Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn - The Critique of Pure Reason; Part 6 lyrics

SS 23. Result of this Deduction of the Conceptions of the Understanding We cannot think any object except by means of the categories; we cannot Cognize any thought except by means of intuitions corresponding to these Conceptions. Now all our intuitions are sensuous, and our cognition In so far as the object of it is given, is empirical. But empirical Cognition is experience; consequently no a priori cognition is possible For us, except of objects of possible experience But this cognition, which is limited to objects of experience, is not For that reason derived entirely, from, experience, but--and this Is a**erted of the pure intuitions and the pure conceptions of the Understanding--there are, unquestionably, elements of cognition, which Exist in the mind a priori. Now there are only two ways in which a Necessary harmony of experience with the conceptions of its objects can Be cogitated. Either experience makes these conceptions possible, or The conceptions make experience possible. The former of these statements Will not bold good with respect to the categories (nor in regard to pure Sensuous intuition), for they are a priori conceptions, and therefore Independent of experience. The a**ertion of an empirical origin would Attribute to them a sort of generatio aequivoca. Consequently, nothing Remains but to adopt the second alternative (which presents us with a System, as it were, of the epigenesis of pure reason), namely, that on The part of the understanding the categories do contain the grounds of The possibility of all experience. But with respect to the questions How they make experience possible, and what are the principles of the Possibility thereof with which they present us in their application to Phenomena, the following section on the transcendental exercise of the Faculty of judgement will inform the reader It is quite possible that someone may propose a species of Preformation-system of pure reason--a middle way between the two--to Wit, that the categories are neither innate and first a priori Principles of cognition, nor derived from experience, but are merely Subjective aptitudes for thought implanted in us contemporaneously with Our existence, which were so ordered and disposed by our Creator That their exercise perfectly harmonizes with the laws of nature which Regulate experience. Now, not to mention that with such an hypothesis It is impossible to say at what point we must stop in the employment of Predetermined aptitudes, the fact that the categories would in this case Entirely lose that character of necessity which is essentially involved In the very conception of them, is a conclusive objection to it. The Conception of cause, for example, which expresses the necessity of an Effect under a presupposed condition, would be false, if it rested only Upon such an arbitrary subjective necessity of uniting certain empirical Representations according to such a rule of relation. I could not then Say--"The effect is connected with its cause in the object (that is Necessarily)," but only, "I am so constituted that I can think this Representation as so connected, and not otherwise." Now this is just What the sceptic wants. For in this case, all our knowledge, depending On the supposed objective validity of our judgement, is nothing but Mere illusion; nor would there be wanting people who would deny any such Subjective necessity in respect to themselves, though they must feel it At all events, we could not dispute with any one on that which merely Depends on the manner in which his subject is organized Short view of the above Deduction The foregoing deduction is an exposition of the pure conceptions of the Understanding (and with them of all theoretical a priori cognition), as Principles of the possibility of experience, but of experience as The determination of all phenomena in space and time in general--of Experience, finally, from the principle of the original synthetical Unity of apperception, as the form of the understanding in relation to Time and space as original forms of sensibility I consider the division by paragraphs to be necessary only up to this Point, because we had to treat of the elementary conceptions. As we Now proceed to the exposition of the employment of these, I shall not Designate the chapters in this manner any further BOOK II an*lytic of Principles General logic is constructed upon a plan which coincides exactly With the division of the higher faculties of cognition. These are Understanding, judgement, and reason. This science, accordingly, treats In its an*lytic of conceptions, judgements, and conclusions in exact Correspondence with the functions and order of those mental powers which We include generally under the generic denomination of understanding As this merely formal logic makes abstraction of all content of Cognition, whether pure or empirical, and occupies itself with the mere Form of thought (discursive cognition), it must contain in its an*lytic A canon for reason. For the form of reason has its law, which, without Taking into consideration the particular nature of the cognition about Which it is employed, can be discovered a priori, by the simple an*lysis Of the action of reason into its momenta Transcendental logic, limited as it is to a determinate content, that of Pure a priori cognitions, to wit, cannot imitate general logic in this