,note3 ,images ( ! orig9al pages are available ?r\gh ,int]net ,ar*ive_/,canadian ,libr>ies4 ,see http3_/_/www4ar*ive4org_/details_/kantkn [l$ge#jjpricu(t ,transcrib]'s note3 #a4 ,text 9 italics is enclos$ by und]scores 7italics74 #b4 ,! orig9al text includes ,greek *>act]s4 ,= ?is text v]sion ^! lett]s h be5 replac$ ) translit]ations repres5t$ )9 squ>e brackets ,greek3 4 ,also greek lett]s alpha & beta are repres5t$ z alpha & beta 9 ?is text4 #c4 ,a subscript is indicat$ by an und]score foll[$ by ! subscript 9 curly braces4 ,= example1 a#b indicates a ) subscript #b4 #d4 ,footnotes h be5 mov$ to ! end ( ! p>agraph :]e9 !y h be5 ref]r$ to4 #e4 ,o!r ?an ! corrections li/$ above1 pr9t]'s inconsi/5cies 9 spell+1 punctuation & hyph5ation h be5 reta9$4 ,,kant',s ,,!ory ,,( ,,k by ,h4 ,a4 ,,pri*>d ,fell[ ( ,tr9ity ,college1 ,ox=d ,ox=d ,at ! ,cl>5don ,press #aiji ,h5ry ,fr[de1 ,m4,a4 ,publi%] to ! ,univ]sity ( ,ox=d ,london1 ,ed9burgh1 ,new ,york ,toronto & ,melb\rne ,,preface ,?is book is an attempt to ?9k out ! nature & t5ability ( ,kant's ,transc5d5tal ,idealism1 an attempt animat$ by ! conviction t ev5 ! elucidation ( ,kant's mean+1 ap>t f any criticism1 is impossible )\t a discussion on _! own m]its ( ! ma9 issues :i* he raises4 ,my obligations are _m & great3 to ,caird's ,critical ,philosophy ( ,kant & to ! translations ( ,meiklejohn1 ,max ,mll]1 & ,pr(essor ,mahaffy2 to ,mr4 ,j4 ,a4 ,smi?1 ,fell[ ( ,balliol ,college1 & to ,mr4 ,h4 ,w4 ,b4 ,joseph1 ,fell[ ( ,new ,college1 = :at ,i h le>n$ f !m 9 discussion2 to ,mr4 ,a4 ,j4 ,j5k9son1 ,fell[ ( ,bras5ose ,college1 = read+ & comm5t+ on ! fir/ half ( ! ,,ms42 to ,mr4 ,h4 ,h4 ,joa*im1 ,fell[ ( ,m]ton ,college1 = mak+ _m important sugge/ions1 especially ) reg>d to matt]s ( translation2 to ,mr4 ,joseph1 = read+ ! :ole ( ! pro(s & = mak+ _m valuable corrections2 &1 above all1 to my wife = con/ant & unfail+ help ?r\gh\t1 & to ,pr(essor ,cook ,wilson1 to h be5 ^: pupil ,i c\nt ! greate/ ( philosophical good =tunes4 ,"s ye>s ago x 0 my privilege to be a memb] ( a class ) :i* ,pr(essor ,cook ,wilson read a portion ( ,kant's ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 & subsequ5tly ,i h _h ! advantage ( discuss+ ) him sev]al ( ! m important passages4 ,i am especially indebt$ to him 9 my discussion ( ! foll[+ topics3 ! di/9ction betwe5 ! ,s5sibility & ! ,und]/&+ 7pp4 #bg-ca1 #adf-i1 #afb-f71 ! t]m '=m ( p]ception' 7pp4 #cg1 #dj1 #acc f94-#ace71 ! ,metaphysical ,exposition ( ,space 7pp4 #da-h71 ,inn] ,s5se 7,*4 ,v1 & pp4 #ach-i71 ! ,metaphysical ,d$uction ( ! ,categories 7pp4 #adi-ec71 ,kant's acc\nt ( '! ref]5ce ( repres5tations to an object' 7pp4 #agh-hf71 an implication ( p]spective 7p4 #ij71 ! impossibility ( a '!ory' ( k 7p4 #bde71 & ! po9ts consid]$1 pp4 #bjj m$4-#bjb m$41 #bad m$4-#bae m$41 & #bah4 ,! views express$ 9 ! pages ref]r$ to orig9at$ f ,pr(essor ,cook ,wilson1 ?\gh x mu/ n be assum$ t he w\ld accept !m 9 ! =m 9 :i* !y are !re /at$4 ,,cont5ts ,,*apt] ,i ,,page ,,! ,,problem ,,( ,,! ,critique #a ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,s5sibility ,,& ,,! ,,und]/&+ #bg ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,space #cf ,,*apt] ,,iv ,,ph5om5a ,,& ,,?+s ,,9 ,,!mselves #ga ,,note ,,! ,,fir/ ,,ant9omy #aja ,,*apt] ,v ,,"t ,,& ,,inn] ,,s5se #ajc ,,*apt] ,,vi ,,k ,,& ,,reality #aae ,,*apt] ,,vii ,,! ,,metaphysical ,,d$uction ,,( ,,! ,,categories #adj ,,*apt] ,,viii ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,d$uction ,,( ,,! ,,categories #afa ,,*apt] ,,ix ,,g5]al ,,criticism ,,( ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,d$uction ,,( ,,! ,,categories #bad ,,*apt] ,x ,,! ,,s*ematism ,,( ,,! ,,categories #bdf ,,*apt] ,,xi ,,! ,,ma!matical ,,pr9ciples #bfj ,,*apt] ,,xii ,,! ,,analogies ,,( ,,exp]i5ce #bfh ,,*apt] ,,xiii ,,! ,,po/ulates ,,( ,,empirical ,,?\ght #cjh ,,note ,,! ,,refutation ,,( ,,idealism #cai ,,ref]5ces ,a ,fir/ edition ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4 ,b ,second edition ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4 ,prol4 ,kant's ,prolegom5a to any future ,metaphysic4 ,m ,meiklejohn's ,translation ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4 ,mah4 ,mahaffy4 ,translation ( ,kant's ,prolegom5a to any future ,metaphysic4 7,! pages ref]r$ to are ^? ( ! fir/ edition2 ^! are also to be f\nd 9 ! text ( ! second edition47 ,caird ,caird's ,critical ,philosophy ( ,kant4 ,,*apt] ,i ,,! ,,problem ,,( ,,! ,,critique ,! problem ( ! ,critique may be /at$ 9 outl9e & approximately 9 ,kant's own words z foll[s4 ,human reason is call$ ^u to consid] c]ta9 que/ions1 :i* x _c decl9e1 z !y are pres5t$ by its own nature1 b :i* x _c answ]4 ,^! que/ions relate to ,god1 fre$om ( ! w1 & immortality4 ,& ! "n = ! subject :i* has to deal ) ^! que/ions is metaphysics4 ,at "o "t metaphysics 0 reg>d$ z ! que5 ( all ! sci5ces1 & ! importance ( its aim ju/ifi$ ! title4 ,at fir/ ! subject1 prop\nd+ z x did a dogmatic sy/em1 ex]cis$ a despotic sway4 ,b its subsequ5t failure br\ght x into disrepute4 ,x has con/antly be5 compell$ to retrace its /eps2 !re has be5 fundam5tal disagreem5t among philosoph]s1 & no philosoph] has successfully refut$ 8 critics4 ,consequ5tly ! curr5t attitude to ! subject is "o ( we>9ess & indiff]5ce4 ,yet humanity _c really be indiff]5t to su* problems2 ev5 ^? :o pr(ess indiff]5ce inevitably make metaphysical ass]tions2 & ! curr5t attitude is a sign n ( levity b ( a refusal to put up ) ! illusory k (f]$ by contempor>y philosophy4 ,n[ ! objects ( metaphysics1 ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality1 are n objects ( exp]i5ce 9 ! s5se 9 :i* a tree or a /one is an object ( exp]i5ce4 ,h5ce our views ab\t !m _c be due to exp]i5ce2 !y mu/ someh[ be appreh5d$ by pure reason1 i4 e4 by ?9k+ & )\t appeal to exp]i5ce4 ,moreov]1 x is 9 fact by ?9k+ t m5 h always tri$ to solve ! problems conc]n+ ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality4 ,:at1 !n1 is ! cause ( ! unsatisfactory treatm5t ( ^! problems & m5's consequ5t indiff]5ce8 ,x mu/1 9 "s way1 lie 9 a failure to atta9 ! sure sci5tific me?od1 & really consi/s 9 ! neglect ( an inquiry :i* %\ld be a prelim9>y to all o!rs 9 metaphysics4 ,m5 ought to h begun ) a critical inve/igation ( pure reason itself4 ,reason %\ld h exam9$ its own nature1 to asc]ta9 9 g5]al ! ext5t to :i* x is capable ( atta9+ k )\t ! aid ( exp]i5ce4 ,?is exam9ation w decide :e!r reason is able to deal ) ! problems ( ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality at all2 & )\t x no discussion ( ^! problems w h a solid f\ndation4 ,x is ?is prelim9>y inve/igation :i* ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason proposes to und]take4 ,its aim is to answ] ! "q1 ',h[ f> c reason g1 )\t ! mat]ial pres5t$ & ! aid furni%$ by exp]i5ce8' & ! result furni%es ! solution1 or at lea/ ! key to ! solution1 ( all metaphysical problems4 ,kant's problem1 !n1 is simil> to ,locke's4 ,locke /ates#a t 8 purpose is to inquire into ! orig9al1 c]ta9ty1 & ext5t ( human k2 & he says1 ,if1 by ?is inquiry into ! nature ( ! und]/&+ ,i c discov] ! p[]s !re(2 h[ f> !y rea*1 to :at ?+s !y are 9 any degree proportionate1 & :]e !y fail u2 ,i suppose x may be ( use to prevail ) ! busy m9d ( man1 to be m cauti\s 9 m$dl+ ) ?+s exce$+ its compreh5sion2 to /op :5 x is at ! utmo/ ext5t ( its te!r2 & to sit d[n 9 a quiet ignorance ( ^? ?+s1 :i*1 ^u exam9ation1 are f\nd to be beyond ! rea* ( our capacities4 ,?us1 to use ,dr4 ,caird's analogy1#b ! task :i* bo? ,locke & ,kant set !mselves resembl$ t ( inve/igat+ a telescope1 be=e turn+ x ^u ! />s1 to det]m9e its compet5ce = ! "w4 #a ,locke's ,essay1 i1 #a1 #b1 #d4 #b ,caird1 i1 #aj4 ,! above outl9e ( ,kant's problem is ( c\rse only an outl9e4 ,its def9ite =mulation is express$ 9 ! well-kn[n "q1 ',h[ are a priori syn!tic judgem5ts possible8'#c ,to det]m9e ! mean+ ( ?is "q x is necess>y to beg9 ) "s consid]ation ( ! t]ms 'a priori' & 'syn!tic'4 #c ,b4 #ai1 ,m4 #ab4 ,:ile !re is no difficulty 9 det]m9+ :at ,kant w\ld h recogniz$ z an a priori judgem5t1 !re is difficulty 9 det]m9+ :at he meant by call+ su* a judgem5t a priori4 ,! g5]al acc\nt is giv5 9 ! fir/ two sections ( ! ,introduction4 ,an a priori judgem5t is introduc$ z some?+ oppos$ to an a po/]iori judgem5t1 or a judgem5t :i* has its s\rce 9 exp]i5ce4 ,in/ances ( ! latt] w\ld be ',?is body is heavy'1 & ',?is body is hot'4 ,! po9t ( ! ^w 'exp]i5ce' is t !re is direct appreh5sion ( "s individual1 e4 g4 an individual body4 ,to say t a judgem5t has its s\rce 9 exp]i5ce is ( c\rse to imply a di/9ction betwe5 ! judgem5t & exp]i5ce1 & ! ^w 's\rce' may be tak5 to mean t ! judgem5t dep5ds = its validity ^u ! exp]i5ce ( ! individual ?+ to :i* ! judgem5t relates4 ,an a priori judgem5t1 !n1 z fir/ describ$1 is simply a judgem5t :i* is n a po/]iori4 ,x is indep5d5t ( all exp]i5ce2 9 o!r words1 its validity does n dep5d on ! exp]i5ce ( individual ?+s4 ,x might be illu/rat$ by ! judgem5t t all ?ree-sid$ figures mu/ h ?ree angles4 ,s f>1 !n1 no positive mean+ has be5 giv5 to a priori4#d #d ,kant is c>eful to exclude f ! class ( a priori judgem5ts prop] :at may be call$ relatively a priori judgem5ts1 viz4 judgem5ts :i*1 ?\gh n indep5d5t ( all exp]i5ce1 are indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce ( ! facts to :i* !y relate4 ,?us "o w\ld say ( a man :o und]m9$ ! f\ndations ( 8 h\se t he might h kn[n a priori t x w\ld fall d[n1 i4 e4 t he did n ne$ to wait = ! exp]i5ce ( its actual fall+ d[n4 ,b /ill he c\ld n "k ?is :olly a priori1 = he _h fir/ to le>n ?r\gh exp]i5ce t bodies are heavy & consequ5tly fall1 if _! supports are tak5 away4 7,b4 #b1 ,m4 #b47 ,kant !n proce$s1 n z we %\ld expect1 to /ate ! positive mean+ ( a priori2 b to give te/s = :at is a priori4 ,s9ce a te/ implies a di/9ction betwe5 itself & :at is te/$1 x is impli$ t ! mean+ ( a priori is already kn[n4#e #e ,x may be not$ t 9 ?is passage 7,introduction1 #a & #b7 ,kant is inconsi/5t 9 8 use ( ! t]m 'pure'4 ,pure k is introduc$ z a species ( a priori k3 ,a priori k1 if no?+ empirical is mix$ ) x1 is call$ pure4 7,b4 #c1 ,m4 #b1 #ag47 ,& 9 accordance ) ?is1 ! proposition 'e *ange has a cause' is said to be a priori b impure1 because ! conception ( *ange c only be d]iv$ f exp]i5ce4 ,yet imm$iately aft]w>ds1 pure1 be+ oppos$ 9 g5]al to empirical1 c only mean a priori4 ,aga91 9 ! phrase 'pure a priori' 7,b4 #d f941 ,m4 #c m$471 ! context %[s t 'pure' adds no?+ to 'a priori'1 & ! proposition 'e *ange mu/ h a cause' is expressly giv5 z an in/ance ( pure a priori k4 ,! inconsi/5cy ( ?is treatm5t ( ! causal rule is expla9$ by ! fact t 9 ! =m] passage he is ?9k+ ( ! conception ( *ange z empirical1 :ile 9 ! latt] he is ?9k+ ( ! judgem5t z n empirical4 ,at bottom 9 ?is passage 'pure' simply means a priori4 ,! te/s giv5 are necessity & /rict univ]sality4#f ,s9ce judgem5ts :i* are necess>y & /rictly univ]sal _c be bas$ on exp]i5ce1 _! exi/5ce is said to indicate ano!r s\rce ( k4 ,& ,kant gives z illu/rations1 7#a7 any proposition 9 ma!matics1 & 7#b7 ! proposition ',e *ange mu/ h a cause'4 #f ,9 reality1 ^! te/s come to ! same ?+1 = necessity means ! necessity ( connexion betwe5 ! subject & pr$icate ( a judgem5t1 & s9ce empirical univ]sality1 to :i* /rict univ]sality is oppos$1 means num]ical univ]sality1 z illu/rat$ by ! proposition ',all bodies are heavy'1 ! only mean+ left = /rict univ]sality is t ( a univ]sality rea*$ n ?r\gh an enum]ation ( in/ances1 b ?r\gh ! appreh5sion ( a necessity ( connexion4 ,s f> ,kant has said no?+ :i* det]m9es ! positive mean+ ( a priori4 ,a clue is1 h[ev]1 to be f\nd 9 two subsequ5t phrases4 ,he says t we may cont5t ourselves ) hav+ e/abli%$ z a fact ! pure use ( our faculty ( k4#g ,& he adds t n only 9 judgem5ts1 b ev5 9 conceptions1 is an a priori orig9 manife/4#h ,! second /atem5t seems to make ! a priori "* ( a judgem5t consi/ 9 its orig94 ,z ?is orig9 _c be exp]i5ce1 x mu/1 z ! fir/ /atem5t implies1 lie 9 our faculty ( k4 ,kant's po9t is t ! exi/5ce ( univ]sal & necess>y judgem5ts %[s t we mu/ possess a faculty ( k capable ( yield+ k )\t appeal to exp]i5ce4 ,! t]m a priori1 !n1 has "s ref]5ce to ! exi/5ce ( ?is faculty2 9 o!r words1 x gives expression to a doctr9e ( 'innate ideas'4 ,p]haps1 h[ev]1 x is h>dly fair to press ! phrase 'te/ ( a priori judgem5ts'4 ,if s1 x may be said t on ! :ole1 by a priori judgem5ts ,kant really means judgem5ts :i* are univ]sal & necess>y1 & t he reg>ds !m z imply+ a faculty :i* gives u k )\t appeal to exp]i5ce4 #g ,b4 #e1 ,m4 #d4 #h ,ibid4 ,we may n[ turn to ! t]m 'syn!tic judgem5t'4 ,kant di/+ui%es analytic & syn!tic judgem5ts ?us4 ,9 any judgem5t ! pr$icate ,b ei!r belongs to ! subject ,a1 z some?+ conta9$ 7?\gh cov]tly7 9 ! conception ,a1 or lies completely outside ! conception ,a1 al?\gh x /&s 9 relation to x4 ,9 ! =m] case ! judgem5t is call$ analytic1 9 ! latt] syn!tic4#i ',all bodies are ext5d$' is an analytic judgem5t2 ',all bodies are heavy' is syn!tic4 ,x imm$iately foll[s t only syn!tic judgem5ts ext5d our k2 = 9 mak+ an analytic judgem5t we are only cle>+ up our conception ( ! subject4 ,?is process yields no new k1 = x only gives u a cle>] view ( :at we "k already4 ,fur!r1 all judgem5ts bas$ on exp]i5ce are syn!tic1 = x w\ld be absurd to base an analytical judgem5t on exp]i5ce1 :5 to make ! judgem5t we ne$ n g beyond our own conceptions4 ,on ! o!r h&1 a priori judgem5ts are sometimes analytic & sometimes syn!tic4 ,=1 besides analytical judgem5ts1 all judgem5ts 9 ma!matics & c]ta9 judgem5ts :i* und]lie physics are ass]t$ indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce1 & !y are syn!tic4 #i ,b4 #aj1 ,m4 #g4 ,"h ,kant is obvi\sly "r 9 v9dicat+ ! syn!tic "* ( ma!matical judgem5ts4 ,9 ! ari?metical judgem5t #g #e #ab1 ! ?\ght ( c]ta9 units z a gr\p ( twelve is no m]e repetition ( ! ?\ght ( !m z a gr\p ( five add$ to a gr\p ( sev54 ,?\gh ! same units are ref]r$ to1 !y are reg>d$ diff]5tly4 ,?us ! ?\ght ( !m z twelve means ei!r t we ?9k ( !m z =m$ by add+ "o unit to a gr\p ( elev51 or t we ?9k ( !m z =m$ by add+ two units to a gr\p ( t51 & s on4 ,& ! ass]tion is t ! same units1 :i* c be gr\p$ 9 "o way1 c also be gr\p$ 9 ano!r4 ,simil>ly1 ,kant is "r 9 po9t+ out t ! geometrical judgem5t1 ',a /raight l9e betwe5 two po9ts is ! %orte/1' is syn!tic1 on ! gr\nd t ! conception ( /raightness is purely qualitative1#aj :ile ! conception ( %orte/ di/ance implies ! ?\ght ( quantity4 #aj ,/raightness means id5tity ( direction4 ,x %\ld n[ be an easy matt] to und]/& ! problem express$ by ! "q1 ',h[ are a priori syn!tic judgem5ts possible8' ,its sub/ance may be /at$ ?us4 ,! exi/5ce ( a po/]iori syn!tic judgem5ts pres5ts no difficulty4 ,= exp]i5ce is equival5t to p]ception1 &1 z we suppose1 9 p]ception we are confront$ ) reality1 & appreh5d x z x is4 ,if ,i am ask$1 ',h[ d ,i "k t my p5 is black or my *air h>d8' ,i answ] t x is because ,i see or feel x to be s4 ,9 su* cases1 !n1 :5 my ass]tion is *all5g$1 ,i appeal to my exp]i5ce or p]ception ( ! reality to :i* ! ass]tion relates4 ,my appeal raises no difficulty because x con=ms to ! univ]sal belief t if judgem5ts are to rank z k1 !y mu/ be made to con=m to ! nature ( ?+s1 & t ! con=mity is e/abli%$ by appeal to actual exp]i5ce ( ! ?+s4 ,b d a priori syn!tic judgem5ts satisfy ?is condition8 ,app>5tly n4 ,= :5 ,i ass]t t e /raight l9e is ! %orte/ way betwe5 its extremities1 ,i h n _h1 & nev] c h1 exp]i5ce ( all possible /raight l9es4 ,h[ !n c ,i be sure t all cases w con=m to my judgem5t8 ,9 fact1 h[ c ,i anticipate my exp]i5ce at all8 ,h[ c ,i make an ass]tion ab\t any individual until ,i h _h actual exp]i5ce ( x8 ,9 an a priori syn!tic judgem5t ! m9d 9 "s way1 9 virtue ( its own p[]s & indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce1 makes an ass]tion to :i* x claims t reality mu/ con=m4 ,yet :y %\ld reality con=m8 ,a priori judgem5ts ( ! o!r k9d1 viz4 analytic judgem5ts1 (f] no difficulty1 s9ce !y are at bottom tautologies1 & consequ5tly d5ial ( !m is self-contradictory & mean+less4 ,b !re is difficulty :]e a judgem5t ass]ts t a t]m ,b is connect$ ) ano!r t]m ,a1 ,b be+ nei!r id5tical ) nor a "p ( ,a4 ,9 ?is case !re is no contradiction 9 ass]t+ t ,a is n ,b1 & x w\ld seem t only exp]i5ce c det]m9e :e!r all ,a is or is n ,b4 ,o!rwise we are presuppos+ t ?+s mu/ con=m to our ideas ab\t !m4 ,n[ metaphysics claims to make a priori syn!tic judgem5ts1 = x does n base its results on any appeal to exp]i5ce4 ,h5ce1 be=e we ent] ^u metaphysics1 we really ought to inve/igate our "r to make a priori syn!tic judgem5ts at all4 ,!re91 9 fact1 lies ! importance to metaphysics ( ! exi/5ce ( su* judgem5ts 9 ma!matics & physics4 ,= x %[s t ! difficulty is n peculi> to metaphysics1 b is a g5]al "o %>$ by o!r subjects2 & ! exi/5ce ( su* judgem5ts 9 ma!matics is specially important because !re _! validity or c]ta9ty has nev] be5 que/ion$4#aa ,! success ( ma!matics %[s t at any rate "u c]ta9 conditions a priori syn!tic judgem5ts are valid1 & if we c det]m9e ^! conditions1 we %all be able to decide :e!r su* judgem5ts are possible 9 metaphysics4 ,9 ?is way we %all be able to settle a disput$ case ( _! validity by exam9ation ( an undisput$ case4 ,! g5]al problem1 h[ev]1 is simply to %[ :at x is :i* makes a priori syn!tic judgem5ts z su* possible2 & !re w be ?ree cases1 ^? ( ma!matics1 ( physics1 & ( metaphysics4 #aa ,kant po9ts out t ?is c]ta9ty has usually be5 attribut$ to ! analytic "* ( ma!matical judgem5ts1 & x is ( c\rse vital to 8 argum5t t he %\ld be successful 9 %[+ t !y are really syn!tic4 ,! outl9e ( ! solution ( ?is problem is conta9$ 9 ! ,preface to ! ,second ,edition4 ,!re ,kant urges t ! key is to be f\nd by consid]ation ( ma!matics & physics4 ,if ! "q be rais$ z to :at x is t has enabl$ ^! subjects to advance1 9 bo? cases ! answ] w be f\nd to lie 9 a *ange ( me?od4 ,s9ce ! e>lie/ times to :i* ! hi/ory ( human reason rea*es1 ma!matics has1 among t wond]ful nation ! ,greeks1 foll[$ ! safe road ( a sci5ce4 ,/ill x is n to be suppos$ t x 0 z easy = ?is sci5ce to /rike into1 or r to con/ruct = itself1 t royal road1 z x 0 = logic1 9 :i* reason has only to d ) itself4 ,on ! contr>y1 ,i believe t x mu/ h rema9$ long 9 ! /age ( grop+ 7*iefly among ! ,egyptians71 & t ?is *ange is to be ascrib$ to a revolution1 due to ! happy ?\ght ( "o man1 ?r\gh ^: exp]im5t ! pa? to be foll[$ 0 r5d]$ unmi/akable = future g5]ations1 & ! c]ta9 way ( a sci5ce 0 ent]$ ^u & sket*$ out once = all4444 ,a new light %one ^u ! fir/ man 7,?ales1 or :atev] may h be5 8 "n7 :o demon/rat$ ! prop]ties ( ! isosceles triangle2 = he f\nd t he ought n to inve/igate t :i* he saw 9 ! figure or ev5 ! m]e conception ( ! same1 & le>n its prop]ties f ?is1 b t he ought to produce ! figure by virtue ( t :i* he himself _h ?\ght into x a priori 9 accordance ) conceptions & _h repres5t$ 7by means ( a con/ruction71 & t 9 ord] to "k some?+ ) c]ta9ty a priori he mu/ n attribute to ! figure any prop]ty o!r ?an t :i* necess>ily foll[s f t :i* he has himself introduc$ into ! figure1 9 accordance ) 8 conception4#ab #ab ,b4 x-xii1 ,m4 xxvi4 ,"h ,kant's po9t is z foll[s4 ,geometry rema9$ b>r5 s long z m5 conf9$ !mselves ei!r to ! empirical /udy ( individual figures1 ( :i* ! prop]ties 7 to be discov]$ by obs]vation1 or to ! consid]ation ( ! m]e conception ( v>i\s k9ds ( figure1 e4 g4 ( an isosceles triangle4 ,9 ord] to advance1 m5 _h 9 "s s5se to produce ! figure ?r\gh _! own activity1 & 9 ! act ( con/ruct+ x to recognize t c]ta9 features 7 necessitat$ by ^? features :i* !y _h giv5 to ! figure 9 con/ruct+ x4 ,?us m5 _h to make a triangle by draw+ ?ree /raight l9es s z to enclose a space1 & !n to recognize t ?ree angles mu/ h be5 made by ! same process4 ,9 ?is way ! m9d discov]$ a g5]al rule1 :i* mu/ apply to all cases1 because ! m9d itself _h det]m9$ ! nature ( ! cases4 ,a prop]ty ,b foll[s f a nature ,a2 all in/ances ( ,a mu/ possess ! prop]ty ,b1 because !y h solely t nature ,a :i* ! m9d has giv5 !m & :atev] is involv$ 9 ,a4 ,! m9d's own rule holds good 9 all cases1 because ! m9d has itself det]m9$ ! nature ( ! cases4 ,kant's /atem5ts ab\t physics1 ?\gh n ! same1 are analog\s4 ,exp]im5t1 he holds1 is only fruitful :5 reason does n foll[ nature 9 a passive _s1 b compels nature to answ] its own que/ions4 ,?us1 :5 ,torricelli made an exp]im5t to asc]ta9 :e!r a c]ta9 column ( air w\ld su/a9 a giv5 weight1 he _h previ\sly calculat$ t ! quantity ( air 0 j suffici5t to balance ! weight1 & ! significance ( ! exp]im5t lay 9 8 expectation t nature w\ld con=m to 8 calculations & 9 ! v9dication ( ?is expectation4 ,reason1 ,kant says1 mu/ approa* nature n z a pupil b z a judge1 & ?is attitude =ms ! condition ( progress 9 physics4 ,! examples ( ma!matics & physics sugge/1 accord+ to ,kant1 t metaphysics may require a simil> revolution ( /&po9t1 ! lack ( :i* w acc\nt = its pa/ failure4 ,an attempt %\ld !re=e be made to introduce su* a *ange into metaphysics4 ,! *ange is ?is4 ,hi!rto x has be5 assum$ t our k mu/ con=m to objects4 ,?is assumption is ! real cause ( ! failure to ext5d our k a priori1 = x limits ?\ght to ! analysis ( conceptions1 :i* c only yield tautological judgem5ts4 ,let u !re=e try ! effect ( assum+ t objects mu/ con=m to our k4 ,h]e9 lies ! ,cop]nican revolution4 ,we f9d t ?is rev]sal ( ! ord9>y view ( ! relation ( objects to ! m9d enables u = ! fir/ "t to und]/& ! possibility ( a priori syn!tic judgem5ts1 & ev5 to demon/rate c]ta9 laws :i* lie at ! basis ( nature1 e4 g4 ! law ( causality4 ,x is true t ! rev]sal also involves ! surpris+ consequ5ce t our faculty ( k is incapable ( deal+ ) ! objects ( metaphysics prop]1 viz4 ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality1 = ! assumption limits our k to objects ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,b ?is v consequ5ce1 viz4 ! impossibility ( metaphysics1 s]ves to te/ & v9dicate ! assumption4 ,= ! view t our k con=ms to objects z ?+s 9 !mselves leads u into an insoluble contradiction :5 we g on1 z we mu/1 to seek = ! uncondition$2 :ile ! assumption t objects mu/1 z ph5om5a1 con=m to our way ( repres5t+ !m1 removes ! contradiction#ac4 ,fur!r1 ?\gh ! assumption leads to ! d5ial ( speculative k 9 ! sph]e ( metaphysics1 x is /ill possible t reason 9 its practical aspect may /ep 9 to fill ! gap4 ,& ! negative result ( ! assumption may ev5 h a positive value4 ,= if1 z is ! case1 ! moral reason1 or reason 9 its practical aspect1 involves c]ta9 po/ulates conc]n+ ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality1 :i* are reject$ by ! speculative reason1 x is important to be able to %[ t ^! objects fall beyond ! scope ( ! speculative reason4 ,& if we call reliance on ^! po/ulates1 z be+ presuppositions ( morality1 fai?1 we may say t k mu/ be aboli%$ to make room = fai?4 #ac ,cf4 pp4 #aja-b4 ,?is answ] to ! ma9 problem1 giv5 9 outl9e 9 ! ,preface1 is und5iably plausible4 ,yet exam9ation ( x sugge/s two criticisms :i* affect ,kant's g5]al position4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! p>allel ( ma!matics :i* sugge/s ! ',cop]nican' revolution does n really lead to ! results :i* ,kant supposes4 ,advance 9 ma!matics is due to ! adoption n ( any consci\s assumption b ( a c]ta9 proc$ure1 viz4 t by :i* we draw a figure & !reby see ! necessity ( c]ta9 relations )9 x4 ,to pres]ve ! p>allel1 ! revolution 9 metaphysics %\ld h consi/$ 9 ! adoption ( a simil> proc$ure1 & advance %\ld h be5 made dep5d5t on ! application ( an at lea/ quasi-ma!matical me?od to ! objects ( metaphysics4 ,moreov]1 s9ce ^! objects are ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality1 ! conclusion %\ld h be5 t we ought to /udy ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality by someh[ con/ruct+ !m 9 p]ception & !reby ga9+ insight into ! necessity ( c]ta9 relations4 ,success or failure 9 metaphysics w\ld !re=e consi/ simply 9 success or failure to see ! necessity ( ! relations involv$4 ,kant1 h[ev]1 makes ! condition ( advance 9 metaphysics consi/ 9 ! adoption n ( a me?od ( proc$ure b ( an assumption1 viz4 t objects con=m to ! m9d4 ,& x is impossible to see h[ ?is assumption c assi/ :at1 on ,kant's !ory1 x ought to h assi/$1 viz4 ! /udy ( ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality1 or inde$ ! /udy ( any?+4 ,9 geometry we presuppose t individual objects con=m to ! univ]sal rules ( relation :i* we discov]4 ,n[ suppose we describe a geometrical judgem5t1 e4 g4 t two /raight l9es _c enclose a space1 z a m5tal law1 because we are b\nd to ?9k x true4 ,!n we may /ate ! presupposition by say+ t objects1 e4 g4 individual pairs ( /raight l9es1 mu/ con=m to su* a m5tal law4 ,b ! explicit recognition ( ?is presupposition & ! consci\s ass]tion ( x 9 no way assi/ ! solution ( p>ticul> geometrical problems4 ,! presupposition is really a condition ( geometrical ?9k+ at all4 ,)\t x !re is no geometrical ?9k+1 & ! recognition ( x places u 9 no bett] position = ! /udy ( geometrical problems4 ,simil>ly1 if we wi% to ?9k out ! nature ( ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality1 we are n assi/$ by assum+ t ^! objects mu/ con=m to ! laws ( our ?9k+4 ,we mu/ presuppose ?is con=mity if we are to ?9k at all1 & consci\sness ( ! presupposition puts u 9 no bett] position4 ,:at is ne$$ is an insight simil> to t :i* we h 9 geometry1 i4 e4 an insight into ! necessity ( ! relations "u consid]ation su* z w\ld enable u to see1 = example1 t be+ a man1 z su*1 involves liv+ = ev]4 ,kant has be5 l$ into ! mi/ake by a mom5t>y *ange 9 ! mean+ giv5 to 'metaphysics'4 ,= ! mom5t he is ?9k+ ( metaphysics1 n z ! inquiry conc]n$ ) ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality1 b z ! inquiry :i* has to deal ) ! problem z to h[ we c "k a priori4 ,?is problem is assi/$1 at any rate prima facie1 by ! assumption t ?+s mu/ con=m to ! m9d4 ,& ?is assumption c be said to be sugge/$ by ma!matics1 inasmu* z ! ma!matician presupposes t p>ticul> objects mu/ correspond to ! g5]al rules discov]$ by ! m9d4 ,f ?is po9t ( view ,kant's only mi/ake1 if ! p>allelism is to be ma9ta9$1 is t he takes = an assumption :i* enables ! ma!matician to advance a metaphysical presupposition ( ! advance1 on :i* ! ma!matician nev] reflects1 & aw>5ess ( :i* w\ld 9 no way assi/ 8 ma!matics4 ,9 ! second place ! ',cop]nican' revolution is n /rictly ! revolution :i* ,kant supposes x to be4 ,he speaks z ?\gh 8 aim is precisely to rev]se ! ord9>y view ( ! relation ( ! m9d to objects4 ,in/ead ( ! m9d be+ conceiv$ z hav+ to con=m to objects1 objects are to be conceiv$ z hav+ to con=m to ! m9d4 ,b if we consid] ,kant's real position1 we see t ^! views are only v]bally contr>y1 s9ce ! ^w object ref]s to some?+ diff]5t 9 ea* case4 ,on ! ord9>y view objects are some?+ outside ! m9d1 9 ! s5se ( indep5d5t ( x1 & ! ideas1 :i* mu/ con=m to objects1 are some?+ )9 ! m9d1 9 ! s5se ( dep5d5t ^u x4 ,! con=mity !n is ( some?+ )9 ! m9d to some?+ outside x4 ,aga91 ! con=mity means t "o ( ! t]ms1 viz4 ! object1 exi/s fir/ & t !n ! o!r t]m1 ! idea1 is fitt$ to or made to correspond to x4 ,h5ce ! real contr>y ( ?is view is t ideas1 )9 ! m9d1 exi/ fir/ & t objects outside ! m9d1 com+ into exi/5ce aft]w>ds1 mu/ adapt !mselves to ! ideas4 ,?is ( c\rse /rikes u z absurd1 because we always ?9k ( ! exi/5ce ( ! object z ! presupposition ( ! exi/5ce ( ! k ( x2 we d n ?9k ! exi/5ce ( ! k z ! presupposition ( ! exi/5ce ( ! object4 ,h5ce ,kant only succe$s 9 /at+ ! contr>y ( ! ord9>y view ) any plausibility1 because 9 do+ s he makes ! t]m object ref] to some?+ :i* l 'k' is )9 ! m9d4 ,8 position is t objects )9 ! m9d mu/ con=m to our g5]al ways ( kn[+4 ,= ,kant1 !re=e1 ! con=mity is n betwe5 some?+ )9 & some?+ )\t ! m9d1 b betwe5 two realities )9 ! m9d1 viz4 ! individual object1 z object ( p]ception1 i4 e4 a ph5om5on1 & our g5]al ways ( p]ceiv+ & ?9k+4 ,b ?is view is only v]bally ! contr>y ( ! ord9>y view1 & consequ5tly ,kant does n succe$ 9 rev]s+ ! ord9>y view t we "k objects indep5d5t ( or outside ! m9d1 by br++ our ideas into con=mity ) !m4 ,9 fact1 8 conclusion is t we d n "k ?is object1 i4 e4 ! ?+ 9 itself1 at all4 ,h5ce 8 real position %\ld be /at$ by say+ n t ! ord9>y view puts ! con=mity betwe5 m9d & ?+s 9 ! wrong way1 b t we ought n to speak ( con=mity at all4 ,= ! ?+ 9 itself be+ unkn[able1 our ideas c nev] be made to con=m to x4 ,kant !n only rea*es a conclusion :i* is app>5tly ! rev]se ( ! ord9>y view by sub/itut+ ano!r object = ! ?+ 9 itself1 viz4 ! ph5om5on or appe>ance ( ! ?+ 9 itself to u4 ,fur!r1 ?is second l9e ( criticism1 if foll[$ out1 w be f\nd to affect 8 /atem5t ( ! problem z well z t ( its solution4 ,x w be se5 t ! problem is mis-/at$1 & t ! solution (f]$ presupposes x to be mis-/at$4 ,8 /atem5t ( ! problem takes ! =m ( rais+ a difficulty :i* ! exi/5ce ( a priori k pres5ts to ! ord9>y view1 accord+ to :i* objects are indep5d5t ( ! m9d1 & ideas mu/ be br\ght into con=mity ) !m4 ,9 a syn!tic a priori judgem5t we claim to discov] ! nature ( c]ta9 objects by an act ( our ?9k+1 & indep5d5tly ( actual exp]i5ce ( !m4 ,h5ce if a support] ( ! ord9>y view is ask$ to ju/ify ! con=mity ( ?is judgem5t or idea ) ! objects to :i* x relates1 he c give no answ]4 ,! judgem5t hav+ ex hypo!si be5 made )\t ref]5ce to ! objects1 ! belief t ! objects mu/ con=m to x is ! m]ely arbitr>y supposition t a reality indep5d5t ( ! m9d mu/ con=m to ! m9d's ideas4 ,b ,kant1 9 ?us conf9+ ! difficulty to a priori judgem5ts1 implies t empirical judgem5ts pres5t no difficulty to ! ord9>y view2 s9ce !y re/ ^u actual exp]i5ce ( ! objects conc]n$1 !y are con=m$ to ! objects by ! v process ?r\gh :i* !y arise4 ,he !reby fails to notice t empirical judgem5ts pres5t a precisely p>allel difficulty4 ,x c only be suppos$ t ! con=mity ( empirical judgem5ts to _! objects is gu>ante$ by ! exp]i5ce ^u :i* !y re/1 if x be assum$ t 9 exp]i5ce we appreh5d objects z !y are4 ,b our exp]i5ce or p]ception ( individual objects is j z mu* m5tal z ! ?9k+ :i* orig9ates a priori judgem5ts4 ,if we c "q ! tru? ( our ?9k+1 we c likewise "q ! tru? ( our p]ception4 ,if we c ask :e!r our ideas mu/ correspond to _! objects1 we c likewise ask :e!r our p]ceptions mu/ correspond to !m4 ,! problem relates solely to ! correspond5ce betwe5 some?+ )9 ! m9d & some?+ outside x2 x applies equally to p]ceiv+ & ?9k+1 & conc]ns all judgem5ts alike1 empirical z well z a priori4 ,kant1 !re=e1 has no "r to imply t empirical judgem5ts raise no problem1 if he f9ds difficulty 9 a priori judgem5ts4 ,he is only able to draw a di/9ction betwe5 !m1 because1 )\t be+ aw>e t he is do+ s1 he takes acc\nt ( ! relation ( ! object to ! subject 9 ! case ( an a priori judgem5t1 :ile 9 ! case ( an empirical judgem5t he ignores x4 ,9 o!r words1 9 deal+ ) ! g5]al connexion betwe5 ! qualities ( an object1 he takes into acc\nt ! fact t we are ?9k+ x1 b1 9 deal+ ) ! p]ception ( ! coexi/5ce ( p>ticul> qualities ( an object1 he ignores ! fact t we are p]ceiv+ x4 ,fur!r1 t ! real problem conc]ns all syn!tic judgem5ts alike is %[n by ! solution :i* he ev5tually rea*es4 ,8 conclusion turns out to be t :ile bo? empirical & a priori judgem5ts are valid ( ph5om5a1 !y are n valid ( ?+s 9 !mselves2 i4 e4 t ( ?+s 9 !mselves we "k no?+ at all1 n ev5 _! p>ticul> qualities4 ,s9ce1 !n1 8 conclusion is t ev5 empirical judgem5ts are n valid ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 x %[s t ! problem _c be conf9$ to a priori judgem5ts1 & !re=e con/itutes an implicit criticism ( 8 /atem5t ( ! problem4 ,mu/ !re n1 h[ev]1 be "s problem peculi> to a priori judgem5ts8 ,o!rwise :y %\ld ,kant h be5 l$ to suppose t 8 problem conc]n$ !m only8 ,fur!r consid]ation w %[ t !re is su* a problem1 & t x 0 only ow+ to ! mi/ake indicat$ t ,kant treat$ ?is problem z id5tical ) t ( :i* he actually (f]$ a solution4 ,9 ! univ]sal judgem5ts ( ma!matics we appreh5d1 z we ?9k1 g5]al rules ( connexion :i* mu/ apply to all possible cases4 ,su* judgem5ts1 !n1 presuppose a con=mity betwe5 ! connexions :i* we discov] & all possible in/ances4 ,n[ ,kant's treatm5t ( ?is con=mity z a con=mity betwe5 our ideas & ?+s has two implications4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x implies1 z has be5 po9t$ out1 t relation to ! subject1 z ?9k+1 is tak5 into acc\nt 9 ! case ( ! univ]sal connexion1 & t relation to ! subject1 z p]ceiv+1 is ignor$ 9 ! case ( ! individual ?+4 ,9 ! second place1 x implies t :at is relat$ to ! subject z ! object ( its ?\ght mu/ be subjective or m5tal2 t because we h to ?9k ! g5]al connexion1 ! connexion is only our own idea1 ! con=mity ( ?+s to :i* may be que/ion$4 ,b ! treatm5t1 to be consi/5t1 %\ld take acc\nt ( relation to ! subject 9 bo? cases or 9 nei!r4 ,if ! =m] alt]native be accept$1 !n ! subjective "* attribut$ by ,kant 9 virtue ( ?is relation to :at is object ( ?\ght1 & equally attributable to :at is object ( p]ception1 r$uces ! problem to t ( ! con=mity 9 g5]al ( all ideas1 includ+ p]ceptions1 )9 ! m9d to ?+s outside x2 & ?is problem does n relate specially to a priori judgem5ts4 ,to discov] ! problem :i* relates specially to !m1 ! o!r alt]native mu/ be accept$1 t ( ignor+ relation to ! subject 9 bo? cases4 ,! problem !n becomes ',:at r5d]s possible or is presuppos$ by ! con=mity ( individual ?+s to c]ta9 laws ( connexion8' ,&1 inasmu* z to d5y ! con=mity is really to d5y t !re are laws ( connexion1#ad ! problem r$uces itself to ! "q1 ',:at is ! presupposition ( ! exi/5ce ( def9ite laws ( connexion 9 ! _w8' ,& ! only answ] possible is t reality is a sy/em or a :ole ( connect$ p>ts1 9 o!r words1 t nature is uni=m4 ,?us x turns out t ! problem relates to ! uni=mity ( nature1 & t ! "q ',h[ are a priori syn!tic judgem5ts possible8' has 9 reality no?+ to d ) ! problem ( ! relation ( reality to ! kn[+ subject1 b is conc]n$ solely ) ! nature ( reality4 #ad ,to object t ! laws 9 "q1 be+ laws :i* we h ?\ght1 may n be ! true laws1 & t !re=e !re may /ill be o!r laws to :i* reality con=ms1 is ( c\rse to re9troduce relation to ! ?9k+ subject4 ,fur!r1 x is important to see t ! alt]native ( ignor+ relation to ! subject is ! "r "o1 n only f ! po9t ( view ( ! problem peculi> to a priori judgem5ts1 b also f ! po9t ( view ( ! nature ( k 9 g5]al4 ,p]ceiv+ & ?9k+ alike presuppose t reality is imm$iately object ( ! m9d1 & t ! act ( appreh5sion 9 no way affects or ent]s into ! nature ( :at we appreh5d ab\t reality4 ,if1 = in/ance1 ,i ass]t on ! /r5g? ( p]ception t ?is table is r\nd1 ,i imply t ,i see ! table1 & t ! %ape :i* ,i judge x to h is n affect$ by ! fact t ,i am p]ceiv+ x2 = ,i mean t ! table really is r\nd4 ,if "s "o !n conv9ces me t ,i h made a mi/ake ow+ to an effect ( =e%ort5+1 & t ! table is really oval1 ,i am5d my ass]tion1 n by say+ t ! table is r\nd b only to my appreh5sion1 b by say+ t x looks r\nd4 ,!reby ,i cease to pr$icate r\ndness ( ! table altoge!r2 = ,i mean t :ile x /ill looks r\nd1 x is n really s4 ,! case ( univ]sal judgem5ts is simil>4 ,! /atem5t t a /raight l9e is ! %orte/ di/ance betwe5 its extremities means t x really is s4 ,! fact is presuppos$ to be 9 no way alt]$ by our hav+ appreh5d$ x4 ,moreov]1 reality is "h j z mu* impli$ to be directly object ( ! m9d z x is 9 ! case ( ! s+ul> judgem5t4 ,mak+ ! judgem5t consi/s1 z we say1 9 see+ ! connexion betwe5 ! direction betwe5 two po9ts & ! %orte/ di/ance betwe5 !m4 ,! connexion ( real *>act]i/ics is impli$ to be directly object ( ?\ght4#af ,?us bo? p]ceiv+ & ?9k+ presuppose t ! reality to :i* !y relate is directly object ( ! m9d1 & t ! "* ( x :i* we appreh5d 9 ! result+ judgem5t is n affect$ or alt]$ by ! fact t we h _h to p]ceive or conceive ! reality4#ag #ae ,cf4 ,bosanquet1 ,logic1 vol4 ii1 p4 #b4 #af ,9 say+ t a univ]sal judgem5t is an imm$iate appreh5sion ( fact1 x is ( c\rse n meant t x c be actualiz$ by itself or1 s to say1 9 vacuo4 ,its actualization obvi\sly presupposes ! pres5tation ( individuals 9 p]ception or imag9ation4 ,p]ception or imag9ation ?us =ms ! necess>y occasion ( a univ]sal judgem5t1 & 9 t s5se m$iates x4 ,moreov]1 ! univ]sal judgem5t implies an act ( ab/raction by :i* we specially att5d to ^? univ]sal *>act]s ( ! individuals p]ceiv$ or imag9$1 :i* ent] into ! judgem5t4 ,b1 ?\gh our appreh5sion ( a univ]sal connexion ?us implies a process1 & is !re=e m$iat$1 yet ! connexion1 :5 we appreh5d x1 is imm$iately our object4 ,!re is no?+ betwe5 x & u4 #ag ,= a full] discussion ( ! subject see ,*h4 ,,iv & ,,vi4 ,kant 9 ! =mulation ( 8 problem implicitly admits ?is presupposition 9 ! case ( p]ception4 ,he implies t empirical judgem5ts involve no difficulty1 because !y re/ ^u ! p]ception or exp]i5ce ( ! objects to :i* !y relate4 ,on ! o!r h&1 he does n admit ! presupposition 9 ! case ( conception1 = he implies t 9 a priori judgem5ts we are n confront$ ) reality b are conf9$ to our own ideas4 ,h5ce we ought to ask :y ,kant is l$ to adopt an attitude 9 ! latt] case :i* he does n adopt 9 ! =m]4 ,! answ] appe>s to be tw(old4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 !re is an invet]ate t5d5cy to ?9k ( univ]sals1 & !re=e ( ! connexions betwe5 !m1 z be+ n objective realities#ah b m]e ideas4 ,9 o!r words1 we t5d to adopt ! conceptuali/ attitude1 :i* reg>ds individuals z ! only reality1 & univ]sals z m5tal fictions4 ,9 consequ5ce1 we are apt to ?9k t :ile 9 p]ception1 :i* is ( ! individual1 we are confront$ by reality1 9 univ]sal judgem5ts1 9 :i* we appreh5d connexions betwe5 univ]sals1 we h be=e u m]e ideas4 ,kant may fairly be suppos$ to h be5 unconsci\sly "u ! influ5ce ( ?is t5d5cy4 ,9 ! second place1 we appreh5d a univ]sal connexion by ! op]ation ( ?9k+4 ,?9k+ is ess5tially an activity2 & s9ce activity 9 ! ord9>y s5se 9 :i* we oppose action to k orig9ates some?+1 we t5d to ?9k ( ! activity ( ?9k+ z also orig9at+ some?+1 viz4 t :i* is our object :5 we ?9k4 ,h5ce1 s9ce we ?9k ( :at is real z indep5d5t ( u & !re=e z some?+ :i* we may discov] b c 9 no s5se make1 we t5d to ?9k ( ! object ( ?\ght z only an idea4 ,on ! o!r h&1 :at is ord9>ily call$ p]ception1 ?\gh x involves ! activity ( ?9k+1 also involves an elem5t 9 respect ( :i* we are passive4 ,?is is ! fact po9t$ to by ,kant's phrase 'objects are giv5 9 p]ception'4 ,9 virtue ( ?is passive elem5t we are incl9$ to ?9k t 9 p]ception we simply /& be=e ! reality 9 a passive attitude4 ,! reality p]ceiv$ is ?\ght to be1 s to say1 !re1 exi/+ indep5d5tly ( u2 relation to ! subject is unnotic$ because ( our app>5tly :olly passive attitude4 ,at times1 & especially :5 he is ?9k+ ( ! und]/&+ z a faculty ( spontaneity1 ,kant seems to h be5 "u ! influ5ce ( ?is second t5d5cy4 #ah i4 e4 z n hav+ a place 9 ! reality :i*1 z we ?9k1 exi/s indep5d5tly ( ! m9d4 ,! prec$+ summ>y ( ! problem ( ! ,critique repres5ts ! acc\nt giv5 9 ! two ,prefaces & ! ,introduction4 ,accord+ to ?is acc\nt1 ! problem arises f ! unque/ion$ exi/5ce ( a priori k 9 ma!matics & physics & ! problematic exi/5ce ( su* k 9 metaphysics1 & ,kant's aim is to det]m9e ! range )9 :i* a priori k is possible4 ,?us ! problem is introduc$ z relat+ to a priori k z su*1 no di/9ction be+ drawn betwe5 its "* 9 diff]5t cases4 ,nev]!less ! actual discussion ( ! problem 9 ! body ( ! ,critique implies a fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 ! nature ( a priori k 9 ma!matics & its nature 9 physics1 & 9 ord] t a complete view ( ! problem may be giv51 ?is di/9ction mu/ be /at$4 ,! ',cop]nican' revolution 0 br\ght ab\t by consid]ation ( ! facts ( ma!matics4 ,kant accept$ z an absolute />t+-po9t ! exi/5ce 9 ma!matics ( true univ]sal & necess>y judgem5ts4 ,he !n ask$1 ',:at foll[s z to ! nature ( ! objects kn[n 9 ma!matics f ! fact t we really "k !m8' ,fur!r1 9 8 answ] he accept$ a di/9ction :i* he nev] exam9$ or ev5 que/ion$1 viz4 ! di/9ction betwe5 ?+s 9 !mselves & ph5om5a4#ai ,?is di/9ction assum$1 ,kant inf]r$ f ! tru? ( ma!matics t ?+s 9 space & "t are only ph5om5a4 ,accord+ to him ma!maticians are able to make ! true judgem5ts t !y d make only because !y deal ) ph5om5a4 ,?us ,kant 9 no way s\ght to prove ! tru? ( ma!matics4 ,on ! contr>y1 he argu$ f ! tru? ( ma!matics to ! nature ( ! _w :i* we !reby "k4 ,! ph5om5al "* ( ! _w be+ ?us e/abli%$1 he 0 able to rev]se ! argum5t & to reg>d ! ph5om5al "* ( ! _w z expla9+ ! validity ( ma!matical judgem5ts4 ,!y are valid1 because !y relate to ph5om5a4 ,& ! consid]ation :i* l$ ,kant to take ma!matics z 8 />t+-po9t seems to h be5 ! self-evid5ce ( ma!matical judgem5ts4 ,z we directly appreh5d _! necessity1 !y admit ( no reasonable d\bt4 #ai ,cf4 ,*4 ,,iv4 ,?is di/9ction %\ld ( c\rse h be5 exam9$ by "o ^: aim x 0 to det]m9e h[ f> our k c rea*4 #bj ,= ! self-evid5ce ( ma!matics to ,kant comp>e ,b4 #abj1 ,m4 #gc & ,b4 #bjj1 ,m4 #aba4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! g5]al pr9ciples und]ly+ physics1 e4 g4 t e *ange mu/ h a cause1 or t 9 all *ange ! quantum ( matt] is con/ant1 appe>$ to ,kant 9 a diff]5t light4 ,?\gh c]ta9ly n bas$ on exp]i5ce1 !y did n seem to him self-evid5t4#ba ,h5ce1#bb 9 ! case ( ^! pr9ciples1 he s\ght to give :at he did n seek to give 9 ! case ( ma!matical judgem5ts1 viz4 a pro( ( _! tru?4#bc ,! n]ve ( ! pro( lies 9 ! cont5tion t ^! pr9ciples are involv$ n m]ely 9 any g5]al judgem5t 9 physics1 e4 g4 ',all bodies are heavy1' b ev5 9 any s+ul> judgem5t1 e4 g4 ',?is body is heavy1' & t ! validity ( s+ul> judgem5ts is univ]sally conc$$4 ,?us "h ! fact ^u :i* he takes 8 /& is n ! admitt$ tru? ( ! univ]sal judgem5ts "u consid]ation1 b ! admitt$ tru? ( any s+ul> judgem5t 9 physics4 ,8 treatm5t1 !n1 ( ! univ]sal judgem5ts ( ma!matics & t ( ! pr9ciples und]ly+ physics are di/+ui%$ by ! fact t1 :ile he accepts ! =m] z ne$+ no pro(1 he seeks to prove ! latt] f ! admitt$ validity ( s+ul> judgem5ts 9 physics4 ,at ! same "t ! acceptance ( ma!matical judgem5ts & ! pro( ( ! a priori pr9ciples ( physics h = ,kant a common presupposition :i* di/+ui%es ma!matics & physics f metaphysics4 ,l univ]sal judgem5ts 9 ma!matics1 s+ul> judgem5ts 9 physics1 & !re=e ! pr9ciples :i* !y presuppose1 are true only if ! objects to :i* !y relate are ph5om5a4 ,bo? 9 ma!matics & physics1 !re=e1 x is a condition ( a priori k t x relates to ph5om5a & n to ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,b1 j = ?is reason1 metaphysics is 9 a diff]5t position2 s9ce ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality c nev] be objects ( exp]i5ce1 a priori k 9 metaphysics1 & !re=e metaphysics itself1 is impossible4 ,?us = ,kant ! v condition1 ! realization ( :i* ju/ifies ! acceptance ( ma!matical judgem5ts & enables u to prove ! pr9ciples ( physics1 involves ! impossibility ( metaphysics4 #ba ,?is is /at$ ,b4 #bjj1 ,m4 #aba4 ,x is also impli$ ,b4 #abb1 ,m4 #ge1 ,b4 #bfc-d1 ,m4 #afj1 & by ! argum5t ( ! ,analytic g5]ally4 #bb ,?is appe>s to be ! real cause ( ! diff]5ce ( treatm5t1 ?\gh x is n ! reason assign$ by ,kant himself1 cf4 ,b4 #abj1 ,m4 #gc-d4 #bc ,8 rem>ks ab\t pure natural sci5ce 9 ,b4 #bj1 ,m4 #ac & ,prol4 #d sub f941 d n repres5t ! normal attitude ( ! ,critique4 ,fur!r1 ! di/9ction drawn betwe5 a priori judgem5ts 9 ma!matics & 9 physics is l>gely responsible = ! difficulty ( und]/&+ :at ,kant means by a priori4 ,8 un=tunate t5d5cy to expla9 ! t]m negatively c\ld be rem$i$ if x c\ld be held ei!r t ! t]m ref]s solely to ma!matical judgem5ts or t he consid]s ! tru? ( ! law ( causality to be appreh5d$ 9 ! same way t we see t two & two are f\r4 ,= an a priori judgem5t c\ld !n be def9$ z "o 9 :i* ! m9d1 on ! pres5tation ( an individual 9 p]ception or imag9ation1 & 9 virtue ( its capacity ( ?9k+1 appreh5ds ! necessity ( a specific relation4 ,b ?is def9ition is preclud$ by ,kant's view t ! law ( causality & simil> pr9ciples1 ?\gh a priori1 are n self-evid5t4 ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,s5sibility ,,& ,,! ,,und]/&+ ,! di/9ction betwe5 ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+#a is to ,kant fundam5tal bo? 9 itself & 9 relation to ! conclusions :i* he rea*es4 ,an outl9e1 !re=e1 ( ?is di/9ction mu/ prec$e any /atem5t or exam9ation ( ! details ( 8 position4 ,un=tunately1 9 spite ( its fundam5tal "*1 ,kant nev] ?9ks ( que/ion+ or criticiz+ ! di/9ction 9 ! =m 9 :i* he draws x1 & ! pres5ce ( c]ta9 confusions (t5 r5d]s x difficult to be sure ( 8 mean+4 #a ,cf4 ,b4 #a1 #bi1 #cc1 #gd-e1 #ge1 #ib-d2 ,m4 #a1 #ah1 #ba1 #de-df1 #eg4 ,! di/9ction may be /at$ 9 8 own words ?us3 ,!re are two /ems ( human k1 :i* p]haps spr+ f a common b to u unkn[n root1 namely s5sibility & und]/&+4#b ,our k spr+s f two fundam5tal s\rces ( ! m9d2 ! fir/ receives repres5tations#c 7receptivity = impressions72 ! second is ! p[] ( kn[+ an object by means ( ^! repres5tations 7spontaneity ( conceptions74 ,?r\gh ! fir/ an object is giv5 to u2 ?r\gh ! second ! object is ?\ght 9 relation to ! repres5tation 7:i* is a m]e det]m9ation ( ! m9d74 ,p]ception & conceptions con/itute1 !re=e1 ! elem5ts ( all our k1 s t nei!r conceptions )\t a p]ception 9 "s way correspond+ to !m1 nor p]ception )\t conceptions c yield any k4444 ,nei!r ( ^! qualities has a pref]5ce ov] ! o!r4 ,)\t s5sibility no object w\ld be giv5 to u1 & )\t und]/&+ no object w\ld be ?\ght4 ,?\ghts )\t cont5t are empty1 p]ceptions )\t conceptions are bl9d4 ,h5ce x is z necess>y = ! m9d to make its conceptions s5su\s 7i4 e4 to add to !m ! object 9 p]ception7 z to make its p]ceptions intelligible 7i4 e4 to br+ !m "u conceptions74 ,nei!r ( ^! p[]s or faculties c ex*ange its function4 ,! und]/&+ _c p]ceive1 & ! s5ses _c ?9k4 ,only by _! union c k arise4#d #b ,b4 #bi1 ,m4 #ah #c ,= ! sake ( uni=mity ,vor/ellung has ?r\gh\t be5 translat$ by 'repres5tation'1 ?\gh sometimes1 z 9 ! pres5t passage1 x w\ld be bett] r5d]$ by 'pres5tation'4 #d ,b4 #gd-e1 ,m4 #de-f4 ,! di/9ction s /at$ appe>s /raight=w>d &1 on ! :ole1#e s\nd4 ,& x is fairly ref]r$ to by ,kant z ! di/9ction betwe5 ! faculties ( p]ceiv+ & conceiv+ or ?9k+1 provid$ t ! t]ms p]ceiv+ & conceiv+ or ?9k+ be tak5 to indicate a di/9ction )9 p]ception 9 ! ord9>y s5se ( ! ^w4 ,8 mean+ c be /at$ ?us3 ',all k requires ! realization ( two conditions2 an individual mu/ be pres5t$ to u 9 p]ception1 & we z ?9k+ be+s mu/ br+ ?is individual "u or recognize x z an in/ance ( "s univ]sal4 ,?us1 9 ord] to judge ',?is is a h\se' or ',t is r$' we ne$ ! pres5ce ( ! h\se or ( ! r$ col\r 9 p]ception1 & we mu/ 'recognize' ! h\se or ! col\r1 i4 e4 appreh5d ! individual z a memb] ( a c]ta9 k9d4 ,suppose ei!r condition unrealiz$4 ,!n if we suppose a failure to conceive1 i4 e4 to appreh5d ! individual z a memb] ( "s k9d1 we see t our p]ception--if x c\ld be all[$ to be any?+ at all--w\ld be bl9d i4 e4 indet]m9ate1 or a m]e 'blur'4 ,:at we p]ceiv$ w\ld be = u z good z no?+4 ,9 fact1 we c\ld n ev5 say t we 7 p]ceiv+4 ,aga91 if we suppose t we _h m]ely ! conception ( a h\se1 & nei!r p]ceiv$ nor _h p]ceiv$ an individual to :i* x appli$1 we see t ! conception1 be+ )\t application1 w\ld be nei!r k nor an elem5t 9 k4 ,moreov]1 ! cont5t ( a conception is d]iv$ f p]ception2 x is only ?r\gh its relation to p]ceiv$ individuals t we become aw>e ( a univ]sal4 ,to "k ! mean+ ( 'r$ness' we mu/ h exp]i5c$ individual r$ ?+s2 to "k ! mean+ ( 'h\se' we mu/ at lea/ h _h exp]i5ce ( individual m5 & ( _! physical ne$s4 ,h5ce 'conceptions' )\t 'p]ceptions' are void or empty4 ,! exi/5ce ( conceptions presupposes exp]i5ce ( correspond+ individuals1 ev5 ?\gh x also implies ! activity ( ?9k+ 9 relation to ^! individuals4'#f #e ,cf4 p4 #bi1 note #a4 #f ,kant's acc\nt implies t he has 9 view only empirical k2 9 any case x only applies to empirical conceptions4 ,fur!r1 x is true to say t z p]ceiv+ we are passive2 we d n d any?+4 ,?is1 z has be5 po9t$ out1 is ! elem5t ( tru? conta9$ 9 ! /atem5t t objects are giv5 to u4 ,on ! o!r h&1 x may be truly said t z conceiv+1 9 ! s5se ( br++ an individual "u a univ]sal1 we are ess5tially active4 ,?is is presuppos$ by ! notice or att5tion involv$ 9 p]ception ord9>ily s call$1 i4 e4 p]ception 9 ! full s5se 9 :i* x includes conceiv+ z well z p]ceiv+4#g ,kant1 !re=e1 is ju/ifi$ 9 ref]r+ to ! s5sibility z a 'receptivity' & to ! und]/&+ z a 'spontaneity'4 #g ,?is di/9ction )9 p]ception is ( c\rse compatible ) ! view t ! elem5ts s di/+ui%$ are insep>able4 ,! di/9ction1 s /at$1 appe>s1 z has be5 already said1 intelligible &1 9 ! ma9#h1 valid4 ,kant1 h[ev]1 r5d]s ! elucidation ( 8 mean+ difficult by comb9+ ) ?is view ( ! di/9ction an incompatible & unw>rant$ !ory ( p]ception4 ,he supposes1#i )\t ev] que/ion+ ! supposition1 t p]ception is due to ! op]ation ( ?+s outside ! m9d1 :i* act ^u our s5sibility & !reby produce s5sations4 ,on ?is supposition1 :at we p]ceive is n1 z ! di/9ction j /at$ implies1 ! ?+ itself1 b a s5sation produc$ by x4 ,consequ5tly a problem arises z to ! mean+ on ?is supposition ( ! /atem5ts 'by ! s5sibility objects are giv5 to u' & 'by ! und]/&+ !y are ?\ght'4 ,! =m] /atem5t mu/ mean t :5 a ?+ affects u !re is a s5sation4 ,x _c mean t by ! s5sibility we "k t !re exi/s a ?+ :i* causes ! s5sation1 = ?is k w\ld imply ! activity ( ?9k+2 nor c x mean t 9 virtue ( ! s5sibility ! ?+ itself is pres5t$ to u4 ,! latt] /atem5t mu/ mean t :5 s5sation arises1 ! und]/&+ judges t !re is some?+ caus+ x2 & ?is ass]tion mu/ really be a priori1 because n dep5d5t ^u exp]i5ce4 ,un=tunately ! two /atem5ts s int]pret$ are :olly inconsi/5t ) ! acc\nt ( ! functions ( ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+ :i* has j be5 quot$4 #h ,see p4 #bi1 note #a4 #i ,cf4 ,b4 #a1 ,m4 #a4 ,fur!r1 ?is !ory ( p]ception has two =ms4 ,9 its fir/ =m ! !ory is physical r ?an metaphysical1 & is bas$ ^u our possession ( physical organs4 ,x assumes t ! reality to be appreh5d$ is ! _w ( space & "t1 & x ass]ts t by ! action ( bodies ^u our physical organs our s5sibility is affect$1 & t !reby s5sations are orig9at$ 9 u4 ,!reupon a problem arises4 ,= if ! contribution ( ! s5sibility to our k ( ! physical _w is limit$ to a succession ( s5sations1 explanation mu/ be giv5 ( ! fact t we h succe$$ ) an exp]i5ce conf9$ to ^! s5sations 9 acquir+ k ( a _w :i* does n consi/ ( s5sations4#aj ,kant1 9 fact1 9 ! ,ae/hetic has ?is problem cont9ually be=e him1 & tries to solve x4 ,he holds t ! m9d1 by means ( its =ms ( p]ception & its conceptions ( ! und]/&+1 sup]9duces ^u s5sations1 z data1 spatial & o!r relations1 9 su* a way t x acquires k ( ! spatial _w4 #aj ,cf4 ,b4 #a init41 ,m4 #a init42 ,b4 #cd1 ,m4 #ba sub f94 ,an inh]5t difficulty1 h[ev]1 ( ?is 'physical' !ory ( p]ception leads to a trans=mation ( x4 ,if1 z ! !ory supposes1 ! cause ( s5sation is outside or beyond ! m9d1 x _c be kn[n4 ,h5ce ! initial assumption t ?is cause is ! physical _w has to be )drawn1 & ! cause ( s5sation comes to be ?\ght ( z ! ?+ 9 itself ( :i* we c "k no?+4 ,?is is und\bt$ly ! normal =m ( ! !ory 9 ,kant's m9d4 ,x may be object$ t to attribute to ,kant at any "t ! physical =m ( ! !ory is to accuse him ( an impossibly crude confusion betwe5 ?+s 9 !mselves & ! spatial _w1 & t he c nev] h ?\ght t ! cause ( s5sation1 be+ z x is outside ! m9d1 is spatial4 ,b ! answ] is to be f\nd 9 ! fact t ! problem j ref]r$ to z occupy+ ,kant's att5tion 9 ! ,ae/hetic is only a problem at all s long z ! cause ( s5sation is ?\ght ( z a physical body4 ,= ! problem ',h[ d we1 beg9n+ ) m]e s5sation1 come to "k a spatial & temporal _w8' is only a problem s long z x is suppos$ t ! cause ( s5sation is a spatial & temporal _w or a "p ( x1 & t ?is _w is :at we come to "k4 ,if ! cause ( s5sation1 z be+ beyond ! m9d1 is held to be unkn[able & s n kn[n to be spatial or temporal1 ! problem has disappe>$4 ,corroboration is giv5 by c]ta9 passages#aa 9 ! ,critique :i* def9itely m5tion '! s5ses'1 a t]m :i* ref]s to bodily organs1 & by o!rs#ab to :i* mean+ c be giv5 only if !y are tak5 to imply t ! objects :i* affect our s5sibility are n unkn[n ?+s 9 !mselves1 b ?+s kn[n to be spatial4 ,ev5 ! use ( ! plural 9 ! t]m '?+s 9 !mselves' implies a t5d5cy to id5tify ! unkn[able reality beyond ! m9d ) bodies 9 space4 ,= ! implication t diff]5t s5sations are due to diff]5t ?+s 9 !mselves orig9ates 9 ! view t diff]5t s5sations are due to ! op]ation ( diff]5t spatial bodies4 #aa ,e4 g4 ,b4 #a init41 ,m4 #a init41 & ,b4 #ge f941 ,m4 #df1 l9es #ab1 #ac = '! s5su\s faculty' %\ld be sub/itut$ '! s5ses'4 #ab ,e4 g4 ,b4 #db1 l9es #aa1 #ab2 ,m4 #bf1 l9e #ac2 ,a4 #ajj1 ,mah4 #aie 7'ev5 9 ! abs5ce ( ! object'74 ,cf4 ,b4 #ahb-c1 ,m4 #aaj-a 7see pp4 #beg-h1 & note p4 #beg71 & ,b4 #bjg-aj1 ,m4 #abf-h 7see pp4 #bfc-e74 ,x is n[ necess>y to consid] h[ ! di/9ction betwe5 ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+ contributes to articulate ! problem ',h[ are a priori syn!tic judgem5ts possible8' ,z has be5 po9t$ out1 ,kant means by ?is "q1 ',h[ is x possible t ! m9d is able1 9 virtue ( its own p[]s1 to make univ]sal & necess>y judgem5ts :i* anticipate its exp]i5ce ( objects8' ,to ?is "q 8 g5]al answ] is t x is possible & only possible because1 s f> f ideas1 z is g5]ally suppos$1 hav+ to con=m to ?+s1 ! ?+s to :i* our ideas or judgem5ts relate1 viz4 ph5om5a1 mu/ con=m to ! nature ( ! m9d4 ,n[1 if ! m9d's kn[+ nature c be divid$ into ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+1 ! problem becomes ',h[ is x possible = ! m9d to make su* judgem5ts 9 virtue ( its s5sibility & its und]/&+8' ,& ! answ] w be t x is possible because ! ?+s conc]n$1 i4 e4 ph5om5a1 mu/ con=m to ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+1 i4 e4 to ! m9d's p]ceiv+ & ?9k+ nature4 ,b bo? ! problem & ! answ]1 s /at$1 give no clue to ! p>ticul> a priori judgem5ts ?us r5d]$ possible nor to ! nature ( ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+ 9 virtue ( :i* we make !m4 ,x has be5 se51 h[ev]1 t ! judgem5ts 9 "q fall into two classes1 ^? ( ma!matics & ^? :i* =m ! presuppositions ( physics4 ,& x is ,kant's aim to relate ^! classes to ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+ respectively4 ,8 view is t ma!matical judgem5ts1 :i*1 z su*1 deal ) spatial & temporal relations1 are ess5tially b\nd up ) our p]ceptive nature1 i4 e4 ) our s5sibility1 & t ! pr9ciples und]ly+ physics are ! expression ( our ?9k+ nature1 i4 e4 ( our und]/&+4 ,h5ce if ! v9dication ( ?is relation betwe5 our kn[+ faculties & ! judgem5ts to :i* !y are held to give rise is approa*$ f ! side ( our faculties1 x mu/ be %[n t our s5sitive nature is su* z to give rise to ma!matical judgem5ts1 & t our und]/&+ or ?9k+ nature is su* z to orig9ate ! pr9ciples und]ly+ physics4 ,aga91 if ! acc\nt ( ?is relation is to be adequate1 x mu/ be %[n to be exhau/ive1 i4 e4 x mu/ be %[n t ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+ give rise to no o!r judgem5ts4 ,o!rwise !re may be o!r a priori judgem5ts b\nd up ) ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+ :i* ! inquiry w h ignor$4 ,kant1 !re=e1 by 8 di/9ction betwe5 ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+1 sets himself ano!r problem1 :i* does n come into sight 9 ! fir/ =mulation ( ! g5]al "q ',h[ are a priori syn!tic judgem5ts possible8' ,he has to det]m9e :at a priori judgem5ts are relat$ to ! s5sibility & to ! und]/&+ respectively4 ,at ! same "t ! di/9ction gives rise to a division )9 ! ma9 problem4 ,8 *ief aim is to discov] h[ x is t a priori judgem5ts are univ]sally applicable4 ,b1 z ,kant conceives ! issue1 ! problem requires diff]5t treatm5t accord+ z ! judgem5ts 9 "q are relat$ to ! s5sibility or to ! und]/&+4 ,h5ce arises ! di/9ction betwe5 ! ,transc5d5tal ,ae/hetic & ! ,transc5d5tal ,analytic1 ! =m] deal+ ) ! a priori judgem5ts ( ma!matics1 :i* relate to ! s5sibility1 & ! latt] deal+ ) ! a priori pr9ciples ( physics1 :i* orig9ate 9 ! und]/&+4 ,aga91 )9 ea* ( ^! two divisions we h to di/+ui% two problems1 viz4 ',:at a priori judgem5ts are ess5tially relat$ to ! faculty 9 "q8' & ',h[ is x t !y are applicable to objects8' ,x is important1 h[ev]1 to notice t ! di/9ction betwe5 ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+1 9 ! =m 9 :i* x s]ves z a basis = di/+ui%+ ! ,ae/hetic & ! ,analytic1 is n id5tical ) or ev5 compatible ) ! di/9ction1 z ,kant /ates x :5 he is consid]+ ! di/9ction 9 itself & is n ?9k+ ( any !ory :i* is to be bas$ ^u x4 ,9 ! latt] case ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+ are repres5t$ z insep>able faculties involv$ 9 all k4#ac ,only f ! union ( bo? c k arise4 ,b1 reg>d$ z a basis = ! di/9ction betwe5 ! ,ae/hetic & ! ,analytic1 !y are impli$ to be ! s\rce ( diff]5t k9ds ( k1 viz4 ma!matics & ! pr9ciples ( physics4 ,x is no answ] to ?is to urge t ,kant aft]w>ds po9ts out t space z an object presupposes a syn!sis :i* does n belong to s5se4 ,no d\bt ?is admission implies t ev5 ! appreh5sion ( spatial relations involves ! activity ( ! und]/&+4 ,b ! implication is really inconsi/5t ) ! exi/5ce ( ! ,ae/hetic z a di/9ct "p ( ! subject deal+ ) a special class ( a priori judgem5ts4 #ac ,b4 #gd-e1 ,m4 #de-f2 cf4 pp4 #bg-i4 #ad ,b4 #afj note1 ,m4 #ih note4 ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,space ,x is ! aim ( ! ,ae/hetic to deal ) ! a priori k :i* relates to ! s5sibility4 ,?is k1 accord+ to ,kant1 is conc]n$ ) space & "t4 ,h5ce he has to %[ fir/ly t our appreh5sion ( space & "t is a priori1 i4 e4 t x is n d]iv$ f exp]i5ce b orig9ates 9 our appreh5d+ nature2 & secondly t )9 our appreh5d+ nature ?is appreh5sion belongs to ! s5sibility & n to ! und]/&+1 or1 9 8 language1 t space & "t are =ms ( p]ception or s5sibility4 ,fur!r1 if 8 treatm5t is to be exhau/ive1 he %\ld also %[ ?irdly t space & "t are ! only =ms ( p]ception4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 he makes no attempt to d except 9 "o passage1#a :]e ! argum5t fails4 ,! fir/ two po9ts e/abli%$1 ,kant is able to develop 8 ma9 !sis1 viz4 t x is a condition ( ! validity ( ! a priori judgem5ts :i* relate to space & "t t ^! are *>act]i/ics ( ph5om5a1 & n ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 #a ,b4 #eh1 ,m4 #ce4 ,x w be conv5i5t to consid] 8 treatm5t ( space & "t sep>ately1 & to beg9 ) 8 treatm5t ( space4 ,x is necess>y1 h[ev]1 fir/ ( all to ref] to ! t]m '=m ( p]ception'4 ,z ,kant conceives a =m ( p]ception1 x involves ?ree anti!ses4 7#a7 ,z a =m ( p]ception x is oppos$1 z a way or mode ( p]ceiv+1 to p>ticul> p]ceptions4 7#b7 ,z a =m or mode ( p]ception x is oppos$ to a =m or mode ( conception4 7#c7 ,z a =m ( p]ception x is also oppos$1 z a way 9 :i* we appreh5d ?+s1 to a way 9 :i* ?+s are4 ,:ile we may def] consid]ation ( ! second & ?ird anti!ses1 we %\ld at once give att5tion to ! nature ( ! fir/1 because ,kant confuses x ) two o!r anti!ses4 ,!re is no d\bt t 9 g5]al a =m ( p]ception means = ,kant a g5]al capacity ( p]ceiv+ :i*1 z su*1 is oppos$ to ! actual p]ceptions 9 :i* x is manife/$4 ,= accord+ to him our spatial p]ceptions are n =eign to u1 b manife/ations ( our g5]al p]ceiv+ nature2 & ?is view f9ds expression 9 ! ass]tion t space is a =m ( p]ception or ( s5sibility4#b #b ,cf4 ,b4 #dc init41 ,m4 #bf m$4 ,un=tunately1 h[ev]1 ,kant frequ5tly speaks ( ?is =m ( p]ception z if x 7 ! same ?+ z ! actual p]ception ( empty space4#c ,9 o!r words1 he implies t su* a p]ception is possible1 & confuses x ) a pot5tiality1 i4 e4 ! p[] ( p]ceiv+ t :i* is spatial4 ,! confusion is possible because x c be said ) "s plausibility t a p]ception ( empty space--if its possibility be all[$--does n in=m u ab\t actual ?+s1 b only in=ms u :at mu/ be true ( ?+s1 if !re prove to be any2 su* a p]ception1 !re=e1 c be ?\ght ( z a possibility ( k r ?an z actual k4 #c e4 g4 ,b4 #cd1 #ce1 ,m4 #bb2 ,b4 #da1 ,m4 #be2 ,prol4 #i-aa4 ,! commone/ expression ( ! confusion is to be f\nd 9 ! repeat$ ass]tion t space is a pure p]ception4 ,! second confusion is closely relat$ to ! fir/1 & arises f ! fact t ,kant speaks ( space n only z a =m ( p]ception1 b also z ! =m ( ph5om5a 9 opposition to s5sation z _! matt]4 ,t :i* 9 ! ph5om5on corresponds to#d ! s5sation ,i t]m its matt]2 b t :i* effects t ! manifold ( ! ph5om5on c be arrang$ "u c]ta9 relations ,i call ! =m ( ! ph5om5on4 ,n[ t 9 :i* alone our s5sations c be arrang$ & plac$ 9 a c]ta9 =m _c itself be s5sation4 ,h5ce :ile ! matt] ( all ph5om5a is only giv5 to u a po/]iori1 _! =m i4 e4 space mu/ lie ready = !m all toge!r a priori 9 ! m9d4#e ,"h ,kant is cle>ly "u ! influ5ce ( 8 !ory ( p]ception4#f ,he is ?9k+ t1 giv5 ! orig9ation ( s5sations 9 u by ! ?+ 9 itself1 x is ! bus9ess ( ! m9d to arrange ^! s5sations spatially 9 ord] to atta9 k ( ! spatial _w4#g ,space be+1 z x 71 a k9d ( empty vessel 9 :i* s5sations are arrang$1 is said to be ! =m ( ph5om5a4#h ,moreov]1 if we be> 9 m9d t ultimately bodies 9 space are = ,kant only spatial arrangem5ts ( s5sations1#i we see t ! ass]tion t space is ! =m ( ph5om5a is only ,kant's way ( say+ t all bodies are spatial4#aj ,n[ ,kant1 9 ?us ass]t+ t space is ! =m ( ph5om5a1 is cle>ly confus+ ?is ass]tion ) ! ass]tion t space is a =m ( p]ception1 & he does s 9 consequ5ce ( ! fir/ confusion1 viz4 t betwe5 a capacity ( p]ceiv+ & an actual p]ception ( empty space4 ,= 9 ! passage la/ quot$ he cont9ues ?us3 ,i call all repres5tations#aa pure 79 ! transc5d5tal s5se7 9 :i* no?+ is f\nd :i* belongs to s5sation4 ,accord+ly !re w be f\nd a priori 9 ! m9d ! pure =m ( s5su\s p]ceptions 9 g5]al1 :]e9 all ! manifold ( ph5om5a is p]ceiv$ 9 c]ta9 relations4 ,?is pure =m ( s5sibility w also itself be call$ pure p]ception4 ,?us1 if ,i ab/ract f ! repres5tation ( a body t :i* ! und]/&+ ?9ks respect+ x1 su* z sub/ance1 =ce1 divisibility1 c41 & also t :i* belongs to s5sation1 su* z imp5etrability1 h>dness1 col\r1 c41 some?