Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn - The Critique of Pure Reason; Part 8 lyrics

2. ANTICIPATIONS OF PERCEPTION The principle of these is: In all phenomena the Real, that which is an Object of sensation, has Intensive Quantity, that is, has a Degree PROOF Perception is empirical consciousness, that is to say, a consciousness Which contains an element of sensation. Phenomena as objects of Perception are not pure, that is, merely formal intuitions, like space And time, for they cannot be perceived in themselves They contain, then, over and above the intuition, the materials for an Object (through which is represented something existing in space or Time), that is to say, they contain the real of sensation, as a Representation merely subjective, which gives us merely the Consciousness that the subject is affected, and which we refer to some External object. Now, a gradual transition from empirical consciousness To pure consciousness is possible, inasmuch as the real in this Consciousness entirely vanishes, and there remains a merely formal Consciousness (a priori) of the manifold in time and space; consequently There is possible a synthesis also of the production of the quantity of A sensation from its commencement, that is, from the pure intuition = 0 Onwards up to a certain quantity of the sensation. Now as sensation in Itself is not an objective representation, and in it is to be found Neither the intuition of space nor of time, it cannot possess any Extensive quantity, and yet there does belong to it a quantity (and that By means of its apprehension, in which empirical consciousness can Within a certain time rise from nothing = 0 up to its given amount) Consequently an intensive quantity. And thus we must ascribe intensive Quantity, that is, a degree of influence on sense to all objects of Perception, in so far as this perception contains sensation All cognition, by means of which I am enabled to cognize and determine A priori what belongs to empirical cognition, may be called an Anticipation; and without doubt this is the sense in which Epicurus Employed his expression prholepsis. But as there is in phenomena Something which is never cognized a priori, which on this account Constitutes the proper difference between pure and empirical cognition That is to say, sensation (as the matter of perception), it follows That sensation is just that element in cognition which cannot be at All anticipated. On the other hand, we might very well term the pure Determinations in space and time, as well in regard to figure as to Quantity, anticipations of phenomena, because they represent a priori That which may always be given a posteriori in experience. But suppose That in every sensation, as sensation in general, without any particular Sensation being thought of, there existed something which could be Cognized a priori, this would deserve to be called anticipation in a Special sense--special, because it may seem surprising to forestall Experience, in that which concerns the matter of experience, and which We can only derive from itself. Yet such really is the case here Apprehension*, by means of sensation alone, fills only one moment, that Is, if I do not take into consideration a succession of many sensations As that in the phenomenon, the apprehension of which is not a successive Synthesis advancing from parts to an entire representation, sensation Has therefore no extensive quantity; the want of sensation in a moment Of time would represent it as empty, consequently = 0. That which in The empirical intuition corresponds to sensation is reality (realitas Phaenomenon); that which corresponds to the absence of it, negation = 0 Now every sensation is capable of a diminution, so that it can decrease And thus gradually disappear. Therefore, between reality in a phenomenon And negation, there exists a continuous concatenation of many possible Intermediate sensations, the difference of which from each other is Always smaller than that between the given sensation and zero, or Complete negation. That is to say, the real in a phenomenon has always a Quantity, which however is not discoverable in apprehension, inasmuch as Apprehension take place by means of mere sensation in one instant, and Not by the successive synthesis of many sensations, and therefore does Not progress from parts to the whole. Consequently, it has a quantity But not an extensive quantity Now that quantity which is apprehended only as unity, and in which Plurality can be represented only by approximation to negation = O I term intensive quantity. Consequently, reality in a phenomenon has Intensive quantity, that is, a degree. If we consider this reality as Cause (be it of sensation or of another reality in the phenomenon, for Example, a change), we call the degree of reality in its character of Cause a momentum, for example, the momentum of weight; and for this Reason, that the degree only indicates that quantity the apprehension of Which is not successive, but instantaneous. This, however, I touch upon Only in pa**ing, for with causality I have at present nothing to do Accordingly, every sensation, consequently every reality in phenomena However small it may be, has a degree, that is, an intensive quantity Which may always be lessened, and between reality and negation there Exists a continuous connection of possible realities, and possible Smaller perceptions. Every colour--for example, red--has a degree Which, be it ever so small, is never the smallest, and so is it always With heat, the momentum of weight, etc This property of quantities, according to which no part of them is the Smallest possible (no part simple), is called their continuity. Space And time are quanta continua, because no part of them can be Given, without enclosing it within boundaries (points