 Welcome to this lecture on aspects of western philosophy, which would focus on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This is module 22nd and lecture 22nd of this course aspects of western philosophy and this lecture we would see the following topics. We will see the notion of the ideas of reason, which is very central to Kantian philosophy in the sense that the previous lecture I pointed out that the entire Kantian philosophy can be understood with the three transcendental critics or the three transcendental approaches. One is the transcendental analytic, the other one is transcendental aesthetic, the first one is actually transcendental aesthetic, second one is transcendental analytic and the third one is transcendental dialectic. In one sense transcendental dialectic, we have already discussed the other two transcendental aesthetic and the transcendental analytic in the previous lectures. This lecture would rather focus on transcendental dialectic, which would in one sense try to see how these different critical approaches can be brought into one single framework and some of the limitations of this philosophy can also be visible here or rather some of the limitations of philosophical contemplation as such as Kant envisaged or Kant's conceived them can be seen when we try to understand transcendental dialectic. So, this is a figure which we have explained in the previous lecture, so I am not going to the details. So, the sensibility part is dealt with transcendental aesthetic, understanding where we discuss the 12 categories of understanding are where discussed in transcendental analytic and now we are going to see reason. So, what Kant would assume is that the human mind or human thinking faculty be divided into two aspects understanding and reason and reason of course, he keeps at a slightly higher domain. So, we are going to see that in this lecture and transcendental dialectic in that sense is a critic of understanding and reason both because it tells us about the limitation of understanding that if you try to apply the categories of understanding to certain domain then you would ultimately land into certain troubles. So, that is what transcendental dialectic wants us and also it tries to understand reason the capabilities of reason the possibilities of reason and the role that the ideas of reason play in the entire philosophical or philosophizing enterprise. So, the critic of understanding and reason their claims to provide knowledge of things in themselves. So, in the previous lecture I have made this distinction between reality as we see it as we experience it as which is given to us in our experiences which is known as phenomenal world and there is a nominal world there is a reality which is behind it which underlies that which cannot be known. So, in that sense we have seen that Kant is an agnostic. Now, this agnosticism is being explicated further with transcendental dialectic and he wants about the misuse of the a priori concept and principles these concepts these categories of understanding the 12 categories of understanding which we have discussed in the previous lecture have got certain limitations we have already seen it in the previous lecture itself. So, this lecture would rather explicate further on that aspect that you we are not supposed to apply this these categories on nomina on things in themselves it is a critic of the metaphysical use of understanding and reason and it wants about the illegitimate extension of the a priori concepts from the objects given in sense intuition to things in general. So, these a priori concept these a priori categories their application has a limitation. So, it tells us that so far we are within these limitations they are legitimate physics for example, natural sciences for example, they actually require an application of these categories in the sensible reality. So, long as we confine ourselves to that domain it is absolutely legitimate, but once we try to cross it go beyond that and apply these categories to nomina to reality with a capital R then we would ultimately land into troubles. The cognitive function of the categories are limited to the objects of sense intuition or phenomena beyond that we are not supposed to do apply them not possible to have universal and necessary or a priori knowledge of anything non perceivable. So, sensibility transcendental aesthetic understanding transcendental analytic. So, these two things combined we will give we will get knowledge about the world, but there is no a priori knowledge possible about anything that is non perceivable, because perception is important. Percepts without concepts are blind and concepts without percepts are empty. So, both of these things are necessary for having knowledge about the phenomenal world or a priori knowledge about the world. Now, what about nomina see Ken would say that nomina is unknowable it is something which lies behind its existence is never doubted you cannot just because we do not experience it we cannot know about anything about it does not mean that it does not exist it exist without that it is a precondition without that we cannot have knowledge at all. So, the Ken never doubts its existence philosophy envisages understanding the ultimate unconditioned reality that lies behind the phenomenal world see Hume also suggest something in this direction that you can never know anything with certainty about matters of fact. And these are the two domains according to Hume matters of fact and this relations nothing else knowledge is confined to these two domains and as far as the knowledge about the matters of fact is concerned there is absolute uncertainty he rejects causality all these things we have discussed in detail in previous lectures. So, I am not going to the details, but the point here is that there is a tendency and philosophy and metaphysics to know to seek to