,,kant',s ,,prolegom5a ,,to ,,any ,,future ,,metaphysics ,,edit$ ,,9 ,,engli% ,,by ,,dr4 ,,paul ,,c>us ,,?ird ,,edition ,,*icago ,,! ,,op5 ,,c\rt ,,publi%+ ,,company #aiab ,,translation ,,copyright$ ,,by ,! ,op5 ,c\rt ,publi%+ ,co4 #aijb4 ,transcrib]'s note3 9999 ,supplem5tal mat]ial & table ( cont5ts are omitt$ f ?is etext4 9999 ,cont5ts ,,publi%]s' ,,preface4 ,,introduction4 ,,prolegom5a4 ,,preamble ,,on ,,! ,,peculi>ities ,,( ,,all ,,metaphysical ,,cognition4 ,,fir/ ,,"p ,,( ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,problem4 ,,h[ ,,is ,,pure ,,ma!matics ,,possible8 ,,second ,,"p ,,( ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,problem4 ,,h[ ,,is ,,! ,,sci5ce ,,( ,,nature ,,possible8 ,,?ird ,,"p ,,( ,,! ,,ma9 ,,transc5d5tal ,,problem4 ,,h[ ,,is ,,metaphysics ,,9 ,,g5]al ,,possible8 ,,s*olia4 ,,solution ,,( ,,! ,,g5]al ,,"q ,,( ,,! ,,prolegom5a1 ,,h[ ,,is ,,metaphysics ,,possible ,,z ,a ,,sci5ce8 ,,app5dix4 ,,on ,,:at ,,c ,,be ,,done ,,to ,,make ,,metaphysics ,,actual ,,z ,a ,,sci5ce4 ,,publi%]s' ,,preface4 ,kant's ,prolegom5a1#a al?\gh a small book1 is indubitably ! mo/ important ( 8 writ+s4 ,x furni%es u ) a key to 8 ma9 "w1 ,! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason2 9 fact1 x is an extract conta9+ all ! sali5t ideas ( ,kant's sy/em4 ,x approa*es ! subject 9 ! simple/ & mo/ direct way1 & is !re=e be/ adapt$ z an introduction into 8 philosophy4 ,= ?is reason1 ,! ,op5 ,c\rt ,publi%+ ,company has deem$ x advisable to br+ out a new edition ( ! "w1 keep+ 9 view its broad] use z a prelim9>y survey & explanation ( ,kant's philosophy 9 g5]al4 ,9 ord] to make ! book useful = ?is broad] purpose1 ! editor has n only /at$ 8 own views conc]n+ ! problem und]ly+ ! ,prolegom5a 7see page #afg et seq471 b has also collect$ ! mo/ important mat]ials :i* h ref]5ce to ,kant's philosophy1 or to ! reception :i* 0 accord$ to x 9 v>i\s qu>t]s 7see page #bda et seq474 ,! selections h n be5 made f a p>tisan /&po9t1 b h be5 *os5 ) a view to *>act]is+ ! attitude ( diff]5t m9ds1 & to direct+ ! /ud5t to ! be/ lit]ature on ! subject4 #a ,prolegom5a means lit]ally prefatory or introductory rem>ks4 ,x is ! neut] plural ( ! pres5t passive p>ticiple ( 1 to speak be=e1 i4e41 to make introductory rem>ks be=e beg9n+ "o's regul> disc\rse4 ,x is n )\t good reasons t ! appe>ance ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason is reg>d$ z ! beg9n+ ( a new era 9 ! hi/ory ( philosophy2 & s x seems t a compreh5sion ( ,kant's position1 :e!r we accept or reject x1 is indisp5sable to ! /ud5t ( philosophy4 ,x is n 8 solution :i* makes ! sage ( ,knigsb]g ! initiator ( mod]n ?\ght1 b 8 =mulation ( ! problem4 99 99 99 ,! pres5t translation is practically new1 b x goes )\t say+ t ! editor utilis$ ! labors ( 8 pr$ecessors1 among :om ,pr(4 ,john ,p4 ,mahaffy & ,john ,h4 ,b]n>d des]ve special cr$it4 ,ri*>dson's translation ( #ahah may be reg>d$ z sup]s$$ & has n be5 consult$1 b occasional ref]5ce has be5 made to t ( ,pr(4 ,erne/ ,bel=t ,bax4 ,consid]+ ! difficulties "u :i* ev5 ^! translators labor$ we mu/ recognise ! fact t !y did _! "w well1 ) pa9/ak+ dilig5ce1 great love ( ! subject1 & good judgm5t4 ,! editor ( ! pres5t translation has ! advantage ( be+ to ! manor born2 moreov]1 he is pretty well v]s$ 9 ,kant's /yle2 & :]ev] he diff]s f 8 pr$ecessors 9 ! int]pretation ( a con/ruction1 he has deviat$ f !m n )\t good reasons4 ,nev]!less !re are "s passages :i* w /ill rema9 d\btful1 ?\gh happily !y are ( little consequ5ce4 ,z a curiosum 9 ,ri*>dson's translation ,pr(essor ,mahaffy m5tions t ! words wid]s9nig gewund5e ,s*neck51 :i* simply means symmetric helices1#b are r5d]$ by snails roll$ up contr>y to all s5se--a word+ t is itself contr>y to all s5se & makes ! :ole p>agraph un9telligible4 ,we may add an in/ance ( ano!r mi/ake t misses ! m>k4 ,kant employs 9 ! ,app5dix a ^w t is no long] us$ 9 ,g]man4 ,he speaks ( ! ,c5to d] ,metaphysik z hav+ neue ,lapp5 & e95 v]nd]t5 ,zus*nitt4 ,mr4 ,bax translates ,c5to by body1 ,lapp5 by outgr[?s1 & ,zus*nitt by figure4 ,8 mi/ake is p]haps n less excusable ?an ,ri*>dson's2 x is c]ta9ly n less comical1 & x also de/roys ! s5se1 :i* 9 ! pres5t case is a v /rik+ simile4 ,c5to is a ,lat9 ^w#c d]iv$ f ! ,greek 1#d mean+ a g>m5t ( _m pat*es sew$ toge!r1 or1 z we might n[ say1 a crazy quilt4 #b ,mahaffy n incorrectly translates spirals w9d+ opposite ways1 & ,mr4 ,bax foll[s him v]batim ev5 to ! repetition ( ! footnote4 #c ,! ,fr5* c5to is /ill 9 use4 #d 1 7#a7 "o t be>s ! m>ks ( ! 1 goad2 a rogue1 7#b7 a pat*$ clo?2 7#c7 any k9d ( pat*work1 especially v]ses made up ( scraps f o!r au?ors4 99 99 99 ,9 ! hope t ?is book w prove useful1 ,! ,op5 ,c\rt ,publi%+ ,company (f]s x z a help to ! /ud5t ( philosophy4 ,p4,c4 ,,introduction4 ,^! ,prolegom5a are de/9$ = ! use1 n ( pupils1 b ( future tea*]s1 & ev5 ! latt] %\ld n expect t !y w be s]viceable = ! sy/ematic exposition ( a ready-made sci5ce1 b m]ely = ! discov]y ( ! sci5ce itself4 ,!re are s*ol>ly m51 to :om ! hi/ory ( philosophy 7bo? anci5t & mod]n7 is philosophy itself2 = ^! ! pres5t ,prolegom5a are n writt54 ,!y mu/ wait till ^? :o endeavor to draw f ! f\nta9 ( reason itself h complet$ _! "w2 x w !n be ! hi/orian's turn to in=m ! _w ( :at has be5 done4 ,un=tunately1 no?+ c be said1 :i* 9 _! op9ion has n be5 said be=e1 & truly ! same prophecy applies to all future "t2 = s9ce ! human reason has = _m c5turies speculat$ ^u innum]able objects 9 v>i\s ways1 x is h>dly to be expect$ t we %\ld n be able to discov] analogies = e new idea among ! old say+s ( pa/ ages4 ,my object is to p]suade all ^? :o ?9k ,metaphysics wor? /udy+1 t x is absolutely necess>y to pause a mom5t1 &1 neglect+ all t has be5 done1 to propose fir/ ! prelim9>y "q1 #8,:e!r su* a ?+ z metaphysics be at all possible8' ,if x be a sci5ce1 h[ comes x t x _c1 l o!r sci5ces1 obta9 univ]sal & p]man5t recognition8 ,if n1 h[ c x ma9ta9 its pret5sions1 & keep ! human m9d 9 susp5se ) hopes1 nev] ceas+1 yet nev] fulfill$8 ,:e!r !n we demon/rate our k or our ignorance 9 ?is field1 we mu/ come once = all to a def9ite conclusion respect+ ! nature ( ?is s-call$ sci5ce1 :i* _c possibly rema9 on its pres5t foot+4 ,x seems almo/ ridicul\s1 :ile e o!r sci5ce is cont9ually advanc+1 t 9 ?is1 :i* pret5ds to be ,wisdom inc>nate1 = ^: oracle e "o inquires1 we %\ld con/antly move r\nd ! same spot1 )\t ga9+ a s+le /ep4 ,& s its foll[]s hav+ melt$ away1 we d n f9d m5 confid5t ( _! ability to %9e 9 o!r sci5ces v5tur+ _! reputation "h1 :]e ev]ybody1 h[ev] ignorant 9 o!r matt]s1 may deliv] a f9al v]dict1 z 9 ?is doma9 !re is z yet no /&>d weight & measure to di/+ui% s\nd k f %all[ talk4 ,aft] all x is no?+ extraord9>y 9 ! elaboration ( a sci5ce1 :5 m5 beg9 to wond] h[ f> x has advanc$1 t ! "q %\ld at la/ occur1 :e!r & h[ su* a sci5ce is possible8 ,human reason s delights 9 con/ructions1 t x has sev]al times built up a t[]1 & !n raz$ x to exam9e ! nature ( ! f\ndation4 ,x is nev] too late to become wise2 b if ! *ange comes late1 !re is always m difficulty 9 />t+ a re=m4 ,! "q :e!r a sci5ce be possible1 presupposes a d\bt z to its actuality4 ,b su* a d\bt (f5ds ! m5 ^: :ole possessions consi/ ( ?is suppos$ jewel2 h5ce he :o raises ! d\bt mu/ expect opposition f all sides4 ,"s1 9 ! pr\d consci\sness ( _! possessions1 :i* are anci5t1 & !re=e consid]$ legitimate1 w take _! metaphysical comp5dia 9 _! h&s1 & look d[n on him ) contempt2 o!rs1 :o nev] see any?+ except x be id5tical ) :at !y h se5 be=e1 w n und]/& him1 & ev]y?+ w rema9 = a "t1 z if no?+ _h happ5$ to excite ! conc]n1 or ! hope1 = an imp5d+ *ange4 ,nev]!less1 ,i v5ture to pr$ict t ! indep5d5t read] ( ^! ,prolegom5a w n only d\bt 8 previ\s sci5ce1 b ultimately be fully p]suad$1 t x _c exi/ unless ! dem&s "h /at$ on :i* its possibility dep5ds1 be satisfi$2 &1 z ?is has nev] be5 done1 t !re is1 z yet1 no su* ?+ z ,metaphysics4 ,b z x c nev] cease to be 9 dem&1#e--s9ce ! int]e/s ( common s5se are intimately int]wov5 ) x1 he mu/ confess t a radical re=m1 or r a new bir? ( ! sci5ce aft] an orig9al plan1 are unavoidable1 h[ev] m5 may /ruggle aga9/ x = a :ile4 #e ,says ,horace3 ,ru/icus expectat1 dum defluat amnis1 at ille ,labitur et labetur 9 omne volubilis aevum2 ,a ru/ic fell[ waite? on ! %ore ,= ! riv] to fl[ away1 ,b ! riv] fl[s1 & fl[s on z be=e1 ,& x fl[s =ev] & aye4 ,s9ce ! ,essays ( ,locke & ,leibnitz1 or r s9ce ! orig9 ( metaphysics s f> z we "k its hi/ory1 no?+ has ev] happ5$ :i* 0 m decisive to its fate ?an ! attack made ^u x by ,david ,hume4 ,he ?rew no light on ?is species ( k1 b he c]ta9ly /ruck a sp>k f :i* light might h be5 obta9$1 _h x caught "s inflammable sub/ance & _h its sm\ld]+ fire be5 c>efully nurs$ & develop$4 ,hume />t$ f a s+le b important concept 9 ,metaphysics1 viz41 t ( ,cause & ,effect 7includ+ its d]ivatives =ce & action1 etc474 ,he *all5ges reason1 :i* pret5ds to h giv5 bir? to ?is idea f h]self1 to answ] him by :at "r %e ?9ks any?+ to be s con/itut$1 t if t ?+ be posit$1 some?+ else also mu/ necess>ily be posit$2 = ?is is ! mean+ ( ! concept ( cause4 ,he demon/rat$ irrefutably t x 0 p]fectly impossible = reason to ?9k a priori & by means ( concepts a comb9ation involv+ necessity4 ,we _c at all see :y1 9 consequ5ce ( ! exi/5ce ( "o ?+1 ano!r mu/ necess>ily exi/1 or h[ ! concept ( su* a comb9ation c arise a priori4 ,h5ce he inf]r$1 t reason 0 altoge!r delud$ ) ref]5ce to ?is concept1 :i* %e errone\sly consid]$ z "o ( h] *ildr51 :]eas 9 reality x 0 no?+ b a ba/>d ( imag9ation1 impregnat$ by exp]i5ce1 :i* subsum$ c]ta9 repres5tations "u ! ,law ( ,association1 & mi/ook ! subjective necessity ( habit = an objective necessity aris+ f insight4 ,h5ce he inf]r$ t reason _h no p[] to ?9k su* comb9ations1 ev5 g5]ally1 because h] concepts w\ld !n be purely fictiti\s1 & all h] pret5d$ a priori cognitions no?+ b common exp]i5ces m>k$ ) a false /amp4 ,9 pla9 language !re is n1 & _c be1 any su* ?+ z metaphysics at all4#f #f ,nev]!less ,hume call$ ?is v de/ructive sci5ce metaphysics & atta*$ to x great value4 ,metaphysics & morals he decl>es 9 ! f\r? "p ( 8 ,essays are ! mo/ important bran*es ( sci5ce2 ma!matics & physics are n ne>ly s important4 ,b ! acute man m]ely reg>d$ ! negative use aris+ f ! mod]ation ( extravagant claims ( speculative reason1 & ! complete settlem5t ( ! _m endless & tr\blesome controv]sies t mislead mank9d4 ,he ov]look$ ! positive injury :i* results1 if reason be depriv$ ( its mo/ important prospects1 :i* c alone supply to ! w ! highe/ aim = all its endeavor4 ,h[ev] ha/y & mi/ak5 ,hume's conclusion may appe>1 x 0 at lea/ f\nd$ ^u inve/igation1 & ?is inve/igation des]v$ ! conc5trat$ att5tion ( ! bright] spirits ( 8 day z well z det]m9$ ef=ts on _! "p to discov]1 if possible1 a happi] solution ( ! problem 9 ! s5se propos$ by him1 all ( :i* w\ld h spe$ily result$ 9 a complete re=m ( ! sci5ce4 ,b ,hume suff]$ ! usual mis=tune ( metaphysicians1 ( n be+ und]/ood4 ,x is positively pa9ful to see h[ utt]ly 8 oppon5ts1 ,reid1 ,oswald1 ,beattie1 & la/ly ,prie/ley1 miss$ ! po9t ( ! problem2 = :ile !y 7 ev] tak+ = grant$ t :i* he d\bt$1 & demon/rat+ ) zeal & (t5 ) impud5ce t :i* he nev] ?\ght ( d\bt+1 !y s miscon/ru$ 8 valuable sugge/ion t ev]y?+ rema9$ 9 its old condition1 z if no?+ _h happ5$4 ,! "q 0 n :e!r ! concept ( cause 0 "r1 useful1 & ev5 indisp5sable = our k ( nature1 = ?is ,hume _h nev] d\bt$2 b :e!r t concept c\ld be ?\ght by reason a priori1 & consequ5tly :e!r x possess$ an inn] tru?1 indep5d5t ( all exp]i5ce1 imply+ a wid] application ?an m]ely to ! objects ( exp]i5ce4 ,?is 0 ,hume's problem4 ,x 0 a "q conc]n+ ! orig91 n conc]n+ ! indisp5sable ne$ ( ! concept4 ,7 ! =m] decid$1 ! conditions ( ! use & ! sph]e ( its valid application w\ld h be5 det]m9$ z a matt] ( c\rse4 ,b to satisfy ! conditions ( ! problem1 ! oppon5ts ( ! great ?9k] %\ld h p5etrat$ v deeply into ! nature ( reason1 s f> z x is conc]n$ ) pure ?9k+1--a task :i* did n suit !m4 ,!y f\nd a m conv5i5t me?od ( be+ defiant )\t any insight1 viz41 ! appeal to common s5se4 ,x is inde$ a great gift ( ,god1 to possess "r1 or 7z !y n[ call x7 pla9 common s5se4 ,b ?is common s5se mu/ be %[n practically1 by well-consid]$ & reasonable ?\ghts & words1 n by appeal+ to x z an oracle1 :5 no rational ju/ification c be advanc$4 ,to appeal to common s5se1 :5 insight & sci5ce fail1 & no soon]--?is is "o ( ! subtile discov]ies ( mod]n times1 by means ( :i* ! mo/ sup]ficial rant] c safely ent] ! li/s ) ! mo/ ?or\gh ?9k]1 & hold 8 own4 ,b z long z a p>ticle ( insight rema9s1 no "o w\ld ?9k ( hav+ rec\rse to ?is subt]fuge4 ,= :at is x b an appeal to ! op9ion ( ! multitude1 ( ^: applause ! philosoph] is a%am$1 :ile ! popul> *>latan glories & confides 9 x8 ,i %\ld ?9k t ,hume might fairly h laid z mu* claim to common s5se z ,beattie1 & 9 addition to a critical reason 7su* z ! latt] did n possess71 :i* keeps common s5se 9 *eck & prev5ts x f speculat+1 or1 if speculations are "u discussion1 re/ra9s ! desire to decide because x _c satisfy itself conc]n+ its own argum5ts4 ,by ?is means alone c common s5se rema9 s\nd4 ,*isels & hamm]s may suffice to "w a piece ( wood1 b = /eel-engrav+ we require an engrav]'s ne$le4 ,?us common s5se & speculative und]/&+ are ea* s]viceable 9 _! own way1 ! =m] 9 judgm5ts :i* apply imm$iately to exp]i5ce1 ! latt] :5 we judge univ]sally f m]e concepts1 z 9 metaphysics1 :]e s\nd common s5se1 s call$ 9 spite ( ! inapplicability ( ! ^w1 has no "r to judge at all4 ,i op5ly confess1 ! sugge/ion ( ,david ,hume 0 ! v ?+1 :i* _m ye>s ago fir/ int]rupt$ my dogmatic slumb]1 & gave my inve/igations 9 ! field ( speculative philosophy q a new direction4 ,i 0 f> f foll[+ him 9 ! conclusions at :i* he arriv$ by reg>d+1 n ! :ole ( 8 problem1 b a "p1 :i* by itself c give u no in=mation4 ,if we />t f a well-f\nd$1 b undevelop$1 ?\ght1 :i* ano!r has bequea!d to u1 we may well hope by cont9u$ reflection to advance f>!r ?an ! acute man1 to :om we owe ! fir/ sp>k ( light4 ,i !re=e fir/ tri$ :e!r ,hume's objection c\ld n be put into a g5]al =m1 & soon f\nd t ! concept ( ! connexion ( cause & effect 0 by no means ! only idea by :i* ! und]/&+ ?9ks ! connexion ( ?+s a priori1 b r t metaphysics consi/s altoge!r ( su* connexions4 ,i s\ght to asc]ta9 _! numb]1 & :5 ,i _h satisfactorily succe$$ 9 ?is by />t+ f a s+le pr9ciple1 ,i proce$$ to ! d$uction ( ^! concepts1 :i* ,i 0 n[ c]ta9 7 n d$uc$ f exp]i5ce1 z ,hume _h appreh5d$1 b sprang f ! pure und]/&+4 ,?is d$uction 7:i* seem$ impossible to my acute pr$ecessor1 :i* _h nev] ev5 occurr$ to any "o else1 ?\gh no "o _h hesitat$ to use ! concepts )\t inve/igat+ ! basis ( _! objective validity7 0 ! mo/ difficult task ev] und]tak5 9 ! s]vice ( metaphysics2 & ! wor/ 0 t metaphysics1 su* z x !n exi/$1 c\ld n assi/ me 9 ! lea/1 because ?is d$uction alone c r5d] metaphysics possible4 ,b z soon z ,i _h succe$$ 9 solv+ ,hume's problem n m]ely 9 a p>ticul> case1 b ) respect to ! :ole faculty ( pure reason1 ,i c\ld proce$ safely1 ?\gh sl[ly1 to det]m9e ! :ole sph]e ( pure reason completely & f g5]al pr9ciples1 9 its circumf]5ce z well z 9 its cont5ts4 ,?is 0 requir$ = metaphysics 9 ord] to con/ruct its sy/em accord+ to a reliable me?od4 ,b ,i fe> t ! execution ( ,hume's problem 9 its wide/ ext5t 7viz41 my ,critique ( ! ,pure ,reason7 w f>e z ! problem itself f>$1 :5 fir/ propos$4 ,x w be misjudg$ because x is misund]/ood1 & misund]/ood because m5 *oose to skim ?r\gh ! book1 & n to ?9k ?r\gh x--a disagreeable task1 because ! "w is dry1 obscure1 oppos$ to all ord9>y notions1 & moreov] long-w9d$4 ,i confess1 h[ev]1 ,i did n expect to he> f philosoph]s compla9ts ( want ( popul>ity1 ent]ta9m5t1 & facility1 :5 ! exi/5ce ( a highly priz$ & indisp5sable cognition is at /ake1 :i* _c be e/abli%$ o!rwise ?an by ! /ricte/ rules ( me?odic precision4 ,popul>ity may foll[1 b is inadmissible at ! beg9n+4 ,yet z reg>ds a c]ta9 obscurity1 aris+ p>tly f ! diffus5ess ( ! plan1 ow+ to :i* ! pr9cipal po9ts ( ! inve/igation are easily lo/ sight (1 ! compla9t is j1 & ,i int5d to remove x by ! pres5t ,prolegom5a4 ,! fir/-m5tion$ "w1 :i* discusses ! pure faculty ( reason 9 its :ole compass & b\nds1 w rema9 ! f\ndation1 to :i* ! ,prolegom5a1 z a prelim9>y ex]cise1 ref]2 = our critique mu/ fir/ be e/abli%$ z a complete & p]fect$ sci5ce1 be=e we c ?9k ( lett+ ,metaphysics appe> on ! sc5e1 or ev5 h ! mo/ di/ant hope ( atta9+ x4 ,we h be5 long accu/om$ to see+ antiquat$ k produc$ z new by tak+ x out ( its =m] context1 & r$uc+ x to sy/em 9 a new suit ( any fancy patt]n "u new titles4 ,mo/ read]s w set out by expect+ no?+ else f ! ,critique2 b ^! ,prolegom5a may p]suade him t x is a p]fectly new sci5ce1 ( :i* no "o has ev] ev5 ?\ght1 ! v idea ( :i* 0 unkn[n1 & = :i* no?+ hi!rto accompli%$ c be ( ! smalle/ use1 except x be ! sugge/ion ( ,hume's d\bts4 ,yet ev]1 he did n suspect su* a =mal sci5ce1 b ran 8 %ip a%ore1 = safety's sake1 l&+ on scepticism1 !re to let x lie & rot2 :]eas my object is r to give x a pilot1 :o1 by means ( safe a/ronomical pr9ciples drawn f a k ( ! globe1 & provid$ ) a complete *>t & compass1 may /e] ! %ip safely1 :i!r he li/e?4 ,if 9 a new sci5ce1 :i* is :olly isolat$ & unique 9 its k9d1 we />t$ ) ! prejudice t we c judge ( ?+s by means ( our previ\sly acquir$ k1 :i* is precisely :at has fir/ to be call$ 9 "q1 we %\ld only fancy we saw ev]y:]e :at we _h already kn[n1 ! expressions1 hav+ a simil> s\nd1 only t all w\ld appe> utt]ly metamorphos$1 s5seless & un9telligible1 because we %\ld h z a f\ndation our own notions1 made by long habit a second nature1 in/ead ( ! au?or's4 ,b ! longw9d$ness ( ! "w1 s f> z x dep5ds on ! subject1 & n ! exposition1 its consequ5t unavoidable dryness & its s*ola/ic precision are qualities :i* c only b5efit ! sci5ce1 ?\gh !y may discr$it ! book4 ,few writ]s are gift$ ) ! subtilty1 & at ! same "t ) ! grace1 ( ,david ,hume1 or ) ! dep?1 z well z ! elegance1 ( ,moses ,m5delssohn4 ,yet ,i flatt] myself ,i might h made my own exposition popul>1 _h my object be5 m]ely to sket* out a plan & leave its completion to o!rs1 in/ead ( hav+ my he>t 9 ! welf>e ( ! sci5ce1 to :i* ,i _h devot$ myself s long2 9 tru?1 x requir$ no little con/ancy1 & ev5 self-d5ial1 to po/pone ! sweets ( an imm$iate success to ! prospect ( a sl[]1 b m la/+1 reputation4 ,mak+ plans is (t5 ! occupation ( an opul5t & boa/ful m9d1 :i* ?us obta9s ! reputation ( a creative g5ius1 by dem&+ :at x _c itself supply2 by c5sur+1 :at x _c improve2 & by propos+1 :at x kn[s n :]e to f9d4 ,& yet some?+ m %\ld belong to a s\nd plan ( a g5]al critique ( pure reason ?an m]e conjectures1 if ?is plan is to be o!r ?an ! usual declamations ( pi\s aspirations4 ,b pure reason is a sph]e s sep>ate & self-conta9$1 t we _c t\* a "p )\t affect+ all ! re/4 ,we c !re=e d no?+ )\t fir/ det]m9+ ! position ( ea* "p1 & its relation to ! re/2 =1 z our judgm5t _c be correct$ by any?+ )\t1 ! validity & use ( e "p dep5ds ^u ! relation 9 :i* x /&s to all ! re/ )9 ! doma9 ( reason4 ,s 9 ! /ructure ( an organiz$ body1 ! end ( ea* memb] c only be d$uc$ f ! full conception ( ! :ole4 ,x may1 !n1 be said ( su* a critique t x is nev] tru/wor?y except x be p]fectly complete1 d[n to ! smalle/ elem5ts ( pure reason4 ,9 ! sph]e ( ?is faculty y c det]m9e ei!r ev]y?+ or no?+4 ,b al?\gh a m]e sket*1 prec$+ ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 w\ld be un9telligible1 unreliable1 & useless1 x is all ! m useful z a sequel4 ,= s we are able to grasp ! :ole1 to exam9e 9 detail ! *ief po9ts ( importance 9 ! sci5ce1 & to improve 9 _m respects our exposition1 z comp>$ ) ! fir/ execution ( ! "w4 ,aft] ! completion ( ! "w ,i (f] "h su* a plan :i* is sket*$ out aft] an analytical me?od1 :ile ! "w itself _h to be execut$ 9 ! syn!tical /yle1 9 ord] t ! sci5ce may pres5t all its articulations1 z ! /ructure ( a peculi> cognitive faculty1 9 _! natural comb9ation4 ,b %\ld any read] f9d ?is plan1 :i* ,i publi% z ! ,prolegom5a to any future ,metaphysics1 /ill obscure1 let him consid] t n e "o is b\nd to /udy ,metaphysics1 t _m m9ds w succe$ v well1 9 ! exact & ev5 9 deep sci5ces1 m closely alli$ to practical exp]i5ce1#g :ile !y _c succe$ 9 inve/igations deal+ exclusively ) ab/ract concepts4 ,9 su* cases m5 %\ld apply _! tal5ts to o!r subjects4 ,b he :o und]takes to judge1 or /ill m1 to con/ruct1 a sy/em ( ,metaphysics1 mu/ satisfy ! dem&s "h made1 ei!r by adopt+ my solution1 or by ?or\ghly refut+ x1 & sub/itut+ ano!r4 ,to evade x is impossible4 #g ,! t]m ,ans*auung "h us$ means s5se-p]ception4 ,x is t :i* is giv5 to ! s5ses & appreh5d$ imm$iately1 z an object is se5 by m]ely look+ at x4 ,! translation intuition1 ?\gh etymologically correct1 is mislead+4 ,9 ! pres5t passage ! t]m is n us$ 9 its te*nical significance b means practical exp]i5ce4--,ed4 ,9 conclusion1 let x be rememb]$ t ?is mu*-abus$ obscurity 7frequ5tly s]v+ z a m]e pretext "u :i* p hide _! own indol5ce or dullness7 has its uses1 s9ce all :o 9 o!r sci5ces obs]ve a judici\s sil5ce1 speak au?oritatively 9 metaphysics & make bold decisions1 because _! ignorance is n "h contra/$ ) ! k ( o!rs4 ,yet x does contra/ ) s\nd critical pr9ciples1 :i* we may !re=e comm5d 9 ! words ( ,virgil3 ,ignavum1 fucos1 pecus a praesepibus arc5t4 ,bees are def5d+ _! hives aga9/ drones1 ^? indol5t creatures4 ,,prolegom5a4 ,,preamble ,,on ,,! ,,peculi>ities ,,( ,,all ,,metaphysical ,,cognition4 #a4 ,( ! ,s\rces ( ,metaphysics4 ,if x becomes desirable to =mulate any cognition z sci5ce1 x w be necess>y fir/ to det]m9e accurately ^? peculi> features :i* no o!r sci5ce has 9 common ) x1 con/itut+ its *>act]i/ics2 o!rwise ! b\nd>ies ( all sci5ces become confus$1 & none ( !m c be treat$ ?or\ghly accord+ to its nature4 ,! *>act]i/ics ( a sci5ce may consi/ ( a simple diff]5ce ( object1 or ( ! s\rces ( cognition1 or ( ! k9d ( cognition1 or p]haps ( all ?ree conjo9tly4 ,on ?is1 !re=e1 dep5ds ! idea ( a possible sci5ce & its t]ritory4 ,fir/1 z conc]ns ! s\rces ( metaphysical cognition1 its v concept implies t !y _c be empirical4 ,its pr9ciples 7includ+ n only its maxims b its basic notions7 mu/ nev] be d]iv$ f exp]i5ce4 ,x mu/ n be physical b metaphysical k1 viz41 k ly+ beyond exp]i5ce4 ,x c !re=e h = its basis nei!r ext]nal exp]i5ce1 :i* is ! s\rce ( physics prop]1 nor int]nal1 :i* is ! basis ( empirical psy*ology4 ,x is !re=e a priori k1 com+ f pure ,und]/&+ & pure ,reason4 ,b s f> ,metaphysics w\ld n be di/+ui% able f pure ,ma!matics2 x mu/ !re=e be call$ pure philosophical cognition2 & = ! mean+ ( ?is t]m ,i ref] to ! ,critique ( ! ,pure ,reason 7,,ii4 ,me?od ( ,transc5d5talism1 ,*ap4 ,i41 ,sec4 i71 :]e ! di/9ction betwe5 ^! two employm5ts ( ! reason is suffici5tly expla9$4 ,s f> conc]n+ ! s\rces ( metaphysical cognition4 #b4 ,conc]n+ ! ,k9d ( ,cognition :i* c alone be call$ ,metaphysical4 a4 ,( ! ,di/9ction betwe5 ,analytical & ,syn!tical ,judgm5ts 9 g5]al4--,! peculi>ity ( its s\rces dem&s t metaphysical cognition mu/ consi/ ( no?+ b a priori judgm5ts4 ,b :atev] be _! orig91 or _! logical =m1 !re is a di/9ction 9 judgm5ts1 z to _! cont5t1 accord+ to :i* !y are ei!r m]ely explicative1 add+ no?+ to ! cont5t ( ! cognition1 or expansive1 increas+ ! giv5 cognition3 ! =m] may be call$ analytical1 ! latt] syn!tical1 judgm5ts4 ,analytical judgm5ts express no?+ 9 ! pr$icate b :at has be5 already actually ?\ght 9 ! concept ( ! subject1 ?\gh n s di/9ctly or ) ! same 7full7 consci\sness4 ,:5 ,i say3 ,all bodies are ext5d$1 ,i h n amplifi$ 9 ! lea/ my concept ( body1 b h only analys$ x1 z ext5sion 0 really ?\ght to belong to t concept be=e ! judgm5t 0 made1 ?\gh x 0 n express$2 ?is judgm5t is !re=e analytical4 ,on ! contr>y1 ?is judgm5t1 ,all bodies h weight1 conta9s 9 its pr$icate some?+ n actually ?\ght 9 ! g5]al concept ( ! body2 x amplifies my k by add+ some?+ to my concept1 & mu/ !re=e be call$ syn!tical4 b4 ,! ,common ,pr9ciple ( all ,analytical ,judgm5ts is ! ,law ( ,contradiction4--,all analytical judgm5ts dep5d :olly on ! law ( ,contradiction1 & are 9 _! nature a priori cognitions1 :e!r ! concepts t supply !m ) matt] be empirical or n4 ,= ! pr$icate ( an affirmative analytical judgm5t is already conta9$ 9 ! concept ( ! subject1 ( :i* x _c be d5i$ )\t contradiction4 ,9 ! same way its opposite is necess>ily d5i$ ( ! subject 9 an analytical1 b negative1 judgm5t1 by ! same law ( contradiction4 ,su* is ! nature ( ! judgm5ts3 all bodies are ext5d$1 & no bodies are unext5d$ 7i4e41 simple74 ,= ?is v reason all analytical 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:]e4 c4 ,syn!tical ,judgm5ts require a diff]5t ,pr9ciple f ! ,law ( ,contradiction4--,!re are syn!tical a po/]iori judgm5ts ( empirical orig92 b !re are also o!rs :i* are prov$ to be c]ta9 a priori1 & :i* spr+ f pure ,und]/&+ & ,reason4 ,yet !y bo? agree 9 ?is1 t !y _c possibly spr+ f ! pr9ciple ( analysis1 viz41 ! law ( contradiction1 alone2 !y require a q diff]5t pr9ciple1 ?\gh1 f :atev] !y may be d$uc$1 !y mu/ be subject to ! law ( contradiction1 :i* mu/ nev] be violat$1 ev5 ?\gh ev]y?+ _c be d$uc$ f x4 ,i %all fir/ classify syn!tical judgm5ts4 #a4 ,empirical ,judgm5ts are always syn!tical4 ,= x w\ld be absurd to base an analytical judgm5t on exp]i5ce1 z our concept suffices = ! purpose )\t requir+ any te/imony f exp]i5ce4 ,t body is ext5d$1 is a judgm5t e/abli%$ a priori1 & n an empirical judgm5t4 ,= be=e appeal+ to exp]i5ce1 we already h all ! conditions ( ! judgm5t 9 ! concept1 f :i* we h b to elicit ! pr$icate accord+ to ! law ( contradiction1 & !reby to become consci\s ( ! necessity ( ! judgm5t1 :i* exp]i5ce c\ld n ev5 tea* u4 #b4 ,ma!matical ,judgm5ts are all syn!tical4 ,?is fact seems hi!rto to h altoge!r escap$ ! obs]vation ( ^? :o h analys$ human reason2 x ev5 seems directly oppos$ to all _! conjectures1 ?\gh inconte/ably c]ta91 & mo/ important 9 its consequ5ces4 ,= z x 0 f\nd t ! conclusions ( ma!maticians all proce$ accord+ to ! law ( contradiction 7z is dem&$ by all apodeictic c]ta9ty71 m5 p]suad$ !mselves t ! fundam5tal pr9ciples 7 kn[n f ! same law4 ,?is 0 a great mi/ake1 = a syn!tical proposition c inde$ be compreh5d$ accord+ to ! law ( contradiction1 b only by presuppos+ ano!r syn!tical proposition f :i* x foll[s1 b nev] 9 itself4 ,fir/ ( all1 we mu/ obs]ve t all prop] ma!matical judgm5ts are a priori1 & n empirical1 because !y c>ry ) !m necessity1 :i* _c be obta9$ f exp]i5ce4 ,b if ?is be n conc$$ to me1 v good2 ,i %all conf9e my ass]tion to pure ,ma!matics1 ! v notion ( :i* implies t x conta9s pure a priori & n empirical cognitions4 ,x might at fir/ be ?\ght t ! proposition #g #e #ab is a m]e analytical judgm5t1 foll[+ f ! concept ( ! sum ( sev5 & five1 accord+ to ! law ( contradiction4 ,b on clos] exam9ation x appe>s t ! concept ( ! sum ( #g #e conta9s m]ely _! union 9 a s+le numb]1 )\t its be+ at all ?\ght :at ! p>ticul> numb] is t unites !m4 ,! concept ( twelve is by no means ?\ght by m]ely ?9k+ ( ! comb9ation ( sev5 & five2 & analyse ?is possible sum z we may1 we %all n discov] twelve 9 ! concept4 ,we mu/ g beyond ^! concepts1 by call+ to our aid "s concrete image 7,ans*auung71 i4e41 ei!r our five f+]s1 or five po9ts 7z ,segn] has x 9 8 ,ari?metic71 & we mu/ add successively ! units ( ! five1 giv5 9 "s concrete image 7,ans*auung71 to ! concept ( sev54 ,h5ce our concept is really amplifi$ by ! proposition #g #e #ab1 & we add to ! fir/ a second1 n ?\ght 9 x4 ,ari?metical judgm5ts are !re=e syn!tical1 & ! m pla9ly accord+ z we take l>g] numb]s2 = 9 su* cases x is cle> t1 h[ev] closely we analyse our concepts )\t call+ visual images 7,ans*auung7 to our aid1 we c nev] f9d ! sum by su* m]e dissection4 ,all pr9ciples ( geometry are no less analytical4 ,t a /raight l9e is ! %orte/ pa? betwe5 two po9ts1 is a syn!tical proposition4 ,= my concept ( /raight conta9s no?+ ( quantity1 b only a quality4 ,! attribute ( %ortness is !re=e altoge!r additional1 & _c be obta9$ by any analysis ( ! concept4 ,"h1 too1 visualisation 7,ans*auung7 mu/ come to aid u4 ,x alone makes ! syn!sis possible4 ,"s o!r pr9ciples1 assum$ by geomet]s1 are inde$ actually analytical1 & dep5d on ! law ( contradiction2 b !y only s]ve1 z id5tical propositions1 z a me?od ( concat5ation1 & n z pr9ciples1 e4g41 a a1 ! :ole is equal to itself1 or a b a1 ! :ole is great] ?an its "p4 ,& yet ev5 ^!1 ?\gh !y are recognis$ z valid f m]e concepts1 are only admitt$ 9 ma!matics1 because !y c be repres5t$ 9 "s visual =m 7,ans*auung74 ,:at usually makes u believe t ! pr$icate ( su* apodeictic#h judgm5ts is already conta9$ 9 our concept1 & t ! judgm5t is !re=e analytical1 is ! duplicity ( ! expression1 reque/+ u to ?9k a c]ta9 pr$icate z ( necessity impli$ 9 ! ?\ght ( a giv5 concept1 :i* necessity atta*es to ! concept4 ,b ! "q is n :at we are reque/$ to jo9 9 ?\ght to ! giv5 concept1 b :at we actually ?9k toge!r ) & 9 x1 ?\gh obscurely2 & s x appe>s t ! pr$icate belongs to ^! concepts necess>ily inde$1 yet n directly b indirectly by an add$ visualisation 7,ans*auung74 #h ,! t]m apodeictic is borr[$ by ,kant f ,ari/otle :o uses x 9 ! s5se ( c]ta9 beyond dispute4 ,! ^w is d]iv$ f 7 ,i %[7 & is contra/$ to dialectic propositions1 i4e41 su* /atem5ts z admit ( controv]sy4--,ed4 #c4 ,a ,rem>k on ! ,g5]al ,division ( ,judgm5ts into ,analytical & ,syn!tical4 ,?is division is indisp5sable1 z conc]ns ! ,critique ( human und]/&+1 & !re=e des]ves to be call$ classical1 ?\gh o!rwise x is ( little use1 b ?is is ! reason :y dogmatic philosoph]s1 :o always seek ! s\rces ( metaphysical judgm5ts 9 ,metaphysics itself1 & n ap>t f x1 9 ! pure laws ( reason g5]ally1 altoge!r neglect$ ?is app>5tly obvi\s di/9ction4 ,?us ! celebrat$ ,wolf1 & 8 acute foll[] ,baumg>t51 came to seek ! pro( ( ! pr9ciple ( ,suffici5t ,reason1 :i* is cle>ly syn!tical1 9 ! pr9ciple ( ,contradiction4 ,9 ,locke's ,essay1 h[ev]1 ,i f9d an indication ( my division4 ,= 9 ! f\r? book 7*ap4 iii4 #i1 seq471 hav+ discuss$ ! v>i\s connexions ( repres5tations 9 judgm5ts1 & _! s\rces1 "o ( :i* he makes id5tity & contradiction 7analytical judgm5ts71 & ano!r ! coexi/5ce ( repres5tations 9 a subject1 he confesses 7 #aj7 t our a priori k ( ! latt] is v n>r[1 & almo/ no?