Division. For it is evident that the transcendental employment of reason Is not objectively valid, and therefore does not belong to the logic Of truth (that is, to an*lytic), but as a logic of illusion, occupies A particular department in the scholastic system under the name of Transcendental dialectic Understanding and judgement accordingly possess in transcendental logic A canon of objectively valid, and therefore true exercise, and are Comprehended in the an*lytical department of that logic. But reason In her endeavours to arrive by a priori means at some true statement Concerning objects and to extend cognition beyond the bounds of possible Experience, is altogether dialectic, and her illusory a**ertions cannot Be constructed into a canon such as an an*lytic ought to contain Accordingly, the an*lytic of principles will be merely a canon for The faculty of judgement, for the instruction of this faculty in its Application to phenomena of the pure conceptions of the understanding Which contain the necessary condition for the establishment of a priori Laws. On this account, although the subject of the following chapters is The especial principles of understanding, I shall make use of the Term Doctrine of the faculty of judgement, in order to define more Particularly my present purpose INTRODUCTION. Of the Transcendental Faculty of judgement in General If understanding in general be defined as the faculty of laws or rules The faculty of judgement may be termed the faculty of subsumption under These rules; that is, of distinguishing whether this or that does or Does not stand under a given rule (casus datae legis). General logic Contains no directions or precepts for the faculty of judgement, nor Can it contain any such. For as it makes abstraction of all content of Cognition, no duty is left for it, except that of exposing an*lytically The mere form of cognition in conceptions, judgements, and conclusions And of thereby establishing formal rules for all exercise of the Understanding. Now if this logic wished to give some general direction How we should subsume under these rules, that is, how we should Distinguish whether this or that did or did not stand under them, this Again could not be done otherwise than by means of a rule. But this Rule, precisely because it is a rule, requires for itself direction from The faculty of judgement. Thus, it is evident that the understanding Is capable of being instructed by rules, but that the judgement is a Peculiar talent, which does not, and cannot require tuition, but Only exercise. This faculty is therefore the specific quality of the So-called mother wit, the want of which no scholastic discipline can Compensate For although education may furnish, and, as it were, engraft upon a Limited understanding rules borrowed from other minds, yet the power of Employing these rules correctly must belong to the pupil himself; and no Rule which we can prescribe to him with this purpose is, in the absence Or deficiency of this gift of nature, secure from misuse.* A physician Therefore, a judge or a statesman, may have in his head many admirable Pathological, juridical, or political rules, in a degree that may enable Him to be a profound teacher in his particular science, and yet in the Application of these rules he may very possibly blunder--either because He is wanting in natural judgement (though not in understanding) and Whilst he can comprehend the general in abstracto, cannot distinguish Whether a particular case in concreto ought to rank under the former; or Because his faculty of judgement has not been sufficiently exercised by Examples and real practice. Indeed, the grand and only use of examples Is to sharpen the judgement. For as regards the correctness and Precision of the insight of the understanding, examples are commonly Injurious rather than otherwise, because, as casus in terminis they Seldom adequately fulfil the conditions of the rule. Besides, they often Weaken the power of our understanding to apprehend rules or laws In their universality, independently of particular circumstances of Experience; and hence, accustom us to employ them more as formulae than As principles. Examples are thus the go-cart of the judgement, which He who is naturally deficient in that faculty cannot afford to dispense With But although general logic cannot give directions to the faculty of Judgement, the case is very different as regards transcendental logic Insomuch that it appears to be the especial duty of the latter to secure And direct, by means of determinate rules, the faculty of judgement in The employment of the pure understanding. For, as a doctrine, that is As an endeavour to enlarge the sphere of the understanding in regard to Pure a priori cognitions, philosophy is worse than useless, since from All the attempts hitherto made, little or no ground has been gained But, as a critique, in order to guard against the mistakes of the Faculty of judgement (lapsus judicii) in the employment of the few pure Conceptions of the understanding which we possess, although its use is In this case purely negative, philosophy is called upon to apply all its Acuteness and penetration But transcendental philosophy has this peculiarity, that besides Indicating the rule, or rather the general condition for rules, which is Given in the pure conception of the understanding, it can, at the same Time, indicate a priori the case to which the rule must be applied The cause of the superiority