For that this concept, even in reference to an object, contains nothing impossible, was shown by this, that, even while applied to objects of sense, its seat was certainly fixed in the pure understanding; and although, when referred to things in themselves (which cannot be objects of experience), it is not capable of being determined so as to represent a definite object for the purpose of theoretic knowledge; yet for any other purpose (for instance, a practical) it might be capable of being determined so as to have such application. This could not be the case if, as Hume maintained, this concept of causality contained something absolutely impossible to be thought.
Izan ere, honela frogatu zen adigai horrek objektu bati dagokionez ere ezinezkoa den ezer ez duela barnebiltzen: adimen hutsean duen egoitza sentsuen objektuen aplikazio orotan segurtatua zegoen, eta berehala ondoren berbaitango gauzei lotuta (esperientziako objektuak izan ezin direnak) ezein determinazio sortzeko gai ez izan arren objektu determinatu baten errepresentaziorako ezagutza teoretiko baten alde, hala ere beste zerbaiten mesederako (agian erabilera praktikorako) determinazio bat izateko gai izan daiteke horren aplikaziorako, eta hori ezinezkoa litzateke Humeren arabera kausalitatearen adigai horrek edonon pentsatzea ezinezkoa egiten duen zerbait barnebilduko balu.