,e attempt has be5 made to replicate ! orig9al z pr9t$4 ,"s typographical errors h be5 correct$2 a li/ foll[s ! text4 ,! footnotes foll[ ! text4 ,index ,cont5ts 7etext transcrib]'s note7 ,a ,,comm5t>y ,,to ,,kant',s #8,,critique ,,( ,,pure ,,reason' ,,by ,,norman ,,kemp ,,smi?1 ,d4,,phil4 ,mc,c,o,s,h ,,pr(essor ,,( ,,philosophy1 ,,pr9ceton ,,univ]sity ,,au?or ,,( #8,,/udies ,,9 ,,! ,,c>tesian ,,philosophy' ,,macmillan ,,& ,,co41 ,,limit$ ,,/4 ,,m>t9',s ,,/reet1 ,,london #aiah ,,copyright ,,to ,,! ,,memory ,,( ,,rob]t ,,adamson ,,wise ,,9 ,,c\nsel1 ,,9 ,,fri5d%ip ,,unfail+ ,,gratefully ,,d$icat$ ,,preface ,! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason is m obscure & difficult ?an ev5 a metaphysical treatise has any "r to be4 ,! difficulties are n m]ely due to defects ( exposition2 !y multiply r ?an dim9i% ^u detail$ /udy2 &1 z ,i %all endeav\r to %[ 9 ?is ,comm5t>y1 are traceable to two ma9 causes1 ! composite nature ( ! text1 writt5 at v>i\s dates ?r\gh\t ! p]iod #aggb-aghj1 & ! conflict+ t5d5cies ( ,kant's own ?9k+4 ,! ,comm5t>y is bo? expository & critical2 & 9 exposition no less ?an 9 criticism ,i h s\ght to subord9ate ! treatm5t ( textual que/ions & ( m9or issues to ! sy/ematic discussion ( ! c5tral problems4 ,full use is made ( ! v>i\s selections f ,kant's private pap]s t h appe>$1 at int]vals1 s9ce ! publication ( 8 ,lectures on ,metaphysics 9 #ahba4 ,_! significance has n hi!rto be5 g5]ally recognis$ 9 ,engli% books ^u ,kant4 ,!y seem to me to be ( capital importance = ! "r und]/&+ ( ! ,critique4 ,"s apology is p]haps requir$ = publi%+ a "w ( ?is "* at ! pres5t mom5t4 ,x 0 complet$1 & arrangem5ts made = its publication1 %ortly be=e ! outbreak ( w>4 ,! pr9t]s h1 ,i und]/&1 f\nd 9 x a useful /op-gap to occupy !m 9 ! int]vals ( m press+ "w2 & n[ t ! type mu/ be releas$1 ,i tru/ t 9 spite (1 or ev5 because (1 ! ov]:elm+ preoccupations ( ! w>1 !re may be "s few read]s to :om ! volume may be n unwelcome4 ,t ev5 amid/ ! di/ractions ( actual campaign+ metaphysical speculation c s]ve z a refuge & a solace is %[n by ! memorable example ( ,g5]al ,smuts4 ,he has himself told u t on 8 raid into ,cape ,colony 9 ! ,s\? ,african ,w> he c>ri$ ) him = ev5+ read+ ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4 ,is x surpris+ t our ,briti% g5]als1 pitt$ aga9/ s unconv5tional an oppon5t1 %\ld h be5 wor/$ 9 ! battle ( wits8 ,! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason is a philosophical classic t m>ks a turn+-po9t 9 ! hi/ory ( philosophy1 & no int]pretation1 ev5 ?\gh n[ attempt$ aft] ! lapse ( a hundr$ ye>s1 c hope to be adequate or f9al4 ,"s ?+s are cle>] to u ?an !y 7 to ,kant's contempor>ies2 9 o!r ess5tial ways our po9t ( view has rec$$ f 81 & ! hi/orical record1 t %\ld det]m9e our judgm5ts1 is f> f complete4 ,b !re is a fur!r difficulty ( an ev5 m s]i\s "*4 ,! ,critique deals ) issues t are /ill controv]sial1 & _! int]pretation is possible only f a def9ite /&po9t4 ,! limitations ( ?is /&po9t & ( ! philosophical milieu 9 :i* x has be5 acquir$ unavoidably int]v5e to di/ort or obscure our appreh5sion ( ! text4 ,arbitr>y & m]ely p]sonal judgm5ts ,i h1 h[ev]1 endeav\r$ to avoid4 ,my sole aim has be5 to rea*1 z f> z may prove feasible1 an unbiass$ und]/&+ ( ,kant's great "w4 ,among ,g]man comm5tators ,i owe mo/ to ,vaih+]1 ,adickes1 ,b4 ,erdmann1 ,coh51 & ,riehl1 especially to ! fir/ nam$4 ,! *ief ,engli% writ]s ^u ,kant are ,gre51 ,caird1 & ,adamson4 ,9 s f> z ,gre5 & ,caird treat ! ,critical philosophy z a half-way /age to ! ,hegelian /&po9t ,i f9d myself frequ5tly 9 disagreem5t ) !m2 b my indebt$ness to _! writ+s is mu* great] ?an my occasional criticisms ( _! views may seem to imply4 ,) ,rob]t ,adamson ,i enjoy$ ! privilege ( p]sonal discussions at a "t :5 8 e>li] view ( ,kant's tea*+ 0 und]go+ revision 9 a m radical mann] ?an is app>5t ev5 9 8 po/hum\sly publi%$ ,univ]sity lectures4 ,to ! /imulus ( 8 sugge/ions ! writ+ ( ?is ,comm5t>y is l>gely due4 ,my fir/ /udy ( ! ,critique 0 "u ! g5ial & inspir+ guidance ( ,sir ,h5ry ,jones4 ,) *>act]i/ic k9dl9ess he has read ?r\gh my manuscript & has disclos$ to me _m defects ( exposition & argum5t4 ,! same s]vice has be5 r5d]$ me by ,pr(essor ,g4 ,dawes ,hicks1 ^: criticisms h be5 v valuable1 p>ticul>ly s9ce !y come f a /ud5t ( ,kant :o on _m fundam5tal po9ts takes an opposite view f my own4 ,i h also to ?ank my colleague1 ,pr(essor ,oswald ,vebl51 = mu* helpful discussion ( ,kant's doctr9es ( space & "t1 & ( ma!matical reason+4 ,mr4 ,h4 ,h4 ,joa*im has read ! entire pro(s1 & ,i h made frequ5t modifications to meet 8 v se>*+ criticisms4 ,i h also gratefully adopt$ 8 revisions ( my translations f ! ,critique4 ,simil> ackn[l$gm5ts are due to my colleague1 ,pr(essor ,a4 ,a4 ,b[man1 & to my fri5d ,dr4 ,c4 ,w4 ,h5del4 ,i h 9 prep>ation a translation ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 & am responsible = ! translations ( all passages giv5 9 ! pres5t "w4 ,9 quot+ f ,kant's o!r writ+s1 ,i h made use ( ! r5d]+s ( ,abbott1 ,b]n>d1 & ,mahaffy2 b h occasionally all[$ myself ! lib]ty ( introduc+ alt]ations4 ,%\ld read]s :o are already well acqua9t$ ) ! ,critique desire to use my ,comm5t>y = its sy/ematic discussions ( ,kant's tea*+1 r ?an z an accompanim5t to _! /udy ( ! text1 ,i may ref] !m to ^? sections :i* receive italicis$ head+s 9 ! table ( cont5ts4 ,,norman ,,kemp ,,smi?4 ,,london1 ,janu>y #aiah4 ,,cont5ts ,,introduction ,,page ,i4 ,,textual-- ,kant's ,me?od ( compos+ ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason xix ,,ii4 ,,hi/orical-- ,kant's ,relation to ,hume & to ,leibniz xxv ,,iii4 ,,g5]al-- #a4 ,! ,nature ( ! a priori xxxiii #b4 ,kant's ,contribution to ! ,sci5ce ( ,logic xxxvi #c4 ,! ,nature ( ,consci\sness xxxix #d4 ,ph5om5alism1 ,kant's ,sub/itute = ,subjectivism xlv #e4 ,! ,di/9ction betwe5 ,human & ,animal ,intellig5ce xlvii #f4 ,! ,nature & ,conditions ( ,self-,consci\sness l #g4 ,kant's ?reefold ,di/9ction betwe5 ,s5sibility1 ,und]/&+1 & ,reason lii #h4 ,! place ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason 9 ,kant's ,philosophical ,sy/em lv ,,! ,,critique ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#a ,title #a ,motto #d ,d$ication to ,freih]r von ,z$litz #f ,,preface ,,to ,,! ,,fir/ ,,edition #h ,comm5t on ,preface #aj ,dogmatism1 ,scepticism1 ,criticism #ac ,,preface ,,to ,,! ,,second ,,edition #ag ,! ,cop]nican ,hypo!sis #bb ,,introduction #bf ,comm5t ^u ! ,argum5t ( ,kant's ,introduction #cc ,h[ are ,syn!tic a priori ,judgm5ts possible8 #dc ,! ,analytic & ,syn!tic ,me?ods #dd ,purpose & ,scope ( ! ,critique #ef ,kant's relation to ,hume #fa ,mean+ ( ! t]m ,transc5d5tal #gc ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,doctr9e ,,( ,,elem5ts ,"p ,i4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,ae/hetic #gi-aff ,def9ition ( ,t]ms #gi ,kant's conflict+ ,views ( ,space #hh ,section ,i4 ,,space #ii ,kant's ,attitude to ! ,problems ( ,mod]n ,geometry #aag ,section ,,ii4 ,,"t #abc ,kant's ,views reg>d+ ! ,nature ( ,ari?metical ,sci5ce #abh ,kant's conflict+ ,views ( ,"t #acd ,g5]al ,obs]vations on ! ,transc5d5tal ,ae/hetic #adc ,! ,di/9ction betwe5 ,appe>ance & ,illusion #adh ,kant's ,relation to ,b]keley #aee ,! ,p>adox ( ,incongru\s ,c\nt]p>ts #afa ,"p ,,ii4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,logic #afg ,introduction #afg ,i4 ,logic 9 ,g5]al #afg ,,ii4 ,transc5d5tal ,logic #agj ,,iii4 ,! ,division ( ,g5]al ,logic into ,analytic & ,dialectic #agb ,division ,i4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,analytic #agd ,book ,i4 ,,! ,,analytic ,,( ,,concepts #age ,*apt] ,i4 ,,! ,,clue ,,to ,,! ,,discov]y ,,( ,,all ,,pure ,,concepts ,,( ,,! ,,und]/&+ #age ,section ,i4 ,! ,logical ,use ( ! ,und]/&+ #agf ,comm5t on ,kant's ,argum5t #agf ,/ages 9 ! ,developm5t ( ,kant's ,metaphysical ,d$uction #ahf ,section ,,ii4 ,! ,logical ,function ( ! ,und]/&+ 9 ,judgm5t #aib ,section ,,iii4 ,! ,categories on ,pure ,concepts ( ! ,und]/&+ #aid ,di/9ction betwe5 ,logical ,=ms & ,categories #aie ,"p ,,ii4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,logic--,cont9u$4 ,*apt] ,,ii4 ,,d$uction ,,( ,,! ,,pure ,,concepts ,,( ,,! ,,und]/&+ #bjb ,analysis ( ! ,text3 ! ,f\r ,/ages 9 ! ,developm5t ( ,kant's ,views #bjb-bcd ,i4 ,enum]ation ( ! ,f\r ,/ages #bjc ,,ii4 ,detail$ ,analysis ( ! ,f\r ,/ages #bjd ,kant's ,doctr9e ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,object #bjd ,,iii4 ,evid5ce yield$ by ! ,reflexion5 & ,lose ,bltt] 9 ,support ( ! ,analysis ( ! ,text #bca ,,iv4 ,connect$ ,/atem5t & ,discussion ( ,kant's ,subjective & ,objective ,d$uctions 9 ! ,fir/ ,edition #bcd ,di/9ction betwe5 ! ,subjective & ! ,objective ,d$uctions #bce ,! ,subjective ,d$uction 9 its initial empirical ,/ages #bde ,objective ,d$uction z giv5 9 ! ,fir/ ,edition #bdh ,! lat] ,/ages ( ! ,subjective ,d$uction #bfc ,! ,di/9ction betwe5 ,ph5om5alism & ,subjectivism #bgj ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction ( ! ,categories 9 ! ,second ,edition #bhd ,! ,doctr9e ( ,inn] ,s5se #bia ,kant's ,refutations ( ,idealism #bih ,inn] ,s5se & ,app]ception #cba ,book ,,ii4 ,,! ,,analytic ,,( ,,pr9ciples #ccb ,*apt] ,i4 ,,! ,,s*ematism ,,( ,,pure ,,concepts ,,( ,,! ,,und]/&+ #ccd ,*apt] ,,ii4 ,,sy/em ,,( ,,all ,,pr9ciples ,,( ,,pure ,,und]/&+ #cdb #a4 ,! ,axioms ( ,intuition #cdg #b4 ,! ,anticipations ( ,p]ception #cdi #c4 ,! ,analogies ( ,exp]i5ce #cee ,a4 ,fir/ ,analogy #ceh ,b4 ,second ,analogy #cfc ,s*op5hau]'s ,criticism ( ,kant's ,argum5t #cfe ,kant's ,subjectivi/ & ,ph5om5ali/ ,views ( ! ,causal ,relation #cgc ,reply to ,fur!r ,criticisms ( ,kant's ,argum5t #cgg ,"p ,,ii4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,logic--,cont9u$4 ,c4 ,?ird ,analogy #cha ,s*op5hau]'s ,criticism ( ,kant's ,argum5t #chg #d4 ,! ,po/ulates ( ,empirical ,?\ght 9 ,g5]al #cia ,*apt] ,,iii4 ,,on ,,! ,,gr\nd ,,( ,,! ,,di/9ction ,,( ,,all ,,objects ,,:atev] ,,into ,,ph5om5a ,,& ,,n\m5a #djd ,relevant ,passages 9 ! ,section on ,amphiboly #daj ,alt]ations 9 ! ,second ,edition #dab ,comm5t on ,kant's ,argum5t #dad ,app5dix4 ,! ,amphiboly ( ! ,concepts ( ,reflection #dah ,division ,,ii4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,dialectic #dbd ,introductory ,comm5t ^u ! composite ,orig9 & conflict+ ,t5d5cies ( ! ,dialectic #dbe ,! ,hi/ory & ,developm5t ( ,kant's ,views 9 reg>d to ! ,problems ( ! ,dialectic #dca ,introduction #dda ,i4 ,transc5d5tal ,illusion #dda ,,ii4 ,pure ,reason z ! ,seat ( ,transc5d5tal ,illusion #ddb ,book ,i4 ,,! ,,concepts ,,( ,,pure ,,reason #ddf ,section ,i4 ,ideas 9 ,g5]al #ddg ,section ,,ii4 ,! ,transc5d5tal ,ideas #dej ,section ,,iii4 ,sy/em ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,ideas #dec ,book ,,ii4 ,,! ,,dialectical ,,inf]5ces ,,( ,,pure ,,reason #dee ,*apt] ,i4 ,,! ,,p>alogisms ,,( ,,pure ,,reason #dee ,fir/ ,p>alogism3 ( ,sub/antiality #deg ,second ,p>alogism3 ( ,simplicity #deh ,?ird ,p>alogism3 ( ,p]sonality #dfa ,f\r? ,p>alogism3 ( ,ideality #dfb ,second ,edition ,/atem5t ( ! ,p>alogisms #dff ,is ! ,notion ( ! ,self a necess>y ,idea ( ,reason8 #dgc ,*apt] ,,ii4 ,,! ,,ant9omy ,,( ,,pure ,,reason #dgh ,section ,i4 ,sy/em ( ! ,cosmological ,ideas #dgh ,section ,,ii4 ,anti!tic ( ,pure ,reason #dhj ,comm5t on ,kant's ,me?od ( ,argum5t #dha ,fir/ ,ant9omy #dhc ,second ,ant9omy #dhh ,?ird ,ant9omy #dib ,f\r? ,ant9omy #die ,"p ,,ii4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,logic--,cont9u$4 ,section ,,iii4 ,! ,int]e/ ( ,reason 9 ?is ,self-,conflict #dih ,section ,,iv4 ,( ! ,transc5d5tal ,problems ( ,pure ,reason 9 s f> z !y absolutely mu/ be capable ( ,solution #dii ,section ,v4 ,sceptical ,repres5tation ( ! ,cosmological ,que/ions #eja ,section ,,vi4 ,transc5d5tal ,idealism z ! ,key to ! ,solution ( ! ,cosmological ,dialectic #ejc ,section ,,vii4 ,critical ,decision ( ! ,cosmological ,conflict ( ,reason ) itself #ejd ,section ,,viii4 ,! ,regulative ,pr9ciple ( ,pure ,reason 9 reg>d to ! ,cosmological ,ideas #ejf ,section ,,ix4 ,! ,empirical ,employm5t ( ! ,regulative ,pr9ciples ( ,reason 9 reg>d to all ,cosmological ,ideas #ejh ,solution ( ! ,fir/ & ,second ,ant9omies #ejh ,rem>ks on ! ,di/9ction betwe5 ! ,ma!matical-,transc5d5tal & ! ,dynamical-,transc5d5tal ,ideas #eaj ,comm5t on ,kant's ,me?od ( ,argum5t #eaj ,solution ( ! ,?ird ,ant9omy #eab ,possibility ( h>monis+ ,causality ?r\gh ,fre$om ) ! ,univ]sal ,law ( ,natural ,necessity #eac ,explanation ( ! ,relation ( ,fre$om to ,necessity ( ,nature #ead ,comm5t on ,kant's ,me?od ( ,argum5t #eag ,solution ( ! ,f\r? ,ant9omy #eah ,conclud+ ,note on ! :ole ,ant9omy ( ,pure ,reason #eai ,conclud+ ,comm5t on ,kant's ,doctr9e ( ! ,ant9omies #eai ,*apt] ,,iii4 ,,! ,,ideal ,,( ,,pure ,,reason #ebb ,sections ,i4 & ,,ii4 ,! ,transc5d5tal ,ideal #ebb ,comm5t on ,kant's ,me?od ( ,argum5t #ebd ,section ,,iii4 ,! ,speculative ,argum5ts 9 ,pro( ( ! ,exi/5ce ( a ,supreme ,be+ #ebe ,section ,,iv4 ,! ,impossibility ( an ,ontological ,pro( #ebg ,comm5t on ,kant's ,me?od ( ,argum5t #ebh ,"p ,,ii4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,logic--,cont9u$4 ,section ,v4 ,! ,impossibility ( a ,cosmological ,pro( ( ! ,exi/5ce ( ,god #eca ,comm5t on ,kant's ,me?od ( ,argum5t #ecc ,discov]y & ,explanation ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,illusion 9 all ,transc5d5tal ,pro( ( ! ,exi/5ce ( a necess>y ,be+ #ecd ,comm5t on ,kant's ,me?od ( ,argum5t #ece ,section ,,vi4 ,! ,impossibility ( ! ,physico-,!ological ,pro( #ech ,section ,,vii4 ,criticism ( all ,!ology bas$ on speculative ,pr9ciples ( ,reason #eda ,conclud+ ,comm5t #eda ,,app5dix ,,to ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,dialectic #edc ,! ,regulative ,employm5t ( ! ,ideas ( ,pure ,reason #edc ,hypo!ses n p]missible 9 ,philosophy #edc ,on ! ,f9al ,purpose ( ! ,natural ,dialectic ( ,human ,reason #eeb ,conclud+ ,comm5t on ! ,dialectic #eeh ,,app5dix ,a4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,doctr9e ,,( ,,me?ods #efc ,*apt] ,i4 ,,! ,,discipl9e ,,( ,,pure ,,reason #efc ,section ,i4 ,! ,discipl9e ( ,pure ,reason 9 its ,dogmatic ,employm5t #efc ,section ,,ii4 ,! ,discipl9e ( ,pure ,reason 9 its ,polemical ,employm5t #efg ,section ,,iii4 ,! ,discipl9e ( ,pure ,reason 9 reg>d to ,hypo!ses #efh ,section ,,iv4 ,! ,discipl9e ( ,pure ,reason 9 reg>d to its ,pro(s #efh ,*apt] ,,ii4 ,,! ,,canon ,,( ,,pure ,,reason #efi ,section ,i4 ,! ,ultimate ,end ( ! ,pure ,use ( our ,reason #efi ,section ,,ii4 ,! ,ideal ( ! ,highe/ ,good1 z a ,det]m9+ ,gr\nd ( ! ,ultimate ,end ( ,pure ,reason #egj ,section ,,iii4 ,op9+1 ,kn[+1 & ,believ+ #egf ,*apt] ,,iii4 ,,! ,,ar*itectonic ,,( ,,pure ,,reason #egi ,*apt] ,,iv4 ,,! ,,hi/ory ,,( ,,pure ,,reason #ehb ,,app5dix ,b4 ,a m detail$ ,/atem5t ( ,kant's ,relations to 8 ,philosophical ,pr$ecessors #ehc ,,index #fjg ,,note ,9 all ref]5ces to ! ,kritik d] ,re95 ,v]nunft ,i h giv5 ! orig9al pag+s ( bo? ! fir/ & second editions4 ,ref]5ces to ,kant's o!r works are1 :5ev] possible1 to ! volumes ?us f> issu$ 9 ! new ,b]l9 edition4 ,z ! ,reflexion5 ,kants zur ,kritik d] re95 ,v]nunft _h n be5 publi%$ 9 ?is edition at ! "t :5 ! ,comm5t>y 0 complet$1 ! numb]+ giv5 is t ( ,b4 ,erdmann's edition ( #ahhd4 ,,abbreviations ,b]l9 edition ( ,kant's works ,w ,pag+s 9 ! fir/ edition ( ! ,kritik d] re95 ,v]nunft ,a ,pag+s 9 ! second edition ,b ,adickes' edition ( ! ,kritik d] re95 ,v]nunft 7#ahhi7 ,k ,,introduction ,i4 ,,textual ,,kant',s ,,me?od ,,( ,,compos+ ,,! #8,,critique ,,( ,,pure ,,reason' ,seldom1 9 ! hi/ory ( lit]ature1 has a "w be5 m consci5ti\sly & delib]ately ?\ght out1 or m ha/ily ?r[n toge!r1 ?an ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4 ,! foll[+ is ! acc\nt :i* ,kant 9 a lett] to ,moses ,m5delssohn 7,augu/ #af1 #aghc7 has giv5 ( its composition3 0,?\gh ! ,critique is ! outcome ( reflection :i* _h occupi$ me = a p]iod ( at lea/ twelve ye>s1 ,i br\ght x to completion 9 ! greate/ ha/e )9 "s f\r to five mon?s1 giv+ ! close/ att5tion to ! cont5t1 b ) little ?\ght ( ! exposition or ( r5d]+ x easy ( compreh5sion by ! read]--a decision :i* ,i h nev] regrett$1 s9ce o!rwise1 _h ,i any long] delay$1 & s\ght to give x a m popul> =m1 ! "w w\ld probably nev] h be5 complet$ at all4 ,?is defect c1 h[ev]1 be gradually remov$1 n[ t ! "w exi/s 9 a r\gh =m40#b ,^! /atem5ts mu/ be all[$ ! great] weight z ,kant1 9 ano!r lett] 7to ,g>ve1 ,augu/ #g1 #aghc71 has giv5 !m 9 almo/ ! same words3 8,i freely admit t ,i h n expect$ t my book %\ld meet ) an imm$iate fav\rable reception4 ,! exposition ( ! mat]ials :i* = m ?an twelve successive ye>s ,i _h be5 c>efully matur+1 0 n compos$ 9 a suffici5tly suitable mann] = g5]al compreh5sion4 ,= ! p]fect+ ( its exposition sev]al ye>s w\ld h be5 requir$1 :]eas ,i br\ght x to completion 9 "s f\r to five mon?s1 9 ! fe> t1 on long] delay1 s prolong$ a lab\r might f9ally become burd5some1 & t my increas+ ye>s 7,i am already 9 my sixtie? ye>7 w\ld p]haps incapacitate me1 :ile ,i am /ill ! sole possessor ( my complete sy/em40#c ,! twelve ye>s "h ref]r$ to are #agfi-aghj2 ! phrase 8at lea/ twelve ye>s0 indicates ,kant's appreciation ( ! cont9uity ( 8 m5tal developm5t4 ,hume's fir/ influ5ce ^u ,kant is probably to be dat$ prior to #agfj4 ,! *oice1 h[ev]1 ( ! ye> #agfi is n arbitr>y2 x is ! ye> ( ,kant's adoption ( ! semi-,critical position record$ 9 ! ,inaugural ,diss]tation 7#aggj74d ,! 8f\r to five mon?s0 may be dat$ 9 ! latt] half ( #aghj4 ,! pr9t+ ( ! ,critique 0 probably comm5c$ 9 ,decemb] or ,janu>y #aghj-agha4 ,b ! ,critique is n m]ely defective 9 cle>ness or popul>ity ( exposition4 ,t is a common fail+ ( metaphysical treatises1 especially :5 !y are 9 ! ,g]man language1 & might pass )\t special rem>k4 ,:at is mu* m s]i\s1 is t ,kant flatly contradicts himself 9 almo/ e *apt]2 & t !re is h>dly a te*nical t]m :i* is n employ$ by him 9 a v>iety ( diff]5t & conflict+ s5ses4 ,z a writ]1 he is ! lea/ exact ( all ! great ?9k]s4 ,s obvi\s are ^! inconsi/5cies t e comm5tator has felt con/ra9$ to (f] "s explanation ( _! occurr5ce4 ,?us ,caird has ass]t$ t ,kant op5s 8 exposition f ! non-,critical /&po9t ( ord9>y consci\sness1 & t he discloses ! f9al position1 t[>ds :i* he has all along be5 work+1 only ?r\gh repeat$ modifications ( 8 prelim9>y /atem5ts4 ,su* a view1 h[ev]1 _c acc\nt ei!r = ! specific mann] ( occurr5ce or = ! actual "* ( ! contradictions ( :i* ! ,critique af=ds s _m examples4 ,^! are by no means limit$ to ! op5+ sections ( its ma9 divisions2 & c>eful exam9ation ( ! text %[s t !y h no su* m]ely expository orig94 ,! publication ( ,kant's ,reflexion5 & ,lose ,bltt]1 & ! devot$ lab\rs ( ,b5no ,erdmann1 ,vaih+]1 ,adickes1 ,reicke & o!rs1 h1 inde$1 plac$ ! issue ^u an entirely new plane4 ,x c n[ be prov$ t ! ,critique is n a unit>y "w1 & t 9 ! five mon?s 9 :i*1 z ,kant tells u1 x 0 8br\ght to completion0 7zu ,/&e gebra*t71 x 0 n actually writt51 b 0 piec$ toge!r by ! comb9+ ( manuscripts writt5 at v>i\s dates ?r\gh\t ! p]iod #aggb-aghj4 ,kant's correspond5ce 9 ^! ye>s conta9s ! repeat$ ass]tion t he expect$ to be able to complete ! "w )9 "s ?ree or six mon?s4 ,?is implies t x 0 already1 at lea/ z e>ly z #aggg1 9 great "p committ$ to writ+4 ,9 #aghj ,kant mu/ !re=e h _h a l>ge body ( manuscript at 8 disposal4 ,! rec5tly publi%$ ,lose ,bltt] are1 inde$1 "p ( x4 ,& z we %all h con/ant occasion to obs]ve1 ! ,critique af=ds ample evid5ce ( hav+ be5 m or less me*anically con/ruct$ ?r\gh ! piec+ toge!r ( old] manuscript1 supplem5t$1 no d\bt1 by ! ins]tion ( connect+ l9ks1 & modifi$ by occasional alt]ations to suit ! new context4 ,kant1 x w\ld almo/ seem1 object$ to no?+ s mu* z ! sacrifice ( an argum5t once consecrat$ by committal to pap]4 ,if x c\ld be ins]t$1 no matt] at :at co/ ( repetition1 or ev5 confusion1 he insi/$ ^u its ins]tion4 ,?us ! ,subjective & ,objective ,d$uctions ( ! fir/ edition c1 z we %all f9d1 be brok5 up into at lea/ f\r di/9ct lay]s1 :i*1 l geological /rata1 rema9 to ! bewild]m5t ( ! read] :o naturally expects a unifi$ sy/em1 b to ! enlight5m5t ( ! /ud5t1 once ! clues t s]ve to id5tify & to date !m h be5 detect$4 ,to cite ano!r example3 9 ! ,second ,analogy1 z giv5 9 ! fir/ edition1 ! ma9 !sis is demon/rat$ 9 no less ?an five di/9ct pro(s1 "s ( :i* are repetitions2 & :5 ,kant re/at$ ! argum5t 9 ! second edition1 he all[$ ! five pro(s to rema91 b sup]impos$ /ill ano!r ^u !m4 ,kant does1 inde$1 9 ! second edition omit "s few passages f v>i\s p>ts ( ! ,critique2 b ?is is 9 ! ma9 ow+ to 8 desire to protect himself aga9/ s]i\s misund]/&+ to :i*1 z he f\nd1 he _h v ungu>d$ly laid himself op54 ,! alt]ations ( ! second edition are *iefly ( ! nature ( additions4 ,adickes' !ory#e t ,kant 9 ! 8f\r to five mon?s0 compos$ a brief outl9e ( 8 entire argum5t1 & t x 0 ^u ! framework ( ?is outl9e t ! ,critique 0 elaborat$ out ( ! old] manuscript1 may possibly be correct4 ,x has c]ta9ly enabl$ ,adickes to ca/ mu* light ^u _m textual problems4 ,b 8 own supplem5t>y hypo!sis 9 reg>d to ! section on ! ,ant9omies1 namely1 t x =m$ an old] & sep>ate treatise1 may v pr(itably be fur!r ext5d$4 ,surely x is unlikely t ) ! expectation1 cont9u$ ov] _m ye>s1 ( completion )9 a few mon?s1 ,kant did n possess1 at lea/ = ! ,ae/hetic1 ,dialectic1 & ,me?odology1 a g5]al outl9e1 t dat$ fur!r back ?an #aghj4 ,& d\btless ?is outl9e 0 itself alt]$1 pat*$1 & reca/1 9 proportion z insight into ! problems ( ! ,analytic1 ! problems1 t is to say1 :i* caus$ publication to be s long def]r$1 deep5$ & took f9al =m4 ,! composite "* ( ! ,critique is l>gely conceal$ by ! highly elaborate1 & extremely artificial1 arrangem5t ( its p>ts4 ,to ! g5]al plan1 bas$ ^u pr(ess$ly logical pr9ciples1 ,kant has himself giv5 ! title1 ar*itectonic2 & he c>ries x out ) a ?or\ghness to :i* all o!r consid]ations1 & ev5 at times ^? ( s\nd reason+1 are made to give way4 ,inde$1 he cl+s to x ) ! unreason+ affection :i* n infrequ5tly atta*es to a fav\rite hobby4 ,he lov+ly elaborates ev5 its m9or detail1 & is rew>d$ by a framework s extremely complicat$ t ! mo/ het]og5e\s cont5ts c be tidily arrang$1 side by side1 9 its _m comp>tm5ts4 ,by its uni=mity & rig\r x gives ! appe>ance ( sy/ematic ord] ev5 :5 su* ord] is :olly abs5t4 ,b we h /ill to consid] ! *ief reason = ! contradictory "* ( ! cont5ts ( ! ,critique4 ,x is insep>ably b\nd up ) :at may p]haps be reg>d$ z ,kant's supreme m]it z a philosophical ?9k]1 especially z %[n 9 ! fir/ ,critique1--namely1 8 op5-m9d$ recognition ( ! complexity ( 8 problems1 & ( ! _m difficulties :i* lie 9 ! way ( any solution :i* he is himself able to prop\nd4 ,kant's me?od ( work+ seems to h consi/$ 9 alt]nat+ betwe5 ! v>i\s possible solutions1 develop+ ea* 9 turn1 9 ! hope t "s midway position1 :i* w\ld %>e 9 ! m]its ( all1 might f9ally disclose itself4 ,:51 z frequ5tly happ5$1 su* a midway solution c\ld n be f\nd1 he develop$ 8 ?\ght along ! p>allel l9es ( ! alt]native views4 8,y "k t ,i d n approa* reasonable objections ) ! int5tion m]ely ( refut+ !m1 b t 9 ?9k+ !m ov] ,i always weave !m into my judgm5ts1 & af=d !m ! opportunity ( ov]turn+ all my mo/ *]i%$ beliefs4 ,i ent]ta9 ! hope t by ?us view+ my judgm5ts imp>tially f ! /&po9t ( o!rs "s ?ird view t w improve ^u my previ\s insight may be obta9able4444 ,long exp]i5ce has taught me t insight into a subject :i* ,i am seek+ to ma/] is n to be =c$1 or ev5 ha/5$1 by %e] ef=t1 b dem&s a fairly prolong$ p]iod dur+ :i* ,i return aga9 & aga9 to ! same concepts1 view+ !m 9 all _! aspects & 9 _! wide/ possible connections1 :ile 9 ! int]vals ! sceptical _s awak5s1 & makes trial :e!r my conclusions c )/& a se>*+ criticism40#f 8,9 m5tal lab\r ( s delicate a "* no?+ is m h>mful ?an preoccupation ) extrane\s matt]s4 ,! m9d1 ?\gh n con/antly on ! /ret*1 mu/ /ill1 alike 9 its idle & 9 its fav\rable mom5ts1 lie un9t]rupt$ly op5 to any *ance sugge/ion :i* may pres5t itself4 ,relaxations & div]sions mu/ ma9ta9 its p[]s 9 fre$om & mobility1 s t x may be enabl$ to view ! object afre% f e side1 & s to enl>ge its po9t ( view f a microscopic to a univ]sal outlook t x adopts 9 turn e conceivable /&po9t1 v]ify+ ! obs]vations ( ea* by means ( all ! o!rs40#g 8,i am n ( ! op9ion ( ! well-mean+ writ] :o has recomm5d$ u nev] to all[ d\bts 9 reg>d to a matt] ^u :i* we h once made up our m9ds4 ,9 pure philosophy t is n feasible4 ,inde$ ! und]/&+ has 9 itself a natural objection to any su* proc$ure4 ,we mu/ consid] propositions 9 all _! v>i\s applications2 ev5 :5 !y may n seem to require a special pro(1 we mu/ make trial ( _! opposites1 & 9 ?is way fight = delay1 until ! tru? becomes 9 all respects evid5t40#h ,t ^! are no m]e pi\s expressions ( good int5tion1 b repres5t ,kant's actual me?od ( work+1 is amply prov$ by ! cont5ts ( ! ,critique4 ,we f9d ,kant con/antly alt]nat+ betwe5 oppos$ /&po9ts1 to no "o ( :i* he q def9itely commits himself1 & con/antly re/at+ 8 pr9ciples 9 ! ef=t to remove ! objections to :i*1 z he recognises1 !y cont9ue to lie op54 ,! ,critique1 z already /at$1 is n ! exposition ( a s+le unifi$ sy/em1 b is ! record ( ,kant's manifold attempts to =mulate & to solve 8 _m-sid$ problems4 ,ev5 ^? portions ( ! ,critique :i* embody 8 late/ views %[ t ,kant is /ill unwill+ to sacrifice insight to consi/5cy4 ,:5 he is guilty ( special plead+--= he _c be altoge!r absolv$ ev5 f t *>ge--x is 9 ! int]e/s ( 8 logical ar*itectonic1 = :i*1 z ,i h said1 he *]i%es a q unreason+ affection1 & n ( 8 c5tral pr9ciples4 ,s f> f conceal+ difficulties1 or unduly dwell+ ^u ! fav\r+ consid]ations1 ,kant himself emphasises ! out/&+ objections to :i* 8 conclusions rema9 subject4 ,if 8 tea*+ is on c]ta9 po9ts v def9ite1 x is 9 o!r h>dly less important respects l>gely t5tative4 ,! value ( ,kant's ,critique z an introduction to mod]n philosophy is greatly enhanc$ by ?is me?od ( proc$ure4 ,! /ud5t :o has /eep$ himself 9 ! atmosph]e ( ! ,critique1 h[ev] dissatisfi$ he may p]haps be ) _m ( its doctr9es1 has become famili> ) ! ma9 requirem5ts :i* a really adequate metaphysics mu/ fulfil1 or at lea/ w h acquir$ a due s5se ( ! complexity ( ! problems ) :i* x deals4 ,recognition ( ! composite nature ( ! text w safegu>d u 9 two ways4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 citation ( s+le passages is q inconclusive4 ,n only mu/ all ! relevant passages be collat$2 !y mu/ be int]pret$ 9 ! light ( an hi/orical und]/&+ ( ! v>i\s /ages 9 ,kant's developm5t4 ,we mu/ also be prep>$ to f9d t on c]ta9 ma9 que/ions ,kant hesitates betwe5 oppos$ positions1 & t he n[h]e def9itively commits himself to any q f9al expression ( view4 ,secondly1 we _c proce$ on ! assumption t ,kant's mature/ tea*+ comes :]e1 _h ! ,critique be5 a unit>y "w1 compos$ ^u a def9ite & previ\sly ?\ght out plan1 we %\ld naturally expect to f9d x1 namely1 9 its conclud+ portions4 ,! tea*+ ( mu* ( ! ,dialectic1 especially 9 its acc\nt ( ! nature ( ! ph5om5al _w & ( its relation to ! kn[+ m9d1 is only semi-,critical4 ,?is is also true ( ,kant's ,introduction to ! ,critique4 ,introductions are usually writt5 la/2 & probably ,kant's ,introduction 0 writt5 aft] ! completion ( ! ,ae/hetic1 ( ! ,dialectic1 & ( ! ,analytic 9 its e>li] =ms4 ,b x be>s all ! signs ( hav+ be5 compos$ prior to ! work+ out ( sev]al ( 8 mo/ *>act]i/ic doctr9es 9 ! c5tral p>ts ( ! ,analytic4 ,?us bo? ,kant's introductory /atem5ts ( ! aims & purposes ( ! ,critique1 & 8 application ( 8 results 9 ! solution ( metaphysical problems1 fail to repres5t 9 any adequate fa%ion ! new & revolution>y pr9ciples to :i* he v gradually b successfully work$ 8 way4 ,! key to ! ,critique is giv5 9 ! c5tral portions ( ! ,analytic1 especially 9 ! ,d$uction ( ! ,categories4 ,! o!r p>ts ( ! ,critique reveal ! ,critical doctr9es only z gradually em]g+ f ! entangl+ influ5ce ( pre-,critical assumptions4 ,_! tea*+ has to be radically remodell$ be=e !y c be made to h>monise ) :at1 9 view bo? ( _! intr9sic "* & ( ! correspond+ alt]ations 9 ! second edition1 mu/ be reg>d$ z ,kant's mature/ utt]ances4 ,?is 0 a task :i* ,kant nev] himself attempt$4 ,= no soon] _h he atta9$ to comp>ative cle>ness 9 reg>d to 8 new ,critical pr9ciples & briefly exp\nd$ !m 9 ! ,analytic ( ! fir/ edition1 ?an he ha/5$ to apply !m 9 ! sph]es ( morality1 ae/hetics1 & teleology4 ,:5 ! ,critique appe>$ 9 #agha he 0 fifty-sev5 ye>s ( age2 & he seems to h fe>$ t if he all[$ ^! purely !oretical problems1 :i* _h already occupi$ 8 ma9 att5tion = 8at lea/ twelve ye>s10 to deta9 him long]1 he w\ld be deb>r$ f develop+ & plac+ on p]man5t record ! new metaphysics ( e?ics :i*1 z ! ref]5ces 9 ! fir/ ,critique %[1 _h already begun to %ape itself 9 8 m9d4 ,to h exp5d$ fur!r en]gy ^u ! p]fect+ ( 8 !oretical philosophy w\ld h endang]$ its own be/ fruits4 ,ev5 ! opportunity 9 #aghg ( a second edition ( ! ,critique he us$ v sp>+ly1 alt]+ or add+ only :]e occasional curr5t criticism--8 puzzl$ contempor>ies hav+ /ill = ! mo/ "p ma9ta9$ a discreet sil5ce--_h cle>ly %[n t 8 modes ( exposition 7 incomplete or mislead+4 ,,ii4 ,,hi/orical ,,kant',s ,,relation ,,to ,,hume ,,& ,,to ,,leibniz ,kant's mann] ( =mulat+ 8 fundam5tal problem--,h[ are syn!tic a priori judgm5ts possible8--may well seem to ! mod]n read] to imply an unduly s*ola/ic & extremely rationali/ic me?od ( approa*4 ,kant's reasons = adopt+ x h1 un=tunately1 be5 l>gely obscur$1 ow+ to ! mi/ak5 int]pretation :i* has usually be5 giv5 to c]ta9 ( 8 p]sonal utt]ances4 ,!y h be5 suppos$ to prove t ! imm$iate occasion ( ! above =mula 0 ,hume's discussion ( ! problem ( causality 9 ! ,enquiry into ! ,human ,und]/&+4 ,kant1 x is argu$1 c\ld n h be5 acqua9t$ ) ,hume's e>li] & m elaborate ,treatise on ,human ,nature1 ( :i* !re 0 !n no translation2 & 8 ref]5ces to ,hume mu/ !re=e conc]n only ! lat] "w4 ,vaih+] has done valuable s]vice 9 disput+ ?is read+ ( ,kant's autobiographical /atem5ts4 ,kant does n himself make direct m5tion ( ! ,enquiry1 & ! passages 9 ! ,critique & 9 ! ,prolegom5a#i 9 :i* ,hume's tea*+ is "u consid]ation seem r to po9t to ! wid] argum5t ( ! ,treatise4 ,?is is a matt] ( no small importance2 = if ,vaih+]'s view c be e/abli%$1 x w enable u to appreciate1 9 a mann] o!rwise impossible1 h[ ,kant %\ld h come to reg>d ! problem ( a priori syn!sis z be+ ! mo/ press+ "q 9 ! entire field ( speculative philosophy4 ,! ess5tial diff]5ce betwe5 ! ,treatise & ! ,enquiry1 f ! /&po9t ( _! be>+ ^u ,critical issues1 lies 9 ! wid] scope & m radical "* ( ! e>li] "w4 ,! ,enquiry discusses ! problem ( causality only 9 ! =m 9 :i* x em]ges 9 p>ticul> causal judgm5ts1 i4e4 z to our gr\nds = ass]t+ t ?is or t effect is due to ?is or t cause4 ,9 ! ,treatise1 ,hume raises ! broad] "q z to our "r to po/ulate t ev5ts mu/ always be causally det]m9$4 ,9 o!r words1 he !re que/ions ! validity ( ! univ]sal causal pr9ciple1 t :atev] beg9s to exi/ mu/ h a cause ( exi/5ce2 & he does s on ! explicit gr\nd t x dem&s z necess>y ! connect+ ( two concepts1 t ( an ev5t & t ( an antec$5t cause1 betwe5 :i* no connection ( any k9d c be detect$ by ! m9d4 ,! pr9ciple1 t is to say1 is n self-evid5t2 x is syn!tic4 ,! concept ( an ev5t & ! concept ( a cause are q sep>ate & di/9ct ideas4 ,ev5ts c be conceiv$ )\t our requir+ to ?9k antec$5t ev5ts ^u :i* !y are dep5d5t4 ,nor is ! pr9ciple capable ( demon/ration4 ,= if x be object$ t 9 que/ion+ its validity we are committ+ ourselves to ! impossible ass]tion t ev5ts arise out ( no?+1 su* argum5t is only applicable if ! pr9ciple be previ\sly grant$4 ,if ev5ts d n require a cause1 x is z little necess>y to seek _! s\rce 9 a g5]ation out ( no?+ z 9 any?+ positive4 ,simil>ly1 :5 x is argu$ t z all ! p>ts ( "t & space are uni=m1 !re mu/ be a cause det]m9+ an ev5t to happ5 at "o mom5t & 9 "o place r ?an at "s o!r "t or place1 ! pr9ciple is aga9 assum$4 ,!re is no great] difficulty 9 suppos+ ! "t & place to be fix$ )\t a cause ?an 9 suppos+ ! exi/5ce to be s det]m9$4 ,! pr9ciple1 ,hume concludes1 is non-rational 9 "*4 ,x is an in/rum5t useful = ! organisation ( exp]i5ce2 & = t reason nature has det]m9$ u to its =mation & acceptance4 ,prop]ly view$1 x expresses a m]ely in/9ctive belief1 & is explicable only 9 ! naturali/ic mann] ( our o!r prop5sities1 z necess>y to ! fulfill+ ( "s practical ne$4 8,nature has det]m9$ u to judge z well z to brea! & feel40 ,f ?is naturali/ic position ,hume makes a no less vigor\s attack ^u ! empirical philosophies :i* pr(ess to e/abli% g5]al pr9ciples by inductive inf]5ce f ! facts ( exp]i5ce4 ,if ! pr9ciples :i* lie at ! basis ( our exp]i5ce are non-rational 9 "*1 ! same mu/ be true ( our empirical judgm5ts4 ,!y may correctly describe ! uni=mities t h hi!rto occurr$ 9 ! sequ5ces ( our s5sations1 & may express ! natural expectations to :i* !y spontane\sly give rise2 b !y mu/ nev] be reg>d$ z capable ( s]v+ z a basis = inf]5ce4 ,9 elim9at+ a priori pr9ciples1 & appeal+ exclusively to s5se-exp]i5ce1 ! empirici/ removes all gr\nds ( di/9ction betwe5 inductive inf]5ce & cu/om-br$ expectation4 ,& s9ce f ?is /&po9t ! possibility ( univ]sal or ab/ract concepts--s ,hume argues--mu/ also be d5i$1 d$uctive inf]5ce mu/ likewise be elim9at$ f among ! possible in/rum5ts at ! disposal ( ! m9d4 ,s-call$ inf]5ce is nev] ! s\rce ( our beliefs2 x is our fundam5tal natural beliefs1 z det]m9$ by ! con/itution ( our nature 9 its reaction ^u ext]nal influ5ces1 t g5]ate ^? expectations :i*1 h[ev] !y may masqu]ade 9 logical co/ume1 h z purely natural a s\rce z our s5sations & feel+s4 ,su*1 briefly & dogmatically /at$1 is ! sum & sub/ance ( ,hume's tea*+4#aj ,n[ x 0 ^! consid]ations t1 z x w\ld seem1 awak5$ ,kant to ! problem ( a priori syn!sis4 ,he 01 & to ! v la/ rema9$1 9 entire agreem5t ) ,hume's cont5tion t ! pr9ciple ( causality is nei!r self-evid5t nor capable ( logical demon/ration1 & he at once realis$ t :at is true ( ?is pr9ciple mu/ also hold ( all ! o!r pr9ciples fundam5tal to sci5ce & philosophy4 ,kant fur!r agre$ t inductive inf]5ce f ! data ( exp]i5ce is only possible ^u ! prior acceptance ( rational pr9ciples indep5d5tly e/abli%$2 & t we may n1 !re=e1 look to exp]i5ce = pro( ( _! validity4 ,?us ) ! rejection ( self-evid5ce z a feature ( ! a priori1 & ) ! consequ5t admission ( its syn!tic "*1 ,kant is compell$ to acquiesce 9 ! inevitabl5ess ( ! dilemma :i* ,hume prop\nds4 ,ei!r ,hume's sceptical conclusions mu/ be accept$1 or we mu/ be able to po9t to "s crit]ion :i* is n subject to ! defects ( ! rationali/ & empirical me?ods ( pro(1 & :i* is adequate to det]m9e ! validity or invalidity ( g5]al pr9ciples4 ,is !re any su* alt]native8 ,su* is ,kant's problem z express$ 9 ! =mula3 ,h[ are syn!tic a priori judgm5ts possible8 ,x is a v rem>kable hi/orical fact t not)/&+ ! cle>ness & cog5cy ( ,hume's argum5t1 & ! appe>ance ( su* compet5t ?9k]s z ,?omas ,reid 9 ,scotl&1 ,lamb]t & ,crusius 9 ,g]many1 no less ?an ?irty ye>s %\ld h elaps$ be=e ,hume f\nd a s+le read] capable ( appreciat+ ! tea*+ ( ! ,treatise at its true value4#aa ,ev5 ,kant himself 0 n able f 8 read+ ( ! ,enquiry 9 #agef-agfb to realise ! importance & be>+ ( ! ma9 problem4#ab ,?\gh 9 ! ,enquiry ! wid] issue reg>d+ ! g5]al pr9ciple ( causality is n rais$1 ! be>+ ( ,hume's discussion1 :5 int]pret$ 9 ! light ( ,kant's own tea*+1 is suffici5tly cle>2 & accord+ly we _c be absolutely c]ta9 t x 0 n a re-read+ ( ! ,enquiry or a recall+ ( its argum5t#ac t sugge/$ to ,kant ! c5tral problem ( 8 ,critical philosophy4 ,! probability1 h[ev]1 is r t ?is awak5+ took place only indirectly ?r\gh 8 becom+ acqua9t$ ) ! wid] argum5t ( ! ,treatise z reveal$ 9 ,james ,beattie's extremely crude & unsympa!tic criticism ( ,hume's philosophy4#ad ,beattie _h great natural ability1 & consid]able lit]>y p[]4 ,8 prose writ+s h a lucidity1 a crispness1 & a felicity ( illu/ration :i* g f> to expla9 _! widespread popul>ity 9 ! latt] half ( ! eighte5? c5tury4 ,_! lit]>y quality is1 h[ev]1 m ?an c\nt]balanc$ by ! abs5ce ( any g5u9e appreciation ( ! deep]1 speculative implications & consequ5ces ( ! problems discuss$4 ,& ?is be+ s1 he is naturally at 8 wor/ 9 criticis+ ,hume4 ,9 insi/+1 z he does1 ^u ! absurd practical results#ae t w\ld foll[ f ! adoption ( ,hume's sceptical conclusions1 he is m]ely exploit+ popul> prejudice 9 ! philosophical ar5a4 ,t1 h[ev]1 may be =giv5 him1 if1 z w\ld seem to be ! case1 ! quotations :i* he gives v]batim f ,hume's ,treatise really fir/ reveal$ to ,kant ! scope & inn]mo/ mean+ ( ,hume's analysis ( ! causal problem4 ,! evid5ce 9 support ( ?is cont5tion is entirely circum/antial4 ,! ,g]man translation ( ,beattie's ,essay on ! ,nature & ,immutability ( ,tru? 0 publi%$ at ,ea/] #aggb1 i4e4 9 ! ye> 9 :i* ,kant1 9 ! process ( 8 own indep5d5t developm5t1 came1 z is %[n by 8 fam\s lett] to ,h]z1#af to realise ! my/]i\s1 problematic "* ( a priori k ( ! indep5d5tly real4 ,he 0 !n1 h[ev]1 /ill entirely unconsci\s ( ! deep] problem :i* at once em]ges ^u recognition t a priori pr9ciples1 q ap>t f all "q ( _! objective validity1 are syn!tic 9 =m4 ,we "k t ,kant 0 acqua9t$ ) ,beattie's "w2 = he twice ref]s to ,beattie's criticism ( ,hume4#ag ,:at m probable ?an t he read ! translation 9 ! ye> ( its publication1 or at lea/ at "s "t n v long subsequ5t to ! date ( ! lett] to ,h]z8 ,! passages :i* ,beattie quotes f ! ,treatise are exactly ^? t 7 necess>y to reveal ! full scope ( ,hume's revolution>y tea*+ 9 respect to ! g5]al pr9ciple ( causality4 ,!re seems1 inde$1 little d\bt t ?is mu/ h be5 ! *annel ?r\gh :i* ,hume's influ5ce *iefly act$4 ,?us at la/1 by a circuit\s pa?1 ?r\gh ! quotations ( an adv]s>y1 ,hume awak5$ philosophy f its dogmatic slumb]1#ah & won = 8 argum5t t appreciation :i* despite its cog5cy x _h = ?irty ye>s s va9ly dem&$4 ,let u n[ turn our att5tion to ! rationali/ philosophy 9 :i* ,kant 0 educat$4 ,hume's cont5tion t exp]i5ce _c by itself ju/ify any inductive inf]5ce1 =ms ! natural bridge ov] :i* we c be/ pass to ! contra/+ /&po9t ( ,leibniz4 ,hume & ,leibniz f9d common gr\nd 9 d5\nc+ empiricism4 ,bo? agree 9 reg>d+ x z ! mongrel (fspr+ ( conflict+ pr9ciples4 ,if rationalism _c hold its own1 ! alt]native is n ! f9d+ ( firm foo?old 9 concrete exp]i5ce1 b only su* consolation z a sceptical philosophy may af=d4#ai ,! ov]?r[ ( rationalism means ! de/ruction ( metaphysics 9 e =m4 ,ev5 ma!matics & ! natural sci5ces w h to be view$ z fulfill+ a practical end1 n z satisfy+ a !oretical ne$4 ,b ?\gh ,leibniz's criticism ( empiricism is1 9 its ma9 cont5tion1 id5tical ) t ( ,hume1 x is pr(\ndly diff]5t bo? 9 its ori5tation & 9 ! conclusions to :i* x leads4 ,:ile ,hume ma9ta9s t induction mu/ be reg>d$ z a non-rational process ( m]ely in/9ctive anticipation1 ,leibniz argues to ! self-legislative "* ( pure ?\ght4 ,s5se-exp]i5ce reveals reality only 9 proportion z x embodies pr9ciples d]iv$ f ! inh]5t "* ( ?\ght itself4 ,exp]i5ce con=ms to a priori pr9ciples1 & s c af=d an adequate basis = sci5tific induction4 ,!re is a passage 9 ,hume's ,enquiry :i* may be employ$ to illu/rate ! boldly speculative "* ( ,leibniz's int]pretation ( ! nature & function ( human ?\ght4 8,no?+ 444 seems m unb\nd$ ?an ! ?\ght ( man1 :i* n only escapes all human p[] & au?ority1 b is n ev5 re/ra9$ )9 ! limits ( nature & reality4444 ,:ile ! body is conf9$ to "o planet1 along :i* x creeps ) pa9 & difficulty1 ! ?\ght c 9 an in/ant transport u into ! mo/ di/ant regions ( ! univ]se4444 ,:at nev] 0 se51 or he>d (1 may yet be conceiv$2 nor is any?+ beyond ! p[] ( ?\ght1 except :at implies an absolute contradiction40 ,?is passage 9 :i* ,hume means to depict a false belief1 already suffici5tly condemn$ by ! absurdity ( its claims1 expresses = ,leibniz ! wond]ful b lit]al tru?4 ,?\ght is ! reveal] ( an et]nal un*ang+ reality1 & its validity is 9 no way dep5d5t ^u its v]ification ?r\gh s5se4 ,:5 ,voltaire 9 8 ,ignorant ,philosoph] rem>ks t 8x w\ld be v s+ul> t all nature1 all ! planets1 %\ld obey et]nal laws1 & t !re %\ld be a little animal1 five feet high1 :o1 9 contempt ( ^! laws1 c\ld act z he pleas$1 solely accord+ to 8 caprice10#bj he is =gett+ t ?is same animal ( five feet c conta9 ! /ell> univ]se 9 ?\ght )9 himself1 & has !re=e a dignity :i* is n expressible 9 any su* t]ms z 8 size may seem1 = vulg> e/imation1 to imply4 ,man1 ?\gh dep5d5t ^u ! body & conf9$ to "o planet1 has ! sun & />s z ! play?+s ( 8 m9d4 ,?\gh f9ite 9 8 mortal conditions1 he is div9ely inf9ite 9 8 p[]s4 ,leibniz ?us boldly *all5ges ! sceptical view ( ! function ( reason4 ,in/ead ( limit+ ?\ght to ! translat+ ( s5se-data into conceptual =ms1 he claims = x a creative p[] :i* enables x out ( its own res\rces to discov] = itself1 n only ! actual con/itution ( ! mat]ial _w1 b also ! imm5sely wid] realm ( possible entities4 ,! real1 he ma9ta9s1 is only "o ( ! _m k+doms :i* ?\ght discov]s = itself 9 ! univ]se ( tru?4 ,x is ! mo/ compreh5sive & ! mo/ p]fect1 b /ill only "o out ( innum]able o!rs :i* unfold !mselves to ! m9d 9 pure ?\ght4 ,tru? is n ! ab/ract+ ( ! univ]sal aspects 9 ?+s1 n a copy ( reality1 dep5d5t ^u x = mean+ & significance4 ,tru? is wid] ?an reality1 is logically prior to x1 & in/ead ( be+ dep5d5t ^u ! actual1 legislates = x4 ,leibniz ?us />ts f ! possible1 z discov]$ by pure ?\ght1 to det]m9e 9 an a priori mann] ! nature ( ! real4 ,?is ,leibnizian view ( ?\ght may seem1 at fir/ sight1 to be m]ely ! re-em]g5ce ( ! romantic1 rationali/ic ideal ( ,desc>tes & ,malebran*e4 ,s to reg>d x w\ld1 h[ev]1 be a s]i\s inju/ice4 ,x 0 held ) full consci\sness ( its gr\nds & implications1 & reality 0 metaphysically re9t]pret$ s z to af=d x a g5u9e basis4 ,!re 0 no?+ m]ely my/ical & no?+ undef9$ 9 its ma9 t5ets4 ,leibniz diff]s f ,malebran*e 9 be+ himself a pr(\nd ma!matician1 ! co-discov]] ) ,newton ( ! diff]5tial calculus4 ,he also diff]s f ,desc>tes 9 possess+ an absorb+ int]e/ 9 ! purely logical aspects ( ! problem ( me?od2 & 0 !re=e equipp$ 9 a supreme degree = det]m9+ 9 g5u9ely sci5tific fa%ion ! philosophical significance & value ( ! ma!matical discipl9es4 ,hume & ,leibniz are ?us ! two protagoni/s t dw>f all o!rs4 ,!y realis$ z nei!r ,malebran*e1 ,locke1 nor ,b]keley1 nei!r ,reid1 ,lamb]t1 ,crusius1 nor ,m5delssohn ev] did1 ! really crucial issues :i* mu/ ultimately decide betwe5 ! compet+ possibilities4 ,ea* ma9ta9$1 9 ! mann] prescrib$ by 8 g5]al philosophy1 "o ( :at !n appe>$ to be ! only two possible views ( ! function ( ?\ght4 ,! alt]natives 7 ^!3 7a7 ,?\ght is m]ely a practical in/rum5t = ! conv5i5t int]pretation ( our human exp]i5ce2 x has no objective or metaphysical validity ( any k9d2 7b7 ,?\ght legislates univ]sally2 x reveals ! wid] univ]se ( ! et]nally possible2 & prior to all exp]i5ce c det]m9e ! fundam5tal conditions to :i* t exp]i5ce mu/ con=m4 ,or to int]pret ?is opposition 9 logical t]ms3 7a7 ,! fundam5tal pr9ciples ( exp]i5ce are syn!tic judgm5ts 9 :i* no relation is discov]able betwe5 subject & pr$icate1 & :i* = t reason c be ju/ifi$ nei!r a priori nor by exp]i5ce2 7b7 all pr9ciples are analytic1 & c !re=e be ju/ifi$ by pure ?\ght4 ,! problem ( ,kant's ,critique1 broadly /at$1 consi/s 9 ! exam9ation & critical e/imate ( ^! two oppos$ views4 ,!re is no problem1 sci5tific1 moral1 or religi\s1 :i* is n vitally affect$ by ! decision :i* ( ^! alt]natives we are to adopt1 or :at reconciliation ( _! conflict+ claims we hope to a*ieve4 ,s9ce ,kant's day1 l>gely ow+ to ! e/abli%m5t ( ! evolution !ory1 ?is problem has become only ! m press+4 ,! naturali/ic1 in/rum5tal view ( ?\ght seems to be imm5sely re9=c$ by biological au?ority4 ,?\ght w\ld seem to be r$uc$ to ! level ( s5se-affection1 & to be an in/rum5t develop$ ?r\gh natural processes = ! practical purposes ( adaptation4 ,yet ! c\nt]-view has be5 no less p[]fully /r5g!n$ by ! victori\s m>* ( ! ma!matical sci5ces4 ,!y h advanc$ beyond ! limits ( ,euclidean space1 def9+ possibilities su* z no exp]i5ce reveals to u4 ,! ,leibnizian view has also be5 re9=c$ by ! successes ( physical sci5ce 9 det]m9+ :at w\ld seem to be ! actual1 objective "* ( ! indep5d5tly real4 ,kant 0 a rationali/ by education1 temp]am5t1 & conviction4 ,consequ5tly 8 problem 0 to reconcile ,leibniz's view ( ! function ( ?\ght ) ,hume's pro( ( ! syn!tic "* ( ! causal pr9ciple4 ,he /rives to det]m9e h[ mu* ( ,leibniz's belief 9 ! legislative p[] ( pure reason c be reta9$ aft] full ju/ice has be5 done to ,hume's damag+ criticisms4 ,! fundam5tal pr9ciples ^u :i* all exp]i5ce & all k ultimately re/ are syn!tic 9 nature3 h[ is x possible t !y %\ld also be a priori8 ,su* is ! problem t 0 ,kant's tr\bl\s inh]itance f 8 philosophical prog5itors1 ,hume & ,leibniz4#ba ,,iii4 ,,g5]al ,9 indicat+ "s ( ! ma9 features ( ,kant's g5]al tea*+1 ,i %all limit myself to ^? po9ts :i* seem mo/ helpful 9 prelim9>y ori5tation1 or :i* are necess>y = gu>d+ aga9/ ! misund]/&+s likely to result f ! v radical *anges 9 t]m9ology & 9 outlook t h occurr$ 9 ! hundr$ & ?irty ye>s s9ce ! publication ( ! ,critique4 ,/atem5ts :i* ?us attempt to pres5t 9 outl9e1 & 9 mod]n t]ms1 ! m g5]al features ( ,kant's philosophical tea*+ w d\btless seem to _m ( my read]s dogmatic 9 =m & highly que/ionable 9 cont5t4 ,!y mu/ /& or fall by ! results obta9$ ?r\gh detail$ exam9ation ( ,kant's ipsissima v]ba4 ,su* ju/ification z ,i c give = !m w be f\nd 9 ! body ( ! ,comm5t>y4 ,i4 ,,! ,,nature ,,( ,,! ,a ,,priori ,! fundam5tal presupposition ^u :i* ,kant's argum5t re/s--a presupposition nev] itself inve/igat$ b always assum$--is t univ]sality & necessity _c be rea*$ by any process t is empirical 9 "*4 ,by way ( ?is initial assumption ,kant arrives at ! conclusion t ! a priori1 ! di/+ui%+ *>act]i/ics ( :i* are univ]sality & necessity1 is n giv5 9 s5se b is impos$ by ! m9d2 or 9 o!r less ambigu\s t]ms1 is n "p ( ! matt] ( exp]i5ce b con/itutes its =m4 ,! matt] ( exp]i5ce is "h tak5 z equival5t to s5sation2 :ile s5sation1 9 turn1 is reg>d$ z be+ ! non-relational4 ,! explanation ( ,kant's failure ei!r to inve/igate or to prove ?is assumption has already be5 indicat$4 ,leibniz proce$s ^u ! assumption ( its tru? no less confid5tly ?an ,hume1 & z ,kant's ma9 task consi/$ 9 reconcil+ :at he reg>d$ z be+ ! elem5ts ( tru? 9 _! oppos$ philosophies1 he v naturally felt secure 9 re>+ 8 sy/em ^u ! "o fundam5tal presupposition on :i* !y 7 able to agree4 ,x lay outside ! field ( controv]sy1 & possess$ = ,kant1 z x _h possess$ = ,hume & = ,leibniz1 t au?oritative & axiomatic "* :i* an un*all5g$ preconception t5ds always to acquire4 ,! g5]al !sis1 t ! univ]sal & necess>y elem5ts 9 exp]i5ce con/itute its =m1 ,kant specifies 9 ! foll[+ det]m9ate mann]4 ,! =m is fix$ = all exp]i5ce1 t is to say1 x is "o & ! same 9 ea* & e exp]i5ce1 h[ev] simple or h[ev] complex4 ,x is to be detect$ 9 consci\sness ( duration no less ?an 9 consci\sness ( objects or 9 consci\sness ( self4 ,=1 z ,kant argues1 consci\sness ( duration involves ! capacity to di/+ui% betwe5 subjective & objective succession1 & likewise involves recognition#bb ) its necess>y compon5t self-consci\sness4 ,or to /ate ! same po9t ( view 9 ano!r way1 human exp]i5ce is a temporal process & yet is always a consci\sness ( mean+4 ,z temporal1 its /ates are ord]$ successively1 t is1 ext]nally to "o ano!r2 b ! consci\sness :i* !y con/itute is at ea* & e mom5t ! aw>5ess ( "s s+le unit>y mean+ by ref]5ce to :i* ! cont5ts ( ! successive exp]i5ces are organis$4 ,! problem ( k may !re=e be describ$ z be+ ! analysis ( ! consci\sness ( duration1 ( objectivity1 & ( self-consci\sness1 or alt]natively z ! analysis ( our aw>5ess ( mean+4 ,kant arrives at ! conclusion t ! conditions ( all f\r are "o & ! same4#bc ,kant ?us tea*es t exp]i5ce 9 all its embodim5ts & 9 ea* ( its mom5t>y /ates c be analys$ into an endlessly v>iable mat]ial & a fix$ set ( relational elem5ts4 ,& z no "o ( ! relational factors c be abs5t )\t at once nullify+ all ! o!rs1 !y toge!r con/itute :at mu/ be reg>d$ z ! det]m9+ =m & /ructure ( e m5tal process t is cognitive 9 "*4 ,aw>5ess1 t is to say1 is id5tical ) ! act ( judgm5t1 & !re=e involves ev]y?+ t a judgm5t1 9 its di/9ction f any m]e association ( ideas1 dem&s = its possibility4 ,kant's position1 :5 ?us /at$1 diff]s f t ( ,leibniz only 9 its cle>] grasp ( ! issues & difficulties involv$1 & consequ5tly 9 ! m subtle1 p]t9aci\s1 & ?or\ghgo+ "* ( ! argum5t by :i* x is e/abli%$4 ,its revolution>y "* fir/ appe>s :5 ,kant fur!r argues1 9 ext5sion ( ! tea*+ ( ,hume1 t ! =mal1 relational elem5ts are ( a syn!tic nature4 ,! significance & scope ( ?is conclusion c h>dly be exagg]at$4 ,no o!r ,kantian t5et is ( m fundam5tal importance4#bd ,) x ! ma9 consequ5ces ( ,kant's ,critical tea*+ are indissolubly b\nd up4 ,z ! pr9ciples :i* lie at ! basis ( our k are syn!tic1 !y h no intr9sic necessity1 & _c possess ! absolute au?ority ascrib$ to !m by ! rationali/s4 ,!y are prescrib$ to human reason1 b _c be %[n to be inh]5tly rational 9 any usual s5se ( t highly ambigu\s t]m4 ,!y c be e/abli%$ only z brute conditions1 v]ifiable 9 fact ?\gh n demon/rable 9 pure !ory 7if !re be any su* ?+71 ( our actual exp]i5ce4 ,!y are conditions ( s5se-exp]i5ce1 & t means ( our k ( appe>ances1 nev] legitimately applicable 9 ! deciph]+ ( ultimate reality4 ,!y are valid )9 ! realm ( exp]i5ce1 useless = ! con/ruction ( a metaphysical !ory ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,?is conclusion is re9=c$ :5 we recognise t human exp]i5ce1 ev5 9 its fundam5tal features 7e4g4 ! temporal & ! spatial71 might conceivably be altoge!r diff]5t f :at x actually is1 & t its presuppositions are always1 !re=e1 ( ! same cont+5t "*4 ,ev5 ! univ]sality & necessity :i* ,kant claims to h e/abli%$ = 8 a priori pr9ciples are ( ?is nature4 ,_! necessity is always = u extr9sic2 !y c be po/ulat$ only if1 & s long z1 we are assum+ ! occurr5ce ( human s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,?us ,kant is a rationali/ ( a new & unique type4 ,he believes 91 & emphasises ! importance (1 ! a priori4 ,) x alone1 he cont5ds1 is ! ,critique compet5t to deal4 ,b x is an a priori :i* _c be %[n to be m ?an relative4 ,x does1 inde$1 enable u to conceive ! kn[n z relative1 & to ent]ta9 9 ?\ght ! possibility ( an ,absolute2 b ?is x c d )\t itself possess+ indep5d5t validity4 ,= ?\gh ! pro( ( ! a priori is n empirical 9 ! s5se ( be+ inductive1 nei!r is x logical 9 ! s5se ( be+ d$uc$ f necessities ( ?\ght4 ,its 8transc5d5tal0 pro( c be execut$ only s long z exp]i5ce is grant$ z actual2 & s long z ! fundam5tal *>act]i/ics ( ?is exp]i5ce are kept 9 view4 ,la/ly1 ! a priori factors are purely relational4 ,!y h no inh]5t cont5t f :i* clues be>+ on ! sup]s5sible c be obta9$4 ,_! sole function is to s]ve 9 ! int]pretation ( cont5ts o!rwise suppli$4 ,! a priori1 !n1 is m]ely relational1 )\t inh]5t cont5t2 x is syn!tic1 & !re=e incapable ( indep5d5t or metaphysical pro(2 x is relative to an exp]i5ce :i* is only capable ( yield+ appe>ances4 ,! a priori is z m]ely factual z ! exp]i5ce :i* x conditions4 ,ev5 9 ! field ( morality ,kant held fa/ to ?is conviction4 ,morality1 no less ?an k1 presupposes a priori pr9ciples4 ,^!1 h[ev]1 are nev] self-evid5t1 & _c be e/abli%$ by any m]e appeal to intuition4 ,!y h au?ority only to ! ext5t to :i* !y c be %[n to be ! indisp5sable presuppositions ( a moral consci\sness t is und5iably actual4#be ,t ! a priori is ( ?is "* mu/ be cle>ly und]/ood4 ,o!rwise ! read] w be pursu$ by a feel+ ( ! unreality1 ( ! m]ely hi/orical or antiqu>ian significance1 ( ! entire discussion4 ,he may1 if he pleases1 sub/itute ! t]m =mal or relational = a priori4 ,& if he be>s 9 m9d t by ! relational ,kant is "h int5d+ ^? elem5ts 9 k :i* r5d] possible ! relations con/itutive ( mean+1 he w recognise t ! ,critical discussion is by no means antiquat$1 b /ill rema9s "o ( ! mo/ important issues 9 ! entire field ( philosophical enquiry4 #b4 ,,kant',s ,,contribution ,,to ,,! ,,sci5ce ,,( ,,logic ,! above conclusions h an important be>+ ^u logical doctr9e4 ,j z mod]n geometry orig9ates 9 a sceptical treatm5t ( ! axiom ( p>allels1 s mod]n1 ideali/ logic re/s ^u ,kant's demon/ration ( ! revolution>y consequ5ces ( ,hume's sceptical tea*+4 ,if pr9ciples are nev] self-evid5t1 & yet are n arriv$ at by induction f exp]i5ce1 by :at alt]native me?od c !y be e/abli%$8 ,9 answ] to ?is "q1 ,kant outl9es ! position :i* is n[ usually entitl$ ! ,coh]5ce !ory ( tru?4#bf ,t !ory1 ?\gh frequ5tly ascrib$ to ,hegel1 has its real s\rces 9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4 ,x expresses t modification 9 ! ,leibnizian rationalism :i* is dem&$ by ,hume's discov]y ( ! syn!tic "* ( ! causal axiom4 ,nei!r ! d$uctive me?ods ( ! ,c>tesian sy/ems nor ! inductive me?ods ( ! ,engli% philosophies c any long] be reg>d$ z correctly describ+ ! actual processes ( sci5tific pro(4 ,g5]al pr9ciples are ei!r presuppositions or po/ulates4 ,if a priori1 !y are presuppos$ 9 all consci\s aw>5ess2 z above indicat$1 !y h a de facto validity )9 ! exp]i5ce :i* !y ?us make possible4 ,if m special 9 nature1 !y are ! po/ulates to :i* we f9d ourselves committ$ 9 ! process ( solv+ specific problems2 & !y are !re=e discov]$ by ! me?od ( trial & failure4#bg ,!y are valid 9 proportion z !y enable u to h>monise appe>ances1 & to adjudicate to ea* a k9d ( reality consi/5t ) t assign$ to e o!r4 ,pro( ( fact is simil> 9 g5]al "*4 ,! t]m fact is eulogi/ic1 n m]ely descriptive2 x m>ks ! possession ( cognitive significance 9 reg>d to "s body ( k1 actual or possible4 ,x c be appli$ to p>ticul> appe>ances only 9 s f> z we c det]m9e _! conditions1 & c %[ t z ?us condition$ ! mode ( _! exi/5ce is relevant to ! enquiry t is be+ pursu$4 ,! conv]g5ce ( p>allel l9es is fact f ! /&po9t ( psy*ological inve/igation2 f ! po9t ( view ( _! physical exi/5ce x is m]ely appe>ance4 ,ultimately1 ( c\rse1 ev]y?+ is real1 includ+ :at we entitle appe>ance2#bh b 9 ! articulation ( human exp]i5ce su* di/9ctions are indisp5sable1 & ! crit]ia t def9e !m are prescrib$ by ! context 9 :i* !y are be+ employ$4 ,?us facts _c be e/abli%$ ap>t f pr9ciples1 nor pr9ciples ap>t f facts4 ,! pro( ( a pr9ciple is its adequacy to ! int]pretation ( all ^? appe>ances t c be %[n to be 9 any respect relevant to x1 :ile ! te/ ( an ass]t$ fact1 i4e4 ( our description ( a giv5 appe>ance1 is its con=mity to ! pr9ciples t make insight possible4 ,?\gh ! me?od employ$ 9 ! ,critique is entitl$ by ,kant ! 8transc5d5tal me?od10 x is really id5tical 9 g5]al "* ) ! hypo!tical me?od ( ! natural sci5ces4 ,x proce$s by enquir+ :at conditions mu/ be po/ulat$ 9 ord] t ! admitt$ly giv5 may be expla9$ & acc\nt$ =4#bi ,/>t+ f ! giv51 x also submits its conclusions to confirmation by ! giv54 ,consid]$ z a me?od1 !re is no?+ metaphysical or high-fly+ ab\t x save ! "n4 ,none ! less1 ,kant is 9 "s degree ju/ifi$ 9 adopt+ ! special title4 ,9 view ( ! unique "* ( ! problem to be dealt )1 ! me?od calls = v c>eful /atem5t1 & has to be def5d$ aga9/ ! *>ge ( inapplicability 9 ! philosophical field4 ,! fundam5tal !sis ( ! ,coh]5ce !ory f9ds explicit =mulation 9 ,kant's doctr9e ( ! judgm5t3 ! doctr9e1 t aw>5ess is id5tical ) ! act ( judg+1 & t judgm5t is always complex1 involv+ bo? factual & int]pretative elem5ts4 ,syn!tic1 relational factors are pres5t 9 all k1 ev5 9 k t may seem1 on sup]ficial /udy1 to be purely analytic or to consi/ m]ely ( s5se-impressions4 ,n cont5ts alone1 b cont5ts int]pret$ 9 t]ms ( "s specific sett+1 are ! sole possible objects ( human ?\ght4 ,ev5 :51 by =c$ ab/raction1 p>ticul>s & univ]sals are held m5tally ap>t1 !y are /ill be+ appreh5d$ ?r\gh judgm5ts1 & !re=e ?r\gh m5tal processes t involve bo?4 ,!y /& 9 relations ( mutual implication )9 a de facto sy/em2 & toge!r !y con/itute x4 ,?is is ! reason :y 9 mod]n logic1 z 9 ,kant's ,critique1 ! !ory ( ! judgm5t receives s mu* m att5tion ?an ! !ory ( reason+4 ,= once ! above view ( ! judgm5t has be5 e/abli%$1 all ! ma9 po9ts 9 ! doctr9e ( reason+ foll[ ( !mselves z s _m coroll>ies4 ,k />ts nei!r f s5se-data nor f g5]al pr9ciples1 b f ! complex situation 9 :i* ! human race f9ds itself at ! dawn ( self-consci\sness4 ,t situation is organis$ 9 t]ms ( our m5tal equipm5t2 & ?is already exi/+1 rudim5t>y sy/em is :at has made practicable fur!r advance2 to create a sy/em ab initio is altoge!r impossible4 ,! />t+-po9t does n1 h[ev]1 by itself alone det]m9e our conclusions4 ,ow+ to ! creative activities ( ! m9d1 regulative pr9ciples are active 9 all consci\sness2 & "u _! guidance ! exp]i5c$ ord]1 l>gely practical 9 satisfaction ( ! in/9ctive desires1 is trans=m$ into a compreh5d$ ord]1 controll$ 9 view ( ,ideal ends4 ,logic is ! sci5ce ( ! processes :]eby ?is trans=mation is br\ght ab\t4 ,an ess5tially metaphysical discipl9e1 x _c be isolat$ f ! g5]al body ( philosophical tea*+2 x is n =mal1 b transc5d5tal2 9 def9+ ! factors & processes t con/itute k1 its *ief preoccupation is ) ultimate issues4 ,9 call+ 8 new logic 8transc5d5tal0 ,kant1 x is true1 also int5ds to signify t x is supplem5t>y to1 n a sub/itute =1 ! old] logic1 :i* he pr(esses to accept4#cj ,moreov] 8 intuitional !ory ( ma!matical sci5ce1 8 doctr9e ( ! 8pure concept10 8 attributive view ( ! judgm5t--all ( !m survivals f 8 pre-,critical p]iod#ca--;frequ5tly set him at cross-purposes ) himself4 ,8 preoccupation1 too1 ) ! problem ( ! a priori leads him to und]e/imate ! "p play$ 9 k by ! m]ely empirical4 ,b despite all inconsi/5cies1 & not)/&+ 8 p]v]se pref]5ce = outl&i% modes ( expression1 he succe$s 9 en=c+ ) suffici5t cle>ness ! really fundam5tal t5ets ( ! ,coh]5ce view4 #c4 ,,! ,,nature ,,( ,,consci\sness ,i %all n[ approa* ,kant's c5tral position f ano!r direction1 namely1 z an answ] to ! problem ( ! nature ( consci\sness4 ,we are ju/ifi$1 ,i ?9k1 9 say+ t ,kant 0 ! fir/ 9 mod]n times to raise ! problem ( ! nature ( aw>5ess1 & ( ! conditions ( its possibility4 ,?\gh ,desc>tes is con/antly speak+ ( consci\sness1 he def9es x 9 m]ely negative t]ms1 ?r\gh its opposition to matt]2 & :5 he prop\nds ! "q h[ mat]ial bodies c be kn[n by ! immat]ial m9d1 8 mode ( deal+ ) x %[s t 8 real int]e/ lies n 9 ! nature ( consci\sness b 9 ! "* ( ! exi/5ces :i* x reveals4 ,8 answ]1 =mulat$ 9 t]ms ( ! doctr9e ( repres5tative p]ception1 & bas$ on ! suppos$ tea*+ ( physics & physiology1 is t mat]ial bodies ?r\gh _! action on ! s5se-organs & bra9 g5]ate images or duplicates ( !mselves4 ,^! images1 exi/+ n 9 out] space b only 9 consci\sness1 are1 he ass]ts1 m5tal 9 nature2 & be+ m5tal !y are1 he w\ld seem to conclude1 imm$iately & necess>ily appreh5d$ by ! m9d4 ,?us ,desc>tes gives u1 n an analysis ( ! kn[+ process1 b only a subjectivi/ int]pretation ( ! nature ( ! objects ^u :i* x is direct$4 ,q ap>t1 !n1 f ! "q z to :e!r ,desc>tes' doctr9e ( repres5tative p]ception re/s on a correct int]pretation ( ! tea*+ ( ! natural sci5ces--,kant 0 ultimately l$ to reject ! doctr9e--x is obvi\s t ! ma9 epi/emological problem1 i4e4 ! problem h[ aw>5ess is possible1 & 9 :at x consi/s1 has s f> n s mu* z ev5 be5 rais$4 ,desc>tes & 8 successors virtually assume t consci\sness is an ultimate1 unanalysable =m ( aw>5ess1 & t all t c reasonably be dem&$ ( ! philosoph] is t he expla9 :at objects are actually pres5t$ to x1 & "u :at conditions _! pres5tation c occur4 ,on ,desc>tes' view !y are condition$ by antec$5t physical & physiological processes2 accord+ to ,b]keley !y are due to ! creative activity ( a ,div9e ,be+2 accord+ to ,hume no?+ :atsoev] c be det]m9$ z to _! orig9at+ causes4 ,b all ?ree fail to recognise t ev5 grant+ ! objects to be ( ! "* ass]t$1 namely1 m5tal1 ! fur!r problem /ill rema9s = consid]ation1 h[ !y come to be consci\sly appreh5d$1 & 9 :at su* aw>5ess consi/s4 ,c]ta9 int]pretations ( ! nature ( ! kn[+ process are1 ( c\rse1 to be f\nd 9 ! writ+s ( ,desc>tes & 8 successors4 ,b !y are s mu* a matt] ( unexam9$ presupposition t !y nev] receive exact =mulation1 & alt]nate ) "o ano!r 9 q a haphaz>d fa%ion4 ,we may consid] ?ree typical views4 #a4 ,!re is1 ,desc>tes frequ5tly seems to imply--! same assumption is evid5t ?r\gh\t ,locke's ,essay--a self t /&s beh9d all m5tal /ates1 obs]v+ & appreh5d+ !m4 ,consci\sness is ! p[] :i* ?is self has ( contemplat+ bo? itself & its ideas4 ,obvi\sly ?is is a m]e ignor+ ( ! issue4 ,if we assume an obs]v]1 we ipso facto po/ulate a process ( obs]vation1 b we h n expla9$ or ev5 def9$ x4 #b4 ,!re is also 9 ,desc>tes a second1 v diff]5t1 view ( consci\sness1 namely1 z a diaphan\s m$ium analog\s to light4 ,j z light is popul>ly conceiv$ z reveal+ ! objects ^u :i* x falls1 s consci\sness is reg>d$ z reveal+ to u our inn] /ates4 ,?is view ( consci\sness1 = reasons :i* ,i %all indicate %ortly1 is entirely inadequate to ! facts = :i* we h to acc\nt4 ,x is no m t5able ?an ! correspond+ view ( light4 #c4 ,9 ,hume we f9d ?is latt] !ory prop\nd$ 9 :at may at fir/ sight seem a m satisfactory =m1 b is ev5 less satisfactory4 ,s5sations1 images1 feel+s1 he argues1 are /ates ( consci\sness1 "o might almo/ say pieces ( consci\sness1 i4e4 !y are conceiv$ z c>ry+ _! own consci\sness ) !m4 ,r$1 = in/ance1 is spok5 ( z a s5sation1 & is consequ5tly view$ bo? z be+ a s5se-cont5t1 i4e4 some?+ s5s$ or appreh5d$1 & also at ! same "t z ! s5s+ or aw>5ess ( x4 ,?is view is unable to )/& criticism4 ,!re is really no m gr\nd = ass]t+ t r$ col\r c>ries ) x consci\sness ( itself ?an = say+ t a table does4 ,! illegitimacy ( ! ass]tion is conceal$ f u by ! fact t tables appe> to exi/ :5 !re is no consci\sness pres5t1 :]eas r$ness _c be prov$ to exi/ indep5d5tly ( consci\sness--x may or may n d s4 ,_m pres5t-day ?9k]s1 cont9u+ ! tradition ( ! ,engli% associationi/s1 hold to ?is pre-,kantian view4 ,s5sations1 feel+s1 etc41 are1 x is impli$1 pieces ( consci\sness1 =ms ( aw>5ess2 ?r\gh _! v>y+ comb9ations !y con/itute ! complex exp]i5ces ( ! animal & human m9d4 ,kant's tea*+ is develop$ 9 direct opposition to all su* views4 ,if we disc>d 8 antiquat$ t]m9ology1 & /ate 8 position 9 curr5t t]ms1 we f9d t x am\nts to ! ass]tion t consci\sness is 9 all cases aw>5ess ( mean+4 ,!re is no aw>5ess1 h[ev] rudim5t>y or primitive1 t does n involve ! appreh5sion ( mean+4 ,mean+ & aw>5ess are correlative t]ms2 ea* mu/ be /udi$ 9 its relation to ! o!r4 ,& inasmu* z mean+ is a highly complex object ( appreh5sion1 aw>5ess _c be reg>d$ z ultimate or z unanalysable4 ,x c be %[n to re/ ^u a complexity ( g5]ative conditions & to involve a v>iety ( di/9ct factors4 ,!re are ?us1 f ! ,kantian /&po9t1 two all-suffici5t reasons :y ! diaphan\s view ( consci\sness1 i4e4 any view :i* treats consci\sness m]ely z a m$ium :]eby ! exi/5t gets itself report$1 mu/ be reg>d$ z unt5able4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 z already rem>k$1 x is bas$ on ! false assumption t consci\sness is an ultimate1 & t we are !re=e disp5s$ f all fur!r inve/igation ( its nature4 ,kant claims to h di/+ui%$ successfully ! _m compon5ts :i* g to con/itute x2 & he also pr(esses to h %[n t until su* analysis has be5 made1 !re c be no suffici5t basis = a philosophical treatm5t ei!r ( ! problems ( s5se-p]ception or ( ! logical problems ( judgm5t & inf]5ce4 ,! diaphan\s view1 ) its mirror-l mode ( repres5tation1 might all[ ( ! side-by-sid5ess ( associat$ cont5ts2 x c nev] acc\nt = ! processes :]eby ! associat$ cont5ts come to be appreh5d$4 ,secondly1 ! diaphan\s view ignores ! fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 mean+ & exi/5ce4 ,exi/5ces re/1 s to speak1 on _! own bottom2 !y are self-c5tr$ ev5 at ! v mom5t ( _! reaction to ext]nal influ5ces4 ,mean+1 on ! o!r h&1 always involves ! int]pretation ( :at is giv5 9 ! light ( wid] consid]ations t l5d x significance4 ,9 ! aw>5ess ( mean+ ! giv51 ! actually pres5t$1 is 9 "s way transc5d$1 & ?is transc5d5ce is :at has *iefly to be reckon$ ) 9 any attempt to expla9 ! consci\s process4 ,kant is giv+ expression to ?is !sis :5 he cont5ds t all aw>5ess1 no matt] h[ rudim5t>y or app>5tly simple1 is an act ( judgm5t1 & !re=e involves ! relational categories4 ,n passive contemplation b active judgm5t1 n m]e conception b inf]5tial int]pretation1 is ! fundam5tal =m1 & ! only =m1 9 :i* our consci\sness exi/s4 ,?is1 ( c\rse1 commits ,kant to ! ass]tion t !re is no mode ( cognition t c be describ$ z imm$iate or unreflective4 ,!re is an imm$iate elem5t 9 all k1 b our consci\sness ( x is always condition$ & accompani$ by int]pretative processes1 & 9 _! abs5ce !re c be no aw>5ess ( any k9d4 ,by way ( ?is prim>y di/9ction betwe5 exi/5ce & mean+ ,kant advances to all ^? o!r di/9ctions :i* *>act]ise our human exp]i5ce1 betwe5 appe>ance & reality1 betwe5 ! real & ! ,ideal1 betwe5 t :i* is judg$ & ! crit]ia :i* control & direct ! judg+ process4 ,j because all aw>5ess is aw>5ess ( mean+1 our human exp]i5ce becomes intelligible z a purposive activity t directs itself accord+ to ,ideal /&>ds4 ,! contra/ betwe5 ! ,kantian & ! ,c>tesian views ( consci\sness c be def9$ 9 ref]5ce to ano!r important issue4 ,! diaphan\s view commits its adh]5ts to a v def9ite int]pretation ( ! nature ( relations4 ,s9ce !y reg>d consci\sness z passive & receptive1 !y h to ma9ta9 t relations c be kn[n only 9 s f> z !y are appreh5d$ 9 a mann] analog\s to ! cont5ts !mselves4 ,i d n1 ( c\rse1 wi% to imply t ?is view ( relational k is 9 all cases & 9 all respects illegitimate4 ,kant1 z we %all f9d1 has c>ri$ ! opposite view to an impossible extreme1 assum+ )\t fur!r argum5t t :at has be5 %[n to be true ( c]ta9 types ( relation 7= in/ance1 ( ! causal & sub/ance-attribute relations7 mu/ be true ( all relations1 ev5 ( ^? t con/itute space & "t4 ,x _c be d5i$ t1 z ,william ,james & o!rs h v rightly insi/$1 su* relations z ! space-relations are 9 "s degree or mann] pres5tational4 ,?is does n1 h[ev]1 ju/ify ,james 9 conclud+1 z he at times seems incl9$ to d1 t all relations are directly exp]i5c$4 ,su* proc$ure lays him op5 to ! same *>ge ( illegitimate reason+4 ,b ev5 if we c\ld grant ,james's !sis 9 its wide/ =m1 ! all-important ,critical "q w\ld /ill rema93 9 :at does aw>5ess1 :e!r ( pres5t$ cont5ts or ( pres5t$ relations1 consi/1 & h[ is x possible8 ,9 answ]+ ?is "q ,kant is l$ to ! conclusion t consci\sness mu/ be reg>d$ z an activity1 & z supply+ c]ta9 ( ! conditions ( its own possibility4 ,its contribution is ( a uni=m & con/ant nature2 x consi/s1 z already not$1 ( c]ta9 relational factors ^: pres5ce c be detect$ 9 ea* & e act ( aw>5ess4 ,!re is "o o!r respect 9 :i* ,kant's view ( consci\sness diff]s f t ( 8 ,c>tesian pr$ecessors4#cb ,consci\sness1 he ma9ta9s1 does n reveal itself1 b only its objects4 ,9 o!r words1 !re is no aw>5ess ( aw>5ess4 ,s f> z our m5tal /ates & processes c be kn[n at all1 !y are kn[n 9 ! same objective mann] 9 :i* we appreh5d exi/5ces 9 space4#cc ,n[ if t be s1 a v important consequ5ce foll[s4 ,if !re is no aw>5ess ( aw>5ess1 b only ( mean+s all ( :i* are objective1 !re c be no consci\sness ( ! g5]ative1 syn!tic processes t con/itute consci\sness on its subjective side4 ,= consci\sness1 be+ an act ( aw>5ess 9 :i* mean+ is appreh5d$1 has a tw(old nature1 & mu/ be v diff]5tly describ$ accord+ to ! aspect :i* at any "o "t we may h 9 view4 ,:5 we reg>d x on its objective side z aw>5ess ( mean+1 we are *iefly conc]n$ ) ! v>i\s factors t are necess>y to mean+ & t ent] into its con/itution4 ,t is to say1 our analysis is ess5tially logical4 ,:51 on ! o!r h&1 we consid] consci\sness z an act ( aw>5ess1 our problem is ontological or z x may be entitl$ 7?\gh ! t]m is 9 ?is ref]5ce some:at mislead+1 s9ce ! enquiry z def9$ by ,kant is ess5tially metaphysical7 psy*ological 9 "*4 ,betwe5 ^! two aspects !re is ?is v important diff]5ce4 ,! logical factors con/itutive ( mean+ c be exhau/ively kn[n2 !y are elem5ts 9 ! mean+s :i* consci\sness reveals2 :]eas ! syn!tic processes are po/ulat$ solely 9 view ( ^! con/itu5t factors1 & 9 ord] to acc\nt = !m4 ,! processes1 t is to say1 are kn[n only ?r\gh t :i* !y condition1 & on ,kant's tea*+ we are entirely rul$ out f attempt+ to compreh5d ev5 _! possibility4#cd ,!y mu/ be ?\ght z occurr+1 b !y _c be kn[n1 i4e4 _! nature _c be def9itely specifi$4 ,! po/ulat+ ( !m m>ks a gap 9 our k1 & ext5ds our insight only 9 ! degree t x discloses our ignorance4 ,z consci\sness re/s ^u1 & is made possible by1 ^! processes1 x c nev] be expla9$ 9 t]ms ( ! objective _w to :i* our s5se-exp]i5ce1 & !re=e1 z ,kant argues1 our specific k1 is exclusively limit$4 ,! m9d c unfold its cont5ts 9 ! sun%9e ( consci\sness1 only because its roots /rike deep into a soil t ! light does n p5etrate4 ,^! processes1 ?us po/ulat$1 ,kant reg>ds z ! s\rce ( ! a priori elem5ts1 & z ! ag5cy ?r\gh :i* ! syn!tic connections necess>y to all consci\sness are br\ght ab\t4 ,accord+ to ,kant's ,critical tea*+1 !re=e1 consci\sness1 ?\gh analysable1 is n su* z c ev] be r5d]$ completely compreh5sible4 ,:5 all is said1 x rema9s = u a m]ely de facto =m ( exi/5ce1 & has to be tak5 j = :at x pres5ts itself z be+4 ,x is actually su* z to make possible ! logical processes ( judgm5t & inf]5ce4 ,x is actually su* z to r5d] possible a satisfactory pro( ( ! sci5tific validity1 )9 ! field ( s5se-exp]i5ce1 ( ! pr9ciple ( causality1 & ( su* o!r pr9ciples z are requir$ 9 ! developm5t ( ! positive sci5ces4 ,x is also su* z to r5d] compreh5sible ! controll+ influ5ce ( ,ideal /&>ds4 ,b :5 we come to ! "q1 h[ is consci\sness ( ?is type & =m possible1 t is1 to ! "q ( its metaphysical significance & ( ! g5]ative conditions ^u :i* x re/s1 we f9d1 ,kant ma9ta9s1 t we h no data suffici5t to ju/ify any decisive answ]4 ,! ontological1 creative1 or dynamical aspect ( consci\sness1 ,i may fur!r insi/1 mu/ be con/antly borne 9 m9d if ! ,critical /&po9t is to be prop]ly view$4 ,! logical analysis is1 inde$1 = ! purposes ( ! c5tral portions ( ! ,critique mu* ! m important1 & alone all[s ( detail$1 exhau/ive developm5t2 b ! o!r is no less ess5tial = an appreciation ( ,kant's attitude t[>ds ! m /rictly metaphysical problems ( ! ,dialectic4 ,hegel & 8 disciples h be5 ! *ief culprits 9 subord9at+1 or r 9 entirely elim9at+1 ?is aspect ( ,kant's tea*+4 ,_m ( ! inconsi/5cies ( :i* !y accuse ,kant exi/ only if ,kant's tea*+ be fir/ r$uc$ to a "p ( itself4 ,to elim9ate ! ontological implications ( 8 !ory ( consci\sness is1 by anticipation1 to r5d] _m ( 8 ma9 conclusions entirely unt5able1 & 9 p>ticul> to de/roy ! =ce ( 8 fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 ,if consci\sness kn[s itself 9 its ultimate nature--& su* is ,hegel's cont5tion--"o half ( reality is tak5 out ( ! obscurity 9 :i*1 on ,kant's read+ ( ! situation1 x is condemn$ to lie hidd54 ,man is m kn[able ?an nature1 & is ! key to nature2 su* is ,hegel's position1 crudely /at$4 ,contra/ !re) ! tea*+ ( ,kant4 ,we c "k nature m completely 7?\gh /ill v incompletely7 ?an we c ev] hope to compreh5d ! conditions t make possible & actual man's spiritual life4 ,! moral consci\sness is an autonom\sly act+ s\rce ( indep5d5t values1 & ?\gh a /&+ miracle1 mu/ be tak5 = all t on indep5d5t & sep>ate enquiry x is f\nd to be4 ,hegel1 9 8 endeav\r to e/abli% an intellectual monism1 does viol5ce to "s ( ! highe/ int]e/s :i* he pr(esses to be safegu>d+4 ,kant1 :ile outl9+ 9 ,idea a ,k+dom ( ,ends1 rema9s satisfi$ ) a plurali/ic di/9ction betwe5 ! intellectual & ! moral categories4 ,! anti!sis ( ! two philosophies is 9 "s degree ! anci5t opposition betwe5 ,ari/otle & ,plato1 re/at$ 9 mod]n t]ms4 #d4 ,,ph5om5alism1 ,,kant',s ,,sub/itute ,,= ,,subjectivism ,! revolution>y "* ( ! above conclusions is %[n by ! difficulty :i* ,kant himself f\nd 9 break+ away f _m ( ! presuppositions t und]lie ! views :i* he 0 r5\nc+2 & ?is is n[h]e m evid5t ?an 9 8 con/ant alt]nation ?r\gh\t ! ,critique betwe5 a subjectivism#ce t is ?or\ghly ,c>tesian--we might almo/1 all[+ = 8 rationalism1 say ,b]keleian--9 "*1 & a radically diff]5t position :i* may be entitl$ ph5om5alism4 ,! latt] is alone g5u9ely ,critical1 & pres5ts ,kant's tea*+ 9 its mature/ =m4 ,= ?\gh fir/ =mulat$ only 9 ^? portions ( ! ,analytic t are late 9 date ( writ+1 & 9 ^? passages ( ! second edition :i* supplem5t !m1 x w\ld seem to be ! only logical outcome ( ,kant's o!r ma9 doctr9es4 ,i h especially 9 m9d ,kant's fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality2 x has an all-important be>+ ^u ! ,c>tesian opposition betwe5 ! m5tal & ! mat]ial1 & especially ^u ! "q z to :at view ought to be tak5 ( our s-call$ subjective exp]i5ces4 ,! objective is = ! ,c>tesians ! indep5d5tly real2 ! subjective is ass]t$ to h an altoge!r diff]5t k9d ( exi/5ce 9 :at is nam$ ! field ( consci\sness4 ,kant's ph5om5ali/ re/atem5t ( ?is di/9ction is too complex & subtle to be made intelligible 9 ! brief space available 9 ?is ,introduction--x is exp\nd$ 9 ! body ( ! ,comm5t>y#cf--;b its g5]al "* ,i may indicate 9 a few s5t5ces4 ,all subjectivi/ modes ( /at+ ! problem ( k1 su* z we f9d 9 ,hume & 9 ,leibniz no less ?an 9 ,desc>tes1 ,locke1 & ,b]keley1 are1 ,kant f9ally conclud$1 illegitimate & "q-begg+4 ,our s-call$ subjective /ates1 :e!r !y be s5sations1 feel+s1 or desires1 are objective 9 ! s5se t !y are objects = consci\sness4#cg ,our m5tal /ates d n run p>allel ) ! sy/em ( natural exi/5ces2 nor are !y additional to x4 ,!y d n con/itute our consci\sness ( nature2 !y are !mselves "p ( ! natural ord] :i* consci\sness reveals4 ,!y compose ! empirical self :i* is an objective exi/5ce1 integrally connect$ ) ! mat]ial environm5t 9 t]ms ( :i* alone x c be und]/ood4 ,! subjective is n opposite 9 nature to ! objective1 b a sub-species )9 x4 ,:ile1 h[ev]1 ! psy*ical is ?us to be reg>d$ z a class ( kn[n appe>ances1 & z =m+ toge!r ) ! physical a s+le sy/em ( nature1 ?is entire ord] is1 9 ,kant's view1 condition$ by an und]ly+ realm ( n\m5al exi/5ce2 & :5 ! "q ( ! possibility ( ! kn[+1 t is1 ( ! exp]i5c+ ( su* a compreh5sive natural sy/em1 is rais$1 x is to ?is n\m5al sph]e t we are ref]r$4 ,ev]y?+ exp]i5c$1 ev5 a s5sation or feel+1 is an ev5t1 b ! exp]i5c+ ( x is an act ( aw>5ess1 & calls = an explanation ( an altoge!r diff]5t k9d4 ,?us ! problem ( k1 /at$ 9 adequate ,critical t]ms1 is n h[ we c advance f ! m]ely subjective to k ( ! indep5d5tly real1#ch b h[1 if ev]y?+ kn[n =ms "p ( a compreh5sive natural sy/em1 consci\sness & ! complex factors :i* contribute to its possibility are to be int]pret$4 ,on ?is latt] "q1 z already indicat$1 ,kant1 ?\gh deb>r+ bo? subjectivism & mat]ialism1 o!rwise adopts a non-committal attitude4 ,s long z we cont9ue )9 ! purely !oretical doma91 !re are a numb] ( alt]natives betwe5 :i* !re are no suffici5t data = decid+4 ,to deb> subjectivism is n to ma9ta9 ! illusory or ph5om5al "* ( ! individual self2 & to rule out mat]ialism is n to ass]t t ! unconsci\s may n g5]ate & acc\nt = ! consci\s4 ,9 o!r words1 !y are rul$ out n = any ult]ior reasons d]iv$ f _! suppos$ metaphysical consequ5ces1 b solely because !y are bas$ on palpable mis9t]pretations ( ! cognitive situation t g5]ates ^? v problems to :i* !y pr(ess to be an answ]4 #e4 ,,! ,,di/9ction ,,betwe5 ,,human ,,& ,,animal ,,intellig5ce ,! inw>dness ( ,kant's ,critical /&po9t may p]haps be made cle>] by a brief consid]ation ( 8 view ( animal intellig5ce4 ,we are accu/om$ n[adays to te/ a psy*ology ( human consci\sness by its capacity to r5d] conceivable an evolution f l[] =ms4 ,h[ does ,kant's tea*+ em]ge f su* a te/8 ,x may at once be admitt$ t ,kant has made no special /udy ( animal behavi\r1 & 0 by no means compet5t to speak ) au?ority 9 reg>d to its conditions4 ,inde$ x is evid5t t any?+ :i* he may h to say ^u ?is "q is entirely ( ! nature ( a d$uction f results obta9$ 9 ! human sph]e4 ,b :5 ?is has be5 admitt$1 & we are !re=e prep>$ to f9d ! problems approa*$ f ! po9t ( view ( ! diff]5ce r ?an ( ! k9%ip betwe5 man & ! animals1 we c recognise t1 s f> z ! indep5d5t /udy ( human consci\sness is conc]n$1 !re is a c]ta9 comp5sat+ advantage 9 ,kant's pre-,d>w9ian /&po9t4 ,= x leaves him free f t desire :i* ex]cises s con/ant1 & frequ5tly s delet]i\s an influ5ce1 ^u _m work]s 9 ! field ( psy*ology1 namely1 to ma9ta9 at all co/s1 9 anticipation ( conclusions n yet by any means e/abli%$1 ! fundam5tal id5tity ( animal & human intellig5ce4 ,?is besett+ desire all too easily t5ds to ! m9imis+ ( diff]5ces t may p]haps ) full] insight be f\nd to involve no brea* ( cont9uity1 b :i* 9 ! pres5t /ate ( our k _c pr(itably be int]pret$ save 9 t]ms ( _! diff]5tiat+ peculi>ities4 ,! curr5t controv]sy betwe5 me*anism & vitalism en=ces ! po9t :i* ,i desire to make4 ,biological problems1 z _m biologi/s are n[ urg+1 c be mo/ pr(itably discuss$ 9 comp>ative indep5d5ce ( ultimate issues1 entirely 9 view ( _! own dome/ic circum/ances4 ,= only :5 ! actual con/itution ( organic comp\nds has be5 m completely det]m9$ ?an has hi!rto be5 possible c ! broad] que/ions be adequately dealt )4 ,9 o!r words1 ! diff]5ces mu/ be kn[n be=e ! exact nature & degree ( ! cont9uity c be def9$4 ,!y _c be anticipat$ by any m]e d$uction f g5]al pr9ciples4 ,! value ( ,kant's analysis ( human consci\sness is ?us closely b\nd up ) 8 frank recognition ( its inh]5t complexity4 ,n simplification1 b specification1 d[n to ! b$rock ( an irr$ucible m9imum ( correlat$ factors1 is ! gov]n+ motive ( 8 ,critical enquiries4 ,8 results h !re=e ! great advantage ( be+ inspir$ by no consid]ations save su* z are prescrib$ by ! actual subject-matt] "u inve/igation4 ,z already not$1 ,kant ma9ta9s t human consci\sness is always an aw>5ess ( mean+1 & t consequ5tly x c f9d expression only 9 judgm5ts :i* involve toge!r ) _! o!r factors ! elem5t ( recognition or self-consci\sness4 ,?is decides = ,kant ! "* ( ! di/9ction to be drawn betwe5 animal & human intellig5ce4 ,z animals1 9 8 view1 _c be reg>d$ z possess+ a capacity ( self-consci\sness1 !y mu/ also be d5i$ all aw>5ess ( mean+4 ,h[ev] complicat$ ! associative organisation ( _! ideas may be1 x nev] rises to ! high] level ( logical judgm5t4 ,= ! same reason1 ?\gh _! ideas may be s*ematic 9 outl9e1 & 9 _! be>+ on behavi\r may !re=e h ! same effici5cy z g5]al concepts1 !y _c become univ]sal 9 ! logical s5se4 8,animals h appreh5sions1 b n app]ceptions1 & _c1 !re=e1 make _! repres5tations univ]sal40#ci ,9 support ( ?is position ,kant might h po9t$ to ! significant fact t animals are s tea*able up to a c]ta9 po9t1 & s untea*able beyond x4 ,!y c be c>ri$ z f> z associative sugge/ion w all[1 b n a /ep fur!r4 ,to ?is day x rema9s true--at lea/ ,i v5ture ! ass]tion--t no animal has ev] be5 conclusively %[n to be capable ( appreh5d+ a sign z a sign4 ,animals may seem to d s ow+ to ! influ5ce ( associat$ ideas1 b are1 z x w\ld appe>1 deb>r$ f cross+ ! b\nd>y l9e :i* s %>ply di/+ui%es associative sugge/ion f reflective k4 ,b ,kant is committ$ to a fur!r ass]tion4 ,if animals are devoid ( all aw>5ess ( mean+1 !y mu/ also be d5i$ any?+ analog\s to :at we mu/ signify by ! t]m consci\sness4 ,_! exp]i5ce mu/ fall ap>t into ev5ts1 t may1 p]haps1 be describ$ z m5tal1 b _c be tak5 z equival5t to an act ( aw>5ess4 8,appreh5sio bruta )\t consci\sness10#dj su* is ,kant's view ( ! animal m9d4 ,its m5tal /ates1 l all o!r natural exi/5ces1 are ev5ts 9 "t1 explicable 9 ! same naturali/ic fa%ion z ! bodily processes by :i* !y are condition$2 !y c n be equat$ ) t human consci\sness :i* enables u to reflect ^u !m1 & to det]m9e ! conditions ( _! temporal happ5+4 ,! di/9ction :i* ,kant desires to draw is ultimately t betwe5 ev5ts & consci\sness ( ev5ts4 ,ev5 if ev5ts are psy*ical 9 "*1 consi/+ ( s5sations & feel+s1 !re w /ill rema9 z fundam5tal ! di/9ction betwe5 :at is simply a memb] ( ! causal s]ies ( natural ev5ts & ! consci\sness ?r\gh :i* ! s]ies is appreh5d$4 ,kant's mo/ explicit /atem5ts occur 9 a lett] to ,h]z4#da ,he is ref]r+ to data ( ! s5ses :i* _c be self-consci\sly appreh5d$3 8,i %\ld n be able to "k t ,i h !m1 & !y w\ld !re=e be = me1 z a cognitive be+1 absolutely no?+4 ,!y might /ill 7if ,i conceive myself z an animal7 exi/ 9 me 7a be+ unconsci\s ( my own exi/5ce7 z repres5tations 4441 connect$ accord+ to an empirical law ( association1 ex]cis+ influ5ce ^u feel+ & desire1 & s always disport+ !mselves ) regul>ity1 )\t my !reby acquir+ ! lea/ cognition ( any?+1 n ev5 ( ^! my own /ates40#db ,z to :e!r ,kant is ju/ifi$ 9 ma9ta9+ t ! di/9ction betwe5 animal & human consci\sness co9cides ) ! di/9ction betwe5 associative & logical or reflective ?9k+1 ,i am n conc]n$ to ma9ta94 ,?is digression has be5 introduc$ solely = ! purpose ( def9+ m precisely ! c5tral t5ets ( ,kant's ,critical tea*+4 #f4 ,,! ,,nature ,,& ,,conditions ,,( ,,self-,,consci\sness ,we h /ill to consid] :at is p]haps ! mo/ s]i\s ( all ! misund]/&+s to :i* ,kant has laid himself op51 & :i* is 9 l>ge "p responsible = ! widespread belief t 8 ,critical pr9ciples1 :5 consi/5tly develop$1 mu/ f9ally ev5tuate 9 "s su* metaphysics z t ( ,fi*te & ,hegel4 ,i ref] to ! view t ,kant 9 po/ulat+ syn!tic processes z condition+ consci\sness is po/ulat+ a n\m5al self z ex]cis+ ^! activities1 & is !re=e prop\nd+ a metaphysical explanation ( ! syn!tic1 a priori factors 9 human exp]i5ce4#dc ,kant's language is frequ5tly ambigu\s4 ,! ,leibnizian spiritualism1 to :i* 9 8 pre-,critical p]iod he _h unque/ion+ly held1 cont9u$ to influ5ce 8 t]m9ology1 & s to prev5t 8 ,critical pr9ciples f obta9+ consi/5t expression4 ,?is mu* c be said 9 support ( ! above int]pretation ( ,kant's position4 ,b 9 all o!r respects su* a read+ ( 8 philosophy is little bett] ?an a p>ody ( 8 actual tea*+4 ,= ,kant is v well aw>e t ! problem ( k is n to be solv$ 9 any su* easy & high-h&$ fa%ion4 ,9 ! ,critique he tea*es q explicitly t to pr(ess to expla9 ! pres5ce ( a priori factors 9 human exp]i5ce by means ( a self assum$ = t v purpose w\ld be a flagrant violation1 n only ( ,critical pr9ciples1 b ev5 ( ! elem5t>y maxims ( sci5tific reason+4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 explanation by ref]5ce to ! activities ( su* a self w\ld be explanation by faculties1 by ! unkn[n2 x is a cause t w expla9 any?+ & ev]y?+ equally well or badly4#dd ,self-consci\sness has1 inde$1 to be admitt$ z a fact2#de & f its occurr5ce ,kant draws important conclusions 9 reg>d to ! conditions :i* make exp]i5ce possible4 ,b1 9 s do+1 ,kant nev] int5ds to ma9ta9 t we are ju/ifi$ 9 po/ulat+ z "p ( ^? conditions1 or z condition ( ^? conditions1 a n\m5al self4 ,! conditions :i* make exp]i5ce possible1 :atev] !y may be1 are also ! conditions :i* make self-consci\sness possible4 ,s9ce ! self is kn[n only z appe>ance1 x _c be ass]t$ to be ! condition+ gr\nd ( appe>ance4 ,?is fir/ objection is n explicitly /at$ by ,kant1 b x is impli$ 9 a second argum5t :i* f9ds expression bo? 9 ! ,d$uction ( ! ,categories & 9 ! *apt] on ! ,p>alogisms4 ,! only self t we "k to exi/ is ! consci\s self4 ,n[1 z ,kant claims to h prov$1 ! self c be ?us consci\s1 ev5 ( itself1 only 9 s f> z x is consci\s ( objects4 ,consequ5tly we h no "r to assume t ! self c prec$e su* consci\sness z its g5]at+ cause4 ,t w\ld be to reg>d ! self z exi/+ prior to its own conditions1 work+ 9 d>kness to create itself z a s\rce ( light4 ,b !re is also a ?ird reason :y ,kant's ,critical solution ( ! problem ( k mu/ n be /at$ 9 spirituali/ t]ms4 ,self-consci\sness1 z he %[s1 is itself relational 9 "*4 ,x is a fundam5tal factor 9 human exp]i5ce1 n because ! self c be %[n to be ! ag5cy to :i* relations are due1 b solely because1 itself a case ( recognition1 x is at ! same "t a necess>y condition ( recognition1 & recognition is indisp5sably presuppos$ 9 all consci\sness ( mean+4#df ,aw>5ess ( mean+ is ! fundam5tal my/]y1 & reta9s its pr(\ndly my/]i\s "* ev5 :5 self-consci\sness has be5 ?us detect$ z an ess5tial con/itu5t4 ,= self-consci\sness does n expla9 ! possibility ( mean+2 x is itself1 z ,i h j rem>k$1 only "o case ( recognition1 & s is itself only an in/ance1 ?\gh inde$ ! supreme & mo/ important in/ance1 ( :at we mu/ int5d by ! t]m mean+4 ,all aw>5ess1 n except+ t ( ! kn[+ self1 re/s ^u n\m5al conditions ^: specific nature x does n itself reveal4 ,only on moral gr\nds1 nev] ?r\gh any purely !oretical analysis ( cognitive exp]i5ce1 c x be prov$ t ! self is an abid+ p]sonality1 & t 9 consci\s1 p]sonal =m x belongs to ! ord] ( n\m5al reality4 #g4 ,,kant',s ,,?reefold ,,di/9ction ,,betwe5 ,,s5sibility1 ,,und]/&+1 ,,& ,,reason ,ev5 s summ>y a /atem5t ( ,critical tea*+ z ,i am attempt+ 9 ?is ,introduction w\ld be v incomplete )\t "s ref]5ce to ,kant's ?reefold di/9ction betwe5 ! =ms ( s5sibility1 ! categories ( ! und]/&+1 & ! ,ideas ( ,reason4 ,on inve/igat+ space & "t ,kant discov]s t !y _c be class$ ei!r ) ! data ( ! bodily s5ses or ) ! concepts ( ! und]/&+4 ,!y are s5su\s 7i4e4 are n ab/ract b concrete1 n ways ( ?9k+ b modes ( exi/5ce71 yet at ! same "t are a priori4 ,!y ?us /& ap>t by !mselves4 ,ea* is unique 9 its k9d1 is s+le1 & is an inf9ite exi/5ce4 ,to describe !m is to comb9e pr$icates seem+ly contradictory4 ,9 ,kant's own phrase1 !y are mon/rosities 7,und+e71 none ! less incompreh5sible t !y are und5iably actual4 ,to !m1 prim>ily1 are due ^? problems :i* h be5 a /&+ *all5ge to philosophy s9ce ! "t ( ,z5o ! ,eleatic1 & :i* ,kant has entitl$ 8ant9omies ( ,reason40 ,9 contra/ ( s5sibility ,kant sets ! intellectual faculties1 und]/&+ & ,reason4 ,9 ! und]/&+ orig9ate c]ta9 pure concepts1 or z he m usually names !m1 categories4 ,! *ief ( ^! are ! categories ( 8relation0--sub/ance1 causality & reciprocity4 ,!y comb9e ) ! =ms ( s5sibility & ! manifold ( s5se to yield ! consci\sness ( an empirical ord]1 int]pretable 9 accordance ) univ]sal laws4 ,to ! faculty ( ,reason ,kant ascribes :at he entitles ,ideas4 ,! ,ideas diff] f space1 "t1 & ! categories 9 be+ n 8con/itutive0 b 8regulative40 ,!y dem& an uncondition$ness ( exi/5ce & a complet5ess ( explanation :i* c nev] be f\nd 9 actual exp]i5ce4 ,_! function is ?reefold4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 !y r5d] ! m9d dissatisfi$ ) ! haphaz>d collocations ( ord9>y exp]i5ce1 & def9e ! goal = its sci5tific endeav\rs4 ,secondly1 !y det]m9e = u ! crit]ia t di/+ui% betwe5 tru? & falsity4#dg ,& ?irdly1 9 s do+1 !y likewise make possible ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality1 reveal+ to u an irreconcilable conflict betwe5 ! ultimate aims ( sci5ce & ! human conditions1 especially ! spatial & temporal conditions "u :i* ^! aims are realis$4 ,! ,ideas ( ,reason are ! second ma9 factor 9 ! 8ant9omies40 ,! problem ( ! ,critique1 ! analysis ( our aw>5ess ( mean+1 is a s+le problem1 & ea* ( ! above elem5ts involves all ! o!rs4 ,kant1 h[ev]1 = reasons into :i* ,i ne$ n "h ent]1 has assign$ "p ( ! problem to :at he entitles ! ,transc5d5tal ,ae/hetic1 & ano!r "p to ! ,transc5d5tal ,dialectic4 ,only :at rema9s is dealt ) 9 :at is really ! mo/ important ( ! ?ree divisions1 ! ,transc5d5tal ,analytic4 ,b z ! problem is "o & indivisible1 ! discussions 9 all ?ree sections are condemn$ to incomplet5ess save 9 s f> z ,kant1 by happy inconsi/5cy1 transgresses ! limits impos$ by 8 me?od ( treatm5t4 ,! ,ae/hetic really does no m ?an prep>e ! gr\nd = ! m adequate analysis ( space & "t giv5 9 ! ,analytic & ,dialectic1 :ile ! problem ( ! ,analytic is itself incompletely /at$ until ! m compreh5sive argum5t ( ! ,dialectic is tak5 into acc\nt4#dh ,?us ! /atem5t 9 ! ,ae/hetic t space & "t are giv5 to ! m9d by ! s5su\s faculty ( receptivity is modifi$ 9 ! ,analytic ?r\gh recognition ( ! "p :i* ! syn!ses & concepts ( ! und]/&+ mu/ play 9 ! con/ruction ( ^! =ms2 & 9 ! ,dialectic _! appreh5sion is fur!r f\nd to involve an ,idea ( ,reason4 ,simil>ly1 9 ! conclud+ *apt] ( ! ,analytic1 9 discuss+ ! gr\nds = di/+ui%+ betwe5 appe>ance & reality1 ,kant omits all ref]5ce to c]ta9 important consid]ations :i* fir/ em]ge into view 9 ! c\rse ( ! ,dialectic4 ,yet1 ?\gh no "q is m vital to ,critical tea*+1 ! read] is left "u ! impression t ! treatm5t giv5 9 ! ,analytic is complete & f9al4 ,p>tly z a consequ5ce ( ?is1 p>tly ow+ to ,kant's inconsi/5t ret5tion ( e>li] modes ( ?9k+1 !re are traceable ?r\gh\t ! ,critique two oppos$ views ( ! nature ( ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 ,on ! "o view1 ?is di/9ction is m$iat$ by ! relational categories ( ! und]/&+1 especially by t ( causality2 on ! o!r view1 x is gr\nd$ 9 ! ,ideas ( ,reason4 ,! =m] sets appe>ance 9 opposition to reality2 ! latt] reg>ds ! di/9ction 9 a m t5able fa%ion1 z be+ betwe5 realities less & m compreh5sively conceiv$4#di ,a simil> defect is caus$ by ,kant's isolation ( imman5t f transc5d5t metaphysics4#ej ,! =m] is dealt ) only 9 ! ,analytic1 ! latt] only 9 ! ,dialectic4 ,! =m]1 ,kant ass]ts1 is made possible by ! =ms ( s5sibility & ! categories ( ! und]/&+2 ! latt] he traces to an illegitimate employm5t ( ! ,ideas ( ,reason4 ,su* a mode ( /atem5t itself reveals ! impossibility ( any %>p di/9ction betwe5 ! imman5t & ! transc5d5t4 ,if sci5ce is condition$ by ,ideals :i* ar\se ! m9d to fur!r acquisitions1 & at ! same "t reveal ! limitations to :i* our k is = ev] condemn$ to rema9 subject2 if1 9 o!r words1 ev]y?+ kn[n1 9 be+ correctly kn[n1 mu/ be appreh5d$ z appe>ance 7i4e4 z a subord9ate exi/5ce )9 a m compreh5sive reality71 ! di/9ction betwe5 ! imman5t & ! transc5d5t falls )9 & n beyond ! doma9 ( our total exp]i5ce4 ,! mean+ :i* our consci\sness discloses 9 ea* ( its judgm5ts is an ess5tially metaphysical "o4 ,x involves ! ?\ght1 ?\gh n ! k1 ( some?+ m ?an :at ! exp]i5c$ c ev] itself be f\nd to be4 ,! metaphysical is imman5t 9 our k2 ! transc5d5t is m]ely a "n = ?is imman5t factor :5 x is falsely view$ z capable ( isolation & ( indep5d5t treatm5t4 ,by ,kant's own %[+1 ! task ( ! ,dialectic is n m]ely to refute ! pret5sions ( transc5d5t metaphysics1 b to develop ! above g5]al !sis1 9 confirmation ( ! positive conclusions e/abli%$ 9 ! ,analytic4 ,! ,critique w !n supply ! rem$y = c]ta9 evils to :i* ! human m9d has hi!rto be5 subject4 8,! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason is a pres]vative aga9/ a malady :i* has its s\rce 9 our rational nature4 ,?is malady is ! opposite ( ! love ( home 7! home-sickness7 :i* b9ds u to our fa!rl&4 ,x is a long+ to pass out beyond our imm$iate conf9es & to relate ourselves to o!r worlds40#ea #h4 ,,! ,,place ,,( ,,! ,,critique ,,( ,,pure ,,reason ,,9 ,,kant',s ,,philosophical ,,sy/em ,! positive "* ( ,kant's conclusions _c be prop]ly appreciat$ save 9 ! wid] p]spectives t op5 to view 9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason & 9 ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t4 ,?\gh 9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason a di/9ction is drawn betwe5 !oretical & moral belief1 x is introduc$ 9 a some:at casual mann]1 & !re is no cle> indication ( ! f>-rea*+ consequ5ces t foll[ 9 its tra94 ,un=tunately also1 ev5 9 8 lat] writ+s1 ,kant is v unfair to himself 9 8 me?ods ( =mulat+ ! di/9ction4 ,8 real int5tion is to %[ t sci5tific k is n coext5sive ) human insight2 b he employs a mislead+ t]m9ology1 contra/+ k ) fai?1 sci5tific demon/ration ) practical belief4 ,z already indicat$1 ! t]m k has1 9 ! ,critical philosophy1 a mu* n>r[] connotation ?an 9 curr5t spee*4 ,x is limit$ to s5se-exp]i5ce1 & to su* inf]5ces !refrom z c be obta9$ by ! only me?ods t ,kant is will+ to recognise1 namely1 ! ma!matico-physical4 ,ae/hetic1 moral & religi\s exp]i5ce1 & ev5 organic ph5om5a1 are exclud$ f ! field ( possible k4 ,9 hold+ to ?is position1 ,kant is1 ( c\rse1 ! *ild ( 8 "t4 ,! absolute suffici5cy ( ! ,newtonian physics is a presupposition ( all 8 utt]ances on ?is !me4 ,newton1 he believes1 has det]m9$ 9 a q f9al mann] ! pr9ciples1 me?ods & limits ( sci5tific inve/igation4 ,= ?\gh ,kant himself imposes ^u sci5ce a fur!r limitation1 namely1 to appe>ances1 he conceives himself1 9 s do+1 n z weak5+ ,newton's natural philosophy1 b z secur+ x aga9/ all possible objections4 ,& to balance ! n>r[ connotation ?us assign$ to ! t]m k1 he has to give a correspond+ly wide mean+ to ! t]ms fai?1 moral belief1 subjective pr9ciples ( int]pretation4 ,if ?is be n kept con/antly 9 m9d1 ! read] is c]ta9 to miscon/rue ! "* & t5d5cies ( ,kant's actual tea*+4 ,b ?\gh ! advances made by ! sci5ces s9ce ,kant's "t h r5d]$ ?is mode ( delimit+ ! field ( k altoge!r unt5able1 8 me?od ( def9+ ! s\rces ( philosophical insight has prov$ v fruitful1 & has _m adh]5ts at ! pres5t day4 ,:at ,kant does--/at$ 9 broad outl9e--is to di/+ui% betwe5 ! problems ( exi/5ce & ! problems ( value1 assign+ ! =m] to sci5ce & ! latt] to philosophy4#eb ,!oretical philosophy1 repres5t$ 9 8 sy/em by ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 takes z its prov9ce ! logical values1 t is1 ! di/9ction ( tru? & falsity1 & def9+ _! crit]ia det]m9es ! nature & limits ( our !oretical insight4 ,kant f9ds t ^! crit]ia enable u to di/+ui% betwe5 tru? & falsity only on ! empirical plane4 ,beyond mak+ possible a di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality1 !y h no applicability 9 ! metaphysical sph]e4 ,! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason deals ) values ( a v diff]5t "*4 ,! faculty ( ,reason1 :i*1 z already not$1#ec r5d]s our consci\sness a purposive ag5cy controll$ by ,ideal /&>ds1 is also1 ,kant ma9ta9s1 ! s\rce ( ! moral sanctions4 ,b :]eas 9 ! !oretical field x subdues our m9ds to ! discipl9e ( exp]i5ce1 & re/ra9s our intellectual ambitions )9 ! limits ( ! empirical ord]1 x "h summons u to sacrifice e natural impulse & e secul> advantage to ! fur!rance ( an end t has absolute value4 ,9 impos+ duties1 x raises our life f ! 8pragmatic0#ed level ( a calculat+ exp$i5cy to ! high] plane ( a categorical imp]ative4 ,! categorical imp]ative at once humbles & exalts2 x discloses our limitations1 b does s ?r\gh ! greatness ( ! vocation to :i* x calls u4 8,?is pr9ciple ( morality1 j on acc\nt ( ! univ]sality ( ! legislation :i* makes x ! =mal supreme det]m9+ pr9ciple ( our w1 )\t reg>d to any subjective diff]5ces1 is decl>$ by ! ,reason to be a law = all rational be+s4444 ,x is1 !re=e1 n limit$ to m5 only1 b applies to all f9ite be+s t possess ,reason & ,w2 nay1 x ev5 includes ! ,inf9ite ,be+ z ! ,supreme ,intellig5ce40#ee ,consequ5tly1 9 employ+ moral ends 9 ! int]pretation ( ! ,univ]se1 we are n pictur+ ! ,div9e "u human limitations1 b are disc\nt+ ^! limitations 9 ! light ( ! "o =m ( value t is kn[n to u z absolute4 8,duty6 444 ,:at orig9 is wor?y ( !e & :]e is to be f\nd ! root ( ?y noble desc5t 444 a root to be d]iv$ f :i* is ! indisp5sable condition ( ! only wor? t m5 c give !mselves40#ef ,9 8 e>li] ye>s ,kant _h accept$ ! curr5t1 ,leibnizian view t human excell5ce consi/s 9 intellectual enlight5m5t1 & t x is !re=e res]v$ = an lite1 privileg$ ) ! leisure & end[$ ) ! special abilities requir$ = its enjoym5t4 ,f ?is arid intellectualism he 0 deliv]$ ?r\gh ! influ5ce ( ,r\sseau4 8,i am by disposition an enquir]4 ,i feel ! consum+ ?ir/ = k1 ! eag] unre/ to advance ev] fur!r1 & ! delights ( discov]y4 ,!re 0 a "t :5 ,i believ$ t ?is is :at conf]s real dignity ^u human life1 & ,i despis$ ! common p :o "k no?+4 ,r\sseau has set me "r4 ,?is imag9$ advantage vani%es4 ,i le>n to hon\r m51 & %\ld reg>d myself z ( mu* less use ?an ! common lab\r]1 if ,i did n believe t my philosophy w re/ore to all m5 ! common rights ( humanity40#eg ,^! common rights ,kant =mulates 9 a purely individuali/ mann]4 ,= "h also1 9 8 lack ( hi/oric s5se & 9 8 di/ru/ alike ( prie/s & ( /atesm51 he is ! *ild ( 8 "t4 ,9 ! education & discipl9e ( ! s\l he looks to no?+ s artificial & humanly limit$--,kant s reg>ds !m--z religi\s tradition & social in/itutions4 ,human rights1 he believes1 d n v>y ) "t & place2 & = _! enjoym5t man requires no initiation & no equipm5t beyond :at is suppli$ by ,nature h]self4 ,x is f ?is /&po9t t ,kant adduces1 z ! tw(old & suffici5t inspiration to ! rig\rs & sublimities ( ! spiritual life1 ! />ry heav5s above u & ! moral law )94 ,!y are ev]-pres5t influ5ces on ! life ( man4 ,! nak$ eye reveals ! =m]2 ( ! latt] all m5 are imm$iately aw>e4 ,9 _! univ]sal appeal !y are ( ! v sub/ance ( human exi/5ce4 ,philosophy may avail to c\nt]act c]ta9 ( ! h9drances :i* prev5t !m f ex]cis+ _! native influ5ce2 x _c be a sub/itute = ! inspiration :i* !y alone c yield4 ,?us ! categorical imp]ative1 9 end[+ ! human s\l ) an intr9sic value1 s+les x out f all o!r natural exi/5ces1 & /r5g!ns x to face1 ) equanimity1 ! cold imm5sities ( ! cosmic sy/em4 ,= ?\gh ! heav5s ar\se 9 u a pa9ful feel+ ( our insignificance z animal exi/5ces1 !y int5sify our consci\sness ( a sublime de/9y1 z be>]s ( a rival1 & inde$ a sup]ior1 dignity4 ,9 "o fundam5tal respect ,kant broke ) ! tea*+ ( ,r\sseau1 namely1 9 que/ion+ 8 doctr9e ( ! natural goodness & indef9ite p]fectibility ( human nature4#eh ,no?+1 ,kant ma9ta9s1 is good )\t qualification except ! good w2 & ev5 t1 p]haps1 is nev] completely atta9$ 9 any s+le in/ance4 ,! ex]cise ( duty dem&s a p]petual vigilance1 "u ! ev]-pres5t consci\sness ( cont9u+ dem]it4 8,i am will+ to admit out ( love ( humanity t mo/ ( our actions are inde$ correct1 b if we exam9e !m m closely we ev]y:]e come ^u ! de> self :i* is always prom95t44440#ei 8,no?+ b moral fanaticism & exagg]at$ self-conceit is infus$ into ! m9d by exhortation to actions z noble1 sublime & magnanim\s4 ,!reby m5 are l$ into ! delusion t x is n duty1 t is1 respect = ! law1 ^: yoke 444 !y mu/ be>1 :e!r !y l x or n1 t con/itutes ! det]m9+ pr9ciple ( _! actions1 & :i* always humbles !m :ile !y obey x4 ,!y !n fancy t ^? actions are expect$ f !m1 n f duty1 b z pure m]it4444 ,9 ?is way !y eng5d] a va9 high-fly+ fanta/ic way ( ?9k+1 flatt]+ !mselves ) a spontane\s goodness ( he>t t ne$s nei!r spur nor bridle1 nor any comm&44440#fj ,9 ass]t+ ! goodness & self-suffici5cy ( our natural impulses ,r\sseau is ! spokesman ( a philosophy :i* has dom9at$ social & political !ory s9ce 8 day1 & :i* is /ill preval5t4 ,?is philosophy1 9 ,kant's view1 is disa/r\s 9 its consequ5ces4 ,z a read+ ( human nature & ( our moral vocation1 x is h>dly less false ?an ! ,epicurean tea*+1 :i* f9ds 9 ! pursuit ( pleasure ! motive ( all our actions4 ,a naturali/ic e?ics1 9 ei!r =m1 is incapacitat$1 by ! v nature ( its controll+ assumptions1 f appreciat+ ! di/+ui%+ features ( ! moral consci\sness4 ,nei!r ! successes nor ! failures ( man's spiritual endeav\r c be rightly und]/ood f any su* /&po9t4 ,! human race1 9 its endurance & t5acity1 9 its dauntless c\rage & 9 its so>+ _s1 reveals ! pres5ce ( a prev5i5t influ5ce1 non-natural 9 "*2 & only if human nature be tak5 z includ+ ?is high]1 directive p[]1 c x assume to itself ! eulogy :i* ,r\sseau s mi/ak5ly passes ^u ! natural & undiscipl9$ t5d5cies ( ! human he>t4 ,= z hi/ory demon/rates1 :ile m5 are weak1 humanity is m>vell\s4 8,!re is "o ?+ 9 our s\l :i*1 :5 we take a "r view ( x1 we _c cease to reg>d ) ! highe/ a/oni%m5t1 & 9 reg>d to :i* admiration is "r & inde$ elevat+1 & t is our orig9al moral capacity 9 g5]al4444 ,ev5 ! incompreh5sibility ( ?is capacity1#fa a capacity :i* proclaims a ,div9e orig91 mu/ r\se man's _s to en?usiasm & /r5g!n x = any sacrifices :i* respect = 8 duty may impose on him40#fb ,we are n "h conc]n$ ) ! detail ( ,kant's e?ical tea*+1 or ) ! mann] 9 :i* he e/abli%es ! fre$om ( ! w1 & ju/ifies belief 9 ! exi/5ce ( ,god & ! immortality ( ! s\l4 ,9 _m respects 8 argum5t lies op5 to criticism4 ,!re is an unhappy contra/ betwe5 ! l>g5ess ( 8 fundam5tal !sis & ! =mal1 doctr9aire mann] 9 :i* x is develop$4 ,inde$1 9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason ! individuali/1 dei/ic1 rationali/ic modes ( ?9k+ ( 8 "t are mu* m 9 evid5ce ?an 9 any o!r ( 8 *ief writ+s2 & incid5tally he also displays a curi\s ins5sibility--aga9 *>act]i/ic ( 8 p]iod--to all t is specific 9 ! religi\s attitude4 ,b :5 due all[ances h be5 made1 we c /ill ma9ta9 t 9 re/+ 8 con/ructive views ^u ! supreme value ( ! moral p]sonality ,kant has influ5c$ subsequ5t philosophy 9 h>dly less degree ?an by 8 tea*+ 9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4#fc ,! two ,critiques1 9 me?od ( exposition & argum5t1 9 g5]al outcome1 & inde$ 9 ! total impression !y leave ^u ! m9d1 are extraord9>ily diff]5t4 ,9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason ,kant is meticul\sly scrupul\s 9 te/+ ! validity ( ea* l9k 9 8 argum5t4 ,con/antly he retraces 8 /eps2 & 9 _m ( 8 *ief problems he halts betwe5 compet+ solutions4 ,kant's sceptical _s is awake1 & x refuses to cease f its que/ion+s4 ,9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 on ! o!r h&1 !re is an au/]e simplicity ( argum5t1 :i* advances1 )\t look+ to "r or left1 f a few simple pr9ciples direct to _! ultimate consequ5ces4 ,! impressiv5ess ( ! fir/ ,critique consi/s 9 its appreciation ( ! complexity ( ! problems1 & 9 ! c>e ) :i* _! v>i\s1 conflict+ aspects are sep>ately dealt )4 ,! second ,critique d]ives its =ce f ! fundam5tal conviction ^u :i* x is bas$4 ,su*1 !n1 /at$ 9 ! mo/ g5]al t]ms1 is ! mann] 9 :i* ,kant conceives ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason z contribut+ to ! e/abli%m5t ( a humani/ic philosophy4 ,x cle>s ! gr\nd = ! practical ,reason1 & secures x 9 ! autonom\s control ( its own doma94 ,:ile pres]v+ to ! intellect & to sci5ce c]ta9 def9itely prescrib$ rights1 ,kant places 9 ! =efront ( 8 sy/em ! moral values2 & he does s "u ! conviction t 9 liv+ up to ! opportunities1 9 :atev] rank ( life1 ( our common h]itage1 we obta9 a tru] & deep] insight into ultimate issues ?an c be acquir$ ?r\gh ! ab/ruse subtleties ( metaphysical speculation4 ,i may aga9 draw att5tion to ! consequ5ces :i* foll[ f ,kant's habitual me?od ( isolat+ 8 problems4 ,tru? is a value ( univ]sal jurisdiction1 & f its crit]ia ! judgm5ts ( moral & o!r values c claim no exemption4 ,exi/5ces & values d n con/itute indep5d5t ord]s4 ,!y int]p5etrate1 & nei!r c be adequately dealt ) ap>t f ! consid]ations appropriate to ! o!r4 ,9 fail+ to co-ord9ate 8 problems1 ,kant has ov]-emphasis$ ! negative aspects ( 8 logical enquiries & has =mulat$ 8 e?ical doctr9es 9 a ne$lessly dogmatic =m4 ,^! defects are1 h[ev]1 9 "s degree rem$i$ 9 ! la/ ( 8 *ief works1 ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t4 ,9 c]ta9 respects x is ! mo/ int]e/+ ( all ,kant's writ+s4 ,! qualities ( bo? ! e>li] ,critiques "h appe> 9 happy comb9ation1 :ile 9 addition 8 concrete int]e/s are m 9 evid5ce1 to ! great enri*m5t ( 8 ab/ract argum5t4 ,_m ( ! doctr9es ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 especially ^? t be> on ! problems ( teleology1 are re/at$ 9 a less negative mann]1 & 9 _! connection ) ! k9dr$ problems ( natural beauty & ! f9e arts4 ,= ?\gh ! f9al decision 9 all metaphysical que/ions is /ill res]v$ to moral consid]ations1 ,kant n[ takes a m ca?olic view ( ! field ( philosophy4 ,he all[s1 ?\gh ) *>act]i/ic res]vations1 t ! empirical evid5ce obta9able ?r\gh exam9ation ( ! broad] features ( our total exp]i5ce is ( g5u9ely philosophical value1 & t x c safely be employ$ to amplify & confirm ! indep5d5t convictions ( ! moral consci\sness4 ,! emb>go :i* 9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 9 matt]s metaphysical1 is plac$ ^u all t5tative & probable reason+ is ?us tacitly remov$2 & ! t]m k aga9 acquires ! wid] mean+ v prop]ly ascrib$ to x 9 ord9>y spee*4 ,a ,,comm5t>y ,,to ,,kant',s 8,,critique ,,( ,,pure ,,reason0 ,,title3 ,,kritik ,,d] ,,re95 ,,v]nunft ,! t]m critique or criticism1 z employ$ by ,kant1 is ( ,engli% orig94 ,x appe>s 9 sev5te5? & eighte5? c5tury ,engli%1 *iefly 9 adjectival =m1 z a lit]>y & arti/ic t]m--= in/ance1 9 ! works ( ,pope1 :o 0 ,kant's fav\rite ,engli% poet4 ,kant 0 ! fir/ to employ x 9 ,g]man1 ext5d+ x f ! field ( ae/hetics to t ( g5]al philosophy4 ,a ref]5ce 9 ,kant's ,logic#fd to ,home's ,elem5ts ( ,criticism#fe w\ld seem to indicate t x 0 ,home's use ( ! t]m :i* sugge/$ to him its wid] employm5t4 8,critique ( pure reason10 9 its prim>y mean+1 signifies ! pass+ ( critical judgm5ts ^u pure reason4 ,9 ?is s5se ,kant speaks ( 8 "t z 8! age ( criticism 7,zeitalt] d] ,kritik740 ,frequ5tly1 h[ev]1 he takes ! t]m m specifically z mean+ a critical inve/igation lead+ to positive z well z to negative results4 ,occasionally1 especially 9 ! ,dialectic1 x also signifies a discipl9e appli$ to pure reason1 limit+ x )9 due b\nds4 ,! fir/ appe>ance ( ! ^w 9 ,kant's writ+s is 9 #agfe 9 ! ,na*ri*t#ff ( 8 lectures = ! w9t] t]m #agfe-agff4 ,kant seldom employs ! correspond+ adjective1 critical 7kritis*74 ,8 usual sub/itute = x is ! t]m transc5d5tal4 ,pure 7re97 has "h a v def9ite mean+4 ,x is ! absolutely a priori4 ,negatively x signifies t :i* is indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce4 ,positively x signifies t :i* orig9ates f reason itself1 & :i* is *>act]is$ by univ]sality & necessity4#fg ,by 8pure reason0 ,kant !re=e means reason 9 s f> z x supplies out ( itself1 indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce1 a priori elem5ts t z su* are *>act]is$ by univ]sality & necessity4 ,reason 7,v]nunft7 is us$ 9 ! ,critique 9 ?ree diff]5t mean+s4 ,9 ! above title x is employ$ 9 its wide/ s5se1 z ! s\rce ( all a priori elem5ts4 ,x includes :at is a priori 9 s5sibility z well z 9 und]/&+ 7,v]/&74 ,9 its n>r[e/ s5se x is di/9ct ev5 f und]/&+1 & signifies t faculty :i* r5d]s ! m9d dissatisfi$ ) its ord9>y & sci5tific k1 & :i* leads x to dem& a complet5ess & uncondition$ness :i* c nev] be f\nd 9 ! empirical sph]e4 ,und]/&+ conditions sci5ce2 reason g5]ates metaphysic4 ,und]/&+ has categories2 reason has its ,ideas4 ,?irdly1 ,kant frequ5tly employs und]/&+ & reason z synonym\s t]ms1 divid+ ! m9d only into ! two faculties1 s5sibility & spontaneity4 ,?us 9 ,a #a-b1 und]/&+ & reason are us$ promiscu\sly1 & 9 place ( re9e ,v]nunft we f9d re9] ,v]/&4 ,z already /at$1 ! t]m reason1 z employ$ 9 ,kant's title1 ought prop]ly to be tak5 9 its wide/ s5se4 ,s5sibility falls )9 reason 9 virtue ( ! a priori =ms :i* x conta9s4 ,kant does n himself1 h[ev]1 always int]pret ! title 9 ?is /rict s5se4 ,! triple use ( ! t]m is an excell5t example ( ! loos5ess & c>elessness ) :i* he employs ev5 ! mo/ important & fundam5tal ( 8 te*nical t]ms4 ,only ! context c reveal ! p>ticul> mean+ to be assign$ 9 ea* case4 ,! phrase 8( pure reason0 7d] re95 ,v]nunft7 has1 z ,vaih+] po9ts out1#fh a ?reefold ambiguity4 7#a7 ,sometimes x is a g5itive objective4 ,! critical enquiry is direct$ ^u pure reason z its object4 ,?is corresponds to ! view ( ! ,critique z m]ely a treatise on me?od4 7#b7 ,sometimes x is a g5itive subjective4 ,! critical enquiry is und]tak5 by & execut$ ?r\gh pure reason4 ,?is expresses ! view ( ! ,critique z itself a sy/em ( pure rational k4 7#c7 ,at o!r times x has a reflexive mean+4 ,pure reason is subject & object at once4 ,x is bo? subject-matt] & me?od or in/rum5t4 ,?r\gh ! ,critique x atta9s to self-k4 ,! ,critique is ! critical exam9ation ( pure reason by itself4 ,! fir/ view w\ld seem to be ! orig9al & prim>y mean+ ( ! title4 ,! second view v e>ly took its place alongside x1 & appe>s 9 _m passages4 ,! ?ird view mu/ be tak5 z repres5t+ ,kant's f9al int]pretation ( ! title2 x is on ! :ole ! mo/ adequate to ! actual cont5t & scope ( ! ,critique4 ,= ! ,critique is n m]ely a treatise on me?od2 x is also a sy/em ( pure rational k4 ,x pr(esses to e/abli%1 9 an exhau/ive & f9al mann]1 ! a priori pr9ciples :i* det]m9e ! possibility1 conditions1 & limits ( pure rational k4#fi ,,motto ,de nobis ipsis silemus3 ,de re autem1 quae agitur1 petimus3 ut hom9es eam non op9ionem1 s$ opus esse cogit5t2 ac pro c]to habeant1 non sectae nos alicuius1 aut placiti1 s$ utilitatis et amplitud9is humanae fundam5ta moliri4 ,de9de ut suis commodis aequi 444 9 commune consulant 444 et ipsi 9 p>tem v5iant4 ,praet]ea ut b5e sp]5t1 neque in/aurationem no/ram ut quiddam inf9itum et ultra mortale f+ant1 et animo concipiant2 quum rev]a sit inf9iti erroris f9is et t]m9us legitimus4 ,?is motto1 :i* 0 add$ 9 ! second edition1 is tak5 f ! preface to ,bacon's ,in/auratio ,magna1 ( :i* ! ,novum ,organum is ! second "p4 ,z ! fir/ "p ( ! ,in/auratio is repres5t$ only by ! lat]1 sep>ately publi%$1 ,de ,augm5tis ,sci5ti>um1 ?is preface orig9ally appe>$1 & is /ill usually giv51 z introductory to ! ,novum ,organum4 ,! complete passage 79 :i* ,i h indicat$ ,kant's omissions7 is r5d]$ z foll[s 9 ! translation ( ,ellis & ,sp$d+3#gj 8,( myself ,i say no?+2 b 9 behalf ( ! bus9ess :i* is 9 h& ,i entreat m5 to believe t x is n an op9ion to be held1 b a "w to be done2 & to be well assur$ t ,i am lab\r+ to lay ! f\ndation1 n ( any sect or doctr9e1 b ( human utility & p[]4 ,next1 ,i ask !m to deal fairly by _! own int]e/s & lay+ aside all emulations & prejudices 9 fav\r ( ?is or t op9ion1 to jo9 9 consultation = ! common good2 & be+ n[ fre$ & gu>d$ by ! securities & helps :i* ,i (f] f ! errors & imp$im5ts ( ! way to come =w>d !mselves & take "p 9 t :i* rema9s to be done4 ,moreov]1 to be ( good hope1 nor to imag9e t ?is ,in/auration ( m9e is a ?+ inf9ite & beyond ! p[] ( man1 :5 x is 9 fact ! true end & t]m9ation ( inf9ite error40 ,! op5+ s5t5ce ( ,bacon's preface might also h s]v$ z a fitt+ motto to ! ,critique3 8,x seems to me t m5 d n rightly und]/& ei!r _! /ore or _! /r5g?1 b ov]rate ! "o & und]rate ! o!r40 ,or aga9 ! foll[+3 8,i h n s\ght nor d ,i seek ei!r to en=ce or to ensn>e m5's judgm5ts1 b ,i lead !m to ?+s !mselves & ! concordances ( ?+s1 t !y may see = !mselves :at !y h1 :at !y c dispute1 :at !y c add & contribute to ! common /ock4444 ,& by ^! means ,i suppose t ,i h e/abli%$ = ev] a true & lawful m>riage betwe5 ! empirical & ! rational faculty1 ! unk9d & ill-/>r$ divorce & sep>ation ( :i* has ?r[n into confusion all ! affairs ( ! human family40 ,,d$ication ,,to ,,freih]r ,,von ,,z$litz ,k>l ,abraham1 ,freih]r von ,z$litz _h be5 entru/$1 z ,m9i/] 7#agga-aghh7 to ,fr$]ick ! ,great1 ) ! ov]sight & direction ( ! ,prussian sy/em ( education4 ,he held ,kant 9 ! highe/ e/eem4#ga ,9 ,febru>y #aggh we f9d him writ+ to ?ank ,kant = ! pleasure he _h f\nd 9 p]us+ notes ( 8 lectures on physical geography1 & reque/+ ! fav\r ( a complete copy4#gb ,a week lat] he invit$ ,kant to accept a pr(essor%ip ( philosophy 9 ,halle1#gc :i* 0 !n mu* ! mo/ important univ]sity c5tre 9 ,g]many4 ,^u ,kant's refusal he repeat$ ! (f]1 ) add$ inducem5ts1 includ+ ! title ( ,h(rat4#gd ,aga91 9 ,augu/ ( ! same ye>1 he writes t he is att5d+1 ^u ,m5delssohn's recomm5dation 7& d\btless also 9 ! hope ( receiv+ f ?is indirect s\rce fur!r light ^u ,kant's own tea*+ 9 a fav\rite field71 ! lectures on an?ropology ( ,kant's disciple & fri5d1 ,m>cus ,h]z4 ,! lett] concludes ) a passage :i* may p]haps h sugge/$ to ,kant ! appropriat5ess ( d$icat+ 8 ,critique to s wise & disc]n+ a patron ( true philosophy4 8,%\ld y\r inv5tive p[] ext5d s f>1 sugge/ to me ! means ( hold+ back ! /ud5ts 9 ! univ]sities f ! bread & butt] /udies1 & ( mak+ !m und]/& t _! modicum ( law1 ev5 _! !ology & m$ic9e1 w be imm5sely m easily acquir$ & safely appli$1 if !y are 9 possession ( m philosophical k4 ,!y c be judges1 advocates1 prea*]s & physicians only = a few h\rs ea* day2 b 9 ^! & all ! rema9d] ( ! day !y are m51 & h ne$ ( o!r sci5ces4 ,9 %ort1 y mu/ in/ruct me h[ ?is is to be br\ght home to /ud5ts4 ,pr9t$ injunctions1 laws1 regulations--^! are ev5 worse ?an bread & butt] /udy itself40#ge ,a ,m9i/] ( ,education :o ?us ranks philosophy above pr(essional /udies1 & bo? z m important ?an all academic ma*9]y1 holds 8 (fice by div9e "r4 ,,preface ,,to ,,! ,,fir/ ,,edition ,detail$ discussion ( ! ,prefaces is n advisable4 ,! problems :i* !y raise c be/ be treat$ 9 ! ord] 9 :i* !y come up 9 ! ,critique itself4 ,i %all dwell only on ! m9or incid5tal difficulties ( ! text1 & on ^? features 9 ,kant's exposition :i* are peculi> to ! ,prefaces1 or :i* seem helpful 9 ! way ( prelim9>y ori5tation4 ,i %all fir/ briefly re/ate ! argum5t ( ! ,preface to ! fir/ edition1 & !n add ! necess>y comm5t4 ,human reason is in]adicably metaphysical4 ,x is haunt$ by que/ions :i*1 ?\gh spr++ f its v nature1 none ! less transc5d its p[]s4 ,su* a pr9ciple1 = in/ance1 z t ( causality1 9 c>ry+ u to m & m remote conditions1 =ces u to realise t by su* regress our que/ions c nev] be answ]$4 ,h[ev] f> we rec$e 9 "t1 & h[ev] f> we proce$ 9 space1 we are /ill no ne>] to a f9al answ] to our initial problems1 & are !re=e compell$ to take refuge 9 po/ulates ( a diff]5t k9d1 su*1 = in/ance1 z t !re mu/ be a fir/ uncondition$ cause f :i* ! empirical s]ies ( causes & effects />ts1 or t space is capable ( exi/+ z a complet$ :ole4 ,b ^! assumptions plunge reason 9 d>kness & involve x 9 contradictions4 ,!y are ! s\rces ( all ! tr\bles ( ! w>r+ s*ools4 ,error lies some:]e conceal$ 9 !m--! m ?or\ghly conceal$ t !y surpass ! limits ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,until su* error has be5 detect$ & laid b>e1 metaphysical speculation mu/ rema9 ! idle/ ( all tasks4 ,9 ! latt] "p ( ! eighte5? c5tury metaphysics _h fall51 z ,kant "h /ates1 into disrepute4 ,! wond]ful success ) :i* ! ma!matical & natural sci5ces 7 be+ develop$ s]v$ only to emphasise by contra/ ! ineffectiv5ess ( ! metaphysical discipl9es4 ,indiff]5ce to philosophy 0 ! inevitable outcome1 & 0 due1 n to levity1 b to ! matur$ judgm5t ( ! age1 :i* refus$ to be any long] put (f ) su* pret5d$ k4 ,b s9ce ! philosophical sci5ces aim at t k :i*1 if atta9able1 we %\ld be lea/ will+ to disp5se )1 ! failure ( philosophy is really a summons to reason to take up anew ! mo/ difficult ( all its tasks4 ,x mu/ once & = all det]m9e ei!r ! possibility or ! impossibility ( metaphysics4 ,x mu/ e/abli% 8444a tribunal :i* w assure to reason its lawful claims1 & :i* w also be able to dismiss all gr\ndless pret5sions1 n by despotic decrees1 b 9 accordance ) its own et]nal & unalt]able laws4 ,?is tribunal is no o!r ?an ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason40#gf 8,our age is1 9 especial degree1 ! age ( criticism 7,kritik71 & to su* criticism ev]y?+ mu/ submit4 ,religion1 ?r\gh its sanctity1 & law-giv+1 ?r\gh its maje/y1 may seek to exempt !mselves f x4 ,b !y !n awak5 j suspicion1 & _c claim ! s9c]e respect :i* reason accords only to t :i* has be5 able to su/a9 ! te/ ( free & op5 exam9ation40#gg ,z has already be5 emphasis$ 9 ! prec$+ hi/orical sket*1 ,kant _h le>nt to tru/ ! use ( reason1 & 0 a rationali/ by education1 temp]am5t1 & conviction4 ,he "h classifies philosophies z dogmatic & sceptical2 & "u ! latt] rubric he includes all empirical sy/ems4 #8,empiricism' & #8scepticism' he int]prets z practically synonym\s t]ms4 ,! defect ( ! dogmati/s is t !y h n critically exam9$ _! me?ods ( proc$ure1 & 9 ! abs5ce ( an adequate di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality h int]pret$ ! latt] 9 t]ms ( ! =m]4 ,! defect ( ! empirici/s & sceptics is t !y h misrepres5t$ ! nature ( ! faculty ( reason1 ignor+ its claims & misread+ its functions1 & accord+ly h gone ev5 fur!r a/ray ?an _! dogmatic oppon5ts4 ,all k wor?y ( ! "n is a priori k4 ,x possesses univ]sality & necessity1 & z su* mu/ re/ on pure reason4 ,:]ev] !re is sci5ce1 !re is an elem5t ( pure reason4 ,:e!r or n pure reason c also ext5d to ! uncondition$ is ! "q :i* decides ! possibility ( con/ructive metaphysics4 ,?is is :at ,kant means :5 he decl>es t ! ,critique is a criticism ( ! p[] ( reason1 9 respect ( all k aft] :i* x may /rive indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce4 ,pure reason is ! subject-matt] ( ! enquiry2 x is also ! in/rum5t ?r\gh :i* ! enquiry is made4#gh ,no?+ empirical or m]ely hypo!tical has any place 9 x1 ei!r z subject-matt] or z me?od ( argum5t4 ,f ?is position ,kant draws sev]al important consequ5ces4 ,fir/1 s9ce pure reason means t faculty :]eby we ga9 k indep5d5tly ( all exp]i5ce1 x c be isolat$ & its :ole nature exhau/ively det]m9$4 ,inde$ pure reason 7,kant seeks to prove7 is s p]fect a unity t if 8its pr9ciple0 %\ld be f\nd insuffici5t to ! solution ( a s+le "o ( all ! que/ions :i* are pres5t$ to x by its own nature1 we %\ld be ju/ifi$ 9 =?) reject+ x z also incompet5t to answ] ) complete c]ta9ty any "o ( ! o!r que/ions4 ,9 metaphysics x mu/ be ei!r all or no?+1#gi ei!r f9al & complete c]ta9ty or else absolute failure4 8,:ile ,i am say+ ?is ,i c fancy t ,i detect 9 ! face ( ! read] an expression ( indignation m+l$ ) contempt at pret5sions seem+ly s arrogant & va+lori\s2 & yet !y are incomp>ably m mod]ate ?an ! claims ( all ^? writ]s :o on ! l9es ( ! usual programme pr(ess to prove ! simple nature ( ! s\l or ! necessity ( a fir/ beg9n+ ( ! _w40#hj ,9 s do+ !y pret5d to def9e realities :i* lie beyond ! limits ( possible exp]i5ce2 ! ,critique seeks only to deal ) t faculty ( reason :i* manife/s itself to u )9 our own m9ds4 ,=mal logic %[s h[ completely & sy/ematically ! simple acts ( reason c be enum]at$4 ,ari/otle creat$ ?is sci5ce ( logic complete at a /roke4 ,kant pr(esses to h e/abli%$ an equally f9al metaphysics2 & z logic is n a sci5ce prop]1 b r a propa$eutic to all sci5ce1 metaphysics1 ?us int]pret$1 is ! only "o ( all ! sci5ces :i* c imm$iately atta9 to su* complet5ess4 8,= x is no?+ b ! inv5tory ( all our possessions ?r\gh pure reason1 sy/ematically arrang$4 ,9 ?is field no?+ c escape u4 ,:at reason produces entirely out ( itself _c lie conceal$1 b is br\ght to light by reason itself imm$iately ! common pr9ciple has be5 discov]$40#ha ,secondly1 ! ,critique also claims c]ta9ty4 ,) ! removal ( ev]y?+ empirical1 & ! r$uction ( its subject-matt] to pure reason1 all m]e op9ion or hypo!sis is likewise elim9at$4 ,probabilities or hypo!ses c h no place 9 a ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4#hb ,ev]y?+ mu/ be d]iv$ accord+ to a priori pr9ciples f pure conceptions 9 :i* !re is no int]mixture ( exp]i5ce or any special intuition4 99 99 99 99 99 ,?is ,preface to ! fir/ edition1 consid]$ z introductory to ! ,critique1 is mislead+ = two reasons4 ,fir/1 because 9 x ,kant is preoccupi$ almo/ exclusively ) ! problems ( metaphysics 9 ! /rict ontological s5se1 t is to say1 ) ! problems ( ! ,dialectic4 ,! problems ( ! ,analytic1 :i* is ! v he>t ( ! ,critique1 are almo/ entirely ignor$4 ,!y are1 x is true1 ref]r$ to 9 ,a x-xi1 b ! citation is q ext]nally int]calat$2 x receives no support or ext5sion f ! o!r p>ts ( ! ,preface4 ,?is results 9 a second defect1 namely1 t ,kant fails to indicate ! m empirical features ( 8 new ,critical /&po9t4 ,s9ce ultimate reality is sup]s5su\s1 metaphysics1 z above conceiv$1 c h no in/rum5t save pure reason4 ,! subjects ( its enquiry1 ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality1 if !y are to be kn[n at all1 c be det]m9$ only ?r\gh a priori speculation4 ,?is fact1 fundam5tal & all-important = ,kant1 0 completely ignor$ 9 ! popul> eclectic philosophies ( ! "t4 ,!y pr(ess$ to d]ive metaphysical conclusions f empirical evid5ce4 ,!y sub/itut$1 z ,kant has po9t$ out1#hc 8a physiology ( ! human und]/&+0 = ! ,critical inve/igation ( ! claims ( reason1 & an?ropology = e?ics4 ,!y 7 bl9d to ! dogmatism ( :i* !y are !reby guilty4 ,!y assum$ ^? v po9ts :i* mo/ call = pro(1 namely1 t reason is adequate to ! solution ( metaphysical problems1 & t all exi/5ce is s fundam5tally ( "o type t we c argue f ! s5su\s to ! sup]s5su\s1 f appe>ance to reality4 ,:5 !y fell into difficulties1 !y plead$ ! insuffici5cy ( human reason1 & yet 7 all ! :ile unque/ion+ly rely+ ^u x 9 ! draw+ ( ! mo/ trem5d\s inf]5ces4 ,su*1 = in/ance1 are ! assumptions :i* und]lie ,moses ,m5delssohn's cont5tion t s9ce animals z well z m5 agree 9 ! appreh5sion ( space1 x mu/ be believ$ to be absolutely real4#hd ,^! assumptions also det]m9e ,prie/ley's ass]tion t ?\gh e ev5t has its cause1 !re is "o causeless happ5+1 namely1 ! creative act to :i* ! exi/5ce ( ! _w is due4#he ,on su* t]ms1 metaphysics is too pat5tly easy to be ev5 plausible4 8,indiff]5ce1 d\bt1 &1 9 f9al issue1 sev]e criticism1 are tru] signs ( a pr(\nd habit ( ?\ght40#hf ,! matt] ( exp]i5ce af=ds no data = metaphysical inf]5ce4 ,9 ! a priori =ms ( exp]i5ce1 & !re alone1 c metaphysics hope to f9d a basis1 if any basis is really discov]able4 ,?is is ,kant's reason = s emphatically insi/+ t ! problem ( ! ,critique is to det]m9e 8h[ mu* we c hope to a*ieve by reason1 :5 all ! mat]ial & assi/ance ( exp]i5ce is tak5 away40#hg ,b 9 keep+ only ?is "o po9t 9 view ,kant greatly misrepres5ts ! problems & scope ( ! ,critique4 ,?r\gh\t ! ,preface he speaks ! language ( ! ,aufklrung4 ,ev5 9 ! v act ( limit+ ! scope ( reason1 he ov]/resses its p[]s1 & omits ref]5ce to its empirical conditions4 ,x is well to contra/ ?is tea*+ ) su* a passage z ! foll[+3 8,! position ( all g5u9e ideali/s f ! ,eleatics to ,b]keley is conta9$ 9 ?is =mula3 #8,all cognition ?r\gh ! s5ses & exp]i5ce is no?+ b m]e illusion1 & only 9 ! ideas ( pure und]/&+ & ,reason is !re tru?4' ,! fundam5tal pr9ciple rul+ all my idealism1 on ! contr>y1 is ?is3 #8,all cognition ( ?+s solely f pure und]/&+ or pure ,reason is no?+ b m]e illusion1 & only 9 exp]i5ce is !re tru?4'0#hh ,b t passage is equally inadequate z a complete expression ( ,kant's ,critical philosophy4 ,! tru? lies midway betwe5 x & ! tea*+ ( ! ,preface to ! fir/ edition4 ,pure reason is z defective an in/rum5t ( k z is factual exp]i5ce4 ,?\gh ! prim>y aim ( metaphysics is to det]m9e our relation to ! absolutely real1 & ?\gh t c only be done by fir/ det]m9+ ! nature & possible scope ( a priori pr9ciples1 su* pr9ciples are f\nd on inve/igation to possess only empirical validity4 ,! c5tral "q ( ! ,critique ?us becomes ! problem ( ! validity ( _! empirical employm5t4 ,! int]relation ( ^! two problems1 t ( ! a priori & t ( exp]i5ce1 & ,kant's attitude t[>ds !m1 _c be consid]$ till lat]4 ,! defects ( ! ,preface to ! fir/ edition are 9 "p correct$ by ! extremely valuable ,preface sub/itut$ 9 ! second edition4 ,b "s fur!r po9ts 9 ?is fir/ ,preface mu/ be consid]$4 ,prescrib$ by ! v nature ( reason itself4#hi--,metaphysics exi/s z a 8natural disposition10 & its que/ions are n !re=e m]ely artificial4 8,z natural disposition 7,naturanlage7 444 metaphysics is real4 ,= human reason1 )\t be+ mov$ m]ely by ! idle desire = ext5t & v>iety ( k1 proce$s impetu\sly1 driv5 on by an inw>d ne$1 to que/ions su* z _c be answ]$ by any empirical employm5t ( reason1 or by pr9ciples !nce d]iv$4 ,?us 9 all m51 z soon z _! reason has become ripe = speculation1 !re has always exi/$ & w always cont9ue to exi/ "s k9d ( metaphysics40#ij ,h5ce results :at ,kant entitles transc5d5tal illusion4 8,! cause ( ?is transc5d5tal illusion is t !re are fundam5tal rules & maxims = ! employm5t ( ,reason1 subjectively reg>d$ z a faculty ( human k1 & t ^! rules & maxims h all ! appe>ance ( be+ objective pr9ciples4 ,we take ! subjective necessity ( a connection ( our concepts1 i4e4 a connection necessitat$ = ! advantage ( ! und]/&+1 = an objective necessity 9 ! det]m9ation ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,?is is an illusion :i* c no m be prev5t$ ?an we c prev5t ! sea f appe>+ high] at ! horizon ?an at ! %ore1 s9ce we see x ?r\gh high] light rays2 or to cite a /ill bett] example1 ?an ! a/ronom] c prev5t ! moon f appe>+ l>g] at its ris+1 al?\gh he is n deceiv$ by ?is illusion4444 ,!re exi/s1 !n1 a natural & unavoidable dialectic ( pure ,reason1 n "o 9 :i* a bungl] might entangle himself ?r\gh lack ( k1 or "o :i* "s sophi/ has artificially inv5t$ to confuse ?9k+ p1 b "o :i* is insep>able f human ,reason1 & :i*1 ev5 aft] its deceiv+ p[] has be5 expos$1 w n cease to play tricks ) x & cont9ually to entrap x into mom5t>y ab]rations t w ev] & aga9 call = correction40#ia ,dogmatism4#ib--;,accord+ to ,kant !re are ?ree possible /&po9ts 9 philosophy--! dogmatic1 ! sceptical1 & ! critical4 ,all prec$+ ?9k]s come "u ! fir/ two heads4 ,a dogmati/ is "o :o assumes t human reason c compreh5d ultimate reality1 & :o proce$s ^u ?is assumption4 ,he does n1 be=e proce$+ to con/ruct a metaphysics1 enquire :e!r x is possible4 ,dogmatism expresses itself 7to borr[ ,vaih+]'s conv5i5t mode ( def9ition#ic7 ?r\gh ?ree factors--rationalism1 realism1 & transc5d5ce4 ,desc>tes & ,leibniz are typical dogmati/s4 ,z rationali/s !y hold t x is possible to det]m9e f pure a priori pr9ciples ! ultimate nature ( ,god1 ( ! s\l1 & ( ! mat]ial univ]se4 ,!y are reali/s 9 t !y ass]t t by human ?\ght ! complete nature ( objective reality c be det]m9$4 ,!y also adopt ! attitude ( transc5d5ce4 ,?r\gh pure ?\ght !y g out beyond ! s5sible & det]m9e ! sup]s5su\s4 ,scepticism 7,kant1 z above /at$1#id reg>ds x z be+ 9 effect equival5t to empiricism7 may simil>ly be def9$ ?r\gh ! ?ree t]ms1 empiricism1 subjectivism1 imman5ce4 ,a sceptic c nev] be a rationali/4 ,he mu/ r$uce k to s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,= ?is reason also 8 k is infect$ by subjective conditions2 ?r\gh s5sation we _c hope to det]m9e ! nature ( ! objectively real4 ,?is attitude is also t ( imman5ce2 k is limit$ to ! sph]e ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,criticism has simil>ly its ?ree con/itutive factors1 rationalism1 subjectivism1 imman5ce4 ,x agrees ) dogmatism 9 ma9ta9+ t only ?r\gh a priori pr9ciples c true k be obta9$4 ,su* k is1 h[ev]1 subjective#ie 9 its orig91 & = t reason x is also only ( imman5t application2 k is possible only 9 ! sph]e ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,dogmatism claims t k arises indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce & ext5ds beyond x4 ,empiricism holds t k arises out ( s5se-exp]i5ce & is valid only )9 x4 ,criticism tea*es t k arises indep5d5tly ( p>ticul> exp]i5ce b is valid only = exp]i5ce4 ,! foll[+ passages 9 ! ,me?odology give ,kant's view ( ! hi/orical & relative values ( ! two false me?ods3 8,! sceptic is ! taskma/] :o con/ra9s ! dogmatic reason] to develop a s\nd critique ( ! und]/&+ & reason4 ,:5 ! latt] has be5 made to advance ?us f>1 he ne$ fe> no fur!r *all5ge1 s9ce he has le>n$ to di/+ui% 8 real possessions f t :i* lies entirely beyond !m1 & to :i* he c !re=e lay no claim4444 ,?us ! sceptical proc$ure _c ( itself yield any satisfy+ answ] to ! que/ions ( reason1 b none ! less x prep>es ! way by awak5+ its circumspection1 & by indicat+ ! radical measures :i* are adequate to secure x 9 its legitimate possessions40#if 8,! fir/ /ep 9 matt]s ( pure reason1 m>k+ its infancy1 is dogmatic4 ,! second /ep is sceptical1 & indicates t exp]i5ce has r5d]$ our judgm5t wis] & m circumspect4 ,b a ?ird /ep1 su* z c be tak5 only by fully matur$ judgm5t1 is n[ necess>y4444 ,?is is n ! c5sor%ip b ! critique ( reason1 :]eby n its pres5t b\nds b its det]m9ate & necess>y limits1 n its ignorance on ?is or t po9t1 b 9 reg>d to all possible que/ions ( a c]ta9 k9d1 are demon/rat$ f pr9ciples1 & n m]ely arriv$ at by way ( conjecture4 ,scepticism is ?us a re/+-place = human reason1 :]e x c reflect ^u its dogmatic w&]+s & make survey ( ! region 9 :i* x f9ds itself1 s t = ! future x may be able to *oose its pa? ) m c]ta9ty4 ,b x is no dwell+-place = p]man5t settlem5t4 ,t c be obta9$ only ?r\gh p]fect c]ta9ty 9 our k1 alike ( ! objects !mselves & ( ! limits )9 :i* all our k ( objects is enclos$40#ig ,locke4#ih--;,cf4 ,a #hf ,b #aai2 ,a #bgj ,b #cbg2 ,b #abg4 ,on ! unfav\rable contra/ betwe5 ma!matics & metaphysics4#ii--;,cf4 ,ueb] die ,deutli*keit d] ,grundstze 7#agfd71 er/e ,betra*tung1 & bel[1 pp4 #dj1 #efc ff4 ,! age ( criticism4#ajj--,kant consid]$ himself z contribut+ to ! fur!r advance ( ! eighte5? c5tury ,enlight5m5t4#aja ,9 view1 h[ev]1 ( ! contra/ betwe5 eighte5? & n9ete5? c5tury ?\ght1 & ( ! real affiliations & ultimate consequ5ces ( ,kant's tea*+1 x seems tru] to reg>d ! ,critical philosophy z at once complet+ & transc5d+ ! ,aufklrung4 ,kant breaks ) _m ( its mo/ fundam5tal assumptions4 ,! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4#ajb--,kant "h def9es ! ,critique z direct$ ^u pure reason4#ajc ,fur!r1 x is a criticism ( k :i* is 8indep5d5t ( all exp]i5ce10 or1 z ,kant adds 8free f all exp]i5ce40 ,su* phrases1 9 ?is context1 really mean transc5d5t4 ,! ,critique is "h tak5 z be+ a ,critical inve/igation ( transc5d5t metaphysics1 ( its s\rces1 scope1 & limits4#ajd ,op9ion or hypo!sis n p]missible4#aje--;,cf4 bel[1 p4 #edc ff4 ,i "k no enquiries1 etc4#ajf--,! important que/ions rais$ by ?is p>agraph are discuss$ bel[1 p4 #bce ff4 ,jean ,t]rasson 7#afgj-agej74ajg--,! quotation is f 8 "w po/hum\sly publi%$ 7#aged71 & translat$ f ! ,fr5* by ,frau ,gotts*$ "u ! title ,philosophie na* ihrem allgeme95 ,e9flusse auf alle ,geg5/nde des ,gei/es und d] ,sitt5 7#agfb74 ,t]rasson is also ref]r$ to by ,kant 9 8 ,an?ropologie1 #dd & #gg4 ,t]rasson w\ld seem to be ! au?or ( ! ,trait de l'inf9i cr :i* has be5 falsely ascrib$ to ,malebran*e4 ,i h translat$ ?is latt] treatise 9 ! ,philosophical ,review 7,july #aije74 ,su* a sy/em ( pure speculative reason4#ajh--,! relation 9 :i* ?is sy/em w\ld /& to ! ,critique is discuss$ bel[1 pp4 #ga-b4 ,speculative does n ) ,kant mean transc5d5t1 b m]ely !oretical z oppos$ to practical4 ,cf4 ,b #be1 ,a #ae ,b #bi1 ,a #hde ,b #hgc4 ,"u ! title3 ,metaphysics ( ,nature4#aji--,no su* "w1 at lea/ "u ?is title1 0 ev] complet$ by ,kant4 ,9 ! ,kantian t]m9ology 8nature0 signifies 8all t is40 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ehj4 ,,preface ,,to ,,! ,,second ,,edition ,i %all aga9 give a brief explanatory p>aphrase1 be=e proce$+ to detail$ comm5t4 ,! ma9 po9ts ( ! preface ( ! fir/ edition are repeat$4 8,metaphysics so>s above all tea*+ ( exp]i5ce1 & re/s on concepts only4 ,9 x reason has to be h] own pupil40#aaj ,b ,kant imm$iately proce$s to a fur!r po9t4 ,t logic %\ld h atta9$ ! secure me?od ( sci5ce is due to its limitation to ! m]e a priori =m ( k4 ,= metaphysics ?is is f> m difficult1 s9ce x 8has to deal n ) itself alone1 b also ) objects40#aaa ,! words :i* ,i h italicis$ =m a v necess>y correction ( ! fir/ edition preface1 accord+ to :i* ! ,critique w\ld seem to 8treat only ( reason & its pure ?9k+40 ,a fur!r diff]5ce foll[s4 ,! second edition preface1 9 ?us emphasis+ ! objective aspect ( ! problem1 is l$ to *>act]ise 9 a m complete mann] ! me?od to be foll[$ 9 ! ,critical enquiry4 ,h[ c ! ,critique1 if x is conc]n$1 z bo? editions agree 9 insi/+1 only ) ! a priori :i* orig9ates 9 human reason1 solve ! specifically metaphysical problem1 viz4 t ( det]m9+ ! indep5d5tly real8 ,h[ c an idea 9 u ref] to1 & con/itute k (1 an object8 ,! l>g] "p ( ! preface to ! second edition is devot$ to ! ,critical solution ( ?is problem4 ,! argum5t ( ! ,dialectic is no long] emphasis$ at ! exp5se ( ! ,analytic4 ,kant po9ts out t z a matt] ( hi/orical fact ea* ( ! two rational sci5ces1 ma!matics & physics1 fir/ ent]$ ^u ! assur$ pa? ( k by a sudd5 revolution1 & by ! adoption ( a me?od :i* 9 its g5]al *>act]i/ics is common to bo?4 ,?is me?od consi/s1 n 9 be+ l$ by nature z 9 lead+-/r+s1 b 9 int]rogat+ nature 9 accordance ) :at reason produces on its own plan4 ,! me?od ( ! geometrician does n consi/ 9 ! /udy ( figures pres5t$ to ! s5ses4 ,t w\ld be an empirical 79 ,kant's view1 sceptical7 me?od4 ,geometrical propositions c\ld n !n be reg>d$ z possess+ univ]sality & necessity4 ,nor does ! geometrician employ a dogmatic me?od1 t ( /udy+ ! m]e conception ( a figure4 ,by t means no new k c\ld ev] be atta9$4 ,! actual me?od consi/s 9 int]pret+ ! s5sible figures ?r\gh conceptions t h be5 rigor\sly def9$1 & 9 accordance ) :i* ! figures h be5 con/ructively g5]at$4 ,! fir/ discov]y ( ?is me?od1 by ,?ales or "s o!r ,greek1 0 8f> m important ?an ! discov]y ( ! passage r\nd ! celebrat$ ,cape ( ,good ,hope40#aab ,"s two ?\s& ye>s elaps$ be=e ,galileo =mulat$ a correspond+ me?od = physical sci5ce4 ,he reli$ nei!r on m]e obs]vation nor on 8 own conceptions4 ,he det]m9$ ! pr9ciples accord+ to :i* alone concordant ph5om5a c be admitt$ z laws ( nature1 & !n by exp]im5t compell$ nature to answ] ! que/ions :i* ^! pr9ciples sugge/4 ,"h aga9 ! me?od is nei!r m]ely empirical nor purely dogmatic4 ,x possesses ! advantages ( bo?4 ,metaphysics is ripe = a simil> advance4 ,x mu/ be promot$ to ! rank ( positive sci5ce by ! trans=m+ p[] ( an analog\s me?od4 ,! fundam5tal & di/+ui%+ *>act]i/ic ( ma!matical & physical proc$ure is ! legislative p[] to :i* reason lays claim4 ,su* proc$ure1 if g5]alis$ & ext5d$1 w supply ! requir$ me?od ( ! new philosophy4 ,reason mu/ be reg>d$ z self-legislative 9 all ! doma9s ( our possible k4 ,objects mu/ be view$ z con=m+ to human ?\ght1 n human ?\ght to ! indep5d5tly real4 ,?is is ! 8hypo!sis0 to :i* ,kant has giv5 ! some:at mislead+ title1 8,cop]nican40#aac ,! me?od ( proc$ure :i* x prescribes is1 he decl>es1 analog\s to t :i* 0 foll[$ by ,cop]nicus1 & w be f\nd to be z revolution>y 9 its consequ5ces4 ,9 t]ms ( ?is hypo!sis a complete & absolutely c]ta9 metaphysics1 valid n[ & = all "t1 c be creat$ at a /roke4 ,! e>lie/ & olde/ ent]prise ( ! human m9d w a*ieve a new beg9n+4 ,metaphysics1 ! "m ( all ! sci5ces1 w r5ew h] y\?1 & w equal 9 assurance1 z %e surpasses 9 dignity1 ! (fspr+ ( h] womb4 ,f ?is new /&po9t ,kant develops ph5om5alism on rationali/ l9es4 ,he pr(esses to prove t ?\gh our k is only ( appe>ances1 x is condition$ by a priori pr9ciples4 ,8 8,cop]nican hypo!sis10 s f> f de/roy+ positive sci5ce1 is1 he claims1 m]ely a philosophical ext5sion ( ! me?od :i* x has long be5 practis+4 ,s9ce all sci5ce wor?y ( ! "n involves a priori elem5ts1 x c be acc\nt$ = only 9 t]ms ( ! new hypo!sis4 ,only if objects are reg>d$ z con=m+ to our =ms ( intuition1 & to our modes ( conception1 c !y be anticipat$ by a priori reason+4 ,sci5ce c be a priori j because1 prop]ly und]/ood1 x is n a rival ( metaphysics1 & does n attempt to def9e ! absolutely real4 ,b su* a /atem5t at once sugge/s :at may at fir/ seem a mo/ fatal objection4 ,?\gh ! new /&po9t may acc\nt = ! a priori 9 exp]i5ce & sci5ce1 x c be ( no avail 9 metaphysics4 ,if ! a priori concepts h a m5tal orig91 !y c h no validity = ! indep5d5tly real4 ,if we c "k only :at we ourselves orig9ate1 ?+s 9 !mselves mu/ be unkn[n1 & metaphysics mu/ be impossible4 ,b 9 ?is v consequ5ce ! new hypo!sis fir/ reveals its full advantages4 ,x leads to an int]pretation ( metaphysics :i* is z new & z revolution>y#aad z t :i* x gives to natural sci5ce4 ,transc5d5t metaphysics is inde$ impossible1 b 9 h>mony ) man's practical & moral vocation1 its place is m effici5tly tak5 by an imman5t metaphysics on ! "o h&1 & by a metaphysics ( e?ics on ! o!r4 ,toge!r ^! con/itute ! new & f9al philosophy :i* ,kant claims to h e/abli%$ by 8 ,critical me?od4 ,its *ief task is to cont9ue 8t noble/ ent]prise ( antiquity10#aae ! di/+ui%+ ( appe>ances f ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! uncondition$ is t :i* alone w satisfy speculative reason2 its det]m9ation is ! ultimate presupposition ( metaphysical enquiry4 ,b s long z ! empirical _w is reg>d$ z true reality1 totality or uncondition$ness _c possibly be conceiv$--is1 inde$1 inh]5tly self-contradictory4 ,on ! new hypo!sis !re is no su* difficulty4 ,by ! pro( t ?+s 9 !mselves are unkn[able1 a sph]e is left op5 )9 :i* ! uncondition$ c be s\ght4 ,= ?\gh ?is sph]e is clos$ to speculative reason1 ! uncondition$ c be det]m9$ f data yield$ by reason 9 its practical activity4 ,! hypo!sis :i* at fir/ seems to de/roy metaphysics proves on exam9ation to be its necess>y presupposition4 ,! 8,cop]nican hypo!sis0 :i* conditions sci5ce w also acc\nt = metaphysics prop]ly conceiv$4 ,^u ?is important po9t ,kant dwells at "s l5g?4 ,ev5 ! negative results ( ! ,critique are1 he emphasises1 truly positive 9 _! ultimate consequ5ces4 ,! dogmatic ext5sion ( speculative reason really leads to ! n>r[+ ( its employm5t1 = ! pr9ciples ( :i* x !n makes use involve ! subject+ ( ?+s 9 !mselves to ! limit+ conditions ( s5sibility4 ,all attempts to con/rue ! uncondition$ 9 t]ms t w satisfy reason are by su* proc$ure rul$ out f ! v />t4 ,to demon/rate ?is is ! fundam5tal purpose & *ief aim ( ! ,critique4 ,space & "t are m]ely =ms ( s5su\s intuition2 ! concepts ( und]/&+ c yield k only 9 _! connection ) !m4 ,?\gh ! concepts 9 _! purity possess a q g5]al mean+1 ?is is n suffici5t to con/itute k4 ,! conception ( causality1 = in/ance1 necess>ily involves ! notion ( "t-sequ5ce2 ap>t f "t x is ! b>e1 empty1 & entirely unspecifi$ conception ( a suffici5t gr\nd4 ,simil>ly1 ! category ( sub/ance signifies ! p]man5t 9 "t & space2 z a =m ( pure reason x has a q indef9ite mean+ signify+ m]ely t :i* is always a subject & nev] a pr$icate4 ,9 ! abs5ce ( fur!r specification1 x rema9s entirely problematic 9 its ref]5ce4 ,! fact1 h[ev]1 t ! categories ( ! und]/&+ possess1 9 indep5d5ce ( s5sibility1 ev5 ?is q g5]al significance is all-important4 ,orig9at+ 9 pure reason !y h a wid] scope ?an ! =ms ( s5se1 & enable u to conceive1 ?\gh n to ga9 k (1 ?+s 9 !mselves4#aaf ,our dual nature1 z be+ at once s5su\s & sup]s5su\s1 op5s out to u ! appreh5sion ( bo?4 ,kant illu/rates 8 position by ref]5ce to ! problem ( ! fre$om ( ! w4 ,z ?\ght is wid] ?an s5se1 & reveals to u ! exi/5ce ( a n\m5al realm1 we are enabl$ to reconcile belief 9 ! fre$om ( ! w ) ! me*anism ( nature4 ,we c recognise t )9 ! ph5om5al sph]e ev]y?+ )\t exception is causally det]m9$1 & yet at ! same "t ma9ta9 t ! :ole ord] ( nature is gr\nd$ 9 n\m5al conditions4 ,we c ass]t ( "o & ! same be+ t its w is subject to ! necessity ( nature & t x is free--me*anically det]m9$ 9 its visible actions1 free 9 its real sup]s5sible exi/5ce4 ,we h1 inde$1 no k ( ! s\l1 & !re=e _c ass]t on !oretical gr\nds t x possesses any su* fre$om4 ,! v possibility ( fre$om transc5ds our p[]s ( compreh5sion4 ,! pro( t x c at lea/ be conceiv$ )\t contradiction is1 h[ev]1 all-important4 ,= o!rwise no argum5ts f ! nature ( ! moral consci\sness c\ld be ( ! lea/ avail2 be=e a palpable contradiction e argum5t is b\nd to give way4 ,n[1 = ! fir/ "t1 ! doctr9e ( morals & ! doctr9e ( nature c be indep5d5tly develop$1 )\t conflict1 ea* 9 accordance ) its own laws4 ,! same is true 9 reg>d to ! exi/5ce ( ,god & ! immortality ( ! s\l4 ,by means ( ! ,critical di/9ction betwe5 ! empirical & ! sup]s5sible worlds1 ^! conceptions are n[ = ! fir/ "t r5d]$ possible ( belief4 8,i _h to remove k1 9 ord] to make room = belief40#aag 8,?is loss affects only ! monopoly ( ! s*ools1 9 no respect ! int]e/s ( humanity40#aah ,la/ly1 ,kant emphasises ! fact t ! me?od ( ! ,critique mu/ be ak9 to t ( dogmatism4 ,x mu/ be rational a priori4 ,to adopt any o!r me?od ( proc$ure is 8to %ake (f ! fett]s ( sci5ce altoge!r1 & ?us to *ange "w into play1 c]ta9ty into op9ion1 philosophy into philodoxy40#aai ,& ,kant repeats ! claims ( ! preface ( ! fir/ edition z to ! complet5ess & f9ality ( 8 sy/em4 8,?is sy/em w1 z ,i hope1 ma9ta9 ?r\gh ! future ?is same un*angeabl5ess40#abj ,logic4#aba--;,= ,kant's view ( ! logic ( ,ari/otle z complete & p]fect1 cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ahd-e4 ,kant comp>es metaphysics to ma!matics & physics on ! "o h&1 & to =mal logic on ! o!r4 ,! =m] %[ ! possibility ( atta9+ to ! secure pa? ( sci5ce by a sudd5 & s+le revolution2 ! latt] demon/rates ! possibility ( creat+ a sci5ce complete & entire at a /roke4 ,?anks to ! new ,critical me?od1 metaphysics may be enabl$1 ,kant claims1 to p>allel bo? a*ievem5ts at once4 ,!oretical & practical reason4#abb--,su* comm5t z is necess>y ^u ?is di/9ction is giv5 bel[4 ,cf4 p4 #efi ff4 ,hi!rto x has be5 suppos$ t all k mu/ con=m to ! objects4#abc--,?is /atem5t is hi/orically correct4 ,t assumption did actually und]lie "o & all ( ! pre-,kantian philosophies4 ,at ! same "t1 x is true t ,kant's ph5om5ali/ /&po9t is p>tially anticipat$ by ,hume1 by ,malebran*e & by ,leibniz1 especially by ! fir/ nam$4 ,hume argues t to condemn k on ! gr\nd t x c nev] copy or truly reveal any ext]nal reality is to misund]/& its true function4 ,our s5se p]ceptions & our g5]al pr9ciples are s det]m9$ by nature z to r5d] feasible only a practical organisation ( life4 ,:5 we attempt to d]ive f !m a consi/5t body ( k1 failure is ! inevitable result4#abd ,malebran*e1 :ile reta9+ ! absoluti/ view ( conceptual k1 prop\nds a simil> !ory ( s5se-p]ception4#abe ,our p]ceptions are1 z he %[s1 p]meat$ ?r\gh & ?r\gh1 f end to end1 ) illusion4 ,su* illusions ju/ify !mselves by _! practical usefulness1 b !y likewise prove t !oretical insight is n ! purpose ( our s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,kant's ,cop]nican hypo!sis consi/s 9 great "p ( an ext5sion ( ?is view to our conceptual1 sci5tific k4 ,b he diff]s bo? f ,malebran*e & f ,hume 9 t he develops 8 ph5om5alism on rationali/ l9es4 ,he pr(esses to %[ t ?\gh our k is only ( ! ph5om5al1 x is condition$ by a priori pr9ciples4 ,! result+ view ( ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality has k9%ip ) t ( ,leibniz4#abf ,! ph5om5a ( sci5ce1 ?\gh only appe>ances1 are none ! less b5e fundata4 ,our sci5tific k1 ?\gh n equival5t to metaphysical appreh5sion ( ! ultimately real1 c be progressively develop$ by sci5tific me?ods4 ,! two 8p>ts0 ( metaphysics4#abg--,kant is "h draw+ ! important di/9ction1 :i* is "o result ( 8 new /&po9t1 betwe5 imman5t & transc5d5t metaphysics4 ,x is un=tunate t he does n d s 9 a m explicit mann]1 ) full recognition ( its novelty & ( its f>-rea*+ significance4 ,_m ambiguities 9 8 exposition "h & else:]e w\ld !n h be5 obviat$4#abh ,! uncondition$ :i* ,reason po/ulates 9 all ?+s by !mselves1 by necessity & by "r4#abi--,po9ts are "h rais$ ! discussion ( :i* mu/ be def]r$4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dbi-ca1 #dcc-d1 #eeh-fa4 ,! ,critique is a treatise on me?od1 n a sy/em ( ! sci5ce itself4#acj--;,cf4 ,a xv42 ,b xxxvi42 & especially ,a #aa ,b #bd1 bel[ pp4 #ga-b4 ,! ,cop]nican hypo!sis4#aca--,kant's comp>ison ( 8 new hypo!sis to t ( ,cop]nicus has g5]ally be5 misund]/ood4 ,! read] v naturally conceives ! ,cop]nican revolution 9 t]ms ( its ma9 ultimate consequ5ce1 ! r$uction ( ! e>? f its pr\d position ( c5tral pre-em95ce4 ,b t does n be> ! lea/ analogy to ! int5d$ consequ5ces ( ! ,critical philosophy4 ,! direct opposite is inde$ true4 ,kant's hypo!sis is inspir$ by ! av[$ purpose ( neutralis+ ! naturali/ic implications ( ! ,cop]nican a/ronomy4 ,8 aim is no?+ less ?an ! firm e/abli%m5t ( :at may p]haps be describ$ z a ,ptolemaic1 an?ropoc5tric metaphysics4 ,su* naturali/ic philosophy z t ( ,hume may p]haps be describ$ z ,cop]nican1 b ! ,critical philosophy1 z humani/ic1 has g5u9e k9%ip ) ! ,greek /&po9t4 ,ev5 "s ( ,kant's be/ comm5tators h int]pret$ ! analogy 9 ! above mann]4#acb ,x is s int]pret$ by ,t4 ,h4 ,gre5#acc & by ,j4 ,hut*ison ,/irl+4#acd ,caird 9 8 ,critical ,philosophy ( ,kant makes n ! lea/ m5tion ( ! analogy1 probably = ! reason t :ile read+ x 9 ! same fa%ion z ,gre51 he recognis$ ! inappropriat5ess ( ! comp>ison z ?us tak54 ,! analogy is /at$ 9 typically ambigu\s fa%ion by ,lange#ace & by ,hffd+4#acf ,s4 ,alex&]1 :ile v =cibly insi/+ ^u ! ,ptolemaic "* ( ! ,kantian philosophy1 also endorses ?is int]pretation 9 ! foll[+ t]ms3 8,x is v ironical t ,kant himself signalis$ ! revolution :i* he believ$ himself to be effect+ z a ,cop]nican revolution4 ,b !re is no?+ ,cop]nican 9 x except t he believ$ x to be a revolution4 ,if e *ange is ,cop]nican :i* rev]ses ! ord] ( ! t]ms ) :i* x deals1 :i* decl>es ,a to dep5d on ,b :5 ,b _h be=e be5 decl>$ to dep5d on ,a1 !n ,kant--:o believ$ t he _h rev]s$ ! ord] ( dep5d5ce ( m9d & ?+s--0 "r 9 say+ t he effect$ a ,cop]nican revolution4 ,b he 0 n "r 9 any o!r s5se4 ,= 8 revolution1 s f> z x 0 "o1 0 accurately anti-,cop]nican40#acg ,z ! second edition preface is n cov]$ by ! publi%$ volumes ( ,vaih+]'s ,comm5t>y1 ! po9t has n be5 tak5 up by him4 ,n[ ,kant's own /atem5ts are entirely unambigu\s & d n ju/ify any su* int]pretation z t ( ,gre5 & ,alex&]4 ,z x seems to me1 !y h miss$ ! real po9t ( ! analogy4 ,! misund]/&+ w\ld nev] h be5 possible save = our neglect ( ! sci5tific classics4 ,kant mu/ h _h fir/-h& acqua9tance ) ,cop]nicus' ,de ,revolutionibus1 & ! comp>ison :i* he draws assumes simil> k on ! "p ( 8 read]s4 ,cop]nicus by 8 pro( ( ! 8hypo!sis0 78 own t]m7 ( ! e>?'s motion s\ght only to a*ieve a m h>moni\s ord]+ ( ! ,ptolemaic univ]se4 ,& z ?us m]ely a simplification ( ! traditional cosmology1 8 treatise c\ld fitt+ly be d$icat$ to ! reign+ ,pope4 ,! sun ^u :i* our t]re/rial life dep5ds 0 /ill reg>d$ z uniquely di/9ct f ! fix$ />s2 & our e>? 0 /ill locat$ 9 ! c5tral region ( a univ]se t 0 conceiv$ 9 ! traditional mann] z be+ s+le & sph]ical4 ,giordano ,bruno 0 ! fir/1 a g5]ation lat]1 to realise ! revolution>y consequ5ces to :i* ! new tea*+1 consi/5tly develop$1 mu/ inevitably lead4 ,x 0 he :o fir/ taught :at we h n[ come to reg>d z an integral "p ( ,cop]nicus' revolution1 ! doctr9e ( innum]able planet>y sy/ems side by side ) "o ano!r 9 inf9ite space4 ,cop]nicus' argum5t />ts f ! ,ari/otelian pr9ciple ( relative motion4 ,to quote ,cop]nicus' exact words3 8,all appreh5d$ *ange ( place is due to movem5t ei!r ( ! obs]v$ object or ( ! obs]v]1 or to diff]5ces 9 movem5ts t are occurr+ simultane\sly 9 bo?4 ,= if ! obs]v$ object & ! obs]v] are mov+ 9 ! same direction ) equal velocity1 no motion c be detect$4 ,n[ x is f ! e>? t we visually appreh5d ! revolution ( ! heav5s4 ,if1 !n1 any movem5t is ascrib$ to ! e>?1 t motion w g5]ate ! appe>ance ( itself 9 all ?+s :i* are ext]nal to x1 ?\gh z occurr+ 9 ! opposite direction1 z if ev]y?+ 7 pass+ across ! e>?4 ,?is w be especially true ( ! daily revolution4 ,= x seems to seize ^u ! :ole _w1 & inde$ ^u ev]y?+ t is ar\nd ! e>?1 ?\gh n ^u ! e>? itself4444 ,z ! heav5s1 :i* conta9 & cov] ev]y?+1 are ! common locus ( ?+s1 x is n at all evid5t :y x %\ld be to ! conta9+ r ?an to ! conta9$1 to ! locat$ r ?an to ! locat+1 t a motion is to be ascrib$40#ach ,! app>5tly objective movem5ts ( ! fix$ />s & ( ! sun are m]e appe>ances1 due to ! projection ( our own motion into ! heav5s4 8,! fir/ & highe/ ( all ! sph]es is t ( ! fix$ />s1 self-conta9+ & all-conta9+1 & consequ5tly immobile1 9 %ort ! locus ( ! univ]se1 by relation to :i* ! motion & position ( all ! o!r heav5ly bodies h to be reckon$40#aci ,n[ x is ?is doctr9e1 & ?is doctr9e alone1 to :i* ,kant is ref]r+ 9 ! passages be=e u1 namely1 ,cop]nicus' hypo!sis ( a subjective explanation ( app>5tly objective motions4 ,& fur!r1 9 ?us comp>+ 8 ,critical proc$ure to t ( ,cop]nicus1 he is conc]n$ m ) ! positive ?an ) ! negative consequ5ces ( _! common hypo!sis4 ,= x is *iefly f ! po9t ( view ( ! con/ructive p>ts ( ! ,ae/hetic1 ,analytic1 & ,dialectic t ! comp>ison is =mulat$4 ,by means ( ! ,critical hypo!sis ,kant pr(esses on ! "o h& to acc\nt = our sci5tific k1 & on ! o!r to safegu>d our legitimate metaphysical aspirations4 ,! spectator projects 8 own motion into ! heav5s2 human reason legislates = ! doma9 ( natural sci5ce4 ,! sph]e ( ! fix$ />s is prov$ to be motionless2 ?+s 9 !mselves are fre$ f ! limitations ( space & "t4 8,cop]nicus d>$1 9 a mann] contradictory ( ! s5ses b yet true1 to seek ! obs]v$ movem5ts1 n 9 ! heav5ly bodies1 b 9 ! spectator40#adj ,9 view ( ,kant's explicit elim9ation ( all hypo!ses f ! ,critique#ada ! employm5t ( t t]m w\ld seem to be illegitimate4 ,he accord+ly "h /ates t ?\gh 9 ! ,preface 8 ,critical !ory is =mulat$ z an hypo!sis only1 9 ! ,critique itself its tru? is demon/rat$ a priori4 99 99 99 99 99 ,di/9ction betwe5 kn[+ & ?9k+4#adb--,s9ce accord+ to ,critical tea*+ ! limits ( s5se-exp]i5ce are ! limits ( k1 ! t]m k has = ,kant a v limit$ d5otation1 & leaves op5 a proportionately wide field = :at he entitles ?\ght4 ,?\gh ?+s 9 !mselves are unkn[able1 _! exi/5ce may /ill be recognis$ 9 ?\ght4 ,,introduction ,i %all fir/#adc give a re/atem5t1 p>tly hi/orical & p>tly explanatory1 ( ,kant's ma9 argum5t z conta9$ 9 ! enl>g$ ,introduction ( ! second edition4 ,!re 7 two /ages 9 ! process by :i* ,kant came to full realisation ( ! ,critical problem4 ,!re is fir/ ! problem z =mulat$ 9 8 lett] ( #aggb to ,h]z3 h[ ! a priori c yield k ( ! indep5d5tly real4#add ,?is1 z he !re /ates x1 is an ess5tially metaphysical problem4 ,x is ! problem ( ! possibility ( transc5d5t metaphysics4 ,he became aw>e ( x :5 reflect+ ^u ! function :i* he _h ascrib$ to intellect 9 ! ,diss]tation4 ,!n1 secondly1 ?is problem 0 immeasurably deep5$1 & at ! same "t ! prop] l9e = its treatm5t 0 discov]$1 ?r\gh ! r5ew$ influ5ce :i* ,hume at "s date subsequ5t to ,febru>y #aggb ex]cis$ ^u ,kant's ?\ght4#ade ,hume awak5$ ,kant to :at may be call$ ! imman5t problem involv$ 9 ! v conception ( a priori k z su*4 ,! prim>y problem to be solv$ is n h[ we advance by means ( a priori ideas to ! indep5d5tly real1 b h[ we are able to advance beyond a subject t]m to a pr$icate :i* x does n appe> to conta94 ,! problem is inde$ capable ( solution1 j because x takes ?is logical =m4 ,"h z else:]e1 ontological que/ions are view$ by ,kant z soluble only to ! ext5t to :i* !y c be re/at$ 9 logical t]ms4 ,n[ also ! enquiry becomes tw(old3 h[ & 9 :at degree are a priori syn!tic judgm5ts possible1 fir/ 9 _! employm5t )9 ! empirical sph]e 7! problem ( imman5t metaphysics7 & secondly 9 _! application to ?+s 9 !mselves 7! problem ( transc5d5t metaphysics74 ,! outcome ( ! ,critical enquiry is to e/abli% ! legitimacy ( imman5t metaphysics & ! impossibility ( all transc5d5t speculation4 ,! argum5t ( ,kant's ,introduction foll[s ! above sequ5ce4 ,x />ts by def9+ ! problem ( metaphysical k a priori1 & ?r\gh x leads up to ! logical problem ( ! a priori syn!tic judgm5t4 ,9 respect ( "t all k beg9s ) exp]i5ce4 ,b x does n !re=e foll[ t x all arises f exp]i5ce4 ,our exp]i5ce may be a comp\nd ( t :i* we receive ?r\gh impressions1 & ( t :i* pure reason supplies f itself4#adf ,! "q z to :e!r or n any su* a priori actually exi/s1 is "o t c be answ]$ only aft] fur!r enquiry4 ,! two insep>able crit]ia ( ! a priori are necessity & univ]sality4 ,t nei!r c be imp>t$ to a proposition by exp]i5ce 0 ,kant's confirm$ & unque/ion$ belief4 ,he inh]it$ ?is view bo? f ,leibniz & f ,hume4 ,x is "o ( ! presuppositions ( 8 argum5t4 ,exp]i5ce c reveal only co-exi/5ce or sequ5ce4 ,x enables u only to ass]t t s f> z we h hi!rto obs]v$1 !re is no exception to ?is or t rule4 ,a g5]alisation1 bas$ on obs]vation1 c nev] possess a wid] univ]sality ?an ! limit$ exp]i5ce = :i* x /&s4 ,if1 !re=e1 necess>y & univ]sal judgm5ts c any:]e be f\nd 9 our k1 ! exi/5ce ( an a priori t orig9ates indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce is ipso facto demon/rat$4#adg ,! contra/ betwe5 empirical & a priori judgm5ts1 z =mulat$ f ! dogmatic /&po9t1 is ! mo/ significant & /rik+ fact 9 ! :ole range ( human k4 ,a priori judgm5ts claim absolute necessity4 ,!y all[ ( no possible exception4 ,!y are valid n only = u1 b also = all conceivable be+s1 h[ev] diff]5t ! specific conditions ( _! exi/5ce1 :e!r !y live on ! planet ,m>s or 9 "s inf9itely remote region ( /ell> space1 & no matt] h[ div]sely _! bodily s5ses may be organis$4 ,?r\gh ^! judgm5ts a creature five feet high1 & correspond+ly limit$ by temporal conditions1 legislates = all exi/5ce & = all "t4 ,empirical judgm5ts1 on ! o!r h&1 possess only a hypo!tical c]ta9ty4 ,we recognise t !y may be ov]turn$ ?r\gh "s addition to our pres5t exp]i5ce1 & t !y may n hold = be+s on o!r planets or = be+s ) s5ses diff]5tly con/itut$4 ,:]eas ! opposite ( a rational judgm5t is n ev5 conceivable1 ! opposite ( an empirical judgm5t is always possible4 ,! "o dep5ds ^u ! inh]5t & inali5able nature ( our ?9k+2 ! o!r is b\nd up ) ! cont+5t mat]ial ( s5se4 ,! "o claims absolute or metaphysical tru?3 ! o!r is a m]ely t5tative rsum ( a limit$ exp]i5ce4 ,! possibility ( su* a priori judgm5ts _h hi!rto be5 que/ion$ only by ^? :o s\ght to d5y to !m all possible objective validity4 ,kant1 z a rationali/1 has no d\bt z to _! actual exi/5ce4 ,9 ! ,introduction to ! second edition he bluntly ass]ts _! de facto exi/5ce1 cit+ z in/ances ! propositions ( ma!matics & ! fundam5tal pr9ciples ( physical sci5ce4 ,_! possibility c be acc\nt$ = ?r\gh ! assumption ( a priori =ms & pr9ciples4#adh ,b ) equal emphasis he que/ions ! validity ( _! metaphysical employm5t4 ,= t is an entirely diff]5t matt]4 ,we !n completely transc5d ! _w ( ! s5ses & pass into a sph]e :]e exp]i5ce c nei!r guide nor correct u4 ,9 ?is sph]e ! a priori is illegitimately tak5 z be+ at once ! s\rce ( our pr(ess$ k & also ! sole crit]ion ( its own claims4 ,?is is ! problem1 semi-,critical1 semi-dogmatic1 :i* is =mulat$ 9 ! lett] ( #aggb to ,h]z4#adi ,:at "r h we to reg>d ideas1 :i* z a priori orig9ate f )91 z be+ valid ( ?+s 9 !mselves8 ,9 s do+ we are assum+ a pre-e/abli%$ h>mony betwe5 our human faculties & ! ultimately real2 & t is an assumption :i* by its v nature is incapable ( demon/ration4 ,! pro(s (f]$ by ,malebran*e & by ,leibniz are !mselves speculative1 & consequ5tly presuppose ! conclusion :i* !y pr(ess to e/abli%4#aej ,z above /at$1 ,kant obta9$ 8 answ] to ?is problem by way ( ! logical enquiry into ! nature & conditions ( a priori judgm5t4 ,"o ( ! *ief causes1 ,kant decl>es1 :y hi!rto metaphysical speculation has pass$ un*all5g$ among ^? :o practise x1 is ! confusion ( two v diff]5t k9ds ( judgm5t1 ! analytic & ! syn!tic4 ,mu* ! great] portion ( :at reason f9ds to d consi/s 9 ! analysis ( our concepts ( objects4 8,z ?is proc$ure yields real k a priori1 :i* progresses 9 secure & useful fa%ion1 reason is s f> misl$ z surreptiti\sly to introduce1 )\t itself be+ aw>e ( s do+1 ass]tions ( an entirely diff]5t ord]1 9 :i* reason atta*es to giv5 concepts o!rs completely =eign to !m--& moreov] atta*es !m a priori4 ,& yet "o does n "k h[ reason comes to d ?is4 ,?is is a "q :i* is nev] z mu* z ?\ght (40#aea ,! concepts :i* are analytically treat$ may be ei!r empirical or a priori4 ,:5 !y are empirical1 ! judgm5ts :i* !y involve c h no wid] application ?an ! exp]i5ce to :i* !y give expression2 & 9 any case c only reveal :at has all along be5 ?\ght1 ?\gh confus$ly1 9 ! t]m :i* s]ves z subject ( ! proposition4 ,!y c nev] reveal any?+ diff]5t 9 k9d f ! cont5ts actually exp]i5c$4 ,?is limitation1 to :i* ! analysis ( empirical concepts is subject1 0 admitt$ by bo? empirici/s & rationali/s4 ,! latt] s\ght1 h[ev]1 to escape its consequ5ces by bas+ _! metaphysics ^u concepts :i* are purely a priori1 & :i* by _! a priori cont5t may c>ry u beyond ! exp]i5c$4 ,b "h also ,kant ass]ts a non possibile4 ,a priori concepts1 he seeks to %[1 are 9 all cases purely logical functions )\t cont5t1 & accord+ly are z little capable z are empirical concepts ( c>ry+ u ov] to ! sup]s5sible4 ,?is is an objection :i* holds q indep5d5tly ( t already not$1 namely1 t _! objective validity w\ld involve a pre-e/abli%$ h>mony4 ,:at1 !n1 is ! nature & :at are ! g5]at+ conditions ( syn!tic judgm5ts t are also a priori8 ,9 all judgm5ts !re is a relation betwe5 subject & pr$icate1 & t c be ( two k9ds4 ,ei!r ! pr$icate ,b belongs to ! subject ,a1 or ,b lies outside ! sph]e ( ! concept ,a ?\gh someh[ connect$ ) x4 ,9 ! =m] case ! judgm5t is analytic2 9 ! latt] x is syn!tic4 ,! "o simply unfolds :at has all along be5 conceiv$ 9 ! subject concept2 ! o!r ascribes to ! concept ( ! subject a pr$icate :i* _c be f\nd 9 x by any process ( analysis4 ,?us ! judgm5t #8all bodies are ext5d$' is analytic4 ,! concept ( body already conta9s t ( ext5sion1 & is impossible save ?r\gh x4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! judgm5t #8all bodies are heavy' is syn!tic4 ,= n body z su*1 b only bodies :i* are 9 int]action ) o!r bodies1 are f\nd to develop ?is prop]ty4 ,bodies c v well be conceiv$ z n influ5c+ "o ano!r 9 any su* mann]4 ,!re is no difficulty 9 acc\nt+ = analytic judgm5ts4 ,!y c all be ju/ifi$ by ! pr9ciple ( contradiction4 ,be+ analytic1 !y c be e/abli%$ a priori4 ,nor1 ,kant "h claims1 is !re any difficulty 9 reg>d to syn!tic judgm5ts t are empirical4 ,?\gh ! pr$icate is n conta9$ 9 ! subject concept1 !y belong to ea* o!r 7?\gh accid5tally7 z p>ts ( a giv5 empirical :ole4 ,exp]i5ce is ! x :i* lies beyond ! concept ,a1 & on :i* re/s ! possibility ( ! syn!sis ( ,b ) ,a4 ,9 reg>d1 h[ev]1 to syn!tic judgm5ts :i* are likewise a priori1 ! matt] is v diff]5t4 ,hi!rto1 bo? by ! s5sationali/s & by ! rationali/s1 all syn!tic judgm5ts h be5 reg>d$ z empirical1 & all a priori judgm5ts z analytic4 ,! only diff]5ce betwe5 ! oppos$ s*ools lies 9 ! relative value :i* !y ascribe to ! two types ( judgm5t4 ,= ,hume ! only really fruitful judgm5ts are ! syn!tic judgm5ts a po/]iori2 analytic judgm5ts are ( q second>y value2 !y c nev] ext5d our k1 b only cl>ify its exi/+ cont5t4 ,= ,leibniz1 on ! o!r h&1 true k consi/s only 9 ! analysis ( our a priori concepts1 :i* he reg>ds z possess+ an intr9sic & fruitful cont5t2 syn!tic judgm5ts are always empirical1 & z su* are purely cont+5t4#aeb ,?us = pre-,kantian philosophy analytic is int]*angeable ) a priori1 & syn!tic ) a po/]iori4 ,kant's ,critical problem arose f ! />tl+ discov]y t ! a priori & ! syn!tic d n exclude "o ano!r4 ,a judgm5t may be syn!tic & yet also a priori4 ,he appe>s to h made ?is discov]y "u ! influ5ce ( ,hume1 ?r\gh /udy ( ! g5]al pr9ciple ( causality--e ev5t mu/ h a cause4#aec ,9 t judgm5t !re seems to be no connection ( any k9d discov]able betwe5 ! subject 7! conception ( an ev5t z some?+ happ5+ 9 "t7 & ! pr$icate 7! conception ( ano!r ev5t prec$+ x z an orig9at+ cause72 & yet we n m]ely ascribe ! "o to ! o!r b ass]t t !y are necess>ily connect$4 ,we c conceive an ev5t z sequ5t ^u a prec$+ empty "t2 none ! less1 9 physical enquiry1 ! causal pr9ciple is accept$ z an e/abli%$ tru?4 ,"h1 !n1 is a new & altoge!r unique type ( judgm5t1 ( ?or\ghly p>adoxical nature4 ,s entirely is x )\t app>5t basis1 t ,hume1 :o fir/ deciph]$ its /range "*1 felt con/ra9$ to ascribe our belief 9 x to an unreason+ & m]ely in/9ctive1 #8natural' habit or cu/om4 ,kant f\nd1 h[ev]1 t ! p>adoxical *>act]i/ics ( ! causal pr9ciple also belong to ma!matical & physical judgm5ts4 ,?is fact makes x impossible to accept ,hume's sceptical conclusion4 ,if ev5 ! ass]tion #g #e #ab is bo? syn!tic & a priori1 x is obvi\sly impossible to "q ! validity ( judgm5ts t possess ^! *>act]i/ics4 ,b !y d n = t reason any ! less urg5tly press = explanation4 ,su* an enquiry might n1 inde$1 be necess>y 7 we conc]n$ only ) sci5tific k4 ,= ! natural sci5ces ju/ify !mselves by _! practical successes & by _! /eady unbrok5 developm5t4 ,b metaphysical judgm5ts are also ( ?is type2 & until ! conditions :i* make a priori syn!tic judgm5t possible h be5 discov]$1 ! "q z to ! legitimacy ( metaphysical speculation _c be decid$4 ,su* judgm5ts are pla9ly my/]i\s1 & urg5tly call = fur!r enquiry4 ,! problem to be solv$ conc]ns ! gr\nd ( our ascription to ! subject concept1 z necess>ily belong+ to x1 a pr$icate :i* seems to h no discov]able relation to x4 ,:at is ! unkn[n x on :i* ! und]/&+ re/s 9 ass]t+ ! connection8 ,x _c be repeat$ exp]i5ce2 = ! judgm5ts 9 "q claim necessity4 ,nor c su* judgm5ts be prov$ by means ( a logical te/1 su* z ! inconceivability ( ! opposite4 ,! abs5ce ( all app>5t connection betwe5 subject & pr$icate removes t possibility4 ,^!1 h[ev]1 are ! only two me?ods ( pro( hi!rto recognis$ 9 sci5ce & philosophy4 ,! problem dem&s = its solution no?+ less ?an ! discov]y & =mulation ( an entirely novel me?od ( pro(4 ,! ?ree ma9 classes ( a priori syn!tic judgm5ts are1 ,kant proce$s1 ! ma!matical1 ! physical1 & ! metaphysical4 ,! syn!tic "* ( ma!matical judgm5ts has hi!rto escap$ obs]vation ow+ to _! be+ prov$ 7z is requir$ ( all apodictic c]ta9ty7 accord+ to ! pr9ciple ( contradiction4 ,x is !refrom inf]r$ t !y re/ on ! au?ority ( t pr9ciple1 & are !re=e analytic4 ,t1 h[ev]1 is an illegitimate inf]5ce2 = ?\gh ! tru? ( a syn!tic proposition c be ?us demon/rat$1 t c only be if ano!r syn!tic pr9ciple is fir/ presuppos$4 ,x c nev] be prov$ t its tru?1 z a sep>ate judgm5t1 is dem&$ by ! pr9ciple ( contradiction4 ,t #g #e mu/ equal #ab does n foll[ analytically f ! conception ( ! sum ( sev5 & five4 ,?is conception conta9s no?+ beyond ! union ( bo? numb]s into "o2 x does n tell u :at is ! s+le numb] t comb9es bo?4 ,t five %\ld be add$ to sev5 is no d\bt impli$ 9 ! conception1 b n t ! sum %\ld be twelve4 ,to discov] t1 we mu/1 ,kant ma9ta9s1 g beyond ! concepts & appeal to intuition4 ,?is is m easily recognis$ :5 we take l>ge numb]s4 ,we !n cle>ly p]ceive t1 turn & twi/ our concepts z we may1 we c nev]1 by means ( m]e analysis ( !m1 & )\t ! help ( intuition1 arrive at ! sum t is want$4 ,! fundam5tal propositions ( geometry1 ! s-call$ axioms1 are simil>ly syn!tic1 e4g4 t ! /raight l9e betwe5 two po9ts is ! %orte/4 ,! concept #8/raight' only def9es direction2 x says no?+ z to quantity4 ,z an in/ance ( a syn!tic a priori judgm5t 9 physical sci5ce ,kant cites ! pr9ciple3 ! quantity ( matt] rema9s con/ant ?r\gh\t all *anges4 ,9 ! conception ( matt] we d n conceive its p]man5cy1 b only its pres5ce 9 ! space :i* x fills4 ,! opposite ( ! pr9ciple is ?or\ghly conceivable4 ,metaphysics is meant to conta9 a priori k4 ,= x seeks to det]m9e t ( :i* we c h no exp]i5ce1 z e4g4 t ! _w mu/ h a fir/ beg9n+4 ,& if1 z w be prov$1 our a priori concepts h no cont5t1 :i* ?r\gh analysis might yield su* judgm5ts1 ^! judgm5ts also mu/ be syn!tic4 ,"h1 !n1 we f9d ! ess5tial problem ( pure reason4 ,express$ 9 a s+le =mula1 x runs3 ,h[ are syn!tic a priori judgm5ts possible8 ,to ask ?is "q is to enquire1 fir/1 h[ pure ma!matics is possible2 secondly1 h[ pure natural sci5ce is possible2 & ?irdly1 h[ metaphysics is possible4 ,t philosophy has hi!rto rema9$ 9 s vacillat+ a /ate ( ignorance & contradiction is entirely due to ! neglect ( ?is problem ( a priori syn!sis4 8,its solution is ! "q ( life & dea? to metaphysics40 ,hume came ne>e/ to realis+ ! problem1 b he discov]$ x 9 too n>r[ a =m to appreciate its full significance & its revolution>y consequ5ces4 8,great] firmness w be requir$ if we are n to be det]r$ by inw>d difficulties & outw>d opposition f endeav\r+1 ?r\gh application ( a me?od entirely diff]5t f any hi!rto employ$1 to fur!r ! gr[? & fruitfulness ( a sci5ce indisp5sable to human reason--a sci5ce ^: e bran* may be cut away b ^: root _c be de/roy$40#aed ,^! /atem5ts are decid$ly ambigu\s1 ow+ to ,kant's failure to di/+ui% 9 any uni=m & def9ite mann] betwe5 imman5t & transc5d5t metaphysics4#aee ,! t]m metaphysics is us$ to cov] bo?4 ,sometimes x signifies ! "o1 sometimes ! o!r2 :ile 9 /ill o!r passages its mean+ is neutral4 ,b if we draw ! di/9ction1 ,kant's answ] is t a g5u9e & valid imman5t metaphysics is = ! fir/ "t r5d]$ possible by 8 ,critique2 its positive cont5t is exp\nd$ 9 ! ,analytic4 ,transc5d5t metaphysics1 on ! o!r h&1 is criticis$ 9 ! ,dialectic2 x is nev] possible4 ,! exi/+ speculative sci5ces transgress ! limits ( exp]i5ce & yield only a pret5ce ( k4 ,?is det]m9ation ( ! limits ( our possible a priori k is ! second great a*ievem5t ( ! ,critique4 ,?us ! ,critique s]ves a tw(old purpose4 ,x e/abli%es a new a priori sy/em ( metaphysics1 & also det]m9es on pr9ciples equally a priori ! ultimate limits beyond :i* metaphysics c nev] advance4 ,! two results1 positive & negative1 are insep>able & complem5t>y4 ,nei!r %\ld be emphasis$ to ! neglect ( ! o!r4 ,,comm5t ,,on ,,! ,,argum5t ,,( ,,kant',s ,,introduction ,?is ,introduction1 ?\gh a docum5t ( great hi/orical importance z be+ ! fir/ def9ite =mulation ( ! g5]at+ problem ( ,kant's new philosophy1 is extremely unsatisfactory z a /atem5t ( ,critical tea*+4 ,! argum5t is develop$ 9 t]ms ( di/9ctions :i* are borr[$ f ! traditional logic1 & :i* are n 9 accordance ) ! transc5d5tal pr9ciples t ,kant is pr(ess+ to e/abli%4 ,?is is1 inde$1 a criticism :i* may be pass$ ^u ! ,critique z a :ole4 ,?\gh ,kant 0 consci\s ( op5+ a new era 9 ! hi/ory ( philosophy1 & comp>es 8 task ) t ( ,?ales1 ,cop]nicus1 ,bacon & ,galileo1 x may /ill be said t he nev] fully appreciat$ ! greatness ( 8 own a*ievem5t4 ,he inv>iably assumes t ! revolution>y consequ5ces ( 8 tea*+ w n ext5d to ! sph]e ( pure logic4 ,!y conc]n1 z he believ$1 only our metaphysical !ories reg>d+ ! nature ( reality & ! det]m9+ conditions ( our human exp]i5ce4 ,z =mal logic prescribes ! axiomatic pr9ciples accord+ to :i* all ?9k+ mu/ proce$1 its validity is n affect$ by ! o!r philosophical discipl9es1 & is sup]ior to ! consid]ations t det]m9e _! tru? or falsity4 ,its di/9ctions may be securely reli$ ^u 9 ! pione] lab\rs ( ,critical inve/igation4 ,?is 01 ( c\rse1 a v natural assumption = ,kant to make2 & _m pres5t-day ?9k]s w ma9ta9 t x is entirely ju/ifi$4 ,%\ld t be our attitude1 we may approve ( ,kant's g5]al me?od ( proc$ure1 b %all be compell$ to diss5t f mu* 9 8 argum5t & f _m ( 8 *ief conclusions4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 we reg>d =mal logic z 9 any degree adequate only z a !ory ( ! ?\ght processes involv$ 9 ! =mation & application ( ! g5]ic or class concept1#aef we %all be prep>$ to f9d t ! equat+ ( ?is highly specialis$ logic ) logic 9 g5]al has result$ 9 ! adoption ( di/9ctions :i* may be fairly adequate = ! purposes 9 view ( :i* !y h be5 =mulat$1 b :i* mu/ break d[n :5 te/$ ov] a wid] field4 ,s f> f condemn+ ,kant = dep>t+ 9 8 lat] tea*+ f ^! h>d & fa/ di/9ctions1 we %all welcome e sign ( 8 increas+ indep5d5ce4 ,kant 0 n1 ( c\rse1 s bl9d to ! real be>+ ( 8 pr9ciples z to fail to recognise t !y h logical implications4#aeg ,he speaks ( ! new metaphysics :i* he has creat$ z be+ a transc5d5tal logic4 ,x is v cle>1 h[ev]1 t ev5 :ile s do+ he does n reg>d x z 9 any way alt]native to ! old] logic1 b z mov+ ^u a diff]5t plane1 & z yield+ results :i* 9 no way conflict ) any?+ t =mal logic may tea*4 ,inde$ ,kant ascribes to ! traditional logic an almo/ sacrosanct validity4 ,bo? ! g5]al framework ( ! ,critique & ! arrangem5t ( ! m9or subdivisions are d]iv$ f x4 ,x is suppos$ to af=d an adequate acc\nt ( discursive ?9k+1 & su* supplem5t z x may receive is reg>d$ z simply an ext5sion ( its c>efully delimit$ field4 ,!re are two logics1 t ( discursive or analytic reason+1 & t ( syn!tic int]pretation4 ,! "o is =mal2 ! o!r is transc5d5tal4 ,! "o 0 creat$ by ,ari/otle1 complete at a /roke2 ,kant pr(esses to h =mulat$ ! o!r 9 an equally complete & f9al mann]4 ,?is latt] claim1 :i* is express$ 9 ! mo/ unqualifi$ t]ms 9 ! ,prefaces to ! fir/ & second editions1 is some:at />tl+ to a mod]n read]1 & w\ld seem to imply ! adoption ( an ultra-rationali/ic attitude1 closely ak9 to t ( ,wolff4 8,9 ?is "w ,i h made complet5ess my *ief aim1 & ,i v5ture to ass]t t !re is n a s+le metaphysical problem :i* has n be5 solv$1 or = ! solution ( :i* ! key at lea/ has n be5 suppli$4 ,reason is1 inde$1 s p]fect a unity t if its pr9ciple 7 insuffici5t = ! solution ( ev5 a s+le "o ( all ! que/ions to :i* x itself gives bir?1 we %\ld be ju/ifi$ 9 =?) reject+ x z incompet5t to answ]1 ) p]fect c]ta9ty1 any "o ( ! o!r que/ions40#aeh 8,metaphysics has ?is s+ul> advantage1 su* z falls to ! lot ( no o!r sci5ce :i* deals ) objects 7= logic is conc]n$ only ) ! =m ( ?\ght 9 g5]al71 t %\ld x1 ?r\gh ?is ,critique1 be set ^u ! secure pa? ( sci5ce1 x is capable ( acquir+ exhau/ive k ( its entire field4 ,x c f9i% its "w & bequea? x to po/]ity z a capital t c nev] be add$ to4 ,= metaphysics has to deal only ) pr9ciples1 & ) ! limits ( _! employm5t z det]m9$ by ^! pr9ciples !mselves4 ,s9ce x is a fundam5tal sci5ce1 x is "u obligation to a*ieve ?is complet5ess4 ,we mu/ be able to say ( x3 nil actum reputans1 si quid sup]esset ag5dum40#aei ,^! sangu9e expectations--by no means support$ by ! aft]-hi/ory ( ,kant's sy/em--are n really due to ,kant's immode/ ov]-e/imate ( ! importance ( 8 "w4 ,!y w\ld r seem to be traceable1 on ! "o h& to 8 cont9u+ acceptance ( rationali/ic assumptions prop] only to ! philosophy :i* he is displac+1 & on ! o!r to 8 failure to appreciate ! full ext5t ( ! revolution>y consequ5ces :i* 8 tea*+ 0 de/9$ to produce 9 ! !n exi/+ philosophical discipl9es4 ,kant1 l all ! greate/ re=m]s1 left 8 "w 9 ! mak+4 ,bo? 8 results & 8 me?ods call = modification & ext5sion 9 ! light ( ! insight :i* !y h !mselves r5d]$ possible4 ,inde$1 ,kant 0 himself con/antly occupi$ 9 criticis+ & correct+ 8 own acquir$ views2 & ?is is n[h]e m evid5t ?an 9 ! contra/ betwe5 ! tea*+ ( ?is ,introduction & t ( ! c5tral portions ( ! ,analytic4 ,b ev5 ! lat] expressions ( 8 matur] views reveal ! p]si/+ conflict4 ,!y betray ! ne$ = fur!r recon/ruction1 ev5 9 ! v act ( disav[+ x4 ,n an additional logic1 b ! demon/ration ( ! imp]ative ne$ = a complete revisal ( ! :ole body ( logical sci5ce1 is ! fir/1 & 9 _m respects ! *ief1 outcome ( 8 ,critical enquiries4 ,! broad] be>+s ( ! situation may p]haps be indicat$ z foll[s4 ,if our acc\nt ( ,kant's awak5+ f 8 dogmatic slumb]#afj be correct1 x consi/$ 9 8 recognition t self-evid5ce w n suffice to gu>antee any g5]al pr9ciple4 ,! fundam5tal pr9ciples ( our exp]i5ce are syn!tic4 ,t is to say1 _! opposite is 9 all cases conceivable4 ,comb9+ ?is conclusion ) 8 previ\s conviction t !y c nev] be prov$ by induction f obs]v$ facts1 he 0 fac$ ) ! task ( e/abli%+ rationalism ^u a new & altoge!r novel basis4 ,if nei!r empirical facts nor intuitive self-evid5ce may be appeal$ to1 9 :at mann] c pro( proce$8 ,& h[ c we make ev5 a beg9n+ ( demon/ration1 if our v pr9ciples h !mselves to be e/abli%$8 ,pr9ciples are nev] self-evid5t1 & yet pr9ciples are indisp5sable4 ,su* 0 ,kant's unwav]+ conviction z reg>ds ! fundam5tal po/ulates alike ( k & ( conduct4 ,?is is only ano!r way ( /at+ t ,kant is ! real f\nd] ( ! ,coh]5ce !ory ( tru?4#afa ,he nev] himself employs ! t]m ,coh]5ce1 & he con/antly adopts positions :i* are m 9 h>mony ) a ,correspond5ce view ( ! nature & conditions ( k4 ,b all t is mo/ vital 9 8 tea*+1 & has prov$ really fruitful 9 its aft]-hi/ory1 w\ld seem to be 9 l9e ) ! positions :i* h s9ce be5 m explicitly develop$ by su* writ]s z ,lotze1 ,sigw>t1 ,gre51 ,bradley1 ,bosanquet1 ,jones & ,dewey1 & :i* 9 _! t5ets all d]ive f ,hegel's re/atem5t ( ,kant's logical doctr9es4 ,f ?is po9t ( view pr9ciples & facts mutually e/abli% "o ano!r1 ! =m] prov+ !mselves by _! capacity to acc\nt = ! relevant ph5om5a1 & ! latt] di/+ui%+ !mselves f irrelevant accompanim5ts by _! con=mity to ! pr9ciples :i* make insight possible4 ,9 o!r words1 all pro( con=ms 9 g5]al type to ! hypo!tical me?od ( ! natural sci5ces4 ,kant's s-call$ transc5d5tal me?od1 ! me?od by :i* he e/abli%es ! validity ( ! categories1 is itself1 z we h already obs]v$1#afb ( ?is "*4 ,secondly1 ! di/9ction betwe5 ! empirical & ! a priori mu/ n be tak5 7z ,kant himself takes x 9 8 e>li]1 & occasionally ev5 9 8 lat] utt]ances7 z m>k+ a di/9ction betwe5 two k9ds ( k4 ,!y are elem5ts insep>ably involv$ 9 all k4 ,& la/ly1 ! contra/ betwe5 analysis & syn!sis becomes a diff]5ce n ( k9d b ( degree4 ,no?+ c exi/ or be conceiv$ save z fitt$ into a sy/em :i* gives x mean+ & decides z to its tru?4 ,9 ! degree to :i* x c be /udi$ 9 relative indep5d5ce ( ! support+ sy/em analysis w suffice2 9 ! degree to :i* x ref]s u to ?is sy/em x calls = syn!tic int]pretation4 ,b ultimately ! ne$s ( adequate und]/&+ mu/ con/ra9 u to ! employm5t ( bo? me?ods ( enquiry4 ,no?+ c be kn[n save 9 t]ms ( ! wid] :ole to :i* x belongs4 ,!re is1 h[ev]1 "o important respect 9 :i* ,kant div]ges 9 v radical fa%ion f ! position ( ,hegel4 ,! f9al :ole to :i* all ?+s mu/ be ref]r$ is repres5t$ to u only ?r\gh an 8,idea10 = :i* no correspond+ reality c ev] be f\nd4 ,! sy/em :i* decides :at is to be reg>d$ z empirically real is ! me*anical sy/em ( natural sci5ce4 ,we h no suffici5t !oretical crit]ion ( absolute reality4 ,^! some:at g5]al consid]ations may be made m def9ite if we n[ endeav\r to det]m9e 9 :at specific respects ! di/9ctions employ$ 9 ! ,introduction fail to h>monise ) ! c5tral doctr9es ( ! ,analytic4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ,kant /ates 8 problem 9 ref]5ce only to ! attributive judgm5t4 ,! o!r types ( relational judgm5t are entirely ignor$4 ,= ev5 :5 he cites judgm5ts ( o!r relational types1 su* z ! propositions ( ari?metic & geometry1 or t :i* gives expression to ! causal axiom1 he int]prets !m on ! l9es ( ! traditional !ory ( ! categorical proposition4 ,z we %all f9d1#afc x is ) ! relational categories1 & consequ5tly ) ! v>i\s types ( relational judgm5t to :i* !y give rise1 t ! ,critique is alone directly conc]n$4 ,ev5 ! attributive judgm5t is f\nd on exam9ation to be ( ?is nature4 ,:at x expresses is n ! inclusion ( an attribute )9 a giv5 gr\p ( attributes1 b ! organisation ( a complex manifold 9 t]ms ( ! dual category ( sub/ance & attribute4 ,secondly1 ?is exclusively attributive int]pretation ( ! judgm5t leads ,kant to draw1 9 8 ,introduction1 a h>d & fa/ di/9ction betwe5 ! analytic & ! syn!tic proposition--a di/9ction :i*1 :5 /at$ 9 su* extreme fa%ion1 obscures ! real implications ( ! argum5t ( ! ,analytic4 ,= ,kant "h prop\nds#afd z an exhau/ive division ! two alt]natives3 7a7 inclusion ( ! pr$icate concept )9 ! subject concept1 & 7b7 ! fall+ ( ! pr$icate concept entirely outside x4 ,he adds1 inde$1 t 9 ! latt] case ! two concepts may /ill be 9 "s way connect$ ) "o ano!r2 b ?is is a concession ( :i* he takes no acc\nt 9 8 subsequ5t argum5t4 ,he leaves unconsid]$ ! ?ird possibility1 t e judgm5t is bo? analytic & syn!tic4 ,if concepts are n indep5d5t entities1#afe z ,kant1 9 agreem5t ) ,leibniz1 /ill cont9ues to ma9ta91 b c function only z memb]s ( an articulat$ sy/em1 concepts w be di/+ui%able f "o ano!r1 & yet w none ! less involve "o ano!r4 ,9 s f> z ! di/+ui%able elem5ts 9 a judgm5t are directly relat$1 ! judgm5t may seem purely analytic2 9 s f> z !y are relat$ only 9 an indirect mann] ?r\gh a numb] ( int]m$i>ies1 !y may seem to be purely syn!tic4 ,b 9 e case !re is an int]nal articulation :i* is describable z syn!sis1 & an und]ly+ unity t 9 subord9at+ all diff]5ces realises m adequately ?an any m]e id5tity ! dem& = connection betwe5 subject & pr$icate4 ,9 o!r words1 all judgm5ts w1 on ?is view1 be ( ! relational type4 ,ev5 ! attributive judgm5t1 z above not$1 is no m]e ass]tion ( id5tity4 ,x is always express$ 9 t]ms ( ! dual category ( sub/ance & attribute1 connect+ by a relation cont5ts t z cont5ts may be extremely div]se4 ,?is w\ld seem to be ! view to :i* ,kant's ,critical tea*+1 :5 consi/5tly develop$1 is b\nd to lead4 ,= 9 insi/+ t ! syn!tic "* ( a judgm5t ne$ n r5d] x invalid1 & t all ! fundam5tal pr9ciples & mo/ ( ! d]ivative judgm5ts ( ! positive sci5ces are ( ?is nature1 ,kant is really ma9ta9+ t ! ju/ification ( a judgm5t is always to be look$ = beyond its own b\nd>ies 9 "s impli$ context ( coh]5t exp]i5ce4 ,b ?\gh ! value ( 8 argum5t lies 9 cle>-sight$ recognition ( ! syn!tic factor 9 all g5u9e k1 its cog5cy is greatly obscur$ by 8 cont9u$ acceptance ( ! possibility ( judgm5ts t are purely analytic4 ,?us !re is little difficulty 9 detect+ ! syn!tic "* ( ! proposition3 all bodies are heavy4 ,yet ! read] has fir/ be5 requir$ to admit ! analytic "* ( ! proposition3 all bodies are ext5d$4 ,! two propositions are really id5tical 9 logical "*4 ,nei!r c be recognis$ z true save 9 t]ms ( a compreh5sive !ory ( physical exi/5ce4 ,if matt] mu/ exi/ 9 a /ate ( di/ribution 9 ord] t its p>ts may acquire ?r\gh mutual attraction ! prop]ty ( weight1 ! size ( a body1 or ev5 its possess+ any ext5sion :atsoev]1 may simil>ly dep5d ^u specific conditions su* z may conceivably n be univ]sally realis$4 ,we f9d ! same difficulty :5 we are call$ ^u to decide :e!r ! judgm5t #g #e #ab is analytic or purely syn!tic4 ,kant speaks z if ! concepts ( #g1 #e1 & #ab 7 indep5d5t entities1 ea* ) its own q sep>ate connotation4 ,b obvi\sly !y c only be =m$ 9 ! light ( ! v>i\s connect$ concepts :i* g to con/itute our sy/em ( num]ation4 ,! proposition has mean+ only :5 int]pret$ 9 ! light ( ?is conceptual sy/em4 ,x is n1 inde$1 a self-evid5t id5tical proposition2 b nei!r is ! connection ass]t$ s entirely syn!tic t intuition w alone acc\nt = its possibility4 ,t1 h[ev]1 br+s u to ! ?ird ma9 defect 9 ,kant's argum5t4 ,:5 ,kant /ates#aff t 9 syn!tic judgm5ts we require1 besides ! concept ( ! subject1 some?+ else on :i* ! und]/&+ c rely 9 kn[+ t a pr$icate1 n conta9$ 9 ! concept1 nev]!less belongs to x1 he entitles ?is some?+ x4 ,9 ! case ( empirical judgm5ts1 ?is x is brute exp]i5ce4 ,su* judgm5ts1 ,kant implies1 are m]ely empirical4 ,no elem5t ( necessity is involv$1 n ev5 9 an indirect mann]2 9 ref]5ce to empirical judgm5ts !re is no problem ( a priori syn!sis4 ,n[ 9 =mulat+ ! issue 9 ?is way1 ,kant is obscur+ ! ess5tial purpose ( 8 :ole enquiry4 ,he may1 )\t ess5tial detrim5t to 8 c5tral position1 /ill cont9ue to pres]ve a h>d-&-fa/ di/9ction betwe5 analytic & syn!tic judgm5ts4 ,9 s do+ he is only fail+ to p]ceive ! ultimate consequ5ces ( 8 f9al results4 ,b 9 view+ empirical judgm5ts z lack+ 9 e elem5t ( necessity1 he is de/roy+ ! v gr\nd ^u :i* he pr(esses to base ! a priori validity ( g5]al pr9ciples4 ,all judgm5ts involve relational factors ( an a priori "*4 ,! appeal to exp]i5ce is ! appeal to an impli$ sy/em ( nature4 ,only :5 fitt$ into ! context yield$ by su* a sy/em c an empirical proposition h mean+1 & only 9 ! light ( su* a presuppos$ sy/em c its tru? be det]m9$4 ,x c be true at all1 only if x c be reg>d$ z necess>ily hold+1 "u ! same conditions1 = all m9ds con/itut$ l our own4 ,ass]tion ( a cont+5t relation--z 9 ! proposition3 ?is horse is :ite--is n equival5t to cont+5cy ( ass]tion4 ,col\r is a v>iable quality ( ! g5us horse1 b 9 ! individual horse is necess>ily det]m9$ 9 "s p>ticul> mode4 ,if a horse is naturally :ite1 x is necess>ily :ite4 ,?\gh1 !re=e1 9 ! above proposition1 necessity receives no explicit v]bal expression1 x is none ! less impli$4 ,9 o!r words1 ! di/9ction betwe5 ! empirical & ! a priori is n1 z ,kant inconsi/5tly assumes 9 ?is ,introduction1 a di/9ction betwe5 two k9ds ( syn!sis or judgm5t1 b betwe5 two elem5ts insep>ably involv$ 9 e judgm5t4 ,exp]i5ce is transc5d5tally condition$4 ,judgm5t is 9 all cases ! expression ( a relation :i* implies an organis$ sy/em ( support+ propositions2 & = ! articulation ( ?is sy/em a priori factors are indisp5sably necess>y4 ,b ! mo/ flagrant example ( ,kant's failure to live up to 8 own ,critical pr9ciples is to be f\nd 9 8 doctr9e ( pure intuition4 ,x repres5ts a position :i* he adopt$ 9 ! pre-,critical p]iod4 ,x is prefigur$ 9 ,ueb] die ,deutli*keit d] ,grundstze 7#agfd71afg & 9 ,von dem er/5 ,grunde des ,unt]s*i$es d] ,geg5d5 im ,raume 7#agfh71afh & is def9itely exp\nd$ 9 ! ,diss]tation 7#aggj74afi ,t ,kant cont9u$ to hold ?is doctr9e1 & t he himself reg>d$ x z an integral "p ( 8 sy/em1 does n1 ( c\rse1 suffice to r5d] x g5u9ely ,critical4 ,z a matt] ( fact1 x is really z completely inconsi/5t ) 8 ,critical /&po9t z is ! view ( ! empirical proposition :i* we h j be5 consid]+4 ,an appeal to our f+]s or to po9ts#agj is z little capable1 9 & by itself1 ( ju/ify+ any a priori judgm5t z are ! s5se-cont5ts ( gr\nd+ an empirical judgm5t4 ,ev5 :5 ,kant is all[$ ! b5efit ( 8 own m c>eful /atem5ts1#aga & is tak5 z ass]t+ t ari?metical propositions are bas$ on a pure a priori intuition :i* c f9d only approximate expression 9 s5su\s t]ms1 8 /atem5ts run c\nt] to ! ma9 t5d5cies ( 8 ,critical tea*+1 z well z to ! recognis$ me?ods ( ! ma!matical sci5ces4 ,intuition may1 z ,po9c> & o!rs h ma9ta9$1 be an indisp5sable elem5t 9 all ma!matical concepts2 x _c af=d pro( ( any g5]al !orem4 ,! conceptual sy/em :i* directs our me?ods ( decimal c\nt+ is :at gives mean+ to ! judgm5t #g #e #ab2 x is also :at det]m9es t judgm5t z true4 ,! appeal to intuition 9 num]ical judgm5ts mu/ be reg>d$ only z a means ( imag9atively realis+ 9 a concrete =m ! ab/ract relations ( "s su* gov]n+ sy/em1 or else z a means ( detect+ relations n previ\sly kn[n4 ,! la/ ?+ 9 ! _w :i* su* a me?od c yield is univ]sal demon/ration4 ,?is is equally evid5t 9 reg>d to geometrical propositions4 ,t a /raight l9e is ! %orte/ di/ance betwe5 two po9ts1 _c be prov$ by any m]e appeal to intuition4 ,! judgm5t w hold if x c be assum$ t space is ,euclidean 9 "*2 & to ju/ify t assumption x mu/ be %[n t ,euclidean concepts are adequate to ! int]pretation ( our intuitional data4 ,%\ld space possess a curvature1 ! above proposition might cease to be univ]sally valid4 ,space is n a simple1 unanalysable datum4 ,?\gh intuitionally appreh5d$1 x dem&s = its precise det]m9ation ! :ole body ( geometrical sci5ce4#agb ,! comp>ative simplicity ( ,kant's intuitional !ory ( ma!matical sci5ce1 support$ z x is by ! seem+ly fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 ab/ract concepts ( reflective ?9k+ & ! con/ruction ( concepts#agc 9 geometry & ari?metic1 has made x intelligible ev5 to ^? to :om ! v complicat$ argum5t ( ! ,analytic makes no appeal4 ,x w\ld also seem to be insep>ably b\nd up ) :at f ! popul> po9t ( view is ! mo/ /rik+ ( all ,kant's !oretical doctr9es1 namely1 8 view t space & "t are giv5 subjective =ms1 & t ! ass]tion ( _! indep5d5t reality mu/ result 9 ^? contradictions to :i* ,kant has giv5 ! title ant9omy4 ,= ^! reasons 8 intuitional !ory ( ma!matical sci5ce has receiv$ att5tion out ( all proportion to its importance4 ,its pre-,critical "* has be5 m or less ov]look$1 & in/ead ( be+ int]pret$ 9 ! light ( ,critical pr9ciples1 x has be5 all[$ to obscure ! s\nd] tea*+ ( ! ,analytic4 ,9 ?is matt] ,s*op5hau] is a *ief culprit4 ,he n only takes ! views ( ma!matical sci5ce exp\nd$ 9 ! ,introduction & ,ae/hetic z be+ 9 l9e ) ,kant's ma9 tea*+1 b exp\nds !m 9 an ev5 m unqualifi$ fa%ion ?an does ,kant himself4 ,!re are ?us f\r ma9 defects 9 ! argum5t ( ?is ,introduction1 reg>d$ z repres5tative ( ,critical tea*+4 7#a7 ,its problems are =mulat$ exclusively 9 t]ms ( ! attributive judgm5t2 ! o!r =ms ( relational judgm5t are ignor$4 7#b7 ,x ma9ta9s t judgm5ts are ei!r m]ely analytic or completely syn!tic4 7#c7 ,x proce$s 9 t]ms ( a fur!r division ( judgm5ts into ^? t are purely empirical & ^? t are a priori4 7#d7 ,x seems to ass]t t ! ju/ification = ma!matical judgm5ts is intuitional4 ,all ^! f\r positions are 9 "s degree reta9$ ?r\gh\t ! ,critique1 b n 9 ! unqualifi$ mann] ( ?is ,introduction4 ,9 ! ,analytic1 judgm5t 9 all its possible =ms is %[n to be a syn!tic comb9ation ( a giv5 manifold 9 t]ms ( relational categories4 ,?is leads to a f\rfold conclusion4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 judgm5t mu/ be reg>d$ z ess5tially relational4 ,secondly1 ! a priori & ! empirical mu/ n be tak5 z two sep>ate k9ds ( k1 b z two elem5ts involv$ 9 all k4 ,?irdly1 analysis & syn!sis mu/ n be view$ z co-ord9ate processes2 syn!sis is ! m fundam5tal2 x conditions all analysis4 ,& la/ly1 x mu/ be recognis$ t no?+ is m]ely giv52 intuitional exp]i5ce1 :e!r s5su\s or a priori1 is condition$ by processes ( conceptual int]pretation4 ,?\gh ! consequ5ces :i* foll[ f ^! conclusions1 if fully develop$1 w\ld c>ry u f> beyond any po9t :i* ,kant himself rea*$ 9 ! progressive matur+ ( 8 views1 ! next imm$iate /eps w\ld /ill be on ! /rict l9es ( ! ,critical pr9ciples1 & w\ld involve ! sacrifice only ( su* pre-,critical doctr9es z t ( ! intuitive "* ( ma!matical pro(4 ,su* correction ( ,kant's e>li] positions is ! necess>y complem5t ( 8 own f9al discov]y t s5se-intuition is incapable ( gr\nd+ ev5 ! s-call$ empirical judgm5t4 99 99 99 99 99 ,! ,introduction to ! fir/ edition be>s all ! signs ( hav+ be5 writt5 previ\s to ! c5tral portions ( ! ,analytic4#agd ,t x 0 n1 h[ev]1 writt5 prior to ! ,ae/hetic seems probable4 ,! op5+ sections ( ! ,ae/hetic repres5t :at is virtually an indep5d5t introduction :i* takes no acc\nt ( ! prec$+ argum5t1 & :i* r$ef9es t]ms & di/9ctions t h already be5 dwelt ^u4 ,! ext5sive additions :i* ,kant made 9 reca/+ ! ,introduction = ! second edition are 9 _m respects a great improvem5t4 ,9 ! fir/ edition ,kant _h n1 except :5 speak+ ( ! possibility ( con/ruct+ ! concepts ( ma!matical sci5ce1 ref]r$ to ! syn!tic "* ( ma!matical judgm5ts4 ,?is is n[ dwelt ^u 9 adequate detail4 ,kant's reason = n mak+ ! revision m radical 0 d\btless 8 unwill+ness to und]take ! /ill m ext5sive alt]ations :i* ?is w\ld h involv$4 ,_h he exp&$ ! op5+ /atem5t ( ! second edition ,introduction1 t ev5 our empirical k is a comp\nd ( ! s5su\s & ! a priori1 an entirely new ,introduction w\ld h become necess>y4 ,! additions made are !re=e only su* z w n m>k$ly conflict ) ! ma9 t5or ( ! argum5t ( ! fir/ edition4 ,,h[ ,,are ,,syn!tic ,a ,,priori ,,judgm5ts ,,possible8 ,treatm5t ( detail$ po9ts w be simplifi$ if we n[ consid] 9 sy/ematic fa%ion ! _m difficulties t pres5t !mselves 9 connection ) ,kant's mode ( =mulat+ 8 c5tral problem3 ,h[ are syn!tic a priori judgm5ts possible8 ,?is =mula is less def9ite & precise ?an w\ld at fir/ sight appe>4 ,! c5tral phrase #8syn!tic a priori' is suffici5tly exact 7! mean+ to be atta*$ to ! a priori has already be5 consid]$#age71 b ambiguities ( ! mo/ v>i\s k9ds lurk 9 ! seem+ly innoc5t & simple t]ms ) :i* ! =mula beg9s & ends3 ,a4 #8,h[' has two v diff]5t mean+s3 7a7 ,h[ possible 9 :at mann] possible wie4 7b7 ,h[ possible 9 h[ f> possible1 i4e4 :e!r possible ob4 ,9 connection ) ^! two mean+s ( ! t]m #8h[1' we %all h to consid] ! di/9ction betwe5 ! syn!tic me?od employ$ 9 ! ,critique & ! analytic me?od employ$ 9 ! ,prolegom5a4 ,b4 #8,possible' has a /ill wid] range ( application4 ,vaih+]#agf di/+ui%es )9 x no less ?an ?ree pairs ( alt]native mean+s3 7a7 ,psy*ological & logical possibility4 7b7 ,possibility ( explanation & possibility ( exi/5ce4 7c7 ,real & ideal possibility4 ,a4 ,kant p]sonally believ$ t ! possibility ( valid a priori syn!tic judgm5t is prov$ by ! exi/+ sci5ces ( ma!matics & physics4 ,& t be+ s1 !re 7 = ,kant two v diff]5t me?ods :i* c\ld be employ$ 9 acc\nt+ = _! possibility1 ! syn!tic or progressive1 & ! analytic or regressive4 ,! syn!tic me?od w\ld />t f giv51 ord9>y exp]i5ce 79 its simple/ =m1 z consci\sness ( "t71 to discov] its conditions1 & f !m to prove ! validity ( k t is a priori4 ,! analytic me?od w\ld />t 8f ! s\ght z if x 7 giv510 t is1 f ! exi/5ce ( a priori syn!tic judgm5ts1 &1 assum+ !m z valid1 w\ld det]m9e ! conditions "u :i* alone su* validity c be possible4 ,! precise =mulation ( ^! two me?ods1 ! det]m9ation ( _! int]relations1 ( _! value & comp>ative scope1 is a matt] ( great importance1 & mu/ !re=e be consid]$ at "s l5g?4 ,! syn!tic me?od may easily be conf\nd$ ) ! analytic me?od4 ,= 9 ! process ( its argum5t x makes use ( analysis4 ,by analys+ ord9>y exp]i5ce 9 ! =m 9 :i* x is giv51 x det]m9es 79 ! ,ae/hetic & 9 ! ,analytic ( ,concepts7 ! fundam5tal elem5ts ( :i* k is compos$1 & ! g5]at+ conditions f :i* x results4 ,f ^! ! validity ( ! a priori pr9ciples t und]lie ma!matics & physics c 79 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples7 be directly d$uc$4 ,! fundam5tal diff]5tiat+ feature1 !re=e1 ( ! s-call$ syn!tic me?od is n its syn!tic proc$ure1 s9ce 9 great "p1 9 ! solution ( ! mo/ difficult portion ( its task1 x employs an analytic me?od1 b only its attitude t[>ds ! "o "q ( ! validity ( a priori syn!tic k4 ,x does n po/ulate ?is validity z a premiss1 b proves x z a consequ5ce ( conditions :i* are indep5d5tly e/abli%$4 ,by a prelim9>y regress ^u ! conditions ( our de facto consci\sness x acquires data f :i* x is enabl$ to advance by a syn!tic1 progressive or d$uctive proc$ure to ! e/abli%m5t ( ! validity ( syn!tic a priori judgm5ts4 ,! analytic me?od1 on ! o!r h&1 makes no attempt to prove ! validity ( a priori k4 ,x seeks only to discov] ! conditions "u :i* su* k1 if grant$ to exi/1 c possess validity1 & 9 ! light ( :i* its p>adoxical & app>5tly contradictory features c be view$ z complem5t>y to "o ano!r4 ,! conditions1 ?us reveal$1 w r5d] ! validity ( k conceivable1 w acc\nt = x once x has be5 assum$2 b !y d n prove x4 ,! validity is a premiss2 ! :ole argum5t re/s ^u ! assumption ( its tru?4 ,! conditions are only po/ulat$ z conditions2 & _! reality becomes unc]ta91 if ! validity1 :i* presupposes !m1 is itself call$ 9 "q4 ,imm$iately we attempt to rev]se ! proc$ure1 & to prove validity f ^! conditions1 our argum5t mu/ necess>ily adopt ! syn!tic =m2 & t1 z has be5 indicat$1 involves ! prior application ( a v diff]5t & mu* m ?or\gh process ( analysis4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 ! two me?ods may !re=e be /at$ z foll[s4 ,9 ! syn!tic me?od ! gr\nds :i* are employ$ to expla9 a priori k are su* z also at ! same "t suffice to prove its validity4 ,9 ! analytic me?od !y are gr\nds ( explanation1 b n ( pro(4 ,!y are !mselves prov$ only 9 s f> z ! assumption ( validity is previ\sly grant$4 ,! analytic proc$ure :i* is involv$ 9 ! complete syn!tic me?od ought1 h[ev]1 = ! sake ( cle>ness1 to be class$ z a sep>ate1 ?ird1 me?od4 ,& z su* ,i %all h5ce=? reg>d x4 ,x e/abli%es by an indep5d5t l9e ( argum5t ! exi/5ce ( a priori factors1 & also _! objective validity z conditions necess>y to ! v possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,s view$1 x is ! mo/ important & ! mo/ fundam5tal ( ! ?ree me?ods4 ,! argum5t :i* x embodies con/itutes ! v he>t ( ! ,critique4 ,x is1 inde$1 ,kant's new transc5d5tal me?od2 & 9 ! future1 9 ord] to avoid confusion ) ! analytic me?od ( ! ,prolegom5a1 ,i %all ref] to x always by ?is title4 ,x is because ! transc5d5tal me?od is an integral "p ( ! complete1 syn!tic me?od1 b _c be consi/5tly made a "p ( ! analytic me?od1 t ! syn!tic me?od alone s]ves z an adequate expression ( ! ,kantian /&po9t4 ,?is new transc5d5tal me?od is pro( by ref]5ce to ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,exp]i5ce is giv5 z psy*ological fact4 ,! conditions :i* c alone acc\nt = x1 z psy*ological fact1 also suffice to prove its objective validity2 b at ! same "t !y limit t validity to ! ph5om5al realm4 ,we h next to enquire to :at ext5t ^! me?ods are consi/5tly employ$ 9 ! ,critique4 ,?is is a problem ov] :i* !re has be5 mu* controv]sy1 b :i* seems to h be5 answ]$ 9 a q f9al mann] by ,vaih+]4 ,x is univ]sally recognis$ t ! ,critique pr(esses to foll[ ! syn!tic me?od1 & t ! ,prolegom5a1 = ! sake ( a simpl] & m popul> =m ( exposition1 adopts ! analytic me?od4 ,h[ f> ^! two works live up to _! pr(essions1 especially ! ,critique 9 its two editions1 is ! only po9t really 9 "q4 ,vaih+] f\nd two diametrically oppos$ views divid+ ! field4 ,pauls51 ,riehl1 & ,w9delb& ma9ta9 ! view t ,kant />ts f ! fact t ma!matics1 pure natural sci5ce1 & metaphysics conta9 syn!tic a priori judgm5ts claim+ to be valid4 ,kant's problem is to te/ ^! claims2 & 8 answ] is t !y are valid 9 ma!matics & pure natural sci5ce1 b n 9 metaphysics4 ,pauls51 & ^? :o foll[ him1 fur!r cont5d t 9 ! fir/ edition ?is me?od is 9 ! ma9 consi/5tly held to1 b t 9 ! second edition1 ow+ to ! occasional employm5t 7especially 9 ! ,introduction7 ( ! analytic me?od ( ! ,prolegom5a1 ! argum5t is p]v]t$ & confus$3 ,kant assumes :at he ought fir/ to h prov$4 ,fis*]1 on ! o!r h&1 & 9 a k9dr$ mann] also ,b4 ,erdmann1 ma9ta9 t ,kant nev] actually d\bt$ ! validity ( syn!tic a priori judgm5ts2 />t+ f _! validity1 9 ord] to expla9 x1 ,kant discov]s ! conditions ^u :i* x re/s1 & 9 s do+ is able to %[ t ^! conditions are n ( su* a "* z to ju/ify ! pr(ess$ judgm5ts ( metaphysics4 ,vaih+]#agg comb9es portions ( bo? views1 :ile completely accept+ nei!r4 ,hume's pr(\nd influ5ce ^u ! developm5t & =mulation ( ,kant's ,critical problem c h>dly be exagg]at$1 b x ought n to prev5t u f realis+ t ?is problem1 9 its fir/ =m1 0 q indep5d5tly discov]$4 ,z ! lett] ( #aggb to ,h]z cle>ly %[s1#agh ,kant 0 br\ght to ! problem1 h[ an idea 9 u c relate to an object1 by ! inn] developm5t ( 8 own views1 ?r\gh reflection ^u ! view ( ?