understand what is that which lies behind that underlying reality that propensity is something which we cannot deny it is there. So, to frame conceptions of God freedom immortality all these concepts in one sense are not part of the phenomenal world they are not part of this world they are transcendental concepts, but at the same time there is a tendency philosophy has this tendency to frame conceptions about these concepts these entities if at all we can call them as immortal and immortal soul a free soul God a world a cosmos which includes all these entities in this world. So, the conception about them apparently metaphysical conception about them something which the mind cannot resist framing. So, we have the three most fundamental concepts which later can would call them as ideas of reason solve the unitary and substantial solve something which is substantial something which unites everything the cosmos which is infinite world process as a unity apart from this diverse things which is transitory we see around there is a world there is a cosmos which unites everything that goes around and there is a concept which is a supreme unity of everything. So, God is a totality of existence everything is converged in God. So, these are some concepts which we have which is in one sense we can say that the result of our metaphysical propensities, but something which mind human mind cannot avoid envisaging the tendency cannot be avoided cannot be ignored that is part of human reason. So, now can talks about them on the one hand he says that it is not possible to talk about them in the sense that we can have knowledge about them trying to know them in the same way we try to know objects in the world that is impossible that is metaphysics trying to frame concepts a priori concepts about them is impossible, but at the same time it is very important that we have to think about them we have to assume their existence because they have a very important regulative role to play in our conceptualization we will see that. So, knowledge about nominah is something when we apply the categories of understanding to nominah leads to illusions when we try to apply the same category the 12 categories quality, quantity, modality and relations to these metaphysical domain say for example, God. Let us say you know even the question of existence of God itself when you try to prove God's existence how do you try there are several methods by means of which philosophers have attempted to prove God's existence theologians and philosophers and Kant would ridicule all of them he would say that all these attempts would ultimately lead to kind of illusions transcendental illusion he calls them because thought can never explore what lies behind nature as its ultimate ground it is a ground of what we see human thinking or human thought can explore only what is provided to it through sensations, but what lies behind these sensations that is something which human mind cannot access. So, whatever you talk about it in whatever way you try to explain it or understand it, it is ultimately going to end up in a kind of illusion you can never know them nominah can never become a proper object of our investigation. So, in that sense impossibility of metaphysics, metaphysics is impossible as a science because in science what happens is that as science we try to gain knowledge about a reality which is in front of us which is given to us in experience. So, we have in Kant's own language a priori synthetic a priori propositions are possible about the world. So, only when there are synthetic a priori propositions we can talk about scientific knowledge. Now, let us extend this possibility to a domain of reality to the domain of ultimate reality to the domain of nominah there you know if you try to derive or if you try to gain the so called a priori synthetic a priori knowledge it leads to illusion it is impossible because there is no percepts. Metaphysics attempts deducing a priori synthetic knowledge from the pure concepts of understanding this is to venture the concepts alone without percepts and concepts without intuitions are empty. Therefore, metaphysics is impossible metaphysics as a science is impossible in the sense that if you try to derive or if you try to develop a metaphysics in the line of physics where which is constituted of synthetic a priori propositions it is impossible it is not going to gain it is not going to yield any result any fruits at all. Now, again applying a priori conceptions to things in themselves leads to and anomies metaphysics as a possible source of objective knowledge is completely excluded from Kantian scheme of things and again questions which are legitimate when asked about the world of experience are meaningless when asked about the transcendental reality. For example, let us say causality a causes b my clapping causes the sound this is quite legitimate I can understand it as far as you know I apply these categories of relations relation of causality to the empirical world but when I try to extend this to at the non empirical world to the world of nominal reality God whether God caused this when I raise such a question it leads to nonsense because I can never understand I can never prove it I can never be sure about it. Example notions like cause and effect substance and accident are perfect and legitimate when applied to the phenomenal order and transferred to the nominal world they lead to nonsense. So, to say that why is it that it is not raining there is doubt it is not raining because God is angry they lead to a kind of blind beliefs which have no basis in experience no basis in scientific theorizing. So, you can never claim them as knowledge they are just believes they are never they can never be elevated to the status of knowledge because there is no confluence of or there is no coming together of percepts and concepts in such cases