Now, in order to remove in the supposed case the apparent contradiction between freedom and the mechanism of nature in one and the same action, we must remember what was said in the Critique of Pure Reason, or what follows therefrom; viz., that the necessity of nature, which cannot co-exist with the freedom of the subject, appertains only to the attributes of the thing that is subject to time-conditions, consequently only to those of the acting subject as a phenomenon; that therefore in this respect the determining principles of every action of the same reside in what belongs to past time and is no longer in his power (in which must be included his own past actions and the character that these may determine for him in his own eyes as a phenomenon).
Aurkeztutako kasuan ekintza bat eta berberean dugun naturaren mekanismoaren eta askatasunaren arteko itxurazko kontraesana gainditzeko arrazoimen hutsaren kritikan esan zena edo hartatik ondorioztatzen dena ekarri behar dugu gogora, ezen subjektuaren askatasunarekin batera iraun ezin duen natur beharrezkotasuna denboraren baldintzapean dagoen gauzaren determinazioei baino ez zaiola itsasten, eta ondorioz, subjektu ekileak agerpen den aldetik dituenei, eta beraz, haren ekintza bakoitzaren determinazio-oinarriak lehenaldiari dagozkion eta bere esku ez dauden heinean (eta hor kokatu behar dira gainera egindako ekintzak eta horren bidez bere begien aurrean duen izaera determinagarria fenomeno gisa).