totality of the content of existing things； and we are directing our
attention only to the pleteness 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
particular importance； but we shall afterwards find it to be of some
value。
SECTION II。 Antithetic of Pure Reason。
Thetic is the term applied to every collection of dogmatical
propositions。 By antithetic I do not understand dogmatical
assertions of the opposite； but the self…contradiction of seemingly
dogmatical cognitions （thesis cum antithesis； in none of which we
can discover any decided superiority。 Antithetic is not； therefore；
occupied with one…sided statements； but is engaged in considering
the contradictory nature of the general cognitions of reason and its
causes。 Transcendental antithetic is an investigation into the
antinomy of pure reason； its causes and result。 If we employ our
reason not merely in the application of the principles of the
understanding to objects of experience； but venture with it beyond
these boundaries； there arise certain sophistical propositions or
theorems。 These assertions have the following peculiarities： They
can find neither confirmation nor confutation in experience； and
each is in itself not only self…consistent； but possesses conditions
of its necessity in the very nature of reason… only that； unluckily；
there exist just as valid and necessary grounds for maintaining the
contrary proposition。
The questions which naturally arise in the consideration of this
dialectic of pure reason； are therefore： 1st。 In what propositions
is pure reason unavoidably subject to an antinomy？ 2nd。 What are the
causes of this antinomy？ 3rd。 Whether and in what way can reason
free itself from this self…contradiction？
A dialectical proposition or theorem of pure reason must；
according to what has been said； be distinguishable from all
sophistical propositions； by the fact that it is not an answer to an
arbitrary question； which may be raised at the mere pleasure of any
person； but to one which human reason must necessarily encounter in
its progress。 In the second place； a dialectical proposition； with its
opposite； does not carry the appearance of a merely artificial
illusion； which disappears as soon as it is investigated； but a
natural and unavoidable illusion； which； even when we are no longer
deceived by it； continues to mock us and； although rendered
harmless； can never be pletely removed。
This dialectical doctrine will not relate to the unity of
understanding in empirical conceptions； but to the unity of reason
in pure ideas。 The conditions of this doctrine are… inasmuch as it
must； as a synthesis according to rules； be conformable to the
understanding； and at the same time as the absolute unity of the
synthesis； to the reason… that； if it is adequate to the unity of
reason； it is too great for the understanding； if according with the
understanding； it is too small for the reason。 Hence arises a mutual
opposition； which cannot be avoided； do what we will。
These sophistical assertions of dialectic open； as it were； a
battle…field； where that side obtains the victory which has been
permitted to make the attack； and he is pelled to yield who has
been unfortunately obliged to stand on the defensive。 And hence；
champions of ability； whether on the right or on the wrong side； are
certain to carry away the crown of victory； if they only take care
to have the right to make the last attack； and are not obliged to
sustain another onset from their opponent。 We can easily believe
that this arena has been often trampled by the feet of batants；
that many victories have been obtained on both sides； but that the
last victory； decisive of the affair between the contending parties；
was won by him who fought for the right； only if his adversary was
forbidden to continue the tourney。 As impartial umpires； we must lay
aside entirely the consideration whether the batants are fighting
for the right or for the wrong side； for the true or for the false；
and allow the bat to be first decided。 Perhaps； after they have
wearied more than injured each other； they will discover the
nothingness of their cause of quarrel and part good friends。
This method of watching； or rather of originating； a conflict of
assertions； not for the purpose of finally deciding in favour of
either side； but to discover whether the object of the struggle is not
a mere illusion； which each strives in vain to reach； but which
would be no gain even when reached… this procedure； I say； may be
termed the sceptical method。 It is thoroughly distinct from
scepticism… the principle of a technical and scientific ignorance；
which undermines the foundations of all knowledge； in order； if
possible； to destroy our belief and confidence therein。 For the
sceptical method aims at certainty； by endeavouring to discover in a
conflict of this kind； conducted honestly and intelligently on both
sides； the point of misunderstanding； just as wise legislators derive；
from the embarrassment of judges in lawsuits； information in regard to
the defective and ill…defined parts of their statutes。 The antinomy
which reveals itself in the application of laws； is for our limited
wisdom the best criterion of legislation。 For the attention of reason；
which in abstract speculation does not easily bee conscious of
its errors； is thus roused to the momenta in the determination of
its principles。
But this sceptical method is essentially peculiar to
transcendental philosophy； and can perhaps be dispensed with in
every other field of investigation。 In mathematics its use would be
absurd； because in it no false assertions can long remain hidden；
inasmuch as its demonstrations must always proceed under the
guidance of pure intuition； and by means of an always evident
synthesis。 In experimental philosophy； doubt and delay may be very
useful； but no misunderstanding is possible； which cannot be easily
removed； and in experience means of solving the difficulty and putting
an end to the dissension must at last be found； whether sooner or
later。 Moral philosophy can always exhibit its principles； with
their practical consequences； in concreto… at least in possible
experiences； and thus escape the mistakes and ambiguities of
abstraction。 But transcendental propositions； which lay claim to
insight beyond the region of possible experience； cannot； on the one
hand； exhibit their abstract synthesis in any a priori intuition； nor；
on the other； expose a lurking error by the help of experience。
Transcendental reason； therefore； presents us with no other
criterion than that of an attempt to reconcile such assertions； and
for this purpose to permit a free and unrestrained conflict between
them。 And this we now proceed to arrange。*
*The antinomies stand in the order of the four transcendental
ideas above detailed。
FIRST CONFLICT OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS。
THESIS。
The world has a beginning in time； and is also limited in
regard to space。
PROOF。
Granted that the world has no beginning in time； up to every given
moment of time； an eternity must have elapsed； and therewith passed
away an infinite series of successive conditions or states of things
in the world。 Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact that
it never can be pleted by means of a successive synthesis。 It
follows that an infinite series already elapsed is impossible and
that； consequently； a beginning of the world is a necessary
condition of its existence。 And this was the first thing to be proved。
As regards the second； let us take the opposite for granted。 In this
case； the world must be an infinite given total of coexistent
things。 Now we cannot cogitate the dimensions of a quantity； which
is not given within certain limits of an intuition；* in any other
way than by means of the synthesis of its parts； and the total of such
a quantity only by means of a pleted synthesis； or the repeated
addition of unity to itself。 Accordingly； to cogitate the world； which
fills all spaces； as a whole； the successive synthesis of the parts of
an infinite world must be looked upon as pleted； that is to say； an
infinite time must be regarded as having elapsed in the enumeration of
all co…existing things； which is impossible。 For this reason an
infinite aggregate of actual things cannot be considered as a given
whole； consequently； not as a contemporaneously given