+ is /ill left ov] = me f ?is empirical p]ception1 viz4 ext5sion & %ape4 ,^! belong to pure p]ception1 :i* exi/s 9 ! m9d a priori1 ev5 )\t an actual object ( ! s5ses or a s5sation1 z a m]e =m ( s5sibility4 ,"h ,kant has pass$1 )\t any consci\sness ( a transition1 f treat+ space z t 9 :i* ! manifold ( s5sation is arrang$ to treat+ x z a capacity ( p]ceiv+4 ,moreov]1 s9ce ,kant 9 ?is passage speaks ( space z a p]ception1 & !reby id5tifies space ) ! p]ception ( x1#ab ! confusion may be expla9$ ?us4 ,! =m ( ph5om5a is said to be ! space 9 :i* all s5sations are arrang$1 or 9 :i* all bodies are2 space1 ap>t f all s5sations or bodies1 i4 e4 empty1 be+ ! object ( a pure p]ception1 is treat$ z id5tical ) a pure p]ception1 viz4 ! p]ception ( empty space2 & ! p]ception ( empty space is treat$ z id5tical ) a capacity ( p]ceiv+ t :i* is spatial4#ac #d ',corresponds to' mu/ mean 'is'4 #e ,b4 #cd1 ,m4 #ba4 #f ,cf4 pp4 #cj-b4 #g ,x is impossible1 ( c\rse1 to see h[ su* a process c give u k ( ! spatial _w1 =1 :atev] bodies 9 space are1 !y are n arrangem5ts ( s5sations4 ,nev]!less1 ,kant's !ory ( p]ception really precludes him f hold+ t bodies are any?+ else ?an arrangem5ts ( s5sations1 & he seems at times to accept ?is view explicitly1 e4 g4 ,b4 #ch1 ,m4 #bc 7quot$ p4 #da71 :]e he speaks ( our repres5t+ s5sations z ext]nal to & next to ea* o!r1 &1 !re=e1 z 9 diff]5t places4 #h ,x may be not$ t x w\ld h be5 m natural to describe ! p>ticul> %ape ( ! ph5om5on 7i4 e4 ! p>ticul> spatial arrangem5t ( ! s5sations7 r ?an space z ! =m ( ! ph5om5on2 = ! matt] to :i* ! =m is oppos$ is said to be s5sation1 & t ( :i* x is ! matt] is said to be ! ph5om5on1 i4 e4 a body 9 space4 #i ,cf4 note #d1 p4 #ch4 #aj ,cf4 ,prol4 #aa & p4 #acg4 #aa ,cf4 p4 #da1 note #a4 #ab ,cf4 p4 #ea1 note #a4 #ac ,! same confusion 7& due to ! same cause7 is impli$ ,prol4 #aa1 & ,b4 #db 7b71 ,m4 #bf 7b7 fir/ p>agraph4 ,cf4 ,b4 #di 7b71 ,m4 #cj 7b74 ,! exi/5ce ( ! confusion1 h[ev]1 is mo/ easily realiz$ by ask+1 ',h[ did ,kant come to ?9k ( space & "t z ! only =ms ( p]ception8' ,x w\ld seem obvi\s t ! p]ception ( any?+ implies a =m ( p]ception 9 ! s5se ( a mode or capacity ( p]ceiv+4 ,to p]ceive col\rs implies a capacity = see+2 to he> noises implies a capacity = he>+4 ,& ^! capacities may fairly be call$ =ms ( p]ception4 ,z soon z ?is is realiz$1 ! conclusion is inevitable t ,kant 0 l$ to ?9k ( space & "t z ! only =ms ( p]ception1 because 9 ?is connexion he 0 ?9k+ ( ea* z a =m ( ph5om5a1 i4 e4 z some?+ 9 :i* all bodies or _! /ates are1 or1 f ! po9t ( view ( our k1 z t 9 :i* s5su\s mat]ial is to be arrang$2 = !re is no?+ except space & "t 9 :i* su* arrangem5t c\ld plausibly be said to be c>ri$ out4 ,z has be5 po9t$ out1 ,kant's argum5t falls into two ma9 p>ts1 "o ( :i* prep>es ! way = ! o!r4 ,! aim ( ! =m] is to %[ fir/ly t our appreh5sion ( space is a priori1 & secondly t x belongs to p]ception & n to conception4 ,! aim ( ! latt] is to conclude f ^! *>act]i/ics ( our appreh5sion ( space t space is a prop]ty n ( ?+s 9 !mselves b only ( ph5om5a4 ,^! argum5ts may be consid]$ 9 turn4 ,! really valid argum5t adduc$ by ,kant = ! a priori "* ( our appreh5sion ( space is bas$ on ! nature ( geometrical judgem5ts4 ,! univ]sality ( our judgem5ts 9 geometry is n bas$ ^u exp]i5ce1 i4 e4 ^u ! obs]vation ( individual ?+s 9 space4 ,! necessity ( geometrical relations is appreh5d$ directly 9 virtue ( ! m9d's own appreh5d+ nature4 ,un=tunately 9 ! pres5t context ,kant ignores ?is argum5t & sub/itutes two o!rs1 bo? ( :i* are invalid4 #a4 ,space is no empirical conception#ad :i* has be5 d]iv$ f ext]nal#ae exp]i5ces4 ,= 9 ord] t c]ta9 s5sations may be relat$ to some?+ ext]nal to me 7t is1 to some?+ 9 a diff]5t "p ( space f t 9 :i* ,i am71 9 l mann]1 9 ord] t ,i may repres5t !m z ext]nal to & next to ea* o!r1 & consequ5tly z n m]ely diff]5t b z 9 diff]5t places1 ! repres5tation ( space mu/ already exi/ z a f\ndation4 ,consequ5tly1 ! repres5tation ( space _c be borr[$ f ! relations ( ext]nal ph5om5a ?r\gh exp]i5ce2 b1 on ! contr>y1 ?is ext]nal exp]i5ce is itself fir/ possible only ?r\gh ! said repres5tation4#af ,"h ,kant is ?9k+ t 9 ord] to appreh5d1 = example1 t ,a is to ! "r ( ,b we mu/ fir/ appreh5d empty space4 ,he concludes t our appreh5sion ( space is a priori1 because we appreh5d empty space be=e we become aw>e ( ! spatial relations ( individual objects 9 x4 #ad ,begriff 7conception7 "h is to be und]/ood loosely n z some?+ oppos$ to ,ans*auung 7p]ception71 b z equival5t to ! g5us ( :i* ,ans*auung & ,begriff are species1 i4 e4 ,vor/ellung1 :i* maybe r5d]$ by 'repres5tation' or 'idea'1 9 ! g5]al s5se 9 :i* ^! words are sometimes us$ to include '?\ght' & 'p]ception'4 #ae ,! next s5t5ce %[s t 'ext]nal' means1 n 'produc$ by some?+ ext]nal to ! m9d'1 b simply 'spatial'4 #af ,b4 #ch1 ,m4 #bc-d4 ,to ?is ! foll[+ reply may be made4 7a7 ,! t]m a priori appli$ to an appreh5sion %\ld mean1 n t x arises prior to exp]i5ce1 b t its validity is indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce4 7b7 ,t to :i* ! t]m a priori %\ld be appli$ is n ! appreh5sion ( empty space1 :i* is individual1 b ! appreh5sion ( ! nature ( space 9 g5]al1 :i* is univ]sal4 7c7 ,we d n appreh5d empty space be=e we appreh5d individual spatial relations ( individual bodies or1 inde$1 at any "t4 7d7 ,?\gh we come to appreh5d a priori ! nature ( space 9 g5]al1 ! appreh5sion is n prior b po/]ior 9 "t to ! appreh5sion ( individual spatial relations4 7e7 ,x does n foll[ f ! temporal priority ( our appreh5sion ( individual spatial relations t our appreh5sion ( ! nature ( space 9 g5]al is 'borr[$ f exp]i5ce'1 & is !re=e n a priori4 #b4 ,we c nev] repres5t to ourselves t !re is no space1 ?\gh we c q well ?9k t no objects are f\nd 9 x4 ,x mu/1 !re=e1 be consid]$ z ! condition ( ! possibility ( ph5om5a1 & n z a det]m9ation dep5d5t ^u !m1 & x is an a priori repres5tation1 :i* necess>ily und]lies ext]nal ph5om5a4#ag #ag ,b4 #ch1 ,m4 #bd4 ,"h ! premise is simply false4 ,if 'repres5t' or '?9k' means 'believe'1 we c no m repres5t or ?9k t !re are no objects 9 space ?an t !re is no space4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 'repres5t' or '?9k' means 'make a m5tal picture ('1 ! ass]tion is equally false4 ,kant is ?9k+ ( empty space z a k9d ( receptacle = objects1 & ! a priori "* ( our appreh5sion ( space lies1 z be=e1 9 ! suppos$ fact t 9 ord] to appreh5d objects 9 space we mu/ beg9 ) ! appreh5sion ( empty space4 ,! exam9ation ( ,kant's argum5ts = ! p]ceptive "* ( our appreh5sion ( space is a m complicat$ matt]4 ,by way ( prelim9>y x %\ld be notic$ t !y presuppose ! possibility 9 g5]al ( di/+ui%+ features ( objects :i* belong to ! p]ception ( !m f o!rs :i* belong to ! conception ( !m4 ,9 p>ticul>1 ,kant holds t our appreh5sion ( a body z a sub/ance1 z ex]cis+ =ce & z divisible1 is due to our und]/&+ z conceiv+ x1 :ile our appreh5sion ( x z ext5d$ & z hav+ a %ape is due to our s5sibility z p]ceiv+ x4#ah ,! di/9ction1 h[ev]1 w be f\nd unt5able 9 pr9ciple2 & if ?is be grant$1 ,kant's attempt to di/+ui% 9 ?is way ! ext5sion & %ape ( an object f its o!r features c be rul$ out on g5]al gr\nds4 ,9 any case1 x mu/ be conc$$ t ! argum5ts fail by :i* he seeks to %[ t space 9 p>ticul> belongs to p]ception4 #ah ,b4 #ce1 ,m4 #bb 7quot$ p4 #ci74 ,x is notewor?y 7#a7 t ! passage conta9s no argum5t to %[ t ext5sion & %ape are n1 equally ) divisibility1 ?\ght to belong to an object1 7#b7 t imp5etrability1 :i* is "h said to belong to s5sation1 obvi\sly _c d s1 & 7#c7 t 7z has be5 po9t$ out1 p4 #ci7 ! la/ s5t5ce ( ! p>agraph 9 "q presupposes t we h a p]ception ( empty space1 & t ?is is a =m ( p]ception4 ,!re appe>s to be no way ( di/+ui%+ p]ception & conception z ! appreh5sion ( diff]5t realities#ai except z ! appreh5sion ( ! individual & ( ! univ]sal respectively4 ,di/+ui%$ 9 ?is way1 ! faculty ( p]ception is t 9 virtue ( :i* we appreh5d ! individual1 & ! faculty ( conception is t p[] ( reflection 9 virtue ( :i* a univ]sal is made ! explicit object ( ?\ght4#bj ,if ?is be grant$1 ! only te/ = :at is p]ceiv$ is t x is individual1 & ! only te/ = :at is conceiv$ is t x is univ]sal4 ,^! are 9 fact ! te/s :i* ,kant uses4 ,b if ?is be s1 x foll[s t ! v>i\s *>act]i/ics ( objects _c be divid$ into ^? :i* are p]ceiv$ & ^? :i* are conceiv$4 ,= ! di/9ction betwe5 univ]sal & individual is q g5]al1 & applies to all *>act]i/ics ( objects alike4 ,?us1 9 ! case ( col\r1 we c di/+ui% col\r 9 g5]al & ! individual col\rs ( individual objects2 or1 to take a less ambigu\s in/ance1 we c di/+ui% a p>ticul> %ade ( r$ness & its individual in/ances4 ,fur!r1 x may be said t p]ception is ( ! individual %ade ( r$ ( ! individual object1 & t ! faculty by :i* we become explicitly aw>e ( ! p>ticul> %ade ( r$ 9 g5]al is t ( conception4 ,! same di/9ction c be drawn ) respect to h>dness1 or %ape1 or any o!r *>act]i/ic ( objects4 ,! di/9ction1 !n1 betwe5 p]ception & conception c be drawn ) respect to any *>act]i/ic ( objects1 & does n s]ve to di/+ui% "o f ano!r4 #ai ,& n z mutually involv$ 9 ! appreh5sion ( any individual reality4 #bj ,?is di/9ction is ( c\rse diff]5t to t previ\sly drawn )9 p]ception 9 ! full s5se betwe5 p]ception 9 a n>r[ s5se & conception 7pp4 #bh-i74 ,kant's argum5ts to %[ t our appreh5sion ( space belongs to p]ception are two 9 numb]1 & bo? are direct$ to %[ n1 z !y %\ld1 t space is a =m ( p]ception1 b t x is a p]ception4#ba ,! fir/ runs ?us3 ,space is no discursive1 or1 z we say1 g5]al conception ( relations ( ?+s 9 g5]al1 b a pure p]ception4 ,=1 9 ! fir/ place1 we c repres5t to ourselves only "o space1 & if we speak ( _m spaces we mean !reby only p>ts ( "o & ! same unique space4 ,aga91 ^! p>ts _c prec$e ! "o all-embrac+ space z ! compon5t p>ts1 z x 71 out ( :i* x c be compos$1 b c be ?\ght only 9 x4 ,space is ess5tially "o2 ! manifold 9 x1 & consequ5tly ! g5]al conception ( spaces 9 g5]al1 re/s solely ^u limitations4#bb #ba ,kant uses ! phrase 'pure p]ception'2 b 'pure' c only mean 'n conta9+ s5sation'1 & consequ5tly adds no?+ relevant4 #bb ,b4 #ci1 ,m4 #bd4 ,! conclud+ s5t5ces ( ! p>agraph ne$ n be consid]$4 ,"h ,kant is cle>ly tak+ ! prop] te/ ( p]ception4 ,its object1 z be+ an individual1 is unique2 !re is only "o ( x1 :]eas any conception has a plurality ( in/ances4 ,b he rea*es 8 conclusion by suppos+ t we fir/ p]ceive empty space & !n become aw>e ( its p>ts by divid+ x4 ,p>ts ( space are ess5tially limitations ( ! "o space2 !re=e to appreh5d !m we mu/ fir/ appreh5d space4 ,& s9ce space is "o1 x mu/ be object ( p]ception2 9 o!r words1 space1 9 ! s5se ( ! "o all-embrac+ space1 i4 e4 ! totality ( individual spaces1 is some?+ p]ceiv$4 ,! argum5t appe>s op5 to two objections4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 we d n p]ceive space z a :ole1 & !n1 by divid+ x1 come to appreh5d individual spaces4 ,we p]ceive individual spaces1 or1 r1 individual bodies occupy+ individual spaces4#bc ,we !n appreh5d t ^! spaces1 z spaces1 involve an inf9ity ( o!r spaces4 ,9 o!r words1 x is reflection on ! g5]al nature ( space1 ! appreh5sion ( :i* is involv$ 9 our appreh5sion ( individual spaces or r ( bodies 9 space1 :i* gives rise to ! appreh5sion ( ! totality#bd ( spaces1 ! appreh5sion be+ an act1 n ( p]ception1 b ( ?\ght or conception4 ,x is necess>y1 !n1 to di/+ui% 7a7 individual spaces1 :i* we p]ceive2 7b7 ! nature ( space 9 g5]al1 ( :i* we become aw>e by reflect+ ^u ! "* ( p]ceiv$ individual spaces1 & :i* we conceive2 7c7 ! totality ( individual spaces1 ! ?\ght ( :i* we rea* by consid]+ ! nature ( space 9 g5]al4 #bc ,?is cont5tion is n refut$ by ! objection t our di/9ct appreh5sion ( an individual space is always b\nd up ) an indi/9ct appreh5sion ( ! spaces imm$iately surr\nd+ x4 ,= our indi/9ct appreh5sion _c be suppos$ to be ( ! :ole ( ! surr\nd+ space4 #bd ,x is "h assum$ t a :ole or a totality c be inf9ite4 ,cf4 p4 #ajb4 ,9 ! second place1 ! di/9ctions j drawn af=d no gr\nd = di/+ui%+ space z some?+ p]ceiv$ f any o!r *>act]i/ic ( objects z some?+ conceiv$2 = any o!r *>act]i/ic admits ( correspond+ di/9ctions4 ,?us1 ) respect to col\r x is possible to di/+ui% 7a7 individual col\rs :i* we p]ceive2 7b7 col\r$ness 9 g5]al1 :i* we conceive by reflect+ on ! common "* exhibit$ by individual col\rs & :i* involves v>i\s k9ds or species ( col\r$ness2 7c7 ! totality ( individual col\rs1 ! ?\ght ( :i* is rea*$ by consid]+ ! nature ( col\r$ness 9 g5]al4#be #be ,= a possible objection & ! answ] !reto1 see note1 p4 #gj4 ,bo? 9 ! case ( col\r & 9 t ( space !re is to be f\nd ! di/9ction betwe5 univ]sal & individual1 & !re=e also t betwe5 conception & p]ception4 ,x may be object$ t aft] all1 z ,kant po9ts out1 !re is only "o space1 :]eas !re are _m individual col\rs4 ,b ! ass]tion t !re is only "o space simply means t all individual bodies 9 space are relat$ spatially4 ,?is w be admitt$1 if ! attempt be made to ?9k ( two bodies z 9 diff]5t spaces & !re=e z n relat$ spatially4 ,moreov]1 !re is a p>allel 9 ! case ( col\r1 s9ce individual col\r$ bodies are relat$ by way ( col\r1 e4 g4 z bright] & dull]2 & ?\gh su* a relation is diff]5t f a relation ( bodies 9 respect ( space1 ! diff]5ce is due to ! special nature ( ! univ]sals conceiv$1 & does n imply a diff]5ce betwe5 space & col\r 9 respect ( p]ception & conception4 ,9 any case1 space z a :ole is n object ( p]ception1 :i* x mu/ be if ,kant is to %[ t space1 z be+ "o1 is p]ceiv$2 = space 9 ?is context mu/ mean ! totality ( individual spaces4 ,kant's second argum5t is /at$ z foll[s3 ,space is repres5t$ z an inf9ite giv5 magnitude4 ,n[ e conception mu/ inde$ be consid]$ z a repres5tation :i* is conta9$ 9 an inf9ite numb] ( diff]5t possible repres5tations 7z _! common m>k71 & :i* !re=e conta9s ^! "u itself1 b no conception c1 z su*1 be ?\ght ( z ?\gh x conta9$ 9 itself an inf9ite numb] ( repres5tations4 ,nev]!less1 space is s conceiv$1 = all p>ts ( space ad inf9itum exi/ simultane\sly4 ,consequ5tly ! orig9al repres5tation ( space is an a priori p]ception & n a conception4 ,9 o!r words1 :ile a conception implies an inf9ity ( individuals :i* come "u x1 ! elem5ts :i* con/itute ! conception itself 7e4 g4 t ( triangul>ity or r$ness7 are n inf9ite2 b ! elem5ts :i* g to con/itute space are inf9ite1 & !re=e space is n a conception b a p]ception4 ,?\gh1 h[ev]1 space 9 ! s5se ( ! inf9ity ( spaces may be said to conta9 an inf9ite numb] ( spaces if x be meant t x is ^! inf9ite spaces1 x does n foll[1 nor is x true1 t space 9 ?is s5se is object ( p]ception4 ,! aim ( ! argum5ts j consid]$1 & /at$ 9 #b ( ! ,ae/hetic1 is to e/abli% ! two *>act]i/ics ( our appreh5sion ( space1#bf f :i* x is to foll[ t space is a prop]ty ( ?+s only z !y appe> to u & n z !y are 9 !mselves4 ,?is conclusion is drawn 9 #d4 #b & #d !re=e complete ! argum5t4 #c1 a passage add$ 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique1 int]rupts ! ?\ght1 = ignor+ #b1 x once m e/abli%es ! a priori & p]ceptive "* ( our appreh5sion ( space1 & indep5d5tly draws ! conclusion drawn 9 #d4 ,s9ce1 h[ev]1 ,kant draws ! f9al conclusion 9 ! same way 9 #c & 9 #d1 & s9ce a passage 9 ! ,prolegom5a1#bg ( :i* #c is only a summ>y1 gives a m detail$ acc\nt ( ,kant's ?\ght1 att5tion %\ld be conc5trat$ on #c1 toge!r ) ! passage 9 ! ,prolegom5a4 #bf viz4 t x is a priori & a pure p]ception4 #bg #f-aa4 ,x might seem at ! outset t s9ce ! argum5ts ^u :i* ,kant bases ! premises = 8 f9al argum5t h turn$ out invalid1 ! f9al argum5t itself ne$ n be consid]$4 ,! argum5t1 h[ev]1 ( #c ignores ! prec$+ argum5ts = ! a priori & p]ceptive "* ( our appreh5sion ( space4 ,x returns to ! a priori syn!tic "* ( geometrical judgem5ts1 ^u :i* /ress is laid 9 ! ,introduction1 & appeals to ?is z ! ju/ification ( ! a priori & p]ceptive "* ( our appreh5sion ( space4 ,! argum5t ( #c runs z foll[s3 ,geometry is a sci5ce :i* det]m9es ! prop]ties ( space syn!tically & yet a priori4 ,:at1 !n1 mu/ be ! repres5tation ( space1 9 ord] t su* a k ( x may be possible8 ,x mu/ be orig9ally p]ception1 = f a m]e conception no propositions c be d$uc$ :i* g beyond ! conception1 & yet ?is happ5s 9 geometry4 ,b ?is p]ception mu/ be a priori1 i4 e4 x mu/ occur 9 u be=e all s5se-p]ception ( an object1 & !re=e mu/ be pure1 n empirical p]ception4 ,= geometrical propositions are always apodeictic1 i4 e4 b\nd up ) ! consci\sness ( _! necessity 7e4 g4 space has only ?ree dim5sions71 & su* propositions _c be empirical judgem5ts nor conclusions f !m4 ,n[ h[ c !re exi/ 9 ! m9d an ext]nal p]ception#bh :i* prec$es#bi ! objects !mselves1 & 9 :i* ! conception ( !m c be det]m9$ a priori8 ,obvi\sly n o!rwise ?an 9 s f> z x has its seat 9 ! subject only1 z ! =mal nature ( ! subject to be affect$ by objects & !reby to obta9 imm$iate repres5tation1 i4 e4 p]ception ( !m1 & consequ5tly only z ! =m ( ! ext]nal s5se 9 g5]al4#cj #bh ',ext]nal p]ception' c only mean p]ception ( :at is spatial4 #bi ,vorh]geht4 #cj ',=mal nature to be affect$ by objects' is n relevant to ! context4 ,"h ?ree /eps are tak54 ,f ! syn!tic "* ( geometrical judgem5ts x is conclud$ t space is n some?+ :i* we conceive1 b some?+ :i* we p]ceive4 ,f _! a priori "*1 i4 e4 f ! consci\sness ( necessity involv$1 x is conclud$ t ! p]ception ( space mu/ be a priori 9 a new s5se1 t ( tak+ place be=e ! p]ception ( objects 9 x4#ca ,f ! fact t we p]ceive space be=e we p]ceive objects 9 x1 & !reby are able to anticipate ! spatial relations :i* condition ^! objects1 x is conclud$ t space is only a *>act]i/ic ( our p]ceiv+ nature1 & consequ5tly t space is a prop]ty n ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 b only ( ?+s z p]ceiv$ by u4#cb #ca ,cf4 ,b4 #db1 ,m4 #bf 7a7 f941 7b7 second s5t5ce4 #cb ,cf4 ,b4 #dc1 ,m4 #bf-g4 ,two po9ts 9 ?is argum5t are1 ev5 on ! face ( x1 p>adoxical4 ,fir/ly1 ! t]m a priori1 z appli$ n to geometrical judgem5ts b to ! p]ception ( space1 is giv5 a temporal s5se2 x means n some?+ ^: validity is indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce & :i* is ! manife/ation ( ! nature ( ! m9d1 b some?+ :i* takes place be=e exp]i5ce4 ,secondly1 ! conclusion is n t ! p]ception ( space is ! manife/ation ( ! m9d's p]ceiv+ nature1 b t x is ! m9d's p]ceiv+ nature4 ,= ! conclusion is t space#cc is ! =mal nature ( ! subject to be affect$ by objects1 & !re=e ! =m ( ! ext]nal s5se 9 g5]al4 ,pla9ly1 !n1 ,kant "h confuses an actual p]ception & a =m or way ( p]ceiv+4 ,^! po9ts1 h[ev]1 are m explicit 9 ! correspond+ passage 9 ! ,prolegom5a4#cd #cc ,kant draws no di/9ction betwe5 space & ! p]ception ( space1 or1 r1 habitually speaks ( space z a p]ception4 ,no d\bt he consid]s t 8 view t space is only a *>act]i/ic ( ph5om5a ju/ifies ! id5tification ( space & ! p]ception ( x4 ,occasionally1 h[ev]1 he di/+ui%es !m4 ,?us he sometimes speaks ( ! repres5tation ( space 7e4 g4 ,b4 #ch-dj1 ,m4 #bc-d72 9 ,prol41 #aa1 he speaks ( a pure p]ception ( space & "t2 & 9 ,b4 #dj1 ,m4 #be1 he says t our repres5tation ( space mu/ be p]ception4 ,b ?is language is due to ! pressure ( ! facts1 & n to 8 g5]al !ory2 cf4 pp4 #ace-f4 #cd #f-aa4 ,x beg9s ?us3 ,ma!matics c>ries ) x ?or\ghly apodeictic c]ta9ty1 t is1 absolute necessity1 &1 !re=e1 re/s on no empirical gr\nds1 & consequ5tly is a pure product ( reason1 &1 besides1 is ?or\ghly syn!tical4 ,h[1 !n1 is x possible = human reason to accompli% su* k entirely a priori8444 ,b we f9d t all ma!matical k has ?is peculi>ity1 t x mu/ repres5t its conception previ\sly 9 p]ception1 & inde$ a priori1 consequ5tly 9 a p]ception :i* is n empirical b pure1 & t o!rwise x _c take a s+le /ep4 ,h5ce its judgem5ts are always intuitive4444 ,?is obs]vation on ! nature ( ma!matics at once gives u a clue to ! fir/ & highe/ condition ( its possibility1 viz4 t !re mu/ und]lie x a pure p]ception 9 :i* x c exhibit or1 z we say1 con/ruct all its conceptions 9 ! concrete & yet a priori4 ,if we c discov] ?is pure p]ception & its possibility1 we may !nce easily expla9 h[ a priori syn!tical propositions 9 pure ma!matics are possible1 & consequ5tly also h[ ! sci5ce itself is possible4 ,= j z empirical p]ception enables u )\t difficulty to enl>ge syn!tically 9 exp]i5ce ! conception :i* we frame ( an object ( p]ception ?r\gh new pr$icates :i* p]ception itself (f]s u1 s pure p]ception also w d ! same1 only ) ! diff]5ce t 9 ?is case ! syn!tical judgem5t w be a priori c]ta9 & apodeictic1 :ile 9 ! =m] case x w be only a po/]iori & empirically c]ta92 = ! latt] i4 e4 ! empirical p]ception on :i* ! a po/]iori syn!tic judgem5t is bas$ conta9s only t :i* is to be f\nd 9 cont+5t empirical p]ception1 :ile ! =m] i4 e4 ! pure p]ception on :i* ! a priori syn!tic judgem5t is bas$ conta9s t :i* is b\nd to be f\nd 9 pure p]ception1 s9ce1 z a priori p]ception1 x is insep>ably connect$ ) ! conception be=e all exp]i5ce or individual s5se-p]ception4 ,?is passage is evid5tly bas$ ^u ! acc\nt :i* ,kant gives 9 ! ,doctr9e ( ,me?od ( ! me?od ( geometry4#ce ,accord+ to ?is acc\nt1 9 ord] to appreh5d1 = in/ance1 t a ?ree-sid$ figure mu/ h ?ree angles1 we mu/ draw 9 imag9ation or on pap] an individual figure correspond+ to ! conception ( a ?ree-sid$ figure4 ,we !n see t ! v nature ( ! act ( con/ruction involves t ! figure con/ruct$ mu/ possess ?ree angles z well z ?ree sides4 ,h5ce1 p]ception be+ t by :i* we appreh5d ! individual1 a p]ception is involv$ 9 ! act by :i* we =m a geometrical judgem5t1 & ! p]ception c be call$ a priori1 9 t x is guid$ by our a priori appreh5sion ( ! necess>y nature ( ! act ( con/ruction1 & !re=e ( ! figure con/ruct$4 #ce ,b4 #gdj ff41 ,m4 #dcd ff4 ,comp>e especially ! foll[+3 ,philosophical k is k ( reason by means ( conceptions2 ma!matical k is k by means ( ! con/ruction ( conceptions4 ,b ! con/ruction ( a conception means ! a priori pres5tation ( a p]ception correspond+ to x4 ,! con/ruction ( a conception !re=e dem&s a non-empirical p]ception1 :i*1 !re=e1 z a p]ception1 is an individual object1 b :i* none ! less1 z ! con/ruction ( a conception 7a univ]sal repres5tation71 mu/ express 9 ! repres5tation univ]sal validity = all possible p]ceptions :i* come "u t conception4 ,?us ,i con/ruct a triangle by pres5t+ ! object correspond+ to ! conception1 ei!r by m]e imag9ation 9 pure p]ception1 or also1 9 accordance ) pure p]ception1 on pap] 9 empirical p]ception1 b 9 bo? cases completely a priori1 )\t hav+ borr[$ ! patt]n ( x f any exp]i5ce4 ,! individual drawn figure is empirical1 b nev]!less s]ves to indicate ! conception )\t prejudice to its univ]sality1 because 9 ?is empirical p]ception we always att5d only to ! act ( con/ruction ( ! conception1 to :i* _m det]m9ations1 e4 g4 ! magnitude ( ! sides & ( ! angles1 are :olly indiff]5t1 & accord+ly ab/ract f ^! diff]5ces1 :i* d n *ange ! conception ( ! triangle4 ,! acc\nt 9 ! ,prolegom5a1 h[ev]1 diff]s f t ( ! ,doctr9e ( ,me?od 9 "o important respect4 ,x ass]ts t ! p]ception involv$ 9 a ma!matical judgem5t n only may1 b mu/1 be pure1 i4 e4 mu/ be a p]ception 9 :i* no spatial object is pres5t1 & x implies t ! p]ception mu/ take place be=e all exp]i5ce ( actual objects4#cf ,h5ce a priori1 appli$ to p]ception1 has "h prim>ily1 if n exclusively1 ! temporal mean+ t ! p]ception takes place antec$5tly to all exp]i5ce4#cg #cf ,?is becomes m explicit 9 #h & ff4 #cg ,?is is also1 & m obvi\sly1 impli$ 9 #h-aa4 ,! ?\ght ( ! passage quot$ f ! ,prolegom5a c be /at$ ?us3 ',a ma!matical judgem5t implies ! p]ception ( an individual figure antec$5tly to all exp]i5ce4 ,?is may be said to be ! fir/ condition ( ! possibility ( ma!matical judgem5ts :i* is reveal$ by reflection4 ,!re is1 h[ev]1 a prior or high] condition4 ,! p]ception ( an individual figure involves z its basis ano!r pure p]ception4 ,= we c only con/ruct & !re=e p]ceive an individual figure 9 empty space4 ,space is t 9 :i* x mu/ be con/ruct$ & p]ceiv$4 ,a p]ception#ch ( empty space is1 !re=e1 necess>y4 ,if1 !n1 we c discov] h[ ?is p]ception is possible1 we %all be able to expla9 ! possibility ( a priori syn!tical judgem5ts ( ma!matics4' #ch ,pure p]ception only means t ! space p]ceiv$ is empty4 ,kant cont9ues z foll[s3 ,b ) ?is /ep ! difficulty seems to increase r ?an to less54 ,= h5ce=w>d ! "q is ',h[ is x possible to p]ceive any?+ a priori8' ,a p]ception is su* a repres5tation z w\ld imm$iately dep5d ^u ! pres5ce ( ! object4 ,h5ce x seems impossible orig9ally to p]ceive a priori1 because p]ception w\ld 9 t case h to take place )\t an object to :i* x might ref]1 pres5t ei!r =m]ly or at ! mom5t1 & accord+ly c\ld n be p]ception4444 ,h[ c p]ception ( ! object prec$e ! object itself8#ci ,kant "h f9ds himself face to face ) ! difficulty creat$ by ! prec$+ section4 ,p]ception1 z su*1 involves ! actual pres5ce ( an object2 yet ! pure p]ception ( space involv$ by geometry--:i*1 z pure1 is ! p]ception ( empty space1 & :i*1 z ! p]ception ( empty space1 is a priori 9 ! s5se ( temporally prior to ! p]ception ( actual objects--presupposes t an object is n actually pres5t4 #ci ,prol4 #h4 ,! solution is giv5 9 ! next section4 ,7 our p]ception necess>ily ( su* a k9d z to repres5t ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves1 no p]ception w\ld take place a priori1 b w\ld always be empirical4 ,= ,i c only "k :at is conta9$ 9 ! object 9 itself1 if x is pres5t & giv5 to me4 ,no d\bt x is ev5 !n un9telligible h[ ! p]ception ( a pres5t ?+ %\ld make me "k x z x is 9 itself1 s9ce its qualities _c migrate ov] into my faculty ( repres5tation2 b1 ev5 grant+ ?is possibility1 su* a p]ception w\ld n occur a priori1 i4 e4 be=e ! object 0 pres5t$ to me2 = )\t ?is pres5tation1 no basis ( ! relation betwe5 my repres5tation & ! object c be imag9$2 ! relation w\ld !n h to re/ ^u inspiration4 ,x is !re=e possible only 9 "o way = my p]ception to prec$e ! actuality ( ! object & to take place z a priori k1 viz4 if x conta9s no?+ b ! =m ( ! s5sibility1 :i* prec$es 9 me1 ! subject1 all actual impressions ?r\gh :i* ,i am affect$ by objects4 ,= ,i c "k a priori t objects ( ! s5ses c only be p]ceiv$ 9 accordance ) ?is =m ( ! s5sibility4 ,h5ce x foll[s t propositions :i* conc]n m]ely ?is =m ( s5su\s p]ception w be possible & valid = objects ( ! s5ses1 & 9 ! same way1 conv]sely1 t p]ceptions :i* are possible a priori c nev] conc]n any ?+s o!r ?an objects ( our s5ses4 ,?is section cle>ly con/itutes ! turn+-po9t 9 ,kant's argum5t1 & prim>ily expresses1 9 an exp&$ =m1 ! c5tral doctr9e ( #c ( ! ,ae/hetic1 t an ext]nal p]ception ant]ior to objects !mselves1 & 9 :i* our conceptions ( objects c be det]m9$ a priori1 is possible1 if1 & only if1 x has its seat 9 ! subject z its =mal nature ( be+ affect$ by objects1 & consequ5tly z ! =m ( ! ext]nal s5se 9 g5]al4 ,x argues t1 s9ce ?is is true1 & s9ce geometrical judgem5ts involve su* a p]ception ant]ior to objects1 space mu/ be only !#dj =m ( s5sibility4 #dj ,! & n a1 because1 = ! mom5t1 "t is ignor$4 ,n[ :y does ,kant ?9k t ?is conclusion foll[s8 ,be=e we c answ] ?is "q we mu/ remove an initial difficulty4 ,9 ?is passage ,kant unque/ionably id5tifies a =m ( p]ception ) an actual p]ception4 ,x is at once an actual p]ception & a capacity ( p]ceiv+4 ,?is is evid5t f ! words1 ,x is possible only 9 "o way = my p]ception to prec$e ! actuality ( ! object 444 viz4 if x conta9s no?+ b ! =m ( ! s5sibility4#da ,! id5tification becomes m explicit a little lat]4 ,a pure p]ception 7( space & "t7 c und]lie ! empirical p]ception ( objects1 because x is no?+ b ! m]e =m ( ! s5sibility1 :i* prec$es ! actual appe>ance ( ! objects1 9 t x 9 fact fir/ makes !m possible4 ,yet ?is faculty ( p]ceiv+ a priori affects n ! matt] ( ! ph5om5on1 i4 e4 t 9 x :i* is s5sation1 = ?is con/itutes t :i* is empirical1 b only its =m1 viz4 space & "t4#db ,8 argum5t1 h[ev]1 c be successfully /at$ )\t ?is id5tification4 ,x is only necess>y to re-write 8 c>d9al ass]tion 9 ! =m '! p]ception ( space mu/ be no?+ b ! manife/ation ( ! =m ( ! s5sibility'4 ,giv5 ?is modification1 ! "q becomes1 ',:y does ,kant ?9k t ! p]ception ( empty space1 involv$ by geometrical judgem5ts1 c be only a manife/ation ( our p]ceiv+ nature1 & n 9 any way ! appreh5sion ( a real quality ( objects8' ,! answ] mu/ be t x is because he ?9ks t1 :ile 9 empirical p]ception a real object is pres5t1 9 ! p]ception ( empty space a real object is n pres5t4 ,he reg>ds ?is z prov+ t ! latt] p]ception is only ( some?+ subjective or m5tal4 ,space & "t1 by be+ pure a priori p]ceptions1 prove t !y are m]e =ms ( our s5sibility :i* mu/ prec$e all empirical p]ception1 i4 e4 s5se-p]ception ( actual objects4#dc ,8 ma9 conclusion n[ foll[s easily en\gh4 ,if 9 p]ceiv+ empty space we are only appreh5d+ a manife/ation ( our p]ceiv+ nature1 :at we appreh5d 9 a geometrical judgem5t is really a law ( our p]ceiv+ nature1 & !re=e1 :ile x mu/ apply to our p]ceptions ( objects or to objects z p]ceiv$1 x _c apply to objects ap>t f our p]ception1 or1 at lea/1 !re is no gr\nd = hold+ t x does s4 #da ,prol41 #i4 #db ,prol41 #aa4 #dc ,prol41 #aj4 ,if1 h[ev]1 ?is fairly repres5ts ,kant's ?\ght1 x mu/ be all[$ t ! conclusion :i* he %\ld h drawn is diff]5t1 & ev5 t ! conclusion :i* he does draw is 9 reality incompatible ) 8 />t+-po9t4 ,8 />t+-po9t is ! view t ! tru? ( geometrical judgem5ts presupposes a p]ception ( empty space1 9 virtue ( :i* we c discov] rules ( spatial relation :i* mu/ apply to all spatial objects subsequ5tly p]ceiv$4 ,8 problem is to discov] ! presupposition ( ?is presupposition4 ,! prop] answ] mu/ be1 n t space is a =m ( s5sibility or a way 9 :i* objects appe> to u1 b t space is ! =m ( all objects1 i4 e4 t all objects are spatial4#dd ,= 9 t case !y mu/ be subject to ! laws ( space1 & !re=e if we c discov] ^! laws by a /udy ( empty space1 ! only condition to be satisfi$1 if ! objects ( subsequ5t p]ception are to con=m to ! laws :i* we discov]1 is t all objects %\ld be spatial4 ,no?+ is impli$ :i* enables u to decide :e!r ! objects are objects z !y are 9 !mselves or objects z p]ceiv$2 = 9 ei!r case ! requir$ result foll[s4 ,if 9 empirical p]ception we appreh5d ?+s only z !y appe> to u1 & if space is ! =m ( !m z !y appe> to u1 x w no d\bt be true t ! laws ( spatial relation :i* we discov] mu/ apply to ?+s z !y appe> to u4 ,b on ! o!r h&1 if 9 empirical p]ception we appreh5d ?+s z !y are1 & if space is _! =m1 i4 e4 if ?+s are spatial1 x w be equally true t ! laws discov]$ by geometry mu/ apply to ?+s z !y are4 #dd ,kant expresses ! ass]tion t space is ! =m ( all objects by say+ t space is ! =m ( ph5om5a4 ,?is ( c\rse r5d]s easy an unconsci\s transition f ! !sis t space is ! =m ( objects to ! q diff]5t !sis t space is ! =m ( s5sibility2 cf4 p4 #ci4 ,aga91 ,kant's />t+-po9t really commits him to ! view t space is a *>act]i/ic ( ?+s z !y are4 ,=--p>adoxical ?\gh x may be--8 problem is to expla9 ! possibility ( p]ceiv+ a priori1 i4 e4 ( p]ceiv+ ! *>act]i/ics ( an object ant]ior to ! actual pres5ce ( ! object 9 p]ception4#de ,?is implies t empirical p]ception1 :i* involves ! actual pres5ce ( ! object1 involves no difficulty2 9 o!r words1 x is impli$ t empirical p]ception is ( objects z !y are4 ,& we f9d ,kant admitt+ ?is to ! ext5t ( all[+ = ! sake ( argum5t t ! p]ception ( a pres5t ?+ c make u "k ! ?+ z x is 9 itself4#df ,b if empirical p]ception gives u ?+s z !y are1 & if1 z is ! case1 & z ,kant really presupposes1 ! objects ( empirical p]ception are spatial1 !n1 s9ce space is _! =m1 ! judgem5ts ( geometry mu/ relate to ?+s z !y are4 ,x is true t on ?is view ,kant's fir/ presupposition ( geometrical judgem5ts has to be /at$ by say+ t we are able to p]ceive a real *>act]i/ic ( ?+s 9 space1 be=e we p]ceive ! ?+s2 &1 no d\bt1 ,kant ?9ks ?is impossible4 ,accord+ to him1 :5 we p]ceive empty space no object is pres5t1 & !re=e :at is be=e ! m9d mu/ be m]ely m5tal4 ,b no great] difficulty is involv$ ?an t involv$ 9 ! correspond+ supposition requir$ by ,kant's own view4 ,x is really j z difficult to hold t we c p]ceive a *>act]i/ic ( ?+s z !y appe> to u be=e !y appe>1 z to hold t we c p]ceive a *>act]i/ic ( !m z !y are 9 !mselves be=e we p]ceive !m4 #de ,cf4 ,prol41 ,section #h4 #df ,prol41 #i 7cf4 p4 #ee74 ,! fact is t ! real difficulty ) :i* ,kant is grappl+ 9 ! ,prolegom5a arises1 n f ! supposition t spatial bodies are ?+s 9 !mselves1 b f ! suppos$ presupposition ( geometry t we mu/ be able to p]ceive empty space be=e we p]ceive bodies 9 x4 ,x is1 ( c\rse1 impossible to def5d ! p]ception ( empty space1 b if x be ma9ta9$1 ! space p]ceiv$ mu/ be conc$$ to be n1 z ,kant ?9ks1 some?+ m5tal or subjective1 b a real *>act]i/ic ( ?+s4 ,=1 z has be5 po9t$ out1 ! p>adox ( pure p]ception is rea*$ solely ?r\gh ! consid]ation t1 :ile 9 empirical p]ception we p]ceive objects1 9 pure p]ception we d n1 & s9ce ! objects ( empirical p]ception are spatial1 space mu/ be a real *>act]i/ic ( !m4 ,! g5]al result ( ! prec$+ criticism is t ,kant's conclusion does n foll[ f ! premises by :i* he supports x4 ,x %\ld !re=e be ask$ :e!r x is n possible to take advantage ( ?is hiatus by pres5t+ ! argum5t = ! m]ely ph5om5al "* ( space )\t any appeal to ! possibility ( p]ceiv+ empty space4 ,= x is cle> t :at 0 prim>ily be=e ,kant1 9 writ+ ! ,critique1 0 ! a priori "* ( geometrical judgem5ts !mselves1 & n ! exi/5ce ( a p]ception ( empty space :i* !y 7 held to presuppose4#dg #dg ,! difficulty ) :i* ,kant is /ruggl+ 9 ! ,prolegom5a1 #f-aa1 c be /at$ f a r diff]5t po9t ( view by say+ t ! ?\ght t geometrical judgem5ts imply a p]ception ( empty space l$ him to apply ! t]m 'a priori' to p]ception z well z to judgem5t4 ,! t]m1 a priori1 appli$ to judgem5ts has a valid mean+2 x means1 n t ! judgem5t is made prior to all exp]i5ce1 b t x is n bas$ ^u exp]i5ce1 be+ orig9at$ by ! m9d 9 virtue ( its own p[]s ( ?9k+4 ,appli$ to p]ception1 h[ev]1 'a priori' mu/ mean prior to all exp]i5ce1 &1 s9ce ! object ( p]ception is ess5tially individual 7cf4 ,b4 #gda1 ,m4 #dce71 ?is use ( ! t]m gives rise to ! impossible task ( expla9+ h[ a p]ception c take place prior to ! actual exp]i5ce ( an individual 9 p]ception 7cf4 ,prol41 #h74 ,if1 !n1 ! conclusion t space is only ! =m ( s5sibility c be connect$ ) ! a priori "* ( geometrical judgem5ts )\t presuppos+ ! exi/5ce ( a p]ception ( empty space1 8 position w be r5d]$ m plausible4 ,?is c be done z foll[s4 ,! ess5tial *>act]i/ic ( a geometrical judgem5t is n t x takes place prior to exp]i5ce1 b t x is n bas$ ^u exp]i5ce4 ,?us a judgem5t1 arriv$ at by an activity ( ! m9d 9 :i* x rema9s )9 itself & does n appeal to actual exp]i5ce ( ! objects to :i* ! judgem5t relates1 is impli$ to hold good ( ^? objects4 ,if ! objects 7 ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves1 ! validity ( ! judgem5t c\ld n be ju/ifi$1 = x w\ld involve ! gratuit\s assumption t a necessity ( ?\ght is b9d+ on ?+s :i* ex hypo!si are indep5d5t ( ! nature ( ! m9d4 ,if1 h[ev]1 ! objects 9 "q are ?+s z p]ceiv$1 !y w be ?r\gh & ?r\gh condition$ by ! m9d's p]ceiv+ nature2 &1 consequ5tly1 if a geometrical rule1 e4 g4 t a ?ree-sid$ figure mu/ h ?ree angles1 is really a law ( ! m9d's p]ceiv+ nature1 all individual p]ceptions1 i4 e4 all objects z p]ceiv$ by u1 w necess>ily con=m to ! law4 ,!re=e1 9 ! latt] case1 & 9 t only1 w ! univ]sal validity ( geometrical judgem5ts be ju/ifi$4 ,s9ce1 !n1 geometrical judgem5ts are univ]sally valid1 space1 :i* is t ( :i* geometrical laws are ! laws1 mu/ be m]ely a =m ( p]ception or a *>act]i/ic ( objects z p]ceiv$ by u4 ,?is appe>s to be ! be/ =m 9 :i* ! sub/ance ( ,kant's argum5t1 /ripp$ ( uness5tials1 c be /at$4 ,x w be necess>y to consid] bo? ! argum5t & its conclusion4 ,! argum5t1 s /at$1 is und5iably plausible4 ,nev]!less1 exam9ation ( x reveals two fatal defects4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 its />t+-po9t is false4 ,to ,kant ! p>adox ( geometrical judgem5ts lies 9 ! fact t !y are n bas$ ^u an appeal to exp]i5ce ( ! ?+s to :i* !y relate4 ,x is impli$1 !re=e1 t judgem5ts :i* are bas$ on exp]i5ce involve no p>adox1 & = ! reason t 9 exp]i5ce we appreh5d ?+s z !y are4#dh ,9 contra/ ) ?is1 x is impli$ t 9 geometrical judgem5ts ! connexion :i* we appreh5d is n real1 i4 e4 does n relate to ?+s z !y are4 ,o!rwise1 !re w\ld be no difficulty2 if 9 geometry we appreh5d$ rules ( connexion relat+ to ?+s z !y are1 we c\ld all[ )\t difficulty t ! ?+s mu/ con=m to !m4 ,no su* di/9ction1 h[ev]1 c be drawn betwe5 a priori & empirical judgem5ts4 ,= ! necessity ( connexion1 e4 g4 betwe5 be+ a ?ree-sid$ figure & be+ a ?ree-angl$ figure1 is z mu* a *>act]i/ic ( ?+s z ! empirically-obs]v$ %ape ( an individual body1 e4 g4 a table4 ,geometrical judgem5ts1 !re=e1 _c be di/+ui%$ f empirical judgem5ts on ! gr\nd t 9 ! =m] ! m9d rema9s )9 itself1 & does n imm$iately appreh5d fact or a real *>act]i/ic ( reality4#di ,moreov]1 s9ce 9 a geometrical judgem5t we d 9 fact ?9k t we are appreh5d+ a real connexion1 i4 e4 a connexion :i* applies to ?+s & to ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves1 to "q ! reality ( ! connexion is to "q ! validity ( ?9k+ altoge!r1 & to d ?is is implicitly to "q ! validity ( our ?\ght ab\t ! nature ( our own m9d1 z well z ! validity ( our ?\ght ab\t ?+s indep5d5t ( ! m9d4 ,yet ,kant's argum5t1 9 ! =m 9 :i* x has j be5 /at$1 presupposes t our ?\ght is valid at any rate :5 x is conc]n$ ) our p]ceptions ( ?+s1 ev5 if x is n valid :5 conc]n$ ) ! ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves4 #dh ,cf4 p4 #ag4 #di ,= ! reasons :i* l$ ,kant to draw ?is di/9ction betwe5 empirical & a priori judgem5ts1 cf4 pp4 #ba-b4 ,?is consid]ation leads to ! second criticism4 ,! supposition t space is only a =m ( p]ception1 ev5 if x be true1 9 no way assi/s ! explanation ( ! univ]sal validity ( geometrical judgem5ts4 ,kant's argum5t really confuses a necessity ( relation ) ! consci\sness ( a necessity ( relation4 ,no d\bt1 if x be a law ( our p]ceiv+ nature t1 :5ev] we p]ceive an object z a ?ree-sid$ figure1 ! object z p]ceiv$ conta9s ?ree angles1 x foll[s t any object z p]ceiv$ w con=m to ?is law2 j z if x be a law ( ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves t ?ree-sid$ figures conta9 ?ree angles1 all ?ree-sid$ figures w 9 !mselves h ?ree angles4 ,b :at has to be expla9$ is ! univ]sal applicability1 n ( a law1 b ( a judgem5t ab\t a law4 ,= ,kant's real problem is to expla9 :y our judgem5t t a ?ree-sid$ figure mu/ conta9 ?ree angles mu/ apply to all ?ree-sid$ figures4 ,( c\rse1 if x be grant$ t 9 ! judgem5t we appreh5d ! true law1 ! problem may be reg>d$ z solv$4 ,b h[ are we to "k t :at we judge is ! true law8 ,! answ] is 9 no way facilitat$ by ! supposition t ! judgem5t relates to our p]ceiv+ nature4 ,x c j z well be urg$ t :at we ?9k to be a necessity ( our p]ceiv+ nature is n a necessity ( x1 z t :at we ?9k to be a necessity ( ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves is n a necessity ( !m4 ,! be/1 or r ! only possible1 answ] is simply t t ( :i* we appreh5d ! necessity mu/ be true1 or1 9 o!r words1 t we mu/ accept ! validity ( ?\ght4 ,h5ce no?+ is ga9$ by ! supposition t space is a =m ( s5sibility4 ,if :at we judge to be necess>y is1 z su*1 valid1 a judgem5t relat+ to ?+s 9 !mselves w be z valid z a judgem5t relat+ to our p]ceiv+ nature4#ej #ej ,! same criticism c be urg$ aga9/ ,kant's appeal to ! necessity ( con/ruct+ geometrical figures4 ,! conclusion drawn f ! necessity ( con/ruction is /at$ ?us3 ,if ! object 7! triangle7 7 some?+ 9 itself )\t relation to y ! subject1 h[ c\ld y say t t :i* lies necess>ily 9 y\r subjective conditions ( con/ruct+ a triangle mu/ also necess>ily belong to ! triangle 9 itself8 7,b4 #fe1 ,m4 #ci74 ,kant's ?\ght is t ! laws ( ! m9d's con/ruct+ nature mu/ apply to objects1 if1 & only if1 ! objects are ! m9d's own con/ruction4 ,h5ce x is op5 to ! above criticism if1 9 ! criticism1 'con/ruct' be sub/itut$ = 'p]ceive'4 ,?is difficulty is conceal$ f ,kant by 8 insi/5ce on ! p]ception ( space involv$ 9 geometrical judgem5ts4 ,?is leads him at times to id5tify ! judgem5t & ! p]ception1 &1 !re=e1 to speak ( ! judgem5t z a p]ception4 ,?us we f9d him say+ t ma!matical judgem5ts are always p]ceptive1#ea & t ,x is only possible = my p]ception to prec$e ! actuality ( ! object & take place z a priori k1 if c4#eb ,h5ce1 if1 9 addition1 a geometrical judgem5t1 z be+ a judgem5t ab\t a necessity1 be id5tifi$ ) a necessity ( judg+1 ! con=mity ( ?+s to ^! univ]sal judgem5ts w become ! con=mity ( ?+s to rules or necessities ( our judg+1 i4 e4 ( our p]ceiv+ nature1 & ,kant's conclusion w at once foll[4#ec ,un=tunately = ,kant1 a geometrical judgem5t1 h[ev] closely relat$ to a p]ception1 mu/ itself1 z ! appreh5sion ( :at is necess>y & univ]sal1 be an act ( ?\ght r ?an ( p]ception1 & !re=e ! orig9al problem ( ! con=mity ( ?+s to our m9d c be =c$ ^u him aga91 ev5 aft] he ?9ks t he has solv$ x1 9 ! new =m ( t ( ! con=mity )9 ! m9d ( p]ceiv+ to ?9k+4 #ea ,prol41 #g4 #eb ,prol41 #i4 #ec ,cf4 7,introduction1 ,b4 xvii1 ,m4 xxix73 ,b if ! object 7z object ( ! s5ses7 con=ms to ! nature ( our faculty ( p]ception1 ,i c q well repres5t to myself ! possibility ( a priori k ( x i4 e4 ma!matical k4 ,! fact is simply t ! univ]sal validity ( geometrical judgem5ts c 9 no way be 'expla9$'4 ,x is n 9 ! lea/ expla9$ or made easi] to accept by ! supposition t objects are 'ph5om5a'4 ,^! judgem5ts mu/ be accept$ z be+ :at we presuppose !m to be 9 mak+ !m1 viz4 ! direct appreh5sion ( necessities ( relation betwe5 real *>act]i/ics ( real ?+s4 ,to expla9 !m by ref]5ce to ! ph5om5al "* ( :at is kn[n is really--?\gh contr>y to ,kant's int5tion--to ?r[ d\bt ^u _! validity2 o!rwise1 !y w\ld n ne$ explanation4 ,z a matt] ( fact1 x is impossible to "q _! validity4 ,9 ! act ( judg+1 d\bt is impossible4 ,d\bt c arise only :5 we subsequ5tly reflect & tempor>ily lose our hold ^u ! consci\sness ( necessity 9 judg+4#ed ,! d\bt1 h[ev]1 s9ce x is non-exi/5t 9 our geometrical consci\sness1 is really gr\ndless1#ee &1 !re=e1 ! problem to :i* x gives rise is unreal4 ,moreov] if1 p] impossibile1 d\bt c\ld be rais$1 x c\ld n be set at re/4 ,no v9dication ( a judgem5t 9 :i* we are consci\s ( a necessity c\ld d m ?an take ! problem a /age fur!r back1 by bas+ x ^u "s o!r consci\sness ( a necessity2 & s9ce ?is latt] judgem5t c\ld be que/ion$ = precisely ! same reason1 we %\ld only be emb>k+ ^u an inf9ite process4 #ed ,cf4 ,desc>tes1 ,pr9c4 ,phil4 i4 #ac1 & ,m$it4 v sub f94 #ee ,! view t k9ds ( space o!r ?an t ) :i* we are acqua9t$ are possible1 ?\gh usually held & discuss$ by ma!maticians1 belongs to !m qua metaphysicians1 & n qua ma!maticians4 ,we may n[ consid] ,kant's conclusion 9 ab/raction f ! argum5ts by :i* he rea*es x4 ,x raises ?ree ma9 difficulties4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x is n ! conclusion to be expect$ f ,kant's own /&po9t4 ,! ph5om5al "* ( space is inf]r$1 n f ! fact t we make judgem5ts at all1 b f ! fact t we make judgem5ts ( a p>ticul> k9d1 viz4 a priori judgem5ts4 ,f ?is po9t ( view empirical judgem5ts pres5t no difficulty4 ,x %\ld1 !re=e1 be expect$ t ! qualities :i* we attribute to ?+s 9 empirical judgem5ts are n ph5om5al1 b belong to ?+s z !y are4 ,kant himself implies ?is 9 draw+ 8 conclusion conc]n+ ! nature ( space4 ,space does n repres5t any quality ( ?+s 9 !mselves or ?+s 9 relation to "o ano!r2 t is1 x does n repres5t any det]m9ation ( ?+s :i* w\ld atta* to ! objects !mselves & w\ld rema91 ev5 ?\gh we ab/ract$ f all subjective conditions ( p]ception4 ,= nei!r absolute nor relative#ef det]m9ations ( objects c be p]ceiv$ prior to ! exi/5ce ( ! ?+s to :i* !y belong1 & !re=e n a priori4#eg ,x is1 ( c\rse1 impli$ t 9 exp]i5ce1 :]e we d n discov] det]m9ations ( objects prior to ! exi/5ce ( ! objects1 we d appreh5d det]m9ations ( ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves1 & n z !y are 9 relation to u4 ,?us we %\ld expect ! conclusion to be1 n t all t we "k is ph5om5al--:i* is ,kant's real position--b t spatial 7& temporal7 relations alone are ph5om5al1 i4 e4 t !y alone are ! result ( a transmutation due to ! nature ( our p]ceiv+ faculties4#eh ,?is conclusion w\ld1 ( c\rse1 be absurd1 = :at ,kant consid]s to be ! empirically kn[n qualities ( objects disappe>1 if ! spatial "* ( objects is remov$4 ,moreov]1 ,kant is prev5t$ by 8 !ory ( p]ception f see+ t ?is is ! real solution ( 8 problem1 absurd ?\gh x may be4 ,s9ce p]ception is held to arise ?r\gh ! orig9ation ( s5sations by ?+s 9 !mselves1 empirical k is naturally ?\ght ( z k ab\t s5sations1 & s9ce s5sations are palpably )9 ! m9d1 & are held to be due to ?+s 9 !mselves1 k ab\t s5sations c be reg>d$ z ph5om5al4 #ef ,! fir/ s5t5ce %[s t 'relative det]m9ations' means1 n 'det]m9ations ( objects 9 relation to u'1 b 'det]m9ations ( objects 9 relation to "o ano!r4' ,cf4 ,b4 #cg1 ,m4 #bc2 & ,b4 #ff f941 #fg init41 ,m4 #dj 7:]e ^! mean+s are confus$74 #eg ,b4 #db1 ,m4 #bf4 #eh ,?is conclusion is also to be expect$ because1 inconsi/5tly ) 8 real view1 ,kant is "h 7,b4 #da-b1 ,m4 #be-f7 "u ! influ5ce ( ! presupposition ( our ord9>y consci\sness t 9 p]ception we are confront$ by ?+s 9 !mselves1 kn[n to be spatial1 & n by appe>ances produc$ by unkn[n ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,cf4 7,b4 #da1 ,m4 #be7 & !reby ( obta9+ imm$iate repres5tation ( !m i4 e4 objects2 & 7,b4 #db1 ,m4 #bf7 ! receptivity ( ! subject to be affect$ by objects necess>ily prec$es all p]ceptions ( ^! objects4 ,^! s5t5ces id5tify ?+s 9 !mselves & bodies 9 space1 & !reby imply t 9 empirical p]ception we p]ceive ?+s 9 !mselves & z !y are4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if we consid] ,kant's conclusion f ! po9t ( view1 n ( ! problem :i* orig9ates x1 b ( ! di/9ction 9 t]ms ( :i* he /ates x1 viz4 t betwe5 ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves & ?+s z p]ceiv$ by u1 we are l$ to expect ! contr>y result4 ,s9ce p]ception is ! be+ affect$ by ?+s1 & s9ce ! nature ( ! affection dep5ds ^u ! nature ( our capacity ( be+ affect$1 9 all p]ception ! object w become di/ort$ or trans=m$1 z x 71 by our capacity ( be+ affect$4 ,! conclusion1 !re=e1 %\ld be t 9 all judgem5ts1 empirical z well z a priori1 we appreh5d ?+s only z p]ceiv$4 ,! reason :y ,kant does n draw ?is conclusion is probably t giv5 above1 viz4 t by ! "t ,kant rea*es ! solution ( 8 problem empirical k has come to relate to s5sation only2 consequ5tly1 x has ceas$ to occur to him t empirical judgem5ts c\ld possibly give u k ( ?+s z !y are4 ,nev]!less1 ,kant %\ld n h reta9$ 9 8 =mulation ( ! problem a di/9ction irreconcilable ) 8 solution ( x2 & if he _h realiz$ t he 0 do+ s he might h be5 compell$ to modify 8 :ole view4 ,! second difficulty is m s]i\s4 ,if ! tru? ( geometrical judgem5ts presupposes t space is only a prop]ty ( objects z p]ceiv$ by u1 x is a p>adox t geometricians %\ld be conv9c$1 z !y are1 ( ! tru? ( _! judgem5ts4 ,!y und\bt$ly ?9k t _! judgem5ts apply to ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves1 & n m]ely z !y appe> to u4 ,!y c]ta9ly d n ?9k t ! relations :i* !y discov] apply to objects only z p]ceiv$4 ,n only1 !re=e1 d !y n ?9k t bodies 9 space are ph5om5a1 b !y d n ev5 leave x an op5 "q :e!r bodies are ph5om5a or n4 ,h5ce1 if ,kant be "r1 !y are really 9 a /ate ( illusion1 = on 8 view ! true geometrical judgem5t %\ld include 9 itself ! ph5om5al "* ( spatial relations2 x %\ld be illu/rat$ by express+ ,euclid ,i4 #e 9 ! =m t ! equality ( ! angles at ! base ( an isosceles triangle belongs to objects z p]ceiv$4 ,kant himself lays ?is d[n4 ,! proposition 'all objects are beside "o ano!r 9 space' is valid "u#ei ! limitation t ^! ?+s are tak5 z objects ( our s5su\s p]ception4 ,if ,i jo9 ! condition to ! p]ception1 & say 'all ?+s1 z ext]nal ph5om5a1 are beside "o ano!r 9 space'1 ! rule is valid univ]sally1 & )\t limitation4#fj ,kant1 !n1 is 9 effect all[+ t x is possible = geometricians to make judgem5ts1 ( ! necessity ( :i* !y are conv9c$1 & yet to be wrong2 & t1 !re=e1 ! appreh5sion ( ! necessity ( a judgem5t is no gr\nd ( its tru?4 ,x foll[s t ! tru? ( geometrical judgem5ts c no long] be accept$ z a />t+-po9t ( discussion1 &1 !re=e1 z a gr\nd = inf]r+ ! ph5om5al "* ( space4 #ei ,a4 reads 'only "u' #fj ,b4 #dc1 ,m4 #bg4 ,!re seems1 inde$1 "o way ( avoid+ ?is consequ5ce1 viz4 to suppose t = ,kant x 0 an absolute />t+-po9t1 :i* no?+ w\ld h caus$ him to ab&on1 t only ^? judgem5ts ( :i* we appreh5d ! necessity are true4 ,x w\ld1 ( c\rse1 foll[ t geometricians w\ld be unable to appreh5d ! necessity ( geometrical judgem5ts1 & !re=e to make su* judgem5ts1 until !y _h discov]$ t ?+s z spatial 7 only ph5om5a4 ,x w\ld n be en\gh t !y %\ld ?9k t ! ph5om5al or non-ph5om5al "* ( ?+s z spatial mu/ be left an op5 "q = ! !ory ( k to decide4 ,9 ?is way ! necessity ( admitt+ ! illusory "* ( geometry w\ld be avoid$4 ,! rem$y1 h[ev]1 is at lea/ z bad z ! disease4 ,= x w\ld imply t geometry mu/ be prec$$ by a !ory ( k1 :i* is palpably contr>y to fact4 ,nor c\ld ,kant accept x2 = he av[$ly bases 8 !ory ( k1 i4 e4 8 view t objects z spatial are ph5om5a1 ^u ! tru? ( geometry2 ?is proc$ure w\ld be circul> if ! mak+ ( true geometrical judgem5ts 0 all[$ to require ! prior adoption ( 8 !ory ( k4 ,! ?ird difficulty is ! mo/ fundam5tal4 ,kant's conclusion 7& also1 ( c\rse1 8 argum5t7 presupposes ! validity ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ph5om5a & ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,if1 !n1 ?is di/9ction %\ld prove unt5able 9 pr9ciple1 ,kant's conclusion ) reg>d to space mu/ fail on g5]al gr\nds1 & x w ev5 h be5 unnecess>y to consid] 8 argum5ts = x4 ,! importance ( ! issue1 h[ev]1 requires t x %\ld be consid]$ 9 a sep>ate *apt]4 ,,note to page #dg4 ,! argum5t is n affect$ by ! cont5tion t1 :ile ! totality ( spaces is inf9ite1 ! totality ( col\rs or1 at any rate1 ! totality ( in/ances ( "s o!r *>act]i/ic ( objects is f9ite2 = ?is diff]5ce w involve no diff]5ce 9 respect ( p]ception & conception4 ,9 bo? cases ! appreh5sion t !re is a totality w be rea*$ 9 ! same way1 i4 e4 ?r\gh ! conception ( ! *>act]i/ic 9 g5]al1 & ! appreh5sion 9 ! "o case t ! totality is inf9ite & 9 ! o!r t x is f9ite w dep5d on ! appreh5sion ( ! special nature ( ! *>act]i/ic 9 "q4 ,,*apt] ,,iv ,,ph5om5a ,,& ,,?+s ,,9 ,,!mselves ,! di/9ction betwe5 ph5om5a & ?+s 9 !mselves c be be/ approa*$ by consid]+ ,kant's =mulation ( ! alt]native views ( ! nature ( space & "t4 ,:at are space & "t8 ,are !y real exi/5ces8 ,or are !y m]ely det]m9ations or relations ( ?+s1 su*1 h[ev]1 z w\ld also belong to !m 9 !mselves1 ev5 if !y 7 n p]ceiv$1 or are !y atta*$ to ! =m ( p]ception only1 & consequ5tly to ! subjective nature ( our m9d1 )\t :i* ^! pr$icates c nev] be attribut$ to any ?+8#a #a ,b4 #cg1 ,m4 #bc4 ,( ^! ?ree alt]natives1 ! fir/ c be ignor$4 ,x is oppos$ to ! second1 & is ! view t space & "t are ?+s r ?an relations betwe5 ?+s4 ,?is opposition falls )9 ! fir/ memb] ( ! wid] opposition betwe5 ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves & ?+s z !y are z p]ceiv$1 & ,kant1 & inde$ any "o1 w\ld all[ t if space & "t belong to ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves & n to ?+s only z p]ceiv$1 !y are relations betwe5 ?+s r ?an ?+s4 ,! real issue1 !re=e1 lies betwe5 ! second & ?ird alt]natives4 ,are space & "t relations betwe5 ?+s :i* belong to !m bo? 9 !mselves & also z p]ceiv$ by u1 or are !y relations :i* belong to ?+s only z p]ceiv$8 ,to ?is "q we may at once reply t1 inasmu* z x involves an impossible anti!sis1 x is :olly unreal4 ,! ?\ght ( a prop]ty or a relation :i* belongs to ?+s z p]ceiv$ involves a contradiction4 ,to take ,plato's example1 suppose t we are look+ at a /raight /ick1 p>tially imm]s$ 9 wat]4 ,if we h n previ\sly se5 ! /ick1 & are ignorant ( ! laws ( refraction1 we say t ! /ick is b5t4 ,if1 h[ev]1 we le>n ! effect ( refraction1 & obs]ve ! /ick f sev]al positions1 we alt] our ass]tion4 ,we say t ! /ick is n really b5t1 b only looks or appe>s b5t to u4 ,b1 if we reflect at all1 we d n express our mean+ by say+ t ! /ick is b5t to u z p]ceiv+1 ?\gh n 9 reality4#b ,! ^w 'is' ess5tially relates to :at really is4 ,if1 !re=e1 ! phrase 'to u z p]ceiv+' involves an opposition to ! phrase '9 reality'1 z x mu/ if x is to be a real qualification ( 'is'1 x _c rightly be add$ to ! ^w 'is'4 ,to put ! matt] m explicitly1 ! ass]tion t some?+ is s & s implies t x is s & s 9 itself1 :e!r x be p]ceiv$ or n1 & !re=e ! ass]tion t some?+ is s & s to u z p]ceiv+1 ?\gh n 9 itself1 is a contradiction 9 t]ms4 ,! phrase 'to u z p]ceiv+'1 z a re/riction ^u ! ^w 'is'1 m]ely takes back ! precise mean+ ( ! ^w 'is'4 ,t to :i* ! phrase c be add$ is n ! ^w 'is'1 b ! ^w 'looks' or 'appe>s'4 ,we c rightly say t ! /ick looks or appe>s b5t to u z p]ceiv+4 ,b ev5 !n ! addition only helps to make explicit ! ess5tial mean+ ( 'appe>s'1 = 'appe>s' really means 'appe>s to u'1 & 'z p]ceiv+' only repeats ! mean+ ( 'appe>s' f ! side ( ! p]ceiv+ subject z oppos$ to t ( ! object p]ceiv$4 ,! ess5tial po9t1 h[ev]1 is !reby br\ght out t ! phrase 'to u z p]ceiv+' ess5tially relates n to :at a ?+ is1 b to :at x looks or appe>s to u4 #b ,simil>ly1 we d n say--if we mean :at we say--( a man :o is col\r bl9d t an object :i* o!rs call blue is p9k to him or to 8 p]ception1 b t x looks p9k to him4 ,:at1 !n1 is ! prop] /atem5t ( ,kant's view t space is a det]m9ation ( ?+s only z !y appe> to u1 & n z !y are 9 !mselves8 ,x %\ld be said t ?+s are n 9 reality spatial1 b only look or appe> spatial to u4 ,x %\ld n be said t !y are spatial = our p]ception1 ?\gh n 9 !mselves4 ,?us ! view prop]ly /at$ implies t space is an illusion1 inasmu* z x is n a real prop]ty ( ?+s at all4 ,?is implication1 h[ev]1 is precisely ! conclusion :i* ,kant wi%es to avoid4 ,he takes inf9ite tr\ble to expla9 t he does n hold space & "t to be illusions4#c ,?\gh transc5d5tally ideal 7i4 e4 ?\gh !y d n belong to ?+s 9 !mselves71 !y are empirically real4 ,9 o!r words1 space & "t are real relations ( some?+1 ?\gh n ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 #c ,b4 #dd1 #eb1 #ec-d1 #fb-c1 #fi-gj2 ,m4 #bg1 #ca-b1 #cg-h1 #da-b2 ,prol41 #ac1 ,rem>k iii4 ,h[1 !n1 does ,kant obta9 some?+ ( :i* space & "t c be reg>d$ z really relations8 ,he rea*es x by a transition :i* at fir/ sight seems h>mless4 ,9 /at+ ! fact ( p]ception he sub/itutes = ! ass]tion t ?+s appe> s & s to u ! ass]tion t ?+s produce appe>ances 9 u4 ,9 ?is way1 in/ead ( an ass]tion :i* relates to ! ?+ & /ates :at x is n b only appe>s1 he obta9s an ass]tion :i* introduces a second reality di/9ct f ! ?+1 viz4 an appe>ance or ph5om5on1 & !reby he ga9s some?+ o!r ?an ! ?+ to :i* space c be atta*$ z a real pr$icate4 ,he ?us ga9s some?+ 9 respect ( :i*1 ) reg>d to spatial relations we c be said to h k & n illusion4 ,= ! position n[ is t space1 ?\gh n a prop]ty ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 is a prop]ty ( ph5om5a or appe>ances2 9 o!r words1 t :ile ?+s 9 !mselves are n spatial1 ph5om5a & appe>ances are spatial4 ,z evid5ce ( ?is transition1 x is en\gh to po9t out t1 :ile he /ates ! problem 9 ! =m ',are ?+s 9 !mselves spatial or are !y only spatial z appe>+ to u8'#d he usually /ates ! conclusion 9 ! =m ',space is ! =m ( ph5om5a'1 i4 e4 ph5om5a are spatial4 ,a transition is !reby impli$ f '?+s z appe>+' to 'appe>ances'4 ,at ! same "t1 x is cle> t ,kant is n aw>e ( ! transition1 b consid]s ! expressions equival5t1 or1 9 o!r words1 fails to di/+ui% !m4 ,= bo? modes ( /at+ ! conclusion are to be f\nd ev5 9 ! same s5t5ce4 ,?is pr$icate space is appli$ to ?+s only 9 s f> z !y appe> to u1 i4 e4 are objects ( s5sibility i4 e4 ph5om5a4#e ,aga91 ! common phrase '?+s z ph5om5a' implies ! same confusion4 ,moreov]1 if ,kant _h realiz$ t ! transition 0 m ?an "o ( phraseology he mu/ h se5 t x 0 necess>y to reca/ 8 argum5t4 #d ,?is is ,kant's way ( putt+ ! "q :i* %\ld be express$ by ask+1 ',are ?+s spatial1 or d !y only look spatial8' #e ,b4 #dc1 ,m4 #bf4 ,cf4 ,prol41 #i f94 ) #aj init4 ,x may be said1 !n1 t ,kant is compell$ to end ) a diff]5t di/9ction f t ) :i* he beg9s4 ,he beg9s ) ! di/9ction betwe5 ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves & ?+s z !y appe> to u1 ! di/9ction relat+ to "o & ! same reality reg>d$ f two diff]5t po9ts ( view4 ,he ends ) ! di/9ction betwe5 two diff]5t realities1 ?+s-9-!mselves1#f ext]nal to1 9 ! s5se ( indep5d5t (1 ! m9d1 & ph5om5a or appe>ances )9 x4 ,yet if 8 argum5t is to be valid1 ! two di/9ctions %\ld be id5tical1 = x is ! fir/ di/9ction to :i* ! argum5t appeals4#g ,9 fact1 we f9d him express+ :at is to him ! same di/9ction n[ 9 ! "o way & n[ 9 ! o!r z ! context requires4 #f ,x %\ld be notic$ t '?+s-9-!mselves' & '?+s z !y are 9 !mselves' h a diff]5t mean+4 #g ,cf4 p4 #ee & ff4 ,! f9al =m ( ,kant's conclusion1 !n1 is t :ile ?+s 9 !mselves are n1 or1 at lea/1 _c be kn[n to be spatial1 'ph5om5a1' or ! appe>ances produc$ 9 u by ?+s 9 !mselves1 are spatial4 ,un=tunately1 ! conclusion 9 ?is =m is no m successful ?an x is 9 ! =m] =m1 t ?+s are spatial only z p]ceiv$4 ,express$ by ! =mula 'ph5om5a are spatial'1 x has1 no d\bt1 a c]ta9 plausibility2 = ! ^w 'ph5om5a' to "s ext5t conceals ! ess5tially m5tal "* ( :at is ass]t$ to be spatial4 ,b ! plausibility disappe>s on ! sub/itution ( 'appe>ances'--! true equival5t ( ,kant's ,ers*e9ung5--= 'ph5om5a'4 ,j z x is absurd to describe ! fact t ! /ick only looks b5t by say+ t1 :ile ! /ick is n b5t1 ! appe>ance :i* x produces is b5t1 s x is1 ev5 on ! face ( x1 nons5se to say t :ile ?+s are n spatial1 ! appe>ances :i* !y produce 9 u are spatial4 ,= an 'appe>ance'1 be+ necess>ily some?+ m5tal1 _c possibly be said to be ext5d$4 ,moreov]1 x is really an abuse ( ! t]m 'appe>ance' to speak ( appe>ances produc$ by ?+s1 = ?is phrase implies a false sev]ance ( ! appe>ance f ! ?+s :i* appe>4 ,if !re are 'appe>ances' at all1 !y are appe>ances ( ?+s & n appe>ances produc$ by !m4 ,! importance ( ! di/9ction lies 9 ! diff]5ce ( implication4 ,to speak ( appe>ances produc$ by ?+s is to imply t ! object ( p]ception is m]ely some?+ m5tal1 viz4 an appe>ance4 ,consequ5tly1 access to a non-m5tal reality is exclud$2 = a p]ception ( :i* ! object is some?+ belong+ to ! m9d's own be+ _c ju/ify an inf]5ce to some?+ beyond ! m9d1 & ! result is inevitably solipsism4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! phrase 'appe>ances ( ?+s'1 :atev] defects x may h1 at lea/ implies t x is a non-m5tal reality :i* appe>s1 & !re=e t 9 p]ception we are 9 direct relation to x2 ! phrase1 !re=e1 does n imply f ! v beg9n+ t ! appreh5sion ( a non-m5tal reality is impossible4 ,! objection w probably be rais$ t ?is criticism is mu* too summ>y4 ,we d1 x w be said1 di/+ui% 9 ord9>y consci\sness betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 ,consequ5tly !re mu/ be "s =m 9 :i* ,kant's di/9ction betwe5 ?+s 9 !mselves & ph5om5a & ! conclusion bas$ ^u x are ju/ifi$4 ,moreov]1 ,kant's reit]at$ ass]tion t 8 view does n imply t space is an illusion1 & t ! di/9ction betwe5 ! real & ! illusory is possible )9 ph5om5a1 requires u to consid] m closely :e!r ,kant may n aft] all be entitl$ to hold t space is n an illusion4#h #h ,cf4 p4 #ic & ff4 ,?is objection is1 ( c\rse1 reasonable4 ,no "o c satisfy himself ( ! ju/ice ( ! above criticisms until he has consid]$ ! real nature ( ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 ,?is di/9ction mu/1 !re=e1 be analys$4 ,b be=e ?is is done x is necess>y1 9 ord] to discov] ! real issue1 to =mulate ! l9es on :i* ,kant may be def5d$4 ',! reality1' x may be urg$1 ':i* ideally we wi% to "k mu/ be admitt$ to exi/ 9 itself1 9 ! s5se ( indep5d5tly ( ! p]ception1 & consequ5tly its nature mu/ be admitt$ to be indep5d5t ( p]ception4 ,ideally1 !n1 our desire is to "k ?+s#i z !y are 9 !mselves1 a desire suffici5tly express$ by ! ass]tion t we desire to "k ?+s1 = to "k !m is to "k !m z !y are1 i4 e4 z !y are indep5d5tly ( p]ception4 ,aga91 s9ce ! reality :i* we desire to "k consi/s ( individuals1 & s9ce ! appreh5sion ( an individual implies p]ception1 k ( reality requires p]ception4 ,if 9 p]ception we appreh5d$ reality z x is1 no difficulty w\ld arise4 ,b we d n1 = we are compell$ to di/+ui% :at ?+s are1 & :at !y look or appe>2 & :at !y appe> ess5tially relates to p]ception4 ,we p]ceive !m z !y look or appe> &1 !re=e1 n z !y are1 = :at !y look & :at !y are are ex hypo!si di/+ui%$4 ,& ?is fact con/itutes a fatal ob/acle to k 9 g5]al4 ,we _c "k any?+ z x is4 ,at lea/ ! negative side ( ,kant's position mu/ be ju/ifi$4 ,we nev] c "k ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves4 ,:at !n d we "k8 ,two alt]native answ]s may be giv54 ,x may be held t ! positive side ( ,kant's position1 ?\gh indef5sible 9 ! =m t we "k ?+s z !y appe> to u1 is valid 9 ! =m t we "k :at ?+s look or appe>4 ,?is1 no d\bt1 implies t our ord9>y beliefs ab\t reality are illusory1 = :at ?+s look is ex hypo!si diff]5t f :at !y are4 ,b ! implication does n con/itute an important dep>ture f ,kant's view4 ,= 9 any case only t is k prop] :i* relates to ?+s z !y are1 & !re=e ! suppos$ k ( ?+s z !y appe> may be disc>d$ )\t s]i\s loss4 ,on ! o!r h&1 x may be held t ! positive side ( ,kant's position c be v9dicat$ 9 ! =m t1 :ile we d n "k ?+s 9 !mselves1#aj we d "k ! appe>ances :i* !y produce 9 u4 ,x is true t ?is view involves ! difficulty ( ma9ta9+ t appe>ances are spatial1 b ! difficulty is n insup]able4 ,moreov]1 9 ?is =m ! doctr9e has ! advantage t1 unlike ! =m]1 x does n imply t ! k :i* we h is only ( illusions1 = in/ead ( imply+ t our k is m]ely k ( :at ?+s look b really are n1 x implies t we "k ! real nature ( realities ( ano!r k9d1 viz4 ( appe>ances4 ,aga91 9 ?is =m ( ! view1 x may be possible to v9dicate ,kant's doctr9e t ! di/9ction betwe5 ! real & ! illusory is t5able )9 :at we "k1 = x may be possible to di/+ui% )9 appe>ances betwe5 a 'real' appe>ance#aa & an 'illusory' appe>ance4#ab' #i ',?