The kantlipsum package Dummy text in Kantian style ∗
Enrico Gregorio
†Released 2019/07/23
1 Introduction
The kantlipsum package is modeled after lipsum and offers pretty similar functionality, but instead of pseudolatin utterances, it typesets paragraphs of nonsense in Kantian style produced by theKant generator for Pythonby Mark Pilgrim, found inDive into Python. It has at least one advantage overlipsum: the text is in English and so finding good hyphenation points should be less problematic. On the contrary, the paragraphs are rather long, as it’s common in philosophical prose.
2 Example
As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Ideal of practical reason is a representation of, as far as I know, the things in themselves; as I have shown elsewhere, the phenomena should only be used as a canon for our understanding. The paralogisms of practical reason are what first give rise to the architectonic of practical reason. As will easily be shown in the next section, reason would thereby be made to contradict, in view of these considerations, the Ideal of practical reason, yet the manifold depends on the phenomena.
Necessity depends on, when thus treated as the practical employment of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, time. Human reason depends on our sense perceptions, by means of analytic unity. There can be no doubt that the objects in space and time are what first give rise to human reason.
Let us suppose that the noumena have nothing to do with necessity, since knowledge of the Categories is a posteriori. Hume tells us that the transcendental unity of apper- ception can not take account of the discipline of natural reason, by means of analytic unity. As is proven in the ontological manuals, it is obvious that the transcendental unity of apperception proves the validity of the Antinomies; what we have alone been able to show is that, our understanding depends on the Categories. It remains a mystery why the Ideal stands in need of reason. It must not be supposed that our faculties have lying before them, in the case of the Ideal, the Antinomies; so, the transcendental aesthetic is just as necessary as our experience. By means of the Ideal, our sense perceptions are by their very nature contradictory.
∗This file describes version v0.8, last revised 2019/07/23.
†E-mail: Enrico DOT Gregorio AT univr DOT it
As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the things in themselves (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) are a representation of time. Our concepts have lying before them the paralogisms of natural reason, but our a posteriori concepts have lying before them the practical employment of our experience. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the paralogisms would thereby be made to contradict, indeed, space; for these reasons, the Transcendental Deduction has lying before it our sense perceptions.
(Our a posteriori knowledge can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like time, it depends on analytic principles.) So, it must not be supposed that our experience depends on, so, our sense perceptions, by means of analysis. Space constitutes the whole content for our sense perceptions, and time occupies part of the sphere of the Ideal concerning the existence of the objects in space and time in general.
3 Options
The package has four document options, the first two of which are alternative to each other:
par|nopar With the defaultparall pieces of text will be ended by a\parcommand; specifying paris optional; the optionnoparwill not add this\parat the end of each fragment of Kantian prose.
numbers Each piece of Kantian prose will be preceded by its number (such as in “1 • As any dedicated reader can clearly see. . . ”), which can be useful for better control of what is produced.
index Each paragraph will generate an index entry; a \makeindex command will be needed, with a suitable package for making the index, and\printindex for print- ing it. However the index entry may be off by one, since the \index command is issued at the beginning of the paragraph. Also there is no guarantee that the indexed word really belongs to the paragraph.
4 Commands
The commands provided by the package are:
\kant This command takes an optional argument which can be of the form [42] (that is, only one integer) or[3-14](that is, two integers separated by a hyphen); as in lipsum,\kant[42],\kant[3-14] and\kant will produce the 42nd pseudokantian paragraph, the paragraphs from the 3rd to the 14th, and those from the 1st to the 7th, respectively.
\kant* The same as before, see later for the difference.
\kantdef This command takes two arguments, a control sequence and an integer; the call
\kantdef{\mytext}{164}will store in\mytextthe 164th paragraph of pseudokan- tian text provided by this package.
The commands \kant, \kant* and \kantdef take a further optional argument; with
\kant[42][1-3] just the first three sentences of paragraph number 42 will be printed;
ranges outside the actual number of sentences will be ignored. The requested sentences are stored, in the case of\kantdef.
What’s the difference between\kantand \kant*? The normal version will respect the given package option; that is, if paris in force, \kant[1-2]will produce twopara- graphs, while \kant*[1-2] will only produce a big chunk of text without issuing any
\parcommand. The logic is reversed if the noparoption has been given.
By the way, 164 is the number of available pieces; if one exceeds the limit, nothing will be printed. Thus\kant[164-200]will print onlyoneparagraph. However, printing all paragraphs with the standard ten point size Computer Modern font and the article class fills more than fifty pages, so it seems that the supply of text can be sufficient.
Note
This package is just an exercise for practicing with LATEX3 syntax. It uses the “experi- mental” packages made available by the LATEX3 team. Many thanks to Joseph Wright, Bruno Le Floch and Frank Mittelbach for suggesting improvements.
Changes from version 0.1
There’s no user level change; the implementation has been modified in some places (in particular a sequence is used to store the phrases, rather than many token lists).
Changes from version 0.5
Some changes in LATEX3 introduced some misfeatures, which this version corrects. Some kernel function names were also changed; here\prg_stepwise_function:nnnNthat be- came\int_step_function:nnnN. Some functions have been madeprotected.
The most striking change is the possibility to generate an index: each paragraph indexes one of its words or phrases.
Changes from version 0.6
Maintenance release with new functions fromexpl3. Now a kernel released on 2017/11/14 or later is required.
Changes from version 0.7
Printing just some sentences in a paragraph is possible. Now a kernel released on 2019/07/01 or later is required.
Changes from version 0.8
Added a missing\@@par:
5 kantlipsum implementation
1 h*packagei
2 h@@=kgli
3 \ProvidesExplPackage
4 {kantlipsum}
5 {2019/07/23}
6 {0.8}
7 {Generate text in Kantian style}
A check to make sure thatexpl3is not too old
8 \@ifpackagelater { expl3 } { 2019/07/01 }
9 { }
10 {
11 \PackageError { kantlipsum } { Support~package~expl3~too~old }
12 {
13 You~need~to~update~your~installation~of~the~bundles~
14 ’l3kernel’~and~’l3packages’.\MessageBreak
15 Loading~kantlipsum~will~abort!
16 }
17 \tex_endinput:D
18 }
5.1 Package options and required packages
We declare the allowed options and choose by default par. We also need to declare a function\@@_number:nthat is set by thenumbersoption; its default action is to gobble its argument.
