of our knowledge； and by a desire mensurate therewith… remains to
humanity； even after the theoretical cognition of ourselves bas failed
to establish the necessity of an existence after death。
Conclusion of the Solution of the
Psychological Paralogism。
The dialectical illusion in rational psychology arises from our
confounding an idea of reason （of a pure intelligence） with the
conception… in every respect undetermined… of a thinking being in
general。 I cogitate myself in behalf of a possible experience； at
the same time making abstraction of all actual experience； and infer
therefrom that I can be conscious of myself apart from experience
and its empirical conditions。 I consequently confound the possible
abstraction of my empirically determined existence with the supposed
consciousness of a possible separate existence of my thinking self；
and I believe that I cognize what is substantial in myself as a
transcendental subject； when I have nothing more in thought than the
unity of consciousness； which lies at the basis of all determination
of cognition。
The task of explaining the munity of the soul with the body
does not properly belong to the psychology of which we are here
speaking； because it proposes to prove the personality of the soul
apart from this munion （after death）； and is therefore transcendent
in the proper sense of the word； although occupying itself with an
object of experience… only in so far； however； as it ceases to be an
object of experience。 But a sufficient answer may be found to the
question in our system。 The difficulty which lies in the execution
of this task consists； as is well known； in the presupposed
heterogeneity of the object of the internal sense （the soul） and the
objects of the external senses； inasmuch as the formal condition of
the intuition of the one is time； and of that of the other space also。
But if we consider that both kinds of objects do not differ
internally； but only in so far as the one appears externally to the
other… consequently； that what lies at the basis of phenomena； as a
thing in itself； may not be heterogeneous； this difficulty disappears。
There then remains no other difficulty than is to be found in the
question… how a munity of substances is possible； a question
which lies out of the region of psychology； and which the reader；
after what in our analytic has been said of primitive forces and
faculties； will easily judge to be also beyond the region of human
cognition。
GENERAL REMARK
On the Transition from Rational Psychology to Cosmology。
The proposition； 〃I think；〃 or； 〃I exist thinking；〃 is an
empirical proposition。 But such a proposition must be based on
empirical intuition； and the object cogitated as a phenomenon； and
thus our theory appears to maintain that the soul； even in thought； is
merely a phenomenon； and in this way our consciousness itself； in
fact； abuts upon nothing。
Thought； per se； is merely the purely spontaneous logical function
which operates to connect the manifold of a possible intuition； and it
does not represent the subject of consciousness as a phenomenon… for
this reason alone； that it pays no attention to the question whether
the mode of intuiting it is sensuous or intellectual。 I therefore do
not represent myself in thought either as I am； or as I appear to
myself； I merely cogitate myself as an object in general； of the
mode of intuiting which I make abstraction。 When I represent myself as
the subject of thought； or as the ground of thought； these modes of
representation are not related to the categories of substance or of
cause； for these are functions of thought applicable only to our
sensuous intuition。 The application of these categories to the Ego
would； however； be necessary； if I wished to make myself an object
of knowledge。 But I wish to be conscious of myself only as thinking；
in what mode my Self is given in intuition； I do not consider； and
it may be that I； who think； am a phenomenon… although not in so far
as I am a thinking being； but in the consciousness of myself in mere
thought I am a being； though this consciousness does not present to me
any property of this being as material for thought。
But the proposition； 〃I think；〃 in so far as it declares； 〃I exist
thinking；〃 is not the mere representation of a logical function。 It
determines the subject （which is in this case an object also） in
relation to existence； and it cannot be given without the aid of the
internal sense； whose intuition presents to us an object； not as a
thing in itself； but always as a phenomenon。 In this proposition there
is therefore something more to be found than the mere spontaneity of
thought； there is also the receptivity of intuition； that is； my
thought of myself applied to the empirical intuition of myself。 Now；
in this intuition the thinking self must seek the conditions of the
employment of its logical functions as categories of substance； cause；
and so forth； not merely for the purpose of distinguishing itself as
an object in itself by means of the representation 〃I；〃 but also for
the purpose of determining the mode of its existence； that is； of
cognizing itself as noumenon。 But this is impossible； for the internal
empirical intuition is sensuous； and presents us with nothing but
phenomenal data； which do not assist the object of pure
consciousness in its attempt to cognize itself as a separate
existence； but are useful only as contributions to experience。
But； let it be granted that we could discover； not in experience；
but in certain firmly…established a priori laws of the use of pure
reason… laws relating to our existence； authority to consider
ourselves as legislating a priori in relation to our own existence and
as determining this existence； we should； on this supposition； find
ourselves possessed of a spontaneity； by which our actual existence
would be determinable； without the aid of the conditions of
empirical intuition。 We should also bee aware that in the
consciousness of our existence there was an a priori content； which
would serve to determine our own existence… an existence only
sensuously determinable… relatively； however； to a certain internal
faculty in relation to an intelligible world。
But this would not give the least help to the attempts of rational
psychology。 For this wonderful faculty； which the consciousness of the
moral law in me reveals； would present me with a principle of the
determination of my own existence which is purely intellectual… but by
what predicates？ By none other than those which are given in
sensuous intuition。 Thus I should find myself in the same position
in rational psychology which I formerly occupied； that is to say； I
should find myself still in need of sensuous intuitions； in order to
give significance to my conceptions of substance and cause； by means
of which alone I can possess a knowledge of myself： but these
intuitions can never raise me above the sphere of experience。 I should
be justified； however； in applying these conceptions； in regard to
their practical use； which is always directed to objects of
experience… in conformity with their analogical significance when
employed theoretically… to freedom and its subject。 At the same
time； I should understand by them merely the logical functions of
subject and predicate； of principle and consequence； in conformity
with which all actions are so determined； that they are capable of
being explained along with the laws of nature； conformably to the
categories of substance and cause； although they originate from a very
different principle。 We have made these observations for the purpose
of guarding against misunderstanding； to which the doctrine of our
intuition of self as a phenomenon is exposed。 We shall have occasion
to perceive their utility in the sequel。
CHAPTER II。 The Antinomy of Pure Reason。
We showed in the introduction to this part of our work； that all
transcendental illusion of pure reason arose from dialectical
arguments； the schema of which logic gives us in its three formal
species of syllogisms… just as the categories find their logical
schema in the four functions of all judgements。 The first kind of
these sophistical arguments related to the unconditioned unity of
the subjective conditions of all representations in general （of the
subject or soul）； in correspondence with the categorical syllogisms；
the major of which； as the principle； enounces the relation of a
predicate to a subject。 The second kind of dialectical argument will
therefore be concerned； following the analogy with hypothetical
syllogisms； with the unconditioned unity of the objective conditions
in the phenomenon； and； in this way； the theme of the third kind to be
treated of in the following chapter will be the unconditioned unity of
the objective conditions of the possibility of objects in general。
But it is worthy of remark that the transcendental paralogism
produced in the mind only a one…third illusion； in regard to the
idea of the subject of our thought； and the conceptions of reason gave
no ground to maintain the contrary proposition。