+s' is sub/itut$ = '! reality :i* we believe to exi/ indep5d5tly ( p]ception' 9 ord] to con=m to ,kant's language4 ,! sub/itution1 ( c\rse1 has ! implication--:i* ,kant took = grant$--t ! reality consi/s ( a plurality ( individuals4 #aj ',?+s 9 !mselves' has "h to be sub/itut$ = '?+s z !y are 9 !mselves' 9 ! /atem5t ( ! negative side ( ! position1 9 ord] to express ! prop] anti!sis1 :i* is n[ t betwe5 two ?+s1 ! "o kn[n & ! o!r unkn[n1 & n t betwe5 two po9ts ( view f :i* "o & ! same ?+ is kn[n & n kn[n respectively4 #aa ,ers*e9ung4 #ab ,s*e94 ,an implication ( ?is def5ce %\ld be notic$4 ,! issue relates to ! nature ( space#ac1 & may be /at$ 9 t]ms ( x4 ,=1 s9ce space is a presupposition ( all o!r prop]ties :i* ! non-philosophical consci\sness attributes to physical ?+s1 x makes no diff]5ce :e!r we say t ?+s only appe> heavy1 h>d1 9 motion1 c41 or :e!r we say t ?+s only appe> spatial4 ,9 ! same way x is a matt] ( indiff]5ce :e!r we say t1 ?\gh ?+s are n heavy1 h>d1 c41 _! appe>ances are s1 or :e!r we say t1 ?\gh ?+s are n spatial1 _! appe>ances are s4 ,! issue1 !n1 conc]ns ! possibility ( ma9ta9+ ei!r t ?+s only appe> spatial1 or t ! appe>ances :i* !y produce are spatial1 :ile ! ?+s !mselves are n1 or1 at lea/ _c be kn[n to be1 spatial4 #ac ,we might add "t also2 b1 = a reason :i* w appe> lat] 7p4 #aci71 x c be neglect$4 ,! t5ability ( ^! alt]native positions has to be consid]$ ap>t f ! argum5t ( ! ,ae/hetic1 = ?is1 z we h se51 breaks d[n4 ,at ! outset x is important to realize t ^! positions are ! product ( philosophical reflection1 & con/itute g5]al !ories ( k4 ,z has be5 po9t$ out1 ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality fir/ arises 9 our ord9>y or sci5tific consci\sness4#ad ,9 ?is consci\sness we are compell$ to di/+ui% betwe5 appe>ance & reality ) respect to ! details ( a reality :i*1 z a :ole1 or1 9 pr9ciple1 we suppose ourselves to "k4 ,aft]w>ds 9 our philosophical consci\sness we come to reflect ^u ?is di/9ction & to raise ! "q :e!r x is n applicable to reality z a :ole4 ,we ask ) respect to k 9 g5]al1 & n m]ely ) respect to c]ta9 p>ticul> items ( k1 :e!r we "k or c "k reality1 & n m]ely appe>ance4 ,! two positions j /at$ are alt]native ways ( answ]+ ! "q 9 ! negative4 ,!y are1 !n1 philosophical views bas$ ^u a di/9ction f\nd 9 our ord9>y consci\sness4 ,consequ5tly1 9 ord] to decide :e!r ! di/9ction w be> ! sup]/ructure plac$ ^u x by ! philosophical consci\sness1 x is necess>y to exam9e ! di/9ction z x exi/s 9 our ord9>y consci\sness4 #ad ,i4 e4 ! consci\sness = :i* ! problems are ^? ( sci5ce z oppos$ to philosophy4 ,! di/9ction is appli$ 9 our ord9>y consci\sness bo? to ! prim>y & to ! second>y qualities ( matt]1 i4 e4 to ! size1 %ape1 position & motion ( physical bodies1 & to _! col\r1 w>m?1 c4 ,we say1 = in/ance1 t ! moon looks#ae or appe>s z l>ge z ! sun1 ?\gh really x is mu* small]4 ,we say t railway l9es1 ?\gh p>allel1 look conv]g5t1 j z we say t ! /raight /ick 9 wat] looks b5t4 ,we say t at sunset ! sun1 ?\gh really bel[ ! horizon1 looks above x4 ,aga91 we say t to a p]son :o is col\r bl9d ! col\r ( an object looks diff]5t to :at x really is1 & t ! wat] into :i* we put our h& may be w>m] ?an x appe>s to our t\*4 #ae ',looks' means 'appe>s to sight'1 & 'looks' is ?r\gh\t us$ z synonym\s ) 'appe>'1 :]e ! in/ance "u discussion relates to visual p]ception4 ,! case ( ! prim>y qualities may be consid]$ fir/4 ,s9ce ! in/ances are id5tical 9 pr9ciple1 & only diff] 9 complexity1 x w be suffici5t to analyse ! simple/1 t ( ! app>5t conv]g5ce ( ! railway l9es4 ,two po9ts at once =ce !mselves ^u our notice4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 we c]ta9ly suppose t we p]ceive ! reality :i* we wi% to "k1 i4 e4 ! reality :i*1 z we suppose1 exi/s indep5d5tly ( our p]ception1 & n an 'appe>ance' ( x4 ,x is1 z we say1 ! real l9es :i* we see4 ,ev5 ! t]m 'conv]g5t'1 9 ! ass]tion t ! l9es look conv]g5t1 conveys ?is implication4 ,= 'conv]g5t' is ess5tially a *>act]i/ic n ( an appe>ance b ( a reality1 9 ! s5se 9 :i* some?+ indep5d5t ( p]ception may be oppos$ z a reality to an 'appe>ance'1 :i*1 z su*1 presupposes p]ception4 ,we c say nei!r t an appe>ance is conv]g5t1 nor t ! appe>ance ( ! l9es is conv]g5t4 ,only a reality simil> to ! l9es1 e4 g4 two roads1 c be said to be conv]g5t4 ,our ord9>y ?\ght1 !re=e1 furni%es no gr\nd = ! view t ! object ( p]ception is n ! ?+1 b m]ely an appe>ance ( or produc$ by x4 ,9 ! second place1 ! ass]tion t ! l9es look conv]g5t implies consid]able k ( ! real nature ( ! reality to :i* ! ass]tion relates4 ,bo? ! t]ms 'l9es' & 'conv]g5t' imply t ! reality is spatial4 ,fur!r1 if ! context is su* t we mean t1 :ile ! l9es look conv]g5t1 we d n "k _! real relation1 we imply t ! l9es really possess "s *>act]i/ic :i* falls )9 ! g5us to :i* conv]g5ce belongs1 i4 e4 we imply t !y are conv]g5t1 div]g5t1 or p>allel4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 ! context is su* t we mean t ! l9es only look conv]g5t1 we imply t ! l9es are p>allel1 & !re=e presuppose complete k 9 respect ( ! v *>act]i/ic 9 reg>d to :i* we /ate :at is only appe>ance4 ,! ass]tion1 !n1 9 respect ( a prim>y quality1 t a ?+ looks s & s implies k ( its g5]al "* z spatial1 & ignorance only ( a detail2 & ! ass]tion t a ?+ only looks or appe>s s & s implies k ( ! detail 9 "q4 ,att5tion may n[ be drawn to a g5]al difficulty :i* may be rais$ ) respect to ! use ( ! t]ms 'looks' & 'appe>s'4 ,x may be /at$ ?us3 ',if ! l9es are n conv]g5t1 h[ is x possible ev5 to say t !y look conv]g5t8 ,mu/ x n be impli$ t at lea/ "u c]ta9 circum/ances we %\ld p]ceive ! l9es z !y are8 ,o!rwise1 :y %\ld we use ! words 'look' or 'appe>' at all8 ,moreov]1 ?is implication c be pu%$ fur!r2 = if we ma9ta9 t we p]ceive ! real l9es1 we may reasonably be ask$ :e!r we mu/ n "u all circum/ances p]ceive !m z !y are4 ,x seems z ?\gh a reality _c be p]ceiv$ except z x is4' ,x is ! view to :i* ?is difficulty gives rise :i* is ma9ly responsible = ! doctr9e t ! object ( p]ception is n ! reality1 b an appe>ance4 ,s9ce we d di/+ui% betwe5 :at ?+s look & :at !y are1 x w\ld seem t ! object ( p]ception _c be ! ?+1 b only an appe>ance produc$ by x4 ,moreov]1 ! doctr9e ga9s 9 plausibility f ! exi/5ce ( c]ta9 illusions 9 ! case ( :i* ! reality to :i* ! illusion relates seems non-exi/5t4 ,= in/ance1 if we look /eadily at ! flame ( a c&le1 & !n press "o eyeball ) a f+]1 we see1 z we say1 two c&les2#af b s9ce ex hypo!si !re is only "o c&le1 x seems t :at we see mu/ be1 n ! c&le1 b two images or appe>ances produc$ by x4 #af ,cf4 ,dr4 ,/\t1 on ',?+s & ,s5sations' 7,proce$+s ( ! ,briti% ,academy1 vol4 ii74 ,?is difficulty is rais$ 9 ord] to draw att5tion to ! fact t1 9 ! case ( ! railway l9es1 :]e x c be met on its own gr\nd#ag1 ?is is because1 & only because1 we believe space to be 'real'1 i4 e4 to be a *>act]i/ic ( reality1 & because we und]/& its nature4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 ! actual & ! app>5t angle made by two /raight l9es presupposes a limit+ case 9 :i* !y co9cide4 ,if ! l9e ( sight along :i* we obs]ve ! po9t ( int]section ( two l9es is kn[n to be at "r angles to bo? l9es1 we expect1 & rightly expect1 to see ! angle ( int]section z x is4 ,aga91 if we look at a %ort portion ( two railway l9es f a po9t kn[n to be directly above !m1 & s di/ant t ! effects ( p]spective are imp]ceptible1 we c say t ! l9es look :at !y are1 viz4 p>allel4 ,?us1 f ! po9t ( view ( ! difficulty :i* has be5 rais$1 !re is ?is ju/ification 9 g5]al = say+ t two l9es look p>allel or look at "r angles1 t we "k t 9 c]ta9 cases :at !y look is id5tical ) :at !y are4 ,9 ! same way1 ass]tions ( ! type t ! moon looks z l>ge z ! sun receive ju/ification f our k t two bodies ( equal size & equally di/ant f ! obs]v] are :at !y look1 viz4 ( ! same size4 ,& 9 bo? cases ! ju/ification presupposes k ( ! reality ( space & also su* insight into its nature z enables u to see t 9 c]ta9 cases !re mu/ be an id5tity betwe5 :at ?+s look & :at !y are 9 respect ( c]ta9 spatial relations4 ,aga91 9 su* cases we see t s f> is x f be+ necess>y to ?9k t a ?+ mu/ be p]ceiv$ z x is1 t x is n only possible b necess>y to di/+ui% :at a ?+ looks f :at x is1 & precisely 9 consequ5ce ( ! nature ( space4 ,! visual p]ception ( spatial relations f its v nature presupposes a p>ticul> po9t ( view4 ,?\gh ! p]ception itself _c be spatial1 x presupposes a p>ticul> po9t 9 space z a /&po9t or po9t ( view1#ah & is !re=e subject to conditions ( p]spective4 ,?is is be/ realiz$ by consid]+ ! supposition t p]fect visual p[]s w\ld enable u to see ! :ole ( a body at once1 & t ?is p]ception w\ld be possible if we _h eyes situat$ all r\nd ! body4 ,! supposition obvi\sly breaks d[n ?r\gh ! impossibility ( comb9+ two or m po9ts ( view 9 "o p]ception4 ,b if visual p]ception is necess>ily subject to conditions ( p]spective1 ! spatial relations ( bodies c nev] look :at !y are except 9 ! limit+ case ref]r$ to4 ,moreov]1 ?is di/9ction is p]fectly intelligible1 z we %\ld expect f ! necessity :i* we are "u ( draw+ x4 ,we und]/& p]fectly :y x is t bodies mu/1 9 respect ( _! spatial relations1 look diff]5t to :at !y are1 & we d s solely because we und]/& ! nature ( space1 & !re=e also ! conditions ( p]spective involv$ 9 ! p]ception ( :at is spatial4 ,x is1 !re=e1 ne$less to make ! ass]tion ',two l9es appe> conv]g5t' intelligible by conv]t+ ! v]b 'appe>s' into a sub/antive1 viz4 an 'appe>ance'1 & !n mak+ ! ass]tion relate to an 'appe>ance'4 ,=--ap>t f ! fact t ?is w\ld n a*ieve ! desir$ end1 s9ce no suitable pr$icate c\ld be f\nd = ! appe>ance--! ass]tion t ! l9es look or appe> conv]g5t is p]fectly intelligible 9 itself1 ?\gh n capable ( be+ /at$ 9 t]ms ( any?+ else4#ai ,if we g5]alize ?is result1 we may say t ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality1 drawn ) reg>d to ! prim>y qualities ( bodies1 ?r\gh\t presupposes ! reality ( space1 & is made possible1 & inde$ necess>y1 by ! nature ( space itself4 #ag ,cf41 h[ev]1 p4 #hg & pp4 #hi-ia4 #ah ,?is is1 ( c\rse1 n refut$ by ! rem9d] t we see ) two eyes1 & t ^! are 9 diff]5t places4 #ai ,x is important to notice t ! prop] =mula to express :at is loosely call$ 'an appe>ance' is ',a looks or appe>s ,b'1 & t ?is _c be analys$ into any?+ m simple &1 9 p>ticul>1 into a /atem5t ab\t 'appe>ances'4 ,ev5 9 ! case ( look+ at ! c&le1 !re is no ne$ to speak ( two 'appe>ances' or 'images'4 ,be=e we discov] ! tru?1 ! prop] ass]tion is ',! body :i* we p]ceive looks z if x 7 two c&les'1 &1 aft] we discov] ! tru?1 ! prop] ass]tion is ',! c&le looks z if x 7 9 two places'4 ,we may n[ turn to ! way 9 :i* we draw ! di/9ction ) respect to ! second>y qualities ( physical ?+s4 ,x mu/1 x seems1 be admitt$ t 9 our ord9>y consci\sness we treat ^! qualities z real qualities ( bodies4 ,we say t a bell is noisy2 t sug> is sweet2 t roses smell2 t a mu/>d pla/] is hot2 t ! sky is blue4 ,x mu/ also be admitt$ t 9 our ord9>y consci\sness we draw a di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality )9 ^! qualities1 j z we d )9 ! prim>y qualities4 ,j z we speak ( ! "r or real %ape ( a body1 s we speak ( its "r or real col\r1 ta/e1 c41 & di/+ui% ^! f its app>5t col\rs1 ta/e1 c41 to "s individual4 ,we !reby imply t ^! qualities are real qualities ( bodies1 & t ! only difficulty is to det]m9e ! p>ticul> "* ( ! quality 9 a giv5 case4 ,yet1 z ! hi/ory ( philosophy %[s1 x takes b little reflection to ?r[ d\bt on ! reality ( ^! qualities4 ,! d\bt arises n m]ely f ! app>5t impossibility ( f9d+ a pr9ciple by :i* to det]m9e ! "r or real quality 9 a giv5 case1 b also & ma9ly f misgiv+s z to ! possible reality ( heat1 smell1 ta/e1 noise1 & col\r ap>t f a p]cipi5t4 ,x mu/ also be admitt$ t ?is misgiv+ is well f\nd$2 9 o!r words1 t ^! suppos$ real qualities d presuppose a p]cipi5t1 & !re=e _c be qualities ( ?+s1 s9ce ! qualities ( a ?+ mu/ exi/ indep5d5tly ( ! p]ception ( ! ?+4#bj ,?is w readily be all[$ 9 ! case ( all ! second>y qualities except col\r4 ,no "o1 x may reasonably be said1 :o is famili> ) & really faces ! issue1 w ma9ta9 t s\nds1 smells1 ta/es1 & s5sations ( t\* exi/ ap>t f a s5sitive subject4 ,s mu* is ?is ! case1 t :5 once ! issue is rais$1 x is difficult &1 9 ! end1 impossible to use ! ^w 'appe>' 9 connexion ) ^! qualities4 ,?us x is difficult &1 9 ! end1 impossible to say t a bell appe>s noisy1 or t sug> appe>s sweet4 ,we say1 r1 t ! bell & ! sug> produce c]ta9 s5sations#ba 9 u4 #bj ,cf4 pp4 #gb-c1 & #ia4 #ba ,n 'appe>ances'4 ,! case ( col\r1 h[ev]1 is m difficult4 ,f ! clos5ess ( its relation to ! %ape ( bodies1 x seems to be a real quality ( bodies1 & n some?+ relative to a s5sitive subject l ! o!r second>y qualities4 ,9 fact1 s intimate seems ! relation ( col\r to ! %ape ( bodies1 t x w\ld seem--z has1 ( c\rse1 (t5 be5 argu$--t if col\r be relative to a s5sitive subject1 ! prim>y qualities ( bodies mu/ also be relative to a s5sitive subject1 on ! gr\nd t %ape is insep>able f col\r4#bb ,yet :e!r ?is be s or n1 x mu/1 9 ! end1 be all[$ t col\r does presuppose a s5sitive subject 9 virtue ( its own nature1 & q ap>t f ! difficulty--:i* is 9 itself insup]able--( det]m9+ ! "r col\r ( individual bodies4 ,x mu/1 !re=e1 be conc$$ t col\r is n a quality ( bodies4 ,b if ?is be true1 ! use ( ! t]m 'look' or 'appe>' 9 connexion ) col\r involves a difficulty :i* does n arise :5 x is us$ 9 connexion ) ! prim>y qualities4 ,bodies und\bt$ly look or appe> col\r$4 ,n[1 z has already be5 sugge/$1#bc ! t]m 'look' seems to presuppose "s id5tity betwe5 :at a ?+ is & :at x looks1 & at lea/ ! possibility ( cases 9 :i* !y are :at !y look--a possibility :i*1 z we h se51 is realiz$ 9 ! case ( ! prim>y qualities4 ,yet1 if col\r is n a quality ( bodies1 !n1 ) respect to col\r1 ?+s look :at !y nev] are1 or1 9 o!r words1 are :olly diff]5t f :at !y look2#bd & s9ce x seems impossible to hold t col\r is really a prop]ty ( bodies1 ?is conclusion mu/1 9 spite ( its difficulty1 be admitt$ to be true4 #bb ,cf4 p4 #ia note4 #bc ,cf4 p4 #hb4 #bd ,x is assum$ t !re is n ev5 plausibility 9 ! supposition ( cont9uity or id5tity betwe5 col\r prop] & its physical conditions 9 ! way ( light vibrations4 ,!re rema91 h[ev]1 to be notic$ two respects 9 :i* ass]tions conc]n+ :at ?+s look 9 respect ( col\r agree ) correspond+ ass]tions 9 respect ( ! prim>y qualities4 ,!y imply t :at we p]ceive is a reality1 9 ! s5se already expla9$4#be ,?us ! ass]tion t ! grass looks gre5 implies t x is a reality :i* looks gre51 or1 9 o!r words1 t ! object ( p]ception is a reality1 & n an 'appe>ance'4 ,aga91 su* ass]tions imply t ! reality ab\t :i* ! ass]tion is made is spatial4 ,! t]m 'grass' implies ext5sion1 & only :at is ext5d$ c be said to look col\r$4 ,if x be urg$ t :at looks col\r$ ne$ only look ext5d$1 x may be repli$ t ! two consid]ations :i* lead u to ?9k t ?+s only look col\r$ presuppose t !y are spatial4 ,= ! two que/ions1 ! consid]ation ( :i* leads to ?is conclusion1 are1 ',:at is ! "r or real col\r ( an individual ?+8' & ',has x really any col\r at all1 or does x only look col\r$8' & nei!r "q is significant unless ! ?+ to :i* x ref]s is und]/ood to be spatial4 #be ,i4 e4 9 ! s5se ( some?+ :i* exi/s indep5d5tly ( p]ception4 ,we may n[ return to ! ma9 issue4 ,is x possible to ma9ta9 ei!r 7#a7 ! position t only appe>ances are spatial & possess all ! qualities :i* imply space1 or 7#b7 ! position t ?+s only appe> spatial & only appe> or look z if !y possess$ ! qualities :i* imply space8 ,x may be urg$ t ^! que/ions h already be5 implicitly answ]$ 9 ! negative4 ,= ! division ( ! qualities ( ?+s into prim>y & second>y is exhau/ive1 &1 z has be5 %[n1 ! di/9ction betwe5 'appe>ance' & 'reality'1 :5 drawn ) respect to ! prim>y qualities & to col\r--! only second>y quality ) respect to :i* ! t]m 'appe>s' c prop]ly be us$#bf--presupposes ! reality ( space4 ,consequ5tly1 s9ce we d draw ! di/9ction1 we mu/ accept ! reality ( t :i* is ! condition ( draw+ x at all4 ,b ev5 ?\gh ?is be conc$$--& ! concession is inevitable--! problem _c be reg>d$ z solv$ until we h discov]$ :at x is 9 ! nature ( space :i* makes bo? positions unt5able4 ,moreov]1 ! admission t 9 ! case ( col\r !re is no id5tity betwe5 :at ?+s look & :at !y are removes at a /roke mu* ( ! difficulty ( "o position1 viz4 t we only "k :at ?+s look or appe>1 & n :at !y are4 ,= ! admission makes x impossible to ma9ta9 z a g5]al pr9ciple t !re mu/ be "s id5tity betwe5 :at !y look & :at !y are4 ,consequ5tly1 x seems possible t ?+s %\ld be :olly diff]5t f :at !y appe>1 &1 if s1 ! issue _c be decid$ on g5]al gr\nds4 ,:at is 9 sub/ance ! same po9t may be express$ diff]5tly by say+ t j z ?+s only look col\r$1 s ?+s may only look spatial4 ,we are ?us aga9#bg l$ to see t ! issue really turns on ! nature ( space & ( spatial *>act]i/ics 9 p>ticul>4 #bf ,cf4 pp4 #hf-g4 #bg ,cf4 p4 #gi4 ,9 discuss+ ! di/9ction betwe5 ! real & ! app>5t %ape ( bodies1 x 0 argu$ t :ile ! nature ( space makes x necess>y to di/+ui% 9 g5]al betwe5 :at a body looks & :at x is1 yet ! use ( ! t]m look receives ju/ification f ! exi/5ce ( limit+ cases 9 :i* :at a ?+ looks & :at x is are id5tical4 ,! in/ances consid]$1 h[ev]1 relat$ to qualities involv+ only two dim5sions1 e4 g4 conv]g5ce & b5tness1 & x w be f\nd t ! exi/5ce ( ^! limit+ cases is due solely to ?is re/riction4 ,if ! ass]tion "u consid]ation involves a t]m imply+ ?ree dim5sions1 e4 g4 'cubical' or 'cyl9drical'1 !re are no su* limit+ cases4 ,s9ce our visual p]ception is necess>ily subject to conditions ( p]spective1 x foll[s t al?\gh we c & d see a cube1 we c nev] see x z x is4 ,x is1 s to say1 9 ! way 9 :i* a *ild draws ! side ( a h\se1 i4 e4 ) ! effect ( p]spective elim9at$2 b x nev] c be se5 9 ?is way4 ,no d\bt1 our unreflective k ( ! nature ( p]spective enables u to all[ = ! effect ( p]spective1 & to asc]ta9 ! real %ape ( a solid object f :at x looks :5 se5 f diff]5t po9ts4 ,9 fact1 ! habit ( all[+ = ! effect ( p]spective is s ?or\ghly +ra9$ 9 human be+s t ! *ild is n aw>e t he is mak+ ?is all[ance1 b ?9ks t he draws ! side ( ! h\se z he sees x4 ,nev]!less1 x is true t we nev] see a cube z x is1 & if we say t a ?+ looks cubical1 we ought only to mean t x looks precisely :at a ?+ looks :i* is a cube4 ,x is obvi\s1 h[ev]1 t two dim5sions are only an ab/raction f ?ree1 & t ! spatial relations ( bodies1 consid]$ fully1 involve ?ree dim5sions2 9 o!r words1 spatial *>act]i/ics are1 prop]ly speak+1 ?ree-dim5sional4 ,x foll[s t t]ms :i* fully /ate spatial *>act]i/ics c nev] express :at ?+s look1 b only :at !y are4 ,a body may be cyl9drical1 & we may see a cyl9drical body2 b su* a body c nev]1 /rictly speak+1 look cyl9drical4 ,! opposition1 h[ev]1 betwe5 :at a ?+ is & :at x looks implies t :at x is is indep5d5t ( a p]cipi5t1 = x is precisely correlation to a p]cipi5t :i* is impli$ by 'look+' or 'appe>+'4 ,9 fact1 x is ! view t :at a ?+ really is x is1 indep5d5tly ( a p]cipi5t1 t =ms ! real />t+-po9t ( ,kant's ?\ght4 ,x foll[s1 !n1 t ! spatial *>act]i/ics ( ?+s1 & !re=e space itself1 mu/ belong to :at !y are 9 !mselves ap>t f a p]cipi5t1 & n to :at !y look4#bh ,consequ5tly1 x is s f> f be+ true t we only "k :at ?+s look & n :at !y are1 t 9 ! case ( spatial relations we actually "k :at ?+s are1 ev5 ?\gh !y nev] look :at !y are4 #bh ,?is consid]ation disposes ( ! view t1 if col\r is relative to p]ception1 ! prim>y qualities1 z be+ insep>able f col\r1 mu/ also be relative to p]ception2 = x implies t ! prim>y qualities _c f _! v nature be relative to p]ception4 ,moreov]1 if ! possibility ( ! sep>ation ( ! prim>y qualities f col\r is /ill d\bt$1 x is only necess>y to appeal to ! bl9d man's ability to appreh5d ! prim>y qualities1 ?\gh he may n ev5 "k :at ! ^w 'col\r' means4 ,( c\rse1 x mu/ be admitt$ t "s s5su\s elem5ts are involv$ 9 ! appreh5sion ( ! prim>y qualities1 b ! case ( ! bl9d man %[s t ^! may relate to sight in/ead ( to t\*4 ,moreov]1 x1 ( c\rse1 does n foll[ f ! fact t s5su\s elem5ts are insep>able f our p]ception ( bodies t !y belong to1 & are !re=e insep>able f1 ! bodies p]ceiv$4 ,?is conclusion1 h[ev]1 seems to pres5t a d\ble difficulty4 ,x is admitt$ t we p]ceive ?+s z !y look1 & n z !y are4 ,h[1 !n1 is x possible = ! belief t ?+s are spatial to arise8 ,= h[ c we advance f k ( :at !y look to k ( :at !y are b d n look8 ,aga91 giv5 t ! belief has aris51 may x n aft] all be illusion8 ,no v9dication seems possible4 ,= h[ c x be possible to base ! k ( :at ?+s are1 indep5d5tly ( p]ception1 ^u ! k ( :at !y look8 ,nev]!less1 ! answ] is simple4 ,9 ! case ( ! p]ception ( :at is spatial !re is no transition 9 pr9ciple f k ( :at ?+s look to k ( :at ?+s are1 ?\gh !re is cont9ually su* a transition 9 respect ( details4 ,x is1 ( c\rse1 (t5 necess>y1 & (t5 difficult1 to det]m9e ! precise position1 %ape1 c41 ( a ?+1 & if we are to come to a decision1 we mu/ appeal to :at ! ?+ looks or appe>s "u v>i\s conditions4 ,b1 f ! v beg9n+1 our consci\sness ( :at a ?+ appe>s 9 respect ( spatial *>act]i/ics implies ! consci\sness ( x z spatial & !re=e also z1 9 p>ticul>1 ?ree-dim5sional4 ,if we suppose ! latt] consci\sness abs5t1 any ass]tion z to :at a ?+ appe>s 9 respect ( spatial *>act]i/ics loses significance4 ,?us1 al?\gh !re is a process by :i* we come to le>n t railway l9es are really p>allel1 !re is no process by :i* we come to le>n t !y are really spatial4 ,simil>ly1 al?\gh !re is a process by :i* we become aw>e t a body is a cube1 !re is no process by :i* we become aw>e t x has a solid %ape ( "s k9d2 ! process is only conc]n$ ) ! det]m9ation ( ! precise %ape ( ! body4 ,! second difficulty is1 !re=e1 also remov$4 ,= if ass]tions conc]n+ ! app>5t %ape1 c4 ( ?+s presuppose ! consci\sness t ! ?+s are spatial1 to say t ?is consci\sness may be illusory is to say t all /atem5ts conc]n+ :at ?+s appe>1 9 respect ( spatial relations1 are equally illusory4 ,b1 s9ce x is :olly impossible to d5y t we c & d /ate :at ?+s appe> 9 ?is respect1 ! difficulty mu/ fall to ! gr\nd4 ,!re rema9s to be answ]$ ! "q :e!r ,kant's position is t5able 9 its o!r =m1 viz4 t :ile we _c say t reality is spatial1 we c & mu/ say t ! appe>ances :i* x produces are spatial4 ,?is "q1 9 view ( ! =ego+1 c be answ]$ z soon z x is /at$4 ,we mu/ all[ t reality is spatial1 s9ce1 z has be5 po9t$ out1 ass]tions conc]n+ ! app>5t %ape ( ?+s presuppose t !y are spatial4 ,we mu/ equally all[ t an appe>ance _c be spatial4 ,= on ! "o h&1 z has j be5 %[n1 space & spatial relations c only qualify some?+ ! exi/5ce ( :i* is n relative to p]ception1 s9ce x is impossible to p]ceive :at is spatial z x is2 & on ! o!r h& an appe>ance1 z be+ ex hypo!si an appe>ance to "s "o1 i4 e4 to a p]cipi5t1 mu/ be relative to p]ception4 ,we may say1 !n1 g5]ally1 t analysis ( ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality1 z x is actually drawn 9 our ord9>y consci\sness1 %[s ! falsity ( bo? =ms ( ! philosophical agno/icism :i* appeals to ! di/9ction4 ,we "k ?+s2 n appe>ances4 ,we "k :at ?+s are2 & n m]ely :at !y appe> b are n4 ,we may also say t ,kant _c possibly be successful 9 meet+1 at lea/ 9 respect ( space1 :at he calls '! easily =ese5 b wor?less objection t ! ideality ( space & ( "t w\ld turn ! :ole s5sible _w into pure illusion'4#bi ,= space1 accord+ to him1 is n a prop]ty ( ?+s 9 !mselves2 x _c1 z has be5 %[n1 be a prop]ty ( appe>ances2 to say t x is a prop]ty ( ?+s z !y appe> to u is self-contradictory2 & !re is no?+ else ( :i* x c be said to be a prop]ty4 #bi ,prol41 #ac1 ,rem>k iii4 7,cf4 p4 #ajj note47 ,cf4 ! confus$ note ,b4 #gj1 ,m4 #db4 7,see ,dr4 ,vaih+]'s ,comm5t>y on ! ,critique1 ii1 #dhh ff47 ,9 conclusion1 x may be po9t$ out t ! impossibility t space#cj & spatial *>act]i/ics %\ld qualify appe>ances r5d]s unt5able ,kant's attempt to draw a di/9ction betwe5 reality & appe>ance )9 'ph5om5a' or 'appe>ances'4 ,! passage 9 :i* he tries to d s runs z foll[s3 #cj ,! case ( "t c be ignor$1 s9ce1 z w be se5 lat] 7pp4 #aab-ad71 ! cont5tion t space is 'ideal' really involves ! admission t "t is real4 ,we g5]ally inde$ di/+ui% 9 appe>ances t :i* ess5tially belongs to ! p]ception ( !m1 & is valid = e human s5se 9 g5]al1 f t :i* belongs to ! same p]ception accid5tally1 z valid n = ! s5sibility 9 g5]al1 b = a p>ticul> /ate or organization ( ?is or t s5se4 ,accord+ly1 we are accu/om$ to say t ! =m] is k :i* repres5ts ! object itself1 :il/ ! latt] repres5ts only ! appe>ance ( ! same4 ,?is di/9ction1 h[ev]1 is only empirical4 ,if we /op "h 7z is usual7 & d n aga9 reg>d t empirical p]ception z itself a m]e ph5om5on 7z we ought to d71 9 :i* no?+ :i* conc]ns a ?+ 9 itself is to be f\nd1 our transc5d5tal di/9ction is lo/2 & 9 t case we are aft] all believ+ t we "k ?+s 9 !mselves1 al?\gh 9 ! _w ( s5se1 inve/igate its objects z pr(\ndly z we may1 we h to d ) no?+ b appe>ances4 ,?us we call ! ra9b[ a m]e appe>ance dur+ a sunny %[]1 b ! ra9 ! ?+ 9 itself2 & ?is is "r1 if we und]/& ! latt] conception only physically z t :i* 9 univ]sal exp]i5ce & "u all diff]5t positions ) reg>d to ! s5ses is 9 p]ception s & s det]m9$ & n o!rwise4 ,b if we consid] ?is empirical elem5t#ca 9 g5]al1 & inquire1 )\t consid]+ its agreem5t ) e human s5se1 :e!r x repres5ts an object 9 itself 7n ! ra9drops1 = _! be+ ph5om5a by itself makes !m empirical objects71 ! "q ( ! relation ( ! repres5tation to ! object is transc5d5tal2 & n only are ! ra9drops m]e appe>ances1 b ev5 _! circul> =m1 nay1 ev5 ! space 9 :i* !y fall1 are no?+ 9 !mselves b m]e modifications or fundam5tal dispositions ( our s5su\s p]ception2 ! transc5d5tal object1 h[ev]1 rema9s unkn[n to u4#cb #ca ,dieses ,empiris*e4 #cb ,b4 #fb-c1 ,m4 #cg-h4 ,ers*e9ung is "h translat$ 'appe>ance'4 ,kant's mean+ is pla94 ,he is anxi\s to ju/ify ! physical di/9ction made 9 our ord9>y or non-philosophical consci\sness betwe5 a ?+ 9 itself & a m]e appe>ance1#cc b at ! same "t to %[ t x falls )9 appe>ances1 9 respect ( ! philosophical di/9ction betwe5 ?+s 9 !mselves & appe>ances or ph5om5a4 ,! physical di/9ction is ! fir/ ( :i* we become aw>e1 & x arises ?r\gh problems connect$ ) our s5ses4 ,ow+1 presumably1 to ! contradictions :i* w\ld o!rwise ensue1 ! m9d is =c$ to di/+ui% betwe5 ?+s & ! 'appe>ances' :i* !y produce1 & to recognize t !y d n correspond4 ,! discrepancy is due to ! fact t our p]ceptions are condition$ by ! special positions ( our physical organs ) reg>d to ! object ( p]ception1 & we discov] its real nature by mak+ all[ance = ^! special positions4 ,we !reby advance 9 k to ! ext5t ( ov]com+ an ob/acle due to ! nature ( our s5ses4 ,b1 ?is ob/acle ov]come1 philosophical reflection =ces ^u u ano!r4 ,! ?+ :i* we di/+ui% 9 our ord9>y consci\sness f its appe>ances is1 aft] all1 only ano!r appe>ance2 & al?\gh ! physical problem is solv$ conc]n+ its accordance ) our special s5ses1 !re rema9s ! philosophical problem z to :e!r ?is appe>ance ne$ correspond to :at 9 ! end is ! real ?+1 viz4 t :i* exi/s 9 itself & ap>t f all p]ception4 ,! only possible answ] is t x ne$ n4 ,we !re=e c only "k appe>ances & n reality2 9 o!r words1 we _c h k prop]4 ,at ! same "t1 our k ( appe>ances is objective to ! ext5t t ! appe>ances 9 "q are ! same = e "o1 & = u on v>i\s occasions2 = ! effects due to special positions ( our s5ses h be5 remov$4 ,if1 !re=e1 we return to ! physical di/9ction1 we see t ! '?+s' to :i* x ref]s are only a special k9d ( appe>ance1 viz4 t :i* is ! same = e "o1 & = u at all times4 ,! physical di/9ction1 !n1 be+ a di/9ction betwe5 "o k9d ( appe>ance & ano!r1 falls )9 'ph5om5a' or 'appe>ances'4 #cc ,x %\ld be notic$ t ! passage is1 9 ! ma91 express$ 9 t]ms ( ! di/9ction betwe5 '?+s' & 'appe>ances'1 & n1 z x %\ld be1 9 t]ms ( ! di/9ction betwe5 :at ?+s are & :at ?+s appe> or look4 ,n[ ! obvi\s objection to ?is l9e ( ?\ght is t ! result ( ! second or metaphysical application ( ! di/9ction betwe5 reality & appe>ance is to de/roy or annul ! fir/ or physical application ( x4 ,to oppose ! ra91 i4 e4 ! ra9drops z ! ?+ 9 itself to ! ra9b[ z a m]e appe>ance is to imply t ! ra9 is n an appe>ance4 ,= ?\gh :at is oppos$ to a m]e appe>ance may /ill be an appe>ance1 x _c be call$ an appe>ance at all if x be describ$ z ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,if x be only ano!r appe>ance1 x is ! same 9 pr9ciple z t to :i* x is oppos$1 & consequ5tly _c be oppos$ to x4 ,?us1 if ,kant means by ! ra91 9 di/9ction f ! ra9b[1 ! appe>ance :51 z we say1 we see ! circul> ra9drops1 ! title ( ?is appe>ance to ! t]m ?+ 9 itself is no bett] ?an t ( ! ra9b[2 x is1 9 fact1 if any?+1 worse1 = ! appe>ance is actual only "u exceptional circum/ances4 ,we may nev] see ! ra9drops ?us1 or 9 ,kant's language1 h ?is 'appe>ance'2 & !re=e1 9 g5]al1 an appe>ance ( ?is k9d is n actual b only possible4 ,! tru? is t we c only di/+ui% some?+ z ! ?+ 9 itself f an appe>ance1 s long z we mean by ! ?+ 9 itself :at ,kant normally means by x1 viz4 some?+ :i* exi/s indep5d5tly ( p]ception & is n an appe>ance at all4#cd ,t ( :i* ,kant is really ?9k+1 & :i* he calls ! appe>ance :i* is ! ?+1 9 di/9ction f a m]e appe>ance1 is n an appe>ance2 on ! contr>y1 x is ! ra9drops !mselves1 :i* he describes z circul> & z fall+ ?r\gh space1 & :i*1 z circul> & fall+1 mu/ exi/ & h ^! *>act]i/ics 9 !mselves ap>t f a p]cipi5t4 ,kant's =mula = an empirical ?+1 i4 e4 a ?+ :i* is an appe>ance1 viz4 't :i* 9 univ]sal exp]i5ce & "u all diff]5t positions ) reg>d to ! s5ses is 9 p]ception s & s det]m9$'1 is m]ely an attempt to a*ieve ! impossible1 viz4 to comb9e 9 "o ! *>act]i/ics ( a ?+ & an appe>ance4 ,:ile ! ref]5ce to p]ception & to position ) reg>d to ! s5ses implies t :at is be+ def9$ is an appe>ance1 ! ref]5ce to univ]sal exp]i5ce1 to all positions ) reg>d to ! s5ses1 & to t :i* is s & s det]m9$ implies t x is a ?+4 ,b1 pla9ly1 m5tion ( position ) reg>d to ! s5ses1 if introduc$ at all1 %\ld ref] to ! diff]5ces 9 p]ception due to ! diff]5t position ( ! object 9 p>ticul> cases4 ,!re is no?+ ( :i* x c be said t we p]ceive x 9 ! same way or t x looks ! same f all positions4 ,:5 ,kant speaks ( t :i* "u all diff]5t positions ) reg>d to ! s5ses is s & s det]m9$1 he is really ref]r+ to some?+ 9 ! consid]ation ( :i* all ref]5ce to ! s5ses has be5 disc>d$2 x is :at %\ld be describ$ z t :i* 9 reality & ap>t f all positions ) reg>d to ! s5ses is s & s det]m9$2 & ?is1 z su*1 _c be an appe>ance4 ,aga91 ! qualification ( 'is s & s det]m9$' by '9 p]ception' is m]ely an attempt to treat z relative to p]ception1 & s z an appe>ance1 :at is ess5tially indep5d5t ( p]ception4#ce ,kant1 no d\bt1 is ?9k+ ( a real presupposition ( ! process by :i* we di/+ui% betwe5 ! real & ! app>5t qualities ( bodies1 i4 e4 betwe5 :at !y are & :at !y appe>4 ,we presuppose t t quality is really1 & n only app>5tly1 a quality ( a body1 :i* we & e "o1 judg+ f :at x looks "u v>i\s conditions 7i4 e4 '9 univ]sal exp]i5ce'71 mu/ believe x to possess 9 itself & indep5d5tly ( all p]ception4 ,8 mi/ake is t 9 =mulat+ ?is presupposition he treats z an appe>ance1 & s z relative to p]ception1 j t :i* is be+ di/+ui%$ f :at1 z an appe>ance1 is relative to p]ception4 #cd ,h5ce ,kant's prote/ 7,b4 #de1 ,m4 #bg71 aga9/ illu/rat+ ! ideality ( space by ! 'inadequate' examples ( col\r1 ta/e1 c41 mu/ be unavail+4 ,= 8 cont5tion is t1 :ile ! ass]tion t space is n a prop]ty ( ?+s means t x is n a prop]ty ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 ! ass]tion t col\r1 = example1 is n a prop]ty ( a rose only means t x is n a prop]ty ( a ?+ 9 itself 9 an empirical s5se1 i4 e4 ( an appe>ance ( a special k9d4 #ce ,cf4 pp4 #gb-c4 ,und]ly+ ! mi/ake is ! id5tification ( p]ception ) judgem5t4 ,our appreh5sion ( :at ?+s are is ess5tially a matt] ( ?\ght or judgem5t1 & n ( p]ception4 ,we d n p]ceive#cf b ?9k a ?+ z x is4 ,x is true t we c foll[ ,kant's language s f> z to say t our judgem5t t ! portion ( ! great circle jo9+ two po9ts on ! surface ( a sph]e is ! %orte/ way betwe5 !m via ! surface belongs ess5tially to ! ?9k+ faculty ( e intellig5t be+1 & also t x is valid = all intellig5ces1 9 ! s5se t !y mu/ all hold x to be true2 & we c contra/ ?is judgem5t ) a p]ception ( ! portion ( ! great circle z some?+ :i*1 ?\gh x _c be said to be invalid1 /ill diff]s = diff]5t be+s accord+ to ! position f :i* !y p]ceive x4 ,kant1 h[ev]1 treats ! judgem5t z a p]ception2 = if we apply 8 g5]al ass]tion to ?is in/ance1 we f9d him say+ t :at we judge ! portion ( ! great circle to be ess5tially belongs to ! p]ception ( x1 & is valid = ! s5su\s faculty ( e human be+1 & t !reby x c be di/+ui%$ f :at belongs to ! same p]ception ( a great circle accid5tally1 e4 g4 its app>5t col\r1 :i* is valid only = a p>ticul> organization ( ?is or t s5se4#cg ,9 ?is way he correlates :at ! great circle really is1 z well z :at x looks1 ) p]ception1 & s is able to speak ( :at x is = p]ception4 ,b1 9 fact1 :at ! great circle is1 is correlat$ ) ?\ght1 & n ) p]ception2 & if we raise ,kant's transc5d5tal problem 9 ref]5ce n to p]ception b to ?\ght1 x _c be solv$ 9 ,kant's agno/ic mann]4 ,= x is a presupposition ( ?9k+ t ?+s are 9 !mselves :at we ?9k !m to be2 & f ! nature ( ! case a presupposition ( ?9k+ n only _c be rightly que/ion$1 b _c be que/ion$ at all4 #cf ,cf4 pp4 #gb-c4 #cg ,9 ! ,prol41 #ac1 ,rem>k iii1 ,kant c>efully di/+ui%es judgem5t f p]ception1 b de/roys ! effect ( ! di/9ction by reg>d+ judgem5t z ref]r+ to :at is relative to p]ception1 viz4 appe>ances4 ,,note ,,on ,,! ,,fir/ ,,ant9omy ,kant holds t ! ant9omy or contradiction :i* arises :5 we consid] ! "* ( ! _w z spatial & temporal1 viz4 t we are equally b\nd to hold t ! _w is inf9ite 9 space & "t1 & t x is f9ite 9 space & "t1 is due to reg>d+ ! _w z a ?+ 9 itself4 ,he holds t ! contradiction disappe>s1 z soon z x is recogniz$ t ! _w is only a ph5om5on1 = !n we f9d t we ne$ only say t ! _w is capable ( be+ ext5d$ inf9itely 9 respect ( "t & space4#a ,objects 9 space & "t are only ph5om5a1 &1 z su*1 are actual only 9 p]ception4 ,:5 we say t a pa/ ev5t1 or t a body :i* we d n p]ceive1 is real1 we m]ely ass]t ! possibility ( a 'p]ception'4 ,all ev5ts f "t immemorial prior to my exi/5ce mean no?+ else ?an ! possibility ( prolong+ ! *a9 ( exp]i5ce f ! pres5t p]ception upw>ds to ! conditions :i* det]m9e ?is p]ception accord+ to "t4#b ,t !re may be inhabitants ( ! moon1 al?\gh no "o has ev] se5 !m1 mu/ c]ta9ly be admitt$1 b ?is ass]tion only means t we c\ld come ^u !m 9 ! possible progress ( exp]i5ce4#c ,! contradictions1 !re=e1 c be avoid$ by sub/itut+ = ! actual inf9ity ( space & "t1 z relat+ to ?+s 9 !mselves1 ! possible inf9ity ( a s]ies ( 'p]ceptions'4 #a ,b4 #ecb-c1 ,m4 #cae4 #b ,b4 #ebc1 ,m4 #cji4 #c ,b4 #eba1 ,m4 #cjh4 ,?is cont5tion1 if successful1 is cle>ly important4 ,if x c\ld be %[n t ! treatm5t ( ! _w z a ?+ 9 itself is ! s\rce ( a contradiction1 we %\ld h :at at lea/ w\ld seem a /rong1 if n conclusive1 gr\nd = hold+ t ! _w is a ph5om5on1 &1 consequ5tly1 t ! di/9ction betwe5 ph5om5a & ?+s 9 !mselves is valid4 ,pr(essor ,cook ,wilson has1 h[ev]1 po9t$ out t ,kant's own doctr9e does n avoid ! difficulty4 ,=1 ?\gh1 accord+ to ,kant1 ! inf9ity ( actual repres5tations ( spaces & times is only possible1 yet ! possibilities ( ^! repres5tations w be !mselves inf9ite1 &1 z su*1 w give rise to contradictions simil> to ^? involv$ 9 ! inf9ity ( space & "t4 ,moreov]1 z ,pr(essor ,cook ,wilson has also po9t$ out1 !re is no contradiction involv$ 9 ! ?\ght ( ! _w z spatial & temporal2 =1 z we see :5 we reflect1 we always presuppose t space & "t are inf9ite1 & we are only tempt$ to ?9k t !y mu/ be f9ite1 because1 :5 ma9ta9+ t ! _w mu/ be a :ole1 we are apt to make ! false assumption1 )\t 9 any way que/ion+ x1 t any :ole mu/ be f9ite4 ,,*apt] ,v ,,"t ,,& ,,inn] ,,s5se ,! argum5ts by :i* ,kant seeks to %[ t "t is n a det]m9ation ( ?+s 9 !mselves b only a =m ( p]ception are1 mutatis mut&is1 id5tical ) ^? us$ 9 8 treatm5t ( space4#a ,!y are1 !re=e1 op5 to ! same criticisms1 & ne$ no sep>ate consid]ation4 #a ,cf4 ,b4 #df-i1 #d1 #e & #f 7a71 ,m4 #bh-cj1 #e1 #f & #g 7a7 ) ,b4 #ch-db1 #b 7#a-d71 & 7#c7 to 7a7 inclusive1 ,m4 #bc-f1 #b1 #c1 & #d 7a74 ,! only qualification ne$$ is t1 s9ce ! p>ts ( "t _c1 l ^? ( space1 be said to exi/ simultane\sly1 ,b4 #d 7#e71 ,m4 #e1 #e is compell$ to appeal to a diff]5t consid]ation f t adduc$ 9 ! p>allel passage on space 7,b4 #b 7#d71 ,m4 #b1 #d74 ,s9ce1 h[ev]1 ,b4 #d 7#e71 ,m4 #e1 #e introduces no new matt]1 b only appeals to ! consid]ation already urg$ 7,b4 #d1 #d1 ,m4 #e1 #d71 ?is diff]5ce c be neglect$4 ,b4 #e1 ,m4 #f adds a rem>k ab\t *ange :i* does n affect ! ma9 argum5t4 ,"t1 h[ev]1 accord+ to ,kant1 diff]s f space 9 "o important respect4 ,x is ! =m n ( out] b ( inn] s5se2 9 o!r words1 :ile space is ! =m "u :i* we p]ceive ?+s1 "t is ! =m "u :i* we p]ceive ourselves4 ,x is ^u ?is diff]5ce t att5tion mu/ be conc5trat$4 ,! exi/5ce ( ! diff]5ce at all is ^u g5]al gr\nds surpris+4 ,= s9ce ! argum5ts by :i* ,kant e/abli%es ! "* ( "t z a =m ( p]ception run p>i passu ) ^? us$ 9 ! case ( space1 we %\ld expect "t1 l space1 to be a =m "u :i* we p]ceive ?+s2 &1 z a matt] ( fact1 x w be f\nd t ! only argum5t us$ to %[ t "t is ! =m ( inn]1 z oppos$ to out]1 s5se is n only indep5d5t ( ,kant's g5]al !ory ( =ms ( s5se1 b is actually inconsi/5t ) x4#b ,be=e1 h[ev]1 we attempt to decide ,kant's "r to di/+ui% betwe5 inn] & out] s5se1 we mu/ consid] ! facts :i* 7 be=e ,kant's m9d 9 mak+ ! di/9ction4 #b ,b4 #di 7b71 ,m4 #cj 7b74 ,see pp4 #aji-ab4 ,^! facts &1 to a l>ge ext5t1 ! frame ( m9d 9 :i* ,kant approa*$ !m1 f9d expression 9 ! passage 9 ,locke's ,essay1 :i* expla9s ! di/9ction betwe5 'ideas ( s5sation' & 'ideas ( reflection'4 ,:5ce has x i4 e4 ! m9d all ! mat]ials ( reason & k8 ,to ?is ,i answ]1 9 "o ^w1 f exp]i5ce4444 ,our obs]vation1 employ$ ei!r ab\t ext]nal1 s5sible objects1 or ab\t ! int]nal op]ations ( our m9ds1 p]ceiv$ & reflect$ on1 by ourselves1 is t :i* supplies our und]/&+s ) all ! mat]ials ( ?9k+4 ,^! two are ! f\nta9s ( k4444 ,fir/1 ,our s5ses1 conv]sant ab\t p>ticul> s5sible objects1 d convey into ! m9d sev]al di/9ct p]ceptions ( ?+s1 accord+ to ^? v>i\s ways1 :]e9 ^? objects d affect !m3 & ?us we come by ^? ideas we h ( ,yell[1 ,:ite1 ,heat1 ,cold1 ,s(t1 ,h>d1 ,bitt]1 ,sweet1 & all ^?1 :i* we call s5sible qualities2 :i*1 :5 ,i say ! s5ses convey into ! m9d1 ,i mean1 !y1 f ext]nal objects1 convey into ! m9d :at produces !re ^? p]ceptions4 ,?is great s\rce ( mo/ ( ! ideas we h1 dep5d+ :olly ^u our s5ses1 & d]iv$ by !m to ! und]/&+1 ,i call s5sation4 ,secondly1 ,! o!r f\nta91 f :i* exp]i5ce furni%e? ! und]/&+ ) ideas1 is ! p]ception ( ! op]ations ( our own m9d )9 u1 z x is employ$ ab\t ! ideas x has got2 :i* op]ations1 :5 ! s\l comes to reflect on1 & consid]1 d furni% ! und]/&+ ) ano!r set ( ideas1 :i* c\ld n be _h f ?+s )\t2 & su* are ,p]ception1 ,?9k+1 ,d\bt+1 ,believ+1 ,reason+1 ,kn[+1 ,will+1 & all ! diff]5t act+s ( our own m9ds2 :i* we be+ consci\s (1 & obs]v+ 9 ourselves1 d1 f ^!1 receive into our und]/&+s z di/9ct ideas1 z we d f bodies affect+ our s5ses4 ,?is s\rce ( ideas e man has :olly 9 himself2 & ?\gh x be n s5se z hav+ no?+ to d ) ext]nal objects1 yet x is v l x1 & might prop]ly en\gh be call$ int]nal s5se4 ,b1 z ,i call ! o!r s5sation1 s ,i call ?is reflection2 ! ideas x af=ds be+ su* only z ! m9d gets1 by reflect+ on its own op]ations )9 itself4#c #c ,locke1 ,essay1 ii1 #a1 #b-d4 ,"h ,locke is ?9k+ ( ! di/9ction betwe5 two attitudes ( m9d1 :i*1 h[ev] difficult x may be to /ate satisfactorily1 mu/ 9 "s s5se be recogniz$4 ,! m9d1 und\bt$ly1 9 virtue ( its p[]s ( p]ceiv+ & ?9k+--or :atev] !y may be--becomes ?r\gh a temporal process aw>e ( a spatial _w 9 its v>i$ detail4 ,9 ! fir/ in/ance1 its att5tion is absorb$ 9 ! _w ( :i* x ?us becomes aw>e2 subsequ5tly1 h[ev]1 x is 9 "s way able to direct its att5tion away f ?is _w to ! activities 9 virtue ( :i* x has become aw>e ( ?is _w1 & 9 "s s5se to make itself its own object4 ,f be+ consci\s x becomes self-consci\s4 ,?is process by :i* ! m9d turns its att5tion back ^u itself is said to be a process ( 'reflection'4 ,:ile we %\ld say t x is by p]ception t we become aw>e ( ?+s 9 ! physical _w1 we %\ld say t x is by reflection t we become aw>e ( our activities ( p]ceiv+1 ?9k+1 will+1 c4 ,:atev] difficulties ! ?\ght ( self-consci\sness may involve1 & h[ev] insep>able1 & p]haps ev5 temporally insep>able1 ! attitudes ( consci\sness & self-consci\sness may turn out to be1 ! di/9ction betwe5 ^! attitudes mu/ be recogniz$4 ,! object ( ! =m] is ! _w1 & ! object ( ! latt] is 9 "s s5se ! m9d itself2 & ! attitudes may be describ$ z t ( our ord9>y1 sci5tific1 or unreflect+ consci\sness & t ( reflection4 ,! significance ( ,locke's acc\nt ( ?is di/9ction lies = our purposes 9 its anticipation ( ,kant4 ,he /ates ! second attitude1 z well z ! fir/1 9 t]ms ( s5se4 ,j z 9 our appreh5sion ( ! _w ?+s ext]nal to1 9 ! s5se ( exi/+ indep5d5tly (1 ! m9d are said to act on our physical organs or 's5ses'1 & !reby to produce 'p]ceptions' 9 ! m9d1 s ! m9d is said to become consci\s ( its own op]ations by 's5se'4 ,we %\ld notice1 h[ev]1 t ,locke hesitates to use ! ^w 's5se' 9 ! latt] case1 on ! gr\nd t x involves no op]ation ( ext]nal ?+s 7presumably ^u our physical organs71 ?\gh he ?9ks t ! difficulty is remov$ by call+ ! s5se 9 "q 'int]nal'4 ,kant is ?9k+ ( ! same facts1 & also /ates !m 9 t]ms ( s5se1 ?\gh all[ance mu/ be made = ! diff]5ce ( /&po9t1 s9ce = him 's5se'1 9 ! case ( ! ext]nal s5se1 ref]s n to ! affection ( our physical organs by physical bodies1 b to ! affection ( ! m9d by ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,?+s 9 !mselves act on our m9ds & produce 9 !m appe>ances1 or r s5sations1 & out] s5se is ! m9d's capacity = be+ s affect$ by out] ?+s1 i4 e4 ?+s indep5d5t ( ! m9d4 ,?is is1 9 ess5tials1 ,kant's /atem5t ( ! attitude ( consci\sness1 i4 e4 ( our appreh5sion ( ! _w :i* exi/s indep5d5tly ( ! m9d1 & :i*1 = him1 is ! _w ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,he also foll[s ,locke 9 giv+ a p>allel acc\nt ( ! attitude ( self-consci\sness4 ,he asks1 ',h[ c ! subject p]ceive itself8' ,p]ception 9 man is ess5tially passive2 ! m9d mu/ be affect$ by t :i* x p]ceives4 ,consequ5tly1 if ! m9d is to p]ceive itself1 x mu/ be affect$ by its own activity2 9 o!r words1 !re mu/ be an inn] s5se1 i4 e4 a capacity 9 virtue ( :i* ! m9d is affect$ by itself4#d ,h5ce ,kant is compell$ to ext5d 8 agno/icism to ! k ( ourselves4 ,j z we d n "k ?+s1 b only ! appe>ances :i* !y produce 9 u1#e s we d n "k ourselves1 b only ! appe>ances :i* we produce 9 ourselves2 & s9ce "t is a mode ( relation ( ^! appe>ances1 x is a det]m9ation n ( ourselves1 b only ( ! appe>ances due to ourselves4 #d ,cf4 ,b4 #fg f941 ,m4 #da init4 #e ,x is "h assum$ t ?is is ,kant's normal view ( ! ph5om5al "* ( our k4 ,cf4 p4 #ge4 ,! above may be said to repres5t ! tra9 ( ?\ght by :i* ,kant arriv$ at 8 doctr9e ( "t & ! inn] s5se4 ,x 0 rea*$ by comb9+ recognition ( ! fact t we come to be aw>e n only ( ! details ( ! physical _w1 b also ( ! successive process on our "p by :i* we h atta9$ ?is k1 ) ! view t our appreh5sion ( ?is successive process is bas$ on 's5se'1 j z is our appreh5sion ( ! _w4 ,b ! "q rema9s :e!r ,kant is1 on 8 own pr9ciples1 entitl$ to speak ( an inn] s5se at all4 ,accord+ to him1 k beg9s ) ! production 9 u ( s5sations1 or1 z we ought to say 9 ! pres5t context1 appe>ances by ! action ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,^! s5sations or appe>ances c reasonably be ascrib$ to ext]nal s5se4 ,!y may be ascrib$ to s5se1 because !y arise ?r\gh our be+ affect$ by ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! s5se may be call$ ext]nal1 because ! object affect+ x is ext]nal to ! m9d1 i4 e4 indep5d5t ( x4 ,9 con=mity ) ?is acc\nt1 int]nal s5se mu/ be ! p[] ( be+ affect$ by some?+ int]nal to ! m9d1 i4 e4 dep5d5t ^u ! m9d itself1 & s9ce be+ affect$ implies ! activity ( affect+1 x w be ! p[] ( be+ affect$ by ! m9d's own activity4#f ,! activity w presumably be t ( arrang+ spatially ! s5sations or appe>ances due to ?+s 9 !mselves4#g ,?is activity mu/ be said to produce an affection 9 u1 ! affection be+ an appe>ance due to ourselves4 ,la/ly1 ! m9d mu/ be said to arrange ^! appe>ances temporally4 ,h5ce x w be said to foll[ t we "k only ! appe>ances due to ourselves & n ourselves1 & t "t is only a det]m9ation ( ^! appe>ances4#h #f ,b4 #fh init41 ,m4 #da init4 #g ,! precise nature ( ! activity makes no diff]5ce to ! argum5t4 #h ,9 ,b4 #aeb f941 ,m4 #ic f94 ,kant expresses 8 conclusion 9 ! =m t we "k ourselves only z we appe> to ourselves1 & n z we are 9 ourselves 7cf4 p4 #ge74 ,! above acc\nt1 & ! criticism :i* imm$iately foll[s1 c be adapt$1 mutatis mut&is1 to ?is =m ( ! view4 ,! weakness ( ! position j /at$ lies on ! surface4 ,x provides no means ( det]m9+ :e!r any affection produc$ 9 u is produc$ by ourselves r ?an by ! ?+ 9 itself2 consequ5tly we c\ld nev] say t a giv5 affection 0 an appe>ance due to ourselves1 & !re=e to inn] s5se4 ,on ! contr>y1 we %\ld ascribe all affections to ?+s 9 !mselves1 & %\ld1 !re=e1 be unable to recognize an inn] s5se at all4 ,9 ord] to recognize an inn] s5se we mu/ "k t c]ta9 affections are due to our activity1 &1 to d ?is1 we mu/ "k :at ! activity consi/s 9--= we c only be aw>e t we are active by be+ aw>e ( an activity ( ours ( a p>ticul> k9d--&1 !re=e1 we mu/ "k ourselves4 ,unless1 !n1 we "k ourselves1 we _c call any affections int]nal4 ,if1 h[ev]1 ! doctr9e ( an int]nal s5se is obvi\sly unt5able f ,kant's own po9t ( view1 :y does he hold x8 ,! answ] is t1 inconsi/5tly ) 8 g5]al view1 he cont9ues to ?9k ( ! facts z !y really are1 & t he is deceiv$ by an ambiguity into ?9k+ t ! facts ju/ify a di/9ction betwe5 int]nal & ext]nal s5se4 ,he br+s =w>d only "o argum5t to %[ t "t is ! =m ( ! int]nal s5se4 ,"t is no?+ else ?an ! =m ( ! int]nal s5se1 i4 e4 ( ! p]ception ( ourselves & our inn] /ate4 ,= "t _c be any det]m9ation ( ext]nal ph5om5a2 x has to d nei!r ) a %ape nor a position2 on ! contr>y1 x det]m9es ! relation ( repres5tations 9 our int]nal /ate4#i #i ,b4 #di 7b71 ,m4 #cj 7b74 ,to foll[ ?is argum5t x is fir/ necess>y to realize a c]ta9 loos5ess & confusion 9 ! expression ( x4 ,! t]m 'ext]nal'1 appli$ to ph5om5a1 has a d\ble mean+4 ,x mu/ mean 7#a7 t ( :i* ! p>ts are ext]nal to "o ano!r1 i4 e4 spatial2 = ! gr\nd on :i* "t is d5i$ to be a det]m9ation ( ext]nal ph5om5a is t x has no?+ to d ) a %ape or a position4 ,x mu/ also mean 7#b7 ext]nal to1 9 ! s5se ( indep5d5t (1 ! m9d2 = x is contra/$ ) our int]nal /ate1 & if 'int]nal'1 appli$ to 'our /ate'1 is n to be :olly otiose1 x c only s]ve to emphasize ! contra/ betwe5 our /ate & some?+ ext]nal to 9 ! s5se ( indep5d5t ( u4 ,aga91 'ph5om5a1' 9 ! phrase 'ext]nal ph5om5a'1 c only be an un=tunate expression = ?+s indep5d5t ( ! m9d1 ^! ?+s be+ "h call$ ph5om5a ow+ to ,kant's view t bodies 9 space are ph5om5a4 ,o!rwise1 'ph5om5a' (f]s no contra/ to 'our /ate' & to 'repres5tations'4 ,! passage1 !re=e1 presupposes a di/9ction betwe5 /ates ( ourselves & ?+s 9 space1 ! =m] be+ int]nal to1 or dep5d5t ^u1 & ! latt] ext]nal to1 or indep5d5t (1 ! m9d4 ,x %\ld n[ be easy to see t ! argum5t involves a complete non sequitur4 ,! conclusion :i* is ju/ifi$ is t "t is a =m n ( ?+s b ( our own /ates4 ,= ! fact to :i* he appeals is t :ile ?+s1 z be+ spatial1 are n relat$ temporally1 our /ates are temporally relat$2 & if 'a =m' be und]/ood z a mode ( relation1 ?is fact c be express$ by ! =mula ',"t is a =m n ( ?+s b ( our own /ates'1 ! correspond+ =mula 9 ! case ( space be+ ',space is a =m n ( our /ates b ( ?+s'4 ,b ! conclusion :i* ,kant desires to draw--& :i* he1 9 fact1 actually draws--is ! q diff]5t conclusion t "t is a =m ( p]ception ( our /ates1 ! correspond+ conclusion 9 ! case ( space be+ t space is a =m ( p]ception ( ?+s4 ,= "t is to be %[n to be ! =m ( inn] s5se1 i4 e4 ! =m ( ! p]ception ( :at is int]nal to ourselves1 i4 e4 ( our own /ates4#aj ,! fact is t ! same unconsci\s transition takes place 9 ,kant's acc\nt ( "t :i*1 z we saw1#aa takes place 9 8 acc\nt ( space4 ,9 ! case ( space1 ,kant passes f ! ass]tion t space is a =m ( ?+s1 9 ! s5se t all ?+s are spatially relat$--an ass]tion :i* he expresses by say+ t space is ! =m ( ph5om5a--to ! q diff]5t ass]tion t space is a =m ( p]ception1 9 ! s5se ( a way 9 :i* we p]ceive ?+s z oppos$ to a way 9 :i* ?+s are4 ,simil>ly1 9 ! case ( "t1 ,kant passes f ! ass]tion t "t is ! =m ( our int]nal /ates1 9 ! s5se t all our /ates are temporally relat$1 to ! ass]tion t "t is a way 9 :i* we p]ceive our /ates z oppos$ to a way 9 :i* our /ates really are4 ,fur!r1 ! two positions1 :i* he ?us fails to di/+ui%1 are n only diff]5t1 b incompatible4 ,= if space is a =m ( ?+s1 & "t is a =m ( our /ates1 space & "t _c belong only to our mode ( p]ceiv+ ?+s & ourselves respectively1 & n to ! ?+s & ourselves2 = ex hypo!si ?+s are spatially relat$1 & our /ates are temporally relat$4 #aj ,cf4 ,b4 #di 7b7 l9e #b1 ,m4 #cj 7b7 l9e #b #aa ,cf4 pp4 #ch-dj4 ,kant's proc$ure1 !re=e1 may be summ$ up by say+ t he =mulates a view :i* is true b at ! same "t inconsi/5t ) 8 g5]al position1 ! view1 viz4 t :ile ?+s 9 space are n temporally relat$1 ! acts by :i* we come to appreh5d !m are s relat$2 & fur!r1 t he is deceiv$ by ! v]bally easy transition f a legitimate way ( express+ ?is view1 viz4 t "t is ! =m ( our /ates1 to ! desir$ conclusion t "t is ! =m ( inn] s5se4 ,! unt5able "* ( ,kant's position ) reg>d to "t & ! k ( ourselves c be se5 9 ano!r way4 ,x is n difficult to %[ t1 9 ord] to prove t we d n "k ?+s1 b only ! appe>ances :i* !y produce1 we mu/ all[ t we d "k ourselves1 & n appe>ances produc$ by ourselves1 &1 consequ5tly1 t "t is real & n ph5om5al4 ,to %[ ?is1 x is only necess>y to consid] ! objection :i* ,kant himself quotes aga9/ 8 view ( "t4 ,! objection is important 9 itself1 & ,kant himself rem>ks t he has he>d x s unanim\sly urg$ by intellig5t m5 t he concludes t x mu/ naturally pres5t itself to e read] to :om 8 views are novel4 ,accord+ to ,kant1 x runs ?us3 ,*anges are real 7?is is prov$ by ! *ange ( our own repres5tations1 ev5 ?\gh all ext]nal ph5om5a1 toge!r ) _! *anges1 be d5i$74 ,n[ *anges are only possible 9 "t2 !re=e "t is some?+ real4#ab ,& he goes on to expla9 :y ?is objection is s unanim\sly br\ght1 ev5 by ^? :o c br+ no intelligible argum5t aga9/ ! ideality ( space4 ,! reason is t m5 h no hope ( prov+ apodeictically ! absolute reality ( space1 because !y are confront$ by idealism1 accord+ to :i* ! reality ( ext]nal objects is incapable ( /rict pro(1 :]eas ! reality ( ! object ( our int]nal s5ses 7( myself & my /ate7 is imm$iately cle> ?r\gh consci\sness4 ,ext]nal objects might be m]e illusion1 b ! object ( our int]nal s5ses is to _! m9d und5iably some?+ real4#ac #ab ,b4 #ec1 ,m4 #cb4 #ac ,b4 #ee1 ,m4 #cc4 ,"h1 ?\gh ,kant does n see x1 he is fac$ ) a difficulty f :i* !re is no escape4 ,on ! "o h&1 accord+ to him1 we d n "k ?+s 9 !mselves1 i4 e4 ?+s indep5d5t ( ! m9d4 ,9 p>ticul>1 we _c "k t !y are spatial2 & ! objection quot$ conc$es ?is4 ,on ! o!r h&1 we d "k ph5om5a or ! appe>ances produc$ by ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,ph5om5a or appe>ances1 h[ev]1 z he always insi/s1 are ess5tially /ates or det]m9ations ( ! m9d4 ,to ! "q1 !re=e1 ',:y are we ju/ifi$ 9 say+ t we d "k ph5om5a1 :]eas we d n "k ! ?+s :i* produce !m8' ,kant c\ld only answ] t x is because ph5om5a are dep5d5t ^u ! m9d1 z be+ its own /ates4#ad ,z ! objector is made to say1 '! reality ( ! object ( our int]nal s5ses 7( myself & my /ate7 is imm$iately cle> ?r\gh consci\sness4' ,if we d n "k ?+s 9 !mselves1 because !y are indep5d5t ( ! m9d1 we only "k ph5om5a because !y are dep5d5t ^u ! m9d4 ,h5ce ,kant is only ju/ifi$ 9 d5y+ t we "k ?+s 9 !mselves if he conc$es t we really "k our own /ates1 & n m]ely appe>ances :i* !y produce4 #ad ,cf4 p4 #abc4 ,aga91 ,kant mu/ all[--z inde$ he normally does--t ^! /ates ( ours are relat$ by way ( succession4 ,h5ce1 s9ce ^! /ates are really our /ates & n appe>ances produc$ by our /ates1 ^! be+ !mselves unkn[n1 "t1 z a relation ( ^! /ates1 mu/ itself be real1 & n a way 9 :i* we appreh5d :at is real4 ,x mu/1 s to say1 be really 9 :at we appreh5d ab\t ourselves1 & n put into x by u z p]ceiv+ ourselves4 ,! objection1 !n1 comes to ?is4 ,kant mu/ at lea/ conc$e t we und]go a succession ( *ang+ /ates1 ev5 if he holds t ?+s1 be+ indep5d5t ( ! m9d1 _c be %[n to und]go su* a succession2 consequ5tly1 he ought to all[ t "t is n a way 9 :i* we appreh5d ourselves1 b a real feature ( our real /ates4 ,kant's answ]#ae does n meet ! po9t1 &1 9 any case1 proce$s on ! unt5able assumption t x is possible = ! *>act]i/ic ( a ?+ to belong to x z p]ceiv$1 ?\gh n 9 itself4#af #ae ,b4 #ee1 ,m4 #cc m$4 #af ,cf4 pp4 #ga-c4 ,,*apt] ,,vi ,,k ,,& ,,reality ,kant's !ory ( space1 &1 /ill m1 8 !ory ( "t1 are bewild]+ subjects4 ,x is n m]ely t ! facts ) :i* he deals are complex2 8 treatm5t ( !m is also complicat$ by 8 special !ories ( 's5se' & ( '=ms ( p]ception'4 ,light1 h[ev]1 may be ?r[n ^u ! problems rais$ by ! ,ae/hetic1 & ^u ,kant's solution ( !m1 9 two ways4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 we may attempt to v9dicate ! implication ( ! prec$+ criticism1 t ! v nature ( k presupposes ! indep5d5t exi/5ce ( ! reality kn[n1 & to %[ t1 9 consequ5ce1 all idealism is ( ! v>iety kn[n z subjective4 ,9 ! second place1 we may po9t out ! way 9 :i* ,kant is misl$ by fail+ to realize 7#a7 ! directness ( ! relation betwe5 ! kn[] & ! reality kn[n1 & 7#b7 ! impossibility ( transf]r+ :at belongs to "o side ( ! relation to ! o!r4 ,! "q :e!r any reality exi/s indep5d5tly ( ! k ( x may be approa*$ ?us4 ,! /&po9t ( ! prec$+ criticism ( ,kant may be describ$ z t ( ! pla9 man4 ,x is ! view t ! m9d comes by a temporal process to appreh5d or to "k a spatial _w :i* exi/s indep5d5tly ( x or ( any o!r m9d1 & t ! m9d kn[s x z x exi/s 9 ! indep5d5ce4 ',n[ ?is view1' x may be repli$1 'is expos$ to at lea/ "o fatal objection4 ,x presupposes ! possibility ( kn[+ ! ?+ 9 itself1 i4 e4 some?+ :i* exi/s indep5d5tly ( ! m9d :i* comes to "k x4 ,:atev] is true1 ?is is n4 ,:atev] be ! criticism to :i* ,kant's doctr9e is expos$ 9 detail1 x conta9s "o inexpugnable !sis1 viz4 t ! ?+ 9 itself _c be kn[n4 ,unless ! physical _w /&s 9 ess5tial relation to ! m9d1 x is impossible to und]/& h[ x c be kn[n4 ,?is position be+ unassailable1 any criticism ( an ideali/ic !ory mu/ be compatible ) x1 & !re=e conf9$ to details4 ,moreov]1 ,kant's view c be trans=m$ into "o :i* w defy criticism4 ,its unsatisfactory "* lies 9 ! fact t 9 reg>d+ ! physical _w z dep5d5t on ! m9d1 x really alt]s ! "* ( ! _w by r$uc+ ! _w to a succession ( 'appe>ances' :i*1 z su*1 c only be m5tal1 i4 e4 c only belong to ! m9d's own be+4 ,bodies1 z be+ really appe>ances 9 ! m9d1 are reg>d$ z on ! level ( transitory m5tal occurr5ces1 & z !reby at lea/ resembl+ feel+s & s5sations4 ,?is consequ5ce1 h[ev]1 c be avoid$ by ma9ta9+ t ! real tru? aft] :i* ,kant 0 grop+ 0 t kn[] & kn[n =m an insep>able unity1 & t1 !re=e1 any reality :i* is n itself a kn[]1 or ! kn[+ ( a kn[]1 presupposes a m9d :i* kn[s x4 ,9 t case no?+ is sugge/$ z to ! special nature ( ! reality kn[n1 &1 9 p>ticul>1 x is n impli$ to be a transitory elem5t ( ! m9d's own be+4 ,! cont5tion m]ely attributes to any reality1 conceiv$ to h ! special nature ord9>ily attribut$ to x1 ! additional *>act]i/ic t x is kn[n4 ,consequ5tly1 on ?is view1 ! physical _w c reta9 ! p]man5ce ord9>ily attribut$ to x4 ,to ! objection t1 at any rate1 our k is transitory1 & t if ! _w is relative to x ! _w also mu/ be transitory1 x may be repli$--?\gh ) "s s5se ( uneas9ess--t ! _w mu/ be consid]$ relative n to u z kn[]s1 b to a kn[] :o kn[s always & completely1 & ^: kn[+ is 9 "s way id5tical ) ours4 ,fur!r1 ! view s trans=m$ has two o!r advantages4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x r5d]s x possible to disp5se ) :at has be5 call$ ! ,mrs4 ,h>ris ( philosophy1 ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,z ,kant /ates 8 position1 ! ?+ 9 itself mu/ be reta9$1 = x is impossible to believe t !re is no reality o!r ?an :at is m5tal4 ,b if ! physical _w ne$ n be consid]$ to be a succession ( m5tal occurr5ces1 x c be consid]$ to be ! reality :i* is n m5tal4 ,9 ! second place1 k prop] is v9dicat$1 = on ?is view we d n "k 'only' ph5om5a2 we "k ! reality :i* is n m5tal1 & we "k x z x is1 = x is z object ( k4' ',moreov]1 ! cont5tion mu/ be true1 & mu/ =m ! true basis ( idealism4 ,= ! driv+ =ce ( idealism is furni%$ by ! "q1 ',h[ c ! m9d & reality come into ! relation :i* we call k8' ,?is "q is unansw]able s long z reality is ?\ght to /& 9 no ess5tial relation to ! kn[+ m9d4 ,consequ5tly1 9 ! end1 k & reality mu/ be consid]$ insep>able4 ,aga91 ev5 if x be conc$$ t ! m9d 9 "s way ga9s access to an indep5d5t reality1 x is impossible to hold t ! m9d c really "k x4 ,= ! reality _c 9 ! relation ( k be :at x is ap>t f ?is relation4 ,x mu/ become 9 "s way modifi$ or alt]$ 9 ! process4 ,h5ce ! m9d _c on ?is view "k ! reality z x is4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if ! reality is ess5tially relative to a kn[]1 ! kn[] kn[s x z x is1 = :at x is is :at x is 9 ?is relation4' ,! fundam5tal objection1 h[ev]1 to ?is l9e ( ?\ght is t x contradicts ! v nature ( k4 ,k unconditionally presupposes t ! reality kn[n exi/s indep5d5tly ( ! k ( x1 & t we "k x z x exi/s 9 ?is indep5d5ce4 ,x is simply impossible to ?9k t any reality dep5ds ^u our k ( x1 or ^u any k ( x4 ,if !re is to be k1 !re mu/ fir/ be some?+ to be kn[n4 ,9 o!r words1 k is ess5tially discov]y1 or ! f9d+ ( :at already is4 ,if a reality c\ld only be or come to be 9 virtue ( "s activity or process on ! "p ( ! m9d1 t activity or process w\ld n be 'kn[+'1 b 'mak+' or 'creat+'1 & to make & to "k mu/ 9 ! end be admitt$ to be mutually exclusive4#a #a ,cf4 pp4 #bce-f4 ,?is presupposition t :at is kn[n exi/s indep5d5tly ( be+ kn[n is q g5]al1 & applies to feel+ & s5sation j z mu* z to p>ts ( ! physical _w4 ,x mu/ 9 ! end be conc$$ ( a too?a*e z mu* z ( a /one t x exi/s indep5d5tly ( ! k ( x4 ,!re mu/ be a pa9 to be att5d$ to or notic$1 :i* exi/s indep5d5tly ( our att5tion or notice4 ,! true reason = ass]t+ feel+ & s5sation to be dep5d5t on ! m9d is t !y presuppose n a kn[+1 b a feel+ & a s5ti5t subject respectively4 ,aga91 x is equally presuppos$ t kn[+ 9 no way alt]s or modifies ! ?+ kn[n4 ,we c no m ?9k t 9 appreh5d+ a reality we d n appreh5d x z x is ap>t f our k ( x1 ?an we c ?9k t its exi/5ce dep5ds ^u our k ( x4 ,h5ce1 if '?+s 9 !mselves' means '?+s exi/+ indep5d5tly ( ! k ( !m'1 k is ess5tially ( '?+s 9 !mselves'4 ,x is1 !re=e1 unnecess>y to consid] :e!r idealism is assi/$ by ! supposition ( a non-f9ite kn[+ m9d1 correlat$ ) reality z a :ole4 ,= reality mu/ equally be indep5d5t ( x4 ,consequ5tly1 if ! issue betwe5 idealism & realism is :e!r ! physical _w is or is n dep5d5t on ! m9d1 x _c turn ^u a dep5d5ce 9 respect ( k4 ,t ! issue does n turn ^u k is confirm$ by our in/9ctive proc$ure :5 we are ask$ :e!r ! v>i\s realities :i* we suppose ourselves to "k dep5d ^u ! m9d4 ,our natural proc$ure is n to treat !m simply z realities & to ask :e!r1 z realities1 !y involve a m9d to "k !m1 b to treat !m z realities ( ! p>ticul> k9d to :i* !y belong1 & to consid] relation to ! m9d ( "s k9d o!r ?an t ( k4 ,we %\ld say1 = in/ance1 t a too?a*e or an emotion1 z be+ a feel+1 presupposes a m9d capable ( feel+1 ^: feel+ x is2 = if ! m9d be ?\ght ( z )drawn1 ! pa9 or ! feel+ mu/ also be ?\ght ( z )drawn4 ,we %\ld say t an act ( ?9k+ presupposes a m9d :i* ?9ks4 ,we %\ld1 h[ev]1 naturally d5y t an act ( ?9k+ or kn[+1 9 ord] to be1 presupposes t x is kn[n ei!r by ! ?9k] ^: act x is1 or by any o!r m9d4 ,9 o!r words1 we %\ld say t kn[+ presupposes a m9d1 n z some?+ :i* kn[s ! kn[+1 b z some?+ :i* does ! kn[+4 ,aga91 we %\ld naturally say t ! %ape or ! weight ( a /one is n dep5d5t on ! m9d :i* p]ceives ! /one4 ,! %ape1 we %\ld say1 w\ld disappe> ) ! disappe>ance ( ! /one1 b w\ld n disappe> ) ! disappe>ance ( ! m9d :i* p]ceives ! /one4 ,aga91 we %\ld ass]t t ! /one itself1 s f> f dep5d+ on ! m9d :i* p]ceives x1 has an indep5d5t be+ ( its own4 ,we might1 ( c\rse1 f9d difficulty 9 decid+ :e!r a reality ( "s p>ticul> k9d1 e4 g4 a col\r1 is dep5d5t on a m9d4 ,b1 9 any case1 we %\ld ?9k t ! gr\nd = decision lay 9 ! special "* ( ! reality 9 "q1 & %\ld n treat x m]ely z a reality relat$ to ! m9d z some?+ kn[n4 ,we %\ld ask1 = in/ance1 :e!r a col\r1 z a col\r1 involves a m9d :i* sees1 & n :e!r a col\r1 z a reality1 involves its be+ kn[n4 ,our natural proc$ure1 !n1 is to divide realities into two classes1 ^? :i* dep5d on a m9d1 & may !re=e be call$ m5tal1 & ^? :i* d n1 & to conclude t "s realities dep5d ^u ! m9d1 :ile o!rs d n4 ,we !reby ignore a possible dep5d5ce ( realities on _! be+ kn[n2 = n only is ! dep5d5ce :i* we recognize ( "s o!r k9d1 e4 g4 9 respect ( feel+ or s5ti5ce1 b if ! dep5d5ce 7 9 respect ( k1 we c\ld n di/+ui% 9 respect ( dep5d5ce betwe5 "o reality & ano!r4 ,fur!r1 if reality be all[$ to exi/ indep5d5tly ( k1 x is easy to see t1 f ! ideali/'s po9t ( view1 ,kant's proc$ure 0 ess5tially "r1 & t all idealism1 :5 press$1 mu/ prove subjective2 9 o!r words1 t ! ideali/ mu/ hold t ! m9d c only "k :at is m5tal & belongs to its own be+1 & t ! s-call$ physical _w is m]ely a succession ( appe>ances4 ,moreov]1 our in/9ctive proc$ure#b is ju/ifi$4 ,=1 9 ! fir/ place1 s9ce x is impossible to ?9k t a reality dep5ds = its exi/5ce ^u be+ kn[n1 x is impossible to rea* an ideali/ic conclusion by tak+ into acc\nt relation by way ( k2 & if ?is be ! relation consid]$1 ! only conclusion c be t all reality is indep5d5t ( ! m9d4 ,aga91 s9ce k is ess5tially ( reality z x is ap>t f its be+ kn[n1 ! ass]tion t a reality is dep5d5t ^u ! m9d is an ass]tion ( ! k9d ( ?