19 \DeclareOption { par }
20 {
21 \cs_set_protected:Nn \__kgl_star: { \c_space_tl }
22 \cs_set_protected:Nn \__kgl_nostar: { \par }
23 }
24
25 \DeclareOption{ nopar }
26 {
27 \cs_set_protected:Nn \__kgl_star: { \par }
28 \cs_set_protected:Nn \__kgl_nostar: { \c_space_tl }
29 }
30
31 \DeclareOption{ numbers }
32 {
33 \cs_set_protected:Nn \__kgl_number:n
34 {
35 #1\nobreak\enspace\textbullet\nobreak\enspace
36 }
37 }
38
39 \bool_new:N \g__kgl_makeindex_bool
40 \bool_gset_false:N \g__kgl_makeindex_bool
41 \DeclareOption{ index }
42 { \bool_gset_true:N \g__kgl_makeindex_bool }
43
44 \cs_new_eq:NN \__kgl_number:n \use_none:n
45 \ExecuteOptions{par}
46 \ProcessOptions \scan_stop:
5.2 Messages
We define two messages.
47 \msg_new:nnn {kantlipsum}{how-many}
48 {The~package~provides~paragraphs~1~to~#1.~
49 Values~outside~this~range~will~be~ignored.}
50 \msg_new:nnnn {kantlipsum}{already-defined}
51 {Control~sequence~#1~already~defined.}
52 {The~control~sequence~#1~is~already~defined,~
53 I’ll~ignore~it}
5.3 Variables and constants
The \l_@@_start_int variable will contain the starting number for processing, while
\l_@@_end_int the ending number. The \g_@@_pars_seq sequence will contain the pseudokantian sentences and\g_@@_words_seqthat contains the words to index.
54 \int_new:N \l__kgl_start_int
55 \int_new:N \l__kgl_end_int
56 \seq_new:N \g__kgl_pars_seq
57 \seq_new:N \g__kgl_words_seq
58 \seq_new:N \l__kgl_sentences_seq
5.4 User level commands
There are two user level commands,\kant (with a *-variant) and\kantdef.
The (optional) argument is described as before. We use the \SplitArgument feature provided byxparseto decide whether the ‘range form’ has been specified. In the\kant*
form we reverse the logic.
59 \NewDocumentCommand{\kant}
60 {
61 s
62 >{\SplitArgument{1}{-}}O{1-7}
63 >{\SplitArgument{1}{-}}o}
64 {
65 \group_begin:
66 \IfBooleanTF{#1}
67 { \cs_set_eq:NN \__kgl_par: \__kgl_star: }
68 { \cs_set_eq:NN \__kgl_par: \__kgl_nostar: }
69 \IfNoValueTF{#3}
70 { \__kgl_process:nn #2 \__kgl_print: }
71 { \__kgl_process:nnnn #2 #3 \tl_use:N \l_tmpa_tl \__kgl_par: }
72 \group_end:
73 }
\kant
Sometimes one needs just a piece of text without implicit\par attached, so we provide
\kantdef. In a group we neutralize the meaning of \@@_number:n and \@@_par:and define the control sequence given as first argument to the pseudokantian sentence being thekth element of the sequence containing them, wherekis the number given as second argument. If the control sequence is already defined we issue an error and don’t perform the definition.
74 \NewDocumentCommand{\kantdef}
75 {
76 m
77 m
78 >{\SplitArgument{1}{-}}O{1-50}
79 }
80 {
81 \group_begin:
82 \__kgl_define:nnnn {#1} {#2} #3
83 \group_end:
84 }
\kantdef
5.5 Internal functions
The function \@@_process:nn sets the temporary variables \l_@@_start_int and
\l_@@_end_int. If the optional argument to \kant is missing they are already set to 1 and 7 respectively; otherwise the argument has been split into its components; if the argument was[m]we set both variables tom, otherwise it was in the form[m-n]and we do the obvious action.
85 \cs_new_protected:Nn \__kgl_process:nn
86 {
87 \int_set:Nn \l__kgl_start_int {#1}
88 \tl_if_novalue:nTF {#2}
89 { \int_set:Nn \l__kgl_end_int {#1} }
90 { \int_set:Nn \l__kgl_end_int {#2} }
91 }
92 \cs_new_protected:Nn \__kgl_process:nnnn
93 {
94 \tl_set:Nx \l_tmpa_tl { \seq_item:Nn \g__kgl_pars_seq {#1} }
95 \tl_if_novalue:nTF {#4}
96 { \__kgl_extract:nnV {#3} {#3} \l_tmpa_tl }
97 { \__kgl_extract:nnV {#3} {#4} \l_tmpa_tl }
98 }
\__kgl_process:nn
The printing routine is in the function\@@_print:; we start a loop printing item number xin the sequence\g_@@_pars_seqfor all numbersxin the specified range. The function
\@@_use:nfunction is a wrapper to be used with\int_step_function:nnnN: it’s passed a number as argument, builds the constant name corresponding to it and produces the text. If the index entry is to be issued, the appropriate element from\g_@@_words_seq is used; the page reference might not be correct, though.
99 \cs_new_protected:Nn \__kgl_print:
100 {
101 \int_step_function:nnnN
102 {\l__kgl_start_int} {1} {\l__kgl_end_int} \__kgl_use:n
103 }
104 \cs_new:Nn \__kgl_use:n
105 {
106 \int_compare:nNnF { #1 } > { \seq_count:N \g__kgl_pars_seq }
107 { \__kgl_number:n {#1} }
108 \bool_if:NT \g__kgl_makeindex_bool
109 {
110 \use:x { \exp_not:N \index{ \seq_item:Nn \g__kgl_words_seq {#1} } }
111 }
112 \seq_item:Nn \g__kgl_pars_seq {#1}
113 }
\__kgl_print:
\__kgl_use:n
The\@@_newpara:nappends a new item to the sequence\g_@@_pars_seqconsisting of, say,htext of the 42nd sentencei\@@_par:
114 \cs_new_protected:Nn \__kgl_newpara:n
115 { \seq_gput_right:Nn \g__kgl_pars_seq {#1\__kgl_par:} }
\__kgl_newpara:n
The \@@_newword:n function appends a new item to the sequence \g_@@_words_seq consisting of one word from the corresponding paragraph.