\ght :i* he _h develop$ 9 ! ,diss]tation ( #aggj4 ,! con=mity betwe5 ?\ght & ?+s is 9 t lett] pres5t$1 n z a sceptical objection1 b z an actual fact call+ = explanation4 ,he does n ask :e!r !re is su* con=mity1 b only h[ x %\ld be possible4 ,ev5 aft] ! fur!r complication1 t ?\ght is syn!tic z well z a priori1 came into view ?r\gh ! influ5ce ( ,hume1 ! problem /ill cont9u$ to pres5t itself to ,kant 9 ?is non-sceptical light4 ,& ?is l>gely det]m9es ! word+ ( 8 exposition1 ev5 9 passages 9 :i* ! dem&s ( ! syn!tic me?od are be+ q amply fulfill$4 ,kant1 z x w\ld seem1 nev] himself d\bt$ ! validity ( ! ma!matical sci5ces4 ,b s9ce _! validity is n beyond possible impea*m5t1 & s9ce metaphysical k1 :i* is decid$ly que/ionable1 w\ld appe> to be ( some:at simil> type1 ,kant 0 con/ra9$ to recognise t1 f ! po9t ( view ( /rict pro(1 su* assumption ( validity is n really legitimate4 ,?\gh1 !re=e1 ! analytic me?od w\ld h resolv$ ,kant's own orig9al difficulty1 only ! syn!tic me?od is fully adequate to ! situation4 ,kant accord+ly sets himself to prove t :e!r or n we are ready 7z he himself is7 to recognise ! validity ( sci5tific judgm5ts1 ! correctness ( ?is assumption c be firmly e/abli%$4 ,& be+ ?us able to prove its correctness1 he = t v reason does n hesitate to employ x 9 8 introductory /atem5t4 ,! problem1 he says1 is t ( #8und]/&+' h[ syn!tic a priori judgm5ts c be valid4 ,a #8difficulty1' a #8my/]y1' a #8secret1' lies conceal$ 9 !m4 ,h[ c a pr$icate be ascrib$ to a subject t]m :i* does n conta9 x8 ,& ev5 m /rangely 7if t be possible71 h[ c a priori judgm5ts legislate = objects :i* are indep5d5t exi/5ces8 ,su* judgm5ts1 ev5 if valid beyond all disput+1 w\ld /ill call = explanation4 ,?is is1 inde$1 ,kant's orig9al & gr\nd problem4 ,z already indicat$1 no "o1 save only ,hume1 _h hi!rto p]ceiv$ its significance4 ,plato1 ,malebran*e1 & ,crusius may h dwelt ^u x1 b only to sugge/ explanations /ill /rang] & m my/ical ?an ! my/]i\s fact itself4#agi ,pauls5 is ju/ifi$ 9 ma9ta9+ t ,kant1 9 bo? editions ( ! ,critique1 recognises ! validity ( ma!matics & pure natural sci5ce4 ,! fact ( _! validity is less explicitly dwelt ^u 9 ! fir/ edition1 b is none ! less tak5 = grant$4 ,! sections transf]r$ f ! ,prolegom5a to ! ,introduction ( ! second edition make no ess5tial *ange1 except m]ely 9 ! emphasis ) :i* ,kant's belief 9 ! exi/5ce ( valid a priori syn!tic judgm5ts is insi/$ ^u4 ,z has already be5 /at$1 only by virtue ( ?is initial assumption is ,kant 9 position to ma9ta9 t !re is an alt]native to ! /rict syn!tic me?od4 ,! problem f :i* he />ts is common to bo? me?ods1 & = t reason ! =mulation us$ 9 ! ,prolegom5a c also be employ$ 9 ! ,introduction to ! ,critique4 ,only 9 _! mann] ( solv+ ! problem ne$ !y diff]4#ahj ,kant's ,critical problem fir/ beg9s ) ?is presupposition ( validity1 & does n exi/ save ?r\gh x4#aha ,he does n fir/ seek to discov] :e!r su* judgm5ts are valid1 & !n to expla9 !m4 ,he accepts !m z valid1 b develops a me?od ( argum5t :i* suffices = pro( z well z = explanation4 ,! argum5t be+ direct$ to bo? po9ts simultane\sly1 & e/abli%+ bo? ) equal cog5cy1 x may legitimately be int]pret$ 9 ei!r way1 m]ely z explanation1 or also z pro(4 ,kant does n pr(ess or attempt to keep exclusively to any "o l9e ( /atem5t4 ,aga9/ ! dogmati/s he insi/s ^u ! necessity ( expla9+ ! validity ( a priori syn!tic judgm5ts1 aga9/ ! sceptics ^u ! possibility ( prov+ _! validity4 ,& con/antly he uses ambigu\s t]ms1 su* z #8ju/ification' 7,re*tf]tigung71 #8possibility1' t may indiff]5tly be read 9 ei!r s5se4 ,b ?\gh ! fundam5tal dem& :i* *>act]ises ! syn!tic me?od 9 its di/9ction f ! analytic ?us falls into ! backgr\nd1 & is only occasionally insi/$ ^u1 x is none ! less fulfill$4 ,s f> z reg>ds ! ma9 argum5t ( ! ,critique 9 ei!r edition1 ! validity ( syn!tic a priori judgm5ts is n requir$ z a premiss4 ,x is itself indep5d5tly prov$4 ,! mann] 9 :i* ,kant ?us dep>ts f ! /rict application ( ! syn!tic me?od may be illu/rat$ by an analysis ( 8 argum5t 9 ! ,ae/hetic4#ahb ,only 9 ! argum5ts ( ! fir/ edition 9 reg>d to space & "t is ! syn!tic me?od employ$ 9 its ideal & rigor\s =m4 ,= ! mo/ "p1 ev5 9 ! fir/ edition1 in/ead ( %[+ h[ ! a priori "* ( pure & appli$ ma!matics foll[s f conclusions indep5d5tly e/abli%$1 he assumes bo? pure & appli$ ma!matics to be giv5 z valid1 & seeks only to %[ h[ ! indep5d5tly e/abli%$ results ( ! ,ae/hetic enable him to expla9 & r5d] compreh5sible _! recognis$ *>act]i/ics4 ,?is is n1 inde$1 any v ess5tial modification ( ! syn!tic me?od2 = 8 indep5d5tly e/abli%$ results suffice = d$uc+ all t !y are us$ to expla94 ,! validity ( ma!matics is n employ$ z a premiss4 ,kant's argum5t is1 h[ev]1 made less cle> by ! above proc$ure4 ,fur!r difficulty is caus$ by ,kant's occasional employm5t1 ev5 9 ! fir/ edition1 ( ! analytic me?od4 ,he sev]al times cites z an argum5t 9 support ( 8 view ( space ! fact t x alone w acc\nt = ! exi/+ sci5ce ( geometry4 ,t is to say1 he employs geometry1 view$ z valid1 to prove ! correctness ( 8 view ( space4#ahc ,/>t+ f t sci5ce z giv51 he enquires :at are ! conditions :i* c alone r5d] x possible4 ,^! conditions are f\nd to co9cide ) ^? indep5d5tly e/abli%$4 ,n[ ?is is a valid argum5t :5 employ$ 9 due subord9ation to ! ma9 syn!tic me?od4 ,x (f]s welcome confirmation ( ! results ( t me?od4 ,x am\nts 9 fact to ?is1 t hav+ prov$ 7by application ( ! transc5d5tal me?od7 ! ma!matical sci5ces to be valid1 ev]y?+ :i* _! validity necess>ily implies mu/ be grant$4 ,kant's reason+ "h becomes circul>1 b x is none ! less valid on t acc\nt4 ,?is fur!r complication ( ! argum5t is1 h[ev]1 dang]\sly apt to mislead ! read]4 ,x is 9 great "p ! cause ( ! above division among ,kant's comm5tators4 ,! me?od employ$ 9 ! ,prolegom5a is simply ?is =m ( argum5t sy/ematis$ & cut free f all dep5d5ce ^u ! transc5d5tal me?od ( pro(4#ahd ,! :ole matt] is1 h[ev]1 /ill fur!r complicat$ by ! di/9ction1 :i* we h already not$1 betwe5 real & ideal possibility4 ,are ! giv5 syn!tic a priori judgm5ts valid8 ,t is "o "q4 ,c ! ,critical philosophy discov]1 completely enum]ate1 & prove 9 a mann] nev] be=e done1 all ! possible syn!tic a priori pr9ciples8 ,t is a v diff]5t problem1 & :5 rais$ br+s u to ! fur!r discussion ( ,kant's transc5d5tal me?od4 ,! "q at issue is no long] m]ely :e!r or n c]ta9 giv5 judgm5ts are valid1 & h[1 if valid1 !y are to be acc\nt$ =4 ,! "q is n[ t ( discov]+ & ( prov+ pr9ciples :i* h n be5 e/abli%$ by any ( ! special sci5ces4 ,?is %ift+ ( ! problem is conceal$ f ,kant himself by 8 omission to di/+ui% betwe5 ! undemon/rat$ axioms ( ! ma!matical sci5ces & _! d]ivative !orems1 betwe5 ! pr9ciples employ$ by ! physici/ )\t enquiry into _! validity & ! special laws bas$ ^u empirical evid5ce4 ,z reg>ds ! ma!matical axioms1 ! problem is fairly simple4 ,z we %all see lat]1 9 ! ,ae/hetic1 !y d n require a d$uction 9 ! /rict transc5d5tal s5se4 ,!y really fall outside ! application ( ! transc5d5tal me?od4 ,!y require only an 8exposition40 ,b 9 reg>d to ! fundam5tal pr9ciples ( natural sci5ce we are pres5t$ ) ! problem ( discov]y z well z ( pro(4 ,unlike ! axioms ( ! ma!matician1 !y are frequ5tly left un=mulat$4 ,& _m po/ulates1 su* z t !re is a lex cont9ui 9 natura1 are curr5t 9 g5]al ?\ght1 & claim equal validity ) ! causal pr9ciple4 ,kant has ?us to face ! "q :e!r 9 addition to ^? pr9ciples employ$ m or less explicitly by ! sci5ti/1 o!rs1 su* z might g to =m an imman5t metaphysics ( nature1 may n also be possible4 ,b4 7a7#ahe ,psy*ological & logical possibility4--,bo? h to be recognis$ & acc\nt$ =4 ,let u consid] ea* 9 ord]4 7#a7 ,psy*ological possibility4--,:at are ! subjective conditions ( a priori syn!tic judgm5ts8 ,?r\gh :at m5tal faculties are !y r5d]$ possible8 ,kant replies by develop+ :at may be call$ a transc5d5tal psy*ology4 ,!y dep5d ^u space & "t z =ms ( s5sibility1 ^u ! a priori concepts ( und]/&+1 & ^u ! syn!tic activities by :i* ! imag9ation s*ematises ^! concepts & r$uces ! giv5 manifold to ! unity ( app]ception4 ,?is transc5d5tal psy*ology is ! necess>y complem5t ( ! m purely epi/emological analysis4#ahf ,b on ?is po9t ,kant's utt]ances are extremely mislead+4 ,8 ,critical enquiry has1 he decl>es1 no?+ 9 common ) psy*ology4 ,9 ! ,preface to ! fir/ edition we f9d ! foll[+ passage3 8,?is enquiry 444 into ! pure und]/&+ itself1 its possibility & ! cognitive faculties ^u :i* x re/s 4441 al?\gh ( great importance = my *ief purpose1 does n =m an ess5tial "p ( x40#ahg ,! "q1 he adds1 8h[ is ! faculty ( ?\ght itself possible8444 is z x 7 a se>* = ! cause ( a giv5 effect1 & !re=e is ( ! nature ( an hypo!sis or #8m]e op9ion'1 ?\gh1 z ,i %all %[ else:]e1 ?is is n really s40 ,! conclud+ words ( ?is passage v fairly express ,kant's hesitat+ & inconsi/5t proc$ure4 ,?\gh he has s explicitly elim9at$ f ! c5tral enquiry ( ! ,critique all psy*ological det]m9ation ( ! m5tal p[]s1 /atem5ts z to _! con/itution are none ! less impli$1 & are involv$ 9 8 epi/emological ju/ification alike ( a priori k & ( ord9>y exp]i5ce4 ,if we be> 9 m9d t ,kant is "h attempt+ to outl9e ! possible causes ( giv5 effects1 & t 8 conclusions are !re=e necess>ily ( a m hypo!tical "* ?an ^? obta9$ by logical analysis1 we %all be prep>$ to all[ him consid]able lib]ty 9 _! =mulation4 ,b 9 c]ta9 respects 8 /atem5ts are precise & def9ite--! view1 = in/ance1 ( s5sations z non-spatial1 ( "t z a =m ( inn] s5se1 ( ! productive imag9ation z pre-condition+ our consci\sness1 ( spontaneity z radically di/9ct f receptivity1 ( ! pure =ms ( ?\ght z n acquir$ ?r\gh s5se1 etc4 ,no int]pretation :i* ignores or "u-e/imates ?is psy*ological or subjective aspect ( 8 tea*+ c be admitt$ z adequate4#ahh 7#b7 ,logical or epi/emological possibility4--,h[ c syn!tic a priori judgm5ts be valid8 ,?is "q itself involves a tw(old problem4 ,h[1 despite _! syn!tic "*1 c !y possess tru?1 i4e4 h[ c we pass f _! subject t]ms to _! pr$icates8 ,& secondly1 h[1 9 view ( _! orig9 9 our human reason1 c !y be objectively valid1 i4e4 legislate = ! indep5d5tly real8 ,h[ c we pass beyond ! subject-pr$icate relation to real ?+s8 ,?is latt] is ! ,critical problem 9 ! =m 9 :i* x appe>s 9 ,kant's lett] ( #aggb to ,h]z4#ahi ,! =m] is ! problem ( syn!sis :i* 0 lat] discov]$4 7b7 7#a7 ,possibility ( explanation & 7#b7 possibility ( exi/5ce4--7#a7 ,h[ c syn!tic a priori judgm5ts be acc\nt$ =8 ,h[1 despite _! seem+ly inconsi/5t & app>5tly p>adoxical aspects1 c _! validity 7_! validity z well z _! actuality be+ tak5 = grant$7 be r5d]$ compreh5sible8 7#b7 ,! validity ( su* judgm5ts has be5 call$ 9 "q by ! empirici/s1 & is likewise inexplicable ev5 f ! dogmatic /&po9t ( ! rationali/s4 ,h[1 !n1 c ^! judgm5ts be possible at all8 ,^! two mean+s ( ! t]m #8possible' connect ) ! ambiguity1 above not$1 9 ! t]m #8h[4' ,! =m] problem c be solv$ by an analytic me?od2 ! latt] dem&s ! application ( ! m radical me?od ( syn!tic recon/ruction4 7c7 ,real & ideal possibility4#aij--,we h to di/+ui% betwe5 ! possible validity ( ^? propositions :i* ! ma!matical & physical sci5ces pr(ess to h e/abli%$ & ! possible validity ( ^? pr9ciples su* z t ( causality1 :i* are po/ulat$ by ! sci5ces1 b :i* ! sci5ces d n attempt to prove1 & :i* 9 c]ta9 cases !y d n ev5 =mulate4 ,! =m] con/itute an actually exi/5t body ( sci5tific k1 demon/rat$ 9 accordance ) ! dem&s ( sci5tific me?od4 ,! latt] are employ$ by ! sci5ti/1 b are n inve/igat$ by him4 ,! sci5ce into :i* !y c be fitt$ has /ill to be creat$2 & ?\gh "s ( ! pr9ciples compos+ x may be kn[n1 o!rs rema9 to be discov]$4 ,all ( !m dem& su* pro( & demon/ration z !y h nev] yet receiv$4#aia ,?is new & ideal sci5ce is ! sci5tific metaphysics :i* ,kant pr(esses to inaugurate by means ( ! ,critique4 ,9 ref]5ce to ! special sci5ces1 possibility means ! conditions ( ! actually giv54 ,9 ref]5ce to ! new & ideal metaphysics1 possibility signifies ! conditions ( ! realisation ( t :i* is s\ght4 ,9 view ( ?is di/9ction1 ! =mula--,h[ are syn!tic a priori judgm5ts possible8--w ?us acquire two v diff]5t mean+s4 7#a7 ,h[ are ! exi/+ a priori syn!tic judgm5ts to be acc\nt$ =8 7#b7 ,h[ may all ! really fundam5tal judgm5ts ( t type be exhau/ively discov]$ & prov$8 ,ev5 9 reg>d to imman5t metaphysics ,kant int]prets ! =mula 9 bo? ways4 ,?is is due to 8 frequ5t confusion ( imman5t metaphysics ) ! pr9ciples ( natural sci5ce4 ,its propositions are !n reg>d$ z giv51 & only _! g5]al validity calls = pro(4 ,x is1 h[ev]1 9 ! problem ( ideal possibility t ! ess5tial problem ( ! ,critique lies2 & t is a fur!r reason :y x _c be adequately dealt )1 save by means ( ! syn!tic me?od4 99 99 99 99 99 ,exp]i5ce4--,?r\gh\t ! ,introduction ! t]m exp]i5ce#aib has 7ev5 at times 9 "o & ! same s5t5ce7 two q di/9ct mean+s1 7#a7 z product ( s5se & und]/&+ act+ co-op]atively1 & 7#b7 z ! raw mat]ial 7! impressions7 ( s5se4 ,consid]able confusion is !reby caus$4 ,und]/&+ & reason#aic are "h1 z (t5 else:]e 9 ! ,critique1 us$ z equival5t t]ms4 ,?r\gh\t ! entire two fir/ sections ( ! ,introduction to ! second edition ! t]m reason does n occur ev5 once4 ,z fir/ m5tion$1#aid x is tak5 z ! s\rce ( metaphysical judgm5ts4 ,g5]al 7a priori7 tru?s h an inn] necessity & mu/ be cle> & c]ta9 by !mselves4#aie--,^! /atem5ts are n 9 accordance ) ,kant's new ,critical tea*+4#aif ,!y h rema9$ uncorrect$ f a previ\s way ( ?9k+4 ,?is mu/ be "o reason = ! reca/+ ( ?is p>agraph 9 ! second edition4 ,ev5 ) 7unt]7 our exp]i5ces !re is m+l$ k :i* mu/ be ( a priori orig94#aig--,kant is "h di/+ui%+ ! imman5t a priori1 su* z t involv$ 9 any causal judgm5t1 f ! transc5d5t a priori dwelt ^u 9 ! next p>agraph4 ,! latt] is express$ ?r\gh metaphysical judgm5ts1 su* z #8,god exi/s1' #8! s\l is immortal4' ,orig9al concepts & judgm5ts d]iv$ f !m4#aih--;,cf4 ,b #e-f4 ,pure4--,9 ! title ( ! section ! t]m pure#aii 7re97 is1 z ! subsequ5t argum5t %[s1 tak5 z exactly equival5t to a priori4 ,z ,vaih+] notes1 ! adjective aprioris* _h n yet be5 inv5t$4 ,! opposite ( pure is "h empirical 7empiris*74#bjj ,all our k beg9s ) exp]i5ce4#bja--,?is is a /rong] /atem5t ?an any 9 ! correspond+ p>agraphs ( ! fir/ edition4 ,_h ,kant proce$$ to develop its consequ5ces1 he w\ld h _h to reca/ ! entire ,introduction1 sett+ ! problem ( empirical k alongside t ( ! a priori4#bjb ,z x is1 he is =c$#bjc to subdivide ! absolutely a priori into ! pure & ! mix$4#bjd ,by objects :i* affect 7rhr57 our s5ses4 ,! raw mat]ial ( s5su\s impressions4#bje--,^! incid5tal /atem5ts call = discussion4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #hj-h1 #abj-a1 #bgd ff4 ,a k ( objects :i* we call exp]i5ce4#bjf--,kant does n keep to ?is def9ition4 ,! t]m exp]i5ce is /ill us$ 9 its o!r & n>r[] s5se1 z 9 ! v next p>agraph1 :5 ,kant /ates t k does n1 p]haps1 arise solely f exp]i5ce 7 s5se impressions74 ,9 respect ( "t4#bjg--,?is /atem5t1 tak5 z an acc\nt ( ,kant's tea*+ 9 ! ,critique1 is subject to two res]vations4 ,9 ! ,ae/hetic#bjh ,kant sometimes claims a temporal antec$5ce = ! a priori4 ,& secondly1 ! a priori is n = ,kant m]ely logical4 ,x also possesses a dynamical priority4#bji ,ev5 exp]i5ce itself is a comp\nd4#baj--,! 8ev50 seems to ref] to ! di/9ction drawn 9 ,a #b betwe5 ! imman5t & ! transc5d5t a priori4#baa ,x is !re=e a "q :e!r !re exi/s su* k indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce4#bab--,?is "q 0 n rais$ 9 ! fir/ edition4#bac ,! alt]native me?ods1 analytic & syn!tic1 are discuss$ above1 p4 #dd ff4 ,su* k is call$ a priori & is di/+ui%$ f empirical k4#bad--,?r\gh\t ! ,introduction1 9 bo? editions equally1 ,kant fails to /ate ! problems ( ! ,critique 9 a suffici5tly compreh5sive mann]4 ,he speaks z if ! ,critique dealt only ) ! absolutely a priori1 9 its two =ms1 z imman5t sci5tific k & z transc5d5t speculation4 ,x also deals ) ! equally important & /ill m fundam5tal problem ( acc\nt+ = ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4#bae ,our empirical k involves an a priori elem5t1 & may n !re=e be oppos$ to a priori k 9 ! mann] ( ! passage be=e u4 ,?is t]m a priori is n yet def9ite en\gh4#baf--;,x is frequ5tly employ$ 9 a m]ely relative s5se4 ,?us we c say ( a p]son :o und]m9es ! f\ndations ( 8 h\se t he might h kn[n a priori t x w\ld collapse1 t is1 t he ne$ n wait = ! exp]i5ce ( its actual fall4 ,b /ill he c\ld n "k ?is entirely a priori2 he _h fir/ to le>n f exp]i5ce t bodies are heavy1 & w fall :5 _! supports are tak5 away4 ,b z dealt ) 9 ! ,critique ! t]m a priori is us$ 9 an absolute s5se1 to signify t k :i* is indep5d5t1 n ( ?is or t exp]i5ce only1 b ( all impressions ( ! s5ses4 ,?us f> ,kant's position is comp>atively cle>2 b he proce$s to di/+ui% two =ms )9 ! absolutely a priori1 namely1 mix$ & pure4 ,! absolutely a priori is mix$ :5 x conta9s an empirical elem5t1 pure :5 x does n4 78,pure0 is no long] tak5 9 ! mean+ :i* x has 9 ! title ( ! section4#bag ,x signifies n ! a priori z su*1 b only "o subdivision ( x47 ,?us aft] def9+ absolutely a priori k z indep5d5t ( all exp]i5ce1 ,kant takes x 9 "o ( its =ms z involv+ empirical elem5ts4 ,! example :i* he gives ( an absolutely a priori judgm5t1 :i* yet is n pure1 is ! pr9ciple3 e *ange has its cause4 8,*ange0 is an empirical concept1 b ! syn!tic relation ass]t$ is absolutely a priori4 ,9 ! next section#bah ?is same proposition is cit$ z a pure judgm5t a priori--8pure0 be+ aga9 us$ 9 its m g5]al mean+ z synonym\s ) a priori4 ,?is confusion results f ,kant's exclusive preoccupation ) ! a priori1 & consequ5t failure to give due recognition to ! correlative problem ( ! empirical judgm5t4 ,! omitt$ factor retaliates by ?us =c+ its way into ,kant's o!rwise clean-cut divisions4 ,also1 x is n true t ! relative a priori falls outside ! sph]e ( ! ,critical enquiry4 ,su* judgm5t expresses necessity or objectivity1 & = t reason dem&s a transc5d5tal ju/ification no less urg5tly ?an ! absolutely a priori4 ,! f9d+ ( su* ju/ification is1 inde$1 ! c5tral problem ( ! ,analytic4#bai ,! subdivisions ( ! a priori may be tabulat$ ?us3 ,relative1 e4g4 e unsupport$ h\se mu/ fall4 ,a priori k ,mix$1 e4g4 e *ange has its cause4 ,absolute ,pure1 e4g4 a /raight l9e is ! %orte/ di/ance betwe5 two po9ts4 ,! t]m pure 7re97 ?us acquires a second mean+ di/9ct f t def9$ above4#bbj ,x is no long] employ$ z id5tical ) a priori1 b z a subdivision ( x1 mean+ unmix$4 ,its opposite is no long] ! empirical1 b ! impure or mix$4 ,ow+1 h[ev]1 to ! fact t 8pure0 79 its fir/ mean+7 is id5tical ) ! a priori1 x %>es 9 all ! diff]5t connotations ( ! latt]1 & accord+ly is also employ$ to d5ote t :i* is n relative4 ,b 8pure0 has yet ano!r mean+ peculi> to itself4 ,! phrase 8indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce0 has 9 ref]5ce to 8pure0 an ambiguity f :i* x does n suff] 9 its connection ) 8a priori0 7s9ce ma!matical k1 :e!r pure or appli$1 is always reg>d$ by ,kant z a priori74 ,x may signify ei!r indep5d5ce z reg>ds cont5t & validity1 or indep5d5ce z reg>ds scope4 ,! latt] mean+ is n>r[] ?an ! =m]4 ,by ! =m] mean+ x d5otes t :i* orig9ates1 & c possess tru?1 indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce4 ,by ! latt] x signifies t :i* is n only indep5d5t ( s5se b also applies to ! non-s5su\s4 ,9 ?is latt] mean+ pure k !re=e signifies transc5d5t k4 ,its opposite is ! imman5t4 ,! v>i\s mean+s ( 8pure0 7f\r 9 numb]7 may be tabulat$ z foll[s3 7a7 7#a7 ,a priori3 indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce z reg>ds orig9 & validity4 7,its opposite empirical47 7#b7 ,absolutely indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce4 7,its opposite relative47 7#c7 ,unmix$ ) exp]i5ce4 7,its opposite impure or mix$47 7b7 7#d7 ,indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce z reg>ds scope transc5d5t4 7,its opposite imman5t47 ,all ^! v>i$ mean+s contribute to ! ambiguity ( ! title ( ! ,critique4 ,kant himself employs ! title 9 all ( ! foll[+ s5ses3 #a4 ,critique ( absolutely pure a priori k1 det]m9ation ( its s\rces1 conditions1 scope & limits4 #b4 ,critique ( all a priori k1 relative z well z absolute1 9 s f> z x dep5ds ^u a priori pr9ciples1 det]m9ation1 etc4 #c4 ,critique ( all k1 :e!r a priori or empirical1 det]m9ation1 etc4 #d4 ,critique ( transc5d5t k1 its s\rces & limits4 ,fur!r mean+s c\ld also be enum]at$ b c be =mulat$ by ! read] = himself 9 ! light ( ! ambiguities j not$4#bba ,! special context 9 ea* case c alone decide h[ ! title is to be und]/ood4 ,if a really adequate def9ition ( ! purpose & scope ( ! ,critique is s\ght by ! read]1 he mu/ con/ruct x = himself4 ,! foll[+ may p]haps s]ve4 ,! ,critique is an enquiry into ! s\rces1 conditions1 scope & limits ( our k1 bo? a priori & empirical1 result+ 9 ! con/ruction ( a new sy/em ( imman5t metaphysics2 9 ! light ( ! conclusions ?us rea*$1 x also yields an analysis & explanation ( ! transc5d5tal illusion to :i* transc5d5t metaphysics1 bo? z a natural disposition & z a pr(ess$ sci5ce1 is due4 ,kant fur!r complicates matt]s by (f]+ a second division ( ! absolutely a priori1#bbb viz4 into ! orig9al & ! d]ivative4 ,also1 by implication1 he classes relative a priori judgm5ts among ! propositions to be reckon$ ) by ! ,critique2 & yet 9 ,b #d he speaks ( ! proposition1 all bodies are heavy1 z m]ely empirical4#bbc ,a crit]ion4#bbd--,necessity & univ]sality are valid crit]ia ( ! a priori 7 ! non-empirical74 ,?is foll[s f ,kant's view#bbe ( ! empirical z synonym\s ) ! cont+5t 7zufllig74 ,exp]i5ce gives only ! actual2 ! a priori alone yields t :i* _c be o!rwise4 8,necessity & /rict univ]sality are ?us safe crit]ia ( a priori k1 & are insep>able f "o ano!r4 ,b s9ce 9 ! employm5t ( ^! crit]ia ! empirical limitation ( judgm5ts is sometimes m easily %[n ?an _! cont+5cy1 or s9ce1 z frequ5tly happ5s1 _! unlimit$ univ]sality c be m conv9c+ly prov$ ?an _! necessity1 x is advisable to use ! two crit]ia sep>ately1 ea* be+ by itself infallible40#bbf ,n[ ,kant is "h1 ( c\rse1 assum+ ! ma9 po9t to be e/abli%$1 namely1 t exp]i5ce is incapable ( acc\nt+ = su* univ]sality & necessity z are requir$ = our k1 bo? ord9>y & sci5tific4 ,we h already consid]$ ?is assumption1#bbg & h also anticipat$ misund]/&+ by not+ ! important qualifications to :i*1 f ,kant's new ,critical /&po9t1 ! t]ms #8necessity' & #8univ]sality' become subject4#bbh ,! v specific mean+ 9 :i* ,kant employs ! t]m a priori mu/ likewise be borne 9 m9d4 ,?\gh negatively ! a priori is indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce1 positively x orig9ates 9 our human reason4 ,! necessity & univ]sality :i* diff]5tiate ! a priori di/+ui% x only f ! humanly accid5tal4 ,! a priori has no absolute validity4 ,f a metaphysical /&po9t1 x is itself cont+5t4 ,z already /at$1#bbi all tru? is = ,kant m]ely de facto4 ,! necess>y is n t :i* _c be conceiv$ to be o!rwise1 nor is x ! uncondition$4 ,our reason legislates only = ! _w ( appe>ance4 ,b z yet ,kant gives no h9t ( ?is revolution>y re9t]pretation ( ! rationali/ crit]ia4 ,"o ( ! *ief un=tunate consequ5ces ( ! employm5t 9 ?is ,introduction ( ! analytic me?od ( ! ,prolegom5a is t x t5ds to mislead ! read] by seem+ to commit ,kant to a logical a priori ( ! ,leibnizian type4 ,to %[ t1 if exp]i5ce is to be possible1 pure a priori propositions are indisp5sable1 & s to prove _! exi/5ce a priori4#bcj--;,at fir/ sight ,kant w\ld seem to be "h ref]r+ to ! alt]native syn!tic me?od ( proc$ure1 i4e4 to ! transc5d5tal pro( ( ! a priori4 ,! next s5t5ce %[s1 h[ev]1 t nei!r 9 int5tion nor 9 fact is t really s4 ,he argues only t a priori pr9ciples1 su* z ! pr9ciple ( causality1 are necess>y 9 ord] to give 8c]ta9ty0 to our exp]i5ce2 su* a pr9ciple mu/ be po/ulat$ if inductive inf]5ce is to be valid4 ,exp]i5ce c\ld h no sci5tific c]ta9ty1 8if all rules accord+ to :i* x proce$s 7 !mselves 9 turn empirical1 & !re=e cont+5t4 ,!y c\ld h>dly be reg>d$ z fir/ pr9ciples40 ,!re is no attempt "h to prove t empirical k z su* necess>ily involves ! a priori4 ,also ! me?od ( argum5t1 ?\gh x seeks to e/abli% ! necessity ( ! a priori1 is n transc5d5tal or ,critical 9 "*4 ,x is m]ely a repetition ( ! k9d ( argum5t :i* bo? ,hume & ,leibniz _h already direct$ aga9/ ! s5sationali/ position4#bca ,v /rangely1 consid]+ t ^! s5t5ces h be5 add$ 9 ! second edition1 & !re=e subsequ5t to ! writ+ ( ! objective d$uction1 ,kant gives no indication ( ! deep] problem to :i* he f9ally p5etrat$4 ,! explanation is1 probably1 t to d s w\ld h involv$ ! reca/+ ( ! entire ,introduction4 ,ev5 on ! briefe/ ref]5ce1 ! h>d-&-fa/ di/9ction betwe5 ! a priori & ! empirical1 z two di/9ct & sep>ate classes ( judgm5t1 w\ld h be5 und]m9$1 & ! read] w\ld h be5 made to feel ! insuffici5cy ( ! analysis ^u :i* x is bas$4#bcb ,! exi/5ce ( ! deep] view is betray$ only ?r\gh c>eless employm5t ( ! famili> phrase 8possibility ( exp]i5ce40 ,=1 z "h us$1 x is n really meant4 8,c]ta9ty ( exp]i5ce0--a v diff]5t matt]--is ! mean+ t alone w prop]ly fit ! context4 ,reason & und]/&+4#bcc--,!y are "h di/+ui%$1 hav+ be5 hi!rto1 9 ,a #a-b1 employ$ z synonym\s4 ,! =m] c>ries u beyond ! field ( all possible exp]i5ce2 ! latt] is limit$ to ! _w ( s5se4 ,?us bo? ,reason & und]/&+ are "h us$ 9 _! n>r[e/ mean+4 ,^! inevitable problems ( pure ,reason itself are ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality4 ,! sci5ce :i*1 ) all its me?ods1 is 9 its f9al int5tion direct$ solely to ! solution ( ^! problems1 is call$ metaphysics4#bcd--,^! s5t5ces are *>act]i/ic ( ! second edition ) its increas$ emphasis ^u ! positive results ( ! ,critique on ! "o h&1 & ) its attitude ( increas$ fav\r t[>ds transc5d5t metaphysics on ! o!r4 ,! "o *ange w\ld seem to be occasion$ by ! nature ( ! criticisms pass$ ^u ! fir/ edition1 z1 = in/ance1 by ,moses ,m5delssohn :o describes ,kant z 8! all-de/roy]0 7d] alles z]malm5de74 ,! o!r is due to ,kant's preoccupation ) ! problems ( e?ics & ( teleology4 ,! above /atem5ts are repeat$ ) ev5 great] emphasis 9 ,b #cie n4#bce ,! def9ition "h giv5 ( metaphysics is n /rictly kept to by ,kant4 ,z above not$1#bcf ,kant really di/+ui%es )9 x two =ms1 imman5t & transc5d5t4 ,9 s do+1 h[ev]1 he /ill#bcg reg>ds transc5d5t metaphysics z ! m important4 ,imman5t metaphysics is *iefly ( value z contribut+ to ! solution ( ! 8inevitable problems ( pure ,reason40 ,a #c-d ,b #g-h4--,! reasons1 "h cit$ by ,kant1 = ! failure ( philosophical ?9k+ to recognise ! diff]5ce betwe5 imman5t & transc5d5t judgm5ts are3 7#a7 ! misund]/ood "*1 & consequ5t mislead+ influ5ce1 ( a priori ma!matical judgm5ts2 7#b7 ! fact t once we are beyond ! s5sible sph]e1 exp]i5ce c nev] contradict u2 7#c7 natural delight 9 ! app>5t enl>gem5t ( our k2 7#d7 ! ease ) :i* logical contradictions c be avoid$2 7#e7 neglect ( ! di/9ction betwe5 analytic & syn!tic a priori judgm5ts4 ,vaih+] po9ts out#bch t 9 ! ,=ts*ritte#bci ,kant adds a six? reason--confusion ( ! concepts ( und]/&+ ) ! ,ideas ( ,reason4 ,^u ! fir/ ( ! above reasons ! be/ comm5t is t ( ! ,me?odology4#bdj ,b ! read] mu/ likewise be> 9 m9d t 9 ,b xvi ,kant develops 8 new philosophical me?od on ! analogy ( ! ma!matical me?od4 ,! latt] is1 he claims1 mutatis mut&is1 ! true me?od ( legitimate speculation1 i4e4 ( imman5t metaphysics4 ,! "o ess5tial diff]5ce 7z not$ by ,kant#bda71 :i* has be5 ov]look$ by ! dogmati/s1 is t philosophy ga9s its k f concepts1 ma!matics f ! con/ruction ( concepts4 ,rema9 inve/igations only4#bdb--;,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 #ce4 ,! analysis ( our concepts ( objects4#bdc--,vaih+]'s int]pretation1 t ! concepts "h ref]r$ to are ^? :i* we 8=m a priori ( ?+s10#bdd seems correct4#bde ,! rationali/s s\ght to d$uce ! :ole body ( rational psy*ology f ! a priori conception ( ! s\l z a simple sub/ance1 & ( rational !ology f ! a priori conception ( ,god z ! all-p]fect ,be+4 ,analytic & syn!tic judgm5ts4#bdf--8;,all analytic judgm5ts dep5d :olly on ! law ( contradiction1 & are 9 _! nature a priori cognitions1 :e!r ! concepts t supply !m ) matt] be empirical or n4 ,= ! pr$icate ( an affirmative analytic judgm5t is already conta9$ 9 ! concept ( ! subject1 ( :i* x _c be d5i$ )\t contradiction4 ,9 ! same way its opposite is necess>ily d5i$ ( ! subject 9 an analytic1 b negative1 judgm5t by ! same law ( contradiction4444 ,= ?is v reason all analytic judgm5ts are a priori ev5 :5 ! concepts are empirical1 z1 = example1 gold is a yell[ metal2 = to "k ?is ,i require no exp]i5ce beyond my concept ( gold z a yell[ metal3 x is1 9 fact1 ! v concept1 & ,i ne$ only analyse x1 )\t look+ beyond x else:]e4444 ,syn!tic judgm5ts1 a po/]iori & a priori agree 9 ?is1 t !y _c possibly spr+ solely f ! pr9ciple ( analysis1 ! law ( contradiction4 ,!y require a q diff]5t pr9ciple4 ,f :atev] !y may be d$uc$1 ! d$uction mu/1 x is true1 always be 9 accordance ) ! pr9ciple ( contradiction4 ,= t pr9ciple mu/ nev] be violat$4 ,b at ! same "t ev]y?+ _c be d$uc$ f x40#bdg ,9 ,a #eid ,b #fbb analytic judgm5ts are also spok5 ( z id5tical2 b 9 ! ,=ts*ritte#bdh ?is use ( t]ms is criticis$3 8,judgm5ts are analytic if _! pr$icate only repres5ts cle>ly 7explicite7 :at 0 ?\ght obscurely 7implicite7 9 ! concept ( ! subject1 e4g4 all bodies are ext5d$4 ,7 we to call su* judgm5ts id5tical only confusion w\ld result4 ,= id5tical judgm5ts contribute no?+ to ! cle>ness ( ! concept1 & t mu/ be ! purpose ( all judg+4 ,id5tical judgm5ts are !re=e empty1 e4g4 all bodies are bodily 7or to use ano!r t]m mat]ial7 be+s4 ,analytic judgm5ts d1 inde$1 gr\nd !mselves ^u id5tity & c be resolv$ into x2 b !y are n id5tical4 ,= !y dem& analysis & s]ve = ! explanation ( ! concept4 ,9 id5tical judgm5ts1 on ! o!r h&1 idem is def9$ p] idem1 & no?+ at all is expla9$40 ,vaih+]#bdi cites ! foll[+ contra/$ examples ( analytic & syn!tic judgm5ts3 ,analytic4--7a7 ,sub/ance is t :i* exi/s only z subject 9 :i* qualities inh]e4#bej 7b7 ,e effect has a cause4#e 7c7 ,ev]y?+ condition$ presupposes a condition4 ,syn!tic4--7a7 ,sub/ance is p]man5t4 7b7 ,e ev5t has a cause4#bea 7c7 ,ev]y?+ condition$ presupposes an uncondition$4 ,b #aa-ab4--,! fir/ half ( ?is p>agraph is transcrib$ practically ^w = ^w f ! ,prolegom5a4#beb ,! second half is a close re/atem5t ( an omitt$ p>agraph ( ! fir/ edition4 ,! *ief addition lies 9 ! conclud+ /atem5t1 t 8exp]i5ce is itself a syn!tic connection ( intuitions40 ,?is is 9 keep+ ) /atem5ts made 9 ! d$uction ( ! categories 9 ! second edition1#bec & 9 ! p>agraph ins]t$ 9 ! pro( ( ! second analogy 9 ! second edition4#bed ,! x has /rangely be5 omitt$ 9 ! second edition 9 ref]5ce to empirical judgm5ts1 ?\gh reta9$ 9 ref]5ce to syn!tic a priori judgm5ts4 ,! proposition3 ev]y?+ :i* happ5s has its cause4#bee--;,z we h already obs]v$1#bef ,hume influ5c$ ,kant at two di/9ct p]iods 9 8 philosophical developm5t--9 #agef-agfc1 & aga9 at "s "t 7n q def9itely datable7 aft] ,febru>y #aggb4 ,! fir/ influ5ce conc]n$ ! "* ( concrete causal judgm5ts2 ! second relat$ to ! causal axiom4 ,?\gh !re are few di/9ctions :i* are m important = und]/&+ ! ,critique ?an t ( ! diff]5ce betwe5 ^! two que/ions1 x has n[h]e be5 prop]ly emphasis$ by ,kant1 & 9 sev]al ( ! ref]5ces to ,hume1 :i* occur 9 ! ,critique & 9 ! ,prolegom5a1 ! two problems are conf\nd$ 9 a mo/ un=tunate mann]4 ,! passages 9 ! ,introduction#beg are cle> & unambigu\s2 ! influ5ce ex]cis$ by ,hume subsequ5t to ,febru>y #aggb is q adequately /at$4 ,! causal axiom claims to be a priori1 & is1 z ,hume ass]ts1 likewise syn!tic4 ,consequ5tly !re are only two alt]natives1 ea* decisive & f>-rea*+4 ,ei!r valid a priori syn!sis mu/1 contr>y to all previ\s philosophical belief1 be possible1 or 8ev]y?+ :i* we call metaphysics mu/ turn out to be a m]e delusion ( reason40 ,! solution ( ?is problem is 8a "q ( life & dea? to metaphysics40 ,to ?is appreciation ( ,hume1 ,kant adds criticism4 ,hume did n suffici5tly univ]salise 8 problem4 ,_h he done s1 he w\ld h recognis$ t pure ma!matics involves a priori syn!sis no less necess>ily ?an d ! metaphysical discipl9es4 ,f d5y+ ! possibility ( ma!matical sci5ce 88 good s5se w\ld probably h sav$ him40 ,hume's problem1 ?us view$1 f9ds its f9al & complete expression 9 ! =mula3 ,h[ are syn!tic a priori judgm5ts possible8 ,9 ,a #gfj ,b #ghh ! acc\nt diff]s 9 two respects3 fir/1 x discusses ! metaphysical validity ( ! causal axiom z well z its intr9sic possibility z a judgm5t2 & secondly1 ref]5ce is made to ! conception ( causality z well z to ! axiom4 ,! impli$ criticism ( ,hume is correspond+ly modifi$4 ,o!rwise1 x entirely h>monises ) ! passages 9 ! ,introduction4 8,hume dwelt especially ^u ! pr9ciple ( causality1 & q rightly obs]v$ t its tru?1 & ev5 ! objective validity ( ! concept ( effici5t cause 9 g5]al1 is bas$ on no insight1 i4e4 on no a priori k1 & t its au?ority _c !re=e be ascrib$ to its necessity1 b m]ely to its g5]al utility 9 ! c\rse ( exp]i5ce & to a c]ta9 subjective necessity :i* x !reby acquires1 & :i* he entitles cu/om4 ,f ! incapacity ( our reason to make use ( ?is pr9ciple 9 any mann] t transc5ds exp]i5ce he inf]r$ ! nullity ( all pret5sions ( reason to advance beyond ! empirical40 ,n[ s f>1 9 ^! ref]5ces to ,hume1 ,kant has _h 9 view only ! problems ( ma!matical & physical sci5ce & ( metaphysics4 ,! problems involv$ 9 ! possibility ( empirical k are left entirely aside4 ,8 acc\nt ( ,hume's position & ( 8 relation to ,hume suff]s *ange imm$iately ^! latt] problems are rais$4 ,& un=tunately x is a *ange = ! worse4 ,! v>i\s problems treat$ by ,hume are !n conf\nd$ toge!r1 & ! issues are some:at blurr$4 ,let u take ! *ief passages 9 :i* ?is occurs4 ,9 ,a #gfd ,b #gib ff4 ,kant gives ! foll[+ acc\nt ( ,hume's argum5t4 ,hume1 recognis+ ! impossibility ( pr$ict+ an effect by analysis ( ! concept ( ! cause1 or ( discov]+ a cause f ! concept ( ! effect1 view$ all concrete causal judgm5ts z m]ely cont+5t1 & !refrom inf]r$ ! cont+5cy ( ! causal axiom4 ,9 s do+ ,hume1 ,kant argues1 confuses ! legitimate & purely a priori inf]5ce f a giv5 ev5t to "s antec$5t ) ! v diff]5t inf]5ce1 possible only ?r\gh special exp]i5ce1 to a specific cause4 ,n[ ?is is an entire misrepres5tation ( ,hume's real a*ievem5t1 & may p]haps be expla9$1 at lea/ 9 "p1 z be+ due to ! fact t ,kant 0 acqua9t$ ) ,hume's ,treatise only ?r\gh ! indirect m$ium ( ,beattie's quotations4 ,hume committ$ no su* blund]4 ,he cle>ly recognis$ ! di/9ction betwe5 ! problem ( ! validity ( ! causal axiom & ! problem ( ! validity ( concrete causal judgm5ts4 ,he does n argue f ! cont+5cy ( concrete causal laws to ! cont+5cy ( ! univ]sal pr9ciple1 b %[s1 z ,kant himself recognises1#beh t ! pr9ciple is nei!r self-evid5t nor demon/rable a priori4 ,& z necessity _c be reveal$ by exp]i5ce1 nei!r is ! pr9ciple d]ivable f t s\rce4 ,consequ5tly1 ,hume concludes1 x _c be reg>d$ z objectively valid4 ,x mu/ be due to a subjective in/9ct or natural belief4 7,! two problems are simil>ly conf\nd$ by ,kant 9 ,a #bag ,b #bfd47 ,9 ! ,introduction to ! ,prolegom5a !re is no su* confusion ( ! two problems1 b matt]s are made ev5 worse by ! omission ( all ref]5ce to ,hume's analysis ( ! causal axiom4 ,only ,hume's treatm5t ( ! concept ( causality is dwelt ^u4 ,?is is ! m un=tunate1 & has prov$ ! m mislead+1 9 t x is "h t ,kant makes 8 mo/ explicit ackn[l$gm5t ( 8 indebt$ness to ,hume4 ,9 #bg ff4 ( ! ,prolegom5a bo? problems reappe>1 b are aga9 conf\nd$4 ,! section is prec$$ by s5t5ces 9 :i* ! problem ( exp]i5ce is emphasis$2 & 9 keep+ ) ^! prefatory rem>ks1 ,kant repres5ts 8,hume's crux metaphysicorum0 z conc]n+ only ! concept ( causality 7view$ z a syn!tic1 & pr(ess$ly a priori1 connection betwe5 concrete exi/5ces74 ,yet 9 #cj ! causal axiom is also ref]r$ to1 & toge!r !y are tak5 z con/itut+ 8,hume's problem40 ,n[ if we be> 9 m9d t ,hume awak5$ ,kant to bo? problems--h[ a priori k is possible1 & h[ exp]i5ce is possible--?is confusion c easily be und]/ood4 ,kant _h already 9 ! e>ly #8sixties /udi$ ,hume ) pr(\nd admiration & respect4#bei ,9 ! p]iod subsequ5t to #aggb ?is admiration _h only deep5$2 & con/antly1 z we may believe1 ,kant _h return$ ) fre% reli% to ,hume's ma/]ly analyses ( causality & ( inductive inf]5ce4 ,x is n1 !re=e1 surpris+ t z ! ye>s pass$1 & z ! o!r elem5ts 9 ,hume's tea*+ reveal$ to him1 ?r\gh ! inn] gr[? ( 8 own views1 _! full wor? & significance1 he %\ld all[ ! contribution t _h m specifically awak5$ him to fall into ! backgr\nd1 & %\ld1 9 vague fa%ion1 ascribe to ,hume's tea*+ z a :ole ! specific influ5ce :i* 0 really due to "o p>ticul> "p4 ,by #aghc1 ! date ( ! ,prolegom5a1 ,kant's fir/ en?usiasm ov] ! discov]y ( ! fundam5tal problem ( a priori syn!sis _h some:at abat$1 & ! problem ( exp]i5ce _h m or less tak5 its place4 ,?is w\ld seem to be ! reason :y 9 ! ,prolegom5a he ?us deals ) bo? aspects ( ,hume's problem1 & :y 9 s do+ he gives a subord9ate place to ,hume's treatm5t ( ! causal axiom4 ,b ?\gh ! misund]/&+ may be ?us acc\nt$ =1 x mu/ none ! less be deplor$4 ,= ! read] is s]i\sly misl$1 & mu* t is c5tral to ! ,critical philosophy is r5d]$ obscure4 ,! influ5ce :i* ,kant 9 ! ,prolegom5a ?us ascribes to ,hume 0 n t :i* really awak5$ him f 8 dogmatic slumb]1 b is 9 "p t :i* he _h assimilat$ at lea/ z e>ly z #agfc1 & 9 "p t :i* act$ ^u him ) r5ew$ =ce :5 he 0 /ruggl+ 7probably betwe5 #aggh & #aghj7 ) ! problems involv$ 9 ! d$uction ( ! categories4 ,x 0 ,hume's treatm5t ( ! causal axiom1 & t alone1 :i*1 at "s "t subsequ5t to ,febru>y #aggb1 0 ! really effective influ5ce 9 produc+ ! ,cop]nican *ange4#bfj ,purely a priori & out ( m]e concepts4#bfa--,vaih+]'s comm5t seems correct3 ,kant means only t nei!r actual exp]i5ce nor pure intuition c be resort$ to4 ,?is does n contradict ! complem5t>y ass]tion1#bfb t ! pr9ciple1 ev]y?+ :i* happ5s has its cause1 c be kn[n a priori1 n imm$iately f ! concepts involv$ 9 x1 b only indirectly#bfc ?r\gh ! relation ( ^! concepts to possible exp]i5ce4 8,possible exp]i5ce10 ev5 ?\gh x /&s = 8some?+ purely cont+5t10 is itself a concept4 ,vaih+]#bfd quotes ,apelt ^u ?is 8my/]i\s0 type ( judgm5t4 8,metaphysics is syn!tic k f m]e concepts1 n l ma!matics f _! con/ruction 9 intuition1 & yet ^! syn!tic propositions _c be kn[n f b>e concepts1 i4e4 n analytically4 ,! necessity ( ! connection 9 ^? propositions is to be appreh5d$ ?r\gh ?\ght alone1 & yet is n to re/ ^u ! =m ( ?\ght1 ! pr9ciple ( contradiction4 ,! conception ( a k9d ( k :i* arises f b>e concepts1 & yet is syn!tic1 eludes our grasp4 ,! problem is3 ,h[ c "o concept be necess>ily connect$ ) ano!r1 )\t also at ! same "t be+ conta9$ 9 x80 ,! p>agraphs 9 ,b #ad to ,b #ag are almo/ v]bal transcripts f ,prolegom5a1 #b c1 #b ff4 ,ma!matical judgm5ts are "o & all 7insgesammt7 syn!tic4#bfe--,?is ass]tion is c>elessly made1 & does n repres5t ,kant's real view4 ,9 ,b #af he himself recognises ! exi/5ce ( analytic ma!matical judgm5ts1 b unduly m9imises _! numb] & importance4 ,all ma!matical conclusions proce$ accord+ to ! pr9ciple ( contradiction4#bff--,to ! objection made by ,pauls5 t ,kant1 9 admitt+ t ma!matical judgm5ts c be d$uc$ f o!rs by means ( ! pr9ciple ( contradiction1 ought consi/5tly to h recognis$ z syn!tic only axioms & pr9ciples1 ,vaih+] replies z foll[s3#bfg 8,! proposition--! angles ( a triangle are toge!r equal to two "r angles--,kant reg>ds z syn!tic4 ,x is inde$ d$uc$ f ! axiom ( p>allels 7) ! aid ( auxili>y l9es71 & to t ext5t is und]/ood 9 accordance ) ! pr9ciple ( contradiction4444 ,! angles 9 ! triangle con/itute a special case ( ! angles 9 ! p>allel l9es :i* are int]sect$ by o!r l9es4 ,! pr9ciple ( contradiction ?us s]ves z vehicle 9 ! d$uction1 because once ! id5tity ( ,a & ,a is recognis$1 ! pr$icate b1 :i* belongs to ,a1 mu/ also be ascrib$ to ,a4 ,b ! proposition is n = t reason itself analytic 9 ! ,kantian s5se4 ,9 ! analytic proposition ! pr$icate is d]iv$ f ! analysis ( ! subject concept4 ,b t does n happ5 9 ?is case4 ,! syn!tic proposition c nev] be d]iv$ 9 & by itself f ! pr9ciple ( contradiction2 444 b only ) ! aid ( t pr9ciple f o!r propositions4 ,besides1 9 ?is d$uction intuition mu/ always be resort$ to2 & t makes an ess5tial diff]5ce4 ,)\t x ! id5tity ( ,a & ,a _c become kn[n40 ,pure ma!matics4#bfh--8,pure10 z ?us curr5tly us$1 is oppos$ only to appli$1 n to empirical4 ,kant "h arbitr>ily reads ! latt] opposition into x4 ,"u ?is guise he begs ! po9t 9 dispute4 #g #e #ab4bfi--,?\gh #g #e #ab expresses an id5tity or equality1 x is an equality ( ! objects or magnitudes1 #g #e & #ab1 n ( ! concepts ?r\gh :i* we ?9k !m4#bgj ,analysis ( ! concepts c nev] reveal ?is equality4 ,only by con/ruct+ ! concepts 9 intuition c x be recognis$ by ! m9d4 ,?is example has be5 already cit$ 9 ! fir/ edition4#bga ,x is fur!r elaborat$ 9 ! ,prolegom5a1 #b c1 & is "h transcrib$4 ,kant's mode ( /at+ 8 position is some:at unc]ta94 ,he alt]nates betwe5 8! repres5tation ( #g & #e10 8! repres5tation ( ! comb9ation ( #g & #e10bgb & 8! concepts #g & #e40bgc ,8 view w\ld seem to be t !re are ?ree concepts involv$4 ,= ! concept ( #g we mu/ sub/itute ! intuition ( #g po9ts1 = ! concept ( #e ! intuition ( #e po9ts1 & = ! concept ( _! sum ! intuitive op]ation ( addition4 ,call 9 ! assi/ance ( intuition1 = in/ance our five f+]s4#bgd--,?is /atem5t1 repeat$ f ! ,prolegom5a1#bge does n repres5t ,kant's real position4 ,! views :i* he has express$ ^u ! nature ( ari?metical sci5ce are ( ! mo/ contradictory "*1#bgf b to "o po9t he def9itely commits himself1 namely1 t1 l geometrical sci5ce1 x re/s1 n 7z "h ass]t$7 ^u empirical1 b ^u pure intuition4#bgg ,except indirectly1 by ! ref]5ce to l>g] numb]s1 ,kant "h ignores 8 own important di/9ction betwe5 image & s*ema4#bgh ,! above /atem5t w\ld also make ari?metic dep5d5t ^u space4 ,segn]3 ,anfangsgrnde d] ,ari?metik1#bgi translat$ f ! ,lat91 second edition1 ,halle1 #aggc4 ,natural sci5ce 7physica7 conta9s syn!tic a priori judgm5ts4#bhj--,!re is "h a complication to :i* ,vaih+]#bha has be5 ! fir/ to draw att5tion4 ,9 ! ,prolegom5a#bhb ,kant emphasises ! di/9ction betwe5 physics & pure or univ]sal sci5ce ( nature4#bhc ,! latt] treats only ! a priori =m ( nature 7i4e4 its necess>y con=mity to law71 & is !re=e a propa$eutic to physics :i* involves fur!r empirical factors4 ,= two reasons1 h[ev]1 ?is univ]sal natural sci5ce falls %ort ( its ideal4 ,fir/1 x conta9s empirical elem5ts1 su* z ! concepts ( motion1 imp5etrability1 in]tia1 etc4 ,secondly1 x ref]s only to ! objects ( ext]nal s5se1 & n1 z we %\ld expect 9 a univ]sal sci5ce1 to natural exi/5ces )\t exception1 i4e4 to ! objects ( psy*ology z well z ( physics4#bhd ,b among its pr9ciples !re are1 ,kant adds1 a few :i* are purely a priori & possess ! univ]sality requir$3 e4g4 su* propositions z t sub/ance is p]man5t1 & t e ev5t has a cause4 ,n[ ^! are ! examples :i* ought to h be5 cit$ 9 ! passage be=e u4 ,^? actually giv5 fall entirely outside ! scope ( ! ,critique4 ,!y are treat$ only 9 ! ,metaphysis*e ,anfangsgrnde4 ,!y belong to ! relatively1 n to ! absolutely1 pure sci5ce ( nature4 ,! s\rce ( ! confusion ,vaih+] aga9 traces to ,kant's failure to hold fa/ to ! important di/9ction betwe5 imman5t & transc5d5t metaphysics4#bhe ,8 s-call$ pure or univ]sal natural sci5ce 7nature1 z above not$1 signify+ = ,kant 8all t is07 is really imman5t metaphysics1 & ! propositions 9 reg>d to sub/ance & causality ought !re=e to be class$ z metaphysical4 ,?is1 inde$1 is h[ !y are view$ 9 ! e>li] sections ( ! ,prolegom5a4 ,! di/9ction lat] drawn 9 #ae is ignor$4 ,pure natural sci5ce is id5tifi$ ) ma!matical physics1 & ! propositions :i* 9 #ae are spok5 ( z belong+ to pure univ]sal natural sci5ce are n[ reg>d$ z metaphysical4 8,g5u9ely metaphysical judgm5ts are "o & all syn!tic4444 ,= in/ance1 ! proposition--ev]y?+ :i* 9 ?+s is sub/ance is p]man5t--is a syn!tic1 & prop]ly metaphysical judgm5t40#bhf ,9 #e ! pr9ciple ( causality is also cit$ z an example ( a syn!tic a priori judgm5t 9 metaphysics4 ,b ,kant /ill omits to draw a di/9ction betwe5 imman5t & transc5d5t metaphysics2 & z a consequ5ce 8 classification ( syn!tic a priori judgm5ts rema9s ?or\ghly confus$4 ,!y are tak5 z belong+ to ?ree sph]es1 ma!matics1 physics 79 ! relative s5se71 & metaphysics4 ,! implication is t ?is ?reefold di/9ction corresponds to ! ?reefold division ( ! ,doctr9e ( ,elem5ts into ,ae/hetic1 ,analytic1 & ,dialectic4 ,yet1 z a matt] ( fact1 ! propositions ( ma!matical physics1 9 s f> z !y are examples ( appli$ ma!matics1 are dealt ) 9 ! ,ae/hetic1 & 9 s f> z !y involve concepts ( motion & ! l fall entirely outside ! scope ( ! ,critique1 :ile ! ,analytic deals ) ^? metaphysical judgm5ts 7su* z ! pr9ciple ( causality7 :i* are ( imman5t employm5t4#bhg ,z ! new p>agraphs 9 ! ,introduction to ! second edition are transf]r$ )\t ess5tial modification f ! ,prolegom5a1 !y are op5 to ! same criticism4 ,to h>monise ,b #ag ) ! real tea*+ ( ! ,critique1 x mu/ be entirely reca/4 ,in/ead ( 8natural sci5ce0 7physica7 we mu/ read 8pure univ]sal natural sci5ce imman5t metaphysics10 & = ! examples giv5 we mu/ sub/itute ^? pr9ciples ( sub/ance & causality :i* are dealt ) 9 ! ,analytic4 ,! next p>agraph deals ) metaphysics 9 its transc5d5t =m1 & accord+ly /ates ! problem peculi> to ! ,dialectic4 ,metaphysics4#bhh--,?is p>agraph deals explicitly only ) transc5d5t judgm5ts1 b z ! t]ms us$ are ambigu\s1 x is possible t ^? ( imman5t metaphysics are also ref]r$ to4 ,! p>agraph is n tak5 f ! ,prolegom5a4 ,! correspond+ passage#bhi 9 ! ,prolegom5a deals only ) ! judgm5ts ( imman5t metaphysics4 ,! real problem ( pure reason is conta9$ 9 ! "q3 ,h[ are syn!tic a priori judgm5ts possible8#bij--;,cf4 above1 pp4 #bf ff41 #cc ff41 #dc ff4 ,david ,hume4#bia--;,cf4 above1 pp4 #fa ff4 ,a !oretical k4#bib--;i4e4 ,kant explicitly leaves aside ! fur!r problem1 :e!r su* judgm5ts may n also be possible 9 ! practical 7moral7 & o!r sph]es4 ,h[ is pure natural sci5ce possible8#bic--,! note :i* ,kant app5ds %[s t he is "h tak+ natural sci5ce 9 ! relative s5se4#bid ,! same irrelevant in/ances are aga9 cit$4 ,z ^! sci5ces really exi/4#bie--;,cf4 bel[1 p4 #dd ff4 ,! poor progress :i* metaphysics has hi!rto made4#bif--;,cf4 ,preface to ! second edition2 ,prolegom5a1 #d1 & ,a #age ff4 ,h[ is metaphysics z a sci5ce possible8#big--,we may n[ consid] h[ ?is & ! ?ree prec$+ que/ions are relat$ to "o ano!r & to ! v>i\s divisions ( ! ,critique4#bih ,! f\r subord9ate que/ions )9 ! ma9 problem--,h[ are syn!tic a priori judgm5ts possible8--are "h /at$ by ,kant z3 #a4 ,h[ is pure ma!matics possible8 #b4 ,h[ is pure natural sci5ce possible8 #c4 ,h[ is metaphysics z natural disposition possible8 #d4 ,h[ is metaphysics z sci5ce possible8 ,!re is little difficulty z reg>ds #a & #b4 ,! fir/ is dealt ) 9 ! ,ae/hetic1 & ! second#bii 9 ! ,analytic1 ?\gh1 ow+ to ! complexity ( ! problems1 ! ,ae/hetic & ,analytic are wid] ?an ei!r qu]y1 & _c be completely sep>at$4 ,appli$ ma!matics is dealt ) 9 ! ,analytic z well z 9 ! ,ae/hetic1 & 9 bo? ! det]m9ation ( ! limits ( sci5tific k is equally important ) t ( acc\nt+ = its positive acquisitions4 ,! ?ird & f\r? que/ions raise all mann] ( difficulties4 ,not)/&+ ! id5tical mode ( =mulation1 !y d n run on all f\rs ) ! two prec$+4 ,! fir/ two are tak5 z ref]r+ to actually exi/+ & valid sci5ces4 ,x is ! gr\nd ( _! objective validity t is s\ght4 ,b :at is inve/igat$ 9 ! ?ird "q falsely lays claim to ! title ( sci5ce2 we c enquire only z to ! gr\nd ( its subjective possibility4 ,9 ! f\r? "q1 ! problem takes /ill ano!r =m4 ,kant n[ seeks to det]m9e :e!r a new1 n yet exi/+1 sci5ce ( metaphysics is possible1 & 9 :at mann] x c be validly con/ruct$4 ,! manifoldness ( ! problems is ?us conceal$ by ! fixity ( ! common =mula4#cjj ,n[ ) :at divisions ( ! ,critique are ! two la/ que/ions connect$8 ,x has be5 sugge/$#cja t ! ?ird "q is dealt ) 9 ! ,dialectic & ! f\r? 9 ! ,me?odology1 ! f\r que/ions ?us correspond+ to ! f\r ma9 divisions ( ! ,critique4 ,b ?is view is unt5able1 especially 9 its view ( ! f\r? "q4 ,! division ( ! ,critique is by di*otomy into doctr9e ( elem5ts & doctr9e ( me?ods1 ! =m] includ+ ! ,ae/hetic & ,logic1 & ! ,logic be+ aga9 divid$ into ,analytic & ,dialectic4 ,its problems /& 9 an equally complex subord9ation2 !y _c be isolat$ f "o ano!r1 & set m]ely side by side4 ,secondly1 x has be5 ma9ta9$#cjb t ! ?ird "q is dealt ) 9 ! introduction to ! ,dialectic 79 its doctr9e ( ,ideas71 & ! f\r? 9 ! ,dialectic prop]4 ,?is view is fairly satisfactory z reg>ds ! ?ird "q1 b w\ld involve ! conclusion t ! f\r? "q ref]s only to transc5d5t metaphysics1 & t x !re=e receives a negative answ]4 ,b t is n ,kant's view ( metaphysics z a sci5ce4 ,! ,critique is int5d$ to issue 9 a new & g5u9e body ( metaphysical tea*+4 ,! key to ! :ole problem ( ! f\r que/ions is n to be f\nd 9 ! ,critique4 ,?is section is transcrib$ f #d-e ( ! ,prolegom5a1 & is consequ5tly influ5c$ by ! g5]al arrangem5t ( ! latt] "w4 ,?is f\rfold division 0 inde$ devis$ = ! purposes ( ! argum5t ( ! ,prolegom5a1 :i* is develop$ on ! analytic me?od1 & = t reason x _c be reconcil$ ) ! v diff]5t /ructure ( ! ,critique4 ,yet ev5 ! ,prolegom5a suff]s f confusion1 due#cjc to ,kant's failure to di/+ui% betwe5 univ]sal & relative natural sci5ce on ! "o h&1 & betwe5 imman5t & transc5d5t metaphysics on ! o!r4 ,! f\r que/ions d n co9cide ) ^? ( ! ,critique4 ,in/ead ( ! ?ird--h[ is metaphysics z natural disposition possible8--we f9d3 h[ is metaphysics 9 g5]al possible8 ,9 #d1 #e1 ,kant's argum5t is cle> & /raight=w>d4 ,pure ma!matical sci5ce & ma!matical physics are actually exi/+ sci5ces4 ,! syn!tic a priori judgm5ts :i* !y conta9 mu/ be recognis$ z valid4 ,metaphysics makes simil> claims4 ,b1 z is suffici5tly prov$ by ! abs5ce ( agreem5t among philosoph]s1 its pr(essions are )\t gr\nd4 ,x transgresses ! limits ( possible exp]i5ce1 & conta9s only pret5d$ k4 ,?is false transc5d5t metaphysics is refut$ 9 ! ,dialectic4 ,kant 01 h[ev]1 equally conv9c$ t an imman5t metaphysics is possible1 & t its gr\nds & ju/ification _h be5 successfully giv5 9 ! ,analytic4 ,8 problem z =mulat$ 9 ! ,prolegom5a is accord+ly ?reefold3 7#a7 h[ are ! exi/+ rational sci5ces1 ma!matical & physical1 possible8 7#b7 9 ! light ( ! insight acquir$ by ?is inve/igation1 :at is ! orig9 & explanation ( ! exi/+ pret5d$ sci5ces ( transc5d5t metaphysics8 & 7#c7 9 :at mann] c we e/abli% a positive metaphysics t w h>monise ) reason's true vocation8 ,s f> all is cle> & def9ite4 ,b ! unresolv$ difficulty1 z to ! relation 9 :i* natural sci5ce & imman5t metaphysics /& to "o ano!r1 br+s confusion 9 its tra94 ,z already not$1#cjd 9 #ae natural sci5ce is displac$ by imman5t metaphysics 7?\gh n "u t "n72 & z a result ! f\r? "q r$uces to ! second1 & ! above ?reefold problem has to be completely re/at$4 ,! ,prolegom5a has1 h[ev]1 already be5 divid$ into f\r p>ts2 & 9 ! la/ division ,kant /ill cont9ues to treat ! f\r? "q z di/9ct f t :i* has be5 dealt ) 9 ! second division1 ?\gh1 z 8 answ] %[s1 !y are ess5tially ! same4 ,! answ] giv5 is t metaphysics z a sci5ce is possible only 9 & ?r\gh ! ,critique1 & t ?\gh ! :ole ,critique is requir$ = ?is purpose1 ! cont5t ( ! new sci5ce is embodi$ 9 ! ,analytic4 ,9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique ! confusion betwe5 natural sci5ce & imman5t metaphysics /ill p]si/s1 & a new s\rce ( ambiguity is add$ ?r\gh ! re=mulation ( ! ?ird "q4 ,x is n[ limit$ to ! problem ( ! subjective orig9 ( metaphysics z a natural disposition4 ,! f\r? "q has !re=e to be wid5$1 s z to include transc5d5t z well z imman5t1 ! old z well z ! new1 metaphysics4 ,b save = ?is "o alt]ation ! entire section is inspir$ by consid]ations =eign to ! ,critique2 ?is section1 l ,b #ag1 mu/ be reca/ be=e x w h>monise ) ! subsequ5t argum5t4 ,e k9d ( k is call$ pure1 etc4#cje--,^! s5t5ces are omitt$ 9 ! second edition4 ,!y h be5 r5d]$ unnecess>y by ! fur!r & m adequate def9ition ( 8pure0 giv5 9 ,b #c ff4 ,reason is ! faculty :i* supplies ! pr9ciples ( k a priori4#cjf--,?is /atem5t %\ld1 z ,vaih+] po9ts out1 be int]pret$ 9 ! light ( ,a #bii ,b #cee4 8,reason1 l und]/&+1 c be employ$ 9 a m]ely =mal1 i4e4 logical mann]1 :]e9 x ab/racts f all cont5t ( k4 ,b x is also capable ( a real use1#cjg s9ce x conta9s )9 itself ! s\rce ( c]ta9 concepts & pr9ciples1 :i* x does n borr[ ei!r f ! s5ses or f ! und]/&+40 ,reason is tak5 9 ! fir/ ( ! above mean+s4 ,reason 9 its real use1 :5 ext5d$ s z to include pure s5sibility & und]/&+1#cjh is ! pure reason ref]r$ to 9 ! next s5t5ce ( ! ,critique4 ,a priori is "h us$ to signify ! relatively a priori2 9 ! next s5t5ce x d5otes ! absolutely a priori4 ,an ,organon ( pure reason4#cji--,:at foll[s1 f ?is po9t to ! middle ( ! next section1 is a good example ( ,kant's pat*work me?od ( piec+ toge!r old manuscript 9 ! composition ( ! ,critique4 ,!re seems to be no way ( expla9+ its bewild]+ contradictions save by accept+ ,vaih+]'s#caj conclusion t x consi/s ( ?ree sep>ate acc\nts1 writt5 at diff]5t times1 & repres5t+ diff]5t phases 9 ! developm5t ( ,kant's views4 ,i4 ,! fir/ acc\nt1 beg9n+ ) ! above words & end+ ) 8already a consid]able ga90 7s*on sehr viel gewonn5 i/71 is evid5tly ! olde/4 ,x reveals ! influ5ce ( ! ,diss]tation4 ,x di/+ui%es3 #a4 ,critique ( pure reason 7 ,propa$eutic74 #b4 ,organon ( pure reason4 #c4 ,sy/em ( pure reason4 #a4 ,critique is a critical exam9ation 7,beur!ilung7 ( pure reason1 its s\rces & limits4 ,! implication 7obscur$ by ! direct relat+ ( ,critique to ,sy/em7 is t x prep>es ! way = ! ,organon4 #b4 ,organon compreh5ds all ! pr9ciples by :i* pure k c be acquir$ & actually e/abli%$4 #c4 ,sy/em is ! complete application ( su* an ,organon4 ,?is classification is1 z ,pauls5#caa 0 ! fir/ to rem>k1 an adaptation ( ! ,diss]tation /&po9t4 ,,ii4 ,! second acc\nt beg9s3 8,i entitle all k transc5d5tal10 b is brok5 by ! ?ird acc\nt--f 8,su* a ,critique0 to ! end ( ! p>agraph--:i* has be5 ins]t$ into ! middle ( x4 ,x is !n cont9u$ 9 ! next section4 ,x di/+ui%es3 #a4 ,critique ( pure reason4 #b4 ,transc5d5tal philosophy4 #a4 ,critique conta9s ! pr9ciples ( all a priori syn!tical k1 trac+ an ar*itectonic plan :i* gu>antees ! complet5ess & c]ta9ty ( all ! p>ts4 #b4 ,transc5d5tal philosophy conta9s _! complete analytic developm5t1 & is !re=e ! sy/em ( su* k4 ,,iii4 ,! ?ird acc\nt 78,su* a ,critique0 to end ( p>agraph7 9 its ma9 divisions foll[s ! fir/ acc\nt3 #a4 ,critique1 #b4 ,organon or ,canon1 #c4 ,sy/em4 ,b !y are n[ def9$ 9 a diff]5t mann]4 ,critique is a propa$eutic = ! ,organon4 ,b ,organon1 :i* signifies ! totality ( ! pr9ciples ?r\gh :i* pure k is atta9$ & ext5d$1#cab may n be possible4 ,9 t case ! ,critique is a prep>ation only = a ,canon1 i4e4 ! totality ( ! pr9ciples ( ! prop] employm5t ( reason4#cac ,! ,organon or ,canon1 9 turn1 w r5d] possible a ,sy/em ( ! philosophy ( pure reason1 ! =m] yield+ a sy/em 9 ext5sion ( a priori k1 ! latt] a sy/em :i* def9es ! limits ( a priori k4 ,x is impossible to r$uce ^! div]g5cies to a s+le consi/5t view4 ,!y illu/rate ! v>y+ s5se 9 :i* ,kant uses ! t]m 8metaphysics40 ,9 ! fir/ acc\nt1 ev5 ?\gh t acc\nt is bas$ on a di/9ction drawn 9 ! ,diss]tation1 ! sy/em ( metaphysics is imman5t2 9 ! second x is also transc5d5t2 9 ! ?ird x is neutral4#cad ,propa$eutic4#cae--,t ! ,critique is only propa$eutic to a ,sy/em ( pure reason 0 lat] d5i$ by ,kant 9 ! foll[+ emphatic t]ms3 8,i mu/ "h obs]ve t ,i _c und]/& ! attempt to ascribe to me ! view t ,i h s\ght to supply only a ,propa$eutic to transc5d5tal philosophy1 n ! ,sy/em ( ?is philosophy4 ,su* a view c\ld nev] h ent]$ my ?\ghts1 = ,i h myself prais$ ! sy/ematic complet5ess 7das voll5dete ,ganze7 ( ! pure philosophy 9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason z ! be/ m>k ( its tru?40#caf ,kant ?us f9ally1 aft] mu* vacillation 9 8 use ( ! t]ms1 came to ! conclusion t ,critique1 ,transc5d5tal ,philosophy1 & ,sy/em all co9cide4 ,meantime he has =gott5 8 own previ\s & conflict+ utt]ances on ?is po9t4 ,z reg>ds speculation negative only4#cag--8,speculation0 "h signifies ! !oretical1 z oppos$ to ! practical4#cah ,! qualify+ phrase is 9 l9e ) o!r passages ( ! second edition1 9 :i* x is emphasis$ t ! conclusions ( ! ,critique are positive 9 _! practical 7moral7 be>+4#cai ,transc5d5tal--transc5d5t4#cbj--,kant 0 ! fir/ to di/+ui% betwe5 ^! two t]ms4 ,9 ! s*ola/ic p]iod1 9 :i* !y fir/ appe>1 !y 7 exactly synonym\s1 ! t]m transc5d5t be+ ! m usual4 ,! v]b1 to transc5d1 appe>s 9 ,augu/9e 9 its wide/ metaphysical s5se4 8,transc5de et te ipsum40 8,cuncta corpora transc5d]unt ,platonici qua]5tes ,deum2 omnem animam mutabilesque omnes spiritus transc5d]unt qua]5tes summum ,deum40#cba ,! fir/ employm5t ( ! t]m 9 a m specific or te*nical s5se occurs 9 a treatise1 ,de natura g5]is1 falsely ascrib$ to ,?omas ,aqu9as4 ,9 ?is treatise ens1 res1 aliquid1 unum1 bonum1 v]um are entitl$ transc5d5tia4 ,to und]/& ! mean+ 9 :i* ! ^w is "h us$1 we h1 x w\ld seem1#cbb to take acc\nt ( ! influ5ce ex]cis$ ^u ,aqu9as by a my/ical "w ( ,arabian orig91 entitl$ ,de causis4 ,x conta9$ ref]5ce to ! ,neo-,platonic di/9ction betwe5 ! ,ari/otelian categories1 :i* ! ,neo-,platoni/s reg>d$ z be+ d]ivative1 & ! m univ]sal concepts1 ens1 unum1 v]um1 bonum4 ,to ^! latt] concepts ,aqu9as gave a !ological application4 ,ens p]ta9s to ess5ce1 unum to ! p]son ( ! ,fa!r1 v]um to ! p]son ( ! ,son1 bonum to ! p]son ( ! ,holy ,gho/4 ,9 ! ,de natura g5]is ! numb] ( ^! supreme concepts is increas$ to six by ! addition ( res & aliquid1 & z j /at$ ! title transc5d5tia is also n[ appli$ = ! fir/ "t4 ,9 ?is mean+ ! t]m transc5d5t & its synonym transc5d5tal are ( frequ5t occurr5ce 9 ,s*ola/ic writ+s4 ,! transc5d5tia or transc5d5talia are ^? concepts :i* s transc5d ! categories z to be !mselves pr$icable ( ! categories4 ,!y are ! 8t]m9i vel proprietates rebus omnibus cuiusque g5]is conv5i5tes40 ,?us ,duns ,scotus speaks ( ens z ! highe/ ( ! 8transc5d5tal0 concepts4 ,! t]m also occurs 9 a m or less simil> s5se 9 ! writ+s ( ,campanella1 ,giordano ,bruno1 ,francis ,bacon1 & ,sp9oza4 ,! la/ nam$ gives a psy*ological explanation ( ! 8t]m9i ,transc5d5tales 444 ut ,ens1 ,res1 ,aliquid0 z /&+ = ideas t are 9 ! highe/ degree confus$ ow+ to ! multiplicity ( ! images :i* h neutralis$ "o ano!r 9 ! process ( _! g5]ation4#cbc ,b]keley also speaks ( ! 8transc5d5tal maxims0 :i* lie outside ! field ( ma!matical enquiry1 b :i* influ5ce all ! p>ticul> sci5ces4#cbd ,evid5tly ! t]m has become g5]alis$ beyond its /rict] s*ola/ic mean+4 ,lamb]t employs transc5d5t 9 an ev5 loos] s5se to signify concepts :i* repres5t :at is common to bo? ! corporeal & ! intellectual _w4#cbe ,we may1 inde$1 ass]t t 9 ,kant's "t ! t]ms transc5d5t & transc5d5tal1 :ile /ill rema9+ synonym\s1 & ?\gh us$ on ! l9es ( _! orig9al ,s*ola/ic connotation1 _h lo/ all def9it5ess ( mean+ & all usefulness ( application4 ,kant took advantage ( ?is situation to di/+ui% %>ply betwe5 !m1 & to impose ^u ea* a mean+ suitable to 8 new ,critical tea*+4 8,transc5d5tal0 is prim>ily employ$ by ,kant z a "n = a c]ta9 k9d ( k4 ,transc5d5tal k is k n ( objects1 b ( ! nature & conditions ( our a priori cognition ( !m4 ,9 o!r words1 a priori k mu/ n be ass]t$1 simply because x is a priori1 to be transc5d5tal2 ?is title applies only to su* k z con/itutes a !ory or sci5ce ( ! a priori4#cbf ,transc5d5tal k & transc5d5tal philosophy mu/ !re=e be tak5 z co9cid+2 & z ?us co9cid5t1 !y signify ! sci5ce ( ! possibility1 nature1 & limits ( a priori k4 ,! t]m simil>ly applies to ! subdivisions ( ! ,critique4 ,! ,ae/hetic is transc5d5tal 9 t x e/abli%es ! a priori "* ( ! =ms ( s5sibility2 ! ,analytic 9 t x det]m9es ! a priori pr9ciples ( und]/&+1 & ! "p :i* !y play 9 ! con/itution ( k2 ! ,dialectic 9 t x def9es & limits ! a priori ,ideas ( ,reason1 to ! p]v]t+ p[] ( :i* all false metaphysics is due4 ,t ?is is ! prim>y & fundam5tal mean+ common to ! v>i\s uses ( ! t]m is con/antly ov]look$ by ,max ,mll]4 ,?us 9 ,a #ae ,b #cj he translates transc5d5tale ,s9n5lehre 8doctr9e ( transc5d5tal s5se0 in/ead ( z 8transc5d5tal doctr9e ( s5se40 ,9 trans=m+ transc5d5tale ,elem5t>lehre into 8elem5ts ( transc5d5talism0 he avoids ! above error1 b only by inv5t+ a ^w :i* has no place 9 ,kant's own t]m9ology4 ,b lat] 9 ! ,critique ,kant employs ! t]m transc5d5tal 9 a second s5se1 namely1 to d5ote ! a priori factors 9 k4 ,all repres5tations :i* are a priori & yet are applicable to objects are transc5d5tal4 ,! t]m is !n def9$ ?r\gh its di/9ction f ! empirical on ! "o h&1 & f ! transc5d5t on ! o!r4 ,an intuition or conception is transc5d5tal :5 x orig9ates 9 pure reason1 & yet at ! same "t goes to con/itute an a priori k ( objects4 ,! contra/ betwe5 ! transc5d5tal & ! transc5d5t1 z simil>ly det]m9$ ^u by ,kant1 is equally fundam5tal1 b is ( q diff]5t "*4 ,t is transc5d5t :i* lies entirely beyond exp]i5ce2 :]eas ! transc5d5tal signifies ^? a priori elem5ts :i* und]lie exp]i5ce z its necess>y conditions4 ,! transc5d5t is always unkn[able4 ,! transc5d5tal is t :i* by condition+ exp]i5ce r5d]s all k1 :e!r a priori or empirical1 possible4 ,! direct opposite ( ! transc5d5t is ! imman5t1 :i* z su* includes bo? ! transc5d5tal & ! empirical4 ,?us :ile ,kant employs ! t]m transc5d5tal 9 a v special s5se :i* he has himself arbitr>ily det]m9$1 he returns to ! orig9al etymological mean+ ( ! t]m transc5d5t4 ,x ga9s a specifically ,critical mean+ only ?r\gh be+ us$ to exp\nd ! doctr9e t all k is limit$ to s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,! attempt to f9d "s simil> etymological ju/ification = ,kant's use ( ! t]m transc5d5tal has l$ ,s*op5hau] & ,kuno ,fis*] to ass]t t ,kant entitles 8 philosophy transc5d5tal because x transc5ds bo? ! dogmatism & ! scepticism ( all previ\s sy/ems6#cbg ,ano!r attempt has be5 made by ,/irl+#cbh & ,watson1#cbi :o ass]t1 at lea/ by implication1 t ! transc5d5tal is a species ( ! transc5d5t1 9 t :ile ! latt] transc5ds ! scope ( exp]i5ce1 ! =m] transc5ds its s5se-cont5t4 ,kant himself1 h[ev]1 n[h]e attempts to ju/ify 8 use ( ! t]m by any su* argum5t4 ,a ?ird mean+ ( ! t]m transc5d5tal arises ?r\gh its ext5sion f ! a priori intuitions & concepts to ! processes & faculties to :i* !y are suppos$ to be due4 ,?us ,kant speaks ( ! transc5d5tal syn!ses ( appreh5sion1 reproduction1 & recognition1 & ( ! transc5d5tal faculties ( imag9ation & und]/&+4 ,9 ?is s5se ! transc5d5tal becomes a title = ! conditions :i* r5d] exp]i5ce possible4 ,& inasmu* z processes & faculties c h>dly be entitl$ a priori1 ,kant has 9 ?is ?ird application ( ! t]m dep>t$ /ill fur!r f 8 fir/ def9ition ( x4#ccj ,! di/9ction betwe5 ! transc5d5tal & ! transc5d5t may be illu/rat$ by ref]5ce to ! ,ideas ( reason4 ,reg>d$ z regulative only1 i4e4 m]ely z ideals :i* inspire ! und]/&+ 9 ! pursuit ( k1 !y are transc5d5tal4 ,int]pret$ z con/itutive1 i4e4 z repres5t+ absolute realities1 !y are transc5d5t4 ,yet1 despite ! fundam5tal "* ( ?is di/9ction1 s c>eless is ,kant 9 ! use ( 8 te*nical t]ms t he also employs transc5d5tal z exactly equival5t 9 mean+ to transc5d5t4 ,?is is ( con/ant occurr5ce1 b only two in/ances ne$ "h be cit$4 ,9 ! important phrase 8transc5d5tal ideality ( space & "t0 ! t]m transc5d5tal is us$ 9 place ( ! t]m transc5d5t4 ,= :at ,kant is ass]t+ is t judg$ f a transc5d5t po9t ( view1 i4e4 f ! po9t ( view ( ! ?+ 9 itself1 space is only subjectively real4#cca ,! phrase is inde$ easily capable ( ! or?odox int]pretation1 b1 z ! context cle>ly %[s1 t is n ! way 9 :i* x is actually be+ us$ by ,kant4 ,ano!r equally surpris+ example is to be f\nd 9 ! title 8transc5d5tal dialectic40 ,?\gh x is def9$ 9 ,a #fc-d ,b #hh 9 correct fa%ion1 9 ,a #big ,b #ced & ,a #cjh-i ,b #cfe-f x is int]pret$ z treat+ ( ! illusion involv$ 9 transc5d5t judgm5ts1 & s virtually z mean+ transc5d5t dialectic4#ccb ,n a ,critique ( books & sy/ems4#ccc--,kant "h ins]ts a /atem5t f ! omitt$ ,preface to ! fir/ edition4#ccd ,he n[ adds t ! ,critique w supply a crit]ion = ! valuation ( all o!r sy/ems4 ,a #ac ,b #bg4--,kant's reason = omitt+ ! title ( ,section ,,ii 9 ! second edition 0 no d\bt its inconsi/5cy ) ! ass]tion ( its op5+ s5t5ce1 viz4 t ! ,critique is n transc5d5tal philosophy1 b only a prep>ation = x4 ,in/ead ( x1 ,kant has introduc$ ! m appropriate head+ plac$ ov] ! prec$+ p>agraph4 ,! highe/ pr9ciples ( morals d n belong to transc5d5tal philosophy4#cce--;,cf4 ,a #hja ,b #hbi4 ,! alt]ation made 9 ?is passage 9 ! second edition#ccf indicates a transition t[>ds ! opposite view :i* ,kant develop$ 9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason4#ccg ,! division ( ?is sci5ce4#cch--,kant 9 ?is p>agraph alt]nates 9 ! mo/ bewild]+ fa%ion betwe5 ! ,critique & ,transc5d5tal ,philosophy4 ,9 ?is fir/ s5t5ce ! ,critique seems to be ref]r$ to4 ,lat] x is ,transc5d5tal ,philosophy t is spok5 (4 ,doctr9e ( ,elem5ts & ,doctr9e ( ,me?ods4#cci--;,cf4 ,a #gjg ff4 ,b #gce ff41 & bel[1 pp4 #dch1 #efc4 ,two /ems1 s5sibility & und]/&+1 :i* may p]haps spr+ f a common root4#cdj--,kant sometimes seems to sugge/#cda t imag9ation is ?is common root4 ,x belongs bo? to s5sibility & to und]/&+1 & is passive z well z spontane\s4 ,b :5 s view$1 imag9ation is virtually reg>d$ z an unkn[n sup]s5su\s p[]1 8conceal$ 9 ! dep?s ( ! s\l40#cdb ,! sup]s5su\s is ! po9t ( union ( our disp>ate human faculties1 z well z ( nature & fre$om1 me*anism & teleology4 ,! transc5d5tal doctr9e ( s5se w\ld necess>ily con/itute ! fir/ "p ( ! ,sci5ce ( ,elem5ts4#cdc--8,necess>ily con/itute ! fir/ "p0 translates zum er/5 ,!ile gehr5 mss54 ,?is ,vaih+] expla9s z an ar*aic mode ( expression1 equival5t to ausma*54 ,! po9t is important because1 if translat$ q lit]ally1 x might seem to conflict ) ! division actually foll[$1 & to support ! alt]native division giv5 9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason4 ,! fir/ ,critique is divid$ ?us3 ,i4 ,doctr9e ( ,elem5ts4 #a4 ,ae/hetic4 #b4 ,logic4 7a7 ,analytic4 7b7 ,dialectic4 ,,ii4 ,doctr9e ( ,me?ods4 ,9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason#cdd a mu* m satisfactory division is sugge/$3 ,i4 ,doctr9e ( ,elem5ts4 #a4 ,analytic4 7a7 ,ae/hetic 7,s5se74 7b7 ,logic 7,und]/&+74 #b4 ,dialectic4 ,,ii4 ,doctr9e ( ,me?ods4 ,! fir/ division re/s on some:at irrelevant di/9ctions d]iv$ f ! traditional logic2 ! o!r is m directly inspir$ by ! di/9ctions :i* naturally belong to ,kant's own philosophical sy/em4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,doctr9e ,,( ,,elem5ts ,,"p ,i ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,ae/hetic ,! ,ae/hetic op5s ) a s]ies ( def9itions4 ,intuition 7,ans*auung7 is k 7,erk5ntnis7 :i* is 9 imm$iate relation to objects 7si* auf ,geg5/nde unmittelb> bezieht74 ,ea* t]m 9 ?is def9ition calls = comm5t4 ,ans*auung etymologically applies only to visual s5sation4 ,kant ext5ds x to cov] s5sations ( all ! s5ses4 ,! curr5t t]m 0 ,empf9dung4 ,kant's reason = introduc+ ! t]m intuition 9 place ( s5sation 0 evid5tly ! fact t ! latt] c\ld n be made to cov] space & "t4 ,we c speak ( pure intuitions1 b n ( pure s5sations4 ,k is us$ 9 a v wide s5se1 n /rictly consi/5t ) ,a #ej-a ,b #gd-e4cde ,! phrase si* bezieht is q indef9ite & ambigu\s4 ,its mean+ w dep5d ^u ! int]pretation ( its context4 ,object is us$ 9 its wide/ & mo/ indef9ite mean+4 ,x may be tak5 z signify+ cont5t 7,inhalt1 a t]m :i* does n occur 9 ?is passage1 b :i* ,kant else:]e employs#cdf74 ,t1 at lea/1 is ! mean+ :i* be/ fits ! context4 ,= :5 ,kant adds t intuition relates itself to objects imm$iately1 x becomes cle> t he has 9 m9d its di/9ction f conception 7,begriff7 :i* z express+ ! univ]sal is relat$ to objects only indirectly1 repres5t+ "s "o or m attributes ( ! giv5 objects4 ,ultimately ! :ole cont5t ( conception mu/ be giv54#cdg ,! phrase 8relates itself to objects0 may1 !re=e1 be p>aphras$ 8has "s cont5t1 su* z r$ or cold1 z its imm$iate object40 ,?r\gh ! cont5t ( intuition ! :ole mat]ial ( ?\ght is suppli$4 ,intuition 9 itself is bl9d1 b n empty4 8,?\ghts )\t cont5t are empty2 intuitions )\t concepts are bl9d40#cdh ,b ! phrase 8is 9 relation to objects0 has also = ,kant a second mean+1 impli$ 9 ! above1 b supplem5t>y to x4 ,z he /ates 9 ! v next s5t5ce1 intuition c h an object1 mean+ !reby a cont5t1 only 9 s f> z t cont5t is giv54 ,! mat]ial ( ?\ght mu/ be suppli$2 x _c be inv5t$4#cdi ,! only mode1 h[ev]1 9 :i* x c be suppli$1 at lea/ to ! human m9d1 is ?r\gh ! affect+ ( ! m9d by 8! object40 ,?is is an excell5t in/ance ( ,kant's c>eless mode ( express+ himself4 ,9 ! fir/ "p ( ! s5t5ce object means object ( intuition4 ,9 ! latt] "p x signifies ! cause ( intuition4 ,& on ,kant's view ! two _c co9cide4 ,! object :i* affects ! m9d is indep5d5tly real2 ! imm$iate object ( ! intuition is a s5se-cont5t1 :i* ,kant1 foll[+ ! univ]sally accept$ view ( 8 "t1 reg>ds z purely subjective4 ,! t]m object is ?us us$ 9 two q di/9ct mean+s )9 "o & ! same s5t5ce4 ,kant's def9ition ( intuition1 :5 /at$ q explicitly1 & cle>$ ( all ambiguity1 is !re=e z foll[s4 ,intuition is ! imm$iate appreh5sion ( a cont5t :i* z giv5 is due to ! action ( an indep5d5tly real object ^u ! m9d4 ,?is def9ition is obvi\sly n meant to be a description ( intuition z x pres5ts itself to introspection1 b to be a reflective /atem5t ( its indisp5sable conditions4 ,also x has 9 view only empirical intuitions4 ,x does n cov] ! pure intuitions space & "t4#cej ,?\gh space & "t are giv51 & ?\gh ea* possesses an intr9sic cont5t1 ^! cont5ts are n due to ! action ( objects ^u ! s5sibility4 8,an intuition is su* a repres5tation z imm$iately dep5ds ^u ! pres5ce ( ! object4 ,h5ce x seems impossible orig9ally to intuit a priori because intuition w\ld 9 t ev5t take place )\t ei!r a =m] or a pres5t object to ref] to1 & by consequ5ce c\ld n be intuition40#cea ,?is int]pretation is borne out by ,kant's answ] to ,beck :5 ! latt] object$ t only ?r\gh subsumption "u ! categories c a repres5tation become objective4 ,kant replies 9 a m>g9al note1 ! mean+ ( :i*1 ?\gh difficult to deciph]1 admits ( a fairly def9ite int]pretation4 8,! det]m9+ ( a concept ?r\gh intuition s z to yield k ( ! object falls )9 ! prov9ce ( ! faculty ( judgm5t1 b n ! relation ( ! intuition to an object 9 g5]al i4e4 ! view ( x z hav+ a cont5t :i* is giv5 & :i* is !re=e due to "s object1 = t is m]ely ! logical use ( ! repres5tation1 :]eby x is ?\ght z fall+ )9 ! prov9ce ( k4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if ?is s+le repres5tation is relat$ only to ! subject1 ! use is ae/hetic 7feel+71 & ! repres5tation _c be an act ( k40#ceb ,m9d 7,gemt7 is a neutral t]m )\t metaphysical implications4#cec ,x is practically equival5t to ! t]m :i* is sub/itut$ = x 9 ! next p>agraph1 p[] ( repres5tation 7,vor/ellungsfhigkeit74 ,repres5tation 7,vor/ellung7 ,kant employs 9 ! wide/ possible mean+4 ,x cov]s any & e cognitive /ate4 ,! def9ition "h giv5 ( s5sibility--8! capacity 7receptivity7 to obta9 repres5tations ?r\gh ! mode 9 :i* we are affect$ by objects0--is tak5 directly ov] f ! ,diss]tation4#ced ,9 ?is def9ition1 z 9 t ( intuition1 ,kant1 )\t argum5t or "q1 po/ulates ! exi/5ce ( indep5d5tly exi/+ objects4 ,! exi/5ce ( giv5 s5sations presupposes ! exi/5ce ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,s5sibility is spok5 ( z ! s\rce bo? ( objects & ( intuitions4 ,?is is legitimate s9ce object & intuition mutually imply "o ano!r2 ! latt] is ! appreh5sion ( ! =m]4 ,by 8objects0 is obvi\sly meant :at 9 ! ?ird p>agraph is call$ ! matt] ( appe>ances1 i4e4 s5sations 9 _! objective aspect1 z qualities or cont5ts4 ,! t]m 8object0 is simil>ly employ$ 9 ! la/ l9e ( ?is fir/ p>agraph4 ,und]/&+ 7,v]/&7 is def9$ only 9 its logical or discursive employm5t4 ,kant wisely def]s all ref]5ce to its m fundam5tal syn!tic activities4 ,9 u 7bei uns7 is an indirect ref]5ce to ! possibility ( intellectual 7non-s5su\s7 intuition :i* is fur!r develop$ 9 o!r p>ts ( ! ,ae/hetic4#cee ,s5su\s intuition is due to affection by an object4 ,9 intellectual intuition ! m9d mu/ produce ! object 9 ! act ( appreh5d+ x4#cef ,kant's def9ition ( intuition applies1 z already not$1 only to empirical intuition4 ,he proce$s#ceg to def9e ! relation 9 :i* s5sation 7,empf9dung7 /&s to empirical intuition4 ,:at he "h says am\nts to ! ass]tion t ?r\gh s5sation intuition acquires its object1 i4e4 t s5sation is ! cont5t ( intuition4 ,& t be+ s1 x is also ?r\gh s5sation t empirical intuition acquires its relation to ! object 7 ?+ 9 itself7 :i* causes x4 7,t w\ld seem to be ! mean+ ( ! ambigu\s second s5t5ce2 b x /ill rema9s unc]ta9 :e!r ! opposition int5d$ is to pure or to intellectual intuition47 ,if ?is int]pretation ( ! p>agraph be correct1 s5sation is c\nt$ z belong+ exclusively to ! cont5t side ( subjective appreh5sion4 ,b ,kant views s5sation 9 an ev5 m def9ite mann] ?an he "h indicates4 ,?\gh s5sation is giv51 x likewise involves a reaction ( ! m9d4 8,:atev] is s5su\s 9 k dep5ds ^u ! subject's peculi> nature1 9 s f> z x is capable ( ?is or t modification ^u ! pres5ce ( ! object40#ceh ,?us = ,kant s5sation is a modification or /ate ( ! subject1 produc$ by affection ?r\gh an object4 ,! affection produces a modification or /ate ( ! subject1 & ?is subjective modification is ! s5sation4 8,s5sation is a p]ception ,p]ception :i* relates itself solely to ! subject z ! modification ( its /ate40#cei ,?is view ( s5sation1 z subjective1 0 univ]sally held 9 ,kant's day4 ,he accepts x )\t argum5t or "q4 ,t x c\ld possibly be *all5g$ nev] seems to h occurr$ to him4 ,he is equally conv9c$ t x e/abli%es ! exi/5ce ( an actually pres5t object4 8,s5sation argues ! pres5ce ( some?+1 b dep5ds z to its quality ^u ! nature ( ! subject40#cfj 8,s5sation presupposes ! actual pres5ce ( ! object40#cfa ,kant's view ( s5sation1 z develop$ 9 ! ,ae/hetic1#cfb ?us involves ?ree po9ts3 7#a7 ,x mu/ be c\nt$ z belong+ to ! cont5t side ( m5tal appreh5sion4 7#b7 ,?\gh a quality or cont5t1 x is purely subjective1 dep5d+ ^u ! nature ( our s5sibility4 7#c7 ,x is due to ! action ( "s object ^u ! s5sibility4 ,kant di/+ui%es betwe5 s5sation 7,empf9dung7 & feel+ 7,gefhl74#cfc ,x _h be5 usual to employ !m z synonyms4 8,we und]/& by ! ^w s5sation an objective repres5tation ( ! s5ses2 & 9 ord] to preclude ! dang] ( be+ misund]/ood1 we %all d5ote t :i* mu/ always rema9 m]ely subjective & c con/itute absolutely no repres5tation ( an object by ! ord9>y 7son/ bli*57 t]m feel+40#cfd ,appe>ance 7,ers*e9ung7 is "h def9$ z ! undet]m9$ object ( an intuition4 ,by undet]m9$ object is meant1 z we h se51 ! object 9 s f> z x consi/s ( ! giv5 s5se cont5ts4 ,:5 ^! cont5ts are int]pret$ ?r\gh ! categories !y become ph5om5a4 8,appe>ances s f> z !y are ?\ght z objects accord+ to ! unity ( ! categories are call$ ph5om5a40#cfe ,b ?is di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & ph5om5on is n held to by ,kant4 ,he m usually speaks ( ! categoris$ objects z appe>ances4 ,! t]m ph5om5on is ( comp>atively r>e occurr5ce 9 ! ,critique4 ,?is has be5 conceal$ f ,engli% read]s1 z bo? ,meiklejohn & ,max ,mll] almo/ inv>iably translate ,ers*e9ung ph5om5on4 ,! /atem5t t appe>ance is ! object ( an empirical intuition raises a v fundam5tal & difficult "q1 namely1 z to ! relation 9 :i* repres5tation /&s to ! repres5t$4#cff ,frequ5tly ,kant's argum5t implies ?is di/9ction1 yet con/antly he speaks & argues z if x 7 non-exi/5t4 ,we h to recognise two t5d5cies 9 ,kant1 subjectivi/ & ph5om5ali/4#cfg ,:5 ! =m] t5d5cy is 9 ! asc5d5t1 he reg>ds all appe>ances1 all ph5om5a1 all empirical objects1 z repres5tations1 modifications ( ! s5sibility1 m]ely subjective4 ,:51 on ! o!r h&1 8 ?9k+ is dom9at$ by ! latt] t5d5cy1 appe>ances ga9 an exi/5ce indep5d5t ( ! individual m9d4 ,!y are kn[n ?r\gh subjective repres5tations1 b mu/ n be directly equat$ ) !m4 ,!y h a g5u9e objectivity4 ,to ?is di/9ction1 & its consequ5ces1 we %all h frequ5t occasion to return4 ,! ph5om5ali/ /&po9t is dom9ant 9 ^! fir/ two p>agraphs ( ! ,ae/hetic1 & x f9ds /ill m pron\nc$ expression 9 ! op5+ ( ! ?ird p>agraph4 8,t 9 ! appe>ances :i* corresponds 7correspondirt7 to s5sation1 ,i call its matt]40 ,?is s5t5ce1 ?r\gh ! use ( ! t]m corresponds1 cle>ly implies a di/9ction betwe5 s5sation & ! real object appreh5d$ 9 & ?r\gh x4 ,t1 9 turn1 involves a ?reefold di/9ction1 betwe5 s5sation z subjective cont5t 7 appe>ance 9 ! /rict s5se71 ! real endur+ object 9 space 7 ph5om5on1 ! categoris$ object1 appe>ance 9 its wid] & m usual s5se71 & ! ?+ 9 itself4#cfh ,yet 9 ! imm$iately foll[+ s5t5ce ,kant says t 8! matt] ( all appe>ance is giv5 a po/]iori40 ,by 8matt] ( appe>ance0 ,kant mu/ !re mean s5sations1 = !y alone are giv5 a po/]iori4#cfi ,on ?is view ! ph5om5a or empirical objects r$uce to1 & consi/ (1 s5sations4 ,! int]m$iate t]m ( ! above ?reefold di/9ction is elim9at$4 ,! matt] ( appe>ance does n correspond to1 b itself is1 s5sation4 ,?us 9 ^! successive s5t5ces ! two conflict+ t5d5cies ( ,kant's tea*+ f9d v]bal expression4 ,!y int]v5e ev5 9 ! prelim9>y def9ition ( 8 t]ms4 ,?is fundam5tal conflict _c1 h[ev]1 be pr(itably discuss$ at ?is /age4 ,! manifold ( appe>ance 7das ,manni*faltige d] ,ers*e9ung74 ,! mean+ to be assign$ to ?is phrase mu/ dep5d ^u ! settlem5t ( ! above "q4#cgj ,b 9 ?is passage x all[s only ( a subjectivi/ int]pretation1 :]eby s5sations are appe>ance4 ,! giv5 s5sations z su* con/itute a manifold2 z objects 9 space !y are already ord]$4 ,kant's m usual phrase is 8! manifold ( intuition40 ,8 adoption ( ! t]m 8manifold0 7! v>ia ( ! ,diss]tation7 expresses 8 conviction t syn!sis is indisp5sable = all k1 & also 8 correlative view t no?+ absolutely simple c be appreh5d$ 9 s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,by ! manifold ,kant does n mean1 h[ev]1 z "s ( 8 comm5tators w\ld seem to imply1 ! *aotic or disord]$4 ,! emphasis is on manifoldness or plurality1 z call+ = r$uction to unity & sy/em4 ,! unity has to be f\nd 9 x1 n introduc$ into x =cibly f ! outside4 ,! manifold has to be int]pret$1 ev5 ?\gh ! pr9ciples ( int]pretation may orig9ate indep5d5tly ( x4 ,?\gh1 = in/ance1 ! manifold z giv5 is n 9 space & "t1 ! specific space & "t relations assign$ by u are det]m9$ = u by ! inh]5t nature ( ! manifold itself4#cga ,! =m ( appe>ance is def9$--if ! def9ition giv5 9 ! fir/ edition be translat$ lit]ally--z 8t :i* causes 7dasj5ige1 wel*es ma*t dass7 ! manifold ( appe>ance to be intuit$ z ord]$ 9 c]ta9 relations40 ,?is phrase is employ$ by ,kant 9 o!r connections1 &1 z ,vaih+] po9ts out1#cgb ne$ n necess>ily indicate activity4 8,s5sation is t 9 our k :i* causes x to be call$ a po/]iori k40#cgc ,9 ! second edition ,kant alt]$ ! text f 8geordnet anges*aut wird0 to 8geordnet w]d5 kann40 ,! reason probably 0 t ! fir/ edition's word+ might seem to imply t ! =m is 7z ! ,diss]tation taught7 capable 9 & by itself ( ord]+ ! manifold4 ,?r\gh\t ! second edition ,kant makes m prom95t ! "p :i* und]/&+ plays 9 ! appreh5sion ( space4#cgd ,?is di/9ction betwe5 matt] & =m is c5tral 9 ,kant's sy/em4#cge ,z he himself says3 8,^! are two conceptions :i* und]lie all o!r reflection1 s insep>ably are !y b\nd up ) all employm5t ( ! und]/&+4 ,! "o matt] signifies ! det]m9able 9 g5]al1 ! o!r =m its det]m9ation40#cgf ,on ! side ( matt] falls ! manifold1 giv51 empirical1 cont+5t mat]ial ( s5se2 on ! side ( =m fall ! unify+1 a priori1 syn!tic1 relational in/rum5ts ( s5sibility & ?\ght4 ,= ,kant ^! latt] are no m]e ab/ractions1 capable ( be+ di/+ui%$ by ! m9d2 !y diff] f ! matt] ( exp]i5ce 9 nature1 9 function1 & 9 orig94 ,^u ?is duali/ic mode ( conceiv+ ! two factors dep5ds ! /r5g? z well z ! weakness ( 8 position4 ,to its p]v]t+ influ5ce mo/ ( ! unsatisfactory features ( 8 doctr9e ( space & "t c be directly trac$4 ,b to x is also due 8 appreciation ( ! new ,critical problems1 ) _! revolution>y consequ5ces1 z develop$ 9 ! ,analytic4 ,kant proce$s to argue3 7a7 t ! di/9ction is betwe5 two elem5ts ( fundam5tally diff]5t nature & orig94 ,! matt] is giv5 a po/]iori 9 s5sation2 ! =m1 z di/9ct f all s5sation1 mu/ lie ready a priori 9 ! m9d4 7b7 ,kant also argues t =m1 because ( its sep>ate orig91 is capable ( be+ contemplat$ ap>t f all s5sation4 ,! above /atem5ts re/ ^u ! unexpress$ assumption t s5sations h no spatial attributes ( any k9d4#cgg ,9 !mselves !y h only int5sive1 n ext5sive1 magnitude4#cgh ,kant assumes ?is )\t "q1 & )\t ! lea/ attempt at pro(4#cgi ,! assumption appe>s 9 ,kant's writ+s z e>ly z #agfh z a self-evid5t pr9ciple2#chj & ?r\gh\t ! ,critique is treat$ z a premiss = argum5t1 nev] z a /atem5t call+ = pro(4 ,! only k9d ( support+ argum5t :i* is ev5 indirectly sugge/$ by ,kant is t space _c by itself act ^u ! s5ses4#cha ,?is w\ld seem to be 8 mean+ :5 he decl>es#chb t x is no object1 b only an ens imag9>ium4 8,space is no object ( ! s5ses40#chc ,su* argum5t1 h[ev]1 presupposes t space c be conceiv$ ap>t f objects4 ,x is no pro( t an ext5d$ object may n yield ext5d$ s5sations4 ,kant completely ignores ! possibility t =mal relations may be giv5 9 & ) ! s5sations4 ,if our s5sibility1 9 consequ5ce ( ! action ( objects ^u x1 is able to g5]ate qualitative s5sations1 :y1 z ,vaih+] v p]t95tly enquires1#chd %\ld x be d5i$ ! p[] ( also produc+1 9 consequ5ce ( ^! same causes1 impressions ( quantitative =mal nature8 ,s5sations1 on ,kant's view1 are ! product ( m9d mu* m ?an ( objects4 ,:y1 !n1 may n space itself be s5sational8#che ,f ! po9t ( view ( empirical sci5ce !re is no su* radical diff]5ce betwe5 cause & effect 9 ! latt] case z exi/s 9 ! =m]4 ,z ,h]b]t ,sp5c] has rem>k$1#chf ,kant makes ! enorm\s assumption 8444t no diff]5ces among our s5sations are det]m9$ by any diff]5ces 9 ! non-ego 7= to say t !y are s det]m9$ is to say t ! =m "u :i* ! non-ego exi/s produces an effect ^u ! ego72 & z x simil>ly foll[s t ! ord] ( coexi/5ce & sequ5ce among ^! s5sations is n det]m9$ by any ord] 9 ! non-ego2 we are compell$ to conclude t all ^! diff]5ces & *anges 9 ! ego are self-det]m9$40 ,kant's argum5t 9 ! ,diss]tation is exactly ( ?is nature4 8,objects d n /rike ! s5ses by _! =m4 ,9 ord]1 !re=e1 t ! v>i\s impressions f ! object act+ on ! s5se may coalesce into "s :ole ( repres5tation1 !re is requir$ an inn] pr9ciple ( ! m9d ?r\gh :i* 9 accordance ) /able & innate laws t manifold may take on "s =m40#chg ,9 ! p>agraph be=e u ,kant may1 at fir/ sight1 seem to (f] an argum5t4 ,he is really only re/at+ 8 premiss4 8,t :]e9 alone s5sations c be arrang$ 7si* ordn5#chh7 & plac$ 9 a c]ta9 =m _c itself aga9 be s5sation40 ,n[1 ( c\rse1 if ! t]m s5sation is to be limit$ to ! s5se qualities1 i4e4 to cont5t or matt]1 conceiv$ z exi/+ ap>t f all =mal relations1 ! =mal elem5ts _c possibly be s5sational4 ,! legitimacy ( t limitation is1 h[ev]1 ! "q at issue4 ,x _c be ?us decid$ by an arbitr>y v]bal di/9ction4 8,7 ! cont5tion t ! relations ( s5sations are n !mselves s5s$ correct1 ! inf]5ce to ! pure apriority ( ! =m ( our p]ception w\ld be inevitable4 ,= s5sation is ! sole =m ( int]action betwe5 consci\sness & reality4444 ,b t cont5tion is false4 ,! relations ( s5sations1 _! det]m9$ coexi/5ce & sequ5ce1 impress consci\sness1 j z d ! s5sations4 ,we feel ?is impression 9 ! compulsion :i* ! det]m9at5ess ( ! empirical manifolds lays ^u ! p]ceiv+ consci\sness4 ,! m]e affection ( consci\sness by ^! relations does n1 inde$1 by itself suffice = _! appreh5sion2 b nei!r does x suffice = ! appreh5sion ( ! s5sation itself4 ,?us !re is 9 ^! respects no diff]5ce betwe5 ! matt] & ! =m ( appe>ance40#chi ,9 ?is way1 !n1 by means ( 8 def9ition ( s5sation1 ,kant surreptiti\sly introduces 8 fundam5tal assumption4 ,t assumption reappe>s z ! conclusion t s9ce ! =m ( appe>ance _c be s5sation1 x does n arise ?r\gh ! action ( ! object1 & consequ5tly mu/ be a priori4 ,?\gh ! p>agraph seems to (f] an argum5t 9 support ( ! apriority ( space & "t1 x is f\nd on exam9ation m]ely to unfold a position adopt$ )\t ! slighte/ attempt at pro(4#cij ,! =m ( appe>ance mu/ lie ready 9 ! m9d4#cia--;,comm5t ^u ?is1 9 ord] to be adequate1 _h be/ take ! =m ( a sy/ematic discussion ( ,kant's views1 "h & else:]e1 ( space z an a priori =m ( intuition4 ,z already /at$1 ! def9ition :i* ,kant gives ( intuition--z k :i* /&s 9 imm$iate relation to objects--applies only to empirical intuition4 ,?\gh by ! t]m object ,kant1 9 s f> z he is def9ite1 means cont5t1 t cont5t is su* z c arise only ?r\gh ! action ( "s indep5d5t object ^u ! s5sibility4 ,9 o!r words1 ! cont5t appreh5d$ mu/ be s5su\s4 ,n[ su* a view ( intuition obvi\sly does n apply to pure intuition4 ,z ! conclud+ l9e ( ! p>agraph be=e u /ates1 pure intuition 8c be contemplat$ 9 sep>ation f all s5sation20 & z ! next p>agraph adds1 x exi/s 9 ! m9d 8)\t any actual object ( ! s5ses40 ,yet ,kant does n mean to imply t x is )\t cont5t ( any k9d4 8,?is pure =m ( s5sibility may also itself be call$ pure intuition40#cib 8,x c be kn[n be=e all actual p]ception1 & = t reason is call$ pure intuition40#cic ,?\gh1 !re=e1 pure intuition has an intr9sic cont5t1 & is ! imm$iate appreh5sion ( t cont5t1 x /&s 9 no relation to any actual indep5d5t object4 ,! cont5t z well z ! =m is a priori4 ,t1 h[ev]1 raises wid] que/ions1 & ^! we mu/ n[ discuss4 ,"h1 z 9 mo/ ( 8 fundam5tal positions1 ,kant ent]ta9s div]g5t & mutually contradictory doctr9es4 ,only 9 8 lat] utt]ances does he 9 any degree commit himself to "o consi/5t view4 ,! position to :i* he f9ally incl9es mu/ n1 h[ev]1 be all[$ to dom9ate ! int]pretation ( 8 e>li] /atem5ts4 ,! ,ae/hetic calls = its own sep>ate exegesis1 q z if x =m$ by itself an indep5d5t "w4 ,its problems are discuss$ f a /&po9t m or less peculi> to itself4 ,! comm5tator has ! tw(old task ( /at+ its argum5tation bo? 9 its conflict )1 & 9 its relation to1 ! o!r p>ts ( ! ,critique4 ,"o ess5tial diff]5ce betwe5 ,kant's e>li] & lat] treatm5ts ( space is t 9 8 e>li] utt]ances x is view$ almo/ exclusively z a psy*ological a priori4 ,! logical aspect ( ! problem fir/ receives any?+ l adequate recognition 9 ! ,analytic4 ,if we keep ?is important fact 9 m9d1 two di/9ct & contradictory views ( ! psy*ological nature ( space intuition c be trac$ ?r\gh\t ! ,ae/hetic4 ,on "o view1 x ant$ates exp]i5ce z an actual1 complet$1 consci\s intuition4 ,on ! o!r view1 x prec$es exp]i5ce only z a pot5tial disposition4 ,we rule ourselves out f und]/&+ ,kant's mo/ explicit utt]ances if we refuse to recognise ! exi/5ce ( bo? views4 ,kant's comm5tators h too frequ5tly %ut _! eyes to ! fir/ view1 & h !n blam$ ,kant = us+ mislead+ expressions4 ,x is always saf] to take ,kant q lit]ally4 ,he ne>ly always means exactly :at he says at ! "t :5 he says x4 ,frequ5tly he holds views :i* run completely c\nt] to pres5t-day psy*ology1 & on sev]al occasions he flatly contradicts :at he has ) equal emphasis ma9ta9$ 9 o!r contexts4 ,! aspects ( ,kant's problems are s complex & v>i\s1 & he is s preoccupi$ 9 do+ complete ju/ice to ea* 9 turn1 t ! "q ( ! mutual consi/5cy ( 8 results is mu* less consid]$ ?an is ideally desirable4 ,! two views c be m explicitly =mulat$4 ,! fir/ view alone is /raight=w>d & unambigu\s4 ,space lies ready 7liegt b]eit7 9 ! m9d1 i4e4 x does n arise4 ,prior ev5 to s5se-exp]i5ce x exi/s z a consci\s intuition4 ,= ?is reason x c be contemplat$ ap>t f all s5sation4 ,x /ill rema9s :5 all s5se cont5t is ?\ght away1 & yet is n a m]e =m4 ,9 indep5d5ce ( ! s5su\s manifold x possesses a pure manifold ( its own4 ,! gr\nd !sis ( ! second view--t space1 prior to s5se-exp]i5ce1 exi/s only z a p]man5t end[m5t ( ! m9d--is likewise unambigu\s4 ,b 9 its developm5t ,kant ?r[s consi/5cy to ! w9ds4 ,! possible ways 9 :i*1 on ! second view1 consci\sness ( space may be ga9$1 c be tabulat$ z foll[s3 7a7 ,by reflection ^u ! activity ( ! m9d 9 ! con/ruction ( exp]i5ce1 yield+ ! intuition ( a pure manifold2 or 7b7 by reflection ^u ! space-end[$ products ( exp]i5ce4#cid ,! latt] mode ( reflection may reveal3 77 ,a pure manifold di/9ct f ! manifold ( s5se2 or 77 ,space z a =m ( ! s5su\s manifold4 ,!re are ?us ?ree diff]5t ways 7a1 1 7 9 :i* ! second view c be develop$3 7a7 repres5ts ! view ( ! ,diss]tation 7#aggj71 ( ! reply to ,eb]h>d 7#agij71 & ( ^? p>ts ( ! fir/ edition's d$uction ( ! categories :i* are ( v e>ly orig92 77 repres5ts ! f9al /&po9t ( ! ,analytic2 771 ! prevail+ view ( ! pres5t day1 is n[h]e accept$ by ,kant4#cie ,kant's utt]ances 9 ! ,ae/hetic are all ( !m col\r$ by ! fir/ ma9 view4 ,we c be/ approa* !m by way ( ! contra/$ tea*+ ( ! ,diss]tation ( #aggj4 ,! tea*+ !re =mulat$ practically co9cides1 z above /at$1 ) 7a7 ( ! second ma9 view4 ,space1 he ma9ta9s1 is nei!r innate nor acquir$ f s5se-exp]i5ce4 8,c]ta9ly bo? conceptions ( "t & ( space are und\bt$ly acquir$1 n inde$ by ab/raction f our s5sations ( objects 7= s5sation gives ! matt]1 n ! =m ( human cognition71 b f ! m9d's own action 9 co-ord9at+ its s5sations 9 accordance ) un*ang+ laws4 ,ea* repres5ts1 z x 71 an immutable type1 & s c be kn[n intuitively4 ,s5sations excite ?is act ( m9d b d n contribute to ! intuition4 ,!re is "h no?+ innate except ?is law ( ! m9d accord+ to :i* x conjo9s 9 a c]ta9 mann] ! s5sations d]iv$ f ! pres5ce ( "s object40#cif ,h[ ?is view is to be reconcil$ ) ! cont5tion1 no less explicitly ma9ta9$1#cig t space is n only a =m ( intuition b itself a pure intuition1 ,kant does n make cle>4 ,reflection ^u an activity ( ! m9d may yield ! repres5tation ( space z a =m2 x is difficult to compreh5d h[ x %\ld also yield an a priori cont5t4 ,kant n[h]e 9 ! ,critique directly discusses ! "q :e!r ! repres5tation ( space is innate or acquir$4 ,su* sugge/ions z occur ref] 7) ! solit>y exceptions ( ,a #aif ,b #bda & ,b #aff ff47#cih only to ! categories1#cii or z 9 ! ,prolegom5a#djj to ! ,ideas ( reason4 ,b 9 #agij ,kant 9 8 reply to ,eb]h>d#dja aga9 =mulates ! view ( ! ,diss]tation4 ,! ,critique all[s1 he !re says1 ( no innate repres5tations4 ,all1 )\t exception1 are acquir$4 ,b ( c]ta9 repres5tations !re is an orig9al acquisition 7ursprngli*e ,erw]bung74 ,_! gr\nd 7,grund7 is inborn4 ,9 ! case ( space ?is gr\nd is ! m9d's peculi> capacity = acquir+ s5sations 9 accordance ) its subjective con/itution4#djb 8,?is fir/ =mal gr\nd is alone inborn1 n ! space repres5tation itself4 ,= x always requires impressions to det]m9e ! faculty ( k to ! repres5tation ( an object 7:i* 9 e case is its own action74 ,?us arises ! =mal intuition1 :i* we "n space1 z an orig9ally acquir$ repres5tation 7! =m ( out] objects 9 g5]al71 ! gr\nd ( :i* 7z m]e receptivity7 is likewise inborn1 & ! acquisition ( :i* long ant$ates ! det]m9ate conception ( ?+s :i* are 9 accordance ) ?is =m40#djc ,t la/ rem>k is confus+4 ,kant _c mean t ! repres5tation ( space is acquir$ prior to s5se-exp]i5ce1 b only t s9ce ! m9d ga9s x by reflection ^u its own activity1 x is among ! fir/ ?+s to be appreh5d$--an extremely que/ionable ass]tion1 c\ld ! premisses be grant$4 ,if 8! det]m9ate conception ( ?+s0 comes late1 /ill lat] mu/ come ! det]m9ate conception ( any?+ s ab/ract z pure space4 ,! above passage ?us repeats )\t ess5tial modification ! tea*+ ( ! ,diss]tation1 & is op5 to ! same objections4 ,?is tea*+ co9cides ) t ( ,leibniz 9 8 ,n\veaux ,essais2 & 9 =mulat+ x 9 ! ,diss]tation ,kant 0 v probably influ5c$ by ,leibniz4 ,?\gh x is an improvem5t ^u ! m extreme =ms ( ! ,c>tesian doctr9e ( innate ideas1 x does n g suffici5tly f>4 ,n[ :ile ,kant ?us 9 #aggj & 9 #agij s emphatically tea*es t ! repres5tation ( space is n innate1 he none ! less1 9 ! int]m$iate p]iod repres5t$ by ! ,ae/hetic1 w\ld seem to ma9ta9 ! reaction>y view4 ,space is no m]e pot5tial disposition4 ,z a consci\s repres5tation x lies ready 9 ! m9d4 ,:at1 !n1 7 ! causes :i* con/ra9$ ,kant to g back ^u 8 own bett] views & to adopt s retrograde a position8 ,! answ] mu/ be conjectural1 b may p]haps be f\nd 9 ! o!r ma9 po9t 9 :i* ! tea*+ ( ! ,ae/hetic is di/+ui%$ f t ( ! ,diss]tation4 ,?r\gh\t ! ,critique ,kant insi/s t space is a =m ( receptivity4 ,x is giv5 to ! m9d4 ,x has no?+ to d ) spontaneity or und]/&+1 & !re=e _c be acquir$ by reflection ^u any activity ( ! m9d4 ,b nei!r c x1 z a priori1 be acquir$ f )\t4 ,consequ5tly x _c be acquir$ at all4 ,b if giv51 & yet n acquir$1 x mu/ z a repres5tation lie ready 9 ! m9d f ! v bir? ( consci\sness4 ,con/ra9$ by su* reason+1 ,kant views x z giv5 9 all its complet5ess j z truly z is a s5sation ( col\r or s\nd4 ,?is conclusion may n be satisfactory4 ,kant's c&id recognition ( x is1 h[ev]1 greatly pref]able to ! blurr+ ( ! issue by mo/ ( 8 comm5tators4 ,kant came1 no d\bt1 to ! m consi/5t position ( ! ,ae/hetic *iefly ?r\gh fur!r reflection ^u ! argum5ts ( ! ,diss]tation1#djd & especially by recognition ( ! fact t ?\gh reflection ^u an activity ( ! m9d may be reg>d$ z yield+ a =m ( intuition1 x c h>dly be capable ( yield+ a pure manifold :i* c be sub/itut$ =1 & take ! place (1 ! manifold ( s5se4 ,!re are = ,kant only two ways ( escape f ?is unhappy qu&>y3 7a7 ,ei!r he mu/ return to ! ,diss]tation position1 & admit t ! m9d is active 9 ! con/ruction ( space4 ,?is he does 9 ! #agij reply to ,eb]h>d1 b only by misrepres5t+ 8 own tea*+ 9 ! ,critique4 ,9 ord] consi/5tly to ma9ta9 t space is acquir$ by reflection ^u an activity ( ! m9d1 he w\ld h to reca/ ! entire ,ae/hetic1 z well z mu* ( ! ,analytic1 & to d s 9 ways :i* _c g5u9ely h>monise ) ! ma9 t5d5cies ( 8 tea*+4#dje 7b7 ,no su* ob/acle lay 9 ! way ( an alt]native modification ( 8 position4 ,kant might v easily h giv5 up ! cont5tion t space is a pure intuition4 ,if he _h be5 will+ to recognise t ! sole possible manifold ( intuition is s5su\s1 he c\ld !n h ma9ta9$ t ?\gh space is innate z a pot5tial =m ( receptivity1 x is acquir$ only ?r\gh reflection ^u ! space-end[$ products ( s5sibility4 ,s obvi\s are ! advantages ( ?is position1 s completely does x h>monise ) ! facts ( exp]i5ce & ) ! tea*+ ( mod]n psy*ology1 & s obscure are ! v>i\s passages 9 :i* ,kant t\*es on ?is c5tral issue1 t _m ( 8 mo/ compet5t comm5tators are prep>$ to reg>d x z be+ ! actual tea*+ ( ! ,critique4 ,! evid5ce#djf seems to me1 h[ev]1 to refute ?is int]pretation ( ,kant's position4 ,! traditional1 ,c>tesian1 semi-my/ical wor%ip ( ma!matical tru?1 z altoge!r indep5d5t ( ! cont+5cies ( s5se-exp]i5ce1 & z a body ( k absolutely di/9ct 9 orig9 f ! m]ely empirical sci5ces1 influ5ces ,kant's ?9k+ ev5 at ! v mom5t :5 he is ma9ta9+1 9 opposition to ! ,c>tesians1 t its subject matt] is a m]ely subjective intuition4 ,kant1 z x w\ld seem1 /ill ma9ta9s t !re is a pure manifold ( intuition di/9ct f ! manifold ( s5se2 & s by ! inevitable logic ( 8 ?\ght is con/ra9$ to view space z innate 9 consci\s =m4 ,?is is n1 ( c\rse1 a conclusion :i* he c\ld p]man5tly /& by1 b its elim9ation w\ld h involv$ a m radical revision ( 8 :ole view ( pure intuition & ( ma!matical sci5ce ?an he 0 will+ to und]take4 ,?\gh 9 ! ,analytic he has come to recognise#djg t x is acquir$ by reflection ^u objects1 to ! end he w\ld seem to p]si/ 9 ! difficult cont5tion t su* reflection yields a pure manifold di/9ct f ! manifold ( s5se4#djh ,8 belief t ma!matical sci5ce is bas$ ^u pure intuition prev5t$ him f recognis+ t ?\gh space may be a pure =m ( intuition1 x c nev] by itself con/itute a complete intuition4 ,its sole possible cont5t is ! manifold ( s5se4 ,b ev5 ap>t f ! fact t our appreh5sion ( space is always empirically condition$1 ,kant's view ( ma!matical propositions z gr\nd$ 9 intuition is1 z already obs]v$1 n itself t5able4 ,= ?\gh intuitions may p]haps be ! ultimate subject matt] ( geometry1 concepts are its sole possible in/rum5ts4 ,intuitions yield sci5tific insight 9 exact proportion to our p[]s ( re/at+ _! complex cont5t 9 ! t]ms ( ab/ract ?\ght4 ,until ! evid5ce :i* !y supply has be5 ?us intellectually te/$ & def9$1 !y _c be accept$ z ju/ify+ ev5 ! simple/ proposition4#dji ,! complicat$ ambiguities ( ,kant's treatm5t ( space may be illu/rat$ & fur!r cl>ifi$ by discussion ( ano!r difficulty4 ,is space a totum analyticum or a totum syn!ticum8 ,does ! :ole precondition ! p>ts1 or does x arise ?r\gh comb9ation ( ! p>ts8 ,or to ask ano!r b connect$ "q1 d we intuit inf9itude1 or is x conceptually appreh5d$ only z ! presupposition ( our limit$ intuitions8 ,to ^! que/ions diametrically opposite answ]s c be cit$ f ! ,critique4 ,z we h above not$1 ,kant tea*es 9 ! ,ae/hetic t space is giv5 z a :ole1 & t ! p>ts arise only by limitation ( x4 ,b 9 ,a #afb ,b #bjc we f9d him also tea*+ t a magnitude is to be entitl$ ext5sive 8444:5 ! repres5tation ( ! p>ts makes possible1 & !re=e necess>ily prec$es1 ! repres5tation ( ! :ole4 ,i _c repres5t to myself a l9e1 h[ev] small1 )\t draw+ x 9 ?\ght1 i4e4 g5]at+ f a po9t all its p>ts "o aft] ano!r1 & ?us = ! fir/ "t record+ ?is intuition40#daj ,he adds 9 ! second edition#daa t ext5sive magnitude _c be appreh5d$ save ?r\gh a 8syn!sis ( ! manifold10 a 8comb9ation ( ! homog5e\s40 ,! note :i* ,kant app5ds to ,b #acf is a v /range comb9ation ( bo? views4 ,x fir/ ( all reaffirms ! doctr9e ( ! ,ae/hetic t space & "t are n concepts1 b intuitions )9 :i* z 9 a unity a multitude ( repres5tations are conta9$2 & !n proce$s to argue t space & "t1 z ?us composite1 mu/ presuppose an antec$5t syn!sis4 ,9 ,a #eje ,b #ecc we f9d a simil> attempt to comb9e bo? ass]tions4 8,! p>ts ( a giv5 appe>ance are fir/ giv5 ?r\gh & 9 ! regress ( decompos+ syn!sis 7decomponir5d5 ,syn!sis740 ,! cla% ( conflict+ t5ets :i* ,kant is /riv+ to reconcile c\ld h>dly f9d m fitt+ expression ?an 9 ?is ass]tion ( an analytic syn!sis4 ,! same conflict appe>s1 ?\gh 9 a less viol5t =m1 9 ,a #dch ,b #dff4 8,space %\ld prop]ly be call$ n compositum b totum1 s9ce its p>ts are possible only 9 ! :ole1 n ! :ole ?r\gh ! p>ts4 ,x might1 inde$1 be said to be a compositum t is ideale1 b n reale4 ,t1 h[ev]1 is a m]e subtlety40#dab ,! argum5ts by :i* ,kant proves space to be an a priori intuition re/ ^u ! view t space is giv5 z inf9ite1 & t its p>ts arise ?r\gh limitation ( ?is prior-exi/5t :ole4 ,b a pr9ciple absolutely fundam5tal to ! entire ,critique is ! c\nt] pr9ciple1 t all analysis re/s ^u & presupposes a previ\sly ex]cis$ syn!sis4 ,syn!sis or totality z su* c nev] be giv54 ,only 9 s f> z a :ole is syn!tically con/ruct$ c x be appreh5d$ by ! m9d4 ,repres5tation ( ! p>ts prec$es & r5d]s possible repres5tation ( ! :ole4 ,! solution ( ! dilemma aris+ out ( ^! div]se views dem&s ! draw+ ( two di/9ctions4 ,fir/1 betwe5 a syn!sis$ totality & a pr9ciple ( syn!sis2 ! =m] may involve a prior syn!sis2 ! latt] does n dep5d ^u syn!sis1 b expresses ! pr$et]m9$ nature ( "s special =m ( syn!sis4 ,secondly1 x dem&s a di/9ction betwe5 ! a priori manifolds ( space & "t & ! empirical manifold :i* is appreh5d$ 9 & ?r\gh !m4 ,?is1 z we h already not$1 is a di/9ction difficult to take q s]i\sly1 & is entirely unsupport$ by psy*ological evid5ce4 ,b x w\ld seem to be insi/$ ^u by ,kant1 & to h be5 a det]m9+ factor 9 ! =mulation ( sev]al ( 8 ma9 doctr9es4 ,9 t]ms ( ! fir/ di/9ction we are compell$ to recognise t ! view ( space :i* und]lies ! ,ae/hetic is out ( h>mony ) ! tea*+ ( ! ,analytic4 ,9 ! ,ae/hetic ,kant int]prets space n m]ely z a =m ( intuition b also z a =mal intuition1 :i* is giv5 complete 9 its totality1 & :i* is capable ( be+ appreh5d$ indep5d5tly ( its empirical cont5ts1 & ev5 prior to !m4 ,t w\ld seem to be ! view ( space :i* is presuppos$ 9 ,kant's explanation ( pure ma!matical sci5ce4 ,! passages f ! ,analytic1 quot$ above1 are1 h[ev]1 its express recantation4 ,space1 z ! intuition ( a manifold1 is a totum syn!ticum1 n a totum analyticum4 ,x is con/ruct$1 n giv54 ,! div]g5ce ( views betwe5 ! ,ae/hetic & ! ,analytic spr+s out ( ! difficulty ( meet+ at once ! logical dem&s ( a _w :i* ,kant conceives objectively1 & ! psy*ological dem&s :i* arise :5 ?is same _w is conceiv$ z subjectively condition$4 ,9 pr9ciple1 ! :ole prec$es ! p>ts2 9 ! process ( be+ br\ght into exi/5ce z an intuition1 ! p>ts prec$e ! :ole4 ,! pr9ciple :i* det]m9es our appreh5sion ( any space1 h[ev] small or h[ev] l>ge1 is t x exi/s 9 & ?r\gh univ]sal space4 ,?is is ! pr9ciple :i* und]lies bo? ! syn!tic con/ruction ( space & also its appreh5sion once x is con/ruct$4 ,9 pr9ciple1 !re=e1 i4e4 9 ! ord] ( logical ?\ght1 ! :ole prec$es ! p>ts4#dac ,! process1 h[ev]1 :i* ?is pr9ciple gov]ns & directs1 _c />t ) space z a :ole1 b mu/ advance to x ?r\gh syn!sis ( small] p>ts4 ,b ,kant does n himself recognise any conflict betwe5 ?is tea*+ & ! doctr9e ( ! ,ae/hetic4 ,he seems to himself m]ely to be mak+ m def9ite a position :i* he has consi/5tly held all along2 & ?is 0 possible ow+ to 8 ret5tion & m effici5t =mulation ( ! second ( ! two di/9ctions m5tion$ above1 viz4 t betwe5 ! manifold ( s5se & ! manifold ( intuition4 ,?is di/9ction enables him to graft ! new view ^u ! old1 & s 9 ! v act ( insi/+ ^u ! indisp5sabl5ess ( ! conceptual syn!ses ( und]/&+1 none ! less to ma9ta9 8 view ( geometry z an intuitive sci5ce4#dad 8,space & "t conta9 a manifold ( pure a priori intuition1 b at ! same "t are conditions ( ! receptivity ( our m9d--conditions "u :i* alone x c receive repres5tations ( objects1 & :i* !re=e mu/ also affect ! concept ( !m4 ,b if ?is manifold is to be kn[n1 ! spontaneity ( our ?9k+ requires t x be gone ?r\gh 9 a c]ta9 way1 tak5 up1 & connect$4 ,?is action ,i "n syn!sis4444 ,su* a syn!sis is pure1 if ! manifold is n empirical1 b is giv5 a priori1 z is t ( space & ( "t40#dae ,?us ,kant recognises t space1 z appreh5d$ by u1 is con/ruct$1 n giv51 & s by implication t ! inf9itude ( space is a pr9ciple ( appreh5sion1 n a giv5 intuition4 ,b he also holds to ! view t x conta9s a pure1 & presumably inf9ite1 manifold1 giv5 z su*4#daf ,9 :at ?is pure manifold consi/s1 & h[ ! description ( x z a manifold1 dem&+ syn!sis = its appreh5sion1 is to be reconcil$ ) its cont9uity1 ,kant n[h]e ev5 attempts to expla94 ,nor does he %[ :at ! simple elem5ts are f :i* ! syn!sis ( appreh5sion & reproduction 9 pure intuition might />t4 ,! unity & multiplicity ( space are1 inde$1 z he himself recognises1#dag insep>ably involv$ 9 "o ano!r2 & recognition ( ?is fact mu/ r5d] x extremely difficult to assign !m to sep>ate faculties4 ,= ! same reason x is impossible to di/+ui% temporally1 z ,kant s frequ5tly does1 ! processes ( syn!sis & ( analysis1 mak+ ! =m] 9 all cases prec$e ! latt] 9 "t4 ,! v nature ( space & "t1 &1 z he came to recognise1 ! v nature ( all ,ideas ( reason1 9 s f> z !y involve ! notion ( ! uncondition$1 conflict ) su* a view4 ,ev5 :5 ,kant is deal+ ) space z a pr9ciple ( syn!sis1 he speaks ) no v c]ta9 voice4 ,9 ! ,analytic x is ascrib$ to ! co-op]ation ( s5sibility & und]/&+4 ,9 ! ,dialectic x is1 by implication1 ascrib$ to ,reason2 & 9 ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples x is explicitly s ascrib$4 8,absolute space _c be object ( exp]i5ce2 = space )\t matt] is no object ( p]ception1 & yet x is a necess>y conception ( ,reason1 & !re=e no?+ b a m]e ,idea40#dah 8,absolute space is n necess>y z a conception ( an actual object1 b z an ,idea :i* c s]ve z rule44440#dai ,kant's tea*+ 9 ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t is a fur!r developm5t ( ?is position4 8,! m9d li/5s to ! voice ( ,reason :i*1 = e giv5 magnitude--ev5 = ^? t c nev] be entirely appreh5d$1 al?\gh 79 s5sible repres5tation7 !y are judg$ z entirely giv5--requires totality4444 ,x does n ev5 except ! inf9ite 7space & pa/ "t7 f ?is requirem5t2 on ! contr>y1 x r5d]s x unavoidable to ?9k ! inf9ite 79 ! judgm5t ( common reason7 z entirely giv5 79 its totality74 ,b ! inf9ite is absolutely 7n m]ely comp>atively7 great4 ,comp>$ ) x ev]y?+ else 7( ! same k9d ( magnitudes7 is small4 ,b :at is mo/ important is t ! m]e ability to ?9k x z a :ole indicates a faculty ( m9d :i* surpasses e /&>d ( s5se4444 ,! b>e capability ( ?9k+ ! giv5 inf9ite )\t contradiction requires 9 ! human m9d a faculty itself sup]s5sible4 ,= x is only by means ( ?is faculty & its ,idea ( a n\m5on 444 t ! inf9ite ( ! _w ( s5se1 9 ! pure intellectual e/imation ( magnitude1 c be completely compreh5d$ "u "o concept4444 ,nature is1 !re=e1 sublime 9 ^? ( its ph5om5a1 ^: intuition br+s ) x ! ,idea ( its inf9ity4444 ,= j z imag9ation & und]/&+1 9 judg+ ( ! beautiful1 g5]ate a subjective purposiv5ess ( ! m5tal p[]s by means ( _! h>mony1 s imag9ation & ,reason d s by means ( _! conflict40#dbj ,kant has "h dep>t$ v f> inde$ f ! position ( ! ,ae/hetic4#dba ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,ae/hetic ,,section ,i ,,space ,,metaphysical ,,exposition ,,( ,,! ,,conception ,,( ,,space#dbb ,space3 ,fir/ ,argum5t4--8,space is n an empirical concept 7,begriff7 :i* has be5 ab/ract$ f out] exp]i5ces4 ,= 9 ord] t c]ta9 s5sations be relat$ to some?+ outside me 7i4e4 to some?+ 9 ano!r region ( space f t 9 :i* ,i f9d myself71 & simil>ly 9 ord] t ,i may be able to repres5t !m z outside & alongside#dbc "o ano!r1 & accord+ly z n only qualitatively diff]5t b z 9 diff]5t places1 ! repres5tation ( space mu/ be presuppos$ 7muss s*on zum ,grunde lieg574 ,! repres5tation ( space _c1 !re=e1 be empirically obta9$ at second-h& f ! relations ( out] appe>ance4 ,?is out] exp]i5ce is itself possible at all only ?r\gh t repres5tation40#dbd ,! fir/ s5t5ce /ates ! !sis ( ! argum5t3 space is n an empirical concept ab/ract$ f out] exp]i5ces4 ,! use ( ! t]m ,begriff 9 ! title ( ! section1 & also 9 ?is s5t5ce1 is an in/ance ( ! loos5ess ) :i* ,kant employs 8 t]ms4 ,x is "h synonym\s ) ! t]m repres5tation 7,vor/ellung71 :i* cov]s intuitions z well z g5]al or discursive concepts4 ,consequ5tly1 ! contradiction is only v]bal1 n real1 :5 ,kant proce$s to prove t ! concept ( space is an intuition1 n a concept4 ,b ?is d\ble employm5t ( ! t]m is none ! less mislead+4 ,:5 ,kant employs x 9 a /rict s5se1 x signifies solely ! g5]al class concept4#dbe ,all true concepts are = ,kant ( t s+le type4 ,he has n re-def9$ ! t]m concept 9 any mann] :i* w\ld r5d] x applicable to ! relational categories4 ,= un=tunately1 & v /rangely1 he nev] seems to h rais$ ! "q :e!r categories are n also concepts4 ,! application to ! =ms ( und]/&+ ( ! sep>ate title categories seems to h cont5t$ him4 ,mu* t is obscure & ev5 contradictory 9 8 tea*+ might h be5 prev5t$ _h he recognis$ t ! t]m concept is a g5]ic title :i* includes1 z its sub-species1 bo? g5]al notions & relational categories4 ,kant's limitation ( ! t]m concept to ! m]ely g5]ic1#dbf & 8 consequ5t equat+ ( ! categorical proposition ) ! ass]tion ( ! sub/ance-attribute relation1#dbg w\ld seem 9 l>ge "p to be traceable to 8 desire to pres]ve = himself1 9 ! pione] lab\rs ( 8 ,critical enquiries1 ! guid+ clues ( ! di/9ctions drawn 9 ! traditional logic4 ,kant insi/s on hold+ to !m1 at lea/ 9 outw>d appe>ance1 at :atev] sacrifice ( /rict consi/5cy4 ,critical doctr9e is made to con=m to ! exig5cies ( an artificial framework1 ) :i* its own t5ets are only 9 v imp]fect h>mony4 ,appreciation ( ! ramify+ influ5ce1 &1 z reg>ds ! detail ( exposition1 ( ! f>-rea*+ consequ5ces1 ( ?is desire to con=m to ! "t-hon\r$ rubrics1 is inde$ an indisp5sable prelim9>y to any adequate e/imate :e!r ( ! /r5g? or ( ! defects ( ! ,critical doctr9es4 ,z a sep>ate & ev]-pres5t influ5ce 9 ! det]m9+ ( ,kant's tea*+1 ?is factor may conv5i5tly & comp5di\sly be entitl$ ,kant's logical ar*itectonic4#dbh ,we %all h frequ5t occasion to obs]ve its effects4#dbi ,! second s5t5ce gives expression to ! fact ?r\gh :i* ,kant proves 8 !sis4 ,c]ta9 s5sations1 ^? ( ! special s5ses z di/+ui%$ f ! organic s5sations1#dcj are relat$ to some?+ :i* /&s 9 a diff]5t region ( space f ! embodi$ self1 & consequ5tly are appreh5d$ z diff]+ f "o ano!r n only 9 quality b also 9 spatial position4 ,z is prov$ lat] 9 ! ,analytic1 ?\ght plays an indisp5sable "p 9 con/itut+ ?is ref]5ce ( s5sations to objects4 ,kant "h1 h[ev]1 makes no m5tion ( ?is fur!r complication4 ,he po/ulates1 z he may legitimately d at ?is /age1 ! fact t our s5sations are ?us objectively int]pret$1 & limits 8 enquiry to ! spatial factor4 ,n[ ! argum5t1 z ,vaih+] ju/ly po9ts out1#dca h+es ^u ! assumption :i* ,kant has already embodi$#dcb 9 8 def9ition ( ! 8=m0 ( s5se1 viz4 t s5sations are non-spatial1 purely qualitative4 ,?\gh ?is is an assumption ( :i* ,kant n[h]e attempts to give pro(1 x s]ves none ! less z an unque/ion$ premiss f :i* he draws all-important conclusions4 ,?is fir/ argum5t on space d]ives its =ce entirely f x4 ,! pro( t ! repres5tation ( space is non-empirical may !re=e be explicitly /at$ z foll[s4 ,z s5sations are non-spatial & diff] only qualitatively1 ! repres5tation ( space mu/ h be5 add$ to !m4 ,& n be+ suppli$ by ! giv5 s5sations1 x mu/1 z ! only alt]native1 h be5 contribut$ by ! m9d4 ,! repres5tation ( space1 s f> f be+ d]iv$ f ext]nal exp]i5ce1 is :at fir/ r5d]s x possible4 ,z a subjective =m t lies ready 9 ! m9d1 x prec$es exp]i5ce & co-op]ates 9 g5]at+ x4 ,?is pro( ( ! apriority ( space is ?us pro( ( ! priority ( ! repres5tation ( space to e empirical p]ception4 ,9 ?us int]pret+ ,kant's argum5t z prov+ m ?an ! !sis ( ! fir/ s5t5ce claims1 we are c]ta9ly read+ into ! pro( m ?an ,kant has himself giv5 full expression to4 ,b1 z is cle>ly %[n by ! argum5t ( ! next section1 we are only /at+ :at ,kant actually takes ! argum5t z hav+ prov$1 namely1 t ! repres5tation ( space is n only non-empirical b is likewise ( subjective orig9 & prec$es exp]i5ce 9 temporal fa%ion4 ,! po9t ( view :i* und]lies & inspires ! argum5t c be def9$ ev5 m precisely4 ,kant's conclusion may be int]pret$ 9 ei!r ( two ways4 ,! =m ( space may prec$e exp]i5ce only z a pot5tiality4 ,exi/+ z a p[] ( co-ord9ation1#dcc x w come to consci\sness only indirectly ?r\gh ! addition :i* x makes to ! giv5 s5sations4 ,?\gh subjective 9 orig91 x w be reveal$ to ! m9d only 9 & ?r\gh exp]i5ce4 ,?is view may inde$ be reconcil$ ) ! t]ms ( ! pro(4 ,b a /rictly lit]al int]pretation ( its actual word+ is m 9 keep+ ) :at1 z we %all f9d1 is ! g5]al tr5d ( ! ,ae/hetic z a :ole4 ,we are !n confront$ by a v diff]5t & extremely p>adoxical view1 :i* may well seem too naive to be accept$ by ! mod]n read]1 b :i* we seem =c$1#dcd none ! less1 to reg>d z ! view actually pres5t$ 9 ! text be=e u4 ,kant "h ass]ts1 9 ! mo/ explicit mann]1 t ! m9d1 9 ord] to con/rue s5sations 9 spatial t]ms1 mu/ already be 9 possession ( a repres5tation ( space1 & t x is 9 ! light ( ?is repres5tation t x appreh5ds s5sations4 ,! consci\s repres5tation ( space prec$es 9 "t ext]nal exp]i5ce4 ,su*1 !n1 w\ld seem to be ,kant's fir/ argum5t on space4 ,x seeks to e/abli% a negative conclusion1 viz4 t space is n d]iv$ f exp]i5ce4 ,b1 9 s do+1 x also yields a positive psy*ological explanation ( its orig94 ,^? comm5tators#dce :o refuse to recognise t ,kant's problem is 9 any degree psy*ological1 or t ,kant himself s reg>ds x1 & :o consequ5tly seek to int]pret ! ,ae/hetic f ! po9t ( view ( c]ta9 portions ( ! ,analytic1 give a v diff]5t /atem5t ( ?is fir/ argum5t4 ,!y /ate x 9 purely logical t]ms4#dcf ,its problem1 !y claim1 is n t ( det]m9+ ! orig9 ( our repres5tation ( space1 b only its logical relation to our specific s5se-exp]i5ces4 ,! notion ( space 9 g5]al prec$es1 z an indisp5sable logical presupposition1 all p>ticul> specification ( ! space relation4 ,consci\sness ( space z a :ole is n con/ruct$ f consci\sness ( p>tial spaces2 on ! contr>y1 ! latt] is only possible 9 & ?r\gh ! =m]4 ,su* an argum5t does ( c\rse repres5t a valuable tru?2 & x alone h>monises ) mu* 9 ,kant's matur] tea*+2#dcg b we mu/ n !re=e conclude t x is also ! tea*+ ( ! ,ae/hetic4 ,! ,critique conta9s too great a v>iety ( t5d5cies1 too ri* a complexity ( issues1 to all[ ( su* simplification4 ,x loses m ?an x ga9s by su* rigor\s prun+ ( ! luxuriant second>y t5d5cies ( its exposition & ?\ght4 ,& above all1 ?is proc$ure involves ! adoption by ! comm5tator ( impossible responsibilities1 ^? ( decid+ :at is ess5tial & valuable 9 ,kant's ?\ght & :at is irrelevant4 ,! value & sugge/iv5ess ( ,kant's philosophy l>gely consi/ 9 8 s9c]e appreciation ( conflict+ t5d5cies1 & 9 8 p]si/5t attempt to r$uce !m to unity ) ! lea/ possible sacrifice4 ,b 9 any case ! logical int]pretation misrepres5ts ?is p>ticul> argum5t4 ,kant is n "h di/+ui%+ betwe5 space 9 g5]al & its specific modifications4 ,he is ma9ta9+ t no space relation c be reveal$ 9 s5sation4 ,x is n only t ! appreh5sion ( any limit$ space presupposes ! repres5tation ( space z a :ole4 ,bo? p>tial & inf9ite space are ( m5tal orig92 s5sation1 z su*1 is non-spatial1 purely subjective4 ,& la/ly1 ! fact t ,kant means to ass]t t space is n only logically presuppos$ b is subjectively g5]at$1 is suffici5tly borne out by 8 frequ5t employm5t else:]e 9 ! ,ae/hetic ( su* phrases z 8! subjective condition ( s5sibility10 8ly+ ready 9 our m9ds10 & 8necess>ily prec$+ z ! =m ( ! subject's receptivity all intuitions ( objects40 ,second ,argum5t4--,hav+ prov$ by ! fir/ argum5t t ! repres5tation ( space is n ( empirical orig91 ,kant 9 ! second argum5t proce$s to e/abli% ! positive conclusion t x is a priori4#dch ,! pro(1 :5 all its assumptions are r5d]$ explicit1 runs z foll[s4 ,!sis3 ,space is a necess>y repres5tation1 & consequ5tly is a priori4 ,pro(3 ,x is impossible to imag9e ! abs5ce ( space1 ?\gh x is possible to imag9e x z exi/+ )\t objects to fill x4 ,a repres5tation :i* x is impossible = ! m9d to be )\t is a necess>y repres5tation4 ,b necessity is "o ( ! two crit]ia ( ! a priori4 ,! pro( ( ! necess>y "* ( space is !re=e also a pro( ( its be+ a priori4 ,! argum5t1 m freely /at$1 is t :at is empirically giv5 f )\t c be ?\ght away1 & t s9ce space _c be ?us elim9at$1 x mu/ be gr\nd$ 9 our subjective organisation1 i4e4 mu/ be psy*ologically a priori4 ,! argum5t1 z /at$ by ,kant1 emphasises ! apriority1 n ! subjectivity1 ( space1 b none ! less ! ass]t$ apriority is psy*ological1 n logical 9 "*4 ,= ! crit]ion employ$ is n ! impossibility ( ?9k+ o!rwise1 b our incapacity to repres5t ?is specific elem5t z abs5t4 ,! gr\nd ^u :i* ! :ole argum5t is made to re/ is ! m]ely brute fact 7ass]t$ by ,kant7 ( our incapacity to ?9k except 9 t]ms ( space4 ,! argum5t is1 h[ev]1 complicat$ by ! draw+ ( a fur!r consequ5ce1 :i* foll[s z a coroll>y f ! ma9 conclusion4 ,f ! subjective necessity ( space foll[s its objective necessity4 ,space be+ necess>y a priori1 objects c only be appreh5d$ 9 & ?r\gh x4 ,consequ5tly x is n dep5d5t ^u ! objects appreh5d$1 b itself und]lies out] appe>ances z ! condition ( _! possibility4 ,?is coroll>y is closely ak9 to ! fir/ argum5t on space1 & diff]s f x only 9 ori5tation4 ,! fir/ argum5t has a psy*ological purpose4 ,x ma9ta9s t ! repres5tation ( space prec$es ext]nal exp]i5ce1 causally condition+ x4 ,! coroll>y has a m objective aim4 ,x concludes t space is a necess>y con/itu5t ( ! ext]nal exp]i5ce ?us g5]at$4 ,! "o proves t space is a necess>y subjective antec$5t2 ! o!r t x is a necess>y objective +r$i5t4#dci ,to consid] ! pro( 9 detail4 ,! exact words :i* ,kant employs 9 /at+ ! n]vus prob&i ( ! argum5t are t we c nev] repres5t 7e9e ,vor/ellung davon ma*57 space z non-exi/5t1 ?\gh we c v well ?9k 7d5k57 x z be+ empty ( objects4 ,! t]ms ,vor/ellung & d5k5 are vague & mislead+4 ,kant himself recognises t x is possible to conceive t !re are be+s :o intuit objects 9 "s o!r mann] ?an 9 space4 ,he _c !re=e mean t we are unable to ?9k or conceive space z non-exi/5t4 ,he mu/ mean t we _c 9 imag9ation intuit x z abs5t4 ,x is ! necess>y =m ( all our intuitions1 & !re=e also ( imag9ation1 :i* is intuitive 9 "*4 ,our consci\sness is dep5d5t ^u giv5 intuitions = its :ole cont5t1 & to t ext5t space is a =m ) :i* ! m9d c nev] by any possibility disp5se4 ,pure ?\ght enables x to realise ?is de facto limitation1 b n to break free f x4 ,ev5 9 admitt+ ! possibility ( o!r be+s :o are n ?us con/itut$1 ! m9d /ill recognises its own ineluctable limitations4 ,kant (f]s no pro( ( 8 ass]tion t space c be intuit$ 9 image z empty ( all s5sible cont5t2 & z a matt] ( fact ! ass]tion is false4 ,d\btless ! use ( ! vague t]m ,vor/ellung is 9 great "p responsible = ,kant's mi/ak5 position4 ,s long z imag9ation & ?\ght are n cle>ly di/+ui%$1 ! ass]tion is correspond+ly indef9ite4 ,pure space may possibly be conceiv$1 b x c also be conceiv$ z altoge!r non-exi/5t4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 our imag9ative p[] is alone 9 "q1 ! ass]t$ fact mu/ be categorically d5i$4 ,) ! elim9ation ( all s5sible cont5t space itself ceases to be a possible image4 ,kant's pro( ?us re/s ^u a mis/atem5t ( fact4 ,9 a second respect ,kant's pro( is op5 to criticism4 ,he takes ! impossibility ( imag9+ space z abs5t z pro( t x orig9ates f )94 ,! argum5t is valid only if no o!r psy*ological explanation c be giv5 ( ?is necessity1 z = in/ance ?r\gh indissoluble association or ?r\gh its be+ an inv>iable elem5t 9 ! giv5 s5sations4 ,kant's ignor+ ( ^! possibilities is due to 8 unque/ion+ belief t s5sations are non-spatial1 purely qualitative4 ,t is a presupposition ^: tru? is necess>y to ! cog5cy ( ! argum5t4 ,?ird ,argum5t4--,?is argum5t1 :i* 0 omitt$ 9 ! second edition1 w be consid]$ 9 its connection ) ! transc5d5tal exposition into :i* x 0 !n m]g$4 ,f\r? 79 second edition1 ,?ird7 ,argum5t4--,! next two argum5ts seek to %[ t space is n a discursive or g5]al concept b an intuition4 ,! fir/ pro( falls into two p>ts1 7a7 ,we c repres5t only a s+le space4 ,= ?\gh we speak ( _m spaces1 we mean only p>ts ( "o & ! same s+le space4 ,space mu/ !re=e be an intuition4 ,= only intuition is ?us directly relat$ to a s+le individual4 ,a concept always ref]s indirectly1 p] notas communes1 to a plurality ( individuals4 7b7 ,! p>ts ( space _c prec$e ! "o all-compreh5sive space4 ,!y c be ?\ght only 9 & ?r\gh x4 ,!y arise ?r\gh limitation ( x4 ,n[ ! p>ts 7i4e4 ! attributes7 :i* compose a concept prec$e x 9 ?\ght4 ,?r\gh comb9ation ( !m ! concept is =m$4 ,space _c1 !re=e1 be a concept4 ,consequ5tly x mu/1 z ! only rema9+ alt]native1 be an intuition4 ,only 9 an intuition does ! :ole prec$e ! p>ts4 ,9 a concept ! p>ts always prec$e ! :ole4 ,intuition /&s = multiplicity 9 unity1 conception = unity 9 multiplicity4 ,! fir/ "p ( ! argum5t ref]s to ! ext5sion1 ! second "p to ! int5sion ( ! space repres5tation4 ,9 bo? aspects x appe>s z intuitional4#ddj ,kant1 9 repeat+ 8 !sis z a conclusion f ! above gr\nds1 confuses ! read] by an addition :i* is n /rictly relevant to ! argum5t1 viz4 by ! /atem5t t ?is intuition mu/ be non-empirical & a priori4 ,?is is simply a recapitulation ( :at has be5 e/abli%$ 9 ! prec$+ pro(s4 ,x is n1 z might at fir/ sight appe>1 "p ( ! conclusion e/abli%$ by ! argum5t "u consid]ation4 ,! read] is ! m apt to be misl$ ow+ to ! fact t v obvi\sly argum5ts = ! non-empirical & = ! a priori "* ( space c be d]iv$ f pro( 7b74 ,t space is non-empirical w\ld foll[ f ! fact t repres5tation ( space z a :ole is necess>y = ! appreh5sion ( any "p ( x4 ,empirical intuition c only yield ! appreh5sion ( a limit$ space4 ,! appreh5sion ( ! compreh5sive space )9 :i* x falls mu/ !re=e be non-empirical4 8,z we intuitively appreh5d 7ans*au5d erk5n57 n only ! space ( ! object :i* affects our s5ses1 b ! :ole space1 space _c arise out ( ! actual affection ( ! s5ses1 b mu/ prec$e x 9 "t 7vor ihr vorh]geh5740#dda ,b 9 spite ( its =cibl5ess ?is argum5t is n[h]e pres5t$ 9 ! ,critique4 ,simil>ly1 9 s f> z p>ticul> spaces c be conceiv$ only 9 & ?r\gh space z a :ole1 & 9 s f> z ! =m] are limitations ( ! "o antec$5t space1 ! intuition :i* und]lies all ext]nal p]ception mu/ be a priori4 ,?is is 9 ess5tials a /rong] & m cog5t mode ( =mulat+ ! second argum5t on space4 ,b aga91 & v /rangely1 x is n[h]e employ$ by ,kant 9 ?is =m4 ,! conclud+ s5t5ce1 ambigu\sly introduc$ by ! words s w]d5 au*1 is tack$ on to ! prec$+ argum5t4 ,int]pret$ 9 ! light ( #ae ,c ( ! ,diss]tation1#ddb & ( ! correspond+ f\r?#ddc argum5t#ddd on "t1 x may be tak5 z (f]+ fur!r pro( t space is an intuition4 ,! concepts ( l9e & triangle1 h[ev] att5tively contemplat$1 w nev] reveal ! proposition t 9 e triangle two sides tak5 toge!r are great] ?an ! ?ird4 ,an a priori intuition w alone acc\nt = su* apodictic k4 ,?is conclud+ s5t5ce ?us really belongs to ! transc5d5tal exposition2 & z su* ought1 l ! ?ird argum5t1 to h be5 omitt$ 9 ! second edition4 ,kant's pro( re/s on ! assumption t !re are only two k9ds ( repres5tation1 intuitions & concepts1 & also 9 equal degree ^u ! fur!r assumption t all concepts are ( "o & ! same type4#dde ,intuition is1 = ,kant1 ! appreh5sion ( an individual4 ,conception is always ! repres5tation ( a class or g5us4 ,intuition is imm$iately relat$ to ! individual4 ,conception is reflective or discursive2 x appreh5ds a plurality ( objects indirectly ?r\gh ! repres5tation ( ^? m>ks :i* are common to !m all4#ddf ,intuition & conception hav+ be5 def9$ 9 ?is mann]1 ! pro( t space is s+le or individual1 & t 9 x ! :ole prec$es ! p>ts1 is pro( conclusive t x is an intuition1 n a conception4 ,ow+1 h[ev]1 to ! n>r[ness ( ! field assign$ to conception1 ! realm occupi$ by intuition is proportionately wide1 & ! conclusion is n z def9ite & z important z might at fir/ sight appe>4 ,by itself1 x am\nts m]ely to ! /atem5t1 :i* no "o ne$ *all5ge1 t space is n a g5]ic class concept4 ,incid5tally c]ta9 unique *>act]i/ics ( space are1 inde$1 =cibly illu/rat$2 b ! impli$ conclusion t space on acc\nt ( ^! *>act]i/ics mu/ belong to receptivity1 n to und]/&+1 does n by any means foll[4 ,x has n1 = in/ance1 be5 prov$ t space & "t are radically di/9ct f ! categories1 i4e4 f ! relational =ms ( und]/&+4 ,9 #aggj1 :ile ,kant /ill held to ! metaphysical validity ( ! pure =ms ( ?\ght1 ! _m difficulties :i* result f ! ascription ( indep5d5t reality to space & "t 71 d\btless1 a suffici5t reason = reg>d+ ! latt] z subjective & s5su\s4 ,b ^u adoption ( ! ,critical /&po9t su* argum5t is no long] valid4 ,if all our =ms ( ?\ght may be subjective1 ! exi/5ce ( ant9omies has no real be>+ ^u ! "q :e!r space & "t d or d n h a diff]5t con/itution & a diff]5t m5tal orig9 f ! categories4 ,! ant9omies1 t is to say1 may p]haps suffice to prove t space & "t are subjective2 !y c]ta9ly d n e/abli% _! s5su\s "*4 ,b ?\gh p]si/5ce ( ! old]1 un-,critical opposition betwe5 ! intellectual & ! s5su\s 0 p>tly responsible = ,kant's read9ess to reg>d z radical ! v obvi\s diff]5ces betwe5 a category su* z t ( sub/ance & attribute & ! visual or tactual ext5d$ness ) :i* objects are end[$1 x c h>dly be view$ z ! really decisive influ5ce4 ,t w\ld r seem to be traceable to ,kant's conviction t ma!matical k is unique bo? 9 fruitfulness & 9 c]ta9ty1 & to 8 fur!r belief t x owes ?is di/9ction to ! cont5t "* ( ! a priori =ms ^u :i* x re/s4 ,= ?\gh ! categories ( ! physical sci5ces are likewise a priori1 !y are exclusively relational1#ddg & s]ve only to organise a mat]ial t is empirically giv54 ,to acc\nt = ! sup]iority ( ma!matical k ,kant accord+ly felt con/ra9$ to reg>d space & "t z n m]ely =ms 9 t]ms ( :i* we int]pret ! matt] ( s5se1 b z also !mselves intuit$ objects1 & z !re=e possess+ a "* altoge!r diff]5t f any?+ :i* c be ascrib$ to ! pure und]/&+4 ,! opposition betwe5 =ms ( s5se & categories ( ! und]/&+1 9 ! /rict ,kantian mode ( envisag+ t opposition1 is ?us insep>ably b\nd up ) ,kant's doctr9e ( space & "t z be+ n only =ms ( intuition1 b z also 9 _! purity & indep5d5ce !mselves intuitions4 ,ev5 ! s5su\s subject matt] ( pure ma!matics--s ,kant w\ld seem to cont5d--is a priori 9 nature4 ,if ?is latt] view be que/ion$--& to ! mod]n read] x is inde$ a /one ( /umbl+--mu* ( ! tea*+ ( ! ,ae/hetic w h to be modifi$ or at lea/ re/at$4 ,fif? 79 second edition1 ,f\r?7 ,argum5t4--,?is argum5t is q diff]5tly /at$ 9 ! two editions ( ! ,critique1 ?\gh ! purpose ( ! argum5t is aga9 9 bo? cases to prove t space is an intuition1 n a g5]al concept4 ,9 ! fir/ edition ?is is prov$ by ref]5ce to ! fact t space is giv5 z an inf9ite magnitude4 ,?is *>act]i/ic ( our space repres5tation _c be acc\nt$ = s long z x is reg>d$ z a concept4 ,a g5]al conception ( space :i* w\ld ab/ract out ^? prop]ties & relations :i* are common to all spaces1 to a foot z well z to an ell1 c\ld n possibly det]m9e any?+ 9 reg>d to magnitude4 ,= s9ce spaces diff] 9 magnitude1 any "o magnitude _c be a common quality4 ,space is1 h[ev]1 giv5 u z det]m9$ 9 magnitude1 namely1 z be+ ( inf9ite magnitude2 & if a g5]al conception ( space relations _c det]m9e magnitude1 /ill less c x det]m9e inf9ite magnitude4 ,su* inf9ity mu/ be d]iv$ f limitlessness 9 ! progression ( intuition4 ,our conceptual repres5tations ( inf9ite magnitude mu/ be d]ivative products1 acquir$ f ?is intuitive s\rce4 ,9 ! argum5t ( ! second edition ! !sis is aga9 e/abli%$ by ref]5ce to ! inf9ity ( space4 ,b 9 all o!r respects ! argum5t diff]s f t ( ! fir/ edition4 ,a g5]al conception1 :i* ab/racts out common qualities f a plurality ( p>ticul>s1 conta9s an inf9ite numb] ( possible diff]5t repres5tations "u x2 b x _c be ?\ght z conta9+ an inf9ite numb] ( repres5tations 9 x4 ,space mu/1 h[ev]1 be ?\ght 9 ?is latt] mann]1 = x conta9s an inf9ite numb] ( coexi/+ p>ts4#ddh ,s9ce1 !n1 space _c be a concept1 x mu/ be an intuition4 ,! def9it5ess ( ?is conclusion is some:at obscur$ by ! fur!r *>act]isation ( ! intuition ( space z a priori1 & by ! /atem5t t x is ! orig9al 7ursprngli*e7 repres5tation :i* is ( ?is intuitive nature4 ,! fir/ addition mu/ "h1 aga91 j z 9 ! f\r? argum5t1 be reg>d$ z m]ely a recapitulation ( :at has already be5 e/abli%$1 n a conclusion f ! pres5t argum5t4 ,! introduction ( ! ^w #8orig9al' seems to be "p ( ,kant's reply to ! objections :i* _h already be5 made to 8 admission 9 ! fir/ edition t !re is a conception z well z an intuition ( space4 ,x is ! orig9al giv5 intuition ( space :i* r5d]s su* reflective conception possible4 ,! *ief difficulty ( ^! pro(s arises out ( ! ass]tion :i* !y seem to involve t space is giv5 z actually inf9ite4 ,!re are app>5tly1 on ?is po9t1 two views 9 ,kant1 :i* 7 reta9$ up to ! v la/1 & :i* are closely connect$ ) 8 two repres5tations ( space1 on ! "o h& z a =mal intuition giv5 9 its purity & 9 its complet5ess1 & on ! o!r h& z ! =m ( intuition1 :i* exi/s only s f> z x is con/ruct$1 & :i* is dep5d5t = its cont5t ^u giv5 matt]4 ,?ird ,argum5t1 & ,transc5d5tal ,exposition ( ,space4--,! di/9ction betwe5 ! metaphysical & ! transc5d5tal expositions1 introduc$ 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique1#ddi is "o :i* ,kant seems to h fir/ made cle> to himself 9 ! process ( writ+ ! ,prolegom5a4#dej ,x is a g5u9e improvem5t1 m>k+ an important di/9ction4 ,x sep>ates out two comp>atively indep5d5t l9es ( argum5t4 ,! t]ms 9 :i* ! di/9ction is /at$ are n1 h[ev]1 felicit\s4 ,kant's reason = adopt+ ! title metaphysical is indicat$ 9 ! ,prolegom5a3#dea 8,z conc]ns ! s\rces ( metaphysical cognition1 its v concept implies t !y _c be empirical4444 ,= x mu/ n be physical b metaphysical k1 i4e4 k ly+ beyond exp]i5ce4444 ,x is !re=e a priori k1 com+ f pure und]/&+ & pure ,reason40 ,! metaphysical exposition1 x w\ld !re=e seem1 is s entitl$ because x pr(esses to prove t space is a priori1 n empirical1 & to d s by analysis ( its concept4#deb ,n[ by ,kant's own def9ition ( ! t]m transc5d5tal1 z ! !ory ( ! a priori1 ?is exposition might equally well h be5 nam$ ! transc5d5tal exposition4 ,9 any case x is an ess5tial & *ief "p ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,ae/hetic4 ,su* division ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,ae/hetic into a metaphysical & a transc5d5tal "p involves a tw(old use1 wid] & n>r[]1 ( "o & ! same t]m4 ,only z descriptive ( ! :ole ,ae/hetic is transc5d5tal employ$ 9 ! s5se def9$4 ,exposition 7,errt]ung1 ,lat4 expositio7 is ,kant's sub/itute = ! m ord9>y t]m def9ition4 ,def9ition is ! t]m :i* we %\ld naturally h expect$2 b z ,kant holds t no giv5 concept1 :e!r a priori or empirical1 c be def9$ 9 ! /rict s5se1#dec ! sub/itutes ! t]m exposition1 us+ x to signify su* def9ition ( ! nature ( space z is possible to u4 ,to complete ! p>allelism ,kant speaks ( ! transc5d5tal enquiry z also an exposition4 ,x is1 h[ev]1 9 no s5se a def9ition4 ,kant's t]ms "h1 z s (t5 else:]e1 are employ$ 9 a m or less arbitr>y & extremely inexact mann]4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 ! two expositions is tak5 by ,kant z foll[s4 ,! metaphysical exposition det]m9es ! nature ( ! concept ( space1 & %[s x to be a giv5 a priori intuition4 ,! transc5d5tal exposition %[s h[ space1 :5 view$ 9 ?is mann]1 r5d]s compreh5sible ! possibility ( syn!tic a priori k4 ,! omission ( ! ?ird argum5t on space f ! second edition1 & its incorporation into ! new transc5d5tal exposition1 is c]ta9ly an improvem5t4 ,9 its location 9 ! fir/ edition1 x breaks 9 ^u ! cont9uity ( ,kant's argum5t )\t 9 any way contribut+ to ! fur!r def9ition ( ! concept ( space4 ,also1 9 emphasis+ t ma!matical k dep5ds ^u ! con/ruction ( concepts1#ded ,kant presupposes t space is intuitional2 & t has n yet be5 e/abli%$4 ,! argum5t foll[s ! /rict1 rigor\s1 syn!tic me?od4 ,f ! already demon/rat$ a priori "* ( space1 ,kant d$uces ! apodictic c]ta9ty ( all geometrical pr9ciples4 ,b ?\gh ! p>agraph ?us exp\nds a consequ5ce t foll[s f ! a priori "* ( space1 n an argum5t 9 support ( x1 some?+ 9 ! nature ( an argum5t is none ! less impli$4 ,! fact t ?is view ( ! repres5tation ( space alone r5d]s ma!matical sci5ce possible c be tak5 z confirm+ ?is int]pretation ( its nature4 ,su* an argum5t1 ?\gh circul>1 is none ! less cog5t4 ,consid]ation ( ,kant's fur!r /atem5ts1 t 7 space kn[n 9 a m]ely empirical mann] we c\ld n be sure t 9 all cases only "o /raight l9e is possible betwe5 two po9ts1 or t space w always be f\nd to h ?ree dim5sions1 mu/ meantime be def]r$4#dee ,9 ! new transc5d5tal exposition ,kant adopts ! analytic me?od ( ! ,prolegom5a1 & accord+ly pres5ts 8 argum5t 9 indep5d5ce ( ! results already e/abli%$4 ,he />ts f ! assumption ( ! admitt$ validity ( geometry1 z be+ a body ( syn!tic a priori k4 ,yet ?is1 z we h already not$1 does n invalidate ! argum5t2 9 bo? ! fir/ & ! la/ p>agraphs x is impli$ t ! a priori & intuitive *>act]i/ics ( space h already be5 prov$4 ,f ! syn!tic "* ( geometrical propositions ,kant argues#def t space mu/ be an intuition4 ,?r\gh pure concepts no syn!tic k is possible4 ,!n f ! apodictic "* ( geometry he inf]s t space exi/s 9 u z pure & a priori2#deg no exp]i5ce c ev] reveal necessity4 ,b geometry also exi/s z an appli$ sci5ce2 & to acc\nt = our p[] ( anticipat+ exp]i5ce1 we mu/ view space z exi/+ only 9 ! p]ceiv+ subject z ! =m ( its s5sibility4 ,if x prec$es objects z ! necess>y subjective condition ( _! appreh5sion1 we c to t ext5t pr$et]m9e ! conditions ( _! exi/5ce4 ,9 ! conclud+ p>agraph ,kant says t ?is is ! only explanation :i* c be giv5 ( ! possibility ( geometry4 ,he does n di/+ui% betwe5 pure & appli$ geometry1 ?\gh ! pro( :i* he has giv5 ( ea* diff]s 9 a fundam5tal respect4 ,pure geometry presupposes only t space is an a priori intuition2 appli$ geometry dem&s t space be conceiv$ z ! a priori =m ( ext]nal s5se4 ,only 9 ref]5ce to appli$ geometry does ! ,critical problem arise3--viz4 h[ we c =m syn!tic judgm5ts a priori :i* yet are valid ( objects2 or1 9 o!r words1 h[ judgm5ts bas$ ^u a subjective =m c be objectively valid4 ,b any attempt1 at ?is po9t1 to def9e ! nature & possibility ( appli$ geometry mu/ anticipate a result :i* is fir/ e/abli%$ 9 ,conclusion b4#deh ,?\gh1 !re=e1 ! sub/itution ( ?is transc5d5tal exposition = ! ?ird space argum5t is a decid$ improvem5t1 ,kant1 9 ext5d+ x s z to cov] appli$ z well z pure ma!matics1 ov]looks ! real sequ5ce ( 8 argum5t 9 ! fir/ edition4 ,! employm5t ( ! analytic me?od1 break+ 91 z x does1 ^u ! syn!tic developm5t ( ,kant's orig9al argum5t1 is a fur!r irregul>ity4#dei ,x may be not$ t 9 ! ?ird p>agraph ,kant takes ! fact t geometry c be appli$ to objects z pro( ( ! subjectivity ( space4#dfj ,he refuses to recognise ! possibility t space may be subjective z a =m ( receptivity1 & yet also be a mode 9 :i* ?+s 9 !mselves exi/4 ,?is1 z reg>ds its conclusion1 ?\gh n z reg>ds its argum5t1 is !re=e an anticipation ( ,conclusion a4 ,9 ! la/ p>agraph ,kant is probably ref]r+ to ! views bo? ( ,leibniz & ( ,b]keley4 ,,conclusions ,,f ,,! ,,above ,,concepts#dfa ,conclusion a4--,!sis3 ,space is n a prop]ty ( ?+s 9 !mselves1#dfb nor a relation ( !m to "o ano!r4 ,pro(3 ,! prop]ties ( ?+s 9 !mselves c nev] be intuit$ prior to _! exi/5ce1 i4e4 a priori4 ,space1 z already prov$1 is intuit$ 9 ?is mann]4 ,9 o!r words1 ! apriority ( space is by itself suffici5t pro( ( its subjectivity4 ,?is argum5t has be5 ! subject ( a prolong$ controv]sy betwe5 ,tr5del5burg & ,kuno ,fis*]4#dfc ,tr5del5burg 0 able to prove 8 ma9 po9t1 namely1 t ! above argum5t is q inconclusive4 ,kant recognises only two alt]natives1 ei!r space z objective is kn[n a po/]iori1 or be+ an a priori repres5tation x is subjective 9 orig94 ,!re exi/s a ?ird alt]native1 namely1 t ?\gh our intuition ( space is subjective 9 orig91 space is itself an inh]5t prop]ty ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! c5tral !sis ( ! rationali/ philosophy ( ! ,enlight5m5t 01 inde$1 t ! indep5d5tly real c be kn[n by a priori ?9k+4 ,ev5 grant+ ! validity ( ,kant's lat] conclusion1 fir/ drawn 9 ! next p>agraph1 t space is ! subjective =m ( all ext]nal intuition1 t w\ld only prove t x does n belong to appe>ances1 prior to our appreh5sion ( !m2 no?+ is !reby prov$ 9 reg>d to ! "* ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,we anticipate by a priori reason+ only ! nature ( appe>ances1 nev] ! con/itution ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,!re=e space1 ev5 ?\gh a priori1 may belong to ! indep5d5tly real4 ,! above argum5t _c prove ! giv5 !sis4 ,vaih+] cont5ds#dfd t ! reason :y ,kant does n ev5 attempt to argue 9 support ( ! pr9ciple1 t ! a priori mu/ be purely subjective1 is t he accepts x z self-evid5t4 ,?is explanation does n1 h[ev]1 seem satisfactory4 ,b ,vaih+] supplies ! data = modification ( 8 own ass]tion4 ,x 01 x w\ld seem1 ! exi/5ce ( ! ant9omies :i* fir/ & *iefly l$ ,kant to ass]t ! subjectivity ( space & "t4#dfe ,= z he !n believ$ t a satisfactory solution ( ! ant9omies is possible only on ! assumption ( ! subjectivity ( space & "t1 he reg>d$ _! subjectivity z be+ conclusively e/abli%$1 & accord+ly fail$ to exam9e ) suffici5t c>e ! validity ( 8 additional pro( f _! apriority4 ,?is w\ld seem to be confirm$ by ! fact t :5 lat]1#dff 9 reply to criticisms ( ! argum5ts ( ! fir/ edition1 he s f> modifi$ 8 position z to (f] reasons 9 support ( ! above g5]al pr9ciple1 ev5 !n he n[h]e discuss$ ! pr9ciple 9 ref]5ce to ! =ms ( s5se4 ,all 8 discussions conc]n only ! possible indep5d5t reality ( ! =ms ( ?\ght4#dfg ,to ! v la/ ,kant w\ld seem to h reg>d$ ! above argum5t z an indep5d5t1 & by itself a suffici5t1 pro( ( ! subjectivity ( space4 ,! refutation ( ,tr5del5burg's argum5t :i* is (f]$ by ,caird#dfh is inconclusive4 ,caird assumes ! *ief po9t at issue1 fir/ by ignor+ ! possibility t space may be kn[n a priori 9 ref]5ce to appe>ances & yet at ! same "t be transc5d5tly real2 & secondly by ignor+ ! fact t to d5y spatial prop]ties to ?+s 9 !mselves is z great a violation ( ,critical pr9ciples z to ass]t !m4 ,"o po9t1 h[ev]1 9 ,caird's reply to ,tr5del5burg calls = special consid]ation1 viz4 ,caird's cont5tion t ,kant did actually take acc\nt ( ! ?ird alt]native1 reject+ x z involv+ ! 8absurd0 hypo!sis ( a pre-e/abli%$ h>mony4#dfi ,und\bt$ly ,kant did s4 ,b ! cont5tion has no relevancy to ! po9t be=e u4 ,! doctr9e ( pre-e/abli%$ h>mony is a metaphysical !ory :i* presupposes ! possibility ( ga9+ k ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,= t reason alone ,kant 0 b\nd to reject x4 ,a metaphysical pro( ( ! validity ( metaphysical judgm5ts is1 f ! ,critical po9t ( view1 a contradiction 9 t]ms4 ,z ! validity ( all speculations is 9 d\bt1 a pro( :i* is speculative _c meet our difficulties4 ,& also1 z ,kant himself fur!r po9ts out1 ! pre-e/abli%$ h>mony1 ev5 if grant$1 c af=d no solution ( ! ,critical problem h[ a priori judgm5ts c be pass$ ^u ! indep5d5tly real4 ,! judgm5ts1 ?us gu>ante$1 c\ld only possess de facto validity2 we c\ld nev] be assur$ ( _! necessity4#dgj ,x is *iefly 9 ^! two inabilities t ,kant locates ! 8absurdity0 ( a !ory ( pre-e/abli%$ h>mony4 ,! refutation ( t !ory does n1 !re=e1 am\nt to a dispro( ( ! possibility :i* we are "h consid]+4 ,conclusion b4--,! next p>agraph ma9ta9s two !ses3 7a7 t space is ! =m ( all out] intuition2 7b7 t ?is fact expla9s :at is o!rwise entirely inexplicable & p>adoxical1 namely1 t we c make a priori judgm5ts :i* yet apply to ! objects exp]i5c$4 ,! fir/ !sis1 t ! pure intuition ( space is only conceivable z ! =m ( appe>ances ( out] s5se1 is prop\nd$ 9 ! op5+ s5t5ce )\t argum5t & ev5 )\t citation ( gr\nds4 ,! /atem5t ?us sudd5ly made is n anticipat$ save by ! op5+ s5t5ces ( ! section on space4#dga ,x is an ess5tially new doctr9e4 ,hi!rto ,kant has spok5 ( space only z an a priori intuition4 ,! fur!r ass]tion t z su* x mu/ necess>ily be conceiv$ z ! =m ( out] s5se 7i4e4 n only z a =mal intuition b also z a =m ( intuition71 calls = ! mo/ def9ite & explicit pro(4 ,none1 h[ev]1 is giv54 ,x is really a conclusion f po9ts all too briefly cit$ by ,kant 9 ! g5]al ,introduction1 namely1 f 8 di/9ction betwe5 ! matt] & ! =m ( s5se4 ,! ass]tions !re made1 9 a some:at casual mann]1 are "h1 )\t notification to ! read]1 employ$ z premisses to gr\nd ! above ass]tion4 ,8 !sis is n1 !re=e1 z by its face value x w\ld seem to pr(ess to be1 an inf]5ce f ! po9ts e/abli%$ 9 ! prec$+ expositions4 ,x int]prets ^! conclusions 9 ! light ( po9ts consid]$ 9 ! ,introduction2 & !reby arrives at a new & all-important int]pretation ( ! nature ( ! a priori intuition ( space4 ,! second !sis employs ! fir/ to expla9 h[ prior to all exp]i5ce we c det]m9e ! relations ( objects4 ,s9ce 7a7 space is m]ely ! =m ( out] s5se1 & 7b7 accord+ly exi/s 9 ! m9d prior to all empirical intuition1 all appe>ances mu/ exi/ 9 space1 & we c pr$et]m9e !m f ! pure intuition ( space t is giv5 to u a priori4 ,space1 :5 ?us view$ z ! a priori =m ( out] s5se1 r5d]s compreh5sible ! validity ( appli$ ma!matics4 ,z we h already not$1#dgb ,kant 9 ! second edition obscures ! sequ5ce ( 8 argum5t by (f]+ 9 ! new transc5d5tal exposition a ju/ification ( appli$ z well z ( pure geometry4 ,9 s do+ he anticipates ! conclusion :i* is fir/ drawn 9 ?is lat] p>agraph4 ,?is w\ld h be5 avoid$ _h ,kant giv5 two sep>ate transc5d5tal expositions4 ,fir/1 an exposition ( pure ma!matics1 plac$ imm$iately aft] ! metaphysical exposition2 = pure ma!matics is exclusively bas$ ^u ! results ( ! metaphysical exposition4 ,& secondly1 an exposition ( appli$ ma!matics1 introduc$ aft] ,conclusion b4 ,! explanation ( appli$ geometry is really ! m ess5tial & c5tral ( ! two1 z x alone involves ! truly ,critical problem1 h[ judgm5ts =m$ a priori c yet apply to objects4 ,conclusion b con/itutes1 z ,vaih+] rightly insi/s1#dgc ! v he>t ( ! ,ae/hetic4 ,! arrangem5t ( ,kant's argum5t div]ts ! read]'s att5tion f :]e x ought prop]ly to c5tre4 ,! use :i* ,kant makes ( ! ,prolegom5a 9 8 /atem5t ( ! new transc5d5tal exposition is "o cause ( ! confusion4 ,! exposition is a brief summ>y ( ! correspond+ ,prolegom5a#dgd sections4 ,9 introduc+ ?is summ>y into ! ,critique ,kant ov]look$ ! fact t 9 ref]r+ to appli$ ma!matics he is anticipat+ a po9t fir/ e/abli%$ 9 ,conclusion b4 ,! real cause1 h[ev]1 ( ! tr\ble is common to bo? editions1 namely ,kant's failure cle>ly to appreciate ! fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 ! view t space is an a priori intuition & ! view t x is ! a priori =m ( all ext]nal intuition1 i4e4 ( out] s5se4 ,he does n seem to h fully realis$ h[ v diff]5t are ^? two views4 ,9 consequ5ce ( ?is he fails to di/+ui% betwe5 ! transc5d5tal expositions ( pure & appli$ geometry4#dge ,?ird p>agraph4--,kant proce$s to develop ! subjectivi/ conclusions :i* foll[ f a & b4 8,we may say t space conta9s all ?+s :i* c appe> to u ext]nally1 b n all ?+s 9 !mselves1 :e!r intuit$ or n1 nor aga9 all ?+s intuit$ by any & e subject40#dgf ,?is s5t5ce makes two ass]tions3 7a7 space does n belong to ?+s 9 & by !mselves2 7b7 space is n a necess>y =m ( intuition = all subjects :atsoev]4 ,! gr\nds = ! =m] ass]tion are n "h consid]$1 & t is d\btless ! reason :y ! od] ni*t is excis$ 9 ,kant's private copy ( ! ,critique4 ,z we h se51 ,kant does n any:]e 9 ! ,ae/hetic ev5 attempt to (f] argum5t 9 support ( ?is ass]tion4 ,9 def5ce ( 7a7 ,kant prop\nds = ! fir/ "t ! view ( s5sibility z a limitation4 ,space is a limit+ condition to :i* human intuition is subject4 ,:e!r ! intuitions ( o!r ?9k+ be+s are subject to ! same limitation1 we h no means ( decid+4 ,b = all human be+s1 ,kant implies1 ! same conditions mu/ hold univ]sally4#dgg ,9 ! phrase 8transc5d5tal ideality ( space0#dgh ,kant1 x may be not$1 takes ! t]m ideality z signify+ subjectivity1 & ! t]m transc5d5tal z equival5t to transc5d5t4 ,he is /at+ t judg$ f a transc5d5t po9t ( view1 i4e4 f ! po9t ( view ( ! ?+ 9 itself1 space has a m]ely subjective or 8empirical0 reality4 ,?is is an in/ance ( ,kant's c>eless use ( ! t]m transc5d5tal4 ,space is empirically real1 b tak5 transc5d5tly1 is m]ely ideal4#dgi ,,kant',s ,,attitude ,,to ,,! ,,problems ,,( ,,mod]n ,,geometry ,?is is an appropriate po9t at :i* to consid] ! consi/5cy ( ,kant's tea*+ ) mod]n developm5ts 9 geometry4 ,kant's attitude has v frequ5tly be5 misrepres5t$4 ,z he "h /ates1 he is will+ to recognise t ! =ms ( intuition possess$ by o!r races ( f9ite be+s may n co9cide ) ^? ( ! human species4 ,b 9 s do+ he does n mean to ass]t ! possibility ( o!r spatial =ms1 i4e4 ( spaces t are non-,euclidean4 ,9 8 pre-,critical p]iod ,kant _h inde$ attempt$ to d$uce ! ?ree-dim5sional "* ( space z a consequ5ce ( ! law ( gravitation2 & recognis+ t t law is 9 itself arbitr>y1 he conclud$ t ,god might1 by e/abli%+ diff]5t relations ( gravitation1 h giv5 rise to spaces ( diff]5t prop]ties & dim5sions4 8,a sci5ce ( all ^! possible k9ds ( space w\ld und\bt$ly be ! highe/ ent]prise :i* a f9ite und]/&+ c\ld und]take 9 ! field ( geometry40#dhj ,b f ! "t ( ,kant's adoption1 9 #aggj1 ( ! ,critical view ( space z be+ ! univ]sal =m ( our out] s5se1 he seems to h def9itely reject$ all su* possibilities4 ,space1 to be space at all1 mu/ be ,euclidean2 ! uni=mity ( space is a presupposition ( ! a priori c]ta9ty ( geometrical sci5ce4#dha ,"o ( ! criticisms :i* 9 ! ,diss]tation#dhb he passes ^u ! empirical view ( ma!matical sci5ce is t x w\ld leave op5 ! possibility t 8a space may "s "t be discov]$ end[$ ) o!r fundam5tal prop]ties1 or ev5 p]haps t we may happ5 ^u a two-sid$ rectil9e> figure40 ,?is is ! argum5t :i* reappe>s 9 ! ?ird argum5t on space 9 ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique4#dhc ,! same examples are employ$ ) a some:at diff]5t word+4 8,x w\ld n ev5 be necess>y t !re %\ld be only "o /raight l9e betwe5 two po9ts1 ?\gh exp]i5ce inv>iably %[s ?is to be s4 ,:at is d]iv$ f exp]i5ce has only comp>ative univ]sality1 namely1 t :i* is obta9$ ?r\gh induction4 ,we %\ld !re=e only be able to say t1 s f> z hi!rto obs]v$1 no space has be5 f\nd :i* has m ?an ?ree dim5sions40 ,b t ,kant %\ld h fail$ to recognise ! possibility ( o!r spaces does n by itself po9t to any s]i\s defect 9 8 position4 ,!re is no ess5tial difficulty 9 reconcil+ ! recognition ( su* spaces ) 8 fundam5tal tea*+4 ,he admits t o!r races ( f9ite be+s may p]haps intuit ?r\gh non-spatial =ms ( s5sibility2 he might q well h recognis$ t ^? o!r =ms ( intuition1 ?\gh n ,euclidean1 are /ill spatial4 ,x is 9 ano!r & m vital respect t ,kant's tea*+ lies op5 to criticism4 ,kant is conv9c$ t space is giv5 to u 9 intuition z be+ def9itely & irrevocably ,euclidean 9 "*4 ,bo? our intuition & our ?9k+1 :5 we reflect ^u space1 are1 he implies1 b\nd d[n to1 & limit$ by1 ! conditions ( ,euclidean space4 ,& x is 9 ?is positive assumption1 & n m]ely 9 8 ignor+ ( ! possibility ( o!r spaces1 t he comes into conflict ) ! tea*+ ( mod]n geometry4 ,= 9 mak+ ! above assumption ,kant is ass]t+ t we def9itely "k physical space to be ?ree-dim5sional1 & t by no elaboration ( concepts c we s remodel x 9 ?\ght t ! axiom ( p>allels w cease to hold4 ,euclidean space1 ,kant implies1 is giv5 to u z an unyield+ =m t rigidly resi/s all attempts at conceptual recon/ruction4 ,be+ q indep5d5t ( ?\ght & be+ giv5 z complete1 x has no in*oate pla/icity ( :i* ?\ght might take advantage4 ,! mod]n geomet] is n1 h[ev]1 prep>$ to admit t intuitional space has any def9it5ess or precis5ess ( nature ap>t f ! concepts ?r\gh :i* x is appreh5d$2 & he !re=e all[s1 z at lea/ possible1 t ^u cl>ification ( our concepts space may be discov]$ to be radically diff]5t f :at x at fir/ sight appe>s to be4 ,9 any case1 ! p]fect+ ( ! concepts mu/ h "s effect ^u _! object4 ,b ev5--z ! mod]n geomet] fur!r ma9ta9s--%\ld our space be def9itely prov$1 ^u analytic & empirical inve/igation1 to be ,euclidean 9 "*1 o!r possibilities w /ill rema9 op5 = speculative ?\ght4 ,= ?\gh ! nature ( our intuitional data may con/ra9 u to int]pret !m ?r\gh "o set ( concepts r ?an ?r\gh ano!r1 ! compet+ sets ( alt]native concepts w repres5t g5u9e possibilities beyond :at ! actual is f\nd to embody4 ,?us ! defect ( ,kant's tea*+1 9 reg>d to space1 z judg$ 9 ! light ( ! lat] tea*+ ( geometrical sci5ce1 is closely b\nd up ) 8 unt5able isolation ( ! a priori ( s5sibility f ! a priori ( und]/&+4#dhd ,space1 be+ ?us view$ z indep5d5t ( ?\ght1 has to be reg>d$ z limit+ & re/rict+ ?\ght by ! unalt]able nature ( its initial pres5tation4 ,& un=tunately ?is is a position :i* ,kant cont9u$ to hold1 despite 8 increas+ recognition ( ! "p :i* concepts mu/ play 9 ! v>i\s ma!matical sci5ces4 ,9 ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition we f9d him /at+ t syn!sis ( appreh5sion is necess>y to all repres5tation ( space & "t4#dhe ,he fur!r recognises t all ari?metical processes are syn!ses accord+ to concepts4#dhf ,& 9 ! ,prolegom5a#dhg !re occurs ! foll[+ significant passage4 8,d ^! laws ( nature lie 9 space1 & does ! und]/&+ le>n !m by m]ely endeav\r+ to f9d out ! fruitful mean+ t lies 9 space2 or d !y inh]e 9 ! und]/&+ & 9 ! way 9 :i* x det]m9es space accord+ to ! conditions ( ! syn!tical unity t[>ds :i* its concepts are all direct$8 ,space is some?+ s uni=m & z to all p>ticul> prop]ties s indet]m9ate1 t we %\ld c]ta9ly n seek a /ore ( laws ( nature 9 x4 ,t :i* det]m9es space to ! =m ( a circle or to ! figures ( a cone or a sph]e1 is1 on ! contr>y1 ! und]/&+1 s f> z x conta9s ! gr\nd ( ! unity ( ^! con/ructions4 ,! m]e univ]sal =m ( intuition1 call$ space1 mu/ !re=e be ! sub/ratum ( all intuitions det]m9able to p>ticul> objects1 & 9 x1 ( c\rse1 ! condition ( ! possibility & ( ! v>iety ( ^! intuitions lies4 ,b ! unity ( ! objects is solely det]m9$ by ! und]/&+1 & inde$ 9 accordance ) conditions :i* are prop] to ! nature ( ! und]/&+44440 ,obvi\sly ,kant is be+ driv5 by ! spontane\s developm5t ( 8 own ?9k+ t[>ds a position mu* m consi/5t ) pres5t-day tea*+1 & completely at v>iance ) ! h>d & fa/ sev]ance betwe5 s5sibility & und]/&+ :i* he _h =mulat$ 9 ! ,diss]tation & has reta9$ 9 ! ,ae/hetic4 ,9 ! above ,prolegom5a passage a pla/icity is be+ all[$ to space1 suffici5t to p]mit ( ess5tial modification 9 ! conceptual processes ?r\gh :i* x is articulat$4 ,b1 z ,i h j /at$1 t did n lead ,kant to disav[ ! conclusions :i* he _h drawn f 8 previ\s tea*+4 ,?is defect 9 ,kant's doctr9e ( space1 z exp\nd$ 9 ! ,ae/hetic1 indicates a fur!r imp]fection 9 8 argum5t4 ,he ass]ts t ! =m ( space _c v>y f "o human be+ to ano!r1 & t = ?is reason ! judgm5ts :i* express x are univ]sally valid4 ,n[1 9 s f> z ,kant's initial datum is consci\sness ( "t1#dhh he is entirely ju/ifi$ 9 assum+ t ev]y?+ :i* c be %[n to be a necess>y condition ( su* consci\sness mu/ be uni=m = all human m9ds4 ,b z 8 argum5t is n t consci\sness ( ,euclidean space is necess>y to consci\sness ( "t1 b only t consci\sness ( ! p]man5t 9 space is a requir$ condition1 he has n succe$$ 9 %[+ ! necess>y uni=mity ( ! human m9d z reg>ds ! specific mode 9 :i* x intuits space4 ,! p]man5t might /ill be appreh5d$ z p]man5t1 & !re=e z yield+ a possible basis = consci\sness ( sequ5ce1 ev5 if x 7 appreh5d$ 9 "s f\r-dim5sional =m4 99 99 99 99 99 ,f\r? ,p>agraph4--,! next p>agraph raises "o ( ! c5tral problems ( ! ,critique1 namely1 ! "q z to ! k9d ( reality possess$ by appe>ances4 ,are !y subjective1 l ta/e or col\r8 ,or h !y a reality at lea/ relatively indep5d5t ( ! individual p]cipi5t8 ,9 o!r words1 is ,kant's position subjectivism or ph5om5alism8 ,kant "h alt]nates betwe5 ^! positions4 ,?is f\r? p>agraph is col\r$ by 8 ph5om5alism1 :]eas 9 ! imm$iately foll[+ fif? p>agraph 8 subjectivism ga9s ! upp] h&4 ,! ta/e ( w9e1 he !re /ates1 is purely subjective1 because dep5d5t ^u ! p>ticul> con/itution ( ! gu/atory organ on :i* ! w9e acts4 ,simil>ly1 col\rs are n prop]ties ( ! objects :i* cause !m4 8,!y are only modifications ( ! s5se ( sight :i* is affect$ 9 a c]ta9 mann] by ! light4444 ,!y are connect$ ) ! appe>ances only z effects accid5tally add$ by ! p>ticul> con/itution ( ! s5se organs40#dhi ,space1 on ! o!r h&1 is a necess>y con/itu5t ( ! out] objects4 ,9 contra/ to ! subjective s5sations ( ta/e & col\r1 x possesses objectivity4 ,?is mode ( di/+ui%+ betwe5 space & ! matt] ( s5se implies t ext5d$ objects are n m]e ideas1 b are suffici5tly indep5d5t to be capable ( act+ ^u ! s5se organs1 & ( !reby g5]at+ ! s5sations ( ! second>y qualities4 ,kant1 x mu/ be obs]v$1 ref]s only to ta/e & col\r4 ,he says no?+ 9 reg>d to weight1 imp5etrability1 & ! l4 ,^! are reveal$ ?r\gh s5sation1 & !re=e on 8 view ought to be 9 exactly ! same position z ta/e or col\r4 ,b if s1 ! relative indep5d5ce ( ! ext5d$ object c h>dly be ma9ta9$4 ,kant's di/9ction betwe5 space & ! s5se qualities _c1 inde$1 be made to co9cide ) ! ,c>tesian di/9ction betwe5 prim>y & second>y qualities4 ,a second diff]5ce1 f ,kant's po9t ( view1 betwe5 space & ! s5se qualities is t ! =m] c be repres5t$ a priori1 9 complete sep>ation f ev]y?+ empirical1 :]eas ! latt] c only be kn[n a po/]iori4 ,?is1 z we h se51 is a v que/ionable ass]tion4 ,! fur!r /atem5t t all det]m9ations ( space c be repres5t$ 9 ! same a priori fa%ion is ev5 m que/ionable4 ,at mo/ ! diff]5ce is only betwe5 a homog5e\s subjective =m yield$ by out] s5se & ! endlessly v>i$ & consequ5tly unpr$ictable cont5ts reveal$ by ! special s5ses4 ,! cont5tion t ! =m] c be kn[n ap>t f ! latt] implies ! exi/5ce ( a pure manifold additional to ! manifold ( s5se4 ,fif? ,p>agraph4--,9 ! next p>agraph ,kant emphasises ! di/9ction betwe5 ! empirical & ! transc5d5tal mean+s ( ! t]m appe>ance4 ,a rose1 view$ empirically1 z a ?+ ) an intr9sic indep5d5t nature1 may appe> ( diff]5t col\r to diff]5t obs]v]s4 8,! transc5d5tal conception ( appe>ances 9 space1 on ! o!r h&1 is a ,critical rem9d] t no?+ intuit$ 9 space is a ?+ 9 itself1 t space is n a =m inh]+ 9 ?+s 9 !mselves 444 & t :at we call out] objects are no?+ b m]e repres5tations ( our s5sibility1 ! =m ( :i* is space40 ,9 o!r words1 ! di/9ction drawn 9 ! prec$+ p>agraph betwe5 col\r z a subjective effect & space z an objective exi/5ce is no long] ma9ta9$4 ,kant1 :5 ?us develop+ 8 position on subjectivi/ l9es1 all[s no k9d ( indep5d5t exi/5ce to any?+ 9 ! kn[n _w4 ,objects z kn[n are m]e ,ideas 7blosse ,vor/ellung5 uns]] ,s9nli*keit71 ! sole correlate ( :i* is ! unkn[able ?+ 9 itself4 ,b ev5 9 ?is p>agraph bo? t5d5cies f9d expression4 8,col\r1 ta/e1 etc41 mu/ n rightly be reg>d$ z prop]ties ( ?+s1 b only z *anges 9 ! subject40 ,?is implies a ?reefold di/9ction betwe5 subjective s5sations1 empirical objects 9 space1 & ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,! mat]ial _w1 inve/igat$ by sci5ce1 is recognis$ z possess+ a relatively indep5d5t mode ( exi/5ce4 ,sub/itut$ ,f\r? ,p>agraph ( second edition4--,9 prep>+ ! second edition ,kant himself evid5tly felt ! awkw>dness ( ?is abrupt juxtaposition ( ! two v diff]5t po9ts ( view2 & he accord+ly adopts a non-committal attitude1 sub/itut+ a logical di/9ction = ! ontological4 ,space yields syn!tic judgm5ts a priori2 ! s5se qualities d n4 ,only 9 ! conclud+ s5t5ce does !re em]ge any def9ite ph5om5ali/ implication4 ,! s5se qualities1 8z !y are m]e s5sations & n intuitions1 9 !mselves reveal no object1 lea/ ( all an object a priori40#dij ,! ass]tion t ! second>y qualities h no ideality implies a new & /rict] use ( ! t]m ideal ?an we f9d any:]e 9 ! fir/ edition--a use :i* runs c\nt] to ,kant's own con/ant employm5t ( ! t]m4 ,on ?is int]pretation x is made to signify :at ?\gh subjective is also a priori4 ,"h1 z 9 _m ( ! alt]ations ( ! second edition1 ,kant is influ5c$ by ! desire to emphasise ! po9ts :i* di/+ui% 8 idealism f t ( ,b]keley4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,ae/hetic ,,section ,,ii ,,"t ,,metaphysical ,,exposition ,,( ,,! ,,conception ,,( ,,"t ,"t3 ,fir/ ,argum5t4--,?is argum5t is 9 all respects ! same z ! fir/ argum5t on space4 ,! !sis is t ! repres5tation#dia ( "t is n ( empirical orig94 ,! pro( is bas$ on ! fact t ?is repres5tation mu/ be previ\sly giv5 9 ord] t ! p]ception ( coexi/5ce or succession be possible4 ,x also runs on all f\rs ) ! fir/ argum5t 9 ! ,diss]tation4 8,! idea ( "t does n orig9ate 91 b is presuppos$ by ! s5ses4 ,:5 a numb] ( ?+s act ^u ! s5ses1 x is only by means ( ! idea ( "t t !y c be repres5t$ :e!r z simultane\s or z successive4 ,nor does succession g5]ate ! conception ( "t2 b /imulates u to =m x4 ,?us ! notion ( "t1 ev5 if acquir$ ?r\gh exp]i5ce1 is v badly def9$ z be+ a s]ies ( actual ?+s exi/+ "o aft] ano!r4 ,= ,i c und]/& :at ! ^w aft] signifies only if ,i already "k :at "t means4 ,= ^? ?+s are aft] "o ano!r :i* exi/ at diff]5t times1 z ^? are simultane\s :i* exi/ at "o & ! same "t40#dib ,second ,argum5t4--,kant aga9 applies to "t ! argum5t already employ$ by him 9 deal+ ) space4 ,! !sis is t "t is giv5 a priori4 ,pro( is f\nd 9 ! fact t x _c be ?\ght away1 i4e4 9 ! fact ( its subjective necessity4 ,f ?is subjective necessity foll[s its objective necessity1 s f> z all appe>ances are conc]n$4 ,9 ! second edition ,kant add$ a phrase--8z ! g5]al condition ( _! possibility0--:i* is s]i\sly mislead+4 ,! conclud+ s5t5ce is !reby made to read z if ,kant 7 argu+ f ! objective necessity ( "t1 i4e4 f its necessity z a con/itu5t 9 ! appe>ances appreh5d$1 to its apriority4 ,x is inde$ possible t ,kant himself reg>d$ ?is objective necessity ( "t z contribut+ to ! pro( ( its apriority4 ,b no su* argum5t c be accept$4 ,"t may be necess>y to appe>ances1 once appe>ances are grant$4 ,?is does n1 h[ev]1 prove t x mu/ !re=e prec$e !m a priori4 ,?is alt]ation 9 ! second edition is an excell5t1 ?\gh un=tunate1 example ( ,kant's inv9cible c>elessness 9 ! exposition ( 8 ?\ght4 ,x has contribut$ to a misread+ by ,h]b>t & o!rs ( ?is & ( ! correspond+ argum5t on space4 8,let u n talk ( an absolute space z ! presupposition ( all our con/ruct$ figures4 ,possibility is no?+ b ?\ght1 & x arises only :5 x is ?\ght4 ,space is no?+ b possibility1 = x conta9s no?+ save images ( ! exi/5t2 & absolute space is no?+ save ! ab/ract$ g5]al possibility ( su* con/ructions1 ab/ract$ f x aft] completion ( ! con/ruction4 ,! necessity ( ! repres5tation ( space ought nev] to h play$ any rle 9 philosophy4 ,to ?9k away space is to ?9k away ! possibility ( t :i* has be5 previ\sly posit$ z actual4 ,obvi\sly t is impossible1 & ! opposite is necess>y40#dic ,7 ,kant really argu+ "h & 9 ! second argum5t on space solely f ! objective necessity ( "t & space1 ?is criticism w\ld be unansw]able4 ,b ev5 tak+ ! argum5t 9 its fir/ edition =m1 z an argum5t f ! psy*ological necessity ( "t1 x lies op5 to ! same objection z ! argum5t on space4 ,x re/s ^u a false /atem5t ( fact4 ,we _c reta9 "t 9 ! abs5ce ( all appe>ances ( out] & inn] s5se4 ,) ! removal ( ! giv5 manifold1 "t itself mu/ vani%4 ,f\r? ,argum5t4#did--,?is argum5t diff]s only slightly1 & ma9ly ?r\gh omissions1#die f ! f\r?#dif ( ! argum5ts 9 reg>d to space2 b a few m9or po9ts call = notice4 7a7 ,9 ! fir/ s5t5ce1 in/ead ( intuition1 :i* alone is "u consid]ation 9 its contra/ to conception1 ,kant employs ! phrase 8pure =m ( intuition40 7b7 ,9 ! ?ird s5t5ce ,kant uses ! q unt5able phrase 8giv5 ?r\gh a s+le object 7,geg5/&740 ,"t is n giv5 f )\t1 nor is x due to an object4 7c7 ,! conclud+ s5t5ces prop]ly belong to ! transc5d5tal exposition4 ,!y are "h introduc$1 n 9 ! ambigu\s mann] ( ! f\r?#a argum5t on space1 b explicitly z a fur!r argum5t 9 pro( ( ! intuitive "* ( "t4 ,! syn!tic proposition :i* ,kant cites is tak5 nei!r f ! sci5ce ( motion nor f ari?metic4 ,x expresses ! nature ( "t itself1 & = t reason is imm$iately conta9$ 9 ! intuition ( "t4 ,fif? ,argum5t4--,?is argum5t diff]s fundam5tally f ! correspond+ argum5t on space1 :e!r ( ! fir/ or ( ! second edition1 & mu/ !re=e be indep5d5tly analys$4 ,! !sis is aga9 t "t is an intuition4 ,pro( is d]iv$ f ! fact t "t is a repres5tation 9 :i* ! p>ts arise only ?r\gh limitation1 & 9 :i*1 !re=e1 ! :ole mu/ prec$e ! p>ts4 ,! orig9al 7ursprngli*e7 "t-repres5tation1 i4e4 ! fundam5tal repres5tation ?r\gh limitation ( :i* ! p>ts arise z second>y products1 mu/ be an intuition4 ,to ?is argum5t ,kant makes two explanatory additions4 7a7 ,z p>ticul> times arise ?r\gh limitation ( "o s+le "t1 "t mu/ 9 its orig9al intuition be giv5 z inf9ite1 i4e4 z unlimit$4 ,! inf9itude ( "t is n1 !re=e1 z might seem to be impli$ by ! prom95ce giv5 to x1 & by analogy ) ! f9al argum5ts ( bo? ! fir/ & ! second edition1 a "p ( ! pro( t x is an intuition1 b only a consequ5ce ( ! feature by :i* its intuitive "* is indep5d5tly e/abli%$4 ,! unw>y read]1 hav+ 9 m9d ! correspond+ argum5t on space1 is almo/ inevitably misl$4 ,all ref]5ce to inf9itude c\ld1 s f> z ?is argum5t is conc]n$1 h be5 omitt$4 ,! mode 9 :i* ! argum5t op5s seems inde$ to indicate t ,kant 0 n himself altoge!r cle> z to ! cross-relations betwe5 ! argum5ts on space & "t respectively4 ,! real p>allel to ?is argum5t is to be f\nd 9 ! second "p ( ! f\r?#a argum5t on space4 ,t "p 0 omitt$ by ,kant 9 8 f\r? argum5t on "t1 & is "h develop$ into a sep>ate argum5t4 ,?is is1 ( c\rse1 a fur!r cause ( confusion to ! read]1 :o is n prep>$ = su* arbitr>y re>rangem5t4 ,inde$ x is n surpris+ to f9d t :5 ,kant became ! read] ( 8 own "w1 9 prep>+ x = ! second edition1 he 0 himself misl$ by ! intricate p]v]sity ( 8 exposition4 ,9 re-read+ ! argum5t he seems to h =gott5 t x repres5ts ! second "p ( ! f\r?#dig argum5t on space4 ,int]pret+ x 9 ! light ( ! fif?#dih argum5t on space :i* he _h be5 reca/+ = ! second edition1 x seem$ to him possible1 by a slight alt]ation1 to br+ ?is argum5t on "t into l9e ) t new pro(4#dii ,?is un=tunately results 9 ! p]v]t+ ( ! entire p>agraph4 ,! argum5t dem&s an opposition betwe5 intuition 9 :i* ! :ole prec$es ! p>ts1 & conception 9 :i* ! p>ts prec$e ! :ole4 ,9 ord] to br+ ! opposition into l9e ) ! new argum5t on space1 accord+ to :i* a conception conta9s an inf9ite numb] ( p>ts1 n 9 x1 b only "u x1 ,kant sub/itutes = ! previ\s p>5!sis ! /atem5t t 8concepts conta9 only p>tial repres5tations10 mean+1 app>5tly1 t _! con/itu5t elem5ts are m]ely ab/ract$ attributes1 n real concrete p>ts1 or 9 o!r words1 n /rictly p>ts at all1 b only p>tial repres5tations4 ,b ?is does n at all agree ) ! context4 ,! po9t at issue is !reby obscur$4 7b7 ,! ma9 argum5t re/s ^u & presupposes a v def9ite view z to ! mann] 9 :i* alone1 accord+ to ,kant1 concepts are =m$4 ,only if ?is view be grant$ z true ( all concepts )\t exception is ! argum5t cog5t4 ,?is doctr9e#ejj ( ! concept is accord+ly /at$ by ,kant 9 ! words ( ! p>5!sis4 ,! p>tial repres5tations1 i4e4 ! diff]5t prop]ties :i* g to con/itute ! object or cont5t conceiv$1 prec$e ! repres5tation ( ! :ole4 8,! aggregation ( co-ord9ate attributes 7,m]kmale7 con/itutes ! totality ( ! concept40#eja ,^u ! use :i* ,kant ?us makes ( ! traditional doctr9e ( ! concept1 & ^u its lack ( consi/5cy ) 8 recognition ( relational categories1 we h already dwelt4#ejb ,?ird ,argum5t & ! ,transc5d5tal ,exposition4--,! ?ird argum5t ought to h be5 omitt$ 9 ! second edition1 & its sub/ance incorporat$ 9 ! new transc5d5tal exposition1 z 0 done ) ! correspond+ argum5t conc]n+ space4 ,! excuse :i* ,kant (f]s = n mak+ ! *ange1 namely1 8 desire = brevity1 is n valid4 ,by ins]tion 9 ! new section ! :ole matt] c\ld h be5 /at$ j z briefly z be=e4 ,! purpose ( ! transc5d5tal exposition has be5 already def9$4 ,x is to %[ h[ "t1 :5 view$ 9 ! mann] requir$ by ! results ( ! metaphysical d$uction1 z an a priori intuition1 r5d]s syn!tic a priori judgm5ts possible4 ,?is exposition1 z x appe>s 9 ! ?ird argum5t ( ! fir/ edition1 gr\nds ! apodictic "* ( two axioms 9 reg>d to "t#ejc on ! prov$ apriority ( ! repres5tation ( "t1 & !n by implication f9ds 9 ^! axioms a fre% pro( ( ! apriority ( "t4 ,! new transc5d5tal exposition ext5ds ! above by two fur!r /atem5ts3 7a7 t only ?r\gh ! intuition ( "t c any conception ( *ange1 & !re) ( motion 7z *ange ( place71 be =m$2 & 7b7 t x is because ! intuition ( "t is an a priori intuition t ! syn!tic a priori propositions ( ! 8g5]al doctr9e ( motion0 are possible4 ,to take ea* 9 turn4 7a7 ,save by ref]5ce to "t ! conception ( motion is self-contradictory4 ,x involves ! ascription to "o & ! same ?+ ( contradictory pr$icates1 e4g4 t an object bo? is & is n 9 a c]ta9 place4 ,f ?is fact1 t "t makes possible :at is n possible 9 pure conception1 ,kant1 9 8 e>li] rationali/ic p]iod1 _h d]iv$ a pro( ( ! subjectivity ( "t4#ejd 7b7 ,9 #aghf 9 ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce ,kant _h develop$ ! fundam5tal pr9ciples ( ! g5]al sci5ce ( motion4 ,he takes ! opportunity ( ! second edition 7#aghg7 ( ! ,critique to assign ?is place to !m 9 8 g5]al sy/em4 ,! implication is t ! doctr9e ( motion /&s to "t 9 ! relation 9 :i* geometry /&s to space4 ,kant is probably "h reply+1 z ,vaih+] has sugge/$1#eje to an objection made by ,g>ve to ! fir/ edition1 t no sci5ce1 correspond+ to geometry1 is bas$ on ! intuition ( "t4 ,= two reasons1 h[ev]1 ! analogy betwe5 me*anics & geometry breaks d[n4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! conception ( motion is empirical2 & 9 ! second place1 x presupposes space z well z "t4#ejf ,kant else:]e explicitly disav[s ?is view t ! sci5ce ( motion is bas$ on "t4 ,he _h already done s 9 ! prec$+ ye> 7#aghf7 9 ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples4 ,he !re po9ts out#ejg t z "t has only "o dim5sion1 ma!matics is n applicable to ! ph5om5a ( inn] s5se4 ,at mo/ we c det]m9e 9 reg>d to !m 79 addition1 ( c\rse1 to ! two axioms already cit$7 only ! law t all ^! *anges are cont9u\s4 ,also 9 ,kant's ,ueb] ,philosophie b]haupt 7writt5 "s "t betwe5 #aghj & #agij1 & v probably 9 or ab\t ! ye> #aghi7 we f9d ! foll[+ utt]ance3 8,! g5]al doctr9e ( "t1 unlike ! pure doctr9e ( space 7geometry71 does n yield suffici5t mat]ial = a :ole sci5ce40#ejh ,:y1 !n1 %\ld ,kant 9 #aghg h s inconsi/5tly dep>t$ f 8 own tea*+8 ,?is is a "q to :i* ,i c f9d no answ]4 ,app>5tly )\t reason1 & contr>y to 8 m abid+ judgm5t1 he "h repeats ! sugge/ion :i* he _h casually ?r[n out 9 ! ,diss]tation#eji ( #aggj3 8,pure ma!matics treats ( space 9 geometry & ( "t 9 pure me*anics40 ,b 9 ! ,diss]tation ! po9t is only t\*$ ^u 9 pass+4 ,! context p]mits ( ! int]pretation t :ile geometry deals ) space1 me*anics deals ) "t 9 addition to space4 ,,kant',s ,,views ,,reg>d+ ,,! ,,nature ,,( ,,ari?metical ,,sci5ce ,9 ! ,diss]tation1 & aga9 9 ! *apt] on ,s*ematism 9 ! ,critique itself1 /ill ano!r view is sugge/$1 namely1 t ! sci5ce ( ari?metic is also conc]n$ ) ! intuition ( "t4 ,! passage j quot$ f ! ,diss]tation proce$s z foll[s3 8,pure ma!matics treats ( space 9 geometry & ( "t 9 pure me*anics4 ,to ^! has to be add$ a c]ta9 concept :i* is 9 itself intellectual1 b :i* dem&s = its concrete actualisation 7actuatio7 ! auxili>y notions ( "t & space 79 ! successive addition & 9 ! juxtaposition ( a plurality74 ,?is is ! concept ( numb] :i* is dealt ) 9 ,ari?metic40#eaj ,?is view ( ari?metic is to be f\nd 9 bo? editions ( ! ,critique4 ,ari?metic dep5ds ^u ! syn!tic activity ( ! und]/&+2 ! conceptual elem5t is absolutely ess5tial4 8,our c\nt+ 7z is easily se5 9 ! case ( l>ge numb]s7 is a syn!sis accord+ to concepts1 because x is execut$ accord+ to a common gr\nd ( unity1 z1 = in/ance1 ! decade 7,dekadik740#eaa 8,! pure image 444 ( all objects ( ! s5ses 9 g5]al is "t4 ,b ! pure s*ema ( quantity1 9 s f> z x is a concept ( ! und]/&+1 is numb]1 a repres5tation :i* comb9es ! successive addition ( "o to "o 7homog5e\s74 ,?us numb] is no?+ b ! unity ( ! syn!sis ( ! manifold ( a homog5e\s intuition 9 g5]al1 :]eby ,i g5]ate "t itself 9 ! appreh5sion ( ! intuition40#eab ,?is is also ! tea*+ ( ! ,me?odology4#eac ,n[ x may be obs]v$ t 9 none ( ^! passages is ari?metic decl>$ to be ! sci5ce ( "t1 or ev5 to be bas$ on ! intuition ( "t4 ,9 #aghc1 h[ev]1 9 ! ,prolegom5a1 ,kant expresses himself 9 mu* m ambigu\s t]ms1 = 8 words imply t !re is a p>allelism betwe5 geometry & ari?metic4 8,geometry is bas$ ^u ! pure intuition ( space4 ,ari?metic produces its concepts ( numb] ?r\gh successive addition ( units 9 "t1 & pure me*anics especially c produce its concepts ( motion only by means ( ! repres5tation ( "t40#ead ,! passage is by no means explicit2 ! 8especially0 7vornehmli*7 seems to indicate a feel+ on ,kant's "p t ! description :i* he is giv+ ( ari?metic is n really satisfactory4 ,un=tunately ?is casual /atem5t1 ?\gh nev] repeat$ by ,kant 9 any ( 8 o!r writ+s1 0 develop$ by ,s*ulze 9 8 ,erlut]ung54 8,s9ce geometry has space & ari?metic has c\nt+ z its object 7& c\nt+ c only take place by means ( "t71 x is evid5t 9 :at mann] geometry & ari?metic1 t is to say pure ma!matics1 is possible40#eae ,l>gely1 z x w\ld seem1#eaf ?r\gh ,s*ulze1 ^: ,erlut]ung5 did mu* to spread ,kant's tea*+1 ?is view came to be ! curr5t und]/&+ ( ,kant's position4 ,! nature ( ari?metic1 z ?us popul>ly int]pret$1 is exp\nd$ by ,s*op5hau] 9 ! foll[+ t]ms3 8,9 "t e mom5t is condition$ by ! prec$+4 ,! gr\nd ( exi/5ce1 z law ( ! sequ5ce1 is ?us simple1 because "t has only "o dim5sion1 & no manifoldness ( relations c be possible 9 x4 ,e mom5t is condition$ by ! prec$+2 only ?r\gh ! latt] c we atta9 to ! =m]2 only because ! latt] 01 & has elaps$1 does ! =m] n[ exi/4 ,all c\nt+ re/s ^u ?is nexus ( ! p>ts ( "t2 its words m]ely s]ve to m>k ! s+le /eps ( ! succession4 ,?is is true ( ! :ole ( ari?metic1 :i* ?r\gh\t tea*es no?+ b ! me?odical abbreviations ( c\nt+4 ,e numb] presupposes ! prec$+ numb]s z gr\nds ( its exi/5ce2 ,i c only rea* !m ?r\gh all ! prec$+1 & only by means ( ?is insight into ! gr\nd ( its exi/5ce d ,i "k t1 :]e t5 are1 !re are also eight1 six1 f\r40#eag ,s*ulze 0 at once *all5g$ to %[ t ?is 0 really ,kant's tea*+1 & ! passage :i* he cit$ 0 ,kant's def9ition ( ! s*ema ( numb]1 above quot$4#eah ,x is !re=e advisable t we %\ld briefly discuss ! _m difficulties :i* ?is passage involves4 ,:at does ,kant mean by ass]t+ t 9 ! appreh5sion ( numb] we g5]ate "t8 ,does he m]ely mean t "t is requir$ = ! process ( c\nt+8 ,c\nt+ is a process ?r\gh :i* num]ical relations are discov]$2 & x und\bt$ly occupies "t4 ,b s d all processes ( appreh5sion1 9 ! /udy ( geometry no less ?an ( ari?metic4 ,t ?is is n ,kant's mean+1 & t x is n ev5 :at ,s*ulze1 not)/&+ 8 seem+ly explicit mode ( /atem5t1 int5ds to ass]t1 is cle>ly %[n by a lett] writt5 by ,kant to ,s*ulze 9 ,novemb] #aghh4 ,s*ulze1 x appe>s1 _h spok5 ( ?is v matt]4 8,"t1 z y ju/ly rem>k1 has no influ5ce ^u ! prop]ties ( numb]s 7z pure det]m9ations ( quantity71 su* z x may h ^u ! nature ( ^? *anges 7( quantity7 :i* are possible only 9 connection ) a specific prop]ty ( inn] s5se & its =m 7"t74 ,! sci5ce ( numb]1 not)/&+ ! succession :i* e con/ruction ( quantity dem&s1 is a pure intellectual syn!sis :i* we repres5t to ourselves 9 ?\ght4 ,b s f> z quanta are to be num]ically det]m9$1 !y mu/ be giv5 to u 9 su* a way t we c appreh5d _! intuition 9 successive ord]1 & su* t _! appreh5sion c be subject to "t44440#eai ,no m def9ite /atem5t c\ld be desir$ ( ! fact t ?\gh 9 ari?metical sci5ce z 9 o!r fields ( /udy our processes ( appreh5sion are subject to "t1 ! quantitative relations det]m9$ by ! sci5ce are indep5d5t ( "t & are intellectually appreh5d$4 ,b if ! above psy*ological int]pretation ( ,kant's tea*+ is unt5able1 h[ is 8 position to be def9$8 ,we mu/ be> 9 m9d ! doctr9e :i* ,kant _h already develop$ 9 8 pre-,critical p]iod1 t ma!matical diff]s f philosophical k 9 t its concepts c h concrete individual =m4#ebj ,9 ! ,critique ?is diff]5ce is express$ 9 ! /atem5t t ! ma!matical sci5ces alone are able to con/ruct _! concepts4 ,& z !y are pure ma!matical sci5ces1 ?is con/ruction is suppos$ to take place by means ( ! a priori manifold ( space & ( "t4 ,n[ ?\gh ,kant _h a fairly def9ite notion ( :at he meant by ! con/ruction ( geometrical figures 9 space1 8 v>i\s utt]ances seem to %[ t 9 reg>d to ! nature ( ari?metical & algebraic con/ruction he _h nev] really attempt$ to arrive at any precision ( view4 ,to judge by ! passage already quot$#eba f ! ,diss]tation1 ,kant reg>d$ space z no less necess>y ?an "t to ! con/ruction or intuition ( numb]4 0,! intellectual concept ( numb] dem&s = its concrete actualisation ! auxili>y notions ( "t & space 79 ! successive addition & 9 ! juxtaposition ( a plurality70 ,a simil> view appe>s 9 ! ,critique 9 ,a #adj ,b #agi & 9 ,b #ae4 ,9 con=mity1 h[ev]1 ) ! g5]al requirem5ts ( 8 doctr9e ( ,s*ematism1 ,kant def9es ! s*ema ( numb] 9 exclusive ref]5ce to "t2 &1 z we h not$1 x is to ?is def9ition t ,s*ulze appeals 9 support ( 8 view ( ari?metic z ! sci5ce ( c\nt+ & !re=e ( "t4 ,x at lea/ %[s t ,kant p]ceiv$ "s =m ( connection to exi/ betwe5 ari?metic & "t4 ,b 9 ?is matt] ,kant's position 0 probably simply a coroll>y f 8 g5]al view ( ! nature ( ma!matical sci5ce1 & 9 p>ticul> ( 8 view ( geometry1 ! 8exempl>0#ebb ( all ! o!rs4 ,ma!matical sci5ce1 z su*1 is bas$ on intuition2#ebc !re=e ari?metic1 :i* is "o ( its dep>tm5ts1 mu/ be s likewise4 ,no attempt1 h[ev]1 is made to def9e ! nature ( ! intuitions 9 :i* x has its s\rce4 ,sympa!tically int]pret$1 8 /atem5ts may be tak5 z sugge/+ t ari?metic is ! /udy ( s]ies :i* f9d concrete expression 9 ! ord] ( sequ5t times4 ,! foll[+ e/imate1 giv5 by ,cassir]1#ebd does ample ju/ice bo? to ! true & to ! false elem5ts 9 ,kant's doctr9e4 0,ev5 disc\nt+ ,kant's insi/5ce ^u ! conceptual "* ( ari?metical sci5ce1 & all[+ t he d]ives ari?metical concepts & propositions f ! pure intuition ( "t1 ?is tea*+1 to :atev] objections x may lie op51 has c]ta9ly n ! m]ely psy*ological mean+ :i* ! majority ( its critics h ascrib$ to x4 ,if x conta9$ only ! trivial ?\ght1 t ! empirical act ( c\nt+ requires "t1 x w\ld be completely refut$ by ! famili> objection :i* ,b4 ,b5eke has =mulat$3 #8,! fact t "t elapses 9 ! process ( c\nt+ c prove no?+2 = :at is !re ov] :i* "t does n fl[8' ,x is easily se5 t ,kant is only conc]n$ ) ! #8transc5d5tal' det]m9ation ( ! concept ( "t1 accord+ to :i* x appe>s z ! type ( an ord]$ sequ5ce4 ,william ,r[an ,hamilton1 :o adopts ,kant's doctr9e1 has def9$ algebra z #8sci5ce ( pure "t or ord] 9 progression4' ,t ! :ole cont5t ( ari?metical concepts c really be obta9$ f ! fundam5tal concept ( ord] 9 unbrok5 developm5t1 is completely confirm$ by ,russell's exposition4 ,z aga9/ ! ,kantian !ory x mu/1 ( c\rse1 be emphasis$1 t x is n ! concrete =m ( "t intuition :i* con/itutes ! gr\nd ( ! concept ( numb]1 b t on ! contr>y ! pure logical concepts ( sequ5ce & ( ord] are already implicitly conta9$ & embodi$ 9 t concrete =m40 ,mu* ( ! unsatisfactor9ess ( ,kant's argum5t is traceable to 8 mode ( conceiv+ ! 8con/ruction0#ebe ( ma!matical concepts4 ,all concepts1 he seems to hold1 ev5 ^? ( geometry & ari?metic1 are ab/ract class concepts--! concept ( triangle repres5t+ ! prop]ties common to all triangles1 & ! concept ( sev5 ! prop]ties common to all gr\ps t are sev54 ,ma!matical concepts diff]1 h[ev]1 f o!r concepts 9 t !y are capable ( a priori con/ruction1 t is1 ( hav+ _! objects repres5t$ 9 pure intuition4 ,n[ ?is is an extremely un=tunate mode ( /atem5t4 ,x implies t ma!matical concepts h a dual mode ( exi/5ce1 fir/ z ab/ract$1 & secondly z con/ruct$4 ,su* a position is n t5able4 ,! concept ( sev51 9 its prim>y =m1 is n ab/ract$ f a v>iety ( p>ticul> gr\ps ( sev52 x is already involv$ 9 ! appreh5sion ( ea* ( !m z be+ sev54 ,nor is x a concept t is itself con/ruct$4 ,x may p]haps be describ$ z be+ ! repres5tation ( some?+ con/ruct$2 b t some?+ is n itself4 ,x repres5ts ! process or me?od g5]ative ( ! complex = :i* x /&s4 ,?us ,kant's di/9ction betwe5 ! intuitive nature ( ma!matical k & ! m]ely discursive "* ( conceptual k is at once inspir$ by ! v important di/9ction betwe5 ! product ( con/ruction & ! product ( ab/raction1 & yet at ! same "t is also obscur$ by ! q inadequate mann] 9 :i* t latt] di/9ction has be5 =mulat$4 ,kant has aga9 adh]$ to ! old] logic ev5 9 ! v act ( revis+ its conclusions2 & 9 s do+ he has sacrific$ ! ,critical doctr9es ( ! ,analytic to ! pre-,critical tea*+ ( ! ,diss]tation & ,ae/hetic4 ,ma!matical concepts are ( ! same g5]al type z ! categories2 _! prim>y function is n to cl>ify intuitions1 b to make !m possible4 ,!y are d]ivable f intuition only 9 s f> z !y h contribut$ to its con/itution4 ,if intuition conta9s factors additional to ! concepts ?r\gh :i* x is int]pret$1 ^! factors mu/ rema9 outside ! realm ( ma!matical sci5ce1 until su* "t z conceptual analysis has prov$ itself capable ( fur!r ext5sion4 ,i may n[ summ>ise ?is g5]al discussion4 ,?\gh ,kant 9 ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique _h spok5 ( ! ma!matical sci5ces z bas$ ^u ! intuition ( space & "t1 he _h n1 despite 8 con/ant t5d5cy to conceive space & "t z p>allel =ms ( exi/5ce1 bas$ any sep>ate ma!matical discipl9e ^u "t4 ,8 def9ition ( numb]1 9 ! *apt] on ,s*ematism1 _h recognis$ ! ess5tially conceptual "* ( ari?metic1 & _h connect$ x ) "t only 9 a q indirect mann]4 ,a passage 9 ! ,prolegom5a is ! "o place 9 all ,kant's writ+s 9 :i* he w\ld seem to ass]t1 ?\gh 9 brief & q indef9ite t]ms1 t ari?metic is relat$ to "t z geometry is relat$ to space4 ,no su* view ( ari?metic is to be f\nd 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique4 ,9 ! transc5d5tal exposition ( "t1 add$ 9 ! second edition1 only pure me*anics is m5tion$4 ,?is w\ld seem to indicate t ,kant _h made ! above /atem5t c>elessly1 )\t due ?\ght1 & t on fur!r reflection he f\nd himself unable to /& by x4 ,! omission is ! m significant 9 t ,kant ref]s to ari?metic 9 ! passages add$ 9 ! second edition ,introduction4 ,! tea*+ ( ^! passages1 ap>t f ! ass]t$ necessity ( appeal+ to f+]s or po9ts1#ebf h>monises ) ! view s briefly outl9$ 9 ! ,analytic4 ,ari?metic is a conceptual sci5ce2 ?\gh x f9ds 9 ord]$ sequ5ce its intuitional mat]ial1 x _c be adequately def9$ z be+ ! sci5ce ( "t4 ,,conclusions ,,f ,,! ,,prec$+ ,,concepts#ebg ,^! ,conclusions d n run p>allel ) ! correspond+ ,conclusions 9 reg>d to space4 ,9 ! fir/ p>agraph !re are two diff]5ces4 7a7 ,kant takes acc\nt ( a view n consid]$ "u space1 viz4 t "t is a self-exi/+ sub/ance4 ,he rejects x on a gr\nd :i* is difficult to reconcile ) 8 recognition ( a manifold ( intuition z well z a manifold ( s5se1 namely t x w\ld !n be some?+ real )\t be+ a real object4 ,9 ,a #ci ,b #eg & ,b #gj ,kant describes space & "t1 s conceiv$1 z un5dli*e ,und+e4 7b7 ,kant introduces into 8 fir/ ,conclusion ! argum5t#ebh t only by conceiv+ "t z ! =m ( inn] intuition c we ju/ify a priori syn!tic judgm5ts 9 reg>d to objects4 ,second ,p>agraph 7,conclusion b74--,?is latt] /atem5t is repeat$ at ! op5+ ( ! second ,conclusion4 ,! emphasis is no long]1 h[ev]1 ^u ! t]m 8=m0 b ^u ! t]m 8inn]02 & ,kant proce$s to make ass]tions :i* by no means foll[ f ! five argum5ts1 & :i* mu/ be c\nt$ among/ ! mo/ difficult & controv]sial t5ets ( ! :ole ,critique4 7a7 ,"t is n a det]m9ation ( out] appe>ances4 ,= x belongs nei!r to _! %ape nor to _! position--& prud5tly at ?is po9t ! prop]ty ( motion is smuggl$ out ( view "u cov] ( an etc4 ,"t does n det]m9e ! relation ( appe>ances to "o ano!r1 b only ! relation ( repres5tations 9 our inn] /ate4#ebi ,x is ! =m only ( ! intuition ( ourselves & ( our inn] /ate4#ecj ,obvi\sly ^! are ass]tions :i* ,kant _c possibly hold to 9 ?is unqualifi$ =m4 ,9 ! v next p>agraph !y are modifi$ & re/at$4 7b7 ,z ?is inn] intuition supplies no %ape 7,ge/alt71 we seek to make good ?is defici5cy by means ( analogies4 ,we repres5t ! "t-sequ5ce ?r\gh a l9e progress+ to inf9ity 9 :i* ! manifold con/itutes a s]ies ( only "o dim5sion4 ,f ! prop]ties ( ?is l9e1 ) ! "o exception t its p>ts are simultane\s :]eas ^? ( "t are always successive1 we conclude to all ! prop]ties ( "t4 ,! word+ ( ! passage seems to imply t su* symbolisation ( "t ?r\gh space is helpful b n indisp5sably necess>y = its appreh5sion4 ,t x is indisp5sably necess>y is1 h[ev]1 ! view to :i* ,kant f9ally settl$ d[n4#eca ,b he has n yet come to cle>ness on ?is po9t4 ,! passage has all ! signs ( hav+ be5 writt5 prior to ! ,analytic4 ,?\gh ,kant seems to h held consi/5tly to ! view t "t has1 9 or by itself1 only "o dim5sion1#ecb ! difficulties involv$ drove him to recognise t ?is is true only ( "t z ! ord] ( our repres5tations4 ,x is n true ( ! objective "t appreh5d$ 9 & ?r\gh our repres5tations4 ,:5 lat] ,kant came to hold t consci\sness ( "t is condition$ by consci\sness ( space1 he app>5tly also adopt$ ! view t1 by ref]5ce to space1 "t indirectly acquires simultaneity z an additional mode4 ,! objective spatial _w is 9 "t1 b 9 a "t :i* %[s simultaneity z well z succession4 ,9 ! ,diss]tation#ecc ,kant _h criticis$ ,leibniz & 8 foll[]s = neglect+ simultaneity1 8! mo/ important consequ5ce ( "t40 8,?\gh "t has only "o dim5sion1 yet ! ubiquity ( "t 7to employ ,newton's t]m71 ?r\gh :i* all ?+s s5su\sly ?9kable are at "s "t1 adds ano!r dim5sion to ! quantity ( actual ?+s1 9 s f> z !y hang1 z x 71 ^u ! same po9t ( "t4 ,= if we repres5t "t by a /raight l9e ext5d$ to inf9ity1 & simultane\s ?+s at any po9t ( "t by l9es successively erect$ p]p5dicul> to ! fir/ l9e1 ! surface ?us g5]at$ w repres5t ! ph5om5al _w bo? z to sub/ance & z to accid5ts40 ,simil>ly 9 ,a #ahb ,b #bbf ( ! ,critique ,kant /ates t simultaneity is n a mode ( "t1#ecd s9ce none ( ! p>ts ( "t c be simultane\s1 & yet also tea*es 9 ,a #agg ,b #bai t1 z ! ord] ( appe>ances1 "t possesses 9 addition to succession ! two modes1 duration & simultaneity4 ,! significance ( ?is di/9ction betwe5 "t z ! ord] ( our inn] /ates1 & "t z ! ord] ( objective appe>ances1 we %all consid] imm$iately4 ,a connect$ "q is z to :e!r or n ,kant tea*es ! possibility ( simultane\s appreh5sion4 ,9 ! ,ae/hetic & ,dialectic he c]ta9ly does s4 ,space is giv5 z conta9+ coexi/+ p>ts1 &#ece c be intuit$ z su* )\t successive syn!sis ( its p>ts4 ,9 ! ,analytic1 on ! o!r h&1 ! opposite w\ld seem to be impli$4#ecf ,! appreh5sion ( a manifold c only be obta9$ ?r\gh ! successive addition or g5]ation ( its p>ts4 7c7 ,la/ly1 ,kant argues t ! fact t all ! relations ( "t c be express$ 9 an out] intuition is pro( t ! repres5tation ( "t is itself intuition4 ,b surely if1 z ,kant lat] taught1 "t c be appreh5d$ at all only 9 & ?r\gh space1 t1 tak5 alone1 w\ld r be a reason = d5y+ x to be itself intuition4 ,9 any case x is difficult to foll[ ,kant 9 8 cont5tion t ! intuition ( "t is simil> 9 g5]al "* to t ( space4#ecg ,?ird ,p>agraph 7,conclusion c74--,kant n[ reop5s ! "q z to ! relation 9 :i* "t /&s to out] appe>ances4 ,z already not$1 he has argu$ 9 ! beg9n+ ( ! previ\s p>agraph t x _c be a det]m9ation ( out] appe>ances1 b only ( repres5tations 9 our inn] /ate4 ,ext]nal appe>ances1 h[ev]1 z ,kant recognises1 c be kn[n only 9 & ?r\gh repres5tations4 ,to t ext5t !y belong to inn] s5se1 & consequ5tly 7su* is ,kant's argum5t7 are !mselves subject to "t4 ,"t1 z ! imm$iate condition ( our repres5tations1 is also ! m$iate condition ( appe>ances4 ,!re=e1 ,kant concludes1 8all appe>ances1 i4e4 all objects ( ! s5ses1 are 9 "t1 & necess>ily /& 9 "t-relations40 ,n[ q obvi\sly ?is argum5t is invalid if ! di/9ction betwe5 repres5tations & _! objects is a real & g5u9e "o4 ,= if s1 x does n at all foll[ t because our repres5tations ( objects are 9 "t t ! objects !mselves are 9 "t4 ,9 o!r words1 ! argum5t is valid only f ! /&po9t ( extreme subjectivism1 accord+ to :i* objects are1 9 ,kant's own phraseology1 blosse ,vor/ellung54 ,b ! argum5t is employ$ to e/abli% a reali/ conclusion1 t out] objects1 z objects1 /& 9 "t-relations to "o ano!r4 ,9 contradiction ( ! previ\s p>agraph he is n[ ma9ta9+ t "t is a det]m9ation ( out] appe>ances1 & t x reveals itself 9 ! motion ( bodies z well z 9 ! flux ( our inn] /ates4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 repres5tations & _! objects also makes x possible = ,kant bo? to ass]t & to d5y t simultaneity is a mode ( "t4 8,no two ye>s c be coexi/5t4 ,"t has only "o dim5sion4 ,b exi/5ce 7das ,dase971 measur$ ?r\gh "t1 has two dim5sions1 succession & simultaneity40 ,!re are1 = ,kant1 two ord]s ( "t1 subjective & objective4 ,recognition ( ! latt] 7emphasis$ & develop$ 9 ! ,analytic7#ech is1 h[ev]1 irreconcilable ) 8 cont5tion t "t is m]ely ! =m ( inn] s5se4 ,we h "h "o ( ! _m objections to :i* ,kant's doctr9e ( "t lies op54 ,x is ! mo/ vuln]able t5et 9 8 :ole sy/em4 ,a m]e li/ ( ! po9ts :i* ,kant leaves unsettl$ suffices to %[ h[ greatly he 0 tr\bl$ 9 8 own m9d by ! problems to :i* x gives rise4 7#a7 ,! nature ( ! a priori k :i* "t yields4 ,kant ascribes to ?is s\rce sometimes only ! two axioms 9 reg>d to "t1 sometimes pure me*anics1 & sometimes also ari?metic4 7#b7 ,:e!r "t only all[s (1 or :e!r x dem&s1 repres5tation ?r\gh space4 ,sometimes ,kant makes ! "o ass]tion1 sometimes ! o!r4 7#c7 ,:e!r x is possible to appreh5d ! coexi/5t )\t successive syn!sis ( its p>ts4 ,?is possibility is ass]t$ 9 ! ,ae/hetic & ,dialectic1 d5i$ 9 ! ,analytic4 7#d7 ,:e!r simultaneity is a mode ( "t4 7#e7 ,:e!r1 & 9 :at mann]1 appe>ances ( out] s5se are 9 "t4 ,kant's answ] to #d & to #e v>ies accord+ z he id5tifies or di/+ui%es repres5tations & empirical objects4 ,! manifold difficulties to :i* a !ory ( "t ?us lies op5 are probably ! reason :y ,kant1 9 ! ,critique1 rev]ses ! ord] 9 :i* he _h treat$ "t & space 9 ! ,diss]tation4#eci ,b ! plac+ ( space be=e "t is none ! less un=tunate4 ,x greatly t5ds to conceal f ! read] ! c5tral position :i* ,kant has assign$ to "t 9 ! ,analytic4 ,consci\sness ( "t is ! fundam5tal fact1 tak5 z b>e fact1 by ref]5ce to :i* ,kant ga9s 8 transc5d5tal pro( ( ! categories & pr9ciples ( und]/&+4#edj ,9 ! ,analytic space1 by comp>ison1 falls v mu* into ! backgr\nd4 ,a fur!r reason = ! rev]sal may h be5 ,kant's ,newtonian view ( geometry z ! ma!matical sci5ce p> excell5ce4#eda ,9 view ( 8 =mulation ( ! ,critical problem z t ( acc\nt+ = syn!tic a priori judgm5ts1 he w\ld !n naturally be l$ to ?r[ m emphasis on space4 ,to sum up our ma9 conclusions4 ,kant's view ( "t z a =m m]ely ( inn] s5se1 & z hav+ only "o dim5sion1 connects ) 8 subjectivism4 ,8 view ( x z inh]+ 9 objects1 & z hav+ duration & simultaneity z two ( its modes1 is b\nd up ) 8 ph5om5alism4 ,fur!r discussion ( ^! difficulties mu/ !re=e be def]r$ until we are 9 a position to raise ! m fundam5tal problem z to ! nature ( ! di/9ction betwe5 a repres5tation & its object4#edb ,motion is n an inn] /ate4 ,yet x involves "t z directly z does ! fl[ ( our feel+s & ideas4 ,kant's ass]tion t 8"t c no m be intuit$ ext]nally ?an space c be intuit$ z some?+ 9 u10#edc if tak5 q lit]ally1 w\ld involve bo? ! subjectivi/ ass]tion t motion ( bodies is non-exi/5t1 & also ! ph5om5ali/ cont5tion t an ext5d$ object is altoge!r di/9ct f a repres5tation4 ,! f\r? & fif? p>agraphs call = no detail$ analysis4#edd ,"t is empirically real1 transc5d5tally ideal--^! t]ms hav+ exactly ! same mean+ & scope z 9 ref]5ce to space4#ede ,! f\r? s5t5ce 9 ! fif? p>agraph is curi\sly inaccurate4 ,z x /&s1 x w\ld imply t "t is giv5 ?r\gh ! s5ses4 ,9 ! conclud+ s5t5ces ,kant briefly summ>ises & applies ! po9ts rais$ 9 ^! f\r? & fif? p>agraphs4 ,,elucidation ,fir/ & ,second ,p>agraphs4--,kant "h replies to a criticism :i*1 z he tells u 9 8 lett] ( #aggb to ,h]z1 0 fir/ made by ,pa/or ,s*ulze & by ,lamb]t4#edf ,9 t lett] ! objection & ,kant's reply are /at$ z foll[s4 8,9 accordance ) ! te/imony ( inn] s5se1 *anges are some?+ real4 ,b !y are only possible on ! assumption ( "t4 ,"t is1 !re=e1 some?+ real :i* belongs to ! det]m9ations ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,:y1 said ,i to myself1 d we n argue 9 a p>allel mann]3 #8,bodies are real1 9 accordance ) ! out] s5ses4 ,b bodies are possible only "u ! condition ( space4 ,space is1 !re=e1 some?+ objective & real :i* inh]es 9 ! ?+s !mselves4' ,! cause ( ?is diff]5tial treatm5t ( space & ( "t is ! obs]vation t 9 respect to out] ?+s we _c inf] f ! reality ( repres5tations ! reality ( _! objects1 :]eas 9 inn] s5se ! ?\ght or ! exi/+ ( ! ?\ght & ( myself are "o & ! same4 ,h]e9 lies ! key to ! difficulty4 ,und\bt$ly ,i mu/ ?9k my own /ate "u ! =m ( "t1 & ! =m ( ! inn] s5sibility consequ5tly gives me ! appe>ance ( *anges4 ,n[ ,i d n d5y t *anges are some?+ real any m ?an ,i d5y t bodies are some?+ real1 b ,i !reby mean only t some?+ real corresponds to ! appe>ance4 ,i may n ev5 say ! inn] appe>ance und]goes *ange 7v]nd]e si*71 = h[ c\ld ,i obs]ve ?is *ange unless x appe>$ to my inn] s5se8 ,to ! objection t ?is leads to ! conclusion t all ?+s 9 ! _w objectively & 9 !mselves are un*angeable1 ,i w\ld reply t !y are nei!r *angeable nor un*angeable4 ,z ,baumg>t5 /ates 9 #ah ( 8 ,metaphysica1 ! absolutely impossible is hypo!tically nei!r possible nor impossible1 s9ce x _c be m5tally ent]ta9$ "u any condition :atsoev]2 s 9 simil> mann] ! ?+s ( ! _w are objectively or 9 !mselves nei!r 9 "o & ! same /ate nor 9 diff]5t /ates at diff]5t times1 = ?us und]/ood viz4 z ?+s 9 !mselves !y are n repres5t$ 9 "t at all40#edg ,?us ,kant's cont5tion1 bo? 9 ?is lett] & 9 ! passage be=e u1 is t ev5 our inn] /ates w\ld n reveal *ange if !y c\ld be appreh5d$ by u or by "s o!r be+ ap>t f ! subjective =m ( our inn] s5se4 ,we may n say t our inn] /ates und]go *ange1 or t !y succe$ "o ano!r1 b only t to u !y necess>ily appe> z s do+4#edh ,"t is no m ?an subjectively real4#edi ,z ,krn] writes to ,s*ill]3 8,)\t "t man w\ld inde$ exi/ b n appe>4 ,n 8 reality b only 8 appe>ance is dep5d5t ^u ! condition ( "t40 8,man is n1 b only appe>s1 :5 he und]goes *ange40#eej ,! objects ( inn] s5se /& 9 exactly ! same position z ^? ( out] s5se4 ,bo? are appe>ances1 & nei!r c be id5tifi$ ) ! absolutely real4 ,z ,kant argues lat] 9 ! ,critique1#eea inn] processes are n kn[n ) any great] c]ta9ty or imm$iacy ?an are out] objects2 ! reality ( "t z subjective proves its unreality 9 relation to ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! /atem5t t ! con/itution ( ?+s 9 !mselves is 8problematic0 is an exceptional mode ( expression = ,kant4 ,usually--z inde$ ?r\gh\t ! :ole context ( ?is passage#eeb--;he ass]ts t ?\gh ?+s 9 !mselves are unkn[able1 we c ) absolute c]ta9ty ma9ta9 t !y are nei!r 9 space nor 9 "t4 ,^u ?is po9t we h already dwelt 9 discuss+ ,tr5del5burg's controv]sy ) ,fis*]4#eec ,?ird ,p>agraph4--,! ?ird & f\r? p>agraphs ( ?is section ought to h _h a sep>ate head+4 ,!y summ>ise ! total argum5t ( ! ,ae/hetic 9 reg>d to space z well z "t1 di/+ui% its t5ets f ^? ( ,newton & ( ,leibniz1 & draw a g5]al conclusion4 ,! summ>y foll[s ! /rict syn!tic me?od4 ,! op5+ s5t5ces illu/rate ,kant's failure to di/+ui% betwe5 ! problems ( pure & ( appli$ ma!matics1 & also %[ h[ completely he t5ds to conceive ma!matics z typifi$ by geometry4 ,! criticism ( alt]native views trav]ses ! gr\nd ( ! fam\s controv]sy betwe5 ,leibniz & ,cl>ke4 ,_! ,/reits*rift5 71 z we h good circum/antial gr\nds = believ+1#eed a *ief influ5ce 9 ! developm5t ( ,kant's own views4 ,kant1 :o orig9ally held ! ,leibnizian position1 0 by #agfheee m or less conv]t$ to ! ,newtonian tea*+1 & 9 ! ,diss]tation ( #aggj develop$ 8 subjectivi/ /&po9t ) ! consci\s int5tion ( reta9+ ! advantages :ile rem$y+ ! defects ( bo? alt]natives4#eef ,= conv5i5ce we may limit ! discussion to space4 7a7 ,! view prop\nd$ by ,newton1 & def5d$ by ,cl>ke1 is t space has an exi/5ce 9 & by itself1 indep5d5t alike ( ! m9d :i* appreh5ds x & ( ! objects ) :i* x is fill$4 7b7 ,! view held by ,leibniz is t space is an empirical concept ab/ract$ f our confus$ s5se-exp]i5ce ( ! relations ( real ?+s4#eeg ,! criticism ( 7a7 is tw(old4 ,fir/1 x involves belief 9 an et]nal & inf9ite ,und+4 ,secondly1 x leads to metaphysical difficulties1 especially 9 reg>d to ! exi/5ce ( ,god4 ,if space is absolutely real1 h[ is x to be reconcil$ ) ! omnipres5ce ( ,god8 ,newton's view ( space z ! s5sorium ,dei c h>dly be reg>d$ z satisfactory4 ,! objection to 7b7 is t x _c acc\nt = ! apodictic c]ta9ty ( geometry1 nor gu>antee its application to exp]i5ce4 ,! concept ( space1 :5 reg>d$ z ( s5su\s orig91 is some?