Reading this article, I found the following:
Kant is sympathetic to the dominant strain in modern philosophy that banishes final causes from nature and instead treats nature as nothing but matter in motion, which can be fully described mathematically (Part 7.1)
For some reason, I could not help but to wonder if Kant's Transcendent is naturalistic or not. If Kant's excludes the Transcendent from the pure reason (as every science is bound by the appearant and its categories), does he still keep the Transcendental as an expression of natural reality?
I can't chase the feeling that I am maybe experiencing some linguistic confusion.
I am also sure that Kant's Transcendent is not an alternative for the supernatural in any religious meaning (or so I think, at least).
The question could be asked in a different way (different question maybe but highly linked): how does Kant qualify the Natural?