(1/2) The Critique of Pure Reason By Immanuel Kant. Audiobook - full length, free

the critique of pure Reason by Emanuel

Kant

introduction I of the difference between

pure and empirical knowledge that all

our knowledge begins with experience

there can be no doubt for how is it

possible that the faculty of cognition

should be awakened into exercise

otherwise than by means of objects which

affect our senses and partly of

themselves produce

representations partly Rouse our powers

of understanding into activity to

compare to connect or to separate these

and so to convert the raw material of

our sensuous Impressions into a

knowledge of objects which is called

experience in respect of time therefore

no knowledge of ours is antecedent to

experience but begins with it but though

all our knowledge begins with experience

it by no means follows that all arises

out of

experience for on the contrary it is

quite possible that our empirical

knowledge is a compound of that which we

receive through Impressions and that

which The Faculty of cognition supplies

from itself sensuous Impressions giving

merely the occasion an addition which we

cannot distinguish from the original

element given by sense till long

practice has made us attentive to and

skillful in separating it it is

therefore a question which requires

close investigation and not to be

answered at First Sight whether there

exists a knowledge altogether

independent of experience and even of

all sensuous impression

knowledge of this kind is called a

priori in contradistinction to empirical

knowledge which has its sources a

posteriori that is in

experience but the expression a priori

is not as yet definite enough adequately

to indicate the whole meaning of the

question above started for in speaking

of knowledge which has its sources in

experience we are W to say that this or

that may be known a priori because we do

not derive this knowledge immediately

from experience but from a general rule

which however we have itself borrowed

from

experience thus if a man undermind his

house we say he might know a priori that

it would have fallen that is he needed

not to have waited for the experience

that it did actually fall but still a

priori he could not know even this much

for that bodies are heavy and

consequently that they fall when their

supports are taken away must have been

known to him previously by means of

experience by the term knowledge AR

priori therefore we shall in the sequel

understand not such as is independent of

this or that kind of experience but such

as is absolutely so of all

experience opposed to this is empirical

knowledge or that which is Possible only

a posteriori that is through

experience knowledge a priori is either

Pure or impure pure knowledge a priori

is that with which no empirical element

is mixed up for example the proposition

every change has a cause is a

proposition a priori but impure because

change is a conception which can only be

derived from

experience two the human intellect even

in an unphilosophical

state is in possession of certain

cognitions a priori the question now is

as to a Criterion by which we may

securely distinguish a pure from an

empirical cognition

experience no doubt teaches us that this

or that object is constituted in such

and such a manner but not that it could

not possibly exist

otherwise now in the first place if we

have a proposition which contains the

idea of necessity in its very conception

it is

priori if moreover it is not derived

from any other proposition unless from

one equally involving the idea of

necessity it is absolutely

priori secondly an empirical judgment

never exhibit strict and absolute but

only assumed in comparative universality

by induction therefore the most we can

say is so far as we have hitherto

observed there is no exception to this

or that rule if on the other hand a

judgment carries with its strict and

absolute universality that is admits of

no possible exception it is not derived

from experience but is valid absolutely

a priori empirical universality is

therefore only an arbitrary extension of

validity from that which may be

predicated of a proposition valid in

most cases to that which is asserted of

a proposition which holds good in all as

for example in the affirmation all

bodies are heavy when on the contrary

strict universality characterizes a

judgment it necessarily indicates

another peculiar source of knowledge

namely a faculty of cognition a priori

necessity and strict universality

therefore are infallible tests for

distinguishing pure from empirical

knowledge and are inseparably connected

with each other but as in the use of

these criteria the empirical limitation

is sometimes more easily detected than

the contingency of the Judgment or the

unlimited universality which we attach

to a judgment is often a more convincing

proof than its necessity it may be

advisable to use the criteria separately

each being by itself

infallible now that in the sphere of

human cognition we have judgments which

are necessary and in the strictest sense

Universal consequently pure a priori it

will be an easy matter to show if we

desire an example from The Sciences we

need only take any proposition in

mathematics if we cast our eyes upon the

commonest operations of the

understanding the proposition every

change must have a cause will amply

serve our purpose in the latter case

indeed the conception of a cause so

plainly involves the conception of a

necessity of connection with an effect

and of a strict universality of the law

that the very notion of a cause would

entirely disappear were we to derive it

like Hume from a frequent Association of

what happens with that which

precedes and the Habit then originating

of connecting representations the

necessity inherent in the Judgment being

therefore merely

subjective besides without seeking for

such examples of principles existing our

priori in cognition we might easily show

that such principles are the

indispensable basis of the possibility

of experience itself and consequently

prove their existence a priori for

whence could our experience itself

acquire certainty if all the rules on

which it depends were themselves

empirical and consequently

fortuitous no one therefore can admit

the validity of the use of such rules as

first

principles but for the present we may

content ourselves with having

established the fact that we do possess

an exercise a faculty of pure priori

cognition and secondly with having

pointed out the proper tests of such

cognition namely universality and

necessity not only in judgments however

but even in conceptions is an OP prior

origin

manifest for example if we take away by

degrees from our conceptions of a body

all that can be referred to Mere

sensuous experience color hardness or

softness weight even impenetrability the

body will then vanish but the space

which it occupied Still Remains and this

it is utterly impossible to annihilate

in thought again if we take away in like

manner from our empirical conception of

any object corporeal or incorporeal all

properties which mere experience has

taught us to connect with it still we

cannot think away those through which we

citate as substance or adhering to

substance Although our conception of

substance is more determined than that

of an object

compelled therefore by that necessity

with which the conception of substance

forces itself upon us we must confess

that it has its seat in our faculty of

cognition a priori

three philosophy stands in need of a

science which shall determine the

possibility principles and extent of

human knowledge a priori of far more

importance than all that has been above

said is the consideration that certain

of our cognitions rise completely above

the sphere of all possible experience

and by means of conceptions to which

there exists in the whole extent of

experience no corresponding object seem

to extend the range of our judgments

Beyond its bounds and just in this

transcendental or super sensible sphere

where experience affords us neither

instruction nor guidance Li the

investigations of Reason which on

account of their importance we consider

far preferable to and as having a a far

more elevated aim than all that the

understanding can achieve within the

sphere of sensuous phenomena so high a

value do we set upon these

investigations that even at the risk of

error we persist in following them out

and permit neither doubt nor disregard

nor indifference to restrain us from the

pursuit these unavoidable problems of

mere pure reason are God freedom of Will

and

immortality the science which with all

its preliminaries has for its a special

object the solution of these problems is

named metaphysics a science which is at

the very outset dogmatical that is it

confidently takes upon itself the

execution of this task without any

previous investigation of the ability or

inability of reason for such an

undertaking now the safe ground of

experience being thus abandoned it seems

nevertheless natural that we should

hesitate to erect a building with the

cognitions we possess without knowing

whence they come and on the strength of

principles the origin of which is

undiscovered instead of thus trying to

build without a foundation it is rather

to be expected that we should long ago

have put the question how the

understanding can arrive at these AR

priori cognitions and what is the extent

validity and worth which they may

possess we say this is natural enough

meaning by the word natural that which

is consistent with a just and reasonable

way of thinking but if we understand by

the term that which usually happens

nothing indeed could be more natural and

more comprehensible than that this

investigation should be left long

unattempted for one part of our Pure

knowledge the science of mathematics has

been long firmly established and thus

leads us to form flattering expectations

with regard to others though these may

be of quite a different nature besides

when we get beyond the bounds of

experience we are of course safe from

opposition in that quarter and the charm

of widening the range of our knowledge

is so great that unless we are brought

to a standstill by some evident

contradiction we hurry on undoubtedly in

our

course this however may be avoided if we

are sufficiently cautious in the

construction of our fictions which are

not the less fictions on that account

mathematical science affords us a

brilliant example how far independently

of all experience we may carry our a

priori knowledge it is true that the

mathematician occupies himself with

objects and cognitions only so far as

they can be represented by means of

intuition but this circumstance is

easily overlooked because the said

intuition can itself be given a priori

and therefore is hardly to be

distinguished from a mere pure

conception deceived by such a proof of

the power of reason we can perceive No

Limits to the extension of our knowledge

the light dove cleaving in Free Flight

the thin air whose resistance it feels

might imagine that her movements would

be far more free and Rapid in airless

space just in the same way did Plato

abandoning the world of sense because of

the narrow limits it sets to the

understanding Venture upon the wings of

ideas Beyond it into the void space of

pure intellect he did not reflect that

he made no real progress by all his

efforts for he met with no resistance

which might serve him for a support as

it were whereon to rest and on which he

might apply his powers in order to let

the intellect acquire momentum for its

progress it is indeed the common fate of

human reason in speculation to finish

the imposing edifice of thought as

rapidly as possible and then for the

first time to begin to examine whether

the foundation is a solid one or no

arrived at this point all sorts of