+ t may di/ort 7& accord+ to ! ,leibnizian tea*+ does actually di/ort7 :at x pr(esses to repres5t1 & is some?+ f :i* re/rictions t hold 9 ! natural _w h be5 omitt$4#eeh ,z empirical1 x _c s]ve z basis = ! univ]sal & necess>y judgm5ts ( ma!matical sci5ce4#eei ,! fir/ view has1 h[ev]1 ! advantage ( keep+ ! sph]e ( appe>ances op5 = ma!matical sci5ce4 ,z space is inf9ite & all-compreh5sive1 its laws hold univ]sally4 ,! second view has ! advantage ( n subject+ reality to space conditions4 ,^! advantages are reta9$1 :ile ! objections are remov$1 by ! tea*+ ( ! ,ae/hetic4 ,kant fur!r criticises ! =m] view 9 ,a #df ff4 ,b #fd ff4 ,!re is no possibility ( acc\nt+ = ! a priori syn!tic judgm5ts ( geometry save by assum+ t space is ! pure =m ( out] intuition4 ,= ?\gh ! ,newtonian view w ju/ify ! ass]tion t ! laws ( space hold univ]sally1 x _c expla9 h[ we come to "k !m a priori4 ,& assum+1 z ,kant con/antly does1 t space _c be bo? an a priori =m ( intuition & also indep5d5tly real1 he concludes t x is ! =m] only4 ,9 ,b #ga ,kant also re/ates ! metaphysical difficulties to :i* ! ,newtonian view lies op54 ,9 natural !ology we deal ) an exi/5ce :i* c nev] be ! object ( s5su\s intuition1 & :i* has to be fre$ f all conditions ( space & "t4 ,?is is impossible if space is s absolutely real t x w\ld rema9 ?\gh all creat$ ?+s 7 annihilat$4 ,f\r? ,p>agraph4--,space & "t are ! only two =ms ( s5sibility2 all o!r concepts belong+ to ! s5ses1 su* z motion & *ange1 are empirical4#efj ,z ,kant has himself /at$1 no reason c be giv5 :y space & "t are ! sole =ms ( our possible intuition3 8,o!r =ms ( intuition ?an space & "t1 444 ev5 if !y 7 possible1 we _c r5d] 9 any way conceivable & compreh5sible to ourselves1 & ev5 assum+ t we c\ld d s1 !y /ill w\ld n belong to exp]i5ce1 ! only k9d ( k 9 :i* objects are giv5 to u40#efa ,! fur!r /atem5t1#efb frequ5tly repeat$ 9 ! ,critique1 t "t itself does n *ange1 b only :at is 9 "t1#efc indicates ! ext5t to :i* ,kant has be5 influ5c$ by ! ,newtonian receptacle view4 ,z ,b]gson v ju/ly po9ts out1 "t1 ?us view$ z a homog5e\s m$ium1 is really be+ conceiv$ on ! analogy ( space4 8,x is m]ely ! phantom ( space obsess+ ! reflective consci\sness40#efd ,,g5]al ,,obs]vations ,,on ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,ae/hetic ,i4 ,fir/ ,p>agraph4--8,to avoid all misappreh5sion0 ,kant proce$s to /ate 8z cle>ly z possible0 8 view ( s5su\s k4 ,) ?is end 9 view he sets himself to en=ce two ma9 po9ts3 7a7 t z space & "t are only =ms ( s5sibility1 ev]y?+ appreh5d$ is only appe>ance2 7b7 t ?is is n a m]e hypo!sis b is completely c]ta94 ,kant exp\nds 7a7 indirectly ?r\gh criticism ( ! oppos+ views ( ,leibniz & ( ,locke4 ,b be=e do+ s he makes 9 ! next p>agraph a tw(old /atem5t ( 8 own conclusions4 ,second ,p>agraph4--,?is p>agraph /ates 7a7 t ?r\gh intuition we c repres5t only appe>ances1 n ?+s 9 !mselves1 & 7b7 t ! appe>ances ?us kn[n exi/ only 9 u4 ,bo? ass]tions h implications1 ! discussion ( :i* mu/ be def]r$ to ! ,analytic4 ,! m5tion ( ! 8relations ( ?+s by !mselves0 may1 z ,vaih+] sugge/s1#efe be a survival f ! "t :5 7z 9 ! ,diss]tation#eff7 ,kant s\ght to r$uce spatial to dynamical relations4 ,! ass]tion t ?+s 9 !mselves are completely unkn[n to u goes beyond :at ! ,ae/hetic c e/abli% & :at ,kant "h requires to prove4 ,8 pres5t !sis is only t no k ( ?+s 9 !mselves c be acquir$ ei!r ?r\gh ! =ms ( space & "t or ?r\gh s5sation2 space & "t are det]m9$ solely by our pure s5sibility1 & s5sations by our empirical s5sibility4 ,failure to recognise ?is is1 9 ,kant's view1 "o ( ! *ief defects ( ! ,leibnizian sy/em4 ,?ird & ,f\r? ,p>agraphs4 ,criticism ( ! ,leibniz-,wolff ,int]pretation ( ,s5sibility & ( ,appe>ance4--,leibniz vitiates bo? conceptions4 ,s5sibility does n diff] f ?\ght 9 cle>ness b 9 cont5t4 ,x is a diff]5ce ( k9d4#efg ,!y orig9ate 9 diff]5t s\rces1 & nei!r c by any trans=mation be r$uc$ to ! o!r4 8,ev5 if an appe>ance c\ld become completely transp>5t to u1 su* k w\ld rema9 toto coelo diff]5t f k ( ! object 9 itself40#efh 8,?r\gh obs]vation & analysis ( appe>ances we p5etrate to ! secrets ( nature1 & no "o c say h[ f> ?is may 9 "t ext5d4444 ,b h[ev] f> we advance1 we %all nev] be able by means ( s ill-adapt$ an in/rum5t ( inve/igation z our s5sibility to f9d any?+ except /ill o!r appe>ances1 ! non-s5su\s cause ( :i* we yet long to discov]40#efi ,we %\ld /ill "k only 9 t]ms ( ! two inali5able =ms ( our s5sibility4#egj ,! dualism ( ?\ght & s5se c nev] be transc5d$ by ! human m9d4 ,by no ext5sion ( its sph]e or p]fect+ ( its insight c s5su\s k be trans=m$ into a conceptual appreh5sion ( purely intelligible entities4 ,leibniz's conception ( appe>ances z ?+s 9 !mselves confus$ly appreh5d$ is equally false1 & = ! same reasons4#ega ,appe>ance & reality are relat$ z di/9ct exi/5ces1 ea* ( :i* has its own intr9sic "* & cont5t4 ,?r\gh ! =m] !re c be no hope ( p5etrat+ to ! latt]4 ,appe>ance is subjective 9 matt] z well z 9 =m4 ,= ,leibniz our k ( appe>ances is a confus$ k ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,prop]ly view$1 x is ! appreh5sion1 :e!r di/9ct or confus$1 ( objects :i* are nev] ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,s5se-k1 su* z we obta9 9 ! sci5ce ( geometry1 has (t5 ! highe/ degree ( cle>ness4 ,conceptual appreh5sion is all too frequ5tly *>act]is$ by obscurity & indi/9ctness4 ,?is criticism ( ,leibniz1 z exp\nd$ 9 ^! two p>agraphs1 is ?or\ghly mislead+ if tak5 z an adequate /atem5t ( ,kant's view ( ! relations betwe5 s5se & und]/&+1 appe>ance & reality4 ,^! p>agraphs are really a re/atem5t ( a passage 9 ! ,diss]tation4 8,x w ?us be se5 t we express ! nature ( ! s5su\s v inappropriately :5 we ass]t t x is ! m confus$ly kn[n1 & ! nature ( ! intellectual :5 we describe x z ! di/9ctly kn[n4 ,= ^! are m]ely logical di/9ctions1 & obvi\sly h no?+ to d ) ! giv5 facts :i* und]lie all logical comp>ison4 ,! s5su\s may be absolutely di/9ct1 & ! intellectual extremely confus$4 ,t is %[n on ! "o h& 9 geometry1 ! prototype ( s5su\s k1 & on ! o!r 9 metaphysics1 ! in/rum5t ( all intellectual enquiry4 ,e "o kn[s h[ zeal\sly metaphysics has /riv5 to dispel ! mi/s ( confusion :i* cl\d ! m9ds ( m5 at l>ge & yet has n always atta9$ ! happy results ( ! =m] sci5ce4 ,nev]!less ea* ( ^! k9ds ( k pres]ves ! m>k ( ! /ock f :i* x has sprung4 ,! =m]1 h[ev] di/9ct1 is on acc\nt ( its orig9 entitl$ s5su\s1 :ile ! latt]1 h[ev] confus$1 rema9s intellectual--z e4g4 ! moral concepts1 :i* are kn[n n by way ( exp]i5ce1 b ?r\gh ! pure intellect itself4 ,i fe>1 h[ev]1 t ,wolff by ?is di/9ction betwe5 ! s5su\s & ! intellectual1 :i* = him is m]ely logical1 has *eck$1 p]haps :olly 7to ! great detrim5t ( philosophy71 t noble/ ent]prise ( antiquity1 ! inve/igation ( ! nature ( ph5om5a & n\m5a1 turn+ m5's m9ds f su* enquiries to :at are v frequ5tly only logical subleties40#egb ,! p>agraphs be=e u give expression only to :at is common to ! ,diss]tation & to ! ,critique1 & d s entirely f ! /&po9t ( ! ,diss]tation4 ,?us ! illu/ration ( ! conception ( 8"r0 implies t ?+s 9 !mselves c be kn[n ?r\gh ! und]/&+4 ,! conception1 z ,kant says1 repres5ts 8a moral prop]ty :i* belongs to actions 9 & by !mselves40 ,simil>ly1 9 di/+ui%+ ! s5su\s f 8! intellectual10 he says t ?r\gh ! =m] we d n appreh5d ?+s 9 !mselves1 ?us imply+ t ?+s 9 !mselves c be kn[n ?r\gh ! pure intellect4 ,! view develop$ 9 ! ,analytic1 alike ( s5sibility & ( appe>ance1 is radically diff]5t4 ,s5sibility & und]/&+ may h a common s\rce2 & bo? are indisp5sably necess>y = ! appreh5sion ( appe>ance4 ,nei!r c function save 9 co-op]ation ) ! o!r4 ,appe>ance does n diff] f reality solely ?r\gh its s5su\s cont5t & =m1 b also 9 ! intellectual ord] or disp5sation to :i* x is subject4 ,b 9 ! v act ( ?us deep5+ ! gulf betwe5 appe>ance & reality by c\nt+ ev5 und]/&+ z contribut+ to ! k only ( ! =m]1 he 0 br\ght back to a position t has k9%ip ) ! ,leibnizian view ( _! int]relation4 ,s9ce und]/&+ is j z ess5tial z s5sibility to ! appreh5sion ( appe>ances1 & s9ce und]/&+ diff]s f s5sibility 9 ! univ]sality ( its range1 x enables u to view appe>ances 9 _! relation to ultimate reality1 & s to appreh5d !m z be+1 h[ev] subjective or ph5om5al1 ways 9 :i* ! ?+ 9 itself pres5ts itself to u4 ,su* a view is1 h[ev]1 on ,kant's pr9ciples1 q consi/5t ) ! fur!r cont5tion1 t appe>ance does n diff] f reality 9 a m]ely logical mann]4 ,factors t are peculi> to ! realm ( appe>ance h int]v5$ to trans=m ! real2 & 9 consequ5ce ev5 complet$ k ( ! ph5om5al--if su* c be conceiv$ z possible--w\ld n be equival5t to k ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,fif? ,p>agraph4 ,criticism ( ,locke's ,view ( ,appe>ance4--,?is p>agraph discusses ,locke's doctr9e#egc t ! second>y qualities are subjective1 & t 9 ! prim>y qualities we possess true k ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! di/9ction is drawn ^u empirical gr\nds1 namely1 t :ile c]ta9 qualities are uni=m = m ?an "o s5se1 & belong to objects "u all conditions1 o!rs are peculi> to ! diff]5t s5ses1 & arise only ?r\gh ! accid5tal relation ( objects to ! special s5ses4#egd ,?is di/9ction is1 ,kant says1 entirely ju/ifi$ f ! physical /&po9t4#ege ,a ra9b[ is an appe>ance ( :i* ! ra9drops con/itute ! true empirical reality4 ,b ,locke & 8 foll[]s int]pret ?is di/9ction wrongly4 ,!y ignore ! m fundam5tal transc5d5tal 7i4e4 metaphysical7 di/9ction betwe5 empirical reality & ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,f ! transc5d5tal /&po9t ! ra9drops are !mselves m]ely appe>ance4 ,ev5 _! r\nd %ape1 & ! v space 9 :i* !y fall2 are only modifications ( our s5su\s intuition4 ,! #8transc5d5tal object'#egf rema9s unkn[n to u4 ,:5 ,kant ?us decl>es t ! di/9ction betwe5 prim>y & second>y qualities is ju/ifi$ 7ri*tig7 f ! physical /&po9t1 he is aga9#egg speak+ f a ph5om5ali/ po9t ( view4 ,& x may be not$ t 9 develop+ 8 transc5d5tal di/9ction he does n describe ! ra9drops z m]e repres5tations4 ,8 phrase is mu* m indef9ite4 ,!y are 8modifications or fundam5tal =ms 7,grundlag57 ( our s5su\s intuition40 ,kant does n "h criticise ! view ( s5sibility :i* und]lies ,locke's view ( appe>ance4 ,b he does s 9 ,a #bga ,b #cbg1 complet+ ! p>allel & contra/ betwe5 ,leibniz & ,locke4 8,leibniz intellectualis$ appe>ances1 j z ,locke1 accord+ to 8 sy/em ( noogony 7if ,i may be all[$ ^! expressions71 s5sualis$ all concepts ( ! und]/&+1 i4e4 int]pret$ !m z simply empirical or ab/ract$ concepts ( reflection4 ,in/ead ( int]pret+ und]/&+ & s5sibility z two q diff]5t s\rces ( repres5tations1 :i* yet c supply objectively valid judgm5ts ( ?+s only 9 conjunction ) ea* o!r1 ea* ( ^! great m5 holds only to "o ( ! two1 view+ x z 9 imm$iate relation to ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! o!r faculty is reg>d$ z s]v+ only to confuse or to ord] ! repres5tations :i* ?is select$ faculty yields40#egh ,pro( t ! above ,view ( ,space & ,"t is n a m]e ,hypo!sis1 b completely c]ta94#egi--,! pro(1 :i* z "h recapitulat$ & develop$ foll[s ! analytic me?od1 has already be5 consid]$ 9 connection ) ,a #ci ,b #ef4 ,x proce$s ^u ! assumption t space _c be bo? an a priori =m ( intuition & also indep5d5tly real4 ,! argum5t z a :ole lacks cle>ness ow+ to ,kant's failure to di/+ui% betwe5 ! problems ( pure & appli$ geometry1 betwe5 pure intuition & =m ( intuition4 ,?is is especially obvi\s 9 ! v un=tunate & mislead+ second application ( ! triangle illu/ration4#ehj ,kant's t5d5cy to conceive ma!matical sci5ce almo/ exclusively 9 t]ms ( geometry is likewise illu/rat$4 8,!re is 9 reg>d to bo? space & "t a l>ge numb] ( a priori apodictic & syn!tic propositions4 ,?is is especially true ( space1 :i* = ?is reason w be our *ief illu/ration 9 ?is enquiry40#eha ,,ii4 ,p>agraphs add$ 9 ! ,second ,edition4#ehb--,kant proce$s to (f] fur!r pro( ( ! ideality ( ! appe>ances 7a7 ( out] & 7b7 ( inn] s5se4 ,su* pro( he f9ds 9 ! fact t ^! appe>ances consi/ solely ( relations4 7a7 ,out] appe>ances r$uce )\t rema9d] to relations ( position 9 intuition 7i4e4 ( ext5sion71 ( *ange ( position 7motion71 & to ! laws :i* express 9 m]ely relational t]ms ! motive =ces by :i* su* *ange is det]m9$4 ,:at x is t is ?us pres5t 9 space1 or :at ! dynamic ag5cies may be to :i* ! motion is due1 is nev] reveal$4 ,b a real exi/5t 7,sa*e an si*7 c nev] be kn[n ?r\gh m]e relations4 ,out] s5se consequ5tly reveals ?r\gh its repres5tations only ! relation ( an object to ! subject1 n ! intr9sic inn] nature ( ! object 9 itself 7,object an si*74 ,kant's avoidance ( ! t]m ,d+ an si* may be not$4#ehc 7b7 ,! same holds true ( inn] s5se1 n only because ! repres5tations ( out] s5se con/itute its prop] 7eig5tli*57 mat]ial1 b also because "t1 9 :i* ^! are set1 conta9s only relations ( succession1 coexi/5ce1 & duration4 ,?is "t 7:i* z consi/+ only ( relations c be no?+ b a =m#ehd7 is itself1 9 turn1 a m]e relation4 ,x is only ! mann] 9 :i* ?r\gh its own activity ! m9d is affect$ by itself4 ,b 9 ord] to be affect$ by itself x mu/ h receptivity1 9 o!r words1 s5sibility4 ,"t1 consequ5tly1 mu/ be reg>d$ z ! =m ( ?is inn] s5se4 ,t ev]y?+ repres5t$ 9 "t1 l t :i* is repres5t$ 9 space1 consi/s solely ( relations1 ,kant does n1 h[ev]1 attempt to prove4 ,he is satisfi$ ) repeat+ ! conclusion rea*$ 9 ! fir/ edition ( ! ,ae/hetic1 t1 z "t is ! object ( a s5se1 x mu/ ( necessity be appe>ance4 ,?is1 l ev]y?+ :i* ,kant wrote ^u inn] s5se1 is pr(\ndly unsatisfactory4 ,! obscurities ( 8 argum5t are n to be excus$ on ! gr\nd t 8! difficulty1 h[ a subject c h an int]nal intuition ( itself1 is common to e !ory40 ,= no great ?9k]1#ehe except ,locke1 has attempt$ to int]pret inn] consci\sness on ! analogy ( ! s5ses4 ,discussion ( ! doctr9e mu/ meantime be def]r$4#ehf ,,iii4 ,b #fi4--,kant "h =mulates ! important di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance 7,ers*e9ung7 & illusion 7,s*e974 ,! ma9 text is cle> s f> z x goes2 b ! app5d$ note is ?or\ghly confus$4 ,toge!r !y conta9 no less ?an ?ree di/9ct & conflict+ views ( illusion4#ehg ,accord+ to ! ma9 text1 ,s*e9 signifies a repres5tation1 su* z may occur 9 a dream1 to :i* no?+ real corresponds4 ,ers*e9ung1 on ! o!r h&1 is always ! appe>ance ( a giv5 object2 b s9ce ! qualities ( t object dep5d solely on our mode ( intuition1 we h to di/+ui% ! object z appe>ance f ! object z ?+ 9 itself4 0,e appe>ance has two sides1 ! "o by :i* ! object is view$ 9 & by itself1 444 ! o!r by :i* ! =m ( ! intuition ( ! object is tak5 into acc\nt44440#ehh ,obvi\sly1 :5 illusion is def9$ 9 ! above mann]1 ! ass]tion t objects 9 space are m]e appe>ances _c be tak5 z mean+ t !y are illusory4 ,b ?is view ( illusion is peculi> to ! passage be=e u & to ,a #ch ,b #ee4 ,x occurs n[h]e else1 ei!r 9 ! ,critique or 9 ! ,prolegom5a2 & x is n1 z ,kant has himself admitt$1#ehi really relevant to ! purposes ( ! ,critique4 ,! issues are m adequately fac$ 9 ! app5d$ note1 :i*1 h[ev]1 at ! same "t1 %[s v cle>ly t ,kant has n yet prop]ly dis5tangl$ _! v>i\s /r&s4 ,! above def9ition ( appe>ance is too wide4 ,x cov]s illusory s5se p]ception z well z appe>ance prop]4 ,! fur!r qualification mu/ be add$1 t ! pr$icates ( appe>ance are con/ant & are insep>able f its repres5tation4 ,?us ! space pr$icates c be ass]t$ ( any ext]nal object4 ,r$ness & sc5t c be ascrib$ to ! rose4 ,all ( ^! are g5u9e appe>ances4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 ! two h&les1 z obs]v$ by ,galileo1 are attribut$ to ,saturn1 r\ndness to a di/ant squ>e t[]1 b5tness to a /raight /ick ins]t$ 9 wat]1 ! result is m]e illusion4 ,! pr$icates1 9 su* cases1 d n /& ! te/ ( fur!r obs]vation or ( ! employm5t ( o!r s5ses4 ,only 9 a c]ta9 position ( its r+s1 relatively to ! obs]v]1 does ,saturn seem 7s*e9t7 to h two h&les4 ,! di/ant t[] only seems to be r\nd4 ,! /ick only seems to be b5t4 ,b ! rose is ext5d$ & is r$4 ,obvi\sly ,kant is no long] view+ ,s*e9 z equival5t to a m]ely m5tal image4 ,x n[ receives a second mean+4 ,x is illusion 9 ! mod]n1 psy*ological s5se4 ,x signifies an abnormal p]ception ( an actually pres5t object4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & illusion is n[ r$uc$ to a m]ely relative diff]5ce 9 con/ancy & univ]sality ( appe>ance4 ,saturn necess>ily appe>s to ,galileo z possess+ two h&les4 ,a squ>e t[] view$ f ! di/ance _c appe> to ! human eye o!rwise ?an r\nd4 ,a /ick ins]t$ 9 wat] mu/ appe> b5t4 ,if1 h[ev]1 ,saturn be view$ "u m fav\rable conditions1 if ! di/ance f ! t[] be dim9i%$1 if ! /ick be remov$ f ! wat]1 ! empirical object w appe> 9 a mann] m 9 h>mony ) ! possible or actual exp]i5ces ( t\*4 ,! di/9ction is practical1 r ?an !oretical1 9 its ju/ification4 ,x says only t c]ta9 sets ( conditions may be expect$ to rema9 uni=m2 ^?1 = in/ance1 physical1 physiological1 & psy*ical1 :i* cause a rose to appe> r$4 ,o!r sets ( conditions1 su* z ^? :i* cause ! /ick to appe> b5t1 are exceptional1 & = t reason ! b5tness may be disc\nt$ z illusion4 ,among ! relatively con/ant are ! space & "t prop]ties ( bodies4 ,to employ ! t]ms ( ! ma9 text1 x is n only by illusion t bodies seem to exi/ outside me2 !y actually are !re4 ,s long z we keep to ! sph]e ( ord9>y exp]i5ce1 & require no great] exactitude ?an practical life dem&s1 ?is di/9ction is1 ( c\rse1 bo? important & valid4 ,b ,kant1 by 8 ref]5ces to ,saturn1 raises consid]ations :i*1 if fac$1 mu/ complicate ! problem & place x ^u an entirely diff]5t plane4 ,if1 9 view ( sci5tific requirem5ts1 ! conditions ( obs]vation are m rigor\sly =mulat$1 & if by artificial in/rum5ts ( sci5tific precision we modify ! p]ceptions ( our human s5ses1 :at be=e 0 rank$ z appe>ance becomes illusion2 & no limit c be set to ! trans=mations :i* ev5 our mo/ normal human exp]i5ces may ?us be made to und]go4 ,ev5 ! mo/ con/ant p]ceptions !n yield to v>iation4 ,! mo/ t c be ass]t$ is t ?r\gh\t all *ange 9 ! conditions ( obs]vation objects /ill cont9ue to possess1 9 h[ev] new & revolution>y a fa%ion1 "s k9d ( space & "t pr$icates4 ,! application ( ?is m rigor\s sci5tific /&>d ( appe>ance ?us leads to a f\rfold di/9ction betwe5 ultimate reality1 sci5tific appe>ances1 ! appe>ances ( ord9>y consci\sness1 & ! illusions ( ord9>y consci\sness4 ,! appe>ances ( practical life are ! illusions ( sci5ce1 & ! appe>ances ( sci5ce w\ld simil>ly be illusions to any be+ :o ?r\gh #8intuitive und]/&+' c\ld appreh5d ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,b if ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & illusion is ?us m]ely relative to ! v>y+ nature ( ! conditions "u :i* obs]vation takes place1 x c af=d no suffici5t answ] to ! criticisms :i* ,kant is "h pr(ess+ to meet4 ,kant has 9 view ^? critics 7su* z ,lamb]t1 ,m5delssohn1 & ,g>ve7 :o _h object$ t if bodies 9 space are repres5tations exi/+1 z he s (t5 ass]ts1 only 8)9 u10 _! appe>+ to exi/ 8outside u0 is a complete illusion4 ,^! critics h1 inde$1 f\nd a vuln]able po9t 9 ,kant's tea*+4 ,! only way 9 :i* he c effectively meet x is by frank recognition & developm5t ( ! ph5om5alism ) :i* 8 subjectivism comes into s frequ5t conflict4#eij ,t c]ta9 p]ceptions are m con/ant ?an o!rs does n prove t all alike may n be class$ z illusory4 ,! criticism conc]ns only ! reality ( ext5d$ objects4 ,f ,kant's own extreme subjectivi/ position !y are illusions ( ! mo/ ?or\ghgo+ k9d4 ,if1 z ,kant s frequ5tly ma9ta9s1 objects are repres5tations & exi/ only 8)9 u10 _! exi/5ce 8outside u0 mu/ be d5i$4 ,! criticism c be met only if ,kant is prep>$ consi/5tly to =mulate & def5d 8 own alt]native tea*+1 t s5sations arise ?r\gh ! action ( ext]nal objects ^u ! s5se-organs1 & t ! _w ( physical sci5ce has consequ5tly a reality n r$ucible to m]e repres5tations 9 ! individual m9d4 ,x may be object$ t ,kant has 9 ! ma9 text cit$ "o ess5tial diff]5ce betwe5 8 position & t :i* is be+ ascrib$ to him4 ,ext5d$ objects1 ?\gh m]e repres5tations1 are yet due to1 & condition$ by1 ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,!y are illusory only 9 reg>d to _! prop]ties1 n 9 reg>d to _! exi/5ce4 ,b ?is di/9ction is n really relevant4 ,! criticism1 z j /at$1 is direct$ only aga9/ ,kant's view ( space4 ,! fact t ! spatial _w is a gr\nd$ & necess>y illusion is n /rictly relevant to ! matt] 9 dispute4 ,kant has1 inde$1 else:]e1 himself admitt$ ! ju/ice ( ! criticism4 ,9 ,a #ghj ,b #hjh he cites z a possible hypo!sis1 entirely 9 h>mony ) 8 ma9 results1 ?\gh n 9 any degree e/abli%$ by !m1 ! view 8t ?is life is an appe>ance only1 t is1 a s5su\s repres5tation ( purely spiritual life1 & t ! :ole s5sible _w is a m]e image 7e9 blosses ,bild7 :i* hov]s be=e our pres5t mode ( k1 & l a dream has 9 itself no objective reality40 ,kant's reply is ?us really only v]bal4 ,he claims t illusion1 if con/ant1 has e>n$ ! "r to be call$ appe>ance4 ,he accepts ! criticism1 b re/ates x 9 8 own t]ms4 ,! und]ly+ ph5om5alism :i* col\rs ! position 9 8 own ?\ghts1 & = :i* he has n be5 able to f9d any q satisfactory =mulation1 is ! sole possible ju/ification1 if any su* exi/s1 = 8 cont5tion t ! criticism does n apply4 ,su* ph5om5alism crops out 9 ! s5t5ce1 already p>tially quot$3 8,if ,i ass]t t ! quality ( space & "t1 accord+ to :i*1 z a condition ( _! exi/5ce1 ,i posit bo? ext]nal objects & my own s\l1 lies 9 my mode ( intuition & n 9 ^! objects 9 !mselves1 ,i am n say+ t only by illusion d bodies seem to exi/ outside me or my s\l to be giv5 9 my self-consci\sness40#eia ,b1 s f>1 ,i h simplifi$ ,kant's argum5t by leav+ out ( acc\nt a ?ird & entirely diff]5t view ( illusion :i* is likewise =mulat$ 9 ! app5d$ note4 ,9 ! middle ( ! second s5t5ce1 & 9 ! la/ s5t5ce1 illusion is def9$ z ! attribution to ! ?+ 9 itself ( :at belongs to x only 9 its relation to ! s5ses4 ,illusion lies n 9 ! object appreh5d$1 b only 9 ! judgm5t :i* we pass ^u x4 ,x is due1 n to s5se1 b to und]/&+4#eib ,view+ illusion 9 ?is way1 ,kant is enabl$ to ma9ta9 t 8 critics are guilty ( 8an unp>donable & almo/ int5tional misconception10#eic s9ce ?is is ! v fallacy :i* he himself has be5 mo/ conc]n$ to attack4 ,z he has con/antly insi/$1 appe>ance is appe>ance j because x c nev] be a revelation ( ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,n[ ! introduction ( ?is ?ird view r$uces ! argum5t ( ! app5d$ note to complete confusion4 ,its fir/ occurr5ce z a p>5!sis 9 a s5t5ce :i* is /at+ an oppos$ view w\ld seem to indicate t ! note has be5 c>elessly reca/4 ,orig9ally conta9+ only a /atem5t ( ! second view1 ,kant has connect$ !re) ! view :i* he _h already =mulat$ 9 ! fir/ edition & 9 ! ,prolegom5a4 ,b ! two views _c be comb9$4 ,by ! =m] def9ition1 illusion is necessitat$ b abnormal p]ception2 accord+ to ! latt]1 x is a prev5table error ( our consci\s judgm5t4 ,! opposite ( illusion is 9 ! "o case appe>ance1 9 ! o!r tru?4 ,! ret5tion ( ! ref]5ce to ,saturn1 9 ! /atem5t ( ! ?ird view at ! end ( ! note1 is fur!r evid5ce ( ha/y reca/+4 ,:ile ! rose & ! ext5d$ objects are !re treat$ z also ?+s 9 !mselves1 ,saturn is tak5 only 9 its ph5om5al exi/5ce4 ,9 view ( ! g5]al confusion1 x is a m9or inconsi/5cy t ,kant %\ld "h ma9ta91 9 direct opposition to ,a #bh-i1 t second>y qualities c be attribut$ to ! empirical object4 ,?is passage f ! second edition is a developm5t ( ,prolegom5a1 #ac1 iii4 ,kant !re employs ! t]m appe>ance 9 a q indef9ite mann]4 ,= ! mo/ "p he seems to mean by x any & e s5se-exp]i5ce1 :e!r normal or abnormal1 & ev5 to include "u x dream images4 ,b x is also employ$ 9 ! second ( ! above mean+s1 z signify+ ^? s5se-p]ceptions :i* h>monise ) g5]al exp]i5ce4 ,illusion is ?r\gh\t employ$ 9 ! ?ird ( ! above mean+s4 ,kant's illu/ration1 t ( ! app>5tly retrograde movem5ts ( ! planets1 necessitates a di/9ction betwe5 app>5t & real motion 9 space1 & consequ5tly leads to ! fruitful di/9ction not$ above4 ,kant gives1 h[ev]1 no sign t he is consci\s ( ! complicat$ problems involv$4 ,9 ! int]val betwe5 ! ,prolegom5a 7#aghc7 & ! second edition ( ! ,critique 7#aghg7 ,m5delssohn _h publi%$ 7#aghe7 8 ,morg5/und54 ,9 its introduction1 entitl$ ,vor]k5ntniss von ,wahrheit1 ,s*e9 und ,irr?um1#eid he v c>efully di/+ui%es betwe5 illusion 7,s9n5s*e97 & error ( judgm5t 7,irr?um74 ,?is introduction ,kant _h read4 ,9 a lett] to ,s*tz#eie he cites x by title1 & praises x z 8acute1 orig9al1 & ( exempl>y cle>ness40 ,x is !re=e ! m inexcusable t he %\ld aga9 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique h confus$ ^! two s radically diff]5t mean+s ( ! t]m ,s*e94 ,m5delssohn1 h[ev]1 drew no di/9ction betwe5 ,s*e9 & ,ers*e9ung4 ,!y 7 !n us$ z practically synonym\s1#eif ?\gh ( c\rse ,s*e9 0 ! /rong] t]m4 ,kant seems to h be5 ! fir/ to di/+ui% !m %>ply & to attempt to def9e ! "o 9 opposition to ! o!r4 ,b ! v fact t ,ers*e9ung & ,s*e9 7 curr5tly employ$ z equival5t t]ms1 & t ! di/9ction1 ?\gh "o ( 8 own draw+1 _h be5 m5tion$ only 9 ! mo/ cursory mann] 9 ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique1#eig removes all ju/ification = 8 retort ^u 8 critics ( 8unp>donable misconception40 ,8 ang] 0 really due1 n to ! objection 9 itself1 b to ! impli$ comp>ison ( 8 position to t ( ,b]keley4 ,su* comp>ison nev] fail$ to ar\se ,kant's wra?4 ,= h[ev] mu* ?is accusation might be ju/ifi$ by 8 own frequ5t lapses into subjectivism ( ! mo/ extreme type1 ev5 its p>tial tru? 0 m ?an he 0 will+ to admit4 ,b]keley repres5ts 9 8 eyes1 n m]ely a subjectivi/ int]pretation ( ! out] _w1 b ! almo/ diametrical opposite ( ev]y?+ = :i* he himself /ood4 ,discussion ( ,kant's relation to ,b]keley _h be/1 h[ev]1 be introduc$ ?r\gh consid]ation ( ! passage imm$iately foll[+ 9 :i* ,kant ref]s to ,b]keley by "n4 ,,iii4 7,second ,"p7 ,b #gj4--,kant urges t 8 doctr9e ( ! ideality ( space & "t1 s f> f r$uc+ objects to m]e illusion1 is ! sole means ( def5d+ _! g5u9e reality4 ,if space & "t _h an indep5d5t exi/5ce1 !y w\ld h to be reg>d$ z m real ?an ! bodies :i* occupy !m4 ,= on ?is view space & "t w\ld cont9ue to exi/ ev5 if all _! cont5ts 7 remov$2 !y w\ld be antec$5t necess>y conditions ( all o!r exi/5ces4 ,b space & "t ?us int]pret$ are impossible conceptions4#eih ,! reality ( bodies is !reby made to dep5d ^u ,und+e4 ,if ?is 7 ! sole alt]native1 8! good ,bi%op ,b]keley c\ld n be blam$ = degrad+ bodies to m]e illusion40 ,we %\ld1 ,kant ma9ta9s1 h to proce$ /ill fur!r1 d5y+ ev5 our own exi/5ce4 ,= _h ,b]keley tak5 acc\nt ( "t z well z ( space1 a simil> argum5t1 consi/5tly develop$ 9 reg>d to "t1 w\ld h con/ra9$ him to r$uce ! self to ! level ( m]e illusion4 ,belief 9 ! reality ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 :e!r spiritual or mat]ial1 is def5sible only if space & "t be view$ z subjective4 ,9 o!r words1 ,b]keley's idealism is an inevitable consequ5ce ( a reali/ view ( space4 ,b x is also its r$uctio ad absurdum4 8,b]keley 9 8 dogmatic idealism ma9ta9s t space1 ) all ! ?+s ( :i* x is ! insep>able condition1 is some?+ impossible 9 itself1 & he !re=e reg>ds ! ?+s 9 space z m]ely imag9>y entities 7,e9bildung574 ,dogmatic idealism is inevitable if space be int]pret$ z a prop]ty :i* belongs to ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,=1 :5 s reg>d$1 space1 & ev]y?+ to :i* x s]ves z condition1 is a non-entity 7,und+74 ,! gr\nd ^u :i* ?is idealism re/s we h remov$ 9 ! ,transc5d5tal ,ae/hetic40#eii ,! t]m ,s*e9 is n employ$ ?r\gh\t ?is passage 9 ei!r ( ! two mean+s ( ! app5d$ note1 b 9 t ( ! ma9 text4 ,x signifies a repres5tation1 to :i* no exi/5ce corresponds4 ,,kant',s ,,relation ,,to ,,b]keley ,by idealism#fjj ,kant means any & e sy/em :i* ma9ta9s t ! s5sible _w does n exi/ 9 ! =m 9 :i* x pres5ts itself to u4 ,! position is typifi$ 9 ,kant's m9d by ! ,eleatics1 by ,plato1 & by ,desc>tes1 all ( :om are rationali/s4 ,) ! d5ial ( reality to s5se-appe>ances !y comb9e a belief 9 ! possibility ( rationally compreh5d+ its sup]s5sible basis4 ,fail+ to appreciate ! true nature ( ! s5sible1 !y misund]/& ! "* ( geometrical sci5ce1 & falsely ascribe to pure und]/&+ a p[] ( intellectual intuition4 ,kant's criticisms ( ,b]keley %[ v cle>ly t x is ?is m g5]al position :i* he has *iefly 9 view4 ,to ,b]keley ,kant objects t only 9 s5se-exp]i5ce is !re tru?1 t x is s5sibility1 n und]/&+1 :i* possesses ! p[] ( a priori intuition1 & t ?r\gh pure und]/&+1 act+ 9 indep5d5ce ( s5sibility1 no k ( any k9d c be acquir$4 ,9 o!r words1 ,kant classes ,b]keley ) ! rationali/s4 ,&1 z we h already se51 he ev5 goes ! l5g? ( reg>d+ ,b]keley's position z ! r$uctio ad absurdum ( ! reali/ view ( space4 ,kant does1 inde$1 recognise#fja t ,b]keley diff]s f ! o!r ideali/s1 9 hold+ an empirical view ( space1 & consequ5tly ( geometry1 b ?is does n prev5t ,kant f ma9ta9+ t ,b]keley's ?9k+ is influ5c$ by c]ta9 fundam5tal implications ( ! reali/ position4 ,b]keley's insight--su* w\ld seem to be ,kant's l9e ( argum5t--is p]v]t$ by ! v view :i* he is attack+4 ,b]keley appreciates only :at is false 9 ! ,c>tesian view ( space2 he is bl9d to ! important elem5t ( tru? :i* x conta9s4 ,empirici/ ?\gh he be1 he has no wid] conception ( ! function & p[]s ( s5sibility ?an h ! reali/s f :om he sep>ates himself (f2 & 9 ord] to compreh5d ^? exi/5ces to :i* alone he is will+ to all[ true reality1 he has !re=e1 l ! rationali/s1 to fall back ^u pure reason4#fjb ,t ,kant's criticism ( ,b]keley %\ld be extremely ext]nal is n1 !re=e1 surpris+4 ,he is int]e/$ 9 ,b]keley's positive tea*+ only 9 s f> z x enables him to illu/rate ! evil t5d5cies ( a mi/ak5 idealism1 :i* />ts f a false view ( ! functions ( s5sibility & ( und]/&+1 & ( ! nature ( space & "t4 ,! key to ! true idealism lies1 he claims1 9 ! ,critical problem1 h[ a priori syn!tic judgm5ts c be possible4 ,?is is ! fundam5tal problem ( metaphysics1 & until x has be5 =mulat$ & answ]$ no advance c be made4 8,my s-call$ 7,critical7 idealism is ?us q peculi> 9 t x ov]?r[s ord9>y idealism1 & t ?r\gh x alone a priori cognition1 ev5 t ( geometry1 atta9s objective reality1 a ?+ :i* ev5 ! ke5e/ reali/ c\ld n ass]t till ,i _h prov$ ! ideality ( space & "t40#fjc ,9 ord] to make ,kant's acc\nt ( ,b]keley's tea*+ really compreh5sible1 we seem compell$ to assume t he _h nev] himself actually read any ( ,b]keley's own writ+s4 ,kant's acqua9tance ) ! ,engli% language 0 mo/ imp]fect1 & we h no evid5ce t he _h ev] read a s+le ,engli% book4#fjd ,:5 he quotes ,pope & ,addison1 he does s f ,g]man translations4#fje ,subsequ5t to #agha he c\ld1 inde$1 h _h access to ,b]keley's ,dialogues betwe5 ,hylas & ,philon\s#fjf 9 a ,g]man translation2 b 9 view ( ! acc\nt :i* he cont9ues to give ( ,b]keley's tea*+1 x does n seem likely#fjg t he _h avail$ himself ( ?is opportunity4 ,z to :at ! indirect s\rces ( ,kant's k ( ,b]keley may h be51 we _c decide ) any c]ta9ty1 b among/ !m mu/ und\bt$ly be reckon$ ,hume's /atem5ts 9 reg>d to ,b]keley 9 ! ,enquiry1#fjh & v probably also ! ref]5ces to ,b]keley 9 ,beattie's ,nature ( ,tru?4#fji ,f ! =m] ,kant w\ld le>n ( ,b]keley's empirical view ( space & also ( ! sceptical t5d5cies ( 8 ideali/ tea*+4 ,f x he might also v naturally inf] t ,b]keley d5ies all reality to objects4 ,by ,beattie ,kant w\ld be confirm$ 9 ?is latt] view1 & also 9 8 cont5tion t ,b]keley is unable to supply a crit]ion = di/+ui%+ betwe5 reality & dreams4 ,kant may also h receiv$ "s impressions reg>d+ ,b]keley f ,hamann4 ,to take ,kant's criticisms ( ,b]keley m 9 detail4 ,9 ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique#faj ,kant passes two criticisms1 )\t1 h[ev]1 m5tion+ ,b]keley by "n3 fir/1 t he ov]looks ! problem ( "t1 &1 l ,desc>tes1 ascribes complete reality to ! objects ( inn] s5se4 ,?is is ! cause ( a second error1 namely1 t he views ! objects ( out] s5se z m]e illusion 7bloss] ,s*e974 ,proce$+1 ,kant argues t inn] & out] s5se are really 9 ! same position4 ,?\gh !y yield only appe>ances1 ^! appe>ances are condition$ by ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,?r\gh ?is relation to ?+s 9 !mselves !y are di/+ui%$ f all m]ely subjective images4 ,b]keley is aga9 ref]r$ to 9 ! f\r? ,p>alogism4#faa ,8 idealism is di/+ui%$ f t ( ,desc>tes4 ,! "o is dogmatic2 ! o!r is sceptical4 ,! "o d5ies ! exi/5ce ( matt]2 ! o!r only d\bts :e!r x is possible to prove x4 ,b]keley claims1 inde$1 t !re are contradictions 9 ! v conception ( matt]2 & ,kant rem>ks t ?is is an objection :i* he w h to deal ) 9 ! section on ! ,ant9omies4 ,b ?is promise ,kant does n fulfil2 & d\btless = ! reason t1 h[ev] unwill+ he may be to make ! admission1 on ?is po9t 8 own tea*+1 especially 9 ! ,dialectic1 frequ5tly co9cides ) t ( ,b]keley4 ,s little1 inde$1 is ,kant conc]n$ 9 ! fir/ edition to def5d 8 position aga9/ ! accusation ( subjectivism1 t 9 ?is same section he praises ! sceptical ideali/ z a 8b5efactor ( human reason40 8,he compels u1 ev5 9 ! smalle/ advances ( ord9>y exp]i5ce1 to keep on ! wat*1 le/ we consid] z a well-e>n$ possession :at we p]haps obta9 only 9 an illegitimate mann]4 ,we are n[ 9 a position to appreciate ! value ( ! objections ( ! ideali/4 ,!y drive u by ma9 =ce1 unless we mean to contradict ourselves 9 our commone/ ass]tions1 to view all our p]ceptions1 :e!r we call !m inn] or out]1 z a consci\sness only ( :at is dep5d5t on our s5sibility4 ,!y also compel u to reg>d ! out] objects ( ^! p]ceptions n z ?+s 9 !mselves1 b only z repres5tations1 ( :i*1 z ( e o!r repres5tation1 we c become imm$iately consci\s1 & :i* are entitl$ out] because !y dep5d on :at we call #8out] s5se' ^: intuition is space4 ,space itself1 h[ev]1 is no?+ b an inn] mode ( repres5tation 9 :i* c]ta9 p]ceptions are connect$ ) "o ano!r40#fab ,^! criticisms are re/at$ 9 ,a #dia-b ,b #eai-bj1 ) ! fur!r addition t 9 d5y+ ! exi/5ce ( ext5d$ be+s 8! empirical ideali/0 removes ! possibility ( di/+ui%+ betwe5 reality & dreams4 ,?is is a new criticism4 ,kant is no long] ref]r+ to ! d5ial ( unkn[able ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,he is n[ ma9ta9+ t only ! ,critical /&po9t c supply an imman5t crit]ion :]eby real exp]i5ces may be di/+ui%$ f m]ely subjective happ5+s4 ,?is po9t is fur!r insi/$ ^u 9 ! ,prolegom5a1#fac b is n[h]e develop$ ) any direct ref]5ce to ,b]keley's own p]sonal tea*+4 ,kant assumes z e/abli%$ t any su* crit]ion mu/ re/ ^u ! a priori2 & 9 ?is connection ,b]keley is conv5i5tly made to figure z a ?or\ghgo+ empirici/4 ,! ,critique1 on its publication1 0 at once attack$1 especially 9 ! ,g>ve-,f$] review1 z pres5t+ an idealism simil> to t ( ,b]keley4 ,z ,erdmann has %[n1 ! orig9al plan ( ! ,prolegom5a 0 l>gely modifi$ 9 ord] to af=d opportunity = reply to ?is 8unp>donable & almo/ int5tional misconception40#fad ,kant's ref]5ces to ,b]keley1 direct & indirect1 n[ = ! fir/ "t manife/ a polemical tone1 exagg]at+ 9 e possible way ! diff]5ce betwe5 _! po9ts ( view4 ,only ! transc5d5tal philosophy c e/abli% ! possibility ( a priori k1 & s x alone c af=d a crit]ion = di/+ui%+ betwe5 realities & dreams4 ,x alone w acc\nt = ! possibility ( geometrical sci5ce2 ,b]keley's idealism w\ld r5d] ! claims ( t sci5ce :olly illusory4 ,! ,critical idealism transc5ds exp]i5ce only s f> z is requir$ to discov] ! conditions :i* make empirical cognition possible2 ,b]keley's idealism is #8vision>y' & #8my/ical4'#fae ,ev5 sceptical idealism n[ comes 9 = sev]e h&l+4 ,x may be call$ 8dream+ idealism02 x makes ?+s out ( m]e repres5tations1 & l idealism 9 its dogmatic =m x virtually d5ies ! exi/5ce ( ! only true reality1 t ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,sceptical idealism mis9t]prets space by mak+ x empirical1 dogmatic idealism by reg>d+ x z an attribute ( ! real4 ,bo? entirely ignore ! problem ( "t4 ,= ^! reasons !y und]e/imate ! p[]s ( s5sibility 7to :i* space & "t belong z a priori =ms71 & exagg]ate ^? ( pure und]/&+4 8,! position ( all g5u9e ideali/s f ! ,eleatics to ,b]keley is conta9$ 9 ?is =mula3 #8,all cognition ?r\gh ! s5ses & exp]i5ce is no?+ b m]e illusion1 & only 9 ! ideas ( pure und]/&+ & ,reason is !re tru?4' ,! fundam5tal pr9ciple rul+ all my idealism1 on ! contr>y1 is ?is3 #8,all cognition ( ?+s solely f pure und]/&+ or pure ,reason is no?+ b m]e illusion & only 9 exp]i5ce is !re tru?4'0#faf ,?is is an extremely inadequate /atem5t ( ! ,critical /&po9t1 b x excell5tly illu/rates ,kant's p]v]se int]pretation ( ,b]keley's tea*+4 ,to ^! criticisms ,kant gives less heat$ b none ! less explicit expression 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique4 ,he is n[ mu* m c>eful to avoid subjectivi/ modes ( /atem5t4 ,8 ph5om5ali/ t5d5cies are re9=c$1 & come to cle>] expression ( all t !y involve4 ,! f\r? ,p>alogism ) its sympa!tic treatm5t ( empirical idealism is omitt$1 & 9 addition to ! above passage ,kant ins]ts a new section1 entitl$ ,refutation ( ,idealism1 9 :i* he /ates 8 position 9 a mu* m adequate mann]4 ,,iv4 ,b #ga4--,kant cont9ues ! argum5t ( ,a #ci4fag ,if space & "t condition all exi/5ce1 !y w condition ev5 div9e exi/5ce1 & s mu/ r5d] ,god's omnisci5ce1 :i* z su* mu/ be intuitive1 n discursive1 difficult ( conception4 ,^u ?is po9t ,kant is m explicit 9 ! ,diss]tation4#fah 8,:atev] is1 is some:]e & sometime1 is a spuri\s axiom4444 ,by ?is spuri\s pr9ciple all be+s1 ev5 ?\gh !y be kn[n intellectually1 are re/rict$ 9 _! exi/5ce by conditions ( space & "t4 ,philosoph]s !re=e discuss e =m ( idle "q reg>d+ ! locations 9 ! corporeal univ]se ( sub/ances t are immat]ial--& ( :i* = t v reason !re c be no s5su\s intuition nor any possible spatial repres5tation--or reg>d+ ! seat ( ! s\l1 & ! l4 ,& s9ce ! s5su\s mixes ) ! intellectual ab\t z badly z squ>e ) r\nd1 x frequ5tly happ5s t ! "o disputant appe>s z hold+ a sieve into :i* ! o!r milks ! he-goat4 ,! pres5ce ( immat]ial ?+s 9 ! corporeal _w is virtual1 n local1 al?\gh x may conv5i5tly be spok5 ( z local4 ,space conta9s ! conditions ( possible int]action only :5 x is betwe5 mat]ial bodies4 ,:at1 h[ev]1 9 immat]ial sub/ances con/itutes ! ext]nal relations ( =ce betwe5 !m or betwe5 !m & bodies1 obvi\sly eludes ! human intellect4444 ,b :5 m5 rea* ! conception ( a highe/ & extra-mundane ,be+1 words _c describe ! ext5t to :i* !y are delud$ by ^! %ades t flit be=e ! m9d4 ,!y picture ,god z pres5t 9 a place3 !y entangle ,him 9 ! _w :]e ,he is suppos$ to fill all space at once4 ,!y hope to make up = ! spatial limitation !y ?us impose by ?9k+ ( ,god's place p] em95tiam1 i4e4 z inf9ite4 ,b to be pres5t 9 diff]5t places at ! same "t is absolutely impossible1 s9ce diff]5t places are mutually ext]nal to "o ano!r1 & consequ5tly :at is 9 sev]al places is outside itself1 & is !re=e pres5t to itself outside itself--:i* is a contradiction 9 t]ms4 ,z to "t1 m5 h got into an inextricable maze by releas+ x f ! laws t gov]n s5se k1 & :at is m1 transport+ x beyond ! conf9es ( ! _w to ! ,be+ t dwells !re1 z a condition ( ,8 v exi/5ce4 ,!y ?us torm5t _! s\ls ) absurd que/ions1 = in/ance1 :y ,god did n fa%ion ! _w _m c5turies e>li]4 ,!y p]suade !mselves t x is easily possible to conceive h[ ,god may disc]n pres5t ?+s1 i4e4 :at is actual 9 ! "t 9 :i* ,he is4 ,b !y consid] t x is difficult to compreh5d h[ ,he %\ld =esee ! ?+s ab\t to be1 i4e4 ! actual 9 ! "t 9 :i* ,he is n yet4 ,!y proce$ z if ! exi/5ce ( ! ,necess>y ,be+ desc5d$ successively ?r\gh all ! mom5ts ( a suppos$ "t1 & hav+ already exhau/$ "p ( ,8 duration1 =esaw ! et]nal life t /ill lies be=e ,him toge!r ) ! ev5ts :i* w occur simultane\sly ) t future life ( ,84 ,all ^! speculations vani% l smoke :5 ! notion ( "t has be5 rightly disc]n$40 ,! ref]5ces 9 ,b #ga-b to ! intuitive und]/&+ are among ! _m signs ( ,kant's increas$ preoccupation1 dur+ ! prep>ation ( ! second edition1 ) ! problems :i* x raises4 ,su* und]/&+ is n s5su\s1 b intellectual2 x is n d]ivative1 b orig9al2 ! object itself is creat$ 9 ! act ( intuition4 ,or1 z ,kant's position may p]haps be m adequately express$1 all ( ,god's activities are creative1 & are insep>able f ! non-s5su\s intuition :]eby bo? !y & _! products are appreh5d$ by ,him4 ,kant's reason = aga9 rais+ ?is po9t may be ,m5delssohn's !ological def5ce ( ! reality ( space 9 8 ,morg5/und54#fai ,m5delssohn has !re argu$ t j z k ( indep5d5t reality is confirm$ by ! agreem5t ( diff]5t s5ses1 & is r5d]$ ! m c]ta9 9 proportion to ! numb] ( s5ses :i* support ! belief1 s ! validity ( our spatial p]ceptions is confirm$ 9 proportion z m5 are f\nd to agree 9 ?is type ( exp]i5ce ) "o ano!r1 ) ! animals1 & ) angelic be+s4 ,su* inductive inf]5ce w culm9ate 9 ! pro( t ev5 ! ,supreme ,be+ appreh5ds ?+s 9 ?is same spatial mann]4#fbj ,kant's reply is t h[ev] g5]al ! intuition ( space may be among f9ite be+s1 x is s5su\s & d]ivative1 & !re=e mu/ n be pr$icat$ ( a ,div9e ,be+4 ,= obvi\s reasons ,kant has n felt call$ ^u to po9t out ! inadequacy ( ?is inductive me?od to ! solution ( ,critical problems4 ,9 ,a #db ,kant1 argu+ t our =ms ( intuition are subjective1 claims t !y d n necess>ily belong to all be+s1 ?\gh !y mu/ belong to all m54#fba ,he is q consi/5t 9 n[ ma9ta9+#fbb t _! *>act]i/ics1 z s5su\s & d]ivative1 d n necess>ily preclude _! be+ ! common possession ( all f9ite be+s4 ,,! ,,p>adox ,,( ,,incongru\s ,,c\nt]p>ts ,! purpose1 z already not$1 ( ! above sections ,,ii4 to ,,iv41 z add$ 9 ! second edition1 is to af=d #8confirmation' ( ! ideality ( space & "t4 ,t be+ s1 x is noticeable t ,kant has omitt$ all ref]5ce to an argum5t embodi$1 = ?is same purpose1 9 #ac ( ! ,prolegom5a4 ,! matt] is ( suffici5t importance to call = detail$ consid]ation4#fbc ,z ! argum5t ( ! ,prolegom5a is some:at complicat$1 x is advisable to approa* x 9 ! light ( its hi/ory 9 ,kant's e>li] writ+s4 ,x 0 to 8 tea*] ,m>t9 ,knutz5 t ,kant ow$ 8 fir/ introduction to ,newton's cosmology2 & f ,knutz5 he inh]it$ ! problem ( reconcil+ ,newton's me*anical view ( nature & absolute view ( space ) ! or?odox ,leibnizian t5ets4 ,9 8 fir/ publi%$ "w#fbd ,kant seeks to prove t ! v exi/5ce ( space is due to gravitational =ce1 & t its ?ree-dim5sional "* is a consequ5ce ( ! specific mann] 9 :i* gravity acts4 ,sub/ances1 he tea*es1 are unext5d$4 ,space results f ! connection & ord] e/abli%$ betwe5 !m by ! balanc+ ( _! attractive & repulsive =ces4 ,& z ! law ( gravity is m]ely cont+5t1 o!r modes ( int]action1 & !re=e o!r =ms ( space1 ) m ?an ?ree dim5sions1 mu/ be recognis$ z possible4 8,a sci5ce ( all ^! possible k9ds ( space w\ld und\bt$ly be ! highe/ ent]prise :i* a f9ite und]/&+ c\ld und]take 9 ! field ( geometry40#fbe ,9 ! long int]val betwe5 #agdg & #agfh ,kant cont9u$ to hold to "s su* compromise1 reta9+ ,leibniz's view t space is d]ivative & relative1 & reject+ ,newton's view t x is prior to1 & pre-conditions1 all ! bodies t exi/ 9 x4 ,b 9 t latt] ye> he publi%$ a pamphlet#fbf 9 :i*1 foll[+ 9 ! /eps ( ! ma!matician1 ,eul]1#fbg he drew att5tion to c]ta9 facts :i* w\ld seem q conclusively to fav\r ! ,newtonian z aga9/ ! ,leibnizian int]pretation ( space4 ,! ?ree dim5sions ( space are prim>ily di/+ui%able by u only ?r\gh ! relation 9 :i* !y /& to our body4 ,by relation to ! plane t is at "r angles to our body we di/+ui% #8above' & #8bel['2 & simil>ly ?r\gh ! o!r two planes we det]m9e :at is #8"r' & #8left1' #89 front' & #8beh9d4' ,?r\gh ^! di/9ctions we are enabl$ to def9e diff]5ces :i* _c be express$ 9 any o!r mann]4 ,all species ( hops--s ,kant ma9ta9s--w9d !mselves ar\nd _! supports f left to "r1 :]eas all species ( beans take ! opposite direction4 ,all snail %ells1 ) "s ?ree exceptions1 turn1 9 desc5d+ f _! apex d[nw>ds1 f left to "r4 ,?is det]m9ate direction ( movem5t1 natural to ea* species1 l ! diff]5ce 9 spatial configuration betwe5 a "r & a left h&1 or betwe5 a "r h& & its reflection 9 a mirror1 involves 9 all cases a ref]5ce ( ! giv5 object to ! wid] space )9 :i* x falls1 & ultimately to space z a :ole4 ,only s c its det]m9ate "* be di/+ui%$ f its opposite c\nt]p>t4 ,= z ,kant po9ts out1 ?\gh ! "r & ! left h& are c\nt]p>ts1 t is to say1 objects :i* h a common def9ition s long z ! arrangem5t ( ! p>ts ( ea* is det]m9$ 9 respect to its c5tral l9e ( ref]5ce1 !y are none ! less inw>dly incongru5t1 s9ce ! "o c nev] be made to occupy ! space ( ! o!r4 ,z he adds 9 ! ,prolegom5a1 ! glove ( "o h& _c be us$ = ! o!r h&4 ,?is inn] incongru5ce compels u to di/+ui% !m z diff]5t1 & ?is diff]5ce is only det]m9able by location ( ea* 9 a s+le absolute space t con/ra9s ev]y?+ )9 x to con=m to ! conditions :i* x prescribes4 ,9 ?ree-dim5sional space ev]y?+ mu/ h a "r & a left side1 & mu/ !re=e exhibit su* inn] diff]5ces z ^? j not$4 ,spatial det]m9ations are n1 z ,leibniz tea*es1 subsequ5t to1 & dep5d5t ^u1 ! relations ( bodies to "o ano!r2 x is ! =m] t det]m9e ! latt]4 8,! reason :y t :i* 9 ! %ape ( a body exclusively conc]ns its relation to pure space c be appreh5d$ by u only ?r\gh its relation to o!r bodies1 is t absolute space is n an object ( any out] s5sation1 b a fundam5tal conception :i* makes all su* diff]5ces possible40#fbh ,kant en=ces 8 po9t by argu+ t if ! fir/ portion ( creation 7 a human h&1 x w\ld h to be ei!r a "r or a left h&4 ,also1 a diff]5t act ( creation w\ld be dem&$ accord+ z x 0 ! "o or ! o!r4 ,b if ! h& alone exi/$1 & !re 7 no pre-exi/+ space1 !re w\ld be no inw>d diff]5ce 9 ! relations ( its p>ts1 & no?+ outside x to diff]5tiate x4 ,x w\ld !re=e be entirely indet]m9ate 9 nature1 i4e4 w\ld suit ei!r side ( ! body1 :i* is impossible4 ,?is adoption ( ! ,newtonian view ( space 9 #agfh 0 an important /ep =w>d 9 ! developm5t ( ,kant's tea*+1 b c\ld n1 9 view ( ! _m metaphysical difficulties to :i* x leads1 be p]man5tly reta9$2 & 9 ! imm$iately foll[+ ye>--a ye> :i*1 z he tells u1#fbi 8gave great light0--he a*iev$ ! f9al syn!sis :i* enabl$ him to comb9e all t he felt to be ess5tial 9 ! oppos+ views4 ,?\gh space is an absolute & precondition+ s\rce ( diff]5ces :i* are n conceptually resolvable1 x is a m]ely subjective =m ( our s5sibility4 ,n[ x is significant t :5 ,kant exp\nds ?is view 9 ! ,diss]tation ( #aggj1 ! argum5t f incongru\s c\nt]p>ts is no long] employ$ to e/abli% ! absolute & pre-condition+ "* ( space1 b only to prove t x is a pure non-conceptual intuition4 8,:i* ?+s 9 a giv5 space lie t[>ds "o side1 & :i* lie t[>ds ! o!r1 _c by any intellectual p5etration be discursively describ$ or r$uc$ to intellectual m>ks4 ,= 9 solids t are completely simil> & equal1 b incongru5t1 su* z ! "r & ! left h& 7conceiv$ solely 9 t]ms ( _! ext5sion71 or sph]ical triangles f two opposite hemisph]es1 !re is a div]sity :i* r5d]s impossible ! co9cid5ce ( _! spatial b\nd>ies4 ,?is holds true1 ev5 ?\gh !y c be sub/itut$ = "o ano!r 9 all ^? respects :i* c be express$ 9 m>ks t are capable ( be+ made intelligible to ! m9d ?r\gh spee*4 ,x is !re=e evid5t t ! div]sity1 t is1 ! incongruity1 c only be appreh5d$ by "s species ( pure intuition40#fcj ,!re is no m5tion ( ?is argum5t 9 ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique1 & :5 x reappe>s 9 ! ,prolegom5a x is int]pret$ 9 ! light ( an additional premiss1 & is made to yield a v diff]5t conclusion f t drawn 9 ! ,diss]tation1 & a directly opposite conclusion f t drawn 9 #agfh4 ,in/ead ( be+ employ$ to e/abli% ei!r ! intuitive "* ( space or its absolute exi/5ce1 x is cit$ z evid5ce 9 pro( ( its subjectivity4 ,z 9 #agfh1 x is spok5 ( z /range & p>adoxical1 & _m ( ! previ\s illu/rations are us$4 ,! p>adox consi/s 9 ! fact t bodies & sph]ical figures1 conceptually consid]$1 c be absolutely id5tical1 & yet = intuition rema9 div]se4 ,?is p>adox1 ,kant n[ ma9ta9s#fca 9 opposition to 8 #agfh argum5t1 proves t su* bodies & ! space )9 :i* !y fall are n indep5d5t exi/5ces4 ,= 7 !y ?+s 9 !mselves1 !y w\ld be adequately cognisable ?r\gh ! pure und]/&+1 & c\ld n !re=e conflict ) its dem&s4 ,be+ conceptually id5tical1 !y w\ld necess>ily be congru5t 9 e respect4 ,b if space is m]ely ! =m ( s5sibility1 ! fact t 9 space ! "p is only possible ?r\gh ! :ole w apply to ev]y?+ 9 x1 & s w g5]ate a fundam5tal diff]5ce betwe5 conception & intuition4#fcb ,?+s 9 !mselves are1 z su*1 uncondition$1 & _c1 !re=e1 be dep5d5t ^u any?+ beyond !mselves4 ,! objects ( intuition1 9 ord] to be possible1 mu/ be m]ely ideal4 ,n[ ! new premiss :i* diff]5tiates ?is argum5t f t ( #agfh1 & :i* br+s ,kant to s opposite a conclusion1 is "o :i* is entirely out ( h>mony ) ! tea*+ ( ! ,critique4 ,9 ?is section ( ! ,prolegom5a ,kant has unconsci\sly rev]t$ to ! dogmatic /&po9t ( ! ,diss]tation1 & is int]pret+ und]/&+ 9 ! illegitimate mann] :i* he s explicitly d5\nces 9 ! section on ,amphiboly4 8,! mi/ake 444 lies 9 employ+ ! und]/&+ contr>y to its vocation transc5d5tally i4e4 transc5d5tly & 9 mak+ objects1 i4e4 possible intuitions1 con=m to concepts1 n concepts to possible intuitions1 on :i* alone _! objective validity re/s40#fcc ,! "q :y no m5tion ( ?is argum5t is made 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique is !re=e answ]$4 ,kant _h meantime1 9 ! int]val betwe5 #aghc & #aghg1fcd become aw>e ( ! inconsi/5cy ( ! position4 ,s f> f be+ a p>adox1 ?is assum$ conflict re/s ^u a false view ( ! function ( ! und]/&+4#fce ,! relevant facts may s]ve to confirm ! view ( space z an intuition 9 :i* ! :ole prec$es ! p>ts2#fcf b !y c af=d no evid5ce ei!r ( its absolut5ess or ( its ideality4 ,9 #agfh !y seem to ,kant to prove its absolut5ess1 only because ! o!r alt]native has n yet occurr$ to him4 ,9 #aghc !y seem to him to prove its ideality1 only because he has n yet completely succe$$ 9 emancipat+ 8 ?9k+ f ! dogmatic rationalism ( ! ,diss]tation4 ,z already not$1#fcg ,kant's reason = "h ass]t+ t space is intuitive 9 nature1 namely1 t 9 x ! p>ts are condition$ by ! :ole1 is also 8 reason = else:]e describ+ x z an ,idea ( ,reason4 ,! fur!r implication ( ! argum5t ( ! ,prolegom5a1 t 9 ! n\m5al sph]e ! :ole is made possible only by its uncondition$ p>ts1 raises que/ions ! discussion ( :i* mu/ be def]r$4 ,! problem recurs 9 ! ,dialectic 9 connection ) ,kant's def9ition ( ! ,idea ( ! uncondition$4 ,9 ! ,ideas ( ,reason ,kant comes to recognise ! exi/5ce ( concepts :i* d n con=m to ! reflective type analys$ by ! traditional logic1 & to p]ceive t ^! ,ideas c yield a deep] insight ?an any possible to ! discursive und]/&+4 ,! above rationali/ic assumption mu/ n1 !re=e1 pass un*all5g$4 ,x may be t 9 ! n\m5al sph]e all p>tial realities are condition$ by an uncondition$ :ole4 99 99 99 99 99 ,conclud+ ,p>agraph4#fch--,! word+ ( ?is p>agraph is 9 keep+ ) ! increas$ emphasis :i* 9 ! ,introduction to ! second edition is giv5 to ! problem1 h[ a priori syn!tic judgm5ts are possible4 ,kant *>act]i/ically fails to di/+ui% betwe5 ! problems ( pure & appli$ ma!matics1 ) result+ inconsecutiv5ess 9 8 argum5tation4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,doctr9e ,,( ,,elem5ts ,,"p ,,ii ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,logic ,,introduction ,i4 ,conc]n+ ,logic 9 ,g5]al4--,?is ,introduction#fci :i* falls into f\r divisions1 is extremely diffuse1 & contributes little t is ( m ?an m]ely ar*itectonic value4 ,x is a repetition ( ! la/ section ( ! g5]al ,introduction1 & ( ! introductory p>agraphs ( ! ,ae/hetic1 b takes no acc\nt ( ! def9itions giv5 9 ei!r ( ^? two places4 ,x does n1 !re=e1 seem likely t x c\ld h be5 writt5 9 imm$iate sequ5ce ^u ! ,ae/hetic4 ,x is probably lat] ?an ! ma9 body ( ! ,analytic4#fdj ,9 any case x is ext]nally tack$ on to x2 z ,adickes has not$1#fda x is completely ignor$ 9 ! op5+ section ( ! ,analytic4#fdb ,9 treat+ ( intuition 9 ! fir/ s5t5ce1 ,kant seems to h 9 view only empirical intuition4#fdc ,yet he at once proce$s to /ate t intuition may be pure z well z empirical4#fdd ,also1 9 ass]t+ t 8pure intuition conta9s only ! =m "u :i* some?+ is intuit$10 ,kant w\ld seem to be adopt+ ! view t x does n yield its own manifold1 a conclusion :i* he does n1 h[ev]1 himself draw4 ,9 def9+ s5sibility1#fde ,kant aga9 ignores pure intuition4 ,s5su\s intuition1 x is /at$1 is ! mode 9 :i* we are affect$ by objects4#fdf ,und]/&+1 9 turn1 is def9$ only 9 its opposition to s5sibility1 9 ! ord9>y mean+ ( t t]m4 ,und]/&+ is ! faculty :i* yields ?\ght ( ! object to :i* s5se-affection is due4 ,x is 8! p[] ( ?9k+ ! object ( s5su\s intuition02 & acts1 x is impli$1 9 & ?r\gh pure concepts :i* x supplies out ( itself4 8,)\t s5sibility objects w\ld n be giv5 to u i4e4 ! impressions1 9 !mselves m]ely subjective cont5ts1 ?r\gh :i* alone indep5d5t objects c be reveal$ to u1 w\ld be want+2 )\t und]/&+ !y w\ld n be ?\ght by u i4e4 !y w\ld be appreh5d$ only 9 ! =m 9 :i* !y are giv51 viz4 z subjective modes ( our s5sibility40 ,kant has n yet develop$ ! !sis :i* ! c5tral argum5t ( ! ,analytic is direct$ to prove1 namely1 t save ?r\gh ! comb9ation ( intuition & conception no consci\sness :atsoev] is possible4 ,9 ^! p>agraphs he /ill implies t ?\gh concepts )\t intuition are empty !y are n mean+less1 & t ?\gh intuitions )\t concepts are bl9d !y are n empty4#fdg ,_! union is necess>y = g5u9e k1 b n = ! exi/5ce ( consci\sness z su*4 8,x is j z necess>y to make our concepts s5su\s1 i4e4 to add to !m _! object 9 intuition1 z to make our intuitions intelligible1 i4e4 to br+ !m "u concepts40 ,kant's f9al ,critical tea*+ is v diff]5t f ?is4 ,concepts are n fir/ giv5 9 _! purity1 nor is 8_! object0 add$ 9 intuition4 ,only ?r\gh concepts is appreh5sion ( an object possible1 & only 9 & ?r\gh su* appreh5sion d concepts come to consci\sness4 ,nor are intuitions 8made intelligible0 by be+ 8br\ght "u concepts40 ,only z ?us conceptually int]pret$ c !y exi/ = consci\sness4 ,! co-op]ation ( concept & intuition is necess>y = consci\sness 9 any & e =m1 ev5 ! simple/ & mo/ indef9ite4 ,consci\sness ( ! subjective is possible only 9 & ?r\gh consci\sness ( ! objective1 & vice v]sa4 ,! duali/ic sep>ation ( s5sibility f und]/&+ p]si/s1 h[ev]1 ev5 9 ,kant's lat] utt]ances2 &1 z above /at$1#fdh to ?is %>p opposition are due bo? ! /r5g? & ! weakness ( ,kant's tea*+4 ,intuition & conception mu/1 he "h insi/s1 be c>efully di/+ui%$4 ,ae/hetic is ! 8sci5ce ( ! rules ( s5sibility 9 g5]al40 ,logic is ! 8sci5ce ( ! rules ( und]/&+ 9 g5]al40 ,kant's classification ( ! v>i\s k9ds ( logic#fdi may be exhibit$ z foll[s3 pure g5]al appli$ ,logic special transc5d5tal ,adickes#fej criticises ,kant's classification z defective1 ow+ to ! omission ( ! int]m$iate concept #8ord9>y4' ,adickes !re=e gives ! foll[+ table3 ,logic transc5d5tal ord9>y special g5]al pure appli$ ,g5]al logic is a logic ( elem5ts1 i4e4 ( ! absolutely necess>y laws ( ?\ght1 9 ab/raction f all diff]5ces 9 ! objects dealt )1 i4e4 f all cont5t1 :e!r empirical or transc5d5tal4 ,x is a canon ( ! und]/&+ 9 its g5]al discursive or analytic employm5t4 ,:5 x is pure1 x takes no acc\nt ( ! empirical psy*ological conditions "u :i* ! und]/&+ has to act4 ,:5 x is develop$ z an appli$ logic1 x proce$s to =mulate rules = ! employm5t ( und]/&+ "u ^! subjective conditions4 ,x is !n nei!r canon1 nor organon1 b simply a ca?>ticon ( ! ord9>y und]/&+4 ,special logic is ! organon ( ?is or t sci5ce1 i4e4 ( ! rules gov]n+ correct ?9k+ 9 reg>d to a c]ta9 class ( objects4 ,only pure g5]al logic is a pure doctr9e ( reason4 ,x alone is absolutely indep5d5t ( s5sibility1 ( ev]y?+ empirical1 & !re=e ( psy*ology4 ,su* pure logic is a body ( demon/rative tea*+1 completely a priori4 ,x /&s to appli$ logic 9 ! same relation z pure to appli$ e?ics4 8,"s logicians1 inde$1 affirm t logic presupposes psy*ological pr9ciples4 ,b x is j z inappropriate to br+ pr9ciples ( ?is k9d into logic z to d]ive ! sci5ce ( morals f life4 ,if we 7 to take ! pr9ciples f psy*ology1 t is1 f obs]vations on our und]/&+1 we %\ld m]ely see h[ ?\ght takes place1 & h[ x is affect$ by ! manifold subjective h9drances & conditions2 s t ?is w\ld lead only to ! k ( cont+5t laws4 ,b 9 logic ! "q is n ( cont+5t1 b ( necess>y laws2 n h[ we d ?9k1 b h[ we ought to ?9k4 ,! rules ( logic1 !n1 mu/ n be d]iv$ f ! cont+5t1 b f ! necess>y use ( ! und]/&+ :i* )\t any psy*ology a man f9ds 9 himself4 ,9 logic we d n want to "k h[ ! und]/&+ is & ?9ks1 & h[ x has hi!rto proce$$ 9 ?9k+1 b h[ x ought to proce$ 9 ?9k+4 ,its bus9ess is to tea* u ! correct use ( reason1 t is1 ! use :i* is consi/5t ) itself40#fea ,by a canon ,kant means a sy/em ( a priori pr9ciples = ! correct employm5t ( a c]ta9 faculty ( k4#feb ,by an organon ,kant means in/ruction z to h[ k may be ext5d$1 h[ new k may be acquir$4 ,a canon =mulates positive pr9ciples ?r\gh ! application ( :i* a faculty c be direct$ & discipl9$4 ,a canon is !re=e a discipl9e bas$ on positive pr9ciples ( correct use4 ,! t]m discipl9e is1 h[ev]1 res]v$ by ,kant#fec to signify a purely negative tea*+1 :i* seeks only to prev5t error & to *eck ! t5d5cy to deviate f rules4 ,:5 a faculty has no correct use 7z1 = in/ance1 pure speculative reason71 x is subject only to a discipl9e1 n to a canon4 ,a discipl9e is ?us 8a sep>ate1 negative code10 8a sy/em ( caution & self-exam9ation40 ,x is fur!r di/+ui%$ f a canon by its tak+ acc\nt ( o!r ?an purely a priori conditions4 ,x is relat$ to a pure canon mu* z appli$ is relat$ to g5]al logic4 ,z a canon supplies pr9ciples = ! direct+ ( a faculty1 its di/9ction f an organon obvi\sly _c be made h>d & fa/4 ,b "h z else:]e ,kant1 ?\gh rigor\s & almo/ p$antic 9 ! draw+ ( di/9ctions1 is correspond+ly c>eless 9 _! application4 ,he describes special logic z ! organon ( ?is or t sci5ce4#fed ,we %\ld expect f ! def9ition giv5 9 ! prec$+ s5t5ce t x w\ld r be view$ z a canon4 ,9 ,a #df ,b #fc ,kant speaks ( ! ,ae/hetic z an organon4 ,,ii4 ,conc]n+ ,transc5d5tal ,logic4--,x is ) ! di/9ction betwe5 g5]al & transc5d5tal logic t ,kant is *iefly conc]n$4 ,x is a di/9ction :i* he has himself inv5t$1 & :i* is ( fundam5tal importance = ! purposes ( ! ,critique4 ,transc5d5tal logic is ! new sci5ce :i* he seeks to exp\nd 9 ?is second ma9 division ( ! ,doctr9e ( ,elem5ts4 ,! di/9ction1 f :i* all ! diff]5ces betwe5 ! two sci5ces foll[1 is t :ile g5]al logic ab/racts f all diff]5ces 9 ! objects kn[n1 transc5d5tal logic ab/racts only f empirical cont5t4 ,on ! supposition1 n yet prov$ by ,kant1 b ass]t$ 9 anticipation1 t !re exi/ pure a priori concepts :i* are valid ( objects1 !re w exi/ a sci5ce di/9ct 9 nature & diff]5t 9 purpose f g5]al logic4 ,! two logics w agree 9 be+ a priori1 b o!rwise !y w diff] 9 all ess5tial respects4 ,! ref]5ce 9 ,a #ee ,b #gi to ! =ms ( intuition is some:at ambigu\s4 ,kant might be tak5 z mean+ t 9 transc5d5tal logic ab/raction is made n only f ev]y?+ empirical b also f all intuition4 ,t is n1 h[ev]1 ,kant's real view1 or at lea/ n 8 f9al view4 ,9 sections ,a #gf-g ,b #ajb1 ,a #acj-a ,b #agj1 & ,a #ace-f ,b #agd-e1 :i* are probably all ( lat] orig91 he /ates 8 position 9 ! cle>e/ t]ms4 ,transc5d5tal logic1 he !re decl>es1 diff]s f g5]al logic 9 t x is n call$ ^u to ab/ract f ! pure a priori manifolds ( intuition4#fee ,?is involves1 x may be not$1 ! recognition1 s mu* m pron\nc$ 9 ! lat] developm5ts ( ,kant's ,critical tea*+1 ( space & "t z n m]ely =ms = ! appreh5sion ( s5su\s manifolds b z !mselves pres5t+ to ! m9d indep5d5t manifolds ( a priori nature4 ,z ! t]m transc5d5tal indicates1 ! new logic w h z its c5tral problems ! orig91 scope1 conditions & possibility ( valid a priori k ( objects4 ,none ( ^! problems are treat$ 9 g5]al logic1 :i* deals only ) ! und]/&+ itself4 ,! "q :i* x raises is1 z ,kant says 9 8 ,logic1#fef ,h[ c ! und]/&+ "k itself8 ,! "q dealt ) by transc5d5tal logic we may =mulate 9 a correspond+ way3 ,h[ c ! und]/&+ possess pure a priori k ( objects8 ,x is a canon ( pure und]/&+ 9 s f> z t faculty is capable ( syn!tic1 objective k a priori4#feg ,g5]al logic involves1 x is true1 ! idea ( ref]5ce to objects1#feh b ! possibility ( su* ref]5ce is n itself inve/igat$4 ,9 g5]al logic ! und]/&+ deals only ) itself4 ,x assumes inde$ t all objects mu/ con=m to its laws1 b ?is assumption plays no "p 9 ! sci5ce itself4 ,a fur!r po9t1 n "h dwelt ^u by ,kant1 calls = notice1 namely1 t ! activities ( und]/&+ dealt ) by g5]al logic are its m]ely discursive activities1--^? ( discrim9ation & comp>ison2 :]eas ^? dealt ) by transc5d5tal logic are ! orig9ative activities ?r\gh :i* x produces a priori concepts f )9 itself1 & ?r\gh :i* x atta9s1 indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce1 to an a priori det]m9ation ( objects4 ,o!rwise /at$1 g5]al logic deals only ) analytic ?9k+1 transc5d5tal logic ) ! syn!tic activities t are involv$ 9 ! g5]ation ( ! complex cont5ts :i* =m ! subject matt] ( ! analytic proc$ure4 ,,iii4 ,conc]n+ ! ,division ( ,g5]al ,logic into ,analytic & ,dialectic4#fei--,! foll[+ passage f ,kant's ,logic#ffj =ms an excell5t & suffici5t comm5t ^u ! fir/ f\r p>agraphs ( ?is section3 8,an important p]fection ( k1 nay1 ! ess5tial & insep>able condition ( all its p]fection1 is tru?4 ,tru? is said to consi/ 9 ! agreem5t ( k ) ! object4 ,accord+ to ?is m]ely v]bal def9ition1 !n1 my k1 9 ord] to be true1 mu/ agree ) ! object4 ,n[ ,i c only comp>e ! object ) my k by ?is means1 namely by hav+ k ( x4 ,my k1 !n1 is to be v]ifi$ by itself1 :i* is f> f be+ suffici5t = tru?4 ,= z ! object is ext]nal to me1 ,i c only judge :e!r my k ( ! object agrees ) my k ( ! object4 ,su* a circle 9 explanation 0 call$ by ! anci5ts ,diallelos4 ,&1 inde$1 ! logicians 7 accus$ ( ?is fallacy by ! sceptics1 :o rem>k$ t ?is acc\nt ( tru? 0 z if a man be=e a judicial tribunal %\ld make a /atem5t1 & appeal 9 support ( x to a witness :om no "o kn[s1 b :o def5ds 8 own cr$ibility by say+ t ! man :o _h call$ him z a witness is an hon\rable man4 ,! *>ge 0 c]ta9ly well-f\nd$4 ,! solution ( ! problem ref]r$ to is1 h[ev]1 absolutely impossible = any man4 8,! "q is 9 fact ?is3 :e!r & h[ f> !re is a c]ta91 univ]sal1 & practically applicable crit]ion ( tru?4 ,= ?is is ! mean+ ( ! "q1 ,:at is tru?8444 8,a univ]sal mat]ial crit]ion ( tru? is n possible2 ! phrase is inde$ self-contradictory4 ,= be+ univ]sal x w\ld necess>ily ab/ract f all di/9ction ( objects1 & yet be+ a mat]ial crit]ion1 x mu/ be conc]n$ ) j ?is di/9ction 9 ord] to be able to det]m9e :e!r a cognition agrees ) ! v object to :i* x ref]s1 & n m]ely ) "s object or o!r1 by :i* no?+ w\ld be said4 ,b mat]ial tru? mu/ consi/ 9 ?is agreem5t ( a cognition ) ! def9ite object to :i* x ref]s4 ,= a cognition :i* is true 9 ref]5ce to "o object may be false 9 ref]5ce to o!r objects4 ,x is !re=e absurd to dem& a univ]sal mat]ial crit]ion ( tru?1 :i* is at once to ab/ract & n to ab/ract f all di/9ction ( objects4 8,b if we ask = a univ]sal =mal crit]ion ( tru?1 x is v easy to decide t !re may be su* a crit]ion4 ,= =mal tru? consi/s simply 9 ! agreem5t ( ! cognition ) itself :5 we ab/ract f all objects :atev]1 & f e di/9ction ( objects4 ,& h5ce ! univ]sal =mal crit]ia ( tru? are no?+ b univ]sal logical m>ks ( agreem5t ( cognitions ) !mselves1 or1 :at is ! same ?+1 ) ! g5]al laws ( ! und]/&+ & ! ,reason4 ,^! =mal univ]sal crit]ia are c]ta9ly n suffici5t = objective tru?1 b yet !y are to be view$ z its conditio s9e qua non4 ,= be=e ! "q1 :e!r ! cognition agrees ) ! object1 mu/ come ! "q1 :e!r x agrees ) itself 7z to =m74 ,& ?is is ! bus9ess ( logic40#ffa ,! rema9+ p>agraphs#ffb ( ,section ,,iii4 may simil>ly be comp>$ ) ! foll[+ passage f an e>li] section ( ,kant's ,logic3#ffc 8,analytic discov]s1 by means ( analysis1 all ! activities ( reason :i* we ex]cise 9 ?\ght4 ,x is !re=e an analytic ( ! =m ( und]/&+ & ( ,reason1 & is ju/ly call$ ! logic ( tru?1 s9ce x conta9s ! necess>y rules ( all 7=mal7 tru?1 )\t :i* tru? our k is untrue 9 itself1 ev5 ap>t f its objects4 ,x is !re=e no?+ m ?an a canon = decid+ on ! =mal correctness ( our k4 8,%\ld we desire to use ?is m]ely !oretical & g5]al doctr9e z a practical art1 t is1 z an organon1 x w\ld become a dialectic1 i4e4 a logic ( semblance 7ars sophi/ica disputatoria71 aris+ out ( an abuse ( ! analytic1 inasmu* z by ! m]e logical =m !re is contriv$ ! semblance ( true k1 ! *>act]s ( :i* mu/1 on ! contr>y1 be d]iv$ f agreem5t ) objects1 & !re=e f ! cont5t4 8,9 =m] times dialectic 0 /udi$ ) great dilig5ce4 ,?is art pres5t$ false pr9ciples 9 ! semblance ( tru?1 & s\ght1 9 accordance ) ^!1 to ma9ta9 ?+s 9 semblance4 ,among/ ! ,greeks ! dialecticians 7 advocates & rhetoricians :o c\ld lead ! populace :]ev] !y *ose1 because ! populace lets itself be delud$ ) semblance4 ,dialectic 0 !re=e at t "t ! art ( semblance4 ,9 logic1 also1 x 0 = a long "t treat$ "u ! "n ( ! art ( disputation1 & dur+ t p]iod all logic & philosophy 0 ! cultivation by c]ta9 *att]boxes ( ! art ( semblance4 ,b no?+ c be m unwor?y ( a philosoph] ?an ! cultivation ( su* an art4 ,dialectic 9 ?is =m1 !re=e1 mu/ be altoge!r suppress$1 & in/ead ( x !re mu/ be introduc$ into logic a critical exam9ation ( ?is semblance4 8,we %\ld !n h two p>ts ( logic3 ! analytic1 :i* w treat ( ! =mal crit]ia ( tru?1 & ! dialectic1 :i* w conta9 ! m>ks & rules by :i* we c "k t some?+ does n agree ) ! =mal crit]ia ( tru?1 al?\gh x seems to agree ) !m4 ,dialectic 9 ?is =m w\ld h its use z a ca?>tic ( ! und]/&+40 ,dialectic is ?us int]pret$ 9 a m]ely negative s5se4 ,x is1 ,kant says1 a ca?>ticon4 ,s f> f be+ an organon1 x is n ev5 a canon4 ,x is m]ely a discipl9e4#ffd ,by ?is mann] ( def9+ dialectic ,kant causes "s confusion4 ,x does n d ju/ice to ! scope & purpose ( t section ( ! ,critique to :i* x gives its "n4#ffe ,,iv4 ,conc]n+ ! ,division ( ,transc5d5tal ,logic into ,transc5d5tal ,analytic & ,dialectic4--,! t]m object#fff is us$ ?r\gh\t ?is section 9 two q di/9ct s5ses4 ,9 ! second & ?ird s5t5ces x is employ$ 9 its wid] mean+ z equival5t to cont5t or matt]4 ,9 ! f\r? s5t5ce x is us$ 9 ! n>r[] & /rict] s5se1 m prop] to ! t]m1 namely1 z mean+ #8?+4' ,aga91 9 ! fif? s5t5ce cont5t 7,inhalt7 w\ld seem to be id5tifi$ ) object 9 ! n>r[] s5se1 :ile 9 ! six? s5t5ce matt] 7,mat]ie1 a synonym = cont5t7 appe>s to be id5tifi$ ) object 9 ! wid] s5se4 ,transc5d5tal ,dialectic1 9 accordance ) ! above acc\nt ( its logical correlate1 is def9$ 9 a mann] :i* does ju/ice only to ! negative side ( its tea*+4 ,its function is view$ z m]ely t ( protect+ ! pure und]/&+ aga9/ sophi/ical illusions4#ffg ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,logic ,,division ,i ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,analytic ,! *ief po9t ( ?is section#ffh lies 9 its insi/5ce t1 z ! ,analytic is conc]n$ only ) ! pure und]/&+1 ! a priori concepts ) :i* x deals mu/ =m a unity or sy/em4 ,und]/&+ is view$ z a sep>ate faculty1 & virtually hypo/atis$4 ,z a sep>ate faculty1 x mu/1 x is impli$1 be an indep5d5t unity1 self-conta9+ & complete4 ,its concepts are det]m9$ 9 numb]1 con/itution1 & int]relation1 by its inh]5t "*4 ,!y orig9ate indep5d5tly ( all diff]5ces 9 ! mat]ial :i* !y are employ$ to organise4 ,,book ,i ,,! ,,analytic ,,( ,,concepts ,introductory ,p>agraph4--,kant's view ( ! und]/&+ z a sep>ate faculty is 9 evid5ce aga9 9 ?is p>agraph4#ffi ,! ,analytic is a 8dissection ( ! faculty ( ! und]/&+40 ,a priori concepts are to be s\ght n[h]e b 9 ! und]/&+ itself1 z _! bir?place4 ,!re 8!y lie ready till at la/1 on ! occasion ( exp]i5ce1 !y become develop$40 ,b su* /atem5ts fail to d ju/ice to ,kant's real tea*+4 ,!y w\ld seem to reveal ! p]si/+ influ5ce ( ! pre-,critical /&po9t ( ! ,diss]tation4 ,,*apt] ,i ,,! ,,clue ,,to ,,! ,,discov]y ,,( ,,all ,,pure ,,concepts ,,( ,,! ,,und]/&+ ,t ! und]/&+ is 8an absolute unity0 is repeat$4 ,f ?is ass]tion1 ?us dogmatically made1 )\t ev5 an attempt at argum5t1 ,kant d$uces ! important conclusion t ! pure concepts1 orig9at+ f su* a s\rce1 8mu/ be connect$ ) ea* o!r accord+ to "o concept or idea 7,begriff od] ,idee740 ,& he adds ! equally unprov$ ass]tion3 8,b su* a connection supplies a rule by :i* we are enabl$ to assign its prop] place to ea* pure concept ( ! und]/&+ & by :i* we c det]m9e 9 an a priori mann] _! sy/ematic complet5ess4 ,o!rwise we %\ld be dep5d5t 9 ^! matt]s on our own discretion>y judgm5t or m]ely on *ance40 ,9 ! next section he sets himself to discov] f an exam9ation ( analytic ?9k+ :at ?is rule or pr9ciple actually is1 & 9 s do+ he = ! fir/ "t discloses1 9 any degree at all adequate1 ! real nature ( ! position :i* he is seek+ to develop4 ,he connects ! requir$ pr9ciple ) ! nature ( ! act ( judg+1 consid]$ z a function ( unity4 ,section ,i4 ,! ,logical ,use ( ! ,und]/&+4--,?is section1#fgj view$ z introductory to ! metaphysical d$uction ( ! categories1 is extremely unsatisfactory4 ,x directs att5tion to ! wrong po9ts1 & conceals r ?an def9es ,kant's real position4 ,its argum5tation is also contort$ & confus$1 & only by ! mo/ pati5t analysis c x be /raight5$ out4 ,! comm5tator has pres5t$ to him a tw(old task f :i* !re is no escape4 ,he mu/ r5d] ! argum5t consi/5t by su* modification z w h>monise x ) ,kant's lat] & m delib]ate positions1 & he mu/ expla9 :y ,kant has pres5t$ x 9 ?is mislead+ mann]4 ,! title ( ! section w\ld seem to imply t only ! discursive activities ( und]/&+ are to be dealt )4 ,t is1 inde$1 9 ! ma9 true4 ,confusion results1 h[ev]1 f ! cla%+ ( ?is av[$ int5tion ) ! ultimate purpose 9 view ( :i* ! argum5t is prop\nd$4 ,kant is seek+ to prove t we c d]ive f ! m accessible proc$ure ( ! discursive und]/&+ a clue suffici5t = det]m9+ ^? pre-logical activities :i* h to be po/ulat$ 9 t]ms ( 8 new ,cop]nican hypo!sis4 ,b ?\gh t is ! real int5tion ( ?is section1 x has1 un=tunately1 n be5 explicitly recognis$1 & c be div9$ by ! read] only aft] he has ma/]$ ! lat] portions ( ! ,analytic4 ,kant's argum5t has also ! fur!r defect t no suffici5t /atem5t is giv5 ei!r ( ! nature ( ! discursive concept or ( its relation to judgm5t4 ,^! lacunae we mu/ fill out z be/ we c f 8 utt]ances else:]e4 ,i %all fir/ /ate ,kant's view ( ! di/9ction betwe5 discursive & syn!tic ?9k+1 & !n exam9e 8 treatm5t ( ! nature ( ! concept & ( its relation to judgm5t4 ,z already not$1#fga ! di/9ction betwe5 transc5d5tal & g5]al logic m>ks = ,kant all-important diff]5ces 9 ! use ( ! und]/&+4 ,9 ! "o employm5t ! und]/&+1 by creative syn!tic activities1 g5]ates f ! giv5 manifold ! complex objects ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,9 s do+ x int]prets & organises ! manifold ?r\gh concepts :i* orig9ate f )9 itself4 ,by ! o!r x discrim9ates & comp>es1 & !reby d]ives f ! cont5t ( s5se-exp]i5ce ! g5]ic concepts ( ! traditional logic4 ,n[ ,kant w\ld seem to argue 9 ?is section t if ! diff]5ce 9 ! orig9 ( ! concepts 9 ^? two cases be left out ( acc\nt1 & if we att5d only to ! q g5]al "* ( _! respective activities1 !y w be f\nd to agree 9 "o fundam5tal feature1 namely1 t !y express functions ( unity4 ,ea* is bas$ on ! spontaneity ( ?\ght--on ! spontaneity ( syn!tic int]pretation on ! "o h&1 ( discrim9ation & comp>ison on ! o!r4 ,?is feature common to ! two types ( activity c be fur!r def9$ z be+ ! unity ( ! act :]eby a multiplicity is compreh5d$ "u a s+le repres5tation4 ,9 ! judgm5t 8e metal is a body0 ! v>iety ( metals is r$uc$ to unity ?r\gh ! concept body4 ,9 an analog\s mann] ! syn!tic und]/&+ organises a manifold ( intuition ?r\gh "s su* =m ( unity z t ( sub/ance & attribute4 ,t is ! category :i* und]lies ! above proposition1 & :i* r5d]s possible ! specific unity ( ! total judgm5t4 ,to quote ! s5t5ce ) :i* 9 a lat] section ,kant introduces 8 table ( categories3 8,! same und]/&+1 & by ! same op]ations by :i* 9 concepts1 by means ( analytic unity1 x has produc$ ! logical =m ( a judgm5t1 introduces1 by means ( ! syn!tic unity ( ! manifold 9 intuition 9 g5]al1 a transc5d5tal elem5t into its repres5tations44440#fgb ,n[ ,kant's exposition is extremely mislead+4 ,z 8 lat] utt]ances %[1 8 real argum5t is by no means t :i* is "h giv54 ,we %all h occasion to obs]ve t ,kant is unable to prove1 & does n ultimately pr(ess to prove1 t x is 8! same und]/&+10 & /ill less t x is 8! same op]ations10 :i* are ex]cis$ 9 discursive & 9 creative ?9k+4 ,b ?is is a criticism :i* x w\ld be premature to introduce at ?is /age4 ,we mu/ proce$ to x by way ( prelim9>y analysis ( ! above exposition4 ,kant's argum5t does n re/ ^u any su* analogy z t j drawn1 betwe5 ! concepts =m$ by consci\sly comp>+ cont5ts & ! concepts :i* orig9ate f )9 ! und]/&+ itself4 ,bo?1 x is true1 are functions ( unity1 b o!rwise !re is1 accord+ to ,kant's own tea*+1 n ! lea/ resemblance betwe5 !m4 ,a g5]ic or ab/ract concept expresses common qualities f\nd 9 ea* ( a numb] ( complex cont5ts4 ,x is itself a cont5t4 ,a category1 on ! o!r h&1 is always a function ( unity :]eby cont5ts are int]pret$4 ,x is n a cont5t1 b a =m = ! organisation ( cont5t4#fgc ,x c ga9 expression only 9 ! total act ( judg+1 n 9 any "o elem5t su* z ! discursive concept4 ,b ?\gh ! analogy drawn by ,kant ?us breaks d[n1 8 argum5t is cont9u$ 9 a new & v diff]5t =m4 ,x is no long] made to re/ on any suppos$ resemblance betwe5 discursive & creative ?9k+1 reg>d$ z co-ord9ate & indep5d5t activities4 ,x n[ consi/s 9 ! pro( t ! =m] presupposes & is condition$ by ! latt]4 ,?r\gh /udy ( ! und]/&+ 9 its m accessible discursive proc$ure1 we may hope to discov] ! syn!tic =ms accord+ to :i* x has proce$$ 9 its pre-logical activities4 ,:5 we det]m9e ! v>i\s =ms ( analytic judgm5t1 ! categories :i* are involv$ 9 syn!tic ?9k+ reveal !mselves to consci\sness4 ,?us 9 spite ( ,kant's insi/5ce ^u ! conceptual pr$icate1 & ^u ! unity to :i* x gives expression1 imm$iately he proce$s to ! d$uction ( ! categories1 ! emphasis is %ift$ to ! unity :i* und]lies ! judgm5t z a :ole4 ,:at con/itutes su* propositions z 8all bodies are divisible10 8e metal is a body10 a unique & sep>ate type ( judgm5t is n ! "* ( ! pr$icate1 b ! category ( sub/ance & attribute :]eby ! pr$icate is relat$ to ! subject4 ,to t category !y owe _! specific =m2 & x is a function ( unity = :i* ! discursive und]/&+ c nev] acc\nt4 ,z ,kant /ates 9 ! ,prolegom5a1 if g5u9e judgm5ts1 t is1 judgm5ts t are 8objectively valid10 are analys$1 8444x w be f\nd t !y nev] consi/ ( m]e intuitions connect$ only 7z is commonly believ$7 by comp>ison 9 a judgm5t4 ,!y w\ld be impossible 7 n a pure concept ( ! und]/&+ sup]add$ to ! concepts ab/ract$ f intuition4 ,! ab/ract concepts are subsum$ "u a pure concept1 & 9 ?is mann] only c !y be connect$ 9 an objectively valid judgm5t40#fgd ,?us ! analogy betwe5 discursive & a priori concepts is no soon] drawn ?an x is set aside z irrelevant4 ,?\gh g5]ic concepts re/ ^u functions ( unity1 & ?\gh 7z we %all see imm$iately7 !y exi/ only z factors 9 ! total act ( judg+1 !re is o!rwise n ! lea/ resemblance betwe5 !m & ! categories4#fge ,! clue to ! categories is n to be f\nd 9 ! inh]5t *>act]i/ics ( analytic ?9k+1 or ( its specific products 7namely1 concepts71 b solely 9 :at1 aft] all ab/raction1 x mu/ /ill reta9 f ! products :i* syn!tic ?9k+ creates4 ,ea* type ( analytic judgm5t w be f\nd on exam9ation to involve "s specific function :]eby ! conceptual factors are relat$ to1 & unifi$ )1 ! o!r elem5ts 9 ! judgm5t4 ,?is function ( unity is 9 ea* case an a priori category ( ! und]/&+4 ,t is ! !sis :i* und]lies ! conclud+ s5t5ce ( ?is section4 8,! functions ( ! und]/&+ i4e4 ! a priori concepts ( und]/&+ c be discov]$ 9 _! complet5ess1 if x is possible to /ate exhau/ively ! functions ( unity i4e4 ! =ms ( relation 9 judgm5ts40 ,! adoption ( su* a position involves1 x may be not$1 ! giv+ up ( ! ass]tion1 :i* is s emphatically made 9 ! passage above quot$1 t x is by ! same activities t ! und]/&+ discursively =ms ab/ract concepts & creatively organises ! manifold ( s5se4 ,t is 9 no respect true4 ,!re is no real id5tity--!re is n ev5 analogy--betwe5 ! processes ( comp>ison & ab/raction on ! "o h& & ^? ( syn!tic int]pretation on ! o!r4 ,! =m] are m]ely reflective3 ! latt] are g5u9ely creative4 ,discursive activities are consci\s processes1 & are "u our control3 ! syn!tic processes1 are non-consci\s2 only _! f9i%$ products appe> )9 ! consci\s field4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 is to anticipate a conclusion :i* 0 among ! la/ to be realis$ by ,kant himself1 namely t !re is no pro( t ^! two types ( activity are ascribable to "o & ! same s\rce4 ,! syn!tic activities--z he himself f9ally came to hold--are due to a faculty ( imag9ation4 8,syn!sis 9 g5]al 444 is ! m]e result ( ! p[] ( imag9ation1 a bl9d b indisp5sable function ( ! s\l1 )\t :i* we %\ld h no k :atsoev]1 b ( :i* we are sc>cely ev] consci\s40#fgf ,?is s5t5ce occurs 9 a passage :i* is und\bt$ly a lat] int]polation4#fgg ,! 8sc>cely ev]0 7selt5 nur e9mal7 indicates ,kant's l+]+ reluctance to recognise ?is fundam5tal fact1 de/ructive ( s mu* 9 8 e>li] views1 ev5 ?\gh x completes & re9=ces 8 *ief ultimate conclusions4 ,) ?is admission ,kant also gives up 8 sole rema9+ gr\nd = ! cont5tion t !re mu/ be a complete p>allelism betwe5 discursive & creative ?9k+4 ,if !y arise f su* diff]5t s\rces1 we h no "r to assume1 )\t specific pro(1 t !y mu/ co9cide 9 ! =ms ( _! activity4 ,?is is a po9t to :i* we %all return 9 discuss+ ,kant's =mulation ( ! pr9ciple :i* is suppos$ to gu>antee ! complet5ess ( ! table ( categories4 ,?is unav[$ *ange 9 po9t ( view is ! ma9 cause ( confusion 9 ?is section4 ,its o!r defects are *iefly ^? ( omission4 ,kant fails to develop 9 suffici5t detail 8 view ( ! nature ( ! discursive concept1 or to make suffici5tly cle> ! gr\nds = 8 ass]tion t conception z an activity ( ! und]/&+ is id5tical ) judgm5t4 ,to take ! =m] po9t fir/4 ,kant's mode ( view+ ! discursive concept f9ds expression 9 ! foll[+ passage 9 ! ,introduction to 8 ,logic3#fgh 8,human k is on ! side ( ! und]/&+ discursive2 t is1 x takes place by means ( ideas :i* make :at is common to _m ?+s ! gr\nd ( k3 & h5ce by means ( attributes z su*4 ,we !re=e cognise ?+s only by means ( attributes4 ,an attribute is t 9 a ?+ :i* con/itutes "p ( our cognition ( x2 or1 :at is ! same1 a p>tial conception s f> z x is consid]$ z a gr\nd ( cognition ( ! :ole conception4 ,all our concepts1 !re=e1 are attributes1 & all ?\ght is no?+ b conception by means ( attributes40 ,! limitations ( ,kant's view ( ! concept c\ld h>dly f9d m def9ite expression4 ,! only type ( judgm5t :i* receives recognition is ! categorical1 int]pret$ 9 ! traditional mann]4#fgi 8,to comp>e some?+ z a m>k ) a ?+1 is call$ #8to judge4' ,! ?+ itself is ! subject1 ! m>k or attribute is ! pr$icate4 ,! comp>ison is express$ by ! ^w #8is1' 444 :i* :5 us$ )\t qualification indicates t ! pr$icate is a m>k or attribute ( ! subject1 b :5 comb9$ ) ! sign ( negation /ates t ! pr$icate is a m>k oppos$ to ! subject40#fhj ,kant's view ( analytic ?9k+ is entirely dom9at$ by ! sub/ance-attribute tea*+ ( ! traditional logic4 ,a concept mu/1 9 its connotation1 be an ab/ract$ attribute1 & 9 its d5otation repres5t a class4 ,relational ?9k+1 & ! concepts ( relation1 are ignor$4 ,?us1 9 ! ,ae/hetic1 z we h already not$1#fha ,kant ma9ta9s t s9ce space & "t are n g5]ic class concepts !y mu/ be intuitions4 ,?is argum5t1 hone/ly employ$ by ,kant1 %[s h[ completely unconsci\s he 0 ( ! revolution>y consequ5ces ( 8 new /&po9t4 ,ev5 9 ! v act ( insi/+ ^u ! relational "* ( ! categories1 he /ill cont9ues to speak ( ! concept z if x mu/ necess>ily con=m to ! g5]ic type4 ,9 ?is1 z 9 s _m o!r respects1 transc5d5tal logic is n1 z he w\ld pr(ess1 supplem5t>y to g5]al logic2 x is its tacit recantation4 ,mod]n logic1 z develop$ by ,lotze1 ,sigw>t1 ,bradley1 & ,bosanquet1 is1 9 l>ge "p1 ! reca/+ ( g5]al logic 9 t]ms ( ! results rea*$ by ,kant's transc5d5tal enquiries4 ,meantime1 suffici5t has be5 said to indicate ! /rangely limit$ "* ( ,kant's doctr9e ( ! logical concept4 ,b on "o fundam5tal po9t ,kant breaks entirely free f ! traditional logic4 ,! foll[+ passage occurs 9 ! above-quot$ pamphlet on ,! ,mi/ak5 ,subtlety ( ! ,f\r ,syllogi/ic ,figures3 8,x is cle> t 9 ! ord9>y treatm5t ( logic !re is a s]i\s error 9 t di/9ct & complete concepts are treat$ be=e judgm5ts & ratioc9ations1 al?\gh ! =m] are only possible by means ( ! latt]40 8,i say1 !n1 fir/1 t a di/9ct concept is possible only by means ( a judgm5t1 a complete concept only by means ( a ratioc9ation4 ,9 fact1 9 ord] t a concept %\ld be di/9ct1 ,i mu/ cle>ly recognise some?+ z an attribute ( a ?+1 & ?is is a judgm5t4 ,9 ord] to h a di/9ct concept ( body1 ,i cle>ly repres5t to myself imp5etrability z an attribute ( x4 ,n[ ?is repres5tation is no?+ b ! ?\ght1 #8a body is imp5etrable4' ,"h x is to be obs]v$ t ?is judgm5t is n ! di/9ct concept itself1 b is ! act by :i* x is realis$2 = ! idea ( ! ?+ :i* arises aft] ?is act is di/9ct4 ,x is easy to %[ t a complete concept is only possible by means ( a ratioc9ation3 = ?is x is suffici5t to ref] to ! fir/ section ( ?is essay4 ,we might say1 !re=e1 t a di/9ct concept is "o :i* is made cle> by a judgm5t1 & a complete concept "o :i* is made di/9ct by a ratioc9ation4 ,if ! complet5ess is ( ! fir/ degree1 ! ratioc9ation is simple2 if ( ! second or ?ird degree1 x is only possible by means ( a *a9 ( reason+ :i* ! und]/&+ abridges 9 ! mann] ( a sorites4444 ,secondly1 z x is q evid5t t ! complet5ess ( a concept & its di/9ctness d n require diff]5t faculties ( ! m9d 7s9ce ! same capacity :i* recognises some?+ imm$iately z an attribute 9 a ?+ is also employ$ to recognise 9 ?is attribute ano!r attribute1 & ?us to conceive ! ?+ by means ( a remote attribute71 s also x is evid5t t und]/&+ & reason1 t is1 ! p[] ( cognis+ di/9ctly & ! p[] ( =m+ ratioc9ations1 are n diff]5t faculties4 ,bo? consi/ 9 ! p[] ( judg+1 b :5 we judge m$iately we reason40#fhb ,9 ! section be=e u ?is same /&po9t is ma9ta9$1 b is express$ 9 a mu* less satisfactory mann]4 ,concepts are no long] spok5 ( z complete judgm5ts4 ,9 ! above passages ,kant always speaks ( ! concept z ! subject ( ! proposition2 x is n[ treat$ only z a pr$icate4#fhc ,?is diff]5ce is significant4 ,! concept z subject c repres5t ! judgm5t z a :ole 7or at lea/ x does s f ! traditional /&po9t to :i* ,kant holds72 ! concept z pr$icate is m]ely "o elem5t1 ev5 ?\gh x be a unify+ elem5t1 9 ! total act ( judg+4 ,?is fall+ away f 8 own matur] /&po9t w\ld seem to be due to ,kant's lack ( cle>ness z to ! nature ( ! analogy :i* he is "h draw+ betwe5 analytic & syn!tic ?9k+4 ,x is connect$ ) 8 mi/ak51 & m]ely tempor>y1 comp>ison ( a priori ) discursive concepts4 ,8 position 9 #agfb alone h>monises ) 8 ess5tial tea*+4 ,n[1 z !n1 he is prep>$ to view judgm5t z ! sole ultimate activity ( ! und]/&+1 & !re=e to def9e und]/&+ z ! faculty ( judg+4 ,b ! new ,critical /&po9t compels ,kant to re9t]pret ?is def9ition 9 a mann] :i* involves a /ill m radical trans=mation ( ! traditional doctr9e4 ,! categories con/itute a unique type ( concept1 & condition ! processes ( discursive ?\ght4 ,!y are embodi$ 9 ! complex cont5ts f :i* analytic ?9k+ />ts2 & h[ev] f> ! processes ( discursive comp>ison & ab/raction be c>ri$1 "o or o!r ( ^! categories mu/ /ill p]si/1 det]m9+ ! =m :i* ! analytic judgm5t is to take4 ,! categorical judgm5t c =mulate itself only by means ( ! a priori concept ( subject & attribute1 ! hypo!tical only by means ( ! pure concept ( gr\nd & consequ5ce1 & s ) ! o!rs4 ,& !re are 9 consequ5ce j z _m categories z !re are =ms ( ! analytic judgm5t4 ,?is is h[ ! pr9ciple ( ! metaphysical d$uction mu/ be int]pret$ :5 ! lat] & deep] results ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction are prop]ly tak5 into acc\nt4 ,9 d$uc+ ! =ms ( ! und]/&+ f ! modes ( discursive judgm5t ,kant is virtually ma9ta9+ t analytic judgm5t involves ! same problems z does judgm5t ( ! syn!tic type4 ,! categories c be d]iv$ f ! =ms ( discursive judgm5t only because !y are ! conditions 9 & ?r\gh :i* x becomes possible4 ,b ?\gh ,kant1 bo? "h & 9 ! c5tral portions ( ! ,analytic1 seems to be on ! v br9k ( ?is conclusion1 x is nev] explicitly drawn4 ,z we %all see1#fhd x w\ld h involv$ ! fur!r admission t !re is no absolute gu>antee ( ! complet5ess ( ! table ( categories1 & no satisfactory me?od ( det]m9+ _! int]relations4 ,to ! v la/ g5]al logic is isolat$ f transc5d5tal logic4 ,! ,critical enquiry is =mulat$ z if x conc]n$ only su* judgm5ts z are explicitly syn!tic4 ,! pr9ciple ( ! metaphysical d$uction is n1 !re=e1 /at$ by ,kant himself 9 ! above mann]2 & we h /ill to decide ! difficult "q z to :at ! pr9ciple employ$ by ,kant 9 ! d$uction actually is4 ,kant makes a tw(old dem& ^u ! pr9ciple4 ,x mu/ enable u to discov] ! categories1 & x mu/ also 9 s do+ enable u to view !m z toge!r =m+ a sy/ematic :ole1 & s z hav+ _! complet5ess gu>ante$ by o!r ?an m]ely empirical consid]ations4 ,! pr9ciple is /at$ sometimes 9 a broad] & sometimes 9 a m specific =m2 = on ?is po9t also ,kant speaks ) no v c]ta9 voice4#fhe ,! broad] =mulation ( ! pr9ciple is t all acts ( und]/&+ are judgm5ts1 & t !re=e ! possible ultimate a priori =ms ( und]/&+ are id5tical ) ! possible ultimate =ms ( ! judgm5t4#fhf ,! m specific & correct =mulation is t to e =m ( analytic judgm5t !re corresponds a pure concept ( und]/&+4 ,! fir/ /atem5t ( ! pr9ciple is obvi\sly inadequate4 ,x m]ely re=mulates ! problem z be+ a problem n ( conception b ( judgm5t4 ,if a pr9ciple is requir$ to gu>antee ! complet5ess ( our li/ ( a priori concepts1 x w equally be requir$ to gu>antee ! complet5ess ( our li/ ( judgm5ts4 ,ev5 if ! above pr9ciple be m explicitly =mulat$1 z 9 ! ,prolegom5a1#fhg :]e judg+ is def9$ z ! act ( und]/&+ :i* comprises all its o!r acts1 x w n enable u to gu>antee ! complet5ess ( any li/ ( ! =ms ( judgm5t or to det]m9e _! sy/ematic int]relation4 ,we are !re=e ?r[n back ^u ! second view4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 only br+s u face to face ) ! fur!r "q1 :at pr9ciple gu>antees ! complet5ess ( ! table ( analytic judgm5ts4 ,& to t qu]y ,kant has absolutely no answ]4 ,! read]'s que/ion+s break va9ly ^u 8 inv9cible belief 9 ! adequacy & f9ality ( ! classification yield$ by ! traditional logic4 ,! fons et origo ( all ! confusions & obscurities ( ?is section are ?us traceable to ,kant's attitude t[>ds =mal logic4 ,he might criticise x = ignor+ ! int]dep5d5ce ( conception1 judgm5t1 & reason+2 he might reject ! second1 ?ird1 & f\r? syllogi/ic figures2 & he might ev5 admit t its classification ( ! =ms ( judgm5t is n z explicit z might be desir$2 b h[ev] _m provisos he made & defects he ackn[l$g$1 !y 7 to him m]ely m9or matt]s1 & he accept$ its tea*+ z complete & f9al4 ,?is unwav]+ fai? 9 ! fundam5tal di/9ctions ( ! traditional logic 0 inde$1 z we %all h con/ant occasion to obs]ve1 an ev] pres5t influ5ce 9 det]m9+ alike ! g5]al framework & mu* ( ! detail ( ,kant's ,critical tea*+4 ,! defects ( ! traditional logic 7 v cle>ly indicat$ 9 8 own transc5d5tal logic4 ,he %[$ t syn!tic ?9k+ is fundam5tal2 t by its di/9ctions ! =ms & activities ( analytic ?\ght are pr$et]m9$2 t judgm5t 9 its v>i\s =ms c be und]/ood only by a regress ^u ! syn!tic concepts to :i* ^! =ms are due2 t notions are n m]ely ( ! g5]ic type1 b t !re are also categories ( relation4 ,none ! less1 to ! v la/1 ,kant p]si/$ 9 reg>d+ g5]al logic z a sep>ate discipl9e1 & z q adequate 9 its curr5t =m4 ,he cont9u$ to ignore ! fact t ! analytic judgm5t1 no less ?an ! syn!tic judgm5t1 dem&s a transc5d5tal ju/ification4 ,! result+ situation is /rangely p]v]se4 ,9 ! v act ( revolutionis+ ! traditional logic1 ,kant relies ^u its pre/ige & ^u ! assum$ f9ality ( its results to make good ! %ortcom+s ( ! logic :i* is to displace x4 ,by ,kant's own admission transc5d5tal logic is incapable ( gu>antee+ t complet5ess ^u :i*1 ?r\gh\t ! :ole ,critique1 s great an emphasis is laid4 ,g5]al logic is all[$ an indep5d5t /atus1 suffici5t to ju/ify its au?ority be+ appeal$ to2 & ! pr9ciple :i* is suppos$ to gu>antee ! complet5ess ( ! table ( categories is s =mulat$ z to conta9 no sugge/ion ( ! dep5d5ce ( discursive ^u syn!tic ?9k+4 ,=mal logic1 ,kant w\ld seem to hold1 c supply a crit]ion = ! classification ( ! ultimate =ms ( judgm5t j because its task is relatively simple1 & is indep5d5t ( all epi/emological views z to ! nature1 scope1 & conditions ( ! ?\ght process4 ,s9ce =mal logic is a complet$ & p]fectly a priori sci5ce1 :i* has /ood ! te/ ( #bjjj ye>s1 & rema9s practically un*ang$ to ! pres5t day1 its results c be accept$ z f9al1 & c be employ$ )\t "q 9 all fur!r enquiries4 ,analytic ?9k+ is sci5tifically treat$ 9 g5]al logic2 ! ,critique is conc]n$ only ) ! possibility & conditions ( syn!tic judgm5t4 ,! table ( analytic judgm5ts !re=e supplies a complete & absolutely gu>ante$ li/ ( ! possible categories ( ! und]/&+4 ,b ! p]v]s5ess ( ?is :ole proc$ure is %[n by ! mann] 9 :i*1 z we %all f9d1 ,kant reca/s1 ext5ds1 or alt]s1 to suit 8 own purposes1 ! actual tea*+ ( ! traditional logic4 ,z not$ above1#fhh ! ass]t$ p>allelism ( analytic & syn!tic judgm5t re/s ^u ! fur!r assumption t discursive ?9k+ & syn!tic int]pretation are ! outcome ( "o & ! same faculty ( und]/&+4 ,x is impli$1 9 accordance ) ! attitude ( ! pre-,critical ,diss]tation1 t und]/&+1 view$ z ! faculty to :i* all ?\ght processes are due1 has c]ta9 laws 9 accordance ) :i* x necess>ily acts 9 all its op]ations1 & t ^! mu/ !re=e be discov]able f analytic no less ?an f syn!tic ?9k+4 ,! m+l+ ( tru? & falsity 9 ?is assumption has already be5 indicat$4 ,su* tru? z x conta9s is due to ! fact t analytic ?9k+ is n co-ord9ate )1 b is dep5d5t ^u1 & det]m9$ by1 ! =ms ( syn!tic ?9k+4 ,its falsity consi/s 9 its ignor+ ( :at ?us gives x p>tial tru?4 ,! results ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction call = a complete reca/+ ( ! entire argum5t ( ! metaphysical d$uction4 ,& :5 ?is is done1 !re is no long] any gr\nd = ! cont5tion t ! numb] ( ! categories is det]m9able on a priori gr\nds4 ,on ,kant's own fundam5tal doctr9e ( ! syn!tic1 & !re=e m]ely de facto1 "* ( all a priori pr9ciples1 ! necessity ( ! categories is only demon/rable by ref]5ce to ! cont+5t fact ( actual exp]i5ce4 ,! possible conceptual =ms are relative to actual & ultimate diff]5ces 9 ! cont+5t s5su\s mat]ial2 & be+ ?us relative1 !y _c possibly be sy/ematis$ on purely a priori gr\nds4 ,?is ,kant has himself admitt$ 9 a passage add$ 9 ! second edition1#fhi ?\gh app>5tly )\t full consci\sness ( ! important consequ5ces :i* mu/ foll[4 8,?is peculi>ity ( our und]/&+ t x c produce a priori unity ( app]ception solely by means ( ! categories1 & only by su* & s _m1 is z little capable ( fur!r explanation z :y we h j ^! & no o!r functions ( judgm5t1 or :y space & "t are ! only =ms ( our possible intuition40 ,,/ages ,,9 ,,! ,,developm5t ,,( ,,kant',s ,,metaphysical ,,d$uction ,! "* ( ! metaphysical d$uction w be plac$ 9 a cle>] light if we briefly trace ! /ages1 s f> z !y c be recon/ruct$1 ?r\gh :i* x pass$ 9 ,kant's m9d4 ,we may />t f ! ,diss]tation ( #aggj4 ,kant !re modifies 8 e>li] ,wolffian /&po9t1 develop+ x1 probably "u ! direct influ5ce ( ! rec5tly publi%$ ,n\veaux ,essais1 on m g5u9ely ,leibnizian l9es4 8,! use ( ! intellect 444 is tw(old4 ,by ! "o use concepts1 bo? ( ?+s & ( relations1 are !mselves giv54 ,?is is ! real use4 ,by ! o!r use concepts1 :5cesoev] giv51 are m]ely subord9at$ to ea* o!r1 ! l[] to ! high] 7! common attributes71 & comp>$ ) "o ano!r accord+ to ! pr9ciple ( contradiction4 ,?is is call$ ! logical use4444 ,empirical concepts1 !re=e1 d n become intellectual 9 ! real s5se by r$uction to great] univ]sality1 & d n pass beyond ! type ( s5su\s cognition4 ,h[ev] high ! ab/raction be c>ri$1 !y mu/ always rema9 s5su\s4 ,b 9 deal+ ) ?+s /rictly intellectual1 9 reg>d to :i* ! use ( ! intellect is real1 intellectual concepts 7( objects z well z ( relations71 are giv5 by ! v nature ( ! intellect4 ,!y are n ab/ract$ f any use ( ! s5ses1 & d n conta9 any =m ( s5su\s k z su*4 ,we mu/ "h note ! extreme ambiguity ( ! ^w ab/ract4444 ,an intellectual concept ab/racts f ev]y?+ s5su\s2 x is n ab/ract$ f ?+s s5su\s4 ,x w\ld p]haps be m correctly nam$ ab/ract+ ?an ab/ract4 ,x is !re=e pref]able to call ! intellectual concepts pure ideas1 & ^? :i* are giv5 only empirically ab/ract ideas40#fij 8,i fe>1 h[ev]1 t ,wolff1 by ?is di/9ction betwe5 ! s5su\s & ! intellectual1 :i* = him is m]ely logical1 has *eck$1 p]haps :olly 7to ! great detrim5t ( philosophy71 t noble/ ent]prise ( antiquity1 ! inve/igation ( ! nature ( ph5om5a & n\m5a1 turn+ m5's m9ds f su* enquiries to :at are v frequ5tly only logical subtleties4 ,philosophy1 9 s f> z x conta9s ! fir/ pr9ciples ( ! use ( ! pure intellect1 is metaphysics4444 ,z empirical pr9ciples are n to be f\nd 9 metaphysics1 ! concepts to be met ) 9 x are n to be s\ght 9 ! s5ses b 9 ! v nature ( ! pure intellect4 ,!y are n connate concepts1 b are ab/ract$ f laws inh]5t 9 ! m9d 7legibus m5ti insitis71 & are !re=e acquir$4 ,su* are ! concepts ( possibility1 exi/5ce1 necessity1 sub/ance1 cause1 etc4 ) _! opposites or correlates4 ,!y nev] ent] z p>ts into any s5su\s repres5tation1 & !re=e _c 9 any fa%ion be ab/ract$ f su* repres5tations40#fia ,! etcet]a1 ) :i* 9 t la/ passage ,kant concludes 8 li/ ( pure intellectual concepts1 indicates a problem t mu/ v soon h made itself felt4 ,t x did s1 appe>s f 8 lett] to ,h]z 7,febru>y #ba1 #aggb74 ,he !re in=ms 8 correspond5t1 t1 9 develop+ 8 ,transc5d5talphilosophie 7! fir/ occurr5ce ( t title 9 ,kant's writ+s71 he has 8444s\ght to r$uce all concepts ( completely pure reason to a fix$ numb] ( categories ?is t]m also appe>+ = ! fir/ "t1 n 9 ! mann] ( ,ari/otle1 :o 9 8 t5 pr$icam5ts m]ely set !m side by side 9 a sort ( ord]1 j z he might happ5 ^u !m1 b z !y di/ribute !mselves ( !mselves accord+ to "s few pr9ciples ( ! und]/&+40#fib ,?\gh 9 ?is same lett] ,kant pr(esses to h solv$ 8 problems1 & to be 9 a position to publi% 8 ,critique ( ,pure ,reason 7?is title is already employ$7 8)9 "s ?ree mon?s10 ! phrase 8"s few pr9ciples0 cle>ly %[s t he has n yet develop$ ! tea*+ embodi$ 9 ! metaphysical d$uction4 ,= its keynote is insi/5ce ^u ! necessity ( a s+le pr9ciple1 suffici5t to r$uce !m n m]ely to classes b to sy/em4 ,! difficulty ( discov]+ su* a pr9ciple mu/ h be5 "o ( ! causes :i* delay$ completion ( ! ,critique4 ,! only data at our disposal = recon/ruct+ ! v>i\s /ages ?r\gh :i* ,kant's views may h pass$ 9 ! p]iod betwe5 ,febru>y #aggb & #agha are ! ,reflexion51 b !y are suffici5tly ample to all[ ( our do+ s ) consid]able def9it5ess4#fic ,9 ! ,diss]tation ,kant _h trac$ ! concepts ( space & "t1 no less ?an ! concepts ( und]/&+1 to m5tal activities4 8,bo? concepts space & "t are und\bt$ly acquir$4 ,!y are n1 h[ev]1 ab/ract$ f ! s5s+ ( objects 7= s5sation gives ! matt]1 n ! =m ( human cognition74 ,z immutable types !y are intuitively appreh5d$ f ! activity :]eby ! m9d co-ord9ates its s5su\s data 9 accordance ) p]petual laws40#fid ,n[ ! ,diss]tation is q vague z to h[ ! 8m9d0 7animus71 active 9 accordance ) laws g5]ative ( ! intuitions space & "t1 diff]s f 8und]/&+0 7intellectus71 active 9 accordance ) laws g5]ative ( pure concepts4 ,kant's reasons1 ap>t f ! intuitive "* ( space & "t1 = contra/+ ! =m] ) ! latt]1 z ! s5su\s ) ! intellectual1 7 ! exi/5ce ( ! ant9omies & 8 belief t ?r\gh pure concepts ! absolutely real c be kn[n4 ,:51 h[ev]1 t belief 0 que/ion$ by him1 & he _h come to reg>d ! categories z no less subjective ?an ! intuitional =ms1 ! ant9omies ceas$ to af=d any gr\nd = ?us di/+ui%+ betwe5 !m4 ,! intuitional nature ( space & "t1 :ile c]ta9ly peculi> to !m1 is 9 itself no pro( t !y belong to ! s5su\s side ( ! m9d4#fie ,a difficulty :i* imm$iately fac$ ,kant1 f ! new ,critical /&po9t1 0 t ( di/+ui%+ betwe5 space & "t1 on ! "o h&1 & ! categories on ! o!r4 ,?is is borne out by ! ,reflexion5 & by ! foll[+ passage 9 ! ,prolegom5a4#fif 8,only aft] long reflection1 exp5d$ 9 ! inve/igation ( ! pure non-empirical elem5ts ( human k1 did ,i at la/ succe$ 9 di/+ui%+ & sep>at+ ) c]ta9ty ! pure elem5t>y concepts ( s5sibility 7space & "t7 f ^? ( ! und]/&+40 ,! fir/ /age 9 ! developm5t ( ! metaphysical d$uction w\ld seem to h consi/$ 9 ! attempt to view ! categories z acquir$ by reflection ^u ! activities ( ! und]/&+ 9 8comp>+1 comb9+1 or sep>at+02#fig & among ! notiones rationales1 notiones intellectus puri1 ?us ga9$1 ! idea ( space is specially not$4 ,! foll[+ li/ is also giv53 8,! concepts ( exi/5ce 7reality71 possibility1 necessity1 gr\nd1 unity & plurality1 p>ts1 all1 none1 composite & simple1 space1 "t1 *ange1 motion1 sub/ance & accid5t1 p[] & action1 & ev]y?+ t belongs to ontology prop]40#fih ,9 ,reflexion51 ii4 #ejg & #eji1 ! fundam5tal feature ( su* rational concepts is f\nd 9 _! relational "*4 ,!y all agree 9 be+ concepts ( =m4#fii ,q e>ly1 h[ev]1 ,kant seems to h develop$ ! view1 :i* has creat$ s _m m difficulties ?an x resolves1 t space & "t are giv5 to consci\sness ?r\gh out] & inn] s5se4 ,?\gh /ill frequ5tly spok5 ( z concepts1 !y are def9itely ref]r$ to ! receptive1 non-spontane\s1 side ( ! m9d4 ,?is is at once a return to ! ,diss]tation /&po9t1 & a decid$ modification ( its tea*+4 ,x holds to ! po9t ( view ( ! ,diss]tation 9 s f> z x reg>ds !m z s5su\s1 & dep>ts f x 9 trac+ !m to receptivity4#gjj ,! passage quot$ f ! lett] ( #aggb to ,h]z may p]haps be connect$ ) ! /age reveal$ 9 ! ,reflexion5 already cit$4 8,comp>+1 comb9+1 & sep>at+0 may be ! 8"s few pr9ciples ( ! und]/&+0 !re ref]r$ to4 ,t1 h[ev]1 is d\btful1 = ! next /age 9 ! developm5t likewise result$ 9 a ?reefold division4 ,?is second /age f9ds v>i$ expression 9 ,reflexion51 ii4 #dhc1 #ebb1 #ebh1 #eef-fc4 ,^!1 9 s f> z !y agree1 di/+ui% ?ree classes ( categories--( !sis1 ( analysis1 & ( syn!sis4 ,! fir/ cov]s ! categories ( quality & modality1 ! second ^? ( quantity1 ! ?ird ^? ( relation4 ,reflexion51 ii4 #ebh is z foll[s3 ,!sis 8,! metaphysical concepts are1 fir/1 absolute3 possibility & exi/5ce2 secondly1 relative3 7a7 ,unity & plurality3 omnitudo & p>ticul>itas4 ,analysis 7b7 ,limits3 ! fir/1 ! la/3 inf9itum1 f9itum4 ,anticipates ! lat] category ( limitation4 7c7 ,connection3 co-ord9ation3 :ole & "p ,syn!sis anticipates ! lat] category ( reciprocity1 simple & comp\nd2 subord9ation3 7#a7 ,subject & pr$icate4 7#b7 ,gr\nd & consequ5ce4 ,?is1 & ! connect$ ,reflexion5 enum]at$ above1 are ( int]e/ z prov+ t ,kant's table ( categories 0 9 all ess5tials complete be=e ! idea _h occurr$ to him ( fur!r sy/ematis+ x or ( gu>antee+ its complet5ess by ref]5ce to ! logical classification ( ! =ms ( judgm5t4 ,!y also ju/ify u 9 ! belief t :5 ,kant set himself to discov] su* a unify+ pr9ciple ! above li/ ( categories & ! exi/+ logical classifications mu/ h mutually influ5c$ "o ano!r1 ea* und]go+ su* modification z seem$ necess>y to r5d] ! p>allelism complete4 ,?is1 z we %all f9d1 is :at actually happ5$4 ,! logical table1 = in/ance1 induc$ ,kant to di/+ui% ! categories ( quality f ^? ( modality1 :ile num]\s *anges 7 made 9 ! logical table itself 9 ord] t x might yield ! categories requir$4 ,b ! mo/ important alt]ation1 ! introduction ( ! ?reefold division ( ea* sub-head+1 is n ?us explicable1 z exclusively due to "o or o!r ( ! two factors4 ,! adoption ( ?is ?reefold arrangem5t 9 place ( ! di*otom\s divisions ( ! logical classification & ( ! haphaz>d enum]ations ( ,kant's own previ\s li/s1 seems to be due to ! tw(old circum/ance t he _h already di/+ui%$ ?ree categories ( syn!sis or relation 7always ! mo/ important = ,kant71 & t ?is suffici5tly h>monis$ ) ! logical di/9ction betwe5 categorical1 hypo!tical1 & disjunctive judgm5ts4 ,he !n s\ght to modify ! logical divisions by addition 9 ea* case ( a ?ird1 & f9d+ t ?is help$ him to obta9 ! categories requir$1 ! ?reefold division became = him 7z x rema9$ = ,hegel7 an almo/ my/ical dogma ( transc5d5tal philosophy4#gja ,9 s f> z x involv$ recognition t ! h>d & fa/ opposites ( ! traditional logic 7su* z ! univ]sal & ! p>ticul>1 ! affirmative & ! negative7 are really aspects insep>ably involv$ 9 e judgm5t & 9 all exi/5ce1 x con/itut$ an advance 9 ! direction bo? ( a deep] rationalism & ( a m g5u9e empiricism4 ,b 9 s f> z x 0 due to ! desire to gu>antee complet5ess on a priori gr\nds1 & s 0 inspir$ by a p]si/5t ov]e/imate ( our a priori p[]s1 x has be5 decid$ly h>mful4 ,mu* ( ! useless 8ar*itectonic0 ( ! ,critique is due to ?is s*ola/ic prejudice4 ,?is fundam5tal alt]ation 9 ! table ( logical judgm5ts is introduc$ ) ! naive ass]tion t 8v>ieties ( ?\ght 9 judgm5ts10 unimportant 9 g5]al logic1 8may be ( importance 9 ! field ( its pure a priori k40 ,9 ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t#gjb we f9d ! foll[+ passage3 8,x has be5 made a difficulty t my divisions 9 pure philosophy h almo/ always be5 ?reefold4 ,b ?is lies 9 ! nature ( ! case4 ,if an a priori division is to be made1 x mu/ be ei!r analytic1 accord+ to ! pr9ciple ( contradiction1 & !n x is always tw(old 7quodlibet ens e/ aut ,a aut non ,a72 or else syn!tic4 ,& if 9 ?is latt] case x is d]iv$ f a priori concepts 7n z 9 ma!matics f ! a priori intuition correspond+ to ! concept7 ! division mu/ necess>ily be a tri*otomy4 ,= accord+ to :at is requisite = syn!tic unity 9 g5]al1 !re mu/ be 7#a7 a condition1 7#b7 a condition$1 & 7#c7 ! concept :i* arises f ! union ( ^! two40 ,! la/ /age1 z express$ 9 ! ,critique1 01 z we h already not$1 m]ely an application ( 8 e>li] position t all ?9k+ is judg+4 ,?is appreciation ( ! insep>able connection ( ! categories ) ! act ( judg+ is s\nd 9 pr9ciple1 & is pregnant ) _m ( ! mo/ valuable results ( ! ,critical tea*+4 ,b ^! fruitful consequ5ces foll[ only ^u ! l9es develop$ 9 ! transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,!y are b\nd up ) ,kant's fundam5tal ,cop]nican discov]y t ! categories are =ms ( syn!sis1 & accord+ly express functions or relations4 ,! categories c no long] be view$1 9 ! mann] ( ! ,diss]tation1#gjc z yield+ concepts ( objects4 ,! view ( ! concept :i* we f9d 9 ! ,diss]tation is1 inde$1 appli$ 9 ! ,critique to space & "t--!y are tak5 z 9 !mselves intuitions1 n z m]ely =ms ( intuition--b ! categories are recognis$ z be+ ( an altoge!r relational "*4 ,?\gh a priori1 !y are n1 9 & by !mselves1 complete objects ( consci\sness1 & accord+ly c reveal no object4 ,!y are functions1 n cont5ts4 ,t1 h[ev]1 is to anticipate4 ,we mu/ fir/ dis*>ge1 z briefly z possible1 ! ungrateful task ( dwell+ fur!r ^u ! lab\r$1 arbitr>y1 & self-contradictory "* ( ! detail$ work+ out ( ! metaphysical d$uction4 ,! d$uction is giv5 9 ,sections ,,ii4 & ,,iii4 ,section ,,ii4 ,! ,logical ,function ( ! ,und]/&+ 9 ,judgm5t4#gjd--,kant's introductory /atem5t may "h be not$4 ,if1 he says1 we leave out ( consid]ation ! cont5t ( any judgm5t1 & att5d only to ! m]e =m1 we 8f9d0 t ! function ( ?\ght 9 a judgm5t 8c0 be br\ght "u f\r heads1 ea* ) ?ree subdivisions4 ,b ,kant himself1 9 ?is same section1 recognises 9 ! franke/ & mo/ explicit mann]1 t ! necess>y di/9ctions are only to be obta9$ by tak+ acc\nt ( ! matt] z well z ( ! =m ( judgm5ts4 ,& ev5 aft] ?is contradiction is disc\nt$1 ! t]m 8f9d0 may be all[$ z legitimate only if ! ^w 8c0 is correspond+ly emphasis$4 ,! di/9ctions 7 n d]iv$ f any exi/+ logic4 ,!y 7 rea*$ only by ! free/ possible h&l+ ( ! classifications curr5tly employ$4 ,exam9ation ( ! table ( judgm5ts1 & comp>ison ( x ) ! table ( categories1 supply conclusive evid5ce t ! =m] has be5 re>rang$1 9 highly artificial fa%ion1 s z to yield a m or less pr$et]m9$ li/ ( requir$ categories4 #a4 ,quantity4--,kant "h frankly dep>ts f ! classification ( judgm5ts foll[$ 9 =mal logic2 & ! reason :i* he gives = s do+ is 9 direct contradiction to 8 dem& t only ! =m ( judgm5t mu/ be tak5 into acc\nt4 ,! 8quantity ( k0 "h ref]r$ to is det]m9able1 n f ! =m1 b only f ! cont5t ( ! judgm5t4 ,also1 ! /atem5t t ! s+ul> judgm5t /&s to ! univ]sal z unity to inf9ity 7,un5dli*keit7 is decid$ly op5 to "q4 ,! univ]sal is itself a =m ( unity1 z ,kant virtually admits 9 d]iv+1 z he does1 ! category ( unity f ! univ]sal judgm5t4 #b4 ,quality4--,kant makes a simil> modification 9 ! logical treatm5t ( quality1 by di/+ui%+ betwe5 affirmative & inf9ite judgm5ts4 ,! proposition1 ,a is n-,b1 is to be view$ z nei!r affirmative nor negative4 ,z ! cont5t ( ! pr$icate includes ! inf9ite numb] ( ?+s t are n-,b1 ! judgm5t is inf9ite4 ,kant1 9 a v artificial & some:at arbitr>y mann]1 contrives to def9e x z limitative 9 "*1 & s z %>+ simultane\sly 9 ! nature bo? ( affirmation & ( negation4 ,! way is ?us prep>$ = ! 8discov]y0 ( ! category ( limitation4 #c4 ,relation4--,wolff1 ,baumg>t51 ,mei]1 ,baumei/]1 ,reim>us1 & ,lamb]t1 ) v m9or diff]5ces1 agree 9 ! foll[+ division3#gje ,simple ,categorical ,judgm5ts ,copulative 7i4e4 categorical ) m ?an "o subject or m ?an "o ,complex pr$icate74 ,hypo!tical4 ,disjunctive4 ,kant omits ! copulative judgm5t1 & by ignor+ ! di/9ction betwe5 simple & complex judgm5ts 7:i* 9 ,reim>us1 & also less def9itely 9 ,wolff1 is connect$ ) ! di/9ction betwe5 conditional & unconditional judgm5ts7 contrives to br+ ! rema9+ ?ree types ( judgm5t "u ! new head+ ( 8relation40 ,!y _h nev] be=e be5 ?us co-ord9at$1 & _h nev] be=e be5 subsum$ "u ?is p>ticul> title4 ,x is by no means cle> :y su* di/9ctions z ^? betwe5 simple & complex1 condition$ & uncondition$1 %\ld be ignor$1 & :y ! copulative judgm5t %\ld n be recognis$ z well z ! hypo!tical4 ,kant's crit]ion ( importance & unimportance 9 ! di/9ctions employ$ by ! logicians ( 8 day 0 :olly p]sonal to himself2 &1 ?\gh h>d to def9e1 0 c]ta9ly n dictat$ by any logic t is traceable to ,ari/otelian s\rces4 ,8 exposition is ?r\gh\t controll$ by =ekn[l$ge ( ! p>ticul> categories :i* he desires to 8discov]40 #d4 ,modality4--,nei!r ,wolff nor ,reim>us gives any acc\nt ( modality4#gjf ,baumg>t5 classifies judgm5ts z pure or modal 7exi/+ 9 f\r =ms1 necessity1 cont+5cy1 possibility1 impossibility74 ,baumei/] & ,?omasius also recognise f\r =ms ( modality4 ,mei] di/+ui%es betwe5 pure judgm5t 7judicium purum7 & impure judgm5t 7judicium modale1 modificatum1 complexum qua copula71 b does n classify ! =ms ( modality4 ,lamb]t alone#gjg classifies judgm5ts z 8possible1 actual 7wirkli*71 necess>y1 & _! opposite40 ,b :5 ,kant adopts ?is ?reefold division1 ! inclusion ( actuality r5d]s ! g5]al title 8modality0 inapplicable 9 its traditional s5se4 ,! expression ( actuality 9 ! ass]toric judgm5t involves no adv]bial modification ( ! pr$icate4 ,also1 9 its 8affirmative0 & 8categorical0 =ms x has already be5 made to yield two o!r categories4 ,kant speaks ( ! problematic1 ! ass]toric1 & ! apodictic =ms ( judgm5t z repres5t+ ! /ages ?r\gh :i* k passes 9 ! process ( its developm5t4 8,^! ?ree functions ( modality are s _m mom5ta ( ?\ght 9 g5]al40 ,?is /atem5t has be5 eulogis$ by ,caird1#gjh z be+ an anticipation ( ! ,hegelian dialectic4 ,z a matt] ( fact1 ,kant's rem>k is irrelevant & mislead+4 ,! advance f consci\sness ( ! problematic1 ?r\gh det]m9ation ( x z actual to its explanation z necess>y1 repres5ts only a psy*ological ord] 9 ! m9d ( ! individual4 ,logically1 k ( ! possible re/s on & implies prior k ( ! actual & ( ! necessities t con/itute ! actual4#gji ,section ,,iii4#gaj ,! ,categories or ,pure ,concepts ( ! ,und]/&+4--,! fir/ ?ree pages ( ?is section1 beg9n+ 8,g5]al logic ab/racts10 & conclud+ ) ! ^w 8re/ on ! und]/&+10 w\ld seem to be a lat] int]polation4 ,embody+1 z !y d1 "s ( ! fundam5tal ideas ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction1 !y express ,kant's f9al me?od ( di/+ui%+ betwe5 g5]al & transc5d5tal logic4 ,b !y are none ! less out ( h>mony ) ! o!r sections ( ! metaphysical d$uction4 ,!y are ( ! nature ( an aft]-?\ght1 ev5 ?\gh t aft]?\ght repres5ts a m mature & adequate /&po9t4 ,9 ,a #ee-g1 :]e ,kant def9es ! di/9ction betwe5 g5]al & transc5d5tal logic1 ! latt] is =mulat$ 9 entire indep5d5ce ( all ref]5ce to pure intuition4#gaa ,kant1 inde$1 argues#gab t j z !re are bo? pure & empirical intuitions1 s !re are bo? pure & empirical concepts4 ,b !re is no indication t he has yet realis$ ! close int]dep5d5ce ( ! two types ( a priori elem5ts4 ,ev5 :5 he proce$s 9 ,a #fb to rem>k t ! empirical employm5t ( pure concepts is condition$ by ! fact t objects are giv5 9 intuition1 no special ref]5ce is made to 8! manifold ( pure a priori intuition40 ,n[1 h[ev]1 ,kant emphasises1 z ! fundam5tal *>act]i/ic ( transc5d5tal logic1 its possession ( a pure manifold ?r\gh ref]5ce to :i* its pure concepts ga9 mean+4 ,?us n only does transc5d5tal logic n ab/ract f ! pure a priori concepts1 x likewise possesses an a priori mat]ial4#gac ,x is 9 ?is tw(old mann] t x is n[ reg>d$ z diff]+ f =mal logic4 ,! acc\nts giv5 ( ! metaphysical d$uction by ,coh51#gad ,caird1#gae ,riehl1#gaf & ,watson#gag are vitiat$ by failure to rem>k t ?is latt] /&po9t is a late developm5t1 & is out ( keep+ ) ! re/ ( ! d$uction4 ,riehl's exposition has1 h[ev]1 ! m]it ( comp>ative consi/5cy4 ,he explicitly recognises ! important consequ5ce :i* at once foll[s f acceptance ( ?is lat] view1 namely1 t x is by _! imply+ space & "t t ! categories diff] f ! notions :i* det]m9e ! =ms ( judgm5t2 9 o!r words1 t ! categories are actualis$ only z s*emata4 ,! category ( sub/ance1 = in/ance1 diff]s f ! m]ely logical notion ( a propositional subject1 9 be+ ! concept ( t :i* is always a subject1 & nev] a pr$icate2 & su* a conception has specific mean+ = u only z ! p]man5t 9 "t4 ,logical subjects & pr$icates1 quantitative relations ap>t1 are int]*angeable4 ,! relation betwe5 !m is ! analytic relation ( id5tity4 ,! concept ( subject1 on ! o!r h&1 transc5d5tally view$1 t is1 z a category1 is ! appreh5sion ( :at is p]man5t1 9 syn!tic di/9ction f1 & relation to1 its *ang+ attributes4 ,9 o!r words1 ! transc5d5tal di/9ction betwe5 sub/ance & accid5ts is sub/itut$ = t ( subject & pr$icate4 ,simil>ly ! logical relation ( gr\nd & consequ5ce1 conceiv$ z expressive ( logical id5tity1 gives way to ! syn!tic temporal relation ( cause & effect4 ,& s ) all ! o!r pure =ms4 ,z categories1 !y are s*emata4 ,kant has virtually recognis$ ?is by ! names :i* he gives to ! categories ( relation4 ,b ! prop] recognition ( ! necess>y int]dep5d5ce ( ! intuitional & conceptual =ms came too late to prev5t him f di/+ui%+ betwe5 categories & s*emata1 & s f creat+ = himself ! artificial difficulties ( ! section on s*ematism4 ,9 ,a #hb ,kant /ates t he int5tionally omits def9itions ( ! categories4 ,he _h good reason = s do+4 ,! attempt w\ld h l&$ him 9 manifold difficulties1 s9ce 8 views 7 n yet suffici5tly ripe to all[ ( 8 p]ceiv+ ! way ( escape4 ,9 ,a #bda 7omitt$ 9 second edition7 ,kant makes1 h[ev]1 ! directly c\nt] /atem5t t def9ition ( ! categories is n possible1 giv+ z 8 reason t1 9 isolation f ! conditions ( s5sibility1 !y are m]ely logical functions1 8)\t ! slighte/ indication z to h[ !y c possess mean+ & objective validity40#gah ,x _c be too (t5 repeat$ t ! ,critique is n a unit>y "w1 b ! pat*work record ( twelve ye>s ( cont9u\s developm5t4 ,c]ta9 portions ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction1 ( :i* ,a #gf-i is "o1 repres5t ! late/ ( all ! _m /ages2 & _! tea*+1 :5 accept$1 calls = a radical reca/+ ( ! metaphysical d$uction4 ,! br++ ( ! entire ,critique into l9e ) its mature/ p>ts w\ld h be5 an ,h]culean task2 & x 0 "o to :i* ,kant1 !n fifty-sev5 ye>s ( age1 0 v rightly unwill+ to sacrifice ! "t urg5tly ne$$ = ! writ+ ( 8 o!r ,critiques4 ,! passage be=e u is "o ( ! _m int]polations by :i* ,kant endeav\r$ to give an ext]nal unity to :at1 on close /udy1 is f\nd to be ! pla9 record ( successive & conflict+ views4 ,meantime1 9 deal+ ) ?is passage1 we are conc]n$ only to note t if ?is lat] mode ( def9+ transc5d5tal logic be accept$1 f>-rea*+ modifications 9 ,kant's ,critical tea*+ h to be made4 ,! o!r po9ts develop$ 9 ,a #gf-i we discuss bel[#gai 9 _! prop] connection4 ,! same ,function1 etc4#gbj--,?is passage has already be5 suffici5tly comm5t$ ^u4#gba ,kant "h expresses 9 q inadequate fa%ion ! /&po9t ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,! implication is t analytic & syn!tic ?9k+ are co-ord9ate1 "o & ! same faculty ex]cis+1 on ^! two levels1 ! same op]ations4 ,! true ,critical tea*+ is t syn!tic ?9k+ is alone fundam5tal1 & t only by a regress ^u x c judgm5ts be adequately acc\nt$ =4 ,?is passage1 l ! prec$+1 may be ( lat] orig9 ?an ! ma9 sections ( ! metaphysical d$uction4 ,t]m 8,categories0#gbb borr[$ f ,ari/otle4--,cf4 bel[1 p4 #aih4 ,table ( ,categories4 ,quantity4--,kant d]ives ! category ( unity f ! univ]sal1#gbc & t ( totality 7,allheit7#gbd f ! s+ul>4 ,^! d]ivations are extremely artificial4 ,9 ,reflexion51 ii4 #efc1 ,kant takes ! m natural l9e ( id5tify+ totality ) ! univ]sal1 & unity ) ! s+ul>4 ,probably#gbe ! reason ( ,kant's *ange ( view is ! necessity ( obta9+ totality by comb9+ unity ) multiplicity4 ,t c only be done if univ]sality is ?us equat$ ) unity4 ,watson's explanation1#gbf t ,kant has rev]s$ ! ord] ( ! categories1 seems to be errone\s4 ,quality4--,cf4 above1 p4 #aib4 ,relation4--,! correlation ( ! categorical judgm5t ) ! conception ( sub/ance & attribute is only possible#gbg ow+ to ,kant's neglect ( ! relational judgm5t & to ! dom9ance 9 8 logical tea*+ ( ! ,ari/otelian sub/ance-attribute view ( pr$ication4 ,! correlation is also op5 to "q 9 t ! relation ( subject & pr$icate t]ms 9 a logical judgm5t is a rev]sible "o4 ,x is a long /ep f ! m]ely grammatical subject to ! conception ( t :i* is always a subject & nev] a pr$icate4 ,kant's id5tification ( ! category ( community or reciprocity ) ! disjunctive judgm5t1 ?\gh at fir/ sight ! mo/ arbitr>y ( all1 is n m s ?an _m ( ! o!rs4 ,its ess5tial correctness has be5 insi/$ ^u 9 rec5t logic by ,sigw>t1 ,bradley1 & ,bosanquet4 ,9 ,kant's own p]sonal view#gbh co-ord9ation 9 ! =m ( co-exi/5ce is only possible ?r\gh reciprocal int]action4 ,! relation ( :ole & "p 7! p>ts 9 _! relations ( reciprocal exclusion exhau/+ & con/itut+ a g5u9e :ole7 ?us becomes1 9 its application to actual exi/5ces1 t ( reciprocal causation4 ,! rev]se likewise holds2 int]action is only possible betwe5 exi/5ces :i* toge!r con/itute a unity4#gbi ,kant returns to ?is po9t 9 ,note #c1 add$ 9 ! second edition4#gcj ,! objection :i* ,kant !re consid]s has be5 v po9t$ly /at$ by ,s*op5hau]4 8,:at real analogy is !re betwe5 ! problematical det]m9ation ( a concept by disjunctive pr$icates & ! ?\ght ( reciprocity8 ,! two are inde$ absolutely oppos$1 = 9 ! disjunctive judgm5t ! actual affirmation ( "o ( ! two alt]native propositions is also necess>ily ! negation ( ! o!r2 if1 on ! o!r h&1 we ?9k ( two ?+s 9 ! relation ( reciprocity1 ! affirmation ( "o is also necess>ily ! affirmation ( ! o!r1 & vice v]sa40#gca ,! answ] to ?is criticism is on ! l9es sugge/$ by ,kant4 ,! v>i\s judgm5ts :i* con/itute a disjunction d n1 :5 view$ z p>ts ( ! disjunction1 m]ely negate "o ano!r2 !y mutually presuppose "o ano!r 9 ! total complex4 ,s*op5hau] also fails to obs]ve t 9 locat+ ! "p ( a real :ole 9 "o "p ( space1 we exclude x f all ! o!rs4#gcb ,modality4--,! exi/5ce ( sep>ate categories ( modality seems highly d\btful4 ,! concepts ( ! possible & ( ! probable may be view$ z d]ivative2 ! notion ( exi/5ce does n seem to diff] f t ( reality2 & necessity seems 9 ultimate analysis to r$uce to ! concept ( gr\nd & consequ5ce4 ,^! are po9ts :i* w be discuss$ lat]4#gcc ,ari/otle's t5 categories#gcd are enum]at$ by ,kant 9 ,reflexion51 ii4 #ebb1gce z3 7#a7 sub/antia1 accid5s1 7#b7 qualitas1 7#c7 quantitas1 7#d7 relatio1 7#e7 actio1 7#f7 passio1 7#g7 qu&o1 7#h7 ubi1 7#i7 situs1 7#aj7 habitus2 & ! five po/-pr$icam5ts z3 oppositum1 prius1 simul1 motus1 hab]e4 ,elim9at+ qu&o1 ubi1 situs1 prius1 & simul z be+ modes ( s5sibility2 actio & passio z be+ complex & d]ivative2 & also omitt+ habitus 7condition7 & hab]e1 z be+ too g5]al & indef9ite 9 mean+ to con/itute sep>ate categories2 we are !n left ) sub/antia1 qualitas1 quantitas1 relatio1 & oppositum4 ,! mo/ s]i\s defect 9 ?is r$uc$ li/1 f ! ,kantian po9t ( view1 is its omission ( causality4 ,x is1 h[ev]1 a curi\s co9cid5ce t :5 sub/ance is tak5 z a =m ( relatio1 & oppositum z a =m ( quality1 we are left ) ! ?ree gr\ps1 quality1 quantity1 relation4 ,only modality is lack+ to complete ,kant's own f\rfold gr\p+4 ,none ! less1 z ! /udy ( ,kant's ,reflexion5 suffici5tly proves1#gcf x 0 by an entirely diff]5t r\te t ,kant travell$ to 8 metaphysical d$uction4 ,watson does n seem to h any gr\nd = 8 cont5tion#gcg t ! above modifi$ li/ ( ,ari/otle's categories 8gave ,kant 8 />t+-po9t40 ,x 0 !re inde$1 z ! ref]5ce to ,ari/otle 9 8 lett] ( #aggb to ,h]z %[s1 t he fir/ look$ = assi/ance1 only1 h[ev]1 to be disappo9t$ 9 8 expectations4 ,d]ivative concepts4#gch--;,cf4 above1 pp4 #ff1 #ga-b4 ,i res]ve ?is task = ano!r occasion4#gci--;,cf4 ,a #bjd ,b #bdi2 ,a #ac2 above1 p4 #ff ff41 & bel[1 pp4 #cgi-hj4 ,def9itions ( categories omitt$4#gdj--;,cf4 above1 pp4 #aie-f1 & ,a #bda !re cit$2 also bel[1 pp4 #cci-db1 #djd-e4 ,note #a4gda--,on ?is di/9ction betwe5 ma!matical & dynamical categories cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cde-g1 #eaj-aa4 ,note #b4gdb--,?is rem>k is ins]t$ to meet a criticism :i* _h be5 made by ,johann ,s*ulze1#gdc & to :i* ,kant 9 ,febru>y #aghd _h repli$ 9 t]ms almo/ id5tical ) ^? ( ! pres5t passage4 8,! ?ird category c]ta9ly spr+s f ! connection ( ! fir/ & second1 n1 inde$1 f _! m]e comb9ation1 b f a connection ! possibility ( :i* con/itutes a concept t is a special category4 ,= ?is reason ! ?ird category may n be applicable 9 in/ances 9 :i* ! o!r two apply3 e4g4 "o ye>1 _m ye>s ( future "t1 are real concepts1 b ! totality ( future ye>s1 t is1 ! collective unity ( a future et]nity1 conceiv$ z entire 7s to say1 z complet$71 is some?+ t _c be ?\ght4 ,b ev5 9 ^? cases 9 :i* ! ?ird category is applicable1 x always conta9s some?+ m ?an ! fir/ & ! second tak5 sep>ately & toge!r1 namely ! d]ivation ( ! second f ! fir/1 a process :i* is n always practicable4 ,necessity1 = example1 is no?+ else ?an exi/5ce1 9 s f> z x c be inf]r$ f possibility4 ,community is ! reciprocal causality ( sub/ances 9 respect ( _! det]m9ations4 ,b t det]m9ations ( "o sub/ance c be produc$ by ano!r sub/ance1 is some?+ t we may n simply assume2 x is "o ( ^? connections )\t :i* !re c\ld be no reciprocal relation ( ?+s 9 space1 & !re=e no out] exp]i5ce4 ,9 a ^w1 ,i f9d t j z ! conclusion ( a syllogism indicates1 9 addition to ! op]ations ( und]/&+ & judgm5t 9 ! premisses1 a special op]ation peculi> to reason 4441 s also ! ?ird category is a special1 & 9 "p orig9al1 concept4 ,= in/ance1 ! concepts1 quantum1 compositum1 totum1 come "u ! categories unity1 plurality1 totality1 b a quantum ?\ght z compositum w\ld n yield ! concept ( totality unless ! concept ( ! quantum is ?\ght z det]m9able ?r\gh ! composition1 & 9 c]ta9 quanta1 su* z inf9ite space1 t _c be done40#gdd ,kant's ass]tion t 9 c]ta9 cases ! ?ird category is n applicable is mislead+4 ,8 pro( ( ! validity ( ! category ( reciprocity 9 ! ?ird ,analogy really consi/s 9 %[+ t x is necess>y to ! appreh5sion ( spatial co-exi/5ce2#gde & if1 z ,kant ma9ta9s1 consci\sness ( space is necess>y to consci\sness ( "t1 x is !reby prov$ to be involv$ 9 ea* & e act ( consci\sness4 ,x is presuppos$ 9 ! appreh5sion ev5 ( sub/antial exi/5ce & ( causal sequ5ce4 ,8 pro( t x is a unique category1 di/9ct f ! m]e comb9ation ( ! categories ( sub/ance & causality1 does n1 !re=e1 assume :at 8 words 9 ! above lett] w\ld seem to imply1 t x is only occasionally employ$4 ,! same rem>k holds 9 reg>d to totality2 x is presuppos$ ev5 9 ! appreh5sion ( a s+le ye>4 ,kant's ref]5ces1 bo? "h & 9 o!r p>ts ( ! ,critique1#gdf to totality 9 its be>+ ^u ! conception ( inf9itude1 reveal consid]able lack ( cle>ness z to ! relation 9 :i* x /&s to ! ,idea ( ! uncondition$4 ,sometimes1 z 9 ?is lett]1 he w\ld seem to be id5tify+ !m2 else:]e ?is confusion is avoid$4 ,9 ,b #aaa totality is def9$ z multiplicity reg>d$ z unity1 & 9 ,a #adb-c ,b #ahb its s*ema is def9$ z numb]4 7,! id5tification ( totality ) numb] has l$ ,kant to say 9 ,b #aaa t numb] is n applicable 9 ! repres5tation ( ! inf9ite1 a mu* m que/ionable ass]tion ?an t ( ! lett] above quot$47 ,! /atem5t t necessity is exi/5ce 9 s f> z x c be inf]r$ f possibility1 or t x is exi/5ce giv5 ?r\gh possibility1 is simil>ly mislead+4 ,kant's true position is t all ?ree are necess>y to ! conception ( any "o ( ! ?ree4 ,?us ,kant's reply to ,s*ulze1 alike 9 8 lett] & 9 ,note #b1 fails to indicate ) any real adequacy ! true be>+ ( ,critical tea*+ 9 ?is matt]2 & consequ5tly fails to reveal ! full =ce ( 8 position4 ,only 9 t]ms ( totality c unity & plurality be appreh5d$2 only ?r\gh ! reciprocal relations :i* det]m9e co-exi/5ce c we acquire consci\sness ( ei!r p]man5ce or sequ5ce2 only 9 t]ms ( necessity c ei!r exi/5ce or possibility be def9$4 ,! ?ird category is n d]iv$ f a prior k ( ! subord9ate categories4 ,x repres5ts 9 ea* case a high] complex )9 :i* alone ! simpl] relations def9$ by ! simpl] concepts c exi/ or h mean+4 ,b #aac-af1 #ab4--,?is section1 ( no intr9sic importance1 is an example ( ,kant's lov+ devotion to ?is 8ar*itectonic40 ,8 reason+ is extremely artificial1 especially 9 its attempt to connect 8unity1 tru?1 & p]fection0 ) ! ?ree categories ( quantity4 ,! ,reflexion5 %[ h[ greatly ,kant 0 preoccupi$ ) ^! ?ree concepts1 seek+ ei!r to base a table ( categories ^u !m 7,b4 ,erdmann's int]pretation71 or to r$uce !m to categories 7,adickes' int]pretation74 ,= "s "t ,kant himself rank$ ) ^? :o#gdg 8incauti\sly made ^! crit]ia ( ?\ght to be prop]ties ( ! ?+s 9 !mselves40 ,9 ,reflexion51 ii4 #ijc1gdh we f9d ! foll[+ /atem5t3 8,unity 7connection1 agreem5t71 tru? 7quality71 complet5ess 7quantity740 ,9 ii4 #iafgdi ,kant makes trial to connect !m1 z conceptions ( possibility1 ) ! categories ( relation4 ,9 ii4 #iaa & #iab ! lat] view1 t !y are logical 9 "* & function1 appe>s1 b leads to _! be+ set 9 relation to ! ?ree faculties ( und]/&+1 judgm5t1 & reason4 ,?is is conjectur$ by ,b4 ,erdmann to h be5 ,kant's view at ! "t ( ! fir/ edition4 ii4 #iae1 #iai1 #ibj pres5t ! view exp\nd$ 9 ! section be=e u4#gej ,erdmann#gea rem>ks t 9 ?is section ,kant 8is settl+ acc\nts ) c]ta9 ?\ghts :i* 9 ! 'sev5ties _h yield$ sugge/ions = ! trans=mation ( ontology into ! transc5d5tal analytic40 ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,d$uction ,,( ,,! ,,pure ,,concepts ,,( ,,! ,,und]/&+ ,fir/ edition ,subjective & ,objective ,d$uctions4--,9 deal+ ) ! transc5d5tal d$uction1 z giv5 9 ! fir/ edition1 we c make use ( ! ma/]ly & conv9c+ analysis :i* ,vaih+]#geb 7build+ ^u ,adickes' previ\s results1 b develop+ an indep5d5t & q orig9al int]pretation7 has giv5 ( its inconsecutive & /rangely bewild]+ argum5tation4 ,vaih+]'s analysis is an excell5t example ( detective g5ius 9 ! field ( s*ol>%ip4 ,f int]nal evid5ce1 circum/antially support$ by ! ,reflexion5 & ,lose ,bltt]1 he is able to prove t ! d$uction is compos$ ( manuscripts1 ext]nally piec$ toge!r1 & repres5t+ no less ?an f\r di/9ct /ages 9 ! sl[ & gradual developm5t ( ,kant's views4 ,l geological deposits1 !y rema9 to record ! processes by :i* ! f9al result has come to be4 ,?\gh !y d n 9 _! pres5t sett+ repres5t ! correct *ronological ord]1 t may be det]m9$ once ! prop] clues to _! dis5tanglem5t h be5 duly discov]$4 ,t discov]y is itself1 h[ev]1 no easy task2 = ! unexpect$1 :ile l5d+ col\r & incid5t to ! comm5tator's ent]prise1 baffles 8 natural expectations at e turn4 ,! fir/ /age is "o 9 :i* ,kant disp5ses ) ! categories1 & 9 :i*1 :5 !y are ref]r$ to1 !y are tak5 z apply+ to ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! la/ /age1 work$ out1 z !re is gr\nd = believ+1 9 ! ha/e & excitem5t ( ! f9al revision1 is n repres5t$ 9 ! ,prolegom5a or 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique1 ! au?or retrac+ 8 /eps & resum+ ! /&po9t ( ! /age :i* prec$$ x4 ,! =tunate accid5t ( ,kant's hav+ jott$ d[n ^u ! back ( a dat$ pap] ! record ( 8 pass+ ?\ght 7"o ( ! few ,lose ,bltt] t are ?us datable7 is ! culm9at+ incid5t 9 ?is philosophical drama4 ,x felicit\sly s]ves z a key/one 9 ! body ( evid5ce support$ by g5]al reason+4 ,be=e becom+ acqua9t$ ) ,vaih+]'s analysis ,i _h obs]v$ ,kant's ascription to empirical concepts ( ! functions else:]e allott$ to ! categories1 b _h be5 hopelessly puzzl$ z to h[ su* tea*+ c\ld be fitt$ into 8 g5]al sy/em4 ,vaih+]'s view ( x z a pre-,critical survival w\ld seem to be ! only possible satisfactory solution4 ,= ! view :i* ,i h tak5 ( ,kant's doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object z also pre-,critical1 & = its employm5t z a clue to ! dat+ ( passages1 ,i am myself alone responsible4 ,! ord] ( my exposition w be z foll[s3#gec ,i4 ,enum]ation1 9 *ronological ord]1 ( ! f\r /ages :i* compose ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition1 & citation ( ! passages :i* repres5t ea* sep>ate /age4 ,,ii4 ,detail$ analysis1 aga9 9 *ronological ord]1 ( ea* successive /age1 ) exposition ( ! views :i* x embodies4 ,,iii4 ,exam9ation ( ! evid5ce yield$ by ! ,reflexion5 & ,lose ,bltt] 9 support ( ! above analysis4 ,,iv4 ,connect$ /atem5t & discussion ( ! total argum5t ( ! d$uction4 ,i4 ,enum]ation ( ! ,f\r ,/ages 7#a7 ,,fir/ ,,/age3 ,,t ,,( ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,object1 ,,)\t ,,co-,,op]ation ,,( ,,! ,,categories4--,?is /age is repres5t$ by#ged3 7a7 ,,ii4 #c 7f beg9n+ ( ! ?ird p>agraph to end ( #c7 ,a #ajd-aj2 7b7 ,i4 #ac 7! entire section7 ,a #hd-ib 7reta9$ 9 second edition z ,b #aaf-bd74 a discusses ! problem ( ! ref]5ce ( s5sations to an object1 b t ( ! objective validity ( ! categories4 b is !re=e transitional to ! second /age4 7#b7 ,,second ,,/age3 ,,t ,,( ,,! ,,categories1 ,,)\t ,,co-,,op]ation ,,( ,,! ,,productive ,,imag9ation4--,?is /age is repres5t$ by3 7a7 ,i4 #ad 7) ! exception ( its conclud+ p>agraph7 ,a #ib-d 7reta9$ 9 second edition z ,b #abd-g72 7b7 ,,ii4 7! fir/ f\r p>agraphs7 ,a #ie-g2 7c7 ,,ii4 #d 7! entire section7 ,a #aaj-ad4 7#c7 ,,?ird ,,/age3 ,,t ,,( ,,! ,,productive ,,imag9ation1 ,,)\t ,,m5tion ,,( ,,! ,,?reefold ,,transc5d5tal ,,syn!sis4--,?is /age is repres5t$ by 7a7 ,,iii4 7f beg9n+ ( sev5? p>agraph to end ( twelf?7 ,a #aai-bc2 7b7 ,,iii4 7f beg9n+ ( ?ird p>agraph to end ( six?7 ,a #aaf-ai2 7c7 ,i4 #ad 7,conclud+ p>agraph7 ,a #id-e2 7d7 ,,iii4 7f beg9n+ ( sixte5? p>agraph to end ( section prec$+ summ>y7 ,a #abf-h2 7e7 ,s7umm>y7 79 conclusion to ,,iii47 ,a #abh-cj2 7f7 ,,iii4 7f beg9n+ ( ?irte5? p>agraph to end ( fifte5?7 ,a #abc-f2 7g7 ,i7ntroduction7 7f beg9n+ ( section to end ( second p>agraph7 ,a #aae-af2 7h7 #aj ,t7ransitional to ! f\r? /age7 ,a #gf-i 7reta9$ z ,b #ajb-d74 7#d7 ,,f\r? ,,/age3 ,,t ,,( ,,! ,,?reefold ,,transc5d5tal ,,syn!sis4--,?is /age is repres5t$ by3 7a7 ,,ii4 #a-c 7f op5+ ( #a to end ( second p>agraph 9 #c7 ,a #ih-ajd2 7b7 ,,ii4 7! two p>agraphs imm$iately prec$+ a7 ,a #ig-h4 ,,ii4 ,detail$ ,analysis ( ! ,f\r ,/ages ,fir/ ,/age4--,a #ajd-aj2 ,a #hd-ib 7,b #aaf-bd74 ,a #ajd-aj2 ,,ii4 #c4--,?is is ! "o passage 9 ! ,critique 9 :i* ,kant explicitly def9es 8 doctr9e ( ! 8transc5d5tal object02 & c>eful exam9ation ( ! text %[s t by x he means ! ?+ 9 itself1 conceiv$ z be+ ! object ( our repres5tations4 ,su* tea*+ is1 ( c\rse1 ?or\ghly un-,critical2 & z ,i %all try to %[1 ?is 0 v e>ly realis$ by ,kant himself4 ,! passages 9 :i* ! phrase 8transc5d5tal object0 occurs are1 l ! section be=e u1 9 e in/ance ( e>ly orig94 ,x is significant t ! transc5d5tal object is n aga9 ref]r$ to 9 ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition4#gee ,?\gh x reappe>s 9 ! *apt] on ph5om5a & n\m5a1 x does s 9 a passage :i* ,kant excis$ 9 ! second edition4 ,! p>agraphs :i* he !n sub/itut$ make no m5tion ( x4 ,! doctr9e is ( frequ5t occurr5ce 9 ! ,dialectic1 & comb9es ) o!r indep5d5t evid5ce to %[ t ! l>g] "p ( ! ,dialectic is ( e>ly orig94 ,t ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object is ?us a pre-,critical or semi-,critical survival has1 s f> z ,i am aw>e1 n hi!rto be5 obs]v$ by any writ] ^u ,kant4 ,x has inv>iably be5 int]pret$ 9 ! light ( ! sections 9 :i* x does n occur1 &1 z ?us ton$ d[n & temp]$ to some?+ altoge!r diff]5t f :at x really /&s =1 has be5 tak5 z an ess5tial & *>act]i/ic t5et ( ! ,critical philosophy4 ,x 0 9 ! c\rse ( an attempt to int]pret ,kant's entire argum5t 9 ! light ( 8 doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object t ,i fir/ came to detect its abs5ce f all 8 lat] utt]ances4 ,b x is important to recognise t ! difficulties :i* w\ld result f its ret5tion are q insup]able1 & w\ld by !mselves1 ev5 9 ! abs5ce ( all ext]nal evid5ce ( ,kant's rejection ( x1 compel u to reg>d x z a survival ( pre-,critical ?9k+4 ,z ,vaih+] does n seem to h detect$ ! un-,critical "* ( ?is doctr9e1 x is ! m significant t he %\ld1 on o!r gr\nds1 h felt con/ra9$ to reg>d ! passage 9 :i* x is exp\nd$ z embody+ ! e>lie/ /age 9 ! developm5t ( ! d$uction4 ,he w\ld seem to cont9ue 9 ! or?odox view s f> z to hold t ?\gh ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object is "h /at$ 9 pre-,critical t]ms1 x 0 p]man5tly reta9$ by ,kant 9 alt]$ =m4 ,! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object1 z "h exp\nd$1 is z foll[s3 8,appe>ances are !mselves no?+ b s5su\s repres5tations :i* mu/ n be tak5 z capable ( exi/+ 9 !mselves 7an si*7 ) exactly ! same "* 79 eb5d]selb5 ,art7 outside our p[] ( repres5tation40#gef ,^! s5se-repres5tations are our only possible repres5tations1 & :5 we speak ( an object correspond+ to !m1 we mu/ be conceiv+ an object 9 g5]al1 equal to x4 8,!y h _! object1 b an object :i* c nev] be intuit$ by u1 & :i* may !re=e be nam$ ! non-empirical1 i4e4 transc5d5tal object x40#geg ,?is object is conceiv$ z be+ t :i* prev5ts our repres5tations f occurr+ at haphaz>d1 necessitat+ _! ord] 9 su* mann] t1 manifold & v>i$ z !y may be1 !y c yet be self-consi/5t 9 _! sev]al gr\p+s1 & s possess t unity :i* is ess5tial to ! concept ( an object4 8,! pure concept ( ?is transc5d5tal object1 :i* 9 fact ?r\gh\t all our k is always "o & ! same1 is t :i* c alone conf] ^u all our empirical concepts relation 9 g5]al to an object1 i4e4 objective reality40#geh ,:at r5d]s ?is doctr9e impossible ( p]man5t ret5tion 0 t x all[$ ( no objective exi/5ce m$iate betwe5 ! m]ely subjective & ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,on su* tea*+ !re is no room = ! empirical object2 & imm$iately ^u ! recognition ( t latt] ph5om5al =m ( exi/5ce 9 space1 ,kant 0 con/ra9$ to recognise t x is 9 ! empirical object1 n 9 ! ?+ 9 itself1 t ! cont5ts ( our repres5tations are gr\nd$ & unifi$4 ,any o!r view mu/ involve ! application ( ! categories1 especially ^? ( sub/ance & causality1 to ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,! entire empirical _w has /ill to be conceiv$ z gr\nd$ 9 ! non-empirical1 b t is a v diff]5t cont5tion f ! !sis t ! ?+ 9 itself is ! object & ! sole object ( our repres5tations4 ,! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object has ?us a tw(old defect3 x advocates an extreme subjectivism1 & yet at ! same "t applies ! categories to ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,b ! latt] consequ5ce is "o :i* c\ld n1 at ! /age repres5t$ by ?is section1 be appreciat$ by ,kant4 ,=1 z we %all f9d1 he is endeav\r+ to solve ! problem ( ! ref]5ce ( s5se-repres5tation to an object )\t assumption ( a priori categories4 ,x is 9 empirical concepts1 condition$ only by a transc5d5tal app]ception1 t he pr(esses to discov] ! gr\nds & conditions ( ?is objective ref]5ce4 ,let u foll[ ,kant's argum5t 9 detail4 ,! section op5s#gei ) :at may be a ref]5ce to ! ,ae/hetic1 & proce$s to deal ) ! fir/ ( ! two problems cit$ 9 ! #aggb lett] to ,h]z#gfj--;h[ s5se-repres5tations /& relat$ to _! object4 ,! exact t]ms 9 :i* ?is "q 0 !re =mulat$ %\ld be not$4 8,i prop\nd$ to myself ?is "q3 on :at gr\nd re/s ! relation ( t 9 u :i* we "n repres5tation 7,vor/ellung7 to ! object4 ,if ! repres5tation conta9s only ! mode 9 :i* ! subject is affect$ by ! object1 x is easily und]/ood h[ x %\ld accord 7gemss sei7 ) t object z an effect ) its cause1 & h[ !re=e ?is det]m9ation ( our m9d %\ld be able to repres5t some?+1 i4e4 h an object4 ,! passive or s5su\s repres5tations h ?us a compreh5sible 7begreifli*e7 relation to objects1 & ! pr9ciples1 :i* are borr[$ f ! nature ( our s\l1 h a compreh5sible validity = all ?+s 9 s f> z !y are to be objects ( ! s5ses40#gfa ,?us 9 #aggb !re 0 "h no real problem = ,kant4 ,! assum$ fact1 t our repres5tations are g5]at$ 9 u by ! action ( indep5d5t exi/5ces1 is tak5 z suffici5t explanation ( _! be+ ref]r$ to objects4 ,! section ( ! ,critique "u consid]ation %[s t ,kant _h come to realise ! inadequacy ( ?is explanation q e>ly1 inde$ prior to 8 solution ( ! second & fur!r "q :i* 9 t same lett] is spok5 ( z 8! key to ! :ole secret0 ( metaphysics4 ,on :at gr\nds1 he n[ asks1 is a subjective idea1 ev5 ?\gh x be a s5se impression1 capable ( yield+ consci\sness ( an object8 ,9 ! lett] to ,h]z ! use ( ! t]m repres5tation 7,vor/ellung7 und\bt$ly help$ to conceal ?is problem4 ,x is n[ emphasis$ t appe>ances are no?+ b s5se repres5tations1 & mu/ nev] be reg>d$ z objects capable ( exi/+ 9 !mselves1 ) exactly ! same "*1 outside our p[] ( repres5tation4 ,n[ also ,kant employs1 9 place ( ! phrase 89 accord )10 ! mu* m def9ite t]m 8correspond+ to40 ,he po9ts out t :5 we speak ( an object correspond+ to our k1 we imply t x is di/9ct f t k4 ,consci\sness ( su* an object mu/ !re=e be acquir$ f "s o!r s\rce ?an ! giv5 impressions4 ,9 o!r words1 ,kant is n[ prep>$ to )draw 8 /atem5t t 8! passive or s5su\s repres5tations h an easily compreh5sible relation to objects40 ,9 & by !mselves !y are purely subjective1 & c involve no su* concept4 ,! latt] is a ?\ght 7,g$anke71 a concept 7,begriff71 additional to1 & di/9ct f1 ! giv5 impressions4 ,its possibility1 z reg>ds bo? orig9#gfb & validity1 mu/ be 8d$uc$40 ,!re !n results ?is fir/ & v peculi> =m ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,t "p ( x :i* p]si/s 9 ! successive /ages re/s ^u an explicitly develop$ di/9ction betwe5 empirical & transc5d5tal app]ception4 ,kant tea*es1 9 agreem5t ) ,hume1 ?\gh1 z we may believe1 indep5d5tly ( 8 direct influ5ce1 t !re is no s+le empirical /ate ( ! self :i* is con/ant ?r\gh\t exp]i5ce4#gfc 8,! consci\sness ( ! self1 accord+ to ! det]m9ations ( our /ate 9 inn] p]ception1 is m]ely empirical1 & always 9 process ( *ange4444 ,t :i* has to be repres5t$ z ( necessity num]ically id5tical _c be ?\ght z su* ?r\gh empirical data4 ,!re mu/ be a condition :i* prec$es all exp]i5ce1 & r5d]s exp]i5ce itself possible1 if a transc5d5tal pre-supposition ( ?is k9d is to be r5d]$ valid4444 ,?is pure1 orig9al1 un*angeable consci\sness ,i %all "n transc5d5tal app]ception40#gfd ,kant w\ld seem to h fir/ develop$ ?is view 9 a q crude =m4 ,! consci\sness ( ! self1 he seems to h held1 consi/s 9 its aw>5ess ( its own unceas+ activities4 ,z consci\sness ( activity1 x is entirely di/9ct 9 nature & 9 orig9 f all appreh5sion ( s5se impressions4#gfe ,?is tea*+ is a natural ext5sion ( ! doctr9e ( ! ,diss]tation1#gff t su* pure notions z ^? ( possibility1 exi/5ce1 necessity1 sub/ance1 cause1 are 8acquir$ by att5d+ to ! actions ( ! m9d on ! occasion ( exp]i5ce40 ,kant w\ld v naturally hold t consci\sness ( ! id5tity & unity ( ! self is obta9$ 9 a simil> mann]4 ,su*1 inde$1 is ! tea*+ ( ! section be=e u4 8,no k c take place 9 u 444 )\t t unity ( consci\sness :i* prec$es all data ( intuitions1 & 9 relation to :i* all repres5tation ( objects is alone possible40#gfg 8,x is precisely ?is transc5d5tal app]ception t con/ructs out ( 7ma*t aus7 all possible appe>ances1 :i* are capable ( coexi/+ 9 "o exp]i5ce1 a connection ( all ^! repres5tations accord+ to laws4 ,= ?is unity ( consci\sness w\ld be impossible if ! m9d c\ld n become consci\s1 9 ! k ( ! manifold1 ( ! id5tity ( ! function :]eby x comb9es x syn!tically 9 "o k4 ,?us ! m9d's orig9al & necess>y consci\sness ( ! id5tity ( itself is at ! same "t a consci\sness ( an equally necess>y unity ( ! syn!sis ( all appe>ances accord+ to concepts1 i4e4 accord+ to rules4444 ,= ! m9d c\ld n possibly ?9k ! id5tity ( itself 9 ! manifold ( its repres5tations1 & inde$ a priori1 if x did n h be=e its eyes ! id5tity ( its action44440#gfh ,t is to say1 ! self is ! sole s\rce ( all unity4 ,z a pure & orig9al unity x prec$es exp]i5ce2 to its syn!tic activities all conceptual unity is due2 & by reflection ^u ! con/ancy ( ^! activities x comes to consci\sness ( its own id5tity4 8444ev5 ! pure/ objective unity1 namely t ( ! a priori concepts 7space & "t71 is possible only ?r\gh relation ( ! intuitions to transc5d5tal app]ception4 ,! num]ical unity ( ?is app]ception is !re=e ! a priori condition ( all concepts1 j z ! manifoldness ( space & ( "t is ( ! intuitions ( s5sibility40#gfi ,to ?is consci\sness ( ! abid+ unity ( ! self ,kant also traces ! notion ( ! transc5d5tal object4 ,! latt]1 he w\ld seem to argue1 is =m$ by analogy f ! =m]4 8,?is object is no?+ else ?an ! subjective repres5tation 7( ! subject7 itself1 b made g5]al1 = ,i am ! orig9al ( all objects40#ggj 8,! m9d1 ?r\gh its orig9al & und]iv$ ?9k+1 is itself ! patt]n 7,urbild7 ( su* a syn!sis40#gga 8,i w\ld n repres5t any?+ z outside me1 & s make subjective appe>ances into objective exp]i5ce if ! repres5tations 7 n relat$ to some?+ :i* is p>allel to my ego1 & s 9 t way ref]r$ by me to ano!r subject40#ggb ,^! quotations f ! ,lose ,bltt] w\ld seem to conta9 ! key to ,kant's extremely enigmatic /atem5t 9 ,a #aje1 t 8! unity :i* ! object makes necess>y c be no?+ else ?an ! =mal unity ( consci\sness 9 its syn!sis ( ! manifold ( its repres5tations10 & aga9 9 ,a #aji1 t 8?is relation ( repres5tations to an object is no?+ else ?an ! necess>y unity ( consci\sness40#ggc ,b ?is does n complete ! sum-total ( ! functions :i* ,kant is at ?is /age prep>$ to assign to app]ception4 ,x m$iates our consci\sness ( ! transc5d5tal object 9 /ill ano!r mann]1 namely1 by r5d]+ possible ! =mation ( ! empirical concepts :i* unify & direct its syn!tic activities4 ,?is is1 inde$1 ! feature 9 :i* ?is =m ( ! d$uction div]ges mo/ radically f all lat] positions4 ,space & "t are1 x w\ld seem1 reg>d$ z be+ ! sole a priori concepts4#ggd ,! in/rum5ts ?r\gh :i* ! unity ( app]ception acts1 & ?r\gh :i* ! ?\ght ( an object becomes possible1 are empirical concepts4 ,su* g5]al concepts z 8body0 or 8triangle0 s]ve z rules con/ra9+ ! syn!tic processes ( appreh5sion & reproduction to take place 9 su* unit>y fa%ion z is requir$ = unit>y consci\sness4 ,! notion ( objectivity is specifi$ 9 t]ms ( ! necessities :i* ^! empirical concepts ?us impose4 8,we ?9k a triangle z object 9 s f> z we are consci\s ( ! comb9ation ( ?ree /raight l9es accord+ to a rule by :i* su* an intuition c at all times be g5]at$4 ,?is unity ( rule det]m9es ! :ole manifold & limits x to conditions :i* make ! unity ( app]ception possible2 & ! concept ( ?is unity ( rule is ! repres5tation ( ! object4444 ,all k dem&s a concept1 444 & a concept is always1 z reg>ds its =m1 some?+ g5]al1 some?+ t s]ves z a rule4 ,?us ! concept ( body s]ves z a rule to our k ( out] appe>ances1 9 accordance ) ! unity ( ! manifold :i* is ?\ght ?r\gh x4444 ,! concept ( body necessitates 444 ! repres5tation ( ext5sion1 & !re) ( imp5etrability1 %ape1 etc40#gge ,su* is ! mann] 9 :i* ,kant acc\nts = our concept ( ! transc5d5tal object4 ,x consi/s ( two ma9 elem5ts3 fir/1 ! notion ( an unkn[n x1 to :i* repres5tations may be ref]r$2 & secondly1 ! consci\sness ( ?is x z ex]cis+ compulsion ^u ! ord] ( our ?9k+4 ,! =m] notion is fram$ on ! patt]n ( ! transc5d5tal subject2 x is conceiv$ z ano!r b unkn[n subject4 ,! consci\sness ( x z a s\rce ( ext]nal necessity is m$iat$ by ! empirical concepts :i* transc5d5tal app]ception also makes possible4 ,& f ?is explanation ( ! orig9 ( ! concept ( ! transc5d5tal object ,kant d]ives ! pro( ( its validity4#ggf ,x is indisp5sable = ! realisation by ! unit>y self ( a unit>y consci\sness4 8,?is relation ( repres5tations to an object is no?+ else ?an ! necess>y unity ( consci\sness1 & !re=e also ( ! syn!sis ( ! manifold1 by a common 7geme9s*aftli*7 function+ ( ! m9d1 :i* unites x 9 "o repres5tation40#ggg ,?r\gh in/rum5ts empirical 9 orig91 & subjectively necess>y1 ! notion ( an objective necessity is r5d]$ possible to ! m9d4 ,x is n surpris+ t ,kant did n p]man5tly hold to ?is view ( ! empirical concept4 ,! objections are obvi\s4 ,su* a view ( ! function ( g5]al concepts r5d]s un9telligible _! own fir/ =mation4 ,= z !y are empirical1 !y c only be acquir$ by consci\s processes t d n involve !m4 ,t is to say1 consci\sness ( objects foll[s ^u a prior consci\sness 9 & ?r\gh :i* concepts1 su* z t ( body1 are discov]$ & =m$4 ,yet1 z ! argum5t claims1 g5]al concepts are ! indisp5sable conditions ( unit>y consci\sness4 ,h[ ?r\gh a consci\sness t is n yet unifi$ c g5]al concepts be =m$8 ,also x is difficult to see h[ empirical concepts c be view$ z directly condition$ by1 & z imm$iately due to1 any?+ s g5]al z pure app]ception4 ,^! objections ,kant mu/ h come v quickly to recognise4 ,?is 0 ! fir/ "p ( 8 tea*+ to be modifi$4 ,9 ! imm$iately succe$+ /age1#ggh s f> z ! /ages c be recon/ruct$ f ! survivals 9 ! ,critique1 ! empirical concepts are displac$ once & = all by ! a priori categories4 ,! only s5t5ces :i* c be reg>d$ z possibly conflict+ ) ! above int]pretation are ^? two 79 ! second la/ & 9 ! la/ p>agraphs7 9 :i* ! phrase 8rules a priori0 occurs4 ,ev5 grant+ 7:at is at lea/ que/ionable z reg>ds ! fir/7 t ! words are meant to be tak5 toge!r1 x does n foll[ t ,kant is "h speak+ ( categories4 ,= contr>y to 8 usual tea*+ he speaks ( ! concept ( body z a s\rce ( necessity4 ,if s1 x may well1 ) equal loos5ess1 be spok5 ( z a priori4 ,t is inde$ done1 by implication1 9 ! second & ?ird p>agraphs1 :]e he speaks ( a rule 7ref]r+ to 8body & triangle07 z mak+ ! syn!sis ( reproduction 8a priori necess>y40 ,su* ass]tions are completely inconsi/5t ) ,kant's ,critical tea*+1 b s is ! entire section4 ,! sett+ 9 :i* ! passage be=e u occurs has its own special int]e/4#ggi ,:5 ,kant1 z x w\ld seem1 on ! v eve ( ! publication ( ! ,critique1 develop$ ! doctr9e ( a ?reefold syn!sis culm9at+ 9 a 8syn!sis ( recognition 9 ! concept10 he mu/ h be?\ght himself ( ?is e>li] position1 & h complet$ 8 subjective d$uction by incorporation1 probably ) occasional alt]ations ( phras+1 ( ! old] manuscript4 ,?is proc$ure has bewild]$ ev5 ! mo/ disc]n+ among ,kant's read]s2 b n[1 ?anks to ,vaih+]'s conv9c+ analysis1 x may be welcom$ z ( illum9at+ int]e/ 9 ! hi/orical /udy ( ,kant's developm5t4 ,i may "h draw att5tion to ! two important respects 9 :i* ! positions reveal$ 9 ?is section cont9u$ to influ5ce ,kant's lat] tea*+3 namely1 9 ! emphasis laid ^u ! transc5d5tal unity ( app]ception1 & 9 ! view ( objectivity z involv+ ! ?\ght ( ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,! excessive emphasis :i* 9 ?is fir/ /age is laid ^u ! transc5d5tal unity ( app]ception p]si/s ?r\gh\t ! lat] =ms ( ! d$uction1 &1 z ,i %all try to %[1 does s to ! detrim5t ( ! argum5t4 ,?\gh its functions are consid]ably dim9i%$1 !y are /ill exagg]at$2 ?is is p]haps 9 "p due to its hav+ be5 9 ?is e>ly /age reg>d$ z 9 & by itself ! sole ultimate gr\nd ( unit>y exp]i5ce4 ,!re 71 h[ev]1 two o!r influ5ces at "w4 ,kant cont9u$ to employ ! t]m9ology ( 8 e>li] view1 & 9 8 less wat*ful mom5ts 0 betray$ !reby into conflict ) 8 consid]$ tea*+4 ,b ev5 m important 0 ! influ5ce ( 8 p]sonal convictions4 ,he 0 irrevocably committ$ 9 8 own private ?9k+ to a belief 9 ! spiritual & abid+ "* ( ! self2 & ?is belief frequ5tly col\rs1 9 illegitimate ways1 ! expression ( 8 views4 ,?is is especially evid5t 9 "s ( ! alt]ations#ghj ( ! second edition1 writt5 z !y 7 at a "t :5 he 0 *iefly preoccupi$ ) moral problems4 ,z reg>ds ! o!r factor1 ! view adopt$ 9 reg>d to ! nature ( objectivity1 !re is ample evid5ce t ev5 aft] ! empirical concepts _h be5 displac$ by ! categories ,kant /ill cont9u$ = "s "t 7possibly = sev]al ye>s 9 ! e>li] & middle 'sev5ties7 to hold to 8 doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4 ,passages :i* exp\nd x 9 ?is lat] =m occur 9 ! ,note on ,amphiboly & ?r\gh\t ! ,dialectic4#gha ,t ?is may n be tak5 = 8 f9al tea*+ is equally c]ta94 ,! entire fir/ lay] ( ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition1 all ! relevant passages 9 ! *apt] on ph5om5a & n\m5a1 & "s ( ^? 9 ! ,dialectic1 7 omitt$ 9 ! second edition2 & n[h]e1 ei!r 9 ! o!r portions ( ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition1 or 9 ! d$uction ( ! second edition1 or 9 any passages add$ else:]e 9 ! second edition1 is su* tea*+ to be f\nd4 ,a brief /atem5t ( ,kant's doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object 9 its lat] =m seems advisable at ?is po9t2 x is requir$ 9 ord] to complete & to confirm ! int]pretation :i* ,i h giv5 ( ! e>li] exposition4 ,at ! same "t ,i %all endeav\r to %[ t ! sections 9 :i* ! doctr9e occurs1 ?\gh lat] ?an ! fir/ lay] ( ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition1 are all ( comp>atively e>ly orig91 & t !y reveal n ! lea/ trace ( ,kant's m mature1 ph5om5ali/ view ( ! empirical _w 9 space4 ,we may beg9 ) ! passages 9 ! *apt] on ph5om5a & n\m5a4 ,! mean+ 9 :i* ! t]m transc5d5tal is employ$ is !re made suffici5tly cle>4 8,! transc5d5tal employm5t ( a concept 9 any pr9ciple consi/s 9 its be+ ref]r$ to ?+s 9 g5]al & 9 !mselves40#ghb ,t is to say1 ! t]m transc5d5tal1 z us$ 9 ! phrase transc5d5tal object1 is n employ$ 9 any s5se :i* w\ld oppose x to ! transc5d5t4 ,9 s f> z ! ?\ght ( ! ?+ 9 itself is a necess>y +r$i5t 9 ! concept ( objectivity1 x is a condition ( app]ception1 & !re=e ( possible exp]i5ce2 9 o!r words1 ! ?\ght ( a transc5d5t object is "o ( ! transc5d5tal conditions ( our exp]i5ce4 ,z ,kant is con/antly int]*ang+ ! t]ms transc5d5t & transc5d5tal1 su* an explanation ( ! phrase is p]haps sup]flu\s2 b if any is call$ =1 ! above w\ld seem to suffice4 ,z we %all h occasion to obs]ve1#ghc o!r factors besides ! a priori mu/ be reckon$ among ! conditions ( exp]i5ce2 & to bo? types ( conditions ,kant applies ! epi!t transc5d5tal4 ,9 ! *apt] on ph5om5a & n\m5a ,kant enquires at consid]able l5g? :e!r ! categories 7mean+1 ( c\rse1 ! pure =ms ( und]/&+1 n _! s*ematis$ correlates7 all[ ( transc5d5tal 7i4e4 transc5d5t7 employm5t4 ,! passages 9 :i* ?is discussion occurs#ghd w\ld seem1 h[ev]1 to be highly composite2 _m p>agraphs1 or portions ( p>agraphs1 are ( mu* lat] date ?an o!rs4 ,we may !re=e limit our att5tion to ^? 9 :i* ! phrase transc5d5tal object is actually employ$1 i4e4 to ^? :i* appe> only 9 ! fir/ edition4 8,all our repres5tations are ref]r$ by ! und]/&+ to "s object2 & s9ce appe>ances are m]ely repres5tations1 ! und]/&+ ref]s !m to a some?+ z ! object ( s5su\s intuition4 ,b ?is some?+1 ?us conceiv$ 79 s f]n71 is only ! transc5d5tal object2 & by t is meant a some?+ x1 ( :i* we "k1 & ) ! pres5t con/itution ( our und]/&+ c "k1 no?+ :atsoev]1 b :i*1 z a correlate ( ! unity ( app]ception1 c s]ve only = ! unity ( ! manifold 9 s5su\s intuition4 ,by means ( ?is unity ! und]/&+ comb9es ! manifold into ! concept ( an object4 ,?is transc5d5tal object _c be sep>at$ f ! s5se data1 = no?+ !n rema9s ov] ?r\gh :i* x might be ?\ght4 ,consequ5tly x is n 9 itself an object ( k1 b only ! repres5tation ( appe>ances "u ! concept ( an object 9 g5]al :i* is det]m9able ?r\gh ! manifold ( ^? appe>ances4 ,precisely = ?is reason also ! categories d n repres5t a special object giv5 to ! und]/&+ alone1 b only s]ve to specify ! transc5d5tal object 7! concept ( some?+ 9 g5]al7 ?r\gh t :i* is giv5 9 s5sibility1 9 ord] !reby to "k appe>ances empirically "u concepts ( objects40#ghe 8,! object to :i* ,i relate appe>ance 9 g5]al is ! transc5d5tal object1 i4e4 ! completely indet]m9ate ?\ght ( some?+ 9 g5]al4 ,?is _c be entitl$ ! n\m5on i4e4 ! ?+ 9 itself m specifically det]m9$ z be+ ! object ( a purely intelligible intuition2#ghf = ,i "k no?+ ( :at x is 9 itself1 & h no concept ( x save z ! object ( a s5su\s intuition 9 g5]al1 & s z be+ "o & ! same = all appe>ances40#ghg ,o!rwise /at$1 ,kant's tea*+ is z foll[s4 ,! ?\ght ( ! ?+ 9 itself rema9s altoge!r indet]m9ate2 x does n specify its object1 & !re=e yields no k ( x2 none ! less x is a necess>y +r$i5t 9 ! concept ( objectivity z su*4 ,! object z specifi$ 9 t]ms ( s5se is m]e repres5tation2 ! object z g5u9ely objective c only be ?\ght4 ,! correlate ( ! unity ( app]ception is ! ?\ght ( ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,?is is :at ,kant is really ass]t+1 ?\gh 9 a hesitat+ mann] :i* w\ld seem to indicate t he is himself already m or less consci\s ( its unsatisfactory & un-,critical "*4 ,! phrase transc5d5tal object occurs once 9 ! second ,analogy#ghh & twice 9 ! ,note on ,amphiboly4#ghi ,! passage 9 ! second ,analogy may v well1 9 view ( ! k9d ( subjectivism :i* x exp\nds1 be ( e>ly date ( writ+4 ,by transc5d5tal object ,kant !re q obvi\sly means ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,f ! fir/ ref]5ce 9 ! ,note on ,amphiboly no def9ite conclusions c be drawn4 ,! argum5t is too closely b\nd up ) 8 criticism ( ,leibniz to all[ ( 8 own indep5d5t /&po9t be+ prop]ly develop$4 ,!re is1 h[ev]1 no?+ 9 x :i* compels u to reg>d x z ( late orig92 & q evid5tly ,kant "h means by ! transc5d5tal object ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,! phrase sub/antia pha5om5on is n1 z might at fir/ sight seem1 equival5t to ! empirical object ( ,kant's ph5om5ali/ tea*+4 ,x is an adaptation ( ,leibnizian phraseology4#gij ,! second ref]5ce 9 ! ,note on ,amphiboly occurs 9 a passage :i* may p]haps be ( lat] orig92#gia b ! transc5d5tal object is !re m5tion$ only 9 ord] to af=d opportunity = ! /atem5ts t x _c be ?\ght ?r\gh any ( ! categories1 t we are completely ignorant :e!r x is )9 or )\t u1 & :e!r if s5sibility 7 remov$ x w\ld vani% or rema91 & t x c !re=e s]ve only z a limit+ concept4 ,we "h obs]ve x 9 ! v process ( be+ elim9at$4 ,z we %all f9d1 ,kant's tea*+ is ill-express$ 9 ! sections on ,amphiboly2 s mu* s t !y c\ld n be reca/ )\t s]i\sly di/urb+ ! balance ( 8 ar*itectonic4 ,!y 7 !re=e all[$ to rema9 unalt]$ 9 ! second edition4 ,we may n[ pass to ! ,dialectic4 ,! subjectivi/ doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object is !re express$ 9 a mu* m uncompromis+ mann]4 ,let u fir/ consid] ! ref]5ces to ! transc5d5tal object 9 ! ,p>alogisms & 9 ! subsequ5t ,reflection4 ,! phrase transc5d5tal object occurs twice 9 ! second ,p>alogism1 once 9 ! ?ird1 twice 9 ! f\r?1 & ?ree times 9 ! ,reflection2#gib & 9 all ^! cases !re is n ! lea/ unc]ta9ty z to its d5otation4 ,x is tak5 z equival5t to ! ?+ 9 itself1 & is exp\nd$ z a necess>y +r$i5t 9 ! consci\sness ( our subjective repres5tations z n\m5ally gr\nd$4 8,:at matt] may be z a ?+ 9 itself 7transc5d5tal object7 is completely unkn[n to u1 ?\gh1 ow+ to its be+ repres5t$ z some?+ ext]nal1 its p]man5ce z appe>ance c inde$ be obs]v$40#gic 8,we c inde$ admit t some?+1 :i* may be 79 ! transc5d5tal#gid s5se7 #8outside u1' is ! cause ( our out] intuitions1 b ?is is n ! object ( :i* we are ?9k+ 9 ! repres5tations ( matt] & ( corporeal ?+s1 = ^! are m]ely appe>ances1 i4e4 m]e k9ds ( repres5tation :i* are nev] to be met ) save 9 u1 & ^: actuality dep5ds on imm$iate consci\sness j z does ! consci\sness ( my own ?\ghts4 ,! transc5d5tal object is equally unkn[n 9 respect to inn] & to out] intuition40#gie ,"h ,kant at "o & ! same "t di/+ui%es betwe51 & conf\nds toge!r1 repres5tation & its empirical object4 ,:at is alone cle> is t by ! transc5d5tal object he means simply ! ?+ 9 itself view$ z ! cause ( our s5sations4 ,9 ,a #ceh x is us$ 9 a wid] s5se z also compreh5d+ ! n\m5al conditions :i* und]lie ! consci\s subject4 8444?is some?+ :i* und]lies ! out] appe>ances & :i* s affects our s5se t x obta9s ! repres5tations ( space1 matt]1 %ape1 etc41 ?is some?+ view$ z n\m5on 7or bett] z transc5d5tal object7 might also at ! same "t be ! subject t does our ?9k+44440 ,simil>ly 9 ,a #cgi-hj3 8,?\gh ! ,i1 z repres5t$ ?r\gh inn] s5se 9 "t1 & objects 9 space outside me1 are specifically q di/9ct appe>ances1 !y are n = t reason ?\ght z be+ diff]5t ?+s4 ,nei!r ! transc5d5tal object :i* und]lies out] appe>ances1 nor t :i* und]lies inn] intuition1 is 9 itself ei!r matt] or a ?9k+ be+1 b is a gr\nd 7to u unkn[n7 ( ! appe>ances :i* supply to u ! empirical concepts ( ! =m] z well z ( ! latt] k9d40 ,! ref]5ces 9 ! ,reflection on ! ,p>alogisms are ( ! same g5]al "* & are equally def9ite4#gif ,a #cij-a has special int]e/ 9 t x explicitly /ates t to appe>ances1 tak5 z ,kant inv>iably takes !m ?r\gh\t ! ,p>alogisms 9 ! fir/ edition z m]e subjective repres5tations1 ! category ( causality1 & !re=e by implication ! category ( sub/ance1 is inapplicable4 8,no "o c\ld dream ( ass]t+ t t :i* he has once come to recognise z m]e repres5tation is an out] cause40 ,we may n[ turn to ! passages 9 ! *apt] on ! ,ant9omies4 8,! non-s5su\s cause ( our repres5tations is completely unkn[n to u1 & !re=e we _c intuit x z object4444 ,we may1 h[ev]1 entitle ! purely intelligible cause ( appe>ances 9 g5]al ! transc5d5tal object4444 ,to ?is transc5d5tal object we c ascribe ! :ole ext5t & connection ( our possible p]ceptions44440#gig ,appe>ances c be reg>d$ z real only to ! ext5t to :i* !y are actually exp]i5c$4 ,o!rwise !y exi/ only 9 "s unkn[n n\m5al =m ( :i* we c acquire no def9ite concept1 & :i* is !re=e really no?+ to u4 ,?is1 ,kant decl>es1 is true ev5 ( t immemorial pa/ ( :i* we are ourselves ! product4 8444all ! ev5ts :i* h tak5 place 9 ! imm5se p]iods t h prec$$ my own exi/5ce mean really no?+ b ! possibility ( ext5d+ ! *a9 ( exp]i5ce f ! pres5t p]ception back to ! conditions :i* det]m9e x 9 "t40#gih ,9 o!r words1 we may n claim t su* ev5ts1 empirically conceiv$1 h ev] actually exi/$ 9 any su* empirical =m4 ,a simil> int]pretation is giv5 to ! ass]tion ( ! pres5t reality ( :at has nev] be5 actually exp]i5c$4 8,moreov]1 9 outcome x is a matt] ( indiff]5ce :e!r ,i say t 9 ! empirical progress 9 space ,i c meet ) />s a hundr$ times f>!r remov$ ?an ! out]mo/ n[ p]ceptible to me1 or :e!r ,i say t !y are p]haps to be met ) 9 cosmical space ev5 ?\gh no human be+ has ev] p]ceiv$ or ev] w p]ceive !m4 ,= ?\gh !y might be giv5 z ?+s 9 !mselves1 )\t relation to possible exp]i5ce1 !y are /ill no?+ = me1 & !re=e are n objects1 save 9 s f> z !y are conta9$ 9 ! s]ies ( ! empirical regress40#gii 8,! cause ( ! empirical conditions ( ?is process1 t :i* det]m9es :at memb]s ,i %all meet ) & h[ f> by means ( su* memb]s ,i c c>ry out ! regress1 is transc5d5tal & is !re=e necess>ily unkn[n to me40#hjj ,su* is ! =m 9 :i* ,kant's pre-,critical doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object survives 9 ! ,critique4#hja ,x conta9s no trace ( ! tea*+ ( ! objective d$uction ( ! fir/ & second edition or ( ! tea*+ ( ! refutation ( idealism 9 ! second edition4 ,x closely resembles ,mill's doctr9e ( ! p]man5t possibilities ( s5sation1 & is almo/ equally subjectivi/ 9 "*4 ,z already not$1#hjb x also lies op5 to ! fur!r objection t x involves an illegitimate application ( ! categories to ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,z ,kant />t$ f ! nave & natural assumption t ref]5ce ( repres5tations to objects mu/ be _! ref]5ce to ?+s 9 !mselves1 he also took ov] ! curr5t ,c>tesian view t x is by an inf]5ce 9 t]ms ( ! category ( causality t we advance f a repres5tation to its cause4 ,! ?+ 9 itself is reg>d$ z ! sole true sub/ance & z ! real cause ( ev]y?+ :i* happ5s 9 ! natural _w4 ,appe>ances1 be+ repres5tations m]ely1 are :olly transitory & completely inefficaci\s4 ,n only1 !re=e1 are ! categories reg>d$ z valid ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 !y are also decl>$ to h no possible application to ph5om5a4 ,s5se appe>ances d n1 on ?is view1 con/itute ! me*anical _w ( ! natural sci5ces2 !y h a purely subjective1 m or less epi-ph5om5al1 exi/5ce 9 ! m9d ( ea* sep>ate obs]v]4 ,x 0 v gradually1 9 ! process ( develop+ 8 own ,critical tea*+1 t ,kant came to realise ! v diff]5t position to :i* he 0 !reby committ$4 ,! categories1 includ+ t ( causality1 are pre-empt$ = ! empirical object :i* is n[ reg>d$ z imm$iately appreh5d$2 & ! function ( m$iat+ ! ref]5ce ( ph5om5a to ?+s 9 !mselves n[ falls to ! ,ideas ( ,reason4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality is no long] t betwe5 repres5tations & _! n\m5al causes1 b betwe5 ! limit$ & relative "* ( ! entire _w 9 space & "t & ! uncondition$ dem&$ by ,reason4 ,b ^! are que/ions ^: discussion mu/ meantime be def]r$4#hjc ,i may n[ briefly summ>ise ! evid5ce 9 fav\r ( ! view t ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object is a pre-,critical or semi-,critical survival & mu/ n be tak5 z =m+ "p ( ,kant's f9al & consid]$ position4 7,i7 ,( ! six sections 9 :i* ! phrase transc5d5tal object occurs1 ?ree#hjd 7 omitt$ 9 ! second edition1 & 9 ! passages :i* 7 sub/itut$ = !m x receives no m5tion4 ,!re are v>i\s reasons :i* c be sugge/$ 9 explanation ( ! ret5tion ( ! o!r ?ree#hje 9 ! second edition4 ,! ,note on ,amphiboly 0 too unsatisfactory z a :ole to enc\rage ,kant to improve ^u x 9 detail4 ,! o!r two are outside ! limit at :i* ,kant ?\ght good to t]m9ate all attempts to improve1 :e!r 9 major or 9 m9or matt]s1 ! text ( ! fir/ edition4#hjf ,to h reca/ ! ,ant9omies z he _h reca/ ! ,p>alogisms w\ld h involv$ alt]ations mu* too ext5sive4 ,also1 !re 7 no outside polemical influ5ces--or at lea/ none act+ q directly--su* z und\bt$ly re9=c$ 8 o!r reasons = revis+ ! ,p>alogisms4 7#b7 ,secondly1 ! transc5d5tal object is n m5tion$ 9 ! lat] lay]s ( ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition1 nor 9 ! d$uction ( ! second edition1 nor 9 any passage or note add$ 9 ! second edition4 ,t ,kant %\ld ?us sudd5ly cease to employ a phrase to :i* he _h accu/om$ himself is ! m significant 9 view ( 8 cons]vative pref]5ce = ! adapt+ ( famili> t]m9ology to new uses4 ,x c only be expla9$ z due to 8 recognition ( ! completely unt5able "* ( ! tea*+ to :i* x _h giv5 expression4 ,z ! object ( k is always empirical1 x c nev] legitimately be call$ transc5d5tal4 7#c7 ,?irdly1 ! g5]al tea*+ ( ! passages 9 :i* ! phrase transc5d5tal object occurs is by itself suffici5t pro( ( _! e>ly orig94 ,!y reveal n ! lea/ trace ( ! deep5$ insight ( 8 f9al /&po9ts4 ,z we "k1 x 0 c]ta9 difficulties involv$ 9 ! work+ out ( ! objective d$uction t delay$ ! publication ( ! ,critique = s _m ye>s2 & ! sections :i* deal ) ^! difficulties conta9 ,kant's mature/ tea*+4 ,9 !m he seems to )draw def9itely f ! positions to :i* he _h unw>ily committ$ himself by 8 un-,critical doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4 ,i n[ pass to ! second section con/itutive ( ! fir/ /age4 ,a #hd-ib;,b #aaf-bd1 ,i4 #ac4--;,j z 9 ,,ii4 #c ,kant deals solely ) ! fir/ ( ! two que/ions =mulat$ 9 ! lett] ( #aggb to ,h]z--! ref]5ce ( s5se-repres5tations to an object1--s 9 ,i4 #ac he raises only ! second--t ( ! objective validity ( intellectual repres5tations 7n[ spok5 ( z pure concepts ( und]/&+1 or pure a priori concepts1 & only 9 "o s5t5ce z categories74 ,& j z 9 ! =m] section he c>ries ! problem a /ep fur!r1 yet )\t atta9+ to ! true ,critical position1 s 9 ?is latt] he /ill assumes t x is ! application ( ^! pure concepts to real indep5d5t objects1 i4e4 to ?+s 9 !mselves1 :i* calls = ju/ification4 ,we mu/ aga9 consid] ! exact t]ms 9 :i* ?is problem is =mulat$ 9 ! lett] to ,h]z4#hjg 8,simil>ly1 if t 9 u :i* is call$ a repres5tation1 7 active 9 relation to ! object1 t is to say1 if ! object itself 7 produc$ by ! repres5tation 7z on ! view t ! ideas 9 ! ,div9e ,m9d are ! ar*etypes ( ?+s71 ! con=mity ( repres5tations ) objects might be und]/ood4 ,we c ?us r5d] compreh5sible at lea/ ! possibility ( two k9ds ( intellig5ce--( an intellectus ar*etypus1 on ^: intuition ! ?+s !mselves are gr\nd$1 & ( an intellectus ectypus :i* d]ives ! data ( its logical proc$ure f ! s5su\s intuition ( ?+s4 ,b our und]/&+ 7leav+ moral ends out ( acc\nt7 is n ! cause ( ! object ?r\gh its repres5tations1 nor is ! object ! cause ( its intellectual repres5tations 79 s5su reali74 ,h5ce1 ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ _c be ab/ract$ f ! data ( ! s5ses1 nor d !y express our capacity = receiv+ repres5tations ?r\gh ! s5ses4 ,b1 :il/ !y h _! s\rces 9 ! nature ( ! s\l1 !y orig9ate !re nei!r z ! result ( ! action ( ! object ^u x1 nor z !mselves produc+ ! object4 ,9 ! ,diss]tation ,i 0 cont5t to expla9 ! nature ( ^! intellectual repres5tations 9 a m]ely negative mann]1 viz4 z n be+ modifications ( ! s\l produc$ by ! object4 ,b ,i sil5tly pass$ ov] ! fur!r "q1 h[ su* repres5tations1 :i* ref] to an object & yet are n ! result ( an affection due to t object1 c be possible4 ,i _h ma9ta9$ t ! s5se repres5tations repres5t ?+s z !y appe>1 ! intellectual repres5tations ?+s z !y are4 ,b h[ !n are ^! ?+s giv5 to u1 if n by ! mann] 9 :i* !y affect u8 ,& if su* intellectual repres5tations are due to our own inn] activity1 :5ce comes ! agreem5t :i* !y are suppos$ to h ) objects1 :i* yet are n _! products8 ,h[ comes x t ! axioms ( pure reason ab\t ^! objects agree ) ! latt]1 :5 ?is agreem5t has n be5 9 any way assi/$ by exp]i5ce8 ,9 ma!matics su* proc$ure is legitimate1 because its objects only are quantities = u1 & c only be repres5t$ z quantities1 9 s f> z we c g5]ate _! repres5tation by repeat+ a unit a numb] ( times4 ,h5ce ! concepts ( quantity c be self-produc+1 & _! pr9ciples c !re=e be det]m9$ a priori4 ,b :5 we ask h[ ! und]/&+ c =m to itself completely a priori concepts ( ?+s 9 _! qualitative det]m9ation1 ) :i* ^! ?+s mu/ ( necessity agree1 or =mulate 9 reg>d to _! possibility pr9ciples :i* are indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce1 b ) :i* exp]i5ce mu/ exactly con=m1--we raise a "q1 t ( ! orig9 ( ! agreem5t ( our faculty ( und]/&+ ) ! ?+s 9 !mselves1 ov] :i* obscurity /ill hangs40#hjh ,! section be=e u repres5ts ! same g5]al /&po9t z t giv5 9 ! above lett]4 ,"h1 too1 x is ! validity ( ! a priori concepts 9 ref]5ce to ?+s 9 !mselves t is "u consid]ation4 ,! implication ( ,kant's argum5t is t ! categories1 be+ nei!r det]m9able nor discov]able by means ( exp]i5ce1 w only apply to appe>ances if !y det]m9e1 or r reveal1 ! actual non-exp]i5c$ nature ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,^! pure concepts1 x is impli$1 ow+ to _! comb9$ a priori & intellectual *>act]i/ics1 make ?is inh]5t claim4 ,ei!r !y are altoge!r empty & illusory1 or su* unlimit$ validity mu/ be grant$ to !m4 ,kant1 t is to say1 /ill holds1 z 9 ! ,diss]tation1 t s5se-repres5tations reveal ?+s z !y appe>1 intellectual repres5tations ?+s z !y are4 8,we h ei!r to surr5d] completely all claims to judgm5ts ( pure reason1 9 ! mo/ e/eem$ ( all fields1 t :i* ext5ds beyond ! limits ( all possible exp]i5ce1 or we mu/ br+ ?is ,critical inve/igation to p]fection40#hji ,! pure concepts1 unlike space1 8apply to objects g5]ally1 ap>t f ! conditions ( s5sibility40#haj ,b "h also1 z 9 ! lett] to ,h]z1 ! /range & problematic "* ( su* k is cle>ly recognis$4 ,kant's discussion ( ! concept ( causality 9 ,a #ij may seem to conflict ) ! above cont5tion--t x is its applicability to ?+s 9 !mselves :i* ,kant is consid]+4 ,b ?is difficulty vani%es if we be> 9 m9d t "h1 z 9 ! ,diss]tation1 !re is no su* di/9ction z we f9d 9 ,kant's lat] m g5u9ely ph5om5ali/ position1 betwe5 ! objects caus+ our s5sations & ?+s 9 !mselves4#c ,! purely intelligible object1 suppos$ to rema9 aft] elim9ation ( ! empirical & a priori s5sory factors1 is ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,! objects appreh5d$ ?r\gh s5se are real1 only n 9 _! s5su\s =m4 ,!re are two connect$ facts :i* toge!r may p]haps be tak5 z evid5ce t ,i4 #ac is lat] ?an ,,ii4 #c b4 ,intellectual concepts are re9/at$ alongside ! a priori concepts ( space & "t4 ,kant has evid5tly 9 ! meantime giv5 up ! attempt to con/rue ! =m] z empirical 9 orig94 ,t t attempt 0 e>li] 9 "t w\ld seem to be prov$ by ! fur!r fact1 t ! a priori concepts are "h view$ z p]=m+ ! same k9d ( function z t ascrib$ 9 ,,ii4 #c b to concepts t are empirical4 ,!y are conditions ( ! 8syn!tic unity ( ?\ght40#haa ,?is view ( ! function ( concepts is c]ta9ly fundam5tal & important1 & ,kant p]man5tly reta9$ x f 8 previ\s abortive me?od ( #8d$uction4' ,b x 0 a long /ep f ! discov]y ( ! di/9ction betwe5 empirical & a priori concepts to its fruitful application4 ,t involv$ appreciation ( ! fur!r fact t ! two problems1 sep>ately /at$ 9 ! lett] to ,h]z & sep>ately dealt ) 9 ,,ii4 #c b & 9 ,i4 #ac--! problem ( ! relation ( s5se-repres5tations1 & ! problem ( ! relation ( intellectual repres5tations1 to an object1--are inde$ "o & ! same1 soluble f "o & ! same /&po9t1 by "o & ! same me?od ( d$uction1 namely1 by ref]5ce to ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,only 9 & ?r\gh relation to an object c s5se-repres5tations be appreh5d$2 & only z conditions ( su* s5se-exp]i5ce are ! categories objectively valid4 ,relation to an object is con/itut$ by ! categories1 & is necess>y 9 ref]5ce to s5se-repres5tations1 because only !reby is consci\sness ( any k9d possible at all4 ,t ?is truly ,critical position _h n be5 atta9$ :5 ,i4 #ac 0 writt51#hab is %[n n only by its conc5tration on ! s+le problem ( ! validity ( a priori concepts1 b also by its repeat$ ass]tion t repres5tations c be consci\sly appreh5d$ indep5d5tly ( all relation to ! faculty ( und]/&+4 ,! directly c\nt] ass]tion appe>s1 h[ev]1 9 ! sections 7,i4 #ad1 ,,ii43 fir/ f\r p>agraphs7 :i* imm$iately foll[ 9 ! text ( ! ,critique--indicat+ t 9 ! p]iod repres5t$ by ^! latt] ! revolution>y discov]y1 ! truly ,cop]nican hypo!sis1 _h at la/ be5 a*iev$4 ,!y con/itute ! second /age1 & to x we may n[ proce$4 ,second ,/age4--,a #ib-d ,b #abd-g2 ,a #ie-g2 ,a #aaj-ad4 ,a #ib-d1 ,i4 #ad 7) ! exception ( ! conclud+ classification ( m5tal p[]s74--,?is section makes a fre% />t2 x /&s 9 no necess>y relation to any prec$+ section4 ,! problem is /ill =mulat$1 9 its op5+ s5t5ces1 9 t]ms rem9isc5t ( ! lett] to ,h]z2 b o!rwise ! /&po9t is entirely new1 & save = ! word+ ( a s+le s5t5ce 7,a #ic3 8if n intuit$1 yet071 is g5u9ely ,critical4 ,! phrase 8possibility ( exp]i5ce0 n[ appe>s1 & is at once assign$ ! c5tral rle4 ,! words 8if n intuit$1 yet0 9 ,a #ic may possibly h be5 ins]t$ lat] 9 ord] to tone d[n ! flagrant contradiction ) ! prec$+ p>agraphs4 ,9 any case1 ev5 ?is qualification is explicitly retract$ 9 ,a #id4 ,a #ie-g4--,! same /&po9t appe>s 9 ! fir/ ?ree p>agraphs ( ,section ,,ii4 ,! categories are 8! a priori conditions on :i* ! possibility ( exp]i5ce dep5ds40#hac ,by ! categories alone 8c an object be ?\ght40#had ,! fur!r important po9t t only 9 _! empirical employm5t d ! categories h use & mean+ is excell5tly develop$4 8,an a priori concept n ref]r+ to exp]i5ce w\ld be ! logical =m only ( a concept1 b n ! concept itself by :i* some?+ is ?\ght40#hae ,a #aaj-ad1 ,,ii4 #d4--;,9 ?is section also ! argum5t />ts afre%1 indicat+ 7if su* evid5ce 7 requir$7 t1 l ,i4 #ad1 x mu/ h be5 writt5 indep5d5tly ( its pres5t context4 ,b ! argum5t is n[ advanc$ "o /ep fur!r4 ,! categories are recognis$ z simultane\sly condition+ bo? unity ( consci\sness & objectivity4 8,!re is b "o exp]i5ce 444 z !re is b "o space & "o "t44440 8,! a priori conditions ( a possible exp]i5ce are at ! same "t conditions ( ! possibility ( objects ( exp]i5ce0#haf 8444! necessity ( ^! categories re/s on ! relation :i* our :ole s5sibility1 & ) x also all possible appe>ances1 h to ! orig9al unity ( app]ception44440#hag ,n[ also x is emphasis$ t save 9 & ?r\gh a priori concepts no repres5tations c exi/ = consci\sness4 8,!y w\ld !n belong to no exp]i5ce1 w\ld be )\t an object1 a bl9d play ( repres5tations1 less ev5 ?an a dream40#hah ,!y 8w\ld be to u ! same z no?+40#hai ,! word+ is /ill n altoge!r unambigu\s1 b ! ma9 po9t is made suffici5tly cle>4 ,^! p>agraphs are ! e>lie/ 9 :i* traces ( a g5u9e ph5om5alism c be detect$4 ,! transc5d5tal object1 "o & ! same = all our k1 is n ref]r$ to4 #8,objects' 79 ! plural7 is ! t]m :i* is us$ :]ev] ! context p]mits4 ,! empirical object is ?us made to int]v5e betwe5 ! ?+ 9 itself & ! subjective repres5tations4 ,b ! di/9ction betwe5 empirical objects & subjective repres5tations on ! "o h&1 & betwe5 empirical objects & ?+s 9 !mselves on ! o!r1 is n yet drawn 9 any really cle> & def9ite mann]4 ,a simil> ph5om5ali/ t5d5cy crops out 9 ,kant's di/9ction#hbj betwe5 objective aff9ity & subjective association4 8,! gr\nd ( ! possibility ( ! association ( ! manifold1 s f> z x lies 9 ! object1 is nam$ ! aff9ity ( ! manifold40 ,none ! less ,kant's subjectivism f9ds "o ( its mo/ decid$ expressions 9 ,a #aad4 ,?ird ,/age4--,a #aai-bc ,,iii4 2 ,a #aaf-ai ,,iii4 2 ,a #id-e ,i4 #ad ,c7onclud+ p>agraph72 ,a #abf-h ,,iii4 2 ,a #abh-cj ,s7umm>y72 ,a #abc-f ,,iii4 2 ,a #aae-af ,,iii4 ,i7ntroduction72 ,a #gf-i 7,b #ajb-d7 #aj ,t7ransition to f\r? /age74 ,a #aai-bc1 ,,iii4 7f ! beg9n+ ( ! sev5? p>agraph to ! end ( ! twelf?74 ,! doctr9e ( objective aff9ity already develop$ 9 ! above sections is n[ made to re/ ^u a new faculty1 ! productive imag9ation4 ,z ,vaih+] rem>ks1 ! word+ ( ?is section w\ld seem to indicate t x is ,kant's fir/ attempt at =mulat+ t new doctr9e4 ,he has n z yet got ov] 8 own surprise at ! revolution>y nature ( ! conclusions to :i* he feels himself driv5 by ! exig5cies ( ,critical tea*+4 ,he f9ds t x is deep5+ into consequ5ces :i* may lead v f> f ! curr5t psy*ology & f 8 own previ\s views reg>d+ ! nature & conditions ( ! kn[+ process & ( p]sonality4 ,z evid5ce t ?is section 0 n writt5 cont9u\sly ) ,,ii4 #d1a we h ! fur!r fact t ?\gh ! doctr9e ( objective aff9ity is dwelt ^u1 x is describ$ afre%1 ) no ref]5ce to ! prec$+ acc\nt4 ,also1 ! empirical processes ( appreh5sion & reproduction1 already m5tion$ 9 ,a #ajd-aj1 are n[ ascrib$ to ! empirical imag9ation :i* is c>efully di/+ui%$ f ! productive4 ,,iii4 repeats 8f above0 ! argum5t giv5 9 ,,iii4 8f bel[40 ,x insi/s ^u ! close connection betwe5 ! categories 7fir/ introduc$ 9 ,,ii4 #dhba7 ) ! productive imag9ation ( ,,iii4 4 ,vaih+] places ,,iii4 next 9 ord]1 on acc\nt ( ! connection ( its argum5t ) ,,iii4 4#hbb ,b x dwells only ^u ! *ief outcome ( ! total argum5t1 viz4 t ! ord]l9ess ( nature is due to und]/&+4 ,t productive imag9ation is n m5tion$1 is tak5 by ,vaih+] to signify ,kant's recognition t x c be po/ulat$ only hypo!tically1 & t z doctr9e x is n absolutely ess5tial to ! /rict d$uction4 ,s summ>ises ! entire argum5t1 & 9 x 8pure imag9ation0 receives m5tion4 ,)9 ?is ?ird /age ,,iii4 is subsequ5t to ! above f\r sections4 ,= x c>ries ! doctr9e ( productive imag9ation "o /ep fur!r4 ,9 ,,iii4 1 ,,iii4 1 & ,s1 productive imag9ation has be5 treat$ m]ely z an auxili>y function ( pure und]/&+4 8,! unity ( app]ception 9 relation to ! syn!sis ( imag9ation is ! und]/&+2 & ! same unity ) ref]5ce to ! transc5d5tal syn!sis ( ! imag9ation is ! pure und]/&+40#hbc ,x is n[ treat$ z a sep>ate & di/9ct faculty4 ,s f> f be+ a function ( und]/&+1 its syn!sis 8by itself1 ?\gh c>ri$ out a priori1 is always s5su\s40#hbd ,x is 8"o ( ! fundam5tal faculties ( ! human s\l4444 ,! two extreme ends1 s5sibility & und]/&+1 mu/ be br\ght into connection ) ea* o!r by means ( ?is transc5d5tal function ( imag9ation40#hbe ,9 ?is section !re also appe>s a new elem5t :i* w\ld seem to connect x ) ! next foll[+ /age1 namely1 ! addition to ! s]ies1 appreh5sion1 association1 & reproduction1 ( ! fur!r process1 recognition4 ,z "h introduc$ x is extremely ambigu\s 9 "*4 ,x is c\nt$ z be+ empirical1 & yet z conta9+ a priori concepts4 ,?is decid$ly hybrid process w\ld seem to repres5t ,kant's fir/ =mulation ( ! ev5 m ambigu\s process1 :i* corresponds to x 9 ! f\r? /age4 ,9 ,,iii4 ,i recognition is aga9 m5tion$1 b ?is "t 9 a =m /ill m ak9 to its treatm5t 9 ! f\r? /age4 ,x is n recognition ?r\gh categories1 b1 z a =m 9 app]ception1 is ! 8empirical consci\sness ( ! id5tity ( ! reproductive repres5tations ) ! appe>ances by :i* !y 7 giv540#hbf ,9 all o!r respects1 h[ev]1 ! above six sections agree 7along ) ,i4 #ad ,c7 9 hold+ to a ?reefold division ( m5tal p[]s3 s5sibility1 imag9ation1 & app]ception4 ,?is ?ird /age is !reby m>k$ (f suffici5tly cle>ly f ! second /age 9 :i* pure imag9ation is want+1 & f ! f\r? /age 9 :i* x is dissolv$ into a ?reefold a priori syn!sis4 ,9 bo? ,i4 #ad ,c & 9 ,,iii4 ,i ! classification :i* und]lies ! ?ird /age is explicitly =mulat$4 ,_! /atem5ts h>moni\sly comb9e to yield ! foll[+ tabul> /atem5t3 #a4 ,! synopsis ( ! manifold--a priori ?r\gh s5se1 i4e4 9 pure intuition4 #b4 ,! syn!sis ( ?is manifold--?r\gh pure transc5d5tal imag9ation4 #c4 ,! unity ( ?is syn!sis--?r\gh pure orig9al transc5d5tal app]ception4 ,at ?is po9t ,vaih+] adds to ! above section ! e>li] passage #aj ,t4#hbg ,x is ev5 m def9itely ?an ,,iii4 & ,,iii4 ,i transitional to ! f\r? /age4 ,x mu/ be class$ )9 ! ?ird /age1 z x holds to ! above ?reefold classification4 ,b x modifies t classification 9 two respects4 ,fir/1 9 t x does n employ ! t]m synopsis1 b only speaks ( pure intuition z requir$ to yield u a manifold4 ,! t]m synopsis1 z us$ by ,kant1 is1 h[ev]1 decid$ly mislead+4#hbh ,8 inv>iable tea*+ is t all connection is due to syn!sis4 ,by synopsis1 !re=e1 :i* he c]ta9ly does n employ z synonym\s ) syn!sis1 c be meant only appreh5sion ( ext]nal side-by-sid5ess4 ,x nev] signifies any?+ except appreh5sion ( ! l[e/ possible ord]4 ,kant's omission ( ! t]m1 !re=e1 t5ds to cle>ness ( /atem5t4 ,secondly1 ! classification is also modifi$ by ! sub/itution ( und]/&+ = ! unity ( app]ception4 ,app]ception is1 h[ev]1 s obscurely treat$ 9 all ( ! above sections1 t ?is _c be reg>d$ z a vital alt]ation4 ,:at is new 9 ?is section1 & seems to connect x 9 a curi\s & int]e/+ mann] ) sections 9 ! f\r? /age1 is its doctr9e ( 8a manifold ( a priori s5sibility40 8,space & "t conta9 a manifold ( pure a priori intuition40#hbi ,t is1 9 ?is connection1 an entirely new doctr9e4 ,9 all ! previ\s sections ( ! d$uction 7previ\s 9 ! assum$ ord] ( orig9al writ+7 ! manifold suppli$ ?r\gh intuition is tak5 z be+ empirical1 & z consi/+ ( s5sations4 ,kant "h also adds t ! manifold1 8:e!r giv5 empirically or a priori10#hcj mu/ be syn!sis$ be=e x c be kn[n4 8,! spontaneity ( our ?\ght requires t ?is manifold ( pure a priori intuition %\ld be run ?r\gh 9 a c]ta9 mann]1 tak5 up1 & connect$1 9 ord] t a k may be =m$ out ( x4 ,?is action ,i call syn!sis40 ,f\r? ,/age4--,a #ih-ajd2 ,a #ig-h4--;,z already not$1 !re are 9 ,kant two p]si/5t b conflict+ int]pretations ( ! nature ( ! syn!tic processes ex]cis$ by imag9ation & und]/&+1 ! subjectivi/ & ! ph5om5ali/4#hca ,n[1 on ! =m] view1 imag9ation is simply und]/&+ at "w4 ,9 o!r words1 imag9ation is m]ely ! active syn!sis+ side ( a faculty ^: complem5t>y aspect appe>s 9 ! logical unity ( ! concept4 ,f ?is po9t ( view ! transc5d5tal & ! empirical factors may be tak5 z =m+ a s+le s]ies4 ,! transc5d5tal & ! empirical processes w v>y toge!r1 "s =m ( transc5d5tal activity correspond+ to e fundam5tal =m ( empirical activity & vice v]sa4 ,su* an inf]5ce only foll[s if ! subjectivi/ /&po9t be accept$ to ! exclusion ( ! ph5om5ali/ po9t ( view4 ,b s9ce ,kant con/antly alt]nates betwe5 !m1 & nev] q def9itely =mulates !m 9 _! di/9ction & opposition2 s9ce1 9 fact1 !y 7 r ( ! nature ( obscurely felt t5d5cies ?an ( =mulat$ /&po9ts1 x is q intelligible t an inf]5ce d]iv$ f ! "o %\ld be drawn ev5 at ! v "t :5 ! o!r is be+ m explicitly develop$4 ,?is1 x w\ld seem1 is :at actually happ5$4 ,:5 we come to consid] ! evid5ce d]ivable f ! ,reflexion5 & ,lose ,bltt]1 we %all f9d support = ! view t aft] ,janu>y #aghj1 on ! v eve ( ! publication ( ! ,critique1 :ile ! revolution>y1 ph5om5ali/ consequ5ces ( ! ,critical hypo!sis 7 becom+ cle>] to him1 he ungu>d$ly all[$ ! above inf]5ce to lead him to reca/ 8 previ\s views 9 a decid$ly subjectivi/ mann]4 ,! view t transc5d5tal imag9ation has a special & unique activity altoge!r diff]5t 9 type f any ( its empirical processes1 namely1 ! 8productive10 is n[ all[$ to drop2 & 9 place ( x ,kant develops ! view t transc5d5tal functions run exactly p>allel ) ! empirical processes ( appreh5sion1 reproduction1 & recognition4 ,accord+ly1 9 place ( ! classification pres5t$ 9 ! ?ird /age1 we f9d a new & radically diff]5t "o introduc$ into ! text1 )\t ! lea/ indication t ,kant's /&po9t has meantime *ang$4 ,x is giv5 9 ,a #ig3 ,a4 ,synopsis ( ! manifold ?r\gh s5se4 ,b4 ,syn!sis4 #a4 ,syn!sis ( appreh5sion ( repres5tations 9 inn] intuition4 #b4 ,syn!sis ( reproduction ( repres5tations 9 imag9ation4 #c4 ,syn!sis ( recognition ( repres5tations 9 ! concept4 ,& ,kant adds 9 explanation t 8^! po9t to ?ree subjective s\rces ( k :i* make ! und]/&+ itself possible1 & :i* 9 s do+ make all exp]i5ce possible1 9 s f> z x is an empirical product ( ! und]/&+40 ,:at1 n[1 are ^! ?ree subjective s\rces ( k8 ,!y c]ta9ly are n ^? classifi$ 9 ! table ( ! ?ird /age4 ,a r\ghly co9cides ) its fir/ memb]2 consequ5tly ,b #a is left )\t prop] correlate4 ,b #b is altoge!r diff]5t f ! previ\s syn!sis ( imag9ation1 = 9 ! e>li] table transc5d5tal imag9ation is reg>d$ z be+ solely productive1 nev] reproductive4#hcb ,x is n[ ass]t$ to be reproductive--a contradiction ( "o ( 8 own mo/ emphatic cont5tions1 :i* c only be acc\nt$ = by "s su* explanation z we are "h /at+4 ,no?+ is lack+ z reg>ds explicitness 9 ! /atem5t ( ?is new position4 8444! reproductive syn!sis ( imag9ation belongs to ! transc5d5tal acts ( ! s\l1 &1 9 ref]5ce to x viz4 to ! reproductive syn!sis1 we w call ?is p[] too ! transc5d5tal p[] ( ! imag9ation40#hcc ,la/ly1 ev5 ,b #c does n co9cide ) ! pure app]ception ( ! o!r table4 ,b #c is m ak9 to ! recognition :i* 9 ! ?ird /age is decl>$ to be always empirical4 ,9 any case1 x is recognition 9 ! concept2 & ?\gh t may ultimately involve & condition transc5d5tal app]ception1 x rema9s1 9 ! mann] 9 :i* x is "h develop$ by ,kant1 some?+ v diff]5t4 ,b ?is is a po9t to :i* we %all return4 ,!re is an add$ complication1 runn+ ?r\gh ?is entire /age1 :i* fir/ requires to be dis5tangl$4 ,! transc5d5tal syn!ses are decl>$ to condition ! pure repres5tations ( space & "t no less ?an ^? ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 8,?is syn!sis ( appreh5sion also mu/ be execut$ a priori1 i4e4 9 ref]5ce to repres5tations :i* are n empirical4 ,= )\t x we c\ld n h ! a priori repres5tations ei!r ( space or ( "t1 s9ce ^! c be g5]at$ only ?r\gh ! syn!sis ( ! manifold :i* s5sibility pres5ts 9 its orig9al receptivity4 ,?us we h a pure syn!sis ( appreh5sion0#hcd 8444if ,i draw a l9e 9 ?\ght or desire to ?9k ( ! "t f "o noon to ano!r1 or m]ely repres5t to myself a c]ta9 numb]1 ,i mu/1 fir/ly1 appreh5d ^! manifold repres5tations "o aft] ! o!r4 ,b if ! prec$+ repres5tations 7! fir/ p>ts ( ! l9e1 ! antec$5t p>ts ( "t or ! units s]ially repres5t$7 7 always to drop out ( my ?\ght1 & 7 n reproduc$ :5 ,i advance to ^? t foll[1 no complete repres5tation1 & none ( all ! a=em5tion$ ?\ghts1 n ev5 ! pure/ & fir/ basal repres5tations ( space & "t1 c\ld ev] arise40#hce ,?is1 z ,vaih+] rem>ks1 is a po9t ( suffici5t importance to ju/ify sep>ate treatm5t4 ,b x is introduc$ q incid5tally by ,kant1 & obscures q z mu* z x cl>ifies ! ma9 argum5t4 ,x is conv5i5t to />t ) ! second syn!sis4 ,kant's argum5t is mu* cle>] 9 reg>d to x ?an 9 reg>d to ! o!r two4 ,he di/+ui%es betwe5 empirical & transc5d5tal reproduction4 ,reproduction 9 ord9>y exp]i5ce1 9 accordance ) ! laws ( association1 is m]ely empirical4 ,! de facto con=mity ( appe>ances to rules is :at r5d]s su* empirical reproduction possible2 8444o!rwise our faculty ( empirical imag9ation w\ld nev] f9d any opportunity ( action suit$ to its capacities1 & w\ld rema9 hidd5 )9 ! m9d z a dead1 & to u unkn[n p[]40#hcf ,kant proce$s to argue1 consi/5tly ) 8 doctr9e ( objective aff9ity1 t empirical reproduction is itself transc5d5tally condition$4 ,! =m1 h[ev]1 9 :i* ?is argum5t is develop$ is peculi> to ! section be=e u1 & is entirely new4 8,if we c %[ t ev5 our pure/ a priori intuitions yield no k1 save 9 s f> z !y conta9 su* connection ( ! manifold z w make possible a ?or\ghgo+ syn!sis ( reproduction1 ?is syn!sis ( ! imag9ation mu/ be gr\nd$1 prior to all exp]i5ce1 on a priori pr9ciples2 & s9ce exp]i5ce necess>ily presupposes t appe>ances c be reproduc$1 we %all h to assume a pure transc5d5tal syn!sis ( ! imag9ation z condition+ ev5 ! possibility ( all exp]i5ce40#hcg ,9 ! conclud+ p>agraph ,kant makes cle> t he reg>ds ?is transc5d5tal activity z be+ ex]cis$ 9 a tw(old mann]3 9 relation to ! empirically giv5 manifold z well z 9 relation to ! a priori giv5 manifold4 ,h[ ?is transc5d5tal activity is to be di/+ui%$ f ! empirical is n fur!r expla9$4 ,i discuss ?is po9t bel[4#hch ,! argum5t ( ! section on ! syn!sis ( appreh5sion1 to :i* we may n[ turn back1 suff]s f s]i\s ambiguity4 ,x is n cle> :e!r a di/9ction1 analog\s to t betwe5 empirical & transc5d5tal reproduction1 is be+ made 9 ref]5ce to appreh5sion4 ,! actual word+ ( its two la/ p>agraphs w\ld lead to t conclusion4 ,t1 h[ev]1 is a view :i* w\ld seem to be exclud$ by ! wid] context4 ,kant is deal+ ) ! syn!sis ( appreh5sion 9 inn] intuition1 i4e4 9 "t4 ,by ! fundam5tal pr9ciples ( 8 tea*+ su* intuition mu/ always be transc5d5tal4 ,empirical appreh5sion c only conc]n ! data ( ! special s5ses4 ,! process ( appreh5sion ref]r$ to 9 ! middle p>agraph mu/ !re=e itself be transc5d5tal4 ,b x is 9 deal+ ) ! syn!sis ( recognition t ! argum5t is mo/ obscure4 ,x is idle attempt+ to discov] any possible di/9ction betwe5 an empirical & a transc5d5tal process ( recognition4 ,= ! transc5d5tal process "h appe>s z be+ ! consci\sness t :at we are ?9k+ n[ is ! same z :at we ?\ght a mom5t be=e2 & x is illu/rat$ n by ref]5ce to ! pure intuitions ( space & "t1 b only by ! process ( c\nt+4 ,x may be argu$ t empirical recognition is m$iat$ by transc5d5tal factors--by pure concepts & by app]ception4 ,b unless we are to take transc5d5tal recognition z synonym\s ) transc5d5tal app]ception1 :i* ,kant's actual tea*+ does n seem to ju/ify u 9 do+1 su* consid]ations w n enable u to di/+ui% two =ms ( recognition4 ,ap>t1 h[ev]1 f ?is difficulty1 !re is ! fur!r "o t ! concepts 9 & ?r\gh :i* ! recognition is execut$ are "h describ$ z be+ empirical4 ,! only key t w solve ! my/]y ( ?is extraord9>y section1 hopelessly inexplicable :5 view$ z a s+le cont9u\s :ole1 is1 x w\ld seem1 ! !ory ( ,vaih+]1 namely1#hci t f ! ?ird p>agraph onw>ds 7already dealt ) z =m+ ! fir/ /age ( ! d$uction7 ,kant is mak+ use ( manuscript :i* repres5ts ! e>lie/ =m 9 :i* 8 explanation ( ! consci\sness ( objects 0 develop$1 ) ! /range result t ?is section is a comb9ation ( ! late/ & ( ! e>lie/ =ms ( ! d$uction4 ,:ile seek+ to make out a p>allelism betwe5 ! empirical1 consci\s activities ( imag9ation & und]/&+ on ! "o h&1 & its transc5d5tal functions on ! o!r1 he mu/ h be?\ght himself ( ! e>li] attempt to expla9 consci\sness ( objects ?r\gh empirical concepts condition$ by transc5d5tal app]ception1 & s h attempt$ to exp\nd ! ?ird =m ( syn!sis by means ( x4 ,z ?us ext5d$ x involves a di/9ction betwe5 transc5d5tal & empirical app]ception1 & ^u t ! discussion1 s f> z x conc]ns any?+ ak9 to recognition1 altoge!r turns4 ,b !re is n ! lea/ fur!r m5tion ( recognition itself4 ,z transc5d5tal1 x _c be tak5 z ! equival5t ( empirical app]ception2 & z a syn!sis ?r\gh concepts1 c h>dly co9cide ) pure app]ception4 ,! title ( ! section1 8! syn!sis ( recognition 9 ! concept10 is ?us no real indication ( ! a/oni%+ f>e prep>$ = ! read]4 ,! doctr9e ( a ?reefold syn!sis seems to h occurr$ to ,kant on ! v eve ( ! publication ( ! ,critique4 ,! passage exp\nd+ x may well h be5 hurri$ly compos$1 & :5 un=ese5 difficulties accumulat$1 especially 9 reg>d to recognition z a transc5d5tal process1 ,kant mu/ h resolv$ simply to close ! matt] by ins]t+ ! old] manuscript4 ,,iii4 ,evid5ce yield$ by ! 8,reflexion50 & 8,lose ,bltt]0 9 support ( ! above analysis4 ,! evid5ce1 d]iv$ by ,vaih+] f ! ,reflexion5 & ,lose ,bltt]1 briefly outl9$1 is z foll[s4#hdj 7#a7 ,9 ! ,reflexion5 zur ,an?ropologie relevant passages are few 9 numb]1 & repres5t a /&po9t v close to t ( ! #aggj ,diss]tation4 ,imag9ation is treat$ only z an empirical faculty4#hda ,recognition1 :i* is only once m5tion$1#hdb is also view$ z m]ely empirical4 ,! und]/&+ is spok5 ( z ! faculty ?r\gh :i* objects are ?\ght4#hdc ,! categories are n m5tion$1 & x is /at$ t ! und]/&+ yields only ideas ( reflection4 8,all k ( ?+s is d]iv$1 z reg>ds its matt]1 f s5sation--! und]/&+ gives only ideas ( reflection40#hdd ,s f>1 ^! ,reflexion5 w\ld seem to co9cide1 m or less1 ) ! fir/ /age ( ! d$uction4 ,!y conta91 h[ev]1 no ref]5ce to transc5d5tal app]ception2 & are !re=e reg>d$ by ,vaih+] z repres5t+ a /ill e>li] /&po9t4 7#b7 ,9 ! ,reflexion5 zur ,kritik d] re95 ,v]nunft !re is a v l>ge & valuable body ( relevant passages4 ,no4 #ibe mu/ be ( ! same date z ! lett] ( #aggb to ,h]z2 x =mulates its problem 9 practically id5tical t]ms4#hde ,nos4 #idf-eb & #iee may belong to ! p]iod ( ! fir/ /age4 ,= ?\gh ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object z ! opposite c\nt]p>t ( ! transc5d5tal subject is n m5tion$1 ! spirituali/ view ( ! self is prom95t4 ,9 ,no4 #idf x is ass]t$ t ! repres5tation ( an object is 8made by u ?r\gh fre$om40 8,free actions are already giv5 a priori1 namely our own40#hdf 8,to pass univ]sal objective judgm5ts1 & to d s apodictically1 reason mu/ be free f subjective gr\nds ( det]m9ation4 ,= 7 x s det]m9$ ! judgm5t w\ld be m]ely accid5tal1 namely 9 accordance ) its subjective cause4 ,?us reason is consci\s a priori ( its fre$om 9 objectively necess>y judgm5ts 9 s f> z x appreh5ds !m z exclusively gr\nd$ ?r\gh _! relation to ! object40#hdg 8,transc5d5tal fre$om is ! necess>y hypo!sis ( all rules1 & !re=e ( all employm5t ( ! und]/&+40#hdh 8,appe>ances are repres5tations :]eby we are affect$4 ,! repres5tation ( our free self-activity does n involve affection1 & accord+ly is n appe>ance1 b app]ception40#hdi ,x is significant t ! categories receive no m5tion4 ,almo/ all ! o!r ,reflexion5 w\ld seem to h orig9at$ 9 ! p]iod ( ! second /age ( ! d$uction2 b !y /ill betray a /rong spirituali/ bias4 8,impressions are n yet repres5tations1 = !y mu/ be relat$ to some?+ else :i* is an action4 ,n[ ! reaction ( ! m9d is an action :i* relates to ! impression1 & :i* if tak5 alone#hej may 9 its special =ms receive ! title categories40#hea 8,we c "k ! connection ( ?+s 9 ! _w only if we produce x ?r\gh a univ]sal action1 & s out ( a pr9ciple ( inn] p[] 7aus e9em ,pr9zip d] inn]5 ,pote/as73 sub/ance1 gr\nd1 comb9ation40#heb ,^! ,reflexion5 recognise only ! categories ( relation1#hec & mu/ !re=e be prior to ! twelvefold classification4 ,!re is n ! lea/ trace ( ! *>act]i/ic doctr9es ( ! ?ird & f\r? /ages ( ! d$uction1 viz4 ( ! transc5d5tal function ( ! imag9ation or ( a ?reefold transc5d5tal syn!sis4 ,! nature ( appreh5sion is also mo/ obscure4 ,x is frequ5tly equat$ ) app]ception4 7#c7 ,! ,lose ,bltt] aus ,kants ,na*lass 7,heft ,i47 conta9s fragm5ts :i* also belong to ! second /age ( ! d$uction1 b :i* w\ld seem to be ( some:at e>li] date ?an ! above ,reflexion54#hed ,!y h int]e/+ po9ts ( contact ) ! fir/ /age4 ,?us ?\gh ! phrase transc5d5tal object does n occur 9 !m1 ! object ( k is equat$ ) x1 & is reg>d$ 9 ! mann] ( ! fir/ /age z ! opposite c\nt]p>t ( ! unity ( ! self4#hee ,^! fragm5ts belong1 h[ev]1 to ! second /age 9 virtue ( _! recognition ( ! a priori categories ( relation4 ,!re is also "h1 z is 9 ! ,reflexion51 great lack ( cle>ness reg>d+ ! nature ( appreh5sion2 & !re is /ill no m5tion ( ! transc5d5tal faculty ( imag9ation4 ,fragm5t #h is def9itely datable4 ,x cov]s ! free spaces ( a lett] ( invitation dat$ ,may #bj1 #agge4hef ,fragm5t ,b #abheg belongs to a diff]5t p]iod f ! above4 ,?is is suffici5tly evid5t f its cont5ts2 b =tunately ! pap] ^u :i* x is writt5--an (ficial docum5t 9 ! h&writ+ ( ! ,rector ( ! ,philosophical ,faculty ( ,knigsb]g--enables u to decide ! exact ye> ( its orig94 ,x is dat$ ,janu>y #bj1 #aghj4 ,! fragm5t mu/ !re=e be subsequ5t to t date4 ,n[ 9 x transc5d5tal imag9ation appe>s z a ?ird faculty alongside s5sibility & und]/&+1 & a di/9ction is def9itely drawn betwe5 its empirical & its transc5d5tal employm5t4 ,! =m] conditions ! syn!sis ( appreh5sion2 ! latt] conditions ! syn!tic unity ( app]ception4 ,x fur!r di/+ui%es betwe5 reproductive & productive imag9ation1 & ascribes ! =m] exclusively to ! empirical imag9ation4 ,9 all ^! respects x /&s 9 complete agreem5t ) ! tea*+ ( ! ?ird /age ( ! d$uction4 ,! fact t ?is fragm5t is subsequ5t to ,janu>y #aghj w\ld seem to prove t ev5 at t late date ,kant 0 /ruggl+ ) 8 d$uction4#heh ,b ! mo/ int]e/+ ( all ,vaih+]'s conclusions has /ill to be m5tion$4 ,he po9ts out t at ! "t :5 ?is fragm5t 0 compos$ ,kant _h n yet develop$ ! doctr9e *>act]i/ic ( ! f\r? /age1 namely1 ( a ?reefold transc5d5tal syn!sis4 ,moreov]1 z he obs]ves1 ! /atem5t :i* x explicitly conta9s1 t reproductive imag9ation is always empirical1 is inconsi/5t ) any su* doctr9e4 ,! tea*+ ( ! f\r? /age mu/ consequ5tly be ascrib$ to an ev5 lat] date4#hei 7#d7 ,! ,lose ,bltt] 7,heft ,,ii471 ?