SS 7
Our table of the categories suggests considerations of some importance
Which may perhaps have significant results in regard to the scientific
Form of all rational cognitions. For, that this table is useful in the
Theoretical part of philosophy, nay, indispensable for the sketching
Of the complete plan of a science, so far as that science rests upon
Conceptions a priori, and for dividing it mathematically, according to
Fixed principles, is most manifest from the fact that it contains all
The elementary conceptions of the understanding, nay, even the form of a
System of these in the understanding itself, and consequently indicates
All the momenta, and also the internal arrangement of a projected
Speculative science, as I have elsewhere shown. [Footnote: In the
Metaphysical Principles of Natural Science.] Here follow some of these
Observations
I. This table, which contains four cla**es of conceptions of the
Understanding, may, in the first instance, be divided into two cla**es
The first of which relates to objects of intuition--pure as well as
Empirical; the second, to the existence of these objects, either in
Relation to one another, or to the understanding
The former of these cla**es of categories I would entitle the
Mathematical, and the latter the dynamical categories. The former, as we
See, has no correlates; these are only to be found in the second
Cla**. This difference must have a ground in the nature of the human
Understanding
II. The number of the categories in each cla** is always the same
Namely, three--a fact which also demands some consideration, because
In all other cases division a priori through conceptions is necessarily
Dichotomy. It is to be added, that the third category in each triad
Always arises from the combination of the second with the first
Thus totality is nothing else but plurality contemplated as unity;
Limitation is merely reality conjoined with negation; community is the
Causality of a substance, reciprocally determining, and determined by
Other substances; and finally, necessity is nothing but existence
Which is given through the possibility itself. Let it not be supposed
However, that the third category is merely a deduced, and not a
Primitive conception of the pure understanding. For the conjunction of
The first and second, in order to produce the third conception, requires
A particular function of the understanding, which is by no means
Identical with those which are exercised in the first and second. Thus
The conception of a number (which belongs to the category of totality)
Is not always possible, where the conceptions of multitude and unity
Exist (for example, in the representation of the infinite). Or, if I
Conjoin the conception of a cause with that of a substance, it does not
Follow that the conception of influence, that is, how one substance can
Be the cause of something in another substance, will be understood from
That. Thus it is evident that a particular act of the understanding is
Here necessary; and so in the other instances
III. With respect to one category, namely, that of community, which is
Found in the third cla**, it is not so easy as with the others to
Detect its accordance with the form of the disjunctive judgement which
Corresponds to it in the table of the logical functions
In order to a**ure ourselves of this accordance, we must observe that in
Every disjunctive judgement, the sphere of the judgement (that is
The complex of all that is contained in it) is represented as a whole
Divided into parts; and, since one part cannot be contained in the
Other, they are cogitated as co-ordinated with, not subordinated to each
Other, so that they do not determine each other unilaterally, as in a
Linear series, but reciprocally, as in an aggregate--(if one member of
The division is posited, all the rest are excluded; and conversely)
Now a like connection is cogitated in a whole of things; for one thing
Is not subordinated, as effect, to another as cause of its existence
But, on the contrary, is co-ordinated contemporaneously and
Reciprocally, as a cause in relation to the determination of the others
(for example, in a body--the parts of which mutually attract and repel
Each other). And this is an entirely different kind of connection from
That which we find in the mere relation of the cause to the effect (the
Principle to the consequence), for in such a connection the consequence
Does not in its turn determine the principle, and therefore does not
Constitute, with the latter, a whole--just as the Creator does not with
The world make up a whole. The process of understanding by which it
Represents to itself the sphere of a divided conception, is employed
Also when we think of a thing as divisible; and in the same manner as
The members of the division in the former exclude one another, and yet
Are connected in one sphere, so the understanding represents to itself
The parts of the latter, as having--each of them--an existence (as
Substances), independently of the others, and yet as united in one
Whole
SS 8
In the transcendental philosophy of the ancients there exists one more
Leading division, which contains pure conceptions of the understanding
And which, although not numbered among the categories, ought, according
To them, as conceptions a priori, to be valid of objects. But in this
Case they would augment the number of the categories; which cannot
Be. These are set forth in the proposition, so renowned among the
Schoolmen--"Quodlibet ens est UNUM, VERUM, BONUM." Now, though the
Inferences from this principle were mere tautological propositions
And though it is allowed only by courtesy to retain a place in modern