and moments) Consequently, this given part is itself a space or a time. Space Therefore, consists only of spaces, and time of times. Points and Moments are only boundaries, that is, the mere places or positions of Their limitation. But places always presuppose intuitions which are to Limit or determine them; and we cannot conceive either space or time Composed of constituent parts which are given before space or time Such quantities may also be called flowing, because synthesis (of the Productive imagination) in the production of these quantities is a Progression in time, the continuity of which we are accustomed to Indicate by the expression flowing All phenomena, then, are continuous quantities, in respect both to Intuition and mere perception (sensation, and with it reality). In the Former case they are extensive quantities; in the latter, intensive When the synthesis of the manifold of a phenomenon is interrupted, there Results merely an aggregate of several phenomena, and not properly a Phenomenon as a quantity, which is not produced by the mere continuation Of the productive synthesis of a certain kind, but by the repetition of A synthesis always ceasing. For example, if I call thirteen dollars a Sum or quantity of money, I employ the term quite correctly, inasmuch as I understand by thirteen dollars the value of a mark in standard silver Which is, to be sure, a continuous quantity, in which no part is the Smallest, but every part might constitute a piece of money, which would Contain material for still smaller pieces. If, however, by the words Thirteen dollars I understand so many coins (be their value in silver What it may), it would be quite erroneous to use the expression a Quantity of dollars; on the contrary, I must call them aggregate, that Is, a number of coins. And as in every number we must have unity as the Foundation, so a phenomenon taken as unity is a quantity, and as such Always a continuous quantity (quantum continuum) Now, seeing all phenomena, whether considered as extensive or intensive Are continuous quantities, the proposition: "All change (transition of a Thing from one state into another) is continuous," might be proved here Easily, and with mathematical evidence, were it not that the causality Of a change lies, entirely beyond the bounds of a transcendental Philosophy, and presupposes empirical principles. For of the possibility Of a cause which changes the condition of things, that is, which Determines them to the contrary to a certain given state, the Understanding gives us a priori no knowledge; not merely because it has No insight into the possibility of it (for such insight is absent in Several a priori cognitions), but because the notion of change concerns Only certain determinations of phenomena, which experience alone can Acquaint us with, while their cause lies in the unchangeable. But seeing That we have nothing which we could here employ but the pure fundamental Conceptions of all possible experience, among which of course nothing Empirical can be admitted, we dare not, without injuring the unity of Our system, anticipate general physical science, which is built upon Certain fundamental experiences Nevertheless, we are in no want of proofs of the great influence Which the principle above developed exercises in the anticipation of Perceptions, and even in supplying the want of them, so far as to shield Us against the false conclusions which otherwise we might rashly draw If all reality in perception has a degree, between which and negation There is an endless sequence of ever smaller degrees, and if Nevertheless, every sense must have a determinate degree of receptivity For sensations; no perception, and consequently no experience is Possible, which can prove, either immediately or mediately, an entire Absence of all reality in a phenomenon; in other words, it is impossible Ever to draw from experience a proof of the existence of empty space or Of empty time. For in the first place, an entire absence of reality in A sensuous intuition cannot of course be an object of perception; Secondly, such absence cannot be deduced from the contemplation of any Single phenomenon, and the difference of the degrees in its reality; nor Ought it ever to be admitted in explanation of any phenomenon. For if Even the complete intuition of a determinate space or time is thoroughly Real, that is, if no part thereof is empty, yet because every reality Has its degree, which, with the extensive quantity of the phenomenon Unchanged, can diminish through endless gradations down to nothing (the Void), there must be infinitely graduated degrees, with which space or Time is filled, and the intensive quantity in different phenomena may Be smaller or greater, although the extensive quantity of the intuition Remains equal and unaltered We shall give an example of this. Almost all natural philosophers Remarking a great difference in the quantity of the matter of different Kinds in bodies with the same volume (partly on account of the momentum Of gravity or weight, partly on account of the momentum of resistance To other bodies in motion), conclude unanimously that this volume (extensive quantity of the phenomenon) must be void in all bodies Although in different proportion. But who would suspect that these for The most part mathematical and mechanical inquirers into nature should Ground this conclusion solely on a metaphysical hypothesis--a sort of Hypothesis which they profess to disparage and avoid? Yet this they Do, in a**uming that the real in space (I must not here call it Impenetrability or weight, because these are empirical conceptions) Is always identical, and can only be distinguished according to its Extensive quantity, that is, multiplicity. Now to this presupposition For which they can have no ground in experience, and