which, in this respect, transcendental Philosophy possesses above all other sciences except mathematics, lies In this: it treats of conceptions which must relate a priori to their Objects, whose objective validity consequently cannot be demonstrated a Posteriori, and is, at the same time, under the obligation of presenting In general but sufficient tests, the conditions under which objects can Be given in harmony with those conceptions; otherwise they would be Mere logical forms, without content, and not pure conceptions of the Understanding Our transcendental doctrine of the faculty of judgement will contain Two chapters. The first will treat of the sensuous condition under which Alone pure conceptions of the understanding can be employed--that is, of The schematism of the pure understanding. The second will treat of those Synthetical judgements which are derived a priori from pure conceptions Of the understanding under those conditions, and which lie a priori at The foundation of all other cognitions, that is to say, it will treat of The principles of the pure understanding TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF THE FACULTY OF JUDGEMENT OR, an*lYTIC OF PRINCIPLES CHAPTER I. Of the Schematism at of the Pure Conceptions of the Understanding In all subsumptions of an object under a conception, the representation Of the object must be h*mogeneous with the conception; in other words The conception must contain that which is represented in the object to Be subsumed under it. For this is the meaning of the expression: "An Object is contained under a conception." Thus the empirical conception Of a plate is h*mogeneous with the pure geometrical conception of a Circle, inasmuch as the roundness which is cogitated in the former is Intuited in the latter But pure conceptions of the understanding, when compared with empirical Intuitions, or even with sensuous intuitions in general, are quite Heterogeneous, and never can be discovered in any intuition. How then Is the subsumption of the latter under the former, and consequently The application of the categories to phenomena, possible?--For it is Impossible to say, for example: "Causality can be intuited through the Senses and is contained in the phenomenon."--This natural and important Question forms the real cause of the necessity of a transcendental Doctrine of the faculty of judgement, with the purpose, to wit, of Showing how pure conceptions of the understanding can be applied to Phenomena. In all other sciences, where the conceptions by which the Object is thought in the general are not so different and heterogeneous From those which represent the object in concreto--as it is given, it Is quite unnecessary to institute any special inquiries concerning the Application of the former to the latter Now it is quite clear that there must be some third thing, which on the One side is h*mogeneous with the category, and with the phenomenon on The other, and so makes the application of the former to the latter Possible. This mediating representation must be pure (without any Empirical content), and yet must on the one side be intellectual, on the Other sensuous. Such a representation is the transcendental schema The conception of the understanding contains pure synthetical unity of The manifold in general. Time, as the formal condition of the Manifold of the internal sense, consequently of the conjunction of all Representations, contains a priori a manifold in the pure intuition. Now A transcendental determination of time is so far h*mogeneous with the Category, which constitutes the unity thereof, that it is universal and Rests upon a rule a priori. On the other hand, it is so far h*mogeneous With the phenomenon, inasmuch as time is contained in every empirical Representation of the manifold. Thus an application of the category to Phenomena becomes possible, by means of the transcendental determination Of time, which, as the schema of the conceptions of the understanding Mediates the subsumption of the latter under the former After what has been proved in our deduction of the categories, no One, it is to be hoped, can hesitate as to the proper decision of The question, whether the employment of these pure conceptions of the Understanding ought to be merely empirical or also transcendental; In other words, whether the categories, as conditions of a possible Experience, relate a priori solely to phenomena, or whether, as Conditions of the possibility of things in general, their application Can be extended to objects as things in themselves. For we have There seen that conceptions are quite impossible, and utterly without Signification, unless either to them, or at least to the elements of Which they consist, an object be given; and that, consequently, they Cannot possibly apply to objects as things in themselves without regard To the question whether and how these may be given to us; and, further That the only manner in which objects can be given to us is by means of The modification of our sensibility; and, finally, that pure a priori Conceptions, in addition to the function of the understanding in the Category, must contain a priori formal conditions of sensibility (of the Internal sense, namely), which again contain the general condition under Which alone the category can be applied to any object. This formal And pure condition of sensibility, to which the conception of the Understanding is restricted in its employment, we shall name