excuses are sought after in order to

console us for its want of stability or

rather indeed to enable us to dispense

altogether with so late and dangerous an

investigation but what frees US during

the process of building from all

apprehension or suspicion and flatters

us into the belief of its solidity is

this a great part perhaps the greatest

part of the business of our reason

consists in the analyzation of the

conceptions which we already possess of

objects by this means we gain a

multitude of cognitions which although

really nothing more than elucidations or

explanations of that which though in a

confused manner was already thought in

our conceptions or at least in respect

of their form prised as new

introspections whilst so far as regards

their matter or content we have really

made no addition to our conceptions but

only disin Volve them but as this

process does furnish a real priori

knowledge which has assure progress and

useful results reason deceived by this

slips in without being itself aware of

it assertions of a quite different kind

in which to given conceptions it adds

others a priori indeed but entirely

foreign to them them without our knowing

how it arrives at these and indeed

without such a question ever suggesting

itself I shall therefore at once proceed

to examine the difference between these

two modes of knowledge four of the

difference between analytical and

synthetical

judgments in all judgments wherein the

relation of a subject to the predicate

is cogitated I mention affirmative

judgments only here the application to

negative will be very easy this relation

is possible in two different ways either

the predicate B belongs to the subject a

as somewhat which is contained though

covertly in the conception a or the

predicate B lies completely out of the

conception a although it stands in

connection with it in the first instance

I term the Judgment Analytical in the

second

synthetical analytical judgments

affirmative are therefore those in which

the connection of the predicate with the

subject is cogitated through identity

the those in which this connection is

cogitated without identity are called

synthetical

judgments the former may be called

explicative the latter augmentative

judgments because the former add in the

predicate nothing to the conception of

the subject but only analyze it into its

constituent conceptions which were

thought already in the subject although

in a confused manner the latter add to

our conceptions of the subject of

predicate which was not contained in it

and which no analysis could ever have

discovered there in for example when I

say all bodies are extended this is an

analytical judgment for I need not go

beyond the conception of body in order

to find extension connected with it but

merely analyze the conception that is

become conscious of the manifold

properties which I think in that

conception in order to discover this

predicate in it it is therefore an

analytical

judgment on the other hand when I say

all bodies are heavy the predicate is

something totally different from that

which I think in the mere conception of

a body by the addition of such a

predicate therefore it becomes a

synthetical judgment judgments of

experience as such are always

synthetical for it would be absurd to

think of grounding an analytical

judgment on experience because in

forming such a judgment I need not go

out of the sphere of my conceptions and

therefore recourse to the testimony of

experience is quite

unnecessary that bodies are extended is

not an empirical judgment but a

proposition which stands firm a priori

for before addressing myself to

experience I already have in my

conception all the requisite conditions

for the judgment and I have only to

extract the predicate from the

conception according to the principle of

contradiction and thereby at the same

time become conscious of the necessity

of the Judgment a necessity which I

could never learn from

experience on the other hand though at

first I do not at all include the

predicate of weight in my conception of

body in general that conception still

indicates an object of experience a part

of the totality of

experience to which I can still add

other parts and this I do when I

recognize by observation that bodies are

heavy I can cognize beforehand by

analysis the conception of body through

the characteristics of extension

impenetrability shape Etc all which are

cogitated in this

conception but now I extend my knowledge

and looking back on experience from

which I had derived this conception of

body I find weight at all times

connected with the above

characteristics and therefore I

synthetically add to my conceptions this

as a predicate and say all bodies are

heavy thus it is experience upon which

rests the possibility of the synthesis

of the predicate of weight with the

conception of body because both

conceptions although the one is not

contained in the other still belong to

one another only

contingently however ever as parts of a

whole namely of experience which is

itself a synthesis of

intuitions but to synthetical judgments

are priori such Aid is entirely wanting

if I go out of and Beyond the conception

a in order to recognize another b as

connected with it what Foundation have I

to rest on whereby to render the

synthesis possible I have here no longer

the advantage of looking out in the

sphere of experience for what I want let

us take for example the proposition

everything that happens has a cause in

the conception of something that happens

I indeed think an existence which a

certain time antecedes and from this I

can derive analytical

judgments but the conception of a cause

lies quite out of the above conception

and indicate something entirely

different from that which happens and is

consequently not contained in that

conception how then am I able to assert

concerning the general conception that

which happens something entirely

different from that conception and to

recognize the conception of cause

although not contained in it yet is

belonging to it and even

necessarily what is here the unknown

equals x upon which the understanding

rests when it believes it has found out

of the conception a a foreign predicate

B which it nevertheless considers to be

connected with it it cannot be

experienced because the principle uced

annexes the two representations cause

and effect to the representation

existence not only with universality

which experience cannot give but also

with the expression of

necessity therefore completely a priori

and from Pure

conceptions upon such synthetical that

is augmentative propositions depends the

whole aim of our speculative knowledge a

priori for although analytical judgments

are indeed highly important and

necessary they are so only to arrive at

that clearness of conceptions which is

requisite for a sure and extended

synthesis and this alone is a real

acquisition V in all theoretical

Sciences of Reason

synthetical judgments a priori are

contained as

principles one mathematical judgments

are always

synthetical hither to this fact though

incontestably true and very important in

its consequences seems to have escaped

the analysts of the human mind nay to be

in complete opposition to all their

conjectures for as it was found that

mathematical conclusions all proceed

according to the principle of

contradiction which the nature of every

aidic certainty

requires people became persuaded that

the fundamental principles of the

science also were recognized and

admitted in the same way but the notion

is

fous for although a synthetical

proposition can certainly be discerned

by means of the principle of

contradiction this is Possible only when

another synthetical proposition precedes

from which the latter is deduced but

never of itself

before all be it observed that proper

mathematical propositions are always

judgments a priori and not empirical

because they carry along with them the

conception of necessity which cannot be

given by

experience if this be demurred to it

matters not I will then limit my

assertion to pure mathematics the very

conception of which implies that it

consists of knowledge altogether

non-empirical and AR priori we might

indeed at first suppose that the

proposition 7 plus 5 is equal to 12 is a

merely analytical proposition following

according to the principle of

contradiction from the conception of a

sum of seven and five but if we regard

it more narrowly we find that our

conception of the sum of seven and five

contains nothing more than the uniting

of both sums into one whereby it cannot

at all be cogitated what this single

number is which Embraces both the

conception of 12 is by no means obtained

by merely cogitating the union of seven

and five and we may analyze our

conception of such a possible sum as

long as we will still we shall never

discover in it the notion of 12 we must

go beyond these conceptions and have

recourse to an intuition which

corresponds to one of the two our five

fingers for example or like segner in

his arithmetic Five Points and so by

degrees add the units contained in the

five given in the intuition to the

conception of seven for I first take the

number seven and for the conception of

five calling in the aid of the fingers

of my hand as objects of intuition I add

the units which I before took together

to make up the number five gradually Now

by means of the material image my hand

to the number seven and by this process

I at length see the number 12 for Rise

that seven should be added to five I

have certainly cogitated in my

conception of a sum equals 7 + 5 but not

that this sum was equal to 12

arithmetical propositions are therefore

always always synthetical of which we

may become more clearly convinced by

trying large numbers for it will thus

become quite evident that turn and twist

our conceptions as we may it is

impossible without having recourse to

intuition to arrive at the sum total or

product by means of the mere analysis of

our

conceptions just as little is any

principle of pure geometry

analytical a straight line between two

points is the shortest is a synthetical

proposition for my conception of

straight contains no notion of quantity

but is merely

qualitative the conception of the

shortest is therefore for Holy in

addition and by no analysis can it be

extracted from our conception of a

straight line intuition must therefore

here lend its Aid by means of which and

thus only our synthesis is possible some

few principles

propositum are indeed really analytical

and depend on the principle of

contradiction they serve however like

identical propositions as links in the

chain of method not as principles for

example a equals a the whole is equal to

itself or a plus b greater than a the

whole is greater than its part and yet

even these principles themselves though

they derive their validity from Pure

conceptions are only admitted in

mathematics because they can be

presented in

intuition what causes us here commonly

to believe that the predicate of such

apodictic judgments is already contained

in our conception and that the judgment

is therefore analytical is merely the

equivocal nature of the expression we

must join in thought a certain predicate

to a given conception and this necessity

Cleaves already to the conception but

the question is not what we must join in

thought to the given conception but what

we really think therein though only

obscurely and then it becomes manifest

that the predicate pertains to these

conceptions necessarily indeed yet not

as thought in the conception itself but

by virtue of an intuition which must be

added to the

conception two the science of natural

philosophy physics contains in itself

synthetical judgments a priori as

principles I shall aduce two

propositions for instance the

proposition in all changes of the

