GENERAL REMARK ON THE SYSTEM OF PRINCIPLES
It is very remarkable that we cannot perceive the possibility of a thing
From the category alone, but must always have an intuition, by which
To make evident the objective reality of the pure conception of the
Understanding. Take, for example, the categories of relation. How (1)
A thing can exist only as a subject, and not as a mere determination of
Other things, that is, can be substance; or how (2), because something
Exists, some other thing must exist, consequently how a thing can be a
Cause; or how (3), when several things exist, from the fact that one
Of these things exists, some consequence to the others follows
And reciprocally, and in this way a community of substances can be
Possible--are questions whose solution cannot be obtained from mere
Conceptions. The very same is the case with the other categories; for
Example, how a thing can be of the same sort with many others, that is
Can be a quantity, and so on. So long as we have not intuition we cannot
Know whether we do really think an object by the categories, and where
An object can anywhere be found to cohere with them, and thus the truth
Is established, that the categories are not in themselves cognitions
But mere forms of thought for the construction of cognitions from given
Intuitions. For the same reason is it true that from categories alone
No synthetical proposition can be made. For example: "In every existence
There is substance," that is, something that can exist only as a subject
And not as mere predicate; or, "Everything is a quantity"--to construct
Propositions such as these, we require something to enable us to go out
Beyond the given conception and connect another with it. For the same
Reason the attempt to prove a synthetical proposition by means of mere
Conceptions, for example: "Everything that exists contingently has a
Cause," has never succeeded. We could never get further than proving
That, without this relation to conceptions, we could not conceive the
Existence of the contingent, that is, could not a priori through the
Understanding cognize the existence of such a thing; but it does not
Hence follow that this is also the condition of the possibility of the
Thing itself that is said to be contingent. If, accordingly; we look
Back to our proof of the principle of causality, we shall find that we
Were able to prove it as valid only of objects of possible experience
And, indeed, only as itself the principle of the possibility of
Experience, Consequently of the cognition of an object given in
Empirical intuition, and not from mere conceptions. That, however
The proposition: "Everything that is contingent must have a cause," is
Evident to every one merely from conceptions, is not to be denied. But
In this case the conception of the contingent is cogitated as involving
Not the category of modality (as that the non-existence of which can
Be conceived) but that of relation (as that which can exist only as
The consequence of something else), and so it is really an identical
Proposition: "That which can exist only as a consequence, has a cause."
In fact, when we have to give examples of contingent existence, we
Always refer to changes, and not merely to the possibility of conceiving
The opposite.* But change is an event, which, as such, is possible only
Through a cause, and considered per se its non-existence is therefore
Possible, and we become cognizant of its contingency from the fact that
It can exist only as the effect of a cause. Hence, if a thing is a**umed
To be contingent, it is an an*lytical proposition to say, it has a
Cause
But it is still more remarkable that, to understand the possibility of
Things according to the categories and thus to demonstrate the objective
Reality of the latter, we require not merely intuitions, but external
Intuitions. If, for example, we take the pure conceptions of relation
We find that (1) for the purpose of presenting to the conception of
Substance something permanent in intuition corresponding thereto and
Thus of demonstrating the objective reality of this conception, we
Require an intuition (of matter) in space, because space alone is
Permanent and determines things as such, while time, and with it all
That is in the internal sense, is in a state of continual flow; (2)
In order to represent change as the intuition corresponding to the
Conception of causality, we require the representation of motion as
Change in space; in fact, it is through it alone that changes, the
Possibility of which no pure understanding can perceive, are capable
Of being intuited. Change is the connection of determinations
Contradictorily opposed to each other in the existence of one and the
Same thing. Now, how it is possible that out of a given state one
Quite opposite to it in the same thing should follow, reason without
An example can not only not conceive, but cannot even make intelligible
Without intuition; and this intuition is the motion of a point in space;
The existence of which in different spaces (as a consequence of opposite
Determinations) alone makes the intuition of change possible. For, in