+4 ,b 9 8 rem>ks on ?is species ( cognition1 !re is s little ( :at is def9ite1 & r$uc$ to rules1 t we _c wond] if no "o1 n ev5 ,hume1 0 l$ to make inve/igations conc]n+ ?is sort ( judgm5ts4 ,= su* g5]al & yet def9ite pr9ciples are n easily le>n$ f o!r m51 :o h _h !m obscurely 9 _! m9ds4 ,we mu/ hit on !m fir/ by our own reflexion1 !n we f9d !m else:]e1 :]e we c\ld n possibly h f\nd !m at fir/1 because ! au?ors !mselves did n "k t su* an idea lay at ! basis ( _! obs]vations4 ,m5 :o nev] ?9k indep5d5tly h nev]!less ! acut5ess to discov] ev]y?+1 aft] x has be5 once %[n !m1 9 :at 0 said long s9ce1 ?\gh no "o ev] saw x !re be=e4 #d4 ,! ,g5]al ,"q ( ! ,prolegom5a4--,is ,metaphysics at all ,possible8 ,7 a metaphysics1 :i* c\ld ma9ta9 its place z a sci5ce1 really 9 exi/5ce2 c\ld we say1 "h is metaphysics1 le>n x1 & x w conv9ce y irresi/ibly & irrevocably ( its tru?3 ?is "q w\ld be useless1 & !re w\ld only rema9 t o!r "q 7:i* w\ld r be a te/ ( our acut5ess1 ?an a pro( ( ! exi/5ce ( ! ?+ itself71 ,h[ is ! sci5ce possible1 & h[ does reason come to atta9 x8 ,b human reason has n be5 s =tunate 9 ?is case4 ,!re is no s+le book to :i* y c po9t z y d to ,euclid1 & say3 ,?is is ,metaphysics2 "h y may f9d ! noble/ objects ( ?is sci5ce1 ! k ( a highe/ ,be+1 & ( a future exi/5ce1 prov$ f pr9ciples ( pure reason4 ,we c be %[n inde$ _m judgm5ts1 demon/rably c]ta91 & nev] que/ion$2 b ^! are all analytical1 & r conc]n ! mat]ials & ! scaffold+ = ,metaphysics1 ?an ! ext5sion ( k1 :i* is our prop] object 9 /udy+ x 7 #b74 ,ev5 suppos+ y produce syn!tical judgm5ts 7su* z ! law ( ,suffici5t ,reason1 :i* y h nev] prov$1 z y ought to1 f pure reason a priori1 ?\gh we gladly conc$e its tru?71 y lapse :5 !y come to be employ$ = y\r pr9cipal object1 into su* d\btful ass]tions1 t 9 all ages "o ,metaphysics has contradict$ ano!r1 ei!r 9 its ass]tions1 or _! pro(s1 & ?us has itself de/roy$ its own claim to la/+ ass5t4 ,nay1 ! v attempts to set up su* a sci5ce are ! ma9 cause ( ! e>ly appe>ance ( scepticism1 a m5tal attitude 9 :i* reason treats itself ) su* viol5ce t x c\ld nev] h aris5 save f complete despair ( ev] satisfy+ our mo/ important aspirations4 ,= long be=e m5 began to inquire into nature me?odically1 !y consult$ ab/ract reason1 :i* _h to "s ext5t be5 ex]cis$ by means ( ord9>y exp]i5ce2 = reason is ev] pres5t1 :ile laws ( nature mu/ usually be discov]$ ) labor4 ,s ,metaphysics float$ to ! surface1 l foam1 :i* dissolv$ ! mom5t x 0 scoop$ (f4 ,b imm$iately !re appe>$ a new supply on ! surface1 to be ev] eag]ly ga!r$ up by "s1 :ile o!rs1 in/ead ( seek+ 9 ! dep?s ! cause ( ! ph5om5on1 ?\ght !y %[$ _! wisdom by ridicul+ ! idle labor ( _! neighbors4 ,! ess5tial & di/+ui%+ feature ( pure ma!matical cognition among all o!r a priori cognitions is1 t x _c at all proce$ f concepts1 b only by means ( ! con/ruction ( concepts 7see ,critique ,,ii41 ,me?od ( ,transc5d5talism1 *ap4 ,i41 sect4 #a74 ,z !re=e 9 its judgm5ts x mu/ proce$ beyond ! concept to t :i* its correspond+ visualisation 7,ans*auung7 conta9s1 ^! judgm5ts nei!r c1 nor ought to1 arise analytically1 by dissect+ ! concept1 b are all syn!tical4 ,i _c refra9 f po9t+ out ! disadvantage result+ to philosophy f ! neglect ( ?is easy & app>5tly insignificant obs]vation4 ,hume be+ prompt$ 7a task wor?y ( a philosoph]7 to ca/ 8 eye ov] ! :ole field ( a priori cognitions 9 :i* human und]/&+ claims su* mighty possessions1 he$lessly sev]$ f x a :ole1 & inde$ its mo/ valuable1 prov9ce1 viz41 pure ma!matics2 = he ?\ght its nature1 or1 s to speak1 ! /ate-con/itution ( ?is empire1 dep5d$ on totally diff]5t pr9ciples1 namely1 on ! law ( contradiction alone2 & al?\gh he did n divide ,judgm5ts 9 ?is mann] =mally & univ]sally z ,i h done "h1 :at he said 0 equival5t to ?is3 t ma!matics conta9s only analytical1 b metaphysics syn!tical1 a priori judgm5ts4 ,9 ?is1 h[ev]1 he 0 greatly mi/ak51 & ! mi/ake _h a decid$ly injuri\s effect ^u 8 :ole conception4 ,b = ?is1 he w\ld h ext5d$ 8 "q conc]n+ ! orig9 ( our syn!tical judgm5ts f> beyond ! metaphysical concept ( ,causality1 & includ$ 9 x ! possibility ( ma!matics a priori also1 = ?is latt] he mu/ h assum$ to be equally syn!tical4 ,& !n he c\ld n h bas$ 8 metaphysical judgm5ts on m]e exp]i5ce )\t subject+ ! axioms ( ma!matics equally to exp]i5ce1 a ?+ :i* he 0 f> too acute to d4 ,! good company into :i* metaphysics w\ld ?us h be5 br\ght1 w\ld h sav$ x f ! dang] ( a contemptu\s ill-treatm5t1 = ! ?ru/ int5d$ = x mu/ h rea*$ ma!matics1 :i* 0 n & c\ld n h be5 ,hume's int5tion4 ,?us t acute man w\ld h be5 l$ into consid]ations :i* mu/ ne$s be simil> to ^? t n[ occupy u1 b :i* w\ld h ga9$ ine/imably by 8 inimitably elegant /yle4 ,metaphysical judgm5ts1 prop]ly s call$1 are all syn!tical4 ,we mu/ di/+ui% judgm5ts p]ta9+ to metaphysics f metaphysical judgm5ts prop]ly s call$4 ,_m ( ! =m] are analytical1 b !y only af=d ! means = metaphysical judgm5ts1 :i* are ! :ole end ( ! sci5ce1 & :i* are always syn!tical4 ,= if !re be concepts p]ta9+ to metaphysics 7z1 = example1 t ( sub/ance71 ! judgm5ts spr++ f simple analysis ( !m also p]ta9 to metaphysics1 z1 = example1 sub/ance is t :i* only exi/s z subject2 & by means ( sev]al su* analytical judgm5ts1 we seek to approa* ! def9ition ( ! concept4 ,b z ! analysis ( a pure concept ( ! und]/&+ p]ta9+ to metaphysics1 does n proce$ 9 any diff]5t mann] f ! dissection ( any o!r1 ev5 empirical1 concepts1 n p]ta9+ to metaphysics 7su* z3 air is an ela/ic fluid1 ! ela/icity ( :i* is n de/roy$ by any kn[n degree ( cold71 x foll[s t ! concept inde$1 b n ! analytical judgm5t1 is prop]ly metaphysical4 ,?is sci5ce has some?+ peculi> 9 ! production ( its a priori cognitions1 :i* mu/ !re=e be di/+ui%$ f ! features x has 9 common ) o!r rational k4 ,?us ! judgm5t1 t all ! sub/ance 9 ?+s is p]man5t1 is a syn!tical & prop]ly metaphysical judgm5t4 ,if ! a priori pr9ciples1 :i* con/itute ! mat]ials ( metaphysics1 h fir/ be5 collect$ accord+ to fix$ pr9ciples1 !n _! analysis w be ( great value2 x might be taught z a p>ticul> "p 7z a philosophia def9itiva71 conta9+ no?+ b analytical judgm5ts p]ta9+ to metaphysics1 & c\ld be treat$ sep>ately f ! syn!tical :i* con/itute metaphysics prop]4 ,= inde$ ^! analyses are n else:]e ( mu* value1 except 9 metaphysics1 i4e41 z reg>ds ! syn!tical judgm5ts1 :i* are to be g5]at$ by ^! previ\sly analys$ concepts4 ,! conclusion drawn 9 ?is section !n is1 t metaphysics is prop]ly conc]n$ ) syne!tical propositions a priori1 & ^! alone con/itute its end1 = :i* x inde$ requires v>i\s dissections ( its concepts1 viz41 ( its analytical judgm5ts1 b :]e9 ! proc$ure is n diff]5t f t 9 e o!r k9d ( k1 9 :i* we m]ely seek to r5d] our concepts di/9ct by analysis4 ,b ! g5]ation ( a priori cognition by concrete images z well z by concepts1 9 f9e ( syn!tical propositions a priori 9 philosophical cognition1 con/itutes ! ess5tial subject ( ,metaphysics4 ,we>y !re=e z well ( dogmatism1 :i* tea*es u no?+1 z ( scepticism1 :i* does n ev5 promise u any?+1 n ev5 ! quiet /ate ( a cont5t$ ignorance2 disquiet$ by ! importance ( k s mu* ne$$2 & la/ly1 r5d]$ suspici\s by long exp]i5ce ( all k :i* we believe we possess1 or :i* (f]s itself1 "u ! title ( pure reason3 !re rema9s b "o critical "q on ! answ] to :i* our future proc$ure dep5ds1 viz41 ,is ,metaphysics at all possible8 ,b ?is "q mu/ be answ]$ n by sceptical objections to ! assev]ations ( "s actual sy/em ( metaphysics 7= we d n z yet admit su* a ?+ to exi/71 b f ! conception1 z yet only problematical1 ( a sci5ce ( ?is sort4 ,9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason ,i h treat$ ?is "q syn!tically1 by mak+ inquiries into pure reason itself1 & endeavor+ 9 ?is s\rce to det]m9e ! elem5ts z well z ! laws ( its pure use accord+ to pr9ciples4 ,! task is difficult1 & requires a resolute read] to p5etrate by degrees into a sy/em1 bas$ on no data except reason itself1 & :i* !re=e seeks1 )\t re/+ ^u any fact1 to unfold k f its orig9al g]ms4 ,prolegom5a1 h[ev]1 are design$ = prep>atory ex]cises2 !y are int5d$ r to po9t out :at we h to d 9 ord] if possible to actualise a sci5ce1 ?an to prop\nd x4 ,!y mu/ !re=e re/ ^u some?+ already kn[n z tru/wor?y1 f :i* we c set out ) confid5ce1 & asc5d to s\rces z yet unkn[n1 ! discov]y ( :i* w n only expla9 to u :at we knew1 b exhibit a sph]e ( _m cognitions :i* all spr+ f ! same s\rces4 ,! me?od ( ,prolegom5a1 especially ( ^? design$ z a prep>ation = future metaphysics1 is consequ5tly analytical4 ,b x happ5s =tunately1 t ?\gh we _c assume metaphysics to be an actual sci5ce1 we c say ) confid5ce t c]ta9 pure a priori syn!tical cognitions1 pure ,ma!matics & pure ,physics are actual & giv52 = bo? conta9 propositions1 :i* are ?or\ghly recognis$ z apodeictically c]ta91 p>tly by m]e reason1 p>tly by g5]al cons5t aris+ f exp]i5ce1 & yet z indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce4 ,we h !re=e "s at lea/ unconte/$ syn!tical k a priori1 & ne$ n ask :e!r x be possible1 = x is actual1 b h[ x is possible1 9 ord] t we may d$uce f ! pr9ciple :i* makes ! giv5 cognitions possible ! possibility ( all ! re/4 ,! ,g5]al ,problem3 ,h[ is ,cognition f ,pure ,reason ,possible8 #e4 ,we h above le>n$ ! significant di/9ction betwe5 analytical & syn!tical judgm5ts4 ,! possibility ( analytical propositions 0 easily compreh5d$1 be+ entirely f\nd$ on ! law ( ,contradiction4 ,! possibility ( syn!tical a po/]iori judgm5ts1 ( ^? :i* are ga!r$ f exp]i5ce1 also requires no p>ticul> explanation2 = exp]i5ce is no?+ b a cont9ual syn!sis ( p]ceptions4 ,!re rema9 !re=e only syn!tical propositions a priori1 ( :i* ! possibility mu/ be s\ght or inve/igat$1 because !y mu/ dep5d ^u o!r pr9ciples ?an ! law ( contradiction4 ,b "h we ne$ n fir/ e/abli% ! possibility ( su* propositions s z to ask :e!r !y are possible4 ,= !re are en\gh ( !m :i* inde$ are ( und\bt$ c]ta9ty1 & z our pres5t me?od is analytical1 we %all />t f ! fact1 t su* syn!tical b purely rational cognition actually exi/s2 b we mu/ n[ inquire into ! reason ( ?is possibility1 & ask1 h[ su* cognition is possible1 9 ord] t we may f ! pr9ciples ( its possibility be enabl$ to det]m9e ! conditions ( its use1 its sph]e & its limits4 ,! prop] problem ^u :i* all dep5ds1 :5 express$ ) s*ola/ic precision1 is !re=e3 ,h[ are ,syn!tic ,propositions a priori possible8 ,= ! sake ( popul>ity ,i h above express$ ?is problem some:at diff]5tly1 z an inquiry into purely rational cognition1 :i* ,i c\ld d = once )\t detrim5t to ! desir$ compreh5sion1 because1 z we h only to d "h ) metaphysics & its s\rces1 ! read] w1 ,i hope1 aft] ! =e go+ rem>ks1 keep 9 m9d t :5 we speak ( purely rational cognition1 we d n mean analytical1 b syn!tical cognition4#i #i ,x is unavoidable t z k advances1 c]ta9 expressions :i* h become classical1 aft] hav+ be5 us$ s9ce ! infancy ( sci5ce1 w be f\nd inadequate & unsuitable1 & a new] & m appropriate application ( ! t]ms w give rise to confusion4 ,?is is ! case ) ! t]m analytical4 ,! analytical me?od1 s f> z x is oppos$ to ! syn!tical1 is v diff]5t f t :i* con/itutes ! ess5ce ( analytical propositions3 x signifies only t we />t f :at is s\ght1 z if x 7 giv51 & asc5d to ! only conditions "u :i* x is possible4 ,9 ?is me?od we (t5 use no?+ b syn!tical propositions1 z 9 ma!matical analysis1 & x 7 bett] to t]m x ! regressive me?od1 9 contradi/9ction to ! syn!tic or progressive4 ,a pr9cipal "p ( ,logic too is di/+ui%$ by ! "n ( ,analytics1 :i* "h signifies ! logic ( tru? 9 contra/ to ,dialectics1 )\t consid]+ :e!r ! cognitions belong+ to x are analytical or syn!tical4 ,metaphysics /&s or falls ) ! solution ( ?is problem3 its v exi/5ce dep5ds ^u x4 ,let any "o make metaphysical ass]tions ) ev] s mu* plausibility1 let him ov]:elm u ) conclusions1 if he has n previ\sly prov$ able to answ] ?is "q satisfactorily1 ,i h a "r to say3 ?is is all va9 baseless philosophy & false wisdom4 ,y speak ?r\gh pure reason1 & claim1 z x 7 to create cognitions a priori by n only dissect+ giv5 concepts1 b also by ass]t+ connexions :i* d n re/ ^u ! law ( contradiction1 & :i* y believe y conceive q indep5d5tly ( all exp]i5ce2 h[ d y arrive at ?is1 & h[ w y ju/ify y\r pret5sions8 ,an appeal to ! cons5t ( ! common s5se ( mank9d _c be all[$2 = t is a witness ^: au?ority dep5ds m]ely ^u rumor4 ,says ,horace3 ,quodcunque o/5dis mihi sic1 incr$ulus odi4 ,to all t :i* ?\ prove/ me ?us1 ,i refuse to give cr$5ce4 ,! answ] to ?is "q1 ?\gh indisp5sable1 is difficult2 & ?\gh ! pr9cipal reason t x 0 n made long ago is1 t ! possibility ( ! "q nev] occurr$ to anybody1 !re is yet ano!r reason1 :i* is ?is t a satisfactory answ] to ?is "o "q requires a mu* m p]si/5t1 pr(\nd1 & pa9/ak+ reflexion1 ?an ! mo/ diffuse "w on ,metaphysics1 :i* on its fir/ appe>ance promis$ immortality to its au?or4 ,& e intellig5t read]1 :5 he c>efully reflects :at ?is problem requires1 mu/ at fir/ be /ruck ) its difficulty1 & w\ld reg>d x z insoluble & ev5 impossible1 did !re n actually exi/ pure syn!tical cognitions a priori4 ,?is actually happ5$ to ,david ,hume1 ?\gh he did n conceive ! "q 9 its entire univ]sality z is done "h1 & z mu/ be done1 %\ld ! answ] be decisive = all ,metaphysics4 ,= h[ is x possible1 says t acute man1 t :5 a concept is giv5 me1 ,i c g beyond x & connect ) x ano!r1 :i* is n conta9$ 9 x1 9 su* a mann] z if ! latt] necess>ily belong$ to ! =m]8 ,no?+ b exp]i5ce c furni% u ) su* connexions 7?us he conclud$ f ! difficulty :i* he took to be an impossibility71 & all t vaunt$ necessity1 or1 :at is ! same ?+1 all cognition assum$ to be a priori1 is no?+ b a long habit ( accept+ some?+ z true1 & h5ce ( mi/ak+ subjective necessity = objective4 ,%\ld my read] compla9 ( ! difficulty & ! tr\ble :i* ,i occasion him 9 ! solution ( ?is problem1 he is at lib]ty to solve x himself 9 an easi] way4 ,p]haps he w !n feel "u obligation to ! p]son :o has und]tak5 = him a labor ( s pr(\nd rese>*1 & w r be surpris$ at ! facility ) :i*1 consid]+ ! nature ( ! subject1 ! solution has be5 atta9$4 ,yet x has co/ ye>s ( "w to solve ! problem 9 its :ole univ]sality 7us+ ! t]m 9 ! ma!matical s5se1 viz41 = t :i* is suffici5t = all cases71 & f9ally to exhibit x 9 ! analytical =m1 z ! read] f9ds x "h4 ,all metaphysicians are !re=e solemnly & legally susp5d$ f _! occupations till !y %all h answ]$ 9 a satisfactory mann] ! "q1 ,h[ are syn!tic cognitions a priori possible8 ,= ! answ] conta9s :i* !y mu/ %[ :5 !y h any?+ to (f] 9 ! "n ( pure reason4 ,b if !y d n possess ^! cr$5tials1 !y c expect no?+ else ( reasonable p1 :o h be5 deceiv$ s (t51 ?an to be dismiss$ )\t fur!r ado4 ,if !y on ! o!r h& desire to c>ry on _! bus9ess1 n z a sci5ce1 b z an art ( :olesome oratory suit$ to ! common s5se ( man1 !y _c 9 ju/ice be prev5t$4 ,!y w !n speak ! mode/ language ( a rational belief1 !y w grant t !y are n all[$ ev5 to conjecture1 f> less to "k1 any?+ :i* lies beyond ! b\nds ( all possible exp]i5ce1 b only to assume 7n = speculative use1 :i* !y mu/ ab&on1 b = practical purposes only7 ! exi/5ce ( some?+ t is possible & ev5 indisp5sable = ! guidance ( ! und]/&+ & ( ! w 9 life4 ,9 ?is mann] alone c !y be call$ useful & wise m51 & ! m s z !y r5\nce ! title ( metaphysicians2 = ! latt] pr(ess to be speculative philosoph]s1 & s9ce1 :5 judgm5ts a priori are "u discussion1 poor probabilities _c be admitt$ 7= :at is decl>$ to be kn[n a priori is !reby ann\nc$ z necess>y71 su* m5 _c be p]mitt$ to play ) conjectures1 b _! ass]tions mu/ be ei!r sci5ce1 or are wor? no?+ at all4 ,x may be said1 t ! entire transc5d5tal philosophy1 :i* necess>ily prec$es all metaphysics1 is no?+ b ! complete solution ( ! problem "h prop\nd$1 9 sy/ematical ord] & complet5ess1 & hi!rto we h nev] _h any transc5d5tal philosophy2 = :at goes by its "n is prop]ly a "p ( metaphysics1 :]eas ! =m] sci5ce is int5d$ fir/ to con/itute ! possibility ( ! latt]1 & mu/ !re=e prec$e all metaphysics4 ,& x is n surpris+ t :5 a :ole sci5ce1 depriv$ ( all help f o!r sci5ces1 & consequ5tly 9 itself q new1 is requir$ to answ] a s+le "q satisfactorily1 we %\ld f9d ! answ] tr\blesome & difficult1 nay ev5 %r\d$ 9 obscurity4 ,z we n[ proce$ to ?is solution accord+ to ! analytical me?od1 9 :i* we assume t su* cognitions f pure reasons actually exi/1 we c only appeal to two sci5ces ( !oretical cognition 7:i* alone is "u consid]ation "h71 pure ma!matics & pure natural sci5ce 7physics74 ,= ^! alone c exhibit to u objects 9 a def9ite & actualisable =m 79 d] ,ans*auung71 & consequ5tly 7if !re %\ld occur 9 !m a cognition a priori7 c %[ ! tru? or con=mity ( ! cognition to ! object 9 concreto1 t is1 its actuality1 f :i* we c\ld proce$ to ! reason ( its possibility by ! analytic me?od4 ,?is facilitates our "w greatly = "h univ]sal consid]ations are n only appli$ to facts1 b ev5 />t f !m1 :ile 9 a syn!tic proc$ure !y mu/ /rictly be d]iv$ 9 ab/racto f concepts4 ,b1 9 ord] to rise f ^! actual & at ! same "t well-gr\nd$ pure cognitions a priori to su* a possible cognition ( ! same z we are seek+1 viz41 to metaphysics z a sci5ce1 we mu/ compreh5d t :i* occasions x1 ,i mean ! m]e natural1 ?\gh 9 spite ( its tru? n unsuspect$1 cognition a priori :i* lies at ! bottom ( t sci5ce1 ! elaboration ( :i* )\t any critical inve/igation ( its possibility is commonly call$ metaphysics4 ,9 a ^w1 we mu/ compreh5d ! natural conditions ( su* a sci5ce z a "p ( our inquiry1 & ?us ! transc5d5tal problem w be gradually answ]$ by a division into f\r que/ions3 #a4 ,h[ is pure ma!matics possible8 #b4 ,h[ is pure natural sci5ce possible8 #c4 ,h[ is metaphysics 9 g5]al possible8 #d4 ,h[ is metaphysics z a sci5ce possible8 ,x may be se5 t ! solution ( ^! problems1 ?\gh *iefly design$ to exhibit ! ess5tial matt] ( ! ,critique1 has yet some?+ peculi>1 :i* = itself alone des]ves att5tion4 ,?is is ! se>* = ! s\rces ( giv5 sci5ces 9 reason itself1 s t its faculty ( kn[+ some?+ a priori may by its own de$s be inve/igat$ & measur$4 ,by ?is proc$ure ^! sci5ces ga91 if n ) reg>d to _! cont5ts1 yet z to _! prop] use1 & :ile !y ?r[ light on ! high] "q conc]n+ _! common orig91 !y give1 at ! same "t1 an occasion bett] to expla9 _! own nature4 ,,fir/ ,,"p ,,( ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,problem4 ,,h[ ,,is ,,pure ,,ma!matics ,,possible8 #f4 ,"h is a great & e/abli%$ bran* ( k1 encompass+ ev5 n[ a wond]fully l>ge doma9 & promis+ an unlimit$ ext5sion 9 ! future4 ,yet x c>ries ) x ?or\ghly apodeictical c]ta9ty1 i4e41 absolute necessity1 :i* !re=e re/s ^u no empirical gr\nds4 ,consequ5tly x is a pure product ( reason1 & moreov] is ?or\ghly syn!tical4 ,"h ! "q arises3 ,h[ !n is x possible = human reason to produce a cognition ( ?is nature entirely a priori8 ,does n ?is faculty :i* produces ma!matics1 z x nei!r is nor c be bas$ ^u exp]i5ce1 presuppose "s gr\nd ( cognition a priori1 :i* lies deeply hidd51 b :i* might reveal itself by ^! its effects1 if _! fir/ beg9n+s 7 b dilig5tly f]ret$ out8 #g4 ,b we f9d t all ma!matical cognition has ?is peculi>ity3 x mu/ fir/ exhibit its concept 9 a visual =m 7,ans*auung7 & inde$ a priori1 !re=e 9 a visual =m :i* is n empirical1 b pure4 ,)\t ?is ma!matics _c take a s+le /ep2 h5ce its judgm5ts are always visual1 viz41 intuitive2 :]eas philosophy mu/ be satisfi$ ) discursive judgm5ts f m]e concepts1 & ?\gh x may illu/rate its doctr9es ?r\gh a visual figure1 c nev] d]ive !m f x4 ,?is obs]vation on ! nature ( ma!matics gives u a clue to ! fir/ & highe/ condition ( its possibility1 :i* is1 t "s non-s5su\s visualisation 7call$ pure intuition1 or re9e ,ans*auung7 mu/ =m its basis1 9 :i* all its concepts c be exhibit$ or con/ruct$1 9 concreto & yet a priori4 ,if we c f9d out ?is pure intuition & its possibility1 we may !nce easily expla9 h[ syn!tical propositions a priori are possible 9 pure ma!matics1 & consequ5tly h[ ?is sci5ce itself is possible4 ,empirical intuition viz41 s5se-p]ception enables u )\t difficulty to enl>ge ! concept :i* we frame ( an object ( intuition or s5se-p]ception1 by new pr$icates1 :i* intuition i4e41 s5se-p]ception itself pres5ts syn!tically 9 exp]i5ce4 ,pure intuition viz41 ! visualisation ( =ms 9 our imag9ation1 f :i* e ?+ s5sual1 i4e41 e ?\ght ( mat]ial qualities1 is exclud$ does s likewise1 only ) ?is diff]5ce1 t 9 ! latt] case ! syn!tical judgm5t is a priori c]ta9 & apodeictical1 9 ! =m]1 only a po/]iori & empirically c]ta92 because ?is latt] conta9s only t :i* occurs 9 cont+5t empirical intuition1 b ! =m]1 t :i* mu/ necess>ily be discov]$ 9 pure intuition4 ,"h intuition1 be+ an intuition a priori1 is be=e all exp]i5ce1 viz41 be=e any p]ception ( p>ticul> objects1 insep>ably conjo9$ ) its concept4 #h4 ,b ) ?is /ep our p]plexity seems r to increase ?an to less54 ,= ! "q n[ is1 ,h[ is x possible to intuite 9 a visual =m any?+ a priori8 ,an intuition viz41 a visual s5se-p]ception is su* a repres5tation z imm$iately dep5ds ^u ! pres5ce ( ! object4 ,h5ce x seems impossible to intuite f ! outset a priori1 because intuition w\ld 9 t ev5t take place )\t ei!r a =m] or a pres5t object to ref] to1 & by consequ5ce c\ld n be intuition4 ,concepts inde$ are su*1 t we c easily =m "s ( !m a priori1 viz41 su* z conta9 no?+ b ! ?\ght ( an object 9 g5]al2 & we ne$ n f9d ourselves 9 an imm$iate relation to ! object4 ,take1 = in/ance1 ! concepts ( ,quantity1 ( ,cause1 etc4 ,b ev5 ^! require1 9 ord] to make !m "u /ood1 a c]ta9 concrete use--t is1 an application to "s s5se-exp]i5ce 7,ans*auung71 by :i* an object ( !m is giv5 u4 ,b h[ c ! intuition ( ! object its visualisation prec$e ! object itself8 #i4 ,if our intuition i4e41 our s5se-exp]i5ce 7 p]=ce ( su* a nature z to repres5t ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves1 !re w\ld n be any intuition a priori1 b intuition w\ld be always empirical4 ,= ,i c only "k :at is conta9$ 9 ! object 9 itself :5 x is pres5t & giv5 to me4 ,x is inde$ ev5 !n incompreh5sible h[ ! visualis+ 7,ans*auung7 ( a pres5t ?+ %\ld make me "k ?is ?+ z x is 9 itself1 z its prop]ties _c migrate into my faculty ( repres5tation4 ,b ev5 grant+ ?is possibility1 a visualis+ ( t sort w\ld n take place a priori1 t is1 be=e ! object 7 pres5t$ to me2 = )\t ?is latt] fact no reason ( a relation betwe5 my repres5tation & ! object c be imag9$1 unless x dep5d ^u a direct inspiration4 ,!re=e 9 "o way only c my intuition 7,ans*auung7 anticipate ! actuality ( ! object1 & be a cognition a priori1 viz43 if my intuition conta9s no?+ b ! =m ( s5sibility1 ant$at+ 9 my subjectivity all ! actual impressions ?r\gh :i* ,i am affect$ by objects4 ,= t objects ( s5se c only be intuit$ accord+ to ?is =m ( s5sibility ,i c "k a priori4 ,h5ce x foll[s3 t propositions1 :i* conc]n ?is =m ( s5su\s intuition only1 are possible & valid = objects ( ! s5ses2 z also1 conv]sely1 t intuitions :i* are possible a priori c nev] conc]n any o!r ?+s ?an objects ( our s5ses4#aj #aj ,?is :ole p>agraph 7 #i7 w be bett] und]/ood :5 comp>$ ) ,rem>k ,i41 foll[+ ?is section1 appe>+ 9 ! pres5t edition on page #dj4--;,ed4 #aj4 ,accord+ly1 x is only ! =m ( ! s5su\s intuition by :i* we c intuite ?+s a priori1 b by :i* we c "k objects only z !y appe> to u 7to our s5ses71 n z !y are 9 !mselves2 & ?is assumption is absolutely necess>y if syn!tical propositions a priori be grant$ z possible1 or if1 9 case !y actually occur1 _! possibility is to be compreh5d$ & det]m9$ be=eh&4 ,n[1 ! intuitions :i* pure ma!matics lays at ! f\ndation ( all its cognitions & judgm5ts :i* appe> at once apodeictic & necess>y are ,space & ,"t4 ,= ma!matics mu/ fir/ h all its concepts 9 intuition1 & pure ma!matics 9 pure intuition1 t is1 x mu/ con/ruct !m4 ,if x proce$$ 9 any o!r way1 x w\ld be impossible to make any headway1 = ma!matics proce$s1 n analytically by dissection ( concepts1 b syn!tically1 & if pure intuition be want+1 !re is no?+ 9 :i* ! matt] = syn!tical judgm5ts a priori c be giv54 ,geometry is bas$ ^u ! pure intuition ( space4 ,ari?metic accompli%es its concept ( numb] by ! successive addition ( units 9 "t2 & pure me*anics especially _c atta9 its concepts ( motion )\t employ+ ! repres5tation ( "t4 ,bo? repres5tations1 h[ev]1 are only intuitions2 = if we omit f ! empirical intuitions ( bodies & _! alt]ations 7motion7 ev]y?+ empirical1 or belong+ to s5sation1 space & "t /ill rema91 :i* are !re=e pure intuitions t lie a priori at ! basis ( ! empirical4 ,h5ce !y c nev] be omitt$1 b at ! same "t1 by _! be+ pure intuitions a priori1 !y prove t !y are m]e =ms ( our s5sibility1 :i* mu/ prec$e all empirical intuition1 or p]ception ( actual objects1 & con=mably to :i* objects c be kn[n a priori1 b only z !y appe> to u4 #aa4 ,! problem ( ! pres5t section is !re=e solv$4 ,pure ma!matics1 z syn!tical cognition a priori1 is only possible by ref]r+ to no o!r objects ?an ^? ( ! s5ses4 ,at ! basis ( _! empirical intuition lies a pure intuition 7( space & ( "t7 :i* is a priori4 ,?is is possible1 because ! latt] intuition is no?+ b ! m]e =m ( s5sibility1 :i* prec$es ! actual appe>ance ( ! objects1 9 t x1 9 fact1 makes !m possible4 ,yet ?is faculty ( intuit+ a priori affects n ! matt] ( ! ph5om5on 7t is1 ! s5se-elem5t 9 x1 = ?is con/itutes t :i* is empirical71 b its =m1 viz41 space & "t4 ,%\ld any man v5ture to d\bt t ^! are det]m9ations adh]+ n to ?+s 9 !mselves1 b to _! relation to our s5sibility1 ,i %\ld be glad to "k h[ x c be possible to "k ! con/itution ( ?+s a priori1 viz41 be=e we h any acqua9tance ) !m & be=e !y are pres5t$ to u4 ,su*1 h[ev]1 is ! case ) space & "t4 ,b ?is is q compreh5sible z soon z bo? c\nt = no?+ m ?an =mal conditions ( our s5sibility1 :ile ! objects c\nt m]ely z ph5om5a2 = !n ! =m ( ! ph5om5on1 i4e41 pure intuition1 c by all means be repres5t$ z proce$+ f ourselves1 t is1 a priori4 #ab4 ,9 ord] to add some?+ by way ( illu/ration & confirmation1 we ne$ only wat* ! ord9>y & necess>y proc$ure ( geomet]s4 ,all pro(s ( ! complete congru5ce ( two giv5 figures 7:]e ! "o c 9 e respect be sub/itut$ = ! o!r7 come ultimately to ?is t !y may be made to co9cide2 :i* is evid5tly no?+ else ?an a syn!tical proposition re/+ ^u imm$iate intuition1 & ?is intuition mu/ be pure1 or giv5 a priori1 o!rwise ! proposition c\ld n rank z apodeictically c]ta91 b w\ld h empirical c]ta9ty only4 ,9 t case1 x c\ld only be said t x is always f\nd to be s1 & holds good only z f> z our p]ception rea*es4 ,t ev]y:]e space 7:i* 9 its entirety is itself no long] ! b\nd>y ( ano!r space7 has ?ree dim5sions1 & t space _c 9 any way h m1 is bas$ on ! proposition t n m ?an ?ree l9es c int]sect at "r angles 9 "o po9t2 b ?is proposition _c by any means be %[n f concepts1 b re/s imm$iately on intuition1 & inde$ on pure & a priori intuition1 because x is apodeictically c]ta94 ,t we c require a l9e to be drawn to inf9ity 79 indef9itum71 or t a s]ies ( *anges 7= example1 spaces trav]s$ by motion7 %all be inf9itely cont9u$1 presupposes a repres5tation ( space & "t1 :i* c only atta* to intuition1 namely1 s f> z x 9 itself is b\nd$ by no?+1 = f concepts x c\ld nev] be inf]r$4 ,consequ5tly1 ! basis ( ma!matics actually are pure intuitions1 :i* make its syn!tical & apodeictically valid propositions possible4 ,h5ce our transc5d5tal d$uction ( ! notions ( space & ( "t expla9s at ! same "t ! possibility ( pure ma!matics4 ,)\t "s su* d$uction its tru? may be grant$1 b its exi/5ce c\ld by no means be und]/ood1 & we mu/ assume t ev]y?+ :i* c be giv5 to our s5ses 7to ! ext]nal s5ses 9 space1 to ! int]nal "o 9 "t7 is intuit$ by u z x appe>s to u1 n z x is 9 itself4 #ac4 ,^? :o _c yet rid !mselves ( ! notion t space & "t are actual qualities inh]+ 9 ?+s 9 !mselves1 may ex]cise _! acum5 on ! foll[+ p>adox4 ,:5 !y h 9 va9 attempt$ its solution1 & are free f prejudices at lea/ = a few mom5ts1 !y w suspect t ! degradation ( space & ( "t to m]e =ms ( our s5su\s intuition may p]haps be well f\nd$4 ,if two ?+s are q equal 9 all respects z mu* z c be asc]ta9$ by all means possible1 quantitatively & qualitatively1 x mu/ foll[1 t ! "o c 9 all cases & "u all circum/ances replace ! o!r1 & ?is sub/itution w\ld n occasion ! lea/ p]ceptible diff]5ce4 ,?is 9 fact is true ( plane figures 9 geometry2 b "s sph]ical figures exhibit1 not)/&+ a complete int]nal agreem5t1 su* a contra/ 9 _! ext]nal relation1 t ! "o figure _c possibly be put 9 ! place ( ! o!r4 ,= in/ance1 two sph]ical triangles on opposite hemisph]es1 :i* h an arc ( ! equator z _! common base1 may be q equal1 bo? z reg>ds sides & angles1 s t no?+ is to be f\nd 9 ei!r1 if x be describ$ = itself alone & complet$1 t w\ld n equally be applicable to bo?2 & yet ! "o _c be put 9 ! place ( ! o!r 7be+ situat$ ^u ! opposite hemisph]e74 ,"h !n is an int]nal diff]5ce betwe5 ! two triangles1 :i* diff]5ce our und]/&+ _c describe z int]nal1 & :i* only manife/s itself by ext]nal relations 9 space4 ,b ,i %all adduce examples1 tak5 f common life1 t are m obvi\s /ill4 ,:at c be m simil> 9 e respect & 9 e "p m alike to my h& & to my e>1 ?an _! images 9 a mirror8 ,& yet ,i _c put su* a h& z is se5 9 ! glass 9 ! place ( its ar*etype2 = if ?is is a "r h&1 t 9 ! glass is a left "o1 & ! image or reflexion ( ! "r e> is a left "o :i* nev] c s]ve z a sub/itute = ! o!r4 ,!re are 9 ?is case no int]nal diff]5ces :i* our und]/&+ c\ld det]m9e by ?9k+ alone4 ,yet ! diff]5ces are int]nal z ! s5ses tea*1 =1 not)/&+ _! complete equality & simil>ity1 ! left h& _c be enclos$ 9 ! same b\nds z ! "r "o 7!y are n congru5t72 ! glove ( "o h& _c be us$ = ! o!r4 ,:at is ! solution8 ,^! objects are n repres5tations ( ?+s z !y are 9 !mselves1 & z ! pure und]/&+ w\ld cognise !m1 b s5su\s intuitions1 t is1 appe>ances1 ! possibility ( :i* re/s ^u ! relation ( c]ta9 ?+s unkn[n 9 !mselves to some?+ else1 viz41 to our s5sibility4 ,space is ! =m ( ! ext]nal intuition ( ?is s5sibility1 & ! int]nal det]m9ation ( e space is only possible by ! det]m9ation ( its ext]nal relation to ! :ole space1 ( :i* x is a "p 79 o!r words1 by its relation to ! ext]nal s5se74 ,t is to say1 ! "p is only possible ?r\gh ! :ole1 :i* is nev] ! case ) ?+s 9 !mselves1 z objects ( ! m]e und]/&+1 b ) appe>ances only4 ,h5ce ! diff]5ce betwe5 simil> & equal ?