immanent。 An idea is employed transcendently； when it is applied to an
object falsely believed to be adequate with and to correspond to it；
imminently； when it is applied solely to the employment of the
understanding in the sphere of experience。 Thus all errors of
subreptio… of misapplication； are to be ascribed to defects of
judgement； and not to understanding or reason。
Reason never has an immediate relation to an object； it relates
immediately to the understanding alone。 It is only through the
understanding that it can be employed in the field of experience。 It
does not form conceptions of objects； it merely arranges them and
gives to them that unity which they are capable of possessing when the
sphere of their application has been extended as widely as possible。
Reason avails itself of the conception of the understanding for the
sole purpose of producing totality in the different series。 This
totality the understanding does not concern itself with； its only
occupation is the connection of experiences； by which series of
conditions in accordance with conceptions are established。 The
object of reason is； therefore； the understanding and its proper
destination。 As the latter brings unity into the diversity of
objects by means of its conceptions； so the former brings unity into
the diversity of conceptions by means of ideas； as it sets the final
aim of a collective unity to the operations of the understanding；
which without this occupies itself with a distributive unity alone。
I accordingly maintain that transcendental ideas can never be
employed as constitutive ideas； that they cannot be conceptions of
objects； and that； when thus considered； they assume a fallacious
and dialectical character。 But； on the other hand； they are capable of
an admirable and indispensably necessary application to objects… as
regulative ideas； directing the understanding to a certain aim； the
guiding lines towards which all its laws follow； and in which they all
meet in one point。 This point… though a mere idea （focus imaginarius）；
that is； not a point from which the conceptions of the understanding
do really proceed； for it lies beyond the sphere of possible
experience… serves； notwithstanding； to give to these conceptions
the greatest possible unity bined with the greatest possible
extension。 Hence arises the natural illusion which induces us to
believe that these lines proceed from an object which lies out of
the sphere of empirical cognition； just as objects reflected in a
mirror appear to be behind it。 But this illusion… which we may
hinder from imposing upon us… is necessary and unavoidable； if we
desire to see； not only those objects which lie before us； but those
which are at a great distance behind us； that is to say； when； in
the present case； we direct the aims of the understanding； beyond
every given experience； towards an extension as great as can
possibly be attained。
If we review our cognitions in their entire extent； we shall find
that the peculiar business of reason is to arrange them into a system；
that is to say； to give them connection according to a principle。 This
unity presupposes an idea… the idea of the form of a whole （of
cognition）； preceding the determinate cognition of the parts； and
containing the conditions which determine a priori to every part its
place and relation to the other parts of the whole system。 This
idea； accordingly； demands plete unity in the cognition of the
understanding… not the unity of a contingent aggregate； but that of
a system connected according to necessary laws。 It cannot be
affirmed with propriety that this idea is a conception of an object；
it is merely a conception of the plete unity of the conceptions
of objects； in so far as this unity is available to the
understanding as a rule。 Such conceptions of reason are not derived
from nature； on the contrary； we employ them for the interrogation and
investigation of nature； and regard our cognition as defective so long
as it is not adequate to them。 We admit that such a thing as pure
earth； pure water； or pure air； is not to be discovered。 And yet we
require these conceptions （which have their origin in the reason； so
far as regards their absolute purity and pleteness） for the purpose
of determining the share which each of these natural causes has in
every phenomenon。 Thus the different kinds of matter are all ref erred
to earths； as mere weight； to salts and inflammable bodies； as pure
force； and finally； to water and air； as the vehicula of the former；
or the machines employed by them in their operations… for the
purpose of explaining the chemical action and reaction of bodies in
accordance with the idea of a mechanism。 For； although not actually so
expressed； the influence of such ideas of reason is very observable in
the procedure of natural philosophers。
If reason is the faculty of deducing the particular from the
general； and if the general be certain in se and given； it is only
necessary that the judgement should subsume the particular under the
general； the particular being thus necessarily determined。 I shall
term this the demonstrative or apodeictic employment of reason。 If；
however； the general is admitted as problematical only； and is a
mere idea； the particular case is certain； but the universality of the
rule which applies to this particular case remains a problem。
Several particular cases； the certainty of which is beyond doubt；
are then taken and examined； for the purpose of discovering whether
the rule is applicable to them； and if it appears that all the
particular cases which can be collected follow from the rule； its
universality is inferred； and at the same time； all the causes which
have not； or cannot be presented to our observation； are concluded
to be of the same character with those which we have observed。 This
I shall term the hypothetical employment of the reason。
The hypothetical exercise of reason by the aid of ideas employed
as problematical conceptions is properly not constitutive。 That is
to say； if we consider the subject strictly； the truth of the rule；
which has been employed as an hypothesis； does not follow from the use
that is made of it by reason。 For how can we know all the possible
cases that may arise？ some of which may； however； prove exceptions
to the universality of the rule。 This employment of reason is merely
regulative； and its sole aim is the introduction of unity into the
aggregate of our particular cognitions； and thereby the
approximating of the rule to universality。
The object of the hypothetical employment of reason is therefore the
systematic unity of cognitions； and this unity is the criterion of the
truth of a rule。 On the other hand； this systematic unity… as a mere
idea… is in fact merely a unity projected； not to be regarded as
given； but only in the light of a problem… a problem which serves；
however； as a principle for the various and particular exercise of the
understanding in experience； directs it with regard to those cases
which are not presented to our observation； and introduces harmony and
consistency into all its operations。
All that we can be certain of from the above considerations is
that this systematic unity is a logical principle； whose aim is to
assist the understanding； where it cannot of itself attain to rules；
by means of ideas； to bring all these various rules under one
principle； and thus to ensure the most plete consistency and
connection that can be attained。 But the assertion that objects and
the understanding by which they are cognized are so constituted as
to be determined to systematic unity； that this may be postulated a
priori； without any reference to the interest of reason； and that we
are justified in declaring all possible cognitions… empirical and
others… to possess systematic unity； and to be subject to general
principles from which； notwithstanding their various character； they
are all derivable such an assertion can be founded only upon a
transcendental principle of reason； which would render this systematic
unity not subjectively and logically… in its character of a method；
but objectively necessary。
We shall illustrate this by an example。 The conceptions of the
understanding make us acquainted； among many other kinds of unity；
with that of the causality of a substance； which is termed power。
The different phenomenal manifestations of the same substance appear
at first view to be so very dissimilar that we are inclined to
assume the existence of just as many different powers as there are
different effects… as； in the case of the human mind； we have feeling；
consciousness； imagination； memory； wit； analysis； pleasure； desire
and so on。 Now we are required by a logical maxim to reduce these
differences to as small a number as possible； by paring them and
discovering the hidden identity which exists。 We must inquire； for
example； whether or not imagination （connected with consciousness）；
memory； wit； and analysis are not merely different forms of
understanding and reason。 The idea of a fundamental power； the
existence of which no effort of logic can assure us of； is the problem
to be solved； for the systemati