第 48 页

up to a given moment, although that time is not determinable by us.

But as regards time future, which is not the condition of arriving

at the present, in order to conceive it; it is quite indifferent

whether we consider future time as ceasing at some point, or as

prolonging itself to infinity. Take, for example, the series m, n,

o, in which n is given as conditioned in relation to m, but at the

same time as the condition of o, and let the series proceed upwards

from the conditioned n to m (l, k, i, etc.), and also downwards from

the condition n to the conditioned o (p, q, r, etc.)- I must

presuppose the former series, to be able to consider n as given, and n

is according to reason (the totality of conditions) possible only by

means of that series. But its possibility does not rest on the

following series o, p, q, r, which for this reason cannot be

regarded as given, but only as capable of being given (dabilis).

I shall term the synthesis of the series on the side of the

conditions- from that nearest to the given phenomenon up to the more

remote- regressive; that which proceeds on the side of the

conditioned, from the immediate consequence to the more remote, I

shall call the progressive synthesis. The former proceeds in

antecedentia, the latter in consequentia. The cosmological ideas are

therefore occupied with the totality of the regressive synthesis,

and proceed in antecedentia, not in consequentia. When the latter

takes place, it is an arbitrary and not a necessary problem of pure

reason; for we require, for the complete understanding of what is

given in a phenomenon, not the consequences which succeed, but the

grounds or principles which precede.

In order to construct the table of ideas in correspondence with

the table of categories, we take first the two primitive quanta of all

our intuitions, time and space. Time is in itself a series (and the

formal condition of all series), and hence, in relation to a given

present, we must distinguish a priori in it the antecedentia as

conditions (time past) from the consequentia (time future).

Consequently, the transcendental idea of the absolute totality of

the series of the conditions of a given conditioned, relates merely to

all past time. According to the idea of reason, the whole past time,

as the condition of the given moment, is necessarily cogitated as

given. But, as regards space, there exists in it no distinction

between progressus and regressus; for it is an aggregate and not a

series- its parts existing together at the same time. I can consider a

given point of time in relation to past time only as conditioned,

because this given moment comes into existence only through the past

time rather through the passing of the preceding time. But as the

parts of space are not subordinated, but co-ordinated to each other,

one part cannot be the condition of the possibility of the other;

and space is not in itself, like time, a series. But the synthesis

of the manifold parts of space- (the syntheses whereby we apprehend

space)- is nevertheless successive; it takes place, therefore, in

time, and contains a series. And as in this series of aggregated

spaces (for example, the feet in a rood), beginning with a given

portion of space, those which continue to be annexed form the

condition of the limits of the former- the measurement of a space must

also be regarded as a synthesis of the series of the conditions of a

given conditioned. It differs, however, in this respect from that of

time, that the side of the conditioned is not in itself

distinguishable from the side of the condition; and, consequently,

regressus and progressus in space seem to be identical. But,

inasmuch as one part of space is not given, but only limited, by and

through another, we must also consider every limited space as

conditioned, in so far as it presupposes some other space as the

condition of its limitation, and so on. As regards limitation,

therefore, our procedure in space is also a regressus, and the

transcendental idea of the absolute totality of the synthesis in a

series of conditions applies to space also; and I am entitled to

demand the absolute totality of the phenomenal synthesis in space as

well as in time. Whether my demand can be satisfied is a question to

be answered in the sequel.

Secondly, the real in space- that is, matter- is conditioned. Its

internal conditions are its parts, and the parts of parts its remote

conditions; so that in this case we find a regressive synthesis, the

absolute totality of which is a demand of reason. But this cannot be

obtained otherwise than by a complete division of parts, whereby the

real in matter becomes either nothing or that which is not matter,

that is to say, the simple. Consequently we find here also a series of

conditions and a progress to the unconditioned.

Thirdly, as regards the categories of a real relation between

phenomena, the category of substance and its accidents is not suitable

for the formation of a transcendental idea; that is to say, reason has

no ground, in regard to it, to proceed regressively with conditions.

For accidents (in so far as they inhere in a substance) are

co-ordinated with each other, and do not constitute a series. And,

in relation to substance, they are not properly subordinated to it,

but are the mode of existence of the substance itself. The

conception of the substantial might nevertheless seem to be an idea of

the transcendental reason. But, as this signifies nothing more than

the conception of an object in general, which subsists in so far as we

cogitate in it merely a transcendental subject without any predicates;

and as the question here is of an unconditioned in the series of

phenomena- it is clear that the substantial can form no member

thereof. The same holds good of substances in community, which are

mere aggregates and do not form a series. For they are not

subordinated to each other as conditions of the possibility of each

other; which, however, may be affirmed of spaces, the limits of

which are never determined in themselves, but always by some other

space. It is, therefore, only in the category of causality that we can

find a series of causes to a given effect, and in which we ascend from

the latter, as the conditioned, to the former as the conditions, and

thus answer the question of reason.

Fourthly, the conceptions of the possible, the actual, and the

necessary do not conduct us to any series- excepting only in so far as

the contingent in existence must always be regarded as conditioned,

and as indicating, according to a law of the understanding, a

condition, under which it is necessary to rise to a higher, till in

the totality of the series, reason arrives at unconditioned necessity.

There are, accordingly, only four cosmological ideas,

corresponding with the four titles of the categories. For we can

select only such as necessarily furnish us with a series in the

synthesis of the manifold.