+s1 :i* are yet n congru5t 7= in/ance1 two symmetric helices71 _c be made intelligible by any concept1 b only by ! relation to ! "r & ! left h&s :i* imm$iately ref]s to intuition4 ,rem>k ,i4 ,pure ,ma!matics1 & especially pure geometry1 c only h objective reality on condition t !y ref] to objects ( s5se4 ,b 9 reg>d to ! latt] ! pr9ciple holds good1 t our s5se repres5tation is n a repres5tation ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 b ( ! way 9 :i* !y appe> to u4 ,h5ce x foll[s1 t ! propositions ( geometry are n ! results ( a m]e creation ( our poetic imag9ation1 & t !re=e !y _c be ref]r$ ) assurance to actual objects2 b r t !y are necess>ily valid ( space1 & consequ5tly ( all t may be f\nd 9 space1 because space is no?+ else ?an ! =m ( all ext]nal appe>ances1 & x is ?is =m alone 9 :i* objects ( s5se c be giv54 ,s5sibility1 ! =m ( :i* is ! basis ( geometry1 is t ^u :i* ! possibility ( ext]nal appe>ance dep5ds4 ,!re=e ^! appe>ances c nev] conta9 any?+ b :at geometry prescribes to !m4 ,x w\ld be q o!rwise if ! s5ses 7 s con/itut$ z to repres5t objects z !y are 9 !mselves4 ,= !n x w\ld n by any means foll[ f ! conception ( space1 :i* ) all its prop]ties s]ves to ! geomet] z an a priori f\ndation1 toge!r ) :at is !nce inf]r$1 mu/ be s 9 nature4 ,! space ( ! geomet] w\ld be consid]$ a m]e fiction1 & x w\ld n be cr$it$ ) objective validity1 because we _c see h[ ?+s mu/ ( necessity agree ) an image ( !m1 :i* we make spontane\sly & previ\s to our acqua9tance ) !m4 ,b if ?is image1 or r ?is =mal intuition1 is ! ess5tial prop]ty ( our s5sibility1 by means ( :i* alone objects are giv5 to u1 & if ?is s5sibility repres5ts n ?+s 9 !mselves1 b _! appe>ances3 we %all easily compreh5d1 & at ! same "t indisputably prove1 t all ext]nal objects ( our _w ( s5se mu/ necess>ily co9cide 9 ! mo/ rigor\s way ) ! propositions ( geometry2 because s5sibility by means ( its =m ( ext]nal intuition1 viz41 by space1 ! same ) :i* ! geomet] is occupi$1 makes ^? objects at all possible z m]e appe>ances4 ,x w always rema9 a rem>kable ph5om5on 9 ! hi/ory ( philosophy1 t !re 0 a "t1 :5 ev5 ma!maticians1 :o at ! same "t 7 philosoph]s1 began to d\bt1 n ( ! accuracy ( _! geometrical propositions s f> z !y conc]n$ space1 b ( _! objective validity & ! applicability ( ?is concept itself1 & ( all its coroll>ies1 to nature4 ,!y %[$ mu* conc]n :e!r a l9e 9 nature might n consi/ ( physical po9ts1 & consequ5tly t true space 9 ! object might consi/ ( simple discrete p>ts1 :ile ! space :i* ! geomet] has 9 8 m9d be+ cont9u\s _c be su*4 ,!y did n recognise t ?is m5tal space r5d]s possible ! physical space1 i4e41 ! ext5sion ( matt]2 t ?is pure space is n at all a quality ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 b a =m ( our s5su\s faculty ( repres5tation2 & t all objects 9 space are m]e appe>ances1 i4e41 n ?+s 9 !mselves b repres5tations ( our s5su\s intuition4 ,b su* is ! case1 = ! space ( ! geomet] is exactly ! =m ( s5su\s intuition :i* we f9d a priori 9 u1 & conta9s ! gr\nd ( ! possibility ( all ext]nal appe>ances 7accord+ to _! =m71 & ! latt] mu/ necess>ily & mo/ rigidly agree ) ! propositions ( ! geomet]1 :i* he draws n f any fictiti\s concept1 b f ! subjective basis ( all ext]nal ph5om5a1 :i* is s5sibility itself4 ,9 ?is & no o!r way c geometry be made secure z to ! und\bt$ objective reality ( its propositions aga9/ all ! intrigues ( a %all[ ,metaphysics1 :i* is surpris$ at !m ! geometrical propositions1 because x has n trac$ !m to ! s\rces ( _! concepts4 ,rem>k ,,ii4 ,:atev] is giv5 u z object1 mu/ be giv5 u 9 intuition4 ,all our intuition h[ev] takes place by means ( ! s5ses only2 ! und]/&+ intuites no?+1 b only reflects4 ,& z we h j %[n t ! s5ses nev] & 9 no mann] enable u to "k ?+s 9 !mselves1 b only _! appe>ances1 :i* are m]e repres5tations ( ! s5sibility1 we conclude t 'all bodies1 toge!r ) ! space 9 :i* !y are1 mu/ be consid]$ no?+ b m]e repres5tations 9 u1 & exi/ n[h]e b 9 our ?\ghts4' ,y w say3 ,is n ?is manife/ idealism8 ,idealism consi/s 9 ! ass]tion1 t !re are none b ?9k+ be+s1 all o!r ?+s1 :i* we ?9k are p]ceiv$ 9 intuition1 be+ no?+ b repres5tations 9 ! ?9k+ be+s1 to :i* no object ext]nal to !m corresponds 9 fact4 ,:]eas ,i say1 t ?+s z objects ( our s5ses exi/+ outside u are giv51 b we "k no?+ ( :at !y may be 9 !mselves1 kn[+ only _! appe>ances1 i4e41 ! repres5tations :i* !y cause 9 u by affect+ our s5ses4 ,consequ5tly ,i grant by all means t !re are bodies )\t u1 t is1 ?+s :i*1 ?\gh q unkn[n to u z to :at !y are 9 !mselves1 we yet "k by ! repres5tations :i* _! influ5ce on our s5sibility procures u1 & :i* we call bodies1 a t]m signify+ m]ely ! appe>ance ( ! ?+ :i* is unkn[n to u1 b n !re=e less actual4 ,c ?is be t]m$ idealism8 ,x is ! v contr>y4 ,long be=e ,locke's "t1 b assur$ly s9ce him1 x has be5 g5]ally assum$ & grant$ )\t detrim5t to ! actual exi/5ce ( ext]nal ?+s1 t _m ( _! pr$icates may be said to belong n to ! ?+s 9 !mselves1 b to _! appe>ances1 & to h no prop] exi/5ce outside our repres5tation4 ,heat1 color1 & ta/e1 = in/ance1 are ( ?is k9d4 ,n[1 if ,i g f>!r1 & = weighty reasons rank z m]e appe>ances ! rema9+ qualities ( bodies also1 :i* are call$ prim>y1 su* z ext5sion1 place1 & 9 g5]al space1 ) all t :i* belongs to x 7imp5etrability or mat]iality1 space1 etc47--no "o 9 ! lea/ c adduce ! reason ( its be+ inadmissible4 ,z little z ! man :o admits colors n to be prop]ties ( ! object 9 itself1 b only z modifications ( ! s5se ( sight1 %\ld on t acc\nt be call$ an ideali/1 s little c my sy/em be nam$ ideali/ic1 m]ely because ,i f9d t m1 nay1 ,all ! prop]ties :i* con/itute ! intuition ( a body belong m]ely to its appe>ance4 ,! exi/5ce ( ! ?+ t appe>s is !reby n de/roy$1 z 9 g5u9e idealism1 b x is only %[n1 t we _c possibly "k x by ! s5ses z x is 9 itself4 ,i %\ld be glad to "k :at my ass]tions mu/ be 9 ord] to avoid all idealism4 ,und\bt$ly1 ,i %\ld say1 t ! repres5tation ( space is n only p]fectly con=mable to ! relation :i* our s5sibility has to objects--t ,i h said--b t x is q simil> to ! object1--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 ( v]milion1 :i* 9 me excites ?is s5sation4 ,rem>k ,,iii4 ,h5ce we may at once dismiss an easily =ese5 b futile objection1 t by admitt+ ! ideality ( space & ( "t ! :ole s5sible _w w\ld be turn$ into m]e %am4 ,at fir/ all philosophical insight into ! nature ( s5su\s cognition 0 spoil$1 by mak+ ! s5sibility m]ely a confus$ mode ( repres5tation1 accord+ to :i* we /ill "k ?+s z !y are1 b )\t be+ able to r$uce ev]y?+ 9 ?is our repres5tation to a cle> consci\sness2 :]eas pro( is (f]$ by u t s5sibility consi/s1 n 9 ?is logical di/9ction ( cle>ness & obscurity1 b 9 ! g5etical "o ( ! orig9 ( cognition itself4 ,= s5su\s p]ception repres5ts ?+s n at all z !y are1 b only ! mode 9 :i* !y affect our s5ses1 & consequ5tly by s5su\s p]ception appe>ances only & n ?+s !mselves are giv5 to ! und]/&+ = reflexion4 ,aft] ?is necess>y corrective1 an objection rises f an unp>donable & almo/ int5tional misconception1 z if my doctr9e turn$ all ! ?+s ( ! _w ( s5se into m]e illusion4 ,:5 an appe>ance is giv5 u1 we are /ill q free z to h[ we %\ld judge ! matt]4 ,! appe>ance dep5ds ^u ! s5ses1 b ! judgm5t ^u ! und]/&+1 & ! only "q is1 :e!r 9 ! det]m9ation ( ! object !re is tru? or n4 ,b ! diff]5ce betwe5 tru? & dream+ is n asc]ta9$ by ! nature ( ! repres5tations1 :i* are ref]r$ to objects 7= !y are ! same 9 bo? cases71 b by _! connexion accord+ to ^? rules1 :i* det]m9e ! coh]5ce ( ! repres5tations 9 ! concept ( an object1 & by asc]ta9+ :e!r !y c subsi/ toge!r 9 exp]i5ce or n4 ,& x is n ! fault ( ! appe>ances if our cognition takes illusion = tru?1 i4e41 if ! intuition1 by :i* an object is giv5 u1 is consid]$ a concept ( ! ?+ or ( its exi/5ce also1 :i* ! und]/&+ c only ?9k4 ,! s5ses repres5t to u ! pa?s ( ! planets z n[ progressive1 n[ retrogressive1 & h]e9 is nei!r falsehood nor tru?1 because z long z we hold ?is pa? to be no?+ b appe>ance1 we d n judge ( ! objective nature ( _! motion4 ,b z a false judgm5t may easily arise :5 ! und]/&+ is n on its gu>d aga9/ ?is subjective mode ( repres5tation be+ consid]$ objective1 we say !y appe> to move backw>d2 x is n ! s5ses h[ev] :i* mu/ be *>g$ ) ! illusion1 b ! und]/&+1 ^: prov9ce alone x is to give an objective judgm5t on appe>ances4 ,?us1 ev5 if we did n at all reflect on ! orig9 ( our repres5tations1 :5ev] we connect our intuitions ( s5se 7:atev] !y may conta971 9 space & 9 "t1 accord+ to ! rules ( ! coh]5ce ( all cognition 9 exp]i5ce1 illusion or tru? w arise accord+ z we are neglig5t or c>eful4 ,x is m]ely a "q ( ! use ( s5su\s repres5tations 9 ! und]/&+1 & n ( _! orig94 ,9 ! same way1 if ,i consid] all ! repres5tations ( ! s5ses1 toge!r ) _! =m1 space & "t1 to be no?+ b appe>ances1 & space & "t to be a m]e =m ( ! s5sibility1 :i* is n to be met ) 9 objects out ( x1 & if ,i make use ( ^! repres5tations 9 ref]5ce to possible exp]i5ce only1 !re is no?+ 9 my reg>d+ !m z appe>ances t c lead a/ray or cause illusion4 ,= all t !y c correctly coh]e accord+ to rules ( tru? 9 exp]i5ce4 ,?us all ! propositions ( geometry hold good ( space z well z ( all ! objects ( ! s5ses1 consequ5tly ( all possible exp]i5ce1 :e!r ,i consid] space z a m]e =m ( ! s5sibility1 or z some?+ cleav+ to ! ?+s !mselves4 ,9 ! =m] case h[ev] ,i compreh5d h[ ,i c "k a priori ^! propositions conc]n+ all ! objects ( ext]nal intuition4 ,o!rwise1 ev]y?+ else z reg>ds all possible exp]i5ce rema9s j z if ,i _h n dep>t$ f ! vulg> view4 ,b if ,i v5ture to g beyond all possible exp]i5ce ) my notions ( space & "t1 :i* ,i _c refra9 f do+ if ,i proclaim !m qualities inh]5t 9 ?+s 9 !mselves 7= :at %\ld prev5t me f lett+ !m hold good ( ! same ?+s1 ev5 ?\gh my s5ses might be diff]5t1 & unsuit$ to !m871 !n a grave error may arise due to illusion1 = ?us ,i w\ld proclaim to be univ]sally valid :at is m]ely a subjective condition ( ! intuition ( ?+s & sure only = all objects ( s5se1 viz41 = all possible exp]i5ce2 ,i w\ld ref] ?is condition to ?+s 9 !mselves1 & d n limit x to ! conditions ( exp]i5ce4 ,my doctr9e ( ! ideality ( space & ( "t1 !re=e1 f> f r$uc+ ! :ole s5sible _w to m]e illusion1 is ! only means ( secur+ ! application ( "o ( ! mo/ important cognitions 7t :i* ma!matics prop\nds a priori7 to actual objects1 & ( prev5t+ its be+ reg>d$ z m]e illusion4 ,= )\t ?is obs]vation x w\ld be q impossible to make out :e!r ! intuitions ( space & "t1 :i* we borr[ f no exp]i5ce1 & :i* yet lie 9 our repres5tation a priori1 are n m]e phantasms ( our bra91 to :i* objects d n correspond1 at lea/ n adequately1 & consequ5tly1 :e!r we h be5 able to %[ its unque/ionable validity ) reg>d to all ! objects ( ! s5sible _w j because !y are m]e appe>ances4 ,secondly1 ?\gh ^! my pr9ciples make appe>ances ( ! repres5tations ( ! s5ses1 !y are s f> f turn+ ! tru? ( exp]i5ce into m]e illusion1 t !y are r ! only means ( prev5t+ ! transc5d5tal illusion1 by :i* metaphysics has hi!rto be5 deceiv$1 lead+ to ! *ildi% endeavor ( cat*+ at bubbles1 because appe>ances1 :i* are m]e repres5tations1 7 tak5 = ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,"h orig9at$ ! rem>kable ev5t ( ! antimony ( ,reason :i* ,i %all m5tion by & by1 & :i* is de/roy$ by ! s+le obs]vation1 t appe>ance1 z long z x is employ$ 9 exp]i5ce1 produces tru?1 b ! mom5t x transgresses ! b\nds ( exp]i5ce1 & consequ5tly becomes transc5d5t1 produces no?+ b illusion4 ,inasmu*1 !re=e1 z ,i leave to ?+s z we obta9 !m by ! s5ses _! actuality1 & only limit our s5su\s intuition ( ^! ?+s to ?is1 t !y repres5t 9 no respect1 n ev5 9 ! pure intuitions ( space & ( "t1 any?+ m ?an m]e appe>ance ( ^? ?+s1 b nev] _! con/itution 9 !mselves1 ?is is n a sweep+ illusion inv5t$ = nature by me4 ,my prote/ation too aga9/ all *>ges ( idealism is s valid & cle> z ev5 to seem sup]flu\s1 7 !re n incompet5t judges1 :o1 :ile !y w\ld h an old "n = e deviation f _! p]v]se ?\gh common op9ion1 & nev] judge ( ! _s ( philosophic nom5clature1 b cl+ to ! lett] only1 are ready to put _! own conceits 9 ! place ( well-def9$ notions1 & !reby de=m & di/ort !m4 ,i h myself giv5 ?is my !ory ! "n ( transc5d5tal idealism1 b t _c au?orise any "o to conf\nd x ei!r ) ! empirical idealism ( ,desc>tes1 7inde$1 8 0 only an insoluble problem1 ow+ to :i* he ?\ght e "o at lib]ty to d5y ! exi/5ce ( ! corporeal _w1 because x c\ld nev] be prov$ satisfactorily71 or ) ! my/ical & vision>y idealism ( ,b]keley1 aga9/ :i* & o!r simil> phantasms our ,critique conta9s ! prop] antidote4 ,my idealism conc]ns n ! exi/5ce ( ?+s 7! d\bt+ ( :i*1 h[ev]1 con/itutes idealism 9 ! ord9>y s5se71 s9ce x nev] came into my head to d\bt x1 b x conc]ns ! s5su\s repres5tation ( ?+s1 to :i* space & "t especially belong4 ,( ^! viz41 space & "t1 consequ5tly ( all appe>ances 9 g5]al1 ,i h only %[n1 t !y are nei!r ?+s 7b m]e modes ( repres5tation71 nor det]m9ations belong+ to ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,b ! ^w transc5d5tal1 :i* ) me means a ref]5ce ( our cognition1 i4e41 n to ?+s1 b only to ! cognitive faculty1 0 meant to obviate ?is misconception4 ,yet r ?an give fur!r occasion to x by ?is ^w1 ,i n[ retract x1 & desire ?is idealism ( m9e to be call$ critical4 ,b if x be really an objectionable idealism to conv]t actual ?+s 7n appe>ances7 into m]e repres5tations1 by :at "n %all we call him :o conv]sely *anges m]e repres5tations to ?+s8 ,x may1 ,i ?9k1 be call$ dream+ idealism1 9 contradi/9ction to ! =m]1 :i* may be call$ vision>y1 bo? ( :i* are to be refut$ by my transc5d5tal1 or1 bett]1 critical idealism4 ,,second ,,"p ,,( ,,! ,,transc5d5tal ,,problem4 ,,h[ ,,is ,,! ,,sci5ce ,,( ,,nature ,,possible8 #ad4 ,nature is ! exi/5ce ( ?+s1 s f> z x is det]m9$ accord+ to univ]sal laws4 ,%\ld nature signify ! exi/5ce ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 we c\ld nev] cognise x ei!r a priori or a po/]iori4 ,n a priori1 = h[ c we "k :at belongs to ?+s 9 !mselves1 s9ce ?is nev] c be done by ! dissection ( our concepts 79 analytical judgm5ts78 ,we d n want to "k :at is conta9$ 9 our concept ( a ?+ 7= ! concept describes :at belongs to its logical be+71 b :at is 9 ! actuality ( ! ?+ sup]add$ to our concept1 & by :at ! ?+ itself is det]m9$ 9 its exi/5ce outside ! concept4 ,our und]/&+1 & ! conditions on :i* alone x c connect ! det]m9ations ( ?+s 9 _! exi/5ce1 d n prescribe any rule to ?+s !mselves2 ^! d n con=m to our und]/&+1 b x mu/ con=m itself to !m2 !y mu/ !re=e be fir/ giv5 u 9 ord] to ga!r ^! det]m9ations f !m1 :]e=e !y w\ld n be cognis$ a priori4 ,a cognition ( ! nature ( ?+s 9 !mselves a po/]iori w\ld be equally impossible4 ,=1 if exp]i5ce is to tea* u laws1 to :i* ! exi/5ce ( ?+s is subject1 ^! laws1 if !y reg>d ?+s 9 !mselves1 mu/ belong to !m ( necessity ev5 outside our exp]i5ce4 ,b exp]i5ce tea*es u :at exi/s & h[ x exi/s1 b nev] t x mu/ necess>ily exi/ s & n o!rwise4 ,exp]i5ce !re=e c nev] tea* u ! nature ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 #ae4 ,we nev]!less actually possess a pure sci5ce ( nature 9 :i* are prop\nd$1 a priori & ) all ! necessity requisite to apodeictical propositions1 laws to :i* nature is subject4 ,i ne$ only call to witness t propa$eutic ( natural sci5ce :i*1 "u ! title ( ! univ]sal ,sci5ce ( ,nature1 prec$es all ,physics 7:i* is f\nd$ ^u empirical pr9ciples74 ,9 x we h ,ma!matics appli$ to appe>ance1 & also m]ely discursive pr9ciples 7or ^? d]iv$ f concepts71 :i* con/itute ! philosophical "p ( ! pure cognition ( nature4 ,b !re are sev]al ?+s 9 x1 :i* are n q pure & indep5d5t ( empirical s\rces3 su* z ! concept ( motion1 t ( imp5etrability 7^u :i* ! empirical concept ( matt] re/s71 t ( in]tia1 & _m o!rs1 :i* prev5t its be+ call$ a p]fectly pure sci5ce ( nature4 ,besides1 x only ref]s to objects ( ! ext]nal s5se1 & !re=e does n give an example ( a univ]sal sci5ce ( nature1 9 ! /rict s5se1 = su* a sci5ce mu/ r$uce nature 9 g5]al1 :e!r x reg>ds ! object ( ! ext]nal or t ( ! int]nal s5se 7! object ( ,physics z well z ,psy*ology71 to univ]sal laws4 ,b among ! pr9ciples ( ?is univ]sal physics !re are a few :i* actually h ! requir$ univ]sality2 = in/ance1 ! propositions t sub/ance is p]man5t1 & t e ev5t is det]m9$ by a cause accord+ to con/ant laws1 etc4 ,^! are actually univ]sal laws ( nature1 :i* subsi/ completely a priori4 ,!re is !n 9 fact a pure sci5ce ( nature1 & ! "q arises1 ,h[ is x possible8 #af4 ,! ^w nature assumes yet ano!r mean+1 :i* det]m9es ! object1 :]eas 9 ! =m] s5se x only d5otes ! con=mity to law ,gesetzmssigkeit ( ! det]m9ations ( ! exi/5ce ( ?+s g5]ally4 ,if we consid] x mat]ialit] 7i4e41 9 ! matt] t =ms its objects7 nature is ! complex ( all ! objects ( exp]i5ce4 ,& ) ?is only are we n[ conc]n$1 = besides1 ?+s :i* c nev] be objects ( exp]i5ce1 if !y mu/ be cognis$ z to _! nature1 w\ld oblige u to h rec\rse to concepts ^: mean+ c\ld nev] be giv5 9 concreto 7by any example ( possible exp]i5ce74 ,consequ5tly we mu/ =m = ourselves a li/ ( concepts ( _! nature1 ! reality :]e( 7i4e41 :e!r !y actually ref] to objects1 or are m]e creations ( ?\ght7 c\ld nev] be det]m9$4 ,! cognition ( :at _c be an object ( exp]i5ce w\ld be hyp]physical1 & ) ?+s hyp]physical we are "h n conc]n$1 b only ) ! cognition ( nature1 ! actuality ( :i* c be confirm$ by exp]i5ce1 ?\gh x ! cognition ( nature is possible a priori & prec$es all exp]i5ce4 #ag4 ,! =mal aspect ( nature 9 ?is n>r[] s5se is !re=e ! con=mity to law ( all ! objects ( exp]i5ce1 & s f> z x is cognis$ a priori1 _! necess>y con=mity4 ,b x has j be5 %[n t ! laws ( nature c nev] be cognis$ a priori 9 objects s f> z !y are consid]$ n 9 ref]5ce to possible exp]i5ce1 b z ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,& our inquiry "h ext5ds n to ?+s 9 !mselves 7! prop]ties ( :i* we pass by71 b to ?+s z objects ( possible exp]i5ce1 & ! complex ( ^! is :at we prop]ly designate z nature4 ,& n[ ,i ask1 :5 ! possibility ( a cognition ( nature a priori is 9 "q1 :e!r x is bett] to arrange ! problem ?us3 ,h[ c we cognise a priori t ?+s z objects ( exp]i5ce necess>ily con=m to law8 or ?us3 ,h[ is x possible to cognise a priori ! necess>y con=mity to law ( exp]i5ce itself z reg>ds all its objects g5]ally8 ,closely consid]$1 ! solution ( ! problem1 repres5t$ 9 ei!r way1 am\nts1 ) reg>d to ! pure cognition ( nature 7:i* is ! po9t ( ! "q at issue71 entirely to ! same ?+4 ,= ! subjective laws1 "u :i* alone an empirical cognition ( ?+s is possible1 hold good ( ^! ?+s1 z ,objects ( possible exp]i5ce 7n z ?+s 9 !mselves1 :i* are n consid]$ "h74 ,ei!r ( ! foll[+ /atem5ts means q ! same3 ,a judgm5t ( obs]vation c nev] rank z exp]i5ce1 )\t ! law1 t :5ev] an ev5t is obs]v$1 x is always ref]r$ to "s antec$5t1 :i* x foll[s accord+ to a univ]sal rule4 ,ev]y?+1 ( :i* exp]i5ce tea*es t x happ5s1 mu/ h a cause4 ,x is1 h[ev]1 m comm5dable to *oose ! fir/ =mula4 ,= we c a priori & previ\s to all giv5 objects h a cognition ( ^? conditions1 on :i* alone exp]i5ce is possible1 b nev] ( ! laws to :i* ?+s may 9 !mselves be subject1 )\t ref]5ce to possible exp]i5ce4 ,we _c !re=e /udy ! nature ( ?+s a priori o!rwise ?an by inve/igat+ ! conditions & ! univ]sal 7?\gh subjective7 laws1 "u :i* alone su* a cognition z exp]i5ce 7z to m]e =m7 is possible1 & we det]m9e accord+ly ! possibility ( ?+s1 z objects ( exp]i5ce4 ,= if ,i %\ld *oose ! second =mula1 & seek ! conditions a priori1 on :i* nature z an object ( exp]i5ce is possible1 ,i might easily fall into error1 & fancy t ,i 0 speak+ ( nature z a ?+ 9 itself1 & !n move r\nd 9 endless circles1 9 a va9 se>* = laws conc]n+ ?+s ( :i* no?+ is giv5 me4 ,accord+ly we %all "h be conc]n$ ) exp]i5ce only1 & ! univ]sal conditions ( its possibility :i* are giv5 a priori4 ,!nce we %all det]m9e nature z ! :ole object ( all possible exp]i5ce4 ,i ?9k x w be und]/ood t ,i "h d n mean ! rules ( ! obs]vation ( a nature t is already giv51 = ^! already presuppose exp]i5ce4 ,i d n mean h[ 7?r\gh exp]i5ce7 we c /udy ! laws ( nature2 = ^! w\ld n !n be laws a priori1 & w\ld yield u no pure sci5ce ( nature2 b ,i mean to ask h[ ! conditions a priori ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce are at ! same "t ! s\rces f :i* all ! univ]sal laws ( nature mu/ be d]iv$4 #ah4 ,9 ! fir/ place we mu/ /ate t1 :ile all judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce 7,erfahrungsur!ile7 are empirical 7i4e41 h _! gr\nd 9 imm$iate s5se p]ception71 vice v]sa1 all empirical judgm5ts 7empiris*e ,ur!ile7 are n judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce1 b1 besides ! empirical1 & 9 g5]al besides :at is giv5 to ! s5su\s intuition1 p>ticul> concepts mu/ yet be sup]add$--concepts :i* h _! orig9 q a priori 9 ! pure und]/&+1 & "u :i* e p]ception mu/ be fir/ ( all subsum$ & !n by _! means *ang$ into exp]i5ce4#aa #aa ,empirical judgm5ts 7empiris*e ,ur!ile7 are ei!r m]e /atem5ts ( fact1 viz41 records ( a p]ception1 or /atem5ts ( a natural law1 imply+ a causal connexion betwe5 two facts4 ,! =m] ,kant calls judgm5ts ( p]ception 7,wahrnehmungsur!ile7 ! latt] judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce 7,erhfahrungsur!ile74--,ed4 ,empirical judgm5ts1 s f> z !y h objective validity1 are judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce2 b ^? :i* are only subjectively valid1 ,i "n m]e judgm5ts ( p]ception4 ,! latt] require no pure concept ( ! und]/&+1 b only ! logical connexion ( p]ception 9 a ?9k+ subject4 ,b ! =m] always require1 besides ! repres5tation ( ! s5su\s intuition1 p>ticul> concepts orig9ally begott5 9 ! und]/&+1 :i* produce ! objective validity ( ! judgm5t ( exp]i5ce4 ,all our judgm5ts are at fir/ m]ely judgm5ts ( p]ception2 !y hold good only = u 7i4e41 = our subject71 & we d n till aft]w>ds give !m a new ref]5ce 7to an object71 & desire t !y %all always hold good = u & 9 ! same way = ev]ybody else2 = :5 a judgm5t agrees ) an object1 all judgm5ts conc]n+ ! same object mu/ likewise agree among !mselves1 & ?us ! objective validity ( ! judgm5t ( exp]i5ce signifies no?+ else ?an its necess>y univ]sality ( application4 ,& conv]sely :5 we h reason to consid] a judgm5t necess>ily univ]sal 7:i* nev] dep5ds ^u p]ception1 b ^u ! pure concept ( ! und]/&+1 "u :i* ! p]ception is subsum$71 we mu/ consid] x objective also1 t is1 t x expresses n m]ely a ref]5ce ( our p]ception to a subject1 b a quality ( ! object4 ,= !re w\ld be no reason = ! judgm5ts ( o!r m5 necess>ily agree+ ) m9e1 if x 7 n ! unity ( ! object to :i* !y all ref]1 & ) :i* !y accord2 h5ce !y mu/ all agree ) "o ano!r4 #ai4 ,!re=e objective validity & necess>y univ]sality 7= ev]ybody7 are equival5t t]ms1 & ?\gh we d n "k ! object 9 itself1 yet :5 we consid] a judgm5t z univ]sal1 & also necess>y1 we und]/& x to h objective validity4 ,by ?is judgm5t we cognise ! object 7?\gh x rema9s unkn[n z x is 9 itself7 by ! univ]sal & necess>y connexion ( ! giv5 p]ceptions4 ,z ?is is ! case ) all objects ( s5se1 judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce take _! objective validity n f ! imm$iate cognition ( ! object 7:i* is impossible71 b f ! condition ( univ]sal validity 9 empirical judgm5ts1 :i*1 z already said1 nev] re/s ^u empirical1 or1 9 %ort1 s5su\s conditions1 b ^u a pure concept ( ! und]/&+4 ,! object always rema9s unkn[n 9 itself2 b :5 by ! concept ( ! und]/&+ ! connexion ( ! repres5tations ( ! object1 :i* are giv5 to our s5sibility1 is det]m9$ z univ]sally valid1 ! object is det]m9$ by ?is relation1 & x is ! judgm5t t is objective4 ,to illu/rate ! matt]3 ,:5 we say1 ! room is w>m1 sug> sweet1 & wormwood bitt]#ab--we h only subjectively valid judgm5ts4 ,i d n at all expect t ,i or any o!r p]son %all always f9d x z ,i n[ d2 ea* ( ^! s5t5ces only expresses a relation ( two s5sations to ! same subject1 to myself1 & t only 9 my pres5t /ate ( p]ception2 consequ5tly !y are n valid ( ! object4 ,su* are judgm5ts ( p]ception4 ,judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce are ( q a diff]5t nature4 ,:at exp]i5ce tea*es me "u c]ta9 circum/ances1 x mu/ always tea* me & ev]ybody2 & its validity is n limit$ to ! subject nor to its /ate at a p>ticul> "t4 ,h5ce ,i pron\nce all su* judgm5ts z be+ objectively valid4 ,= in/ance1 :5 ,i say ! air is ela/ic1 ?is judgm5t is z yet a judgm5t ( p]ception only--,i d no?+ b ref] two ( my s5sations to "o ano!r4 ,b1 if ,i w\ld h x call$ a judgm5t ( exp]i5ce1 ,i require ?is connexion to /& "u a condition1 :i* makes x univ]sally valid4 ,i desire !re=e t ,i & ev]ybody else %\ld always connect necess>ily ! same p]ceptions "u ! same circum/ances4 #ab ,i freely grant t ^! examples d n repres5t su* judgm5ts ( p]ception z ev] c\ld become judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce1 ev5 ?\gh a concept ( ! und]/&+ 7 sup]add$1 because !y ref] m]ely to feel+1 :i* ev]ybody kn[s to be m]ely subjective1 & :i* ( c\rse c nev] be attribut$ to ! object1 & consequ5tly nev] become objective4 ,i only wi%$ to give "h an example ( a judgm5t t is m]ely subjectively valid1 conta9+ no gr\nd = univ]sal validity1 & !reby = a relation to ! object4 ,an example ( ! judgm5ts ( p]ception1 :i* become judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce by sup]add$ concepts ( ! und]/&+1 w be giv5 9 ! next note4 #bj4 ,we mu/ consequ5tly analyse exp]i5ce 9 ord] to see :at is conta9$ 9 ?is product ( ! s5ses & ( ! und]/&+1 & h[ ! judgm5t ( exp]i5ce itself is possible4 ,! f\ndation is ! intuition ( :i* ,i become consci\s1 i4e41 p]ception 7p]ceptio71 :i* p]ta9s m]ely to ! s5ses4 ,b 9 ! next place1 !re are acts ( judg+ 7:i* belong only to ! und]/&+74 ,b ?is judg+ may be tw(old--fir/1 ,i may m]ely comp>e p]ceptions & connect !m 9 a p>ticul> /ate ( my consci\sness2 or1 secondly1 ,i may connect !m 9 consci\sness g5]ally4 ,! =m] judgm5t is m]ely a judgm5t ( p]ception1 & ( subjective validity only3 x is m]ely a connexion ( p]ceptions 9 my m5tal /ate1 )\t ref]5ce to ! object4 ,h5ce x is n1 z is commonly imag9$1 en\gh = exp]i5ce to comp>e p]ceptions & to connect !m 9 consci\sness ?r\gh judgm5t2 !re arises no univ]sality & necessity1 = :i* alone judgm5ts c become objectively valid & be call$ exp]i5ce4 ,q ano!r judgm5t !re=e is requir$ be=e p]ception c become exp]i5ce4 ,! giv5 intuition mu/ be subsum$ "u a concept1 :i* det]m9es ! =m ( judg+ 9 g5]al relatively to ! intuition1 connects its empirical consci\sness 9 consci\sness g5]ally1 & !reby procures univ]sal validity = empirical judgm5ts4 ,a concept ( ?is nature is a pure a priori concept ( ! ,und]/&+1 :i* does no?+ b det]m9e = an intuition ! g5]al way 9 :i* x c be us$ = judgm5ts4 ,let ! concept be t ( cause1 !n x det]m9es ! intuition :i* is subsum$ "u x1 e4g41 t ( air1 relative to judgm5ts 9 g5]al1 viz41 ! concept ( air s]ves ) reg>d to its expansion 9 ! relation ( antec$5t to consequ5t 9 a hypo!tical judgm5t4 ,! concept ( cause accord+ly is a pure concept ( ! und]/&+1 :i* is totally disp>ate f all possible p]ception1 & only s]ves to det]m9e ! repres5tation subsum$ "u x1 relatively to judgm5ts 9 g5]al1 & s to make a univ]sally valid judgm5t possible4 ,be=e1 !re=e1 a judgm5t ( p]ception c become a judgm5t ( exp]i5ce1 x is requisite t ! p]ception %\ld be subsum$ "u "s su* a concept ( ! und]/&+2 = in/ance1 air ranks "u ! concept ( causes1 :i* det]m9es our judgm5t ab\t x 9 reg>d to its expansion z hypo!tical4#ac ,!reby ! expansion ( ! air is repres5t$ n z m]ely belong+ to ! p]ception ( ! air 9 my pres5t /ate or 9 sev]al /ates ( m9e1 or 9 ! /ate ( p]ception ( o!rs1 b z belong+ to x necess>ily4 ,! judgm5t1 ! air is ela/ic1 becomes univ]sally valid1 & a judgm5t ( exp]i5ce1 only by c]ta9 judgm5ts prec$+ x1 :i* subsume ! intuition ( air "u ! concept ( cause & effect3 & !y !reby det]m9e ! p]ceptions n m]ely z reg>ds "o ano!r 9 me1 b relatively to ! =m ( judg+ 9 g5]al1 :i* is "h hypo!tical1 & 9 ?is way !y r5d] ! empirical judgm5t univ]sally valid4 #ac ,z an easi] example1 we may take ! foll[+3 ,:5 ! sun %9es on ! /one1 x gr[s w>m4 ,?is judgm5t1 h[ev] (t5 ,i & o!rs may h p]ceiv$ x1 is a m]e judgm5t ( p]ception1 & conta9s no necessity2 p]ceptions are only usually conjo9$ 9 ?is mann]4 ,b if ,i say1 ,! sun w>ms ! /one1 ,i add to ! p]ception a concept ( ! und]/&+1 viz41 t ( cause1 :i* connects ) ! concept ( sun%9e t ( heat z a necess>y consequ5ce1 & ! syn!tical judgm5t becomes ( necessity univ]sally valid1 viz41 objective1 & is conv]t$ f a p]ception into exp]i5ce4 ,if all our syn!tical judgm5ts are analys$ s f> z !y are objectively valid1 x w be f\nd t !y nev] consi/ ( m]e intuitions connect$ only 7z is commonly believ$7 by comp>ison into a judgm5t2 b t !y w\ld be impossible 7 n a pure concept ( ! und]/&+ sup]add$ to ! concepts ab/ract$ f intuition1 "u :i* concept ^! latt] are subsum$1 & 9 ?is mann] only comb9$ into an objectively valid judgm5t4 ,ev5 ! judgm5ts ( pure ma!matics 9 _! simple/ axioms are n exempt f ?is condition4 ,! pr9ciple1 a /raight l9e is ! %orte/ betwe5 two po9ts1 presupposes t ! l9e is subsum$ "u ! concept ( quantity1 :i* c]ta9ly is no m]e intuition1 b has its seat 9 ! und]/&+ alone1 & s]ves to det]m9e ! intuition 7( ! l9e7 ) reg>d to ! judgm5ts :i* may be made ab\t x1 relatively to _! quantity1 t is1 to plurality 7z judicia plurativa74#ad ,= "u !m x is und]/ood t 9 a giv5 intuition !re is conta9$ a plurality ( homog5\s p>ts4 #ad ,?is "n seems pref]able to ! t]m p>ticul>ia1 :i* is us$ = ^! judgm5ts 9 logic4 ,= ! latt] implies ! idea t !y are n univ]sal4 ,b :5 ,i />t f unity 79 s+le judgm5ts7 & s proce$ to univ]sality1 ,i mu/ n ev5 indirectly & negatively imply any ref]5ce to univ]sality4 ,i ?9k plurality m]ely )\t univ]sality1 & n ! exception f univ]sality4 ,?is is necess>y1 if logical consid]ations %all =m ! basis ( ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+4 ,h[ev]1 !re is no ne$ ( mak+ *anges 9 logic4 #ba4 ,to prove1 !n1 ! possibility ( exp]i5ce s f> z x re/s ^u pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ a priori1 we mu/ fir/ repres5t :at belongs to judgm5ts 9 g5]al & ! v>i\s functions ( ! und]/&+1 9 a complete table4 ,= ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ mu/ run p>allel to ^! functions1 z su* concepts are no?+ m ?an concepts ( intuitions 9 g5]al1 s f> z ^! are det]m9$ by "o or o!r ( ^! functions ( judg+1 9 !mselves1 t is1 necess>ily & univ]sally4 ,h]eby also ! a priori pr9ciples ( ! possibility ( all exp]i5ce1 z ( an objectively valid empirical cognition1 w be precisely det]m9$4 ,= !y are no?