and they are called transcendental illusion principles of the understanding are imminent principles the categories of understanding are imminent cause effect all these things are imminent and mistaking imminent or subjective they are subjective principles for objective principles or transcendental principles is the result of this will ultimately result in error and illusion according to Kant. When we apply the subjective principles to things in themselves to reality to nominal reality that leads to transcendental illusion and transcendental dialectics wants us against that it tells us that this is the past this is where you know you end up in transcendental illusion and you have to come out of it you have to how do you come out of it you can come out of it only by knowing the limitations only by knowing the limits of your understanding. So, transcendental dialectic endeavors freeing us from this dogmatic illusion or the transcendental illusion by means of a critic a critic that will limit our speculative pretensions to the sphere of possible experience it tells us categorically that you can apply these categories of understanding these a priori categories to this domain not beyond that do not extend it any more beyond this what is in front of you. So, that is how it tells you and transcendental dialectic intends to free us from our transcendental illusions it also explores the roles of transcendental ideas in that sense we can say that there are two roles of reason there is a negative role as well as a positive role the negative role is to tell you that these are the limitations and there is this propensity of human mind to go beyond to conceptualize what is lying beyond that tendency might lead you to troubles, but at the same time the reason can also tell us about transcendental ideas which are inevitable for our theorizing. So, transcendental dialectics deals with both it has a negative as a and a positive role it assigns to reason. So, let us see what is a negative role as reason it leads us to transcendental illusion I have already mentioned it and it is a source of all metaphysical errors because we have a tendency to apply these categories to things in themselves we tend to apply them to all reality that is in front of us and then it leads to anti normies I will explain what anti normies is slightly later. Now, the positive role which is a necessary role of reason this is what this lecture is primarily concerned about it is the source of the necessary ideas reason is the source of the necessary ideas and principles that play an essential role in scientific theorizing. So, this is what we are trying to see now it has a positive role this metaphysical propensity the so called metaphysical propensity which has the potential to lead us into dangers has got a very positive it actually suggests the possibility of certain ideas certain transcendental ideas which are called the ideas of reason they play an essential and a very important role in scientific theorizing. It examines the higher processes of the reason to see whether it is possible to discover the ultimate nature of things in themselves and it is a source of transcendental concepts or ideas I have just mentioned we have already seen what are these basic transcendental ideas the first one is the solve the self the second one is the world or the cosmos the third one is God. So, these are the fundamental basic transcendental concepts or ideas now when we talk about imminent and transcendental principles since I have already mentioned about it the imminent principles are known as a priori concept of understanding I have already discussed this their principles which are applied within the confines of possible experiences and our subjective on the other hand transcendental principles are known as ideas of reason and the principles which transcend within the confines of possible experience and their objective. So, we are going to focus on these objective transcendental ideas of reason. I have already mentioned in the beginning that there is a way in which Kant makes a distinction between reason and understanding reason according to him is a higher function of the mind than of understanding and it is a mind's activity which is concerned solely with the enquiry as to its own operations and metaphysics is the occupation of reason with itself in that sense metaphysics is the occupation of reason with itself on the other hand understanding is it deals with objects of knowledge in experience referring particular percepts to general concepts etcetera this we have already seen the 12 categories of understanding. So, we are going to focus more on reason and what reason does and in what sense metaphysics can be reaccommodated not as a science, but as a regulative ideal. So, the transcendental dialectics in that sense has certain very positive functions the pure reason as a faculty distinct from understanding as we have already seen to determine what are the transcendental ideas of pure reason. So, what Kant would say is that reason would analyze itself and tries to understand what are the transcendental ideas of pure reason on the basis of which it operates this is also an attempt to find out the legitimate and proper function of the ideas of pure reason we have already mentioned that these ideas the metaphysical ideas say for example, the idea of a world which encompasses all these events which we see around us it is a metaphysical idea we cannot talk about such a world in the scientific sense of the term we can never have a knowledge about it as such an a priori synthetic knowledge about it because there is no percepts or corresponding to them. So, but at the same time the concept of world as a hall cosmos or the concept of self not the empirical self, but a transcendental self which is permanently there we cannot talk about it from the scientific sense of the term see for