+ :i* x is 9 itself1 ap>t f its be+ kn[n4#c ,& :5 we come to consid] :at we mean by say+ ( a reality t x dep5ds ^u ! m9d1 we f9d we mean t x is 9 its own nature ( su* a k9d z to disappe> ) ! disappe>ance ( ! m9d1 or1 m simply1 t x is ( ! k9d call$ m5tal4 ,h5ce1 we c only decide t a p>ticul> reality dep5ds ^u ! m9d by appeal to its special "*4 ,we _c treat x simply z a reality ! relation ( :i* to ! m9d is solely t ( k4 ,& we c only decide t all reality is dep5d5t ^u ! m9d by appeal to ! special "* ( all ! k9ds ( reality ( :i* we are aw>e4 ,h5ce1 ,kant 9 ! ,ae/hetic1 & ,b]keley be=e him1 7 ess5tially "r 9 _! proc$ure4 ,!y bo? ignor$ consid]ation ( ! _w simply z a reality1 & appeal$ exclusively to its special "*1 ! "o argu+ t 9 its special "* z spatial & temporal x presuppos$ a p]cipi5t1 & ! o!r endeav\r+ to %[ t ! prim>y qualities are z relative to p]ception z ! second>y4 ,un=tunately = _! view1 9 ord] to ?9k ( bodies 9 space z dep5d5t on ! m9d1 x is necess>y to ?9k ( !m z be+ 9 ! end only c]ta9 s5sations or c]ta9 comb9ations ( s5sations :i* may be call$ appe>ances4 ,= only s5sations or comb9ations ( !m c be ?\ght ( z at once dep5d5t on ! m9d1 & capable ) any plausibility ( be+ id5tifi$ ) bodies 9 space4 ,9 o!r words1 9 ord] to ?9k ( ! _w z dep5d5t on ! m9d1 we h to ?9k ( x z consi/+ only ( a succession ( appe>ances1 & 9 fact ,b]keley1 &1 at c]ta9 times1 ,kant1 did ?9k ( x 9 ?is way4 #b ,cf4 p4 #aai4 #c ,?\gh n ap>t f relation to ! m9d ( "s o!r k9d4 ,t ?is is ! inevitable result ( idealism is n notic$1 s long z x is suppos$ t ! ess5tial relation ( realities to ! m9d consi/s 9 _! be+ kn[n2 =1 z we h se51 no?+ is !reby impli$ z to _! special nature4 ,to say ( a reality t x is ess5tially an object ( k is m]ely to add to ! p>ticul> nature ord9>ily attribut$ to ! exi/5t 9 "q ! fur!r *>act]i/ic t x mu/ be kn[n4#d ,moreov]1 s9ce 9 fact1 ?\gh contr>y to ! !ory1 any reality exi/s indep5d5tly ( ! k ( x1 :5 ! relation ?\ght ( betwe5 a reality & ! m9d is solely t ( k1 ! realities c be ?\ght ( z indep5d5t ( ! m9d4 ,consequ5tly1 ! physical _w c be ?\ght to h t indep5d5ce ( ! m9d :i* ! ord9>y man attributes to x1 &1 !re=e1 ne$ n be conceiv$ z only a succession ( appe>ances4 ,b ! advantage ( ?is =m ( idealism is really d]iv$ f ! v fact :i* x is ! aim ( idealism 9 g5]al to d5y4 ,= ! conclusion t ! physical _w consi/s ( a succession ( appe>ances is only avoid$ by tak+ into acc\nt ! relation ( realities to ! m9d by way ( k1 &1 !n1 )\t be+ aw>e ( ! inconsi/5cy1 mak+ use ( ! indep5d5t exi/5ce ( ! reality kn[n4 #d ,cf4 p4 #aaf4 ,aga91 t ! real contr>y to realism is subjective idealism is confirm$ by ! hi/ory ( ! !ory ( k f ,desc>tes onw>ds4 ,= ! initial supposition :i* has orig9at$ & su/a9$ ! problem is t 9 k ! m9d is1 at any rate 9 ! fir/ in/ance1 conf9$ )9 itself4 ,?is supposition grant$1 x has always seem$ t1 :ile !re is no difficulty 9 und]/&+ ! m9d's acquisition ( k ( :at belongs to its own be+1 x is difficult1 if n impossible1 to und]/& h[ x c acquire k ( :at does n belong to its own be+4 ,fur!r1 s9ce ! physical _w is ord9>ily ?\ght ( z some?+ :i* does n belong to ! m9d's own be+1 ! problem has always be5 n ',h[ is x possible to "k any?+8' b ',h[ is x possible to "k a p>ticul> k9d ( reality1 viz4 ! physical _w8' ,moreov]1 9 consequ5ce ( ! initial supposition1 any answ] to ?is "q has always presuppos$ t our appreh5sion ( ! physical _w is indirect4 ,s9ce ex hypo!si ! m9d is conf9$ )9 itself1 x c only appreh5d a reality indep5d5t ( x ?r\gh some?+ )9 ! m9d :i* 'repres5ts' or 'copies' ! reality2 & x is p]haps ,hume's *ief m]it t he %[$ t no su* solution is possible1 or1 9 o!r words1 t1 on ! giv5 supposition1 k ( ! physical _w is impossible4 ,n[ ! ess5tial weakness ( ?is l9e ( ?\ght lies 9 ! initial supposition t ! m9d c only appreh5d :at belongs to its own be+4 ,x is z mu* a fact ( our exp]i5ce t we directly appreh5d bodies 9 space1 z t we directly appreh5d our feel+s & s5sations4 ,&1 z has already be5 %[n1#e :at is spatial _c be ?\ght to belong to ! m9d's own be+ on ! gr\nd t x is relative to p]ception4 ,fur!r1 if x is legitimate to ask1 ',h[ c we appreh5d :at does n belong to our be+8' x is equally legitimate to ask1 ',h[ c we appreh5d :at does belong to our own be+8' ,x is :olly arbitr>y to limit ! "q to ! "o k9d ( reality4 ,if a "q is to be put at all1 x %\ld take ! =m1 ',h[ is x possible to appreh5d any?+8' ,b ?is "q has only to be put to be disc>d$4 ,= x am\nts to a dem& to expla9 k2 & any answ] to x w\ld involve ! d]ivation ( k f :at 0 n k1 a task :i* mu/ be z impossible z ! d]ivation ( space f "t or ( col\r f s\nd4 ,k is sui g5]is1 &1 z su*1 _c be expla9$4#f #e ,cf4 pp4 #hi-ia4 #f ,?is ass]tion1 be+ self-evid5t1 admits ( no direct pro(4 ,a 'pro(' c only take ! =m ( %[+ t any suppos$ 'd]ivation' or 'explanation' ( k presupposes k 9 t f :i* x d]ives x4 ,pr(essor ,cook ,wilson has po9t$ out t we mu/ und]/& :at kn[+ is 9 ord] to expla9 any?+ at all1 s t any propos$ explanation ( kn[+ w\ld necess>ily presuppose t we und]/ood :at kn[+ is4 ,= ! g5]al doctr9e1 cf4 p4 #bde4 ,moreov]1 x may be not$ t ! support :i* ?is =m ( idealism sometimes receives f an argum5t :i* uses ! t]ms 'inside' & 'outside' ! m9d is unm]it$4 ,at fir/ sight x seems a refutation ( ! pla9 man's view to argue ?us3 ',! pla9 man believes ! spatial _w to exi/ :e!r any "o kn[s x or n4 ,consequ5tly1 he all[s t ! _w is outside ! m9d4 ,b1 to be kn[n1 a reality mu/ be inside ! m9d4 ,!re=e1 ! pla9 man's view r5d]s k impossible4' ,b1 z soon z x is realiz$ t 'inside ! m9d' & 'outside ! m9d' are metaphors1 &1 !re=e1 mu/ take _! mean+ f _! context1 x is easy to see t ! argum5t ei!r re/s on an equivocation or assumes ! po9t at issue4 ,! ass]tion t ! _w is outside ! m9d1 be+ only a metaphorical expression ( ! pla9 man's view1 %\ld only mean t ! _w is some?+ indep5d5t ( ! m9d1 z oppos$ to some?+ inside ! m9d1 9 ! s5se ( dep5d5t ^u x1 or m5tal4 ,b ! ass]tion t1 to be kn[n1 a reality mu/ be inside ! m9d1 if x is to be inconte/ably true1 %\ld only mean t a reality1 to be appreh5d$1 mu/ really be object ( appreh5sion4 ,& 9 ?is case 'be+ inside ! m9d'1 s9ce x only means 'be+ object ( appreh5sion'1 is n ! opposite ( 'be+ outside ! m9d' 9 ! previ\s ass]tion4 ,h5ce1 on ?is int]pretation1 ! second ass]tion is connect$ ) ! fir/ only app>5tly & by an equivocation2 !re is really no argum5t at all4 ,if1 h[ev]1 ! equivocation is to be avoid$1 'inside ! m9d' 9 ! second ass]tion mu/ be ! opposite ( 'outside ! m9d' 9 ! fir/1 & consequ5tly ! second mu/ mean t a reality1 to be kn[n1 mu/ be dep5d5t on ! m9d1 or m5tal4 ,b 9 t case ! objection to ! pla9 man's view is a petitio pr9cipii1 & n an argum5t4 ,nev]!less1 ! t5d5cy to ?9k t ! only object or1 at lea/1 ! only direct object ( ! m9d is some?+ m5tal /ill requires explanation4 ,x seems due to a t5d5cy to treat self-consci\sness z simil> to consci\sness ( ! _w4 ,:5 9 reflection we turn our att5tion away f ! _w to ! activity by :i* we come to "k x1 we t5d to ?9k ( our k ( ! _w z a reality to be appreh5d$ simil> to ! _w :i* we appreh5d$ prior to reflection4 ,we !reby implicitly treat ?is k z some?+ :i*1 l ! _w1 m]ely is & is n ! k ( any?+2 9 o!r words1 we imply t1 s f> f be+ k1 i4 e4 ! kn[+ ( a reality1 x is precisely t :i* we di/+ui% f k1 viz4 a reality to be kn[n1 al?\gh--s9ce k mu/ be m5tal--we imply t x is a reality ( ! special k9d call$ m5tal4 ,b if ! k ^u :i* we reflect is ?us treat$ z consi/+ 9 a m5tal reality :i* m]ely is1 x is impli$ t 9 ?is k ! _w is n1 at any rate directly1 object ( ! m9d1 = ex hypo!si a reality :i* m]ely is & is n ! k ( any?+ has no object4 ,h5ce x comes to be ?\ght t ! only object or1 at lea/1 ! only direct object ( ! m9d is ?is m5tal reality itself1 :i* is ! object ( reflection2 9 o!r words1 t ! only imm$iate object ( ! m9d comes to be ?\ght ( z its own idea4 ,! root ( ! mi/ake lies 9 ! initial supposition--:i*1 x may be not$1 seems to und]lie ! :ole treatm5t ( k by empirical psy*ology--t k c be treat$ z a reality to be appreh5d$1 9 ! way 9 :i* any reality :i* is n k is a reality to be appreh5d$4 ,we may n[ rev]t to t =m ( idealism :i* ma9ta9s t ! ess5tial relation ( reality to ! m9d is t ( be+ kn[n1 9 ord] to consid] two l9es ( argum5t by :i* x may be def5d$4 ,accord+ to ! fir/ ( ^!1 ! view ( ! pla9 man ei!r is1 or at lea/ involves1 mat]ialism2 & mat]ialism is demon/rably absurd4 ,! pla9 man's view involves ! exi/5ce ( ! physical _w prior to ! exi/5ce ( ! k ( x1 & !re=e also prior to ! exi/5ce ( m9ds :i* "k x1 s9ce x is impossible to sep>ate ! exi/5ce ( a kn[+ m9d f its actual k4 ,f ?is x foll[s t m]e matt]1 hav+ only ! qualities consid]$ by ! physici/1 mu/ someh[ h orig9at$ or produc$ kn[+ & kn[+ m9ds4 ,b ?is production is pla9ly impossible4 ,= matt]1 possess+ solely1 z x does1 *>act]i/ics b\nd up ) ext5sion & motion1 _c possibly h orig9at$ activities ( a :olly diff]5t k9d1 or be+s capable ( ex]cis+ !m4 ,x may1 h[ev]1 be repli$ t ! suppos$ consequ5ce1 ?\gh absurd1 does n really foll[ f ! pla9 man's realism4 ,d\btless1 x w\ld be impossible = a univ]se consi/+ solely ( ! physical _w to orig9ate ?\ght or be+s capable ( ?9k+4 ,b ! real presupposition ( ! com+ into exi/5ce ( human k at a c]ta9 /age 9 ! process ( ! univ]se is to be f\nd 9 ! pre-exi/5ce1 n ( a m9d or m9ds :i* always actually knew1 b simply ( a m9d or m9ds 9 :i*1 "u c]ta9 conditions1 k is necess>ily actualiz$4 ,a m9d _c be ! product ( any?+ or1 at any rate1 ( any?+ b a m9d4 ,x _c be a new reality introduc$ at "s "t or o!r into a univ]se ( realities ( a :olly diff]5t ord]4 ,!re=e1 ! presupposition ( ! pres5t exi/5ce ( k is ! pre-exi/5ce ( a m9d or m9ds2 x is n impli$ t its or _! k mu/ always h be5 actual4 ,9 o!r words1 kn[+ implies ! ultimate or unorig9at$ exi/5ce ( be+s possess$ ( ! capacity to "k4 ,o!rwise1 k w\ld be a m]ely d]ivative product1 capable ( be+ /at$ 9 t]ms ( some?+ else1 & 9 ! end 9 t]ms ( matt] & motion4 ,?is implication is1 h[ev]1 9 no wise trav]s$ by ! pla9 man's realism4 ,= t implies1 n t ! exi/5ce ( ! physical _w is prior to ! exi/5ce ( a m9d1 b only t x is prior to a m9d's actual k ( ! _w4 ,! second l9e ( ?\ght appeals to ! logic ( relation4 ,x may be /at$ ?us4 ,if a t]m is relative1 i4 e4 is ess5tially '(' or relative to ano!r1 t o!r is ess5tially relative to x4 ,j z a doctor1 = in/ance1 is ess5tially a doctor ( a pati5t1 s a pati5t is ess5tially ! pati5t ( a doctor4 ,z a rul] implies subjects1 s subjects imply a rul]4 ,z a l9e ess5tially has po9ts at its ends1 s po9ts are ess5tially ends ( a l9e4 ,n[ k is ess5tially '(' or relative to reality4 ,reality1 !re=e1 is ess5tially relative to or implies ! k ( x4 ,& ?is correlativity ( k & reality f9ds l+ui/ic confirmation 9 ! t]ms 'subject' & 'object'4 ,=1 l+ui/ically1 j z a subject is always ! subject ( an object1 s an object is always ! object ( a subject4 ,nev]!less1 fur!r analysis ( ! nature ( relative t]ms1 & 9 p>ticul> ( k1 does n be> out ?is conclusion4 ,to take ! case ( a doctor4 ,x is true t if "s "o is heal+1 "s "o else is receiv+ treatm5t1 i4 e4 is be+ heal$2 & 'pati5t' be+ ! "n = ! recipi5t ( treatm5t1 we c express ?is fact by say+ t a doctor is ess5tially ! doctor ( a pati5t4 ,fur!r1 x is true t a recipi5t ( treatm5t implies a giv] ( x1 z mu* z a giv] ( x implies a recipi5t4 ,h5ce we c truly say t s9ce a doctor is ! doctor ( a pati5t1 a pati5t is ! pati5t ( a doctor1 mean+ !reby t s9ce t to :i* a doctor is relative is a pati5t1 a pati5t mu/ be simil>ly relative to a doctor4 ,!re is1 h[ev]1 ano!r /atem5t :i* c be made conc]n+ a doctor4 ,we c say t a doctor is a doctor ( a human be+ :o is ill1 i4 e4 a sick man4 ,b 9 ?is case we _c g on to say t s9ce a doctor is a doctor ( a sick man1 a sick man implies or is relative to a doctor4 ,= we mean t ! k9d ( reality capable ( be+ relat$ to a doctor z 8 pati5t is a sick man2 & f ?is x does n foll[ t a reality ( ?is k9d does /& 9 ?is relation4 ,doctor+ implies a sick man2 a sick man does n imply t "s "o is treat+ him4 ,we c only say t s9ce a doctor is ! doctor ( a sick man1 a sick man implies ! possibility ( doctor+4 ,9 ! =m] case ! t]ms1 viz4 'doctor' & 'pati5t'1 are insep>able because !y signify ! relation 9 "q 9 diff]5t aspects4 ,! relation is "o fact :i* has two insep>able 'sides'1 &1 consequ5tly1 ! t]ms mu/ be insep>able :i* signify ! relation respectively f ! po9t ( view ( ! "o side & f ! po9t ( view ( ! o!r4 ,nei!r t]m signifies ! nature ( ! elem5ts :i* c /& 9 ! relation4 ,9 ! latt] case1 h[ev]1 ! t]ms1 viz4 'doctor' & 'sick man'1 signify respectively ! relation 9 "q 79 "o aspect71 & ! nature ( "o ( ! elem5ts capable ( ent]+ into x2 consequ5tly !y are sep>able4 ,n[ :5 x is said t k is ess5tially k ( reality1 ! /atem5t is p>allel to ! ass]tion t a doctor is ess5tially ! doctor ( a sick man1 & n to ! ass]tion t a doctor is ess5tially ! doctor ( a pati5t4 ,x %\ld mean t t :i* is capable ( be+ relat$ to a kn[] z 8 object is some?+ :i* is or exi/s2 consequ5tly x _c be said t s9ce k is ( reality1 reality mu/ ess5tially be kn[n4 ,! p>allel to ! ass]tion t a doctor is ! doctor ( a pati5t is ! ass]tion t k is ! k ( an object2 = j z 'pati5t' means t :i* receives treatm5t f a doctor1 s 'object' means t :i* is kn[n4 ,& "h we c g on to make ! fur!r p>allel ass]tion t s9ce k is ess5tially ! k ( an object1 an object is ess5tially an object ( k4 ,j z 'pati5t' means a recipi5t ( treatm5t1 or1 m accurately1 a sick man "u treatm5t1 s 'object' means some?+ kn[n1 or1 m accurately1 a reality kn[n4 ,& 'k' & 'object ( k'1 l 'doctor' & 'pati5t'1 indicate ! same relation1 ?\gh f diff]5t po9ts ( view1 &1 consequ5tly1 :5 we c use ! "o t]m1 we c use ! o!r4 ,b to say t an object 7i4 e4 a reality kn[n7 implies ! k ( x is n to say t reality implies ! k ( x1 any m ?an to say t a pati5t implies a doctor is to say t a sick man implies a doctor4 ,b a doctor1 x might be object$1 is n a fair p>allel to k or a kn[]4 ,a doctor1 ?\gh an in/ance ( a relative t]m1 is only an in/ance ( "o k9d ( relative t]m1 t 9 :i* ! elem5ts relat$ are capable ( exi/+ ap>t f ! relation1 ! relation be+ "o 9 :i* !y c come to /& & cease to /&4 ,b !re is ano!r k9d ( relative t]m1 9 :i* ! elem5ts relat$ presuppose ! relation1 & any ?\ght ( ^! elem5ts involves ! ?\ght ( ! relation4 ,a univ]sal1 e4 g4 :it5ess1 is always ! univ]sal ( c]ta9 individuals1 viz4 individual :ites2 an individual1 e4 g4 ?is :ite1 is always an individual ( a univ]sal1 viz4 :it5ess4 ,a g5us is ! g5us ( a species1 & vice v]sa4 ,a surface is ! surface ( a volume1 & a volume implies a surface4 ,a po9t is ! end ( a l9e1 & a l9e is b\nd$ by po9ts4 ,9 su* cases ! v be+ ( ! elem5ts relat$ involves ! relation1 &1 ap>t f ! relation1 disappe>s4 ,! diff]5ce betwe5 ! two k9ds ( relative t]ms c be se5 f ! fact t only 9 ! case ( ! =m] k9d c two elem5ts be f\nd ( :i* we c say significantly t _! relation is ( ! k9d 9 "q4 ,we c say ( two m5 t !y are relat$ z doctor & pati5t1 or z fa!r & son1 = we c appreh5d two be+s z m5 )\t be+ aw>e ( !m z s relat$4 ,b ( no two elem5ts is x possible to say t _! relation is t ( univ]sal & individual1 or ( g5us & species1 or ( surface & volume2 = to appreh5d elem5ts :i* are s relat$ we mu/ appreh5d !m s relat$4#g ,to appreh5d a surface is to appreh5d a surface ( a volume4 ,to appreh5d a volume is to appreh5d a volume b\nd$ by a surface4 ,to appreh5d a univ]sal is to appreh5d x z ! univ]sal ( an individual1 & vice v]sa4#h ,9 ! case ( relations ( ?is k9d1 ! be+ ( ei!r elem5t :i* /&s 9 ! relation is relative to t ( ! o!r2 nei!r c be real )\t ! o!r1 z we see if we try to ?9k ( "o )\t ! o!r4 ,& x is at lea/ possible t k & reality or1 speak+ m /rictly1 a kn[] & reality1 are relat$ 9 ?is way4 #g ,x is1 ( c\rse1 possible to say significantly t two elem5ts1 ,a & ,b1 are relat$ z univ]sal & individual1 or z surface & volume1 if we are try+ to expla9 :at we mean by 'univ]sal & individual' or 'surface & volume'2 b 9 t case we are elucidat+ ! relation%ip ?r\gh ! already kn[n relation ( ,a & ,b1 & are n giv+ in=mation ab\t ! hi!rto unkn[n relation ( ,a & ,b4 #h ,pr(essor ,cook ,wilson has po9t$ out t ! di/9ction betwe5 ^! two k9ds ( relation is m>k$ 9 language 9 t1 = in/ance1 :ile we speak ( ! 'relation ( univ]sal & individual'1 we speak ( '! relation betwe5 "o man & ano!r'1 or ( '! relation ( "o man to ano!r'1 us+1 h[ev]1 ! phrase '! relation ( doctor & pati5t'1 :5 we consid] two m5 only z 9 t relation4 ,i owe to him recognition ( ! fact t ! use ( ! ^w 'relation' 9 connexion ) su* t]ms z 'univ]sal & individual' is really ju/ifi$4 ,:at is1 h[ev]1 at lea/ a /rong presumption aga9/ ?is view is to be f\nd 9 ! fact t :ile relations ( ! second k9d are ess5tially non-temporal1 ! relation ( kn[+ is ess5tially temporal4 ,! relation ( a univ]sal & its individuals1 or ( a surface & ! volume :i* x b\nds1 does n ei!r come to be1 or p]si/1 or cease4 ,on ! o!r h&1 x is impossible to ?9k ( a kn[+ :i* is susceptible ( no temporal pr$icates & is n b\nd up ) a process2 & ! ?\ght ( kn[+ z some?+ :i* comes to be involves ! ?\ght t ! elem5ts :i* become ?us relat$ exi/ indep5d5tly ( ! relation4 ,moreov]1 ! real refutation ( ! view lies 9 ! fact t1 :5 we consid] :at we really ?9k1 we f9d t we ?9k t ! relation betwe5 a kn[] & reality is n ( ! second k9d4 ,if we consid] :at we mean by 'a reality'1 we f9d t we mean by x some?+ :i* is n correlative to a m9d kn[+ x4 ,x does n mean some?+ ! ?\ght ( :i* disappe>s ) ! ?\ght ( a m9d actually kn[+ x1 b some?+ :i*1 ?\gh x c be kn[n by a m9d1 ne$ n be actually kn[n by a m9d4 ,aga91 j z we ?9k ( a reality z some?+ :i* c /& z object 9 ! relation ( k1 )\t necess>ily be+ 9 ?is relation1 s1 z we see :5 we reflect1 we ?9k ( a kn[+ m9d z some?+ :i* c /& z subject 9 ?is relation )\t necess>ily be+ 9 ! relation4 ,= ?\gh we ?9k ( ! capacities :i* con/itute ! nature ( a kn[+ m9d z only recogniz$ ?r\gh _! actualizations1 i4 e4 ?r\gh actual kn[+1 we ?9k ( ! m9d :i* is possess$ ( ^! capacities z some?+ ap>t f _! actualization4 ,x is n[ possible to direct att5tion to two *>act]i/ics ( p]ception & k ) :i* ,kant's treatm5t ( space & "t conflicts1 & ! recognition ( :i* reveals 8 proc$ure 9 its true light4 ,x has be5 already urg$ t bo? k & p]ception--:i*1 ?\gh n id5tical ) k1 is presuppos$ by x--are ess5tially ( reality4 ,n[1 9 ! fir/ place1 x is !reby impli$ t ! relation betwe5 ! m9d & reality 9 k or 9 p]ception is ess5tially direct1 i4 e4 t !re is no t]tium quid 9 ! =m ( an 'idea' or a 'repres5tation' betwe5 u z p]ceiv+ or kn[+ & :at we p]ceive or "k4 ,9 o!r words1 x is impli$ t ,locke's view is wrong 9 pr9ciple1 &1 9 fact1 ! contr>y ( ! tru?4 ,9 ! second place1 x is impli$ t :ile ! :ole fact ( p]ception includes ! reality p]ceiv$ & ! :ole fact ( k includes ! reality kn[n1 s9ce bo? p]ception & k are '('1 & !re=e insep>able f a reality1 yet ! reality p]ceiv$ or kn[n is ess5tially di/9ct f1 & _c be /at$ 9 t]ms (1 ! p]ception or ! k4 ,j z nei!r p]ception nor k c be /at$ 9 t]ms ( ! reality p]ceiv$ or kn[n f :i* !y are di/+ui%$1 s ! reality p]ceiv$ or kn[n _c be /at$ 9 t]ms ( ! p]ception or ! k4 ,9 o!r words1 ! t]ms 'p]ception' & 'k' ought to /& = ! activities ( p]ceiv+ & kn[+ respectively1 & n = ! reality p]ceiv$ or kn[n4 ,simil>ly1 ! t]ms 'idea' & 'repres5tation'--! latt] ( :i* has be5 us$ z a synonym = ,kant's ,vor/ellung--ought to /& n = some?+ ?\ght ( or repres5t$1 b = ! act ( ?9k+ or repres5t+4 ,fur!r1 ?is second implication ?r[s light on ! prop] mean+ ( ! t]ms '=m ( p]ception' & '=m ( k or ( ?\ght'4 ,=1 9 accordance ) ?is implication1 a '=m ( p]ception' & a '=m ( k' ought to ref] to ! nature ( our acts ( p]ceiv+ & kn[+ or ?9k+ respectively1 & n to ! nature ( ! realities p]ceiv$ or kn[n4 ,consequ5tly1 ,kant 0 "r 9 mak+ ! prim>y anti!sis involv$ 9 ! t]m '=m ( p]ception' t betwe5 a way 9 :i* we p]ceive & a way 9 :i* ?+s are1 or1 9 o!r words1 betwe5 a *>act]i/ic ( our p]ceiv+ nature & a *>act]i/ic ( ! reality p]ceiv$4 ,moreov]1 ,kant 0 also "r 9 mak+ ?is di/9ction a real anti!sis & n a m]e di/9ction )9 "o & ! same ?+ reg>d$ f two po9ts ( view4 ,t :i* is a =m ( p]ception _c also be a =m ( ! reality & vice v]sa4 ,?us we may illu/rate a p]ceiv$ =m ( p]ception by po9t+ out t our appreh5sion ( ! physical _w 7#a7 is a temporal process1 & 7#b7 is condition$ by p]spective4 ,bo? ! succession & ! conditions ( p]spective belong to ! act ( p]ception1 & d n =m "p ( ! nature ( ! _w p]ceiv$4 ,& x is significant t 9 our ord9>y consci\sness x nev] occurs to u to attribute ei!r ! p]spective or ! "t to ! reality p]ceiv$4 ,ev5 if x be difficult 9 c]ta9 cases1 z 9 t ( col\r1 to decide :e!r some?+ belongs to our act ( p]ception or n1 we nev] suppose t x c be bo? a =m ( p]ception & a *>act]i/ic ( ! reality p]ceiv$4 ,we ?9k t if x be ! "o1 x _c be ! o!r4 ,moreov]1 if we pass f p]ception to k or ?\ght--:i* 9 ?is context may be treat$ z id5tical--& seek to illu/rate a =m ( k or ( ?\ght1 we may cite ! di/9ction ( logical subject & logical pr$icate ( a judgem5t4 ,! di/9ction z x %\ld be und]/ood--= x does n necessitate a diff]5ce ( grammatical =m--may be illu/rat$ by ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! judgem5ts ',*ess is ! mo/ try+ ( games' & ',*ess is ! mo/ try+ ( games'4 ,9 ! =m] case '*ess' is ! logical subject1 9 ! latt] case x is ! logical pr$icate4 ,n[ ?is di/9ction cle>ly does n reside 9 or belong to ! reality ab\t :i* we judge2 x relates solely to ! ord] ( our approa* 9 ?\ght to v>i\s p>ts ( its nature4 ,=1 to take ! case ( ! =m] judgem5t1 9 call+ '*ess' its subject1 & 'mo/ try+ ( games' its pr$icate1 we are ass]t+ t 9 ?is judgem5t we beg9 by appreh5d+ ! reality ( :i* we are ?9k+ z *ess1 & come to appreh5d x z ! mo/ try+ ( games4 ,9 o!r words1 ! di/9ction relates solely to ! ord] ( our appreh5sion1 & n to any?+ 9 ! ?+ appreh5d$4 ,9 view ( ! prec$+1 x is possible to make cle> ! nature ( c]ta9 mi/akes on ,kant's "p4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 space1 & "t also1 s f> z we are ?9k+ ( ! _w1 & n ( our appreh5sion ( x1 z und]go+ a temporal process1 are ess5tially *>act]i/ics n ( p]ception b ( ! reality p]ceiv$1 & ,kant1 9 treat+ space1 & "t1 s reg>d$1 z =ms ( p]ception1 is really transf]r+ to ! p]ceiv+ subject t :i* 9 ! :ole fact 'p]ception ( an object' or 'object p]ceiv$' belongs to ! object4 ,aga91 if we g on to ask h[ ,kant manages to avoid draw+ ! conclusion prop] to ?is transf]5ce1 viz4 t space & "t are n *>act]i/ics ( any realities at all1 b belong solely to ! process by :i* we come to appreh5d !m1 we see t he does s because1 9 effect1 he contrav5es bo? ! *>act]i/ics ( p]ception ref]r$ to4 ,=1 9 ! fir/ place1 al?\gh 9 con=mity ) 8 !ory he almo/ always speaks ( space & "t 9 t]ms ( p]ception1#i he consi/5tly treats !m z features ( ! reality p]ceiv$1 i4 e4 ( ph5om5a4 ,?us 9 argu+ t space & "t belong n to ! und]/&+ b to ! s5sibility1 al?\gh he uni=mly speaks ( !m z p]ceptions1 8 argum5t implies t !y are objects ( p]ception2 = its aim1 prop]ly /at$1 is to %[ t space & "t are n objects ( ?\ght b objects ( p]ception4 ,consequ5tly1 9 8 treatm5t ( space & "t1 he ref]s to :at are bo? to him & 9 fact objects ( p]ception 9 t]ms ( p]ception1 & !reby contrav5es ! second implication ( p]ception to :i* att5tion has be5 drawn4 ,aga91 9 ! second place1 if we g on to ask h[ ,kant is misl$ into do+ ?is1 we see t x is because he contrav5es ! fir/ implication ( p]ception4 ,9 virtue ( 8 !ory ( p]ception#aj he int]poses a t]tium quid betwe5 ! reality p]ceiv$ & ! p]cipi5t1 9 ! %ape ( an 'appe>ance'4 ,?is t]tium quid gives him some?+ :i* c plausibly be reg>d$ z at once a p]ception & some?+ p]ceiv$4 ,=1 ?\gh f ! po9t ( view ( ! ?+ 9 itself an appe>ance is an appe>ance or a p]ception ( x1 yet1 reg>d$ f ! po9t ( view ( :at x is 9 itself1 an appe>ance is a reality p]ceiv$ ( ! k9d call$ m5tal4 ,h5ce space & "t1 be+ *>act]i/ics ( an appe>ance1 c be reg>d$ z at once *>act]i/ics ( our p]ception ( a reality1 viz4 ( a ?+ 9 itself1 & *>act]i/ics ( a reality p]ceiv$1 viz4 an appe>ance4 ,moreov]1 !re is ano!r po9t ( view f :i* ! treatm5t ( bodies 9 space z appe>ances or ph5om5a gives plausibility to ! view t space1 ?\gh a =m ( p]ception1 is a *>act]i/ic ( a reality4 ,:5 ,kant speaks ( space z ! =m ( ph5om5a ! fact to :i* he ref]s is t all bodies are spatial4#aa ,he means1 n t space is a way 9 :i* we p]ceive some?+1 b t x is a *>act]i/ic ( ?+s p]ceiv$1 :i* he calls ph5om5a1 & :i* are bodies4 ,b1 s9ce 9 8 /atem5t ( ?is fact he sub/itutes = bodies ph5om5a1 :i* to him are p]ceptions1 8 /atem5t c be put 9 ! =m 'space is ! =m ( p]ceptions'2 & ! /atem5t 9 ?is =m is v]bally almo/ id5tical ) ! /atem5t t space is a =m ( p]ception4 ,consequ5tly1 ! latt] /atem5t1 :i* %\ld mean t space is a way 9 :i* we p]ceive ?+s1 is easily id5tifi$ ) a /atem5t ( :i* ! mean+ is t space is a *>act]i/ic ( some?+ p]ceiv$4#ab #i ,cf4 p4 #ea1 note #a4 #aj ,cf4 p4 #cj & ff4 #aa ,cf4 p4 #ci4 #ab ,x c be %[n 9 ! same way1 mutatis mut&is 7cp4 p4 #aaa71 t ! view t "t1 ?\gh ! =m ( inn] p]ception1 is a *>act]i/ic ( a reality ga9s plausibility f ,kant's implicit treatm5t ( our /ates z appe>ances due to ourselves4 ,aga91 ,kant's acc\nt ( "t w be f\nd to treat some?+ repres5t$ or p]ceiv$ z also a p]ception4 ,we f9d two consecutive p>agraphs#ac ( :i* ! aim is app>5tly to e/abli% ! contr>y conclusions3 7#a7 t "t is only ! =m ( our int]nal /ate & n ( ext]nal ph5om5a1 & 7#b7 t "t is ! =mal condition ( all ph5om5a1 ext]nal & int]nal4 #ac ,b4 #di-ej 7b7 & 7c71 ,m4 #cj 7b7 & 7c74 ,to e/abli% ! fir/ conclusion1 ,kant argues t "t has no?+ to d ) %ape or position1 b1 on ! contr>y1 det]m9es ! relation ( repres5tations 9 our int]nal /ate4 ,8 mean+ is t we h a succession ( p]ceptions or repres5tations ( bodies 9 space1#ad & t :ile ! bodies p]ceiv$ are n relat$ temporally1 our p]ceptions or repres5tations ( !m are s relat$4 ,"h 'repres5tations' ref]s to our appreh5sion1 & is di/+ui%$ f :at is repres5t$1 viz4 bodies 9 space4 #ad ,kant "h ref]s to bodies by ! t]m 'ph5om5a'1 b _! "* z ph5om5a is n relevant to 8 argum5t4 ,h[1 !n1 does ,kant rea* ! second result8 ,he rememb]s t bodies 9 space are 'ph5om5a'1 i4 e4 repres5tations4 ,he is1 !re=e1 able to po9t out t all repres5tations belong1 z det]m9ations ( ! m9d1 to our int]nal /ate1 :e!r !y h ext]nal ?+s1 i4 e4 bodies 9 space1 = _! objects or n1 & t1 consequ5tly1 !y are subject to "t4 ,h5ce "t is conclud$ to be ! =m ( all ph5om5a4 ,9 ?is second argum5t1 h[ev]1 x is cle> t ,kant has pass$ f 8 previ\s treatm5t ( bodies 9 space z some?+ repres5t$ or p]ceiv$ to ! treatm5t ( !m z !mselves repres5tations or p]ceptions4#ae #ae ,x may be not$ t ,kant's ass]tion 7,b4 #ej1 ,m4 #ca7 t "t is ! imm$iate condition ( int]nal ph5om5a1 & !reby also m$iately ! condition ( ext]nal ph5om5a1 does n help to reconcile ! two positions4 ,9 conclusion1 we may po9t out an insoluble difficulty 9 ,kant's acc\nt ( "t4 ,8 treatm5t ( space & "t z ! =ms ( out] & inn] s5se respectively implies t1 :ile spatial relations apply to ! realities :i* we p]ceive1 temporal relations apply solely to our p]ceptions ( !m4 ,un=tunately1 h[ev]1 z ,kant 9 c]ta9 contexts is cle>ly aw>e1 "t also belongs to ! realities p]ceiv$4 ,! moon1 = in/ance1 moves r\nd ! e>?4 ,?us !re are :at may be call$ real successions z well z successions 9 our p]ception4 ,fur!r1 n only are we aw>e ( ?is di/9ction 9 g5]al1 b 9 p>ticul> cases we succe$ 9 di/+ui%+ a succession ( ! "o k9d f a succession ( ! o!r4 ,yet f ,kant's /&po9t x w\ld be impossible to di/+ui% !m 9 p>ticul> cases1 & ev5 to be aw>e ( ! di/9ction 9 g5]al4 ,= ! di/9ction is possible only s long z a di/9ction is all[$ betwe5 our p]ceptions & ! realities p]ceiv$4 ,b = ,kant ?is di/9ction has disappe>$1 = 9 ! end ! realities p]ceiv$ are m]ely our p]ceptions2 & "t1 if x be a *>act]i/ic ( any?+1 mu/ be a *>act]i/ic only ( our p]ceptions4 ,,*apt] ,,vii ,,! ,,metaphysical ,,d$uction ,,( ,,! ,,categories ,! aim ( ! ,ae/hetic is to answ] ! fir/ "q ( ! ,critique prop\nd$ 9 ! ,introduction1 viz4 ',h[ is pure ma!matics possible8'#a ,! aim ( ! ,analytic is to answ] ! second "q1 viz4 ',h[ is pure natural sci5ce possible8' ,x has previ\sly#b be5 impli$ t ! two que/ions are only v]bally ( ! same k9d4 ,s9ce ,kant ?9ks ( ! judgem5ts ( ma!matics z self-evid5t1 & !re=e z admitt+ ( no reasonable d\bt#c1 he takes _! tru? = grant$4 ,h5ce ! "q1 ',h[ is pure ma!matics possible8' means ',grant$ ! tru? ( ma!matical judgem5ts1 :at inf]5ce c we draw conc]n+ ! nature ( ! reality to :i* !y relate8'2 & ! inf]5ce is to proce$ f ! tru? ( ! judgem5ts to ! nature ( ! reality to :i* !y relate4 ,kant1 h[ev]1 consid]s t ! pr9ciples und]ly+ natural sci5ce1 ( :i* ! law ( causality is ! mo/ prom95t1 are n self-evid5t1 & consequ5tly ne$ pro(4#d ,h5ce1 ! "q1 ',h[ is pure natural sci5ce possible8' means ',:at ju/ifies ! ass]tion t ! presuppositions ( natural sci5ce are true8' & ! inf]5ce is to proce$ f ! nature ( ! objects ( natural sci5ce to ! tru? ( ! a priori judgem5ts :i* relate to !m4 #a ,b4 #bj1 ,m4 #ac4 #b pp4 #bc-e4 #c ,cf4 p4 #bd1 note #a4 #d ,cf4 p4 #bd1 notes #b & #c4 ,aga91 z ,kant rightly sees1 ! v9dication ( ! presuppositions ( natural sci5ce1 to be complete1 requires ! discov]y ^u a def9ite pr9ciple ( all ^! presuppositions4 ,! clue to ?is discov]y he f9ds 9 ! view t1 j z ! p]ceptions ( space & "t orig9ate 9 ! s5sibility1 s ! a priori conceptions & laws :i* und]lie natural sci5ce orig9ate 9 ! und]/&+2 =1 on ?is view1 ! discov]y ( all ! conceptions & laws :i* orig9ate 9 ! und]/&+ w be at ! same "t ! discov]y ( all ! presuppositions ( natural sci5ce4 ,kant !re=e 9 ! ,analytic has a tw(old problem to solve4 ,he has fir/ly to discov] ! conceptions & laws :i* belong to ! und]/&+ z su*1 & secondly to v9dicate _! application to individual ?+s4 ,moreov]1 al?\gh x is obvi\s t ! conceptions & ! laws ( ! und]/&+ mu/ be closely relat$1#e he res]ves !m = sep>ate treatm5t4 #e ,e4 g4 ! conception ( 'cause & effect'1 & ! law t 'all *anges take place accord+ to ! law ( ! connexion betwe5 cause & effect'4 ,! ,analytic is accord+ly subdivid$ into ! ,analytic ( ,conceptions & ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples4 ,! ,analytic ( ,conceptions1 aga91 is divid$ into ! ,metaphysical ,d$uction ( ! ,categories1 ! aim ( :i* is to discov] ! conceptions ( ! und]/&+1 & ! ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction ( ! ,categories1 ! aim ( :i* is to v9dicate _! validity1 i4 e4 _! applicability to individual ?+s4 ,x %\ld fur!r be notic$ t1 accord+ to ,kant1 x is ! connexion ( ! a priori conceptions & laws und]ly+ natural sci5ce ) ! und]/&+ :i* con/itutes ! ma9 difficulty ( ! v9dication ( _! validity1 & r5d]s necess>y an answ] ( a diff]5t k9d to t :i* w\ld h be5 possible1 if ! validity ( ma!matical judgem5ts _h be5 9 "q4 ,we h be5 able above1 ) little tr\ble1 to make compreh5sible h[ ! conceptions ( space & "t1 al?\gh a priori k1 mu/ necess>ily relate to objects & r5d] possible a syn!tic k ( !m indep5d5tly ( all exp]i5ce4 ,= s9ce an object c appe> to u1 i4 e4 be an object ( empirical p]ception1 only by means ( su* pure =ms ( s5sibility1 space & "t are pure p]ceptions1 :i* conta9 a priori ! condition ( ! possibility ( objects z ph5om5a1 & ! syn!sis 9 space & "t has objective validity4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! categories ( ! und]/&+ d n repres5t ! conditions "u :i* objects are giv5 9 p]ception2 consequ5tly1 objects c c]ta9ly appe> to u )\t _! necess>ily be+ relat$ to functions ( ! und]/&+1 & !re=e )\t ! und]/&+ conta9+ a priori ! conditions ( ^! objects4 ,h5ce a difficulty appe>s "h1 :i* we did n meet 9 ! field ( s5sibility1 viz4 h[ subjective conditions ( ?\ght c h objective validity1 i4 e4 c furni% conditions ( ! possibility ( all k ( objects2 = ph5om5a c c]ta9ly be giv5 u 9 p]ception )\t ! functions ( ! und]/&+4 ,let u take1 = example1 ! conception ( cause1 :i* indicates a peculi> k9d ( syn!sis 9 :i* on ,a some?+ entirely diff]5t ,b is plac$#f accord+ to a law4 ,x is n a priori cle> :y ph5om5a %\ld conta9 some?+ ( ?is k9d 444 & x is consequ5tly d\btful a priori1 :e!r su* a conception is n :olly empty1 & )\t any correspond+ object among ph5om5a4 ,= t objects ( s5su\s p]ception mu/ con=m to ! =mal conditions ( ! s5sibility :i* lie a priori 9 ! m9d is cle>1 s9ce o!rwise !y w\ld n be objects = u2 b t !y mu/ also con=m to ! conditions :i* ! und]/&+ requires = ! syn!tical unity ( ?\ght is a conclusion ! cog5cy ( :i* x is n s easy to see4 ,= ph5om5a might q well be s con/itut$ t ! und]/&+ did n f9d !m 9 con=mity ) ! conditions ( its unity1 & ev]y?+ might lie 9 su* confusion t1 e4 g4 9 ! succession ( ph5om5a1 no?+ might pres5t itself :i* w\ld (f] a rule ( syn!sis1 & s correspond to ! conception ( cause & effect1 s t ?is conception w\ld be q empty1 null1 & mean+less4 ,ph5om5a w\ld none ! less pres5t objects to our p]ception1 = p]ception does n 9 any way require ! functions ( ?9k+4#g #f ,gesetzt4 #g ,b4 #aba-c1 ,m4 #ge-f4 ,?is passage1 if read 9 connexion ) t imm$iately prec$+ x1#h may be p>aphras$ z foll[s3 ',! argum5t ( ! ,ae/hetic assumes ! validity ( ma!matical judgem5ts1 :i* z su* relate to space & "t1 & !nce x d$uces ! ph5om5al "* ( space & "t1 & ( :at is conta9$ !re94 ,at ! same "t ! possibility ( que/ion+ ! validity ( ! law ( causality1 & ( simil> pr9ciples1 may lead u to "q ev5 ! validity ( ma!matical judgem5ts4 ,9 ! case ( ma!matical judgem5ts1 h[ev]1 9 consequ5ce ( _! relation to p]ception1 an answ] is readily =?com+4 ,we ne$ only rev]se ! orig9al argum5t & appeal directly to ! ph5om5al "* ( space & "t & ( :at is conta9$ 9 !m4 ,objects 9 space & "t1 be+ appe>ances1 mu/ con=m to ! laws accord+ to :i* we h appe>ances2 & s9ce space & "t are only ways 9 :i* we p]ceive1 or h appe>ances1 ma!matical laws1 :i* con/itute ! g5]al nature ( space & "t1 are ! laws accord+ to :i* we h appe>ances4 ,ma!matical laws1 !n1 con/itute ! g5]al /ructure ( appe>ances1 &1 z su*1 ent] into ! v be+ ( objects 9 space & "t4 ,b ! case is o!rwise ) ! conceptions & pr9ciples und]ly+ natural sci5ce4 ,= ! law ( causality1 = in/ance1 is a law n ( our p]ceiv+ b ( our ?9k+ nature1 & consequ5tly x is n presuppos$ 9 ! pres5tation to u ( objects 9 space & "t4 ,objects 9 space & "t1 be+ appe>ances1 ne$ con=m only to ! laws ( our p]ceiv+ nature4 ,we h !re=e to expla9 ! possibility ( say+ t a law ( our ?9k+ nature mu/ be valid = objects :i*1 z condition$ m]ely by our p]ceiv+ nature1 are indep5d5t ( ! laws ( our ?9k+2 = ph5om5a might be s con/itut$ z n to correspond to ! necessities ( our ?\ght4' #h ,b4 #abj-a1 ,m4 #gc-d4 ,no d\bt ,kant's solution ( ?is problem 9 ! ,analytic involves an emphatic d5ial ( ! c5tral feature ( ?is /atem5t ( x1 viz4 t ph5om5a may be giv5 9 p]ception )\t any help f ! activity ( ! und]/&+4#i ,h5ce x may be urg$ t ?is passage m]ely expresses a tempor>y ab]ration on ,kant's "p1 & %\ld !re=e be ignor$4 ,nev]!less1 9 spite ( ?is inconsi/5cy1 ! view t ph5om5a may be giv5 9 p]ception )\t help f ! activity ( ! und]/&+ =ms ! basis ( ! diff]5ce ( treatm5t :i* ,kant ?9ks necess>y = ! v9dication ( ! judgem5ts und]ly+ natural sci5ce & = t ( ! judgem5ts ( ma!matics4 #i ,cf4 ,b4 #acg-h1 ,m4 #he1 & ,b4 #afj note1 ,m4 #ih note4 ,we may n[ consid] h[ ,kant 'discov]s' ! categories or conceptions :i* belong to ! und]/&+ z su*4#aj ,8 me?od is s\nd 9 pr9ciple4 ,he beg9s ) an acc\nt ( ! und]/&+ 9 g5]al4 ,he !n det]m9es its ess5tial diff]5tiations4 ,f9ally1 he argues t ea* ( ^! diff]5tiations involves a special conception1 & t !re=e ^! conceptions tak5 toge!r con/itute an exhau/ive li/ ( ! conceptions :i* belong to ! und]/&+4 #aj ,b4 #ia-aje1 ,m4 #ef-fc4 ,8 acc\nt ( ! und]/&+ is express$ ?us3 ,! und]/&+ 0 expla9$ above only negatively1 z a non-s5su\s faculty ( k4 ,n[1 indep5d5tly ( s5sibility1 we _c h any p]ception2 consequ5tly1 ! und]/&+ is no faculty ( p]ception4 ,b besides p]ception !re is no o!r k9d ( k1 except ?r\gh conceptions4 ,consequ5tly1 ! k ( e und]/&+1 or at lea/ ( e human und]/&+1 is a k ?r\gh conceptions1--n p]ceptive1 b discursive4 ,all p]ceptions1 z s5su\s1 dep5d on affections2 conceptions1 !re=e1 ^u functions4 ,by ! ^w function1 ,i und]/& ! unity ( ! act ( arrang+ diff]5t repres5tations "u "o common repres5tation4 ,conceptions1 !n1 are bas$ on ! spontaneity ( ?9k+1 z s5su\s p]ceptions are on ! receptivity ( impressions4 ,n[ ! und]/&+ _c make any o!r use ( ^! conceptions ?an to judge by means ( !m4 ,s9ce no repres5tation1 except only ! p]ception1 ref]s imm$iately to ! object1 a conception is nev] ref]r$ imm$iately to an object1 b to "s o!r repres5tation !re(1 be t a p]ception or itself a conception4 ,a judgem5t1 !re=e1 is ! m$iate k ( an object1 consequ5tly ! repres5tation ( a repres5tation ( x4 ,9 e judgem5t !re is a conception :i* is valid = _m repres5tations1 & among ^! also compreh5ds a giv5 repres5tation1 ?is la/ be+ !n imm$iately ref]r$ to ! object4 ,= example1 9 ! judgem5t ',all bodies are divisible'1 our conception ( ! divisible ref]s to v>i\s o!r conceptions2 among ^!1 h[ev]1 x is h]e9 p>ticul>ly ref]r$ to ! conception ( body1 & ?is conception ( body is ref]r$ to c]ta9 ph5om5a :i* pres5t !mselves to u4 ,^! objects1 !re=e1 are m$iately repres5t$ by ! conception ( divisibility4 ,accord+ly1 all judgem5ts are functions ( unity 9 our repres5tations1 s9ce1 in/ead ( an imm$iate1 a high] repres5tation1 :i* compreh5ds ?is & sev]al o!rs1 is us$ = ! k ( ! object1 & !reby _m possible items ( k are collect$ into "o4 ,b we c r$uce all acts ( ! und]/&+ to judgem5ts1 s t ! und]/&+ 9 g5]al c be repres5t$ z a faculty ( judg+4#aa #aa ,b4 #ib-d1 ,m4 #ef-g4 ,x is n wor? :ile to g into all ! difficulties ( ?is confus$ & artificial passage4 ,?ree po9ts are cle> ^u ! surface4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! acc\nt ( ! und]/&+ n[ giv5 diff]s f t giv5 e>li] 9 ! ,critique#ab 9 t1 in/ead ( m]ely di/+ui%+1 x sep>ates ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+1 & treats !m z contribut+1 n two insep>able factors involv$ 9 all k1 b two k9ds ( k4 ,9 ! second place1 ! guise ( argum5t is v ?91 & :ile ,kant o/5sibly proves1 he really only ass]ts t ! und]/&+ is ! faculty ( judgem5t4 ,9 ! ?ird place1 9 describ+ judgem5t ,kant is hamp]$ by try+ to oppose x z ! m$iate k ( an object to p]ception z ! imm$iate k ( an object4 ,a p]ception is said to relate imm$iately to an object2 9 contra/ ) ?is1 a conception is said to relate imm$iately only to ano!r conception or to a p]ception1 & m$iately to an object ?r\gh relation to a p]ception1 ei!r directly or ?r\gh ano!r conception4 ,h5ce a judgem5t1 z be+ ! use ( a conception1 viz4 ! pr$icate ( ! judgem5t1 is said to be ! m$iate k ( an object4 ,b if ?is di/9ction be exam9$1 x w be f\nd t two k9ds ( imm$iate relation are involv$1 & t ! acc\nt ( p]ception is n really compatible ) t ( judgem5t4 ,:5 a p]ception is said to relate imm$iately to an object1 ! relation 9 "q is t betwe5 a s5sation or appe>ance produc$ by an object act+ ^u or affect+ ! s5sibility & ! object :i* produces x4 ,b :5 a conception is said to relate imm$iately to ano!r conception or to a p]ception1 ! relation 9 "q is t ( univ]sal & p>ticul>1 i4 e4 t ( g5us & species or ( univ]sal & individual4 ,= ! conception is said to be 'valid =' 7i4 e4 to 'apply to'7 & to 'compreh5d' ! conception or p]ception to :i* x is imm$iately relat$2 & aga91 :5 a conception is said to relate m$iately to an object1 ! relation meant is its 'application' to ! object1 ev5 ?\gh 9 ?is case ! application is indirect4 ,n[ if a p]ception to :i* a conception is relat$--ei!r directly or indirectly ?r\gh ano!r conception--7 an appe>ance produc$ by an object1 ! conception c\ld nev] be relat$ to ! object 9 ! s5se requir$1 viz4 t x applies to x2 = an appe>ance does n apply to b is produc$ by ! object4 ,consequ5tly1 :5 ,kant is consid]+ a conception1 & !re=e also :5 he is consid]+ a judgem5t1 :i* is ! use ( a conception1 he is really ?9k+ ( ! p]ception to :i* x is relat$ z an object ( p]ception1 i4 e4 z a p]ceiv$ individual1 & he has ceas$ to ?9k ( a p]ception z an appe>ance produc$ by an object4#ac ,h5ce 9 consid]+ ,kant's acc\nt ( a conception & ( judgem5t1 we %\ld ignore 8 acc\nt ( p]ception1 & !re=e also 8 /atem5t t judgem5t is ! m$iate k ( an object4 #ab ,b4 #gd-f1 ,m4 #de-f4 #ac ,kant1 9 illu/rat+ ! nature ( a judgem5t1 evades ! difficulty occasion$ by 8 acc\nt ( p]ception1 by illu/rat+ a 'p]ception' by ! 'conception ( body'1 & 'objects' by 'c]ta9 ph5om5a'4 ,he !reby cov]tly sub/itutes ! relation ( univ]sal & individual = ! relation ( an appe>ance & ! object :i* causes x4 ,if we d s1 we see t ,kant's acc\nt ( judgem5t simply am\nts to ?is3 ',judgem5t is ! use ( a conception or 'univ]sal'2 ! use ( a conception or univ]sal consi/s 9 br++ "u x correspond+ individuals or species4 ,consequ5tly1 judgem5t is a function produc+ unity4 ,if1 = in/ance1 we judge ',all bodies are divisible'1 we !reby unify 'bodies' ) o!r k9ds ( divisible ?+s by br++ !m "u ! conception ( divisibility2 & if we judge ',?is body is divisible' we !reby unify ?is divisible body ) o!rs by br++ x & !m "u ! conception ( divisibility4'#ad ,aga91 s9ce '! und]/&+ 9 g5]al c be repres5t$ z a faculty ( judg+'1 x foll[s t ! activity ( ! und]/&+ consi/s 9 introduc+ unity into our repres5tations1 by br++ individuals or species--bo? ^! be+ repres5tations--"u ! correspond+ univ]sal or conception4#ae #ad ,x is n ,kant's g5]al acc\nt ( judgem5t giv5 9 ?is passage1 b ! acc\nt ( p]ception incompatible ) x1 :i* leads him to conf9e 8 illu/rations to univ]sal judgem5ts4 #ae ,we may note ?ree m9or po9ts4 7#a7 ,kant's def9ition ( function z '! unity ( ! act ( arrang+ i4 e4 ! act :i* produces unity by arrang+ diff]5t repres5tations "u a common repres5tation' has no ju/ification 9 its imm$iate context1 & is occasion$ solely by ! =?com+ description ( judgem5t4 7#b7 ,kant has no "r to di/+ui% ! activity :i* orig9ates conceptions1 or ^u :i* !y dep5d1 f ! activity :i* uses conceptions1 viz4 judgem5t4 ,= ! act ( arrang+ div]se repres5tations "u a common repres5tation :i* orig9ates conceptions is ! act ( judgem5t z ,kant describes x4 7#c7 ,x is :olly artificial to speak ( judgem5t z '! repres5tation ( a repres5tation ( an object'4 ,hav+ expla9$ ! nature ( ! und]/&+1 ,kant proce$s to take ! next /ep4 ,8 aim be+ to connect ! und]/&+ ) ! categories1 & ! categories be+ a plurality1 he has to %[ t ! activity ( judgem5t c be diff]5tiat$ into sev]al k9ds1 ea* ( :i* mu/ subsequ5tly be %[n to involve a special category4 ,h5ce1 solely 9 view ( ! desir$ conclusion1 & 9 spite ( ! fact t he has describ$ ! activity ( judgem5t z if x 7 always ( ! same k9d1 he passes 9 effect f ! s+ul> to ! plural & ass]ts t 'all ! functions ( ! und]/&+ c be discov]$1 :5 we c completely exhibit ! functions ( unity 9 judgem5ts'4 ,aft] ?is prelim9>y transition1 he proce$s to ass]t t1 if we ab/ract 9 g5]al f all cont5t ( a judgem5t & fix our att5tion ^u ! m]e =m ( ! und]/&+1 we f9d t ! function ( ?9k+ 9 a judgem5t c be br\ght "u f\r heads1 ea* ( :i* conta9s ?ree subdivisions4 ,^!1 :i* are borr[$ ) slight modifications f ,=mal ,logic1 are express$ z foll[s4#af ,i4 ,quantity4 ,univ]sal ,p>ticul> ,s+ul>4 ,,ii4 ,quality4 ,affirmative ,negative ,inf9ite4 ,,iii4 ,relation4 ,categorical ,hypo!tical ,disjunctive4 ,,iv4 ,modality4 ,problematic ,ass]toric ,apodeictic4 ,^! di/9ctions1 s9ce !y conc]n only ! =m ( judgem5ts1 belong1 accord+ to ,kant1 to ! activity ( judgem5t z su*1 & 9 fact con/itute its ess5tial diff]5tiations4 #af ,b4 #ie1 ,m4 #eh4 ,n[1 be=e we consid] :e!r ?is is really ! case1 we %\ld ask :at answ] ,kant's acc\nt ( judgem5t w\ld lead u to expect to ! "q ',:at are all ! functions ( unity 9 judgem5t8' ,! "q mu/ mean ',:at are ! k9ds ( unity produc$ by judgem5t8' ,to ?is "q ?ree alt]native answ]s are prima facie possible4 7#a7 ,!re is only "o k9d ( unity1 t ( a gr\p ( p>ticul>s unifi$ ?r\gh relation to ! correspond+ univ]sal4 ,! special unity produc$ w diff] = diff]5t judgem5ts1 s9ce x w dep5d ^u ! special univ]sal involv$4 ,! k9d or =m ( unity1 h[ev]1 w always be ! same1 viz4 t ( p>ticul>s relat$ ?r\gh ! correspond+ univ]sal4 ,= in/ance1 'plants' & 'trees' are unifi$ respectively by ! judgem5ts ',?is body is a plant' & ',?is body is a tree'2 = '?is body' is 9 ! "o case relat$ to o!r 'plants' & 9 ! o!r case to o!r 'trees'4 ,& ?\gh ! unity produc$ is diff]5t 9 ea* case1 ! k9d ( unity is ! same2 = plants & trees are1 z memb]s ( a k9d1 unities ( a special k9d di/9ct f unities ( ano!r k9d1 su* z ! p>ts ( a spatial or num]ical :ole4 7#b7 ,!re are z _m k9ds ( unity z !re are univ]sals4 ,e gr\p ( p>ticul>s =ms a unity ( a special k9d ?r\gh relation to ! correspond+ univ]sal4 7#c7 ,!re are z _m k9ds ( unity z !re are highe/ univ]sals or summa g5]a4 ,^! summa g5]a are ! mo/ g5]al s\rces ( unity ?r\gh :i* individuals are relat$ 9 gr\ps1 directly or indirectly4 ,! k9ds ( unity are !re=e 9 pr9ciple ! ,ari/otelian categories1 i4 e4 ! highe/ =ms ( be+ "u :i* all individuals fall4 ,nev]!less1 x is easy to see t ! second & ?ird answ]s %\ld be reject$ 9 fav\r ( ! fir/4 ,= ?\gh1 accord+ to ,kant1 a judgem5t unifies p>ticul>s by br++ !m "u a univ]sal1 ! special univ]sal involv$ 9 a giv5 judgem5t belongs n to ! judgem5t z su*1 b to ! p>ticul>s unifi$4 ,:at belongs to ! judgem5t z su* is simply ! fact t ! p>ticul>s are br\ght "u a univ]sal4 ,9 o!r words1 ! judgem5t z su* det]m9es ! k9d ( unity b n ! p>ticul> unity4 ,! judgem5ts ',gold is a metal' & ',trees are gre5'1 consid]$ m]ely z judgem5ts & n z ! p>ticul> judgem5ts :i* !y are1 involve ! same k9d ( unity1 viz4 t ( p>ticul>s z p>ticul>s ( a univ]sal2 = ! di/9ction betwe5 'metal' & 'gre5' is a di/9ction n ( k9ds ( unity b ( unities4 ,moreov]1 to anticipate ! discussion ( ,kant's f9al conclusion1 ! moral is t ,kant's acc\nt ( judgem5t %\ld h l$ him to recognize t judgem5t involves ! reality1 n ( any special univ]sals or--9 ,kant's language--conceptions1 b ( univ]sality or conception z su*4 ,9 o!r words1 on 8 view ( judgem5t ! activity ( ! und]/&+ implies simply t !re are univ]sals or conceptions2 x does n imply ! exi/5ce ( special conceptions :i* ess5tially belong to ! und]/&+1 e4 g4 t ( 'cause' or 'plurality'4#ag #ag ,to ?is failure 9 ,kant's argum5t is due ! difficulty 9 foll[+ 8 transition f 'function' to 'functions' ( judgem5ts4 ,! judgem5t1 z ,kant describes x1 always does "o & ! same ?+2 x unifies p>ticul>s by br++ !m "u a univ]sal4 ,?is activity does n admit ( diff]5tiation4 ,if we n[ turn to ! li/ ( ! activities ( ?\ght 9 judgem5t1 borr[$ f ,=mal ,logic1 we %all see t x is n 9 any way connect$ ) ,kant's acc\nt ( judgem5t4#ah ,= if ! k9ds ( judgem5t di/+ui%$ by ,=mal ,logic are to be reg>d$ z diff]5t ways ( unify+1 ! plurality unifi$ mu/ be all[$ to be n a special k9d ( gr\p ( p>ticul>s1 b ! two conceptions :i* con/itute ! t]ms ( ! judgem5t#ai2 & ! unity produc$ mu/ be all[$ to be 9 no case a special =m ( ! unity ( p>ticul>s relat$ ?r\gh ! correspond+ univ]sal4 ,?us ! p>ticul> judgem5t ',"s coron]s are doctors' mu/ be said to unify ! conceptions ( 'coron]' & ( 'doctor'1 & presumably by means ( ! conception ( 'plurality'4 ,aga91 ! hypo!tical judgem5t ',if x ra9s1 ! gr\nd w be wet' mu/ be said to unify ! judgem5ts ',x ra9s' & ',! gr\nd w be wet'1 & presumably by means ( ! conception ( 'reason & consequ5ce'4 ,9 nei!r case c ! act ( unification be consid]$ a special =m ( ! act ( recogniz+ p>ticul>s z p>ticul>s ( ! correspond+ univ]sal4 ,! fact is t ! di/9ctions drawn by ,=mal ,logic are bas$ on a view ( judgem5t :i* is diff]5t f1 & ev5 incompatible )1 ,kant's1 & !y arise f ! attempt to solve a diff]5t problem4 ,! problem be=e ,kant 9 describ+ judgem5t is to di/+ui% ! und]/&+ f ! s5sibility1 i4 e4 ?\ght f p]ception4 ,h5ce he reg>ds judgem5t z ! act ( unify+ a manifold giv5 9 p]ception1 directly1 or indirectly by means ( a conception4 ,b ?is is n ! problem ) :i* ,=mal ,logic is occupi$4 ,=mal ,logic assumes judgem5t to be an act :i* relates mat]ial giv5 to x 9 ! %ape ( 'conceptions' or 'judgem5ts' by analysis ( ?is mat]ial1 & seeks to discov] ! v>i\s modes ( relation !reby effect$4 ,! "w ( judgem5t1 h[ev]1 _c consi/ bo? 9 relat+ p>ticul>s ?r\gh a conception & 9 relat+ two conceptions or judgem5ts4 #ah ,moreov]1 ! =ms ( judgem5t cle>ly lack ! sy/ematic "* :i* ,kant claims = !m4 ,ev5 if x be all[$ t ! subdivisions )9 ! f\r ma9 heads ( quantity1 quality1 relation1 & modality are bas$ ^u s+le pr9ciples ( division1 x _c be said t ! f\r heads !mselves orig9ate f a common pr9ciple4 #ai ,9 ! case ( ! ?ird division1 ! plurality unifi$ w be two prior judgem5ts4 ,x may be urg$ t ?is criticism only affects ,kant's argum5t1 b n 8 conclusion4 ,possibly1 x may be said1 ! li/ ( types ( judgem5t borr[$ f ,=mal ,logic really expresses ! ess5tial diff]5tiations ( judgem5t1 &1 9 t case1 ,kant's only mi/ake is t he bases !m ^u a false or at lea/ inappropriate acc\nt ( judgem5t4#bj ,moreov]1 s9ce ?is li/ furni%es ,kant ) ! 'clue' to ! categories1 provid$ t x expresses ! ess5tial diff]5tiations ( judgem5t1 ! p>ticul> acc\nt ( judgem5t ^u :i* x is bas$ is a matt] ( indiff]5ce4 #bj ,x may be not$ t ! acc\nt _c be m]ely inappropriate to ! g5]al problem1 if x be incompatible ) t assum$ by ,=mal ,logic4 ,?is cont5tion leads u to consid] ! la/ /age ( ,kant's argum5t1 9 :i* he d$uces ! categories 9 detail f 8 li/ ( ! =ms ( judgem5t4 ,= x is cle> t unless ! =ms ( judgem5t sev]ally involve ! categories1 x w n matt] :e!r ^! =ms are or are n ! ess5tial diff]5tiations ( judgem5t4 ,kant's mode ( connect+ ! categories 9 detail ) ! =ms ( judgem5t discov]$ by ,=mal ,logic is at lea/ z surpris+ z 8 mode ( connect+ ! latt] ) ! nature ( judgem5t 9 g5]al4 ,s9ce ! twelve di/9ctions )9 ! =m ( judgem5t are to s]ve z a clue to ! conceptions :i* belong to ! und]/&+1 we naturally expect t ea* di/9ction w be f\nd directly to involve a special conception or category1 & t !re=e1 to discov] ! categories1 we ne$ only look = ! special conception involv$ 9 ea* =m ( judgem5t4#ba ,aga91 s9ce ! plurality unifi$ 9 a judgem5t ( ea* =m is ! two conceptions or judgem5ts :i* =m ! matt] ( ! judgem5t1 we %\ld expect ! conception involv$ 9 ea* =m ( judgem5t to be m]ely ! type ( relation%ip e/abli%$ betwe5 ^! conceptions or judgem5ts4 ,?is expectation is confirm$ by a cursory glance at ! table ( categories4#bb ,i4 ,( ,quantity4 ,unity ,plurality ,totality4 ,,ii4 ,( ,quality4 ,reality ,negation ,limitation4 ,,iii4 ,( ,relation4 ,inh]5ce & ,subsi/5ce 7,sub/antia et ,accid5s7 ,causality & ,dep5d5ce 7,cause & ,effect7 ,community 7,reciprocity betwe5 ! ag5t & pati5t47 ,,iv4 ,( ,modality4 ,possibility--,impossibility ,exi/5ce--,non-exi/5ce ,necessity--,cont+5ce4 ,if we comp>e ! fir/ division ( ^! categories ) ! fir/ division ( judgem5ts we naturally ?9k t ,kant conceiv$ s+ul>1 p>ticul>1 & univ]sal judgem5ts to unify _! t]ms by means ( ! conceptions ( '"o'1 ( '"s'1 & ( 'all' respectively2 & we =m correspond+1 ?\gh less confid5t1 expectations 9 ! case ( ! o!r divisions4 #ba ,?is expectation is confirm$ by ,kant's view t judgem5t introduces unity into a plurality by means ( a conception4 ,?is view leads u to expect t diff]5t =ms ( judgem5t--if !re be any--w be di/+ui%$ by ! diff]5t conceptions ?r\gh :i* !y unify ! plurality2 = x w naturally be ! diff]5t conceptions involv$ :i* are responsible = ! diff]5t k9ds ( unity effect$4 #bb ,b4 #ajf1 ,m4 #fd4 ,kant1 h[ev]1 makes no attempt to %[ t ea* =m ( judgem5t di/+ui%$ by ,=mal ,logic involves a special conception4 ,9 fact1 8 view is t ! activities ( ?\ght /udi$ by ,=mal ,logic d n orig9ate or use any special conceptions at all4 ,= 8 actual d$uction ( ! categories#bc is occupi$ 9 %[+ t al?\gh ?\ght1 :5 ex]cis$ "u ! conditions "u :i* x is /udi$ by ,=mal ,logic1 does n orig9ate & use conceptions ( its own1 x is able "u c]ta9 o!r conditions to orig9ate & use su* conceptions1 i4 e4 categories4#bd ,h5ce if we att5d only to ! pr(ess$ proc$ure ( ! d$uction1 we are compell$ to admit t ! d$uction n only excludes any use ( ! 'clue' to ! categories1 suppos$ to be furni%$ by ,=mal ,logic1 b ev5 fails to d$uce !m at all4 ,= x does n ev5 nom9ally attempt to discov] ! categories 9 detail1 b rev]ts to ! prior task ( %[+ m]ely t !re are categories4 ,d\btless ,kant ?9ks t ! =ms ( judgem5t =mulat$ by ,=mal ,logic 9 "s way sugge/ ! conceptions :i* become op]ative 9 ?\ght "u ^! o!r conditions4 ,nev]!less1 x is impossible to see h[ ^! =ms ( judgem5t c sugge/ ^! conceptions1 unless !y actually presuppose !m4 ,x is cle>1 h[ev]1 t ! pr(ess$ l9k#be betwe5 ! =ms ( judgem5t & ! categories does n repres5t ! actual process by :i* ,kant rea*$ 8 li/ ( categories2 = he c\ld nev] h rea*$ any li/ ( categories by an argum5t :i* 0 m]ely direct$ to %[ t !re are categories4 ,moreov]1 an inspection ( ! li/ %[s t he actually rea*$ x p>tly by notic+ ! conceptions :i* ! =ms ( judgem5t seem$ to presuppose1 & p>tly by be>+ 9 m9d ! g5]al conceptions und]ly+ physics :i* x 0 8 ultimate aim to v9dicate4 ,s9ce ?is is ! case1 & s9ce ! categories c only be connect$ ) ! =ms ( judgem5t by %[+ t !y are presuppos$ 9 !m1 ! prop] "q to be consid]$ f ! po9t ( view ( ! metaphysical d$uction is simply :e!r ! =ms ( judgem5t really presuppose ! categories4#bf #bc ,b4 #ajb-e1 ,m4 #fb-c4 #bd ,cf4 p4 #aff4 #be ,b4 #ajb-e1 ,m4 #fb-c4 #bf ,z we %all see lat]1 ! real importance ( ! passage 9 :i* ,kant pr(esses to effect ! transition f ! =ms ( judgem5t to ! categories 7,b4 #ajb-e1 ,m4 #fb-c7 lies 9 its introduction ( a new & important l9e ( ?\ght1 on :i* ! transc5d5tal d$uction turns4 ,consid]ation ( x is !re=e def]r$ to ! next *apt]4 ,if1 h[ev]1 we exam9e ! =ms ( judgem5t di/+ui%$ by ,=mal ,logic1 we f9d t !y d n presuppose ! categories4 ,to see ?is1 x is only necess>y to exam9e ! f\r ma9 divisions ( judgem5t s]iatim4 ,! fir/ division ( judgem5ts is said to be a division 9 respect ( quantity into s+ul>1 p>ticul>1 & univ]sal4 ,s /at$1 ! division is num]ical4 ,x is a division ( judgem5ts accord+ z !y make an ass]tion ab\t "o1 m ?an "o1 or all ! memb]s ( a k9d4 ,ea* species may be said to presuppose 7#a7 ! conception ( quantity1 & 7#b7 a conception peculi> to itself3 ! fir/ presuppos+ ! conception ( "o memb] ( a k9d1 ! second t ( m ?an "o b less ?an all memb]s ( a k9d1 ! ?ird t ( all memb]s ( a k9d4 ,moreov]1 a judgem5t ( ea* k9d may p]haps be said to relate ! pr$icate conception to ! subject conception by means ( "o ( ^! ?ree conceptions4 ,! fundam5tal division1 h[ev]1 into :i* univ]sal & s+ul> judgem5ts ent] is n num]ical at all1 & ignores p>ticul> judgem5ts altoge!r4 ,x is t betwe5 su* judgem5ts z ',?ree-sid$ figures1 z su*1 are ?ree-angl$' & ',?is man is tall'4 ,! ess5tial di/9ction is t 9 ! univ]sal judgem5t ! pr$icate t]m is appreh5d$ to belong to ! subject ?r\gh our insight t x is necessitat$ by ! nature ( ! subject t]m1 :ile 9 ! s+ul> judgem5t our appreh5sion t ! pr$icate t]m belongs to ! subject is bas$ ^u ! p]ception or exp]i5ce ( ! coexi/5ce ( pr$icate & subject t]ms 9 a common subject4 ,9 o!r words1 x is ! di/9ction betwe5 an a priori judgem5t & a judgem5t ( p]ception4#bg ,! m]ely num]ically univ]sal judgem5t1 & ! m]ely num]ically p>ticul> judgem5t#bh are simply aggregates ( s+ul> judgem5ts1 & !re=e are indi/+ui%able 9 pr9ciple f ! s+ul> judgem5t4 ,if !n we ask :at conceptions are really presuppos$ by ! k9ds ( judgem5t :i* ,kant seeks to di/+ui% 9 ! fir/ division1 we c only reply t ! univ]sal judgem5t presupposes ! conception ( a connect$ or sy/ematic :ole ( attributes1 & t ! s+ul> judgem5t presupposes ! conception ( ! coexi/5ce ( two attributes 9 a common subject4 ,nei!r k9d ( judgem5t presupposes ! conception ( quantity or ! conceptions ( unity1 plurality1 & totality4 #bg ,i owe ?is view ( ! di/9ction to ,pr(essor ,cook ,wilson's lectures on logic4 #bh ',"s coron]s are doctors' ( c\rse 9 "s contexts means1 'x is possible = a coron] to be a doctor1' & is !re=e n num]ical2 b und]/ood 9 ?is s5se x is m]ely a weak5$ =m ( ! univ]sal judgem5t 9 :i* ! connexion appreh5d$ betwe5 subject & pr$icate t]ms is incomplete4 ,! second division ( judgem5ts is said to be a division 9 respect ( quality into affirmative1 negative1 & inf9ite1 i4 e4 into species :i* may be illu/rat$ by ! judgem5ts1 ',a college is a place ( education1' ',a college is n a hotel1' & ',a college is a n-hotel'4 ,! conceptions involv$ are said to be ^? ( reality1 ( negation1 & ( limitation respectively4 ,! conception ( limitation may be ignor$1 s9ce ! inf9ite judgem5t said to presuppose x is a fiction4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! conceptions ( reality & negation1 ev5 if _! exi/5ce be conc$$1 _c be all[$ to be ! conceptions presuppos$4 ,= :5 we affirm or d5y1 we affirm or d5y ( some?+ n m]e be+1 b be+ ( a p>ticul> k9d4 ,! conceptions presuppos$ are r ^? ( id5tity & diff]5ce4 ,x is only because diff]5ces fall )9 an id5tity t we c affirm1 & x is only because )9 an id5tity !re are diff]5ces t we c d5y4 ,! ?ird division ( judgem5ts is said to be 9 respect ( relation into categorical1 hypo!tical1 & disjunctive judgem5ts4 ,"h1 aga91 ! conclusion :i* ,kant desires is cle>ly impossible4 ,! categorical judgem5t may be said to presuppose ! conception ( subject & attribute1 b n t ( sub/ance & accid5t4 ,! hypo!tical judgem5t may be conc$$ to presuppose ! conception ( reason & consequ5ce1 b x c]ta9ly does n presuppose ! conception ( cause & effect4#bi ,la/ly1 :ile ! disjunctive judgem5t may be said to presuppose ! conception ( mutually exclusive species ( a g5us1 x c]ta9ly does n presuppose ! conception ( reciprocal action betwe5 physical ?+s4 #bi ,no d\bt1 z ! s*ematism ( ! categories %[s1 ,kant does n ?9k t ! hypo!tical judgem5t directly involves ! conception ( cause & effect1 i4 e4 ( ! relation ( necess>y succession betwe5 ! v>i\s /ates ( physical ?+s4 ,! po9t is1 h[ev]1 t ! hypo!tical judgem5t does n involve x at all4 ,! f\r? division ( judgem5t is said to be 9 respect ( modality into ass]toric1 problematic1 & apodeictic1 ! conceptions involv$ be+ respectively ^? ( possibility & impossibility1 ( actuality & non-actuality1 & ( necessity & cont+5ce4 ,n[1 f ! po9t ( view ( ,kant's argum5t1 ^! conceptions1 l ^? :i* he holds to be involv$ 9 ! o!r divisions ( judgem5t1 mu/ be consid]$ to relate to reality & n to our attitude t[>ds x4 ,consid]$ 9 ?is way1 !y resolve !mselves into ! conceptions (-- 7#a7 ! impossible 7impossibility72 7#b7 ! possible b n actual 7possibility1 nonexi/5ce72 7#c7 ! actual b n necess>y 7exi/5ce1 cont+5ce72 7#d7 ! necess>y 7necessity74 ,b s9ce x mu/1 9 ! end1 be conc$$ t all fact is necess>y1 x is impossible to admit ! reality ( ! conception ( ! possible b n actual1 & ( ! actual b n necess>y4 ,!re rema91 !re=e1 only ! conceptions ( ! necess>y & ( ! impossible4 ,9 fact1 h[ev]1 ! di/9ctions betwe5 ! ass]toric1 ! problematic1 & ! apodeictical judgem5t relate to our attitude to reality & n to reality1 & !re=e involve no diff]5t conceptions relat+ to reality4 ,x mu/1 !re=e1 be admitt$ t ! 'metaphysical' d$uction ( ! categories breaks d[n d\bly4 ,judgem5t1 z ,kant describes x1 does n involve ! =ms ( judgem5t borr[$ f ,=mal ,logic z its ess5tial diff]5tiations2 & ^! =ms ( judgem5t d n involve ! categories4 ,,*apt] ,,viii ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,d$uction ,,( ,,! ,,categories ,! aim ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction is to %[ t ! categories1 ?\gh a priori z orig9at+ 9 ! und]/&+1 are valid1 i4 e4 applicable to individual ?+s4 ,x is ! "p ( ! ,critique :i* has attract$ mo/ att5tion & :i* is ! mo/ difficult to foll[4 ,! difficulty ( int]pretation is increas$ r ?an dim9i%$ by ! complete rewrit+ ( ?is portion 9 ! second edition4 ,= ! second v]sion1 ?\gh x does n imply a *ange ( view1 is und\bt$ly ev5 m obscure ?an ! fir/4 ,x inde$ makes "o new contribution to ! subject by add+ an important l9k 9 ! argum5t1#a b ! importance ( ! l9k is nullifi$ by ! fact t x is n really ! l9k :i* x pr(esses to be4 ,! me?od ( treatm5t adopt$ "h w be to consid] only ! m9imum ( passages necess>y to elucidate ,kant's mean+ & to make use prim>ily ( ! fir/ edition4 #a ,cf4 p4 #bjf-aj4 ,x is necess>y1 h[ev]1 fir/ to consid] ! passage 9 ! ,metaphysical ,d$uction :i* nom9ally connects ! li/ ( categories ) ! li/ ( =ms ( judgem5t4#b ,= its real function is to introduce a new & ?ird acc\nt ( k1 :i* =ms ! keynote ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction4#c #b ,b4 #ajb-e1 ,m4 #fb-c4 ,cf4 pp4 #aee-f4 #c ,! fir/ two acc\nts are 7#a7 t ( judgem5t giv5 ,b4 #ib-d1 ,m4 #ef-h1 & 7#b7 t ( judgem5t implicit 9 ! view t ! =ms ( judgem5t di/+ui%$ by ,=mal ,logic are functions ( unity4 ,9 ,a4 #abf1 ,mah4 #bae1 ,kant seems to imply--?\gh untruly--t ?is new acc\nt co9cides ) ! o!r two1 :i* he does n di/+ui%4 ,9 ?is passage1 ! mean+ ( :i* x is difficult to /ate satisfactorily1 ,kant's ?\ght appe>s to be z foll[s3 ',! activity ( ?\ght /udi$ by ,=mal ,logic relates by way ( judgem5t conceptions previ\sly obta9$ by an analysis ( p]ceptions4 ,= in/ance1 x relates ! conceptions ( body & ( divisibility1 obta9$ by analysis ( p]ceptions ( bodies1 9 ! judgem5t ',bodies are divisible'4 ,x effects ?is1 h[ev]1 m]ely by analysis ( ! conception 'body'4 ,consequ5tly1 ! result+ k or judgem5t1 ?\gh a priori1 is only analytic1 & ! conceptions involv$ orig9ate n f ?\ght b f ! manifold previ\sly analys$4 ,b besides ! conceptions obta9$ by analysis ( a giv5 manifold1 !re are o!rs :i* belong to ?\ght or ! und]/&+ z su*1 & 9 virtue ( :i* ?\ght orig9ates syn!tic a priori k1 ?is activity ( ?\ght be+ t /udi$ by ,transc5d5tal ,logic4 ,two que/ions !re=e arise4 ,fir/ly1 h[ d ^! conceptions obta9 a matt] to :i* !y c apply & )\t :i* !y w\ld be )\t cont5t or empty8 ,&1 secondly1 h[ does ?