and not only so； but we must assume the existence of such a being。 But
do we thus extend the limits of our knowledge beyond the field of
possible experience？ By no means。 For we have merely presupposed a
something； of which we have no conception； which we do not know as
it is in itself； but； in relation to the systematic disposition of the
universe； which we must presuppose in all our observation of nature；
we have cogitated this unknown being in analogy with an intelligent
existence （an empirical conception）； that is to say； we have endowed
it with those attributes； which； judging from the nature of our own
reason； may contain the ground of such a systematic unity。 This idea
is therefore valid only relatively to the employment in experience
of our reason。 But if we attribute to it absolute and objective
validity； we overlook the fact that it is merely an ideal being that
we cogitate； and； by setting out from a basis which is not
determinable by considerations drawn from experience； we place
ourselves in a position which incapacitates us from applying this
principle to the empirical employment of reason。
But； it will be asked further； can I make any use of this conception
and hypothesis in my investigations into the world and nature？ Yes；
for this very purpose was the idea established by reason as a
fundamental basis。 But may I regard certain arrangements； which seemed
to have been made in conformity with some fixed aim； as the
arrangements of design； and look upon them as proceeding from the
divine will； with the intervention； however； of certain other
particular arrangements disposed to that end？ Yes； you may do so；
but at the same time you must regard it as indifferent； whether it
is asserted that divine wisdom has disposed all things in conformity
with his highest aims； or that the idea of supreme wisdom is a
regulative principle in the investigation of nature； and at the same
time a principle of the systematic unity of nature according to
general laws； even in those cases where we are unable to discover that
unity。 In other words； it must be perfectly indifferent to you whether
you say； when you have discovered this unity： God has wisely willed it
so； or： Nature has wisely arranged this。 For it was nothing but the
systematic unity； which reason requires as a basis for the
investigation of nature； that justified you in accepting the idea of a
supreme intelligence as a schema for a regulative principle； and；
the farther you advance in the discovery of design and finality； the
more certain the validity of your idea。 But； as the whole aim of
this regulative principle was the discovery of a necessary and
systematic unity in nature； we have； in so far as we attain this； to
attribute our success to the idea of a Supreme Being； while； at the
same time； we cannot； without involving ourselves in contradictions；
overlook the general laws of nature； as it was in reference to them
alone that this idea was employed。 We cannot； I say； overlook the
general laws of nature； and regard this conformity to aims
observable in nature as contingent or hyperphysical in its origin；
inasmuch as there is no ground which can justify us in the admission
of a being with such properties distinct from and above nature。 All
that we are authorized to assert is that this idea may be employed
as a principle； and that the properties of the being which is
assumed to correspond to it may be regarded as systematically
connected in analogy with the causal determination of phenomena。
For the same reasons we are justified in introducing into the idea
of the supreme cause other anthropomorphic elements （for without these
we could not predicate anything of it）； we may regard it as
allowable to cogitate this cause as a being with understanding； the
feelings of pleasure and displeasure； and faculties of desire and will
corresponding to these。 At the same time； we may attribute to this
being infinite perfection… a perfection which necessarily transcends
that which our knowledge of the order and design in the world
authorize us to predicate of it。 For the regulative law of
systematic unity requires us to study nature on the supposition that
systematic and final unity in infinitum is everywhere discoverable；
even in the highest diversity。 For； although we may discover little of
this cosmical perfection； it belongs to the legislative prerogative of
reason to require us always to seek for and to expect it； while it
must always be beneficial to institute all inquiries into nature in
accordance with this principle。 But it is evident that； by this idea
of a supreme author of all； which I place as the foundation of all
inquiries into nature； I do not mean to assert the existence of such a
being； or that I have any knowledge of its existence； and；
consequently； I do not really deduce anything from the existence of
this being； but merely from its idea； that is to say； from the
nature of things in this world； in accordance with this idea。 A
certain dim consciousness of the true use of this idea seems to have
dictated to the philosophers of all times the moderate language used
by them regarding the cause of the world。 We find them employing the
expressions wisdom and care of nature； and divine wisdom； as
synonymous… nay； in purely speculative discussions； preferring the
former； because it does not carry the appearance of greater
pretensions than such as we are entitled to make； and at the same time
directs reason to its proper field of action… nature and her
phenomena。
Thus； pure reason； which at first seemed to promise us nothing
less than the extension of our cognition beyond the limits of
experience； is found； when thoroughly examined； to contain nothing but
regulative principles； the virtue and function of which is to
introduce into our cognition a higher degree of unity than the
understanding could of itself。 These principles； by placing the goal
of all our struggles at so great a distance； realize for us the most
thorough connection between the different parts of our cognition；
and the highest degree of systematic unity。 But； on the other hand； if
misunderstood and employed as constitutive principles of
transcendent cognition； they bee the parents of illusions and
contradictions； while pretending to introduce us to new regions of
knowledge。
Thus all human cognition begins with intuitions； proceeds from
thence to conceptions； and ends with ideas。 Although it possesses；
in relation to all three elements； a priori sources of cognition；
which seemed to transcend the limits of all experience； a
thoroughgoing criticism demonstrates that speculative reason can
never； by the aid of these elements； pass the bounds of possible
experience； and that the proper destination of this highest faculty of
cognition is to employ all methods； and all the principles of these
methods； for the purpose of penetrating into the innermost secrets
of nature； by the aid of the principles of unity （among all kinds of
which teleological unity is the highest）； while it ought not to
attempt to soar above the sphere of experience； beyond which there
lies nought for us but the void inane。 The critical examination； in
our Transcendental Analytic； of all the propositions which professed
to extend cognition beyond the sphere of experience； pletely
demonstrated that they can only conduct us to a possible experience。
If we were not distrustful even of the clearest abstract theorems；
if we were not allured by specious and inviting prospects to escape
from the constraining power of their evidence； we might spare
ourselves the laborious examination of all the dialectical arguments
which a transcendent reason adduces in support of its pretensions； for
we should know with the most plete certainty that； however honest
such professions might be； they are null and valueless； because they
relate to a kind of knowledge to which no man can by any possibility
attain。 But； as there is no end to discussion； if we cannot discover
the true cause of the illusions by which even the wisest are deceived；
and as the analysis of all our transcendent cognition into its
elements is of itself of no slight value as a