Order to make even internal change cognitable, we require to represent
Time, as the form of the internal sense, figuratively by a line, and the
Internal change by the drawing of that line (motion), and consequently
Are obliged to employ external intuition to be able to represent the
Successive existence of ourselves in different states. The proper ground
Of this fact is that all change to be perceived as change presupposes
Something permanent in intuition, while in the internal sense no
Permanent intuition is to be found. Lastly, the objective possibility
Of the category of community cannot be conceived by mere reason, and
Consequently its objective reality cannot be demonstrated without an
Intuition, and that external in space. For how can we conceive the
Possibility of community, that is, when several substances exist, that
Some effect on the existence of the one follows from the existence
Of the other, and reciprocally, and therefore that, because something
Exists in the latter, something else must exist in the former, which
Could not be understood from its own existence alone? For this is the
Very essence of community--which is inconceivable as a property of
Things which are perfectly isolated. Hence, Leibnitz, in attributing to
The substances of the world--as cogitated by the understanding alone--a
Community, required the mediating aid of a divinity; for, from their
Existence, such a property seemed to him with justice inconceivable. But
We can very easily conceive the possibility of community (of
Substances as phenomena) if we represent them to ourselves as in space
Consequently in external intuition. For external intuition contains
In itself a priori formal external relations, as the conditions of the
Possibility of the real relations of action and reaction, and
Therefore of the possibility of community. With the same ease can it
Be demonstrated, that the possibility of things as quantities, and
Consequently the objective reality of the category of quantity, can be
Grounded only in external intuition, and that by its means alone is the
Notion of quantity appropriated by the internal sense. But I must avoid
Prolixity, and leave the task of illustrating this by examples to the
Reader's own reflection
The above remarks are of the greatest importance, not only for the
Confirmation of our previous confutation of idealism, but still more
When the subject of self-cognition by mere internal consciousness
And the determination of our own nature without the aid of external
Empirical intuitions is under discussion, for the indication of the
Grounds of the possibility of such a cognition
The result of the whole of this part of the an*lytic of principles is
Therefore: "All principles of the pure understanding are nothing more
Than a priori principles of the possibility of experience, and to
Experience alone do all a priori synthetical propositions apply and
Relate"; indeed, their possibility itself rests entirely on this
Relation
CHAPTER III Of the Ground of the Division of all Objects into Phenomena
And Noumena
We have now not only traversed the region of the pure understanding and
Carefully surveyed every part of it, but we have also measured it, and
Assigned to everything therein its proper place. But this land is an
Island, and enclosed by nature herself within unchangeable limits. It is
The land of truth (an attractive word), surrounded by a wide and stormy
Ocean, the region of illusion, where many a fog-bank, many an iceberg
Seems to the mariner, on his voyage of discovery, a new country, and
While constantly deluding him with vain hopes, engages him in dangerous
Adventures, from which he never can desist, and which yet he never can
Bring to a termination. But before venturing upon this sea, in order
To explore it in its whole extent, and to arrive at a certainty whether
Anything is to be discovered there, it will not be without advantage if
We cast our eyes upon the chart of the land that we are about to
Leave, and to ask ourselves, firstly, whether we cannot rest perfectly
Contented with what it contains, or whether we must not of necessity
Be contented with it, if we can find nowhere else a solid foundation to
Build upon; and, secondly, by what title we possess this land itself
And how we hold it secure against all hostile claims? Although, in the
Course of our an*lytic, we have already given sufficient answers to
These questions, yet a summary recapitulation of these solutions may
Be useful in strengthening our conviction, by uniting in one point the
Momenta of the arguments
We have seen that everything which the understanding draws from itself
Without borrowing from experience, it nevertheless possesses only
For the behoof and use of experience. The principles of the pure
Understanding, whether constitutive a priori (as the mathematical
Principles), or merely regulative (as the dynamical), contain nothing
But the pure schema, as it were, of possible experience. For experience
Possesses its unity from the synthetical unity which the understanding
Originally and from itself, imparts to the synthesis of the imagination
In relation to apperception, and in a priori relation to and agreement