Metaphysics, yet a thought which maintained itself for such a length
Of time, however empty it seems to be, deserves an investigation of its
Origin, and justifies the conjecture that it must be grounded in some
Law of the understanding, which, as is often the case, has only been
Erroneously interpreted. These pretended transcendental predicates are
In fact, nothing but logical requisites and criteria of all cognition
Of objects, and they employ, as the basis for this cognition, the
Categories of quantity, namely, unity, plurality, and totality. But
These, which must be taken as material conditions, that is, as belonging
To the possibility of things themselves, they employed merely in a
Formal signification, as belonging to the logical requisites of all
Cognition, and yet most unguardedly changed these criteria of thought
Into properties of objects, as things in themselves. Now, in every
Cognition of an object, there is unity of conception, which may be
Called qualitative unity, so far as by this term we understand only the
Unity in our connection of the manifold; for example, unity of the theme
In a play, an oration, or a story. Secondly, there is truth in respect
Of the deductions from it. The more true deductions we have from a given
Conception, the more criteria of its objective reality. This we might
Call the qualitative plurality of characteristic marks, which belong
To a conception as to a common foundation, but are not cogitated as a
Quantity in it. Thirdly, there is perfection--which consists in this
That the plurality falls back upon the unity of the conception, and
Accords completely with that conception and with no other. This we may
Denominate qualitative completeness. Hence it is evident that these
Logical criteria of the possibility of cognition are merely the three
Categories of quantity modified and transformed to suit an unauthorized
Manner of applying them. That is to say, the three categories, in
Which the unity in the production of the quantum must be h*mogeneous
Throughout, are transformed solely with a view to the connection of
Heterogeneous parts of cognition in one act of consciousness, by
Means of the quality of the cognition, which is the principle of that
Connection. Thus the criterion of the possibility of a conception
(not of its object) is the definition of it, in which the unity of the
Conception, the truth of all that may be immediately deduced from it
And finally, the completeness of what has been thus deduced, constitute
The requisites for the reproduction of the whole conception. Thus also
The criterion or test of an hypothesis is the intelligibility of the
Received principle of explanation, or its unity (without help from any
Subsidiary hypothesis)--the truth of our deductions from it (consistency
With each other and with experience)--and lastly, the completeness of
The principle of the explanation of these deductions, which refer
To neither more nor less than what was admitted in the hypothesis
Restoring an*lytically and a posteriori, what was cogitated
Synthetically and a priori. By the conceptions, therefore, of unity
Truth, and perfection, we have made no addition to the transcendental
Table of the categories, which is complete without them. We have, on
The contrary, merely employed the three categories of quantity, setting
Aside their application to objects of experience, as general logical
Laws of the consistency of cognition with itself
CHAPTER II Of the Deduction of the Pure Conceptions of the
Understanding
SS 9. SECTION I Of the Principles of a Transcendental Deduction in
General
Teachers of jurisprudence, when speaking of rights and claims
Distinguish in a cause the question of right (quid juris) from the
Question of fact (quid facti), and while they demand proof of both, they
Give to the proof of the former, which goes to establish right or claim
In law, the name of deduction. Now we make use of a great number of
Empirical conceptions, without opposition from any one; and consider
Ourselves, even without any attempt at deduction, justified in attaching
To them a sense, and a supposititious signification, because we have
Always experience at hand to demonstrate their objective reality. There
Exist also, however, usurped conceptions, such as fortune, fate, which
Circulate with almost universal indulgence, and yet are occasionally
Challenged by the question, "quid juris?" In such cases, we have great
Difficulty in discovering any deduction for these terms, inasmuch as we
Cannot produce any manifest ground of right, either from experience or
From reason, on which the claim to employ them can be founded
Among the many conceptions, which make up the very variegated web of
Human cognition, some are destined for pure use a priori, independent
Of all experience; and their title to be so employed always requires
A deduction, inasmuch as, to justify such use of them, proofs from
Experience are not sufficient; but it is necessary to know how these
Conceptions can apply to objects without being derived from experience
I term, therefore, an examination of the manner in which conceptions can
Apply a priori to objects, the transcendental deduction of conceptions
And I distinguish it from the empirical deduction, which indicates the
Mode in which conception is obtained through experience and reflection
Thereon; consequently, does not concern itself with the right, but only
With the fact of our obtaining conceptions in such and such a manner. We
Have already seen that we are in possession of two perfectly different
Kinds of conceptions, which nevertheless agree with each other in this