\gh almo/ exclusively devot$ to moral & legal que/ions1 conta9 9 ,e #fghfj a relevant passage :i* ,reicke reg>ds z belong+ to ! #8eighties1 b :i* ,adickes & ,vaih+] agree 9 dat+ 8%ortly be=e #agha40 ,on ,vaih+]'s view x is a prelim9>y /udy = ! passages ( ! f\r? /age ( ! d$uction4 ,b su* exact dat+ is n ess5tial to ,vaih+]'s argum5t4 ,x is und\bt$ly q late1 & conta9s ! foll[+ s5t5ce3 8,all repres5tations1 :atev] _! orig91 are yet ultimately z repres5tations modifications ( inn] s5se1 & _! unity mu/ be view$ f ?is po9t ( view4 ,a spontaneity ( syn!sis corresponds to _! receptivity3 ei!r ( appreh5sion z s5sations or ( reproduction z images 7,e9bildung57 or ( recognition z concepts40 ,?is is ! doctr9e f :i* ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition />ts2 x 01 x w\ld seem1 ! la/ to be develop$4#hfa ,t we f9d no trace ( x 9 ! ,prolegom5a1 & t x is n only elim9at$ f ! second edition1 b is expressly disav[$1#hfb w\ld seem to indicate t x _h be5 ha/ily adopt$ on ! v eve ( publication1 & t ^u reflection ,kant _h felt con/ra9$ def9itively to disc>d x4 ,! ?reefold syn!sis c be v]ifi$ on ! empirical level1 b !re is no evid5ce t !re exi/ correspond+ transc5d5tal activities4 ,,iv4 ,connect$ ,/atem5t & ,discussion ( ,kant's ,subjective & ,objective ,d$uctions 9 ! ,fir/ ,edition ,su* are ! v>y+ & conflict+ =ms 9 :i* ,kant has pres5t$ 8 d$uction ( ! categories4 ,we may n[ apply our results to obta9 a connect$ /atem5t ( ! ess5tials ( 8 argum5t4 ,! foll[+ exposition1 :i* endeav\rs to emphasise its ma9 broad features1 to di/+ui% its v>i\s /eps1 & to dis5tangle its complex & conflict+ t5d5cies1 w1 ,i tru/1 yield to ! read] su* /eady ori5tation z is necess>y 9 s bewild]+ a labyr9?4 ,9 ! meantime ,i %all take acc\nt only ( ! d$uctions ( ! fir/ edition1#hfc & f !m %all /rive to con/ruct ! ideal /atem5t to :i* !y sev]ally approximate4 ,any s+le relatively consi/5t & complete d$uction t is ?us to s]ve z a /&>d exposition mu/1 l ! root-languages ( philology1 be typical or ar*etypal1 repres5t+ ! argum5t at :i* ,kant aim$2 x _c be "o ( ! alt]native expositions :i* he himself gives4 ,su* recon/ruction ( an argum5t :i* ,kant has fail$ to express 9 a f9al & g5u9ely adequate =m mu/1 ( c\rse1 lie op5 to all ! dang]s ( arbitr>y & p]sonal int]pretation4 ,x is an extremely adv5tur\s und]tak+1 & w h to be c>efully gu>d$ by con/ant ref]5ce to ,kant's ipsissima v]ba4 ,pro( ( its hi/orical validity w consi/ 9 its capacity to r5d] intelligible ,kant's own dep>tures f x1 & 9 its p[] ( expla9+ ! reasons ( 8 s do+4 ,its expository value w be 9 proportion to ! assi/ance :i* x may af=d to ! read] 9 deciph]+ ! actual texts4 ,our fir/ task is to make cle> ! nature ( ! di/9ction :i* ,kant draws betwe5 ! 8subjective0 & ! 8objective0 d$uctions4 ,?is is a di/9ction ( great importance1 & raises issues ( a fundam5tal "*4 ,9 reg>d to x /ud5ts ( ,kant take widely diff]5t views4 ,= x br+s to a def9ite issue _m ( ! *ief controv]sies reg>d+ ,critical tea*+4 ,kant has made "s v def9ite /atem5ts 9 reg>d to x2 & "o ( ! oppos+ s*ools ( int]pretation f9ds its *ief & /ronge/ argum5ts 9 ! words :i* he employs4 ,b = reasons :i* w appe> 9 due c\rse1 adh]5ce to ! lett] ( ! ,critique w\ld 9 ?is case involve ! comm5tator 9 great difficulties4 ,we h no option except to adopt ! invidi\s position ( ma9ta9+ t we may n[1 aft] ! int]val ( a hundr$ ye>s & ! lab\rs ( s _m devot$ /ud5ts1 pr(ess to und]/& ,kant bett] ?an he und]/ood himself4 ,= su* proc$ure we may inde$ cite 8 own au?ority4 8,n infrequ5tly1 ^u comp>+ ! ?\ghts :i* an au?or has express$ 9 reg>d to 8 subject1 :e!r 9 ord9>y conv]sation or 9 writ+1 we f9d t we c und]/& him bett] ?an he und]/ood himself4 ,z he has n suffici5tly det]m9$ 8 concept1 he has sometimes spok51 or ev5 ?\ght1 9 opposition to 8 own int5tion40#hfd ,let u1 !n1 consid] fir/ ! di/9ction betwe5 ! two types ( d$uction 9 ! =m 9 :i* x is drawn by ,kant4 ,9 ! ,preface to ! fir/ edition1#hfe ,kant /ates t 8 transc5d5tal d$uction ( ! categories has two sides1 & assigns to !m ! titles subjective & objective4 8,?is enquiry1 :i* is some:at deeply gr\nd$1 has two sides4 ,! "o ref]s to ! objects ( pure und]/&+1 & is int5d$ to exp\nd & r5d] intelligible ! objective validity ( its a priori concepts4 ,x is !re=e ess5tial to my purposes4 ,! o!r seeks to inve/igate ! pure und]/&+ itself1 its possibility & ! cognitive faculties ^u :i* x re/s4 ,al?\gh ?is latt] exposition is ( great importance = my *ief purpose1 x does n =m an ess5tial "p ( x4 ,= ! *ief "q is always simply ?is1--:at & h[ mu* c ! und]/&+ & ,reason "k ap>t f all exp]i5ce8 n--h[ is ! faculty ( ?\ght itself possible8 ,! latt] is z x 7 a se>* = ! cause ( a giv5 effect2 & !re=e is ( ! nature ( an hypo!sis 7?\gh1 z ,i %all %[ else:]e1 ?is is n really s72 & ,i w\ld appe> to be tak+ ! lib]ty simply ( express+ an op9ion1 9 :i* case ! read] w\ld be free to express a diff]5t op9ion4#hff ,= ?is reason ,i mu/ =e/all ! read]'s criticism by po9t+ out t ! objective d$uction1 ) :i* ,i am "h *iefly conc]n$1 reta9s its full =ce ev5 if my subjective d$uction %\ld fail to produce t complete conviction = :i* ,i hope44440 ,! subjective d$uction seeks to det]m9e ! subjective conditions :i* are requir$ to r5d] k possible1 or to use less ambigu\s t]ms ! g5]ative processes to ^: ag5cy human k is due4 ,x is consequ5tly psy*ological 9 "*4 ,! objective d$uction1 on ! o!r h&1 is s nam$ because x deals n ) psy*ological processes b ) que/ions ( objective validity4 ,x enquires h[ concepts :i* are a priori1 & :i* z a priori mu/ be tak5 to orig9ate 9 pure reason1 c yet be valid ( objects4 ,9 o!r words1 ! objective d$uction is logical1 or1 to use a po/-,kantian t]m1 epi/emological 9 "*4 ,x is inde$ true1 z ,kant "h insi/s1 t ! subjective d$uction does n conc]n itself 9 any q direct fa%ion ) ! ,critical problem--h[ a priori ideas c relate to objects4 8,al?\gh ( great importance = my *ief purpose1 x does n =m an ess5tial "p ( x40 ,?is1 no d\bt1 is "o reason :y ,kant omitt$ x :5 he revis$ ! ,critique = ! second edition4#hfg ,none ! less x is1 z he "h says1 important2 & :at exactly t importance am\nts to1 & :e!r x is really true t x has su* m9or importance z to be rightly describable z uness5tial1 is :at we h to decide4 ,?\gh empirical psy*ology1 9 s f> z x inve/igates ! temporal developm5t ( our exp]i5ce1 is1 z ,kant v ju/ly claims1 entirely di/9ct 9 aim & me?od f ! ,critical enquiry1 ! same _c be said ( a psy*ology :i*1 = conv5i5ce1 & on ! l9es ( ,kant's own employm5t ( t]ms1 may be nam$ transc5d5tal4#hfh ,= x w deal1 n ) ! temporal developm5t ( ! concrete & v>i$ aspects ( consci\sness1 b ) ! m fundam5tal "q ( ! g5]ative conditions indisp5sably necess>y to consci\sness z su*1 i4e4 to consci\sness 9 ea* & e "o ( its possible embodim5ts4 ,9 ! def9ition above giv5 ( ! objective d$uction1 ,i h int5tionally indicat$ ,kant's unque/ion+ conviction t ! a priori orig9ates indep5d5tly ( ! objects to :i* x is appli$4 ,?is indep5d5t orig9 is only describable 9 m5tal or psy*ological t]ms4 ,! a priori orig9ates f )92 x is due to ! specific conditions ^u :i* human ?9k+ re/s4 ,n[ ?is int]pretation ( ! a priori r5d]s ! tea*+ conta9$ 9 ! subjective d$uction mu* m ess5tial ?an ,kant is himself will+ to recognise4 ,! conclusions arriv$ at may be highly s*ematic 9 conception1 & extremely conjectural 9 detail2 !y are none ! less requir$ to supplem5t ! results ( ! m purely logical analysis4 ,= ?\gh 9 ! second edition ! sections devot$ to ! subjective d$uction are suppress$1 _! tea*+1 & ! di/9ctions :i* !y draw betwe5 ! diff]5t m5tal processes1 cont9ue to be employ$ 9 ! exposition ( ! objective d$uction1 & inde$ are presuppos$ ?r\gh\t ! ,critique z a :ole4 ,!y are indisp5sably necess>y 9 ord] to r5d] really def9ite _m ( ! cont5tions :i* ! objective d$uction itself conta9s4 ,to elim9ate ! subjective d$uction is n to cut away ^! presuppositions1 b only to leave !m 9 ! obscure region ( ! undef9$4 ,!y w /ill cont9ue to influ5ce our mode ( =mulat+ & ( solv+ ! ,critical problem1 b w d s z unte/$ & vaguely outl9$ assumptions1 act+ z unconsci\s influ5ces r ?an z e/abli%$ pr9ciples4 ,= ^! reasons ! omission ( ! subjective d$uction is to be deplor$4 ,! explicit /atem5t ( ! impli$ psy*ological conditions is pref]able to _! employm5t )\t prior def9ition & analysis4 ,! d$uction ( ! second edition re/s ?r\gh\t ^u ! initial & indisp5sable assumption1 t ?\gh connection or syn!sis c nev] be giv51 x is yet ! g5]ative s\rce ( all consci\sness ( ord] & relation4 ,factors :i* are transc5d5tal 9 ! /rict or logical mean+ ( ! t]m re/ ^u processes t are transc5d5tal 9 a psy*ological s5se4 ,?is la/ phrase1 #8transc5d5tal 9 a psy*ological s5se1' calls = a ^w ( ju/ification4 ,! syn!tic processes g5]ative ( exp]i5ce are n1 ( c\rse1 transc5d5tal 9 ! /rict s5se4 ,= !y are n a priori 9 ! mann] ( ! categories4 ,none ! less !y are discov]able by ! same transc5d5tal me?od1 namely1 z be+1 l ! categories1 indisp5sably necess>y to ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,!y diff] f ! categories 9 t !y are n imman5t 9 exp]i5ce1 con/itu5t ( x1 & _c !re=e be kn[n 9 _! intr9sic nature4 ,z !y fall outside ! field ( consci\sness1 !y c only be hypo!tically po/ulat$4 ,none ! less1 =mal categories & g5]ative processes1 def9able elem5ts & problematic po/ulates1 alike agree 9 be+ conditions s9e qua non ( exp]i5ce4 ,& fur!r1 9 t]ms ( ,kant's presuppos$ psy*ology1 ! latt] are ! s\rce to :i* ! =m] are due4 ,!re w\ld ?us seem to be suffici5t ju/ification = ext5d+ ! t]m transc5d5tal to cov] bo?2 & 9 s do+ we are foll[+ ! pa? :i* ,kant himself will+ly travell$4 ,= su* w\ld seem to h be5 8 unexpress$ reasons = ascrib+1 z he does1 ! syn!tic g5]ative processes to :at he himself names transc5d5tal faculties4 ,?is disposes ( ,kant's *ief reason = refus+ to recognise ! subjective d$uction z a g5u9e "p ( ! ,critical enquiry1 namely1 ! cont5tion ^u :i* he lays su* emphasis 9 ! prefaces bo? ( ! fir/ & ( ! second edition1#hfi t 9 transc5d5tal philosophy no?+ hypo!tical1 no?+ 9 any degree dep5d5t ^u g5]al reason+ f cont+5t fact1 c h any place4 ,t cont5tion proves unt5able ev5 )9 ! doma9 ( 8 purely logical analyses4 ,! v ess5ce ( 8 transc5d5tal me?od consi/s 9 ! e/abli%m5t ( a priori elem5ts ?r\gh pro( ( _! connection ) factual exp]i5ce4 ,kant is "h reveal+ h[ greatly 8 m9d is /ill bias$ by ! ,leibnizian rationalism f :i* he is break+ away4 ,8 a priori _c e/abli% itself save 9 virtue ( hypo!tical reason+4#hgj ,8 transc5d5tal me?od1 rightly und]/ood1 does n diff] 9 ess5tial nature f ! hypo!tical me?od ( ! natural sci5ces2 x does s only 9 ! nature ( its />t+-po9t1 & 9 ! "* ( ! analyses :i* t />t+-po9t prescribes4 ,& if hypo!tical reason+ may be all[$ 9 ! e/abli%m5t ( ! logical a priori1 !re is no suffici5t reason :y x may n also be employ$ = ! det]m9ation ( dynamical factors4 ,! sole "q is z to :e!r ! hypo!ses con=m to ! logical requirem5ts & s raise !mselves to a diff]5t level f m]e op9ion & conjecture4#hga ,z ,kant himself says1#hgb ?\gh 8 conclusions 9 ! subjective d$uction may seem to be hypo!tical 9 ! illegitimate s5se1 !y are n really s4 ,f ! exp]i5ce 9 view ( :i* !y are po/ulat$ !y receive at once ! pro( ( _! actuality & ! mat]ial = _! specification4 ,we may n[ return to ! "q ( ! nature ( ! two d$uctions4 ,! complex "* ( _! int]relations may be outl9$ z foll[s3 #a4 ,?\gh ! subjective d$uction is 9 its lat] /ages coext5sive ) its objective c\nt]p>t1 9 its e>li] /ages x moves :olly on :at may be call$ ! empirical level4 ,! data :i* x analyses & ! conditions :i* x po/ulates are bo? alike empirical4 ,! objective d$uction1 on ! o!r h&1 deals f />t to f9i% ) ! a priori4 #b4 ,! lat] /ages ( ! subjective d$uction are bas$ ^u ! results ( ! objective d$uction4 ,! exi/5ce & validity ( a priori factors hav+ be5 demon/rat$ by transc5d5tal1 i4e4 logical1 analysis1 ! subjective d$uction c be ext5d$ f ! l[] to ! high] level1 & c proce$ to e/abli% = ! a priori elem5ts :at 9 its e>li] /ages x has det]m9$ = empirical consci\sness1 namely1 ! nature ( ! g5]ative processes :i* require to be po/ulat$ z _! gr\nd & orig94 ,:5 ! two d$uctions are prop]ly di/+ui%$ ! objective d$uction has1 !re=e1 to be plac$ midway betwe5 ! initial & ! f9al /ages ( ! subjective d$uction4 #c4 ,! two d$uctions conc5trate ^u diff]5t aspects ( exp]i5ce4 ,9 ! subjective d$uction exp]i5ce is *iefly view$ z a temporal process 9 :i* ! giv5 falls ap>t into successive ev5ts1 :i*1 9 & by !mselves1 are incapable ( con/itut+ a unifi$ consci\sness4 ,! fundam5tal *>act]i/ic ( human exp]i5ce1 f ?is po9t ( view1 is t x is s]ial 9 "*4 ,?\gh x is an appreh5sion ( "t1 x is itself also a process 9 "t4 ,9 ! objective d$uction1 on ! o!r h&1 ! "t elem5t is mu* less prom95t4 ,aw>5ess ( objects is ! subject-matt] to :i* analysis is *iefly devot$4 ,?is diff]5ce v naturally foll[s f ! "* ( ! two d$uctions4 ,! subjective enquiry is ma9ly int]e/$ 9 ! conditions g5]ative ( exp]i5ce1 & f9ds its natural po9t ( dep>ture 9 ! problem by :at processes a unifi$ exp]i5ce is con/ruct$ out ( a succession ( di/9ct happ5+s4 ,! objective d$uction pres5ts ! logical problem ( validity 9 its mo/ /rik+ =m1 9 our aw>5ess ( objects2 ! objective is contra/$ ) ! subjective z be+ t :i* is univ]sally & necess>ily ! same = all obs]v]s4 ,ultimately ea* ( ! two d$uctions mu/ yield an analysis ( bo? types ( consci\sness--aw>5ess ( "t & aw>5ess ( objects2 a priori factors are involv$ 9 ! =m] no less ?an 9 ! latt]1 & bo? are condition$ by g5]ative processes4 ,un=tunately ! mann] 9 :i* ?is is done 9 ! ,critique causes v s]i\s misund]/&+4 ,! problem ( ! psy*ological conditions g5]ative ( consci\sness ( objects is rais$#hgc be=e ! logical analysis ( ! objective d$uction has e/abli%$ ! data necess>y = its pr(itable discussion4 ,! correspond+ defect 9 ! objective d$uction is ( a directly opposite "*1 b is ev5 m un=tunate 9 its effects4 ,! results obta9$ f ! analysis ( our aw>5ess ( objects are n1 )9 ! limits ( ! objective d$uction1 appli$ 9 fur!r analysis ( our consci\sness ( "t4 ,t is fir/ done1 & ev5 !n by implication r ?an by explicit argum5t1 9 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples4 ,?is has ! tw(old evil consequ5ce1 t ! relations hold+ betwe5 ! two d$uctions are v greatly obscur$1 & t ! read] is n prop]ly prep>$ = ! important use to :i* ! results ( ! objective d$uction are put 9 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples4 ,= x is !re assum$--a q legitimate inf]5ce f ! objective d$uction1 b "o ^: legitimacy ,kant has n[h]e dwelt ^u & expla9$--t to be consci\s ( "t we mu/ be consci\s ( x z exi/+ 9 two di/9ct ord]s1 subjective & objective4 ,to be consci\s ( "t we mu/ be consci\s ( objects1 & to be consci\s ( objects we mu/ be able to di/+ui% betwe5 ! ord] ( our ideas & ! ord] ( ! *anges 7if any7 9 t :i* is kn[n by _! means4 ,?us ! two d$uctions1 prop]ly view$ 9 _! full scope1 play into "o ano!r's h&s4 ,! objective d$uction is necess>y to complete ! analysis ( "t-consci\sness giv5 9 ! subjective d$uction1 & ! ext5sion ( ! analysis ( object-consci\sness to ! explanation ( "t-consci\sness is necess>y 9 ord] to make q def9ite & cle> ! full significance ( ! conclusions to :i* ! objective enquiry has l$4#hgd ,"o la/ po9t rema9s = consid]ation4 ,exp]i5ce is a highly ambigu\s t]m1 & to fulfil ! rle assign$ to x by ,kant's transc5d5tal me?od--t ( e/abli%+ ! reality ( ! conditions ( its own possibility--its actuality mu/ lie beyond ! sph]e ( all possible controv]sy4 ,x mu/ be itself a datum1 call+ inde$ = explanation1 b n itself mak+ claims t are 9 any degree subject to possible *all5ge4 ,n[ if we ab/ract f all ^? p>ticul>is+ factors :i* are irrelevant 9 ?is connection1 we are left ) only ?ree =ms ( exp]i5ce--exp]i5ce ( self1 exp]i5ce ( objects1 & exp]i5ce ( "t4 ,! two =m] are op5 to "q4 ,!y may be illusory1 z ,hume has argu$4 ,& z _! validity1 or r actuality1 calls = e/abli%m5t1 !y _c fulfil ! dem&s :i* ! transc5d5tal me?od exacts f ! exp]i5ce ^: possibility is to yield pro( ( its discov]able conditions4 ,consci\sness ( "t1 on ! o!r h&1 is a fact ^: actuality1 h[ev] problematic 9 its conditions1 & h[ev] my/]i\s 9 its intr9sic nature1 _c1 ev5 by ! mo/ metaphysical ( subtleties1 be 9 any mann] or degree *all5g$4 ,x is an unque/ion$ possession ( ! human m9d4 ,:e!r "t itself is real we are n metaphysically c]ta91 b t1 :atev] be its reality or unreality1 we are consci\s ( x 9 ! =m ( *ange1 is beyond all mann] ( d\bt4 ,consci\sness ( "t is ! factual exp]i5ce1 z conditions ( ^: possibility ! a priori factors are transc5d5tally prov$4 ,9 s f> z !y c be %[n to be its indisp5sable conditions1 its m]e exi/5ce proves _! reality4 ,& su* 9 effect is ! ultimate "* ( ,kant's pro( ( ! objective validity ( ! categories4 ,!y are prov$ 9 t x is %[n t only 9 & ?r\gh !m is consci\sness ( "t possible4 ,! argum5t ga9s immeasurably 9 cle>ness :5 ?is is recognis$2#hge & ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique1 9 spite ( its contort$ "*1 rema9s 9 my view sup]ior to t ( ! second edition ow+ to ?is m explicit recognition ( ! temporal aspect ( consci\sness & to employm5t ( x z ! initial />t+-po9t4 ,analysis at once reveals t ?\gh consci\sness ( "t is und5iably actual1 x is condition$ 9 complex ways1 & t among ! conditions indisp5sably necess>y to its possibility are bo? consci\sness ( self & consci\sness ( an objective ord] ( exi/5ce4 ,/>t+ f ! und5iable we are ?us br\ght to ! problematic2 b ow+ to ! factual "* ( ! />t+-po9t we c sub/antiate :at w\ld o!rwise rema9 op5 to "q4 ,z ?is me?od ( =mulat+ ,kant's argum5t gives great] prom95ce to ! temporal factor ?an ,kant himself does 9 8 /atem5t ( ! d$uctions1 ! read] may v rightly dem& fur!r evid5ce t ,i am n1 by ?is proc$ure1 sett+ ! d$uctions 9 a false or arbitr>y p]spective4 ,any /atem5t ( ,kant's position 9 o!r ?an 8 own ipsissima v]ba is necess>ily1 9 l>ge "p1 a matt] ( int]pretation1 & pro( ( its correctness mu/ ultimately consi/ 9 ! success ) :i* x c be appli$ 9 unravell+ ! manifold /r&s t compose 8 tortu\s & _m-sid$ argum5t2 b ! foll[+ special consid]ations may be cit$ 9 advance4 ,^? p>ts ( ! ,critique1 su* z ! *ief p>agraphs ( ! subjective d$uction & ! *apt] on ,s*ematism1 :i* are demon/rably late 9 date ( writ+1 agree 9 assign+ great] prom95ce to ! temporal aspect ( exp]i5ce4 ,?is is also true ( ^? num]\s passages add$ 9 ! second edition :i* deal ) inn] s5se4 ,all ( ^! %[ an increas+ appreciation ( ! c5tral rle :i* "t mu/ play 9 ! ,critical enquiries4 ,secondly1 pro( ( ! validity ( specific categories is giv51 z we %all f9d1#hgf n 9 ! objective d$uction ( ! ,analytic ( ,concepts1 b only 9 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples4 ,:at ,kant gives 9 ! =m] is only ! q g5]al demon/ration t =ms ( unity1 su* z are involv$ 9 all judgm5t1 are dem&$ = ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,n[ :5 pro( ( ! specific categories does come1 9 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples1 x is manife/ly bas$ on ! analysis ( "t-exp]i5ce4 ,9 ! ?ree ,analogies1 = example1 ,kant's demon/ration ( ! objective validity ( ! categories ( relation consi/s 9 ! pro( t !y are necess>y conditions ( ! possibility ( our "t-consci\sness4 ,t is to say1 ! transc5d5tal me?od ( pro(1 :5 develop$ 9 full detail1 9 ref]5ce to "s specific category1 agrees ) ! =mulation :i* ,i h giv5 ( ! subjective & objective d$uctions4 ,9 ! ?ird place1 ,kant />t$ f a spirituali/ /&po9t1 ak9 to t ( ,leibniz1#hgg & only v gradually broke away f ! _m illegitimate assumptions :i* x involves4 ,b ?is orig9al />t+-po9t reveals its p]si/+ influ5ce 9 ! excessive emphasis :i* ,kant cont9u$ to lay ^u ! unity ( app]ception4 ,he frequ5tly speaks#hgh z if x 7 an ultimate self-ju/ify+ pr9ciple1 by ref]5ce to :i* ! validity ( all presuppos$ conditions c be e/abli%$4 ,b t1 z ,i h already argu$1 is a legitimate me?od ( proc$ure only if x has previ\sly be5 e/abli%$ t self-consci\sness is involv$ 9 all consci\sness1 t is1 involv$ ev5 9 consci\sness ( sequ5ce & duration4 ,& z j /at$1 ! d$uctions ( specific categories1 giv5 9 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples1 fulfil ^! requirem5ts ( complete pro(4 ,!y />t f ! "t-consci\sness1 n f app]ception4 ,i %all n[ summ>ise ^! introductory discussions 9 a brief tabulat$ outl9e ( ! ma9 /eps 9 ! argum5t ( ! two d$uctions1 & %all add a conclud+ note ^u _! int]connection4 ,subjective ,d$uction4--#a4 ,consci\sness ( "t is an exp]i5ce ^: actuality _c be que/ion$2 by its actuality x w !re=e e/abli% ! reality ( ev]y?+ t c be prov$ to be its indisp5sable condition4 #b4 ,among ! conditions indisp5sably necess>y to all consci\sness ( "t are syn!tic processes :]eby ! cont5ts ( consci\sness1 occurr+ 9 successive mom5ts1 are comb9$ & unifi$4 ,^! processes are processes ( appreh5sion1 reproduction1 & recognition4 #c4 ,recognition1 9 turn1 is condition$ by self-consci\sness4 #d4 ,z no consci\sness is possible )\t self-consci\sness1 ! syn!tic processes mu/ h complet$ !mselves be=e su* self-consci\sness is possible1 & consequ5tly are n v]ifiable by introspection b only by hypo!tical con/ruction4 #a1 #b1 #c1 & #d are /eps :i* c be /at$ indep5d5tly ( ! argum5t ( ! objective d$uction4 #e4 ,self-consci\sness presupposes consci\sness ( objects1 & consci\sness ( objects presupposes ! syn!tic activities ( productive imag9ation :]eby ! matt] ( s5se is organis$ 9 accordance ) ! categories4 ,^! productive activities also are v]ifiable only by conjectural inf]5ce1 & only ^u _! completion c consci\sness ( any k9d make its appe>ance4 #f4 ,consci\sness ( self & consci\sness ( objects ?us alike re/ ^u a complexity ( non-ph5om5al conditions4 ,= any?+ t critical analysis c prove to ! contr>y1 consci\sness & p]sonality may n be ultimates4 ,!y may be resultants due to realities fundam5tally diff]5t f !mselves4 #e is a conclusion obta9$ only by means ( ! argum5t ( ! objective d$uction4 #f is a fur!r conclusion1 fir/ explicitly drawn by ,kant 9 ! ,dialectic4 ,objective ,d$uction4--#a4 ,! />t+-po9t co9cides ) t ( ! subjective d$uction4 ,consci\sness ( "t is an exp]i5ce by ^: actuality we c e/abli% ! reality ( its indisp5sable conditions4 #b4 ,among ! conditions necess>y to all consci\sness ( "t is self-consci\sness4 #c4 ,self-consci\sness1 9 turn1 is itself condition$ by consci\sness ( objects4 #d4 ,consci\sness ( objects is possible only if ! categories h validity )9 ! sph]e ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 #e4 ,conclusion4--,! empirical validity ( ! categories1 & consequ5tly ! empirical validity ( our consci\sness alike ( ! self & ( objects1 mu/ be grant$ z a conditio s9e qua non ( our consci\sness ( "t4 ,!y are ! indisp5sable conditions ( t fundam5tal exp]i5ce4 ,z above /at$1#hgi ! prelim9>y /ages ( ! subjective d$uction prep>e ! way = ! argum5t ( ! objective d$uction1 :ile ! results obta9$ by ! latt] r5d] possible ! conclud+ /eps ( ! =m]4 ,t is to say1 ! objective d$uction has to be int]calat$ midway betwe5 ! op5+ & ! conclud+ /ages ( ! subjective d$uction4 ,x may also be obs]v$ t :]eas ! objective d$uction embodies ! ma9 positive tea*+ ( ! ,analytic1 9 t x e/abli%es ! possibility ( natural sci5ce & ( a metaphysics ( exp]i5ce1 ! subjective d$uction is m directly conc]n$ ) ! subject-matt] ( ! ,dialectic1 re9=c+1 z x does1 ! m negative consequ5ces :i* foll[ f ! tea*+ ( ! objective d$uction--! impossibility ( transc5d5t speculation4 ,x /&s 9 peculi>ly close connection ) ! tea*+ ( ! section on ! ,p>alogisms4 ,we may n[ proce$ to a detail$ /atem5t ( ! argum5t ( ! two d$uctions4 ,,! ,,subjective ,,d$uction ,,9 ,,its ,,initial ,,empirical ,,/ages ,9 ! op5+ ( ! subjective d$uction ,kant is c>eful to give due prom95ce to ! temporal aspect ( our human exp]i5ce4 8444all ! cont5ts ( our k are ultimately subject to ! =mal condition ( inn] s5se1 t is1 to "t1 z t :]e9 !y mu/ all be ord]$1 connect$1 & br\ght into relation to "o ano!r4 ,?is is a g5]al rem>k :i* ! read] mu/ be> 9 m9d z be+ a fundam5tal presupposition ( my entire argum5t40#hhj ,consci\sness ( "t is ?us ! />t+-po9t ( ! d$uction4 ,analysis reveals x z highly complex2 & ! purpose ( ! d$uction is to discov]1 &1 z f> z may be possible1 to def9e its v>i\s conditions4 ,! argum5t c be/ be exp\nd$ by ref]5ce to a s+le concrete example--say1 our exp]i5ce ( a s]ies ( cont5ts1 a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 z 9 succession to "o ano!r & z toge!r mak+ up ! total six4 ,9 ord] t su* an exp]i5ce may be possible ! successive memb]s ( ! s]ies mu/ be held toge!r simultane\sly be=e ! m9d4 ,obvi\sly1 if ! e>li] memb]s dropp$ out ( consci\sness be=e ! m9d rea*$ f1 f c\ld n be appreh5d$ z hav+ foll[$ ^u !m4 ,!re mu/ be a syn!sis ( appreh5sion ( ! successive items4 ,su* a syn!sis ( appreh5sion is1 h[ev]1 only possible ?r\gh reproduction ( ! e>li] exp]i5ces4 ,if :5 ! m9d has pass$ f a to f1 f is appreh5d$ z hav+ foll[$ ^u a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 su* consci\sness is only possible 9 s f> z ^! e>li] cont5ts are reproduc$ 9 image4 ,syn!sis ( appreh5sion is condition$ by syn!sis ( reproduction 9 imag9ation4 8,b if ! prec$+ repres5tations 7! fir/ p>ts ( a l9e1 ! e>li] mom5ts ( "t or ! units repres5t$ 9 sequ5t ord]7 7 always to drop out ( my ?\ght1 & 7 n reproduc$ :5 ,i advance to ^? t foll[1 no complete repres5tation1 & none ( all ! a=em5tion$ ?\ghts1 n ev5 ! pure/ & fir/ basal repres5tations ( space & "t1 c\ld ev] arise40#hha ,9 ord]1 h[ev]1 t ! reproduc$ images may fulfil _! function1 !y mu/ be recognis$ z /&+ = or repres5t+ cont5ts :i* ! self has j exp]i5c$4 8,)\t ! consci\sness t :at we are ?9k+ is ! same z :at we ?\ght a mom5t be=e1 all reproduction 9 ! s]ies ( repres5tations w\ld be 9 va940#hhb ,ea* reproduc$ image w\ld 9 its pres5t /ate be a new exp]i5ce1 & w\ld n help 9 ! lea/ t[>ds ga9+ consci\sness ( ord] or numb] 9 ! succession ( our exp]i5ces4 ,recognition is1 !re=e1 a ?ird =m ( syn!sis1 indisp5sably necess>y to consci\sness ( "t4 ,b fur!r1 ! recognition is recognition ( a succession z =m+ a unity or :ole1 & t unity is always conceptual4 8,! ^w concept 7,begriff7 might ( itself h sugge/$ ?is rem>k4 ,= x is ?is unit>y consci\sness :i* unites into a s+le repres5tation a manifold t has be5 successively intuit$ & !n subsequ5tly reproduc$40#hhc 8,if 9 c\nt+ ,i =got t ! units 444 h be5 add$ to "o ano!r 9 succession1 ,i %\ld nev] recognise :at ! sum-total is t is be+ produc$ ?r\gh ! successive addition ( unit to unit2 & s w\ld rema9 ignorant ( ! numb]4 ,= ! concept ( ?is numb] is no?+ b ! consci\sness ( ?is unity ( syn!sis40#hhd ,! syn!sis ( recognition is ?us a syn!sis :i* takes place 9 & ?r\gh empirical concepts4 ,9 ! in/ance :i* we h *os51 ! empirical concept is t ( ! numb] six4 ,! analysis1 h[ev]1 is n yet complete4 ,j z reproduction conditions appreh5sion & bo? re/ on recognition1 s 9 turn recognition presupposes a /ill fur!r condition1 namely1 self-consci\sness4 ,= x is obvi\s1 once ! fact is po9t$ out1 t ! recognition ( reproduc$ images z /&+ = pa/ exp]i5ces c only be possible 9 s f> z !re is an abid+ self :i* is consci\s ( its id5tity ?r\gh\t ! succession4 ,su* an act ( recognition is1 inde$1 m]ely "o p>ticul> =m or concrete in/ance ( self-consci\sness4 ,! unity ( ! empirical concept 9 & ?r\gh :i* recognition takes place f9ds its indisp5sable correlate 9 ! unity ( an empirical self4 ,?us an analysis ( our consci\sness1 ev5 ?\gh conduct$ :olly on ! empirical level1 t is1 )\t ! lea/ ref]5ce to ! a priori1 leads by simple & cog5t argum5t to ! conclusion t x is condition$ by complex syn!tic processes1 & t ^! syn!ses 9 turn presuppose a unity :i* f9ds tw(old expression = itself1 objectively ?r\gh a concept & subjectively 9 self-consci\sness4 ,s f> ,i h /at$ ! argum5t solely 9 ref]5ce to s]ial consci\sness4 ,kant r5d]s 8 argum5t ne$lessly complex & dim9i%es its =ce by at once ext5d+ x s z to cov] ! connect$ problem1 h[ we become aw>e ( objects4 ,?is occurs 9 ! section on ! syn!sis ( reproduction4 ,an analysis ( our consci\sness ( objects1 z di/9ct f consci\sness ( ! imm$iately successive1 =ces u to po/ulate fur!r empirical conditions4 ,s9ce ! reproductive imag9ation1 to ^: ag5cy ! appreh5sion ( complex unit>y exi/5ces is psy*ologically due1 acts ?r\gh ! ma*9]y ( association1 x presupposes con/ancy 9 ! appreh5d$ manifold4 8,if c9nab> 7 sometimes r$1 sometimes black1 sometimes light1 sometimes heavy1 if a man *ang$ sometimes into ?is & sometimes into t animal =m1 if ! c\ntry on ! longe/ day 7 sometimes cov]$ ) fruits1 sometimes ) ice & sn[1 my empirical imag9ation w\ld nev] ev5 h occasion :5 repres5t+ r$ col\r to br+ to m9d heavy c9nab>44440#hhe ,?is passage may be comp>$ ) ! "o :i* occurs 9 ! section on ! syn!sis ( recognition4 ,our repres5tations1 9 ord] to con/itute k1 mu/ h ! unity ( "s concept2 ! manifold _c be appreh5d$ save 9 s f> z ?is is possible4 8,all k dem&s a concept1 ?\gh t concept may be q imp]fect or obscure4 ,b a concept is always1 z reg>ds its =m1 some?+ g5]al :i* s]ves z a rule4 ,! concept ( body1 = in/ance1 z ! unity ( ! manifold :i* is ?\ght ?r\gh x1 s]ves z a rule to our k ( out] appe>ances4444 ,x necessitates 9 ! p]ception ( some?+ outside u ! repres5tation ( ext5sion1 & !re) ! repres5tations ( imp5etrability1 =m1 etc40#hhf ,s f> ! d$uction /ill moves on ! empirical level4 ,:5 ,kant1 h[ev]1 proce$s to insi/#hhg t ?is empirical po/ulate itself re/s ^u a transc5d5tal condition1 ! argum5t is ?r[n into complete confusion1 & ! read] is bewild]$ by ! sudd5 anticipation ( "o ( ! mo/ difficult & subtle conclusions ( ! objective d$uction4 ,! same confusion is also caus$ ?r\gh\t ^! sections z a :ole by ,kant's description ( ! v>i\s syn!ses z be+ transc5d5tal4#hhh ,!y _c prop]ly be s describ$4 ,! concepts ref]r$ to z unify+ ! syn!ses1 & ! self-consci\sness :i* is prov$ to condition ! syn!ses1 are all empirical4 ,!y pres5t !mselves 9 concrete =m1 & presuppose *>act]i/ics due to ! special cont+5t nature ( ! giv5 manifold2 z ,kant /ates 9 s _m words 9 ! second edition4 8,:e!r ,i c become empirically consci\s ( ! manifold z simultane\s or z successive dep5ds on circum/ances or empirical conditions4 ,! empirical unity ( consci\sness1 ?r\gh association ( repres5tations1 !re=e itself relates to an appe>ance1 & is :olly cont+5t40#hhi ,! argum5t 9 ^! prelim9>y /ages ( ! subjective d$uction1 9 s f> z x is employ$ to yield pro( t all consci\sness involves ! unity ( concepts & ! unity ( self-consci\sness1 is indep5d5t ( any ref]5ce to ! categories1 & consequ5tly to transc5d5tal conditions4 ,9 accordance ) ! plan ( exposition above /at$1 we may n[ pass to ! objective d$uction4 ,,objective ,,d$uction ,,z ,,giv5 ,,9 ,,! ,,fir/ ,,edition ,! transition f ! prelim9>y /ages ( ! subjective d$uction to ! objective d$uction may be made by fur!r analysis ei!r ( ! objective unity ( empirical concepts or ( ! subjective unity ( empirical self-consci\sness4 ,x is ! =m] l9e :i* ! argum5t ( ! fir/ edition foll[s4 ,kant is ask+ :at is meant by an object correspond+ to our repres5tations1#hij & answ]s by 8 objective d$uction4 ,he sub/itutes ! empirical = ! transc5d5tal object1#hia & 9 s do+ prop\nds "o ( ! c5tral & mo/ revolution>y t5ets ( ! ,critical philosophy4 ,exi/5ce takes a ?reefold1 n a m]ely dual =m4 ,besides repres5tations & ?+s 9 !mselves1 !re exi/ ! objects ( our repres5tations--! ext5d$ _w ( ord9>y exp]i5ce & ( sci5ce4 ,su* a ?reefold di/9ction is prefigur$ 9 ! ,leibnizian metaphysics1 & is m or less native to e philosophy t is g5u9ely speculative4 ,kant himself claims ,plato z 8 philosophical prog5itor4 ,! orig9ality is n 9 ! b>e !sis1 b 9 ! fruitful1 t5aci\s1 & consi/5t mann] 9 :i* x is develop$ ?r\gh detail$ analysis ( our actual exp]i5ce4 ,9 its fir/ /ages ! argum5t l>gely co9cides ) ! argum5t ( ! p>agraphs :i* deal ) ! transc5d5tal object4 ,:5 we exam9e ! objective1 we f9d t ! prim>y *>act]i/ic di/+ui%+ x f ! subjective is t x lays a compulsion ^u our m9ds1 con/ra9+ u to ?9k ab\t x 9 a c]ta9 way4 ,by an object is meant some?+ :i* w n all[ u to ?9k at haphaz>d4 ,c9nab> is an object :i* con/ra9s u to ?9k x z heavy & r$4 ,an object is ?us ! ext]nal s\rce ( a necessity to :i* our ?9k+ has to con=m4 ,! two argum5ts fir/ beg9 to div]ge :5 ,kant sets himself to demon/rate t our consci\sness ( ?is ext]nal necessity is made possible by categories :i* orig9ate f )94 ,= ?is conclusion ,kant prep>es ! way by an analysis ( ! second ma9 *>act]i/ic con/itutive ( an object1 viz4 its unity4 ,?is unity is ( a tw(old nature1 involv+ ei!r ! category ( sub/ance & attribute or ! category ( cause & effect4 ,! two categories are ultimately insep>able1 b lead u to conceive ! object 9 two di/9ct modes4 ,:5 we int]pret an object ?r\gh ! a priori concept ( sub/ance & attribute1 we ass]t t all ! cont5ts ( our p]ceptions ( x are capable ( be+ reg>d$ z qualities ( "o & ! same id5tical sub/ance4 ,no "o ( its qualities c be incongru5t ) any o!r1 & all ( !m toge!r1 9 _! unity1 mu/ be expressive ( its sub/antial nature4 ,! causal int]pretation ( ! object is1 h[ev]1 ! m important1 & is t :i* is *iefly emphasis$ by ,kant4 ,x is1 inde$1 simply a fur!r & m adequate mode ( express+ ! sub/antial unity ( ! object4 ,all ! qualities mu/ be causally b\nd up ) "o ano!r 9 su* a way t ! nature ( ea* is det]m9$ by ! nature ( all ! o!rs1 & t if any "o quality be *ang$ all ! o!rs mu/ und]go correspond+ alt]ations4 ,view$ 9 ?is mann]1 9 t]ms ( ! category ( causality1 an object signifies a necessitat$ comb9ation ( int]connect$ qualities or effects4 ,b s9ce no su* =m ( necessitation c be reveal$ 9 ! manifold ( s5se1 our consci\sness ( compulsion _c orig9ate f )\t1 & mu/ be due to ^? a priori =ms :i*1 ?\gh hav+ _! s\rce )91 control & direct our int]pretation ( ! giv54 ,?\gh ! objective compulsion is n itself due to ! m9d1 our consci\sness ( x has ?is m5tal a priori s\rce4 ,! concept ( an object consi/s 9 ! ?\ght ( a manifold s det]m9$ 9 its specific ord] & gr\p+s z to be int]pretable 9 t]ms ( ! categories ( sub/ance & causality4 ,b ! problem ( ! d$uction prop] is n yet rais$4 ,on ! "o h&1 ,kant has def9$ :at ! concept ( ! objective mu/ be tak5 z involv+1 & on ! o!r1 has po9t$ out t s9ce ! giv5 z giv5 is an unconnect$ manifold1 any categories ?r\gh :i* x may be int]pret$ mu/ be ( indep5d5t orig92 b x /ill rema9s to be prov$ t ! above is a valid z well z a possible mode ( con/ru+ ! giv5 appe>ances4 ,! categories1 z a priori concepts1 orig9ate f )94 ,by :at "r may we ass]t t !y n only relate to an object1 b ev5 con/itute ! v concept ( x8 ,are appe>ances legitimately int]pretable 9 any su* mann]8 ,x 01 we may believe1 9 ! process ( answ]+ ?is "q t ,kant came to realise t ! objects ( our repres5tations mu/ no long] be reg>d$ z ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,=1 z he f9ds1 a solution is possible only on ! fur!r assumption t ! m9d is legislat+ m]ely = ! _w ( s5se-exp]i5ce1 & is mak+ no ass]tion 9 reg>d to ! absolutely & indep5d5tly real4 ,kant's me?od ( pro( is ! transc5d5tal1 i4e4 he seeks to demon/rate t ?is int]pretation ( ! giv5 is indisp5sably necess>y z be+ a s9e qua non ( its possible appreh5sion4 ,?is is a*iev$ by means ( ! conclusion already e/abli%$ ?r\gh ! prelim9>y /eps ( ! subjective d$uction1 namely1 t all consci\sness involves self-consci\sness4 ,kant's pro( ( ! objective validity ( ! categories consi/s 9 %[+ t only by means ( ! int]pretation ( appe>ances z empirically objective is self-consci\sness possible at all4 ,! self-consci\sness ( ! subjective d$uction1 9 ! prelim9>y =m above /at$1 is1 h[ev]1 itself empirical4 ,kant1 develop+ on m /rictly ,critical l9es ! argum5t :i* _h accompani$ 8 e>li] doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object1 n[ proce$s to ma9ta9 9 :at is at once ! mo/ fruitful & ! mo/ mislead+ ( 8 t5ets1 t ! ultimate gr\nd ( ! possibility ( consci\sness & !re=e also ( empirical self-consci\sness is ! transc5d5tal unity ( app]ception4 ,su* app]ception1 to use ,kant's ambigu\s phraseology1 prec$es exp]i5ce z its a priori condition4 ,! int]pretation ( giv5 appe>ances ?r\gh a priori categories is a necessity ( consci\sness because x is a condition ( self-consci\sness2 & x is a condition ( self-consci\sness because x alone w acc\nt = ! transc5d5tal app]ception ^u :i* all empirical self-consci\sness ultimately dep5ds4 ,"o *ief reason :y ,kant's d$uction is f\nd s baffl+ & illusive is t x re/s ^u an int]pretation ( ! unity ( app]ception :i* is v def9itely drawn1 b to :i* ,kant himself gives only ! briefe/ & mo/ cond5s$ expression4 ,i %all !re=e take ! lib]ty ( re/at+ x 9 m explicit t]ms4 ,! true or transc5d5tal self has no cont5t ( its own ?r\gh :i* x c ga9 k ( itself4 ,x is m]e id5tity1 ,i am ,i4 ,9 o!r words1 self-consci\sness is a m]e =m ?r\gh :i* cont5ts t nev] !mselves con/itute ! self are yet appreh5d$ z be+ objects to ! self4 ,?us ?\gh ! self 9 be+ consci\s ( "t or duration mu/ be consci\s ( itself z id5tical ?r\gh\t ! succession ( its exp]i5ces1 t id5tity c nev] be discov]$ 9 ^? exp]i5ces2 x c only be ?\ght z a condition ( !m4 ,! cont9uity ( memory1 = in/ance1 is n a possible sub/itute = transc5d5tal app]ception4 ,z ! subjective d$uction demon/rates1 self-consci\sness conditions memory1 & _c !re=e be r$uc$ to or be g5]at$ by x4#hib ,:51 h[ev]1 su* consid]ations are all[$ _! due weight1 ! necessity ( po/ulat+ a transc5d5tal unity becomes only ! m evid5t4 ,?\gh x c nev] itself be f\nd among appe>ances1 x is an int]pretation :i* we are none ! less compell$ to give to appe>ances4 ,to summ>ise be=e proce$+4 ,we h obta9$ two important conclusions3 fir/1 t all consci\sness involves self-consci\sness2 & secondly1 t self-consci\sness is a m]e =m1 9 t]ms ( :i* cont5ts t d n con/itute ! self are appreh5d$ z exi/+ = ! self4 ,! fir/ leads up to ! second1 & ! second is equival5t to ! ass]tion t !re c be no su* ?+ z a pure self-consci\sness1 i4e4 a consci\sness 9 :i* ! self is aw>e ( itself & ( no?+ b itself4 ,self-consci\sness1 to be possible at all1 mu/ at ! same "t be a consci\sness ( some?+ t is n-self4 ,only "o fur!r /ep is n[ requir$ = ! completion ( ! d$uction1 namely1 pro( t ?is n-self1 consci\sness ( :i* is necess>y to ! possibility ( self-consci\sness1 mu/ consi/ 9 empirical objects appreh5d$ 9 t]ms ( ! categories4 ,= pro( ,kant aga9 appeals to ! indisp5sabl5ess ( app]ception4 ,z no intuitions c ent] consci\sness :i* are n capable ( be+ relat$ to ! self1 !y mu/ be s relat$ to "o ano!r t1 not)/&+ _! v>iety & div]sity1 ! self c /ill be consci\s ( itself z id5tical ?r\gh\t !m all4 ,9 o!r words1 no intuition c be relat$ to ! self t is incapable ( be+ comb9$ toge!r ) all ! o!r intuitions to =m a unit>y consci\sness4 ,i may "h quote f ! text ( ! second edition3#hic 8444only 9 s f> z ,i c grasp ! manifold ( ! repres5tations 9 "o consci\sness1 d ,i call !m "o & all m9e4 ,= o!rwise ,i %\ld h z _m-col\r$ & div]se a self z ,i h repres5tations ( :i* ,i am consci\s to myself40 ,or z x is /at$ 9 ! fir/ edition3#hid 8,we are a priori aw>e ( ! complete id5tity ( ! self 9 respect ( all repres5tations :i* belong to our k 444 z a necess>y condition ( ! possibility ( all repres5tations40 ,^! are ! consid]ations :i* lead ,kant to entitle ! unity ( app]ception transc5d5tal4 ,he s names x = ! reason t1 ?\gh x is n itself a priori 9 ! mann] ( ! categories1 we are yet enabl$ by its means to demon/rate t ! unity :i* is necess>y = possible exp]i5ce c be securely c\nt$ ^u 9 ! manifold ( all possible repres5tations1 & because 7z he believ$7 x also enables u to prove t ! =ms ( su* unity are ! categories ( ! und]/&+4 ,to ! argum5t support+ ?is la/ conclusion ,kant does n give ! att5tion :i* its importance w\ld seem to des]ve4 ,he po9ts out t z ! giv5 is an unconnect$ manifold1 its unity c be obta9$ only by syn!sis1 & t su* syn!sis mu/ con=m to ! conditions prescrib$ by ! unity ( app]ception4 ,t ^! conditions co9cide ) ! categories he does n1 h[ev]1 attempt to prove4 ,he app>5tly believes t ?is has be5 already e/abli%$ 9 ! metaphysical d$uction4#hie ,! =ms ( unity dem&$ by app]ception1 he feels ju/ifi$ 9 assum+1 are ! categories4 ,!y may be reg>d$ z express+ ! m9imum ( unity necess>y to ! possibility ( self-consci\sness4 ,if s5sations _c be int]pret$ z ! div]se attributes ( unit>y sub/ances1 if ev5ts _c be view$ z aris+ out ( "o ano!r1 if ! entire _w 9 space _c be conceiv$ z a sy/em ( exi/5ces reciprocally int]dep5d5t1 all unity mu/ vani% f exp]i5ce1 & app]ception w be utt]ly impossible4#hif ,! successive /eps ( ! total argum5t ( ! d$uction1 z giv5 9 ! fir/ edition1 are !re=e z foll[s3 ,consci\sness ( "t involves empirical self-consci\sness2 empirical self-consci\sness is condition$ by a transc5d5tal self-consci\sness2 & su* transc5d5tal self-consci\sness is itself1 9 turn1 condition$ by consci\sness ( objects4 ,! argum5t ?us complet$ becomes ! pro( ( mutual int]dep5d5ce4 ,self-consci\sness & consci\sness ( objects1 z pol> opposites1 mutually condition "o ano!r4 ,only ?r\gh consci\sness ( bo? simultane\sly c consci\sness ( ei!r be atta9$4 ,only 9 & ?r\gh ref]5ce to an object c an idea be relat$ to a self1 & s be accompani$ by t self-consci\sness :i* conditions recognition1 & ?r\gh recognition all ! v>y+ =ms 9 :i* our consci\sness c occur4 ,f ! po9t ( view1 h[ev]1 ( a ,critical enquiry app]ception is ! m important ( ! two =ms ( consci\sness4 ,= ?\gh ea* is ! causa exi/5di ( ! o!r1 self-consci\sness has ! unique di/9ction ( be+ ! causa cognosc5di ( ! objective & a priori validity ( ! =ms ( und]/&+4 8,! syn!tic proposition1 t all ! v>iety ( empirical consci\sness mu/ be comb9$ 9 a s+le self-consci\sness1 is ! absolutely fir/ & syn!tic pr9ciple ( our ?\ght 9 g5]al40#hig ,we may at ?is po9t consid] ,kant's doctr9e ( 8objective aff9ity40 ,x excell5tly en=ces ! ma9 !sis :i* he is pr(ess+ to e/abli%1 namely1 t ! conditions ( unit>y consci\sness are ! conditions ( all consci\sness4 ,! language1 h[ev]1 9 :i* ! doctr9e is exp\nd$ is extremely obscure & difficult2 & be=e comm5t+ ^u ,kant's own me?ods ( /atem5t1 x seems advisable to p>aphrase ! argum5t 9 a some:at free mann]1 & also to def] consid]ation ( ! transc5d5tal psy*ology :i* ,kant has employ$ 9 its exposition4#hih ,association c subsi/ only betwe5 ideas1 bo? ( :i* h occurr$ )9 ! same consci\s field4 ,n[ ! fundam5tal *>act]i/ic ( consci\sness1 ! v condition ( its exi/+ at all1 is its unity2 & until ?is has be5 recognis$1 !re c be no und]/&+ ( ! associative connection :i* arises "u ! conditions :i* consci\sness supplies4 ,to attempt to expla9 ! unity ( consci\sness ?r\gh ! me*anism ( association is to expla9 an ag5cy 9 t]ms ( c]ta9 ( its own effects4 ,x is to expla9 ! fundam5tal 9 t]ms ( ! d]ivative1 ! conditions 9 t]ms ( :at !y h !mselves made possible4 ,kant's argum5t is !re=e z foll[s4 ,ideas d n become associat$ m]ely by co-exi/+4 ,!y mu/ occur toge!r 9 a unit>y consci\sness2 & among ! conditions necess>y to ! possibility ( association are !re=e ! conditions ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,association is transc5d5tally gr\nd$4 ,s f> f acc\nt+ = ! unity ( consci\sness1 x presupposes ! latt] z det]m9+ ! conditions "u :i* alone x c come into play4 8444h[1 ,i ask1 is association itself possible8444 ,on my pr9ciples ! ?or\gh-go+ aff9ity ( appe>ances is easily explicable4 ,all possible appe>ances belong z repres5tations to ! totality ( a possible self-consci\sness4 ,b z ?is self-consci\sness is a transc5d5tal repres5tation1 num]ical id5tity is insep>able f x & is a priori c]ta94 ,= no?+ c come to our k save 9 t]ms ( ?is orig9al app]ception4 ,n[1 s9ce ?is id5tity mu/ necess>ily ent] into ! syn!sis ( all ! manifold ( appe>ances1 s f> z ! syn!sis is to yield empirical k1 ! appe>ances are subject to a priori conditions1 ) :i* ! syn!sis ( _! appreh5sion mu/ be 9 complete accordance4444 ,?us all appe>ances /& 9 a ?or\gh-go+ connection accord+ to necess>y laws1 & !re=e 9 a transc5d5tal aff9ity ( :i* ! empirical is a m]e consequ5ce40#hii ,9 o!r words1 repres5tations mu/ exi/ 9 consci\sness be=e !y c become associat$2 & !y c exi/ 9 consci\sness only if !y are consci\sly appreh5d$4 ,b 9 ord] to be consci\sly appreh5d$1 !y mu/ con=m to ! transc5d5tal conditions ^u :i* all consci\sness re/s2 & 9 be+ ?us appreh5d$ !y are set 9 ?or\ghgo+ unity to "o ano!r & to ! self4 ,!y are appreh5d$ z belong+ to an objective ord] or unity :i* is ! correlate ( ! unity ( self-consci\sness4 ,?is is :at ,kant entitles _! objective aff9ity2 x is :at conditions & makes possible _! associative or empirical connection4 ,?is ma9 po9t is v def9itely /at$ 9 ,a #aja4 8,if we c %[ t ev5 our pure/ a priori intuitions yield no k1 save 9 s f> z !y conta9 su* a connection ( ! manifold z w make possible a ?or\ghgo+ syn!sis ( reproduction1 ?is syn!sis ( ! imag9ation0 :i* acts ?r\gh ! ma*9]y ( association 8mu/ be gr\nd$1 prior to all exp]i5ce1 on a priori pr9ciples1 & s9ce exp]i5ce necess>ily presupposes t appe>ances c be reproduc$1 we %all h to assume a pure transc5d5tal syn!sis ( ! imag9ation0 i4e4 su* syn!sis z is involv$ 9 ! unity ( consci\sness 8z condition+ ev5 ! possibility ( all exp]i5ce40#ijj ,9 ,a #aba-b ,kant expresses 8 position 9 a m ambigu\s mann]4 ,he may seem to ! read] m]ely to be argu+ t a c]ta9 m9imum ( regul>ity is necess>y 9 ord] t repres5tations may be associat$1 & exp]i5ce may be possible4#ija ,b ! g5]al t5or ( ! passage z a :ole1 & especially its conclud+ s5t5ces1 en=ce ! /rong]1 m consi/5t1 !sis4 0,! subjective & empirical gr\nd ( reproduction accord+ to rules is nam$ ! association ( repres5tations4 ,if ?is unity ( association did n also h an objective gr\nd1 :i* makes x impossible t appe>ances %\ld be appreh5d$ by ! imag9ation except "u ! condition ( a possible syn!tic unity ( ?is appreh5sion1 x w\ld be entirely accid5tal t appe>ances %\ld fit into a connect$ :ole ( human k4 ,= ev5 ?\gh we _h ! p[] ( associat+ p]ceptions1 x w\ld rema9 entirely undet]m9$ & accid5tal :e!r !y w\ld !mselves be associable2 & %\ld !y n be associable1 !re might exi/ a multitude ( p]ceptions1 & inde$ an entire s5sibility1 9 :i* mu* empirical consci\sness w\ld arise 9 my m9d1 b 9 a /ate ( sep>ation1 & )\t belong+ to "o consci\sness ( myself4 ,t1 h[ev]1 is impossible4 ,= only 9 s f> z ,i ascribe all p]ceptions to "o consci\sness 7orig9al app]ception71 c ,i say 9 all p]ceptions t ,i am consci\s ( !m4 ,!re mu/ !re=e be an objective gr\nd 7t is1 "o t c be recognis$ a priori1 antec$5tly to all empirical laws ( ! imag9ation7 ^u :i* may re/ ! possibility1 nay ! necessity1 ( a law t ext5ds to all appe>ances44440 ,kant is n m]ely ass]t+ t ! associabl5ess ( ideas1 & ! regul>ity ( connection :i* t implies1 mu/ be po/ulat$ z a condition ( exp]i5ce4 ,t w\ld be a m]e begg+ ( ! issue2 ! correctness ( ! po/ulate w\ld n be indep5d5tly prov$4 ,kant is really ma9ta9+ ! mu* m important !sis1 t ! unity ( exp]i5ce1 i4e4 ( consci\sness1 is :at makes association possible at all4 ,& s9ce consci\sness mu/ be unit>y 9 ord] to exi/1 !re _c be any empirical consci\sness 9 :i* ! conditions ( association1 & !re=e ( reproduction1 are n to be f\nd4 ,a fur!r misund]/&+ is apt to be caus$ by ,kant's /atem5t t associative aff9ity re/s ^u objective aff9ity4 ,?is seems to imply1 9 ! same mann] z ! passage :i* we h j consid]$1 t in/ead ( prov+ t appe>ances are subject to law & ord]1 he is m]ely po/ulat+ t an abid+ gr\nd ( su* regul>ity mu/ exi/ 9 ! n\m5al conditions ( ! s5se manifold4 ,b he himself aga9 supplies ! ne$ful correction4 8,?is objective gr\nd ( all association ( appe>ances c n[h]e be f\nd1 except 9 ! pr9ciple ( ! unity ( app]ception 9 respect ( all =ms ( k :i* c belong to me4 ,9 accordance ) ?is pr9ciple all appe>ances mu/ s ent] ! m9d1 or be s appreh5d$1 t !y fit toge!r to con/itute ! unity ( app]ception4 ,?is w\ld be impossible )\t syn!tic unity 9 _! connection1 & t unity is !re=e also objectively necess>y4 ,! objective unity ( all empirical consci\sness 9 "o consci\sness1 t ( orig9al app]ception1 is !re=e ! necess>y condition ( all 7ev5 ( all possible7 p]ception2 & ! aff9ity ( all appe>ances1 ne> or remote1 is a necess>y consequ5ce ( a syn!sis 9 imag9ation :i* is gr\nd$ a priori on rules40#ijb ,! fundam5tal *>act]i/ic ( consci\sness is ! unifi$ =m 9 :i* alone x c exi/2 only :5 ?is unity is recognis$ z indisp5sably necess>y1 & !re=e z inv>iably pres5t :5ev] consci\sness exi/s at all1 c ! int]-relations ( ! cont5ts ( consci\sness be prop]ly def9$4 ,if ?is ma9 cont5tion ( ! ,critical tea*+ be accept$1 ,hume's associationi/ /&po9t is no long] t5able4 ,association _c be tak5 to be an ultimate & inexplicable prop]ty ( our m5tal /ates4 ,nor is x a prop]ty :i* c be reg>d$ z belong+ to pres5tations view$ z s _m indep5d5t exi/5ces4 ,x is condition$ by ! unity ( consci\sness1 & !re=e re/s ^u ! 8transc5d5tal0 conditions :i* ,critical analysis reveals4 ,s9ce ! unity ( consci\sness conditions association1 x _c be expla9$ z ! outcome & product ( ! me*anism ( association4 ,9 re/at+ ! objective d$uction 9 ! second edition1 ,kant has omitt$ all ref]5ce to ?is doctr9e ( objective aff9ity4 ,8 reasons = ?is omission 7 probably tw(old4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x has be5 exp\nd$ 9 t]ms ( a transc5d5tal psy*ology1 :i*1 z we %all f9d1 is conjectural 9 "*4 ,& secondly1 ! phrase 8objective aff9ity0 is1 z ,i h already po9t$ out1 decid$ly mislead+4 ,x seems to imply t ,kant is po/ulat+1 )\t indep5d5t pro(1 t n\m5al conditions mu/ be su* z to supply an ord]ly manifold ( s5se data4 ,b ?\gh ! doctr9e ( objective aff9ity is elim9at$1 its place is to "s ext5t tak5#ijc by ! pro( t all appreh5sion is an act ( judgm5t & !re=e involves factors :i* _c be r$uc$ to1 or expla9$ 9 t]ms (1 association4 ,!re are a numb] ( po9ts 9 ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition :i* call = fur!r explanatory & critical comm5t4 ,! fir/ ( ^! conc]ns ! some:at mislead+ "* ( ! t]m a priori z appli$ to ! categories4 ,x c>ries ) x rationali/ic associations to :i* ! ,critical /&po9t1 prop]ly und]/ood1 yields no support4 ,! categories are = ,kant ( m]ely de facto nature4 ,!y h no intr9sic validity4 ,!y are prov$ only z be+ ! indisp5sable conditions ( :at is be=e ! m9d z brute fact1 namely1 consci\s exp]i5ce4 ,by ! a priori is meant m]ely ^? relational factors :i* are requir$ to supplem5t ! giv5 manifold 9 ord] to con/itute our actual consci\sness4 ,&1 z ,kant is c>eful to po9t out1 ! exp]i5ce1 z conditions ( :i* _! validity is ?us e/abli%$1 is ( a highly specific "*1 re/+ ^u syn!sis ( a manifold giv5 9 space & "t4 ,t is to say1 _! indisp5sabl5ess is prov$ only = a consci\sness :i* 9 ^! fundam5tal respects is con/itut$ l our own4#ijd ,& secondly1 ! validity ( ! a priori categories1 ev5 9 our human ?9k+1 is e/abli%$ only 9 ref]5ce to t empirical _w :i* is con/ruct$ out ( ! giv5 manifold 9 t]ms ( ! intuitive =ms1 space & "t4 ,_! validity is a m]ely ph5om5al validity4 ,!y are valid ( appe>ances1 b n ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! a priori is ?us d\bly de facto3 fir/ z a condition ( brute fact1 namely1 ! actuality ( our human consci\sness2 & secondly1 z condition+ a consci\sness ^: k is limit$ to appe>ances4 ,x is a relative1 n an absolute a priori4 ,acceptance ( x does n1 !re=e1 commit u to rationalism 9 ! ord9>y mean+ ( t t]m4 ,its cr$5tials are conf]r$ ^u x by :at is m]e fact2 x does n repres5t an ord] sup]ior to ! actual & legislative = x4 ,9 o!r words1 x is ,critical1 n ,leibnizian 9 "*4 ,no transc5d5t metaphysics c be bas$ ^u x4 ,9 =mulat+ ?is doctr9e ( ! a priori z yield+ objective insight & yet z limit$ 9 ! sph]e ( its application1 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason m>ks an epo* 9 ! hi/ory ( scepticism1 no less ?an 9 ! developm5t ( ,ideali/ tea*+4 ,!re is "o important l9k 9 ! d$uction1 z above giv51 :i* is h>dly calculat$ to support ! conclusions t dep5d ^u x4 ,kant1 z we h already not$1#ije ass]ts t ! categories express ! m9imum ( unity necess>y = ! possibility ( app]ception4 ,a cont5tion s ess5tial to ! argum5t calls = ! mo/ c>eful scrut9y & a meticul\s exactitude ( pro(4 ,z a matt] ( fact1 su* pro( is n to be f\nd 9 any "p ( ! d$uctions1 :e!r ( ! fir/ or ( ! second editions4 ,x is attempt$ only 9 ! lat] sections on ! ,pr9ciples ( ,und]/&+1 & ev5 !re x is develop$1 9 any really satisfactory fa%ion1 only 9 reg>d to ! categories ( causality & reciprocity4#ijf ,?is pro(1 h[ev]1 z !re giv51 is an argum5t :i* 9 orig9ality1 subtlety & =ce goes f> to atone = all %ortcom+s4 ,x completes ! objective d$uction by develop+ 9 ma/]ly fa%ion 79 spite ( ! diffuse & ill-arrang$ "* ( ! text7 ! c5tral cont5tion = :i* ! d$uction /&s4 ,b 9 ! transc5d5tal d$uction itself1 we f9d only su* an argum5t--if x may be call$ an argum5t--z foll[s f ! id5tification ( app]ception ) und]/&+4 8,! unity ( app]ception1 9 relation to ! syn!sis ( imag9ation1 is ! und]/&+4444 ,9 und]/&+ !re are pure a priori =ms ( k :i* conta9 ! necess>y unity ( pure syn!sis ( imag9ation 9 respect ( all possible appe>ances4 ,b ^! are ! categories1 i4e4 pure concepts ( und]/&+40#ijg ,! po9t is aga9 m]ely assum$ 9 ,a #abe-f4 ,s also 9 ,a #abf3 8,al?\gh ?r\gh exp]i5ce we le>n _m laws1 ^! are only special det]m9ations ( /ill high] laws1 ( :i* ! highe/1 "u :i* all o!rs /&1 orig9ate a priori 9 ! und]/&+ itself44440#ijh ,aga9 9 ,a #abi x is argu$ t z we prescribe a priori rules to :i* all exp]i5ce mu/ con=m1 ^? rules _c be d]iv$ f exp]i5ce1 b mu/ prec$e & condition x1 & c d s only z orig9at+ f ourselves 7aus uns selb/74 0,!y prec$e all k ( ! object z _! intellectual =m1 & con/itute a =mal a priori k ( all objects 9 s f> z !y are ?\ght 7categories740 ,b ?is is only to repeat t su* =ms ( unity z are necess>y to self-consci\sness mu/ be realis$ 9 all syn!sis4 ,x is no suffici5t pro( t ^? =ms ( relation co9cide ) ! categories4 ,z we %all f9d 9 consid]+ ! d$uction ( ! second edition1 ,kant to "s ext5t came to recognise ! exi/5ce ( ?is gap 9 8 argum5t & s\ght to supply ! miss+ /eps4 ,b 8 me?od ( s do+ /ill ultimately consi/s 9 an appeal to ! results ( ! metaphysical d$uction1 & !re=e re/s ^u 8 unt5able belief 9 ! adequacy ( =mal logic4 ,x fails to obviate ! objection 9 any satisfactory mann]4 ,z reg>ds ! negative aspect ( ! conclusion rea*$--t ! validity ( ! categories is e/abli%$ only = appe>ances--,kant ma9ta9s t ?is is a necess>y coroll>y ( _! validity be+ a priori4 ,t ?+s 9 !mselves mu/ con=m to ! conditions dem&$ by ! nature ( our self-consci\sness is altoge!r impossible ( pro(4 ,ev5 grant+1 :at is inde$ q possible1 t ?+s 9 !mselves embody ! pure =ms ( und]/&+1 we /ill _c h any gr\nd = ma9ta9+ t !y mu/ d s ( necessity & w be f\nd to d s univ]sally4 ,= ev5 if we c\ld directly exp]i5ce ?+s 9 !mselves1 & appreh5d !m z con=m+ to ! categories1 su* con=mity w\ld /ill be kn[n only z cont+5t4 ,b :5 x is recognis$ t nature consi/s = u ( no?+ b appe>ances1 exi/+ only 9 ! mode 9 :i* !y are exp]i5c$1 & !re=e z necess>ily con=m+ to ! conditions "u :i* exp]i5ce is alone possible1 ! p>adoxical aspect ( ! apriority ascrib$ to ! categories at once vani%es4 ,pro( ( _! a priori validity presupposes ! ph5om5al "* ( ! objects to :i* !y apply4 ,!y c be prov$ to be univ]sal & necess>ily valid ( objects only 9 s f> z x c be %[n t !y h antec$5tly condition$ & con/itut$ !m4 ,! sole suffici5t reason = ass]t+ !m to be univ]sally valid ?r\gh\t exp]i5ce is t !y are indisp5sably necess>y = r5d]+ x possible4#iji ,! transc5d5tal me?od ( pro(1 i4e4 pro( by ref]5ce to ! v possibility ( exp]i5ce1 is = ?is reason1 z ,kant s ju/ly emphasises1 ! sole type ( argum5t capable ( fulfill+ ! dem&s :i* h to be met4 ,x presupposes1 & itself en=ces1 ! tru? ( ! fundam5tal ,critical di/9ction betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,kant entitles ! unity ( app]ception orig9al 7ursprngli*72#iaj & we may n[ consid] h[ f> & 9 :at s5se ?is title is applicable4#iaa ,f ! po9t ( view ( me?od !re is ! same ju/ification = employ+ ! t]m #8orig9al' z = entitl+ ! unity ( app]ception transc5d5tal4#iab ,self-consci\sness is m fundam5tal or orig9al ?an consci\sness ( objects1 9 s f> z#iac x is only f ! subjective /&po9t :i* x repres5ts t ! objective d$uction c demon/rate ! necessity ( syn!sis1 & ! empirical validity ( ! pure =ms ( und]/&+4 ,x is z a condition ( ! possibility ( self-consci\sness t ! objective employm5t ( ! categories is prov$ to be legitimate4 ,9 ! developm5t ( ! d$uction self-consci\sness is1 !re=e1 m orig9al ?an consci\sness ( objects4 ,kant's employm5t ( ! t]m is1 h[ev]1 extremely mislead+4 ,= x w\ld seem to imply t ! self has be5 prov$ to be orig9al or ultimate 9 an ontological s5se1 z if x prec$$ exp]i5ce1 & ?r\gh its antec$5t reality r5d]$ objective exp]i5ce possible ( a*ievem5t4 ,su* a view is und\bt$ly re9=c$ by ,kant's trans=mation ( app]ception into a faculty--das ,radicalv]mg5 all] unsr] ,erk5ntniss#iad--;& 8 consequ5t id5tification ( x ) ! und]/&+4#iae ,x !n seems z if he 7 ma9ta9+ t ! transc5d5tal ego is ultimate & is indep5d5t ( all conditions1 & t to its syn!tic activities ! v>i\s =ms ( objective consci\sness are due4#iaf ,?is un=tunate phraseology is directly traceable to ! spirituali/ic or ,leibnizian "* ( ,kant's e>li] /&po9t4 ,9 ! ,diss]tation ! self is view$ z an ultimate & uncondition$ exi/5ce1 antec$5t to exp]i5ce & creatively g5]ative ( x4 ,we h already not$ t a some:at simil> view is pres5t$ 9 ! ,critique 9 ^? p>agraphs :i* ,vaih+] id5tifies z embody+ ! e>lie/ /age 9 ! developm5t ( ! argum5t ( ! d$uction4 ,! self is !re describ$ z com+ to consci\sness ( its p]man5ce ?r\gh reflection ^u ! con/ancy ( its own syn!tic activities4 ,our consci\sness ( a transc5d5tal object1 & ev5 ! possibility ( ! empirical concepts ?r\gh :i* su* consci\sness is1 9 ^! p>agraphs1 suppos$ to be m$iat$1 are trac$ to ?is same s\rce4 ,to ! la/ ?is initial excess ( emphasis ^u ! unity ( app]ception rema9$ *>act]i/ic ( ,kant's ,critical tea*+2 & ?\gh 9 ! lat] /atem5ts ( 8 !ory1 its p[]s & pr]ogatives 7 v greatly dim9i%$1 x /ill cont9u$ to play a some:at exagg]at$ rle4 ,! e>ly spirituali/ic views 7 embodi$ 9 a t]m9ology :i* he cont9u$ to employ2 & unless ! alt]$ mean+ ( 8 t]ms is recognis$ & all[$ =1 misund]/&+ is b\nd to result4 ,! t]ms1 hav+ be5 =g$ "u ! influ5ce ( ! old] views1 are b ill adapt$ to ! new] tea*+ :i* !y are employ$ to =mulate4 ,!re 0 also a second influ5ce at "w4 ,:5 ,kant 0 con/ra9$ 9 ! light ( 8 new & unexpect$ results to recognise 8 old] views z lack+ 9 !oretical ju/ification1 he /ill held to !m 9 8 own p]sonal ?9k+4 ,= !re is ample evid5ce t !y cont9u$ to repres5t 8 ,privatme9ung54#iag ,only1 !re=e1 :5 ^! mislead+ influ5ces1 v]bal1 expository1 & p]sonal1 are disc\nt$1 d ! results ( ! d$uction appe> 9 _! true proportions4 ,kant's ,critical philosophy does n pr(ess to prove t x is self-consci\sness1 or app]ception1 or a transc5d5tal ego1 or any?+ describable 9 k9dr$ t]ms1 :i* ultimately r5d]s exp]i5ce possible4 ,! mo/ t we c legitimately po/ulate1 z n\m5ally condition+ exp]i5ce1 are 8syn!ses0 7!mselves1 9 _! g5]ative "*1 n def9able7#iah 9 accordance ) ! categories4 ,= only ^u ! completion ( su* syn!ses d consci\sness ( self & consci\sness ( objects come to exi/4 ,consci\sness ( objects does1 inde$1 accord+ to ! argum5t ( ! d$uction1 involve consci\sness ( self2 self-consci\sness is ! =m ( all consci\sness4 ,b1 by ! same argum5t1 x is equally true t only 9 & ?r\gh consci\sness ( objects is any self-consci\sness possible at all4 ,consci\sness ( self & consci\sness ( objects mutually condition "o ano!r4 ,only ?r\gh consci\sness ( bo? simultane\sly c consci\sness ( ei!r be atta9$4 ,self-consci\sness is n demon/rably 9 itself any m ultimate or orig9al ?an is consci\sness ( objects4 ,bo? alike are =ms ( exp]i5ce :i* are condition$ 9 complex ways4 ,^u ! "q z to :e!r or n !re is any su* ?+ z abid+ p]sonality1 ! transc5d5tal d$uction ca/s no direct light4 ,inde$ consci\sness ( self1 z ! m inclusive & complex =m ( aw>5ess1 may p]haps be reg>d$ z po9t+ to a great] v>iety ( contributory & g5]ative conditions4 ,un=tunately ,kant1 = ! reasons j /at$1 has n suffici5tly emphasis$ ?is m negative1 or r noncommittal1 aspect ( ! results ( ! d$uction4 ,b :5 lat] 9 ! *apt] on ! ,p>alogisms he is br\ght face to face ) ! issue1 & has occasion to pron\nce ^u ! "q1 he speaks ) no unc]ta9 voice4 ,9 ! !oretical sph]e !re is1 he decl>es1 no suffici5t pro( ( ! spirituality1 or unit>y & ultimate "*1 ( ! self4 ,l ev]y?+ else ! unity ( app]ception mu/ be n\m5ally condition$1 b x _c be %[n t 9 itself1 z self-consci\sness or app]ception1 x repres5ts any n\m5al reality4 ,x may be a resultant1 re/+ ^u1 & due to1 a complexity ( g5]ative conditions2 & ^! conditions may be fundam5tally diff]5t 9 "* f itself4 ,!y may1 = all t we c prove to ! contr>y1 be ( a non-consci\s & non-p]sonal nature4 ,!re is no?+ 9 our cognitive exp]i5ce1 & no result ( ! ,critical analysis ( x1 :i* is inconsi/5t ) su* a possibility4#iai ,^? comm5tators1 su* z ,coh51 ,caird1 & ,watson1 :o m or less foll[ ,hegel 9 8 criticism ( ,kant's proc$ure1 give an int]pretation ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction :i* makes x inconsi/5t ) ! sceptical conclusions :i* ! ,critique z a :ole is made by its au?or to support4 ,unbiass$ /udy ( ! ,analytic1 ev5 if tak5 by itself 9 indep5d5ce ( ! ,dialectic1 does n fav\r su* a view4 ,! argum5t ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction itself ju/ifies no m ?an ,kant is will+ to all[ 9 8 discussion ( ! nature ( ! self 9 ! section on ! ,p>alogisms4 ,x may1 inde$1 z ,caird has s =cibly %[n 9 8 massive "w ^u ! ,critical philosophy1 be develop$ ^u ,hegelian l9es1 b only ?r\gh a process ( ess5tial recon/ruction :i* dep>ts v f> f _m ( ,kant's mo/ *]i%$ t5ets1 & :i* does s 9 a _s t radically conflicts ) t :i* dom9ates ! ,critique z a :ole4 ,,! ,,lat] ,,/ages ,,( ,,! ,,subjective ,,d$uction ,! read] w h not$ t sev]al ( ! factors 9 ,kant's exposition h s f> be5 entirely ignor$4 ,! "t has n[ come = reckon+ ) !m4 ,!y con/itute1 9 my view1 ! lat] /ages ( ! subjective d$uction4 ,t is to say1 !y ref] to ! transc5d5tal g5]ative p[]s :i* ,kant1 on ! /r5g? ( ! results obta9$ 9 ! m objective enquiry1 feels ju/ifi$ 9 po/ulat+4 ,sep>ate consid]ation ( !m t5ds to cle>ness ( /atem5t4 ,kant's con/ant alt]nation betwe5 ! logical & ! dynamical /&po9ts is "o ( ! _m causes ( ! obscurity 9 8 argum5t4 ,9 ?is connection we %all also f9d opportunity to discuss ! fundam5tal conflict1 to :i* ,i h already _h occasion to ref]1 betwe5 ! subjectivi/ & ! ph5om5ali/ modes ( develop+ ! ,critical /&po9t4 ,! conclusions arriv$ at 9 ! objective d$uction compell$ ,kant to revise 8 previ\s psy*ological views4 ,hi!rto he _h held to ! ,leibnizian !ory t a priori concepts are obta9$ by reflection ^u ! m9d's native & fundam5tal modes ( action4 ,9 ! ,diss]tation he c>efully di/+ui%es betwe5 ! logical & ! real employm5t ( ! und]/&+4 ,?r\gh ! =m] empirical concepts are d]iv$ f concrete exp]i5ce4 ,?r\gh ! latt] pure concepts are creatively g5]at$4 ,logical & real ?9k+ agree1 h[ev]1 ,kant !re argues1 9 be+ activities ( ! consci\s m9d4 ,bo? c be appreh5d$ & adequately det]m9$ ?r\gh ! reveal+ p[] ( reflective consci\sness4 ,su* a /&po9t is no long] t5able = ,kant4 ,n[ t he has %[n t ! consci\sness ( self & ! consci\sness ( objects mutually condition "o ano!r1 & t until bo? are atta9$ nei!r is possible1 he c no long] reg>d ! m9d z ev5 possibly consci\s ( ! activities :]eby exp]i5ce is br\ght ab\t4 ,! activities g5]ative ( consci\sness h to be recognis$ z !mselves fall+ outside x4 ,n ev5 9 its p5umbra1 ?r\gh "s vague =m ( appreh5sion1 c !y be detect$4 ,only ! f9i%$ products ( su* activities1 n ! activities !mselves1 c be pres5t$ to consci\sness2 & only by g5]al reason+1 inf]5tial ( ag5cies t lie outside ! consci\s field1 c we hope to det]m9e !m4 ,n[ ,kant appe>s to h be5 unwill+ to reg>d ! #8und]/&+' z ev] unconsci\s ( its activities4 ,:y he 0 unwill+1 x does n seem possible to expla92 at mo/ 8 rationali/ lean+s & ,wolffian tra9+ may be cit$ z contribut+ causes4 ,to ! end he cont9u$ to speak ( ! und]/&+ z ! faculty :]eby ! a priori is br\ght to consci\sness4 ,9 ord] to develop ! di/9ctions dem&$ by ! new ,critical attitude1 he _h !re=e to introduce a new faculty1 capable ( tak+ ov] ! activities :i* h to be recognis$ z non-consci\s4 ,= ?is purpose he select$ ! imag9ation1 giv+ to x ! special title1 productive imag9ation4 ,! empirical reproductive processes hi!rto alone recognis$ by psy*ologi/s are n1 he decl>es1 exhau/ive ( ! nature ( ! imag9ation4 ,x is also capable ( transc5d5tal activity1 & ^u ?is ! 8objective aff9ity0 ( appe>ances & ! result+ possibility ( _! empirical appreh5sion is made to re/4 ,! productive imag9ation is also view$ z r5d]+ possible ! und]/&+1 t is1 ! consci\s appreh5sion ( ! a priori z an elem5t emb$d$ 9 objective exp]i5ce4 ,su* appreh5sion is possible because 9 ! pre-consci\s elaboration ( ! giv5 manifold ! productive imag9ation has con=m$ to ^? a priori pr9ciples :i* ! und]/&+ dem&s = ! possibility ( its own ex]cise 9 consci\s appreh5sion4 ,productive imag9ation acts 9 ! mann] requir$ to yield exp]i5ces :i* are capable ( relation to ! unity ( self-consci\sness1 i4e4 ( be+ f\nd to con=m to ! unity ( ! categories4 ,:y x %\ld act 9 ?is mann] _c be expla9$2 b x is none ! less1 on ,critical pr9ciples1 a legitimate assumption1 s9ce only 9 s f> z x does s c exp]i5ce1 :i* de facto exi/s1 be possible 9 any =m4 ,z a condition s9e qua non ( actual & possible exp]i5ce1 ! exi/5ce ( su* a faculty is1 ,kant argues1 a legitimate inf]5ce f ! results ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,?\gh ,kant's insi/5ce ^u ! consci\s "* ( und]/&+ compels him to di/+ui% betwe5 x & ! imag9ation1 he has also to recognise _! k9%ip4 ,if imag9ation c nev] act save 9 con=mity ) ! a priori =ms ( und]/&+1 "s reason mu/ exi/ = _! h>mony4 ,?is tw(old necessity ( at once di/+ui%+ & connect+ !m is ! cause ( ! hesitat+ & extremely v>iable acc\nt :i* 9 bo? editions ( ! ,critique is giv5 ( _! relation4 ,9 sev]al passages ! und]/&+ is spok5 ( z simply imag9ation :i* has atta9$ to consci\sness ( its activities4#ibj ,else:]e he explicitly /ates t !y are di/9ct & sep>ate4 ,f ?is second po9t ( view ,kant reg>ds imag9ation z m$iat+ betwe5 s5se & und]/&+1 &1 ?\gh r$ucible to nei!r1 ak9 to bo?4 ,only on "o po9t is ,kant cle> & def9ite1 namely1 t x is to productive imag9ation t ! g5]ation ( unifi$ exp]i5ce is prim>ily due4 ,9 x some?+ ( ! fruitful & inexhau/ible "* ( n\m5al reality is traceable4 ,d\btless "o *ief reason = 8 *oice ( ! title imag9ation is ! creative "* :i* 9 popul> ?\ght has always be5 reg>d$ z its ess5tial feature4 ,z ,kant1 speak+ ( s*ematism1 :i* is a process execut$ by ! imag9ation1 /ates 9 ,a #ada3 8,?is s*ematism 444 is an art 7,kun/7 conceal$ 9 ! dep?s ( ! human s\l40#iba ,?is description may p]haps be int]pret$ 9 ! light ( ,kant's acc\nt ( ! creative "* ( arti/ic g5ius 9 ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 = !re also imag9ation figures z ! truly orig9ative or creative faculty ( ! human _s4 ,to its n\m5al "* we may also trace its capacity ( comb9+ ^? factors ( s5se & und]/&+ :i* 9 ! realm ( appe>ance rema9 p]si/5tly oppos$4#ibb ,imag9ation diff]s f ! und]/&+ *iefly 9 t x is at once m compreh5sive & also m truly creative4 ,x supplem5ts ! functional =ms ) a s5su\s cont5t1 & applies !m dynamically 9 ! g5]ation ( exp]i5ce4 ,! s*emata1 :i* ! productive imag9ation is suppos$ to con/ruct1 are ^? g5]alis$ =ms ( temporal & spatial exi/5ce 9 :i* alone ! unity ( exp]i5ce necess>y to app]ception c be realis$4 ,!y are 8pure 7)\t admixture ( any?+ empirical71 & yet are 9 "o aspect intellectual & 9 ano!r s5su\s40#ibc ,or z ,kant describes ! process 9 ! *apt] be=e u3#ibd 8,we "n ! syn!sis ( ! manifold 9 imag9ation transc5d5tal1 if )\t di/9ction ( intuitions x is direct$ exclusively to ! a priori comb9ation ( ! manifold2 & ! unity ( ?is syn!sis is entitl$ transc5d5tal1 if x is repres5t$ z a priori necess>y 9 relation to ! orig9al unity ( app]ception4 ,z ?is unity ( app]ception conditions ! possibility ( all k1 ! transc5d5tal unity ( ! syn!sis ( imag9ation is ! pure =m ( all possible k4 ,h5ce1 ?r\gh x all objects ( possible exp]i5ce mu/ be repres5t$ a priori40 ,! s*emata1 ?us transc5d5tally g5]at$1 are repres5t$ by ,kant z limit+ & controll+ ! empirical processes ( appreh5sion1 reproduction1 & recognition4 ,z no exp]i5ce is atta9able save 9 t]ms ( ! s*emata1 !y enable u to det]m9e1 on a priori gr\nds1 ! degree ( con/ancy & regul>ity t c be securely c\nt$ ^u 9 all exp]i5ce4 ,?is is ,kant's psy*ological explanation ( :at he has entitl$ 8objective aff9ity40#ibe ,! empirical gr\nd ( reproduction is ! association ( ideas2 its transc5d5tal gr\nd is an objective aff9ity :i* is 8a necess>y consequ5ce ( a syn!sis 9 imag9ation1 gr\nd$ a priori on rules40#ibf 0,! subjective & empirical gr\nd ( reproduction accord+ to rules is nam$ ! association ( repres5tations4 ,if ?is unity ( association did n also h an objective gr\nd1 :i* makes x impossible t appe>ances %\ld be appreh5d$ by ! imag9ation except "u ! condition ( a possible syn!tic unity ( ?is appreh5sion1 x w\ld be entirely accid5tal t appe>ances %\ld fit into a connect$ :ole ( human k4444 ,!re might exi/ a multitude ( p]ceptions1 & inde$ an entire s5sibility1 9 :i* mu* empirical consci\sness w\ld arise 9 my m9d1 b 9 a /ate ( sep>ation1 & )\t belong+ to "o consci\sness ( myself4 ,t1 h[ev]1 is impossible40 ,z ! subjective & objective d$uctions h demon/rat$1 :]e !re is no self-consci\sness !re is no consci\sness ( any k9d4 8,!re mu/ !re=e be an objective gr\nd 7t is1 "o t c be det]m9$ a priori1 antec$5tly to all empirical laws ( ! imag9ation7 ^u :i* may re/ ! possibility1 nay1 ! necessity ( a law t ext5ds to all appe>ances--! law1 namely1 t all appe>ances mu/ be reg>d$ z data ( ! s5ses :i* are associable 9 !mselves & subject to g5]al rules ( univ]sal connection 9 _! reproduction4 ,?is objective gr\nd ( all association ( appe>ances ,i entitle _! aff9ity4444 ,! objective unity ( all empirical consci\sness 9 "o consci\sness1 t ( orig9al app]ception1 is ! necess>y condition ( all possible p]ception2 & ! aff9ity ( all appe>ances1 ne> or remote1 is a necess>y consequ5ce ( a syn!sis 9 imag9ation :i* is gr\nd$ a priori on rules40#ibg ,?is "p ( ,kant's tea*+ is apt to seem m obscure ?an x is4 ,= ! read] is n unnaturally dis9cl9$ to accept x 9 ! v lit]al s5se 9 :i* x is /at$4 ,t ,kant means1 h[ev]1 exactly :at he says1 appe>s f ! fur!r consequ5ce :i* he himself n only recognises z necess>y1 b insi/s ^u z valid4 ,! doctr9e ( objective aff9ity culm9ates 9 ! conclusion#ibh t x is 8we ourselves :o introduce into ! appe>ances t ord] & regul>ity :i* we "n nature40 ,! 8we ourselves0 ref]s to ! m9d 9 ! transc5d5tal activities ( ! productive imag9ation4 ,! consci\s processes ( appreh5sion1 reproduction1 & recognition necess>ily con=m to s*emata1 non-consci\sly g5]at$1 :i* express ! comb9$ a priori conditions ( intuition & und]/&+ requir$ = unit>y consci\sness4 ,_m po9ts 9 ?is /range doctr9e call = consid]ation4 ,x re/s1 9 ! fir/ place1 ^u ! assumption ( a h>d & fa/ di/9ction1 v difficult ( acceptance1 betwe5 transc5d5tal & empirical activities ( ! m9d4 ,secondly1 ,kant's ass]tion1 t ! empirical manifolds c be reli$ ^u to supply a satisfactory cont5t = ! s*emata1 calls = m adequate ju/ification ?an he himself adduces4 ,x is ^u indep5d5t reality t ! fixity ( empirical co-exi/5ces & sequ5ces dep5ds4 ,is n ,kant practically assum+ a pre-e/abli%$ h>mony 9 ass]t+ t z ! m9d creates ! =m ( nature x c legislate a priori = all possible exp]i5ce8 ,z reg>ds ! fir/ assumption ,kant w\ld seem to h be5 influ5c$ by ! ambiguities ( ! t]m transc5d5tal4 ,x means1 z we h already not$1#ibi ei!r ! sci5ce ( ! a priori1 or ! a priori itself1 or ! conditions :i* r5d] exp]i5ce possible4 ,ev5 ! two latt] mean+s by no means co9cide4 ,! conditions ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce are n 9 all cases a priori4 ,! manifold ( out] s5se is z indisp5sable a precondition ( exp]i5ce z are ! =ms ( und]/&+1 & yet is n a priori 9 any valid s5se ( t t]m4 ,x does n1 !re=e1 foll[ t because ! activities ( productive imag9ation 8transc5d5tally0 condition exp]i5ce1 !y mu/ !mselves be a priori1 & mu/1 z ,kant also ma9ta9s1#icj deal ) a pure a priori manifold4 ,fur!r1 ! sep>ation betwe5 transc5d5tal & empirical activities ( ! m9d mu/ defeat ! v purpose = :i* ! productive imag9ation is po/ulat$1 namely1 9 ord] to acc\nt = ! g5]ation ( a complex consci\sness 9 :i* no "o elem5t c temporally prec$e any ( ! o!rs4 ,if ! productive imag9ation g5]ates only s*emata1 x w n acc\nt = t complex exp]i5ce 9 :i* consci\sness ( self & consci\sness ( objects are indissolubly unit$4 ,! introduction ( ! productive imag9ation seems at fir/ sight to promise recognition ( ! dynamical aspect ( our temporally sequ5t exp]i5ce1 & ( t aspect 9 :i* z appe>ance x ref]s u beyond itself to non-exp]i5c$ conditions4 ,z employ$1 h[ev]1 9 ! doctr9es ( s*ematism & ( objective aff9ity1 ! imag9ation exhibits a =malism h>dly less extreme ?an t ( ! und]/&+ ^: %ortcom+s x is suppos$ to make good4 ,9 8 second assumption ,kant1 z s (t5 9 ! ,critique1 is all[+ 8 old-"t rationali/ic lean+s to influ5ce him 9 und]e/imat+ ! l>ge "p :i* ! purely empirical mu/ always occupy 9 human exp]i5ce1 & 9 exagg]at+ ! scope ( ! inf]5ces :i* c be drawn f ! pres5ce ( ! =mal1 relational factors4 ,b ?is is a po9t :i* we are n yet 9 a position to discuss4#ica ,=tunately1 if ,vaih+]'s !ory be accept$1#icb section ,a #ih-ajd enables u to foll[ ! movem5t ( ,kant's m9d 9 ! int]val betwe5 ! =mulat+ ( ! doctr9e ( productive imag9ation & ! publication ( ! ,critique4 ,he himself w\ld seem to h recognis$ ! unsatisfactor9ess ( divid+ up ! total conditions ( exp]i5ce into transc5d5tal activities t issue 9 s*emata1 & supplem5t>y empirical processes :i* trans=m !m into concrete1 specific consci\sness4 ,! alt]native !ory :i* he proce$s to prop\nd is at fir/ sight mu* m satisfactory4 ,x consi/s 9 duplicat+ ea* ( ! v>i\s empirical processes ) a transc5d5tal faculty4 ,!re are1 he n[ decl>es1 ?ree transc5d5tal p[]s--a transc5d5tal faculty ( appreh5sion1 a transc5d5tal faculty ( reproduction 7imag9ation71 & a transc5d5tal faculty ( recognition4 ,?us ,kant's previ\s view t transc5d5tal imag9ation has a special & unique activity1 namely1 ! productive1 altoge!r diff]5t 9 type f any ( its empirical processes1 is n[ all[$ to drop2 9 place ( x ,kant develops ! view t ! transc5d5tal functions run exactly p>allel ) ! empirical processes4#icc ,b ?\gh su* a position may at fir/ seem m promis+ ?an t :i* x displaces1 x soon reveals its unsatisfactor9ess4 ,! two types ( m5tal activity1 transc5d5tal & empirical1 no long]1 inde$1 fall ap>t2 b ! difficulty n[ arises ( di/+ui%+ 9 appreh5sion1 reproduction1 & recognition any g5u9ely transc5d5tal aspect4#icd ,appreh5sion1 reproduction1 & recognition are s ess5tially consci\s processes t to view !m z also transc5d5tal does n seem helpful4 ,!y conta9 elem5ts t are transc5d5tal 9 ! logical s5se1 b _c be %[n to presuppose 9 any analog\s fa%ion m5tal p[]s t are transc5d5tal 9 ! dynamical s5se4 ,?is is especially evid5t 9 reg>d to recognition1 :i* is describ$ z be+ 8! consci\sness t :at we are ?9k+ is ! same z :at we ?\ght a mom5t be=e40 ,9 deal+ ) appreh5sion & reproduction ! only real diff]5ce :i* ,kant is able to sugge/1 z exi/+ betwe5 _! transc5d5tal & _! empirical activities1 is t ! =m] syn!sise ! pure a priori manifolds ( space & "t1 & ! latt] ! cont+5t manifold ( s5se4 ,b ev5 ?is unsatisfactory di/9ction he does n attempt to apply 9 ! case ( recognition4 ,nor c we hold t by ! transc5d5tal syn!sis ( recognition ,kant means transc5d5tal app]ception4 ,t is1 ( c\rse1 ! sugge/ion :i* at once occurs to ! read]4 ,b h[ev] possible x might be to inject su* a mean+ into k9dr$ passages else:]e1 x _c be made to fit ! context ( ?is p>ticul> section4 ,vaih+]'s !ory seems to be ! only ?read :i* w guide u ?r\gh ?is labyr9?4 ,kant1 on ! eve ( ! publication ( ! ,critique1 recognis+ ! unsatisfactor9ess ( 8 h>d & fa/ sep>ation ( transc5d5tal f empirical processes1 adopt$ ! view t "s =m ( transc5d5tal activity corresponds to e fundam5tal =m ( empirical activity & vice v]sa4 ,ha/ily develop+ ?is !ory1 he incorporat$ x into ! ,critique alongside 8 old] doctr9e4 ,x does n1 h[ev]1 reappe> 9 ! ,prolegom5a1 & its tea*+ is explicitly )drawn 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique4 ,its plausibility _h entrapp$ him into its tempor>y adoption1 b ! defects :i* x v soon reveal$ spe$ily l$ him to reject x4 ,"o feature ( great significance calls = special notice4 ,! breakd[n ( ?is doctr9e ( a ?reefold transc5d5tal syn!sis did n1 z might naturally h be5 expect$ f :at is /at$ 9 ! prefaces to ! ,critique reg>d+ ! uness5tial & seem+ly conjectural "* ( ! subjective d$uction1 lead ,kant to despair ( develop+ a transc5d5tal psy*ology4 ,?\gh 9 ! second edition he cuts away ! sections conta9+ ! e>li] /ages ( ! subjective d$uction1#ice & 9 reca/+ ! o!r sections gives great] prom95ce to ! m purely logical analyses1 ! old] doctr9e ( productive imag9ation is re9/at$ 9 full =ce1#icf & is aga9 develop$ 9#icg connection ) ! doctr9e ( pure a priori manifolds4 ,evid5tly1 !re=e1 ,kant 0 n di%e>t5$ by ! v>i\s difficulties :i* lie 9 ! pa? ( a transc5d5tal psy*ology1 & x seems reasonable to conclude t !re 7 p[]ful reasons incl9+ him to its ret5tion4 ,i %all n[ attempt1 to ! be/ ( my p[]s1 to expla9--! task is a delicate & difficult "o--:at we may believe ^! reasons to h be54#ich ,,! ,,di/9ction ,,betwe5 ,,ph5om5alism ,,& ,,subjectivism ,a wid] set ( consid]ations ?an we h yet tak5 into acc\nt mu/ be borne 9 m9d if c]ta9 broad] & really vital implications ( ,kant's enquiry are to be prop]ly view$4 ,! self has a tw(old aspect4 ,x is at once animal 9 its conditions & pot5tially univ]sal 9 its p[]s ( appreh5sion4 ,?\gh man's natural exi/5ce is t ( an animal organism1 he c h consci\sness ( ! spatial _w out ( :i* 8 organism has aris51 & ( ! wid] p]iods )9 :i* 8 transitory exi/5ce falls4 ,ultimately su* consci\sness w\ld seem to connect man cognitively ) reality z a :ole4 ,n[ x is to ?is univ]sal or absoluti/ aspect ( our consci\sness1 to its transc5d5ce ( ! embodi$ & sep>ate self1 t ,kant is seek+ to d ju/ice 9 8 transc5d5tal d$uctions1 especially 9 8 doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal unity ( app]ception4 ,= he views t app]ception z condition$ by1 & ! correlate (1 ! consci\sness ( objectivity4 ,x involves ! consci\sness ( a s+le cosmical "t & ( a s+le cosmical space )9 :i* all ev5ts fall & )9 :i* !y =m a :ole ( causally int]dep5d5t exi/5ces4 ,t is :y he names x ! objective unity ( app]ception4 ,x is t aspect 9 :i* ! self correlates ) a wid] reality1 & ?r\gh :i* x /&s 9 fundam5tal contra/ to ! m]ely subjective /ates & to ! individual conditions ( its animal exi/5ce4 ,! transc5d5tal self1 s f> f be+ id5tical ) ! empirical self1 w\ld seem to be ( directly opposite nature4 ,! "o w\ld seem to po9t beyond ! realm ( appe>ance1 ! o!r to be 9 its exi/5ce m]ely natural4 ,! fact t !y are inextricably b\nd up ) "o ano!r1 & co-op]ate 9 r5d]+ exp]i5ce possible1 only makes ! m indisp5sable ! duty ( recognis+ _! diff]+ *>act]s4 ,ev5 %\ld !y prove to be insep>able aspects ( s5se-exp]i5ce1 )\t metaphysical implications1 t w\ld n obviate ! necessity ( cle>ly di/+ui%+ !m4 ,! di/9ction rema9s1 :atev] explanation may be adopt$ ( its speculative or o!r significance4 ,n[ obvi\sly 9 s fundam5tal an enquiry1 deal+ z x does ) ! mo/ complicat$ & difficult problem 9 ! entire field ( metaphysics1 no brief & comp5di\s answ] c cov] all ! v>i\s consid]ations :i* are relevant & det]m9+4 ,! problem ( ! d$uction be+ :at x is1 ! section deal+ ) x c h>dly fail to be ! mo/ difficult portion ( ! :ole ,critique4 ,! conclusions at :i* x arrives re/ n m]ely ^u ! argum5t :i* x conta9s b also ^u ! results m or less indep5d5tly rea*$ 9 ! o!r sections4 ,! doctr9e ( ! empirical object z appe>ance requires = its developm5t ! v>i\s discussions conta9$ 9 ! ,ae/hetic1 9 ! sections on ,inn] ,s5se & on ! ,refutation ( ,idealism1 9 ! *apt]s on ,ph5om5a & ,n\m5a & on ! ,ant9omies4 ,! metaphysical consequ5ces & implications ( ,kant's tea*+ 9 reg>d to ! transc5d5tal unity ( app]ception are fir/ reveal$ 9 ! *apt] on ! ,p>alogisms4 ,! view tak5 ( productive imag9ation is exp&$ 9 ! section on ,s*ematism4 ,9 a ^w1 ! :ole antec$5t tea*+ ( ! ,critique is focuss$1 & ! entire subsequ5t developm5t ( ! ,critical doctr9e is anticipat$1 9 ?is brief *apt]4 ,b !re are1 ( c\rse1 additional causes ( ! difficulty & obscurity ( ! argum5t4 ,"o su* cause has already be5 not$1 namely1 t ! ,critique is n a unit>y "w1 develop$ f a previ\sly ?\ght-out /&po9t1 b 9 l>ge "p consi/s ( manuscripts ( v v>i\s dates1 artificially piec$ toge!r by ! addition ( connect+ l9ks4 ,9 no "p ( ! ,critique is ?is s obvi\s z 9 ! ,analytic ( ,concepts4 ,until ?is is recognis$ all attempts to int]pret ! text 9 any imp]sonal fa%ion are doom$ to failure4 ,= ?is reason ,i h prefac$ our discussion by a /atem5t ( ,vaih+]'s analysis4 ,no "o :o c accept x is any long] 9 dang] ( und]e/imat+ ?is p>ticul> cause ( ! obscurity ( ,kant's d$uction4 ,b ! *ief reason is "o to :i* ,i h ?us f> made only pass+ ref]5ce1 & to :i* we may n[ give ! att5tion :i* its importance dem&s1 namely1 ! t5tative & exp]im5tal "* ( ,kant's own f9al solutions4 ,! argum5ts ( ! d$uction are only intelligible if view$ z an expression ( ! conflict+ t5d5cies to :i* ,kant's ?\ght rema9$ subject4 ,he s\ght to all[ due weight to ea* ( ! div]g5t aspects ( ! exp]i5ce :i* he 0 analys+1 & 9 s do+ proce$$1 z x w\ld seem1 simultane\sly along ! p>allel l9es ( :at appe>$ to be ! possible1 alt]native me?ods ( explanation4 ,& to ! end ^! oppos+ t5d5cies cont9u$ side by side1 to ! confusion ( ^? read]s :o seek = a s+le unifi$ tea*+1 b to ! great illum9ation ( ^? :o are look+ to ,kant1 n = cle>-cut or f9al solutions1 b = helpful analysis & = p>tial dis5tanglem5t ( ! complicat$ issues :i* g to con/itute ^! baffl+ problems4 ,! two *ief t5d5cies :i* ?us conflict$ 9 ,kant's m9d may be nam$ ! subjectivi/ & ! ph5om5ali/ respectively4 ,?is conflict rema9$1 s to speak1 und]gr\nd1 influ5c+ ! argum5t at e po9t1 b seldom itself becom+ ! subject ( direct discussion4 ,z we %all f9d1 x caus$ ,kant to develop a tw(old view ( inn] s5se1 ( causality1 ( ! object ( k1 & ( ! unity ( app]ception4 ,"o ( ! few sections 9 ! ,critique :]e x seems on ! po9t ( em]g+ into cle> consci\sness is ! section1 add$ 9 ! second edition1 on ! ,refutation ( ,idealism4 ,b ?is section owes its orig9 to polemical causes4 ,x repres5ts a position peculi> to ! matur] portions ( ! ,analytic2 ! re/ ( ! ,critique is n rewritt5 s z to h>monise ) x1 or to develop ! consequ5ces :i* consi/5t hold+ to x mu/ involve4 ,i %all use ! t]m subjectivism 7& its equival5t subjective idealism7 9 ! wide s5se#ici :i* makes x applicable to ! tea*+ ( ,desc>tes & ,locke1 ( ,leibniz & ,wolff1 no less ?an to t ( ,b]keley & ,hume4 ,a common elem5t 9 all ^! philosophies is ! belief t subjective or m5tal /ates1 8ideas0 9 ! ,lockean s5se1 are ! objects ( consci\sness1 & fur!r are ! sole possible objects ( :i* x c h any direct or imm$iate aw>5ess4 ,k is view$ z a process entirely int]nal to ! individual m9d1 & z c>ry+ u fur!r only 9 virtue ( "s additional sup]v5+ process1 inf]5tial1 conjectural1 or in/9ctive4 ,?is subjectivism also t5ds to comb9e ) a view ( consci\sness z an ultimate self-reveal+ prop]ty ( a m]ely individual exi/5ce4#idj ,= ,desc>tes consci\sness is ! v ess5ce1 bo? ( ! m9d & ( ! self4 ,x is inde$ ass]t$ to be exhau/ive ( ! nature ( bo?4 ,?\gh ! self is describ$ z possess+ a faculty ( w z well z a p[] ( ?9k+1 all its activities are tak5 z be+ disclos$ to ! m9d ?r\gh ! reveal+ p[] ( its fundam5tal attribute4 ,! individual m9d is ?us view$ z an exi/5ce 9 :i* ev]y?+ takes place 9 ! op5 light ( an all-p]vasive consci\sness4 ,leibniz1 x is true1 taught ! exi/5ce ( subconsci\s p]ceptions1 & s f> may seem to h anticipat$ ,kant's recognition ( non-consci\s processes2 b z =mulat$ by ,leibniz t doctr9e has ! defect :i* frequ5tly vitiates its mod]n c\nt]p>t1 namely t x repres5ts ! subconsci\s z analog\s 9 nature to ! consci\s1 & z diff]+ f x only 9 ! accid5tal features ( int5sity & cle>ness1 or ?r\gh tempor>y lack ( control ov] ! ma*9]y ( reproductive association4 ,! subconsci\s1 z ?us repres5t$1 m]ely enl>ges ! private cont5t ( ! individual m9d2 x 9 no respect transc5ds x4 ,! g5u9ely ,critical view ( ! g5]ative conditions ( exp]i5ce is radically diff]5t f ?is ,leibnizian doctr9e ( petites p]ceptions4 ,x connects r ) ,leibniz's mode ( conceiv+ ! orig9 ( a priori concepts4 ,b ev5 t tea*+ x re/ates 9 su* fa%ion z to free x f subjectivi/ implications4 ,leibniz's cont5tion t ! m9d is consci\s ( its fundam5tal activities1 & t x is by reflection ^u !m t x ga9s all ultimate a priori concepts1 is no long] t5able 9 view ( ! conclusions e/abli%$ 9 ! objective d$uction4 ,m5tal processes1 9 s f> z !y are g5]ative ( exp]i5ce1 mu/ fall outside ! field ( consci\sness1 & z activities dynamically creative _c be ( ! nature ( ideas or cont5ts4 ,!y are n subconsci\s ideas b non-consci\s processes4 ,!y are n ! subm]g$ cont5t ( exp]i5ce1 b its condition+ gr\nds4 ,_! mo/ significant *>act]i/ic has /ill1 h[ev]1 to be m5tion$4 ,!y mu/ no long] be int]pret$ 9 subjectivi/ t]ms1 z orig9at+ 9 ! sep>ate exi/5ce ( an individual self4 ,9 condition+ exp]i5ce !y g5]ate ! only self = :i* exp]i5ce c v\*1 & consequ5tly1 9 ! abs5ce ( full & indep5d5t pro(1 mu/ n be conceiv$ z individually circumscrib$4 ,! problem ( k1 prop]ly conceiv$1 is no long] h[ consci\sness1 individually condition$1 c lead u beyond its own b\nds1 b :at a consci\sness1 :i* is at once consci\sness ( objects & also consci\sness ( a self1 mu/ imply = its possibility4 ,kant ?us obta9s :at is an almo/ inv>iable concomitant ( sci5tific & philosophical advance1 namely a m correct & sci5tific =mulation ( ! problem to be solv$4 ,! old] =mulation assumes ! tru? ( ! subjectivi/ /&po9t2 ! ,critical problem1 :5 ?us /at$1 is at lea/ free f preconceptions ( t p>ticul> br&4 ,assumptions :i* hi!rto _h be5 q unconsci\sly held1 or else1 if reflect$ ^u1 _h be5 reg>d$ z axiomatic & self-evid5t1 are n[ br\ght )9 ! field ( inve/igation4 ,kant !reby a*ieves a v]itable revolution2 & ) x _m ( ! mo/ f>-rea*+ consequ5ces ( ! ,critical tea*+ are closely b\nd up4 ,?is new /&po9t1 9 contra/ to subjective idealism1 may be nam$ ,critical1 or to employ ! t]m :i* ,kant himself applies bo? to 8 transc5d5tal d$uction & to ! unity ( app]ception1 objective idealism4 ,b z ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality is no less fundam5tal to ! ,critical attitude1 we %all p]haps be less likely to be misund]/ood1 or to seem to be id5tify+ ,kant's /&po9t ) ! v diff]5t tea*+ ( ,hegel1 if by pref]5ce we employ ! title ph5om5alism4 ,9 ! transc5d5tal d$uction ,kant1 z above not$1 is seek+ to d ju/ice to ! univ]sal or absoluti/ aspect ( our consci\sness1 to its transc5d5ce ( ! embodi$ & sep>ate self4 ,! unity ( app]ception is entitl$ objective1 because x is reg>d$ z ! c\nt]p>t ( a s+le cosmical "t & ( a s+le cosmical space )9 :i* all ev5ts fall4 ,its objects are n m5tal /ates peculi> to itself1 nor ev5 ideal cont5ts num]ically di/9ct f ^? 9 o!r m9ds4 ,x looks out ^u a common _w ( g5u9ely indep5d5t exi/5ce4 ,9 develop+ ?is position ,kant is con/ra9$ to revise & inde$ completely to reca/ 8 previ\s views bo? z to ! nature ( ! syn!tic processes1 ?r\gh :i* exp]i5ce is con/ruct$1 & ( ! giv5 manifold1 ^u :i* !y are suppos$ to act4 ,f ! subjectivi/ po9t ( view ! syn!tic activities consi/ ( ! v>i\s cognitive processes ( ! individual m9d1 & ! giv5 manifold consi/s ( ! s5sations ar\s$ by mat]ial bodies act+ ^u ! special s5ses4 ,f ! objective or ph5om5ali/ /&po9t ! syn!tic processes are ( a n\m5al "*1 & ! giv5 manifold is simil>ly view$ z be+ due to n\m5al ag5cies act+1 n ^u ! s5se-organs1 :i* z appe>ances are !mselves n\m5ally condition$1 b ^u :at may be call$ 8out] s5se40 ,^! di/9ctions may fir/ be made cle>4 ,s5sations1 ,kant holds1 h a tw(old orig91 n\m5al & me*anical4 ,!y are due 9 ! fir/ place to ! action ( ?+s 9 !mselves ^u ! n\m5al conditions ( ! self1 & also 9 ! second place to ! action ( mat]ial bodies ^u ! s5se-organs & ! bra94 ,to take ! latt] fir/4 ,light reflect$ f objects1 & act+ on ! ret9a1 gives rise to s5sations ( col\r4 ,= su* causal int]relations !re exi/s1 ,kant tea*es1 ! same k9d ( empirical evid5ce z = ! causal int]action ( mat]ial bodies4#ida ,our s5sational exp]i5ces are z truly ev5ts 9 "t z are me*anical happ5+s 9 space4 ,9 ?is way1 h[ev]1 we c acc\nt only = ! exi/5ce ( our s5sations & = ! ord] 9 :i* !y make _! appe>ance 9 or to consci\sness1 n = our aw>5ess ( !m4 ,to /ate ! po9t by means ( an illu/ration4 ,! imp++ ( "o billi>d ball ^u ano!r acc\nts causally = ! motion :i* !n appe>s 9 ! second ball4 ,b no "o w\ld dream ( ass]t+ t by itself x acc\nts = our consci\sness ( t second motion4 ,we may cont5d t 9 an exactly simil> mann]1 to ! same ext5t1 no m & no less1 ! action ( an object ^u ! bra9 acc\nts only = ! occurr5ce ( a visual s5sation z an ev5t 9 ! empirical "t sequ5ce4 ,a s5sation j z little z a motion c c>ry its own consci\sness ) x4 ,to reg>d t z ev] possible is ultimately to end[ ev5ts 9 "t ) ! capacity ( appreh5d+ objects 9 space4 ,9 deal+ ) causal connections 9 space & "t we d n require to discuss ! problem ( k prop]1 namely1 h[ x is possible to h or acquire k1 :e!r ( a motion 9 space or ( a s5sation 9 "t4 ,:5 we raise t fur!r "q we h to adopt a v diff]5t /&po9t1 & to take into acc\nt a mu* great] complexity ( conditions4 ,kant applies ?is po9t ( view no less rigor\sly to feel+s1 emotions1 & desires ?an to ! s5sations ( ! special s5ses4 ,all ( !m1 he tea*es1 are #8animal'#idb 9 "*4 ,!y are "o & all condition$ by1 & explicable only 9 t]ms (1 ! p>ticul> con/itution ( ! animal organism4 ,!y "o & all belong to ! realm ( appe>ance4#idc ,! t]m #8s5sation' may also1 h[ev]1 be appli$ 9 a wid] s5se to signify ! mat]ial ( k 9 s f> z x is n\m5ally condition$4 ,?us view$1 s5sations are due1 n to ! action ( physical /imuli ^u ! bodily organs1 b to ! affection by ?+s 9 !mselves ( ^? factors 9 ! n\m5al conditions ( ! self :i* correspond to 8s5sibility40 ,kant is culpably c>eless 9 fail+ to di/+ui% ^? two v diff]5t mean+s ( ! phrase #8giv5 manifold4' ,! language :i* he employs is ?or\ghly ambigu\s4 ,j z he frequ5tly speaks z if ! syn!tic processes 7 consci\s activities ex]t$ by ! self1 s also he frequ5tly uses language :i* implies t ! manifold ^u :i* ^! processes act is id5tical ) ! s5sations ( ! special s5ses4 ,b ! s5sations ( ! bodily s5ses1 ev5 if r$ucible to x1 c at mo/ =m only "p ( x4 ,! syn!tic processes1 int]pret+ ! manifold 9 accordance ) ! fix$ =ms1 space1 "t1 & ! categories1 g5]ate ! spatial _w )9 :i* objects are appreh5d$ z causally int]act+ & z giv+ rise ?r\gh _! action ^u ! s5se-organs to ! v>i\s special s5sations z ev5ts 9 "t4 ,s5sations1 z me*anically caus$1 are ?us on ! same plane z o!r appe>ances4 ,!y dep5d ^u ! same g5]at+ conditions z ! motions :i* produce !m4 ,z m9or incid5ts )9 a m compreh5sive totality !y _c possibly repres5t ! mat]ial out ( :i* ! :ole has be5 con/ruct$4 ,to expla9 ! ph5om5al _w z con/ruct$ out ( ! s5sations ( ! special s5ses is virtually to equate x ) a small selection ( its con/itu5t p>ts4 ,su* pr(ess$ explanation also commits ! fur!r absurdity ( attempt+ to acc\nt = ! orig9 ( ! ph5om5al _w by means ( ev5ts :i* c exi/ only "u ! conditions :i* x itself supplies4 ,! manifold ( ! special s5ses & ! prim>y manifold are radically di/9ct4 ,! =m] is due to mat]ial bodies act+ ^u ! mat]ial s5se-organs4 ,! latt] is ! product ( n\m5al ag5cies act+ ^u 8out] s5se10 i4e4 ^u ^? n\m5al conditions ( ! self :i* con/itute our 8s5sibility02 x is mu* m compreh5sive ?an ! =m]2 x mu/ conta9 ! mat]ial = all modes ( objective exi/5ce1 includ+ _m t are usually reg>d$ z purely m5tal4#idd ,to turn1 n[1 to ! o!r aspect ( exp]i5ce4 ,:at are ! factors :i* condition its =m8 ,:at mu/ we po/ulate 9 ord] to acc\nt = ! exi/5ce ( consci\sness & = ! unit>y =m 9 :i* alone x c appe>8 ,kant's answ] is aga9 ambigu\s4 ,he fails suffici5tly to insi/ ^u di/9ctions :i* yet are absolutely vital to any g5u9e und]/&+ ( ! new & revolution>y positions t[>ds :i* he is feel+ 8 way4 ,! syn!tic processes :i* 9 ! subjective & objective d$uctions are prov$ to condition all exp]i5ce may be int]pret$ ei!r z consci\s or z non-consci\s activities1 & may be ascrib$ ei!r to ! ag5cy ( ! individual self or to n\m5al conditions :i* fall outside ! realm ( possible def9ition4 ,n[1 ?\gh ,kant's own expositions rema9 ?or\ghly ambigu\s1 ! results ( ! ,critical enquiry w\ld seem--at lea/ s long z ! fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 matt] & =m is held to & ! temporally sequ5t aspect ( exp]i5ce is kept 9 view--to be decisive 9 fav\r ( ! latt] alt]native 9 ea* case4 ,! syn!tic processes mu/ take place & complete !mselves be=e any consci\sness c exi/ at all4 ,& z !y ?us precondition consci\sness1 !y _c !mselves be kn[n to be consci\s2 & n be+ kn[n to be consci\s1 x is n ev5 c]ta9 t !y may legitimately be describ$ z m5tal4 ,we h1 inde$1 to conceive !m on ! analogy ( our m5tal processes1 b t may only be because ( ! limitation ( our k to ! data ( exp]i5ce4 ,fur!r1 we h no "r to conceive !m z ! activities ( a n\m5al self4 ,we "k ! self only z consci\s1 & ! syn!tic processes1 be+ ! g5]at+ conditions ( consci\sness1 are also ! g5]at+ conditions ( ! only self = :i* our exp]i5ce c v\*4 ,kant1 view+ z he does ! temporal aspect ( human exp]i5ce z fundam5tal1 w\ld seem to be ju/ifi$ 9 nam+ ^! processes 8syn!tic40 ,= consci\sness 9 its v nature w\ld seem to involve ! c>ry+ ov] ( cont5t f "o "t to o!r times1 & ! con/ruction ( a m compreh5sive total consci\sness f ! elem5ts ?us comb9$4 ,kant is "h analys+ 9 its simple/ & mo/ fundam5tal =m t aspect ( consci\sness :i* ,william ,james has describ$ 9 ! ,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology1#ide & :i* we may entitle ! telescop+ ( e>li] m5tal /ates into ! successive exp]i5ces t include !m4 ,!y telescope 9 a mann] :i* c nev] befall ! successive ev5ts 9 a causal s]ies1 & :i* is n explicable by any s*eme ( relations d]ivable f ! physical sph]e4 ,obvi\sly1 :at ,kant does is to apply to ! int]pretation ( ! n\m5al conditions ( our consci\s exp]i5ce a di/9ction d]iv$ by analogy f consci\s exp]i5ce itself--! di/9ction1 namely1 betwe5 our m5tal processes & ! s5su\s mat]ial ) :i* !y deal4 ,! application ( su* a di/9ction may be inevitable 9 any attempt to expla9 human exp]i5ce2 b x c v easily1 unless c>efully gu>d$1 prove a s\rce ( s]i\s misund]/&+4 ,j z ! syn!tic processes :i* g5]ate consci\sness are n kn[n to be !mselves consci\s1 s also ! manifold _c be id5tifi$ ) ! s5sations ( ! bodily s5ses4 ,^! la/ are ev5ts 9 "t1 & are effects n ( n\m5al b ( me*anical causes4 ,kant's conclusion :5 develop$ on consi/5t ,critical l9es1 & !re=e 9 ph5om5ali/ t]ms1 is tw(old3 positive1 to ! effect t consci\sness1 = all t our analysis c prove to ! contr>y1 may be m]ely a resultant1 d]ivative f & dep5d5t ^u a complexity ( conditions2 & negative1 to ! effect t ?\gh ^! conditions may by analogy be describ$ z consi/+ ( syn!tic processes act+ ^u a giv5 mat]ial1 !y are 9 _! real nature unkn[able by u4 ,ev5 _! b>e possibility we _c pr(ess to compreh5d4 ,we po/ulate !m only because giv5 exp]i5ce is demon/rably n self-explanatory & w\ld seem to ref] u = explanation to "s su* antec$5t g5]ative gr\nds4 ,kant1 z we h already emphasis$1 obscures 8 position by ! way 9 :i* he frequ5tly speaks ( ! transc5d5tal unity ( app]ception z ! supreme condition ( our exp]i5ce4 ,at times he ev5 speaks z if x 7 ! s\rce ( ! syn!tic processes4 ,t _c1 h[ev]1 be reg>d$ z 8 real tea*+4 ,self-consci\sness 7& ! unity ( app]ception1 9 s f> z x f9ds expression ?r\gh self-consci\sness7 re/s ^u ! same complexity ( conditions z does out] exp]i5ce1 & !re=e may be m]ely a product or resultant4 ,x is1 z he insi/s 9 ! ,p>alogisms1 ! emptie/ ( all our concepts1 & c af=d no suffici5t gr\nd = ass]t+ ! self to be an abid+ p]sonality4 ,we _c by !oretical analysis ( ! facts ( exp]i5ce or ( ! nature ( self-consci\sness prove any?+ :atsoev] 9 reg>d to ! ultimate nature ( ! self4 ,n[ ,kant is "h giv+ a new1 & q revolution>y1 int]pretation ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ! subjective & ! objective4 ,! objective is = ! ,c>tesians ! indep5d5tly real2#idf ! subjective is t :i* has an altoge!r diff]5t k9d ( exi/5ce 9 :at is entitl$ ! field ( consci\sness4 ,kant1 on ! o!r h&1 f 8 ph5om5ali/ /&po9t1 views exi/5ces z objective :5 !y are det]m9$ by purely physical causes1 & z subjective :5 !y also dep5d ^u physiological & psy*ological conditions4 ,on ?is latt] view ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! two is no long] a diff]5ce ( k9d2 x becomes a diff]5ce m]ely ( degree4 ,objective exi/5ces1 ow+ to ! simplicity & recurr5t "* ( _! conditions1 are uni=m4 ,subjective exi/5ces re/+ ^u conditions :i* are too complex to be frequ5tly recurr5t1 are by contra/ extremely v>iable4 ,b bo? types ( exi/5ce are objective 9 ! s5se t !y are objects1 & imm$iate objects1 = consci\sness4 ,subjective /ates d n run p>allel ) ! objective sy/em ( natural exi/5ces1 nor are !y additional to x4 ,= !y d n con/itute our consci\sness ( nature2 !y are !mselves "p ( ! natural ord] :i* consci\sness reveals4 ,t !y contra/ ) physical exi/5ces 9 be+ unext5d$ & incapable ( location 9 space is :at ,kant w\ld seem by implication to ass]t1 b he *all5ges ,desc>tes' "r to inf] f ?is p>ticul> diff]5ce a complete div]sity 9 _! :ole nature4 ,s5sations1 feel+s1 emotions1 & desires1 s f> z !y are exp]i5c$ by u1 con/itute ! empirical self :i* is an objective exi/5ce1 integrally connect$ ) ! mat]ial environm5t1 9 t]ms ( :i* alone x c be und]/ood4 ,9 o!r words1 ! di/9ction betwe5 ! subjective & ! objective is n[ made to fall )9 ! sy/em ( natural law4 ,! subjective is n opposite 9 nature to ! objective1 b is a subspecies )9 x4 ,! revolution>y "* ( ?is re=mulation ( ,c>tesian di/9ctions may p]haps be express$ by say+ t :at ,kant is really do+ is to sub/itute ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality = ! ,c>tesian dualism ( ! m5tal & ! mat]ial4 ,! psy*ical is a title = a c]ta9 class ( kn[n exi/5ces1 i4e4 ( appe>ances2 & !y =m toge!r ) ! physical a s+le sy/em4 ,b und]ly+ ?is entire sy/em1 condition+ bo? physical & psy*ical ph5om5a1 is ! realm ( n\m5al exi/5ce2 & :5 ! "q ( ! possibility ( k1 t is1 ( ! exp]i5c+ ( su* a compreh5sive natural sy/em1 is rais$1 x is to ?is n\m5al sph]e t we are ref]r$4 ,ev]y?+ exp]i5c$1 ev5 a s5sation or desire1 is an ev5t2 b ! exp]i5c+ ( x is an act ( aw>5ess1 & calls = an explanation ( an altoge!r diff]5t k9d4 ,?us ,kant completely re/ates ! problem ( k4 ,! problem is n h[1 />t+ f ! subjective1 ! individual c come to k ( ! indep5d5tly real2 b h[1 if a common _w is alone imm$iately appreh5d$1 ! inn] private life ( ! self-consci\s be+ c be possible1 & h[ su* inn] exp]i5ce is to be int]pret$4 ,h[ does x come ab\t t ?\gh s5sations1 feel+s1 etc41 are ev5ts no less me*anically condition$ ?an motions 9 space1 & con/itute ) ! latt] a s+le sy/em con=m$ to natural law1 !y yet diff] f all o!r classes ( natural ev5ts 9 t !y c be exp]i5c$ only by a s+le consci\sness4 ,to ?is "q ,kant replies 9 t]ms ( 8 fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 ,?\gh ev]y?+ ( :i* we are consci\s may legitimately be /udi$ 9 t]ms ( ! natural sy/em to :i* x belongs1 consci\sness itself _c be s reg>d$4 ,9 attempt+ to def9e x we are c>ri$ beyond ! ph5om5al to its n\m5al conditions4 ,9 o!r words1 x con/itutes a problem1 ! complete data ( :i* are n at our disposal4 ,?is is by itself a suffici5t reason = our incapacity to expla9 :y ! /ates ( ea* empirical self c nev] be appreh5d$ save by a s+le consci\sness1 or o!rwise /at$1 :y ea* consci\sness is limit$1 z reg>ds s5sations & feel+s1 exclusively to ^? :i* arise 9 connection ) "s "o animal organism4 ,x at lea/ precludes u f dogmatically ass]t+ t ?is is due to _! be+ subjective 9 ! duali/ic & ,c>tesian s5se ( t t]m--namely1 z con/itut+1 or be+ /ates (1 ! kn[+ self4 ,a diagram may s]ve1 ?\gh v crudely1 to illu/rate ,kant's ph5om5ali/ int]pretation ( ! cognitive situation4 ,,nc,,ew _/ _/------------------_/------------------ --------- _/ ,! empirical _w ( our human consci\sness _/ ------------ --- -------------- l ,,es,a --- ,,es,b --- x#a y#a z#a m x#b y#b z#b --- ------------- --- -------------- n --- _/ ---------------------------------------- ----------_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ,v ,v ,,nc,a ,,nc,b ,,es,a ,empirical self ( ! consci\s ,be+ ,a4 ,,es,b ,empirical self ( ! consci\s ,be+ ,b4 ,,nc,a ,n\m5al conditions ( ! consci\s ,be+ ,a4 ,,nc,b ,n\m5al conditions ( ! consci\s ,be+ ,b4 l1 m1 n ,objects 9 space4 x#a1 y#a1 z#a ,s5sations caus$ by objects l1 m1 n act+ on ! s5se-organs ( ! empirical self ,a4 x#b1 y#b1 z#b ,s5sations caus$ by #a1 m1 n act+ on ! s5se-organs ( ! empirical self ,b4 ,,nc,,ew ,n\m5al conditions ( ! empirical _w4 ,ev]y?+ 9 ?is empirical _w is equally op5 to ! consci\sness ( bo? ,a & ,b1 save only c]ta9 psy*ical ev5ts t are condition$ by physiological & psy*ological factors4 x#a1 y#a1 z#a c be appreh5d$ only by ,a2 x#b1 y#b1 z#b c be appreh5d$ only by ,b4 ,o!rwise ,a & ,b exp]i5ce "o & ! same _w2 ! body ( ,b is p]ceiv$ by ,a 9 ! same mann] 9 :i* he p]ceives 8 own body4 ,?is is true a =tiori ( all o!r mat]ial exi/5ces4 ,fur!r1 ^! mat]ial exi/5ces are kn[n ) ! same imm$iacy z ! subjective /ates4 ,z reg>ds ! relation 9 :i* ,,nc,a1 ,,nc,b1 & ,,nc,,ew /& to "o ano!r1 no ass]tions c be made1 save1 z above indicat$1#idg su* conjectural /atem5ts z may prec>i\sly be d]iv$ ?r\gh argum5t by analogy f di/9ctions t fall )9 our human exp]i5ce4#idh ,kant's ph5om5alism ?us involves an objectivi/ view ( individual selves & ( _! int]relations4 ,!y fall )9 ! s+le common _w ( space4 ,)9 ?is ph5om5al _w !y /& 9 ext]nal1 me*anical relations to "o ano!r4 ,!y are appreh5d$ z embodi$1 ) kn[n cont5ts1 s5sations1 feel+s1 & desires1 compos+ _! inn] exp]i5ce4 ,!re is1 f ?is po9t ( view1 no problem ( k4 ,on ?is plane we h to deal only ) ev5ts kn[n1 n ) any process ( appreh5sion4 ,ev5 ! compon5ts ( ! empirical self1 ! subject-matt] ( empirical psy*ology1 are n processes ( appreh5sion1 b appreh5d$ exi/5ces4 ,x is only :5 we make a regress beyond ! ph5om5al z su* to ! conditions :i* r5d] x possible1 t ! problem ( k arises at all4 ,& ) ?is regress we are br\ght to ! real crux ( ! :ole "q--! reconciliation ( ?is ph5om5alism ) ! conditions ( our self-consci\sness4 ,= we h !n to take into acc\nt ! fundam5tal fact t ea* self is n only an animal exi/5ce )9 ! ph5om5al _w1 b also 9 its p[]s ( appreh5sion coequal ) x4 ,! self kn[n is ext]nal to ! objects kn[n2 ! self t kn[s is consci\s ( itself z compreh5d+ )9 ! field ( its consci\sness ! wid] univ]se 9 inf9ite space4 ,su* consid]ations w\ld1 at fir/ sight1 seem to =ce u to modify our ph5om5ali/ /&po9t 9 ! direction ( subjectivism4 ,= 9 :at o!r mann] c we hope to unite ! two aspects ( ! self1 ! kn[n conditions ( its f9ite exi/5ce & ! consci\sness ?r\gh :i* x correlates ) ! univ]se z a :ole8 ,9 ! "o aspect x is a "p ( appe>ance2 9 ! o!r x connects ) t :i* makes appe>ance possible at all4 ,q frequ5tly x is ! subjectivi/ solution :i* ,kant seems to adopt4 ,objects kn[n are 8m]e repres5tations10 8/ates ( ! id5tical self40 ,ev]y?+ outside ! individual m9d is real2 appe>ances are purely individual 9 orig94 ,b su* a position is inconsi/5t ) ! deep] implications ( ,kant's ,critical tea*+1 & w\ld involve ! entire ignor+ ( ! _m sugge/ions :i* po9t to a fundam5tally diff]5t & mu* m adequate /&po9t4 ,! individual is himself kn[n only z appe>ance1 & _c1 !re=e1 be ! m$ium 9 & ?r\gh :i* appe>ances exi/4 ,?\gh appe>ances exi/ only 9 & ?r\gh consci\sness1 !y are n due to any causes :i* c legitimately be describ$ z individual4 ,f ?is /&po9t ,kant w\ld seem to di/+ui% betwe5 ! gr\nds & conditions ( ph5om5al exi/5ce & ! special det]m9+ causes ( individual consci\sness4 ,transc5d5tal conditions g5]ate consci\sness ( ! relatively p]man5t & objective _w 9 space & "t2 empirical conditions )9 ?is space & "t _w det]m9e ! s5su\s modes ?r\gh :i* special portions ( ?is inf9ite & uni=m _w appe> div]sely to diff]5t m9ds4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 is a po9t ( view :i* is only sugge/$1 &1 z we h already obs]v$1#idi ! =m 9 :i* x is outl9$ sugge/s _m objections & difficulties4 ,consci\sness ( ! objective _w 9 space & "t does n exi/ complete ) "o portion ( x m specifically det]m9$ 9 t]ms ( actual s5se-p]ceptions4 ,r ! consci\sness ( ! s+le _w 9 space & "t is gradually develop$ ?r\gh & out ( s5se exp]i5ce ( limit$ portions ( x4 ,we h /ill to consid] ! v>i\s sections 9 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples 7especially ! section add$ 9 ! second edition on ! ,refutation ( ,idealism7 & 9 ! ,dialectic1 9 :i* ,kant fur!r develops ?is /&po9t4 ,b ev5 aft] do+ s1 we %all be =c$ to recognise t ,kant leaves undiscuss$ _m ( ! mo/ obvi\s objections to :i* 8 ph5om5alism lies op54 ,to ! v la/ he fails to /ate 9 any really adequate mann] h[ f ! ph5om5ali/ /&po9t he w\ld reg>d ! _w describ$ 9 me*anical t]ms by sci5ce z be+ relat$ to ! _w ( ord9>y s5se-exp]i5ce1#iej or h[ diff]5t individual consci\snesses are relat$ to "o ano!r4 ,! new =m1 h[ev]1 9 :i* ^! old-"t problems "h em]ge is ! be/ possible pro( ( ! revolution>y "* ( ,kant's ,critical enquiries4 ,= ^! problems are no long] =mulat$ 9 t]ms ( ! individuali/ic presuppositions :i* gov]n ! ?9k+ ( all ,kant's pr$ecessors1 ev5 t ( ,hume4 ,! conceal$ presuppositions are n[ call$ 9 "q1 & are made ! subject ( explicit discussion4 ,b fur!r comm5t mu/ meantime be def]r$4#iea ,,transc5d5tal ,,d$uction ,,( ,,! ,,categories1 ,,9 ,,! ,,second ,,edition ,! argum5t ( ! second edition transc5d5tal d$uction c be r$uc$ to ! foll[+ eight po9ts3 7#a7ieb ,x op5s ) ! /atem5t ( a fundam5tal assumption :i* ,kant does n dream ( que/ion+ & ( :i* he n[h]e attempts to (f] pro(4 ,! repres5tation ( comb9ation is ! "o k9d ( repres5tation :i* c nev] be giv5 ?r\gh s5se4 ,x is n s giv5 ev5 9 ! pure =ms ( space & "t yield$ by out] & inn] s5se4#iec ,x is due to an act ( spontaneity1 :i* z su* mu/ be p]=m$ by ! und]/&+4 ,z x is "o & ! same = e k9d ( comb9ation1 x may be call$ by ! g5]al "n ( syn!sis4 ,& z all comb9ation1 )\t exception1 is due to ?is s\rce1 its dissolution1 t is1 analysis1 :i* seems to be its opposite1 always presupposes x4 7#b7ied ,besides ! manifold & its syn!sis a fur!r factor is involv$ 9 ! conception ( comb9ation1 namely1 ! repres5tation ( ! unity ( ! manifold4 ,! comb9ation :i* is necess>y to & con/itutes k is repres5tation ( ! syn!tical unity ( ! manifold4 ,?is is a factor additional to syn!sis & to ! manifold syn!sis$4 ,= su* repres5tation _c arise out ( any antec$5t consci\sness ( syn!sis4 ,on ! contr>y1 x is only ?r\gh sup]v5tion ^u ! unit>y syn!sis t ! conception ( ! comb9ation becomes possible4 ,9 o!r words1 ! repres5tation ( unity conditions consci\sness ( syn!sis1 & !re=e _c be ! outcome or product ( x4 ,?is is an application1 or r g5]alisation1 ( a position :i* 9 ! fir/ edition is develop$ only 9 ref]5ce to ! empirical process ( recognition4 ,recognition preconditions consci\sness1 & !re=e _c be subsequ5t ^u x4 7#c7iee ,! unity ?us repres5t$ is n1 h[ev]1 t :i* is express$ ?r\gh ! category ( unity4 ,! consci\sness ( unity :i* is involv$ 9 ! conception ( syn!sis is t ( app]ception or transc5d5tal self-consci\sness4 ,?is is ! highe/ & mo/ univ]sal =m ( unity1 = x is a presupposition ( ! unity ( all possible concepts1 :e!r analytic or syn!tic1 9 ! v>i\s =ms ( judgm5t4 7#d7ief ,a manifold ?\gh giv5 is n = t reason also repres5t$4 ,x mu/ be possible = ! #8,i ?9k' to accompany x & all my o!r repres5tations3 8444= o!rwise some?+ w\ld be repres5t$ 9 me :i* c\ld n be ?\ght at all2 & t is equival5t to say+ t ! repres5tation w\ld be impossible or at lea/ w\ld be no?+ to me40#ieg ,b to ascribe a manifold z my repres5tations to ! id5tical self is to compreh5d !m1 z syn!tically connect$1 9 "o app]ception4#ieh ,only :at c be comb9$ 9 "o consci\sness c be relat$ to ! #8,i ?9k4' ,! analytic unity ( self-consci\sness presupposes ! syn!tic unity ( ! manifold4 7#e7iei ,! unity ( app]ception is analytic or self-id5tical4 ,x expresses itself ?r\gh ! proposition1 ,i am ,i4 ,b be+ ?us pure id5tity )\t cont5t ( its own1 x _c be consci\s ( itself 9 & by itself4 ,its unity & con/ancy c h mean+ only ?r\gh contra/ to ! v>iety & *angeabl5ess ( its specific exp]i5ces2 & yet1 at ! same "t1 x is also true t su* manifoldness w de/roy all possibility ( unity unless x be reconcileable ) x4 ,! v>iety c contribute to ! condition+ ( app]ception only 9 s f> z x is capable ( be+ comb9$ into a s+le consci\sness4 ,?r\gh syn!tic unify+ ( ! manifold ! self comes to consci\sness bo? ( itself & ( ! manifold4 7#f7ifj ,! transc5d5tal orig9al unity ( app]ception is an objective1 n a m]ely subjective1 unity4 ,its conditions are also ! conditions 9 & ?r\gh :i* we acquire consci\sness ( objects4 ,an object is t 9 ! conception ( :i* ! manifold ( giv5 intuitions is comb9$4 7,?is po9t1 ?\gh c5tral to ! argum5t1 is m adequately develop$ 9 ! fir/ ?an 9 ! second edition47 ,su* comb9ation requires unity ( consci\sness4 ,?us ! same unity :i* conditions app]ception likewise conditions ! relation ( repres5tations to an object4 ,! unity ( pure app]ception may !re=e be describ$ z an objective unity = two reasons3 fir/1 because x c appreh5d its own analytical unity only ?r\gh discov]y ( unity 9 ! giv51 & secondly1 = ! reason t su* syn!tical unify+ ( ! manifold is also ! process :]eby repres5tations acquire ref]5ce to objects4 7#g7ifa ,kant re9=ces ?is conclusion1 & %[s its fur!r significance1 by analysis ( ! act ( judgm5t4 ,! logical def9ition ( judgm5t1 z ! repres5tation ( a relation betwe5 two concepts1 has _m defects4 ,^!1 h[ev]1 are all traceable to its initial failure to expla91 or ev5 to recognise1 ! nature ( ! ass]tion :i* judgm5t z su* claims to make4 ,judgm5t ass]ts relations ( a q unique k9d1 altoge!r diff]5t f ^? :i* exi/ betwe5 ideas connect$ ?r\gh association4 ,if1 = in/ance1 on see+ a body ! s5sations ( weight due to ! attempt to raise x are sugge/$ by association1 !re is no?+ b subjective sequ5ce2 b if we =m ! judgm5t t ! body is heavy1 ! two repres5tations are !n connect$ toge!r 9 ! object4 ,?is is :at is int5d$ by ! copula #8is4' ,x is a relational t]m ?r\gh :i* ! objective unity ( giv5 repres5tations is di/+ui%$ f ! subjective4 ,x indicates t ! repres5tations /& 9 objective relation "u ! pure unity ( app]ception1 & n m]ely 9 subjective relation ow+ to ! play ( association 9 ! individual m9d4 8,judgm5t is no?+ b ! mode ( br++ cognitions to ! objective unity ( app]ception10 i4e4 ( giv+ to !m a validity :i* holds indep5d5tly ( ! subjective processes ?r\gh :i* x is appreh5d$4 ,objective relations are n1 ( c\rse1 all necess>y or univ]sal2 & a judgm5t may1 !re=e1 ass]t a relation :i* is empirical & cont+5t4 ,none ! less ! fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 x & any m]e relation ( association /ill p]si/s4 ,! empirical relation is /ill 9 ! judgm5t ass]t$ to be objective4 ,! subject & ! pr$icate are ass]t$1 9 ! p>ticul> case or cases to :i* ! judgm5t ref]s1 to be connect$ 9 ! object & n m]ely 9 ! m9d ( ! subject4 ,or o!rwise /at$1 ?\gh subject & pr$icate are n !mselves decl>$ to be necess>ily & univ]sally relat$ to "o ano!r1 _! cont+5t relation has to be view$ z objectively1 & !re=e necess>ily1 gr\nd$4 ,judgm5t always presupposes ! exi/5ce ( necess>y relations ev5 :5 x is n conc]n$ to ass]t !m4 ,judgm5t is ! organ ( objective k1 & is !re=e b\nd up1 indirectly :5 n directly1 ) ! univ]sality & necessity :i* are ! sole crit]ia ( k4 ,! judgm5t expressive ( cont+5cy is /ill judgm5t1 & is !re=e no less necess>y 9 its conditions1 & no less objective 9 its validity1 ?an is a univ]sal judgm5t ( ! sci5tific type4 ,to use ,kant's own t]m9ology1 judgm5t acquires objective validity ?r\gh p>ticipation 9 ! necess>y unity ( app]ception4 ,9 s do+ x is made to embody ^? pr9ciples ( ! objective det]m9ation ( all repres5tations ?r\gh :i* alone cognition is possible4 7#h7ifb ,z judgm5t is no?+ b ! mode ( br++ cognitions to ! objective unity ( app]ception1 x foll[s t ! categories1 :i* 9 ! metaphysical d$uction h be5 prov$ to be ! possible functions 9 judg+1 are ! conditions 9 & ?r\gh :i* su* pure app]ception becomes possible4 ,app]ception conditions exp]i5ce1 & ! unity :i* bo? dem& = _! possibility is t ( ! categories4 99 99 99 99 99 ,be=e pass+ to ! rema9+ sections ( ! d$uction1#ifc :i* are supplem5t>y r ?an ess5tial1 ,i may add comm5t ^u ! above po9ts4 ,only 7#g7 & 7#h7 call = special consid]ation4 ,!y repres5t a =m ( argum5t :i* has no c\nt]p>t 9 ! fir/ edition4 ,z we not$1#ifd ! fir/ edition argum5t is defective ow+ to its failure to demon/rate t ! categories con/itute ! unity :i* is necess>y to k4 ,by introduc+ 9 ! second edition ?is analysis ( judgm5t1 & by %[+ ! insep>able connection betwe5 pure app]ception1 objective consci\sness & judgm5t1 ?is defect is 9 "s degree remov$4 ,z ! categories correspond to ! possible functions ( judgm5t1 _! objective validity is !reby e/abli%$4 ,by ?is means also ! connection :i* 9 ,kant's view exi/s betwe5 ! metaphysical & ! transc5d5tal d$uctions receives = ! fir/ "t prop] recognition4 ,! categories :i* 9 ! =m] d$uction are discov]$ & sy/ematis$ ?r\gh logical analysis ( ! =m ( judgm5t1 are 9 ! latt] d$uction1 ?r\gh transc5d5tal analysis ( ! function ( judgm5t1 %[n to be j ^? =ms ( relation :i* are necess>y to ! possibility ( k4 ,x mu/1 h[ev]1 be not$ t ! transc5d5tal argum5t is br\ght to completion only ?r\gh assumption ( ! adequacy ( ! metaphysical d$uction4 ,no indep5d5t attempt is made to %[ t ! p>ticul> categories obta9$ 9 ! metaphysical d$uction are ^? :i* are requir$1 t !re are no o!rs1 or t all ! twelve are indisp5sable4 7#g7 is a developm5t ( an argum5t :i* fir/ appe>s 9 ! ,prolegom5a4 ,! /atem5t ( x !re giv5 is1 h[ev]1 extremely confus$1 ow+ to ! di/9ction :i* ,kant mo/ un=tunately introduces#ife betwe5 judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce & judgm5ts ( p]ception4 ,t di/9ction is entirely wor?less & c only s]ve to mislead ! read]4 ,x cuts at ! v root ( ,kant's ,critical tea*+4 ,judgm5ts ( p]ception involve1 ,kant says1 no category ( ! und]/&+1 b only :at he is pleas$ to call ! 8logical connection ( p]ceptions 9 a ?9k+ subject40 ,:at t may be he n[h]e expla9s1 save by add+#iff t 9 x p]ceptions are 8comp>$ & conjo9$ 9 a consci\sness ( my /ate0 7also spok5 ( by ,kant z 8empirical consci\sness071 & n 89 consci\sness 9 g5]al40 8,all our judgm5ts are at fir/ m]e judgm5ts ( p]ception2 !y hold good m]ely = u 7t is1 = ! individual subject71 & we d n till aft]w>ds give !m a new ref]5ce1 namely1 to an object4444 ,to illu/rate ! matt]3 t ! room is w>m1 sug> sweet1 & wormwood bitt]--^! are m]ely subjectively valid judgm5ts4 ,i d n at all dem& t ,i myself %\ld at all times1 or t e o!r p]son %\ld1 f9d ! facts to be :at ,i n[ ass]t2 !y only express a ref]5ce ( two s5sations to ! same subject1 to myself1 & t only 9 my pres5t /ate ( p]ception4 ,consequ5tly !y are n int5d$ to be valid ( ! object4 ,su* judgm5ts ,i h nam$ ^? ( p]ception4 ,judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce are ( q a diff]5t nature4 ,:at exp]i5ce tea*es me "u c]ta9 circum/ances1 x mu/ tea* me always & tea* ev]ybody1 & its validity is n limit$ to ! subject or to its /ate at a p>ticul> "t40#ifg ,! illegitimacy & ! ?or\ghly mislead+ "* ( ?is di/9ction h>dly require to be po9t$ out4 ,obvi\sly ,kant is "h confus+ ass]tion ( cont+5cy & cont+5cy ( ass]tion4#ifh ,a judgm5t ( cont+5cy1 9 ord] to be valid1 mu/ itself be necess>y4 ,ev5 a mom5t>y /ate ( ! self is ref]able to an object 9 judgm5t only if t object is causally1 & !re=e necess>ily1 conc]n$ 9 its production4#ifi ,! di/9ction is repeat$ 9 #bb z foll[s3 8,?9k+ is ! comb9+ ( repres5tations 9 "o consci\sness4 ,?is comb9ation is ei!r m]ely relative to ! subject1 & is cont+5t & subjective1 or is absolute1 & is necess>y or objective4 ,! comb9ation ( repres5tations 9 "o consci\sness is judgm5t4 ,?9k+1 !re=e1 is ! same z judg+1 or ! relat+ ( repres5tations to judgm5ts 9 g5]al4 ,judgm5ts1 !re=e1 are ei!r m]ely subjective1 or !y are objective4 ,!y are subjective :5 repres5tations are relat$ to a consci\sness 9 "o subject only1 & are comb9$ 9 x alone4 ,!y are objective :5 !y are unit$ 9 a consci\sness 9 g5]al1 t is1 necess>ily40#igj ,to accept ?is di/9ction is to ?r[ ! entire argum5t into confusion4 ,?is ,kant seems to h himself recognis$ 9 ! int]val betwe5 ! ,prolegom5a & ! second edition ( ! ,critique4 ,= 9 ! section be=e u !re is no trace ( x4 ,! opposition is no long] betwe5 subjective & objective judgm5t1 b only betwe5 association ( ideas & judgm5t :i* z su* is always objective4 ,! di/9ction drawn 9 ! ,prolegom5a is only1 inde$1 a m def9ite =mulation ( ! di/9ction :i* runs ?r\gh ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique betwe5 ! indet]m9ate & ! det]m9ate object ( consci\sness4 ,! m def9ite =mulation ( x seems1 h[ev]1 to h _h ! happy effect ( enabl+ ,kant to realise ! illegitimacy ( any su* di/9ction4 99 99 99 99 99 ,we may n[ proce$ to consid] ! rema9+ sections4#iga ,9 section #baigb ,kant makes a v surpris+ /atem5t4 ,! above argum5t1 :i* he summ>ises 9 a s5t5ce1 yields1 he decl>es1 8! beg9n+ ( a d$uction ( ! pure concepts ( und]/&+40 ,?is c h>dly be tak5 z repres5t+ ,kant's real e/imate ( ! significance ( ! prec$+ argum5t1 & w\ld seem to be due to a tempor>y preoccupation ) ! problems t c5tre 9 ! doctr9e ( s*ematism4 ,s f>1 ,kant adds 9 explanation1 no acc\nt has be5 tak5 ( ! p>ticul> mann] 9 :i* ! manifold ( empirical intuition is suppli$ to u4#igc ,! necess>y supplem5t1 consi/+ ( a v brief outl9e /atem5t ( ! doctr9e ( s*ematism1 is giv5 9 section #bf4igd ,x diff]s f ! tea*+ ( ! special *apt] devot$ to s*ematism 9 emphasis+ space equally ) "t4 ,! doctr9e ( pure a priori manifolds is incid5tally ass]t$4#ige ,section #bf concludes by consid]ation ( ! "q :y appe>ances mu/ con=m to ! a priori categories4 ,x is no m surpris+1 ,kant claims1 ?an t !y %\ld agree ) ! a priori =ms ( intuition4 ,! categories & ! intuitional =ms are relative to ! same subject to :i* ! appe>ances are relative2 & ! appe>ances 8z m]e repres5tations are subject to no law ( connection save t :i* ! comb9+ faculty prescribes40 ,! summ>y ( ! d$uction giv5 9 section #bg discusses ! ?ree possible !ories reg>d+ ! orig9 ( pure concepts1 viz4 ^? ( g5]atio aequivoca 7out ( exp]i5ce71 epig5esis1 & pre=mation4 ,! fir/ is disprov$ by ! d$uction4 ,! second is ! doctr9e ( ! d$uction & fulfils all ! requirem5ts ( demon/ration4 ,! pro( t ! categories are at once indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce & yet also univ]sally valid = all exp]i5ce is ( ! /ronge/ possible k9d1 namely1 t !y make exp]i5ce itself possible4 ,! ?ird !ory1 t ! categories1 :ile subjective & self-discov]$1 orig9ate 9 faculties :i* are implant$ 9 u by our ,creator & :i* are s =m$ z to yield concepts 9 h>mony ) ! laws ( nature1 lies op5 to two ma9 objections4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ?is is an hypo!sis capable ( acc\nt+ equally well = any k9d ( a priori :atsoev]2 ! pr$et]m9$ p[]s ( judgm5t c be multipli$ )\t limit4 ,b a second objection is decisive1 namely1 t on su* a !ory ! categories w\ld lack ! p>ticul> k9d ( necessity :i* is requir$4 ,!y w\ld express only ! necessities impos$ ^u our ?9k+ by ! con/itution ( our m9ds1 & w\ld n ju/ify any ass]tion ( necess>y connection 9 ! object4 ,kant might also h add$1#igf t ?is hypo!sis is metaphysical1 & !re=e (f]s 9 explanation ( ! empirical validity ( a priori concepts a !ory :i* re/s ^u & involves _! uncondition$ employm5t4 ,t is a criticism :i* is re9=c$ by ! tea*+ ( ! ,dialectic4 ,to return n[ to ! omitt$ sections #bb to #be4 ,section #bb makes no fre% contribution to ! argum5t ( ! fir/ edition4 ,its tea*+ 9 reg>d to pure intuition & ma!matical k has already be5 comm5t$ ^u4 ,9 section #bc ,kant dwells ^u an int]e/+ consequ5ce ( ! argum5t ( ! d$uction4 ,! categories h a wid] scope ?an ! pure =ms ( s5se4 ,s9ce ! argum5t ( ! d$uction has %[n t judgm5t is ! indisp5sable in/rum5t bo? = r$uc+ a manifold to ! unity ( app]ception & also = conf]r+ ^u repres5tations a relation to an object1 x foll[s t ! categories :i* are simply ! possible functions ( unity 9 judgm5t are valid = any & e consci\sness t is s5su\sly condition$ & ^: k is !re=e acquir$ ?r\gh syn!sis ( a giv5 manifold4 ,?\gh su* consci\sness may n intuit 9 t]ms ( space & "t1 x mu/ none ! less appreh5d objects 9 t]ms ( ! categories4 ,! categories ?us ext5d to objects ( s5su\s intuition 9 g5]al4 ,!y are n1 h[ev]1 valid ( objects z su*1 t is1 ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,z empty relational =ms !y h mean+ only 9 ref]5ce to a giv5 matt]2 & z in/rum5ts = ! r$uction ( v>iety to ! unity ( app]ception _! validity has be5 prov$ only = consci\s & s5su\s exp]i5ce4 ,ev5 if ! possibility ( a non-s5su\s intuitive und]/&+1 capable ( appreh5d+ ?+s 9 !mselves1 be grant$1 we h no suffici5t gr\nd = ass]t+ t ! =ms :i* su* und]/&+ w employ mu/ co9cide ) ! categories4#igg ,^! are po9ts :i* w come up = discussion 9 connection ) ,kant's m detail$ argum5t 9 ! *apt] on ! di/9ction betwe5 ph5om5a & n\m5a4#igh ,! head+ to section #bd is decid$ly mislead+4 ,! phrase 8objects ( ! s5ses 9 g5]al0 might be synonym\s ) 8objects ( intuition 9 g5]al0 ( ! prec$+ section4 ,to int]pret x1 h[ev]1 by ! cont5ts ( ! section1 x means 8objects ( our s5ses40 ,?is section ought1 !re=e1 to =m "p ( section #bf1 :i* 9 its op5+ s5t5ces supplies its prop] introduction4 7,x may also be not$ t ! op5+ s5t5ces ( section #bd are a ne$less repetition ( section #bc4 ,?is w\ld seem to %[ t x 0 n writt5 9 imm$iate cont9uation ( x47 ,! fir/ ?ree p>agraphs ( section #bd exp\nd ! same doctr9e ( s*ematism z t outl9$ 9 section #bf1 save t "t alone is ref]r$ to4 ,! rema9+ p>agraphs ( section #bd deal ) ! connect$ doctr9e ( inn] s5se4 ,section #be deals ) c]ta9 consequ5ces :i* foll[ f t doctr9e ( inn] s5se4#igi ,,! ,,doctr9e ,,( ,,inn] ,,s5se ,we h /ill to consid] a doctr9e ( great importance 9 ,kant's ?9k+1 t ( inn] s5se4 ,! significance ( ?is doctr9e is almo/ inv]sely proportionate to ! scant9ess & obscurity ( ! passages 9 :i* x is exp\nd$ & develop$4 ,mu* ( ! indef9it5ess & illusiv5ess ( ! curr5t int]pretations ( ,kant w\ld seem to be directly traceable to ! comm5tator's failure to appreciate ! position :i* x occupies 9 ,kant's sy/em4 ,sev]al ( ,kant's *ief results are giv5 z d$uctions f x1 :ile x itself1 9 turn1 is l>gely inspir$ by ! ne$ = a secure basis ^u :i* ^! positions may be made to re/4 ,! relation ( ! doctr9e to its consequ5ces is ?us tw(old4 ,kant =mulates x 9 ord] to safegu>d or r to ju/ify c]ta9 conclusions2 & yet ^! conclusions h !mselves 9 "p be5 arriv$ at ow+ to 8 read9ess to accept su* a doctr9e1 & to :at w\ld seem to h be5 8 almo/ in/9ctive feel+ ( its k9%ip 7not)/&+ ! v crude =m 9 :i* alone he 0 able to =mulate x7 ) ,critical tea*+4 ,x 0 probably "o ( ! e>lie/ ( ! _m new t5ets :i* ,kant adopt$ 9 ! ye>s imm$iately subsequ5t to ! publication ( ! inaugural ,diss]tation1 b x fir/ receiv$ adequate /atem5t 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique4 ,kant took advantage ( ! second edition to reply to c]ta9 criticisms to :i* 8 view ( "t _h giv5 rise1 & 9 s do+ 0 compell$ to =mulate ! doctr9e ( inn] s5se 9 a mu* m explicit mann]4 ,hi!rto he _h assum$ its tru?1 b _h n1 z x w\ld seem1 suffici5tly reflect$ ^u ! v>i\s connect$ conclusions to :i* he 0 !reby committ$4 ,?is is "o ( ! _m in/ances :i* %[ h[ :at is mo/ fundam5tal 9 ,kant's ?9k+ is frequ5tly t ( :i* he 0 himself lea/ def9itely aw>e4 ,l o!r ?9k]s1 he 0 mo/ apt to discuss :at he himself 0 incl9$ to "q & feel d\bt ov]4 ,! s\rces ( 8 insight z well z ! causes ( 8 failure (t5 lay beyond ! purview ( 8 explicitly develop$ t5ets2 & only "u ! /imulus ( criticism 0 he con/ra9$ & enabl$ to br+ !m )9 ! circle ( reason$ conviction4 ,we may v5ture ! prophecy t if ,kant _h be5 able to devote sev]al ye>s m to ! matur+ ( ! problems :i* 9 ! face ( s _m difficulties he _h br\ght ?us f>1 ! doctr9e ( inn] s5se1 or r ! doctr9es to :i* x gives expression1 w\ld h be5 plac$ 9 ! =efront ( 8 tea*+1 & _! sy/ematic int]connection1 bo? 9 ! way ( gr\nd & ( consequ5ce1 ) all 8 *ief t5ets w\ld h be5 trac$ & securely e/abli%$4 ,?is w\ld h involv$1 h[ev]1 two v important *anges4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ,kant w\ld h _h to recognise ! unsatisfactory "* ( ! suppos$ analogy betwe5 inn] & out] s5se4 ,z already rem>k$1#ihj no great ?9k]1 except ,locke1 has attempt$ to int]pret inn] consci\sness on ! analogy ( ! s5ses2 & ! obscurities ( ,kant's argum5t are n1 !re=e1 to be excus$ on ! gr\nd t 8! difficulty1 h[ a subject c h an int]nal intuition ( itself1 is common to e !ory40 ,secondly1 ,kant w\ld h _h to def9e ! relation 9 :i* he conceiv$ ?is "p ( 8 tea*+ to /& to 8 !ory ( consci\sness4 ,b bo? ^! *anges c\ld h be5 made )\t requir+ t he %\ld give up ! doctr9es :i* are ma9ly responsible = 8 !ory ( inn] s5se1 namely1 t !re c be no aw>5ess ( aw>5ess1 b only ( exi/5ces :i* are objective1 & t !re is consequ5tly no consci\sness ( ! g5]ative1 syn!tic processes#iha :i* con/itute consci\sness on its subjective side4 ,x is l>gely 9 virtue ( ^! conclusions t ,kant's ph5om5alism diff]s f ! subjective idealism ( 8 pr$ecessors4 ,if we ignore or reject !m1 m]ely because ( ! obvi\sly unsatisfactory mann] 9 :i* alone ,kant has be5 able to =mulate !m1 we rule ourselves out f und]/&+ ! int5tion & purpose ( mu* t is mo/ *>act]i/ic ( ,critical tea*+4 ,! doctr9e ( inn] s5se1 z exp\nd$ by ,locke1 suff]s f an ambiguity :i* seems almo/ insep>able f x1 namely1 ! confusion betwe5 inn] s5se1 on ! "o h& z a s5se 9 "s degree analog\s 9 nature to :at may be call$ out] s5se1 & on ! o!r z consi/+ 9 self-consci\s reflection4 ,?is same confusion is traceable ?r\gh\t ! ,critique1 & is1 z we %all f9d1 9 l>ge "p responsible = ,kant's failure to recognise1 indep5d5tly ( outside criticism1 ! c5tral & indisp5sable "p :i* ?is doctr9e is call$ ^u to play 9 8 sy/em4 ,! doctr9e is /at$ by ,kant z foll[s4 ,j z out] s5se is affect$ by n\m5al ag5cies1 & s yields a manifold arrang$ 9 t]ms ( a =m peculi> to x1 namely1 space1 s inn] s5se is affect$ by ! m9d itself & its inn] /ate4#ihb ,! manifold !reby caus$ is arrang$ 9 t]ms ( a =m peculi> to inn] s5se1 namely1 "t4 ,! cont5t ?us arrang$ falls into two ma9 divisions4 ,on ! "o h& we h feel+s1 desires1 volitions1 t is1 /ates ( ! m9d 9 ! /rict s5se1 subjective non-spatial exi/5ces4 ,on ! o!r h& we h s5sations1 p]ceptions1 images1 concepts1 9 a ^w1 repres5tations 7,vor/ellung57 ( e possible type4 ,^! latt] all ref] to ! ext]nal _w 9 space1 & yet1 accord+ to ,kant1 speak+ f ! limit$ po9t ( view ( a critique ( k1 =m ! prop] cont5t ( inn] s5se4 8444! repres5tations ( ! out] s5ses con/itute ! actual mat]ial ) :i* we occupy our m9ds10#ihc 8! :ole mat]ial ( k ev5 = our inn] s5se40#ihd 7,^! /atem5ts1 x may be obs]v$1 are fir/ made 9 ! second edition47 ,z ,kant expla9s himself 9 ,b #fg-h1 he w\ld seem to mean t ! m9d 9 ! process ( 8sett+0 repres5tations ( out] s5se 9 space affects itself1 & is !re=e con/ra9$ to arrange ! giv5 repres5tations likewise 9 "t4 ,no new cont5t1 additional to t ( out] s5se1 is !reby g5]at$1 b :at previ\sly z object ( out] s5se exi/$ m]ely 9 space is n[ also subject$ to conditions ( "t4 ,! repres5tations ( out] s5se are all by _! v nature likewise repres5tations ( inn] s5se4 ,to out] s5se is due bo? _! cont5t & _! spatial =m2 to inn] s5se !y owe only ! additional =m ( "t2 _! cont5t rema9s unaffect$ 9 ! process ( be+ tak5 ov] by a second s5se4 ,?is yields su* explanation z is possible ( ,kant's ass]tion 9 ,a #cc t 8"t c nev] be a det]m9ation ( out] appe>ances40 ,he may be tak5 z mean+ t "t is nev] a det]m9ation ( out] s5se z su*1 b only ( its cont5ts z always likewise subject to ! =m ( inn] s5se4#ihe ,?is is h[ ,kant =mulates 8 position f ! extreme subjectivi/ po9t ( view :i* omits to draw any di/9ction betwe5 repres5tation & its object1 betwe5 inn] /ates ( ! self & appe>ances 9 space4 ,all repres5tations1 he says1#ihf all appe>ances )\t exception1 are /ates ( inn] s5se1 modifications ( ! m9d4 ,"s exi/ only 9 "t1 "s exi/ bo? 9 space & 9 "t2 b all alike are modes ( ! id5tical self1 m]e repres5tations 7blosse ,vor/ellung574 ,?\gh appe>ances may exi/ outside "o ano!r 9 space1 space itself exi/s only z repres5tation1 m]ely 89 u40 ,n[ )\t seek+ to d5y t ?is is a view :i* we f9d 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique z well z 9 ! fir/1#ihg & t ev5 9 passages :i* are obvi\sly q late 9 date ( writ+ ,kant frequ5tly speaks 9 t]ms :i* con=m to x1 we mu/ be no less insi/5t 9 ma9ta9+ t an alt]native view m & m comes to ! front 9 proportion z ,kant ga9s ma/]y ov] ! conflict+ t5d5cies t g to con/itute 8 new ,critical tea*+4 ,f ! v fir/ he uses language :i* implies t "s k9d ( di/9ction mu/ be drawn betwe5 repres5tations & objects repres5t$1 betwe5 subjective cognitive /ates 9 ! prop] s5se ( ! t]m & exi/5ces 9 space4 8,"t c nev] be a det]m9ation ( out] appe>ances4 ,x belongs nei!r to =m nor position1 etc4 ,on ! o!r h& x det]m9es ! relation ( repres5tations 9 our inn] /ate40#ihh ,simil>ly 9 ^? v s5t5ces 9 :i* he ass]ts all appe>ances to be blosse ,vor/ellung51 a di/9ction is none ! less impli$4 8,"t is ! =mal a priori condition ( all appe>ances 9 g5]al4 ,space1 z ! pure =m ( all out] intuition1 is z a priori condition limit$ exclusively 7bloss7 to out] appe>ances4 ,on ! o!r h& z all repres5tations1 :e!r !y h out] ?+s z _! object or n1 /ill 9 !mselves belong1 z det]m9ations ( ! m9d1 to ! inn] /ate1 & ?is inn] /ate is subject to ! =mal condition ( inn] intuition1 t is ( "t1 "t is an a priori condition ( all appe>ance :atev]4 ,x is1 inde$1 ! imm$iate condition ( ! inn] appe>ance 7( our s\ls71 & !reby m$iately likewise ( out] appe>ances40#ihi ,z ! words :i* ,i h italicis$ %[1 ,kant1 ev5 9 ! v s5t5ce 9 :i* he ass]ts out] repres5tations to be inn] /ates1 none ! less recognises t appe>ances 9 space are n repres5tations 9 ! same mean+ ( t t]m z are subjective /ates4 ,!y are ! objects ( repres5tation1 n repres5tation itself4 ,! latt] alone is correctly describable z a /ate ( ! m9d4 ,! =m] may be condition$ by repres5tation1 & may !re=e be describable z appe>ances1 b are n = t reason to be equat$ ) repres5tation4 ,b be=e ! gr\nds & nature ( ?is di/9ction c be =mulat$ 9 ! prop] ,critical t]ms1 we mu/ consid] ! reasons :i* induc$ ,kant to commit himself to ?is obscure & difficult doctr9e ( inn] s5se4 ,z ,i %all try to %[1 x is no m]e excresc5ce ^u 8 sy/em2 on ! contr>y1 x is insep>ably b\nd up ) all 8 ma9 t5ets4 ,"o ( ! *ief influ5ces :i* con/ra9$ ,kant to develop ?is doctr9e is ! conclusion1 s ess5tial to 8 position1 t k mu/ always involve an intuitional manifold 9 addition to a priori =ms & concepts4 ,t be+ s1 he 0 b\nd to d5y to ! m9d all p[] ( ga9+ k by m]e reflection4 ,if our m5tal activities & /ates lay op5 to direct inspection1 we %\ld h to recognise 9 ! m9d a non-s5su\s intuitional p[]4 ,?r\gh self-consci\sness or reflection we %\ld acquire k indep5d5tly ( s5se4 ,su* appreh5sion1 ?\gh limit$ to ! m9d's own op]ations & /ates1 w\ld none ! less be k1 & yet w\ld n con=m to ! conditions :i*1 z ! transc5d5tal d$uction has %[n1 are involv$ 9 all k4 ,9 ,kant's view ! belief t we possess self-consci\sness ( ?is type1 a p[] ( reflection ?us conceiv$1 is :olly illusory4 ,to assume any su* faculty w\ld be to end[ ! m9d ) occult or my/ical p[]s1 & w\ld ?r[ u back ^u ! ,leibnizian rationalism1 :i* traces to su* reflection our consci\sness ( ! categories1 & :i* re>s ^u ?is f\ndation ! entire body ( metaphysical sci5ce4#iij ,! complem5t>y negative conclusion ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction is a no less fundam5tal & con/ra9+ influ5ce 9 compell+ ,kant to develop a doctr9e ( inn] s5se4 ,if all k is k ( appe>ances1 or if1 z he /ates 8 position 9 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples1#iia our k c ext5d no fur!r ?an s5se exp]i5ce & inf]5ce f su* exp]i5ce1 ei!r k ( our inn] /ates mu/ be m$iat$1 l our k ( out] objects1 by s5sation1 or we c h no k ( !m :atsoev]4 ,on ,critical pr9ciples1 consi/5tly appli$1 !re c be no middle c\rse betwe5 acceptance ( an indirect empirical k ( ! m9d & ass]tion ( its unkn[abl5ess4 ,m5tal activities may p]haps be ?\ght 9 t]ms ( ! pure =ms ( und]/&+1 b 9 t case _! conception w rema9 z purely problematic & z indet]m9ate z ! conception ( ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,x is impossible = ,kant to admit imm$iate consci\sness ( ! m9d's real activities & /ates1 & at ! same "t to d5y t we c h k ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! ,ae/hetic1 9 prov+ t ev]y?+ 9 space & "t is appe>ance1 implicitly assumes ! impossibility ( direct self-consci\s reflection2 & ! transc5d5tal d$uction 9 %[+ t all k involves z correlative factors bo? s5se & ?\ght1 has re9=c$ ?is conclusion1 & calls = its m explicit recognition1 9 ref]5ce to ! m inw>d aspect ( exp]i5ce4 ,z we h already not$1#iib ,kant's doctr9e ( inn] s5se 0 probably adopt$ 9 ! e>ly 'sev5ties1 & ?\gh x is n itself def9itely =mulat$ 9 ! fir/ edition1 ! *ief consequ5ce t foll[s f x is cle>ly recognis$4 ,?us 9 ! ,ae/hetic ,kant draws ! conclusion t1 z "t is ! =m ( inn] s5se1 ev]y?+ appreh5d$ 9 "t1 & consequ5tly all inn] /ates & activities1 c be kn[n only z appe>ances4 ,! m9d 7mean+ !reby ! ultimate condition+ gr\nds ( consci\sness7 is z indirectly kn[n z is any o!r mode ( n\m5al exi/5ce4 ,9 ! ,analytic1 :5ev] he is call$ ^u to express himself ^u ?is & k9dr$ po9ts1 he cont9ues to hold to ?is position2 & 9 ! section on ! ,p>alogisms all ! ma9 consequ5ces t foll[ f its acceptance are drawn 9 ! mo/ explicit & unambigu\s mann]4 ,x is argu$ t z ! inn] _w1 ! feel+s1 volitions & repres5tations ( :i* we are consci\s1 is a _w con/ruct$ out ( a giv5 manifold yield$ by inn] s5se1 & is !re=e kn[n only z ! appe>ance ( a deep] reality :i* we h no p[] ( appreh5d+1 x possesses no sup]iority ei!r ( c]ta9ty or ( imm$iacy ov] ! out] _w ( objects 9 space4 ,we h imm$iate consci\sness ( bo? alike1 b 9 bo? cases ?is imm$iate consci\sness re/s ^u ! transc5d5tal syn!tic processes :]eby su* consci\sness is condition$ & g5]at$4 ,! transc5d5tal activities fall outside ! field ( empirical consci\sness & !re=e ( k4 ,?us ,kant w\ld seem to be ma9ta9+ t ! radical error committ$ by ! subjective ideali/s1 & ) :i* all ! ma9 defects ( _! tea*+ are insep>ably b\nd up1 lies 9 _! ascription to ! m9d ( a p[] ( direct self-consci\s reflection1 & consequ5tly 9 _! confusion ( ! transc5d5tal activities :i* condition consci\sness ) ! inn] /ates & processes :i* su* consci\sness reveals4 ,?is has l$ !m to ascribe priority & indep5d5ce to our inn] /ates1 & to reg>d out] objects z kn[n only by an inf]5ce f !m4 ,! ,critical tea*+ insi/s on ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality1 applies x to ! inn] life1 & s re/ores to our consci\sness ( ! out] _w ! c]ta9ty & imm$iacy ( :i* subjective idealism w\ld pr(ess to deprive x4 ,su* are ! important conclusions at :i* ,kant arrives 9 8 v>i\s 8refutations ( idealism02 & x w be advisable to consid] ^! refutations 9 full detail be=e attempt+ to complete our /atem5t ( 8 doctr9e ( inn] s5se4 ,,kant',s ,,refutations ,,( ,,idealism ,kant has 9 a numb] ( diff]5t passages attempt$ to def9e 8 ,critical /&po9t 9 its di/9ction f ! positions ( ,desc>tes & ,b]keley4 ,consid]ation ( ^! w enable u to foll[ ,kant 9 8 gradual recognition ( ! manifold consequ5ces to :i* he is committ$ by 8 sub/itution ( inn] s5se = direct self-consci\s intuition or reflection1 or r ( ! v>i\s cong5ial t5ets :i* x gives him ! "r consi/5tly to def5d & ma9ta94 ,9 ,kant's ,critical writ+s we f9d no less ?an sev5 diff]5t /atem5ts ( 8 refutation ( idealism3 7,i47 9 ! f\r? ,p>alogism ( ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique2 7,,ii47 9 section #ac 7,anm4 ii4 & iii47 ( ! ,prolegom5a2 7,,iii47 9 section #di ( ! ,prolegom5a2 7,,iv47 9 ! second app5dix to ! ,prolegom5a2 7,v47 9 sections add$ 9 ! second edition at ! conclusion ( ! ,ae/hetic 7,b #fi ff472 7,,vi47 9 ! 8refutation ( idealism0 7,b #bgd-h71 9 ! supplem5t>y section at ! end ( ! section on ! ,po/ulates 7,b #bia-d71 & 9 ! note to ! new preface 7,b xxxix-xl72 7,,vii47 9 ! 8refutation ( problematic idealism0 giv5 9 ! ,sev5 ,small ,pap]s :i* orig9at$ 9 ,kant's conv]sations ) ,kiesewett]4 ,consid]ation ( ^! 9 ! above ord] w reveal ,kant's gradual & some:at vacillat+ recognition ( ! new & revolution>y position :i* alone g5u9ely h>monises ) ,critical pr9ciples4 ,b fir/ we mu/ briefly consid] ! v>i\s mean+s :i* ,kant at diff]5t p]iods assign$ to ! t]m idealism4 ,ev5 9 ! ,critique itself x is employ$ 9 a great v>iety ( div]se connotations4 ,9 ! pre-,critical writ+s#iic ! t]m idealism is usually employ$ 9 :at 0 its curr5tly accept$ mean+1 namely1 z signify+ any philosophy :i* d5i$ ! exi/5ce ( an indep5d5t _w correspond+ to our subjective repres5tations4 ,b ev5 z ?us us$ ! t]m is ambigu\s4#iid ,x may signify ei!r d5ial ( a corporeal _w indep5d5t ( our repres5tations or d5ial ( an immat]ial _w 8correspond+ to0 ! repres5t$ mat]ial _w1 i4e4 ! d5ial ( ,d+e an si*4 ,= !re are traceable 9 ,leibniz's writ+s two v diff]5t views z to ! reality ( ! mat]ial _w4 ,sometimes ! monads are view$ z purely intelligible sub/ances )\t mat]iality ( any k9d4 ,! k+dom ( ! ext5d$ is set into ! repres5t+ subjects2 only ! immat]ial _w ( unext5d$ purely spiritual monads rema9s z indep5d5tly real4 ,at o!r times ! monads1 ?\gh 9 !mselves immat]ial1 are view$ z con/itut+ ?r\gh _! coexi/5ce an indep5d5t mat]ial _w & a mat]ially occupi$ space4 ,e monad has a spatial sph]e ( activity4 ,! mat]ial _w is an objective exi/5ce due to ext]nal relations betwe5 ! monads1 n a m]ely subjective exi/5ce int]nal to ea* ( !m4 ,?is alt]nation ( /&po9ts enabl$ ,leibniz's successors to d5y t !y 7 ideali/s2 & z ! m d>+ & speculative aspects ( ,leibniz's tea*+ 7 slurr$ ov] 9 ! process ( its popul>isation1 x 0 ! second1 less consi/5t view1 :i* ga9$ ! upp] h&4 ,wolff1 especially 9 8 lat] writ+s1 d5\nces idealism2 & 9 ! curr5t manuals1 sections 9 refutation ( idealism became "p ( ! recognis$ philosophical tea*+4 ,idealism /ill1 h[ev]1 cont9u$ to be us$ ambigu\sly1 z signify+ indiff]5tly ei!r d5ial ( mat]ial bodies or d5ial ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,?is is ! dual mean+ :i* ! t]m pres5ts 9 ,kant's pre-,critical writ+s4 ,9 8 ,dilucidatio 7#agee7iie he refutes idealism by means ( ! pr9ciple t a sub/ance _c und]go *anges unless x is a sub/ance indep5d5t ( o!r sub/ances4 ,obvi\sly ?is argum5t c at mo/ prove ! exi/5ce ( an indep5d5t _w1 n t x is spatial or mat]ial4 ,& z ,vaih+] adds1 x does n ev5 rule out ! possibility t *anges f9d _! s\rce 9 a ,div9e ,be+4 ,9 ! ,dreams ( a ,visionse] 7#agff7iif ,sw$5borg is describ$ z an ideali/1 b )\t fur!r specification ( ! exact s5se 9 :i* ! t]m is employ$4 ,9 ! inaugural ,diss]tation 7#aggj7iig idealism is aga9 reject$1 on ! gr\nd t s5se-affection po9ts to ! pres5ce ( an intelligible object or n\m5on4 ,9 ,kant's class lectures on metaphysics1#iih :i* fall1 9 "p at lea/1 betwe5 #aggj & #agha1 ! t]m idealism is employ$ 9 a v diff]5t s5se1 :i* anticipates its use 9 ! ,app5dix to ! ,prolegom5a4#iii ,! tea*+ ( ! ,diss]tation1 t ?+s 9 !mselves are kn[able1 is n[ describ$ z dogmatic1 ,platonic1 my/ical 7s*wrm]is*]7 idealism4 ,he /ill rejects ! idealism ( ,b]keley1 & /ill entitles x simply idealism1 )\t limit+ or descriptive pr$icates4 ,b n[ also he employs ! phrase 8problematic idealism0 z descriptive ( 8 own new position4 ,?is is1 ( c\rse1 contr>y to 8 inv>iable usage else:]e1 b is int]e/+ z %[+ t ab\t ?is "t 8 repugnance to ! t]m idealism beg9s to give way1 & t he is will+ to recognise t ! relation ( ! ,critical tea*+ to idealism is n "o ( simple opposition4 ,he n[ beg9s to reg>d idealism z a factor1 ?\gh a radically trans=m$ factor1 9 8 own philosophy4 ,/udy ( ! ,critique re9=ces ?is conclusion4 ,9 ! ,ae/hetic ,kant tea*es ! 8transc5d5tal ideality0 ( space & "t2 & 9 ! ,dialectic 79 ! f\r? ,p>alogism7 describes 8 position z idealism1 ?\gh ) ! qualify+ pr$icate transc5d5tal4#ajjj ,b ?\gh ?is involves an ext5sion ( ! previ\s connotation ( ! t]m idealism1 & might !re=e h be5 expect$ to increase ! exi/+ confusion1 x has ! =tunate effect ( con/ra9+ ,kant to recognise & discrim9ate ! v>i\s mean+s 9 :i* x may be employ$4 ,?is is done some:at clumsily1 z if x 7 a k9d ( aft]?\ght4 ,9 ! introductory syllogism ( ! f\r? ,p>alogism ,desc>tes' position & 8 own are ref]r$ to simply z idealism & dualism respectively4 ,! v>i\s possible sub-species ( idealism z pres5t$ 9 ! two editions ( ! ,critique & 9 ! ,prolegom5a may be tabulat$ z foll[s3 ,mat]ial ,sceptical ,problematic 7! position ( ,desc>tes74 ,sceptical 9 ! /rict] & m usual ,idealism s5se 7! position ( ,hume74 ,dogmatic 7! position ( ,b]keley74 ,=mal or ,critical or ,transc5d5tal 7,kant's own position74 ,! di/9ction betwe5 problematic idealism & idealism ( ! m /rictly sceptical type is n cle>ly drawn by ,kant4#ajja ,v /rangely ,kant 9 ?is connection nev] m5tions ,hume3 ! ref]5ce 9 ,b xxxix n4 is probably n to ,hume b to ,jacobi4 ,transc5d5tal idealism is tak5 z involv+ an empirical realism & dualism1 & is set 9 opposition to transc5d5tal realism :i* is repres5t$ z involv+ empirical idealism4 ,9 ,b xxxix n4 ,kant speaks ( 8psy*ological idealism10 mean+1 z x w\ld seem1 mat]ial or non-,critical idealism4 ,9 ! second app5dix to ! ,prolegom5a ,kant draws a fur!r di/9ction1 9 l9e ) t already not$ 9 8 lectures on metaphysics4 ,tabulat$ x is z foll[s3 ,my/ical1 9 ! s5se ( belief 9 & reliance on a suppos$ human p[] ( intellectual intuition4 ,x is describ$ z ,idealismidealism 9 ! /rict 7eig5tli*7 s5se--! position ( ! ,eleatics1 ( ,plato & ,b]keley4 ,=mal or ,critical--,kant's own position4 ,?is latt] classification c cause no?+ b confusion4 ,! objections t h to be made aga9/ x f ,kant's own critical /&po9t are /at$ bel[4#ajjb ,let u n[ consid]1 9 ! ord] ( _! pres5tation1 ! v>i\s refutations ( idealism :i* ,kant has giv5 9 8 ,critical writ+s4 ,i4 ,refutation ( ,idealism z giv5 9 ,fir/ ,edition ( 8,critique0 7,a #cff-hj74--,?is refutation is ma9ly direct$ aga9/ ,desc>tes1 :o is m5tion$ by "n 9 ,a #cfg4 ,kant1 z ,vaih+] sugge/s1 0 v probably l$ to recognise ,desc>tes' position z a species ( idealism 9 ! c\rse ( a re-/udy ( ,desc>tes be=e writ+ ! section on ! ,p>alogisms4 ,z already po9t$ out1 ?is involves ! use ( ! t]m idealism 9 a mu* wid] s5se ?an t :i* 0 usually giv5 to x 9 ,kant's own day4 ,9 ! developm5t ( 8 argum5t ,kant also wav]s betwe5 two v diff]5t def9itions ( ?is idealism1 z be+ d5ial ( imm$iate c]ta9ty & z d5ial ( all c]ta9ty4#ajjc ,! second int]pretation1 :i* w\ld make x apply to ,hume r ?an to ,desc>tes1 is /r5g!n$ 9 ! m9ds ( 8 read]s by 8 fur!r di/9ction#ajjd betwe5 dogmatic & sceptical idealism1 & ! id5tification ( ! idealism "u consid]ation ) ! latt]4 ,! title problematic :i* ,kant 9 ! second edition#ajje applies to ,desc>tes' position suff]s f ?is same ambiguity4 ,z a matt] ( fact1 ,kant's refutation applies equally well to ei!r position4 ,! tea*+ ( ,b]keley1 :i* co9cides ) dogmatic idealism z "h def9$ by ,kant1 namely1 z consi/+ 9 ! cont5tion t ! conception ( matt] is inh]5tly contradictory1 is n dwelt ^u1 & ! app5d$ promise ( refutation is n fulfill$4 ,desc>tes' position is /at$ z foll[s3 only our own exi/5ce & inn] /ates are imm$iately appreh5d$ by u2 all p]ceptions are modifications ( inn] s5se2 & ! exi/5ce ( ext]nal objects c !re=e be ass]t$ only by an inf]5ce f ! inn] p]ceptions view$ z effects4 ,9 criticism1 ,kant po9ts out t s9ce an effect may result f m ?an "o cause1 ?is inf]5ce to a q det]m9ate cause1 viz4 objects z bodies 9 space1 is d\btfully legitimate4 ,! cause ( our inn] /ates may lie )9 & n )\t u1 & ev5 if ext]nal1 ne$ n consi/ 9 spatial objects4 ,fur!r1 leav+ aside ! "q ( a possible alt]native to ! assumption ( indep5d5t mat]ial bodies1 ! ass]tion ( ! exi/5ce ( su* objects w\ld1 on ,desc>tes' view1 be m]ely conjectural4 ,x c\ld nev] h c]ta9ty 9 any degree equival5t to t possess$ by ! exp]i5ces ( inn] s5se4 8,by an ideali/1 !re=e1 we mu/ n und]/& "o :o d5ies ! exi/5ce ( out] objects ( ! s5ses1 b only "o :o does n admit t _! exi/5ce is kn[n ?r\gh imm$iate p]ception1 & :o !re=e concludes t we c nev]1 by way ( any possible exp]i5ce1 be completely c]ta9 ( _! reality40#ajjf ,no soon] is ! t]m ideali/ ?us cle>ly def9$ ?an ,kant1 9 keep+ ) ! confus$ "* ( ! entire section1 proce$s to ! ass]tion 7a7 t !re are ideali/s ( ano!r type1 namely1 transc5d5tal ideali/s1#ajjg & 7b7 t ! non-transc5d5tal ideali/s sometimes also adopt a dogmatic position1 n m]ely que/ion+ ! imm$iacy ( our k ( matt]1 b ass]t+ x to be inh]5tly contradictory4 ,all ?is po9ts to ! composite orig9 ( ! cont5ts ( ?is section4 ,transc5d5tal idealism is oppos$ to empirical idealism4 ,x ma9ta9s t ph5om5a are repres5tations m]ely1 n ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,space & "t are ! s5su\s =ms ( our intuitions4 ,empirical idealism1 on ! o!r h&1 goes toge!r ) transc5d5tal realism4 ,x ma9ta9s t space & "t are giv5 z real 9 !mselves1 9 indep5d5ce ( our s5sibility4 7,transc5d5tal "h1 z 9 ! phrase 8transc5d5tal ideality10#ajjh is exactly equival5t to transc5d5t47 ,b su* a cont5tion is inconsi/5t ) ! o!r ma9 t5et ( empirical idealism4 ,= if our inn] repres5tations h to be tak5 z entirely di/9ct f _! objects1 !y _c yield assurance ev5 ( ! exi/5ce ( ^! objects4 ,to ! transc5d5tal ideali/ no su* difficulty is pres5t$4 ,8 position naturally comb9es ) empirical realism1 or1 z x may also be entitl$1 empirical dualism4 ,mat]ial bodies 9 space1 be+ m]ely subjective repres5tations1 are imm$iately appreh5d$4 ,! exi/5ce ( matt] c be e/abli%$ 8)\t our requir+ to issue out beyond our b>e self-consci\sness or to assume any?+ m ?an ! c]ta9ty ( ! repres5tations 9 u1 i4e4 ( ! cogito ergo sum40#ajji ,?\gh ! objects ?us appreh5d$ are outside "o ano!r 9 space1 space itself exi/s only 9 u4 8,out] objects 7bodies7 are m]e appe>ances1 & are !re=e no?+ b a species ( my repres5tations1 ! objects ( :i* are some?+ only ?r\gh ^! repres5tations4 ,ap>t f !m !y are no?+4 ,?us out] ?+s exi/ z well z ,i myself1 & bo?1 inde$1 ^u ! imm$iate witness ( my self-consci\sness44440#ajaj ,! only diff]5ce is t ! repres5tation ( ! self belongs only to inn]1 :ile ext5d$ bodies also belong to out] s5se4 ,!re is ?us a dualism1 b "o t falls entirely )9 ! field ( consci\sness1 & :i* is !re=e empirical1 n transc5d5tal4 ,!re is inde$ a transc5d5tal object :i* 89 ! transc5d5tal s5se may be outside u10#ajaa b x is unkn[n & is n 9 "q4 ,x ought n to be confus$ ) our repres5tations ( matt] & corporeal ?+s4 ,f ?is po9t#ajab ! argum5t becomes disjo9t$ & repeats itself1 & !re is mu* to be said 9 support ( ! cont5tion ( ,adickes t ! rema9d] ( ! section is made up ( a numb] ( sep>ate int]polations4#ajac ,fir/1 ,kant applies ! conclusion e/abli%$ 9 ! ,po/ulates ( ,empirical ,?\ght1 viz4 t reality is reveal$ only 9 s5sation4 ,z s5sation is an elem5t 9 all out] p]ception1 p]ception af=ds imm$iate c]ta9ty ( real exi/5ce1 ,kant next ent]s#ajad ^u a eulogy ( sceptical idealism z 8a b5efactor ( human reason40 ,x br+s home to u ! utt] impossibility ( prov+ ! exi/5ce ( matt] on ! assumption t spatial objects are ?+s 9 !mselves1 & s con/ra9s u to ju/ify ! ass]tions :i* we are at e mom5t mak+4 ,& su* ju/ification is1 ,kant "h claims1 only possible if we recognise t out] objects z m]e repres5tations are imm$iately kn[n4 ,9 ! next p>agraph we f9d a s5t5ce :i*1 toge!r ) ! above eulogi/ic e/imate ( ! m]its ( idealism1 %[s h[ v f> ,kant1 at ! "t ( writ+1 0 f feel+ ! ne$ ( diff]5tiat+ 8 position f t ( subjectivism4 ,! s5t5ce is ?is3 8,we _c be s5ti5t ( :at is outside ourselves1 b only ( :at is 9 ourselves1 & ! :ole ( our self-consci\sness !re=e yields no?+ save m]ely our own det]m9ations40 ,x is probable1 inde$1 t ! p>agraph 9 :i* ?is occurs is ( v e>ly orig91 prior to ! developm5t ( ! ma9 body ( ! ,analytic2 = 9 ! same p>agraph we also f9d ! ass]tion1 utt]ly at v>iance ) ! tea*+ ( ! ,analytic & ) t ( ! fir/ & ?ird ,p>alogisms1 t 8! ?9k+ ego0 is kn[n ph5om5ally z sub/ance4#ajae ,we seem ju/ifi$ 9 conclud+ t ! v>i\s manuscripts :i* h gone to =m ?is section on ! f\r? ,p>alogism 7 writt5 at an e>ly date )9 ! ,critical p]iod4 ,we may note1 9 pass+1 two s5t5ces 9 :i*1 z 9 t quot$ above1 a di/9ction betwe5 repres5tations & _! objects is recognis$ 9 word+ if n 9 fact4 8,all out] p]ception furni%es imm$iate pro( ( some?+ actual 9 space1 or r is ! actual itself4 ,to ?is ext5t empirical realism is beyond "q1 i4e4 !re corresponds to our out] p]ceptions some?+ actual 9 space40#ajaf ,aga9 9 ,a #cgg ! ass]tion occurs t 8our out] s5ses1 z reg>ds ! data f :i* exp]i5ce c arise1 h _! actual correspond+ objects 9 space40 ,c]ta9ly ^! /atem5ts1 :5 tak5 toge!r ) ! o!r passages 9 ?is section1 =m a suffici5tly /range comb9ation ( ass]tion & d5ial4 ,ei!r !re is a di/9ction betwe5 repres5tation & its object or !re is n2 if ! =m]1 !n objects 9 space are n m]ely repres5tations2 if ! latt]1 !n ! 8correspond5ce0 is m]ely t ( a ?+ ) itself4#ajag 99 99 99 99 99 ,?is refutation ( idealism w n itself /& criticism4 ,= two sep>ate reasons x entirely fails to atta9 its pr(ess$ end4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x refutes ! position ( ,desc>tes only by virtually accept+ ! /ill m extreme position ( ,b]keley4 ,out] objects1 ,kant argues1 are imm$iately kn[n because !y are ideas m]ely4 ,!re is no ne$ = inf]5ce1 because !re is no transc5d5ce ( ! doma9 ( our inn] consci\sness4 ,9 o!r words1 ,kant refutes ! problematic idealism ( ,desc>tes by means ( ! m subjective idealism ( ,b]keley4 ,! 8dogmatic0 idealism ( ,b]keley 9 ! =m 9 :i* ,kant "h def9es x1#ajah namely1 z consi/+ 9 ! ass]tion t ! notion ( an indep5d5t spatial object involves inh]5t contradictions1 is "p ( 8 own position4 ,= t reason he 0 b\nd to fail 9 8 promise#ajai to refute su* dogmatic idealism4 ,=tunately he nev] ev5 attempts to d s4 ,9 ! second place1 ,kant ignores ! fact t he has himself adopt$ an 8ideali/0 view ( inn] exp]i5ce4 ,inn] exp]i5ce is n = him1 z x 0 = ,desc>tes1 ! imm$iate appreh5sion ( g5u9e reality4 ,z x is only appe>ance1 ! incorporation ( out] exp]i5ce )9 x1 s f> f e/abli%+ ! reality ( ! objects ( out] s5se1 mu/ r prove ! direct contr>y4 ,no m is really e/abli%$ ?an ,desc>tes himself inv>iably assumes1 namely1 ! actual exi/5ce ( m5tal repres5tations ( a corporeal _w 9 space4 ,desc>tes' fur!r ass]tion t ! _w ( ?+s 9 !mselves c be inf]r$ to be mat]ial & spatial1 ,kant1 ( c\rse1 refuses to accept4 ,on ?is latt] po9t ,kant is 9 ess5tial agreem5t ) ,b]keley4 ,x is by no means surpris+ t ,kant's fir/ critics1#ajbj puzzl$ & bewild]$ by ! obscur] & m difficult portions ( ! ,critique1 %\ld h bas$ _! int]pretation ( ,kant's g5]al position l>gely ^u ! above passages2 & t 9 comb9+ ! extreme subjective idealism :i* ,kant !re advocates ) 8 doctr9e t ! inn] life ( ev]-*ang+ exp]i5ces is itself m]ely ideal1 %\ld h come to ! conclusion t ,kant's position is an ext5sion ( t ( ,b]keley4 ,pi/orius object$ t 9 mak+ out] appe>ances relative to an inn] consci\sness :i* is itself appe>ance1 ,kant is r$uc+ ev]y?+ to m]e illusion4 ,hamann came to ! some:at simil> conclusion1 t ,kant1 not)/&+ 8 v diff]5t me?ods ( argum5t1 is 8a ,prussian ,hume10 9 sub/antial agreem5t ) 8 ,scot* pr$ecessor4 ,,ii4 8,prolegom5a10 ,section #ac1 ,notes ,,ii & ,,iii4--,9 ! ,prolegom5a ,kant replies to ! criticism :i* ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique _h call$ =?1 t 8 position is an ext5sion ( ! idealism ( ,desc>tes1 & ev5 m ?or\ghgo+ ?an t ( ,b]keley4 ,idealism he r$ef9es 9 a mu* n>r[] s5se1 :i* makes x applicable only to ,b]keley 8444z consi/+ 9 ! ass]tion t !re are none b ?9k+ be+s1 & t all o!r ?+s :i* we suppose ourselves to p]ceive 9 intuition are no?+ b repres5tations 9 ! ?9k+ be+s1 to :i* no object ext]nal to !m corresponds 9 fact40#ajba ,9 reply ,kant affirms 8 unwav]+ belief 9 ! reality ( ,d+e an si* 8444:i* ?\gh q unkn[n to u z to :at !y are 9 !mselves1 we yet "k by ! repres5tations :i* _! influ5ce on our s5sibility procures u4444 ,c ?is be t]m$ idealism8 ,x is ! v contr>y40#ajbb ,kant adds t 8 position is ak9 to t ( ,locke1 diff]+ only 9 8 ass]tion ( ! subjectivity ( ! prim>y z well z ( ! second>y qualities4 8,i %\ld be glad to "k :at my ass]tions ought to h be5 9 ord] to avoid all idealism4 ,i suppose ,i ought to h said1 n only t ! repres5tation ( space is p]fectly con=mable to ! relation :i* our s5sibility has to objects 7= t ,i h said71 b also t x is completely simil> to !m--an ass]tion 9 :i* ,i c f9d z little mean+ z if ,i said t ! s5sation ( r$ has a simil>ity to ! prop]ty ( c9nab> :i* excites ?is s5sation 9 me40#ajbc ,kant is "h v evid5tly us+ ! t]m idealism 9 ! n>r[e/ possible mean+1 z repres5t+ only ! position ( ,b]keley1 & z exclud+ t ( ,desc>tes & ,leibniz4 ,su* employm5t ( ! t]m is at v>iance ) 8 own previ\s usage4 ,?\gh idealism "h corresponds to ! 8dogmatic idealism0 ( ,a #cgg1 x is n[ made to conc]n ! ass]tion or d5ial ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 n z previ\sly ! problem ( ! reality ( mat]ial objects & ( space4 ,kant is also ignor+ ! fact1 :i* he m ?an once po9ts out 9 ! ,critique1 t 8 philosophy _c prove t ! cause ( our s5sations is )\t & n )9 u4 ,8 use ( 8body0#ajbd z a "n = ! ?+ 9 itself is likewise )\t ju/ification4 ,?is passage is ma9ly polemical2 x is h>dly m helpful ?an ! criticism to :i* x 0 design$ to reply4 ,9 ,section #ac1 ,note iii41 ,kant meets ! /ill m extreme criticism 7made by ,pi/orius71 t 8 sy/em turns all ! ?+s ( ! _w into m]e illusion 7,s*e974 ,he di/+ui%es transc5d5tal idealism f 8! my/ical & vision>y idealism ( ,b]keley0 on ! "o h&1 & on ! o!r f ! ,c>tesian idealism :i* w\ld conv]t m]e repres5tations into ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,to obviate ! ambiguities ( ! t]m transc5d5tal1 he decl>es t 8 own idealism may p]haps m fitly be entitl$ ,critical4 ,?is di/9ction betwe5 my/ical & ,critical idealism connects ) ! cont5ts ( ! second "p ( ! ,app5dix1 treat$ bel[4 ,,iii4 8,prolegom5a10 ,section #di4--,?is is simply a repetition ( ! argum5t ( ! f\r? ,p>alogism4 ,! ,c>tesian idealism1 n[ 7z 9 ,b #bgd7 nam$ mat]ial idealism1 is alone ref]r$ to4 ,! ,c>tesian idealism does no?+1 ,kant says1 b di/+ui% ext]nal exp]i5ce f dream+4 ,!re is "h aga9 ! same confus+ use ( ! t]m 8corresponds40 8,t some?+ actual )\t u n only corresponds b mu/ correspond to our ext]nal p]ceptions c likewise be prov$44440#ajbe ,,iv4 8,prolegom5a10 ,second ,"p ( ! ,app5dix4--,kant "h returns to ! di/9ction1 drawn 9 ,section #ac1 ,note iii41 betwe5 :at he n[ calls 8idealism prop] 7eig5tli*]710#ajbf i4e4 vision>y or my/ical idealism1 & 8 own4 8,! position ( all g5u9e ideali/s f ! ,eleatics to ,bi%op ,b]keley is conta9$ 9 ?is =mula3 #8,all cognition ?r\gh ! s5ses & exp]i5ce is no?+ b m]e illusion1 & only 9 ! ideas ( pure und]/&+ & ,reason is !re tru?4' ,! fundam5tal pr9ciple rul+ all my idealism1 on ! contr>y1 is ?is3 #8,all cognition ( ?+s solely f pure und]/&+ or pure ,reason is no?+ b m]e illusion & only 9 exp]i5ce is !re tru?4'0#ajbg ,?is mode ( def9+ idealism c1 9 ?is connection1 cause no?+ b confusion4 ,its inapplicability to ,b]keley w\ld seem to prove t ,kant _h no fir/-h& k ( ,b]keley's writ+s4#ajbh ,z ,kant's ,note to ! ,app5dix to ! ,prolegom5a#ajbi %[s1 he also _h ,plato 9 m9d4 ,b ! def9ition giv5 ( 8! fundam5tal pr9ciple0 ( 8 own idealism is almo/ equally mislead+4 ,x omits ! all-ess5tial po9t1 t = ,kant exp]i5ce itself yields tru? only by con=m+ to a priori concepts4 ,z x is1 he proce$s to criticise ,b]keley = failure to supply a suffici5t crit]ion ( di/9ction betwe5 tru? & illusion4 ,su* crit]ion1 he insi/s1 is necess>ily a priori4 ,! ,critical idealism diff]s f t ( ,b]keley 9 ma9ta9+ t space & "t1 ?\gh s5su\s1 are a priori1 & t 9 comb9ation ) ! pure concepts ( und]/&+ !y 8444prescribe a priori its law to all possible exp]i5ce3 ! law :i* at ! same "t yields ! sure crit]ion = di/+ui%+ )9 exp]i5ce tru? f illusion4 ,my s-call$ idealism--:i* prop]ly speak+ is ,critical idealism--is ?us q peculi> 9 t x ov]?r[s ord9>y idealism1 & t ?r\gh x all a priori cognition1 ev5 t ( geometry1 n[ atta9s objective reality1 a ?+ :i* ev5 ! ke5e/ reali/ c\ld n ass]t till ,i _h prov$ ! ideality ( space & "t40#ajcj ,v4 ,sections add$ 9 ,second ,edition at ! ,conclusion ( ! ,ae/hetic4 7,b #fi ff47--,kant "h aga9 replies to ! criticism ( ,pi/orius t all exi/5ce has be5 r$uc$ to ! level ( illusion 7,s*e974 ,8 def5ce is tw(old3 fir/1 t 9 nam+ objects appe>ances he means to indicate t !y are indep5d5tly gr\nd$1 or1 z he /ates x1 are 8some?+ actually giv540 ,if we misint]pret !m1 ! result is inde$ illusion1 b ! fault !n lies ) ourselves & n ) ! appe>ances z pres5t$4 ,secondly1 he argues t ! doctr9e ( ! ideality ( space & "t is ! only secure safegu>d aga9/ scepticism4 ,= o!rwise ! contradictions :i* result f reg>d+ space & "t z indep5d5tly real w likewise hold ( _! cont5ts1 & ev]y?+1 includ+ ev5 our own exi/5ce1 w be r5d]$ illusory4 8,! good ,b]keley obs]v+ ^! contradictions _c1 inde$1 be blam$ = r$uc+ bodies to m]e illusion40 ,?is la/ s5t5ce may p]haps be tak5 z support+ ! view t not)/&+ ! increas$ popul>ity ( ,b]keley 9 ,g]many & ! appe>ance ( new translations 9 ^! v ye>s1 ,kant has n be5 suffici5tly int]e/$ to acquire fir/-h& k ( ,b]keley's writ+s4#ajca ,! epi!t employ$ is *>act]i/ic ( ! r depreciatory attitude :i* ,kant inv>iably adopts 9 speak+ ( ,b]keley4 ,,vi4 8,refutation ( ,idealism0 9 ,second ,edition ( ! 8,critique40 7,b #bgd-i1 supplem5t$ by note to ,b xxxix474--,! refutation op5s by equat+ idealism ) mat]ial idealism 7s nam$ 9 contradi/9ction to 8 own 8=mal or r ,critical0 tea*+74 ,)9 mat]ial idealism ,kant di/+ui%es betwe5 ! problematic idealism ( ,desc>tes1 & ! dogmatic idealism ( ,b]keley4 ,! latt] has1 he says1 be5 ov]?r[n 9 ! ,ae/hetic4 ,! =m] alone is dealt ) 9 ?is refutation4 ,?is is ! fir/ occurr5ce 9 ! ,critique ( ! expression 8problematic idealism03 x is n[h]e employ$ 9 ! fir/ edition4#ajcb ,problematic idealism consi/s 9 ! ass]tion t we are incapable ( hav+ exp]i5ce ( any exi/5ce save our own2 only our inn] /ates are imm$iately appreh5d$2 all o!r exi/5ces are det]m9$ by inf]5ce f !m4 ,! refutation consi/s 9 ! pro( t we h exp]i5ce1 & n m]e imag9ation ( out] objects4 ,?is is prov$ by %[+ t inn] exp]i5ce1 unque/ion$ by ,desc>tes1 is possible only on ! assumption ( out] exp]i5ce1 & t ?is latt] is z imm$iate & direct z is ! =m]4 ,!sis4--,! empirically det]m9$ consci\sness ( my own exi/5ce proves ! exi/5ce ( objects 9 space outside me4#ajcc ,pro(4--,i am consci\s ( my own exi/5ce z det]m9$ 9 "t4 ,"t det]m9ation presupposes ! p]ception ( some?+ p]man5t4 ,b no?+ p]man5t is intuitable 9 ! empirical self4 ,on ! cognitive side 7i4e4 omitt+ feel+s1 etc41 :i* 9 ?is connection are irrelevant71 x consi/s solely ( repres5tations2 & ^! dem& a p]man5t1 di/9ct f ourselves1 9 relation to :i* _! *anges1 & s my own exi/5ce 9 ! "t :]e9 !y *ange1 may be det]m9$4#ajcd ,?us p]ception ( ?is p]man5t is only possible ?r\gh a ?+ outside1 & n ?r\gh ! m]e repres5tation ( a ?+ outside4 ,& ! same mu/ hold true ( ! det]m9ation ( my exi/5ce 9 "t1 s9ce ?is also dep5ds ^u ! appreh5sion ( ! p]man5t4 ,t is to say1 ! consci\sness ( my exi/5ce is at ! same "t an imm$iate aw>5ess ( ! exi/5ce ( o!r ?+s outside me4 ,9 ! note to ! ,preface to ! second edition#ajce occurs ! foll[+ emphatic /atem5t4 8,repres5tation ( some?+ p]man5t 9 exi/5ce is n ! same z p]man5t repres5tation4 ,= ?\gh ! repres5tation ( ! p]man5t may be v *ang+ & v>iable l all our o!r repres5tations1 n except+ ^? ( matt]1 x yet ref]s to some?+ p]man5t4 ,?is latt] mu/ !re=e be an ext]nal ?+ di/9ct f all my repres5tations1 & its exi/5ce mu/ be includ$ 9 ! det]m9ation ( my own exi/5ce1 con/itut+ ) x b a s+le exp]i5ce su* z w\ld n take place ev5 int]nally if x 7 n also at ! same "t1 9 "p1 ext]nal4 ,h[ ?is %\ld be possible we are z little capable ( expla9+ fur!r z we are ( acc\nt+ = our be+ able to ?9k ! abid+ 9 "t1 ! coexi/5ce ( :i* ) ! v>iable g5]ates ! conception ( *ange40 ,! argum5t ( ?is note v>ies f t ( ,b #bgd ff4 only 9 its use ( an ambigu\s expression :i* is p]haps capable ( be+ tak5 z ref]r+ to ?+s 9 !mselves1 b :i* does n seem to h t mean+4 8,i am j z c]ta9ly consci\s t !re are ?+s outside me :i* relate to my s5se44440 ,9 ,b #bgg-h ,kant ref]s to ! empirical fact t det]m9ation ( "t c be made only by relation to out] happ5+s 9 space1 su* z ! motion ( ! sun4 ,?is is a po9t :i* is fur!r develop$ 9 ano!r passage :i* ,kant add$ 9 ! second edition4 84449 ord] to und]/& ! possibility ( ?+s 9 con=mity ) ! categories1 & s to demon/rate ! objective reality ( ! latt]1 we ne$ n m]ely intuitions1 b intuitions t are 9 all cases out] intuitions4 ,:51 = in/ance1 we take ! pure concepts ( relation1 we f9d fir/ly t 9 ord] to obta9 some?+ p]man5t 9 intuition correspond+ to ! concept ( sub/ance1 & s to demon/rate ! objective reality ( ?is concept1 we require an intuition 9 space 7( matt]74 ,= space alone is det]m9$ z p]man5t1 :ile "t1 & !re=e ev]y?+ t is 9 inn] s5se1 is 9 con/ant flux4 ,secondly1 9 ord] to exhibit *ange z ! intuition correspond+ to ! concept ( causality1 we mu/ take z our example motion1 i4e4 *ange 9 space4 ,only 9 ?is way c we obta9 ! intuition ( *anges1 ! possibility ( :i* c nev] be compreh5d$ ?r\gh any pure und]/&+4 ,= *ange is comb9ation ( contradictorily oppos$ det]m9ations 9 ! exi/5ce ( "o & ! same ?+4 ,n[ h[ x is possible t f a giv5 /ate ( a ?+ an opposite /ate %\ld foll[1 n only _c be conceiv$ by any reason )\t an example1 b is actually incompreh5sible to reason )\t intuition4 ,! intuition requir$ is ! intuition ( ! movem5t ( a po9t 9 space4 ,! pres5ce ( ! po9t 9 diff]5t spaces 7z a sequ5ce ( opposite det]m9ations7 is :at fir/ yields to u an intuition ( *ange4 ,= 9 ord] t we may aft]w>ds make inn] *anges likewise ?9kable1 we mu/ repres5t "t 7! =m ( inn] s5se7 figuratively z a l9e1 & ! inn] *ange ?r\gh ! draw+ ( ?is l9e 7motion71 & s 9 ?is mann] by means ( out] intuition make compreh5sible ! successive exi/5ce ( ourselves 9 diff]5t /ates4 ,! reason ( ?is is t all *ange1 if x is inde$ to be p]ceiv$ z *ange1 presupposes some?+ p]man5t 9 intuition1 & t 9 inn] s5se no p]man5t intuition is to be met )4 ,la/ly1 ! possibility ( ! category ( community _c be compreh5d$ ?r\gh m]e reason alone4 ,its objective reality is n to be und]/ood )\t intuition & inde$ out] intuition 9 space40#ajcf ,9 ?is passage ,kant is modify+ ! tea*+ ( ! fir/ edition 9 two v ess5tial respects4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 he is n[ ass]t+ t consci\sness ( bo? space & motion is necess>y to consci\sness ( "t2#ajcg & 9 ! second place1 he is ma9ta9+ t ! categories c acquire mean+ only by ref]5ce to out] appe>ances4 ,_h ,kant made all ! necess>y alt]ations :i* ^! new positions involve1 he w\ld1 z we %all f9d1#ajch h _h entirely to reca/ ! *apt]s on ,s*ematism & on ! ,pr9ciples ( ,und]/&+4 ,kant 0 n1 h[ev]1 prep>$ to make su* ext5sive alt]ations1 & ^! *apt]s are !re=e left practically unmodifi$4 ,?is is "o ( ! _m important po9ts 9 :i* ! read] is compell$ to re9t]pret passages ( e>li] date 9 ! light ( ,kant's lat] utt]ances4 ,!re is also a fur!r difficulty4 ,does ,kant1 9 ma9ta9+ t ! categories c acquire significance only 9 ref]5ce to out] p]ception1 also mean to ass]t t _! subsequ5t employm5t is limit$ to ! me*anical _w ( ! mat]ial sci5ces8 ,?is is a po9t 9 reg>d to :i* ,kant makes no q direct /atem5t2 b indirectly he w\ld seem to indicate t t 0 n 8 int5tion4#ajci ,he frequ5tly speaks ( ! /ates ( inn] s5se z me*anically condition$4 ,s5sations1#ajdj feel+s1 & desires1#ajda are1 he w\ld seem to ass]t1 integral p>ts ( ! unit>y sy/em ( ph5om5al exi/5ce4 ,su* a view is n1 inde$1 easily reconcilable ) 8 equat+ ( ! pr9ciple ( sub/ance ) ! pr9ciple ( ! cons]vation ( matt]4#ajdb ,!re are "h two conflict+ positions :i* ,kant has fail$ to reconcile3 ! traditional duali/ic attitude ( ,c>tesian physics & ! q opposite implications ( 8 ,critical ph5om5alism4 ,:5 ! =m] is be+ held to1 ,kant has to ma9ta9 t psy*ology c nev] become a sci5ce2#ajdc b 8 ,critical tea*+ consi/5tly develop$ seems r to support ! view t psy*ology1 despite special difficulties peculi> to its subject matt]1 c be develop$ on l9es /rictly analog\s to ^? ( ! mat]ial sci5ces4 ,we may n[ return to ,kant's ma9 argum5t4 ,?is new refutation ( idealism 9 ! second edition diff]s f t giv5 9 ! f\r? ,p>alogism ( ! fir/ edition1 n only 9 me?od ( argum5t b also 9 ! nature ( ! conclusion :i* x seeks to e/abli%4 ,inde$ x proves ! direct opposite ( :at is ass]t$ 9 ! fir/ edition4 ,! e>li] pro( s\ght to %[ t1 z reg>ds imm$iacy ( appreh5sion & subjectivity ( exi/5ce1 out] appe>ances /& on ! same level z d our inn] exp]i5ces4 ,! pro( ( ! second edition1 on ! o!r h&1 argues t ?\gh out] appe>ances are imm$iately appreh5d$ !y mu/ be exi/5ces di/9ct f ! subjective /ates ?r\gh :i* ! m9d repres5ts !m4 ,! two argum5ts agree1 inde$1 9 e/abli%+ imm$iacy1 b z t :i* is tak5 z imm$iately kn[n is 9 ! "o case a subjective /ate & 9 ! o!r is an indep5d5t exi/5ce1 ! imm$iacy calls 9 ! two cases = entirely diff]5t me?ods ( pro(4 ,! fir/ me?od consi/$ 9 view+ out] exp]i5ces z a subdivision )9 our inn] exp]i5ces4 ,! new me?od views _! relation z n t ( includ+ & includ$1 b ( condition+ & condition$2 & x is n[ to out] exp]i5ce t ! prim>y position is assign$4 ,s f> is out] exp]i5ce f be+ possible only z "p ( inn] exp]i5ce1 t on ! contr>y inn] exp]i5ce1 consci\sness ( ! flux ( inn] /ates1 is only possible 9 & ?r\gh exp]i5ce ( indep5d5t mat]ial bodies 9 space4 ,a s5t5ce f ea* pro( w %[ h[ completely _! conclusions are oppos$4 8,out] objects 7bodies7 are m]e appe>ances1 & are !re=e no?+ b a species ( my repres5tations1 ! objects ( :i* are some?+ only ?r\gh ^! repres5tations4 ,ap>t f !m !y are no?+40#ajdd 8,p]ception ( ?is p]man5t is possible only ?r\gh a ?+ outside me1 & n ?r\gh ! m]e repres5tation ( a ?+ outside me40#ajde ,! "o s5t5ce ass]ts t out] objects are repres5tations2 ! o!r argues t !y mu/ be exi/5ces di/9ct f _! repres5tations4 ,! "o inculcates a subjectivism ( a v extreme type2 ! o!r results 9 a realism1 :i* ?\gh ultimately ph5om5ali/1 is none ! less g5u9ely objective 9 "*4 ,?is diff]5ce is p>allel$ by ! nature ( ! idealisms to :i* ! two pro(s are oppos$ & :i* !y pr(ess to refute4 ,! argum5t ( ! ,p>alogism ( ! fir/ edition is itself ,b]keleian1 & refutes only ! problematic idealism ( ,desc>tes4 ,! argum5t ( ! second edition1 ?\gh =mally direct$ only aga9/ ,desc>tes1 con/itutes a no less complete refutation ( ! position ( ,b]keley4 ,9 its realism x has k9%ip ) ! positions ( ,arnauld & ( ,reid1 :ile1 9 attempt+ to comb9e ?is realism ) due recognition ( ! =ce & validity ( ,hume's sceptical philosophy1 x breaks ?r\gh all previ\s classifications1 =mulates a pr(\ndly orig9al sub/itute = ! previ\sly exi/+ !ories1 & inaugurates a new era 9 ! !ory ( k4 ,z already po9t$ out1#ajdf ,kant re/ates ! di/9ction betwe5 ! subjective & ! objective 9 a mann] :i* places ! problem ( k 9 an entirely new light4 ,! subjective is n to be reg>d$ z opposite 9 nature to ! objective1 b z a subspecies )9 x4 ,x does n proce$ p>allel ) ! sequ5ce ( natural exi/5ces1 b is itself "p ( ! natural sy/em :i* consci\sness reveals4 ,s5sations1 9 ! =m 9 :i* !y are consci\sly appreh5d$ by u1 d n con/itute our consci\sness ( nature1 b are !mselves ev5ts :i* are possible only "u ! conditions :i* ! natural _w itself supplies4#ajdg ,! ,c>tesian dualism ( ! subjective & ! objective is ?us subord9at$ to ! ,critical di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 ,kant's ph5om5alism is a g5u9e alt]native to ! ,b]keleian tea*+1 & n1 z ,s*op5hau] & s _m o!rs h s\ght to ma9ta91 m]ely a v>iant ^u x4 ,! /rik+ contradiction betwe5 ,kant's v>i\s refutations ( idealism has l$ "s ( ,kant's mo/ compet5t critics to give a diff]5t int]pretation ( ! argum5t ( ! second edition f t giv5 above4 ,^! critics take ! indep5d5t & p]man5t objects :i* are di/+ui%$ f our subjective repres5tations to be ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,t is to say1 !y int]pret ?is refutation z bas$ ^u ,kant's semi-,critical doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object 79 ! =m 9 :i* x is employ$ = ! solution ( ! ,ant9omies71 & s z agree+ ) ! refutation giv5 9 ! ,prolegom5a4#ajdh ,kant is tak5 z reject+ idealism because ( 8 belief 9 ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,?is is ! view adopt$ by ,b5no ,erdmann1#ajdi ,sidgwick1#ajej ,a4 ,j4 ,balf\r4#ajea ,z ,vaih+]1#ajeb ,caird1#ajec & ,adamson#ajed h %[n1 su* an int]pretation is at complete v>iance ) ! actual text4 ,?is is1 inde$1 s obvi\s ^u unbiass$ exam9ation t ! only po9t :i* repays discussion is ! "q1 :y ,b5no ,erdmann & ^? :o foll[ him %\ld h felt con/ra9$ to place s unnatural an int]pretation ^u ,kant's words4 ,! explanation seems to lie 9 ,erdmann's conv9c$ belief1 pla9ly %[n 9 all 8 writ+s ^u ,kant1 t ! ,critique exp\nds a s+le consi/5t & uni=m /&po9t4#ajee ,if su* belief be ju/ifi$1 !re is no alt]native save to int]pret ,kant's refutation ( idealism 9 ! mann] :i* ,erdmann adopts4 ,= z ! subjectivism ( mu* ( ,kant's tea*+ is beyond "q1 consi/5cy c be obta9$ only by sacrifice ( all t conflicts ) x4 ,?us1 & ?us alone1 c ,erdmann's r5d]+ ( ! refutation ( ! second edition be su/a9$2 ! actual word+1 tak5 9 & by itself1 does n support x4 ,kant "h dep>ts f 8 own repeat$ ass]tion1 9 ! second h>dly less ?an 9 ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique1 ( ! subjectivity ( out] appe>ances4 ,b1 z ,vaih+] ju/ly cont5ds1 ,kant 0 nev] great] ?an 9 ?is violation ( self-consi/5cy1 8nev] m consi/5t ?an 9 ?is inconsi/5cy40 ,t5d5cies1 previ\sly active b hi!rto in>ticulate1 are at la/ lib]at$4 ,if ! *rysalis /age ( ! int5se brood+ ( ! twelve ye>s ( ,critical ?9k+ 0 complet$ 9 ! writ+ ( ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique1 ! philosophy :i* !n em]g$ only atta9s to mature /ature 9 ^? ext5sions ( ! ,critique1 scatt]$ ?r\gh x f ,preface to ,p>alogisms1 :i* embody ?is reali/ic !ory ( ! indep5d5t exi/5ce ( mat]ial nature4 ,= ?is !ory is no m]e ext]nal accretion1 & no m]e rev]sal ( subord9ate t5ets1 b a rip5+ ( g]m9al ideas to :i*1 ev5 9 _! m embryonic =m1 ! e>li] ,critical tea*+ ow$ mu* ( its inspiration1 & :i*1 :5 consci\sly adopt$ & maturely =mulat$1 con/itute su* a deep5+ ( its tea*+ z almo/ am\nts to trans=mation4 ,! individual self is no long] view$ z be+ ! be>] ( nature1 b z its (fspr+ & expression1 & z be+1 l nature1 int]pretable 9 its tw(old aspect1 z appe>ance & z n\m5ally gr\nd$4 ,! be>] ( appe>ance is n ! individual subject1 b ^? transc5d5tal creative ag5cies ^u :i* man & nature alike dep5d4 ,bo? man & nature transc5d ! =ms 9 :i* !y are appreh5d$2 & no?+ 9 exp]i5ce ju/ifies ! giv+ ( su* priority to ! individual m9d z mu/ be involv$ 9 any acceptance ( subjectivi/ !ory4 ,?\gh man is cognisant ( space & "t1 compreh5d+ !m )9 ! limits ( 8 consci\sness1 & ?\gh 9 all exp]i5ce unities are involv$ :i* _c orig9ate )9 or be expla9$ by exp]i5ce1 x is no less true t man is himself subject to ! conditions ( space & "t1 & t ! syn!tic unities :i* po9t beyond exp]i5ce d n c>ry u to a m]ely individual subject4 ,if man is n a "p or product ( nature1 nei!r is nature ! product ( man4 ,kant's transc5d5talism1 9 its mature/ =m1 is g5u9ely ph5om5ali/ 9 "*4 ,t is ! view :i* has already be5 develop$ above1 9 ! discussion ( ,kant's transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,i %all /rive to confirm x by comp>ison ( ! tea*+ ( ! two editions ( ! ,critique 9 reg>d to ! reality ( out] appe>ances4 ,s*op5hau]1 to :om ?is new developm5t ( ! ,critical tea*+ 0 altoge!r ana!ma1 ! clov5 ho( ( ! ,hegelian h]esies1 d5\nc$ x z a tempor>y & ill-judg$ di/ortion ( ! true ,critical position1 ma9ta9+ t x is incapable ( comb9ation ) ,kant's c5tral tea*+1 & t x f9ds no support 9 ! t5ets1 pure & unp]v]t$1 ( ! fir/ edition4 ,kant1 he holds1 is "h untrue to himself1 & tempor>ily1 "u ! /ress ( polemical discussion1 lapses f ! heights to :i* he _h successfully made 8 way1 & ^u :i* he _h securely e/abli%$1 9 agreem5t ) ,plato & 9 ext5sion ( ,b]keley1 ! doctr9e ( all g5u9e philosophical ?9k+1 ! doctr9e ( ! ,welt als ,vor/ellung4 ,we may agree ) ,s*op5hau] 9 reg>d+ ^? sections ( ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique :i* 7 omitt$ 9 ! second edition z be+ a p]man5tly valuable expression ( ,kantian ?\ght1 & z conta9+ mu* t f9ds no equally adequate expression 9 ! passages :i* 7 sub/itut$ = !m2 & yet may *all5ge 8 int]pretation ( bo? editions alike4 ,if1 z we h already be5 argu+1 we mu/ reg>d ,kant's ?9k+ z 9 l>ge degree t5tative1 t is1 z progress+ by ! exp]im5tal foll[+ out ( div]g5t t5d5cies1 we may ju/ly ma9ta9 t among ! mo/ *>act]i/ic features ( 8 tea*+ are ! read9ess ) :i* he makes *anges to meet deep] insight1 & ! p]si/5cy ) :i* he /rives to atta9 a position 9 :i* !re w be lea/ sacrifice or blurr+ ( any helpful di/9ction1 & fulle/ ackn[l$gm5t ( ! manifold & div]se consid]ations t are really ess5tial4 ,recognis+ ^! features1 we %all be prep>$ to "q ! legitimacy ( ,s*op5hau]'s opposition betwe5 ! tea*+ ( ! two editions4 ,we %all r expect to f9d t ! two editions agree 9 ! alt]nat+ /atem5t & retraction ( conflict+ positions1 & t ! lat] edition1 h[ev] defective 9 ?is or t aspect z comp>$ ) ! fir/ edition1 none ! less expresses ! matur] insight1 & repres5ts a fur!r /age 9 ! developm5t ( ideas t h be5 pres5t f ! />t4 ,x may p]haps = ?is v reason be m contradictory 9 its tea*+2 x w at lea/ yield cle>] & m adequate =mulation ( ! div]se consequ5ces & conflict+ implications ( ! e>li] t5ets4 ,x w be ri*] 9 cont5t1 m op5-ey$ 9 its adoption ( mutually contradictory positions1 fre] !re=e f unconsci\s assumptions1 & bett] fitt$ to supply ! data necess>y = judgm5t ^u its own defects4 ,only ^? critics :o are bl9d to ! /up5d\s difficulties ( ! tasks :i* ,kant "h sets himself1 & cr$ul\s ( _! spe$y & f9al completion1 c compla9 ( ! result4 ,philosophical ?9k]s ( ! mo/ div]se s*ools 9 ,g]many1 ,france1 & ,engl&1 h ?r\gh\t ! n9ete5? c5tury receiv$ f ! ,critique mu* ( _! inspiration4 ,! pr(\nd influ5ce :i* ,kant has ?us ex]cis$ ^u succe$+ ?\ght mu/ surely be reckon$ a great] a*ievem5t ?an any t c\ld h result$ f ! con/ruct+ ( a sy/em s consi/5t & unifi$1 t ! alt]native w\ld lie only betwe5 its acceptance & its rejection4 ,ultimately ! value ( a philosophy consi/s m 9 ! ri*ness ( its cont5t & ! compreh5siv5ess ( its dialectic1 ?an 9 ! logical p]fection ( its =mal /ructure4 ,! latt] quality is especially unfitt$ to a philosophy :i* inaugurat$ a new era1 & =mulat$ ! old] problems 9 an altoge!r novel mann]4 ,"u su* conditions f]tility ( sugge/ion & read9ess to modify or ev5 reca/ adopt$ positions1 op5ness to full] insight acquir$ ?r\gh ! v solutions t may at fir/ h seem$ to satisfy & close ! issues1 are m to be valu$ ?an ! p[] to remove contradictions & atta9 consi/5cy4 ,?is is ! po9t ( view :i* ,i %all endeav\r to ju/ify 9 ref]5ce to ! matt]s n[ be=e u4 ,9 p>ticul> !re are two po9ts to be settl$3 fir/1 :e!r & h[ f> ! argum5t ( ! second edition is prefigur$ 9 ! fir/ edition2 & secondly1 :e!r & to :at ext5t x h>monises )1 & gives expression to1 all t is mo/ c5tral & g5u9ely ,critical 9 bo? editions4 ,9 ! fir/ place we mu/ obs]ve t ! f\r? ,p>alogism occurs 9 a section :i* be>s all ! signs ( hav+ be5 indep5d5tly writt5 & incorporat$ lat] into ! ma9 text4 ,x is c]ta9ly ( e>li] orig9 ?an ^? sections :i* repres5t ! ?ird & f\r? lay]s ( ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition1 & v possibly 0 compos$ 9 ! middle 'sev5ties4 ,inde$1 ap>t f s+le p>agraphs :i* may h be5 add$ 9 ! process ( adapt+ x to ! ma9 text1 x c\ld q well1 s f> z its refutation ( idealism is conc]n$1 be ( ev5 e>li] date4 ,! "q z to ! consi/5cy ( ! refutation ( ! second edition ) ! tea*+ ( ! fir/ edition mu/ !re=e *iefly conc]n ^? p>ts ( ! ,analytic :i* connect ) ! lat] =ms ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction1 t is to say1 ) ! transc5d5tal d$uction itself1 ) ! ,analogies & ,po/ulates1 & ) p>ticul> p>agraphs t h be5 add$ 9 o!r sections4 ,we h already not$ h[ ,kant f ! v fir/ uses t]ms :i* involve ! draw+ ( a di/9ction betwe5 repres5tations & _! objects4 ,passages 9 :i* ?is di/9ction occurs c be cit$ f bo? ! ,ae/hetic & ! ,analytic1 & two su* occur 9 ! f\r? ,p>alogism itself4#ajef ,objects1 he says1 8correspond0 to _! repres5tations4 ,a v>iation 9 expression is f\nd 9 su* passages z ! foll[+3 8444! objects ( out] p]ception also actually exi/ 7au* wirkli* s9d7 9 t v =m 9 :i* !y are intuit$ 9 space44440#ajeg ,su* language is mean+less1 & c\ld nev] h be5 *os51 if ,kant _h n1 ev5 9 ! e>li] /ages ( 8 ?9k+1 po/ulat$ a diff]5ce betwe5 ! exi/5ce ( an object & ! exi/5ce ( its repres5tation4 ,he mu/ at lea/ h di/+ui%$ betwe5 ! repres5tations & _! cont5t4 ,t1 h[ev]1 he c\ld h done )\t advanc+ to ! fur!r ass]tion ( _! indep5d5t exi/5ce4 ,probably he 0 n at all cle> 9 8 own m9d1 & 0 too preoccupi$ ) ! o!r complexities ( 8 problem1 to h ?\ght out 8 position to a def9ite decision4 ,:51 h[ev]1 z 9 ! f\r? ,p>alogism1 he made any attempt s to d1 he w\ld seem to h felt con/ra9$ to adopt ! extreme subjectivi/ position4 ,expressions to t effect are c]ta9ly v mu* m common ?an ^? above m5tion$4 ,?is is :at af=ds ,s*op5hau] su* ju/ification1 c]ta9ly v /rong1 z he c cite = reg>d+ subjectivism z ! und\bt$ tea*+ ( ! fir/ edition4 ,:51 h[ev]1 we also take acc\nt ( ! v diff]5t tea*+ :i* is conta9$ 9 ! important section on ! ,po/ulates ( ,empirical ,?\ght1 ! balance ( evid5ce is decisively alt]$4 ,! c\nt]-tea*+1 :i* is sugge/$ by c]ta9 ( ! conflict+ factors ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction & ( ! ,analogies1 "h aga9 receives cle> & detail$ expression4 ,?is is ! m significant1 z x is 9 ?is section t ,kant sets himself =mally to def9e :at is to be und]/ood by empirical reality4 ,x ?us conta9s 81 s to speak1 (ficial decl>ation z to ! mode ( exi/5ce possess$ by out] appe>ances4 ,! passage *iefly relevant is z foll[s3 8,if ! exi/5ce ( ! ?+ is b\nd up ) "s p]ceptions accord+ to ! pr9ciples ( _! empirical connection 7! ,analogies71 we c det]m9e its exi/5ce antec$5tly to ! p]ception ( x1 & consequ5tly1 to t ext5t1 9 an a priori mann]4 ,= z ! exi/5ce ( ! ?+ is b\nd up ) our p]ceptions 9 a possible exp]i5ce1 we are able 9 ! s]ies ( possible p]ceptions1 & "u ! guidance ( ! ,analogies1 to make ! transition f our actual p]ception to ! ?+ 9 "q4 ,?us we discov] ! exi/5ce ( a magnetic matt] p]vad+ all bodies f ! p]ception ( ! attract$ iron fil+s1 al?\gh ! con/itution ( our organs cuts u (f f all imm$iate p]ception ( t matt]4 ,= 9 accordance ) ! laws ( s5sibility & ! connection ( our p]ceptions 9 a s+le exp]i5ce1 we %\ld1 7 our s5ses m ref9$1 actually exp]i5ce x 9 an imm$iate empirical intuition4 ,! grossness ( our s5ses does n 9 any way decide ! =m ( possible exp]i5ce 9 g5]al40#ajeh ,n[ x _c1 ( c\rse1 be argu$ t ! above passage is altoge!r unambigu\s4 ,we c1 if we feel suffici5tly con/ra9$ !reto1 place ^u x an int]pretation :i* w\ld h>monise x ) ,kant's m usual subjectivi/ tea*+1 namely z mean+ t 9 ! progressive con/ruction ( exp]i5ce1 or 9 ! ideal completion :i* foll[s ^u assumption ( m ref9$ s5se-organs1 possible empirical realities are made to become1 or are assum$ to become1 real1 b t until ! possible exp]i5ces are ?us realis$ 9 fact or 9 ideal hypo!sis1 !y exi/ outw>dly only 9 ! =m ( _! n\m5al conditions4 ,& z a matt] ( fact1 ?is is h[ ,kant himself int]prets ! tea*+ ( ?is section 9 ! process ( apply+ x 9 solution ( ! ant9omies4 8,accord+ly1 if ,i repres5t to myself ! aggregate ( all objects ( ! s5ses exi/+ 9 all "t & all places1 ,i d n set !m1 antec$5tly to exp]i5ce1 9 space & "t4 ,! repres5tation is no?+ b ! ?\ght ( a possible exp]i5ce 9 its absolute complet5ess4 ,s9ce ! objects are m]e repres5tations1 only 9 su* a possible exp]i5ce are !y giv54 ,to say t !y exi/ prior to all my exp]i5ce1 c only be tak5 z mean+ t !y w be met )1 if1 />t+ f actual p]ception1 ,i advance to t "p ( exp]i5ce to :i* !y belong4 ,! cause ( ! empirical conditions ( ?is advance 7t :i* det]m9es :at memb]s ,i %all meet )1 or h[ f> ,i c meet ) any su* 9 my regress7 is transc5d5tal1 & is !re=e necess>ily unkn[n to me4 ,we are n1 h[ev]1 conc]n$ ) ?is transc5d5tal cause1 b only ) ! rule ( progression 9 t exp]i5ce 9 :i* objects1 t is to say1 appe>ances1 are giv54 ,moreov]1 9 outcome x is a matt] ( indiff]5ce :e!r ,i say t 9 ! empirical progress 9 space ,i c meet ) />s a hundr$ times f>!r remov$ ?an ! out]mo/ n[ p]ceptible to me1 or :e!r ,i say t !y are p]haps to be met ) 9 cosmical space ev5 ?\gh no human be+ has ev] p]ceiv$ or ev] w p]ceive !m4 ,= ?\gh !y might be giv5 z ?+s 9 !mselves1 )\t relation to possible exp]i5ce1 !y are /ill no?+ to me1 & !re=e are n objects1 save 9 s f> z !y are conta9$ 9 ! s]ies ( ! empirical regress40#ajei ,b ?\gh ?is is a possible int]pretation ( ! tea*+ ( ! ,po/ulates1 & ?\gh fur!r x is ,kant's own int]pretation 9 ano!r portion ( ! ,critique1 x is n by any means !reby decid$ t ?is is :at ! section itself actually tea*es4 ,unbiass$ /udy ( ! section1 9 indep5d5ce ( ! use to :i* x is else:]e put1 c f9d )9 x no su* limitation to its ass]tion ( ! actual indep5d5t exi/5ce ( non-p]ceiv$ bodies4 ,we h to rememb] t ! doctr9e & solution ( ! ,ant9omies 0 complet$ prior to ! writ+ ( ! c5tral portions ( ! ,critique4 ,! section treat+ ( _! solution seems1 inde$1 9 c]ta9 p>ts to be lat]#ajfj ?an ! o!r ma9 portions ( ! *apt] on ! ,ant9omies1 & mu/ h be5 at lea/ reca/ aft] completion ( ! ,po/ulates4 ,b ! subjectivi/ solution is s mu* simpl] 9 /atem5t1 s mu* m fully work$ out1 & inde$ s mu* m capable ( def9ite =mulation1 & also s mu* m at "o ) ! tea*+ develop$ 9 ! prec$+ *apt] on ! ,p>alogisms1 t ev5 grant+ ! doctr9e exp\nd$ 9 ! section on ! ,po/ulates to be g5u9ely ph5om5ali/1 x is n surpris+ t ,kant %\ld h be5 unwill+ to reca/ 8 old] & simpl] solution ( ! ,ant9omies4 ,9 any case we are n conc]n$ to argue t ,kant1 ev5 aft] =mulat+ ! ph5om5ali/ view1 yields to x an unwav]+ adh]5ce4 ,z ,i h already insi/$1 8 attitude cont9ues to ! v la/ to be "o ( alt]nation betwe5 two oppos$ /&po9ts4 ,b ! mo/ significant feature ( ,kant's treatm5t ( ! argum5t ( ! ,po/ulates /ill rema9s = consid]ation4 ,x 0 9 imm$iate succession to ! p>agraph above quot$#ajfa t ,kant1 9 ! second edition1 plac$ 8 8,refutation ( ,idealism0 ) ! emphatic /atem5t t ?is 7n z 9 ! fir/ edition 9 connection ) ! ,p>alogisms7 0 its 8correct location40 ,x is requir$1 he says1 z a reply to an objection :i* ! tea*+ ( ! ,po/ulates mu/ at once sugge/4 ,! argum5t ( ! second edition 9 pro( ( ! indep5d5t reality ( mat]ial bodies1 & 9 dispro( ( subjectivism1 is ?us giv5 by ,kant z a necess>y ext5sion & natural supplem5t ( ! tea*+ ( ! fir/ edition4 ,!re is !re=e reason = conclud+ t ! same preconception :i* has l$ to su* radical mis9t]pretation ( ,kant's ,refutation ( ,idealism has be5 at "w 9 induc+ a false read+ ( ,kant's argum5t 9 ! ,po/ulates1 namely ! belief t ,kant's tea*+ proce$s on consi/5t l9es1 & t x mu/ at all co/s be h>monis$ ) itself4 ,f9d+ subjectivism to be emphatically & unambigu\sly inculcat$ 9 all ! ma9 sections ( ! ,critique1 & ! ph5om5ali/ views1 on ! o!r h&1 to be /at$ 9 a mu* less def9ite & some:at elusive mann]1 comm5tators h impov]i%$ ! ,critical tea*+ by suppression ( _m ( its mo/ subtile & progressive doctr9es4 ,kant's exp]im5tal1 t5tative developm5t ( div]g5t t5d5cies is surely pref]able to ?is artificial product ( high-h&$ & unsympa!tic em5dation4 ,,inn] ,,s5se ,,& ,,app]ception ,we are n[ 9 position to complete our treatm5t ( inn] s5se4 ,:5 ! inn] _w ( feel+s1 volitions1 & repres5tations is plac$ on ! same empirical level z ! out] _w ( objects 9 space1 :5 ! two are correlat$ & yet also at ! same "t %>ply di/+ui%$1 :51 fur!r1 x is ma9ta9$ t objects 9 space exi/ indep5d5tly ( _! repres5tations1 & t 9 ?is indep5d5ce !y are necess>y = ! possibility ( ! latt]1 ! :ole aspect ( ! ,critical tea*+ und]goes a g5ial & welcome trans=mation4 ,in/ead ( ! =bidd+ doctr9e t ! _w 9 space is m]ely my repres5tation1 we h ! v diff]5t tea*+ t only ?r\gh consci\sness ( an indep5d5t _w 9 space is consci\sness ( ! inn] subjective life possible at all1 & t z ea* is 8ext]nal0 to ! o!r1 nei!r c be r$uc$ to1 or be absorb$ )91 ! o!r4 ,! inn] repres5tations d n produce or g5]ate ! spatial objects1 d n ev5 condition _! exi/5ce1 b are requir$ only = ! individual's empirical consci\sness ( !m4 ,inde$ ! relations previ\sly hold+ betwe5 !m are n[ rev]s$4 ,x is ! out] _w :i* r5d]s ! subjective repres5tations possible4 ,! =m] is prior to ! latt]2 ! latt] exi/ 9 ord] to reveal ! =m]4 ,! out] _w 9 space mu/1 inde$1 be reg>d$ z condition$ by1 & relative to1 ! n\m5al conditions ( its possibility2 b ^!1 on ,kant's doctr9e ( out] & inn] s5se1 are di/9ct f all exp]i5c$ cont5ts & f all exp]i5c$ m5tal processes4 ,?is w at once be recognis$ z hold+ ( ! n\m5al conditions ( ! giv5 manifold4 ,b x is equally true1 ,kant ma9ta9s1 9 reg>d to ! n\m5al conditions ( our m5tal life4 ,we h no imm$iate k ( ! transc5d5tal syn!ses t condition all consci\sness1 & 9 our complete ignorance ( _! specific nature !y _c legitimately be equat$ ) any individual or p]sonal ag5t4 ,z ! empirical self is only :at x is kn[n z1 namely1 appe>ance1 x _c be ! be>] ( appe>ance4 ,?is function falls to t :i* und]lies bo? inn] & out] appe>ances equally1 & :i* )9 exp]i5ce ga9s tw(old expression = itself1 9 ! conception ( ! ?+ 9 itself x on ! "o h&1 & 9 ! correlative conception ( a transc5d5tal subject1 likewise x1 on ! o!r4 ,b ) m5tion ( ! transc5d5tal subject we are br\ght to a problem :i* 9 ! second edition inv>iably accompanies ,kant's discussion ( inn] s5se4 ,! #8,i ?9k' ( app]ception c f9d expression only 9 an empirical judgm5t1 & yet1 s f> f be+ ! outcome ( inn] s5se1 preconditions its possibility4 ,:at !n is its relation to inn] s5se8 ,does n its recognition conflict ) ,kant's d5ial ( ! possibility ( self-consci\s reflection1 ( direct intuitive appreh5sion by ! self ( itself8 ,! pure app]ception1 #8,i ?9k1' is equival5t1 ,kant decl>es1 to ! judgm5t #8,i am1' & !re=e involves ! ass]tion ( ! subject's exi/5ce4#ajfb ,does n ?is conflict on ! "o h& ) ! ,critical doctr9e t k ( exi/5ce is only possible 9 t]ms ( s5se1 & on ! o!r ) ! ,critical limitation ( ! categories to ! realm ( appe>ance8 ,h[ are su* ass]tions z t ! #8,i ?9k' ( pure app]ception ref]s to a non-empirical reality1 & t x pr$icates its exi/5ce1 to be reconcil$ ) ! doctr9e ( inn] s5se z above /at$8 ,z we h already obs]v$1#ajfc ,kant's e>ly doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object 0 develop$ 9 a m or less close p>allelism ) t ( ! transc5d5tal unity ( app]ception4 ,!y 7 reg>d$ z correlative opposites1 ! dual c5tres ( n\m5al ref]5ce = our m]ely subjective repres5tations4 ,kant's fur!r exam9ation ( ! nature ( app]ception1 z embodi$ 9 alt]ations 9 ! second edition1 0 c]ta9ly1 z we %all f9d1 inspir$ by ! criticisms :i* ! fir/ edition _h call$ =?4 ,8 replies1 h[ev]1 are m]ely m explicit /atem5ts ( ! di/9ction :i* he _h already develop$ 9 ! fir/ edition betwe5 ! transc5d5tal & ! empirical self1 & t di/9ction 9 turn 0 d\btless itself l>gely det]m9$ by 8 own indep5d5t recognition ( ! unt5ability ( 8 e>ly view ( ! transc5d5tal object4 ,?\gh x is mu* m difficult to diff]5tiate betwe5 ! empirical & ! transc5d5tal self ?an to di/+ui% betwe5 ! empirical object & ! ?+ 9 itself1 bo? di/9ctions are f a g5u9ely ,critical /&po9t equally imp]ative1 & re/ ^u consid]ations t are some:at simil> 9 ! two cases4 ,"o ( ! *ief & mo/ tell+ criticisms direct$ aga9/ ! tea*+ ( ! fir/ edition 0 t ,kant's doctr9e ( a transc5d5tal consci\sness ( ! self's exi/5ce1 i4e4 ( ! exi/5ce ( a n\m5al be+1 8?is ,i or he or x 7! ?+7 :i* ?9ks10#ajfd is inconsi/5t ) ! tea*+ ( ! ,po/ulates ( ,empirical ,?\ght4 ,9 t section1 z also lat] 9 ! section on ! !ological ,ideal1 ,kant _h decl>$ mo/ emphatically t exi/5ce is nev] discov]able 9 ! cont5t ( any m]e concept4 ,x is reveal$ 9 p]ception1 & 9 p]ception alone1 9 virtue ( ! elem5t ( s5sation conta9$ 9 ! latt]4 8444to "k ! actuality ( ?+s dem&s p]ception1 & !re=e s5sation4444 ,= t ! concept prec$es p]ception1 signifies ! concept's m]e possibility2 ! p]ception :i* supplies ! cont5t ,/(f to ! concept1 is ! sole crit]ion ,*>akt] ( actuality40#ajfe ,yet ,kant _h also ma9ta9$ t ! #8,i ?9k' is equival5t to #8,i am1'#ajff & t 9 ?is =m1 z an intellectual consci\sness ( ! self's exi/5ce1 x prec$es all exp]i5ce4 ,! tea*+ ( ! ,po/ulates is1 h[ev]1 ! tea*+ ( ! ,critique z a :ole1 & su* critics z ,pi/orius seem$ !re=e to be ju/ifi$ 9 ma9ta9+ t ,kant1 9 r$uc+ ! exp]i5ces ( inn] s5se to m]e appe>ance1 de/roys ! possibility ( e/abli%+ reality 9 any =m4 ,appe>ance1 9 ord] to be appe>ance1 presupposes ! reality n only ( t :i* appe>s1 b also ( ! m5tal process :]eby x is appreh5d$4 ,b if reality is giv5 only 9 s5sation1 & yet all exp]i5ce t involves s5sation is m]ely appe>ance1 !re is no self by :i* appe>ance c be condition$2 & only illusion 7,s*e971 n appe>ance 7,ers*e9ung71 is left4 ,to quote ,pi/orius' exact words3 0,if our inn] repres5tations are n ?+s 9 !mselves b only appe>ances !re w be no?+ b illusion 7,s*e971 = no?+ rema9s to :i* any?+ c appe>40#ajfg ,kant evid5tly felt ! =ce ( ?is criticism1 = 9 ! second edition he replies to x on no less ?an sev5 diff]5t occasions4#ajfh ,9 ?ree ( ^! passages#ajfi ! t]m ,s*e9 is employ$1 & 9 ! note to ,b xxxix ! t]m ,erdi*tung appe>s4 ,?is %[s v conclusively t x is su* criticism z ! above t ,kant has 9 m9d4 ,! mo/ explicit passage is ,b #dbh3 8,! proposition1 #8,i ?9k1' or #8,i exi/ ?9k+1' is an empirical proposition4 ,su* a judgm5t1 h[ev]1 is condition$ by empirical intuition1 & ! object t is ?\ght !re=e und]lies x z appe>ance4 ,x w\ld consequ5tly seem t on our !ory ! s\l is completely trans=m$1 ev5 9 ?9k+ selb/ im ,d5k51 into appe>ance1 & t 9 ?is way our consci\sness itself1 z be+ a m]e illusion ,s*e91 mu/ ref] 9 fact to no?+40 ,kant1 9 8 reply1 is unyield+ 9 ! cont5tion t ! #8,i ?9k1' ev5 ?