237 
PHILOSOPHY. 
Sanding. For in executing thefe laws the entire ufe of 
Underftanding confifts, (if we exclude the original ufe 
whereby we think an object in general.) With regard 
to the objects themfelves, they determine nothing. How 
tar fimilarity, difference, and relationfhip, may proceed, 
remains undetermined. 
When we fet up thefe principles themfelves, according 
to the order in which they affedt the empirical ufe of the 
Underftanding, they will ftand as follows 5 Variety, Itela- 
tiorjhip, and Unity ; each of them taken in their complete- 
nefs as Idea. The' Underftanding in the firft inftance 
confiders all objedts, which are given to it in the intuition, 
likewife as infulated, and in a lfate of abfolute difference. 
By degrees it difcovers marks in which they agree. It 
now feparates, in thought, that which conftitutes their 
difference ; and, fince it merely retains the difcovered 
homogeneity, it arrives at empirical conceptions, ftill 
however thinking of the difference which feparates the 
fpecies that are contained under the genus, and planning 
the ideas of intermediate fpecies that it may perhaps 
meet with in experience, and which will agree with any 
one of them more than they agree amongft themfelves. 
At j a ft it forms the idea of the homogeneity of all pheno¬ 
mena, in order to be able to think it by a general con¬ 
ception. The relationfhip of the fpecies does not con¬ 
cern merely the things themfelves with regard to their 
form and matter, but alfo their properties and powers. 
In judging of the planetary orbits, we firft think of the 
circle ; but, in remarking the deviations from this line, 
we adopt that which approaches neareft the circle, the 
ellipfis. The orbits of comets jve cannot at firft fubjedl to 
the laws of the ellipfis, and we fuppofe that they are 
ellipfes of fuch long axes that all our obfervations can 
only agree with the adoption of the parabolic orbit. Nay, 
we are now inclined to invent orbits for the comets, 
which are real parabolas, and even fuch as deviate from 
the circle in an oppofite manner to the ellipfis; namely, 
hyperbolic orbits. The property of gravity in bodies we 
difcover on the furface of our Earth. We firft confider it 
as the attradlive power of the Earth itfelf; then as an 
effential property of matter in general, and as the caufe 
of the laws of motion of the planets and comets ; nay, 
in following the logical fubjedlive principle of homoge¬ 
neity, we diffufe this law over all nature, and imagine 
Suns which are, with regard to our folar fyftem, what ours 
is with regard to the planets j and milky ways, which 
confift of innumerable folar fyftems, whole motion altoge¬ 
ther is preferved by this univerlal law of gravitation. 
Reafon in thefe principles anticipates the Underftanding, 
which thereby obtains a clue according to which it may 
try experience. We (hould, however, entirely mifunder- 
itand thefe principles, if we confidered them as tranfcen- 
dental principles. 
In tranfcendental Analytics, we diftinguifhed the ma¬ 
thematical principles from the dynamical, and termed the 
former conjiitutive, and the lattermerely regulative. The 
ground of which is, that the mathematical principles 
juftify the Underftanding in the application of the Cate¬ 
gories of Quantity and Quality to the objedts of empirical 
intuition, by which however an objedt is thought as de¬ 
termined both in matter and form. The dynamical prin¬ 
ciples, on the contrary, refer to the ex i lie nee of objects, 
and are only regulative, becaufe, according to them, that 
which is the e (fence of a certain phenomenon is not 
thought, but only their exiftence is determined; either in 
relation to that of another exiftence, or to the underftand¬ 
ing itfelf. Thefe 1 very regulative principles, which, in re¬ 
ference to the Quantity and Quality of the phenomena, 
are folely regulative , ftill are themfelves conjiitutive with 
regard to exiftence itfelf. But, if we fearch for the ground 
upon which the underftanding fupports itfelf when it 
thinks objedts by the Categories, we find that it is the 
fchema of Sense. A variety is reprefen ted as connedted 
by-means of the fchema into a neceffary unity; and thofe 
principles are on that very account conjiitutive, becaufe 
Vsl.XX. No. 1364. 