material world the quantity of matter

remains unchanged or that in all

communication of motion action and

reaction must always be equal

in both of these not only is the

necessity and therefore their origin a

priori clear but also that they are

synthetical

propositions for in the conception of

matter I do not cogitate its permanency

but merely its presence in space which

it fills I therefore really go out of

and Beyond the conception of matter in

order to think on to it something a

priori which I did not thinking it the

proposition is therefore not analytical

but synthetical and nevertheless

conceived a priori and so it is with

regard to the other propositions of the

pure part of natural

philosophy three as to metaphysics even

if we look upon it merely as an

attempted science yet from the nature of

human reason and indispensable one we

find that it must contain synthetical

propositions a priori it is not merely

the duty of metaphysics to dissect and

thereby analytically to illustrate the

conceptions which we form our priori of

things but we seek to widen the range of

our a priori knowledge for this purpose

we must Avail ourselves of such

principles as add something to the

original conception something not

identical with nor contained in it and

by means of synthetical judgments a

priori leave far behind us the limits of

experience for example in the

proposition the world must have a

beginning and such like thus metaphysics

according to the proper aim of the

science consists merely of synthetical

propositions a

priori six the universal problem of pure

reason it is extremely advantageous to

be able to bring a number of

Investigations under the formula of a

single problem for in this manner we not

only facilitate our own labor in as much

as we Define it clearly to ourselves but

also render it more easy for others to

decide whether we have done Justice to

our

undertaking the proper problem of pure

reason then is contained in the question

how are synthetical judgments are priori

possible that metaphysical science has

hitherto remained in so vacillating a

state of uncertainty and contradiction

is only to be attributed to the fact

that this great problem and perhaps even

the difference between analytical and

synthetical

judgments did not sooner suggest itself

to

philosophers upon the solution of this

problem or upon sufficient proof of the

impossibility of synthetical knowledge a

priori depends the existence or downfall

of of the science of

metaphysics among philosophers David

Hume came the nearest of all to this

problem yet it never acquired in his

mind sufficient Precision nor did he

regard the question in its

universality on the contrary he stopped

short at the synthetical proposition of

the connection of an effect with its

cause principium causal attus insisting

that such proposition a priori was

impossible according to his conclusions

then all that we term metaphysical

science is a mere illusion arising from

the fancied Insight of Reason into that

which is in truth borrowed from

experience and to which habit has given

the appearance of

necessity against this assertion

destructive to All Pure philosophy he

would have been guarded had he had our

problem before his eyes in its

universality for he would then have

perceived that according to his own

argument there likewise could not be any

pure mathematical science which

assuredly cannot exist without

synthetical propositions are PR y an

absurdity from which his good

understanding must have saved him in the

solution of the above problem is at the

same time comprehended the possibility

of the use of pure reason in the

foundation and construction of all

Sciences which contain theoretical

knowledge are priori of objects that is

to say the answer to the following

questions how is pure mathematical

science possible how is pure Natural

Science possible respecting these

Sciences as they do certainly exist it

may with propriety be asked how they are

possible for that they must be possible

is shown by the fact of they're really

existing but as to metaphysics the

miserable progress it has hitherto made

and the fact that of no one system yet

brought forward far as regards its true

aim can it be said that this science

really exists leaves anyone at Liberty

to doubt with reason the very

possibility of its

existence as to the existence of pure

natural science or physics perhaps many

may still Express doubts but we have

only to look at the different

propositions which are commonly treated

of at the commencement of proper

empirical physical science those for

example relating to the permanence of

the same quantity of matter the VIS

inera the equality of action and

reaction Etc to be soon convinced that

they form a science of pure physics

physic aura or rationalis which well

deserves to be separately exposed as a

special science in its whole extent

whether that be great or

confined yet in a certain sense this

kind of knowledge must unquestionably be

looked upon as given in other words

metaphysics must be considered as really

existing if not as a science

nevertheless as a natural disposition of

the human mind metaphysica

naturales for human reason without any

instigations imputable to the mere

vanity of great knowledge unceasingly

progresses purged on by its own own

feeling of need towards such questions

as cannot be answered by any empirical

application of reason or principles

derived there from and so there has ever

really existed in every man some system

of

metaphysics it will always exist so soon

as reason awakes to the exercise of its

power of

speculation and now the question arises

how is metaphysics as a natural

disposition possible in other words how

from the nature of unversal human reason

do those questions arise which pure

reason proposes to itself and which it

is impelled by its own feeling of need

to answer as well as it can but as in

all the attempts hitherto made to answer

the questions which reason is prompted

by its very nature to propose to itself

for example whether the world had a

beginning or has existed from eternity

it has always met with unavoidable

contradictions we must not rest

satisfied with the mere natural

disposition of the mind to metaphysics

that is is with the existence of the

faculty of pure reason whence indeed

some sort of metaphysical system always

arises but it must be possible to arrive

at certainty in regard to the question

whether we know or do not know the

things of which metaphysics treats we

must be able to arrive at a decision on

the subjects of its questions or on the

ability or inability of reason to form

any judgment respecting them and

therefore either to extend with

confidence the bounds of our Pure reason

or to set strictly defined and safe

limits to its action this last question

which arises out of the above Universal

problem would properly run thus how is

metaphysics possible as a

science thus the critique of Reason

leads at last naturally and necessarily

to

science and on the other hand the

dogmatical use of Reason without

criticism leads to groundless assertions

against which others equally specious

can always be set thus ending

unavoidable l in

skepticism besides this science cannot

be of great and formidable prolixity

because it has not to do with objects of

reason the variety of which is

inexhaustible but merely with reason

herself and her problems problems which

arise out of her own bosom and are not

proposed to her by the nature of outward

things but by her own nature and when

Once reason has previously become able

completely to understand her own power

in regard to objects which she meets

within experience it will be easy to

determine securely the extent and limits

of her attempted application to objects

beyond the confines of

experience we may and must therefore

regard the attempts hitherto made to

establish metaphysical science

dogmatically as

non-existent for what of analysis that

is mere dissection of conceptions is

contained in one or other is not the aim

of but only a preparation for

metaphysics proper which has for its

object the extension by means of syn is

of our a priori knowledge and for this

purpose mere analysis is of course

useless because it only shows what is

contained in these conceptions but not

how we arrive a priori at them and this

it is her duty to show in order to be

able afterwards to determine their valid

use in regard to all objects of

experience to all knowledge in general

but little self-denial indeed is needed

to give up these pretentions seeing the

undeniable and in the dogmatic mode of

procedure inevitable contradictions of

reason with

herself have long since ruined the

reputation of every system of

metaphysics that has appeared up to this

time it will require more firmness to

remain undeterred by difficulty from

within and opposition from without from

endeavoring by a method quite opposed to

all those hitherto followed to further

the growth and fruitfulness of a science

indispensable to human reason a science

from which every Branch it has borne may

be cut away but whose Roots remain

indestructible seven idea and division

of a particular science under the name

of a critique of pure reason from all

that has been said there results the

idea of a particular science which may

be called the critique of pure reason

for reason is the faculty which

furnishes us with the principles of

knowledge a

priori hence pure reason is the faculty

which contains the principles of

cognizing anything absolutely are prior

an organon of pure reason would be a

compendium of those principles According

to which alone all pure cognitions are

priori can be obtained the completely

extended application of such an organon

would afford US a system of pure reason

as this however is demanding a great

deal and it is yet doubtful whether any

extension of our knowledge be here

possible or if so in what cases we can

regard a science of the mere criticism

of pure reason its sources and limits as

the proped doic to a system of pure

reason such a science must not be called

a Doctrine but only a critique of pure

reason and its use in regard to

speculation would be only negative not

to enlarge the bounds of but to purify

our reason and to Shield it against

error which alone is no little gain I

apply the term transcendental to all

knowledge which is not so much occupied

with objects as with the mode of our

cognition of these objects so far as

this mode of cognition is possible a

priori a system of such conceptions

would be called transcendental

philosophy but this again is still

beyond the bounds of our present essay

for as such a science must contain a

complete Exposition not only of our

synthetical AR priori but of our

analytical AR priori knowledge it is of

too wide a range for our present purpose

because we do not require to carry our

analysis any farther than is necessary

to understand in their full extent the

principles of synthesis are priori with

which alone we have to do this

investigation which we cannot properly

call a Doctrine but only a

transcendental critique because it aims

not at the enlargement but at the

correction and guidance of our knowledge

and is to serve as a touchstone of the

Worth or worthlessness of all knowledge

a priori is the sole object of our

present essay such a critique is

consequently as far as possible a

preparation for an organon and if this

new organon should be found to fail at

least for a Canon of pure reason

According to which the complete system

of the philosophy of pure reason whether

it extend or limit the bounds of that

reason might one day be set forth both

analytically and

synthetically for that this is possible

nay that such a system is not of so

great extent as to preclude the hope of

its ever being completed is evident for

we have not here to do with the nature

of outward objects which is infinite but