\gh x involves an empirical judgm5t1 is itself intellectual4 8,?is repres5tation is a ?9k+1 n an intuit+10#ajgj or z he adds1 8,! #8,i ?9k' expresses ! actus :]eby ,i det]m9e my exi/5ce40 ,exi/5ce is !re=e already giv5 !reby4#ajga ,kant also /ill ma9ta9s t ! self ?us reveal$ is n 8appe>ance & /ill less illusion40 8,i am consci\s ( myself 4441 n z ,i appe> to myself1 nor z ,i am 9 myself1 b only t ,i am40#ajgb 8,i !reby repres5t myself to myself nei!r z ,i am nor z ,i appe> to myself4 ,i ?9k myself only z ,i d any object 9 g5]al f ^: mode ( intuition ,i ab/ract40#ajgc ,kant's me?od ( meet+ ! criticism1 :ile /ill hold+ to ^! positions1 is tw(old4 ,x consi/s 9 ! fir/ place 9 ma9ta9+ t ! #8,i ?9k1' ?\gh intellectual1 c f9d expression only 9 empirical judgm5ts--9 o!r words1 t x is 9 & by itself =mal only1 & presupposes z ! occasion ( its employm5t a giv5 manifold ( inn] s5se2 & secondly1 by ! /atem5t t ! #8exi/5ce' :i* is involv$ 9 ! #8,i ?9k' is n ! category ( exi/5ce4 ,let u take 9 ord] ea* ( ^! two po9ts4 ,kant's fir/ me?od ( reply itself appe>s 9 two =ms1 a /rong] & a mild]4 ,! mild] mode ( /atem5t#ajgd is to ! effect t ?\gh ! repres5tation #8,i am' already imm$iately involves ! ?\ght ( ! exi/5ce ( ! subject1 x yields no k ( x4 ,k w\ld involve intuition1 namely1 consci\sness ( inn] det]m9ations 9 "t1 :i* 9 turn w\ld itself presuppose consci\sness ( out] objects4 ,z a m]ely intellectual repres5tation1 8444?is #8,i' has n ! lea/ pr$icate ( intuition :i*1 9 its "* ( p]man5ce1 c\ld1 some:at aft] ! mann] ( imp5etrability 9 ! empirical intuition ( matt]1 s]ve z correlate ( "t det]m9ation 9 inn] s5se40#ajge ,! /rong] & m def9ite mode ( /atem5t is t ! #8,i ?9k' is an empirical proposition4#ajgf ,?\gh x involves z "o factor ! intellectual repres5tation1 #8,i ?9k1' x is none ! less empirical4 8,)\t "s empirical repres5tation supply+ ! mat]ial = ?\ght1 ! actus1 #8,i ?9k1' w\ld n take place44440#ajgg ,! empirical is inde$ 8only ! condition ( ! application or employm5t ( ! pure intellectual faculty10 b z su* is indisp5sable4 ,?is is repeat$ 9 ev5 cle>] t]ms 9 ,b #dbi4 8,! proposition1 #8,i ?9k1' 9 s f> z x am\nts to ! ass]tion1 #8,i exi/ ?9k+1' is no m]e logical function b det]m9es ! subject 7:i* is !n at ! same "t object7 9 respect ( exi/5ce1 & _c take place )\t inn] s5se44440 ,?is admission is ! m significant 9 t x foll[s imm$iately ^u a passage 9 :i* ,kant has be5 argu+ t ?9k+1 tak5 9 & by itself1 is a m]ely logical function4 ,! real crux lies 9 ! "q z to ! legitimacy ( ,kant's application ( ! pr$icate exi/5ce to ! transc5d5tal subject4 ,its employm5t 9 ref]5ce to ! empirical self 9 "t is "p ( ! problem ( ! ,refutation ( ,idealism 9 ! second edition2 & ! answ] !re giv5 is cle> & def9ite4 ,consci\sness ( ! empirical self z exi/+ 9 "t involves consci\sness ( out] objects 9 space4 ,b z ,kant recognises t a transc5d5tal ego1 n 9 "t1 is presuppos$ 9 all consci\sness ( ! empirical self1 ! "q :e!r ! pr$icate ( exi/5ce is also applicable to ! transc5d5tal self _c be altoge!r avoid$1 & is inde$ ref]r$ to 9 ,b #bgg4 ,! attitude to be tak5 to ?is latt] "q is n1 h[ev]1 def9$ 9 t section4 ,9 ! fir/ edition ,kant has insi/$ t ! categories z pure =ms ( ! und]/&+1 9 isolation f space & "t1 are m]ely logical functions 8)\t cont5t40 ,int]pret$ lit]ally1 ?is w\ld signify t !y are devoid ( mean+1 & !re=e are incapable ( yield+ ! ?\ght ( any indep5d5t object or exi/5ce4 ,z m]ely logical =ms ( relation1 !y presuppose a mat]ial1 & t is suppli$ only ?r\gh out] & inn] s5se4 ,su* is n1 h[ev]1 ! way 9 :i* ,kant int]prets 8 own /atem5t4 ,x is qualifi$ s z to signify only t !y are )\t specific or det]m9ate cont5t4 ,!y are tak5 z yield+ ! conception ( object 9 g5]al4 ,passages 9 pl5ty c be cit$ f ! fir/ edition#ajgh--passages all[$ to rema9 9 ! second edition--9 :i* ,kant tea*es t ! pure =ms ( und]/&+1 z di/9ct f ! s*ematis$ categories1 yield ! conception ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,?is view is1 inde$1 a survival f 8 e>li] doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4#ajgi ,9 all passages add$ 9 ! second edition ! consequ5ces ( 8 argum5t are m rigor\sly drawn1 & ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object is entirely elim9at$4 ,x is n[ unambigu\sly ass]t$ t ! pure =ms ( und]/&+1 ! 8modes ( self-consci\sness 9 ?9k+10#ajhj are n intellectual concepts ( objects4 ,!y 8yield no object :atsoev]40 ,! only object is t giv5 ?r\gh s5se4 ,& s9ce 9 ?9k+ ! transc5d5tal subject we d1 by ,kant's own acc\nt1 ?9k an 8object10 he is l$ to ! conclusion1 also explicitly av[$1 t ! notion ( exi/5ce involv$ 9 ! #8,i ?9k' is n ! category ( ! same "n4#ajha ,s also ( ! categories ( sub/ance & causality4 8,if ,i repres5t myself z subject ( ?\ghts or z gr\nd ( ?9k+1 ^! modes ( repres5tation d n signify ! categories ( sub/ance or ( cause44440#ajhb ,! notion ( ! self1 l ! notion ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 is a concept di/9ct f all ! categories4#ajhc ,?is conclusion is re9=c$ by means ( an argum5t :i* is employ$ 9 ! section ( ! fir/ edition on ,p>alogisms4 ,app]ception is ! gr\nd ( ! possibility ( ! categories1 & ^! latt] on _! side repres5t only ! syn!tic unity :i* t app]ception dem&s4 ,self-consci\sness is !re=e ! repres5tation ( t :i* is ! condition ( all unity1 & :i* yet is itself uncondition$4 8444x does n repres5t itself ?r\gh ! categories1 b kn[s ! categories & ?r\gh !m all objects 9 ! absolute unity ( app]ception1 & s ?r\gh itself4 ,n[ x is1 inde$1 v evid5t t ,i _c "k z an object t :i* ,i mu/ presuppose 9 ord] to "k any object44440#ajhd ,?is argum5t recurs 9 ,b #dbb4 8,! subject ( ! categories _c by ?9k+ ! categories acquire a conception ( itself z an object ( ! categories4 ,=1 9 ord] to ?9k !m1 its pure self-consci\sness1 :i* is :at 0 to be acc\nt$ =1 mu/ itself be presuppos$40 ,x is extremely difficult to e/imate ! value & cog5cy ( ?is argum5t4#ajhe ,_m objections or r qualifications mu/ be made be=e x c be ei!r accept$ or reject$4 ,if x be tak5 only z ass]t+ t ! unity ( self-consci\sness is n adequately expressible ?r\gh any ( ! categories1 x is und\bt$ly valid4 ,if1 fur!r1 ! categories be id5tifi$ ) ! s*emata1 x is also true t !y are n applicable 9 any degree or mann]4 ,! s*emata are applicable only to natural exi/5ces 9 space & "t4 ,self-consci\sness c nev] be r$uc$ to a natural exi/5ce ( t type4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if x is n self-consci\sness z su*1 b ! self-consci\s subject1 :i* on ,kant's view is always n\m5al--8?is ,i or he or x 7! ?+7 :i* ?9ks0#ajhf--t is ref]r$ to1 & if we di/+ui% betwe5 ! categories /rictly s call$1 t is1 ! pure =ms ( und]/&+1 & ! s*emata1 x is n at all evid5t t ! self-consci\s subject may n be describ$ z be+ an exi/5ce t is always a subject & nev] a pr$icate1 & z be+ relat$ to exp]i5ce z a gr\nd or condition4 ,^! indef9ite ass]tions leave op5 alt]native possibilities4 ,!y d n ev5 decide :e!r ! self is 8,i or he or x40#ajhg ,9 s f> z !y advance beyond ! m]e ass]tion t ! self re/s ^u n\m5al conditions !y are1 inde$1 incapable ( pro(1 b by no ,critical pr9ciple c !y be %[n to be inapplicable4 ,:51 !re=e1 ,kant may seem to extract a m def9ite conclusion f ! above argum5t1#ajhh he advances beyond :at x c be made to support4 ,kant is "h influ5c$ by ! results ( ! e?ical enquiries ) :i* 9 ! p]iod subsequ5t to #agha he 0 *iefly preoccupi$4 ,he believ$ himself to h prov$ t ! self1 z a self-consci\s be+1 is a g5u9ely n\m5al exi/5ce4 ,t be+ s1 he 0 b\nd to hold t ! categories1 ev5 z pure logical =ms1 are inadequate to express its real det]m9ate nature4 ,b he conf\nds ?is position ) ! ass]tion t !y are n only inadequate1 b 9 & by !mselves are likewise inapplicable4 ,t is n a legitimate conclusion1 = ev5 if ! self is m ?an m]e subject or m]e gr\nd1 x w at lea/ be s mu*4 ,:5 e?ical consid]ations are left out ( acc\nt1 ! only prop] conclusion is t ! applicability ( ! categories to ! self-consci\s subject is capable nei!r ( pro( nor ( dispro(1 b t :5 ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality 7:i* z we %all f9d is ultimately bas$ ^u ! ,ideas ( ,reason7 has be5 drawn1 ! categories c be employ$ to def9e ! possible diff]5ce betwe5 self-consci\s exp]i5ce & its unkn[n n\m5al conditions4 ,any o!r conclusion conflicts ) ! tea*+ ( ! section on ! ,p>alogisms4 ,x is important to obs]ve--a po9t ignor$ by su* critics z ,caird & ,watson--t 9 ! sections "u consid]ation#ajhi ,kant mo/ explicitly decl>es self-consci\sness to be m]ely 8! repres5tation ( t :i* is ! condition ( all unity40 ,he ma9ta9s t ?is repres5tation1 z /&+ = 8! det]m9+ self 7! ?9k+71 is to be di/+ui%$ f ! self :i* we are seek+ to det]m9e 7! subject :i* ?9ks7 z k f its object10#ajij or 9 o!r words1 t1 )\t special pro(1 unatta9able on !oretical gr\nds1 8! unity ( ?\ght0 may n be tak5 z equival5t to ! unity ( ! ?9k+ subject4#ajia ,!y may be z div]se z unity ( repres5tation & unity ( object repres5t$ are frequ5tly f\nd to be4 ,we may nev] argue f simplicity 9 a repres5tation to simplicity 9 its object4 ,b to return to ! ma9 !sis1 x may be obs]v$ t ^! argum5ts1 ) ! exception ( t :i* we h j be5 consid]+ f ! nature ( self-consci\sness1 lead to ! conclusion t ! categories are z little applicable to ! ?+ 9 itself z to ! transc5d5tal subject4 ,ev5 ! argum5t f ! necess>y & inv>iable pres5ce ( self-consci\sness 9 ea* & e act ( judgm5t is itself valid only f a po9t ( view :i* reg>ds self-consci\sness 9 ! mann] ( ,kant's e>ly semi-,critical view ( ! transc5d5tal subject#ajib z an ultimate4 ,b if1 z is ma9ta9$ 9 ! section 9 :i* ?is argum5t occurs1 viz4 t on ! ,p>alogisms1 self-consci\sness may be complexly condition$1 & may inde$ h conditions simil> 9 nature to ^? :i* und]lie out] exp]i5ce1 ! categories may be j z applicable1 or z inapplicable1 to its n\m5al nature z to ! nature ( ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,x is noticeable t 9 ! second edition1 d\btless "u ! influ5ce ( preoccupation ) e?ical problems1 "s ( ,kant's utt]ances betray a t5d5cy to relax ! rig\r ( 8 ?9k+1 & to br+ 8 !oretical tea*+ into clos] agreem5t ) 8 e?ical results ?an ! !oretical analysis 9 & by itself at all ju/ifies4 ,?is t5d5cy 01 ( c\rse1 re9=c$ by ! p]si/+ influ5ce ( t view ( ! transc5d5tal subject :i* he _h held 9 ! middle 'sev5ties1 & f :i* he nev] completely emancipat$ ei!r 8 language or 8 ?9k+4#ajic ,inde$ 9 sev]al ( ! passages add$ 9 ! second edition#ajid ,kant ev5 goes s f> z to adopt language :i* if tak5 q lit]ally w\ld mean t ! #8,i ?9k' is an imm$iate consci\sness ( ! m9d's purely intellectual activity--a view :i*1 z we h se51#ajie is altoge!r ali5 to ! ,critical position4 ,x w\ld1 z he argues s =cibly else:]e1 involve a k9d ( exp]i5ce :i* does n con=m to ,critical requirem5ts1 & :i* w\ld lie op5 to ! attacks ( sceptics su* z ,hume4 ,9 ,b #aeg-h ! difficulties ( ,kant's position are aga9 manife/4 ,speak+ ( ! repres5tation ( ! self1 he decl>es t 8,i am consci\s ( myself 4441 n z ,i appe> to myself1 nor z ,i am 9 myself1 b only t ,i am40 ,?is may seem to imply t exi/5ce is pr$icable ( ! transc5d5tal self4 ,he adds t ?\gh ! det]m9ation1 i4e4 specification 9 empirical =m1 ( my exi/5ce 7me9 eig5es ,dase97 is possible only 9 inn] s5su\s intuition1 x is 8n appe>ance & /ill less m]e illusion40 ,b 9 ! app5d$ note x is urg$ t my exi/5ce 7,dase97 z self-active be+ is repres5t$ 9 purely indet]m9ate fa%ion4 ,only my exi/5ce z s5su\s1 & !re=e z appe>ance1 c be kn[n1 i4e4 c be made det]m9ate4 ,! problem is m directly & c&idly fac$ 9 ! note to ,b #dbb4 ,t note is int]e/+ = q a numb] ( reasons4 ,x reveals ,kant 9 ! v act ( reca/+ 8 position1 & 9 ! process ( se>*+ ar\nd = a mode ( =mulation :i* w enable him to hold to a transc5d5tal consci\sness ( ! self's exi/5ce & at ! same "t n to violate ! def9ition ( exi/5ce giv5 9 ! ,po/ulates1 i4e4 bo? to posit ! transc5d5tal self z actual & yet to d5y ! applicability to x ( any ( ! categories4 ,aft] /at+ t ! #8,i ?9k' is an empirical proposition 9 :i* my exi/5ce is imm$iately involv$1 he proce$s fur!r to describe x z express+ 8an undet]m9$ empirical intuition1 i4e4 p]ception10 & s z %[+ t s5sation und]lies its ass]tion ( exi/5ce4 ,kant does n1 h[ev]1 mean by ^! words t ! exi/5ce ass]t$ is m]ely t ( ! empirical self2 = he proce$s3 8444exi/5ce is "h n a category1 :i* z su* does n apply to an indet]m9ately-giv5 object4444 ,an indet]m9ate p]ception "h signifies only some?+ real t is giv51 giv5 inde$ to ?\ght 9 g5]al1 & s n z appe>ance1 nor z ?+ 9 itself 7,n\m5on71 b z some?+ :i* actually 9 d] ,t exi/s1 & :i* 9 ! proposition1 ,i ?9k1 is d5ot$ bezei*net z su*40 ,! phrases "h employ$ are op5 to criticism on e side4 ,kant completely dep>ts f 8 usual t]m9ology :5 he ass]ts t ?r\gh an 8indet]m9ate p]ception0 ! self is giv51 & 8giv5 to ?\ght 9 g5]al0 z 8some?+ real40 ,! cont5tion1 t ! exi/5ce ass]t$ is n a category1 is also difficult to accept4#ajif ,x is equally surpris+ to read t its reality is giv5 8nei!r z appe>ance nor z ?+ ,sa*e 9 itself 7,n\m5on702 = hi!rto no su* alt]native =m ( real exi/5ce has be5 recognis$4 ,b to press su* criticisms is to ignore ! _s = ! sake ( ! lett]4 ,kant "h breaks free f all 8 habitual modes ( expression = ! v good & suffici5t reason t he is /riv+ to develop a position m ca?olic & compreh5sive ?an any previ\sly adopt$4 ,he is seek+ to =mulate a position :i*1 )\t 9 any way ju/ify+ or enc\rag+ ! transc5d5t employm5t ( ! categories1 w yet reta9 = ?\ght ! capacity ( self-limitation1 t is1 ( =m+ concepts :i* w reveal ! exi/5ce ( ?+s 9 !mselves & s w enable ! m9d to appreh5d ! radical di/9ction betwe5 ?+s 9 !mselves & ?+s exp]i5c$4 ,b he has n yet discov]$ t 9 s do+ he is committ+ himself to ! !sis t ! di/9ction is m$iat$1 n by ! und]/&+1 b by ,reason1 n by categories1 b by ,ideas4#ajig ,z ,i h already indicat$1 ?is t5d5cy is cross$ by ano!r d]iv$ f 8 preoccupation ) moral problems1 namely1 ! desire to def5d1 9 a mann] :i* 8 ,critical tea*+ does n ju/ify1 ! n\m5al exi/5ce ( ! self z a ?9k+ be+4 ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,analytic ,book ,,ii ,,! ,,analytic ,,( ,,pr9ciples ,! di/9ction :i* ,kant "h introduces = ! fir/ "t betwe5 und]/&+ 7n[ view$ z ! faculty only ( concepts7 & ! faculty ( judgm5t 7,ur!ilskraft7 is artificial & extremely arbitr>y4#ajih ,z we h se51#ajii 8 own real position involves a complete dep>ture f ! traditional di/9ction betwe5 conceiv+1 judg+1 & reason+1 z sep>ate processes4 ,all ?9k+ )\t exception f9ds expression 9 judgm5t4 ,judgm5t is ! fundam5tal activity ( ! und]/&+4 ,x is 8an act :i* conta9s all its o!r acts40 ,kant is b5t1 h[ev]1 ^u =c+ ! cont5ts ( ! ,critique into ! ext]nal framework suppli$ by ! traditional logic1 view$ z an ar*itectonic2 & we h !re=e no option save to take acc\nt ( 8 exposition 9 ! actual =m :i* he has *os5 to give to x4 ,s9ce g5]al logic develops its tea*+ "u ?ree sep>ate head+s1 z ! logic ( conception1 ! logic ( judgm5t1 & ! logic ( reason+1 ! ,critique has to be made to con=m to ?is trip>tite division4 ,! prec$+ book is accord+ly describ$ z deal+ ) concepts1 & ?is second book z deal+ ) judgm5ts or pr9ciples2 :ile und]/&+ & ! faculty ( judgm5t1 n[ view$ z indep5d5t1 are r$ef9$ to meet ! exig5cies ( ?is new arrangem5t1 ! =m] z be+ 8! faculty ( rules10 & ! latt] z be+ 8! faculty ( subsum+ "u rules1 i4e4 ( di/+ui%+ :e!r some?+ does or does n /& "u a giv5 rule 7casus datae legis740 ,! read] ne$ n /rive to discov] any deep-ly+ gr\nd or ju/ification = ^! def9itions4#aajj ,ar*itectonic1 t #8op5 sesame' = s _m ( ! secrets ( ! ,critique1 is ! all-suffici5t spell to resolve ! my/]y4 ,z a matt] ( fact1 ,kant is "h tak+ advantage ( ! popul> mean+ ( ! t]m judgm5t 9 ! s5se 9 :i* we speak ( a man ( good judgm5t2 & 9 ord] t judgm5t & und]/&+ may be di/+ui%$ he !n imposes an artificial limitation ^u ! mean+ 9 :i* ! latt] t]m is to be employ$4 ,z =mal logic ab/racts f all cont5t1 x _c1 ,kant ma9ta9s1 supply rules = ! ex]cise ( 8judgm5t40 ,x is o!rwise ) transc5d5tal logic1 :i* 9 ! pure =ms ( s5sibility possesses a cont5t enabl+ x to def9e 9 an a priori mann] ! specific cases to :i* concepts mu/ be applicable4 ,! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples is ?us able to supply 8a canon = ! faculty ( judgm5t1 in/ruct+ x h[ to apply to appe>ances ! concepts ( und]/&+ :i* conta9 ! condition ( a priori rules40#aaja ,?is w involve 7#a7 ! def9+ ( ! s5su\s conditions "u :i* ! a priori rules may be appli$--! problem ( ! *apt] on s*ematism2 & 7#b7 ! =mulat+ ( ! rules 9 _! s5su\s1 ?\gh a priori1 concret5ess--! problem ( ! *apt] on 8! sy/em ( all pr9ciples ( pure und]/&+40 ,su* is ,kant's own v mislead+ acc\nt ( ! purposes ( ^! two *apt]s4 ,!re are o!r & s\nd] reasons :y !y %\ld be introduc$4 ,9 ! ,analytic ( ,concepts1 z we h se51#aajb ! transc5d5tal d$uction only succe$s 9 prov+ t a priori =ms ( unity are requir$ = ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,no pro( is giv5 t ! v>i\s categories are j ! p>ticul> =ms requir$1 & t !y are "o & all indisp5sable4 ,?is omission c be made good only by a s]ies ( pro(s1 direct$ to %[+1 9 ref]5ce to ea* sep>ate category1 its validity )9 exp]i5ce & its indisp5sabl5ess = ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,^! pro(s are giv5 9 ! second ( ! two *apt]s4 ,! *apt] on s*ematism is prep>atory 9 "*2 x draws att5tion to ! importance ( ! temporal aspect ( human exp]i5ce1 & def9es ! categories 9 ! =m 9 :i* !y pres5t !mselves 9 an exp]i5ce ?us condition$ by a priori intuition4 ,,*apt] ,i ,,! ,,s*ematism ,,( ,,pure ,,concepts ,,( ,,und]/&+#aajc ,! m artificial aspect ( ,kant's argum5t aga9 appe>s 9 ! reason :i* he assigns = ! exi/5ce ( a problem ( s*ematism1 namely1 t pure concepts1 & ! s5su\s intuitions :i* h to be subsum$ "u !m1 are completely opposite 9 nature4 ,no su* explanation c be accept$4 ,= if category & s5su\s intuition are really het]og5e\s1 no subsumption is possible2 & if !y are n really het]og5e\s1 no su* problem z ,kant "h ref]s to w exi/4 ,! het]og5eity :i* ,kant "h ass]ts is m]ely t diff]5ce ( nature :i* foll[s f ! div]sity ( _! functions4 ,! category is =mal & det]m9es /ructure2 intuition yields ! cont5t :i* is !reby organis$4 ,accord+ly1 ! 8?ird ?+10 :i* ,kant po/ulates z requir$ to br+ category & intuition toge!r1 is n prop]ly s describable2 x is simply ! two co-op]at+ 9 ! mann] requir$ = ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,kant's me?od ( /at+ ! problem ( s*ematism is1 h[ev]1 s completely mislead+1 t be=e we c pr(itably proce$1 ! v>i\s /r&s 9 8 highly artificial argum5t mu/ be fur!r dis5tangl$4 ,?is is an ungrateful task1 b has at lea/ ! comp5sat+ int]e/ ( admirably illu/rat+ ! k9d ( influ5ce :i* ,kant's logical ar*itectonic is con/antly ex]cis+ ^u 8 /atem5t ( ,critical pr9ciples4 ,! ar*itectonic has 9 ?is connection two v un=tunate consequ5ces4 ,x leads ,kant to describe s*ematism z a process ( subsumption1 & to speak ( ! transc5d5tal s*ema z 8a ?ird ?+40 ,nei!r ass]tion is legitimate4 ,s*ematism1 prop]ly und]/ood1 is n a process ( subsumption1 b1 z ,kant has already recognis$ 9 ,a #abd1 ( syn!tic int]pretation4 ,creative syn!sis1 :]eby cont5ts are appreh5d$ 9 t]ms ( functional relations1 n subsumption ( p>ticul>s "u univ]sals t are homog5e\s ) !m1 is :at ,kant mu/ ultimately mean by ! s*ematism ( ! pure =ms ( und]/&+4 ,a category1 t is to say1 may n be view$ z a pr$icate ( a possible judgm5t1 & z be+ appli$ to a subject indep5d5tly appreh5d$2 its function is to articulate ! judgm5t z a :ole4 ,! category ( sub/ance & attribute1 = in/ance1 is ! =m ( ! categorical judgm5t1 & may n be equat$ ) any "o ( its s+le p>ts4 ,?us ! criticisms :i* we h already pass$ ^u ,kant's mode ( =mulat+ ! di/9ction betwe5 =mal & transc5d5tal logic1#aajd are no less applicable to ! sections n[ be=e u4 ,! t]m9ology :i* ,kant is "h employ+ is borr[$ f ! traditional logic1 & is out ( h>mony ) 8 ,critical pr9ciples4 ,kant's description ( ! s*ema z a ?ird ?+1 additional to category & intuition1 & int]m$iate betwe5 !m1 is also a result ( 8 mislead+ mode ( =mulat+ 8 problem4 ,:at ,kant pr(esses to d is to int]pret ! relation ( ! categories to ! intuitional mat]ial z analog\s to t hold+ betwe5 a class concept & ! p>ticul>s :i* c be subsum$ "u x4 ,?is is impli$ 9 8 use ( ! plate & circle illu/ration4#aaje ,b z ! relation hold+ betwe5 categories & ! mat]ial ( s5se is t ( =m & matt]1 /ructure & cont5t1 ! analogy is ?or\ghly mislead+4 ,z all cont5t1 /rictly s call$1 falls on ! side ( ! intuitional mat]ial1 !re is no cont5t1 i4e4 no quality or attribute1 :i* is common to bo?4 ,& ?us x happ5s t ! inappropriat5ess ( ! analogy :i* ,kant is seek+ to en=ce is ultimately ! sole gr\nd :i* he is able to (f] 9 support ( 8 description ( ! s*ema z 8a ?ird ?+40 8,n[ x is cle> 6 t !re mu/ be a ?ird ?+1 :i* is homog5e\s on ! "o h& ) ! category & on ! o!r ) ! appe>ance1 & :i* ?us makes ! application ( ! "o to ! o!r possible40#aajf ,on ! contr>y1 ! true ,critical tea*+ is t category & intuition1 t is to say1 =m & cont5t1 mutually condition "o ano!r1 & t ! s-call$ s*ema is simply a "n = ! latt] z appreh5d$ 9 t]ms ( ! =m]4 ,b !re is a fur!r complication4 ,kant1 z we h already obs]v$1#aajg def9es judgm5t z be+ 8444! faculty ( subsum+ "u rules1 i4e4 ( di/+ui%+ :e!r some?+ does or does n /& "u a giv5 rule 7casus datae legis740 ,n[ ?is view ( judgm5t really connects ) ! syllogism1 n ) ! proposition4#aajh ,z ,kant /ates 9 8 ,logic1 !re are 8444?ree ess5tial elem5ts 9 all inf]5ce3 7#a7 a univ]sal rule :i* is entitl$ ! major premiss2 7#b7 ! proposition :i* subsumes a cognition "u ! condition ( ! univ]sal rule1 & :i* is entitl$ ! m9or premiss2 & la/ly1 7#c7 ! conclusion1 ! proposition :i* ass]ts or d5ies ( ! subsum$ cognition ! pr$icate ( ! rule40#aaji ,reg>d$ 9 ?is way1 z ! application ( a rule1 subsumption is m broadly view$ & becomes a m appropriate analogy = ! relation ( category to cont5t4 ,& obvi\sly x is ?is comp>ison t ,kant has *iefly 9 m9d 9 ^! introductory sections4 ,= only :5 ! subsumption is t ( a p>ticul> in/ance "u a univ]sal rule1 c ! necessity ( a m$iat+ condition be all[$4 ,su*1 !n1 are ! /raits to :i* ,kant is r$uc$ 9 ! endeav\r to hold loyally to 8 ar*itectonic4 ,he has to id5tify ! two v diff]5t k9ds ( subsumption :i* f9d expression 9 ! proposition & 9 ! syllogism respectively2 & :5 8 analogy betwe5 logical subsumption1 ?us loosely int]pret$1 & syn!tic int]pretation1 proves inapplicable1 he uses ! failure ( ! analogy z an argum5t to prove ! necessity ( 8a ?ird ?+40 ,on 8 own ,critical tea*+1 z else:]e exp\nd$1 no su* ?ird ?+ ne$ be po/ulat$4 ,ev5 ! def9itions :i* he proce$s to give ( ! v>i\s s*emata d n really support ?is description ( !m4 ,b ?\gh ,kant's me?od ( introduc+ & exp\nd+ ! argum5t ( ?is *apt] is ?us mislead+1 ! cont5ts !mselves are ( intr9sic value1 & h a ?reefold be>+3 7a7 on ! doctr9e ( productive imag9ation2 7b7 on ! relation hold+ betwe5 image & concept2 & 7c7 on ! nature ( ! categories 9 _! di/9ction f ! pure =ms ( und]/&+4 7a7 ,kant gives def9ite & precise expression to ! two *ief *>act]i/ics ( ! productive imag9ation1 namely1 t x deals ) an a priori manifold ( pure intuition#aaaj & t x ex]cises a 8hidd5 art 9 ! dep?s ( ! human s\l40#aaaa ,kant's description ( ! s*ema z 8a ?ird ?+10 at once intellectual & s5su\s1 seems to be 9 l>ge "p due to ! transf]5ce to x ( pr$icates already appli$ to ! faculty :i* is suppos$ to be its s\rce4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 ! transc5d5tal s*ema & ! p>ticul>is$ image is also giv5 z analog\s to t betwe5 ! pure & ! empirical faculties ( imag9ation4 ,9 ,a #ada-b ,b #ahj-a1 ,kant speaks ( ! empirical faculty ( productive imag9ation1 & s is l$1 to ! great confusion ( 8 exposition1 ?\gh also to ! enri*m5t ( 8 tea*+1 to all[ ( empirical z well z ( transc5d5tal s*emata1 & ?us contr>y to 8 own real position to recognise s*emata ( su* empirical objects z dog or horse--a view :i* empirical psy*ology has s9ce adopt$ 9 its doctr9e ( ! s*ematic image4 ,?is passage 0 d\btless writt5 at ! "t :5 he 0 incl9+ to ! view t ! empirical processes run p>allel ) ! transc5d5tal4#aaab ,kant's f9al view is t empirical imag9ation is always reproductive4 ,?is br+s u1 h[ev]1 to our second ma9 po9t4 7b7 ,kant makes a /atem5t :i* s]ves z a valuable corrective ( 8 loos] ass]tions 9 o!r p>ts ( ! ,critique4#aaac ,five po9ts set aft] "o ano!r1 ?us1444441 =m an image ( ! numb] five4 ,! s*ema ( ! numb] five is1 h[ev]1 ( v diff]5t nature1 & mu/ n be id5tifi$ ) any su* image4 ,x is 8444r ! repres5tation ( a me?od :]eby a multiplicity 9 ?is case five may be repres5t$ 9 an image 9 accordance ) a c]ta9 concept1 ?an ?is image itself44440#aaad ,?is becomes m evid5t 9 ! case ( l>ge numb]s1 su* z a ?\s&4 ,! ?\ght or s*ema ( ! numb] rema9s j z cle> & def9ite z 9 ! case ( small] numb]s1 b _c be s adequately embodi$ & survey$ 9 a concrete image4 8,?is repres5tation ( a g5]al proc$ure ( imag9ation 9 provid+ its image = a concept1 ,i "n ! s*ema to ?is concept40#aaae ,b ev5 9 ! simple/ cases an image c nev] be completely adequate to ! concept4 ,! image ( a triangle1 = in/ance1 is always "s p>ticul> triangle1 & !re=e repres5ts only a "p ( ! total connotation4 ,z ! s*ema repres5ts a univ]sal rule ( production 9 accordance ) a concept1 x resembles ! concept 9 its incapacity to subsi/ 9 an objective =m4 ,images become possible only ?r\gh & 9 accordance ) s*emata1 b c nev] !mselves be id5tifi$ ) !m4 ,s*emata1 !re=e1 & n images--su* is ! impli$ conclusion--=m ! true subject-matt] ( ! ma!matical sci5ces4 ,images are always p>ticul>2 s*emata are always univ]sal4 ,images repres5t exi/5ces2 s*emata repres5t me?ods ( con/ruction4 ,!re are ?ree criticisms :i* mu/ be pass$ ^u ?is position4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! selection ( ! triangle z an illu/ration t5ds to obscure ! ma9 po9t ( ,kant's argum5t4 ,z !re are ?ree v diff]5t species ( triangle1 ! concept triangle is a class concept 9 a degree & mann] :i* is n to be f\nd 9 ! concepts1 say1 ( ! circle or ( ! numb] five4 ,s t :ile ,kant may seem to be *iefly insi/+ ^u ! inadequacy#aaaf ( ! image to repres5t m ?an a "p ( ! connotation ( ! correspond+ concept1 8 real int5tion is to emphasise t ! s*ema expresses ! conceptual rule :]eby1 ev5 9 images t cov] ! :ole connotation1 ! true mean+ ( ! image c alone be det]m9$4 ,secondly1 ! above def9ition ( ! s*ema z be+ 8! repres5tation ( a g5]al proc$ure ( imag9ation 9 provid+ an image = a concept0 is obvi\sly b\nd up ) ,kant's view ( x z 8a ?ird ?+10 additional to ! concept1 & z int]m$iate betwe5 x & ! image4#aaag ,b z we h already f\nd occasion to note1 9 discuss+ ,kant's doctr9e ( ! 8con/ruction0 ( ma!matical concepts1#aaah ?is ?reefold di/9ction is out ( h>mony ) 8 ,critical pr9ciples4 ,x results f 8 ret5tion ( ! traditional view ( ! concept z 9 all cases a m]e concept1 i4e4 an ab/ract$ or class concept4 ,9 def9+ ! s*ema ,kant is def9+ ! true nature ( ! concept z aga9/ ! false int]pretation ( x 9 ! traditional class-!ory2 he misrepres5ts ! logic ( 8 own /&po9t :5 he int]polates a ?ird k9d ( repres5tation int]m$iate betwe5 ! concept & ! image4 ,! concept #8triangle1' z a concept1 is 7to employ ,kant's own n v satisfactory t]ms7 ! repres5tation ( ! me?od ( con/ruct+ a c]ta9 type ( object2 & ! only o!r mode ( repres5t+ ?is k9d ( object is ! image4 ,!re may1 inde$1 z ,kant has himself sugge/$1 be a species ( image t may be entitl$ s*ematic2 b if t be id5tifi$ ) a blurr$ or indet]m9ate or m]ely symbolic =m ( repres5tation1 x c h no?+ 9 common ) ! transc5d5tal or conceptual s*ema1 save ! "n4 ,?irdly1 ! entire discussion ( ! nature ( ! s*emata ( 8s5su\s concepts0 & ( _! relation to ! s5se image1 is out ( ord] 9 ?is *apt]2 & h[ev] valuable 9 itself1 bewild]s ! read] :o v prop]ly assumes = x a relevancy :i* x does n possess4 ,! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+1 ^: s*emata ,kant is endeav\r+ to def9e1 are altoge!r diff]5t 9 nature f s5su\s repres5tations1 & c nev] be r$uc$ 9 any =m or degree to an image4 ,!y are :olly transc5d5tal1 repres5t+ pure syn!ses unifi$ ?r\gh categories 9 accordance ) ! =m ( inn] s5se4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 br+s u to our la/ ma9 po9t4 7c7 ,kant's mann] ( employ+ ! t]m category is a typical example ( 8 *>act]i/ic c>elessness 9 ! use ( 8 te*nical t]ms4 ,sometimes x signifies ! pure =ms ( und]/&+4 ,b m frequ5tly x /&s = :at he n[1 = ! fir/ "t1 entitles s*emata1 namely1 ! pure conceptual =ms z modifi$ ?r\gh relation to "t4 ,to take z examples ! two *ief categories ( relation4 ,! fir/ category ( relation1 view$ z a =m ( ! pure und]/&+1 is ! m]ely logical conception ( t :i* is always a subject & nev] a pr$icate4 ,! correspond+ s*ema is ! conception ( t :i* has p]man5t exi/5ce 9 "t2 x is n ! logical notion ( subject1 b ! transc5d5tal conception ( sub/ance4 ,! pure logical conception ( gr\nd & consequ5ce is simil>ly di/+ui%$ f ! transc5d5tal s*ema ( cause & effect4 ,?is contra/ is ( supreme importance 9 ! ,critical philosophy1 & ought !re=e to h be5 m>k$ by a c>eful di/9ction ( t]ms4 ,_h ,kant re/rict$ ! t]m category to d5ote ! pure =ms1 & inv>iably employ$ ! t]m s*emata to signify _! m concrete c\nt]p>ts1 _m ambiguities & confusions w\ld h be5 prev5t$4 ,! table ( categories1 9 its di/9ction f ! table ( logical =ms1 w\ld !n h be5 nam$ ! table ( s*emata1 & ! def9itions giv5 9 ?is *apt] w\ld h be5 app5d$ to x1 z ! prop] supplem5t to ! metaphysical d$uction1 complet+ x by a c>eful def9ition ( ea* sep>ate s*ema4 ,= :at ,kant usually means :5 he speaks ( ! categories are ! s*emata2 & ! *apt] be=e u !re=e conta9s _! delay$ def9itions4#aaai ,z ,kant has con/antly be5 insi/+1 & z he aga9 s emphatically tea*es 9 ?is *apt]1 ! pure =ms ( und]/&+1 tak5 9 & by !mselves1 ap>t f ! =ms ( intuition1 h no relation to any object1 & are m]e logical functions )\t cont5t or det]m9ate mean+4 ,f ?is po9t ( view ! mislead+ influ5ce ( ,kant's ar*itectonic may aga9 be not$4 ,x =ces him to preface 8 argum5t by introductory rem>ks :i* run entirely c\nt] to ! v po9t :i* he is *iefly conc]n$ to illu/rate & en=ce1 namely1 ! insep>ability ( conception & intuition 9 all exp]i5ce & k4 ,he does1 inde$1 draw att5tion to ! fact t ! conditions :i* s]ve to realise ! pure concepts ( und]/&+ also at ! same "t re/rict !m1 b x is ) _! empirical employm5t t he is "h *iefly conc]n$4 ,caird's#aabj mode ( exp\nd+ ,kant's doctr9e ( s*ematism may s]ve z an example ( ! mislead+ influ5ce ( ,kant's artificial me?od ( introduc+ 8 argum5t4 ,z ,caird accepts ,kant's initial /atem5ts at _! face value1 he is l$ to read ! entire *apt] 9 accordance ) !m1 & s to int]pret x z be+ a virtual recantation ( ! assumptions :i* und]lie ! /atem5t ( its problem4 ,! tru] view w\ld r seem to be t ! introduction is dem&$ by ! exig5cies ( ,kant's ar*itectonic1 & !re=e yields no true acc\nt ei!r ( ! ess5tial purpose ( ! *apt] or ( its actual cont5ts4 ,coh5 n unju/ly rem>ks t 8444rec5t writ]s are guilty ( a v /range misread+ ( ,kant :5 !y ma9ta91 z if 9 opposition to him1 a ?\ght to :i* 8 doctr9e ( s*ematism gives pr(\nd expression1 namely1 t intuition & conception d n function indep5d5tly1 & t ?\ght1 & /ill m k1 is & mu/ always be intuitive40#aaba ,coh5 fails1 h[ev]1 to draw att5tion to ! cause ( ! misund]/&+ = :i* ,kant mu/ c]ta9ly %>e ! blame4 ,riehl1#aabb :ile adopt+ a some:at simil> view to t "h giv51 traces ,kant's mislead+ mode ( /at+ ! problem to 8 hold+ a false view ( ! univ]sality ( ! concept4 ,su* criticism ( ,kant1 l t pass$ by ,caird1 is 9 _m respects ju/ifi$1 b ! occasion ^u :i* ! admonition is made to foll[ w\ld none ! less seem to be ill-*os54 ,x may be ask$ :y ,kant 9 ?is *apt] s completely ignores space4 ,no really satisfactory answ] seems to pres5t itself4 ,x is true t "t is ! "o univ]sal =m ( all intuition1 ( out] z well z ( inn] exp]i5ce4 ,x is also true t1 z ,kant else:]e %[s1 consci\sness ( "t presupposes consci\sness ( space = its own possibility1 & s to t ext5t may be reg>d$ z includ+ ! latt] =m ( consci\sness )9 itself4 ,nev]!less ,kant's conc5tration on ! temporal aspect ( exp]i5ce is exce$+ly arbitr>y1 & results 9 c]ta9 un=tunate consequ5ces4 ,ow+ to ! mann] 9 :i* ,kant envisages 8 problem#aabc he is b\nd1 inde$1 to lay ! great] emphasis ^u "t1 b t ne$ n h involv$ s exclusive a recognition ( its field & function4 ,possibly ,kant's v natural preoccupation ) 8 new & revolution>y doctr9es ( inn] s5se & productive imag9ation has some?+ to d ) ! matt]4 ,?\gh ! def9itions giv5 ( ! v>i\s s*emata1 especially ( ^? ( reality & exi/5ce1 raise _m difficulties1 consid]ation ( !m mu/ be def]r$4#aabd ,!y c be prop]ly discuss$ only 9 connection ) ! pr9ciples :i* ,kant bases ^u !m4 ,only "o fur!r po9t calls = pres5t rem>k4 ,kant does n give a s*ema = ea* ( ! categories4 ,9 ! fir/ two gr\ps ( pure conceptual =ms1 ^? ( quantity & ( quality1 he gives a s*ema only = ! ?ird category 9 ea* case4 ,numb] is /rictly n ! s*ema ( quantity z su*1 b ( totality4 ,! s*ema ( quality is a def9ition only ( limitation4#aabe ,?is dep>ture f ! dem&s ( /rict ar*itectonic is made )\t comm5t or explanation ( any k9d4 ,kant delights to insi/ ^u ! confirmation giv5 to 8 tea*+ by ! fulfilm5t ( ar*itectonic requirem5ts2 he is = ! mo/ "p sil5t :5 !y fail to correspond4 ,?is ar*itectonic 0 a hobby suffici5tly s]i\s to yield him ke5 pleasure 9 its elaboration1 b 0 n s vital to 8 ma9 purposes z to call = /rong] measures :5 %ortcom+s occurr$4 ,9 conclud+ ?is *apt] ,kant draws att5tion to ! fact t ! s5su\s conditions :i* s]ve to realise ! pure concepts also at ! same "t re/rict _! mean+4 ,_! wid] mean+ is1 h[ev]1 ( m]ely logical "*4#aabf ,_! function1 z pure concepts1 lies solely 9 e/abli%+ unity ( repres5tation2 !y d n !re=e suffice to yield k ( any object4 ,objective application 8comes to !m solely f s5sibility40 ,9 ^! /atem5ts ,kant exp\nds "o ( 8 fundam5tal doctr9es1 b 9 a mann] :i* does less ?an ju/ice to ! indep5d5t value ( pure ?\ght4 ,z he else:]e tea*es1#aabg x is n s5se t sets limits to und]/&+2 x is ! pure =ms ( ?\ght t enable ! m9d to appreciate ! limit$ & m]ely ph5om5al "* ( ! _w exp]i5c$4 ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,sy/em ,,( ,,all ,,pr9ciples ,,( ,,pure ,,und]/&+ ,! introductory rem>ks to ?is important *apt] are aga9 dictat$ by ,kant's ar*itectonic1 & set its actual cont5ts 9 an extremely false light4 ,kant w\ld seem to imply t z ! ,analytic ( ,concepts has det]m9$ all ! v>i\s conceptual elem5ts con/itutive ( exp]i5ce1 & has prov$ t !y s]ve z pr$icates ( possible judgm5ts1 x n[ rema9s to %[ 9 an ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples :at a priori syn!tic judgm5ts1 or 9 o!r words :at pr9ciples1 c actually be bas$ ^u !m4 ,?\gh ?is is a q mislead+ acc\nt ( ! relation hold+ betwe5 ! two books ( ! ,analytic1 x has be5 accept$ by _m comm5tators4#aabh ,= sev]al reasons x mu/ be reject$4 ,! pure =ms ( und]/&+ are n pr$icates = possible judgm5ts4 ,!y und]lie judgm5t z a :ole1 express+ ! relation ?r\gh :i* its total cont5ts are organis$4 ,?us 9 ! proposition 8c9nab> is heavy0 ! category ( sub/ance & attribute is n 9 any s5se ! pr$icate2 x articulates ! entire judgm5t1 int]pret+ ! exp]i5c$ cont5ts 9 t]ms ( ! dual relation ( sub/ance & attribute4 ,judgm5t1 its nature & conditions1 is ! real problem ( ! misnam$ ,analytic ( ,concepts4 ,z already indicat$1#aabi ! two ma9 divisions ( ! ,analytic deal ) "o & ! same problem4 ,b :ile do+ s1 !y diff] 9 two respects4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 z above not$1 ! ,analytic ( ,concepts supplies no pro( ( ! validity ( p>ticul> categories1 b only a q g5]al demon/ration t =ms ( unity1 su* z are involv$ 9 all judgm5t1 are dem&$ = ! possibility ( app]ception4 ,! pro(s ( ! indisp5sabl5ess ( specific categories are fir/ giv5 9 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples4 ,secondly1 9 ! ,analytic ( ,concepts ! temporal aspect ( exp]i5ce falls some:at into ! backgr\nd1 :]eas 9 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples x is emphasis$4 ,f ^! two fundam5tal po9ts ( diff]5ce !re arises a ?ird di/+ui%+ feature4 ,:5 ! categories1 or r s*emata1 are explicitly def9$1 & receive individual pro(1 !y are f\nd to be j ^? pr9ciples t are dem&$ = ! possibility ( ! positive sci5ces4 ,?is is1 f ,kant's po9t ( view1 no m]e co9cid5ce4 ,sci5tific k is possible only 9 s f> z exp]i5ce is gr\nd$ on a priori conditions2 & ! conditions ( s5se-exp]i5ce are also ! conditions ( its conceptual int]pretation4 ,b :ile ! ,analytic ( ,concepts deals almo/ exclusively ) ord9>y exp]i5ce1 9 ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples ! physical sci5ces receive _! due %>e ( consid]ation4 ,fir/ & ,second ,sections4 ,! ,highe/ ,pr9ciples ( ,analytic & ,syn!tic ,judgm5ts4--,^! two sections conta9 no?+ n already develop$ e>li] 9 ! ,critique4 ,?\gh ! pr9ciple ( non-contradiction is a m]ely negative te/ ( tru?1 x c s]ve z a univ]sal & completely adequate crit]ion 9 ! case ( all judgm5ts t are analytic ( giv5 concepts4 ,! pr9ciple ( syn!tic judgm5ts1 on ! o!r h&1 is ! pr9ciple :]eby we are enabl$ to advance beyond a giv5 concept s z to atta* a pr$icate :i* does n /& to x 9 ! relation ei!r ( id5tity or ( contradiction4 ,?is pr9ciple is ! pr9ciple ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,?\gh a priori syn!tic judgm5ts _c be logically demon/rat$ z foll[+ f high] & m univ]sal propositions1#aacj !y are capable ( a transc5d5tal pro(1 t is1 z be+ conditions ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 8,! possibility ( exp]i5ce is :at gives objective reality to all our a priori k40#aaca 8,al?\gh we "k a priori 9 syn!tic judgm5ts a great deal reg>d+ space 9 g5]al & ! figures :i* productive imag9ation describes 9 x1 & c obta9 su* judgm5ts )\t actually requir+ any exp]i5ce2 yet ev5 ?is k w\ld be no?+ b a play+ ) a m]e figm5t ( ! bra91 7 x n t space has to be reg>d$ z a condition ( ! appe>ances :i* con/itute ! mat]ial = out] exp]i5ce44440#aacb ,9 ! fir/ "p ( ! la/ s5t5ce1 z 9 ! page :i* prec$es x1 ,kant w\ld seem to be inculcat+ 8 doctr9e ( a pure a priori manifold1 b ! latt] "p ( ! /atem5t w\ld n be affect$ by ! admission t space is n an indep5d5t intuition b only ! =m ( out] s5se4 ,?ird ,section4 ,sy/ematic ,repres5tation ( all ! ,syn!tic ,pr9ciples ( ,und]/&+4--,kant is n conc]n$ 9 ?is section ) ! fundam5tal propositions ( ma!matical sci5ce1 s9ce1 on 8 view1 !y re/ ^u ! evid5ce ( intuition4 ,he claims1 h[ev]1 t _! objective validity dep5ds ^u two pr9ciples1 :i*1 ?\gh n !mselves ma!matical 9 ! /rict s5se1 may conv5i5tly be s describ$ f ! transc5d5tal /&po9t--! pr9ciple ( ! 8axioms ( intuition10 & ! pr9ciple ( ! 8anticipations ( exp]i5ce40 ,! physici/1 :o takes ! legitimacy ( appli$ ma!matics = grant$1 has no occasion to =mulate ^! pr9ciples4 ,t he none ! less presupposes !m is %[n1 h[ev]1 by 8 unque/ion+ assumption t nature con=ms to ! /rict requirem5ts ( pure ma!matics4 ,& s9ce ! pr9ciples involve pure concepts1 ! "o embody+ ! s*ema ( numb]1 & ! o!r ! s*ema ( quality1 !y fall outside ! scope ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,ae/hetic1 & call = a d$uction simil> to t ( ! o!r categories4 ,z already indicat$1 ,kant's proc$ure is extremely arbitr>y1 & is due to ! p]v]t+ influ5ce ( 8 ar*itectonic4 ,pro( ( ! validity ( appli$ ma!matics has already be5 giv5 9 ! ,ae/hetic#aacc ( ! fir/ edition--a pro( :i* is fur!r develop$ 9 ! ,prolegom5a1#aacd & reca/ 9 ! second edition s z to con/itute a sep>ate 8transc5d5tal exposition40#aace ,z ,kant tea*es 9 ^! passages1 ! objective validity ( appli$ ma!matics re/s ^u pro( t space & "t are ! a priori =ms ( out] & inn] s5se4 ,! new d$uctions ( ! s*emata ( numb] & quality1 :i* he n[ proce$s to =mulate1 are q unnecess>y1 & also are by no means conclusive 9 ! mann] ( _! pro(4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 is m ?an comp5sat$ by ! extremely valuable pro(s ( ! s*ematis$ categories ( relation :i* he gives 9 ! section on ! ,analogies ( ,exp]i5ce4 ,! section on ! ,po/ulates ( ,empirical ,exp]i5ce1 :i* deals ) ! pr9ciples ( modality1 also conta9s matt] ( v real importance4 ,! pr9ciples ) :i* ?is *apt] has to deal c ?us be arrang$ accord+ to ! f\rfold division ( ! table ( categories3 7#a7 ,axioms ( ,intuition1 7#b7 ,anticipations ( ,p]ception1 7#c7 ,analogies ( ,exp]i5ce1 7#d7 ,po/ulates ( ,empirical ,?\ght4 ,& foll[+ ! di/9ction already drawn 9 ! ,analytic ( ,concepts1#aacf ,kant di/+ui%es betwe5 ! ,axioms & ,anticipations on ! "o h&1 & ! ,analogies & ,po/ulates on ! o!r4 ,! =m] det]m9e ! conditions ( intuition 9 space & "t1 & may !re=e be call$ ma!matical & con/itutive4 ,!y express :at is necess>ily involv$ 9 e intuition z su*4 ,! latt] are dynamical4 ,!y are pr9ciples accord+ to :i* we mu/ ?9k ! exi/5ce ( an object z det]m9$ 9 its relation to o!rs4 ,:ile1 !re=e1 ! fir/ set ( pr9ciples c be intuitively v]ifi$1 ! second set h only an indirect relation to ! objects exp]i5c$4 ,:]eas a relation ( causality c nev] be intuit$ z hold+ betwe5 two ev5ts1 b only ?\ght into !m1 spatial & temporal relations are direct objects ( ! m9d4 ,simil>ly1 ! relation ( sub/ance & attribute _c be intuit$2 x c only be ?\ght into :at is intuit$4 ,! ma!matical pr9ciples ?us acquire an imm$iate 7?\gh1 be x rememb]$1 m]ely de facto7 evid5ce2 ! a priori c]ta9ty1 equally complete1 ( ! dynamical pr9ciples c be v]ifi$ only ?r\gh ! circuit\s *annel ( transc5d5tal pro(4 ,! composite con/itution ( ^! sections f9ds /rik+ illu/ration 9 ! duplicat$ acc\nt ( ?is di/9ction :i* prec$es & foll[s ! table ( pr9ciples4 ,! two acc\nts c h>dly h be5 writt5 9 imm$iate succession to "o ano!r4 ,! e>li] 9 location#aacg is probably ! lat] 9 date4 ,x w\ld seem to re/ ^u "s su* uncritical di/9ction z t drawn 9 ! ,prolegom5a betwe5 judgm5ts ( p]ception & judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce4#aach ,! second & brief] acc\nt#aaci is n op5 to ?is objection4 ,9 ,a #agh-hj ,b #bbj-c ,kant develops a fur!r po9t ( diff]5ce betwe5 ! ma!matical & ! dynamical pr9ciples1 or r expla9s :at he means by 8 all too brief & consequ5tly ambigu\s ref]5ce 9 ! fir/ ( ! above acc\nts to 8exi/5ce0 7,dase974 ,! ma!matical pr9ciples are con/itutive2 ! dynamical are regulative4 ,t is to say1 ! ma!matical pr9ciples lay d[n ! conditions = ! g5]ation or con/ruction ( appe>ances4 ,! dynamical only specify rules :]eby we c def9e ! relation 9 :i* exi/5ces cont+5tly giv5 are connect$4 ,z exi/5ce c nev] be con/ruct$ a priori1 we are limit$ to ! det]m9ation ( ! int]relations betwe5 exi/5ces all ( :i* mu/ be giv54 ,?us ! pr9ciple ( causality enables u to pr$ict a priori t = e ev5t !re mu/ exi/ "s antec$5t cause2 b only ?r\gh empirical inve/igation c we det]m9e :i* ( ! p>ticul> giv5 antec$5ts may be s describ$4 ,t is to say1 ! pr9ciple def9es conditions to :i* exp]i5ce mu/ con=m1 b does n enable u to con/ruct x 9 advance4 ,?is di/9ction is inspir$ by ! contra/ betwe5 ma!matical & physical sci5ce1 & is valuable z def9+ ! empirically regulative function ( ! a priori dynamical pr9ciples2 b its some:at =c$ "*#aadj becomes app>5t :5 we be> 9 m9d ,kant's previ\s di/9ction betwe5 ! pr9ciples ( pure ma!matical sci5ce & ! transc5d5tal pr9ciples :i* ju/ify _! application to exp]i5ce4 ,^? latt] pr9ciples conc]n exi/5ce z appreh5d$ ?r\gh s*ematis$ categories1 & are consequ5tly1 z reg>ds c]ta9ty & me?od ( pro(1 9 exactly ! same position z ! dynamical pr9ciples4 ,?is is suffici5tly evid5t f 8 own illu/ration ( sunlight4#aada ,!re is z little possibility ( 8con/ruct+0 its int5sity z ( det]m9+ a priori ! cause ( an effect4 ,i4 ,,! ,,axioms ,,( ,,intuition ,all appe>ances are 9 _! intuition ext5sive magnitudes4 ,or z 9 ! second edition3 ,all intuitions are ext5sive magnitudes4 #8,ext5sive' is "h us$ 9 a v wide s5se to include temporal z well z spatial magnitude4 ,kant bases ?is pr9ciple ^u ! s*ema ( numb]1 & ! pro( :i* he prop\nds 9 its support is !re=e design$ to %[ t appreh5sion ( an object ( p]ception1 :e!r spatial or temporal1 is only possible 9 s f> z we br+ t s*ema into play4 ,b ?\gh ?is is ! pr(ess$ purpose ( ! argum5t1 numb] is itself nev] ev5 m5tion$2 & ! reason = ! omission is d\btless ,kant's consci\sness ( ! obvi\s objections to any su* position4 ,t aspect ( ! argum5t is !re=e1 no d\bt )\t explicit int5tion1 kept 9 ! backgr\nd4 ,b ev5 z ?us giv51 ! argum5t mu/ h left ,kant ) "s feel+ ( dissatisfaction4 ,loyalty to 8 ar*itectonic s*eme prev5ts su* d\bt & disquietude f f9d+ fur!r expression4 ,! argum5t1 9 its fir/-edition /atem5t1 />ts f ! =mulation ( a view ( space & "t directly oppos$ to t ( ! ,ae/hetic3#aadb 8,i entitle a magnitude ext5sive :5 ! repres5tation ( ! p>ts makes possible1 & !re=e necess>ily prec$es1 ! repres5tation ( ! :ole4 ,i _c repres5t to myself a l9e1 h[ev] small1 )\t draw+ x 9 ?\ght1 i4e4 g5]at+ f a po9t all its p>ts "o aft] ano!r1 & ?us = ! fir/ "t record+ ?is intuition40 ,simil>ly ) ev5 ! smalle/ "t4 ,& z all appe>ances are intuit$ 9 space or "t1 e appe>ance1 s f> z intuit$1 is an ext5sive magnitude1 t is to say1 c be appreh5d$ only ?r\gh successive g5]ation ( its p>ts4 ,all appe>ances are 8aggregates1 i4e4 manifolds ( antec$5tly giv5 p>ts40 ,?is def9ition ( ext5sive magnitude involves an assumption :i* ,kant also employs else:]e 9 ! ,critique1#aadc b :i* he n[h]e attempts to e/abli% by argum5t2 namely1 t x is impossible to appreh5d a manifold save 9 succession4 ,?is assumption is1 ( c\rse1 entirely false 7at lea/ z appli$ to our empirical consci\sness71 z has s9ce be5 amply demon/rat$ by exp]im5tal inve/igation4 ,kant adopt$ x 9 ! e>li] subjectivi/ /age ( 8 tea*+1 be=e he _h come to recognise t consci\sness ( space is involv$ 9 consci\sness ( "t4 ,b ev5 aft] he _h done s1 ! e>li] view /ill t5d$ to ga9 ! upp] h& :5ev] ! doctr9es ( inn] s5se & ( productive imag9ation 7 "u consid]ation4 ,= 9 reg>d to ! transc5d5tal activities ( productive imag9ation1 :i* are ess5tially syn!tic1 ,kant cont9u$ to treat "t z m fundam5tal ?an space4 ,b1 z already not$1#aadd a directly opposite view ( ! int]relations ( space & "t is exp\nd$ 9 passages add$ 9 ! second edition4 ,! two c5tral p>agraphs are v ext]nally connect$ ) ! ma9 argum5t1 & are probably lat] int]polations4#aade ,9 ! fir/ ( ^! two p>agraphs ,kant ascribes ! syn!tic activity involv$ 9 ! 8g5]ation ( figures0 to ! productive imag9ation1 & ma9ta9s t geometry is r5d]$ possible by ?is faculty4 ,9 ! o!r p>agraph ,kant deals ) ari?metic1 b makes no ref]5ce to ! productive imag9ation4 ,its argum5t is limit$ to ! cont5tion t propositions expressive ( num]ical relation1 ?\gh syn!tic1 are n univ]sal4 ,!y are n axioms1 b num]ical =mulae4 ,?is di/9ction has no v obvi\s be>+ on ! pres5t argum5t1 & s]ves only to indicate ,kant's recognition t no rigid p>allelism c be e/abli%$ betwe5 geometry & ari?metic4 ,!re are1 x w\ld seem1 no ari?metical axioms correspond+ to ! axioms ( ,euclid4#aadf ,! conclud+ p>agraph is a re/atem5t ( ! argum5t ( ! ,ae/hetic & ( #ac1 ,note i4 ( ! ,prolegom5a4 ,appe>ances are n ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,!y are condition$ by ! pure intuitional =ms1 & are !re=e subject to pure ma!matics 89 all its precision40 ,7 we compell$ to reg>d ! objects ( ! s5ses z ?+s 9 !mselves1 an appli$ sci5ce ( geometry 7aga9 tak51 9 ,kant's habitual mann]1 z typically repres5t+ ! ma!matical discipl9es7 w\ld n be possible4 ,! only new elem5t 9 ! argum5t is ! ref]5ce to syn!sis z presuppos$ 9 all appreh5sion4 ,! additional pro( ) :i* 9 ! second edition ,kant prefaces ! entire argum5t calls = no special comm5t4 ,x may1 h[ev]1 be not$ t ?\gh 9 ! argum5t ( ! fir/ edition ! ne$ ( syn!sis 9 all appreh5sion is cle>ly taught1 ! t]m syn!sis is n itself employ$ except 9 ! c5tral & f9al p>agraphs4 ,9 ! pro( giv5 9 ! second edition bo? ! t]m & :at x /&s = are all[$ due prom95ce4 #b4 ,,! ,,anticipations ,,( ,,p]ception ,9 all appe>ances s5sation & ! real :i* corresponds to x 9 ! object 7realitas pha5om5on7 has an int5sive magnitude or degree4 ,or z 9 ! second edition3 ,9 all appe>ances ! real1 :i* is an object ( s5sation1 has int5sive magnitude or degree4 ,we may fir/ analyse ! total section4 ,! fir/ p>agraph#aadg expla9s ! t]m anticipation4 ,! second & ?ird p>agraphs give a fir/ pro( ( ! pr9ciple4 ,p>agraphs f\r to t5 treat ( cont9uity 9 space1 "t & *ange1 & ( ! impossibility ( empty space1 & also af=d ,kant ! opportunity to develop 8 dynamical !ory ( matt]1 & s to indicate ! contribution :i* transc5d5tal philosophy is able to make t[>ds a m adequate und]/&+ ( ! pr9ciples ( physical sci5ce4 ,! elev5? & twelf? p>agraphs1 evid5tly lat] int]polations1 give a second pro( ( ! pr9ciple :i* 9 "o important respect v>ies f ! fir/ pro(4 ,9 ! second edition a ?ird pro( ak9 to ?is second pro(1 b c>ry+ x a /age fur!r1 is add$ 9 ! =m ( a new fir/ p>agraph4 ,kant's reason = *ang+ ! =mulation ( ! pr9ciple 9 ! second edition is evid5tly ! unsatisfactor9ess ( ! phrase 8s5sation & ! real40#aadh ,! pr9ciple1 prop]ly int]pret$1 applies n1 z ! fir/ edition title & also ! second pro( w\ld lead u to expect1 to s5sation itself1 b to its object1 realitas pha5om5on4 ,x is ph5om5ali/ 9 its tea*+4 ,! emphatic t]m 8anticipation0 is adopt$ by ,kant to m>k t 9 ?is pr9ciple we are able 9 a priori fa%ion to det]m9e some?+ 9 reg>d to :at 9 itself is purely empirical4 ,s5sation z su*1 be+ ! matt] ( exp]i5ce1 c nev] be kn[n a priori4 ,its quality1 z be+ a col\r or a ta/e1 dep5ds ^u factors :i* are = u1 ow+ to ! limitations ( our k1 :olly cont+5t4 ,none ! less 9 "o p>ticul> respect we c pr$et]m9e ! object ( all s5sation1 & s c anticipate exp]i5ce1 ev5 9 its mat]ial aspect4 ,! fir/ pro( is z foll[s4 ,appreh5sion1 s f> z x takes place ?r\gh a s5sation1 occupies only a s+le mom5t2 x does n involve any successive syn!sis proce$+ f p>ts to ! complete repres5tation4 ,t :i* is appreh5d$ _c1 !re=e1 possess ext5sive magnitude4 ,b1 z already /at$ 9 ! *apt] on ,s*ematism1 reality is t 9 appe>ance :i* corresponds to a s5sation4 ,x is realitas pha5om5on4 ,! abs5ce ( x is negation #j4 ,n[ e s5sation is capable ( dim9ution2 betwe5 reality 9 ! appe>ance & negation !re is a cont9u\s s]ies ( _m possible int]m$iate s5sations1 ! diff]5ce betwe5 any two ( :i* is always small] ?an ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! giv5 s5sation & z]o4 ,t is to say1 ! real 9 appe>ance has int5sive magnitude or degree4 ,! argum5t is f capability ( v>iation 9 ! int5sity ( s5sation to exi/5ce ( degree 9 its object or cause4 ,= ! mo/ "p ?is reality is spok5 ( z t :i* is appreh5d$ 9 s5sation1 b ,kant adds t if x be 8444view$ z cause ei!r ( s5sation or ( o!r reality 9 appe>ance1 su* z *ange1 ! degree ( its reality 444 is !n entitl$ a mom5t1 z = in/ance ! mom5t ( gravity40 ,! obscurity ( :at 9 itself is a v simple & direct argum5t w\ld seem to be traceable to ! lack ( cle>ness 9 ,kant's own m9d z to :at is to be signifi$ by reality4 ,! impli$ di/9ction betwe5 s5sation & its object has n be5 cle>ly =mulat$4 ,def9itions h1 inde$1 be5 giv5 ( reality 9 ! *apt] on ,s*ematism2#aadi b !y are extremely difficult to deciph]4 ,kant nev] v>ies f ! ass]tion t reality is 8t :i* corresponds to s5sation 9 g5]al40 ,our difficulty is ) ! additional qualifications4 ,?is reality1 he fur!r decl>es1 is 8444t1 ! concept ( :i* 9 itself po9ts to an exi/5ce ,se9 9 "t40#aaej ,! words #89 "t' w\ld seem to %[ t :at is ref]r$ to is reality 9 ! realm ( appe>ance1 ! realitas pha5om5on ( ! ,anticipations4 ,b imm$iately bel[ we f9d ! foll[+ s5t5ce3 8,z "t is only ! =m ( intuition1 & consequ5tly ( objects z appe>ances1 :at corresponds 9 !m to s5sation is ! transc5d5tal matt] ( all objects z ?+s 9 !mselves1 ?+hood ,sa*heit1 reality40#aaea ,! tea*+ ( ! fir/ s5t5ce is ph5om5ali/2 t ( ! o!r is subjectivi/4 ,n[ 9 ! section on ,anticipations ( ,p]ception ! ph5om5ali/ t5d5cies ( ,kant's ?\ght are decid$ly ! m prom95t4 ,! impli$ di/9ction is ?reefold1 betwe5 s5sation z subjective /ate possess+ int5sive magnitude1 spatial realities t possess bo? int5sive & ext5sive magnitude1 & ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,objects z appe>ances are reg>d$ z causes ( s5sation & z produc+ *anges 9 "o ano!r4 ,! explanation ( ! ph5om5ali/ "* ( ?is section is n f> to seek4 ,kant's *ief purpose 9 x1 z we %all f9d1 is to develop ! dynamical !ory ( matt] to :i* he _h long held1 & :i*1 z he 0 conv9c$1 w\ld ultimately be sub/itut$ = ! me*ani/ic view to :i* almo/ all physici/s !n adh]$4 ,we c easily und]/& h[ 9 ?is endeav\r ! reali/ t5d5cies ( 8 ?9k+ %\ld at once come to ! surface1 & :y he %\ld h be5 con/ra9$ to develop a position m precise & less ambigu\s ?an t express$ 9 ! def9itions ( reality & degree giv5 9 ! *apt] on ,s*ematism4 ,) ^! prelim9>y explanations we may pass to ,kant's second pro( ( 8 pr9ciple4 ,a l9k ( connection betwe5 ! two pro(s may be f\nd 9 ! reason :i* ,kant 9 ! fir/ pro( gives = 8 ass]tion t s5sation _c possess ext5sive magnitude--! reason1 namely1 t z its appreh5sion takes place 9 a s+le mom5t1 x involves no elem5t ( syn!sis4 ,9 8 second pro( ,kant modifies ?is cont5tion1 & ma9ta9s t we c ab/ract f ! ext5sive magnitude ( ! appe>ance1 & yet c recognise a syn!sis z be+ involv$4 8,! real :i* corresponds to s5sations 9 g5]al1 z oppos$ to negation #j1 repres5ts only some?+ ! v conception ( :i* conta9s an exi/5ce e9 ,se91 & signifies no?+ b ! syn!sis 9 an empirical consci\sness 9 g5]al40#aaeb ,kant adds t 9 a s+le mom5t we c repres5t to ourselves z involv$ 9 ! b>e s5sation 8444a syn!sis ( ! uni=m progression f z]o to ! giv5 empirical consci\sness40 ,^! /atem5ts are f> f cle>2 b x is h>dly necess>y to criticise !m 9 detail4 ,s9ce ,kant is endeav\r+ to prove t a s*ema1 t ( reality or limitation1 is involv$ 9 ! appreh5sion ( s5sation1 he is b\nd 9 consi/5cy to ma9ta91 9 accordance ) ! tea*+ ( 8 d$uction ( ! categories1 t ! application ( ! s*ema dem&s "s species ( syn!sis4 ,! ?ird pro(1 add$ 9 ! second edition1#aaec is some:at m explicit1 & repres5ts a fur!r & la/ /age 9 ,kant's va9 endeav\r to h>monise ! tea*+ ( ?is section ) 8 g5]al pr9ciples4 ,9 ! empirical consci\sness ( s5sation !re is 8444a syn!sis ( ! diff]5t quantities involv$ 9 ! g5]ation ( a s5sation f its beg9n+ 9 pure intuition #j to its p>ticul> requir$ magnitude40 ,or aga91 appreh5sion ( magnitude is appreh5sion 84449 :i* ! empirical consci\sness c 9 a c]ta9 "t increase f z]o up to its giv5 measure40 ,"h1 aga91 :at ,kant ass]ts z occurr+ 9 our aw>5ess ( s5sation calls = mu* m rigor\s demon/ration4 ,l ! argum5t ( ! second pro(1 x is n indep5d5tly e/abli%$2 x is a m]e coroll>y to ! g5]al pr9ciples ( 8 d$uction ( ! categories4 ,?us ,kant's !sis1 t ! appreh5sion ( s5se qualities z int5sive magnitudes presupposes a syn!sis accord+ to an a priori s*ema1 is bo? obscure 9 /atem5t1 & unconv9c+ 9 argum5t2 & "s ( ! ass]tions made1 especially 9 ref]5ce to ! occurr5ce ( syn!sis1 w\ld seem to be h>dly less arbitr>y ?an ! connection :i* ,kant pr(esses to trace betwe5 logical 8quality10 z affirmation or negation1 & ! dynamical int5sity ( s5su\s qualities4 ,=1 z already indicat$1#aaed logical 8quality0 & int5sive magnitude h no?+ 9 common save ! "n4 ,kant next proce$s to a discussion ( ! g5]al problem ( cont9uity4 ,! connection is some:at =c$4 ,b if we ov]look ! artificial ord]+ ( ! argum5t & are cont5t to reg>d :at is giv5 z 9 ! nature ( p>5!tical comm5t1 we f9d 9 ! middle p>agraph ( ?is section an excell5t /atem5t ( 8 view ( ! nature ( cont9uity & a v cle> /atem5t ( 8 dynamical !ory ( matt]4 ,kant develops ! conception ( cont9uity 7a7 9 ref]5ce to space & "t1 & 7b7 9 its application to ! int5sity ( s5sations & ( _! causes4 7a7 ,kant's own words require no comm5t3 8,space & "t are quanta cont9ua because no "p ( !m c be giv51 save z enclos$ betwe5 limits 7po9ts or mom5ts71 & !re=e z be+ itself a space or a "t4 ,space !re=e consi/s only ( spaces1 "t only ( times4 ,po9ts & mom5ts are only limits1 i4e4 m]e positions t limit space & "t4 ,b positions always presuppose ! intuitions :i* !y limit or are int5d$ to limit2 & out ( m]e positions1 view$ z con/itu5ts capable ( be+ giv5 prior to space & "t1 nei!r space nor "t c be con/ruct$4 ,su* magnitudes may also be call$ fl[+1 s9ce ! syn!sis ( productive imag9ation involv$ 9 _! production is a progression 9 "t1 & ! cont9uity ( "t is ord9>ily d5ot$ by ! expression fl[+40#aaee 7b7 ,:5 ,kant proce$s to apply ! pr9ciple ( cont9uity to int5sive magnitude1 8 conclusion re/s ^u a some:at diff]5t basis4 ,he argues t appe>ances mu/ be cont9u\s ow+ to ! fact t !y are appreh5d$ 9 space & "t4#aaef ,s f> z !y are ext5d$ 9 space & endur+ 9 "t t may p]haps be true2 b ,kant's ass]tion has a wid] sweep4 ,x implies t s5sations & ! physical conditions ( s5sation1 z = in/ance ! s5sation ( r$ or ! =ce ( gravity1 are capable ( exi/+ 9 e possible degree betwe5 z]o & any giv5 int5sity4 ,?is af=ds ! key to 8 me?od ( =mulat+ 8 second & ?ird pro(s ( ! pr9ciple ( ,anticipations ( ,p]ception1 :i*1 9 ! =m 9 :i* he int]prets x1 conta9s ?is fur!r implication ( cont9uity4 ,^! pro(s are inspir$ by ! desire to make all appreh5sion1 ev5 t ( simple s5sation1 a temporal process1 & by t indirect means to e/abli% = s5su\s int5sity & its objective conditions a cont9uity simil> to t ( space & "t4 ,! pro( is1 h[ev]1 z we h se51 inconclusive4 ,?is application ( cont9uity mu/ be reg>d$ z m 9 ! nature ( a m]e hypo!sis ?an ,kant is will+ to recognise4 ,z reg>ds s5sations1 x w\ld seem to h be5 positively disprov$ by ! results ( exp]im5tal psy*ology4 ,f 8 suppos$ pro( ( ! cont9uity ( all int5sive magnitudes ,kant draws two fur!r conclusions3 fir/1 t exp]i5ce c nev] be made to yield pro( ( ! void 9 ei!r space or "t4 ,= if all reality c exi/ 9 innum]able degrees1 & if ea* s5se has a det]m9ate degree ( receptivity1 ! complete abs5ce ( reality c nev] be itself exp]i5c$4 ,inf]5ce to su* abs5ce is also impossible = a second reason1 namely1 t "o & ! same ext5sive magnitude may be completely occupi$ by an inf9ite numb] ( diff]5t int5sive degrees1 indef9itely approximat+ to1 & yet also indef9itely diff]+ f1 z]o4 ,kant is "h ref]r+ to ! dynamical !ory ( matt] :i* he _h long held1#aaeg & :i* he exp\nds 9 opposition to ! curr5t me*ani/ic view4#aaeh ,! me*ani/ic !ory re/s1 he cont5ds1 ^u an assumption purely metaphysical & !re=e :olly dogmatic1 t ! real 9 space has no int]nal diff]5ces1 b is uni=m l ! empty space 9 :i* x exi/s4#aaei ,9 accordance ) ?is assumption physici/s inf] t all qualitative diff]5ces 9 our s5sations mu/ be due to m]ely quantitative diff]5ces 9 _! mat]ial causes1 & ultimately to diff]5ces 9 ! numb] & di/ribution ( ! con/itu5t p>ts ( mat]ial bodies4 ,if two bodies ( ! same volume diff] 9 weight or 9 in]tia1 ! v>iation mu/ be trac$ to diff]5ces 9 ! am\nt ( matt]1 or1 o!rwise /at$1 to diff]5ces 9 ! am\nt ( unoccupi$ space1 9 ! two bodies4 ,to ?is view ,kant opposes 8 own hypo!sis--= x is 9 ?is m mode/ =m t x is pres5t$ 9 ^! p>agraphs--namely1 t matt] occupies space by int5sity & n by m]e bulk1 & t x may !re=e be dim9i%$ indef9itely 9 degree )\t = t reason ceas+ completely to fill ! same ext5sive area4 ,?us an exp&$ =ce su* z heat1 fill+ space )\t leav+ ! smalle/ "p ( x empty1 may be indef9itely dim9i%$ 9 degree1 & yet may /ill ) ^! less] degrees cont9ue to occupy t space z completely z be=e4 ,?is may n1 ,kant admits1 be ! true explanation ( physical diff]5ces1 b x at lea/ has ! m]it ( free+ ! und]/&+ f metaphysical preconceptions1 & ( demon/rat+ ! possibility ( an alt]native to ! curr5t view4 ,if matt] has int5sity z well z ext5sity1 & s c v>y 9 quality z well z 9 quantity1 physical sci5ce may p]haps be fruitfully develop$ on dynamical l9es4 #c4 ,,! ,,analogies ,,( ,,exp]i5ce ,! pr9ciple ( ! ,analogies is3 ,exp]i5ce is possible only ?r\gh ! repres5tation ( a necess>y connection ( p]ceptions4#aafj ,kant introduces ! ?ree analogies ) ! /atem5t ( an und]ly+ pr9ciple1 :i* corresponds to ! c5tral !sis ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,9 ! second edition ?is g5]al pr9ciple is re=mulat$1 & a new pro( is add$4 ,^! alt]ations d n seem1 h[ev]1 to be ( any special significance4 ,! two pro(s repeat ! ma9 argum5t ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction1 b ) special emphasis ^u ! temporal aspect ( exp]i5ce4 ,! categories ( relation1 z s*ematis$1 yield ! ,analogies1 :i* acquire objective validity 9 s f> z !y r5d] exp]i5ce possible4 ,! fir/ pro( 7giv5 9 ! second p>agraph ( ! fir/ edition7 ma9ta9s t !y are indisp5sable = app]ception1 & ! second pro( 7t ( ! second edition7 t !y are indisp5sable = k ( objects4 ,! ref]5ces to "t 9 ! second pro( are too cond5s$ to be intelligible save 9 ! light ( ! m explicit argum5ts giv5 9 support ( ! ?ree ,analogies4 ,! fir/ p>agraph 9 ! fir/ edition mu/ be a lat] int]polation1 z its ass]tion t simultaneity is a mode ( "t conflicts ) ! pro( giv5 ( ! fir/ ,analogy1 b agrees ) :at mu/ be reg>d$ z a lat] int]polat$ passage introductory to t pro(4#aafa ,?is p>agraph is also peculi> 9 ano!r respect4 ,hi!rto ,kant has trac$ ! exi/5ce ( ! ?ree analogies to ! ?ree categories ( relation1 ea* ( :i* conditions a sep>ate s*ema4 ,b 9 ?is p>agraph he bases _! ?reefold =m on ! fact t "t has ?ree modes1 duration1 sequ5ce1#aafb & coexi/5ce1 & t !re is !re=e a ?reefold problem3 fir/1 :at is involv$ 9 consci\sness ( duration2 secondly1 :at is involv$ 9 consci\sness ( succession2 & ?irdly1 :at is involv$ 9 consci\sness ( coexi/5ce4 ,?is is n1 h[ev]1 a satisfactory mode ( /at+ ! matt]1 = x might seem to imply t ! ?ree aspects ( "t c be sep>ately appreh5d$1 & t ea* has its own indep5d5t conditions4 ,:at ,kant really proves is t all ?ree involve "o ano!r4 ,we c only be consci\s ( duration 9 contra/ to succession1 & ( succession 9 contra/ to ! p]man5t1 :ile bo? involve consci\sness ( coexi/5ce4 ,! ?ree analogies ?us treat ( ?ree aspects ( ! same problem1 ! fir/ connect+ ) ! category ( sub/ance1 ! second ) t ( causality1 & ! ?ird ) t ( reciprocity4 ,! only po9t t calls = fur!r comm5t#aafc conc]ns ,kant's adoption ( ! t]m ,analogy z a title = ! ?ree pr9ciples ( 8relation40 ,! t]m is employ$ 9 contra-di/9ction to con/itutive pr9ciple or axiom2 & ,kant po9ts out t ?is usage ( ! t]m mu/ be c>efully di/+ui%$ f ! o!r or ma!matical4 8,9 philosophy analogy is n ! lik5ess ( two quantitative b ( two qualitative relations40 ,9 ma!matical analogy a f\r? t]m c be discov]$ f ?ree giv5 t]ms2 b 9 an #8analogy ( exp]i5ce' we possess a rule t suffices only = ! det]m9ation ( ! relation to a t]m n giv51 nev] = k ( ?is t]m itself4 ,?us if we are in=m$ t #ae is to x z #e is to #aj1 ! value ( x c be det]m9$ z #cj4 ,b if x be /at$ t a giv5 ev5t /&s to an antec$5t ev5t z effect to cause1 only ! relation hold+ betwe5 ! ev5ts c be specifi$1 n ! actual cause itself4 ,! pr9ciple ( causality ?us s]ves only z a regulative pr9ciple1 direct+ u to se>* = ! cause ( an ev5t among its antec$5ts4 ,riehl has sugge/$ a v diff]5t explanation ( ! t]m1 namely1 z signify+ t ! categories ( relation are employ$ only on ! analogy ( ! correspond+1 pure logical =ms4 8,9 s f> z ,i "k matt] 9 t]ms ( its empirical prop]ties z ! sub/ance ( out] exp]i5ces1 ,i d n ga9 k ( ! nature ( matt] b only ( its relation to my ?9k+4 ,9 all judgm5ts ^u out] ?+s ,i employ matt] z ! subject4 ,t k is !re=e no?+ b an analogy to ! conceptual relation ( a subject to its pr$icates4 ,matt] is relat$ to its prop]ties & effects 9 ! realm ( appe>ance z ! subject ( a categorical judgm5t is relat$ to its pr$icates4 ,9 s f> z an antec$5t is entitl$ ! cause ( an ev5t1 we d n ga9 k ( its nature b only ( ! analogy ( ! relation ( cause & effect ) t ( antec$5t & consequ5t 9 a hypo!tical proposition2 ! connection ( ! *anges is analog\s to ! conceptual relation ( gr\nd & consequ5ce2 ! pr9ciple ( ! suffici5t gr\nd ( *anges is an analogy ( exp]i5ce40#aafd ,?is explanation may at fir/ sight seem to be support$ by ,kant's own /atem5t 9 ! conclud+ p>agraph ( ! section be=e u4 8,?r\gh ^! pr9ciples we are ju/ifi$ 9 comb9+ appe>ances only accord+ to an analogy ) ! logical & g5]al unity ( concepts 4440#aafe ,?is ass]tion is1 h[ev]1 incid5tal to ,kant's explanation t ! analogies are n pr9ciples ( 8transc5d5tal0 7i4e4 transc5d5t71 b only ( empirical application--an explanation itself 9 turn occasion$ by 8 desire to connect 8 pres5t argum5t ) ! *apt] on ,s*ematism4 ,?is int]pretation ( ! t]m analogy is probably1 !re=e1 ( ! nature ( an aft]?\ght4 ,hav+ adopt$ ! t]m on ! gr\nds above /at$ 9 ,a #agi-hj ,b #bbb1 he f9ds 9 x an opportunity to re9=ce 8 previ\s ass]tion ( ! re/rict+ "* ( ! "t condition ?r\gh :i* categories are trans=m$ into s*emata4 ,! entire p>agraph is probably1 z ,adickes rem>ks1 a lat] int]polation4 ,b !re are fur!r reasons :y we _c accept ?is passage z repres5t+ ! real orig9 ( ! t]m analogy4 ,x w\ld involve adoption ( ! subjectivi/ /&po9t f :i* ,riehl1 despite 8 o!rwise reali/ic read+ ( ,kant1 int]prets ,kant's ph5om5ali/ doctr9es4 ,= x implies t x is only 9 ! n\m5al1 & n also 9 ! ph5om5al sph]e1 t sub/antial exi/5ces & g5u9ely dynamical activities are to be f\nd4#aaff ,x w\ld also seem to imply1 :at is by no means ,kant's inv>iable position1 ! absolute validity ( ! logical =ms4 ,& la/ly1 x w\ld involve ! priority ( ! logical to ! real use ( ! categories1 a violation ( ,critical pr9ciples ( :i* ,kant is himself occasionally guilty1 b nev]1 z x w\ld seem1 9 ?is exagg]at$ =m4 ,a4 ,fir/ ,analogy4--,all appe>ances conta9 ! p]man5t 7sub/ance7 z ! object itself1 & ! *angeable z its m]e det]m9ation1 i4e4 z a mode 9 :i* ! object exi/s4 ,or z 9 ! second edition3 ,9 all *ange ( appe>ances sub/ance is p]man5t2 its quantum 9 ,nature nei!r increases nor dim9i%es4 ,! second p>agraph#aafg is ( composite "*4 ,its fir/ "p 7consi/+ ( ! fir/ ?ree s5t5ces7 & its second "p give sep>ate pro(s1 involv+ ass]tions directly contradictory ( "o ano!r4 ,! "o ass]ts *ange & simultaneity to be modes ( "t2 ! o!r d5ies ?is4 ,!y _c1 !re=e1 be ( ! same date4 ,! fir/ w\ld seem to be ! lat]2 x connects ) ! fir/ p>agraph ( ! prec$+ section4 ,9 ! fir/ edition ! pr9ciple is def9$ z express+ ! s*ema ( ! dual category ( sub/ance & attribute4 ,9 ! second edition x is re=mulat$ 9 mu* less satisfactory =m1 z be+ ! sci5tific pr9ciple ( ! cons]vation 7i4e4 inde/ructibility7 ( matt]4 ,?is second =mulation emphasises ! weak] side ( ! argum5t ( ! fir/ edition1 & is l>gely due to ! p]v]t+ influ5ce ( ,kant's me?od ( di/+ui%+ betwe5 ! ,analytic ( ,concepts & ! ,analytic ( ,judgm5ts4 ,x reveals ,kant's gr[+ t5d5cy to contra/ ! two divisions ( ! ,analytic1 z deal+1 ! "o ) ord9>y exp]i5ce1 & ! o!r ) its sci5tific reorganisation4#aafh ,! fir/ pro( 9 ! fir/ edition gives explicit expression to a presupposition und]ly+ ?is entire section1 namely1 t all appreh5sion is necess>ily successive1 or 9 o!r words t x is impossible to appreh5d a manifold save 9 succession4#aafi ,f ?is assumption x foll[s t if su* succession is n only to occur b is to be appreh5d$ z occurr+1 & if we are to be able to di/+ui% betwe5 ! successive ord] ( all our appreh5sions & ! ord] ( coexi/+ indep5d5t exi/5ces1 a p]man5t mu/ be ?\ght into ! succession1 t is to say1 ! successive exp]i5ces mu/ be int]pret$ into an objective ord] 9 t]ms ( ! category ( abid+ sub/ance & *ang+ attributes4 ,kant nei!r "h nor else:]e makes any attempt to expla9 h[ ?is position is to be reconcil$ ) 8 doctr9e t space c be intuit$ z well z "t2 & !re is equal difficulty 9 reconcil+ x ) ! doctr9e develop$ 9 8 second pro( 79 ! second division ( ?is same p>agraph7 t "t itself does n *ange b only ! appe>ances 9 x4 ,z above %[n1#aagj !re are two t5d5cies 9 ,kant's treatm5t ( "t1 ea* ( :i* c>ries ) x its own set ( connect$ consequ5ces4 ,!re is ! view t consci\sness ( "t z a :ole preconditions consci\sness ( any "p ( x4 ,?is t5ds to recognition ( simultaneity z a mode ( "t & ( ! simultane\s z appreh5d$ 9 a s+le non-successive act ( appreh5sion4 ,on ! o!r h&1 !re is ! c\nt]-view t consci\sness ( "t is only possible ?r\gh ! successive comb9ation ( its p>ts4 ,?is leads to ! ass]tion t simultaneity is n a mode ( "t1 & t "t itself _c be appreh5d$ save z ! result ( syn!sis 9 accordance ) unify+ categories4 ,?r\gh ! categories !re arises consci\sness ( objectivity1 & s = ! fir/ "t consci\sness ( a di/9ction betwe5 ! subjective :i* exi/s inv>iably & exclusively 9 succession1 & ! objective :i* may exi/ ei!r z successive or z p]man5t1 & 9 ^: exi/5ce bo? elem5ts are1 inde$1 insep>ably involv$4 ,to turn n[ to ,kant's second#aaga pro( ( ! pr9ciple2#aagb x is z foll[s4 ,all our p]ceptions are 9 "t1 & 9 "t are repres5t$ z ei!r coexi/5t or successive4 ,"t itself _c *ange1#aagc = only z 9 x c *ange be repres5t$4 ,"t1 h[ev]1 _c by itself be appreh5d$4 ,z su*1 x is ! m]e empty =m ( our p]ceptions4 ,!re mu/ be f\nd 9 ! objects ( p]ception "s abid+ sub/rate or sub/ance :i* w repres5t ! p]man5ce ( "t 9 consci\sness1 & ?r\gh relation to :i* coexi/5ce & succession ( ev5ts may be p]ceiv$4 ,& s9ce only 9 relation to ?is sub/rate c "t relations be appreh5d$1 x mu/ be altoge!r un*angeable1 & may !re=e#aagd be call$ sub/ance4 ,& be+ un*angeable x c nei!r increase nor dim9i% 9 quantity4 ,kant1 )\t fur!r argum5t1 at once id5tifies ?is sub/ance ) matt]4 ,?is pro( may be re/at$ 9 brief] fa%ion4#aage ,! consci\sness ( ev5ts 9 "t involves ! dat+ ( !m 9 "t4 ,b t is only possible 9 s f> z we h a repres5tation ( ! "t 9 :i* !y are to be dat$4 ,"t1 h[ev]1 n be+ by itself exp]i5c$1 mu/ be repres5t$ 9 consci\sness by an abid+ sub/rate 9 :i* all *ange takes place1 & s9ce1 z ! sub/rate ( all *ange1 x w necess>ily be un*angeable1 x may be call$ sub/ance4 ,! argum5t1 9 bo? pro(s1 is ne$lessly ab/ract1 & z already rem>k$1#aagf ! reason ( ?is ab/ractness is t ,kant "h1 z 9 ! *apt] on ,s*ematism1 unduly ignores space1 limit+ 8 analysis to inn] s5se4 ,he def9es ! s*ema ( sub/ance z ! p]man5ce ( ! real 9 "t1 i4e4 z ! repres5tation ( ! real :i* p]si/s :ile all else *anges4 ,z ! second edition ( ! ,critique %[s1#aagg ,kant himself came to recognise ! inadequacy ( ?is def9ition1 & !re=e ( ! pro( ( ! fir/ ,analogy4 ,consci\sness is only possible ?r\gh ! repres5tation ( objects 9 space4 ,only 9 out] s5se is a p]man5t giv5 9 contra/ to :i* *ange may be p]ceiv$4 ,! pro( ought !re=e to h proce$$ 9 ! foll[+ mann]4 ,"t c be conceiv$ only z motion1 & motion is p]ceivable only aga9/ a p]man5t backgr\nd 9 space4 ,consci\sness ( "t !re=e involves consci\sness ( a p]man5t 9 space4 ,he might h add$ t consci\sness ( relative "t involves consci\sness ( *ange 9 relation to some?+ relatively p]man5t1 & t ! sci5tific conception ( all *anges z tak+ place 9 a s+le absolute "t involves ! det]m9+ ( *ange ?r\gh relation to some?+ absolutely p]man5t1 ?is ultimate /&>d be+ f\nd 9 ! heav5ly bodies4 ,by ! p]man5t is n meant ! immovable1 b only t :i* is uni=m & un*ang+ 9 its motions4 ,! uni=m motions ( ! heav5ly bodies con/itute our ultimate /&>d ( "t4 ,! degree ( _! uni=mity is ! measure ( our approximation to an absolute /&>d4 ,a m>g9al note ^u ?is ,analogy 9 ,kant's private copy ( ! ,critique reveals ,kant's late awak5$ recognition ( ! necessity ( ?is mode ( re/at+ ! argum5t4 8,"h ! pro( mu/ be s develop$ z to apply only to sub/ances z ph5om5a ( out] s5se1 & mu/ !re=e be drawn f space1 :i* ) its det]m9ations exi/s at all times4 ,9 space all *ange is motion44440#aagh ,t ! new argum5t ( ! second edition /ill proce$s on ! same l9es z ! second argum5t ( ! fir/ edition is probably due1 z ,erdmann rem>ks1#aagi to ,kant's unwill+ness to make ! ext5sive alt]ations :i* w\ld h be5 call$ = 9 ! *apt] on ,s*ematism z well z 9 ! /atem5t ( ?is ,analogy4 ,a second s]i\s objection to ,kant's treatm5t ( ! fir/ ,analogy foll[s at once f ! above4 ,kant id5tifies ! p]man5t :i* repres5ts "t 9 consci\sness ) matt]1 & seeks to prove by means ( ?is id5tification ! pr9ciple ( ! cons]vation ( matt]4#aahj ,t pr9ciple is n really capable ( transc5d5tal pro(4 ,x is n a presupposition ( possible exp]i5ce1 b m]ely a g5]alisation empirically gr\nd$4 ,kant is "h conf\nd+ a p>ticul> !ory z to ! mann] 9 :i* ! elem5t ( p]man5ce1 necess>y to possible exp]i5ce1 is realis$1 ) ! mu* m g5]al conclusion :i* alone c be e/abli%$ by transc5d5tal me?ods4 ,8 argum5t also conflicts ) 8 own repeat$ ass]tion t ! notion ( *ange1 9 s f> z x is di/9ct f t ( temporal succession or ( motion 9 space1 is empirical1 & consequ5tly falls outside ! scope ( transc5d5tal enquiry4 ,by ! cons]vation ( matt] we mean ! con/ancy ( ! weight ( matt] ?r\gh\t all *anges4 ,b ! only p]man5t :i* c be po/ulat$ z necess>y to r5d] our actual consci\sness ( "t possible1 consi/s ( spatial objects suffici5tly con/ant to act z a /&>d by comp>ison ) :i* motions may be measur$ aga9/ "o ano!r4 ,& z ?is fir/ ,analogy1 prop]ly und]/ood1 ?us deals solely ) spatial *anges ( bodies1 ! pr9ciple ( ! cons]vation ( matt] has no real connection ) x4 ,!n ?irdly1 & la/ly1 ,kant takes ?is fir/ ,analogy z %[+ ! indisp5sable function p]=m$ 9 exp]i5ce by ! category ( sub/ance & attribute4 ,sub/ance1 he argues1 corresponds to ! "t 9 :i* ev5ts happ51 & its attributes correspond to ! *ang+ ev5ts4 ,j z all ev5ts are only to be conceiv$ z happ5+ 9 "t1 s too all *anges are only to be conceiv$ z *anges 9 an abid+ sub/ance4 ,^!1 he w\ld seem to hold1 are simply two ways ( mak+ "o & ! same ass]tion4 ,n[ ,kant may p]haps be "r 9 insi/+ t all *ange is *ange 91 & n (1 "t4 ,unity ( consci\sness w\ld seem to dem& consci\sness ( a s+le "t 9 :i* all ev5ts happ54 ,b ?is relation ( "t to its ev5ts does n ju/ify ! same ass]tion be+ made ( sub/ance4 ,sub/ance may be :at corresponds to "t 9 g5]al1 & may repres5t x 9 consci\sness1 b we _c = t reason say t *anges are also only 9 & n ( x4 ,to reg>d ! *anges 9 ?is way z attributes inh]+ 9 sub/ance directly contradicts ! view develop$ 9 ! second ,analogy4 ,= ! notion ( sub/ance is !re treat$ z an implication ( ! pr9ciple ( causality4 ,sub/ance1 ,kant !re insi/s1 is n a b>e /atic exi/5ce 9 :i* *anges take place1 b a dynamic en]gy :i* f its v nature is 9 p]petual necessitat$ *ange4 ,*ange is n *ange 91 b *ange (1 sub/ance4 ,ev5 9 ! passage 9 :i* ,kant id5tifies ! notion ( ! p]man5t 9 *ange ) t ( sub/ance & attribute1 he %[s consci\sness ( ?is difficulty4 ,we mu/ n1 he says1 sep>ate ! sub/ance f its accid5ts1 treat+ x z a sep>ate exi/5ce4 ,! accid5ts are m]ely ! special =ms ( its exi/5ce4 ,b all ! same1 he adds1 )draw+ ! words :i* he has j utt]$1 su* a sep>ation ( ! *ang+ accid5ts f ! abid+ sub/ance is 8unavoidable1 ow+ to ! conditions ( ! logical employm5t ( our und]/&+40#aaha ,kant is "h s h>d press$ to acc\nt = ! use ( ! category ( sub/ance & attribute 9 exp]i5ce1 & to expla9 ! contradictions to :i* x gives rise1 t ! only way he sees out ( ! difficulty is to ref] ! contradictions involv$ 9 ! category to ! con/itution ( our und]/&+ 9 its logical employm5t4 ,yet z su* employm5t ( und]/&+ is1 accord+ to 8 own %[+1 second>y to1 & dep5d5t ^u1 its 8real0 employm5t1 ! category ( sub/ance & attribute c h>dly h orig9at$ 9 ?is way4 ,we mu/1 !n1 conclude t ,kant (f]s no suffici5t d$uction or explanation ( ! category ( sub/ance & attribute1 & z he does s n[h]e else1 we are driv5 to ! fur!r conclusion t he is unable to acc\nt = its use 9 exp]i5ce1 or at lea/ to reconcile x 9 any adequate fa%ion ) ! pr9ciple ( causality4 ,b4 ,second ,analogy4--,ev]y?+ t happ5s1 i4e4 beg9s to be1 presupposes some?+ on :i* x foll[s accord+ to a rule4 ,or z 9 ! second edition3 ,all *anges take place 9 con=mity ) ! law ( ! connection ( cause & effect4 ,?is section1 z ,kant v rightly felt1 conta9s "o ( ! mo/ important & fundam5tal argum5ts ( ! entire ,critique2 & ?is w\ld seem to be ! reason :y he has s multipli$ ! pro(s :i* he gives ( ! ,analogy4 ,)9 ! limits ( ! section no less ?an five di/9ct pro(s are to be f\nd1 & /ill ano!r 0 add$ 9 ! second edition4 ,z ,adickes#aahb argues1 x is extremely unlikely t ,kant %\ld h writt5 five v simil> pro(s 9 imm$iate succession4 ,! probability is t !y are ( indep5d5t orig9 & 7 lat] comb9$ to con/itute ?is section2 or1 if we hold ) ,adickes t ,kant fir/ compos$ a 8brief outl9e10 we may conclude t he comb9$ ! "o or m pro(s1 :i* t outl9e conta9$1 ) o!rs ( e>li] or ( lat] orig94 ,! fir/ to ! f\r? p>agraphs ( ! fir/ edition conta9 a fir/ pro(2 ! fif? to ! sev5? a second pro( 7a repetition ( ! fir/ pro( b 9 indirect =m72 ! eigh? to ! t5? a ?ird pro( 7almo/ id5tical ) ! fir/72 ! elev5? to ! ?irte5? a f\r? pro( 7diff]5t 9 "* f all ! o!rs72 ! f\rte5? a fif? pro( 7probably ! late/ 9 "t ( writ+2 an anticipation ( ! argum5t 9 ! second edition74 ,! p>agraph add$ 9 ! second edition 7! second p>agraph 9 ! text ( ! second edition7 gives a six? & la/ pro(4 ,we may fir/ /ate ! c5tral argum5t1 def]r+ treatm5t ( su* additional po9ts z arise 9 connection ) ,kant's v>y+ =mulations ( x 9 8 successive pro(s4 ,! second ,analogy1 ?\gh crabb$ly1 diffusely1 & ev5 confus$ly /at$1 is "o ( ! f9e/ & mo/ f>-rea*+ pieces ( argum5t 9 ! :ole ,critique4 ,x is ( special hi/orical importance z be+ ,kant's answ] to ,hume's d5ial ( ! validity ( ! causal pr9ciple4 ,hume _h ma9ta9$ t we c nev] be consci\s ( any?+ b m]e succession4 ,kant 9 reply seeks to prove t consci\sness ( succession is only possible ?r\gh consci\sness ( a necessity t det]m9es ! ord] ( ! successive ev5ts4 ,kant1 we mu/ be> 9 m9d1 accepts mu* ( ,hume's criticism ( ! category ( causality4 ,! g5]al pr9ciple t e ev5t mu/ h an antec$5t cause is1 ,kant recognises1 nei!r intuitively c]ta9 nor demon/rable by g5]al reason+ f m ultimate tru?s4 ,x is n to be acc\nt$ = by analytic ?\ght1 b l all syn!tic judgm5ts a priori c only be prov$ by ref]5ce to ! cont+5t fact ( actual exp]i5ce4 ,secondly1 ,kant makes no attempt1 ei!r 9 ?is ,analogy or else:]e 9 ! ,critique1 to expla9 ! nature & possibility ( causal connection1 t is1 to %[ h[ "o ev5t1 ! cause1 is able to give rise to ano!r & diff]5t ev5t1 ! effect4 ,we c nev] by analysis ( an effect discov] any reason :y x mu/ necess>ily be prec$$ by a cause4#aahc ,?irdly1 ! pr9ciple ( causality1 z d$uc$ by ,kant & %[n to be necess>ily involv$ 9 all consci\sness ( "t1 is ! q g5]al pr9ciple t e ev5t mu/ h "s cause 9 :at imm$iately prec$es x4 ,:at 9 ea* special case ! cause may be1 c only be empirically discov]$2 & t any select$ ev5t is really ! cause c nev] be absolutely c]ta94 ,! p>ticul> causal laws are discov]$ f exp]i5ce1 n by means ( ! g5]al pr9ciple b only 9 accordance ) x1 & are !re=e nei!r purely empirical nor :olly a priori4 ,z ev5 ,j4 ,s4 ,mill tea*es1 ! g5]al pr9ciple is assum$ 9 e inf]5ce to a causal law1 & save by ?us assum+ ! g5]al pr9ciple ! p>ticul> inf]5ce to causal connection _c be prov$4 ,b at ! same "t1 s9ce ! pro( ( causal connection dep5ds ^u satisfaction ( ^? empirical te/s :i* ,mill =mulates 9 8 inductive me?ods1 su* special causal laws c be ga!r$ only f exp]i5ce4 ,! />t+-po9t ( ,kant's analysis is our consci\sness ( an objective ord] 9 "t4 ,?is is = ,kant a legitimate />t+-po9t s9ce he has prov$ 9 ! ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction t only ?r\gh consci\sness ( ! objective is consci\sness ( ! subjective 9 any =m possible4 ,! indep5d5t argum5t by :i* x is "h support$ is m]ely a p>ticul> application ( ! g5]al pr9ciple ( t d$uction4 ,:5 we appreh5d any v l>ge object1 su* z a h\se1 ?\gh we d s by successively p]ceiv+ ! diff]5t p>ts ( x1 we nev] ?9k ( reg>d+ ^! successive p]ceptions z repres5t+ any?+ successive 9 ! h\se4 ,on ! o!r h&1 :5 we appreh5d successive ev5ts 9 "t1 su* z ! successive positions ( a %ip sail+ d[n /ream1 we d reg>d ! succession ( our exp]i5ces z repres5t+ objective succession 9 :at is appreh5d$4 ,kant !re=e feels ju/ifi$ 9 tak+ z fact1 t we h ! p[] ( di/+ui%+ betwe5 subjective & objective succession1 i4e4 betwe5 sequ5ces :i* are det]m9$ by ! ord] ( our att5tive exp]i5ce & sequ5ces :i* are giv5 z su*4 ,x is ?is fact :i* af=ds ,kant a precise me?od ( =mulat+ ! problem ( ! second ,analogy1 viz4 h[ consci\sness ( objective *ange1 z di/+ui%$ f subjective succession1 is possible8 ,s*op5hau]1 ow+ to ! prom95ce 9 8 sy/em ( ! pr9ciple ( suffici5t reason1 has comm5t$ ^u ?is second ,analogy 9 consid]able detail2#aahd & we may "h employ "o ( 8 *ief criticisms to def9e m precisely ! g5]al int5tion ( ,kant's argum5t4 ,! succession 9 our exp]i5ces ( ! p>ts ( a h\se & ( ! positions ( a %ip is1 ,s*op5hau] ma9ta9s1 9 bo? cases ( g5u9ely objective "*4 ,9 bo? in/ances ! *anges are due to ! position ( two bodies relatively to "o ano!r4 ,9 ! fir/ example "o ( ^! bodies is ! body ( ! obs]v]1 or r "o ( 8 bodily organs1 namely ! eye1 & ! o!r is ! h\se1 9 relation to ! p>ts ( :i* ! position ( ! eye is successively alt]$4 ,9 ! second example ! %ip *anges its position relatively to ! /ream4 ,! motion ( ! eye f ro( to cell> is "o ev5t2 its motion f cell> to ro( is a second ev5t2 & bo? are ev5ts ( ! same nature z ! sail+ ( ! %ip4 ,_h we ! same p[] ( dragg+ ! %ip up/ream t we h ( mov+ ! eye 9 a direction opposite to t ( its fir/ movem5t1 ! positions ( ! %ip c\ld be rev]s$ 9 a mann] exactly analog\s to our rev]sal ( ! p]ceptions ( ! h\se4 ,?is criticism is a typical illu/ration ( ,s*op5hau]'s entire failure to compreh5d ! c5tral !sis ( ,kant's ,critical idealism4#aahe ,! ,analytic1 s f> z ! ma9 argum5t ( its objective d$uction is conc]n$1 0 to him a clos$ book2 & z ?is second analogy is little else ?an a special application ( ! results ( ! d$uction1 he 0 equally at a loss 9 its int]pretation4 ,kant 0 himself1 ( c\rse1 9 l>ge "p responsible = ! misund]/&+4 ,! di/9ction :i* w\ld seem to be impli$ by ,kant's language betwe5 sequ5ce t is objective & sequ5ce t is m]ely subjective is completely inconsi/5t ) ,critical pr9ciples1#aahf & is z ?or\ghly mislead+ z t o!r di/9ction :i* he s frequ5tly employs betwe5 ! a priori & ! m]ely empirical4 ,s*op5hau]1 h[ev]1 reg>d$ ^! di/9ctions z valid1 & accord+ly applies !m 9 ! int]pretation ( ,kant's me?od ( argum5t4 ,if inn] & out] exp]i5ce are to be contra/$ z two k9ds ( exp]i5ce1 !re is1 z ,s*op5hau] rightly insi/s1 no suffici5t gr\nd = reg>d+ *anges due to movem5ts ( ! eye z be+ subjective & ^? t are due to movem5ts ( a %ip z be+ objective4 ,t is n1 h[ev]1 ,kant's int5tion 9 ! employm5t ( ^! illu/rations4 ,he uses !m only to make cle> ! fairly obvi\s fact t :ile 9 c]ta9 cases ! ord] ( our p]ceptions is subjectively initiat$1 9 o!r cases we appreh5d ! subjective ord] ( our exp]i5ces z correspond+ to1 & explicable only ?r\gh1 ! objective sequ5ce ( ev5ts4 ,9 hold+ to ?is di/9ction ,kant is n conc]n$ to d5y t ev5 9 ! ord] :i* is det]m9$ by ! subject's purposes or caprice objective factors are likewise involv$4 ,! fact t ! f\ndations ( a h\se support its ro(1 & w !re=e det]m9e :at x is t we %all appreh5d :5 we turn ! eye upw>ds1 does n r5d] ! ord] ( our appreh5sions any ! less subjective 9 "*4 ,b t ?is ord] is purely subjective1 ,kant c\ld nev] h ass]t$4 ,8 ,critical pr9ciples def9itely commit him to ! view t ev5 s5sations & desires are integral p>ts ( ! unit>y sy/em ( natural law4 ,kant1 z we %all f9d1 is ma9ta9+ t "s su* di/9ction betwe5 subjective & objective sequ5ce z is illu/rat$ 9 ! above contra/$ in/ances mu/ be pres5t f ! v />t ( our exp]i5ce--mu/1 inde$1 be con/itutive ( exp]i5ce z su*4 ,out ( a consci\sness ( ! purely subjective ! notion ( ! objective c nev] arise4#aahg ,or o!rwise /at$1 consci\sness ( a "t ord]1 ev5 ?\gh subjective1 mu/ ultimately involve ! application ( "s non-subjective /&>d4 8,i %all be oblig$ 444 to d]ive ! subjective sequ5ce ( appreh5sion f ! objective sequ5ce ( appe>ances1 because o!rwise ! =m] is entirely undet]m9$1 & does n di/+ui% any "o appe>ance f any o!r40#aahh ,we int]pret ! subjective ord] 9 t]ms ( an objective sy/em2 consci\sness ( ! latt] is ! necess>y presupposition ( all aw>5ess4 ,x is z necess>y to ! int]pretation ( :at is appreh5d$ ?r\gh ! rotat+ eyeballs z to ! appreh5sion ( a mov+ %ip4 ,s f> f refus+ to recognise t ! subjective ord] ( our exp]i5ces is objectively condition$1 ,kant is prep>$ to advance to ! fur!r ass]tion t x is only appreh5sible :5 s conceiv$4 ,9 ! ?ird ,analogy ,kant proce$s to ! connect$ problem1 h[ we c appreh5d ! p>ts ( a h\se z simultane\s not)/&+ ! sequ5t relation ( our p]ceptions ( !m1 & :at ju/ification we h = ?us int]pret+ ! subjectively sequ5t exp]i5ces z repres5t+ objective coexi/5ce4 ,j z ,kant 9 ?is second ,analogy does n argue t irrev]sibility is by itself pro( ( causal relation1 b only t ! consci\sness ( su* irrev]sibility dem&s ! employm5t ( ! conception ( causality1 s 9 ! ?ird ,analogy he does n attempt to r$uce ! consci\sness ( coexi/5ce to ! consci\sness ( rev]sibility1 b to prove t only ?r\gh ! application ( ! conception ( reciprocity c ! rev]sibility be prop]ly int]pret$4 ,9 ea* case ! category conditions ! empirical consci\sness2 ! latt] is an appreh5sion ( det]m9ate ord] only 9 s f> z x presupposes ! category4 ,?\gh ,kant's treatm5t ( ! ?ird ,analogy has less hi/orical importance1 & p]haps less intr9sic int]e/1 ?an ! pro( ( ! second ,analogy1 x is ev5 m significant ( ! k9d ( position :i* he is endeav\r+ to e/abli%1 & ,i may !re=e =ew>n ! read] t he mu/ n sp>e himself ! lab\r ( ma/]+ its difficult1 & some:at illusive1 argum5t4 ,! doctr9es :i* x exp\nds at once re9=ce & ext5d ! results ( ! second ,analogy1 :ile ! fur!r difficulties :i* x br+s to view1 b :i* x is n itself capable ( meet+1 indicate t ! problems ( ! ,analytic call = reconsid]ation 9 ! light ( c]ta9 wid] issues fir/ broa*$ 9 ! ,dialectic4 ,we may n[ return to ,kant's ma9 argum5t4 ,8 problem1 z we h f\nd1 is h[ consci\sness ( objective *ange1 z di/+ui%$ f subjective succession1 is possible4 ,! problem1 be+ =mulat$ 9 ?is p>ticul> way1 dem&s1 ,kant felt1 c>eful def9ition ( :at is meant by ! t]m #8objective1' ^u :i* s mu* dep5ds4 ,to apply ! illu/ration above us$1 ! h\se z appreh5d$ is n a ?+ 9 itself b only an appe>ance to ! m9d4 ,:at1 !n1 d we mean by ! h\se1 z di/+ui%$ f our subjective repres5tations ( x1 :5 t h\se is no?+ b a complex 7,inbegriff7 ( repres5tations8#aahi ,! "q & ,kant's answ] to x are /at$ 9 subjectivi/ fa%ion1 9 t]ms ( 8 e>li] doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4 ,to contra/ an object ) ! repres5tations ?r\gh :i* we appreh5d x1 is only possible if ^! repres5tations /& "u a rule :i* r5d]s necess>y _! comb9ation 9 "s "o p>ticul> way1 & s di/+ui%es ?is "o p>ticul> mode ( repres5tation z ! only true mode f all o!rs4 ,! orig91 !re=e1 ( our di/9ction betwe5 ! subjectively successive & ! succession :i* is also objective mu/ be due 9 ! "o case to ! pres5ce ( a rule compell+ u to comb9e ! ev5ts 9 "s p>ticul> successive ord]1 & 9 ! o!r to ! abs5ce ( su* a rule4 ,our appreh5sion ( ! h\se1 = in/ance1 may proce$ 9 any ord]1 f ! ro( d[nw>ds or vice v]sa1 & z ! ord] may always be rev]s$ !re is no compulsion ^u ! m9d to reg>d ! ord] ( its appreh5sion z repres5t+ objective sequ5ce4 ,b s9ce 9 our appreh5sion ( an ev5t ,b 9 "t1 ! appreh5sion ( ,b foll[s ^u ! appreh5sion ( a previ\s ev5t ,a1 & we _c rev]se ! ord]1 ! m9d is compell$ to view ! ord] ( succession1 9 t]ms ( ! category ( causality1 z necessitat$1 & !re=e z objective4 ,! ord] is a necess>y ord] n 9 ! s5se t ,a mu/ always prec$e ,b1 t ,a is ! cause ( ,b1 b t ! ord]1 if we are to appreh5d x correctly1 mu/ 9 ?is p>ticul> case be conceiv$ z necess>y4 ,! succession1 t is1 ne$ n be conceiv$ z a causal "o1 b 9 ord] to be conceiv$ z objective succession x mu/ be conceiv$ z r5d]$ necess>y by connections t are causal4 ,hav+1 9 ?is g5]al fa%ion1 %[n ! be>+ ( 8 previ\s analysis ( objective exp]i5ce ^u ! problem 9 h&1 ,kant proce$s to develop f x 8 pro( ( ! special pr9ciple ( causality4 ,! s*ema ( causality is necess>y succession 9 "t1 & x is ?r\gh ?is1 its "t aspect1 t ,kant approa*es ! pr9ciple4 ,x has to d ) ! special case ( *ange4 ,to be consci\s ( *ange we mu/ be consci\s ( an ev5t1 t is1 ( some?+ z happ5+ at a p>ticul> po9t 9 "t4 ,! *ange1 9 o!r words1 requires to be dat$1 & z we are n consci\s ( "t 9 g5]al1 x mu/ be dat$ by ref]5ce to o!r ev5ts1 & obvi\sly 9 ?is case 9 relation to ! prec$+ ev5ts1 9 contra/ to :i* x is appreh5d$ z *ange4 ,b accord+ to ! results ( our analysis ( :at con/itutes objective exp]i5ce1 x c be fix$ 9 its position 9 objective "t only if x be conceiv$ z relat$ to ! prec$+ ev5ts accord+ to a necess>y law2 & ! law ( necess>y connection 9 "t is ! law ( causality4 ,9 ord]1 !n1 t some?+ :i* has tak5 place may be appreh5d$ z hav+ occurr$1 t is1 z be+ an objective *ange1 x mu/ be appreh5d$ z necess>ily foll[+ ^u t :i* imm$iately prec$es x 9 "t1 i4e4 z causally necess>y4 ,! pr9ciple ( causality ?us conditions consci\sness ( objective succession1 & ,hume1 9 ass]t+ t we are consci\s ( ! succession ( ev5ts1 !re=e admits all t ne$ be assum$ 9 ord] to prove ! pr9ciple4 ,! reason :y ,hume fail$ to recognise ?is1 is t he ignor$ ! di/9ction betwe5 consci\sness ( ! subjective ord] ( our appreh5sions & consci\sness ( ! objective sequ5ce ( ev5ts4 ,yet t is a di/9ction ^u :i* 8 own position re/$4 ,= he tea*es t det]m9ation ( causal laws1 suffici5tly c]ta9 to s]ve ! purposes alike ( practical life & ( natural sci5ce1 c be obta9$ ?r\gh obs]vation ( ^? sequ5ces :i* rema9 con/ant4 ,su* is also ! position ( all empirici/s4 ,!y hold t causal relation is discov]$ by comp>ison ( giv5 sequ5ces4 ,kant's cont5tion is t ! appreh5sion ( *ange z *ange1 & !re=e ultimately ! appreh5sion ev5 ( an arbitr>ily det]m9$ ord] ( subjective succession1#aaij presupposes1 & is only possible ?r\gh1 an application ( ! category ( causality4 ,! prim>y function ( ! und]/&+ does n consi/ 9 ! cl>ification ( our repres5tation ( an ev5t1 b 9 mak+ su* repres5tation possible at all4#aaia ,! prim>y field ( ex]cise = ! und]/&+ lies n 9 ! realm ( reflective comp>ison1 b 9 ! m fundam5tal sph]e ( creative syn!sis4#aaib ,9 det]m9+ ! nature ( ! giv5 x pr$et]m9es ! pr9ciples to :i* all reflection ^u ! giv5 mu/ con=m4 ,! discursive activities ( sci5tific reflection are second>y to1 & condition$ by1 ! transc5d5tal processes :i* g5]ate ! exp]i5ce ( ord9>y consci\sness4 ,only an exp]i5ce :i* con=ms to ! causal pr9ciple c s]ve z f\ndation ei!r = ! empirical judgm5ts ( s5se exp]i5ce1 or = t ev]-increas+ body ( sci5tific k into :i* _! cont5t is progressively translat$4 ,! pr9ciple ( causality is applicable to ev]y?+ exp]i5c$1 = ! suffici5t reason t exp]i5ce is itself possible only 9 t]ms ( x4 ,?is conclusion f9ds its mo/ emphatic & adequate /atem5t 9 ! ,me?odology4 8444?r\gh concepts ( und]/&+ pure reason e/abli%es secure pr9ciples1 n h[ev] directly f concepts1 b always only indirectly ?r\gh relation ( ^! concepts to some?+ altoge!r cont+5t1 namely1 possible exp]i5ce4 ,= :5 su* exp]i5ce 7i4e4 some?+ z object ( possible exp]i5ce7 is presuppos$1 ! pr9ciples are apodictically c]ta91 ?\gh by !mselves 7directly7 a priori !y _c ev5 be recognis$ at all4 ,?us no "o c acquire insight into ! proposition t ev]y?+ :i* happ5s has its cause1 m]ely f ! concepts involv$4 ,x is n1 !re=e1 a dogma1 al?\gh f ano!r po9t ( view1 namely1 f t ( ! sole field ( its possible employm5t1 i4e4 exp]i5ce1 x c be prov$ ) complete apodictic c]ta9ty4 ,b ?\gh x ne$s pro(1 x %\ld be entitl$ a pr9ciple1 n a !orem1 because x has ! peculi> "* t x makes possible ! v exp]i5ce :i* is its own gr\nd ( pro(1 & 9 ?is exp]i5ce mu/ always itself be presuppos$40#aaic ,be=e mak+ fur!r comm5t ^u ,kant's c5tral argum5t1 x is advisable to consid] ! v>y+ /atem5ts :i* ,kant has giv5 ( x4 ,we may take 8 successive pro(s 9 ! ord] 9 :i* !y occur 9 ! fir/ edition4 ,fir/ ,pro(4#aaid--,! argum5t is develop$ 9 t]ms ( ,kant's e>ly doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4 ,! only po9ts specially *>act]i/ic ( ! /atem5t "h giv5 ( t doctr9e consi/ 7a7 9 ! emphasis ) :i* x is ass]t$ t repres5tations c be exp]i5c$ only 9 succession to "o ano!r1 & t !y c nev] /& 9 ! relation ( coexi/5ce1#aaie & 7b7 9 ! almo/ complete ignor+ ( ! transc5d5tal object z s\rce or gr\nd ( ! rule 9 t]ms ( :i* ! successive repres5tations are organis$4 7a7 ,?is is a po9t common to ! argum5ts ( all ?ree ,analogies4 ,9 ! fir/ & ?ird ! problem is h[1 f repres5tations m]ely successive1 p]man5ce & coexi/5ce c be det]m9$4 ,9 ! second ,analogy ! problem is h[ f repres5tations inv>iably successive a di/9ction c be drawn betwe5 ! subjectively det]m9$ ord] ( our appreh5sions & ! objective sequ5ce ( ev5ts4 ,or 9 o!r words3 h[ "u su* conditions we c recognise an ord] z giv51 & s z prescrib+ ! ord] 9 :i* x mu/ be appreh5d$4 ,or to /ate ! same po9t 9 /ill ano!r mann]3 h[ we c di/+ui% betwe5 an arbitr>y or rev]sible ord] & an impos$ or fix$ ord]1 & s come to appreh5d ! subjective ord] ( our appreh5sions z 9 c]ta9 cases controll$ by1 & explicable only ?r\gh1 ! objective sequ5ce ( ev5ts4#aaif 7b7 ,! reason :y ! transc5d5tal object1 z s\rce ( ! det]m9ate & prescrib$ ord] ( ! giv5 ev5ts1 falls into ! backgr\nd 9 ?is passage is t ,kant is conc]n$ only ) ! g5]al pr9ciple or category by means ( :i* ! ord] is appreh5d$ z necess>y4 ,t pr9ciple has a subjective orig9 ev5 ?\gh ! p>ticul> sequ5ces ( concrete ev5ts h by means ( t concept to be conceiv$ z inexorably det]m9$ by _! n\m5al conditions4#aaig ,! pr9ciple acc\nts = ! compreh5sion ( ! ord] z objective1 & t is ! only po9t ) :i* ,kant is "h imm$iately conc]n$4 ,t ! ass]tion ( ! subjective orig9 ( ! category is n inconsi/5t ) recognition ( ! impos$ ord] ( ! giv5 has already be5 %[n above4#aaih ,kant's own illu/ration1 9 ?is section1 ( ! %ip sail+ d[n /ream %[s t he 0 prep>$ to assume )\t "q t !y are compatible4 ,8 argum5t is1 h[ev]1 obscure1 ow+ to 8 failure to di/+ui% betwe5 ! two s5ses 9 :i* ! t]m #8rule' may be employ$4 ,! t]m may signify ei!r ! univ]sal & m]ely =mal pr9ciple t e ev5t mu/ h a cause1 or x may be us$ to d5ote ! fix$ ord] 9 :i* concrete ev5ts are pres5t$ to s5se-p]ception4 ,! latt] ord] ne$ n repres5t a s]ies ! memb]s ( :i* are causally connect$ ) "o ano!r1 b only "o t is due to causal necessities4 ,?us ! successive positions ( a %ip sail+ d[n /ream are n int]relat$ z cause & effect1 & yet 9 ord] to be appreh5d$ z objectively successive mu/ be conceiv$ z causally condition$4 ,! t]m #8rule' has v diff]5t mean+s 9 ! two cases4 #8,rule' 9 ! fir/ s5se is ( subjective orig94 ,x is =mal1 & c nev] be giv54 ,x is read into ! giv54 #8,rule' 9 ! second s5se is giv5 m]ely1 & be+ due to n\m5al conditions con/itutes ! mat]ial elem5t 9 natural sci5ce1 ! empirical cont5t ( "s p>ticul> causal law4 ,ow+ to ,kant's failure explicitly to di/+ui% betwe5 ^! two v diff]5t connotations ( ! t]m1 su* a s5t5ce z ! foll[+ is ambigu\s3 8,t 9 appe>ance :i* conta9s ! condition ( ?is necess>y rule ( appreh5sion is ! object40 ,kant may mean t ! prescrib$ ord] ( ! concrete ev5ts is due to ! transc5d5tal object2 b 9 t case x is n giv5 z necess>y4 ,necessity1 z he con/antly insi/s1 is ! "o ?+ t c nev] be giv54 ,! s5t5ce is also mislead+ ?r\gh its use ( ! t]m #8appe>ance4' ,t t]m has no legitimate place 9 a passage inspir$ by ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object2 !re c be no su* middle t]m betwe5 subjective repres5tations & ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,z ,kant himself /ates1#aaii appe>ance def9$ 9 t]ms ( t doctr9e is 8no?+ save a complex ( repres5tations40 ,!re is a v ess5tial diff]5ce 9 ! view :i* ,kant takes ( ! causal relation accord+ z he is proce$+ ^u subjectivi/ or ^u ph5om5ali/ l9es4 ,f ! "o po9t ( view appe>ances are repres5tations m]ely1 & accord+ly are entirely devoid ( causal efficacy4 ,!y are n causes & effects ( "o ano!r4 ,!y h n ! indep5d5ce or self-p]si/5ce necess>y = ! ex]cise ( dynamical en]gy or ev5 = ! reception ( modifications4 ,be+ 8/ates ( ! id5tical self10 all causal relation1 dynamically conceiv$1 mu/ lie solely 9 _! n\m5al conditions4 ,causality r$uces to ! ?\ght ( necessitat$ 7n necessitat+7 sequ5ce4 ,x is1 z ,kant has sugge/$ 9 ,a #aha ,b #bbd1 a m]e #8analogy' 9 t]ms ( :i* we apply ! logical relation ( gr\nd & consequ5ce#abjj to ! int]pretation ( our subjective repres5tations1 & s view !m z gr\nd$ n 9 "o ano!r b exclusively 9 ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,causality 9 ! /rict s5se1 i4e4 dynamical ag5cy1 c be look$ = only 9 ! n\m5al sph]e4 ,caird1 :ile adopt+ ?is explanation ( ! t]m #8analogy1'#abja is1 z might be expect$ f 8 ,hegelian /&po9t1 extremely indef9ite & non-committal z to :e!r or n empirical objects c be g5u9e causes4 ,riehl1 not)/&+ 8 pr(ess$ly reali/ic int]pretation ( ,kant1 adopts ! above subjectivi/ view ( natural causation4 ,s also d ,b5no ,erdmann & ,pauls54 ,! latt]#abjb speaks ) no unc]ta9 voice4 8,causality 9 ! ph5om5al _w signifies = ,kant1 z = ,hume1 no?+ b regul>ity 9 ! sequ5ce ( ph5om5a4 ,real causal effici5cy _c ( c\rse occur "h1 = ph5om5a are ideational products4 ,z su* !y c no m produce an effect ?an concepts c40 ,! correspond+ ph5om5ali/ view ( ! causal relation receives no q def9ite =mulation ei!r 9 ?is section or else:]e 9 ! ,critique1 b may be ga!r$ f ! g5]al tr5d ( ,kant's ph5om5ali/ tea*+4#abjc ,x is some:at z foll[s4 ,! t]m #8analogy' is view$ z hav+ a mean+ v diff]5t f t above sugge/$4 ,! causal relation is n a m]e analogy f ! logical relation ( gr\nd & consequ5ce2 x is ! repres5tation ( g5u9ely dynamical activities 9 ! objects appreh5d$4 ,^? objects are n m]e /ates ( ! self1 subjective repres5tations4 ,!y are "p ( an indep5d5t ord] :i* 9 ! =m kn[n to u is a ph5om5ali/ transcript ( a deep] reality4 ,if ! causal relation is ! analogy ( any?+ di/+ui%able f itself1 x is an analogon or int]pretation ( dynamical p[]s ex]cis$ by ?+s 9 !mselves1#abjd n ( ! m]ely logical relation betwe5 premisses & conclusion4 ,! objects ( repres5tation may ex]cise p[]s :i* repres5tations z su* c nev] be conceiv$ z possess+4 ,betwe5 ! individual's subjective /ates & ?+s 9 !mselves /&s ! ph5om5al _w ( ! natural sci5ces4 ,its function1 :e!r z directly exp]i5c$ ?r\gh s5se-p]ception or z conceptually recon/ruct$ ?r\gh sci5tific hypo!sis1 is to /& z ! repres5tative 9 human consci\sness ( t n\m5al realm 9 :i* all exi/5ce is ultimately root$4 ,! causal int]actions ( mat]ial bodies 9 space are z ess5tially con/itutive ( ^? bodies z are any ( _! quantitative prop]ties4 ,causal relation1 ev5 9 ! ph5om5al sph]e1 mu/ n be id5tifi$ ) m]e con=mity to law4 ,! true & complete purpose ( ! natural sci5ces is n to be f\nd 9 ! ,b]keleian or sceptical ideal ( simplification1 b 9 ! old] & s\nd] conception ( causal explanation4 ,t1 at lea/1 is ! view :i* ,kant inv>iably def5ds :5ev] he has occasion to discuss ! pr9ciples ( physical sci5ce4 ,second ,pro(4#abje--,! argum5t ( ! fir/ pro( is "h develop$ 9 indirect fa%ion4 ,9 ! abs5ce ( any rule prescrib+ necess>y sequ5ce1 no di/9ction c be made betwe5 subjective & objective succession4 ,! ju/ification = su* a rule lies !re=e1 n 9 an inductive inf]5ce f repeat$ exp]i5ce1 b 9 its necessity = ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,x is an expression ( ! syn!tic unity 9 :i* exp]i5ce consi/s4 ,?ird ,pro(4#abjf--,?is is = ! mo/ "p m]ely a re/atem5t ( ! fir/ pro(4 ,x diff]s f x 9 mak+ r m explicit t ! objective ref]5ce involv$ 9 ! notion ( ! transc5d5tal object is "o t c>ries ! m9d beyond all repres5tations to ! ?\ght ( some?+ :i* det]m9es _! ord] accord+ to a rule4 ,o!rwise ! ambiguities ( ! t]ms employ$ are id5tical ) ^? ( ! fir/ pro(4 ,its conclud+ p>agraph1 h[ev]1 is a mu* cle>] /atem5t ( ! difficult argum5t ( ,a #aib-c ,b #bch-i4 ,f\r? ,pro(4#abjg--,?is pro( diff]s f all ! o!rs4 ,x argues f ! *>act]i/ics ( pure "t to ! prop]ties necess>y to ! empirical repres5tation ( ! "t-s]ies4 ,z "t _c be exp]i5c$ 9 & by itself1 all its ess5tial *>act]i/ics mu/ be capable ( be+ repres5t$ 9 t]ms ( appe>ance4 8,only 9 appe>ances c we empirically recognise cont9uity 9 ! connection ( times40 ,! prim>y function ( ! und]/&+ is to make su* recognition possible1 & x does s by 8transf]r+ ! "t ord] to ! appe>ances & _! exi/5ce40 ,x is a necess>y law ( "t t we c only advance to ! succe$+ ?r\gh ! prec$+4 ,ea* mom5t ( "t is ! indisp5sable condition ( ! exi/5ce ( t :i* foll[s x4 ,we c pass to ! ye> #aiae only by way ( ! prec$+ ye> #aiad4 ,& s9ce1 z j not$1 "t is n cognisable by itself b only z ! =m ( our p]ceptions1 ?is law mu/ be applicable to !m4 ,we c only be consci\s ( all times z successively condition+ "o ano!r 9 "o s+le "t1 & t means 9 "o s+le objective "t1 if we are consci\s ( all ! ph5om5a p]ceiv$ z condition+ "o ano!r 9 _! ord] 9 "t4 ,x is some:at difficult to und]/& h[ ,kant came to =mulate ! argum5t 9 ?is =m4 ,! explanation may p]haps be f\nd 9 8 preoccupation#abjh ) ! doctr9e ( a transc5d5tal activity ( ! productive imag9ation & ) ! connect$ doctr9e ( a pure a priori manifold4 ,= ?is pro( w\ld seem to re/ ^u ! assumption t ! *>act]i/ics ( "t are kn[n purely a priori & !re=e ) complete c]ta9ty1 indep5d5tly ( s5se exp]i5ce4 ,! unusual & some:at s*ola/ic "* ( ! pro( also appe>s 9 ,kant's sub/itution ( ! pr9ciple ( suffici5t reason = ! pr9ciple ( causality4 ,b despite ! artificial "* ( ! /&po9t1 ! argum5t s]ves to br+ prom95tly =w>d ,kant's c5tral !sis1 viz4 t ! pr9ciple ( causality is presuppos$ 9 all consci\sness ( "t1 ev5 ( ! subjectively successive4 ,also1 by emphasis+ t "t 9 & by itself c nev] be 8an object ( p]ception10 & t ! relat+ ( appe>ances to 8absolute "t0 is possible only ?r\gh ! det]m9+ ( !m 9 _! relations to "o ano!r1 x supplies ! data = correction ( its own />t+-po9t4 ,fif? ,pro(4#abji--,?is pro( is probably lat] ?an ! prec$+ pro(s4 ,?\gh its ess5tial cont5t co9cides ) t ( ! op5+ pro(1 its =mulation w\ld seem to be a fir/ attempt at /atem5t ( ! six? pro(1 i4e4 ( ! argum5t :i* ,kant add$ 9 ! second edition4 ,adickes consid]s ?is pro( to be e>li] 9 date ?an ! fir/ f\r pro(s1 b ! reason :i* he assigns = s reg>d+ x1 viz4 t ,kant "h po/ulates a syn!sis ( ! imag9ation indep5d5t ( ! categories z prec$+ a syn!sis ( appreh5sion 9 t]ms ( ! categories1 seems to be bas$ ^u a mu* too lit]al read+ ( ,kant's loose mode ( /atem5t4 ,! argum5t r appe>s to be1 z 9 ! six? pro(1 t syn!sis ( ! imag9ation may be ei!r subjective or objective2 & ! t]m 8appreh5sion0 w\ld seem to be us$ z signify+ t ! manifold syn!sis$ is giv5 to ! imag9ation ?r\gh actual s5se exp]i5ce1 & t z ?us giv5 x has a det]m9ate ord] ( its own4 ,! argum5t concludes ) ! /atem5t 7m def9ite ?an any to be f\nd 9 ! prec$+ argum5ts71 t ! pro( ( ! pr9ciple ( causality consi/s 9 its indisp5sabl5ess z a condition ( all empirical judgm5ts1 & s ( exp]i5ce z su*4 ,z a gr\nd ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce x mu/ be valid ( all ! objects ( exp]i5ce4 ,six? ,pro(4#abaj--,! argum5t ( ! fif? pro( is "h m cle>ly /at$4 ,all syn!sis is due to 8! faculty ( imag9ation :i* det]m9es inn] s5se 9 respect ( ! "t relation40 ,su* syn!sis may1 h[ev]1 yield ! consci\sness ei!r ( subjective succession or ( succession 89 ! object40 ,9 ! latt] =m x presupposes ! employm5t ( a pure concept ( ! und]/&+1 t ( ! relation ( cause & effect4 ,& ! conclusion rea*$ is aga9 t only s is empirical k possible4 ,?is mode ( /at+ ! argum5t is f> f satisfactory4 ,x t5ds to obscure ,kant's c5tral !sis1 t only ?r\gh consci\sness ( an objective ord] is consci\sness ( subjective sequ5ce possible1 & t ! pr9ciple ( causality is !re=e a condition+ factor ( all consci\sness4 ,! mislead+ di/9ction drawn 9 ! ,prolegom5a betwe5 judgm5ts ( p]ception & judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce also crops out 9 ,kant's use ( ! phrase 8m]e p]ception40#abaa 99 99 99 99 99 ,we may aga9 return to ,kant's c5tral argum5t4 ,= we h /ill to consid] c]ta9 objections to :i* x may seem to lie op51 & also to comm5t ^u ,kant's fur!r explanations 9 ! rema9+ p>agraphs ( ! section4#abab ,kant's imp]fect /atem5t ( 8 position has sugge/$ to ,hut*ison ,/irl+ & o!rs a problem :i* is l>gely artificial1 namely1 h[ ! m9d is enabl$ to recognise ! prop] occasions ^u :i* to apply ! category ( causality4 ,on ! "o h& sequ5ce z su* _c be ! crit]ion1 s9ce _m sequ5ces are n causal1 & on ! o!r h& ! abs5ce ( sequ5ce does n appe> to deb> its application1 s9ce cause & effect w\ld frequ5tly seem to be co-exi/5t4 ,?is difficulty arises f failure to appreciate ! c5tral !sis ^u :i* ,kant's pro( ( ! pr9ciple ( causality ultimately re/s4 ,kant's diffuse & v>y+ mode ( /atem5t may conceal b nev] conflicts ) t !sis1 :i* consi/s 9 ! cont5tion t ! category ( causality is a necess>y & inv>iable factor 9 all consci\sness4 ,no?+ c be appreh5d$ save 9 t]ms ( x4#abac ,x prescribes an int]pretation :i* ! m9d has no option save to apply 9 ! consci\sness ( ea* & e ev5t1 ( ! coexi/5t no less ?an ( ! sequ5t4 ,:e!r two *anges are coexi/5t or are successive1 ea* mu/ be conceiv$ z possess+ an antec$5t cause4 ,! only diff]5ce is t 9 ! case ( sequ5t ev5ts "o ( !m 7i4e4 ! antec$5t *ange7 may1 ^u empirical inve/igation1 be f\nd to be itself ! cause ( ! second & subsequ5t ev5t1 :]eas ) coexi/5t ev5ts ?is c nev] be possible4 ,z ! pr9ciple ( causality is t e ev5t mu/ h an antec$5t cause1 x foll[s t :]e !re is no sequ5ce !re c be no causation4 ,b :5 ,kant /ates t sequ5ce is 8! sole empirical crit]ion0#abad ( ! causal relation1 he does less ?an ju/ice to ! position he is def5d+4 ,! empirical crit]ia are manifold 9 numb]1 & are su* z ,john ,/u>t ,mill has attempt$ to =mulate 9 8 inductive me?ods4 ,s*op5hau] has object$#abae t ,kant's argum5t proves too mu*1 s9ce x w\ld involve t all objective sequ5ces1 su* z t ( night & day or ( ! notes 9 a piece ( music1 are !mselves causal sequ5ces4 ,?is criticism has be5 repli$ to by ,/adl]#abaf 9 ! foll[+ t]ms3 8,:5 ,s*op5hau] adduces ! sequ5ce ( musical notes or ( day & night1 z objective sequ5ces :i* c be kn[n )\t ! causal law1 we ne$ only meet him ) ! "q1 ,:]e 9 ^! cases is ! sub/ance t *anges8 ,s soon z he is =c$ to put 8 objection into ! =m requir$ to br+ x into relation to ! "q ( ! possibility ( k1 8 error becomes obvi\s4 ,8 in/ances mu/ !n be express$ ?us3--,! in/rum5t passes f "o /ate ( s\nd into ano!r2 ! e>? *anges f ! measure ( enlight5m5t :i* makes day1 to t :i* makes night4 ,( su* *anges no "o w say t !y are n ref]r$ to a cause4 ,& we may quote 9 ?is ref]5ce ! appropriate say+ ( ,kant himself1 #8,days are1 z x 71 ! *ildr5 ( ,"t1 s9ce ! foll[+ day ) t :i* x conta9s is ! product ( ! previ\s day4'0 ,night & day1 9 s f> z !y are sequ5t ev5ts1 mu/ be conceiv$ 9 t]ms ( causality1 n 9 ! s5se t night causes day1 b z be+ det]m9$ by causes t acc\nt n only = ea* sep>ately1 b also = ! alt]nat+ sequ5ce ( ! "o ^u ! o!r4 ,su* causes are f\nd by ! a/ronom] to lie 9 ! *ang+ positions ( ! e>? relatively to ! sun4 ,s*op5hau] adds a fur!r objection ( a m subtle nature1 :i* has aga9 be5 excell5tly /at$ & answ]$ by ,/adl]3 8,s*op5hau] po9ts out t :at we call *ance is j a sequ5ce ( ev5ts :i* d n /& 9 causal connexion4 #8,i come out ( ! h\se & a tile falls f ! ro( :i* /rikes me2 9 su* a case !re is no causal connexion betwe5 ! fall+ ( ! tile & my com+ out ( ! h\se1 yet ! succession ( ^! two ev5ts is objectively det]m9$ 9 my appreh5sion ( !m4' ,h[ h we to criticise ?is case f ! transc5d5tal po9t ( view8 ,we "k t successions become necess>y1 i4e4 objective1 = our consci\sness1 :5 we reg>d !m z *anges ( a sub/ance :i* are det]m9$ by a cause4 ,b x is %[n "h t !re are successions 9 :i* ! s+le memb]s are *anges ( diff]5t sub/ances4 ,if sub/ance ,s *anges its /ate ,a into ,b on acc\nt ( ! cause ,x1 & sub/ance ,s *anges its /ate ,a into ,b on acc\nt ( ! cause ,x1 & if ,i call ! fir/ *ange ,v & ! second ,v1 ! "q arises h[ ! objectivity ( ! succession ,v ,v is relat$ to ! law ( causality4 ,sequ5ces su* z ,v ,v are v frequ5t1 & our consci\sness ( ! objectivity is c]ta94 ,d we owe ?is consci\sness to ! same rule z holds good 9 o!r cases8 ,c]ta9ly4 ,! di/9ction is n qualitative1 b re/s only on ! great] complication ( ! *ange 9 "q4 ,! sequ5ce ,v ,v c become objective only if ,i ?9k x z a necess>y connexion4 ,x mu/ be s det]m9$ t ,v c only foll[ ,v 9 #8consci\sness 9 g5]al'2 !re mu/ be a ,u1 ! introduction ( :i* is ! cause t ,v foll[s ,v4 ,to be conv9c$ ( ?is1 ,i d n ne$ actually to "k ,u4 ,i "k t on e occasion ,u causes ! succession ,v ,v4 ,( c\rse1 ?is presupposes t all data ( ! /ates consid]$1 ,a & ,a1 rema9 id5tical4 ,b :e!r ^! data are v simple or endlessly complex1 :e!r !y are likely to comb9e to ! giv5 result frequ5tly or seldom1 is indiff]5t = ! objectify+ ( ! ev5t2 x is n ! p]ception ( ,u1 b ! presupposition ( x1 :i* makes ! *ange necess>y & s objective = u40#abag ,to turn n[ to ! o!r difficulty :i* ,kant himself raises 9 ,a #bjb-c ,b #bdg-h1 viz4 t cause & effect w\ld frequ5tly seem to be coexi/5t1 & ! 8sole empirical crit]ion0 to be !re=e abs5t4 ,x may f ?is po9t ( view be ma9ta9$ t ! great majority ( causes occur simultane\sly ) _! effects1 & t su* "t sequ5ce z occurs is due solely to ! fact t ! cause _c execute itself 9 "o s+le in/ant4 ,kant has little difficulty 9 dispos+ ( ?is objection4 ,causality conc]ns only ! ord]1 n ! lapse1 ( "t2 & ! sequ5ce relation mu/ rema9 ev5 ?\gh !re is no int]val betwe5 ! two ev5ts4 ,if a lead5 ball lies ^u a cu%ion x makes a depression 9 x4 ,! ball & ! depression are coexi/5t4 ,none ! less1 :5 view$ 9 _! dynamical relation1 ! latt] mu/ be reg>d$ z sequ5t ^u ! =m]4 ,if ! lead5 ball is plac$ ^u a smoo? cu%ion a holl[ is at once made1 b if a holl[ exi/s 9 a cu%ion a ball ne$ n appe>4 ,9 o!r words1 ! crit]ia = ! det]m9ation ( specific causal relations are nei!r ! pres5ce nor ! abs5ce ( sequ5ce1 b are empirical consid]ations v]ifiable only ^u special inve/igation4#abah ,! obs]v] is call$ ^u to dis5tangle ! complicat$ web ( giv5 appe>ances "u ! guidance ( ! q g5]al & =mal pr9ciple t e ev5t is due to "s antec$5t cause4 ,he mu/ d s z be/ he c ?r\gh ! application ( 8 acquir$ insight1 &1 :5 necess>y1 by means ( ! requisite exp]im5tal v>iation ( conditions4 ,9 ! two foll[+ p>agraphs 7,a #bjd-e ,b #bdi-ea7 ,kant raises po9ts :i* he lat] discuss$ m fully 9 ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce4#abai ,z adequate explanation ( ! argum5t w\ld be a v l5g?y matt]1 & n ( any v real importance = ! und]/&+ ( ! g5]al ,critical position1 we may omit all treatm5t ( x4 ,9 ! sections ( ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples j cit$1 ! read] w f9d ! necess>y comm5t & explanation4 ,su* be>+ z ^! two p>agraphs h ^u ,kant's view ( ! nature ( ! causal relation has be5 not$ above4#abbj ,9 ! section on ,anticipations ( ,p]ception#abba ,kant has /at$ t ! pr9ciple ( ! cont9uity ( *ange involves empirical factors1 & !re=e falls outside ! limits ( transc5d5tal philosophy4 ,to ?is m correct attitude ,kant1 un=tunately1 did n hold4 ,9 ,a #bjg-aa ,b #beb-f he pr(esses to e/abli% ! pr9ciple 9 a priori transc5d5tal fa%ion z a necess>y consequ5ce ( ! nature ( "t4 ,?is pro( is inde$ ?rice repeat$ ) uness5tial v>iations1 !reby cle>ly %[+ t ^! p>agraphs also are ( composite orig94 ,! argum5t 9 all ?ree cases consi/s 9 inf]r+ f ! cont9uity ( "t ! cont9uity ( all *anges 9 "t4 ,z ! p>ts ( "t are !mselves times1 ( :i* no "o is ! smalle/1 s 9 all g5]ation 9 "t1 ! cause mu/ 9 its action pass ?r\gh all ! degrees ( quantity f z]o to t ( ! f9al effect4 8,e *ange has a cause :i* ev9ces its causality 9 ! :ole "t 9 :i* ! *ange takes place4 ,?is cause1 !re=e1 does n eng5d] ! *ange sudd5ly 7at once or 9 "o mom5t71 b 9 a "t1 s t1 z ! "t increases f its initial mom5t a to its completion 9 b1 ! quantity ( ! reality 7b-a7 is 9 l mann] g5]at$ ?r\gh all less] degrees :i* are conta9$ betwe5 ! fir/ & ! la/40#abbb ,?is argum5t is inconclusive4 ,z ,kant himself recognises 9 reg>d to space1#abbc we may n )\t special pro( assume t :at is true ( "t mu/ be true ( ! cont5ts ( "t4 ,if "t1 *ange1 & causation c be equat$1 :at is true ( "o w be true ( all ?ree4 ,b ! assumption ^u :i* ! argum5t ?us re/s has n itself be5 sub/antiat$4 ,9 ! ?ird pro(#abbd ! argum5t is /at$ 9 extreme subjectivi/ t]ms :i* involve ! fur!r assumption t :at is true ( appreh5sion is ipso facto true ( ev]y?+ appreh5d$4 ,! possibility ( e/abli%+ ! law ( dynamical cont9uity foll[s1 ,kant decl>es1 z a consequ5ce ( its be+ a law ( our subjective appreh5sion4 8,we anticipate only our own appreh5sion1 ! =mal condition ( :i*1 inasmu* z x inh]es 9 ! m9d prior to all giv5 appe>ances1 mu/ c]ta9ly be capable ( be+ kn[n a priori40#abbe ,kant's attitude t[>ds ! physical pr9ciple ( cont9uity und]w5t consid]able *ange4 ,9 8 ,new ,doctr9e ( ,motion & ,re/ 7#ageh7abbf he ma9ta9s t x _c be prov$1 & t physici/s may rightly refuse to recognise x ev5 z an hypo!sis4 ,x is 9 ! ,essay on ,negative ,quantity 7#agfc7abbg t ,kant fir/ adopts ! attitude ( ! ,critique1 & rejects ! 8speculative0 objections rais$ aga9/ ! ma!matical conception ( ! inf9itely small4 ,9 ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce#abbh ! pr9ciple ( cont9uity is def5d$ & develop$1 b only 9 its application to mat]ial exi/5ce1 n 9 its relation to ! causal process4 ,c4 ,?ird ,analogy4--,all sub/ances1 9 s f> z !y are coexi/5t1 /& 9 ?or\ghgo+ communion1#abbi i4e4 9 reciprocity ) "o ano!r4 ,or1 z 9 ! second edition3 ,all sub/ances1 s f> z !y c be p]ceiv$ to coexi/ 9 space1 are 9 ?or\ghgo+ reciprocity4 ,?is section conta9s f\r sep>ate pro(s4 ,! fir/ ?ree p>agraphs 9 ! text ( ! fir/ edition conta9 ! fir/ pro(4 ,! f\r? p>agraph supplies a second pro(1 & ! fif? p>agraph a ?ird4 ,9 ! second edition ,kant adds a f\r? pro( 7! fir/ p>agraph ( ! text ( ! second edition74 ,we may lead up to ^! pro(s by fir/ =mulat+ 7a7 ! fundam5tal assumption ^u :i* !y proce$1 & 7b7 ! !sis :i* !y pr(ess to e/abli%4 7a7 ,! argum5t involves ! same initial assumption z ! prec$+ ,analogies1 viz4 t repres5tations exi/ exclusively 9 succession1 or /at$ 9 ph5om5ali/ t]ms1 t ! objectively coexi/5t c be appreh5d$ only 9 & ?r\gh repres5tations t are sequ5t to "o ano!r 9 "t4#abcj ,^u ?is assumption ! problem ( ! ?ird ,analogy is to expla9 h[ f repres5tations all ( :i* are 9 succession we c det]m9e ! objectively coexi/5t4 7b7 ,9 ! ,diss]tation#abca ,kant _h ma9ta9$ t ?\gh ! possibility ( dynamical communion ( sub/ances is n necess>ily involv$ 9 _! m]e exi/5ce1 su* int]action may be assum$ z a consequ5ce ( _! common orig9 91 & dep5d5ce ^u1 a ,div9e ,be+4 ,9 ! ,critique no su* metaphysical speculations are any long] 9 ord]1 & ,kant recognises t z reg>ds ?+s 9 !mselves x is n possible to decide :e!r dynamical int]action is1 or is n1 necess>ily involv$ 9 coexi/5ce4 ,! problem ( ?is ?ird ,analogy conc]ns only appe>ances1 :i* z su* mu/ be subject to ! conditions ( unit>y exp]i5ce2 & "o su* condition is t !y be appreh5d$ z belong+ to a s+le objective ord] ( nature1 & !re=e z /&+ 9 reciprocal relations ( int]action4 ,! appreh5sion ( sub/ances z reciprocally det]m9+ "o ano!r is1 ,kant cont5ds1 an indisp5sable condition ( _! be+ kn[n ev5 z coexi/5t4 ,su* is ,kant's !sis4 ,! pro( may fir/ be /at$ 9 :at may be call$ its typical or g5]ic =m4 ,kant's f\r successive pro(s c !n be relat$ to x z to a common /&>d4 ,two ?+s1 ,a & ,b1 c be appreh5d$ z coexi/5t only 9 s f> z we c exp]i5ce !m 9 ei!r ord]1 i4e4 :5 ! ord] ( our p]ceptions ( !m is rev]sible4 ,if !y exi/$ 9 succession1 ?is c\ld nev] be possible4 ,! e>li] memb] ( a "t s]ies is pa/ :5 ! succe$+ memb] is pres5t1 & :at belongs to ! pa/ c nev] be an object ( p]ception4 ,! fact t ! ord] 9 :i* ?+s c be p]ceiv$ is rev]sible w\ld ?us seem to prove t !y d n exi/ successively to "o ano!r 9 "t4#abcb ,t1 h[ev]1 is n ! case4 ,by itself su* exp]i5ce does n really suffice to yield consci\sness ( coexi/5ce4 ,x c yield only consci\sness ( an alt]nat+ succession4#abcc ,a fur!r factor1 namely1 int]pretation ( ! rev]sibility ( our p]ceptions z due to _! be+ condition$ by objects :i* /& 9 ! relation ( reciprocal det]m9ation1 mu/ fir/ be po/ulat$4 ,if ^! objects mutually det]m9e "o ano!r to be :at !y are1 no "o ( !m c be antec$5t to or subsequ5t ^u ! o!rs2 & by _! mutual ref]5ce ea* w date ! o!rs z simultane\s ) itself4 ,9 o!r words1 ! p]ception ( ! coexi/5ce ( objects involves ! conception ( !m z mutually det]m9+ "o ano!r4 ,! pr9ciple ( communion or reciprocity conditions ! exp]i5ce ( coexi/5ce1 & is !re=e valid = objects appreh5d$ 9 t mann]4 ,kant also ma9ta9s1 m by implication ?an by explicit /atem5t1 t z ,a & ,b ne$ n /& 9 any direct relation1 ! appreh5sion ( !m z coexi/5t involves ! conception ( an all-embrac+ ord] ( nature )9 :i* !y fall & :i* det]m9es !m to be :at !y are4 ,if any "o ( !m1 ev5 ! mo/ m9ute & insignificant1 7 conceiv$ z alt]$1 correspond+ simultane\s v>iations w\ld h to be po/ulat$ = all ! o!rs4 ,! unity ( ! ph5om5al _w is ! c\nt]p>t ( ! unity ( app]ception4 ,unity ( exp]i5ce involves pr9ciples :i* prescribe a correspond+ unity 9 ! natural realm4 ,dynamical communion is ! suffici5t & necess>y fulfilm5t ( ?is dem&4 ,x c>ries to completion ! unity dem&$ by ! prec$+ ,analogies ( sub/ance & causality4 ,kant sums up 8 position 9 a note to ,a #bah ,b #bfe4 8,! unity ( ! _w-:ole1 9 :i* all appe>ances h to be connect$1 is evid5tly a m]e consequ5ce ( ! tacitly assum$ pr9ciple ( ! communion ( all sub/ances :i* are coexi/5t4 ,= if !y 7 isolat$1 !y w\ld n z p>ts con/itute a :ole4 ,& if _! coexi/5ce alone did n necessitate _! connection 7! reciprocal action ( ! manifold7 we c\ld n argue f ! =m]1 :i* is a m]ely ideal relation1 to ! latt]1 :i* is a real relation4 ,we h1 h[ev]1 9 ! prop] context1 %[n t communion is really ! gr\nd ( ! possibility ( an empirical k ( coexi/5ce1 & t !re=e ! actual inf]5ce is m]ely f ?is empirical k to communion z its condition40 ,to turn n[ to ,kant's successive pro(s4 ,! fir/#abcd calls = no special comm5t4 ,x co9cides ) ! above4 ,! second#abce pro( is an incompletely /at$ argum5t1 :i* diff]s f ! fir/ only 9 its m concrete /atem5t ( ! ma9 !sis & 9 its limitation ( ! argum5t to spatial exi/5ces4 ,dynamical community is ! indisp5sable condition ( our appreh5sion ( any m]ely spatial side-by-sid5ess4 ,kant n[ adds t x is ! dynamical cont9uity ( ! spatial _w :i* enables u to appreh5d ! coexi/5ce ( its con/itu5ts4 ,! important be>+ ( ?is argum5t we %all consid] 9 its connection ) ! pro( :i* ,kant add$ 9 ! second edition4 ,! ?ird#abcf pro( is probably ! e>lie/ 9 date ( writ+4 ,x draws a mislead+ di/9ction betwe5 subjective & objective coexi/5ce1 & seems to argue t only ! latt] =m ( coexi/5ce ne$ presuppose ! employm5t ( ! category ( reciprocity4 ,t runs directly c\nt] to ! c5tral !sis ( ! o!r pro(s1 t only 9 t]ms ( dynamical relation is coexi/5ce at all appreh5sible4 ,t ! above di/9ction indicates an e>ly date ( writ+ w\ld seem to be confirm$ by ! obscure phrase 8community ( app]ception0 :i* is rem9isc5t ( ! prom95ce giv5 to app]ception 9 ,kant's e>li] views1 & by ! conclud+ s5t5ce 9 :i* ,kant employs t]ms--inh]5ce1 consequ5ce1 & composition--t are also *>act]i/ic ( ! e>li] /ages ( 8 ,critical enquiries4#abcg ,x is significant t 9 ! new argum5t#abch ( ! second edition ! space factor1 emphasis$ 9 ! second pro( ( ! fir/ edition1 is aga9 made prom95t4#abci ,! pr9ciple is1 inde$1 re=mulat$ 9 su* mann] z to sugge/ its limitation to spatial exi/5ces4 8,all sub/ances1 s f> z !y c be p]ceiv$ to coexi/ 9 space1 are 9 ?or\ghgo+ reciprocity40 ,n[ x is decid$ly d\btful :e!r ,kant means to limit ! category ( reciprocity to spatial exi/5ces4 ,z we h already not$1#abdj he w\ld seem to hold t ?\gh ! category ( causality c acquire mean+ only 9 its application to ev5ts 9 space1 x may 9 its subsequ5t employm5t be ext5d$ to ! /ates ( inn] s5se4 ,! latt] are effects dynamically caus$1 & among _! causal conditions are me*anical processes 9 space4 ,! ext5sion ( ! category ( reciprocity to include s5sations & desires und\bt$ly gives rise to mu* great] difficulties ?an ^? involv$ 9 ! univ]sal application ( ! causal pr9ciple4 ,on ! o!r h&1 its limitation to mat]ial bodies mu/ r5d] ! co-ord9ation ( m5tal /ates & me*anical processes highly d\btful1 & w\ld c>ry ) x all ! difficulties ( an epiph5om5al view ( psy*ical exi/5ces4 ,! tru? probably is t 9 ?is matt] ,kant _h n ?\ght out 8 position 9 any q def9ite mann]2 & t ow+ to ! influ5ce1 on ! "o h& ( ! duali/ic tea*+ ( ! traditional ,c>tesian physics1 & on ! o!r ( 8 increas+ appreciation ( ! "p :i* space mu/ play 9 ! def9ition & pro( ( ! pr9ciples ( und]/&+1 he limit$ ! category ( reciprocity to spatial exi/5ces1 )\t consid]+ h[ f> su* proc$ure is capable ( be+ reconcil$ ) 8 det]m9i/ view ( ! empirical self4 ,8 proc$ure is also op5 to a second objection1 namely1 t :ile ?us re=mulat+ ! pr9ciple1 he fails to remodel 8 pro( 9 a suffici5tly ?or\ghgo+ fa%ion4 ,! *ief /ress is /ill laid ^u ! temporal elem5t2 & 9 ord] to obta9 a pro( ( ! pr9ciple t w h>monise ) ! prom95ce giv5 to ! space-factor1 we are ?r[n back ^u su* supplem5t>y sugge/ions z we c extract f ! second argum5t ( ! fir/ edition4 ,x is !re /at$ t 8)\t dynamical communion ev5 spatial community 7communio spatii7 c\ld nev] be kn[n empirically40#abda ,t is an ass]tion :i*1 if true1 w yield a pro( ( ! pr9ciple ( reciprocity analog\s to t :i* has be5 giv5 ( ! pr9ciple ( causality2 = x w %[ t j z ! conception ( causality is involv$ 91 & makes possible1 ! aw>5ess ( "t1 s ! conception ( reciprocity is involv$ 91 & makes possible1 ! aw>5ess ( space4 ,! pro( w be z foll[s4 ,! p>ts ( space h to be conceiv$ z spatially int]relat$4 ,space is n a collection ( indep5d5t spaces2 p>ticul> spaces exi/ only 9 & ?r\gh ! spaces :i* enclose !m4 ,9 o!r words1 ! p>ts ( space mutually condition "o ano!r4 ,ea* "p exi/s only 9 & ?r\gh its relations1 direct or indirect1 to all ! o!rs2 ! aw>5ess ( _! coexi/5ce involves ! aw>5ess ( ?is reciprocal det]m9ation4 ,b space _c1 any m ?an "t1 be kn[n 9 & by itself2#abdb & :at is true ( space mu/ !re=e hold ( ! cont5ts1 9 t]ms ( ! int]relations ( :i* space c alone be exp]i5c$4 ,h[1 !n1 c ! reciprocal det]m9ation ( sub/ances 9 space be appreh5d$ by a consci\sness :i* is subject 9 all its exp]i5ces to ! conditions ( "t8 ,z ,kant has po9t$ out 9 ,a #baa ,b #beh1abdc objective coexi/5ce is di/+ui%$ f objective sequ5ce by rev]sibility ( ! p]ceptions ?r\gh :i* x is appreh5d$4 ,:5 ,a & ,b coexi/1 our p]ceptions c beg9 ) ,a & pass to ,b1 or />t f ,b & proce$ to ,a4 ,!re is also1 z ,kant obs]ves 9 ! second pro(1 a fur!r condition1 namely1 t ! transition is 9 ea* case made ?r\gh a cont9u\s s]ies ( *ang+ p]ceptions4 8,only ! cont9u\s influ5ces 9 all p>ts ( space c lead our s5ses f "o object to ano!r4 ,! light1 :i* plays betwe5 our eye & ! cele/ial bodies1 produces a m$iate communion betwe5 u & !m1 & !reby e/abli%es ! coexi/5ce ( ! latt]4 ,we _c empirically *ange our position 7p]ceive su* a *ange71 unless matt] 9 all p>ts ( space makes ! p]ception ( our position possible to u4 ,only by means ( its reciprocal influ5ce c matt] e/abli% ! simultane\s exi/5ce ( its p>ts1 & !reby1 ?\gh only m$iately1 _! coexi/5ce ) ev5 ! mo/ remote objects4 ,)\t communion1 e p]ception ( an appe>ance 9 space is brok5 (f f e o!r1 & ! *a9 ( empirical repres5tations1 i4e4 exp]i5ce1 w\ld h to beg9 entirely anew ) e new object1 )\t ! lea/ connection ) prec$+ repres5tations1 & )\t /&+ to !m 9 any relation ( "t40#abdd ,b ev5 su* rev]sibility ( cont9u\s s]ies does n by itself e/abli% coexi/5ce4 ,= 9 ! imag9ation#abde we c repres5t su* s]ies1 )\t !reby acquir+ ! "r to ass]t t !y exi/ n z s]ies b z simultane\s :oles4 ,& z ,kant might also h po9t$ out1 ev5 9 s5se-p]ception we c exp]i5ce rev]sible cont9u\s s]ies t d n 9 any way ju/ify ! inf]5ce to coexi/5ce4 ,we may1 = in/ance1 produce on a musical in/rum5t a s]ies ( cont9u\sly *ang+ s\nds1 & !n 9 imm$iate succession produce ! same s]ies 9 rev]se ord]4 ,an additional factor is !re=e requir$1 namely1 ! int]pretation ( ! rev]sibility ( our p]ceptions z be+ gr\nd$ 9 objects :i*1 because spatially ext5d$1 & spatially cont9u\s ) "o ano!r1 c yield cont9u\s s]ies ( p]ceptions1 & :i*1 because ( _! ?or\ghgo+ reciprocity1 make possible ! rev]s+ ( ^! s]ies4 ,to summ>ise ! argum5t 9 a s5t5ce3 z ! objectively coexi/5t1 if x is to be kn[n at all1 c only be kn[n ?r\gh sequ5t repres5tations1 ! condition ( its appreh5sion is ! possibility ( int]pret+ rev]sible cont9u\s s]ies z due to ! reciprocal int]action ( spatially ord]$ sub/ances4 ,?is argum5t has a tw(old be>+4 ,its mo/ obvi\s consequ5ce is t all ?+s appreh5d$ z coexi/5t mu/ be conceiv$ z /&+ 9 relations ( reciprocal int]action2 b by implication ?is involves ! fur!r consequ5ce t ! conceptual pr9ciple ( reciprocity is an integral factor 9 all appreh5sion ( space4 ,space1 ?\gh intuitive 9 "*1 has a mean+ t dem&s ?is concept = its articulation4 ,j z consci\sness ( temporal sequ5ce is only possible 9 t]ms ( causation1 s consci\sness ( spatial coexi/5ce is only possible ?r\gh application ( ! category ( reciprocity4 ,& s9ce1 on ,kant's view1 aw>5ess ( space conditions aw>5ess ( "t1 ^! conclusions c>ry ! ,critical analysis ( our consci\sness ( "t a /age fur!r4 ,9 confirmation ( ! m g5]al argum5t ( ! objective d$uction1 reciprocity is add$ to ! already l>ge sum-total ( ! indisp5sable conditions ( our "t-consci\sness2 :ile 9 reg>d to "t itself x is %[n t1 ow+ to its space-ref]5ce1 coexi/5ce may be c\nt$ among its possible modes4 ,i h made occasional ref]5ce to ! positions adopt$ by ,/\t 9 8 ,manual ( ,psy*ology1 & may "h indicate _! relation to ! pres5t argum5t4 ,/\t cites f\r 8categories0 or ultimate pr9ciples ( unity :i* 8belong ev5 to rudim5t>y p]ceptual consci\sness z a condition ( its fur!r developm5t10#abdf namely1 spatial unity1 temporal unity1 causal unity1 & ! unity ( diff]5t attributes z belong+ to ! same ?+4 ,! criticism :i*1 f ! /&po9t ( ! ,analogies1 has to be pass$ ^u ?is li/1#abdg is t x ignores ! category ( reciprocity1 i4e4 ( sy/ematic int]connection1 & t x fails to recognise ! close relation 9 :i* ! v>i\s pr9ciples /& to "o ano!r4 ,! temporal unity mu/ n be isolat$ f causal unity1 nor ei!r ( !m f ! spatial unity1 ) :i* ! category ( reciprocity is insep>ably b\nd up4 ,fur!r1 ,kant ma9ta9s t ^! pr9ciples are dem&$1 n m]ely = ! developm5t ( p]ceptual consci\sness1 b = its v exi/5ce4 ,b ,kant's argum5t sugge/s _m difficulties :i* we h n yet consid]$1 & we may aga9 employ ,s*op5hau]'s criticisms to def9e ! issues involv$4 8,! conception ( reciprocity ought to be bani%$ f metaphysics4 ,= ,i n[ int5d1 q s]i\sly1 to prove t !re is no reciprocity 9 ! /rict s5se1 & ?is conception1 :i* p are s fond ( us+1 j on acc\nt ( ! indef9it5ess ( ! ?\ght1 is se51 if m closely consid]$1 to be empty1 false1 & invalid4444 ,x implies t bo? ! /ates ,a & ,b are cause & t bo? are effect ( ea* o!r2 b ?is really am\nts to say+ t ea* ( ! two is ! e>li] & also ! lat]2 ?us x is an absurdity40#abdh ,?is criticism proce$s on ! assumption t ! category ( reciprocity r$uces to a dual application ( ! category ( causality4 ,if t 7 ! case1 !re w\ld1 ( c\rse1 be no sep>ate category ( reciprocity1#abdi & fur!r x w\ld1 z ,s*op5hau] ma9ta9s1 be impossible to reg>d ,a & ,b z be+ at "o & ! same "t bo? cause & effect ( "o ano!r4 ,causality det]m9es ! ord] ( ! /ates ( sub/ances 9 ! "t s]ies2 reciprocity mu/ be di/9ct f causality if x is to be capable ( def9+ ! ord] ( _! coexi/5t /ates 9 space4 ,a d$uction f ! dual application ( ! conception ( causality has1 !re=e1 no be>+ ^u ! "q ( ! possibility ( ?is fur!r category4 ,kant has laid himself op5 to ?is criticism by a passage :i* occurs 9 ! fir/ pro(1 & :i* %[s t he 0 n q cle> 9 8 own m9d z to h[ reciprocity ought to be conceiv$4 8,t alone c det]m9e ! position ( any?+ else 9 "t1 :i* is its cause or ! cause ( its det]m9ations4 ,e sub/ance 7inasmu* z only 9 its det]m9ations c x be an effect7 mu/ !re=e conta9 9 itself ! causality ( c]ta9 det]m9ations 9 ! o!r sub/ance1 & at ! same "t ! effects ( ! causality ( t o!r1 i4e4 !y mu/ /& 9 dynamical communion 7imm$iately or m$iately71 if _! coexi/5ce is to be kn[n 9 any possible exp]i5ce40#abej ,x %\ld be not$ t 9 ! new pro(#abea 9 ! second edition ,kant is c>eful to employ ! t]ms gr\nd & influ5ce 9 place ( ! t]ms cause & causality4 ,secondly1 ,s*op5hau] argues t if ! two /ates necess>ily belong to ea* o!r & exi/ at "o & ! same "t1 !y w n be simultane\s1 b w con/itute only "o /ate4#abeb ,s*op5hau] is aga9 refus+ to recognise ! conditions "u :i* alone a special category ( reciprocity is call$ =4 ,we c speak ( simultaneity only if a multiplicity be giv52 & if x be giv51 its nature z simultane\s plurality _c be compreh5d$ ?r\gh a causal law1 :i*1 z su*1 applies only to sequ5t ord]4 ,la/ly1 ,s*op5hau] endeav\rs to confirm 8 position by exam9ation ( ! suppos$ in/ances ( reciprocity4 0,9 ! cont9u\s burn+ ( a fire ! comb9ation ( oxyg5 ) ! combu/ible body is ! cause ( heat1 & heat1 aga91 is ! cause ( ! r5ew$ occurr5ce ( ! *emical comb9ation4 ,b ?is is no?+ m ?an a *a9 ( causes & effects1 ! l9ks ( :i* h alt]nately ! same "n4444 ,we see be=e u only an application ( ! s+le & simple law ( causality :i* gives ! rule to ! sequ5ce ( /ates1 b nev] any?+ :i* mu/ be compreh5d$ by means ( a new & special function ( ! und]/&+40#abec ,s*op5hau] is aga9 misl$ by 8 equat+ ( reciprocity ) causal action4 ,combu/ion is q obvi\sly a case ( sequ5t processes4 ,in/ead ( prov+ t coexi/5ce does n involve reciprocity1 ,s*op5hau] is only %[+ t cause & effect may sometimes1 z ,kant himself obs]ves1#abed seem to be simultane\s4#abee ,action foll[$ by reaction is n equival5t to :at ,kant means by reciprocal det]m9ation4 ,s*op5hau] also cites ! in/ance ( a pair ( scales br\ght to re/ by equal weights4 8,"h !re is no effect produc$1 = !re is no *ange2 x is a /ate ( re/2 gravity acts1 equally divid$1 z 9 e body :i* is support$ at its c5tre ( gravity1 b x _c %[ its =ce by any effect40#abef ,?is example is m 9 l9e ) :at ,kant w\ld seem to h 9 view1 b is /ill def9$ 9 ref]5ce to ! problem ( causation1 & n 9 ref]5ce to t ( coexi/5ce4 ,kant is n enquir+ :e!r coexi/5t bodies are relat$ z causes & effects1 ?\gh1 z we h already obs]v$1 8 language betrays consid]able lack ( cle>ness on ?is v po9t4 ,he is endeav\r+ to def9e ! conditions "u :i* we are enabl$ to recognise t bodies1 ext]nal to "o ano!r 9 space & appreh5sible only ?r\gh sequ5t p]ceptions1 are none ! less coexi/5t4 ,& ! answ] :i* he gives is t coexi/5ce c only be det]m9$ by ref]5ce ( ea* exi/5ce to ! totality ( sy/ematic relations )9 :i* x is f\nd1 its p>ticul> spatial location be+ "o ( ! factors :i* condition ?is ref]5ce4 ,causal explanation 9 ! mo/ usual mean+ ( t highly ambigu\s phrase1 namely1 z explanation ( an artificially isolat$ ev5t by ref]5ce to antec$5ts simil>ly isolat$ f _! context1 may p>tially acc\nt = ?is ev5t be+ ( "o k9d r ?an ano!r1 b w n expla9 :y x is to be f\nd at ?is p>ticul> "t 9 ?is p>ticul> place4 ,t is to say1 x w n answ] ! "q :i* is ask$ :5 we are enquir+ z to :at ev5ts are coexi/5t ) x4 ,b ! consid]ations :i* ?us enable u to dispose ( ,s*op5hau]'s criticisms h ! effect ( involv+ u 9 new1 & mu* m =midable1 difficulties4 ,inde$ !y disclose ! incomplete1 & q inadequate1 "* ( ,kant's pro( ( ! ?ird ,analogy4 ,= mu/ n spatial co-exi/5ce be indep5d5tly kn[n if x is to s]ve z "o ( ! factors det]m9ant ( reciprocity8 ,c ! appreh5sion ( ext5d$ bodies wait ^u a prior k ( ! sy/em ( nature to :i* !y belong8 ,! m]e prop\nd+ ( ^! que/ions does n1 h[ev]1 suffice to ov]?r[ ,kant's cont5tion4 ,= he is prep>$--t is inde$ ! reason :y ! ,critique came to be writt5--to answ] !m 9 a mann] t _h nev] be=e be5 sugge/$1 save p]haps 9 ! philosophies ( ,plato & ,ari/otle4 ,?is answ] fir/ em]ges 9 ! ,dialectic1 9 ! c\rse ( its treatm5t ( ! wid] problem1 ( :i* ! above difficulties are only special in/ances1 h[ if condition$ p>ts c only be kn[n 9 t]ms ( an uncondition$ :ole1 any k :atsoev] c be acquir$ by u4 ,b ?\gh ,kant 9 ! ,dialectic gives due prom95ce to ?is fundam5tal problem1 ! h>d & fa/ divisions ( 8 ar*itectonic--& d\btless o!r influ5ces :i* w\ld be difficult to def9e--int]v5e to prev5t him f recognis+ its full implications4 ,= ! problem is view$ 9 ! ,dialectic z involv+ consid]ations altoge!r diff]5t f ^? dwelt ^u 9 ! ,analogies1 & z be+ )\t application to ! matt]s ( :i* !y treat4 ,! situation ?us creat$ is v simil> to t :i* is occasion$ by ,kant's un=tunate sep>ation ( ! problems ( space & "t 9 ! ,ae/hetic f ! treatm5t ( ! categories 9 ! ,analytic4 ,9 ! ,ae/hetic space & "t are ass]t$ to be intuitive1 n conceptual1 9 nature2 & yet 9 ! ,analytic we f9d ,kant demon/rat+ t ! pr9ciples ( causality & reciprocity are indisp5sably involv$ 9 _! appreh5sion4 ,b ev5 m mislead+ is ! sep>ation ( ! problems ( ! ,ae/hetic & ,analytic f ^? ( ! ,dialectic4 ,kant's prim>y & prevail+ int]e/ is 9 ! metaphysics1 n 9 ! m]e me?odology1 ( exp]i5ce2 & x is 9 ! ,dialectic t ! metaphysical pr9ciples :i* und]lie & inspire all 8 o!r t5ets fir/ f9d adequate /atem5t4 ,s9ce ! ?ird ,analogy def9es ! crit]ion ( coexi/5ce 9 entire indep5d5ce ( all ref]5ce to ! ,ideas ( ,reason1 ,kant is !reby preclud$ f ev5 s mu* z indicat+ ! true gr\nds ^u :i* 8 position1 if x is to be really t5able1 mu/ be made to re/4 ,= z he ultimately came to recognise1 ! intuition ( space n only involves ! conceptual category ( reciprocal det]m9ation1 b likewise dem&s = its possibility an ,idea ( ,reason4 ,9 space ! wid] :ole is always prior 9 ?\ght to ! p>ts :i* g to con/itute x4 ,b ?\gh ,kant /ates#abeg t ?is *>act]i/ic ( space ju/ifies its be+ entitl$ an ,idea ( ,reason1 he n[h]e takes notice ( ! obvi\s & v important be>+ :i* ?is mu/ h ^u ! problem1 h[ we are to =mulate ! crit]ion ( coexi/5ce4 ,! g5]al "* ( "t is analog\s to t ( space1 & our =mulation ( ! crit]ion ( causal sequ5ce is !re=e simil>ly affect$4 ,! sy/em ( nature is n ! outcome ( natural laws :i* are indep5d5tly valid2 natural laws are ! expression ( :at ?is sy/em prescribes2 !y are ! modes 9 :i* x def9es & embodies its inh]5t necessities4 ,! situation :i* ^! consid]ations w\ld seem to disclose may1 !re=e1 be /at$ z foll[s4 ,if ! empirical crit]ia ( tru? are indep5d5t ( ! ,ideas ( ,reason1 ! ,analytic may be adequate to _! discussion1 b w be unable to ju/ify ! ass]tion t !re is a category ( reciprocal or sy/ematic connection di/9ct f t ( causality4 ,if1 h[ev]1 x %\ld be f\nd t ^! crit]ia are m]ely special applications ( /&>ds metaphysical 9 "*--& t w\ld seem to be ,kant's f9al conclusion1--only 9 ! light ( ! wid] consid]ations fir/ broa*$ 9 ! ,dialectic1 c we hope to def9e _! nature & implications ) any approa* to complet5ess4 #d4 ,,! ,,po/ulates ,,( ,,empirical ,,?\ght ,,9 ,,g5]al ,fir/ ,po/ulate4--,t :i* agrees1 9 intuition & 9 concepts1 ) ! =mal conditions ( exp]i5ce is possible4 ,second ,po/ulate4--,t :i* is connect$ ) ! mat]ial conditions ( exp]i5ce 7t is1 ) s5sation7 is actual4 ,?ird ,po/ulate4--,t :i* is det]m9$1 9 its connection ) ! actual1 accord+ to univ]sal conditions ( exp]i5ce is 7t is1 exi/s z7 necess>y4 ,9 ?is section ,kant ma9ta9s t :5 ! ,critical /&po9t is accept$1 possibility1 actuality & necessity c only be def9$ 9 t]ms ( ! conditions :i* r5d] s5se-exp]i5ce possible4 ,9 o!r words1 ! ,critical position1 t all tru?1 ev5 t ( a priori pr9ciples1 is m]ely de facto1 involves acceptance ( ! view t ! actual r$uces to ! exp]i5c$1 & t only by ref]5ce to ! actual z ?us giv5 c possibility & necessity be def9$4 ,! ,leibnizian view t possibility is capable ( be+ def9$ indep5d5tly ( ! actual1 & antec$5tly to all k ( x1 mu/ be reject$4 ,an analysis ( ! text c be pr(itably made only aft] a detail$ exam9ation ( ,kant's g5]al argum5t2 & to t task we may at once apply ourselves4 ,! section af=ds fur!r illu/ration ( ! p]v]t+ influ5ce ( ,kant's ar*itectonic1 z well z ( ! insidi\s mann] 9 :i* ! old] rationalism cont9u$ to p]v]t 8 ?9k+ 9 8 less wat*ful mom5ts4 ,fir/ ,po/ulate4--,9 ! op5+ p>agraphs ,kant uses 7z x w\ld seem )\t consci\sness ( s do+7 ! t]m possibility 9 two v diff]5t s5ses4#abeh ,:5 ! possible is di/+ui%$ f ! actual & ! necess>y1 x acquires ! mean+ def9$ 9 ?is fir/ ,po/ulate2 x is 8t :i* agrees ) ! =mal conditions ( exp]i5ce40 ,b x is also employ$ 9 a mu* n>r[] s5se to signify t :i* c h 8objective reality1 i4e4 transc5d5tal tru?40#abei ,! possibility ( ! objectively real re/s ^u fulfilm5t ( a ?reefold condition3 7#a7 t x agree ) ! =mal conditions ( exp]i5ce2 7#b7 t x /& 9 connection ) ! mat]ial ( ! s5su\s conditions ( exp]i5ce2 & 7#c7 t x foll[ ) necessity ^u "s prec$+ /ate 9 accordance ) ! pr9ciple ( causality1 & s =m "p ( a necessitat$ ord] ( nature4 ,9 o!r words1 x mu/ be causally necessitat$ 9 ord] to be empirically actual2 & only ! empirically actual is g5u9ely possible4 ,su* is also ! mean+ t usually atta*es to ! t]m possible 9 ! o!r sections ( ! ,critique4 ,a #8possible exp]i5ce' is "o t c become actual :5 ! specific conditions1 all ( :i* mu/ !mselves be possible1 are fulfill$4 ,an exp]i5ce :i* is n capable ( be+ actual has no "r to be describ$ ev5 z possible4 ,z a t]m applicable to ! objectively real1 ! possible is n wid] ?an ! actual1 b coext5sive ) x4 ,z ,kant himself rem>ks1 ^? t]ms ref] exclusively to diff]5ces 9 ! subjective attitude ( ! appreh5d+ m9d4 ,?is ambiguity 9 ! t]m #8possibility' has caus$ a correspond+ ambiguity 9 ,kant's employm5t ( ! t]m #8actuality4' ,x leads him to endeav\r to def9e ! actual1 n 9 its connection ) ! conditions ( possibility1 b 9 di/9ction f !m4 ,! possible hav+ be5 def9$ 79 ! fir/ ,po/ulate7 solely 9 t]ms ( ! =mal factors ( exp]i5ce1 he proce$s to *>act]ise ! actual 9 a simil>ly "o-sid$ fa%ion1 exclusively 9 t]ms ( ! mat]ial elem5t ( giv5 s5sation4 ,d\btless ! elem5t ( s5sation mu/ play a prom95t "p 9 enabl+ u to decide :at is or is n actually exi/5t1 b no def9ition :i* omits to take acc\nt ( relational factors c be an adequate expression ( ,critical tea*+4 ,inde$1 we only require to sub/itute ! words #8s5su\sly giv5' = #8actual' 9 ,kant's def9ition ( ! ?ird ,po/ulate 7i4e4 ( ! necess>y7 9 ord] to obta9 a correct /atem5t ( ! true ,critical view ( actual exi/5ce3 x is 8t :i* is det]m9$ 9 its connection ) ! s5su\sly giv5 accord+ to univ]sal conditions ( exp]i5ce40 ,= ,kant ! actual & ! necess>y1 objectively view$1 co9cide4 ,necessity is = ! human m9d always m]ely de facto2 & no?+ c be objectively actual t is n causally det]m9$4 ,z ! empirically possible _c1 9 its objective ref]5ce1 be wid] ?an ! empirically necess>y1 "o & ! same def9ition adequately cov]s all ?ree t]ms alike4 ,:ile ! di/9ctions betwe5 !m w1 ( c\rse1 rema91 !y w be applicable1 n to objects1 b only to ! subjective conditions ( exp]i5ce 9 s f> z ^! may v>y f "o individual to ano!r4 ,exp]i5ces capable ( be+ actual = "o individual may be m]ely possible = ano!r4 ,& :at is m]ely actual to "o obs]v] may by o!rs be compreh5d$ 9 its necessitat+ connections4 ,! t]ms w n d5ote diff]5ces 9 ! real1 b only v>iations 9 ! cognitive attitude ( ! individual4 ,?us 9 pr(ess+ to %[ t ! ?ree ,po/ulates are transc5d5tal pr9ciples1 ,kant does less ?an ju/ice to 8 own tea*+4 ,= ?\gh bo? "h & 9 ! op5+ sections ( ! *apt]#abfj he speaks ( !m 9 ?is mann]1 i4e4 z be+ conditions alike ( ord9>y & ( sci5tific exp]i5ce1 he has himself admitt$ 9 s _m words ! inappropriat5ess ( su* a description4 8,! pr9ciples ( modality are no?+ m ?an explanations n1 x may be not$1 pro(s ( ! concepts ( possibility1 actuality & necessity1 9 _! empirical use1 & are !re=e at ! same "t re/rictions ( all ! categories to ?is m]ely empirical use1 rul+ out & =bidd+ _! transc5d5tal transc5d5t employm5t40#abfa ,t is to say1 ^! s-call$ pr9ciples are n really pr9ciples2 !y m]ely embody explanatory /atem5ts design$ to r5d] ! prec$+ results m def9ite1 & especially to gu>d aga9/ ! illegitimate mean+s :i* ! ,leibnizian metaphysics _h atta*$ to c]ta9 ( ! t]ms involv$4 ,^! consid]ations br+ u to ! real s\rce ( ,kant's p]v]se argum5tation1 namely1 ! artificial 7b none ! less imp]i\s7 dem&s ( 8 ar*itectonic4 ,he is con/ra9$ to provide a set ( pr9ciples correspond+ to ! categories ( modality4 ,! def9itions ( ! modal categories h !re=e to be call$ by t inappropriate "n4 ,b t is n ! end ( ! matt]4 ,9 ord] to meet ! ne$s ( 8 logical framework1 ,kant proce$s ev5 fur!r ?an he _h v5tur$ to d 9 ! sections on ! ,axioms ( ,intuition & ,anticipations ( ,p]ception4 ,!re he fell s f> %ort z to provide only a s+le pr9ciple 9 ea* case4 ,9 deal+1 h[ev]1 ) ! categories ( relation he has be5 able to def9e ea* ( ! ?ree categories sep>ately1 & to d]ive f ea* a sep>ate pr9ciple4 ,_m ( ! defects 9 8 argum5t are1 inde$1 traceable to ?is s\rce4 ,! close int]relations ( ! ?ree pr9ciples are1 z we h _h occasion to note1 s]i\sly obscur$4 ,b /ill1 9 ! ma91 sep>ate treatm5t ( ea* has prov$ feasible4 ,kant1 enc\rag$1 z we may believe1 by ?is successful fulfilm5t ( ar*itectonic requirem5ts1 n[ sets himself to develop1 9 simil> fa%ion1 a sep>ate pr9ciple = ea* modal category4 ,b = any su* ent]prise ! conditions are less fav\rable ?an 9 ! case ( ! categories ( relation4 ,=1 z j indicat$1 no "o ( ! ?ree c1 on ,critical pr9ciples1 possess any g5u9e mean+ save 9 its relation to ! o!rs4 ,be=e foll[+ out ?is l9e ( criticism1 we mu/ h[ev] note "s fur!r po9ts 9 ,kant's argum5t4 ,9 ,a #bai ,b #bff1 & aga9 9 ,a #bbe ,b #bgb1 ,kant makes ! /atem5t t a concept c be complete prior to any decision z to its possibility1 actuality1 or necessity4 ,?is cont5tion is capable ( be+ int]pret$ 9 two q indep5d5t ways1 & 9 only "o ( ^? ways is x t5able4 ,he may mean t ! di/9ction betwe5 ! possible1 ! actual1 & ! necess>y1 does n conc]n ! objectively real1 :i* z su* is always bo? actual & necess>y1 b only ! subjective attitude ( ! individual t[>ds ! objects ( 8 ?\ght & exp]i5ce4 ,f ! ,critical /&po9t1 z we h be5 argu+1 su* a cont5tion is entirely j4 ,b ,kant w\ld seem 9 ! above /atem5t to be *iefly conc]n$ to ma9ta9 t a conception may be complete & det]m9ate1 ev5 :ile we rema9 9 d\bt :e!r ! exi/5ce = :i* x /&s is ev5 possible4#abfb ,su* a view is m]ely a relic ( ! ,leibnizian rationalism f :i* he is /riv+ to break away4 ,all exi/5ces h _! place 9 a sy/ematic ord] ( exp]i5ce1 & no conception ( !m c be ei!r complete or det]m9ate :i* fails to specify ! causal context to :i* !y belong4 ,! process ( specify+ ! detail ( a concept is ! only process :]eby we c def9e its possibility1 actuality1 or necessity4#abfc ,7 x capable ( complete /atem5t )\t det]m9ation ( its modal "*1 x c\ld nev] =m "p ( a unifi$ exp]i5ce4 ,! examples ( 8fictiti\s0 concepts1 :i* ,kant cites1 are ei!r s det]m9ate z to be demon/rably inconsi/5t ) exp]i5ce1 & !re=e empirically impossible1 or s indet]m9ate z to af=d no suffici5t means ( decid+ ev5 z to _! possibility4 ,!re is a fur!r objection to ! def9ition giv5 ( possibility 9 ! fir/ ,po/ulate4 ,aft] /at+ t ! possible is :at agrees ) ! =mal conditions ( exp]i5ce1 ,kant proce$s1 on ! "o h&1 to argue t ! =ms ( intuition & ! categories ( und]/&+ may1 9 accordance ) ?is crit]ion1 be view$ z possible1 &1 on ! o!r h&1 to ma9ta9 t no o!r concepts c be s reg>d$4#abfd ,t is to say1 ! possible1 z ?us int]pret$1 does n consi/ 9 some?+ additional to1 & 9 h>mony )1 ! conditions ( exp]i5ce1 b r$uces )\t rema9d] to ^? v =ms4 ,n[ ,kant is n betray$ m]ely by inadv]t5ce into ?us n>r[+ ! sph]e ( ! possible2 su* limitation is an almo/ inevitable consequ5ce ( ! "o-sid$ mann] 9 :i* he has treat$ ! concept ( ! possible 9 ?is fir/ ,po/ulate4 ,he pr(esses to be proce$+ 9 ! light ( ! results obta9$ 9 ! transc5d5tal d$uction1 & to be def9+ ! possible 9 t]ms ( ! conditions :i* make s5se-exp]i5ce possible4 ,b ! d$uction has %[n t exp]i5ce is possible only 9 s f> z ! mat]ial factors co-op]ate ) ! =mal4 ,& :5 ?is is recognis$1 x becomes obvi\s t a def9ition ( ! possible 9 t]ms ( s5sation1--namely1 z t :i* is capable ( be+ pres5t$ 9 s5se-p]ception1--is equally legitimate1 & is inde$ requir$ 9 ord] to correct ! defici5cies ( ! def9ition :i* ,kant has himself giv54 ,z bo? factors are indisp5sable 9 all possible exp]i5ce1 bo? mu/ be reckon$ ) 9 def9+ ! possible4 ,kant's argum5t 9 ! fif? p>agraph is some:at obscur$ by its context4 ,he is cont5d+ t fictiti\s 7g$i*tete7 concepts1 elaborat$ f ! cont5ts pres5t$ 9 p]ception1 _c be det]m9$ z possible4 ,z !y involve s5su\s cont5ts1 ! =mal elem5ts ( exp]i5ce d n suffice = pro( ( _! possibility2 & s9ce ! cont5ts are suppos$ to h be5 recomb9$ 9 ways n support$ by exp]i5ce1 an empirical crit]ion is equally inapplicable4 ,obvi\sly ,kant is "h us+ ! t]m #8possible' n 9 ! mean+ ( ! fir/ ,po/ulate1 b 9 its n>r[] connotation z signify+ t :i* is capable ( objective reality4 ,su* fictiti\s concepts may completely fulfil all ! dem&s prescrib$ by space1 "t1 & ! categories1 & yet1 z he "h insi/s1 be none ! less incapable ( objective exi/5ce4 ,! argum5t is /ill fur!r obscur$ by ! "* ( ! concrete examples :i* ,kant cites4 ,!y involve modes ( action or ( intuition :i* contradict ! v conditions ( human exp]i5ce1 & s = t reason alone fall outside ! realm ( ! empirically possible4 ,t w\ld n1 h[ev]1 seem to be ,kant's mean+ 9 employ+ !m4 ,assum$ p[]s ( anticipat+ ! future or ( telepa?ic communication ) o!r m9ds are1 he says1 concepts 8444! possibility ( :i* is altoge!r gr\ndless1 z !y _c be bas$ on exp]i5ce & its kn[n laws1 & )\t su* confirmation are arbitr>y comb9ations ( ?\ghts1 :i*1 al?\gh inde$ free f contradiction1 c make no claim to objective reality & s to ! possibility ( an object su* z we "h pr(ess to ?9k40#abfe ,! ma!matical examples :i* ,kant gives 9 ,a #bbc ,b #bgaabff are no less mislead+4 ,! concept ( a triangle c1 x is impli$1 be det]m9$ z possible 9 t]ms ( ! fir/ ,po/ulate1 s9ce x h>monises ) a =mal condition ( exp]i5ce1 namely1 space4 ,?is is true only if x be grant$ t con/ruction 9 space c be execut$ absolutely a priori1 9 indep5d5ce ( all s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,su* is1 ( c\rse1 ,kant's mo/ usual view2 & to t ext5t ! argum5t is consi/5t4 ,ma!matical concepts w f ?is po9t ( view repres5t ! only possible exception to ! g5]al /atem5t t ! =mal conditions ( exp]i5ce con/itute a crit]ion ( possibility = no concepts save !mselves4 ,kant's f9al conclusion is cle>ly & explicitly /at$ 9 ! foll[+ t]ms3 8,i leave aside ev]y?+ ! possibility ( :i* c be d]iv$ only f its reality 9 exp]i5ce1 & h "h 9 view only ! possibility ( ?+s ?r\gh a priori concepts2 & ,i ma9ta9 ! !sis t ! possibility ( su* ?+s c nev] be e/abli%$ f su* concepts tak5 9 & by !mselves1 b only :5 !y are view$ z =mal & objective conditions ( exp]i5ce 9 g5]al40#abfg ,we are n[ 9 a position to appreciate ! reasons :i* h induc$ ,adickes to reg>d ! text z ( composite orig94#abfh ,adickes argues t ,kant's orig9al int5tion 0 to treat ! ?ree concepts toge!r1 %[+ t !y c be def9$ only 9 empirical t]ms1 & t _! significance is consequ5tly limit$ to ! _w ( appe>ance4 ,su* is ! cont5t ( ! fir/1 second1 f\r? 7except+ ! fir/ s5t5ce71 & fif? p>agraphs4 ,no attempt is made to sep>ate ! ?ree ,po/ulates1 & ! t]m possibility is ?r\gh\t employ$ exclusively z ref]r+ to objective reality4 7,9 ! ?ird p>agraph x is us$ 9 bo? s5ses47 ,! o!r p>agraphs 71 accord+ to ,adickes' !ory1 add$ lat]1 :5 ,kant un=tunately resolv$ to fulfil m exactly ! requirem5ts ( 8 ar*itectonic4 ,t involv$ ! =mulation ( ?ree sep>ate ,po/ulates1 ) all ! _m evil consequ5ces :i* t attempt c>ri$ 9 its tra94 ,he mu/ !n h int]polat$ ! ?ird p>agraph1 add$ ! fir/ s5t5ce to ! f\r? p>agraph1 correct$ ! too ext5sive sweep ( ! old] p>agraphs ?r\gh ! introduction ( ! six? p>agraph1 fur!r supplem5t$ ! exposition ( ! fir/ ,po/ulate by ! sev5? p>agraph1 & add$ indep5d5t treatm5ts ( ! po/ulates ( actuality & necessity4 ,?is may seem a v complicat$ & haz>d\s hypo!sis2 b c>eful exam9ation ( ! text1 ) due recognition ( ! confus$ "* ( ! argum5t z x /&s1 w probably conv9ce ! read] t ,adickes is 9 ! "r4 ,second ,po/ulate4#abfi--,p]ception is necess>y to all det]m9ation ( actuality4 ,! actual is ei!r itself giv5 9 p]ception or c be %[n1 9 accordance ) ! ,analogies1 to /& )9 ! unity ( objective exp]i5ce1 9 connection ) :at is ?us giv54 ,s long z ,kant expresses himself 9 ^! t]ms 8 /atem5ts are entirely valid4 ,no?+ :i* _c be %[n to be b\nd up ) ! cont+5t mat]ial ( s5se-exp]i5ce c be admitt$ z actual4 ,he proce$s1 h[ev]1 to give a def9ition ( actuality :i* entirely omits all ref]5ce to ! ,analogies1 & :i* is op5 to ! same fundam5tal criticism z 8 *>act]isation ( possibility 9 ! fir/ ,po/ulate4 ,?\gh ! e>li] /atem5ts give due recognition bo? to ! mat]ial cont5t & to ! relational =ms con/itutive ( complete exp]i5ce1 ,kant n[ contra/s ! m]e or b>e 7bloss]7 concept & ! giv5 p]ception 9 a mann] :i* sugge/s ! un=tunate di/9ction drawn 9 ! ,prolegom5a1 & repeat$ 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique1 betwe5 judgm5ts ( p]ception & judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce4#abgj ,kant's ref]5ce to 8! m]e concept ( a ?+0#abga is on ! same l9es z ! op5+ p>agraph ( ! section4 ,h[ev] complete ! concept may be1 x yields n ! lea/ gr\nd = decid+ z to ! exi/5ce ( its object4 ,kant's ?9k+1 z ,i h already po9t$ out1 is "h p]v]t$ by ! cont9u+ influ5ce ( ! ,leibnizian rationalism4 ,he is =gett+ t1 on ,critical pr9ciples1 ev5 ! categories are mean+less except 9 _! ref]5ce to ! cont+5tly giv54 ,if t be true ( ! /rictly a priori1 x mu/ hold ) ev5 great] =ce ( empirical concepts ) s5su\s cont5t4 ,z ! sole legitimate function ( concepts1 :e!r a priori or empirical1 is to organise & unify ! mat]ial ( s5se1 !re c be no su* ?+ z ! m]e or b>e concept4 ,su* a comb9ation ( words is )\t ,critical significance4 ,a concept z su* mu/ ref] to1 & embody insight into1 ! real4 ,only 9 proportion to its incomplet5ess1 t is1 to its indef9it5ess1 c x rema9 )\t specific & q det]m9ate location )9 ! context ( unifi$ exp]i5ce4 ,x may1 inde$1 be f\nd conv5i5t to reta9 ! phrase 8m]e concept0 not)/&+ its mislead+ "* & rationali/ic orig94 ,x mu/1 h[ev]1 be us$ only to m>k ! indef9it5ess1 indet]m9at5ess1 or incomplet5ess :i* prev5ts x f adequately reveal+ ! d5otation to :i* ?r\gh ! nature ( its cont5t x necess>ily ref]s4 ,mean+ & exi/5ce1 connotation & d5otation1 are complem5t>y ! "o to ! o!r1 & ?\gh n1 p]haps1 coext5sive 7if t t]m has itself mean+ 9 ?is connection71 are none ! less insep>ably conjo9$4 ,:5 ,kant's utt]ances1 z frequ5tly happ5s1 imply ! contr>y1 !y may be tak5 z reveal+ ! /r5g? & insidi\s t5acity ( ! influ5ces f :i* he 0 suffici5tly c\rage\s1 b n always suffici5tly wat*ful1 to break away4 ,! doctr9e ( ! 8m]e concept0 f9ds its natural supplem5t 9 ! equally un-,critical ass]tion t 8444p]ception evid5tly employ$ 9 ! less pregnant s5se1 z signify+ #8s5sation accompani$ by consci\sness'1 :i* supplies ! mat]ial to ! concept1 is ! sole "* ( actuality40#abgb ,?is same position is express$ equally /rongly by ,kant 9 8 ,reflexion5 7ii4 #ajie74 8,possibility is ?\ght )\t be+ giv52 actuality is giv5 )\t be+ ?\ght2 necessity is giv5 ?r\gh be+ ?\ght40 ,su* /atem5ts are entirely out ( h>mony ) ,kant's c5tral tea*+4 ,!re is no lack ( passages 9 ! ,critique :i* inculcate ! direct contr>y4 ,?\gh ! elem5t ( s5sation is a s9e qua non ( all exp]i5ce ( ! actual1 ! =mal elem5ts are no less indisp5sable4 ,9 _! abs5ce ! m]ely giv5 w\ld r$uce to less ?an a dream2 = ev5 9 dreams images are int]pret$ & are ref]r$ to "s connect$ context4 ,! giv51 m]ely z su*1 _c ent] ! field ( consci\sness1 & is !re=e 8= u z good z no?+40 ,z ,caird has po9t$ out1 we f9d 9 ,kant 8444two app>5tly contradictory =ms ( expression--7#a7 t ! und]/&+ by means ( its conceptions ref]s our preceptions to objects1 & 7#b7 t conceptions are ref]r$ to objects only indirectly ?r\gh p]ceptions4 ,! =m] mode ( expression is pref]r$ :5ev] ,kant has to %[ t #8p]ceptions )\t conceptions are bl9d'2 ! latt] :5 he has to %[ t #8conceptions )\t p]ceptions are empty4'0#abgc 8,we c und]/& ! possibility ( ,kant's look+ at ! subject 9 ^! two opposite ways1 only if we rememb] ! reciprocal presupposition ( p]ception & conception 9 ! judgm5t ( k1 & ! way 9 :i* ,kant tries to expla9 x1 n[ f ! po9t ( view ( p]ception1 & n[ f ! po9t ( view ( conception4 ,! effect ( ?is is1 no d\bt1 a =mal contradiction :i* ,kant himself nev] dis5tangles1 b :i* we mu/ endeav\r to dis5tangle1 if we w\ld d ju/ice to him40#abgd ,! "o-sid$ness ( ,kant's def9ition ( actuality is c]ta9ly due to ! cause sugge/$ by ,caird4 ,! def9ition1 not)/&+ its mislead+ "*1 s]ves to en=ce aga9/ ! old] rationalism1 ) :i* ,kant ?r\gh\t ?is section is almo/ exclusively conc]n$1 ! c5tral t5et ?r\gh :i* ! ,critical tea*+ is di/+ui%$ f t ( ,leibniz1 namely1 t nei!r exi/5ce1 possibility1 nor necessity1 c be e/abli%$ save by ref]5ce to ! cont+5t nature ( ! s5su\sly giv54 ,pro( by ref]5ce to ! possibility ( exp]i5ce c e/abli% only ^? conditions :i* c be %[n to be de facto necess>y 9 ord] t consci\sness ( "t may be acc\nt$ =4 ,! =mal conditions ( exp]i5ce1 :i* 9 & by !mselves are det]m9able nei!r z actual nor z possible1 are e/abli%$ z actual1 & s z necess>y1 by ref]5ce to ! m]ely giv52 !y are necess>y only 9 ?is m]ely relative fa%ion1 z be+ indisp5sable to :at c nev] itself be view$ z o!r ?an cont+5t4 8,our k ( ! exi/5ce ( ?+s rea*es1 !n1 only s f> z p]ception & its cont9uation accord+ to laws ( nature c ext5d4 ,if we d n />t f exp]i5ce1 or d n proce$ accord+ to laws ( ! empirical connection ( appe>ances1 our guess+ or enquir+ into ! exi/5ce ( any?+ w only be an idle pret5ce40#abge ,polemically1 !re=e1 ,kant's =mulation ( ! second ,po/ulate is n )\t its advantages1 ?\gh f ! inn] /&po9t ( ,critical tea*+ x is altoge!r inadequate4 ,= comm5t ^u ,a #bbf ,b #bgc1 & ^u ! g5]al tea*+ ( ?is ,po/ulate 9 its important be>+ ^u ,kant's ph5om5alism1 cf4 above1 pp4 #cah-ai4 ,b #bgd-i4--,refutation ( ,idealism1 cf4 above1 p4 #cjh ff4 99 99 99 99 99 ,?ird ,po/ulate4#abgf--;,9 ! op5+ s5t5ce ,kant draws ! di/9ction :i* 0 lack+ 9 8 treatm5t ( ! fir/ ,po/ulate betwe5 #8mat]ial' & #8=mal' modality4 7,no di/9ction1 h[ev]1 is drawn betwe5 ! #8=mal' possibility ( ! fir/ ,po/ulate & logical possibility1 :i* consi/s 9 abs5ce ( contradiction47 ,x is ) ! =m] alone t we h to deal4 ,z exi/5ce _c be det]m9$ completely a priori1 necessity c nev] be kn[n f concepts1 b only by ref]5ce to ! actually giv51 9 accordance ) ! univ]sal pr9ciples t condition exp]i5ce4 ,fur!r1 s9ce su* empirical necessity does n conc]n ! exi/5ce ( sub/ances1 b only ! exi/5ce ( _! /ates1 view$ z dynamically caus$1 ! crit]ion ( empirical necessity r$uces to ! second ,analogy1 viz4 t ev]y?+ :i* happ5s is det]m9$ by an antec$5t empirical cause4 ,?is crit]ion does n ext5d beyond ! field ( possible exp]i5ce1 & ev5 )9 t field applies only to ^? exi/5ces :i* c be view$ z effects1 i4e4 z ev5ts :i* come into exi/5ce 9 "t1 & ( :i* !re=e ! causes are ( ! same temporal & condition$ "*4 ,! necessity is a hypo!tical necessity2 giv5 an empirical ev5t1 x c always be legitimately view$ z necessitat$ by an antec$5t empirical cause4 ,kant introduces1 re9t]prets1 & 9 ?is alt]$ =m pr(esses to ju/ify1 f\r ( ! c5tral pr9ciples ( ! ,leibnizian metaphysics4 ,9 mundo non datur casus gives expression to ! above empirical pr9ciple4 ,non datur fatum may be tak5 z mean+ t natural 7i4e4 empirical7 necessity is a condition$ & !re=e compreh5sible necessity1 & is consequ5tly n rightly describ$ z bl9d4 ,! o!r two pr9ciples1 non datur saltus1 & non datur hiatus connect ) ! pr9ciple ( cont9uity already e/abli%$ 9 ! ,anticipations ( ,p]ception & 9 ! second ,analogy4 ,kant's fur!r rem>ks reveal an uneasy feel+ t he is neglect+ to assign ^! pr9ciples to ! pigeon-holes provid$ 9 8 ar*itectonic4 ,! read]1 he /ates1 may easily d s = himself4 ,t may be s1 b only if ! read] be p]mitt$ ! same high-h&$ me?ods ( adju/m5t t are "h illu/rat$ 9 ,kant's location ( non datur fatum ) ! pr9ciples ( modality4#abgg ,9 ! next p>agraph 7,a #bcj ,b #bhb7 ,kant sudd5ly1 )\t w>n+ or explanation1 atta*es to ! t]m possibility a mean+ altoge!r diff]5t f any yet assign$ to x4 ,he n[ takes x z equival5t to ! absolutely or metaphysically possible4 ,comb9+ ?is ) ! mean+s previ\sly giv5 to x by ,kant we obta9 ! foll[+ table3-- ,logical3 equival5t to abs5ce ( contradiction4 ,empirical3 9 ! wid] s5se1 equival5t to agreem5t ) ! =mal conditions ( exp]i5ce2 9 ! n>r[] ,possibilityor /rict] s5se1 involv+ 9 addition ! capacity ( be+ pres5t$ 9 s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,metaphysical3 equival5t to absolute possibility1 a conception n ( und]/&+ b ( ,reason4 ,:5 ?is la/ mean+ is giv5 to ! t]m1 an entirely new set ( problems arises1 to ! confusion ( ! read] :o v prop]ly cont9ues to employ ! t]m possibility 9 ! empirical s5se :i*1 z ,kant has be5 insi/+1 is alone legitimate4 ,kant has tempor>ily *ang$ ov] to ! /&po9t ( ! metaphysical view :i* he has be5 criticis+1 & accord+ly uses ! t]m #8possibility' 9 ! ,leibnizian s5se4 ,is ,leibniz1 he asks1 ju/ifi$ 9 ma9ta9+ t ! field ( ! possible is wid] ?an ! realm ( ! actual1 & ! latt] 9 turn wid] 9 ext5t ?an ! necess>y8 ,9 reply ,kant accepts ! metaphysical mean+ assign$ to ! t]m #8possibility1' b re/ates ! problem 9 ,critical fa%ion4 ,d all ?+s belong z appe>ances to ! context ( a s+le exp]i5ce1 or are o!r types ( exp]i5ce possible8 ,d o!r =ms ( intuition besides space & "t1 o!r =ms ( und]/&+ besides ! discursive ?r\gh concepts1 come )9 ! range ( ! possible8 ,^! are que/ions :i* fall to be answ]$1 n by ! m]e und]/&+1 ! sole function ( :i* is empirical1 b by ,reason1 :i* transc5ds ! _w ( appe>ance4 ,kant introduces ^! que/ions1 z he is c>eful to /ate1#abgh only because !y are curr5tly believ$ to be )9 ! compet5ce ( ! und]/&+2 & he n[ = ! fir/ "t po9ts out t possibility1 9 ?is s5se1 means absolute possibility1 t :i* is indep5d5t ( all limit+ conditions1 a mean+ rul$ out by ! prec$+ treatm5t ( ! modal categories4 ,l all o!r absolute conceptions1 x belongs to ,reason1 & mu/ !re=e await treatm5t 9 ! ,dialectic4 ,^! admissions come1 h[ev]1 only aft] ! discussion has be5 complet$4 ,_h ,kant rev]s$ ! ord] ( ! two p>agraphs :i* con/itute ?is digression1 & m>k$ !m (f z be+ a digression1 he w\ld h greatly assi/$ ! read] 9 foll[+ ! argum5t4 ,kant adds a refutation ( ! m]ely logical argum5ts by :i* ,leibniz _h pr(ess$ to e/abli% ! priority & great] scope ( ! possible4 ,f ! proposition1 ev]y?+ actual is possible1 we c inf] by imm$iate inf]5ce t "s possible ?+s are actual4 ,t1 h[ev]1 w\ld seem to imply t "p ( ! possible is n actual1 & t some?+ mu/ be add$ to ! possible 9 ord] to con/itute ! actual4 ,b ?is1 ,kant replies1 is obvi\sly an unt5able view4 ,! some?+ additional to ! possible1 n be+ itself possible1 we %\ld be con/ra9$ to reg>d z impossible4 ,= our und]/&+1#abgi ! possible is t :i* connects ) "s p]ception 9 agreem5t ) ! =mal conditions ( exp]i5ce4 7,kant "h gives ! correct ,critical def9ition ( ! possible1 by comb9+ ! two fir/ po/ulates47 ,:e!r1 & h[ f>1 o!r exi/5ces beyond ! field ( s5se exp]i5ce are possible1 we h no means ( decid+4 ,b #bhh-bid4--,?is second edition section emphasises ! fact t possibility _c be det]m9$ ?r\gh ! categories alone1 b only ?r\gh ! categories 9 _! relation to intuition1 & inde$ to out] intuition4 ,possibility is ?r\gh\t tak5 z ref]r+ to objective reality4 ,! section is *iefly important 9 connection ) ! problems be>+ on ! relation ( inn] & out] s5se & on ! nature ( our consci\sness ( "t4#abhj ,9 ,b #bhi-ia ,kant criticises ^? rationali/ic argum5ts :i* re/ ^u ! equat+ ( necessity ( ?\ght ) necessity ( exi/5ce4 ,:5 x is s\ght by m]e analysis ( concepts to prove t all accid5tal exi/5ce has a cause1 ! mo/ t c be %[n is t ! exi/5ce ( ! accid5tal _c be compreh5d$ by u1 unless ! exi/5ce ( a cause be assum$4 ,b we may n argue t a condition ( possible und]/&+ is likewise a condition ( possible exi/5ce4#abha ,:at is or is n possible = ?\ght is1 )\t special pro(1 no suffici5t crit]ion ( :at is or is n possible 9 ! real4 ,if1 aga91 ! t]m accid5tal be tak5 z mean+ t :i* c exi/ only z a consequ5ce ( "s o!r exi/5ce1 ! g5]al pr9ciple becomes m]ely analytic1 & mu/ n be tak5 z e/abli%+ ! syn!tic pr9ciple ( causality4 ,! latt] dem&s transc5d5tal pro( by ref]5ce to ! possibility ( cont+5t exp]i5ce4 ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,on ,,! ,,gr\nd ,,( ,,! ,,di/9ction ,,( ,,all ,,objects ,,:atev] ,,into ,,ph5om5a ,,& ,,n\m5a ,?is *apt]1 z ,kant himself /ates1#abhb c yield no new results4 ,x w s]ve m]ely to summ>ise ^? already e/abli%$ 9 ! ,analytic1 %[+ h[ !y "o & all conv]ge ^u a conclusion ( supreme importance = und]/&+ ! nature & scope ( human exp]i5ce--! conclusion1 t ?\gh ! objective employm5t ( ! categories c be ju/ifi$ only )9 ! realm ( s5se-exp]i5ces1 !y h a wid] significance :]eby !y def9e a di/9ction betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,?is is ! conclusion :i* ,kant n[ sets himself to illu/rate & en=ce 9 some:at great] detail4 ,x may be obs]v$ t ! title ( ! *apt] makes m5tion only ( gr\nds = di/+ui%+ betwe5 ph5om5a & n\m5a4 ,t ?+s 9 !mselves really exi/1 ,kant1 z we %all f9d1 nev] s]i\sly ?\ght ( que/ion+4 ,kant beg9s by recall+ a ma9 po9t 9 ! prec$+ argum5t4 ,! categories ap>t f ! manifold ( s5sibility are m]ely logical functions )\t cont5t4#abhc ,?\gh a priori1 !y require to be supplem5t$ ?r\gh empirical intuition4 8,ap>t f ?is relation to possible exp]i5ce !y h no objective validity ( any sort1 b are a m]e play ( ! imag9ation or ! und]/&+ ) _! respective repres5tations40#abhd ,z evid5ce ( ! tru? ( ?is conclusion ,kant n[ adds a fur!r argum5t1 namely1 ! impossibility ( def9+ ! categories except 9 t]ms t involve ref]5ce to ! conditions ( s5sibility4#abhe ,:5 ^! conditions are omitt$1 ! categories are )\t relation to any object & consequ5tly )\t mean+4 ,!y are no long] concepts ( possible empirical employm5t1 b only ( 8?+s 9 g5]al40 ,:51 = in/ance1 ! p]man5ce ( exi/5ce 9 "t1 :i* is ! condition ( ! empirical application ( ! concept ( sub/ance1 is omitt$1 ! category r$uces m]ely to ! notion ( some?+ t is always a subject & nev] a pr$icate4 8,b n only am ,i ignorant ( all conditions "u :i* ?is logical pre-em95ce may belong to any?+1 ,i c nei!r put su* a concept to any use nor draw ! lea/ inf]5ce f x4 ,= "u ^! conditions no object is det]m9$ = its employm5t1 & consequ5tly we d n at all "k :e!r x signifies any?+ :atsoev]40#abhf ,9 ab/raction f s5se-data1 ! categories /ill rema9 z concepts or ?\ghts1 logically possible2 b t is n to be tak5 z signify+ t !y /ill cont9ue to possess mean+1 i4e4 ref]5ce to an object4#abhg ,& 9 ! abs5ce ( asc]ta9able mean+ !y _c1 ( c\rse1 be def9$4 ,9 ,a #bddabhh ,kant /ates 8 position 9 some:at diff]5t fa%ion4 ,9 ab/raction f s5se ! categories h mean+1 b n det]m9ate mean+2 !y relate n to any specific object1 b only to ?+s 9 g5]al4 ,9 ?is latt] ref]5ce1 h[ev]1 !y possess no objective validity1 s9ce 9 ! abs5ce ( intuition !re is no means ( decid+ :e!r or n any real exi/5ce actually corresponds to !m4 ,b :i*ev] mode ( /atem5t be adopt$1 ! same conclusion foll[s4 8,accord+ly1 ! transc5d5tal ,analytic has ?is important result1 t ! mo/ ! und]/&+ c a*ieve a priori is to anticipate ! =m ( a possible exp]i5ce 9 g5]al4 ,& s9ce t :i* is n appe>ance _c be an object ( exp]i5ce1 ! und]/&+ c nev] transc5d ^? limits ( s5sibility )9 :i* alone objects are giv5 to u4 ,its pr9ciples are m]ely rules = ! exposition ( appe>ances2 & ! pr\d title ( an ,ontology1 :i* presumptu\sly claims to supply1 9 sy/ematic doctr9al =m1 syn!tic a priori k ( ?+s 9 g5]al 7e4g4 ! pr9ciple ( causality71 mu/ !re=e give place to ! mode/ claims ( a m]e ,analytic ( pure und]/&+40#abhi ,a #bdh-iabij op5s a new l9e ( argum5t :i* />ts f ! results obta9$ 9 ! ,ae/hetic4 ,! pro( t space & "t are subjective =ms e/abli%es ! m]ely ph5om5al "* ( ev]y?+ :i* c be appreh5d$ 9 & ?r\gh !m1 & is mean+less except on ! assumption t ?+s 9 !mselves exi/4 ,?is assumption1 ,kant argues1 is already involv$ 9 ! v ^w #8appe>ance1' & unless x be grant$1 our ?9k+ w revolve 9 a p]petual circle4#abia ,b1 he proce$s1 ?is conclusion may easily be mis9t]pret$4 ,x might be tak5 z prov+ ! objective reality ( n\m5a1 & z ju/ify+ u 9 ma9ta9+ a di/9ction betwe5 ! s5sible & ! intelligible worlds1 & !re=e 9 ass]t+ t :]eas ! =m] is ! object ( intuition1 ! latt] is appreh5d$ by ! und]/&+ 9 pure ?\ght4 ,we %\ld !n be argu+ t ?\gh 9 exp]i5ce ?+s are kn[n only z !y appe>1 ?r\gh pure und]/&+ a nobl] _w ?an t ( s5se1 8e9e ,welt im ,gei/e g$a*t10 is op5$ to our view4 ,b any su* int]pretation1 ,kant insi/s1 runs directly c\nt] to ! tea*+ ( ! ,analytic1 & is rul$ out by ! conclusions to :i* x has l$4 ,categories yield only 8rules = ! exposition ( appe>ances10 & _c be ext5d$ beyond ! field ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,x is true t all our s5se-repres5tations are relat$ by ! und]/&+ to an object t is 8transc5d5tal40 ,b t object1 9 its transc5d5tal aspect1 signifies only a some?+ x4 ,x _c be ?\ght ap>t f ! s5se-data :i* are ref]r$ to x4 ,:5 we attempt to isolate x1 & s to conceive x 9 its indep5d5t nature1 no?+ rema9s ?r\gh :i* x c be ?\ght4 8,x is n 9 itself an object ( k1 b only ! repres5tation ( appe>ances "u ! concept ( an object 9 g5]al1 view$ z det]m9able ?r\gh ! manifold ( ^? appe>ances40 ,kant is "h aga9 exp\nd+ 8 e>ly doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4#abib ,evid5tly1 at ! "t at :i* ?is passage 0 writt51 he _h n yet come to realise t su* tea*+ is n 9 h>mony ) 8 ,critical pr9ciples4 ,x is1 z we h se5 above1 a comb9ation ( subjectivism & ( dogmatic rationalism4#abic ,! v po9t :i* he "h *iefly /resses 0 b\nd1 h[ev]1 :5 consi/5tly foll[$ out1 to reveal ! unt5abl5ess ( ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object2 & 9 ! second edition ,kant s reca/ ?is *apt] on ph5om5a & n\m5a z to elim9ate all passages 9 :i* ! transc5d5tal object is ref]r$ to4#abid ,b to return to ,kant's own argum5t3 ! reason :y ! m9d is 8n satisfi$ ) ?is sub/rate ( s5sibility10#abie & !re=e proce$s to duplicate ! ph5om5al _w by a second _w ( n\m5a1 lies 9 ! "* ( ! ag5cy :]eby s5sibility is limit$4 ,s5sibility is limit$ by ! und]/&+2 & ! und]/&+1 ov]e/imat+ its p[]s & pr]ogatives1 proce$s to trans=m ! notion ( ! transc5d5tal object x into ! concept ( a n\m5on1 view$ 9 a mann] con=mable to its etymological significance1 z some?+ appreh5d$ by reason or pure intuition1 i4e4 z intuit$ 9 "s non-s5su\s fa%ion4 ,= only by po/ulat+ ! possibility ( a non-s5su\s species ( intuition1 c ! notion ( a n\m5on1 ?us positively conceiv$1 be sav$ f self-contradiction4 ,o!rwise we %\ld be ass]t+ ! appreh5sion ( an object indep5d5tly ( appe>ances1 & yet at ! same "t d5y+ ! only means ?r\gh :i* su* appreh5sion is possible4 ,/atem5t ( ! po/ulate suffices1 h[ev]1 to reveal its unsupport$ "*4 ,we h no su* p[] ( non-s5su\s1 intuitive appreh5sion2#abif nor c we 9 any way prove t su* a p[] is possible ev5 9 a ,div9e ,be+4 ,?\gh1 !re=e1 ! concept ( n\m5a is n self-contradictory1 x involves m ?an we h ! "r to ass]t2 ! process :]eby ! empty notion ( a transc5d5tal object x is trans=m$ into ! positive concept ( a n\m5on is easily compreh5sible1#abig b x is none ! less illegitimate4 ,we mu/1 ,kant insi/s1 keep /rict hold ( ! c5tral doctr9e ( ,critical tea*+1 namely1 t ! categories are applicable only to ! data ( s5se4 ,we c /ill employ !m z pure logical functions1 yield+ ! notion ( objects 9 g5]al 7( ! transc5d5tal object x74 ,b ?is does n wid5 ! sph]e ( kn[n exi/5ces4 ,x only enables u to compreh5d ! limit$ & m]ely ph5om5al "* ( ! _w exp]i5c$4 ,at ?is po9t#abih ,kant's argum5t takes a /range & mislead+ turn4 ,! concept ( object 9 g5]al 7! transc5d5tal object x7 has be5 prov$ to be involv$ 9 ! appreh5sion ( appe>ances z appe>ances1 & 9 ?is capacity to be a limit+ concept 7,gr5zbegriff71 :i*1 ?\gh negative 9 function1 is indisp5sably involv$ 9 ! con/itution ( human exp]i5ce4 ,n[1 h[ev]1 ,kant proce$s to ascribe ?is function to ! concept ( ! n\m5on4 ,t concept is1 he repeats1 purely problematic4 ,ev5 ! m]e possibility ( its object1 presuppos+ z x does ! possibility ( an und]/&+ capable ?r\gh non-s5su\s intuition ( appreh5d+ x1 we h no "r to ass]t4 ,t ! concept is n self-contradictory is ! mo/ t we c say ( x4 ,none ! less1 x is to ?is concept t ,kant "h ascribes ! indisp5sable limit+ function4 8,! concept ( a n\m5on is a m]ely limit+ concept1 ! function ( :i* is to curb ! pret5sions ( s5sibility2 & x is !re=e only ( negative employm5t4 ,at ! same "t x is no arbitr>y inv5tion1 & x is b\nd up ) ! limitation ( s5sibility1 ?\gh x _c affirm any?+ positive beyond ! field ( s5sibility40#abii ,?is confusion1 betwe5 ! concept ( a n\m5on & ! less def9ite concept ( object 9 g5]al1 :i* is probably due to ! comb9+ ( manuscripts ( diff]5t dates1 is correct$ 9 ! second edition by means ( a new di/9ction :i* ,kant introduces1 evid5tly = ?is v purpose4 ,! t]m n\m5on may1 he !re says1#acjj be us$ ei!r positively or negatively4 ,tak5 positively1 x signifies 8an object ( a non-s5su\s intuition02 reg>d$ negatively1 x means only 8a ?+ s f> z x is n an object ( our s5su\s intuition40 ,only 9 its negative employm5t1 he /ates1 is x requir$ z a limit+ concept2 & x is !n1 z he recognises1 indi/+ui%able f ! notion ( ! unkn[n ?+ 9 itself4 ,b despite ?is v>iation 9 mode ( expression1 9 ! ma9 ,kant holds consi/5tly to 8 fundam5tal tea*+4 8444und]/&+ is n limit$ ?r\gh s5sibility2 on ! contr>y1 x itself limits s5sibility by apply+ ! t]m n\m5a to ?+s 9 !mselves 7?+s n reg>d$ z appe>ances74 ,b 9 s do+ x at ! same "t sets limits to itself1 recognis+ t x _c "k ^! n\m5a ?r\gh any ( ! categories1 & t x mu/ !re=e ?9k !m only "u ! title ( an unkn[n some?+40#acja ,or z ,kant adds 9 ! conclud+ s5t5ce ( ?is *apt]3 8444! problematic ?\ght :i* leaves op5 a place = intelligible objects1 s]ves only1 l an empty space1 = ! limitation ( empirical pr9ciples1 )\t itself conta9+ or reveal+ any o!r object ( k beyond _! sph]e40 ,a s5t5ce 9 ,a #beh ,b #cad des]ves special notice4 8444we c nev] "k :e!r su* a transc5d5tal or exceptional k is possible "u any conditions1 lea/ ( all if x is to be reg>d$ z ( ! sort t /&s "u our ord9>y categories40 ,?is s5t5ce cle>ly %[s t ,kant 0 will+ to recognise t ! categories may be inapplicable1 n m]ely ow+ to lack ( data = _! specification1 b because ( _! inh]5t "*4 ,!y may be intr9sically inapplicable1 express+ only ! modi ( our self-consci\sness4 ,!y may be m]ely ! in/rum5ts ( our human ?9k+1 n =ms necess>y to k z su*4 ,,relevant ,,passages ,,9 ,,! ,,section ,,on ,,amphiboly ,be=e pass+ to consid]ation ( ! ext5sive alt]ations made 9 ?is *apt] 9 ! second edition1 x is advisable to take acc\nt ( ! two passages deal+ ) ?is problem 9 ! fir/ edition section on ,amphiboly3 namely1 ,a #bgg-bhj ,b #ccc-f1 & ,a #bhe-i ,b #cdb-f4 ,! fir/ ( ^! passages is ( great int]e/ 9 o!r connections2#acjb its *ief importance 9 ref]5ce to ! pres5t problem lies 9 its conclud+ p>agraph4 ,kant !re decl>es t ! repres5tation ( an object 8z ?+ 9 g5]al0 is n only1 9 ! abs5ce ( specific data1 insuffici5t = ! det]m9ation ( an object1 b is self-contradictory4 ,= we mu/ ei!r ab/ract f all ref]5ce to an object1 & s be left ) a m]ely logical repres5tation2 or1 9 assum+ an object1 we mu/ po/ulate a special =m ( intuition :i* we d n ourselves possess1 & :i* !re=e we _c employ 9 =m+ our concept ( ! object4 ,"h aga9 ,kant is sub/itut+ ! concept ( a n\m5on = ! less def9ite concept ( ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,?is is /ill m explicitly done 9 ! second passage4 ,! pure categories are1 ,kant !re decl>es1 incapable ( yield+ ! concept ( an object4 ,ap>t f ! data ( s5se !y h no relation to any object4 ,z purely logical functions1 !y are altoge!r lack+ 9 cont5t or mean+4 ,by objects z ?+s 9 !mselves we mu/ !re=e mean objects ( a non-s5su\s intuition4#acjc ,kant /ill1 inde$1 cont9ues to ma9ta9 t to !m ! categories d n apply1 & t we _c1 !re=e1 h any k ( !m1 ei!r intuitional or conceptual4 8,ev5 if we assume a non-s5su\s =m ( intuition1 our functions ( ?\ght w\ld /ill h no mean+ 9 ref]5ce to x40#acjd ,b ,kant n[ insi/s t ! notion ( n\m5a1 view$ 9 ! above mann]1 diff]s f ! notion ( 8objects 9 g5]al0 7transc5d5tal x7 9 be+ a legitimate non-contradictory conception2 & he also insi/s t ?\gh m positive 9 cont5t1 x is = t v reason less op5 to misund]/&+4 ,its function is n to ext5d our k1 b m]ely to limit x4 8,= x m]ely says t our species ( intuition does n ext5d to all ?+s1 b only to objects ( our s5ses2 t its objective validity is consequ5tly limit$2 & t a place !re=e rema9s op5 = "s o!r species ( intuition1 & s = ?+s z its objects40#acje ,! concept ( a n\m5on1 z ?us employ$ to signify ! objects ( a non-s5su\s intuition1 is1 ,kant proce$s1 m]ely problematic4 ,z we h nei!r intuition nor 7x may be7 categories fitt$ = its appreh5sion1 x repres5ts some?+ ^u ! possibility or impossibility ( :i* we are q unable to pron\nce4 8444z ! problematic concept ( an object = a q diff]5t intuition & a q diff]5t und]/&+ ?an ours1 x is itself a problem40 ,we may n !re=e ass]t ! exi/5ce ( n\m5a1 b we mu/ none ! less =m to ourselves ! concept ( !m4 ,?is concept is indisp5sably involv$ 9 ! con/itution ( our empirical k1 & is dem&$ = its prop] int]pretation4 ,only :5 view$ z a self-suffici5t repres5tation ( an absolute exi/5ce does x become dogmatic & !re=e illegitimate4 ,9 its ,critical aspects x /&s = a problem :i* human reason is con/ra9$ by its v nature to prop\nd4 8,! concept ( ! n\m5on is1 !re=e1 n ! concept ( an object1 b is a problem unavoidably b\nd up ) ! limitation ( our s5sibility--! problem1 namely1 z to :e!r !re may n be objects entirely dis5gag$ f our s5su\s species ( intuition4 ,?is is a "q :i* c only be answ]$ 9 an indet]m9ate mann]1 by say+ t1 z s5se intuition does n ext5d to all ?+s )\t di/9ction1 a place rema9s op5 = o!r diff]5t objects2 & consequ5tly t ^! latt] mu/ n be absolutely d5i$1 ?\gh--s9ce we are )\t a det]m9ate concept ( !m 7inasmu* z no category c s]ve t purpose7--nei!r c !y be ass]t$ z objects = our und]/&+40#acjf ,! fact t ^! fundam5tal concepts h n yet be5 q def9itely & precisely =mulat$ 9 ,kant's own m9d1 appe>s v cle>ly f ! imm$iately foll[+ p>agraph4 ,= he !re aga9 introduces ! concept ( ! transc5d5tal object1 & adds t if 8we are pleas$ to "n x n\m5on = ! reason t its repres5tation is n s5su\s1 we are free s to d40#acjg ,! *>act]isation giv5 9 ?is p>agraph ( ! transc5d5tal object des]ves special notice1 = 9 x ,kant goes fur!r 9 ! sceptical expression ( 8 position1 ?\gh n inde$ 9 ! modification ( x1 ?an 9 any o!r passage4 0,! und]/&+ 9 limit+ s5sibility ?9ks = itself an object 9 itself1 b only z transc5d5tal object :i* is ! cause ( appe>ance & !re=e n itself appe>ance1 & :i* c be ?\ght nei!r z quantity nor z reality nor z sub/ance1 etc4444 ,we are completely ignorant :e!r x is to be met ) 9 u or outside u1 :e!r x w\ld be at once remov$ ) ! cessation ( s5sibility1 or :e!r 9 ! abs5ce ( s5sibility x w\ld /ill rema940#acjh ,?is s5t5ce reveals ,kant z at once hold+ unque/ion+ly to ! exi/5ce ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 & yet at ! same "t z tea*+ t !y mu/ n be conceiv$ 9 t]ms ( ! categories1 n ev5 ( ! categories ( reality & exi/5ce4 ,,alt]ations ,,9 ,,second ,,edition ,9 ! second edition c]ta9 p>agraphs ( ! *apt] on ,ph5om5a & ,n\m5a are omitt$1 & new p>agraphs are ins]t$ to take _! place4 ,?\gh ^! alt]ations d n give adequate expression to ! ,critical tea*+ 9 its mature/ =m1 !re are ?ree important respects 9 :i* !y indicate dep>tures f ! tea*+ ( ! fir/ edition4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ^? p>agraphs 9 :i* ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object f9ds expression are entirely elim9at$1 & ! phrase #8transc5d5tal object' is no long] employ$4 ,?is1 z we h already not$1 is 9 h>mony ) ! *anges simil>ly made 9 ! second edition ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction & ,p>alogisms4#acji ,secondly1 ,kant is ev5 m emphatic ?an 9 ! fir/ edition1 t ! categories mu/ n be employ$ save 9 ref]5ce to s5se intuitions4 ,9 ! fir/ edition he /ill all[s t _! application to ?+s 9 !mselves is logically possible1 ?\gh )\t objective validity4 ,9 ! second edition he goes mu* fur!r4 ,save 9 _! empirical employm5t ! categories 8mean no?+ :atsoev]40#acaj 0,9 ! abs5ce ( s5sibility _! :ole employm5t1 & inde$ all _! mean+ entirely ceases2 = we h !n no means ( det]m9+ :e!r ?+s 9 h>mony ) ! categories are ev5 possible44440#acaa ,9 ! ?ird place1 ,kant1 z already not$1 di/+ui%es betwe5 a negative & a positive mean+ ( ! t]m n\m5on4 ,n\m5on 9 its negative s5se is def9$ z be+ m]ely t :i* is n an object ( s5su\s intuition4 ,by n\m5on 9 ! positive s5se1 on ! o!r h&1 is meant an object ( non-s5su\s intuition4 ,kant n[ claims t x is ! concept ( n\m5on 9 ! negative s5se1 z equival5t !re=e simply to ! ?+ 9 itself1 t alone is involv$1 z a ,gr5zbegriff1 9 ! 8doctr9e ( s5sibility40 ,= its det]m9ation ! categories _c be employ$2 t w\ld dem& a faculty ( non-s5su\s intuition1 :i* we d n possess1 & w\ld am\nt to ! illegitimate ass]tion ( n\m5a 9 ! positive s5se4 ,! limit+ concept1 indisp5sably presuppos$ 9 human exp]i5ce1 is !re=e ! b>e notion ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,& accord+ly1 9 modification ( ! conclusion arriv$ at 9 ! fir/ edition1 viz4 t 8! division ( objects into ph5om5a & n\m5a 444 is n 9 any way admissible10#acab ,kant n[ adds to ! t]m n\m5a ! qualify+ phrase 89 ! positive s5se40 ,9 ?is way ! assumption t ?+s 9 !mselves actually exi/ becomes q explicit1 despite ,kant's great] insi/5ce ^u ! impossibility ( apply+ any ( ! categories to !m4 ,b beyond ?us plac+ 9 /ill bold] contra/ ! two c\nt] ass]tions1 on ! "o h& t ! categories mu/ n be tak5 by u z o!r ?an m]ely subjective ?\ght-functions1 & on ! o!r t a limit+ concept is indisp5sably necess>y1 ,kant makes no attempt 9 ^! new passages to meet ! difficulties involv$4 ,) ! ass]tion t ! categories z su*1 & !re=e by implication ^? ( reality & exi/5ce1 are inapplicable to ?+s 9 !mselves1#acac he comb9es1 )\t any app>5t consci\sness ( conflict1 ! cont5tion t ?+s 9 !mselves mu/ none ! less be po/ulat$ z actually exi/+4 99 99 99 99 99 ,! tea*+ ( ?is *apt] mu/ be reg>d$ z only semi-,critical4 ,! fact t x is =mulat$ 9 t]ms ( ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object1 itself suffices to det]m9e ! date at :i* x mu/ h be5 compos$ z comp>atively e>ly2 & su* *anges z ,kant c\ld make 9 ! second edition 7 necess>ily ( a m9or "*4 ,m ext5sive alt]ations w\ld h involv$ complete recon/ruction ( ! entire *apt]1 & inde$ anticipation ( ! c5tral tea*+ ( ! ,dialectic4 ,kant is also hamp]$ by ! un=tunate location to :i* he has assign$ ?is *apt]4 ,at ?is po9t 9 ! developm5t ( 8 argum5t1 namely1 )9 ! limits ( ! ,analytic1 ,kant c\ld really d no m ?an recapitulate ! negative consequ5ces :i* foll[ f ! tea*+ ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,= ?\gh ^! might ju/ify him 9 ass]t+ t x is und]/&+ t limits s5sibility1 he 0 n 9 a position to expla9 t ! t]m und]/&+1 z ?us employ$1 has a v wide mean+1 & t )9 ?is faculty he is prep>$ to di/+ui% betwe5 und]/&+ 9 ! /rict s5se z ! s\rce ( ! categories1 & a high] p[] to :i* he gives ! title ,reason1 & :i* he reg>ds z orig9at+ a unique concept1 t ( ! uncondition$4 ,yet only :5 ^! di/9ctions1 & ! consid]ations 9 view ( :i* !y are drawn1 h be5 duly reckon$ )1 c ! problem be=e u be discuss$ 9 its full significance4 ,?is plac+ ( ! *apt] )9 ! ,analytic1 & !re=e prior to ! discussions fir/ broa*$ 9 ! ,dialectic1 has inde$ ! un=tunate consequ5ce ( conceal+ n only f ! read]1 b also1 z x w\ld seem1 to "s ext5t f ,kant himself1 ! ultimate gr\nds ^u :i*1 f ! g5u9ely ,critical /&po9t1 ! di/9ction betwe5 ph5om5a & n\m5a mu/ be bas$4 ,= nei!r 9 ?is *apt]1 nor 9 any o!r passage 9 ! ,critique1 has ,kant s\ght to indicate1 9 any q explicit mann]1 ! be>+ :i* ! important conclusions arriv$ at 9 ! ,dialectic may h 9 reg>d to x4 ,l s _m ( ! mo/ important & fruitful ( 8 t5ets1 ^! consequ5ces are sugge/$ m]ely by implication2 or r rema9 to be discov]$ by ! read]'s own indep5d5t ef=ts1 9 proportion z he ?9ks himself into ! di/9ctions ^u :i*1 9 o!r connections1 ,kant has himself insi/$4 ,!y are nev] actually =mulat$ 9 & by !mselves4 ,9 seek+1 !re=e1 to decide ^u :at basis ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality ought to be reg>d$ z re/+1 we are attempt+ to det]m9e h[ ! argum5t ( ?is *apt] w\ld h proce$$ _h x be5 locat$ at ! close ( ! ,dialectic4 ,! task is by no means easy1 b ! difficulties are h>dly z =midable z may at fir/ sight appe>4 ,! g5]al outl9es ( ! argum5t are fairly def9itely prescrib$ by ,kant's treatm5t ( k9dr$ que/ions1 & may p]haps1 ) reasonable correctness1 be hypo!tically con/ruct$ 9 view ( ! foll[+ consid]ations4 ,j z ,kant />t$ f ! natural assumption t ref]5ce ( repres5tations to objects mu/ be _! ref]5ce to ?+s 9 !mselves1 s he simil>ly adopt$ ! curr5t ,c>tesian view t x is by an inf]5ce1 9 t]ms ( ! category ( causality1 t we advance f a repres5tation to its ext]nal gr\nd4 ,x 0 v gradually1 9 ! process ( develop+ 8 own ,critical tea*+1 & especially 8 ph5om5ali/ view ( ! empirical _w 9 space1 t he came to realise ! v diff]5t position to :i* he /ood committ$4#acad ,:5 ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object is elim9at$ f 8 tea*+1 & :5 ! categories1 includ+ t ( causality1 are pre-empt$ = ! empirical object1 & t object is reg>d$ z directly appreh5d$1 ! function ( m$iat+ ! ref]5ce ( ph5om5al nature to a n\m5al basis falls to ! ,ideas ( ,reason4 ,= ! di/9ction is no long] betwe5 repres5tations & _! n\m5al causes1 b betwe5 ! limit$ & relative "* ( ! entire _w 9 space & "t1 & ! uncondition$ reality :i* ,reason dem&s = its own satisfaction4 ,to reg>d ! _w 9 space z m]ely ph5om5al1 because fail+ to satisfy our /&>ds ( g5u9e reality1 is to adopt an entirely diff]5t attitude f any to be f\nd 9 ,desc>tes or ,locke4 ,! position may be outl9$ 9 ! foll[+ mann]1 9 anticipation ( its m adequate /atem5t 9 connection ) ! problems ( ! ,dialectic4 ,! concept1 :]eby ,reason limits s5sibility1 is n prop]ly describable z be+ t ( ! ?+ 9 itself2 x is ! unique concept ( ! uncondition$4 ,our aw>5ess ( ! condition$ z be+ condition$ presupposes1 ov] & above ! categories1 an antec$5t aw>5ess ( ,ideal#acae /&>ds2 & to t latt] m fundam5tal =m ( consci\sness all our crit]ia ( tru? & reality are ultimately due4 ,! crit]ia by means ( :i* we empirically di/+ui% s5se-appe>ance f s5se-illusion1 :5 rigor\sly appli$1 lead u to detect defici5cies 9 ! empirical z su*4 ,we h !n no alt]native save to conceive absolute reality 9 t]ms ( ! rational ,ideals1 ( :i* ! empirical crit]ia are m]ely specialis$ =ms4 ,!re are ?us two di/9ct1 b none ! less int]dep5d5t1 elem5ts involv$ 9 ,kant's m mature tea*+1 ph5om5alism1 & :at may be call$ ! ,ideali/1 or absoluti/1 int]pretation ( ! function ( ,reason4 ,ea* dem&s ! o!r = its own e/abli%m5t4 ,!re mu/ be a g5u9ely objective _w1 by reflection ^u :i* we may come to consci\sness ( ! /&>ds :i* are involv$ 9 our judgm5ts ^u x2 & we mu/ possess a faculty ?r\gh :i* our consci\sness ( ^! /&>ds may be acc\nt$ =4 ,! /&>ds ( judgm5t _c be acquir$ by means ( judgm5ts :i* d n already presuppose !m2 ! processes by :i* !y are br\ght to cle> consci\sness _c be ! processes 9 :i* !y orig9ate4 ,!y mu/ be "p ( ! a priori conditions ( exp]i5ce & comb9e ) space1 "t & ! categories to r5d] exp]i5ce ( ! k9d :i* we possess--self-transc5d+ & self-limit+--actually possible4 ,f ?is po9t ( view ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality is n a contra/ betwe5 exp]i5ce & ! non-exp]i5c$1 b a di/+ui%+ ( factors1 :i* are ess5tial to all exp]i5ce1 & ?r\gh :i* we come to consci\sness ( an irresolvable conflict betwe5 ! ,ideals :i* inspire u 9 ! acquisition ( exp]i5ce1 & ! limit+ conditions "u :i* alone exp]i5ce is atta9able by u4 ,9 ! high] field ( ,reason1 z 9 ! l[] field ( und]/&+1 x is n ?r\gh ! giv51 b only ?r\gh ! giv5 z int]pret$ by condition+ =ms ( an ,ideal nature1 t a mean+ful reality c disclose itself to ! m9d4 ,! ultimate mean+ ( exp]i5ce lies 9 its significance :5 te/$ by ! /&>ds :i* are indisp5sably involv$ 9 its own possibility4 ,t mean+ is ess5tially metaphysical2 m is impli$ 9 exp]i5ce ?an ! exp]i5c$ c ev] itself be f\nd to be4#acaf ,su* is ! c5tral !sis ( ! ,critical philosophy1 :5 ! tea*+ ( ! ,analytic is supplem5t$ by t ( ! ,dialectic4 ,?\gh ! ,critique is1 inde$1 ! record ( ! manifold ways 9 :i* ,kant div]g$ f ?is position1 n a sy/ematic exposition ( its implications & consequ5ces1 ! above !sis repres5ts ! goal ^u :i* 8 v>i\s l9es ( ?\ght t5d to conv]ge4 ,x is ! guid+ motive ( 8 devi\s & complex argum5t 9 ! ?ree ma9 divisions ( ! ,dialectic4 ,on no o!r int]pretation c ! detail ( 8 exposition be satisfactorily expla9$4 ,!re are two *ief reasons :y ,kant fail$ to draw ! above conclusions 9 any q explicit mann]4 ,"o reason has already be5 suffici5tly emphasis$1 namely1 t ! !sis1 :i* ,i h j =mulat$1 re/s ^u a ph5om5ali/ view ( ! natural _w1 :]eas ! ,dialectic is inspir$ by ! e>li]1 subjectivi/ doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4 ,^u ! o!r ma9 reason ,i %all h frequ5t occasion to insi/4 ,z we %all f9d1 ,kant 0 unable to arrive at any q def9itive decision z to ! nature ( ! ,ideals ( ,reason4 ,he alt]nates betwe5 ! sceptical & ! absoluti/ view ( _! orig9 & function1 & 9 ! process ( seek+ a compreh5sive mid-way position :i* w\ld d ju/ice to all t is valid 9 ! oppos+ argum5ts1 ! fur!r "q z to ! be>+ ( 8 conclusions ^u ! problem ( ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality 0 driv5 into ! backgr\nd4 ,b we are anticipat+ matt]s ! discussion ( :i* mu/ meantime be def]r$4 ,,app5dix ,,! ,,amphiboly ,,( ,,! ,,concepts ,,( ,,reflection#acag ,9 ?is app5dix ,kant gives a criticism ( ! ,leibnizian rationalism--a criticism already p>tially /at$ 9 ! section on ! ,po/ulates--& he does ?is 9 a mann] :i* v cle>ly reveals ! influ5ce :i* t rationalism cont9u$ to ex]cise ^u 8 own ?9k+4 ,?us ,kant speaks ( ! 8m]e concept10#acah & 9 do+ s evid5tly means to imply t x exi/s 9 its own "r1 ) a nature det]m9$ solely by intr9sic factors ( a /rictly a priori "*1 9 complete indep5d5ce ( ! specific mat]ial ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,he d5ies1 x is true1 ! objective validity ( su* concepts1 & ma9ta9s t 9 _! empirical employm5t !y are completely trans=m$ ?r\gh ! addition ( new factors4 ,none ! less he all[s to ! concepts an intr9sic nature1 & practically ma9ta9s t f ! po9t ( view ( ! pure concept1 & !re=e f ! po9t ( view ( a logic bas$ ^u x1 ! ,leibnizian rationalism is ! "o true sy/em ( metaphysics4 ,= pure ?\ght1 ,leibniz's sy/em is ! ultimate & only possible philosophy2 & 7 ?\ght capable ( det]m9+ ! nature ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 we %\ld be con/ra9$ to adopt x z metaphysically valid4 ,?is is ! /&po9t :i* und]lies mu* ( ,kant's argum5t 9 ! ,dialectic4 ,x leads him to ma9ta9 t ! self mu/ necess>ily1 9 virtue ( an unavoidable transc5d5tal illusion1 believe 9 its own indep5d5t sub/antial reality1 t ! m9d is con/ra9$ to conceive reality z an uncondition$ unity1 & t ! notions ( ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality are ,ideas necess>ily involv$ 9 ! v con/itution ( human ?\ght4 ,b we mu/ n reg>d ,kant's doctr9e ( ! pure concept m]ely z a survival f a /&po9t :i* ! ,critical tea*+ is de/9$ to displace & sup]s$e4 ,= ,kant is n l$ ?r\gh inconsi/5cy1 or ?r\gh any m]e lack ( ?or\ghness 9 ! developm5t ( 8 ,critical pr9ciples1 to reta9 ?is rationali/ic doctr9e4 ,to und]/& ! really op]ative gr\nds ( ,kant's argum5tation1 & s to place ! cont5ts ( ?is section 9 prop] focus1 we mu/ recall ! fundam5tal anti!sis1 develop$ 9 my introduction1#acai betwe5 ! alt]native positions1 :i* are repres5t$ = ,kant by ! philosophies ( ,hume & ,leibniz4 ,kant1 z already obs]v$1 is pr(\ndly conv9c$ ( ! ess5tial tru? ( ! ,leibnizian position4 ,he holds to ! ,leibnizian view ( reason4 ,human reason is ess5tially metaphysical2 its ultimate function is to emancipate u f ! limit+ conditions ( animal exi/5ce2 x reveals its nature 9 ^? ,ideas ( ! uncondition$1 ! discussion ( :i* ,kant res]ves = ! ,dialectic4 ,! *ief defect 9 ,kant's criticism ( ,leibniz1 z develop$ 9 ?is section1 is t ! deep] issues1 :i* det]m9e ! ext5t ( 8 agreem5t ) ,leibniz1 are n rais$ or ev5 indicat$4 ,consequ5tly1 8 ref]5ces to pure ?\ght1 & 8 ass]tion#acbj t f ! po9t ( view ( pure ?\ght ,leibniz is entirely ju/ifi$ 9 8 tea*+1 bewild] ! read]1 :o has be5 made to adopt a ,critical /&po9t1 & !re=e to believe t ?\ght c function only 9 connection ) ! data ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,kant w\ld seem1 inde$1 to h laps$ into ! dogmatic /&po9t ( ! ,diss]tation1 di/+ui%+ betwe5 a s5sible & an intelligible _w1 & ma9ta9+ t pure ?\ght is capable ( det]m9+ ! nature ( ! latt]4 ,! only diff]5ce betwe5 8 tea*+ "h & 9 ! ,diss]tation consi/s 9 ! admission t all k is limit$ to s5se-exp]i5ce1 & t we are !re=e unable to det]m9e :e!r ?is intelligible _w :i* we mu/ ?9k1 & ?9k 9 ! precise mann] def9$ by ,leibniz1 does or does n exi/4 ,?is section is1 inde$1 l ! *apt] on ,ph5om5a & ,n\m5a1 wrongly locat$4 ,giv+1 z x does1 ,kant's criticism ( ! ,leibnizian ontology1 x discusses problems ( metaphysics2 & ought !re=e to h f\nd its place 9 ! ,dialectic1 9 natural connection ) ! correspond+ exam9ation ( ! metaphysical sci5ces ( rational psy*ology1 cosmology1 & !ology4 ,ar*itectonic1 t ev]-pres5t s\rce ( s _m ( ,kant's idiosyncrasies1 has aga9 int]pos$ its despotic m&ate4 ,z !re are only ?ree =ms ( syllogism1 only ?ree ma9 divisions c be recognis$ 9 ! ,dialectic2 & ! criticism ( ontology1 to its great detrim5t1 mu/ !re=e be locat$1 :]e x does n 9 ! lea/ belong1 9 ! conclud+ section ( ! ,analytic4#acba ,b we mu/ foll[ ,kant's argum5t z "h giv54 ,leibniz views ?\ght z capable ( prescrib+1 antec$5tly to all exp]i5ce1 ! fundam5tal conditions to :i* reality mu/ con=m4 ,! possible is prior to1 & indep5d5t (1 ! actual2 & c be adequately det]m9$ by pure reason f its own inh]5t res\rces4 ,kant does n "h "q ?is ass]tion ( ! indep5d5ce & priority ( pure ?\ght4 ,he is cont5t to ma9ta9 t :at is valid = ?\ght ne$ n hold ( ^? appe>ances :i* are ! only possible objects ( human k1 s9ce 9 s5se-exp]i5ce conditions1 un=ese5 by pure ?\ght1 p>tly limitative & p>tly ext5sive ( its concepts1 int]v5e to modify ! conclusions :i* f its own po9t ( view are logically valid4 ,leibniz1 ?r\gh failure to realise ! dual "* ( ?\ght & s5se1 ov]look$ ?is all-important fact2 &1 9 ass]t+ t :at is true = pure ?