they are the rules of the application of thefe fchemata to 
the empirical intuition, by which application fomething 
is thought as an objedt in the intuition. The principles 
of Pure Reafon, therefore, can never be conftitutive, be¬ 
caufe they cannot be reprefented in any fchema. If we 
alk, How can a rule, that has not been deduced from 
objedts of experience, ftill be thought fo, that thefe objedts 
are fubjedled to it? then, with regard to the tranfcen¬ 
dental principles, this fatisfadtory anfwer may be given ; 
that they are the laws according to which the empirical 
variety is thought as necefiarily connedted by the fchema; 
and that thus objedts in general are reprefented. Now 
the principles of Reafon want this fchema : how then will 
it be poflible to think them even as regulative principles 
with regard to experience ? The thinking of an objedt by 
means of the pure Categories is undetermined, and their 
objedtive reference alfo ; (the determined thinking of an 
objedt is only poflible by means of the fchema of Senfe.) 
Now, though for Ideas there is no fchema of Senfe pof- 
fible, ftill there is an analog on of a fchema for them, 
whereby they become determined, although they do not 
gain thereby anything in objedtive reality. It is the con¬ 
ception of the maximum which, in every idea, inafmuch 
as it is fit for a regulative principle, takes the place of a 
fchema of Senfe, in the explanation we have given. The 
three regulative principles, of Variety, Relation, and 
Unity, have therefore alfo objediive reality : but this does^, 
not confift in the objedtive reference itfelf, that is, not 
that determinate objedts correfpond to them, but only 
that they furnifh the underftanding with the conception 
of the maximum in order thereby to determine the objedts. 
Thofe principles of which we cannot fay that they refer 
to objedts, but which reafon creates folely for itfelf, in 
order to fatisfy, by means of them, its fpeculative intereft, 
we call Maxims of Reafon. When principles, which, like 
thofe already mentioned as merely regulative, are confider¬ 
ed as conjiitutive, and confequently objeflive, they may be 
contradidtory. But, on the other hand, if we confider 
them as maxims, then there is no true contradidtion, and 
they may altogether co-exiit in the individual. We may 
however alfo conceive that one maxim predominates in an 
individual more than another, and thence explain the dif¬ 
ferences that exift between natural philofophers. In the 
one it is more in favour of variety, in the other it is more 
unity that predominates ; and every one fancies that his 
merely fubjedive principle is objedtive, and that he fpeaks 
as having a true infight into the objedts; whereas they 
each of them favour their own opinion. That thefe prin¬ 
ciples, however, as regulative ones, which are conceived 
prior to experience, and to which experience can never 
completely anfwer, are of great utility, with-regard to 
fatisfying the fpeculative intereft of Reafon, is proved by 
the happy refults of the obfervations and experiments on 
the objedts of Nature that are made under their guidance. 
The ultimate end of the natural Dialedics of Human Reafon. 
In the preceding we have been able to lhow the imma¬ 
nent ufe of certain Ideas, which were however of fuch a 
kind, that they would be of no ufe at all if they had not 
the immanent one. But the tranfcendental ideas are of 
fnch a nature, that it might appear they had only a tranj- 
cendent ufe, and that, on account of this appearance, we do 
not at all attend to their poflible immanent ufe. The 
former ufe, according to which they are referred to exift- 
ing objedts, which however cannot be given in any expe¬ 
rience, mull not be allowed to them. It will be incum¬ 
bent on us to lhow bow far they may be of immanent ufe 
as regulative principles. In this their tranfcendental de¬ 
duction will confift, which muft be made of all the con¬ 
ceptions that are not of empirical origin, if we wifh to a(- 
fure ourfelves of their objediive validity. This dedudlion 
therefore will not (how, like that of the Categories, that 
thefe conceptions are the conditions of all objediive refe¬ 
rence of our reprefentations, nor their confequent appli¬ 
cation to objedts it priori. Notwithftanding this, it will 
3 P prove 
