第 17 页

seeking a transcendental deduction, not only of these conceptions

themselves, but likewise of space, because, inasmuch as they make

affirmations concerning objects not by means of the predicates of

intuition and sensibility, but of pure thought a priori, they apply to

objects without any of the conditions of sensibility. Besides, not

being founded on experience, they are not presented with any object in

a priori intuition upon which, antecedently to experience, they

might base their synthesis. Hence results, not only doubt as to the

objective validity and proper limits of their use, but that even our

conception of space is rendered equivocal; inasmuch as we are very

ready with the aid of the categories, to carry the use of this

conception beyond the conditions of sensuous intuition- and, for

this reason, we have already found a transcendental deduction of it

needful. The reader, then, must be quite convinced of the absolute

necessity of a transcendental deduction, before taking a single step

in the field of pure reason; because otherwise he goes to work

blindly, and after he has wondered about in all directions, returns to

the state of utter ignorance from which he started. He ought,

moreover, clearly to recognize beforehand the unavoidable difficulties

in his undertaking, so that he may not afterwards complain of the

obscurity in which the subject itself is deeply involved, or become

too soon impatient of the obstacles in his path; because we have a

choice of only two things- either at once to give up all pretensions

to knowledge beyond the limits of possible experience, or to bring

this critical investigation to completion.

We have been able, with very little trouble, to make it

comprehensible how the conceptions of space and time, although a

priori cognitions, must necessarily apply to external objects, and

render a synthetical cognition of these possible, independently of all

experience. For inasmuch as only by means of such pure form of

sensibility an object can appear to us, that is, be an object of

empirical intuition, space and time are pure intuitions, which contain

a priori the condition of the possibility of objects as phenomena, and

an a priori synthesis in these intuitions possesses objective

validity.

On the other hand, the categories of the understanding do not

represent the conditions under which objects are given to us in

intuition; objects can consequently appear to us without necessarily

connecting themselves with these, and consequently without any

necessity binding on the understanding to contain a priori the

conditions of these objects. Thus we find ourselves involved in a

difficulty which did not present itself in the sphere of

sensibility, that is to say, we cannot discover how the subjective

conditions of thought can have objective validity, in other words, can

become conditions of the possibility of all cognition of objects;

for phenomena may certainly be given to us in intuition without any

help from the functions of the understanding. Let us take, for

example, the conception of cause, which indicates a peculiar kind of

synthesis, namely, that with something, A, something entirely

different, B, is connected according to a law. It is not a priori

manifest why phenomena should contain anything of this kind (we are of

course debarred from appealing for proof to experience, for the

objective validity of this conception must be demonstrated a

priori), and it hence remains doubtful a priori, whether such a

conception be not quite void and without any corresponding object

among phenomena. For that objects of sensuous intuition must

correspond to the formal conditions of sensibility existing a priori

in the mind is quite evident, from the fact that without these they

could not be objects for us; but that they must also correspond to the

conditions which understanding requires for the synthetical unity of

thought is an assertion, the grounds for which are not so easily to be

discovered. For phenomena might be so constituted as not to correspond

to the conditions of the unity of thought; and all things might lie in

such confusion that, for example, nothing could be met with in the

sphere of phenomena to suggest a law of synthesis, and so correspond

to the conception of cause and effect; so that this conception would

be quite void, null, and without significance. Phenomena would

nevertheless continue to present objects to our intuition; for mere

intuition does not in any respect stand in need of the functions of

thought.

If we thought to free ourselves from the labour of these

investigations by saying: "Experience is constantly offering us

examples of the relation of cause and effect in phenomena, and

presents us with abundant opportunity of abstracting the conception of

cause, and so at the same time of corroborating the objective validity

of this conception"; we should in this case be overlooking the fact,

that the conception of cause cannot arise in this way at all; that, on

the contrary, it must either have an a priori basis in the,

understanding, or be rejected as a mere chimera. For this conception

demands that something, A, should be of such a nature that something

else, B, should follow from it necessarily, and according to an

absolutely universal law. We may certainly collect from phenomena a

law, according to which this or that usually happens, but the

element of necessity is not to be found in it. Hence it is evident

that to the synthesis of cause and effect belongs a dignity, which

is utterly wanting in any empirical synthesis; for it is no mere

mechanical synthesis, by means of addition, but a dynamical one;

that is to say, the effect is not to be cogitated as merely annexed to

the cause, but as posited by and through the cause, and resulting from

it. The strict universality of this law never can be a

characteristic of empirical laws, which obtain through induction

only a comparative universality, that is, an extended range of

practical application. But the pure conceptions of the understanding

would entirely lose all their peculiar character, if we treated them

merely as the productions of experience.