+ b propositions by :i* all p]ception is 7"u c]ta9 univ]sal conditions ( intuition7 subsum$ "u ^? pure concepts ( ! und]/&+4 ,logical ,table ( ,judgm5ts4 #a4 #b4 ,z to ,quantity4 ,z to ,quality4 ,univ]sal4 ,affirmative4 ,p>ticul>4 ,negative4 ,s+ul>4 ,inf9ite4 #c4 #d4 ,z to ,relation4 ,z to ,modality4 ,categorical4 ,problematical4 ,hypo!tical4 ,ass]torial4 ,disjunctive4 ,apodeictical4 ,transc5d5tal ,table ( ! ,pure ,concepts ( ! ,und]/&+4 #a4 #b4 ,z to ,quantity4 ,z to ,quality4 ,unity 7! ,measure74 ,reality4 ,plurality 7! ,quantity74 ,negation4 ,totality 7! ,:ole74 ,limitation4 #c4 #d4 ,z to ,relation4 ,z to ,modality4 ,sub/ance4 ,possibility4 ,cause4 ,exi/5ce4 ,community4 ,necessity4 ,pure ,physiological ,table ( ! ,univ]sal ,pr9ciples ( ! ,sci5ce ( ,nature4 #a4 #b4 ,axioms ( ,intuition4 ,anticipations ( ,p]ception4 #c4 #d4 ,analogies ( ,exp]i5ce4 ,po/ulates ( ,empirical ,?9k+ g5]ally4 #ba;a4 ,9 ord] to comprise ! :ole matt] 9 "o idea1 x is fir/ necess>y to rem9d ! read] t we are discuss+ n ! orig9 ( exp]i5ce1 b ( t :i* lies 9 exp]i5ce4 ,! =m] p]ta9s to empirical psy*ology1 & w\ld ev5 !n nev] be adequately expla9$ )\t ! latt]1 :i* belongs to ! ,critique ( cognition1 & p>ticul>ly ( ! und]/&+4 ,exp]i5ce consi/s ( intuitions1 :i* belong to ! s5sibility1 & ( judgm5ts1 :i* are entirely a "w ( ! und]/&+4 ,b ! judgm5ts1 :i* ! und]/&+ =ms alone f s5su\s intuitions1 are f> f be+ judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce4 ,= 9 ! "o case ! judgm5t connects only ! p]ceptions z !y are giv5 9 ! s5su\s intuition1 :ile 9 ! o!r ! judgm5ts mu/ express :at exp]i5ce 9 g5]al1 & n :at ! m]e p]ception 7:i* possesses only subjective validity7 conta9s4 ,! judgm5t ( exp]i5ce mu/ !re=e add to ! s5su\s intuition & its logical connexion 9 a judgm5t 7aft] x has be5 r5d]$ univ]sal by comp>ison7 some?+ t det]m9es ! syn!tical judgm5t z necess>y & !re=e z univ]sally valid4 ,?is c be no?+ else ?an t concept :i* repres5ts ! intuition z det]m9$ 9 itself ) reg>d to "o =m ( judgm5t r ?an ano!r1 viz41 a concept ( t syn!tical unity ( intuitions :i* c only be repres5t$ by a giv5 logical function ( judgm5ts4 #bb4 ,! sum ( ! matt] is ?is3 ! bus9ess ( ! s5ses is to intuite--t ( ! und]/&+ is to ?9k4 ,b ?9k+ is unit+ repres5tations 9 "o consci\sness4 ,?is union orig9ates ei!r m]ely relative to ! subject1 & is accid5tal & subjective1 or is absolute1 & is necess>y or objective4 ,! union ( repres5tations 9 "o consci\sness is judgm5t4 ,?9k+ !re=e is ! same z judg+1 or ref]r+ repres5tations to judgm5ts 9 g5]al4 ,h5ce judgm5ts are ei!r m]ely subjective1 :5 repres5tations are ref]r$ to a consci\sness 9 "o subject only1 & unit$ 9 x1 or objective1 :5 !y are unit$ 9 a consci\sness g5]ally1 t is1 necess>ily4 ,! logical functions ( all judgm5ts are b v>i\s modes ( unit+ repres5tations 9 consci\sness4 ,b if !y s]ve = concepts1 !y are concepts ( _! necess>y union 9 a consci\sness1 & s pr9ciples ( objectively valid judgm5ts4 ,?is union 9 a consci\sness is ei!r analytical1 by id5tity1 or syn!tical1 by ! comb9ation & addition ( v>i\s repres5tations "o to ano!r4 ,exp]i5ce consi/s 9 ! syn!tical connexion ( ph5om5a 7p]ceptions7 9 consci\sness1 s f> z ?is connexion is necess>y4 ,h5ce ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ are ^? "u :i* all p]ceptions mu/ be subsum$ ere !y c s]ve = judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce1 9 :i* ! syn!tical unity ( ! p]ceptions is repres5t$ z necess>y & univ]sally valid4#ae #ae ,b h[ does ?is proposition1 t judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce conta9 necessity 9 ! syn!sis ( p]ceptions1 agree ) my /atem5t s (t5 be=e inculcat$1 t exp]i5ce z cognition a po/]iori c af=d cont+5t judgm5ts only8 ,:5 ,i say t exp]i5ce tea*es me some?+1 ,i mean only ! p]ception t lies 9 exp]i5ce1--= example1 t heat always foll[s ! %9+ ( ! sun on a /one2 consequ5tly ! proposition ( exp]i5ce is always s f> accid5tal4 ,t ?is heat necess>ily foll[s ! %9+ ( ! sun is conta9$ inde$ 9 ! judgm5t ( exp]i5ce 7by means ( ! concept ( cause71 yet is a fact n le>n$ by exp]i5ce2 = conv]sely1 exp]i5ce is fir/ ( all g5]at$ by ?is addition ( ! concept ( ! und]/&+ 7( cause7 to p]ception4 ,h[ p]ception atta9s ?is addition may be se5 by ref]r+ 9 ! ,critique itself to ! section on ! ,transc5d5tal faculty ( ,judgm5t viz41 9 ! fir/ edition1 ,von dem ,s*ematismus d] re95 ,v]/&sbegriffe4 #bc4 ,judgm5ts1 :5 consid]$ m]ely z ! condition ( ! union ( giv5 repres5tations 9 a consci\sness1 are rules4 ,^! rules1 s f> z !y repres5t ! union z necess>y1 are rules a priori1 & s f> z !y _c be d$uc$ f high] rules1 are fundam5tal pr9ciples4 ,b 9 reg>d to ! possibility ( all exp]i5ce1 m]ely 9 relation to ! =m ( ?9k+ 9 x1 no conditions ( judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce are high] ?an ^? :i* br+ ! ph5om5a1 accord+ to ! v>i\s =m ( _! intuition1 "u pure concepts ( ! und]/&+1 & r5d] ! empirical judgm5t objectively valid4 ,^! concepts are !re=e ! a priori pr9ciples ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,! pr9ciples ( possible exp]i5ce are !n at ! same "t univ]sal laws ( nature1 :i* c be cognis$ a priori4 ,& ?us ! problem 9 our second "q1 ,h[ is ! pure ,sci5ce ( ,nature possible8 is solv$4 ,= ! sy/em :i* is requir$ = ! =m ( a sci5ce is to be met ) 9 p]fection "h1 because1 beyond ! above-m5tion$ =mal conditions ( all judgm5ts 9 g5]al (f]$ 9 logic1 no o!rs are possible1 & ^! con/itute a logical sy/em4 ,! concepts gr\nd$ !reupon1 :i* conta9 ! a priori conditions ( all syn!tical & necess>y judgm5ts1 accord+ly con/itute a transc5d5tal sy/em4 ,f9ally ! pr9ciples1 by means ( :i* all ph5om5a are subsum$ "u ^! concepts1 con/itute a physical#af sy/em1 t is1 a sy/em ( nature1 :i* prec$es all empirical cognition ( nature1 makes x ev5 possible1 & h5ce may 9 /rictness be d5om9at$ ! univ]sal & pure sci5ce ( nature4 #af ,kant uses ! t]m physiological 9 its etymological mean+ z p]ta9+ to ! sci5ce ( physics1 i4e41 nature 9 g5]al1 n z we use ! t]m n[ z p]ta9+ to ! functions ( ! liv+ body4 ,accord+ly x has be5 translat$ physical4--,ed4 #bd4 ,! fir/ "o#ag ( ! physiological pr9ciples subsumes all ph5om5a1 z intuitions 9 space & "t1 "u ! concept ( ,quantity1 & is s f> a pr9ciple ( ! application ( ,ma!matics to exp]i5ce4 ,! second "o subsumes ! empirical elem5t1 viz41 s5sation :i* d5otes ! real 9 intuitions1 n inde$ directly "u ! concept ( quantity1 because s5sation is n an intuition t conta9s ei!r space or "t1 ?\gh x places ! respective object into bo?4 ,b /ill !re is betwe5 reality 7s5se-repres5tation7 & ! z]o1 or total void ( intuition 9 "t1 a diff]5ce :i* has a quantity4 ,= betwe5 e giv5 degree ( light & ( d>kness1 betwe5 e degree ( heat & ( absolute cold1 betwe5 e degree ( weight & ( absolute lightness1 betwe5 e degree ( occupi$ space & ( totally void space1 dim9i%+ degrees c be conceiv$1 9 ! same mann] z betwe5 consci\sness & total unconsci\sness 7! d>kness ( a psy*ological blank7 ev] dim9i%+ degrees obta94 ,h5ce !re is no p]ception t c prove an absolute abs5ce ( x2 = in/ance1 no psy*ological d>kness t _c be consid]$ z a k9d ( consci\sness4 ,?is occurs 9 all cases ( s5sation1 & s ! und]/&+ c anticipate ev5 s5sations1 :i* con/itute ! peculi> quality ( empirical repres5tations 7appe>ances71 by means ( ! pr9ciple3 t !y all h 7consequ5tly t :at is real 9 all ph5om5a has7 a degree4 ,"h is ! second application ( ma!matics 7ma!sis int5sorum7 to ! sci5ce ( nature4 #ag ,! ?ree foll[+ p>agraphs w h>dly be und]/ood unless ref]5ce be made to :at ! ,critique itself says on ! subject ( ! ,pr9ciples2 !y w1 h[ev]1 be ( s]vice 9 giv+ a g5]al view ( ! ,pr9ciples1 & 9 fix+ ! att5tion on ! ma9 po9ts4 #be4 ,an5t ! relation ( appe>ances m]ely ) a view to _! exi/5ce1 ! det]m9ation is n ma!matical b dynamical1 & c nev] be objectively valid1 consequ5tly nev] fit = exp]i5ce1 if x does n come "u a priori pr9ciples by :i* ! cognition ( exp]i5ce relative to appe>ances becomes ev5 possible4 ,h5ce appe>ances mu/ be subsum$ "u ! concept ( ,sub/ance1 :i* is ! f\ndation ( all det]m9ation ( exi/5ce1 z a concept ( ! ?+ itself2 or secondly--s f> z1 a succession is f\nd among ph5om5a1 t is1 an ev5t--"u ! concept ( an ,effect ) ref]5ce to ,cause2 or la/ly--s f> z coexi/5ce is to be kn[n objectively1 t is1 by a judgm5t ( exp]i5ce--"u ! concept ( ,community 7action & reaction74#ah ,?us a priori pr9ciples =m ! basis ( objectively valid1 ?\gh empirical judgm5ts1 t is1 ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce s f> z x mu/ connect objects z exi/+ 9 nature4 ,^! pr9ciples are ! prop] laws ( nature1 :i* may be t]m$ dynamical4 #ah ,kant uses "h ! equivocal t]m ,we*selwirkung4--,ed4 ,f9ally ! cognition ( ! agreem5t & connexion n only ( appe>ances among !mselves 9 exp]i5ce1 b ( _! relation to exp]i5ce 9 g5]al1 belongs to ! judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce4 ,?is relation conta9s ei!r _! agreem5t ) ! =mal conditions1 :i* ! und]/&+ cognises1 or _! coh]5ce ) ! mat]ials ( ! s5ses & ( p]ception1 or comb9es bo? into "o concept4 ,consequ5tly x conta9s ,possibility1 ,actuality1 & ,necessity accord+ to univ]sal laws ( nature2 & ?is con/itutes ! physical doctr9e ( me?od1 or ! di/9ction ( tru? & ( hypo!ses1 & ! b\nds ( ! c]ta9ty ( ! latt]4 #bf4 ,! ?ird table ( ,pr9ciples drawn f ! nature ( ! und]/&+ itself aft] ! critical me?od1 %[s an inh]5t p]fection1 :i* raises x f> above e o!r table :i* has hi!rto ?\gh 9 va9 be5 tri$ or may yet be tri$ by analys+ ! objects !mselves dogmatically4 ,x exhibits all syn!tical a priori pr9ciples completely & accord+ to "o pr9ciple1 viz41 ! faculty ( judg+ 9 g5]al1 con/itut+ ! ess5ce ( exp]i5ce z reg>ds ! und]/&+1 s t we c be c]ta9 t !re are no m su* pr9ciples1 a satisfaction su* z c nev] be atta9$ by ! dogmatical me?od4 ,yet is ?is n all3 !re is a /ill great] m]it 9 x4 ,we mu/ c>efully be> 9 m9d ! pro( :i* %[s ! possibility ( ?is cognition a priori1 & at ! same "t limits all su* pr9ciples to a condition :i* mu/ nev] be lo/ sight (1 if we desire x n to be misund]/ood1 & ext5d$ 9 use beyond ! orig9al s5se :i* ! und]/&+ atta*es to x4 ,?is limit is t !y conta9 no?+ b ! conditions ( possible exp]i5ce 9 g5]al s f> z x is subject$ to laws a priori4 ,consequ5tly ,i d n say1 t ?+s 9 !mselves possess a quantity1 t _! actuality possesses a degree1 _! exi/5ce a connexion ( accid5ts 9 a sub/ance1 etc4 ,?is nobody c prove1 because su* a syn!tical connexion f m]e concepts1 )\t any ref]5ce to s5su\s intuition on ! "o side1 or connexion ( x 9 a possible exp]i5ce on ! o!r1 is absolutely impossible4 ,! ess5tial limitation ( ! concepts 9 ^! pr9ciples !n is3 ,t all ?+s /& necess>ily a priori "u ! a=e-m5tion$ conditions1 z objects ( exp]i5ce only4 ,h5ce !re foll[s secondly a specifically peculi> mode ( pro( ( ^! pr9ciples3 !y are n directly ref]r$ to appe>ances & to _! relations1 b to ! possibility ( exp]i5ce1 ( :i* appe>ances con/itute ! matt] only1 n ! =m4 ,?us !y are ref]r$ to objectively & univ]sally valid syn!tical propositions1 9 :i* we di/+ui% judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce f ^? ( p]ception4 ,?is takes place because appe>ances1 z m]e intuitions1 occupy+ a "p ( space & "t1 come "u ! concept ( ,quantity1 :i* unites _! multiplicity a priori accord+ to rules syn!tically4 ,aga91 s f> z ! p]ception conta9s1 besides intuition1 s5sibility1 & betwe5 ! latt] & no?+ 7i4e41 ! total disappe>ance ( s5sibility71 !re is an ev] decreas+ transition1 x is app>5t t t :i* is 9 appe>ances mu/ h a degree1 s f> z x 7viz41 ! p]ception7 does n itself occupy any "p ( space or ( "t4#ai ,/ill ! transition to actuality f empty "t or empty space is only possible 9 "t2 consequ5tly ?\gh s5sibility1 z ! quality ( empirical intuition1 c nev] be cognis$ a priori1 by its specific diff]5ce f o!r s5sibilities1 yet x c1 9 a possible exp]i5ce 9 g5]al1 z a quantity ( p]ception be int5sely di/+ui%$ f e o!r simil> p]ception4 ,h5ce ! application ( ma!matics to nature1 z reg>ds ! s5su\s intuition by :i* nature is giv5 to u1 becomes possible & is ?us det]m9$4 #ai ,heat & light are 9 a small space j z l>ge z to degree z 9 a l>ge "o2 9 l mann] ! int]nal repres5tations1 pa91 consci\sness 9 g5]al1 :e!r !y la/ a %ort or a long "t1 ne$ n v>y z to ! degree4 ,h5ce ! quantity is "h 9 a po9t & 9 a mom5t j z great z 9 any space or "t h[ev] great4 ,degrees are !re=e capable ( increase1 b n 9 intuition1 r 9 m]e s5sation 7or ! quantity ( ! degree ( an intuition74 ,h5ce !y c only be e/imat$ quantitatively by ! relation ( #a to #j1 viz41 by _! capability ( decreas+ by inf9ite int]m$iate degrees to disappe>ance1 or ( increas+ f naught ?r\gh inf9ite gradations to a det]m9ate s5sation 9 a c]ta9 "t4 ,quantitas qualitatis e/ gradus i4e41 ! degrees ( quality mu/ be measur$ by equality4 ,above all1 ! read] mu/ pay att5tion to ! mode ( pro( ( ! pr9ciples :i* occur "u ! title ( ,analogies ( exp]i5ce4 ,= ^! d n ref] to ! g5esis ( intuitions1 z d ! pr9ciples ( appli$ ma!matics1 b to ! connexion ( _! exi/5ce 9 exp]i5ce2 & ?is c be no?+ b ! det]m9ation ( _! exi/5ce 9 "t accord+ to necess>y laws1 "u :i* alone ! connexion is objectively valid1 & ?us becomes exp]i5ce4 ,! pro( !re=e does n turn on ! syn!tical unity 9 ! connexion ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 b m]ely ( p]ceptions1 & ( ^! n 9 reg>d to _! matt]1 b to ! det]m9ation ( "t & ( ! relation ( _! exi/5ce 9 x1 accord+ to univ]sal laws4 ,if ! empirical det]m9ation 9 relative "t is inde$ objectively valid 7i4e41 exp]i5ce71 ^! univ]sal laws conta9 ! necess>y det]m9ation ( exi/5ce 9 "t g5]ally 7viz41 accord+ to a rule ( ! und]/&+ a priori74 ,9 ^! ,prolegom5a ,i _c fur!r descant on ! subject1 b my read] 7:o has probably be5 long accu/om$ to consid] exp]i5ce a m]e empirical syn!sis ( p]ceptions1 & h5ce n consid]$ t x goes mu* beyond !m1 z x imp>ts to empirical judgm5ts univ]sal validity1 & = t purpose requires a pure & a priori unity ( ! und]/&+7 is recomm5d$ to pay special att5tion to ?is di/9ction ( exp]i5ce f a m]e aggregate ( p]ceptions1 & to judge ! mode ( pro( f ?is po9t ( view4 #bg4 ,n[ we are prep>$ to remove ,hume's d\bt4 ,he ju/ly ma9ta9s1 t we _c compreh5d by reason ! possibility ( ,causality1 t is1 ( ! ref]5ce ( ! exi/5ce ( "o ?+ to ! exi/5ce ( ano!r1 :i* is necessitat$ by ! =m]4 ,i add1 t we compreh5d j z little ! concept ( ,subsi/5ce1 t is1 ! necessity t at ! f\ndation ( ! exi/5ce ( ?+s !re lies a subject :i* _c itself be a pr$icate ( any o!r ?+2 nay1 we _c ev5 =m a notion ( ! possibility ( su* a ?+ 7?\gh we c po9t out examples ( its use 9 exp]i5ce74 ,! v same 9 compreh5sibility affects ! ,community ( ?+s1 z we _c compreh5d h[ f ! /ate ( "o ?+ an inf]5ce to ! /ate ( q ano!r ?+ beyond x1 & vice v]sa1 c be drawn1 & h[ sub/ances :i* h ea* _! own sep>ate exi/5ce %\ld dep5d ^u "o ano!r necess>ily4 ,b ,i am v f> f hold+ ^! concepts to be d]iv$ m]ely f exp]i5ce1 & ! necessity repres5t$ 9 !m1 to be imag9>y & a m]e illusion produc$ 9 u by long habit4 ,on ! contr>y1 ,i h amply %[n1 t !y & ! !orems d]iv$ f !m are firmly e/abli%$ a priori1 or be=e all exp]i5ce1 & h _! und\bt$ objective value1 ?\gh only ) reg>d to exp]i5ce4 #bh4 ,?\gh ,i h no notion ( su* a connexion ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 t !y c ei!r exi/ z sub/ances1 or act z causes1 or /& 9 community ) o!rs 7z p>ts ( a real :ole71 & ,i c j z little conceive su* prop]ties 9 appe>ances z su* 7because ^? concepts conta9 no?+ t lies 9 ! appe>ances1 b only :at ! und]/&+ alone mu/ ?9k73 we h yet a notion ( su* a connexion ( repres5tations 9 our und]/&+1 & 9 judgm5ts g5]ally2 consi/+ 9 ?is t repres5tations appe> 9 "o sort ( judgm5ts z subject 9 relation to pr$icates1 9 ano!r z reason 9 relation to consequ5ces1 & 9 a ?ird z p>ts1 :i* con/itute toge!r a total possible cognition4 ,besides we cognise a priori t )\t consid]+ ! repres5tation ( an object z det]m9$ 9 "s ( ^! respects1 we c h no valid cognition ( ! object1 &1 if we %\ld occupy ourselves ab\t ! object 9 itself1 !re is no possible attribute1 by :i* ,i c\ld "k t x is det]m9$ "u any ( ^! aspects1 t is1 "u ! concept ei!r ( sub/ance1 or ( cause1 or 79 relation to o!r sub/ances7 ( community1 = ,i h no notion ( ! possibility ( su* a connexion ( exi/5ce4 ,b ! "q is n h[ ?+s 9 !mselves1 b h[ ! empirical cognition ( ?+s is det]m9$1 z reg>ds ! above aspects ( judgm5ts 9 g5]al1 t is1 h[ ?+s1 z objects ( exp]i5ce1 c & %all be subsum$ "u ^! concepts ( ! und]/&+4 ,& !n x is cle>1 t ,i completely compreh5d n only ! possibility1 b also ! necessity ( subsum+ all ph5om5a "u ^! concepts1 t is1 ( us+ !m = pr9ciples ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 #bi4 ,:5 mak+ an exp]im5t ) ,hume's problematical concept 78 crux metaphysicorum71 ! concept ( cause1 we h1 9 ! fir/ place1 giv5 a priori1 by means ( logic1 ! =m ( a conditional judgm5t 9 g5]al1 i4e41 we h "o giv5 cognition z antec$5t & ano!r z consequ5ce4 ,b x is possible1 t 9 p]ception we may meet ) a rule ( relation1 :i* runs ?us3 t a c]ta9 ph5om5on is con/antly foll[$ by ano!r 7?\gh n conv]sely71 & ?is is a case = me to use ! hypo!tical judgm5t1 &1 = in/ance1 to say1 x ! sun %9es long en\gh ^u a body1 x gr[s w>m4 ,"h !re is inde$ z yet no necessity ( connexion1 or concept ( cause4 ,b ,i proce$ & say1 t if ?is proposition1 :i* is m]ely a subjective connexion ( p]ceptions1 is to be a judgm5t ( exp]i5ce1 x mu/ be consid]$ z necess>y & univ]sally valid4 ,su* a proposition w\ld be1 ! sun is by its light ! cause ( heat4 ,! empirical rule is n[ consid]$ z a law1 & z valid n m]ely ( appe>ances b valid ( !m = ! purposes ( a possible exp]i5ce :i* requires univ]sal & !re=e necess>ily valid rules4 ,i !re=e easily compreh5d ! concept ( cause1 z a concept necess>ily belong+ to ! m]e =m ( exp]i5ce1 & its possibility z a syn!tical union ( p]ceptions 9 consci\sness g5]ally2 b ,i d n at all compreh5d ! possibility ( a ?+ g5]ally z a cause1 because ! concept ( cause d5otes a condition n at all belong+ to ?+s1 b to exp]i5ce4 ,x is no?+ 9 fact b an objectively valid cognition ( appe>ances & ( _! succession1 s f> z ! antec$5t c be conjo9$ ) ! consequ5t accord+ to ! rule ( hypo!tical judgm5ts4 #cj4 ,h5ce if ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ d n ref] to objects ( exp]i5ce b to ?+s 9 !mselves 7n\m5a71 !y h no signification :atev]4 ,!y s]ve1 z x 71 only to deciph] appe>ances1 t we may be able to read !m z exp]i5ce4 ,! pr9ciples :i* arise f _! ref]5ce to ! s5sible _w1 only s]ve our und]/&+ = empirical use4 ,beyond ?is !y are arbitr>y comb9ations1 )\t objective reality1 & we c nei!r cognise _! possibility a priori1 nor v]ify _! ref]5ce to objects1 let alone make x intelligible by any example2 because examples c only be borr[$ f "s possible exp]i5ce1 consequ5tly ! objects ( ^! concepts c be f\nd n[h]e b 9 a possible exp]i5ce4 ,?is complete 7?\gh to its orig9ator unexpect$7 solution ( ,hume's problem rescues = ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ _! a priori orig91 & = ! univ]sal laws ( nature _! validity1 z laws ( ! und]/&+1 yet 9 su* a way z to limit _! use to exp]i5ce1 because _! possibility dep5ds solely on ! ref]5ce ( ! und]/&+ to exp]i5ce1 b ) a completely rev]s$ mode ( connexion :i* nev] occurr$ to ,hume1 n by d]iv+ !m f exp]i5ce1 b by d]iv+ exp]i5ce f !m4 ,?is is !re=e ! result ( all our =ego+ inquiries3 ,all syn!tical pr9ciples a priori are no?+ m ?an pr9ciples ( possible exp]i5ce1 & c nev] be ref]r$ to ?+s 9 !mselves1 b to appe>ances z objects ( exp]i5ce4 ,& h5ce pure ma!matics z well z a pure sci5ce ( nature c nev] be ref]r$ to any?+ m ?an m]e appe>ances1 & c only repres5t ei!r t :i* makes exp]i5ce g5]ally possible1 or else t :i*1 z x is d]iv$ f ^! pr9ciples1 mu/ always be capable ( be+ repres5t$ 9 "s possible exp]i5ce4 #ca4 ,& ?us we h at la/ some?+ def9ite1 ^u :i* to dep5d 9 all metaphysical ent]prises1 :i* h hi!rto1 boldly en\gh b always at r&om1 attempt$ ev]y?+ )\t discrim9ation4 ,t ! aim ( _! ex]tions %\ld be s ne>1 /ruck nei!r ! dogmatical ?9k]s nor ^? :o1 confid5t 9 _! suppos$ s\nd common s5se1 />t$ ) concepts & pr9ciples ( pure reason 7:i* 7 legitimate & natural1 b de/9$ = m]e empirical use7 9 que/ ( fields ( k1 to :i* !y nei!r knew nor c\ld "k any det]m9ate b\nds1 because !y _h nev] reflect$ nor 7 able to reflect on ! nature or ev5 on ! possibility ( su* a pure und]/&+4 ,_m a naturali/ ( pure reason 7by :i* ,i mean ! man :o believes he c decide 9 matt]s ( metaphysics )\t any sci5ce7 may pret5d1 t he long ago by ! prophetic _s ( 8 s\nd s5se1 n only suspect$1 b knew & compreh5d$1 :at is "h prop\nd$ ) s mu* ado1 or1 if he likes1 ) prolix & p$antic pomp3 t ) all our reason we c nev] rea* beyond ! field ( exp]i5ce4 ,b :5 he is que/ion$ ab\t 8 rational pr9ciples individually1 he mu/ grant1 t !re are _m ( !m :i* he has n tak5 f exp]i5ce1 & :i* are !re=e indep5d5t ( x & valid a priori4 ,h[ !n & on :at gr\nds w he re/ra9 bo? himself & ! dogmati/1 :o makes use ( ^! concepts & pr9ciples beyond all possible exp]i5ce1 because !y are recognis$ to be indep5d5t ( x8 ,& ev5 he1 ?is adept 9 s\nd s5se1 9 spite ( all 8 assum$ & *eaply acquir$ wisdom1 is n exempt f w&]+ inadv]t5tly beyond objects ( exp]i5ce into ! field ( *im]as4 ,he is (t5 deeply en\gh involv$ 9 !m1 ?\gh 9 ann\nc+ ev]y?+ z m]e probability1 rational conjecture1 or analogy1 he gives by 8 popul> language a color to 8 gr\ndless pret5sions4 #cb4 ,s9ce ! olde/ days ( philosophy inquir]s into pure reason h conceiv$1 besides ! ?+s ( s5se1 or appe>ances 7ph5om5a71 :i* make up ! s5sible _w1 c]ta9 creations ( ! und]/&+ 7,v]/&eswes571 call$ n\m5a1 :i* %\ld con/itute an intelligible _w4 ,& z appe>ance & illusion 7 by ^? m5 id5tifi$ 7a ?+ :i* we may well excuse 9 an undevelop$ epo*71 actuality 0 only conc$$ to ! creations ( ?\ght4 ,& we inde$1 rightly consid]+ objects ( s5se z m]e appe>ances1 confess !reby t !y are bas$ ^u a ?+ 9 itself1 ?\gh we "k n ?is ?+ 9 its int]nal con/itution1 b only "k its appe>ances1 viz41 ! way 9 :i* our s5ses are affect$ by ?is unkn[n some?+4 ,! und]/&+ !re=e1 by assum+ appe>ances1 grants ! exi/5ce ( ?+s 9 !mselves also1 & s f> we may say1 t ! repres5tation ( su* ?+s z =m ! basis ( ph5om5a1 consequ5tly ( m]e creations ( ! und]/&+1 is n only admissible1 b unavoidable4 ,our critical d$uction by no means excludes ?+s ( t sort 7n\m5a71 b r limits ! pr9ciples ( ! ,ae/hetic 7! sci5ce ( ! s5sibility7 to ?is1 t !y %all n ext5d to all ?+s1 z ev]y?+ w\ld !n be turn$ into m]e appe>ance1 b t !y %all only hold good ( objects ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,h]eby !n objects ( ! und]/&+ are grant$1 b ) ! inculcation ( ?is rule :i* admits ( no exception3 t we nei!r "k nor c "k any?+ at all def9ite ( ^! pure objects ( ! und]/&+1 because our pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ z well z our pure intuitions ext5d to no?+ b objects ( possible exp]i5ce1 consequ5tly to m]e ?+s ( s5se1 & z soon z we leave ?is sph]e ^! concepts reta9 no mean+ :atev]4 #cc4 ,!re is inde$ some?+ s$uctive 9 our pure concepts ( ! und]/&+1 :i* tempts u to a transc5d5t use1 --a use :i* transc5ds all possible exp]i5ce4 ,n only are our concepts ( sub/ance1 ( p[]1 ( action1 ( reality1 & o!rs1 q indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce1 conta9+ no?+ ( s5se appe>ance1 & s app>5tly applicable to ?+s 9 !mselves 7n\m5a71 b1 :at /r5g!ns ?is conjecture1 !y conta9 a necessity ( det]m9ation 9 !mselves1 :i* exp]i5ce nev] atta9s4 ,! concept ( cause implies a rule1 accord+ to :i* "o /ate foll[s ano!r necess>ily2 b exp]i5ce c only %[ u1 t "o /ate ( ?+s (t51 or at mo/1 commonly1 foll[s ano!r1 & !re=e af=ds nei!r /rict univ]sality1 nor necessity4 ,h5ce ! ,categories seem to h a deep] mean+ & import ?an c be exhau/$ by _! empirical use1 & s ! und]/&+ inadv]t5tly adds = itself to ! h\se ( exp]i5ce a mu* m ext5sive w+1 :i* x fills ) no?+ b creatures ( ?\ght1 )\t ev] obs]v+ t x has transgress$ ) its o!rwise lawful concepts ! b\nds ( _! use4 #cd4 ,two important1 & ev5 indisp5sable1 ?\gh v dry1 inve/igations _h !re=e become indisp5sable 9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1--viz41 ! two *apt]s ,vom ,s*ematismus d] re95 ,v]/&sbegriffe1 & ,vom ,grunde d] ,unt]s*eidung all] ,v]/&esbegriffe b]haupt 9 ,phnom5a und ,n\m5a4 ,9 ! =m] x is %[n1 t ! s5ses furni% n ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ 9 concreto1 b only ! s*$ule = _! use1 & t ! object con=mable to x occurs only 9 exp]i5ce 7z ! product ( ! und]/&+ f mat]ials ( ! s5sibility74 ,9 ! latt] x is %[n1 t1 al?\gh our pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ & our pr9ciples are indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce1 & despite ( ! app>5tly great] sph]e ( _! use1 /ill no?+ :atev] c be ?\ght by !m beyond ! field ( exp]i5ce1 because !y c d no?+ b m]ely det]m9e ! logical =m ( ! judgm5t relatively to giv5 intuitions4 ,b z !re is no intuition at all beyond ! field ( ! s5sibility1 ^! pure concepts1 z !y _c possibly be exhibit$ 9 concreto1 are void ( all mean+2 consequ5tly all ^! n\m5a1 toge!r ) _! complex1 ! intelligible _w1#bj are no?+ b repres5tation ( a problem1 ( :i* ! object 9 itself is possible1 b ! solution1 f ! nature ( our und]/&+1 totally impossible4 ,= our und]/&+ is n a faculty ( intuition1 b ( ! connexion ( giv5 intuitions 9 exp]i5ce4 ,exp]i5ce mu/ !re=e conta9 all ! objects = our concepts2 b beyond x no concepts h any significance1 z !re is no intuition t might (f] !m a f\ndation4 #bj ,we speak ( ! intelligible _w1 n 7z ! usual expression is7 intellectual _w4 ,= cognitions are intellectual ?r\gh ! und]/&+1 & ref] to our _w ( s5se also2 b objects1 s f> z !y c be repres5t$ m]ely by ! und]/&+1 & to :i* none ( our s5sible intuitions c ref]1 are t]m$ intelligible4 ,b z "s possible intuition mu/ correspond to e object1 we w\ld h to assume an und]/&+ t intuites ?+s imm$iately2 b ( su* we h n ! lea/ notion1 nor h we ( ! ?+s ( ! und]/&+ ,v]/&eswes51 to :i* x %\ld be appli$4 #ce4 ,! imag9ation may p]haps be =giv5 = occasional vag>ies1 & = n keep+ c>efully )9 ! limits ( exp]i5ce1 s9ce x ga9s life & vigor by su* flights1 & s9ce x is always easi] to mod]ate its boldness1 ?an to /imulate its languor4 ,b ! und]/&+ :i* ought to ?9k c nev] be =giv5 = indulg+ 9 vag>ies2 = we dep5d ^u x alone = assi/ance to set b\nds1 :5 necess>y1 to ! vag>ies ( ! imag9ation4 ,b ! und]/&+ beg9s its ab]rations v innoc5tly & mode/ly4 ,x fir/ elucidates ! elem5t>y cognitions1 :i* inh]e 9 x prior to all exp]i5ce1 b yet mu/ always h _! application 9 exp]i5ce4 ,x gradually drops ^! limits1 & :at is !re to prev5t x1 z x has q freely d]iv$ its pr9ciples f itself8 ,& !n x proce$s fir/ to newly-imag9$ p[]s 9 nature1 !n to be+s1 outside nature2 9 %ort to a _w1 = ^: con/ruction ! mat]ials _c be want+1 because f]tile fiction furni%es !m abundantly1 & ?\gh n confirm$1 is nev] refut$1 by exp]i5ce4 ,?is is ! reason t "y ?9k]s are s p>tial to metaphysics ( ! truly dogmatical k9d1 & (t5 sacrifice to x _! "t & _! tal5ts1 :i* might be o!rwise bett] employ$4 ,b !re is no use 9 try+ to mod]ate ^! fruitless endeavors ( pure reason by all mann] ( cautions z to ! difficulties ( solv+ que/ions s occult1 by compla9ts ( ! limits ( our reason1 & by degrad+ our ass]tions into m]e conjectures4 ,= if _! impossibility is n di/9ctly %[n1 & reason's cognition ( its own ess5ce does n become a true sci5ce1 9 :i* ! field ( its "r use is di/+ui%$1 s to say1 ) ma!matical c]ta9ty f t ( its wor?less & idle use1 ^! fruitless ef=ts w nev] be ab&on$ = good4 #cf4 ,h[ is ,nature itself possible8 ,?is "q--! highe/ po9t t transc5d5tal philosophy c ev] rea*1 & to :i*1 z its b\nd>y & completion1 x mu/ proce$--prop]ly conta9s two que/ions4 ,fir/3 ,h[ is nature at all possible 9 ! mat]ial s5se1 by intuition1 consid]$ z ! totality ( appe>ances2 h[ are space1 "t1 & t :i* fills bo?--! object ( s5sation1 9 g5]al possible8 ,! answ] is3 ,by means ( ! con/itution ( our ,s5sibility1 accord+ to :i* x is specifically affect$ by objects1 :i* are 9 !mselves unkn[n to x1 & totally di/9ct f ^? ph5om5a4 ,?is answ] is giv5 9 ! ,critique itself 9 ! transc5d5tal ,ae/hetic1 & 9 ^! ,prolegom5a by ! solution ( ! fir/ g5]al problem4 ,secondly3 ,h[ is nature possible 9 ! =mal s5se1 z ! totality ( ! rules1 "u :i* all ph5om5a mu/ come1 9 ord] to be ?\ght z connect$ 9 exp]i5ce8 ,! answ] mu/ be ?is3 ,x is only possible by means ( ! con/itution ( our ,und]/&+1 accord+ to :i* all ! above repres5tations ( ! s5sibility are necess>ily ref]r$ to a consci\sness1 & by :i* ! peculi> way 9 :i* we ?9k 7viz41 by rules71 & h5ce exp]i5ce also1 are possible1 b mu/ be cle>ly di/+ui%$ f an insight into ! objects 9 !mselves4 ,?is answ] is giv5 9 ! ,critique itself 9 ! transc5d5tal ,logic1 & 9 ^! ,prolegom5a1 9 ! c\rse ( ! solution ( ! second ma9 problem4 ,b h[ ?is peculi> prop]ty ( our s5sibility itself is possible1 or t ( our und]/&+ & ( ! app]ception :i* is necess>ily its basis & t ( all ?9k+1 _c be fur!r analys$ or answ]$1 because x is ( !m t we are 9 ne$ = all our answ]s & = all our ?9k+ ab\t objects4 ,!re are _m laws ( nature1 :i* we c only "k by means ( exp]i5ce2 b con=mity to law 9 ! connexion ( appe>ances1 i4e41 9 nature 9 g5]al1 we _c discov] by any exp]i5ce1 because exp]i5ce itself requires laws :i* are a priori at ! basis ( its possibility4 ,! possibility ( exp]i5ce 9 g5]al is !re=e at ! same "t ! univ]sal law ( nature1 & ! pr9ciples ( ! exp]i5ce are ! v laws ( nature4 ,= we d n "k nature b z ! totality ( appe>ances1 i4e41 ( repres5tations 9 u1 & h5ce we c only d]ive ! laws ( its connexion f ! pr9ciples ( _! connexion 9 u1 t is1 f ! conditions ( _! necess>y union 9 consci\sness1 :i* con/itutes ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,ev5 ! ma9 proposition exp\nd$ ?r\gh\t ?is section--t univ]sal laws ( nature c be di/9ctly cognis$ a priori--leads naturally to ! proposition3 t ! highe/ legislation ( nature mu/ lie 9 ourselves1 i4e41 9 our und]/&+1 & t we mu/ n seek ! univ]sal laws ( nature 9 nature by means ( exp]i5ce1 b conv]sely mu/ seek nature1 z to its univ]sal con=mity to law1 9 ! conditions ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce1 :i* lie 9 our s5sibility & 9 our und]/&+4 ,= h[ 7 x o!rwise possible to "k a priori ^! laws1 z !y are n rules ( analytical cognition1 b truly syn!tical ext5sions ( x8 ,su* a necess>y agreem5t ( ! pr9ciples ( possible exp]i5ce ) ! laws ( ! possibility ( nature1 c only proce$ f "o ( two reasons3 ei!r ^! laws are drawn f nature by means ( exp]i5ce1 or conv]sely nature is d]iv$ f ! laws ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce 9 g5]al1 & is q ! same z ! m]e univ]sal con=mity to law ( ! latt]4 ,! =m] is self-contradictory1 = ! univ]sal laws ( nature c & mu/ be cognis$ a priori 7t is1 indep5d5t ( all exp]i5ce71 & be ! f\ndation ( all empirical use ( ! und]/&+2 ! latt] alt]native !re=e alone rema9s4#ba #ba ,crusius alone ?