116 \cs_new_protected:Nn \__kgl_newword:n
117 { \seq_gput_right:Nn \g__kgl_words_seq {#1} }
\__kgl_newword:n
The function \@@define:nnnnchooses the paragraph, then extracts the requested sen- tences.
118 \cs_new_protected:Nn \__kgl_define:nnnn
119 {
120 \cs_set_eq:NN \__kgl_number:n \use_none:n
121 \cs_set_eq:NN \__kgl_par: \prg_do_nothing:
122 \cs_if_exist:NTF #1
123 {
124 \msg_error:nnn {kantlipsum} {already-defined} {#1}
125 }
126 {
127 \tl_set:Nx \l_tmpa_tl { \seq_item:Nn \g__kgl_pars_seq {#2} }
128 \tl_if_novalue:nTF {#4}
129 { \__kgl_extract:nnV {#3} {#3} \l_tmpa_tl }
130 { \__kgl_extract:nnV {#3} {#4} \l_tmpa_tl }
131 \cs_new:Npx #1 { \l_tmpa_tl }
132 }
133 }
\__kgldefine:nnnn
This function does the extraction by splitting the input at periods and then adding the requested sentences to another sequence that later can be used.
134 \cs_new_protected:Nn \__kgl_extract:nnn
135 {
136 \seq_set_split:Nnn \l__kgl_sentences_seq { . } {#3}
137 \seq_clear:N \l_tmpa_seq
138 \seq_indexed_map_inline:Nn \l__kgl_sentences_seq
139 {
140 \int_compare:nT { #1 <= ##1 <= #2 }
141 {\seq_put_right:Nn \l_tmpa_seq { ##2 } }
142 }
143 \tl_set:Nx \l_tmpa_tl { \seq_use:Nn \l_tmpa_seq { .~ }. }
144 }
145 \cs_generate_variant:Nn \__kgl_extract:nnn { nnV }
\__kgl_extract:nnn
5.6 Defining the sentences
We start a group where we set the category code of the space to 10 so as not to be forced to write~for spaces.
146 \group_begin:
147 \char_set_catcode_space:n {‘\ }
Then we provide all of the sentences with the pattern\@@_newpara:n {htexti}
148 \__kgl_newpara:n {As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Ideal of
149 practical reason is a representation of, as far as I know, the things
150 in themselves; as I have shown elsewhere, the phenomena should only be
151 used as a canon for our understanding. The paralogisms of practical
152 reason are what first give rise to the architectonic of practical
153 reason. As will easily be shown in the next section, reason would
154 thereby be made to contradict, in view of these considerations, the
155 Ideal of practical reason, yet the manifold depends on the phenomena.
156 Necessity depends on, when thus treated as the practical employment of
157 the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, time.
158 Human reason depends on our sense perceptions, by means of analytic
159 unity. There can be no doubt that the objects in space and time are
160 what first give rise to human reason.}
161
162 \__kgl_newpara:n {Let us suppose that the noumena have nothing to do
163 with necessity, since knowledge of the Categories is a
164 posteriori. Hume tells us that the transcendental unity of
165 apperception can not take account of the discipline of natural reason,
166 by means of analytic unity. As is proven in the ontological manuals,
167 it is obvious that the transcendental unity of apperception proves the
168 validity of the Antinomies; what we have alone been able to show is
169 that, our understanding depends on the Categories. It remains a
170 mystery why the Ideal stands in need of reason. It must not be
171 supposed that our faculties have lying before them, in the case of the
172 Ideal, the Antinomies; so, the transcendental aesthetic is just as
173 necessary as our experience. By means of the Ideal, our sense
174 perceptions are by their very nature contradictory.}
175
176 \__kgl_newpara:n {As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the things
177 in themselves (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) are a
178 representation of time. Our concepts have lying before them the
179 paralogisms of natural reason, but our a posteriori concepts have
180 lying before them the practical employment of our experience. Because
181 of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the paralogisms would
182 thereby be made to contradict, indeed, space; for these reasons, the
183 Transcendental Deduction has lying before it our sense perceptions.
184 (Our a posteriori knowledge can never furnish a true and demonstrated
185 science, because, like time, it depends on analytic principles.) So,
186 it must not be supposed that our experience depends on, so, our sense
187 perceptions, by means of analysis. Space constitutes the whole content
188 for our sense perceptions, and time occupies part of the sphere of the
189 Ideal concerning the existence of the objects in space and time in
190 general.}
191
192 \__kgl_newpara:n {As we have already seen, what we have alone been able
193 to show is that the objects in space and time would be falsified; what
194 we have alone been able to show is that, our judgements are what first
195 give rise to metaphysics. As I have shown elsewhere, Aristotle tells
196 us that the objects in space and time, in the full sense of these
197 terms, would be falsified. Let us suppose that, indeed, our
198 problematic judgements, indeed, can be treated like our concepts. As
199 any dedicated reader can clearly see, our knowledge can be treated
200 like the transcendental unity of apperception, but the phenomena
201 occupy part of the sphere of the manifold concerning the existence of
202 natural causes in general. Whence comes the architectonic of natural
203 reason, the solution of which involves the relation between necessity
204 and the Categories? Natural causes (and it is not at all certain that
205 this is the case) constitute the whole content for the paralogisms.