With which phenomena, as data for a possible cognition, must stand. But
Although these rules of the understanding are not only a priori true
But the very source of all truth, that is, of the accordance of our
Cognition with objects, and on this ground, that they contain the basis
Of the possibility of experience, as the ensemble of all cognition, it
Seems to us not enough to propound what is true--we desire also to
Be told what we want to know. If, then, we learn nothing more by this
Critical examination than what we should have practised in the merely
Empirical use of the understanding, without any such subtle inquiry
The presumption is that the advantage we reap from it is not worth
The labour bestowed upon it. It may certainly be answered that no rash
Curiosity is more prejudicial to the enlargement of our knowledge than
That which must know beforehand the utility of this or that piece
Of information which we seek, before we have entered on the needful
Investigations, and before one could form the least conception of its
Utility, even though it were placed before our eyes. But there is
One advantage in such transcendental inquiries which can be made
Comprehensible to the dullest and most reluctant learner--this, namely
That the understanding which is occupied merely with empirical exercise
And does not reflect on the sources of its own cognition, may exercise
Its functions very well and very successfully, but is quite unable to do
One thing, and that of very great importance, to determine, namely
The bounds that limit its employment, and to know what lies within
Or without its own sphere. This purpose can be obtained only by
Such profound investigations as we have instituted. But if it cannot
Distinguish whether certain questions lie within its horizon or not, it
Can never be sure either as to its claims or possessions, but must lay
Its account with many humiliating corrections, when it transgresses, as
It unavoidably will, the limits of its own territory, and loses itself
In fanciful opinions and blinding illusions
That the understanding, therefore, cannot make of its a priori
Principles, or even of its conceptions, other than an empirical use
Is a proposition which leads to the most important results. A
Transcendental use is made of a conception in a fundamental proposition
Or principle, when it is referred to things in general and considered
As things in themselves; an empirical use, when it is referred merely to
Phenomena, that is, to objects of a possible experience. That the latter
Use of a conception is the only admissible one is evident from the
Reasons following. For every conception are requisite, firstly, the
Logical form of a conception (of thought) general; and, secondly, the
Possibility of presenting to this an object to which it may apply
Failing this latter, it has no sense, and utterly void of content
Although it may contain the logical function for constructing a
Conception from certain data. Now, object cannot be given to a
Conception otherwise than by intuition, and, even if a pure intuition
Antecedent to the object is a priori possible, this pure intuition can
Itself obtain objective validity only from empirical intuition, of which
It is itself but the form. All conceptions, therefore, and with them
All principles, however high the degree of their a priori possibility
Relate to empirical intuitions, that is, to data towards a possible
Experience. Without this they possess no objective validity, but are
Mere play of imagination or of understanding with images or notions. Let
Us take, for example, the conceptions of mathematics, and first in its
Pure intuitions. "Space has three dimensions"--"Between two points there
Can be only one straight line," etc. Although all these principles
And the representation of the object with which this science occupies
Itself, are generated in the mind entirely a priori, they would
Nevertheless have no significance if we were not always able to exhibit
Their significance in and by means of phenomena (empirical objects)
Hence it is requisite that an abstract conception be made sensuous
That is, that an object corresponding to it in intuition be forthcoming
Otherwise the conception remains, as we say, without sense, that
Is, without meaning. Mathematics fulfils this requirement by the
Construction of the figure, which is a phenomenon evident to the senses
The same science finds support and significance in number; this in its
Turn finds it in the fingers, or in counters, or in lines and points
The conception itself is always produced a priori, together with the
Synthetical principles or formulas from such conceptions; but the proper
Employment of them, and their application to objects, can exist nowhere
But in experience, the possibility of which, as regards its form, they
Contain a priori
That this is also the case with all of the categories and the principles
Based upon them is evident from the fact that we cannot render
Intelligible the possibility of an object corresponding to them without
Having recourse to the conditions of sensibility, consequently, to the
Form of phenomena, to which, as their only proper objects, their use