\ght ( a compromise3 t a ,_s1 :o c nei!r err nor deceive1 implant$ ^! laws 9 u orig9ally4 ,b s9ce false pr9ciples (t5 intrude !mselves1 z inde$ ! v sy/em ( ?is man %[s 9 n a few examples1 we are involv$ 9 difficulties z to ! use ( su* a pr9ciple 9 ! abs5ce ( sure crit]ia to di/+ui% ! g5u9e orig9 f ! spuri\s1 z we nev] c "k c]ta9ly :at ! ,_s ( tru? or ! fa!r ( lies may h in/ill$ into u4 ,b we mu/ di/+ui% ! empirical laws ( nature1 :i* always presuppose p>ticul> p]ceptions1 f ! pure or univ]sal laws ( nature1 :i*1 )\t be+ bas$ on p>ticul> p]ceptions1 conta9 m]ely ! conditions ( _! necess>y union 9 exp]i5ce4 ,9 relation to ! latt]1 nature & possible exp]i5ce are q ! same1 & z ! con=mity to law "h dep5ds ^u ! necess>y connexion ( appe>ances 9 exp]i5ce 7)\t :i* we _c cognise any object :atev] 9 ! s5sible _w71 consequ5tly ^u ! orig9al laws ( ! und]/&+1 x seems at fir/ /range1 b is n ! less c]ta91 to say3 ,! und]/&+ does n d]ive its laws 7a priori7 f1 b prescribes !m to1 nature4 #cg4 ,we %all illu/rate ?is seem+ly bold proposition by an example1 :i* w %[1 t laws1 :i* we discov] 9 objects ( s5su\s intuition 7especially :5 ^! laws are cognis$ z necess>y71 are commonly held by u to be su* z h be5 plac$ !re by ! und]/&+1 9 spite ( _! be+ simil> 9 all po9ts to ! laws ( nature1 :i* we ascribe to exp]i5ce4 #ch4 ,if we consid] ! prop]ties ( ! circle1 by :i* ?is figure comb9es s _m arbitr>y det]m9ations ( space 9 itself1 at once 9 a univ]sal rule1 we _c avoid attribut+ a con/itution 7e9e ,natur7 to ?is geometrical ?+4 ,two "r l9es1 = example1 :i* int]sect "o ano!r & ! circle1 h[soev] !y may be drawn1 are always divid$ s t ! rectangle con/ruct$ ) ! segm5ts ( ! "o is equal to t con/ruct$ ) ! segm5ts ( ! o!r4 ,! "q n[ is3 ,does ?is law lie 9 ! circle or 9 ! und]/&+1 t is1 ,does ?is figure1 indep5d5tly ( ! und]/&+1 conta9 9 itself ! gr\nd ( ! law1 or does ! und]/&+1 hav+ con/ruct$ accord+ to its concepts 7accord+ to ! quality ( ! radii7 ! figure itself1 introduce into x ?is law ( ! *ords cutt+ "o ano!r 9 geometrical proportion8 ,:5 we foll[ ! pro(s ( ?is law1 we soon p]ceive1 t x c only be d]iv$ f ! condition on :i* ! und]/&+ f\nds ! con/ruction ( ?is figure1 & :i* is t ( ! equality ( ! radii4 ,b1 if we enl>ge ?is concept1 to pursue fur!r ! unity ( v>i\s prop]ties ( geometrical figures "u common laws1 & consid] ! circle z a conic section1 :i* ( c\rse is subject to ! same fundam5tal conditions ( con/ruction z o!r conic sections1 we %all f9d t all ! *ords :i* int]sect )9 ! ellipse1 p>abola1 & hyp]bola1 always int]sect s t ! rectangles ( _! segm5ts are n inde$ equal1 b always be> a con/ant ratio to "o ano!r4 ,if we proce$ /ill f>!r1 to ! fundam5tal laws ( physical a/ronomy1 we f9d a physical law ( reciprocal attraction diffus$ ov] all mat]ial nature1 ! rule ( :i* is3 t x decreases inv]sely z ! squ>e ( ! di/ance f ea* attract+ po9t1 i4e41 z ! sph]ical surfaces increase1 ov] :i* ?is =ce spreads1 :i* law seems to be necess>ily inh]5t 9 ! v nature ( ?+s1 & h5ce is usually prop\nd$ z cognisable a priori4 ,simple z ! s\rces ( ?is law are1 m]ely re/+ ^u ! relation ( sph]ical surfaces ( diff]5t radii1 its consequ5ces are s valuable ) reg>d to ! v>iety ( _! agreem5t & its regul>ity1 t n only are all possible orbits ( ! cele/ial bodies conic sections1 b su* a relation ( ^! orbits to ea* o!r results1 t no o!r law ( attraction1 ?an t ( ! inv]se squ>e ( ! di/ance1 c be imag9$ z fit = a cosmical sy/em4 ,"h accord+ly is a nature t re/s ^u laws :i* ! und]/&+ cognises a priori1 & *iefly f ! univ]sal pr9ciples ( ! det]m9ation ( space4 ,n[ ,i ask3 ,d ! laws ( nature lie 9 space1 & does ! und]/&+ le>n !m by m]ely endeavor+ to f9d out ! enorm\s weal? ( 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 9 :i* its concepts are all c5tr$8 ,space is some?+ s uni=m & z to all p>ticul> prop]ties s indet]m9ate1 t we %\ld c]ta9ly n seek a /ore ( laws ( nature 9 x4 ,:]eas t :i* det]m9es space to assume ! =m ( a circle or ! figures ( a cone & a sph]e1 is ! und]/&+1 s f> z x conta9s ! gr\nd ( ! unity ( _! con/ructions4 ,! m]e univ]sal =m ( intuition1 call$ space1 mu/ !re=e be ! sub/ratum ( all intuitions det]m9able to p>ticul> objects1 & 9 x ( c\rse ! condition ( ! possibility & ( ! v>iety ( ^! intuitions lies4 ,b ! unity ( ! objects is entirely det]m9$ by ! und]/&+1 & on conditions :i* lie 9 its own nature2 & ?us ! und]/&+ is ! orig9 ( ! univ]sal ord] ( nature1 9 t x compreh5ds all appe>ances "u its own laws1 & !reby fir/ con/ructs1 a priori1 exp]i5ce 7z to its =m71 by means ( :i* :atev] is to be cognis$ only by exp]i5ce1 is necess>ily subject$ to its laws4 ,= we are n n[ conc]n$ ) ! nature ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 :i* is indep5d5t ( ! conditions bo? ( our s5sibility & our und]/&+1 b ) nature1 z an object ( possible exp]i5ce1 & 9 ?is case ! und]/&+1 :il/ x makes exp]i5ce possible1 !reby insi/s t ! s5su\s _w is ei!r n an object ( exp]i5ce at all1 or mu/ be nature viz41 an exi/5ce ( ?+s1 det]m9$ accord+ to univ]sal laws#bb4 #bb ,! def9ition ( nature is giv5 9 ! beg9n+ ( ! ,second ,"p ( ! ,transc5d5tal ,problem1 9 #ad4 ,,app5dix ,,to ,,! ,,pure ,,sci5ce ,,( ,,nature4 #ci4 ,( ! ,sy/em ( ! ,categories4 ,!re c be no?+ m desirable to a philosoph]1 ?an to be able to d]ive ! scatt]$ multiplicity ( ! concepts or ! pr9ciples1 :i* _h occurr$ to him 9 concrete use1 f a pr9ciple a priori1 & to unite ev]y?+ 9 ?is way 9 "o cognition4 ,he =m]ly only believ$ t ^? ?+s1 :i* rema9$ aft] a c]ta9 ab/raction1 & seem$ by comp>ison among "o ano!r to con/itute a p>ticul> k9d ( cognitions1 7 completely collect$2 b ?is 0 only an ,aggregate4 ,n[ he kn[s1 t j s _m1 nei!r m nor less1 c con/itute ! mode ( cognition1 & p]ceives ! necessity ( 8 division1 :i* con/itutes compreh5sion2 & n[ only he has atta9$ a ,sy/em4 ,to se>* 9 our daily cognition = ! concepts1 :i* d n re/ ^u p>ticul> exp]i5ce1 & yet occur 9 all cognition ( exp]i5ce1 :]e !y z x 7 con/itute ! m]e =m ( connexion1 presupposes nei!r great] reflexion nor deep] insight1 ?an to detect 9 a language ! rules ( ! actual use ( words g5]ally1 & ?us to collect elem5ts = a gramm>4 ,9 fact bo? rese>*es are v ne>ly relat$1 ev5 ?\gh we are n able to give a reason :y ea* language has j ?is & no o!r =mal con/itution1 & /ill less :y an exact numb] ( su* =mal det]m9ations 9 g5]al are f\nd 9 x4 ,ari/otle collect$ t5 pure elem5t>y concepts "u ! "n ( ,categories4#bc ,to ^!1 :i* are also call$ pr$icam5ts1 he f\nd himself oblig$ aft]w>ds to add five po/-pr$icam5ts1#bd "s ( :i* h[ev] 7prius1 simul1 & motus7 are conta9$ 9 ! =m]2 b ?is r&om collection mu/ be consid]$ 7& comm5d$7 z a m]e h9t = future inquir]s1 n z a regul>ly develop$ idea1 & h5ce x has1 9 ! pres5t m advanc$ /ate ( philosophy1 be5 reject$ z q useless4 #bc #a4 ,sub/antia4 #b4 ,qualitas4 #c4 ,quantitas4 #d4 ,relatio1 #e4 ,actio4 #f4 ,passio4 #g4 ,qu&o1 #h4 ,ubi4 #i4 ,situs4 #aj4 ,habitus4 #bd ,oppositum4 ,prius4 ,simul4 ,motus4 ,hab]e4 ,aft] long reflexion on ! pure elem5ts ( human k 7^? :i* conta9 no?+ empirical71 ,i at la/ succe$$ 9 di/+ui%+ ) c]ta9ty & 9 sep>at+ ! pure elem5t>y notions ( ! ,s5sibility 7space & "t7 f ^? ( ! ,und]/&+4 ,?us ! #g?1 #h?1 & #i? ,categories _h to be exclud$ f ! old li/4 ,& ! o!rs 7 ( no s]vice to me2 because !re 0 no pr9ciple 9 !m1 on :i* ! und]/&+ c\ld be inve/igat$1 measur$ 9 its completion1 & all ! functions1 :5ce its pure concepts arise1 det]m9$ exhau/ively & ) precision4 ,b 9 ord] to discov] su* a pr9ciple1 ,i look$ ab\t = an act ( ! und]/&+ :i* comprises all ! re/1 & is di/+ui%$ only by v>i\s modifications or phases1 9 r$uc+ ! multiplicity ( repres5tation to ! unity ( ?9k+ 9 g5]al3 ,i f\nd ?is act ( ! und]/&+ to consi/ 9 judg+4 ,"h !n ! labors ( ! logicians 7 ready at h&1 ?\gh n yet q free f defects1 & ) ?is help ,i 0 enabl$ to exhibit a complete table ( ! pure functions ( ! und]/&+1 :i* are h[ev] undet]m9$ 9 reg>d to any object4 ,i f9ally ref]r$ ^! functions ( judg+ to objects 9 g5]al1 or r to ! condition ( det]m9+ judgm5ts z objectively valid1 & s !re arose ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+1 conc]n+ :i* ,i c\ld make c]ta91 t ^!1 & ?is exact numb] only1 con/itute our :ole cognition ( ?+s f pure und]/&+4 ,i 0 ju/ifi$ 9 call+ !m by _! old "n1 ,categories1 :ile ,i res]v$ = myself ! lib]ty ( add+1 "u ! title ( ,pr$icables1 a complete li/ ( all ! concepts d$ucible f !m1 by comb9ations :e!r among !mselves1 or ) ! pure =m ( ! appe>ance1 i4e41 space or "t1 or ) its matt]1 s f> z x is n yet empirically det]m9$ 7viz41 ! object ( s5sation 9 g5]al71 z soon z a sy/em ( transc5d5tal philosophy %\ld be complet$ ) ! con/ruction ( :i* ,i am engag$ 9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason itself4 ,n[ ! ess5tial po9t 9 ?is sy/em ( ,categories1 :i* di/+ui%es x f ! old rhapsodical collection )\t any pr9ciple1 & = :i* alone x des]ves to be consid]$ z philosophy1 consi/s 9 ?is3 t by means ( x ! true significance ( ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ & ! condition ( _! use c\ld be precisely det]m9$4 ,= "h x became obvi\s t !y are !mselves no?+ b logical functions1 & z su* d n produce ! lea/ concept ( an object1 b require "s s5su\s intuition z a basis4 ,!y !re=e only s]ve to det]m9e empirical judgm5ts1 :i* are o!rwise undet]m9$ & indiff]5t z reg>ds all functions ( judg+1 relatively to ^! functions1 !reby procur+ !m univ]sal validity1 & by means ( !m mak+ judgm5ts ( exp]i5ce 9 g5]al possible4 ,su* an insight into ! nature ( ! categories1 :i* limits !m at ! same "t to ! m]e use ( exp]i5ce1 nev] occurr$ ei!r to _! fir/ au?or1 or to any ( 8 successors2 b )\t ?is insight 7:i* imm$iately dep5ds ^u _! d]ivation or d$uction71 !y are q useless & only a mis]able li/ ( names1 )\t explanation or rule = _! use4 ,_h ! anci5ts ev] conceiv$ su* a notion1 d\btless ! :ole /udy ( ! pure rational k1 :i* "u ! "n ( metaphysics has = c5turies spoil$ _m a s\nd m9d1 w\ld h rea*$ u 9 q ano!r %ape1 & w\ld h enlight5$ ! human und]/&+1 in/ead ( actually exhau/+ x 9 obscure & va9 speculations1 !reby r5d]+ x unfit = true sci5ce4 ,?is sy/em ( categories makes all treatm5t ( e object ( pure reason itself sy/ematic1 & af=ds a direction or clue h[ & ?r\gh :at po9ts ( inquiry e metaphysical consid]ation mu/ proce$1 9 ord] to be complete2 = x exhau/s all ! possible movem5ts 7mom5ta7 ( ! und]/&+1 among :i* e concept mu/ be class$4 ,9 l mann] ! table ( ,pr9ciples has be5 =mulat$1 ! complet5ess ( :i* we c only v\* = by ! sy/em ( ! categories4 ,ev5 9 ! division ( ! concepts1#be :i* mu/ g beyond ! physical application ( ! und]/&+1 x is always ! v same clue1 :i*1 z x mu/ always be det]m9$ a priori by ! same fix$ po9ts ( ! human und]/&+1 always =ms a clos$ circle4 ,!re is no d\bt t ! object ( a pure conception ei!r ( ! und]/&+ or ( reason1 s f> z x is to be e/imat$ philosophically & on a priori pr9ciples1 c 9 ?is way be completely cognis$4 ,i c\ld n !re=e omit to make use ( ?is clue ) reg>d to "o ( ! mo/ ab/ract ontological divisions1 viz41 ! v>i\s di/9ctions ( ! notions ( some?+ & ( no?+1 & to con/ruct accord+ly 7,critique1 p4 #bjg7 a regul> & necess>y table ( _! divisions4#bf #be ,see ! two tables 9 ! *apt]s ,von d5 ,p>alogism5 d] re95 ,v]nuuft & ! fir/ division ( ! ,ant9omy ( ,pure ,reason1 ,sy/em d] kosmologis*5 ,ide54 #bf ,on ! table ( ! categories _m neat obs]vations may be made1 = in/ance3 7#a7 t ! ?ird arises f ! fir/ & ! second jo9$ 9 "o concept2 7#b7 t 9 ^? ( ,quantity & ( ,quality !re is m]ely a progress f unity to totality or f some?+ to no?+ 7= ?is purpose ! categories ( ,quality mu/ /& ?us3 reality1 limitation1 total negation71 )\t correlata or opposita1 :]eas ^? ( ,relation & ( ,modality h !m2 7#c7 t1 z 9 ,logic categorical judgm5ts are ! basis ( all o!rs1 s ! category ( ,sub/ance is ! basis ( all concepts ( actual ?+s2 7#d7 t z ,modality 9 ! judgm5t is n a p>ticul> pr$icate1 s by ! modal concepts a det]m9ation is n sup]add$ to ?+s1 etc41 etc4 ,su* obs]vations are ( great use4 ,if we besides enum]ate all ! pr$icables1 :i* we c f9d pretty completely 9 any good ontology 7= example1 ,baumg>t5's71 & arrange !m 9 classes "u ! categories1 9 :i* op]ation we mu/ n neglect to add z complete a dissection ( all ^! concepts z possible1 !re w !n arise a m]ely analytical "p ( metaphysics1 :i* does n conta9 a s+le syn!tical proposition1 :i* might prec$e ! second 7! syn!tical71 & w\ld by its precision & complet5ess be n only useful1 b1 9 virtue ( its sy/em1 be ev5 to "s ext5t elegant4 ,& ?is sy/em1 l e o!r true "o f\nd$ on a univ]sal pr9ciple1 %[s its ine/imable value 9 ?is1 t x excludes all =eign concepts1 :i* might o!rwise intrude among ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+1 & det]m9es ! place ( e cognition4 ,^? concepts1 :i* "u ! "n ( concepts ( reflexion h be5 likewise arrang$ 9 a table accord+ to ! clue ( ! categories1 intrude1 )\t hav+ any privilege or title to be among ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+ 9 ,ontology4 ,!y are concepts ( connexion1 & !reby ( ! objects !mselves1 :]eas ! =m] are only concepts ( a m]e comp>ison ( concepts already giv51 h5ce ( q ano!r nature & use4 ,by my sy/ematic division#bg !y are sav$ f ?is confusion4 ,b ! value ( my special table ( ! categories w be /ill m obvi\s1 :5 we sep>ate ! table ( ! transc5d5tal concepts ( ,reason f ! concepts ( ! und]/&+4 ,! latt] be+ ( q ano!r nature & orig91 !y mu/ h q ano!r =m ?an ! =m]4 ,?is s necess>y sep>ation has nev] yet be5 made 9 any sy/em ( metaphysics =1 z a rule1 ^! rational concepts all mix$ up ) ! categories1 l *ildr5 ( "o family1 :i* confusion 0 unavoidable 9 ! abs5ce ( a def9ite sy/em ( categories4 #bg ,see ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 ,von d] ,amphibolie d] ,reflexbegriffe4 ,,?ird ,,"p ,,( ,,! ,,ma9 ,,transc5d5tal ,,problem4 ,,h[ ,,is ,,metaphysics ,,9 ,,g5]al ,,possible8 #dj4 ,pure ma!matics & pure sci5ce ( nature _h no occasion = su* a d$uction1 z we h made ( bo?1 = _! own safety & c]ta9ty4 ,= ! =m] re/s ^u its own evid5ce2 & ! latt] 7?\gh sprung f pure s\rces ( ! und]/&+7 ^u exp]i5ce & its ?or\gh confirmation4 ,physics _c altoge!r refuse & disp5se ) ! te/imony ( ! latt]2 because ) all its c]ta9ty1 x c nev]1 z philosophy1 rival ma!matics4 ,bo? sci5ces !re=e /ood 9 ne$ ( ?is inquiry1 n = !mselves1 b = ! sake ( ano!r sci5ce1 metaphysics4 ,metaphysics has to d n only ) concepts ( nature1 :i* always f9d _! application 9 exp]i5ce1 b also ) pure rational concepts1 :i* nev] c be giv5 9 any possible exp]i5ce4 ,consequ5tly ! objective reality ( ^! concepts 7viz41 t !y are n m]e *im]as71 & ! tru? or falsity ( metaphysical ass]tions1 _c be discov]$ or confirm$ by any exp]i5ce4 ,?is "p ( metaphysics h[ev] is precisely :at con/itutes its ess5tial end1 to :i* ! re/ is only a means1 & ?us ?is sci5ce is 9 ne$ ( su* a d$uction = its own sake4 ,! ?ird "q n[ propos$ relates !re=e z x 7 to ! root & ess5tial diff]5ce ( metaphysics1 i4e41 ! occupation ( ,reason ) itself1 & ! suppos$ k ( objects aris+ imm$iately f ?is incubation ( its own concepts1 )\t requir+1 or inde$ be+ able to rea* t k ?r\gh1 exp]i5ce4#bh #bh ,if we c say1 t a sci5ce is actual at lea/ 9 ! ideas ( all m51 z soon z x appe>s t ! problems :i* lead to x are propos$ to ev]ybody by ! nature ( human reason1 & t !re=e _m 7?\gh faulty7 endeavors are unavoidably made 9 its behalf1 !n we are b\nd to say t metaphysics is subjectively 7& inde$ necess>ily7 actual1 & !re=e we ju/ly ask1 h[ is x 7objectively7 possible4 ,)\t solv+ ?is problem reason nev] is ju/ifi$4 ,! empirical use to :i* reason limits ! pure und]/&+1 does n fully satisfy ! prop] de/9ation ( ! latt]4 ,e s+le exp]i5ce is only a "p ( ! :ole sph]e ( its doma91 b ! absolute totality ( all possible exp]i5ce is itself n exp]i5ce4 ,yet x is a necess>y concrete problem = reason1 ! m]e repres5tation ( :i* requires concepts q diff]5t f ! categories1 ^: use is only imman5t1 or ref]s to exp]i5ce1 s f> z x c be giv54 ,:]eas ! concepts ( reason aim at ! complet5ess1 i4e41 ! collective unity ( all possible exp]i5ce1 & !reby transc5d e giv5 exp]i5ce4 ,?us !y become transc5d5t4 ,z ! und]/&+ /&s 9 ne$ ( categories = exp]i5ce1 reason conta9s 9 itself ! s\rce ( ideas1 by :i* ,i mean necess>y concepts1 ^: object _c be giv5 9 any exp]i5ce4 ,! latt] are inh]5t 9 ! nature ( reason1 z ! =m] are 9 t ( ! und]/&+4 ,:ile ! =m] c>ry ) !m an illusion likely to mislead1 ! illusion ( ! latt] is inevitable1 ?\gh x c]ta9ly c be kept f mislead+ u4 ,s9ce all illusion consi/s 9 hold+ ! subjective gr\nd ( our judgm5ts to be objective1 a self-k ( pure reason 9 its transc5d5t 7exagg]at$7 use is ! sole pres]vative f ! ab]rations into :i* reason falls :5 x mi/akes its de/9ation1 & ref]s t to ! object transc5d5tly1 :i* only reg>ds its own subject & its guidance 9 all imman5t use4 #da4 ,! di/9ction ( ideas1 t is1 ( pure concepts ( reason1 f categories1 or pure concepts ( ! und]/&+1 z cognitions ( a q di/9ct species1 orig9 & use1 is s important a po9t 9 f\nd+ a sci5ce :i* is to conta9 ! sy/em ( all ^! a priori cognitions1 t )\t ?is di/9ction metaphysics is absolutely impossible1 or is at be/ a r&om1 bungl+ attempt to build a ca/le 9 ! air )\t a k ( ! mat]ials or ( _! fitness = any purpose4 ,_h ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason done no?+ b fir/ po9t out ?is di/9ction1 x _h !reby contribut$ m to cle> up our conception (1 & to guide our inquiry 91 ! field ( metaphysics1 ?an all ! va9 ef=ts :i* h hi!rto be5 made to satisfy ! transc5d5t problems ( pure reason1 )\t ev] surmis+ t we 7 9 q ano!r field ?an t ( ! und]/&+1 & h5ce class+ concepts ( ! und]/&+ & ^? ( reason toge!r1 z if !y 7 ( ! same k9d4 #db4 ,all pure cognitions ( ! und]/&+ h ?is feature1 t _! concepts pres5t !mselves 9 exp]i5ce1 & _! pr9ciples c be confirm$ by x2 :]eas ! transc5d5t cognitions ( reason _c1 ei!r z ideas1 appe> 9 exp]i5ce1 or z propositions ev] be confirm$ or refut$ by x4 ,h5ce :atev] errors may slip 9 unaw>es1 c only be discov]$ by pure reason itself--a discov]y ( mu* difficulty1 because ?is v reason naturally becomes dialectical by means ( its ideas1 & ?is unavoidable illusion _c be limit$ by any objective & dogmatical rese>*es into ?+s1 b by a subjective inve/igation ( reason itself z a s\rce ( ideas4 #dc4 ,9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason x 0 always my greate/ c>e to endeavor n only c>efully to di/+ui% ! sev]al species ( cognition1 b to d]ive concepts belong+ to ea* "o ( !m f _! common s\rce4 ,i did ?is 9 ord] t by kn[+ :5ce !y orig9at$1 ,i might det]m9e _! use ) safety1 & also h ! unanticipat$ b invaluable advantage ( kn[+ ! complet5ess ( my enum]ation1 classification & specification ( concepts a priori1 & !re=e accord+ to pr9ciples4 ,)\t ?is1 metaphysics is m]e rhapsody1 9 :i* no "o kn[s :e!r he has en\gh1 or :e!r & :]e some?+ is /ill want+4 ,we c inde$ h ?is advantage only 9 pure philosophy1 b ( ?is philosophy x con/itutes ! v ess5ce4 ,z ,i _h f\nd ! orig9 ( ! categories 9 ! f\r logical functions ( all ! judgm5ts ( ! und]/&+1 x 0 q natural to seek ! orig9 ( ! ideas 9 ! ?ree functions ( ! syllogisms ( reason4 ,= z soon z ^! pure concepts ( reason 7! transc5d5tal ideas7 are giv51 !y c\ld h>dly1 except !y be held innate1 be f\nd any:]e else1 ?an 9 ! same activity ( reason1 :i*1 s f> z x reg>ds m]e =m1 con/itutes ! logical elem5t ( ! syllogisms ( reason2 b1 s f> z x repres5ts judgm5ts ( ! und]/&+ ) respect to ! "o or to ! o!r =m a priori1 con/itutes transc5d5tal concepts ( pure reason4 ,! =mal di/9ction ( syllogisms r5d]s _! division into categorical1 hypo!tical1 & disjunctive necess>y4 ,! concepts ( reason f\nd$ on !m conta9$ !re=e1 fir/1 ! idea ( ! complete subject 7! sub/antial72 secondly1 ! idea ( ! complete s]ies ( conditions2 ?irdly1 ! det]m9ation ( all concepts 9 ! idea ( a complete complex ( t :i* is possible4#bi ,! fir/ idea is psy*ological1 ! second cosmological1 ! ?ird !ological1 &1 z all ?ree give occasion to ,dialectics1 yet ea* 9 its own way1 ! division ( ! :ole ,dialects ( pure reason into its ,p>alogism1 its ,ant9omy1 & its ,ideal1 0 arrang$ accord+ly4 ,?r\gh ?is d$uction we may feel assur$ t all ! claims ( pure reason are completely repres5t$1 & t none c be want+2 because ! faculty ( reason itself1 :5ce !y all take _! orig91 is !reby completely survey$4 #bi ,9 disjunctive judgm5ts we consid] all possibility z divid$ 9 respect to a p>ticul> concept4 ,by ! ontological pr9ciple ( ! univ]sal det]m9ation ( a ?+ 9 g5]al1 ,i und]/& ! pr9ciple t ei!r ! "o or ! o!r ( all possible contradictory pr$icates mu/ be assign$ to any object4 ,?is is at ! same "t ! pr9ciple ( all disjunctive judgm5ts1 con/itut+ ! f\ndation ( our conception ( possibility1 & 9 x ! possibility ( e object 9 g5]al is consid]$ z det]m9$4 ,?is may s]ve z a slight explanation ( ! above proposition3 t ! activity ( reason 9 disjunctive syllogisms is =mally ! same z t by :i* x fa%ions ! idea ( a univ]sal conception ( all reality1 conta9+ 9 itself t :i* is positive 9 all contradictory pr$icates4 #dd4 ,9 ^! g5]al consid]ations x is also rem>kable t ! ideas ( reason are unlike ! categories1 ( no s]vice to ! use ( our und]/&+ 9 exp]i5ce1 b q disp5sable1 & become ev5 an imp$im5t to ! maxims ( a rational cognition ( nature4 ,yet 9 ano!r aspect /ill to be det]m9$ !y are necess>y4 ,:e!r ! s\l is or is n a simple sub/ance1 is ( no consequ5ce to u 9 ! explanation ( its ph5om5a4 ,= we _c r5d] ! notion ( a simple be+ intelligible by any possible exp]i5ce t is s5su\s or concrete4 ,! notion is !re=e q void z reg>ds all hop$-= insight into ! cause ( ph5om5a1 & _c at all s]ve z a pr9ciple ( ! explanation ( t :i* int]nal or ext]nal exp]i5ce supplies4 ,s ! cosmological ideas ( ! beg9n+ ( ! _w or ( its et]nity 7a p>te ante7 _c be ( any great] s]vice to u = ! explanation ( any ev5t 9 ! _w itself4 ,& f9ally we mu/1 accord+ to a "r maxim ( ! philosophy ( nature1 refra9 f all explanations ( ! design ( nature1 drawn f ! w ( a ,supreme ,be+2 because ?is w\ld n be natural philosophy1 b an ackn[l$gm5t t we h come to ! end ( x4 ,! use ( ^! ideas1 !re=e1 is q diff]5t f t ( ^? categories by :i* 7& by ! pr9ciples built ^u :i*7 exp]i5ce itself fir/ becomes possible4 ,b our labori\s analytics ( ! und]/&+ w\ld be sup]flu\s if we _h no?+ else 9 view ?an ! m]e cognition ( nature z x c be giv5 9 exp]i5ce2 = reason does its "w1 bo? 9 ma!matics & 9 ! sci5ce ( nature1 q safely & well )\t any ( ?is subtle d$uction4 ,!re=e our ,critique ( ! ,und]/&+ comb9es ) ! ideas ( pure reason = a purpose :i* lies beyond ! empirical use ( ! und]/&+2 b ?is we h above decl>$ to be 9 ?is aspect totally inadmissible1 & )\t any object or mean+4 ,yet !re mu/ be a h>mony betwe5 t ( ! nature ( reason & t ( ! und]/&+1 & ! =m] mu/ contribute to ! p]fection ( ! latt]1 & _c possibly upset x4 ,! solution ( ?is "q is z foll[s3 ,pure reason does n 9 its ideas po9t to p>ticul> objects1 :i* lie beyond ! field ( exp]i5ce1 b only requires complet5ess ( ! use ( ! und]/&+ 9 ! sy/em ( exp]i5ce4 ,b ?is complet5ess c be a complet5ess ( pr9ciples only1 n ( intuitions 7i4e41 concrete atsights or ,ans*auung57 & ( objects4 ,9 ord] h[ev] to repres5t ! ideas def9itely1 reason conceives !m aft] ! fa%ion ( ! cognition ( an object4 ,! cognition is z f> z ^! rules are conc]n$ completely det]m9$1 b ! object is only an idea inv5t$ = ! purpose ( br++ ! cognition ( ! und]/&+ z ne> z possible to ! complet5ess repres5t$ by t idea4 ,prefatory ,rem>k to ! ,dialectics ( ,pure ,reason4 #de4 ,we h above %[n 9 #cc & #cd t ! purity ( ! categories f all admixture ( s5su\s det]m9ations may mislead reason into ext5d+ _! use1 q beyond all exp]i5ce1 to ?+s 9 !mselves2 ?\gh z ^! categories !mselves f9d no intuition :i* c give !m mean+ or s5se 9 concreto1 !y1 z m]e logical functions1 c repres5t a ?+ 9 g5]al1 b n give by !mselves alone a det]m9ate concept ( any?+4 ,su* hyp]bolical objects are di/+uis$ by ! appellation ( ,nom5a1 or pure be+s ( ! und]/&+ 7or bett]1 be+s ( ?\ght71 su* z1 = example1 sub/ance1 b conceiv$ )\t p]man5ce 9 "t1 or cause1 b n act+ 9 "t1 etc4 ,"h pr$icates1 t only s]ve to make ! con=mity-to-law ( exp]i5ce possible1 are appli$ to ^! concepts1 & yet !y are depriv$ ( all ! conditions ( intuition1 on :i* alone exp]i5ce is possible1 & s ^! concepts lose all significance4 ,!re is no dang]1 h[ev]1 ( ! und]/&+ spontane\sly mak+ an excursion s v wantonly beyond its own b\nds into ! field ( ! m]e creatures ( ?\ght1 )\t be+ impell$ by =eign laws4 ,b :5 reason1 :i* _c be fully satisfi$ ) any empirical use ( ! rules ( ! und]/&+1 z be+ always condition$1 requires a completion ( ?is *a9 ( conditions1 !n ! und]/&+ is =c$ out ( its sph]e4 ,& !n x p>tly repres5ts objects ( exp]i5ce 9 a s]ies s ext5d$ t no exp]i5ce c grasp1 p>tly ev5 7) a view to complete ! s]ies7 x seeks entirely beyond x n\m5a1 to :i* x c atta* t *a91 & s1 hav+ at la/ escap$ f ! conditions ( exp]i5ce1 make its attitude z x 7 f9al4 ,^! are !n ! transc5d5tal ideas1 :i*1 ?\gh accord+ to ! true b hidd5 ends ( ! natural det]m9ation ( our reason1 !y may aim n at extravagant concepts1 b at an unb\nd$ ext5sion ( _! empirical use1 yet s$uce ! und]/&+ by an unavoidable illusion to a transc5d5t use1 :i*1 ?\gh deceitful1 _c be re/ra9$ )9 ! b\nds ( exp]i5ce by any resolution1 b only by sci5tific in/ruction & ) mu* difficulty4 ,i4 ,! ,psy*ological ,idea4#cj #cj ,see ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 ,von d5 ,p>alogism5 d] re95 ,v]nunft4 #df4 ,p h long s9ce obs]v$1 t 9 all sub/ances ! prop] subject1 t :i* rema9s aft] all ! accid5ts 7z pr$icates7 are ab/ract$1 consequ5tly t :i* =ms ! sub/ance ( ?+s rema9s unkn[n1 & v>i\s compla9ts h be5 made conc]n+ ^! limits to our k4 ,b x w be well to consid] t ! human und]/&+ is n to be blam$ = its inability to "k ! sub/ance ( ?+s1 t is1 to det]m9e x by itself1 b r = requir+ to cognise x :i* is a m]e idea def9itely z ?\gh x 7 a giv5 object4 ,pure reason requires u to seek = e pr$icate ( a ?+ its prop] subject1 & = ?is subject1 :i* is itself necess>ily no?+ b a pr$icate1 its subject1 & s on indef9itely 7or z f> z we c rea*74 ,b h5ce x foll[s1 t we mu/ n hold any?+1 at :i* we c arrive1 to be an ultimate subject1 & t sub/ance itself nev] c be ?\ght by our und]/&+1 h[ev] deep we may p5etrate1 ev5 if all nature 7 unveil$ to u4 ,= ! specific nature ( our und]/&+ consi/s 9 ?9k+ ev]y?+ discursively1 t is1 repres5t+ x by concepts1 & s by m]e pr$icates1 to :i* !re=e ! absolute subject mu/ always be want+4 ,h5ce all ! real prop]ties1 by :i* we cognise bodies1 are m]e accid5ts1 n except+ imp5etrability1 :i* we c only repres5t to ourselves z ! effect ( a p[] ( :i* ! subject is unkn[n to u4 ,n[ we appe> to h ?is sub/ance 9 ! consci\sness ( ourselves 79 ! ?9k+ subject71 & inde$ 9 an imm$iate intuition2 = all ! pr$icates ( an int]nal s5se ref] to ! ego1 z a subject1 & ,i _c conceive myself z ! pr$icate ( any o!r subject4 ,h5ce complet5ess 9 ! ref]5ce ( ! giv5 concepts z pr$icates to a subject--n m]ely an idea1 b an object--t is1 ! absolute subject itself1 seems to be giv5 9 exp]i5ce4 ,b ?is expectation is disappo9t$4 ,= ! ego is n a concept1#ca b only ! indication ( ! object ( ! int]nal s5se1 s f> z we cognise x by no fur!r pr$icate4 ,consequ5tly x _c be 9 itself a pr$icate ( any o!r ?+2 b j z little c x be a det]m9ate concept ( an absolute subject1 b is1 z 9 all o!r cases1 only ! ref]5ce ( ! int]nal ph5om5a to _! unkn[n subject4 ,yet ?is idea 7:i* s]ves v well1 z a regulative pr9ciple1 totally to de/roy all mat]iali/ic explanations ( ! int]nal ph5om5a ( ! s\l7 occasions by a v natural misund]/&+ a v speci\s argum5t1 :i*1 f ?is suppos$ cognition ( ! sub/ance ( our ?9k+ be+1 inf]s its nature1 s f> z ! k ( x falls q )\t ! complex ( exp]i5ce4 #ca ,7 ! repres5tation ( ! app]ception 7! ,ego7 a concept1 by :i* any?+ c\ld be ?\ght1 x c\ld be us$ z a pr$icate ( o!r ?+s or conta9 pr$icates 9 itself4 ,b x is no?+ m ?an ! feel+ ( an exi/5ce )\t ! lea/ def9ite conception & is only ! repres5tation ( t to :i* all ?9k+ /&s 9 relation 7relatione accid5tis74 #dg4 ,b ?\gh we may call ?is ?9k+ self 7! s\l7 sub/ance1 z be+ ! ultimate subject ( ?9k+ :i* _c be fur!r repres5t$ z ! pr$icate ( ano!r ?+2 x rema9s q empty & )\t significance1 if p]man5ce--! quality :i* r5d]s ! concept ( sub/ances 9 exp]i5ce fruitful--_c be prov$ ( x4 ,b p]man5ce c nev] be prov$ ( ! concept ( a sub/ance1 z a ?+ 9 itself1 b = ! purposes ( exp]i5ce only4 ,?is is suffici5tly %[n by ! fir/ ,analogy ( ,exp]i5ce1#cb & :o ev] w n yield to ?is pro( may try = himself :e!r he c succe$ 9 prov+1 f ! concept ( a subject :i* does n exi/ itself z ! pr$icate ( ano!r ?+1 t its exi/5ce is ?or\ghly p]man5t1 & t x _c ei!r 9 itself or by any natural cause orig9ate or be annihilat$4 ,^! syn!tical a priori propositions c nev] be prov$ 9 !mselves1 b only 9 ref]5ce to ?+s z objects ( possible exp]i5ce4 #cb ,cf4 ,critique1 ,von d5 ,analogi5 d] ,erfahrung4 #dh4 ,if !re=e f ! concept ( ! s\l z a sub/ance1 we w\ld inf] its p]man5ce1 ?is c hold good z reg>ds possible exp]i5ce only1 n ( ! s\l z a ?