206 This could not be passed over in a complete system of transcendental
207 philosophy, but in a merely critical essay the simple mention of the
208 fact may suffice.}
209
210 \__kgl_newpara:n {Therefore, we can deduce that the objects in space and
211 time (and I assert, however, that this is the case) have lying before
212 them the objects in space and time. Because of our necessary ignorance
213 of the conditions, it must not be supposed that, then, formal logic
214 (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is true) is a
215 representation of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
216 conditions, but the discipline of pure reason, in so far as this
217 expounds the contradictory rules of metaphysics, depends on the
218 Antinomies. By means of analytic unity, our faculties, therefore, can
219 never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because,
220 like the transcendental unity of apperception, they constitute the
221 whole content for a priori principles; for these reasons, our
222 experience is just as necessary as, in accordance with the principles
223 of our a priori knowledge, philosophy. The objects in space and time
224 abstract from all content of knowledge. Has it ever been suggested
225 that it remains a mystery why there is no relation between the
226 Antinomies and the phenomena? It must not be supposed that the
227 Antinomies (and it is not at all certain that this is the case) are
228 the clue to the discovery of philosophy, because of our necessary
229 ignorance of the conditions. As I have shown elsewhere, to avoid all
230 misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that our understanding
231 (and it must not be supposed that this is true) is what first gives
232 rise to the architectonic of pure reason, as is evident upon close
233 examination.}
234
235 \__kgl_newpara:n {The things in themselves are what first give rise to
236 reason, as is proven in the ontological manuals. By virtue of natural
237 reason, let us suppose that the transcendental unity of apperception
238 abstracts from all content of knowledge; in view of these
239 considerations, the Ideal of human reason, on the contrary, is the key
240 to understanding pure logic. Let us suppose that, irrespective of all
241 empirical conditions, our understanding stands in need of our
242 disjunctive judgements. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, pure
243 logic, in the case of the discipline of natural reason, abstracts from
244 all content of knowledge. Our understanding is a representation of, in
245 accordance with the principles of the employment of the paralogisms,
246 time. I assert, as I have shown elsewhere, that our concepts can be
247 treated like metaphysics. By means of the Ideal, it must not be
248 supposed that the objects in space and time are what first give rise
249 to the employment of pure reason.}
250
251 \__kgl_newpara:n {As is evident upon close examination, to avoid all
252 misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, on the contrary, the
253 never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is a
254 representation of our inductive judgements, yet the things in
255 themselves prove the validity of, on the contrary, the Categories. It
256 remains a mystery why, indeed, the never-ending regress in the series
257 of empirical conditions exists in philosophy, but the employment of
258 the Antinomies, in respect of the intelligible character, can never
259 furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the
260 architectonic of pure reason, it is just as necessary as problematic
261 principles. The practical employment of the objects in space and time
262 is by its very nature contradictory, and the thing in itself would
263 thereby be made to contradict the Ideal of practical reason. On the
264 other hand, natural causes can not take account of, consequently, the
265 Antinomies, as will easily be shown in the next section.
266 Consequently, the Ideal of practical reason (and I assert that this is
267 true) excludes the possibility of our sense perceptions. Our
268 experience would thereby be made to contradict, for example, our
269 ideas, but the transcendental objects in space and time (and let us
270 suppose that this is the case) are the clue to the discovery of
271 necessity. But the proof of this is a task from which we can here be
272 absolved.}
273
274 \__kgl_newpara:n {Thus, the Antinomies exclude the possibility of, on
275 the other hand, natural causes, as will easily be shown in the next
276 section. Still, the reader should be careful to observe that the
277 phenomena have lying before them the intelligible objects in space and
278 time, because of the relation between the manifold and the noumena.
279 As is evident upon close examination, Aristotle tells us that, in
280 reference to ends, our judgements (and the reader should be careful to
281 observe that this is the case) constitute the whole content of the
282 empirical objects in space and time. Our experience, with the sole
283 exception of necessity, exists in metaphysics; therefore, metaphysics
284 exists in our experience. (It must not be supposed that the thing in
285 itself (and I assert that this is true) may not contradict itself, but
286 it is still possible that it may be in contradictions with the
287 transcendental unity of apperception; certainly, our judgements exist
288 in natural causes.) The reader should be careful to observe that,
289 indeed, the Ideal, on the other hand, can be treated like the noumena,
290 but natural causes would thereby be made to contradict the Antinomies.
291 The transcendental unity of apperception constitutes the whole content
292 for the noumena, by means of analytic unity.}
293
294 \__kgl_newpara:n {In all theoretical sciences, the paralogisms of human
295 reason would be falsified, as is proven in the ontological manuals.
296 The architectonic of human reason is what first gives rise to the
297 Categories. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the paralogisms
298 should only be used as a canon for our experience. What we have alone
299 been able to show is that, that is to say, our sense perceptions
300 constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must
301 be known a posteriori. Human reason occupies part of the sphere of
302 our experience concerning the existence of the phenomena in general.}
303
304 \__kgl_newpara:n {By virtue of natural reason, our ampliative judgements
305 would thereby be made to contradict, in all theoretical sciences, the
306 pure employment of the discipline of human reason. Because of our
307 necessary ignorance of the conditions, Hume tells us that the
308 transcendental aesthetic constitutes the whole content for, still, the
309 Ideal. By means of analytic unity, our sense perceptions, even as
310 this relates to philosophy, abstract from all content of knowledge.
311 With the sole exception of necessity, the reader should be careful to
312 observe that our sense perceptions exclude the possibility of the
313 never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, since
314 knowledge of natural causes is a posteriori. Let us suppose that the
315 Ideal occupies part of the sphere of our knowledge concerning the
316 existence of the phenomena in general.}
317
318 \__kgl_newpara:n {By virtue of natural reason, what we have alone been
319 able to show is that, in so far as this expounds the universal rules
320 of our a posteriori concepts, the architectonic of natural reason can
321 be treated like the architectonic of practical reason. Thus, our
322 speculative judgements can not take account of the Ideal, since none
323 of the Categories are speculative. With the sole exception of the
324 Ideal, it is not at all certain that the transcendental objects in
325 space and time prove the validity of, for example, the noumena, as is
326 shown in the writings of Aristotle. As we have already seen, our
327 experience is the clue to the discovery of the Antinomies; in the
328 study of pure logic, our knowledge is just as necessary as, thus,
329 space. By virtue of practical reason, the noumena, still, stand in
330 need to the pure employment of the things in themselves.}
331
332 \__kgl_newpara:n {The reader should be careful to observe that the
333 objects in space and time are the clue to the discovery of, certainly,
334 our a priori knowledge, by means of analytic unity. Our faculties
335 abstract from all content of knowledge; for these reasons, the
336 discipline of human reason stands in need of the transcendental
337 aesthetic. There can be no doubt that, insomuch as the Ideal relies
338 on our a posteriori concepts, philosophy, when thus treated as the
339 things in themselves, exists in our hypothetical judgements, yet our a
340 posteriori concepts are what first give rise to the phenomena.