That they both apply to objects completely a priori. These are
The conceptions of space and time as forms of sensibility, and the
Categories as pure conceptions of the understanding. To attempt an
Empirical deduction of either of these cla**es would be labour in vain
Because the distinguishing characteristic of their nature consists in
This, that they apply to their objects, without having borrowed anything
From experience towards the representation of them. Consequently, if
A deduction of these conceptions is necessary, it must always be
Transcendental
Meanwhile, with respect to these conceptions, as with respect to all our
Cognition, we certainly may discover in experience, if not the principle
Of their possibility, yet the occasioning causes of their production. It
Will be found that the impressions of sense give the first occasion
For bringing into action the whole faculty of cognition, and for the
Production of experience, which contains two very dissimilar elements
Namely, a matter for cognition, given by the senses, and a certain form
For the arrangement of this matter, arising out of the inner fountain
Of pure intuition and thought; and these, on occasion given by sensuous
Impressions, are called into exercise and produce conceptions. Such
An investigation into the first efforts of our faculty of cognition to
Mount from particular perceptions to general conceptions is undoubtedly
Of great utility; and we have to thank the celebrated Locke for having
First opened the way for this inquiry. But a deduction of the pure a
Priori conceptions of course never can be made in this way, seeing that
In regard to their future employment, which must be entirely independent
Of experience, they must have a far different certificate of birth
To show from that of a descent from experience. This attempted
Physiological derivation, which cannot properly be called deduction
Because it relates merely to a quaestio facti, I shall entitle an
Explanation of the possession of a pure cognition. It is therefore
Manifest that there can only be a transcendental deduction of these
Conceptions and by no means an empirical one; also, that all attempts
At an empirical deduction, in regard to pure a priori conceptions, are
Vain, and can only be made by one who does not understand the altogether
Peculiar nature of these cognitions
But although it is admitted that the only possible deduction of pure
A priori cognition is a transcendental deduction, it is not, for
That reason, perfectly manifest that such a deduction is absolutely
Necessary. We have already traced to their sources the conceptions of
Space and time, by means of a transcendental deduction, and we have
Explained and determined their objective validity a priori. Geometry
Nevertheless, advances steadily and securely in the province of pure
A priori cognitions, without needing to ask from philosophy any
Certificate as to the pure and legitimate origin of its fundamental
Conception of space. But the use of the conception in this science
Extends only to the external world of sense, the pure form of the
Intuition of which is space; and in this world, therefore, all
Geometrical cognition, because it is founded upon a priori intuition
Possesses immediate evidence, and the objects of this cognition are
Given a priori (as regards their form) in intuition by and through the
Cognition itself. With the pure conceptions of understanding, on the
Contrary, commences the absolute necessity of 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 a**ertion, 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
SS 10. Transition to the Transcendental Deduction of the Categories
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 an*lysis 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 a**ociation 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 a**ign 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
SS 11. SECTION II Transcendental Deduction of the pure Conceptions of
The Understanding
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 conjunction, and
That an*lysis, which appears to be its contrary, must, nevertheless
Always presuppose it; for where the understanding has not previously
Conjoined, it cannot dissect or an*lyse, because only as conjoined by
It, must that which is to be an*lysed have been given to our faculty of
Representation
But the conception of conjunction includes, besides the conception of
The manifold and of the synthesis of it, that of the unity of it also
Conjunction is the representation of the synthetical unity of the
Manifold.* This idea of unity, therefore, cannot arise out of that of
Conjunction; much rather does that idea, by combining itself with the
Representation of the manifold, render the conception of conjunction
Possible. This unity, which a priori precedes all conceptions of
Conjunction, is not the category of unity (SS 6); for all the categories
Are based upon logical functions of judgement, and in these functions we
Already have conjunction, and consequently unity of given conceptions
It is therefore evident that the category of unity presupposes
Conjunction. We must therefore look still higher for this unity (as
Qualitative, SS 8), in that, namely, which contains the ground of the
Unity of diverse conceptions in judgements, the ground, consequently, of
The possibility of the existence of the understanding, even in regard to
Its logical use
SS 12. Of the Originally Synthetical Unity of Apperception
The "I think" must accompany all my representations, for otherwise
Something would be represented in me which could not be thought; in
Other words, the representation would either be impossible, or at least