which consequently Is merely metaphysical, I oppose a transcendental demonstration, which It is true will not explain the difference in the filling up of spaces But which nevertheless completely does away with the supposed necessity Of the above-mentioned presupposition that we cannot explain the said Difference otherwise than by the hypothesis of empty spaces. This Demonstration, moreover, has the merit of setting the understanding At liberty to conceive this distinction in a different manner, if the Explanation of the fact requires any such hypothesis. For we perceive That although two equal spaces may be completely filled by matters Altogether different, so that in neither of them is there left a single Point wherein matter is not present, nevertheless, every reality has its Degree (of resistance or of weight), which, without diminution of the Extensive quantity, can become less and less ad infinitum, before it Pa**es into nothingness and disappears. Thus an expansion which fills A space--for example, caloric, or any other reality in the phenomenal World--can decrease in its degrees to infinity, yet without leaving the Smallest part of the space empty; on the contrary, filling it with those Lesser degrees as completely as another phenomenon could with greater My intention here is by no means to maintain that this is really The case with the difference of matters, in regard to their Specific gravity; I wish only to prove, from a principle of the pure Understanding, that the nature of our perceptions makes such a mode of Explanation possible, and that it is erroneous to regard the real in A phenomenon as equal quoad its degree, and different only quoad its Aggregation and extensive quantity, and this, too, on the pretended Authority of an a priori principle of the understanding Nevertheless, this principle of the anticipation of perception must Somewhat startle an inquirer whom initiation into transcendental Philosophy has rendered cautious. We must naturally entertain some Doubt whether or not the understanding can enounce any such synthetical Proposition as that respecting the degree of all reality in phenomena And consequently the possibility of the internal difference of sensation Itself--abstraction being made of its empirical quality. Thus it is a Question not unworthy of solution: "How the understanding can pronounce Synthetically and a priori respecting phenomena, and thus anticipate These, even in that which is peculiarly and merely empirical, that Namely, which concerns sensation itself?" The quality of sensation is in all cases merely empirical, and cannot Be represented a priori (for example, colours, taste, etc.). But the Real--that which corresponds to sensation--in opposition to negation = 0, only represents something the conception of which in itself contains A being (ein seyn), and signifies nothing but the synthesis in an Empirical consciousness. That is to say, the empirical consciousness in The internal sense can be raised from 0 to every higher degree, so that The very same extensive quantity of intuition, an illuminated surface For example, excites as great a sensation as an aggregate of many other Surfaces less illuminated. We can therefore make complete abstraction Of the extensive quantity of a phenomenon, and represent to ourselves In the mere sensation in a certain momentum, a synthesis of h*mogeneous Ascension from 0 up to the given empirical consciousness, All sensations Therefore as such are given only a posteriori, but this property Thereof, namely, that they have a degree, can be known a priori. It Is worthy of remark, that in respect to quantities in general, we can Cognize a priori only a single quality, namely, continuity; but in Respect to all quality (the real in phenomena), we cannot cognize a Priori anything more than the intensive quantity thereof, namely, that They have a degree. All else is left to experience 3. an*lOGIES OF EXPERIENCE The principle of these is: Experience is possible only through the Representation of a necessary connection of Perceptions PROOF Experience is an empirical cognition; that is to say, a cognition Which determines an object by means of perceptions. It is therefore a Synthesis of perceptions, a synthesis which is not itself contained in Perception, but which contains the synthetical unity of the manifold of Perception in a consciousness; and this unity constitutes the essential Of our cognition of objects of the senses, that is, of experience (not Merely of intuition or sensation). Now in experience our perceptions Come together contingently, so that no character of necessity in their Connection appears, or can appear from the perceptions themselves Because apprehension is only a placing together of the manifold of Empirical intuition, and no representation of a necessity in the Connected existence of the phenomena which apprehension brings together Is to be discovered therein. But as experience is a cognition of objects By means of perceptions, it follows that the relation of the existence Of the existence of the manifold must be represented in experience not As it is put together in time, but as it is objectively in time. And as Time itself cannot be perceived, the determination of the existence of Objects in time can only take place by means of their connection in Time in general, consequently only by means of a priori connecting Conceptions. Now as these conceptions always possess the character of Necessity, experience is possible only by means of a representation of The necessary connection of perception The three modi of time are permanence, succession, and coexistence Accordingly, there are three rules of all relations of time in Phenomena, according to which the existence of every phenomenon is Determined in respect of the unity of all time, and these