[Footnote A:  Kant applies the term transcendental to the knowledge (the discovery, the proof) of the a priori factor and its relation to objects of experience.  Unfortunately he often uses the same word not only to designate the a priori element itself, but also as a synonym for transcendent.  In all three cases its opposite is empirical, namely, empirico-psychological investigation by observation in distinction from noetical investigation from principles; empirical origin in distinction from an origin in pure reason, and empirical use in distinction from application beyond the limits of experience.]

There is, apparently, a contradiction between the empiristic result of the Critique of Reason (the limitation of knowledge to objects of experience) and its rationalistic proofs (which proceed metaphysically, not empirically), and, in fact, a considerable degree of opposition really exists.  Kant argues in a metaphysical way that there can be no metaphysics.  This contradiction is solved by the distinction which has been mentioned between that which is beyond, and that which lies within, the boundary of experience.  That metaphysic is forbidden which on the objective side soars beyond experience, but that pure rational knowledge is permissible and necessary which develops from principles the grounds of experiential knowledge existing in the subject.  In the Kantian school, however, these complementary elements,—­empirical result, transcendental or metaphysical, properly speaking, pro-physical method,—­were divorced, and the one emphasized, favored, and further developed at the expense of the other.  The empiricists hold to the result, while they either weaken or completely misunderstand the rationalism of the method:  the a priori factor, says Fries, was not reached by a priori, but by a posteriori, means, and there is no other way by which it could have been reached.  The constructive thinkers, Fichte and his successors, adopt and continue the metaphysical method, but reject the empirical result.  Fichte’s aim is directed to a system of necessary, unconscious processes of reason, among which, rejecting the thing in itself, he includes sensation.  According to Schelling nature itself is a priori, a condition of consciousness.  This discrepancy between foundation and result continues in an altered form even among contemporary thinkers—­as a discussion whether the “main purpose” of Criticism is to be found in the limitation of knowledge to possible experience, or the establishment of a priori elements—­though many, in adherence to Kant’s own view, maintain that the metaphysics of knowledge and of phenomena (immanent rationalism) is the only legitimate metaphysics.

%1.  Theory of Knowledge.