example, we can never frame synthetic a priori knowledge about the self which is transcendental synthetic a priori knowledge is possible only about the empirical self and the empirical self is an entity which changes from time to time. So, here on the one hand Kant wants us against the extension of these categories to that domain, but at the same time he says that these ideas of pure reason like self or God or cosmos they have a very important function in human thinking. So, what is the legitimate and proper function of the ideas of pure reason is something which transcendental dialectic would explore they arise in us through the very nature of our reason. So, Kant would say that that is where he says you know reason has to find it out within itself reason when reason turns itself to itself. So, it finds these transcendental ideas only their misuse is deceptive he says that they are there, but when you try to sort of extend the categories to understand them then they are problematic. So, the proper function of the ideas of pure reason are determined by the constitution of our reason. So, transcendental dialectics aims at understanding analyzing and examining the constitution of reason itself how do you do that. So, the same method which Kant applied when he tried to understand the process of understanding the constitution of understanding what he did was he examined the logical judgments. So, here also he does something very similar to that he refers to the syllogistic process, but before that let us see more about the ideas of pure reason they are inherent in the nature of reason not innate, but not derived empirically they are they are there in reason. Transcendental ideas produced by pure reason reason contains within itself the source of these ideas. So, it they are contained within reason they are the foundations of reasons construction and account of the systematic unity of experience without this systematic unity of experience there is no knowledge possible there is no understanding possible there is no conceptualization possible. So, for reason to conceptualize and derive ideas and concepts and knowledge there should be a systematic unity of experience presupposed and that is possible only with the function of reason which synthetically unite them it is this synthetic function of reason that is reflected in the construction of these transcendental ideas. The ideas are self cosmos and God I have already explained it. So, this figure would give you an idea about the ideas of reason self is as permanent substantial subject of course there is no synthetic a priori knowledge possible about it because it is permanent substantial subject and human already demonstrated that it is impossible to have sensations or perceptions about such a permanent substance we have only bundle of perceptions according to human and that is acceptable for Kant as well to some extent, but at the same time he says that self as a permanent substantial subject should exist as an idea of pure reason as a transcendental idea and then the world the cosmos again human denied it for human it is nothing but impressions there are multitude of impressions one after the other and it is the habit of the mind to frame relationships between one and the other when I say a causes b it is my problem it is my mind which is superimbosing this causation relationship on these two events of a and b which appears successively one after another it is my habit of the mind, but Kant would say that there exist such a world as a totality of causally related phenomena a totality the world as a totality a cosmos that is another transcendental idea. So, these two are the transcendental ideas and when he comes to the third one God as the unity of the conditions of objects of thought in general it is a unity. So, it is a transcendental ideal that is the only transcendental ideal the other two are transcendental ideas, but God in one sense unites even these two world and self are united in God. So, that is all encompassing all uniting concepts and these ideas of reason are human mind as a tendency go back to that it continually sinks back to these ideas of reason to understand things you know not merely arbitrary, but has some validity the decide to grasp things as a hall. So, this is something which is a very important human urge the urge of reason to grasp things as a hall and project an ideal towards which knowledge is directed. So, that is why you have this each of these transcendental idea of pure reason is a uniting force it unites the subject unites the concept of self unites all our experiences into one point the eye the world unites everything all the causally otherwise causally interrelated discrete unrelated phenomena into one hall as world and God unites everything everything that exist is united in one single concept the concept of God. So, here the ideas of reason project an ideal towards with knowledge is directed now the question is how do we justify them? The ideas of pure reason are not given through the ordinary channels of experience this has been stated without any doubt in the very beginning itself and they arise in us through the very nature of our reason can this already pointed out that reason has this propensity or the very structure of reason itself suggest that there is a tendency to seek for unity have their function determined by the constitution of our reason this uniting this architectonic function and reason tends completing the synthesis achieved by the understanding. Understanding is already achieved a kind of synthesis, but this synthesis is again incomplete this has to be completed and this can be completed only with more uniting concepts like self cosmos and God deduced from the forms of mediate inference. So, here again as I pointed out earlier that Kant turns back to logic where he examines the very structure of syllogistic reasoning