Must therefore be confined, inasmuch as, if this condition is removed
All significance, that is, all relation to an object, disappears, and
No example can be found to make it comprehensible what sort of things we
Ought to think under such conceptions
The conception of quantity cannot be explained except by saying that
It is the determination of a thing whereby it can be cogitated how
Many times one is placed in it. But this "how many times" is based upon
Successive repetition, consequently upon time and the synthesis of the
h*mogeneous therein. Reality, in contradistinction to negation, can be
Explained only by cogitating a time which is either filled therewith or
Is void. If I leave out the notion of permanence (which is existence in
All time), there remains in the conception of substance nothing but the
Logical notion of subject, a notion of which I endeavour to realize by
Representing to myself something that can exist only as a subject. But
Not only am I perfectly ignorant of any conditions under which this
Logical prerogative can belong to a thing, I can make nothing out of
The notion, and draw no inference from it, because no object to which
To apply the conception is determined, and we consequently do not know
Whether it has any meaning at all. In like manner, if I leave out the
Notion of time, in which something follows upon some other thing in
Conformity with a rule, I can find nothing in the pure category, except
That there is a something of such a sort that from it a conclusion may
Be drawn as to the existence of some other thing. But in this case
It would not only be impossible to distinguish between a cause and an
Effect, but, as this power to draw conclusions requires conditions of
Which I am quite ignorant, the conception is not determined as to the
Mode in which it ought to apply to an object. The so-called principle:
"Everything that is contingent has a cause," comes with a gravity and
Self-a**umed authority that seems to require no support from without
But, I ask, what is meant by contingent? The answer is that the
Non-existence of which is possible. But I should like very well to know
By what means this possibility of non-existence is to be cognized, if we
Do not represent to ourselves a succession in the series of phenomena
And in this succession an existence which follows a non-existence, or
Conversely, consequently, change. For to say, that the non-existence
Of a thing is not self-contradictory is a lame appeal to a logical
Condition, which is no doubt a necessary condition of the existence of
The conception, but is far from being sufficient for the real objective
Possibility of non-existence. I can annihilate in thought every existing
Substance without self-contradiction, but I cannot infer from this their
Objective contingency in existence, that is to say, the possibility of
Their non-existence in itself. As regards the category of community
It may easily be inferred that, as the pure categories of substance and
Causality are incapable of a definition and explanation sufficient to
Determine their object without the aid of intuition, the category
Of reciprocal causality in the relation of substances to each other
(commercium) is just as little susceptible thereof. Possibility
Existence, and necessity nobody has ever yet been able to explain
Without being guilty of manifest tautology, when the definition has been
Drawn entirely from the pure understanding. For the substitution of the
Logical possibility of the conception--the condition of which is that
It be not self-contradictory, for the transcendental possibility of
Things--the condition of which is that there be an object corresponding
To the conception, is a trick which can only deceive the inexperienced
It follows incontestably, that the pure conceptions of the understanding
Are incapable of transcendental, and must always be of empirical use
Alone, and that the principles of the pure understanding relate only
To the general conditions of a possible experience, to objects of the
Senses, and never to things in general, apart from the mode in which we
Intuite them
Transcendental an*lytic has accordingly this important result, to wit
That the understanding is competent' effect nothing a priori, except the
Anticipation of the form of a possible experience in general, and that
As that which is not phenomenon cannot be an object of experience, it
Can never overstep the limits of sensibility, within which alone
Objects are presented to us. Its principles are merely principles of
The exposition of phenomena, and the proud name of an ontology, which
Professes to present synthetical cognitions a priori of things in
General in a systematic doctrine, must give place to the modest title of
an*lytic of the pure understanding
Thought is the act of referring a given intuition to an object. If
The mode of this intuition is unknown to us, the object is merely
Transcendental, and the conception of the understanding is employed only
Transcendentally, that is, to produce unity in the thought of a manifold
In general. Now a pure category, in which all conditions of sensuous