\ght 9 virtue ( ^! conceptions orig9ate syn!tic a priori k8 ,! fir/ "q is easily answ]$1 = ! manifolds ( space & "t1 i4 e4 individual spaces & individual times1 af=d matt] ( ! k9d ne$$ to give ^! conceptions cont5t4 ,z p]ceptions 7i4 e4 z objects ( p]ception71 !y are t to :i* a conception c apply1 & z pure or a priori p]ceptions1 !y are t to :i* ^? conceptions c apply :i* are pure or a priori1 z belong+ to ! und]/&+4 ,! second "q c be answ]$ by consid]+ ! process by :i* ?is pure manifold ( space & "t ent]s into k4 ,all syn!tic k1 :e!r empirical or a priori1 requires ! realization ( ?ree conditions4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 !re mu/ be a manifold giv5 9 p]ception4 ,9 ! second place1 ?is manifold mu/ be 'gone ?r\gh1 tak5 up1 & comb9$'4 ,9 o!r words1 if syn!sis be def9$ z '! act ( jo9+ diff]5t repres5tations to "o ano!r & ( includ+ _! multiplicity 9 "o k'1 ! manifold mu/ be subject$ to an act ( syn!sis4 ,?is is effect$ by ! imag9ation4 ,9 ! ?ird place1 ?is syn!sis produc$ by ! imag9ation mu/ be br\ght to a conception1 i4 e4 br\ght "u a conception :i* w con/itute ! syn!sis a unity4 ,?is is ! "w ( ! und]/&+4 ,! realization ( a priori k1 !re=e1 w require ! realization ( ! ?ree conditions 9 a mann] appropriate to its a priori "*4 ,!re mu/ be a pure or a priori manifold2 ?is is to be f\nd 9 individual spaces & individual times4 ,!re mu/ be an act ( pure syn!sis ( ?is manifold2 ?is is effect$ by ! pure imag9ation4 ,f9ally1 ?is pure syn!sis mu/ be br\ght "u a conception4 ,?is is effect$ by ! pure und]/&+ by means ( its pure or a priori conceptions1 i4 e4 ! categories4 ,?is1 !n1 is ! process by :i* a priori k is orig9at$4 ,! activity ( ?\ght or und]/&+1 h[ev]1 :i* unites two conceptions 9 a judgem5t by analysis ( !m--?is be+ ! act /udi$ by ,=mal ,logic--is ! same z t :i* gives unity to ! syn!sis ( ! pure manifold ( p]ception--?is be+ ! act /udi$ by ,transc5d5tal ,logic4 ,consequ5tly1 '! same und]/&+1 & inde$ by ! same activities :]eby 9 deal+ ) conceptions x unifies !m 9 a judgem5t by an act ( analysis1 introduces by means ( ! syn!tical unity :i* x produces 9 ! pure manifold ( p]ception a cont5t into its own conceptions1 9 consequ5ce ( :i* ^! conceptions are call$ pure conceptions ( ! und]/&+1'#d & we are entitl$ to say a priori t ^! conceptions apply to objects because !y are involv$ 9 ! process by :i* we acquire a priori k ( objects4' #d ,an int]pretation ( ,b4 #aje init41 ,m4 #fc f94 ,a discussion ( ! v>i\s difficulties rais$ by ! g5]al drift ( ?is passage1 z well z by its details1#e is unnecess>y1 & w\ld anticipate discussion ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction4 ,b x is necess>y to draw att5tion to ?ree po9ts4 #e ,e4 g4 ,kant's arbitr>y ass]tion t ! op]ation ( c\nt+ presupposes ! conception ( t numb] :i* =ms ! scale ( notation adopt$ z ! s\rce ( ! unity ( ! syn!sis4 ,?is is ( c\rse refut$ among o!r ways by ! fact t a numb] ( units less ?an ! scale ( notation c be c\nt$4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 z has be5 said1 ,kant "h introduces--& introduces )\t w>n+--a totally new acc\nt ( k4 ,x has its orig9 9 8 !ory ( p]ception1 accord+ to :i* k beg9s ) ! production ( s5sations 9 u by ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,s9ce ! spatial _w :i* we come to "k consi/s 9 a multiplicity ( relat$ elem5ts1 x is cle> t ! isolat$ data ( s5sation h someh[ to be comb9$ & unifi$1 if we are to h ?is _w be=e u or1 9 o!r words1 to "k x4 ,moreov]1 s9ce ^! empirical data are subject to space & "t z ! =ms ( p]ception1 individual spaces & individual times1 to :i* ! empirical data w be relat$1 h also to be comb9$ & unifi$4 ,on ?is view1 ! process ( k consi/s 9 comb9+ c]ta9 data into an individual :ole & 9 unify+ !m ?r\gh a pr9ciple ( comb9ation4#f ,if ! data are empirical1 ! result+ k w be empirical2 if ! data are a priori1 i4 e4 individual spaces & individual times1 ! result+ k w be a priori4#g ,?is acc\nt ( k is new1 because1 al?\gh x treats k z a process or act ( unify+ a manifold1 x describes a diff]5t act ( unification4 ,z ,kant fir/ describ$ ! faculty ( judgem5t1#h x unifies a gr\p ( p>ticul>s ?r\gh relation to ! correspond+ univ]sal4 ,z ,=mal ,logic1 accord+ to ,kant1 treats ! faculty ( judgem5t1 x unifies two conceptions or two prior judgem5ts into a judgem5t4 ,z ,kant n[ describes ! faculty ( judgem5t or ?\ght1 x unifies an empirical or an a priori manifold ( p]ception comb9$ into an individual :ole1 ?r\gh a conception :i* con/itutes a pr9ciple ( unity4 ,! diff]5ce betwe5 ?is la/ acc\nt & ! o!rs is also %[n by ! fact t :ile ! fir/ two k9ds ( unification are held to be due to m]e analysis ( ! mat]ial giv5 to ?\ght1 ! ?ird k9d ( unification is held to be sup]9duc$ by ?\ght1 & to be 9 no way capable ( be+ extract$ f ! mat]ial by analysis4 ,fur!r1 ?is new acc\nt ( k does n replace ! o!rs1 b is plac$ side by side ) !m4 ,=1 accord+ to ,kant1 !re exi/ bo? ! activity ( ?\ght :i* relates two conceptions 9 a judgem5t1#i & ! activity by :i* x introduces a unity ( its own into a manifold ( p]ception4 ,nev]!less1 ?is new acc\nt ( k1 or r ?is acc\nt ( a new k9d ( k1 mu/ be ! important "o2 = x is only ! process n[ describ$ = ! fir/ "t :i* produces syn!tic z oppos$ to analytic k4 #f ,cf4 ,a4 #ig1 ,mah4 #aic1 ',k is a totality ( comp>$ & connect$ repres5tations4' #g ,no d\bt ,kant w\ld all[ t at lea/ "s categories1 e4 g4 ! conception ( cause & effect1 are pr9ciples ( syn!sis ( a manifold :i* at any rate conta9s an empirical elem5t1 b x includes j "o ( ! difficulties ( ! passage t x implies t a priori k ei!r is1 or involves1 a syn!sis ( pure or a priori elem5ts4 #h ,b4 #ib-d1 ,m4 #ef-h4 #i ,kant1 ( c\rse1 ?9ks ( ?is activity ( ?\ght1 z id5tical ) t :i* br+s p>ticul>s "u a conception4 ,9 ! second place1 ! passage incid5tally expla9s :y1 accord+ to ,kant1 ! =ms ( judgem5t di/+ui%$ by ,=mal ,logic d n involve ! categories4#aj ,= its doctr9e is t :ile ?\ght1 if ex]cis$ "u ! conditions "u :i* x is /udi$ by ,=mal ,logic1 c only analyse ! manifold giv5 to x1 & s has1 z x 71 to borr[ f ! manifold ! unity ?r\gh :i* x relates ! manifold1#aa yet if an a priori manifold be giv5 to x1 x c by means ( a conception introduce into ! manifold a unity ( its own :i* c\ld n be discov]$ by analysis ( ! manifold4 ,?us ?\ght z /udi$ by ,=mal ,logic m]ely analyses & consequ5tly does n & _c make use ( conceptions ( its own2 x c use conceptions ( its own only :5 an a priori manifold is giv5 to x to deal )4 #aj ,cf4 pp4 #aee-f4 #aa ,9 br++ p]ceptions "u a conception1 ?\ght1 accord+ to ,kant1 f9ds ! conception 9 ! p]ceptions by analysis ( !m1 & 9 relat+ two conceptions 9 judgem5t1 x det]m9es ! p>ticul> =m ( judgem5t by analysis ( ! conceptions4 ,9 ! ?ird place1 !re is great difficulty 9 foll[+ ! "p 9 k assign$ to ! und]/&+4 ,! syn!sis ( ! manifold ( p]ception is assign$ to ! imag9ation1 a faculty :i*1 l ! new k9d ( k1 is introduc$ )\t notice4 ,! bus9ess ( ! und]/&+ is to 'br+ ?is syn!sis to conceptions' & !reby to 'give unity to ! syn!sis'4 ,n[ ! "q arises :e!r '! activity ( giv+ unity to ! syn!sis' really means :at x says1 i4 e4 an activity :i* unifies or introduces a unity into ! syn!sis1 or :e!r x only means an activity :i* recognizes a unity already giv5 to ! syn!sis by ! imag9ation4 ,prima facie ,kant is ma9ta9+ t ! und]/&+ really unifies1 or introduces ! pr9ciple ( unity4 ,= ! twice-repeat$ phrase 'give unity to ! syn!sis' seems unmi/akable 9 mean+1 & ! important rle 9 k is pla9ly meant to be assign$ to ! und]/&+4 ,kant's language1 h[ev]1 is n decisive2 = he speaks ( ! syn!sis ( ! manifold z t :i* 'fir/ produces a k :i* inde$ at fir/ may be crude & confus$ & !re=e ne$s analysis#ab'1 & he says ( ! conceptions :i* give unity to ! syn!sis t '!y consi/ solely 9 ! repres5tation#ac ( ?is necess>y syn!tical unity'4#ad ,aga91 'to br+ ! syn!sis to a conception' may well be und]/ood to mean 'to recognize ! syn!sis z an in/ance ( ! conception'2 &1 s9ce ,kant is speak+ ( k1 'to give unity to ! syn!sis' may only mean 'to give unity to ! syn!sis = u'1 i4 e4 'to make u aw>e ( its unity'4 ,moreov]1 consid]ation ( :at ?\ght c possibly a*ieve ) respect to a syn!sis pres5t$ to x by ! imag9ation r5d]s x necess>y to hold t ! und]/&+ only recognizes ! unity ( ! syn!sis4 ,= if a syn!sis has be5 effect$1 x mu/ h be5 effect$ 9 accordance ) a pr9ciple ( con/ruction or syn!sis1 & !re=e x w\ld seem t ! only "w left = ! und]/&+ is to discov] ! pr9ciple lat5t 9 ! proc$ure ( ! imag9ation4 ,at any rate1 if ! syn!sis does n involve a pr9ciple ( syn!sis1 x is impossible to see h[ ?\ght c subsequ5tly introduce a pr9ciple4 ,! imag9ation1 !n1 mu/ be consid]$ to h already introduc$ ! pr9ciple ( unity into ! manifold by comb9+ x 9 accordance ) a conception or pr9ciple ( comb9ation1 & ! "w ( ! und]/&+ mu/ be consid]$ to consi/ 9 recogniz+ t ! manifold has be5 !reby comb9$ & unifi$ ?r\gh ! conception4 ,we are !re=e oblig$ to accept "o ( two alt]natives4 ,ei!r ! und]/&+ m]ely r5d]s ! m9d consci\s ( ! proc$ure ( a faculty diff]5t f itself1 viz4 ! imag9ation1 9 :i* case ! important rle 9 k1 viz4 ! effect+ ( ! syn!sis accord+ to a pr9ciple1 is play$ by a faculty diff]5t f ! und]/&+2 or ! imag9ation is ! und]/&+ work+ unreflectively1 & ! subsequ5t process ( br++ ! syn!sis to a conception is m]ely a process by :i* ! und]/&+ becomes consci\s ( its own proc$ure4 ,moreov]1 x is ! latt] alt]native :i* we mu/ accept z m 9 accordance ) ! g5]al t5or ( ,kant's ?\ght4 ,= ! syn!sis ( ! imag9ation is ess5tially ! outcome ( activity or spontaneity1 &1 z su*1 x belongs to ! und]/&+ r ?an to ! s5sibility2 9 fact we f9d ,kant 9 "o place actually say+ t 'x is "o & ! same spontaneity :i* at "o "t "u ! "n ( imag9ation1 at ano!r "t "u t ( und]/&+1 introduces connexion into ! manifold ( p]ception'4#ae ,fur!r1 x %\ld be not$ t s9ce ! imag9ation mu/ be ! und]/&+ work+ unreflectively1 & s9ce x mu/ be t :i* introduces unity into ! manifold1 !re is "s ju/ification = 8 use ( language :i* implies t ! und]/&+ is ! s\rce ( ! unity1 ?\gh x w n be s 9 ! s5se 9 :i* ! passage "u discussion might at fir/ sight lead u to suppose4 #ab ,! italics are m9e4 #ac ,! italics are m9e4 #ad ,cf4 ! description ( ! imag9ation z 'bl9d'4 #ae ,b4 #afb note1 ,m4 #ii note4 ,cf4 ,b4 #aeb1 ,m4 #ic4 ,simil>ly at "o po9t 9 ! passage "u discussion 7,b4 #ajb f941 ,m4 #fb m$47 ! syn!sis is expressly attribut$ to ! spontaneity ( ?\ght4 ,we c n[ turn to ! argum5t ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction itself4 ,kant introduces x 9 effect by rais+ ! "q1 ',h[ is x t1 beg9n+ ) ! isolat$ data ( s5se1 we come to acquire k8' ,8 aim is to %[ 7#a7 t k requires ! p]=mance ( c]ta9 op]ations by ! m9d ^u ! manifold ( s5se2 7#b7 t ?is process is a condition n m]ely ( k1 b also ( self-consci\sness2 & 7#c7 t1 s9ce ! manifold is capable ( ent]+ into k1 & s9ce we are capable ( be+ self-consci\s1 ! categories1 ^: validity is impli$ by ?is process1 are valid4 ,kant beg9s by po9t+ out#af t all k1 a priori z well z empirical1 requires ! manifold1 produc$ successively 9 ! m9d1 to be subject$ to ?ree op]ations4 #af ,a4 #ie-ajd1 ,mah4 #aid-h4 #a4 ,s9ce ! elem5ts ( ! manifold are z giv5 m]e isolat$ units1 & s9ce k is ! appreh5sion ( a unity ( connect$ elem5ts1 ! m9d mu/ fir/ run ?r\gh ! multiplicity ( s5se & !n grasp x toge!r into a :ole1 i4 e4 into an image4#ag ,?is act is an act ( syn!sis2 x is call$ '! syn!sis ( appreh5sion' & is ascrib$ to ! imag9ation4 ,x mu/ be c>ri$ out z mu* 9 respect ( ! pure or a priori elem5ts ( space & "t z 9 respect ( ! manifold ( s5sation1 = individual spaces & times conta9 a multiplicity :i*1 to be appreh5d$1 mu/ be comb9$4#ah ,! necessity ( ?is act ( syn!sis is emphasiz$ 9 ! second edition4 ,we _c repres5t any?+ z comb9$ 9 ! object )\t hav+ previ\sly comb9$ x ourselves4 ,( all repres5tations1 comb9ation is ! only "o :i* _c be giv5 ?r\gh objects1#ai b c be orig9at$ only by ! subject itself because x is an act ( its own activity4#bj #ag ,cf4 ,a4 #abj1 ,mah4 #baa4 #ah ',comb9e' is us$ z ! v]b correspond+ to 'syn!sis'4 #ai ,i4 e4 giv5 to u ?r\gh ! op]ation ( ?+s 9 !mselves ^u our s5sibility4 #bj ,b4 #acj1 ,m4 #hj4 #b4 ,s9ce ! data ( p]ception are mom5t>y1 & pass away ) p]ception1 ! act ( grasp+ !m toge!r requires t ! m9d %all reproduce ! pa/ data 9 ord] to comb9e !m ) ! pres5t datum4 ,x is pla9 t if ,i draw a l9e 9 ?\ght1 or wi% to ?9k ( ! "t f "o midday to ano!r1 or ev5 to repres5t to myself a c]ta9 numb]1 ,i mu/ fir/ necess>ily grasp 9 ?\ght ^! manifold repres5tations "o aft] ano!r4 ,b if ,i 7 cont9ually to lose f my ?\ghts ! prec$+ repres5tations 7! fir/ p>ts ( ! l9e1 ! prec$+ p>ts ( "t or ! units successively repres5t$71 & 7 n to reproduce !m1 :ile ,i proce$$ to ! succe$+ p>ts1 !re c\ld nev] arise a complete repres5tation1 nor any ( ! ?\ghts j nam$1 n ev5 ! fir/ & pure/ fundam5tal repres5tations ( space & "t4#ba ,?is act ( reproduction is call$ '! syn!sis ( reproduction 9 ! imag9ation'4#bb #ba ,a4 #ajb1 ,mah4 #aig4 #bb ,! t]m 'syn!sis' is undes]v$1 & is due to a desire to f9d a v]bal p>allel to ! 'syn!sis ( appreh5sion 9 p]ception'4 ,= ! inappropriat5ess ( 'reproduction' & ( 'imag9ation' see pp4 #bci-da4 ,fur!r1 ! necessity ( reproduction br+s to light a *>act]i/ic ( ! syn!sis ( appreh5sion4 ,x is inde$ only an empirical law1 accord+ to :i* repres5tations :i* h (t5 foll[$ or accompani$ "o ano!r 9 ! end become associat$1 & s =m a connexion1 accord+ to :i*1 ev5 9 ! abs5ce ( ! object1 "o ( ^! repres5tations produces a transition ( ! m9d to ano!r by a fix$ rule4 ,b ?is law ( reproduction presupposes t ph5om5a !mselves are actually subject to su* a rule1 & t 9 ! manifold ( _! repres5tations !re is a concomitance or sequ5ce1 accord+ to a fix$ rule2 =1 )\t ?is1 our empirical imag9ation w\ld nev] f9d any?+ to d suit$ to its capacity1 & w\ld consequ5tly rema9 hidd5 )9 ! dep?s ( ! m9d z a dead faculty1 unkn[n to ourselves4 ,if c9nab> 7 n[ r$1 n[ black1 n[ light1 n[ heavy1 if a man 7 *ang$ n[ into ?is1 n[ into t animal %ape1 if our fields 7 cov]$ on ! longe/ day1 n[ ) fruit1 n[ ) ice & sn[1 !n my empirical faculty ( imag9ation c\ld n ev5 get an opportunity ( ?9k+ ( ! heavy c9nab> :5 !re occurr$ ! repres5tation ( r$ col\r2 or if a c]ta9 "n 7 giv5 n[ to "o ?+1 n[ to ano!r1 or if ! same ?+ 7 call$ n[ by "o & n[ by ano!r "n1 )\t ! control ( "s rule1 to :i* ! ph5om5a !mselves are already subject1 no empirical syn!sis ( reproduction c\ld take place4 ,!re mu/ !n be some?+ :i* makes ?is v reproduction ( ph5om5a possible1 by be+ ! a priori f\ndation ( a necess>y syn!tical unity ( !m4 ,b we soon discov] x1 if we reflect t ph5om5a are n ?+s 9 !mselves1 b ! m]e play ( our repres5tations1 :i* 9 ! end resolve !mselves into det]m9ations ( our int]nal s5se4 ,= if we c prove t ev5 our pure/ a priori p]ceptions af=d u no k1 except s f> z !y conta9 su* a comb9ation ( ! manifold z r5d]s possible a ?or\ghgo+ syn!sis ( reproduction1 !n ?is syn!sis ( imag9ation is bas$1 ev5 be=e all exp]i5ce1 on a priori pr9ciples1 & we mu/ assume a pure transc5d5tal syn!sis ( ! imag9ation :i* lies at ! f\ndation ( ! v possibility ( all exp]i5ce 7z t :i* necess>ily presupposes ! reproducibility ( ph5om5a74#bc #bc ,a4 #ajj-b1 ,mah4 #aie-g4 ,9 o!r words1 ! faculty ( reproduction1 if x is to get to "w1 presupposes t ! elem5ts ( ! manifold are p>ts ( a necess>ily relat$ :ole2 or1 z ,kant expresses x lat]1 x presupposes ! aff9ity ( ph5om5a2 & ?is aff9ity 9 turn presupposes t ! syn!sis ( appreh5sion by comb9+ ! elem5ts ( ! manifold on c]ta9 pr9ciples makes !m p>ts ( a necess>ily relat$ :ole4#bd #bd ,cf4 ,a4 #aac1 ,mah4 #bje2 ,a4 #aba-b1 ,mah4 #baa-ab2 & ,caird1 i4 #cfb-c4 ,= a full] acc\nt ( ^! presuppositions1 & = a criticism ( !m1 cf4 ,*4 ,,ix1 p4 #bai & ff4 #c4 ,kant introduces ! ?ird op]ation1 :i* he calls '! syn!sis ( recognition 9 ! conception'1#be z foll[s3 #be ,?is title also is a misnom] due to ! desire to give p>allel titles to ! ?ree op]ations involv$ 9 k4 ,!re is really only "o syn!sis ref]r$ to1 & ! title "h %\ld be '! recognition ( ! syn!sis 9 ! conception'4 ,)\t consci\sness t :at we are ?9k+ is id5tical ) :at we ?\ght a mom5t ago1 all reproduction 9 ! s]ies ( repres5tations w\ld be 9 va94 ,= :at we are ?9k+ w\ld be a new repres5tation at ! pres5t mom5t1 :i* did n at all belong to ! act by :i* x 0 b\nd to h be5 gradually produc$1 & ! manifold ( ! same w\ld nev] con/itute a :ole1 z lack+ ! unity :i* only consci\sness c give x4 ,if 9 c\nt+ ,i =get t ! units :i* n[ hov] be=e my m9d h be5 gradually add$ by me to "o ano!r1 ,i %\ld n "k ! g5]ation ( ! gr\p ?r\gh ?is successive addition ( "o to "o1 & consequ5tly ,i %\ld n "k ! numb]1 = ?is conception consi/s solely 9 ! consci\sness ( ?is unity ( ! syn!sis4 ,! ^w 'conception'#bf might itself lead u to ?is rem>k4 ,= x is ?is "o consci\sness :i* unites ! manifold gradually p]ceiv$ & !n also reproduc$ into "o repres5tation4 ,?is consci\sness may (t5 be only weak1 s t we connect x ) ! production ( ! repres5tation only 9 ! result b n 9 ! act itself1 i4 e4 imm$iately2 b nev]!less !re mu/ always be "o consci\sness1 al?\gh x lacks /rik+ cle>ness1 & )\t x conceptions1 & ) !m k ( objects1 are :olly impossible4#bg #bf ,begriff4 #bg ,a4 #ajc-d1 ,mah4 #aig-h4 ,?\gh ! passage is obscure & confus$1 its g5]al drift is cle>4 ,kant1 hav+ spok5 hi!rto only ( ! op]ation ( ! imag9ation 9 appreh5sion & reproduction1 n[ wi%es to introduce ! und]/&+4 ,he naturally returns to ! ?\ght ( x z t :i* recognizes a manifold z unifi$ by a conception1 ! manifold1 h[ev]1 be+ n a gr\p ( p>ticul>s unifi$ ?r\gh ! correspond+ univ]sal or conception1 b ! p>ts ( an individual image1 e4 g4 ! p>ts ( a l9e or ! con/itu5t units ( a numb]1 & ! conception :i* unifies x be+ ! pr9ciple on :i* ^! p>ts are comb9$4#bh ,8 ma9 po9t is t x is n en\gh = k t we %\ld comb9e ! manifold ( s5se into a :ole 9 accordance ) a specific pr9ciple1#bi b we mu/ also be 9 "s degree consci\s ( our cont9u\sly id5tical act ( comb9ation1#cj ?is consci\sness be+ at ! same "t a consci\sness ( ! special unity ( ! manifold4 ,= ! conception :i* =ms ! pr9ciple ( ! comb9ation has necess>ily two sides2 :ile f our po9t ( view x is ! pr9ciple accord+ to :i* we comb9e & :i* makes our comb9+ activity "o1 f ! po9t ( view ( ! manifold x is ! special pr9ciple#ca by :i* ! manifold is made "o4 ,if ,i am to c\nt a gr\p ( five units1 ,i mu/ n only add !m1 b also be consci\s ( my cont9u\sly id5tical act ( addition1 ?is consci\sness consi/+ 9 ! consci\sness t ,i am successively tak+ units up to1 & only up to1 five1 & be+ at ! same "t a consci\sness t ! units are acquir+ ! unity ( be+ a gr\p ( five4 ,x imm$iately foll[s1 ?\gh ,kant does n explicitly say s1 t all k implies self-consci\sness4 ,= ! consci\sness t we h be5 comb9+ ! manifold on a c]ta9 def9ite pr9ciple is ! consci\sness ( our id5tity ?r\gh\t ! process1 &1 f ! side ( ! manifold1 x is j t consci\sness ( ! manifold z unifi$ by be+ br\ght "u a conception :i* con/itutes k4 ,ev5 ?\gh x is ,kant's view t ! self-consci\sness ne$ only be weak & ne$ only arise aft] ! act ( comb9ation1 :5 we are aw>e ( its result1 /ill1 )\t x1 !re w be no consci\sness ( ! manifold z unifi$ ?r\gh a conception & !re=e no k4 ,moreov]1 if ! self-consci\sness be weak1 ! k w be weak also1 s t if x be urg$ t k 9 ! /ricte/ s5se requires ! full consci\sness t ! manifold is unifi$ ?r\gh a conception1 x mu/ be all[$ t k 9 ?is s5se requires a full or cle> self-consci\sness4 #bh ,cf4 pp4 #afb-i4 #bi ,t ! comb9ation proce$s on a specific pr9ciple only em]ges 9 ?is acc\nt ( ! ?ird op]ation4 #cj ,kant's example %[s t ?is consci\sness is n ! m]e consci\sness ( ! act ( comb9ation z ?r\gh\t id5tical1 b ! consci\sness ( x z an id5tical act ( a p>ticul> k9d4 #ca ,:5 ,kant says '?is conception i4 e4 ! conception ( ! numb] c\nt$ consi/s 9 ! consci\sness ( ?is unity ( ! syn!sis'1 he is mom5t>ily & contr>y to 8 usual practice speak+ ( a conception 9 ! s5se ( ! activity ( conceiv+ a univ]sal1 & n 9 ! s5se ( ! univ]sal conceiv$4 ,simil>ly 9 appeal+ to ! mean+ ( ,begriff 7conception7 he is ?9k+ ( 'conceiv+' z ! activity ( comb9+ a manifold ?r\gh a conception4 ,z is to be expect$1 h[ev]1 ! passage involves a difficulty conc]n+ ! respective functions ( ! imag9ation & ! und]/&+4 ,is ! und]/&+ repres5t$ z only recogniz+ a pr9ciple ( unity introduc$ into ! manifold by ! imag9ation1 or z also = ! fir/ "t introduc+ a pr9ciple ( unity8 ,at fir/ sight ! latt] alt]native may seem ! "r int]pretation4 ,= he says t unless we 7 consci\s t :at we are ?9k+ is id5tical ) :at we ?\ght a mom5t ago1 ':at we are ?9k+ w\ld be a new repres5tation :i* did n at all belong to ! act by :i* x 0 b\nd to h be5 gradually produc$1 & ! manifold ( ! same w\ld nev] con/itute a :ole1 z lack+ ! unity :i* only consci\sness c give x4'#cb ,aga91 9 speak+ ( a conception--:i* ( c\rse implies ! und]/&+--he says t 'x is ?is "o consci\sness :i* unites ! manifold gradually p]ceiv$ & !n reproduc$ into "o repres5tation'4#cc ,b ^! /atem5ts are n decisive1 = he uses ! t]m 'recognition' 9 8 =mula = ! "w ( ! und]/&+1 & he illu/rates its "w by po9t+ out t 9 c\nt+ we mu/ rememb] t we h add$ ! units4 ,moreov]1 !re is a consid]ation :i* by itself makes x necess>y to accept ! =m] int]pretation4 ,! passage c]ta9ly repres5ts ! und]/&+ z recogniz+ ! id5tical action ( ! m9d 9 comb9+ ! manifold on a pr9ciple1 :e!r or n x also repres5ts ! und]/&+ z ! s\rce ( ?is activity4 ,b if x 7 ! und]/&+ :i* comb9$ ! manifold1 !re w\ld be no syn!sis :i* ! imag9ation c\ld be suppos$ to h p]=m$1#cd & !re=e x c\ld play no "p 9 k at all1 a consequ5ce :i* mu/ be contr>y to ,kant's mean+4 ,fur!r if1 z ! g5]al t5or ( ! d$uction %[s1 ! imag9ation is really only ! und]/&+ work+ unreflectively1#ce we are able to und]/& :y ,kant %\ld = ! mom5t cease to di/+ui% betwe5 ! imag9ation & ! und]/&+1 & consequ5tly %\ld use language :i* implies t ! und]/&+ bo? comb9es ! manifold on a pr9ciple & makes u consci\s ( our activity 9 s do+4 ,h5ce we may say t ! real mean+ ( ! passage %\ld be /at$ ?us3 ',k requires "o consci\sness :i*1 z imag9ation1 comb9es ! manifold on a def9ite pr9ciple con/itut$ by a conception1#cf &1 z und]/&+1 is to "s ext5t consci\s ( its id5tical activity 9 s do+1 ?is self-consci\sness be+1 f ! side ( ! :ole produc$ by ! syn!sis1 ! consci\sness ( ! conception by :i* ! manifold is unifi$4' #cb ,! italics are m9e4 ,he does n say 'we %\ld n be consci\s ( :at we are ?9k+ z ! same repres5tation & z belong+ ,greek3 ktl41 & we %\ld n be consci\s ( ! manifold z con/itut+ a :ole4 #cc ,! italics are m9e4 #cd ,!re c\ld n1 ( c\rse1 be two syn!ses1 ! "o be+ & ! o!r n be+ ^u a pr9ciple4 #ce ,cf4 pp4 #afh-i4 #cf ,9 view ( ,kant's subsequ5t acc\nt ( ! function ( ! categories x %\ld be notic$ t1 accord+ to ! pres5t passage1 ! conception involv$ 9 an act ( k is ! conception n ( an 'object 9 g5]al'1 b ( 'an object ( ! p>ticul> k9d :i* con/itutes ! individual :ole produc$ by ! comb9ation a :ole ( ! p>ticul> k9d t x is ('1 & t1 9 accordance ) ?is1 ! self-consci\sness involv$ is n ! m]e consci\sness t our comb9+ activity is id5tical ?r\gh\t1 b ! consci\sness t x is an id5tical activity ( a p>ticul> k9d1 e4 g4 t ( c\nt+ five units4 ,cf4 pp4 #ahd f94-#ahf1 #aij-b1 & #bjf-g4 ,hi!rto !re has be5 no m5tion ( an object ( k1 & s9ce k is ess5tially k ( an object1 ,kant's next task is to give su* an acc\nt ( an object ( k z w %[ t ! processes already describ$ are precisely ^? :i* give our repres5tations1 i4 e4 ! manifold ( s5se1 relation to an object1 & consequ5tly yield k4 ,he beg9s by rais+ ! "q1 ',:at d we mean by ! phrase 'an object ( repres5tations'8'#cg ,he po9ts out t a ph5om5on1 s9ce x is a m]e s5su\s repres5tation1 & n a ?+ 9 itself exi/+ indep5d5tly ( ! faculty ( repres5tations1 is j n an object4 ,to ! "q1 !re=e1 ',:at is meant by an object correspond+ to k & !re=e di/9ct f x8' we are b\nd to answ] f ! po9t ( view ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ph5om5a & ?+s 9 !mselves1 t ! object is some?+ 9 g5]al x1 i4 e4 ! ?+ 9 itself ( :i* we "k only t x is & n :at x is4 ,!re is1 h[ev]1 ano!r po9t ( view f :i* we c say some?+ m ab\t an object ( repres5tations & ! correspond5ce ( our repres5tations to x1 viz4 t f :i* we consid] :at is involv$ 9 ! ?\ght ( ! relation ( k or ( a repres5tation to its object4 ,we f9d t our ?\ght ( ! relation ( all k to its object c>ries ) x some?+ ( necessity1 s9ce its object is reg>d$ z t :i* prev5ts our cognitions#ch be+ det]m9$ at r&om or caprici\sly1 & causes !m to be det]m9$ a priori 9 a c]ta9 way1 because 9 t !y are to relate to an object1 !y mu/ necess>ily also1 9 relation to x1 agree ) "o ano!r1 t is to say1 !y mu/ h t unity :i* con/itutes ! conception ( an object4#ci #cg ,vor/ellung 9 ! pres5t passage is p]haps bett] r5d]$ 'idea'1 b repres5tation has be5 reta9$ = ! sake ( uni=mity4 #ch ,erk5ntnisse4 #ci ,a4 #ajd1 ,mah4 #aii4 ,kant's mean+ seems to be ?is3 ',if we ?9k ( c]ta9 repres5tations1 e4 g4 c]ta9 l9es#dj or ! repres5tations ( ext5sion1 imp5etrability1 & %ape1#da z relat$ to an object1 e4 g4 to an individual triangle or an individual body1 we ?9k t !y mu/ be mutually consi/5t or1 9 o!r words1 t !y mu/ h ! unity ( be+ p>ts ( a necess>ily relat$ :ole or sy/em1 ?is unity 9 fact con/itut+ ! conception ( an object 9 g5]al1 9 di/9ction f ! conception ( an object ( a p>ticul> k9d4 ,! latt] ?\ght 9 turn involves ! ?\ght ( ! object ( repres5tations z t :i* prev5ts !m be+ any?+ :atev] & 9 fact makes !m p>ts ( a sy/em4 ,! ?\ght !re=e ( repres5tations z relat$ to an object c>ries ) x ! ?\ght ( a c]ta9 necessity1 viz4 ! necess>y or sy/ematic unity introduc$ into ! repres5tations by ! object4 ,h5ce by an object ( repres5tations we mean some?+ :i* introduces into ! repres5tations a sy/ematic unity :i* con/itutes ! nature ( an object 9 g5]al1 & ! relat$ness ( repres5tations to1 or _! correspond5ce )1 an object involves _! sy/ematic unity4'#db #dj ,cf4 ,a4 #aje1 ,mah4 #aii4 #da ,cf4 ,a4 #ajf1 ,mah4 #bjj4 #db ,x may be notic$ t possession ( ! unity ( a sy/em does n really di/+ui% 'an object' f any o!r :ole ( p>ts1 nor 9 p>ticul> f 'a repres5tation'4 ,any :ole ( p>ts mu/ be a sy/ematic unity4 ,c]ta9 po9ts1 h[ev]1 %\ld be notic$4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ,kant is = ! mom5t tacitly ignor+ 8 own !ory ( k1 9 accordance ) :i* ! object prop]1 i4 e4 ! ?+ 9 itself1 is unkn[able1 & is rev]t+ to ! ord9>y conception ( k z really k ( its object4 ,= ! elem5ts :i* are said1 9 virtue ( be+ relat$ to an object1 to agree & to h ! unity :i* con/itutes ! conception ( an object mu/ be elem5ts ( an object :i* we "k2 = if ! ass]tion t !y agree is to be significant1 !y mu/ be det]m9ate p>ts or qualities ( ! object1 e4 g4 ! sides ( an individual triangle or ! imp5etrability or %ape ( an individual body1 & !re=e x is impli$ t we "k t ! object has ^! p>ts or qualities4 ,9 ! second place1 bo? ! problem :i* ,kant raises & ! clue :i* he (f]s = its solution involve an impossible sep>ation ( k or a repres5tation f its object4 ,kant beg9s ) ! ?\ght ( a ph5om5on z a m]e repres5tation :i*1 z m5tal1 & z ! repres5tation ( an object1 is j n an object1 & asks1 ',:at is meant by ! object ( x8' ,he f9ds ! clue to ! answ] 9 ! ?\ght t ?\gh a repres5tation or idea :5 consid]$ 9 itself is a m]e m5tal modification1 yet1 :5 consid]$ z relat$ to an object1 x is subject to a c]ta9 necessity4 ,9 fact1 h[ev]1 an idea or k is ess5tially an idea or k ( an object1 & we are b\nd to ?9k ( x z su*4 ,!re is no mean+ :atev] 9 say+ t ! ?\ght ( an idea z relat$ to an object c>ries ) x some?+ ( necessity1 = to say s implies t x is possible to ?9k ( x z unrelat$ to an object4 ,simil>ly !re is really no mean+ 9 ! "q1 ',:at is meant by an object correspond+ to k or to an idea8' = ?is 9 ! same way implies t we c fir/ ?9k ( an idea z unrelat$ to an object & !n ask1 ',:at c be meant by an object correspond+ to x8'#dc ,9 ! ?ird place1 ,kant only escapes ! absurdity involv$ 9 ! ?\ght ( a m]e idea or a m]e repres5tation by treat+ repres5tations ei!r z p>ts or z qualities ( an object4 ,= al?\gh he speaks ( our cognitions1#dd i4 e4 ( our repres5tations1 z be+ det]m9$ by ! object1 he says t !y mu/ agree1 i4 e4 !y mu/ h t unity :i* con/itutes ! conception ( an object1 & he illu/rates repres5tations by ! sides ( an individual triangle & ! imp5etrability & %ape ( an individual body1 :i* are j z 'objective' z ! objects to :i* !y relate4 ,! fact is t he really treats a repres5tation n z 8 problem requires t x %\ld be treat$1 i4 e4 z a repres5tation ( some?+1 b z some?+ repres5t$1#de i4 e4 z some?+ ( :i* we are aw>e1 viz4 a "p or a quality ( an object4 ,9 ! f\r? place1 n only is t :i* ,kant speaks ( z relat$ to an object really n a repres5tation1 b also--z we see if we consid] ! fact :i* ,kant has 9 m9d--t to :i* he speaks ( x z relat$ is really n an object b "o & ! same object to :i* ano!r s-call$ repres5tation is relat$4 ,= :at ,kant says is t repres5tations z relat$ to an object mu/ agree among !mselves4 ,b ?is /atem5t1 to be significant1 implies t ! object to :i* v>i\s repres5tations are relat$ is "o & ! same4 ,o!rwise :y %\ld ! repres5tations agree8 ,9 view1 !re=e1 ( ^! la/ two consid]ations we mu/ admit t ! real ?\ght und]ly+ ,kant's /atem5t %\ld be express$ ?us3 ',we f9d t ! ?\ght t two or m p>ts or qualities ( an object relate to "o & ! same object c>ries ) x a c]ta9 necessity1 s9ce ?is object is consid]$ to be t :i* prev5ts ^! p>ts or qualities :i* we "k x to possess f be+ det]m9$ at r&om1 because by be+ relat$ to "o & ! same object1 !y mu/ agree among !mselves4' ,! importance ( ! correction lies 9 ! fact t :at ,kant is /at+ is n :at he ?9ks he is /at+4 ,he is really /at+ ! implication ( ! ?\ght t two or m qualities or p>ts ( "s object or o!r1 :i*1 z su*1 already relate to an object1 relate to "o & ! same object4 ,he ?9ks he is /at+ ! implication ( ! ?\ght t a repres5tation :i* 9 itself has no relation to an object1 has relation to an object4 ,& s9ce 8 problem is simply to det]m9e :at con/itutes ! relat$ness to an object ( t :i* 9 itself is a m]e repres5tation1 ! di/9ction is important2 = x %[s t he really elucidates x by an implication respect+ some?+ :i* already has relation to an object & is n a m5tal modification at all1 b a quality or a "p ( an object4 #dc ,cf4 pp4 #bcj-c4 #dd ,erk5ntnisse4 #de ,vorge/ellt4 ,kant cont9ues ?us3 ,b x is cle> t1 s9ce we h to d only ) ! manifold ( our repres5tations1 & ! x1 :i* corresponds to !m 7! object71 s9ce x is to be some?+ di/9ct f all our repres5tations1 is = u no?+1 ! unity :i* ! object necessitates c be no?+ else ?an ! =mal unity ( consci\sness 9 ! syn!sis ( ! manifold ( repres5tations4 ,i4 e4 s9ce ! object :i* produces sy/ematic unity 9 our repres5tations is aft] all only ! unkn[n ?+ 9 itself1 viz4 x1#df any ( ! p>ts or qualities ( :i* x is impossible to "k1 t to :i* x gives unity c be only our repres5tations & n its own p>ts or qualities4 ,=1 s9ce we d n "k any ( its p>ts or qualities1 ^! repres5tations _c be its p>ts or qualities4 ,consequ5tly1 ! unity produc$ by ?is x c only be ! =mal unity ( ! comb9ation ( ! manifold 9 consci\sness4#dg ,!n & !n only d we say t we "k ! object1 i4 e4 we "k t ! manifold relates to an object#dh if we h produc$ syn!tical unity 9 ! manifold ( p]ception4 ,b ?is unity w\ld be impossible1 if ! p]ception c\ld n be produc$ by means ( su* a function ( syn!sis accord+ to a rule z r5d]s ! reproduction ( ! manifold a priori necess>y1 & a conception 9 :i* ! manifold unifies itself possible4 ,?us we ?9k a triangle z an object1 9 t we are consci\s ( ! comb9ation ( ?ree /raight l9es 9 accordance ) a rule by :i* su* a p]ception c at any "t be pres5t$4 ,?is unity ( ! rule det]m9es all ! manifold & limits x to conditions :i* make ! unity ( app]ception possible1 & ! conception ( ?is unity is ! repres5tation ( ! objectx1 :i* ,i ?9k ?r\gh ! a=esaid pr$icates ( a triangle4 ,i4 e41 app>5tly1 'to conceive ?is unity ( ! rule is to repres5t to myself ! object x1 i4 e4 ! ?+ 9 itself1#di ( :i* ,i come to ?9k by means ( ! rule ( comb9ation4' #df ,cf4 p4 #ahc1 note #b4 #dg ',! =mal unity' means n ! unity peculi> to any p>ticul> syn!sis1 b ! "* %>$ by all syn!ses ( be+ a sy/ematic :ole4 #dh ,! f9al s5se is ! same :e!r 'object' be "h und]/ood to ref] to ! ?+ 9 itself or to a ph5om5on4 #di ,a comp>ison ( ?is passage 7,a4 #ajd-e1 ,mah4 #aih-i7 ) ,a4 #ajh-i1 ,mah4 #bja-b 7:i* seems to reproduce ,a4 #ajd-e1 ,mah4 #aih-i71 ,b4 #ebb-c1 ,m4 #cji & ,a4 #bej1 ,mah4 #bbd1 seems to r5d] x absolutely necess>y to und]/& by x1 & by ! transc5d5tal object1 ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,cf4 also ,b4 #bcf1 ,m4 #adc 7's soon z ,i raise my conception ( an object to ! transc5d5tal mean+ !re(1 ! h\se is n a ?+ 9 itself b only a ph5om5on1 i4 e4 a repres5tation ( :i* ! transc5d5tal object is unkn[n'71 ,a4 #cgb1 ,mah4 #bdg & ,a4 #cgi1 ,mah4 #bec4 ,9 ?is passage sev]al po9ts claim att5tion4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x seems impossible to avoid ! conclusion t 9 ! second s5t5ce ! argum5t is exactly rev]s$4 ,up to ?is po9t1 x is ! ?+ 9 itself :i* produces unity 9 our repres5tations4 ,h5ce=w>d x is we :o produce ! unity by our activity ( comb9+ ! manifold4 ,! discrepancy _c be expla9$ away1 & its exi/5ce c only be acc\nt$ = by ! exig5cies ( ,kant's position4 ,:5 he is ask+ ',:at is meant by ! object 7beyond ! m9d7 correspond+ to our repres5tations8' he has to ?9k ( ! unity ( ! repres5tations z due to ! object4 ,b :5 he is ask+ ',h[ does ! manifold ( s5se become unifi$8' 8 view t all syn!sis is due to ! m9d compels him to hold t ! unity is produc$ by u4 ,9 ! second place1 ! passage introduces a second object 9 addition to ! ?+ 9 itself1 viz4 ! ph5om5al object1 e4 g4 a triangle consid]$ z a :ole ( p>ts unifi$ on a def9ite pr9ciple4#ej ,x is ?is object :i*1 z ! object t we "k1 is h5ce=w>d prom95t 9 ! fir/ edition1 & has exclusive att5tion 9 ! second4 ,! connexion betwe5 ?is object & ! ?+ 9 itself appe>s to lie 9 ! consid]ation t we are only ju/ifi$ 9 hold+ t ! manifold ( s5se is relat$ to a ?+ 9 itself :5 we h unifi$ x & !re=e "k x to be a unity1 & t to "k x to be a unity is ipso facto to be aw>e ( x z relat$ to a ph5om5al object2 9 o!r words1 ! k t ! manifold is relat$ to an object beyond consci\sness is acquir$ ?r\gh our k ( its relat$ness to an object )9 consci\sness4 ,9 ! ?ird place1 9 view ( ,kant's =?com+ v9dication ( ! categories1 x is important to notice t ! process by :i* ! manifold is said to acquire relation to an object is illu/rat$ by a syn!sis on a p>ticul> pr9ciple :i* con/itutes ! ph5om5al object an object ( a p>ticul> k9d4 ,! syn!sis :i* enables u to recognize ?ree l9es z an object is n a syn!sis bas$ on g5]al pr9ciples con/itut$ by ! categories1 b a syn!sis bas$ on ! p>ticul> pr9ciple t ! ?ree l9es mu/ be s put toge!r z to =m an enclos$ space4 ,moreov]1 x %\ld be notic$ t ! ne$ ( a p>ticul> pr9ciple is really inconsi/5t ) 8 view t relation to an object gives ! manifold ! sy/ematic unity :i* con/itutes ! conception ( an object1 or t at lea/ a ,greek3 hy/]on prot]on is involv$4 ,= if ! k t c]ta9 repres5tations =m a sy/ematic unity ju/ifies our hold+ t !y relate to an object1 x w\ld seem t 9 ord] to "k t !y relate to an object we ne$ n "k ! special "* ( _! unity4 ,yet1 z ,kant /ates ! facts1 we really h to "k ! special "* ( _! unity 9 ord] to "k t !y possess sy/ematic unity 9 g5]al4#ea ,la/ly1 x is easy to see ! connexion ( ?is acc\nt ( an object ( repres5tations ) ! prec$+ acc\nt ( ! syn!sis involv$ 9 k4 ,kant _h said t k requires a syn!sis ( ! imag9ation 9 accordance ) a def9ite pr9ciple1 & ! recognition ( ! pr9ciple ( ! syn!sis by ! und]/&+4 ,f ?is po9t ( view x is cle> t ! aim ( ! pres5t passage is to %[ t ?is process yields k ( an object2 = x %[s t ?is process yields k ( a ph5om5al object ( a p>ticul> k9d1 e4 g4 ( a triangle or ( a body1 & t ?is object z su* ref]s to :at aft] all is ! object1 viz4 ! ?+ 9 itself4 #ej ,comp>e ',! object ( our p]ceptions is m]ely t some?+ ( :i* ! conception expresses su* a necessity ( syn!sis' 7,a4 #ajf1 ,mah4 #bjj71 & ',an object is t 9 ! conception ( :i* ! manifold ( a giv5 p]ception is unit$' 7,b4 #acg1 ,m4 #hd74 ,cf4 also ,a4 #ajh1 ,mah4 #bja4 #ea ,kant's position is no d\bt expla9$ by ! fact t s9ce ! object correspond+ to our repres5tations is ! ?+ 9 itself1 & s9ce we only "k t ?is is ( ! same k9d 9 ! case ( e repres5tation1 x c only be ?\ght ( z produc+ sy/ematic unity1 & n a unity ( a p>ticul> k9d4 ,! position is also 9 "p due to ! fact t ! pr9ciples ( syn!sis involv$ by ! ph5om5al object are usually ?\ght ( by ,kant z ! categories2 ^! ( c\rse c only contribute a g5]al k9d ( unity1 & n ! special k9d ( unity belong+ to an individual object4 ,! position rea*$ by ,kant s f> is ?is4 ,k1 z be+ k ( an object1 consi/s 9 a process by :i* ! manifold ( p]ception acquires relation to an object4 ,?is process aga9 is a process ( comb9ation ( ! manifold into a sy/ematic :ole ^u a def9ite pr9ciple1 accompani$ by ! consci\sness 9 "s degree ( ! act ( comb9ation1 & !re=e also ( ! acquisition by ! manifold ( ! def9ite unity :i* =ms ! pr9ciple ( comb9ation4 ,9 virtue ( ?is process !re is said to be 'unity ( consci\sness 9 ! syn!sis ( ! manifold'1 a phrase :i* ! context ju/ifies u 9 und]/&+ z a cond5s$ expression = a situation 9 :i* 7#a7 ! manifold ( s5se is a unity ( necess>ily relat$ p>ts1 7#b7 !re is consci\sness ( ?is unity1 & 7#c7 ! consci\sness :i* comb9es & is consci\s ( comb9+ ! manifold1 z be+ necess>ily "o & ! same ?r\gh\t ?is process1 is itself a unity4 ,kant !n proce$s to introduce :at he evid5tly consid]s ! key/one ( 8 sy/em1 viz4 'transc5d5tal app]ception4' ,!re is always a transc5d5tal condition at ! basis ( any necessity4 ,h5ce we mu/ be able to f9d a transc5d5tal gr\nd ( ! unity ( consci\sness 9 ! syn!sis ( ! manifold ( all our p]ceptions1 & !re=e also ( ! conceptions ( objects 9 g5]al1 consequ5tly also ( all objects ( exp]i5ce1 a gr\nd )\t :i* x w\ld be impossible to ?9k any object = our p]ceptions2 = ?is object is no m ?an t some?+1 ! conception ( :i* expresses su* a necessity ( syn!sis4 ,n[ ?is orig9al & transc5d5tal condition is no o!r ?an transc5d5tal app]ception4 ,! consci\sness ( self accord+ to ! det]m9ations ( our /ate 9 int]nal s5se-p]ception is m]ely empirical1 always *angeable2 !re c be no fix$ or p]man5t self 9 ?is /ream ( int]nal ph5om5a1 & ?is consci\sness is usually call$ int]nal s5se or empirical app]ception4 ,t :i* is necess>ily to be repres5t$ z num]ically id5tical _c be ?\ght z su* by means ( empirical data4 ,! condition :i* is to make su* a transc5d5tal presupposition valid mu/ be "o :i* prec$es all exp]i5ce1 & makes exp]i5ce itself possible4 ,n[ no cognitions#eb c occur 9 u1 no comb9ation & unity ( !m ) "o ano!r1 )\t t unity ( consci\sness :i* prec$es all data ( p]ception1 & by relation to :i* alone all repres5tation ( objects is possible4 ,?is pure orig9al un*angeable consci\sness ,i %all call transc5d5tal app]ception4 ,t x des]ves ?is "n is cle> f ! fact t ev5 ! pure/ objective unity1 viz4 t ( a priori conceptions 7space & "t7 is only possible by relation ( p]ceptions to x4 ,! num]ical unity ( ?is app]ception !re=e =ms ! a priori f\ndation ( all conceptions1 j z ! multiplicity ( space & "t is ! f\ndation ( ! p]ceptions ( ! s5sibility4#ec #eb ,erk5ntnisse4 #ec ,a4 #ajf-g1 ,mah4 #bjj-a4 ,! argum5t is cle>ly meant to be 'transc5d5tal' 9 "*2 9 o!r words1 ,kant cont9ues to argue f ! exi/5ce ( k to ! exi/5ce ( its presuppositions4 ,we %\ld !re=e expect ! passage to d two ?+s3 fir/ly1 to %[ :at x is :i* is presuppos$ by ! 'unity ( consci\sness 9 ! syn!sis ( ! manifold'#ed2 & secondly1 to %[ t ?is presupposition des]ves ! title 'transc5d5tal app]ception'4 ,un=tunately ,kant introduces 'transc5d5tal app]ception' aft] ! mann] 9 :i* he introduc$ ! 's5sibility'1 ! 'imag9ation' & ! 'und]/&+'1 z if x 7 a t]m ) :i* e "o is famili>1 & :i* !re=e ne$s little explanation4 ,to int]pret ! passage1 x seems necess>y to take x 9 close connexion ) ! prec$+ acc\nt ( ! ?ree 'syn!ses' involv$ 9 k1 & to be> 9 m9d t1 z a comp>ison ( passages w %[1 ! t]m 'app]ception'1 :i* ,kant borr[s f ,leibniz1 always has = ,kant a ref]5ce to consci\sness ( self or self-consci\sness4 ,if ?is be done1 ! mean+ ( ! passage seems to be z foll[s3 #ed ,we %\ld h expect$ ?is to h be5 already accompli%$4 ,= accord+ to ! acc\nt already consid]$1 x is we :o by our imag9ation introduce necessity into ! syn!sis ( ! manifold & by our und]/&+ become consci\s ( x4 ,we %all !re=e n be surpris$ to f9d t 'transc5d5tal app]ception' is really only ourselves z ex]cis+ imag9ation & und]/&+ 9 a new guise4 ',to v9dicate ! exi/5ce ( a self :i* is necess>ily "o & ! same ?r\gh\t its repres5tations1 & :i* is capable ( be+ aw>e ( its own id5tity ?r\gh\t1 x is useless to appeal to t consci\sness ( ourselves :i* we h :5 we reflect ^u our successive /ates4 ,=1 al?\gh 9 be+ consci\s ( our /ates we are consci\s ( ourselves we are n consci\s ( ourselves z un*ang+4 ,! self z go+ ?r\gh successive /ates is *ang+1 & ev5 if 9 fact its /ates did n *ange1 its id5tity w\ld be only cont+5t2 x ne$ n cont9ue un*ang$4 ,consequ5tly1 ! only c\rse possible is to %[ t ! self-consci\sness 9 "q is presuppos$ 9 any exp]i5ce or k4 ,n[ x is s presuppos$4 ,=1 z we h already %[n1 ! relation ( repres5tations to an object presupposes "o consci\sness :i* comb9es & unifies !m1 & is at ! same "t consci\s ( ! id5tity ( its own action 9 unify+ !m4 ,?is consci\sness is ! gr\nd ( ! unity ( consci\sness 9 ! syn!sis ( ! manifold4 ,x may fairly be call$ transc5d5tal1 because ev5 a conception :i* relates to space or "t1 & !re=e is ! mo/ remote f s5sation1 presupposes "o consci\sness :i* comb9es & unifies ! manifold ( space & "t ?r\gh ! conception1 & is consci\s ( ! id5tity ( its own action 9 s do+4 ,x may1 !re=e1 be reg>d$ z ! presupposition ( all conceiv+ or br++ a manifold "u a conception1 & !re=e ( all k4 ,consequ5tly1 s9ce k is possible1 i4 e4 s9ce ! manifold ( repres5tations c be relat$ to an object1 !re mu/ be "o self capable ( be+ aw>e ( its own id5tity ?r\gh\t its repres5tations4' ,at ?is po9t ( ,kant's argum5t1 h[ev]1 !re seems to occur an inv]sion ( ! ?\ght4 ,hi!rto1 ,kant has be5 argu+ f ! possibility ( k to ! possibility ( ! consci\sness ( our own id5tity4 ,b 9 ! next p>agraph he appe>s to rev]se ?is proc$ure & to argue f ! possibility ( self-consci\sness to ! possibility ( k4 ,b x is j ?is transc5d5tal unity ( app]ception#ee :i* =ms1 f all possible ph5om5a :i* c be toge!r 9 "o exp]i5ce1 a connexion ( !m accord+ to laws4 ,= ?is unity ( consci\sness w\ld be impossible1 if ! m9d 9 ! k ( ! manifold c\ld n become consci\s ( ! id5tity ( ! function :]eby x unites ! manifold syn!tically 9 "o k4 ,consequ5tly1 ! orig9al & necess>y consci\sness ( ! id5tity ( oneself is at ! same "t a consci\sness ( an equally necess>y unity ( ! syn!sis ( all ph5om5a accord+ to conceptions1 i4 e4 accord+ to rules :i* n only make !m necess>ily reproducible1 b !reby det]m9e an object = _! p]ception1 i4 e4 det]m9e ! conception ( some?+ 9 :i* !y are necess>ily connect$4 ,= ! m9d c\ld n possibly ?9k ! id5tity ( itself 9 ! manifold ( its repres5tations1 & ?is inde$ a priori1 if x _h n be=e its eyes ! id5tity ( its action :i* subjects all syn!sis ( appreh5sion 7:i* is empirical7 to a transc5d5tal unity1 & fir/ makes possible its connexion accord+ to rules4 #ee ,kant seems "h & else:]e to use ! phrase 'transc5d5tal unity ( app]ception' z synonym\s ) 'transc5d5tal app]ception'1 ! reason1 presumably1 be+ t transc5d5tal app]ception is a unity4 ,! argum5t seems indisputably to be z foll[s3 ',! m9d is necess>ily able to be aw>e ( its own id5tity ?r\gh\t its manifold repres5tations4 ,to be aw>e ( ?is1 x mu/ be aw>e ( ! id5tity ( ! activity by :i* x comb9es ! manifold ( repres5tations into a sy/ematic :ole4 ,!re=e x mu/ be capable ( comb9+1 & ( be+ consci\s ( its activity 9 comb9+1 all ph5om5a :i* c be its repres5tations into su* a :ole4 ,b ?is process1 f ! po9t ( view ( ! repres5tations comb9$1 is ! process by :i* !y become relat$ to an object & s ent] into k4 ,!re=e1 s9ce we are capable ( be+ consci\s ( our id5tity ) respect to all ph5om5a :i* c be our repres5tations1 ! process ( comb9ation & consci\sness ( comb9ation :i* con/itutes k mu/ be possible ) respect to !m4' ,?us ! ?\ght ( ?is & ! prec$+ p>agraph seems to involve a circle4 ,fir/ ! possibility ( self-consci\sness is d$uc$ f ! possibility ( k1 & !n ! possibility ( k is d$uc$ f ! possibility ( self-consci\sness4 ,an issue !re=e arises1 ! importance ( :i* c be se5 by ref]5ce to ! f9al aim ( ! 'd$uction'1 viz4 ! v9dication ( ! categories4 ,! categories are 'fundam5tal conceptions :i* enable u to ?9k objects 9 g5]al#ef = ph5om5a'#eg2 9 o!r words1 !y are ! pr9ciples ( ! syn!sis by :i* ! manifold ( s5se becomes relat$ to an object4 ,h5ce1 if ?is be grant$1 ! pro( t ! categories are applicable to objects consi/s 9 %[+ t ! manifold c be subject$ to ?is syn!sis4 ,! "q !re=e arises :e!r ,kant's real />t+-po9t = e/abli%+ ! possibility ( ?is syn!sis & !re=e ! applicability ( ! categories1 is to be f\nd 9 ! possibility ( k1 or 9 ! possibility ( self-consci\sness1 or 9 bo?4 ,9 o!r words1 does ,kant />t f ! position t all repres5tations mu/ be capable ( be+ relat$ to an object1 or f ! position t we mu/ be capable ( be+ consci\s ( our id5tity ) respect to all ( !m1 or f bo?8 #ef ,objecte b]haupt1 i4 e4 objects ( any k9d 9 di/9ction n f objects ( a p>ticul> k9d b f no objects at all4 #eg ,a4 #aaa1 ,mah4 #bjd ,prima facie ! second position is ! m plausible basis = ! desir$ conclusion4 ,on ! "o h&1 x does n seem obvi\s t ! manifold mu/ be capable ( be+ relat$ to an object2 = ev5 if x be urg$ t o!rwise we %\ld h only 'a r&om play ( repres5tations1 less ?an a dream'#eh1 x may be repli$1 t ?is might be or might come to be ! case4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! fact t our repres5tations are ours necess>ily seems to presuppose t we are id5tical subjects ( ^! repres5tations1 & recognition ( ?is fact is ! consci\sness ( our id5tity4 #eh ,a4 #aab1 ,mah4 #bjd4 ,if we turn to ! text = an answ] to ?is "q1 we f9d t ,kant seems n only to use bo? />t+-po9ts1 b ev5 to reg>d !m z equival5ts4 ,?us 9 introduc+ ! categories#ei ,kant beg9s by appeal+ to ! necessity = k t repres5tations %\ld relate to an object4 #ei ,a4 #aaj-ab1 ,mah4 #bjc-d4 ,unity ( syn!sis accord+ to empirical conceptions w\ld be purely cont+5t1 & 7 ^! n bas$ on a transc5d5tal gr\nd ( unity1 x w\ld be possible = a confus$ cr[d ( ph5om5a to fill our s\l1 )\t ! possibility ( exp]i5ce ev] aris+ !refrom4 ,b !n also all relation ( k to objects w\ld fall away1 because k w\ld lack connexion accord+ to univ]sal & necess>y laws2 x w\ld be ?\ghtless p]ception b nev] k1 & !re=e = u z good z no?+4 ,! a priori conditions ( any possible exp]i5ce :atev] are at ! same "t conditions ( ! possibility ( ! objects ( exp]i5ce4 ,n[ ,i ass]t t ! above m5tion$ categories are no?+ b ! conditions ( ?9k+ 9 any possible exp]i5ce1 j z space & "t are ! conditions ( p]ception requisite = ! same4 ,! =m] !re=e are also fundam5tal conceptions by :i* we ?9k objects 9 g5]al = ph5om5a1 & are !re=e objectively valid a priori--:i* is exactly :at we wi%$ to "k4 ,! next s5t5ce1 h[ev]1 bases ! necessity ( ! categories on ! possibility ( self-consci\sness1 )\t giv+ any indication t a *ange ( /&po9t is involv$4 ,b ! possibility1 nay1 ev5 ! necessity1 ( ^! categories re/s on ! relation :i* ! :ole s5sibility1 & ) x also all possible ph5om5a1 h to orig9al app]ception1 a relation :i* =ces ev]y?+ to con=m to ! conditions ( ! ?or\ghgo+ unity ( self-consci\sness1 i4 e4 to /& "u univ]sal functions ( syn!sis1 i4 e4 ( syn!sis accord+ to conceptions1 z t :]e9 alone app]ception c prove a priori its ?or\gh-go+ & necess>y id5tity4 ,f9ally1 ! conclusion ( ! p>agraph seems def9itely to treat bo? />t+-po9ts z really ! same4#fj ,?us ! conception ( a cause is no?+ b a syn!sis 7( ! consequ5t 9 ! "t s]ies ) o!r ph5om5a7 accord+ to conceptions2 & )\t su* a unity1 :i* has its a priori rule & subjects ph5om5a to itself1 ?or\gh-go+ & univ]sal & !re=e necess>y unity ( consci\sness 9 ! manifold ( s5se-p]ceptions w\ld n be met )4 ,b !n also ^! p]ceptions w\ld belong to no exp]i5ce1 consequ5tly !y w\ld h no object1 & w\ld be no?+ b a bl9d play ( repres5tations1 less ?an a dream4 #fj ,cf4 ,a4 #aac1 ,mah4 #bje-f & ,a4 #ajh-aj1 ,mah4 #bjb-c4 ,! fact is t s9ce = ,kant ! syn!sis ( repres5tations 9 accordance ) ! categories1 accompani$ by ! consci\sness ( x1 is at once ! necess>y & suffici5t condition ( ! relat$ness ( repres5tations to an object & ( ! consci\sness ( our id5tity ) respect to !m1 x seems to him to be "o & ! same ?+ :e!r1 9 v9dicat+ ! syn!sis1 we appeal to ! possibility ( k or to ! possibility ( self-consci\sness1 & x ev5 seems possible to argue1 via ! syn!sis1 f k to self-consci\sness & vice v]sa4 ,nev]!less1 x rema9s true t ! v9dication ( ! categories is diff]5t1 accord+ z x is bas$ ^u ! possibility ( relat+ repres5tations to an object or ^u ! possibility ( becom+ self-consci\s ) respect to !m4 ,x also rema9s true t ,kant v9dicates ! categories 9 bo? ways4 ,= :ile1 9 exp\nd+ ! ?ree s-call$ syn!ses involv$ 9 k1 he is v9dicat+ ! categories f ! po9t ( view ( k1 :5 he comes to speak ( transc5d5tal app]ception1 ( :i* ! c5tral *>act]i/ic is ! consci\sness ( self involv$1 !re is a %ift+ ( ! c5tre ( gravity4 ,in/ead ( treat+ repres5tations z some?+ :i* c become relat$ to an object1 he n[ treats !m z some?+ ( :i*1 z belong+ to a self1 ! self mu/ be capable ( be+ consci\s z its own1 & argues t a syn!sis 9 accordance ) ! categories is requir$ = ?is self-consci\sness4 ,x mu/ be admitt$ !n--& ! admission is only to be made ) reluctance--t :5 ,kant rea*es transc5d5tal app]ception1 he really adopts a new />t+-po9t1#fa & t ! passage :i* introduces transc5d5tal app]ception by %[+ x to be impli$ 9 k#fb only s]ves to conceal f ,kant ! fact t1 f ! po9t ( view ( ! d$uction ( ! categories1 he is really assum+ )\t pro( ! possibility ( self-consci\sness ) respect to all our repres5tations1 z a new basis = argum5t4 #fa ,! exi/5ce ( ?is new />t+-po9t is m explicit1 ,a4 #aaf-g 7& note71 ,mah4 #bjh 7& note71 & ,a4 #abb1 ,mah4 #bab4 #fb ,a4 #ajg1 ,mah4 #bjj4 ,! approa* to ! categories f ! side ( self-consci\sness is1 h[ev]1 m prom95t 9 ! second edition1 & consequ5tly we naturally turn to x = m light on ?is side ( ,kant's position4 ,!re ,kant v9dicates ! necessity ( ! syn!sis f ! side ( self-consci\sness z foll[s3#fc #fc ,! ma9 clauses h be5 numb]$ = conv5i5ce ( ref]5ce4 #a4 ,x mu/ be possible t ! ',i ?9k' %\ld accompany all my repres5tations2 = o!rwise some?+ w\ld be repres5t$ 9 me :i* c\ld n be ?\ght2 9 o!r words1 ! repres5tation w\ld be ei!r impossible or at lea/ = me no?+4 #b4 ,t repres5tation :i* c be giv5 be=e all ?\ght is call$ p]ception4 ,all ! manifold ( p]ception has !re=e a necess>y relation to ! ',i ?9k' 9 ! same subject 9 :i* ?is manifold is f\nd4 #c4 ,b ?is repres5tation#fd i4 e4 ! ',i ?9k' is an act ( spontaneity1 i4 e4 x _c be reg>d$ z belong+ to s5sibility4 ,i call x pure app]ception1 to di/+ui% x f empirical app]ception1 or orig9al app]ception also1 because x is t self-consci\sness :i*1 :ile x gives bir? to ! repres5tation ',i ?9k'1 :i* mu/ be capable ( accompany+ all o!rs & is "o & ! same 9 all consci\sness1 _c itself be accompani$ by any o!r4#fe #d4 ,i also call ! unity ( x ! transc5d5tal unity ( self-consci\sness1 9 ord] to indicate ! possibility ( a priori k aris+ f x4 ,= ! manifold repres5tations :i* are giv5 9 a p]ception w\ld n all ( !m be my repres5tations1 if !y did n all belong to "o self-consci\sness1 t is1 z my repres5tations 7ev5 ?\gh ,i am n consci\s ( !m z su*71 !y mu/ necess>ily con=m to ! condition "u :i* alone !y c /& toge!r 9 a univ]sal self-consci\sness1 because o!rwise !y w\ld n all belong to me4 ,f ?is orig9al connexion mu* c be conclud$4 #fd ,?is is an indisputable case ( ! use ( repres5tation 9 ! s5se ( some?+ repres5t$ or pres5t$4 #fe ,i4 e4 consci\sness ( our id5tity is f9al2 we _c1 = in/ance1 g fur!r back to a consci\sness ( ! consci\sness ( our id5tity4 #e4 ,t is to say1 ?is ?or\gh-go+ id5tity ( ! app]ception ( a manifold giv5 9 p]ception conta9s a syn!sis ( repres5tations1#ff & is possible only ?r\gh ! consci\sness ( ?is syn!sis4#fg #f4 ,= ! empirical consci\sness :i* accompanies diff]5t repres5tations is 9 itself fragm5t>y1 & )\t relation to ! id5tity ( ! subject4 #g4 ,?is relation1 !re=e1 takes place n by my m]ely accompany+ e repres5tation ) consci\sness1 b by my add+ "o repres5tation to ano!r1 & be+ consci\s ( ! syn!sis ( !m4 #h4 ,consequ5tly1 only because ,i c connect a manifold ( giv5 repres5tations 9 "o consci\sness1 is x possible = me to repres5t to myself ! id5tity ( consci\sness 9 ^! repres5tations2 i4 e4 ! analytical unity ( app]ception is possible only "u ! presupposition ( a syn!tical unity4 #i4 ,! ?\ght1 ',^! repres5tations giv5 9 p]ception belong all ( !m to me' is accord+ly j ! same z1 ',i unite !m 9 "o self-consci\sness1 or at lea/ c s unite !m2' #aj4 & al?\gh ?is ?\ght is n itself z yet ! consci\sness ( ! syn!sis ( repres5tations1 x nev]!less presupposes ! possibility ( ?is syn!sis2 t is to say1 x is only because ,i c compreh5d ! manifold ( repres5tations 9 "o consci\sness1 t ,i call !m all my repres5tations2 = o!rwise ,i %\ld h z _m-col\r$ & v>i$ a self z ,i h repres5tations ( :i* ,i am consci\s4 #aa4 ,syn!tical unity ( ! manifold ( p]ceptions1 z giv5 a priori1 is !re=e ! gr\nd ( ! id5tity ( app]ception itself1 :i* prec$es a priori all my det]m9ate ?9k+4 #ab4 ,b connexion does n lie 9 ! objects1 nor c x be borr[$ f !m ?r\gh p]ception & !reby fir/ tak5 up into ! und]/&+1 b x is always an op]ation ( ! und]/&+ :i* itself is no?+ m ?an ! faculty ( connect+ a priori1 & ( br++ ! manifold ( giv5 repres5tations "u ! unity ( app]ception1 :i* pr9ciple is ! highe/ 9 all human k4 #ff ,i und]/& ?is to mean ',?is ?r\gh & ?r\gh id5tical consci\sness ( myself z ! id5tical subject ( a manifold giv5 9 p]ception involves a syn!sis ( repres5tations'4 #fg ,! drift ( ! passage z a :ole 7cf4 especially #af7 seems to %[ t "h '! syn!sis ( repres5tations' means '_! connect$ness' & n '! act ( connect+ !m'4 #ac4 ,n[ ?is pr9ciple ( ! necess>y unity ( app]ception is inde$ an id5tical1 & !re=e an analytical1 proposition1 b nev]!less x decl>es a syn!sis ( ! manifold giv5 9 a p]ception to be necess>y1 )\t :i* ! ?or\gh-go+ id5tity ( self-consci\sness _c be ?\ght4 #ad4 ,= ?r\gh ! ,ego1 z a simple repres5tation1 is giv5 no manifold cont5t2 9 p]ception1 :i* is diff]5t f x1 a manifold c only be giv51 & ?r\gh connexion 9 "o consci\sness x c be ?\ght4 ,an und]/&+1 ?r\gh ^: self-consci\sness all ! manifold w\ld eo ipso be giv51 w\ld p]ceive2 our und]/&+ c only ?9k & mu/ seek its p]ception 9 ! s5ses4 #ae4 ,i am1 !re=e1 consci\s ( ! id5tical self1 9 relation to ! manifold ( repres5tations giv5 to me 9 a p]ception1 because ,i call all ^? repres5tations m9e1 :i* con/itute "o4 #af4 ,b ?is is ! same z to say t ,i am consci\s a priori ( a necess>y syn!sis ( !m1 :i* is call$ ! orig9al syn!tic unity ( app]ception1 "u :i* all repres5tations giv5 to me /&1 b also "u :i* !y mu/ be br\ght ?r\gh a syn!sis4#fh #fh ,b4 #aca-e1 ,m4 #ha-d4 ,?\gh ?is passage involves _m difficulties1 ! ma9 drift ( x is cle>4 ,kant is anxi\s to e/abli% ! fact t ! manifold ( s5se mu/ be capable ( be+ comb9$ on pr9ciples1 :i* aft]w>ds turn out to be ! categories1 by %[+ ?is to be involv$ 9 ! fact t we mu/ be capable ( be+ consci\s ( ourselves z ! id5tical subject ( all our repres5tations4 ,to d ?is1 he seeks to prove 9 ! fir/ p>agraph t self-consci\sness 9 ?is s5se mu/ be possible1 & 9 ! second t ?is self-consci\sness presupposes ! syn!sis ( ! manifold4 ,exam9ation ( ! argum5t1 h[ev]1 %[s t ! view t self-consci\sness mu/ be possible is1 s f> z ,kant is conc]n$1#fi an assumption = :i* ,kant succe$s 9 giv+ no reason at all1 & t ev5 if x be true1 x _c =m a basis f :i* to d$uce ! possibility ( ! syn!sis4 #fi ,cf4 p4 #bjd1 note #c4 ,be=e1 h[ev]1 we attempt to prove ?is1 x is necess>y to draw att5tion to ?ree features ( ! argum5t4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x implies a some:at diff]5t acc\nt ( self-consci\sness to t impli$ 9 ! passages ( ! fir/ edition :i* we h already consid]$4 ,self-consci\sness1 in/ead ( be+ ! consci\sness ( ! id5tity ( our activity 9 comb9+ ! manifold1 is n[ prim>ily ! consci\sness ( ourselves z id5tical subjects ( all our repres5tations1 i4 e4 x is :at ,kant calls ! analytical unity ( app]ception2 & consequ5tly x is some:at diff]5tly relat$ to ! activity ( syn!sis involv$ 9 k4 ,in/ead ( be+ reg>d$ z ! consci\sness ( ?is activity1 x is reg>d$ z presuppos+ ! consci\sness ( ! product ( ?is activity1 i4 e4 ( ! connect$ness#gj ( ! manifold produc$ by ! activity1 ?is consci\sness be+ :at ,kant calls ! syn!tical unity ( app]ception4#ga ,9 ! second place1 x is pla9 t ,kant's view is n t self-consci\sness involves ! consci\sness ( our repres5tations z a connect$ :ole1 b t x involves ! consci\sness ( !m z capable ( be+ connect$ by a syn!sis4 ,yet1 if x is only because ,i c connect 7& !re=e appreh5d z connect$7 a manifold ( repres5tations 9 "o consci\sness1 t ,i c repres5t to myself ! id5tity ( consci\sness 9 ^! repres5tations1 self-consci\sness really requires ! consci\sness ( our repres5tations z already connect$2 ! m]e consci\sness ( our repres5tations z capable ( be+ connect$ w\ld n be en\gh4 ,! explanation ( ! inconsi/5cy seems to lie 9 ! fact t ! syn!tic unity ( :i* ,kant is ?9k+ is ! unity ( nature4 ,=1 z ,kant ( c\rse 0 aw>e1 9 our ord9>y consci\sness we d n appreh5d ! int]connexion ( ! p>ts ( nature 9 detail1 b only believe t !re is su* an int]connexion2 consequ5tly he naturally weak5$ ! conclusion :i* he ought to h drawn1 viz4 t self-consci\sness presupposes consci\sness ( ! syn!sis1 9 ord] to make x con=m to ! facts ( our ord9>y consci\sness4 ,yet1 if 8 argum5t is to be def5d$1 its conclusion mu/ be tak5 9 ! =m t self-consci\sness presupposes consci\sness ( ! actual syn!sis or connexion & n m]ely ( ! possibility ( x4 ,9 ! ?ird place1 ,kant twice 9 ?is passage#gb def9itely makes ! act ( syn!sis1 :i* 8 argum5t ma9ta9s to be ! condition ( consci\sness ( ! id5tity ( ourselves1 ! condition ( ! id5tity ( ourselves4 ,! fact is t1 on ,kant's view1 ! act ( syn!sis ( ! repres5tations is really a condition ( _! belong+ to "o self1 ! self be+ presuppos$ to be a self capable ( self-consci\sness4#gc #gj ,m accurately1 '( ! possibility ( ! connect$ness'4 #ga ,! same view seems impli$ ,a4 #aag-h1 ,mah4 #bjh4 ,kant app>5tly ?9ks ( ?is consci\sness z also a self-consci\sness 7cf4 #i71 ?\gh x seems t he %\ld h consid]$ x r z a condition ( self-consci\sness1 cf4 p4 #bjd1 note #b4 #gb ,sections #f & #aj4 #gc ,cf4 pp4 #bjb-c4 ,we may n[ turn to ! fir/ ( ! two ma9 po9ts to be consid]$1 viz4 ! reason giv5 by ,kant = hold+ t self-consci\sness mu/ be possible4 ,9 ! fir/ p>agraph 7 #a-d7 ,kant appe>s twice to /ate a reason1 viz4 9 #a & #d4 ,:at is meant by ! fir/ s5t5ce1 ,x mu/ be possible t ! ',i ?9k' %\ld accompany all my repres5tations2 = o!rwise some?+ w\ld be repres5t$ 9 me :i* c\ld n be ?\ght2 9 o!r words1 ! repres5tation w\ld ei!r be impossible or at lea/ = me no?+8 ,x is difficult to hold t 'my repres5tations' "h means objects ( :i* ,i am aw>e1 & t ! !sis to be e/abli%$ is t ,i mu/ be capable ( be+ consci\s ( my own id5tity ?r\gh\t all aw>5ess or ?\ght ( objects4 ,= ! next s5t5ce ref]s to p]ceptions z repres5tations :i* c be giv5 previ\sly to all ?\ght1 & !re=e1 presumably1 z some?+ ( :i* ,i am n necess>ily aw>e4 ,aga91 ! gr\nd adduc$ = ! !sis w\ld be 9 "p a m]e re/atem5t ( x1 & 9 "p nons5se4 ,x w\ld be 'o!rwise some?+ w\ld be appreh5d$ ) respect to :i* ,i c\ld n be aw>e t ,i 0 appreh5d+ x2 9 o!r words1 ,i c\ld n appreh5d x s9ce o!rwise ,i c\ld be aw>e t ,i 0 appreh5d+ x'1 ! la/ words be+ incapable ( any int]pretation4 ,x is mu* m probable t ?\gh ,kant is lead+ up to self-consci\sness1 ! phrase ',i ?9k' "h ref]s n to 'consci\sness t ,i am ?9k+'1 b to '?9k+'4 ,he seems to mean ',x mu/ be possible to appreh5d all my 'affections' 7i4 e4 s5sations or appe>ances 9 me71 = o!rwise ,i %\ld h an affection ( :i* ,i c\ld n be aw>e2 9 o!r words1 !re c\ld be no su* affection1 or at lea/ x w\ld be ( no possible importance to me4'#gd ,& on ?is int]pretation self-consci\sness is n introduc$ till #c1 & !n only surreptiti\sly4 ,on nei!r int]pretation1 h[ev]1 does ,kant give ! ve/ige ( a reason = ! possibility ( self-consci\sness4 ,aga91 x seems cle> t 9 #d 'my repres5tations'1 & 'repres5tations :i* belong to me' mean objects ( :i* ,i am aw>e 7i4 e4 some?+ pres5t$72 = he says ( my repres5tations1 n t ,i may n be consci\s ( !m--:i* he %\ld h said if 'my repres5tations' meant my m5tal affections ( :i* ,i c\ld become consci\s--b t ,i may n be consci\s ( !m z my repres5tations4 ,consequ5tly 9 #d he is m]ely ass]t+ t ,i mu/ be able to be consci\s ( my id5tity ?r\gh\t my aw>5ess ( objects4 ,s f>1 !n1 we f9d m]ely ! ass]tion t self-consci\sness mu/ be possible4#ge #gd ,a ?ird alt]native is to und]/& ,kant to be ?9k+ ( all ?\ght z self-consci\s1 i4 e4 z ?9k+ accompani$ by ! consci\sness ( ?9k+4 ,b s9ce 9 t case ,kant w\ld be argu+ f ?9k+ z ?9k+1 i4 e4 z appreh5d+ objects1 ! possibility ( self-consci\sness w\ld only be gl>+ly assum$4 #ge ,! same is true ( ,a4 #aaf & ,a4 #aag note1 ,mah4 #bjh1 :]e ,kant also appe>s to be (f]+ :at he consid]s to be an argum5t4 ,9 ! next p>agraph#gf--:i* is cle>ly meant to be ! important "o--,kant1 ?