antecede all Experience and render it possible The general principle of all three an*logies rests on the necessary Unity of apperception in relation to all possible empirical Consciousness (perception) at every time, consequently, as this unity Lies a priori at the foundation of all mental operations, the principle Rests on the synthetical unity of all phenomena according to their Relation in time. For the original apperception relates to our internal Sense (the complex of all representations), and indeed relates a priori To its form, that is to say, the relation of the manifold empirical Consciousness in time. Now this manifold must be combined in original Apperception according to relations of time--a necessity imposed by the A priori transcendental unity of apperception, to which is subjected all That can belong to my (i.e., my own) cognition, and therefore all that Can become an object for me. This synthetical and a priori determined Unity in relation of perceptions in time is therefore the rule: "All Empirical determinations of time must be subject to rules of the general Determination of time"; and the an*logies of experience, of which we are Now about to treat, must be rules of this nature These principles have this peculiarity, that they do not concern Phenomena, and the synthesis of the empirical intuition thereof, but Merely the existence of phenomena and their relation to each other in Regard to this existence. Now the mode in which we apprehend a thing in A phenomenon can be determined a priori in such a manner that the rule Of its synthesis can give, that is to say, can produce this a priori Intuition in every empirical example. But the existence of phenomena Cannot be known a priori, and although we could arrive by this path at A conclusion of the fact of some existence, we could not cognize that Existence determinately, that is to say, we should be incapable of Anticipating in what respect the empirical intuition of it would be Distinguishable from that of others The two principles above mentioned, which I called mathematical, in Consideration of the fact of their authorizing the application of Mathematic phenomena, relate to these phenomena only in regard to their Possibility, and instruct us how phenomena, as far as regards their Intuition or the real in their perception, can be generated according To the rules of a mathematical synthesis. Consequently, numerical Quantities, and with them the determination of a phenomenon as a Quantity, can be employed in the one case as well as in the other. Thus For example, out of 200,000 illuminations by the moon, I might compose And give a priori, that is construct, the degree of our sensations Of the sun-light.* We may therefore entitle these two principles Constitutive The case is very different with those principles whose province it is to Subject the existence of phenomena to rules a priori. For as existence Does not admit of being constructed, it is clear that they must only Concern the relations of existence and be merely regulative principles In this case, therefore, neither axioms nor anticipations are to be Thought of. Thus, if a perception is given us, in a certain relation of Time to other (although undetermined) perceptions, we cannot then say A priori, what and how great (in quantity) the other perception Necessarily connected with the former is, but only how it is connected Quoad its existence, in this given modus of time. an*logies in Philosophy mean something very different from that which they represent In mathematics. In the latter they are formulae, which enounce the Equality of two relations of quantity, and are always constitutive, so That if two terms of the proportion are given, the third is also Given, that is, can be constructed by the aid of these formulae. But in Philosophy, an*logy is not the equality of two quantitative but of two Qualitative relations. In this case, from three given terms, I can Give a priori and cognize the relation to a fourth member, but not this Fourth term itself, although I certainly possess a rule to guide me in The search for this fourth term in experience, and a mark to a**ist me In discovering it. An an*logy of experience is therefore only a rule According to which unity of experience must arise out of perceptions in Respect to objects (phenomena) not as a constitutive, but merely as A regulative principle. The same holds good also of the postulates of Empirical thought in general, which relate to the synthesis of mere Intuition (which concerns the form of phenomena), the synthesis of Perception (which concerns the matter of phenomena), and the synthesis Of experience (which concerns the relation of these perceptions). For They are only regulative principles, and clearly distinguishable from The mathematical, which are constitutive, not indeed in regard to the Certainty which both possess a priori, but in the mode of evidence Thereof, consequently also in the manner of demonstration But what has been observed of all synthetical propositions, and must Be particularly remarked in this place, is this, that these an*logies possess significance and validity, not as principles of the Transcendental, but only as principles of the empirical use of the Understanding, and their truth can therefore be proved only as such, and That consequently the phenomena must not be subjoined directly under the Categories, but only under their schemata. For if the objects to which Those principles must be applied were things in themselves, it would Be quite impossible to cognize aught concerning them synthetically a Priori. But they are nothing but phenomena; a complete knowledge Of which--a knowledge to which all principles a priori must at Last relate--is the only possible experience. It follows that these Principles can have nothing else for