\ght is valid ( ! s5su\sly real1 fell victim to ! fallacy :i* ,kant entitles transc5d5tal amphiboly4 ,kant's cle>e/ /atem5t ( ! fallacy is 9 ,a #bhj ,b #ccf4 ,x r$uces1 =mally /at$1 to ! fallacy ( d5y+ ! antec$5t4 ,9 accordance ) ! dictum de omni et nullo1 we c validly ass]t t :at belongs to or contradicts a univ]sal concept1 belongs to or contradicts ! p>ticul>s :i* fall "u t concept4 ,leibniz employs ! pr9ciple 9 a negative & invalid =m4 ,he argues t :at is n conta9$ 9 a univ]sal concept is also n conta9$ 9 ! p>ticul>s to :i* x applies4 8,! entire intellectuali/ sy/em ( ,leibniz is re>$ ^u ?is latt] pr9ciple40 ,& z ,kant po9ts out1#acbb ! reason :y s acute & p[]ful a ?9k] succumb$ to ?is obvi\s fallacy is to be f\nd 9 8 view ( s5se z m]ely confus$ ?\ght2 or1 to /ate ! same po9t 9 ano!r way1 9 8 int]pretation ( appe>ances z be+ ! confus$ repres5tations ( ?+s 9 !mselves4#acbc ,all diff]5ces betwe5 appe>ance & reality are1 on ?is view1 due m]ely to lack ( cle>ness 9 our appreh5sion ( ! giv54 ,s5se1 :5 completely cl>ifi$1 r$uces )\t rema9d] to pure ?\ght2 & 9 ! concepts1 :i* ?\ght develops f )9 itself1 lie ! :ole cont5t alike ( k & ( real exi/5ce4 ,ow+ to a metaphysical !ory ( ! nature ( ! real1 itself due to a false int]pretation ( ! nature & function ( pure ?\ght1 & ultimately traceable to an excessive preoccupation ) k ( ! /rictly ma!matical type1#acbd ,leibniz fail$ to d ju/ice to ! fundam5tal *>act]i/ics ( our human exp]i5ce1 & 9 especial to ! actual giv5 nature ( space1 "t1 & dynamical causality4 ,8 rationali/ic metaphysics has its roots 9 ! ,c>tesian philosophy1#acbe & is1 9 ,kant's view1 ! p]fect$ product ( philosophical ?9k+1 :5 develop$ on dogmatic1 i4e4 non-,critical1 l9es4 ,x is ! opposite c\nt]p>t ( ! empirical or sceptical type ( philosophy :i* 9 mod]n times f\nd its fir/ great support] 9 ,locke1 & :i*1 z ,kant held1 obta9$ its p]fect$ expression 9 ! philosophy ( ,hume4 ,:ile ,desc>tes & ,leibniz intellectualise appe>ances1 ,locke & ,hume reg>d ! a priori concepts ( und]/&+ z m]ely empirical products ( discursive reflection4 ,bo? commit ! same fundam5tal error ( fail+ to recognise t und]/&+ & s5sibility are two di/9ct s\rces ( repres5tations4#acbf ,bo? consequ5tly /rive1 9 equally "o-sid$ fa%ion1 to r$uce ! complexity ( exp]i5ce to "o alone ( its con/itu5t elem5ts4 ,?is section ( ! ,critique ought to h develop$ ! ,critical tea*+ 9 its opposition to bo? ^! alt]native attitudes2 ,kant arbitr>ily limits x to criticism ( ! ,leibnizian rationalism4 ,kant's me?od ( introduc+ & arrang+ 8 criticism is artificial1 & ne$ be no m ?an m5tion$4 ,critical reflection ^u ! s\rces ( our k1 :i* ,kant1 9 ord] to di/+ui% x f reflection ( ! ord9>y type1 entitles transc5d5tal reflection1 is1 he /ates1 a duty impos$ ^u all :o w\ld pr(ess to pass a priori judgm5ts ^u ! real4 ,x w trace ! concepts employ$ to _! correspond+ faculties1 intellectual & s5su\s1 & w reveal ! indep5d5ce & disp>ity ( s5sibility & und]/&+1 & s w effectually prev5t t false locat+ ( concepts to :i* transc5d5tal amphiboly is due4 ,su* reflection1 he fur!r argues1 consi/s 9 a comp>ison ( ! repres5tations ) ! faculty to :i* !y are due1 & l ord9>y comp>ison w det]m9e ! relations ( 7#a7 id5tity & diff]5ce1 7#b7 agreem5t & opposition1 7#c7 inn] & out]1 7#d7 det]m9able & det]m9+ 7matt] & =m74 ,9 ?is arbitr>y b +5i\s fa%ion ,kant contrives to obta9 ! f\r ma9 head+s requir$ = 8 criticism ( ! ,leibnizian ontology4 7#a7 ,"u ! fir/ head+ he deals ) ! pr9ciple ( ! id5tity ( indisc]nibles4 ,x is1 ,kant ma9ta9s1 a typical example ( ! fallacy ( transc5d5tal amphiboly4 ,leibniz argues t if no diff]5ce is discov]able 9 ! concept ( ?+s1 !re c be none 9 ! ?+s !mselves2 ?+s :i* are id5tical 9 conception mu/ be id5tical 9 all respects4 ,b ?is1 ,kant replies1 is true only s long z ! concepts ab/ract f ! s5su\s conditions ( exi/5ce4 ,?us no two cubic feet ( space are alike4 ,!y are di/+ui%able f "o ano!r by _! spatial location2 & t is a diff]5ce :i* conc]ns ! conditions ( intuition2 x is n to be discov]$ 9 ! pure concept4#acbg ,spaces1 alike = ?\ght1 are di/+ui%able = s5se4 ,to take ano!r ( ,kant's illu/rations3 two drops ( wat]1 if indi/+ui%able 9 all _! int]nal prop]ties ( quality or quantity1 are conceptually id5tical4 ,?r\gh diff]5ces ( location 9 space1 irrelevant to _! conception1 !y c none ! less be intuit$ z num]ically diff]5t4 ,! pr9ciple ( indisc]nibles is n a law ( nature1 b only an analytic rule = ! comp>ison ( ?+s ?r\gh m]e concepts4#acbh 7#b7 ,a second pr9ciple ( ! ,leibnizian metaphysics is t realities c nev] conflict ) "o ano!r4 ,?is is suppos$ to foll[ f ! fact t 9 pure ?\ght ! only =m ( opposition is logical negation4 ,realities1 be+ pure affirmations1 mu/ necess>ily h>monise ) "o ano!r4 ,?is pr9ciple ignores ! altoge!r diff]5t conditions ( s5se-exi/5ce4 ,space1 "t1 & ! result+ possibility ( dynamical causality supply ! conditions = real opposition4 ,two exi/5ces1 ?\gh equally real & positive1 may annul "o ano!r4 ,two =ces act+ ^u a body may neutralise "o ano!r4 ,f ! above logical pr9ciple ,leibniz's successors#acbi pr(ess to obta9 ! f>-rea*+ metaphysical conclusions1 t all realities agree ) "o ano!r1 t evil is m]ely negative1 consi/+ exclusively 9 limitation ( exi/5ce1 & t ,god1 )\t detrim5t to ! unity ( 8 be+1 c be con/itut$ ( all possible realities4 7#c7 ,view+ space & "t1 :i* condition ext]nal relation1 z m]ely confus$ =ms ( appreh5sion1 ,leibniz fur!r conclud$ t ! reality ( sub/ance is purely int]nal4 ,& rul+ out position1 %ape1 contact & motion1 all ( :i* involve ext]nal relations1 he felt ju/ifi$ 9 end[+ ! monads ) ! sole rema9+ =m ( kn[n exi/5ce1 namely consci\sness4 ,! ass]tion t ! monads are incapable ( ext]nal relation leads to ! fur!r conclusion t !y are incapable ( int]action1 & /& 9 sy/ematic relation to "o ano!r1 solely 9 virtue ( a pre-e/abli%$ h>mony4 7#d7 ,f ! po9t ( view ( pure ?\ght matt] mu/ prec$e =m4 ,! univ]sal mu/ prec$e ! p>ticul> :i* is a specification ( x4#accj ,unlimit$ reality is tak5 z be+ ! matt] ( all possibility1 & its limitation or =m z be+ due to negation4 ,sub/ances mu/ antec$5tly exi/ 9 ord] t ext]nal relations may h some?+ ^u :i* to gr\nd !mselves4 ,space & "t mu/ be int]pret$ z confus$ appreh5sions ( purely intellectual ord]s1 space repres5t+ a c]ta9 ord] 9 ! reciprocal 7pre-e/abli%$7 correspond5ce ( sub/ances1 & "t ! dynamical sequ5ce ( _! /ates4 ,on ! o!r h&1 f ! /&po9t ( s5se & its intuitional =ms ! rev]se holds4 ,! _w ( appe>ance is condition$ by ! =ms ( space & "t2 ! objectively possible co9cides ) ! actual2 & ! sub/antia pha5om5on has no indep5d5t ess5ce1 b r$uces )\t rema9d] to ext]nal relations4 ,= pure ?\ght ?is _w ( giv5 appe>ance is an utt]ly p>adoxical =m ( exi/5ce2 x is ! direct opposite ( ev]y?+ t g5u9e reality ought to be4 ,9 ?is /range conclusion ! problems ( ! ,dialectic1 9 "o ( _! mo/ sugge/ive =ms1 at once loom up be=e u4 ,z /at$ above1 ?is entire discussion is an anticipation ( que/ions :i* _c be adequately treat$ )9 ! limits ( ! ,analytic4 ,! text ( ?is section is highly composite4 ,! entire cont5t ( ! ,app5dix is twice re9troduc$ & re/at$ at full l5g? 9 ! accompany+ ,note4 ,^! successive expositions ( "o & ! same argum5t 7 d\btless indep5d5tly writt51 & !n lat] piec$ toge!r 9 ?is ext]nal fa%ion4 ,a #bgg-h ,b #ccc-d1 on ! nature ( ! sub/antia pha5om5on1 w\ld by its ref]5ces to ! transc5d5tal object seem to be ( e>ly orig94#acca ,x has already be5 comm5t$ ^u4#accb ,a #bhe-i ,b #cdb-f1 on ! o!r h&1 :i* supplem5ts ! *apt] on ,ph5om5a & ,n\m5a1#accc w\ld seem to be ( late orig94 ,x is s dat$ by ,adickes1#accd ow+ to ! ref]5ce to s*emata 9 its op5+ s5t5ce4 ,a #bhi-ia ,b #cdf-i4 ,table ( ! division ( ! conception ( no?+4--,?is curi\s & +5i\s classification ( ! v>i\s mean+s ( ! t]m #8no?+' is *iefly ( int]e/ ?r\gh its fir/ division3 8empty conception )\t object1 ens rationis40 ,! ens rationis c be/ be def9$ 9 its di/9ction f ! f\r? division3 8empty object )\t conception1 nihil negativum40 ,! =m] is a ,g$ank5d+2 ! latt] is an ,und+4 ,! =m] inde$1 ?\gh n contradictory1 is m]e fiction 7bloss ,erdi*tung71 & consequ5tly mu/ n be tak5 z fall+ )9 ! field ( ! possible4 ,! latt] is a concept :i* de/roys itself1 & :i* !re=e /&s 9 direct conflict ) ! possible4 ,! ens rationis includes1 ,kant explicitly /ates1#acce ! conception ( n\m5a1 8:i* mu/ n be reckon$ among ! possibilities1 al?\gh !y mu/ n = t reason be decl>$ to be also impossible40 ,kant mu/ "h be tak+ n\m5a 9 ! positive s5se4#accf ,z usual ,kant's attempt to obta9 p>allels = ! f\r classes ( category breaks d[n4 ,! s-call$ nihil privativum & ! ens imag9>ium d n prop]ly come )9 ! d5otation ( ! t]m #8no?+4' ,?is is v evid5t 9 ! examples :i* ,kant cites4 ,cold is z real z ! opposite ) :i* x is contra/$1 :ile pure space & pure "t are n negative ev5 9 a conv5tional s5se4 ,,transc5d5tal ,,logic ,,division ,,ii ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,dialectic ,,introductory ,,comm5t ,,^u ,,! ,,composite ,,orig9 ,,& ,,conflict+ ,,t5d5cies ,,( ,,! ,,dialectic4 ,we h _h con/ant occasion to obs]ve ! composite orig9 & conflict+ t5d5cies ( ! ,analytic4 ,! ,dialectic is h>dly less composite 9 "*1 & is c]ta9ly n m uni=m 9 its fundam5tal tea*+4 ,! composite nature ( ! text1 ?\gh bewild]+ to ! unsophi/icat$ read]1 is n1 h[ev]1 )\t its comp5sations4 ,! text1 z x /&s1 pres]ves ! record ( ! manifold influ5ces :i* presid$ ov] its fir/ inception1 & ( ! devi\s pa?s by :i* ,kant travell$ to 8 lat] conclusions4 ,x ?us enables u to det]m9e1 ) consid]able accuracy1 ! successive /ages ?r\gh :i* x has pass$ 9 ! process ( settl+ into its pres5t =m4 ,z we %all f9d1 ! sections on ! ant9omies conta9 ! orig9al argum5t1 out ( :i* by v>i$ processes ( supplem5tation & modification ! o!r p>ts h aris54 ,! conflict ( doctr9e has also its c\nt]-advantages4 ,! problems are imp>tially discuss$ f oppos$ /&po9ts2 ! difficulties peculi> to ea* ( ! compet+ possible solutions are frankly recognis$1 & inde$ insi/$ ^u2 & ! int]nal dialectic ( ,kant's own p]sonal ?9k+ obta9s dramatic expression4 ,we are ?us ! bett] enabl$ to appreciate ! op5-m9d$ p]t9acity ) :i* ,kant set himself to d ju/ice to e significant aspect ( 8 _m-sid$ problems1 & are consequ5tly 9 less dang] ( simplify+ 8 argum5t 9 any arbitr>y mann]1 or ( ignor+ ! t5tative "* ( ! solutions at :i* he arrives4 ,i %all fir/ def9e ! ma9 l9es ( conflict1 & %all !n attempt to trace ^? conflicts to ! consid]ations 9 :i* !y h _! s\rce4 ,! two *ief l9es ( ?\ght traceable ?r\gh\t ! ,dialectic are repres5t$ by its negative & by its positive t5d5cies respectively4 ,f "o po9t ( view1 ,reason is m]ely ! und]/&+ 9 its self-limit+1 self-regulative employm5t1 & ! ma9 purpose ( ! ,dialectic is to gu>d aga9/ ! delusive p[] ( fictiti\s pr9ciples4 ,f ! o!r po9t ( view1 ,reason is a faculty di/9ct f und]/&+1 & its problems run p>allel ) ^? ( ! ,analytic1 =m+ no less important a subject ( philosophical reflection1 & no less fruitful a s\rce ( positive tea*+4 ,! "o l9e ( argum5t connects ) ,kant's m sceptical t5d5cies1 ! o!r ) 8 deep-root$ belief 9 ! ultimate validity ( ! absolute claims ( pure ?\ght4 ,:5 we approa* ! ,dialectic f ! /&po9t ( ! ,analytic1 x is ! negative aspect t is naturally mo/ prom95t4 ,9 ! ,analytic ,kant has prov$ t all k is limit$ to s5se-exp]i5ce1 & t a metaphysical int]pretation ( reality is altoge!r impossible4 ,b z ! human m9d w\ld seem to be possess$ by an inborn ne$ ( metaphysical con/ruction1 ?is conclusion _c obta9 its due influ5ce until ! s\rces ( ! metaphysical t5d5cy h be5 detect$ & laid b>e4 ,! ,dialectic mu/ yield a psy*ology ( metaphysics z well z a logic ( illusion4 ,b :51 on ! o!r h&1 ! problems ( ! ,dialectic are view$ 9 _! di/9ction f ^? ( ! ,analytic1 & _! indep5d5t "* is recognis$1 !y appe> 9 a p]spective :i* sets !m 9 a v diff]5t light4 ,reason is a faculty co-ord9ate ) und]/&+1 & yields a priori concepts di/9ct 9 function1 no less ?an 9 nature1 f ! categories4 ,to m>k ?is di/9ction ,kant entitles ! concepts ( ,reason ,ideas4 ,!y dem& bo? a metaphysical & a transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,^! requirem5ts are fulfill$ ?r\gh _! d]ivation f ! ?ree =ms ( syllogism1 & by ! pro( t !y ex]cise an indisp5sable function1 at once limit+ & direct+ ! und]/&+4 ,z limit+ concepts1 !y condition ! consci\sness ( ^? ,ideal /&>ds ?r\gh :i* ! human m9d is enabl$ to di/+ui% betwe5 appe>ance & ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,z regulative1 !y prescribe ! problems :i* ! und]/&+ 9 its se>* = k is call$ ^u to solve4 ,^! two t5d5cies1 sceptical & con/ructive1 are nev]1 inde$1 9 complete opposition4 ,common to bo?1 r5d]+ possible ! psy*ological explanation ( ! metaphysical impulse1 :i* ev5 ! negative /&po9t dem&s1 is ! doctr9e ( ! regulative function ( ,ideal pr9ciples4 ,?is doctr9e1 :i* already appe>s 9 ! ,diss]tation ( #aggj1 0 lat] develop$ into ! ,critical !ory ( transc5d5tal illusion2 & by means ( t !ory ,kant succe$$ 9 br++ ! two /&po9ts into a v real & vital connection ) "o ano!r4 ,at fir/ sight x may seem to a*ieve _! complete reconciliation1 acc\nt+ = _! di/9ction :ile r5d]+ !m mutually complem5t>y2 & ,kant's tea*+ may p]haps be s re/at$ z to be> out t impression4 ,b ! h>mony is nev] completely atta9$ by ,kant4 ,"h1 z 9 ! ,analytic1 !re is an equipoise ( t5d5cies t p]si/ 9 opposition4 ,kant's m$iat+ doctr9e ( transc5d5tal illusion may fir/ be /at$4 ,x re/s ^u a di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & illusion4 ,appe>ance 7,ers*e9ung7 is a transcript 9 ph5om5al t]ms ( "s indep5d5t reality2 & ( su* appe>ances we c acquire :at f ! human po9t ( view is g5u9e k4 ,on ! o!r h&1 all pr(ess$ insight into ! nature ( ! transc5d5t or non-empirical is %e] illusion 7,s*e971 & purely subjective4 ,!re are ?ree species ( illusion1 logical1 empirical & transc5d5tal4 ,logical illusion /&s ap>t by itself4 ,x is due m]ely to inatt5tion or ignorance2 & vani%es imm$iately ! att5tion is ar\s$4 ,empirical & transc5d5tal illusion1 on ! o!r h&1 h a tw(old po9t ( agreem5t1 fir/1 9 be+ unavoidable1 & secondly1 9 t !y orig9ate 9 our practical ne$s4 ,we may "k t ! moon at its ris+ is no l>g] ?an 9 mid-heav5s1 t ! ocean is no high] 9 ! di/ance ?an at ! %ore2 ?is makes n ! lea/ diff]5ce 9 ! p]ceptions z !y cont9ue to pres5t !mselves4 ,t ! illusions are adapt$ to our practical ne$s1 & are consequ5tly b5eficial1 is less (t5 obs]v$4 ,*anges 9 ! col\r1 =m1 & size ( objects z !y rec$e f u1 ! see+ ( ! p>allel sides ( a /reet z conv]g+1 enable u to a*ieve :at w\ld n o!rwise be possible4 ,by _! means we acquire ! p[] ( compress+ a wide ext5t ( l&scape into a s+le visual field1 ( det]m9+ di/ance1 & ! l4 ,_! practical usefulness is 9 almo/ exact proportion to ! fre$om ) :i* !y dep>t f ! /&>ds ( ! indep5d5tly real4 ,kant argues t1 9 ^! respects1 transc5d5tal illusion is analog\s to ! empirical4 ,j z ! illusory *>act]i/ics ( our p]ceptions are to be und]/ood only 9 t]ms ( _! practical function1 s ! ,ideas ( pure ,reason h always a practical be>+1 & c only be expla9$ & ju/ifi$ 9 t]ms ( ! ne$s :i* !y satisfy4 ,z !oretical enquir]s1 we accept all t af=ds u ori5tation 9 ! atta9m5t ( k2 z moral ag5ts1 we po/ulate ! conditions :i* are necess>y = ! realisation ( ! moral imp]ative4 ,& z ! ,ideals ( natural sci5ce are f\nd 7su* is ,kant's cont5tion7 to be 9 g5]al =m ak9 to ^? ( ! moral consci\sness1 !y ?us acquire a tw(old foot+ 9 ! m5tal life1 ma9ta9+ _! place !re q indep5d5tly ( !oretical pro(4 ,?\gh illusory1 !y are unavoidable2 & ?\gh !oretically false1#accg !y are f a practical po9t ( view bo? legitimate & indisp5sable4 ,kant1 9 develop+ ?is !sis1 might pr(itably h po9t$ to /ill ano!r respect 9 :i* ! analogy holds betwe5 s5se-exp]i5ce & transc5d5tal beliefs4 ,! illusions ( s5se-p]ception come 9 ! ord9>y processes ( exp]i5ce to be detect$ z su* by ! m9d4 ,f ! !oretical /&po9t ( ! outside obs]v] :o comp>es ! situation ( "o p]cipi5t ) t ( ano!r1 & s is enabl$ to cancel ! diff]5ces :i* v>iety ( situation c>ries ) x1 ! useful illusions ( ord9>y exp]i5ce are r$uc$ to ! level ( m]e appe>ance4 ,9 contradict+ "o ano!r !y reveal _! subjective "*1 & also at ! same "t af=d data = det]m9+ ! objective conditions to :i* _! subjectively necess>y exi/5ce is causally due4 ,9 simil> fa%ion ! transc5d5tal illusions result 9 contradictions1 :i* compel ! m9d to recognise t ! ,ideals to :i* x is committ$ by its practical ne$s are ( a m]ely subjective "*1 & may nev] be legitimately int]pret$ z repres5t+ ! actual nature ( ! indep5d5tly real4 ,! *ief transc5d5tal illusion1 & ultimately ! cause ( all ! o!rs1 consi/s 9 ! belief t ! ,ideals ( explanation :i* satisfy ,reason mu/ 9 g5]al outl9e repres5t ! nature ( ultimate reality4 ,:at ! individual seeks to discov] he naturally believes to exi/ prior to ! discov]y4 ,z practical be+s1 we reg>d ! objects ( s5se-exp]i5ce z absolute realities--!y are ! realities ( practical life1 & we are practical r ?an !oretical be+s--& ! exi/+ empirical sci5ces1 conceiv$ z ,ideally complet$1 are !re=e view$ z yield+ an adequate repres5tation ( ultimate reality4 ,b su* a belief involves u 9 contradictions4 ,! _w ( ph5om5a 9 space & "t is endlessly relative4 ,x c h no out] b\nds or fir/ beg9n+1 & no smalle/ p>ts2 & 9 ! s]ies ( causal antec$5ts !re c be no memb] t is n effect z well z cause4 ,view$ z repres5t+ a pre-exi/5t goal1 ! ,ideas ( ,reason are imag9>y completions ( ! intr9sically & m]ely relative1 & are 9 _! v notion self-contradictory4 ,all t is def9ite 9 _! cont5t conflicts ) _! absolut5ess2 & yet1 z x w\ld seem1 only 9 _! empirical ref]5ce c !y hope = objective v]ification4 ,su* are ! problems ( ! ,dialectic1 s f> z !y c be =mulat$ 9 t]ms common to ! two oppos$ /&po9ts4 ,_! deep] significance1 & ! gr\nds ( ,kant's alt]nat+ treatm5t ( !m1 only appe> :5 he raises ! fur!r que/ions1 :at ^? ,ideals ( explanation :i* ,reason prescribes really are1 & h[1 if !y conflict ) ! cont5t ( exp]i5ce1 x is possible t !y %\ld be conceiv$ at all4 ,to ^! que/ions ,kant prop\nds bo? a sceptical & an ,ideali/ answ]4 ,! =m]1 9 b>e outl9e1 may be /at$ z foll[s4 ,! s-call$ ,ideas are bas$ ^u exp]i5ce & are d]iv$ f x4 ,! und]/&+ removes ! limitations to :i* its pure concepts are subject 9 s5se-exp]i5ce1 & proce$s to use !m 9 _! wide/ possible application1 i4e4 to ?+s 9 g5]al4 ,z ?us employ$1 !y are )\t real significance1 & are inde$ self-contradictory4 ,to =m ! ,idea ( ! uncondition$1 we h to omit all ^? conditions ?r\gh :i* alone any?+ c be appreh5d$1 ev5 z possible4 ,to con/ruct ! concept ( absolute or uncondition$ necessity1 we h simil>ly to leave aside ! conditions ^u :i* necessity1 z reveal$ 9 exp]i5ce1 9 all cases dep5ds2 9 elim9at+ conditions1 we elim9ate necessity 9 ! only =ms 9 :i* x is conceivable by u4 ,su* ,ideas are1 inde$1 simply s*ematic =ms1 :]eby we body =? to ourselves1 9 m or less metaphorical t]ms1 ! concept ( a maximum4 ,!y are imag9>y ext5sions1 9 ,ideal =m1 ( ! unity & sy/em :i* und]/&+ has discov]$ 9 actual exp]i5ce1 & :i*1 "u ! inspiration ( su* ,ideals1 x seeks to realise 9 ev]-increas+ degree4 ,if ! und]/&+1 z ?us insi/+ ^u ,ideal satisfaction1 be entitl$ ,reason1 ! ,ideas mu/ be tak5 z express+ a subjective int]e/1 & z exhau/+ _! legitimate employm5t 9 ! regulation ( ! und]/&+4 ,_! transc5d5tal d$uction w consi/ 9 ! pro( t !y are necess>y to ! und]/&+ = ! p]fect+ ( its exp]i5ce4 ,!y d n ju/ify u 9 attempt+ to decide1 9 anticipation ( actual exp]i5ce1 h[ f> ! cont+5t collocations & ! inexhau/ible complexities ( brute exp]i5ce are really r$ucible to a completely unifi$ sy/em2 b !y q legitimately dem& t ?r\gh all disc\ragem5ts we p]si/ 9 ! endeav\r t[>ds _! realisation4 ,9 any case1 x is by exp]i5ce t ! degree ( _! reality has to be decid$4 ,we judge ( ?+s by ! /&>d ( t = :i* !y exi/1 & n vice v]sa4 ,z ! sole legitimate function ( ! ,ideas is t ( inspir+ ! und]/&+ 9 its empirical employm5t1 !y mu/ nev] be int]pret$ z hav+ metaphysical significance4 ,z ! ,ideas exi/ solely = ! sake ( exp]i5ce1 x is !y t mu/ be condemn$1 if ! two really div]ge4 ,we d n say 8t a man is too long = 8 coat1 b t ! coat is too %ort = ! man40#acch ,x is exp]i5ce1 n ,ideas1 :i* =ms ! crit]ion alike ( tru? & ( reality4 ,kant's tea*+1 :5 on ,ideali/ l9es1 is ( a v diff]5t "*4 ,reason is di/9ct f und]/&+1 & yet is no less indisp5sably involv$ 9 ! condition+ ( exp]i5ce4 ,all consci\sness is consci\sness ( a :ole :i* prec$es & conditions its p>ts4 ,su* consci\sness _c be acc\nt$ = by assum+ t we are fir/ consci\s ( ! condition$1 & !n proce$ ?r\gh omission ( its limitations to =m to ourselves1 by means ( ! m positive factors involv$ 9 ?is antec$5t consci\sness1 an ,idea ( an uncondition$ :ole4 ,! ,idea ( ! uncondition$ is di/9ct 9 nature f all o!r concepts1 & _c be d]iv$ f !m4 ,x mu/ be a pure a priori product ( :at may be nam$ ! faculty ( ,reason4 ,its uniqu5ess is :at causes its app>5t mean+lessness4 ,z x is involv$ 9 all consci\sness1 x conditions all o!r concepts2 & _c1 !re=e1 be def9$ 9 t]ms ( !m4 ,its significance mu/ n be look$ = save 9 t ,ideal1 to :i* no exp]i5ce1 & no concept o!r ?an itself1 c ev] be adequate4 ,t 9 ?is ,ideal =m x has a v real & g5u9e mean+ is prov$ by our capacity to di/+ui% betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 ,= ^u x ?is di/9ction1 9 ultimate analysis1 is f\nd to re/4 ,consci\sness ( limitation presupposes a consci\sness ( :at is beyond ! limit2 consci\sness ( ! uncondition$ is prior to1 & r5d]s possible1 our consci\sness ( ! cont+5tly giv54 ,! ,idea ( ! uncondition$ mu/ !re=e be c\nt$ z be+1 l ! categories1 ?\gh 9 a some:at diff]5t mann]1 a condition ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,) x our /&>ds bo? ( tru? & ( reality are inextricably b\nd up4#acci ,! ,ideas 9 :i* x specifies itself1 s f> f dep5d+ ^u empirical v]ification1 are ! t\*/one by :i* we detect ! unreality ( ! s5sible _w1 & by :i* a tru] reality1 su* z w\ld be adequate to ! ,ideal dem&s ( pure ,reason1 is prefigur$ to ! m9d4 ,^! two /&po9ts are extremely div]g5t 9 _! consequ5ces4 ,ea* leads to a v diff]5t int]pretation ( ! cont5t ( ! ,ideas1 ( _! function 9 exp]i5ce1 & ( _! objective validity4 ,on ! "o view1 _! cont5t is m]ely empirical1 & s5se-exp]i5ce is our sole crit]ion ( tru? & reality2 on ! o!r1 !y h to be recognis$ z conta9+ a pure a priori concept1 & are !mselves ! /&>ds by :i* ev5 empirical tru? c alone be det]m9$4 ,9 ! "o case1 !y are ,ideals project$ by exp]i5ce = its own empirical guidance2 !y are built ^u cont+5t exp]i5ce1 & dep5d ^u x alike = ! cont5t :i* makes !m conceivable & = _! validity4 ,9 ! o!r1 !y are presuppositions ( exp]i5ce1 at once condition+ its possibility & reveal+ its m]ely ph5om5al "*4 ,accord+ to ! sceptical view1 ,reason is conc]n$ only ) itself & its own subjective dem&s2 on ! ,ideali/ view1 x is a metaphysical faculty1 & outl9es possibilities t may p]haps be e/abli%$ by practical ,reason4 ,su*1 9 broad outl9e1 are ! c5tral doctr9es ( ! ,dialectic4 ,!y con/itute an extraord9>ily /imulat+ & sugge/ive body ( ,critical tea*+4 ,9 no o!r division ( ! ,critique d ! p[] & orig9ality ( ,kant's ?9k+ ga9 su* abundant1 =ceful & illum9at+ expression4 ,! accumulat$ results ( ! pa9/ak+ analyses ( ! e>li] sections contribute a solidity & fulness ( mean+1 :i* r5d] ! argum5t extremely impressive1 ev5 to ^? :o are out ( sympa?y ) ,kant's ultimate purposes4 ,its p]si/5t influ5ce1 on sceptical no less ?an on ,ideali/ l9es1 & (t5 convey$ by v devi\s *annels1 c frequ5tly be detect$ ev5 9 ?9k]s--,h]b]t ,sp5c] is an in/ance--:o w\ld indignantly repudiate ! *>ge ( be+ indebt$ to su* a s\rce4 ,,! ,,hi/ory ,,& ,,developm5t ,,( ,,kant',s ,,views ,,9 ,,reg>d ,,to ,,! ,,problems ,,( ,,! ,,dialectic#acdj ,we may n[ proce$ to consid] ! evid5ce 9 support ( ! e>ly orig9 ( ! c5tral portions ( ! ,dialectic--! sections on ! ant9omies4 ,z ,b5no ,erdmann#acda has v conclusively %[n1 preoccupation ) ! problem ( ant9omy 0 ! *ief cause ( ! revolution :i* took place 9 ,kant's views 9 #agfi1 & :i* f\nd expression 9 8 ,diss]tation ( #aggj4 ,x 0 ! exi/5ce ( ant9omy :i* l$ ,kant to recognise ! subjectivity ( space & "t4 ,t is to say1 x l$ him to develop t doctr9e ( transc5d5tal idealism :i* reappe>s 9 ! conclud+ sections ( ! ,ae/hetic1 & :i* 0 reca/ & develop$ 9 ! ,analytic4 ,already 9 ! ,diss]tation x supplies ! key = ! solution ( ! problems conc]n+ inf9ity4 ,! impossibility ( complet+ ! space1 "t1 & causal s]ies1 & ! consequ5t impossibility ( satisfy+ ! dem&s ( ! m9d = totality1 simplicity & uncondition$ness1 d n1 x is !re ma9ta9$1 discr$it reason1 b only s]ve to e/abli% ! subjectivity ( ! s5su\s =ms to :i* ! elem5t ( inf9itude is 9 all cases due4 ,kant's ?9k+ 01 ( c\rse1 div]t$ into an entirely new *annel 7z 8 lett] to ,h]z ( ,febru>y #ba1 #aggb1acdb %[s71 :5 he came to realise t ! metaphysical validity or invalidity ( ?\ght mu/ be decid$ prior to any attempt to discov] a positive solution ( su* problems z are pres5t$ by ! ant9omies4 ,& :51 ow+ to ! r5ew$ influ5ce ( ,hume1 at "s "t subsequ5t to ! date ( ! lett] to ,h]z1 ?is new problem 0 recognis$ z be+ ! problem ( a priori syn!sis1 all que/ions reg>d+ ! nature ( ! absolutely real 7 made to take second>y rank1 yield+ prec$5ce to ^? ( logical !ory4 ,:5 ! ant9omy problems re-em]ge1 _! discussion assumes ,critical =m4 ,9 ?ree fundam5tal respects ,kant's treatm5t ( ! ant9omies 9 ! ,diss]tation diff]s f t ( ! ,critique4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! dem& = totality or absolut5ess is n 9 ! ,diss]tation ascrib$ to a sep>ate faculty4 ,inde$ ,kant's words w\ld seem to %[ t at times he _h incl9$ to ascribe x m]ely to ! free-rang+ fancy or imag9ation4#acdc ,secondly1 z ! v>i\s ant9omies 7 trac$ exclusively to ! influ5ce ( space & "t ^u pure ?\ght1 !y 7 treat$ toge!r1 & no classification ( !m 0 attempt$4 ,& la/ly1 ?\gh ,kant's utt]ances are some:at ambigu\s1#acdd ! illusory "* ( ! ant9omies 0 9 ! ma9 view$ z be+ ( a m or less logical nature4 ,t is to say1 x 0 reg>d$ z entirely prev5table & z 8vani%+ l smoke0#acde ^u adoption ( a true philosophical /&po9t4 ,a numb] ( ! ,reflexion5 reveal ! v>i\s t5tative s*emes1 by trial ( :i* ,kant work$ 8 way t[>d a m g5u9ely ,critical treatm5t ( ! problems ( inf9ity4 ,! intellectual factors receive full] recognition1 & z a consequ5ce a def9ite classification results4 ,at "s "t prior to ! discov]y ( ! table ( categories1 ,kant adopt$ a ?reefold division ( :at he names fir/ pr9ciples or presuppositions--pr9ciples ( sub/ance-accid5t1 ( gr\nd-consequ5ce1 & ( :ole-"p4 ,reflexion ii4 #egh is typical4 8,?ree pr9cipia3 7#a7 9 ! field ( ! actual !re is ! relation ( sub/ance to accid5t 7inha]5tia73 7#b7 ( gr\nd to consequ5ce 7dep5d5tia73 7#c7 ( p>ts & ( composition 7compositio74 ,!re are ?ree presuppositions3 ( ! subject1 ( ! gr\nd1 & ( ! p>ts2 ( insition ,kant's own t]m1 ( subord9ation1 & ( composition2 !re=e also ?ree fir/ pr9cipia3 7#a7 subject1 :i* is nev] a pr$icate2 7#b7 gr\nd1 :i* is nev] a consequ5ce2 7#c7 unity1 :i* is n itself composite40 ,!re are num]\s o!r ,reflexion5 to ! same effect4#acdf ,! result+ conceptions are def9$ bo? z limits#acdg & z absolute totalities1 & 9 ,reflexion ii4 #abeb are enum]at$ z foll[s3 8,! fir/ subject2 ! fir/ gr\nd2 ! fir/ "p4 ,! subject :i* holds ev]y?+ 9 itself2 ! gr\nd :i* takes ev]y?+ "u itself2 ! :ole :i* compreh5ds ev]y?+4 ,! totalitas absoluta ( reality1 ( s]ies1 ( co-ord9ation40 ,! introduction ( ! t]ms #8absolute' & #8totality' indicate t ,kant has also come to recognise ! pres5ce ( a unique notion 7equival5t to ! 8uncondition$0 ( ! ,critique71 di/9ct 9 cont5t f any ( ! ?ree enum]at$ pr9cipia1 b common to !m all4 ,f ! v fir/ ,kant w\ld seem to h appropriat$ = x ! title ,idea4 ,reflexion5 ii4 #abdc1 #abdd1 & #abd may be quot$3 8,! ,idea is s+le 7individuum71 self-suffici5t1 & et]nal4 ,! div9ity ( our s\l is its capacity to =m ! ,idea4 ,! s5ses give only copies or r app>5tia40 8,idea is ! repres5tation ( ! :ole 9 s f> z x necess>ily prec$es ! det]m9ation ( ! p>ts4 ,x c nev] be empirically repres5t$1 = ! reason t 9 exp]i5ce we proce$ f ! p>ts ?r\gh successive syn!ses to ! :ole4 ,x is ! ar*etype 7,urbild7 ( ?+s1 = c]ta9 objects are only possible ?r\gh an ,idea4 ,transc5d5tal ,ideas are ^? 9 :i* ! absolute :ole det]m9es ! p>ts 9 an aggregate or z s]ies40 8,metaphysics prop] is ! application ( transc5d5tal philosophy to concepts suppli$ by ,reason & necess>y to x1 to :i*1 h[ev]1 no correspond+ objects c be giv5 9 exp]i5ce4 ,! concepts mu/ !re=e ref] to ! sup]s5sible4 ,t1 h[ev]1 c be no?+ b ! uncondition$1 = t is ! sole !oretical ,idea ( reason4 ,n italicis$ 9 ! orig9al4 ,metaphysics ?us relates3 7#a7 to t ( :i* only ! :ole c be repres5t$ z absolutely uncondition$3 7#b7 to ?+s s f> z !y are 9 !mselves s5su\sly uncondition$4 ,! fir/ "p is cosmology1 ! second rational doctr9e ( ! s\l1 pneumatology & !ology40 ,at ?is /age1 !re=e1 ,kant w\ld seem to h held t !re is b "o ,idea /rictly s call$1 & t ! above ?ree pr9cipia are m]ely specifications ( x 9 t]ms ( ! concepts ( sub/ance-accid5t1 gr\nd-consequ5ce1 & :ole-"p4 ,! classification ?us obta9$ is 9 c]ta9 respects m satisfactory ?an t :i* is adopt$ 9 ! ,critique4 ,x locates ! cosmological argum5t ) ! causal category1 & s w\ld enable ! conceptions ( fre$om or causa sui1 & ( ,div9e ,exi/5ce1 to be dealt ) 9 _! natural connection ) "o ano!r4 ,x also supplies1 9 ! category ( :ole & "p1 a m fitt+ head+ = ^? ant9omy problems :i* deal ) ! unlimit$ & ! limit$1 ! divisible & ! indivisible1 ! complex & ! simple4 ,! classification w\ld1 h[ev]1 9 sep>at+ ! problem ( ! simple f t ( sub/ance1 rema9 op5 to ! same criticism z t ( ! ,critique4#acdh ,?is classification mu/1 z we h /at$1 be ( a date prior to ,kant's discov]y ( ! table ( categories4 ,t is q cle> f its ignor+ ! category ( reciprocity1 & f its comb9ation ( ! o!r two categories ( relation ) ! m]ely quantitative category ( :ole & "p4 ,= ?\gh ! la/ is also entitl$ composition & co-ord9ation1 x is conceiv$ 9 ^! p>ticul> ,reflexion5 9 exclusively quantitative t]ms4 ,:5 ,kant =mulat$ ! 8metaphysical0 d$uction ( ! categories he 01 ( c\rse1 compell$ to reca/ ! classification1 & did s 9 ! only possible mann]1 consi/5t ) 8 ar*itectonic1 by sub/itut+ ! category ( reciprocity = t ( :ole & "p1#acdi & by tak+ ! new head+1 obta9$ ?r\gh comb9ation ( reciprocity ) ! ,idea ( ! uncondition$1 z equival5t to ! ,idea ( ,div9e ,exi/5ce4 ,b ?is c\ld n be done )\t dislocat+ ! entire s*eme4 ,! category ( gr\nd & consequ5ce is depriv$ ( its *ief application1 t express$ 9 ! cosmological argum5t2 & 9 ord] to provide a new cont5t = x1 ,kant is compell$ to =ce ^u x ! problems previ\sly classifi$ "u ! displac$ category ( :ole & "p4 ,ev5 s1 ! problem ( ! causa sui _c be elim9at$1 & reappe>s1 p>tly z ! problem ( fre$om1 & p>tly z ! modal problem ( necess>y exi/5ce4 ,! id5tification ( ! !ological ,idea ) ! category ( reciprocity has a fur!r consequ5ce4 ,x c>ries ! problem ( ,div9e ,exi/5ce outside ! sph]e ( ! problems ( inf9ity1 & necessitates a v diff]5t treatm5t f t :i* x w\ld naturally h receiv$ at ,kant's h&s1 if develop$ 9 its connection ) 8 own ,critical tea*+4 ,he is driv5 to exp\nd x 9 ! extreme rationali/ic =m 9 :i* x _h be5 =mulat$ by ,leibniz & ,wolff1 z a doctr9e ( ! ,ens realissimum4 ,prior to ! re>rangem5t1 necessitat$ by recognition ( ! category ( reciprocity1 ,kant w\ld seem to h expect$ to br+ ! entire body ( ,wolffian metaphysics )9 ! scope ( a g5]al doctr9e ( ant9omy4 ,! problems ( ! divisible & ! indivisible1 ( ! simple & ! complex1 lead+ z !y d to discussion ( ! presuppositions und]ly+ ! ,leibnizian monadology1 conc]n spiritual z well z mat]ial sub/ance4 ,simil>ly1 ! ma9 problems ( !ology w\ld h be5 treat$ 9 connection ) ! cosmological inf]5ce to a fir/ cause1 & ) ! discussion ( ! possibility ( fir/ beg9n+s 9 space & "t4#acej ,! sections 9 ! ,critique devot$ to ! ant9omies reveal1 9 _m ways1 ,kant's orig9al design4 ,x is especially noticeable 9 8 discussion ( ! ?ird & f\r? ant9omies4 ,! problems ( fre$om & ( necess>y exi/5ce are by no means treat$ 9 m]ely cosmological fa%ion4 ,inde$ ,kant makes no pret5ce ( conceal+ _! psy*ological & !ological implications4 ,ev5 ! fir/ & second ant9omies h obvi\s be>+s ( a simil> "*4 ,b x is 9 ! section entitl$ ,! ,int]e/ ( ,reason 9 ?is ,self-conflict#acea t ! broad] significance ( ! ant9omies f9ds its fulle/ expression4 ,9 its sugge/ive contra/ ( ! two possible types ( philosophy1 ,epicurean & ,platonic1 ! argum5t entirely transc5ds ! b\nds prescrib$ to x by its cosmological sett+4 ,z we foll[ ! compreh5sive sweep ( its argum5t1 we c h>dly avoid regrett+ t ,kant fail$ to keep to 8 orig9al plan1 z "h unfold$1#aceb ( exp\nd+ ! self-conflict ( ,reason 9 ! =m ( a broad judicial /atem5t ( ! gr\nds & claims ( ! two oppos+ au?orities :i* divide ! allegiance ( ! human _s1 namely1 ! intellectual & ! moral1 sci5ce ) its cognitive dem&s on ! "o h&1 ! consci\sness ( duty ) its no less imp]i\s prescriptions on ! o!r4 ,! mat]iali/ philosophies w\ld !n h be5 pres5t$ z inevitably aris+ :5 intellectual values are made supreme2 & ! ,ideali/ philosophies z equally cog5t :5 moral values are tak5 z prim>y & are all[$ to det]m9e speculative t5ets4 ,aga9/ ?is backgr\nd ( conflict+ dogmatisms ! compreh5sive & satisfy+ "* ( ! ,critical /&po9t w\ld h /ood out ! m cle>ly2 & its hi/orical affiliations1 its debt to ! sceptics & mat]iali/s1 no less ?an to ! ,ideali/s1 w\ld h be5 depict$ 9 m adequate t]ms4 ,z x is1 9 ! *apt]s on ! ,p>alogisms & ! ,ideal ( ,pure ,reason !re is almo/ entire failure to recognise ! possibility ( a naturali/ic solution ( ! problems ) :i* !y deal1 & ,kant s f> succumbs to ! outworn influ5ces ( 8 day & g5]ation--! v influ5ces f :i* ! ,critical philosophy1 consi/5tly develop$1 is a f9al break+ away--z to ma9ta91 almo/ 9 ! mann] ( ! ,engli% ,dei/s1 ( ,voltaire & ,r\sseau1 t ,god1 ,fre$om1 & ,immortality are conceptions :i* ! m9d mu/ necess>ily =m1 & 9 ! validity ( :i* x mu/ spontane\sly believe4 ,kant is "h1 inde$1 int]pret+ 8natural reason0 9 ! light ( 8 own p]sonal hi/ory4 ,! ,*ri/ian beliefs1 9 :i* he _h be5 nurtur$ f *ildhood1 & _! rationali/ c\nt]p>ts 9 ! ,wolffian philosophy1 _h become1 z x 71 a second nature to him2 & ! resi/ance1 :i* 9 8 own p]son !y _h (f]$ to ! developm5t ( ,critical tea*+1 he n unnaturally int]pret$ z evid5ce ( _! be+ impos$ by ! v /ructure ( reason4 ,he trans=ms ! metaphysical sci5ces 9 _! ,wolffian =m into inevitable illusions ( ! human m9d4#acec ,!re is evid5ce t ! !ological problems 7 ! fir/ to be )drawn f ! sph]e ( ! 8sceptical me?od10#aced peculi> to ! ant9omies4 ,?us ,reflexion ii4 #abeacee /ates t 8metaphysics prop] consi/s ( cosmologia rationalis & !ologia naturalis0--rational psy*ology be+1 z x w\ld seem1 /ill includ$ )9 cosmology4#acef ,:at ! consid]ations 7 :i* induc$ ,kant to claim simil>ly indep5d5t treatm5t = rational psy*ology1 we c only conjecture4 ,= a "t1 :ile /ill hold+ to ! bip>tite division1 he w\ld seem to h made ! fur!r *ange ( also sep>at+ psy*ology f cosmology1 class+ psy*ology & !ology toge!r z subdivisions ( ! rational sci5ce ( s\l4 0,metaphysics has two p>ts3 ! fir/ is cosmology1 ! second rational doctr9e ( s\l1 pneumatology & !ology40#aceg ,a ma9 factor decid+ ,kant 9 fav\r ( a dogmatic1 non-sceptical treatm5t ( rational psy*ology may h be5 ! great] opportunity :i* x seem$ to af=d him ( connect+ its doctr9es ) ! tea*+ ( ! ,analytic1 & especially ) 8 c5tral doctr9e ( app]ception4 ,b to :atev] cause ! decision 0 due1 x result$ 9 ! impov]i%m5t ( ! second ant9omy1 ?r\gh )drawal ( ! m important half ( its natural cont5t4 ,?is ant9omy c\ld no long] be made to compreh5d a discussion ( ! logical bases ( monadology1 & ( its pr(ess$ pro(s ( ! simplicity & immortality ( ! s\l4 ,no?+ is left to x save ! discussion ( ! monadi/ic !ory ( matt] 7somatologia pura74#aceh ,?is *ange has also1 z already not$1 ! un=tunate effect ( preclud+ ,kant f recognition ( ! physical application ( ! category ( sub/ance4 ,by ! simple he means ! sub/antial1 & yet he may n say s2 8 ar*itectonic =bids4 ,i may haz>d ! fur!r sugge/ion t ,kant's int]pretation ( rational psy*ology 9 t]ms ( ! ,critical doctr9e ( app]ception is ( e>li] date ?an 8 doctr9e ( transc5d5tal illusion4 ,= ! *apt] on ! ,p>alogisms seems 9 its fir/ =m to h conta9$ no ref]5ce to t latt] doctr9e4#acei ,! few passages :i* take acc\nt ( x1 all be> evid5ce ( be+ lat] int]calations4 ,?is is ! m rem>kable 9 t ! ,p>alogisms c easily be %[n to be typical examples ( transc5d5tal illusion4 ,inde$1 nei!r ! ant9omies nor ! !ological ,ideal con=m to its def9ition 9 ! same /rict fa%ion4 ,! problem z to :e!r ! doctr9e ( transc5d5tal illusion & ! d$uction ( ! ,ideas f ! ?ree species ( syllogism orig9at$ e>ly or late1 is l>gely b\nd up ) ! "q z to :5 ,kant f9ally adopt$ ! t]ms ,analytic & ,dialectic z titles = ! two ma9 divisions ( 8 ,transc5d5tal ,logic4 ,t ,kant 0 at fir/ v unc]ta9 z to :at ! ma9 divisions ( 8 sy/em ought to be1 appe>s v cle>ly f ! ,reflexion54#acfj ,to 8 tea*+ z a :ole he usually applies ! title ,transc5d5tal ,philosophy1 & 9 ,reflexion ii4 #abc he enum]ates ! foll[+ subdivisions )9 x3 ,ae/hetic1 ,logic1 ,critique1 & ,ar*itectonic4 ,by ,critique ,kant mu/ "h mean :at 9 o!r ,reflexion5 he names ,discipl9e1 & :i* he f9ally nam$ ,dialectic4 ,z ?us id5tifi$ ) ! ,discipl9e1 ! ,dialectic is at times view$ z a division ( a ,me?odology or ,organon1 ^: o!r divisions are entitl$ ,canon & ,ar*itectonic4#acfa ,?is e>li] s*eme may !re=e be repres5t$ z foll[s3 ,ae/hetic4 ,doctr9e ( ,elem5ts ,logic4 ,transc5d5tal ,philosophy ,critique ,discipl9e correspond+ ,doctr9e ( ,me?ods to ! ,dialectic 7,me?odology7 ( ! ,critique4 ,canon4 ,ar*itectonic4 ,! t]ms ,analytic & ,dialectic d n occur 9 ^! ,reflexion51 & _! adoption may !re=e be inf]r$ to syn*ronise ) ,kant's lat] decision to include ! treatm5t ( ! metaphysical sci5ces )9 8 ,logic2 & t decision 0 probably an imm$iate result ( 8 hav+ develop$ meantime a doctr9e ( transc5d5tal illusion4 ,! new s*eme 9 its f9al =m is !re=e z foll[s3 ,ae/hetic4 ,doctr9e ( ,elem5ts ,analytic ( ,concepts4 ,logic ( ,judgem5t4 ,transc5d5tal ,dialectic--( ,reason4 ,philosophy or ,critique ( ,pure ,reason ,discipl9e 7reta9$ b giv5 a new ,doctr9e ( & m g5]al cont5t74 ,me?ods ,canon4 7,me?odology7 ,ar*itectonic4 ,hi/ory4 ,9 ?us transf]r+ ,dialectic f ! ,me?odology to ! ,doctr9e ( ,elem5ts1 ,kant /&s committ$ to ! view t x conta9s positive tea*+ ( a "* analog\s to t ( ! ,analytic1 ) :i* x is n[ co-ord9at$4 ,z we h already not$1 ! fundam5tal opposition :i* runs ?r\gh ! entire ,dialectic is due to ! conflict betwe5 ! old] view ( ,reason z m]ely und]/&+ 9 its transc5d5t employm5t1 & ?is lat] view ( x z a di/9ct faculty1 yield+ concepts ) a positive & indisp5sable function1 diff]5t f1 & yet also analog\s to1 t ex]cis$ by ! categories ( ! und]/&+4 ,adickes1 to :om /ud5ts ( ,kant are indebt$ = a conv9c+ demon/ration ( ! con/ant influ5ce ( ,kant's logical ar*itectonic ^u ! cont5t ( ! ,critical tea*+1 w\ld seem at ?is po9t to rely too exclusively ^u t me?od ( explanation4 ,he cont5ds t ,kant's d$uction ( ! ,ideas ( ,reason f ! ?ree species ( syllogism is entirely traceable to ?is s\rce1 & is )\t real philosophical significance4 ,t is p]haps 9 ! ma9 true4 ,b x ne$ n prev5t u f appreciat+ ! importance ( ! doctr9es :i* ,kant contrives to exp\nd "u guise ( ?is logical ma*9]y4 ,we h already obs]v$ t prior to ! discov]y ( ?is d$uction ,kant _h recognis$ ! connection betwe5 ! concept ( ! uncondition$ & ! ?ree ,ideas ?r\gh :i* x f9ds expression4 ,z ! =ms ( syllogism are diff]5tiat$ 9 t]ms ( ! ?ree categories ( relation1 ! d$uction does n int]f]e ) ,kant's ret5tion ( ?is classification ( ,ideas2 :ile 9 connect+ ,reason z a faculty ) reason+ z a logical process1 an excell5t opportunity is f\nd = expla9+ ! gr\nds & significance ( ! dem& = uncondition$ness1 i4e4 = complet5ess ( explanation4 ,?is dem&1 z he has also come to recognise1 lies op5 to "q1 & !re=e calls = m precise def9ition4 ,! artificial "* ( ! metaphysical d$uction lies n s mu* 9 ?is d]ivation ( ! ?ree ,ideas ( ! uncondition$--uncondition$ sub/ance1 uncondition$ causality1 uncondition$ sy/em--f ! categorical1 hypo!tical1 & disjunctive =ms ( syllogism respectively1 z 9 ! fur!r equat+ ( !m ) ! ,ideas ( ! ,self1 ! ,_w1 & ,god4 ,! ,idea ( uncondition$ sub/ance has _m possible applications besides ! use to :i* x is put 9 rational psy*ology4 ,! ,idea ( an uncondition$ causality may be conceiv$ 9 psy*ological & !ological z well z 9 cosmological t]ms2 & z a matt] ( fact ,kant himself frequ5tly id5tifies x ) ! concept ( fre$om1 z 9 ! ?ird & f\r? ant9omies1 or :5 he enum]ates ! ,ideas z be+ ^? ( ,god1 ,fre$om1 & ,immortality4#acfb ,simil>ly1 ! ,idea ( sy/em is ! inspir+ pr9ciple ( mat]ialism1 & also f9ds 9 su* philosophies z t ( ,sp9oza mu* m adequate expression ?an 9 ! ,ens realissimum ( ! ,wolffian ,s*ool4 ,b fur!r comm5t is n1 at ?is /age1 really pr(itable4 ,^! are que/ions :i* c be/ be discuss$ z !y em]ge 9 ! c\rse ( ! argum5t4#acfc ,kant c>ri$ 8 logical ar*itectonic "o /age fur!r4 ,n satisfi$ ) connect+ ! ?ree ,ideas ( ,reason ) ! categories t und]lie ! ?ree species ( syllogism1 he also attempt$ to organise ! v>i\s p>ticul> applications ( ea* ,idea 9 t]ms ( ! f\rfold division ( ! table ( categories4 ,by ! use ( 8 usual high-h&$ me?ods he succe$$ 9 do+ s 9 ! case ( ! psy*ological & cosmological ,ideas4 ,!re are f\r p>alogisms & f\r ant9omies4 ,b :5 ! attempt fail$ 9 reg>d to ! !ological ,idea1 he v wisely ab/a9$ f ei!r apology or explanation4 ,t ! failure 0 n due to lack ( desire or p]sev]ance appe>s f ,reflexion ii4 #aegc1 :i* w\ld seem to be ! record ( an unavail+ attempt to obta9 a satisfactory articulation ( ! !ological ,ideal4 ,d\btless1 _h he be5 suffici5tly b5t ^u x1 he c\ld h work$ out "s sort ( f\rfold division2 b !re 7 limits ev5 to ,kant's devotion to ! ar*itectonic s*eme4 ,x is difficult to see h[ any su* arrangem5t c\ld h be5 foll[$ )\t s]i\s p]v]sion ( ! argum5t4 ,adickes has sugge/$#acfd t ! di/9ction betwe5 ! faculty ( und]/&+ & ! faculty ( judgm5t is subsequ5t to1 & sugge/$ by1 ,kant's successful trac+ ( ! ,ideas to a sep>ate faculty ( ,reason4 ,"s su* di/9ction 0 dem&$ 9 ord] t ! p>allelism ( transc5d5tal & =mal logic might be complete4 ,?is conjecture ( ,adickes is probably correct4 ,x w\ld seem to be support$ by ! int]nal evid5ce ( ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples4 ,z we h _h occasion to note1#acfe ! doctr9e ( s*ematism1 9 t]ms ( :i* ! di/9ction betwe5 und]/&+ & judgm5t is =mulat$1 is late 9 date ( orig94#acff ,?is di/9ction is ( ! same artificial "* z t betwe5 und]/&+ & ,reason2 & ?\gh1 l ! latt] di/9ction1 x supplies ,kant ) a conv5i5t framework = ! arrangem5t ( g5u9e ,critical mat]ial1 x also t5ds to conceal ! simpl] & m inw>d bonds ( true relation%ip4 ,,transc5d5tal ,,dialectic ,,introduction ,i4 ,transc5d5tal ,illusion ,dialectic is a ,logic ( ,illusion4#acfg--,! mean+ :i* ,kant atta*es to ! t]m dialectic has already be5 consid]$4 ,! passage above quot$#acfh f 8 ,logic %[s ! mean+ :i* he suppos$ ! t]m hi/orically to possess1 namely1 z be+ a sophi/ical art ( disputation1 pres5t+ false pr9ciples 9 ! guise ( tru? by means ( a seem+ fulfilm5t ( ! dem&s ( /rict logical pro(4 ,! incorrectness ( ?is hi/orical d]ivation h>dly ne$s to be po9t$ out4 ,kant pr(esses#acfi to be foll[+ 8 contempor>ies 9 ?us us+ ! t]m z a title = ! treatm5t ( false reason+4 ,b ev5 ?is /atem5t mu/ be *all5g$4 ,adickes1 aft] exam9ation ( a l>ge numb] ( eighte5?-c5tury text-books1 reports#acgj t 9 ! six passages 9 :i* alone he has f\nd x to occur x is nev] s employ$4 ,9 ,mei] x is us$ z a title = ! !ory ( probable reason+1#acga & 9 ,baumg>t5 x occurs only 9 adjectival =m z equival5t to sophi/ical4 ,?is la/ is ! ne>e/ approa* to ,kant's def9ition4 ,all hi/orical consid]ations may !re=e be swept aside4 ,we are conc]n$ only ) ! specific mean+ :i* ,kant ?\ght good to atta* to ! t]m4 ,he adapts x 9 ! free/ mann] to ! ne$s ( 8 sy/em4 ,9 ,a #fa ,b #he1 z 9 8 ,logic1 he has def9$ x 9 m]ely negative fa%ion4 ,he is n[ c>eful to specify ! m positive aspects ( ! problems ) :i* x deals4 ,?\gh def9able z ! logic ( illusion1 ! deceptive inf]5ces ) :i* x conc]ns itself are ( a q unique & supremely significant "*4 ,!y mu/1 z above not$1#acgb be di/+ui%$ alike f logical & f empirical illusion4 ,!y h _! roots 9 ! fundam5tal ne$s ( ! human m9d1 & ! recognition ( _! illusory "* does n r5d] unnecess>y ei!r a positive explanation ( _! occurr5ce or a ,critical valuation ( _! practical function z regulative ideals4 ,a #bic ,b #cdi4--,reg>d+ ! connection betwe5 illusion & error cf4 ,b #fi1 & above1 pp4 #adh-ec4 ,a #bie ,b #ceb4--,logical1 empirical1 & transc5d5tal illusion4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ac1 #dbg-i1 #dcg4 ,a #bif ,b #ceb4--,kant "h def9es ! t]ms transc5d5tal & transc5d5t 9 a v unusual mann]4 ,! two t]ms are n1 he /ates1 synonym\s4 ,! pr9ciples ( pure und]/&+ are ( m]ely empirical validity1 & consequ5tly are n ( transc5d5tal employm5t beyond ! limits ( exp]i5ce4 ,a pr9ciple is transc5d5t :5 x n only removes ^! limits1 b prescribes ! ov]/epp+ ( !m4 ,,ii4 ,pure ,reason z ! ,seat ( ,transc5d5tal ,illusion#acgc 7a7 ,reason 9 ,g5]al ,reason1 l und]/&+1 is employ$ 9 two ways1 =mal or logical & real4 ,! logical use ( ,reason consi/s 9 m$iate inf]5ce1 ! real 9 ! g5]ation ( concepts & pr9ciples4 ,reason is ?us bo? a logical & a transc5d5tal faculty1 & we may !re=e expect t its logical functions w s]ve z a clue to ^? t are transc5d5tal4 ,! argum5t :i* foll[s is extremely obscure4 ,x is a =e%ad[+ 9 logical t]ms ( a di/9ction :i*1 z ,kant himself indicates1 _c at ?is /age be adequately /at$4 ,! di/9ction may be ext5d$ & p>aphras$ z foll[s4 ,reason1 g5]ically tak5 z includ+ bo? activities1 is ! faculty ( pr9ciples1 9 di/9ction f und]/&+ :i* is ! faculty ( rules4#acgd ,pr9ciples1 prop]ly s-call$1 are absolutely a priori4 ,univ]sals :i* imply ! elem5t ( intuition mu/ n1 !re=e1 be rank$ z pr9ciples 9 ! /rict s5se4 ,!y are m prop]ly to be entitl$ rules4 ,a true pr9ciple is "o t af=ds k ( ! p>ticul>s :i* come "u x1 & :i* does s f its own int]nal res\rces1 t is to say1 ?r\gh pure concepts4 ,9 o!r words1 x yields a priori syn!tic k1 & yet does s indep5d5tly ( all giv5 exp]i5ce4 ,n[1 z ! ,analytic has prov$1 k obta9$ ?r\gh und]/&+1 :e!r 9 ma!matical or 9 physical sci5ce1 is nev] ( ?is "*4 ,its pr9ciples1 ev5 ?\gh orig9at+ 9 pure intuition or 9 ! pure und]/&+1 are valid only z conditions ( possible exp]i5ce1 & are applicable only to su* objects z c occur 9 ! context ( a s5se-p]ception4 ,t is to say1 ! und]/&+ c nev] obta9 syn!tic k ?r\gh pure concepts4 ,?\gh1 = in/ance1 x prescribes ! pr9ciple t ev]y?+ :i* happ5s mu/ h a cause1 t pr9ciple does n e/abli% itself by means ( ! concepts :i* x conta9s1 b only z be+ a presupposition necess>y to ! possibility ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,if1 !n1 pr9ciples 9 ! /rict s5se actually exi/1 !y mu/ be due to a faculty di/9ct f und]/&+1 & w call = a d$uction ( a diff]5t "* f t ( ! categories4 ,9 ! la/ p>agraph b "o ( ! section ,kant indicates ! doctr9e :i* he is =e%ad[+4 ,! rules ( und]/&+ apply to appe>ances1 prescrib+ ! conditions "u :i* ! unity necess>y to any & e exp]i5ce c alone be atta9$4 ,! pr9ciples ( ,reason d n apply directly to appe>ances1 b only to ! und]/&+1 def9+ ! /&>ds to :i* its activities mu/ con=m1 if a completely unifi$ exp]i5ce is to be a*iev$4 ,:]eas ! rules ( und]/&+ are ! conditions ( objective exi/5ce 9 space & "t1 pr9ciples 9 ! /rict s5se are crit]ia = ! atta9m5t ( su* absolut5ess & totality z w h>monise ,reason ) itself4 ,reason1 det]m9$ by pr9ciples :i* issue f its own inh]5t nature1 prescribes :at ! actual ought to be2 und]/&+1 proce$+ f rules :i* express ! conditions ( possible exp]i5ce1 c yield k only ( :at is f\nd to exi/ 9 ! c\rse ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,! unity ( ,reason is ,ideal2 ! unity ( und]/&+ is empirical4 ,pr9ciples are due to ! self-det]m9ation ( reason2 ! rules ( und]/&+ express ! necessitat$ det]m9ations ( s5se4 ,! =m] dem& a m p]fect & complete unity ?an is ev] atta9able by means ( ! latt]4 ,two passages f ! ,lose ,bltt] w help to def9e ! di/9ction4 8,!re is a syn!sis prototypon & a syn!sis ectypon4 ,! "o 444 simplicit]1 a t]m9o a priori1 444 ! o!r secundum quid1 a t]m9o a po/]iori4444 ,reason advances f ! univ]sal to ! p>ticul>1 ! und]/&+ f ! p>ticul> to ! univ]sal4444 ,! fir/ is absolute & belongs to ! free or metaphysical1 & also to ! moral1 employm5t ( ,reason40#acge 8,! pr9ciples ( ! syn!sis ( pure ,reason are all metaphysical4444 ,!y are pr9ciples ( ! subjective unity ( k ?r\gh ,reason1 i4e4 ( ! agreem5t ( ,reason ) itself40#acgf ,! *ief int]e/ ( ?is section lies 9 its cle> indication ( ! dual /&po9t to :i* ,kant is committ+ himself by ! mann] 9 :i* he =mulates ?is di/9ction betwe5 rules & pr9ciples4 ,! indisp5sabl5ess ( ! latt]1 ^u :i* ,kant is prep>$ to insi/1 po9ts to ! ,ideali/ int]pretation ( _! gr\nds & validity2 _! d]ivation f m]e concepts1 )\t ref]5ce to or basis 9 exp]i5ce1 mu/1 on ! o!r h&1 9 view ( ! tea*+ ( ! ,analytic1 commit ,kant to a sceptical treatm5t ( _! objective validity4 ,9 ! above acc\nt1 sugge/ions ( ! ,ideali/ po9t ( view are n entirely abs5t2 b1 on ! :ole1 x is ! sceptical view t is dom9ant4 ,! ,ideas ( ,reason c be ju/ifi$ z necess>y only = ! p]fect+ ( exp]i5ce1 n z conditions ( exp]i5ce z su*4 ,!y express a subjective int]e/ 9 ! atta9m5t ( unity1 n conditions ( ! possibility ( objective exi/5ce4 0,civil ,laws are only limitations impos$ ^u our fre$om 9 ord] t su* fre$om may completely h>monise ) itself2 h5ce !y are direct$ to some?+ :i* is entirely our own "w1 & ( :i* we ourselves1 ?r\gh ^! concepts1 c be ! cause4 ,b t objects 9 !mselves1 ! v nature ( ?+s1 %\ld /& "u pr9ciples1 & %\ld be det]m9$ accord+ to m]e concepts1 is a dem& :i*1 if n impossible1 is at lea/ q contr>y to common s5se ,wid]s9nis*es40#acgg 7b7 ,! ,logical ,use ( ,reason#acgh ,9 ?is subsection ,kant introduces ! di/9ction betwe5 und]/&+ & judgm5t :i* he has s\ght to ju/ify 9 ,a #acj ff4 ,b #afi ff4 ,by %[+ t inf]5ce det]m9es ! relation betwe5 a major premiss 7due to ! und]/&+7 & ! condition def9$ 9 ! m9or premiss 7due to ! faculty ( judgm5t71 he pr(esses to obta9 ju/ification = classify+ ! possible =ms ( reason+ accord+ to ! ?ree categories ( relation4 ,! g5]al rem>k is add$ t ! purpose ( ,reason1 9 its logical employm5t z inf]5ce1 is to obta9 ! highe/ possible unity1 ?r\gh subsumption ( all multiplicity "u ! smalle/ possible numb] ( univ]sals4 7c7 ,! ,pure ,use ( ,reason#acgi ,kant "h /ates ! alt]natives betwe5 :i* ! ,dialectic has to decide4 ,is ,reason m]ely =mal1 arrang+ giv5 mat]ial accord+ to giv5 =ms ( unity1 or is x a s\rce ( pr9ciples :i* prescribe high] =ms ( unity ?an any reveal$ by actual exp]i5ce8 ,fur!r exam9ation ( its =mal & logical proc$ure con/ra9s u1 ,kant ass]ts1 to adopt ! latt] position2 & at ! same "t indicates h[ ^? pr9ciples mu/ be int]pret$1 namely1 z subjective laws t apply n to objects b only to ! activities ( ! und]/&+4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 a syllogism is n directly conc]n$ ) intuitions1 b only ) concepts & judgm5ts4 ,?is may be tak5 z indicat+ t pure ,reason relates to objects only m$iately by way ( und]/&+ & its judgm5ts4 ,! unity :i* x seeks is high] ?an t ( any possible exp]i5ce2 x is a unity :i* mu/ be con/ruct$ & _c be giv54#achj ,secondly1 ,reason 9 its logical use seeks ! univ]sal condition ( its judgm5t2 & :5 su* is n f\nd 9 ! major premiss proce$s to its discov]y ?r\gh a regressive s]ies ( prosyllogisms4 ,9 s do+ x is obvi\sly det]m9$ by a pr9ciple expressive ( ! peculi> function ( ,reason 9 its logical employm5t1 namely1 t = ! condition$ k ( und]/&+ ! uncondition$ unity 9 :i* t k may f9d completion mu/ be discov]$4 ,su* a pr9ciple is syn!tic1 s9ce f analysis ( ! conception ( ! condition$ we c discov] its relation to a condition1 b nev] its relation to ! uncondition$4 ,t is a notion :i* falls entirely outside ! sph]e ( ! und]/&+1 & :i* !re=e dem&s a sep>ate enquiry4 ,h[ is ! above a priori syn!tic pr9ciple to be acc\nt$ =1 if x _c be trac$ to und]/&+8 ,has x objective1 or has x m]ely subjective validity8 ,& la/ly1 :at fur!r syn!tic pr9ciples c be bas$ ^u x8 ,su* are ! que/ions to :i* ,critical ,dialectic mu/ supply an answ]4 ,?is ,dialectic w be compos$ ( two ma9 divisions1 ! doctr9e ( 8! transc5d5t concepts ( pure ,reason0 & ! doctr9e ( 8transc5d5t & dialectical inf]5ces ( ,reason40 ,,book ,i ,,! ,,concepts ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#acha ,! di/9ction "h drawn betwe5 concepts obta9$ by reflection & concepts ga9$ by inf]5ce is a some:at mislead+ mode ( /at+ ! fact t1 :]eas ! categories ( und]/&+ condition exp]i5ce & s make possible ! unity ( consci\sness necess>y to all reflection1 or1 9 o!r words1 are conditions ( ! mat]ial suppli$ = inf]5ce1 ! concepts ( ,reason are ,ideal con/ructions :i* ?\gh 9 a c]ta9 s5se re/+ ^u exp]i5ce none ! less transc5d x4 ,! function ( ! ,ideas is to organise exp]i5ce 9 its totality2 t ( ! categories is to r5d] possible ! s5se-p]ceptions con/itutive ( its cont5t4 ,! =m] ref] to ! uncondition$1 & ?\gh t is a conception "u :i* ev]y?+ exp]i5c$ is conceiv$ to fall1 x repres5ts a type ( k to :i* no actual exp]i5ce c ev] be adequate4 ,conceptus ratioc9ati--conceptus ratioc9antes4 ,:5 su* transc5d5t concepts possess 8objective validity10 !y are correctly inf]r$1 & may be entitl$ conceptus ratioc9ati4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 !y are due to m]ely sophi/ical#achb reason+1 !y are purely fictiti\s1 conceptus ratioc9antes4 ,?is di/9ction raises _m difficulties4 ,kant's int5tion _c be to d5y t ! conceptus ratioc9ati are 8m]e ,ideas0 7entia rationis7#achc--;= su* is 8 av[$ & con/ant cont5tion--or t ! inf]5ce to !m is dialectical & is bas$ ^u a transc5d5tal illusion4 ,two alt]natives are op54 ,he may mean t !y are only valid :5 ! results ( su* inf]5ce are ,critically re9t]pret$1 & :5 ! function ( ! ,ideas is realis$ to be m]ely regulative2 or 8 int5tion may be to m>k (f ! ,ideas1 /rictly s-call$1 :i* are inevitable & b5eficial products ( ,reason1 f ! _m idle & sup]flu\s inv5tions ( speculative ?\ght4 ,kant's conclud+ rem>k1 t ! que/ions at issue c be adequately discuss$ only at a lat] /age1 may be tak5 z 9 ! nature ( an apology = ! loos5ess ( ^! prelim9>y /atem5ts1 & z a w>n+ to ! read] n to insi/ ^u !m too absolutely4 ,! p>ticiples ratioc9ati & ratioc9antes#achd are ( d\btful lat9ity4 ,! di/9ction ( mean+ "h impos$ ^u !m has n be5 trac$ 9 any o!r writ]1 & is p]haps ,kant's own inv5tion4#ache ,,section ,i ,,ideas ,,9 ,,g5]al#achf ,kant connects 8 use ( ! t]m ,idea ) ! mean+ 9 :i* x is employ$ by ,plato4 ,he urges ^u all true lov]s ( philosophy ! imp]ative ne$ ( rescu+ f misuse a t]m s indisp5sable to m>k a di/9ction m vital ?an any o!r to ! v exi/5ce ( ! philosophical discipl9es4 0,= ,plato ,ideas are ! ar*etypes ( ! ?+s !mselves1 & n1 l ! categories1 m]ely keys to possible exp]i5ces4 ,9 8 view !y issu$ f ! ,supreme ,reason1 & f t s\rce h come to be %>$ 9 by human ,reason4444 ,he v well realis$ t our faculty ( k feels a mu* high] ne$ ?an m]ely to spell out appe>ances accord+ to a syn!tic unity1 9 ord] to read !m z exp]i5ce4 ,he knew t our ,reason naturally exalts itself to =ms ( k :i* s f> transc5d ! b\nds ( exp]i5ce t no giv5 empirical object c ev] co9cide ) !m1 b :i* mu/ none ! less be recognis$ z hav+ _! own reality & :i* are by no means m]e fictions ( ! bra940#achg ,plato f\nd ^! ideas *iefly1 ?\gh n exclusively1 9 ! practical sph]e4 ,:5 moral /&>ds are 9 "q1 exp]i5ce is ! "m ( illusion4 8,= no?+ c be m injuri\s or m unwor?y ( a philosoph] ?an ! vulg> appeal to s-call$ adv]se exp]i5ce4 ,su* exp]i5ce w\ld nev] h exi/$ at all1 if ^? in/itutions _h be5 e/abli%$ at ! prop] "t 9 accordance ) ,ideas1 & if ,ideas _h n be5 displac$ by crude conceptions :i*1 j because !y h be5 d]iv$ f exp]i5ce1 h nullifi$ all good int5tions40#achh ,ev5 9 ! natural sph]e ,ideas :i* are nev] !mselves adequately embodi$ 9 ! actual mu/ be po/ulat$ 9 ord] to acc\nt = ! actual4 ,c]ta9 =ms ( exi/5ces 8are possible only accord+ to ,ideas40 8,a plant1 an animal1 ! ord]ly arrangem5t ( ! cosmos--probably1 !re=e1 ! entire natural _w--cle>ly %[ t !y are possible only accord+ to ,ideas1 & t ?\gh no s+le creature 9 ! conditions ( its individual exi/5ce co9cides ) ! ,idea ( :at is mo/ p]fect 9 its k9d--j z little z does any individual man exactly con=m to ! ,idea ( humanity1 :i* he actually c>ries 9 8 s\l z ! ar*etype ( 8 actions--yet ^! ,ideas are none ! less completely det]m9$ 9 ! ,supreme ,und]/&+1 ea* z an individual & ea* z un*angeable1 & are ! orig9al causes ( ?+s4 ,b only ! totality ( ?+s1 9 _! int]connection z con/itut+ ! univ]se1 is completely adequate to ! ,idea40#achi ,?\gh ,kant av[s ! int5tion ( adapt+ ! t]m ,idea freely to ! ne$s ( 8 m ,critical /&po9t1 all ^! consid]ations contribute to ! ri* & v>i$ mean+s 9 :i* he employs x4 ,reflexion5 & passages f ! ,lectures on ,metaphysics may be quot$ to %[ ! ?or\ghly ,platonic "* ( ,kant's e>ly use ( ! t]m1 & to illu/rate its gradual adju/m5t to ,critical dem&s4 8,! ,idea is ! unity ( k1 ?r\gh :i* ! manifold ei!r ( k or ( ! object is possible4 ,9 ! =m]1 ! :ole ( k prec$es its p>ts1 ! univ]sal prec$es ! p>ticul>2 9 ! latt]1 k ( ! objects prec$es _! possibility1 z e4g4 9 objects t possess ord] & p]fection40#acij 8,t an object is possible only ?r\gh a =m ( k is a surpris+ /atem5t2 b all teleological relations are possible only ?r\gh a =m ( k i4e4 a concept40#acia 8,! ,idea is s+le 7individuum71 self-suffici5t1 & et]nal4 ,! div9ity ( our s\l is its capacity to =m ! ,idea4 ,! s5ses give only copies or r app>5tia40#acib 8,z ! ,und]/&+ ( ,god is ! gr\nd ( all possibility1 ar*etypes1 ,ideas1 are 9 ,god4444 ,! div9e ,intuitus conta9s ,ideas accord+ to :i* we ourselves are possible2 cognitio div9a e/ cognitio ar*etypa1 & ,8 ,ideas are ar*etypes ( ?+s4 ,! correspond+ =ms ( k possess$ by ! human und]/&+ we may also entitle 79 a comp>ative s5se7 ar*etypes or ,ideas4 ,!y are ^? repres5tations ( our und]/&+ :i* s]ve = judgm5t ^u ?+s40#acic 8,idea is ! repres5tation ( ! :ole 9 s f> z x necess>ily prec$es ! det]m9ation ( ! p>ts4 ,x c nev] be empirically repres5t$1 because 9 exp]i5ce we proce$ f ! p>ts ?r\gh successive syn!sis to ! :ole4 ,x is ! ar*etype ( ?+s1 = c]ta9 objects are only possible ?r\gh an ,idea4 ,transc5d5tal ,ideas are ^? 9 :i* ! absolute :ole det]m9es ! p>ts 9 an aggregate or z s]ies40#acid 8,! pure concepts ( ,reason h no exempl>ia2 !y are !mselves ar*etypes4 ,b ! concepts ( our pure ,reason h z _! ar*etypes ?is ,reason itself & are !re=e subjective1 n objective40#acie 8,! transc5d5tal ,ideas s]ve to limit ! pr9ciples ( exp]i5ce1 =bidd+ _! ext5sion to ?+s 9 !mselves1 & %[+ t :at is nev] an object ( possible exp]i5ce is n !re=e a non-entity ,und+1 & t exp]i5ce is n adequate ei!r to itself or to ,reason1 b always ref]s u fur!r to :at is beyond itself40#acif 8,! employm5t ( ! concept ( und]/&+ 0 imman5t1 t ( ! ,ideas z concepts ( objects is transc5d5t4 ,b z regulative pr9ciples alike ( ! completion & ( ! limitation ( our k1 !y are ,critically imman5t40#acig 8,! difficulties ( metaphysics all arise 9 connection ) ! reconcil+ ( empirical pr9ciples ) ,ideas4 ,! possibility ( ! latt] _c be d5i$1 b nei!r c !y be made empirically intelligible4 ,! ,idea is nev] a conceptus dabilis2 x is n an empirically possible conception40#acih ,kant#acii app5ds ! foll[+ #8,/uf5leit]' 7ladd]-l7 arrangem5t ( titles = ! v>i\s k9ds ( repres5tation4 ,repres5tation 7,vor/ellung7 is ! t]m :i* he sub/itutes = ! ,c>tesian & ,lockian employm5t ( ! t]m idea1 n[ res]v$ = use 9 its true ,platonic mean+4 ,to entitle su* a repres5tation z t ( r$ col\r an idea is1 9 ,kant's view1 an intol]able & b>b>ic proc$ure2 t repres5tation is n ev5 a concept ( ! und]/&+4 ,repres5tation 7,vor/ellung1 ,p]ception ,repraes5tatio7 ,repres5tation --- ) or )\t ) consci\sness consci\sness ---------------------------------------- --------------------------- ,idea 7,idee7 or concept ( ,reason =m$1 ,kant "h says1 f notions1 b ,pure transc5d+ ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,objective ,concept ,notion 7notio7 category ,k 7,begriff7 ( und]/&+4 -- 7,erk5ntnis7 ,empirical4 ,intuition 7,ans*auung74 ,subjective ,s5sation 7,empf9dung74 ,,section ,,ii ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,ideas#adjj ,?is section completes ! metaphysical d$uction ( ! ,ideas4 ,9 ! prec$+ sections on ! logical & on ! pure use ( ,reason1 ,kant has po9t$ out t ,reason proce$s 9 accordance ) ! pr9ciple1 t = ! condition$ k ( und]/&+ ! uncondition$1 9 :i* x f9ds completion1 mu/ be discov]$4 ,?is pr9ciple is syn!tic1 involv+ a concept :i* transc5ds ! und]/&+2 & z ,reason 9 its logical use is m]ely =mal1 t concept mu/ be due to ,reason 9 its creative or transc5d5tal activity4 ,9 ! section be=e u ,kant d$uces f ! ?ree k9ds ( syllogism ! ?ree possible =ms 9 :i* su* an ,idea ( ,reason c pres5t itself4 ,! d$uction is1 z already not$1 :olly artificial1 & masks ,kant's real me?od ( obta9+ ! ,ideas1 namely1 ?r\gh comb9ation ( ! unique concept ( ! uncondition$ ) ! ?ree categories ( relation4 ,! d$uction is bas$ ^u an extremely +5i\s analogy betwe5 ! logical function ( ,reason 9 d$uctive inf]5ce & its transc5d5tal proc$ure 9 prescrib+ ! ,ideal ( uncondition$ totality4 ,9 ! syllogism ! pr$icate ( ! conclusion is %[n to be connect$ ) its subject 9 accordance ) a condition :i* is /at$ 9 its univ]sality 9 ! major premiss4 ,?us if ! conclusion be3 ,caius is mortal1 9 con/ruct+ ! syllogism1 requir$ to e/abli% x1 we seek = a conception :i* conta9s ! condition "u :i* ! pr$icate is giv5--9 ?is case ! conception 8man0--& we /ate t condition 9 its univ]sality3 ,all m5 are mortal4 ,"u ?is major premiss is !n subsum$ ,caius1 ! object dealt )3 ,caius is a man4 ,& s indirectly1 by ref]5ce to ! univ]sal condition1 we obta9 ! k t ,caius is mortal4 ,univ]sality1 antec$5tly /at$1 is re/rict$ 9 ! conclusion to a specific object4 ,n[ :at corresponds 9 ! syn!sis ( intuition to ! univ]sality 7univ]salitas7 ( a logical premiss is allness 7univ]sitas7 or totality ( conditions4 ,! transc5d5tal concept ( ,reason1 to :i* ! logical proc$ure is to s]ve z clue1 c !re=e be no o!r ?an t ( ! totality ( conditions = any giv5 condition$4 ,& z totality ( conditions is equival5t to ! uncondition$1 ?is latt] mu/ be tak5 z ! fundam5tal concept ( ,reason2 ! uncondition$ is conceiv$ z be+ ! gr\nd ( ! syn!sis ( ev]y?+ condition$4 ,b !re are ?ree species ( relation1 & consequ5tly !re are ?ree =ms 9 :i* ! concept ( ,reason seeks to realise its dem& = ! uncondition$3 7#a7 ?r\gh categorical syn!sis 9 "o subject1 7#b7 ?r\gh hypo!tical syn!sis ( ! memb]s ( a s]ies1 & 7#c7 ?r\gh disjunctive syn!sis ( ! p>ts 9 "o sy/em4 ,to ^! ?ree correspond ! ?ree species ( syllogism1 categorical1 hypo!tical1 & disjunctive1 9 ea* ( :i* ?\ght passes ?r\gh a regressive s]ies ( prosyllogisms back to an uncondition$3 ! fir/ to a concept :i* /&s = :at is always a subject & nev] a pr$icate2 ! second to a presupposition :i* itself presupposes no?+ fur!r2 & ! ?ird to su* an aggregate ( ! memb]s ( ! division z w make t division complete4 ,x may be obs]v$ t 9 ?is pro( ! ?reefold specification ( ! concept ( ! uncondition$ is really obta9$ directly f ! categories ( relation1 or at lea/ f ! judgm5ts ( relation1 & n f ! correspond+ species ( syllogism4 ,totality & uncondition$ness1 :5 tak5 z equival5t1 become synonym\s ) ! absolute4#adja ,?is la/ t]m1 h[ev]1 especially :5 tak5 z def9+ possibility & necessity1 is ambigu\s4 ,! absolutely possible may signify ei!r t :i* 9 itself1 i4e4 s f> z reg>ds its int]nal cont5t1 is possible2 or else t :i* is 9 e respect & 9 all relations possible4 ,! two mean+s h come to be connect$ l>gely ow+ to ! fact t ! int]nally impossible is impossible 9 e respect4 ,o!rwise1 h[ev]1 ! two mean+s fall completely ap>t4 ,absolute necessity & inn] necessity are q div]se 9 "*4 ,we mu/ n1 = in/ance1 argue t ! opposite ( :at is absolutely necess>y mu/ be inw>dly impossible1 nor consequ5tly t absolute necessity mu/ 9 ! end r$uce to an inn] necessity4 ,exam9ation w %[ t1 9 c]ta9 types ( cases1 n ! slighte/ mean+ c be atta*$ to ! phrase #8inn] necessity4' ,z we possess ! t]ms inn] & logical to d5ote ! fir/ =m ( necessity1 !re is no excuse = employ+ ! t]m absolute 9 any b ! wid] s5se4 ,t1 ,kant holds1 is its orig9al & prop] mean+4 ,! absolute totality to :i* ! concept ( ,reason ref]s is t =m ( complet5ess :i* is 9 e respect uncondition$4 ,9 ,a #cbf ,b #chc ,kant's mode ( /atem5t emphasises ! connection ( ! ,ideas ) ! categories ( relation4 ,reason1 he claims1 8seeks to ext5d ! syn!tic unity1 :i* is ?\ght 9 ! category1 to ! absolutely uncondition$40 ,su* positive cont5t z ! ,ideas c possess lies 9 ! exp]i5ce :i* !y pr(ess to unify2 9 s f> z !y transc5d exp]i5ce & po9t to an ,ideal completion t is n empirically atta9able1 !y ref] to ?+s ( :i* ! und]/&+ c h no concept4 ,x is necess>y1 h[ev]1 t !y %\ld pres5t !mselves 9 ?is absolute & transc5d5t =m1 s9ce o!rwise ! und]/&+ w\ld be )\t /imulus & )\t guidance4 ,?\gh m]e ,ideas1 !y are nei!r arbitr>y nor sup]flu\s4 ,!y regulate ! und]/&+ 9 its empirical pursuit ( t sy/ematic unity :i* x requires = its own satisfaction4 ,9 ,a #cbg-h ,b #chc-d "o & ! same gr\nd is assign$ = entitl+ ! ,ideas transc5d5tal & also transc5d5t1 namely1 t1 z !y surpass exp]i5ce1 no object capable ( be+ giv5 ?r\gh ! s5ses corresponds to !m4 ,b a diff]5ce w\ld none ! less seem to be impli$ 9 ! connotation ( ! two t]ms4 ,9 be+ prescrib$ by ! v nature ( ,reason1 !y are transc5d5tal2 z ov]/epp+ ! limits ( exp]i5ce1 !y are transc5d5t4 ,kant's use ( ! t]ms subject & object 9 ?is passage is also some:at puzzl+4 #8,object' is employ$ 9 ! metaphysical s5se prop] only f ! pre-,critical /&po9t ( ! ,diss]tation1 z mean+ an exi/5ce appreh5d$ ?r\gh pure ?\ght4 ,! t]m #8subject' receives a correspond+ly un-,critical connotation4 ,! fur!r phrase 8! m]ely speculative use ( ,reason0 is some:at mislead+1 ev5 ?\gh we recognise t = ,kant speculative & !oretical are synonym\s t]ms2 we %\ld r expect 8,reason 9 its legitimate or ,critical or directive function40 ,kant's int5d$ mean+1 h[ev]1 is suffici5tly cle>4 ,:5 we say t a concept ( ,reason is an ,idea m]ely1 we h 9 m9d ! degree to :i* x c be empirically v]ifi$4 ,we are ass]t+ t x prescribes an ,ideal to :i* exp]i5ce may be made to approa*1 b :i* x c nev] atta94 ,x def9es 8a problem to :i* !re is no solution40 ,9 ! practical sph]e ( morals1 on ! o!r h&1 ! ,ideal ( ,reason mu/ nev] be s describ$4 ,?\gh only p>tially realisable1 x is g5u9ely actual4 ,ev5 ^? actions :i* imp]fectly embody x none ! less presuppose x z _! indisp5sable condition4 ,9 two respects1 !re=e1 z ,kant po9ts out1 ! /atem5t t ! transc5d5tal concepts ( ,reason are m]ely ,ideas calls = qualification4 ,9 ! fir/ place !y are by no means 8sup]flu\s & void40 ,!y supply a canon = ! fruitful employm5t ( und]/&+4 ,& secondly1 !y may p]haps be f\nd to make possible a transition f natural to moral concepts1 & s to br+ ! ,ideas ( practical ,reason into connection ) ! pr9ciples ( speculative ?\ght4 ,! read] may aga9 note ! g5u9ely ,platonic "* ( ,kant's use ( ! t]m ,idea4 ,9 ,a #ccj-a ,b #chf-g ,kant returns to ! problem ( ! metaphysical d$uction1 & analyses ! nature ( syllogi/ic reason+4 ,! analysis diff]s f t ( ,a #cba ff4 ,c #cgg ff4 only 9 emphasis+ t :5 a conclusion is giv5 z valid ! totality ( ! premisses requir$ = its e/abli%m5t c be po/ulat$ z likewise giv51 & t :5 completely /at$ 9 ! impli$ prosyllogisms ! premisses =m a regressive s]ies4 ,9 ?is way ,kant contrives to br+ ! logical process into clos] connection ) ! transc5d5tal pr9ciple1 :i* he n[ def9itively =mulates z foll[s3 ,:5 ! condition$ is giv51 ! s]ies ( conditions up to ! uncondition$ is likewise giv54 ,! s]ies ( antec$5t conditions may ei!r h a fir/ t]m or may be incapable ( su*4 ,9 ei!r case x has to be view$ z uncondition$1 9 ! "o case 9 virtue ( its uncondition$ beg9n+1 9 ! o!r 9 its "* z an un5d+ & !re=e unlimit$ s]ies4 ,9 "o or o!r =m ,reason dem&s t ! uncondition$ be recognis$ z und]ly+ & det]m9+ ev]y?+ condition$4#adjb ,,section ,,iii ,,sy/em ,,( ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,ideas#adjc ,! ?ree ,ideas ( ,reason1 z d]iv$ f ! ?ree k9ds ( syllogism1 are n[ br\ght into connection ) ! ?ree possible relations 9 :i* repres5tations are f\nd to /&3 fir/1 to ! ?9k+ subject2 secondly1 to objects z appe>ances2 ?irdly1 to objects ( ?\ght 9 g5]al4 ,kant argues t ! complet$ totalities t[>ds :i* ,reason /rives are likewise ?ree 9 numb]4 ,reason seeks3 7#a7 9 reg>d to ! subject kn[n1 z con/itut+ ! fact ( inn] exp]i5ce1 a repres5tation ( ! self or s\l t w r5d] completely intelligible :at is peculi> to ! inn] life2 7#b7 9 reg>d to ! object kn[n1 a conception ( ! complet$ totality ( ! _w ( ph5om5a1 ! cosmos2 7#c7 9 reg>d to ! ultimate syn!sis ( ! subject kn[n & ! object kn[n1 su* a conception ( all exi/+ ?+s z w r5d] intelligible ! co-op]ation ( m9d & ext]nal nature 9 "o exp]i5ce4 ,9 ?is way ,kant pr(esses to obta9 transc5d5tal ju/ification = ! ?reefold division ( metaphysical sci5ce into rational psy*ology1 rational cosmology1 & rational !ology4 ,! absolute unity ( ! ?9k+ subject is dealt ) by psy*ology1 ! totality ( all appe>ances by cosmology1 & ! ,be+1 :i* conta9s ! condition ( ! possibility ( all t c be ?\ght1 by !ology4 ,9 ?us proce$+1 ,kant is assum+ t ! concepts ( uncondition$ sub/ance & ( uncondition$ necessity c be int]pret$ only 9 spirituali/ & !ological t]ms4#adjd ,?is assumption /&s 9 direct conflict ) :at ! hi/ory ( philosophy records4 ,! ,absolute has frequ5tly be5 mat]iali/ically def9$1 &1 z ,kant himself admits1 we _c prove t ! ?9k+ subject may n be naturali/ically condition$4 ,ar*itectonic is aga9 ex]cis+ its baleful influ5ce4 ,t ! argum5t is lack+ 9 cog5cy is inde$ s evid5t t ,kant takes notice ( ! defici5cy1#adje & promises t x w be rem$i$ 9 ! sequel4 ,?is promise he is unable to fulfil4 ,su* fur!r reasons z he is able to (f] are ( ! same ext]nal "*4#adjf 8,( ^! transc5d5tal ,ideas1 /rictly speak+1 no objective d$uction1 su* z we 7 able to give ( ! categories1 is possible40#adjg ,z ,kant indicates by use ( ! phrase #8/rictly speak+1' ?is /atem5t is subject to modification4 ,he himself =mulates a transc5d5tal d$uction ( ! ,ideas1 z pr9ciples regulative ( exp]i5ce4#adjh ,! d$uction f ! ?ree =ms ( syllogism1 :i* ,kant "h entitles subjective1 ought prop]ly to be nam$ #8metaphysical4'#adji ,,book ,,ii ,,! ,,dialectical ,,inf]5ces ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#adaj ,,*apt] ,i ,,! ,,p>alogisms ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#adaa ,z rational psy*ology fails to di/+ui% betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves1 x id5tifies m]e app]ception ) inn] s5se2 ! self 9 exp]i5c+ ! succession ( its inn] /ates is suppos$ to acquire k ( its own ess5tial nature4 8,i1 z ?9k+1 am an object ( inn] s5se1 & am entitl$ s\l10 9 contra/ to ! body :i* is an object ( out] s5se4 ,empirical psy*ology deals ) ! concrete detail ( inn] exp]i5ce2 rational psy*ology ab/racts f all su* special exp]i5ces1 inde$ f ev]y?+ empirical1 pr(ess+ to e/abli% its doctr9e ^u ! s+le judgm5t1 8,i ?9k40 ,t judgm5t has already be5 inve/igat$ 9 its connection ) ! problem ( ! possibility1 )9 ! field ( exp]i5ce1 ( syn!tic a priori judgm5ts4 ,x has n[ to be consid]$ z a possible basis = k ( ! self z a ?9k+ be+ 7e9 d5k5d ,wes57 or s\l 7,seele74 ,foll[+ ! guid+ ?read ( ! table ( categories1 b plac+ !m 9 :at he reg>ds z be+1 9 ?is connection1 ! mo/ conv5i5t ord]1 ,kant obta9s a 8topic0 or classification ( ! possible rubrics = ! doctr9es ( a rational psy*ology3 7#a7 ! s\l is sub/ance2 7#b7 is simple2 7#c7 is num]ically id5tical2 7#d7 /&s 9 relation to possible objects 9 space4 ,n[ all ^? f\r doctr9es are1 ,kant holds1 incapable ( demon/ration4 ,! pro(s prop\nd$ by rational psy*ology are logically imp]fect1 committ+ ! logical fallacy :i* is te*nically nam$ p>alogism4#adab ,! fallacy is n1 h[ev]1 ( m]ely logical "*4 ,_h t be5 ! case1 x c\ld nev] h ga9$ su* g5]al curr5cy4 ,c]ta9ly no metaphysical sci5ce1 widely accept$ by pr(\nd ?9k]s1 c\ld ev] h come to be bas$ ^u x4 ,! p>alogism is transc5d5tal 9 "*1 re/+ ^u a transc5d5tal gr\nd4 ,x repres5ts an illusion :i* f any non-,critical /&po9t is altoge!r unavoidable4 ,its dialectic is a natural dialectic1 wrongly int]pret$ by ! ,s*ools1 b n caprici\sly inv5t$ by !m4 ,! key to its prop] treatm5t is fir/ suppli$ by ! results ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,we are n[ call$ ^u to apply ^! results 9 explanation ( ! occurr5ce ( ! p>alogisms1 & 9 judgm5t ^u _! false claims4 ,little t is really new is to be f\nd 9 ?is *apt]2 b _m ( ! e/abli%$ results ( ! ,analytic receive int]e/+ illu/ration1 & are !reby set 9 a cle>] light4 ,9 rational psy*ology ! 8,i ?9k0 is tak5 9 its univ]sal1 or to use ,kant's some:at mislead+ t]m1 problematic aspect1 t is to say1 n z a judgm5t expressive ( ! self's own exi/5ce b 89 its m]e possibility10#adac z repres5t+ ! self-consci\sness ( all possible ?9k+ be+s4 ,z we _c ga9 a repres5tation ( ?9k+ be+s ?r\gh out] exp]i5ce1 we are con/ra9$ to ?9k !m 9 t]ms ( our own self-consci\sness4 ,! 8,i ?9k0 is ?us tak5 z a univ]sal judgm5t1 express+ :at belongs to ! conception ( ?9k+ be+ 9 g5]al4 ,! judgm5t is s int]pret$ by rational psy*ology1 89 ord] to see :at pr$icates applicable to its subject 7be t subject actually exi/5t or n7 may fl[ f s simple a judgm5t40 ,9 summ>is+ :at is directly relevant 9 ! argum5t ( ! transc5d5tal d$uction1 ,kant emphasises t ! ,i1 z repres5tation1 is altoge!r empty ( cont5t4#adad 8,we _c ev5 say t x is a conception1 b only t x is a b>e 7blosses7 consci\sness :i* accompanies all conceptions4 ,?r\gh ?is ,i or he or x 7! ?+7 :i* ?9ks1 no?+ fur!r is repres5t$ ?an a transc5d5tal subject ( ! ?\ghts x44440 ,x is appreh5d$ only 9 its relation to ! ?\ghts :i* are its pr$icates2 ap>t f !m we _c =m any conception :atev] ( x1 b c only revolve 9 a p]petual circle1 s9ce any judgm5t ^u x has already made use ( its repres5tation4#adae ,! pat*work "* ( ! ,critique1 ! artificial nature ( ! connections betwe5 its v>i\s p>ts1 is n[h]e m evid5t ?an 9 ?is section on ! ,p>alogisms4 ,accord+ to ! def9ition giv5 ( transc5d5tal illusion1 we naturally expect ,kant's argum5t to %[ t ! ,p>alogisms re/ ^u a failure to di/+ui% betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 ,z a matt] ( fact1 ! cause ( _! fallacy is trac$ 9 ! fir/ ?ree ,p>alogisms solely to a failure to di/+ui% betwe5 ! logical & ! real application ( ! categories4 ,! argum5t c inde$ be re/at$ s z to agree ) ! introductory sections ( ! ,dialectic4 ,b ,kant's mann] ( exp\nd+ ! ,p>alogisms %[s t ?is *apt] mu/ orig9ally h be5 writt5 indep5d5tly ( any int5tion to develop su* tea*+ z t ( ! sections :i* 9 ! ultimate arrangem5t ( ! ,critique are made to lead up to x4#adaf ,fir/ ,p>alogism3 ( ,sub/antiality4#adag--,save = ! phrase #8subject 9 itself1' !re is1 9 ,kant's comm5t ^u ?is ,p>alogism1 n a ^w reg>d+ ! necessity ( a di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality1 b only an insi/5ce t ! 8,i ?9k0 yields no k ( ! ?9k+ self4 ,consci\sness ( ! self & k ( its und]ly+ sub/ance are by no means id5tical4 ,! self1 s f> z x ent]s into consci\sness1 is a m]ely logical subject2 ! und]ly+ sub/rate is t to :i* ?is self-consci\sness & all o!r ?\ghts are due4 ,x is 9 ! light ( ?is di/9ction t ,kant discusses ! sub/antiality ( ! subject4 ,z expressive ( ! 8,i ?9k10 ! category ( sub/ance & attribute c be employ$ only to def9e ! relation 9 :i* consci\sness /&s to its ?\ghts2 x expresses ! m]ely logical relation ( a subject to its pr$icates4 ,x tells u no?+ reg>d+ ! nature ( ! 8,i10 save only t x is ! inv>iable c5tre ( ref]5ce = all ?\ghts4 ,9 ord] to "k ! self z sub/ance1 & s z capable ( p]si/+ ?r\gh\t all *ange1 & z surviv+ ev5 ! dea? ( ! body1 we %\ld require to h an intuition ( x1 & ( su* intuition !re is n ! slighte/ trace 9 ! 8,i ?9k40 ,x 8signifies a sub/ance only 9 ,idea1 n 9 reality40#adah ,z ,kant adds lat]1#adai ! p]man5ce & self-id5tity ( ! repres5tation ( ! self ju/ifies no argum5t to ! p]man5ce & self-id5tity ( its und]ly+ conditions4 ,inf]5ce f ! nature ( repres5tation to ! nature ( ! object repres5t$ is entirely illegitimate4 ,9 ! equat+ ( ! two1 & n1 z ! introduction to ! ,dialectic w\ld lead u to expect1 9 a failure to di/+ui% appe>ance f reality1 consi/s ! p>alogi/ic fallacy ( ?is fir/ syllogism4 ,second ,p>alogism3 ( ,simplicity4#adbj--,we may foll[ ,adickes#adba 9 8 analysis ( ,a #cea-fb4 7a7 ,! orig9al criticism1 p>allel to t ( ! fir/ ,p>alogism1 w\ld seem to be conta9$ 9 p>agraphs five to n9e4 7b7 ,! op5+ p>agraphs1 & 7c7 ! conclud+ p>agraphs1 w\ld seem1 = reasons /at$ bel[1 to be indep5d5t & lat] additions4 7a7 ,! argum5t ( ! c5tral p>agraphs runs almo/ exactly p>allel ) ! criticism ( ! fir/ ,p>alogism1 apply+ ! same l9e ( ?\ght1 9 dispro( ( ! assum$ argum5t = ! simplicity ( ! s\l4 ,x may be not$1 9 pass+1 t ,kant "h dep>ts f 8 table ( categories4 ,!re is no category ( simplicity4 ,! connection :i* he seeks to e/abli% betwe5 ! concept ( simplicity & ! categories ( quality is arbitr>y4 ,x m naturally connects ) ! category ( unity2 b ! category ( unity is requir$ = ! ?ird ,p>alogism4 ,= explanation ( ! way 9 :i* he equates ! concept ( simplicity ) ! category ( reality ,kant is satisfi$ to ref] ! read] to ! section on ! second ant9omy 9 :i* ?is same id5tification occurs4#adbb ,inde$ ! simplicity "h dwelt ^u seems h>dly di/+ui%able f sub/antiality1 & !re=e x is n surpris+ t ,kant's criticism ( ! second ,p>alogism %\ld be practically id5tical ) t ( ! fir/4#adbc ,s9ce ! 8,i10 z logical subject ( ?\ght1 signifies only a some?+ 9 g5]al1 & embodies no insight into ! con/itution ( ?is some?+1 x is = t reason empty ( all cont5t1 & consequ5tly simple4 8,! simplicity ( ! repres5tation ( a subject is n eo ipso a k ( ! simplicity ( ! subject itself44440 ,! second ,p>alogism ?us1 9 ,kant's view1 falsely argues f ! m]ely logical unity ( ! subject 9 repres5tation to ! actual simplicity ( ! subject 9 itself4 7b7 ,"o reason = reg>d+ ! fir/ f\r p>agraphs z a lat] addition is _! op5+ ref]5ce to ! introductory sections ( ! ,dialectic1 ( :i* ?is *apt] o!rwise takes little or no acc\nt4 ,?is ,p>alogism is1 ,kant decl>es1 8! ,a*illes ( all ! dialectical inf]5ces 9 ! pure doctr9e ( ! s\l10 mean+ t x may well seem a q invuln]able argum5t4#adbd 8,x is no m]e sophi/ical play contriv$ by a dogmati/ 9 ord] to imp>t to 8 ass]tions a sup]ficial plausibility 7,s*e971 b an inf]5ce :i* appe>s to )/& ev5 ! ke5e/ scrut9y & ! mo/ scrupul\sly exact inve/igation40 ,! second p>agraph is a v po9t$ re/atem5t ( a ma9 support+ argum5t ( ?is second ,p>alogism4 ,?is argum5t well des]ves ! eulogy ) :i* ,kant has u%]$ x 94 ,x is z foll[s4 ,! unity ( consci\sness c n be expla9$ z due to ! co-op]ative action ( indep5d5t sub/ances4 ,su* a m]ely ext]nal effect z t ( motion 9 a mat]ial body may be ! resultant ( ! unit$ motions ( its p>ts4 ,b x is o!rwise ) ?\ght4 ,= %\ld t :i* ?9ks be view$ z composite1 & ! diff]5t repres5tations1 z1 = in/ance1 ( ! s+le words ( a v]se1 be conceiv$ z di/ribut$ among ! sev]al p>ts1 a multiplicity ( sep>ate consci\snesses w\ld result1 & ! s+le complex consci\sness1 t ( ! v]se z a :ole1 w\ld be r5d]$ impossible4 ,consci\sness _c !re=e--su* is ! argum5t--inh]e 9 ! composite4 ,! s\l mu/ be a simple sub/ance4#adbe ,z !re is no ref]5ce 9 ?is argum5t to ! 8,i ?9k10 ! criticism _c be t ( ! fir/ ,p>alogism1 nor t ( ! c5tral p>agraphs ( ?is second ,p>alogism4 ,kant's reply--z giv5 9 ! ?ird & f\r? p>agraphs--is 9 effect to ref] ! read] to ! results ( ! ,analytic1 & is =mulat$ 9 ! mann] ( 8 ,introduction to ! ,critique4 ,! pr9ciple t multiplicity ( repres5tation presupposes absolute unity 9 ! ?9k+ subject c nei!r be demon/rat$ analytically f m]e concepts1 nor d]iv$ f exp]i5ce4 ,be+ a syn!tic a priori judgm5t1 x c be e/abli%$ only by means ( a transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,b 9 t =m x w def9e only a condition requir$ = ! possibility ( consci\sness2 x c tell u no?+ 9 reg>d to ! n\m5al nature ( ! ?9k+ be+4 ,&1 z ,kant argues 9 ! ?ird ,p>alogism1#adbf !re may be a possible analogy betwe5 ?\ght & motion1 ?\gh ( a diff]5t k9d f t above sugge/$4 ,! entire abs5ce ( all connection betwe5 ! argum5t ( ^! p>agraphs & ! argum5t ( ^? :i* imm$iately foll[ ^u !m1 at lea/ suffices to %[ t ?is second ,p>alogism has n be5 writt5 z a cont9u\s :ole2 & tak5 toge!r ) ! fact t ! problem is "h =mulat$ 9 t]ms ( ! ,introduction to ! ,critique1 w\ld seem to %[ t ?is "p ( ! section is ( comp>atively late orig94 7c7 ,! conclud+ p>agraphs1 :i* are ( consid]able intr9sic int]e/1 also reflect an indep5d5t l9e ( criticism4 ,z ! phrase 8! above proposition0#adbg seems to indicate1 !y 7 n orig9ally compos$ 9 ?is pres5t connection4 ,!y give expression to ,kant's p>tial agreem5t ) ! l9e ( argum5t foll[$ by ! rationali/s1 b also seek to %[ t1 despite su* p>tial validity1 ! argum5t does n l5d support to any metaphysical ext5sion ( our empirical k4 ,9 ,a #ceh we h :at may be a ref]5ce to ! argum5t ( ! introductory sections ( ! ,dialectic4 ,! argum5t "u criticism is prais$ z be+ 8natural & popul>10 8occurr+ ev5 to ! lea/ sophi/icat$ und]/&+10 & z lead+ x to view ! s\l z an altoge!r diff]5t exi/5ce f ! body4 ,! argum5t is z foll[s4 ,none ( ! qualities prop] to mat]ial exi/5ce1 su* z imp5etrability or motion1 are to be discov]$ 9 our inn] exp]i5ce4 ,nor c feel+s1 desires1 ?\ghts1 etc41 be ext]nally intuit$4 ,9 view ( ^! diff]5ces1 we seem ju/ifi$ 9 ass]t+ t ! s\l _c be an appe>ance 9 space1 & _c !re=e be corporeal4 ,kant replies by draw+ att5tion to ! fundam5tal ,critical di/9ction betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves4#adbh ,if mat]ial bodies1 z appreh5d$1 7 ?+s 9 !mselves1 ! argum5t w\ld c]ta9ly ju/ify u 9 refus+ to reg>d ! s\l & its /ates z ( simil> nature4 ,b s9ce1 z ! ,ae/hetic has %[n1 bodies1 z kn[n1 are m]e appe>ances ( out] s5se1 ! real "q at issue is n t ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ! s\l & bodies 9 space1 b ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ! s\l & t some?+ :i* conditions all out] appe>ances4 8444?is some?+ :i* und]lies ! out] appe>ances & :i* s affects our s5se t x obta9s ! repres5tations ( space1 matt]1 %ape1 etc41 ?is some?+1 view$ z n\m5on 7or bett]1 z transc5d5tal object71 might yet also at ! same "t s]ve z ! subject ( our ?\ghts44440#adbi ,?us ! argum5t criticis$ s]ves only to en=ce ! v g5u9e di/9ction betwe5 inn] & out] appe>ances2 x ju/ifies no ass]tion1 ei!r positive or negative1 z to ! nature ( ! s\l or z to its relation to body 9 its n\m5al aspect4 ,! monadi/ic1 spirituali/ !ory ( mat]ial exi/5ce rema9s an op5 possibility1 ?\gh only z an hypo!sis incapable ei!r ( pro( or ( dispro(4 ,we _c obta91 by way ( inf]5ce f ! "* ( our app]ceptive consci\sness1 any g5u9e addition to our speculative insight4 ,?ird ,p>alogism3 ( ,p]sonality4#adcj--,kant's criticism aga9 runs p>allel ) t ( ! prec$+ ,p>alogisms4 ,! fallacy involv$ is trac$ to a confusion betwe5 ! num]ical id5tity ( ! self 9 repres5tation & ! num]ical id5tity ( ! subject 9 itself4 ,! logical subject ( k mu/1 z ! transc5d5tal d$uction has prov$1 ?9k itself z self-id5tical ?r\gh\t all its exp]i5ces4 ,?is is inde$ all t ! judgm5t 8,i ?9k0 expresses4 ,x is m]e id5tity1 8,i am ,i40 ,b f ! id5tity ( repres5tation we mu/ n argue to id5tity ( ! und]ly+ self4 ,s f> z ! unity ( self-consci\sness is conc]n$1 !re is no?+ to prev5t ! n\m5al conditions ( ! self f und]go+ trans=mation s complete z to involve ! loss ( id5tity1 :ile yet support+ ! repres5tation ( an id5tical self4 8,al?\gh ! dictum ( c]ta9 anci5t ,s*ools1 t ev]y?+ 9 ! _w is 9 a flux & no?+ p]man5t & abid+1 _c be reconcil$ ) ! admission ( sub/ances1 x is n refut$ by ! unity ( self-consci\sness4 ,= we are unable f our own consci\sness to det]m9e :e!r1 z s\ls1 we are p]man5t or n4 ,s9ce we reckon z belong+ to our id5tical self only t ( :i* we are consci\s1 we mu/ necess>ily judge t we are "o & ! same ?r\gh\t ! :ole "t ( :i* we are consci\s4 ,we _c1 h[ev]1 claim t su* a judgm5t w\ld be valid f ! /&po9t ( an outside obs]v]4 ,z ! only p]man5t appe>ance :i* we meet ) 9 ! s\l is ! repres5tation #8,i' t accompanies & connects !m all1 we are unable to prove t ?is #8,i1' a m]e ?\ght1 may n be 9 ! same /ate ( flux z ! o!r ?\ghts :i* are connect$ toge!r by its means40#adca ,& ,kant adds an int]e/+ illu/ration4#adcb 8,an ela/ic ball :i* imp+es on ano!r simil> ball 9 a /raight l9e communicates to ! latt] its :ole motion1 & !re=e its :ole /ate 7i4e4 if we take acc\nt only ( ! positions 9 space74 ,if1 !n1 9 analogy ) su* bodies1 we po/ulate sub/ances su* t ! "o communicates to ! o!r repres5tations toge!r ) ! consci\sness ( !m1 we c conceive a :ole s]ies ( sub/ances ( :i* ! fir/ transmits its /ate toge!r ) its consci\sness to ! second1 ! second its own /ate ) t ( ! prec$+ sub/ance to ! ?ird1 & ?is 9 turn ! /ates ( all ! prec$+ sub/ances toge!r ) its own consci\sness & ) _! consci\sness to ano!r4 ,! la/ sub/ance w\ld !n be consci\s ( all ! /ates ( ! sub/ances1 :i* _h und]gone *ange be=e its own *ange1 z be+ its own /ates1 because !y w\ld h be5 transf]r$ to x toge!r ) ! consci\sness ( !m4 ,& yet x w\ld n h be5 "o & ! same p]son 9 all ^! /ates40#adcc ,! p]v]sely ,hegelian "* ( ,caird's & ,watson's mann] ( int]pret+ ! ,critique is especially evid5t 9 _! treatm5t ( ! ,p>alogisms4 ,!y make n ! lea/ m5tion ( ?is "p ( ,kant's tea*+4 ,kant employs a fur!r argum5t :i* w\ld seem to %[ t at ! "t :5 ^! p>agraphs 7 writt5 ! g5]al t5d5cy ( 8 ?\ght 0 pr$om9antly subjectivi/ 9 "*4 ,!re are1 he implies1 z _m diff]5t times z !re are selves t repres5t "t4#adcd ,! argum5t is z foll[s4 ,z ! 8,i ?9k0 is equival5t to 8,i am ,i10 we may say ei!r t all "t ( :i* ,i am consci\s is 9 me1 or t ,i am consci\s ( myself z num]ically id5tical 9 ea* & e "p ( x4 ,9 my individual consci\sness1 !re=e1 id5tity ( my p]son is unfail+ly pres5t4 ,b an obs]v]1 view+ me f ! outside1#adce repres5ts me 9 ! "t ( 8 own consci\sness2 & z ! "t 9 :i* he ?us sets me is n t ( my own ?9k+1 ! self-id5tity ( my consci\sness1 ev5 if he recognises its exi/5ce1 does n ju/ify him 9 inf]r+ ! objective p]man5ce ( my self4 ,! two conclud+ p>agraphs seem to h be5 indep5d5tly compos$4#adcf ,!y contribute no?+ ( importance4 ,f\r? ,p>alogism3 ( ,ideality4#adcg--,! ma9 argum5t ( ?is ,p>alogism1 :i* conta9s ! fir/ edition refutation ( idealism1 has already be5 consid]$ above4#adch ,we require1 !re=e1 only to treat ( x 9 its connection ) ! o!r ,p>alogisms1 & to note "s few m9or po9ts t rema9 = consid]ation4 ,its argum5t diff]s f t ( ! o!r ,p>alogisms 9 t ! fallacy involv$ is trac$1 9 agreem5t ) ! requirem5ts ( ! introductory sections ( ! ,dialectic1 to a failure to di/+ui% betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,its connection ) ! table ( categories is extremely artificial4 ,9 ,a #cdd ,b #djb ! category employ$ is t ( possibility1 9 ,a #djd & ,a #cdd n4 t ( exi/5ce4#adci ,kant's attempt to comb9e ! problem "h treat$ ) t ( ! o!r ,p>alogisms c only be expla9$ z due to ! requirem5ts ( 8 ar*itectonic4#addj ,?is ,p>alogism does n conc]n itself ) ! nature ( ! s\l4 ,x ref]s exclusively to ! mode ( exi/5ce to be ascrib$ to objective appe>ances4 ,none ! less1 ,kant contrives to br+ x )9 ! range ( rational psy*ology 9 ! foll[+ mann]4 ,he argues#adda t rational psy*ologi/s are "o & all adh]5ts ( empirical idealism4 ,!y conf\nd appe>ances 9 space ) ?+s 9 !mselves1 & !re=e ass]t t our k ( _! exi/5ce is inf]5tial & consequ5tly unc]ta94 ,! errors ( empirical idealism are ?us b\nd up ) ! dogmatic assumptions ( ! rationali/ position4 ,!y are traceable to its failure to di/+ui% betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,su* dogmatism may take ! =m ( mat]ialism or ( ontological dualism1 z well z ( spiritualism4#addb ,all ?ree1 9 pr(ess+ to possess k ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 violate ,critical pr9ciples4 ,if ! *ief function ( rational psy*ology consi/s 9 secur+ ! conception ( ! s\l aga9/ ! onslaughts ( mat]ialism1#addc t c be mu* m effectively atta9$ ?r\gh transc5d5tal idealism4 8,=1 on ,critical tea*+1 s completely are we fre$ f ! fe> t on ! removal ( matt] all ?\ght1 & ev5 ! v exi/5ce ( ?9k+ be+s1 w\ld be de/roy$1 t on ! contr>y x is cle>ly %[n t if ,i remove ! ?9k+ subject ! :ole corporeal _w mu/ at once vani%1 s9ce x is no?+ save appe>ance 9 ! s5sibility ( our subject & a species ( its repres5tations40#addd ,we d n1 inde$1 succe$ 9 prov+ t ! ?9k+ self is 9 its exi/5ce indep5d5t ( ! 8transc5d5tal sub/rate0#adde ( out] appe>ances4 ,b z bo? possibilities rema9 op51 ! admission ( our ignorance leaves u free to look to o!r ?an speculative s\rces = pro( ( ! indep5d5t & abid+ exi/5ce ( ! self4 ,reflection on ! ,:ole ( ,pure ,psy*ology4#addf--,?is section af=ds ,kant ! opportunity ( discuss+ c]ta9 problems :i* he desires to deal )1 b is unable to introduce "u ! recognis$ rubrics ( 8 logical ar*itectonic4#addg ,!re are1 ,kant says1 ?ree o!r dialectical que/ions1 ess5tial to ! purposes ( rational psy*ology1 gr\nd$ ^u ! same transc5d5tal illusion 7confusion ( appe>ances ) ?+s 9 !mselves71 & soluble 9 simil> fa%ion3 7#a7 z to ! possibility ( ! communion ( s\l & body1 i4e4 ( ! /ate ( ! s\l dur+ ! life ( ! body2 7#b7 z to ! beg9n+ ( ?is association1 i4e4 ( ! s\l 9 & be=e bir?2 7#c7 z to ! t]m9ation ( ?is association1 i4e4 ( ! s\l 9 & aft] ! dea? ( ! body4 ,kant treats ^! ?ree problems f ! extreme subjectivi/ /&po9t1 inn] & out] s5se be+ di/+ui%$ & relat$ 9 ! mann] peculi> to ! fir/ edition4 ,! contra/ betwe5 m9d & body is a diff]5ce solely betwe5 ! appe>ances ( inn] & ^? ( out] s5se4 ,bo? alike exi/ only 9 & ?r\gh ! ?9k+ subject1 ?\gh ! latt] 8444h ?is deceptive prop]ty t1 repres5t+ objects 9 space1 !y z x 7 deta* !mselves f ! s\l & appe> to hov] outside x40#addh ,! problem1 !re=e1 ( ! association ( s\l & body1 prop]ly und]/ood1 is n t ( ! int]action ( ! s\l ) o!r kn[n sub/ances ( an opposite nature1 b only 8444h[ 9 a ?9k+ subject out] intuition1 namely1 t ( space1 ) its fill+ 9 ( figure & motion1 is possible4 ,& t is a "q :i* no human be+ c possibly answ]4 ,! gap 9 our k 444 c only be indicat$ ?r\gh ! ascription ( out] appe>ances to t transc5d5tal object :i* is ! cause ( ?is species ( repres5tations1 b ( :i* we c h no k :atsoev] & ( :i* we %all nev] acquire any conception40#addi ,! famili> problem ( ! association ( m9d & body is ?us due to a transc5d5tal illusion :i* leads ! m9d to hypo/atise repres5tations1 view+ !m z indep5d5t exi/5ces t act ^u ! s5ses & g5]ate our subjective /ates4 ,! motions 9 space1 :i* are m]ely ! expression 9 t]ms ( appe>ance ( ! influ5ce ( ! transc5d5tal object ^u 8our s5ses10#adej are ?us wrongly reg>d$ z ! causes ( our s5sations4 ,!y !mselves are m]e repres5tations1 &1 z ,kant implies1 are = t reason incapable ( act+ z causes4 ,9 ?is section1 x may be not$ 9 pass+1 !re is n ! lea/ trace ( ! ph5om5ali/ tea*+1 accord+ to :i* spatial objects are view$ z act+ ^u ! bodily s5se-organs4 ,kant "h d5ies all int]action ( m9d & body1 & recognises only ! int]action ( _! n\m5al conditions4 ,appe>ances z su* c nev] h causal efficacy4 ,! position repres5t$ is pure subjectivism1 & v significantly goes along ) ,kant's e>li] doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4#adea ,! dogmatic "* ( ! int]action !ory appe>s v cle>ly1 z ,kant proce$s to po9t out1 9 ! objections :i* h be5 made to x1 :e!r by ^? :o sub/itute = x ! !ories ( pre-e/abli%$ h>mony & occasionalism1 or by ^? :o adopt a sceptical non-committal attitude4 ,_! objections re/ ^u exactly ! same presupposition z ! !ory :i* !y are attack+4 ,to demon/rate ! impossibility ( int]action1 !y mu/ be able to %[ t ! transc5d5tal object is n ! cause ( out] appe>ances2 & ow+ to ! limitations ( our k t is entirely beyond our p[]s4 ,fail+1 h[ev]1 to draw a di/9ction betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves1 !y h n realis$ ! actual nature ( ! situation1 & accord+ly h direct$ _! objections m]ely to %[+ t m9d & body1 tak5 z indep5d5t exi/5ces1 mu/ n be view$ z capable ( int]action4 ,! ,critical /&po9t also supplies ! prop] =mulation = ! o!r two problems--a =mulation :i* 9 itself decides ! degree & mann] ( our possible insight 9 reg>d to !m4 ,! view t ! ?9k+ subject may be capable ( ?\ght prior to all association ) ! body %\ld be /at$ z ass]t+ 8444t prior to ! beg9n+ ( t species ( s5sibility 9 virtue ( :i* some?+ appe>s to u 9 space1 ^? transc5d5tal objects1 :i* 9 our pres5t /ate appe> to u z bodies1 c\ld h be5 intuit$ 9 an entirely diff]5t mann]40#adeb ,! view t ! s\l1 ^u ! cessation ( all association ) ! corporeal _w1 may /ill cont9ue to ?9k1 w simil>ly consi/ 9 ! cont5tion 8444t if t species ( s5sibility1 9 virtue ( :i* transc5d5tal objects 7:i* 9 our pres5t /ate are entirely unkn[n7 appe> to u z a mat]ial _w1 %\ld cease1 all intuition ( !m w\ld n = t reason be remov$2 b t x w\ld /ill be possible t ^? same unkn[n objects %\ld cont9ue to be kn[n sic by ! ?9k+ subject1 ?\gh no long]1 inde$1 9 ! quality ( bodies40#adec ,n ! lea/ gr\nd1 ,kant claims1 c be discov]$ by means ( speculation 9 support ( su* ass]tions4 ,ev5 _! b>e possibility _c be demon/rat$4 ,b x is equally impossible to e/abli% any valid objection to !m4 ,s9ce we _c pret5d to k ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 a mode/ acquiesc5ce 9 ! limitations ( exp]i5ce alone becomes u4 ,! rema9+ p>agraphs 7,a #cif-dje7 conta9 no?+ t is new4 ,!y m]ely repeat po9ts already m adequately /at$4 ,a #dja-b1 :i* deals ) ! nature ( app]ception & its relation to ! categories1 has be5 consid]$ above4#aded ,! argum5t t1 z ! self mu/ presuppose ! ?\ght ( itself 9 kn[+ any?+1 x _c "k itself z object1 is also comm5t$ ^u above4#adee ,! /atem5t#adef t ! det]m9+ self 7! ?9k+1 das ,d5k57 is to be di/+ui%$ f ! det]m9able self 7! ?9k+ subject7 z k f its object1 %\ld be int]pret$ 9 ! light ( ,kant's argum5t 9 ! second & ?ird ,p>alogisms1 t ! simplicity & self-id5tity ( ! repres5tation ( an object mu/ n be tak5 z k ( simplicity or num]ical id5tity 9 ! object repres5t$4 ,! analysis giv5 9 ,a #djb-c ( ! fallacy involv$ 9 ! ,p>alogisms is1 z ,adickes has po9t$ out1#adeg confus$ & mislead+4 ,kant "h decl>es t 9 ! major premiss ( ea* syllogism ! ass]tion is int5d$ 9 ! m]ely logical s5se1 & !re=e z applicable only to ! subject 9 repres5tation1 b 9 ! m9or premiss & conclusion is ass]t$ ( ! subject z be>] ( consci\sness1 i4e4 9 itself4 ,b 7 t s1 ! m9or premiss w\ld be a false ass]tion1 & ! false conclusion w\ld n be traceable to logical fallacy4 ,kant gives ! correct /atem5t ( 8 position 9 ,b #daj-aa4adeh ,! attempt$ ju/ification ( ! f\rfold arrangem5t ( ! ,p>alogisms ) :i* ! section concludes suff]s f ! artificiality ( ,kant's logical ar*itectonic4 ,,second ,,edition ,,/atem5t ,,( ,,! ,,p>alogisms#adei ,except = ! introductory p>agraphs1 :i* rema9 unalt]$1 ! *apt] is completely reca/ 9 ! second edition4 ,! treatm5t ( ! f\r ,p>alogisms :i* 9 ! fir/ edition occupi$ ?irty-?ree pages is r$uc$ to five4 ,! problems ( ! mutual int]action ( m9d & body1 ( its pr5atal "* & ( its immortality1 ! discussion ( :i* 9 ! fir/ edition requir$ "s t5 pages1 are n[ dispos$ ( 9 a s+le p>agraph 7,b #dbf-g74 ,! rema9+ tw5ty-two pages ( ! new *apt] are almo/ entirely devot$ to m or less polemical discussion ( criticisms :i* _h be5 pass$ ^u ! fir/ edition4 ,^! _h be5 9 great "p direct$ aga9/ ,kant's doctr9e ( app]ception & ( inn] s5se1 & s c\ld fitt+ly be dealt ) 9 connection ) ! problems ( rational psy*ology4 ,z ,b5no ,erdmann has sugge/$1#adfj ,b #dji-ad & #dai-ba w\ld seem to be direct$ aga9/ ,ulri*s'#adfa ,leibnizian position & especially aga9/ 8 metaphysical int]pretation ( app]ception4 ,b #dbh-cj treats ( ! difficulties rais$ by ,pi/orius#adfb 9 reg>d to ! exi/5ce ( ! self4 ,b #dad-ae is simil>ly polemical1 b 9 ?is case ,kant cites 8 oppon5t1 ,m5delssohn1 by "n4 ,?r\gh\t1 z 9 ! alt]ations made 9 ! *apt] on ,ph5om5a & ,n\m5a1 ,kant insi/s m /rongly ?an 9 ! fir/ edition ^u ! unkn[abl5ess ( ! self1 & on ! diff]5ce betwe5 ?\ght & k4 ,! pure =ms ( ?\ght are n1 ,kant n[ decl>es1 concepts ( objects1 t is1 are n categories1#adfc b 8m]ely logical functions40 ,?\gh ?is involves no ess5tial doctr9al *ange1 x indicates ! alt]$ /&po9t f :i* ,kant n[ reg>ds 8 problem4 ,its significance has already be5 dwelt ^u4#adfd ,9 =mulat+ ! sev]al argum5ts ( ! f\r ,p>alogisms1 ,kant develops & places 9 ! =efront a /atem5t :i* receives only pass+ m5tion 9 ,a #ceb-c1 #cfb1 #cff-g1 #cha-b1 namely1 t ! tru?s conta9$ 9 ! judgm5ts ( rational psy*ology f9d expression 9 m]ely id5tical 7i4e4 analytic7 propositions4 ,?is enables ,kant to =mulate bo? ! ,p>alogisms & 8 criticisms !re( 9 mu* brief] & m po9t$ fa%ion4 ,9 ea* case ! ,p>alogism1 z he %[s1 sub/itutes a syn!tic a priori judgm5t1 involv+ an ext5sion ( our k & a ref]5ce to ! n\m5al self1 = ! giv5 judgm5t :i*1 9 s f> z x is valid1 is always a m]ely analytic re/atem5t ( ! purely =mal 8,i ?9k40 ,f ! v />t also1 ,kant introduces ! di/9ctions ( 8 own ,critical tea*+1 especially t betwe5 ?9k+ & intuit+1 & t betwe5 ! det]m9+ & ! det]m9able self4 ,fir/ ,p>alogism4--,t ! ,i :i* ?9ks mu/ always 9 ?\ght be view$ z subject & n z m]e pr$icate1 is an id5tical proposition4 ,x mu/ n be tak5 z mean+ t ! subject :i* und]lies ?\ght is an abid+ sub/ance4 ,?is latt] proposition is ( mu* wid] scope1 & w\ld involve su* data 79 ?is case entirely lack+7 z are requir$ = ! e/abli%m5t ( a syn!tic a priori judgm5t4 ,second ,p>alogism4--,t ! ,i ( app]ception & s ( all ?\ght is s+le & _c be resolv$ into a multiplicity ( subjects1 is involv$ 9 ! v conception ( ?\ght1 & is !re=e an analytic proposition4 ,x mu/ n be int]pret$ z signify+ t ! self is a simple sub/ance4 ,= ! latt] ass]tion is aga9 a syn!tic proposition1 & presupposes = its possibility an intuition by ! self ( its own ess5tial nature4 ,z all our intuitions are m]ely s5su\s1 t _c be look$ = 9 ! 8,i ?9k40 8,x w\ld1 inde$1 be surpris+ if :at 9 o!r cases requires s mu* lab\r to discov]--namely1 :at x is1 ( all t is pres5t$ by intuition1 t is sub/ance1 & fur!r1 :e!r ?is sub/ance is simple 7e4g4 9 ! p>ts ( matt]7--%\ld be ?us directly giv5 me1 z if by revelation1 9 ! poore/ ( all repres5tations40#adfe ,we may "h obs]ve h[ ! practice1 adopt$ by ,caird1 ( translat+ ,ans*auung by #8p]ception' has misl$ him into s]i\s misund]/&+ ( ,kant's tea*+4 ,x has caus$ him#adff to int]pret ,kant z argu+ t we h no k ( ! self because we c h no s5su\s p]ception ( x4 ,kant's argum5t r is t z all human 8intuition0 is s5su\s1 we are cut (f f all possibility ( det]m9+ our n\m5al nature4 ,we are ?r[n back ^u m]e concepts :i*1 z yield+ only analytic propositions1 _c ext5d our insight beyond ! limits ( s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,! t]m #8intuition' is mu* broad] 9 mean+ ?an ! t]m #8p]ception'2 x c also be employ$ z equival5t to ! phrase #8imm$iate appreh5sion4'#adfg ,! gr\nds = ,kant's cont5tion t we h no intuition or imm$iate k ( ! self are embodi$ 91 & inspire1 8 doctr9e ( inn] s5se4#adfh ,x may also be not$ t 9 ,b #dab ,kant1 speak+ ( ! necessity ( intuition = k ( ! self1 uses ! unusual phrase #8a p]man5t intuition'--a phrase :i*1 s f> z ,i h obs]v$1 he n[h]e employs 9 deal+ ) ! intuition t conditions ! s5se p]ception ( mat]ial bodies4#adfi ,its employm5t "h may p]haps be due to ! fact t its impli$ ref]5ce is n to a giv5 s5su\s manifold b to "s =m ( imm$iate appreh5sion1 capable ( reveal+ ! p]man5t nature ( ! n\m5al self4 ,?ird ,p>alogism4--,t ,i am id5tical ) myself ?r\gh\t ! consci\sness ( my manifold exp]i5ces1 is likewise an analytic proposition obta9able by m]e analysis ( ! 8,i ?9k40 ,& s9ce t =m ( consci\sness1 z /at$ 9 ! criticism ( ! prec$+ ,p>alogism1 is purely conceptual1 conta9+ no elem5t ( intuition1 no judgm5t bas$ solely ^u x c ev] be tak5 z equival5t to ! syn!tic proposition t ! self1 z ?9k+ be+1 is an id5tical sub/ance4 ,f\r? ,p>alogism4--,?is ,p>alogism is some:at alt]$4 ,z not$ above1#adgj ! problem dealt ) 9 ! fir/ edition conc]ns ! out] _w1 & only q indirectly ! nature ( ! self4 ,9 ! second edition t argum5t is re/at$1#adga & is m prop]ly locat$ )9 ! ,analytic4 ,! argum5t :i* n[ takes its place runs p>allel ) t ( ! ?ree prec$+ ,p>alogisms4 ,! ass]tion t ,i di/+ui% my own exi/5ce z a ?9k+ be+ f o!r ?+s outside me1 includ+ !reund] my own body1 is an analytic proposition1 s9ce by o!r ?+s is meant ?+s :i* ,i ?9k z diff]5t f myself4 8,b ,i d n !reby le>n :e!r ?is consci\sness ( myself w\ld be at all possible ap>t f ?+s outside me ?r\gh :i* repres5tations are giv5 to me1 & :e!r1 !re=e1 ,i c exi/ m]ely z ?9k+ be+ 7i4e4 )\t exi/+ 9 human =m740 ,9 ,b #dag-ah ,kant po9ts out t rational psy*ology1 9 ass]t+ t ! self c be consci\s ap>t f all consci\sness ( out] ?+s1 commits itself to ! acceptance ( problematic idealism4 ,if consci\sness ( out] objects is n necess>y to consci\sness ( self1 !re c be no valid me?od ( prov+ _! exi/5ce4 ,9 ! f\r? ,p>alogism ( ! fir/ edition1 ! int]-dep5d5ce ( rational psy*ology & empirical idealism is also dwelt ^u1 b is !re trac$ to a confusion ( appe>ances ) ?+s 9 !mselves4#adgb ,b #daj-aa4--,! correct =mulation is "h giv5 ( :at 9 ! fir/ edition#adgc is q incorrectly /at$4#adgd ,a p>alogism is a syllogism :i* errs 9 logical =m 7z contra/$ ) a syllogism err+ 9 matt]1 i4e4 ! premisses ( :i* are false74 ,9 ! p>alogisms ( ,rational ,psy*ology1 ! logical fallacy committ$ is t ( ambigu\s middle1 or z ,kant names x1 ! sophisma figurae dictionis4 ,9 ! major premiss ! middle t]m is us$ z ref]r+ to real exi/5ce1 9 ! m9or only z expressive ( ! unity ( consci\sness4 ,refutation ( ,m5delssohn's ,pro( ( ! ,p]man5ce ( ! ,s\l4#adge--,m5delssohn's argum5t is t ! s\l1 z x does n consi/ ( p>ts1#adgf _c disappe> gradually by dis9tegration into its con/itu5t elem5ts4 ,if1 !re=e1 x p]i%es1 x mu/ pass out ( exi/5ce sudd5ly2 at "o mom5t x w exi/1 at ! next mom5t x w be non-exi/5t4 ,b1 ,m5delssohn ma9ta9s1 = ?ree closely connect$ reasons ?is w\ld seem to be impossible4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! imm$iate juxtaposition ( directly oppos$ /ates is nev] to be met ) 9 ! mat]ial _w4 ,complete opposites1 su* z day & night1 wak+ & sleep+1 nev] foll[ ^u "o ano!r abruptly1 b only ?r\gh a s]ies ( int]m$iate /ates4#adgg ,secondly1 among ! opposites :i* mat]ial processes ?us bridge ov]1 ! opposition ( be+ & n-be+ is nev] to be f\nd4 ,only by a miracle c a mat]ial exi/5ce be annihilat$4#adgh ,if1 !re=e1 empirical evid5ce is to be all[$ z relevant1 we mu/ n ass]t ( ! invisible s\l :at is nev] kn[n to befall ! mat]ial exi/5ces ( ! visible _w4 ,?irdly--! only "p ( ,m5delssohn's argum5t :i* ,kant m5tions--! sudd5 cessation ( ! s\l's exi/5ce w\ld also violate ! law ( ! cont9uity ( "t4#adgi ,betwe5 any two mom5ts !re is always an int]m$iate "t 9 :i* ! "o mom5t passes cont9u\sly into ! o!r4 ,kant's reply to ?is ?ird "p ( ,m5delssohn's argum5t is t ?\gh ! s\l mu/ n be conceiv$ z p]i%+ sudd5ly1 x may pass out ( exi/5ce by a cont9u\s dim9ution ?r\gh an inf9ite numb] ( small] degrees ( int5sive reality2 & 9 support ( ?is view he ma9ta9s ! v d\btful position t cle>ness & obscurity ( repres5tation are n features ( ! cont5ts appreh5d$1 b only ( ! int5sity ( ! consci\sness direct$ ^u !m4#adhj ,b #dag-bb4--,kant "h po9ts out t rational psy*ology1 z above exp\nd$1 proce$s syn!tically1 />t+ f ! ass]tion ( ! sub/antiality ( ! s\l & proce$+ to ! pro( t its exi/5ce is indep5d5t ( out] ?+s4 ,b x may proce$ 9 ! rev]se fa%ion1 analytically develop+ ! implications suppos$ to be involv$ 9 ! 8,i ?9k10 view$ z an exi/5tial judgm5t1 i4e4 z signify+ 8,i exi/ ?9k+40 ,kant re/ates ! argum5t 9 ?is analytic =m 9 ord]1 z x w\ld seem1 to secure ! opportunity ( reply+ to ^? criticisms ( 8 tea*+ 9 ! fir/ edition :i* conc]n 8 doctr9e ( app]ception & 8 employm5t ( ! categories1 especially ( ! category ( exi/5ce1 9 relation to ! self4 ,:at is new & important 9 ^! pages1 & also 9 ! connect$ passages 9 ,b #dbh-cj1 has be5 discuss$ above4#adha ,b #dai-bj4--;,aft] rem>k+ t simplicity or unity is involv$ 9 ! v possibility ( app]ception1 ,kant proce$s to argue t x c nev] be expla9$ f a /rictly mat]iali/ /&po9t1 s9ce no?+ t is real 9 space is ev] simple4 ,po9ts are m]ely limits1 & are n !re=e !mselves any?+ t c =m "p ( space4 ,! passage z a :ole w\ld seem to be direct$ aga9/ ! ,leibnizian tea*+ ( ,ulri*s4#adhb ,b #dbf-g4--,kant makes a rem>k to :i* no?+ 9 8 argum5t yields any real support1 namely1 t ! dialectical illusion 9 rational psy*ology is due to ! sub/itution ( an ,idea ( reason = ! q indet]m9ate concept ( a ?9k+ be+ 9 g5]al4 ,z is argu$ bel[1#adhc ! assumption :i* he is "h mak+ t ! concept ( ! self is an a priori & ultimate ,idea ( pure ,reason1 _c be reg>d$ z a g5u9e "p ( 8 ,critical tea*+4 ,b #dbg-h t\*es q briefly ^u que/ions m fully & adequately treat$ 9 ! fir/ edition4 ,! scanty treatm5t "h accord$ to !m w\ld seem to indicate1 z ,b5no ,erdmann rem>ks1#adhd t ! problem ( ! int]action ( m9d & body :i* s occupi$ ,kant's m9d f #agdg to #aggj has meantime almo/ entirely lo/ int]e/ = him4 ,! problem ( immortality rema9s c5tral1 b x is n[ approa*$ f ! e?ical side4 ,9 ,b #dba & ,b #dbc-f ,kant draws f 8 criticism ( ! ,p>alogisms ! f9al conclusion t ! metaphysical problems z to ! nature & de/9y ( ! self are ess5tially practical problems4 ,:5 approa*$ f a !oretical /&po9t1 z curi\s que/ions to be settl$ by logical dialectic1 _! speculative pro( 8444s /&s ^u ! po9t ( a hair1 t ev5 ! s*ools pres]ve x f fall+ only s long z !y keep x unceas+ly sp9n+ r\nd l a top2 ev5 9 _! own eyes x yields no abid+ f\ndation ^u :i* any?+ c\ld be built40#adhe 8,rational psy*ology exi/s n z doctr9e1 444 b only z discipl9e4 ,x sets impassable limits to speculative reason 9 ?is field1 & ?us keeps u1 on ! "o h&1 f ?r[+ ourselves into ! arms ( s\lless mat]ialism1 or1 on ! o!r h&1 f los+ ourselves 9 an unsub/antial spiritualism :i* c h no real mean+ = u 9 ?is pres5t life4 ,b ?\gh x furni%es no positive doctr9e1 x rem9ds u t we %\ld reg>d ?is refusal ( ,reason to give satisfy+ response to our inquisitive prob+s into :at is beyond ! limits ( ?is pres5t life z a h9t f ,reason to div]t our self-k f fruitless & extravagant speculation to its fruitful practical employm5t40#adhf 8,! pro(s :i* are s]viceable = ! _w at l>ge pres]ve _! entire value undim9i%$1 & inde$1 ^u ! surr5d] ( ^! dogmatic pret5sions1 ga9 9 cle>ness & 9 natural =ce4 ,= ,reason is !n locat$ 9 its own peculi> sph]e1 namely ! ord] ( ends1 :i* is also at ! same "t an ord] ( nature2 & s9ce x is 9 itself a practical faculty :i* is n b\nd d[n to natural conditions1 x is ju/ifi$ 9 ext5d+ ! ord] ( ends1 & !re) our own exi/5ce1 beyond ! limits ( exp]i5ce & ( life40#adhg ,!n foll[s brief indication ( ! c5tral tea*+ ( ! ,metaphysics ( ,e?ics & ( ! two lat] ,critiques4 ,?r\gh moral values t outweigh all consid]ations ( utility & happ9ess1 we become consci\s ( an inn] vocation :i* inspires feel+s ( sublimity simil> to ^? :i* are ar\s$ by contemplation ( ! />ry firmam5t2 & to ! v]ities ?us disclos$ we c add ! less c]ta9 b none ! less valuable confirmation yield$ by natural beauty & design1 & by ! con=mity ( nature to our intellectual dem&s4 8,man's natural end[m5ts--n m]ely 8 tal5ts & ! impulses to employ !m1 b above all else ! ,moral ,law )9 him--g s f> beyond all utility & advantage :i* he may d]ive f !m 9 ?is pres5t life1 t he le>ns !reby to prize ! m]e consci\sness ( a righte\s w z be+1 ap>t f all advantage\s consequ5ces1 ap>t ev5 f ! %ad[y rew>d ( po/hum\s fame1 supreme ov] all o!r values2 & s feels an inn] call to fit himself1 by 8 conduct 9 ?is _w1 & by ! sacrifice ( _m ( its advantages1 = be+ a citiz5 ( a bett] _w ^u :i* he lays hold 9 ,idea4 ,?is p[]ful & incontrov]tible pro( is re9=c$ by our ev]-increas+ k ( purposiv5ess 9 all t we see ar\nd u1 & by a glimpse ( ! imm5sity ( creation1 & !re=e also by ! consci\sness ( a c]ta9 illimitabl5ess 9 ! possible ext5sion ( our k & ( a /riv+ comm5surate !re)4 ,all ?is /ill rema9s to u1 ?\gh we mu/ r5\nce ! hope ( ev] compreh5d+1 f ! m]e !oretical k ( ourselves1 ! necess>y cont9uance ( our exi/5ce40#adhh ,,is ,,! ,,notion ,,( ,,! ,,self ,a ,,necess>y ,,idea ,,( ,,reason8 ,"o po9t ( great importance mu/ be dwelt ^u be=e we pass f ! ,p>alogisms4 ,?\gh ! negative consequ5ces :i* foll[ f ! tea*+ ( ! objective d$uction are "h develop$ 9 ! mo/ explicit mann]1 ,kant does n )9 ! limits ( ?is *apt]1 9 ei!r edition1 make any fur!r ref]5ce to ! doctr9e exp\nd$ 9 ! introductory sections ( ! ,dialectic1#adhi viz4 t ! notion ( ! self z an immortal be+ is a necess>y ,idea ( human ,reason4 ,! read] is !re=e left "u ! impression t t doctr9e is unaffect$ by ! de/ructive criticism pass$ ^u rational psy*ology1 & t x /ill survives z an ess5tial t5et ( ! ,critical philosophy4 ,& he is confirm$ 9 ?is view :5 he f9ds ! doctr9e reappe>+ 9 ! ,app5dix to ! ,dialectic & 9 ! ,me?odology4 ,! ,idea ( ! self is !re repres5t$ z p]=m+ a q indisp5sable1 regulative function 9 ! developm5t ( ! empirical sci5ce ( psy*ology4 ,n[ x is "o ?+ to ma9ta9 ! exi/5ce ( ,ideal dem&s ( ,reason = unity1 sy/em & uncondition$ness1 & to ass]t t x is 9 virtue ( ^! dem&s t we are l$1 9 ! face ( imm5se disc\ragem5t & seem+ contradictions1 to r$uce ! *ance collocations & bewild]+ complexities ( ord9>y exp]i5ce to some?+ m ne>ly approximat+ to :at ,reason prescribes4 ,b x is a v diff]5t matt] :5 ,kant claims t 9 any "o sph]e1 su* z t ( psy*ology1 ! unity & ! uncondition$ness mu/ necess>ily be ( "o pr$et]m9$ type4 ,he is !n inject+ into ! ,ideals t specific guidance :i* only ! detail ( exp]i5ce is really capable ( supply+4 ,he is prov+ false to 8 own ,critical empiricism1 9 :i* no function is ascrib$ to ,reason t ne$ 9 any way conflict ) ! autonomy ( speciali/ rese>*2 & he is also violat+ 8 fundam5tal pr9ciple t ! a priori c nev] be o!r ?an purely =mal4 ,inde$1 :5 ,kant discloses some:at m 9 detail :at he means by ! regulative function ( ! ,idea ( ! self1 ! ambiguity ( 8 /atem5ts reveals ! unconsid]$ "* ( ?is "p ( 8 tea*+4 ,x is ! expression only ( a preconception1 & has elud$ ! scrut9y ( 8 ,critical me?od l>gely because ( ! protective col\r+ :i* its admirable adaptation to ! ne$s ( 8 ar*itectonic conf]s ^u x4 ,if1 = in/ance1 we comp>e ! ?ree passages 9 :i* x is exp\nd$ 9 ! ,app5dix to ! ,dialectic1 we f9d t ,kant himself alt]nates betwe5 ! au?oritative prescription to psy*ology ( a spirituali/ hypo!sis & :at 9 ultimate analysis1 :5 ambiguities ( language are disc\nt$1 am\nts simply to ! dem& = ! greate/ possible simplification ( its complex ph5om5a4 ,! passages are z foll[s4 8,9 con=mity ) ^! ,ideas z pr9ciples we %all fir/1 9 psy*ology1 connect 9 inn] exp]i5ce all appe>ances1 all actions & receptivity ( our m9d1 z if 7als ob7 ! m9d 7 a simple sub/ance :i* p]si/s ) p]sonal id5tity 79 ?is life at lea/71 :ile its /ates1 to :i* ^? ( ! body belong only z out] conditions1 are 9 cont9ual *ange40#adij 84449 ! human m9d we h s5sation1 consci\sness1 imag9ation1 memory1 wit1 p[] ( discrim9ation1 pleasure1 desire1 etc4 ,n[1 to beg9 )1 a logical maxim requires t we %\ld r$uce1 s f> z may be possible1 ?is seem+ div]sity1 by comp>+ ^! ) "o ano!r & detect+ _! hidd5 id5tity4 ,we h to enquire :e!r imag9ation comb9$ ) consci\sness may n be ! same ?+ z memory1 wit1 p[] ( discrim9ation1 & p]haps ev5 id5tical ) und]/&+ & ,reason4 ,?\gh logic is n capable ( decid+ :e!r a fundam5tal p[] actually exi/s1 ! ,idea ( su* a p[] is ! problem involv$ 9 a sy/ematic repres5tation ( ! multiplicity ( p[]s4 ,! logical pr9ciple ( ,reason calls ^u u to br+ ab\t su* unity z completely z possible2 & ! m appe>ances ( ?is or t p[] are f\nd to be id5tical ) "o ano!r1 ! m probable x becomes t !y are simply diff]5t manife/ations ( "o & ! same p[]1 :i* may be entitl$1 relatively speak+1 _! fundam5tal p[]4 ,! same is done ) ! o!r p[]s4 ,! relatively fundam5tal p[]s mu/ 9 turn be comp>$ ) "o ano!r1 ) a view to discov]+ _! h>mony1 & s br++ !m ne>] to a s+le radical1 i4e4 absolutely fundam5tal1 p[]4 ,b ?is unity ( ,reason is purely hypo!tical4 ,we d n ass]t t su* a p[] mu/ necess>ily be met )1 b t we mu/ seek x 9 ! int]e/ ( ,reason1 t is1 ( e/abli%+ c]ta9 pr9ciples = ! manifold rules :i* exp]i5ce may supply to u4 ,we mu/ endeav\r1 :]ev] possible1 to br+ 9 ?is way sy/ematic unity into our k40#adia ,9 ! ?ird ( ! ,app5dix passages ^! two views are confus$ly comb9$4 ,kant is insi/+ t an ,idea nev] ass]ts1 ev5 z an hypo!sis1 ! exi/5ce ( a real ?+4 0,an ,idea is only ! s*ema ( ! regulative pr9ciple by :i* ,reason1 s f> z lies 9 its p[]1 ext5ds sy/ematic unity ov] ! :ole field ( exp]i5ce4 ,! fir/ object ( su* an ,idea is ! #8,i' itself1 view$ simply z ?9k+ nature or s\l4 ,if ,i am to inve/igate ! prop]ties ) :i* a ?9k+ be+ exi/s 9 itself1 ,i mu/ int]rogate exp]i5ce4 ,i _c ev5 apply any "o ( ! categories to ?is object1 except 9 s f> z its s*ema is giv5 9 s5se intuition4 ,b ,i nev] !reby atta9 to a sy/ematic unity ( all appe>ances ( inn] s5se4 ,in/ead1 !n1 ( ! empirical concept 7( t :i* ! s\l actually is71 :i* _c c>ry u f>1 ,reason takes ! concept ( ! empirical unity ( all ?\ght2 & by ?9k+ ?is unity z uncondition$ & orig9al1 x =ms f x a concept ( ,reason1 i4e4 ! ,idea ( a simple sub/ance1 :i*1 un*angeable 9 itself 7p]sonally id5tical71 /&s 9 association ) o!r real ?+s outside x2 9 a ^w1 ! ,idea ( a simple self-subsi/+ intellig5ce4 ,yet 9 s do+ x has no?+ 9 view save pr9ciples ( sy/ematic unity 9 ! explanation ( ! appe>ances ( ! s\l4 ,x is endeav\r+ to repres5t all det]m9ations z exi/+ 9 a s+le subject1 all p[]s1 s f> z possible1 z d]iv$ f a s+le fundam5tal p[]1 all *ange z belong+ to ! /ates ( "o & ! same p]man5t be+1 & all appe>ances 9 space z completely diff]5t f ! actions ( ?\ght4 ,! simplicity & o!r prop]ties ( sub/ance are int5d$ to be only ! s*ema ( ?is regulative pr9ciple1 & are n presuppos$ z ! real gr\nd ( ! prop]ties ( ! s\l4 ,= ^! may re/ on altoge!r diff]5t gr\nds ( :i* we c "k no?+4 ,! s\l 9 itself c\ld n be kn[n ?r\gh ^! assum$ pr$icates1 n ev5 if we reg>d$ !m z absolutely valid 9 reg>d to x4 ,= !y con/itute a m]e ,idea :i* _c be repres5t$ 9 concreto4 ,no?+ b advantage c result f ! psy*ological ,idea ?us conceiv$1 if only we take he$ t x is n view$ z m ?an a m]e ,idea1 & t x is !re=e tak5 z valid only 9 its be>+ on ! sy/ematic employm5t ( ,reason 9 det]m9+ ! appe>ances ( our s\l4 ,= no empirical laws ( bodily appe>ances1 :i* are ( a totally diff]5t k9d1 w !n int]v5e 9 ! explanation ( :at belongs exclusively to inn] s5se4 ,no w9dy hypo!ses ( g5]ation1 ext9ction1 & pal+5esis ( s\ls w be p]mitt$4 ,! consid]ation ( ?is object ( inn] s5se w ?us be kept completely pure & unmix$1 )\t employ+ het]og5e\s prop]ties4 ,also1 ,reason's inve/igations w be direct$ to r$uc+ ! gr\nds ( explanation 9 ?is field1 s f> z may be possible1 to a s+le pr9ciple4 ,all ?is w be be/ obta9$ 7inde$ is obta9able 9 no o!r way7 ?r\gh su* a s*ema1 view$ z if 7als ob7 x 7 a real be+4 ,! psy*ological ,idea1 moreov]1 c signify no?+ b ! s*ema ( a regulative pr9ciple4 ,= 7 ,i to enquire :e!r ! s\l 9 itself is ( spiritual nature1 ! "q w\ld h no mean+4 ,9 employ+ su* a concept ,i n only ab/ract f corporeal nature1 b f nature 9 g5]al1 i4e4 f all pr$icates ( a possible exp]i5ce1 & !re=e f all conditions = ?9k+ an object = su* a concept3 yet only z relat$ to an object c x be said to h a mean+40#adib ,! la/ passage w\ld seem to indicate t ,kant has /ill ano!r & only p>tially av[$ reason = insi/+ ^u a special & spirituali/ ,idea1 z regulative ( empirical psy*ology4 ,x is necess>y1 he w\ld seem to argue1 9 ord] to m>k (f ! peculi> nature ( its subject matt]1 & to w>n u aga9/ attempt+ to expla9 its ph5om5a 9 ! me*ani/ic mann] ( physical sci5ce4 ,b if t is ,kant's int5tion1 he has fail$ to =mulate ! position 9 any really t5able way4 ,x is impossible to ma9ta91 z he "h does1 t 8no empirical laws ( bodily appe>ances c int]v5e 9 ! explanation ( :at belongs exclusively to inn] s5se40#adic ,inde$1 9 ! imm$iately foll[+ s5t5ces1 he v cle>ly indicates h[ completely su* a position conflicts ) 8 own real tea*+4 ,to ?9k away ! corporeal is to ?9k away all exp]i5ce4 ,exp]i5ce is n duali/ically divid$ into sep>ate worlds4 ,x is "o & s+le1 & ! pr9ciple ( causality rules univ]sally ?r\gh\t1 connect+ inn] exp]i5ces ( s5se1 feel+1 & desire1 ) _! out] conditions1 organic & physical4#adid ,?us ,kant's ret5tion ( ! ,idea ( ! self is *iefly ( int]e/ z reveal+ ! /r5g? & t5acity ( 8 spirituali/ lean+s4 ,we may judge ( ! dis9t]e/$ness & c\rage ( 8 ?9k+ by ! contr>y "* ( 8 pre-conceptions4 ,= ev5 :5 !y h be5 %[n to be !oretically indemon/rable1 !y cont9ue to reta9 by honorific title ! dignity f :i* !y h be5 depos$4 ,! full =ce ( ! objections is none ! less recognis$4 8,! simplicity ( sub/ance 444 is n presuppos$ z ! real gr\nd ( ! prop]ties ( ! s\l4 ,= ^! may re/ on altoge!r diff]5t gr\nds ( :i* we c "k no?+40 ,t1 h[ev]1 is only ,kant's unbiass$ e/imate ( ! !oretical evid5ce2 x is n an expression ( 8 own p]sonal belief4 ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,ant9omy ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#adie ,?is introduction summ>ises ! prec$+ argum5t1 & di/+ui%es ! new problems ( ,ant9omy f ^? ( ! ,p>alogisms4 ,9 rational psy*ology pure ,reason atta9s1 z x 71 eu?anasia2 9 ! ant9omies an entirely diff]5t situation is disclos$4 ,= ?\gh rational cosmology is able to exp\nd itself 9 a s]ies ( demon/rat$ !ses1 its tea*+ /&s 9 irreconcilable conflict ) ! actual nature ( appe>ances1 z express$ ?r\gh a s]ies ( anti!ses :i* are demon/rable 9 an equally cog5t mann]4 ,,section ,i ,,sy/em ,,( ,,! ,,cosmological ,,ideas#adif ,! fir/ eight p>agraphs ( ?is section are ( great textual int]e/4 ,!y mu/ h be5 writt5 at a "t :5 ,kant /ill int5d$ to exp\nd 8 entire criticism ( metaphysical sci5ce 9 ! =m ( a doctr9e ( ant9omy4 ,= !y def9e ! ,ideas ( ,reason z exclusively cosmological1#adig & give a v diff]5t explanation ( _! orig9 f t :i* has be5 exp\nd$ 9 ! prec$+ *apt]s4 ,evid5tly1 !re=e1 ?is "p ( ! section mu/ h be5 writt5 prior to ,kant's =mulation ( ! metaphysical d$uction f ! ?ree species ( syllogism4 ,?is is support$ by ! fact t ! argum5t beg9s anew1 j z if ! matt] _h n previ\sly be5 discuss$2 & t1 ?\gh a new view ( ! nature ( ,reason is prop\nd$1 !re is n ! lea/ m5tion ( ! m ,ideali/ view :i* x displaces4 ,reason1 ,kant "h tea*es1 is n a faculty sep>ate f ! und]/&+1 & does n !re=e produce any concept peculi> to itself4 ,reason is simply a "n = ! und]/&+ 9 s f> z x acts indep5d5tly ( s5sibility1 & seeks1 by means ( its pure =ms1 9 ab/raction f all empirical limitations1 to grasp ! uncondition$4 8,! transc5d5tal ,ideas are 9 reality no?+ b categories ext5d$ to ! uncondition$40 ,! intelligible1 z ?us conceiv$ by ! und]/&+1 expresses itself1 z he lat] %[s1 9 a s]ies ( !ses2 :ile ! s5su\s expresses its opposite & conflict+ "* 9 a s]ies ( anti!ses4 ,yet n all categories yield a concept ( ! uncondition$4 ,t is possible only to ^? :i* conc]n !mselves ) a s]ies ( memb]s condition+ & condition$1 & 9 ref]5ce to :i*1 !re=e1 ! po/ulate ( an uncondition$ w\ld seem to be legitimate1 viz43 7#a7 uncondition$ quantity 9 space & "t2 7#b7 uncondition$ quality 7indivisibility & simplicity7 ( reality 9 space 7matt]72 7#c7 uncondition$ causality ( appe>ances2 7#d7 uncondition$ necessity ( appe>ances4 ,z ?is arrangem5t is det]m9$ by ! ne$s ( ,kant's ar*itectonic1 no detail$ comm5t is "h call$ =4 ,its consequ5ces we %all h ample opportunity to consid] lat]4 ,z already not$1 ,kant's /atem5t 9 ,a #dad ,b #dda1 t 8! category ( sub/ance & accid5t does n l5d itself to a transc5d5tal ,idea10 %[s v cle>ly t1 at ! "t :5 he compos$ ?is passage1 he _h n yet be?\ght himself ( plac+ a sep>ate & indep5d5t ,idea at ! basis ( rational psy*ology4 ,b z ,kant "h /rives to foll[ ! f\rfold arrangem5t ( ! categories1 ! cont5t ( ^! p>agraphs mu/ ei!r h be5 lat] reca/ or h be5 compos$ 9 ! int]val betwe5 8 discov]y ( ! metaphysical d$uction ( ! categories & 8 =mulation ( ! correspond+ d$uction ( ! ,ideas f ! ?ree =ms ( syllogism4 ,x may also be obs]v$ t ! d]ivation ( ! cosmological ,idea f ! hypo!tical syllogism1 :i* embodies only ! category ( causality1 cla%es ) ! above specification ( x 9 t]ms ( all f\r rubrics ( category4 ,! rema9+ p>agraphs 7n9? to ?irte5?7 ( ?is section mu/ be ( lat] date1 z !y are develop$ 9 view ( ! indep5d5t treatm5t ( ! !ological ,ideal4#adih 7,adickes1 9 dat+ ! n9? & t5? p>agraphs ) ! prec$+ in/ead ( ) ! conclud+ p>agraphs1 w\ld seem to h ov]look$ ?is fact47 ,9 ord] to ju/ify ! treatm5t ( ! ,ideas ( a fir/ cause & ( uncondition$ necessity1 z cosmological1 ,kant n[ ass]ts t ! ant9omies conc]n only appe>ances--8our cosmical ,ideas be+ direct$ only to :at is uncondition$ among ! appe>ances10#adii & n to n\m5a4#aejj ,8 explanation ( ! nature ( transc5d5tal illusion1 & ( ! ant9omies 9 p>ticul>1 z be+ due to a failure to di/+ui% betwe5 appe>ance & ?+s 9 !mselves1 is ?us ru?lessly sacrific$ to consid]ations ( ar*itectonic4 ,kant c\ld n1 ( c\rse1 consi/5tly hold to ! position "h adopt$2 b x causes him f "t to "t1 especially 9 deal+ ) ! ?ird & f\r? ant9omies1 to make /atem5ts :i* t5d s]i\sly to obscure ! argum5t & to bewild] ! c>eful read]4 ,kant is f> f cle> z to ! relation 9 :i* ! concepts ( ! totality ( conditions & ( ! uncondition$ /& to "o ano!r4#aeja ,9 ,a #cbb ,b #cgi !y w\ld seem to be tak5 z exactly equival5t concepts4 ,9 ,a #daf-ag ,b #ddc-e !y are app>5tly reg>d$ z di/9ct1 ! =m] only lead+ up to ! latt]4 ,b discussion ( ?is important po9t mu/ meantime be def]r$4#aejb ,,section ,,ii ,,anti!tic ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#aejc 0,anti!tic is ! conflict betwe5 two app>5tly dogmatic judgm5ts ,erk5ntnisse to nei!r ( :i* c we ascribe any sup]ior claim to acceptance ov] ! o!r1 i4e4 by ,anti!tic ,i mean a !sis1 toge!r ) an anti!sis40 8,transc5d5tal ,anti!tic is an inve/igation ( ! ant9omy ( pure ,reason1 its causes & outcome40 ,! v exi/5ce ( su* ant9omy presupposes a tw(old condition3 fir/1 t x does n ref] to a gratuit\s b to an inevitable problem ( human ,reason1 8"o :i* x mu/ necess>ily enc\nt] 9 its natural progress02 & secondly1 t ! !sis & ! anti!sis toge!r g5]ate a 8natural & inevitable illusion10 :i* cont9ues to p]si/ ev5 aft] its deceptive p[] has be5 cle>ly disclos$4 ,su* conflict is caus$ by ! fact t ,reason seeks a unity :i* transc5ds ! und]/&+1 & :i* nev]!less is meant to con=m to ! conditions ( ! und]/&+4 ,if ! unity is adequate to ! dem&s ( ,reason1 x is too great = ! und]/&+2 if x is comm5surate ) ! und]/&+1 x is too small = ,reason4#aejd ,! !ses express ! high] unity at :i* ,reason aims2 ! anti!ses are ! judgm5ts to :i* ! und]/&+ is con/ra9$ by ! nature ( ! appe>ances ) :i* bo? x & ,reason pr(ess to deal4 ,if we hold to ,reason1 we make ass]tions contradictory ( ! appe>ances2 :ile if we place reliance on ! und]/&+1 ,reason condemns our conclusions4 ,?is conflict is limit$ to ^? few problems above enum]at$ 9 :i* we are call$ ^u to complete a giv5 s]ies4#aeje ,s9ce totality1 :e!r 9 ! =m ( a fir/ beg9n+ ( ! s]ies or z an actual inf9ity ( ! :ole s]ies1 c nev] itself be exp]i5c$1 ^! are problems 9 reg>d to :i* exp]i5ce c be ( no assi/ance to u4 ,x c nei!r confirm nor refute any p>ticul> solution4 ,! only possible me?od ( decid+ betwe5 ! compet+ claims is to wat* or ev5 to provoke ! conflict1 9 ! hope t we may f9ally be able to detect "s misund]/&+1 & s to resolve ! conflict to ! satisfaction ( bo? ! litigants4 ,su* is ,kant's description ( :at he entitles 8 8sceptical me?od40#aejf ,)\t "h attempt+ a full discussion ( ! subject1 x seems advisable to po9t out at ! v />t :at ,kant's exposition s]i\sly obscures1 namely1 ! real "* ( ! evid5ce ^u :i* ! !ses & ! anti!ses respectively re/4 ,! latt] are n correctly /at$ z transc5d+ exp]i5ce1 & z !re=e incapable ( confirmation by x4 ,! pro(s :i* ,kant (f]s ( !m are1 inde$1 ( a non-empirical a priori "*4 ,!y are =mulat$ 9 t]ms ( ! dogmatic rationalism ( ! ,leibnizian position1 ) a con/ant appeal to ab/ract pr9ciples4 ,b1 z a matt] ( fact1 !y c be mu* m adequately e/abli%$--9 s f> z !y c be e/abli%$ at all--?r\gh analysis ( ! spatial & temporal conditions ( mat]ial exi/5ce4 ,z space & "t are cont9u\s & homog5e\s1 any ass]tion :i* is true ( a space or "t h[ev] small is likewise true ( a space or "t h[ev] l>ge4 ,any space consi/s ( spaces1 & mu/ be reg>d$ z itself "p ( a l>g] :ole4#aejg ,any "t consi/s ( p>ts :i* are !mselves times1 & is appreh5sible only z foll[+ ^u prec$+ times4 ,x is by su* consid]ations z ^! t we are l$ to reg>d ! mat]ial _w z unlimit$1 z inf9itely divisible1 & z hav+ no fir/ /ate4 ,kant's me?od ( demon/rat+ ! !ses--t ! _w is limit$1 is f9itely divisible1 & has a fir/ /ate--is no less mislead+4 ,"h aga9 8 rationali/ic argum5ts conceal ! basis ^u :i* ! v>i\s !ses really re/4 ,_! true det]m9+ gr\nd is ! dem& ( ,reason = "s m satisfactory =m ( uncondition$ness ?an t :i* is f\nd 9 ! actual inf9ite4 ,x is ?is dem& :i* has l$ philosoph]s to look ar\nd = pro(s 9 support ( ! !ses1 & to elaborate ^? rationali/ic argum5ts :i* ,kant "h reproduces4 ,?us ! gr\nds ( ! anti!ses are altoge!r diff]5t f ^? ( ! !ses2 & 9 nei!r case are !y prop]ly repres5t$ by ! argum5ts :i* ,kant employs4#aejh ,! reasons :y ,kant 9 8 detail$ /atem5t ( ! ant9omies has omitt$1 or at lea/ subord9at$1 ! above consid]ations1 are complex & v>i\s4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ?is doctr9e ( ant9omy 0 9 sev]al ( its ma9 features already =mulat$ prior to 8 developm5t ( ! ,critical philosophy4 ,x =ms "p ( 8 ,diss]tation ( #aggj2 & at t "t ,kant 0 /ill l>gely 9 fundam5tal sympa?y ) ! ,leibnizian ontology4 ,secondly1 ,kant is "h pr(ess+ to criticise ! sci5ce ( rational cosmology1 & is !re=e b\nd to exp\nd x 9 m or less curr5t =m4 ,& 9 ! ?ird place1 he tea*es t ! ant9omies exi/ z ant9omies only :5 view$ f ! false /&po9t ( dogmatic rationalism4 ,_h he elim9at$ ! rationali/ic pro(s1 ! conflict ( ! ant9omies1 9 its /rictly logical =m1 z ! conflict ( direct contradictories1 w\ld at once h vani%$4 ,! g5]al framework ( ?is division ( ! ,dialectic dem&$ a rationali/ic treatm5t ( bo? !ses & anti!ses1 & ,kant believ$ t ! rationali/ic pro(s :i* he prop\nds 9 _! support are unansw]able1 s long z ! dogmatic /&po9t ( ord9>y consci\sness & ( ,leibnizian ontology is pres]v$4 ,b ev5 :5 t important limitation is kept 9 view1 ,kant fails to ju/ify ?is int]pretation ( ! conflict1 & we mu/ !re=e be prep>$ to f9d t 8 pro(s1 :e!r ( !ses or ( anti!ses1 are 9 all cases inconclusive4 ,i %all app5d to ea* ( 8 argum5ts a /atem5t ( ! reasons :i* con/ra9 u to reject !m z uns\nd4 ,we %all !n be 9 a position to consid] 8 :ole doctr9e ( ant9omy 9 its broad] aspects1 & 9 its connection ) ! tea*+ ( ! o!r ma9 divisions ( ! ,dialectic4 ,,fir/ ,,ant9omy ,!sis4--7a7 ,! _w has a beg9n+ 9 "t1 & 7b7 is also limit$ 9 reg>d to space4 ,!sis a4 ,pro(4--,if we assume ! opposite1 namely1 t ! _w has no beg9n+ 9 "t1 & if we def9e ! inf9ite z t :i* c nev] be complet$ by means ( a successive syn!sis1 we mu/ conclude t ! _w-s]ies c nev] complete itself4 ,b ! entire s]ies ( pa/ ev5ts elapses1 i4e4 completes itself at ea* mom5t4 ,x _c !re=e be inf9ite4 ,criticism4--,?is argum5t ga9s its plausibility f ! illegitimate use ( ! t]m #8elapse' 7v]fliess57 z equival5t to #8complete itself4' ,if x be really correct to def9e ! inf9ite z t :i* c nev] be complet$1 ! conclusion to be drawn is t ! temporal s]ies is always actually inf9ite1 & t no po9t or ev5t 9 x is ne>] to or fur!r f ei!r its beg9n+ or its end4#aeji ,we may select any po9t 9 ! s]ies z t f :i* we propose to beg9 a regress to ! e>li] memb]s ( ! s]ies1 b if ! s]ies is actually inf9ite1 x w be a regress )\t possibility ( completion1 & "o !re=e :i* removes all ju/ification = ass]t+ t at ! po9t *os5 a s]ies has complet$ itself4 ,x has no beg9n+1 & has no completion4 ,:at x has done at ea* mom5t ( ! pa/ x is /ill do+ at ea* pres5t mom5t1 namely1 com+ out ( an inexhau/ible pa/ & pass+ into an equally inexhau/ible future4 ,"t is by its giv5 nature capable ( be+ int]pret$ only z actually inf9ite1 alike 9 its pa/ & 9 its future4 ,x _c complete itself any m ?an x c beg9 itself4 ,! "o w\ld be z gross a violation ( its nature z w\ld ! o!r4 ,! pres5t exi/s only z a species ( transition1 unique 9 itself1 b analog\s 9 nature to ! innum]able o!r times t con/itute "t pa/4 ,x is a transition f ! inf9ite ?r\gh ! inf9ite to ! inf9ite4 ,t we _c compreh5d h[1 f an inf9itude t has no beg9n+1 ! pres5t %\ld ev] h be5 rea*$1 is no suffici5t reason = d5y+ :at by ! v nature ( "t we are compell$ to accept z a correct description ( ! situation :i* is be+ analys$4 ,! actual nature ( "t is su* z to rule out f among ! possibilities ! !sis :i* ,kant is "h pr(ess+ to be able to e/abli%2 "t1 be+ su* z x actually is1 c h no beg9n+4 ,:at ?us holds ( "t may likewise hold ( ev5ts 9 "t4 ,if "t is actually inf9ite1 no pro( c be d]iv$ f x 9 support ( ! assumption t ! _w has _h a beg9n+ 9 "t4 ,! phrase 8by means ( a successive syn!sis0 gives a ne$lessly subjectivi/ col\r+ to ,kant's me?od ( pro(4 ,! ant9omy is pr(ess$ly be+ /at$ f ! reali/ /&po9t1 & ought n !re=e to be complicat$ by any su* ref]5ce4 ,?is objection applies1 z we %all f9d1 /ill m /rongly to ,kant's pro( ( ! second "p ( ! !sis4 ,! latt] pro( dep5ds ^u ?is subjectivi/ ref]5ce2 ! pres5t pro( does n4 ,kant limits 8 problem to ! pa/ inf9itude ( "t4 ,! reason = ?is lies1 ( c\rse1 9 ! fact t he is conc]n$ ) ! problem ( creation4 ,! limitation is1 h[ev]1 mislead+4 ,!sis b4--,! _w is limit$ 9 reg>d to space4 ,pro(4--,assume ! opposite1 namely1 t ! _w is an inf9ite1 giv5 :ole ( coexi/+ p>ts4 ,a magnitude n giv5 )9 ! det]m9ate limits ( an intuition c only be ?\ght ?r\gh ! syn!sis ( its p>ts1 & its totality ?r\gh _! complet$ syn!sis4 ,9 ord]1 !re=e1 t we may be able to ?9k z a s+le :ole ! _w :i* fills all space1 ! successive syn!sis ( ! p>ts ( an inf9ite _w mu/ be reg>d$ z complet$1 i4e4 an inf9ite mu/ be reg>d$ z hav+ elaps$ 9 ! enum]ation ( all coexi/+ ?+s4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 is impossible4 ,an inf9ite aggregate ( actual ?+s _c !re=e be view$ z a giv5 :ole1 nor z be+ giv5 z coexi/5t4 ,consequ5tly ! _w ( spatial exi/5ces mu/ be reg>d$ z f9ite4 ,criticism4--,f ! impossibility ( trav]s+ inf9ite space 9 ?\ght by ! successive addition ( "p to "p1 ,kant "h argues t 8an inf9ite aggregate ( actual ?+s _c be view$ z a giv5 :ole10 & consequ5tly t ! _w _c be inf9itely ext5d$ 9 space4 ,t is1 f a subjective impossibility ( appreh5sion he inf]s an objective impossibility ( exi/5ce4 ,b ,kant has himself def9$ ! inf9ite z involv+ ?is subjective impossibility2 = 9 ! pro( ( !sis a he has /at$ t ! inf9itude ( a s]ies consi/s 9 ! v fact t x c nev] be complet$ ?r\gh successive syn!sis4 ,kant is !re=e prop\nd+ aga9/ ! exi/5ce ( ! inf9ite ! v feature :i* by def9ition con/itutes its inf9itude4 ,! implication w\ld seem to be t ! concept ( ! inf9ite is ! concept ( t :i* ex def9itione _c exi/1 & t !re is !re=e a contradiction 9 ! v idea ( ! actual inf9ite4 ,def]r+ = a mom5t ! fur!r objections to :i* su* proc$ure lies op51 we may obs]ve t ,kant1 9 argu+ f a subjective to an objective impossibility1 commits ! fallacy ( ignoratio el5*i4 ,= :5 ! conditions ( objective exi/5ce are recognis$ 9 _! di/9ction f ^? ( m5tal appreh5sion1 ! suppos$ contradiction vani%es1 & ! argum5t ceases to h any cog5cy4 ,! use ( ! words #8giv5' & #8:ole' is mislead+4 ,if space is inf9ite1 x is )\t b\nds1 & _c !re=e exi/ z a :ole 9 any usual mean+ ( t t]m4 ,= ! same reason x mu/ be incapable ( be+ giv5 z a :ole4 ,its inf9itude is a presupposition :i* analysis ( actually giv5 portions ( x con/ra9s u to po/ulate1 & has to be conceiv$ 9 t]ms ( ! def9ition employ$ 9 !sis a4 ,! giv5 mu/ always be conceiv$ z involv+ :at is n itself giv5 & :at is n ev5 capable ( complete con/ruction4 ,9 t]ms ( ?is presupposition an actual inf9ite1 n giv5 & n capable ( con/ruction1 c be repres5t$ ) entire consi/5cy4 ,b to return to ! ma9 assumption ^u :i* ,kant's pro( w\ld seem to re/3 x is all-important to obs]ve t ,kant does n1 ei!r 9 ! ,critique or 9 any o!r ( 8 writ+s1 ass]t t ! concept ( ! actual inf9ite is inh]5tly self-contradictory4 ,?is is a matt] 9 reg>d to :i* _m ( ,kant's critics h misrepres5t$ 8 tea*+4 ,kant's argum5t may1 z we h j ma9ta9$1 be f\nd on exam9ation to involve ! above ass]tion2 b ?is1 if cle>ly e/abli%$1 s f> f comm5d+ ! argum5t to ,kant1 w\ld h l$ him to reject x z invalid4 ,! passage 9 ! ,diss]tation#aeaj ( #aggj1 :i* conta9s 8 mo/ def9ite utt]ance on ?is po9t1 repres5ts ! view f :i* he nev] aft]w>ds dep>t$4 ,x may be quot$ 9 full4 8,^? :o reject ! actual ma!matical inf9ite d s 9 a v casual mann]4 ,= !y s con/ruct _! def9ition ( ! inf9ite t !y are able to extract a contradiction f x4 ,! inf9ite is describ$ by !m z a quantity ?an :i* none great] is possible1 & ! ma!matical inf9ite z a multiplicity--( an assignable unit--?an :i* none great] is possible4 ,s9ce !y ?us sub/itute maximum = inf9itum1 & a greate/ multiplicity is impossible1 !y easily conclude aga9/ ?is inf9ite :i* !y h !mselves inv5t$4 ,or1 x may be1 !y entitle an inf9ite multiplicity an inf9ite numb]1 & po9t out t su* a phrase is mean+less1 z is1 inde$1 p]fectly evid5t4 ,b aga9 !y h f\ght & ov]?r[n only ! figm5ts ( _! own m9ds4 ,if1 h[ev]1 !y _h conceiv$ ! ma!matical inf9ite z a quantity :i*1 :5 relat$ to measure1 z its unity1 is a multiplicity great] ?an all numb]2 & if fur!rmore1 !y _h obs]v$ t measurability "h d5otes only ! relation ( ! inf9ite to ! /&>ds ( ! human intellect1 :i* is n p]mitt$ to atta9 to a def9ite conception ( multiplicity save by ! successive addition ( unit to unit1 nor to ! sum-total 7:i* is call$ numb]7 save by complet+ ?is progress 9 a f9ite "t2 !y w\ld h p]ceiv$ cle>ly t :at does n con=m to ! e/abli%$ law ( "s subject ne$ n on t acc\nt exce$ all intellection4 ,an intellect may exi/1 ?\gh n inde$ a human intellect1 :i* p]ceives a multiplicity di/9ctly 9 "o intuition uno obtutu )\t ! successive application ( a measure40 ,! conclud+ s5t5ces ( ?is ,diss]tation passage may be tak5 z ,kant's own bett] & abid+ judgm5t 9 reg>d to ! "q be=e u4 ,we mu/ n argue f ! impossibility ( m5tally trav]s+ ! inf9ite to ! impossibility ( its exi/5ce4 ,inde$ ! ess5tials ( ! above passage are re/at$ 9 ! #8,obs]vation' on ?is !sis4#aeaa ,?us ! concept ( ! actual inf9ite is n only1 z a concept1 p]fectly self-consi/5t1 x is also "o :i*1 9 view ( ! nature ( "t & ( space1 we are con/ra9$ to accept z a correct repres5tation ( ! actually giv54 ,! !sis ( ?is fir/ ant9omy runs directly c\nt] to admitt$ facts4 ,t ,kant is "h argu+ 9 respect to ! _w1 & n m]ely 9 respect to space & "t1 does n ess5tially alt] ! situation4 ,= if space & "t are necess>ily to be view$ z inf9ite1 !re c be no a priori pro(--none1 at lea/1 ( ! k9d "h attempt$--t ! _w-s]ies may n be s likewise4 ,anti!sis4--7a7 ,! _w has no beg9n+ 9 "t2 7b7 has no limits 9 space4 ,9 bo? ^! respects ! _w is inf9ite4 ,9 ^! anti!ses ,kant assumes t space & "t are actually inf9ite1 & f t assumption advances to ! pro( t ?is is likewise true ( ! _w 9 its spatial & temporal aspects4 ,?is1 by itself1 ought to be suffici5t evid5ce t ,kant does n reg>d ! actual inf9ite z an inh]5tly impossible conception4 ,z ! ant9omies are av[$ly =mulat$ f ! reali/1 dogmatic /&po9t ( ord9>y consci\sness1 ,kant is also enabl$ to assume t if ! _w beg9s to be1 x mu/ h an antec$5t cause det]m9+ x to exi/ at t mom5t r ?an at ano!r4 ,anti!sis a4 ,pro(4--,let u assume ! opposite1 namely1 t ! _w has a beg9n+4 ,x w !n be prec$$ by an empty "t 9 :i* x 0 n4 ,b 9 an empty "t no becom+ is possible1 s9ce 9 su* a "t no "p possesses ov] any o!r any di/+ui%+ condition ( exi/5ce r ?an ( non-exi/5ce4 ,! _w mu/ !re=e be inf9ite z reg>ds pa/ "t4 ,criticism4--,9 ?is argum5t ev]y?+ dep5ds ^u :at is to be meant by ! t]m #8_w4' ,if ,kant means by x m]ely ! mat]ial _w1 ! assumption ( its non-exi/5ce does n leave only empty "t & space4 ,o!r k9ds ( exi/5ce may be possible1 & 9 ^! a suffici5t cause ( its fir/ beg9n+ may be f\nd4 ,! nature ( creative action w rema9 my/]i\s & incompreh5sible1 b t is no suffici5t reason = d5y+ its possibility4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 ,kant means by ! _w #8all t is1' ! assumption ( its non-exi/5ce is likewise ! assumption ( ! non-exi/5ce ( all its possible causes4 ,t1 h[ev]1 is = ord9>y consci\sness a q impossible assumption1 s9ce x runs c\nt] to ! causal pr9ciple :i* is tak5 z univ]sally valid4 ,f ?is po9t ( view ! argum5t consi/s 9 mak+ an impossible assumption1 & 9 !n po9t+ out ! impossible consequ5ce :i* mu/ foll[4 ,by su* a mode ( argum5t no conclusion c be rea*$4 ,kant's decision ought r to h be5 t1 z "t is actually inf9ite1 ! _w may be s likewise1 b t ?\gh reality mu/ 9 "s =m be et]nally exi/5t1 ! mat]ial _w _c be prov$ to be s by any a priori pro( ( ! k9d "h giv54 ,anti!sis b4 ,pro(4--,let u assume ! opposite1 namely1 t ! _w is f9ite1 exi/+ 9 an empty limitless space4 ,!re w !n be n only a relation ( ?+s 9 space1 b also ( ?+s to space4 ,b z ! _w is a totality outside ( :i* no object ( intuition c be f\nd1 ! relation ( ! _w to empty space is a relation to no object4 ,su* a relation is no?+4 ,consequ5tly ! opposite holds2 ! _w mu/ be inf9itely ext5d$4 ,criticism4--,t ,kant himself felt ! inadequacy ( ?is argum5t1 :5 tak5 f ! dogmatic /&po9t1 is indicat$ by ! l5g?y note :i* he has app5d$ to x1 & :i* develops 8 own ,critical view ( space z n a real indep5d5t object1 b m]ely ! =m ( ext]nal intuition4 ,f ! /&po9t ( ord9>y consci\sness space is a self-exi/5t entity1 & !re is no insup]able difficulty 9 conceiv+ a relation z hold+ betwe5 x & its cont5ts4 ,! introduction ( ! oppos$ /&po9t ( ! ,ae/hetic !re=e runs directly c\nt] to ,kant's own int5tion ( exp\nd+ ! ant9omies f ! dogmatic /&po9t :i* involves ?is reali/ view ( space1 & ( %[+ t !y af=d1 9 indep5d5ce ( ! argum5ts ( ! ,ae/hetic1 an indirect pro( ( ! unt5abl5ess ( t belief4#aeab ,! conclusion :i* ought to h be5 drawn is analog\s to t above sugge/$ = !sis a4 ,z space is actually inf9ite1 ! mat]ial _w may be s likewise2 b t x actually is s1 _c be e/abli%$ by an a priori argum5t ( ! k9d "h attempt$4 ,,second ,,ant9omy ,!sis4--,e composite sub/ance 9 ! _w consi/s ( simple p>ts1 & no?+ any:]e exi/s save ! simple or :at is compos$ ( x4 ,pro(4--,let u assume ! opposite1 namely1 t sub/ances d n consi/ ( simple p>ts4 ,if all composition be !n remov$ 9 ?\ght1 no composite "p1 & 7z !re are no simple p>ts7 also no simple "p1 & !re=e no?+ :atsoev]1 w rema94 ,consequ5tly no sub/ance w be giv54 ,ei!r1 !re=e1 x is impossible to remove 9 ?\ght all composition1 or aft] its removal some?+ t exi/s )\t composition1 i4e4 ! simple1 mu/ rema94 ,9 ! =m] case ! composite w\ld n itself consi/ ( sub/ances 7) !m composition is a m]ely accid5tal relation1 & !y mu/1 z self-p]si/+ be+s1 be able to exi/ indep5d5tly ( x74 ,z ?is contradicts our assumption1 only ! latt] alt]native rema9s1 namely1 t ! sub/antial comp\nds 9 ! _w consi/ ( simple p>ts4 ,criticism4--,kant "h assumes1 by 8 def9ition ( t]ms1 ! po9t :i* he pr(esses to e/abli% by argum5t4 ,! sub/ance ref]r$ to1 ?\gh nev] itself m5tion$ by "n1 is ext5d$ matt]4 ,kant id5tifies x ) #8composite sub/ance4' ,sub/ance1 he fur!r dogmatically decides1 is t :i* is capable ( indep5d5t exi/5ce1 & to :i* all relations ( composition are !re=e m]ely accid5tal4 ,if ^! assumptions be grant$1 x at once foll[s t composition _c be ess5tial to matt]1 & t :5 all composition is ?\ght away1 its reality w be disclos$ z consi/+ 9 simple p>ts4 ,kant1 h[ev]1 makes no attempt to prove t ext5d$ matt] c be def9$ 9 any su* t]ms4 ,f ! dogmatic po9t ( view ( ord9>y consci\sness1 ?\gh n f ! sophi/icat$ /&po9t ( ,leibniz1 ext5sion is ( ! v ess5ce ( matt]2 &1 z ,kant himself believ$1#aeac ! cont9uity ( ext5sion is su* z to exclude all possibility ( elim9ation ( ! composite4 ,= he ma9ta9s t1 h[ev] f> division be c>ri$1 ! p>ts rema9 no less composite ?an ! :ole f :i* ! regress has />t$4 ,on any su* view ! ext5d$ & ! composite are n equival5t t]ms4 ,! opposite ( ! composite is ! simple2 ! opposite ( ! ext5d$ is ! non-ext5d$4 ,kant is "h surreptiti\sly sub/itut+ a ,leibnizian metaphysics 9 place ( ! empirical reality :i* is suppos$ to necessitate ! argum5t4 ,9 ! ,obs]vation on ?is !sis ,kant %[s consci\sness ( ! defects ( 8 argum5t4 ,x does n apply to space1 "t1 or *ange4 8,we ought n to call space a compositum b a totum1 because its p>ts are possible only 9 ! :ole1 n ! :ole ?r\gh ! p>ts40#aead ,z ,kant fur!r /ates1 he is speak+ only ( ! simples ( ! ,leibnizian sy/em4 ,?is !sis is 8! dialectical pr9ciple ( monadology40 ,aga9 9 ! ,obs]vation on ! anti!sis1 9 comm5t+ on ! ma!matical pro( ( ! inf9ite divisibility ( matt]1 ,kant ev5 goes s f> z to decl>e t ! argum5t ( ! !sis is bas$ on an illegitimate sub/itution ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 conceiv$ by ! pure und]/&+1 = ! appe>ances ) :i* alone ! ant9omy is conc]n$4#aeae 8444x is q futile to attempt to ov]?r[1 by sophi/ical manipulation ( purely discursive concepts1 ! manife/1 demon/rat$ tru? ( ma!matics40 ,anti!sis4--,no composite ?+ 9 ! _w consi/s ( simple p>ts1 & !re n[h]e exi/s 9 ! _w any?+ simple4 ,pro(4--,let u assume ! opposite1 namely1 t a composite ?+ 7z sub/ance7 consi/s ( simple p>ts4 ,z all ext]nal relation1 & !re=e all composition ( sub/ances1 is only possible 9 space1 space mu/ consi/ ( z _m p>ts z !re are p>ts ( ! composite t occupies x4 ,space1 h[ev]1 does n consi/ ( simple p>ts1 b ( spaces4 ,! simple mu/ !re=e occupy a space4 ,n[ z ev]y?+ real :i* occupies a space conta9s 9 itself a manifold ( con/itu5ts ext]nal to "o ano!r1 & !re=e is composite1 & z a real composite is n compos$ ( accid5ts 7= )\t sub/ance accid5ts c\ld n be outside "o ano!r71 b ( sub/ances1 ! simple w\ld be a sub/antial composite1 :i* is self-contradictory4 ,criticism4--,! ,leibnizian /&po9t is "h completely des]t$4 ,in/ead ( proce$+ to demon/rate ! direct opposite ( ! !sis1 ,kant 9 ?is argum5t deals ) ! ext5d$ bodies ( empirical intuition4 ,! pro( giv5 ultimately r$uces to an argum5t f ! cont9u\s nature ( space to ! cont9u\s nature ( ! matt] :i* occupies x4 ,b z ! !sis & ! anti!sis ?us ref] to diff]5t realities1 ! =m] to ?+s 9 !mselves conceiv$ by pure und]/&+1 & ! latt] to ! s5su\s1 no ant9omy has be5 %[n to subsi/4 ,ant9omy presupposes t bo? ! oppos+ ass]tions h ! same ref]5ce4 ,kant1 z already not$1 argues 9 ! ,obs]vation to ?is anti!sis t all attempts 8made by ! monadi/s0 to refute ! ma!matical pro( ( ! inf9ite divisibility ( matt] are q futile1 & are due to _! =gett+ t 9 ?is discussion we are conc]n$ only ) appe>ances4 8,! monadi/s h1 inde$1 be5 suffici5tly acute to seek to avoid ?is difficulty by n treat+ space z a condition ( ! possibility ( ! objects ( out] intuition 7bodies71 b by tak+ ^! & ! dynamical relation ( sub/ances z ! condition ( ! possibility ( space4 ,b we h a concept ( bodies only z appe>ances1 & z su* !y necess>ily presuppose space z ! condition ( ! possibility ( all out] appe>ance40#aeaf ,h[ ,kant1 aft] writ+ ^! words1 %\ld /ill h left /&+ ! pro( :i* he has giv5 ( ! !sis may be p>tially expla9$ z due to ! cont9u+ influ5ce ( 8 e>li] view1#aeag accord+ to :i* ant9omy repres5ts n a conflict betwe5 oppos+ views ( ! _w ( ord9>y consci\sness1 b betwe5 ! dem&s ( pure ?\ght & ! =ms ( s5su\s exi/5ce4 ,t old] view ( ant9omy "h ga9s ! upp] h&1 not)/&+ its lack ( agreem5t ) ! g5]al s*eme ( ! ,dialectic4 ,!re is a fur!r inconsi/5cy 9 ,kant's proc$ure :i* may p]haps be tak5 z indicat+ ! e>ly orig9 ( ?is portion ( ! ,critique4 ,he pres5ts ! ma!matical pro( ( ! cont9uity ( matt] z conclusive4 ,yet 9 ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce 7#aghf7 he mo/ emphatically /ates t 8! inf9ite divisibility ( matt] is v f> f be+ prov$ ?r\gh pro( ( ! inf9ite divisibility ( space40#aeah ,russell1#aeai 9 discuss+ ! !sis & anti!sis on _! m]its1 f ! po9t ( view ( c]ta9 pres5t-day ma!matical !ories1 makes ! foll[+ criticism ( ,kant's proc$ure4 8,"h1 aga91 ! argum5t applies to ?+s 9 space & "t1 & to all collections1 :e!r exi/5t or n4444 ,& ) ?is ext5sion#aebj ! pro( ( ! proposition mu/1 ,i ?9k1 be admitt$2 only t t]ms or concepts %\ld be sub/itut$ = sub/ances1 & t1 in/ead ( ! argum5t t relations betwe5 sub/ances are accid5tal 7zufllig71 we %\ld cont5t ourselves ) say+ t relations imply t]ms & complexity implies relations40 ,russell fur!r argues t ,kant's assumption 9 ! anti!sis1 t 8space does n consi/ ( simple p>ts1 b ( spaces10 _c be grant$4 ,x 8444involves a cov]t use ( ! axiom ( f9itude1 i4e4 ! axiom t1 if a space does consi/ ( po9ts1 x mu/ consi/ ( "s f9ite numb] ( po9ts4 ,:5 once ?is is d5i$1 we may admit t no f9ite numb] ( divisions ( a space w lead to po9ts1 :ile yet hold+ e space to be compos$ ( po9ts4 ,a f9ite space is a :ole consi/+ ( simple p>ts1 b n ( any f9ite numb] ( simple p>ts4 ,exactly ! same ?+ is true ( ! /ret* betwe5 #a & #b4 ,?us ! ant9omy is n specially spatial1 & any answ] :i* is applicable 9 ,ari?metic is applicable "h also4 ,! !sis1 :i* is an ess5tial po/ulate ( ,logic1 %\ld be accept$1 :ile ! anti!sis %\ld be reject$40 ,b1 z above obs]v$1#aeba ^? ma!maticians :o adopt ?is view s alt] ! mean+ ( ! t]m po9t t x w\ld p]haps be equally true to say t ! !sis1 z ?us int]pret$ by ,russell1 co9cides ) :at ,kant believes himself to be ass]t+ 9 ! anti!sis4 ,,?ird ,,ant9omy ,!sis4--,causality accord+ to ! laws ( nature is n ! only causality f :i* ! appe>ances ( ! _w c be d$uc$4 ,!re is also requir$ = _! explanation ano!r1 t ( fre$om4 ,pro(4--,let u assume ! opposite4 ,9 t case ev]y?+ t happ5s presupposes a previ\s /ate ^u :i* x foll[s accord+ to a rule4 ,t previ\s /ate is itself caus$ 9 simil> fa%ion1 & s on 9 inf9itum4 ,b if ev]y?+ ?us happ5s accord+ to ! m]e laws ( nature1 !re c nev] be a fir/ beg9n+1 & !re=e no complet5ess ( ! s]ies on ! side ( ! d]ivative causes4 ,b ! law ( nature is t no?+ happ5s )\t a cause suffici5tly det]m9$ a priori4 ,if1 !re=e1 all causality is possible only accord+ to ! laws ( nature1 ! pr9ciple contradicts itself :5 tak5 9 unlimit$ univ]sality4 ,su* causality _c !re=e be ! sole causality possible4 ,we mu/ admit an absolute spontaneity1 :]eby a s]ies ( appe>ances1 t proce$ accord+ to laws ( nature1 beg9s by itself4 ,criticism4--,! vital po9t ( ?is argum5t lies 9 ! ass]tion t ! pr9ciple ( causality calls = a suffici5t cause = ea* ev5t1 & t su* suffici5cy is n to be f\nd 9 natural causes :i* are !mselves d]ivative or condition$4 ,z ! antec$5t s]ies ( causes = an ev5t c nev] be trac$ back to a fir/ cause1 x c nev] be complet$1 & c nev]1 !re=e1 be suffici5t to acc\nt = ! ev5t "u consid]ation4 ,ei!r1 !re=e1 ! pr9ciple ( causality contradicts itself1 or "s =m ( free self-orig9ative causality mu/ be po/ulat$4 ,?is argum5t _c be accept$ z valid4 ,ea* natural cause is suffici5t to acc\nt = its effect4 ,t is to say1 ! causation is suffici5t at ea* /age4 ,t ! s]ies ( antec$5t causes _c be complet$ is due to its actual inf9itude1 n to any insuffici5cy 9 ! causality :i* x embodies4#aebb ,to prove 8 po9t1 ,kant w\ld h to %[ t ! conception ( ! actual inf9ite is inh]5tly self-contradictory2 & t1 z we h already not$1 he does n mean to ass]t4 ,8 argum5t "h lies op5 to ! same criticism z we h already pass$ ^u 8 argum5t 9 pro( ( ! !sis ( ! fir/ ant9omy4 ,anti!sis4--,!re is no fre$om2 ev]y?+ 9 ! _w proce$s solely 9 accordance ) laws ( nature4 ,pro(4--,let u assume ! opposite4 ,free causality1 i4e4 ! p[] ( absolute orig9ation1 presupposes ! possibility ( a /ate ( ! cause :i* has no causal connection ) its prec$+ /ate1 & :i* does n foll[ f x4 ,b ?is is oppos$ to ! law ( causality1 & w\ld r5d] unity ( exp]i5ce impossible4 ,fre$om is !re=e an empty ?\ght-entity 7,g$ank5d+71 & is n to be met ) 9 any exp]i5ce4 ,criticism4--,we may fir/ obs]ve ! /range relation 9 :i* ! pro( ( ! !sis /&s to t ( ! anti!sis4 ,accord+ to ! =m]1 fre$om mu/ be po/ulat$ because o!rwise ! pr9ciple ( causality w\ld contradict itself4 ,accord+ to ! latt]1 fre$om is impossible1 & = ! same reason4 ,n[1 z ,erh>dt has po9t$ out1#aebc a pr9ciple _c be reconcil$ ) itself ?r\gh ! mak+ ( an assumption :i* contradicts x4 ,t w\ld only be ! in/itution ( a second contradiction1 n ! removal ( ! previ\s conflict4 ,if ! pro( ( ! !sis be correct1 t ( ! anti!sis mu/ be false2 if ! pro( ( ! anti!sis be correct1 t ( ! !sis mu/ be invalid4 ,= ?\gh ! !sis & ! anti!sis may !mselves contradict "o ano!r1 su* conflict mu/ n exi/ betwe5 ! gr\nds ^u :i* !y e/abli% !mselves4 ,if ! reasons cit$ 9 _! support are contradictory ( "o ano!r1 ! total argum5t is r5d]$ null & void4 ,! support+ pro(s be+ contradictory ( "o ano!r1 no?+ :atsoev] has be5 e/abli%$4 ,!re w rema9 z a press+ & imm$iate problem ! task ( di/+ui%+ ! tru? f among ! compet+ alt]natives2 & until ?is has be5 done1 ! argum5t _c proce$4 ,! assumption ( fre$om ei!r does or does n contradict ! pr9ciple ( causality4 ,ant9omy is n ! simple ass]tion t bo? ,a & n-,a are true1 b t ,a & n-,a1 ?\gh contradictory ( "o ano!r1 c bo? be e/abli%$ by argum5ts 9 :i* su* contradiction does n occur4#aebd ,! pro( giv5 ( ! !sis w\ld seem1 z already not$1 to be unt5able4 ,! pr9ciple ( natural causality is n self-contradictory4 ,:at n[ is to be said reg>d+ ! pro( ( ! anti!sis8 ,if ! pr9ciple ( natural causality be =mulat$ z ass]t+ t e ev5t has an antec$5t cause det]m9+ x to exi/1 !n c]ta9ly free1 spontane\s1 or self-orig9at+ causality is exclud$4 ,"h1 z 9 ,kant's pro( ( ! anti!sis ( ! fir/ ant9omy1 ev]y?+ dep5ds ^u def9ition ( ! t]ms employ$4 ,x mu/ be borne 9 m9d t ! ant9omies are ass]t$ to exi/ only on ! dogmatic level4 ,critical consid]ations mu/ n1 !re=e1 be all[$ to int]v5e4 ,n[ = ord9>y consci\sness ! concept ( causality has a v indef9ite mean+1 & a v wide application4 ,causation may be spontane\s z well z me*anical1 spiritual z well z mat]ial4 ,all possibilities lie op51 & no m]e ref]5ce to ! concept ( causal dep5d5ce suffices to decide betwe5 !m4 ,free causality1 s f> z dogmatic analysis ( ! causal po/ulate c %[ to ! contr>y1 may or may n be possible4#aebe ,kant has fail$ to e/abli% ! anti!sis save by ! surreptiti\s introduction ( conclusions :i* presuppose ! tru? ( 8 ,critical tea*+4 ,?is is especially %[n 9 ! emphasis laid ^u #8unity ( exp]i5ce4' ,! fur!r /atem5t#aebf t fre$om means lawlessness is only true if ,kant's tea*+ is mutilat$ by r$uction m]ely to its ass]tion ( ! objective validity ( ! me*ani/ic pr9ciples ( natural sci5ce4 ,kant is bo? runn+ ) ! h>e & hunt+ ) ! h\nds4 ,?\gh ?is ant9omy is *iefly conc]n$ ) ! problem ( fre$om1 i4e4 ( spontane\s orig9ation )9 ! _w1 ! pro( ( ! !sis ref]s only to ! cosmological problem ( a fir/ cause4#aebg ,! reasons ( ?is oscillation we %all h occasion to consid] 9 deal+ ) ! f\r? ant9omy4 ,! t]ms _w & nature play ! same ambigu\s "p z 9 ! anti!sis ( ! fir/ ant9omy2 !y t5d to be employ$ 9 ! n>r[]1 me*ani/ic s5se ( ,kant's own ,critical tea*+4 ,,f\r? ,,ant9omy ,z ! pro(s ( ! !sis & anti!sis proce$ on l9es id5tical ) ^? ( ! ?ird ant9omy1 ,i %all omit detail$ /atem5t ( !m4#aebh ,kant aga9 argues f ! fact t e *ange has a condition :i* prec$es x 9 "t4 ,!re is no diff]5ce 9 ! pro(s !mselves1 b only 9 ! nature ( ! inf]5ce :i* !y are made to support4 ,9 ! ?ird ant9omy !y lead to ! ass]tion & d5ial ( free causality2 9 ! f\r? ant9omy !y lead to ! ass]tion & d5ial ( an absolutely necess>y be+4 ,! ass]tion is requir$ 9 ord] to save ! pr9ciple ( causality f self-contradiction2 ! d5ial is also necess>y1 & = ! same reason4 ,! illegitimacy ( ?is proc$ure has already be5 po9t$ out4#aebi ,?\gh ! !sis & ! anti!sis w1 if ant9omy be assum$ to repres5t an actual conflict1 contradict "o ano!r1 no su* conflict is all[able 9 ! gr\nds :i* pr(ess to e/abli% !m4 ,we mu/ n ass]t1 z argum5t1 t bo? ,a & n-,a are true4 ,9 ! ,obs]vation on ! anti!sis#aecj ,kant has himself tak5 notice ( ?is 8/range0 situation4 8,f ! same gr\nd on :i*1 9 ! !sis1 ! exi/5ce ( an orig9al be+ 0 inf]r$1 its non-exi/5ce is inf]r$1 & t ) equal /r+5cy40 ,a necess>y be+ is inf]r$ to exi/1 because ! pa/ s]ies ( ev5ts _c conta9 all ! conditions ( an ev5t1 unless ! uncondition$ is to be f\nd among !m4 ,a necess>y be+ is d5i$ to exi/1 because ! s]ies ( m]ely condition$ ev5ts conta9s all ! conditions t !re are4 ,kant's def5ce ( ?is proc$ure is z foll[s3 8,nev]!less1 ! me?od ( argum5t 9 bo? cases is entirely 9 con=mity ev5 ) ord9>y human reason1 :i* frequ5tly falls into conflict ) itself f consid]+ its object f two diff]5t po9ts ( view4 ,m4 de ,mairan#aeca reg>d$ ! controv]sy betwe5 two fam\s a/ronom]s1 :i* arose f a simil> difficulty 9 reg>d to *oice ( /&po9t1 z a suffici5tly rem>kable ph5om5on to ju/ify 8 writ+ a special treatise ^u x4 ,! "o _h argu$ t ! moon revolves on its own axis1 because x always turns ! same side t[>ds ! e>?4 ,! o!r drew ! opposite conclusion t ! moon does n revolve on its own axis1 because x always turns ! same side t[>ds ! e>?4 ,bo? inf]5ces 7 correct1 accord+ to ! po9t ( view :i* ea* *ose 9 obs]v+ ! moon's motion40 ,?is example is n really relevant4 ,9 spite ( ,kant's ass]tion to ! contr>y1 ! po9t ( view is "o & ! same 9 !sis & 9 anti!sis4 ,9 bo? cases ! absolutely necess>y be+ is view$ z ! fir/ ( ! *anges 9 ! _w ( s5se4 ,to ma9ta9 t :5 ?us view$ x bo? is & is n dem&$ by ! law ( causality1 is z impossible z to ass]t t 9 "o & ! same mean+ ( our t]ms ! moon bo? does & does n revolve on its own axis4 ,t ! pro(s ( ! f\r? ant9omy are id5tical ) ^? ( ! ?ird is due to ! fact t ,kant1 "u ! /ress ( 8 ar*itectonic1#aecb is /riv+ to con/ruct f\r ant9omies :ile only ?ree are really di/+ui%able4 ,! ?ird & f\r? ant9omies co9cide z =mulations ( ! problem :e!r or n ! condition$ implies1 & orig9ates 91 ! uncondition$4 ,! precise det]m9ation ( ?is uncondition$1 :e!r z free causality or z a necess>y be+1 or 9 any o!r way1 is a fur!r problem1 & does n prop]ly fall )9 ! scope ( ! cosmological inquiries1 :i* are alone 9 place 9 ?is division ( ! ,critique4 ,! mann] 9 :i* ,kant1 9 treat+ ( fre$om1 makes ! transition#aecc f ! cosmological 7or !ological7 uncondition$ to ! psy*ological is significant4 ,! cosmological uncondition$ is prov$ to exi/ by ! argum5t ( ! !sis1 & its exi/5ce is at once int]pret$ z e/abli%+ at lea/ 9 ?is "o case ! actuality ( free spontane\s causality4 ,kant rem>ks t ?is 8444transc5d5tal ,idea ( fre$om does n by any means con/itute ! entire cont5t ( ! psy*ological concept ( t "n1 :i* is ma9ly empirical1 b only t ( absolute spontaneity ( action4444 ,! necessity ( a fir/ beg9n+1 due to fre$om1 ( a s]ies ( appe>ances we h demon/rat$ only 9 s f> z x is requir$ = ! conceivability ( an orig9 ( ! _w4444 ,b z1 aft] all1 ! p[] ( spontane\sly orig9at+ a s]ies 9 "t has ?us be5 prov$ 7?\gh n und]/ood71 x is n[ p]missible = u to admit )9 ! c\rse ( ! _w diff]5t s]ies z capable 9 _! causality ( beg9n+ ( !mselves1 & s to attribute to _! sub/ances a p[] ( act+ f fre$om40 ,t ea* su* successive s]ies 9 ! _w c only h a relatively prim>y beg9n+1 & mu/ always be prec$$ by "s o!r /ate ( ?+s1 is no suffici5t objection to su* causality4 8,= we are "h speak+ ( an absolutely fir/ beg9n+ n 9 "t1 b 9 causality4 ,if1 = in/ance1 ,i at ?is mom5t arise f my *air 9 complete fre$om1 )\t be+ necess>ily det]m9$ !reto by ! influ5ce ( natural causes1 a new s]ies1 ) all its natural consequ5ces 9 inf9itum1 has its absolute beg9n+ 9 ?is ev5t1 al?\gh ! ev5t itself is only1 ) reg>d to "t1 ! cont9uation ( a prec$+ s]ies40 ,?us ,kant's pro( ( fre$om 9 ! !sis ( ! ?ird ant9omy is m]ely a coroll>y f 8 pro( ( ! exi/5ce ( a cosmological or !ological uncondition$2 & fur!r1 ?is fre$om is n1 l ! cosmological uncondition$1 prov$ to exi/1 b only to be 8admissible0 z a possibility4 ,simil>ly 9 ! anti!sis1 ! only dispro( ( fre$om is ! dispro( ( uncondition$ causality 9 g5]al4 ,! ant9omy deals ) ! g5]al opposition & relation betwe5 ! cont+5t & ! uncondition$4 ,x is ?is same opposition exactly :i* con/itutes ! subject-matt] ( ! f\r? ant9omy4 ,! t]ms us$ are diff]5t1 b _! mean+s are "o & ! same4 ,= ?\gh ,kant sub/itutes #8absolutely necess>y be+' = #8uncondition$ causality1' ! =m] is /ill conceiv$ z belong+ to ! _w ( s5se1 z ! uncondition$ orig9 ( its *anges4 ,& z ,kant is c>eful to add1 only ! causal1 cosmological argum5t c be employ$ to e/abli% ! exi/5ce ( an absolutely necess>y be+2 no?+ c legitimately be inf]r$ f ! m]e ,idea4 ,! v]bal *ange is consequ5tly v]bal only2 ! argum5t ( ! f\r? ant9omy co9cides 9 result no less ?an 9 me?od ( pro( ) ! argum5t ( ! ?ird4 ,x is impossible to def9e ! uncondition$ 9 any m specific fa%ion save by an enquiry :i* entirely transc5ds ! scope ( ! argum5t t ,kant is "h pres5t+4 ,kant's proc$ure also lies op5 to ! fur!r objection t ! conception ( an absolutely necess>y be+1 :i* he "h introduces )\t prelim9>y analysis or explanation1 is lat] %[n by him#aecd to be devoid ( significance4 ,he employs x1 b precludes himself f ei!r inve/igat+ x or f draw+ any s]viceable consequ5ces f x4 ,! situation is n )\t ! elem5ts ( com$y4 ,9 ord] to seem to m>k a real di/9ction betwe5 ! f\r? & ! ?ird ant9omies1 ,kant has p]=ce to trespass ^u ! doma9 ( !ology2 b z he is aw>e t ! trespass is =bidd51 he seeks to mitigate ! (f5ce by return+ f ! =ay empty-h&$4 ,to su* unhappy /raits is he aga9 r$uc$ by 8 ov]-fond devotion to ar*itectonic4 ,,section ,,iii ,,! ,,int]e/ ,,( ,,reason ,,9 ,,?is ,,self-,,conflict#aece ,?is section1 ?\gh extremely important1 requires no l5g?y comm5t4 ,x is lucid & /raight=w>d4 ,x may be summ>is$ z foll[s4 ,! !ses & ! anti!ses re/ ^u div]se & conflict+ int]e/s4 ,! !ses1 ?\gh express$ 9 dry =mulas1 dive/$ ( ! empirical features ?r\gh :i* alone _! true gr&eur c be display$1 repres5t ! pr\d pret5sions ( dogmatic ,reason4 ,! anti!ses give expression to pr9ciples ( pure empiricism4 ,! =m] are support$ by int]e/s ( a practical & popul> "*3 ^u !m morals & religion are bas$4 ,! latt]1 :ile conflict+ ) our spiritual int]e/s1 f> exce$ ! !ses 9 _! intellectual advantages4 ,?is expla9s 8444! zelotic passion ( ! "o p>ty1 & ! calm assurance ( ! o!r1 & :y ! _w hails ! "o ) eag] approval1 & is implacably prejudic$ aga9/ ! o!r40 ,no legitimate objection c\ld be rais$ aga9/ ! pr9ciples ( ! empirical philosoph]1 if he s\ght only to rebuke ! ra%ness & presumption ( ,reason :5 x boa/s ( k1 & :5 x repres5ts z speculative insight t :i* is gr\nd$ only 9 fai?4 8,b :5 empiricism itself1 z frequ5tly happ5s1 becomes dogmatic 4441 & confid5tly d5ies :atev] lies beyond ! sph]e ( its intuitive k1 x betrays ! same lack ( mode/y2 & t is all ! m repreh5sible ow+ to ! irrep>able injury :i* is !reby caus$ to ! practical int]e/s ( ,reason40 ,ea* p>ty ass]ts m ?an x kn[s4 ,! "o all[s our practical int]e/s to delude ,reason z to its inh]5t p[]s2 ! o!r w\ld s ext5d empirical k z to de/roy ! validity ( our moral pr9ciples4 ,kant reg>ds ! opposition z be+ hi/orically typifi$ by ! contra/$ sy/ems ( ,platonism & ,epicureanism4 ,x befits u1 z self-reflect+ be+s1 to free ourselves1 at lea/ provisionally1 f ! p>tiality ( ^? div]g5t int]e/s1 & by application ( 8! sceptical me?od10 unconc]n$ ab\t consequ5ces1 to p5etrate to ! prim>y s\rces ( ?is p]5nial conflict4 ,z ,kant /ates 9 ! next section1 ! conflict is ( su* a "* z to be g5u9ely resolvable4 ,?is section mu/ h be5 writt51 or at lea/ fir/ sket*$1 at ! "t :5 ,kant /ill int5d$ to br+ 8 :ole criticism ( ! metaphysical sci5ces )9 ! scope ( 8 doctr9e ( ant9omy4#aecf ,,section ,,iv ,,( ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,problems ,,( ,,pure ,,reason1 ,,9 ,,s ,,f> ,,z ,,!y ,,absolutely ,,mu/ ,,be ,,capable ,,( ,,solution#aecg ,!re are sci5ces ! v nature ( :i* requires t e "q :i* c occur 9 !m mu/ be completely answ]able f :at c be presum$ to be kn[n4 ,?is is true ( ! sci5ce ( e?ics4 ,:5 ,i ask to :at c\rse ( action ,i am committ$ 9 moral duty1 ! "q mu/ be answ]able 9 t]ms ( ! consid]ations :i* h l$ to its be+ prop\nd$4 ,= !re c be no moral obligation 9 reg>d to t ( :i* we _c h k4 ,we mu/ n plead t ! problem is unansw]able2 a solution mu/ be f\nd4 ,kant proce$s to argue t ?is is no less true ( transc5d5tal philosophy4 8444x is unique among speculative sci5ces 9 t no "q :i* conc]ns an object giv5 to pure ,reason is insoluble = ?is same human ,reason1 & t no excuse ( an unavoidable ignorance1 or ( ! unfa?omable dep? ( ! problem1 c release u f ! obligation to answ] x ?or\ghly & completely4 ,t v concept :i* enables u to ask ! "q mu/ also qualify u to answ] x1 s9ce1 z 9 ! case ( "r & wrong1 ! object is n to be met ) outside ! concept40 ,! ?ird & f\r? p>agraphs w\ld seem to be lat] int]polations4 ,! section1 l ,section ,,iii41 mu/ h be5 writt5 at ! "t :5 ,kant /ill reg>d$ ! doctr9e ( ant9omy z cov]+ ! entire field ( metaphysics4 ,transc5d5tal philosophy is id5tifi$ ) cosmology1 z dealt ) 9 ! ant9omies4 ,b 9 ! ?ird p>agraph ! =m] is tak5 z a wid] t]m4 ,also1 9 ! fir/ two p>agraphs ! problems ( pure ,reason are reg>d$ z soluble because _! objects are n to be met ) outside ! concepts ( !m2 :]eas 9 ! ?ird p>agraph !y are view$ z soluble because _! object is giv5 empirically4 ,aga91 9 ! second p>agraph transc5d5tal philosophy has be5 tak5 z unique among speculative i4e4 !oretical sci5ces2 9 ! f\r? p>agraph ma!matics is plac$ alongside x4 ,exam9ation ( ?is section z a :ole 7& ! same is true ( ! imm$iately foll[+ section7 ju/ifies ! conclusion t at ! "t :5 x 0 writt5 ,kant reg>d$ ! ,ideas ( ,reason z hav+ a purely & exclusively regulative function1 & consequ5tly z exhau/+ _! inh]5t mean+ 9 _! empirical ref]5ce4 ,he reg>ds !m z entirely lack+ 9 metaphysical significance4 ,!y are inv5t$ by ,reason = ,reason's own satisfaction1 & mu/ !re=e yield 9 _! int]nal cont5t ! explanation ( _! exi/5ce1 & mu/ also supply a complete & ?or\gh answ] to all problems :i* are traceable to !m4 ,a dogmatic 7i4e4 ontological7 solution ( ! ant9omies is1 z we h already f\nd1 impossible2 ! ,critical solution consid]s ! "q subjectively1 84449 accordance ) ! f\ndation ( ! k ^u :i* x is bas$40#aech 8,= y\r object is only 9 y\r bra91 & _c be giv5 outside x2 s t y h only to take c>e to be at "o ) y\rself1 & to avoid ! amphiboly :i* trans=ms y\r ,idea into a suppos$ repres5tation ( an object :i* is empirically giv5 & !re=e to be kn[n accord+ to ! laws ( exp]i5ce40#aeci ,kant's argum5t 9 pro( ( ?is purely subjective int]pretation ( ! ,ideas consi/s 9 %[+ t !y are n pres5t$ 9 any giv5 appe>ances1 & are n ev5 necess>y to expla9 appe>ances4 ,! uncondition$1 :e!r ( quantity1 ( division1 or ( orig9ation1 has no?+ to d ) any exp]i5ce1 :e!r actual or possible4 8,y w\ld n1 = in/ance1 9 any wise be able to expla9 ! appe>ances ( a body bett]1 or ev5 diff]5tly1 if y assum$ t x consi/s ei!r ( simple or ( inexhau/ibly composite p>ts2 = nei!r a simple appe>ance nor an inf9ite composition c ev] come be=e y4 ,appe>ances dem& explanation only 9 s f> z ! conditions ( _! explanation are giv5 9 p]ception1 & ! uncondition$ c nev] be s giv540#aedj ,?is /&po9t1 at once sceptical & empirical1 is fur!r develop$ 9 ! next section4 ,,section ,v ,,sceptical ,,repres5tation ,,( ,,! ,,cosmological ,,que/ions#aeda ,apply+ ! 8sceptical me?od10#aedb ,kant argues t ev5 suppos+ "o or o!r p>ty c\ld conclusively e/abli% itself ?r\gh f9al refutation ( ! o!r1 no advantage ( any k9d w\ld accrue4 ,! victory w\ld be a fruitless "o1 & ! outcome 8m]e nons5se40#aedc ,! sole validity ( ! ,ideas lies 9 _! empirical ref]5ce2 & yet t ref]5ce is "o :i* proves !m to be1 :5 objectively int]pret$1 entirely mean+less4 ,! cosmological ,idea is always ei!r too l>ge or too small = any concept ( ! und]/&+4 ,no matt] :at view is tak51 ! only possible object 7viz4 t yield$ by exp]i5ce7 w n fit into x4 ,if ! _w has no beg9n+1 or is inf9itely divisible1 or has no fir/ cause1 ! regress transc5ds all empirical concepts2 :ile if ! _w has a beg9n+1 is compos$ ( simple p>ts1 & has a fir/ cause1 x is too small = ! concepts ?r\gh :i* alone x c be exp]i5c$4 ,9 o!r words1 ! cosmological ,ideas are always ei!r too l>ge or too small = ! empirical regress1 & !re=e /& condemn$ by s5se-exp]i5ce1 :i* c alone imp>t relation to an object1 i4e4 tru? & mean+ to any concept4 ,=1 z ,kant explicitly /ates1 we mu/ n rev]se ?is relation & condemn empirical concepts1 z be+ 9 ! "o case too small1 & 9 ! o!r case too l>ge = ! ,idea4 ,exp]i5ce1 n ,ideas1 is ! crit]ion alike ( reality & ( tru?4 8,! possible empirical concept is1 !re=e1 ! /&>d by :i* we mu/ judge :e!r ! ,idea is m]e ,idea & ?\ght-entity 7,g$ank5d+71 or :e!r x f9ds its object 9 ! _w40#aedd ,:5 two ?+s are comp>$1 t = ! sake ( :i* ! o!r exi/s is ! sole prop] /&>d4 ,we d n say 8t a man is too long = 8 coat1 b t ! coat is too %ort = ! man40#aede ,we are ?us confirm$ 9 ! view t ! ant9omies re/ ^u a false view ( ! mann] 9 :i* ! object ( ! cosmological ,ideas c be giv52 & are set ^u ! track1 foll[$ out 9 ! next section1 ( ! illusion to :i* !y are due4 ,?is r$uction ( ! ,ideas to m]e ?\ght-entities is "o ( ! two alt]native views :i*1 z we h already /at$1#aedf compete ) "o ano!r ?r\gh\t ! entire ,dialectic4 ,we may1 = in/ance1 comp>e ! above explanation ( ! conflict betwe5 ! ,ideas & exp]i5ce ) t giv5 9 ,a #dbb ,b #dej4 ,9 ! latt] passage ! ant9omies are trac$ to a conflict betwe5 ,reason & und]/&+4 ,if ! unity is adequate to ! dem&s ( ,reason1 x is too great = ! und]/&+2 if x is adequate to ! und]/&+1 x is too small = ,reason4 ,kant does n "h all[ t ! claims ( ,reason are ipso facto condemn$ ?r\gh ! incapacity ( exp]i5ce to fulfil !m4 ,on ! contr>y1 he implies t x is ?r\gh ! ,ideas t we come to realise ! m]ely ph5om5al "* ( ev]y?+ exp]i5c$4 ,our task1 9 ?is ,comm5t>y1 is only to di/+ui% ! passages 9 :i* ^? two conflict+ t5d5cies appe>1 & to trace ! consequ5ces :i* foll[ f ,kant's alt]nation betwe5 !m4 ,discussion ( _! significance _h be/ be def]r$ to ! close ( ! ,dialectic1 :]e ,kant dwells ^u ! regulative function ( ,reason4 ,at pres5t we ne$ m]ely note t ! ma9 cont5t ( ! above sections1 9 :i* ! sceptical view is exp\nd$1 is ( e>ly date1 prior to ! work+ out ( ! ,p>alogisms & ( ! ,ideal4 ,,section ,,vi ,,transc5d5tal ,,idealism ,,z ,,! ,,key ,,to ,,! ,,solution ,,( ,,! ,,cosmological ,,dialectic#aedg ,9 ?is section subjectivism is dom9ant4 ,! type ( transc5d5tal idealism exp\nd$ is t e>li] & less develop$ =m :i* connects ) ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4#aedh ,x %[s no trace ( ,kant's matur] tea*+4 ,no di/9ction is drawn betwe5 repres5tation & ! objects repres5t$4 ,to ! transc5d5tal object1 ! 8purely intelligible cause0 ( appe>ances 9 g5]al1 & to x alone1 ,kant ascribes 8! :ole ext5t & connection ( our possible p]ceptions40#aedi ,appe>ances exi/ only 9 ! degree to :i* !y are con/ruct$ 9 exp]i5ce4 ,z !y are m]e repres5tations1 !y _c exi/ outside ! m9d4 ,indep5d5tly ( su* con/ruction1 !y may inde$ be said to be giv5 9 ! transc5d5tal object1 b !y only become objects to u on ! supposition t !y c be rea*$ ?r\gh ext5sion ( ! s]ies ( our actual p]ceptions4 ,x is 9 ?is =m alone1 z conceiv$ 9 a regressive s]ies ( possible p]ceptions1 & n z hav+ exi/$ 9 itself1 t ev5 ! immemorial pa/ c\rse ( ! _w c be repres5t$ z real2 8444s t all ev5ts :i* h tak5 place 9 ! imm5se p]iods t h prec$$ my own exi/5ce mean really no?+ b ! possibility ( ext5d+ ! *a9 ( exp]i5ce f ! pres5t p]ception back to ! conditions :i* det]m9e x 9 "t40#aeej ,a simil> int]pretation has to be giv5 to all propositions :i* ass]t ! pres5t reality ( t :i* has nev] be5 actually exp]i5c$4 8,9 outcome x is a matt] ( indiff]5ce :e!r ,i say t 9 ! empirical progress 9 space ,i c meet ) />s a hundr$ times f>!r remov$ ?an ! out]mo/ n[ p]ceptible to me1 or :e!r ,i say t !y are p]haps to be met ) 9 cosmical space ev5 ?\gh no human be+ has ev] p]ceiv$ or ev] w p]ceive !m4 ,= ev5 if !y 7 giv5 z ?+s 9 !mselves1 )\t relation to possible exp]i5ce1#aeea !y are /ill no?+ = me1 & !re=e are n objects1 save 9 s f> z !y are conta9$ 9 ! s]ies ( ! empirical regress40#aeeb ,! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves mu/ always1 ,kant obs]ves1 be borne 9 m9d :5 we are int]pret+ ! mean+ ( our empirical concepts2 & ?is is especially necess>y :5 ^? concepts are br\ght into connection ) ! cosmological ,idea ( an uncondition$4 ,! ant9omies are due to a failure to appreciate ?is fundam5tal di/9ction1 & ! key to _! solution lies 9 its recognition4 8,x w\ld be an inju/ice to ascribe to u t long-decri$ empirical idealism :i*1 :ile x admits ! g5u9e actuality ( space1 d5ies ! exi/5ce ( ! ext5d$ be+s 9 x44440#aeec ,?is is 9 l9e ) ! passages f ! ,prolegom5a comm5t$ ^u above4#aeed ,,section ,,vii ,,critical ,,decision ,,( ,,! ,,cosmological ,,conflict ,,( ,,reason ,,) ,,itself#aeee ,kant's argum5t is z foll[s4 ,! ant9omies re/ ^u ! pr9ciple t if ! condition$ be giv51 ! entire s]ies ( all its conditions is likewise giv54 ,if ! objects ( ! s5ses 7 indep5d5tly real1 !re w\ld be no escape f ?is assumption1 & ! dialectical conflict w\ld consequ5tly be irresolvable4 ,transc5d5tal idealism1 z above /at$1 reveals a way out ( ! dilemma4 ,z appe>ances are m]ely repres5tations1 _! antec$5t conditions d n exi/ z appe>ances1 save 9 ! degree 9 :i* !y are m5tally con/ruct$4 ,?\gh ! appe>ances are giv51 _! empirical conditions are n !reby giv54 ,! mo/ t we c say is t a regress to ! conditions1 i4e4 a cont9u$ empirical syn!sis 9 t direction1 is comm&$ or requir$4 ,! cosmological argum5t c ?us be %[n to be logically invalid4 ,! syllogism1 :i* x involves1 is z foll[s3 ,if ! condition$ be giv51 ! entire s]ies ( all its conditions is likewise giv54 ,! objects ( ! s5ses are giv54 ,!re=e ! entire s]ies ( all _! conditions is likewise giv54 ,9 ! major premiss ! concept ( ! condition$ is employ$ transc5d5tly 7,kant says transc5d5tally71 9 ! m9or empirically4 ,b ?\gh ! inf]5ce ?us commits ! logical fallacy ( sophisma figurae dictionis1 ! gr\nd ( its occurr5ce1 & ! reason :y x is n at once detect$1 lie 9 a natural & inevitable illusion :i* leads u to accept ! s5sible _w 9 space z be+ indep5d5tly real4 ,only ?r\gh ,critical inve/igation c ! deceptive p[] ( ?is illusion be ov]come4 ,ow+ to its influ5ce1 ! above fallacy has be5 committ$ by dogmati/s & empirici/s alike4 ,x c be %[n t 9 refut+ ea* o!r 444 8!y are really qu>rell+ ab\t no?+1 & t a c]ta9 transc5d5tal illusion has caus$ !m to see a reality :]e none is to be f\nd40#aeef ,! exi/5ce ( ant9omy1 ,kant fur!r argues1 presupposes t !ses & anti!ses are contradictory opposites1 i4e4 t no ?ird alt]native is possible4 ,:5 oppos$ ass]tions are n contradictories b contr>ies1 ! opposition1 to use ,kant's t]ms1 is n analytical b dialectical4 ,bo? may be false2 = ! "o does n m]ely contradict ! o!r1 b makes1 9 addition1 a fur!r /atem5t on its own acc\nt4 ,n[ exam9ation ( ! illusion above describ$ enables u to p]ceive t ! opposites1 9 ref]5ce to :i* ant9omy occurs1 are ( ?is dialectical "*4 ,!ses & anti!ses are alike false4 ,s9ce ! _w does n exi/ z a ?+ 9 itself1 x exi/s nei!r z an inf9ite :ole nor z a f9ite :ole1 b only 9 ! degree 9 :i* x is con/ruct$ 9 an empirical regress4 ,we mu/ n apply 8! ,idea ( absolute totality1 :i* is valid only z a condition ( ?+s 9 !mselves10#aeeg to appe>ances4 7,! words :i* ,i h italicis$ m>k ! em]g5ce ( ,kant's non-sceptical1 non-empirical view ( ! nature & function ( ! ,ideas ( ,reason47 ,?us ant9omy1 rightly und]/ood1 does n fav\r scepticism1 b only ! 8sceptical me?od10 & inde$ yields an indirect pro( ( ! correctness ( ,critical tea*+4 ,?is pro( may be pres5t$ 9 ! =m ( a dilemma4 ,if ! _w is a :ole exi/+ 9 itself1 x is ei!r f9ite or inf9ite4 ,b ! =m] alt]native is refut$ by ! pro(s giv5 ( ! anti!ses1 & ! latt] alt]native by ! pro(s ( ! !ses4 ,!re=e ! _w _c be a :ole exi/+ 9 itself4 ,f ?is x foll[s t appe>ances are no?+ outside our repres5tations2 & t is :at is ass]t$ 9 ! doctr9e ( transc5d5tal idealism4 ,9 ,a #dii ,b #ebg ,kant uses ambigu\s language1#aeeh :i* c be int]pret$ z ass]t+ t 9 ! regress !re c be no lack ( giv5 conditions4 ,su* a /atem5t w\ld presuppose positive k reg>d+ ! unkn[n transc5d5tal object4#aeei ,! opposite1 m correct1 view is giv5 9 ,a #ead-ae ,b #edb-c & ,a #eag ff4 ,b #ede ff41 ?\gh 9 ! latt] passage ) a rev]sion to ! above position4#aefj ,! e>li] manuscripts1 :i* ,kant has s f> be5 employ+1 probably t]m9ate ei!r1 z ,adickes sugge/s1#aefa at ! end ( ?is section1 or at ! close ( ,section ,,viii41 :i* is ( d\btful date4 ,section ,,ix4 is c]ta9ly f a lat] p]iod2 x repres5ts a m complex /&po9t1 9 :i* ,reason is no long] view$ z possess+ a m]ely empirical function1 & 9 :i* consequ5tly ! !ses & anti!ses are no long] indiscrim9ately d5\nc$ z be+ alike false4 ,"u ! influ5ce ( 8 lat]1 m ,ideali/ic preoccupations1 ,kant s f> modifies ! above solution z to ass]t t 9 ! ease ( ! la/ two ant9omies bo? !ses & anti!ses are true1 :5 prop]ly int]pret$4 ,,section ,,viii ,,! ,,regulative ,,pr9ciple ,,( ,,pure ,,reason ,,9 ,,reg>d ,,to ,,! ,,cosmological ,,ideas#aefb ,! pr9ciple ( pure ,reason1 correctly =mulat$1 is t :5 ! condition$ is giv5 a regress ^u ! totality ( its conditions is set z a problem4 ,z su* x is valid1 8444n inde$ z an axiom 444 b z a problem = ! und]/&+ 4441 lead+ x to und]take & to cont9ue1 accord+ to ! complet5ess 9 ! ,idea1 ! regress 9 ! s]ies ( conditions ( any giv5 condition$40#aefc ,x does n anticipate1 prior to ! regress1 :at actually exi/s z object1 b only po/ulates1 9 ! =m ( a rule1 h[ ! und]/&+ ought to proce$4 ,x does n tell u :e!r or h[ ! uncondition$ exi/s1 b h[ ! empirical regress is to be c>ri$ out "u ! guidance ( a m]e ,idea4 ,su* a rule c be regulative only1 & ! ,idea ( totality :i* x conta9s mu/ nev] be inve/$ ) objective reality4 ,z ! absolutely uncondition$ c nev] be met ) 9 exp]i5ce1 we "k1 inde$1 be=eh& t 9 ! process ( ! regress ! uncondition$ w nev] be rea*$4 ,b ! duty ( seek+ x by way ( su* regress is none ! less prescrib$4 ,kant proce$s to give a some:at bewild]+ acc\nt ( ! famili> di/9ction betwe5 progressus 9 inf9itum & progressus 9 indef9itum1 & to draw a v d\btful di/9ction betwe5 ! s]ies 9 division ( a giv5 :ole & ! s]ies 9 ext5sion ( x4#aefd ,! illu/ration f ! s]ies ( human g5]ations is an un=tunate "o2 ! discov]y t x began at "s "o po9t 9 ! pa/ w\ld n necess>ily violate any dem& ( ,reason4 ,su* a s]ies is n comp>able ) ^? ( space1 "t1 & causality4#aefe ,! only important result ( ?is digression is ! conclusion t :atev] dem& be made1 :e!r ( regress 9 inf9itum or ( regress 9 indef9itum1 9 nei!r case c ! s]ies ( conditions be reg>d$ z be+ giv5 z inf9ite 9 ! object4 8,! "q1 !re=e1 is no long] h[ great ?is s]ies ( conditions may be 9 itself1 :e!r f9ite or inf9ite1 = x is no?+ 9 itself2 b h[ we are to c>ry out ! empirical regress1 & h[ f> we %\ld cont9ue x40#aeff ,we h already not$#aefg ,kant's ambigu\s sugge/ion 9 ,a #dii ,b #ebg1 t 9 ! empirical regress !re c be no lack ( giv5 conditions4 ,! /atem5t1 ?us int]pret$1 is illegitimate4 ,! mo/ t he c claim is t1 7 fur!r s5sations n =?com+1 we %\ld /ill h to conceive ^? la/ obta9$ z be+ prec$$ by empty space & "t1 & z lack+ 9 any exp]i5c$ cause4 ,"u su* circum/ances we %\ld exp]i5ce nei!r f9itude nor uncondition$ness1 b only incapacity to f9d a cont5t suitable to ! inexhau/ible "* ( ! spatial & temporal conditions ( exp]i5ce1 or 9 satisfaction ( our dem& = causal antec$5ts4 ,9 ,a #ead-ae ,b #edb-c ,kant %[s consci\sness ( ?is difficulty1 b 9 deal+ ) x adopts a half-way position :i* /ill lies op5 to objection4 ,he recognises t1 s9ce no memb] ( a s]ies c be empirically giv5 z absolutely uncondition$1 a high] memb] is always possible1 & t ! se>* = x is !re=e prescrib$2 none ! less he ass]ts t 9 reg>d to giv5 :oles we are ju/ifi$ 9 tak+ up a v diff]5t position1 namely1 t ! regress 9 ! s]ies ( _! int]nal conditions does n proce$1 z 9 ! above case1 9 indef9itum1 b 9 inf9itum1 i4e4 t 9 ?is case m memb]s exi/ & are empirically giv5 ?an we c rea* ?r\gh ! regress4 ,9 giv5 :oles we are comm&$ to f9d m memb]s2 9 s]ial ext5sion we are ju/ifi$ only 9 inquir+ = m4 ,?is half-way position is a make%ift1 & is 9 no respect t5able4 ,! evid5ce = ! inf9ite ext5sibility ( space & "t is z conclusive z = _! inf9ite divisibility4 ,& :5 we consid] s5su\s exi/5ce "u ^! =ms1 x is j z possible t ! transc5d5tal object may1 beyond a c]ta9 po9t1 fail to supply mat]ial = fur!r division1 z t x may fail to yield data = fur!r expansion4 ,:at ,kant ass]ts ( ! latt]1 t fur!r advance mu/ always rema9 z a possibility1 & = t ,reason mu/ always call = ! op5 m9d ( fur!r inquiry1 )\t any attempt$ anticipatory ass]tion ei!r pro or contra1 alone repres5ts ! true ,critical /&po9t4 ,! cessation ( data may really1 h[ev]1 be due to an increase 9 ! subtlety ( ! condition+ processes t incapacitates !m f act+ ^u our s5ses2#aefh by indirect means ?is disability may be ov]come4 ,reason1 9 its conception ( an uncondition$1 prescribes to u a task t is inexhau/ible 9 its dem&s4 ,we h no "r to lay d[n our intellectual arms be=e any b>ri] h[ev] baffl+1 or to despair be=e any *asm h[ev] empty & abrupt4 ,,section ,,ix ,,! ,,empirical ,,employm5t ,,( ,,! ,,regulative ,,pr9ciple ,,( ,,reason ,,9 ,,reg>d ,,to ,,all ,,cosmological ,,ideas#aefi ,,solution ,,( ,,! ,,fir/ ,,& ,,second ,,ant9omies ,/atem5t4--,! fundam5tal fact ^u :i*1 z ,kant has already /at$1 ! regulative pr9ciple ( ,reason is bas$1 is t x is impossible to exp]i5ce an absolute limit4 ,x is always possible t a /ill high] memb] ( ! s]ies may be f\nd2 & t be+ s1 x is our duty to se>* = x4 ,b z we are "h deal+ ) possibilities only1 ! regress is 9 indef9itum1 n 9 inf9itum4 8444we mu/ seek ! concept ( ! quantity ( ! _w only accord+ to ! rule :i* det]m9es ! empirical regress 9 x4 ,?is rule says no m ?an t h[ev] f> we may h atta9$ 9 ! s]ies ( empirical conditions1 we %\ld nev] assume an absolute limit1 b %\ld subord9ate e appe>ance1 z condition$1 to ano!r z its condition1 & t we mu/ !n advance to ?is condition4 ,?is is ! regressus 9 indef9itum1 :i*1 z x det]m9es no quantity 9 ! object1 is cle>ly en\gh di/+ui%able f ! regressus 9 inf9itum40#aegj ,we are acqua9t$ only ) ! rule1 & n ) ! :ole object4 ,any ass]tion1 !re=e1 :i* we c make1 mu/ be dictat$ solely by ! rule1 & be an expression ( x4 ,nei!r ! !sis nor ! anti!sis ( ! fir/ ant9omy is valid2 !re is a ?ird alt]native4 ,! s5sible _w is nei!r f9ite nor inf9ite 9 ext5t2 x is inf9itely ext5sible1 9 t]ms ( ! rule4 ,un=tunately ,kant is n cont5t to leave 8 conclusion 9 ?is =m4 ,he complicates 8 argum5t1 & bewild]s ! read]1 by ma9ta9+ t ?is is a virtual acceptance ( ! anti!sis1 9 t we ass]t negatively1 t an absolute limit 9 ei!r "t or space is empirically impossible2#aega & affirmatively1 t ! regress goes on 9 indef9itum1 & consequ5tly has no absolute quantity4 ,kant also repeats ! argum5t ( ! prec$+ section 9 reg>d to giv5 :oles4#aegb ,:5 ! problem is t ( subdivision1 ! regress />ts f a giv5 :ole1 & !re=e f a :ole ^: conditions 7! p>ts7 are giv5 ) x4 ,! division is1 !re=e1 9 inf9itum1 & n m]ely 9 indef9itum4 ,?is does n1 h[ev]1 he argues1 mean t ! giv5 :ole consi/s ( inf9itely _m p>ts4 ,= ?\gh ! p>ts are conta9$ 9 ! intuition ( ! :ole1 yet ! :ole division arises only ?r\gh ! regress t g5]ates x4 ,x is a quantum cont9uum1 n a quantum discretum4#aegc ,?is argum5t has be5 criticis$ above4#aegd ,kant "h ignores ! possibility t ! p>ts ( matt]1 ?\gh ext5d$1 may be physically indivisible1 or t !y may be c5tres ( =ce :i* control1 b d n occupy1 a det]m9ate space4 ,,rem>ks ,,on ,,! ,,di/9ction ,,betwe5 ,,! ,,ma!matical-,,transc5d5tal ,,& ,,! ,,dynamical-,,transc5d5tal ,,ideas#aege ,/atem5t4--,kant aga9#aegf introduces ! di/9ction betwe5 ! ma!matical & ! dynamical4 ,! ma!matical ,ideas syn!sise ! homog5e\s1 ! dynamical may connect ! het]og5e\s4 ,9 employ+ ! =m] we mu/ !re=e rema9 )9 ! ph5om5al2 ?r\gh ! latt] we may be able to transc5d x4 ,! way is ?us op5$ = prop\nd+1 9 reg>d to ! ?ird & f\r? ant9omies1 a solution 9 :i* ! pret5sions ( ,reason no less ?an ^? ( und]/&+ may f9d satisfaction4 ,:]eas bo? ! !ses & ! anti!ses ( ! fir/ & second ant9omies h to be decl>$ false1 ^? ( ! ?ird & f\r? ant9omies may bo? be true--! !ses apply+ to ! intelligible realm1 & ! anti!ses to ! _w ( s5se4 ,comm5t4--,:5 ! di/9ction betwe5 ! ma!matical & ! dynamical is ?us ext5d$ f ! categories to ! ,ideas1 its validity becomes highly d\btful4 ,space & "t are c]ta9ly !mselves homog5e\s1 & ! categories ( quality & quantity1 9 s f> z !y are ma!matically employ$1 may p]haps be simil>ly describ$4 ,b :5 ! t]m is /ill fur!r ext5d$1 to cov] ! pairs ( correlative opposites ) :i* ! fir/ two ant9omies deal1 ^?1 namely1 betwe5 ! limit$ & ! unlimit$1 ! simple & ! inf9itely divisible1 ,kant w\ld seem to be mak+ a highly artificial di/9ction4 ,! fir/ two ant9omies deal n ) space & "t z su*1 b ) ! s5sible _w 9 space & "t2 & )9 ?is s5sible _w1 ev5 9 its quantitative aspects1 qualitative diff]5ces h to be reckon$ )4 ,common s5se does1 inde$1 t5d to assume t ! unlimit$ & ! simple mu/1 l t :i* !y condition1 be 9 space & "t1 & s =m ) ! condition$ a homog5e\s s]ies4 ,b ?is assumption ord9>y consci\sness is equally dispos$ to make 9 reg>d to a fir/ cause & to ! unconditionally necess>y4 ,kant fur!r attempts#aegg to di/+ui% betwe5 ! ma!matical & ! dynamical by ass]t+ t ! dynamical ant9omies are n conc]n$ ) ! quantity ( _! object1 b only ) its exi/5ce4 ,he admits1 h[ev]1 t 9 all f\r cases a s]ies arises :i* is ei!r too l>ge or too small = ! und]/&+2 & t be+ s1 9 ea* case ! problem arises z to ! exi/5ce ( an uncondition$4 ,! artificiality ( ,kant's di/9ction becomes cle> :5 we recognise t ! oppos$ solutions1 :i* he gives ( ! two sets ( ant9omies1 c be mutually int]*ang$4 ,z ! s5sible _w re/s ^u intelligible gr\nds1 bo? ! !ses & ! anti!ses ( ! fir/ two ant9omies may be true1 ! =m] 9 ! intelligible realm & ! latt] 9 ! s5su\s4 ,simil>ly1 bo? ! !ses & anti!ses ( ! ?ird & f\r? ant9omies may be false4 ,9 ! s5sible _w1 ab\t :i* alone any?+ c be det]m9$1 ! s]ies ( dynamical conditions =ms nei!r a f9ite nor an inf9ite s]ies4 ,!re is a ?ird alt]native1 ak9 to t ( ! anti!ses1 b di/9ct 9 "* f x1 namely1 t ! s]ies is inf9itely ext5sible4 ,kant's diff]5tial treatm5t ( ! two sets ( ant9omies is arbitr>y1 & w\ld seem to be due to 8 hav+ attempt$ to sup]impose1 ) ! lea/ possible modification1 a lat] solution ( ! ant9omies ^u "o previ\sly develop$4 ,9 ! e>li] view1 z we h already _h occasion to obs]ve1 ,reason has a m]ely empirical application4 ,its ,ideas are tak5 z exi/+ 8only 9 ! bra940 ,only _! empirical ref]5ce c sub/antiate !m1 or inde$ give !m ! lea/ significance4 ,& z !y are by _! v nature incapable ( empirical embodim5t1 all ass]tions :i* involve !m mu/ necess>ily be false4 ,lat]1 ,kant came to reg>d ,reason z hav+ its own indep5d5t rights4 ,enc\rag$ by 8 successful e/abli%m5t ( ! objective validity ( ! categories1 progressively m & m conv9c$ ( ! importance ( ! di/9ction1 :i* t pro( re9=c$1 betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves1 & preoccupi$ ) ! problems ( ! spiritual life1 8 old-"t fai? 9 ! absolute claims ( pure ?\ght reass]t$ itself4 ,?r\gh ,reason we realise our k9%ip ) n\m5al realities1 & ?r\gh its dem&s ! nature ( ! uncondition$ is =e%ad[$ to ! m9d4 ,! !ses & anti!ses1 :i* ?r\gh\t ! entire hi/ory ( philosophy h compet$ ) "o ano!r1 may bo? be true4 ,_! p]5nial conflict demon/rates ! ne$ = "s m ca?olic /&po9t f :i* ! two great au?orities by :i* human life is controll$ & direct$1 ! intellectual & ! moral1 may be reconcil$4 ,nei!r c be made to yield to ! o!r2 ea* is supreme 9 its own field4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves1 recognition ( :i* is ! fir/ /ep t[>ds an adequate !ory ( k1 & )\t :i* ! nature ( ! intellectual life rema9s self-contradictory & incompreh5sible1 itself af=ds ! means ( su* a reconciliation4 ,! und]/&+ is ! sole key to ! _w ( appe>ance1 ! moral imp]ative to ! realm ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,reason ) its dem& = ! uncondition$ m$iates betwe5 !m1 & enables u to realise our dual vocation4 ,?is radical alt]ation ( /&po9t 0 b\nd to make ! employm5t ( manuscript repres5t+ ! e>li] & m sceptical attitude altoge!r unsatisfactory2 & only ,kant's con/itutional unwill+ness to sacrifice :at he _h once committ$ to pap] c acc\nt = 8 ret5tion ( ! old] expositions4 ,he all[s 8 previ\s treatm5t ( ! fir/ two ant9omies to rema9 9 its sceptical =m1 &1 by means ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ! ma!matical & ! dynamical1 develops 8 new]1 m ,ideali/ view exclusively 9 ref]5ce to ! ?ird & f\r? ant9omies4 ,t x is no less applicable to ! o!rs1 we h already se54 ,?\gh ! ,ideali/ view1 z "h exp\nd$1 may be ?us describ$1 relatively to ! sceptical view ( ,reason1 z lat]1 t is n to be tak5 z mean+ t x repres5ts ! late/ /age 9 ! developm5t ( ,kant's ,critical tea*+4 ,x seems to belong to ! p]iod prior to t 9 :i* ! c5tral sections ( ! ,analytic 7 compos$4 ,! evid5ce#aegh = ?is consi/s *iefly 9 its subjectivi/ ref]5ces to ! nature ( appe>ances4 ,x w\ld seem to be contempor>y ) ,kant's doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4 ,,solution ,,( ,,! ,,?ird ,,ant9omy#aegi ,/atem5t4--,z appe>ances are repres5tations only1 !y mu/ h a gr\nd :i* is n itself an appe>ance2#aehj & ?\gh ! effects ( su* an intelligible cause appe>1 & accord+ly are det]m9$ ?r\gh o!r appe>ances1 its causality is n itself simil>ly condition$4 ,bo? x & its causality lie outside ! empirical s]ies2 only ! effects fall )9 ! realm ( exp]i5ce4 ,& t causality1 n be+ subject to "t1 does n require to /& "u ano!r cause z its effect4 ,9 ?is way ,kant d]ives f 8 transc5d5tal idealism an explanation ( ! possibility ( an action be+ at once free & causally det]m9$4 ,?is explanation he takes z apply+ ei!r to a fir/ cause ( ! :ole realm ( natural ph5om5a or to a f9ite be+ reg>d$ z a free ag5t4 ,! pro( ( ! possibility ( ?is metaphysical1 or1 z ,kant entitles x1 8transc5d5tal fre$om10 removes :at has always be5 ! real difficulty t lay 9 ! way ( 8practical fre$om40 ,! conception ( fre$om is a transc5d5tal ,idea :i* c nei!r be d]iv$ f exp]i5ce nor v]ifi$ by x4 ,x is creat$ by ,reason = itself2#aeha & reveals ! possibility t 9 ?is ?ird ant9omy bo? !sis & anti!sis may be true4 ,! alt]natives--8e effect mu/ arise f nature10 & 8e effect mu/ arise f fre$om0--are n exclusive ( "o ano!r4 ,!y may be true ( "o & ! same ev5t 9 diff]5t relations4#aehb ,! ev5t may be free 9 ref]5ce to its intelligible cause1 det]m9$ z an exi/5ce 9 space & "t4 ,7 appe>ances ?+s 9 !mselves1 fre$om & causality w\ld necess>ily conflict3 by means ( ! above ontological di/9ction fre$om c be ass]t$ )\t any dim9ution 9 ! scope all[$ to ! causal pr9ciple4 ,all ev5ts1 )\t a s+le possible exception1 are subject to ! law ( natural det]m9ation2 & yet e ev5t may at ! same "t proce$ f a free cause4 ,,possibility ,,( ,,h>monis+ ,,causality ,,?r\gh ,,fre$om ,,) ,,! ,,univ]sal ,,law ,,( ,,natural ,,necessity#aehc ,/atem5t4--,! above conclusion is s seem+ly p>adoxical t ,kant devotes ?is & ! foll[+ section to its fur!r elucidation4 ,h[ c ev5ts be bo? free & det]m9$8 ,! answ] lies 9 recognition ( ! two-sid$ "* ( e natural exi/5ce4 ,x is1 9 "o aspect1 m]e appe>ance2 9 ano!r1 x has at its f\ndation a transc5d5tal object4 ,x is an appe>ance ( ! latt]1 & = its complete compreh5sion ?is latt] mu/ be tak5 into acc\nt4 ,n[ !re is no?+ to prev5t u f attribut+ to ! transc5d5tal object a causality :i* is n ph5om5al4 ,su* causality may make ! appe>ance j t appe>ance :i* x is4 ,9 ! _w ( s5se e effici5t cause mu/ h a specific empirical "*1 s9ce only s c x det]m9e "o effect r ?an ano!r accord+ to ! univ]sal & inv>iable law expressive ( its nature4 ,we mu/ simil>ly all[ to ! transc5d5tal object an intelligible "*1 & trace to x all ^? appe>ances :i* z memb]s ( ! empirical s]ies /& to "o ano!r 9 unbrok5 causal connection4 ,?is transc5d5tal object1 ow+ to its intelligible "*1 is n 9 "t4 ,its act does n ei!r arise or p]i%1 & is n1 !re=e1 subject to ! law ( empirical det]m9ation :i* applies only to ! *angeable1 i4e4 to ev5ts subsequ5t ^u previ\s /ates4 ,su* sup]s5su\s causality c f9d no place 9 ! s]ies ( empirical conditions1 & ?\gh x c be conceiv$ only 9 t]ms ( ! empirical "* :i* is its outcome1 ! diff]5ce betwe5 x & natural causality may be z complete z t :i* subsi/s betwe5 ! transc5d5tal & ! empirical objects ( k4 ,9 its empirical "* ! action is a "p ( nature1 & ent]s into a causal nexus :i* con=ms to univ]sal laws4#aehd ,all its effects are inevitably det]m9$ by antec$5t natural conditions4 ,9 its intelligible "*1 h[ev]1 ?is same active subject mu/ be consid]$ free f all influ5ce ( s5sibility & f all det]m9ation ?r\gh natural ev5ts4 ,9 s f> z x is a n\m5on1 !re c be no *ange 9 x1 & !re=e no?+ :i* is capable ( explanation 9 t]ms ( natural causes4 ,ev5 its empirical effects are n traceable to x z ev5ts 9 "t4 ,= z ev5ts ^! effects are always ! results ( antec$5t empirical causes4 ,:at is alone due to n\m5al causality is t empirical "* 9 virtue ( :i* appe>ances are :at !y are1 & ow+ to :i* !y /& 9 specific & necess>y causal relations to "o ano!r4 8444! empirical "* is p]man5t1 :ile its effects1 accord+ to v>iation 9 ! concomitant1 & 9 "p limit+ conditions1 appe> 9 *angeable =ms40#aehe ,empirical causality is itself 9 its specific nature condition$ by an intelligible cause4#aehf ,,explanation ,,( ,,! ,,relation ,,( ,,fre$om ,,to ,,necessity ,,( ,,nature#aehg ,/atem5t4--,no s+le appe>ance c be exempt$ f ! law ( natural causality4 ,= x w\ld !n be plac$ outside all possible exp]i5ce1 & w\ld be = u a fiction ( ! bra91 or r c\ld n be conceiv$ at all4 ,no?