\gh he c h>dly be said to be aw>e ( x1 seems to assume t x is ! v nature ( a kn[+ self1 n only to be id5tical ?r\gh\t its ?\ghts or appreh5d+s1 b to be capable ( be+ consci\s ( its own id5tity4 #f runs3 ,! empirical consci\sness :i* accompanies diff]5t repres5tations is 9 itself fragm5t>y1 & )\t relation to ! id5tity ( ! subject4 ,kant is say+ t if !re exi/$ m]ely a consci\sness ( ,a :i* 0 n at ! same "t a consci\sness ( ,b & a consci\sness ( ,b :i* 0 n at ! same "t a consci\sness ( ,a1 ^! consci\snesses w\ld n be ! consci\snesses belong+ to "o self4 ,b ?is is only true1 if ! "o self to :i* ! consci\sness ( ,a & ! consci\sness ( ,b are to belong mu/ be capable ( be+ aw>e ( its own id5tity4 ,o!rwise x might be "o self :i* appreh5d$ ,a & !n1 =gett+ ,a1 appreh5d$ ,b4 ,no d\bt 9 t case ! self c\ld n be aw>e ( its own id5tity 9 appreh5d+ ,a & 9 appreh5d+ ,b1 b none ! less x w\ld be id5tical 9 s do+4 ,we rea* ! same conclusion if we consid] ! conclud+ s5t5ce ( #aj4 ,x is only because ,i c compreh5d ! manifold ( repres5tations 9 "o consci\sness1 t ,i call !m all my repres5tations2 = o!rwise ,i %\ld h z _m-col\r$ & v>i$ a self z ,i h repres5tations ( :i* ,i am consci\s4 ,d\btless if ,i am to be aw>e ( myself z ! same 9 appreh5d+ ,a & ,b1 !n1 9 com+ to appreh5d ,b1 ,i mu/ cont9ue to appreh5d ,a1 & !re=e mu/ appreh5d ,a & ,b z relat$2 & su* a consci\sness on ,kant's view involves a syn!sis4 ,b if ,i am m]ely to be ! same subject :i* appreh5ds ,a & ,b1 or r if ! appreh5sion ( ,a & t ( ,b are m]ely to be appreh5sions on ! "p ( "o & ! same subject1 no su* consci\sness ( ,a & ,b z relat$ &1 !re=e1 no syn!sis is involv$4 #gf #e-aa4 ,aga91 ! ?ird p>agraph assumes ! possibility ( self-consci\sness z ! />t+-po9t = argum5t4 ,! ?\ght#gg seems to be ?is3 ',= a self to be aw>e ( its own id5tity1 !re mu/ be a manifold 9 relation to :i* x c appreh5d itself z "o & ! same ?r\gh\t4 ,an und]/&+ :i* 0 p]ceptive1 i4 e4 :i* orig9at$ objects by its own act ( ?9k+1 w\ld necess>ily by its own ?9k+ orig9ate a manifold 9 relation to :i* x c\ld be aw>e ( its own id5tity 9 ?9k+1 & !re=e its self-consci\sness w\ld ne$ no syn!sis4 ,b our und]/&+1 :i* is n p]ceptive1 requires a manifold to be giv5 to x1 9 relation to :i* x c be aw>e ( its own id5tity by means ( a syn!sis ( ! manifold4' ,if ?is be ! ?\ght1 x is cle>ly presuppos$ t any und]/&+ mu/ be capable ( be+ consci\s ( its own id5tity4#gh #gg ,cf4 ,b4 #ach f94-#aci init41 ,m4 #he f94 #gh ,b4 #aci init41 ,m4 #he f94 also assumes t x is impossible = a m9d to be a unity )\t be+ able to be consci\s ( its unity4 ,fur!r1 x is easy to see h[ ,kant came to take = grant$ ! possibility ( self-consci\sness1 9 ! s5se ( ! consci\sness ( ourselves z ! id5tical subject ( all our repres5tations4 ,he approa*es self-consci\sness ) ! presupposition d]iv$ f 8 analysis ( k t our appreh5sion ( a manifold does n consi/ 9 sep>ate appreh5sions ( its elem5ts1 b is "o appreh5sion or consci\sness ( ! elem5ts z relat$4#gi ,he ?9ks ( ?is z a g5]al presupposition ( all appreh5sion ( a manifold1 &1 ( c\rse1 to discov] ?is presupposition is to be self-consci\s4 ,to recognize ! on5ess ( our appreh5sion is to be consci\s ( our own id5tity4#hj #gi ,x is 9 consequ5ce ( ?is t ! /atem5t t 'a manifold ( repres5tations belongs to me' means1 ) ! probable exception ( #a1 n1 ',i am aw>e ( ,a1 ,i am aw>e ( ,b1 ,i am aw>e ( ,c1' b1 ',i am aw>e1 9 "o act ( aw>5ess1 ( ,a ,b ,c z relat$' 7 ,,abc are 'connect$ 9' or 'belong to' "o consci\sness74 ,cf4 #d1 #h 7'9 "o consci\sness'71 #i1 #aj 7'9 "o consci\sness'71 & ,a4 #aaf1 ,mah4 #bjh 7',^! repres5tations only repres5t any?+ 9 me by belong+ ) all ! re/ to "o consci\sness accept+ ,erdmann's em5dation mit all5 &]51 9 :i* at any rate !y c be connect$'74 #hj ,! above criticism ( ,kant's ?\ght has n impli$ t x may n be true t a kn[+ m9d is1 z su*1 capable ( be+ aw>e ( its own unity2 ! argum5t has only be5 t ,kant's pro( is unsuccessful4 ,aga91 to pass to ! second ma9 po9t to be consid]$1#ha ,kant has no ju/ification = argu+ f ! possibility ( self-consci\sness to t ( ! syn!sis4 ,?is c be se5 f ! m]e =m ( 8 argum5t4 ,kant1 z has be5 said1 seems fir/ to e/abli% ! possibility ( self-consci\sness1 & !nce to conclude t a syn!sis mu/ be possible4 ,b if1 z x is 8 po9t to urge1 consci\sness ( our id5tity only takes place ?r\gh consci\sness ( ! syn!sis1 ?is me?od ( argum5t mu/ be invalid4 ,x w\ld cle>ly be necess>y to "k t ! syn!sis is possible1 be=e & 9 ord] t we c\ld "k t self-consci\sness is possible4 ,an objector has only to urge t ! manifold might be su* t x c\ld n be comb9$ into a sy/ematic :ole1 9 ord] to secure ! admission t 9 t case self-consci\sness w\ld n be possible4 #ha ,cf4 p4 #aih4 ,nev]!less1 ! passage "u consid]ation may be said to lay b>e an important presupposition ( self-consci\sness4 ,x is true t self-consci\sness w\ld be impossible1 if we m]ely appreh5d$ ! p>ts ( ! _w 9 isolation4 ,to be consci\s t ,i :o am p]ceiv+ ,c p]ceiv$ ,b & ,a1 ,i mu/ be consci\s at once ( ,a1 ,b1 & ,c1 9 "o act ( consci\sness or appreh5sion4 ,to be consci\s sep>ately ( ,a & ,b & ,c is n to be consci\s ( ,a & ,b & ,c4 ,&1 to be consci\s ( ,a & ,b & ,c 9 "o act ( consci\sness1 ,i mu/ appreh5d ,a1 ,b1 & ,c z relat$1 i4 e4 z =m+ p>ts ( a :ole or sy/em4 ,h5ce x is only because our consci\sness ( ,a1 ,b1 & ,c is nev] ! consci\sness ( a m]e ,a1 a m]e ,b1 & a m]e ,c1 b is always ! consci\sness ( ,a ,b ,c z elem5ts 9 "o _w t we c be consci\s ( our id5tity 9 appreh5d+ ,a1 ,b1 & ,c4 ,if p] impossibile our appreh5sion be suppos$ to cease to be an appreh5sion ( a plurality ( objects 9 relation1 self-consci\sness mu/ be suppos$ to cease also4 ,at ! same "t1 x is impossible to argue f ! consci\sness ( our id5tity 9 appreh5d+ to ! consci\sness ( :at is appreh5d$ z a unity1 & !nce to ! exi/5ce ( t unity4 ,=1 ap>t f ! consid]ation t 9 fact all ?9k+ presupposes ! relat$ness or--:at is ! same ?+--! necess>y relat$ness ( objects to "o ano!r1 & t !re=e any ass]tion to ! contr>y is mean+less1 ! consci\sness ( objects z a unity is a condition ( ! consci\sness ( our id5tity1 & !re=e any d\bt t c be rais$ 9 reg>d to ! =m] c be rais$ equally ) reg>d to ! latt]4 ,we may n[ pass to ! conclud+ portion ( ! d$uction4 ,= ! purpose ( consid]+ x1 we may sum up ! results ( ! prec$+ discussion by say+ t ,kant e/abli%es ! syn!sis ( ! manifold on c]ta9 pr9ciples by :at are really two indep5d5t l9es ( ?\ght4 ,! manifold may be reg>d$ ei!r z some?+ :i*1 9 ord] to ent] into k1 mu/ be giv5 relation to an object1 or z some?+ ) respect to :i* self-consci\sness mu/ be possible4 ,reg>d$ 9 ei!r way1 ! manifold1 accord+ to ,kant1 involves a process ( syn!sis on c]ta9 pr9ciples1 :i* makes x a sy/ematic unity4 ,n[ ,kant introduces ! categories by ma9ta9+ t !y are ! pr9ciples ( syn!sis 9 "q4 ,i ass]t t ! above m5tion$ categories are no?+ b ! conditions ( ?9k+ 9 a possible exp]i5ce4444 ,!y are fundam5tal conceptions by :i* we ?9k objects 9 g5]al = ph5om5a4#hb ,a syn!sis accord+ to ! categories is 't :]e9 alone app]ception c prove a priori its ?or\gh-go+ & necess>y id5tity'4#hc ,9 ! fir/ edition ?is id5tification is simply ass]t$1 b 9 ! second ,kant (f]s a pro(4#hd #hb ,a4 #aaa1 ,mah4 #bjd4 ,cf4 ,a4 #aai1 ,mah4 #baj4 #hc ,a4 #aab1 ,mah4 #bjd4 #hd ,cf4 p4 #afa4 ,be=e1 h[ev]1 we consid] ! pro(1 x is necess>y to ref] to a difficulty :i* seems to h escap$ ,kant altoge!r4 ,! prec$+ acc\nt ( ! syn!sis involv$ 9 k & 9 self-consci\sness implies1 z 8 illu/rations conclusively %[1 t ! syn!sis requires a p>ticul> pr9ciple :i* con/itutes ! individual manifold a :ole ( a p>ticul> k9d4#he ,b1 if ?is be ! case1 x is cle> t ! categories1 :i* are m]ely conceptions ( an object 9 g5]al1 & are consequ5tly q g5]al1 _c possibly be suffici5t = ! purpose4 ,& s9ce ! manifold 9 itself includes no syn!sis & !re=e no pr9ciple ( syn!sis1 ,kant fails to give any acc\nt ( ! s\rce ( ! p>ticul> pr9ciples ( syn!sis requir$ = p>ticul> acts ( k4#hf ,?is difficulty--:i* admits ( no solution--is conceal$ f ,kant 9 two ways4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 :5 he describes :at really mu/ be /at$ z ! process by :i* p>ts or qualities ( an object become relat$ to an object ( a p>ticul> k9d1 he ?9ks t he is describ+ a process by :i* repres5tations become relat$ to an object 9 g5]al4#hg ,secondly1 he ?9ks ( ! und]/&+ z ! s\rce ( g5]al pr9ciples ( syn!sis1 individual syn!ses & ! p>ticul> pr9ciples involv$ be+ attribut$ to ! imag9ation2 & s1 :5 he comes to consid] ! "p play$ 9 k by ! und]/&+1 he is apt to ignore ! ne$ ( p>ticul> pr9ciples4#hh ,h5ce1 ,kant's pro( t ! categories are ! pr9ciples ( syn!sis c at be/ be tak5 only z a pro( t ! categories1 ?\gh n suffici5t = ! syn!sis1 are involv$ 9 x4 #he ,cf4 p4 #agg1 note #b1 & p4 #ahe4 #hf ,cf4 pp4 #bae-ag4 #hg ,cf4 pp4 #aha-b4 #hh ,cf4 p4 #bag4 ,! pro( runs ?us3 ,i c\ld nev] satisfy myself ) ! def9ition :i* logicians give ( a judgem5t 9 g5]al4 ,x is1 accord+ to !m1 ! repres5tation ( a relation betwe5 two conceptions4444 ,b if ,i exam9e m closely ! relation ( giv5 repres5tations#hi 9 e judgem5t1 & di/+ui% x1 z belong+ to ! und]/&+1 f _! relation accord+ to ! laws ( ! reproductive imag9ation 7:i* has only subjective validity71 ,i f9d t a judgem5t is no?+ b ! mode ( br++ giv5 repres5tations "u ! objective unity ( app]ception4 ,?is is :at is int5d$ by ! t]m ( relation 'is' 9 judgem5ts1 :i* is meant to di/+ui% ! objective unity ( giv5 repres5tations f ! subjective4 ,= ?is t]m indicates ! relation ( ^! repres5tations to ! orig9al app]ception1 & also _! necess>y unity1 ev5 ?\gh ! judgem5t itself is empirical1 & !re=e cont+5t1 e4 g4 ',bodies are heavy4' ,by ?is ,i d n mean t ^! repres5tations necess>ily belong to ea* o!r 9 empirical p]ception1 b t !y belong to ea* o!r by means ( ! necess>y unity ( app]ception 9 ! syn!sis ( p]ceptions1 t is1 accord+ to pr9ciples ( ! objective det]m9ation ( all our repres5tations1 9 s f> z k c arise f !m1 ^! pr9ciples be+ all d]iv$ f ! pr9ciple ( ! transc5d5tal unity ( app]ception4 ,9 ?is way alone c !re arise f ?is relation a judgem5t1 t is1 a relation :i* is objectively valid1 & is adequately di/+ui%$ f ! relation ( ! v same repres5tations :i* w\ld be only subjectively valid1 e4 g4 accord+ to laws ( association4 ,accord+ to ^! laws1 ,i c\ld only say1 ',if ,i c>ry a body1 ,i feel an impression ( weight'1 b n ',x1 ! body1 is heavy'2 = ?is is tantam\nt to say+1 ',^! two repres5tations are connect$ 9 ! object1 t is1 )\t di/9ction z to ! condition ( ! subject1 & are n m]ely connect$ toge!r 9 ! p]ception1 h[ev] (t5 x may be repeat$4'#ij #hi ,erk5ntnisse "h is cle>ly us$ z a synonym = repres5tations4 ,cf4 ,a4 #ajd1 ,mah4 #aii4 #ij ,b4 #adj-b1 ,m4 #hf-h2 cf4 ,prol41 #ah-bj4 ,?is gr\nd = ! id5tification ( ! categories ) ! pr9ciples ( syn!sis involv$ 9 k may be ignor$1 z on ! face ( x unsuccessful4 ,= ! argum5t is t s9ce ! activity by :i* ! syn!sis is affect$ is t ( judgem5t1 ! conceptions %[n by ! ,metaphysical ,d$uction to be involv$ 9 judgem5t mu/ con/itute ! pr9ciples ( syn!sis4 ,b x is ess5tial to ?is argum5t t ! pres5t acc\nt ( judgem5t & t :i* =ms ! basis ( ! ,metaphysical ,d$uction %\ld be ! same2 & ?is is pla9ly n ! case4#ia ,judgem5t is n[ repres5t$ z an act by :i* we relate ! manifold ( s5se 9 c]ta9 necess>y ways z p>ts ( ! physical _w1#ib :]eas 9 ! ,metaphysical ,d$uction x 0 treat$ z an act by :i* we relate conceptions2 & ,kant n[ actually says t ?is latt] acc\nt is faulty4 ,h5ce ev5 if ! metaphysical d$uction _h successfully d]iv$ ! categories f ! acc\nt ( judgem5t :i* x presuppos$1 ! pres5t argum5t w\ld n ju/ify ! id5tification ( ! categories s d$uc$ ) ! pr9ciples ( syn!sis4 ,! fact is t ,kant's v9dication ( ! categories is 9 sub/ance indep5d5t ( ! ,metaphysical ,d$uction4 ,kant's real ?\ght1 z oppos$ to 8 =mal pres5tation ( x1 is simply t :5 we come to consid] :at are ! pr9ciples ( syn!sis involv$ 9 ! ref]5ce ( ! manifold to an object1 we f9d t !y are ! categories4#ic ,! success1 !n1 ( ?is /ep 9 ,kant's v9dication ( ! categories is indep5d5t ( t ( ! metaphysical d$uction1 & dep5ds solely ^u ! "q :e!r ! pr9ciples ( syn!sis involv$ 9 k are 9 fact ! categories4 #ia ,cf4 ,caird1 i4 #cdh-i note4 #ib ,we may notice 9 pass+ t ?is passage r5d]s explicit ! extreme difficulty ( ,kant's view t '! objective unity ( app]ception' is ! unity ( ! p>ts ( nature or ( ! physical _w4 ,h[ c ! 'v same repres5tations' /& at once 9 ! subjective relation ( association & 9 ! objective relation :i* consi/s 9 _! be+ relat$ z p>ts ( nature8 ,!re is pla9ly involv$ a transition f repres5tation1 9 ! s5se ( ! appreh5sion ( some?+1 to repres5tation1 9 ! s5se ( some?+ appreh5d$4 ,x is objects appreh5d$ :i* are objectively relat$2 x is our appreh5sions ( objects :i* are associat$1 cf4 pp4 #bcc & #bha-b4 ,curr5t psy*ology seems to %>e ,kant's mi/ake 9 its doctr9e ( association ( ideas1 by treat+ ! elem5ts associat$1 :i* are really appreh5sions ( objects1 z if !y 7 objects appreh5d$4 #ic ,cf4 ,a4 #aab1 ,mah4 #bjd2 ,b4 #afb1 ,m4 #ii4 ,! sub/ance ( ,kant's v9dication ( ! categories may !re=e be epitomiz$ ?us3 ',we may take ei!r ( two />t+-po9ts4 ,on ! "o h&1 we may />t f ! fact t our exp]i5ce is no m]e dream1 b an intellig5t exp]i5ce 9 :i* we are aw>e ( a _w ( individual objects4 ,?is fact is conc$$ ev5 by ^? :o1 l ,hume1 d5y t we are aw>e ( any necessity ( relation betwe5 ^! objects4 ,we may !n g on to ask h[ x comes ab\t t1 beg9n+ z we d ) a manifold ( s5se giv5 9 succession1 we come to appreh5d ?is _w ( individual objects4 ,if we d s1 we f9d t !re is presuppos$ a syn!sis on our "p ( ! manifold ^u pr9ciples con/itut$ by ! categories4 ,to d5y1 !re=e1 t ! manifold is s connect$ is implicitly to d5y t we h an appreh5sion ( objects at all4 ,b ! exi/5ce ( ?is appreh5sion is pla9ly a fact :i* ev5 ,hume did n dispute4 ,on ! o!r h&1 we may />t ) ! equally obvi\s fact t we mu/ be capable ( appreh5d+ our own id5tity ?r\gh\t our appreh5sion ( ! manifold ( s5se1 & look = ! presupposition ( ?is fact4 ,if we d ?is1 we aga9 f9d t !re is involv$ a comb9ation ( ! manifold accord+ to ! categories4' ,9 conclusion1 att5tion may be drawn to two po9ts4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ,kant completes 8 acc\nt by at once emphasiz+ & expla9+ ! p>adoxical "* ( 8 conclusion4 ,accord+ly1 ! ord] & con=mity to law 9 ! ph5om5a :i* we call nature we ourselves introduce1 & we c\ld nev] f9d x !re1 if we1 or ! nature ( our m9d1 _h n orig9ally plac$ x !re4#id ,h[ev] exagg]at$ or absurd !n x may s\nd to say t ! und]/&+ itself is ! s\rce ( ! laws ( nature & consequ5tly ( ! =mal unity ( nature1 su* an ass]tion is nev]!less correct & 9 accordance ) ! object1 i4 e4 ) exp]i5ce4#ie ,! explanation ( ! p>adox is f\nd 9 ! fact t objects ( nature are ph5om5a4 ,b if we reflect t ?is nature is 9 itself no?+ else ?an a totality#if ( ph5om5a & consequ5tly no ?+ 9 itself b m]ely a numb] ( repres5tations ( ! m9d1 we %all n be surpris$ t only 9 ! radical faculty ( all our k1 viz4 transc5d5tal app]ception1 d we see x 9 t unity ?r\gh :i* alone x c be call$ object ( all possible exp]i5ce1 i4 e4 nature4#ig ,x is no m surpris+ t ! laws ( ! ph5om5a 9 nature mu/ agree ) ! und]/&+ & ) its a priori =m1 t is1 its faculty ( connect+ ! manifold 9 g5]al1 ?an t ! ph5om5a !mselves mu/ agree ) ! a priori =m ( our s5su\s p]ception4 ,= laws exi/ 9 ! ph5om5a z little z ph5om5a exi/ 9 !mselves2 on ! contr>y1 laws exi/ only relatively to ! subject 9 :i* ! ph5om5a inh]e1 s f> z x has und]/&+1 j z ph5om5a exi/ only relatively to ! subject1 s f> z x has s5ses4 ,to ?+s 9 !mselves _! con=mity to law w\ld necess>ily also belong indep5d5tly ( an und]/&+ :i* kn[s !m4 ,b ph5om5a are only repres5tations ( ?+s :i* exi/ unkn[n 9 respect ( :at !y may be 9 !mselves4 ,b1 z m]e repres5tations1 !y /& "u no law ( connexion except t :i* ! connect+ faculty prescribes4#ih #id ,a4 #abe1 ,mah4 #bad4 #ie ,a4 #abg1 ,mah4 #baf4 #if ,inbegriff4 #ig ,a4 #aad1 ,mah4 #bjf4 #ih ,b4 #afd1 ,m4 #ajj4 ,9 ! second place1 ?is la/ p>agraph conta9s ! real reason f ! po9t ( view ( ! d$uction#ii ( ! categories = :at may be call$ ! negative side ( 8 doctr9e1 viz4 t ! categories only apply to objects ( exp]i5ce & n to ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,accord+ to ,kant1 we c only say t c]ta9 pr9ciples ( connexion apply to a reality into :i* we introduce ! connexion4 ,?+s 9 !mselves1 if connect$1 are connect$ 9 !mselves & ap>t f u4 ,h5ce !re c be no gu>antee t any pr9ciples ( connexion :i* we might ass]t !m to possess are ^? :i* !y d possess4 #ii ,! ma9 passage 7,b4 #adf-i1 ,m4 #ij-b71 9 :i* he argues t ! categories d n apply to ?+s 9 !mselves1 ignores ! acc\nt ( a conception z a pr9ciple ( syn!sis1 ^u :i* ! d$uction turns1 & returns to ! e>li] acc\nt ( a conception z some?+ oppos$ to a p]ception1 i4 e4 z t by :i* an object is ?\ght z oppos$ to a p]ception by :i* an object is giv54 ,consequ5tly1 x argues m]ely t ! categories1 z conceptions1 are empty or )\t an object1 unless an object is giv5 9 p]ception1 & t1 s9ce ?+s 9 !mselves are n objects ( p]ception1 ! categories are no m applicable to ?+s 9 !mselves ?an are any o!r conceptions4 ,,*apt] ,,ix ,,g5]al ,,criticism ,,( ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,d$uction ,,( ,,! ,,categories ,! prec$+ acc\nt ( ,kant's v9dication ( ! categories has includ$ mu* criticism4 ,b ! criticism has be5 z f> z possible re/rict$ to details1 & has dealt ) matt]s ( pr9ciple only s f> z has be5 necess>y 9 ord] to foll[ ,kant's ?\ght4 ,we mu/ n[ consid] ! position z a :ole1 ev5 ?\gh ?is may involve "s repetition4#a ,! g5]al difficulties ( ! position may be divid$ into two k9ds1 7#a7 difficulties involv$ 9 ! work+ out ( ! !ory1 ev5 if its ma9 pr9ciples are n que/ion$1 & 7#b7 difficulties involv$ 9 accept+ its ma9 pr9ciples at all4 #a ,difficulties connect$ ) ,kant's view ( self-consci\sness w be ignor$1 z hav+ be5 suffici5tly consid]$4 ,! initial difficulty ( ! fir/ k9d1 :i* naturally /rikes ! read]1 conc]ns ! possibility ( p]=m+ ! syn!sis4 ,! m9d has c]ta9 g5]al ways ( comb9+ ! manifold1 viz4 ! categories4 ,b on g5]al gr\nds we %\ld expect ! m9d to possess only "o mode ( comb9+ ! manifold4 ,= ! "* ( ! manifold to be comb9$ _c affect ! m9d's p[] ( comb9ation1 &1 if ! p[] ( ! m9d consi/s 9 comb9+1 ! comb9+ %\ld always be ( ! same k9d4 ,?us1 suppose ! manifold giv5 to ! m9d to be comb9$ consi/$ ( musical notes1 we c\ld ?9k ( ! m9d's p[] ( comb9ation z ex]cis$ 9 comb9+ ! notes by way ( succession1 provid$ t ?is be reg>d$ z ! only mode ( comb9ation4 ,b if ! m9d 7 ?\ght also capable ( comb9+ notes by way ( simultaneity1 we %\ld at once be confront$ ) ! insoluble problem ( det]m9+ :y ! "o mode ( comb9ation 0 ex]cis$ 9 any giv5 case r ?an ! o!r4 ,if1 sev]al k9ds ( syn!sis be+ all[$1 ?is difficulty be avoid$ by ! supposition t1 n be+ incompatible1 !y are all ex]cis$ toge!r1 we h ! alt]native task ( expla9+ h[ ! same manifold c be comb9$ 9 ea* ( ^! ways4 ,z a matt] ( fact1 ,kant ?9ks ( manifolds ( diff]5t k9ds z comb9$ or relat$ 9 diff]5t ways2 ?us ev5ts are relat$ causally & quantities quantitatively4 ,b s9ce1 on ,kant's view1 ! manifold z giv5 is unrelat$ & all comb9ation comes f ! m9d1 ! m9d %\ld n be held capable ( comb9+ manifolds ( diff]5t k9ds diff]5tly4 ,o!rwise ! manifold w\ld 9 its own nature imply ! ne$ ( a p>ticul> k9d ( syn!sis1 & w\ld !re=e n be unrelat$4 ,suppose1 h[ev]1 we waive ! difficulty involv$ 9 ! plurality ( ! categories4 ,!re rema9s ! equally fundam5tal difficulty t any s+le pr9ciple ( syn!sis conta9s 9 itself no gr\nd = ! diff]5t ways ( its application4#b ,suppose x to be conc$$ t 9 ! appreh5sion ( def9ite %apes we comb9e ! manifold 9 accordance ) ! conception ( figure1 &1 = ! purpose ( ! argum5t1 t ! conception ( figure c be treat$ z equival5t to ! category ( quantity4 ,x is pla9 t we appreh5d diff]5t %apes1 e4 g4 l9es#c & triangles#d1 ( :i*1 if we take into acc\nt diff]5ces ( relative l5g? ( sides1 !re is an inf9ite v>iety1 & h\ses1#e :i* may also h an inf9ite v>iety ( %ape4 ,b !re is no?+ 9 ! m9d's capacity ( relat+ ! manifold by way ( figure to det]m9e x to comb9e a giv5 manifold into a figure ( "o k9d r ?an into a figure ( any o!r k9d2 = to comb9e ! manifold into a p>ticul> %ape1 !re is ne$$ n m]ely ! ?\ght ( a figure 9 g5]al1 b ! ?\ght ( a def9ite figure4 ,no 'cue' c be furni%$ by ! manifold itself1 = any su* cue w\ld involve ! conception ( a p>ticul> figure1 & w\ld !re=e imply t ! p>ticul> syn!sis 0 implicit 9 ! manifold itself1 9 :i* case x w\ld n be true t all syn!sis comes f ! m9d4 #b ,cf4 p4 #bjg4 #c ,b4 #acg1 ,m4 #he4 #d ,a4 #aje1 ,mah4 #aii4 #e ,b4 #afb1 ,m4 #ii4 ,?is difficulty takes a some:at diff]5t =m 9 ! case ( ! categories ( relation4 ,to take ! case ( cause & effect1 ! conception ( :i*1 accord+ to ,kant1 is involv$ 9 our appreh5sion ( a succession1 ,kant's view seems to be t we become aw>e ( two elem5ts ( ! manifold ,a ,b z a succession ( ev5ts 9 ! _w ( nature by comb9+ !m z necess>ily successive 9 a causal ord]1 9 :i* ! /ate ( affairs :i* prec$es ,b & :i* conta9s ,a conta9s some?+ ^u :i* ,b mu/ foll[ 7i4 e4 a cause ( ,b71 :i* !re=e makes x necess>y t ,b mu/ foll[ ,a4#f ,b if we are to d ?is1 we mu/ 9 "s way succe$ 9 select+ or pick+ out f among ! elem5ts ( ! manifold t elem5t ,a :i* is to be ?us comb9$ ) ,b4 ,we !re=e ne$ some?+ m ?an ! category4 ,x is n en\gh t we %\ld ?9k t ,b has a cause2 we mu/ ?9k ( some?+ 9 p>ticul> z ! cause ( ,b1 & we mu/ ?9k ( x ei!r z coexi/5t )1 or z id5tical )1 ,a4 #f ,cf4 pp4 #bia-c4 ,kant fails to notice ?is second difficulty1#g & up to a c]ta9 po9t avoids x ow+ to 8 di/9ction betwe5 ! imag9ation & ! und]/&+4 ,= he ?9ks ( ! und]/&+ z ! s\rce ( g5]al pr9ciples ( syn!sis1 viz4 ! categories1 & attributes individual syn!ses to ! imag9ation4 ,h5ce ! individual syn!ses1 :i* involve p>ticul> pr9ciples1 are already effect$ be=e ! und]/&+ comes into play4 ,b to ?r[ ! "w ( effect+ individual syn!ses ^u ! imag9ation is only to evade ! difficulty4 ,= 9 ! end1 z has be5 po9t$ out1#h ! imag9ation mu/ be ! und]/&+ work+ unreflectively1 &1 :e!r ?is is s or n1 "s acc\nt mu/ be giv5 ( ! way 9 :i* ! imag9ation furni%es ! p>ticul> pr9ciples ( syn!sis requir$4 #g ,we %\ld h expect$ ,kant to h notic$ ?is difficulty 9 ,a4 #aje1 ,mah4 #aii1 :]e he describes :at is involv$ 9 ! relation ( repres5tations to an object1 = 8 in/ance ( repres5tations becom+ s relat$ is ! process ( comb9+ elem5ts into a triangle1 :i* pla9ly requires a syn!sis ( a v def9ite k9d4 ,= ! reasons ( 8 failure to notice ! difficulty cf4 p4 #bjg4 #h ,pp4 #afh-i4 ,! ?ird & la/ ma9 difficulty ( ! fir/ k9d conc]ns ! relation ( ! elem5ts ( ! manifold & ! k9ds ( syn!sis by :i* !y are comb9$4 ,?is involves ! di/9ction betwe5 relat+ 9 g5]al & t]ms to be relat$4 ,= to p]=m a syn!sis is 9 g5]al to relate1 & ! elem5ts to be comb9$ are ! t]ms to be relat$4#i ,n[ x is only necess>y to take in/ances to realize t ! possibility ( relat+ t]ms 9 c]ta9 ways involves two presuppositions1 :i* conc]n respectively ! g5]al & ! special nature ( ! t]ms to be relat$4 #i ',to relate' is us$ r ?an 'to recognize z relat$'1 9 ord] to con=m to ,kant's view ( k4 ,b if x be desir$ to take ! argum5t :i* foll[s 9 connexion ) k prop] 7cf4 p4 #bdb71 x is only necess>y to sub/itute ?r\gh\t 'to recognize z relat$' = 'to relate' & to make ! o!r *anges consequ5t !reon4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x is cle> t ! g5]al nature ( ! t]ms mu/ correspond ) or be adapt$ to ! g5]al nature ( ! relation%ip to be effect$4 ,?us if two t]ms are to be relat$ z m or less l\d1 !y mu/ be s\nds1 s9ce ! relation 9 "q is "o 9 respect ( s\nd & n1 e4 g41 ( "t or col\r or space4 ,simil>ly1 t]ms to be relat$ z "r & left mu/ be bodies 9 space1 "r & left be+ a spatial relation4 ,aga91 only human be+s c be relat$ z p>5t & *ild4 ,kant's doctr9e1 h[ev]1 does n con=m to ?is presupposition4 ,= ! manifold to be relat$ consi/s solely ( s5sations1 & ( individual spaces1 & p]haps individual times1 z elem5ts ( pure p]ception2 & su* a manifold is n ( ! k9d requir$4 ,possibly individual spaces may be reg>d$ z adequate t]ms to be relat$ or comb9$ into geometrical figures1 e4 g4 into l9es or triangles4 ,b a h\se z a syn!sis ( a manifold _c be a syn!sis ( spaces1 or ( times1 or ( s5sations4 ,its p>ts are bodies1 :i*1 :atev] !y may be1 are nei!r s5sations nor spaces nor times1 nor comb9ations ( !m4 ,9 reality !y are sub/ances ( a special k9d4 ,aga91 ! relation ( cause & effect is n a relation ( s5sations or spaces or times1 b ( successive /ates ( physical ?+s or sub/ances1 ! relation consi/+ 9 ! necessity ( _! succession4 ,9 ! second place1 x is cle> t ! special nature ( ! relation to be effect$ presupposes a special nature on ! "p ( ! t]ms to be relat$4 ,if "o s\nd is to be relat$ to ano!r by way ( ! octave1 t o!r mu/ be its octave4 ,if "o quantity is to be relat$ to ano!r z ! d\ble ( x1 t quantity mu/ be twice z l>ge z ! o!r4 ,9 ! same way1 proce$+ to ,kant's in/ances1 we see t if we are to comb9e or relate a manifold into a triangle1 & !re=e into a triangle ( a p>ticul> size & %ape1 ! elem5ts ( ! manifold mu/ be l9es1 & l9es ( a p>ticul> size4 ,if we are to comb9e a manifold into a h\se1 & !re=e into a h\se ( a c]ta9 %ape & size1 ! manifold mu/ consi/ ( bodies ( a suitable %ape & size4 ,if we are to relate a manifold by way ( necess>y succession1 ! manifold mu/ be su* t x c be s relat$2 9 o!r words1 if we are to relate an elem5t ,x ( ! manifold ) "s o!r ,y z ! necess>y antec$5t ( ,x1 !re mu/ be "s def9ite elem5t ,y :i* is connect$ )1 & always occurs along )1 ,x4 ,to put ! matt] g5]ally1 we may say t ! manifold mu/ be adapt$ to or 'fit' ! categories n only1 z has be5 po9t$ out1 9 ! s5se t x mu/ be ( ! "r k9d1 b also 9 ! s5se t its individual elem5ts mu/ h t ord]ly "* :i* enables !m to be relat$ accord+ to ! categories4 ,n[ x is pla9 f ,kant's v9dication ( :at he calls ! aff9ity ( ph5om5a1#aj t he recognizes ! exi/5ce ( ?is presupposition4 ,b ! "q arises :e!r ?is v9dication c be successful4 ,= s9ce ! manifold is orig9at$ by ! ?+ 9 itself1 x seems prima facie impossible to prove t ! elem5ts ( ! manifold mu/ h aff9ity1 & s be capable ( be+ relat$ accord+ to ! categories4 ,be=e1 h[ev]1 we consid] ! *ief passage 9 :i* ,kant tries to make good 8 position1 we may notice a def5ce :i* might naturally be (f]$ on 8 behalf4 ,x might be said t he e/abli%es ! con=mity ( ! manifold to ! categories at lea/ hypo!tically1 i4 e4 ^u ! supposition t ! manifold is capable ( ent]+ into k1 & also ^u ! supposition t we are capable ( be+ consci\s ( our id5tity ) respect to x2 = ^u ei!r supposition any elem5t ( ! manifold mu/ be capable ( be+ comb9$ ) all ! re/ into "o _w ( nature4 ,moreov]1 x might be add$ t ^! suppositions are ju/ifi$1 = our exp]i5ce is n a m]e dream1 b is ?r\gh\t ! consci\sness ( a _w1 & we are self-consci\s ?r\gh\t our exp]i5ce2 & !re=e x is cle> t ! manifold does 9 fact 'fit' ! categories4 ,b ! retort is obvi\s4 ,any actual con=mity ( ! manifold to ! categories w\ld ^u ?is view be at be/ b an empirical fact1 &1 al?\gh1 if ! con=mity ceas$1 we %\ld cease to be aw>e ( a _w & ( ourselves1 no reason has be5 or c be giv5 :y ! con=mity %\ld n cease4 #aj ,cf4 ,a4 #ajj-b1 ,mah4 #aie-g 7quot$ pp4 #aga-b72 ,a4 #aac1 ,mah4 #bje2 ,a4 #aba-b1 ,mah4 #baa-b4 ,! passage 9 :i* ,kant v9dicates ! aff9ity ( ph5om5a 9 ! greate/ detail is ! foll[+3 ,we w n[ try to exhibit ! necess>y connexion ( ! und]/&+ ) ph5om5a by means ( ! categories1 by beg9n+ f bel[1 i4 e4 f ! empirical end4 ,! fir/ t is giv5 u is a ph5om5on1 :i* if connect$ ) consci\sness is call$ p]ception#aa4444 ,b because e ph5om5on conta9s a manifold1 & consequ5tly diff]5t p]ceptions are f\nd 9 ! m9d scatt]$ & s+le1 a connexion ( !m is necess>y1 :i* !y _c h 9 m]e s5se4 ,!re is1 !re=e1 9 u an active p[] ( syn!sis ( ?is manifold1 :i* we call imag9ation1 & ! action ( :i*1 :5 ex]cis$ imm$iately ^u p]ceptions1 ,i call appreh5sion4 ,! bus9ess ( ! imag9ation1 t is to say1 is to br+ ! manifold ( intuition#ab into an image2 x mu/1 !re=e1 fir/ receive ! impressions into its activity1 i4 e4 appreh5d !m4 #aa ,wahrnehmung4 #ab ,ans*auung4 ,b x is cle> t ev5 ?is appreh5sion ( ! manifold w\ld n by itself produce an image & a connexion ( ! impressions1 unless !re 7 a subjective gr\nd 9 virtue ( :i* "o p]ception1 f :i* ! m9d has pass$ to ano!r1 is summon$ to jo9 t :i* foll[s1 & ?us :ole s]ies ( p]ceptions are pres5t$1 i4 e4 a reproductive p[] ( imag9ation1 :i* p[]1 h[ev]1 is also only empirical4 ,b if repres5tations reproduc$ "o ano!r at haphaz>d j z !y happ5$ to meet toge!r1 once m no det]m9ate connexion w\ld arise1 b m]ely *aotic heaps ( !m1 & consequ5tly no k w\ld arise2 !re=e ! reproduction ( !m mu/ h a rule1 accord+ to :i* a repres5tation ent]s into connexion ) ?is r ?an ) ano!r 9 ! imag9ation4 ,?is subjective & empirical gr\nd ( reproduction accord+ to rules is call$ ! association ( repres5tations4 ,b n[1 if ?is unity ( association _h n also an objective gr\nd1 s t x 0 impossible t ph5om5a %\ld be appreh5d$ by ! imag9ation o!rwise ?an "u ! condition ( a possible syn!tic unity ( ?is appreh5sion1 x w\ld also be a pure accid5t t ph5om5a 7 adapt$ to a connect$ sy/em ( human k4 ,= al?\gh we %\ld h ! p[] ( associat+ p]ceptions1 x w\ld /ill rema9 :olly undet]m9$ & accid5tal :e!r !y 7 associable2 & 9 ! ev5t ( _! n be+ s1 a multitude ( p]ceptions & ev5 p]haps a :ole s5sibility w\ld be possible1 9 :i* mu* empirical consci\sness w\ld be met ) 9 my m9d1 b divid$ & )\t belong+ to "o consci\sness ( myself1 :i* h[ev] is impossible4 ,= only 9 t ,i ascribe all p]ceptions to "o consci\sness 7! orig9al app]ception7 c ,i say ( all ( !m t ,i am consci\s ( !m4 ,!re mu/ !re=e be an objective gr\nd1 i4 e4 a gr\nd to be recogniz$ a priori be=e all empirical laws ( ! imag9ation1 on :i* re/s ! possibility1 nay ev5 ! necessity1 ( a law :i* ext5ds ?r\gh\t all ph5om5a1 accord+ to :i* we reg>d !m )\t exception z su* data ( ! s5ses1 z are 9 !mselves associable & subject$ to univ]sal rules ( a ?or\gh-go+ connexion 9 reproduction4 ,?is objective gr\nd ( all association ( ph5om5a ,i call ! aff9ity ( ph5om5a4 ,b we c meet ?is n[h]e else ?an 9 ! pr9ciple ( ! unity ( app]ception z reg>ds all cognitions :i* are to belong to me4 ,accord+ to x1 all ph5om5a )\t exception mu/ s ent] into ! m9d or be appreh5d$ z to agree ) ! unity ( app]ception1 :i* agreem5t w\ld be impossible )\t syn!tical unity 9 _! connexion1 :i* !re=e is also objectively necess>y4 ,! objective unity ( all 7empirical7 consci\sness 9 "o consci\sness 7! orig9al app]ception7 is !re=e ! necess>y condition ev5 ( all possible p]ception1 & ! aff9ity ( all ph5om5a 7ne> or remote7 is a necess>y consequ5ce ( a syn!sis 9 ! imag9ation1 :i* is a priori f\nd$ ^u rules4 ,! imag9ation is !re=e also a p[] ( a priori syn!sis1 = :i* reason we give x ! "n ( ! productive imag9ation2 & s f> z x1 9 relation to all ! manifold ( ! ph5om5on1 has no fur!r aim ?an ! necess>y unity 9 ! syn!sis ( ! ph5om5on1 x c be call$ ! transc5d5tal function ( ! imag9ation4 ,x is !re=e /range inde$1 b nev]!less cle> f ! prec$+1 t only by means ( ?is transc5d5tal function ( ! imag9ation does ev5 ! aff9ity ( ph5om5a1 & ) x _! association &1 ?r\gh ?is1 la/ly _! reproduction accord+ to laws1 & consequ5tly exp]i5ce itself become possible1 because )\t x no conceptions ( objects w\ld ev] come toge!r into "o exp]i5ce4#ac #ac ,a4 #aai-bc1 ,mah4 #baj-c4 ,if x 7 n = ! la/ two p>agraphs#ad1 we %\ld und]/& ?is difficult passage to be sub/antially id5tical 9 mean+ ) ! def5ce ( ! aff9ity ( ph5om5a j giv54#ae ,we %\ld und]/& ,kant to be say+ 7#a7 t ! syn!sis :i* k requires presupposes n m]ely a faculty ( association on our "p by :i* we reproduce elem5ts ( ! manifold accord+ to rules1 b also an aff9ity on ! "p ( ! manifold to be appreh5d$1 :i* enables our faculty ( association to get to "w1 & 7#b7 t ?is aff9ity c be v9dicat$ z a presupposition at once ( k & ( self-consci\sness4 #ad ,& also ! fir/ & la/ s5t5ce ( ! f\r? p>agraph1 :]e ,kant speaks n ( 'ph5om5a :i* are to be appreh5d$'1 b ( ! 'appreh5sion ( ph5om5a' z necess>ily agree+ ) ! unity ( app]ception4 #ae p4 #bbj4 ,9 view1 h[ev]1 ( ! fact t1 accord+ to ! la/ two p>agraphs1 ! aff9ity is due to ! imag9ation1#af x seems necess>y to int]pret ! passage ?us3 #af ,x %\ld be not$ t 9 ! la/ p>agraph b "o ,kant does n say 'our k t ph5om5a mu/ h aff9ity is a consequ5ce ( our k t !re mu/ be a syn!sis ( ! imag9ation'1 b '! aff9ity ( all ph5om5a is a consequ5ce ( a syn!sis 9 ! imag9ation'4 ,& ! la/ p>agraph precludes ! view t 9 mak+ ! latt] /atem5t he meant ! =m]4 ,cf4 also ,a4 #aja1 ,mah4 #aif4 ',s9ce ! giv5 manifold ( s5se consi/s ( isolat$ elem5ts1 ?is manifold1 9 ord] to ent] into k1 mu/ be comb9$ into an image4 ,?is comb9ation is effect$ by ! imag9ation1 :i* h[ev] mu/ fir/ appreh5d ! elem5ts "o by "o4' ',b ?is appreh5sion ( ! manifold by ! imag9ation c\ld produce no image1 unless ! imag9ation also possess$ ! p[] ( reproduc+ pa/ elem5ts ( ! manifold1 &1 if k is to arise1 ( reproduc+ !m accord+ to rules4 ,?is faculty ( reproduction by :i*1 on p]ceiv+ ! elem5t ,a1 we are l$ to ?9k ( or reproduce a pa/ elem5t ,b--,b be+ reproduc$ accord+ to "s rule--r ?an ,c or ,d is call$ ! faculty ( association2 & s9ce ! rules accord+ to :i* x works dep5d on empirical conditions1 & !re=e _c be anticipat$ a priori1 x may be call$ ! subjective gr\nd ( reproduction4' ',b if ! image produc$ by association is to play a "p 9 k1 ! empirical faculty ( reproduction is n a suffici5t condition or gr\nd ( x4 ,a fur!r condition is impli$1 :i* may be call$ objective 9 ! s5se t x is a priori & prior to all empirical laws ( imag9ation4 ,?is condition is t ! act by :i* ! data ( s5se ent] ! m9d or are appreh5d$1 i4 e4 ! act by :i* ! imag9ation appreh5ds & comb9es ! data ( s5se into a s5su\s image1 mu/ make ! elem5ts su* t !y h aff9ity1 & !re=e su* t !y c subsequ5tly be recogniz$ z p>ts ( a necess>ily relat$ :ole4#ag ,unless ?is condition is satisfi$1 ev5 if we possess$ ! faculty ( association1 our exp]i5ce w\ld be a *aos ( disconnect$ elem5ts1 & we c\ld n be self-consci\s1 :i* is impossible4 ,/>t+1 !re=e1 ) ! pr9ciple t we mu/ be capable ( be+ self-consci\s ) respect to all ! elem5ts ( ! manifold1 we c lay d[n a priori t ?is condition is a fact4' #ag ,on ?is int]pretation 'ent]+ ! m9d' or 'be+ appreh5d$' 9 ! f\r? p>agraph does n ref] m]ely to ! appreh5sion ( elem5ts "o by "o1 :i* is prelim9>y to ! act ( comb9+ !m1 b includes ! act by :i* !y are comb9$4 ,if s1 ,kant's argum5t =mally involves a circle4 ,= 9 ! second & ?ird p>agraphs he argues t ! syn!sis ( p]ceptions involves reproduction accord+ to rules1 & !n1 9 ! f\r? p>agraph1 he argues t ?is reproduction presupposes a syn!sis ( p]ceptions4 ,we may1 h[ev]1 p]haps reg>d 8 argum5t z be+ 9 sub/ance t k involves reproduction by ! imag9ation ( elem5ts capable ( connexion1 & t ?is reproduction involves production by ! imag9ation ( ! data ( s5se1 :i* are to be reproduc$1 into an image4 ',x foll[s1 !n1 t ! aff9ity or connect$ness ( ! data ( s5se presuppos$ by ! reproduction :i* is presuppos$ 9 k1 is actually produc$ by ! productive faculty ( imag9ation1 :i*1 9 comb9+ ! data into a s5su\s image1 gives !m ! unity requir$4' ,if1 z x seems necess>y to believe1 ?is be ! correct int]pretation ( ! passage1#ah ,kant is "h try+ to c>ry out to ! full 8 doctr9e t all unity or connect$ness comes f ! m9d's activity4 ,he is ma9ta9+ t ! imag9ation1 act+ productively on ! data ( s5se & !reby comb9+ !m into an image1 gives ! data a connect$ness :i* ! und]/&+ c subsequ5tly recognize4 ,b to ma9ta9 ?is is1 ( c\rse1 only to ?r[ ! problem "o /age fur!r back4 ,if reproduction1 9 ord] to ent] into k1 implies a manifold :i* has su* connexion t x is capable ( be+ reproduc$ accord+ to rules1 s ! production ( s5se-elem5ts into a coh]5t image 9 turn implies s5se-elem5ts capable ( be+ s comb9$4 ,! act ( comb9ation _c conf] ^u !m or introduce into !m a unity :i* !y d n already possess4 #ah ,if ! prec$+ int]pretation 7pp4 #bbc-d7 be ?\ght ! correct "o1 x mu/ be admitt$ t ,kant's v9dication ( ! aff9ity breaks d[n = ! reason giv51 p4 #bbj4 ,! fact is t ?is /ep 9 ,kant's argum5t exhibits ! f9al breakd[n ( 8 view t all unity or connect$ness or relat$ness is conf]r$ ^u ! data ( s5se by ! activity ( ! m9d4 ,consequ5tly1 ?is =ms a conv5i5t po9t at :i* to consid] :at seems to be ! fundam5tal mi/ake ( ?is view4 ,! mi/ake /at$ 9 its mo/ g5]al =m appe>s to be t1 misl$ by 8 !ory ( p]ception1 he reg>ds 't]ms' z giv5 by ?+s 9 !mselves act+ on ! s5sibility1 & 'relations' z introduc$ by ! und]/&+1#ai :]eas ! fact is t 9 ! s5se 9 :i* t]ms c be said to be giv51 relations c & mu/ also be said to be giv54 #ai ,! und]/&+ be+ tak5 to include ! imag9ation1 z be+ ! faculty ( spontaneity 9 di/9ction f ! passive s5sibility4 ,to realize t ?is is ! case1 we ne$ only consid] ,kant's fav\rite in/ance ( k1 ! appreh5sion ( a /raight l9e4 ,accord+ to him1 ?is presupposes t !re is giv5 to u a manifold1 :i*--:e!r he admits x or n--mu/ really be p>ts ( ! l9e1 & t we comb9e ?is manifold on a pr9ciple involv$ 9 ! nature ( /raightness4 ,n[ suppose t ! manifold giv5 is ! p>ts ,,ab1 ,,bc1 ,,cd1 ,,de ( ! l9e ,,ae4 ,x is cle>ly only possible to recognize ,,ab & ,,bc z contigu\s p>ts ( a /raight l9e1 if we imm$iately appreh5d t ,,ab & ,,bc =m "o l9e ( :i* ^! p>ts are id5tical 9 direction4 ,o!rwise1 we might j z well jo9 ,,ab & ,,bc at a "r angle1 & 9 fact at any angle2 we ne$ n ev5 make ,,ab & ,,bc contigu\s4#bj ,simil>ly1 ! relation ( ,,bc to ,,cd & ( ,,cd to ,,de mu/ be j z imm$iately appreh5d$ z ! p>ts !mselves4 ,is !re1 h[ev]1 any relation ( :i* x c\ld be said t x is n giv51 & to :i* !re=e ,kant's doctr9e might seem to apply8 ,!re is4 ,suppose ,,ab1 ,,bc1 ,,cd to be ( su* a size t1 ?\gh we c see ,,ab & ,,bc1 or ,,bc & ,,cd1 toge!r1 we _c see ,,ab & ,,cd toge!r4 ,x is cle> t 9 ?is case we c only le>n t ,,ab & ,,cd are p>ts ( ! same /raight l9e ?r\gh an inf]5ce4 ,we h to inf] t1 because ea* is 9 ! same /raight l9e ) ,,bc1 ! "o is 9 ! same /raight l9e ) ! o!r4 ,"h ! fact t ,,ab & ,,cd are 9 ! same /raight l9e is n imm$iately appreh5d$4 ,?is relation1 !re=e1 may be said n to be giv52 &1 f ,kant's po9t ( view1 we c\ld say t we introduce ?is relation into ! manifold ?r\gh our activity ( ?9k+1 :i* comb9es ,,ab & ,,cd toge!r 9 accordance ) ! pr9ciple t two /raight l9es :i* are 9 ! same l9e ) a ?ird are 9 l9e ) "o ano!r4 ,nev]!less1 ?is case is no exception to ! g5]al pr9ciple t relations mu/ be giv5 equally ) t]ms2 = we only become aw>e ( ! relation betwe5 ,,ab & ,,cd1 :i* is n giv51 because we are already aw>e ( o!r relations1 viz4 ^? betwe5 ,,ab & ,,bc1 & ,,bc & ,,cd1 :i* are giv54 ,relations !n1 or1 9 ,kant's language1 p>ticul> syn!ses mu/ be said to be giv51 9 ! s5se 9 :i* ! elem5ts to be comb9$ c be said to be giv54 #bj ,9 ord] to meet a possible objection1 x may be po9t$ out t if ,,ab & ,,bc be giv5 9 isolation1 ! contiguity impli$ 9 ref]r+ to !m z ,a,b & ,b,c w n be kn[n4 ,fur!r1 we c bett] see ! nature ( ,kant's mi/ake 9 ?is respect1 if we be> 9 m9d t ,kant orig9ally & rightly introduc$ ! di/9ction betwe5 ! s5sibility & ! und]/&+ z t betwe5 ! passive faculty by :i* an individual is giv5 or pres5t$ to u & ! active faculty by :i* we br+ an individual "u1 or recognize x z an in/ance ( a univ]sal4#ba ,= we !n see t ,kant 9 ! ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction1 by treat+ :at is giv5 by ! s5sibility z t]ms & :at is contribut$ by ! und]/&+ z relations1 is really confus+ ! di/9ction betwe5 a relation & its t]ms ) t betwe5 univ]sal & individual2 9 o!r words1 he says ( t]ms :at ought to be said ( individuals1 & ( relations :at ought to be said ( univ]sals4 ,t ! confusion is a confusion1 & n a legitimate id5tification1 x is easy to see4 ,=1 on ! "o h&1 a relation betwe5 t]ms is z mu* an individual z ei!r ( ! t]ms4 ,t a body ,a is to ! "r ( a body ,b is z mu* an individual fact z ei!r ,a or ,b4#bb ,& if t]ms1 z be+ individuals1 belong to p]ception & are giv51 9 ! s5se t !y are 9 an imm$iate relation to u1 relations1 z be+ individuals1 equally belong to p]ception & are giv54 ,on ! o!r h&1 individual t]ms j z mu* z individual relations imply correspond+ univ]sals4 ,an individual body implies 'bod9ess'1 j z mu* z ! fact t a body ,a is to ! "r ( a body ,b implies ! relation%ip ( 'be+ to ! "r ( some?+'4 ,& if1 z is ! case1 ?9k+ or conceiv+ 9 di/9ction f p]ceiv+1 is t activity by :i* we recognize an individual1 giv5 9 p]ception1 z "o ( a k9d1 conceiv+ is involv$ z mu* 9 ! appreh5sion ( a t]m z 9 ! appreh5sion ( a relation4 ,! appreh5sion ( '?is r$ body' z mu* involves ! recognition ( an individual z an in/ance ( a k9d1 i4 e4 z mu* involves an act ( ! und]/&+1 z does ! appreh5sion ( ! fact t x is bright] ?an "s o!r body4 #ba ,cf4 pp4 #bg-i4 #bb ,i c atta* no mean+ to ,mr4 ,b]tr& ,russell's ass]tion t relations h no in/ances4 ,see ,! ,pr9ciples ( ,ma!matics1 #ee4 ,kant has fail$ to notice ?is confusion = two reasons4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 beg9n+ 9 ! ,analytic ) ! ?\ght t ! ?+ 9 itself1 by act+ on our s5sibility1 produces isolat$ s5se data1 he is l$ to adopt a diff]5t view ( ! und]/&+ f t :i* he orig9ally gave1 & to conceive its bus9ess z consi/+ 9 relat+ ^! data4 ,9 ! second place1 by di/+ui%+ ! imag9ation f ! und]/&+1 he is able to conf9e ! und]/&+ to be+ ! s\rce ( univ]sals or pr9ciples ( relation 9 di/9ction f individual relations4#bc ,s9ce1 h[ev]1 z has be5 po9t$ out1 & z ,kant himself sees at times1 ! imag9ation is ! und]/&+ work+ unreflectively1 ?is limitation _c be successful4 #bc ,cf4 p4 #bag4 ,!re rema9 = consid]ation ! difficulties ( ! second k9d1 i4 e4 ! difficulties involv$ 9 accept+ its ma9 pr9ciples at all4 ,^! are ( c\rse ! mo/ important4 ,?r\gh\t ! d$uction ,kant is attempt+ to =mulate ! nature ( k4 ,accord+ to him1 x consi/s 9 an activity ( ! m9d by :i* x comb9es ! manifold ( s5se on c]ta9 pr9ciples & is to "s ext5t aw>e t x does s1 & by :i* x !reby gives ! manifold relation to an object4 ,n[ ! fundam5tal & f9al objection to ?is acc\nt is t :at x describes is n k at all4 ,! ju/ice ( ?is objection may be se5 by consid]+ ! two lead+ ?\ghts und]ly+ ! view1 :i*1 ?\gh closely connect$1 may be treat$ sep>ately4 ,^! are ! ?\ght ( k z a process by :i* repres5tations acquire relation to an object1 & ! ?\ght ( k z a process ( syn!sis4 ,x is 9 reality mean+less to speak ( 'a process by :i* repres5tations or ideas acquire relation to an object'4#bd ,! phrase mu/ mean a process by :i* a m]e appreh5sion1 :i*1 z su*1 is n ! appreh5sion ( an object1 becomes ! appreh5sion ( an object4 ,appreh5sion1 h[ev]1 is ess5tially & f ! v beg9n+ ! appreh5sion ( an object1 i4 e4 ( a reality appreh5d$4 ,if !re is no object :i* ! appreh5sion is '('1 !re is no appreh5sion4 ,x is !re=e :olly mean+less to speak ( a process by :i* an appreh5sion becomes ! appreh5sion ( an object4 ,if :5 we reflect$ we 7 n aw>e ( an object1 i4 e4 a reality appreh5d$1 we c\ld n be aw>e ( our appreh5sion2 = our appreh5sion is ! appreh5sion ( x1 & is itself only appreh5d$ 9 relation to1 ?\gh 9 di/9ction f1 x4 ,x is !re=e impossible to suppose a condition ( m9d 9 :i*1 kn[+ :at 'appreh5sion' means1 we proce$ to ask1 ',:at is meant by an object ( x8' & ',h[ does an appreh5sion become relat$ to an object8'2 = bo? que/ions involve ! ?\ght ( a m]e repres5tation1 i4 e4 ( an appreh5sion :i* z yet is n ! appreh5sion ( any?+4 #bd ,cf4 p4 #ahj1 & pp4 #bhj-c4 ,^! que/ions1 :5 _! real nature is exhibit$1 are pla9ly absurd4 ,kant's special !ory1 h[ev]1 enables him to evade ! real absurdity involv$4 ,=1 accord+ to 8 view1 a repres5tation is ! repres5tation or appreh5sion ( some?+ only f ! po9t ( view ( ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,z an appe>ance or p]haps m /rictly speak+ z a s5sation1 x has also a be+ ( its own :i* is n relative#be2 & f ?is po9t ( view x is possible to speak ( 'm]e' repres5tations & to raise que/ions :i* presuppose _! reality4#bf #be ,cf4 p4 #acg init4 #bf ,! absurdity ( ! problem really prop\nd$ is also conceal$ f ,kant 9 ! way indicat$1 pp4 #ahj f94-#aha init4 ,b ?is rem$y1 if rem$y x c be call$1 is at lea/ z bad z ! disease4 ,=1 9 ! fir/ place1 ! *ange ( /&po9t is necess>ily illegitimate4 ,an appe>ance or s5sation is n f any po9t ( view a repres5tation 9 ! prop] s5se1 i4 e4 a repres5tation or appreh5sion ( some?+4 ,x is simply a reality to be appreh5d$1 ( ! special k9d call$ m5tal4 ,if x be call$ a repres5tation1 ! ^w mu/ h a new mean+2 x mu/ mean some?+ repres5t$1 or pres5t$1#bg i4 e4 object ( appreh5sion1 ) ! implication t :at is pres5t$1 or is object ( appreh5sion1 is m5tal or a modification ( ! m9d4 ,kant !re=e only avoids ! orig9al absurdity by an illegitimate *ange ( /&po9t1 ! *ange be+ conceal$ by a tacit transition 9 ! mean+ ( repres5tation4 ,9 ! second place1 ! *ange ( /&po9t only saves ! ma9 problem f be+ absurd by r5d]+ x insoluble4 ,= if a repres5tation be tak5 to be an appe>ance or a s5sation1 ! ma9 problem becomes t ( expla9+ h[ x is t1 beg9n+ ) ! appreh5sion ( m]e appe>ances or s5sations1 we come to appreh5d an object1 9 ! s5se ( an object 9 nature1 :i*1 z su*1 is n an appe>ance or s5sation b a "p ( ! physical _w4 ,b if ! imm$iate object ( appreh5sion 7 9 ?is way conf9$ to appe>ances1 :i* are1 to use ,kant's phrase1 det]m9ations ( our m9d1 our appreh5sion w\ld be limit$ to ^! appe>ances1 & any appreh5sion ( an object 9 nature w\ld be impossible4#bh ,9 fact1 x is j ! view t ! imm$iate object ( appreh5sion consi/s 9 a det]m9ation ( ! m9d :i* =ms ! basis ( ! solipsi/ position4 ,kant's own solution involves an absurdity at lea/ z great z t involv$ 9 ! ?\ght ( a m]e repres5tation1 9 ! prop] s5se ( repres5tation4 ,= ! solution is t appe>ances or s5sations become relat$ to an object1 9 ! s5se ( an object 9 nature1 by be+ comb9$ on c]ta9 pr9ciples4 ,yet x is pla9ly impossible to comb9e appe>ances or s5sations into an object 9 nature4 ,if a triangle1 or a h\se1 or 'a freez+ ( wat]'#bi is ! result ( any process ( comb9ation1 ! elem5ts comb9$ mu/ be respectively l9es1 & bricks1 & physical ev5ts2 ^! are objects 9 ! s5se 9 :i* ! :ole produc$ by ! comb9ation is an object1 & are c]ta9ly n appe>ances or s5sations4 ,kant conceals ! difficulty f himself by ! use ( language to :i* he is n entitl$4 ,= :ile 8 in/ances ( objects are always ( ! k9d indicat$1 he p]si/s 9 call+ ! manifold comb9$ 'repres5tations'1 i4 e4 pres5t$ m5tal modifications4 ,?is proc$ure is ( c\rse facilitat$ = him by 8 view t nature is a ph5om5on or appe>ance1 b ! difficulty :i* x pres5ts to ! read] culm9ates :5 he speaks ( ! v same repres5tations z hav+ bo? a subjective & an objective relation1 i4 e4 z be+ bo? modifications ( ! m9d & p>ts ( nature4#cj #bg ,vorge/ellt4 #bh ,cf4 p4 #abc4 #bi ,b4 #afb1 ,m4 #ii4 #cj ,b4 #aci-db1 ,m4 #hg-h4 ,cf4 #bji1 note #c1 & pp4 #bha-b4 ,we may n[ turn to ,kant's ?\ght ( k z a process ( syn!sis4 ,:5 ,kant speaks ( syn!sis1 ! k9d ( syn!sis ( :i* he usually is ?9k+ is t ( spatial elem5ts into a spatial :ole2 & al?\gh he ref]s to o!r k9ds1 e4 g4 ( units into numb]s1 & ( ev5ts into a temporal s]ies1 nev]!less x is ! ?\ght ( spatial syn!sis :i* guides 8 view4 ,n[ we mu/ 9 ! end admit t ! spatial syn!sis ( :i* he is ?9k+ is really ! con/ruction or mak+ ( spatial objects 9 ! lit]al s5se4 ,x w\ld be rightly illu/rat$ by mak+ figures out ( mat*es or spelicans1 or by draw+ a circle ) compasses1 or by build+ a h\se out ( bricks4 ,fur!r1 if we ext5d ?is view ( ! process ( :i* ,kant is ?9k+1 we h to all[ t ! process ( syn!sis 9 :i*1 accord+ to ,kant1 k consi/s is t ( mak+ or con/ruct+ p>ts ( ! physical _w1 & 9 fact ! physical _w itself1 out ( elem5ts giv5 9 p]ception4#ca ,! d$uction ?r\gh\t presupposes t ! syn!sis is really manufacture1 & ,kant is at pa9s to emphasize ! fact4 ,! ord] & con=mity to law 9 ! ph5om5a :i* we call nature we ourselves introduce1 & we c\ld n f9d x !re1 if we or ! nature ( our m9d _h n orig9ally plac$ x !re4#cb ,he naturally rejoices 9 ! manufacture1 because x is j ?is :i* makes ! categories valid4 ,if kn[+ is really mak+1 ! pr9ciples ( syn!sis mu/ apply to ! reality kn[n1 because x is by ^! v pr9ciples t ! reality is made4 ,moreov]1 recognition ( ?is fact enables u to und]/& c]ta9 features ( 8 view :i* w\ld o!rwise be inexplicable4 ,= if ! syn!sis consi/s 9 lit]al con/ruction1 we are able to und]/& :y ,kant %\ld ?9k 7#a7 t 9 ! process ( k ! m9d introduces ord] into ! manifold1 7#b7 t ! m9d is limit$ 9 its activity ( syn!sis by hav+ to con=m to c]ta9 pr9ciples ( con/ruction :i* con/itute ! nature ( ! und]/&+1 & 7#c7 t ! manifold ( ph5om5a mu/ possess aff9ity4 ,if1 = example1 we build a h\se1 x c be said 7#a7 t we introduce into ! mat]ials a plan or pr9ciple ( arrangem5t :i* !y d n possess 9 !mselves1 7#b7 t ! p>ticul> plan is limit$ by1 & mu/ con=m to1 ! laws ( spatial relation & to ! g5]al presuppositions ( physics1 su* z ! uni=mity ( nature1 & 7#c7 t only su* mat]ials are capable ( ! p>ticul> comb9ation z possess a nature suitable to x4 ,moreov]1 if1 = ,kant1 kn[+ is really mak+1 we are able to und]/& two o!r prom95t features ( 8 view4 ,we c und]/& :y ,kant %\ld lay s mu* /ress ^u ! 'recognition' ( ! syn!sis1 & ^u ! self-consci\sness involv$ 9 k4 ,= if ! syn!sis ( ! manifold is really ! mak+ ( an object1 x results m]ely 9 ! exi/5ce ( ! object2 k ( x is /ill to be effect$4 ,consequ5tly1 k ( ! object only f9ds a place 9 ,kant's view by ! recognition 7on ! necessity ( :i* he insi/s7 ( ! manifold z comb9$ on a pr9ciple4 ,?is recognition1 :i* ,kant consid]s only an elem5t 9 k1 is really ! k itself4 ,aga91 s9ce ! reality to be kn[n is a :ole ( p>ts :i* we con/ruct on a pr9ciple1 we "k t x is su* a :ole1 & !re=e t '! manifold is relat$ to "o object'1 because1 & only because1 we "k t we h comb9$ ! elem5ts on a pr9ciple4 ,self-consci\sness !re=e mu/ be insep>able f consci\sness ( an object4 #ca ,x is = ?is reason t ! ma!matical illu/rations ( ! syn!sis are ! mo/ plausible = 8 !ory4 ,:ile we c be said to con/ruct geometrical figures1 & :ile ! con/ruction ( geometrical figures c easily be mi/ak5 = ! appreh5sion ( !m1 we _c ) any plausibility be said to con/ruct ! physical _w4 #cb ,a4 #abe1 ,mah4 #bad4 ,cf4 ! o!r passages quot$ pp4 #baa-ab4 ,! fundam5tal objection to ?is acc\nt ( k seems s obvi\s z to be h>dly wor? /at+2 x is ( c\rse t kn[+ & mak+ are n ! same4 ,! v nature ( kn[+ presupposes t ! ?+ kn[n is already made1 or1 to speak m accurately1 already exi/s4#cc ,9 o!r words1 kn[+ is ess5tially ! discov]y ( :at already is4 ,ev5 if ! reality kn[n happ5s to be some?+ :i* we make1 e4 g4 a h\se1 ! kn[+ x is di/9ct f ! mak+ x1 &1 s f> f be+ id5tical ) ! mak+1 presupposes t ! reality 9 "q is already made4 ,music & poetry are1 no d\bt1 realities :i* 9 "s s5se are 'made' or 'compos$'1 b ! appreh5sion ( !m is di/9ct f & presupposes ! process by :i* !y are compos$4 #cc ,cf4 ,*4 ,,vi4 ,h[ difficult x is to resolve kn[+ into mak+ may be se5 by consid]ation ( a difficulty 9 ! int]pretation ( ,kant's phrase 'relation ( ! manifold to an object'1 to :i* no allusion has yet be5 made4 ,:5 x is said t a c]ta9 manifold is relat$ to1 or /&s#cd 9 relation to1 an object1 does ! relat$ness ref]r$ to consi/ 9 ! fact t ! manifold is comb9$ into a :ole1 or 9 ! fact t we are consci\s ( ! comb9ation1 or 9 bo?8 ,if we accept ! fir/ alt]native we mu/ all[ t1 :ile relat$ness to an object implies a process ( syn!sis1 yet ! relat$ness1 & !re=e ! syn!sis1 h no?+ to d ) k4 ,= ! relat$ness ( ! manifold to an object w be ! comb9ation ( ! elem5ts ( ! manifold z p>ts ( an object con/ruct$1 & ! process ( syn!sis involv$ w be t by :i* ! object is con/ruct$4 ,?is process ( syn!sis w h no?+ to d ) k2 = s9ce x is m]ely ! process by :i* ! object is con/ruct$1 k s f> is n effect$ at all1 & no clue is giv5 to ! way 9 :i* x comes ab\t4 ,if1 h[ev]1 we accept ! second alt]native1 we h to all[ t :ile relat$ness to an object has to d ) k1 yet x 9 no way implies a process ( syn!sis4 ,= s9ce 9 t case x consi/s 9 ! fact t we are consci\s ( ! manifold z toge!r =m+ an object1 x 9 no way implies t ! object has be5 produc$ by a process ( syn!sis4 ,kant1 ( c\rse1 w\ld accept ! ?ird alt]native4 ,=1 fir/ly1 s9ce x is k :i* he is describ+1 ! phrase 'relat$ness to an object' _c ref] simply to ! exi/5ce ( a comb9ation ( ! manifold1 & ( a process by :i* x has be5 produc$2 its mean+ mu/ include consci\sness ( ! comb9ation4 ,9 ! second place1 x is def9itely 8 view t we _c repres5t any?+ z comb9$ 9 ! object )\t hav+ previ\sly comb9$ x ourselves4#ce ,moreov]1 x is j ) respect to ?is connexion betwe5 ! syn!sis & ! consci\sness ( ! syn!sis t 8 r$uction ( kn[+ to mak+ helps him2 = to make an object1 e4 g4 a h\se1 is to make x consci\sly1 i4 e4 to comb9e mat]ials on a pr9ciple ( :i* we are aw>e4 ,s9ce1 !n1 ! comb9+ ( :i* he speaks is really mak+1 x seems to him impossible to comb9e a manifold )\t be+ aw>e ( ! nature ( ! act ( comb9ation1 & !re=e ( ! nature ( ! :ole !reby produc$4#cf ,b ?\gh ?is is cle>ly ,kant's view1 x is n ju/ifi$4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 'relat$ness ( ! manifold to an object' ought n to ref] bo? to its comb9ation 9 a :ole & to our consci\sness ( ! comb9ation2 & 9 /rictness x %\ld ref] to ! =m] only4 ,= z ref]r+ to ! =m] x indicates a relation ( ! manifold to ! object1 z be+ ! p>ts ( ! object1 & z ref]r+ to ! latt] x indicates a relation ( ! manifold to u1 z be+ appreh5d$ by u z ! p>ts ( ! object4 ,b two relations :i*1 ?\gh !y are ( "o & ! same ?+1 are nev]!less relations ( x to two diff]5t ?+s1 %\ld n be ref]r$ to by ! same phrase4 ,moreov]1 s9ce ! relat$ness is ref]r$ to z relat$ness to an object1 ! phrase prop]ly indicates ! relation ( ! manifold to an object1 & n to u z appreh5d+ x4 ,aga91 9 ! second place1 ,kant _c successfully ma9ta9 t ! phrase is prim>ily a loose expression = our consci\sness ( ! manifold z relat$ to an object1 & t s9ce ?is implies a process ( syn!sis1 ! phrase may fairly include 9 its mean+ ! ?\ght ( ! comb9ation ( ! manifold by u into a :ole4 ,= al?\gh ,kant ass]ts--& ) "s plausibility--t we c only appreh5d z comb9$ :at we h ourselves comb9$1 yet :5 we consid] ?is ass]tion s]i\sly we see x to be 9 no s5se true4 #cd ,a4 #aji1 ,mah4 #bjb4 #ce ,b4 #acj1 ,m4 #hj4 #cf ,to say t 'comb9+'1 9 ! s5se ( mak+1 really presupposes consci\sness ( ! nature ( ! :ole produc$1 w\ld be inconsi/5t ) ! previ\s ass]tion t ev5 :]e ! reality kn[n is some?+ made1 ! k ( x presupposes t ! reality is already made4 ,/rictly speak+1 ! activity ( comb9+ presupposes consci\sness n ( ! :ole :i* we succe$ 9 produc+1 b ( ! :ole :i* we want to produce4 ,x may be not$ t1 f ! po9t ( view ( ! above argum5t1 ! activity ( comb9+ presupposes actual consci\sness ( ! act ( comb9ation & ( its pr9ciple1 & does n imply m]ely ! possibility ( x4 ,kant1 ( c\rse1 does n hold ?is4 ,! g5]al conclusion1 !re=e1 to be drawn is t ! process ( syn!sis by :i* ! manifold is said to become relat$ to an object is a process n ( k b ( con/ruction 9 ! lit]al s5se1 & t x leaves k ( ! ?+ con/ruct$ /ill to be effect$4 ,b if kn[+ is obvi\sly diff]5t f mak+1 :y %\ld ,kant h app>5tly felt no difficulty 9 resolv+ kn[+ into mak+8 ,?ree reasons may be giv54 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! v "q1 ',:at does ! process ( kn[+ consi/ 98' at lea/ sugge/s t kn[+ c be resolv$ into & /at$ 9 t]ms ( some?+ else4 ,9 ?is respect x resembles ! mod]n phrase '!ory ( k'4 ,moreov]1 s9ce x is pla9 t 9 kn[+ we are active1 ! "q is apt to assume ! =m1 ',:at d we d :5 we "k or ?9k8' & s9ce "o ( ! commone/ =ms ( do+ some?+ is to p]=m a physical op]ation on physical ?+s1 :]eby we effect a recomb9ation ( !m on "s plan1 x is natural to try to resolve kn[+ into ?is k9d ( do+1 i4 e4 into mak+ 9 a wide s5se ( ! ^w4 ,9 ! second place1 ,kant nev] relax$ 8 hold ^u ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,consequ5tly1 !re always rema9$ = him a reality :i* exi/$ 9 itself & 0 n made by u4 ,?is 0 to him ! fundam5tal reality1 & ! prop] object ( k1 al?\gh un=tunately inaccessible to our faculties ( kn[+4 ,h5ce to ,kant x did n s]i\sly matt] t an inf]ior reality1 viz4 ! ph5om5al _w1 0 made by u 9 ! process ( kn[+4 ,9 ! ?ird place1 x is difficult1 if n impossible1 to read ! ,d$uction )\t realiz+ t ,kant fail$ to di/+ui% kn[+ f t =mation ( m5tal imag]y :i* accompanies kn[+4 ,! process ( syn!sis1 if x is ev5 to seem to con/itute k & to involve ! validity ( ! categories1 mu/ really be a process by :i* we con/ruct1 & recognize our con/ruction (1 an individual reality 9 nature out ( c]ta9 physical data4 ,nev]!less1 x is pla9 t :at ,kant normally describes z ! process ( syn!sis is really ! process by :i* we con/ruct an imag9>y picture ( a reality 9 nature n pres5t to p]ception1 i4 e4 by :i* we imag9e to ourselves :at x w\ld look l if we 7 pres5t to p]ceive x4 ,?is is impli$ by 8 cont9u$ use ( ! t]ms 'reproduction' & 'imag9ation' 9 describ+ ! syn!sis4 ,to be aw>e ( an object ( pa/ p]ception1 x is necess>y1 accord+ to him1 t ! object %\ld be reproduc$4 ,x is !reby impli$ t ! object ( our pres5t aw>5ess is n ! object ( pa/ p]ception1 b a m5tal image :i* copies or reproduces x4 ,! same implication is convey$ by 8 use ( ! t]m 'imag9ation' to describe ! faculty by :i* ! syn!sis is effect$2 = 'imag9ation' normally means ! p[] ( mak+ a m5tal image ( some?+ n pres5t to p]ception1 & ?is int]pretation is confirm$ by ,kant's own description ( ! imag9ation z '! faculty ( repres5t+ an object ev5 )\t its pres5ce 9 p]ception'4#cg ,fur!r1 t ,kant really fails to di/+ui% ! con/ruction ( m5tal imag]y f lit]al con/ruction is %[n by ! fact t1 al?\gh he insi/s t ! =mation ( an image & reproduction are bo? necess>y = k1 he does n consi/5tly adh]e to ?is4 ,= 8 g5]al view is t ! elem5ts comb9$ & recogniz$ z comb9$ are ! orig9al data ( s5se1 & n reproductions ( !m :i* toge!r =m an image1 & 8 in/ances imply t ! elem5ts reta9$ 9 ?\ght1 i4 e4 ! elem5ts ( :i* we are aw>e subsequ5tly to p]ception1 are ! elem5ts orig9ally p]ceiv$1 e4 g4 ! p>ts ( a l9e or ! units c\nt$4#ch ,moreov]1 9 "o passage ,kant def9itely describes c]ta9 objects ( p]ception tak5 toge!r z an image ( t 'k9d' ( :i*1 :5 tak5 toge!r1 !y are an in/ance4 ,if ,i place five po9ts "o aft] ano!r1 4 4 4 4 4 ?is is an image ( ! numb] five4#ci ,n[1 if x be grant$ t ,kant has 9 m9d normally ! process ( imag9+1 we c see :y he f\nd no difficulty 9 ! ?\ght ( k z con/ruction4 ,= :ile we _c reasonably speak ( mak+ an object ( k1 we c reasonably speak ( mak+ a m5tal image ?r\gh our own activity1 & also ( mak+ x 9 accordance ) ! categories & ! empirical laws :i* presuppose !m4 ,moreov]1 ! ease ) :i* x is possible to take ! imag9+ :i* accompanies kn[+ = kn[+#dj--! image =m$ be+ tak5 to be ! object kn[n & ! =m+ x be+ tak5 to be ! kn[+ x--r5d]s x easy to transf] ! ?\ght ( con/ruction to ! k itself4 ,! only defect1 h[ev]1 "u :i* ! view lab\rs is ! important "o t1 :atev] be ! ext5t to :i* imag9ation mu/ accompany k1 x is di/9ct f k4 ,to realize ! diff]5ce we h only to notice t ! process by :i* we pres5t to ourselves 9 imag9ation realities n pres5t to p]ception presupposes1 & is ?r\gh\t guid$ by1 ! k ( !m4 ,x %\ld be not$1 h[ev]1 t1 al?\gh ! process ( :i* ,kant is normally ?9k+ is d\btless t ( con/ruct+ m5tal imag]y1 8 real view mu/ be t k consi/s 9 con/ruct+ a _w out ( ! data ( s5se1 or1 m accurately1 z 8 in/ances %[1 out ( ! objects ( isolat$ p]ceptions1 e4 g4 p>ts ( a l9e or units to be c\nt$4 ,o!rwise ! f9al act ( recognition w\ld be an appreh5sion n ( ! _w ( nature1 b ( an image ( x4 #cg ,b4 #aeb1 ,m4 #ic2 cf4 also ,mah4 #baa1 ,a4 #abj4 #ch ,cf4 ,a4 #ajb-c1 ,mah4 #aig-h4 ,! fact is t ! appeal to reproduction is a useless device int5d$ by ,kant--& by 'empirical psy*ologi/s'--to get r\nd ! difficulty ( all[+ t 9 ! appreh5sion 79 memory or o!rwise7 ( a reality n pres5t to p]ception1 we are really aw>e ( ! reality4 ,! difficulty is 9 reality due to a s5sationali/ic /&po9t1 av[$ or unav[$1 & ! device is useless1 because ! assumption has 9 ! end to be made1 cov]tly or o!rwise1 t we are really aw>e ( ! reality 9 "q4 #ci ,b4 #agi1 ,m4 #aji4 ,cf4 ! :ole passage ,b4 #agf-ha1 ,m4 #ajg-aj 7"p quot$ pp4 #bdi-ea71 & p4 #bea4 #dj ,cf4 ,locke & ,hume4 ',?is criticism1' x may be said1 'is too sweep+4 ,x may be true t ! process :i* ,kant describes is really mak+ 9 ! lit]al s5se & n kn[+1 b ,kant's mi/ake may h be5 m]ely t ( ?9k+ ( ! wrong k9d ( syn!sis4 ,= bo? ord9>y language & t ( philosophical discussion imply t syn!sis plays "s "p 9 k4 ,?us we f9d 9 ord9>y language ! phrases 'putt+ #b & #b toge!r' & '#b & #b make #d'4 ,ev5 9 philosophical discussions we f9d x said t a complex conception1 e4 g4 gold1 is a syn!sis ( simple conceptions1 e4 g4 yell[ness1 weight1 c42 t 9 judgem5t we relate or ref] ! pr$icate to ! subject2 & t 9 inf]5ce we con/ruct reality1 ?\gh only m5tally or ideally4 ,fur!r1 9 any case x is by ?9k+ or kn[+ t ! _w comes to be = u2 ! m we ?9k1 ! m ( reality !re is = u4 ,h5ce at lea/ ! _w = u or our _w is due to our activity ( kn[+1 & s is 9 "s s5se made by u1 i4 e4 by our relat+ activity4' ,?is position1 h[ev]1 seems 9 reality to be bas$ on a simple b illegitimate transition1 viz4 ! transition to ! ass]tion t 9 kn[+ we relate1 or comb9e1 or con/ruct f ! ass]tion t 9 kn[+ we recognize z relat$1 or comb9$1 or con/ruct$--! la/ two t]ms be+ reta9$ to pres]ve ! p>allelism4#da ,:ile ! latt] ass]tion may be said to be true1 al?