solely with the mind which judges of the

nature of objects and again with the

mind only in respect of its cognition op

priori and the object of our

investigations as it is not to be sought

without but altogether within ourselves

cannot remain concealed and in all

probability is limited enough to be

completely surveyed and fairly

estimated according to its worth or

worthlessness still less let the reader

here expect a critique of books and

systems of pure reason our present

object is exclusively a critique of the

faculty of pure reason itself only when

we make this critique our foundation do

we possess a pure Touchstone for

estimating the philosophical value of

ancient and modern writings on this

subject and without this Criterion the

incompetent historian or judge decides

upon and corrects the groundless

assertions of others with his own which

have themselves just as Little

Foundation transcendental philosophy is

the idea of a science

for which the critique of pure reason

must sketch the whole plan

architectonically that is from

principles with a full guarantee for the

validity and stability of all the parts

which enter into the building it is the

system of all the principles of pure

reason if this critique itself does not

assume the title of transcendental

philosophy it is only because to be a

complete system it ought to contain a

full analysis of all human knowledge a

priori our critique must indeed lay

before us a complete enumeration of all

the radical conceptions which constitute

the said pure knowledge but from the

complete analysis of these conceptions

themselves as also from a complete

investigation of those derived from them

it abstains with reason partly because

it would be deviating from the end in

view to occupy itself with this analysis

since this process is not attended with

the difficulty and insecurity to be

found in the synthesis to which our

critique is entirely devoted

and partly because it would be

inconsistent with the unity of our plan

to burden this Essay with the

Vindication of the completeness of such

an analysis and deduction with which

after all we have at present nothing to

do this completeness of the analysis of

these radical conceptions as well as of

the deduction from the conceptions AR

priori which may be given by the

analysis we can however easily attain

provided only that we are in possession

of all these radical conceptions which

are to serve as principles of the

synthesis and that in respect of this

main purpose nothing is wanting to the

critique of pure reason therefore

belongs all that constitutes

transcendental philosophy and it is the

complete idea of transcendental

philosophy but still not the science

itself because it only proceeds so far

with the analysis as is necessary to the

power of judging completely of our

synthetical knowledge a priori the

principal thing we must attend to in the

division of the parts of a science like

this is that no conceptions must enter

it which contain odd empirical in other

words that the knowledge a priori must

be completely pure hence although the

highest principles and fundamental

conceptions of morality are certainly

cognitions a priori yet they do not

belong to transcendental

philosophy because though they certainly

do not lay the conceptions of pain

pleasure desires inclinations

Etc which are all of empirical origin at

the foundation of its precepts yet still

into the conception of Duty as an

obstacle to be overcome or as an

incitement which should not be made into

a motive these empirical conceptions

must necessarily enter in the

construction of a system of pure

morality transcendental philosophy is

consequently a philosophy of the pure

and merely speculative reason for all

that is practical so far as it contains

motives relates to feelings and these

belong to empirical sources of

cognition if we wish to divide this

science from the universal point of view

of a science in general it ought to

comprehend first a doctrine of the

elements and secondly a doctrine of the

method of pure reason each of these main

divisions will have its subdivisions the

separate reasons for which we cannot

here

particularize only so much seems

necessary by way of introduction of

premonition that there are two sources

of human knowledge which probably spring

from a common but to us unknown root

namely sense and understanding by the

former objects are given to us by the

latter thought so far as the faculty of

sense may contain representations AR

priori which form the conditions under

which objects are given in so far it

belongs to transcendental

philosophy the transcendental doctrine

of sense must form the first part of our

science of elements because the

conditions under which alone the objects

of human knowledge are given must

precede those those under which they are

thought I transcendental doctrine of

elements first part transcendental

aesthetic I

introductory in whatsoever mode or by

whatsoever means our knowledge May

relate to objects it is at least quite

clear that the only manner in which it

immediately relates to them is by means

of an

intuition to this as the indispensable

groundwork all thought points but an

intuition can take place only in so far

as the object is given to us this again

is only possible to man at least on

condition that the object affect the

mind in a certain manner the capacity

for receiving representations

receptivity through the mode in which we

are affected by objects objects is

called

sensibility by means of sensibility

therefore objects are given to us and it

alone furnishes us with

intuitions by the understanding they are

thought and from it arise

conceptions but in thought must directly

or indirectly by means of certain signs

relate ultimately to

intuitions consequently with us to

sensibility because in no other way can

an object be given to us the effect of

an object upon the faculty of

representation so far as we are affected

by the set object is

Sensation that sort of intuition which

relates to an object by means of

sensation is called an empirical

intuition the undetermined object of an

empirical intuition is called

phenomenon that which in the phenomenon

corresponds to the sensation I term its

matter but that which affects that the

content of the phenomenon can be

arranged under certain relations I call

its form but that in which our

Sensations are merely arranged and by

which they are susceptible of assuming a

certain form cannot be itself

sensation it is then the matter of all

phenomena that is given to us a

posteriori the form must lie ready a

priori for them in the mind and

consequently can be regarded separately

from all

sensation I call all representations

pure in the transcendental meaning of

the word wherein nothing is met with

that belongs to

sensation and accordingly we find

existing in the mind AR priori the pure

form of sensuous intuitions in general

in which all the manifold content of the

phenomenal world is arranged and viewed

under certain

relations this pure form of sensibility

I shall call Pure

intuition thus if I take away from our

representation of a body all that the

understanding thinks as belonging to it

as substance Force divisibility Etc and

also whatever belongs to sensation as

impenetrability hardness color Etc yet

there is still something left us from

this empirical intuition namely

extension and shape these belong to pure

intuition which exists a priori in the

mind as a mere form of sensibility and

without any real object of the senses or

any

sensation the science of all the

principles of sensibility a priori I

call transcendental

aesthetic there must then be such a

science forming the first part of the

transcendental doctrine of elements in

contradistinction to that part which

contains the principles of pure thought

and which is called transcendental Logic

the Germans are the only people who at

present use this word to indicate what

others call the critique of taste at the

foundation of this term lies the

disappointed hope which the eminent

analyst bomgarden conceived of

subjecting the criticism of the

beautiful to principles of reason and so

of elevating its rules into a science

but his Endeavors were vain for the said

rules or criteria are in respect to

their Chief sources merely empirical

consequently never can serve as

determinate laws a priori by which our

judgment in matters of taste is to be

directed it is rather our judgment which

forms the proper test as to the

correctness of the

principles on this account it is

advisable to give up the use of the term

as designating the critique of Taste and

to apply it solely to that Doctrine

which is true science the science of the

laws of sensibility and thus come nearer

to the language and the sense of the

Ancients in their well-known division of

the objects of cognition into iotic

NOA or to share it with speculative

philosophy and employ it partly in a

transcendental partly in a psychological

signification in the science of

transcendental aesthetic accordingly we

shall first isolate sensibility or the

sensuous faculty by separating from it

all that is annexed to its perceptions

by the conceptions of understanding so

that nothing be left but empirical

intuition in the next place we shall

take away from this intuition all that

belongs to sensation so that nothing May

remain but pure intuition and a mere

form of phenomena which is all that the

sensibility can afford a priori from

this investigation it will be found that

there are two pure forms of sensuous

intuition as principles of knowledge AR

priori namely space and time to the

consideration of these we shall now

proceed section I of

space section two metaphysical

exposition of this conception

by means of the external sense a

property of the mind we represent to

ourselves objects as without us and

these all in space herein alone are

their shape dimensions and relations to

each other determined or

determinable the internal sense by means

of which the Mind contemplates itself or

its internal State gives indeed no

intuition of the Soul as an object yet

there is nevertheless a determinate form

under which alone the contemplation of

our internal state is possible so that

all which relates to the inward

determinations of the mind is

represented in relations of time of time

we cannot have any external intuition

any more than we can have an internal

intuition of space what then are time

and space are they real

existences or are they merely relations

or determinations of things such however

as would equally belong to these things

in themselves though they should never

become objects of intuition

or are they such as belong only to the

form of intuition and consequently to

the subjective constitution of the mind

without which these predicates of time

and space could not be attached to any

object in order to become informed on

these points we shall first give an

exposition of the conception of space by

Exposition I mean the clear though not

detailed representation of that which

belongs to a conception and an

exposition is metaphysical when it

contains that which represents the

conception as given a priori one space

is not a conception which has been

derived from outward

experiences for in order that certain

Sensations May relate to something

without me that is to something which

occupies a different part of space from

that in which I am in like manner in

order that I may represent them not

merely as without of and near to each

other but also in separate places the

representation of space must already

exist as a foundation consequently the

representation of space cannot be

borrowed from the relations of external

phenomena through experience but on the

contrary this external experience is

itself only possible through the said

antecedent

representation two space then is a