Be, in relation to me, nothing. That representation which can be given
Previously to all thought is called intuition. All the diversity or
Manifold content of intuition, has, therefore, a necessary relation to
The "I think," in the subject in which this diversity is found. But this
Representation, "I think," is an act of spontaneity; that is to say
It cannot be regarded as belonging to mere sensibility. I call it pure
Apperception, in order to distinguish it from empirical; or primitive
Apperception, because it is self-consciousness which, whilst it gives
Birth to the representation "I think," must necessarily be capable of
Accompanying all our representations. It is in all acts of consciousness
One and the same, and unaccompanied by it, no representation can exist
For me. The unity of this apperception I call the transcendental unity
Of self-consciousness, in order to indicate the possibility of a priori
Cognition arising from it. For the manifold representations which are
Given in an intuition would not all of them be my representations
If they did not all belong to one self-consciousness, that is, as my
Representations (even although I am not conscious of them as such), they
Must conform to the condition under which alone they can exist together
In a common self-consciousness, because otherwise they would not all
Without exception belong to me. From this primitive conjunction follow
Many important results
For example, this universal identity of the apperception of the manifold
Given in intuition contains a synthesis of representations and is
Possible only by means of the consciousness of this synthesis. For the
Empirical consciousness which accompanies different representations
Is in itself fragmentary and disunited, and without relation to the
Identity of the subject. This relation, then, does not exist because I
Accompany every representation with consciousness, but because I join
One representation to another, and am conscious of the synthesis of
Them. Consequently, only because I can connect a variety of given
Representations in one consciousness, is it possible that I
Can represent to myself the identity of consciousness in these
Representations; in other words, the an*lytical unity of apperception
Is possible only under the presupposition of a synthetical unity.* The
Thought, "These representations given in intuition belong all of them
To me," is accordingly just the same as, "I unite them in one
Self-consciousness, or can at least so unite them"; and although
This thought is not itself the consciousness of the synthesis of
Representations, it presupposes the possibility of it; that is to
Say, for the reason alone that I can comprehend the variety of my
Representations in one consciousness, do I call them my representations
For otherwise I must have as many-coloured and various a self as are
The representations of which I am conscious. Synthetical unity of the
Manifold in intuitions, as given a priori, is therefore the foundation
Of the identity of apperception itself, which antecedes a priori all
Determinate thought. But the conjunction of representations into a
Conception is not to be found in objects themselves, nor can it be
As it were, borrowed from them and taken up into the understanding by
Perception, but it is on the contrary an operation of the understanding
Itself, which is nothing more than the faculty of conjoining a priori
And of bringing the variety of given representations under the unity of
Apperception. This principle is the highest in all human cognition
This fundamental principle of the necessary unity of apperception is
Indeed an identical, and therefore an*lytical, proposition; but it
Nevertheless explains the necessity for a synthesis of the manifold
Given in an intuition, without which the identity of self-consciousness
Would be incogitable. For the ego, as a simple representation, presents
Us with no manifold content; only in intuition, which is quite different
From the representation ego, can it be given us, and by means of
Conjunction it is cogitated in one self-consciousness. An understanding
In which all the manifold should be given by means of consciousness
Itself, would be intuitive; our understanding can only think and must
Look for its intuition to sense. I am, therefore, conscious of my
Identical self, in relation to all the variety of representations given
To me in an intuition, because I call all of them my representations. In
Other words, I am conscious myself of a necessary a priori synthesis of
My representations, which is called the original synthetical unity of
Apperception, under which rank all the representations presented to me
But that only by means of a synthesis
SS 13. The Principle of the Synthetical Unity of Apperception is the
Highest Principle of all exercise of the Understanding
The supreme principle of the possibility of all intuition in relation to
Sensibility was, according to our transcendental aesthetic, that all the
Manifold in intuition be subject to the formal conditions of space and
Time. The supreme principle of the possibility of it in relation to the
Understanding is that all the manifold in it be subject to conditions
Of the originally synthetical unity or apperception.* To the former
Of these two principles are subject all the various representations of
Intuition, in so far as they are given to us; to the latter, in so far
As they must be capable of conjunction in one consciousness; for
Without this nothing can be thought or cognized, because the given
Representations would not have in common the act Of the apperception "I
Think" and therefore could not be connected in one self-consciousness