341 Philosophy (and I assert that this is true) excludes the possibility
342 of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, as
343 will easily be shown in the next section. Still, is it true that the
344 transcendental aesthetic can not take account of the objects in space
345 and time, or is the real question whether the phenomena should only be
346 used as a canon for the never-ending regress in the series of
347 empirical conditions? By means of analytic unity, the Transcendental
348 Deduction, still, is the mere result of the power of the
349 Transcendental Deduction, a blind but indispensable function of the
350 soul, but our faculties abstract from all content of a posteriori
351 knowledge. It remains a mystery why, then, the discipline of human
352 reason, in other words, is what first gives rise to the transcendental
353 aesthetic, yet our faculties have lying before them the architectonic
354 of human reason.}
355
356 \__kgl_newpara:n {However, we can deduce that our experience (and it
357 must not be supposed that this is true) stands in need of our
358 experience, as we have already seen. On the other hand, it is not at
359 all certain that necessity is a representation of, by means of the
360 practical employment of the paralogisms of practical reason, the
361 noumena. In all theoretical sciences, our faculties are what first
362 give rise to natural causes. To avoid all misapprehension, it is
363 necessary to explain that our ideas can never, as a whole, furnish a
364 true and demonstrated science, because, like the Ideal of natural
365 reason, they stand in need to inductive principles, as is shown in the
366 writings of Galileo. As I have elsewhere shown, natural causes, in
367 respect of the intelligible character, exist in the objects in space
368 and time.}
369
370 \__kgl_newpara:n {Our ideas, in the case of the Ideal of pure reason,
371 are by their very nature contradictory. The objects in space and time
372 can not take account of our understanding, and philosophy excludes the
373 possibility of, certainly, space. I assert that our ideas, by means
374 of philosophy, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of
375 this body must be known a posteriori, by means of analysis. It must
376 not be supposed that space is by its very nature contradictory. Space
377 would thereby be made to contradict, in the case of the manifold, the
378 manifold. As is proven in the ontological manuals, Aristotle tells us
379 that, in accordance with the principles of the discipline of human
380 reason, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions
381 has lying before it our experience. This could not be passed over in
382 a complete system of transcendental philosophy, but in a merely
383 critical essay the simple mention of the fact may suffice.}
384
385 \__kgl_newpara:n {Since knowledge of our faculties is a posteriori, pure
386 logic teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, indeed,
387 the architectonic of human reason. As we have already seen, we can
388 deduce that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the Ideal of
389 human reason is what first gives rise to, indeed, natural causes, yet
390 the thing in itself can never furnish a true and demonstrated science,
391 because, like necessity, it is the clue to the discovery of
392 disjunctive principles. On the other hand, the manifold depends on
393 the paralogisms. Our faculties exclude the possibility of, insomuch
394 as philosophy relies on natural causes, the discipline of natural
395 reason. In all theoretical sciences, what we have alone been able to
396 show is that the objects in space and time exclude the possibility of
397 our judgements, as will easily be shown in the next section. This is
398 what chiefly concerns us.}
399
400 \__kgl_newpara:n {Time (and let us suppose that this is true) is the
401 clue to the discovery of the Categories, as we have already seen.
402 Since knowledge of our faculties is a priori, to avoid all
403 misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the empirical objects
404 in space and time can not take account of, in the case of the Ideal of
405 natural reason, the manifold. It must not be supposed that pure
406 reason stands in need of, certainly, our sense perceptions. On the
407 other hand, our ampliative judgements would thereby be made to
408 contradict, in the full sense of these terms, our hypothetical
409 judgements. I assert, still, that philosophy is a representation of,
410 however, formal logic; in the case of the manifold, the objects in
411 space and time can be treated like the paralogisms of natural reason.
412 This is what chiefly concerns us.}
413
414 \__kgl_newpara:n {Because of the relation between pure logic and natural
415 causes, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that,
416 even as this relates to the thing in itself, pure reason constitutes
417 the whole content for our concepts, but the Ideal of practical reason
418 may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in
419 contradictions with, then, natural reason. It remains a mystery why
420 natural causes would thereby be made to contradict the noumena; by
421 means of our understanding, the Categories are just as necessary as
422 our concepts. The Ideal, irrespective of all empirical conditions,
423 depends on the Categories, as is shown in the writings of Aristotle.
424 It is obvious that our ideas (and there can be no doubt that this is
425 the case) constitute the whole content of practical reason. The
426 Antinomies have nothing to do with the objects in space and time, yet
427 general logic, in respect of the intelligible character, has nothing
428 to do with our judgements. In my present remarks I am referring to
429 the transcendental aesthetic only in so far as it is founded on
430 analytic principles.}
431
432 \__kgl_newpara:n {With the sole exception of our a priori knowledge, our
433 faculties have nothing to do with our faculties. Pure reason (and we
434 can deduce that this is true) would thereby be made to contradict the
435 phenomena. As we have already seen, let us suppose that the
436 transcendental aesthetic can thereby determine in its totality the
437 objects in space and time. We can deduce that, that is to say, our
438 experience is a representation of the paralogisms, and our
439 hypothetical judgements constitute the whole content of our concepts.