necessary representation a priori which

serves for the foundation of all

external

intuitions we never can imagine or make

a representation to ourselves of the

non-existence of space though we may

easily enough think that that no objects

are found in it it must therefore be

considered as the condition of the

possibility of phenomena and by no means

as a determination dependent on them and

is a representation a priori which

necessarily supplies the basis for

external phenomena

three space is no discursive or as we

say General conception of the relations

of things but a pure

intuition for in the first place we can

only represent to ourselves one space

and when we talk of diverse spaces we

mean only parts of one and the same

space moreover these parts cannot

antecede this one all embracing space as

the component parts from which the

aggregate can be made up but can be

cogitated only as existing in it space

is essentially one and multiplicity in

it consequently the general notion of

spaces of this or that space depends

solely upon

limitations hence it follows that an AR

priori intuition which is not empirical

lies at the root of all our conceptions

of

space thus moreover the principles of

geometry for example that in a triangle

two sides together are greater than the

third are never deduced from General

conceptions of line and triangle but

from intuition and this AR priori with

apodictic certainty four space is

represented as an infinite given

quantity now every conception must

indeed be considered as a representation

which is contained in an infinite

multitude of different possible

representations which therefore

comprises these under itself but no

conception as such can be so conceived

as if it contained within itself an

infinite multitude of

representations nevertheless space is so

conceived of for all parts of space are

equally capable of being produced to

Infinity consequently the original

representation of space is an intuition

AR prior and not a

conception section three transcendental

exposition of the conception of space by

a transcendental Exposition I mean the

explanation of a conception as a

principle whence can be discerned the

possibility of other synthetical a

priori

cognitions for this purpose it is

requisite firstly that such cognitions

do really flow from the given conception

and secondly that the said cognitions

are only possible possible under the

presupposition of a given mode of

explaining this

conception geometry is a science which

determines the properties of space

synthetically and yet a

priori what then must be our

representation of space in order that

such a cognition of it may be possible

it must be originally intuition for from

a mere conception no propositions can be

deduced which go out beyond the

conception and yet this happens in

Geometry

introd V

but this intuition must be found in the

mind AR priori that is before any

perception of objects consequently must

be pure not empirical

intuition for geometrical principles are

always apodictic that is united with the

consciousness of their necessity as

space has only three

dimensions but propositions of this kind

cannot be empirical judgments nor

conclusions from them

introd two now how can an external

intuition anterior to objects themselves

and in which our conception of objects

can be determined a priori exist in the

human mind obviously not otherwise than

in so far as it has its seat in the

subject only as the formal capacity of

the subjects being affected by objects

and thereby of obtaining immediate

representation that is

intuition consequently only as the form

of the external sense in general thus it

is only by means of our explan that the

possibility of geometry as a synthetical

science a priori becomes

comprehensible every mode of explanation

which does not show us this possibility

although in appearance it may be similar

to ours can with the utmost certainty be

distinguished from it by these marks

section four conclusions from the

foregoing

conceptions a space does not represent

any property of objects as things in

themselves nor does it represent them in

their relations to each other

in other words space does not represent

to us any determination of objects such

as attaches to the objects themselves

and would remain even though all

subjective conditions of the intuition

were abstracted for neither absolute nor

relative determinations of objects can

be intuited prior to the existence of

the things to which they belong and

therefore not a priori b space is

nothing else than the form of all

phenomena of the external sense that is

the subjective condition of of the

sensibility under which alone external

intuition is possible now because the

receptivity or capacity of the subject

to be affected by objects necessarily

antecedes all intuitions of these

objects it is easily understood how the

form of all phenomena can be given in

the mind previous to all actual

perceptions therefore a priori and how

it as a pure intuition in which all

objects must be

determined can contain principles of the

relations of these objects prior to all

experience it is therefore from the

human point of view only that we can

speak of space extended objects Etc if

we depart from the subjective condition

under which alone we can obtain external

Intuition or in other words by means of

which we are affected by objects the

representation of space has no meaning

whatsoever this predicate is only

applicable to things in so far as they

appear to us that is our objects of

sensibility

the constant form of this receptivity

which we call sensibility is a necessary

condition of all relations in which

objects can be inted as existing without

us and when abstraction of these objects

is made is a pure intuition to which we

give the name of space it is clear that

we cannot make the special conditions of

sensibility into conditions of the

possibility of things but only of the

possibility of their existence as far as

they are phenomena and so we may

correctly say that space contains all

which can appear to us externally but

not all things considered as things in

themselves be they intuited or not or by

whatsoever subject one will as to the

intuitions of other thinking beings we

cannot judge whether they are or are not

bound by the same conditions which limit

our own intuition and which for us are

universally valid if we join the

limitation of a judgment to the

conception of the subject then the

judgment will possess unconditioned

validity for example the proposition all

objects are beside each other in space

is valid only under the limitation that

these things are taken as objects of our

sensuous

intuition but if I join the condition to

the conception and say all things as

external phenomena are beside each other

in space then the rule is valid

universally and without any

limitation our expositions consequently

teach the reality I.E the objective

validity of space in regard of all which

can be presented to us externally as

object and at the same time also the

ideality of space in regard to objects

when they are considered by means of

reason as things in themselves that is

without reference to the constitution of

our

sensibility we maintain therefore the

empirical reality of space in regard to

all possible external experience

although we must admit its

transcendental

ideality in other words that it is

nothing so soon as we with draw the

condition upon which the possibility of

all experience depends and look upon

space as something that belongs to

things in themselves but with the

exception of space there is no

representation subjective and referring

to something external to us which could

be called objective AR priori for there

are no other subjective representations

from which we can deduce synthetical

propositions AR priori as we can from

the intuition of space c section 3

therefore to speak accurately no

ideality whatever belongs to these

although they agree in this respect with

the representation of space that they

belong merely to the subjective nature

of the mode of sensuous

perception such a mode for example as

that of sight of hearing and of Feeling

by means of the sensations of color

sound and heat but which because they

are only Sensations and not intuitions

do not of themselves give us the

cognition of any object least of all an

priori

cognition my purpose in the above remark

is merely this to guard anyone against

illustrating the asserted ideality of

space by examples quite insufficient for

example by color taste etc for these

must be contemplated not as properties

of things but only as changes in the

subject changes which may be different

in different men for in such a case that

which is originally a mere phenomenon

arose for example is taken by the

empirical understanding for a thing in

itself though to every different eye in

respect of its color it may appear

different on the contrary the

transcendental conception of phenomena

in space is a critical admonition that

in general nothing which is inted in

space is a thing in itself and that

space is not a form which belongs as a

property to things but that objects are

quite unknown to us in themselves and

what we call outward objects are nothing

else but mere representations of our

sensibility whose form is space but

whose real correlate the thing in itself

is not known by means of these

representations nor ever can be but

respecting which in experience no

inquiry is ever made section two of time

section five metaphysical exposition of

this

conception one time is not an empirical

conception for neither coexistence nor

succession would be perceived by us if

the representation of time did not exist

as a foundation a priori without this

presupposition we could not represent to

ourselves that things exist together at

one and the same time or at different

times that is contemporaneously or in

succession two time is a necessary

representation lying at the foundation

of all our

intuitions with regard to phenomena in

general we cannot think away time from

them and represent them to ourselves as

out of and unconnected with time but we

can quite well represent to ourselves

time void of phenomena time is therefore

given a priori in it alone is all

reality a phenomena possible these may

all be annihilated in thought but time

itself as the universal condition of

their possibility cannot be so en olded

three on this necessity a priori is also

founded the possibility of apodictic

principles of the relations of time or

axioms of time in general such as time

has only one dimension different times

are not coexistent but successive as

different spaces are not successive but

coexistent these principles cannot be

derived from experience for it would

give neither strict universality nor

apodictic certainty we should only be

able to say so common experience teaches

us but not it must be so they are valid

as rules through which in general

experience is possible and they instruct

us respecting experience and not by

means of it four time is not a

discursive or as it is called General

conception but a pure form of the

sensuous

intuition different times are merely

parts of one and the same time but the

representation which can only be given

by a single object is an

intuition besides the proposition that

different times cannot be coexistent

could not be derived from a general

conception for this proposition is

synthetical and therefore cannot spring

out of conceptions alone it is therefore

contained immediately in the intuition

and representation of time five the

Infinity of time signifies nothing more

than that every determined quantity of

time is Possible only through

limitations of one time lying at the

foundation consequently the original

representation time must be given as

Unlimited but as the determinant