Understanding is, to speak generally, the faculty Of cognitions. These
Consist in the determined relation of given representation to an object
But an object is that, in the conception of which the manifold in a
Given intuition is united. Now all union of representations requires
Unity of consciousness in the synthesis of them. Consequently, it is
The unity of consciousness alone that constitutes the possibility of
Representations relating to an object, and therefore of their objective
Validity, and of their becoming cognitions, and consequently, the
Possibility of the existence of the understanding itself
The first pure cognition of understanding, then, upon which is founded
All its other exercise, and which is at the same time perfectly
Independent of all conditions of mere sensuous intuition, is the
Principle of the original synthetical unity of apperception. Thus the
Mere form of external sensuous intuition, namely, space, affords us
Per se, no cognition; it merely contributes the manifold in a priori
Intuition to a possible cognition. But, in order to cognize something
In space (for example, a line), I must draw it, and thus produce
Synthetically a determined conjunction of the given manifold, so that
The unity of this act is at the same time the unity of consciousness
(in the conception of a line), and by this means alone is an object (a
Determinate space) cognized. The synthetical unity of consciousness
Is, therefore, an objective condition of all cognition, which I do
Not merely require in order to cognize an object, but to which every
Intuition must necessarily be subject, in order to become an object for
Me; because in any other way, and without this synthesis, the manifold
In intuition could not be united in one consciousness
This proposition is, as already said, itself an*lytical, although it
Constitutes the synthetical unity, the condition of all thought; for
It states nothing more than that all my representations in any given
Intuition must be subject to the condition which alone enables me to
Connect them, as my representation with the identical self, and so to
Unite them synthetically in one apperception, by means of the general
Expression, "I think."
But this principle is not to be regarded as a principle for every
Possible understanding, but only for the understanding by means of whose
Pure apperception in the thought I am, no manifold content is given. The
Understanding or mind which contained the manifold in intuition, in and
Through the act itself of its own self-consciousness, in other words, an
Understanding by and in the representation of which the objects of
The representation should at the same time exist, would not require a
Special act of synthesis of the manifold as the condition of the unity
Of its consciousness, an act of which the human understanding, which
Thinks only and cannot intuite, has absolute need. But this principle is
The first principle of all the operations of our understanding, so that
We cannot form the least conception of any other possible understanding
Either of one such as should be itself intuition, or possess a sensuous
Intuition, but with forms different from those of space and time
SS 14. What Objective Unity of Self-consciousness is
It is by means of the transcendental unity of apperception that all
The manifold, given in an intuition is united into a conception of
The object. On this account it is called objective, and must be
Distinguished from the subjective unity of consciousness, which is a
Determination of the internal sense, by means of which the said manifold
In intuition is given empirically to be so united. Whether I can be
Empirically conscious of the manifold as coexistent or as successive
Depends upon circumstances, or empirical conditions. Hence the empirical
Unity of consciousness by means of a**ociation of representations
Itself relates to a phenomenal world and is wholly contingent. On the
Contrary, the pure form of intuition in time, merely as an intuition
Which contains a given manifold, is subject to the original unity of
Consciousness, and that solely by means of the necessary relation of
The manifold in intuition to the "I think," consequently by means of
The pure synthesis of the understanding, which lies a priori at the
Foundation of all empirical synthesis. The transcendental unity of
Apperception is alone objectively valid; the empirical which we do not
Consider in this essay, and which is merely a unity deduced from the
Former under given conditions in concreto, possesses only subjective
Validity. One person connects the notion conveyed in a word with one
Thing, another with another thing; and the unity of consciousness in
That which is empirical, is, in relation to that which is given by
Experience, not necessarily and universally valid
SS 15. The Logical Form of all Judgements consists in the Objective
Unity of Apperception of the Conceptions contained therein
I could never satisfy myself with the definition which logicians give of
A judgement. It is, according to them, the representation of a relation
Between two conceptions. I shall not dwell here on the faultiness of
This definition, in that it suits only for categorical and not for
Hypothetical or disjunctive judgements, these latter containing a
Relation not of conceptions but of judgements themselves--a blunder from
Which many evil results have followed.* It is more important for our
Present purpose to observe, that this definition does not determine in
What the said relation consists
But if I investigate more closely the relation of given cognitions in
Every judgement, and distinguish it, as belonging to the understanding
