Immanuel Kant - The Critique of Pure Reason; Part 4 lyrics

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