\gh ! t]ms 'comb9$' & 'con/ruct$' %\ld be reject$ z mislead+1 ! =m] ass]tion mu/ be admitt$ to be :olly false1 i4 e4 true 9 no s5se :atev]4 ,moreov]1 ! consid]ations adduc$ 9 fav\r ( ! position %\ld1 x seems1 be met by a flat d5ial ( _! tru? or1 if n1 ( _! relevance4 ,= :5 x is said t our _w1 or ! _w = u1 is due to our activity ( ?9k+1 & s is 9 "s s5se made by u1 all t %\ld be meant is t our appreh5d+ ! _w z :atev] we appreh5d x to be presupposes activity on our "p4 ,b s9ce ! activity is aft] all only ! activity itself ( appreh5d+ or kn[+1 ?is ass]tion is only a way ( say+ t appreh5d+ or kn[+ is n a condition ( m9d :i* c be produc$ 9 u ab extra1 b is some?+ :i* we h to d = ourselves4 ,no?+ is impli$ to be made4 ,if any?+ is to be said to be made1 x mu/ be n our _w b our activity ( appreh5d+ ! _w2 b ev5 we & our activity ( appreh5d+ ! _w are n relat$ z mak] & ?+ made4 ,aga91 to speak ( a complex conception1 e4 g4 gold1 & to say t x involves a syn!sis ( simple conceptions by ! m9d is m]e 'conceptualism'4 ,if1 z we ought to d1 we replace ! t]m 'conception' by 'univ]sal'1 & speak ( gold z a syn!sis ( univ]sals1 any sugge/ion t ! m9d p]=ms ! syn!sis w vani%1 = a 'syn!sis ( univ]sals' w mean simply a connexion ( univ]sals4 ,all t is m5tal is our appreh5sion ( _! connexion4 ,aga91 9 judgem5t we _c be said to relate pr$icate to subject4 ,su* an ass]tion w\ld mean ei!r t we relate a conception to a conception1 or a conception to a reality#db1 or a reality to a reality2 &1 on any ( ^! int]pretations1 x is pla9ly false4 ,to reta9 ! language ( 'relation' or ( 'comb9ation' at all1 we mu/ say t 9 judgem5t we recognize real elem5ts z relat$ or comb9$4 ,aga91 :5 we inf]1 we d n con/ruct1 ideally or o!rwise4 ',ideal con/ruction'#dc is a contradiction 9 t]ms1 unless x ref]s solely to m5tal imag9+1 9 :i* case x is n inf]5ce4 ,con/ruction :i* is n 'ideal'1 i4 e4 lit]al con/ruction1 pla9ly _c con/itute ! nature ( inf]5ce2 = inf]5ce w\ld cease to be inf]5ce1 if by x we made1 & did n appreh5d1 a necessity ( connexion4 ,aga91 ! phrase '#b & #b make #d' does n ju/ify ! view t 9 "s s5se we 'make' reality4 ,x ( c\rse sugge/s t #b & #b are n #d until !y are add$1 i4 e4 t ! addition makes !m #d4dd ,b ! language is only appropriate :5 we are lit]ally mak+ a gr\p ( #d by physically plac+ #b pairs ( bodies 9 "o gr\p4 ,:]e we are c\nt+1 we %\ld say m]ely t #b & #b are #d4 ,la/ly1 x mu/ be all[$ t ! use ( ! phrase 'putt+ two & two toge!r'1 to describe an inf]5ce f facts n q obvi\sly connect$1 is loose & inexact4 ,if we meet a dog ) a blood-/a9$ m\? & %ortly aft]w>ds see a dead f[l1 we may be said to put two & two toge!r & to conclude !reby t ! dog kill$ ! f[l4 ,b1 /rictly speak+1 9 draw+ ! inf]5ce we d n put any?+ toge!r4 ,we c]ta9ly d n put toge!r ! facts t ! m\? ( ! dog is blood-/a9$ & t ! f[l has j be5 kill$4 ,we d n ev5 put ! premises toge!r1 i4 e4 our appreh5sions ( ^! facts4 ,:at takes place %\ld be describ$ by say+ simply t see+ t ! f[l is kill$1 we also rememb] t ! dog's m\? 0 /a9$1 & !n appreh5d a connexion betwe5 ^! facts4 #da ,cf4 ,caird1 i4 #cid1 :]e ,dr4 ,caird speaks ( '! di/9ction ( ! activity ( ?\ght f ! matt] :i* x comb9es or recognizes z comb9$ 9 ! idea ( an object'4 7,! italics are m9e47 ,! context seems to indicate t ! phrase is meant to express ! tru?1 & n m]ely ,kant's view4 #db ,cf4 ! acc\nt ( judgem5t 9 ,mr4 ,bradley's ,logic4 #dc ,cf4 ! acc\nt ( inf]5ce 9 ,mr4 ,bradley's ,logic4 #dd ,cf4 ,bradley1 ,logic1 pp4 #cgj & #ejf4 ,! fact seems to be t ! ?\ght ( syn!sis 9 no way helps to elucidate ! nature ( kn[+1 & t ! mi/ake 9 pr9ciple :i* und]lies ,kant's view lies 9 ! implicit supposition t x is possible to elucidate ! nature ( k by means ( some?+ o!r ?an itself4 ,k is sui g5]is & !re=e a '!ory' ( x is impossible4 ,k is simply k1 & any attempt to /ate x 9 t]ms ( some?+ else mu/ end 9 describ+ some?+ :i* is n k4#de #de ,cf4 p4 #abd4 ,,*apt] ,x ,,! ,,s*ematism ,,( ,,! ,,categories ,z has already be5 po9t$ out1#a ! ,analytic is divid$ into two p>ts1 ! ,analytic ( ,conceptions1 ( :i* ! aim is to discov] & v9dicate ! validity ( ! categories1 & ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples1 ( :i* ! aim is to det]m9e ! use ( ! categories 9 judgem5t4 ,! latt] "p1 :i* has n[ to be consid]$1 is subdivid$ into two4 ,x has1 accord+ to ,kant1 fir/ly to det]m9e ! s5su\s conditions "u :i* ! categories are us$1 & secondly to discov] ! a priori pr9ciples involv$ 9 ! categories1 z ex]cis$ "u ^! s5su\s conditions1 su*1 = in/ance1 z ! law t all *anges take place accord+ to ! law ( cause & effect4 ,! fir/ problem is dealt ) 9 ! *apt] on ! 's*ematism ( ! pure conceptions ( ! und]/&+'1 ! second 9 ! *apt] on ! 'sy/em ( all pr9ciples ( ! pure und]/&+'4 #a p4 #ada4 ,we naturally feel a prelim9>y difficulty ) respect to ! exi/5ce ( ?is second "p ( ! ,analytic at all4 ,x seems cle> t if ! fir/ "p is successful1 ! second mu/ be unnecess>y4 ,= if ,kant is 9 a position to lay d[n t ! categories mu/ apply to objects1 no special conditions ( _! application ne$ be subsequ5tly det]m9$4 ,if1 = in/ance1 x c be laid d[n t ! category ( quantity mu/ apply to objects1 x is impli$ ei!r t !re are no special conditions ( its application1 or t !y h already be5 discov]$ & %[n to exi/4 ,aga91 to ass]t ! applicability ( ! categories is really to ass]t ! exi/5ce ( pr9ciples1 & 9 fact ( j ^? pr9ciples :i* x is ! aim ( ! ,sy/em ( ,pr9ciples to prove4 ,?us to ass]t ! applicability ( ! categories ( quantity & ( cause & effect is to ass]t respectively ! pr9ciples t all objects ( p]ception are ext5sive quantities1 & t all *anges take place accord+ to ! law ( cause & effect4 ,! ,d$uction ( ! ,categories !re=e1 if successful1 mu/ h already prov$ ! pr9ciples n[ to be v9dicat$2 & x is a matt] = legitimate surprise t we f9d ,kant 9 ! ,sy/em ( ,pr9ciples giv+ pro(s ( ^! pr9ciples :i* make no appeal to ! ,d$uction ( ! ,categories4#b ,on ! o!r h&1 = ! exi/5ce ( ! acc\nt ( ! s*ematism ( ! categories ,kant has a bett] %[ ( reason4 ,= ! conceptions d]iv$ 9 ! ,metaphysical ,d$uction f ! nature ( =mal judgem5t are 9 !mselves too ab/ract to be ! conceptions :i* are to be %[n applicable to ! s5sible _w1 s9ce all ! latt] involve ! ?\ght ( "t4 ,?us1 ! conception ( cause & effect d]iv$ f ! nature ( ! hypo!tical judgem5t includes no ?\ght ( "t1 :ile ! conception ( :i* he wi%es to %[ ! validity is t ( necess>y succession 9 "t4 ,h5ce ! conceptions discov]$ by analysis ( =mal judgem5t h 9 "s way to be r5d]$ m concrete 9 respect ( "t4 ,! acc\nt ( ! s*ematism1 !re=e1 is an attempt to get out ( ! false position rea*$ by appeal+ to ,=mal ,logic = ! li/ ( categories4 ,nev]!less1 ! m5tion ( a s5su\s condition "u :i* alone ! categories c be employ$#c %\ld h sugge/$ to ,kant t ! transc5d5tal d$uction 0 defective1 &1 9 fact1 9 ! second v]sion ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction two p>agraphs#d are ins]t$ :i* take acc\nt ( ?is s5su\s condition4 #b ,! cause ( ,kant's proc$ure is1 ( c\rse1 to be f\nd 9 ! unreal way 9 :i* he isolates conception f judgem5t4 #c ,b4 #age1 ,m4 #ajf4 #d ,b4 #bd & #bf1 ,m4 #bj & #bb4 ,! beg9n+ ( ,kant's acc\nt ( s*ematism may be summ>iz$ ?us3 ',:5ev] we subsume an individual object ( a c]ta9 k9d1 e4 g4 a plate1 "u a conception1 e4 g4 a circle1 ! object & ! conception mu/ be homog5e\s1 t is to say1 ! individual mu/ possess ! *>act]i/ic :i* con/itutes ! conception1 or1 9 o!r words1 mu/ be an in/ance ( x4 ,pure conceptions1 h[ev]1 & empirical p]ceptions1 i4 e4 objects ( empirical p]ception1 are q het]og5e\s4 ,we d n1 = in/ance1 p]ceive cases ( cause & effect4 ,h5ce ! problem arises1 ',h[ is x possible to subsume objects ( empirical p]ception "u pure conceptions8' ,! possibility ( ?is subsumption presupposes a t]tium quid1 :i* is homog5e\s bo? ) ! object ( empirical p]ception & ) ! conception1 & s makes ! subsumption m$iately possible4 ,?is t]tium quid mu/ be1 on ! "o side1 intellectual &1 on ! o!r side1 s5su\s4 ,x is to be f\nd 9 a 'transc5d5tal det]m9ation ( "t'1 i4 e4 a conception involv+ "t & involv$ 9 exp]i5ce4 ,= 9 ! fir/ place ?is is on ! "o side intellectual & on ! o!r s5su\s1 & 9 ! second place x is s f> homog5e\s ) ! category :i* con/itutes its unity t x is univ]sal & re/s on an a priori rule1 & s f> homog5e\s ) ! ph5om5on t all ph5om5a are 9 "t#e4 ,su* transc5d5tal det]m9ations ( "t are ! s*emata ( ! pure conceptions ( ! und]/&+4' ,kant cont9ues z foll[s3 #e ,x may be not$ t ! argum5t "h really fails4 ,= ?\gh ph5om5a z involv+ temporal relations1 might possibly be said to be in/ances ( a transc5d5tal det]m9ation ( "t1 ! fact t ! latt] agrees ) ! correspond+ category by be+ univ]sal & a priori does n con/itute x homog5e\s ) ! category1 9 ! s5se requir$ = subsumption1 viz4 t x is an in/ance ( or a species ( ! category4 ,! s*ema is 9 itself always a m]e product ( ! imag9ation4 ,b s9ce ! syn!sis ( ! imag9ation has = its aim no s+le p]ception1 b m]ely unity 9 ! det]m9ation ( ! s5sibility1 ! s*ema %\ld be di/+ui%$ f ! image4 ,?us1 if ,i place five po9ts "o aft] ano!r1 4 4 4 4 4 ?is is an image ( ! numb] five4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if ,i only j ?9k a numb] 9 g5]al--no matt] :at x may be1 five or a hundr$--?is ?9k+ is r ! repres5tation ( a me?od ( repres5t+ 9 an image a gr\p 7e4 g4 a ?\s&71 9 con=mity ) a c]ta9 conception1 ?an ! image itself1 an image :i*1 9 ! in/ance giv51 ,i %\ld f9d difficulty 9 survey+ & comp>+ ) ! conception4 ,n[ ?is repres5tation ( a g5]al proc$ure ( ! imag9ation to supply its image to a conception1 ,i call ! s*ema ( ?is conception4 ,! fact is t x is n images ( objects1 b s*emata1 :i* lie at ! f\ndation ( our pure s5su\s conceptions4 ,no image c\ld ev] be adequate to our conception ( a triangle 9 g5]al4 ,= x w\ld n atta9 ! g5]ality ( ! conception :i* makes x valid = all triangles1 :e!r "r-angl$1 acute-angl$1 c41 b w\ld always be limit$ to "o "p only ( ?is sph]e4 ,! s*ema ( ! triangle c exi/ n[h]e else ?an 9 ?\ght1 & signifies a rule ( ! syn!sis ( ! imag9ation 9 reg>d to pure figures 9 space4 ,an object ( exp]i5ce or an image ( x always falls %ort ( ! empirical conception to a f> great] degree ?an does ! s*ema2 ! empirical conception always relates imm$iately to ! s*ema ( ! imag9ation z a rule = ! det]m9ation ( our p]ception 9 con=mity ) a c]ta9 g5]al conception4 ,! conception ( 'dog' signifies a rule accord+ to :i* my imag9ation c draw ! g5]al outl9e ( ! figure ( a f\r-foot$ animal1 )\t be+ limit$ to any p>ticul> s+le =m :i* exp]i5ce pres5ts to me1 or inde$ to any possible image t ,i c repres5t to myself 9 concreto4 ,?is s*ematism ( our und]/&+ 9 reg>d to ph5om5a & _! m]e =m is an art hidd5 9 ! dep?s ( ! human s\l1 ^: true modes ( action we are n likely ev] to discov] f ,nature & unveil4 ,?us mu* only c we say3 ! image is a product ( ! empirical faculty ( ! productive imag9ation1 :ile ! s*ema ( s5su\s conceptions 7su* z ( figures 9 space7 is a product &1 z x 71 a monogram ( ! pure a priori imag9ation1 ?r\gh :i*1 & accord+ to :i*1 images fir/ become possible1 ?\gh ! images mu/ be connect$ ) ! conception only by means ( ! s*ema :i* !y express1 & are 9 !mselves n fully adequate to x4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! s*ema ( a pure conception ( ! und]/&+ is some?+ :i* _c be br\ght to an image2 on ! contr>y1 x is only ! pure syn!sis 9 accordance ) a rule ( unity accord+ to conceptions 9 g5]al1 a rule ( unity :i* ! category expresses1 & x is a transc5d5tal product ( ! imag9ation :i* conc]ns ! det]m9ation ( ! inn] s5se 9 g5]al accord+ to conditions ( its =m 7"t7 ) ref]5ce to all repres5tations1 s f> z ^! are to be connect$ a priori 9 "o conception accord+ to ! unity ( app]ception4#f #f ,b4 #agi-ha1 ,m4 #aji-aj4 ,n[1 9 ord] to det]m9e :e!r s*emata c con/itute ! desir$ l9k betwe5 ! pure conceptions or categories & ! manifold ( s5se1 x is necess>y to foll[ closely ?is acc\nt ( a s*ema4 ,kant unque/ionably 9 ?is passage treats z a m5tal image relat$ to a conception :at really is1 & :at on 8 own !ory ought to h be51 an individual object relat$ to a conception1 i4 e4 an in/ance ( x4 ,9 o!r words1 he takes a m5tal image ( an individual = ! individual itself4#g ,on ! "o h&1 he treats a s*ema ( a conception ?r\gh\t z ! ?\ght ( a proc$ure ( ! imag9ation to pres5t to ! conception its image1 & he opposes s*emata n to objects b to images2 on ! o!r h&1 8 problem conc]ns subsumption "u a conception1 & :at is subsum$ mu/ be an in/ance ( ! conception1 i4 e4 an individual object ( ! k9d 9 "q4#h ,aga91 9 ass]t+ t if ,i place five po9ts "o aft] ano!r1 4 4 4 4 4 ?is is an image ( ! numb] five1 he is actually say+ t an individual gr\p ( five po9ts is an image ( a gr\p ( five 9 g5]al4#i ,fur!r1 if ! process ( s*ematiz+ is to ent]--z x mu/--into k ( ! ph5om5al _w1 :at ,kant "h speaks ( z ! images relat$ to a conception mu/ be tak5 to be individual in/ances ( ! conception1 :atev] 8 language may be4 ,=1 9 ord] to ent] into k1 ! process ref]r$ to mu/ be t by :i* objects ( exp]i5ce are con/ruct$4 ,h5ce ! passage %\ld be int]pret$ z if ?r\gh\t !re _h be5 writt5 = 'image' 'individual in/ance' or m simply 'in/ance'4 ,aga91 ! process ( s*ematiz+1 al?\gh introduc$ simply z a process by :i* an individual is to be subsum$ indirectly "u a conception1 is assum$ 9 ! passage quot$ to be a process ( syn!sis4 ,h5ce we may say t ! process ( s*ematiz+ is a process by :i* we comb9e ! manifold ( p]ception into an individual :ole 9 accordance ) a conception1 & t ! s*ema ( a conception is ! ?\ght ( ! rule ( proc$ure on our "p by :i* we comb9e ! manifold 9 accordance ) ! conception1 & s br+ ! manifold "u ! conception4 ,?us ! s*ema ( ! conception ( #ajj is ! ?\ght ( a process ( syn!sis by :i* we comb9e say #aj gr\ps ( #aj units into #ajj1 & ! s*ematiz+ ( ! conception ( #ajj is ! process by :i* we d s4 ,"h x is ess5tial to notice ?ree po9ts4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! s*ema is a conception :i* relates n to ! reality appreh5d$ b to u4 ,x is ! ?\ght ( a rule ( proc$ure on our "p by :i* an in/ance ( a conception is con/ruct$1 & n ! ?\ght ( a *>act]i/ic ( ! reality con/ruct$4 ,= in/ance1 ! ?\ght ( a rule by :i* we c comb9e po9ts to make #ajj is a ?\ght :i* conc]ns u & n ! po9ts2 x is only ! conception correspond+ to ?is s*ema1 viz4 ! ?\ght ( #ajj1 :i* conc]ns ! po9ts4 ,9 ! second place1 al?\gh ! ?\ght ( "t is involv$ 9 ! s*ema1 ! succession 9 "q lies n 9 ! object1 b 9 our act ( con/ruction or appreh5sion4 ,9 ! ?ird place1 ! s*ema presupposes ! correspond+ conception & ! process ( s*ematiz+ directly br+s ! manifold ( p]ception "u ! conception4 ,?us ! ?\ght ( comb9+ #aj gr\ps ( #aj units to make #ajj presupposes ! ?\ght ( #ajj1 & ! process ( comb9ation br+s ! units "u ! conception ( #ajj4 #g ,cf4 pp4 #bdj-a4 ,! mi/ake is1 ( c\rse1 facilitat$ by ! fact t 'objects 9 nature'1 be+ = ,kant only 'appe>ances'1 resemble m5tal images m closely ?an !y d z usually conceiv$4 #h ,cf4 ,b4 #agf1 ,m4 #ajg4 ,t individuals are really ref]r$ to is also impli$ 9 ! ass]tion t '! syn!sis ( imag9ation has = its aim no s+le p]ception1 b m]ely unity 9 ! det]m9ation ( s5sibility'4 7,! italics are m9e47 #i ,two s5t5ces treat individual objects & images z if !y might be m5tion$ indiff]5tly4 ,an object ( exp]i5ce or an image ( x always falls %ort ( ! empirical conception to a f> great] degree ?an does ! s*ema4 ,! conception ( a 'dog' signifies a rule accord+ to :i* my imag9ation c draw ! g5]al outl9e ( ! figure ( a f\r-foot$ animal )\t be+ limit$ to any s+le p>ticul> =m :i* exp]i5ce pres5ts to me1 or inde$ to any possible image t ,i c repres5t to myself 9 concreto4 ,if1 h[ev]1 we g on to ask :at is requir$ ( s*emata & ( ! process ( s*ematiz+1 if !y are to enable ! manifold to be subsum$ "u ! categories1 we see t ea* ( ^! ?ree *>act]i/ics makes x impossible = !m to fulfil ?is purpose4 ,= fir/ly1 an individual manifold ,a has to be br\ght "u a category ,b4 ,s9ce ex hypo!si ?is _c be effect$ directly1 !re is ne$$ a m$iat+ conception ,c4 ,c1 !re=e1 x w\ld seem1 mu/ be at once a species ( ,b & a conception ( :i* ,a is an in/ance4 ,9 any case ,c mu/ be a conception relat+ to ! reality to be kn[n1 & n to any process ( kn[+ on our "p1 &1 aga91 x mu/ be m concrete ?an ,b4 ,?is is borne out by ! li/ ( ! s*emata ( ! categories4 ,b1 al?\gh a s*ema may be said to be m concrete ?an ! correspond+ conception1 9 t x presupposes ! conception1 x nei!r is nor involves a m concrete conception ( an object & 9 fact1 z has be5 po9t$ out1 relates n to ! reality to be kn[n b to ! process on our "p by :i* we con/ruct or appreh5d x4#aj ,9 ! second place1 ! "t 9 respect ( :i* ! category ,b has to be made m concrete mu/ relate to ! object1 & n to ! successive process by :i* we appreh5d x1 :]eas ! "t involv$ 9 a s*ema conc]ns ! latt] & n ! =m]4 ,9 ! ?ird place1 f ! po9t ( view ( ! categories1 ! process ( s*ematiz+ %\ld be a process :]eby we comb9e ! manifold into a :ole ,a 9 accordance ) ! conception ,c1 & !reby r5d] possible ! subsumption ( ,a "u ! category ,b4 ,if x be a process :i* actually subsumes ! manifold "u ,b1 x w actually p]=m t1 ! v impossibility ( :i* has made x necess>y to po/ulate su* a process at all4 ,=1 accord+ to ,kant1 x is j ! fact t ! manifold _c be subsum$ directly "u ! categories t r5d]s s*ematism necess>y4 ,yet1 on ,kant's g5]al acc\nt ( a s*ema1 ! s*ematiz+ mu/ actually br+ a manifold "u ! correspond+ conception4 ,if we pres5t to ourselves an individual triangle by successively jo9+ ?ree l9es accord+ to ! conception ( a triangle1 i4 e4 s t !y enclose a space1 we are directly br++ ! manifold1 i4 e4 ! l9es1 "u ! conception ( a triangle4 ,aga91 if we pres5t to ourselves an in/ance ( a gr\p ( #ajj by comb9+ #aj gr\ps ( #aj units ( any k9d1 we are directly br++ ! units "u ! conception ( #ajj4 ,if ?is consid]ation be appli$ to ! s*ematism ( a category1 we see t ! process said to be necess>y because a c]ta9 o!r process is impossible is ! v process said to be impossible4 #aj ,x may be object$ t1 f ,kant's po9t ( view1 ! ?\ght ( a rule ( con/ruction1 & ! ?\ght ( ! pr9ciple ( ! :ole to be con/ruct$1 are ! same ?+ f diff]5t po9ts ( view4 ,b if ?is be insi/$ on1 ! s*ema & its correspond+ conception become ! same ?+ reg>d$ f diff]5t po9ts ( view2 consequ5tly ! s*ema w n be a m concrete conception ( an object ?an ! correspond+ conception1 b x w be ! conception itself4 ,if1 !re=e1 ,kant succe$s 9 f9d+ s*emata ( ! categories 9 detail 9 ! s5se 9 :i* !y are requir$ = ! solution ( 8 problem1 i4 e4 9 ! s5se ( m concrete conceptions involv+ ! ?\ght ( "t & relat+ to objects1 we %\ld expect ei!r t he ignores 8 g5]al acc\nt ( a s*ema1 or t if he appeals to x1 ! appeal is irrelevant4 ,?is we f9d to be ! case4 ,8 acc\nt ( ! fir/ two transc5d5tal s*emata makes a :olly irrelevant appeal to ! temporal process ( syn!sis on our "p1 :ile 8 acc\nt ( ! rema9+ s*emata makes no attempt to appeal to x at all4 ,! pure s*ema ( quantity1 z a conception ( ! und]/&+1 is numb]1 a repres5tation :i* comprises ! successive addition ( "o to "o 7homog5e\s elem5ts74 ,accord+ly1 numb] is no?+ else ?an ! unity ( ! syn!sis ( ! manifold ( a homog5e\s p]ception 9 g5]al1 9 t ,i g5]ate "t itself 9 ! appreh5sion ( ! p]ception4#aa #aa ,b4 #ahb1 ,m4 #aaj4 ,x is cle> t ?is passage1 :atev] its precise int]pretation may be1#ab involves a confusion betwe5 ! ?\ght ( c\nt+ & t ( numb]4 ,! ?\ght ( numb] relates to objects ( appreh5sion & does n involve ! ?\ght ( "t4 ,! ?\ght ( c\nt+1 :i* presupposes ! ?\ght ( numb]1 relates to our appreh5sion ( objects & involves ! ?\ght ( "t2 x is ! ?\ght ( a successive process on our "p by :i* we c\nt ! numb] ( units conta9$ 9 :at we already "k to consi/ ( units4#ac ,n[ we mu/ assume t ! s*ema ( quantity is really :at ,kant says x is1 viz4 numb]1 or to express x m accurately1 ! ?\ght ( numb]1 & n ! ?\ght ( c\nt+1 ) :i* he wrongly id5tifies x4 ,= 8 ma9 problem is to f9d conceptions :i* at once are m concrete ?an ! categories &1 at ! same "t1 l ! categories1 relate to objects1 & ! ?\ght ( c\nt+1 ?\gh m concrete ?an t ( numb]1 does n relate to objects4 ,?ree consequ5ces foll[4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 al?\gh ! s*ema ( quantity1 i4 e4 ! ?\ght ( numb]1 is m concrete ?an ! ?\ght ( quantity1#ad x is n1 z x %\ld be1 m concrete 9 respect ( "t2 = ! ?\ght ( numb] does n include ! ?\ght ( "t4 ,secondly1 ! ?\ght ( "t is only introduc$ into ! s*ema ( quantity irrelevantly by ref]5ce to ! temporal process ( c\nt+1 by :i* we come to appreh5d ! numb] ( a giv5 gr\p ( units4 ,?irdly1 ! s*ema ( quantity is only 9 appe>ance connect$ ) ! nature ( a s*ema 9 g5]al1 z ,kant describes x1 by a false id5tification ( ! ?\ght ( numb] ) ! ?\ght ( ! process on our "p by :i* we c\nt gr\ps ( units1 i4 e4 numb]s4 #ab ,! drift ( ! passage w\ld seem to be ?is3 ',if we are to pres5t to ourselves an in/ance ( a quantity1 we mu/ successively comb9e simil> units until !y =m a quantity4 ,?is process involves ! ?\ght ( a successive process by :i* we add units accord+ to ! conception ( a quantity4 ,?is ?\ght is ! ?\ght ( numb]1 & s9ce by x we pres5t to ourselves an in/ance ( a quantity1 x is ! s*ema ( quantity4' ,b if ?is be its drift1 consid]ations ( s5se dem& t x %\ld be rewritt51 at lea/ to ! foll[+ ext5t3 ',if we are to pres5t to ourselves an in/ance ( a p>ticul> quantity :i* w really be a p>ticul> numb]1 = x mu/ be reg>d$ z discrete1 7cf4 ,b4 #bab1 ,m4 #abh f941 #abi init47 e4 g4 ?ree1 we mu/ successively comb9e units until !y =m t quantity4 ,?is process involves ! ?\ght ( a successive process1 by :i* we add units accord+ to ! conception ( t quantity4 ,?is ?\ght is ! ?\ght ( a p>ticul> numb]1 & s9ce by x we pres5t to ourselves an in/ance ( t quantity1 ?is ?\ght is ! s*ema ( t quantity4' ,if ?is rewrit+ be admitt$ to be necess>y1 x mu/ be all[$ t ,kant has confus$ 7a7 ! ?\ghts ( p>ticul> quantities & ( p>ticul> numb]s ) ^? ( quantity & ( numb] 9 g5]al respectively1 7b7 ! ?\ght ( a p>ticul> quantity ) t ( a p>ticul> numb] 7= ! process ref]r$ to presupposes t ! p>ticul> quantity tak5 is kn[n to consi/ ( a numb] ( equal units7 & 7c7 ! ?\ght ( c\nt+ ) t ( numb]4 #ac ,?is /atem5t is1 ( c\rse1 n meant z a def9ition ( c\nt+1 b z a means ( br++ out ! di/9ction betwe5 a process ( c\nt+ & a numb]4 #ad ,= ! ?\ght ( a numb] is ! ?\ght ( a quantity ( a special k9d1 viz4 ( a quantity made up ( a numb] ( simil> units )\t rema9d]4 ,! acc\nt ( ! s*ema ( reality1 ! second category1 runs z foll[s3 ,reality is 9 ! pure conception ( ! und]/&+ t :i* corresponds to a s5sation 9 g5]al1 t !re=e ( :i* ! conception 9 itself indicates a be+ 79 "t71 :ile negation is t ( :i* ! conception indicates a n be+ 79 "t74 ,_! opposition1 !re=e1 arises 9 ! di/9ction betwe5 "o & ! same "t z fill$ or empty4 ,s9ce "t is only ! =m ( p]ception1 consequ5tly ( objects z ph5om5a1 t :i* 9 objects corresponds to s5sation is ! transc5d5tal matt] ( all objects z ?+s 9 !mselves 7?+hood1 reality74#ae ,n[ e s5sation has a degree or magnitude by :i* x c fill ! same "t1 i4 e4 ! int]nal s5se1 9 respect ( ! same repres5tation ( an object1 m or less1 until x vani%es into no?+ 7 #j negatio74 ,!re is1 !re=e1 a relation & connexion betwe5 reality & negation1 or r a transition f ! =m] to ! latt]1 :i* makes e reality repres5table z a quantum2 & ! s*ema ( a reality1 z ! quantity ( some?+ s f> z x fills "t1 is j ?is cont9u\s & uni=m g5]ation ( ! reality 9 "t1 z we desc5d 9 "t f ! s5sation :i* has a c]ta9 degree1 d[n to ! vani%+ !re(1 or gradually asc5d f negation to ! magnitude !re(4#af #ae ,x is difficult to see h[ ,kant c\ld meet ! criticism t "h1 contr>y to 8 int5tion1 he is treat+ physical objects z ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,cf4 p4 #bfe4 #af ,b4 #ahb-c1 ,m4 #aaj-aa4 ,?is passage1 if x be tak5 9 connexion ) ! acc\nt ( ! anticipations ( p]ception1#ag seems to h ! foll[+ mean+3 ',9 ?9k+ ( some?+ z a reality1 we ?9k ( x z t :i* corresponds to1 i4 e4 produces1 a s5sation1 & !re=e z some?+ :i*1 l ! s5sation1 is 9 "t2 & j z e s5sation1 :i*1 z su*1 occupies "t1 has a c]ta9 degree ( int5sity1 s has ! reality :i* produces x4 ,n[ to produce = ourselves an in/ance ( a reality 9 ?is s5se1 we mu/ add units ( reality till a reality ( ! requir$ degree is produc$1 & ! ?\ght ( ?is me?od on our "p ( con/ruct+ an individual reality is ! s*ema ( reality4' ,b if ?is repres5ts ,kant's mean+1 ! s*ema ( reality relates only to our process ( appreh5sion1 & !re=e is n a conception :i* relates to objects & is m concrete ?an ! correspond+ category 9 respect ( "t4 ,moreov]1 x is matt] = surprise t 9 ! case ( ?is category ,kant %\ld h ?\ght s*ematism necess>y1 = "t is actually includ$ 9 8 own /atem5t ( ! category4 #ag ,b4 #bjg-ah1 ,m4 #abe-cb4 ,! acc\nt ( ! s*emata ( ! rema9+ categories ne$ n be consid]$4 ,x m]ely ass]ts t c]ta9 conceptions relat+ to objects & involv+ ! ?\ght ( "t are ! s*emata correspond+ to ! rema9+ categories1 )\t any attempt to connect !m ) ! nature ( a s*ema4 ,?us1 ! s*ema ( sub/ance is ass]t$ to be ! p]man5ce ( ! real 9 "t1 t ( cause ! succession ( ! manifold1 9 s f> z t succession is subject$ to a rule1 t ( int]action ! coexi/5ce ( ! det]m9ations or accid5ts ( "o sub/ance ) ^? ( ano!r accord+ to a univ]sal rule4#ah ,aga91 ! s*emata ( possibility1 ( actuality & ( necessity are said to be respectively ! accordance ( ! syn!sis ( repres5tations ) ! conditions ( "t 9 g5]al1 exi/5ce 9 a det]m9$ "t1 & exi/5ce ( an object 9 all "t4 #ah ,! italics are m9e4 ,! ma9 confusion p]vad+ ! *apt] is ( c\rse t betwe5 temporal relations :i* conc]n ! process ( appreh5sion & temporal relations :i* conc]n ! realities appreh5d$4 ,kant is cont9ually ref]r+ to ! =m] z if !y 7 ! latt]4 ,! cause ( ?is confusion lies 9 ,kant's r$uction ( physical realities to repres5tations4 ,s9ce1 accord+ to him1 ^! realities are only our repres5tations1 all temporal relations are really relations ( our repres5tations1 & ^! relations h to be treat$ at "o "t z relations ( our appreh5sions1 & at ano!r z relations ( ! realities appreh5d$1 z ! context requires4 ,,*apt] ,,xi ,,! ,,ma!matical ,,pr9ciples ,z has be5 po9t$ out1#a ! aim ( ! second "p ( ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples is to det]m9e ! a priori pr9ciples involv$ 9 ! use ( ! categories "u ! necess>y s5su\s conditions4 ,^! pr9ciples ,kant divides into f\r classes1 correspond+ to ! f\r gr\ps ( categories1 & he calls !m respectively 'axioms ( p]ception'1 'anticipations ( s5se-p]ception'1 'analogies ( exp]i5ce'1 & 'po/ulates ( empirical ?\ght'4 ,! fir/ two & ! la/ two classes are gr\p$ toge!r z 'ma!matical' & 'dynamical' respectively1 on ! gr\nd t ! =m] gr\p conc]ns ! p]ception ( objects1 i4 e4 _! nature appreh5d$ 9 p]ception1 :ile ! latt] gr\p conc]ns _! exi/5ce1 & t consequ5tly1 s9ce ass]tions conc]n+ ! exi/5ce ( objects presuppose ! realization ( empirical conditions :i* ass]tions conc]n+ _! nature d n1 only ! =m] possesses an absolute necessity & an imm$iate evid5ce su* z is f\nd 9 ma!matics4#b #a p4 #bdf4 #b ,! ass]tion t all p]ceptions 7i4 e4 all objects ( p]ception7 are ext5sive quantities relates1 accord+ to ,kant1 to ! nature ( objects1 :ile ! ass]tion t an ev5t mu/ h a necess>y antec$5t affirms t su* an antec$5t mu/ exi/1 b gives no clue to its specific nature4 ,comp>e ,b ! exi/5ce ( ph5om5a _c be kn[n a priori1 & al?\gh we c\ld be l$ 9 ?is way to inf] ! fact ( "s exi/5ce1 we %\ld n "k ?is exi/5ce det]m9ately1 i4 e4 we c\ld n anticipate ! respect 9 :i* ! empirical p]ception ( x diff]$ f t ( o!r exi/5ces4 7,b4 #bba1 ,m4 #acd74 ,kant seems to ?9k t ! fact t ! dynamical pr9ciples relate to ! exi/5ce ( objects is a suffici5t ju/ification ( _! "n4 ,x ne$s b little reflection to see t ! di/9ctions :i* ,kant draws betwe5 ! ma!matical & ! dynamical pr9ciples mu/ break d[n4 ,^! two gr\ps ( pr9ciples are n1 z _! names might sugge/1 pr9ciples )9 ma!matics & physics1 b presuppositions ( ma!matics & physics respectively4 ,kant also claims appropriat5ess = ! special t]ms us$ ( ea* m9or gr\p to indicate ! k9d ( pr9ciples 9 "q1 viz4 'axioms'1 'anticipations'1 'analogies'1 'po/ulates'4 ,b x may be not$ z an indication ( ! artificiality ( ! s*eme t ea* ( ! fir/ two gr\ps conta9s only "o pr9ciple1 al?\gh ,kant ref]s to !m 9 ! plural z axioms & anticipations respectively1 & al?\gh ! exi/5ce ( ?ree categories correspond+ to ea* gr\p w\ld sugge/ ! exi/5ce ( ?ree pr9ciples4 ,! axiom ( p]ception is t ',all p]ceptions are ext5sive quantities'4 ,! pro( ( x runs ?us3 ,an ext5sive quantity ,i call t 9 :i* ! repres5tation ( ! p>ts r5d]s possible ! repres5tation ( ! :ole 7& !re=e necess>ily prec$es x74 ,i _c repres5t to myself any l9e1 h[ev] small x may be1 )\t draw+ x 9 ?\ght1 t is1 )\t g5]at+ f a po9t all its p>ts "o aft] ano!r1 & !reby fir/ draw+ ?is p]ception4 ,precisely ! same is ! case ) e1 ev5 ! smalle/1 "t4444 ,s9ce ! pure p]ception 9 all ph5om5a is ei!r "t or space1 e ph5om5on z a p]ception is an ext5sive quantity1 because x c be kn[n 9 appreh5sion only by a successive syn!sis 7( "p ) "p74 ,all ph5om5a1 !re=e1 are already p]ceiv$ z aggregates 7gr\ps ( previ\sly giv5 p>ts71 :i* is n ! case ) quantities ( e k9d1 b only ) ^? :i* are repres5t$ & appreh5d$ by u z ext5sive4#c #c ,b4 #bjc-d1 ,m4 #abc4 ,kant opposes an ext5sive quantity to an int5sive quantity or a quantity :i* has a degree4 ,t quantity :i* is appreh5d$ only z unity & 9 :i* plurality c be repres5t$ only by approximation to negation #j1 ,i call int5sive quantity4#d ,! aspect ( ?is ultimate di/9ction :i* und]lies ,kant's mode ( /at+ x is t only an ext5sive quantity is a :ole1 i4 e4 some?+ made up ( p>ts4 ,?us a mile c be said to be made up ( two half-miles1 b a velocity ( "o foot p] second1 ?\gh comp>able ) a velocity ( half a foot p] second1 _c be said to be made up ( two su* velocities2 x is ess5tially "o & indivisible4 ,h5ce1 f ,kant's po9t ( view1 x foll[s t x is only an ext5sive magnitude :i* c1 & inde$ mu/1 be appreh5d$ ?r\gh a successive syn!sis ( ! p>ts4 ,! pro( ( ! axiom seems to be simply ?is3 ',all ph5om5a z objects ( p]ception are subject to ! =ms ( p]ception1 space & "t4 ,space & "t are homog5e\s manifolds1 & !re=e ext5sive quantities1 only to be appreh5d$ by a successive syn!sis ( ! p>ts4 ,h5ce ph5om5a1 or objects ( exp]i5ce1 mu/ also be ext5sive quantities1 to be simil>ly appreh5d$4' ,& ,kant goes on to add t x is = ?is reason t geometry & pure ma!matics g5]ally apply to objects ( exp]i5ce4 #d ,b4 #baj1 ,m4 #abg4 ,we ne$ only draw att5tion to ?ree po9ts4 ,fir/ly1 no ju/ification is giv5 ( ! t]m 'axiom'4 ,secondly1 ! argum5t does n really appeal to ! doctr9e ( ! categories1 b only to ! "* ( space & "t z =ms ( p]ception4 ,?irdly1 x ne$ n appeal to space & "t z =ms ( p]ception 9 ! prop] s5se ( ways 9 :i* we appreh5d objects1 b only 9 ! s5se ( ways 9 :i* objects are relat$#e2 9 o!r words1 x ne$ n appeal to ,kant's !ory ( k4 ,! conclusion foll[s simply f ! nature ( objects z spatially & temporally relat$1 :e!r !y are ph5om5a or n4 ,x may be object$ t ,kant's !sis is t all objects ( p]ception are ext5sive quantities1 & t unless space & "t are all[$ to be ways 9 :i* we mu/ p]ceive objects1 we _c say t all objects w be spatially & temporally relat$1 & s ext5sive quantities4 ,b to ?is x may be repli$ t x is only true t all objects ( p]ception are ext5sive quantities if ! t]m 'object ( p]ception' be re/rict$ to p>ts ( ! physical _w1 i4 e4 to j ^? realities :i* ,kant is ?9k+ ( z spatially & temporally relat$1#f & t ?is re/riction is n ju/ifi$1 s9ce a s5sation or a pa9 :i* has only int5sive quantity is j z mu* entitl$ to be call$ an object ( p]ception4 #e ,cf4 pp4 #cg-i4 #f ,! context %[s t ,kant is ?9k+ only ( su* temporal relations z belong to ! physical _w1 & n ( ^? :i* belong to u z appreh5d+ x4 ,cf4 p4 #aci4 ,! anticipation ( s5se-p]ception consi/s 9 ! pr9ciple t ',9 all ph5om5a1 ! real1 :i* is an object ( s5sation1 has int5sive magnitude1 i4 e4 a degree'4 ,! pro( is /at$ ?us3 ,appreh5sion m]ely by means ( s5sation fills only "o mom5t 7t is1 if ,i d n take into consid]ation ! succession ( _m s5sations74 ,s5sation1 !re=e1 z t 9 ! ph5om5on ! appreh5sion ( :i* is n a successive syn!sis advanc+ f p>ts to a complete repres5tation1 has no ext5sive quantity2 ! lack ( s5sation 9 "o & ! same mom5t w\ld repres5t x z empty1 consequ5tly #j4 ,n[ t :i* 9 ! empirical p]ception corresponds to s5sation is reality 7realitas pha5om5on72 t :i* corresponds to ! lack ( x is negation #j4 ,b e s5sation is capable ( a dim9ution1 s t x c decrease & ?us gradually vani%4 ,!re=e1 betwe5 reality 9 ! ph5om5on & negation !re exi/s a cont9u\s connexion ( _m possible int]m$iate s5sations1 ! diff]5ce ( :i* f ea* o!r is always small] ?an t betwe5 ! giv5 s5sation & z]o1 or complete negation4 ,t is to say1 ! real 9 ! ph5om5on has always a quantity1 :i*1 h[ev]1 is n f\nd 9 appreh5sion1 s9ce appreh5sion takes place by means ( m]e s5sation 9 "o mom5t & n by a successive syn!sis ( _m s5sations1 & !re=e does n proce$ f p>ts to ! :ole4 ,consequ5tly1 x has a quantity1 b n an ext5sive quantity4 ,n[ t quantity :i* is appreh5d$ only z unity1 & 9 :i* plurality c be repres5t$ only by approximation to negation #j1 ,i call an int5sive quantity4 ,e reality1 !re=e1 9 a ph5om5on has int5sive quantity1 t is1 a degree4#g #g ,b4 #bji-aj1 ,m4 #abg4 ,9 o!r words1 ',we c lay d[n a priori t all s5sations h a c]ta9 degree ( int5sity1 & t betwe5 a s5sation ( a giv5 int5sity & ! total abs5ce ( s5sation !re is possible an inf9ite numb] ( s5sations v>y+ 9 int5sity f no?+ to t degree ( int5sity4 ,!re=e ! real1 :i* corresponds to s5sation1 c also be said a priori to admit ( an inf9ite v>iety ( degree4' ,?\gh ! pr9ciple e/abli%$ is ( little intr9sic importance1 ! acc\nt ( x is noticeable = two reasons4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 al?\gh ,kant cle>ly means by ! 'real correspond+ to s5sation' a body 9 space1 & reg>ds x z a ph5om5on1 x is impossible to see h[ he c avoid ! *>ge t he 9 fact treats x z a ?+ 9 itself4#h ,= ! correspond5ce mu/ consi/ 9 ! fact t ! real causes or excites s5sation 9 u1 & !re=e ! real1 i4 e4 a body 9 space1 is impli$ to be a ?+ 9 itself4 ,9 fact1 ,kant himself speaks ( consid]+ ! real 9 ! ph5om5on z ! cause ( s5sation1#i &1 9 a passage add$ 9 ! second edition1 aft] prov+ t s5sation mu/ h an int5sive quantity1 he says t1 correspond+ to ! int5sive quantity ( s5sation1 an int5sive quantity1 i4 e4 a degree ( influ5ce on s5se1 mu/ be attribut$ to all objects ( s5se-p]ception4#aj ,! difficulty ( consi/5tly ma9ta9+ t ! real1 :i* corresponds to s5sation1 is a ph5om5on is1 ( c\rse1 due to ! impossibility ( di/+ui%+ betwe5 reality & appe>ance )9 ph5om5a4#aa #h ,cf4 p4 #beg note4 #i ,b4 #baj1 ,m4 #abh4 #aj ,b4 #bjh1 ,m4 #abf4 ,! italics are m9e4 ,cf4 f ! same passage1 ,ph5om5a conta91 ov] & above p]ception1 ! mat]ials = "s object 7?r\gh :i* is repres5t$ some?+ exi/+ 9 space & "t71 i4 e4 !y conta9 ! real ( s5sation z a m]ely subjective repres5tation ( :i* we c only become consci\s t ! subject is affect$1 & :i* we relate to an object 9 g5]al4 7,! italics are m9e47 #aa ,cf4 pp4 #id-ajj4 ,9 ! second place1 ,kant expressly all[s t 9 ?is anticipation we succe$ 9 discov]+ a priori a *>act]i/ic ( s5sation1 al?\gh s5sation con/itutes t empirical elem5t 9 ph5om5a1 :i* on ,kant's g5]al view _c be appreh5d$ a priori4 ,nev]!less1 ?is anticipation ( s5se-p]ception mu/ always be some:at surpris+ to an inquir] :o is us$ to transc5d5tal reflection1 & is !reby r5d]$ cauti\s4 ,x leads u to feel "s misgiv+ z to :e!r ! und]/&+ c anticipate su* a syn!tic proposition z t respect+ ! degree ( all t is real 9 ph5om5a1 & consequ5tly respect+ ! possibility ( ! int]nal di/9ction ( s5sation itself1 if we ab/ract f its empirical quality4 ,!re rema9s1 !re=e1 a problem n unwor?y ( solution1 viz4 ',h[ c ! und]/&+ pron\nce syn!tically & a priori ^u ph5om5a 9 ?is respect1 & ?us anticipate ph5om5a ev5 9 t :i* is specially & m]ely empirical1 viz4 t :i* conc]ns s5sations8'#ab ,b al?\gh ,kant recognizes t ! anticipation is surpris+1 he is n l$ to revise 8 g5]al !ory1 z be+ inconsi/5t ) ! exi/5ce ( ! anticipation4 ,he inde$ makes an attempt#ac to deal ) ! difficulty2 b 8 solution consi/s n 9 %[+ t ! anticipation is consi/5t ) 8 g5]al !ory--z he %\ld h done1 if ! !ory 0 to be reta9$--b 9 %[+ t1 9 ! case ( ! degree ( s5sation1 we d appreh5d ! nature ( s5sation a priori4 #ab ,b4 #bag1 ,m4 #aca2 cf4 ,b4 #bji1 ,m4 #abg4 #ac ,b4 #bag-ah1 ,m4 #acb4 ,/rangely en\gh1 ,hume f9ds himself face to face ) :at is 9 pr9ciple ! same difficulty1 & treats x 9 a n dissimil> way4 ,!re is1 h[ev]1 "o contradictory ph5om5on1 :i* may prove1 t 'tis n absolutely impossible = ideas to g be=e _! correspond5t impressions4 ,i believe x w readily be all['d1 t ! sev]al di/9ct ideas ( col\rs1 :i* ent] by ! eyes1 or ^? ( s\nds1 :i* are convey'd by ! he>+1 are really diff]5t f ea* o!r1 ?o' at ! same "t resembl+4 ,n[ if ?is be true ( diff]5t col\rs1 x mu/ be no less s ( ! diff]5t %ades ( ! same col\r1 t ea* ( !m produces a di/9ct idea1 indep5d5t ( ! re/4 ,= if ?is %\'d be d5y'd1 'tis possible1 by ! cont9ual gradation ( %ades1 to run a col\r ins5sibly into :at is mo/ remote f x2 & if y w n all[ any ( ! means to be diff]5t1 y _c )\t absurdity d5y ! extremes to be ! same4 ,suppose !re=e a p]son to h enjoy$ 8 sight = ?irty ye>s1 & to h become p]fectly well acqua9t$ ) col\rs ( all k9ds1 except+ "o p>ticul> %ade ( blue1 = in/ance1 :i* x nev] has be5 8 =tune to meet )4 ,let all ! diff]5t %ades ( t col\r1 except t s+le "o1 be plac'd be=e him1 desc5d+ gradually f ! deepe/ to ! lighte/2 'tis pla9 t he w p]ceive a blank1 :]e t %ade is want+1 & w be s5sible1 t !re is a great] di/ance 9 t place betwixt ! contigu\s col\rs1 ?an 9 any o!r4 ,n[ ,i ask1 :e!r 'tis possible = him1 f 8 own imag9ation1 to supply ?is defici5cy1 & raise up to himself ! idea ( t p>ticul> %ade1 ?o' x _h nev] be5 convey$ to him by 8 s5ses8 ,i believe !re are few b w be ( op9ion t he c2 & ?is may s]ve z a pro(1 t ! simple ideas are n always d]iv$ f ! correspond5t impressions2 ?o' ! in/ance is s p>ticul> & s+ul>1 t 'tis sc>ce wor? our obs]v+1 & does n m]it t = x alone we %\ld alt] our g5]al maxim4#ad #ad ,hume1 ,treatise1 ,bk4 ,i1 ,"p #a1 #a4 ,,*apt] ,,xii ,,! ,,analogies ,,( ,,exp]i5ce ,ea* ( ! ?ree categories ( relation1 i4 e4 ^? ( sub/ance & accid5t1 ( cause & effect1 & ( int]action betwe5 ag5t & pati5t involves1 accord+ to ,kant1 a special pr9ciple1 & ^! special pr9ciples he calls 'analogies ( exp]i5ce'4 ,!y are /at$ ?us3#a 7#a7 ,9 all *anges ( ph5om5a ! sub/ance is p]man5t1 & its quantity 9 nature is nei!r increas$ nor dim9i%$4 7#b7 ,all *anges take place accord+ to ! law ( ! connexion ( cause & effect4 7#c7 ,all sub/ances1 s f> z !y c be p]ceiv$ 9 space z coexi/5t1 are 9 complete int]action4 ,! ju/ification ( ! t]m analogy ( exp]i5ce is z foll[s4 ,9 ma!matics an analogy is a =mula :i* ass]ts ! equality ( two quantitative relations1 & is su* t1 if ?ree ( ! t]ms are giv51 we c discov] ! f\r?1 e4 g4 if we "k t a 3 b c 3 d1 & t a #b1 b #d1 c #f we c discov] t d #ab4 ,b 9 philosophy an analogy is ! ass]tion ( ! equality ( two qualitative relations & is su* t1 if ?ree ( ! t]ms are giv51 we c discov]1 n ! f\r?1 b only ! relation ( ! ?ird to ! f\r?1 ?\gh at ! same "t we are furni%$ ) a clue :]eby to se>* = ! f\r? 9 exp]i5ce4 ,9 ?is philosophical s5se1 ! pr9ciples involv$ 9 ! categories ( relation are analogies4 ,= in/ance1 ! pr9ciples ( causality c be /at$ 9 ! =m ',any kn[n ev5t ,x is to "s o!r ev5t ,y1 :atev] x be1 z effect to cause'2 s /at$1 x cle>ly in=ms u n ( ! "* ( ,y b only ( ! fact t !re mu/ be a ,y1 i4 e4 a necess>y antec$5t1 ?\gh at ! same "t ?is k enables u to se>* 9 exp]i5ce = ! special "* ( ,y4 #a ,! =mulation ( !m 9 ! fir/ edition is slightly diff]5t4 ,! pr9ciples to be e/abli%$ relate to ! two k9ds ( temporal relation appreh5d$ 9 ! _w ( nature1 viz4 coexi/5ce & succession4 ,! me?od ( pro(1 :i* is to be ga!r$ f ! pro(s !mselves r ?an f ,kant's g5]al rem>ks#b on ! subject1 is ! same 9 ea* case4 ,kant expressly rejects any pro( :i* is 'dogmatical' or 'f conceptions'1 e4 g4 any attempt to %[ t ! v conception ( *ange presupposes ! ?\ght ( an id5tical subject ( *ange4#c ,! pro( is transc5d5tal 9 "*1 i4 e4 x argues t ! pr9ciple to be e/abli%$ is a condition ( ! possibility ( appreh5d+ ! temporal relation 9 "q1 e4 g4 t ! exi/5ce ( a p]man5t subject ( *ange is presuppos$ 9 any appreh5sion ( *ange4 ,x assumes t we become aw>e ( sequ5ces & coexi/5ces 9 ! _w ( nature by a process :i* beg9s ) a succession ( m]e p]ceptions1 i4 e4 p]ceptions :i* are s f> n ! p]ceptions ( a sequ5ce or ( a coexi/5ce or inde$ ( any?+2#d & x seeks to %[ t ?is process involves an appeal to "o ( ! pr9ciples 9 "q--! p>ticul> pr9ciple involv$ dep5d+ on ! temporal relation appreh5d$--& consequ5tly1 t s9ce we d appreh5d ?is temporal relation1 :i*1 z belong+ to ! _w ( nature1 mu/ be di/9ct f any temporal relation ( our p]ceptions1 ! pr9ciple appeal$ to is valid4 #b ,b4 #bah-bd1 ,m4 #acb-f2 & ,b4 #bfb-e1 ,m4 #aei-fa4 #c ,b4 #bfc-d1 ,m4 #afj-a2 ,b4 #bhi1 ,m4 #agd-e4 #d ,?is assumption is ( c\rse analog\s to ! assumption :i* und]lies ! ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction ( ! ,categories1 t k beg9s ) ! successive orig9ation 9 u ( isolat$ data ( s5se4 ,! pro( ( ! fir/ analogy is giv5 some:at diff]5tly 9 ! fir/ edition1 & 9 a passage add$ 9 ! second4 ,! e>li] v]sion1 :i* is a bett] expression ( ! attitude und]ly+ ,kant's g5]al rem>ks on ! analogy1 is z foll[s3 ,our appreh5sion ( ! manifold ( a ph5om5on is always successive1 & is !re=e always *ang+4 ,by x alone1 !re=e1 we c nev] det]m9e :e!r ?is manifold1 z an object ( exp]i5ce1 is coexi/5t or successive1 unless !re lies at ! base ( x some?+ t exi/s always1 t is1 some?+ endur+ & p]man5t1 ( :i* all succession & coexi/5ce are no?+ b s _m ways 7modi ( "t7 9 :i* ! p]man5t exi/s4 ,only 9 ! p]man5t1 !n1 are "t relations possible 7= simultaneity & succession are ! only relations 9 "t72 i4 e4 ! p]man5t is ! sub/ratum ( ! empirical repres5tation ( "t itself1 9 :i* alone all "t-det]m9ation is possible4 ,p]man5ce expresses 9 g5]al "t1 z ! p]si/+ correlate ( all exi/5ce ( ph5om5a1 ( all *ange1 & ( all concomitance4444 ,only ?r\gh ! p]man5t does exi/5ce 9 diff]5t p>ts ( ! successive s]ies ( "t ga9 a quantity :i* we call duration4 ,=1 9 m]e succession1 exi/5ce is always vani%+ & beg9n+1 & nev] has ! lea/ quantity4 ,)\t ?is p]man5t1 !n1 no "t relation is possible4 ,n[1 "t 9 itself _c be p]ceiv$#e2 consequ5tly ?is p]man5t 9 ph5om5a is ! sub/ratum ( all "t-det]m9ation1 & !re=e also ! condition ( ! possibility ( all syn!tic unity ( s5se-p]ceptions1 t is1 ( exp]i5ce1 & 9 ?is p]man5t all exi/5ce & all *ange 9 "t c only be reg>d$ z a mode ( ! exi/5ce ( t :i* endures & is p]man5t4 ,!re=e 9 all ph5om5a ! p]man5t is ! object itself1 i4 e4 ! sub/ance 7ph5om5on72 b all t *anges or c *ange belongs only to ! way 9 :i* ?is sub/ance or sub/ances exi/1 consequ5tly to _! det]m9ations4#f ,accord+ly s9ce sub/ance _c *ange 9 exi/5ce1 its quantity 9 nature c nei!r be increas$ nor dim9i%$4#g ,! argum5t becomes pla9] if x be realiz$ t 9 ! int]val betwe5 ! two editions1 ,kant came to ?9k t ! p]man5t 9 "q 0 matt] or bodies 9 space4#h ,we f9d t 9 ord] to give some?+ p]man5t 9 p]ception correspond+ to ! conception ( sub/ance 7& !reby to exhibit ! objective reality ( ?is conception71 we ne$ a p]ception 9 space 7( matt]71 because space alone has p]man5t det]m9ations1 :ile "t1 & consequ5tly ev]y?+ :i* is 9 ! int]nal s5se1 is cont9ually fl[+4#i #e ,wahrg5omm54 #f ,a4 #ahb-d & ,b4 #bbe-g1 ,m4 #acg-h4 ,?is =mulation ( ! conclusion is adapt$ only to ! =m 9 :i* ! fir/ analogy is /at$ 9 ! fir/ edition1 viz4 ,all ph5om5a conta9 ! p]man5t 7sub/ance7 z ! object itself & ! *angeable z its m]e det]m9ation1 i4 e4 z a way 9 :i* ! object exi/s4 ,h5ce a s5t5ce f ! conclusion ( ! pro( add$ 9 ! second edition is quot$ to elucidate ,kant's mean+2 its doctr9e is z legitimate a conclusion ( ! argum5t giv5 9 ! fir/ edition z ( t peculi> to ! second4 #g ,b4 #bbe1 ,m4 #acg4 #h ,cf4 ,caird1 i4 #eda-b4 #i ,b4 #bia1 ,m4 #agf 79 #bnd ed4 only74 ,cf4 ,b4 #bgg f94-#bgh init41 ,m4 #afh 79 #bnd ed4 only74 ,kant's ?\ght appe>s to be z foll[s3 ',our appreh5sion ( ! manifold consi/s ( a s]ies ( successive acts 9 :i* we appreh5d its elem5ts "o by "o & 9 isolation4 ,?is appreh5sion1 !re=e1 does n enable u to det]m9e t its elem5ts are temporally relat$ ei!r z successive or z coexi/5t4#aj ,9 ord] to det]m9e ?is1 we mu/ appreh5d ! elem5ts ( ! manifold z relat$ to some?+ p]man5t4 ,= a succession prop]1 i4 e4 a *ange1 is a succession ( /ates or det]m9ations ( some?+ p]man5t or un*ang+4 ,a m]e succession :i* is n a succession ( /ates ( some?+ :i* rema9s id5tical is an unconnect$ s]ies ( end+s & beg9n+s1 & ) respect to x1 'duration'1 :i* has mean+ ) reg>d to *anges1 i4 e4 successions prop]1 has no mean+ at all4 ,simil>ly1 coexi/5ce is a coexi/5ce ( /ates ( two p]man5ts4 ,h5ce1 to appreh5d elem5ts ( ! manifold z successive or coexi/5t1 we mu/ appreh5d !m 9 relation to a p]man5t or p]man5ts4 ,!re=e1 to appreh5d a coexi/5ce or a succession1 we mu/ p]ceive some?+ p]man5t4 ,b ?is p]man5t some?+ _c be "t1 = "t _c be p]ceiv$4 ,x mu/ !re=e be a p]man5t 9 ph5om5a2 & ?is mu/ be ! object itself or ! sub/ance ( a ph5om5on1 i4 e4 ! sub/ratum ( ! *anges :i* x und]goes1 or t ( :i* ! elem5ts ( ! manifold are /ates or modifications4#aa ,consequ5tly1 !re mu/ be a p]man5t sub/ance ( a ph5om5on1 & ! quantity ( sub/ances tak5 toge!r mu/ be con/ant4' #aj ,! acc\nt ( ! fir/ analogy z a :ole makes x necess>y to ?9k t ,kant 9 ! fir/ two s5t5ces ( ! pro( quot$ does n mean exactly :at he says1 :at he says be+ due to a desire to secure con=mity ) 8 treatm5t ( ! second & ?ird analogies4 ,:at he says sugge/s 7#a7 t he is ab\t to discuss ! implications1 n ( ! process by :i* we come to appreh5d ! manifold z temporally relat$ 9 "o ( ! two ways possible1 i4 e4 ei!r z successive or z coexi/5t1 b ( ! process by :i* we decide :e!r ! relation ( ! manifold :i* we already "k to be temporal is t ( succession or t ( coexi/5ce1 & 7#b7 t ! necessity = ?is process is due to ! fact t our appreh5sion ( ! manifold is always successive4 ,! context1 h[ev]1 refutes bo? sugge/ions1 & 9 any case x is ! special function ( ! processes :i* involve ! second & ?ird analogies to det]m9e ! relations ( ! manifold z t ( succession & t ( coexi/5ce respectively4 #aa ,cf4 ,b4 #bbe1 ,m4 #acg 7fir/ half74 ,n[1 if ,kant's ?\ght has be5 "h repres5t$ fairly1 x is op5 to ! foll[+ comm5ts4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ev5 if 8 position be "r 9 ! ma91 ,kant %\ld n introduce ! ?\ght ( ! quantity ( sub/ance1 & speak ( ! quantity z con/ant4 ,= he !reby implies t 9 a plurality ( sub/ances--if su* a plurality c 9 ! end be admitt$--!re may be total ext9ction (1 or p>tial loss 91 "s1 if only !re be a correspond+ comp5sation 9 o!rs2 :]eas su* ext9ction & creation w\ld be inconsi/5t ) ! nature ( a sub/ance4#ab ,ev5 ,kant himself speaks ( hav+ e/abli%$ ! impossibility ( ! orig9 & ext9ction ( sub/ance4#ac #ab ,i owe ?is comm5t to ,pr(essor ,cook ,wilson4 #ac ,b4 #bcb-c1 ,m4 #ada f94 ,9 ! second place1 x is impossible to see h[ x c be legitimate = ,kant to speak ( a p]man5t sub/ratum ( *ange at all4#ad ,= ph5om5a or appe>ances nei!r are nor imply ! sub/ratum ( :i* ,kant is ?9k+4 ,!y might be held to imply ourselves z ! id5tical sub/ratum ( :i* !y are successive /ates1 b ?is view w\ld be irrelevant to1 if n inconsi/5t )1 ,kant's doctr9e4 ,x is all v well to say t ! sub/ratum is to be f\nd 9 matt]1 i4 e4 9 bodies 9 space1#ae b ! ass]tion is incompatible ) ! ph5om5al "* ( ! _w2 = ! s5sations or appe>ances produc$ 9 u by ! ?+ 9 itself _c be successive /ates ( bodies 9 space4 ,9 ! ?ird place1 9 spite ( ,kant's prote/s aga9/ any pro( :i* is 'dogmatical' or 'f conceptions'1 su* a pro( really =ms ! basis ( 8 ?\ght4 ,= if ! argum5t is to proce$ n f ! nature ( *ange z su* b f ! possibility ( p]ceiv+ *ange1 x mu/ n take into acc\nt any implications ( ! possibility ( p]ceiv+ *ange :i* re/ ^u implications ( ! nature ( *ange z su*4 ,yet ?is is :at ! argum5t does4 ,= ! reason really giv5 = ! view t ! appreh5sion ( *ange involves ! appreh5sion ( ! manifold z relat$ to a p]man5t sub/ratum is t a *ange1 z su*1 implies a p]man5t sub/ratum4 ,x is only because *ange is held to imply a sub/ratum t we are said to be able to appreh5d a *ange only 9 relation to a sub/ratum4 ,moreov]1 %ortly aft]w>ds1 ,kant1 app>5tly )\t realiz+ :at he is do+1 actually uses :at is1 on ! v face ( x1 ! dogmatic me?od1 & 9 accordance ) x develops ! implications ( ! p]ception ( *ange4 ,^u ?is p]man5ce is bas$ ! ju/ification ( ! conception ( *ange4 ,com+ into be+ & p]i%+ are n *anges ( t :i* comes to be or p]i%es4 ,*ange is b a mode ( exi/5ce1 :i* foll[s on ano!r mode ( exi/5ce ( ! same object4 ,h5ce ev]y?+ :i* *anges endures & only its condition *anges4444 ,*ange1 !re=e1 c be p]ceiv$ only 9 sub/ances1 & absolute com+ to be or p]i%+1 :i* does n conc]n m]ely a det]m9ation ( ! p]man5t1 _c be a possible p]ception4#af ,surely ! fact t ,kant is con/ra9$ 9 spite ( himself to use ! dogmatic me?od is "s indication t x is ! "r me?od4 ,x is 9 reality impossible to make any discov]ies ab\t *ange1 or inde$ ab\t any?+1 except by consid]ation ( ! nature ( ! ?+ itself2 no /udy ( ! conditions "u :i* x c be appreh5d$ c ?r[ any light ^u its nature4#ag ,la/ly1 al?\gh ! supposition is n s explicit z ! correspond+ supposition made 9 ! case ( ! o!r analogies1 ,kant's argum5t really assumes1 & assumes wrongly1 ! exi/5ce ( a process by :i*1 />t+ ) ! successive appreh5sion ( elem5ts ( ! manifold 9 isolation1 we come to appreh5d !m z temporally relat$4 #ad ,! t]m 'p]man5t' is reta9$ to con=m to ,kant's language4 ,/rictly speak+1 only a /ate ( t :i* *anges c be said to p]si/ or to be p]man5t2 = ! sub/ratum ( *ange is n susceptible ( any temporal pr$icates4 ,cf4 p4 #cjf4 #ae ,b4 #bia1 ,m4 #agf4 #af ,b4 #bcj-a1 ,m4 #agf4 #ag ,cf4 pp4 #cjj-a4 ,! d$uction ( ! second & ?ird analogies argues t ! pr9ciples ( causality & reciprocal action are involv$ respectively 9 ! processes by :i* we become aw>e ( successions & ( coexi/5ces 9 ! _w ( nature4 ,f ?is po9t ( view x w\ld seem t ! fir/ analogy is a presupposition ( ! o!rs1 & t ! process :i* involves ! fir/ is presuppos$ by ! process :i* involves ! o!rs4 ,x w\ld seem t x is only ^u ! conclusion ( a process by :i*1 beg9n+ ) ! successive appreh5sion ( elem5ts ( ! manifold 9 isolation1 we come to appreh5d !m z ei!r successive or coexi/5t elem5ts 9 ! _w ( nature1 t !re c arise a process by :i* we come to decide :e!r ! specific relation is t ( succession or ( coexi/5ce4 ,= if ! latt] process c take place indep5d5tly ( ! =m]1 i4 e4 if x c />t f ! successive appreh5sion ( ! manifold1 ! =m] process w be unnecess>y1 & 9 t case ! v9dication ( ! fir/ analogy w be invalid4 ,x is necess>y1 h[ev]1 to di/+ui% betwe5 ,kant's nom9al & 8 actual proc$ure4 ,?\gh he nom9ally reg>ds ! fir/ analogy z ! presupposition ( ! o!rs1#ah he really does n4 ,= he does n 9 fact treat ! process :i* involves ! validity ( ! fir/ analogy z an antec$5t condition ( ! processes :i* involve ! validity ( ! o!rs4 ,on ! contr>y1 ! latt] processes beg9 ab initio ) ! m]e successive appreh5sion ( ! manifold1 i4 e4 !y beg9 at a /age :]e we are n aw>e ( any relation 9 ! physical _w at all2 & ,kant1 9 8 acc\nt ( !m1 n[h]e urges t !y involve ! fir/ analogy4#ai #ah ,cf4 ,b4 #bbi1 ,m4 #adj2 ,b4 #bcb-c1 ,m4 #ada-b2 & ,caird1 i4 #ede & ff4 #ai ,?is is n disprov$ by ,b4 #bdg-ea1 ,m4 #aej-b1 :i* involves a diff]5t conception ( cause & effect4 ,moreov]1 j because ,kant does n face ! difficulties involv$ 9 ! ?\ght ( a process :i* beg9s 9 ?is way until he comes to v9dicate causality1 x is only :5 we come to ?is v9dication t we realize ! real nature ( 8 d$uction ( ! analogies1 &1 9 p>ticul>1 ( t ( ! fir/4 ,kant1 prompt$ no d\bt by 8 desire to answ] ,hume1 treats ! pr9ciple ( causality v fully4 ,! l5g? ( ! discussion1 h[ev]1 is due n s mu* to ! complication ( ! argum5t z to ,kant's desire to make 8 mean+ unmi/akable2 8 acc\nt consi/s ma9ly 9 a repetition ( :at is sub/antially ! same argum5t no less ?an five times4 ,h5ce x w suffice to consid] ^? passages :i* be/ express ,kant's mean+4 ,at ! same "t1 ! prom95ce ( ! pr9ciple ( causality 9 ,kant's !ory1 & 9 ! hi/ory ( philosophy g5]ally1 & also ! way 9 :i* ,kant's treatm5t ( x reveals ! true nature ( 8 g5]al position1 makes x necess>y to consid] ^! passages 9 "s detail4 ,hume _h d5i$ t we are ju/ifi$ 9 ass]t+ any causal connexion1 i4 e4 any necessity ( succession 9 ! v>i\s ev5ts :i* we p]ceive1 b ev5 ?is d5ial presuppos$ t we d appreh5d p>ticul> sequ5ces 9 ! _w ( nature1 & !re=e t we succe$ 9 di/+ui%+ betwe5 a sequ5ce ( ev5ts 9 nature & a m]e sequ5ce ( p]ceptions1 su* z is also to be f\nd :5 we appreh5d a coexi/5ce ( bodies 9 space4 ,kant urges1 9 effect1 t ?is d5ial r5d]s x impossible to expla91 z we %\ld be able to d1 ! possibility ( mak+ ! di/9ction 9 "q1 :i* ev5 ! d5ial itself presupposes t we make4 ,hold+1 ) ,hume1 t 9 all cases ( p]ception :at we are directly aw>e ( is a succession ( p]ceptions1 he cont5ds t x is necess>y to expla9 h[ 9 c]ta9 cases we succe$ 9 pass+ f ! k ( our successive p]ceptions to ! k ( a succession 9 :at we p]ceive4 ,h[ is x t we "k1 :51 z we say1 we see a boat go+ d[n /ream1 t !re is a succession 9 :at we p]ceive1 & n m]ely a succession 9 our p]ception ( x1 z is ! case :51 z we say1 we see ! p>ts ( a h\se8 ,hume1 accord+ to ,kant1 _c answ] ?is "q2 he has only ! "r to say t 9 all cases we h a succession ( p]ceptions2 = 9 reality an answ] to ! "q w %[ t ! acquisition ( ?is k involves an appeal to ! pr9ciple ( causality4 ,s9ce1 !n1 we d 9 fact1 z ev5 ,hume implicitly all[$1 succe$ 9 di/+ui%+ betwe5 a succession 9 objects 9 nature & a succession 9 our appreh5sion ( !m1 ! law ( causality mu/ be true4 ,x is only "u ?is presupposition 7i4 e4 ( causality7 t ev5 ! exp]i5ce ( an ev5t is possible4#bj #bj ,b4 #bdj1 ,m4 #adf4 ,= ! g5]al view1 cf4 ,caird1 i4 #eef-fa4 ,kant beg9s#ba 8 pro( z foll[s3 ,our appreh5sion ( ! manifold ( a ph5om5on is always successive4 ,! repres5tations ( ! p>ts succe$ "o ano!r4 ,:e!r !y succe$ "o ano!r 9 ! object also is a second po9t = reflection :i* is n conta9$ 9 ! fir/4#bb ,b1 be=e he c cont9ue1 ! v nature ( ^! op5+ s5t5ces compels him to consid] a g5]al problem :i* !y raise4 ,! di/9ction ref]r$ to betwe5 a succession 9 our appreh5sions or repres5tations & a succession 9 ! object implies an object di/9ct f ! appreh5sions or repres5tations4 ,:at1 !n1 c be meant by su* an object8 ,= prima facie1 if we ignore ! ?+ 9 itself z unkn[able1 !re is no object2 !re are only repres5tations4 ,b1 9 t case1 :at c be meant by a succession 9 ! object8 ,kant is !re=e once m#bc =c$ to consid] ! "q ',:at is meant by object ( repres5tations8' al?\gh on ?is occasion ) special ref]5ce to ! mean+ ( a succession 9 ! object2 & ! v9dication ( causality is b\nd up ) ! answ]4 ,! answ] is /at$ ?us3 #ba ,! prec$+ p>agraph is an addition ( ! second edition4 #bb ,b4 #bcd1 ,m4 #adb4 #bc ,cf4 ,a4 #ajd-e1 ,mah4 #aih-i1 & pp4 #agh-hf & #bcj-c4 ,n[ we may c]ta9ly give ! "n ( object to ev]y?+1 & ev5 to e repres5tation1 s f> z we are consci\s !re(2 b :at ?is ^w may mean 9 ! case ( ph5om5a1 n 9 s f> z !y 7z repres5tations7 are objects1 b 9 s f> z !y only indicate an object1 is a "q requir+ deep] consid]ation4 ,s f> z !y1 z repres5tations only1 are at ! same "t objects ( consci\sness1 !y are n to be di/+ui%$ f appreh5sion1 i4 e4 reception into ! syn!sis ( imag9ation1 & we mu/ !re=e say1 ',! manifold ( ph5om5a is always produc$ successively 9 ! m9d'4 ,if ph5om5a 7 ?+s 9 !mselves1 no man w\ld be able to inf] f ! succession ( ! repres5tations ( _! manifold h[ ?is manifold is connect$ 9 ! object4 ,= aft] all we h to d only ) our repres5tations2 h[ ?+s may be 9 !mselves1 )\t reg>d to ! repres5tations ?r\gh :i* !y affect u1 is :olly outside ! sph]e ( our k4 ,n[1 al?\gh ph5om5a are n ?+s 9 !mselves1 & are nev]!less ! only ?+ :i* c be giv5 to u z data = k1 x is my bus9ess to %[ :at k9d ( connexion 9 "t belongs to ! manifold 9 ph5om5a !mselves1 :ile ! repres5tation ( ?is manifold 9 appreh5sion is always successive4 ,?us1 = example1 ! appreh5sion ( ! manifold 9 ! ph5om5on ( a h\se :i* /&s be=e me is successive4 ,n[ arises ! "q1 :e!r ! manifold ( ?is h\se itself is 9 itself also successive1 :i* ( c\rse no "o w grant4 ,b1 s soon z ,i raise my conceptions ( an object to ! transc5d5tal mean+ !re(1 ! h\se is n a ?+ 9 itself1 b only a ph5om5on1 i4 e4 a repres5tation1 ! transc5d5tal object ( :i* is unkn[n4 ,:at1 !n1 am ,i to und]/& by ! "q1 ',h[ may ! manifold be connect$ 9 ! ph5om5on itself 7:i* is nev]!less no?+ 9 itself78' ,"h t :i* lies 9 ! successive appreh5sion is reg>d$ z repres5tation1 :ile ! ph5om5on :i* is giv5 me1 al?\gh x is no?+ m ?an a complex ( ^! repres5tations1 is reg>d$ z ! object !re(1 ) :i* my conception1 drawn f ! repres5tations ( appreh5sion1 is to agree4 ,x is soon se5 t1 s9ce agreem5t ( k ) ! object is tru?1 we c ask "h only = ! =mal conditions ( empirical tru?1 & t ! ph5om5on1 9 opposition to ! repres5tations ( appreh5sion1 c only be repres5t$ z ! object ( ! same1 di/9ct !refrom1 if x /&s "u a rule1 :i* di/+ui%es x f e o!r appreh5sion1 & :i* r5d]s necess>y a mode ( conjunction ( ! manifold4 ,t 9 ! ph5om5on :i* conta9s ! condition ( ?is necess>y rule ( appreh5sion is ! object4#bd #bd ,b4 #bcd-f1 ,m4 #adc-d4 ,cf4 ,b4 #bdb1 ,m4 #adg4 ,?is passage is only intelligible if we realize ! impasse into :i* ,kant has be5 l$ by 8 doctr9e t objects1 i4 e4 realities 9 ! physical _w1 are only repres5tations or ideas4 ,z has already be5 po9t$ out1#be an appreh5sion is ess5tially insep>able f a reality ( :i* x is ! appreh5sion4 ,9 o!r words1 an appreh5sion is always ! appreh5sion ( a reality1 & a reality appreh5d$1 i4 e4 an object ( appreh5sion1 _c be /at$ 9 t]ms ( ! appreh5sion ( x4 ,we nev] confuse an appreh5sion & its object2 nor d we take ! temporal relations :i* belong to ! "o = ! temporal relations :i* belong to ! o!r1 = ^! relations involve diff]5t t]ms :i* are nev] confus$1 viz4 appreh5sions & ! objects appreh5d$4 ,n[ ,kant1 by 8 doctr9e ( ! unkn[ability ( ! ?+ 9 itself1 has really depriv$ himself ( an object ( appreh5sion or1 9 8 language1 ( an object ( repres5tations4 ,= x is ! ?+ 9 itself :i* is1 prop]ly speak+1 ! object ( ! repres5tations ( :i* he is ?9k+1 i4 e4 repres5tations ( a reality 9 nature2 & yet ! ?+ 9 itself1 be+ on 8 view inappreh5sible1 c nev] be = him an object 9 ! prop] s5se1 i4 e4 a reality appreh5d$4 ,h5ce he is only able to /ate ! fact ( k 9 t]ms ( m]e appreh5sions1 or ideas1 or repres5tations--! p>ticul> "n is a matt] ( indiff]5ce--& consequ5tly 8 ef=ts to recov] an object ( appreh5sion are fruitless4 ,z a matt] ( fact1 ^! ef=ts only result 9 ! ass]tion t ! object ( repres5tations consi/s 9 ! repres5tations !mselves relat$ 9 a c]ta9 necess>y way4 ,b ?is view is op5 to two fatal objections4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 a complex ( repres5tations is j n an object 9 ! prop] s5se1 i4 e4 a reality appreh5d$4 ,x ess5tially falls on ! subject side ( ! di/9ction betwe5 an appreh5sion & ! reality appreh5d$4 ,! complexity ( a complex ( repres5tations 9 no way dive/s x ( ! "* :i* x has z a complex ( repres5tations4 ,9 ! second place1 on ?is view ! same t]ms h to ent] at once into two incompatible relations4 ,repres5tations h to be relat$ successively z our repres5tations or appreh5sions--z 9 fact !y are relat$--&1 at ! same "t1 successively or o!rwise1 z ! case may be1 z p>ts ( ! object appreh5d$1 viz4 a reality 9 nature4 ,9 o!r words1 ! same t]ms h to ent] into bo? a subjective & an objective relation1 i4 e4 bo? a relation conc]n+ u1 ! kn[+ subjects1 & a relation conc]n+ ! object :i* we "k4#bf ,a ph5om5on 9 opposition to ! repres5tations ( appreh5sion c only be repres5t$ z ! object ( ! same1 di/9ct !refrom1 if x /&s "u a rule :i* di/+ui%es x f e o!r appreh5sion1 & r5d]s necess>y a mode ( conjunction ( ! manifold4#bg ,a repres5tation1 h[ev]1 _c be s relat$ by a rule to ano!r repres5tation1 = ! rule meant relates to realities 9 nature1 &1 h[ev] mu* ,kant may try to ma9ta9 ! contr>y1 two repres5tations1 n be+ realities 9 nature1 _c be s relat$4 ,kant is 9 fact only driv5 to treat rules ( nature z relat+ to repres5tations1 because !re is no?+ else to :i* he c reg>d !m z relat+4 ,! result is t he is unable to ju/ify ! v di/9ction1 ! implications ( :i* x is 8 aim to discov]1 & he is unable to d s = ! v reason :i* w\ld h r5d]$ ,hume unable to ju/ify x4 ,l ,hume1 he is committ$ to a philosophical vocabul>y :i* makes x mean+less to speak ( relations ( objects at all 9 di/9ction f relations ( appreh5sions4 ,x has be5 said t = ,kant ! road to objectivity lay ?r\gh necessity4#bh ,b :atev] ,kant may h ?\ght1 9 po9t ( fact !re is no road to objectivity1 &1 9 p>ticul>1 no road ?r\gh necessity4 ,no necessity 9 ! relation betwe5 two repres5tations c r5d] ! relation objective1 i4 e4 a relation betwe5 objects4 ,no d\bt ! successive acts 9 :i* we come to appreh5d ! _w are necess>ily relat$2 we c]ta9ly d n suppose _! ord] to be =tuit\s4 ,nev]!less1 _! relations are n 9 consequ5ce a relation ( realities appreh5d$4 #be pp4 #acc-d2 cf4 pp4 #ahj & #bcj-a4 #bf ,cf4 p4 #bji1 note #c1 & p4 #bcc4 #bg ,! italics are m9e4 #bh ,caird1 i4 #eeg4 ,kant only r5d]s 8 own view plausible by treat+ an appreh5sion or repres5tation z if x consi/$ 9 a s5sation or an appe>ance4 ,a s5sation or an appe>ance1 s f> f be+ ! appreh5sion ( any?+1 is 9 fact a reality :i* c be appreh5d$1 ( ! k9d call$ m5tal4 ,h5ce x c be treat$ z an object1 i4 e4 some?+ appreh5d$ or pres5t$1 ?\gh n really z an object 9 nature4 ,on ! o!r h&1 f ! po9t ( view ( ! ?