+1 !re=e1 9 nature c act freely or spontane\sly4 ,b :ile ?us recognis+ t all ev5ts )\t exception are empirically condition$1 we may1 z already po9t$ out1 reg>d empirical causality z itself an effect ( a non-empirical & intelligible p[]4#aehh ,9 ev5ts !re may be no?+ b nature1 & yet nature itself1 or p]haps ev5 "s ( ! exi/5ces compos+ x1 may re/ ^u p[]s ( a n\m5al ord]4 ,kant proce$s to %[ t su* an hypo!sis is n only all[able1 b is indisp5sable = und]/&+ ! di/+ui%+ features ( human life 9 its practical aspect4 ,man is a natural exi/5ce1 & 8 activities are subject to empirical laws4 ,l all o!r objects ( nature1 he has an empirical "*1 & 9 virtue ( x takes 8 place z an integral "p ( ! sy/em ( nature4 ,b man is unique among all natural exi/5ces 9 t he n only kn[s himself z a s5sible exi/5ce1 b also1 ?r\gh pure app]ception1 becomes aw>e ( himself z possess+ faculties ( a /rictly intelligible "*4#aehi ,su* are ! faculties ( und]/&+ & ,reason1 especially ! latt] 9 its practical employm5t4 ,! 8ought0 ( ! moral imp]ative expresses a k9d ( necessity & a =m ( causation :i* we n[h]e f9d 9 ! _w ( nature4 ,! und]/&+ c "k 9 nature only :at actually is1 has be51 or w be4 ,no?+ natural c be o!r ?an x is 9 ! p>ticul> relations 9 :i* x is f\nd4 ,moral action transc5ds ! natural 9 t x f9ds its cause1 n 9 an appe>ance or set ( appe>ances1 b 9 an ,ideal ( pure ,reason4 ,su* action mu/ inde$ be possible "u natural conditions1 b su* conditions d n det]m9e its rightness1 & consequ5tly _c det]m9e its causality4 8,reason 444 does n "h foll[ ! ord] ( ?+s z !y pres5t !mselves 9 appe>ance1 b frames to itself ) p]fect spontaneity an ord] ( its own accord+ to ,ideas1 to :i* x adapts ! empirical conditions1 & accord+ to :i* x decl>es actions to be necess>y ev5 al?\gh !y h nev] yet tak5 place1 & p]haps nev] w take place4 ,& at ! same "t x also presupposes t ,reason c h causality 9 reg>d to all ^! actions1 s9ce o!rwise no empirical effects c\ld be expect$ f its ,ideas40#aeij ,if su* action ( pure ,reason be admitt$ to be possible1 x w h to be view$1 purely intelligible ?\gh x be1 z also possess+ an empirical "*1 i4e4 z con=m+ to ! sy/em ( nature4 ,its empirical consequ5ces w be ! effects ( antec$5t appe>ances1 & w empirically det]m9e by natural necessity all subsequ5t acts4 ,9 ?is empirical "*1 !re=e1 !re c be no fre$om4 ,7 our k ( ! circum/ances suffici5tly ext5sive1 e human action1 s f> z x is appe>ance1 c\ld be pr$ict$ & %[n to be necess>y4 ,h[1 !n1 c we talk ( actions z free1 :5 f ! po9t ( view ( appe>ances !y mu/ 9 all cases be reg>d$ z inevitable8 ,! solution is t :i* has already be5 giv5 ( ! broad] issue4 ,! entire empirical "*1 ! :ole sy/em ( nature1 is det]m9$ by ! intelligible "*4 ,& ! =m] results f ! latt]1 n empirically1 & !re=e n accord+ to any temporal1 causal law4 ,x does n arise or beg9 at a c]ta9 "t4 ,! intelligible "* conditions ! empirical s]ies z a s]ies1 & n z if x 7 a fir/ memb] ( x4 8,?us :at we h miss$ 9 all empirical s]ies is disclos$ z possible1 namely1 t ! condition ( a successive s]ies ( ev5ts may itself be empirically uncondition$40#aeia ,! intelligible "* lies outside ! s]ies ( appe>ances4 8,reason is ! abid+ 7beh>rli*e7 condition ( all free actions44440#aeib ,fre$om ought n1 !re=e1 to be conceiv$ only negatively z indep5d5ce ( empirical conditions1 b also positively z ! p[] ( orig9at+ a s]ies ( ev5ts4 ,! empirical s]ies is 9 "t4 ,reason1 :i* is its uncondition$ condition1 admits ( no?+ antec$5t to itself2 x kn[s nei!r be=e nor aft]4 ,! s]ies is ! imm$iate effect ( a non-temporal reality4 ,9 illu/ration ( 8 mean+1 n1 z he is c>eful to add1 ) ! pr(ession ( !reby confirm+ its tru?1 ,kant po9ts out t moral judgm5t ^u a vici\s action is n det]m9$ 9 view ( ! inh]itance1 circum/ances & pa/ life ( ! (f5d]1 b is pass$ j z if he might 9 ea* action be suppos$ to beg91 q by himself1 a new s]ies ( effects4 ,?is1 9 ,kant's view1 %[s t practical ,reason is reg>d$ z a cause completely capable1 indep5d5tly ( all empirical conditions1 ( det]m9+ ! act1 & t x is pres5t 9 all ! actions ( m5 "u all conditions1 & is always ! same4 ,to expla9 :y ! intelligible "* %\ld 9 any specific case produce j ?is p>ticul> empirical "*1 good or bad1 8444transc5ds all ! p[]s ( our ,reason1 inde$ all its rights ( que/ion+1 j z if we 7 to ask :y ! transc5d5tal object ( our out] s5se-intuition yields intuition 9 space only & no o!r40#aeic ,9 conclusion ,kant /ates t 8 int5tion has n be5 to e/abli% ! reality ( fre$om1 n ev5 to prove its possibility4 ,fre$om has be5 dealt ) only z a transc5d5tal ,idea2 & ! only po9t e/abli%$ is t fre$om is1 s to speak1 a possible possibility1 9 t x is n contradict$ ei!r by exp]i5ce or by any?+ t c be prov$ to be a presupposition ( exp]i5ce4 ,comm5t4--,adequate comm5t ^u ?is section is difficult = _m reasons4 ,! section is full ( ar*aic expressions f ! e>li] /ages ( ,kant's ,critical tea*+4 ,secondly1 ! section anticipates a problem :i* is fir/ adequately dealt ) 9 ! second ,critique4 ,& la/ly1 b n lea/1 ! discussion ( fre$om 9 connection ) a cosmological ant9omy leads ,kant to treat x 9 ! same mann] z ! g5]al ant9omy1 & 9 s do+ to ignore ! *ief difficulty to :i* human fre$om1 z an indep5d5t problem ) its own peculi> difficulties1 lies op54 ,= x is comp>atively easy to reconcile ! univ]sality ( ! causal pr9ciple ) ! uncondition$ness ( ! transc5d5tal gr\nd ^u :i* nature z a :ole is made to re/4 ,x is a v diff]5t matt] to reconcile ! spontane\s orig9ation ( p>ticul> causal s]ies1 or ! fre$om ( p>ticul> exi/5ces1 su* z human be+s1 ) ! s+l5ess & uni=mity ( a natural sy/em 9 :i* e "p is det]m9$ by e o!r4 ,self-consci\sness1 ) ! capacity :i* x conf]s ( con/ruct+ rational ideals1 c]ta9ly1 z ,kant rightly cont5ds1 creates a situation to :i* me*anical categories are by no means adequate4 ,b ! m]e ref]5ce to ! conceivability ( di/9ct causal s]ies1 hav+ ea* a pure conception z _! intelligible gr\nd1 does n suffice to meet ! fundam5tal difficulty t1 on ,kant's own admission1 ea* su* sep>ate s]ies mu/ =m an integral "p ( ! unit>y sy/em ( natural law4 ,9 only "o passage does ,kant ev5 t\* ^u ?is difficulty4 ,speak+#aeid ( ,reason's p[] ( orig9at+ a s]ies ( ev5ts1 he adds t :ile no?+ beg9s 9 ,reason itself 7z x admits ( no conditions antec$5t to itself 9 "t71 ! new s]ies mu/ none ! less h a beg9n+ 9 ! natural _w4 ,b ! proviso1 :i* he at once makes1 indicates t he is aw>e t ?is /atem5t is unt5able4 ,= he adds ! qualification t ?\gh a beg9n+ ( ! s]ies1 x is nev] an absolutely fir/ beg9n+4 ,9 o!r words1 x is n a beg9n+ 9 any real s5se ( ! t]m4 ,z ! argum5t ( 8 next p>agraph %[s1 x is ! entire sy/em ( nature1 & n any "o s]ies )9 x1 :i* c alone acc\nt1 9 empirical t]ms1 = any "o action4 ,x is op5 to ,kant to argue1 z he has already done1#aeie t ! transc5d5tal object conditions ea* sep>ate appe>ance z well z all appe>ances 9 _! totality1 & t ! specific empirical "* ( ea* causal s]ies is !re=e no less n\m5ally condition$ ?an is nature z a :ole4 ,b ?is does n suffice to meet ! difficulty--h[1 if all natural ph5om5a con/itute a s+le clos$ sy/em 9 :i* ev]y?+ is det]m9$ by ev]y?+ else1 a moral ag5t1 act+ spontane\sly1 c be free to orig9ate a g5u9ely new s]ies ( natural ev5ts4 ,we seem con/ra9$ to conclude t ,kant has fail$ to su/a9 8 position4 ,a solution is r5d]$ impossible by ! v t]ms 9 :i* he =mulates ! problem4 ,if ! spiritual & ! natural be oppos$ to "o ano!r z ! timeless & ! temporal1 & if ! natural be fur!r view$ z a unit>y sy/em1 individual moral fre$om is no long] def5sible4 ,only ! 8transc5d5tal fre$om0 ( ! cosmological argum5t c be reckon$ z among ! op5 possibilities4 ,z reg>ds ! "* ( ! ,critical doctr9e :i* und]lies ?is section1 we ne$ only note t ! /atem5t 9 ,a #edf-g ,b #egd-e1 t man kn[s himself ?r\gh pure app]ception z 8a purely intelligible object10#aeif does n con=m to ,kant's f9al tea*+4 ,! section c be dat$ ?r\gh its unwav]+ adh]5ce to ! subjectivi/ doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object4#aeig ,,solution ,,( ,,! ,,f\r? ,,ant9omy#aeih ,/atem5t4--,! above solution is adopt$4 ,bo? !sis & anti!sis may be true1 ! latt] ( ! _w ( s5se & ! =m] ( its non-empirical gr\nd4 ,all ?+s s5sible are cont+5t1 b ! cont+5t s]ies 9 its entirety may nev]!less re/ ^u an unconditionally necess>y be+4 ,! uncondition$1 s9ce x is outside ! s]ies1 does n require t any "o l9k 9 ! s]ies %\ld be itself uncondition$4 8,reason foll[s its own c\rse 9 ! empirical1 & aga9 a peculi> c\rse 9 its transc5d5tal use10 i4e4 x limits itself by ! law ( causality 9 deal+ ) appe>ances1 le/ 9 los+ ! ?read ( ! empirical conditions x %\ld fall into idle & empty speculations2 :ile1 on ! o!r h&1 x limits t law to appe>ances1 le/ x %\ld wrongly decl>e t :at is useless = ! explanation ( appe>ances is !re=e impossible 9 itself4 ,?is does n prove t an absolutely necess>y be+ is really possible1 b only t its impossibility mu/ n be conclud$ f ! necess>y cont+5cy ( all ?+s s5su\s4 ,comm5t4--,kant's me?od ( di/+ui%+#aeii ?is conclusion f t ( ! prec$+ ant9omy is aga9 artificial4 8,necess>y be+0 is n 9 conception m extramundanum ?an 8uncondition$ cause40 ,if ,kant's di/9ction 7 valid1 ! argum5t ( ! f\r? ant9omy w\ld no long] be cosmological2 x w\ld co9cide ) ! problem ( ! ,ideal ( ,pure ,reason4 ,,conclud+ ,,note ,,on ,,! ,,:ole ,,ant9omy ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#afjj ,/atem5t4--,:5 we seek ! uncondition$ entirely beyond exp]i5ce1 our ,ideas cease to be cosmological2 !y become transc5d5t4 ,!y sep>ate !mselves (f f all empirical use ( ! und]/&+1 & create to !mselves an object1 ! mat]ial ( :i* is n tak5 f exp]i5ce1 & :i* is !re=e a m]e ?+ ( ! m9d 7blosses ,g$ank5d+74 ,none ! less ! cosmological ,idea ( ! f\r? ant9omy impels u to take ?is /ep4 ,:5 s5su\s appe>ances1 z m]ely cont+5t1 require u to look = some?+ altoge!r di/9ct 9 nature f !m1 our only available in/rum5ts1 9 s do+1 are ^? pure concepts ( ?+s 9 g5]al :i* cont+5t exp]i5ce involves4 ,we use !m z in/rum5ts 9 su* mann] z may enable u to =m1 ?r\gh analogy1 "s k9d ( notion ( intelligible ?+s4 ,tak5 9 ab/raction f ! =ms ( s5se1 !y yield t notion ( an absolutely necess>y ,be+ :i* is equival5t to ! concept ( ! !ological ,ideal4 ,,conclud+ ,,comm5t ,,on ,,kant',s ,,doctr9e ,,( ,,! ,,ant9omies ,we may n[1 9 conclusion1 briefly summ>ise ! results obta9$ 9 ?is *apt]4 ,kant fails to ju/ify ! ass]tion t on ! dogmatic level !re exi/ ant9omies 9 :i* bo? ! contradictory alt]natives all[ ( cog5t demon/ration4 ,8 pro(s are 9 e in/ance invalid4 ,! real nature ( ant9omy mu/1 z he himself occasionally intimates1 be def9$ 9 a v diff]5t mann]1 namely1 z a conflict betwe5 ! dem& ( ,reason = unity & sy/em1 & ! specific nature ( ! conditions1 especially ( ! spatial & temporal conditions1 "u :i* ! s5su\s exi/s4 ,9 ?is wid] =m x con/itutes a g5u9e problem1 :i* dem&s = its solution ! fundam5tal ,critical di/9ction betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s-9-!mselves1 & also a m ?or\ghgo+ discussion ?an has yet be5 attempt$ ( ! nature ( ,reason & ( ! function ( its ,ideas4 ,x is to ^! connect$ que/ions t ,kant devotes 8 ma9 att5tion 9 ! rema9+ portions ( ! ,dialectic1 s t 9 pass+ to ! ,ideal ( ,pure ,reason he is n proce$+ to ! treatm5t ( a new set ( problems1 b to ! re/atem5t & to ! m adequate solution ( ! fundam5tal conflict betwe5 und]/&+ & ,reason4 ,! obs]vations :i* clos$ our comm5t ^u ! ,p>alogisms are ?us aga9 9 ord]4 ,! tea*+ ( ! sections on ! ,ant9omies1 no less ?an t ( ^? on ! ,p>alogisms1 is incomplete1 & if tak5 by itself is b\nd to mislead4 ,! ,ideas ( an uncondition$ self & ( an uncondition$ gr\nd ( nature h ?us f> be5 tak5 z at lea/ conceptually possible1 & z signify+ :at may p]haps be real exi/5ces4 ,^! ,ideas are 9 c]ta9 ( ! rema9+ sections ( ! ,dialectic call$ 9 "q4 ,!y are !re decl>$ to be )\t inh]5t mean+4 ,!y are useful fictions--heuri/is*e ,fiktion5--& 9 _! psy*ological nature are simply s*emata ( regulative pr9ciples4 ,_! !oretical significance consi/s m]ely 9 _! regulative & limitative functions4 ,!y mu/ n be reg>d$1 ev5 hypo!tically1 z repres5t+ real exi/5ces4 ,9 ! practical 7i4e4 e?ical7 sph]e !y d inde$ acquire a v diff]5t /&+4 ,b ) t ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason is n directly conc]n$4 ,! read] may !re=e be w>n$ n to omit ! *apt] on ! ,ideal ( ,pure ,reason1 on ! supposition t x embodies only a criticism ( ! ,c>tesian & teleological pro(s ( ,god's exi/5ce4 ,x is an integral "p ( ,critical tea*+1 & c>ries ,kant's entire argum5t =w>d to its f9al conclusions4 ,only 9 view ( ! new & deep] consid]ations1 :i* x br+s to light1 c 8 treatm5t ev5 ( ! ,ant9omies be prop]ly und]/ood4 ,its ma9 op5+ section 7,section ,,ii47 is1 inde$1 among ! mo/ s*ola/ically rationali/ic 9 ! entire ,critique2 b 9 ! lat] sections x unfolds1 ) a boldness & consi/5cy to :i* we f9d no p>allel 9 ! treatm5t ( ! ,p>alogisms & ( ! ,ant9omies1 ! full consequ5ces ( ! m sceptical ( ,kant's alt]nat+ /&po9ts4 ,x dis9tegrates ! concepts ( ! uncondition$1 :i* h hi!rto be5 employ$ )\t analysis & )\t "q2 & ^u _! elim9ation f among ! legitimate in/rum5ts ( ,reason1 ! situation und]goes entire trans=mation1 ! two po9ts ( view appe>+ = ! fir/ "t 9 ! full ext5t ( _! div]g5ce & conflict4 ,= ,kant's ,ideali/ view ( ,reason & ( its ,ideas /ill cont9ues to f9d occasional /atem5t1 %[+ t he has n be5 able decisively to commit himself to ?is m sceptical int]pretation ( ! function ( ,reason2 t he is consci\s t ! ,ideali/ view alone gives adequate expression to c]ta9 fundam5tal consid]ations :i* h to be reckon$ )2 & t unless ! two views c 9 "s mann] be reconcil$ ) "o ano!r1 a really def9itive & satisfactory solution ( ! problem has n be5 rea*$4 ,:51 !re=e1 we speak ( ,kant's f9al conclusions1 we mu/ be tak5 z ref]r+ to ! tw(old t5d5cies1 sceptical & ,ideali/1 :i* to ! v la/ p]si/ 9 competition ) "o ano!r4 ,! great] adequacy ( ,kant's argum5t 9 ! *apt] on ! ,ideal ( ,pure ,reason & 9 ! important ,app5dix atta*$ to ! ,dialectic consi/s 9 its =cible & consid]$ exposition ( bo? attitudes4 ,mo/ ( ! sections on ! ,ant9omies mu/1 z we h se51 be dat$ z among ! e>lie/ p>ts ( ! ,critique4 ,_! tea*+ is correspond+ly immature4 ,! *apt] on ! ,ideal & ! ,app5dix1 on ! o!r h&1 7 among ! late/ to be writt51 & conta91 toge!r ) ! c5tral portions ( ! ,analytic1 our mo/ au?oritative exposition ( ,kant's ,critical pr9ciples4 ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,! ,,ideal ,,( ,,pure ,,reason ,,sections ,i & ,,ii ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,ideal#afja ,! /atem5ts ( ! fir/ section _c pr(itably be comm5t$ ^u at ?is /age2 !y are ( a m]ely g5]al "*4#afjb ,i pass at once to ,section ,,ii41 :i*1 z above /at$1 is q ! mo/ ar*aic piece ( rationali/ic argum5t 9 ! entire ,critique4 ,x is n m]ely ,leibnizian1 b ,wolffian 9 "*4 ,= ,kant ! ,wolffian logic _h an old-"t flav\r & famili>ity t r5d]$ x by no means di/a/eful2 & he is "h1 z x 71 recall+1 n altoge!r )\t sympa?y1 ! lessons ( 8 /ud5t ye>s4 ,!y enable him to r5d] def9ite1 by way ( contra/1 ! outcome ( 8 own ,critical tea*+4 ,z ,kant "h re/ates ! ,wolffian notion ( ! ,ens realissimum 9 su* fa%ion z is requir$ to make x con=m to 8 d$uction ( ! !ological ,idea f ! disjunctive syllogism1 a prelim9>y /atem5t ( ! m or?odox =mulation w help to set ,wolff's doctr9e 9 a cle>] light4 ,9 s do+1 ,i %all foll[ ,baumg>t51 ^: ,metaphysica ,kant us$ z a class text-book4 ,briefly summ>is$ ,baumg>t5's /atem5t is z foll[s4#afjc ,! ,ens p]fectissimum is t ,be+ :i* possesses z _m pr$icates1 i4e4 p]fections1 z c possibly exi/ toge!r 9 a s+le ?+1 & 9 :i* e "o ( its p]fections is z great z is any:]e possible4 ,?is mo/ p]fect ,be+ mu/ be a real ,be+1 & its reality mu/ be ! greate/ possible4 ,x is t 9 :i* ! mo/ & ! greate/ realities are4 ,b all realities are affirmative det]m9ations1 & no d5ial is a reality4 ,accord+ly no reality c contradict ano!r reality1 & all realities c exi/ toge!r 9 ! same ?+4 ,! ,ens p]fectissimum1 9 possess+ all ! realities t c exi/ toge!r1 mu/ !re=e possess all realities )\t exception1 & e "o ( !m 9 ! highe/ degree4 ,! notion ( an individual exi/5ce t is at once p]fectissimum & also realissimum is ?us det]m9able by pure ,reason f its int]nal res\rces4 ,x is ! gr\nd & condition ( all o!r exi/5ces2 all ( !m arise ?r\gh limitation ( its purely positive nature4 ,kant seeks to ju/ify 8 metaphysical d$uction ( ! ,ideal f ! disjunctive syllogism1 by reca/+ ! above argum5t 9 ! foll[+ mann]4 ,s9ce ev]y?+ :i* exi/s is completely det]m9$1 x is subject to ! pr9ciple ( complete det]m9ation1 accord+ to :i* "o ( ea* ( ! possible pairs ( contradictory pr$icates mu/ be applicable to x4 ,to be completely det]m9$ ! ?+ mu/ be comp>$ ) ! sum total ( all possible pr$icates4 ,al?\gh ?is idea ( ! sum total ( all possible pr$icates1 ?r\gh ref]5ce to :i* alone any concept c be completely det]m9$1 seems itself indet]m9ate1 we f9d nev]!less on clos] exam9ation t x individualises itself a priori1 trans=m+ itself into ! concept ( an individual exi/5ce t is completely det]m9$ by ! m]e ,idea1 & :i* may !re=e be call$ an ,ideal ( pure ,reason4 ,t is prov$ z foll[s4 ,no "o c def9itely ?9k a negation unless he f\nds x on ! opposite affirmation4 ,a man completely bl9d _c frame ! smalle/ conception ( d>kness1 because he has none ( light4 ,all negations are !re=e d]ivative2 x is ! realities :i* conta9 ! mat]ial by :i* a complete det]m9ation ( any?+ becomes possible4 ,! s\rce1 f :i* all possible pr$icates may be d]iv$1 c be no?+ b ! sum total ( reality4 ,& ?is concept ( ! omnitudo realitatis is ! ,idea ( a ,be+ t is s+le & individual4 ,z all f9ite be+s d]ive ! mat]ial ( _! possibility f x1 !y presuppose x1 & _c1 !re=e1 con/itute x4 ,!y are imp]fect copies 7ectypa71 ( :i* x is ! sole ,ideal4 ,! ,idea is also individual4 ,out ( ea* possible pair ( contradictory pr$icates1 t "o :i* expresses reality belongs to x4 ,by ^! inf9itely num]\s positive pr$icates x is det]m9$ to absolute concret5ess2 & z x !re=e possesses all t has reality1 n only 9 nature b 9 man1 x mu/ be conceiv$ z a p]sonal & intellig5t ,primordial ,be+4 ,! logical ,ideal1 ?us det]m9+ itself completely by its own concept1 appe>s n only z ideal b also z real1 n only z logical b also z div9e4 ,kant s f> anticipates 8 criticism ( ! ontological argum5t z to give1 9 ! rema9+ p>agraphs ( ?is second section1 a prelim9>y criticism ( ?is proc$ure4 ,= ! purpose = :i* ! ,ideal is po/ulat$1 namely1 ! det]m9ation ( all f9ite & !re=e limit$ exi/5ces1 ,reason does n require to presuppose an exi/5ce correspond+ to x4 ,its m]e ,idea w suffice4 8,all manifoldness ( ?+s is only a correspond+ly v>i$ mode ( limit+ ! concept ( ! highe/ reality :i* =ms _! common sub/ratum1 j z all figures are only possible z s _m diff]5t modes ( limit+ inf9ite space40#afjd ,?is relation is n1 h[ev]1 t ( a real exi/5ce to o!r ?+s b ( an ,idea to concepts4 ,! ,idea is a m]e fiction1 necess>y = compreh5d+ ! limit$1 n a reality t c be ass]t$1 ev5 hypo!tically1#afje z giv5 along ) ! limit$4 ,none ! less1 ow+ to a natural transc5d5tal illusion1 ! m9d inevitably t5ds to hypo/atise x1 & s g5]ates ! object ( rational !ology4 ,comm5t4--,! explanation ( ?is illusion1 :i* ,kant proce$s to give 9 ! two conclud+ p>agraphs1 is peculi>ly confus+4 ,?\gh ! concept ( an all-compreh5sive reality may1 he argues1 be requir$ = ! def9ition ( s5sible objects1 su* a concept mu/ n = t reason be tak5 z repres5t+ a real exi/5ce4 ,! tea*+ ( ! section on ,amphiboly is "h entirely ignor$2 & ! read] is bewild]$ by ! assumption1 :i* ,kant app>5tly makes1 t some?+ analog\s to ! ,leibnizian ,ideal is a pr]equisite ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,^! la/ rem>ks indicate ! k9d ( criticism to :i* ! argum5t ( ?is section lays itself op54 ,9 exp\nd+ ! tea*+ ( ! ,leibnizian sci5ce ( rational !ology1 ,kant /rives to repres5t its ,ideal z be+ an inevitable ,idea ( human ,reason2 & 9 ord] to make ?is argum5t at all conv9c+ he is con/ra9$ to treat z valid ! presuppos$ ontology1 ?\gh t has already be5 %[n 9 ! discussion ( ,amphiboly to be altoge!r unt5able4#afjf ,limitation is n m]ely negative2 g5u9e realities may negate "o ano!r4 ,?\gh ! objects ( s5se presuppose ! entire sy/em to :i* !y belong1 ! =m ( ?is presupposition is 9 no respect analog\s to t :i* ,wolff w\ld repres5t z hold+ betwe5 f9ite exi/5ces & ! ,ens realissimum4 ,! passage 9 ! ,analytic#afjg 9 :i* ,kant directly controv]ts ! above tea*+ is z foll[s3 8,! pr9ciple1 t realities 7z pure ass]tions7 nev] logically contradict ea* o!r 444 has n ! lea/ mean+ ei!r 9 reg>d to nature or 9 reg>d to any ?+-9-itself4444 ,al?\gh ,h]r von ,leibniz did n1 inde$1 ann\nce ?is proposition ) all ! pomp ( a new pr9ciple1 he yet made use ( x = new ass]tions1 & 8 foll[]s expressly incorporat$ x 9 _! ,leibnizian-,wolffian sy/em4 ,accord+ to ?is pr9ciple all evils1 = in/ance1 are m]ely consequ5ces ( ! limitations ( creat$ be+s1 i4e4 negations1 because negations alone conflict ) reality4444 ,simil>ly 8 disciples consid] x n only possible1 b ev5 natural1 to comb9e all reality1 )\t fe> ( any conflict1 9 "o be+1 because ! only conflict :i* !y recognise is t ( contradiction1 :]eby ! concept ( a ?+ is itself remov$4 ,!y d n admit ! conflict ( reciprocal injury 9 :i* ea* ( two real gr\nds de/roys ! effect ( ! o!r--a process :i* we c repres5t to ourselves only 9 t]ms ( conditions pres5t$ to u 9 s5sibility40 ,?us ! ,ideal :i* ,kant "h decl>es to be a necess>y ,idea ( ,reason is d5\nc$ 9 ! ,analytic z bas$ on false pr9ciples peculi> to ! ,leibnizian philosophy1 & z 8)\t ! lea/ mean+ 9 reg>d ei!r to nature or to any ?+ 9 itself40 ,! tea*+ ( ! ,analytic w no m comb9e ) ?is s*ola/ic rationalism ?an oil ) wat]4 ,! read] may safely absolve himself f ! ?ankless task ( attempt+ to r5d] ,kant's argum5tation 9 ^! p>agraphs consi/5t ) itself4 ,=tunately1 9 ! next section1 ,kant returns to ! /&po9t prop] to ! doctr9e he is exp\nd+1 & lays b>e1 ) rem>kable subtlety & 9 a v conv9c+ mann]1 ! conceal$ dialectic by :i* ! conclusions ( ?is metaphysical sci5ce are really det]m9$4#afjh ,,section ,,iii ,,! ,,speculative ,,argum5ts ,,9 ,,pro( ,,( ,,! ,,exi/5ce ,,( ,a ,,supreme ,,be+#afji ,/atem5t4--,?\gh ! ,ideal is n arbitr>y1 b is presuppos$ 9 e attempt to def9e completely a f9ite concept1 ,reason w\ld feel hesitation 9 ?us trans=m+ :at is m]ely a logical concept into a ,div9e ,exi/5ce1 7 x n t x is impell$ f ano!r direction to d]ive reality f su* a s\rce4 ,all exi/5ces kn[n 9 exp]i5ce are cont+5t1 & s lead u 7ow+ to ! con/itution ( our ,reason7 to assume an absolutely necess>y ,be+ z _! gr\nd & cause4 ,n[ :5 we exam9e our v>i\s concepts1 to asc]ta9 :i* w cov] ?is notion ( necess>y exi/5ce1 we f9d t !re is "o t possesses out/&+ claims1 namely1 t ,idea :i* conta9s a !re=e = e :]e=e1 :i* is 9 no respect defective1 & :i* does n p]mit u to po/ulate any condition4 ,! concepts ( ! ,ideal & ( ! necess>y alone repres5t ! uncondition$2 & z !y agree 9 ?is fundam5tal respect1 !y mu/1 we !re=e argue1 be id5tical4 ,& to ?is conclusion we are ! m incl9$1 9 t1 by ?us idealis+ reality1 we are at ! same "t enabl$ to realise our ,ideal4 ,?is l9e ( argum5t1 :i* />ts f ! cont+5t1 is z little valid z t :i* proce$s directly f ! ,ideal4 ,b s9ce ^! argum5ts express c]ta9 t5d5cies inh]5t 9 ! human m9d1 !y h a vitality :i* survives any m]ely =5sic refutation4 ,?\gh ! conclusions to :i* !y lead are false1 !y are none ! less inevitably drawn4 ,our acceptance ( !m is due to a transc5d5tal illusion :i* may be detect$ z su*1 b :i*1 l ! +ra9$ illusions ( s5se-exp]i5ce1 mu/ none ! less p]si/4 ,! op5+ p>agraph ( ,section ,v#afaj is ! natural completion ( ! above analysis4 ,! ontological argum5t1 9 />t+ f ! concept ( ! ,ens realissimum1 inv]ts ! natural proc$ure4 ,x is 8a m]ely s*ola/ic innovation10 & w\ld nev] h be5 attempt$ save = ! ne$ ( f9d+ "s necess>y ,be+1 to :i* we may asc5d f cont+5t exi/5ce4 ,x ma9ta9s t ?is necess>y ,be+ mu/ be uncondition$ & a priori c]ta91 & accord+ly looks = a concept capable ( fulfill+ ?is requirem5t4 ,su* a concept is suppos$ to exi/ 9 ! ,idea ( an ,ens realissimum1 & ?is ,idea is !re=e us$ to ga9 m def9ite k ( t :i* has be5 previ\sly & indep5d5tly recognis$1 namely1 ! necess>y ,be+1 8,?is natural proc$ure ( ,reason 0 conceal$ f view1 & in/ead ( end+ ) ?is concept1 ! attempt 0 made to beg9 ) x1 & s to d$uce f x t necessity ( exi/5ce :i* x 0 only fitt$ to complete4 ,?us arose ! un=tunate ontological pro(1 :i* yields satisfaction nei!r to ! natural & heal?y und]/&+ nor to ! m academic dem&s ( /rict pro(40#afaa ,to return to ,section ,,iii43 ,kant breaks ! cont9uity ( 8 argum5t1 & anticipates 8 discussion ( ! cosmological pro(1 by /opp+ to po9t out ! illegitimacy ( ! assumption :i* und]lies ! fir/ /ep 9 ! above argum5t1 namely1 t a limit$ be+ _c be absolutely necess>y4 ,?\gh ! concept ( a limit$ be+ does n conta9 ! uncondition$1 t does n prove t its exi/5ce is condition$4 ,inde$ ea* & e limit$ be+ may1 = all _! concepts %[ to ! contr>y1 be unconditionally necess>y4#afab ,! above argum5t is consequ5tly inconclusive1 & _c be reli$ on to give u any concept :atev] ( ! qualities ( a necess>y ,be+4 ,b ?is is a m]ely logical defect1 &1 z already not$1 x is n really ^u logical cog5cy t ! p]suasive =ce ( ! argum5t dep5ds4 ,9 conclusion ,kant po9ts out t !re are only ?ree possible k9ds ( speculative 7i4e4 !oretical7 pro(s ( ! exi/5ce ( ,god3 7#a7 f def9ite exp]i5ce & ! specific nature ( ! _w ( s5se z reveal$ 9 exp]i5ce2 7#b7 f indef9ite exp]i5ce1 i4e4 f ! fact t any exi/5ce at all is empirically giv52 7#c7 ! non-empirical a priori pro( f m]e concepts4 ,! fir/ is ! physico-!ological or teleological argum5t1 ! second is ! cosmological1 & ! ?ird is ! ontological4 ,kant f9ds x advisable to rev]se ! ord] ( ! pro(s1 & to beg9 by consid]ation ( ! ontological argum5t4 ,?is w\ld seem to indicate t ! #8s*ola/ic innovation' to :i* he traces ! orig9 ( ! ontological pro( has m ju/ification ?an 8 rem>ks appe> to all[4 ,,section ,,iv ,,! ,,impossibility ,,( ,,an ,,ontological ,,pro(#afac ,/atem5t4--,hi!rto ,kant has employ$ ! concept ( an absolutely necess>y ,be+ )\t "q4 ,he n[ recognises t ! problem1 f :i* we ought to />t1 is n :e!r ! exi/5ce ( an absolutely necess>y ,be+ c be demon/rat$1 b :e!r1 & h[1 su* a ,be+ c ev5 be conceiv$4 ,& ^u analysis he discov]s t ! assum$ notion ( an absolutely necess>y1 i4e4 uncondition$ ,be+ is entirely lack+ 9 intelligible cont5t4 ,= 9 elim9at+ all condition+ causes--?r\gh :i* alone ! und]/&+ c conceive necessity ( exi/5ce--we also remove ?is p>ticul> k9d ( necessity4 ,a v]bal def9ition may1 inde$1 be giv5 ( ! ,idea1 z :5 we say t x repres5ts some?+ ! non-exi/5ce ( :i* is impossible4 ,b ?is yields no insight into ! reasons :i* make its non-exi/5ce inconceivable1 & su* insight is requir$ if any?+ at all is to be ?\ght 9 ! ,idea4 8,! exp$i5t ( remov+ all ^? conditions :i* ! und]/&+ indisp5sably requires 9 ord] to reg>d some?+ z necess>y1 simply ?r\gh ! introduction ( ! ^w uncondition$1 is v f> f suffic+ to %[ :e!r ,i am /ill ?9k+ any?+1 or n r p]haps no?+ at all1 9 ! concept ( ! unconditionally necess>y40#afad ,! unt5abl5ess ( ! concept has be5 9 l>ge "p conceal$ ?r\gh a confusion betwe5 logical & ontological necessity1 t is1 betwe5 necessity ( judgm5t & necessity ( exi/5ce4 ,! fact t e proposition ( geometry mu/ be reg>d$ z absolutely necess>y 0 suppos$ to ju/ify ?is id5tification4 ,x 0 n obs]v$ t logical necessity ref]s only to judgm5ts1 n to ?+s & _! relations1 & t ! absolute necessity ( ! judgm5t holds only ^u ! assumption t ! condition$ necessity ( ! ?+ ref]r$ to has previ\sly be5 grant$4 ,if !re be any su* ?+ z a triangle1 ! ass]tion t x has ?ree angles w foll[ ) absolute necessity2 b ! exi/5ce ( a triangle or ev5 ( space 9 g5]al is cont+5t4 ,9 o!r words1 ! ass]t$ necessity is only a =m ( logical sequ5ce1 n ! uncondition$ necessity ( exi/5ce :i* is suppos$ to be disclos$ 9 ! ,idea ( ,reason4 ,all judgm5ts1 s f> z !y ref] to exi/5ce1 z di/9ct f m]e possibility1 are hypo!tical1 & s]ve to def9e a reality t is only cont+5tly giv54 ,9 adopt+ ?is position1 ,kant is 9 entire agreem5t ) ,hume4 ,! contradictory ( a matt] ( fact is always ?9kable4 ,!re has1 ,kant claims1 be5 no m fruitful s\rce ( illusion ?r\gh\t ! :ole hi/ory ( philosophy ?an ! belief 9 an absolute necessity t is purely logical4#afae ,9 ! ontological argum5t we h ! mo/ /rik+ in/ance ( su* rationali/ic exagg]ation ( ! p[]s ( ?\ght4 ,comm5t4--,_h ?is criticism ( ! ,idea ( uncondition$ necessity be5 introduc$ at an e>li] /age 9 ,kant's argum5t1 mu* confusion w\ld h be5 avoid$4 ,x involves ! ?or\gh revisal ( 8 criticism ( ! ?ird & f\r? ant9omies1 z well z ( ! :ole acc\nt hi!rto giv5 ( ! function ( ,reason & ( its metaphysical dialectic4 ,! pr9ciple1 t if ! condition$ be giv51 ! :ole s]ies ( conditions up to ! uncondition$ is likewise giv51 mu/ no long] be accept$ z a basis = argum5t4 ,inde$ ! v t]ms 9 :i* ,reason has s f> be5 def9$1 z ! faculty ( ! uncondition$1 become subject to "q4 ,9 t def9ition ! t]m uncondition$ has tacitly be5 tak5 z equival5t to ! unconditionally necess>y1 & on elim9ation ( ! elem5t ( necessity1 x w r$uce m]ely to ! concept ( totality1 :i* is a pure =m ( ! und]/&+4 ,^? p>ts ( ! ,dialectic1 :i* embody ! view t ,reason is simply ! und]/&+ transc5d5tly employ$1 w ?us be confirm$2 ! alt]native view ( ,reason z a sep>ate faculty w h to be elim9at$4 ,b ^! are que/ions :i* ,kant himself proce$s to raise & discuss4#afaf ,meantime he applies ! above results 9 criticism ( ! ontological argum5t4 ,/atem5t4--,9 an id5tical judgm5t x is contradictory to reject ! pr$icate :ile reta9+ ! subject4 ,b !re is no contradiction if we reject subject & pr$icate alike1 = no?+ is !n left t c be contradict$4 ,if we assume t !re is a triangle1 we are b\nd to recognise t x has ?ree angles1 b !re is no contradiction 9 reject+ ! triangle toge!r ) its ?ree angles4 ,! same holds true ( an absolutely necess>y ,be+4 #8,god is omnipot5t' is an id5tical & !re=e necess>y judgm5t4 ,b if we say1 #8,!re is no ,god1' nei!r ! omnipot5ce nor any o!r attribute rema9s2 & !re is !re=e n ! lea/ contradiction 9 say+ t ,god does n exi/4 ,! only way ( evad+ ?is conclusion is to argue t !re are subjects :i* _c be remov$ out ( exi/5ce4 ,t1 h[ev]1 w\ld only be ano!r way ( ass]t+ t !re exi/ absolutely necess>y subjects1 & t is ! v ass]tion :i* is n[ 9 "q1 & :i* ! ontological argum5t und]takes to prove4 ,our sole te/ ( :at _c be remov$ is ! contradiction :i* w\ld !reby result2 & ! only possible in/ance :i* c be cit$ is ! concept ( ! ,ens realissimum4 ,x rema9s1 !re=e1 to e/abli% ! above criticism = ?is specific case4 ,at ! />t ,kant po9ts out t abs5ce ( int]nal contradiction1 ev5 if grant$1 proves only t ! ,ens realissimum is a logically possible concept 7z di/+ui%$ f ! nihil negativum#afag72 x does n suffice to e/abli% ! possibility ( ! object ( ! concept4 ,b = ! sake ( argum5t ,kant all[s ?is initial assumption to pass4 ,! argum5t to be disprov$ is t z reality compreh5ds exi/5ce1 exi/5ce is conta9$ 9 ! concept ( ,ens realissimum1 & _c !re=e be d5i$ ( x )\t remov+ its int]nal possibility4 ,! really fundam5tal assumption ( ?is argum5t is t exi/5ce is capable ( be+ includ$ 9 ! concept ( a possible be+4 ,if t 7 s1 ! ass]tion ( its exi/5ce w\ld be an analytic proposition1 & ! pro( c\ld n be *all5g$4 7,! assumption is p>tly conceal$ by alt]nation ( ! t]ms reality & exi/5ce3 9 _! actual employm5t !y are completely synonym\s47 ,z ! above assumption ?us decides ! entire issue1 ,kant sets himself to e/abli%1 9 direct opposition to x1 ! !sis1 t e proposition :i* pr$icates exi/5ce is syn!tic1 & t 9 consequ5ce its d5ial c nev] involve a logical contradiction4 ,exi/5ce c nev] =m "p ( ! cont5t ( a conception1 & !re=e mu/ n be reg>d$ z a possible pr$icate4 ,:at logically corresponds to x 9 a judgm5t is a purely =mal factor1 namely1 ! copula4 ,! proposition1 #8,god is omnipot5t1' conta9s two concepts1 ea* ( :i* has its object--,god & omnipot5ce4 ,! ^w #8is' adds no new pr$icate1 b only s]ves to posit ! pr$icate 9 its relation to ! subject4 ,simil>ly1 :5 we take ! subject toge!r ) all its pr$icates 7includ+ t ( omnipot5ce71 & say1 #8,god is' or #8!re is a ,god1' we atta* no new pr$icate to ! concept ( ,god1 b only posit ! subject 9 itself ) all its pr$icates z be+ an object t /&s 9 relation to our concept4 ,9 ord] t ! proposition be true1 ! cont5t ( ! object & ( ! concept mu/ be "o & ! same4 ,if ! object conta9$ m ?an ! concept1 ! concept w\ld n express ! object1 & ! proposition w\ld ass]t a relation t does n hold4 ,or to /ate ! same po9t 9 ano!r way1 ! real mu/ n conta9 m cont5t ?an ! possible4 ,o!rwise x w\ld n be ! possible1 b some?+ diff]5t f ! possible1 :i* w\ld !n be tak5 z exi/+4 ,a hundr$ real ?al]s d n conta9 ! lea/ co9 m ?an a hundr$ possible ?al]s4 ,?\gh my f9ancial position is v diff]5tly affect$ by a hundr$ real ?al]s ?an by ! ?\ght ( !m only1 a conceiv$ hundr$ ?al]s are n 9 ! lea/ increas$ ?r\gh acquir+ exi/5ce outside my concept4 ,kant pres5ts 8 argum5t 9 /ill ano!r =m4 ,if we ?9k 9 a ?+ e k9d ( reality except "o1 ! miss+ reality is n suppli$ by my say+ t ?is defective ?+ exi/s4 ,on ! contr>y1 x exi/s ) ! same defect ) :i* ,i h ?\ght x4 ,:51 !re=e1 ,i ?9k a ,be+ z ! highe/ reality1 )\t any defect1 ! "q /ill rema9s :e!r x exi/s or n4 ,= ?\gh1 9 my concept1 no?+ may be lack+ ( ! possible real cont5t ( a ?+ 9 g5]al1 some?+ is /ill lack+ 9 its relation to my :ole /ate ( ?9k+1 namely1 k ( its exi/5ce2 & su* k c nev] be obta9$ save 9 an a po/]iori mann]4 ,t is ow+ to ! limitations impos$ by ! conditions ( our s5se-exp]i5ce4 ,we nev] conf\nd ! exi/5ce ( a s5sible object ) its m]e concept4 ,! concept repres5ts some?+ t may or may n exi/3 to det]m9e exi/5ce we mu/ ref] to actual exp]i5ce4 ,z ,kant has already /at$1 ! actual is always = u ! accid5tal1 & its ass]tion is !re=e syn!tic4 ,a possible idea & ! idea ( a possible ?+ are q di/9ct4#afah ,a ?+ is kn[n to be possible only :5 pres5t$ 9 "s concrete exp]i5ce1 or :51 ?\gh n actually exp]i5c$1 x has be5 prov$ to be b\nd up1 accord+ to empirical laws1 ) giv5 p]ceptions4 ,x is n1 !re=e1 surpris+ t if we try1 z is done 9 ! ontological argum5t1 to ?9k exi/5ce ?r\gh ! pure category1 we _c m5tion a s+le m>k di/+ui%+ x f a m]ely logical possibility4 ,! concept ( a ,supreme ,be+ is1 9 _m respects1 a valuable ,idea1 b j because x is an ,idea ( pure ,reason1 i4e4 a m]e ,idea1 we c no m ext5d our k ( real exi/5ce by means ( x1 ?an a m]*ant c bett] 8 position by add+ a few n\ghts to 8 ca% acc\nt4 ,!re are _m po9ts ( connection betwe5 ?is section & ! fir/ edition ,introduction2 & 9 view ( ^! po9ts ( contact ,adickes has sugge/$#afai t ! consid]ations :i* arose 9 ! exam9ation ( ! ontological argum5t may h be5 :at br\ght ,kant to realise t ! v>i\s problems ( ! ,critique c all be trac$ to ! c5tral problem ( a priori syn!sis4 ,,section ,v ,,! ,,impossibility ,,( ,a ,,cosmological ,,pro( ,,( ,,! ,,exi/5ce ,,( ,,god#afbj ,/atem5t4--,kant1 z already not$1 views ! ontological pro( z #8a m]e innovation ( s*ola/ic wisdom' :i* re/ates1 9 a q unnatural =m1 a l9e ( ?\ght mu* m adequately express$ 9 ! cosmological pro(4 ,to discov] ! natural dialectic ( ,reason we mu/ !re=e look to ?is latt] =m ( argum5t4 ,x is compos$ ( two di/9ct /ages4 ,9 ! fir/ /age x makes no use ( specific exp]i5ce3 if any?+ is giv5 u z exi/+1 e4g4 ! self1 !re mu/ exi/ an absolutely necess>y ,be+ z its cause4 ,!n1 9 ! second /age1 x is argu$ t z su* a ,be+ mu/ be altoge!r outside exp]i5ce1 ,reason mu/ leave exp]i5ce entirely aside1 & discov] f among pure concepts :at prop]ties an absolutely necess>y ,be+ ought to possess1 i4e4 :i* among all possible ?+s conta9s 9 itself ! conditions ( absolute necessity4 ,! requisite enlight5m5t is believ$ by ,reason to be d]ivable only f ! concept ( an ,ens realissimum1 & ,reason !re=e at once concludes t ?is concept mu/ repres5t ! absolutely necess>y ,be+4 ,n[ 9 t f9al conclusion ! tru? ( ! ontological argum5t is assum$4 ,if ! concept ( a ,be+ ( ! highe/ reality is s completely adequate to ! concept ( necess>y exi/5ce t !y c be reg>d$ z id5tical1 ! latt] mu/ be capable ( be+ d]iv$ f ! =m]1 & t is all t is ma9ta9$ 9 ! ontological pro(4 ,to make ?is po9t cle>]1 ,kant /ates x 9 s*ola/ic =m4 ,if ! proposition be true1 t e absolutely necess>y ,be+ is at ! same "t ! mo/ real ,be+ 7& ?is is ! n]vus prob&i ( ! cosmological pro( 9 s f> z x is also !ological71 x mu/1 l all affirmative propositions1 be capable ( conv]sion1 at lea/ p] accid5s4 ,?is gives u ! proposition t "s ,entia realissima are at ! same "t absolutely necess>y ,be+s4 ,"o ,ens realissimum1 h[ev]1 does n diff] f ano!r1 & :at applies to "o applies to all4 ,9 ?is case1 !re=e1 we mu/ employ simple conv]sion1 & say t e ,ens realissimum is a necess>y ,be+4 ,?us ! cosmological pro( is n only z illusory z ! ontological1 b also less hone/4 ,:ile pret5d+ to lead u by a new road to a s\nd conclusion1 x br+s u back1 aft] a %ort circuit1 into ! old pa?4 ,if ! ontological argum5t is correct1 ! cosmological is sup]flu\s2 & if ! ontological is false1 ! cosmological _c possibly be true4 ,b ! fir/ /age ( ! cosmological argum5t1 t by :i* x is di/+ui%$ f ! ontological1 is itself fallaci\s4 ,a :ole ne/ ( dialectical assumptions lies hidd5 9 its app>5tly simple & legitimate inf]5ce f ! cont+5t to ! necess>y4 ,to advance f ! cont+5t to ! necess>y1 f ! relative to ! absolute1 f ! giv5 to ! transc5d5t1 is j z illegitimate z ! opposite process ( pass+ f ,idea to exi/5ce4 ,! necessity ( ?\ght1 :i* is 9 bo? cases ! sole gr\nd ( ! inf]5ce1 is f\nd on exam9ation to be ( m]ely subjective "*4 ,no less ?an ?ree false assumptions are involv$ 9 ?is inf]5ce4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! pr9ciple t ev]y?+ mu/ h a cause1 :i* c be prov$ to be valid only )9 ! _w ( s5se1 is "h appli$ to ! s5sible _w z a :ole2 & is !re=e employ$ 9 ! wid] =m :i* co9cides ) ! fundam5tal pr9ciple ( ! high] faculty ( ,reason4 ,we assume1 t if ! condition$ be giv51 ! totality ( its conditions up to ! uncondition$ is giv5 likewise4 ,no su* pr9ciple c be grant$4 ,z x is syn!tic1 x c\ld be e/abli%$ only z a condition ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,b no su* pro( is (f]$3 ! pr9ciple is bas$ ^u a purely intellectual concept4 ,secondly1 ! inf]5ce to a fir/ cause re/s on ! k9dr$ assumption t an inf9ite s]ies ( empirical causes is impossible4 ,t conclusion c nev] be drawn1 ev5 )9 ! realm ( exp]i5ce4 ,h[1 !n1 c we rely ^u x 9 advanc+ beyond exp]i5ce8 ,c]ta9ly1 no "o c prove t ! empirical s]ies is inf9ite1 b j z little c we e/abli% ! opposite4 ,9 discuss+ ! ?ird & f\r? ant9omies ,kant has %[n t ! exi/5ce ( a fir/ cause or ( an absolutely necess>y ,be+1 ?\gh possible 7or r1 possibly possible71 is nev] demon/rable4 ,?irdly--z has be5 %[n 9 ,a #eib-c ,b #fbj-a--;9 inf]r+ to an uncondition$ cause1 x is bl9dly assum$ t ! removal ( all conditions does n at ! same "t remove ! v concept ( necessity4 ,our only notion ( necessity is d]iv$ f exp]i5ce1 & !re=e dep5ds on ^? f9ite conditions :i* ! argum5t w\ld d5y to u4 ,! concept ( uncondition$ necessity is entirely null & void4 ,! f\r? defect1 :i* ,kant enum]ates1 ref]s to ! second /age ( ! cosmological argum5t1 & has already be5 consid]$4 ,he ought also to h m5tion$ a /ill fur!r assumption und]ly+ its fir/ /age1 namely1 t a concept :i* repres5ts a limit$ be+1 z1 = in/ance1 t ( matt]1 _c repres5t necess>y exi/5ce4 ,?is also is an assumption :i* x _c ju/ify4 ,?is objection ,kant has himself /at$ 9 ,a #ehf ,b #fad & ,a #ehh ,b #faf4afba ,comm5t4--,we are apt to ov]look ! wid] sweep :i* ,kant's criticism takes 9 ?is section1 ow+ to 8 omission to notify ! read] t he is "h call+ 9 "q a pr9ciple :i* he has hi!rto be5 tak+ = grant$1 namely1 ! pr9ciple 9 t]ms ( :i* he has 9 ! op5+ sections ( ! ,dialectic def9$ ! faculty ( ,reason1 t if ! condition$ be giv5 ! totality ( conditions up to ! uncondition$ is giv5 likewise4 ,! fir/ /ep 9 8 rejection ( ?is pr9ciple occurs z m]ely incid5tal to 8 criticism ( ! ontological argum5t4 ,x is !re %[n t ! concept ( ! unconditionally necess>y is )\t mean+4 ,n[1 9 ?is pres5t section1 he calls 9 "q ! pr9ciple itself4 ,x mu/ be reject$ n only1 z /at$ 9 ! ?ird ( ! above objections1 because ! concept ( ! uncondition$1 :i* tacitly implies ! factor ( absolute necessity1 is )\t real significance1 b also = two fur!r reasons--^? above cit$ 9 ! fir/ & second objections4 ,h[ v diff]5tly ! problems ( ! ,dialectic appe>1 & h[ v diff]5tly ! ,ideas ( ,reason h to be reg>d$1 :5 ?is pr9ciple1 & also ! concept ( ! uncondition$ ( :i* x is ! application1 are ?us call$ 9 "q1 w be %[n 9 ! sequel4 ,,discov]y ,,& ,,explanation ,,( ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,illusion ,,9 ,,all ,,transc5d5tal ,,pro(s ,,( ,,! ,,exi/5ce ,,( ,a ,,necess>y ,,be+#afbb ,/atem5t4--,we d n prop]ly fulfil ! task prescrib$ by ,critical tea*+ 9 m]ely disprov+ ! cosmological argum5t4 ,we mu/ also expla9 its hold ^u ! m9d4 ,if x is1 z ,kant insi/s1 m natural to ! m9d ?an ! ontological1 & yet1 z we h j se51 is m fallaci\s2 if x has n be5 inv5t$ by philosoph]s1 b is ! in/9ctive reason+ ( ! natural man1 x mu/ re/1 l all dialectical illusion1 ^u a misund]/&+ ( ! legitimate dem&s ( pure ,reason4 ,reason dem&s ! uncondition$1 & yet _c ?9k x4 8,uncondition$ necessity1 :i* we s indisp5sably require z ! la/ be>] ( all ?+s1 is = human ,reason ! v]itable abyss4444 ,we c nei!r help ?9k+1 nor c we be> ! ?\ght1 t a ,be+--ev5 if x be ! "o :i* we repres5t to ourselves z supreme among/ all ,be+s--%\ld1 z x 71 say to itself3 #8,i am f et]nity to et]nity1 & outside me !re is no?+ save :at is ?r\gh my w2 b :5ce am ,i8' ,all support "h fails u2 & supreme p]fection1 no less ?an ! lea/ p]fection1 is unsub/antial & baseless = ! m]ely speculative ,reason44440#afbc ,we are oblig$ to ?9k some?+ z necess>y = all exi/5ce1 & yet at ! same "t are unable to ?9k any?+ z 9 itself necess>y--,god z little z any?+ else4 ,! explanation#afbd ( ?is /range fact mu/ be t :i* foll[s z a coroll>y f ! limitation ( our k to s5se-exp]i5ce1 namely1 t our concepts ( necessity & cont+5cy d n conc]n ?+s 9 !mselves1 & _c !re=e be appli$ to !m 9 accordance ) ei!r ( ! two possible alt]natives4 ,ea* alt]native mu/ express a subjective pr9ciple ( ,reason2 & ! two toge!r 7t some?+ exi/s by necessity1 & t ev]y?+ is only cont+5t7 mu/ =m complem5t>y rules = ! guidance ( ! und]/&+4 ,^! rules w !n be purely heuri/ic & regulative1 relat+ only to ! =mal int]e/s ( ,reason1 & may well /& side by side4 ,= ! "o tells u t we ought to philosophise z if !re 7 a necess>y fir/ gr\nd = ev]y?+ t exi/s1 i4e4 t we ought to be always dissatisfi$ ) relativity & cont+5cy1 & to seek always = :at is unconditionally necess>y4 ,! o!r w>ns u aga9/ reg>d+ any s+le det]m9ation 9 ?+s 7su*1 = in/ance1 z imp5etrability or gravity7 z absolutely necess>y1 & s bids u keep ! way always op5 = fur!r d]ivation4 ,9 o!r words1 ,reason guides ! und]/&+ by a tw(old comm&4 ,! und]/&+ mu/ d]ive ph5om5a & _! exi/5ce f o!r ph5om5a1 j z if !re 7 no necess>y ,be+ at all2 :ile at ! same "t x mu/ always /rive t[>ds ! complet5ess ( t d]ivation1 j z if su* a necess>y ,be+ 7 presuppos$4 ,x is ow+ to a transc5d5tal illusion or subreption t we view ! latt] pr9ciple z con/itutive1 & s ?9k its unity z hypo/atis$ 9 ! =m ( an ,ens realissimum4 ,! falsity ( ?is sub/itution becomes evid5t z soon z we consid] t uncondition$ necessity1 z a ?+ 9 itself1 _c ev5 be conceiv$1 & t ! 8,idea0 ( x _c1 !re=e1 be ascrib$ to ,reason save z a m]ely =mal pr9ciple1 regulative ( ! und]/&+ 9 its int]pretation ( giv5 exp]i5ce4#afbe ,comm5t4--,! read] may obs]ve t1 :5 ,kant is develop+ ?is sceptical view ( ! ,ideal ( ,reason1 ! explanation ( dialectical illusion 9 t]ms ( transc5d5tal idealism falls into ! backgr\nd4 ,! illusion is no long] trac$ to a confusion betwe5 appe>ances & ?+s 9 !mselves1 b to ! false int]pretation ( regulative pr9ciples z be+ con/itutive4 ,:5 x is ! cosmological problem ) :i* we are deal+1 ! two illusions d1 inde$1 co9cide4 ,if we view ! objects ( s5se-exp]i5ce z ?+s 9 !mselves1 we are b\nd to reg>d ! ,ideal completion ( ! natural sci5ces z an adequate repres5tation ( ultimate reality4 ,b 9 ,rational ,!ology1 :i* is pr(ess$ly direct$ t[>ds ! def9ition ( a ,be+ di/9ct f nature & condition+ all f9ite exi/5ce1 x is n failure to di/+ui% betwe5 appe>ance & ?+s 9 !mselves1 b ! mi/ak+ ( a m]ely =mal ,ideal = a repres5tation ( reality1 t is alone responsible = ! conclusions drawn4 ,9 ,a #fag-ah ,b #fde-f ,kant makes /atem5ts :i* conflict ) ! tea*+ ( ,a #ehf ,b #fad & ,a #ehh ,b #faf4 ,9 ! latt] passages he has argu$ t ! concept ( a limit$ be+ may n )\t specific pro( be tak5 z contradictory ( absolute necessity4 ,he n[ categorically decl>es t ! philosoph]s ( antiquity are 9 error 9 reg>d+ matt] z primitive & necess>y2 & ! reason :i* he gives is t ! regulative pr9ciple ( ,reason =bids u to view ext5sion & imp5etrability1 8:i* toge!r con/itute ! concept ( matt]10 z ultimate pr9ciples ( exp]i5ce4 ,b obvi\sly ,kant is "h go+ fur!r ?an 8 regulative pr9ciple w ju/ify4 ,x dem&s only t we %\ld always look = /ill high] pr9ciples ( unity1 & s keep op5 ! way = possible fur!r d]ivation2 x does n enable u to ass]t t su* w actually be f\nd to exi/4 ,not)/&+ ! ,ideal dem&s ( ! regulative pr9ciple1 matt] may be primordial & necess>y1 & its prop]ties ( ext5sion & imp5etrability may n be d]ivable f any?+ m ultimate4 ,9 ?is connection we may raise ! m g5]al "q1 h[ f> ! ,ideal dem& = necessity & unity 9 k & exi/5ce c be concretely pictur$4 ,kant gives a v>y+ answ]4 ,sometimes--:5 he is emphasis+ ! limitation ( our !oretical k to s5se-exp]i5ce--he r$uces ! speculative ,idea ( ,div9e ,exi/5ce to a purely ab/ract maxim = ! regulation ( natural sci5ce4 ,:5 ! ,ideal occupies ! m9d on its own acc\nt1 & s attracts our att5tion away f our s5se-k1 x is an unreality1 & p]v]ts ! und]/&+2 x yields g5u9e light & lead+ only z a q g5]al maxim )9 ! sph]e ( natural sci5ce4 ,f ?is po9t ( view necess>y ,be+1 ev5 z an ,ideal1 c by no means be id5tifi$ ) a p]sonal ,god4 ,x signifies only ! highe/ possible sy/em & unity ( ! endlessly v>i$ natural ph5om5a 9 space & "t1 & c be approximately realis$ 9 ! mo/ v>i\s ways4 ,its significance is entirely cosmological4 ,x is an ,ideal ( positive sci5ce1 & signifies only sy/ematic unity 9 ! object kn[n4 ,9 be+ trans=m$ f a sci5tific ideal into a subject ( !ological enquiry1 x has inevitably giv5 rise to dialectical illusion4 ,at o!r times1--:5 he is conc]n$ to def5d ! concept ( ,div9e ,exi/5ce z at lea/ possible1 & s to prep>e ! way = its po/ulation z impli$ 9 ! moral law1 or :5 he is seek+1 z 9 ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 to r5d] compreh5sible ! complete adaptation ( ph5om5al nature 9 its mat]ial aspect to ! ne$s ( our und]/&+--,kant insi/s t we are ultimately compell$1 by ! nature ( our faculties1 to conceive ! ,ideal ( ,reason z a p]sonal ,god1 z an ,intellig5ce work+ accord+ to purposes4 ,only by su* a p]sonal ,god1 he ma9ta9s1 c ! dem&s ( ,reason be g5u9ely satisfi$4 ,^! two int]pretations ( ! ,ideal ( ,reason are 9 conflict ) "o ano!r2 & s f> z ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason is conc]n$1 a v insuffici5t attempt is made to ju/ify ! frequ5t ass]tion t ! ,idea ( ,god is ! ,ideal ( ,reason1 & n m]ely "o possible1 & highly problematic1 int]pretation ( x4 ,if ! ,idea ( ,god is a necess>y ,idea1 x _c be adequately express$ ?r\gh any m]ely regulative maxim4 ,x dem&s n only sy/em 9 k b also p]fection 9 ! nature ( ! kn[n4 ,x is n a m]ely logical ,ideal su* z might be satisfi$ by any rational sy/em1 b an ,ideal :i* conc]ns matt] z well z =m1 man z well z nature1 our moral ne$s z well z our intellectual dem&s4 ,if ,kant is to ma9ta9 t ! only g5u9e function ( !oretical ,reason is to guide ! und]/&+ 9 its sci5tific application1 he is deb>r$ f ass]t+ t a concrete int]pretation ( its regulative pr9ciples is unavoidable4 ,& he is also preclud$ by 8 own limitation ( all k to s5se-exp]i5ce f seek+ to def9e by any positive pr$icate ! transc5d5t nature ( ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,su* ju/ification z ,kant c (f] 9 support ( 8 ass]tion t ! ,idea ( ,god1 ( ,intellig5t ,p]fection1 is an indisp5sable ,idea ( human ,reason1 is *iefly bas$ ^u ! teleological aspect ( nature :i* is dealt ) 9 ! physico-!ological pro(4 ,me*anical sci5ce implies only ! cosmological ,idea3 teleological unity presupposes ! !ological ,ideal4 ,fur!r enquiry1 !n1 into ! necessity ( ! ,idea ( ,god z a regulative pr9ciple1 & its dang]s z a s\rce ( dialectical illusion1 we mu/ def] until we h exam9$ ! "o rema9+ argum5t4#afbf ,,section ,,vi ,,! ,,impossibility ,,( ,,! ,,physico-,,!ological ,,pro(#afbg ,/atem5t4--,! teleological pro( />ts f our def9ite k ( ! ord] & con/itution ( ! s5sible _w4 ,! actual _w pres5ts su* immeasurable ord]1 v>iety1 fitness1 & beauty1 t we are l$ to believe t "h at lea/ is suffici5t pro( ( ! exi/5ce ( ,god4 ,kant's attitude t[>ds ?is argum5t is at once extremely critical & extremely sympa!tic4 ,?\gh he repres5ts x z ! olde/1 ! cle>e/1 & ! mo/ conv9c+1 he is none ! less prep>$ to %[ t x conta9s e "o ( ! fallacies involv$ 9 ! o!r two pro(s1 z well z "s false assumptions peculi> to itself4 ,x possesses ov]p[]+ p]suasive =ce1 n because ( any inh]5t logical cog5cy1 b because x s successfully appeals to feel+ z to sil5ce ! intellect4 ,x w\ld1 ,kant decl>es1 be n only com=tless1 b utt]ly va9 to attempt to dim9i% its influ5ce4 0,! m9d is ar\s$ f ! indecision ( all melan*oly reflection1 z f a dream1 by "o glance at ! wond]s ( nature & ! maje/y ( ! univ]se44440#afbh ,meantime1 h[ev]1 we are conc]n$ ) its m]ely logical =ce4 ,we h to decide :e!r1 z !oretical pro(1 x c claim ass5t on its own m]its1 requir+ no fav\r1 & no help f any o!r qu>t]4 ,on ! basis ( empirical facts ! argum5t makes ! foll[+ ass]tions4 7#a7 ,!re are ev]y:]e 9 ! _w cle> indications ( adaptation to a def9ite end4 7#b7 ,z ?is adaptation _c be due to ! work+ ( bl9d1 me*anical laws1 & accord+ly _c be expla9$ z orig9at+ 9 ?+s !mselves1 x mu/ h be5 impos$ ^u !m f )\t2 & !re mu/ !re=e exi/1 ap>t f ! s5sible _w1 an intellig5t ,be+ :o has arrang$ x accord+ to ideas antec$5tly =m$4 7#c7 ,z !re is unity 9 ! reciprocal relations ( ! p>ts ( ! univ]se z portions ( a s+le edifice1 & z ! univ]se is inf9ite 9 ext5t & inexhau/ible 9 v>iety1 its intellig5t cause mu/ be s+le1 all-p[]ful1 all-wise1 i4e4 ,god4 ,n[1 ev5 grant+ = ! sake ( argum5t ! admissibility ( ^! ass]tions1 !y enable u to inf] only an intellig5t au?or ( ! purposive =m ( nature1 n ( its matt]1 only an ar*itect :o is v mu* hamp]$ by ! inadaptability ( ! mat]ial 9 :i* he has to "w1 n a ,creator to ^: w ev]y?+ is due4 ,to prove ! cont+5cy ( matt] itself1 we %\ld h to e/abli% ! tru? ( ! cosmological pro(4 ,b ! assumptions impli$ ev5 9 ! demon/ration t ,god exi/s z a =mative p[]1 are by no means beyond dispute4 ,:y may n nature be reg>d$ z giv+ =m to itself by its bl9dly work+ =ces8 ,c x really be prov$ t nature is a "w ( art t dem&s an artific] z c]ta9ly z does a h\se1 or a %ip1 or a clock8 ,kant's argum5t is at ?is po9t extremely brief1 & ,i %all s f> digress f ! /atem5t ( x1 :i* he "h gives1 z to supplem5t x f 8 o!r writ+s4 ,ev5 s-call$ dead matt] is n m]ely in]t4 ,by its inh]5t p[]s ( gravity & *emical attraction x spontane\sly gives rise to ! mo/ wond]ful =ms4 ,:5 ,cl>ke & ,voltaire1 9 _! fir/ en?usiasm ov] ,newton's great discov]y1 ass]t$ t ! planet>y sy/em mu/ h be5 div9ely creat$1 ea* planet be+ laun*$ 9 ! tang5t ( its orbit by ! f+] ( ,god1 j z a :eel mu/ be fix$ into its place by ! h& ( ! me*anician1 !y "u-e/imat$ ! organis+ p[] ( bl9d inanimate nature4 ,z ,kant argu$ 9 8 e>ly treatise1#afbi ! planet>y sy/em c q well h aris51 &1 z x w\ld seem1 actually has come into exi/5ce1 ?r\gh ! action ( bl9dly work+ laws4 ,! me*anical pr9ciples :i* acc\nt = its pres5t ma9t5ance w also acc\nt = its orig9 & developm5t4 ,b x is :5 we turn to animate nature1 :i* is ! *ief s\rce f :i* argum5ts = design are d]iv$1 t ! insuffici5cy ( ! teleological argum5t becomes mo/ manife/4 ,z ,kant po9ts out 9 ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 ! diff]5tia di/+ui%+ ! liv+ f ! lifeless1 is n s mu* t x is organis$ z t x is self-organis+4 ,:51 !re=e1 we treat an organism z an analogon ( art we completely misrepres5t its ess5tial nature4#afcj ,9 reg>d+ x z put toge!r by an ext]nal ag5t we are ignor+ its int]nal self-develop+ p[]4 ,z ,hume _h previ\sly ma9ta9$ 9 8 ,dialogues on ,natural ,religion1#afca ! facts ( ! organic _w n only agree ) ! facts ( ! inorganic _w 9 n support+ ! argum5t ( ! teleological pro(1 b are 9 direct conflict ) x4 ,b to return to ,kant's imm$iate /atem5t ( ! argum5t4 ,sett+ ! above objection aside1 & grant+ = ! pres5t t nature may be reg>d$ z ! outcome ( an ext]nal artific]1 we c argue only to a cause adequate to its production1 i4e4 to an extraord9>ily wise & wond]fully p[]ful ,be+4 ,ev5 if we ignore ! exi/5ce ( evil & defect 9 nature1 ! /ep f great p[] to omnipot5ce1 & f great wisdom to omnisci5ce1 is "o t c nev] be ju/ifi$ on empirical gr\nds4#afcb ,s9ce ! ,ideas ( ,reason1 & above all ! completely det]m9$1 individual ,ideal ( ,reason1 transc5d exp]i5ce1 exp]i5ce c nev] ju/ify u 9 inf]r+ _! reality4 ,! teleological argum5t c1 inde$1 only lead u to ! po9t ( admir+ ! greatness1 wisdom1 & p[] ( ! au?or ( ! _w4 ,9 proce$+ fur!r x ab&ons exp]i5ce altoge!r1 & reasons1 n f p>ticul> k9ds & excell5cies ( natural design1 b f ! cont+5cy ( all su* adaptation to ! exi/5ce ( a necess>y ,be+1 exactly 9 ! mann] ( ! cosmological argum5t4 ,& x ends by assum+1 9 agreem5t ) ! ontological pro(1 t ! only possible necess>y ,be+ is ! ,ideal ( ,reason4 ,?us aft] committ+ a numb] ( fallacies on its own acc\nt1 ! teleological argum5t itself endorses all ^? t are involv$ 9 ! m a priori pro(s4 ,! teleological argum5t re/s on ! cosmological1 & ! cosmological on ! ontological1 :i* !re=e w\ld be ! only pro( possible1 7 ! pro( ( a completely transc5d5t proposition ev] possible at all4 ,! /range fact t ! conv9c+ =ce ( ! argum5ts ?us v>ies inv]sely ) _! validity %[s1 ,kant ma9ta9s1 t we are correct 9 conclud+ t !y d n really dep5d ^u _! logical cog5cy1 & m]ely express1 9 ab/ract t]ms1 beliefs deep-root$ 9 ! human _s4 ,,section ,,vii ,,criticism ,,( ,,all ,,!ology ,,bas$ ,,on ,,speculative ,,pr9ciples ,,( ,,reason#afcc ,a #fca-c ,b #fei-ff4--,on ! di/9ction betwe5 8!i/0 & 8dei/10 cf4 ,encyclopdia ,britannica1 vii4 p4 #icd3 8,! lat] di/9ction betwe5 #8!i/' & #8dei/1' :i* /amp$ ! latt] ^w z exclud+ ! belief 9 provid5ce or 9 ! imman5ce ( ,god1 0 app>5tly =mulat$ 9 ! end ( ! eighte5? c5tury by ^? rationali/s :o 7 aggriev$ at be+ id5tifi$ ) ! naturali/s40 ,a #fcc-d ,b #ffa-b4--,kant "h does no m ?an indicate t by way ( practical ,reason x may be possible to po/ulate1 ?\gh n !oretically to compreh5d1 a ,supreme ,be+4 ,on ! di/9ction betwe5 po/ulates & hypo!ses1 cf4 ,a #gfi ff4 ,b #gig ff41 & bel[1 p4 #edc ff4 ,cf4 also p4 #ega ff4 ,a #fcd ,b #ffb4--,on relative necessity1 cf4 bel[1 pp4 #eee1 #ega ff4 ,a #fce-i ,b #ffc-g only summ>ises po9ts already treat$4 ,a #fci-db ,b #ffg-gj4--,kant concludes by decl>+ t ! ,ideal1 9 addition to its regulative function1 possesses two fur!r pr]ogatives4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x supplies a /&>d1 9 ! light ( :i* any k ( ,div9e ,exi/5ce1 acquir$ f o!r s\rces1 c be purifi$ & r5d]$ consi/5t ) itself4 ,= x is 8an ,ideal )\t a flaw10 ! true cr[n & culm9ation ( ! :ole ( human k4 8,if !re %\ld be a moral !ology 444 transc5d5tal !ology 444 w !n prove itself indisp5sable 9 det]m9+ its concept & 9 con/antly te/+ ,reason :i* is s (t5 deceiv$ by s5sibility1 & :i* is frequ5tly out ( h>mony ) its own ,ideas40#afcd ,& secondly1 ?\gh ! ,ideal fails to e/abli% itself !oretically1 ! argum5ts giv5 9 its support suffice to %[ ! q insuffici5t f\ndations ^u :i* all a!i/ic1 dei/ic1 & an?ropomorphic philosophies re/4 ,comm5t4--,^! conclud+ rem>ks _c be accept$ z repres5t+ ,kant's true tea*+4 ,! ,ideal1 by 8 own %[+1 is by no means )\t a flaw4 ,9 s f> z x involves ! concept ( uncondition$ necessity1 x is mean+less2 x is purely logical1 & !re=e conta9s no indication ( real cont5t2 x embodies a false view ( ! nature ( negation1 & !re=e ( ! relation ( realities to "o ano!r4 ,9 %ort1 x is con/itut$ 9 accordance ) ! false1 un-,critical pr9ciples ( ,leibnizian metaphysics1 & is f\nd on exam9ation to be non-exi/5t ev5 z a purely m5tal entity4 ,r$uc$ to its prop] t]ms1 x becomes a m]e s*ema regulative ( ! und]/&+ 9 ! ext5sion ( exp]i5ce1 & does n yield ev5 a negative crit]ion = ! te/+ ( our ideals ( ,div9e ,exi/5ce4 ,! crit]ion1 :i* ,kant really s employs1 is n t ( an ,ens realissimum1 b ! concept ( an ,intuitive ,und]/&+1 :i*1 z he has indicat$ 9 ! *apt] on ,ph5om5a & ,n\m5a1#afce is our mo/ adequate ,ideal ( complet$ ,p]fection4 ,?is latt] is n itself1 h[ev]1 a spontane\sly =m$ concept ( natural ,reason1 & does n ju/ify ! ass]tion t ! ,idea ( ,god is a necess>y ,idea ( ! human m9d4 ,9 attempt+ to def5d su* a !sis1 ,kant is unduly influ5c$ by ! almo/ univ]sal acceptance ( dei/ic beliefs 9 ! ,europe ( 8 "t4#afcf ,8 criticism ( ! ,ideal ( ,reason & ( rational !ology is mu* m de/ructive1 & really all[s t !ology mu* less value1 ev5 z natural dialectic1 ?an he is will+ to admit4#afcg ,ar*itectonic =bids t ! extreme radical consequ5ces ( ! tea*+ ( ! ,analytic %\ld be all[$ to %[ 9 _! full =ce4 ,^! %ortcom+s are1 h[ev]1 9 great "p rem$i$ 9 ! elaborate ,app5dix :i* ,kant has atta*$ to ! ,dialectic4 ,,app5dix ,,to ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,dialectic ,,! ,,regulative ,,employm5t ,,( ,,! ,,ideas ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#afch ,be=e we proce$ to deal ) ?is ,app5dix x w be ( advantage to consid] ! section 9 ! ,me?odology on ! ,discipl9e ( ,pure ,reason 9 reg>d to ,hypo!ses4#afci ,t section af=ds a v illum9at+ introduction to ! problems "h discuss$1 & is extremely important = und]/&+ ,kant's view ( metaphysical sci5ce z yield+ ei!r complete c]ta9ty or else no?+ at all4 ,?is is a doctr9e :i* he f "t to "t sugge/s1 to ! consid]able bewild]m5t ( ! mod]n read]4#afdj ,9 discuss+ x he />ts f ! obvi\s objection1 t ?\gh no?+ c be kn[n ?r\gh ,reason 9 its pure a priori employm5t1 metaphysics may yet be possible 9 an empirical =m1 z consi/+ ( hypo!ses1 con/ruct$ 9 conjectural explanation ( ! facts ( exp]i5ce4 ,kant replies by def9+ ! conditions "u :i* alone hypo!ses c be ent]ta9$ z su*4 ,!re mu/ always be some?+ completely c]ta91 & n only inv5t$ or m]ely 8op9$10 namely1 ! possibility ( ! object to :i* ! hypo!sis appeals4 ,once t is prov$1 x is all[able1 on ! basis ( exp]i5ce1 to =m op9ions reg>d+ its reality4 ,!n1 & only !n1 c su* op9ions be entitl$ hypo!ses4 ,o!rwise we are n employ+ ! und]/&+ to expla92 we are simply indulg+ ! imag9ation 9 its t5d5cy to dream4 ,n[ s9ce ! categories ( ! pure und]/&+ d n enable u to inv5t a priori ! concept ( a dynamical connection1 b only to appreh5d x :5 pres5t$ 9 exp]i5ce1 we _c by means ( ^! categories inv5t a s+le object end[$ ) a new quality n empirically giv52 & _c1 !re=e1 base an hypo!sis ^u any su* conception4 8,?us x is n p]missible to inv5t any new orig9al p[]s1 z1 = in/ance1 an und]/&+ capable ( intuit+ its objects )\t ! aid ( s5ses2 or a =ce ( attraction )\t any contact2 or a new k9d ( sub/ance exi/+ 9 space & yet n imp5etrable4 ,nor is x legitimate to po/ulate any o!r =m ( communion ( sub/ances ?an t reveal$ 9 exp]i5ce1 any pres5ce t is n spatial1 any duration t is n temporal4 ,9 a ^w our ,reason c employ z conditions ( ! possibility ( ?+s only ! conditions ( possible exp]i5ce2 x c nev]1 z x 71 create concepts ( ?+s1 indep5d5tly ( ^? conditions4 ,su* concepts1 ?\gh n self-contradictory1 w\ld be )\t an object40#afda ,?is does n1 h[ev]1 mean t ! concepts ( pure ,reason c h no valid employm5t4 ,!y are1 x is true1 ,ideas m]ely1 ) no object correspond+ to !m 9 any exp]i5ce2 b !n x is also true t !y are n hypo!ses1 ref]r+ to imag9$ objects1 suppos$ to be possibly real4 ,!y are purely problematic4 ,!y are heuri/ic fictions 7heuri/is*e ,fiktion571 ! sole function ( :i* is to s]ve z pr9ciples regulative ( ! und]/&+ 9 its sy/ematic employm5t4 ,us$ 9 any o!r mann] !y r$uce to ! level ( m]ely m5tal entities 7,g$ank5d+e7 ^: v possibility is indemon/rable1 & :i* _c !re=e be employ$ z hypo!ses = ! explanation ( appe>ances4 ,giv5 appe>ances c be acc\nt$ = only 9 t]ms ( laws kn[n to hold among appe>ances4 ,to expla9 natural ph5om5a by a transc5d5tal hypo!sis--m5tal processes by ! assumption ( ! s\l z a sub/antial1 simple1 spiritual be+1 or ord] & design 9 nature by ! assumption ( a ,div9e ,au?or--is nev] admissible4 8444t w\ld be to expla9 some?+1 :i* 9 t]ms ( kn[n empirical pr9ciples we d n und]/& suffici5tly1 by some?+ :i* we d n und]/& at all40#afdb ,& ,kant adds t ! wilde/ hypo!ses1 if only !y are physical1 are m tol]able ?an a hyp]physical "o4 ,!y at lea/ con=m to ! conditions "u :i* alone hypo!tical explanation z su* is all[able4 8,outside ?is field1 to =m op9ions1 is m]ely to play ) ?\ghts44440#afdc ,a fur!r condition1 requir$ to r5d] an hypo!sis acceptable1 is its adequacy = det]m9+ a priori all ! consequ5ces :i* are actually giv54 ,if = t purpose supplem5t>y hypo!ses h to be call$ 91 ! =ce ( ! ma9 assumption is proportionately weak5$4 ,?us we c easily expla9 natural ord] & design1 if we are all[$ to po/ulate a ,div9e ,au?or :o is absolutely p]fect & all-p[]ful4 ,b t hypo!sis lies op5 to all ! objections sugge/$ by defects & evils 9 nature1 & c only be pres]v$ ?r\gh new hypo!ses :i* modify ! ma9 assumption4 ,simil>ly ! hypo!sis ( ! human s\l z an abid+ & purely spiritual be+1 exi/+ 9 indep5d5ce ( ! body1 has to be modifi$ to meet ! difficulties :i* arise f ! ph5om5a ( gr[? & decay4 ,b ! new hypo!ses1 !n con/ruct$1 d]ive _! :ole au?ority f ! ma9 hypo!sis :i* !y are !mselves def5d+4 ,su* is ,kant's criticism ( metaphysics :5 its tea*+ is bas$ on ! facts ( exp]i5ce hypo!tically int]pret$4 ,9 reg>d to transc5d5t metaphysics1 !re are1 9 ,kant's view1 only two alt]natives4#afdd ,ei!r its propositions mu/ be e/abli%$ indep5d5tly ( all exp]i5ce 9 purely a priori fa%ion1 & !re=e z absolutely c]ta92 or !y mu/ consi/ 9 hypo!ses empirically gr\nd$4 ,! fir/ alt]native has 9 ! ,analytic & ,dialectic be5 %[n to be impossible2 ! second alt]native he rejects = ! above reasons4 ,b ?is does n close ,kant's treatm5t ( metaphysical hypo!ses4 ,he proce$s to develop a doctr9e :i*1 9 its fe>less confid5ce 9 ! tru? ( ,critical tea*+1 is ! wor?y outcome ( 8 abid+ belief 9 ! value ( a 8sceptical me?od40#afde ,z ,reason is by its v nature dialectical1 outside oppon5ts are n ^? f :om we h mo/ to fe>4 ,_! objections are really d]iv$ f a s\rce :i* lies 9 ourselves1 & until ^! h be5 trac$ to _! orig91 & de/roy$ f ! root upw>ds1 we c expect no la/+ peace4 ,our duty1 !re=e1 is to enc\rage our d\bts1 until by ! v luxuriance ( _! gr[? !y enable u to discov] ! hidd5 roots f :i* !y d]ive _! p]5nial vitality4 8,ext]nal tranquillity is a m]e illusion4 ,! g]m ( ^! objections1 :i* lies 9 ! nature ( human ,reason1 mu/ be root$ out4 ,b h[ c we uproot x1 unless we give x fre$om1 nay1 n\ri%m5t1 to s5d out %oots s t x may discov] itself to our eyes1 & t we may !n de/roy x toge!r ) its root8 ,!re=e ?9k out objections :i* h nev] yet occurr$ to any oppon5t2 l5d him1 inde$1 y\r weapons1 or grant him ! mo/ fav\rable position :i* he c\ld possibly desire4 ,y h no?+ to fe> 9 all ?is1 b mu* to hope =2 y may ga9 = y\rselves a possession :i* c nev] aga9 be conte/$40#afdf ,9 ?is campaign to eradicate d\bt by foll[+ x out to its fur!rmo/ limits1 ! hypo!ses ( pure ,reason1 8lead5 weapons ?\gh !y be1 s9ce !y are n /eel$ by any law ( exp]i5ce10 are an indisp5sable "p ( our equipm5t4 ,= ?\gh hypo!ses are useless = ! e/abli%m5t ( metaphysical propositions1 !y are1 ,kant tea*es1 bo? admirable & valuable = _! def5ce4 ,t is to say1 _! true metaphysical function is n dogmatic1 b polemical4 ,!y are weapons ( w> to :i* we may legitimately resort = ! ma9t5ance ( beliefs o!rwise e/abli%$4 ,if1 = in/ance1 we h be5 l$ to po/ulate ! immat]ial1 self-subsi/5t nature ( ! s\l1 & are met by ! difficulty t exp]i5ce w\ld seem to prove t bo? ! gr[? & ! decay ( our m5tal p[]s are due to ! body1 we c weak5 ?is objection by =mulat+ ! hypo!sis t ! body is n ! cause ( our ?9k+1 b only a re/rictive condition ( x1 peculi> to our pres5t /ate1 & t1 ?\gh x fur!rs our s5su\s & animal faculties1 x acts z an imp$im5t to our spiritual life4 ,simil>ly1 to meet ! _m objections aga9/ belief 9 ! et]nal exi/5ce ( a f9ite be+ ^: bir? dep5ds ^u cont+5cies ( all k9ds1 su* z ! food supply1 ! :ims ( gov]nm5t1 or ev5 vice1 we c adduce ! transc5d5tal hypo!sis t life has nei!r beg9n+ 9 bir? nor end+ 9 dea?1 ! entire _w ( s5se be+ b an image due to our pres5t mode ( k1 an image :i* l a dream has 9 itself no objective reality4 ,su* hypo!ses are n1 inde$1 ev5 ,ideas ( ,reason1 b simply concepts inv5t$ to %[ t ! objections :i* are rais$ dep5d ^u ! false assumption t ! possibilities h be5 exhau/$1 & t ! m]e laws ( nature compreh5d ! :ole field ( possible exi/5ces4 ,^! hypo!ses at lea/ suffice to reveal ! unc]ta9 "* ( ! d\bts :i* assail u 9 our practical beliefs4 0,transc5d5tal hypo!ses are no?+ b private op9ions4 ,nev]!less1 we _c prop]ly disp5se ) !m z weapons aga9/ ! misgiv+s :i* are apt to occur2 !y are necess>y ev5 to secure our inn] tranquillity4 ,we mu/ pres]ve to !m ?is "*1 c>efully gu>d+ aga9/ ! assumption ( _! indep5d5t au?ority or absolute validity1 s9ce o!rwise !y w\ld dr[n ,reason 9 fictions & delusions40#afdg ,we may n[ return to ,a #fdb-fh ,b #fgj-if4 ,! tea*+ ( ?is section is extremely self-contradictory1 wav]+ betwe5 a subjective & an objective int]pretation ( ! ,ideas ( ,reason4 ,! probable explanation is t ,kant is "h reca/+ old] mat]ial1 & leaves /&+ m ( 8 e>li] solutions ?an is consi/5t ) 8 f9al conclusions4 ,we c be/ approa* ! discussion by consid]+ ,kant's /atem5ts 9 ,a #fde ,b #fgc & 9 ,a #fej ff4 ,b #fgh ff4 ,!y exp\nd1 ?\gh un=tunately 9 ! briefe/ t]ms1 a po9t ( view :i* ,idealism has s9ce adopt$ z fundam5tal4 ,kant himself1 v /rangely1 nev] develops its consequ5ces at any great l5g?4#afdh ,! ,idea1 :i* ,reason foll[s 9 ! ex]cise ( its sole true function1 ! sy/ematis+ ( ! k suppli$ by ! und]/&+1 is t ( a unity 9 :i* ! ?\ght ( ! :ole prec$es ! k ( its p>ts1 & conta9s ! conditions accord+ to :i* ! place ( e "p & its relation to ! o!r p>ts are det]m9$ a priori4 ,?is ,idea specialises itself 9 v>i\s =ms1 & 9 all ( !m directs ! und]/&+ to a k t w be t ( no m]e aggregate b ( a g5u9e sy/em4 ,su* concepts are n d]iv$ f nature2 we int]rogate nature accord+ to !m1 & consid] our k defective s long z x fails to embody !m4 ,9 ,a #fej ,b #fgh ,kant fur!r po9ts out t ?is ,idea ( ,reason does n m]ely direct ! und]/&+ to se>* = su* unity1 b also claims = itself objective reality4 ,& he adds1 8444x is difficult to und]/& h[ !re c be a logical pr9ciple by :i* ,reason prescribes ! unity ( rules1 unless we also presuppose a transc5d5tal pr9ciple :]eby su* sy/ematic unity is a priori assum$ to be necess>ily inh]5t 9 ! objects40 ,= h[ c\ld we treat div]sity 9 nature z only disguis$ unity1 if we 7 also free to reg>d t unity z contr>y to ! actual nature ( ! real8 8,reason w\ld !n run c\nt] to its own vocation1 propos+ z its aim an ,idea q inconsi/5t ) ! con/itution ( nature40#afdi ,nor is our k ( ! pr9ciple m]ely empirical1 d$uc$ f ! unity :i* we f9d 9 cont+5t exp]i5ce4 ,on ! contr>y1 !re is an inh]5t & necess>y law ( ,reason compell+ u1 antec$5tly to all specific exp]i5ce1 to look = su* unity4 8444)\t x we %\ld h no ,reason at all1 & )\t ,reason no coh]5t employm5t ( ! und]/&+1 & 9 ! abs5ce ( ?is no suffici5t crit]ion ( empirical tru?4 ,9 ord]1 !re=e1 to secure an empirical crit]ion we are absolutely compell$ to presuppose ! sy/ematic unity ( nature z objectively valid & necess>y40#afej 8,x might be suppos$ t ?is is m]ely an economical contrivance ( ,reason1 seek+ to save itself all possible tr\ble1 a hypo!tical attempt1 :i*1 if x succe$s1 w1 ?r\gh ! unity ?us atta9$1 imp>t probability to ! presum$ pr9ciple ( explanation4 ,b su* a selfi% purpose c v easily be di/+ui%$ f ! ,idea4 ,= 9 ! latt] we presuppose t ?is unity ( ,reason is 9 con=mity ) nature itself2 & t1 al?\gh we are inde$ unable to det]m9e ! limits ( ?is unity1 ,reason does n "h beg b comm&40#afea ,?is la/ alt]native1 t ,reason is "h prop\nd+ a t5tative hypo!sis1 9 ord] by trial to discov] h[ f> x c be empirically v]ifi$--an alt]native :i* ,kant 9 ! above passage rejects z unduly subjective1 & z consequ5tly fail+ to recognise ! objective claims & a priori au?ority ( ! ,ideas ( ,reason1--is yet a view :i* he himself adopts & inde$ develops at consid]able l5g? 9 ?is same section4 ,?is1 z already /at$1 af=ds evid5ce ( ! composite "* & v>y+ orig9s ( ! mat]ial "h pres5t$4 ,! ,diss]tation ( #aggj gives a purely subjectivi/ int]pretation ( ! regulative pr9ciples1 among :i*1 f its pre-,critical /&po9t1 x classes ! pr9ciple ( causality & ! pr9ciple ( ! cons]vation ( matt]4 0,we adopt pr9ciples :i* delude ! intellect into mi/ak+ !m = argum5ts d]iv$ f ! object1 :]eas !y are comm5d$ to u only by ! peculi> nature ( ! intellect1 ow+ to _! conv5i5ce = its free & ample employm5t4 ,!y !re=e 444 re/ on subjective gr\nds 444 namely1 on ! conditions "u :i* x seems easy & exp$iti\s = ! intellect to make use ( its insight4444 ,^! rules ( judg+1 to :i* we freely submit & to :i* we adh]e z if !y 7 axioms1 solely = ! reason t 7 we to dep>t f !m almo/ no judgm5t reg>d+ a giv5 object w\ld be p]missible to our intellect1 ,i entitle pr9ciples ( conv5i5ce4444 ,"o ( ^! is ! popul>ly receiv$ canon1 pr9cipia non esse multiplic&a praet] summam necessitatem1 to :i* we yield our adhesion1 n because we h insight into causal unity 9 ! _w ei!r by reason or by exp]i5ce1 b because we seek x by an impulse ( ! intellect1 :i* seems to itself to h advanc$ 9 ! explanation ( ph5om5a only 9 ! degree 9 :i* x is grant$ to x to desc5d f a s+le pr9ciple to ! greate/ numb] ( consequ5ces40#afeb ,?is1 9 ess5tials1 is ! view :i* we f9d develop$ 9 ,a #fdf-i ,b #fgd-h4 ,reason is ! faculty ( d$uc+ ! p>ticul> f ! g5]al4 ,:5 ! g5]al is admitt$ only z problematical1 z a m]e idea1 :ile ! p>ticul> is c]ta91 we det]m9e ! univ]sality ( ! rule by apply+ x to ! p>ticul>s1 & !n ^u confirmation ( its validity proce$ to draw conclusions reg>d+ cases n actually giv54 ,?is ,kant entitles ! hypo!tical use ( ,reason4 ,reason mu/ nev] be employ$ con/itutively4 ,x s]ves only = ! introduction1 z f> z may be f\nd possible1 ( unity into ! p>ticul>s ( k4 ,x seeks to make ! rule approximate to univ]sality4#afec ,! unity :i* x dem&s 8444is a project$ unity1 to be reg>d$ n z giv5 9 itself1 b z a problem only4 ,?is unity aids u 9 discov]+ a pr9ciple = ! manifold & special employm5t ( ! und]/&+1 draw+ its att5tion to cases :i* are n giv51 & ?us r5d]+ x m coh]5t40#afed ,! unity is m]ely logical1 or r me?odological4#afee ,to po/ulate1 9 consequ5ce ( its s]viceabl5ess1 real unity 9 ! objects !mselves w\ld be to trans=m x into a transc5d5tal pr9ciple ( ,reason1 & to r5d] 8444! sy/ematic unity necess>y1 n only subjectively & logically1 z me?od1 b objectively also40#afef ,! above p>agraphs are int]calat$ betwe5 ,a #fde ,b #fgc & ,a #fej-fc ,b #fgh-ia1 9 :i*1 z we h already se51 ! directly opposite view is prop\nd$1 namely1 t su* pr9ciples are n m]ely hypo!tical1 nor m]ely logical4 ,9 all cases !y claim reality1 & re/ ^u transc5d5tal pr9ciples2 !y condition ! v possibility ( exp]i5ce2 & may !re=e be ass]t$ to be a priori necess>y & to be objectively valid4 ,to quote two additional passages3 8444we c conclude f ! univ]sal to ! p>ticul>1 only if univ]sal qualities are ascrib$ to ?+s z ! f\ndation ^u :i* ! p>ticul> qualities re/40#afeg 8,! f\ndation ( ^! laws cf4 bel[1 pp4 #eej-a is n due to any secret design ( mak+ an exp]im5t by putt+ !m =w>d z m]ely t5tative sugge/ions4444 ,x is easily se5 t !y contemplate ! p>simony ( fundam5tal causes1 ! manifoldness ( effects1 & ! consequ5t aff9ity ( ! p>ts ( nature1 z be+ 9 !mselves bo? rational & natural4 ,h5ce ^! pr9ciples c>ry _! recomm5dation directly 9 !mselves1 & n m]ely z me?odological devices40#afeh ,?us1 9 direct opposition to ! prec$+ view ( ,reason's function z hypo!tical1 ,kant is n[ prep>$ to ma9ta9 t ! maxims ( ,reason are )\t mean+ & )\t application save 9 s f> z !y c be gr\nd$ 9 a transc5d5tal pr9ciple4#afei ,let u foll[ ,kant's detail$ exposition ( ?is la/ !sis4 ,! logical maxim1 to seek = sy/ematic unity1 re/s ^u ! transc5d5tal pr9ciple t ! app>5tly inf9ite v>iety ( nature does n exclude id5tity ( species1 t ! v>i\s species are v>ieties ( a few g5]a1 & ^! aga9 ( /ill high] g5]a4 ,?is is ! s*ola/ic maxim3 entia praet] necessitatem non esse multiplic&a4 ,^u ?is pr9ciple re/s ! possibility ( concepts1 & !re=e ( ! und]/&+ itself4 ,x is balanc$1 h[ev]1 by a second pr9ciple1 no less necess>y1 ! transc5d5tal law ( specification1 namely1 t !re mu/ be manifoldness & div]sity 9 ?+s1 t e g5us mu/ specify itself 9 div]g5t species1 & ^! aga9 9 sub-species4 ,or z x is express$ 9 its s*ola/ic =m3 entium v>ietates non tem]e esse m9u5das4 ,?is pr9ciple is equally transc5d5tal4 ,x expresses a condition no less necess>y = ! possibility ( ! und]/&+1 & !re=e ( exp]i5ce4 ,z ! und]/&+ kn[s all t x kn[s by concepts only1 h[ev] f> x may c>ry ! division ( g5]a1 x c nev] "k by means ( pure intuition1 b always aga9 by l[] concepts4 ,if1 !re=e1 !re 7 no l[] concepts1 !re c\ld be no high] concepts2#affj ! gap exi/+ betwe5 individuals & g5]a c\ld nev] be bridg$2 or r1 s9ce nei!r individuals nor univ]sals c\ld !n be appreh5d$1 nei!r w\ld exi/ = ! m9d4 ,z ! high] concepts acquire all _! cont5t f ! l[]1 !y presuppose !m = _! own exi/5ce4 8,e concept may be reg>d$ z a po9t :i*1 9 s f> z x repres5ts ! /&po9t ( a spectator1 has its own horizon4444 ,?is horizon mu/ be capable ( conta9+ an inf9ite numb] ( po9ts1 ea* ( :i* aga9 has its own n>r[] horizon2 t is1 e species conta9s sub-species1 accord+ to ! pr9ciple ( specification1 & ! logical horizon consi/s exclusively ( small] horizons 7sub-species71 nev] ( po9ts :i* possess no ext5t 7individuals740#affa ,comb9+ ^! two pr9ciples1 t ( homog5eity & t ( specification1 we obta9 a ?ird1 t ( cont9uity4 ,! logical law ( ! cont9uum =m>um logic>um presupposes ! transc5d5tal law1 lex cont9ui 9 natura4 ,x provides t homog5eity be comb9$ ) ! greate/ possible div]sity by prescrib+ a cont9u\s transition f e species to e o!r1 or 9 o!r words by requir+ t betwe5 any two species or sub-species1 h[ev] closely relat$1 int]m$iate species be always reg>d$ z possible4 7,! p>agraph at ! end ( ,a #ffa ,b #fhi1 ) its proviso t we _c make any def9ite empirical use ( ?is law1 is probably ( lat] orig92 x connects ) ! conclud+ p>ts ( ! section47 ,t ?is ?ird law is also a priori & transc5d5tal1 is %[n by ! fact t x is n d]iv$ f ! prior discov]y ( sy/em 9 nature1 b has itself giv5 rise to ! sy/ematis$ "* ( our k4#affb ,! psy*ological1 *emical1 & a/ronomical examples :i* ,kant employs to illu/rate ^! laws call = no special comm5t4 ,!y 7 tak5 f contempor>y sci5ce1 & 9 ! advance ( our k h become m confus+ ?an helpful4 ,! citation 9 ,a #fdf ,b #fgd ( ! concepts ( 8pure e>?1 pure wat]1 pure air0 z be+ 8concepts ( ,reason0 is especially bewild]+4 ,!y are1 ev5 9 ! use :i* ,kant himself ascribes to !m1 simply empirical hypo!ses1 =mulat$ = ! purposes ( purely physical explanation2 !y are 9 no g5u9e s5se univ]sal1 regulative pr9ciples4 ,9 pass+ to ,a #ffc-h ,b #fia-f we f9d /ill ano!r v>iation 9 ! sub/ance ( ,kant's tea*+4 ,he returns1 ?\gh ) a great] maturity ( /atem5t1 & ) a v diff]5t & mu* m satisfactory t]m9ology1 to ! m sceptical view ( ,a #fdf-i ,b #fgd-g4affc ,! int]e/ ( ! above pr9ciples1 ,kant cont9ues to ma9ta91 lies 9 _! transc5d5tality4 ,despite ! fact t !y are m]e ,ideas = ! guidance ( und]/&+1 & c only be approa*$ asymptotically1 !y are syn!tic a priori judgm5ts1 & w\ld seem to h an objective1 ?\gh indet]m9ate1 validity4 ,s f> 8 /atem5ts are 9 l9e ) ! prec$+ p>agraphs4 ,b he proce$s to add t ?is objective validity consi/s exclusively 9 _! heuri/ic function4 ,!y diff] fundam5tally f ! dynamical1 no less ?an f ! ma!matical1 pr9ciples ( und]/&+1 9 t no s*ema ( s5sibility c be assign$ to !m4 ,9 o!r words1 _! object c nev] be exhibit$ 9 concreto2 x transc5ds all possible exp]i5ce4 ,= ?is reason !y are incapable ( a transc5d5tal d$uction4#affd ,!y are among ! conditions indisp5sably necess>y to ! possibility1 n ( ea* & e exp]i5ce1 b only ( exp]i5ce z sy/ematis$ 9 ! int]e/ ( ,reason4 ,9 place ( a s*ema !y c possess only :at may be call$ ! analogon ( a s*ema1 t is1 !y repres5t ! ,idea ( a maximum1 :i* ! und]/&+ 9 ! subjective int]e/ ( ,reason--or1 o!rwise express$1#affe 9 ! int]e/ ( a c]ta9 possible p]fection ( our k ( objects--is call$ ^u to realise z mu* z possible4 ,?us !y are at once subjective 9 ! s\rce f :i* !y arise1 & also indet]m9ate z to ! conditions "u :i*1 & ! ext5t to :i*1 !y c obta9 empirical embodim5t4 ,! fact t 9 ?is capacity !y repres5t a maximum1 does n ju/ify any ass]tion ei!r z to ! degree ( unity :i* exp]i5ce on detail$ inve/igation w ultimately be f\nd to v]ify1 or z to ! n\m5al reality by :i* exp]i5ce is condition$4 ,9 ,a #fdd-e ,b #fgb-c ,kant employs c]ta9 optical analogies to illu/rate ! illusion :i* ! ,ideas1 9 ! abs5ce ( ,critical tea*+1 inevitably g5]ate4 ,:5 ! und]/&+ is regulat$ by ! ,idea ( a maximum1 & seeks to view all ! l9es ( exp]i5ce z conv]g+ ^u & po9t+ to x1 x necess>ily reg>ds x1 focus imag9>ius ?\gh x be1 z actually exi/+4 ,! illusion1 by :i* objects are se5 beh9d ! surface ( a mirror1 is indisp5sably necess>y if we are to be able to see :at lies beh9d our backs4 ,! transc5d5tal illusion1 :i* conf]s reality ^u ! ,ideas ( ,reason1 is simil>ly incid5tal to ! attempt to view exp]i5ce 9 its greate/ possible ext5sion4 ,,on ,,! ,,f9al ,,purpose ,,( ,,! ,,natural ,,dialectic ,,( ,,human ,,reason#afff ,?is section is ?or\ghly unifi$ & consi/5t 9 its tea*+4 ,its repetiti\s "* is d\btless due to ,kant's p]sonal difficulty ei!r 9 def9itively accept+ or 9 altoge!r reject+ ! con/ructive1 ,ideali/ int]pretation ( ! function ( ,reason4 ,he at lea/ succe$s 9 =mulat+ a view :i*1 :ile n ass]t+ any?+ m ?an is requir$ 9 ! sci5tific ext5sion ( exp]i5ce1 indicates ! _m possibilities :i* su* exp]i5ce fails to exclude4 ,z ! ,ideas ( ,reason are n m]ely empty ?\ght-entities 7entia rationis ratioc9antis#affg71 b h a c]ta9 k9d ( objective validity 7i4e4 are entia rationis ratioc9atae#affh71 !y dem& a transc5d5tal d$uction4#affi ,:at ?is d$uction is1 & h[ x diff]s f t ( ! categories1 we mu/ n[ det]m9e4 ,its discov]y w1 ,kant claims1 cr[n & complete our ,critical lab\rs4 ,kant beg9s by draw+ a di/9ction betwe5 repres5t+ an object absolutely1 & repres5t+ an object 9 ! ,idea4 8,9 ! =m] case our concepts are employ$ to det]m9e ! object1 9 ! latt] case !re is 9 tru? only a s*ema = :i* no object1 n ev5 a hypo!tical "o1 is directly giv51 & :i* only enables u to repres5t to ourselves indirectly o!r objects 9 _! sy/ematic unity1 by means ( _! relation to ?is ,idea40#afgj ,an ,idea is only a s*ema 7,kant 9 t]ms ( ,a #fee ,b #fic ought r to h said analogon ( a s*ema7 :]eby we repres5t to ourselves1 z = in/ance 9 ! concept ( a ,highe/ ,intellig5ce1 n an objective reality b only su* p]fection ( ,reason z w t5d to ! greate/ possible unity 9 ! empirical employm5t ( und]/&+4 ,) ?is introduction1 ,kant u%]s 9 8 fam\s 8als ob0 doctr9e4 ,we mu/ view ! ?+s ( ! _w z if !y d]iv$ _! exi/5ce f a ,highe/ ,intellig5ce4 ,t ,idea is heuri/ic only1 n expository4 ,its purpose is n to enable u to compreh5d su* a ,be+1 or ev5 to ?9k its exi/5ce1 b only to %[ u h[ we %\ld seek to det]m9e ! con/itution & connection ( ! objects ( exp]i5ce4 ,! ?ree transc5d5tal ,ideas d n det]m9e an object correspond+ to !m1 b1 "u ! presupposition ( su* an object 9 ! ,idea1 lead u to sy/ematic unity ( empirical k4 ,:5 !y are ?us /rictly int]pret$ z m]ely regulative ( empirical enquiry1 !y w always endorse exp]i5ce & nev] run c\nt] to x4 ,reason1 :i* seeks complet5ess ( explanation1 mu/ !re=e always act 9 accordance ) !m4 ,only !reby c exp]i5ce acquire its fulle/ possible ext5sion4 ,?is is ! transc5d5tal d$uction ( :i* we are 9 se>*4 ,x e/abli%es ! indisp5sabl5ess ( ! ,ideas ( ,reason = ! completion ( exp]i5ce1 & _! legitimacy z regulative pr9ciples4 ,we may "h int]rupt ,kant's exposition s f> z to po9t out t ?is argum5t does n d ju/ice to ! full =ce ( 8 position4 ,! true ,critical cont5tion--& only if we int]pret ! passage 9 ! light ( ?is cont5tion c ! pro( be reg>d$ z transc5d5tal 9 ! /rict s5se--is t ! ,ideas are necess>y to ! possibility ( ea* & e exp]i5ce1 involv$ toge!r ) ! categories z conditions ( ! v exi/5ce ( consci\sness4 ,!y are n m]ely regulative1 b are regulative ( an exp]i5ce :i* !y also help to make possible4#afga ,!y express ! /&>ds 9 ^: light we condemn all k :i* does n fulfil !m2 & we h consequ5tly no option save to endeav\r to con=m to _! dem&s4 ,9 o!r words1 !y are n d]ivative concepts obta9$ by m]ely omitt+ ! re/rictions ess5tial to our empirical consci\sness1 b repres5t a presupposition necess>ily involv$ 9 all consci\sness4 ,"s su* re/atem5t ( ! argum5t is dem&$ by ! position :i* ,kant has himself outl9$ 9 ,a #fde ,b #fgc & 9 ,a #fej ff4 ,b #fgh ff4 ,un=tunately he does n return to x4 ,! m sceptical view :i* he has meantime be5 develop+ rema9s dom9ant4 ,! d$uction is left 9 ?is semi-,critical =m4 ,a #fgb-f ,b #gjj-d give a full] /atem5t ( ! 8als ob0 doctr9e4 ,9 psy*ology we mu/ proce$ z if ! m9d 7 a simple sub/ance end[$ ) p]sonal id5tity#afgb 79 ?is life at lea/71 n 9 ord] to d]ive explanation ( its *ang+ /ates f ! s\l s conceiv$1 b to d]ive !m f ea* o!r 9 accordance ) ! ,idea4 ,9 cosmology & !ology 7we may obs]ve ! /raits to :i* ,kant is r$uc$ 9 8 attempt to di/+ui% !m7 we ought to consid] all ph5om5a bo? 9 _! s]ies & 9 _! totality z if !y 7 due to a highe/ & all-suffici5t unit>y gr\nd4 ,9 s do+ we %all n d]ive ! ord] & sy/em 9 ! _w f ! object ( ! ,idea1 b only extract f ! ,idea ! rule :]eby ! und]/&+ atta9s ! greate/ possible satisfaction 9 ! connect+ ( natural causes & effects4 ,9 ,a #fgf-g ,b #gjd-e ,kant resorts to /ill ano!r di/9ction--betwe5 suppositio relativa & suppositio absoluta4 ,?is di/9ction is sugge/$ by ! semi-objectivity ( pr9ciples t are m]ely regulative4 ,?\gh we h to recognise !m z necess>y1 su* necessity does n ju/ify ! ass]tion ( _! indep5d5t validity4 ,:5 we admit a supreme gr\nd z ! s\rce ( ! ord] & sy/em :i* ! pr9ciples dem&1 we d s only 9 ord] to ?9k ! univ]sality ( ! pr9ciples ) great] def9it5ess4 ,su* supposition is relative to ! ne$s ( ,reason 9 its empirical employm5t3 n absolute1 z po9t+ to ! exi/5ce ( su* a be+ 9 itself4 8,?is expla9s :y1 9 relation to :at is giv5 to ! s5ses z exi/+1 we require ! ,idea ( a primordial ,be+ necess>y 9 itself1 & yet c nev] =m ! slighte/ concept ( x or ( its absolute necessity40#afgc ,?is la/ /atem5t leads to ! fur!r problem to :i* ,kant "h gives 8 f9al solution1 h[ if1 z has be5 %[n 9 ! ,dialectic1 ! concepts ( absolute necessity & ( uncondition$ness are )\t mean+1 ! ,ideas ( ,reason c be ent]ta9$ at all1 ev5 m5tally4 ,:at is _! actual cont5t & h[ is x possible to conceive !m8 ,kant's reply is develop$ 9 t]ms ( ! semi-,critical subjectivi/ po9t ( view :i* dom9ates ?is section4 ,! ,ideas are m]e ,ideas4 ,!y yield n ! slighte/ concept ei!r ( ! int]nal possibility or ( ! necessity ( any object correspond+ to !m4 ,!y only seem to d s1 ow+ to a transc5d5tal illusion4 ,on exam9ation we f9d t ! concepts :i* we employ 9 ?9k+ !m z indep5d5tly real1 are "o & all d]iv$ f exp]i5ce4 ,t is to say1 we judge ( !m aft] ! analogy ( reality1 sub/ance1 causality1 & necessity 9 ! s5sible _w4#afgd 0,!y are consequ5tly analoga only ( real ?+s1 n real ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,we remove f ! object ( ! ,idea ! conditions :i* limit ! concept ( ! und]/&+1 b :i* at ! same "t alone make x possible = u to h a det]m9ate concept ( any?+4 ,:at we !n ?9k is1 !re=e1 a some?+ ( :i*1 z x is 9 itself1 we h no concept :atsoev]1 b :i* we none ! less repres5t to ourselves z /&+ 9 a relation to ! sum-total ( appe>ances analog\s to t 9 :i* appe>ances /& to "o ano!r40#afge ,!y d n c>ry our k beyond ! objects ( possible exp]i5ce1 b only ext5d ! empirical unity ( exp]i5ce4 ,!y are ! s*emata ( regulative pr9ciples4 ,9 !m ,reason is conc]n$ ) no?+ b its own inh]5t dem&s2 & z _! unity is ! unity ( a sy/em :i* is to be s\ght only 9 exp]i5ce1#afgf qualities d]iv$ f ! s5sible _w c q legitimately be employ$ 9 _! specific det]m9ation4 ,!y are n inh]5tly dialectical2 _! dem&s h ! rationality :i* we h a "r to expect 9 ! ,ideals ( ,reason4 ,:5 ,critically exam9$1 !y prop\nd no problem :i* ,reason is n 9 itself entirely compet5t to solve4#afgg ,x is to _! misemploym5t t transc5d5tal illusion is due4 ,9 ! =m 9 :i* !y arise f ! natural disposition ( our ,reason !y are good & s]viceable4#afgh ,to ! "q :at is ! mo/ adequate =m 9 :i* ! regulative s*ema c be repres5t$1#afgi ,kant gives an answ] :i* %[s h[ v f> he is f reg>d+ ! ,leibnizian ,ens realissimum z ! true expression ( ! ,ideal ( ,reason4 ,x is ?r\gh ! employm5t ( teleological concepts t we c be/ atta9 ! highe/ possible =m ( sy/ematic unity4 8,! highe/ =mal unity 444 is ! purposive unity ( ?+s4 ,! speculative i4e4 !oretical int]e/ ( ,reason makes x necess>y to reg>d all ord] 9 ! _w z if x _h orig9at$ 9 ! purpose ( a ,supreme ,reason4 ,su* a pr9ciple op5s out to our ,reason1 z appli$ 9 ! field ( exp]i5ce1 altoge!r new views z to h[ ! ?+s ( ! _w may be connect$ accord+ to teleological laws1 & s enables x to arrive at _! greate/ sy/ematic unity4 ,! assumption ( a ,supreme ,intellig5ce1 z ! "o & only cause ( ! univ]se1 ?\gh 9 ! ,idea alone1 c !re=e always b5efit ,reason & c nev] injure x40#afhj ,= s long z ?is assumption is employ$ only z a regulative pr9ciple1 ev5 error _c be really h>mful4 ,! wor/ t c happ5 is t :]e we expect$ a teleological connection1 a m]ely me*anical or physical "o is met )4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 we leave ! solid gr\nd ( exp]i5ce1 & use ! assumption to expla9 :at we are unable to acc\nt = 9 empirical t]ms1 we sacrifice all real insight1 & conf\nd ,reason by trans=m+ a concept1 :i* is an?ropomorphically det]m9$ = ! purposes ( empirical ori5tation1 into a means ( expla9+ ord] z non-natural & z impos$ f )\t on ! mat]ial basis ( ?+s4 ,?is is a po9t ( suffici5t importance to call = m detail$ /atem5t4 ,hume 9 8 ,dialogues po9ts out t ! ma9 defect 9 ! teleological pro( ( ,god's exi/5ce is its assumption t ord] & design are =eign to ! inh]5t con/itution ( ?+s1 & mu/ be ( non-natural orig94 ,! argum5t is !re=e weak5$ by e advance 9 ! natural sci5ces4 ,x also runs directly c\nt] to ! v ph5om5a1 ^? ( animal life1 ^u :i* x is *iefly bas$1 s9ce ! ma9 *>act]i/ic ( ! organic 9 its di/9ction f ! inorganic is its inn] weal? ( productive & reproductive p[]s4 ,) ^! criticisms ,kant is 9 entire agreem5t4 ,f !m1 9 ! passage be=e u1 he d]ives an argum5t 9 support ( a /rictly regulative int]pretation ( 8 8als ob0 doctr9e4 ,! av[$ int5tion ( ! teleological argum5t is to prove f nature ! exi/5ce ( an intellig5t supreme cause4 ,if !re=e its /&po9t be held to ) m consi/5cy ?an its own def5d]s h hi!rto %[n1 x w be f\nd to re/ ^u ! regulative pr9ciple1 t we mu/ /udy nature z if an inh]5t ord] 7 native to x1 & s seek to approa* by degrees1 9 proportion z su* natural unity is empirically discov]$1 ! absolute p]fection :i* inspires our rese>*es4 ,b if we trans=m our ,ideal into an in/rum5t ( explanation1 beg9n+ ) :at ought prop]ly to be only our goal1 we delude ourselves ) ! belief t :at c only be acquir$ ?r\gh ! sl[ & t5tative lab\rs ( empirical enquiry is already 9 our possession4 8,if ,i beg9 ) a supreme purposive ,be+ z ! gr\nd ( all ?+s1 ! unity ( nature is really surr5d]$1 z be+ q =eign & accid5tal to ! nature ( ?+s1 & z n to be kn[n f its own g5]al laws4 ,!re ?us arises a vici\s circle3 we are assum+ j t v po9t :i* is ma9ly 9 dispute40#afha ,su* a me?od ( argum5t is self-de/ructive1 s9ce if we d n f9d ord] & p]fection 9 ! nature ( ?+s1 & !re=e 9 _! g5]al & necess>y laws1 we are n 9 a position to inf] su* a ,be+ z ! s\rce ( all causality4 ,to ! "q :e!r we may n int]pret natural ord]1 once x has be5 discov]$ by empirical inve/igation1 z due to ! div9e w1 ,kant replies t su* proc$ure is all[able only on ! condition t x is ! same to u :e!r we say t ,god has wisely will$ x or t nature has wisely arrang$ x4 ,we may admit ! ,idea ( a ,supreme ,be+ only 9 s f> z x is requir$ by ,reason z ! regulative pr9ciple ( all inve/igation ( nature2 8444& we _c1 !re=e1 )\t contradict+ ourselves1 ignore ! g5]al laws ( nature 9 view ( :i* ! ,idea 0 adopt$1 & look ^u ! purposiv5ess ( nature z cont+5t & hyp]-physical 9 its orig94 ,= we 7 n ju/ifi$ 9 assum+ above nature a ,be+ ( ^? qualities1 b only 9 adopt+ ! ,idea ( x 9 ord] to be able to view ! appe>ances1 accord+ to ! analogy ( a causal det]m9ation1 z sy/ematically connect$ ) "o ano!r40#afhb 8,?us pure ,reason1 :i* at fir/ seem$ to promise no?+ less ?an ! ext5sion ( k beyond all limits ( exp]i5ce1 conta9s1 if prop]ly und]/ood1 no?+ b regulative pr9ciples44440#afhc ,,conclud+ ,,comm5t ,,on ,,! ,,dialectic ,i may n[ summ>ise ,kant's answ] to ! ?ree ma9 que/ions ( ! ,dialectic3 7#a7 ,:e!r1 or 9 :at degree1 ! s-call$ ,ideas ( ,reason are concepts due to a faculty altoge!r di/9ct f ! und]/&+1 & h[ f>1 z ?us orig9at+ 9 pure ,reason1 !y all[ ( def9ition2 7#b7 h[ f> !y are capable ( a transc5d5tal d$uction2 7#c7 :at k9d ( objective validity ?is d$uction proves !m to possess4 ,^! que/ions are closely int]connect$2 ! solution ( any "o det]m9es ! k9d ( solution to be giv5 to all ?ree4 ,kant1 z we h f\nd1 develops 8 f9al position ?r\gh a s]ies ( v subtle di/9ctions by :i* he contrives to ju/ify & reta91 ?\gh 9 a highly modifi$ =m1 ! m crudely /at$ divisions betwe5 ,ideas & categories1 betwe5 ,reason & und]/&+1 ^u :i* ! initial argum5t ( ! ,dialectic is bas$4 ,! answ] am\nts 9 ess5tials to ! conclusion t und]/&+1 9 direct+ itself by means ( ,ideals1 ex]cises a function s di/9ct f t :]eby x conditions concrete & specific exp]i5ce1 t x may well receive a sep>ate title2 t ! ,ideas 9 t]ms ( :i* x con/ructs ^! ,ideals1 ?\gh s*ematic 7i4e4 s5su\s & empirical 9 cont5t71 are n !mselves empirical1 & s f> f be+ m]ely ext5d$ concepts ( und]/&+1 express transc5d5tal conditions ^u :i* all use ( ! und]/&+ re/s4 ,n[ if ?is position is to be ju/ifi$1 ,kant ought to %[ t ! fundam5tal ,idea ( ,reason1 t ( ! uncondition$1 is altoge!r di/9ct f any concept ( ! und]/&+1 & 9 p>ticul> t x mu/ n be id5tifi$ ) ! category ( totality1 nor be view$ z be+ m]ely ! concept ( condition$ exi/5ce ) its v>i\s empirical limitations ?\ght away4 ,ne$less to say1 ,kant does n fulfil ^! requirem5ts 9 any consi/5t mann]4 ,! ,critique conta9s ! mat]ial = a v>iety ( diff]5t solutions2 x does n def9itively commit itself to any "o ( !m4 ,if ! argum5t ( ,a #fej ff4 ,b #fgh ff4 7 develop$ we %\ld be 9 possession ( :at may be call$ ! ,ideali/ solution4 ,x w\ld proce$ some:at z foll[s4 ,consci\sness z su* is always ! aw>5ess ( a :ole :i* prec$es & conditions its p>ts4 ,su* consci\sness _c be acc\nt$ = on ! assumption t we are fir/ consci\s ( ! condition$1 & !n proce$ to remove limitations & to =m = ourselves1 by means ( ! m positive factors involv$ 9 ?is antec$5t consci\sness1 an ,idea ( ! totality )9 :i* ! giv5 falls4 ,! ,idea ( ! uncondition$1 di/9ct f all concepts ( und]/&+1 is "o ( ! a priori conditions ( possible exp]i5ce1 & is capable ( a transc5d5tal d$uction ( equal validity )1 & ( ! same g5]al nature z1 t ( ! categories4 ,x is presuppos$ 9 ! possibility ( our cont+5tly giv5 exp]i5ce4 ,z ?is ,idea conditions all subord9ate concepts1 x _c be def9$ 9 t]ms ( !m4 ,t does n1 h[ev]1 deprive x ( all mean+2 its significance is ( a unique k9d2 x f9ds expression 9 ^? ,ideals :i*1 :ile guid+ ! m9d 9 ! con/ruction ( exp]i5ce1 also s]ve z ! crit]ia ?r\gh :i* exp]i5ce is condemn$ z only ph5om5al4 ,b ?is1 z we h f\nd1 is n a l9e ( argum5t :i* ,kant has develop$ 9 any detail4 ,! passages :i* po9t to x occur *iefly 9 ! introductory portions ( ! ,dialectic2 9 its lat] sections !y are bo? brief & scanty4 ,:5 he sets himself1 z 9 ! *apt] on ! ,ideal ( ,pure ,reason & 9 ! subsequ5t ,app5dix1 to def9e 8 conclusions1 x is a mu* m empirical1 & inde$ sceptical1 l9e t he almo/ inv>iably foll[s4 ,!re are1 he !n decl>es1 /rictly no pure1 a priori ,ideas4 ,! suppos$ ,ideas ( uncondition$ness & ( absolute necessity are discov]$ on exam9ation to be )\t ! lea/ significance = ! m9d4 ,! ,ideas1 prop]ly def9$1 are m]ely s*emata ( regulative pr9ciples1 & _! :ole cont5t r$uces )\t rema9d] to su* categories z totality1 sub/ance1 causality1 necessity1 transc5d5tly appli$4 ,z ,ideas1 !y are !n )\t real mean+2 b !y c be employ$ by analogy to def9e an ,ideal :i* s]ves an indisp5sable function 9 ! ext5sion ( exp]i5ce4 ,f ?is po9t ( view1 ! transc5d5tal d$uction ( ! ,ideas is radically di/9ct f t ( ! categories4 ,! pro( is n t !y are necess>y = ! possibility ( exp]i5ce1 b only t !y are requir$ = its p]fect1 or at lea/ m complete1 developm5t4 ,& z ,kant is unable to prove t su* completion is really possible1 ! objective validity ( ! ,ideas is left op5 to "q4 ,!y %\ld be tak5 only z heuri/ic pr9ciples2 ! ext5t ( _! tru?1 ev5 9 ! empirical realm1 _c be det]m9$ by ! a priori me?od t is alone prop] to a ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4 ,! fir/ view is inspir$ by ! fundam5tal tea*+ ( ! ,analytic1 & is ! only view :i* w ju/ify ,kant 9 reta9+ 8 di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,all t is positive 9 ! second view c be comb9$ ) ! fir/ view2 b1 on ! o!r h&1 ! negative implications ( ! second view are at v>iance ) its own positive tea*+4 ,= :5 ! ,ideas are reg>d$ z empirical 9 orig9 no less ?an 9 function1 _! entire au?ority is d]iv$ f exp]i5ce1 & _c be reg>d$ z be+ transc5d5tal 9 any valid s5se ( t t]m4 ,9 alt]nat+ betwe5 ^! two int]pretations ( ! function ( ,reason1 ,kant is wav]+ betwe5 ! ,ideali/ & ! m]ely sceptical view ( ! scope & p[]s ( pure ?\ght4 ,on ! ,ideali/ int]pretation ,reason is a metaphysical faculty1 reveal+ to u ! ph5om5al "* ( exp]i5ce1 & outl9+ possibilities su* z may p]haps be e/abli%$ on moral gr\nds4 ,f ! sceptical /&po9t1 on ! o!r h&1 ,reason gives expression to :at may be only our subjective pref]5ce = unity & sy/em 9 ! ord]+ ( exp]i5ce4 ,accord+ to ! "o1 ! crit]ia ( tru? & reality are b\nd up ) ! ,ideas2 accord+ to ! o!r1 s5se-exp]i5ce is ! /&>d by :i* ! validity ev5 ( ! ,ideas mu/ ultimately be judg$4 ,f ! fact t ,kant %\ld h cont9u$ sympa!tically to develop two su* opposite /&po9ts1 we w\ld seem to be ju/ifi$ 9 conclud+ t he disc]n$1 or at lea/ desid]at$1 "s m complete reconciliation ( _! tea*+ ?an he has himself ?us f> be5 able to a*ieve1 & t no solution :i* w\ld ei!r subord9ate ! ,ideal dem&s ( ?\ght1 or ignore ! gifts ( exp]i5ce1 c\ld ev] h be5 def9itively accept$ by him z satisfactorily meet+ ! issues at /ake4 ,! ,ideali/ solution is t to :i* 8 tea*+ z a :ole mo/ decisively po9ts2 b he is z consci\s ( ! difficulties :i* lie 9 its pa? z he is p]sonally conv9c$ ( its ultimate tru?4 ,8 cont9u+ appreciation ( ! value ( sceptical tea*+ is a tacit admission t ! ,ideali/ doctr9es1 9 ! =m :i* he has s f> be5 able to give to !m1 are n really adequate to ! complexity ( ! problems4 ,z fur!r confirmation ( ! t5tative "* ( ,kant's conclusions 9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 we h 8 own lat] writ+s4 ,9 ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 publi%$ n9e ye>s lat]1 9 tea*+ less sceptical & m con/ructive1 ?\gh /ill delicately balanc$ betwe5 ! compet+ possibilities1 & always1 !re=e1 leav+ ! f9al decision to moral consid]ations1 ,kant v5tures ^u a re/atem5t ( ! problems ( ! ,dialectic4 ,to ?is re/atem5t bo? ( ! above t5d5cies contribute valuable elem5ts4 ,,app5dix ,a#afhd ,,transc5d5tal ,,doctr9e ,,( ,,me?ods ,,*apt] ,i ,,! ,,discipl9e#afhe ,,( ,,pure ,,reason ,kant is nei!r an intellectuali/ nor an anti-intellectuali/4 ,reason1 ! prop] duty ( :i* is to prescribe a discipl9e to all o!r endeav\rs1 itself requires discipl9e2 & :5 x is employ$ 9 ! metaphysical sph]e1 indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce1 x dem&s n m]ely ! correction ( s+le errors1 b ! eradication ( _! causes ?r\gh 8a sep>ate negative code10 su* z a ,critical philosophy c alone supply4 ,9 ! ,transc5d5tal ,doctr9e ( ,elem5ts ?is dem& has be5 met z reg>ds ! mat]ials or cont5ts ( ! ,critical sy/em2 we are n[ conc]n$ only ) its me?ods or =mal conditions4#afhf ,?is di/9ction is highly artificial4 ,z already indicat$1 x is det]m9$ by ! requirem5ts ( ,kant's ar*itectonic4 ,! entire tea*+ ( ! ,me?odology has already be5 m or less exhau/ively exp\nd$ 9 ! e>li] divisions ( ! ,critique4 ,,section ,i ,,! ,,discipl9e ,,( ,,pure ,,reason ,,9 ,,its ,,dogmatic ,,employm5t ,9 deal+ ) ! di/9ction betwe5 ma!matical & philosophical k1 ,kant is "h return+ to "o ( ! ma9 po9ts ( 8 ,introduction to ! ,critique4#afhg ,8 mo/ exhau/ive treatm5t ( x is1 h[ev]1 to be f\nd 9 a treatise :i* he wrote z e>ly z #agfd1 8 ,enquiry into ! ,cle>ness ( ! ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,!ology & ,morals4 ,! cont9u$ influ5ce ( ! tea*+ ( t e>ly "w is obvi\s ?r\gh\t ?is section1 & l>gely acc\nts = ! =m 9 :i* c]ta9 ( its t5ets are prop\nd$4 8444"o c say ) ,bi%op ,w>burton t no?+ has be5 m injuri\s to philosophy ?an ma!matics1 t is1 ?an ! imitation ( its me?od 9 a sph]e :]e x is impossible ( application44440#afhh ,s f> f be+ id5tical 9 g5]al nature1 ma!matics & philosophy are1 ,kant decl>es1 fundam5tally oppos$ 9 all ess5tial features4 ,= x is 9 _! me?ods1 & n m]ely 9 _! subject-matt]1 t ! ess5tial diff]5ce betwe5 !m is to be f\nd4#afhi ,philosophical k c be acquir$ only ?r\gh concepts1 ma!matical k is ga9$ ?r\gh ! con/ruction ( concepts4#afij ,! "o is discursive m]ely2 ! o!r is intuitive4 ,philosophy c consid] ! p>ticul> only 9 ! g5]al2 ma!matics /udies ! g5]al 9 ! p>ticul>4#afia ,philosophical concepts1 su* z ^? ( sub/ance & causality1 are1 inde$1 capable ( application 9 transc5d5tal syn!sis1 b 9 ?is employm5t !y yield only empirical k ( ! s5su\sly giv52 & f empirical concepts ! univ]sal & necess>y judgm5ts requir$ = ! possibility ( metaphysical sci5ce c nev] be obta9$4 ,! exactness ( ma!matics dep5ds on def9itions1 axioms1 & demon/rations1 none ( :i* are obta9able 9 philosophy4 ,to take ea* 9 ord]4 ,i4 ,def9itions4--,to def9e 9 ! mann] prescrib$ by ma!matics is to repres5t ! complete concept ( a ?+4 ,?is is nev] possible 9 reg>d to empirical concepts4 ,we are m c]ta9 ( _! d5otation ?an ( _! connotation2 & ?\gh !y may be expla9$1 !y _c be def9$4 ,s9ce new obs]vations add or remove pr$icates1 an empirical concept is always liable to modification4 8,:at useful purpose c\ld be s]v$ by def9+ an empirical concept1 su*1 = in/ance1 z t ( wat]8 ,:5 we speak ( wat] & its prop]ties1 we d n /op %ort at :at is ?\ght 9 ! ^w wat]1 b proce$ to exp]im5ts4 ,! ^w1 ) ! few m>ks :i* are atta*$ to x1 is m prop]ly to be reg>d$ z m]ely a designation ?an z a conception4 ,! s-call$ def9ition is no?+ m ?an a det]m9+ ( ! ^w40#afib ,exact def9ition is equally impossible 9 reg>d to a priori =ms1 su* z "t or causality4 ,s9ce !y are n fram$ by ! m9d1 b are giv5 to x1 ! complet5ess ( our analysis ( !m c nev] be gu>ante$4 ,?\gh !y are kn[n1 !y are kn[n only z problems4 8,z ,augu/9e has said1 #8,i "k well :at "t is1 b if any "o asks me1 ,i _c tell4'0#afic ,ma!matical def9itions make concepts2 philosophical def9itions only expla9 !m4#afid ,philosophy _c1 !re=e1 imitate ma!matics by beg9n+ ) def9itions4 ,9 philosophy ! incomplete exposition mu/ prec$e ! complete2 def9itions are ! f9al outcome ( our enquiry1 & n z 9 ma!matics ! only possible beg9n+ ( its pro(s4 ,inde$1 ! ma!matical concept may be said to be giv5 by ! v process 9 :i* x is con/ructively def9$2 &1 z ?us orig9at+ 9 ! process ( def9ition1 x c nev] be errone\s4#afie ,philosophy1 on ! o!r h&1 sw>ms ) faulty def9itions1 :i* are none ! less s]viceable4 8,9 ma!matics def9ition belongs ad esse1 9 philosophy ad melius esse4 ,x is desirable to atta9 x1 b (t5 v difficult4 ,juri/s are /ill )\t a def9ition ( _! concept ( ,"r40#afif ,,ii4 ,axioms4--,?is p>agraph is extremely mislead+ z a /atem5t ( ,kant's view reg>d+ ! nature ( geometrical axioms4 ,9 /at+ t !y are self-evid5t1#afig he does n really mean to ass]t :at t phrase usually involves1 namely1 absolute a priori validity4 ,= ,kant ! geometrical axioms are m]ely descriptions ( c]ta9 de facto prop]ties ( ! giv5 intuition ( space4 ,!y h ! m]ely hypo!tical validity ( all propositions t ref] to ! cont+5tly giv54 ,= ev5 z a pure intuition1 space belongs to ! realm ( ! m]ely factual4#afih ,?is un-,critical opposition ( ! self-evid5ce ( geometrical axioms to ! syn!tic "* ( su* 8philosophical0 tru?s z ! pr9ciple ( causality is b\nd up ) ,kant's unreason$ conviction t space 9 ord] to be space at all1 mu/ be ,euclidean4#afii ,kant's ref]5ce 9 ?is p>agraph to ! propositions ( ari?metic is equally op5 to criticism4 ,= ?\gh he is m consi/5t 9 recognis+ _! syn!tic "*1 he /ill speaks z if !y c\ld be describ$ z self-evid5t1 i4e4 z imm$iately c]ta94 ,! cause ( ?is inconsi/5cy is1 ( c\rse1 to be f\nd 9 8 intuitional !ory ( ma!matical sci5ce4 ,ma!matical propositions are obta9$ ?r\gh intuition2 ^? ( philosophy call = an elaborate & difficult process ( transc5d5tal d$uction4 ,:5 mod]n ma!matical !ory rejects ?is intuitional view1 x is really ext5d+ to ma!matical concepts ,kant's own int]pretation ( ! function ( ! categories4 ,concepts condition ! possibility ( intuitional exp]i5ce1 & f9d 9 ?is condition+ p[] ! gr\nd ( _! objective validity4#agjj ,"h1 z 9 ! ,ae/hetic1#agja ,kant fails adequately to di/+ui% betwe5 ! problems ( pure & appli$ ma!matics4 ,,iii4 ,demon/rations4--,kant aga9 introduces 8 v unsatisfactory doctr9e ( ! con/ruction ( concepts3#agjb & he ev5 goes s f> z to ma9ta91 9 complete violation ( 8 own doctr9e ( transc5d5tal d$uction1 t :]e !re is no intuition1 !re c be no demon/ration4 ,apodictic propositions1 he decl>es1 are ei!r dogmata or ma!mata2 & ! =m] are beyond ! compet5ce ( ! human m9d4 ,b no soon] has he made ^! /atem5ts ?an he virtually )draws !m by add+ t1 ?\gh apodictic propositions _c be e/abli%$ directly f concepts1 !y c be indirectly prov$ by ref]5ce to some?+ purely cont+5t1 namely1 possible exp]i5ce4 ,?us ! pr9ciple ( causality c be apodictically prov$ z a condition ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,?\gh x may n be call$ a dogma1 x c be entitl$ a pr9ciple6 ,9 explanation ( ?is di/9ction1 :i* betrays a l+]+ reg>d = ! self-evid5t maxims ( rationali/ic tea*+1 ,kant adds t ! pr9ciple ( causality1 ?\gh a pr9ciple1 has itself to be prov$4 8444x has ! peculi>ity t x fir/ makes possible its own gr\nd ( pro(1 namely1 exp]i5ce44440#agjc ,?is1 z we h not$1#agjd is exactly :at ma!matical axioms mu/ also be able to d1 if !y are to e/abli% _! objective validity4 ,,section ,,ii ,,! ,,discipl9e ,,( ,,pure ,,reason ,,9 ,,its ,,polemical ,,employm5t ,?is section conta9s an admirable def5ce ( ! value ( scepticism4 8,ev5 poisons h _! use4 ,!y s]ve to c\nt]act o!r poisons g5]at$ 9 our sy/em1 & mu/ h a place 9 e complete ph>macopeia4 ,! objections aga9/ ! p]suasions & complac5cy ( our purely speculative ,reason arise f ! v nature ( ,reason itself1 & mu/ !re=e h _! own good use & purpose1 :i* ought n to be disda9$4 ,:y has ,provid5ce plac$ _m ?+s :i* are closely b\nd up ) our highe/ int]e/s s f> beyond our rea*1 t we are only p]mitt$ to appreh5d !m 9 a mann] lack+ 9 cle>ness & subject to d\bt1 9 su* fa%ion t our enquir+ gaze is m excit$ ?an satisfi$8 ,x is at lea/ d\btful :e!r x s]ves any useful purpose1 & :e!r x is n1 inde$1 p]haps ev5 h>mful to v5ture ^u bold int]pretations ( su* unc]ta9 appe>ances4 ,b !re c be no mann] ( d\bt t x is always be/ to grant ,reason complete lib]ty1 bo? ( enquiry & ( criticism1 s t x may be )\t h9drance 9 att5d+ to its own prop] int]e/s4 ,^! int]e/s are no less fur!r$ by ! limitation ?an by ! ext5sion ( its speculations2 & !y w always suff] :5 outside influ5ces int]v5e to div]t x f its natural pa?1 & to con/ra9 x by :at is irrelevant to its own prop] ends40#agje 8,:5ev] ,i he> t a writ] ( real ability has demon/rat$ away ! fre$om ( ! human w1 ! hope ( a future life1 & ! exi/5ce ( ,god1 ,i am eag] to read ! book1 = ,i expect him by 8 tal5ts to increase my insight into ^! matt]s40#agjf ,,section ,,iv#agjg ,,! ,,discipl9e ,,( ,,pure ,,reason ,,9 ,,reg>d ,,to ,,its ,,pro(s#agjh ,?is section m]ely re/ates ! g5]al nature & requirem5ts ( transc5d5tal pro(4 ,! exposition is mu* less satisfactory ?an t already giv5 9 ! ,analytic & ,dialectic4 ,! only really new factor is ! di/9ction betwe5 apagogical & direct pro(4 ,! =m] may produce conviction1 b _c enable u to compreh5d ! gr\nds ( ! tru? ( our conviction4 ,also1 outside ma!matics1 x is extremely dang]\s to attempt to e/abli% a !sis by %[+ its contradictory to be impossible4#agji ,?is is especially true 9 ! sph]e ( our ,critical enquiries1 s9ce ! *ief dang] to be gu>d$ aga9/ is ! conf\nd+ ( ! subjectively necess>y ) ! indep5d5tly real4 ,9 ?is field ( inve/igation x is nev] p]missible to attempt to ju/ify a syn!tic proposition by refut+ its opposite4 ,su* seem+ pro(s c easily be secur$1 & h be5 ! fav\rite weapons ( dogmatic ?9k]s4 8,ea* mu/ def5d 8 position directly1 by a legitimate pro( t c>ries ) x transc5d5tal d$uction ( ! gr\nds ^u :i* x is itself made to re/4 ,only :5 ?is has be5 done1 are we 9 a position to decide h[ f> its claims all[ ( rational ju/ification4 ,if an oppon5t relies on subjective gr\nds1 x is an easy matt] to refute him4 ,! dogmati/ _c1 h[ev]1 pr(it by ?is advantage4 ,8 own judgm5ts are1 z a rule1 no less dep5d5t ^u subjective influ5ces2 & he c himself 9 turn be simil>ly corn]$4 ,b if bo? p>ties proce$ by ! direct me?od1 ei!r !y w soon discov] ! difficulty1 nay1 ! impossibility1 ( %[+ reason = _! ass]tions1 & w be left ) no resort save to appeal to "s =m ( prescriptive au?ority2 or ! ,critique w ! m easily discov] ! illusion to :i* _! dogmatic proc$ure is due2 & pure ,reason w be compell$ to rel9qui% its exagg]at$ pret5sions 9 ! realm ( speculation1 & to )draw )9 ! limits ( its prop] t]ritory--t ( practical pr9ciples40#agaj ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,canon#agaa ,,( ,,pure ,,reason ,,section ,i ,,! ,,ultimate ,,end ,,( ,,! ,,pure ,,use ,,( ,,our ,,reason#agab ,! problems ( ! exi/5ce ( ,god1 ! fre$om ( ! w1 & ! immortality ( ! s\l h1 ,kant decl>es1 little !oretical int]e/4 ,=1 z he has already argu$1 ev5 if we 7 ju/ifi$ 9 po/ulat+ ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality1 !y w\ld n enable u to acc\nt = ! ph5om5a ( s5se-exp]i5ce1 ! only objects ( possible k4 ,b ! ?ree problems are also connect$ ) our practical int]e/s1 & 9 t ref]5ce !y con/itute ! *ief subject ( metaphysical enquiry4#agac ,! practical is :atev] is possible ?r\gh fre$om2 & ! decision z to :at we ought to d is ! supreme int]e/ ( pure ,reason 9 its highe/ employm5t4 8444! ultimate int5tion ( ,nature 9 h] wise provision = u has inde$1 9 ! con/itution ( our ,reason1 be5 direct$ to our moral int]e/s alone40#agad ,?is is ! position :i* ,kant endeav\rs to e/abli% 9 8 ,f\ndations ( ! ,metaphysics ( ,morals1 & 9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason4 ,! v brief outl9e :i* he "h gives ( 8 argum5t is necess>ily incomplete2 & is 9 consequ5ce some:at mislead+4 ,he fir/ disposes ( ! problem ( fre$om2 & does s 9 a mann] :i* %[s t he _h n1 :5 ?is section 0 compos$1 develop$ 8 ,critical views on ! nature ( moral fre$om4 ,he is = ! pres5t cont5t to draw a q un-,critical di/9ction betwe5 transc5d5tal & practical fre$om4#agae ,! latt] belongs to ! w 9 s f> z x is det]m9$ by ,reason alone1 indep5d5tly ( s5su\s impulses4 ,reason prescribes objective laws ( fre$om1 & ! w "u ! influ5ce ( ^! laws ov]comes ! affections ( s5se4 ,su* practical fre$om c1 ,kant ass]ts1 be prov$ by exp]i5ce to be a natural cause4 ,transc5d5tal fre$om1#agaf on ! o!r h&1 i4e4 ! p[] ( mak+ a new beg9n+ 9 ! s]ies ( ph5om5a1 is a problem :i* c nev] be empirically solv$4 ,x is a purely speculative "q ) :i* ,reason 9 its practical employm5t is n 9 ! lea/ conc]n$4 ,! canon ( pure ,reason has !re=e to deal only ) ! two rema9+ problems1 ,god & immortality4 ,comm5t ^u ^! ass]tions c be/ be made 9 connection ) ! argum5t ( ! next section4#agag ,,section ,,ii ,,! ,,ideal ,,( ,,! ,,highe/ ,,good1 ,,z ,a ,,det]m9+ ,,gr\nd ,,( ,,! ,,ultimate ,,end ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#agah ,reason 9 its speculative employm5t transc5ds exp]i5ce1 b solely = ! sake ( exp]i5ce4 ,9 o!r words1 speculative ,reason has a purely empirical function4 7,?is is ! explanation ( ! some:at p>adoxical cont5tion1 to :i* ,kant has already committ$ himself1 t ! problems ( ,god & immortality1 ?\gh seem+ly speculative 9 "*1 really orig9ate 9 our practical int]e/s47 ,b pure ,reason has also a practical use2 & x is 9 ?is latt] employm5t t x fir/ discloses ! g5u9ely metaphysical "* ( its pres5t con/itution & ultimate aims4 ,! moral consci\sness1 9 reveal+ to u an ,ideal ( absolute value1 places 9 our h&s ! only available key to ! my/]ies ( exi/5ce4 ,z ?is moral consci\sness repres5ts ! deepe/ reality ( human life1 x may be expect$ to h great] metaphysical significance ?an any?+ else 9 human exp]i5ce2 & s9ce ! ends :i* x reveals also pres5t !mselves z absolute 9 value1 & are inde$ ! only absolute values ( :i* we c =m any conception1 ?is conclusion w\ld seem to be confirm$4 ,happ9ess has natural value2 morality1 i4e4 ! be+ wor?y to be happy1 has absolute value4 ,! means ( atta9+ ! =m] obta9 expression 9 prud5tial or pragmatic laws t are empirically gr\nd$4 ,! conditions ( ! latt] are embodi$ 9 a categorical imp]ative ( an a priori "*4 ,! =m] advise u h[ be/ to satisfy our natural desire = happ9ess2 ! latt] dictates to u h[ we mu/ behave 9 ord] to des]ve happ9ess4 ,kant's fur!r argum5t is too cond5s$ to be really cle>1 & if adequately discuss$ w\ld c>ry u q beyond ! legitimate limits ( ?is ,comm5t>y4 ,i %all !re=e conf9e myself to a brief & free re/atem5t ( 8 g5]al position4 ,! ,critical tea*+ c be describ$ z result+ 9 a new int]pretation ( ! function ( philosophy4#agai ,! task ( ! philosoph]1 prop]ly view$1 does n consi/ 9 ! solution ( speculative problems2 su* problems transc5d our human p[]s4 ,all t philosophy c reasonably attempt is to analyse & def9e ! situations1 cognitive & practical1 9 :i*1 ow+ to ! specific conditions ( human exi/5ce1 we f9d ourselves to be plac$4 ,^u analysis ( ! cognitive situation ,kant discov]s t :ile all possibilities are op51 ! !oretical data are nev] su* z to ju/ify ontological ass]tions4#agbj ,:51 h[ev]1 he passes to ! practical situation1 wid] horizons1 def9itely outl9$1 at once pres5t !mselves4 ,! moral consci\sness is ! key to ! mean+ ( ! entire univ]se z well z ( human life4 ,its values are ! sole ultimate values1 & enable u to int]pret 9 moral t]ms 7ev5 ?\gh we _c compreh5d 9 any g5u9ely !oretical fa%ion7 ! mean+ ( ! disp5sation "u :i* we live4 ,! moral consci\sness1 l s5se-exp]i5ce1 discloses ^u exam9ation a sy/ematic unity ( presuppos$ conditions4 ,9 ! !oretical sph]e ?is unity _c be prov$ to be m ?an a po/ulat$ ,ideal ( empirical exp]i5ce2 & x is an ,ideal :i*1 ev5 if grant$ to h absolute validity1 is too indef9ite to enable u to ass]t t ultimate reality is spiritual 9 "*1 or is teleologically ord]$4 ,! und]ly+ conditions1 on ! o!r h&1 ( practical exp]i5ce h f ! />t a purely n\m5al ref]5ce4 ,!y h no o!r function ?an to def9e1 9 t]ms ( ! moral consci\sness1 ! ultimate mean+ ( reality z a :ole4 ,!y po/ulate#agba a univ]se 9 :i* ! values ( spiritual exp]i5ce are support$ & cons]v$4 ,b ! ma9 diff]5ce 9 ,kant's treatm5t ( ! two situations1 cognitive & practical1 only em]ges into view :5 we recognise ! diff]+ modes 9 :i* ! transc5d5tal me?od ( pro( is appli$ 9 ! two cases4 ,! a priori =ms ( s5sibility1 und]/&+1 & ,reason are prov$ by ref]5ce to possible exp]i5ce1 z be+ its indisp5sable conditions4 ,9 moral matt]s1 h[ev]1 we mu/ n appeal to exp]i5ce4 ,! actual is no te/ ( ! ,ideal2 8:at is0 is no te/ ( :at ought to be4 ,& secondly1 ! moral law1 if valid at all1 mu/ apply n m]ely )9 ! limits ( exp]i5ce1 b ) absolute univ]sality to all rational be+s4 ,! moral law1 !re=e1 c nei!r be giv5 u 9 exp]i5ce1 nor be prov$ z "o ( ! conditions necess>y to its possibility4 ,its validity1 9 o!r words1 c be e/abli%$ nei!r ?r\gh exp]i5ce nor ?r\gh !oretical reason4 ,?\gh su* is ,kant's own me?od ( =mulat+ ! issue1 x exagg]ates ! diff]5ce ( 8 proc$ure 9 ! two ,critiques1 & is v mislead+ z a /atem5t ( 8 real position4 ,9 "o passage1 9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1#agbb ,kant does1 inde$1 ass]t t ! moral law requires no d$uction4 ,x is1 he claims1 a fact ( :i* we are a priori consci\s3 s f> f itself requir+ pro(1 x enables u to prove ! reality ( fre$om4 ,yet 9 ! v same section he argues t ! d$uction ( fre$om f ! moral law is a cr$5tial ( ! latt]1 & is a suffici5t sub/itute = all a priori ju/ification4 ,accord+ to ! fir/ /atem5t we h an imm$iate consci\sness ( ! validity ( ! moral law2 accord+ to ! second /atem5t ! moral law proves itself indirectly1 by s]v+ z a pr9ciple = ! d$uction ( fre$om4 ,! second =m ( /atem5t alone h>monises ) ! argum5t develop$ 9 ! ?ird section ( ! ,f\ndations ( ! ,metaphysics ( ,morals1 & m correctly expresses ! int5tion ( ,kant's c5tral argum5t 9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason4 ,= ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! two transc5d5tal pro(s 9 ! two ,critiques does n really consi/ 9 any div]sity ( me?od1 b solely 9 ! diff]+ "* ( ! premisses f :i* ea* />ts4 ,! ambiguity ( ,kant's argum5t 9 ! second ,critique seems *iefly to be caus$ by 8 failure cle>ly to recognise t ! moral law1 ?\gh a =m ( pure ,reason1 ex]cises1 9 ! process ( its transc5d5tal pro(1 a function :i* exactly corresponds to t :i* is dis*>g$ by possible exp]i5ce 9 ! fir/ ,critique4 ,our consci\sness ( ! moral law is1 l s5se-exp]i5ce1 a giv5 fact4 ,x is de facto1 & _c be d$uc$ f any?+ m ultimate ?an itself4#agbc ,b z giv51 x enables u to d$uce its transc5d5tal conditions4 ,?is does n mean t our imm$iate consci\sness ( x z giv5 gu>antees its validity4 ,! nature ( its validity is e/abli%$ only 9 ! process :]eby x reveals its necess>y implications4 ,! objects ( s5se-exp]i5ce are assum$ by ord9>y consci\sness to be absolutely real2 9 ! process ( e/abli%+ ! transc5d5tal conditions ( su* exp]i5ce !y are discov]$ to be m]ely ph5om5al4 ,! pure pr9ciples ( und]/&+ ?us ga9 objective validity z ! conditions ( a giv5 exp]i5ce :i* reveals only appe>ances4 ,ord9>y consci\sness simil>ly />ts f ! assumption ( ! absolute validity ( ! moral law4 ,b 9 ?is case ! consci\sness ( ! law is discov]$ on exam9ation to be explicable1 ev5 z a possibility1 only on ! assumption t x is due to ! autonom\s activity ( a n\m5al be+4 ,by its exi/5ce x proves ! conditions ?r\gh :i* alone x is explicable4 ,its m]e exi/5ce suffices to prove t its validity is objective 9 a deep] & tru] s5se ?an ! pr9ciples ( und]/&+4 ,! notion ( fre$om1 & !re=e all ! connect$ ,ideas ( pure ,reason1 ga9 n\m5al reality z ! conditions ( a moral consci\sness :i* is incapable ( explanation z illusory or ev5 ph5om5al4 ,s9ce ! consci\sness ( ! moral law is ?us n\m5ally gr\nd$1 x has a validity ) :i* no?+ 9 ! ph5om5al _w c possibly comp>e4 ,x is ! "o =m 9 :i* n\m5al reality directly discloses itself to ! human m9d4#agbd ,obvi\sly ! ess5tial crux ( ,kant's argum5t lies 9 ! pro( t ! moral consci\sness is only explicable 9 ?is mann]1 z ! self-legislation ( a n\m5al be+4 ,into ! m]its ( 8 argum5t we _c1 h[ev]1 "h ent]2 & ,i ne$ only draw att5tion to ! mann] 9 :i* x conflicts ) ! /atem5t ( ! prec$+ section1 t ! possibility ( transc5d5tal fre$om is a purely speculative "q ) :i* practical ,reason is n conc]n$4 ,! reality ( fre$om1 z a =m ( n\m5al activity1 is ! c>d9al fact ( ,kant's metaphysics ( morals4 ,= ?\gh our consci\sness ( ! moral law is ! ratio cognosc5di ( fre$om1 transc5d5tal fre$om is ! ratio ess5di ( ! moral law4#agbe 8,) ?is faculty ( practical ,reason1 transc5d5tal fre$om is also e/abli%$2 fre$om1 namely1 9 t absolute s5se 9 :i* speculative ,reason requir$ x1 9 its use ( ! concept ( causality1 9 ord] to escape ! ant9omy into :i* x inevitably falls1 :5 9 ! *a9 ( cause & effect x tries to ?9k ! uncondition$4444 ,fre$om is ! only "o ( all ! ,ideas ( ! speculative ,reason ( :i* we "k ! possibility a priori 7)\t1 h[ev]1 und]/&+ x71 because x is ! condition ( ! moral law :i* we "k40#agbf 0,fre$om is ! only "o ( all ! ,ideas ( pure ,reason ^: object is a ?+ ( fact & to be reckon$ among ! scibilia40#agbg 8,x is ?us v rem>kable t ( ! ?ree pure rational ,ideas1 ,god1 fre$om1 & immortality1 t ( fre$om is ! only concept ( ! sup]s5sible :i* 7by means ( ! causality t is ?\ght 9 x7 proves its objective reality 9 nature by means ( ! effects x c produce !re2 & ?us r5d]s possible ! connection ( bo? ! o!rs ) nature1 & ( all ?ree ) "o ano!r s z to =m a ,religion4444 ,! concept ( fre$om 7z fundam5tal concept ( all uncondition$ practical laws7 c ext5d ,reason beyond ^? b\nds )9 :i* e natural 7!oretical7 concept mu/ inevitably rema9 conf9$40#agbh ,?us fre$om is = ,kant a demon/rat$ fact1 & 9 t respect diff]s f ! ,ideas ( ,god & immortality1 :i* are m]ely problematic conceptions1 & :i* c be po/ulat$ only z articles ( 8practical fai?40 ,?is br+s u to ! f9al "q1 ^u :at gr\nds ,kant ascribes validity to ! ,ideas ( ,god & immortality4 ,at ?is po9t 9 8 argum5t ,kant introduces ! conception ( ! ,summum ,bonum4 ,reason1 9 prescrib+ ! moral law1 prescribes1 z ! f9al & complete end ( all our actions1 ! ,summum ,bonum1 i4e4 happ9ess proportion$ to moral wor?4 ,ow+ to ! limitations ( our faculties1 ! complete atta9m5t ( ?is supreme end is conceivable by u only on ! assumption ( a future life :]e9 p]fect wor?9ess may be atta9$1 & ( an omnipot5t ,div9e ,be+ :o w apportion happ9ess 9 accordance ) m]it4 0,?is ,div9e ,be+ mu/ be omnipot5t1 9 ord] t ! :ole ( nature & its relation to morality 444 may be subject to 8 w2 omnisci5t1 t he may "k our inn]mo/ s5tim5ts & _! moral wor?2 omnipres5t1 t he may be imm$iately pres5t = ! satisfy+ ( e ne$ :i* ! highe/ good dem&s2 et]nal1 t ?is h>mony ( nature & fre$om may nev] fail1 etc40#agbi ,! moral ideal ?us supplies u ) a gr\nd#agcj = reg>d+ ! univ]se z sy/ematically ord]$ accord+ to moral purposes1 & also ) a pr9ciple t enables u to inf] ! nature & prop]ties ( its ,supreme ,cause4 ,9 place ( a demonology1 :i* is all t physical !ology c e/abli%1 we con/ruct ^u moral gr\nds a g5u9e !ology4 ,! concepts ?us obta9$ are1 h[ev]1 an?ropomorphic2 & = t reason alone mu/ be d5i$ all speculative value4 ,?is is especially evid5t 9 reg>d to ! ,idea ( ,god4 ,ow+ to our incapacity to compreh5d h[ moral m]it c condition happ9ess1 we conceive !m z ext]nally comb9$ ?r\gh ! int]v5tion ( a supreme ,judge & ,rul]4 ,z ,kant indicates1#agca we mu/ n ass]t t ?is repres5ts ! actual situation4 ,he himself seems to h incl9$ to a m my/ical int]pretation ( ! univ]se1 conceiv+ ! relation ( happ9ess to virtue z be+ gr\nd$ 9 a sup]s5su\s b necess>y ord] t may1 inde$1 be bodi$ =? 9 ! inadequate symbols ( ! dei/ic cre$1 b :i* 9 its true nature transc5ds our p[]s ( und]/&+4 ,s f> z ! ,ideas ( ,god & immortality are necess>y to def9e ! moral /&po9t1 !y h g5u9e validity = all moral be+s2 b if develop$ on _! own acc\nt z speculative dogmas1 !y acquire a def9it5ess ( =mulation :i* is n ess5tial to _! moral function1 & :i* lays !m op5 to suspicion ev5 9 _! legitimate use4 ,^! consid]ations also indicate ,kant's fur!r reason = entitl+ ! ,summum ,bonum1 ,god & immortality1 ,ideas ( fai?4 ,?\gh !y c be e/abli%$ z presuppositions ( ! moral situation 9 :i* we f9d ourselves1 su* demon/ration itself re/s ^u ! acceptance ( ! moral consci\sness z possess+ a sup]s5su\s sanction2 & t 9 turn is det]m9$ by features 9 ! moral situation n d$ucible f any high] ord] ( consid]ations4 8,belief 9 matt]s ( fai? is a belief 9 a pure practical po9t ( view1 i4e4 a moral fai?1 :i* proves no?+ = !oretical1 pure1 rational cognition1 b only = t :i* is practical & direct$ to ! fulfilm5t ( its duties2 x 9 no way ext5ds speculation4444 ,if ! supreme pr9ciple ( all moral laws is a po/ulate1 ! possibility ( its highe/ ,object 444 is !reby po/ulat$ along ) x40#agcb 8,s f>1 z practical ,reason has ! "r to yield u guidance1 we %all n look ^u actions z obligatory because !y are ! comm&s ( ,god1 b %all reg>d !m z div9e comm&s because we h an inw>d obligation to !m4444 ,moral !ology is ?us ( imman5t use only4 ,x enables u to fulfil our vocation 9 ?is pres5t _w by %[+ u h[ to adapt ourselves to ! sy/em ( all ends1 & by w>n+ u aga9/ ! fanaticism & inde$ ! impiety ( ab&on+ ! guidance ( a morally legislative ,reason 9 ! "r conduct ( our lives1 9 ord] to d]ive guidance directly f ! ,idea ( ! ,supreme ,be+4 ,= we %\ld !n be mak+ a transc5d5t employm5t ( moral !ology2 & t1 l a transc5d5t use ( pure speculation1 mu/ p]v]t & fru/rate ! ultimate ends ( ,reason40#agcc ,,section ,,iii ,,op9+1 ,,kn[+1 ,,& ,,believ+#agcd ,kant fir/ di/+ui%es betwe5 conviction 7,ueb]zeugung7 & p]suasion 7,ueb]r$ung74 ,a judgm5t :i* is objectively gr\nd$1 & :i* is !re=e valid = all o!r rational be+s1 is affirm$ ) conviction4 ,:5 ! affirmation is due only to ! peculi> "* ( ! subject1 ! mann] 9 :i* x is ass]t$ may be entitl$ p]suasion4 ,p]suasion is !re=e 8a m]e illusion40#agce ,conviction exi/s 9 ?ree degrees1 op9ion1 belief1 & k4 ,9 op9ion we are consci\s t ! judgm5t is insuffici5tly gr\nd$1 & t our conviction is subjectively incomplete4 ,9 belief ! subjective conviction is complete1 b is recognis$ z lack+ 9 objective ju/ification4 ,9 k ! objective gr\nds & ! subjective conviction are alike complete4 ,aft] po9t+ out t op9ion is n p]missible 9 judgm5ts ( pure ,reason1#agcf ,kant develops ! fur!r di/9ction betwe5 pragmatic or doctr9al belief & moral belief4 ,:5 a belief is cont+5t 7i4e4 is affirm$ ) ! consci\sness t on full] k x may turn out to be false71 & yet nev]!less supplies a gr\nd = ! employm5t ( means to c]ta9 desir$ ends1 x may be call$ pragmatic belief4 ,su* belief admits ( degree1 & c be te/$ by wag] or by oa?4#agcg ,:at may be call$ doctr9al belief is analog\s 9 "*1 & is tak5 by ,kant1 9 some:at mislead+ fa%ion1 z describ+ our mode ( accept+ su* doctr9es z ! exi/5ce ( ,god & ! immortality ( ! s\l4#agch ,!y are adopt$ z helpful t[>ds a cont+5t b important end1 ! discov]y ( ord] 9 ! sy/em ( nature4 ,?is acc\nt ( ! nature ( ,ideas is 9 l9e ) ,kant's e>ly view ( !m z m]ely regulative4 ,tak5 9 connection ) 8 repeat$ employm5t ( ! t]m #8moral s5tim5ts' 7moralis*e ,ges9nung571 x t5ds to prove t ?is section is e>ly 9 date ( writ+4 ,9 moral belief ! end1 ! ,summum ,bonum1 is absolutely necess>y1 & z !re is only "o condition "u :i* we c conceive x z be+ realis$1 namely1 on ! assumption ( ! exi/5ce ( ,god & ( a future life1 ! belief 9 ,god & immortality possesses ! same c]ta9ty z ! moral s5tim5ts4 8,! belief 9 a ,god & ano!r _w is s int]wov5 ) my moral s5tim5t t z !re is little dang] ( my los+ ! latt]1 !re is equally little cause = fe> t ! =m] c ev] be tak5 f me40#agci ,z ,i h j sugge/$1 ?is bas+ ( moral belief ^u subjective s5tim5ts1 :i*1 z ,kant v inconsi/5tly proce$s to sugge/1 may possibly be lack+ 9 c]ta9 m51 m>ks ?is section z be+ ( e>ly orig94 ,b 9 conclud+ ! section1 9 reply to ! objection t1 9 ?us trac+ su* articles ( fai? to our 8natural int]e/0 9 morality1 philosophy admits its p[]lessness to advance beyond ! ord9>y und]/&+1 ,kant prop\nds "o ( 8 abid+ convictions1 namely1 t 9 matt]s :i* conc]n all m5 )\t di/9ction nature is n guilty ( any p>tial di/ribution ( h] gifts1 & t 9 reg>d to ! ess5tial ends ( human nature ! highe/ philosophy _c advance beyond :at is reveal$ to ! common und]/&+4#agdj ,! rev]5ce :i* ,kant ev] *]i%$ = ! memory ( 8 p>5ts1 & = ! religion :i* 0 s natural to !m1 mu/ h pr$ispos$ him to a recognition ( ! widespread s\rces ( ! spiritual life4 ,b ,kant has himself plac$ on record 8 s5se ( ! great debt :i* 9 ?is connection he also ow$ to ! tea*+ ( ,r\sseau4 8,i am by disposition an enquir]4 ,i feel ! consum+ ?ir/ = k1 ! eag] unre/ to advance ev] fur!r1 & ! delights ( discov]y4 ,!re 0 a "t :5 ,i believ$ t ?is is :at conf]s real dignity ^u human life1 & ,i despis$ ! common p :o "k no?+4 ,r\sseau has set me "r4 ,?is imag9$ advantage vani%es4 ,i le>n to honor m51 & %\ld reg>d myself z ( mu* less use ?an ! common lab\r]1 if ,i did n believe t my philosophy w re/ore to all m5 ! common rights ( humanity40#agda ,! sublimity ( ! />ry heav5s & ! imp]ative ( ! moral law are ev] pres5t influ5ces on ! life ( man2 & !y require = _! appreh5sion no previ\s initiation ?r\gh sci5ce & philosophy4 ,! nak$ eye reveals ! =m]2 ( ! latt] all m5 are imm$iately aw>e4#agdb ,9 _! univ]sal appeal !y are ( ! v sub/ance ( human exi/5ce4 ,philosophy may avail to c\nt]act ! h9drances :i* prev5t !m f ex]cis+ _! native influ5ce2 x _c be a sub/itute = ! inspiration :i* !y alone c yield4 ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,! ,,ar*itectonic ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#agdc ,adickes#agdd v ju/ly rem>ks t 8?is is a section aft] ,kant's own he>t1 9 :i* !re is pres5t$1 almo/ uns\ght1 ! opportunity1 :i* he else:]e s frequ5tly creates = himself1 ( indulg+ 9 8 fav\rite hobby40 ,! section is ( slight sci5tific importance1 & is *iefly ( int]e/ = ! light :i* x ca/s ^u ,kant's p]sonality4 ,moreov] ! di/9ctions :i* ,kant "h draws are = ! mo/ "p n 8 own philosophical prop]ty1 b are tak5 ov] f ! ,wolffian sy/em4 ,! di/9ctions may be exhibit$ 9 tabul> =m z foll[s3#agde ,,k ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ,hi/orical or empirical ,rational 7cognitio ex pr9cipiis7 7cognitio ex datis7 ---------------------------------------- --------------------- -----------,ma!- ,philosophical#agdf 7bas$ on pure concepts73--meta- matics1 physics 9 ! wide/ s5se4 ,empi-,empi-bas$ ---------------------------------------- --------------- ricalricalon ! ,prop- ,sy/em ( pure reason1 bo? practical & phys-an?-con/r-a$eu-speculative3 metaphysics 9 ! wid] s5se4 iolo-ropo-uction tic3 ---------------------------------------- -------- gy logy ( con-,cri- ,metaph-,metaphysics 79 a m limit$ s5se7 ( cepts4 tique4ysics nature1#agdg i4e4 ( all t is4 ( mor------------------------------------- ---- als1 i4e4,trans- ,physiology ( pure reason4 ( all c5d- -------------------------------- ought ental ,imman5t4 ,transc5d5t4 to be4 phil- ------------------------------- osophy ,rat- ,rat- ,cosmology ,!ology ( pureionalional reason3phy- psy*- ---------- ontol- sics4ology4,metaphysics 9 ! ogy4#agdh mo/ limit$ s5se4 ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ,kant fur!r di/+ui%es betwe5 ! 8s*ola/ic0 & ! 8univ]sal0 or traditional mean+ ( ! t]m philosophy4#agdi ,9 ! =m] s5se philosophy is view$ f ! po9t ( view ( its logical p]fection1 & ! philosoph] appe>s z an arti/ ( ,reason4#agej ,philosophy 9 ! broad] & high] s5se is 8! sci5ce ( ! relation ( all k to ! ess5tial ends ( human ,reason40#agea ,! philosoph] !n appe>s z ! lawgiv] ( human ,reason4 ,( ! ess5tial ends1 ! ultimate end is man's moral de/9y2 to ?is ! o!r ess5tial ends ( human ,reason are subord9ate means4 ,= ?\gh ! legislation ( human ,reason conc]ns nature z well z fre$om1 & has !re=e to be dealt ) by a philosophy ( nature1 i4e4 ( all t is1 z well z by a philosophy ( morals1 i4e4 ( t :i* ought to be1 ! =m] is subord9ate to ! latt] 9 ! same degree 9 :i* 9 human life k is subord9ate to moral action4 ,:]eas speculative metaphysics s]ves r to w>d (f errors ?an to ext5d k1#ageb 9 ! metaphysics ( morals 8all culture ,kultur ( human ,reason0#agec f9ds its indisp5sable completion4 ,empirical psy*ology is exclud$ f ! doma9 ( metaphysics4 ,x is de/9$ to =m "p ( a complete sy/em ( an?ropology1 ! p5dant to ! empirical doctr9e ( nature4#aged ,,*apt] ,,iv ,,! ,,hi/ory ,,( ,,pure ,,reason#agee ,?is title1 z ,kant /ates1 is ins]t$ only to m>k ! place ( ! pres5t *apt] 9 a complete sy/em ( pure reason4 ,! v cursory outl9e1 :i* alone ,kant "h attempts to give1 m]ely repeats ! ma9 hi/orical di/9ctions ( :i* ! ,critique has made use4 ,! contra/ betwe5 ! s5sationalism ( ,epicurus & ! intellectualism ( ,plato has be5 develop$ 9 ,a #dfe ff4 ,b #dic ff4#agef ,! contra/ betwe5 ,locke & ,leibniz is dwelt ^u 9 ,a #dc ff4 ,b #fj ff4 & ,a #bgj ff4 ,b #cbf ff4 ,"u ! title #8naturali/ ( pure ,reason' ,kant is ref]r+ to ! #8common s5se' s*ool1 :i* is typically repres5t$ by ,beattie4#ageg ,9 8 ,logic#ageh ,kant gives a full] acc\nt ( 8 int]pretation ( ! hi/ory ( philosophy4 ,,app5dix ,b ,a ,,m ,,detail$ ,,/atem5t ,,( ,,kant',s ,,relations ,,to ,,8 ,,philosophical ,,pr$ecessors#agei ,! developm5t ( philosophy1 prior to ,kant1 _h r5d]$ two problems especially prom95t--! problem ( s5se-p]ception & ! problem ( judgm5t4 ,! "o raises ! "q ( ! int]relation ( m9d kn[+ & objects kn[n2 ! o!r treats ( ! connection hold+ betwe5 subject & pr$icate 9 ! v>i\s =ms ( judgm5t4 ,! "o enquires h[ x is possible to "k reality2 ! o!r seeks to det]m9e ! crit]ion ( tru?4 ,^! two problems are1 z ,kant discov]$1 insep>able f "o ano!r2 & ! logical is ! m fundam5tal ( ! two4 ,inde$ x 0 ,hume's analysis ( ! judgm5t involv$ 9 ! causal pr9ciple t enabl$ ,kant to =mulate 8 ,critical solution ( ! problem ( p]ception4 ,9 ?is ,app5dix ,i propose to foll[ ^! problems z !y rise into view 9 ! sy/ems ( ,desc>tes & 8 successors4 ,galileo's revolution>y tea*+ reg>d+ ! nature ( motion 0 ! imm$iate occasion ( ,desc>tes' re/atem5t ( ! problem ( p]ception4 ,t tea*+ necessitat$ an entirely new view ( ! nature ( matt]1 & consequ5tly ( ! int]relation ( m9d & body4 ,que/ions nev] be=e s]i\sly ent]ta9$ n[ became press+4 ,! solutions _h to be z novel z ! situation :i* !y 7 design$ to meet4 ,^! new problems arose 9 ! foll[+ mann]4 ,accord+ to ! m$ieval view1 motion may prop]ly be conceiv$ on ! analogy ( human activity4 ,x comes into be+1 exhau/s itself 9 ex]cise1 & ceases to be4 ,x is a fleet+ activity2 only its 8mat]ial0 & 8=mal0 conditions h any p]man5ce ( exi/5ce4 ,accord+ to ,galileo's tea*+1 on ! o!r h&1 motion is z diff]5t f human activity z matt] is f m9d4 ,x is +5]able & inde/ructible4 ,we "k x only ?r\gh ! effect :i* 9 "s incompreh5sible fa%ion x produces 9 ^? bodies into :i* x ent]s1 namely1 _! translation f "o "p ( space to ano!r4 ,t ?is translatory motion is call$ by ! same "n z ! p[] :i* g5]ates x1 d\btless 9 "s degree acc\nts = ! fact t our und]/&+ ( ! "o t5ds to conceal f u our entire ignorance ( ! o!r4#agfj ,we h only to reflect1 h[ev]1 9 ord] to realise t motion is completely my/]i\s 9 its intr9sic dynamical nature4 ,we _c1 = in/ance1 pr(ess to compreh5d1 ev5 9 ! lea/ degree1 h[ motion1 ?\gh incapable ( exi/+ ap>t f matt]1 %\ld yet be suffici5tly indep5d5t to be able to pass f "o body to ano!r4 ,desc>tes1 foll[+ out "s ( ! *ief consequ5ces ( ?is new tea*+1 conclud$ t matt] is passive & in]t1 t x is di/+ui%$ nei!r by positive nor by negative prop]ties f ! space :i* x fills1 & t x is to motion t all ! articulat$ organisation ( animate & inanimate nature is due4 ,desc>tes fail$1 inde$1 to appreciate ! dynamical "* ( motion1 & by con/antly speak+ z if x 7 r$ucible to ! translatory motion1 9 :i* x manife/s itself1 he repres5t$ x z kn[n 9 all its ess5tial features4 ,none ! less1 ! rles previ\sly assign$ to matt] & motion are1 9 ,desc>tes' sy/em1 completely rev]s$4 ,matt] is subord9at$ to motion z ! in/rum5t to ! ag5cy by :i* x is direct$ & %ap$4 ,on ! old] view1 mat]ial bodies _h1 ?r\gh ! possession ( =mative & vital =ces1 all mann] ( intr9sic p[]s4 ,by ! new view ^! composite & nondescript exi/5ces are resolv$ into two elem5ts1 all ! prop]ties ( :i* c be quantitatively def9$--into a matt] :i* is uni=m & homog5e\s1 & into motion ^: sole effect is ! translation ( bodies 9 space4 ,matt] is ! passive & in]t sub/ance out ( :i* motion1 by its m]e me*anical p[]s1 c produce ! :ole range ( mat]ial =ms4 ,?is revolution>y *ange 9 ! physical /&po9t involv$ re/atem5t ( ! philosophical issues4 ,b ! result+ difficulties 7 f\nd ?or\ghly baffl+4 ,?\gh ,desc>tes & 8 successors 7 will+ to adopt any hypo!sis1 h[ev] p>adoxical1 :i* ! facts might seem to dem&1 _! !ories1 h[ev] modifi$ & re/at$1 l$ only deep] into a hopeless impasse4 ,! unsolv$ problems ( ! ,c>tesian sy/ems =m$ ! disc\rag+ h]itage to :i* ,kant fell heir4 ,if matt] is always purely mat]ial1 & motion is its sole organis+ p[]1 !re c be no real k9%ip betwe5 body & m9d4 ,! =mative & vital =ces1 :i* 9 ! ,s*ola/ic philosophy & 9 popul> ?\ght s]ve to ma9ta9 ! appe>ance ( cont9uity betwe5 matt] & m9d1 c no long] be cr$it$4 ,motion1 :i* alone is left to m$iate betwe5 ! opposites1 is purely me*anical1 & 7on ,desc>tes' view7 is entirely lack+ 9 inn] or hidd5 p[]s4 ,! animal body is exclusively mat]ial1 & is !re=e z incapable ( feel+ or consci\sness z any ma*9e made by human h&s4 ,! bodily s5ses are n #8s5sitive'2 ! bra9 _c ?9k4 ,m5tal exp]i5ces d1 ( c\rse1 accompany ! bra9-motions4 ,b :y a s5sation %\ld ?us arise :5 a p>ticul> motion is caus$ 9 ! bra91 or h[ a m5tal resolution c be foll[$ by a bra9 /ate1 are que/ions to :i* no satisfactory answ] c be giv54 ,! m5tal & ! mat]ial1 ! spiritual & ! me*anical1 fall entirely ap>t4 ,! difficulties aris+ out ( ?is incompreh5sibility ( ! causal int]relations ( m9d & body are n1 h[ev]1 9 !mselves a valid argum5t aga9/ a duali/ic int]pretation ( ! real4 ,! difficulties ( acc\nt+ = ! causal relation are1 9 ess5tial respects1 equally great ev5 :5 ! int]action is betwe5 homog5e\s exi/5ces4 ,! difficulties are due to ! nature ( causal action z su*1 n to ! "* ( ! bodies betwe5 :i* x holds4 ,?is1 inde$1 0 cle>ly recognis$ by ,desc>tes1 & 0 insi/$ ^u by 8 imm$iate successors4 ,! transf]5ce ( motion by impact is no less incompreh5sible ?an ! int]action ( s\l & body4 ,if motion c exi/ only 9 matt]1 !re is no possible me?od ( conceiv+ h[ x c make ! transition f "o discrete portion ( matt] to ano!r4 ,causal action is ?us a problem :i* no philosophy c pret5d to solve1 & :i* e philosophy1 :e!r moni/ic or duali/ic1 mu/ recognise z transc5d+ ! scope ( our pres5t k4 ,x is 9 ano!r & m special =m t ,desc>tes' dualism fir/ reveals its fatal defects1 namely1 9 its be>+ ^u ! problem ( s5se-p]ception4 ,desc>tes c solve ! problem ( k only by fir/ po/ulat+ ! doctr9e ( repres5tative p]ception4 ,t doctr9e is r5d]$ necess>y by ! dualism ( m9d & body4 ,objects c be kn[n only m$iately by means ( _! action ^u ! s5se-organs1 & ?r\gh ! s5se-organs ^u ! bra94 ,! result+ bra9 /ates are 9 !mselves m]ely =ms ( motion4 ,!y lead1 h[ev]1 9 a mann] :i* ,desc>tes nev] pr(esses to expla91#agfa to ! appe>ance ( s5sations 9 ! m5tal field4 ,out ( ^! s5sations ! m9d !n con/ructs m5tal images ( ! di/ant bodies2 & x is ^! m5tal images alone :i* are directly appreh5d$4 ,mat]ial bodies are invisible & intangible2 !y are kn[able only ?r\gh _! m5tal duplicates4 ,?us1 accord+ to ! doctr9e ( repres5tative p]ception1 ea* m9d is segregat$ 9 a _w ap>t4 ,x looks out ^u a l&scape :i* is z m5tal & z truly inw>d z are its feel+s & desires4 ,! app>5tly ultimate relation ( m9d kn[+ & object kn[n is r5d]$ complex & problematic ?r\gh ! di/9ction betwe5 m5tal objects & real ?+s4 ,m5tal objects are 9 all cases images m]ely4 ,!y exi/ only s long z !y are appreh5d$2 & !y are num]ically & exi/5tially di/9ct 9 ea* individual m9d4 ,real ?+s are n imm$iately p]ceiv$2 !y are hypo!tically inf]r$4 ,to ord9>y consci\sness ! body :i* acts on ! s5se-organ is ! object kn[n2 :5 reflective consci\sness is philosophically enlight5$1 ! object imm$iately kn[n is recognis$ z a m]ely m5tal image1 & ! ext]nal object s9ks to ! level ( an assum$ cause4 ,! p>adoxical "* ( ?is doctr9e is acc5tuat$ by ,galileo's di/9ction betwe5 prim>y & second>y qualities4#agfb ,^? physical processes1 :i* are entitl$ light & heat1 be> no resemblance to ! s5sations ?r\gh :i* !y become kn[n4 ,! _m-col\r$ _w ( ord9>y consci\sness is an illusory appe>ance :i* c exi/ only 9 ! human m9d4 ,we mu/ di/+ui% betwe5 ! s5sible _w :i*1 ?\gh purely m5tal1 appe>s1 ?r\gh an unavoidable illusion1 to be ext]nally real1 & t v diff]5t _w ( matt] & motion :i* reveals its indep5d5t nature only to reflective ?9k+4 ,9 ! latt] _w ! ri* v>iety ( s5su\s appe>ance c f9d no place4 ,!re rema9 only ! quantitative1 me*anical prop]ties ( ext5sion1 figure & motion2 & ev5 ^! h to be int]pret$ 9 ! revolution>y fa%ion ( physical sci5ce4 ,! doctr9e ( repres5tative p]ception _c1 h[ev]1 def5d successfully ! positions :i* x ?us involves4 ,x wav]s 9 un/able equilibrium4 ,! facts1 physical & physiological1 ^u :i* x is bas$1 are 9 conflict ) ! conclusions 9 :i* x results4 ,?is has be5 v cle>ly demon/rat$ by _m writ]s 9 rec5t times4#agfc ,! conflict manife/$ itself 9 ! p]iod betwe5 ,desc>tes & ,kant only ?r\gh ! uneasy que/ion+s ( ,locke & ,b]keley4 ,! problem1 fundam5tal ?\gh x be1 is almo/ completely ignor$ by ,sp9oza1 ,leibniz1 & ,wolff4 ,/at$ 9 mod]n t]ms1 ! inh]5tly contradictory "* ( ! doctr9e consi/s 9 its unavoidable alt]nation betwe5 ! reali/ attitude to :i* x owes its orig91 & ! ideali/ conclusion 9 :i* x issues4 ,su* oscillation is due to ! tw(old simultane\s relation 9 :i* x reg>ds ideas z /&+ to ! objects t !y are suppos$ to repres5t4 ,! function ( s5sations is cognitive2 _! orig9 is me*anical4 ,z cognitive !y /& to objects 9 a relation ( inclusion2 !y reveal ! objects1 r$uplicat+ !m 9 image be=e ! m9d4 ,yet 9 _! orig9 !y are effects1 me*anically g5]at$ by ! action ( mat]ial bodies ^u ! s5se-organs & bra94 ,z !y are effects me*anically g5]at$1 !re is no gu>antee t !y resemble _! causes2 & if we may argue f o!r =ms ( me*anical causation1 !re is little likelihood t !y d4 ,!y /& to _! fir/ causes 9 a relation ( exclusion1 sep>at$ f !m by a l>ge numb] ( v>y+ int]m$iate processes4 ,!re is ?us a conflict betwe5 ! function ( s5sations & _! orig94 ,_! orig9 9 ! ext]nal objects is suppos$ to conf] ^u !m a repres5tative p[]2 & yet ! v nature ( ?is orig9 invalidates any su* claim4 ,?is irreconcilability ( ! subjectivi/ consequ5ces ( ! doctr9e ) its reali/ basis 0 seiz$ ^u by ,b]keley4 ,to remove ! contradiction1 he d5i$ ! facts f :i* ! doctr9e _h be5 develop$4 ,t is to say1 />t+ f its results he disprov$ its premisses4 ,argu+ f ! physical & physiological conditions ( p]ception ,desc>tes _h conclud$ t only s5sations c be directly appreh5d$ by ! m9d4 ,b]keley />ts f ?is conclusion1 & virtually adopts x z an assumption :i* _c be que/ion$1 & :i* does n call = pro(4 ,s9ce1 he cont5ds1 we "k only s5sations1 ! ass]tion t !y are due to mat]ial causes is m]e hypo!sis1 & is "o = :i* !re may be no valid gr\nds4 ,z ,desc>tes himself _h already sugge/$1 !re is a second possible me?od ( int]pret+ ! relevant facts4 ,!re may exi/ an all-p[]ful ,be+ :o produces ! s5sations 9 our m9ds f mom5t to mom5t2 & provid$ t !y are produc$ 9 ! same ord] z n[1 ! :ole mat]ial _w might be annihilat$ )\t our be+ 9 ! lea/ aw>e t s important an ev5t _h tak5 place4 ,s9ce we c exp]i5ce only s5sations1 any hypo!sis :i* w acc\nt = ! ord] ( _! happ5+ is equally legitimate4 ,! :ole "q becomes "o ( relative simplicity 9 ! explanation giv54 ,! simpl] analysis1 o!r ?+s be+ equal1 mu/ hold ! field4 ,b]keley re9=ces ?is argum5t by po9t+ to ! _m emb>rass+ consequ5ces to :i* ,desc>tes' dualism mu/ lead4 ,we po/ulate bodies 9 ord] to acc\nt = ! orig9 ( our s5sations1 & yet are unable to d s by _! means4 ,! duali/ic !ory creates m difficulties ?an x solves1 )\t a s+le c\nt]-advantage1 save p]haps--s ,b]keley argues--t x seems to h>monise bett] ) ! traditional prejudices ( ! philosophic consci\sness4 ,if we grant ,b]keley 8 premisses1 ! ma9 l9es ( 8 argum5t are fairly cog5t1 h[ev] unconv9c+ may be 8 own positive views4 ,! crux1 h[ev]1 ( ! ,b]keleian idealism lies almo/ exclusively 9 ! e/abli%m5t ( its fundam5tal assumption1 t only ideas 7i4e4 images7 c be kn[n by ! m9d4 ,?is assumption ,b]keley1 almo/ )\t argum5t1 takes ov] f 8 pr$ecessors4 ,x 0 curr5tly accept$1 & f x1 !re=e1 he believ$ t he c\ld safely argue4 ,x re/s1 h[ev]1 ^u ! assumption ( facts :i* he himself que/ions4 ,9 reject+ ! ,c>tesian dualism he ca/s d[n ! ladd] by :i* alone x is possible to climb into 8 position4 ,= save ?r\gh ! facts ( physics & physiology !re seems to be no possible me?od ( disprov+ ! belief ( ord9>y consci\sness1 t 9 p]ception we appreh5d indep5d5t mat]ial bodies4 ,& until t belief c be %[n to be false & ungr\nd$1 ! ,b]keleian idealism is )\t support4 ,x _c e/abli% ! fundam5tal assumption ^u :i* its entire argum5t proce$s4 ,?us1 ?\gh ,b]keley conv9c+ly demon/rates ! int]nal incoh]5ce ( ! doctr9e ( repres5tative p]ception--! inconsi/5cy ( its conclusions ) ! physical & physiological facts ^u :i* alone x c be bas$--he _c himself solve ! problem 9 answ] to :i* t doctr9e 0 prop\nd$4 ,8 s]vices1 l ^? ( s _m o!r re=m]s1 7 su* z he did n himself =esee4 ,9 simplify+ ! problem1 he prep>$ ! way = ! m sceptical treatm5t ( its difficult issues by ,hume4 ,at ?is po9t1 9 ! philosophy ( ,hume1 ! problem ( p]ception comes into ! close/ possible connection ) ! logical problem1 ref]r$ to above4 ,! "q1 h[ m9d kn[+ is relat$ to ! objects kn[n1 is f\nd to dep5d ^u ! "q1 h[ 9 c]ta9 crucial cases pr$icates may legitimately be ref]r$ to _! subject4 ,?is logical problem arises 9 two =ms1 a n>r[] & a wid]4 ,! n>r[] issue conc]ns only ! pr9ciple ( causality4 ,) :at "r d we ass]t t e ev5t mu/ h a cause8 ,:at is ! gr\nd :i* ju/ifies u 9 ?us pr$icat+ ( ev5ts a causal "*8 ,obvi\sly1 ?is logical "q is fundam5tal1 & mu/ be answ]$ be=e we c hope to solve ! m special problem1 z to our "r to int]pret s5sations z effects ( mat]ial bodies4 ,hume 0 ! fir/ to emphasise ! vital int]connection ( ^! two l9es ( enquiry4 ,! wid] issue is ! g5]at+ problem ( ,kant's ,critique3 ,h[ 9 a judgm5t c a pr$icate be ass]t$ ( a subject 9 :i* x is n already involv$8 ,9 o!r words1 :at is x t 9 su* a case ju/ifies u 9 connect+ ! pr$icate ) ! subject8 ,?\gh ?is problem 0 nev] directly rais$ by any pre-,kantian ?9k]1 n ev5 by ,hume1 x is absolutely vital to all ! pre-,kantian sy/ems4 ,?us ,desc>tes' philosophy is bas$ ^u a di/9ction1 n[h]e explicitly drawn b ev]y:]e sil5tly assum$1 betwe5 ab/ract & fruitful ideas4 ,! =m] conta9 j s mu* cont5t & no m2 ?is cont5t may be explicitly unfold$ 9 a s]ies ( judgm5ts1 b no addition is !reby made to our k4 ,! latt]1 on ! o!r h&1 are end[$ ) an extraord9>y p[] ( inn] gr[?4 ,to ! att5tive m9d !y disclose a m>vell\s v>iety ( inn] mean+4 ,! *ief problem ( sci5tific me?od consi/s1 accord+ to ,desc>tes1 9 ! discov]y ( ^! fruitful ideas1 & 9 ! sep>ation ( !m f ! irrelevant accompanim5ts :i* prev5t !m f unfold+ _! inn] cont5t4 ,once !y are discov]$1 ! /eady progress ( k is assur$4 ,!y are ! spr+s ( k1 & f !m we h only to foll[ d[n ! wid5+ riv] ( tru?4 ,desc>tes pr(ess$ to give a complete li/ ( ! possible fruitful ideas4 ,!y are1 he claim$1 bett] kn[n ?an any o!r concepts4 ,!y lie at ! basis ( all exp]i5ce1 & no "o c possibly be ignorant ( !m2 ?\gh1 ow+ to _! simplicity & omnipres5ce1 _! philosophical importance has be5 ov]look$4 ,:51 h[ev]1 ,desc>tes proce$$ to classify !m1 he f\nd t :ile su* ideas z space1 triangle1 numb]1 motion1 conta9 an inexhau/ible cont5t t is progressively unfold$ 9 ! ma!matical sci5ces1 ^? ideas1 on ! o!r h&1 ?r\gh :i* we conceive m5tal exi/5ces1--! notions ( m9d1 ?\ght1 self--d n by any means prove fruitful ^u att5tive enquiry4 ,z ,malebran*e lat] insi/$1 we c def9e m9d only 9 negative t]ms2 its :ole mean+ is det]m9$ ?r\gh its opposition to ! space-_w1 :i* alone is truly kn[n4 ,?\gh x is ! function ( m9d to "k1 x _c "k itself4 ,& :5 we remove f our li/ ( ideas ^? :i* are n really fruitful1 we f9d t only ma!matical concepts rema94#agfd ,!y alone h ?is app>5tly miracul\s prop]ty ( inexhau/ibly develop+ be=e ! m9d4 ,sci5tific k is limit$ to ! mat]ial _w2 & ev5 !re1 ! limits ( our ma!matical insight are ! limits ( our k4 ,malebran*e believ$ no less ?or\ghly ?an ,desc>tes 9 ! ass]t$ p[] & fruitfulness ( ma!matical concepts4 ,"u ! influ5ce ( ?is belief1 he develop$1 z s _m o!r ?9k]s f ,plato onw>ds h done1 a highly my/ical !ory ( sci5tific k4 ,x is a revelation ( et]nal tru?1 & yet is acquir$ by inn] reflection1 n labori\sly built up by ext]nal obs]vation4 ,x comes by se>*+ ( ! m9d1 n by exploration ( ! out] _w4 ,b ,malebran*e 0 n cont5t1 l ,desc>tes1 m]ely to accept ?is type ( k4 ,he proce$$ to acc\nt = x 9 metaphysical t]ms4 ,! fruitfulness ( ma!matical ideas is due1 he claim$1 to ! fundam5tal concept ( ext5sion 9 :i* !y all %>e4 ,?is idea1 repres5t+1 z x does1 an inf9ite exi/5ce1 is too great to be conta9$ )9 ! f9ite m9d4 ,?r\gh x ! m9d is wid5$ to ! appreh5sion ( some?+ beyond itself2 we "k x ?r\gh consci\sness ( its ar*etype 9 ! m9d ( ,god4 ,x is ! "o po9t at :i* consci\sness transc5ds its subjective limits4 ,its fruitfulness is due to1 & is ! manife/ation (1 ?is div9e s\rce4 ,! reason :y we are condemn$ to rema9 ignorant ( ev]y?+ beyond ! sph]e ( quantity is t ext5sion alone holds ?is unique position4 ,x is ! only fruitful idea :i* ! m9d possesses1 & o!r concepts1 su* z triangle1 circle1 or numb]1 are fruitful only 9 proportion z !y %>e 9 x4 ,we c acquire no g5u9e k ev5 ( ! nature ( ! self4 ,be+ ignorant ( m9d1 we _c compreh5d ! self :i* is "o ( its modes4 ,x is z if we s\ght to compreh5d ! nature ( a triangle1 9 ! abs5ce ( any conception ( space4 ,7 we 9 possession ( ! ar*etypal idea ( m9d1 we %\ld n only be able to d$uce f x ^? v>i\s feel+s & emotions :i* we h already exp]i5c$1 & ^? s5sations ( ! second>y qualities :i* we falsely ascribe to ! influ5ce ( ext]nal objects1 b we %\ld also be able to discov] by pure contemplation innum]able o!r emotions & qualities1 :i* entirely transc5d our pres5t p[]s4 ,& all ( ^! w\ld !n be exp]i5c$ 9 _! ideal nature1 & n1 z n[1 m]ely ?r\gh feeble & confus$ feel+4 ,if ma!maticians de/roy _! bodily heal? ?r\gh absorption 9 ! progressive cl>ification ( ! my/]ies ( space1 :at might n happ5 if ! ar*etypal idea ( m9d 7 reveal$ to u8 ,c\ld we att5d to ! pres]vation ( a body :i* w\ld incessantly di/ract u f ! inf9ite & ov]:elm+ exp]i5ces ( our div9e de/9y8 ,?is romantic conception ( ! possibilities ( rational sci5ce reveals m cle>ly ?an any o!r ,c>tesian doctr9e ! real be>+ & p]v]se "* ( ! rationali/ic preconceptions :i* und]lie ! ,c>tesian sy/ems4 ,! ,c>tesians w\ld fa9 make rational sci5ce1 conceiv$ on ! analogy ( ! ma!matical discipl9es1 coext5sive ) ! entire realm ( ! real4 ,?is grotesque ent]prise is conceiv$ z ab/ractly possible ev5 by s cauti\s a ?9k] z ,john ,locke4 ,8 reason = condemn+ ! physical sci5ces z logically imp]fect is t !y fail to con=m to ?is rationali/ic ideal4 ,h5ce ^? s5t5ces :i* s\nd s /rangely 9 ! m\? ( ,locke1 ! s5sationali/4 8,x is ! contemplation ( our ab/ract ideas t alone is able to af=d u g5]al k40#agfe 8,! true me?od ( advanc+ k is by consid]+ our ab/ract ideas40#agff 0,did we "k ! real ess5ce ( gold x w\ld be no m necess>y t gold %\ld exi/1 & t we %\ld make exp]im5ts ^u x1 ?an x is necess>y = ! kn[+ ( ! prop]ties ( a triangle1 t a triangle %\ld exi/ 9 any matt]3 ! idea 9 our m9ds w\ld s]ve = ! "o z well z = ! o!r40#agfg 8,9 ! k ( bodies1 we mu/ be cont5t to glean :at we c f p>ticul> exp]im5ts1 s9ce we _c1 f a discov]y ( _! real ess5ces1 grasp at a "t :ole %eaves1 & 9 bundles compreh5d ! nature & ! prop]ties ( :ole species toge!r40#d ,locke's empirical doctr9e ( k is ?us bas$ ^u a rationali/ic !ory ( ! real4 ,x is n1 he holds1 ! con/itution ( reality1 b ! de facto limitations ( our human faculties :i* make empirical induction ! only practicable mode ( discov]y 9 natural sci5ce4 ,inde$1 ,locke gives m extreme expression ?an ev5 ,desc>tes does1 to ! my/ically conceiv$ ma!matical me?od4 ,be+ ignorant ( ma!matics1 & n ov] well-in=m$ ev5 9 ! physical sci5ces1 ,locke 0 n *eck$ by any too close acqua9tance ) ! real "* & necess>y limits ( ?is me?od2 & he accord+ly makes /atem5ts 9 t unqualifi$ fa%ion :i* seldom fails to betray ! writ] :o is exp\nd+ views :i* he has n develop$ = himself by fir/-h& /udy ( ! relevant facts4 ,b ?\gh ! unique "* ( ma!matical k ?us =c$ itself ^u ! att5tion ( all ! ,c>tesian ?9k]s1 & 9 ! above mann] l$ ev5 ! mo/ level-head$ ( ,desc>tes' successors to dream /range dreams1 no real attempt 0 made 7save 9 ! neglect$ writ+s ( ,leibniz7 to exam9e1 9 a sob] _s1 ! gr\nds & conditions ( its possibility4 ,9 ! ,engli% ,s*ool1 ,locke's eulogy ( ab/ract ideas s]v$ only to drive 8 imm$iate successors to an opposite extreme4 ,bo? ,b]keley & ,hume attempt$ to expla9 away1 9 an impossible mann]1 ^? fundam5tal diff]5ces1 :i*1 beyond all que/ion+1 pr(\ndly diff]5tiate ma!matical f empirical judgm5ts4#agfh ,x is n surpris+ t ,kant1 :o _h no direct acqua9tance ) ,hume's ,treatise1 %\ld h ass]t$ t _h ,hume realis$ ! be>+ ( 8 ma9 tea*+ ^u ! !ory ( ma!matical sci5ce1 he w\ld h hesitat$ to draw 8 sceptical conclusions4 ,su*1 h[ev]1 0 n ! case4 ,hume's !ory ( ma!matical reason+ und\bt$ly =ms ! lea/ satisfactory "p ( 8 philosophy4 ,he did1 h[ev]1 p]ceive ! g5]al be>+ ( 8 c5tral tea*+4 ,x 0 9 l>ge degree 8 ignorance ( ! ma!matical discipl9es t conceal$ f him ! ?or\gh unsatisfactor9ess ( 8 g5]al position1 & :i* prev5t$ him f =mulat+ ! logical problem 9 its full scope--! problem1 namely1 h[ judgm5ts :i* make additions to our previ\s k1 & yet d n re/ ^u m]e s5sation1 are possible4 ,he treat$ x only z x pres5ts itself 9 ^? judgm5ts :i* involve ! concept ( causality4#agfi ,b ?is analysis ( causal judgm5ts awoke ,kant f 8 dogmatic slumb]1 & s ultimately l$ to ! rais+ ( ! logical problem 9 its wide/ =m3--h[ syn!tic a priori judgm5ts1 :e!r ma!matical1 physical1 or metaphysical1 are possible4 ,hume discuss$ ! causal problem bo? 9 reg>d to ! g5]al pr9ciple ( causality & 9 its be>+ ^u our p>ticul> judgm5ts ( causal relation4 ,! problems conc]n$ 9 ^! two discussions are ess5tially di/9ct4 ,! fir/ involves imm5sely wid] issues1 & s f> z c be judg$ f ! exi/+ circum/antial evid5ce1#aggj x 0 ?is fir/ discussion1 n z has be5 s (t5 assum$ by ,kant's comm5tators ! second & m limit$ problem1 :i* ex]cis$ s pr(\nd an influ5ce ^u ,kant at ! turn+-po9t ( 8 speculations4 ,9 /at+ x1 x w be be/ to take ,hume's own words4 8,to beg9 ) ! fir/ "q conc]n+ ! necessity ( a cause3 #8,tis a g5]al maxim 9 philosophy1 t :atev] beg9s to exi/1 mu/ h a cause ( exi/5ce4 ,?is is commonly tak5 = grant$ 9 all reason+s1 )\t any pro( giv5 or dem&$4 #8,tis suppos$ to be f\nd$ on intuition1 & to be "o ( ^? maxims1 :i* ?\gh !y may be d5y'd ) ! lips1 #8tis impossible = m5 9 _! he>ts really to d\bt (4 ,b if we exam9e ?is maxim by ! idea ( k above expla9'd we %all discov] 9 x no m>k ( any su* intuitive c]ta9ty2 b on ! contr>y %all f9d1 t #8tis ( a nature q =eign to t species ( conviction40#agga ,! pr9ciple t e ev5t mu/ h a cause1 is nei!r intuitively nor demon/ratively c]ta94 ,s f> f !re exi/+ a necess>y connection betwe5 ! idea ( an ev5t z some?+ happ5+ 9 "t & ! idea ( a cause1 no connection ( any k9d is discov]able by u4 ,we c conceive an object to be non-exi/5t at ?is mom5t1 & exi/5t ! next1 )\t requir+ to conjo9 ) x ! altoge!r diff]5t idea ( a productive s\rce4 ,?is _h be5 implicitly recognis$ by ^? few philosoph]s :o _h attempt$ to give demon/rations ( ! pr9ciple4 ,by s do+1 h[ev]1 !y only re9=ce ,hume's cont5tion t x possesses no rational basis4 ,:5 ,hobbes argues t z all ! po9ts ( "t & place 9 :i* we c suppose an object to beg9 to exi/1 are 9 !mselves equal1 !re mu/ be "s cause det]m9+ an ev5t to happ5 at "o mom5t r ?an at ano!r1 he is assum+ ! v pr9ciple :i* he pr(esses to prove4 ,!re is no great] difficulty 9 suppos+ ! "t & place to be fix$ )\t a cause1 ?an 9 suppos+ ! exi/5ce to be s det]m9$4 ,if ! d5ial ( a cause is n intuitively absurd 9 ! "o case1 x _c be s 9 ! o!r4 ,if ! fir/ dem&s a pro(1 s likewise mu/ ! second4 ,simil>ly ) ! argum5ts advanc$ by ,locke & ,cl>ke4 ,locke argues t if any?+ is produc$ )\t a cause1 x is produc$ by no?+1 & t t is impossible1 s9ce no?+ c nev] be a cause any m ?an x c be some?+1 or equal to two "r angles4 ,cl>ke's cont5tion t if any?+ 7 )\t a cause1 x w\ld produce itself1 i4e4 exi/ be=e x exi/$1 is ( ! same "*4 ,^! argum5ts assume ! only po9t :i* is 9 "q4 8,:5 we exclude all causes we really d exclude !m1 & nei!r suppose no?+ nor ! object itself to be ! causes ( ! exi/5ce1 & consequ5tly c draw no argum5t f ! absurdity ( ^! suppositions to prove ! absurdity ( t exclusion40#aggb ,! rema9+ argum5t1 t e effect mu/ h a cause1 s9ce ?is is impli$ 9 ! v idea ( an effect1 is 8/ill m frivol\s40 8,e effect necess>ily presupposes a cause2 effect be+ a relative t]m1 ( :i* cause is ! correlative4 ,b ?is does n prove t e be+ mu/ be prec$$ by a cause2 no m ?an x foll[s1 because e husb& mu/ h a wife1 t !re=e e man mu/ be m>ri$40#aggc ,! f>-rea*+ conclusion1 t ! pr9ciple ( causality has no possible rational basis1 ,hume ext5ds & re9=ces ?r\gh 8 o!r doctr9es1 viz4 t syn!tic reason#aggd is m]ely g5]alis$ belief1 & t belief is 9 all cases due to ! ultimate in/9cts & prop5sities :i* de facto con/itute our human nature4 ,! syn!tic pr9ciples :i* lie at ! basis ( our exp]i5ce are non-rational 9 "*4 ,ea* is due to a #8bl9d & p[]ful in/9ct1' :i*1 dem&+ no evid5ce1 & ignor+ !oretical inconsi/5cy = ! sake ( practical conv5i5ce1 necessitates belief4 8,nature by an absolute & uncontrollable necessity has det]m9$ u to judge z well z to brea! & feel40#agge 8,all ^! op]ations are a species ( natural in/9cts1 :i* no reason+ or process ( ! ?\ght & und]/&+ is able ei!r to produce or to prev5t40#aggf ,reason is 8no?+ b a wond]ful & un9telligible in/9ct 9 our s\ls40#aggg ,x ju/ifies itself by its practical uses1 b c af=d no /&>d to :i* objective reality mu/ con=m4 ,x is f ?is po9t ( view t ,hume /ates 8 answ] to ! problem ( p]ception4 ,our natural belief 9 ! p]man5ce & id5tity ( objects1 z express$ ?r\gh ! pr9ciple ( sub/ance & attribute1 leads u to int]pret ! objects ( s5se-p]ception z indep5d5t realities4 ,we int]pret our subjective s5sations z be+ qualities ( indep5d5t sub/ances4 ,our o!r natural belief1 9 ! dynamical int]dep5d5ce ( ev5ts1 z express$ ?r\gh ! pr9ciple ( causality1 leads1 h[ev]1 to ! opposite conclusion1 t ! kn[n objects are m]ely m5tal4 ,= by x we are con/ra9$ to int]pret s5sations1 n z objective qualities1 b only z subjective effects1 expressive ( ! reactions ( our psy*o-physical organism4 ,! ,c>tesian problems owe _! orig9 to ! mi/ak5 attempt to h>monise1 9 a !oretical fa%ion1 ^! two conflict+ pr9ciples4 ,! conflict is inevitable & ! ant9omy is insoluble1 s long z ! two pr9ciples are reg>d$ z objectively valid4 ,! only satisfactory solution comes ?r\gh recognition t reason is unable to acc\nt1 save 9 ref]5ce to practical ends1 ev5 = its own inevitable dem&s4 ,! pr9ciple ( sub/ance & attribute & ! pr9ciple ( causality co-op]ate 9 r5d]+ possible su* organisation ( our s5se-exp]i5ce z is requir$ = practical life4 ,b :5 we c>ry ?is organisation fur!r ?an practical life itself dem&s1 ! two pr9ciples at once conflict4 ,kant %[s no int]e/ 9 ?is con/ructive "p ( ,hume's philosophy2 & mu/1 inde$1 h be5 almo/ entirely ignorant ( x1 s9ce x f9ds only v imp]fect expression 9 ! ,enquiry1 & is ignor$ 9 ,beattie's ,nature ( ,tru?4 ,accord+ly1 ,kant does n reg>d ,hume z (f]+ a positive explanation ( k1 b r z repres5t+ ! po9t ( view ( ?or\ghgo+ scepticism4 ,b ev5 _h he be5 acqua9t$ at fir/ h& ) ,hume's ,treatise1 he w\ld und\bt$ly h felt little sympa?y ) ,hume's naturali/ic view ( ! function ( reason4 ,8 tra9+ 9 ! ma!matical sci5ces w\ld h enabl$ him to detect ! inadequacy ( ,hume's treatm5t ( ma!matical k1 & 8 /rong moral convictions w\ld h l$ him to rebel aga9/ ! naturali/ic assumptions :i* und]lie ,hume's entire position4 ,! ,b]keley-,hume com$y is ?us repeat$ ) rev]s$ rles4 ,j z ,b]keley's anti-mat]iali/ic philosophy 0 ma9ly influ5tial z a /ep t[>ds ! naturalism ( ,hume1 & z su* /ill survives 9 ! philosophies ( ,john ,/u>t ,mill1 ,h]b]t ,sp5c]1 ,huxley1 ,ma* & ,k>l ,pe>son1 s 9 turn ,hume's anti-metaphysical !ory ( k 0 de/9$ to be "o ( ! *ief contributory s\rces ( ! ,g]man speculative movem5t4 ,we may n[ turn to ,hume's treatm5t ( ! n>r[] problem--t ( ju/ify+ our p>ticul> causal judgm5ts4 ,hume's attitude t[>ds ?is "q is pr$et]m9$ by ! m fundam5tal argum5t1 above /at$1 :i* prec$es x 9 ! ,treatise1 b :i* is entirely omitt$ f ! correspond+ *apt]s ( ! ,enquiry4 ,z ! g5]al pr9ciple ( causality is ( an irrational "*1 ! same mu/ be true ( ^? p>ticul> judgm5ts :i* are bas$ ^u x4 ,mu* ( ,hume's argum5t on ?is "q is1 inde$1 m]ely a re/atem5t ( :at _h already be5 po9t$ out by 8 pr$ecessors4 ,!re is no necess>y connection discov]able betwe5 any cause & its effect4 ,?is is especially evid5t z reg>ds ! connection betwe5 bra9 /ates & m5tal exp]i5ces4 ,no explanation c be giv5 :y a motion 9 ! bra9 %\ld produce s5sations 9 ! m9d1 or :y a m5tal resolution %\ld produce movem5ts 9 ! body4 ,su* sequ5ces may be empirically v]ifi$2 !y _c be rationally und]/ood4 ,t ?is likewise holds1 ?\gh 9 less obvi\s fa%ion1 ( ! causal int]relations ( mat]ial bodies1 _h be5 emphasis$ by ,geul9cx1 ,malebran*e1 ,locke1 & ,b]keley4 ,! fact t "o billi>d ball %\ld communicate motion to ano!r by impact is1 :5 exam9$1 f\nd to be no less incompreh5sible ?an ! int]action ( m9d & body4 ,hume1 9 ! foll[+ passage1 is only re9=c+ ?is admitt$ fact1 9 t]ms ( 8 own philosophy4 8,we fancy t 7 we br\ght on a sudd5 into ?is _w we c\ld at fir/ h inf]r$ t "o billi>d ball w\ld communicate motion to ano!r ^u impulse2 & t we ne$$ n to h wait$ = ! ev5t1 9 ord] to pron\nce ) c]ta9ty ^u x4 ,su* is ! influ5ce ( cu/om1 t1 :]e x is /ronge/1 x n only cov]s our natural ignorance1 b ev5 conceals itself1 & seems n to take place m]ely because x is f\nd 9 ! highe/ degree40#aggh ,nor are we consci\s ( any causal p[] )9 ! self4 ,:5 ,b]keley claims t m9d has ! faculty ( produc+ images at w1 he is really ascrib+ to x creative ag5cy4 ,& su* creation1 z ,malebran*e _h already po9t$ out1 is n ev5 conceivable4 8,i d5y t my w produces 9 me my ideas1 = ,i _c ev5 conceive h[ x c\ld produce !m1 s9ce my w1 n be+ able to act or w )\t k1 presupposes my ideas & does n make !m40#aggi 8,is !re n "h10 ,hume asks1 8ei!r 9 a spiritual or mat]ial sub/ance1 or bo?1 "s secret me*anism or /ructure ( p>ts1 ^u :i* ! effect dep5ds1 & :i*1 be+ entirely unkn[n to u1 r5d]s ! p[] or en]gy ( ! w equally unkn[n & incompreh5sible80#aghj ,b ! fact t ,hume ?us re/ates conclusions already emphasis$ by 8 pr$ecessors w n ju/ify u 9 cont5d+ 7z c]ta9 hi/orians ( philosophy seem incl9$ to d7 t 9 8 treatm5t ( ! causal problem he fail$ to make any important advance ^u ! tea*+ ( ! ,occasionali/s4 ,hume 0 ! fir/ to p]ceive ! ess5tial falsity ( ! ,c>tesian1 rationali/ic view ( ! causal nexus4 ,= ,desc>tes1 an effect is t :i* c be d$uc$ ) logical necessity f ! concept ( its cause4 ,! ,occasionali/s simil>ly argu$ t because natural ev5ts c nev] be d$uc$ f "o ano!r !y mu/ 9 all cases be due to sup]natural ag5cy2 l ,desc>tes1 !y "o & all fail$ to compreh5d t s9ce by an effect we mean t :i* foll[s 9 "t ^u its cause1 & s9ce1 !re=e1 ! pr9ciple ( causality is ! law ( *ange1 ! nature ( causality _c be express$ 9 logical t]ms4 ,hume 0 ! fir/ to appreciate ! significance ( ?is fundam5tal fact2 & an entirely new set ( problems at once came into view4 ,if causal connection is n1 z previ\s ?9k]s _h believ$1 logical 9 "*1 if x does n signify logical dep5d5ce ( ! s-call$ effect ^u its cause1 its true connotation mu/ lie else:]e2 & until ?is has be5 trac$ to its hidd5 s\rce1 any attempt$ solution ( metaphysical problems is c]ta9 to involve _m false assumptions4 ,! answ] t is giv5 to ! problem ( ! orig9 & cont5t ( ! causal concept mu/ det]m9e our int]pretation alike ( s5se-exp]i5ce & ( pure ?\ght4 ,! problem pres5ts on exam9ation1 h[ev]1 a mo/ p>adoxical aspect4 ,z ,hume has already %[n1 e effect is an ev5t di/9ct f its cause1 & !re is nev] any connection1 beyond t ( m]e sequ5ce1 discov]able betwe5 !m4 ,we obs]ve only sequ5ce2 we ass]t necess>y connection4 ,:at1 !n1 is 9 our m9ds :5 ?is latt] ass]tion is made8 ,& h[1 if ! notion ( necessitat$ connection _c be ga9$ ?r\gh obs]vation ( ! ext]nal ev5ts1 is x acquir$ by u8 ,hume aga9 prop\nds a naturali/ic solution4 ,causation1 i4e4 necessitat$ sequ5ce 9 "t1 is n 9 any s5se a conception2 x is n a compreh5d$ relation betwe5 ev5ts1 b a misund]/ood feel+ 9 our m9ds4 ,we _c =m any1 ev5 ! mo/ remote1 conception ( h[ "o ev5t c produce ano!r4 ,nei!r imag9ation nor pure ?\ght1 h[ev] freely !y may act1 are capable ( inv5t+ any su* notion4 ,b nature1 by ! mann] 9 :i* x has con/itut$ our m9ds1 deludes u into ! belief t we are 9 actual possession ( ?is idea4 ,! repeat$ sequ5ce ( ev5ts1 9 fix$ ord]1 g5]ates 9 u ! feel+ ( a t5d5cy to pass f ! p]ception or idea ( ! "o to ! idea ( ! o!r4 ,?is feel+1 ?us g5]at$ by cu/om1 & (t5 9 some:at confus$ fa%ion comb9$ ) ! feel+ ( #8animal nisus1' :i* is exp]i5c$ 9 bodily ef=t1 is mi/ak5 by ! m9d = a def9ite concept ( =ce1 causality1 necess>y connection4 ,z m]e feel+ x c af=d no insight into ! relation hold+ betwe5 ev5ts1 & z m]ely subjective c ju/ify no inf]5ce 9 reg>d to t relation4 ,! t]ms =ce1 causality1 necessitat$ sequ5ce 9 "t1 h a practical value1 z names = our in/9ctive1 natural expectations2 b :5 employ$ z in/rum5ts = ! !oretical int]pretation ( exp]i5ce1 !y lead u (f on a false trail4 ,?is is "o ( ! fundam5tal po9ts ^u :i* ,hume reveals a deep] speculative insight ?an ei!r ,malebran*e1 ,geul9cx1 or ,locke4 ,?\gh ^! latt] insi/ ^u our ignorance ( ! relation hold+ betwe5 ev5ts1 !y /ill assume t causation & natural necessity are concepts :i* h a q intelligible mean+2 & 9 consequ5ce !y fail to draw ! all-important conclusion1 t ! g5]al pr9ciple ( causality has nei!r intuitive nor demon/rative validity4 ,= t is ! revolution>y outcome ( ,hume's analysis ( ! notion ( necessitat$ connection4 ,! pr9ciple ( causality is a syn!tic judgm5t 9 :i* no connection is discov]able betwe5 its subject & its pr$icate4 ,t is ! reason :y x is nei!r self-evid5t nor capable ( be+ e/abli%$ ^u m ultimate gr\nds4 ,z has already be5 /at$1 ! wid] problem conc]n+ ! pr9ciple ( causality is develop$ only 9 ! ,treatise2 ! problem reg>d+ ! concept ( causality is discuss$ bo? 9 ! ,treatise & 9 ! ,enquiry4 ,an appreciation ( ! wid] problem is requir$1 h[ev]1 9 ord] to set ?is second problem 9 its true light1 = x is only ?r\gh its connection ) ! wid] issue t ,hume's r$uction ( ! concept ( causality to a m]ely in/9ctive1 non-rational expectation acquires its full significance4 ,hume's analysis !n am\nts1 z ,kant 0 ! fir/ to realise1 to an attack ^u ! objective validity ( all con/ructive ?9k+4 ,n only rationalism1 b ev5 su* metaphysics z may claim to base its conclusions ^u ! tea*+ ( exp]i5ce1 is !reby r5d]$ altoge!r impossible4 ,! issue is crucial1 & mu/ be hone/ly fac$1 be=e metaphysical conclusions1 no matt] :at _! specific "* may be1 :e!r a priori or empirical1 c legitimately be drawn4 ,if we may n ass]t t an ev5t mu/ h "s cause1 ev5 ! "r to enquire = a cause mu/ fir/ be ju/ifi$4 ,& if s fundam5tal a pr9ciple z t ( causality is n self-evid5t1 are !re any pr9ciples :i* c make ?is claim8 ,! acc\nt :i* we h s f> giv5 ( ,hume's argum5t cov]s only t "p ( x :i* is direct$ aga9/ ! rationali/ position1 & :i* 0 !re=e s influ5tial 9 turn+ ,kant on to ! l9e ( 8 ,critical speculations4 ,b ,hume attack$ ) equal vig\r ! empirici/ /&po9t2 & z ?is aspect ( 8 tea*+1 con/itut+ z x did an integral "p ( ,kant's own philosophy1 mu/ und\bt$ly h help$ to confirm ,kant 9 8 e>ly rationali/ convictions1 we may pr(itably dwell ^u x at "s l5g?4 ,9 opposition to ! empirici/s1 ,hume argues t exp]i5ce is incapable ( ju/ify+ any inf]5ce 9 reg>d to matt]s ( fact4 ,x _c s]ve z a basis f :i* we c inductively ext5d our k ( facts beyond :at ! s5ses & memory reveal4 ,inductive inf]5ce1 :5 s employ$1 necess>ily involves a petitio pr9cipii2 we assume ! v po9t we pr(ess to h prov$4 ,! argum5t by :i* ,hume e/abli%es ?is important cont5tion is z foll[s4 ,all inductive reason+ f exp]i5ce presupposes ! validity ( belief 9 causal connection4 ,= :5 we h no k ( causes1 we h no ju/ification = ass]t+ ! cont9uance ( uni=mities4 ,n[ x has be5 %[n t we h no exp]i5ce ( any necess>y relation betwe5 s-call$ causes & _! effects4 ,! mo/ t exp]i5ce c supply are sequ5ces :i* repeat !mselves4 ,9 reg>d+ ! sequ5ces z causal1 & s z univ]sally con/ant1 we make an ass]tion = :i* exp]i5ce gives no support1 & to :i* no am\nt ( repeat$ exp]i5ce1 recall$ 9 memory1 c add "o jot ( real evid5ce4 ,to argue t because ! sequ5ces h rema9$ con/ant 9 a great numb] ( repeat$ exp]i5ces1 !y are !re=e m likely to rema9 con/ant1 is to assume t con/ancy 9 ! pa/ is a gr\nd = inf]r+ x 9 ! future2 & t is ! v po9t :i* dem&s pro(4 ,9 draw+ ! conclusion we virtually assume t !re is a necess>y connection1 i4e4 an absolutely con/ant relation1 betwe5 ev5ts4 ,b s9ce no s+le exp]i5ce ( causal sequ5ce af=ds gr\nd = inf]r+ t ! sequ5ce w cont9ue 9 ! future1 no numb] ( repeat$ exp]i5ces1 recall$ 9 memory1 c contribute to ! /r5g!n+ ( ! inf]5ce4 ,x is mean+less to talk ev5 ( likelihood or probability4 ,! fact t ! sun has )\t a s+le kn[n exception aris5 ea* day 9 ! pa/ does n 7if we accept ! argum5t disprov+ all k ( necess>y connection7 con/itute pro( t x w rise to-morr[4 8,none b a fool or a madman w be unaffect$ 9 8 expectations or natural beliefs by ?is con/ancy1 b he is no philosoph] :o accepts ?is z 9 ! nature ( evid5ce40#agha ,s9ce1 = all t we "k to ! contr>y1 bodies may *ange _! nature & mode ( action at any mom5t1 x is va9 to pret5d t we are sci5tifically assur$ ( ! future because ( ! pa/4 8,my practice1 y say1 refutes my d\bts4#aghb ,b y mi/ake ! purport ( my "q4 ,z an ag5t1 ,i am q satisfi$ 9 ! po9t2 b z a philosoph]1 :o has "s %>e ( curiosity1 ,i w n say scepticism1 ,i want to le>n ! f\ndation ( ?is inf]5ce4 ,no read+1 no enquiry has yet be5 able to remove my difficulty or give me satisfaction 9 a matt] ( su* importance4 ,c ,i d bett] ?an propose ! difficulty to ! public1 ev5 ?\gh1 p]haps1 ,i h small hopes ( obta9+ a solution8 ,we %all at lea/1 by ?is means1 be s5sible ( our ignorance1 if we d n augm5t our k40#aghc ,kant 0 ! fir/1 aft] ?irty ye>s1 to take up ?is *all5ge4 ,exp]i5ce is no s\rce ( evid5ce until ! causal po/ulate has be5 indep5d5tly prov$4 ,only if ! pr9ciple ( causality c be e/abli%$ prior to all specific exp]i5ce1 only if we c pr$et]m9e exp]i5ce z necess>ily con=m+ to x1 are empirical argum5ts valid at all4 ,hume's enquiry ?us directly leads to ! lat]1 no less ?an to ! e>li] =m ( ,kant's epo*-mak+ "q4#aghd ,9 its e>li] =mulation x ref]r$ only to a priori judgm5ts2 9 its wid] application x 0 f\nd to arise ) equal cog5cy 9 connection ) empirical judgm5ts4 ,& z ?us ext5d$1 x g5]at$ ! problem3 ,h[ is s5se-exp]i5ce1 reg>d$ z a =m ( k1 possible at all8#aghe ,by %[+ t ! pr9ciple ( causality has nei!r intuitive nor demon/rative validity1 ,hume cuts ! gr\nd f "u ! rationali/s2 by %[+ t s5se-exp]i5ce _c by itself yield conclusions :i* are objectively valid1 he at ! same "t de/roys ! empirici/ position4 ,9 ?is latt] cont5tion ,kant /&s 9 complete agreem5t ) ,hume4 ,t ! s5su\sly giv5 is incapable ( gr\nd+ ev5 probable inf]5ces1 is a fundam5tal presupposition 7nev] discuss$1 b always explicitly assum$7 ( ! ,critical philosophy4 ,x 0 by *all5g+ ! suffici5cy ( ,hume's o!r l9e ( argum5t1 t :i* is direct$ aga9/ ! rationali/s1 t ,kant discov]$ a way ( escape f ! sceptical dilemma4 ,! conditions ( exp]i5ce c be prov$ by a transc5d5tal me?od1 :i*1 ?\gh a priori 9 "*1 does n lie op5 to ,hume's sceptical objections4 ,ea* s+le exp]i5ce involves rational pr9ciples1 & consequ5tly ev5 a s+le empirical obs]vation may suffice to ju/ify an inductive inf]5ce4 ,exp]i5ce con=ms to ! dem&s ( pure a priori ?\ght2 & c legitimately be con/ru$ 9 accordance ) !m4 ,we may n[ pass to ! philosophy 9 :i* ,kant 0 educat$4 ,x gave to 8 ?9k+ t rationali/ tr5d1 to :i*1 9 spite ( all c\nt]-influ5ces1 he nev] ceas$ to rema9 true4#aghf ,x also contribut$ to 8 philosophy sev]al ( its con/ructive pr9ciples4 ,only two rationali/ sy/ems ne$ be consid]$1 ^? ( ,leibniz & ( ,wolff4 ,kant1 by 8 own admission1#aghg _h be5 baffl$ 9 8 attempts 7probably n v p]sev]+7 to ma/] ,sp9oza's philosophy4 ,x 0 ) ,wolff's sy/em t he 0 mo/ famili>2 b bo? directly & indirectly1 bo? 9 8 e>ly ye>s & 9 ! 'sev5ties1 ! incomp>ably deep] tea*+ ( ,leibniz mu/ h ex]cis$ ^u him a pr(\ndly =mative influ5ce4 ,9 def9+ ! po9ts ( agreem5t & ( diff]5ce betwe5 ,hume & ,leibniz1#aghh we h already outl9$ ,leibniz's g5]al view ( ! nature & p[]s ( pure ?\ght1 & may !re=e at once proce$ to ! relevant detail ( 8 ma9 t5ets4 ,^u two fundam5tal po9ts ,leibniz /&s 9 opposition to ,sp9oza4 ,he seeks to ma9ta9 ! reality ( ! cont+5t or accid5tal4 ,^! t]ms are inde$1 z he conceives !m1 synonym\s ) ! actual4 ,necessity rules only 9 ! sph]e ( ! possible4 ,cont+5cy or fre$om is ! diff]5tiat+ *>act]i/ic ( ! real4 ,?is po9t ( view is b\nd up ) 8 second cont5tion1 namely1 t ! real is a k+dom ( ends4 ,x is ?r\gh div9e *oice ( ! be/ among ! possible worlds t ! actual pres5t ord] has aris54 ,!re are ?us two pr9ciples :i* det]m9e ! real3 ! pr9ciple ( contradiction :i* legislates ) absolute univ]sality1 & ! pr9ciple ( ! be/1 or1 o!rwise =mulat$1 ( suffici5t reason1 :i* diff]5tiates reality f tru?1 limit+ ?\ght1 9 ord] t1 )\t violat+ logic1 x may freely satisfy ! moral ne$s4 ,leibniz ?us v9dicates aga9/ ,sp9oza ! reality ( fre$om & ! exi/5ce ( ends4 ,?\gh ,leibniz agrees ) ,sp9oza t ! philosophically p]fect me?od w\ld be to />t f an adequate concept ( ! ,div9e ,be+1 & to d$uce f ,8 attributes ! :ole nature ( f9ite reality1 he reg>ds our concept ( ,god z be+ too imp]fect to all[ ( su* proc$ure4 ,we are compell$ to resort to exp]i5ce1 & by analysis to se>* out ! v>i\s concepts :i* x involves4 ,by ! /udy ( ^! concepts & _! int]relations1 we det]m9e1 9 ob$i5ce to ! law ( contradiction1 ! nature ( ! possible4 ,! real1 9 contradi/9ction f ! possible1 involves1 h[ev]1 ! notion ( ends4 ,! exi/5ce ( ^! ends c nev] be det]m9$ by logical1 b only by moral consid]ations4 ,! *ief problem ( philosophical me?od is1 !re=e1 to discov] ! exact relation 9 :i* ! logical & ! teleological1 ! necess>y & ! cont+5t1 /& to "o ano!r4 ,! abs5ce ( contradiction is 9 itself a suffici5t gu>antee ( possibility1 i4e4 ev5 ( ! possibility ( real exi/5ce4 ,h[ v f> ,leibniz is will+ to g on ?is l9e is %[n by 8 acceptance ( ! ontological argum5t4 ,! :ole weight ( 8 sy/em re/s1 inde$1 ^u ?is pro(4 ,! notion ( ,god is1 he ma9ta9s1 ! sole concept :i* c det]m9e itself 9 a purely logical mann] n only z possible b also z real4 ,if we are to avoid violat+ ! pr9ciple ( contradiction1 ! ,ens p]fectissimum mu/ be reg>d$ z possess+ ! p]fection ( real exi/5ce4 ,& s9ce ,god is p]fect 9 moral z 9 all o!r attributes1 ,8 actions mu/ be 9 con=mity ) moral dem&s4 ,9 creat+ ! natural ord] ,god mu/ !re=e h *os5 t comb9ation ( possibilities :i* con/itutes ! be/ ( all possible worlds4 ,by means ( ?is conceptual bridge we are enabl$ to pass by pure a priori ?9k+ f ! logically possible to ! factually real4 ,pure logical ?9k+ is ?us an in/rum5t :]eby ultimate reality c be def9$ 9 a valid mann]4 ,pure ?\ght is speculative & metaphysical 9 its v ess5ce4 ,x uncov]s to u :at no exp]i5ce c reveal1 ! wid] univ]se :i* exi/s et]nally 9 ! m9d ( ,god4 ,e concept 7:e!r ma!matical1 dynamical1 or moral71 provid$ only t x is n self-contradictory1 is an et]nal ess5ce1 ) ! intr9sic nature ( :i* ev5 ,god mu/ reckon 9 ! creation ( ?+s4 ,:51 !re=e1 we are det]m9+ ! un*ang+ nature ( ! et]nally possible1 !re is no necess>y ref]5ce to ,div9e exi/5ce4 ,! purely logical crit]ion suffices z a te/ ( tru?4 ,e judgm5t :i* is made 9 reg>d to su* concepts mu/ express only :at _! cont5t involves4 ,all su* judgm5ts mu/ be analytic 9 ord] to be true4 ,:51 h[ev]1 we proce$ f ! possible to ! real1 t is to say1 f ! necess>y to ! cont+5t1 ! logical te/ is no long] suffici5t2 & only by appeal to ! second pr9ciple1 t ( suffici5t reason1 c judgm5ts ab\t reality be logically ju/ifi$4 ,:e!r or n ! pr9ciple ( suffici5t reason is d$ucible1 z ,wolff s\ght to ma9ta91 f ! pr9ciple ( contradiction1 is a po9t ( q second>y importance4 ,t is a "q :i* does n des]ve ! emphasis :i* has be5 laid ^u x4 ,:at is *iefly important is t = ,leibniz1 z = ,wolff1 bo? pr9ciples are pr9ciples ( analysis4 ,! pr9ciple ( suffici5t reason is n an in/rum5t = det]m9+ necess>y relations betwe5 indep5d5t sub/ances4 ,! suffici5t gr\nd ( a valid pr$icate mu/ 9 all cases be f\nd 9 ! concept ( ! subject to :i* x is ref]r$4 ,! diff]5ce betwe5 ! two pr9ciples lies else:]e1 namely1 9 ! "* ( ! connection e/abli%$ betwe5 subject & pr$icate4 ,9 ! "o case ! d5ial ( ! proposition involves a direct self-contradiction4 ,9 ! o!r ! opposite ( ! judgm5t is p]fectly conceivable2 our reason = ass]t+ x is a moral 7employ+ ! t]m 9 ! eighte5?-c5tury s5se71 n a logical gr\nd4 ,! subject is s con/itut$1 t 9 ! *oice ( ends1 9 pursuit ( ! good1 x mu/ by its v nature s behave4 ,! pr9ciple ( suffici5t reason1 :i* repres5ts 9 our f9ite k ! div9e pr9ciple ( ! be/1 compels u to recognise ! pr$icate z involv$ 9 ! subject--z involv$ ?r\gh a gr\nd :i* incl9es )\t necessitat+4 ,(t5 ! analysis _c be c>ri$ suffici5tly f> to enable u ?us to trans=m a judgm5t empirically giv5 into "o :i* is adequately gr\nd$4 ,none ! less1 9 recognis+ x z true1 we po/ulate t ! pr$icate is relat$ to ! subject 9 ?is way4 ,!re are n = ,leibniz two me?ods ( e/abli%+ tru?1 s5se-p]ception to reveal cont+5t fact1 & g5]al reason+ to e/abli% necess>y tru?4 ,a proposition c be accept$ z true only 9 s f> z we c at lea/ po/ulate1 ?r\gh abs5ce ( contradiction & ?r\gh suffici5t reason1 its analytic "*4 ,x mu/ express "s =m ( id5tity4 ,! proposition1 ,caes> cross$ ! ,rubicon1 is giv5 u z hi/orical fact4 ,! m complete our k ( ,caes> & ( 8 "t1 ! fur!r we c c>ry ! analysis2 & t analysis if completely execut$ w\ld displace ! m]ely factual validity ( ! judgm5t by insight into its metaphysical tru?4 ,?us exp]i5ce1 ) its ass]tions ( ! "h & n[ ab\t p>ticul>s inexhau/ibly concrete1 sets to rational sci5ce an inexhau/ible task4 ,we c proce$ 9 our analysis indef9itely1 pu%+ out ! fronti]s ( ?\ght fur!r & fur!r into ! empirical realm4 ,only by ! ,div9e ,m9d c ! task be complet$1 & all ?+s se5 z ord]$ 9 complete ob$i5ce to ! two pr9ciples ( ?\ght4 ,leibniz1 9 prop\nd+ ?is view1 develops a g5u9ely orig9al conception ( ! relation hold+ betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 ,only monads1 t is1 spiritual be+s1 exi/4 ,ap>t f ! repres5tative activity ( ! monads !re are no su* exi/5ces z space & "t1 z matt] & motion4 ,! ma!matical & physical sci5ces1 9 _! pres5t =ms1 !re=e1 _c be int]pret$ z reveal+ absolute exi/5ces4 ,b1 if ideally develop$1 !y w\ld emancipate !mselves f me*anical & s5su\s notions2 & w\ld consi/ ( a body ( tru?s1 :i*1 z ?us p]fect$1 w\ld be discov]$ to con/itute ! v be+ ( ?\ght4 ,pure ?\ght or reason consi/s 9 ! appreh5sion ( su* tru?s4 ,to discov] & to prove !m ?\ght does n require to issue out beyond itself4 ,x creates ?is conceptual _w 9 ! v act ( appreh5d+ x2 & z ?is realm ( tru? ?us expresses ! necess>y "* ( all ?\ght1 :e!r div9e or human1 x is univ]sal & un*ang+4 ,ea* m9d appreh5ds ! same et]nal tru?2 b ow+ to imp]fection ea* f9ite be+ appreh5ds x ) "s degree ( obscurity & confusion1 fragm5t>ily1 9 t]ms ( s5se1 & s falls prey to ! illusion t ! self /&s 9 me*anical relations to a spatial & temporal _w ( matt] & motion4 ,leibniz supports ?is doctr9e by 8 !ory ( s5se-exp]i5ce z orig9at+ spontane\sly f )9 ! individual m9d4 ,!reby he is only repeat+ t pure ?\ght g5]ates its :ole cont5t f )9 itself4 ,s5se-exp]i5ce1 9 its intr9sic nature1 is no?+ b pure ?\ght4 ,su* ?\ght1 ow+ to ! inexhau/ible weal? ( its conceptual significance1 s confuses ! m9d :i* ?us g5]ates x1 t only by prolong$ analysis c l>g] & l>g] portions ( x be con/ru$ into ! conceptual judgm5ts :i* h all along con/itut$ its sole cont5t4 ,& 9 ! process1 space1 "t1 & motion lose all s5su\s "*1 appe>+ 9 _! true nature z ord]s ( relation :i* c be adequately appreh5d$ only 9 conceptual t]ms4 ,!y rema9 absolutely real z objects ( ?\ght1 ?\gh z s5sible exi/5ces !y are r$uc$ to ! level ( m]e appe>ance4 ,su* is ! view ( ?\ght :i* is unfold$ 9 ,leibniz's writ+s1 9 />tl+ contra/ to ! naturali/ic tea*+ ( 8 ,scot* antagoni/4 ,z already indicat$1 ,kant's fir/-h& k ( ,leibniz's tea*+ 0 v limit$4 ,he 0 acqua9t$ ) x *iefly ?r\gh ! inadequate *annel ( ,wolff's some:at commonplace exposition ( its pr9ciples4 ,b ev5 f su* a s\rce he c\ld d]ive :at 0 mo/ ess5tial1 namely1 ,leibniz's view ( ?\ght z absolute 9 its p[]s & unlimit$ 9 its claims4 ,h[ closely ,wolff holds to ! ma9 t5et ( ,leibniz's sy/em appe>s f 8 def9ition ( philosophy z 8! sci5ce ( possible ?+s1 s f> z !y are possible40 ,he ?us reta9s1 ?\gh )\t ! deep] sugge/iv5ess ( ,leibniz's speculative insight1 ! view t ?\ght prec$es reality & legislates = x4 ,by ! possible is n meant ! exi/5tially or psy*ologically possible1 b ! conceptually necess>y1 t :i*1 prior to all exi/5ce1 has objective validity1 %>+ 9 ! univ]sal & necess>y "* ( ?\ght itself4 ,z ,riehl has v ju/ly po9t$ out1#aghi ,wolff's philosophy _h1 prior ev5 to ! p]iod ( ,kant's e>lie/ writ+s1 be5 displac$ by empirical1 psy*ological enquiries & by eclectic1 popul> philosophy4 ,ow+ to ! prevail+ lack ( ?or\ghness 9 philosophical ?9k+1 8,problemlosigkeit0 *>act]is$ ! :ole p]iod4 ,! two exclusively alt]native views ( ! function ( ?\ght /ood alongside "o ano!r )9 ea* ( ! compet+ sy/ems1 q unreconcil$ & 9 _! mutual conflict absolutely de/ructive ( all real consi/5cy & ?or\ghness ( ?\ght4 ,x 0 ,kant :o re/or$ rationalism to its rightful place4 ,he re9vigorat$ ! flaccid tone ( 8 day by adopt+ 9 8 writ+s1 bo? e>ly & late1 ! /rict me?od ( rational sci5ce1 & by insi/+ t ! really crucial issues be boldly fac$4 ,9 ess5tials ,kant holds to ,wolff's def9ition ( philosophy z 8! sci5ce ( possible ?+s1 s f> z !y are possible40 ,z ,i h j rem>k$1 ! possible is tak5 9 an objective s5se1 & ! def9ition consequ5tly gives expression to ! view ( philosophy ^u :i* ,kant s frequ5tly insi/s1 z ly+ :olly 9 ! sph]e ( pure a priori ?\ght4 ,its function is to det]m9e prior to specific exp]i5ce :at exp]i5ce mu/ be2 & obvi\sly t is only possible by means ( an a priori1 purely conceptual me?od4 ,8 ,critique1 z its title indicates1 is a criticism ( pure reason by pure reason4 ,no?+ :i* escapes def9ition ?r\gh pure a priori ?9k+ c come )9 its sph]e4 ,! problem ( ! 8possibility ( exp]i5ce0 is ! problem ( discov]+ ! conditions :i* necess>ily det]m9e exp]i5ce to be :at x is4 ,kant1 ( c\rse1 radically trans=ms ! :ole problem1 9 me?od ( treatm5t z well z 9 results1 :5 9 def9+ ! subject-matt] ( enquiry he sub/itutes exp]i5ce = ?+s absolutely exi/5t4 ,?is modification is prim>ily due to ! influ5ce ( ,hume4 ,b ! con/ant occurr5ce 9 ,kant's philosophy ( ! t]m 8possibility0 m>ks 8 cont9u$ belief 9 ! ,ideali/ view ( ?\ght4 ,?\gh pure ?\ght nev] by itself am\nts to k--!re9 ,kant dep>ts f ! extreme rationali/ position--only ?r\gh x is any k1 empirical or a priori1 possible at all4 ,philosophy1 9 ord] to exi/1 mu/ be a sy/em ( a priori rational pr9ciples4 ,no?+ empirical or hypo!tical c f9d any place 9 x4#agij ,yet at ! same "t x is ! sy/em ( ! a priori conditions only ( exp]i5ce1 n ( ultimate reality4 ,su* is ! tw(old relation ( agreem5t & diff]5ce 9 :i* ,kant /&s to 8 rationali/ pr$ecessors4 ,,index ,absolute4 ,see ,uncondition$ ,absoluti/ aspect ( human consci\sness1 xxx-xxxiii1 liii1 liv-lv1 lvi-lvii1 #bgj-a1 #bgd1 #bhb1 #bhe-g1 #cca n41 #dbc n4 ,actuality1 #cia ff4 ,adamson1 ,r41 #ch1 #caa1 #cad ,addison1 #aef ,adickes1 ,e41 xx-xxi1 #gf1 #aff1 #bjj1 #bae n41 #bcc n41 #bcd1 #cjd1 #cfc1 #cgf1 #cig1 #djf n41 #dbc1 #dci-dj1 #dda1 #dfd n41 #dff1 #dgi1 #egi n41 #fja n4 ,aff9ity1 objective1 #bbd1 #bec-g1 #bff-g 8,als ob0 doctr9e1 #ebd1 #eec ff4 ,analogy1 ,kant's use ( ! t]m1 #cef-h ,analytic & syn!tic judgm5t1 xxv ff41 xxxv-xxxvi1 xxxviii1 #bh ff41 #cg ff41 #ei-fj1 #fe2 exi/5tial judgm5t1 #ecj-a2 di/9ction p]haps sugge/$ by exam9ation ( ontological argum5t1 #eca4 ,see ,judgm5t ,analytic & syn!tic me?ods1 #dd ff41 #aaa1 #aag n4 ,see ,transc5d5tal me?od ,analytic1 di/+ui%$ f ! ,dialectic1 #agb-d1 #dch-db ,an?ropologie1 ,kant's1 #ha n41 #ajj n4 ,ant9omies1 lii1 liii1 #dcb1 #dgh ff41 #eai-bj ,appe>ance1 ,kant's views reg>d+1 xxxvii1 xlvi-xlvii1 liii-liv1 #ah-bb1 #hc-e1 #abj-b1 #adg ff41 #bje ff41 #bae ff41 #bgi-bhd1 #bic ff41 #cja ff41 #cab ff41 #cba ff41 #ccj-a1 #cgb-c1 #djd ff41 #dbg ff42 criticism ( ,leibnizian view (1 #adc-f2 criticism ( ,locke's view (1 #adf-g2 ideality (1 #adg ff42 out] & inn] appe>ances r$uce to relations1 #adg-h2 appe>ance & illusion1 #adh ff42 causal efficacy ( appe>ances1 #baf1 #bag-ah1 #cea1 #cgc-d2 di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality bas$ n on categories ( und]/&+ b on ,ideas ( ,reason1 liii-liv1 #bag-ah1 #cbf n41 #cca1 #cij-a1 #dad-ag1 #dbf-ca1 #dgc-g1 #eaa-ab1 #eai-ba1 #eda-b1 #eeh-fa ,app]ception1 & memory1 #bea2 9 :at s5se orig9al1 xxxiv1 xliii-xlv1 l-lii1 #bfj-c1 #dfa-b1 #dgb-g2 transc5d5tal unity (1 l-lii1 #bjg ff41 #bab1 #bej-c1 #bfj-c1 #bgj1 #bgg-i1 #cbb ff41 #dee ff41 #dgc-g2 abs5t f ! animal m9d1 xlvii-l2 objective unity (1 #bgj-a1 #bgd1 #bhb1 #bhe-g2 & inn] s5se1 #bie-h1 #cba ff41 #eab n4 ,see ,self ,a priori1 ,kant's views reg>d+ !1 xxvi-xxviii1 xxxiii-xxxvi1 lii-lv1 #a-b1 #ci-dj1 #db1 #ed ff42 problem ( a priori syn!tic judgm5t1 #bf ff41 #ci-dj1 #dc ff42 its validity m]ely de facto1 xxxv-xxxvi1 xliv1 #cj1 #eg1 #aah1 #adb1 #ahe-f1 #beg-i1 #bia1 #cia-b1 #cic1 #djj-a1 #daa2 ! faculties 9 :i* x orig9ates1 xliii-xlv1 l-lii1 #a-b1 #ej-a1 #bcg-h1 #bfc ff41 #cia-b1 #cic1 #cih1 #efc-e2 semi-,critical view ( !1 #ahh-i1 #bcb1 #bfc-d4 ,see ,und]/&+1 ,reason ,aqu9as1 #gc ,ar*itectonic1 xxii1 #ajj1 #ahd1 #ccb-f1 #cdj-a1 #cdb1 #cdc1 #cde1 #cdg1 #cij1 #cib1 #cid1 #dai ff41 #dcd1 #dcg1 #ddj1 #dci-dj1 #ded1 #dfc1 #dfd1 #dgd1 #dgi-hj1 #dif1 #dih1 #edb1 #efc1 #egi ,ari/otle1 xlv1 #aif1 #aih1 #cij4 ,see ,logic ,ari?metic1 #cb1 #dj-a1 #fe-f1 #abh ff41 #ccg-h1 #cdg1 #eff ,association1 & judgm5t1 xxxiv-xxxv1 xlviii-l2 & consci\sness1 xli-xlii2 re/s on objective aff9ity1 #bec-g1 #bff-g ,attributive judgm5t1 ,kant's exclusive emphasis ^u1 #cg-h1 #ahj-a1 #aig ,augu/9e1 ,/41 #gc1 #aaj1 #efe ,av5>ius1 #ehg n4 ,axioms1 ,kant's view (1 #ej1 #abg1 #cdh1 #efe-g ,bacon1 ,francis1 #d-e1 #gd ,ba91 ,a41 #hf n4 ,balf\r1 ,a4 ,j41 #cad ,baumg>t51 #aib-c1 #dda1 #ebb ,beantwortung d] ,frage3 ,0 heis/ ,aufklrung8 ,kant's1 #ae ,beattie1 ,james1 xxviii-xxix1 xxxi n41 #bjg1 #ehb1 #eie1 #fjj n4 ,beck1 #hj ,belief1 ,kant's view (1 lv ff41 #egf-g ,beloselsky1 ,fr/ von1 xlix ,b]gson1 #hf1 #adb1 #cei-fj n41 #ehg n4 ,b]keley1 xxxii1 xl1 xlvi1 #aab1 #aec-d1 #aee ff41 #bgb1 #bih ff41 #ehg-h1 #eib1 #eie1 #eif ,bor[ski1 #fc1 #aef ,bosanquet1 ,b41 #cf1 #aha1 #aig ,bradley1 ,f4 ,g41 #cf1 #aha1 #aig ,bruno1 ,giordano1 #gd ,blff+]1 #aee ,caird1 ,e41 xx1 #a n41 #bc1 #ea1 #ajb n41 #aad1 #aag1 #ahc1 #aid1 #aie1 #bfb1 #bif1 #cad1 #cbh1 #cdj1 #ceg n41 #cei n41 #cgc1 #cgh1 #cii1 #dfb1 #dfh ,campanella1 #gd ,canon1 #gb1 #afi-gj1 #agd1 #ccb-c1 #dch1 #efi ff4 ,cassir]1 ,e41 #acb ,categorical imp]ative1 xxxvi1 lvi-lviii1 #ega ff4 ,categories1 di/9ction f g5]ic concept1 #agh ff42 de facto nature ( !1 xxxv-xxxvi1 xxxviii1 xliv1 #cj1 #eg1 #ahe-f1 #beg-h1 #bia1 #cia-b1 #cih1 #djj-a1 #daa2 def9ition ( !1 #aie-f1 #aih1 #cci-db1 #djd-e2 semi-,critical view ( !1 #ahh-i1 #bag-ah1 #bcb1 #bfc-d2 m]ely logical =ms1 xxxv-xxxvi1 xxxviii1 #cj n41 #cb1 #ci1 #ajh1 #agf ff41 #ahe-f1 #aia1 #aie-aif1 #beg-h1 #bij-a1 #cbe ff41 #cci-dj1 #cih1 #djd-e1 #dji-aj1 #dac-ad1 #dfg2 valid only = appe>ances1 #bei-fj2 & s*emata1 #aie-f1 #caa1 #ccc1 #cci-cdb1 #dfg n42 metaphysical d$uction ( !1 #ahc ff41 #aib ff41 #bhg-h2 transc5d5tal d$uction ( !1 #bcd ff41 #bhg-h2 all categories involv$ 9 e act ( consci\sness1 xli-xlv1 liii-liv #aii-bjj1 #cef1 #cfh1 #cgj1 #cgg1 #chg-ia2 h wid] scope ?an ! =ms ( s5se1 lv-lvi1 #bj1 #be1 #bij-a1 #cca1 #djd ff42 re/rict$ by "t & space1 #cdb1 #ceg2 9 relation to out] & inn] exp]i5ce1 #caa-ab2 h[ f> pr$icable ( ! #8,i ?9k1' #cbe ff42 h[ f> applicable to s5sations1 desires1 etc41 xlvi n41 #bge-f1 #bgi ff41 #cab ff41 #chd-e1 #dgf2 pro( ( specific1 #bdb-c1 #beb-c1 #beh-i1 #bhg-h1 #ccc1 #cdc-d2 det]m9ate & indet]m9ate application ( !1 #cbe ff41 #dje ff42 may be intr9sically inapplicable to ?+s 9 !mselves1 #bij1 #dji-aj1 #dac-ad2 category ( exi/5ce1 #cbb1 #dae n42 category ( totality & ,idea ( ! uncondition$1 #aii-bjj1 #dcc1 #dea1 #dhj1 #ebi2 ma!matical & dynamical1 #aih1 #cde-g1 #eaj-aa4 ,see ,a priori1 ,und]/&+ ,ca?>ticon1 #afi1 #agd ,causality1 ,kant influ5c$ by ,hume's tea*+ reg>d+1 xxv ff41 #fa-d1 #cfd ff41 #eic-fjj2 ,kant's treatm5t ( ! pr9ciple (1 #cfc ff42 ,kant's subjectivi/ & ph5om5ali/ views (1 #baf1 #bag-ah1 #cah-ba1 #cea1 #cgc-d2 s5sations1 feel+s1 etc4 subject to pr9ciple (1 xlvi n41 #bge1 #bgi-hb1 #cab1 #chd-e2 category (1 involv$ 9 consci\sness ( "t1 liii-liv1 #cfe ff41 #cgg ff41 #chg2 & fre$om1 #dib ff4 ,see ,hume ,cl>ke1 #adj1 #eci1 #eid ,coh51 ,h41 #ea1 #ajb n41 #aie1 #bfb1 #cdj ,coh]5ce !ory ( tru?1 xxxvi-xxxix1 #cf ff41 #agc n42 crit]ion ( tru? b\nd up ) ! ,ideas ( ,reason1 #bag-ah1 #cbf n41 #cca1 #cij-a1 #dad-ag1 #dbf-ca1 #dgc-g1 #eaa-ab1 #eai-ba1 #eda-b1 #eeh-fa ,concept1 ,kant's g5]ic or class view ( !1 #ii-ajj1 #aje-g1 #aah-ai1 #abf1 #acb-c 1 #agg-hd1 #cch-i1 #cgj-a1 #cgg-hd1 #cij-a2 intuition & conception1 #ch-db1 #ic-d1 #aje-i1 #aah-bj1 #abf1 #abh-acd1 #afe-f1 #afg-h1 #aid1 #cgj1 #cij-a1 #efd-f2 con/ruction ( concepts1 #da1 #aca-c1 #cch-i1 #dah ff41 #efd-f2 concepts & images1 #ccg-i2 ,kant's doctr9e ( ! pure concept1 xxxix1 #cid-djj1 #dah ff4 ,see ,und]/&+ ,conc]n+ ! ,advances1 made1 etc4 ,see ,=ts*ritte ,consci\sness1 ,kant's views reg>d+1 xxxiv-xxxv1 xxxix-xlv1 xliii-xlvii1 l-lii2 & ! animal m9d1 xlvii-l2 may be a resultant1 xxxiv1 xliii-xlv1 l-lii1 #bfa-c1 #bgg-i1 #cbg1 #dei-fb1 #dgc-g2 no imm$iate consci\sness ( m9d's own activities1 xliii-xlv1 l-lii1 #bfc ff41 #bgc ff41 #bic1 #bie ff41 #cbb ff42 consci\sness ( "t ,kant's datum1 xxxiv1 #abj1 #bda ff41 #cfe ff41 #cha ff42 absoluti/ aspect (1 xxx-xxxiii1 liii1 lvi-lvii1 #bgj-a1 #bgd1 #bhb1 #bhe-g1 #cca n4 ,see ,app]ception1 ,judgm5t ,cont+5cy1 ass]tion (1 #ci ff41 #ee1 #bhf-i ,cont9uity1 ,kant's views reg>d+1 #ceb-cee1 #dhh ff41 #eji2 pr9ciple (1 #chj-a2 transc5d5tal pr9ciple (1 #eea ,cop]nicus1 #ah-ai1 #bb-e ,cosmological ,argum5t1 #eca ff4 ,crit]ion ( tru?4 ,see ,coh]5ce !ory ( tru? ,criticism1 ,kant's use ( t]m1 #a1 #i1 #ac-ad1 #ba2 ,age (1 #ae ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 lvi1 lvii1 lx1 #gg-h1 #efi ff41 #egb ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 lxi1 #gg1 #hc1 #ig-h1 #aia1 #bfe1 #ecg1 #eci1 #efa1 #efi n41 #egd1 #ege n41 #egf1 #egg n4 ,crusius1 xxviii1 xxxii1 #dg ,curtius1 ,e41 #ccf ,d$uction ( categories1 di/9ction betwe5 subjective & objective1 xliv n41 #bce ff42 subjective1 #bde ff41 #bfc ff42 objective1 #bdh ff42 metaphysical1 #age ff41 #aib ff42 /ages 9 ,kant's developm5t ( metaphysical1 #ahf ff4 ,see ,transc5d5tal me?od ( pro( ,d$uction ( ,ideas1 metaphysical1 #dbf1 #dcc ff41 #dej-d1 #dgh-hj1 #ebb-c2 transc5d5tal1 #dbf1 #dcj1 #dcf1 #ded1 #eeb-d1 #egb ff4 ,see ,ideas ( ,reason ,def9ition1 ,kant's view (1 #efd-e ,dei/1 z contra/$ ) ,!i/1 #eda2 ,kant's dei/ic int]pretation ( ! ,ideas ( ,reason1 #dah1 #dcf1 #dci-dj1 #ded1 #dgc-g1 #ebj-a1 #ecg1 #edb1 #ege4 ,see ,ideali/ view ( ,reason4 ,democritus1 #ced n4 ,demon/ration1 ,kant's view (1 #eff-g ,desc>tes1 xxxi1 xxxix-xliii1 xlvi1 #aee1 #aeg1 #bgb-c1 #bgi ff41 #bih ff41 #ced n41 #dba1 #ddi1 #ehc-g1 #ehi-ij1 #eig ,desires1 ,kant's view ( !1 xlvi n41 #bgf1 #bgi-hb1 #cab1 #chd-e ,dewey1 ,j41 #cf ,dialectic1 di/+ui%$ f ! ,analytic1 #agb-d1 #dch-db2 ! problems ( !1 #dbe ff42 developm5t ( ,kant's views reg>d+ !1 #dca ff4 ,dilucidatio ,pr9cipiorum primorum1 etc41 ,kant's1 #aee1 #bii ,discipl9e1 #agj1 #agd1 #dch1 #efc ff4 ,diss]tation1 ,kant's ,inaugural1 xx1 #bf1 #dj1 #df1 #ha1 #hf1 #hg1 #hi ff41 #if1 #ii1 #aja1 #aag1 #abc1 #abh1 #aca1 #ace1 #acg1 #adj-a1 #add-e1 #adg1 #aei-fj1 #afc-e1 #ahe1 #ahf-i1 #bjh1 #bfj1 #bfc1 #bii1 #chb1 #dai1 #dbg1 #dcb1 #dhb1 #dhf1 #dhi n41 #edh ,div9e ,exi/5ce1 9 relation to space & "t1 #aei-fa2 & intuitive und]/&+1 #afj2 ,idea (1 #dcd-g2 h[ f> c be concretely pictur$1 #ecf-g1 #eda-b1 #eef ff4 ,see ,god ,dogmatism1 z di/+ui%$ f ,criticism1 #i1 #ac-ad1 #ba ,dreams ( a ,visionse]1 ,kant's1 #aee n41 #bii ,duns ,scotus1 #gc-d ,eb]h>d1 ,kant's reply to1 #ij ff41 #adc n4 ,ego1 transc5d5tal4 ,see ,app]ception ,eleatics1 !1 #aei ,emotions1 ,kant's view ( !1 xlvi n41 #bgf1 #bgi-hb1 #cab1 #chd-e ,empirical1 relation to ! a priori1 #cf ff42 problem ( empirical k1 #ci-dj1 #ec2 empirical object int]m$iate betwe5 subjective repres5tations & ?+ 9 itself1 #bjf ff41 #bbc1 #bgj ff41 #cjh ff4 ,see ,exp]i5ce ,enquiry into ! ,cle>ness ( ! ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,!ology & ,morals1 ,kant's1 #ae1 #dj1 #efc ff4 ,ens realissimum1 #ebb ff41 #ebi-cj1 #ecb1 #ecd1 #eda-b1 #eef ,epicurus1 lix1 #dcf1 #dii1 #ehb ,erdmann1 ,b41 xx1 xxviii n41 #df1 #adb n41 #aeh1 #afa1 #afc1 #bjj-a1 #bjh n41 #bid n41 #cad1 #cgc1 #chb n41 #dab1 #dca-b1 #dga1 #fja n4 ,erh>dt1 ,f41 #dhd n41 #did ,error1 ,see ,appe>ance1 ,illusion ,eul]1 #afb ,exi/5ce1 & ! 