representation of the parts of time and

of every quantity of an object can only

be obtained by limitation the complete

representation of time must not be

furnished by means of

conceptions for these contain only

partial

representations conceptions on the

contrary must have immediate intuition

for their

basis section six transcendental

exposition of the conception of time I

may here refer to what is said above

Section 5 three where for a sake of

brevity I have placed under the head of

metaphysical Exposition that which is

properly

transcendental here I shall add that the

conception of change and with it the

conception of motion as change of place

is Possible only through and in the

representation of time that if this

representation were not an intuition

internal a priori no conception of

whatever kind could render

comprehensible the possibility of change

in other words

of a conjunction of contradictorily

opposed predicates in one and the same

object for example the presence of a

thing in a place and a non-presence of

the same thing in the same place it is

only in time that it is possible to meet

with two contradictorily opposed

determinations in one thing that is

after each other thus our conception of

time explains the possibility of so much

synthetical knowledge a priori as is

exhibited in the general doctrine of

motion which is not a little fruitful

section s conclusions from the above

conceptions a time is not something

which subsists of itself or which

inheres in things as an objective

determination and therefore remains when

abstraction is made of the subjective

conditions of the intuition of things

for in the former case it would be

something real yet without presenting to

any power of perception any real object

in the latter case as an order or

determination inherent in things

themselves elves it could not be

antecedent to things as their condition

nor discerned or intuited by means of

synthetical propositions AR prior but

all this is quite possible when we

regard time as merely the subjective

condition under which all our intuitions

take place for in that case this form of

the inward intuition can be represented

prior to the objects and consequently a

priori B time is nothing else than the

form of the internal sense that is of

the inter itions of self and of our

internal state for time cannot be any

determination of outward phenomena it

has to do neither with shape nor

position on the contrary it determines

the relation of representations in our

internal State and precisely because

this internal intuition presents to us

no shape or form we Endeavor to supply

this want by analogies and represent the

course of time by a line progressing to

Infinity the content of which

constitutes a a series which is only of

one dimmension and we conclude from the

properties of this line as to all the

properties of time with this single

exception that the parts of the line are

coexistent whilst those of time are

successive from this it is clear also

that the representation of time is

itself an intuition because all its

relations can be expressed in an

external

intuition C time is the formal condition

a priori of all phenomena

whatsoever space as the pure form of

external intuition is limited as a

condition a priori to external phenomena

alone on the other hand because all

representations whether they have or

have not external things for their

objects still in themselves as

determinations of the Mind belong to our

internal State and because this internal

state is subject to the formal condition

of the internal intuition that is to

time time is a condition a priori of all

phenomena whatsoever the immediate

condition of all internal and thereby

the mediate condition of all external

phenomena if I can say a priori all

outward phenomena are in space and

determined are priori according to the

relations of space I can also from the

principle of the internal sense affirm

universally all phenomena in general

that is all objects of the senses are in

time and stand necessarily in relations

of time if we abstract our internal

intuition of ourselves and all external

intuitions Possible only by virtue of

this internal intuition and presented to

us by our faculty of representation and

consequently take objects as they are in

themselves then time is nothing it is

only of objective validity in regard to

phenomena because these are things which

we regard as objects of our senses it no

longer objective we make abstraction of

the sensuousness of our intuition in

other words of that mode of

representation which is peculiar to us

and speak of things in general time is

therefore merely a subjective condition

of our human intuition which is always

sensuous that is so far as we are

affected by objects and in itself

independently of the mind or subject is

nothing nevertheless in respect of all

phenomena consequently of all things

which come within the sphere of our

experience it is necessarily objective

we cannot say all things are in time

because in this conception of things in

general we abstract and make no mention

of any sort of intuition of things but

this is the proper condition under which

time belongs to our representation of

objects if we add the condition to the

conception and say all things as

phenomena that is objects of sensuous

intuition are in time then the

proposition has its sound objective

validity in universality AR priori what

we have now set forth teaches therefore

the empirical reality of time

that is its objective validity in

reference to all objects which can ever

be presented to our senses and as our

intuition is always sensuous No Object

ever can be presented to us in

experience which does not come under the

conditions of time on the other hand we

deny to time all claim to absolute

reality that is we deny that it without

having regard to the form of our

sensuous intuition absolutely inheres in

things as a condition or property

such properties as belong to objects as

things in themselves never can be

presented to us through the medium of

the

senses herein consists therefore the

transcendental ideality of time

According to which if we abstract the

subjective conditions of sensuous

intuition it is nothing and cannot be

reckoned as subsisting or inhering in

objects as things in themselves

independently of its relation to our

intuition this ideality like that of

space is not to be be proved or

illustrated by fallacious analogies with

Sensations for this reason that in such

arguments or illustrations we make the

presupposition that the

phenomenon in which such and such

predicates inhere has objective reality

while in this case we can only find such

an objective reality as is itself

empirical that is regards the object as

a mere phenomenon in reference to this

subject see the remark in Section 1

section 4 section 8

elucidation against this Theory which

grants empirical reality to time but

denies to it absolute and transcendental

reality I have heard from intelligent

men and objection so unanimously urged

that I conclude that it must naturally

present itself to every reader to whom

these considerations are novel it runs

thus changes are real this the continual

change in our own representations

demonstrates even though the existence

of all external phenomena together with

their changes is

denied now changes are only possible in

time and therefore time must be

something real but there is no

difficulty in answering this I grant the

whole argument time no doubt is

something real that is it is the real

form of our internal

intuition it therefore has subjective

reality in reference to our internal

experience that is I have really the

representation of time and of my

determinations that there in time

therefore is not to be regarded as an

object but as the mode of representation

of myself as an object but if I could

inite myself or be inted by another

being without this condition of

sensibility then those very

determinations which we now represent to

ourselves as

changes would present to us a knowledge

in which the representation of time and

consequently of change would not appear

the empirical reality of time therefore

remains as the condition of all our

experience but absolute reality

according to what has been said above

cannot be granted it time is nothing but

the form of our internal

intuition if we take away from it the

Special condition of our sensibility the

conception of time also vanishes and it

inheres not in the objects themselves

but solely in the subject or mind which

intuits them I can indeed say my

representations follow one another or

are successive but this means only that

we are conscious of them as in a

succession that is according to the form

of the internal sense time therefore is

not a thing in itself nor is it any

objective determination pertaining to or

inherent in things but the reason why

this objection is so unanimously brought

against our doctrine of time and that

too by disputants who cannot start any

intelligible arguments against the

doctrine of the ideality of space is

this they have no hope of demonstrating

apodictically the absolute reality of

space because the doctrine of idealism

is against them according to which the

reality of external objects is not

capable of any strict proof on the other

hand the reality of the object of our

internal sense that is myself and my

internal state is clear immediately

through

Consciousness the former external

objects in space might be a mere

delusion but the latter the object of my

internal perception is undeniably real

they do not however reflect that both

without question of their reality as

representations belong only to the genus

phenomenon which has always two aspects

the one the object considered as a thing

in

itself without regard to the mode of

intuiting it and the nature of which

remains for this very reason

problematical the other the form of our

intuition of the object which must be

sought not in the object as a thing in

itself but in the subject to which it

appears which form of intuition

nevertheless belongs really and

necessarily to the phenomenal object

time and space are therefore two sources

of Knowledge from which a priori various

synthetical cognitions can be drawn of

this we find a striking example in the

cognitions of space and its relations

which form the foundation of pure

mathematics they are the two pure forms

of all intuitions and thereby make

synthetical proposition are priori

possible but these sources of knowledge

being merely conditions of our

sensibility do therefore and as such

strictly determine their own range and

purpose in that they do not and cannot

present objects as things in themselves

but are applicable to them solely in so

far as they are considered as sensuous

phenomena the sphere of phenomena is the

only sphere of their validity and if we

venture out of this no further objective

use can be made of them for the rest

this formal reality of time and space

leaves the validity of our empirical

knowledge

unshaken for our certainty in that

respect is equally firm whether these

forms necessarily inhere in the things

themselves or only in our intuitions of

them on the other hand those who

maintain the absolute reality of time

and space whether as essentially

subsisting or only in Heering as

modifications in things must find

themselves at utter variance with the

principles of experience itself for if

they decide for the first View and make

space and time into substances this

being the side taken by mathematical

natural philosophers they must admit two

self-subsisting non- entities infinite

and eternal which exist yet without

there being anything real for the

purpose of containing in themselves

everything that is real if they adopt

the second view of inherence which is

preferred by some metaphysical natural