440 However, it is obvious that time can be treated like our a priori
441 knowledge, by means of analytic unity. Philosophy has nothing to do
442 with natural causes.}
443
444 \__kgl_newpara:n {By means of analysis, our faculties stand in need to,
445 indeed, the empirical objects in space and time. The objects in space
446 and time, for these reasons, have nothing to do with our
447 understanding. There can be no doubt that the noumena can not take
448 account of the objects in space and time; consequently, the Ideal of
449 natural reason has lying before it the noumena. By means of analysis,
450 the Ideal of human reason is what first gives rise to, therefore,
451 space, yet our sense perceptions exist in the discipline of practical
452 reason.}
453
454 \__kgl_newpara:n {The Ideal can not take account of, so far as I know,
455 our faculties. As we have already seen, the objects in space and time
456 are what first give rise to the never-ending regress in the series of
457 empirical conditions; for these reasons, our a posteriori concepts
458 have nothing to do with the paralogisms of pure reason. As we have
459 already seen, metaphysics, by means of the Ideal, occupies part of the
460 sphere of our experience concerning the existence of the objects in
461 space and time in general, yet time excludes the possibility of our
462 sense perceptions. I assert, thus, that our faculties would thereby
463 be made to contradict, indeed, our knowledge. Natural causes, so
464 regarded, exist in our judgements.}
465
466 \__kgl_newpara:n {The never-ending regress in the series of empirical
467 conditions may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it
468 may be in contradictions with, then, applied logic. The employment of
469 the noumena stands in need of space; with the sole exception of our
470 understanding, the Antinomies are a representation of the noumena. It
471 must not be supposed that the discipline of human reason, in the case
472 of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, is
473 a body of demonstrated science, and some of it must be known a
474 posteriori; in all theoretical sciences, the thing in itself excludes
475 the possibility of the objects in space and time. As will easily be
476 shown in the next section, the reader should be careful to observe
477 that the things in themselves, in view of these considerations, can be
478 treated like the objects in space and time. In all theoretical
479 sciences, we can deduce that the manifold exists in our sense
480 perceptions. The things in themselves, indeed, occupy part of the
481 sphere of philosophy concerning the existence of the transcendental
482 objects in space and time in general, as is proven in the ontological
483 manuals.}
484
485 \__kgl_newpara:n {The transcendental unity of apperception, in the case
486 of philosophy, is a body of demonstrated science, and some of it must
487 be known a posteriori. Thus, the objects in space and time, insomuch
488 as the discipline of practical reason relies on the Antinomies,
489 constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must
490 be known a priori. Applied logic is a representation of, in natural
491 theology, our experience. As any dedicated reader can clearly see,
492 Hume tells us that, that is to say, the Categories (and Aristotle
493 tells us that this is the case) exclude the possibility of the
494 transcendental aesthetic. (Because of our necessary ignorance of the
495 conditions, the paralogisms prove the validity of time.) As is shown
496 in the writings of Hume, it must not be supposed that, in reference to
497 ends, the Ideal is a body of demonstrated science, and some of it must
498 be known a priori. By means of analysis, it is not at all certain
499 that our a priori knowledge is just as necessary as our ideas. In my
500 present remarks I am referring to time only in so far as it is founded
501 on disjunctive principles.}
502
503 \__kgl_newpara:n {The discipline of pure reason is what first gives rise
504 to the Categories, but applied logic is the clue to the discovery of
505 our sense perceptions. The never-ending regress in the series of
506 empirical conditions teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the
507 content of the pure employment of the paralogisms of natural reason.
508 Let us suppose that the discipline of pure reason, so far as regards
509 pure reason, is what first gives rise to the objects in space and
510 time. It is not at all certain that our judgements, with the sole
511 exception of our experience, can be treated like our experience; in
512 the case of the Ideal, our understanding would thereby be made to
513 contradict the manifold. As will easily be shown in the next section,
514 the reader should be careful to observe that pure reason (and it is
515 obvious that this is true) stands in need of the phenomena; for these
516 reasons, our sense perceptions stand in need to the manifold. Our
517 ideas are what first give rise to the paralogisms.}
518
519 \__kgl_newpara:n {The things in themselves have lying before them the
520 Antinomies, by virtue of human reason. By means of the transcendental
521 aesthetic, let us suppose that the discipline of natural reason
522 depends on natural causes, because of the relation between the
523 transcendental aesthetic and the things in themselves. In view of
524 these considerations, it is obvious that natural causes are the clue
525 to the discovery of the transcendental unity of apperception, by means
526 of analysis. We can deduce that our faculties, in particular, can be
527 treated like the thing in itself; in the study of metaphysics, the
528 thing in itself proves the validity of space. And can I entertain the
529 Transcendental Deduction in thought, or does it present itself to me?
530 By means of analysis, the phenomena can not take account of natural
531 causes. This is not something we are in a position to establish.}
532
533 \__kgl_newpara:n {Since some of the things in themselves are a
534 posteriori, there can be no doubt that, when thus treated as our
535 understanding, pure reason depends on, still, the Ideal of natural
536 reason, and our speculative judgements constitute a body of
537 demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a
538 posteriori. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, it is not at
539 all certain that, in accordance with the principles of natural causes,
540 the Transcendental Deduction is a body of demonstrated science, and
541 all of it must be known a posteriori, yet our concepts are the clue to
542 the discovery of the objects in space and time. Therefore, it is
543 obvious that formal logic would be falsified. By means of analytic
544 unity, it remains a mystery why, in particular, metaphysics teaches us
545 nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the Ideal. The phenomena,
546 on the other hand, would thereby be made to contradict the
547 never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. As is
548 shown in the writings of Aristotle, philosophy is a representation of,
549 on the contrary, the employment of the Categories. Because of the
550 relation between the transcendental unity of apperception and the
551 paralogisms of natural reason, the paralogisms of human reason, in the
552 study of the Transcendental Deduction, would be falsified, but
553 metaphysics abstracts from all content of knowledge.}
554
555 \__kgl_newpara:n {Since some of natural causes are disjunctive, the
556 never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is the key
557 to understanding, in particular, the noumena. By means of analysis,
558 the Categories (and it is not at all certain that this is the case)
559 exclude the possibility of our faculties. Let us suppose that the
560 objects in space and time, irrespective of all empirical conditions,
561 exist in the architectonic of natural reason, because of the relation
562 between the architectonic of natural reason and our a posteriori
563 concepts. I assert, as I have elsewhere shown, that, so regarded, our
564 sense perceptions (and let us suppose that this is the case) are a
565 representation of the practical employment of natural causes. (I
566 assert that time constitutes the whole content for, in all theoretical
567 sciences, our understanding, as will easily be shown in the next
568 section.) With the sole exception of our knowledge, the reader should
569 be careful to observe that natural causes (and it remains a mystery
570 why this is the case) can not take account of our sense perceptions,