+ 9 itself & beyond all possible exp]i5ce4 ,b life is ! subjective condition ( all our possible exp]i5ce1 consequ5tly we c only inf] ! p]man5ce ( ! s\l 9 life2 = ! dea? ( man is ! end ( all exp]i5ce :i* conc]ns ! s\l z an object ( exp]i5ce1 except ! contr>y be prov$1 :i* is ! v "q 9 h&4 ,! p]man5ce ( ! s\l c !re=e only be prov$ 7& no "o c>es = t7 dur+ ! life ( man1 b n1 z we desire to d1 aft] dea?2 & = ?is g5]al reason1 t ! concept ( sub/ance1 s f> z x is to be consid]$ necess>ily comb9$ ) ! concept ( p]man5ce1 c be s comb9$ only accord+ to ! pr9ciples ( possible exp]i5ce1 & !re=e = ! purposes ( exp]i5ce only4#cc #cc ,x is inde$ v rem>kable h[ c>elessly metaphysicians h always pass$ ov] ! pr9ciple ( ! p]man5ce ( sub/ances )\t ev] attempt+ a pro( ( x2 d\btless because !y f\nd !mselves ab&on$ by all pro(s z soon z !y began to deal ) ! concept ( sub/ance4 ,common s5se1 :i* felt di/9ctly t )\t ?is presupposition d union ( p]ceptions 9 exp]i5ce is possible1 suppli$ ! want by a po/ulate4 ,f exp]i5ce itself x nev] c\ld d]ive su* a pr9ciple1 p>tly because sub/ances _c be s trac$ 9 all _! alt]ations & dissolutions1 t ! matt] c always be f\nd undim9i%$1 p>tly because ! pr9ciple conta9s necessity1 :i* is always ! sign ( an a priori pr9ciple4 ,p !n boldly appli$ ?is po/ulate to ! concept ( s\l z a sub/ance1 & conclud$ a necess>y cont9uance ( ! s\l aft] ! dea? ( man 7especially z ! simplicity ( ?is sub/ance1 :i* is inf]r$ f ! indivisibility ( consci\sness1 secur$ x f de/ruction by dissolution74 ,_h !y f\nd ! g5u9e s\rce ( ?is pr9ciple--a discov]y :i* requires deep] rese>*es ?an !y 7 ev] incl9$ to make--!y w\ld h se51 t ! law ( ! p]man5ce ( sub/ances has place = ! purposes ( exp]i5ce only1 & h5ce c hold good ( ?+s s f> z !y are to be cognis$ & conjo9$ ) o!rs 9 exp]i5ce1 b nev] indep5d5tly ( all possible exp]i5ce1 & consequ5tly _c hold good ( ! s\l aft] dea?4 #di4 ,t !re is some?+ real )\t u :i* n only corresponds1 b mu/ correspond1 to our ext]nal p]ceptions1 c likewise be prov$ to be n a connexion ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 b = ! sake ( exp]i5ce4 ,?is means t !re is some?+ empirical1 i4e41 "s ph5om5on 9 space )\t u1 t admits ( a satisfactory pro(1 = we h no?+ to d ) o!r objects ?an ^? :i* belong to possible exp]i5ce2 because objects :i* _c be giv5 u 9 any exp]i5ce1 d n exi/ = u4 ,empirically )\t me is t :i* appe>s 9 space1 & space1 toge!r ) all ! ph5om5a :i* x conta9s1 belongs to ! repres5tations1 ^: connexion accord+ to laws ( exp]i5ce proves _! objective tru?1 j z ! connexion ( ! ph5om5a ( ! int]nal s5se proves ! actuality ( my s\l 7z an object ( ! int]nal s5se74 ,by means ( ext]nal exp]i5ce ,i am consci\s ( ! actuality ( bodies1 z ext]nal ph5om5a 9 space1 9 ! same mann] z by means ( ! int]nal exp]i5ce ,i am consci\s ( ! exi/5ce ( my s\l 9 "t1 b ?is s\l is only cognis$ z an object ( ! int]nal s5se by ph5om5a t con/itute an int]nal /ate1 & ( :i* ! ess5ce 9 itself1 :i* =ms ! basis ( ^! ph5om5a1 is unkn[n4 ,c>tesian idealism !re=e does no?+ b di/+ui% ext]nal exp]i5ce f dream+2 & ! con=mity to law 7z a crit]ion ( its tru?7 ( ! =m]1 f ! irregul>ity & ! false illusion ( ! latt]4 ,9 bo? x presupposes space & "t z conditions ( ! exi/5ce ( objects1 & x only inquires :e!r ! objects ( ! ext]nal s5ses1 :i* we :5 awake put 9 space1 are z actually to be f\nd 9 x1 z ! object ( ! int]nal s5se1 ! s\l1 is 9 "t2 t is1 :e!r exp]i5ce c>ries ) x sure crit]ia to di/+ui% x f imag9ation4 ,?is d\bt1 h[ev]1 may be easily dispos$ (1 & we always d s 9 common life by inve/igat+ ! connexion ( ph5om5a 9 bo? space & "t accord+ to univ]sal laws ( exp]i5ce1 & we _c d\bt1 :5 ! repres5tation ( ext]nal ?+s ?r\gh\t agrees !re)1 t !y con/itute tru?ful exp]i5ce4 ,mat]ial idealism1 9 :i* ph5om5a are consid]$ z su* only accord+ to _! connexion 9 exp]i5ce1 may accord+ly be v easily refut$2 & x is j z sure an exp]i5ce1 t bodies exi/ )\t u 79 space71 z t ,i myself exi/ accord+ to ! repres5tation ( ! int]nal s5se 79 "t73 = ! notion )\t u1 only signifies exi/5ce 9 space4 ,h[ev] z ! ,ego 9 ! proposition1 ,i am1 means n only ! object ( int]nal intuition 79 "t71 b ! subject ( consci\sness1 j z body means n only ext]nal intuition 79 space71 b ! ?+-9-itself1 :i* is ! basis ( ?is ph5om5on2 z ?is is ! case ! "q1 :e!r bodies 7z ph5om5a ( ! ext]nal s5se7 exi/ z bodies ap>t f my ?\ghts1 may )\t any hesitation be d5i$ 9 nature4 ,b ! "q1 :e!r ,i myself z a ph5om5on ( ! int]nal s5se 7! s\l accord+ to empirical psy*ology7 exi/ ap>t f my faculty ( repres5tation 9 "t1 is an exactly simil> inquiry1 & mu/ likewise be answ]$ 9 ! negative4 ,& 9 ?is mann] ev]y?+1 :5 x is r$uc$ to its true mean+1 is decid$ & c]ta94 ,! =mal 7:i* ,i h also call$ transc5d5tal7 actually aboli%es ! mat]ial1 or ,c>tesian1 idealism4 ,= if space be no?+ b a =m ( my s5sibility1 x is z a repres5tation 9 me j z actual z ,i myself am1 & no?+ b ! empirical tru? ( ! repres5tations 9 x rema9s = consid]ation4 ,b1 if ?is is n ! case1 if space & ! ph5om5a 9 x are some?+ exi/+ )\t u1 !n all ! crit]ia ( exp]i5ce beyond our p]ception c nev] prove ! actuality ( ^! objects )\t u4 ,,ii4 ,! ,cosmological ,idea4#cd #cd ,cf4 ,critique1 ,die ,ant9omie d] re95 ,v]nunft4 #ej4 ,?is product ( pure reason 9 its transc5d5t use is its mo/ rem>kable curiosity4 ,x s]ves z a v p[]ful ag5t to r\se philosophy f its dogmatic slumb]1 & to /imulate x to ! ardu\s task ( und]tak+ a ,critique ( ,reason itself4 ,i t]m ?is idea cosmological1 because x always takes its object only f ! s5sible _w1 & does n use any o!r ?an ^? ^: object is giv5 to s5se1 consequ5tly x rema9s 9 ?is respect 9 its native home1 x does n become transc5d5t1 & is !re=e s f> n m]e idea2 :]eas1 to conceive ! s\l z a simple sub/ance1 already means to conceive su* an object 7! simple7 z _c be pres5t$ to ! s5ses4 ,yet ! cosmological idea ext5ds ! connexion ( ! condition$ ) its condition 7:e!r ! connexion is ma!matical or dynamical7 s f>1 t exp]i5ce nev] c keep up ) x4 ,x is !re=e ) reg>d to ?is po9t always an idea1 ^: object nev] c be adequately giv5 9 any exp]i5ce4 #ea4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! use ( a sy/em ( categories becomes "h s obvi\s & unmi/akable1 t ev5 if !re 7 n sev]al o!r pro(s ( x1 ?is alone w\ld suffici5tly prove x indisp5sable 9 ! sy/em ( pure reason4 ,!re are only f\r su* transc5d5t ideas1 z !re are s _m classes ( categories2 9 ea* ( :i*1 h[ev]1 !y ref] only to ! absolute complet5ess ( ! s]ies ( ! conditions = a giv5 condition$4 ,9 analogy to ^! cosmological ideas !re are only f\r k9ds ( dialectical ass]tions ( pure reason1 :i*1 z !y are dialectical1 !reby prove1 t to ea* ( !m1 on equally speci\s pr9ciples ( pure reason1 a contradictory ass]tion /&s oppos$4 ,z all ! metaphysical art ( ! mo/ subtile di/9ction _c prev5t ?is opposition1 x compels ! philosoph] to recur to ! fir/ s\rces ( pure reason itself4 ,?is ,ant9omy1 n arbitr>ily inv5t$1 b f\nd$ 9 ! nature ( human reason1 & h5ce unavoidable & nev] ceas+1 conta9s ! foll[+ f\r !ses toge!r ) _! anti!ses3 #a4 ,!sis4 ,! ,_w has1 z to ,"t & ,space1 a ,beg9n+ 7limit74 ,anti!sis4 ,! ,_w is1 z to ,"t & ,space1 inf9ite4 #b4 ,!sis4 ,ev]y?+ 9 ! ,_w consi/s ( elem5ts t are simple4 ,anti!sis4 ,!re is no?+ simple1 b ev]y?+ is composite4 #c4 ,!sis4 ,!re are 9 ! ,_w ,causes ?r\gh ,fre$om4 ,anti!sis4 ,!re is no ,lib]ty1 b all is ,nature4 #d4 ,!sis4 ,9 ! ,s]ies ( ! ,_w-,causes !re is "s necess>y ,be+4 ,anti!sis4 ,!re is ,no?+ necess>y 9 ! ,_w1 b 9 ?is ,s]ies ,all is incid5tal4 #eb4;a4 ,"h is ! mo/ s+ul> ph5om5on ( human reason1 no o!r in/ance ( :i* c be %[n 9 any o!r use4 ,if we1 z is commonly done1 repres5t to ourselves ! appe>ances ( ! s5sible _w z ?+s 9 !mselves1 if we assume ! pr9ciples ( _! comb9ation z pr9ciples univ]sally valid ( ?+s 9 !mselves & n m]ely ( exp]i5ce1 z is usually1 nay )\t our ,critique1 unavoidably done1 !re arises an unexpect$ conflict1 :i* nev] c be remov$ 9 ! common dogmatical way2 because ! !sis1 z well z ! anti!sis1 c be %[n by equally cle>1 evid5t1 & irresi/ible pro(s--= ,i pl$ge myself z to ! correctness ( all ^! pro(s--& reason !re=e p]ceives t x is divid$ ) itself1 a /ate at :i* ! sceptic rejoices1 b :i* mu/ make ! critical philosoph] pause & feel ill at ease4 #eb4;b4 ,we may blund] 9 v>i\s ways 9 metaphysics )\t any fe> ( be+ detect$ 9 falsehood4 ,= we nev] c be refut$ by exp]i5ce if we b avoid self-contradiction1 :i* 9 syn!tical1 ?\gh purely fictiti\s propositions1 may be done :5ev] ! concepts1 :i* we connect1 are m]e ideas1 t _c be giv5 79 _! :ole cont5t7 9 exp]i5ce4 ,= h[ c we make out by exp]i5ce1 :e!r ! _w is f et]nity or _h a beg9n+1 :e!r matt] is inf9itely divisible or consi/s ( simple p>ts8 ,su* concept _c be giv5 9 any exp]i5ce1 be x ev] s ext5sive1 & consequ5tly ! falsehood ei!r ( ! positive or ! negative proposition _c be discov]$ by ?is t\*-/one4 ,! only possible way 9 :i* reason c\ld h reveal$ un9t5tionally its secret ,dialectics1 falsely ann\nc$ z ,dogmatics1 w\ld be :5 x 7 made to gr\nd an ass]tion ^u a univ]sally admitt$ pr9ciple1 & to d$uce ! exact contr>y ) ! greate/ accuracy ( inf]5ce f ano!r :i* is equally grant$4 ,?is is actually "h ! case ) reg>d to f\r natural ideas ( reason1 :5ce f\r ass]tions on ! "o side1 & z _m c\nt]-ass]tions on ! o!r arise1 ea* consi/5tly foll[+ f univ]sally-ackn[l$g$ pr9ciples4 ,?us !y reveal by ! use ( ^! pr9ciples ! dialectical illusion ( pure reason :i* w\ld o!rwise =ev] rema9 conceal$4 ,?is is !re=e a decisive exp]im5t1 :i* mu/ necess>ily expose any error ly+ hidd5 9 ! assumptions ( reason4#ce ,contradictory propositions _c bo? be false1 except ! concept1 :i* is ! subject ( bo?1 is self-contradictory2 = example1 ! propositions1 a squ>e circle is r\nd1 & a squ>e circle is n r\nd1 are bo? false4 ,=1 z to ! =m] x is false1 t ! circle is r\nd1 because x is quadrangul>2 & x is likewise false1 t x is n r\nd1 t is1 angul>1 because x is a circle4 ,= ! logical crit]ion ( ! impossibility ( a concept consi/s 9 ?is1 t if we presuppose x1 two contradictory propositions bo? become false2 consequ5tly1 z no middle betwe5 !m is conceivable1 no?+ at all is ?\ght by t concept4 #ce ,i !re=e w\ld be pleas$ to h ! critical read] to devote to ?is ant9omy ( pure reason 8 *ief att5tion1 because nature itself seems to h e/abli%$ x ) a view to /agg] reason 9 its d>+ pret5tions1 & to =ce x to self-exam9ation4 ,= e pro(1 :i* ,i h giv51 z well ( ! !sis z ( ! anti!sis1 ,i und]take to be responsible1 & !reby to %[ ! c]ta9ty ( ! inevitable ant9omy ( reason4 ,:5 ! read] is br\ght by ?is curi\s ph5om5on to fall back ^u ! pro( ( ! presumption ^u :i* x re/s1 he w feel himself oblig$ to inve/igate ! ultimate f\ndation ( all ! cognition ( pure reason ) me m ?or\ghly4 #eb4;c4 ,! fir/ two ant9omies1 :i* ,i call ma!matical1 because !y are conc]n$ ) ! addition or division ( ! homog5e\s1 are f\nd$ on su* a self-contradictory concept2 & h5ce ,i expla9 h[ x happ5s1 t bo? ! ,!sis & ,anti!sis ( ! two are false4 ,:5 ,i speak ( objects 9 "t & 9 space1 x is n ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 ( :i* ,i "k no?+1 b ( ?+s 9 appe>ance1 t is1 ( exp]i5ce1 z ! p>ticul> way ( cognis+ objects :i* is af=d$ to man4 ,i mu/ n say ( :at ,i ?9k 9 "t or 9 space1 t 9 itself1 & indep5d5t ( ^! my ?\ghts1 x exi/s 9 space & 9 "t2 = 9 t case ,i %\ld contradict myself2 because space & "t1 toge!r ) ! appe>ances 9 !m1 are no?+ exi/+ 9 !mselves & outside ( my repres5tations1 b are !mselves only modes ( repres5tation1 & x is palpably contradictory to say1 t a m]e mode ( repres5tation exi/s )\t our repres5tation4 ,objects ( ! s5ses !re=e exi/ only 9 exp]i5ce2 :]eas to give !m a self-subsi/+ exi/5ce ap>t f exp]i5ce or be=e x1 is m]ely to repres5t to ourselves t exp]i5ce actually exi/s ap>t f exp]i5ce or be=e x4 ,n[ if ,i inquire aft] ! quantity ( ! _w1 z to space & "t1 x is equally impossible1 z reg>ds all my notions1 to decl>e x inf9ite or to decl>e x f9ite4 ,= nei!r ass]tion c be conta9$ 9 exp]i5ce1 because exp]i5ce ei!r ( an inf9ite space1 or ( an inf9ite "t elaps$1 or aga91 ( ! b\nd>y ( ! _w by a void space1 or by an antec$5t void "t1 is impossible2 ^! are m]e ideas4 ,?is quantity ( ! _w1 :i* is det]m9$ 9 ei!r way1 %\ld !re=e exi/ 9 ! _w itself ap>t f all exp]i5ce4 ,?is contradicts ! notion ( a _w ( s5se1 :i* is m]ely a complex ( ! appe>ances ^: exi/5ce & connexion occur only 9 our repres5tations1 t is1 9 exp]i5ce1 s9ce ?is latt] is n an object 9 itself1 b a m]e mode ( repres5tation4 ,h5ce x foll[s1 t z ! concept ( an absolutely exi/+ _w ( s5se is self-contradictory1 ! solution ( ! problem conc]n+ its quantity1 :e!r attempt$ affirmatively or negatively1 is always false4 ,! same holds good ( ! second ant9omy1 :i* relates to ! division ( ph5om5a4 ,= ^! are m]e repres5tations1 & ! p>ts exi/ m]ely 9 _! repres5tation1 consequ5tly 9 ! division1 or 9 a possible exp]i5ce :]e !y are giv51 & ! division rea*es only z f> z ?is latt] rea*es4 ,to assume t an appe>ance1 e4g41 t ( body1 conta9s 9 itself be=e all exp]i5ce all ! p>ts1 :i* any possible exp]i5ce c ev] rea*1 is to impute to a m]e appe>ance1 :i* c exi/ only 9 exp]i5ce1 an exi/5ce previ\s to exp]i5ce4 ,9 o!r words1 x w\ld mean t m]e repres5tations exi/ be=e !y c be f\nd 9 our faculty ( repres5tation4 ,su* an ass]tion is self-contradictory1 z also e solution ( our misund]/ood problem1 :e!r we ma9ta91 t bodies 9 !mselves consi/ ( an inf9ite numb] ( p>ts1 or ( a f9ite numb] ( simple p>ts4 #ec4 ,9 ! fir/ 7! ma!matical7 class ( ant9omies ! falsehood ( ! assumption consi/s 9 repres5t+ 9 "o concept some?+ self-contradictory z if x 7 compatible 7i4e41 an appe>ance z an object 9 itself74 ,b1 z to ! second 7! dynamical7 class ( ant9omies1 ! falsehood ( ! repres5tation consi/s 9 repres5t+ z contradictory :at is compatible2 s t1 z 9 ! =m] case1 ! oppos$ ass]tions are bo? false1 9 ?is case1 on ! o!r h&1 :]e !y are oppos$ to "o ano!r by m]e misund]/&+1 !y may bo? be true4 ,any ma!matical connexion necess>ily presupposes homog5eity ( :at is connect$ 79 ! concept ( magnitude71 :ile ! dynamical "o by no means requires ! same4 ,:5 we h to deal ) ext5d$ magnitudes1 all ! p>ts mu/ be homog5e\s ) "o ano!r & ) ! :ole2 :]eas1 9 ! connexion ( cause & effect1 homog5eity may inde$ likewise be f\nd1 b is n necess>y2 = ! concept ( causality 7by means ( :i* some?+ is posit$ ?r\gh some?+ else q diff]5t f x71 at all ev5ts1 does n require x4 ,if ! objects ( ! _w ( s5se are tak5 = ?+s 9 !mselves1 & ! above laws ( nature = ! laws ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 ! contradiction w\ld be unavoidable4 ,s also1 if ! subject ( fre$om 71 l o!r objects1 repres5t$ z m]e appe>ance1 ! contradiction w\ld be j z unavoidable1 = ! same pr$icate w\ld at once be affirm$ & d5i$ ( ! same k9d ( object 9 ! same s5se4 ,b if natural necessity is ref]r$ m]ely to appe>ances1 & fre$om m]ely to ?+s 9 !mselves1 no contradiction arises1 if we at once assume1 or admit bo? k9ds ( causality1 h[ev] difficult or impossible x may be to make ! latt] k9d conceivable4 ,z appe>ance e effect is an ev5t1 or some?+ t happ5s 9 "t2 x mu/1 accord+ to ! univ]sal law ( nature1 be prec$$ by a det]m9ation ( ! causality ( its cause 7a /ate71 :i* foll[s accord+ to a con/ant law4 ,b ?is det]m9ation ( ! cause z causality mu/ likewise be some?+ t takes place or happ5s2 ! cause mu/ h begun to act1 o!rwise no succession betwe5 x & ! effect c\ld be conceiv$4 ,o!rwise ! effect1 z well z ! causality ( ! cause1 w\ld h always exi/$4 ,!re=e ! det]m9ation ( ! cause to act mu/ also h orig9at$ among appe>ances1 & mu/ consequ5tly1 z well z its effect1 be an ev5t1 :i* mu/ aga9 h its cause1 & s on2 h5ce natural necessity mu/ be ! condition1 on :i* effective causes are det]m9$4 ,:]eas if fre$om is to be a prop]ty ( c]ta9 causes ( appe>ances1 x mu/1 z reg>ds ^!1 :i* are ev5ts1 be a faculty ( />t+ !m spontane\sly1 t is1 )\t ! causality ( ! cause itself1 & h5ce )\t requir+ any o!r gr\nd to det]m9e its />t4 ,b !n ! cause1 z to its causality1 mu/ n rank "u "t-det]m9ations ( its /ate1 t is1 x _c be an appe>ance1 & mu/ be consid]$ a ?+ 9 itself1 :ile its effects w\ld be only appe>ances4#cf ,if )\t contradiction we c ?9k ( ! be+s ( und]/&+ ,v]/&eswes5 z ex]cis+ su* an influ5ce on appe>ances1 !n natural necessity w atta* to all connexions ( cause & effect 9 ! s5su\s _w1 ?\gh on ! o!r h&1 fre$om c be grant$ to su* cause1 z is itself n an appe>ance 7b ! f\ndation ( appe>ance74 ,nature !re=e & fre$om c )\t contradiction be attribut$ to ! v same ?+1 b 9 diff]5t relations--on "o side z a ph5om5on1 on ! o!r z a ?+ 9 itself4 #cf ,! idea ( fre$om occurs only 9 ! relation ( ! intellectual1 z cause1 to ! appe>ance1 z effect4 ,h5ce we _c attribute fre$om to matt] 9 reg>d to ! incessant action by :i* x fills its space1 ?\gh ?is action takes place f an int]nal pr9ciple4 ,we c likewise f9d no notion ( fre$om suitable to purely rational be+s1 = in/ance1 to ,god1 s f> z 8 action is imman5t4 ,= 8 action1 ?\gh indep5d5t ( ext]nal det]m9+ causes1 is det]m9$ 9 8 et]nal reason1 t is1 9 ! div9e nature4 ,x is only1 if some?+ is to />t by an action1 & s ! effect occurs 9 ! sequ5ce ( "t1 or 9 ! _w ( s5se 7e4g41 ! beg9n+ ( ! _w71 t we c put ! "q1 :e!r ! causality ( ! cause mu/ 9 its turn h be5 />t$1 or :e!r ! cause c orig9ate an effect )\t its causality itself beg9n+4 ,9 ! =m] case ! concept ( ?is causality is a concept ( natural necessity1 9 ! latt]1 t ( fre$om4 ,f ?is ! read] w see1 t1 z ,i expla9$ fre$om to be ! faculty ( />t+ an ev5t spontane\sly1 ,i h exactly hit ! notion :i* is ! problem ( metaphysics4 ,we h 9 u a faculty1 :i* n only /&s 9 connexion ) its subjective det]m9+ gr\nds t are ! natural causes ( its actions1 & is s f> ! faculty ( a be+ t itself belongs to appe>ances1 b is also ref]r$ to objective gr\nds1 t are only ideas1 s f> z !y c det]m9e ?is faculty1 a connexion :i* is express$ by ! ^w ought4 ,?is faculty is call$ reason1 &1 s f> z we consid] a be+ 7man7 entirely accord+ to ?is objectively det]m9able reason1 he _c be consid]$ z a be+ ( s5se1 b ?is prop]ty is t ( a ?+ 9 itself1 ( :i* we _c compreh5d ! possibility--,i mean h[ ! ought 7:i* h[ev] has nev] yet tak5 place7 %\ld det]m9e its activity1 & c become ! cause ( actions1 ^: effect is an appe>ance 9 ! s5sible _w4 ,yet ! causality ( reason w\ld be fre$om ) reg>d to ! effects 9 ! s5su\s _w1 s f> z we c consid] objective gr\nds1 :i* are !mselves ideas1 z _! det]m9ants4 ,= its action 9 t case w\ld n dep5d ^u subjective conditions1 consequ5tly n ^u ^? ( "t1 & ( c\rse n ^u ! law ( nature1 :i* s]ves to det]m9e !m1 because gr\nds ( reason give to actions ! rule univ]sally1 accord+ to pr9ciples1 )\t ! influ5ce ( ! circum/ances ( ei!r "t or place4 ,:at ,i adduce "h is m]ely meant z an example to make ! ?+ intelligible1 & does n necess>ily belong to our problem1 :i* mu/ be decid$ f m]e concepts1 indep5d5tly ( ! prop]ties :i* we meet 9 ! actual _w4 ,n[ ,i may say )\t contradiction3 t all ! actions ( rational be+s1 s f> z !y are appe>ances 7occurr+ 9 any exp]i5ce71 are subject to ! necessity ( nature2 b ! same actions1 z reg>ds m]ely ! rational subject & its faculty ( act+ accord+ to m]e reason1 are free4 ,= :at is requir$ = ! necessity ( nature8 ,no?+ m ?an ! det]m9ability ( e ev5t 9 ! _w ( s5se accord+ to con/ant laws1 t is1 a ref]5ce to cause 9 ! appe>ance2 9 ?is process ! ?+ 9 itself at its f\ndation & its causality rema9 unkn[n4 ,b ,i say1 t ! law ( nature rema9s1 :e!r ! rational be+ is ! cause ( ! effects 9 ! s5su\s _w f reason1 t is1 ?r\gh fre$om1 or :e!r x does n det]m9e !m on gr\nds ( reason4 ,=1 if ! =m] is ! case1 ! action is p]=m$ accord+ to maxims1 ! effect ( :i* z appe>ance is always con=m able to con/ant laws2 if ! latt] is ! case1 & ! action n p]=m$ on pr9ciples ( reason1 x is subject$ to ! empirical laws ( ! s5sibility1 & 9 bo? cases ! effects are connect$ accord+ to con/ant laws2 m ?an ?is we d n require or "k conc]n+ natural necessity4 ,b 9 ! =m] case reason is ! cause ( ^! laws ( nature1 & !re=e free2 9 ! latt] ! effects foll[ accord+ to m]e natural laws ( s5sibility1 because reason does n influ5ce x2 b reason itself is n det]m9$ on t acc\nt by ! s5sibility1 & is !re=e free 9 ?is case too4 ,fre$om is !re=e no h9drance to natural law 9 appe>ance1 nei!r does ?is law abrogate ! fre$om ( ! practical use ( reason1 :i* is connect$ ) ?+s 9 !mselves1 z det]m9+ gr\nds4 ,?us practical fre$om1 viz41 ! fre$om 9 :i* reason possesses causality accord+ to objectively det]m9+ gr\nds1 is rescu$ & yet natural necessity is n 9 ! lea/ curtail$ ) reg>d to ! v same effects1 z appe>ances4 ,! same rem>ks w s]ve to expla9 :at we _h to say conc]n+ transc5d5tal fre$om & its compatibility ) natural necessity 79 ! same subject1 b n tak5 9 ! same ref]5ce74 ,=1 z to ?is1 e beg9n+ ( ! action ( a be+ f objective causes reg>d$ z det]m9+ gr\nds1 is always a fir/ />t1 ?\gh ! same action is 9 ! s]ies ( appe>ances only a subord9ate />t1 :i* mu/ be prec$$ by a /ate ( ! cause1 :i* det]m9es x1 & is itself det]m9$ 9 ! same mann] by ano!r imm$iately prec$+4 ,?us we are able1 9 rational be+s1 or 9 be+s g5]ally1 s f> z _! causality is det]m9$ 9 !m z ?+s 9 !mselves1 to imag9e a faculty ( beg9n+ f itself a s]ies ( /ates1 )\t fall+ into contradiction ) ! laws ( nature4 ,= ! relation ( ! action to objective gr\nds ( reason is n a "t-relation2 9 ?is case t :i* det]m9es ! causality does n prec$e 9 "t ! action1 because su* det]m9+ gr\nds repres5t n a ref]5ce to objects ( s5se1 e4g41 to causes 9 ! appe>ances1 b to det]m9+ causes1 z ?+s 9 !mselves1 :i* d n rank "u conditions ( "t4 ,& 9 ?is way ! action1 ) reg>d to ! causality ( reason1 c be consid]$ z a fir/ />t 9 respect to ! s]ies ( appe>ances1 & yet also z a m]ely subord9ate beg9n+4 ,we may !re=e )\t contradiction consid] x 9 ! =m] aspect z free1 b 9 ! latt] 79 s f> z x is m]ely appe>ance7 z subject to natural necessity4 ,z to ! f\r? ,ant9omy1 x is solv$ 9 ! same way z ! conflict ( reason ) itself 9 ! ?ird4 ,=1 provid$ ! cause 9 ! appe>ance is di/+ui%$ f ! cause ( ! appe>ance 7s f> z x c be ?\ght z a ?+ 9 itself71 bo? propositions are p]fectly reconcilable3 ! "o1 t !re is n[h]e 9 ! s5su\s _w a cause 7accord+ to simil> laws ( causality71 ^: exi/5ce is absolutely necess>y2 ! o!r1 t ?is _w is nev]!less connect$ ) a ,necess>y ,be+ z its cause 7b ( ano!r k9d & accord+ to ano!r law74 ,! incompatibility ( ^! propositions entirely re/s ^u ! mi/ake ( ext5d+ :at is valid m]ely ( appe>ances to ?+s 9 !mselves1 & 9 g5]al confus+ bo? 9 "o concept4 #ed4 ,?is !n is ! proposition & ?is ! solution ( ! :ole ant9omy1 9 :i* reason f9ds itself involv$ 9 ! application ( its pr9ciples to ! s5sible _w4 ,! =m] alone 7! m]e proposition7 w\ld be a consid]able s]vice 9 ! cause ( our k ( human reason1 ev5 ?\gh ! solution might fail to fully satisfy ! read]1 :o has "h to combat a natural illusion1 :i* has be5 b rec5tly expos$ to him1 & :i* he _h hi!rto always reg>d$ z g5u9e4 ,= "o result at lea/ is unavoidable4 ,z x is q impossible to prev5t ?is conflict ( reason ) itself--s long z ! objects ( ! s5sible _w are tak5 = ?+s 9 !mselves1 & n = m]e appe>ances1 :i* !y are 9 fact--! read] is !reby compell$ to exam9e ov] aga9 ! d$uction ( all our a priori cognition & ! pro( :i* ,i h giv5 ( my d$uction 9 ord] to come to a decision on ! "q4 ,?is is all ,i require at pres5t2 = :5 9 ?is occupation he %all h ?\ght himself deep en\gh into ! nature ( pure reason1 ^? concepts by :i* alone ! solution ( ! conflict ( reason is possible1 w become suffici5tly famili> to him4 ,)\t ?is prep>ation ,i _c expect an unres]v$ ass5t ev5 f ! mo/ att5tive read]4 ,,iii4 ,! ,!ological ,idea4#cg #cg ,cf4 ,critique1 ! *apt] on ,transc5d5tal ,ideals4 #ee4 ,! ?ird transc5d5tal ,idea1 :i* af=ds matt] = ! mo/ important1 b1 if pursu$ only speculatively1 transc5d5t & !reby dialectical use ( reason1 is ! ideal ( pure reason4 ,reason 9 ?is case does n1 z ) ! psy*ological & ! cosmological ,ideas1 beg9 f exp]i5ce1 & err by exagg]at+ its gr\nds1 9 /riv+ to atta91 if possible1 ! absolute complet5ess ( _! s]ies4 ,x r totally breaks ) exp]i5ce1 & f m]e concepts ( :at con/itutes ! absolute complet5ess ( a ?+ 9 g5]al1 consequ5tly by means ( ! idea ( a mo/ p]fect primal ,be+1 x proce$s to det]m9e ! possibility & !re=e ! actuality ( all o!r ?+s4 ,& s ! m]e presupposition ( a ,be+1 :o is conceiv$ n 9 ! s]ies ( exp]i5ce1 yet = ! purposes ( exp]i5ce--= ! sake ( compreh5d+ its connexion1 ord]1 & unity--i4e41 ! idea ! notion ( x1 is m easily di/+ui%$ f ! concept ( ! und]/&+ "h1 ?an 9 ! =m] cases4 ,h5ce we c easily expose ! dialectical illusion :i* arises f our mak+ ! subjective conditions ( our ?9k+ objective conditions ( objects !mselves1 & an hypo!sis necess>y = ! satisfaction ( our reason1 a dogma4 ,z ! obs]vations ( ! ,critique on ! pret5sions ( transc5d5tal !ology are intelligible1 cle>1 & decisive1 ,i h no?+ m to add on ! subject4 ,g5]al ,rem>k on ! ,transc5d5tal ,ideas4 #ef4 ,! objects1 :i* are giv5 u by exp]i5ce1 are 9 _m respects incompreh5sible1 & _m que/ions1 to :i* ! law ( nature leads u1 :5 c>ri$ beyond a c]ta9 po9t 7?\gh q con=mably to ! laws ( nature71 admit ( no answ]2 z = example ! "q3 :y sub/ances attract "o ano!r8 ,b if we entirely quit nature1 or 9 pursu+ its comb9ations1 exce$ all possible exp]i5ce1 & s ent] ! realm ( m]e ideas1 we _c !n say t ! object is incompreh5sible1 & t ! nature ( ?+s proposes to u insoluble problems4 ,= we are n !n conc]n$ ) nature or 9 g5]al ) giv5 objects1 b ) concepts1 :i* h _! orig9 m]ely 9 our reason1 & ) m]e creations ( ?\ght2 & all ! problems t arise f our notions ( !m mu/ be solv$1 because ( c\rse reason c & mu/ give a full acc\nt ( its own proc$ure4#ch ,z ! psy*ological1 cosmological1 & !ological ,ideas are no?+ b pure concepts ( reason1 :i* _c be giv5 9 any exp]i5ce1 ! que/ions :i* reason asks u ab\t !m are put to u n by ! objects1 b by m]e maxims ( our reason = ! sake ( its own satisfaction4 ,!y mu/ all be capable ( satisfactory answ]s1 :i* is done by %[+ t !y are pr9ciples :i* br+ our use ( ! und]/&+ into ?or\gh agreem5t1 complet5ess1 & syn!tical unity1 & t !y s f> hold good ( exp]i5ce only1 b ( exp]i5ce z a :ole4 #ch ,h]r ,platn] 9 8 ,aphorisms acutely says 7 #gbh1 #gbi71 ,if reason be a crit]ion1 no concept1 :i* is incompreh5sible to human reason1 c be possible4 ,incompreh5sibility has place 9 :at is actual only4 ,"h 9 compreh5sibility arises f ! insuffici5cy ( ! acquir$ ideas4 ,x s\nds p>adoxical1 b is o!rwise n /range to say1 t 9 nature !re is mu* incompreh5sible 7e4g41 ! faculty ( g5]ation7 b if we m\nt /ill high]1 & ev5 g beyond nature1 ev]y?+ aga9 becomes compreh5sible2 = we !n quit entirely ! objects1 :i* c be giv5 u1 & occupy ourselves m]ely ab\t ideas1 9 :i* occupation we c easily compreh5d ! law t reason prescribes by !m to ! und]/&+ = its use 9 exp]i5ce1 because ! law is ! reason's own production4 ,al?\gh an absolute :ole ( exp]i5ce is impossible1 ! idea ( a :ole ( cognition accord+ to pr9ciples mu/ imp>t to our k a peculi> k9d ( unity1 t ( a sy/em1 )\t :i* x is no?+ b piecework1 & _c be us$ = prov+ ! exi/5ce ( a highe/ purpose 7:i* c only be ! g5]al sy/em ( all purposes71 ,i d n "h ref] only to ! practical1 b also to ! highe/ purpose ( ! speculative use ( reason4 ,! transc5d5tal ,ideas !re=e express ! peculi> application ( reason z a pr9ciple ( sy/ematic unity 9 ! use ( ! und]/&+4 ,yet if we assume ?is unity ( ! mode ( cognition to be atta*$ to ! object ( cognition1 if we reg>d t :i* is m]ely regulative to be con/itutive1 & if we p]suade ourselves t we c by means ( ^! ,ideas enl>ge our cognition transc5d5tly1 or f> beyond all possible exp]i5ce1 :ile x only s]ves to r5d] exp]i5ce )9 itself z ne>ly complete z possible1 i4e41 to limit its progress by no?+ t _c belong to exp]i5ce3 we suff] f a m]e misund]/&+ 9 our e/imate ( ! prop] application ( our reason & ( its pr9ciples1 & f a ,dialectic1 :i* bo? confuses ! empirical use ( reason1 & also sets reason at v>iance ) itself4 ,conclusion4 ,on ! ,det]m9ation ( ! ,b\nds ( ,pure ,reason4 #eg4 ,hav+ adduc$ ! cle>e/ argum5ts1 x w\ld be absurd = u to hope t we c "k m ( any object1 ?an belongs to ! possible exp]i5ce ( x1 or lay claim to ! lea/ atom ( k ab\t any?+ n assum$ to be an object ( possible exp]i5ce1 :i* w\ld det]m9e x accord+ to ! con/itution x has 9 itself4 ,= h[ c\ld we det]m9e any?+ 9 ?is way1 s9ce "t1 space1 & ! categories1 & /ill m all ! concepts =m$ by empirical exp]i5ce or p]ception 9 ! s5sible _w 7,ans*auung71 h & c h no o!r use1 ?an to make exp]i5ce possible4 ,& if ?is condition is omitt$ f ! pure concepts ( ! und]/&+1 !y d n det]m9e any object1 & h no mean+ :atev]4 ,b x w\ld be on ! o!r h& a /ill great] absurdity if we conc$$ no ?+s 9 !mselves1 or set up our exp]i5ce = ! only possible mode ( kn[+ ?+s1 our way ( behold+ 7,ans*auung7 !m 9 space & 9 "t = ! only possible way1 & our discursive und]/&+ = ! ar*etype ( e possible und]/&+2 9 fact if we wi%$ to h ! pr9ciples ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce consid]$ univ]sal conditions ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,our pr9ciples1 :i* limit ! use ( reason to possible exp]i5ce1 might 9 ?is way become transc5d5t1 & ! limits ( our reason be set up z limits ( ! possibility ( ?+s 9 !mselves 7z ,hume's dialogues may illu/rate71 if a c>eful critique did n gu>d ! b\nds ( our reason ) respect to its empirical use1 & set a limit to its pret5sions4 ,scepticism orig9ally arose f metaphysics & its lic5ti\s dialectics4 ,at fir/ x might1 m]ely to favor ! empirical use ( reason1 ann\nce ev]y?+ t transc5ds ?is use z wor?less & deceitful2 b by & by1 :5 x 0 p]ceiv$ t ! v same pr9ciples t are us$ 9 exp]i5ce1 ins5sibly1 & app>5tly ) ! same "r1 l$ /ill fur!r ?an exp]i5ce ext5ds1 !n m5 began to d\bt ev5 ! propositions ( exp]i5ce4 ,b "h !re is no dang]2 = common s5se w d\btless always ass]t its rights4 ,a c]ta9 confusion1 h[ev]1 arose 9 sci5ce :i* _c det]m9e h[ f> reason is to be tru/$1 & :y only s f> & no fur!r1 & ?is confusion c only be cle>$ up & all future relapses obviat$ by a =mal det]m9ation1 on pr9ciple1 ( ! b\nd>y ( ! use ( our reason4 ,we _c inde$1 beyond all possible exp]i5ce1 =m a def9ite notion ( :at ?+s 9 !mselves may be4 ,yet we are n at lib]ty to ab/a9 entirely f inquir+ into !m2 = exp]i5ce nev] satisfies reason fully1 b 9 answ]+ que/ions1 ref]s u fur!r & fur!r back1 & leaves u dissatisfi$ ) reg>d to _! complete solution4 ,?is any "o may ga!r f ! ,dialectics ( pure reason1 :i* !re=e has its good subjective gr\nds4 ,hav+ acquir$1 z reg>ds ! nature ( our s\l1 a cle> conception ( ! subject1 & hav+ come to ! conviction1 t its manife/ations _c be expla9$ mat]iali/ically1 :o c refra9 f ask+ :at ! s\l really is1 &1 if no concept ( exp]i5ce suffices = ! purpose1 f acc\nt+ = x by a concept ( reason 7t ( a simple immat]ial be+71 ?