1

The absolute Completeness

of the

COMPOSITION

of the given totality of all phenomena.

2

The absolute Completeness

of the

DIVISION

of given totality in a phenomenon.

3

The absolute Completeness

of the

ORIGINATION

of a phenomenon.

4

The absolute Completeness

of the DEPENDENCE of the EXISTENCE

of what is changeable in a phenomenon.

We must here remark, in the first place, that the idea of absolute

totality relates to nothing but the exposition of phenomena, and

therefore not to the pure conception of a totality of things.

Phenomena are here, therefore, regarded as given, and reason

requires the absolute completeness of the conditions of their

possibility, in so far as these conditions constitute a series-

consequently an absolutely (that is, in every respect) complete

synthesis, whereby a phenomenon can be explained according to the laws

of the understanding.

Secondly, it is properly the unconditioned alone that reason seeks

in this serially and regressively conducted synthesis of conditions.

It wishes, to speak in another way, to attain to completeness in the

series of premisses, so as to render it unnecessary to presuppose

others. This unconditioned is always contained in the absolute

totality of the series, when we endeavour to form a representation

of it in thought. But this absolutely complete synthesis is itself but

an idea; for it is impossible, at least before hand, to know whether

any such synthesis is possible in the case of phenomena. When we

represent all existence in thought by means of pure conceptions of the

understanding, without any conditions of sensuous intuition, we may

say with justice that for a given conditioned the whole series of

conditions subordinated to each other is also given; for the former is

only given through the latter. But we find in the case of phenomena

a particular limitation of the mode in which conditions are given,

that is, through the successive synthesis of the manifold of

intuition, which must be complete in the regress. Now whether this

completeness is sensuously possible, is a problem. But the idea of

it lies in the reason- be it possible or impossible to connect with

the idea adequate empirical conceptions. Therefore, as in the absolute

totality of the regressive synthesis of the manifold in a phenomenon

(following the guidance of the categories, which represent it as a

series of conditions to a given conditioned) the unconditioned is

necessarily contained- it being still left unascertained whether and

how this totality exists; reason sets out from the idea of totality,

although its proper and final aim is the unconditioned- of the whole

series, or of a part thereof.

This unconditioned may be cogitated- either as existing only in

the entire series, all the members of which therefore would be without

exception conditioned and only the totality absolutely

unconditioned- and in this case the regressus is called infinite; or

the absolutely unconditioned is only a part of the series, to which

the other members are subordinated, but which Is not itself

submitted to any other condition.* In the former case the series is

a parte priori unlimited (without beginning), that is, infinite, and

nevertheless completely given. But the regress in it is never

completed, and can only be called potentially infinite. In the

second case there exists a first in the series. This first is

called, in relation to past time, the beginning of the world; in

relation to space, the limit of the world; in relation to the parts of

a given limited whole, the simple; in relation to causes, absolute

spontaneity (liberty); and in relation to the existence of

changeable things, absolute physical necessity.

*The absolute totality of the series of conditions to a given

conditioned is always unconditioned; because beyond it there exist

no other conditions, on which it might depend. But the absolute

totality of such a series is only an idea, or rather a problematical

conception, the possibility of which must be investigated-

particularly in relation to the mode in which the unconditioned, as

the transcendental idea which is the real subject of inquiry, may be

contained therein.

We possess two expressions, world and nature, which are generally

interchanged. The first denotes the mathematical total of all

phenomena and the totality of their synthesis- in its progress by

means of composition, as well as by division. And the world is

termed nature,* when it is regarded as a dynamical whole- when our

attention is not directed to the aggregation in space and time, for

the purpose of cogitating it as a quantity, but to the unity in the

existence of phenomena. In this case the condition of that which

happens is called a cause; the unconditioned causality of the cause in

a phenomenon is termed liberty; the conditioned cause is called in a

more limited sense a natural cause. The conditioned in existence is

termed contingent, and the unconditioned necessary. The

unconditioned necessity of phenomena may be called natural necessity.

*Nature, understood adjective (formaliter), signifies the complex of

the determinations of a thing, connected according to an internal

principle of causality. On the other hand, we understand by nature,

substantive (materialiter), the sum total of phenomena, in so far as

they, by virtue of an internal principle of causality, are connected

with each other throughout. In the former sense we speak of the nature

of liquid matter, of fire, etc., and employ the word only adjective;

while, if speaking of the objects of nature, we have in our minds

the idea of a subsisting whole.

The ideas which we are at present engaged in discussing I have

called cosmological ideas; partly because by the term world is

understood the entire content of all phenomena, and our ideas are

directed solely to the unconditioned among phenomena; partly also,

because world, in the transcendental sense, signifies the absolute

totality of the content of existing things, and we are directing our

attention only to the completeness of the synthesis- although,

properly, only in regression. In regard to the fact that these ideas

are all transcendent. and, although they do not transcend phenomena as

regards their mode, but are concerned solely with the world of sense

(and not with noumena), nevertheless carry their synthesis to a degree

far above all possible experience- it still seems to me that we can,

with perfect propriety, designate them cosmical conceptions. As

regards the distinction between the mathematically and the dynamically

unconditioned which is the aim of the regression of the synthesis, I

should call the two former, in a more limited signification,

cosmical conceptions, the remaining two transcendent physical

conceptions. This distinction does not at present seem to be of