Transition to the Transcendental Deduction of the

Categories. SS 10

There are only two possible ways in which synthetical representation

and its objects can coincide with and relate necessarily to each

other, and, as it were, meet together. Either the object alone makes

the representation possible, or the representation alone makes the

object possible. In the former case, the relation between them is only

empirical, and an a priori representation is impossible. And this is

the case with phenomena, as regards that in them which is referable to

mere sensation. In the latter case- although representation alone (for

of its causality, by means of the will, we do not here speak) does not

produce the object as to its existence, it must nevertheless be a

priori determinative in regard to the object, if it is only by means

of the representation that we can cognize anything as an object. Now

there are only two conditions of the possibility of a cognition of

objects; firstly, intuition, by means of which the object, though only

as phenomenon, is given; secondly, conception, by means of which the

object which corresponds to this intuition is thought. But it is

evident from what has been said on aesthetic that the first condition,

under which alone objects can be intuited, must in fact exist, as a

formal basis for them, a priori in the mind. With this formal

condition of sensibility, therefore, all phenomena necessarily

correspond, because it is only through it that they can be phenomena

at all; that is, can be empirically intuited and given. Now the

question is whether there do not exist, a priori in the mind,

conceptions of understanding also, as conditions under which alone

something, if not intuited, is yet thought as object. If this question

be answered in the affirmative, it follows that all empirical

cognition of objects is necessarily conformable to such conceptions,

since, if they are not presupposed, it is impossible that anything can

be an object of experience. Now all experience contains, besides the

intuition of the senses through which an object is given, a conception

also of an object that is given in intuition. Accordingly, conceptions

of objects in general must lie as a priori conditions at the

foundation of all empirical cognition; and consequently, the objective

validity of the categories, as a priori conceptions, will rest upon

this, that experience (as far as regards the form of thought) is

possible only by their means. For in that case they apply

necessarily and a priori to objects of experience, because only

through them can an object of experience be thought.

The whole aim of the transcendental deduction of all a priori

conceptions is to show that these conceptions are a priori

conditions of the possibility of all experience. Conceptions which

afford us the objective foundation of the possibility of experience

are for that very reason necessary. But the analysis of the

experiences in which they are met with is not deduction, but only an

illustration of them, because from experience they could never

derive the attribute of necessity. Without their original

applicability and relation to all possible experience, in which all

objects of cognition present themselves, the relation of the

categories to objects, of whatever nature, would be quite

incomprehensible.

The celebrated Locke, for want of due reflection on these points,

and because he met with pure conceptions of the understanding in

experience, sought also to deduce them from experience, and yet

proceeded so inconsequently as to attempt, with their aid, to arrive

it cognitions which lie far beyond the limits of all experience. David

Hume perceived that, to render this possible, it was necessary that

the conceptions should have an a priori origin. But as he could not

explain how it was possible that conceptions which are not connected

with each other in the understanding must nevertheless be thought as

necessarily connected in the object- and it never occurred to him that

the understanding itself might, perhaps, by means of these

conceptions, be the author of the experience in which its objects were

presented to it- he was forced to drive these conceptions from

experience, that is, from a subjective necessity arising from repeated

association of experiences erroneously considered to be objective-

in one word, from habit. But he proceeded with perfect consequence and

declared it to be impossible, with such conceptions and the principles

arising from them, to overstep the limits of experience. The empirical

derivation, however, which both of these philosophers attributed to

these conceptions, cannot possibly be reconciled with the fact that we

do possess scientific a priori cognitions, namely, those of pure

mathematics and general physics.

The former of these two celebrated men opened a wide door to

extravagance- (for if reason has once undoubted right on its side,

it will not allow itself to be confined to set limits, by vague

recommendations of moderation); the latter gave himself up entirely to

scepticism- a natural consequence, after having discovered, as he

thought, that the faculty of cognition was not trustworthy. We now

intend to make a trial whether it be not possible safely to conduct

reason between these two rocks, to assign her determinate limits,

and yet leave open for her the entire sphere of her legitimate

activity.

I shall merely premise an explanation of what the categories are.

They are conceptions of an object in general, by means of which its

intuition is contemplated as determined in relation to one of the

logical functions of judgement. The following will make this plain.

The function of the categorical judgement is that of the relation of

subject to predicate; for example, in the proposition: "All bodies are

divisible." But in regard to the merely logical use of the

understanding, it still remains undetermined to which Of these two

conceptions belongs the function Of subject and to which that of

predicate. For we could also say: "Some divisible is a body." But

the category of substance, when the conception of a body is brought

under it, determines that; and its empirical intuition in experience

must be contemplated always as subject and never as mere predicate.

And so with all the other categories.

SECTION II Transcendental Deduction of the pure Conceptions of

the Understanding. SS 11

Of the Possibility of a Conjunction of the manifold representations

given by Sense.

The manifold content in our representations can be given in an

intuition which is merely sensuous- in other words, is nothing but

susceptibility; and the form of this intuition can exist a priori in

our faculty of representation, without being anything else but the

mode in which the subject is affected. But the conjunction

(conjunctio) of a manifold in intuition never can be given us by the

senses; it cannot therefore be contained in the pure form of

sensuous intuition, for it is a spontaneous act of the faculty of

representation. And as we must, to distinguish it from sensibility,

entitle this faculty understanding; so all conjunction whether

conscious or unconscious, be it of the manifold in intuition, sensuous

or non-sensuous, or of several conceptions- is an act of the

understanding. To this act we shall give the general appellation of

synthesis, thereby to indicate, at the same time, that we cannot

represent anything as conjoined in the object without having

previously conjoined it ourselves. Of all mental notions, that of

conjunction is the only one which cannot be given through objects, but

can be originated only by the subject itself, because it is an act

of its purely spontaneous activity. The reader will easily enough

perceive that the possibility of conjunction must be grounded in the

very nature of this act, and that it must be equally valid for all