\gh we _c by any means prove its objective reality8 ,:o c satisfy himself ) m]e empirical k 9 all ! cosmological que/ions ( ! duration & ( ! quantity ( ! _w1 ( fre$om or ( natural necessity1 s9ce e answ] giv5 on pr9ciples ( exp]i5ce begets a fre% "q1 :i* likewise requires its answ] & !reby cle>ly %[s ! insuffici5cy ( all physical modes ( explanation to satisfy reason8 ,f9ally1 :o does n see 9 ! ?or\gh-go+ cont+5cy & dep5d5ce ( all 8 ?\ghts & assumptions on m]e pr9ciples ( exp]i5ce1 ! impossibility ( /opp+ !re8 ,& :o does n feel himself compell$1 not)/&+ all int]dictions aga9/ los+ himself 9 transc5d5t ideas1 to seek re/ & cont5tm5t beyond all ! concepts :i* he c v9dicate by exp]i5ce1 9 ! concept ( a ,be+1 ! possibility ( :i* we _c conceive1 b at ! same "t _c be refut$1 because x relates to a m]e be+ ( ! und]/&+1 & )\t x reason mu/ ne$s rema9 =ev] dissatisfi$8 ,b\nds 79 ext5d$ be+s7 always presuppose a space exi/+ outside a c]ta9 def9ite place1 & 9 clos+ x2 limits d n require ?is1 b are m]e negations1 :i* affect a quantity1 s f> z x is n absolutely complete4 ,b our reason1 z x 71 sees 9 its surr\nd+s a space = ! cognition ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 ?\gh we c nev] h def9ite notions ( !m1 & are limit$ to appe>ances only4 ,z long z ! cognition ( reason is homog5e\s1 def9ite b\nds to x are inconceivable4 ,9 ma!matics & 9 natural philosophy human reason admits ( limits1 b n ( b\nds1 viz41 t some?+ inde$ lies )\t x1 at :i* x c nev] arrive1 b n t x w at any po9t f9d completion 9 its int]nal progress4 ,! enl>g+ ( our views 9 ma!matics1 & ! possibility ( new discov]ies1 are inf9ite2 & ! same is ! case ) ! discov]y ( new prop]ties ( nature1 ( new p[]s & laws1 by cont9u$ exp]i5ce & its rational comb9ation4 ,b limits _c be mi/ak5 "h1 = ma!matics ref]s to appe>ances only1 & :at _c be an object ( s5su\s contemplation1 su* z ! concepts ( metaphysics & ( morals1 lies entirely )\t its sph]e1 & x c nev] lead to !m2 nei!r does x require !m4 ,x is !re=e n a cont9ual progress & an approximation t[>ds ^! sci5ces1 & !re is n1 z x 71 any po9t or l9e ( contact4 ,natural sci5ce w nev] reveal to u ! int]nal con/itution ( ?+s1 :i* ?\gh n appe>ance1 yet c s]ve z ! ultimate gr\nd ( expla9+ appe>ance4 ,nor does t sci5ce require ?is = its physical explanations4 ,nay ev5 if su* gr\nds %\ld be (f]$ f o!r s\rces 7= in/ance1 ! influ5ce ( immat]ial be+s71 !y mu/ be reject$ & n us$ 9 ! progress ( its explanations4 ,= ^! explanations mu/ only be gr\nd$ ^u t :i* z an object ( s5se c belong to exp]i5ce1 & be br\ght into connexion ) our actual p]ceptions & empirical laws4 ,b metaphysics leads u t[>ds b\nds 9 ! dialectical attempts ( pure reason 7n und]tak5 arbitr>ily or wantonly1 b /imulat$ !reto by ! nature ( reason itself74 ,& ! transc5d5tal ,ideas1 z !y d n admit ( evasion1 & are nev] capable ( realisation1 s]ve to po9t out to u actually n only ! b\nds ( ! pure use ( reason1 b also ! way to det]m9e !m4 ,su* is ! end & ! use ( ?is natural pr$isposition ( our reason1 :i* has br\ght =? metaphysics z its favorite *ild1 ^: g5]ation1 l e o!r 9 ! _w1 is n to be ascrib$ to bl9d *ance1 b to an orig9al g]m1 wisely organis$ = great ends4 ,= metaphysics1 9 its fundam5tal features1 p]haps m ?an any o!r sci5ce1 is plac$ 9 u by nature itself1 & _c be consid]$ ! production ( an arbitr>y *oice or a casual enl>gem5t 9 ! progress ( exp]i5ce f :i* x is q disp>ate4 ,reason ) all its concepts & laws ( ! und]/&+1 :i* suffice = empirical use1 i4e41 )9 ! s5sible _w1 f9ds 9 itself no satisfaction because ev]-recurr+ que/ions deprive u ( all hope ( _! complete solution4 ,! transc5d5tal ideas1 :i* h t completion 9 view1 are su* problems ( reason4 ,b x sees cle>ly1 t ! s5su\s _w _c conta9 ?is completion1 nei!r consequ5tly c all ! concepts1 :i* s]ve m]ely = und]/&+ ! _w ( s5se1 su* z space & "t1 & :atev] we h adduc$ "u ! "n ( pure concepts ( ! und]/&+4 ,! s5su\s _w is no?+ b a *a9 ( appe>ances connect$ accord+ to univ]sal laws2 x has !re=e no subsi/5ce by itself2 x is n ! ?+ 9 itself1 & consequ5tly mu/ po9t to t :i* conta9s ! basis ( ?is exp]i5ce1 to be+s :i* _c be cognis$ m]ely z ph5om5a1 b z ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,9 ! cognition ( !m alone reason c hope to satisfy its desire ( complet5ess 9 proce$+ f ! condition$ to its conditions4 ,we h above 7 #cc1 #cd7 indicat$ ! limits ( reason ) reg>d to all cognition ( m]e creations ( ?\ght4 ,n[1 s9ce ! transc5d5tal ideas h urg$ u to approa* !m1 & ?us h l$ u1 z x 71 to ! spot :]e ! occupi$ space 7viz41 exp]i5ce7 t\*es ! void 7t ( :i* we c "k no?+1 viz41 n\m5a71 we c det]m9e ! b\nds ( pure reason4 ,= 9 all b\nds !re is some?+ positive 7e4g41 a surface is ! b\nd>y ( corporeal space1 & is !re=e itself a space1 a l9e is a space1 :i* is ! b\nd>y ( ! surface1 a po9t ! b\nd>y ( ! l9e1 b yet always a place 9 space71 :]eas limits conta9 m]e negations4 ,! limits po9t$ out 9 ^? p>agraphs are n en\gh aft] we h discov]$ t beyond !m !re /ill lies some?+ 7?\gh we c nev] cognise :at x is 9 itself74 ,= ! "q n[ is1 ,:at is ! attitude ( our reason 9 ?is connexion ( :at we "k ) :at we d n1 & nev] %all1 "k8 ,?is is an actual connexion ( a kn[n ?+ ) "o q unkn[n 7& :i* w always rema9 s71 & ?\gh :at is unkn[n %\ld n become ! lea/ m kn[n--:i* we _c ev5 hope--yet ! notion ( ?is connexion mu/ be def9ite1 & capable ( be+ r5d]$ di/9ct4 ,we mu/ !re=e accept an immat]ial be+1 a _w ( und]/&+1 & a ,supreme ,be+ 7all m]e n\m5a71 because 9 !m only1 z ?+s 9 !mselves1 reason f9ds t completion & satisfaction1 :i* x c nev] hope = 9 ! d]ivation ( appe>ances f _! homog5e\s gr\nds1 & because ^! actually h ref]5ce to some?+ di/9ct f !m 7& totally het]og5e\s71 z appe>ances always presuppose an object 9 itself1 & !re=e sugge/ its exi/5ce :e!r we c "k m ( x or n4 ,b z we c nev] cognise ^! be+s ( und]/&+ z !y are 9 !mselves1 t is1 def9itely1 yet mu/ assume !m z reg>ds ! s5sible _w1 & connect !m ) x by reason1 we are at lea/ able to ?9k ?is connexion by means ( su* concepts z express _! relation to ! _w ( s5se4 ,yet if we repres5t to ourselves a be+ ( ! und]/&+ by no?+ b pure concepts ( ! und]/&+1 we !n inde$ repres5t no?+ def9ite to ourselves1 consequ5tly our concept has no significance2 b if we ?9k x by prop]ties borr[$ f ! s5su\s _w1 x is no long] a be+ ( und]/&+1 b is conceiv$ z an appe>ance1 & belongs to ! s5sible _w4 ,let u take an in/ance f ! notion ( ! ,supreme ,be+4 ,our dei/ic conception is q a pure concept ( reason1 b repres5ts only a ?+ conta9+ all realities1 )\t be+ able to det]m9e any "o ( !m2 because = t purpose an example mu/ be tak5 f ! _w ( s5se1 9 :i* case we %\ld h an object ( s5se only1 n some?+ q het]og5e\s1 :i* c nev] be an object ( s5se4 ,suppose ,i attribute to ! ,supreme ,be+ und]/&+1 = in/ance2 ,i h no concept ( an und]/&+ o!r ?an my own1 "o t mu/ receive its p]ceptions 7,ans*auung7 by ! s5ses1 & :i* is occupi$ 9 br++ !m "u rules ( ! unity ( consci\sness4 ,!n ! elem5ts ( my concept w\ld always lie 9 ! appe>ance2 ,i %\ld h[ev] by ! insuffici5cy ( ! appe>ance be necessitat$ to g beyond !m to ! concept ( a be+ :i* nei!r dep5ds ^u appe>ance1 nor is b\nd up ) !m z conditions ( its det]m9ation4 ,b if ,i sep>ate und]/&+ f s5sibility to obta9 a pure und]/&+1 !n no?+ rema9s b ! m]e =m ( ?9k+ )\t p]ception 7,ans*auung71 by :i* =m alone ,i c cognise no?+ def9ite1 & consequ5tly no object4 ,= t purpose ,i %\ld conceive ano!r und]/&+1 su* z w\ld directly p]ceive its objects1#ci b ( :i* ,i h n ! lea/ notion2 because ! human und]/&+ is discursive1 & c n directly p]ceive1 x c only cognise by means ( g5]al concepts4 ,& ! v same difficulties arise if we attribute a w to ! ,supreme ,be+2 = we h ?is concept only by draw+ x f our int]nal exp]i5ce1 & !re=e f our dep5d5ce = satisfaction ^u objects ^: exi/5ce we require2 & s ! notion re/s ^u s5sibility1 :i* is absolutely incompatible ) ! pure concept ( ! ,supreme ,be+4 #ci ,d] die ,geg5/nde ans*aute4 ,hume's objections to deism are weak1 & affect only ! pro(s1 & n ! dei/ic ass]tion itself4 ,b z reg>ds !ism1 :i* dep5ds on a /rict] det]m9ation ( ! concept ( ! ,supreme ,be+ :i* 9 deism is m]ely transc5d5t1 !y are v /rong1 & z ?is concept is =m$1 9 c]ta9 79 fact 9 all common7 cases irrefutable4 ,hume always insi/s1 t by ! m]e concept ( an orig9al be+1 to :i* we apply only ontological pr$icates 7et]nity1 omnipres5ce1 omnipot5ce71 we ?9k no?+ def9ite1 & t prop]ties :i* c yield a concept 9 concreto mu/ be sup]add$2 t x is n en\gh to say1 x is ,cause1 b we mu/ expla9 ! nature ( its causality1 = example1 t ( an und]/&+ & ( a w4 ,he !n beg9s 8 attacks on ! ess5tial po9t itself1 i4e41 !ism1 z he _h previ\sly direct$ 8 batt]y only aga9/ ! pro(s ( deism1 an attack :i* is n v dang]\s to x 9 its consequ5ces4 ,all 8 dang]\s argum5ts ref] to an?ropomorphism1 :i* he holds to be insep>able f !ism1 & to make x absurd 9 itself2 b if ! =m] be ab&on$1 ! latt] mu/ vani% ) x1 & no?+ rema9 b deism1 ( :i* no?+ c come1 :i* is ( no value1 & :i* _c s]ve z any f\ndation to religion or morals4 ,if ?is an?ropomorphism 7 really unavoidable1 no pro(s :atev] ( ! exi/5ce ( a ,supreme ,be+1 ev5 7 !y all grant$1 c\ld det]m9e = u ! concept ( ?is ,be+ )\t involv+ u 9 contradictions4 ,if we connect ) ! comm& to avoid all transc5d5t judgm5ts ( pure reason1 ! comm& 7:i* app>5tly conflicts ) x7 to proce$ to concepts t lie beyond ! field ( its imman5t 7empirical7 use1 we discov] t bo? c subsi/ toge!r1 b only at ! b\nd>y ( all lawful use ( reason4 ,= ?is b\nd>y belongs z well to ! field ( exp]i5ce1 z to t ( ! creations ( ?\ght1 & we are !reby taught1 z well1 h[ ^! s rem>kable ideas s]ve m]ely = m>k+ ! b\nds ( human reason4 ,on ! "o h& !y give w>n+ n b\ndlessly to ext5d cognition ( exp]i5ce1 z if no?+ b _w#dj rema9$ = u to cognise1 & yet1 on ! o!r h&1 n to transgress ! b\nds ( exp]i5ce1 & to ?9k ( judg+ ab\t ?+s beyond !m1 z ?+s 9 !mselves4 #dj ,! use ( ! ^w _w )\t article1 ?\gh odd1 seems to be ! correct read+1 b x may be a m]e mispr9t4-- ,ed4 ,b we /op at ?is b\nd>y if we limit our judgm5t m]ely to ! relation :i* ! _w may h to a ,be+ ^: v concept lies beyond all ! k :i* we c atta9 )9 ! _w4 ,= we !n d n attribute to ! ,supreme ,be+ any ( ! prop]ties 9 !mselves1 by :i* we repres5t objects ( exp]i5ce1 & !reby avoid dogmatic an?ropomorphism2 b we attribute !m to 8 relation to ! _w1 & all[ ourselves a symbolical an?ropomorphism1 :i* 9 fact conc]ns language only1 & n ! object itself4 ,if ,i say t we are compell$ to consid] ! _w1 z if x 7 ! "w ( a ,supreme ,und]/&+ & ,w1 ,i really say no?+ m1 ?an t a wat*1 a %ip1 a regim5t1 be>s ! same relation to ! wat*mak]1 ! %ipbuild]1 ! comm&+ (fic]1 z ! _w ( s5se 7or :atev] con/itutes ! sub/ratum ( ?is complex ( appe>ances7 does to ! ,unkn[n1 :i* ,i d n h]eby cognise z x is 9 itself1 b z x is = me or 9 relation to ! _w1 ( :i* ,i am a "p4 #eh4 ,su* a cognition is "o ( analogy1 & does n signify 7z is commonly und]/ood7 an imp]fect simil>ity ( two ?+s1 b a p]fect simil>ity ( relations betwe5 two q dissimil> ?+s4#da ,by means ( ?is analogy1 h[ev]1 !re rema9s a concept ( ! ,supreme ,be+ suffici5tly det]m9$ = u1 ?\gh we h left out ev]y?+ t c\ld det] m9e x absolutely or 9 itself2 = we det]m9e x z reg>ds ! _w & z reg>ds ourselves1 & m d we n require4 ,! attacks :i* ,hume makes ^u ^? :o w\ld det]m9e ?is concept absolutely1 by tak+ ! mat]ials = s do+ f !mselves & ! _w1 d n affect u2 & he _c object to u1 t we h no?+ left if we give up ! objective an?ropomorphism ( ! concept ( ! ,supreme ,be+4 #da ,!re is1 e4g41 an analogy betwe5 ! juridical relation ( human actions & ! me*anical relation ( motive p[]s4 ,i nev] c d any?+ to ano!r man )\t giv+ him a "r to d ! same to me on ! same conditions2 j z no mass c act ) its motive p[] on ano!r mass )\t !reby occasion+ ! o!r to react equally aga9/ x4 ,"h "r & motive p[] are q dissimil> ?+s1 b 9 _! relation !re is complete simil>ity4 ,by means ( su* an analogy ,i c obta9 a notion ( ! relation ( ?+s :i* absolutely are unkn[n to me4 ,= in/ance1 z ! promotion ( ! welf>e ( *ildr5 7 a7 is to ! love ( p>5ts 7 b71 s ! welf>e ( ! human species 7 c7 is to t unkn[n quantity :i* is 9 ,god 7 x71 :i* we call love2 n z if x _h ! lea/ simil>ity to any human incl9ation1 b because we c suppose its relation to ! _w to be simil> to t :i* ?+s ( ! _w be> "o ano!r4 ,b ! concept ( relation 9 ?is case is a m]e category1 viz41 ! concept ( cause1 :i* has no?+ to d ) s5sibility4 ,= let u assume at ! outset 7z ,hume 9 8 dialogues makes ,philo grant ,clean!s71 z a necess>y hypo!sis1 ! dei/ical concept ( ! ,fir/ ,be+1 9 :i* ?is ,be+ is ?\ght by ! m]e ontological pr$icates ( sub/ance1 ( cause1 etc4 ,?is mu/ be done1 because reason1 actuat$ 9 ! s5sible _w by m]e conditions1 :i* are !mselves always conditional1 _c o!rwise h any satisfaction1 & x !re=e c be done )\t fall+ into an?ropomorphism 7:i* transf]s pr$icates f ! _w ( s5se to a ,be+ q di/9ct f ! _w71 because ^? pr$icates are m]e categories1 :i*1 ?\gh !y d n give a det]m9ate concept ( ,god1 yet give a concept n limit$ to any conditions ( s5sibility4 ,?us no?+ c prev5t our pr$icat+ ( ?is ,be+ a causality ?r\gh reason ) reg>d to ! _w1 & ?us pass+ to !ism1 )\t be+ oblig$ to attribute to ,god 9 himself ?is k9d ( reason1 z a prop]ty inh]+ 9 him4 ,= z to ! =m]1 ! only possible way ( prosecut+ ! use ( reason 7z reg>ds all possible exp]i5ce1 9 complete h>mony ) itself7 9 ! _w ( s5se to ! highe/ po9t1 is to assume a supreme reason z a cause ( all ! connexions 9 ! _w4 ,su* a pr9ciple mu/ be q advantage\s to reason & c hurt x n[h]e 9 its application to nature4 ,z to ! latt]1 reason is !reby n transf]r$ z a prop]ty to ! ,fir/ ,be+ 9 himself1 b only to 8 relation to ! _w ( s5se1 & s an?ropomorphism is entirely avoid$4 ,= no?+ is consid]$ "h b ! cause ( ! =m ( reason :i* is p]ceiv$ ev]y:]e 9 ! _w1 & reason is attribut$ to ! ,supreme ,be+1 s f> z x conta9s ! gr\nd ( ?is =m ( reason 9 ! _w1 b accord+ to analogy only1 t is1 s f> z ?is expression %[s m]ely ! relation1 :i* ! ,supreme ,cause unkn[n to u has to ! _w1 9 ord] to det]m9e ev]y?+ 9 x con=mably to reason 9 ! highe/ degree4 ,we are !reby kept f us+ reason z an attribute = ! purpose ( conceiv+ ,god1 b in/ead ( conceiv+ ! _w 9 su* a mann] z is necess>y to h ! greate/ possible use ( reason accord+ to pr9ciple4 ,we !reby ackn[l$ge t ! ,supreme ,be+ is q inscrutable & ev5 un?9kable 9 any def9ite way z to :at he is 9 himself4 ,we are !reby kept1 on ! "o h&1 f mak+ a transc5d5t use ( ! concepts :i* we h ( reason z an effici5t cause 7by means ( ! w71 9 ord] to det]m9e ! ,div9e ,nature by prop]ties1 :i* are only borr[$ f human nature1 & f los+ ourselves 9 gross & extravagant notions1 & on ! o!r h& f delug+ ! contemplation ( ! _w ) hyp]physical modes ( explanation accord+ to our notions ( human reason1 :i* we transf] to ,god1 & s los+ = ?is contemplation its prop] application1 accord+ to :i* x %\ld be a rational /udy ( m]e nature1 & n a presumptu\s d]ivation ( its appe>ances f a ,supreme ,reason4 ,! expression suit$ to our feeble notions is1 t we conceive ! _w z if x came1 z to its exi/5ce & int]nal plan1 f a ,supreme ,reason1 by :i* notion we bo? cognise ! con/itution1 :i* belongs to ! _w itself1 yet )\t pret5d+ to det]m9e ! nature ( its cause 9 itself1 & on ! o!r h&1 we transf] ! gr\nd ( ?is con/itution 7( ! =m ( reason 9 ! _w7 ^u ! relation ( ! ,supreme ,cause to ! _w1 )\t f9d+ ! _w suffici5t by itself = t purpose4#db #db ,i may say1 t ! causality ( ! ,supreme ,cause holds ! same place ) reg>d to ! _w t human reason does ) reg>d to its works ( art4 ,"h ! nature ( ! ,supreme ,cause itself rema9s unkn[n to me3 ,i only comp>e its effects 7! ord] ( ! _w7 :i* ,i "k1 & _! con=mity to reason1 to ! effects ( human reason :i* ,i also "k2 & h5ce ,i t]m ! =m] reason1 )\t attribut+ to x on t acc\nt :at ,i und]/& 9 man by ?is t]m1 or atta*+ to x any?+ else kn[n to me1 z its prop]ty4 ,?us ! difficulties :i* seem to oppose !ism disappe> by comb9+ ) ,hume's pr9ciple--n to c>ry ! use ( reason dogmatically beyond ! field ( all possible exp]i5ce--?is o!r pr9ciple1 :i* he q ov]look$3 n to consid] ! field ( exp]i5ce z "o :i* b\nds itself 9 ! eye ( our reason4 ,! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason "h po9ts out ! true mean betwe5 dogmatism1 :i* ,hume combats1 & skepticism1 :i* he w\ld sub/itute = x--a mean :i* is n l o!r means t we f9d advisable to det]m9e = ourselves z x 7 me*anically 7by adopt+ some?+ f "o side & some?+ f ! o!r71 & by :i* nobody is taught a bett] way1 b su* a "o z c be accurately det]m9$ on pr9ciples4 #ei4 ,at ! beg9n+ ( ?is annotation ,i made use ( ! metaphor ( a b\nd>y1 9 ord] to e/abli% ! limits ( reason 9 reg>d to its suitable use4 ,! _w ( s5se conta9s m]ely appe>ances1 :i* are n ?+s 9 !mselves1 b ! und]/&+ mu/ assume ^! latt] ones1 viz41 n\m5a4 ,9 our reason bo? are compris$1 & ! "q is1 ,h[ does reason proce$ to set b\nd>ies to ! und]/&+ z reg>ds bo? ^! fields8 ,exp]i5ce1 :i* conta9s all t belongs to ! s5su\s _w1 does n b\nd itself2 x only proce$s 9 e case f ! condition$ to "s o!r equally condition$ object4 ,its b\nd>y mu/ lie q )\t x1 & ?is field is t ( ! pure be+s ( ! und]/&+4 ,b ?is field1 s f> z ! det]m9ation ( ! nature ( ^! be+s is conc]n$1 is an empty space = u1 & if dogmatically-det]m9$ concepts alone are 9 "q1 we _c pass out ( ! field ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,b z a b\nd>y itself is some?+ positive1 :i* belongs z well to t :i* lies )91 z to ! space t lies )\t ! giv5 complex1 x is /ill an actual positive cognition1 :i* reason only acquires by enl>g+ itself to ?is b\nd>y1 yet )\t attempt+ to pass x2 because x !re f9ds itself 9 ! pres5ce ( an empty space1 9 :i* x c conceive =ms ( ?+s1 b n ?+s !mselves4 ,b ! sett+ ( a b\nd>y to ! field ( ! und]/&+ by some?+1 :i* is o!rwise unkn[n to x1 is /ill a cognition :i* belongs to reason ev5 at ?is /&po9t1 & by :i* x is nei!r conf9$ )9 ! s5sible1 nor /ray+ )\t x1 b only ref]s1 z befits ! k ( a b\nd>y1 to ! relation betwe5 t :i* lies )\t x1 & t :i* is conta9$ )9 x4 ,natural !ology is su* a concept at ! b\nd>y ( human reason1 be+ con/ra9$ to look beyond ?is b\nd>y to ! ,idea ( a ,supreme ,be+ 7&1 = practical purposes to t ( an intelligible _w also71 n 9 ord] to det]m9e any?+ relatively to ?is pure creation ( ! und]/&+1 :i* lies beyond ! _w ( s5se1 b 9 ord] to guide ! use ( reason )9 x accord+ to pr9ciples ( ! greate/ possible 7!oretical z well z practical7 unity4 ,= ?is purpose we make use ( ! ref]5ce ( ! _w ( s5se to an indep5d5t reason1 z ! cause ( all its connexions4 ,!reby we d n purely inv5t a be+1 b1 z beyond ! s5sible _w !re mu/ be some?+ t c only be ?\ght by ! pure und]/&+1 we det]m9e t some?+ 9 ?is p>ticul> way1 ?\gh only ( c\rse accord+ to analogy4 ,& ?us !re rema9s our orig9al proposition1 :i* is ! rsum ( ! :ole ,critique3 t reason by all its a priori pr9ciples nev] tea*es u any?+ m ?an objects ( possible exp]i5ce1 & ev5 ( ^! no?+ m ?an c be cognis$ 9 exp]i5ce4 ,b ?is limitation does n prev5t reason lead+ u to ! objective b\nd>y ( exp]i5ce1 viz41 to ! ref]5ce to some?+ :i* is n itself an object ( exp]i5ce1 b is ! gr\nd ( all exp]i5ce4 ,reason does n h[ev] tea* u any?+ conc]n+ ! ?+ 9 itself3 x only in/ructs u z reg>ds its own complete & highe/ use 9 ! field ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,b ?is is all t c be reasonably desir$ 9 ! pres5t case1 & ) :i* we h cause to be satisfi$4 #fj4 ,?us we h fully exhibit$ metaphysics z x is actually giv5 9 ! natural pr$isposition ( human reason1 & 9 t :i* con/itutes ! ess5tial end ( its pursuit1 accord+ to its subjective possibility4 ,?\gh we h f\nd1 t ?is m]ely natural use ( su* a pr$isposition ( our reason1 if no discipl9e aris+ only f a sci5tific critique bridles & sets limits to x1 involves u 9 transc5d5t1 ei!r app>5tly or really conflict+1 dialectical syllogisms2 & ?is fallaci\s metaphysics is n only unnecess>y z reg>ds ! promotion ( our k ( nature1 b ev5 disadvantage\s to x3 !re yet rema9s a problem wor?y ( solution1 :i* is to f9d out ! natural ends int5d$ by ?is disposition to transc5d5t concepts 9 our reason1 because ev]y?+ t lies 9 nature mu/ be orig9ally int5d$ = "s useful purpose4 ,su* an inquiry is ( a d\btful nature2 & ,i ackn[l$ge1 t :at ,i c say ab\t x is conjecture only1 l e speculation ab\t ! fir/ ends ( nature4 ,! "q does n conc]n ! objective validity ( metaphysical judgm5ts1 b our natural pr$isposition to !m1 & !re=e does n belong to ! sy/em ( metaphysics b to an?ropology4 ,:5 ,i comp>e all ! transc5d5tal ,ideas1 ! totality ( :i* con/itutes ! p>ticul> problem ( natural pure reason1 compell+ x to quit ! m]e contemplation ( nature1 to transc5d all possible exp]i5ce1 & 9 ?is endeavor to produce ! ?+ 7be x k or fiction7 call$ metaphysics1 ,i ?9k ,i p]ceive t ! aim ( ?is natural t5d5cy is1 to free our notions f ! fett]s ( exp]i5ce & f ! limits ( ! m]e contemplation ( nature s f> z at lea/ to op5 to u a field conta9+ m]e objects = ! pure und]/&+1 :i* no s5sibility c rea*1 n inde$ = ! purpose ( speculatively occupy+ ourselves ) !m 7= !re we c f9d no gr\nd to /& on71 b because practical pr9ciples1 :i*1 )\t f9d+ "s su* scope = _! necess>y expectation & hope1 c\ld n exp& to ! univ]sality :i* reason unavoidably requires f a moral po9t ( view4 ,s ,i f9d t ! ,psy*ological ,idea 7h[ev] little x may reveal to me ! nature ( ! human s\l1 :i* is high] ?an all concepts ( exp]i5ce71 %[s ! insuffici5cy ( ^! concepts pla9ly en\gh1 & !reby det]s me f mat]ialism1 ! psy*ological notion ( :i* is unfit = any explanation ( nature1 & besides conf9es reason 9 practical respects4 ,! ,cosmological ,ideas1 by ! obvi\s insuffici5cy ( all possible cognition ( nature to satisfy reason 9 its lawful inquiry1 s]ve 9 ! same mann] to keep u f naturalism1 :i* ass]ts nature to be suffici5t = itself4 ,f9ally1 all natural necessity 9 ! s5sible _w is conditional1 z x always presupposes ! dep5d5ce ( ?+s ^u o!rs1 & unconditional necessity mu/ be s\ght only 9 ! unity ( a cause diff]5t f ! _w ( s5se4 ,b z ! causality ( ?is cause1 9 its turn1 7 x m]ely nature1 c\ld nev] r5d] ! exi/5ce ( ! cont+5t 7z its consequ5t7 compreh5sible1 reason frees itself by means ( ! ,!ological ,idea f fatalism1 7bo? z a bl9d natural necessity 9 ! coh]5ce ( nature itself1 )\t a fir/ pr9ciple1 & z a bl9d causality ( ?is pr9ciple itself71 & leads to ! concept ( a cause possess+ fre$om1 or ( a ,supreme ,intellig5ce4 ,?us ! transc5d5tal ,ideas s]ve1 if n to in/ruct u positively1 at lea/ to de/roy ! ra% ass]tions ( ,mat]ialism1 ( ,naturalism1 & ( ,fatalism1 & ?us to af=d scope = ! moral ,ideas beyond ! field ( speculation4 ,^! consid]ations1 ,i %\ld ?9k1 expla9 9 "s measure ! natural pr$isposition ( :i* ,i spoke4 ,! practical value1 :i* a m]ely speculative sci5ce may h1 lies )\t ! b\nds ( ?is sci5ce1 & c !re=e be consid]$ z a s*olion m]ely1 & l all s*olia does n =m "p ( ! sci5ce itself4 ,?is application h[ev] surely lies )9 ! b\nds ( philosophy1 especially ( philosophy drawn f ! pure s\rces ( reason1 :]e its speculative use 9 metaphysics mu/ necess>ily be at unity ) its practical use 9 morals4 ,h5ce ! unavoidable dialectics ( pure reason1 consid]$ 9 metaphysics1 z a natural t5d5cy1 des]ves to be expla9$ n z an illusion m]ely1 :i* is to be remov$1 b also1 if possible1 z a natural provision z reg>ds its end1 ?\gh ?is duty1 a "w ( sup]]ogation1 _c ju/ly be assign$ to metaphysics prop]4 ,! solutions ( ^! que/ions :i* are treat$ 9 ! *apt] on ! ,regulative ,use ( ! ,ideas ( ,pure ,reason#dc %\ld be consid]$ a second s*olion :i* h[ev] has a great] aff9ity ) ! subject ( metaphysics4 ,= !re c]ta9 rational pr9ciples are exp\nd$ :i* det]m9e a priori ! ord] ( nature or r ( ! und]/&+1 :i* seeks nature's laws ?r\gh exp]i5ce4 ,!y seem to be con/itutive & legislative ) reg>d to exp]i5ce1 ?\gh !y spr+ f pure reason1 :i* _c be consid]$1 l ! und]/&+1 z a pr9ciple ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,n[ :e!r or n ?is h>mony re/s ^u ! fact1 t j z nature does n inh]e 9 appe>ances or 9 _! s\rce 7! s5sibility7 itself1 b only 9 s f> z ! latt] is 9 relation to ! und]/&+1 z also a sy/ematic unity 9 apply+ ! und]/&+ to br+ ab\t an entirety ( all possible exp]i5ce c only belong to ! und]/&+ :5 9 relation to reason2 & :e!r or n exp]i5ce is 9 ?is way m$iately subord9ate to ! legislation ( reason3 may be discuss$ by ^? :o desire to trace ! nature ( reason ev5 beyond its use 9 metaphysics1 into ! g5]al pr9ciples ( a hi/ory ( nature2 ,i h repres5t$ ?is task z important1 b n attempt$ its solution1 9 ! book itself4#dd #dc ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 ,,ii41 *ap4 ,,iii41 section #g4 #dd ,?r\gh\t 9 ! ,critique ,i nev] lo/ sight ( ! plan n to neglect any?+1 7 x ev] s recondite1 t c\ld r5d] ! inquiry into ! nature ( pure reason complete4 ,ev]ybody may aft]w>ds c>ry 8 rese>*es z f> z he pleases1 :5 he has be5 m]ely %[n :at yet rema9s to be done4 ,x is ?is a duty :i* mu/ reasonably be expect$ ( him :o has made x 8 bus9ess to survey ! :ole field1 9 ord] to consign x to o!rs = future cultivation & allotm5t4 ,& to ?is bran* bo? ! s*olia belong1 :i* w h>dly recomm5d !mselves by _! dryness to amateurs1 & h5ce are add$ "h = connoisseurs only4 ,& ?us ,i conclude ! analytical solution ( ! ma9 "q :i* ,i _h propos$3 ,h[ is metaphysics 9 g5]al possible8 by asc5d+ f ! data ( its actual use 9 its consequ5ces1 to ! gr\nds ( its possibility4 ,,s*olia4 ,,solution ,,( ,,! ,,g5]al ,,"q ,,( ,,! ,,prolegom5a1 ,,h[ ,,is ,,metaphysics ,,possible ,,z ,a ,,sci5ce8 ,metaphysics1 z a natural disposition ( reason1 is actual1 b if consid]$ by itself alone 7z ! analytical solution ( ! ?ird pr9cipal "q %[$71 dialectical & illusory4 ,if we ?9k ( tak+ pr9ciples f x1 & 9 us+ !m foll[ ! natural1 b on t acc\nt n less false1 illusion1 we c nev] produce sci5ce1 b only a va9 dialectical art1 9 :i* "o s*ool may outdo ano!r1 b none c ev] acquire a j & la/+ approbation4 ,9 ord] t z a sci5ce metaphysics may be entitl$ to claim n m]e fallaci\s plausibility1 b 9 sight & conviction1 a ,critique ( ,reason mu/ itself exhibit ! :ole /ock ( a priori concepts1 _! division accord+ to _! v>i\s s\rces 7,s5sibility1 ,und]/&+1 & ,reason71 toge!r ) a complete table ( !m1 ! analysis ( all ^! concepts1 ) all _! consequ5ces1 especially by means ( ! d$uction ( ^! concepts1 ! possibility ( syn!tical cognition a priori1 ! pr9ciples ( its application & f9ally its b\nds1 all 9 a complete sy/em4 ,critique1 !re=e1 & critique alone1 conta9s 9 itself ! :ole well-prov$ & well-te/$ plan1 & ev5 all ! means requir$ to accompli% metaphysics1 z a sci5ce2 by o!r ways & means x is impossible4 ,! "q "h !re=e is n s mu* h[ ?is p]=mance is possible1 z h[ to set x go+1 & induce m5 ( cle> heads to quit _! hi!rto p]v]t$ & fruitless cultivation = "o t w n deceive1 & h[ su* a union = ! common end may be/ be direct$4 ,?is mu* is c]ta91 t :oev] has once ta/$ ,critique w be ev] aft] disgu/$ ) all dogmatical twaddle :i* he =m]ly put up )1 because 8 reason mu/ h some?+1 & c\ld f9d no?+ bett] = its support4 ,critique /&s 9 ! same relation to ! common metaphysics ( ! s*ools1 z *emi/ry does to al*emy1 or z a/ronomy to ! a/rology ( ! =tune-tell]4 ,i pl$ge myself t nobody :o has read ?r\gh & ?r\gh1 & grasp$ ! pr9ciples (1 ! ,critique ev5 9 ^! ,prolegom5a only1 w ev] return to t old & sophi/ical pseudo-sci5ce2 b w r ) a c]ta9 delight look =w>d to metaphysics :i* is n[ inde$ 9 8 p[]1 requir+ no m prep>atory discov]ies1 & n[ at la/ af=d+ p]man5t satisfaction to reason4 ,= "h is an advantage ^u :i*1 ( all possible sci5ces1 metaphysics alone c ) c]ta9ty reckon3 t x c be br\ght to su* completion & fixity z to be incapable ( fur!r *ange1 or ( any augm5tation by new discov]ies2 because "h reason has ! s\rces ( its k 9 itself1 n 9 objects & _! obs]vation 7,ans*auung71 by :i* latt] its /ock ( k _c be fur!r increas$4 ,:5 !re=e x has exhibit$ ! fundam5tal laws ( its faculty completely & s def9itely z to avoid all misund]/&+1 !re rema9s no?+ = pure reason to cognise a priori1 nay1 !re is ev5 no gr\nd to raise fur!r que/ions4 ,! sure prospect ( k s def9ite & s compact has a peculi> *>m1 ev5 ?\gh we %\ld set aside all its advantages1 ( :i* ,i %all h]eaft] speak4 ,all false art1 all va9 wisdom1 la/s its "t1 b f9ally de/roys itself1 & its highe/ culture is also ! epo* ( its decay4 ,t ?is "t is come = metaphysics appe>s f ! /ate into :i* x has fall5 among all le>n$ nations1 despite ( all ! zeal ) :i* o!r sci5ces ( e k9d are prosecut$4 ,! old arrangem5t ( our univ]sity /udies /ill pres]ves its %ad[2 n[ & !n an ,academy ( ,sci5ce tempts m5 by (f]+ prizes to write essays on x1 b x is no long] numb]$ among ?or\gh sci5ces2 & let any "o judge = himself h[ a man ( g5ius1 if he 7 call$ a great metaphysician1 w\ld receive ! complim5t1 :i* may be well-meant1 b is sc>ce envi$ by anybody4 ,yet1 ?\gh ! p]iod ( ! d[nfall ( all dogmatical metaphysics has und\bt$ly arriv$1 we are yet f> f be+ able to say t ! p]iod ( its reg5]ation is come by means ( a ?or\gh & complete ,critique ( ,reason4 ,all transitions f a t5d5cy to its contr>y pass ?r\gh ! /age ( indiff]5ce1 & ?is mom5t is ! mo/ dang]\s = an au?or1 b1 9 my op9ion1 ! mo/ favorable = ! sci5ce4 ,=1 :5 p>ty _s has di$ out by a total dissolution ( =m] connexions1 m9ds are 9 ! be/ /ate to li/5 to sev]al proposals = an organisation accord+ to a new plan4 ,:5 ,i say1 t ,i hope ^! ,prolegom5a w excite inve/igation 9 ! field ( critique & af=d a new & promis+ object to su/a9 ! g5]al _s ( philosophy1 :i* seems on its speculative side to want su/5ance1 ,i c imag9e be=eh&1 t e "o1 :om ! ?orny pa?s ( my ,critique h tir$ & put out ( humor1 w ask me1 ^u :at ,i f\nd ?is hope4 ,my answ] is1 ^u ! irresi/ible law ( necessity4 ,t ! human m9d w ev] give up metaphysical rese>*es is z little to be expect$ z t we %\ld pref] to give up brea?+ altoge!r1 to avoid inhal+ impure air4 ,!re w !re=e always be metaphysics 9 ! _w2 nay1 e "o1 especially e man ( reflexion1 w h x1 & = want ( a recognis$ /&>d1 w %ape x = himself aft] 8 own patt]n4 ,:at has hi!rto be5 call$ metaphysics1 _c satisfy any critical m9d1 b to =ego x entirely is impossible2 !re=e a ,critique ( ,pure ,reason itself mu/ n[ be attempt$ or1 if "o exi/s1 inve/igat$1 & br\ght to ! full te/1 because !re is no o!r means ( supply+ ?is press+ want1 :i* is some?