The principles resulting from this highest principle of pure reason will, however, be transcendent in relation to phenomena, that is to say, it will be impossible to make any adequate empirical use of this principle.It is therefore completely different from all principles of the understanding, the use made of which is entirely immanent, their object and purpose being merely the possibility of experience.Now our duty in the transcendental dialectic is as follows.To discover whether the principle that the series of conditions (in the synthesis of phenomena, or of thought in general)extends to the unconditioned is objectively true, or not; what consequences result therefrom affecting the empirical use of the understanding, or rather whether there exists any such objectively valid proposition of reason, and whether it is not, on the contrary, a merely logical precept which directs us to ascend perpetually to still higher conditions, to approach completeness in the series of them, and thus to introduce into our cognition the highest possible unity of reason.We must ascertain, I say, whether this requirement of reason has not been regarded, by a misunderstanding, as a transcendental principle of pure reason, which postulates a thorough completeness in the series of conditions in objects themselves.We must show, moreover, the misconceptions and illusions that intrude into syllogisms, the major proposition of which pure reason has supplied- a proposition which has perhaps more of the character of a petitio than of a postulatum- and that proceed from experience upwards to its conditions.The solution of these problems is our task in transcendental dialectic, which we are about to expose even at its source, that lies deep in human reason.We shall divide it into two parts, the first of which will treat of the transcendent conceptions of pure reason, the second of transcendent and dialectical syllogisms.
BOOK I.
OF THE CONCEPTIONS OF PURE REASON.
The conceptions of pure reason- we do not here speak of the possibility of them- are not obtained by reflection, but by inference or conclusion.The conceptions of understanding are also cogitated a priori antecedently to experience, and render it possible;but they contain nothing but the unity of reflection upon phenomena, in so far as these must necessarily belong to a possible empirical consciousness.Through them alone are cognition and the determination of an object possible.It is from them, accordingly, that we receive material for reasoning, and antecedently to them we possess no a priori conceptions of objects from which they might be deduced, On the other hand, the sole basis of their objective reality consists in the necessity imposed on them, as containing the intellectual form of all experience, of restricting their application and influence to the sphere of experience.
But the term, conception of reason, or rational conception, itself indicates that it does not confine itself within the limits of experience, because its object-matter is a cognition, of which every empirical cognition is but a part- nay, the whole of possible experience may be itself but a part of it- a cognition to which no actual experience ever fully attains, although it does always pertain to it.The aim of rational conceptions is the comprehension, as that of the conceptions of understanding is the understanding of perceptions.If they contain the unconditioned, they relate to that to which all experience is subordinate, but which is never itself an object of experience- that towards which reason tends in all its conclusions from experience, and by the standard of which it estimates the degree of their empirical use, but which is never itself an element in an empirical synthesis.If, notwithstanding, such conceptions possess objective validity, they may be called conceptus ratiocinati (conceptions legitimately concluded); in cases where they do not, they have been admitted on account of having the appearance of being correctly concluded, and may be called conceptus ratiocinantes (sophistical conceptions).But as this can only be sufficiently demonstrated in that part of our treatise which relates to the dialectical conclusions of reason, we shall omit any consideration of it in this place.As we called the pure conceptions of the understanding categories, we shall also distinguish those of pure reason by a new name and call them transcendental ideas.These terms, however, we must in the first place explain and justify.
SECTION I - Of Ideas in General.
Despite the great wealth of words which European languages possess, the thinker finds himself often at a loss for an expression exactly suited to his conception, for want of which he is unable to make himself intelligible either to others or to himself.To coin new words is a pretension to legislation in language which is seldom successful; and, before recourse is taken to so desperate an expedient, it is advisable to examine the dead and learned languages, with the hope and the probability that we may there meet with some adequate expression of the notion we have in our minds.In this case, even if the original meaning of the word has become somewhat uncertain, from carelessness or want of caution on the part of the authors of it, it is always better to adhere to and confirm its proper meaning- even although it may be doubtful whether it was formerly used in exactly this sense- than to make our labour vain by want of sufficient care to render ourselves intelligible.