8,i ?9k10 #cbb ff42 judgm5t (1 always syn!tic1 #ebg ff42 necess>y exi/5ce1 #ecc-g ,exp]i5ce1 pro( by ref]5ce to ! possibility (1 xxxvi1 xxxvii-xxxviii1 #de1 #bch-i1 #bda-c1 #bei-fj1 #cdd1 #dbf1 #dcj1 #ded1 #eeb-d1 #egb ff42 mean+ ( t]m1 #eb2 problem (1 #eg-h2 z datum is equival5t to consci\sness ( "t1 xxxiv1 #abj1 #bda ff41 #cfe ff41 #cha ff4 ,exposition1 ,kant's use ( t]m1 #aji-aj ,fai?1 ,kant's view (1 lv-lvi1 lxi1 #ega ff41 #ege-f ,feel+1 ,kant's use ( t]m1 #hb-c2 ,kant's view (1 xlvi n41 #bgf1 #bgi-hb1 #cab1 #chd-e ,fi*te1 l ,fis*]1 ,k41 #df1 #ge1 #aac-ad1 #adj1 #fja n4 ,=m & matt]1 importance ( di/9ction betwe51 xxxiii-xxxiv1 xxxvi1 #he ff4 ,=ms ( ! und]/&+4 ,see ,categories ,=ts*ritte1 ,wel*es s9d die wirkli*51 etc41 ,kant's1 li n41 #ei1 #fj1 #hd1 #egh n41 #ehj n4 ,f\ndations ( ! ,metaphysics ( ,morals1 ,kant's1 lviii1 lix1 #efi1 #egb ,fragm5te aus dem ,na*lasse1 ,kant's1 lvii1 #egh ,fre$om ( ! w1 problem (1 #bj-a1 #dce1 #eab ff41 #efi-gj2 & causality1 #dib ff42 transc5d5tal & practical fre$om1 #dig1 #eab-ac1 #eag-ah1 #efi-gj1 #egc-d ,galileo1 #ah1 #ehc-d1 #ehf ,g>ve1 xix1 #aej2 ,g>ve-,f$] review1 #aeh ,g$ank5 von d] wahr5 ,s*tzung d] leb5dig5 ,krfte1 ,kant's1 #aag1 #afa-b ,geometry1 ! fundam5tal ma!matical sci5ce1 #if n42 pure & appli$1 #aaa-ab1 #adg1 #cdi1 #efe-f2 ,kant's attitude to mod]n1 #aag ff4 ,geul9cx1 #eif1 #eih ,god1 ontological pro( ( exi/5ce (1 #ebg ff42 cosmological pro(1 #eca ff42 physico-!ological pro(1 #ech ff42 problem ( ,god's exi/5ce1 #efi ff42 h[ f> an indisp5sable ,idea ( ,reason1 #dci-dj1 #ecf-g1 #eda-b1 #eef ff4 ,gre51 ,t4 ,h41 l n41 #bc1 #cf ,groos1 ,k41 xxviii n4 ,hamann1 #aeg1 #eci-dj n42 describes ,kant z 8a ,prussian ,hume10 #cje ,hegel1 xxxvii1 xlv1 l1 #cf1 #aij1 #aid1 #bgd1 #eed n4 ,h]b>t1 #hf n41 #abd ,h]z1 ,m>cus1 xxii-xxiii1 xxix1 xlix1 #f1 #bf1 #bh1 #df1 #ea1 #aad n41 #ach1 #ahg1 #ahi1 #aih1 #bjf-g1 #bai-bb1 #dcb ,hicks1 ,g4 ,dawes1 #dae n4 ,hobbes1 #eic ,hffd+1 ,h41 #bc ,home1 ,h5ry1 #a ,homog5eity1 transc5d5tal pr9ciple (1 #eej-a ,hume1 date ( fir/ influ5ce on ,kant1 xx1 xxviii2 ,kant's relation to1 xxv-xxxiii1 xxxv1 xxxvii1 xlvi2 8 view ( consci\sness1 xl-xliii2 anticipates ,kant's ph5om5alism1 #ba-b2 ma9ta9s t exp]i5ce _c prove univ]sality or necessity1 #bg1 #eg-h2 %[s causal axiom to be syn!tic1 #cj-a2 ,hume's problem a deep5+ ( ,kant's e>li] problem1 #df2 ,kant's relation to1 #fa-d2 on ! self1 #bjg n42 8 subjectivism1 #bgb-c1 #bhd1 #cjj2 ,kant 8a ,prussian ,hume10 #cje2 mu* ( ,hume's tea*+ 9 reg>d to causality accept$ by ,kant1 #cfd2 ,kant's reply to ,hume1 #cfi-ga2 ,hume's philosophy ! p]fect$ expression ( ! empirical & sceptical position1 #dba2 influ5ce on ,kant1 #dcb2 on exi/5tial judgm5t1 #ebh2 influ5ce on ,kant ( ,hume's ,dialogues on ,natural ,religion1 #eci-edj1 #eeg1 #efg n42 influ5ce on ,kant1 #ehc2 ! philosophical tea*+ (1 #ehh-fja2 influ5ce on ,kant1 #fjf ,humility1 lvi1 lviii-lix1 #eed n4 ,hypo!ses1 & po/ulates1 xxxvii-xxxviii1 #eda1 #edc ff41 #ega ff42 h[ f> valid 9 metaphysics1 lxi1 #i-ab1 #edc ff4 ,hypo!tical employm5t ( ,reason1 #edi-ej ,idealism1 objective or ,critical1 #bgd2 ,kant's refutations ( subjective idealism4 #bih ff41 #dfb-c2 transc5d5tal idealism z key to solution ( ! ant9omies1 #ejc ff4 ,see ,ph5om5alism & subjectivism ,ideal ( ,reason1 #ebb ff41 #ecf-g1 #eda-b1 #eed n41 #eef-fa ,ideali/ view ( ,reason1 xxxviii-xxxix1 xliv1 liii1 #ig-h1 #ajb1 #cca-b1 #cij-a1 #dad-ag1 #dbf ff41 #dcc ff41 #ddg ff41 #dgc-g1 #dgh ff41 #ejj-f1 #eaa-ab1 #eai-ba1 #edg ff41 #eeb ff41 #eeh-fa ,ideality1 ( space & "t1 #gf1 #aaa1 #aaf-ag1 #ach1 #adg1 #aed1 #cjh ,ideas ( ,reason1 ,kant's sceptical & ,ideali/ views ( !1 xxxviii-xxxix1 xliii1 xliv1 lii-lv1 lvi ff41 #ccj-a1 #cij-a1 #dad-ag4 #dbf ff41 #dcc ff41 #ddf ff41 #dgc-g1 #dgh ff41 #ejj-f1 #eaa-ab1 #ebj-a1 #edg ff41 #eeh-fa2 involv$ 9 consci\sness ( space & "t1 liii-liv1 #if-h1 #ajb n41 #afe-f1 #cij-a2 ,kant's dei/ic int]pretation ( !1 #dah1 #dcf1 #dci-dj1 #ded1 #dgc-dgg1 #ebj-a1 #ecg1 #ege2 z limit+ concepts1 #djh1 #dac-ag1 #dbf ff42 z regulative1 xxxviii-xxxix1 xliii1 liii1 #dgc-g1 #ejj ff41 #edg ff42 & categories ( relation1 #dea-b2 di/9ction betwe5 ma!matical & dynamical1 #eaj-aa2 ,kant's criticism ( ,idea ( uncondition$ necessity1 #ebg ff41 #ecc-g1 #eda-b2 metaphysical & practical validity ( ! ,ideas1 #egj-f2 conclud+ comm5ts on ,kant's views ( !1 #eeh-fa2 condition di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality1 liii-liv1 #bag-ah1 #cbf n41 #cca1 #cia1 #dad-ag1 #dbf-ca1 #dgc-g1 #eaa-ab1 #eai-ba1 #eda-b1 #eeh-fa4 ,see ,d$uction ( ,ideas ,illusion1 & appe>ance1 #adh ff42 ,b]keley reg>ds objects ( out] s5se z1 #aeg1 #cjg-h2 inn] exp]i5ce n illusory1 #cbc-d2 transc5d5tal1 #ac1 #dbg-i1 #dcg1 #def ff41 #dhj1 #eeb1 #eee ,imag9ation1 may be ! common root ( s5sibility & und]/&+1 #gg1 #bbe1 #bfe2 productive1 #bbd ff41 #bfd ff41 #ccg1 #cdh1 #cge-f ,imman5t & transc5d5t metaphysics4 ,see ,metaphysics ,immortality1 problem (1 #efi ff4 ,incongru\s c\nt]p>ts1 #afa ff4 ,inf9itude1 ( space1 #aje ff42 ( "t1 #abd ff42 ,kant's view (1 #dhc ff42 di/9ction betwe5 9 inf9itum & 9 indef9itum1 #ejg ff4 ,inn] ,s5se1 xliii n41 #adh1 #bia ff41 #cfj1 #dfd1 #dfh-i2 & app]ception1 #cba ff4 ,intuition1 ,kant's doctr9e ( pure1 #dj ff41 #gi-hj1 #aah-bj1 #abh ff41 #afg-h1 #dfh-i2 intuition & conception1 #ch-db1 #ic-ih1 #aje-i1 #aah-bj1 #abf1 #abh-cd1 #afe-aff1 #afg-h1 #aid1 #cij-a1 #efd-f2 =mal intuition & =m ( intuition1 #aji1 #aad-af ,intuitive und]/&+1 ,kant's view (1 #afj1 #bia1 #djh ff41 #dfh n4 #edb ,jacobi1 #cjj ,jakob1 xxviii n4 ,james1 ,w41 #hf1 #bgg-h1 #dei n41 #dfa n4 ,janits*1 #aee1 #aef ,jones1 ,sir ,h5ry1 #cf ,judgm5t1 ,kant's doctr9e ( !1 xxxiv-xxxv1 xxxviii1 xli-xliv1 xlviii-l1 #agg ff41 #aib ff41 #bhf ff42 ! fundam5tal activity ( ! und]/&+1 xxxiv-xxxv1 xxxviii1 xli-xlii1 #acc1 #aha-b1 #bhh1 #ccb1 #cgj2 a priori & empirical1 #bg-h2 analytic & syn!tic1 xxv ff41 #bh ff41 #cg ff41 #ei-fj2 judgm5t #g #e #ab1 #fe2 relational types ignor$ by ,kant1 #cg ff42 ,kant's attributive view (1 #cg-ch1 #ahj-a1 #aig2 z ass]tion ( cont+5cy1 #ci ff41 #ee1 #bhf-i2 ,kant's di/9ction betwe5 judgm5ts ( p]ception & judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce1 #bhh-i2 exi/5tial1 #ebg-ca ,kn[+ & ?9k+1 di/9ction betwe51 lv-lvi1 #bj1 #be1 #bij-a1 #cca1 #djd ff4 ,see ,categories ,k1 ! n>r[ mean+ assign$ to t]m by ,kant1 lv-lvi1 lxi1 #be ,kntz51 #afa ,lamb]t1 xx1 xxviii1 xxxii1 #gd1 #ach1 #aej1 #aic ,lange1 ,f41 #bc ,lectures on ,metaphysics1 ,kant's1 #bfa1 #bge n41 #bii1 #ddh-i1 #dge n4 ,lectures on ! ,philosophy ( ,religion ,kant's1 #bfa ,leibniz1 ,kant's relation to1 xxx-xxxiii1 xxxv1 xxxvii1 xlvi1 l1 lvii2 8 absoluti/ view ( ?\ght1 xxx-xxxii2 anticipates ,kant's ph5om5alism1 #ba-b2 8 rejection ( empiricism1 #bg1 #eh2 8 pre-e/abli%$ h>mony1 #bh2 reg>ds syn!tic judgm5ts z always empirical1 #cj2 8 conceptual atomism1 #ch2 ,kant probably influ5c$ by ! ,n\veaux ,essais (1 #ib1 #ahf2 ref]r$ to by ,kant1 #aab2 ,kant's relation to1 #adj-a2 ,kant's criticism ( 8 int]pretation ( s5sibility & appe>ance1 #adc-f2 8 view ( space1 #afa ff42 ,kant influ5c$ by ! spiritualism (1 #bjh-i1 #bdc1 #bfj-a1 #bfc2 8 subjectivism & doctr9e ( petites p]ceptions1 #bgb-c1 #bih-i1 #cjf2 8 alt]native views ( ! reality ( ! mat]ial _w1 #bih-i2 cont9u+ influ5ce ( 8 rationalism on ,kant1 #cid-e1 #cih-i1 #dah ff42 8 view ( ! possible z wid] ?an ! actual1 #dja-b2 ant9omies =mulat$ by ,kant f ! /&po9t ( ! ,leibnizian rationalism1 #dha ff42 ,kant's =mulation ( ! ontological argum5t ,leibnizian1 #ebb ff41 #eef2 contra/ betwe5 ,locke &1 #adf-g1 #dba1 #ehb2 on ma!matical me?od1 #eib2 ! philosophical tea*+ (1 #fja-f2 on ! nature ( s5se-exp]i5ce1 #fjd-e2 influ5ce on ,kant1 #fje-f ,limit+ concepts1 ,ideas z1 #djh1 #dac-ag1 #dbf ff4 ,see ,ideas ( ,reason ,locke1 xxxii1 xl1 xlvi1 #ae2 ,kant's criticism ( 8 view ( appe>ance1 #adf-g2 ,kant's re/atem5t ( 8 di/9ction betwe5 prim>y & second>y qualities1 #abj-b1 #adf1 #adi ff41 #cjf2 subjectivism (1 #bgb1 #cjf2 on inn] s5se1 #adh1 #bib-c2 contra/ betwe5 ,leibniz &1 #adf-g1 #dba1 #ehb2 8 use ( t]m idea reject$ by ,kant1 #ddi2 on prim>y & second>y qualities1 #ehf n42 rationalism (1 #eia-b2 8 pro( ( causal axiom1 #eid2 on ! causal relation1 #eif1 #eih ,logic1 ,kant's contribution to ! sci5ce (1 xxxvi-xxxix2 ,kant's view ( ! traditional1 #aj1 #ba1 #cc-f1 #ajj1 #aha1 #ahc1 #ahd-f1 #bei1 #ccb2 ! v>i\s k9ds (1 #afg ff42 di/9ction betwe5 g5]al & transc5d5tal1 xxxix1 #agj ff41 #agf ff41 #agh n41 #aha1 #ahc1 #ahd-e1 #aid-e1 #aif1 #cce ,logic1 ,kant's1 #a1 #aaj1 #agj ff41 #ahj-a1 #egf n41 #egg n41 #ehj n41 #eha n41 #ehb ,lose ,bltt] aus ,kant's ,na*lass1 xx-xxi1 #aab n41 #bjb-c1 #bji1 #baa n41 #bcb-d1 #bfa ,lotze1 #a n41 #cf1 #aha ,ma*1 ,e41 #eif ,mairan1 ,j4 ,j4 ,dort\s de1 #dif ,malebran*e1 xxxi1 xxxii1 xliii n41 #ae1 #bh1 #dg2 ,kant's ph5om5alism anticipat$ by1 #ba-b2 rationalism (1 #eij-a2 on ! causal relation1 #eif-h ,manifolds1 ( appe>ance1 #hd-e2 empirical1 #bfg1 #bgd ff42 pure a priori1 #hh-ij1 #ib ff41 #ie1 #if-g1 #acd1 #adb n41 #adh n41 #aga1 #aid-e1 #bbf1 #bbh-i1 #bfg1 #bfi-gj1 #bhi1 #ccg1 #cdd1 #cge1 #che n4 ,ma!matics1 me?ods (1 #ag-ah2 judgm5ts 91 n all syn!tic1 #fd2 pr9ciple ( contradiction 9 ma!matical reason+1 #fj1 #fd-e1 #cdd2 ,kant's intuitional view (1 #dj-a1 #fe-f2 di/9ction betwe5 ma!matical & philosophical k1 #ae1 #efc ff42 pure & appli$1 #fh1 #aaa-ab1 #aad-ae1 #adj1 #aff1 #eff2 use ( s*emata 91 #ccg-i4 ,see ,ari?metic1 ,geometry ,matt]1 ,kant's dynamical !ory (1 #ced-e2 pr9ciple ( cons]vation (1 #cfa-b ,mei]1 #dda ,m5delssohn1 ,moses1 xix1 xxxii1 #f1 #aa1 #eh1 #ach n41 #aci n41 #aej1 #aec1 #afj-a1 #deh-i n41 #dfg1 #dgj-a ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce1 ,kant's1 #ef n41 #ff1 #ig1 #abg-h1 #afd-e n41 #cab n41 #ced n41 #cfa n41 #chj-a1 #chd n41 #dia1 #egi n4 ,metaphysics1 di/9ction betwe5 imman5t & transc5d5t1 liv-lv1 #ae1 #ai1 #bb1 #bf-g1 #cc1 #ej1 #eb1 #ec1 #ee-f1 #eh-i1 #ff-gj1 #bdd-e1 #beg-h1 #ede1 #ehj-a2 9 disrepute1 #h-i2 ,kant pr(esses to e/abli% a q f9al1 #aj1 #ce1 #edc ff42 8,cop]nican hypo!sis0 &1 #ah ff42 z natural disposition1 #ab-ac1 #fh ff42 z sci5ce1 #fh ff42 hypo!ses n valid 91 #edc ff42 ! problems (1 #efi-gf1 #egi-ha ,me?od1 ! sceptical1 #ede-f2 ma!matical1 #efc-g4 ,see ,analytic & ,syn!tic ,me?ods ,mill1 ,j4 ,s41 #hf1 #cfd-e1 #cgg1 #eif ,m9d1 ,kant's use ( t]m1 #ha ,mi/ak5 ,subtlety ( ! ,f\r ,syllogi/ic ,figures1 ,kant's1 #aha-b ,modality1 #cia ff4 ,monadologia physica1 ,kant's1 #ced ,moral attitude1 !1 xxxvi1 xlv1 lv ff41 #eae-af1 #ega ff4 ,moral belief1 lvi ff41 #egg ,moral law1 consci\sness ( !1 de facto1 xxxvi1 xlv1 #egb-c ,motion1 doctr9e (1 #abg-i1 #acc2 ,galileo's revolution>y doctr9e (1 #ehc-d ,mll]1 ,max1 #ge ,natural ,sci5ce1 pure1 #ff-h2 & imman5t metaphysics1 #gj4 ,see ,metaphysics ,nature1 means 8all t is10 #af ,necessity1 & univ]sality1 #ef-g2 def9ition (1 #cia ff42 ( ?\ght & ( exi/5ce1 #djb-c1 #ebg1 #ecc1 #ecf2 limit$ be+ may exi/ by uncondition$1 #ebg1 #ecc1 #ecf2 absolute necessity n purely logical1 #ebh2 uncondition$1 ,idea (1 #ebg ff41 #ecc-g1 #eda-b1 #eee1 #eeh-fa2 & cont+5cy1 concepts (1 n applicable to ?+s 9 !mselves1 #ece2 relative1 #eda1 #eee1 #ega ff4 ,negative ,quantity1 ,kant's essay on1 #cha1 #djc n4 ,new ,doctr9e ( ,motion & ,re/1 ,kant's1 #ced1 #cha n4 ,newton1 8 influ5ce on ,kant1 lv-lvi1 #if n41 #adj-b1 #afa ff41 #ced n42 ,kant modifies ,newton's cosmology1 #eci ,n\m5on1 positive & negative conception (1 #djh ff41 #dac4 ,see ,appe>ance ,numb]1 s*ema (1 #cdg-h4 ,see ,ari?metic ,object1 ,kant's use ( t]m1 #gi-ha1 #afg n41 #agd2 transc5d5tal1 #bjc ff42 empirical1 #bjf ff41 #bbc1 #bgj ff41 #cjh ff4 ,objective1 n ! opposite ( ! subjective1 #bgi ff41 #cac-ad2 validity ( ,ideas1 #eeh-fa ,occasionalism1 #dfe1 #eif-g1 #eih ,on ! ,radical ,evil 9 ,human ,nature1 ,kant's treatise1 lviii1 lix ,ontological argum5t1 #ebg ff4 ,op9ion1 ,kant's use ( t]m1 #edc1 #egf-g ,organon1 #ga-b1 #afi-gj1 #agd ,oswald1 xxviii n4 ,out] ,s5se1 #adg1 #bgf1 #bic ff41 #cfj ,p>alogisms1 #dee ff42 nature ( fallacy ( !1 #dff1 #dgj ,pauls51 #df-g1 #fd1 #cgc1 #fja n4 ,pe>son1 ,k41 #eif ,p]petual ,peace1 ,kant's treatise on1 lvii n4 ,ph5om5alism & subjectivism1 xxxix ff41 xlv-xlvii1 #hb-d1 #abj-b1 #acf-h1 #ach-i1 #adj1 #aej-d1 #aee-i1 #bbc1 #bbg1 #bgj ff41 #cab ff41 #cdi-ea1 #ceg-h1 #cgc-d1 #djg n41 #dad-ag ,ph5om5on1 di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance &1 #hc4 ,see ,appe>ance ,philosophy1 causes ( failure (1 #ei2 ,kant re9t]prets its function & aims1 lvi1 #ega-f1 #egg-h2 ! doma9s (1 #egi-ha2 ,kant's view ( hi/ory (1 #ehb ,physico-!ological argum5t1 #ech ff4 ,physics1 me?od (1 #ag-ah2 ,kant's views reg>d+1 #ced-e1 #cfa-b1 #cgi-ha ,pi/orius1 #cje1 #cjg-h1 #cbc1 #dfg ,plato1 xlv1 #dg1 #aeh1 #cja1 #cij1 #dcf1 #dif1 #ehb ,pope1 #aef ,possibility1 ,kant's def9ition (1 #cia ff4 ,po/ulates4 ,see ,hypo!ses ,practical employm5t ( ,reason1 lvi-lix1 #efi ff4 ,pragmatic belief1 lvi1 #egg ,prantl1 #gc ,pre-e/abli%$ h>mony1 #bh1 #dg1 #aad1 #ada-b1 #bfg-h1 #bij1 #dfe1 #eij ,prie/ley1 ,j41 xxviii n41 #aa1 #efg n4 ,prim>y & second>y qualities1 #hb1 #abj-b1 #adf1 #adi ff41 #cjf ,pr9ciples nev] self-evid5t1 xxvi-xxviii1 xxxv-xxxviii1 #cf ff41 #ec1 #ahe-f1 #cdj4 ,see ,a priori ,probabilities1 inf]5ce f4 ,see ,hypo!ses ,prolegom5a to ,e ,future ,metaphysics1 ,kant's1 xxv1 xxviii n41 xxix n41 #ab1 #ac1 #df1 #dg1 #di1 #ei-fj1 #fa-d1 #fe1 #ff-g1 #fh ff41 #hj1 #hd1 #ia1 #ajf1 #aji-aa1 #aaf1 #aba1 #abi1 #adf1 #adi1 #aeb1 #aec1 #aee1 #aef1 #aeh1 #aei1 #afa1 #afc1 #afe1 #agh-i1 #ahd1 #ahh1 #bcd1 #bhh-i1 #bii1 #cjj-a1 #cje-h1 #cdf1 #cfa n41 #cgf-g ,psy*ology1 ,kant's views reg>d+1 xliii-xlvii1 #ej-a1 #bce ff41 #bfc ff41 #bfi-bgj1 #caa n41 #cab n41 #chd-e1 #dee ff41 #dgc-g1 #ehj-a ,pure1 ,kant's use ( t]m1 #a-b1 #ed-f1 #fd ,quality1 & int5sive magnitude1 #ceb4 ,see ,prim>y & second>y qualities ,rationalism1 ,kant's type (1 xxxv-xxxvi1 #beg-h2 relation to ! rationalism ( ,leibniz1 #dah ff4 ,see ,a priori ,reason1 mean+s ( ! t]m1 liii-lv1 lvi1 #b-c1 #ga1 #dbf ff41 #ebj-a1 #eeh-fa2 in]adicably metaphysical1 liii-lv1 lvi1 #h2 condition ( free actions1 #eae-af2 z practical1 lvi ff41 #eae-ag2 z caus+ ant9omy1 liii1 #eai ff42 hypo!tical employm5t (1 #edi-ej2 ,ideal (1 #eef ff4 ,see ,ideali/ & sceptical views ( ,reason1 ,ideas ( ,reason ,re*tslehre1 ,kant's1 #aij ,reciprocity1 category (1 #aig1 #cha ff41 #dcd-e1 #dci-dj1 #dea-d ,reflexion5 ,kants zur ,kritik d] re95 ,v]nunft1 xx1 xxiii1 xlix1 lv1 #he1 #hf1 #ajf1 #abg1 #ahb1 #ahh ff41 #aif1 #aig1 #aih1 #bjj-a1 #bjb-c 1 #bjh1 #bca-b1 #bfa1 #ccd n41 #cii1 #dcc-dj1 #ddh-i1 #edc ,regulative4 ,see ,ideas ( ,reason ,reicke1 xx4 ,see ,lose ,bltt] ,reim>us1 #aic ,repres5tation1 ,kant's use ( t]m1 #ha1 #ajd2 di/9ction betwe5 repres5tation & its object1 #ace1 #acf-g1 #bgb ff41 #cjh ff41 #cag-ah1 #cfe4 ,see ,ph5om5alism & subjectivism ,repres5tative p]ception1 doctr9e (1 xxxix-xliii1 xlvi1 #bgb ff41 #bih ff41 #ehe-h ,riehl1 ,a41 xliv n41 #df1 #ea1 #hh1 #ajb n41 #aie1 #cjc-d1 #cag-ah1 #cdj-a1 #cdb1 #ceg-h1 #cgb n41 #cgc1 #fja n41 #fje ,r\sseau1 lvii1 lviii-lix1 #dcf1 #efg n41 #egh ,rule1 two k9ds (1 #cgb ,russell1 ,b41 #dia-b1 #efh n4 ,sceptical me?od1 ,kant's1 #dha1 #ede-f ,sceptical view ( ,reason1 #dha1 #ejj-c1 #eaa-ab1 #eai-ba1 #ebh-i1 #ecc-g1 #eda-b1 #edg ff41 #eeh-fa ,scepticism1 #i1 #ac-ae1 #ede-f1 #efg ,s*ematism1 #aie-f1 #bfe-g1 #bhi1 #caa1 #ccc1 #ccd ff41 #dfg n42 & images1 #ccg-i ,s*op5hau]1 #ge1 #aig1 #cae-af1 #cfe-g1 #cgg-i1 #chg-i1 #djg n41 #dhb-c n41 #dic n41 #die n4 ,s*ulze1 ,johann1 #abi-ca1 #ach1 #aih-i1 #dhj n4 ,s*tz1 #aec ,segn]1 #ff ,self1 ,kant's semi-,critical1 spirituali/ view ( !1 l1 #bjg-i1 #bab1 #bdc1 #bfj-c1 #cbg-h1 #dgc-g1 #eae2 may n be an ultimate =m ( exi/5ce1 l-lii1 #bfj-c1 #bgg-i1 #cbg1 #dei-fb1 #dgc-g2 ,idea ( !1 #dci-dj1 #dee-fb1 #dga1 #dgb-g1 #eed2 ,kant's view ( nature & de/9y (1 #dgb-g4 ,see ,app]ception1 ,s\l ,self-consci\sness4 ,see ,app]ception1 ,consci\sness ,self-evid5ce1 ,kant's rejection (1 xxvi-xxviii1 xxxv-xxxviii1 #cf1 #ec1 #aah1 #adb1 #ahe-f1 #efc-d1 #efe-f4 ,see ,a priori ,s5sation1 ,kant's views (1 #ha-b1 #hd-h1 #bgd-g1 #cdi-eb2 non-spatial1 #he-h1 #ajj-a1 #aje2 requir$ = det]m9+ actuality1 #cia ff42 s5sations1 feel+s1 etc41 subject to law ( causality1 xlvi n41 #bge1 #bgi-hb1 #caa-ab1 #cac-ad1 #chd-e ,s5sibility1 may h a common root ) und]/&+1 #gg2 def9ition (1 #ha1 #afg-h2 z a limitation1 #aaf2 criticism ( ,leibniz's view (1 #adc-f2 ,kant's view (1 #bgd-g ,sev5 ,small ,pap]s1 ,kant's1 #bih ,sidgwick1 ,h41 #cad ,sigsbee1 ,r4 ,a41 #aa ,sigw>t1 #cf1 #aha1 #aig ,simultaneity4 ,see ,"t ,s\l1 & body1 ,kant's view ( _! relation1 #bge-f1 #bgi-hd1 #cab ff41 #chd-e1 #dfd-f1 #dfg1 #dga1 #dgf4 ,see ,app]ception1 ,self ,space1 ,kant's views (1 xxxv-xxxvi1 lii1 #he ff41 #ahh2 involves an ,idea ( ,reason1 liii-liv1 #if-h1 #ajb n41 #afe-f1 #cij-a2 metaphysical exposition (1 #ii ff41 #aji-aj1 #aab ff41 #acd ff42 transc5d5tal exposition (1 #aji ff41 #cdd-e2 n a prop]ty ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 #aab ff42 is ! =m ( out] s5se1 #aad-af2 transc5d5tal ideality (1 #gf1 #aaf-ag2 uni=m = all human be+s1 #aaf-ah1 #abj1 #bda-b1 #beg2 possibility ( o!r spaces1 #aag ff42 criticism ( ,newtonian & ,leibnizian views (1 #adj-b2 m]ely de facto "* (1 #eg1 #aah1 #adb1 #ahe-f1 #beg2 z ,und+1 #aed2 9 relation to ,div9e ,exi/5ce1 #aei-fa2 & incongru\s c\nt]p>ts1 #afa ff42 involv$ 9 consci\sness ( "t1 #cji ff41 #chd-f1 #cij-a2 ignor$ by ,kant 9 doctr9e ( s*ematism1 #cda1 #cdh1 #cfj2 involves category ( reciprocity1 liii-liv1 #che-g1 #cij-a2 & ant9omy1 #dhj ff4 ,see ,geometry ,specification1 transc5d5tal pr9ciple (1 #eja-b ,sp5c]1 ,h]b]t1 #hg1 #ehd n41 #eif ,sp9oza1 #gd1 #bgc n41 #ddj1 #ehg1 #fja-b ,/adl]1 #aig1 #cgh-i1 #chi n4 ,/irl+1 ,j4 ,hut*ison1 #bc1 #ge1 #cff n41 #cgg ,/\t1 ,g4 ,f41 #hg1 #cfg n41 #chg ,subconsci\s1 !1 ,kant's view (1 #bfc ff41 #bgc-d ,subjectivism1 9 ,kant's doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object1 xxxix ff41 xlv-xlvii1 #bjf ff41 #bag-ah4 ,see ,ph5om5alism & subjectivism1 ,idealism ,sub/ance & attribute1 category (1 #cfb-c ,sulz]1 xxviii n4 ,summum ,bonum1 #ege1 #egg ,sw$5borg1 #aee n41 #aeh n41 #bii ,swift1 ,b5jam91 #gd ,syn!tic1 problem ( k a priori &1 xxv ff41 xxxv-xxxvi1 xxxviii1 #bh ff41 #cg ff41 #ei ff42 k f m]e concepts1 #fd2 decompos+ syn!sis1 #ie2 ambiguities 9 ,kant's =mulation ( problem ( a priori syn!tic judgm5ts1 #dc ff42 processes1 xliii-xlv1 l-lii1 #bde-h1 #bfa-b1 #bfc ff41 #bgg-h1 #bic1 #bie ff41 #cbb1 #cbg ff4 ,see ,analytic & syn!tic judgm5ts1 & me?ods ,sy/em ( pure reason1 #ga-c1 #egi-hj ,teleological argum5t1 #ecf-g1 #ech-db1 #eef-h ,t]rasson1 ,jean1 #ae ,tet5s1 #hb1 #adh1 #bid n41 #dge ,?ales1 #ah ,!i/1 z contra/$ ) dei/1 #eda ,?+s 9 !mselves1 ,kant's fir/ use ( phrase1 #aab n42 transc5d5tal object equival5t to ?+ 9 itself1 #bjd ff4 ,see ,appe>ance ,?9k+1 discursive & creative4 ,see ,und]/&+ ,?omasius1 #aic ,"t1 consci\sness (1 ,kant's datum1 xxxiv1 #abj1 #bda-b2 metaphysical exposition (1 #abc ff42 z inf9ite1 #abe2 transc5d5tal exposition (1 #abf ff41 #cdd-e2 z =m ( inn] s5se1 #acd-e1 #bic ff42 axioms (1 #abg2 n a det]m9ation ( out] appe>ance1 #acd ff42 m]ely de facto "* (1 xxxv-xxxvi1 lii1 #adb1 #efe-g2 simultaneity n a mode (1 #ace ff41 #cef1 #ceh-i2 & simultane\s appreh5sion1 #ace-f1 #cdh1 #ceh-i1 #cfg-h1 #cga-b1 #cha-b2 & reality ( inn] *anges1 #ach-dj2 transc5d5tal ideality (1 #gf1 #ach2 ,kant's view (1 n a m]e hypo!sis1 #adg2 space involv$ 9 consci\sness (1 #acd-f1 #cji ff41 #cda1 #cdg-h2 subjective & objective ord] (1 #ceh ff41 #cfe ff41 #cha ff42 "t relations det]m9$ by ! giv51 #cd-e1 #bfg-h1 #cfg1 #cgj1 #cga-b1 #cgg2 does n itself *ange1 #adb1 #cei-fj2 category ( causality involv$ 9 consci\sness (1 liii-liv1 #cfe ff41 #cgg ff41 #chg2 _c be exp]i5c$ 9 & by itself1 #cge-f2 category ( reciprocity involv$ 9 consci\sness (1 #cha-ia2 ,idea ( ,reason involv$ 9 consci\sness (1 liii-liv1 #if-h1 #cij-a2 inf9itude & inf9ite divisibility (1 #cij-a1 #dha1 #dhc ff4 ,totality4 ,see ,uncondition$ ,transc5d5t4 ,see ,transc5d5tal & ,metaphysics ,transc5d5tal1 mean+ ( t]m1 #gc-f1 #aaf-ag1 #cjb2 illusion1 #ac1 #dbg-i1 #eeb1 #eee2 me?od ( pro(1 xxxv1 xxxvii-xxxviii1 #de1 #bch-i1 #bda-c1 #bei-fj1 #cdd1 #efh1 #egb ff42 ideality ( space & "t1 #gf1 #aaf-ag1 #ach2 exposition ( space & "t1 #aji ff41 #abf ff41 #cdd-e2 object1 ,kant's doctr9e (1 xlvi n41 #bjc1 #bjd ff41 #cbb1 #cbh1 #cga-c1 #djf-g1 #dab1 #dad1 #dae1 #eac-ad1 #eah2 unity ( app]ception1 ,kant's pre-,critical view (1 #bjg ff41 #bab2 unity ( app]ception1 ,kant's doctr9e (1 l-lii1 #bej-c1 #bfj-c1 #bgj1 #bgg-i1 #cbb ff41 #dee ff41 #dgc-g2 psy*ology1 xliii-xlvii1 l-lii1 #ej-a1 #bce ff41 #bec1 #bfc ff42 ,ideal1 #ebb ff42 pr9ciples ( ,reason1 #eej-a2 illusion1 #ac1 #dbg-i1 #dcg1 #def ff41 #dhj1 #eeb1 #eee4 ,see ,d$uction ( ,categories & ( ,ideas ,transition f ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce to ,physics1 ,kant's treatise1 #bge n41 #bhc n41 #dhb n41 #ead n4 ,tr5del5burg1 #aac-ad1 #adj ,tru?4 ,see ,coh]5ce !ory ( tru? ,ueb] das ,organ d] ,seele1 ,kant's1 #ha n41 #bge n4 ,ueb] e9e ,entdeckung1 etc41 ,kant's reply to ,eb]h>d1 #ij ff41 #adc n4 ,ueb] ,philosophie b]haupt1 ,kant's1 #hc n41 #abh ,ulri*s1 #dfg1 #dga ,uncondition$1 ,idea ( !1 its relation to category ( totality1 #aii-bjj1 #dcc-d1 #dea1 #dhj1 #ebi1 #eei-fj2 our aw>5ess ( ! condition$ presupposes !1 #daf-ag1 #dbi ff42 9 connection ) ,kant's view ( ! self1 #dgc-g2 ,kant's criticism ( ! ,idea ( !1 #dih1 #ebg ff41 #ecc-g1 #eda-b1 #eee1 #eeh-fa4 ,see ,ideali/ & ,sceptical views ( ,reason ,und]/&+1 & ,reason1 lii-lv1 #b1 #eb2 def9$1 #ha2 may h common root ) s5sibility1 #gg2 di/9ction betwe5 its discursive & its orig9ative activities1 #agb1 #agf ff41 #ahb-c1 #bfc ff41 #bgg-h1 #ccd-e1 #cgj1 #cgg2 view$ by ,kant z a unity1 #agd ff41 #ahe-f2 its prim>y function1 xxxiv-xxxv1 xxxviii1 xli-xlii1 #ic-id1 #acc1 #aha-b1 #bhh-i1 #ccb1 #cgj1 #cgg2 z intuitive1 #afj1 #bia1 #djh ff41 #dfh n41 #edb4 ,see ,concept ,univ]sal ,natural ,hi/ory & ,!ory ( ! ,heav5s1 ,kant's1 #eci ,unt]su*ung b] die ,deutli*keit d] ,grundstze1 ,kant's1 #aaj n41 #aca ,vaih+]1 ,hans1 xx1 xxv1 xxviii n41 xliv n41 #b1 #ac1 #bc1 #dc1 #de ff41 #eb1 #ec1 #ei1 #fj1 #fd1 #fe1 #ff1 #ha1 #hg1 #ajd1 #aje1 #aji1 #aab1 #aac1 #aag1 #abg1 #acj1 #aci1 #adj1 #adc1 #adg1 #adh1 #aef1 #afa1 #afb1 #bjb ff41 #bfa1 #bfh-i1 #bih-i1 #cja1 #cad-cae1 #egi n41 #fja n4 ,value1 problems (1 lvi1 lx-lxi ,void1 ,kant's doctr9e ( !1 #ced-e ,voltaire1 xxxi1 #dcf1 #eci ,von dem er/5 ,grunde des ,unt]s*i$es d] ,geg5d5 im ,raume1 ,kant's1 #dj1 #hf n41 #adj1 #afb ,watson1 ,j41 #a n41 #bc n41 #ge1 #ajb n41 #aag1 #ahc1 #aie1 #aif1 #aih1 #bfb1 #cbh1 #dfb1 #dfh n41 #efd ,w9delb&1 #df ,wolff1 #aib-c1 #bgb1 #dcf1 #ddj1 #ebb1 #egi1 #ehg1 #fja-f ,z$litz1 ,freih]r von1 #f-g ,,! ,,end ,pr9t$ by ,r4 ,r4 ,,cl>k1 ,,limit$1 ,ed9burgh4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,footnotes3 #a ,head+s n 9 ,kant's ,table ( ,cont5ts are pr9t$ 9 italics4 #b ,w4 x4 p4 #cbc4 #c ,w4 x4 p4 #caf4 #d ,cf4 ,kant's lett] to ,lamb]t1 ,septemb] #b1 #aggj3 ,w4 x4 p4 #ic4 #e ,embodi$ 9 8 edition ( ! ,kritik 7#ahhi74 #f ,f lett] to ,m>cus ,h]z1 ,june #g1 #aggg3 ,w4 x4 pp4 #aaf-ag4 #g ,f lett] to ,m>cus ,h]z1 ,febru>y #ba1 #aggb3 ,w4 x4 p4 #abg4 #h ,reflexion5 ii4 #e4 #i ,^! passages are by no means unambigu\s1 & are comm5t$ ^u bel[1 p4 #fa ff4 #aj ,= ju/ification ( ?is int]pretation ( ,hume ,i mu/ ref] ! read] to my articles on 8,! ,naturalism ( ,hume0 9 ,m9d1 vol4 xiv4 ,n4,s4 pp4 #adi-gc1 #cce-dg4 #aa ,to ?is fact ,kant himself draws att5tion3 8,b ! p]petual h>d fate ( metaphysics w\ld n all[ ,hume to be und]/ood4 ,we _c )\t a c]ta9 s5se ( pa9 consid] h[ utt]ly 8 oppon5ts1 ,reid1 ,oswald1 ,beattie1 & ev5 ,prie/ley1 miss$ ! po9t ( ! problem4 ,= :ile !y 7 ev] assum+ z conc$$ :at he d\bt$1 & demon/rat+ ) eag]ness & (t5 ) arrogance :at he nev] ?\ght ( disput+1 !y s ov]look$ 8 incl9ation t[>ds a bett] /ate ( ?+s1 t ev]y?+ rema9$ undi/urb$ 9 its old condition40--,prolegom5a1 p4 #f2 ,mahaffy & ,b]n>d's trans4 p4 #e4 #ab ,sulz]'s translation ( ,hume's ,essays 7includ+ ! ,enquiries7 appe>$ 9 #aged-ef4 #ac ,! ^w :i* ,kant uses is ,er9n]ung 7cf4 bel[1 p4 xxix1 n4 #d74 ,!re are two ma9 reasons = believ+ t ,kant _h n himself read ! ,treatise4 ,he 0 imp]fectly acqua9t$ ) ! ,engli% language1 & !re 0 no exi/+ ,g]man translation4 7,jakob's translation did n appe> till #agij-ia4 ,on ,kant's k ( ,engli%1 cf4 ,erdmann3 ,ar*iv fr ,ges*i*te d] ,philosophie1 ,bd4 i4 7#ahhh7 pp4 #fb ff41 #baf ff42 & ,k4 ,groos3 ,kant-,/udi51 ,bd4 v4 7#aijj7 p4 #agg ff43 & bel[1 p4 #aef47 ,&1 secondly1 ,kant's /atem5ts reveal 8 entire ignorance ( ,hume's view ( ma!matical sci5ce z giv5 9 ! ,treatise4 #ad ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 ,comm5t>y1 i4 p4 #cdd ff4 ,beattie does1 inde$1 ref] to ,hume's view ( ma!matical sci5ce z giv5 9 ! ,treatise1 b 9 s indirect & casual a mann] t ,kant c\ld n possibly ga!r f ! ref]5ce any notion ( :at t treatm5t 04 ,cf4 ,beattie's ,essay on ! ,nature & ,immutability ( ,tru? 7six? edition71 pp4 #ach1 #adb1 #bfi4 #ae ,^! ,hume _h himself po9t$ out bo? 9 ! ,treatise & 9 ! ,enquiry2 & because ( !m he rejects scepticism z a feasible philosophy ( life4 ,kant's /atem5t above quot$ t ,hume's critics 7among :om ,beattie is cit$7 87 ev] assum+ :at ,hume d\bt$1 & demon/rat+ ) eag]ness & (t5 ) arrogance :at he nev] ?\ght ( disput+10 und\bt$ly ref] 9 a q especial degree to ,beattie4 #af ,w]ke1 x4 p4 #abc ff4 ,x is dat$ ,febru>y #ba1 #aggb4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bai-bj4 #ag ,9 ,prolegom5a1 p4 #f 7above quot$1 p4 xxviii1 n4 #a71 & p4 #h 7trans4 p4 #f73 8,i %\ld ?9k ,hume might fairly h laid z mu* claim to s\nd s5se z ,beattie1 & besides to a critical und]/&+ 7su* z ! latt] did n possess740 #ah ,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 p4 #h3 8,i hone/ly confess t my recollection ( ,david ,hume's tea*+ 7die ,er9n]ung des ,david ,hume7 0 ! v ?+ :i* _m ye>s ago ,kant is writ+ 9 #aghc fir/ int]rupt$ my dogmatic slumb]1 & gave my inve/igations 9 ! field ( speculative philosophy q a new direction40 ,kant's employm5t ( ! t]m ,er9n]ung may p]haps be int]pret$ 9 view ( ! indirect s\rce ( 8 k ( ,hume's ma9 position4 ,he w\ld br+ to 8 read+ ( ,beattie's quotations ! memory ( ,hume's o!r sceptical doctr9es z exp\nd$ 9 ! ,enquiry4 #ai ,kant1 x %\ld be not$1 classifies philosophies z ei!r dogmatic 7 rationali/ic7 or sceptical4 ,empiricism he reg>ds z a =m ( scepticism4 #bj ,quot$ by ,beattie 7op4 cit41 six? edition1 p4 #bie71 :o1 h[ev] incapable ( appreciat+ ! =ce ( ,hume's argum5ts1 0 at lea/ awake to c]ta9 ( _! ultimate consequ5ces4 #ba ,= a m detail$ /atem5t ( ,kant's relation to 8 philosophical pr$ecessors1 cf4 bel[1 ,app5dix ,b1 p4 #ehc ff4 #bb ,! t]m 8recognition0 is employ$ by ,kant 9 its wide/ s5se1 z cov]+1 = in/ance1 recognition ( ! pa/ z pa/1 or ( an object z be+ a c]ta9 k9d ( object4 #bc ,consci\sness ( "t1 consci\sness ( objects 9 space1 consci\sness ( self1 are ! ?ree modes ( exp]i5ce :i* ,kant seeks to analyse4 ,!y are f\nd to be insep>able f "o ano!r & 9 _! union to con/itute a =m ( consci\s exp]i5ce t is equival5t to an act ( judgm5t--i4e4 to be a =m ( aw>5ess t involves relational categories & univ]sal concepts4 #bd ,z we h not$ 7above1 pp4 xxvi-xxvii71 x 0 ,hume's insi/5ce ^u ! syn!tic1 non-self-evid5t "* ( ! causal axiom t awak5$ ,kant f 8 dogmatic slumb]4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #fa ff41 #eic ff4 #be ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 lvi ff41 #ega ff4 #bf ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cf-g4 #bg ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #edc ff4 #bh ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 liii-iv4 #bi ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #de1 #bch-dc4 #cj ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cc-f1 #aha1 #ahc-f4 #ca ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cc-db1 #cid-e1 #cih4 #cb ,) ! sole exception ( ,malebran*e1 :o on ?is po9t anticipat$ ,kant4 #cc ,?is is ! position t ,kant endeav\rs to exp\nd 9 ! v unsatisfactory =m ( a doctr9e ( 8inn] s5se40 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 l-ii1 #bia ff4 #cd ,?is 0 ,kant's *ief reason = omitt+ ! s-call$ 8subjective d$uction ( ! categories0 f ! second edition4 ,! tea*+ ( ! subjective d$uction is1 h[ev]1 pres]v$ 9 almo/ unmodifi$ =m ?r\gh\t ! ,critique z a :ole1 & its 8transc5d5tal psy*ology0 =ms1 z ,i %all try to %[1 an ess5tial "p ( ,kant's c5tral tea*+4 ,9 ?is matt] ,i f9d myself 9 agreem5t ) ,vaih+]1 & 9 complete disagreem5t ) ,riehl & ! majority ( ! neo-,kantians4 ,! neo-,kantian attempt to treat epi/emology 9 indep5d5ce ( all psy*ological consid]ations is b\nd to lead to v diff]5t conclusions f ^? :i* ,kant himself rea*$4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bcg ff41 #bfc-gj4 #ce ,?is subjectivism f9ds expression 9 ,kant's doctr9e ( ! 8transc5d5tal object0 :i*1 z ,i %all try to prove1 is a doctr9e ( e>ly date & only semi-,critical4 ,t doctr9e is especially prom95t 9 ! section on ! ,ant9omies4 ,see bel[ p4 #bjd ff4 #cf ,cf4 pp4 #bgj ff41 #bih ff41 #cjh-ba1 #cgc-d1 #dad-ag4 #cg ,t ?is /atem5t holds ( feel+s & desires1 & !re=e ( all ! emotions1 z well z ( our s5se-cont5ts1 is emphasis$ by ,kant 9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bgf1 #bgi-hj1 #cab1 #chd-e4 #ch ,! connection ( ?is tea*+ ) ,kant's !ory ( consci\sness may be not$4 ,if consci\sness 9 all its =ms1 h[ev] primitive1 is already aw>5ess ( mean+1 its only possible task is to def9e1 modify1 recon/ruct1 & develop su* mean+1 nev] to obta9 = b>e cont5ts or exi/5ces objective or o!r significance4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 xli-ii1 xliv4 #ci ,reflexion5 zur ,an?ropologie1 #bjg4 #dj ,9 sket* ( a lett] 7summ] #agib7 to ,fr/ von ,beloselsky 7,w4 xi4 p4 #cca74 #da ,may #bf1 #aghi 7,w4 xi4 p4 #eb74 #db ,t ,kant has n develop$ a t]m9ology really adequate to ! /atem5t ( 8 mean+1 is %[n by a p>5!sis :i* ,i h omitt$ f ! above quotation4 #dc ,?is int]pretation ( ,kant appe>s 9 a v crude =m 9 ,james's ref]5ces to ,kant 9 8 ,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology4 ,x appe>s 9 a m subtle =m 9 ,lotze & ,gre54 ,caird & ,watson1 on ! o!r h&1 h c>efully gu>d$ !mselves aga9/ ?is view ( ,kant's tea*+1 & z ,i h ma9ta9$ 7pp4 xliii-v71 lie op5 to criticism only 9 s f> z !y t5d to ignore ^? aspects ( ,kant's tea*+ :i* _c be /at$ 9 t]ms ( logical implication4 #dd ,x may be object$ t ?is is virtually :at ,kant is do+ :5 he po/ulates syn!tic activities z ! s\rce ( ! categories4 ,kant w\ld probably h repli$ t he has n attempt$ to def9e ^! activities save to ! ext5t t is absolutely dem&$ by ! kn[n "* ( _! products1 & t he is will+ to admit t _m diff]5t explanations ( _! nature are possible4 ,!y may be due to "s k9d ( p]sonal or spiritual ag5cy1 b also !y may n4 ,on ! :ole "q ( ! legitimacy ( ,kant's g5]al me?od ( proc$ure1 cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bce-i1 #bfc ff41 #bgc-d1 #bgg ff41 #dfa-b1 #dgc-g4 #de ,cf4 ,conc]n+ ! ,advances made by ,metaphysics s9ce ,leibniz & ,wolff 7,w]ke 7,h>t5/e971 viii4 #ecj-a73 8,i am consci\s to myself ( myself--?is is a ?\ght :i* conta9s a tw(old ,i1 ! ,i z subject & ! ,i z object4 ,h[ x %\ld be possible t ,i1 ! ,i t ?9ks1 %\ld be an object 444 to myself1 & s %\ld be able to di/+ui% myself f myself1 x is altoge!r beyond our p[]s to expla94 ,x is1 h[ev]1 an und\bt$ fact 444 & has z a consequ5ce ! complete di/+ui%+ ( u (f f ! :ole animal k+dom1 s9ce we h no gr\nd = ascrib+ to animals ! p[] to say ,i to !mselves40 #df ,cf4 above1 p4 xxxiv2 bel[1 pp4 #bej-c1 #bfj-c1 #bhe-f4 #dg ,cf4 ,a #fea ,b #fgi3 8,! law ( ,reason1 :i* requires u to seek = ?is unity1 is a necess>y law1 z )\t x we %\ld h no ,reason at all1 & )\t ,reason no coh]5t employm5t ( ! und]/&+1 & 9 ! abs5ce ( ?is no suffici5t crit]ion ( empirical tru?40 ,cf4 also bel[1 pp4 #cij-a1 #dad-ag1 #dbi-ca1 #eai-ba1 #eeh-fa4 #dh ,reg>d+ a fur!r complication1 due to ! fact t ! ,dialectic 0 writt5 be=e ! tea*+ ( ! ,analytic 0 prop]ly matur$1 cf4 above1 p4 xxiv4 #di ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cca1 #cij-a1 #dad-ag4 #ej ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bb1 #cc1 #ef1 #ff ff4 #ea ,reflexion5 7,b4 ,erdmann's edition7 ii4 #bjd4 #eb ,= an alt]native & p]haps m adequate me?od ( describ+ ,kant's g5]al position1 cf4 bel[1 p4 #ega ff4 #ec ,above1 pp4 xxxviii-ix1 xlii1 xliv4 #ed ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #egg4 #ee ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ,w4 v4 p4 #cb2 ,abbott's trans4 pp4 #abj-a4 #ef ,op4 cit4 p4 #hf2 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #ahj4 #eg ,fragm5te aus dem ,na*lasse 7,w]ke 7,h>t5/e971 viii4 p4 #fbd74 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #egg-h4 ,kant claims = all m5 equality ( political rights1 & 9 8 treatise on ,p]petual ,peace ma9ta9s t w>s are n likely to cease until ! republican =m ( gov]nm5t is univ]sally adopt$4 ,he di/+ui%es1 h[ev]1 betwe5 republicanism & democracy4 ,by ! =m] he means a g5u9ely repres5tative sy/em2 ! latt] he int]prets z be+ ! 79 pr9ciple7 unlimit$ despotism ( majority rule4 ,kant accord+ly cont5ds t ! small] ! /aff ( ! executive1 & ! m effective ! repres5tation ( m9orities1 ! m complete w be ! approximation to ! ideal con/itution4 ,9 o!r words1 ! less gov]nm5t we c get along )1 ! bett]4 #eh ,on ! ,radical ,evil 9 ,human ,nature1 ,w4 vi4 p4 #bj2 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #cbf4 8,?is op9ion t ! _w is con/antly advanc+ f worse to bett] is c]ta9ly n f\nd$ on exp]i5ce if :at is meant is moral good or evil 7n civilisation71 = ! hi/ory ( all times speaks too p[]fully aga9/ x4 ,probably x is m]ely a good-natur$ hypo!sis 444 design$ to enc\rage u 9 ! unwe>i$ cultivation ( ! g]m ( good t p]haps lies 9 u44440 #ei ,f\ndations ( ! ,metaphysics ( ,morals1 ,w4 iv4 p4 #djg2 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #bd4 #fj ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ,w4 v4 pp4 #hd-e2 ,abbott's trans4 pp4 #agh-i4 #fa ,cf4 ,f\ndations ( ! ,metaphysics ( ,morals1 ,w4 iv4 p4 #dfc2 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #hd3 8,:ile we d n compreh5d ! practical unconditional necessity ( ! moral imp]ative1 we yet compreh5d its incompreh5sibility1 & ?is is all t c be fairly dem&$ ( a philosophy :i* /rives to c>ry its pr9ciples up to ! v limit ( human reason40 #fb ,on ! ,radical ,evil 9 ,human ,nature1 ,w4 vi4 pp4 #di-ej2 ,abbott's trans4 pp4 #ceg-h4 #fc ,cf4 ,pr+le-,pattison3 ,! ,idea ( ,god 9 ! ,light ( ,rec5t ,philosophy1 p4 #be ff4 #fd ,e9leitung1 i4 #fe ,h5ry ,home1 ,"l ,kames1 publi%$ 8 ,elem5ts ( ,criticism 9 #agfb4 #ff ,w4 ii4 p4 #caa4 ,9 ref]r+ to 8 c\rse 9 logic1 ,kant /ates t he w consid] ! tra9+ ( ! p[] ( s\nd judgm5t 9 ord9>y life1 & adds t 89 ! ,kritik d] ,v]nunft ! close k9%ip ( subject-matt] gives occasion = ca/+ "s glances ^u ! ,kritik des ,ges*macks1 i4e4 ^u ,ae/hetics40 ,?is passage s]ves to confirm ! conjecture t ! t]m ,kritik 0 borr[$ f ! title ( ,home's "w4 #fg ,= ,kant's o!r uses ( ! t]m pure1 cf4 bel[1 p4 #ee4 #fh ,comm5t> zu ,kants ,kritik d] re95 ,v]nunft1 i4 pp4 #aag-bj4 #fi ,= a def9ition1 less exclusively titul>1 & m adequate to ! actual scope ( ! ,critique1 cf4 bel[1 p4 #ef4 ,reason1 :5 di/+ui%$ f und]/&+1 ,i %all h]eaft] pr9t ) a capital lett]1 to m>k ! v special s5se 9 :i* x is be+ employ$4 #gj ,philosophical ,works ( ,francis ,bacon 7edit$ by ,j4 ,m4 ,rob]tson1 #aije71 p4 #bdg4 #ga ,= ,z$litz's sev]e /rictures 7,dec4 #agge7 ^u ! tea*+ 9 ,knigsb]g ,univ]sity1 & 8 incid5tal appreciative ref]5ce to ,kant1 cf4 ,s*ub]t's edition ( ,kant's ,w]ke1 xi4 pt4 ii4 pp4 #ei-fa4 #gb ,cf4 ,w4 x4 p4 #bjg4 #gc ,op4 cit4 pp4 #bab-ac4 #gd ,cf4 op4 cit4 pp4 #bjh-i4 #ge ,op4 cit4 p4 #bai4 #gf ,a v4-vi4 #gg ,a v4 n4 #gh ,cf4 above on title1 pp4 #b-c4 #gi ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #edc1 #egf-g4 #hj ,a vii4-viii4 #ha ,a xiv4 #hb ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #edc ff4 #hc ,cf4 ,a #hf ,b #aah-ai4 #hd ,morg5/und52 ,gesammelte ,s*rift51 #ahfc edition1 ii4 pp4 #bdf1 #bhh4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #afj-a4 #he ,cit$ by ,r4 ,a4 ,sigsbee1 ,philosophis*es ,sy/em ,joseph ,prie/leys 7#aiab71 p4 #cc4 #hf ,a v4 n4 #hg ,a viii4 #hh ,prolegom5a1 ,anhang1 ,trans4 ( ,mahaffy & ,b]n>d1 p4 #adg4 #hi ,a #a4 #ij ,b #ba4 ,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 #fj ff41 & bel[1 pp4 #dbg-i1 #eeb4 #ia ,a #big-h ,b #cec-e4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dbg-i4 #ib ,a iii4 #ic i4 p4 #ej4 #id ,p4 #i4 #ie ,?is /atem5t1 z we %all f9d1 calls = modification4 ,kant's ,critical position is m correctly describ$ z ph5om5alism ?an z subjectivism4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 xlv-vii2 bel[1 p4 #bgj ff4 #if ,a #gfi ,b #gig4 #ig ,a #gfa ,b #ghi-ij4 ,cf4 ,sections ,i4-,,iii4 9 ! ,me?odology4 #ih ,a iii4 #ii ,a v4 n4 #ajj ,a v4 n4 #aja ,cf4 ,kant's ,beantwortung d] ,frage3 ,0 hei/ ,aufklrung8 #aghd4 #ajb ,a v4 #ajc ,cf4 above1 pp4 #b-c4 #ajd ,cf4 above1 pp4 xliv-v2 bel[1 pp4 #ai1 #cc1 #ef1 #ff ff4 #aje ,a ix4 #ajf ,a x4-xi4 #ajg ,a xii4-xiii4 #ajh ,a xv4 #aji ,a xv4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ff-g4 #aaj ,b xiv4 #aaa ,b ix4 #aab ,b xi4 #aac ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bb-e4 #aad ,cf4 above1 p4 lvi2 bel[1 p4 #ega ff4 #aae ,diss]tation1 #g4 #aaf ,all ^! ass]tions call = lat] modification & re/atem5t4 #aag ,b xxx4 #aah ,b xxxii4 #aai ,b xxxvii4 #abj ,b xxxviii4 #aba ,b vii4 #abb ,b viii4 #abc ,b xvi4 #abd ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxvi-vii2 bel[1 pp4 #eid-e4 #abe ,cf4 8,malebran*e's ,!ory ( ! ,p]ception ( ,di/ance & ,magnitude10 9 ,briti% ,j\rnal ( ,psy*ology 7#aije71 i4 pp4 #aia-bjd4 #abf ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #adc ff41 #fjd4 #abg ,b xviii4-xix4 #abh ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cc1 #ef1 #ff ff4 #abi ,b xx4 #acj ,b xxii4 #aca ,b xvi42 ,b xxii4 n4 #acb ,watson's ,! ,philosophy ( ,kant ,expla9$ 7p4 #cg7 is ! only "w 9 :i* ,i h f\nd correct & unambigu\s indication ( ! true int]pretation ( ,kant's analogy4 #acc ,prolegom5a to ,e?ics1 bk i4 *4 i4 #aa4 #acd ,text-,book to ,kant 7#ahha71 p4 #bi4 #ace ,hi/ory ( ,mat]ialism1 ,eng4 transl41 ii4 pp4 #aef1 #aeh1 #bcg4 #acf ,ges*i*te d] neu]5 ,philosophie 7#ahif71 ii4 p4 #fd4 #acg ,hibb]t ,j\rnal1 ,octob] #aiaj1 p4 #di4 #ach ,de ,revolutionibus1 ,i4 v4 #aci ,ibid4 ,i4 x4 #adj ,b xxii4 n4 #ada ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #edc ff4 #adb ,b xxvi4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 lv-vi1 #bj2 bel[1 pp4 #bij-a1 #cca1 #cdb1 #djd ff4 #adc ,?is re/atem5t w cont9ue up to p4 #cc4 ,9 pp4 #cc-dc ,i %all !n give g5]al comm5t on ! ,introduction z a :ole4 ,9 p4 #dc ff4 ,i add ! necess>y detail$ treatm5t ( special po9ts4 #add ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bai ff4 #ade ,cf4 above1 p4 xxv ff42 bel[1 pp4 #fa ff41 #eic ff4 #adf ,?is /atem5t is fir/ made 9 ! ,introduction to ! second edition4 ,x is really out ( keep+ ) ! argum5t ( ! ,introduction 9 ei!r edition4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ci-dj1 #eg1 #he1 #afh1 #bbb1 #bde ff4 7especially pp4 #bgh1 #bhh74 #adg ,?is is ! argum5t ( ! ,introduction to ! second edition4 ,9 ! fir/ edition ,kant assumes )\t "q ! exi/5ce ( ! a priori4 ,he enquires only :e!r x is also valid 9 its metaphysical employm5t beyond ! field ( possible exp]i5ce4 #adh ,! argum5t ( ! fir/ edition1 ?\gh brief]1 is sub/antially ! same4 #adi ,quot$ bel[1 pp4 #bai-bj4 #aej ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #aad1 #bij1 #eij4 #aea ,a #f ,b #aj4 ,i "h foll[ ! word+ ( ! second edition4 #aeb ,kant's view ( ! a priori diff]s f t ( ,leibniz 9 two respects4 ,= ,kant a priori concepts are m]ely logical functions1 i4e4 empty2 & secondly1 are always syn!tic4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxiii-vi1 #ahf1 #aie-f1 #beg-h1 #bij-a1 #djd ff4 #aec ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxv-vii2 bel[1 pp4 #fa ff41 #eic ff4 #aed ,b #bd4 #aee ,cf4 above1 pp4 xliv-xlv1 #bb2 bel[1 pp4 #eb-c1 #ee-f1 #ff ff4 #aef ,ne$less to say1 ?is 8,ari/otelian0 logic1 9 ! traditional =m 9 :i* alone ,kant 0 acqua9t$ ) x1 div]ges v widely f ,ari/otle's actual tea*+4 #aeg ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxvi-ix2 bel[1 pp4 #cf1 #aha1 #ahd-f4 #aeh ,a vii4 #aei ,b xxiii-iv4 #afj ,above1 pp4 xxv-vii1 #bf2 bel[1 p4 #eic ff4 #afa ,cf4 above1 p4 xxxvi ff4 #afb ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxvii-viii2 bel[1 pp4 #bch-db4 #afc ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #agf ff41 #aha1 #aia1 #beg4 #afd ,a #f ,b #aj4 #afe ,leibniz's int]pretation ( ! judgm5t seems to result 9 an atomism :i* is ! conceptual c\nt]p>t ( 8 metaphysical monadism 7cf4 ,adamson1 ,developm5t ( ,mod]n ,philosophy1 i4 p4 #gg ff42 & my ,/udies 9 ! ,c>tesian ,philosophy1 p4 #afj ff42 also bel[1 p4 #fjc74 ,ea* concept is reg>d$ z hav+ exclusive jurisdiction1 s to speak1 ov] a cont5t :olly int]nal to itself4 ,! v>i\s concepts are l sov]eign /ates ) no m$iat+ tribunals capable ( prescrib+ to !m _! mutual deal+s4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cid-djj1 #dah ff4 #aff ,a #i ,b #ac4 #afg ,er/e ,betra*tung1 #b1 #c2 dritte ,betra*tung1 #a4 #afh ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #afb4 #afi #ab1 #ae ,c4 #agj ,cf4 ,b #ae-af4 #aga ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #abh ff41 on ,kant's views reg>d+ ari?metical sci5ce4 #agb ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #aag ff41 on ,kant & mod]n geometry1 & p4 #abh ff41 on ,kant's views reg>d+ ari?metical sci5ce4 #agc ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #aca-c1 #cch-i1 #dah ff4 #agd ,t c]ta9 p>ts ( ! ,introduction 7 writt5 at diff]5t dates is %[n bel[1 pp4 #ga-b4 ,t o!r p>ts may be ( simil>ly composite orig9 is always possible4 ,!re is1 h[ev]1 no suffici5t evid5ce to e/abli% ?is conclusion4 ,adickes' attempt to d s 7,k4 pp4 #ce-g n47 is n conv9c+4 #age ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxiii ff41 #a-b1 #bf ff4 #agf i4 pp4 #cag & #dej ff4 #agg i4 p4 #dab ff42 cf4 p4 #chh ff4 #agh ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bai-bj4 #agi ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 i4 p4 #cid4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #bh4 #ahj ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 i4 pp4 #dae-ag4 #aha ,pauls5 objects t if syn!tic a priori judgm5ts are valid )\t explanation1 !y d n ne$ x4 ,= two reasons ! objection does n hold4 7a7 ,)\t ?is explanation x w\ld be impossible to repel ! pret5sions ( transc5d5t metaphysics 7cf4 ,a #bji ,b #bed-e2 ,a #bhc ,b #bhe74 7b7 ,?is solution ( ! !oretical problem has also1 z above /at$1 its own intr9sic int]e/ & value4 ,)\t su* explanation ! validity ( ^! judgm5ts might be grant$1 b c\ld n be und]/ood4 7,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 #d-e & #ab at ! end4 ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 i4 p4 #cid47 #ahb ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 ii4 p4 #ccf4 ,! argum5t ( ! ,analytic1 :i* is /ill m complicat$1 w be consid]$ lat]4 #ahc ,cf4 ,a #df-i ,b #fd-f4 ,! correspond+ sections ( ! ,prolegom5a1 ,vaih+] cont5ds1 7 develop$ f ?is fir/ edition passage1 & ! transc5d5tal exposition ( space 9 ! second edition f ! argum5t ( ! ,prolegom5a4 #ahd ,! syn!tic me?od ( argum5t is1 z we %all see lat]1 fur!r ext5d$ 9 ! ,analytic by be+ connect$ ) ! problem ( ! validity ( ord9>y exp]i5ce4 ,b z ! ma!matical sci5ces are prov$ to h ! same conditions z--nei!r m nor less ?an--! consci\sness ( "t1 ?is also all[s ( a correspond+ ext5sion ( ! analytic me?od4 ,! ma!matical sci5ces c be sub/itut$ = ! de facto premiss by :i* ^! conditions are prov$4 #ahe ,cf4 above1 p4 #dc4 #ahf ,:at foll[s %\ld be read along ) p4 #bce ff4 bel[1 9 :i* ?is di/9ction betwe5 ! 8subjective0 & 8objective0 d$uctions is discuss$ 9 great] detail4 #ahg ,a x-xi4 #ahh ,?is is a criticism to :i* ,coh51 ,caird1 & ,riehl lay !mselves op54 #ahi ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bai-bj4 #aij ,cf4 above1 pp4 #di-ej4 #aia ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 i4 p4 #dje4 ,! exi/+ sci5ces c1 z ,vaih+] says1 be treat$ en bloc1 :]eas ea* ( ! pr9ciples ( ! new philosophy mu/ be sep>ately e/abli%$4 #aib ,a #a4 #aic ,a #a-b4 #aid ,b #f ,a #b4 #aie ,a #b4 #aif ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxv1 #cf ff42 bel[1 pp4 #efe-g4 #aig ,a #b4 #aih ,a #b4 #aii ,b #a4 #bjj ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ee4 #bja ,b #a4 #bjb ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ed4 #bjc ,b #b-c4 #bjd ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ee4 #bje ,b #a4 #bjf ,b #a4 #bjg ,b #a4 #bjh ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #hh ff4 #bji ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bcg ff4 #baj ,b #a4 #baa ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ee-f4 #bab ,b #b4 #bac ,cf4 above1 p4 #bg n4 #bad ,b #b4 #bae ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ci ff41 #ec2 bel[1 pp4 #eg-h1 #bbb ff41 #bda1 #bhf-i4 #baf ,b #b-c4 #bag ,cf4 above1 p4 #ec4 #bah ,a #i-aj ,b #ac4 #bai ,cf4 above1 p4 #ci ff41 & bel[1 pp4 #bhf-i4 #bbj ,p4 #ec2 cf4 also pp4 #a-b4 #bba ,cf4 also above1 pp4 #b-c4 #bbb ,b #c4 #bbc ,cf4 ,metaphysis*e ,anfangsgrnde1 ,haupt/ck ii4 ,lehrs4 #h1 ,zus4 #b1 9 :i* ela/icity & gravity are spok5 ( z ! only univ]sal prop]ties ( matt] :i* c be appreh5d$ a priori4 #bbd ,b #c-d4 #bbe ,cf4 above1 p4 #bg ff4 #bbf ,b #d4 #bbg ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxiii-iv1 #bg1 #eii ff4 #bbh ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxv-vi1 #cj2 bel[1 pp4 #ahe-f1 #beg-i4 #bbi ,loc4 cit4 #bcj ,b #e4 #bca ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxx1 #eii ff4 #bcb ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ci1 #ed4 #bcc ,a #b ,b #f4 #bcd ,b #g4 #bce ,cf4 ,kritik d] ,ur!ilskraft1 #ia1 ,w4 v4 p4 #dgc4 ,=ts*ritte1 ,w]ke 7,h>t5/e971 viii4 pp4 #egb-c4 #bcf ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bb1 #di-ej1 #eb4 #bcg ,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 #dj2 ,=ts*ritte1 pp4 #egg-h4 #bch i4 p4 #bch4 #bci ,p4 #egi4 #bdj ,a #gab ff4 ,b #gdj ff42 cf4 also ,=ts*ritte1 p4 #ebb4 #bda ,a #d ,b #h2 cf4 bel[1 p4 #efc ff4 #bdb ,a #d ,b #h4 #bdc ,a #e ,b #i4 #bdd ,cf4 ,b #ah4 #bde ,cf4 above1 p4 #bi4 #bdf ,a #f ff4 ,b #aj ff4 #bdg ,prolegom5a1 #b1 b1 c2 ,eng4 trans1 pp4 #ae-af4 ,on ! connection ( ma!matical reason+ ) ! pr9ciple ( contradiction1 cf4 bel[1 pp4 #fd-e4 #bdh ,p4 #ehb2 cf4 ,logik1 #cg4 #bdi ii4 p4 #beg4 #bej ,prolegom5a1 #d4 #bea ,cf4 ,b #bij4 #beb #b1 c4 #bec ,b #afa4 #bed ,b #bah4 #bee ,a #i ,b #ac4 #bef ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxv ff41 #bf2 bel[1 p4 #eic ff42 cf4 ,vaih+]1 i4 p4 #cdj ff4 #beg ,a #i ,b #ac1 ,b #aa1 ,b #ai4 #beh ,9 ,a #i ,b #ac1 ,b #aa1 ,b #ai4 #bei ,cf4 ,bor[ski's ,d>/ellung des ,leb5s und ,*>akt]s ,im4 ,kants 7,h(fmann's edition1 #aijb71 p4 #beb4 ,! ,g]man translation ( ,hume's ,enquiry conc]n+ ! ,human ,und]/&+ appe>$ 9 #agee1 & ,kant probably made 8 fir/ acqua9tance ) ,hume ?r\gh x4 ,cf4 above1 p4 xxviii2 bel[1 p4 #aef4 #bfj ,cf4 bel[1 ,app5dix ,b1 p4 #eic ff4 #bfa ,a #i ,b #ac4 #bfb ,a #gcc ,b #gfa4 #bfc ,a #gcg ,b #gfd4 #bfd i4 p4 #bia4 #bfe ,b #ad4 #bff ,b #ad4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ei-fj4 #bfg i4 p4 #bid4 #bfh ,b #ae4 #bfi ,b #ae4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #da4 #bgj ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 i4 p4 #bif4 #bga ,a #afd4 #bgb ,a #afd4 #bgc ,9 ,prolegom5a & 9 second edition4 #bgd ,b #ae4 #bge #b c4 #bgf ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #abh ff4 #bgg ,cf4 ,a #gac ,b #gda4 #bgh ,a #adj ,b #agi4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ccg ff4 #bgi ,b #ae4 #bhj ,b #ag4 #bha i4 p4 #cjd ff4 #bhb #ae4 #bhc ,?is latt] ,kant develop$ 9 8 ,metaphysis*e ,anfangsgrnde 7#aghf74 #bhd ,cf4 ,a #hdj ,b #hfi4 8,nature0 means1 9 ! ,kantian t]m9ology1 8all t is40 #bhe ,cf4 above1 pp4 xliv-v1 #ai1 #bb1 #cc1 #eb-c1 #ee-f4 #bhf #d4 #bhg ,! propositions ( pure natural sci5ce are n sep>ately treat$ 9 #d ( ! ,prolegom5a1 ?\gh ! subsequ5t argum5t implies t ?is has be5 done4 ,vaih+]'s inf]5ce 7i4 p4 #caj7 t a p>agraph1 pres5t 9 ,kant's manuscript1 has be5 dropp$ out 9 ! process ( pr9t+ ! f\r? section 7! section :i* conta9s ! p>agraphs transpos$ f ! end ( #b7 seems unavoidable4 ,! miss+ p>agraph 0 v probably t :i* is "h giv5 9 ,b #ag4 #bhh ,b #ah4 #bhi ,9 #d 7at end ( p>agraphs transpos$ f #b74 #bij ,b #ai4 #bia ,b #ai4 #bib ,b #bj4 #bic ,b #bj4 #bid ,cf4 ,b #ag4 #bie ,b #bj4 #bif ,b #ba4 #big ,b #bb4 #bih ,vaih+]'s analysis 7i4 p4 #cga ff47 is invaluable4 ,i foll[ x ?r\gh\t4 #bii ,:5 correct$ z above1 pp4 #ea-b1 #ff-g4 #cjj ,cf4 above1 p4 #ch ff4 #cja ,by ,j4 ,erdmann 7cit$ by ,vaih+]1 i4 p4 #cga74 #cjb ,by ,b4 ,erdmann1 ,kriticismus1 p4 #ahc4 #cjc ,z above not$1 pp4 #ff-g4 #cjd ,above1 p4 #ff4 #cje ,a #aa4 #cjf ,a #aa ,b #bd4 #cjg ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #bc3 usus logicus--usus realis4 #cjh ,cf4 above1 p4 #b4 #cji ,a #aa ,b #bd4 #caj i4 p4 #dei ff4 #caa ,entwickelungsges*i*te d] ,kantis*5 ,erk5ntni/heorie1 p4 #aac4 #cab ,cf4 ,a #gie ,b #hbc4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #agj1 #agd4 #cac ,cf4 ,a #gif ,b #hbd4 #cad ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 i4 pp4 #dfa-b = ! v v>i$ mean+s 9 :i* ,kant 8caprici\sly0 employs ! t]ms ,organon1 ,canon1 ,doctr9e1 & ,discipl9e4 #cae ,a #aa ,b #be4 #caf ,erklrung 9 ,beziehung auf ,fi*te's ,wiss5s*aftslehre 7#agii71 ,w]ke 7,h>t5/e971 viii4 p4 #fjj4 #cag ,b #be4 #cah ,cf4 ,a xv4 #cai ,cf4 ,b xxiv4 #cbj ,a #aa ,b #be4 #cba ,de v]a religione1 #gb2 ,de civitate ,dei1 viii4 #f4 ,cit$ by ,eisl]1 ,wrt]bu*1 p4 #aeba4 #cbb ,cf4 ,prantl1 ,ges*i*te d] ,logik im ,ab5dl&e1 iii4 pp4 #aad1 #bdd-e4 #cbc ,e?ica 7,vlot5 & ,l&71 ii4 prop4 xl4 s*ol4 #a4 #cbd ,pr9ciples ( ,human ,k1 cxviii4 ,! above citations are f ,eisl]1 loc4 cit4 pp4 #aebd-e4 ,i h also myself come ^u ! t]m 9 ,swift's ,gulliv]'s ,travels 7,d5t1 #ahig1 p4 #aff73 8,& z to #8ideas1 entities1 ab/ractions1 & transc5d5tals1' ,i c\ld nev] drive ! lea/ conception into _! heads40 #cbe ,organon1 i4 #dhd1 cit$ by ,euck5 9 ,ges*i*te d] philosophis*] ,t]m9ologie1 p4 #bje4 #cbf ,a #aa ,b #be1 ,a #ef ,b #hj4 #cbg ,cit$ by ,vaih+]1 i4 p4 #dfh4 #cbh ,cf4 ,text-,book to ,kant1 p4 #ac4 #cbi ,cf4 ,kant ,expla9$1 p4 #hi4 #ccj ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bch4 #cca ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #aaf-ag1 #cjb4 #ccb ,adickes has tak5 ! lib]ty 9 8 edition ( ! ,critique ( sub/itut+ 9 ,a #big ,b #ced transc5d5tal = transc5d5t4 ,! ,b]l9 edition v rightly reta9s ! orig9al read+4 #ccc ,b #bg4 #ccd ,a vi4 #cce ,a #ad-ae ,b #bh4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #egjn4 #ccf ,?is alt]ation is n giv5 9 ,max ,mll]'s translation4 #ccg ,cf4 ! correspond+ alt]ation made 9 ! second edition at end ( note to ,a #ba ,b #ce4 #cch ,a #ae ,b #bi4 #cci ,loc4 cit4 #cdj ,loc4 cit4 ,cf4 ,a #hce ,b #hfc4 #cda ,cf4 ,a #abd1 ,b #aea-b1 & bel[1 pp4 #bbe1 #bfe4 #cdb ,cf4 ,a #ada ,b #ahj-a4 ,cf4 ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 #eg3 8,?us "h 9 ! ,critique ( ,ae/hetic ,judgm5t1 z also 9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ! ant9omies =ce u aga9/ our w to look beyond ! s5sible & to seek 9 ! sup]s5sible ! po9t ( union = all our a priori faculties2 because no o!r exp$i5t is left to make our ,reason h>moni\s ) itself40 ,cf4 also bel[1 p4 #dgc ff41 9 comm5t on ,a #fdi ,b #fgg4 #cdc ,a #af ,b #cj4 #cdd ,introduction 7,w4 v4 p4 #af74 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #dch4 #cde ,cf4 also above1 p4 #be4 #cdf ,cf4 ,a #ea ,b #ge4 #cdg ,t ?\ght f9ds 9 intuition its sole possible cont5t is1 ( c\rse1 a conclusion fir/ e/abli%$ 9 ! ,analytic4 ,kant is "h def9+ 8 t]ms 9 ! light ( 8 lat] results4 #cdh ,a #ea ,b #ge4 #cdi ,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 #ab1 ,rem>k ii4 at ! beg9n+4 #cej ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #hh ff42 ,b #adf-g4 #cea ,prolegom5a1 #h 7,eng4 trans4 p4 #cc74 #ceb ,quot$ by ,vaih+]1 ii4 p4 #d4 #cec ,cf4 ,ueb] das ,organ d] ,seele 7#agif7 & ,an?ropologie1 #bb4 #ced #c4 #cee ,a #bg ,b #dc1 ,a #cd ,b #ea1 ,a #db ,b #ei1 ,a #ea ,b #ge4 #cef ,cf4 ,b #gb4 #ceg ,9 ! second p>agraph1 ,a #bj ,b #cd4 #ceh ,diss]tation1 #d4 #cei ,a #cbj ,b #cgf4 #cfj ,diss]tation1 #d4 #cfa ,a #ej ,b #gd4 #cfb ,?is view1 z ,i %all endeav\r to %[1 is only semi-,critical1 & is pr(\ndly modifi$ by ! m revolution>y conclusions to :i* ,kant f9ally work$ 8 way4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bgd ff4 #cfc ,9 ?is he 0 anticipat$ by ,tet5s1 ,philosophis*e ,v]su*e b] die m5s*li*e ,natur1 ,bd4 i4 7#aggg71 ,v]su* ,x4 v4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bid4 #cfd ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 #c 7,eng4 trans1 p4 #di74 ,kant 0 ! fir/ to adopt ! ?reefold division ( m5tal p[]s--8! faculty ( k1 ! feel+ ( pleasure & pa91 & ! faculty ( desire40 ,?is ?reefold division is fir/ giv5 9 8 ,ueb] ,philosophie b]haupt 7,h>t5/e91 vi4 p4 #cgi71 :i* 0 writt5 "s "t betwe5 #aghj & #agij1 be+ orig9ally design$ z an ,introduction to ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t4 #cfe ,a #bdh 7occurs 9 a l5g?y section omitt$ 9 ,b74 #cff ,?is di/9ction betwe5 intuition & appe>ance practically co9cides ) t above not$ betwe5 intuition & its object4 #cfg ,= /atem5t ( ! precise mean+ 9 :i* ^! t]ms are "h employ$1 cf4 above1 pp4 xlv-vii2 bel[1 pp4 #bgj ff41 #cab ff4 #cfh ,?is w\ld h>monise ) ! view develop$ 9 ,a #aff 79 its =mulation ( ! pr9ciple ( ! ,anticipations71 ,a #cgd ff41 ,b #bgd ff41 ,a #gbc ,b #gea4 #cfi ,cf4 ,a #ej ,b #gd3 8,we may "n s5sation ! matt] ( s5su\s k40 ,simil>ly 9 ,a #db ,b #ei2 ,prolegom5a1 #aa2 ,=ts*ritte1 7,h>t5/e91 viii4 p4 #ebg74 #cgj ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bgd ff4 #cga ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cff-g1 #cgj-b1 #cgg4 #cgb ii4 p4 #ei4 #cgc ,a #db ,b #fj4 #cgd ,cf4 ,reflexion51 ii4 note to #dfi2 also note to #ceg4 #cge ,cf4 above1 p4 xxxiii ff4 #cgf ,a #bff ,b #cbb4 #cgg ,9 discuss+ a & b we may = ! pres5t id5tify =m ) space4 ,! problem has special complications 9 ref]5ce to "t4 #cgh ,cf4 ,b #bjg4 #cgi ,h]b>t's doctr9e ( space1 ,lotze's local sign !ory1 also ! empirici/ !ories ( ! ,mills & ,ba91 all re/ ^u ?is same assumption4 ,x 0 fir/ effectively call$ 9 "q by ,william ,james4 ,cf4 ,b]gson3 ,les ,donnes immdiates1 pp4 #gj-ga1 ,eng4 trans4 pp4 #ib-c3 8,! solution giv5 by ,kant does n seem to h be5 s]i\sly disput$ s9ce 8 "t3 inde$1 x has =c$ itself1 sometimes )\t _! k1 on ! majority ( ^? :o h approa*$ ! problem anew1 :e!r nativi/s or empirici/s4 ,psy*ologi/s agree 9 assign+ a ,kantian orig9 to ! nativi/ic explanation ( ,johann ,mll]2 b ,lotze's hypo!sis ( local signs1 ,ba9's !ory1 & ! m compreh5sive explanation sugge/$ by ,wundt1 may seem at fir/ sight q indep5d5t ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,ae/hetic4 ,! au?ors ( ^! !ories seem inde$ to h put aside ! problem ( ! nature ( space1 9 ord] to inve/igate simply by :at process our s5sations come to be situat$ 9 space & to be set1 s to speak1 alongside "o ano!r3 b ?is v "q %[s t !y reg>d s5sations z inext5sive1 & make a radical di/9ction1 j z ,kant did1 betwe5 ! matt] ( repres5tation & its =m4 ,! conclusion to be drawn f ! !ories ( ,lotze & ,ba91 & f ,wundt's attempt to reconcile !m1 is t ! s5sations by means ( :i* we come to =m ! notion ( space are !mselves unext5d$ & simply qualitative3 ext5sity is suppos$ to result f _! syn!sis1 z wat] f ! comb9ation ( two gases4 ,! empirical or g5etic explanations h ?us tak5 up ! problem ( space at ! v po9t :]e ,kant left x3 ,kant sep>at$ space f its cont5ts3 ! empirici/s ask h[ ^! cont5ts1 :i* are tak5 out ( space by our ?\ght1 manage to get back aga940 ,b]gson proce$s to argue t ! analogy ( *emical comb9ation is q inapplicable1 & t "s 8unique act v l :at ,kant calls an a priori =m0 mu/ /ill be appeal$ to4 ,) ! ,kantian /&po9t 9 ?is matt] ,b]gson does n1 ( c\rse1 agree4 ,he is m]ely po9t+ out :at ! consequ5ces mu/ be ( ?is initial assumption ( inext5sive s5sations4 #chj ,cf4 ,von dem er/5 ,grunde des ,unt]s*i$es d] ,geg5d5 im ,raume1 9 its p5ultimate p>agraph4 #cha ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 la/ s5t5ce ( #d1 quot$ bel[1 p4 #hg4 #chb ,a #bia ,b #cdg2 ,a #dbi ,b #deg4 #chc ,reflexion51 ii4 #ccd4 #chd ii4 p4 #gc4 #che ,cf4 ,/\t3 ,manual ( ,psy*ology 7#crd edition71 pp4 #dfe-f4 8,we f9d t ! def9ite appreh5sion ( an ord] ( coexi/5ce1 z su*1 arises & develops only 9 connection ) t peculi> aspect ( s5se-exp]i5ce :i* we h call$ ext5sity1 & m especially ! ext5sity ( sight & t\*4 ,two s\nds or a s\nd & a smell may be pres5t$ z coexi/5t 9 ! s5se ( be+ simultane\s2 b tak5 by !mselves ap>t f association ) exp]i5ces ( t\* & sight1 !y are n appreh5d$ z spatially juxtapos$ or sep>at$ by a p]ceiv$ spatial int]val or z hav+ p]ceiv$ spatial direction & di/ance relatively to ea* o!r4 ,su* relations c only be p]ceiv$ or imag9$1 except p]haps 9 a v rudim5t>y way1 :5 ! ext]nal object is det]m9$ = u z an ext5sive :ole by ! ext5sity ( ! same pres5tation ?r\gh :i* we appreh5d x40 #chf ,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology1 #cii1 cit$ by ,vaih+]4 #chg #d4 #chh ,si* ordn5 has "h1 9 l9e ) common ,g]man usage1 ! =ce ( a passive v]b4 #chi ,riehl3 ,kriticismus 7#ahgf-ahgi7 ii4 ,er/] ,!il1 p4 #ajd4 ,z already not$1 ,kant tacitly admits ?is 9 reg>d to "t relations ( coexi/5ce & sequ5ce4 ,he cont9ues1 h[ev]1 to d5y x 9 reg>d to space relations4 #cij ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #aja-b1 #aje4 #cia ,a #bj ,b #cd4 #cib ,a #bj ,b #cd4 #cic ,a #db ,b #fj4 ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #ab3 8,space & "t1 ! objects ( pure ma!matics1 are n only =mal pr9ciples ( all intuition1 b !mselves orig9al intuitions40 #cid ,a #aif ,b #bda2 ,a #bic ,b #cdi4 #cie ,t is to say1 9 8 publi%$ writ+s4 ,x f9ds expression 9 "o1 & only "o1 ( ! ,reflexion5 7ii4 #daj3 8,bo? space & "t are no?+ b comb9ations ( s5su\s impressions074 #cif #ae1 ,coroll4 at ! end4 #cig ,cf4 #ab1 quot$ above1 p4 #hi n4 #b4 #cih ,!re also ,kant tea*es t ! repres5tation ( space is ga9$ f ! space-end[$ objects ( exp]i5ce4 #cii ,cf4 ,b #a4 #djj #dc4 #dja ,ueb] e9e ,entdeckung na* d] alle neue ,kritik d] re95 ,kritik dur* e9e lt]e entbehrli* gema*t w]d5 soll4 #djb ,op4 cit4 ,w4 viii4 pp4 #bba-b4 #djc ,loc4 cit4 p4 #bbb4 #djd ,especially ^? :i* he _h (f]$ 9 support ( ! cont5tion t pure ma!matical sci5ce is intuitive1 n m]ely conceptual4 #dje ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bia ff41 on ,kant's reasons = develop+ 8 doctr9e ( inn] s5se4 #djf ,z no "o passage c be reg>d$ z q decisively prov+ ,kant's belief 9 a pure manifold ( intuition1 ! "q c only be decid$ by a collation ( all ! relevant /atem5ts 9 ! light ( ! g5]al t5d5cies ( ,kant's ?9k+4 #djg ,?is at lea/ w\ld seem to be impli$ 9 ! word+ ( 8 lat] positions2 x is n explicitly av[$4 #djh ,cf4 ,a #gf-g ,b #ajb4 #dji ,cf4 above1 pp4 xlii1 #ch-db2 bel[1 pp4 #aah-bj1 #abh-cd4 #daj ,! la/ /atem5t may be m freely translat$3 8,only 9 ?is way c ,i get ! intuition be=e me 9 visible =m40 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ace-f1 #cdg-h1 #cei4 #daa ,b #bjb-c4 #dab ,cf4 ,reflexion51 ii4 #cic1 #dji1 #dfe1 #fcj1 #fdi4 #dac ,?is1 inde$1 is ,kant's reason = describ+ space z an ,idea ( reason4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ig-h4 #dad ,geometry is = ,kant ! fundam5tal & *ief ma!matical sci5ce 7cf4 ,a #ci ,b #ef & ,diss]tation1 #ae c74 ,9 ?is respect he is a disciple ( ,newton1 n a foll[] ( ,leibniz4 ,8 neglect to take adequate acc\nt ( ari?metic & algebra is due to ?is cause4 ,j z 9 speak+ ( ! manifold ( s5se he almo/ inv>iably has sight alone 9 view1 s 9 speak+ ( ma!matical sci5ce he usually ref]s only to geometry & ! k9dr$ discipl9e ( pure me*anics4 #dae ,a #gf-g ,b #ajb4 ,cf4 ,b #afj-a n4 #daf ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ij1 #ib ff42 bel[1 pp4 #aga1 #bbf-i1 #bfg-gj1 #ccg4 #dag ,cf4 ,b #afj4 #dah ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples1 ,w4 iv4 p4 #eei1 cf4 p4 #dha4 #dai ,op4 cit4 p4 #efj4 #dbj ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 #bf-g1 ,eng4 trans4 pp4 #aae-af & #aba4 #dba ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ajb n41 #afe-f1 #cij-a4 #dbb ,! title ( ?is section1 & ! po9ts rais$ 9 ! op5+ p>agraph1 are comm5t$ ^u bel[4 ,cf4 pp4 #aaj1 #aad-ae1 #acd ff4 ,i pass at once to ! fir/ space argum5t4 #dbc ,add$ 9 second edition4 #dbd ,?is argum5t is an almo/ v]bal repetition ( ! fir/ argum5t on space 9 ! ,diss]tation1 #ae4 #dbe ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ajf-g1 #abf1 #acb-c1 #agg-hd1 #cch-i4 #dbf ,cf4 above1 p4 #cg ff42 bel[1 p4 #agh ff4 #dbg ,t is p>ticul>ly obvi\s 9 ,kant's =mulation ( 8 problem 9 ! ,introduction4 ,= t is ! assumption :i* und]lies 8 mode ( di/+ui%+ betwe5 analytic & syn!tic judgm5ts4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #cg4 #dbh ,cf4 above1 p4 xxii4 #dbi ,cf4 especially1 pp4 #ahd1 #ccb-f1 #dai1 #dgd1 #dgi4 #dcj ,i "h use ! m mod]n t]ms4 ,kant1 9 ,an?ropologie1 #ad1 di/+ui%es betwe5 !m z ,organ5empf9dung5 & ,vitalempf9dung54 #dca ii4 p4 #afe4 #dcb ,cf4 above1 pp4 #he-h4 #dcc ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #ae ,d3 8,space is n any?+ objective & real4 ,x is nei!r sub/ance1 nor accid5t1 nor relation1 b is subjective & ideal1 proce$+ by a fix$ law f ! nature ( ! m9d1 & be+1 z x 71 a s*ema = co-ord9at+1 9 ! mann] :i* x prescribes1 all ext]nal s5sations :atsoev]40 ,& #ae1 coroll>y at end3 8,action ( ! m9d co-ord9at+ its s5sations 9 accordance ) abid+ laws40 #dcd ,especially 9 view ( ! ?ird & f\r? argum5ts on space1 & ( ,kant's tea*+ 9 ! transc5d5tal exposition4 #dce ,e4g4 ,coh51 ,riehl1 ,caird1 ,watson4 #dcf ,cf4 ,watson1 ,! ,philosophy ( ,kant expla9$1 p4 #hc3 8,kant1 !re=e1 concludes f ! logical priority ( space t x is a priori40 #dcg ,^u x ,kant bases ! ass]tion t space is an ,idea ( reason2 cf4 above1 pp4 #if-h1 & bel[1 pp4 #afe-f1 #cij-a4 #dch ,?is second argum5t is n 9 ! ,diss]tation4 #dci ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 ii4 pp4 #aif-g4 ,! correspond+ argum5t on "t1 9 ! =m 9 :i* x is giv5 9 ! second edition1 is1 z we %all f9d1 s]i\sly mislead+4 ,x has caus$ ,h]b>t & o!rs to mis9t]pret ! connection 9 :i* ?is coroll>y /&s to ! ma9 !sis4 ,h]b>t's int]pretation is consid]$ bel[1 p4 #abd4 #ddj ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 ii4 p4 #bbj4 #dda ,reflexion51 ii4 #djc4 #ddb 8,t 9 space !re are no m ?an ?ree dim5sions1 t betwe5 two po9ts !re c be b "o /raight l9e1 t 9 a plane surface f a giv5 po9t ) a giv5 /raight l9e a circle is describable1 _c be inf]r$ f any univ]sal notion ( space1 b c only be disc]n$ 9 space z 9 ! concrete40 ,cf4 also ,prolegom5a1 #ab4 #ddc ,9 ! second edition1 ! ?ird4 #ddd ,= a diff]5t view cf4 ,vaih+]1 ii4 p4 #bcc4 #dde ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ii-ajj2 bel[1 pp4 #abf1 #ahj-a1 #ahd1 #cch-i4 #ddf ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ahj4 #ddg ,cf4 above1 p4 xxxvi2 bel[1 pp4 #agf ff41 #aia1 #aie-f1 #beg1 #bij-a1 #djd ff41 #dac4 #ddh ,?is /atem5t occurs 9 a p>5!sis2 x has already be5 dwelt ^u 9 ! f\r? 7?ird7 argum5t4 #ddi ,x has l$ ,kant to sub/itute errt]n = betra*t5 9 ,a #bc ,b #ch4 #dej ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 ii4 p4 #aea4 #dea #a 7,eng4 trans1 p4 #ac74 ,cf4 above1 p4 #fd4 #deb ,?is is1 no d\bt1 "o reason :y ,kant employs1 9 ref]5ce to space1 ! un=tunate & confus+ t]m concept 7,begriff7 9 place ( ! wid] t]m repres5tation 7,vor/ellung74 ,cf4 ,b #cg1 & above1 p4 #fd4 #dec ,cf4 ,a #gbi ,b #geg3 8,9 place ( ! t]m def9ition ,i %\ld pref] to employ ! t]m exposition4 ,= t is a m gu>d$ expression1 ! claims ( :i* ! critic may all[ z be+ 9 a c]ta9 degree valid ev5 ?\gh he ent]ta9 d\bts z to ! complet5ess ( ! analysis40 ,cf4 ,logic1 #ii ff41 #aje4 ,cf4 also ,unt]su*ung b] die ,deutli*keit d] ,grundstze1 ,w4 ii4 pp4 #ahc-d3 8,augu/9e has said1 #8,i "k well :at "t is1 b if any "o asks me1 ,i _c tell4'0 #ded ,= explanation ( ! phrase 8con/ruction ( concepts0 cf4 bel[1 pp4 #acb-c4 #dee ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #aag4 ff4 #def ,cf4 conclusion ( f\r? argum5t on space4 #deg ,a priori is "h employ$ 9 its ambigu\s d\ble s5se1 z a priori 9 s f> z x prec$es exp]i5ce 7z a repres5tation71 & 9 s f> z x is valid indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce 7z a proposition74 ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 ii4 p4 #bfh4 #deh ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #aad ff4 #dei ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #aae-af4 #dfj ,cf4 ,lose ,bltt]1 i4 p4 #ah3 8,?is is a pro( 7,beweis7 t space is a subjective condition4 ,= its propositions are syn!tic & ?r\gh !m objects c be kn[n a priori4 ,?is w\ld be impossible if space 7 n a subjective condition ( ! repres5tation ( ^! objects40 ,cf4 ,reflexion51 ii4 p4 #cif1 9 :i* ?is direct pro( ( ! ideality ( space is di/+ui%$ f ! indirect pro( by means ( ! ant9omies4 #dfa ,by 8concepts0 ,kant seems to mean ! five argum5ts1 ?\gh z a matt] ( fact o!r conclusions & presuppositions are tak5 into acc\nt1 & q new po9ts are rais$4 #dfb ,?is1 accord+ to ,vaih+] 7ii4 p4 #bhg71 is ! fir/ occurr5ce ( ! phrase ,d+e an si* 9 ,kant's writ+s4 #dfc ,cf4 ,vaih+]'s analysis ( ?is discussion1 ii4 pp4 #bij-cac4 #dfd ii4 pp4 #bhi-ij4 #dfe ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dae ff41 #eae ff41 #eeh ff4 #dff ,9 ,b #aff ff4 #dfg ,?is is likewise true ( ! ref]5ces 9 ! lett] to ,h]z1 #ba/ ,feb4 #aggb4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bai-bj4 #dfh ,! ,critical ,philosophy ( ,kant1 i4 pp4 #cjf-i4 #dfi ,cf4 lett] to ,h]z1 ,w4 x4 p4 #abf4 ,x is1 ,kant !re says1 ! mo/ absurd explanation :i* c be (f]$ ( ! orig9 & validity ( our k1 involv+ an illegitimate circulus 9 prob&o1 & also ?r[+ op5 ! door to ! wilde/ speculations4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #bh2 bel[1 pp4 #ada-b1 #bij1 #eij4 #dgj ,cf4 ,b #afg-h4 #dga ,t is1 9 ! fir/ edition4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #he ff42 & bel[1 p4 #aaf4 #dgb ,above1 pp4 #aaa-ab4 #dgc ii4 p4 #cce4 #dgd #f-aa4 #dge ,?is id5tification ( ! two is especially cle> 9 ,a #ci ,b #ef4 #dgf ,a #bg ,b #dc4 #dgg ,cf4 above1 p4 xxxv2 bel[1 pp4 #aag-bj1 #adb1 #ahe-f1 #bda-b1 #beg1 #bij-a4 #dgh ,a #bh ,b #dd1 cf4 ,a #ce ,b #eb4 #dgi ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 i4 pp4 #cea-d2 & above1 p4 #gf2 bel[1 p4 #cjb4 ,cf4 ,caird1 ,! ,critical ,philosophy1 i4 pp4 #bih-i1 #cja2 & ,watson1 ,kant ,expla9$1 p4 #ia4 #dhj ,g$ank5 von d] wahr5 ,s*tzung d] leb5dig5 ,krfte 7#agdg71 #aj4 #dha ,?is important & f>-rea*+ ass]tion we _c at ?is po9t discuss4 ,kant's reason+ is really circul> 9 ! bad s5se4 ,kant may legitimately argue f ! a priori "* ( space to ! apodictic "* ( pure ma!matical sci5ce2 b :5 he proce$s simil>ly to inf] ! apodictic "* ( appli$ ma!matics1 he is con/ra9$ to make ! fur!r assumption t space is a fix$ & absolutely uni=m mode 9 :i* alone memb]s ( ! human species c intuit objects4 ,t1 z we po9t out bel[ 7p4 #abj71 is an assumption :i* ,kant does n really succe$ 9 prov+4 ,9 any case ! requirem5ts ( ! /rict syn!tic me?od preclude him f argu+1 z he does bo? 9 ! ,diss]tation 7 #ae7 & 9 ! ?ird space argum5t ( ! fir/ edition1 t ! a priori c]titude ( appli$ ma!matics af=ds pro( ( ! necess>y uni=mity ( all space4 #dhb #ae ,d4 #dhc ,cf4 above1 p4 #aaa4 #dhd ,cf4 above1 pp4 #dj-b1 #ic-d2 bel[1 pp4 #aca-c1 #cch-i1 #dah ff4 #dhe ,a #ii-ajj4 #dhf ,a #gh ,b #ajd4 ,cf4 ,a #aei ,b #aih1 ,b #adg4 #dhg #ch1 ,eng4 trans1 p4 #ha4 #dhh ,cf4 p4 #bda ff4 #dhi ,a #bh-i4 ,cf4 ,b #a2 ,prolegom5a1 #ac1 ,rem>k ,,ii4 at ! end3 8,c9nab> excites ! s5sation ( r$ 9 me40 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #hj-h2 bel[1 pp4 #adf ff41 #bgd ff4 #dij ,kant cont9ues ! discussion ( ?is g5]al problem 9 ,a #de ff4 ,b #fb ff4 #dia ,kant himself aga9 uses ! confus+ t]m conception4 #dib #ad1 #a4 #dic ,h]b>t1 ,w]ke1 ii4 #cj4 ,quot$ by ,vaih+]1 iii4 p4 #aih4 #did ,! ?ird argum5t on "t w be consid]$ bel[ 9 its connection ) ! transc5d5tal exposition4 #die ,! *ief omission goes1 z we %all see1 to =m ! conclud+ argum5t on "t4 #dif ,9 ! second edition1 ! ?ird4 #dig ,9 ! second edition1 ! ?ird4 #dih ,9 ! second edition1 ! f\r?4 #dii ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 ii4 pp4 #chj-a4 #ejj ,cf4 second "p ( f\r? 7?ird7 argum5t on space4 #eja ,kant's ,logik1 ,e9leitung1 #h1 ,eng4 trans1 p4 #di4 #ejb ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ii-ajj4 #ejc ,^! axioms are3 7#a7 "t has only "o dim5sion2 7#b7 diff]5t times are n simultane\s b successive4 ,9 ! f\r? argum5t ! syn!tic "* ( ^! axioms is tak5 z fur!r evid5ce ( ! intuitive nature ( "t4 ,?is passage also is really "p ( ! transc5d5tal exposition4 ,t exposition has to acc\nt = ! syn!tic "* ( ! axioms z well z = _! apodictic "*2 & z a matt] ( fact ! intuitive & consequ5t syn!tic "* ( ! a priori k :i* arises f "t is mu* m emphasis$ 9 ! transc5d5tal exposition ?an its apodictic nature4 #ejd ,cf4 ,reflexion51 ii4 #cgd ff4 #eje ,vaih+]1 ii4 p4 #chg4 #ejf ,cf4 ,a #da ,b #eh3 8,motion :i* comb9es bo? space & "t presupposes some?+ empirical40 #ejg ,w4 iv4 p4 #dga4 #ejh ,ueb] ,philosophie b]haupt 7,h>t5/e91 vi4 p4 #cie74 #eji #ab4 #eaj ,loc4 cit4 #eaa ,a #gh ,b #ajd4 #eab ,a #adb-c ,b #ahb4 ,x %\ld be obs]v$ t 9 ,kant's view s*emata 8exi/ n[h]e b 9 ?\ght0 7,a #ada ,b #ahj74 ,x may also be not$ t "t is tak5 z condition+ ! s*emata ( all ! categories4 #eac ,a #gag ff4 ,b #gde ff4 #ead #aj4 #eae ,erlut]ung5 b] des ,h]rn ,pr(essor ,kant ,critik d] re95 ,v]nunft 7,knigsb]g1 #aghd71 p4 #bd4 ,johann ,s*ulze 7or ,s*ultz7 0 pr(essor ( ma!matics 9 ,knigsb]g4 ,he 0 also ,h(pr$ig]1 & is frequ5tly ref]r$ to z ,pa/or ,s*ulze4 ,kant has eulogis$ him 7,w4 x4 p4 #abh7 z 8! be/ philosophical head t ,i am acqua9t$ ) 9 our "p ( ! _w40 ,9 prep>+ ! ,erlut]ung51 :i* is a p>aphrase or simplifi$ /atem5t ( ! argum5t ( ! ,critique1 ) app5d$ comm5t1 ,s*ulze _h ! advantage ( ,kant's advice 9 all difficulties4 ,kant also read 8 manuscript1 & sugge/$ a few modifications 7op4 cit4 pp4 #cbi1 #cdc74 #eaf ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 ii4 pp4 #chh-i4 #eag ,w]ke 7,frau5/dt's ed41 #ahgc71 i4 p4 #acc4 #eah ,p4 #abi4 #eai ,w4 x4 p4 #ecj4 ,italics n 9 ,kant4 #ebj ,unt]su*ung b] die ,deutli*keit d] ,grundstze3 ,er/e ,betra*tung1 #b1 #c2 dritte ,betra*tung1 #a2 ,diss]tation1 #ab1 #ae ,c4 #eba ,p4 #abh4 #ebb ,diss]tation1 #ae ,c4 #ebc ,cf4 above1 pp4 #dj-b1 #aah-bj2 bel[1 pp4 #cch-i4 #ebd ,kant und die mod]ne ,ma!matik 9 ,kant-,/udi51 xii4 7#aijg7 p4 #cd n4 #ebe ,cf4 ,a #gac ff4 ,b #gda ff42 ,a #d ,b #h2 ,b #ae-af2 ,a #bd2 ,a #dg-h ,b #fd-e4 #ebf ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ccg-h4 #ebg ,cf4 above1 pp4 #aab n4 #d4 #ebh ,! cont5t ( ! second ,conclusion 9 reg>d to space4 #ebi ,?is expresses ! matt] a little m cle>ly ?an ,kant himself does4 ,! t]m repres5tation is ambigu\s4 ,9 ! fir/ p>agraph x is made to cov] ! appe>ances z well z _! repres5tation4 #ecj ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #ae ,coroll43 8,space prop]ly conc]ns ! intuition ( ! object2 "t ! /ate1 especially ! repres5tative /ate40 #eca ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cji ff41 #cdg-h1 #cei4 #ecb ,cf4 ,reflexionem1 ii4 #cfe ff4 #ecc #ad1 #e & note to #e4 #ecd ,! opposite is1 h[ev]1 ass]t$ 9 ,b #fg4 #ece ,cf4 ,a #dbg-h n4 ,b #def n4 #ecf ,a #ii4 ,cf4 ,a #afb ,b #bjc3 8,i _c repres5t to myself a l9e1 h[ev] small1 )\t draw+ x 9 ?\ght1 i4e4 g5]at+ f a po9t all its p>ts "o aft] ano!r40 ,cf4 pp4 #id1 #cdg-h4 #ecg ,cf4 ,lose ,bltt]1 i4 #ed3 8,)\t space "t itself w\ld n be repres5t$ z quantity 7,grsse71 & 9 g5]al ?is conception w\ld h no object40 ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #ad4 #e4 #ech ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #cfe ff4 #eci ,9 ! ,diss]tation "t is treat$ be=e space4 #edj ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxiv1 #abj2 bel[1 pp4 #bda-b1 #cfe1 #cfg-gj1 #cij-a4 #eda ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #ae ,c4 #edb ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bgb ff41 #bid-e1 #cjh ff41 #cfe ff4 #edc ,a #bc ,b #cg4 #edd ,!y correspond to ! ?ird p>agraph deal+ ) space4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #aaf4 #ede ,cf4 above1 pp4 #aaf-ag4 #edf ,cf4 ,w4 x4 p4 #ajb4 ,m5delssohn _h also prote/$2 cf4 op4 cit4 x4 p4 #aaj4 #edg ,w4 x4 pp4 #abh-i4 ,italics n 9 ,kant4 ,kant is entirely ju/ifi$ 9 prote/+ aga9/ ! view t 9 d5y+ ?+s 9 !mselves to be 9 "t he is ass]t+ t !y rema9 et]nally ! same ) !mselves4 ,to make a danc] pres]ve "o & ! same po/ure is n to take him out ( "t1 b to br+ home to him ! reality ( "t 9 an extremely unpleasant mann]4 ,duration is "o ( ! modes ( "t4 #edh ,?is is ,kant's reply to ,m5delssohn's objection 7,decemb] #aggj1 ,w4 x4 p4 #aaj73 8,succession is at lea/ a necess>y condition ( ! repres5tations ( f9ite spirits4 ,n[ ! f9ite spirits are n only subjects b also objects ( repres5tations1 bo? = ,god & = our fell[-m54 ,! succession mu/ !re=e be reg>d$ z some?+ objective40 #edi ,cf4 ,a #bgg ,b #ccc3 8,x is n giv5 to u to obs]ve ev5 our own m9d ) any intuition b t ( our inn] s5se40 #eej ,quot$ by ,vaih+]1 ii4 p4 #djf4 #eea ,9 ! f\r? ,p>alogism1 ,a #cff1 & 9 ! ,refutation ( ,idealism1 ,b #bgd4 #eeb ,cf4 ,a #db ,b #ei4 #eec ,above1 pp4 #aac-ad4 #eed ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 ii4 p4 #aad4 #eee ,! date ( ,kant's ,von dem er/5 ,grunde des ,unt]s*i$es d] ,geg5d5 im ,raume4 #eef ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #afa ff4 #eeg ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #ae ,d3 8,^? :o def5d ! reality ( space conceive x ei!r z an absolute & imm5se receptacle ( possible ?+s--a view :i* appeals n only to ! ,engli% ?9k]s b to mo/ geometricians--or !y cont5d t x is no?+ b a relation hold+ betwe5 exi/+ ?+s1 :i* mu/ vani% :5 ! ?+s are remov$1 & :i* is ?9kable only 9 actual ?+s4 ,?is latt] is ! tea*+ ( ,leibniz & ( mo/ ( our c\ntrym540 ,t ! acc\nt ( ,leibniz's tea*+ giv5 9 ! p>agraphs "u consid]ation is n altoge!r accurate1 ne$ h>dly be po9t$ out4 ,kant1 foll[+ 8 usual me?od 9 ! discussion ( oppos+ sy/ems1 is /at+ :at he reg>ds z be+ ! logical consequ5ces ( c]ta9 ( ,leibniz's t5ets1 r ?an 8 av[$ positions4 #eeh ,cf4 ,a #bge-f ,b #cca-b3 8,leibniz conceiv$ space z a c]ta9 ord] 9 ! community ( sub/ances1 & "t z ! dynamical sequ5ce ( _! /ates4 ,b t :i* bo? seem to possess z prop] to !mselves1 9 indep5d5ce ( ?+s1 he ascrib$ to ! confus$ "* ( _! concepts1 ass]t+ ?is confusion to be ! reason :y :at is a m]e =m ( dynamical relations has come to be reg>d$ z a special intuition1 self-subsi/5t & antec$5t to ! ?+s !mselves4 ,?us space & "t 7 = ,leibniz ! intelligible =m ( ! connection ( ?+s 7sub/ances & _! /ates7 9 !mselves40 ,cf4 also ,prolegom5a1 #ac1 ,anm4 i4 #eei ,kant has /at$ t bo? views conflict ) 8! pr9ciples ( exp]i5ce40 ,b 8 criticisms are n altoge!r on t l9e4 ,! /atem5t /rictly applies only to 8 criticism ( ! ,leibnizian view4 ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #ae ,d3 8,t fir/ inane inv5tion ( reason1 assum+ z x does ! exi/5ce ( true inf9ite relations 9 ! abs5ce ( all int]relat$ entities1 belongs to ! realm ( fable4 ,b ^? :o adopt ! o!r view fall into a mu* worse error4 ,= :]eas ! =m] place an ob/acle 9 ! way only ( c]ta9 rational concepts1 i4e4 concepts t conc]n n\m5a1 & :i* also 9 !mselves are extremely obscure be>+ ^u que/ions z to ! spiritual _w1 omnipres5ce1 etc41 ! latt] set !mselves 9 direct antagonism to ! ph5om5a !mselves & to geometry1 ! mo/ fai?ful int]pret] ( all ph5om5a4 ,=--n to dwell ^u ! obvi\s circle 9 :i* !y necess>ily become involv$ 9 def9+ space--!y ca/ geometry d[n f its position at ! highe/ po9t ( c]titude1 & ?r[ x back into ! class ( ^? sci5ces ! pr9ciples ( :i* are empirical4 ,= if all modifications ( space are d]iv$ only ?r\gh exp]i5ce f ext]nal relations1 geometrical axioms c h only comp>ative univ]sality1 l t acquir$ ?r\gh induction1 9 o!r words1 su* z ext5ds only z f> z obs]vation has gone4 ,!y _c lay claim to any necessity save t ( be+ 9 accordance ) ! e/abli%$ laws ( nature1 nor to any precision except ( ! artificial sort1 re/+ ^u assumptions4 ,& z happ5s 9 matt]s empirical1 ! possibility is n exclud$ t a space end[$ ) o!r orig9al modifications1 & p]haps ev5 a rectil9eal figure enclos$ by two l9es1 may sometime be discov]$40 ,cf4 above1 p4 #aad2 bel[1 p4 #bij4 #efj ,9 ,b #aee n4 ,kant di/+ui%es betwe5 motion ( an object 9 space1 & motion z g5]ation ( a geometrical figure4 ,! =m] alone involves exp]i5ce2 ! latt] is a pure act ( ! productive imag9ation1 & belongs n only to geometry b also to transc5d5tal philosophy4 ,?is note1 z ,erdmann has po9t$ out 7,kriticismus1 pp4 #aae1 #afh71 0 introduc$ by ,kant into ! second edition z a reply to a criticism ( ,s*tz4 ,! di/9ction z ?us drawn is only t5able on ! assumption ( a pure manifold di/9ct f ! manifold ( s5se4 #efa ,a #bcj ,b #bhc4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #eg1 #aah2 bel[1 pp4 #ahe-f1 #beg4 #efb ,a #da ,b #eh4 #efc ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cei-fj4 #efd ,les ,donnes ,immdiates1 p4 #ge4 #efe ii4 p4 #ddf4 #eff #d & #bg4 #efg ,cf4 ,ueb] e9e ,entdeckung1 etc43 ,w4 viii4 p4 #bbj4 #efh ,a #dd ,b #fa4 #efi ,a #bgg ,b #ccd4 ,cf4 ,a #bgh-i ,b #cce-f4 #egj ,:5 ,kant says t ! di/9ction is n logical 7t ( relative cle>ness & obscurity7 b transc5d5tal1 ! latt] t]m is tak5 z practically equival5t to epi/emological4 ,x does n mean #8relat+ to ! a priori1' b relat+ to transc5d5tal philosophy1 j z logical "h means relat+ to logic4 ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 ii4 p4 #deb4 #ega ,cf4 ,a #bgj ff4 ,b #cbf ff4 #egb #g 7,i read autem = autor74 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ahg4 #egc ,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 #ac1 ,rem>k ,,ii4 #egd ,cf4 above1 pp4 #abj-a4 #ege ,cf4 ,a #beg ,b #cac4 #egf ,a #df ,b #fc4 ,?is is ! fir/ occurr5ce 9 ! ,critique ( ! phrase transc5d5tal object4 ,transc5d5tal is employ$ z synonym\s ) transc5d5t4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bjd ff4 #egg ,cf4 above1 pp4 #abj-b4 #egh ,a #bga ,b #cbg4 #egi ,a #df-i ,b #fc-f4 #ehj ,a #dh ,b #fe-f4 ,vaih+] 7ii4 pp4 #dgj-b7 gives :at appe>s to be a suffici5t explanation ( :at ,kant _h 9 m9d 9 its employm5t4 #eha ,a #df ,b #fd4 ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #ae ,c4 ,9 ! conclud+ s5t5ce ( ! fir/ edition's ,ae/hetic1 ,kant = ! fir/ "t uses ! s+ul> ,d+ an si* 9 place ( ! m usual ,d+e an si* & also ref]s to x 9 problematic t]ms z :at may und]lie appe>ances4 #ehb ,b #ff-gc4 #ehc a does n conta9 any?+ n to be f\nd else:]e 9 ! fir/ edition4 ,x is a re/atem5t ( ,a #bfe ff4 ,b #cba ff41 ,a #bgd ,b #ccj1 ,a #bgg ff4 ,b #ccc ff41 ,a #bhc-e ,b #cci-da4 #ehd ,an ass]tion1 x may be not$1 :i* conflicts ) ,kant's view ( x z a pure manifold4 #ehe ,kant 0 probably influ5c$ by ,tet5s4 ,cp4 bel[1 p4 #bid4 #ehf ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bia ff4 b toge!r ) ,b #aeb-h is a m explicit /atem5t ( ! doctr9e ( inn] s5se ?an ,kant _h giv5 9 ! fir/ edition4 #ehg ,vaih+] 7ii4 p4 #dhf ff471 :o has done m ?an any o!r comm5tator to cle> up ! ambiguities ( ?is passage1 di/+ui%es only two views4 #ehh ,a #ch ,b #ee4 #ehi ,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 ,w4 iv4 p4 #cgf n41 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #adi3 8,! review] (t5 fights 8 own %ad[4 ,:5 ,i oppose ! tru? ( exp]i5ce to dream+1 he nev] suspects t ,i am only conc]n$ ) ! somnium objective sumtum ( ,wolff's philosophy1 :i* is m]ely =mal1 & has no?+ to d ) ! di/9ction ( dream+ & wak+1 :i* inde$ has no place 9 any transc5d5tal philosophy40 #eij ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bgj ff4 #eia ,b #fi4 ,= explanation ( ! ref]5ces to "t & self-consci\sness1 cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cjh1 #cbc4 #eib ,?is view ( illusion likewise appe>s 9 ,a #bic ,b #cdi1 ,a #cgg-h1 ,a #cif1 & ,prolegom5a1 #ac1 ,,iii41 at ! beg9n+4 #eic ,prolegom5a1 loc4 cit4 #eid ,cf4 9 ! #ahfc edition1 ,bd4 ii4 #bfg ff4 ,! examples ( illusion employ$ by ,m5delssohn are reflection 9 a mirror & ! ra9b[4 #eie ,w4 x4 p4 #dje4 #eif ,s*e9 is s us$ by ,kant himself 7,w4 x4 p4 #aje7 9 a lett] to ,lamb]t 9 #aggj4 #eig ,a #ch4 #eih ,cf4 above1 ,a #ci ,b #eg4 ,?is is1 h[ev]1 m]ely ass]t$ by implication2 x is n prov$4 ,z already not$1 ,kant does n really %[ t space & "t1 view$ z absolute realities1 are 8inconsi/5t ) ! pr9ciples ( exp]i5ce40 ,nor does ,kant "h supply suffici5t gr\nds = 8 description ( space & "t z ,und+e4 ,kant1 x mu/ be obs]v$1 does n reg>d ! conception ( ! actual inf9ite z 9 itself self-contradictory4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #dhf4 #eii ,b #bge4 #fjj ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bih ff41 on ,kant's ,refutations ( ,idealism4 ,?is is also ! mean+ 9 :i* ,kant employs ! t]m 9 8 pre-,critical writ+s4 ,cf4 ,dilucidatio 7#agee71 prop4 xii4 usus2 ,trume e9es ,gei/]seh]s 7#agff71 ii4 #b1 ,w4 ii4 p4 #cfd4 ,^! citations are giv5 by ,janits* 7,kant's ,ur!ile b] ,b]keley1 #ahgi1 p4 #bj71 :o also po9ts out t ! t]m is already us$ 9 ?is s5se by ,blff+] z e>ly z #agbe1 ,dilucidationes philos4 ,?is is also ! mean+ 9 :i* ! t]m is employ$ 9 ,b xxxiv4 ,cf4 ,a #bh ,b #dd4 #fja ,prolegom5a2 ,anhang4 ,w4 iv4 pp4 #cgd-e4 #fjb ,9 8 ,kle9e ,aufstze 7#c4 ,refutation ( ,problematic ,idealism1 ,h>t5/e91 v4 p4 #ejb7 ,kant w\ld seem v inconsi/5tly to accuse ,b]keley ( ma9ta9+ a solipsi/ic position4 8,b]keley d5ies ! exi/5ce ( all ?+s save t ( ! be+ :o ass]ts !m40 ,?is is probably1 h[ev]1 m]ely a c>eless =mulation ( ! /atem5t t ?9k+ be+s alone exi/4 ,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 #ac1 ,anm4 ii4 #fjc ,prolegom5a1 ,w4 iv4 p4 #cge2 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #adh4 #fjd ,bor[ski 7,d>/ellung des ,leb5s und ,*>akt]s ,immanuel ,kant1 9 ,h(fman's ed4 #aijb1 p4 #bdh ff47 gives a li/ ( ,engli% writ]s ) :om ,kant 0 acqua9t$4 ,!y 71 accord+ to ,janits* 7loc4 cit4 p4 #ce71 accessible 9 translation4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxviii n4 #c1 #fc n4 #a4 #fje ,cf4 ,w4 i4 pp4 #cah1 #cbb4 ,:5 ,kant cites ,hume 9 ! ,prolegom5a 7,introduction71 ! ref]5ce is to ! ,g]man translation4 #fjf ,?is 0 ! fir/ ( ,b]keley's writ+s to appe> 9 ,g]man4 ,! translation 0 publi%$ 9 ,leipzig 9 #agha4 #fjg ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cjg-h4 ,! opposite view has1 h[ev]1 be5 def5d$ by ,vaih+]3 ,philos4 ,monat%efte1 #ahhc1 p4 #eja ff4 #fjh ,enquiry ,conc]n+ ! ,human ,und]/&+ 7sec4 xii4 pt4 ii4 at ! end74 #fji ,six? edition1 pp4 #acb1 #bad1 #bdc ff4 #faj ,a #ch4 #faa ,a #cgg4 #fab ,a #cgg-h4 ,?\gh ,kant "h di/+ui%es betwe5 p]ceptions & _! 8out] objects10 ! latt] are none ! less id5tifi$ ) m5tal repres5tations4 #fac ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #cje ff4 #fad ,prolegom5a1 #ac1 ,rem>k ,,iii42 & ,anhang 7,w4 iv4 p4 #cgd74 #fae ,kant's description ( ,b]keley's idealism z vision>y & my/ical is d\btless p>tly due to ! old-"t association ( idealism 9 ,kant's m9d ) ! spirituali/ic tea*+ ( ,sw$5borg 7,w4 ii4 p4 #cgb74 ,?is association ( ideas 0 fur!r re9=c$ ow+ to 8 hav+ class$ ,b]keley along ) ,plato4 #faf ,prolegom5a1 ,anhang1 ,w4 iv4 p4 #cgd2 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #adg4 #fag ,cf4 above1 pp4 #adj-a4 #fah #bg4 ,9 translat+ ,kant's some:at difficult ,lat9 ,i h f\nd helpful ! ,engli% translation ( ! ,diss]tation by ,w4 ,j4 ,eck(f 7,new ,york1 #ahid74 #fai ,besides ! int]nal evid5ce ( ! passage be=e u1 we also h ,kant's own m5tion ( ,m5delssohn 9 ?is connection 9 notes 7to ,a #dc & ,a #ff7 9 8 private copy ( ! fir/ edition ( ! ,critique4 ,cf4 ,erdmann's ,na*trge zu ,kant's ,kritik1 xx4 & xxxii42 & above1 p4 #aa4 #fbj ,cf4 ,morg5/und51 ,bd4 ii4 ( ,gesammelte ,s*rift5 7#ahfc71 pp4 #bdf1 #bhh4 #fba ,cf4 above1 p4 #aaf4 #fbb ,b #gb4 #fbc ,^u ?is subject cf4 ,vaih+]'s exhau/ive discussion 9 ii4 p4 #eah ff4 #fbd ,g$ank5 von d] wahr5 ,s*tzung d] leb5dig5 ,krfte 7#agdg74 #fbe ,op4 cit4 #aj4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #aag ff4 #fbf ,von dem er/5 ,grunde des ,unt]s*i$es d] ,geg5d5 im ,raume4 #fbg ,eul]1 ,rflexions sur l'espace et le temps 7#agdh74 ,vaih+] 7ii4 p4 #ecj7 po9ts out t ,kant may also h be5 "h influ5c$ by c]ta9 passages 9 ! controv]sy betwe5 ,leibniz & ,cl>ke4 #fbh ,loc4 cit41 at ! end4 #fbi ,9 ! ,dorpat] manuscript1 quot$ by ,erdmann 9 8 edition ( ! ,prolegom5a1 p4 xcvii n4 #fcj #ae ,c4 #fca ,s also 9 ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce 7#aghf71 ,er/es ,haupt/ck1 ,erklrung #b1 ,anm]kung #c4 #fcb ,cf4 above1 p4 #aje4 #fcc ,a #bhi ,b #cde4 #fcd ,m exactly betwe5 ! writ+ ( ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples 79 :i* z above not$ ! argum5t ( ! ,prolegom5a is endors$7 & #aghg4 #fce ,cf4 ,a #bfj ff4 ,b #caf ff4 on ! ,amphiboly ( ,reflective ,concepts4 #fcf ,! ,diss]tation cites ! argum5t only ) ?is purpose 9 view4 ,& yet x is only f ! ,diss]tation /&po9t t ! wid] argum5t ( ! ,prolegom5a c be legitimately prop\nd$4 #fcg ,above1 pp4 #if-h1 #ajb n4 #d2 bel[1 pp4 #cij-a4 #fch ,b #gc4 #fci ,a #ej ,b #gd4 #fdj ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #agf n4 #a4 #fda ,k4 p4 #ii n4 #fdb ,a #fd ,b #hi4 #fdc ,! def9ition ( intuition giv5 9 ,a #ai ,b #cc also applies only to empirical intuition4 #fdd ,= discussion ( ,kant's view ( s5sation z ! matt] ( s5su\s intuition1 cf4 above1 p4 #hj ff4 #fde ,second p>agraph1 ,a #ea ,b #ge4 #fdf ,object 7,geg5/&7 is "h us$ 9 ! /rict s5se & no long] z m]ely equival5t to cont5t 7,inhalt74 #fdg ,cf4 above1 p4 #gi ff4 #fdh ,p4 #he4 #fdi ,?ird p>agraph1 ,a #eb ,b #gg4 #fej ,k4 p4 #ajj4 #fea ,kant's ,logik3 ,e9leitung1 i4 7,abbott's trans4 p4 #d74 #feb ,cf4 ,a #gif ,b #hbd2 ,a #acj ,b #afi2 also above1 pp4 #ga-b4 #fec ,a #gji ,b #gcg4 #fed ,logik3 ,e9leitung1 i4 7,eng4 trans4 p4 #c74 #fee ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #aid4 #fef ,e9leitung1 i4 7,eng4 trans4 p4 #d74 #feg ,cf4 ,a #gif ,b #hbd4 #feh ,logik3 ,e9leitung1 i4 7,eng4 trans4 p4 #e74 #fei ,a #eg ,b #ha4 #ffj ,e9leitung1 vii4 7,eng4 trans4 p4 #dj ff474 #ffa ,kant might h add$ t transc5d5tal logic def9es fur!r conditions1 ^? ( possible exp]i5ce1 & t by implication x ref]s u to coh]5ce z ! ultimate te/ ev5 ( mat]ial tru?4 #ffb ,a #fj-b ,b #hd-f4 #ffc ,e9leitung1 ii4 7,eng4 trans4 pp4 #f-g74 #ffd ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ga-b1 #agj2 bel[1 pp4 #dch1 #efc4 #ffe ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #dbe ff4 #fff ,kant employs ,geg5/& & ,object z synonym\s t]ms4 #ffg ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #dbf4 #ffh ,a #fd ,b #hi4 #ffi ,a #fe ,b #ij4 #fgj ,! op5+ /atem5t1 ,a #fg ,b #ib1 t hi!rto und]/&+ has be5 def9$ only negatively1 is n correct1 & w\ld seem to prove t ?is section 0 writt5 prior to ! introduction to ! ,analytic1 cf4 above1 p4 #afg4 #fga ,see above1 pp4 #agj-a4 #fgb ,a #gi ,b #aje4 #8,elem5t' translates ! mislead+ t]m #8,inhalt4' #fgc ,kant's def9ition ( transc5d5tal logic z diff]+ f g5]al logic 9 t x does n ab/ract f a priori cont5t mu/ n be tak5 z imply+ t ! categories ( und]/&+ are cont5ts1 ?\gh ( a priori nature4 ,z we %all f9d1 ?\gh t is ,kant's view ( ! =ms ( s5se1 x is by no means 8 view ( ! categories4 ,!y are1 he repeat$ly insi/s1 m]ely functions1 & are q indet]m9ate 9 mean+ save 9 s f> z a cont5t is yield$ to !m by s5se4 ,9 ,a #gf-g ,b #ajb1 9 di/+ui%+ betwe5 ! two logics1 ,kant is c>eful to make cle> t ! a priori cont5t ( transc5d5tal logic consi/s exclusively ( ! a priori manifolds ( s5se4 #fgd #bj1 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #eh4 #fge ,! view ( ! two z co-ord9ate reappe>s 9 ! ,prolegom5a 7 #bj7 9 a section ! g5]al t5d5cy ( :i* runs directly c\nt] to any su* /&po9t4 #fgf ,a #gh ,b #ajc4 #fgg ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #aif1 #bjd1 #bbf4 #fgh ,e9leitung1 viii41 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #dh4 #fgi ,cf4 above1 pp4 #cg-h4 #fhj ,! ,mi/ak5 ,subtlety ( ! ,f\r ,syllogi/ic ,figures 7#agfb74 ,w4 ii4 p4 #dg1 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #gi4 #fha ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ii-ajj1 #ajf-g4 #fhb ,w4 ii4 pp4 #eh-i1 ,eng4 trans4 pp4 #ib-c4 #fhc ,cf4 ,reflexion51 ii4 #eii4 #fhd ,bel[1 pp4 #ahe-f4 #fhe ,! same indef9it5ess ( /atem5t is disc]nible 9 ,caird's 7i4 p4 #cbb ff47 & ,watson's 7,kant ,expla9$1 pp4 #aba-b7 discussions ( ! pr9ciple suppos$ to be involv$4 #fhf ,cf4 ,a #hj ,b #ajf4 #fhg #ci4 #fhh ,p4 #agf ff4 #fhi ,b #ade-f4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxv-vi1 xliv1 #eg1 #adb2 bel[1 pp4 #beg1 #bia4 #fij #e-f4 #fia #g-h4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #add-e4 #fib ,w4 x4 p4 #abf4 ,italics n 9 ,kant4 #fic ,! relevant ,reflexion5 h be5 c>efully discuss$ by ,adickes 7,kant's ,sy/ematik1 p4 #ba ff474 ,9 :at foll[s ,i h made ext5sive use ( 8 results1 ?\gh n always arriv+ at q ! same conclusions4 #fid #ae1 ,coroll4 #fie ,9 8 lat] writ+s ,kant recognises t ! repres5tations ( space & "t involve an ,idea ( ,reason4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ig-h2 bel[1 pp4 #cij-a4 #fif #ci4 #fig ,reflexion51 ii4 #eac1 cf4 #ejb1 #ebe-g4 #fih ,op4 cit4 ii4 #eac4 #fii ,cf4 op4 cit4 ii4 #ecg4 #gjj ,cf4 above1 p4 #ij ff4 #gja ,only 9 "o passage1 ,re*tslehre1 i41 ,anhang #c1 #b1 cit$ by ,adickes1 op4 cit4 p4 #ac1 does ,kant s f> dep>t f 8 own or?odoxy z to speak ( ! possibility ( an a priori tetra*otomy4 ,b he nev] wav]s 9 ! view t ! complet5ess ( a division _c be gu>ante$ on empirical gr\nds4 #gjb ,introduction1 #i n4 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #da4 #gjc #d-f1 #i4 #gjd ,a #gj-f ,b #ie-aja4 #gje ,cf4 ,adickes1 ,kant's ,sy/ematik1 p4 #cf ff4 #gjf ,cf4 ,adickes1 op4 cit4 p4 #hi ff4 #gjg ,organon1 #acg4 ,cit$ by ,adickes4 #gjh i4 p4 #cdc ff4 #gji ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #cia ff4 #gaj ,a #gf-gi ,b #ajb-e4 #gaa ,cf4 above1 p4 #aga4 #gab ,a #ee4 #gac ,cf4 also ,b #afj4 #gad ,kant's ,!orie d] ,erfahrung1 #bnd ed4 p4 #beg ff4 #gae ,! ,critical ,philosophy ( ,kant1 i4 p4 #cbg ff4 #gaf ,philosophis*] ,kriticismus1 #bnd ed4 i4 p4 #dhd ff4 #gag ,kant expla9$1 p4 #abd ff4 #gah ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #aih4 #gai ,p4 #bbf4 #gbj ,a #gi ,b #aje4 #gba ,cf4 above1 p4 #agg ff4 #gbb ,a #gi-hj4 #gbc ,cf4 above1 p4 #aib4 #gbd ,cf4 ,b #aaa4 #gbe ,cf4 ,adickes1 ,sy/ematik1 pp4 #db-c4 #gbf ,kant ,expla9$1 p4 #abh4 #gbg ,cf4 above1 p4 #cg4 #gbh ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #af to #bh1 & bel[1 p4 #cha ff4 #gbi ,cf4 ,reflexion51 ii4 #gie4 #gcj ,b #aaa-ac4 #gca ,_w z ,w & ,idea1 ,w]ke 7,frau5/dt71 ii4 p4 #edd2 ,eng4 trans4 ii4 p4 #fa4 #gcb ,cf4 ,/adl]1 ,grundstze d] re95 ,erk5ntnis/heorie7#ahgf71 p4 #abb4 ,cf4 also bel[1 pp4 #chg-i4 #gcc ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #cia ff4 #gcd ,a #ha4 #gce ,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 #ci4 #gcf ,cf4 above1 p4 #ahf ff4 #gcg ,kant ,expla9$1 p4 #abj4 #gch ,a #ha4 #gci ,a #hb4 #gdj ,a #hb4 #gda ,b #aaj4 #gdb ,b #aaj-aa4 #gdc ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #aii-bjj4 #gdd ,w4 x4 p4 #cdd-e4 #gde ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #chb ff4 #gdf ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dcc-d1 #dea1 #dhj1 #ebi1 #eei-fj4 #gdg ,b #aad4 #gdh ,cf4 #ijd-e4 #gdi ,cf4 #ijg-aj4 #gej ,cf4 ,b4 ,erdmann1 ,mit!ilung5 9 ,phil4 ,monat%efte1 #ahhd1 p4 #hj1 & ,adickes1 ,sy/ematik1 pp4 #ee-i4 #gea ,reflexion51 ii4 p4 #beb n4 #geb 8,die transc5d5tale ,d$uktion d] ,kategori50 9 ! ,g$5ks*rift fr ,rudolf ,haym4 ,publi%$ sep>ately 9 #aijb4 #gec ,read]s :o are n imm$iately int]e/$ 9 ! analysis ( ! text or 9 ! hi/ory ( ,kant's e>li] semi-,critical views may omit pp4 #bjc-cd1 ) exception ( pp4 #bjd-ai1 on ,kant's doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object1 :i* %\ld be read4 #ged ,! read] is recomm5d$ to m>k (f ! passages 9 a copy ( ! ,critique4 #gee ,its fir/ occurr5ce 9 ! ,critique is 9 ! ,ae/hetic ,a #df ,b #fc4 ,x !re signifies ! ?+ 9 itself4 #gef ,a #ajd4 #geg ,a #aji4 #geh ,a #aji4 #gei ,a #ajd4 #gfj ,cf4 above1 p4 #bh2 bel[1 pp4 #bai-bj4 #gfa ,w4 x4 pp4 #abd-e4 #gfb ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bji-aj4 #gfc ,hume's view ( ! self is n develop$ 9 ! ,enquiry1 & is n m5tion$ by ,beattie4 #gfd ,a #ajg4 #gfe ,cf4 ,reflexion51 ii4 #ieb 7belong+1 z ,erdmann notes1 to ! e>lie/ ,critical p]iod73 8,appe>ances are repres5tations :]eby we are affect$4 ,! repres5tation ( our free self-activity 7,selb/ttigkeit7 does n involve affection1 & accord+ly is n appe>ance1 b app]ception40 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bif4 #gff #h4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 l-ii2 bel[1 pp4 #bdc1 #bfj-c1 #bgb-c1 #cbg-h1 #dgc-g1 #eae4 #gfg ,a #ajg4 ,x is significant t ,kant 9 ,a #ajg uses1 9 ref]5ce to app]ception1 ! v unusual phrase1 8unw&elb>es ,bewus/se940 #gfh ,a #ajh4 #gfi ,a #ajg4 #ggj ,reicke1 ,lose ,bltt]1 p4 #ai4 ,! be>+ & date ( ?is passage is discuss$ bel[1 p4 #bcc4 #gga ,op4 cit4 p4 #bj4 #ggb ,op4 cit4 p4 #bb 7writt5 on a lett] dat$ ,may #bj1 #agge74 #ggc ,?is la/ /atem5t _c possibly be tak5 lit]ally4 ,9 view ( ! mann] 9 :i* ! transc5d5tal object is spok5 ( else:]e 9 ?is section1 & also 9 ! ,dialectic1 we mu/ reg>d x z /&+ = an indep5d5t exi/5ce1 & ! relation ( repres5tations to x z be+1 !re=e1 some?+ else ?an simply ! unity ( consci\sness4 #ggd ,x may be obs]v$ t :5 ,kant 9 ,a #ajg1 quot$ above1 ref]s to 8a priori concepts10 he adds 9 explanation1 & )9 brackets1 8space & "t40 #gge ,a #aje-f4 #ggf ,! actual nature ( ,kant's tea*+ z to ! orig9 & con/itution ( ! notion ( ! transc5d5tal object is l>gely mask$ by ! fact t he places ?is pro( ( its validity s prom95tly 9 ! =egr\nd4 ,! g5]al nature ( ?is pro( is1 ( c\rse1 id5tical ) t ( 8 lat] positions4 #ggg ,a #aji4 #ggh ,z 9 ! ,lose ,bltt]4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bcc4 #ggi ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bbg1 #bcc-d1 #bfh-i4 #ghj ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cbb-h2 also pp4 #bfj-c4 #gha ,z above not$ 7p4 #bjd n47 x also occurs 9 ! ,ae/hetic 7,a #df ,b #fc71 z signify+ ! ?+ 9 itself4 #ghb ,a #bch ,b #bih4 #ghc ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bch4 #ghd ,a #bch ff4 ,b #bih ff4 #ghe ,a #bej-a4 #ghf ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #djg ff4 #ghg ,a #bec4 #ghh ,a #aia ,b #bcf4 #ghi ,a #bgg-h ,b #ccc-d2 ,a #bhh ,b #cdd4 #gij ,cf4 mundus pha5om5on 9 ,a #bgb ,b #cbh4 #gia ,x is s dat$ by ,adickes 7,k4 p4 #bgb n471 ow+ to a s+le ref]5ce to s*emata 9 ,a #bhf ,b #cdb4 #gib ,a #ceh & ,a #cfa 7cf4 ,a #cee72 ,a #cff2 ,a #cgb & ,a #cgi-hj2 ,a #cij-a1 ,a #cic1 & ,a #cid4 #gic ,a #cff4 #gid 8,transc5d5tal0 "h means 8transc5d5t40 ,cf4 ,a #cgi4 #gie ,a #cgb2 s also 9 ,a #fac-ad ,b #fda-b4 #gif ,! passage 9 ,a #cic is giv5 bel[1 p4 #dfd4 #gig ,a #did ,b #ebb4 ,cf4 ,a #dib ,b #eba3 8,! true self 7das eig5tli*e ,selb/7 z x exi/s 9 itself1 i4e4 ! transc5d5tal subject40 #gih ,a #die ,b #ebc4 #gii ,a #dif ,b #ebd4 #hjj ,loc4 cit4 #hja ,cf4 also ,a #ech ,b #eff2 ,a #edj ,b #efh2 ,a #eeg ,b #ehe2 ,a #efd ,b #eib2 ,a #efe-f ,b #eic-d2 ,a #fac ,b #fda-b4 #hjb ,above1 p4 #bjf4 #hjc ,cf4 above1 pp4 liii-v2 bel[1 pp4 #bhj1 #cca1 #cgc-d1 #cij-a1 #dad-ag1 #dbi-ca1 #eeh-fa4 #hjd ,viz4 ! fir/ lay] ( ! d$uction ( ! fir/ edition1 ! relevant sections 9 ! *apt] on ph5om5a & n\m5a 7,a #bej ff471 & ! ,p>alogisms ) ! subsequ5t ,reflection4 #hje ,viz4 ! ,note on ,amphiboly1 ! *apt] on ! ,ant9omies1 & ! *apt] on ! ,ideal4 #hjf ,to ! /atem5t t ! alt]ations 9 ! second edition cease at ! close ( ! *apt] on ! ,p>alogisms1 !re is only "o s+le exception1 namely1 ! v brief note app5d$ to ,a #dia ,b #eai4 ,?is exception1 h[ev]1 supports our g5]al !sis4 ,x is ( polemical orig91 ref]r+ to ! nature ( ! di/9ction betwe5 transc5d5tal & subjective idealism1 & 0 dem&$ by ! new ,refutation ( ,idealism :i* 9 ! second edition he _h atta*$ to ! ,po/ulates4 #hjg ,x foll[s imm$iately ^u ! passage quot$ above1 p4 #bjf4 #hjh ,w4 x4 pp4 #abe-f4 #hji ,a #hi ,b #aba4 ,i adopt ,b4 ,erdmann's read+ ( auf = als4 #haj ,a #hh ,b #abj4 #haa ,a #ij4 #hab ,z we h already f\nd 7above1 p4 #bg n4 #a71 x _h n be5 atta9$ at ! "t :5 ! ,introduction to ! fir/ edition 0 writt54 #hac ,a #ie-if4 #had ,a #ig4 #hae ,a4 #ie2 cf4 ,a #if4 #haf ,a #aaa4 #hag ,loc4 cit4 #hah ,a #aab4 #hai ,a #aaa4 #hbj ,a #aab-ad4 #hba ,a #aaj-ad4 #hbb ,i4 #ad ,c ,vaih+] reg>ds z int]m$iate 9 date1 b x is a comp>atively unimportant p>agraph1 & may = ! pres5t be left out ( acc\nt4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bbe-f4 #hbc ,a #aah-ai4 #hbd ,a #abd4 #hbe ,loc4 cit4 #hbf ,a #aae4 #hbg ,a #gf-i ,b #ajb-d4 ,n yet comm5t$ ^u4 #hbh ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 loc4 cit4 p4 #fc4 #hbi ,a #gg ,b #ajb4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #if-g4 #hcj ,loc4 cit4 #hca ,= explanation ( ! exact mean+ 9 :i* ^! t]ms are employ$ & = discussion ( ! complicat$ issues involv$1 cf4 bel[1 p4 #bgj ff4 #hcb ,cf4 ,a #aah4 #hcc ,a #ajb4 #hcd ,a #ii-ajj4 #hce ,a #ajb4 #hcf ,a #ajj4 #hcg ,a #aja4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bee4 #hch ,pp4 #bch1 #bfc ff4 #hci ,cf4 above1 p4 #baa4 #hdj ,= ,vaih+]'s own /atem5t ( x1 cf4 op4 cit4 pp4 #gi-ih4 #hda ,nos4 #fd-e1 #aag1 #adj-e4 #hdb ,no4 #adf4 #hdc ,nos4 #da1 #ha4 #hdd ,no4 #ajd4 #hde ,cf4 ,nos4 #ifd-e4 #hdf ,no4 #idg4 #hdg ,no4 #idh4 #hdh ,no4 #idi4 #hdi ,no4 #ieb4 #hej ,?is is ,erdmann's read+4 ,vaih+] sub/itutes allgeme9 = alle91 b )\t reason giv54 #hea ,no4 #ice4 ,! translation is lit]al4 ,kant 9 ! la/ s5t5ce *anges f s+ul> to plural4 #heb ,no4 #ifd4 #hec ,cf4 also ,nos4 #ieg1 #ifa4 ,! latt] %[s h[ ,kant already connect$ ! categories ( relation ) ! logical functions ( judgm5t4 #hed ,reicke1 ,nos4 #g1 #h1 #aj-ah 7pp4 #af-bf1 #bi-di74 #hee ,! *ief relevant passages h be5 quot$ above1 p4 #bji4 #hef ,! lett] is giv5 9 ,w4 x4 p4 #agc4 #heg ,reicke1 pp4 #aac-af4 #heh ,accord+ to ,adickes ! ,critique 0 8br\ght to completion0 9 ! fir/ half ( #aghj2 9 ,vaih+]'s view1 on ! o!r h&1 ,kant 0 occupi$ ) x f ,april to ,septemb]4 ,cf4 above1 p4 xx4 #hei ,9 two respects1 h[ev]1 fragm5t ,b #ab anticipates ! tea*+ ( ! f\r? /age3 7a7 9 sugge/+ 7p4 #aad7 ! necessity ( a pure syn!sis ( pure intuition1 & 7b7 9 equat+ 7p4 #aae7 syn!sis ( appreh5sion ) syn!sis ( imag9ation4 #hfj ,pp4 #bca-c4 #hfa ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bfh-i4 #hfb ,9 ,b #afj ,kant /ates t ! syn!sis ( appreh5sion is only empirical2 & 9 ,b #aeb we f9d ! foll[+ emphatic s5t5ce3 8,9 s f> z ! faculty ( imag9ation is spontane\sly active ,i sometimes also "n x i4e4 9 addition to entitl+ x transc5d5tal & figurative productive1 & !reby di/+ui% x f ! reproductive imag9ation ^: syn!sis is subject only to empirical laws1 i4e4 ^? ( association1 & :i* !re=e contributes no?+ 9 explanation ( ! possibility ( a priori k4 ,h5ce x belongs1 n to transc5d5tal philosophy1 b to psy*ology40 ,cf4 ! directly c\nt] /atem5t 9 ,a #ajb3 8,! reproductive syn!sis ( ! faculty ( imag9ation mu/ be c\nt$ among ! transc5d5tal actions ( ! m9d40 #hfc ,?\gh1 z we %all f9d1 ! d$uction ( ! second edition is 9 c]ta9 respects m mature1 x is 9 o!r respects less complete4 #hfd ,a #cad ,b #cgj4 #hfe ,a x-xi4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ej-a4 #hff ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #edc ff41 #egf-g4 #hfg ,:e!r x 0 ! *ief reason is decid$ly op5 to "q4 ,! un-,critical "* ( its tea*+ z reg>ds ! function ( empirical concepts & ( ! transc5d5tal object1 & ! unsatisfactor9ess ( its doctr9e ( a ?reefold syn!sis1 w\ld ( !mselves acc\nt = ! omission4 ,! passage 9 ! *apt] on ph5om5a & n\m5a 7,a #bej ff47 9 :i* ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object is aga9 develop$ 0 likewise omitt$ 9 ! second edition4 #hfh ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bch1 #bfc ff4 #hfi ,cf4 also 9 ,me?odology1 bel[1 p4 #edc ff4 #hgj ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxvi1 xxxvii-viii1 #cf2 bel[1 pp4 #bda-c4 #hga ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #edc ff4 #hgb ,a xi4 #hgc ,a #ajj-a4 #hgd ,kant's failure ei!r to di/+ui% or to connect ! two d$uctions 9 any really cle> & consi/5t mann] is a defect :i* is acc5tuat$ r ?an dim9i%$ 9 ! second edition4 ,?\gh ! sections devot$ to ! subjective enquiry are omitt$1 & ! argum5t ( ! objective d$uction is s reca/ z to increase ! emphasis laid ^u its m /rictly logical aspects1 ! tea*+ ( ! subjective d$uction is reta9$ & influ5ces ! argum5t at e po9t4 ,= ! new d$uction1 no less ?an t ( ! fir/ edition1 re/s ?r\gh\t ^u ! initial assumption t ?\gh connection or syn!sis c nev] be giv51 x is yet ! g5]ative s\rce ( all consci\sness ( ord] & relation4 #hge ,x appe>s mo/ cle>ly 9 ,kant's pro( ( ! category ( causality 9 ! second ,analogy4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #cfd ff4 #hgf ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #beb-c1 #beh1 #bhg1 #ccc1 #cdc4 #hgg ,cf4 above1 p4 #bjh ff4 #hgh ,cf4 above1 pp4 l-ii1 #bjg-ab2 bel[1 pp4 #bfj-c1 #bgb-c1 #cbg-h1 #dgc-g1 #eae4 #hgi ,p4 #bci4 #hhj ,a #ii4 #hha ,a #ajb4 #hhb ,a #ajc4 #hhc ,loc4 cit4 #hhd ,loc4 cit4 #hhe ,a #ajj-a4 #hhf ,a #ajf4 #hhg ,a #aja4 #hhh ,su* /atem5ts are 9 direct conflict ) 8 own repeat$ ass]tions 9 o!r passages t reproduction & recognition are always m]ely empirical4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bbg-ca1 & bel[1 pp4 #bfd1 #bfh-i4 #hhi ,b #aci-dj4 #hij ,9 ! fir/ edition ! subjective & objective d$uctions %ade into "o ano!r2 & ?is "q is rais$ 9 ! section on syn!sis ( recognition 7,a #ajd71 :]e1 z above not$ 7p4 #bjd ff471 ,kant's argum5t is l>gely pre-,critical1 empirical concepts ex]cis+ ! functions :i* ,kant lat] ascrib$ to ! categories4 ,b z we h already consid]$ ! result+ doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object bo? 9 its e>li] & 9 its subsequ5t =m1 we may at once pass to ! m mature tea*+ ( ! o!r sections4 #hia ,cf4 above1 p4 #bjd ff4 #hib ,memory is only "o p>ticul> mode 9 :i* recognition pres5ts itself 9 our exp]i5ce2 ,kant's purpose is to %[ t x is n m fundam5tal1 nor m truly con/itutive ( app]ception1 ?an is recognition 9 any ( its o!r manife/ations4 ,inde$ ! c5tral cont5tion ( ! objective d$uction is t x is ?r\gh consci\sness ( objects1 i4e4 ?r\gh consci\sness ( objective mean+s1 t self-consci\sness comes to be actualis$ at all4 ,only 9 contra/ )1 & ?r\gh relation to1 an objective sy/em is consci\sness ( inn] exp]i5ce1 pa/ or pres5t1 & !re=e self-consci\sness 9 its cont+5t empirical =ms1 possible to ! m9d4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 li-ii2 bel[1 pp4 #bfj-c4 #hic ,b #acd4 #hid ,a #aaf4 #hie ,cf4 above1 p4 #bdb2 bel[1 pp4 #beh1 #ccb-c4 #hif ,cf4 ,a #aaa4 #hig ,a #aag n4 #hih ,?is transc5d5tal psy*ology is consid]$ bel[ 7p4 #bfc ff471 9 its connection ) ! lat] /ages ( ! subjective d$uction4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #bch4 #hii ,a #aac-ad4 #ijj ,cf4 above1 p4 #bbi4 #ija ,cf4 ,a #ajj-a4 #ijb ,a #abb-c4 #ijc ,cf4 ,b #adj-c2 ,b #aea-b2 ,b #afd-e #e & bel[1 p4 #bhf4 #ijd ,"h aga9 ! second edition text is m explicit ?an ! fir/3 8,?is peculi>ity ( our und]/&+1 t x c produce a priori unity ( app]ception solely by means ( ! categories1 & only by su* & s _m1 is z little capable ( fur!r explanation z :y we h j ^! & no o!r functions ( judgm5t1 or :y space & "t are ! sole =ms ( our possible intuition40--,b #ade-f4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxiii-vi1 xliv1 #eg1 #adb1 #ahf2 bel[1 pp4 #bia1 #daa4 #ije ,cf4 above1 pp4 #beb-c4 #ijf ,! second ,analogy embodies ! argum5t :i* is impli$ 91 & necess>y to1 ! e/abli%m5t ( ! ass]tions dogmatically made 9 ,a #aaa-ab4 #ijg ,a #aai4 #ijh ,cf4 ,a #abh4 ,on ?is :ole "q cf4 above1 p4 #bdb2 bel[1 pp4 #bhg-h4 #iji ,cf4 ,a #aac1 #abe-i4 #iaj ,a #ajg1 #aaa4 #iaa ,! explanation giv5 9 ! second edition 7,b #acb7 is artificial1 & does n reveal ,kant's real reasons4 ,x is also obscure ow+ to its employm5t ( dynamical t]ms to d5ote ! relation ( app]ception to self-consci\sness4 #iab ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bea-c4 #iac ,cf4 ,a #aab1 #aac1 #abh4 #iad ,a #aad4 #iae ,a #id1 #aae1 #aah4 ,cf4 also end ( note to ,b #acd4 #iaf ,cf4 above1 pp4 lii1 #bjg-ab1 #bdc2 bel[1 pp4 #cbg-h1 #dgc-g1 #eae4 #iag ,?is is %[n1 n only by ,kant's e?ical writ+s1 b also by 8 less =mal utt]ances1 especially 9 8 ,lectures on ,metaphysics & on ,religion1 9 8 ,reflexion51 & 9 8 ,lose ,bltt]4 #iah ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bgg-h4 #iai ,cf4 above1 pp4 l-lii2 bel[1 pp4 #bgg ff41 #dfa-b1 #dgc-g4 #ibj ,9 note to ,b #afb !y are inde$ id5tifi$4 #iba ,kant's vacillat+ attitude appe>s 9 ! add$ phrase 8( ^: activity we are h>dly ev] consci\s40 ,cf4 ,a #gh3 x is a 8bl9d0 p[]4 #ibb ,cf4 above1 p4 #bbe2 bel[1 p4 #ccg4 #ibc ,a #ach ,b #agg4 #ibd ,a #aah4 #ibe ,cf4 above1 p4 #bec ff4 #ibf ,a #abc4 #ibg ,a #aba-c4 #ibh ,a #abe-f4 #ibi ,above1 pp4 #gd ff41 #bch1 #beb4 #icj ,cf4 above1 pp4 #if-g4 #ica ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cfg1 #cga-b4 #icb ,cf4 above1 pp4 #baa1 #bbg1 #bcc-d4 #icc ,9 direct contradiction ( 8 previ\s view ( transc5d5tal imag9ation z purely productive1 x is n[ /at$ t x is reproductive4 ,cf4 ,a #ajb4 #icd ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bbe ff41 #bfd4 #ice ,x mu/ be rememb]$ t ?is 0 also r5d]$ necess>y by ! ar*aic "* ( _! tea*+ 9 reg>d to ! transc5d5tal object & ! function ( empirical concepts4 #icf ,cf4 ,b #aea-b4 ,!re is no m5tion1 h[ev]1 ( objective aff9ity4 #icg ,b #afj-a4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bbf-i4 #ich ,9 :at foll[s ,i make use ( an article1 entitl$ 8,! ,problem ( ,k10 :i* ,i h contribut$ to ! ,j\rnal ( ,philosophy1 ,psy*ology1 & ,sci5tific ,me?ods 7#aiab71 vol4 ix4 pp4 #aac-bh4 #ici ,! same wide s5se 9 :i* ,kant employs 8empirical idealism40 #idj ,cf4 above1 pp4 xliii-v1 #bjh2 bel[1 pp4 #bie-f1 #bih ff4 ,hume & ,sp9oza are ! only pre-,kantian ?9k]s ( ^: position ! la/ /atem5t is n /rictly descriptive1 b ev5 !y fail$ to escape its entangl+ influ5ce4 #ida ,cf4 ,a #bh-i2 also ,lectures on ,metaphysics 7,plitz's edition1 #ahba71 p4 #ahh ff4 ,9 ,kant's po/hum\sly publi%$ "w1 8 ,transition f ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce to ,physics1 x is ass]t$ 9 at lea/ tw5ty-six di/9ct passages t s5sations are due to ! action ( 8! mov+ =ces ( matt]0 ^u ! s5se-organs4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #bhc n4 #b4 ,9 8 ,ueb] das ,organ d] ,seele 7#agif7 7,h>t5/e91 vi4 p4 #deg ff471 ,kant agrees ) ,smm]r+ 9 hold+ t ! s\l has virtual1 i4e4 dynamical1 ?\gh n local1 pres5ce 9 ! fluid conta9$ 9 ! cavity ( ! bra94 #idb ,cf4 ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ,bk4 i4 *4 i4 iii4 #idc ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bgi ff41 #bic-f1 #cab ff41 #cba1 #cfa n4 #c1 #chd-e1 #dfd-e1 #dgf4 #idd ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #bgi-hj1 & pp4 #bic-d1 on inn] s5se4 #ide i4 p4 #cci3 8,ea* pulse ( cognitive consci\sness1 ea* ,?\ght1 dies away & is replac$ by ano!r4444 ,ea* lat] ,?\ght1 kn[+ & includ+ ?us ! ,?\ghts :i* w5t be=e1 is ! f9al receptacle--& appropriat+ !m is ! f9al own]--( all t !y conta9 & own4 ,ea* ,?\ght is ?us born an own]1 & dies own$1 transmitt+ :atev] x realiz$ z its ,self to its own lat] proprietor4 ,z ,kant says cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dfa-b1 x is z if ela/ic balls 7 to h n only motion b k ( x1 & a fir/ ball 7 to transmit bo? its motion & its consci\sness to a second1 :i* took bo? up into its consci\sness & pass$ !m to a ?ird1 until ! la/ ball held all t ! o!r balls _h held1 & realiz$ x z its own40 #idf ,i "h use 8objective0 9 its mod]n mean+3 ,i am n conc]n$ ) ! special mean+ :i* ,desc>tes himself atta*$ to ! t]ms objective & =malit]4 #idg ,pp4 #bgg-h4 #idh ,on ?is :ole matt] cf4 above1 p4 xlv2 bel[1 pp4 #cab-ba on ,kant's ,refutation ( ,idealism2 pp4 #cgc-d on ! ,second ,analogy2 pp4 #djg ff41 #dad ff4 on ,ph5om5a & ,n\m5a2 p4 #dfa ff4 on ! ,p>alogisms2 & p4 #edf4 ,cf4 also ,a #bgg-h ,b #ccd4 #idi ,p4 #bfg ff4 #iej ,?\gh ! po/hum\sly publi%$ "w ( ,kant's old age1 8 ,transition f ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce to ,physics1 be>s ! m>ks ( weak5+ p[]s1 & is mu* too incomplete & obscure to all[ ( any v assur$ d$uctions f its tea*+1 x is none ! less significant t x is l>gely occupi$ 9 attempt+ to def9e ! relation 9 :i* ! objective _w ( physical sci5ce /&s to ! s5sible _w ( ord9>y consci\sness4 ,z above not$ 7p4 #bge n471 x is !re ass]t$ 9 at lea/ tw5ty-six di/9ct passages t s5sations are due to ! action ( 8! mov+ =ces ( matt]0 ^u ! s5se-organs4 ,:at is ev5 m significant is ! adoption & frequ5t occurr5ce 7,altpreussis*e ,monatss*rift 7#ahhb71 pp4 #bcf1 #bhg1 #bhi1 #bij1 #bib1 #bid1 #bie-f1 #cjj1 #cjh1 #dbi1 #dcf1 #dci7 ( ! phrase 8,ers*e9ung von d] ,ers*e9ung40 ,kant w\ld seem to mean by 8,ers*e9ung vom er/5 ,range0 7op4 cit4 p4 #dcf7 7i4e4 appe>ance z su*71 ! objective _w z det]m9$ by physical sci5ce2 & by 8,ers*e9ung vom zweit5 ,range0 7i4e4 appe>ance ( ! appe>ance71 ?is same objective _w z kn[n 9 t]ms ( ! s5sations :i* mat]ial bodies g5]ate by act+ on ! s5se-organs4 ,kant adds t ! =m] is kn[n directly1 & ! latt] indirectly--mean+1 app>5tly1 t ! =m] is kn[n ?r\gh a priori =ms native to ! und]/&+1 & ! latt] only 9 t]ms ( s5se-data :i* are me*anically condition$ 7cf4 loc4 cit4 pp4 #bhf1 #bib1 & #ddd n4 ,! t]ms latt] & =m] on p4 #cjj h got transpos$74 #iea ,cf4 bel[ pp4 #cab-ba1 #cgc-d1 #dad ff41 #dbe ff41 #eeh ff4 #ieb ,b #abi4 #iec ,b #afa n4 #ied ,b #acj-a4 #iee ,b #aca4 #ief ,b #aca-d4 #ieg ,b #aca4 #ieh ,cf4 ,b #ach4 #iei ,b #ace4 #ifj ,b #acf-dj4 #ifa ,b #adj-b4 #ifb ,b #adc4 #ifc #ba-bg4 #ifd ,above1 pp4 #beb-c1 #beh1 #bhg4 #ife ,prolegom5a1 #ah4 #iff ,op4 cit4 #bj4 #ifg ,op4 cit4 #ah-ai2 ,eng4 trans4 pp4 #ed-e4 #ifh ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ci-dj1 #bhf-g4 #ifi ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #cgj4 #igj ,op4 cit4 #bb4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #caa n4 #d4 #iga #ba-g4 #igb ,b #adc4 #igc ,?is leads on 9 ! second p>agraph ( #ba to fur!r /atem5ts1 already comm5t$ ^u above1 pp4 #ahf1 #beg-h4 ,cf4 also #bc4 #igd ,cf4 also #bd4 #ige ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ij ff41 #aga1 #bbf-i1 #bfg-gj2 bel[1 p4 #ccg4 #igf ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bh1 #dg1 #aad1 #ada-b4 #igg ,cf4 #ba1 second p>agraph4 #igh ,cf4 above1 pp4 #afj1 #ahf1 #beg1 & bel[1 pp4 #cbe-f1 #ccj-a1 #cij-a1 #djd ff4 #igi ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cbd1 #cbi4 #ihj ,above1 p4 #adh4 #iha ,cf4 above1 pp4 xliii-v1 l-ii1 #bch1 #bfa-b1 #bfc ff41 #bgc ff42 bel[1 pp4 #bie ff41 #cbb ff4 #ihb ,cf4 ,b #fg-h2 ,a #cc ,b #di4 #ihc ,b #fg4 #ihd ,b xxxix n4 #ihe ,kant v probably arriv$ at ?is view ( inn] s5se "u ! influ5ce ( ,tet5s :o tea*es a simil> doctr9e 9 8 ,philosophis*e ,v]su*e b] die m5s*li*e ,natur und ihre ,entwickelung4 ,cf4 ,bd4 i42 ,v]su* i4 #g1 #h4 ,! fir/ volume ( ,tet5s' "w 0 publi%$ 9 #aggg 7re-issu$ by ! ,kantgesells*aft 9 #aiac71 & _h be5 c>efully read by ,kant prior to ! f9al prep>ation ( ! ,critique4 ,cf4 ,b4 ,erdmann1 ,kriticismus1 p4 #ea4 #ihf ,cf4 ,a4 #abh-i4 #ihg ,z j not$1 x is 9 ! second edition t ! above view ( ! cont5t ( inn] s5se is fir/ def9itely =mulat$4 #ihh ,a #cc ,b #di-ej4 #ihi ,a #cd ,b #ej4 #iij ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bjh-i1 #bea-b1 #bfj-d2 bel[1 #caa n4 #d4 ,x may be obs]v$ t ,caird 7i4 pp4 #fbe-g7 int]prets inn] s5se z equival5t to inn] reflection4 ,?is is "o ( ! respects 9 :i* ,caird's ,hegelian /&po9t has l$ him to misrepres5t ev5 ,kant's mo/ c5tral doctr9es4 #iia ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cii-djj1 & ,a #bgg-h ,b #ccc-d4 #iib ,above1 p4 #bib4 #iic ,cf4 above1 p4 #aee4 #iid ,cf4 ,vaih+] 9 ,/rassburg] ,abh&lung5 zur ,philosophie 7#ahhd71 p4 #ajf ff4 #iie ,section ,,iii41 ,prop4 ,,xii ,usus4 #iif ,!il ,,ii4 ,haupt/ck ,,ii4 ,w4 ii4 p4 #cfd4 #iig #aa4 #iih ,plitz's edition 7#ahba71 pp4 #ajj-b4 #iii ,w4 iv4 p4 #cgc ff4 #ajjj ,x may be not$ t 9 ! ,ae/hetic 7,a #ch ,b #ee7 ,kant employs ! t]m idealism1 )\t descriptive epi!t1 9 ! same mann] z 9 8 pre-,critical writ+s1 z signify+ a position t mu/ be reject$4 #ajja ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #cja ff4 #ajjb ,pp4 #cjg-h4 #ajjc ,cf4 ,a #cfh-i & #cgb4 #ajjd ,a #cgg3 a passage :i* be>s signs ( be+ a lat] int]polation4 #ajje ,b #bgd4 #ajjf ,a #cfh-i4 #ajjg ,a #cfi4 #ajjh ,a #bh ,b #dd4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #gf1 #aaf-ag4 #ajji ,a #cgj4 #ajaj ,loc4 cit4 #ajaa ,a #cgb4 #ajab ,a #cgc3 ,weil indess51 etc4 #ajac ,adickes reg>ds !m z lat] additions4 ,to judge by _! cont5t 7cf4 above1 pp4 #bjd ff41 #bae-af1 on ,kant's doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object71 !y are m probably ( q e>ly orig94 #ajad ,a #cgg-h4 #ajae ,adickes argues t ?is p>agraph is subsequ5t to ! ma9 body ( ! ,analytic1 b t is 9 keep+ ) ! t5d5cy :i* he seems to %[ ( dat+ passages1 :i* _c belong to ! 8,brief ,outl9e10 lat] r ?an e>li]4 #ajaf ,a #cge4 #ajag ,! rema9+ passages 9 ! f\r? ,p>alogism1 toge!r ) ! correspond+ passages 9 ,b #bgd ff41 9 ,kant's note to ,b xxxix1 & 9 ,b #bia-c1 are sep>ately dealt ) bel[1 pp4 #cjh ff41 #cbb ff41 #dfb-c4 #ajah ,a #cgg4 #ajai ,loc4 cit4 #ajbj ,e4g4 ,g>ve4 #ajba #ac1 ,w4 iv4 pp4 #bhh-i3 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #db4 #ajbb ,loc4 cit4 #ajbc ,op4 cit4 pp4 #bhi-ij3 ,eng4 trans4 pp4 #dc-d4 #ajbd ,9 ,note ,,ii4 #ajbe #di1 ,w4 iv4 #ccf3 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #ii4 #ajbf ,anhang1 ,w4 iv4 p4 #cge n4 #ajbg ,w4 iv4 p4 #cgd3 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #adg4 #ajbh ,cf4 above1 p4 #aee ff4 #ajbi ,w4 iv4 p4 #cge4 #ajcj ,w4 iv4 p4 #cge3 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #adg-h4 #ajca ,cf4 above1 p4 #aef4 #ajcb ,z already not$ above1 p4 #bii1 x is employ$ by ,kant 9 8 lectures on ,metaphysics4 #ajcc ,kant's phrase 89 space outside me0 is on ,kant's pr9ciples really pleona/ic4 ,cf4 ,prolegom5a1 #di2 ,eng4 trans1 p4 #aja3 8! notion #8outside me' only signifies exi/5ce 9 space40 ,cf4 ,a #cgc4 #ajcd ,cf4 text z alt]$ by note to ,b xxxviii4 #ajce ,b xxxix4 #ajcf ,b #bia-b4 ,! rema9+ po9ts 9 ,b #bgd ff4 z well z 9 ,b xxxix n4 are sep>ately dealt ) bel[1 p4 #cbb ff4 #ajcg ,! ne>e/ approa* to su* tea*+ 9 ! fir/ edition is 9 ,a #cc ,b #ej4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ace-h4 #ajch ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ccc1 #cda1 #cfj1 #chd-e4 #ajci ,adamson 7,developm5t ( ,mod]n ,philosophy1 i4 p4 #bda7 takes ! opposite view z to :at is ,kant's int5d$ tea*+1 b rem>ks ^u its inconsi/5cy ) ,kant's own fundam5tal pr9ciples4 8,n[1 9 tru?1 ,kant griev\sly endang]s 8 own doctr9e by insi/+ on ! abs5ce ( a priori elem5ts f our appreh5sion ( ! m5tal life2 = x foll[s f t1 if tak5 rigor\sly1 t accord+ to ,kant s5se & und]/&+ are n s mu* s\rces :i* unite 9 produc+ k1 z1 sev]ally1 s\rces ( di/9ct k9ds ( appreh5sion4 ,if we admit at all1 9 respect to inn] s5se1 t !re is "s k9d ( appreh5sion )\t ! "w ( und]/&+1 !n x has be5 ackn[l$g$ t s5se is p] se adequate to furni% a k9d ( appreh5sion40 ,z po9t$ out above 7p4 #bif71 by ! same l9e ( reason+ ,kant is disabl$ f view+ inn] consci\sness z m]ely reflective4 ,9 o!r words x c nei!r be m imm$iate nor less s5su\s ?an out] p]ception4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cfa1 n4 #c1 #chd-e4 #ajdj ,above1 pp4 xlvi1 #bge-hb2 bel[1 pp4 #cac-ad1 #chd-e4 #ajda ,above1 pp4 #bgf1 #bgi-hj2 bel[1 pp4 #cab1 #chd-e4 #ajdb ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #cfa4 #ajdc ,cf4 ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce 7#aghf71 ,w4 iv4 pp4 #dgj-a4 ,x %\ld be obs]v$1 h[ev]1 t ! reasons :i* ,kant gives 9 ?is treatise = d5y+ t psy*ology c ev] become m ?an a m]ely hi/orical or descriptive discipl9e are n t ! objects ( inn] s5se fall outside ! realm ( me*anically det]m9$ exi/5ce4 ,kant makes no ass]tion t ev5 di/antly implies any su* view4 ,8 reasons are--7#a7 t1 z "t has only "o dim5sion1 ! ma9 body ( ma!matical sci5ce is n applicable to ! ph5om5a ( inn] s5se & _! laws2 7#b7 t su* ph5om5a are capable only ( a m]ely ideal1 n ( an exp]im5tal1 analysis2 7#c7 t1 z ! objects ( inn] s5se d n consi/ ( p>ts outside ea* o!r1 _! p>ts are n sub/ances1 & may !re=e be conceiv$ z dim9i%+ 9 int5sity or pass+ out ( exi/5ce )\t prejudice to ! pr9ciple ( ! p]man5ce ( sub/ance 7op4 cit4 p4 #edb1 quot$ bel[1 p4 #cfa1 n4 #b72 7#d7 t inn] obs]vation is limit$ to ! individual's own exi/5ce2 7#e7 t ! v act ( introspection alt]s ! /ate ( ! object obs]v$4 #ajdd ,a #cgj4 #ajde ,b #bge4 ,^! two s5t5ces are cit$ 9 ?is connection by ,vaih+]3 ,/rassburg] ,abh&lung5 zur ,philosophie 7#ahhd71 p4 #aca4 #ajdf ,above1 pp4 xlv-vii1 #bgi ff4 #ajdg ,cf4 also above1 pp4 #bge-g4 #ajdh #ac1 ,anm]kung ,,ii4 #ajdi ,kriticismus1 p4 #aig ff4 #ajej ,m9d 7#ahgi71 iv4 p4 #djh ff42 7#ahhj71 v4 p4 #aaa4 #ajea ,a ,def5ce ( ,philosophic ,d\bt 7#ahgi71 p4 #ajg ff42 ,m9d 7#ahgh71 iii4 p4 #dha2 iv4 p4 #aae2 vi4 p4 #bfj4 #ajeb ,op4 cit4 p4 #abh ff4 #ajec ,critical ,philosophy1 i4 #fcb ff42 ,m9d 7#ahgi71 iv4 pp4 #aab1 #efj-a2 v4 p4 #aae4 #ajed ,! ,philosophy ( ,kant1 p4 #bdi ff4 #ajee ,! "o fundam5tal "q to :i* ,erdmann w\ld seem to all[ t ,kant gives conflict+ answ]s is z to :e!r or n categories c be transc5d5tly employ$4 ,! assumption ( a uni=m tea*+ is especially obvi\s 9 ,sidgwick's comm5ts2 cf4 ,m9d 7#ahhj71 v4 p4 #aac2 ,lectures on ! ,philosophy ( ,kant 7#aije71 p4 #bh4 #ajef ,cf4 above1 pp4 #cjc-d4 #ajeg ,a #dia ,b #ebj4 #ajeh ,a #bbe-f ,b #bgc4 #ajei ,a #die-f ,b #ebc-d4 #ajfj ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ejf4 #ajfa ,viz4 ,a #bbe-f ,b #bgc4 #ajfb ,b #bgg4 #ajfc ,above1 p4 #bjh ff4 #ajfd ,a #cdf ,b #djd4 #ajfe ,a #bbd-e ,b #bgb-c4 #ajff ,cf4 ,b #bgg4 #ajfg ,quot$ by ,b4 ,erdmann3 ,kriticismus1 p4 #ajg4 #ajfh ,b xxxix n41 #fg-h1 #gj1 #aeg-h ) app5d$ note1 #bgf-h1 #dbb n41 #dbg-i4 #ajfi ,b #gj1 #aeg1 #dbh4 #ajgj ,b #aeg4 #ajga ,b #aeg n4 ,reg>d+ ! un-,critical "* ( ,kant's language 9 ?is passage1 & ( ! t5d5cies :i* inspire x1 cf4 bel[1 p4 #cbi4 #ajgb ,b #aeg4 #ajgc ,b #dbi4 #ajgd ,cf4 ,b #bgg-h & ,b #aeg4 #ajge ,b #bgh4 #ajgf ,b #dbj & ,b #dbb n4 #ajgg ,b #dbb n4 #ajgh ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bjd ff41 #djd ff4 #ajgi ,cf4 above1 p4 #bjd ff4 #ajhj ,b #djf4 #ajha ,b #dbb n4 ,?\gh bo? concepts are d5ot$ by ! same t]m1 !y may n--su* is ! implication--be = t reason id5tifi$4 #ajhb ,b #dbi4 ,kant does n1 h[ev]1 ev5 9 ! second edition1 hold consi/5tly to ?is position4 ,9 ! s5t5ce imm$iately prec$+ t j quot$ he equates ! transc5d5tal self ) ! notion ( 8object 9 g5]al40 8,i repres5t myself to myself nei!r z ,i am nor z ,i appe> to myself1 b ?9k myself only z ,i d any object 9 g5]al f ^: mode ( intuition ,i ab/ract40 #ajhc ,! broad] be>+ ( ?is view may be not$4 ,if consi/5tly develop$1 x mu/ involve ! ass]tion t n\m5al reality is appreh5d$ 9 t]ms ( ! ,ideas ( reason1 = ^! are ! only o!r concepts at ! disposal ( ! m9d4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 liii-v1 #bag-ah2 bel[1 pp4 #cca1 #cij-a1 #dad-ag1 #dbf ff41 #eeh-fa4 #ajhd ,a #djb4 #ajhe ,x is d\btful :e!r ,a #dja-b repres5ts a g5u9ely ,critical position4 ,sev]al ( its phrases seem rem9isc5t ( ,kant's semi-,critical view ( ! nature ( app]ception4 ,?is is especially true ( ! ass]tion t self-consci\sness is 8itself uncondition$40 #ajhf ,a #cdf ,b #djd4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #def1 #dfa-b4 #ajhg ,cf4 ,a #cde4 #ajhh ,t he does n really d s is cle> f ! context & also f ! mann] 9 :i* he re/at$ ?is argum5t 9 ! second edition 7,b #dba-b74 #ajhi ,a #dja-b1 ,b #dba-b2 bel[1 pp4 #dfa-b4 #ajij ,a #djb2 cf4 ,b #djg4 #ajia ,cf4 ,b #dba-b4 #ajib ,cf4 above1 pp4 l-ii1 #bjh-i1 #bfj-c4 #ajic ,cf4 above1 loc4 cit4 #ajid ,cf4 ,b #aeg-h & #aeg n41 ,b #bgh1 ,b #dbh-i4 #ajie ,above1 pp4 #bie-f1 #caa n4 #d4 #ajif ,!re is ?is diff]5ce betwe5 ! category ( exi/5ce & ! categories ( relation1 namely1 t x w\ld seem to be impossible to di/+ui% betwe5 a det]m9ate & an indet]m9ate application ( x4 ,ei!r we ass]t exi/5ce or we d n2 !re is no su* ?ird alt]native z 9 ! case ( ! categories ( sub/ance & causality4 ,! category ( sub/ance1 det]m9ately us$1 signifies mat]ial exi/5ce 9 space & "t2 indet]m9ately appli$ x is ! purely problematic & m]ely logical notion ( some?+ t is always a subject & nev] a pr$icate4 ,! det]m9ate category ( causality is ! conception ( ev5ts condition+ "o ano!r 9 "t2 indet]m9ately employ$ x signifies only ! q indef9ite notion ( a gr\nd or condition4 ,also1 ,kant's explicit tea*+ 7,a #eig ff4 ,b #fbe ff47 is t ! notion ( exi/5ce /&s 9 an altoge!r diff]5t position f o!r pr$icates4 ,x is n an attribute con/itutive ( ! concept ( ! subject to :i* x is appli$1 b is simply ! posit+ ( ! cont5t ( t concept z a :ole4 ,nor1 aga91 is x a relational =m = ! articulation ( cont5t4 ,^! w\ld seem to be ! reasons :y no di/9ction is possible betwe5 a det]m9ate & an indet]m9ate application ( ! notion ( exi/5ce1 & :y1 !re=e1 ,kant1 9 def5d+ ! possible dual employm5t ( x1 has difficulty 9 hold+ consi/5tly to ! doctr9es exp\nd$ 9 ! ,po/ulates4 ,he is1 by 8 own explicit tea*+1 int]dict$ f decl>+ t ! notion ( exi/5ce is bo? a category & n a category1 or1 9 o!r words1 t x may v>y 9 mean+ accord+ z empirical or n\m5al reality is ref]r$ to1 & t only 9 ! =m] case is x def9ite & precise4 ,yet su* a view w\ld1 p]haps1 bett] h>monise ) c]ta9 o!r l9es ( ?\ght :i* fir/ obta9 /atem5t 9 ! ,dialectic4 ,= ?\gh x is 9 ! ,dialectic t ,kant exp\nds 8 gr\nds = hold+ t exi/5ce & cont5t are sep>ate & indep5d5t1 x is !re also t he fir/ beg9s to realise ! "p :i* ! ,ideas ( ,reason are call$ ^u to play 9 ! draw+ ( ! di/9ction betwe5 appe>ance & reality4 #ajig ,9 ! ,=ts*ritte 7,w]ke 7,h>t5/e971 viii4 p4 #edh ff47 ?is f9al /ep is q def9itely tak54 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cij-a1 #dad-ag1 #dbf ff41 #eeh-fa4 ,we h1 z we %all f9d1 to recognise a second fundam5tal conflict 9 ,kant's ?9k+1 additional to t betwe5 subjectivism & ph5om5alism4 ,he alt]nates betwe5 :at may be entitl$ ! sceptical & ! ,ideali/ views ( ! function ( ,reason & ( its relation to ! und]/&+1 or o!rwise /at$1 betwe5 ! regulative & ! absoluti/ view ( ! nature ( ?\ght4 ,b ?is conflict fir/ ga9s explicit expression 9 ! ,dialectic4 #ajih ,= ,kant's use ( ! t]ms #8canon' & #8dialectic' cf4 above1 pp4 #gb1 #gg-h1 #agc-d1 & bel[1 p4 #dbe ff4 #ajii ,above1 pp4 #aha-b4 #aajj ,z we %all h occasion to obs]ve bel[ 7p4 #ccf71 :5 ,kant def9es judgm5t z 8! faculty ( subsumption "u rules10 he is really def9+ x 9 t]ms ( ! process ( reason+1 & ?us violat+ ! pr9ciple :i* he is pr(ess$ly foll[+ 9 divid+ ! ,transc5d5tal ,logic into ! ,analytic ( ,concepts1 ! ,analytic ( ,judgm5t1 & ! ,dialectic ( ,reason+4 #aaja ,a #acb ,b #aga4 #aajb ,pp4 #beb-c1 #beh-i1 #bhg-h4 #aajc ,! passages t h gone to con/itute ?is *apt] are probably q late 9 date ( writ+4 ,?is w\ld seem to be prov$ by ! view tak5 ( productive imag9ation1 & also by ! fact t 9 ! ,reflexion5 !re is no m5tion ( s*ematism4 #aajd ,cf4 above1 p4 #agf ff4 #aaje ,cf4 ,a #acg ,b #agf4 8,! empirical concept ( a plate is homog5e\s ) ! pure geometrical concept ( a circle1 s9ce ! r\ndness :i* is ?\ght 9 ! =m] c be intuit$ 9 ! latt]40 #aajf ,a #ach ,b #agg4 #aajg ,above1 p4 #ccd4 #aajh ,cf4 ,e4 ,curtius1 ,das ,s*ematismuskapitel 9 d] ,kritik d] re95 ,v]nunft 7,kant/udi51 ,bd4 xix4 p4 #cdh ff474 #aaji ,op4 cit4 #eh4 #aaaj ,a #ach ,b #agg4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #if-g4 #aaaa ,a #ada ,b #ahj4 #aaab ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bfh-i4 #aaac ,cf4 above1 pp4 #acc-d4 #aaad ,a #adj ,b #agi4 #aaae ,loc4 cit4 #aaaf ,cf4 ,e4 ,curtius1 op4 cit4 p4 #cef4 #aaag ,kant's o!r def9ition ( ! s*ema z 8a rule = ! det]m9ation ( our intuition 9 accordance ) a c]ta9 univ]sal concept0 7,a #ada ,b #ahj7 is op5 to simil> objections4 ,:51 h[ev]1 ,kant /ates t 8s*emata1 & n images1 und]lie our pure s5su\s concepts10 he seems to be incl9+ to ! tru] view t ! s*ema is ! concept4 #aaah ,above1 pp4 #aca-c4 #aaai ,cf4 ,riehl1 ,philos4 ,krit4 #bnd ed4 i4 pp4 #dhh1 #ecc4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #aie-f1 #aih2 bel[1 pp4 #djd-e4 #aabj ,critical ,philosophy1 i4 bk4 i4 *ap4 v41 especially pp4 #dcg & #ddj4 #aaba ,!orie d] ,erfahrung1 second edition1 p4 #chd4 #aabb ,op4 cit4 p4 #ecb4 #aabc ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bdj-c4 #aabd ,= comm5t ^u ! def9ition ( numb]1 :i* ,kant takes z be+ ! s*ema ( quantity1 & ^u ! view ( ari?metic :i* ?is def9ition may seem to imply1 cf4 above1 p4 #abh ff4 #aabe ,cf4 above1 p4 #aib4 #aabf ,cf4 above1 pp4 #cci-dj1 & bel[1 pp4 #ceg1 #djd ff4 #aabg ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bj1 #be1 #bij-a2 bel[1 pp4 #djg1 #dab1 #dad-ag4 #aabh ,e4g4 ,riehl1 ,philos4 ,krit4 #bnd ed4 i4 pp4 #ece-f4 #aabi ,above1 pp4 #beh1 #ccb-c4 #aacj ,a #adh ,b #ahh4 #aaca ,a #aef ,b #aie4 #aacb ,a #aeg ,b #aif4 #aacc ,a #bd4 #aacd #ac1 ,anm]kung i4 #aace ,b #dj-a4 #aacf ,b #aaj4 #aacg ,a #afj ,b #aii-bjj4 #aach ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bhh-i4 #aaci ,a #afa-b ,b #bja-b4 #aadj ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #eaj-aa4 #aada ,a #agh-i ,b #bba4 #aadb ,cf4 above1 pp4 #id-e4 #aadc ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ceh-i1 #cfg-h1 #cga-b1 #cha-b4 #aadd ,above1 p4 #cji ff4 #aade ,cf4 ,adickes1 ,k4 p4 #aij n4 #aadf ,cf4 above1 p4 #abg ff4 #aadg ,t is to say1 9 ! fir/ edition4 #aadh ,! phrase is foll[$1 x may be obs]v$1 by a v]b 9 ! irregul>4 #aadi ,a #adc ,b #ahb4 #aaej ,loc4 cit4 9 ! *apt] on ,s*ematism4 #aaea ,loc4 cit4 ,italics n 9 ,kant4 #aaeb ,cf4 ,a #age ,b #bag4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #cej-a4 #aaec ,b #bag-ah4 #aaed ,cf4 above1 pp4 #aib1 #cda4 #aaee ,a #afi-gj ,b #baa-ab4 ,= comm5t ^u ,kant's view ( ! po9t z a limit1 cf4 bel[1 p4 #dhi ff4 #aaef ,?\gh ,kant ma9ta9s 9 ,a #aga ,b #bab-ac t ow+ to our dep5d5ce ^u empirical data & our necess>y ignorance ( ! nature ( ! causal relation we _c simil>ly demon/rate ! pr9ciple ( ! cont9uity ( *ange1 he has himself1 9 *>act]i/ically inconsi/5t fa%ion1 giv5 ?ree su* demon/rations4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #chj-a4 #aaeg ,cf4 ,kant's ,monadologia physica 7#agef71 & ,new ,doctr9e ( ,motion & ,re/ 7#ageh74 ,kant's f9al /atem5t ( ?is dynamical !ory is giv5 9 8 ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce 7#aghf74 #aaeh ,9 ?is matt] ,kant reg>ds himself z def5d+ ! ,newtonian !ory ( an attractive gravitational =ce4 ,! me*ani/ic view admits only "o =m ( action1 viz4 transf]5ce ( motion ?r\gh impact & pressure4 8,f 444 ,democritus to ,desc>tes1 inde$ up to our own day1 ! me*ani/ic me?od ( explanation 444 has1 "u ! title ( atomism or corpuscul> philosophy1 ma9ta9$ its au?ority ) b slight modification2 & has cont9u$ to ex]cise its influ5ce ^u ! pr9ciples ( natural sci5ce4 ,its ess5tial tea*+ consi/s 9 ! assumption ( ! absolute imp5etrability ( primitive matt]1 9 ! absolute homog5eity ( its con/itution 7diff]5ce ( %ape be+ ! sole rema9+ diff]5ce71 & 9 ! absolutely inde/ructible coh]5ce ( matt] 9 its fundam5tal corpuscles0 7,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples1 ,w4 vol4 iv4 p4 #ecc2 ii4 ,allgeme9e ,anm]kung1 #d74 #aaei ,?is is additional to its o!r correlative assumption ( ! absolute void4 8,! absolute void & ! absolutely full are 9 ! doctr9e ( nature v mu* :at bl9d *ance & bl9d fate are 9 metaphysical cosmology1 namely1 a b>ri] to ! enquir+ reason1 :i* ei!r causes its place to be tak5 by arbitr>y fictions1 or lays x to re/ on ! pill[ ( obscure qualities0 7,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples1 ,w4 vol4 iv4 p4 #ecb 7,i read =s*5de = h]rs*5de774 8,!re are only two me?ods ( proc$ure 4443 ! me*ani/ic1 ?r\gh comb9ation ( ! absolutely full ) ! absolute void1 or an opposite dynamical me?od1 t ( expla9+ all mat]ial diff]5ces ?r\gh m]e diff]5ces 9 ! comb9ation ( ! orig9al =ces ( repulsion & attraction0 7loc4 cit474 #aafj ,9 ! fir/ edition ,kant =mulates ?is pr9ciple 9 ! light ( 8 extremely mislead+ di/9ction betwe5 ma!matical & dynamical pr9ciples 7cf4 above1 pp4 #cde-g73 8,all appe>ances1 z reg>ds _! exi/5ce1 are subject a priori to rules det]m9+ _! relation to "o ano!r 9 "o "t40 #aafa ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ceh4 #aafb ,9 ,a #ahb ,b #bbe ! /rong] t]m *ange 7,we*sel7 is employ$4 #aafc ,a #agh-hj ,b #bba-c 7on ! di/9ction betwe5 ma!matical & dynamical pr9ciples7 has be5 comm5t$ ^u above1 pp4 #cde-g4 #aafd ,philos4 ,krit4 #bnd ed4 i4 p4 #ede4 ,caird adopts a simil> view1 i4 pp4 #edj1 #ehj4 #aafe ,a #aha ,b #bbd4 #aaff ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cgc-d4 #aafg ,t is to say1 9 ! fir/ edition4 #aafh ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ccb-c1 #cdc-d4 #aafi ,cf4 above1 p4 #cdh2 bel[1 pp4 #cfg-h1 #cga-b1 #cha-b4 #aagj ,cf4 above1 pp4 #id1 #ace-h1 #cji ff41 #cdg-h4 #aaga ,t is to say1 9 ! fir/ edition4 #aagb ,! new pro( add$ 9 ! second edition calls = no special comm5t4 ,9 all ess5tials x agrees ) ?is second pro( ( ! fir/ edition4 ,x diff]s only 9 su* ways z are call$ = by ! mode ( =mulat+ ! pr9ciple 9 ! second edition4 #aagc ,?is /atem5t1 z ,caird has po9t$ out 7i4 p4 #eda71 is extremely que/ionable4 8,x may be object$ t to say t #8"t itself does n *ange' is l say+ t pass+ away does n itself pass away4 ,s f> ! endurance ( "t & ! p]man5ce ( ! *ang+ might ev5 seem to mean only t ! mom5ts ( "t nev] cease to pass away1 & ! *ang+ nev] ceases to *ange4 ,a p]petual flux w\ld !re=e suffici5tly #8repres5t' all ! p]man5ce t is 9 "t40 ,?is is n1 h[ev]1 9 itself a vital objection to ,kant's argum5t4 ,= he is "h /at+ m ?an 8 argum5t really requires4 ,ev5ts are dat$ 9 a s+le "t1 n 9 an un*ang+ "t4 ,kant's /atem5t betrays ! ext5t to :i*1 z ,b]gson has v ju/ly po9t$ out1 ,kant spatialises "t1 i4e4 int]prets x on ! analogy ( space4 ,x is bas$ on 8! mix$ idea ( a measurable "t1 :i* is space 9 s f> z x is homog5eity1 & duration 9 s f> z x is succession2 t is to say1 at bottom1 ! contradictory idea ( succession 9 simultaneity0 7,les ,donnes immdiates1 p4 #agc1 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #bbh74 #aagd ,cf4 ,a #ahd ,b #bbg3 8! proposition1 t sub/ance is p]man5t1 is tautological40 #aage ,cf4 ,a #ahh ,b #bca4 #aagf ,above1 p4 #cda4 #aagg ,cf4 above1 p4 #cji ff4 #aagh ,b4 ,erdmann's edition ( ! ,na*trge1 lxxx4 p4 #cb4 ,cit$ by ,caird1 i4 pp4 #eda-b4 #aagi ,op4 cit4 pp4 #cc-d4 #aahj ,t ,kant does n mean to imply t ! category ( sub/ance has no application to ! cont5ts ( inn] s5se is made cle> by a curi\s argum5t 9 ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce 7#aghf71 ,w4 iv4 p4 #edb3 8,:at 9 ?is pro( ess5tially *>act]ises sub/ance1 :i* is possible only 9 space & "u spatial conditions1 & !re=e only z object ( ! out] s5ses1 is t its quantity _c be increas$ or dim9i%$ )\t sub/ance com+ into be+ or ceas+ to be4 ,= ! quantity ( an object :i* is possible only 9 space mu/ consi/ ( p>ts :i* are ext]nal to "o ano!r1 & ^!1 !re=e1 if !y are real 7some?+ movable71 mu/ necess>ily be sub/ances4 ,on ! o!r h&1 t :i* is view$ z object ( inn] s5se c1 z sub/ance1 h a quantity :i* does n consi/ ( p>ts ext]nal to "o ano!r4 ,its p>ts are !re=e n sub/ances1 & _! com+ into be+ & ceas+ to be mu/ n be reg>d$ z creation or annihilation ( a sub/ance4 ,_! increase or dim9ution is !re=e possible )\t prejudice to ! pr9ciple ( ! p]man5ce ( sub/ance40 7,italics n 9 ,kant47 ,cf4 also ,prolegom5a1 #di1 & bel[1 pp4 #cfg1 #cgg n4 #c4 #aaha ,a #ahg ,b #bcj4 #aahb ,k4 p4 #baa n4 #aahc ,c4 ,a #bje-g ,b #beb4 #aahd ,w]ke 7,frau5/dt1 #ahgc71 i4 p4 #he ff4 #aahe ,z evid5ce ( ?is failure ,i may cite ,s*op5hau]'s comm5t ^u ,a #cga & #cgb3 8,f ^! passages x is q cle> t = ,kant ! p]ception ( out] ?+s 9 space is antec$5t to all application ( ! causal law1 & t ?is law does n !re=e ent] into x z its elem5t & condition3 m]e s5sation am\nts 9 ,kant's view to p]ception0 7,w]ke1 i4 p4 #ha74 ,ev5 :51 z 9 ! passages ref]r$ to1 ,kant is speak+ 9 8 mo/ subjectivi/ ve91 he gives no ju/ification = any su* ass]tion4 ,s*op5hau]1 not)/&+ 8 s9c]e admiration = ,kant--8,i owe :at is be/ 9 my own sy/em to ! impression made ^u me by ! works ( ,kant1 by ! sacr$ writ+s ( ! ,h9doos1 & by ,plato0 7,_w z ,w & ,idea1 ,w]ke1 ii4 p4 #dic1 ,eng4 trans4 ii4 p4 #e7--;is "o ( ! mo/ unreliable ( ,kant's critics4 ,8 comm5ts are extremely mislead+1 & l>gely = ! reason t he 0 int]e/$ 9 ,kant only z he c\ld obta9 f him confirmation ( 8 own philosophical t5ets4 ,sev]al ( ^! t5ets he c]ta9ly d]iv$ directly f ! ,critique2 b !y are plac$ by him 9 s entirely diff]5t a sett+ t _! ess5tial mean+ is greatly alt]$4 ,we h already not$ 7above1 p4 #da7 ,s*op5hau]'s exagg]at$ /atem5t ( ,kant's intuitive !ory ( ma!matics4 ,kant's subjectivism is simil>ly exp\nd$ 9 a "o-sid$ & q unrepres5tative mann] 7cf4 bel[1 p4 #djg n474 ,hut*ison ,/irl+'s criticisms ( ,kant 9 8 ,text ,book to ,kant are vitiat$ by a simil> failure to recognise ! completely un-,critical "* ( ! occasional passages 9 :i* ,kant admits a di/9ction betwe5 8judgm5ts ( p]ception0 & 8judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce0 7cf4 above1 pp4 #bhh-i74 ,/irl+ 7cf4 bel[1 p4 #cgg7 has amplifi$ 8 criticism ( ,kant 9 ,pr9ceton ,review 7,jan4 #ahgi1 pp4 #agh-baj71 ,=tnightly ,review 7,july #ahgb71 & 9 ,m9d 7ix41 #ahhd1 p4 #eca1 & x41 #ahhe1 p4 #de74 #aahf ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bdj-b1 #cfe1 & bel[1 p4 #cgg4 #aahg ,cf4 ,/\t1 ,manual ( ,psy*ology1 ?ird edition1 pp4 #ddd-f3 8,unless we assume f ! outset t ! primitive m9d treats a p]ceiv$ *ange :i* *all5ges its int]e/ & att5tion1 n z some?+ self-exi/5t 9 isolation1 b z some?+ condition$ by & condition+ o!r *anges1 x seems hopeless to attempt to %[ h[ ?is causal po9t ( view c\ld h aris5 ?r\gh any ext5sion ( k 9 accordance ) asc]ta9$ psy*ological laws & conditions4444 ,!re is good reason = d5y+ t cu/om>y repetition is ev5 requir$ to furni% a fir/ occasion or opportunity = ! fir/ em]g5ce ( ! appreh5sion ( causal relations4 ,=1 z we h already insi/$1 ! process ( le>n+ by exp]i5ce is f ! fir/ exp]im5tal4444 ,regul>ities are only f\nd because !y are s\ght4 ,b x is 9 ! seek+ t ! category ( causal unity is prim>ily involv$40 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #cga-b4 #aahh ,a #aic ,b #bch4 #aahi ,a #aia ,b #bcf4 #aaij ,by an 8arbitr>y0 ord] ,kant does n1 ( c\rse1 mean an ord] ( succession t is n det]m9$1 b only "o t is det]m9$ by subjectively condition$ direction ( att5tion4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #cgg4 #aaia ,cf4 ,a #aii ,b #bdd1 & above1 pp4 #acc1 #bhh-i2 bel[1 p4 #cgg4 #aaib ,cf4 ,a #aie-f ,b #bdj-a1 & above1 pp4 #agb1 #agf ff41 #ahb-c1 #bfc ff41 #bgg-h4 #aaic ,a #gcf-g ,b #gfe4 ,italics ( la/ s5t5ce n 9 ,kant4 #aaid ,a #ahi-id ,b #bcd-i3 fir/ to f\r? p>agraphs 7fir/ edition74 #aaie ,cf4 above1 pp4 #cdh1 #ceh4 #aaif ,cf4 ,a #aib-c ,b #bch-i4 #aaig ,cf4 ,riehl1 ,philosophis*] ,kriticismus 7second edition71 i4 pp4 #eea-b4 ,:ile recognis+ ! above ma9 po9t1 ,riehl seems to ass]t t empirical sequ5ce det]m9es ! application ( ! causal concept4 ,x w\ld be tru]1 & m 9 accordance ) ! position :i* ,kant is endeav\r+ to e/abli%1 to ass]t t appeal to con/ancy ( sequ5ce enables u to det]m9e :i* antec$5ts ( any giv5 ev5t are causal conditions4 ,! pr9ciple ( causality is already appli$ :5 ! sequ5t exp]i5ces are appreh5d$ z sequ5t ev5ts4 ,?is ambiguity1 h[ev]1 w\ld seem to be due only to ,riehl's mode ( expression4 ,=1 z he himself says 7p4 #eea71 ! law ( causality is a gr\nd ( exp]i5ce1 & _c !re=e be d]iv$ f x4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bfg-h1 #cfg4 #aaih ,pp4 #cfe-ga1 #cgg4 #aaii ,a #aia ,b #bcf4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #baf-ah4 #abjj ,z po9t$ out above1 ?is is really a second>y mean+ :i* ,kant reads into ! t]m analogy2 x is n ! true explanation ( 8 *oice ( ! t]m4 #abja ,critical ,philosophy ( ,kant1 vol4 i4 pp4 #edj1 #ehj4 #abjb ,kant1 p4 #aih3 trans4 by ,creighton & ,lefevre1 p4 #aif4 #abjc ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bgj ff41 #cac-ba4 #abjd ,kant1 ( c\rse1 recognises t we _c make any su* positive ass]tion2 to d s w\ld be to transc5d ! limits impos$ by ,critical pr9ciples4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #chb4 #abje ,a #aid-f ,b #bci-da3 fif? to sev5? p>agraphs 7fir/ edition74 #abjf ,a #aif-i ,b #bda-d3 eigh? to t5? p>agraphs 7fir/ edition74 #abjg ,a #aii-bja ,b #bdd-f3 elev5? to ?irte5? p>agraphs 7fir/ edition74 #abjh ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bbd ff41 #bfd ff42 bel[1 #cgg4 #abji ,a #bja-b ,b #bdf-g3 f\rte5? p>agraph 7fir/ edition74 #abaj ,b #bcc-d3 second p>agraph 7second edition74 #abaa ,b #bcc-d4 #abab ,f ,a #bjb ,b #bdg to ! end4 #abac ,kant's ph5om5ali/ sub/itute = ! ,c>tesian subjectivism 7cf4 above1 pp4 #bgj ff41 #cab ff47 enables him to develop ?is !sis 9 a consi/5t & ?or\ghgo+ mann]4 ,! subjective is a subspecies )9 ! class ( :at is det]m9$ by natural law2 & ! pr9ciple ( causality is !re=e applicable to subjective *ange 9 ! same rigor\s fa%ion z to ! objectively sequ5t4 #abad ,a #bjd ,b #bdi4 #abae ,w4 i4 pp4 #hg-ib4 #abaf ,grundstze d] re95 ,erk5ntniss-,!orie1 p4 #aea4 ,quot$ & translat$ by ,caird1 i4 p4 #egb4 ,caird sums up ! matt] 9 a s5t5ce 7p4 #ega73 8,kant is %[+1 n t objective succession is always causal1 b t ! det]m9ation ( a succession ( p]ceptions z ref]r+ to a succession ( /ates 9 an object1 involves ! pr9ciple ( causality40 #abag ,loc4 cit4 #abah ,! connect$ "q h[ we c det]m9e ! ball & ! cu%ion z objectively coexi/5t is ! problem ( ! ?ird ,analogy4 #abai ,,iii4 ,erklrung #a & #b1 ,lehrsatz #a 7especially ,anm]kung !reto74 ,cf4 also ,,ii4 ,erklrung #a & #e1 & ! la/ pages ( ! ,allgeme9e ,anm]kung4 #abbj ,pp4 #cea1 #cgc-d4 ,cf4 pp4 #cah-ba4 #abba ,a #agj-a ,b #bab-ac1 above1 p4 #cec1 n4 #b4 #abbb ,a #bjh ,b #bec-d4 #abbc ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples1 ,,ii4 ,lehrsatz #d1 ,anm]kung #b4 #abbd ,a #bji-aj ,b #bee-f4 #abbe ,a #baj ,b #bef4 #abbf ,w4 ii4 p4 #bb4 #abbg ,w4 ii4 p4 #afh4 #abbh ,loc4 cit4 #abbi ,= lack ( a m suitable ,engli% equival5t ,i h translat$ ,geme9s*aft z 8communion40 ,z ,kant po9ts out 9 ,a #bac ,b #bfj1 ! ,g]man t]m is itself ambigu\s1 signify+ comm]cium 7i4e4 dynamical int]action7 z well z communio4 #abcj ,cf4 above1 pp4 #cdh1 #ceh-i1 #cfg-h1 #cga-b4 #abca #ag ff4 ,cf4 ,na*trge zu ,kants ,kritik1 lxxxvi1 ) ,b4 ,erdmann's comm5t1 p4 #ce4 #abcb ,a #baa-ab ,b #beh4 ,cf4 ,a #baa ,b #beg4 #abcc ,a #baa ,b #beg4 #abcd ,a #baa-ac ,b #beh-fj3 fir/ ?ree p>agraphs 7fir/ edition74 #abce ,a #bac-ad ,b #bfj-a3 f\r? p>agraph 7fir/ edition74 #abcf ,a #bad-ae ,b #bfa-b3 fif? p>agraph 7fir/ edition74 #abcg ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ahi-ij1 #bjh ff4 #abch ,b #beg-h3 fir/ p>agraph 7second edition74 #abci ,cf4 ,b #bia-c1 p>tially quot$ above1 pp4 #caj-aa4 ,9 ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples 7,,iii4 ,lehrsatz1 #d7 ! pr9ciple t action & reaction are always equal is simil>ly limit$ to ! out] relations ( mat]ial bodies 9 space1 & ,kant adds t all *ange 9 bodies is motion4 ,cf4 ,w4 xi4 p4 #bcd2 & above1 p4 #adg4 #abdj ,above pp4 #caa-ab2 bel[1 pp4 #dgc-g4 #abda ,a #bac ,b #bfj4 #abdb ,! inconsi/5cy ( ,kant's view ( pure manifolds ( "t & space ) ! argum5t ( ! ,analytic ( ,pr9ciples is too obvi\s to call = detail$ comm5t4 #abdc ,cf4 ,b #beg4 #abdd ,a #bac-ad ,b #bfj-a4 #abde ,b #beg4 #abdf ,?ird edition1 p4 #dch4 #abdg ,/\t does n himself (f] x z complete4 #abdh ,_w z ,w & ,idea1 ,w4 ii4 pp4 #edd-e3 ,eng4 trans4 ii4 pp4 #fa-c4 #abdi ,cf4 above1 p4 #aig4 #abej ,a #bab-ac ,b #bei4 #abea ,b #beh4 #abeb ,op4 cit4 pp4 #ede-f3 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #fc4 #abec ,op4 cit4 pp4 #edf-g3 ,eng4 trans4 pp4 #fc-e4 #abed ,cf4 above1 p4 #cgi4 #abee ,cf4 ,/adl]1 ,grundstze1 p4 #abd4 #abef ,op4 cit4 p4 #edf3 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #fc4 #abeg ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ig-h1 #ajb n41 #afe-f2 bel[1 pp4 #dbi ff41 #ddg ff41 #edg ff4 #abeh ,cf4 ,adickes1 ,k4 p4 #bcc n4 #abei ,a #bbb ,b #bfi4 ,cf4 ,a #bbj ,b #bfh4 #abfj ,a #adh ff4 ,b #ahg ff4 #abfa ,a #bai ,b #bff4 #abfb ,?is1 by ,kant's own acc\nt 7,a #bcb-d ,b #bhe-g71 is :at l$ him to adopt ! title #8po/ulates4' ,a geometrical po/ulate does n add any?+ to ! concept ( its object b only def9es ! conditions ( its production4 #abfc ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ch-i2 bel[1 pp4 #cih-i1 #dah ff4 #abfd ,cf4 ,a #bbj-c ,b #bfg-ga4 #abfe ,a #bbc ,b #bgj4 #abff ,cf4 ,a #bbj ,b #bfh4 #abfg ,a #bbc ,b #bgj-a4 #abfh ,k4 p4 #bbc n4 #abfi ,a #bbd ,b #bgb4 #abgj ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bhh-i4 #abga ,a #bbe ,b #bgb4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #cid-f4 #abgb ,a #bbe ,b #bgc4 ,italics n 9 ,kant4 #abgc ,! ,critical ,philosophy ( ,kant1 i4 p4 #eia4 #abgd ,op4 cit4 p4 #eie4 #abge ,a #bbf ,b #bgc-d4 #abgf ,a #bbf ff4 ,b #bgi ff4 #abgg ,a #bah ,b #bha4 #abgh ,a #bcb ,b #bhd4 #abgi ,a #bca ,b #bhd4 #abhj ,cf4 above1 p4 #cji ff4 #abha ,kant's argum5t 9 ! note to ,b #bij is t ( 8 e>ly essay on ,negative ,quantity4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ebg ff41 #ecc ff41 #ecf4 #abhb ,a #bcf ,b #bie4 #abhc ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxv-vi1 xxxviii1 #ahe-f1 #aia1 #aie-f1 #beg-h1 #bij-a1 #cbe ff41 #cci4 #abhd ,! ma!matical illu/rations :i* ,kant proce$s to give 7,a #bci ,b #bii7 are peculi>ly crude & (f-h& 9 mann] ( /atem5t4 ,cf4 p] contra ,a #adj ,b #agi = ,kant's real view ( ! di/9ction betwe5 image1 s*ema1 & concept4 #abhe ,cf4 above1 pp4 #aie-f1 #aih1 #cci-db4 #abhf ,a #bdc ,b #cja4 #abhg ,a #bdb ,b #cjb4 #abhh ,cf4 ,a #bdh ,b #cje4 #abhi ,a #bdf-g ,b #cjc-d4 ,a #bdg-h ,b #cjd-e 7beg9n+ 8,?\ght is ! action10 etc47 is m]ely a repetition ( ! prec$+ argum5t1 & probably repres5ts a lat] int]calation4 #abij ,beg9n+ 8,appe>ances1 s f> z 44410 :i* 0 omitt$ 9 ! second edition4 ,x probably con/itutes1 z ,adickes ma9ta9s 7,k4 p4 #bed n471 ! orig9al beg9n+ ( ?is *apt]4 ,! 8z we h hi!rto ma9ta9$0 ( its second p>agraph1 :i* obvi\sly _c apply to ! pages :i* prec$e x 9 its pres5t position1 mu/ ref] to ! argum5t ( ! ,analytic4 #abia ,a #bdi1 #bea4 #abib ,above1 p4 #bjd ff4 #abic ,9 l>ge "p x repres5ts ! ,critical position z und]/ood by ,s*op5hau]1 :o nev] succe$$ 9 acquir+ any g5u9e und]/&+ ( ,kant's m mature tea*+ 7cf4 above1 p4 #cff n474 ,s*op5hau] is correct 9 ma9ta9+ t "o *ief gr\nd ( ,kant's belief 9 ! exi/5ce ( ?+s 9 !mselves lies 9 8 initial assumption t !y mu/ be po/ulat$ 9 ord] to acc\nt = ! giv5 manifold4 ,s*op5hau] is also ju/ifi$ 9 /at+ t ,kant1 ?\gh />t+ f ! duali/ic ,c>tesian /&po9t1 s f> modifi$ x z to conclude t ! orig9 ( ?is manifold mu/ be 8objective1 s9ce !re is no gr\nd = reg>d+ x z subjective0 7,p>]ga und ,p>alipom5a1 #ahea ed41 p4 #gd ff474 ,b = two reasons ?is is a v incomplete1 & !re=e extremely mislead+1 acc\nt ( ,kant's f9al tea*+4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ,s*op5hau] fails to take acc\nt ( ,kant's impli$ di/9ction betwe5 ! s5sations ( ! special s5ses & ! manifold ( out] s5se4 ,:5 ,kant recognises t ! s5sations ( ! special s5ses are empirically condition$1 he is con/ra9$ 9 consi/5cy to di/+ui% betwe5 !m & ! manifold :i* con/itutes ! matt] ( all exp]i5ces 7cf4 above1 p4 #bge ff474 ,?+s 9 !mselves1 9 acc\nt+ = ! latt]1 acc\nt also1 b 9 q indirect fa%ion1 = ! =m]4 ,?\gh s5sations are empirically condition$1 ! entire natural _w is n\m5ally gr\nd$4 ,secondly1 ,kant's subjectivism und]goes a simil> trans=mation on its inn] or m5tal side4 ,! analysis ( self-consci\sness1 :i* is giv5 bo? 9 ! ,d$uctions & 9 ! ,p>alogisms1 indicates ) suffici5t cle>ness ,kant's recognition t ! =m ( exp]i5ce is z little self-explanatory z its cont5t1 & t x mu/ n1 )\t su* pro( z1 ow+ to ! limitations ( our exp]i5ce1 we are deb>r$ f giv+1 be reg>d$ z m ultimate 9 nature4 ,! realities :i* con/itute & condition our m5tal processes are n appreh5d$ 9 any m direct mann] ?an ! ?+ 9 itself4 ,:51 !re=e1 ,s*op5hau] ass]ts 9 ! ,_w z ,w & ,idea 7,w]ke1 ,frau5/dt1 ii4 p4 #did1 ,eng4 trans1 ii4 p4 #f7 t ,kant proves ! _w to be m]ely ph5om5al by demon/rat+ t x is condition$ by ! intellect1 he is emphasis+ :at is lea/ *>act]i/ic 9 ,kant's tea*+4 ,s*op5hau]'s occasional id5tification ( ! intellect ) ! bra9--! ne>e/ approximation 9 8 writ+s to :at may be describ$ z ph5om5alism--itself suffices to %[ h[ entirely he is lack+ 9 any firm grasp ( ,critical pr9ciples4 #abid ,z we h not$ 7above1 p4 #bjd ff471 ! doctr9e ( ! transc5d5tal object 0 entirely elim9at$ f ^? ma9 sections t 7 rewritt5 or sub/antially alt]$ 9 ! second edition1 namely1 ! *apt]s on ! ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction1 on ,ph5om5a & ,n\m5a1 & on ! ,p>alogisms4 ,t x rema9$ 9 ! section on ,amphiboly1 9 ! ,second ,analogy1 & 9 ! ,ant9omies is suffici5tly expla9$ by ,kant's unwill+ness to make ! v ext5sive alt]ations :i* su* fur!r rewrit+ w\ld h involv$4 #abie ,a #bea4 #abif ,n ev51 z ,kant tea*es 9 8 doctr9e ( inn] s5se1 9 ! inn] _w ( app]ception1 cf4 above1 p4 #bie ff4 #abig ,kant claims 9 ! ,dialectic t ?is process is also unavoidable1 con/itut+ :at he calls 8transc5d5tal illusion40 #abih ,a #bed-g ,b #caj-ab4 #abii ,a #bee ,b #caj-aa4 #acjj ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #dab ff4 #acja ,a #bef ,b #cab4 ,= ,a #beg ,b #cab on ! empirical mann] ( di/+ui%+ betwe5 ! s5su\s & ! intelligible1 cf4 above1 pp4 #adc ff41 #adi ff4 #acjb ,cf4 above1 pp4 #adc-d1 #adg1 #bad-ae1 #bia ff4 #acjc ,kant "h 7,a #bhf ,b #cdb7 speaks ( ?is concept ( ! n\m5on z an object ( non-s5su\s intuition z be+ 8m]ely negative40 ,?is is apt to confuse ! read]1 z he usually comes to x aft] hav+ read ! passage introduc$ into ! *apt] on ,ph5om5a & ,n\m5a 9 ! second edition1 9 :i*1 z above not$ 7p4 #dji71 ,kant describes ?is mean+ ( ! t]m z positive1 9 di/9ction f its m negative mean+ z signify+ a ?+ m]ely s f> z x is n an object ( our s5se-intuition4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #dac4 #acjd ,kant's mean+ "h is n q cle>4 ,he may mean ei!r t ! categories z su* are inapplicable to ?+s 9 !mselves1 or t1 z ?is =m ( intuition is altoge!r diff]5t f our own1 x w n help 9 giv+ mean+ to ! categories4 ,:at foll[s w\ld seem to po9t to ! =m] view4 #acje ,a #bhf ,b #cdc4 #acjf ,a #bhg-h ,b #cdd4 #acjg ,a #bhh ,b #cde4 #acjh ,a #bhh ,b #cdd4 ,kant all[$ ! section )9 :i* ?is passage occurs to rema91 )\t ! lea/ modification1 9 ! second edition4 #acji ,b5no ,erdmann's explanation 7,kriticismus1 p4 #aid7 ( ,kant's omission ( all ref]5ces to ! transc5d5tal object1 namely1 because ( _! be+ likely to conduce to a mi/ak5 ideali/ic int]pretation ( 8 tea*+1 we _c accept4 ,z already argu$ 7above1 p4 #bjd ff471 !y repres5t a view :i* he _h q def9itely & consci\sly outgr[n4 #acaj ,b #cjf4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bij-a4 #acaa ,b #cjh4 ,?is1 x may be not$1 is 9 keep+ ) ! passages above quot$ f ! section on ,amphiboly4 #acab ,a #bee ,b #caa4 #acac ,cf4 above1 p4 #djd ff41 especially pp4 #dji-aj2 also above1 p4 #cca4 #acad ,9 ord] to =m an adequate judgm5t ^u ,kant's ju/ification = di/+ui%+ betwe5 appe>ance & reality ! read] mu/ be> 9 m9d 7#a7 ! results obta9$ 9 ! ,transc5d5tal ,d$uction 7above1 p4 #bgj ff472 7#b7 ! discussions develop$ 9 ! ,p>alogisms 7bel[1 p4 #deg ff472 7#c7 ! treatm5t ( n\m5al causality1 t is ( fre$om1 9 ! ,?ird & ,f\r? ,ant9omies2 7#d7 ! _m connect$ issues rais$ 9 ! ,ideal 7bel[1 pp4 #ecd-g1 #eda-b71 & 9 ! ,app5dix to ! ,dialectic 7bel[1 p4 #edc ff474 ,pr(essor ,dawes ,hicks is ju/ifi$ 9 ma9ta9+ 9 8 book1 die ,begriffe ,phnom5on und ,n\m5on 9 ihrem ,v]hltniss zu e9&] bei ,kant 7,leipzig1 #ahig1 p4 #afg7--;a "w :i* un=tunately is n accessible to ! ,engli% read]--t 8! ?+ 9 itself is by no means a m]e excresc5ce or add5dum ( ! ,kantian sy/em1 b =ms a ?or\ghly necess>y completion to ! doctr9e ( appe>ances4 ,at e turn 9 ,kant's ?\ght ! doctr9e ( ! n\m5on1 9 "o =m or ano!r1 plays an ess5tial "p40 ,inde$ x may be said t to /ate ,kant's reasons = ass]t+ ! exi/5ce ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 is to exp\nd 8 philosophy z a :ole4 ,^u ?is "q !re appe>s 9 ,kant ! same alt]nation ( view z 9 reg>d to 8 o!r ma9 t5ets4 ,on ,kant's discussion ( ! applicability ( ! category ( exi/5ce to ?+s 9 !mselves1 cf4 above1 p4 #cbb ff4 ,also1 on ,kant's ext5sion ( ! concepts possibility & actuality to n\m5a1 cf4 above1 pp4 #cia ff41 #dja-c4 #acae #8,ideal' & #8,ideali/' are pr9t$ ) capitals1 to m>k ! v special s5se 9 :i* ^! t]ms are be+ us$4 ,z already not$ 7above1 p4 #c71 ! same rem>k applies to ! t]m #8,reason4' #acaf ,cf4 above1 pp4 xli-ii1 xliv1 liii-v1 #cca4 #acag ,a #bfj ff4 ,b #caf ff4 #acah ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ch-i1 #aai1 #aca-c1 #cch-i1 #cid-djj4 #acai ,above1 p4 xxx ff41 & bel[1 p4 #fja ff4 #acbj ,cf4 ,a #bfg ,b #cbc4 #acba ,cf4 ,adickes' ,sy/ematik1 pp4 #fj1 #gj1 #gb1 & #aaa-ab4 #acbb ,a #bgj ,b #cbf4 #acbc ,cf4 ,a #bfd ,b #cai1 & ,a #bff ,b #cbb4 #acbd ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #efc-e1 #ehi ff41 #fja ff4 #acbe ,i h dwelt ^u ?is at l5g? 9 my ,/udies 9 ! ,c>tesian ,philosophy4 #acbf ,a #bga ,b #cbg4 #acbg ,! un-,critical "* ( ,kant's doctr9e ( ! pure concept has already be5 not$ 7above1 pp4 #dah-ai71 & ne$ n be fur!r discuss$4 #acbh ,a #bgb ,b #cbh4 #acbi ,a #bgc ,b #cbi4 #accj ,?is is ,leibniz's mode ( /at+ ! absoluti/ view ( ?\ght 7cf4 above1 p4 xxx ff47 to :i*1 z we %all f9d1 ,kant gives mu* m adequate & incomp>ably deep] =mulation 9 ! ,dialectic4 ,cf4 pp4 #dcj1 #edg ff41 #eeh ff4 #acca ,adickes1 ,k4 p4 #bgb n41 all[s t ! passage may be ( e>li] orig9 ?an ! passages :i* prec$e & foll[ x4 #accb ,pp4 #bad-ae4 #accc ,z su* x is comm5t$ on above1 p4 #daj ff4 #accd ,loc4 cit4 #acce ,a #bij ,b #cdg4 #accf ,cf4 above1 p4 #dji ff4 #accg ,kant's comm5tators h frequ5tly misrepres5t$ ?is aspect ( 8 tea*+4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dih1 #ebj-a1 #ebg-cg1 #eda-b1 #edc ff41 #eee1 #eeh-fa4 #acch ,a #dij ,b #eah4 #acci ,cf4 above1 pp4 #daf-ag4 #acdj ,^? read]s :o are n already well acqua9t$ ) ! argum5t ( ! ,dialectic may be recomm5d$ to pass at once to p4 #dda4 ,:at "h foll[s presupposes acqua9tance ) ! nature & purposes ( ! ma9 divisions ( ! ,dialectic4 #acda ,introd4 to ,reflexion51 ,bd4 ii4 #acdb ,w4 x4 p4 #abc ff4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bai-bj4 #acdc ,cf4 ,diss]tation1 #bg n4 #acdd ,op4 cit4 ,cf4 #bd ) #bg4 #acde ,op4 cit4 #bg4 #acdf ,cf4 ii4 #efg1 #ega1 #ehd1 #ehe4 #acdg ,cf4 ii4 #abea & #ehf4 #acdh ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #deh1 #dhh ff4 #acdi ,9 ,reflexion5 ii4 #egc1 #egf1 & #ehb we f9d ,kant 9 ! v act ( s do+4 ,compositio1 co-ord9atio1 & comm]cium are treat$ z synonym\s t]ms4 #acej ,! problem ( fre$om is fir/ met ) 9 ,kant's ,lectures on ,metaphysics 7,plitz1 edition ( #ahba1 pp4 #hi1 #ccj71 b is n !re giv5 z an ant9omy1 & is treat$ z fall+ )9 ! field ( !ology4 ,9 ,reflexion ii4 #ehe1 also1 x is equat$ 9 t]ms ( ! category ( gr\nd & consequ5ce1 ) ! concept ( ,div9e ,exi/5ce1 ! 8absolute or primum cont+5s 7lib]tas740 ,^u elim9ation ( !ology1 & !re=e ( ! cosmological argum5t1 f ! sph]e ( ant9omy1 ,kant rais$ fre$om to ! rank ( an indep5d5t problem4 #acea ,a #dfb ,b #dij4 #aceb ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dih-i1 #ega ff4 #acec ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ded1 ) ref]5ces 9 n4 #a4 #aced ,a #ejg ,b #ece4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dha1 #ede-f4 #acee ,cf4 ii4 #ic1 #id1 #ie1 #abcc1 #abdg4 #acef ,?is is ! view repres5t$ 9 ,reflexion5 ii4 #id1 #ie4 #aceg ,cf4 ,reflexion5 ii4 #abd4 #aceh ,cf4 ,reflexion5 ii4 #ie4 #acei ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #deg4 #acfj ,cf4 ii4 #hf ff4 #acfa ,cf4 ,reflexion5 ii4 #aad-ae4 #acfb ,b #cid n4 ,immortality is "h tak5 z repres5t+ ! ,idea ( ! s\l z uncondition$ sub/ance4 #acfc ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ded1 ) fur!r ref]5ces 9 n4 #a4 #acfd ,sy/ematik1 pp4 #aae-af4 #acfe ,above1 p4 #ccd4 #acff ,?is conclusion is support$ by ! evid5ce ( ! ,reflexion53 !y conta9 n a s+le ref]5ce to s*ematism4 #acfg ,a #bic ,b #cdi4 #acfh ,pp4 #agc-d4 #acfi ,cf4 ,a #fa ,b #he4 #acgj ,adickes1 ,sy/ematik1 p4 #gg ff4 #acga ,cf4 ,kant's caveat 9 ,a #bic ,b #cdi aga9/ id5tify+ dialectic ) ! doctr9e ( probable reason+4 #acgb ,pp4 #dbg-h4 #acgc ,a #bih ,b #cee4 #acgd ,cf4 above1 p4 #ccb4 #acge ,reicke1 i4 p4 #aje4 #acgf ,op4 cit4 i4 pp4 #aji-aj4 #acgg ,a #cja-b ,b #ceh4 #acgh ,a #cjc ,b #cei4 #acgi ,a #cje ,b #cfb4 #achj ,! word+ ( ! conclud+ s5t5ce ( ! ?ird p>agraph 7,a #cjg ,b #cfc-d7 is s cond5s$ z to be mislead+4 8,x viz4 ! pr9ciple ( causality makes ! unity ( exp]i5ce possible1 & borr[s no?+ f ! ,reason4 ,! latt]1 if x 7 n = ?is its indirect ref]5ce ?r\gh m$iation ( ! und]/&+ to possible exp]i5ce1 c\ld nev] ( itself1 f m]e concepts1 h impos$ a syn!tic unity ( t k9d40 #acha ,a #caj ,b #cff4 #achb ,s*e9 des ,s*liess5s w\ld seem to be "h us$ 9 t s5se4 #achc ,cf4 above1 p4 #dbd4 #achd ,cf4 also ,a #ffi ,b #fig2 ,a #fhj ,b #gji4 #ache ,cf4 ,vaih+]1 8,kant--e9 ,metaphysik]80 9 ,philosophis*e ,abh&lung5 7,sigw>t ,g$5ks*rift71 p4 #add4 #achf ,a #cab ,b #cfh4 #achg ,a #cac ,b #cgj4 #achh ,a #caf-ag ,b #cgc4 ,! context ( ?is passage is a def5ce ( ,plato's ,republic aga9/ ! *>ge t x is ,utopian1 because unrealisable4 #achi ,a #cag-ah ,b #cgd-e4 #acij ,reflexion5 ii4 #abdj4 ,cf4 ,s*op5hau]3 ,_w z ,w & ,idea 7,w]ke1 ii4 p4 #bgg3 ,eng4 trans4 i4 p4 #cjc73 8,! ,idea is ! unity t falls into multiplicity on acc\nt ( ! temporal & spatial =m ( our intuitive appreh5sion2 ! concept1 on ! contr>y1 is ! unity recon/ruct$ out ( multiplicity by ! ab/raction ( our reason2 ! latt] may be def9$ z unitas po/ rem1 ! =m] z unitas ante rem40 #acia ,lectures on ,metaphysics 7,plitz1 #ahba71 p4 #gi4 #acib ,reflexion5 ii4 #abdc4 #acic ,lectures on ,metaphysics1 pp4 #cjh-i4 #acid ,reflexion5 ii4 #abdd4 #acie ,reflexion5 ii4 #abed4 #acif ,reflexion5 ii4 #abeh4 #acig ,reflexion5 ii4 #abei4 #acih ,reflexion5 ii4 #abfj4 #acii ,a #cbj ,b #cgf-g4 #adjj ,a #cba ,b #cgg4 #adja ,a #cbc-d ,b #chj-a4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dhj1 #ebi1 #eei-fj4 #adjb ,reg>d+ ! progressive s]ies f ! condition$ to its consequ5ces1 cf4 ,a #ccf-g ,b #cic-d1 ,a #daj-aa ,b #dcg-h1 ,a #eaa ,b #eci4 #adjc ,a #ccc ,b #cij4 #adjd ,cf4 above1 pp4 #dah1 #dcf1 #dci-dj2 bel[1 pp4 #dgc-g1 #ebj-a1 #ecg1 #edc ff41 #ege4 #adje ,cf4 ,a #cce4 #adjf ,cf4 ,a #ccg-h ,b #cid-f & note app5d$ to ,b #cid4 #adjg ,a #ccf ,b #cic4 #adjh ,cf4 ,a #fga ,b #fii2 above1 pp4 #dbf1 #dcj1 #dcf2 bel[1 pp4 #eeb-d1 #egb ff4 #adji ,on ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! asc5d+ & ! desc5d+ s]ies1 cf4 ,a #cca-b ,b #cch & ,a #daj-aa ,b #dcg-h4 #adaj ,! que/ions rais$ 9 ! two introductory p>agraphs 7,a #ccf-dj ,b #cif-h7 z to ! cont5t ( ! ,ideas1 _! problematic "*1 & _! possibility z concepts1 are fir/ adequately discuss$ 9 lat] *apt]s4 ,! ?ree new t]ms "h introduc$1 ,p>alogism1 ,ant9omy1 & ,ideal1 c also be/ be comm5t$ ^u 9 _! own special context4 #adaa ,a #cda ,b #cii4 #adab ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dff1 #dgj4 #adac ,a #cdg4 #adad ,a #cde-f ,b #djc-d4 #adae ,cf4 ,a #ced-e4 #adaf ,cf4 above1 p4 #dcg4 #adag ,a #cdh4 #adah ,a #cea4 #adai ,a #cfc-d4 #adbj ,a #cea4 #adba ,k4 #fhh n4 #adbb ,a simil> criticism holds true ( ! conception ( id5tity employ$ 9 ! ?ird ,p>alogism1 & arbitr>ily equat$ ) ! categories ( quantity4 #adbc ,cf4 ,a #cee-f4 #adbd ,x is v =cibly develop$ 9 ,m5delssohn's 8,phdon0 7#agfg7 7,gesammelte ,s*rift51 #ahdc1 ii4 p4 #aea ff474 ,?is is a "w ) :i* ,kant 0 famili>4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #dgj4 #adbe ,?is is ! argum5t :i* ,william ,james has exp\nd$ 9 8 *>act]i/ically picturesque /yle4 8,take a s5t5ce ( a doz5 words1 & take twelve m5 & tell to ea* "o ^w4 ,!n /& ! m5 9 a r[ or jam !m 9 a bun*1 & let ea* ?9k ( 8 ^w z int5tly z he w2 n[h]e w !re be a consci\sness ( ! :ole s5t5ce0 7,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology1 i4 p4 #afj74 #adbf ,a #cfc n4 ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #dfa-b4 #adbg ,a #cef4 ,cf4 ,adickes1 ,k4 p4 #fhh n4 #adbh ,! argum5t is "h 9 h>mony ) ,kant's def9ition ( transc5d5tal illusion4 #adbi ,a #ceh4 #adcj ,a #cfa4 #adca ,a #cfd4 #adcb ,william ,james's psy*ological description ( self-consci\sness is simply an ext5sion ( ?is illu/ration4 ,cf4 ,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology1 i4 p4 #cci2 quot$ above1 p4 #bgh n4 #adcc ,a #cfc n4 #adcd ,a #cfb-c & ,a #cfd4 ,we mu/ also1 h[ev]1 be> 9 m9d t 9 ?is *apt] ,kant occasionally argues 9 ad hom9em fa%ion f ! po9t ( view ( ! position criticis$4 #adce ,cf4 ,a #cec-d4 #adcf ,cf4 ,adickes1 ,k4 p4 #fie n4 #adcg ,a #cff4 #adch ,p4 #cja ff4 #adci ,! note to ,a #cdd has evid5tly got displac$2 x mu/1 z ,adickes po9ts out1 belong to ,a #djd4 #addj ,cf4 above1 pp4 #cbj1 #dee4 #adda ,a #cga-b4 #addb ,a #chj-a4 #addc ,cf4 ,a #chc4 #addd ,a #chc4 #adde ,a #chc4 #addf ,a #cha4 #addg ,! fir/ f\r p>agraphs are probably a lat] int]calation 7,adickes1 ,k4 p4 #gjh n471 s9ce !y connect bo? ) ! introductory sections ( ! ,dialectic & ) ! ,introduction to ! ,critique4 ,also1 ! op5+ words ( ! fif? p>agraph seem to ref] u n to any?+ antec$5t 9 ?is section1 b directly to ! conclud+ passages ( ! f\r? ,p>alogism4 #addh ,a #che4 #addi ,a #cic4 #adej ,a #chg4 #adea ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bae-af4 #adeb ,a #cic-d4 #adec ,a #cid4 #aded ,pp4 #cbf-g4 #adee ,pp4 #cbg-h4 #adef ,a #djb4 ,cf4 ,b #djg4 #adeg ,k4 p4 #gag n4 #adeh ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #dgj4 #adei ,b #djf ff4 #adfj ,kriticismus1 p4 #bbg1 cf4 p4 #ajf ff4 #adfa ,a4 ,h4 ,ulri*s1 ,in/itutiones logicae et metaphysicae 7#aghe74 #adfb ,9 8 review ( ,kant's ,prolegom5a 9 ! ,allgeme9e ,deuts*e ,biblio!k 7#aghd74 #adfc ,obvi\sly by categories ,kant "h really means s*emata4 ,cf4 ,a #cdh1 :]e ,kant /ates t 8pure categories 444 h 9 !mselves no objective mean+4444 ,ap>t f intuition !y are m]ely functions ( a judgm5t1 )\t cont5t40 #adfd ,above1 pp4 #djd ff41 #dac ff4 #adfe ,b #djh4 #adff ,critical ,philosophy1 ii4 p4 #cd4 ,s also 9 ,watson's ,kant ,expla9$1 p4 #bdd4 #adfg ,caird 7op4 cit4 p4 #ce7 takes acc\nt ( ,kant's conception ( a possible intuitive und]/&+1 b illegitimately assumes t by x he mu/ mean a creative und]/&+4 #adfh ,cf4 above1 p4 #bie ff4 #adfi ,cf4 ,b #dae n4 ,9 ,b xxxix4 n4 7at ! end71 quot$ above pp4 #cji-aj1 ,kant is c>eful to po9t out t ! repres5tation ( some?+ p]man5t is by no means id5tical ) p]man5t repres5tation4 #adgj ,p4 #dfc4 #adga ,namely1 z ,refutation ( ,idealism1 ,b #bgd ff4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #cjh ff4 #adgb ,cf4 above1 pp4 #deg1 #dfb-c4 #adgc ,a #djb4 #adgd ,cf4 above1 p4 #dff4 #adge ,b #dac-ae4 #adgf ,gesammelte ,s*rift51 ii4 p4 #aea ff4 #adgg ,op4 cit4 p4 #aba ff4 #adgh ,op4 cit4 pp4 #abh ff41 #afh4 #adgi ,op4 cit4 p4 #abe ff4 #adhj ,reg>d+ ! value ( ! hypo!ses prop\nd$ by ,kant 9 8 note to ,b #dae1 cf4 bel[1 p4 #edc ff4 #adha ,p4 #cba ff4 #adhb ,cf4 above1 p4 #dfg4 #adhc ,pp4 #dgc-g4 #adhd ,kriticismus1 p4 #bbf4 #adhe ,b #dbd4 #adhf ,b #dba4 #adhg ,b #dbd-e4 #adhh ,b #dbe-f4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 lvi-lxi2 bel[1 p4 #egj ff4 #adhi ,! only approa* to su* a ref]5ce is 9 ,b #dbf-g1 not$ above1 p4 #dga4 #adij ,a #fgb ,b #gjj4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #eed4 #adia ,a #fdi ,b #fgg-h4 ,tet5s 9 8 ,philosophis*e ,v]su*e 7#aggg7 _h devot$ an entire *apt] to ?is "q4 ,8 t]m ,grundkraft is t :i* ,kant "h employs4 ,cf4 ,philosophis*e ,v]su*e1 ,bd4 i41 ,elft] ,v]su*3 8,conc]n+ ! fundam5tal p[] ( ! human s\l40 ,incid5tally ,tet5s discusses ,r\sseau's sugge/ion t ?is fundam5tal p[] consi/s 9 man's capacity = p]fect+ himself4 ,cf4 ,kant's ,lectures on ,metaphysics 7,plitz1 #ahba1 p4 #aib ff474 #adib ,a #fhb-d ,b #gaj-ab4 ,a #gga-b ,b #gii 9 ! ,me?odology is simil>ly ambigu\s1 ?\gh t5d+ to ! spirituali/ mode ( =mulation4 #adic ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bge-f1 #bgi ff41 #cab ff41 #chd-e1 #dfd-e4 #adid ,cf4 end ( ,b xxxix4 n41 quot$ above1 pp4 #cji-aj4 #adie ,a #dje ,b #dcb4 #adif ,a #djh ,b #dce4 #adig ,cf4 ,a #dad ,b #dda1 :]e x is /at$ t !re is no transc5d5tal ,idea ( ! sub/antial4 #adih ,cf4 above1 p4 #dcd ff4 #adii ,a #dai ,b #ddg4 #aejj ,a #dbj ,b #ddg4 #aeja ,a v curi\s s5t5ce 9 ,kant's lett] to ,s*ulze 7,w4 x4 pp4 #cdd-e1 quot$ above1 p4 #aii7 seems to be traceable to ?is s\rce4 #aejb ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ebi1 #eei-fj1 & above1 pp4 #aii-bjj1 #dcc-d1 #dea4 ,= ,a #daj-aa ,b #dci-dj on ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! asc5d+ & desc5d+ s]ies1 cf4 ,a #cca-b ,b #chg-h & ,a #ccf-g ,b #cic-d4 #aejc ,a #dbj ,b #ddh4 #aejd ,cf4 p] contra ,a #dhf ,b #ead4 #aeje ,! limitation ( ,kant's discussion to space1 "t1 & causality is1 ( c\rse1 due to 8 acceptance ( ! curr5t view t ! concepts ( inf9ity & cont9uity are d]iv$ f our intuitions ( space & "t4 ,z we h already not$ 9 discuss+ 8 intuitional !ory ( ma!matical reason+ 7above1 pp4 #dj-a1 #aag ff41 #abh ff471 he fails to ext5d to ma!matical concepts 8 own 8transc5d5tal0 view ( ! categories1 namely1 z condition+ ! possibility ( intuitional exp]i5ce4 ,su* concepts z ord]1 plurality1 :ole & "p1 cont9uity1 inf9ity1 are prior to "t & space 9 ! logical ord] ( ?\ght2 & to be adequately treat$ mu/ be consid]$ 9 _! wide/ application4 #aejf ,cf4 ,a #ejg ,b #ece1 & above1 p4 #dca ff42 bel[1 pp4 #eja1 #ede-f4 #aejg ,cf4 ,kant's po/hum\sly publi%$ ,transition f ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce to ,physics 7,altpreussis*e ,monatss*rift1 #ahhb71 pp4 #bgi-hj3 8,if we take 9 reg>d to space1 n its def9ition1 b only an a priori proposition1 e4g4 t space is a :ole :i* mu/ be ?\ght only z "p ( a /ill great] :ole1 x is cle> 444 t x is an irrational magnitude1 measurable inde$1 b 9 its comp>ison ) unity transc5d+ all numb]40 8,if space is some?+ objectively exi/5t1 x is a magnitude :i* c exi/ only z "p ( ano!r giv5 magnitude40 #aejh ,cf4 ,s*op5hau]1 ,_w z ,w & ,idea 7,w]ke1 ,frau5/dt1 ii4 pp4 #ehe-f2 ,eng4 trans1 ii4 pp4 #ajg-h74 8,i f9d & ass]t t ! :ole ant9omy is a m]e delusion1 a %am fight4 ,only ! ass]tions ( ! anti!ses really re/ ^u ! =ms ( our faculty ( k1 i4e4 if we express x objectively1 on ! necess>y1 a priori c]ta91 mo/ univ]sal laws ( nature4 ,_! pro(s alone are t h]e=e drawn f objective gr\nds4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! ass]tions & pro(s ( ! !ses h no o!r ?an a subjective gr\nd1 re/ solely on ! weakness ( ! reason+ individual2 = 8 imag9ation becomes tir$ ) an endless regression1 & !re=e he puts an end to x by arbitr>y assumptions1 :i* he tries to smoo? ov] z well z he c2 & 8 judgm5t1 moreov]1 is 9 ?is case p>alys$ by e>ly & deeply impr9t$ prejudices4 ,on ?is acc\nt ! pro( ( ! !sis 9 all ! f\r conflicts is ?r\gh\t a m]e sophism1 :ile t ( ! anti!sis is a necess>y inf]5ce ( ! reason f ! laws ( ! _w z idea kn[n to u a priori4 ,x is1 moreov]1 only ) great pa9s & skill t ,kant is able to su/a9 ! !sis1 & make x appe> to attack its oppon5t1 :i* is end[$ ) native p[]4444 ,i %all %[ t ! pro(s :i* ,kant adduces ( ! individual !ses are sophisms1 :ile ^? ( ! anti!ses are q fairly & correctly drawn f objective gr\nds40 #aeji ,cf4 ,f4 ,erh>dt's ,kritik d] ,kantis*5 ,ant9omi5lehre 7#ahhh71 a brief b excell5t analysis ( ?is section ( ! ,critique4 #aeaj #a n4 #aeaa ,cf4 ,a #dca-b ,b #dfj-a3 8444! concept ( ! inf9ite is n ! concept ( a maximum2 by x we ?9k only its relation to any assignable unit1 9 respect to :i* x is great] ?an all numb]40 #aeab ,cf4 ,kant's /atem5t 9 ! ,obs]vation to ?is anti!sis1 ,a #dca-c ,b #dei-fa4 #aeac ,kant reg>d$ ! po9t z a limit1 i4e4 z a b\nd>y 7,diss]tation1 #ad1 #d2 #ae1 ,c3 8,! simple 9 space is n a "p b a limit02 ,a #afi-gj ,b #baa72 :]eas c]ta9 mod]n ma!maticians take ! po9t z "o ( ! undef9$ elem5ts4 ,:5 ! po9t is reg>d$ 9 ?is latt] mann]1 space may p]haps be satisfactorily def9$ z a set ( po9ts4 ,9 argu+ = ! anti!sis1 & 9 ! passages j cit$1 ,kant also assumes t1 9 ! case ( space1 ! prop]ties ( ! class are det]m9$ by ! prop]ties ( its elem5ts4 ,?is que/ionable assumption is involv$ 9 8 ass]tion t space c consi/ only ( spaces4 #aead ,a #dch ,b #dff4 #aeae ,a #dci-da ,b #dfg-i4 #aeaf ,a #dda ,b #dfi4 #aeag ,develop$ 9 ! ,diss]tation 7#aggj74 #aeah ,zweites ,haupt/ck1 ,lehrsatz #d1 ,anm]kung #a4 ,cf4 also ,anm]kung #b4 #aeai ,pr9ciples ( ,ma!matics1 i4 p4 #dfj4 #aebj ,cf4 above1 p4 #dha n4 #b4 #aeba ,p4 #dhi n4 #aebb ,cf4 ,s*op5hau]1 ,_w z ,w & ,idea 7,w]ke1 ,frau5/dt1 ii4 p4 #eij2 ,eng4 trans4 ii4 pp4 #aaa-ab74 8,! argum5t = ! ?ird !sis is a v f9e sophism1 & is really ,kant's pret5d$ pr9ciple ( pure reason itself entirely unadult]at$ & un*ang$4 ,x tries to prove ! f9it5ess ( ! s]ies ( causes by say+ t1 9 ord] to be suffici5t1 a cause mu/ conta9 ! complete sum ( ! conditions f :i* ! succe$+ /ate1 ! effect1 proce$s4 ,= ! complet5ess ( ! det]m9ations pres5t toge!r 9 ! /ate :i* is ! cause1 ! argum5t n[ sub/itutes ! complet5ess ( ! s]ies ( causes by :i* t /ate itself 0 br\ght to actuality2 & because complet5ess presupposes ! condition ( be+ r\nd$ (f or clos$ 91 & ?is aga9 presupposes f9it5ess1 ! argum5t inf]s f ?is a fir/ cause1 clos+ ! s]ies & !re=e uncondition$4 ,b ! juggl+ is obvi\s4 ,9 ord] to conceive ! /ate ,a z ! suffici5t cause ( ! /ate ,b1 ,i assume t x conta9s ! sum ( ! necess>y det]m9ations f ! coexi/5ce ( :i* ! /ate ,b inevitably foll[s4 ,n[ by ?is my dem& ^u x z a suffici5t cause is entirely satisfi$1 & has no direct connection ) ! "q h[ ! /ate ,a itself came to be2 ?is r belongs to an entirely diff]5t consid]ation1 9 :i* ,i reg>d ! said /ate ,a no m z cause1 b z itself an effect2 9 :i* case ano!r /ate aga9 mu/ be relat$ to x1 j z x 0 relat$ to ,b4 ,! assumption ( ! f9it5ess ( ! s]ies ( causes & effects1 & accord+ly ( a fir/ beg9n+1 appe>s n[h]e 9 ?is z necess>y1 any m ?an ! pres5tness ( ! pres5t mom5t requires u to assume a beg9n+ ( "t itself40 #aebc ,op4 cit4 p4 #bd4 #aebd ,= comm5t ^u ,kant's def5ce ( 8 proc$ure cf4 bel[1 p4 #dif4 #aebe ,cf4 ,kant's ,obs]vation on ! !sis4 #aebf ,a #dea ,b #dgi4 #aebg ,cf4 also ,a #dea ,b #dgi4 #aebh ,cf4 ,s*op5hau]1 op4 cit4 p4 #eia2 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #aac4 8,! f\r? conflict is 444 really tautological ) ! ?ird2 & ! pro( ( ! !sis is also ess5tially ! same z t ( ! prec$+ "o4 ,kant's ass]tion t e condition$ presupposes a complete s]ies ( conditions1 & !re=e a s]ies :i* ends ) an uncondition$1 is a petitio pr9cipii :i* mu/ simply be d5i$4 ,ev]y?+ condition$ presupposes no?+ b its condition2 t ?is is aga9 condition$ raises a new consid]ation :i* is n directly conta9$ 9 ! fir/40 #aebi ,above1 p4 #did4 #aecj ,a #dei ,b #dhg4 #aeca ,jean ,jacques ,dort\s de ,mairan 7#afgh-agga71 physici/ & ma!matician4 ,9 #agdj he succe$$ ,font5elle z p]petual ,secret>y ( ! ,fr5* ,academy ( ,sci5ces4 #aecb ,cf4 above1 pp4 #dce1 #die n4 #d4 #aecc ,a #ddh-ej ,b #dgf-h4 #aecd ,cf4 above1 p4 #dbg ff42 bel[1 pp4 #ebj-a1 #ebg-cg1 #eda ff4 #aece ,a #dfb ,b #dij4 #aecf ,cf4 above1 pp4 #dcd ff41 #dgi4 #aecg ,a #dgf ,b #ejd4 #aech ,a #dhd ,b #eab4 #aeci ,ibid4 #aedj ,a #dhc ,b #eaa4 #aeda ,a #dhe ,b #eac4 #aedb ,cf4 above1 p4 #dha2 bel[1 pp4 #ede-f4 #aedc ,kant is "h play+ on ! d\ble mean+ ( ! ,g]man 8s9nle]es0--8empty ( s5se0 & 8non-s5se40 #aedd ,a #dhi ,b #eag4 #aede ,a #dij ,b #eah4 #aedf ,above1 p4 #dbf ff4 #aedg ,a #dij ,b #eah4 #aedh ,cf4 above p4 #bjd ff4 #aedi ,a #did ,b #ebb-c4 #aeej ,a #die ,b #ebc4 #aeea ,cf4 ,a #did ,b #ebb-c3 8444we c say ( ! transc5d5tal object t x is giv5 9 itself prior to all exp]i5ce40 #aeeb ,a #dif ,b #ebd4 #aeec ,a #dia ,b #eai4 #aeed ,pp4 #cjf-g4 #aeee ,a #dig ,b #ebe4 #aeef ,a #eja-b ,b #ebi-cj4 #aeeg ,a #ejf ,b #ecd4 #aeeh ,cf4 end ( passage3 8,!re c be no lack ( conditions t are giv5 ?r\gh ?is regress40 #aeei ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ejg-h4 #aefj ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ejg-i4 #aefa ,k4 p4 #dad n4 ,! two la/ p>agraphs ( ,section ,,vii41 :i* correct its argum5t1 t ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,ae/hetic1 are probably lat] additions4 #aefb ,a #ejh ,b #ecf4 #aefc ,loc4 cit4 #aefd ,z to ! di/9ction betwe5 ! asc5d+ & ! desc5d+ s]ies1 cf4 above1 pp4 #dec n41 #dhd4 #aefe ,cf4 ,a #ebb ,b #edi-ej4 #aeff ,a #ead ,b #edb4 #aefg ,above1 p4 #ejf4 #aefh ,cf4 ,a #ebb ,b #eej4 #aefi ,a #eae ,b #edc4 #aegj ,a #eai-bj ,b #edg-h4 #aega ,:5 ,kant adds 7,a #eba ,b #edi71 8& !re=e absolutely also10 he inconsi/5tly rev]ts to ! position ambigu\sly sugge/$ 9 ,a #dii ,b #ebg4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #ejf4 #aegb ,a #ebc-f ,b #eea-d4 #aegc ,! ass]tion ( inf9ite divisibility is n applicable1 ,kant /ates 7,a #ebf-g ,b #eed-e71 to bodies z organis$1 b only to bodies z m]e occupants ( space4 ,organisation involves di/9ction ( p>ts1 & !re=e discret5ess4 ,h[ f> organisation c g 9 organis$ bodies1 exp]i5ce alone c %[ u4 #aegd ,p4 #ejh4 #aege ,a #ebh ,b #eef4 #aegf ,cf4 above1 pp4 #cde-g4 #aegg ,a #ece-f ,b #efc-d4 #aegh ,cf4 ,a #ecg ,b #efd-e2 also ,a #edf ,b #egd-e1 9 :i* ,kant ass]ts t man kn[s himself n only ?r\gh ! s5ses b 8also ?r\gh pure app]ception1 & inde$ 9 actions & inn] det]m9ations :i* _c be reckon$ z impressions ( ! s5ses40 ,su* /atem5ts w\ld seem to %[ t1 at ! "t ( writ+1 ,kant _h n yet develop$ 8 doctr9e ( inn] s5se4 #aegi ,a #ecb ,b #efj4 #aehj ,a #ecf-g ,b #efd-e4 #aeha ,a #ecc ,b #efa4 #aehb ,a #ecf ,b #efd4 #aehc ,a #ech ,b #eff4 #aehd ,cf4 ,kant's ,ueb]gang von d] metaph4 ,anfangsgrnde d] ,naturwiss5s*aft zur ,physik 7,altpreussis*e ,monatss*rift 7#ahhb71 pp4 #bgb-c74 #aehe ,a #edi ,b #egg4 ,italics n 9 ,kant4 #aehf ,9 ,a #edj ,b #efh a diff]5t & less satisfactory view f9ds expression4 #aehg ,a #edb ,b #egj4 #aehh ,a #edd ,b #egb4 #aehi ,a #edf-g ,b #egd-e4 #aeij ,a #edh ,b #egf4 #aeia ,a #eeb ,b #ehj4 #aeib ,a #eec ,b #eha4 #aeic ,a #eeg ,b #ehe4 #aeid ,a #eec-d ,b #eha-b4 #aeie ,cf4 ,a #ecg-da ,b #efe-i & ,a #edd ,b #egb4 #aeif ,cf4 ,a #eff ,b #eid4 #aeig ,cf4 above1 p4 #bjd ff4 #aeih ,a #eei ,b #ehg4 #aeii ,a #efa ,b #ehi4 #afjj ,a #efe ,b #eic4 #afja ,a #efg ,b #eic4 #afjb ,= ,kant's comp>ison ( 8 ,ideas ) ^? ( ,plato1 cf4 above1 pp4 #ddg-i4 #afjc #hjc ff4 9 #e? edition 7,halle1 #agfc74 #afjd ,a #egh ,b #fjf4 #afje ,a #ehj ,b #fjh4 #afjf ,cf4 above1 p4 #dah ff4 #afjg ,a #bgb-d ,b #cbh-cj4 #afjh ,cf4 ,kant's di/9ction betwe5 di/ributive & collective unity 9 ,a #ehb-c ,b #faj ) ,a #fdd ,b #fgb4 #afji ,a #ehc ,b #faa4 #afaj ,a #fjc ,b #fca4 #afaa ,a #fjc-d ,b #fca-b4 #afab ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ecc1 #ecf4 #afac ,a #eib ,b #fbj4 #afad ,a #eic ,b #fba4 #afae ,cf4 ,a #d-e ,b #h-i2 ,a #gce-h ,b #gfc-f4 #afaf ,cf4 above1 pp4 #dbg-h1 & ref]5ces !re giv54 #afag ,cf4 above1 p4 #dbd4 #afah ,cf4 above1 p4 #cib ff4 #afai ,k4 p4 #dge n4 #afbj ,a #fjc ,b #fca4 #afba ,cf4 above1 p4 #ebg4 ,! conclud+ p>agraphs ,a #fac-ad ,b #fda-b c be/ be treat$ lat] 9 ano!r connection4 ,cf4 bel[1 p4 #ecf4 #afbb ,a #fad ,b #fdb4 #afbc ,a #fac ,b #fda4 #afbd ,a #faf ,b #fdd4 #afbe ,a #fai-bj ,b #fdg-h4 #afbf ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #eda-b1 #eeb ff4 #afbg ,a #fbj ,b #fdh4 #afbh ,a #fbd ,b #feb4 #afbi ,univ]sal ,natural ,hi/ory & ,!ory ( ! ,heav5s 7#agee74 #afcj ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 #fd1 #fe4 #afca ,hamann complet$ 8 translation ( ,hume's ,dialogues on ,natural ,religion on ,augu/ #g1 #aghj 7cf4 ,hamann's ,w]ke1 vi4 #aed ff473 & ,kant1 not)/&+ 8 be+ occupi$ 9 f9i%+ ! ,critique1 read ?r\gh ! manuscript4 ,x is highly likely t ?is fir/ p]usal ( ,hume's ,dialogues n only confirm$ ,kant 9 8 negative attitude t[>ds natural !ology1 b also enabl$ him to def9e m cle>ly ?an he o!rwise w\ld h done1 ! negative consequ5ces ( 8 own ,critical pr9ciples4 ,! *apt] on ! ,ideal1 z we h already obs]v$ 7above1 pp4 #dcd-e1 #ebg-i1 #eca71 0 probably "o ( ! la/ p>ts ( ! ,critique to be br\ght into f9al =m4 ,x does n seem possible1 h[ev]1 to e/abli% 9 any specific mann] ! exact influ5ce :i* ,hume's ,dialogues may ?us h ex]cis$ ^u ! argum5t ( ?is portion ( ! ,critique4 ,:5 ,s*reit]'s translation ( ! ,dialogues appe>$ 9 #agha1 ,hamann1 n unwill+ to escape ! notoriety ( seem+ to fa!r s sceptical a "w1 )drew 8 own translation4 #afcb ,?is is ! ma9 po9t ( ,hume's argum5t 9 ,section ,,xi4 ( 8 ,enquiry conc]n+ ! ,human ,und]/&+4 #afcc ,a #fca ,b #fei4 #afcd ,a #fda ,b #ffi4 #afce ,cf4 above1 p4 #djg ff41 & bel[1 p4 #eeb ff4 #afcf ,cf4 above1 p4 #ded1 ) fur!r ref]5ces 9 n4 #a4 #afcg ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ecf-g4 #afch ,a #fdb ,b #fgj4 #afci ,a #gfi-hb ,b #gig-haj4 #afdj ,a xiv1 ,b xxiii-iv1 & ,reflexion5 ii4 #adea3 8,9 metaphysics !re c be no su* ?+ z unc]ta9ty40 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #aj1 #ce4 #afda ,a #ggj-a ,b #gih-i4 #afdb ,a #ggb ,b #hjj4 #afdc ,a #gge ,b #hjc4 #afdd ,cf4 ,a #gha-b ,b #hji-aj4 #afde ,cf4 above1 pp4 #dha1 #eja4 #afdf ,a #ggg-h ,b #hje-f4 #afdg ,a #ghb ,b #haj4 #afdh ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ig-h1 #ajb1 #cij-a1 #dbf ff41 #ddg ff4 #afdi ,a #fea ,b #fgi4 #afej ,loc4 cit4 #afea ,a #fec ,b #fha4 #afeb ,diss]tation1 #cj4 #afec ,! extremely un-,critical reason :i* ,kant "h 7,a #fdg ,b #fge7 gives = its necess>ily rema9+ hypo!tical is ! 8impossibility ( kn[+ all possible consequ5ces40 ,?is use ( ! t]m hypo!tical is also confus+ 9 view ( ,kant's criticism ( ! hypo!tical employm5t ( ,reason 9 ,a #gfi ff4 ,b #gig ff4 #afed ,a #fdg ,b #fge4 #afee ,loc4 cit4 & ,a #fdi ,b #fgg4 #afef ,a #fdh ,b #fgf4 #afeg ,a #feb ,b #fhj4 #afeh ,a #ffj-a ,b #fhh-i4 #afei ,a #fef ,b #fhd4 #affj ,a #fef ,b #fhd4 #affa ,a #feh ,b #fhf4 #affb ,a #ffj ,b #fhh4 #affc ,! op5+ p>agraphs ( ! section1 ,a #fdb-e ,b #fgj-c1 may be ( ! same date z ! conclud+ p>agraphs4 #affd ,cf4 p] contra ,a #ffi-gj ,b #fig-h4 #affe ,a #fff ,b #fid4 #afff ,a #ffi ,b #fig4 #affg ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ddf-g4 #affh ,cf4 ,a #fha ,b #gji4 #affi ,cf4 p] contra ,a #ffc-d ,b #fia-b4 #afgj ,a #fgj ,b #fih4 #afga ,i may "h gu>d aga9/ misund]/&+4 ,?\gh ! ,ideas ( ,reason condition ! exp]i5ce :i* !y regulate1 ?is mu/ n be tak5 z nullify+ ,kant's fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 ! regulative & ! con/itutive4 ,ev5 :5 he is develop+ 8 less sceptical view1 he adopts1 9 metaphysics z 9 e?ics1 a position :i* is radically di/9ct f t ( ,hegel4 ,?\gh ! moral ideal repres5ts reality ( ! highe/ ord]1 x transc5ds all possible realisation ( itself 9 human life4 ,?\gh x conditions all our morality1 x at ! same "t condemns x4 ,! ,*ri/ian virtue ( humility def9es ! only attitude prop] to ! human s\l4 ,9 an exactly simil> mann]1 ! fact t ! ,ideas ( ,reason h to be reg>d$ z condition+ ! possibility ( s5se-exp]i5ce ne$ n prev5t u f also recognis+ t !y likewise make possible our consci\sness ( its limitations4 #afgb ,cf4 above1 pp4 #dgc-g4 #afgc ,a #fgi ,b #gjg4 #afgd ,a #fgh ,b #gjf4 #afge ,a #fgd ,b #gjb4 ,cf4 ,a #fgh-i ,b #gjf-g4 #afgf ,a #fhj ,b #gjh4 #afgg ,z above not$ 7pp4 #dii ff471 :5 we f9d ,kant ?us insi/+ ^u ! completely soluble "* ( all problems ( pure ,reason1 ! sceptical1 subjectivi/ t5d5cy is dom9ant4 #afgh ,a #ffi ,b #fig4 #afgi ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ecf-g1 #eda-b4 #afhj ,a #fhf-g ,b #gad-ae4 #afha ,a #fic ,b #gba4 #afhb ,a #fii-gjj ,b #gbg-h4 #afhc ,a #gja ,b #gbi4 #afhd ,ne>ly all ! important po9ts rais$ 9 ! ,me?odology1 & sev]al ( its *ief sections1 ,i h comm5t$ ^u 9 _! connection ) ! e>li] p>ts ( ! ,critique4 ,also1 ! ,me?odology is extremely diffuse4 ,= ^! reasons ,i h f\nd x advisable to give su* additional comm5t z seems necess>y 9 ! =m ( ?is ,app5dix4 #afhe ,on ,kant's use ( ! t]ms #8discipl9e' & #8canon1' cf4 above1 pp4 #ga-b1 #agj1 #agd1 #dch4 #afhf ,cf4 above1 p4 #dch4 #afhg ,a #d-e ,b #h-i4 #afhh ,unt]su*ung3 ,zweite ,betra*tung1 ,w4 ii4 p4 #bhc4 #afhi ,kant "h disav[s ! position ( ! ,unt]su*ung 9 :i* 7,er/e ,betra*tung1 #d7 he _h ass]t$ t ma!matics deals ) quantity & philosophy ) qualities4 #afij ,= comm5t ^u ?is di/9ction1 cf4 above1 pp4 #aca-c1 #cch-i4 #afia ,unt]su*ung3 ,er/e ,betra*tung1 #b4 #afib ,a #gbh ,b #gef4 #afic ,unt]su*ung3 ,zweite ,betra*tung1 ,w4 ii4 p4 #bhc4 #afid ,unt]su*ung3 ,er/e ,betra*tung1 #a1 ,w4 ii4 p4 #bgf3 8,ma!matics proce$s to all its def9itions by a syn!tic proc$ure1 philosophy by an analytic proc$ure40 #afie ,9 ! ,unt]su*ung ,kant's /atem5ts are m cauti\s1 & also m adequate4 ,cf4 ,er/e ,betra*tung1 #c1 ,w4 ii4 p4 #bgi3 8,9 ma!matics !re are only a few b 9 philosophy !re are innum]able irresolvable concepts44440 #afif ,a #gca n4 ,b #gei n4 #afig ,! phrases :i* ,kant employs 7,a #gcb-c ,b #gfj-a7 are3 8unmittelb>gewiss10 8evid5t10 8aug5s*e9li*40 ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxxv-vi1 #cf ff41 #ec4 #afih ,cf4 above1 pp4 #aah1 #adb1 #ahe-f4 #afii ,cf4 above1 p4 #aag ff4 #agjj ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ch-db1 #ic-d1 #aah-bj1 #acc4 #agja ,cf4 above1 pp4 #aaa-ab1 #aad-ae4 #agjb ,cf4 above1 p4 #aca ff4 #agjc ,a #gcg ,b #gfe4 #agjd ,cf4 above1 pp4 #cf ff41 #aag ff41 #abh ff41 #efe-f4 #agje ,a #gdc-d ,b #gga-b4 #agjf ,a #gec ,b #gha4 ,9 ,a #gde ,b #ggc ,kant's m5tion ( ,hume c h>dly ref] to ,hume's ,dialogues 7cf4 above1 pp4 #eci-dj n474 ,kant probably has 9 m9d ,section ,,xi4 ( ! ,enquiry4 ,! important discussion ( ,hume's position 9 ,a #gfj ff4 ,b #ghh ff4 has be5 comm5t$ ^u above1 p4 #fa ff4 ,) ,prie/ley's tea*+ 7,a #gde-f ,b #ggc-d7 ,kant probably became acqua9t$ ?r\gh "s indirect s\rce4 ,! fir/ ( ,prie/ley's philosophical writ+s to appe> 9 ,g]man 0 8 ,hi/ory ( ! ,corruptions ( ,*ri/ianity4 ,! translation 0 publi%$ 9 #aghb4 ,9 ,a #gdg-h ,b #gge-f ,kant q obvi\sly has ,r\sseau 9 m9d4 #agjg ,section ,,iii41 on ,! ,discipl9e ( ,pure ,reason 9 ,reg>d to ,hypo!ses1 has be5 comm5t$ on above1 pp4 #edc-f4 #agjh ,a #ghb ,b #haj4 #agji ,ev5 9 ma!matics ! indirect me?od is n always available4 ,cf4 ,russell1 ,pr9ciples ( ,ma!matics1 i4 p4 #ae4 #agaj ,a #gid ,b #hbb4 #agaa ,cf4 above1 p4 #efc n4 #b4 #agab ,a #gig ,b #hbe4 #agac ,cf4 ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 ,w4 v4 p4 #dgc2 ,b]n>d's trans4 p4 #daa3 8,god1 fre$om1 & immortality are ! problems at ! solution ( :i* all ! prep>ations ( ,metaphysics aim1 z _! ultimate & unique purpose40 #agad ,a #hjj-a ,b #hbi4 #agae ,! /atem5t 9 ,a #hja ,b #hbi t morals is a subject =eign to transc5d5tal philosophy is 9 l9e ) t ( ,a #ad-ae ,b #bh1 & conflicts ) ! position lat] adopt$ 9 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #gg4 #agaf ,a #hjc ,b #hca-b4 #agag ,cf4 bel[1 pp4 #ega-e4 #agah ,a #hjd ,b #hcb4 #agai ,cf4 above1 p4 lvi4 #agbj ,^! /atem5ts are subject to modification1 if ! di/9ction 7n cle>ly recognis$ by ,kant1 b really ess5tial to 8 position7 betwe5 imman5t & transc5d5t metaphysics is insi/$ ^u4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 liv-v1 #bb1 #ef1 #ff-gj4 #agba ,cf4 above1 p4 #eda4 #agbb ,w4 v4 pp4 #dg-h2 ,abbott's trans4 7#crd edition7 p4 #acf4 #agbc ,cf4 ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ,w4 v4 pp4 #ca-g2 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #abj4 #agbd ,cf4 ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ,w4 v4 p4 #dc2 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #acb3 8,! moral law1 al?\gh x gives no view1 yet gives u a fact absolutely inexplicable f any data ( ! s5sible _w1 or f ! :ole compass ( our !oretical use ( reason1 a fact :i* po9ts to a pure _w ( ! und]/&+1 nay1 ev5 def9es x positively1 & enables u to "k some?+ ( x1 namely1 a law40 #agbe ,cf4 ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 9 note to ,preface4 #agbf ,op4 cit41 ,preface1 at ! beg9n+1 ,abbott's trans4 pp4 #hg-h4 ,cf4 also ! conclud+ pages ( ,book ,i41 ,w4 v4 pp4 #ajc-f1 ,abbott1 pp4 #aig-bjj4 #agbg ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 ,w4 v4 p4 #dfh2 ,b]n>d's trans4 p4 #djf4 #agbh ,op4 cit4 p4 #dgd2 ,b]n>d's trans4 p4 #dac4 #agbi ,a #hae ,b #hdc4 #agcj ,cf4 ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ,w4 v4 pp4 #adc-d n42 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #bdb3 8,x is a duty to realise ! ,summum ,bonum to ! utmo/ ( our p[]1 !re=e x mu/ be possible1 consequ5tly x is unavoidable = e rational be+ 9 ! _w to assume :at is necess>y = its objective possibility4 ,! assumption is z necess>y z ! moral law1 9 connexion ) :i* alone x is valid40 #agca ,cf4 ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ,w4 v4 p4 #adb ff42 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #bdj ff42 ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 ,w4 v4 pp4 #dfi-gj2 ,b]n>d's trans4 pp4 #djf-h4 #agcb ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 ,w4 v4 pp4 #cfi-gb2 ,b]n>d's trans4 pp4 #djg-aj4 ,cf4 note 9 same section3 8,x is a tru/ 9 ! promise ( ! moral law2 n1 h[ev]1 su* z is conta9$ 9 x1 b su* z ,i put into x1 & t on morally adequate gr\nds40 #agcc ,a #hai ,b #hdg4 #agcd ,a #hbj ,b #hdh4 #agce ,! di/9ction is less h>%ly drawn 9 ,kant's ,logic1 ,e9leitung1 ix4 7,h>t5/e971 viii4 p4 #gc2 ,eng4 trans1 p4 #fc3 8,conviction is oppos$ to p]suasion4 ,p]suasion is an ass5t f inadequate reasons1 9 respect to :i* we d n "k :e!r !y are only subjective or are also objective4 ,p]suasion (t5 prec$es conviction40 #agcf ,cf4 above1 pp4 #aj1 #edc4 ,cf4 ,=ts*ritte2 ,w]ke 7,h>t5/e971 viii4 p4 #efa4 #agcg ,cf4 ,logic1 loc4 cit4 ,cf4 ,f\ndations ( ! ,metaphysics ( ,morals1 ,w4 iv4 pp4 #daf-ag3 ,abbott's trans4 pp4 #cc-cd4 #agch ,reg>d+ ,kant's di/9ction 9 ,a #hbg ,b #hee betwe5 ,ideas & hypo!ses cf4 above1 p4 #edc ff4 ,cf4 also ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 ,w4 v4 pp4 #cib ff41 #dfa ff42 ,b]n>d's trans4 pp4 #cjb ff41 #cie ff4 #agci ,a #hbi ,b #heg4 #agdj ,cf4 ,kant's ,preface to ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ,w4 v4 p4 #h n42 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #ic n4 8,a review] :o want$ to f9d "s fault ) ?is "w--! ,f\ndations ( ! ,metaphysics ( ,morals--has hit ! tru? bett]1 p]haps1 ?an he ?\ght1 :5 he says t no new pr9ciple ( morality is set =? 9 x1 b only a new =mula4 ,b :o w\ld ?9k ( introduc+ a new pr9ciple ( all morality1 & mak+ himself z x 7 ! fir/ inv5tor ( x1 j z if all ! _w be=e him 7 ignorant :at duty 01 or _h be5 9 ?or\gh-go+ error8 ,b :oev] kn[s ( :at importance to a ma!matician a =mula is1 :i* def9es accurately :at is to be done to "w out a problem1 w n ?9k t a =mula is insignificant & useless :i* does ! same = all duty 9 g5]al40 ,cf4 ,=ts*ritte1 ,w]ke 7,h>t5/e971 viii4 p4 #efc4 #agda ,fragm5te aus dem ,na*lasse1 ,w]ke 7,h>t5/e971 viii4 p4 #fbd1 already quot$ above1 p4 lvii4 ,cf4 also op4 cit4 p4 #fcj4 #agdb ,cf4 ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ,conclusion1 ,w4 v4 pp4 #afa-b2 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #bfj4 #agdc ,a #hcb ,b #hfj4 #agdd ,k4 p4 #fcc n4 ,cf4 above1 p4 xxii4 #agde ,cf4 ,adickes1 ,k4 p4 #fce n41 & ,vaih+]1 i4 p4 #cjf4 ,9 ?is table ,critique is di/+ui%$ f ! ,sy/em ( pure ,reason 7cf4 above1 pp4 #ga-b74 ,! transc5d5tal philosophy ( pure ,reason ( ?is table corresponds to ! ,analytic ( ! ,critique1 & to 8pure natural sci5ce0 9 ! absolute s5se 7cf4 above1 pp4 #ff-g74 ,! rational physics ( ?is table corresponds to ! ,metaphysical ,fir/ ,pr9ciples ( ,natural ,sci5ce4 #agdf ,:5 ,kant 9 ,a #hdj ,b #hfh takes philosophy z includ+ empirical k he contradicts ! _s1 ?\gh n ! lett] ( 8 own prec$+ /atem5ts4 ,9 8 ,introduction to ,logic 7,h>t5/e91 viii4 p4 #bb1 ,abbott's trans4 p4 #ab7 ! empirical is id5tifi$ ) ! hi/orical4 #agdg ,=ts*ritte1 ,w]ke 7,h>t5/e971 viii4 p4 #eed4 #agdh ,op4 cit4 p4 #ebj4 #agdi ,i4e4 betwe5 ! conception ( philosophy z ,s*ulbegriff & z ,weltbegriff 7conceptus cosmicus74 ,he expla9s 9 a note to ,a #hci ,b #hfh t he employs ^! latt] t]ms z indicat+ t philosophy 9 ! traditional or humani/ic s5se is conc]n$ ) 8t :i* mu/ necess>ily int]e/ e "o40 ,i h translat$ ,weltbegriff z #8univ]sal concept4' ,by conceptus cosmicus ,kant means #8concept %>$ by ! :ole _w1' or #8common to all mank9d4' #agej ,cf4 ,kant's ,logic1 ,introduction1 iii43 ,abbott's trans4 pp4 #ad-ae3 8,9 ?is s*ola/ic signification ( ! ^w1 philosophy aims only at skill2 9 ref]5ce to ! high] concept common to all mank9d1 on ! contr>y1 x aims at utility4 ,9 ! =m] aspect1 !re=e1 x is a doctr9e ( skill2 9 ! latt] a doctr9e ( wisdom2 x is ! lawgiv] ( reason2 & h5ce ! philosoph] is n a ma/] ( ! art ( reason1 b a lawgiv]4 ,! ma/] ( ! art ( reason1 or z ,socrates calls him1 ! philodoxus1 /rives m]ely = speculative k1 )\t conc]n+ himself h[ mu* ?is k contributes to ! ultimate end ( human reason3 he gives rules = ! use ( reason = all k9ds ( ends4 ,! practical philosoph]1 ! tea*] ( wisdom by doctr9e & example1 is ! true philosoph]4 ,= philosophy is ! ,ideal ( a p]fect wisdom1 :i* %[s u ! ultimate ends ( all human reason40 #agea ,a #hci ,b #hfg4 #ageb ,a #hea ,b #hgi4 #agec ,a #hej ,b #hgh4 #aged ,a #hdh-i ,b #hgf-g4 ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bcg1 #caa n41 #cab n41 #chd-e1 #dgc-g1 #eed4 #agee ,a #heb ,b #hhj4 #agef ,cf4 ,a #cac ff4 ,b #cgj ff41 above1 pp4 #dih-i4 #ageg ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxviii-xxix4 #ageh ,e9leitung1 iv43 ,abbott's trans1 pp4 #ag-bc4 #agei ,supplem5t>y to pp4 xxv-xxxiii4 ,?r\gh\t ,i %all make use ( my ,/udies 9 ! ,c>tesian ,philosophy1 & may ref] ! read] to !m = fur!r ju/ification ( ! positions adopt$4 #agfj ,= recognition ( ?is di/9ction1 cf4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c]1 ,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology1 vol4 i41 #crd ed41 pp4 #fbj-c4 #agfa ,cf4 ,/udies 9 ! ,c>tesian ,philosophy1 pp4 #hj-b1 #ajf-g4 #agfb ,?is di/9ction is due to ,galileo1 ?\gh ! t]ms 8prim>y0 & 8second>y0 7 fir/ employ$ by ,locke4 #agfc ,i h dealt ) ,av5>ius' criticism 9 8,av5>ius' ,philosophy ( ,pure ,exp]i5ce0 7,m9d1 vol4 xv4 ,n4,s41 pp4 #ac-ca1 #adi-afj72 ) ,b]gson's criticism 9 8,subjectivism & ,realism 9 ,mod]n ,philosophy0 7,philosophical ,review1 vol4 xvii4 pp4 #ach-adh72 & ) ! g5]al issue z a :ole 9 8,! ,problem ( ,k0 7,j\rnal ( ,philosophy1 vol4 ix4 pp4 #aac-abh74 #agfd ,on ,desc>tes' failure to di/+ui% betwe5 ! ma!matical & ! dynamical aspects ( motion1 cf4 above1 p4 #ehd4 #agfe ,essay conc]n+ ,human ,und]/&+1 ,,iv4 vi4 #af4 #agff ,op4 cit4 ,,iv4 xii4 #g4 #agfg ,op4 cit4 ,,iv4 vi4 #aa4 #agfh ,cf4 above1 pp4 #bg-h4 #agfi ,?\gh ! concept ( sub/ance is also discuss$ by ,hume1 8 treatm5t ( x is q p]functory4 #aggj ,cf4 above1 pp4 xxv ff41 #fa ff4 #agga ,treatise on ,human ,nature 7,gre5 & ,grose71 i4 p4 #chj4 #aggb ,op4 cit4 p4 #chc4 #aggc ,loc4 cit4 #aggd ,= ju/ification ( ! phrase 8syn!tic reason10 ,i mu/ ref] to my articles 9 ,m9d1 vol4 xiv4 ,n4,s4 pp4 #adi-gc1 #cce-dg1 on 8,! ,naturalism ( ,hume40 #agge ,treatise 7,gre5 & ,grose71 i4 pp4 #dgd-e4 #aggf ,enquiry conc]n+ ,human ,und]/&+ 7,gre5 & ,grose71 p4 #dj4 #aggg ,treatise1 p4 #dga4 #aggh ,enquiry 7,gre5 & ,grose71 pp4 #be-f4 #aggi claircissem5t sur *ap4 iii4 pt4 ii4 liv4 vi4 de la ,re*]*e3 tome iv4 7#agab7 p4 #cha4 #aghj ,enquiry1 p4 #eg4 #agha ,enquiry1 p4 #cb4 #aghb ,?is is ! objection ^u :i* ,beattie *iefly insi/s4 #aghc ,op4 cit4 pp4 #cc-d4 #aghd ,cf4 above1 pp4 #ci ff41 #ed1 #bbb ff41 #bda1 #bhf-i4 #aghe ,h[ f> ,hume's criticism ( empiricism really influ5c$ ,kant 9 8 appreciation ( ?is deep] problem1 x seems impossible to decide4 ,v probably ,kant proce$$ to x by indep5d5t developm5t ( 8 own /&po9t1 aft] ! initial impulse receiv$ on ! m /rictly logical issue4 #aghf ,! ass]tion1 by ,kuno ,fis*] & ,pauls51 ( an empirical p]iod 9 ,kant's developm5t1 has be5 *all5g$ by ,adickes1 ,b4 ,erdmann1 ,riehl1 & ,vaih+]4 #aghg ,cf4 ,b4 ,erdmann's ,kriticismus1 p4 #adg2 ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 ,w4 v4 p4 #cia 7,b]n>d's trans1 p4 #cja74 #aghh ,above1 pp4 xxx-iii4 #aghi ,philosophis*] ,kriticismus1 #bnd ed4 p4 #bji4 #agij ,cf4 above1 pp4 lv-vi1 lxi1 #edc ff4 99 99 99 99 99 ,typographical errors correct$ by ! etext transcrib]3 ,! transc5$ntal doctr9e ,! transc5d5tal doctr9e pg #gg non-commital non-committal pg #abb wid]s9nis*es ,wid]s9nis*es pg #ddd ,erk5ntniss ,erk5ntnis pg #ddi !melves !mselves pg #eje :i* conta9 ! ! mat]ial :i* conta9 ! mat]ial pg #ebc x z valid x is valid pg #ege