related to a condition； and； if this condition is itself
conditioned； to another condition… and so on through all the members
of the series。 This proposition is； therefore； analytical and has
nothing to fear from transcendental criticism。 It is a logical
postulate of reason： to pursue； as far as possible； the connection
of a conception with its conditions。
If； in the second place； both the conditioned and the condition
are things in themselves； and if the former is given； not only is
the regress to the latter requisite； but the latter is really given
with the former。 Now； as this is true of all the members of the
series； the entire series of conditions； and with them the
unconditioned； is at the same time given in the very fact of the
conditioned； the existence of which is possible only in and through
that series； being given。 In this case； the synthesis of the
conditioned with its condition； is a synthesis of the understanding
merely； which represents things as they are； without regarding whether
and how we can cognize them。 But if I have to do with phenomena；
which； in their character of mere representations； are not given； if I
do not attain to a cognition of them （in other words； to themselves；
for they are nothing more than empirical cognitions）； I am not
entitled to say： 〃If the conditioned is given； all its conditions
（as phenomena） are also given。〃 I cannot； therefore； from the fact
of a conditioned being given； infer the absolute totality of the
series of its conditions。 For phenomena are nothing but an empirical
synthesis in apprehension or perception； and are therefore given
only in it。 Now； in speaking of phenomena it does not follow that；
if the conditioned is given； the synthesis which constitutes its
empirical condition is also thereby given and presupposed； such a
synthesis can be established only by an actual regress in the series
of conditions。 But we are entitled to say in this case that a
regress to the conditions of a conditioned； in other words； that a
continuous empirical synthesis is enjoined； that； if the conditions
are not given； they are at least required； and that we are certain
to discover the conditions in this regress。
We can now see that the major； in the above cosmological
syllogism； takes the conditioned in the transcendental signification
which it has in the pure category； while the minor speaks of it in the
empirical signification which it has in the category as applied to
phenomena。 There is； therefore； a dialectical fallacy in the
syllogism… a sophisma figurae dictionis。 But this fallacy is not a
consciously devised one； but a perfectly natural illusion of the
mon reason of man。 For； when a thing is given as conditioned； we
presuppose in the major its conditions and their series；
unperceived； as it were； and unseen； because this is nothing more than
the logical requirement of plete and satisfactory premisses for a
given conclusion。 In this case； time is altogether left out in the
connection of the conditioned with the condition； they are supposed to
be given in themselves； and contemporaneously。 It is； moreover； just
as natural to regard phenomena （in the minor） as things in
themselves and as objects presented to the pure understanding； as in
the major； in which plete abstraction was made of all conditions of
intuition。 But it is under these conditions alone that objects are
given。 Now we overlooked a remarkable distinction between the
conceptions。 The synthesis of the conditioned with its condition；
and the plete series of the latter （in the major） are not limited
by time； and do not contain the conception of succession。 On the
contrary； the empirical synthesis and the series of conditions in
the phenomenal world… subsumed in the minor… are necessarily
successive and given in time alone。 It follows that I cannot
presuppose in the minor； as I did in the major； the absolute
totality of the synthesis and of the series therein represented； for
in the major all the members of the series are given as things in
themselves… without any limitations or conditions of time； while in
the minor they are possible only in and through a successive
regress； which cannot exist； except it be actually carried into
execution in the world of phenomena。
After this proof of the viciousness of the argument monly
employed in maintaining cosmological assertions； both parties may
now be justly dismissed； as advancing claims without grounds or title。
But the process has not been ended by convincing them that one or both
were in the wrong and had maintained an assertion which was without
valid grounds of proof。 Nothing seems to be clearer than that； if
one maintains： 〃The world has a beginning；〃 and another： 〃The world
has no beginning；〃 one of the two must be right。 But it is likewise
clear that； if the evidence on both sides is equal； it is impossible
to discover on what side the truth lies； and the controversy
continues； although the parties have been remended to peace
before the tribunal of reason。 There remains； then； no other means
of settling the question than to convince the parties； who refute each
other with such conclusiveness and ability； that they are disputing
about nothing； and that a transcendental illusion has been mocking
them with visions of reality where there is none。 The mode of
adjusting a dispute which cannot be decided upon its own merits； we
shall now proceed to lay before our readers。
Zeno of Elea； a subtle dialectician； was severely reprimanded by
Plato as a sophist； who； merely from the base motive of exhibiting his
skill in discussion； maintained and subverted the same proposition
by arguments as powerful and convincing on the one side as on the
other。 He maintained； for example； that God （who was probably
nothing more； in his view； than the world） is neither finite nor
infinite； neither in motion nor in rest； neither similar nor
dissimilar to any other thing。 It seemed to those philosophers who
criticized his mode of discussion that his purpose was to deny
pletely both of two self…contradictory propositions… which is
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