or the very nature of syllogistic reasoning what happens in syllogistic reasoning the process of reason as essentially syllogistic and here what happens is that there are three forms of syllogistic procedure which is given in this diagram. So, the first one is categorical second one is hypothetical the third one is disjunctive and corresponding to this categorical you have the psychological idea of self corresponding to the hypothetical you have the cosmological idea of the world and corresponding to disjunctive syllogism you have the transcendental idea of God. So, corresponding ideas of the pure reason is given here the three forms of syllogistic procedure the three types of possible mediate inferences which the mind makes which reason employs in understanding the world or in its exercises and this corresponding to the three types of possible mediate inferences categorical hypothetical and disjunctive there are three categories of relations substance which is represented by the self or the soul cause which is represented by cosmos and community or reciprocity which is represented by God and corresponding to the three types of inference there are three types of three kinds of unconditioned unity self cosmos and God postulated or assumed by the principles of pure reason. So, you have the entire thing represented in this figure three forms of syllogistic procedure the three types of possible mediate inferences are categorical hypothetical and disjunctive and three categories of relation that correspond to them substance to categorical cause to hypothetical community to disjunctive and again the three kinds of unconditioned unity substance self cause world and community God. Now, again to derive the three kinds of unconditioned unity from the three types of syllogistic inference ascending by a chain of categorical syllogism reason seeks something which is always subject and never a predicate that is a self a subject or the self is always a subject it is never a predicate. So, reason demands that or it seeks to identify such a subject which is never a predicate but always a subject and again ascending by a chain of hypothetical syllogism if this then that that is hypothetical syllogism reason demands an unconditioned unity in which an ultimate which is an ultimate presupposition for all these conditional things to happen all these causal relationships to function and that is the cosmos and finally, ascending by a chain of disjunctive syllogism reason demands an unconditioned unity in the concept of God. So, what exactly happens in syllogistic process here again we could see that you know Kant talks about the natural propensity of the mind I have already pointed out that there is a compulsion in the mind there is a natural compulsion of the mind to expect that its knowledge should be capable of unification and systematization. So, knowledge is possible only when there is a systematization only when a unification is possible only when everything is well established and the nature of the syllogistic procedure suggests the metaphysical ideals of God of self and the world. So, these are the unconditioned unity the principles of unconditioned unity the ideas of transcendental reason. So, they are presupposed their first particular cases to the universal which accounts for them and human thought looks for some complete central all comprehensive idea. So, this notion of a complete all central and all comprehensive idea actually is part of the natural compulsion of human mind to look for completion to look for systematization to look for unification and interestingly we can see that these three ideas of reason which we have already mentioned which is actually nothing but the result of the human mind's propensity or tendency for unification and systematization. And which can be found out from the examination of the syllogistic process they corresponding to these three you have three branches of speculative metaphysics you have the thinking subject which is the object matter of psychology the world which is the object matter of cosmology and God which is the object matter of theology and can would say that as metaphysics when you approach these three ideas metaphysically when you try to see them with the expectation of deriving synthetic a priori knowledge about them that would lead to kind of metaphysical transcendental illusions they are not given in experience none of them are given in experience since they are not given in experience there are no corresponding percepts possible since no percepts possible with concepts alone you are trying to understand them which leads to illusion. Because concepts without percepts are empty they are not phenomena. So, now let us see ideas of reason and their misuse say for example the self the self as far as we conceive the self as a transcendental idea of reason what is it it is the mind seeks a common ground for all phenomena that occurs in consciousness it is a result of that propensity of the mind which seeks for a common ground for all the phenomena that occurs in consciousness. So, everything is referred to one point one focal point that point the I always a subject and never a predicate of some other subject I everything is given to that and for the possibility of experience all representation should be related to the unity of a perception. So, everything is united everything is converge to that subject. So, that there is knowledge systematic knowledge possible that is a concept of self the I think that accompanies all experiences and reason seeks to complete the synthesis of the inner life in the idea of a central self or the absolute subject of our experiences. So, this is what reason does it tries to complete the synthesis of the inner life in the idea of a central self a permanent self an absolute self which is immortal and then reason passes beyond the empirical and the conditioned