571 as will easily be shown in the next section. Certainly, natural
572 causes would thereby be made to contradict, with the sole exception of
573 necessity, the things in themselves, because of our necessary
574 ignorance of the conditions. But to this matter no answer is
575 possible.}
576
577 \__kgl_newpara:n {Since all of the objects in space and time are
578 synthetic, it remains a mystery why, even as this relates to our
579 experience, our a priori concepts should only be used as a canon for
580 our judgements, but the phenomena should only be used as a canon for
581 the practical employment of our judgements. Space, consequently, is a
582 body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a priori, as
583 will easily be shown in the next section. We can deduce that the
584 Categories have lying before them the phenomena. Therefore, let us
585 suppose that our ideas, in the study of the transcendental unity of
586 apperception, should only be used as a canon for the pure employment
587 of natural causes. Still, the reader should be careful to observe
588 that the Ideal (and it remains a mystery why this is true) can not
589 take account of our faculties, as is proven in the ontological
590 manuals. Certainly, it remains a mystery why the manifold is just as
591 necessary as the manifold, as is evident upon close examination.}
592
593 \__kgl_newpara:n {In natural theology, what we have alone been able to
594 show is that the architectonic of practical reason is the clue to the
595 discovery of, still, the manifold, by means of analysis. Since
596 knowledge of the objects in space and time is a priori, the things in
597 themselves have lying before them, for example, the paralogisms of
598 human reason. Let us suppose that our sense perceptions constitute
599 the whole content of, by means of philosophy, necessity. Our concepts
600 (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is the case)
601 are just as necessary as the Ideal. To avoid all misapprehension, it
602 is necessary to explain that the Categories occupy part of the sphere
603 of the discipline of human reason concerning the existence of our
604 faculties in general. The transcendental aesthetic, in so far as this
605 expounds the contradictory rules of our a priori concepts, is the mere
606 result of the power of our understanding, a blind but indispensable
607 function of the soul. The manifold, in respect of the intelligible
608 character, teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the
609 thing in itself; however, the objects in space and time exist in
610 natural causes.}
611
612 \__kgl_newpara:n {I assert, however, that our a posteriori concepts (and
613 it is obvious that this is the case) would thereby be made to
614 contradict the discipline of practical reason; however, the things in
615 themselves, however, constitute the whole content of philosophy. As
616 will easily be shown in the next section, the Antinomies would thereby
617 be made to contradict our understanding; in all theoretical sciences,
618 metaphysics, irrespective of all empirical conditions, excludes the
619 possibility of space. It is not at all certain that necessity (and it
620 is obvious that this is true) constitutes the whole content for the
621 objects in space and time; consequently, the paralogisms of practical
622 reason, however, exist in the Antinomies. The reader should be
623 careful to observe that transcendental logic, in so far as this
624 expounds the universal rules of formal logic, can never furnish a true
625 and demonstrated science, because, like the Ideal, it may not
626 contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in
627 contradictions with disjunctive principles. (Because of our necessary
628 ignorance of the conditions, the thing in itself is what first gives
629 rise to, insomuch as the transcendental aesthetic relies on the
630 objects in space and time, the transcendental objects in space and
631 time; thus, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
632 conditions excludes the possibility of philosophy.) As we have
633 already seen, time depends on the objects in space and time; in the
634 study of the architectonic of pure reason, the phenomena are the clue
635 to the discovery of our understanding. Because of our necessary
636 ignorance of the conditions, I assert that, indeed, the architectonic
637 of natural reason, as I have elsewhere shown, would be falsified.}
638
639 \__kgl_newpara:n {In natural theology, the transcendental unity of
640 apperception has nothing to do with the Antinomies. As will easily be
641 shown in the next section, our sense perceptions are by their very
642 nature contradictory, but our ideas, with the sole exception of human
643 reason, have nothing to do with our sense perceptions. Metaphysics is
644 the key to understanding natural causes, by means of analysis. It is
645 not at all certain that the paralogisms of human reason prove the
646 validity of, thus, the noumena, since all of our a posteriori
647 judgements are a priori. We can deduce that, indeed, the objects in
648 space and time can not take account of the Transcendental Deduction,
649 but our knowledge, on the other hand, would be falsified.}
650
651 \__kgl_newpara:n {As we have already seen, our understanding is the clue
652 to the discovery of necessity. On the other hand, the Ideal of pure
653 reason is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known
654 a posteriori, as is evident upon close examination. It is obvious
655 that the transcendental aesthetic, certainly, is a body of
656 demonstrated science, and some of it must be known a priori; in view
657 of these considerations, the noumena are the clue to the discovery of,
658 so far as I know, natural causes. In the case of space, our
659 experience depends on the Ideal of natural reason, as we have already
660 seen.}
661
662 \__kgl_newpara:n {For these reasons, space is the key to understanding
663 the thing in itself. Our sense perceptions abstract from all content
664 of a priori knowledge, but the phenomena can never, as a whole,
665 furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like time, they are
666 just as necessary as disjunctive principles. Our problematic
667 judgements constitute the whole content of time. By means of
668 analysis, our ideas are by their very nature contradictory, and our a
669 posteriori concepts are a representation of natural causes. I assert
670 that the objects in space and time would thereby be made to
671 contradict, so far as regards the thing in itself, the Transcendental
672 Deduction; in natural theology, the noumena are the clue to the
673 discovery of, so far as I know, the Transcendental Deduction.}
674
675 \__kgl_newpara:n {To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
676 explain that, in respect of the intelligible character, the
677 transcendental aesthetic depends on the objects in space and time, yet
678 the manifold is the clue to the discovery of the Transcendental
679 Deduction. Therefore, the transcendental unity of apperception would
680 thereby be made to contradict, in the case of our understanding, our
681 ideas. There can be no doubt that the things in themselves prove the
682 validity of the objects in space and time, as is shown in the writings
683 of Aristotle. By means of analysis, there can be no doubt that,
684 insomuch as the discipline of pure reason relies on the Categories,
685 the transcendental unity of apperception would thereby be made to
686 contradict the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
687 conditions. In the case of space, the Categories exist in time. Our
688 faculties can be treated like our concepts. As is shown in the
689 writings of Galileo, the transcendental unity of apperception stands
690 in need of, in the case of necessity, our speculative judgements.}
691
692 \__kgl_newpara:n {The phenomena (and it is obvious that this is the
693 case) prove the validity of our sense perceptions; in natural
694 theology, philosophy teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the
695 content of the transcendental objects in space and time. In natural
696 theology, our sense perceptions are a representation of the
697 Antinomies. The noumena exclude the possibility of, even as this
698 relates to the transcendental aesthetic, our knowledge. Our concepts
699 would thereby be made to contradict, that is to say, the noumena; in
700 the study of philosophy, space is by its very nature contradictory.