their aim than the conditions of The empirical cognition in the unity of synthesis of phenomena. But this Synthesis is cogitated only in the schema of the pure conception of the Understanding, of whose unity, as that of a synthesis in general, the Category contains the function unrestricted by any sensuous condition These principles will therefore authorize us to connect phenomena According to an an*logy, with the logical and universal unity of Conceptions, and consequently to employ the categories in the principles Themselves; but in the application of them to experience, we shall use Only their schemata, as the key to their proper application, instead of The categories, or rather the latter as restricting conditions, under The title of "formulae" of the former A. FIRST an*lOGY Principle of the Permanence of Substance In all changes of phenomena, substance is permanent, and the quantum Thereof in nature is neither increased nor diminished PROOF All phenomena exist in time, wherein alone as substratum, that is, as The permanent form of the internal intuition, coexistence and succession Can be represented. Consequently time, in which all changes of phenomena Must be cogitated, remains and changes not, because it is that in which Succession and coexistence can be represented only as determinations Thereof. Now, time in itself cannot be an object of perception. It Follows that in objects of perception, that is, in phenomena, there must Be found a substratum which represents time in general, and in which All change or coexistence can be perceived by means of the relation of Phenomena to it. But the substratum of all reality, that is, of all that Pertains to the existence of things, is substance; all that pertains To existence can be cogitated only as a determination of substance Consequently, the permanent, in relation to which alone can all Relations of time in phenomena be determined, is substance in the World of phenomena, that is, the real in phenomena, that which, as the Substratum of all change, remains ever the same. Accordingly, as this Cannot change in existence, its quantity in nature can neither be Increased nor diminished Our apprehension of the manifold in a phenomenon is always successive Is Consequently always changing. By it alone we could, therefore Never determine whether this manifold, as an object of experience, is Coexistent or successive, unless it had for a foundation something fixed And permanent, of the existence of which all succession and coexistence Are nothing but so many modes (modi of time). Only in the permanent Then, are relations of time possible (for simultaneity and succession Are the only relations in time); that is to say, the permanent is the Substratum of our empirical representation of time itself, in which Alone all determination of time is possible. Permanence is, in fact Just another expression for time, as the abiding correlate of all Existence of phenomena, and of all change, and of all coexistence. For Change does not affect time itself, but only the phenomena in time (just As coexistence cannot be regarded as a modus of time itself, seeing That in time no parts are coexistent, but all successive). If we were To attribute succession to time itself, we should be obliged to cogitate Another time, in which this succession would be possible. It is only By means of the permanent that existence in different parts of the Successive series of time receives a quantity, which we entitle Duration. For in mere succession, existence is perpetually vanishing and Recommencing, and therefore never has even the least quantity. Without The permanent, then, no relation in time is possible. Now, time in Itself is not an object of perception; consequently the permanent in Phenomena must be regarded as the substratum of all determination of Time, and consequently also as the condition of the possibility of All synthetical unity of perceptions, that is, of experience; and all Existence and all change in time can only be regarded as a mode in The existence of that which abides unchangeably. Therefore, in all Phenomena, the permanent is the object in itself, that is, the substance (phenomenon); but all that changes or can change belongs only to the Mode of the existence of this substance or substances, consequently to Its determinations I find that in all ages not only the philosopher, but even the common Understanding, has preposited this permanence as a substratum of all Change in phenomena; indeed, I am compelled to believe that they Will always accept this as an indubitable fact. Only the philosopher Expresses himself in a more precise and definite manner, when he says: "In all changes in the world, the substance remains, and the accidents Alone are changeable." But of this decidedly synthetical proposition, I Nowhere meet with even an attempt at proof; nay, it very rarely has the Good fortune to stand, as it deserves to do, at the head of the pure and Entirely a priori laws of nature. In truth, the statement that substance Is permanent, is tautological. For this very permanence is the ground On which we apply the category of substance to the phenomenon; and We should have been obliged to prove that in all phenomena there is Something permanent, of the existence of which the changeable is nothing But a determination. But because a proof of this nature cannot be Dogmatical, that is, cannot be drawn from conceptions, inasmuch as it Concerns a synthetical proposition a priori, and as philosophers never Reflected that such propositions are valid only in relation to possible Experience, and therefore cannot be proved except by means of a Deduction of the possibility of experience, it is no wonder that while It has served as the foundation of all experience (for we feel the need Of it in empirical cognition), it has