Intuition--as the only intuition we possess--are abstracted, does not
Determine an object, but merely expresses the thought of an object in
General, according to different modes. Now, to employ a conception, the
Function of judgement is required, by which an object is subsumed under
The conception, consequently the at least formal condition, under which
Something can be given in intuition. Failing this condition of judgement
(schema), subsumption is impossible; for there is in such a case
Nothing given, which may be subsumed under the conception. The merely
Transcendental use of the categories is therefore, in fact, no use at
All and has no determined, or even, as regards its form, determinable
Object. Hence it follows that the pure category is incompetent to
Establish a synthetical a priori principle, and that the principles of
The pure understanding are only of empirical and never of transcendental
Use, and that beyond the sphere of possible experience no synthetical a
Priori principles are possible
It may be advisable, therefore, to express ourselves thus. The pure
Categories, apart from the formal conditions of sensibility, have
A merely transcendental meaning, but are nevertheless not of
Transcendental use, because this is in itself impossible, inasmuch as
All the conditions of any employment or use of them (in judgements) are
Absent, to wit, the formal conditions of the subsumption of an object
Under these conceptions. As, therefore, in the character of pure
Categories, they must be employed empirically, and cannot be employed
Transcendentally, they are of no use at all, when separated from
Sensibility, that is, they cannot be applied to an object. They are
Merely the pure form of the employment of the understanding in respect
Of objects in general and of thought, without its being at the same time
Possible to think or to determine any object by their means. But there
Lurks at the foundation of this subject an illusion which it is very
Difficult to avoid. The categories are not based, as regards their
Origin, upon sensibility, like the forms of intuition, space, and time;
They seem, therefore, to be capable of an application beyond the sphere
Of sensuous objects. But this is not the case. They are nothing but mere
Forms of thought, which contain only the logical faculty of uniting a
Priori in consciousness the manifold given in intuition. Apart, then
From the only intuition possible for us, they have still less meaning
Than the pure sensuous forms, space and time, for through them an object
Is at least given, while a mode of connection of the manifold, when the
Intuition which alone gives the manifold is wanting, has no meaning at
All. At the same time, when we designate certain objects as phenomena or
Sensuous existences, thus distinguishing our mode of intuiting them from
Their own nature as things in themselves, it is evident that by this
Very distinction we as it were place the latter, considered in this
Their own nature, although we do not so intuite them, in opposition to
The former, or, on the other hand, we do so place other possible
Things, which are not objects of our senses, but are cogitated by the
Understanding alone, and call them intelligible existences (noumena)
Now the question arises whether the pure conceptions of our
Understanding do possess significance in respect of these latter, and
May possibly be a mode of cognizing them
But we are met at the very commencement with an ambiguity, which may
Easily occasion great misapprehension. The understanding, when it terms
An object in a certain relation phenomenon, at the same time forms out
Of this relation a representation or notion of an object in itself, and
Hence believes that it can form also conceptions of such objects. Now as
The understanding possesses no other fundamental conceptions besides the
Categories, it takes for granted that an object considered as a thing
In itself must be capable of being thought by means of these pure
Conceptions, and is thereby led to hold the perfectly undetermined
Conception of an intelligible existence, a something out of the sphere
Of our sensibility, for a determinate conception of an existence which
We can cognize in some way or other by means of the understanding
If, by the term noumenon, we understand a thing so far as it is not an
Object of our sensuous intuition, thus making abstraction of our mode of
Intuiting it, this is a noumenon in the negative sense of the word. But
If we understand by it an object of a non-sensuous intuition, we in this
Case a**ume a peculiar mode of intuition, an intellectual intuition, to
Wit, which does not, however, belong to us, of the very possibility of
Which we have no notion--and this is a noumenon in the positive sense
The doctrine of sensibility is also the doctrine of noumena in the
Negative sense, that is, of things which the understanding is obliged to
Cogitate apart from any relation to our mode of intuition, consequently
Not as mere phenomena, but as things in themselves. But the
Understanding at the same time comprehends that it cannot employ its
Categories for the consideration of things in themselves, because these