the Schema of the conception of the understanding, and the procedure of the Understanding with these schemata we shall call the schematism of the Pure understanding The schema is, in itself, always a mere product of the imagination. But As the synthesis of imagination has for its aim no single intuition, but Merely unity in the determination of sensibility, the schema is clearly Distinguishable from the image. Thus, if I place five points one after Another.... this is an image of the number five. On the other hand, if I only think a number in general, which may be either five or a hundred This thought is rather the representation of a method of representing in An image a sum (e.g., a thousand) in conformity with a conception, than The image itself, an image which I should find some little difficulty in Reviewing, and comparing with the conception. Now this representation Of a general procedure of the imagination to present its image to a Conception, I call the schema of this conception In truth, it is not images of objects, but schemata, which lie at the Foundation of our pure sensuous conceptions. No image could ever be Adequate to our conception of a triangle in general. For the generalness Of the conception it never could attain to, as this includes under Itself all triangles, whether right-angled, acute-angled, etc., whilst The image would always be limited to a single part of this sphere. The Schema of the triangle can exist nowhere else than in thought, and it Indicates a rule of the synthesis of the imagination in regard to pure Figures in space. Still less is an object of experience, or an image Of the object, ever to the empirical conception. On the contrary, the Conception always relates immediately to the schema of the imagination As a rule for the determination of our intuition, in conformity with a Certain general conception. The conception of a dog indicates a Rule, according to which my imagination can delineate the figure of a Four-footed animal in general, without being limited to any particular Individual form which experience presents to me, or indeed to any Possible image that I can represent to myself in concreto. This Schematism of our understanding in regard to phenomena and their mere Form, is an art, hidden in the depths of the human soul, whose true Modes of action we shall only with difficulty discover and unveil. Thus Much only can we say: "The image is a product of the empirical faculty Of the productive imagination--the schema of sensuous conceptions (of Figures in space, for example) is a product, and, as it were, a monogram Of the pure imagination a priori, whereby and according to which Images first become possible, which, however, can be connected with the Conception only mediately by means of the schema which they indicate And are in themselves never fully adequate to it." On the other hand The schema of a pure conception of the understanding is something that Cannot be reduced into any image--it is nothing else than the pure Synthesis expressed by the category, conformably, to a rule of unity According to conceptions. It is a transcendental product of the Imagination, a product which concerns the determination of the internal Sense, according to conditions of its form (time) in respect to all Representations, in so far as these representations must be conjoined a Priori in one conception, conformably to the unity of apperception Without entering upon a dry and tedious an*lysis of the essential Requisites of transcendental schemata of the pure conceptions of the Understanding, we shall rather proceed at once to give an explanation Of them according to the order of the categories, and in connection Therewith For the external sense the pure image of all quantities (quantorum) is Space; the pure image of all objects of sense in general, is time But the pure schema of quantity (quantitatis) as a conception of The understanding, is number, a representation which comprehends the Successive addition of one to one (h*mogeneous quantities). Thus, number Is nothing else than the unity of the synthesis of the manifold in A h*mogeneous intuition, by means of my generating time itself in my Apprehension of the intuition Reality, in the pure conception of the understanding, is that which Corresponds to a sensation in general; that, consequently, the Conception of which indicates a being (in time). Negation is that the Conception of which represents a not-being (in time). The opposition of These two consists therefore in the difference of one and the same Time, as a time filled or a time empty. Now as time is only the form of Intuition, consequently of objects as phenomena, that which in objects Corresponds to sensation is the transcendental matter of all objects As things in themselves (Sachheit, reality). Now every sensation has A degree or quantity by which it can fill time, that is to say, the Internal sense in respect of the representation of an object, more or Less, until it vanishes into nothing (= 0 = negatio). Thus there is A relation and connection between reality and negation, or rather a Transition from the former to the latter, which makes every reality Representable to us as a quantum; and the schema of a reality as the Quantity of something in so far as it fills time, is exactly this Continuous and uniform generation of the reality in time, as we descend In time from the sensation which has a certain degree, down to the Vanishing thereof, or gradually