+ m ?an m]e ?ir/ = k4 ,ev] s9ce ,i h come to "k critique1 :5ev] ,i f9i% read+ a book ( metaphysical cont5ts1 :i*1 by ! precis5ess ( its notions1 by v>iety1 ord]1 & an easy /yle1 0 n only ent]ta9+ b also helpful1 ,i _c help ask+1 ,has ?is au?or inde$ advanc$ metaphysics a s+le /ep8 ,! le>n$ m51 ^: works h be5 useful to me 9 o!r respects & always contribut$ to ! culture ( my m5tal p[]s1 w1 ,i hope1 =give me = say+1 t ,i h nev] be5 able to f9d ei!r _! essays or my own less important ones 7?\gh self-love may recomm5d !m to me7 to h advanc$ ! sci5ce ( metaphysics 9 ! lea/1 & :y8 ,"h is ! v obvi\s reason3 metaphysics did n !n exi/ z a sci5ce1 nor c x be ga!r$ piecemeal1 b its g]m mu/ be fully pre=m$ 9 ! ,critique4 ,b 9 ord] to prev5t all misconception1 we mu/ rememb] :at has be5 already said1 t by ! analytical treatm5t ( our concepts ! und]/&+ ga9s inde$ a great deal1 b ! sci5ce 7( metaphysics7 is !reby n 9 ! lea/ advanc$1 because ^! dissections ( concepts are no?+ b ! mat]ials f :i* ! int5tion is to c>p5t] our sci5ce4 ,let ! concepts ( sub/ance & ( accid5t be ev] s well dissect$ & det]m9$1 all ?is is v well z a prep>ation = "s future use4 ,b if we _c prove1 t 9 all :i* exi/s ! sub/ance endures1 & only ! accid5ts v>y1 our sci5ce is n ! lea/ advanc$ by all our analyses4 ,metaphysics has hi!rto nev] be5 able to prove a priori ei!r ?is proposition1 or t ( suffici5t reason1 /ill1 less any m complex !orem1 su* z belongs to psy*ology or cosmology1 or inde$ any syn!tical proposition4 ,by all its analys+ !re=e no?+ is affect$1 no?+ obta9$ or =w>d$1 & ! sci5ce1 aft] all ?is bu/le & noise1 /ill rema9s z x 0 9 ! days ( ,ari/otle1 ?\gh f> bett] prep>ations 7 made = x ?an ( old1 if ! clue to syn!tical cognitions _h only be5 discov]$4 ,if any "o ?9ks himself (f5d$1 he is at lib]ty to refute my *>ge by produc+ a s+le syn!tical proposition belong+ to metaphysics1 :i* he w\ld prove dogmatically a priori1 = until he has actually p]=m$ ?is feat1 ,i %all n grant t he has truly advanc$ ! sci5ce2 ev5 %\ld ?is proposition be suffici5tly confirm$ by common exp]i5ce4 ,no dem& c be m mod]ate or m equitable1 & 9 ! 7inevitably c]ta97 ev5t ( its non-p]=mance1 no ass]tion m j1 ?an t hi!rto metaphysics has nev] exi/$ z a sci5ce4 ,b !re are two ?+s :i*1 9 case ! *all5ge be accept$1 ,i mu/ deprecate3 fir/1 trifl+ ab\t probability & conjecture1 :i* are suit$ z little to metaphysics1 z to geometry2 & secondly1 a decision by means ( ! magic w& ( common s5se1 :i* does n conv9ce e "o1 b :i* accommodates itself to p]sonal peculi>ities4 ,= z to ! =m]1 no?+ c be m absurd1 ?an 9 metaphysics1 a philosophy f pure reason to ?9k ( gr\nd+ our judgm5ts ^u probability & conjecture4 ,ev]y?+ t is to be cognis$ a priori1 is !reby ann\nc$ z apodeictically c]ta91 & mu/ !re=e be prov$ 9 ?is way4 ,we might z well ?9k ( gr\nd+ geometry or ari?metic ^u conjectures4 ,z to ! doctr9e ( *ances 9 ! latt]1 x does n conta9 probable1 b p]fectly c]ta91 judgm5ts conc]n+ ! degree ( ! probability ( c]ta9 cases1 "u giv5 uni=m conditions1 :i*1 9 ! sum ( all possible cases1 infallibly happ5 accord+ to ! rule1 ?\gh x is n suffici5tly det]m9$ 9 respect to e s+le *ance4 ,conjectures 7by means ( induction & ( analogy7 c be suff]$ 9 an empirical sci5ce ( nature only1 yet ev5 !re ! possibility at lea/ ( :at we assume mu/ be q c]ta94 ,! appeal to common s5se is ev5 m absurd1 :5 concept & pr9ciples are ann\nc$ z valid1 n 9 s f> z !y hold ) reg>d to exp]i5ce1 b ev5 beyond ! conditions ( exp]i5ce4 ,= :at is common s5se8 ,x is normal good s5se1 s f> x judges "r4 ,b :at is normal good s5se8 ,x is ! faculty ( ! k & use ( rules 9 concreto1 z di/+ui%$ f ! speculative und]/&+1 :i* is a faculty ( kn[+ rules 9 ab/racto4 ,common s5se c h>dly und]/& ! rule1 t e ev5t is det]m9$ by means ( its cause1 & c nev] compreh5d x ?us g5]ally4 ,x !re=e dem&s an example f exp]i5ce1 & :5 x he>s t ?is rule means no?+ b :at x always ?\ght :5 a pane 0 brok5 or a kit*5-ut5sil miss+1 x !n und]/&s ! pr9ciple & grants x4 ,common s5se !re=e is only ( use s f> z x c see its rules 7?\gh !y actually are a priori7 confirm$ by exp]i5ce2 consequ5tly to compreh5d !m a priori1 or indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce1 belongs to ! speculative und]/&+1 & lies q beyond ! horizon ( common s5se4 ,b ! prov9ce ( metaphysics is entirely conf9$ to ! latt] k9d ( k1 & x is c]ta9ly a bad index ( common s5se to appeal to x z a witness1 = x _c "h =m any op9ion :atev]1 & m5 look d[n ^u x ) contempt until !y are 9 difficulties1 & c f9d 9 _! speculation nei!r 9 nor out4 ,x is a common subt]fuge ( ^? false fri5ds ( common s5se 7:o occasionally prize x highly1 b usually despise x7 to say1 t !re mu/ surely be at all ev5ts "s propositions :i* are imm$iately c]ta91 & ( :i* !re is no occasion to give any pro(1 or ev5 any acc\nt at all1 because we o!rwise c\ld nev] /op inquir+ into ! gr\nds ( our judgm5ts4 ,b if we except ! pr9ciple ( contradiction1 :i* is n suffici5t to %[ ! tru? ( syn!tical judgm5ts1 !y c nev] adduce1 9 pro( ( ?is privilege1 any?+ else indubitable1 :i* !y c imm$iately ascribe to common s5se1 except ma!matical propositions1 su* z twice two make f\r1 betwe5 two po9ts !re is b "o /raight l9e1 etc4 ,b ^! judgm5ts are radically diff]5t f ^? ( metaphysics4 ,= 9 ma!matics ,i myself c by ?9k+ con/ruct :atev] ,i repres5t to myself z possible by a concept3 ,i add to ! fir/ two ! o!r two1 "o by "o1 & myself make ! numb] f\r1 or ,i draw 9 ?\ght f "o po9t to ano!r all mann] ( l9es1 equal z well z unequal2 yet ,i c draw "o only1 :i* is l itself 9 all its p>ts4 ,b ,i _c1 by all my p[] ( ?9k+1 extract f ! concept ( a ?+ ! concept ( some?+ else1 ^: exi/5ce is necess>ily connect$ ) ! =m]1 b ,i mu/ call 9 exp]i5ce4 ,& ?\gh my und]/&+ furni%es me a priori 7yet only 9 ref]5ce to possible exp]i5ce7 ) ! concept ( su* a connexion 7i4e41 causation71 ,i _c exhibit x1 l ! concepts ( ma!matics1 by 7,ans*auung7 visualis+ !m1 a priori1 & s %[ its possibility a priori4 ,?is concept1 toge!r ) ! pr9ciples ( its application1 always requires1 if x %all hold a priori--z is requisite 9 metaphysics--a ju/ification & d$uction ( its possibility1 because we _c o!rwise "k h[ f> x holds good1 & :e!r x c be us$ 9 exp]i5ce only or beyond x also4 ,!re=e 9 metaphysics1 z a speculative sci5ce ( pure reason1 we c nev] appeal to common s5se1 b may d s only :5 we are =c$ to surr5d] x1 & to r5\nce all purely speculative cognition1 :i* mu/ always be k1 & consequ5tly :5 we =ego metaphysics itself & its in/ruction1 = ! sake ( adopt+ a rational fai? :i* alone may be possible = u1 & suffici5t to our wants1 p]haps ev5 m salut>y ?an k itself4 ,= 9 ?is case ! attitude ( ! "q is q alt]$4 ,metaphysics mu/ be sci5ce1 n only z a :ole1 b 9 all its p>ts1 o!rwise x is no?+2 because1 z a speculation ( pure reason1 x f9ds a hold only on g5]al op9ions4 ,beyond its field1 h[ev]1 probability & common s5se may be us$ ) advantage & ju/ly1 b on q special pr9ciples1 ( :i* ! importance always dep5ds on ! ref]5ce to practical life4 ,?is is :at ,i hold myself ju/ifi$ 9 requir+ = ! possibility ( metaphysics z a sci5ce4 ,,app5dix4 ,,on ,,:at ,,c ,,be ,,done ,,to ,,make ,,metaphysics ,,actual ,,z ,a ,,sci5ce4 ,s9ce all ! ways h]et(ore tak5 h fail$ to atta9 ! goal1 & s9ce )\t a prec$+ critique ( pure reason x is n likely ev] to be atta9$1 ! pres5t essay n[ be=e ! public has a fair title to an accurate & c>eful inve/igation1 except x be ?\ght m advisable to give up all pret5sions to metaphysics1 to :i*1 if m5 b w\ld consi/5tly adh]e to _! purpose1 no objection c be made4 ,if we take ! c\rse ( ?+s z x is1 n z x ought to be1 !re are two sorts ( judgm5ts3 7#a7 "o a judgm5t :i* prec$es inve/igation 79 our case "o 9 :i* ! read] f 8 own metaphysics pron\nces judgm5t on ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason :i* 0 int5d$ to discuss ! v possibility ( metaphysics72 7#b7 ! o!r a judgm5t subsequ5t to inve/igation4 ,9 ! latt] ! read] is enabl$ to waive = a:ile ! consequ5ces ( ! critical rese>*es t may be repugnant to 8 =m]ly adopt$ metaphysics1 & fir/ exam9es ! gr\nds :5ce ^? consequ5ces are d]iv$4 ,if :at common metaphysics prop\nds 7 demon/rably c]ta91 z = in/ance ! !orems ( geometry1 ! =m] way ( judg+ w\ld hold good4 ,= if ! consequ5ces ( c]ta9 pr9ciples are repugnant to e/abli%$ tru?s1 ^! pr9ciples are false & )\t fur!r inquiry to be repudiat$4 ,b if metaphysics does n possess a /ock ( indisputably c]ta9 7syn!tical7 propositions1 & %\ld x ev5 be ! case t !re are a numb] ( !m1 :i*1 ?\gh among ! mo/ speci\s1 are by _! consequ5ces 9 mutual collision1 & if no sure crit]ion ( ! tru? ( peculi>ly metaphysical 7syn!tical7 propositions is to be met ) 9 x1 !n ! =m] way ( judg+ is n admissible1 b ! inve/igation ( ! pr9ciples ( ! critique mu/ prec$e all judgm5ts z to its value4 ,,on ,a ,,specim5 ,,( ,a ,,judgm5t ,,( ,,! ,,critique ,,prior ,,to ,,its ,,exam9ation4 ,?is judgm5t is to be f\nd 9 ! ,gtt+is*5 gelehrt5 ,anzeig51 9 ! supplem5t to ! ?ird division1 ( ,janu>y #ai1 #aghb1 pages #dj et seq4 ,:5 an au?or :o is famili> ) ! subject ( 8 "w & endeavors to pres5t 8 indep5d5t reflexions 9 its elaboration1 falls into ! h&s ( a review] :o1 9 8 turn1 is ke5 en\gh to disc]n ! po9ts on :i* ! wor? or wor?lessness ( ! book re/s1 :o does n cl+ to words1 b goes to ! he>t ( ! subject1 sift+ & te/+ m ?an ! m]e pr9ciples :i* ! au?or takes z 8 po9t ( dep>ture1 ! sev]ity ( ! judgm5t may inde$ displease ! latt]1 b ! public does n c>e1 z x ga9s !reby2 & ! au?or himself may be cont5t$1 z an opportunity ( correct+ or expla9+ 8 positions is af=d$ to him at an e>ly date by ! exam9ation ( a compet5t judge1 9 su* a mann]1 t if he believes himself fundam5tally "r1 he c remove 9 "t any /one ( (f5ce t might hurt ! success ( 8 "w4 ,i f9d myself1 ) my review]1 9 q ano!r position4 ,he seems n to see at all ! real matt] ( ! inve/igation ) :i* 7successfully or unsuccessfully7 ,i h be5 occupi$4 ,x is ei!r impati5ce at ?9k+ out a l5g?y "w1 or vexation at a ?reat5$ re=m ( a sci5ce 9 :i* he believ$ he _h br\ght ev]y?+ to p]fection long ago1 or1 :at ,i am unwill+ to imag9e1 real n>r[m9d$ness1 t prev5ts him f ev] c>ry+ 8 ?\ghts beyond 8 s*ool-metaphysics4 ,9 %ort1 he passes impati5tly 9 review a long s]ies ( propositions1 by :i*1 )\t kn[+ _! premises1 we c ?9k no?+1 int]sp]ses "h & !re 8 c5sure1 ! reason ( :i* ! read] und]/&s j z little z ! propositions aga9/ :i* x is direct$2 & h5ce 8 report c nei!r s]ve ! public nor damage me1 9 ! judgm5t ( exp]ts4 ,i %\ld1 = ^! reasons1 h pass$ ov] ?is judgm5t altoge!r1 7 x n t x may af=d me occasion = "s explanations :i* may 9 "s cases save ! read]s ( ^! ,prolegom5a f a misconception4 ,9 ord] to take a position f :i* my review] c\ld mo/ easily set ! :ole "w 9 a mo/ unfavorable light1 )\t v5tur+ to tr\ble himself ) any special inve/igation1 he beg9s & ends by say+3 ,?is "w is a sy/em ( transc5d5t 7or1 z he translates x1 ( high]7 ,idealism4#de #de ,by no means high]4 ,high t[]s1 & metaphysically-great m5 resembl+ !m1 r\nd bo? ( :i* !re is commonly mu* w9d1 are n = me4 ,my place is ! fruitful ba?os1 ! bottom-l&1 ( exp]i5ce2 & ! ^w transc5d5tal1 ! mean+ ( :i* is s (t5 expla9$ by me1 b n once grasp$ by my review] 7s c>elessly has he reg>d$ ev]y?+71 does n signify some?+ pass+ beyond all exp]i5ce1 b some?+ t inde$ prec$es x a priori1 b t is int5d$ simply to make cognition ( exp]i5ce possible4 ,if ^! conceptions ov]/ep exp]i5ce1 _! employm5t is t]m$ transc5d5t1 a ^w :i* mu/ be di/+ui%$ f transc5d5tal1 ! latt] be+ limit$ to ! imman5t use1 t is1 to exp]i5ce4 ,all misund]/&+s ( ?is k9d h be5 suffici5tly gu>d$ aga9/ 9 ! "w itself1 b my review] f\nd 8 advantage 9 misund]/&+ me4 ,a glance at ?is l9e soon %[$ me ! sort ( criticism t ,i _h to expect1 mu* z ?\gh ! review] 7 "o :o _h nev] se5 or he>d ( geometry1 hav+ f\nd a ,euclid1 & com+ ^u v>i\s figures 9 turn+ ov] its leaves1 7 to say1 on be+ ask$ 8 op9ion ( x3 ,! "w is a text-book ( draw+2 ! au?or introduces a peculi> t]m9ology1 9 ord] to give d>k1 incompreh5sible directions1 :i* 9 ! end tea* no?+ m ?an :at e "o c effect by a fair natural accuracy ( eye1 etc4 ,let u see1 9 ! meantime1 :at sort ( an idealism x is t goes ?r\gh my :ole "w1 al?\gh x does n by a long way con/itute ! s\l ( ! sy/em4 ,! dictum ( all g5u9e ideali/s f ! ,eleatic s*ool to ,bi%op ,b]keley1 is conta9$ 9 ?is =mula3 ,all cognition ?r\gh ! s5ses & exp]i5ce is no?+ b %e] illusion1 & only1 9 ! ideas ( ! pure und]/&+ & reason !re is tru?4 ,! pr9ciple t ?r\gh\t dom9ates & det]m9es my ,idealism1 is on ! contr>y3 ,all cognition ( ?+s m]ely f pure und]/&+ or pure reason is no?+ b %e] illusion1 & only 9 exp]i5ce is !re tru?4 ,b ?is is directly contr>y to idealism prop]4 ,h[ came ,i !n to use ?is expression = q an opposite purpose1 & h[ came my review] to see x ev]y:]e8 ,! solution ( ?is difficulty re/s on some?+ t c\ld h be5 v easily und]/ood f ! g5]al be>+ ( ! "w1 if ! read] _h only desir$ to d s4 ,space & "t1 toge!r ) all t !y conta91 are n ?+s nor qualities 9 !mselves1 b belong m]ely to ! appe>ances ( ! latt]3 up to ?is po9t ,i am "o 9 confession ) ! above ideali/s4 ,b ^!1 & among/ !m m p>ticul>ly ,b]keley1 reg>d$ space z a m]e empirical pres5tation t1 l ! ph5om5on x conta9s1 is only kn[n to u by means ( exp]i5ce or p]ception1 toge!r ) its det]m9ations4 ,i1 on ! contr>y1 prove 9 ! fir/ place1 t space 7& also "t1 :i* ,b]keley did n consid]7 & all its det]m9ations a priori1 c be cognis$ by u1 because1 no less ?an "t1 x inh]es 9 our s5sibility z a pure =m be=e all p]ception or exp]i5ce & makes all intuition ( ! same1 & !re=e all its ph5om5a1 possible4 ,x foll[s f ?is1 t z tru? re/s on univ]sal & necess>y laws z its crit]ia1 exp]i5ce1 accord+ to ,b]keley1 c h no crit]ia ( tru?1 because its ph5om5a 7accord+ to him7 h no?+ a priori at _! f\ndation2 :5ce x foll[s1 t !y are no?+ b %e] illusion2 :]eas ) u1 space & "t 79 conjunction ) ! pure conceptions ( ! und]/&+7 prescribe _! law to all possible exp]i5ce a priori1 & at ! same "t af=d ! c]ta9 crit]ion = di/+ui%+ tru? f illusion !re94#df #df ,idealism prop] always has a my/ical t5d5cy1 & c h no o!r1 b m9e is solely design$ = ! purpose ( compreh5d+ ! possibility ( our cognition a priori z to objects ( exp]i5ce1 :i* is a problem nev] hi!rto solv$ or ev5 sugge/$4 ,9 ?is way all my/ical idealism falls to ! gr\nd1 = 7z may be se5 already 9 ,plato7 x inf]r$ f our cognitions a priori 7ev5 f ^? ( geometry7 ano!r intuition diff]5t f t ( ! s5ses 7namely1 an intellectual intuition71 because x nev] occurr$ to any "o t ! s5ses !mselves might intuite a priori4 ,my s-call$ 7prop]ly critical7 ,idealism is ( q a special "*1 9 t x subv]ts ! ord9>y idealism1 & t ?r\gh x all cognition a priori1 ev5 t ( geometry1 fir/ receives objective reality1 :i*1 )\t my demon/rat$ ideality ( space & "t1 c\ld n be ma9ta9$ by ! mo/ zeal\s reali/s4 ,?is be+ ! /ate ( ! case1 ,i c\ld h wi%$1 9 ord] to avoid all misund]/&+1 to h nam$ ?is conception ( m9e o!rwise1 b to alt] x altoge!r 0 impossible4 ,x may be p]mitt$ me h[ev]1 9 future1 z has be5 above intimat$1 to t]m x ! =mal1 or bett] /ill1 ! critical ,idealism1 to di/+ui% x f ! dogmatic ,idealism ( ,b]keley1 & f ! sceptical ,idealism ( ,desc>tes4 ,beyond ?is1 ,i f9d no?+ fur!r rem>kable 9 ! judgm5t ( my book4 ,! review] criticises "h & !re1 makes sweep+ criticisms1 a mode prud5tly *os51 s9ce x does n betray "o's own k or ignorance2 a s+le ?or\gh criticism 9 detail1 _h x t\*$ ! ma9 "q1 z is only fair1 w\ld h expos$1 x may be my error1 or x may be my review]'s measure ( insight into ?is species ( rese>*4 ,x 01 moreov]1 n a badly conceiv$ plan1 9 ord] at once to take f read]s 7:o are accu/om$ to =m _! conceptions ( books f newspap] reports7 ! desire to read ! book itself1 to p\r out 9 "o brea? a numb] ( passages 9 succession1 torn f _! connexion1 & _! gr\nds ( pro( & explanations1 & :i* mu/ necess>ily s\nd s5seless1 especially consid]+ h[ antipa!tic !y are to all s*ool-metaphysics2 to exhau/ ! read]'s pati5ce ad nauseam1 & !n1 aft] hav+ made me acqua9t$ ) ! s5sible proposition t p]si/5t illusion is tru?1 to conclude ) ! crude pat]nal moralisation3 to :at end1 !n1 ! qu>rel ) accept$ language1 to :at end1 & :5ce1 ! ideali/ic di/9ction8 ,a judgm5t :i* seeks all t is *>act]i/ic ( my book1 fir/ suppos$ to be metaphysically het]odox1 9 a m]e innovation ( ! nom5clature1 proves cle>ly t my w\ld-be judge has und]/ood no?+ ( ! subject1 & 9 addition1 has n und]/ood himself4#dg #dg ,! review] (t5 fights ) 8 own %ad[4 ,:5 ,i oppose ! tru? ( exp]i5ce to dream1 he nev] ?9ks t ,i am "h speak+ simply ( ! well-kn[n somnio objective sumto ( ! ,wolffian philosophy1 :i* is m]ely =mal1 & ) :i* ! di/9ction betwe5 sleep+ & wak+ is 9 no way conc]n$1 & 9 a transc5d5tal philosophy inde$ c h no place4 ,= ! re/1 he calls my d$uction ( ! categories & table ( ! pr9ciples ( ! und]/&+1 common well-kn[n axioms ( logic & ontology1 express$ 9 an ideali/ic mann]4 ,! read] ne$ only consult ^! ,prolegom5a ^u ?is po9t1 to conv9ce himself t a m mis]able & hi/orically incorrect1 judgm5t1 c\ld h>dly be made4 ,my review] speaks l a man :o is consci\s ( important & sup]ior insight :i* he keeps hidd52 = ,i am aw>e ( no?+ rec5t ) respect to metaphysics t c\ld ju/ify 8 tone4 ,b he %\ld n )hold 8 discov]ies f ! _w1 = !re are d\btless _m :o1 l myself1 h n be5 able to f9d 9 all ! f9e ?+s t h = long pa/ be5 writt5 9 ?is dep>tm5t1 any?+ t has advanc$ ! sci5ce by s mu* z a f+]bread?2 we f9d inde$ ! giv+ a new po9t to def9itions1 ! supply+ ( lame pro(s ) new crut*es1 ! add+ to ! crazy-quilt ( metaphysics fre% pat*es or *ang+ its patt]n2 b all ?is is n :at ! _w requires4 ,! _w is tir$ ( metaphysical ass]tions2 x wants ! possibility ( ! sci5ce1 ! s\rces f :i* c]ta9ty !re9 c be d]iv$1 & c]ta9 crit]ia by :i* x may di/+ui% ! dialectical illusion ( pure reason f tru?4 ,to ?is ! critic seems to possess a key1 o!rwise he w\ld nev] h spok5 out 9 su* a high tone4 ,b ,i am incl9$ to suspect t no su* requirem5t ( ! sci5ce has ev] ent]$ 8 ?\ghts1 = 9 t case he w\ld h direct$ 8 judgm5t to ?is po9t1 & ev5 a mi/ak5 attempt 9 su* an important matt]1 w\ld h won 8 respect4 ,if t be ! case1 we are once m good fri5ds4 ,he may p5etrate z deeply z he likes into metaphysics1 )\t any "o h9d]+ him2 only z conc]ns t :i* lies outside metaphysics1 its s\rces1 :i* are to be f\nd 9 reason1 he _c =m a judgm5t4 ,t my suspicion is n )\t f\ndation1 is prov$ by ! fact t he does n m5tion a ^w ab\t ! possibility ( syn!tic k a priori1 ! special problem ^u ! solution ( :i* ! fate ( metaphysics :olly re/s1 & ^u :i* my ,critique 7z well z ! pres5t ,prolegom5a7 entirely h+es4 ,! ,idealism he enc\nt]$1 & :i* he hung ^u1 0 only tak5 up 9 ! doctr9e z ! sole means ( solv+ ! above problem 7al?\gh x receiv$ its confirmation on o!r gr\nds71 & h5ce he mu/ h %[n ei!r t ! above problem does n possess ! importance ,i attribute to x 7ev5 9 ^! ,prolegom5a71 or t by my conception ( appe>ances1 x is ei!r n solv$ at all1 or c be bett] solv$ 9 ano!r way2 b ,i d n f9d a ^w ( ?is 9 ! criticism4 ,! review]1 !n1 und]/&s no?+ ( my "w1 & possibly also no?+ ( ! _s & ess5tial nature ( metaphysics itself2 & x is n1 :at ,i w\ld r assume1 ! hurry ( a man inc5s$ at ! labor ( plodd+ ?r\gh s _m ob/acles1 t ?rew an unfavorable %ad[ ov] ! "w ly+ be=e him1 & made its fundam5tal features unrecognisable4 ,!re is a good deal to be done be=e a le>n$ j\rnal1 x matt]s n ) :at c>e its writ]s may be select$1 c ma9ta9 its o!rwise well-m]it$ reputation1 9 ! field ( metaphysics z else:]e4 ,o!r sci5ces & bran*es ( k h _! /&>d4 ,ma!matics has x1 9 itself2 hi/ory & !ology1 9 pr(ane or sacr$ books2 natural sci5ce & ! art ( m$ic9e1 9 ma!matics & exp]i5ce2 jurisprud5ce1 9 law books2 & ev5 matt]s ( ta/e 9 ! examples ( ! anci5ts4 ,b = ! judgm5t ( ! ?+ call$ metaphysics1 ! /&>d has yet to be f\nd4 ,i h made an attempt to det]m9e x1 z well z its use4 ,:at is to be done1 !n1 until x be f\nd1 :5 works ( ?is k9d h to be judg$ (8 ,if !y are ( a dogmatic "*1 "o may d :at "o likes2 no "o w play ! ma/] ov] o!rs "h = long1 be=e someone else appe>s to deal ) him 9 ! same mann]4 ,if1 h[ev]1 !y are critical 9 _! "*1 n inde$ ) ref]5ce to o!r works1 b to reason itself1 s t ! /&>d ( judgm5t _c be assum$ b has fir/ ( all to be s\ght =1 !n1 ?\gh objection & blame may inde$ be p]mitt$1 yet a c]ta9 degree ( l5i5cy is indisp5sable1 s9ce ! ne$ is common to u all1 & ! lack ( ! necess>y insight makes ! high-h&$ attitude ( judge unw>rant$4 ,9 ord]1 h[ev]1 to connect my def5ce ) ! int]e/ ( ! philosophical commonweal?1 ,i propose a te/1 :i* mu/ be decisive z to ! mode1 :]eby all metaphysical inve/igations may be direct$ to _! common purpose4 ,?is is no?+ m ?an :at =m]ly ma!maticians h done1 9 e/abli%+ ! advantage ( _! me?ods by competition4 ,i *all5ge my critic to demon/rate1 z is only j1 on a priori gr\nds1 9 8 way1 a s+le really metaphysical pr9ciple ass]t$ by him4 ,be+ metaphysical x mu/ be syn!tic & cognis$ a priori f conceptions1 b x may also be any "o ( ! mo/ indisp5sable pr9ciples1 z = in/ance1 ! pr9ciple ( ! p]si/5ce ( sub/ance1 or ( ! necess>y det]m9ation ( ev5ts 9 ! _w by _! causes4 ,if he _c d ?is 7sil5ce h[ev] is confession71 he mu/ admit1 t z metaphysics )\t apodeictic c]ta9ty ( propositions ( ?is k9d is no?+ at all1 its possibility or impossibility mu/ be=e all ?+s be e/abli%$ 9 a critique ( ! pure reason4 ,?us he is b\nd ei!r to confess t my pr9ciples 9 ! ,critique are correct1 or he mu/ prove _! invalidity4 ,b z ,i c already =esee1 t1 confid5tly z he has hi!rto reli$ on ! c]ta9ty ( 8 pr9ciples1 :5 x comes to a /rict te/ he w n f9d a s+le "o 9 ! :ole range ( metaphysics he c br+ =w>d1 ,i w conc$e to him an advantage\s condition1 :i* c only be expect$ 9 su* a competition1 & w relieve him ( ! onus prob&i by lay+ x on myself4 ,he f9ds 9 ^! ,prolegom5a & 9 my ,critique 7*apt] on ! ,!ses & ,anti!ses ( ! ,f\r ,ant9omies7 eight propositions1 ( :i* two & two contradict "o ano!r1 b ea* ( :i* necess>ily belongs to metaphysics1 by :i* x mu/ ei!r be accept$ or reject$ 7al?\gh !re is n "o t has n 9 ?is "t be5 held by "s philosoph]74 ,n[ he has ! lib]ty ( select+ any "o ( ^! eight propositions at 8 pleasure1 & accept+ x )\t any pro(1 ( :i* ,i %all make him a pres5t1 b only "o 7= wa/e ( "t w be j z little s]viceable to him z to me71 & !n ( attack+ my pro( ( ! opposite proposition4 ,if ,i c save ?is "o1 & at ! same "t %[1 t accord+ to pr9ciples :i* e dogmatic metaphysics mu/ necess>ily recognise1 ! opposite ( ! proposition adopt$ by him c be j z cle>ly prov$1 x is !reby e/abli%$ t metaphysics has an h]$it>y fail+1 n to be expla9$1 mu* less set aside1 until we asc5d to its bir?-place1 pure reason itself1 & ?us my ,critique mu/ ei!r be accept$ or a bett] "o take its place2 x mu/ at lea/ be /udi$1 :i* is ! only ?+ ,i n[ require4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 ,i _c save my demon/ration1 !n a syn!tic proposition a priori f dogmatic pr9ciples is to be reckon$ to ! score ( my oppon5t1 !n also ,i w deem my impea*m5t ( ord9>y metaphysics z unju/1 & pl$ge myself to recognise 8 /ricture on my ,critique z ju/ifi$ 7al?\gh ?is w\ld n be ! consequ5ce by a long way74 ,to ?is end x w\ld be necess>y1 x seems to me1 t he %\ld /ep out ( 8 incognito4 ,o!rwise ,i d n see h[ x c\ld be avoid$1 t in/ead ( deal+ ) "o1 ,i %\ld be honor$ by sev]al problems com+ f anonym\s & unqualifi$ oppon5ts4 ,,proposals ,,z ,,to ,,an ,,inve/igation ,,( ,,! ,,critique ,,^u ,,:i* ,a ,,judgm5t ,,may ,,foll[4 ,i feel oblig$ to ! honor$ public ev5 = ! sil5ce ) :i* x = a long "t favor$ my ,critique1 = ?is proves at lea/ a po/ponem5t ( judgm5t1 & "s supposition t 9 a "w1 leav+ all beat5 tracks & /rik+ out on a new pa?1 9 :i* "o _c at once p]haps s easily f9d "o's way1 some?+ may p]*ance lie1 f :i* an important b at pres5t dead bran* ( human k may d]ive new life & productiv5ess4 ,h5ce may h orig9at$ a solicitude = ! z yet t5d] %oot1 le/ x be de/roy$ by a ha/y judgm5t4 ,a te/ ( a judgm5t1 delay$ = ! above reasons1 is n[ be=e my eye 9 ! ,go?ais*5 gelehrt5 ,zeitung1 ! ?or\ghness ( :i* e read] w himself p]ceive1 f ! cle> & unp]v]t$ pres5tation ( a fragm5t ( "o ( ! fir/ pr9ciples ( my "w1 )\t tak+ into consid]ation my own suspici\s praise4 ,& n[ ,i propose1 s9ce an ext5sive /ructure _c be judg$ ( z a :ole f a hurri$ glance1 to te/ x piece by piece f its f\ndations1 s !reby ! pres5t ,prolegom5a may fitly be us$ z a g5]al outl9e ) :i* ! "w itself may occasionally be comp>$4 ,?is notion1 if x 7 f\nd$ on no?+ m ?an my conceit ( importance1 su* z vanity commonly attributes to "o's own productions1 w\ld be immode/ & w\ld des]ve to be repudiat$ ) disgu/4 ,b n[1 ! int]e/s ( speculative philosophy h arriv$ at ! po9t ( total ext9ction1 :ile human reason hangs ^u !m ) inext+ui%able affection1 & only aft] hav+ be5 ceaselessly deceiv$ does x va9ly attempt to *ange ?is into indiff]5ce4 ,9 our ?9k+ age x is n to be suppos$ b t _m des]v+ m5 w\ld use any good opportunity ( work+ = ! common int]e/ ( ! m & m enlight5$ reason1 if !re 7 only "s hope ( atta9+ ! goal4 ,ma!matics1 natural sci5ce1 laws1 arts1 ev5 morality1 etc41 d n completely fill ! s\l2 !re is always a space left ov]1 res]v$ = pure & speculative reason1 ! vacuity ( :i* prompts u to seek 9 vag>ies1 buffoon]ies1 & myticism = :at seems to be employm5t & ent]ta9m5t1 b :at actually is m]e pa/ime2 9 ord] to dead5 ! tr\blesome voice ( reason1 :i* 9 accordance ) its nature requires some?+ t c satisfy x1 & n m]ely subs]ve o!r ends or ! int]e/s ( our incl9ations4 ,a consid]ation1 !re=e1 :i* is conc]n$ only ) reason z x exi/s = x itself1 has z ,i may reasonably suppose a great fasc9ation = e "o :o has attempt$ ?us to ext5d 8 conceptions1 & ,i may ev5 say a great] ?an any o!r !oretical bran* ( k1 = :i* he w\ld n will+ly ex*ange x1 because "h all o!r cognitions1 & ev5 purposes1 mu/ meet & unite !mselves 9 a :ole4 ,i (f]1 !re=e1 ^! ,prolegom5a z a sket* & text-book = ?is inve/igation1 & n ! "w itself4 ,al?\gh ,i am ev5 n[ p]fectly satisfi$ ) ! latt] z f> z cont5ts1 ord]1 & mode ( pres5tation1 & ! c>e t ,i h exp5d$ 9 weigh+ & te/+ e s5t5ce be=e writ+ x d[n1 are conc]n$ 7= x has tak5 me ye>s to satisfy myself fully1 n only z reg>ds ! :ole1 b 9 "s cases ev5 z to ! s\rces ( "o p>ticul> proposition72 yet ,i am n q satisfi$ ) my exposition 9 "s sections ( ! doctr9e ( elem5ts1 z = in/ance 9 ! d$uction ( ! conceptions ( ! ,und]/&+1 or 9 t on ! p>alogisms ( pure reason1 because a c]ta9 diffus5ess takes away f _! cle>ness1 & 9 place ( !m1 :at is "h said 9 ! ,prolegom5a respect+ ^! sections1 may be made ! basis ( ! te/4 ,x is ! boa/ ( ! ,g]mans t :]e /eady & cont9u\s indu/ry are requisite1 !y c c>ry ?+s f>!r ?an o!r nations4 ,if ?is op9ion be well f\nd$1 an opportunity1 a bus9ess1 pres5ts itself1 ! successful issue ( :i* we c sc>cely d\bt1 & 9 :i* all ?9k+ m5 c equally take "p1 ?\gh !y h hi!rto be5 unsuccessful 9 accompli%+ x & 9 ?us confirm+ ! above good op9ion4 ,b ?is is *iefly because ! sci5ce 9 "q is ( s peculi> a k9d1 t x c be at once br\ght to completion & to t endur+ /ate t x w nev] be able to be br\ght 9 ! lea/ degree f>!r or increas$ by lat] discov]ies1 or ev5 *ang$ 7leav+ "h out ( acc\nt adornm5t by great] cle>ness 9 "s places1 or additional uses71 & ?is is an advantage no o!r sci5ce has or c h1 because !re is none s fully isolat$ & indep5d5t ( o!rs1 & :i* is conc]n$ ) ! faculty ( cognition pure & simple4 ,& ! pres5t mom5t seems1 moreov]1 n to be unfavorable to my expectation1 = j n[1 9 ,g]many1 no "o seems to "k :]e) to occupy himself1 ap>t f ! s-call$ useful sci5ces1 s z to pursue n m]e play1 b a bus9ess possess+ an endur+ purpose4 ,to discov] ! means h[ ! endeavors ( ! le>n$ may be unit$ 9 su* a purpose1 ,i mu/ leave to o!rs4 ,9 ! meantime1 x is my int5tion to p]suade any "o m]ely to foll[ my propositions1 or ev5 to flatt] me ) ! hope t he w d s2 b attacks1 repetitions1 limitations1 or confirmation1 completion1 & ext5sion1 z ! case may be1 %\ld be app5d$4 ,if ! matt] be b inve/igat$ f its f\ndation1 x _c fail t a sy/em1 albeit n my own1 %all be erect$1 t %all be a possession = future g5]ations = :i* !y may h reason to be grateful4 ,x w\ld lead u too f> "h to %[ :at k9d ( metaphysics may be expect$1 :5 only ! pr9ciples ( criticism h be5 p]fect$1 & h[1 because ! old false fea!rs h be5 pull$ out1 %e ne$ by no means appe> poor & r$uc$ to an insignificant figure1 b may be 9 o!r respects ri*ly & respectably adorn$4 ,b o!r & great uses :i* w\ld result f su* a re=m1 /rike "o imm$iately4 ,! ord9>y metaphysics _h its uses1 9 t x s\ght out ! elem5t>y conceptions ( ! pure und]/&+ 9 ord] to make !m cle> ?r\gh analysis1 & def9ite by explanation4 ,9 ?is way x 0 a tra9+ = reason1 9 :atev] direction x might be turn$2 b ?is 0 all ! good x did2 s]vice 0 subsequ5tly effac$ :5 x favor$ conceit by v5turesome ass]tions1 sophi/ry by subtle di/9ctions & adornm5t1 & %all[ness by ! ease ) :i* x decid$ ! mo/ difficult problems by means ( a little s*ool-wisdom1 :i* is only ! m s$uctive ! m x has ! *oice1 on ! "o h&1 ( tak+ some?+ f ! language ( sci5ce1 & on ! o!r f t ( popul> disc\rse1 ?us be+ ev]y?+ to ev]ybody1 b 9 reality no?+ at all4 ,by criticism1 h[ev]1 a /&>d is giv5 to our judgm5t1 :]eby k may be ) c]ta9ty di/+ui%$ f pseudo-sci5ce1 & firmly f\nd$1 be+ br\ght into full op]ation 9 metaphysics2 a mode ( ?\ght ext5d+ by degrees its b5eficial influ5ce ov] e o!r use ( reason1 at once infus+ into x ! true philosophical _s4 ,b ! s]vice also t metaphysics p]=ms = !ology1 by mak+ x indep5d5t ( ! judgm5t ( dogmatic speculation1 !reby assur+ x completely aga9/ ! attacks ( all su* oppon5ts1 is c]ta9ly n to be valu$ lightly4 ,= ord9>y metaphysics1 al?\gh x promis$ ! latt] mu* advantage1 c\ld n keep ?is promise1 & moreov]1 by summon+ speculative dogmatics to its assi/ance1 did no?+ b arm enemies aga9/ itself4 ,my/icism1 :i* c prosp] 9 a rationali/ic age only :5 x hides itself beh9d a sy/em ( s*ool-metaphysics1 "u ! protection ( :i* x may v5ture to rave ) a semblance ( rationality1 is driv5 f ?is1 its la/ hid+-place1 by critical philosophy4 ,la/1 b n lea/1 x _c be o!rwise ?an important to a tea*] ( metaphysics1 to be able to say ) univ]sal ass5t1 t :at he exp\nds is ,sci5ce1 & t !reby g5u9e s]vices w be r5d]$ to ! commonweal4