| But the phenomena, corresponding to it, are not given as things in themselves, but in experience alone. |
| For they are mere representations, receiving from perceptions alone significance and relation to a real object, under the condition that this or that perception--indicating an object--is in complete connection with all others in accordance with the rules of the unity of experience. |
| Thus we can say; "The things that really existed in past time are given in the transcendental object of experience." But these are to me real objects, only in so far as I can represent to my own mind, that a regressive series of possible perceptions- following the indications of history, or the footsteps of cause and effect--in accordance with empirical laws--that, in one word, the course of the world conducts us to an elapsed series of time as the condition of the present time. |
| This series in past time is represented as real, not in itself, but only in connection with a possible experience. |
| Thus, when I say that certain events occurred in past time, I merely assert the possibility of prolonging the chain of experience, from the present perception, upwards to the conditions that determine it according to time. |
| If I represent to myself all objects existing in all space and time, I do not thereby place these in space and time prior to all experience; on the contrary, such a representation is nothing more than the notion of a possible experience, in its absolute completeness. |
| In experience alone are those objects, which are nothing but representations, given. |
| But, when I say they existed prior to my experience, this means only that I must begin with the perception present to me and follow the track indicated until I discover them in some part or region of experience. |
| The cause of the empirical condition of this progression--and consequently at what member therein I must stop, and at what point in the regress I am to find this member--is transcendental, and hence necessarily incognizable. |
| But with this we have not to do; our concern is only with the law of progression in experience, in which objects, that is, phenomena, are given. |
| It is a matter of indifference, whether I say, "I may in the progress of experience discover stars, at a hundred times greater distance than the most distant of those now visible," or, "Stars at this distance may be met in space, although no one has, or ever will discover them." For, if they are given as things in themselves, without any relation to possible experience, they are for me non-existent, consequently, are not objects, for they are not contained in the regressive series of experience. |
| But, if these phenomena must be employed in the construction or support of the cosmological idea of an absolute whole, and when we are discussing a question that oversteps the limits of possible experience, the proper distinction of the different theories of the reality of sensuous objects is of great importance, in order to avoid the illusion which must necessarily arise from the misinterpretation of our empirical conceptions. |
| SECTION VII. Critical Solution of the Cosmological Problem. |
| The antinomy of pure reason is based upon the following dialectical argument; "If that which is conditioned is given, the whole series of its conditions is also given; but sensuous objects are given as conditioned; consequently..." This syllogism, the major of which seems so natural and evident, introduces as many cosmological ideas as there are different kinds of conditions in the synthesis of phenomena, in so far as these conditions constitute a series. |
| These ideas require absolute totality in the series, and thus place reason in inextricable embarrassment. |
| Before proceeding to expose the fallacy in this dialectical argument, it will be necessary to have a correct understanding of certain conceptions that appear in it. |
| In the first place, the following proposition is evident, and indubitably certain; "If the conditioned is given, a regress in the series of all its conditions is thereby imperatively required." For the very conception of a conditioned is a conception of something related to a condition, and, if this condition is itself conditioned, to another condition--and so on through all the members of the series. |
| This proposition is, therefore, analytical and has nothing to fear from transcendental criticism. |
| It is a logical postulate of reason; to pursue, as far as possible, the connection of a conception with its conditions. |
| If, in the second place, both the conditioned and the condition are things in themselves, and if the former is given, not only is the regress to the latter requisite, but the latter is really given with the former. |
| Now, as this is true of all the members of the series, the entire series of conditions, and with them the unconditioned, is at the same time given in the very fact of the conditioned, the existence of which is possible only in and through that series, being given. |