Possess significance only in relation to the unity of intuitions in
Space and time, and that they are competent to determine this unity by
Means of general a priori connecting conceptions only on account of the
Pure ideality of space and time. Where this unity of time is not to be
Met with, as is the case with noumena, the whole use, indeed the whole
Meaning of the categories is entirely lost, for even the possibility of
Things to correspond to the categories is in this case incomprehensible
On this point, I need only refer the reader to what I have said at the
Commencement of the General Remark appended to the foregoing chapter
Now, the possibility of a thing can never be proved from the fact that
The conception of it is not self-contradictory, but only by means of
An intuition corresponding to the conception. If, therefore, we wish to
Apply the categories to objects which cannot be regarded as phenomena
We must have an intuition different from the sensuous, and in this case
The objects would be a noumena in the positive sense of the word. Now
As such an intuition, that is, an intellectual intuition, is no part of
Our faculty of cognition, it is absolutely impossible for the categories
To possess any application beyond the limits of experience. It may be
True that there are intelligible existences to which our faculty of
Sensuous intuition has no relation, and cannot be applied, but our
Conceptions of the understanding, as mere forms of thought for our
Sensuous intuition, do not extend to these. What, therefore, we call
Noumenon must be understood by us as such in a negative sense
If I take away from an empirical intuition all thought (by means of the
Categories), there remains no cognition of any object; for by means of
Mere intuition nothing is cogitated, and, from the existence of such
Or such an affection of sensibility in me, it does not follow that this
Affection or representation has any relation to an object without
Me. But if I take away all intuition, there still remains the form of
Thought, that is, the mode of determining an object for the manifold
Of a possible intuition. Thus the categories do in some measure really
Extend further than sensuous intuition, inasmuch as they think objects
In general, without regard to the mode (of sensibility) in which
These objects are given. But they do not for this reason apply to and
Determine a wider sphere of objects, because we cannot a**ume that such
Can be given, without presupposing the possibility of another than
The sensuous mode of intuition, a supposition we are not justified in
Making
I call a conception problematical which contains in itself no
Contradiction, and which is connected with other cognitions as a
Limitation of given conceptions, but whose objective reality cannot
Be cognized in any manner. The conception of a noumenon, that is, of a
Thing which must be cogitated not as an object of sense, but as a
Thing in itself (solely through the pure understanding), is not
Self-contradictory, for we are not entitled to maintain that sensibility
Is the only possible mode of intuition. Nay, further, this conception is
Necessary to restrain sensuous intuition within the bounds of phenomena
And thus to limit the objective validity of sensuous cognition; for
Things in themselves, which lie beyond its province, are called noumena
For the very purpose of indicating that this cognition does not extend
Its application to all that the understanding thinks. But, after all
The possibility of such noumena is quite incomprehensible, and beyond
The sphere of phenomena, all is for us a mere void; that is to say
We possess an understanding whose province does problematically extend
Beyond this sphere, but we do not possess an intuition, indeed, not even
The conception of a possible intuition, by means of which objects beyond
The region of sensibility could be given us, and in reference to which
The understanding might be employed a**ertorically. The conception of a
Noumenon is therefore merely a limitative conception and therefore only
Of negative use. But it is not an arbitrary or fictitious notion, but
Is connected with the limitation of sensibility, without, however, being
Capable of presenting us with any positive datum beyond this sphere
The division of objects into phenomena and noumena, and of the
World into a mundus sensibilis and intelligibilis is therefore quite
Inadmissible in a positive sense, although conceptions do certainly
Admit of such a division; for the cla** of noumena have no determinate
Object corresponding to them, and cannot therefore possess objective
Validity. If we abandon the senses, how can it be made conceivable
That the categories (which are the only conceptions that could serve as
Conceptions for noumena) have any sense or meaning at all, inasmuch
As something more than the mere unity of thought, namely, a possible
Intuition, is requisite for their application to an object? The
Conception of a noumenon, considered as merely problematical, is
However, not only admissible, but, as a limitative conception of
Sensibility, absolutely necessary. But, in this case, a noumenon is not
