absurd。 But I cannot believe that there is any justice in this
accusation。 The first of these propositions I shall presently consider
in a more detailed manner。 With regard to the others； if by the word
of God he understood merely the Universe； his meaning must have
been… that it cannot be permanently present in one place… that is；
at rest… nor be capable of changing its place… that is； of moving…
because all places are in the universe； and the universe itself is；
therefore； in no place。 Again； if the universe contains in itself
everything that exists； it cannot be similar or dissimilar to any
other thing； because there is； in fact； no other thing with which it
can be pared。 If two opposite judgements presuppose a contingent
impossible； or arbitrary condition； both… in spite of their opposition
（which is； however； not properly or really a contradiction）… fall
away； because the condition； which ensured the validity of both； has
itself disappeared。
If we say： 〃Everybody has either a good or a bad smell；〃 we have
omitted a third possible judgement… it has no smell at all； and thus
both conflicting statements may be false。 If we say： 〃It is either
good…smelling or not good…smelling （vel suaveolens vel
non…suaveolens）；〃 both judgements are contradictorily opposed； and the
contradictory opposite of the former judgement… some bodies are not
good…smelling… embraces also those bodies which have no smell at
all。 In the preceding pair of opposed judgements （per disparata）；
the contingent condition of the conception of body （smell） attached to
both conflicting statements； instead of having been omitted in the
latter； which is consequently not the contradictory opposite of the
former。
If； accordingly； we say： 〃The world is either infinite in extension；
or it is not infinite （non est infinitus）〃； and if the former
proposition is false； its contradictory opposite… the world is not
infinite… must be true。 And thus I should deny the existence of an
infinite； without； however affirming the existence of a finite
world。 But if we construct our proposition thus： 〃The world is
either infinite or finite （non…infinite）；〃 both statements may be
false。 For； in this case； we consider the world as per se determined
in regard to quantity； and while； in the one judgement； we deny its
infinite and consequently； perhaps； its independent existence； in
the other； we append to the world； regarded as a thing in itself； a
certain determination… that of finitude； and the latter may be false
as well as the former； if the world is not given as a thing in itself；
and thus neither as finite nor as infinite in quantity。 This kind of
opposition I may be allowed to term dialectical； that of
contradictories may be called analytical opposition。 Thus then； of two
dialectically opposed judgements both may be false； from the fact；
that the one is not a mere contradictory of the other； but actually
enounces more than is requisite for a full and plete contradiction。
When we regard the two propositions… 〃The world is infinite in
quantity；〃 and； 〃The world is finite in quantity；〃 as contradictory
opposites； we are assuming that the world… the plete series of
phenomena… is a thing in itself。 For it remains as a permanent
quantity； whether I deny the infinite or the finite regress in the
series of its phenomena。 But if we dismiss this assumption… this
transcendental illusion… and deny that it is a thing in itself； the
contradictory opposition is metamorphosed into a merely dialectical
one； and the world； as not existing in itself… independently of the
regressive series of my representations… exists in like manner neither
as a whole which is infinite nor as a whole which is finite in itself。
The universe exists for me only in the empirical regress of the series
of phenomena and not per se。 If； then； it is always conditioned； it is
never pletely or as a whole； and it is； therefore； not an
unconditioned whole and does not exist as such； either with an
infinite； or with a finite quantity。
What we have here said of the first cosmological idea… that of the
absolute totality of quantity in phenomena… applies also to the
others。 The series of conditions is discoverable only in the
regressive synthesis itself； and not in the phenomenon considered as a
thing in itself… given prior to all regress。 Hence I am pelled to
say： 〃The aggregate of parts in a given phenomenon is in itself
neither finite nor infinite； and these parts are given only in the
regressive synthesis of deposition… a synthesis which is never
given in absolute pleteness； either as finite； or as infinite。〃 The
same is the case with the series of subordinated causes； or of the
conditioned up to the unconditioned and necessary existence； which can
never be regarded as in itself； ind in its totality； either as
finite or as infinite； because； as a series of subordinate
representations； it subsists only in the dynamical regress and
cannot be regarded as existing previously to this regress； or as a
self…subsistent series of things。
Thus the antinomy of pure reason in its cosmological ideas
disappears。 For the above demonstration has established the fact
that it is merely the product of a dialectical and illusory
opposition； which arises from the application of the idea of
absolute totality… admissible only as a condition of things in
themselves… to phenomena； which exist only in our representations；
and… when constituting a series… in a successive regress。 This
antinomy of reason may； however； be really profitable to our
speculative interests； not in the way of contributing any dogmatical
addition； but as presenting to us another material support in our
critical investigations。 For it furnishes us with an indirect proof of
the transcendental ideality of phenomena； if our minds were not
pletely satisfied with the direct proof set forth in the
Trancendental Aesthetic。 The proof would proceed in the following
dilemma。 If the world is a whole existing in itself； it must be either
finite or infinite。 But it is neither finite nor infinite… as has been
shown； on the one side； by the thesis； on the other； by the
antithesis。 Therefore the world… the content of all phenomena… is
not a whole existing in itself。 It follows that phenomena are nothing；
apart from our representations。 And this is what we mean by
transcendental ideality。
This remark is of some importance。 It enables us to see that the
proofs of the fourfold antinomy are not mere sophistries… are not
fallacious； but grounded on the nature of reason； and valid… under the
supposition that phenomena are things in themselves。 The opposition of
the judgements which follow makes it evident that a fallacy lay in the
initial supposition； and thus helps us to discover the true
constitution of objects of sense。 This transcendental dialectic does
not favour scepticism； although it presents us with a triumphant
demonstration of the advantages of the sceptical method； the great
utility of which is apparent in the antinomy； where the arguments of
reason were allowed to confront each other in undiminished force。
And although the result of these conflicts of reason is not what we
expected… although we have obtained no positive dogmatical addition to
metaphysical science… we have still reaped a great advantage in the
correction of our judgements on these subjects of thought。
SECTION VIII。 Regulative Principle of Pure Reason in relation
to the Cosmological Ideas。
The cosmological principle of totality could not give us any certain
knowledge in regard to the maximum in the series of conditions in
the world of sense； considered as a thing in itself。 The actual
regress in the series is the only means of approaching this maximum。
This principle of pure reason； therefore； may still be considered as
valid… not as an axiom enabling us to cogitate totality in the
object as actual； but as a problem for the understanding； which
requires it to institute and to continue； in conformity with the
idea of totality in the mind； the regress in the series of the
conditions of a given conditioned。 For in the world of sense； that is；
in space and time； every condition which we discover in our
investigation of phenomena is itself conditioned； because sensuous
objects are not things in themselves （in which case an absolutely
unconditioned might be reached in the progress of cognition）； but
are merely empirical representations the conditions of which must
always be found in intuition。 The principle of reason is therefore
properly a mere rule… prescribing a regress in the series of
conditions for given phenomena； and prohibiting any pause or rest on
an absolutely unconditioned。 It is； therefore； not a principle of
the possibility of experience or of the empirical cognition of
sensuous objects… consequently not a principle of the understanding；
for every experience is confined within certain proper limits
determined by the given intuition。 Still less is it a constitutive
principle of reason authorizing us to extend our conception of the
sensuous world beyond all possible experience。 It is merely a
principle for the enlargement and extension of experience as f