ego to the unconditioned substantial subject which is transcendental. So, from empirical to transcendental this is what reason does. Now, critical rational psychology what happens is a psychology studies the empirical ego as the self that is what psychologists do the focus is on empirical self which is in the world which is very much part of the world and again empirical ego is an object in time and is reducible to successive states. The humane subject is also an empirical subject here it is an object in time and is reducible to successive states and on the other hand the transcendental ego which is an idea of pure reason is a necessary condition for experience that is the unitary conception. The empirical ego as such never provides any unity because it is it can be reducible to successive states what brings these different discrete states into one single unity that is something which you cannot see you cannot experience that is something which needs to be presupposed something which regulates our examinations that is a transcendental ego. It is not given in experience the transcendental ego can never what is given in experience is these discrete unconnected successive states of consciousness but empirically that is the empirical ego transcendental ego is never given in consciousness hence cannot apply the categories of substance and unity to that. See to conceive of a substantial self to conceive of a permanent substance self as a permanent substance you have to conceive it as a unitary substance but unity is a category how can you apply the category of unity to something which is transcendental this is where you know you end up in metaphysics does not belong to the world. So, in one sense Kantian self or subject is the limit of the world it is not the part of the world hence cannot be studied scientifically. Again let us come to the second one the cosmos the underlying system of order and law that ground all objects of knowledge everything in this world any knowledge about this world is possible with this conception with this presupposition of a cosmos which provides an underlying unity of entities in this world. The idea of a comprehensive world system the totality of causal sequences. So, in our empirical experience we do not see this totality we see only instances of such causal sequences but a totality of the causal sequence is something which you which is never given to experience but it is presupposed. Understandings in the sizes the manifold of sense intuition according to causal relation and reason here again tries to complete it tends to complete the synthesis by reaching an unconditioned unity conceived as the totality of causal sequences. So, here reason postulates an unlimited ultimate presupposition of the totality of the causal sequences of phenomena that is the cosmos. An ultimate presupposition of the totality of the causal sequences of phenomena which is never empirically given in experience but which is postulated by reason as a necessary precondition to even venture into knowledge about the phenomenal world. And now critiquing speculative cosmology this is the result of our metaphysical propensity this might lead to kind of metaphysical illusions or transcendental illusions. In speculative cosmology the idea of the world as a totality of the causal sequence or phenomena is at the center extending our knowledge of the world as a totality of phenomena through synthetic a priori propositions lead to antinomies. So, here comes the antinomies the famous antinomies of Kant when we apply forms of intuition and the categories of understanding to things that are not experienced antinomies appear speculation concerning the nature of the world lead to antinomies. When you try to understand when you try to speculate the nature of the world it might ultimately lead to different kinds of antinomies and according to Kant there are 4 types of antinomies. What is an antinomy? An antinomy constitutes of 2 contradictory propositions mutually contradictory propositions each of which can apparently be proved. So, that is the problem you have 2 propositions one would contradict the other but you can prove both which one is right that is the question. So, there are 4 antinomies where they arise when we change thoughts into things and hypothesize them we built an imaginary science on these things both their assertion and denial are the result of illusion and there are Kant talks about mathematical and dynamical antinomies I am not going to the details I will directly go to the first antinomy there is a thesis which says that the world has a beginning in time and is also limited as regard space. This is a thesis it says that the world has a beginning in time and is also limited as regard space and the antithesis is the world is infinite and has no beginning in time and is not limited to space. Apparently both these statements one would contradict the other but apparently both of them can be proved or can be disproved you cannot disprove them. So, both of them apparently looks right now let us go to the second antinomy the thesis is everything in the world consist of simple parts and the antithesis is there is nothing simple but everything is composite again one contradicts the other but which one is right that is the question. The third one there are two kinds of causality one according to the laws of nature and the other that of freedom the antithesis says there is only causality according to the laws of nature again you can neither prove them nor disprove them. The fourth one there is an absolutely necessary being belonging to the world either as its part or as its cause the antithesis there is not an absolutely necessary being existing in the world not does it exist outside the world as its cause. So, which one is right how do you prove them how do you disprove them apparently both of the one contradicts the other but you