Causality Vs Uncaused Causality

We therefore have two contrasting positions regarding the nature of freedom and its relationship to causality. Crusius' position maintains that not only is uncaused causality possible, but that there is no adequate way to articulate human freedom and moral responsibility without it. Kant's pre-critical response argues that uncaused causality is impossible and that human freedom and moral responsibility is not only compatible with freedom and morality, but practically preferable. With both positions there is an emphasis on the question of applying causality to the sum total of all appearances.

By the time that we reach "The Critique of Pure Reason" we find that Kant shifts his position to a libertarian one in which both uncaused causality is possible and that it is necessary for true freedom. The reason this synthesis precisely works is because he adopts the transcendental idealist premise that the world as the sum totality of appearances is beyond the scope of our understanding. This entails that he both holds that uncaused causality is impossible in the phenomenal world, yet does not entail a
This is the problem of the Transcendental Illusion, in which reason attempts to find the condition for the faculty of the understanding. While reason normally just postulates the unconditioned, it falls into error by presupposing that the unconditioned actually exists. Reason postulates a series of objects that have no ground in objects of the understanding at all, but are merely abstractions: God, the soul and the world. These abstractions are problematic for the transcendental idealist precisely because they presuppose knowledge of things-in-themselves. As reason always seeks the unconditioned that makes the conditions, it therefore will always look for these objects of reason, and this is where it begins to run into