philosophers and regard space and time

as relations conu it in space or

succession in time abstracted from

experience though represented confusedly

in this state of Separation they find

themselves in that case necessitated to

deny the validity of mathematical

doctrines a priori in reference to real

things for example in space at all

events their apodictic certainty for

such certainty cannot be found in an a

posterior

proposition and the conceptions are

priori of space and time are according

to this opinion mere creations of the

imagination having their Source really

in experience in as much as out of

relations abstracted from

experience imagination has made up

something which contains indeed General

statements of these relations yet of

which no application can be made without

the restrictions attached th too by

Nature the former of these parties gains

this advantage that they keep the sphere

of phenomena free for mathematical

science on the other hand these very

conditions space and time embarrass them

greatly when the understanding Endeavors

to pass the limits of that sphere the

latter has indeed this advantage that

the representations of space and time do

not come in their way when they wish to

judge of objects not as phenomena but

merely in their relation to the

understanding devoid however of a true

and objectively valid a priori intuition

they can neither furnish any basis for

the possibility of mathematical

cognitions a priori nor bring the

propositions of experience into

necessary accordance with those of

mathematics in our theory of the true

nature of these two original forms of

the sensibility both difficulties are

surmounted in conclusion that

transcendental aesthetic cannot contain

any more than these two elements space

and time is sufficiently obvious from

the fact that all other conceptions app

pertaining to sensibility even that of

motion which unites in itself both

elements presuppose something

empirical motion for example presupposes

the perception of something movable but

space considered in itself contains

nothing movable consequently motion must

be something which is found in space

only through experience in other words

an empirical datm in like manner

transcendental aesthetic cannot number

the conception of change among its data

AR priori for time itself does not

change but only something which is in

time to acquire the conception of change

therefore the perception of some

existing object and of the succession of

its determinations in one word

experience is

necessary section N9 General remarks on

transcendental

aesthetic I in order to prevent any

misunderstanding it will be requisite in

the first place to recapitulate as

clearly as possible what our opinion is

with respect to the fundamental nature

of our sensuous cognition in general we

we have intended then to say that all

our intuition is nothing but the

representation of

phenomena that the things which we inite

are not in themselves the same as our

representations of them in intuition nor

are their relations in themselves so

constituted as they appear to us and

that if we take away the subject or even

only the subjective constitution of our

senses in general then not only the

nature and relations of objects in space

and time but even space and time

themselves disappear and that these as

phenomena cannot exist in themselves but

only in us what may be the nature of

objects considered as things in

themselves and without reference to the

receptivity of our sensibility is quite

unknown to us we know nothing more than

our mode of perceiving them which is

peculiar to us and which though not of

necessity pertaining to every animated

being is so to the whole human race with

this alone we have to do space and time

are the pure P forms thereof sensation

the matter the former alone can we

cognize our priori that is antecedent to

all actual perception and for this

reason such cognition is called Pure

intuition the latter is that in our

cognition which is called cognition of

posteriori that is empirical

intuition the former appertain

absolutely and necessarily to our

sensibility of whatsoever kind our

Sensations may be the latter may be a

very diverse I ified character supposing

that we should carry our empirical

intuition even to the very highest

degree of clearness we should not

thereby Advance One Step nearer to a

knowledge of the Constitution of objects

as things in themselves for we could

only at best arrive at a complete

cognition of our own mode of intuition

that is of our sensibility and this

always under the conditions originally

attaching to the subject namely the

conditions of space and time while the

question what are objects considered as

things in themselves remains

unanswerable even after the most

thorough examination of the phenomenal

world to say then that all our

sensibility is nothing but the confused

representation of things containing

exclusively that which belongs to them

as things in themselves and this under

an accumulation of characteristic marks

and partial representations which we

cannot distinguish in Consciousness is a

falsification of the conception of

sensibility and

phenomenal which renders our whole

Doctrine thereof empty and

useless the difference between a

confused and a clear representation is

merely logical and has nothing to do

with

content no doubt the conception of right

as employed by a sound understanding

contains all that the most subtle

investigation could unfold from it

although in the ordinary practical use

of the word we are not conscious of the

manifold representations comprised in

the conception but we cannot for this

reason assert that the the ordinary

conception is a sensuous one containing

a mere phenomenon for right cannot

appear as a phenomenon but the

conception of it lies in the

understanding and represents a property

the moral property of actions which

belongs to them in

themselves on the other hand the

representation in intuition of a body

contains nothing which could belong to

an object considered as a thing in

itself but merely the phenomenon or

appearance of something and the mode in

which we are affected by that appearance

and this receptivity of our faculty of

cognition is called sensibility and

remains tottoo different from the

cognition of an object in itself even

though we should examine the content of

the phenomenon to the very bottom it

must be admitted that the Leets wolfian

philosophy has assigned an entirely

erroneous point of view to all

investigations into the nature and

origin of our

cognitions in as much as it regards the

distinction between the sensuous and the

intellectual as merely logic iCal

whereas it is plainly transcendental and

concerns not merely the clearness or

obscurity but the content and origin of

both for the faculty of sensibility not

only does not present us with an

indistinct and Confused cognition of

objects as things in themselves but in

fact gives us no knowledge of these at

all on the contrary so soon as we

abstract in thought our own subjective

nature the object represented with the

properties ascribed to it by sensuous

intuition entirely

disappears because it was only this

subjective nature that determined the

form of the object as a

phenomenon in phenoma we commonly indeed

distinguish that which essentially

belongs to the intuition of them and is

valid for the sensuous faculty of every

human being from that which belongs to

the same intuition

accidentally as valid not for the

sensuous faculty in general but for a

particular state or organization of this

or that sense accordingly we are

customed to say that the former is a

cognition which represents the object

itself whilst the latter presents only a

particular appearance or phenomenon

thereof this distinction however is only

empirical if we stop here as is usual

and do not regard the empirical

intuition as itself a mere phenomenon as

we ought to do in which nothing that can

appertain to a thing in itself is to be

found our transcendental distinction is

lost and we believe that we cognize

objects as things in themselves although

in the whole range of the sensuous World

investigate the nature of its objects as

profoundly as we may we have to do with

nothing but

phenomena thus we call the Rainbow a

mere appearance of phenomenon in a sunny

shower and the rain the reality or thing

in itself and this is right enough if we

understand the latter conception in a

merely physical sense that is as that

which in Universal experience and under

whatever conditions of sensuous

perception is known in intuition to be

so and so

determined and not

otherwise but if we consider this

empirical datm generally and inquire

without reference to its accordance with

all our

senses whether there can be discovered

in it ought which represents an object

as a thing in itself the raindrops of

course are not such for they are as

phenomena empirical objects the question

of the relation of the representation to

the object is

Transcendental and not only are the

raindrops mere phenomena but even their

circular form nay the space itself

through which they fall is nothing in

itself but both are mere modifications

or fundamental dispositions of our

sensuous

intuition whilst the transcendental

object remains for us utterly unknown

the second important concern of our

aesthetic is that it does not obtain

favor merely as a plausible hypothesis

but possess as undoubted a character of

certainty as can be demanded of any

Theory which is to certif for an organon

in order fully to convince the reader of

this certainty we shall select a case

which will serve to make its validity

apparent and also to illustrate what has

been said in Section 3 suppose then that

space and time are in themselves

objective and conditions of the

possibility of objects as things in

themselves in the first place it is

evident that both present us with very

many apodictic and synthetic

propositions AR priori but especially

space and for this this reason we shall

prefer it for investigation at present

as the propositions of geometry are

cognized synthetically a priori and with

apodictic certainty I inquire whence do

you obtain propositions of this kind and

on what basis does the understanding

rest in order to arrive at such

absolutely necessary and universally

valid truths there is no other way than

through intuitions or conceptions as

such and these are given either a priori

or a posterior

the latter namely empirical conceptions

together with the empirical intuition on

which they are founded cannot afford any

synthetical proposition except such as

is itself also empirical that is a

proposition of

experience but an empirical proposition

cannot possess the qualities of

necessity in absolute universality which

nevertheless are the characteristics of

all geometrical

propositions as to the first and only

means to arrive at such cognitions

namely through mere conceptions or

intuitions a priori it is quite clear

that from Mere conceptions no

synthetical cognitions but only

analytical ones can be

obtained take for example the

proposition two straight lines cannot

enclose a space and with these alone no

figure is possible and try to deduce it

from the conception of a straight line

and the number two or take the

proposition it is possible to construct

a figure with three straight lines and

in depth in like manner to deduce it

from the mere conception of a straight

line in the number three all your

endeavors are in vain and you find

yourself forced to have recourse to

intuition as in fact geometry always

does you therefore give yourself an

object in

intuition but of what kind is this

intuition is it a pure AR priori or is

it an empirical

intuition if the latter then neither an

universally valid much less an edetic

proposition can arise from it for