ascend from negation to the quantity Thereof The schema of substance is the permanence of the real in time; that is The representation of it as a substratum of the empirical determination Of time; a substratum which therefore remains, whilst all else changes (Time pa**es not, but in it pa**es the existence of the changeable. To Time, therefore, which is itself unchangeable and permanent, corresponds That which in the phenomenon is unchangeable in existence, that is Substance, and it is only by it that the succession and coexistence of Phenomena can be determined in regard to time.) The schema of cause and of the causality of a thing is the real which When posited, is always followed by something else. It consists Therefore, in the succession of the manifold, in so far as that Succession is subjected to a rule The schema of community (reciprocity of action and reaction), or the Reciprocal causality of substances in respect of their accidents, is the Coexistence of the determinations of the one with those of the other According to a general rule The schema of possibility is the accordance of the synthesis of Different representations with the conditions of time in general (as For example, opposites cannot exist together at the same time in The same thing, but only after each other), and is therefore the Determination of the representation of a thing at any time The schema of reality is existence in a determined time The schema of necessity is the existence of an object in all time It is clear, from all this, that the schema of the category of quantity Contains and represents the generation (synthesis) of time itself, in The successive apprehension of an object; the schema of quality the Synthesis of sensation with the representation of time, or the filling Up of time; the schema of relation the relation of perceptions to each Other in all time (that is, according to a rule of the determination Of time): and finally, the schema of modality and its categories, time Itself, as the correlative of the determination of an object--whether it Does belong to time, and how. The schemata, therefore, are nothing but A priori determinations of time according to rules, and these, in regard To all possible objects, following the arrangement of the categories Relate to the series in time, the content in time, the order in time And finally, to the complex or totality in time Hence it is apparent that the schematism of the understanding, by means Of the transcendental synthesis of the imagination, amounts to nothing Else than the unity of the manifold of intuition in the internal Sense, and thus indirectly to the unity of apperception, as a function Corresponding to the internal sense (a receptivity). Thus, the schemata Of the pure conceptions of the understanding are the true and only Conditions whereby our understanding receives an application to objects And consequently significance. Finally, therefore, the categories are Only capable of empirical use, inasmuch as they serve merely to subject Phenomena to the universal rules of synthesis, by means of an a priori Necessary unity (on account of the necessary union of all consciousness In one original apperception); and so to render them susceptible of a Complete connection in one experience. But within this whole of possible Experience lie all our cognitions, and in the universal relation to this Experience consists transcendental truth, which antecedes all empirical Truth, and renders the latter possible It is, however, evident at first sight, that although the schemata of Sensibility are the sole agents in realizing the categories, they do Nevertheless, also restrict them, that is, they limit the categories By conditions which lie beyond the sphere of understanding--namely, in Sensibility. Hence the schema is properly only the phenomenon, or the Sensuous conception of an object in harmony with the category. (Numerus Est quantitas phaenomenon--sensatio realitas phaenomenon; constans Et perdurabile rerum substantia phaenomenon--aeternitas, necessitas Phaenomena, etc.) Now, if we remove a restrictive condition, we thereby Amplify, it appears, the formerly limited conception. In this way, the Categories in their pure signification, free from all conditions of Sensibility, ought to be valid of things as they are, and not, as the Schemata represent them, merely as they appear; and consequently the Categories must have a significance far more extended, and wholly Independent of all schemata. In truth, there does always remain to the Pure conceptions of the understanding, after abstracting every sensuous Condition, a value and significance, which is, however, merely logical But in this case, no object is given them, and therefore they have no Meaning sufficient to afford us a conception of an object. The notion Of substance, for example, if we leave out the sensuous determination Of permanence, would mean nothing more than a something which can be Cogitated as subject, without the possibility of becoming a predicate to Anything else. Of this representation I can make nothing, inasmuch as It does not indicate to me what determinations the thing possesses which Must thus be valid as premier subject. Consequently, the categories Without schemata are merely functions of the understanding for the Production of conceptions, but do not represent any object. This Significance they derive from sensibility, which at the same time Realizes the understanding and restricts it