701 Since some of the Antinomies are problematic, our ideas are a
702 representation of our a priori concepts, yet space, in other words,
703 has lying before it the things in themselves. Aristotle tells us
704 that, in accordance with the principles of the phenomena, the
705 Antinomies are a representation of metaphysics.}
706
707 \__kgl_newpara:n {The things in themselves can not take account of the
708 Transcendental Deduction. By means of analytic unity, it is obvious
709 that, that is to say, our sense perceptions, in all theoretical
710 sciences, can not take account of the thing in itself, yet the
711 transcendental unity of apperception, in the full sense of these
712 terms, would thereby be made to contradict the employment of our sense
713 perceptions. Our synthetic judgements would be falsified. Since some
714 of our faculties are problematic, the things in themselves exclude the
715 possibility of the Ideal. It must not be supposed that the things in
716 themselves are a representation of, in accordance with the principles
717 of philosophy, our sense perceptions.}
718
719 \__kgl_newpara:n {As is proven in the ontological manuals, philosophy is
720 the mere result of the power of pure logic, a blind but indispensable
721 function of the soul; however, the phenomena can never, as a whole,
722 furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like general logic,
723 they exclude the possibility of problematic principles. To avoid all
724 misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the never-ending
725 regress in the series of empirical conditions is by its very nature
726 contradictory. It must not be supposed that our a priori concepts
727 stand in need to natural causes, because of the relation between the
728 Ideal and our ideas. (We can deduce that the Antinomies would be
729 falsified.) Since knowledge of the Categories is a posteriori, what
730 we have alone been able to show is that, in the full sense of these
731 terms, necessity (and we can deduce that this is true) is the key to
732 understanding time, but the Ideal of natural reason is just as
733 necessary as our experience. As will easily be shown in the next
734 section, the thing in itself, with the sole exception of the manifold,
735 abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge. The question of
736 this matter’s relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.}
737
738 \__kgl_newpara:n {By means of the transcendental aesthetic, it remains a
739 mystery why the phenomena (and it is not at all certain that this is
740 the case) are the clue to the discovery of the never-ending regress in
741 the series of empirical conditions. In all theoretical sciences,
742 metaphysics exists in the objects in space and time, because of the
743 relation between formal logic and our synthetic judgements. The
744 Categories would thereby be made to contradict the paralogisms, as any
745 dedicated reader can clearly see. Therefore, there can be no doubt
746 that the paralogisms have nothing to do with, so far as regards the
747 Ideal and our faculties, the paralogisms, because of our necessary
748 ignorance of the conditions. It must not be supposed that the objects
749 in space and time occupy part of the sphere of necessity concerning
750 the existence of the noumena in general. In natural theology, the
751 things in themselves, therefore, are by their very nature
752 contradictory, by virtue of natural reason. This is the sense in
753 which it is to be understood in this work.}
754
755 \__kgl_newpara:n {As is evident upon close examination, let us suppose
756 that, in accordance with the principles of time, our a priori concepts
757 are the clue to the discovery of philosophy. By means of analysis, to
758 avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, in
759 particular, the transcendental aesthetic can not take account of
760 natural causes. As we have already seen, the reader should be careful
761 to observe that, in accordance with the principles of the objects in
762 space and time, the noumena are the mere results of the power of our
763 understanding, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, and the
764 thing in itself abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge.
765 We can deduce that, indeed, our experience, in reference to ends, can
766 never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the Ideal
767 of practical reason, it can thereby determine in its totality
768 speculative principles, yet our hypothetical judgements are just as
769 necessary as space. It is not at all certain that, insomuch as the
770 Ideal of practical reason relies on the noumena, the Categories prove
771 the validity of philosophy, yet pure reason is the key to
772 understanding the Categories. This is what chiefly concerns us.}
773
774 \__kgl_newpara:n {Natural causes, when thus treated as the things in
775 themselves, abstract from all content of a posteriori knowledge, by
776 means of analytic unity. Our a posteriori knowledge, in other words,
777 is the key to understanding the Antinomies. As we have already seen,
778 what we have alone been able to show is that, so far as I know, the
779 objects in space and time are the clue to the discovery of the
780 manifold. The things in themselves are the clue to the discovery of,
781 in the case of the Ideal of natural reason, our concepts. To avoid
782 all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, so far as
783 regards philosophy, the discipline of human reason, for these reasons,
784 is a body of demonstrated science, and some of it must be known a
785 priori, but our faculties, consequently, would thereby be made to
786 contradict the Antinomies. It remains a mystery why our understanding
787 excludes the possibility of, insomuch as the Ideal relies on the
788 objects in space and time, our concepts. It is not at all certain
789 that the pure employment of the objects in space and time (and the
790 reader should be careful to observe that this is true) is the clue to
791 the discovery of the architectonic of pure reason. Let us suppose
792 that natural reason is a representation of, insomuch as space relies
793 on the paralogisms, the Transcendental Deduction, by means of
794 analysis.}
795
796 \__kgl_newpara:n {As we have already seen, the Ideal constitutes the
797 whole content for the transcendental unity of apperception. By means
798 of analytic unity, let us suppose that, when thus treated as space,
799 our synthetic judgements, therefore, would be falsified, and the
800 objects in space and time are what first give rise to our sense
801 perceptions. Let us suppose that, in the full sense of these terms,
802 the discipline of practical reason can not take account of our
803 experience, and our ideas have lying before them our inductive
