is, immanent, ufe of thefe ideas, which refers to 
experience, muft be poflible. It will therefore be incum¬ 
bent on the Critic to develop the true intention of 
Reafon in this, and to (how the immanent ufe of the 
tranfcendental ideas. 
When we refledt upon the fhare which Reafon has in 
empirical knowledge, we difeover that it contributes no¬ 
thing to our knowledge of objedts. This arifes from the 
variety in the empirical intuition being reprefented as 
neceflarily connedted by means of the application of the 
Categories to the empirical intuition, in wdiich applica¬ 
tion the empirical ufe of underftanding confifts, (empirical 
thinking.) Reafon confequently never refers immediately 
to objedts as the Underftanding does. Now the queftion 
is, whether it does not refer mediately to objedts, by 
referring immediately to the adtion of the underftanding. 
Were Reafon to refer immediately to objedts, this would 
give to the Tranfcendental Ideas a conjlitutive ufe, fince 
Speculative Reafon confifts entirely in thefe ideas. But, 
as this conftitutive ufe cannot be at all allowed to them, 
we have only to fhow as clearly as poflible their admiflible, 
that is, their regulative ufe, in which indeed they will be 
found to refer to empirical hnmvledge, but not to empirical 
objedts; and, as to their reference to intelledtual objedts, 
there is not the leaft ground for it. 
The ufe which the Underftanding makes of its Cate¬ 
gories is this, it brings the variety of the empirical in¬ 
tuition to the necefiary unity of confcioufnefs, and this 
thinks its objett. This ufe is therefore always conjlitutive. 
Reafon, by its Ideas, brings the various knowledge that 
arifes in the manner here defcribed alfo to the unity of 
confcioufnefs. This, however, cannot be called a neceffary 
(objedtive) unity, like that which the underftanding 
generates ; it is merely fubjeftive, and can only be th'ought 
as problematical and projedtive. If we confider it as 
objtdive, it is our own fault, and is not the intention of 
reafon in its ideas. The error confifts in our confidering 
this cntirely-fuhjedive unity as necefiary, independent of 
the mind ; an error againft which a tranfcendental reflec¬ 
tion muft guard us. An idea is as it were an imaginary 
focus, from which the rays do notadlually flow, but to 
which they are neverthelefs referred. In referring all our 
knowledge to an idea, in order to give it the greateft 
unity as well as the greateft extent, we make an immanent 
ufe of the idea; this, however, pafl'es to a tranfeendent 
ufe, when we refer the idea itfelf to an objedt that is not 
attainable by any empirical knowledge. 
It is, properly fpeaking, the fyftematic part that is 
produced by means of ideas in our knowledge. The 
unity which thus takes place muft be called the JyJlematic 
unity. It is therefore not borrowed from nature itfelf ; 
but we take precedence of nature ; and, though it may 
never be met with in nature, yet make thi$ projedt in order 
thus to arrange our various knowledge. We fliall now 
illuftrate this procedure of reafon by inftancing feme 
ideas whofe ufe is merely regulative, and can never be 
tranfeendent; ideas whofe objedts may perhaps be met with 
in experience. This may ferve to render the regulative 
ufe of reafon, in its tranfcendental ideas, the more intelli¬ 
gible. 
That pure earth, pure water, pure air, See. have ever 
been met with, cannot be maintained; ftill we make life 
of thefe conceptions. In this, however, we have a parti¬ 
cular view; namely, from the fhare which each phenome¬ 
non. 