cannot say that one is right the other one is not right. So, in this context this the conceptualization of cosmos the metaphysical conceptualization of cosmos would ultimately lead to this irresolvable you cannot resolve this problem the antinomies the problems created by antinomies. And now comes the third idea of pure reason the idea of God the transcendental idea of God is the transcendental ideal I mentioned that the other two ideas are transcendental ideas they are called transcendental ideas but the idea of God is conceived as a transcendental ideal by Kant reason seeks to unconditioned unity. So, in the other two you have you know the self unifies all those appearances in human consciousness the world unifies the concept of cosmos the idea of cosmos or the idea of world unifies all those causally interconnected phenomena into one single unity. Now, the third concept the idea of God is provides you the notion of a final unity the final idea in which the thought can rest satisfied the supreme condition of the possibility of all that is thinkable. So, everything converges to this fantastic idea of God in Kant's philosophy and mind search for more unity and comprehensiveness make it more towards some higher center of unification. So, more and more it is actually moving towards higher and higher unity from self to world and now to God mind refers both the self and the world to some all comprehensive idea. So, even these two concepts are unified with the notion of God which is the ultimate unitary concept all I an idea which grounds both the self and the world is the idea of God again the idea of the sum total of all possible predicates containing a priori the data for all particular possibility. So, every possibility is contained in it. So, it is such an idea such a grand idea which unifies everything the idea of the aggregate or some total of all possible perfections the idea of the most perfect being of the most real being and the union of unlimited pure perfections in one simple being. So, this is again another propensity of the mind its propensity to see things in a unitary fashion synthesizing way and now Kant advances a critiquing of this philosophical theology by saying that reason seeks the unconditioned unity of all possible predicates which cannot be found empirically. So, philosophers and theologians have been attempting to prove the existence of God by advancing several theoretical proofs ontological proof cosmological proof and Kant ridicules all of them Kant would say that the existence of God is not something which can be empirically proved there cannot be a synthetic a priori proposition possible about God's existence after all existence is not a property it is not a predicate for Kant reason has to pass beyond the condition and hypothetize an individual being who is perfect. So, that the concept of God is actually the result of this propensity of reason this requirement this necessity or this demand of reason to pass beyond the condition and hypothetize an individual being who is perfect its existence cannot be proved because it is not a subject matter which needs to prove it is a presupposition in that way no synthetic a priori proposition about God is possible. So, let us conclude our discussion on this topic we have started with transcendental dialectic which deals with reason. Reason as such views all can be cognitions as belonging to a unified and organized system it is a unified and organized system architectonic nature of reason is highlighted moving from the particular and contingent to the universal. So, there is higher and higher unit is attained by reason reason seeks higher and higher levels of generality in order to explain the way things are and the appendix to the transcendental dialectic suggest that it deals with the regulative use of reason these ideas these so called transcendental ideas have no cognitive use if you employ them for cognitive purposes you will end up with metaphysics which is meaningless and illusory. So, they have no cognitive use they deal with the regulative use of the ideas of pure reason attempts to identify some proper immanent use for reason to establish a necessary role for reasons principle of systematic unity. So, this is what transcendental dialectic aims at doing I repeat to establish a necessary role for reasons principle of systematic unity it argues that the ideas of reason have an important theoretical function each serves as an imaginary point toward which our investigations hypothetically converge and they have a regulative function the ideas of transcendental reason or the transcendental ideas of reason have a regulative function or metaphysical propensities are grounded in the nature of human reason as pointed out earlier solve the concept of solve serves to guide our empirical investigations in psychology everything is pointed to one converging point and transcendental idea of the world or cosmos grounds investigations in physics they all represent the systematic unity we aspire in our empirical studies and God grounds the unification of these two branches of natural science empirical psychology and physics into one unified science. The idea of God in that sense I have pointed out is it enables to conceive that every connection in the world happens according to principles of systematic unity. So, that is why it is established and we can assume that all have arising from one single all encompassing being supreme and self cause. So, this is the concept and God also plays a very important role which we will explore in the next lecture when we discuss Kant's contribution in ethics or his ethical theory. So, we have discussed the notion of ideas of transcendental reason and also the problems with speculative metaphysics and how speculative metaphysics ultimately lead to transcendental illusions you will conclude our lecture at this point. Thank you.