A particular intelligible object for our understanding; on the contrary
The kind of understanding to which it could belong is itself a problem
For we cannot form the most distant conception of the possibility of an
Understanding which should cognize an object, not discursively by
Means of categories, but intuitively in a non-sensuous intuition. Our
Understanding attains in this way a sort of negative extension. That is
To say, it is not limited by, but rather limits, sensibility, by giving
The name of noumena to things, not considered as phenomena, but as
Things in themselves. But it at the same time prescribes limits to
Itself, for it confesses itself unable to cognize these by means of the
Categories, and hence is compelled to cogitate them merely as an unknown
Something
I find, however, in the writings of modern authors, an entirely
Different use of the expressions, mundus sensibilis and intelligibilis
Which quite departs from the meaning of the ancients--an acceptation in
Which, indeed, there is to be found no difficulty, but which at the same
Time depends on mere verbal quibbling. According to this meaning
Some have chosen to call the complex of phenomena, in so far as it is
Intuited, mundus sensibilis, but in so far as the connection thereof is
Cogitated according to general laws of thought, mundus intelligibilis
Astronomy, in so far as we mean by the word the mere observation of the
Starry heaven, may represent the former; a system of astronomy, such as
The Copernican or Newtonian, the latter. But such twisting of words is a
Mere sophistical subterfuge, to avoid a difficult question, by modifying
Its meaning to suit our own convenience. To be sure, understanding and
Reason are employed in the cognition of phenomena; but the question is
Whether these can be applied when the object is not a phenomenon and in
This sense we regard it if it is cogitated as given to the understanding
Alone, and not to the senses. The question therefore is whether, over
And above the empirical use of the understanding, a transcendental use
Is possible, which applies to the noumenon as an object. This question
We have answered in the negative
When therefore we say, the senses represent objects as they appear, the
Understanding as they are, the latter statement must not be understood
In a transcendental, but only in an empirical signification, that is
As they must be represented in the complete connection of phenomena, and
Not according to what they may be, apart from their relation to possible
Experience, consequently not as objects of the pure understanding. For
This must ever remain unknown to us. Nay, it is also quite unknown to us
Whether any such transcendental or extraordinary cognition is possible
Under any circumstances, at least, whether it is possible by means of
Our categories. Understanding and sensibility, with us, can determine
Objects only in conjunction. If we separate them, we have intuitions
Without conceptions, or conceptions without intuitions; in both cases
Representations, which we cannot apply to any determinate object
If, after all our inquiries and explanations, any one still hesitates to
Abandon the mere transcendental use of the categories, let him attempt
To construct with them a synthetical proposition. It would, of course
Be unnecessary for this purpose to construct an an*lytical proposition
For that does not extend the sphere of the understanding, but, being
Concerned only about what is cogitated in the conception itself, it
Leaves it quite undecided whether the conception has any relation to
Objects, or merely indicates the unity of thought--complete abstraction
Being made of the modi in which an object may be given: in such a
Proposition, it is sufficient for the understanding to know what lies
In the conception--to what it applies is to it indifferent. The attempt
Must therefore be made with a synthetical and so-called transcendental
Principle, for example: "Everything that exists, exists as substance,"
Or, "Everything that is contingent exists as an effect of some other
Thing, viz., of its cause." Now I ask, whence can the understanding draw
These synthetical propositions, when the conceptions contained therein
Do not relate to possible experience but to things in themselves
(noumena)? Where is to be found the third term, which is always
Requisite PURE site in a synthetical proposition, which may connect
In the same proposition conceptions which have no logical (an*lytical)
Connection with each other? The proposition never will be demonstrated
Nay, more, the possibility of any such pure a**ertion never can
Be shown, without making reference to the empirical use of the
Understanding, and thus, ipso facto, completely renouncing pure
And non-sensuous judgement. Thus the conception of pure and merely
Intelligible objects is completely void of all principles of its
Application, because we cannot imagine any mode in which they might be
Given, and the problematical thought which leaves a place open for
Them serves only, like a void space, to limit the use of empirical
Principles, without containing at the same time any other object of
Cognition beyond their sphere