From the relation which is produced according to laws of the
Reproductive imagination (which has only subjective validity), I find
That judgement is nothing but the mode of bringing given cognitions
Under the objective unit of apperception. This is plain from our use
Of the term of relation is in judgements, in order to distinguish the
Objective unity of given representations from the subjective unity
For this term indicates the relation of these representations to the
Original apperception, and also their necessary unity, even although the
Judgement is empirical, therefore contingent, as in the judgement: "All
Bodies are heavy." I do not mean by this, that these representations
Do necessarily belong to each other in empirical intuition, but that by
Means of the necessary unity of appreciation they belong to each other
In the synthesis of intuitions, that is to say, they belong to each
Other according to principles of the objective determination of all
Our representations, in so far as cognition can arise from them
These principles being all deduced from the main principle of the
Transcendental unity of apperception. In this way alone can there arise
From this relation a judgement, that is, a relation which has objective
Validity, and is perfectly distinct from that relation of the very same
Representations which has only subjective validity--a relation, to wit
Which is produced according to laws of a**ociation. According to these
Laws, I could only say: "When I hold in my hand or carry a body, I feel
An impression of weight"; but I could not say: "It, the body, is
Heavy"; for this is tantamount to saying both these representations
Are conjoined in the object, that is, without distinction as to the
Condition of the subject, and do not merely stand together in my
Perception, however frequently the perceptive act may be repeated
SS 16. All Sensuous Intuitions are subject to the Categories, as
Conditions under which alone the manifold Content of them can be united
In one Consciousness
The manifold content given in a sensuous intuition comes necessarily
Under the original synthetical unity of apperception, because thereby
Alone is the unity of intuition possible (SS 13). But that act of the
Understanding, by which the manifold content of given representations
(whether intuitions or conceptions) is brought under one apperception
Is the logical function of judgements (SS 15). All the manifold
Therefore, in so far as it is given in one empirical intuition, is
Determined in relation to one of the logical functions of judgement, by
Means of which it is brought into union in one consciousness. Now the
Categories are nothing else than these functions of judgement so far as
The manifold in a given intuition is determined in relation to them
(SS 9). Consequently, the manifold in a given intuition is necessarily
Subject to the categories of the understanding
SS 17. Observation
The manifold in an intuition, which I call mine, is represented by means
Of the synthesis of the understanding, as belonging to the necessary
Unity of self-consciousness, and this takes place by means of the
Category.* The category indicates accordingly that the empirical
Consciousness of a given manifold in an intuition is subject to a
Pure self-consciousness a priori, in the same manner as an empirical
Intuition is subject to a pure sensuous intuition, which is also
A priori. In the above proposition, then, lies the beginning of a
Deduction of the pure conceptions of the understanding. Now, as the
Categories have their origin in the understanding alone, independently
Of sensibility, I must in my deduction make abstraction of the mode in
Which the manifold of an empirical intuition is given, in order to
Fix my attention exclusively on the unity which is brought by the
Understanding into the intuition by means of the category. In what
Follows (SS 22), it will be shown, from the mode in which the empirical
Intuition is given in the faculty of sensibility, that the unity which
Belongs to it is no other than that which the category (according to SS
16) imposes on the manifold in a given intuition, and thus, its a
Priori validity in regard to all objects of sense being established, the
Purpose of our deduction will be fully attained
But there is one thing in the above demonstration of which I could not
Make abstraction, namely, that the manifold to be intuited must be given
Previously to the synthesis of the understanding, and independently of
It. How this takes place remains here undetermined. For if I cogitate
An understanding which was itself intuitive (as, for example, a divine
Understanding which should not represent given objects, but by whose
Representation the objects themselves should be given or produced), the
Categories would possess no significance in relation to such a faculty
Of cognition. They are merely rules for an understanding, whose whole
Power consists in thought, that is, in the act of submitting the
Synthesis of the manifold which is presented to it in intuition from
A very different quarter, to the unity of apperception; a faculty
Therefore, which cognizes nothing per se, but only connects and
Arranges the material of cognition, the intuition, namely, which must
Be presented to it by means of the object. But to show reasons for this
Peculiar character of our understandings, that it produces unity of
Apperception a priori only by means of categories, and a certain kind
And number thereof, is as impossible as to explain why we are endowed
With precisely so many functions of judgement and no more, or why time
And space are the only forms of our intuition