experience never can give us any such

proposition you must therefore give

yourself an object a priori in intuition

and upon that ground your synthetical

proposition now if there did not exist

within you a faculty of intuition AR

priori if this subjective condition were

not in respect to its form also the

universal condition AR priori under

which alone the object of this external

intuition is itself possible if the

object that that is the triangle or

something in itself without relation to

you the subject How Could You affirm

that that which lies necessarily in your

subjective conditions in order to

construct a triangle must also

necessarily belong to the triangle in

itself for to your conceptions of three

lines you could not add anything new

that is the figure which therefore must

necessarily be found in the object

because the object is given before your

cognition and not by means of it if

therefore space and time also were not a

mere form of your intuition which

contains conditions a priori under which

alone things can become external objects

for you and without which subjective

conditions the objects are in themselves

nothing you could not construct any

synthetical proposition whatsoever

regarding external objects it is

therefore not merely possible or

probable but indubitably certain that

space and time as the necessary

conditions of all our external and

internal experience are merely

subjective conditions of all our

intuitions in relation to which all

objects are therefore mere phenomena and

not things in themselves presented to us

in this particular Manner and for this

reason in respect to the form of

phenomena much may be said a priori

whilst of the thing in itself which may

lie at the foundation of these phenomena

it is impossible to say anything two in

confirmation of this theory of the

ideality of the external as well as

internal sense consequently of all

objects of sense as mere phenomena we

may especially remark that all in our

cognition that belongs to intuition

contains nothing more than mere

relations the feelings of pain and

pleasure and the will which are not

cognitions are accepted the relations to

wit of place in an intuition extension

change of place motion and laws

According to which this change is

determined moving forces

that however which is present in this or

that place or any operation going on or

result taking place in the things

themselves with the exception of change

of place is not given to us by

intuition Now by means of mere relations

a thing cannot be known in itself and it

may therefore be fairly concluded that

as through the external sense nothing

but mere representations of relations

are given us the said external sense in

its representation can contain only the

relation of the object to the subject

but not the essential nature of the

object as a thing in

itself the same is the case with the

internal intuition not only because in

the internal intuition the

representation of the external senses

constitutes the material with which the

mind is

occupied but because time in which we

place and which itself antecedes the

consciousness of these representations

in experience and which as the formal

condition of the mode According to which

objects are placed in the Mind lies at

the foundation of them contains

relations of the successive the

coexistent and of that which always must

be coexistent with succession the

permanent now that which as

representation can antecede every

exercise of thought of an object is

intuition and when it contains nothing

but relations it is the form of the

intuition which as it presents us with

no representation except in so far as

something is placed in the mind can be

nothing else than the mode in which the

mind is affected by its own activity to

ITT it's presenting to itself

representations consequently the mode in

which the mind is affected by

itself that is it can be nothing but an

internal sense in respect to its form

everything that is represented through

the medium of sense is so far

phenomenal consequently we must either

refuse altogether to admit an internal

sense or the subject which is the object

of that sense could only be represented

by it as phenomenon and not as it would

judge of itself if its intuition were

pure spontaneous activity that is we

intellectual the difficulty here lies

wholly in the question how can the

subject have an internal intuition of

itself but this difficulty is common to

every Theory the consciousness of self a

perception is the simple representation

of the gigo and if by means of that

representation alone all the manifold

representations in the subject were

spontaneously given then our internal

intuition would be

intellectual this Consciousness in man

requires an internal perception of the

manifold representations which are

previously given in the subject and the

manner in which these representations

are given in the mind without

spontaneity must on account of this

difference the want of spontaneity be

called

sensibility if the faculty of

self-consciousness is to apprehend what

lies in the mind it must all act that

and can in this way alone produce an

intuition of self but the form of this

intuition which lies in the original

constitution of the Mind determines in

the representation of time the manner in

which the manifold representations are

to combine themselves in the mind since

the subject ints itself not as it would

represent itself immediately and

spontaneously but according to the

manner in which the mind is internally

affected consequently as it appears and

not as it is

three when we say that the intuition of

external objects and also the self-

intuition of the subject represent both

objects and subject in space and time as

they affect our senses that is as they

appear this is by no means equivalent to

asserting that these objects are mere

elusory

appearances for when we speak of things

as phenomena the objects nay even the

properties which we ascribe to them are

looked upon as really given only that in

so far as this or that property depends

upon the mode of intuition of the

subject in the relation of the given

object to the subject the object as

phenomenon is to be distinguished from

the object as a thing in

itself thus I do not say that bodies

seem or appear to be external to me or

that my soul seems merely to be given in

my self-consciousness although I

maintain that the properties of space

and time in Conformity to which I set

both as the condition of their existence

abide in my mode of intuition and not in

the objects in themselves it would be my

own fault if out of that which I should

reckon as phenomenon I made mere ucer

appearance but this will not happen

because of our principle of the ideality

of all sensuous

intuitions on the contrary if we ascribe

objective reality to these forms of

representation it becomes impossible to

avoid changing everything into mere

appearance for if we regard space and

time as properties which must be found

in objects as things in themselves as

Sin kabus none of the possibility of

their existence and reflect on the

absurdities in which we then find

ourselves involved in as much as we are

compelled to admit the existence of two

infinite things which are nevertheless

not substances nor anything really

inhering in substances nay to admit that

they are the necessary conditions of the

existence of all things and moreover

that they must continue to exist

although all existing things were

annihilated we cannot blame the good

Berkeley for degrading bodies to Mere

elusory

appearances nay even our own existence

which would in this case depend upon the

self-existent reality of such a mere

nonentity as time would necessarily be

changed with it into mere appearance an

absurdity which no one has as yet been

guilty of the predicates of the

phenomenon can be a fixed to the object

itself in relation to our sensuous

faculty for example the red color or the

perfume to the Rose but elusory

appearance never can be attributed as a

predicate to an object for this very

reason that it attributes to this object

in itself that which belongs to it only

in relation to our sensuous faculty or

to the subject in general EG the two

handles which were formerly ascribed to

Saturn that which is never to be found

in the object itself but always in the

relation of the object to the subject

and which moreover is inseparable from

our representation of the object we

denominate

phenomenon thus the predicates of space

and time are rightly attributed to

objects of the senses as such and in

this There Is No Illusion on the

contrary if I ascribe redness of the

Rose as a thing in itself or to satn his

handles or extension to all external

objects considered as things in

themselves without regarding the

determinate relation of these objects to

the subject and without limiting my

judgment to that relation then and then

only only arises

illusion four in natural theology where

we think of an object God which never

can be an object of intuition to us and

even to himself can never be an object

of sensuous

intuition we carefully avoid attributing

to his intuition the conditions of space

and time and intuition all his cognition

must be and not thought which always

includes

limitation but with what right can we do

this if we make them forms of objects as

things in themselves and such moreover

as would continue to exist as our priori

conditions of the existence of things

even though the things themselves were

annihilated for as conditions of all

existence in general space and time must

be conditions of the existence of the

Supreme Being also but if we do not thus

make them objective forms of all things

there is no other way left than to make

them subjective forms of our mode of

intuition external and internal which is

called sensuous because it is not

primitive that is is not such as gives

in itself the existence of the object of

the intuition a mode of intuition which

so far as we can judge can belong only

to the Creator but is dependent on the

existence of the object is possible

therefore only on condition that the

representative faculty of the subject is

affected by the object it is moreover

not necessary that we should limit the

mode of intuition in space and time to

the sensuous faculty of man

it may well be that all finite thinking

beings must necessarily in this respect

agree with man though as to this we

cannot decide but sensibility does not

on account of this universality cease to

be sensibility for this very reason that

it is a deduced intuous derivativ and

not an original intous originarias

consequently not an intellectual

intuition and this intuition as such for

reasons above mentioned seems to belong

solely to the Supreme Being but but

never to a being dependent quote its

existence as well as its intuition which

its existence determines and limits

relatively to given

objects this latter remark however must

be taken only as an illustration and not

as any proof of the truth of our

aesthetical Theory section 10 conclusion

of the transcendental aesthetic we have

now completely before us one part of the

solution of the grand General problem of

transcendental philosophy namely the

question how are synthetical

propositions AR priori possible that is

to say we have shown that we are in

possession of pure AR priori intuitions

namely space and time in which we find

when in a judgment are priori we pass

out beyond the given

conception something which is not

discoverable in that conception but is

certainly found a priori in the

intuition which corresponds to the

conception and can be United

synthetically with it but the judgments

which these pure intuitions enable us to

make never reach farther than to objects

of the senses and are valid only for

objects of possible

experience second part transcendental

logic