+ 9 itself x c be treat$ z only an appreh5sion1 ev5 ?\gh x is an unsuccessful appreh5sion4 ,?us1 = ,kant1 !re is some?+ :i* c ) "s plausibility be treat$ z an object z well z an appreh5sion1 & !re=e z capable ( /&+ 9 bo? a subjective & an objective relation to o!r realities ( ! same k9d4#bi #bi ,cf4 pp4 #acg & #bca4 ,if we n[ turn to ! passage "u discussion1 we f9d x easy to v9dicate ! ju/ice ( ! criticism t ,kant1 inconsi/5tly ) ! di/9ction :i* he desires to elucidate1 treats ! same ?+ z at once ! repres5tation ( an object & ! object repres5t$4 ,he is try+ to give su* an acc\nt ( 'object ( repres5tations' z w expla9 :at is meant by a succession 9 an object 9 nature1 i4 e4 a ph5om5on1 9 di/9ction f ! succession 9 our appreh5sion ( x4 ,9 ord] to /ate ?is di/9ction at all1 he has to speak ( :at ent]s into ! two successions z diff]5t4 ,x is my bus9ess to %[ :at sort ( connexion 9 "t belongs to ! manifold 9 ph5om5a !mselves1 :ile ! repres5tation ( ?is manifold 9 appreh5sion is always successive4#cj ,"h an elem5t ( ! manifold is di/+ui%$ f ! repres5tation ( x4 ,yet ,kant1 ?\gh he ?us di/+ui%es !m1 repeat$ly id5tifies !m2 9 o!r words1 he id5tifies a repres5tation ) t ( :i* x is a repres5tation1 viz4 an elem5t 9 or "p ( ! object itself4 ,our appreh5sion ( ! manifold ( ! ph5om5on is always successive4 ,! repres5tations ( ! p>ts succe$ "o ano!r4 ,:e!r !y i4 e4 ! repres5tations#ca succe$ "o ano!r 9 ! object also1 is a second po9t = reflection4444 ,s f> z !y i4 e4 ph5om5a1 z repres5tations only1 are at ! same "t objects ( consci\sness1 !y are n to be di/+ui%$ f appreh5sion1 i4 e4 reception into ! syn!sis ( imag9ation1 & we mu/ !re=e say1 ',! manifold ( ph5om5a is always produc$ successively 9 ! m9d'4 ,if ph5om5a 7 ?+s 9 !mselves1 no man w\ld be able to inf] f ! succession ( ! repres5tations h[ ?is manifold is connect$ 9 ! object4444 ,! ph5om5on1 9 opposition to ! repres5tations ( appreh5sion1 c only be repres5t$ z ! object ( ! same1 di/9ct !refrom1 if x /&s "u a rule1 :i* di/+ui%es x f e o!r repres5tation & :i* r5d]s necess>y a mode ( conjunction ( ! manifold4#cb #cj ,! italics are m9e4 #ca ,?is is impli$ bo? by ! use ( 'also' & by ! context4 #cb ,! italics are m9e4 ,s9ce ,kant 9 introduc+ 8 v9dication ( causality ?us id5tifies elem5ts 9 ! object appreh5d$ 7i4 e4 ! manifold ( ph5om5a7 ) ! appreh5sions ( !m1 we approa* ! v9dication itself ) ! expectation t he w id5tify a causal rule1 :i* consi/s 9 a necessity 9 ! succession ( objects1 viz4 ( ev5ts 9 nature1 ) ! necessity 9 ! succession ( our appreh5sions ( !m4 ,?is expectation turns out ju/ifi$4 ,! foll[+ passage adequately expresses ! v9dication3 ,let u n[ proce$ to our task4 ,t some?+ happ5s1 i4 e4 t some?+ or "s /ate comes to be :i* be=e 0 n1 _c be empirically p]ceiv$1 unless a ph5om5on prec$es1 :i* does n conta9 9 itself ?is /ate2 = a reality :i* foll[s ^u an empty "t1 & !re=e a com+ into exi/5ce prec$$ by no /ate ( ?+s1 c j z little be appreh5d$ z empty "t itself4 ,e appreh5sion ( an ev5t is !re=e a p]ception :i* foll[s ^u ano!r p]ception4 ,b because ?is is ! case ) all syn!sis ( appreh5sion1 z ,i h %[n above#cc 9 ! ph5om5on ( a h\se1 ! appreh5sion ( an ev5t is !reby n yet di/+ui%$ f o!r appreh5sions4 ,b ,i notice also1 t if 9 a ph5om5on :i* conta9s an ev5t1 ,i call ! prec$+ /ate ( my p]ception ,a1 & ! foll[+ /ate ,b1 ,b c only foll[ ,a 9 appreh5sion1 :ile ! p]ception ,a _c foll[ ,b b c only prec$e x4 ,= example1 ,i see a %ip float d[n a /ream4 ,my p]ception ( its place l[] d[n foll[s ^u my p]ception ( its place high] up ! c\rse ( ! riv]1 & x is impossible t 9 ! appreh5sion ( ?is ph5om5on ! vessel %\ld be p]ceiv$ fir/ bel[ & aft]w>ds high] up ! /ream4 ,"h1 !re=e1 ! ord] 9 ! sequ5ce ( p]ceptions 9 appreh5sion is det]m9$1 & appreh5sion is b\nd to ?is ord]4 ,9 ! =m] example ( a h\se1 my p]ceptions 9 appreh5sion c\ld beg9 at ! ro( & end at ! f\ndation1 or beg9 bel[ & end above2 9 ! same way !y c\ld appreh5d ! manifold ( ! empirical p]ception f left to "r1 or f "r to left4 ,accord+ly1 9 ! s]ies ( ^! p]ceptions1 !re 0 no det]m9$ ord]1 :i* necessitat$ my beg9n+ at a c]ta9 po9t1 9 ord] to comb9e ! manifold empirically4 ,b ?is rule is always to be f\nd 9 ! p]ception ( t :i* happ5s1 & x makes ! ord] ( ! successive p]ceptions 79 ! appreh5sion ( ?is ph5om5on7 necess>y4 #cc ,b4 #bce-f1 ,m4 #adc 7quot$ p4 #bgi74 ,9 ! pres5t case1 !re=e1 ,i %all h to d]ive ! subjective sequ5ce ( appreh5sion f ! objective sequ5ce ( ph5om5a1 = o!rwise ! =m] is :olly undet]m9$1 & does n di/+ui% "o ph5om5on f ano!r4 ,! =m] alone proves no?+ z to ! connexion ( ! manifold 9 ! object1 = x is :olly arbitr>y4 ,! latt]1 !re=e i4 e4 ! objective sequ5ce ( ph5om5a#cd1 w consi/ 9 t ord] ( ! manifold ( ! ph5om5on1 accord+ to :i* ! appreh5sion ( ! "o 7t :i* happ5s7 foll[s t ( ! o!r 7t :i* prec$es7 accord+ to a rule4 ,9 ?is way alone c ,i be ju/ifi$ 9 say+ ( ! ph5om5on itself1 & n m]ely ( my appreh5sion1 t a sequ5ce is to be f\nd !re91 :i* is ! same z to say t ,i _c arrange my appreh5sion o!rwise ?an 9 j ?is sequ5ce4 #cd ,! s5se is n affect$ if '! latt]' be und]/ood to ref] to ! connexion ( ! manifold 9 ! object4 ,9 con=mity ) su* a rule1 !re=e1 !re mu/ exi/ 9 t :i* 9 g5]al prec$es an ev5t ! condition ( a rule1 accord+ to :i* ?is ev5t foll[s always & necess>ily1 b ,i _c conv]sely g back f ! ev5t1 & det]m9e 7by appreh5sion7 t :i* prec$es x4 ,= no ph5om5on goes back f ! succe$+ po9t ( "t to ! prec$+ po9t1 al?\gh x does c]ta9ly relate to "s prec$+ po9t ( "t2 on ! o!r h&1 ! advance f a giv5 "t to ! det]m9ate succe$+ "t is necess>y4 ,!re=e1 because !re c]ta9ly is some?+ :i* foll[s1 ,i mu/ relate x necess>ily to some?+ else 9 g5]al1 :i* prec$es1 & ^u :i* x foll[s 9 con=mity ) a rule1 t is necess>ily1 s t ! ev5t1 z ! condition$1 af=ds c]ta9 indication ( "s condition1 :ile ?is condition det]m9es ! ev5t4 ,if we suppose t no?+ prec$es an ev5t1 ^u :i* ?is ev5t mu/ foll[ 9 con=mity ) a rule1 all sequ5ce ( p]ception w\ld exi/ only 9 appreh5sion1 i4 e4 w\ld be m]ely subjective1 b x w\ld n !reby be objectively det]m9$ :i* ( ! p]ceptions mu/ 9 fact be ! prec$+ & :i* ! succe$+ "o4 ,we %\ld 9 ?is mann] h only a play ( repres5tations1 :i* w\ld n be relat$ to any object1 i4 e4 no ph5om5on w\ld be di/+ui%$ ?r\gh our p]ception 9 respect ( "t relations f any o!r1 because ! succession 9 appreh5sion is always ( ! same k9d1 & s !re is no?+ 9 ! ph5om5on to det]m9e ! succession1 s z to r5d] a c]ta9 sequ5ce objectively necess>y4 ,i c\ld !re=e n say t 9 ! ph5om5on two /ates foll[ ea* o!r1 b only t "o appreh5sion foll[s on ano!r1 a fact :i* is m]ely subjective & does n det]m9e any object1 & _c !re=e be consid]$ z k ( an object 7n ev5 9 ! ph5om5on74 ,if !re=e we exp]i5ce t some?+ happ5s1 we always !reby presuppose t some?+ prec$es1 on :i* x foll[s accord+ to a rule4 ,= o!rwise1 ,i %\ld n say ( ! object1 t x foll[s1 because ! m]e sequ5ce 9 my appreh5sion1 if x is n det]m9$ by a rule 9 relation to some?+ prec$+1 does n ju/ify ! assumption ( a sequ5ce 9 ! object4 ,x is !re=e always 9 ref]5ce to a rule1 accord+ to :i* ph5om5a are det]m9$ 9 _! sequ5ce 7i4 e4 z !y happ57 by ! prec$+ /ate1 t ,i make my subjective syn!sis 7( appreh5sion7 objective1 & x is solely ^u ?is presupposition t ev5 ! exp]i5ce ( some?+ :i* happ5s is possible4#ce #ce ,b4 #bcf-da1 ,m4 #add-f4 ,! mean+ ( ! fir/ p>agraph is pla94 ,kant is say+ t :5 we reflect ^u ! process by :i* we come to appreh5d ! _w ( nature1 we c lay d[n two propositions4 ,! fir/ is t ! process is equally successive :e!r ! object appreh5d$ be a succession 9 nature or a coexi/5ce ( bodies 9 space1 s t ! k t we h a succession ( appreh5sions w\ld n by itself enable u to decide :e!r ! object ( ! appreh5sions is a sequ5ce or n4 ,! second proposition is t1 nev]!less1 !re is ?is diff]5ce betwe5 ! succession ( our appreh5sions :]e we appreh5d a succession & :]e we appreh5d a coexi/5ce1 t 9 ! =m] case1 & 9 t only1 ! succession ( our appreh5sions is irrev]sible or1 9 o!r words1 is ! expression ( a rule ( ord] :i* makes x a necess>y succession4 ,s f> we f9d no m5tion ( causality1 i4 e4 ( a necessity ( succession 9 objects1 b only a necessity ( succession 9 our appreh5sion ( !m4 ,s f>1 aga91 we f9d no contribution to ! problem ( expla9+ h[ we di/+ui% betwe5 successive p]ceptions :i* are ! p]ceptions ( an ev5t & ^? :i* are n4 ,= x is reasonable to object t x is only possible to say t ! ord] ( our p]ceptions is irrev]sible1 if & because we already "k t :at we h be5 p]ceiv+ is an ev5t1 & t !re=e any attempt to argue f ! irrev]sibility ( our p]ceptions to ! exi/5ce ( a sequ5ce 9 ! object mu/ involve a ,greek3 hy/]on prot]on4 ,& x is cle> t1 if irrev]sibility 9 our p]ceptions 7 ! only irrev]sibility to :i* appeal c\ld be made1 ev5 ,kant w\ld n h suppos$ t ! appreh5sion ( a succession 0 rea*$ ?r\gh belief 9 an irrev]sibility4 ,! next p>agraph1 ( :i* ! int]pretation is difficult1 appe>s to introduce a causal rule1 i4 e4 an irrev]sibility 9 objects1 by id5tify+ x ) ! irrev]sibility 9 our p]ceptions ( :i* ,kant has be5 speak+4 ,! fir/ /ep to ?is id5tification is tak5 by ! ass]tion3 ,9 ! pres5t case1 !re=e1 ,i %all h to d]ive ! subjective sequ5ce ( p]ceptions f ! objective sequ5ce ( ph5om5a4444 ,! latt] w consi/ 9 ! ord] ( ! manifold ( ! ph5om5on1 accord+ to :i* ! appreh5sion ( ! "o 7t :i* happ5s7 foll[s t ( ! o!r 7t :i* prec$es7 accord+ to a rule4#cf ,"h ,kant def9itely implies t an objective sequ5ce1 i4 e4 an ord] or sequ5ce ( ! manifold ( a ph5om5on1 consi/s 9 a sequ5ce ( p]ceptions or appreh5sions ( :i* ! ord] is necess>y or accord+ to a rule2 9 o!r words1 t a succession ( p]ceptions 9 ! special case :]e ! succession is necess>y is a succession ( ev5ts p]ceiv$4#cg ,?is implication enables u to und]/& ! mean+ ( ! ass]tion t 'we mu/ !re=e d]ive ! subjective sequ5ce ( p]ceptions f ! objective sequ5ce ( ph5om5a'1 & to see its connexion ) ! prec$+ p>agraph4 ,x means1 '9 view ( ! fact t 9 all appreh5sions ( a succession1 & 9 !m alone1 ! sequ5ce ( p]ceptions is irrev]sible1 we are ju/ifi$ 9 say+ t a giv5 sequ5ce ( p]ceptions is ! appreh5sion ( a succession1 if we "k t ! sequ5ce is irrev]sible2 9 t case we mu/ be appreh5d+ a real succession1 = an irrev]sible sequ5ce ( p]ceptions is a sequ5ce ( ev5ts p]ceiv$4' ,hav+ ?us impli$ t irrev]sibility ( p]ceptions con/itutes !m ev5ts p]ceiv$1 he is naturally en\gh able to g on to speak ( ! irrev]sibility ( p]ceptions z if x 7 ! same ?+ z an irrev]sibility ( ev5ts p]ceiv$1 & ?us to br+ 9 a causal rule4 ,9 ?is way alone i4 e4 only by d]iv+ ! subjective f ! objective sequ5ce c ,i be ju/ifi$ 9 say+ ( ! ph5om5on itself1 & n m]ely ( my appreh5sion1 t a sequ5ce is to be f\nd !re91 :i* is ! same z to say t ,i _c arrange my appreh5sion o!rwise ?an 9 j ?is sequ5ce4 ,9 con=mity ) su* a rule1 !re=e1 !re mu/ exi/ 9 t :i* 9 g5]al prec$es an ev5t ! condition ( a rule1 accord+ to :i* ?is ev5t foll[s always & necess>ily4#ch ,"h ! use ( ! ^w 'arrange'#ci & ! /atem5t ab\t ! rule 9 ! next s5t5ce imply t ,kant has n[ come to ?9k ( ! rule ( succession z a causal rule relat+ to ! objective succession4 ,moreov]1 if any d\bt rema9s z to :e!r ,kant really confuses ! two irrev]sibilities or necessities ( succession1 x is remov$ by ! la/ p>agraph ( ! passage quot$4 ,if !re=e we exp]i5ce t some?+ happ5s1 we always !reby presuppose t some?+ prec$es on :i* x foll[s accord+ to a rule4 ,= o!rwise ,i %\ld n say ( ! object t x foll[s2 because ! m]e succession ( my appreh5sion1 if x is n det]m9$ by a rule 9 relation to some?+ prec$+1 does n ju/ify ! assumption ( a succession 9 ! object4 ,x is !re=e always 9 ref]5ce to a rule1 accord+ to :i* ph5om5a are det]m9$ 9 _! sequ5ce 7i4 e4 z !y happ57 by ! prec$+ /ate1 t ,i make my subjective sequ5ce 7( appreh5sion7 objective4#dj ,! fact is simply t ,kant mu/ id5tify ! two irrev]sibilities1 because1 z has be5 po9t$ out1 he has only "o set ( t]ms to be relat$ z irrev]sible1 viz4 ! elem5ts ( ! manifold1 :i* h to be1 f "o po9t ( view1 elem5ts ( an object &1 f ano!r1 repres5tations or appreh5sions ( x4 #cf ,! italics are m9e4 ',accord+ to :i*' does n appe> to indicate t ! two ord]s ref]r$ to are diff]5t4 #cg ,cf4 ,b4 #bdb f941 ,m4 #adg f94 #ch ,! italics are m9e #ci ,an/ell54 #dj ,! italics are m9e4 ,z soon1 !re=e1 z ! real nature ( ,kant's v9dication ( causality has be5 laid b>e1 x is difficult to describe x z an argum5t at all4 ,he is anxi\s to %[ t 9 appreh5d+ ,a ,b z a real or objective succession we presuppose t !y are elem5ts 9 a causal ord] ( succession4 ,yet 9 support ( 8 cont5tion he po9ts only to ! q diff]5t fact t :]e we appreh5d a succession ,a ,b1 we ?9k ( ! p]ception ( ,a & ! p]ception ( ,b z elem5ts 9 a necess>y b subjective succession4 ,be=e we attempt to consid] ! facts ) :i* ,kant is deal+1 we mu/ ref] to a feature 9 ,kant's acc\nt to :i* no allusion has be5 made4 ,we %\ld on ! :ole expect f ! passage quot$ t1 9 ! case :]e we reg>d two p]ceptions ,a ,b z necess>ily successive & !re=e z con/itut+ an objective succession1 ! necessity ( succession consi/s 9 ! fact t ,a is ! cause ( ,b4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 is app>5tly n ,kant's view2 on ! contr>y1 he seems to hold t1 9 ?9k+ ( ,a ,b z an objective succession1 we presuppose n t ,a causes ,b1 b only t ! /ate ( affairs :i* prec$es ,b1 & :i* !re=e includes ,a1 conta9s a cause ( ,b1 ! coexi/5ce or id5tity ( ?is cause ) ,a r5d]+ ! p>ticul> succession ,a ,b necess>y4 ,?us if ,i p]ceive t some?+ happ5s x arises t !re comes to be an ord] among our repres5tations 9 :i* ! pres5t 7s f> z x has tak5 place7 po9ts to "s prec$+ /ate z a correlate1 ?\gh a /ill undet]m9$ correlate1#da ( ?is ev5t :i* is giv51 & ?is correlate relates to ! ev5t by det]m9+ ! ev5t z its consequ5ce1 & connects ! ev5t ) itself necess>ily 9 ! s]ies ( "t4#db #da ,! italics are m9e4 #db ,b4 #bdd1 ,m4 #adh4 ,cf4 ,b4 #bdc1 ,m4 #adh 7fir/ half7 & ,b4 #bci1 ,m4 #ade 7second p>agraph74 ,! same implication is to be f\nd 9 8 =mulation ( ! rule involv$ 9 ! p]ception ( an ev5t1 e4 g4 ,9 con=mity ) su* a rule1 !re mu/ exi/ 9 t :i* 9 g5]al prec$es an ev5t1 ! condition ( a rule1 accord+ to :i* ?is ev5t foll[s always & necess>ily4 ,"h ! condition ( a rule is ! necess>y antec$5t ( ! ev5t1 :atev] x may be4 ,! fact is t ,kant is 9 a difficulty :i* he feels obscurely himself4 ,he seems driv5 to ?is view = two reasons4 ,if he 7 to ma9ta9 t ,a 0 necess>ily ! cause ( ,b1 he w\ld be ma9ta9+ t all obs]v$ sequ5ces are causal1 i4 e4 t 9 !m ! antec$5t & consequ5t are always cause & effect1 :i* is palpably contr>y to fact4 ,aga91 8 aim is to %[ t we become aw>e ( a succession by presuppos+ ! law ( causality4 ,?is law1 h[ev]1 is q g5]al1 & only ass]ts t some?+ mu/ prec$e an ev5t ^u :i* x foll[s always & necess>ily4 ,h5ce by itself x palpably gives no means ( det]m9+ :e!r ?is some?+ is ,a r ?an any?+ else4#dc ,!re=e if he 7 to ma9ta9 t ! antec$5t memb] ( an appreh5d$ objective succession mu/ be ?\ght ( z its cause1 ! analogy w\ld obvi\sly provide no means ( det]m9+ ! antec$5t memb]1 & !re=e ! succession itself1 = ! succession mu/ be ! sequ5ce ( ,b ^u "s def9ite antec$5t4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! view t ! cause ( ,b ne$ n be ,a only incurs ! same difficulty 9 a r less obvi\s =m4 ,=1 ev5 on ?is view1 ! argum5t implies t 9 ord] to appreh5d two individual p]ceptions ,a ,b z an objective succession1 we mu/ "k t ,a mu/ prec$e ,b1 & ! presupposition t ,b implies a cause 9 ! /ate ( affairs prec$+ ,b 9 no way enables u to say ei!r t ,a coexi/s ) ! cause1 or t x is id5tical ) x1 & !re=e t x mu/ prec$e ,b4 #dc ,cf4 ,b4 #afe1 ,m4 #aja1 :]e ,kant po9ts out t ! det]m9ation ( p>ticul> laws ( nature requires exp]i5ce4 ,nev]!less1 x _c be reg>d$ z c]ta9 t ,kant did n ?9k ( ,a1 ! appreh5d$ antec$5t ( ,b1 z necess>ily ! cause ( ,b1 = 8 language is bo? ambigu\s & inconsi/5t4 ,:5 he consid]s ! appreh5sion ( a succession f ! side ( ! successive p]ceptions1 he at lea/ t5ds to ?9k ( ,a ,b z cause & effect2#dd & x may well be t 9 discuss+ ! problem f ! side ( ! law ( causality1 he means ! cause ( ,b to be ,a1 al?\gh ! g5]ality ( ! law compels him to ref] to x z some?+ ^u :i* ,b foll[s accord+ to a rule4 #dd ,he def9itely implies ?is1 ,b4 #bcd1 ,m4 #adb4 ,fur!r1 x %\ld be notic$ t to all[ z ,kant1 9 effect1 does else:]e#de1 t exp]i5ce is ne$$ to det]m9e ! cause ( ,b is really to conc$e t ! appreh5sion ( objective successions is prior to1 & presuppos$ by1 any process :i* appeals to ! pr9ciple ( causality2 = if ! pr9ciple ( causality does n by itself enable u to det]m9e ! cause ( ,b1 x _c d m ?an enable u to pick out ! cause ( ,b among ev5ts kn[n to prec$e ,b indep5d5tly ( ! pr9ciple4 ,h5ce1 f ?is po9t ( view1 !re c be no process su* z ,kant is try+ to describe1 & !re=e its precise nature is a matt] ( indiff]5ce4 #de ,cf4 ,b4 #afe1 ,m4 #aja1 :]e ,kant po9ts out t ! det]m9ation ( p>ticul> laws ( nature requires exp]i5ce4 ,we may n[ turn to ! facts4 ,!re is1 x seems1 no su* ?+ z a process by :i*1 beg9n+ ) ! k ( successive appreh5sions or repres5tations1 ( ! object ( :i* we are unaw>e1 we come to be aw>e ( _! object4 ,/ill less is !re a process--& x is really ?is :i* ,kant is try+ to describe--by :i*1 s beg9n+1 we come to appreh5d ^! successive repres5tations z objects1 i4 e4 z p>ts ( ! physical _w1 ?r\gh ! ?\ght ( !m z necess>ily relat$4 ,we may take ,kant's in/ance ( our appreh5sion ( a boat go+ d[n /ream4 ,we d n fir/ appreh5d two p]ceptions ( :i* ! object is undet]m9$ & !n decide t _! object is a succession r ?an a coexi/5ce4 ,/ill less d we fir/ appreh5d two p]ceptions or repres5tations & !n decide t !y are relat$ z successive ev5ts 9 ! physical _w4 ,f ! beg9n+ we appreh5d a real sequ5ce1 viz4 ! fact t ! boat hav+ left "o place is arriv+ at ano!r2 !re is no process to ?is appreh5sion4 ,9 o!r words1 f ! beg9n+ we are aw>e ( real elem5ts1 viz4 ( ev5ts 9 nature1 & we are aw>e ( !m z really relat$1 viz4 z successive 9 nature4 ,?is mu/ be s4 ,= if we beg9 ) ! aw>5ess ( two m]e p]ceptions1 we c\ld nev] !nce rea* ! k t _! object 0 a succession1 or ev5 ! k t !y _h an object2 nor1 s beg9n+1 c\ld we become aw>e ( ! p]ceptions !mselves z successive ev5ts 9 ! physical _w4 ,= suppose1 p] impossibile1 ! exi/5ce ( a process by :i* we come to be aw>e ( two elem5ts ,a & ,b z /&+ 9 a relation ( sequ5ce 9 ! physical _w4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ,a & ,b1 ) ! aw>5ess ( :i* we beg91 mu/ be1 & be kn[n to be1 real or objective1 & n p]ceptions or appreh5sions2 o!rwise we c\ld nev] come to appreh5d !m z relat$ 9 ! physical _w4 ,9 ! second place1 ,a & ,b mu/ be1 & be kn[n to be1 real ) ! reality ( a physical ev5t1 o!rwise we c\ld nev] come to appreh5d !m z relat$ by way ( succession 9 ! physical _w4 ,if ,a & ,b 7 bodies1 z !y are :5 we appreh5d ! p>ts ( a h\se1 !y c\ld nev] be appreh5d$ z successive4 ,9 o!r words1 ! process by :i*1 on ,kant's view1 ,a & ,b become1 & become kn[n to be1 ev5ts presupposes t !y already are1 & are kn[n to be1 ev5ts4 ,aga91 ev5 if x be grant$ t ,a & ,b are real ev5ts1 x is cle> t !re c be no process by :i* we come to appreh5d !m z successive4 ,= if we appreh5d$ ev5ts ,a & ,b sep>ately1 we c\ld nev] !nce advance to ! appreh5sion ( _! relation1 or1 9 o!r words1 we c\ld nev] discov] :i* came fir/4 ,kant himself saw cle>ly t ! p]ception ( ,a foll[$ by ! p]ception ( ,b does n by itself yield ! p]ception t ,b foll[s ,a4 ,9 fact x 0 ?is insight :i* =m$ ! />t+-po9t ( 8 discussion4#df ,un=tunately1 in/ead ( conclud+ t ! appreh5sion ( a succession is ultimate & und]ivable f a m primitive appreh5sion1 he tri$ to =mulate ! nature ( ! process by :i*1 />t+ f su* a succession ( p]ceptions1 we rea* ! appreh5sion ( a succession4 ,! tru? is simply t !re is & c be no process to ! appreh5sion ( a succession2 9 o!r words1 t we d & mu/ appreh5d a real succession imm$iately or n at all4 ,! same consid]ations c ( c\rse be suppli$ mutatis mut&is to ! appreh5sion ( ! coexi/5ce ( bodies 9 space1 e4 g4 ( ! p>ts ( a h\se4 #df ,cf4 ,b4 #bcg1 ,m4 #add4 ,x may be object$ t ?is d5ial ( ! exi/5ce ( ! process :i* ,kant is try+ to describe mu/ at lea/ be an ov]/atem5t4 ,= ! ass]tion t ! appreh5sion ( a succession or ( a coexi/5ce is imm$iate may seem to imply t ! appreh5sion ( ! c\rse ( a boat or ( ! %ape ( a h\se involves no process at all2 yet ei!r appreh5sion cle>ly takes "t & s mu/ involve a process4 ,b ?\gh a process is obvi\sly involv$1 x is n a process f ! appreh5sion ( :at is n a succession to ! appreh5sion ( a succession1 b a process f ! appreh5sion ( "o succession to t ( ano!r4 ,x is ! process by :i* we pass f ! appreh5sion ( "o "p ( a succession :i* may h1 & :i* x is kn[n may h1 o!r p>ts to ! appreh5sion ( :at is1 & :at is kn[n to be1 ano!r "p ( ! same succession4 ,moreov]1 ! ass]tion t ! appreh5sion ( a succession mu/ be imm$iate does n imply t x may n be rea*$ by a process4 ,x is n inconsi/5t ) ! obvi\s fact t to appreh5d t ! boat is n[ turn+ a corn] is really to appreh5d t :at be=e 0 go+ /raight is n[ *ang+ its c\rse1 & !re=e presupposes a previ\s appreh5sion ( ! boat's c\rse z /raight4 ,x only implies t ! appreh5sion ( a succession1 if rea*$ by a process at all1 is n rea*$ by a process ( :i* ! />t+-po9t is n itself ! appreh5sion ( a succession4 ,nev]!less1 a plausible def5ce ( ,kant's treatm5t ( causality c be f\nd1 :i* may be =mulat$ ?us3 ',"t1 j z mu* z space1 is a sph]e )9 :i* we h to di/+ui% betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 ,= in/ance1 :5 mov+ 9 a lift1 we see1 z we say1 ! walls mov+1 :ile ! lift rema9s /ation>y4 ,:5 sitt+ 9 a tra9 :i* is beg9n+ to move out ( a /ation1 we see1 z we say1 ano!r tra9 beg9n+ to move1 al?\gh x is 9 fact /&+ /ill4 ,:5 look+ at di/ant trees f a fa/ tra91 we see1 z we say1 ! build+s 9 ! int]m$iate space mov+ backw>ds4 ,9 ^! cases ! ev5ts se5 are n real1 & we only succe$ 9 det]m9+ :at is really happ5+1 by a process :i* presupposes ! law ( causality4 ,?us1 9 ! la/ case we only believe t ! int]m$iate build+s d n move1 by realiz+ t1 giv5 ! uni=mity ( nature1 belief 9 _! motion is incompatible ) :at we believe on ! /r5g? ( exp]i5ce ( ^! build+s on o!r occasions & ( ! re/ ( ! _w4 ,^! cases prove ! exi/5ce ( a process :i* enables u1 & is requir$ to enable u1 to decide :e!r a giv5 *ange is objective or subjective1 i4 e4 :e!r x lies 9 ! reality appreh5d$ or 9 our appreh5sion ( x2 & ?is process involves an appeal to causality4 ,kant's mi/ake lay 9 8 *oice ( illu/rations4 ,8 illu/rations impli$ t ! process :i* involves causality is "o by :i* we di/+ui% a succession 9 ! object appreh5d$ f ano!r relation 9 ! object1 viz4 a coexi/5ce ( bodies4 ,b he ought to h tak5 illu/rations :i* impli$ t ! process is "o by :i* we di/+ui% a succession 9 ! object f a succession 9 our p]ception ( x4 ,9 o!r words1 ! illu/rations %\ld1 l ^? j giv51 h illu/rat$ ! process by :i* we di/+ui% an objective f a subjective *ange1 & n a process by :i* we di/+ui% an objective *ange f some?+ else also objective4 ,consequ5tly1 ,kant's conclusion & 8 g5]al me?od ( treatm5t are "r1 ev5 if1 misl$ by 8 in/ances1 he supports 8 position by argum5ts :i* are wrong4' ,?is def5ce is1 h[ev]1 op5 to ! foll[+ reply3 ',at fir/ sight ! cases tak5 und\bt$ly seem to illu/rate a process 9 :i* we seek to discov] :e!r a c]ta9 *ange belongs to objects or only to our appreh5sion ( !m1 & 9 :i* we appeal to causality 9 arriv+ at a decision4 ,b ?is is only because we ignore ! relativity ( motion4 ,to take ! ?ird case3 our fir/ /atem5t ( ! facts is t we saw ! int]m$iate build+s mov+1 b t subsequ5t reflection on ! results ( o!r exp]i5ce =c$ u to conclude t ! *ange p]ceiv$ 0 aft] all only 9 our appreh5sion & n 9 ! ?+s appreh5d$4 ,! /atem5t1 h[ev]1 t we saw ! build+s mov+ really assumes t we1 ! obs]v]s1 7 /ation>y2 & x /ates too mu*4 ,:at we really p]ceiv$ 0 a relative *ang+ ( position betwe5 u1 ! ne> build+s1 & ! di/ant trees4 ,?is is a fact1 & ! appreh5sion ( x1 !re=e1 does n aft]w>ds prove mi/ak54 ,x is equally compatible ) motion on ! "p ( ! trees1 or ( ! build+s1 or ( ! obs]v]s1 or ( a comb9ation ( !m2 & t = :i* an appeal to causality is ne$$ is ! problem ( decid+ :i* ( ^! alt]natives is correct4 ,moreov]1 ! p]ceiv$ relative *ange ( position is objective2 x conc]ns ! ?+s appreh5d$4 ,h5ce1 9 ?is case too1 x c be said t we p]ceive an objective succession f ! beg9n+1 & t ! appeal to causality is only ne$$ to det]m9e some?+ fur!r ab\t x4 ,x is useless to urge t to be aw>e ( an ev5t is to be aw>e ( x 9 all its def9it5ess1 & t ?is aw>5ess admitt$ly involves an appeal to causality2 = x is easy to see t unless our aw>5ess ( ! relative motion =m$ ! />t+-po9t ( any subsequ5t process 9 :i* we appeal$ to ! law ( causality1 we c\ld nev] use ! law to det]m9e :i* body really mov$4' ,two rem>ks may be made 9 conclusion4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! basis ( ,kant's acc\nt1 viz4 ! view t 9 our appreh5sion ( ! _w we advance f ! appreh5sion ( a succession ( p]ceptions to ! appreh5sion ( objects p]ceiv$1 involves a ,greek3 hy/]on prot]on4 ,z ,kant himself 9 effect urges 9 ! ,refutation ( ,idealism1#dg self-consci\sness1 9 ! s5se ( ! consci\sness ( ! successive process 9 :i* we appreh5d ! _w1 is pla9ly only atta9$ by reflect+ ^u our appreh5sion ( ! _w4 ,we fir/ appreh5d ! _w & only by subsequ5t reflection become aw>e ( our activity 9 appreh5d+ x4 ,ev5 if consci\sness ( ! _w mu/ lead to1 & s is 9 a s5se insep>able f1 self-consci\sness1 x is none ! less its presupposition4 #dg ,cf4 p4 #cbj4 ,9 ! second place1 x seems t ! true v9dication ( causality1 l t ( ! fir/ analogy1 lies 9 ! dogmatic me?od :i* ,kant rejects4 ,x consi/s 9 insight into ! fact t x is ( ! v nature ( a physical ev5t to be an elem5t 9 a process ( *ange und]gone by a sy/em ( sub/ances 9 space1 ?is process be+ ?r\gh & ?r\gh necess>y 9 ! s5se t any ev5t 7i4 e4 ! atta9m5t ( any /ate by a sub/ance7 is ! outcome ( c]ta9 prec$+ ev5ts 7i4 e4 ! previ\s atta9m5t ( c]ta9 /ates by x & o!r sub/ances71 & is simil>ly ! condition ( c]ta9 subsequ5t ev5ts4#dh ,to atta9 ?is insight1 we h only to reflect ^u :at we really mean by a 'physical ev5t'4 ,! v9dication c also be express$ 9 ! =m t ! v ?\ght ( a physical ev5t presupposes ! ?\ght ( x z an elem5t 9 a necess>y process ( *ange--provid$1 h[ev]1 t no di/9ction is impli$ betwe5 ! nature ( a ?+ & :at we ?9k its nature to be4 ,b to v9dicate causality 9 ?is way is to pursue ! dogmatic me?od2 x is to argue f ! nature1 or1 to use ,kant's phrase1 f ! conception1 ( a physical ev5t4 ,on ! o!r h&1 x seems t ! me?od ( argu+ transc5d5tally1 or f ! possibility ( p]ceiv+ ev5ts1 mu/ be doom$ to failure 9 pr9ciple4 ,= if1 z has be5 argu$ to be ! case1#di appreh5sion is ess5tially ! appreh5sion ( a reality z x exi/s indep5d5tly ( ! appreh5sion ( x1 only ^? *>act]i/ics c be attribut$ to x1 z *>act]i/ics :i* x mu/ h if x is to be appreh5d$1 :i* belong to x 9 its own nature or 9 virtue ( its be+ :at x is4 ,x c only be because we ?9k t a ?+ has "s *>act]i/ic 9 virtue ( its own nature1 & s ?9k 'dogmatically'1 t we c ?9k t 9 appreh5d+ x we mu/ appreh5d x z hav+ t *>act]i/ic4#ej #dh ,?is /atem5t ( c\rse includes ! ?ird analogy4 #di ,cf4 ,*h4 ,,iv & ,,vi4 #ej ,cf4 p4 #bge4 ,!re rema9s to be consid]$ ,kant's pro( ( ! ?ird analogy1 i4 e4 ! pr9ciple t all sub/ances1 s f> z !y c be p]ceiv$ 9 space z coexi/5t1 are 9 ?or\gh-go+ int]action4 ,! acc\nt is extremely confus$1 & x is difficult to extract f x a consi/5t view4 ,we %all consid] "h ! v]sion add$ 9 ! second edition1 z be+ ! full] & ! less un9telligible4 ,?+s are coexi/5t1 :5 9 empirical intuition#ea ! p]ception#eb ( ! "o c foll[ ^u ! p]ception ( ! o!r1 & vice v]sa 7:i* _c occur 9 ! temporal succession ( ph5om5a1 z we h %[n 9 ! second pr9ciple74 ,?us ,i c direct my p]ception fir/ to ! moon & aft]w>ds to ! e>?1 or conv]sely1 fir/ to ! e>? & !n to ! moon1 & because ! p]ceptions ( ^! objects c reciprocally foll[ ea* o!r1 ,i say t !y coexi/4 ,n[ coexi/5ce is ! exi/5ce ( ! manifold 9 ! same "t4 ,b we _c p]ceive "t itself1 s z to conclude f ! fact t ?+s are plac$ 9 ! same "t t ! p]ceptions ( !m c foll[ ea* o!r reciprocally4 ,! syn!sis ( ! imag9ation 9 appreh5sion1 !re=e1 w\ld only give u ea* ( ^! p]ceptions z exi/+ 9 ! subject :5 ! o!r is abs5t & vice v]sa2 b x w\ld n give u t ! objects are coexi/5t1 i4 e4 t1 if ! "o exi/s1 ! o!r also exi/s 9 ! same "t1 & t ?is is necess>y 9 ord] t ! p]ceptions c foll[ ea* o!r reciprocally4 ,h5ce !re is ne$$ a conception-(-!-und]/&+#ec ( ! reciprocal sequ5ce ( ! det]m9ations ( ^! ?+s coexi/+ ext]nally to "o ano!r1 9 ord] to say t ! reciprocal succession ( p]ceptions is gr\nd$ 9 ! object1 & !reby to repres5t ! coexi/5ce z objective4 ,b ! relation ( sub/ances 9 :i* ! "o conta9s det]m9ations ! gr\nd ( :i* is conta9$ 9 ! o!r is ! relation ( influ5ce1 & if1 reciprocally1 ! =m] conta9s ! gr\nd ( ! det]m9ations 9 ! latt]1 x is ! relation ( community or int]action4 ,consequ5tly1 ! coexi/5ce ( sub/ances 9 space _c be kn[n 9 exp]i5ce o!rwise ?an "u ! presupposition ( _! int]action2 ?is is !re=e also ! condition ( ! possibility ( ?+s !mselves z objects ( exp]i5ce4#ed #ea ,ans*auung4 #eb ,wahrnehmung4 #ec ,v]/&esbegriff4 #ed ,b4 #beg-h1 ,m4 #aef-g4 ,! pro( beg9s1 z we %\ld expect1 9 a way p>allel to t ( causality4 ,j z ,kant _h app>5tly argu$ t we le>n t a succession ( p]ceptions is ! p]ception ( a sequ5ce :5 we f9d ! ord] ( ! p]ceptions to be irrev]sible1 s he n[ def9itely ass]ts t we le>n t c]ta9 p]ceptions are ! p]ceptions ( a coexi/5ce ( bodies 9 space :5 we f9d t ! ord] ( ! p]ceptions is rev]sible1 or1 to use ,kant's language1 t !re c be a reciprocal sequ5ce ( ! p]ceptions4 ,?is beg9n+1 if read by itself1 seems z ?\gh x %\ld also be ! end4 ,!re seems no?+ m :i* ne$ be said4 ,j z we %\ld h expect$ ,kant to h complet$ 8 acc\nt ( ! appreh5sion ( a succession :5 he po9t$ out t x is di/+ui%$ by ! irrev]sibility ( ! p]ceptions1 s "h we %\ld expect him to h said en\gh :5 he po9ts out t ! e>? & ! moon are said to be coexi/5t because our p]ceptions ( !m c foll[ "o ano!r reciprocally4 ,! analogy1 h[ev]1 has 9 "s way to be br\ght 91 & to ?is ! re/ ( ! pro( is devot$4 ,9 ord] to consid] h[ ?is is done1 we mu/ fir/ consid] ! nature ( ! analogy itself4 ,kant speaks ( 'a conception-(-!-und]/&+ ( ! reciprocal sequ5ce ( ! det]m9ations ( ?+s :i* coexi/ ext]nally to "o ano!r'2 & he says t 't relation ( sub/ances 9 :i* ! "o conta9s det]m9ations1 ! gr\nd ( :i* is conta9$ 9 ! o!r sub/ance1 is ! relation ( influ5ce'4 ,8 mean+ c be illu/rat$ ?us4 ,suppose two bodies1 ,a1 a lump ( ice1 & ,b1 a fire1 close toge!r1 yet at su* a di/ance t !y c be obs]v$ 9 succession4 ,suppose t ,a passes ?r\gh *anges ( temp]ature a#a a#b a#c 444 9 c]ta9 times1 ! *anges end+ 9 /ates alpha#a alpha#b alpha#c 4441 & t ,b passes ?r\gh *anges ( temp]ature b#a b#b b#c 444 9 ! same times1 ! *anges end+ 9 /ates beta#a beta#b beta#c4 ,suppose also1 z we mu/1 t ,a & ,b int]act1 i4 e4 t ,a 9 pass+ ?r\gh its *anges conditions ! *anges ?r\gh :i* ,b passes1 & !re=e also ! /ates 9 :i* ,b ends1 & vice v]sa1 s t a#b & alpha#b w be ! outcome n ( a#a & alpha#a alone1 b ( a#a & alpha#a1 & b#a & beta#a jo9tly4 ,!n we c say 7#a7 t ,a & ,b are 9 ! relation ( influ5ce1 & also ( int]action or reciprocal influ5ce1 9 ! s5se t !y mutually 7n alt]nately7 det]m9e "o ano!r's /ates4 ,aga91 if we fir/ p]ceive ,a 9 ! /ate alpha#a by a p]ception ,a#a1 !n ,b 9 ! /ate beta#b by a p]ception ,b#b1 !n ,a 9 ! /ate alpha#c by a p]ception ,a#c & s on1 we c speak 7#b7 ( a reciprocal sequ5ce ( p]ceptions1 9 ! s5se ( a sequ5ce ( p]ceptions 9 :i* alt]nately a p]ception ( ,b foll[s a p]ception ( ,a & a p]ception ( ,a foll[s a p]ception ( ,b2 = fir/ a p]ception ( ,b1 viz4 ,b#b1 foll[s a p]ception ( ,a1 viz4 ,a#a1 & !n a p]ception ( ,a1 viz4 ,a#c1 foll[s a p]ception ( ,b1 viz4 ,b#b4 ,we c also speak 7#c7 ( a reciprocal sequ5ce ( ! det]m9ations ( two ?+s 9 ! s5se ( a necess>y succession ( /ates :i* alt]nately are /ates ( ,a & ( ,b2 = alpha#a1 :i* is p]ceiv$ fir/1 c be said to contribute to det]m9e beta#b1 :i* is p]ceiv$ next1 & beta#b c be said to contribute to det]m9e alpha#c1 :i* is p]ceiv$ next1 & s on2 & ?is reciprocal sequ5ce c be said to be involv$ 9 ! v nature ( int]action4 ,fur!r1 x c be said 7#d7 t if we p]ceive ,a & ,b alt]nately1 & s only 9 ! /ates alpha#a alpha#c 444 beta#b beta#d 444 respectively1 we c only fill 9 ! blanks1 i4 e4 discov] ! /ates alpha#b alpha#d 444 beta#a beta#c 444 coexi/5t ) beta#b beta#d 444 & alpha#a alpha#c 444 respectively1 if we presuppose ! ?\ght ( int]action4 ,= x is only possible to use ! obs]v$ /ates z a clue to ! unobs]v$ /ates1 if we presuppose t ! obs]v$ /ates are memb]s ( a necess>y succession ( :i* ! unobs]v$ /ates are also memb]s & !re=e h p>tially det]m9$ & be5 det]m9$ by ! obs]v$ /ates4 ,h5ce x may be said t ! det]m9ation ( ! unobs]v$ /ates coexi/5t ) ! obs]v$ /ates presupposes ! ?\ght ( int]action4 ,h[ !n does ,kant advance f ! ass]tion t ! appreh5sion ( a coexi/5ce requires ! k t our p]ceptions c be reciprocally sequ5t to ! ass]tion t x presupposes ! ?\ght t ! det]m9ations ( ph5om5a are reciprocally sequ5t8 ,! passage 9 :i* ! transition is effect$ is obscure & confus$1 b x is capable ( int]pretation z soon z we see t x is int5d$ to run p>allel to ! pro( ( ! second analogy :i* is add$ 9 ! second edition4#ee ,kant app>5tly puts to himself ! "q1 ',h[ are we to "k :5 we h a reciprocal sequ5ce ( p]ceptions f :i* we c inf] a coexi/5ce 9 :at we p]ceiv$8' & app>5tly answ]s x ?us3 ',s9ce we _c p]ceive "t1 & !re=e _c p]ceive objects z dat$ 9 "t ) respect to "o ano!r1 we _c beg9 ) ! appreh5sion ( ! coexi/5ce ( two objects1 & !nce inf] ! possibility ( reciprocal sequ5ce 9 our p]ceptions4 ,?is be+ s1 ! syn!sis ( imag9ation 9 appreh5sion c inde$ comb9e ^! p]ceptions ^! n[ be+ really consid]$ z det]m9ations or /ates ( an object p]ceiv$ 9 a reciprocal sequ5ce1 b !re is s f> no gu>antee t ! sequ5ce produc$ by ! syn!sis is n an arbitr>y product ( ! imag9ation1 & !re=e we _c ?9k ( x z a reciprocal sequ5ce 9 objects4 ,9 ord] to ?9k ( su* a reciprocal sequ5ce z n arbitr>y b z con/itut+ a real sequ5ce 9 objects 'z gr\nd$ 9 ! object'1 we mu/ ?9k ( ! /ates reciprocally sequ5t z necess>ily relat$ & !re=e z successive /ates ( two coexi/+ sub/ances :i* int]act or mutually det]m9e "o ano!r's successive /ates4 ,only !n %all we be able to ?9k ( ! coexi/5ce ( objects involv$ 9 ! reciprocal sequ5ce z an objective fact1 & n m]ely z an arbitr>y product ( ! imag9ation4' ,b1 if ?is fairly expresses ,kant's mean+1 8 argum5t is cle>ly vitiat$ by two confusions4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x confuses a subjective sequ5ce ( p]ceptions :i* are alt]nately p]ceptions ( ,a & ( ,b1 two bodies 9 space1 ) an objective sequ5ce ( p]ceiv$ /ates ( bodies1 alpha#a beta#b alpha#c beta#d1 :i* are alt]nately /ates ( two bodies ,a & ,b1 ! same ?+ be+ reg>d$ at once z a p]ception & z a /ate ( a physical object4 ,9 ! second place1 ma9ly 9 consequ5ce ( ! fir/ confusion1 x confuses ! necessity t ! p]ceptions ( ,a & ( ,b c foll[ "o ano!r alt]nately ) ! necessity ( succession 9 ! alt]nately p]ceiv$ /ates ( ,a & ,b z int]act+4 ,moreov]1 !re is really a *ange 9 ! cases "u consid]ation4 ,! case ) :i* he beg9s1 i4 e4 :5 he is consid]+ m]ely ! reciprocal sequ5ce ( p]ceptions1 is ! successive p]ceptions ( two bodies 9 space alt]nately1 e4 g4 ( ! moon & ! e>?1 ! nature ( _! /ates at ! "t ( p]ception n be+ 9 "q4 ,b ! case ) :i* he ends is ! successive p]ception ( ! /ates ( two bodies alt]nately1 e4 g4 ( ! /ates ( ! fire & ( ! lump ( ice4 ,moreov]1 x is only 9 ! latt] case t ! objective relation appreh5d$ is t ( coexi/5ce 9 ! prop] s5se1 & 9 ! s5se :i* ,kant int5ds ?r\gh\t1 viz4 t ( be+ contemporane\s 9 di/9ction f be+ successive4 ,= :5 we say t two bodies1 e4 g4 ! moon & ! e>?1 coexi/1 we %\ld only mean t bo? exi/1 & n1 z ,kant means1 t !y are contemporane\s4 ,= to a sub/ance1 be+ z x is ! sub/ratum ( *anges1 we c ascribe no temporal pr$icates4 ,t :i* *anges _c be said ei!r to beg91 or to end1 or to exi/ at a c]ta9 mom5t ( "t1 or1 !re=e1 to exi/ contemporane\sly )1 or aft]1 or be=e any?+ else2 x _c ev5 be said to p]si/ ?r\gh a portion ( "t or1 to use ! phrase ( ! fir/ analogy1 to be p]man5t4 ,x w be object$ t1 ?\gh ! cases are diff]5t1 yet ! transition f ! "o to ! o!r is ju/ifi$1 = x is precisely ,kant's po9t t ! exi/5ce toge!r ( two sub/ances 9 space c only be discov]$ by consid]ation ( _! successive /ates "u ! presupposition t !y mutually det]m9e "o ano!r's /ates4 ,besides ! m]e fact ( exi/5ce !re mu/ be some?+ by :i* ,a det]m9es ! place 9 "t = ,b1 & conv]sely ,b ! place = ,a1 because only "u ?is condition c ^! sub/ances be empirically repres5t$ z coexi/5t4#ef ,! objection1 h[ev]1 %\ld be met by two consid]ations1 ea* ( :i* is ( "s intr9sic importance4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! appreh5sion ( a body 9 space 9 itself involves ! appreh5sion t x exi/s toge!r ) all o!r bodies 9 space1 = ! appreh5sion ( some?+ z spatial involves ! appreh5sion ( x z spatially relat$ to1 & !re=e z exi/+ toge!r )1 ev]y?+ else :i* is spatial4 ,no process1 !re=e1 su* z ,kant describes is requir$ 9 ord] t we may le>n t x exi/s along ) "s o!r body4 ,9 ! second place1 t = :i* ! pr9ciple ( int]action is really requir$ is n1 z ,kant supposes1 ! det]m9ation ( ! coexi/5ce ( an unp]ceiv$ body ) a p]ceiv$ body1 b ! det]m9ation ( t unp]ceiv$ /ate ( a body already kn[n to exi/ :i* is coexi/5t ) a p]ceiv$ /ate ( a p]ceiv$ body4 ,z has be5 po9t$ out1 if we p]ceive ,a & ,b alt]nately 9 ! /ates alpha#a beta#b alpha#c beta#d 444 we ne$ ! ?\ght ( int]action to det]m9e ! nature ( beta#a alpha#b beta#c alpha#d 444 ,?us x appe>s t ,kant 9 8 v9dication ( ! ?ird analogy omits altoge!r to notice ! "o process :i* really presupposes x4 #ee ,b4 #bcc-d1 ,m4 #adb4 #ef ,b4 #bei1 ,m4 #aeg4 ,,*apt] ,,xiii ,,! ,,po/ulates ,,( ,,empirical ,,?\ght ,! po/ulates ( empirical ?\ght1 :i* correspond to ! categories ( modality1 are /at$ z foll[s3 #a4 ,t :i* agrees ) ! =mal conditions ( exp]i5ce 7accord+ to p]ception & conceptions7 is possible4 #b4 ,t :i* is connect$ ) ! mat]ial conditions ( exp]i5ce 7s5sation7 is actual4 #c4 ,t ( :i* ! connexion ) ! actual is det]m9$ accord+ to univ]sal conditions ( exp]i5ce is necess>y 7exi/s necess>ily74#a #a ,b4 #bfe-f1 ,m4 #afa4 ,^! pr9ciples1 describ$ z only 'explanations ( ! conceptions ( possibility1 actuality1 & necessity z employ$ 9 exp]i5ce'1 are really treat$ z pr9ciples by :i* we decide :at is possible1 :at is actual1 & :at is necess>y4 ,! ?ree conceptions involv$ d n1 accord+ to ,kant1 enl>ge our k ( ! nature ( objects1 b only 'express _! relation to ! faculty ( k'#b2 i4 e4 !y only conc]n our ability to appreh5d an object ^: nature is already det]m9$ = u o!rwise z at lea/ possible1 or z real1 or z ev5 necess>y4 ,moreov]1 x is because ^! pr9ciples d n enl>ge our k ( ! nature ( objects t !y are call$ po/ulates2 = a po/ulate 9 geometry1 f :i* sci5ce ! t]m is borr[$ 7e4 g4 t x is possible ) a giv5 l9e to describe a circle f a giv5 po9t71 does n augm5t ! conception ( ! figure to :i* x relates1 b only ass]ts ! possibility ( ! conception itself4#c ,! discussion ( ^! pr9ciples is describ$1 contr>y to ! t]m9ology adopt$ 9 ! case ( ! prec$+ pr9ciples1 z 'explanation' & n z 'pro('4 ,! discussion1 h[ev]1 c]ta9ly includes a pro( ( !m1 = x is ,kant's ma9 object to prove t ^! pr9ciples con/itute ! g5]al "* ( :at c be ass]t$ to be possible1 actual1 or necess>y respectively4 ,aga91 z be=e1 ! basis ( pro( lies 9 a !ory ( k1 & 9 p>ticul> 9 ,kant's !ory ( k2 = x consi/s 9 ! pr9ciple t ev]y?+ kn[able mu/ con=m to ! conditions involv$ 9 its be+ an object ( possible exp]i5ce4 #b ,b4 #bff1 ,m4 #afa4 ,cf4 ,b4 #bhf-g1 ,m4 #agc-d4 #c ,b4 #bhf-g1 ,m4 #agc-d4 ,to und]/& ^! pr9ciples & ! pro( ( !m1 we mu/ notice c]ta9 prelim9>y consid]ations4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! v problem ( di/+ui%+ ! possible1 ! actual1 & ! necess>y presupposes ! exi/5ce ( di/9ctions :i* may prove op5 to "q4 ,x presupposes t some?+ may be possible )\t be+ actual1 & aga9 t some?+ may be actual )\t be+ necess>y4 ,9 ! second place1 ,kant's mode ( approa*+ ! problem assumes t we c beg9 ) a conception ( an object1 e4 g4 ( a man ) six toes1 & !n ask :e!r ! object ( x is possible1 :e!r1 if possible1 x is also actual1 & :e!r1 if actual1 x is also necess>y4 ,9 o!r words1 x assumes ! possibility ( sep>at+ :at is conceiv$ f :at is possible1 & !re=e a =tiori f :at is actual1#d & f :at is necess>y4 ,?irdly1 9 ?is context1 z 9 mo/ o!rs1 ,kant 9 speak+ ( a conception is ?9k+1 to use ,locke's phraseology1 n ( a 'simple' conception1 su* z t ( equality or ( r$ness1 b ( a 'complex' conception1 su* z t ( a c5taur1 or ( a triangle 9 ! s5se ( a ?ree-sid$ ?ree-angl$ figure4 ,x is ! appreh5sion ( a 'complex' ( elem5ts4#e ,f\r?ly1 :at is said to be possible1 real1 or necess>y is n ! conception b ! correspond+ object4 ,! "q is n1 = in/ance1 :e!r ! conception ( a triangle or ( a c5taur is possible1 actual1 or necess>y1 b :e!r a triangle or a c5taur is possible1 actual1 or necess>y4 ,kant sometimes speaks loosely ( conceptions z possible1#f b ! t]ms :i* he normally &1 f ! po9t ( view ( 8 !ory1 rightly applies to conceptions are 'objectively real' & 'fictiti\s'4#g ,la/ly1 ,kant di/+ui%es 'objectively real' & 'fictiti\s' conceptions 9 two ways4 ,he speaks ( e/abli%+ ! objective reality ( a conception z consi/+ 9 e/abli%+ ! possibility ( a correspond+ object1#h imply+ !re=e t a fictiti\s conception is a conception ( :i* ! correspond+ object is n kn[n to be possible4 ,aga91 he describes z fictiti\s new conceptions ( sub/ances1 p[]s1 & int]actions1 :i* we might =m f ! mat]ial (f]$ to u by p]ception )\t borr[+ f exp]i5ce itself ! example ( _! connexions1 e4 g4 ! conception ( a p[] ( ! m9d to p]ceive ! future2 & he says t ! possibility ( ^! conceptions 7i4 e4 ! possibility ( correspond+ objects7 _c1 l t ( ! categories1 be acquir$ a priori ?r\gh _! be+ conditions on :i* all exp]i5ce dep5ds1 b mu/ be discov]$ empirically or n at all4 ,( su* conceptions he says t1 )\t be+ bas$ ^u exp]i5ce & its kn[n laws1 !y are arbitr>y syn!ses :i*1 al?\gh !y conta9 no contradiction1 h no claim to objective reality1 & !re=e to ! possibility ( correspond+ objects4#i ,he implies1 !re=e1 t ! object ( a conception c be said to be possible only :5 ! conception is ! appreh5sion ( a complex ( elem5ts toge!r ) ! appreh5sion--:i*1 if n a priori1 mu/ be bas$ ^u exp]i5ce--t !y are connect$4 ,h5ce a conception may be reg>d$ z 'objectively real'1 or z 'fictiti\s' accord+ z x is ! appreh5sion ( a complex ( elem5ts accompani$ by ! appreh5sion t !y are connect$1 or ! appreh5sion ( a complex ( elem5ts n s accompani$4 #d ,! view t '9 ! m]e conception ( a ?+ no sign ( its exi/5ce is to be f\nd' 7,b4 #bgb1 ,m4 #afe7 =ms1 ( c\rse1 ! basis ( ,kant's criticism ( ! ontological argum5t = ! exi/5ce ( ,god4 ,cf4 ,dialectic1 ,bk4 ,,ii1 ,*4 ,,iii1 #d4 #e ,cf4 'a conception :i* includes 9 itself a syn!sis' 7,b4 #bfg m$41 ,m4 #afb m$474 #f ,e4 g4 ,b4 #bfi f941 ,m4 #afc f942 ,b4 #bgj m$41 ,m4 #afd init4 ,! =mulation :i* really expresses ,kant's ?\ght is to be f\nd ,b4 #bff m$41 ,m4 #afa f942 ,b4 #bfh init41 ,m4 #afb f942 ,b4 #bfh m$41 ,m4 #afc init42 & ,b4 #bgj m$41 ,m4 #afd init4 #g ,g$i*tete4 #h ,b4 #bfh init41 ,m4 #afb f94 #i ,b4 #bfi-gj1 ,m4 #afc-d4 ,x is n[ possible to /ate ,kant's problem m precisely4 ,) reg>d to a giv5 complex conception he wi%es to det]m9e ! way 9 :i* we c answ] ! que/ions 7#a7 ',has ! conception a possible object to correspond to x'1 or1 9 o!r words1 ',is ! conception 'objectively real' or 'fictiti\s'8' 7#b7 ',giv5 t a correspond+ object is possible1 is x also real8' 7#c7 ',giv5 t x is real1 is x also necess>y8' ,! sub/ance ( ,kant's answ] to ?is problem may be /at$ ?us3 ',! mo/ obvi\s gu>antee ( ! objective reality ( a conception1 i4 e4 ( ! possibility ( a correspond+ object1 is ! exp]i5ce ( su* an object4 ,= in/ance1 our exp]i5ce ( wat] gu>antees ! objective reality ( ! conception ( a liquid :i* exp&s z x solidifies4 ,?is appeal to exp]i5ce1 h[ev]1 takes u beyond ! possibility ( ! object to its reality1 = ! exp]i5ce v9dicates ! possibility ( ! object only ?r\gh its reality4 ,moreov]1 "h ! basis ( our ass]tion ( possibility is only empirical1 :]eas our aim is to discov] ! conceptions ( :i* ! objects c be det]m9$ a priori to be possible4 ,:at !n is ! answ] to ?is1 ! real problem8 ,to take ! case ( cause & effect1 we _c rea* any conclusion by ! m]e /udy ( ! conception ( cause & effect4 ,= al?\gh ! conception ( a necess>y succession conta9s no contradiction1 ! necess>y succession ( ev5ts is a m]e arbitr>y syn!sis z f> z our ?\ght ( x is conc]n$2 we h no direct insight into ! necessity4 ,!re=e we _c argue f ?is conception to ! possibility ( a correspond+ object1 viz4 a necess>ily successive s]ies ( ev5ts 9 nature4 ,we c1 h[ev]1 say t t syn!sis is n arbitr>y b necess>y to :i* any object mu/ con=m1 if x is to be an object ( exp]i5ce4 ,f ?is po9t ( view we c say t !re mu/ be a possible object correspond+ to ! conception ( cause & effect1 because only z subject$ to ?is syn!sis are !re objects ( exp]i5ce at all4 ,h5ce1 if we take ?is po9t ( view1 we c say g5]ally t all spatial & temporal conceptions1 z con/itut+ ! conditions ( p]ceiv+ 9 exp]i5ce1 & all ! categories1 z con/itut+ ! conditions ( conceiv+ 9 exp]i5ce1 mu/ h possible objects4 ,9 o!r words1 't :i* agrees ) ! =mal conditions ( exp]i5ce 7accord+ to p]ception & conceptions7 is possible'4 ,aga91 if we "k t ! object ( a conception is possible1 h[ are we to det]m9e :e!r x is also actual8 ,x is cle> t1 s9ce we _c advance f ! m]e conception1 objectively real ?\gh x may be1 to ! reality ( ! correspond+ object1 we ne$ p]ception4 ,! case1 h[ev]1 :]e ! correspond+ object is directly p]ceiv$ may be ignor$1 = x involves no inf]5ce or process ( ?\ght2 ! appeal is to exp]i5ce alone4 ,!re=e ! "q to be consid]$ is1 ',h[ d we det]m9e ! actuality ( ! object ( a conception comp>atively a priori1 i4 e4 )\t direct exp]i5ce ( x#aj8' ,! answ] mu/ be t we d s by f9d+ x to be 'connect$ ) an actual p]ception 9 accordance ) ! analogies ( exp]i5ce'#aa4 ,= in/ance1 we mu/ e/abli% ! actuality ( an object correspond+ to ! conception ( a volcanic eruption by %[+ x to be involv$1 9 accordance ) ! analogies 7& ) p>ticul> empirical laws71 9 ! /ate ( a place :i* we are n[ p]ceiv+4 ,9 o!r words1 we c say t 't :i* is connect$ ) ! mat]ial conditions ( exi/5ce 7s5sation7 is actual'4 ,f9ally1 s9ce we _c le>n ! exi/5ce ( any object ( exp]i5ce :olly a priori1 b only relatively to ano!r exi/5ce already giv51 ! necessity ( ! exi/5ce ( an object c nev] be kn[n f conceptions1 b only f its connexion ) :at is p]ceiv$2 ?is necessity1 h[ev]1 is n ! necessity ( ! exi/5ce ( a sub/ance1 b only ! necessity ( connexion ( an unobs]v$ /ate ( a sub/ance ) "s obs]v$ /ate ( a sub/ance4 ,!re=e we c 7& inde$ mu/7 say ( an unobs]v$ object correspond+ to a conception1 n only t x is real1 b also t x is necess>y1 :5 we "k x to be connect$ ) a p]ceiv$ reality 'accord+ to univ]sal conditions ( exp]i5ce'2 b ! necessity c be attribut$ only to /ates ( sub/ances & n to sub/ances !mselves4' #aj ,cf4 ,b4 #bgi1 ,m4 #afi & p4 #d1 note #a4 #aa ,b4 #bgc1 ,m4 #afe4 ,?r\gh\t ?is acc\nt !re runs "o fatal mi/ake1 t ( suppos+ t we c sep>ate our k ( ?+s z possible1 z actual1 & z necess>y4 ,ev5 if ?is supposition be t5able 9 c]ta9 cases1#ab x is n t5able 9 respect ( ! objects ( a complex conception1 ) :i* ,kant is deal+4 ,if we "k ! object ( a complex conception to be possible1 we already "k x to be actual1 & if we "k x to be actual1 we already "k x to be necess>y4 ,a complex conception 9 ! prop] s5se is ! appreh5sion ( a complex ( elem5ts toge!r ) ! appreh5sion (1 or insight into1 _! connexion4#ac ,?us1 9 ! case ( ! conception ( a triangle we see t ! possession ( ?ree sides necessitates ! possession ( ?ree angles4 ,f su* a conception mu/ be di/+ui%$ ,kant's 'fictiti\s' conception1 i4 e4 ! appreh5sion ( a complex ( elem5ts )\t ! appreh5sion ( connexion betwe5 !m4 ,?us1 9 ! case ( ! conception ( a man ) six toes1 !re is no appreh5sion ( connexion betwe5 ! possession ( ! *>act]i/ics indicat$ by ! t]m 'man' & ! possession ( six toes4 ,9 su* a case1 s9ce we d n appreh5d any connexion betwe5 ! elem5ts1 we d n really 'conceive' or '?9k' ! object 9 "q1 e4 g4 a man ) six toes4 ,n[ 9 ! case ( a complex conception prop]1 x is impossible to ?9k ( a correspond+ individual z only possible4 ,! "q ',is a triangle1 9 ! s5se ( a figure ) ?ree sides & ?ree angles1 possible8' really means ',is x possible = a ?ree-sid$ figure to h ?ree angles8' ,to ?is "q we c only answ] t we see t a ?ree-sid$ figure c h ?ree angles1 because we see t x mu/ h1 & !re=e has1 & c h1 ?ree angles2 9 o!r words1 t we see a triangle 9 ! s5se 9 "q to be possible1 because we see x to be necess>y1 &1 !re=e1 actual1 & possible4 ,x _c be argu$ t our insight is limit$ to ! fact t if !re are ?ree-sid$ figures !y mu/ be ?ree-angl$1 & t !re=e we only "k a triangle 9 ! s5se 9 "q to be possible4 ,our appreh5sion ( ! fact t ! possession ( ?ree sides necessitates ! possession ( ?ree angles presupposes k ( ! exi/5ce ( ?ree-sid$ figures1 = x is only 9 an actual ?ree-sid$ figure t we c appreh5d ! necessity4 ,x may1 h[ev]1 be object$ t ! "q ought to mean simply ',is a ?ree-sid$ figure possible8' & t1 und]/ood 9 ?is s5se1 x _c be answ]$ 9 a simil> way4 ,nev]!less1 a simil> answ] is ! "r answ]4 ,= ! "q ',is a ?ree-sid$ figure possible8' really means ',is x possible = ?ree /raight l9es to =m a figure1 i4 e4 to enclose a space8' & we c only answ] x = ourselves by see+ t a gr\p ( ?ree /raight l9es or directions1 no two ( :i* are p>allel1 mu/1 z su*1 enclose a space1 ?is insight presuppos+ ! appreh5sion ( an actual gr\p ( ?ree /raight l9es4 ,x may be said1 !re=e1 t we c only det]m9e ! possibility ( ! object ( a complex conception 9 ! prop] s5se1 ?r\gh an act 9 :i* we appreh5d its necessity & its actuality at once4 ,x is only :]e conceptions are 'fictiti\s'1 & s n prop]ly conceptions1 t appeal to exp]i5ce is necess>y4 ,! "q ',is an object correspond+ to ! conception ( a man ) six toes possible8' presupposes ! reality ( man & asks :e!r any man c h six toes4 ,if we und]/ood ! nature ( man & c\ld !reby appreh5d ei!r t ! possession ( six toes 01 or t x 0 n1 involv$ 9 "o ( ! possible diff]5tiations ( man1 we c\ld decide ! "q ( possibility a priori1 i4 e4 ?r\gh our conceiv+ alone )\t an appeal to exp]i5ce2 b we c\ld d s only because we appreh5d$ ei!r t a c]ta9 k9d ( man ) six toes 0 necess>y & actual1 or t su* a man 0 impossible & n actual4 ,if1 h[ev]1 z is ! case1 we d n und]/& ! nature ( man1 we c only decide ! "q ( possibility by an appeal to exp]i5ce1 i4 e4 to ! exp]i5ce ( a correspond+ object1 or ( an object f :i* ! exi/5ce ( su* an object c\ld be inf]r$4 ,"h1 !re=e--assum+ ! requir$ exp]i5ce to be =?com+--we c appeal to ,kant's =mula & say t we "k t su* a man1 i4 e4 an object correspond+ to ! conception1 is actual1 z be+ connect$ ) ! mat]ial conditions ( exp]i5ce4 ,b ! p]ception :i* con/itutes ! mat]ial conditions ( exp]i5ce 9 ! case 9 "q is only ( use because x c>ries u beyond possibility to actuality1 & appeal to x is only necess>y because ! object is n really conceiv$ or1 9 o!r words1 because ! s-call$ conception is n really a conception4 #ab ,= in/ance1 x might at lea/ be argu$ t we "k space to be actual )\t kn[+ x to be necess>y4 #ac ,n 'toge!r ) ! appreh5sion t ! elem5ts are connect$'4 ,cf4 p4 #caa4 ,kant really treats 8 'objectively real' conceptions z if !y 7 'fictiti\s'1 ev5 ?\gh he speaks ( !m z complete4 ,consequ5tly1 8 conceptions n be+ conceptions prop]1 he is necess>ily l$ to hold t an appeal to exp]i5ce is ne$$ 9 ord] to e/abli% ! reality ( a correspond+ object4 ,yet1 ?is be+ s1 he %\ld h ask$ himself :e!r1 )\t an appeal to p]ception1 we c\ld ev5 say t a correspond+ object 0 possible4 ,t he did n ask ?is "q is p>tly due to ! fact t he attributes ! =m & ! matt] ( k to diff]5t s\rces1 viz4 to ! m9d & to ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,:ile ! conceptions involv$ 9 ! =ms ( p]ception1 space1 & "t1 & also ! categories are ! manife/ations ( ! m9d's own nature1 s5sations1 :i* =m ! matt] ( k1 are due to ! action ( ?+s 9 !mselves on our s5sibility1 & ( ?is activity we c say no?+4 ,h5ce1 f ! po9t ( view ( our m9d--& s9ce we d n "k ?+s 9 !mselves1 ?is is ! only po9t ( view we c take--! exi/5ce ( s5sations1 & !re=e ( objects1 :i* mu/ be giv5 9 p]ception1 is :olly cont+5t & only to be discov]$ ?r\gh exp]i5ce4 ,on ! o!r h&1 s9ce ! =ms ( p]ception & conception necess>ily det]m9e 9 c]ta9 ways ! nature ( objects1 if !re prove to be any objects1 ! conceptions involv$ may be ?\ght to det]m9e :at objects are possible1 ev5 ?\gh ! v exi/5ce ( ! objects is unc]ta94 ,nev]!less1 on 8 own pr9ciples1 ,kant %\ld h all[$ t1 ap>t f p]ception1 we c\ld discov] a priori at lea/ ! reality1 ev5 if n ! necessity1 ( ! objects ( ^! conceptions4 ,= 8 g5]al view is t ! =ms ( p]ception & ! categories are only actualiz$ on ! occasion ( ! /imulus af=d$ by ! action ( ?+s 9 !mselves on ! s5sibility4 ,h5ce ! fact t ! categories & =ms ( p]ception are actualiz$--a fact impli$ 9 ! v exi/5ce ( ! ,critique--involves ! exi/5ce ( objects correspond+ to ! categories & to ! conceptions involv$ 9 ! =ms ( p]ception4 ,on ,kant's own pr9ciples1 !re=e1 we c\ld say a priori t !re mu/ be objects correspond+ to ^! conceptions1 ev5 ?\gh _! nature 9 detail c\ld only be fill$ 9 by exp]i5ce4#ad #ad ,cf4 ,caird1 i4 #fjd-e4 ,,note ,,on ,,! ,,refutation ,,( ,,idealism ,?is well-kn[n passage#a practically replaces a long section1#b conta9$ only 9 ! fir/ edition1 on ! f\r? p>alogism ( pure reason4 ,its aim is to v9dicate aga9/ 'idealism' ! reality ( objects 9 space1 & x is = ?is reason ins]t$ aft] ! discussion ( ! second po/ulate4 ,! int]e/ :i* x has excit$ is due to ,kant's use ( language :i* at lea/ seems to imply t bodies 9 space are ?+s 9 !mselves1 & !re=e t "h he really ab&ons 8 ma9 !sis4 #a ,b4 #bgd-i1 ,m4 #afg-i4 ,cf4 ,b4 xxxix 7note71 ,m4 xl 7note74 #b ,a4 #cfg-hj1 ,mah4 #bda-ec4 ,idealism is ! g5]al "n :i* ,kant gives to any view :i* que/ions or d5ies ! reality ( ! physical _w2 &1 z has be5 po9t$ out be=e1#c he repeat$ly tries to def5d himself aga9/ ! *>ge ( be+ an ideali/ 9 ?is g5]al s5se4 ,?is passage is ! expression ( 8 f9al attempt4 ,kant beg9s by di/+ui%+ two =ms :i* idealism c take accord+ z x reg>ds ! exi/5ce ( objects 9 space z false & impossible1 or z d\btful & indemon/rable4 ,8 own view1 :i* reg>ds _! exi/5ce z c]ta9 & demon/rable1 & :i* he else:]e#d calls transc5d5tal idealism1 con/itutes a ?ird =m4 ,! fir/ =m is ! dogmatic idealism ( ,b]keley4 ,?is view1 ,kant says1 is unavoidable1 if space be reg>d$ z a prop]ty ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 & ! basis ( x has be5 de/roy$ 9 ! ,ae/hetic4 ,! second =m is ! problematic idealism ( ,desc>tes1 accord+ to :i* we are imm$iately aw>e only ( our own exi/5ce1 & belief 9 ! exi/5ce ( bodies 9 space c be only an inf]5ce1 & an unc]ta9 inf]5ce1 f ! imm$iate appreh5sion ( our own exi/5ce4 ,?is view1 accord+ to ,kant1 is ! outcome ( a philosophical attitude ( m9d1 9 t x dem&s t a belief %\ld be prov$1 & app>5tly--to judge f :at ,kant says ( ,b]keley--x does n commit ,desc>tes to ! view t bodies 9 space1 if _! reality c be v9dicat$1 are ?+s 9 !mselves4 #c ,cf4 p4 #gf4 #d ,a4 #cfi1 ,mah4 #bdc2 cf4 ,b4 #dd1 ,m4 #bg4 ,! ass]tion t ! ,ae/hetic has de/roy$ ! basis ( ,b]keley's view1 tak5 toge!r ) ! drift ( ! ,refutation z a :ole1 & especially ( ,rem>k ,i1 r5d]s x cle> t ! ,refutation is direct$ aga9/ ,desc>tes & n ,b]keley4 ,kant reg>ds himself z hav+ already refut$ ,b]keley's view1 z he "h /ates x1 viz4 t ! exi/5ce ( objects 9 space is impossible1 on ! gr\nd t x arose f ! mi/ake ( suppos+ t space1 if real at all1 mu/ be a prop]ty ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 :]eas ! ,ae/hetic has z he ?9ks1 %[n t space c be1 & 9 po9t ( fact is1 a prop]ty ( ph5om5a4 ,he n[ wants to prove--compatibly ) _! "* z ph5om5a--t ! exi/5ce ( bodies 9 space is n ev51 z ,desc>tes cont5ds1 d\btful4 ,to prove ?is he seeks to %[ t ,desc>tes is wrong 9 suppos+ t we h no imm$iate exp]i5ce ( ^! objects4 ,8 me?od is to argue t reflection %[s t int]nal exp]i5ce presupposes ext]nal exp]i5ce1 i4 e4 t unless we 7 directly aw>e ( spatial objects1 we c\ld n be aw>e ( ! succession ( our own /ates1 & consequ5tly t x is an inv]sion to hold t we mu/ rea* ! k ( objects 9 space1 if at all1 by an inf]5ce f ! imm$iate appreh5sion ( our own /ates4 ,an exam9ation ( ! pro( itself1 h[ev]1 =ces u to all[ t ,kant1 )\t realiz+ :at he is do+1 really ab&ons ! view t objects 9 space are ph5om5a1 & uses an argum5t ! v nature ( :i* implies t ^! objects are ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! pro( runs ?us3 ,!orem4 ,! m]e b empirically det]m9$ consci\sness ( my own exi/5ce proves ! exi/5ce ( objects 9 space ext]nal to me4 ,pro(4 ,i am consci\s ( my own exi/5ce z det]m9$ 9 "t4 ,all "t-det]m9ation presupposes some?+ p]man5t 9 p]ception4#e ,?is p]man5t1 h[ev]1 _c be an intuition#f 9 me4 ,= all gr\nds ( det]m9ation ( my own exi/5ce1 :i* c be f\nd 9 me1 are repres5tations1 & z su* !mselves ne$ a p]man5t diff]5t f !m1 9 relation to :i* _! *ange & consequ5tly my exi/5ce 9 ! "t 9 :i* !y *ange c be det]m9$4#g ,! p]ception ( ?is p]man5t1 !re=e1 is possible only ?r\gh a ?+ ext]nal to me1 & n ?r\gh ! m]e repres5tation ( a ?+ ext]nal to me4 ,consequ5tly1 ! det]m9ation ( my exi/5ce 9 "t is possible only ?r\gh ! exi/5ce ( actual ?+s1 :i* ,i p]ceive ext]nal to me4 ,n[ consci\sness 9 "t is necess>ily connect$ ) ! consci\sness ( ! possibility ( ?is "t-det]m9ation2 h5ce x is necess>ily connect$ also ) ! exi/5ce ( ?+s ext]nal to me1 z ! condition ( "t-det]m9ation1 i4 e4 ! consci\sness ( my own exi/5ce1 is at ! same "t an imm$iate consci\sness ( ! exi/5ce ( o!r ?+s ext]nal to me4#h #e ,wahrnehmung4 #f ,ans*auung4 #g ,! text has be5 correct$ 9 accordance ) ,kant's note 9 ! preface to ! second edition1 ,b4 xxxix1 ,m4 xl4 #h ,b4 #bge-f1 ,m4 #afg4 ,! nature ( ! argum5t is cle>4 ',9 ord] to be consci\s1 z ,i am1 ( a det]m9ate succession ( my /ates1 ,i mu/ p]ceive some?+ p]man5t z t 9 relation to :i* alone ,i c p]ceive my /ates z hav+ a def9ite ord]4#i ,b ?is p]man5t _c be a p]ception 9 me1 = 9 t case x w\ld only be a repres5tation ( m9e1 :i*1 z su*1 c\ld only be appreh5d$ 9 relation to ano!r p]man5t4 ,consequ5tly1 ?is p]man5t mu/ be a ?+ ext]nal to me & n a repres5tation ( a ?+ ext]nal to me4 ,consequ5tly1 ! consci\sness ( my own exi/5ce1 :i* is necess>ily a consci\sness ( my successive /ates1 involves ! imm$iate consci\sness ( ?+s ext]nal to me4' #i ,cf4 ,kant's pro( ( ! fir/ analogy4 ,"h !re is no way ( avoid+ ! conclusion t ,kant is deceiv$ by ! ambiguity ( ! phrase 'a ?+ ext]nal to me' into ?9k+ t he has giv5 a pro( ( ! exi/5ce ( bodies 9 space :i* is compatible ) ! view t !y are only ph5om5a1 al?\gh 9 reality ! pro( presupposes t !y are ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,9 ! 'pro('1 ! phrase 'a ?+ ext]nal to me' mu/ h a d\ble mean+4 ,x mu/ mean a ?+ ext]nal to my body1 i4 e4 any body :i* is n my body2 9 o!r words1 x mu/ be a loose expression = a body 9 space4 ,=1 ?\gh ! 'pro(' makes u appeal to ! spatial "* ( ?+s ext]nal to me1 ! ,refutation z a :ole1 & especially ,rem>k ,,ii1 %[s t x is ( bodies 9 space t he is ?9k+ ?r\gh\t4 ,! phrase mu/ also1 & prim>ily1 mean a ?+ ext]nal to1 9 ! s5se ( indep5d5t (1 my m9d1 i4 e4 a ?+ 9 itself4 ,= ! n]ve ( ! argum5t consi/s 9 ! cont5tion t ! p]man5t ! p]ception ( :i* is requir$ = ! consci\sness ( my successive /ates mu/ be a ?+ ext]nal to me 9 opposition to ! repres5tation ( a ?+ ext]nal to me1 & a ?+ ext]nal to me 9 opposition to a ?+ ext]nal to me c only be a ?+ 9 itself4 ,on ! o!r h&1 9 ,kant's conclusion1 'a ?+ ext]nal to me' c only mean a body 9 space1 ?is be+ suppos$ to be a ph5om5on2 = 8 aim is to e/abli% ! reality ( bodies 9 space compatibly ) 8 g5]al view t !y are only ph5om5a4 ,! pro( !re=e requires t ?+s ext]nal to me1 9 ord] t !y may r5d] possible ! consci\sness ( my successive /ates1 %\ld h ! v "* :i* is )held f !m 9 ! conclusion1 viz4 t ( exi/+ indep5d5tly ( me2 9 o!r words1 if ,kant e/abli%es ! exi/5ce ( bodies 9 space at all1 he does s only at ! co/ ( all[+ t !y are ?+s 9 !mselves4#aj #aj ,! ambiguity ( ! phrase 'ext]nal to me' is po9t$ out 9 ! suppress$ acc\nt ( ! f\r? p>alogism1 :]e x is expressly decl>$ t objects 9 space are only repres5tations4 7,a4 #cgb-c1 ,mah4 #bdg74 ,possibly ! introduction ( an argum5t :i* turns on ! view t !y are n repres5tations may h _h some?+ to d ) ! suppression4 ,nev]!less1 ! ,refutation may be consid]$ to sugge/ ! prop] refutation ( ,desc>tes4 ,x is possible to ignore ,kant's dem& = a p]man5t z a condition ( ! appreh5sion ( our successive /ates1 & to conf9e att5tion to 8 rem>k t he has %[n t ext]nal exp]i5ce is really imm$iate1 & t only by means ( x is ! consci\sness ( our exi/5ce z det]m9$ 9 "t possible4#aa ,if we d s1 we may consid] ! ,refutation z sugge/+ ! view t ,desc>tes' position is precisely an inv]sion ( ! tru?2 9 o!r words1 t our consci\sness ( ! _w1 s f> f be+ an unc]ta9 inf]5ce f ! consci\sness ( our successive /ates1 is 9 reality a presupposition ( ! latt] consci\sness1 9 t ?is latt] consci\sness only arises ?r\gh reflection ^u ! =m]1 & t !re=e ,desc>tes' admission ( ! validity ( self-consci\sness implicitly involves ! admission a =tiori ( ! validity ( our consci\sness ( ! _w4#ab #aa ,b4 #bgg1 ,m4 #afg f94 #ab ,cf4 ,caird1 i4 #fcb & ff4 ,ox=d3 ,pr9t$ at ! ,cl>5don ,press by ,,horace ,,h>t1 ,m4,a4