never been supported by proof A philosopher was asked: "What is the weight of smoke?" He answered: "Subtract from the weight of the burnt wood the weight of the remaining Ashes, and you will have the weight of the smoke." Thus he presumed it To be incontrovertible that even in fire the matter (substance) does not Perish, but that only the form of it undergoes a change. In like manner Was the saying: "From nothing comes nothing," only another inference From the principle or permanence, or rather of the ever-abiding Existence of the true subject in phenomena. For if that in the Phenomenon which we call substance is to be the proper substratum of all Determination of time, it follows that all existence in past as well as In future time, must be determinable by means of it alone. Hence we are Entitled to apply the term substance to a phenomenon, only because we Suppose its existence in all time, a notion which the word permanence Does not fully express, as it seems rather to be referable to future Time. However, the internal necessity perpetually to be, is inseparably Connected with the necessity always to have been, and so the expression May stand as it is. "Gigni de nihilo nihil; in nihilum nil posse Reverti,"* are two propositions which the ancients never parted, and Which people nowadays sometimes mistakenly disjoin, because they imagine That the propositions apply to objects as things in themselves, and that The former might be inimical to the dependence (even in respect of its Substance also) of the world upon a supreme cause. But this apprehension Is entirely needless, for the question in this case is only of phenomena In the sphere of experience, the unity of which never could be possible If we admitted the possibility that new things (in respect of their Substance) should arise. For in that case, we should lose altogether That which alone can represent the unity of time, to wit, the identity Of the substratum, as that through which alone all change possesses Complete and thorough unity. This permanence is, however, nothing but The manner in which we represent to ourselves the existence of things in The phenomenal world The determinations of a substance, which are only particular modes of Its existence, are called accidents. They are always real, because they Concern the existence of substance (negations are only determinations Which express the non-existence of something in the substance). Now If to this real in the substance we ascribe a particular existence (for Example, to motion as an accident of matter), this existence is called Inherence, in contradistinction to the existence of substance, which we Call subsistence. But hence arise many misconceptions, and it would be a More accurate and just mode of expression to designate the accident Only as the mode in which the existence of a substance is positively Determined. Meanwhile, by reason of the conditions of the logical Exercise of our understanding, it is impossible to avoid separating As it were, that which in the existence of a substance is subject to Change, whilst the substance remains, and regarding it in relation to That which is properly permanent and radical. On this account, this Category of substance stands under the title of relation, rather because It is the condition thereof than because it contains in itself any Relation Now, upon this notion of permanence rests the proper notion of the Conception change. Origin and extinction are not changes of that which Originates or becomes extinct. Change is but a mode of existence, which Follows on another mode of existence of the same object; hence all that Changes is permanent, and only the condition thereof changes. Now since This mutation affects only determinations, which can have a beginning Or an end, we may say, employing an expression which seems somewhat Paradoxical: "Only the permanent (substance) is subject to change; the Mutable suffers no change, but rather alternation, that is, when certain Determinations cease, others begin." Change, when, cannot be perceived by us except in substances, and origin Or extinction in an absolute sense, that does not concern merely a Determination of the permanent, cannot be a possible perception, for It is this very notion of the permanent which renders possible the Representation of a transition from one state into another, and from Non-being to being, which, consequently, can be empirically cognized Only as alternating determinations of that which is permanent. Grant That a thing absolutely begins to be; we must then have a point of time In which it was not. But how and by what can we fix and determine This point of time, unless by that which already exists? For a void Time--preceding--is not an object of perception; but if we connect this Beginning with objects which existed previously, and which continue to Exist till the object in question in question begins to be, then the Latter can only be a determination of the former as the permanent. The Same holds good of the notion of extinction, for this presupposes the Empirical representation of a time, in which a phenomenon no longer Exists Substances (in the world of phenomena) are the substratum of all Determinations of time. The beginning of some, and the ceasing to be of Other substances, would utterly do away with the only condition of the Empirical unity of time; and in that case phenomena would relate to two Different times, in which, side by side, existence would pa**; which is Absurd. For there is only one time in which all different times must be Placed, not as coexistent, but as successive Accordingly, permanence is a necessary condition under which alone Phenomena, as things or objects, are determinable in a possible Experience. But as regards the empirical criterion of this necessary Permanence, and with it of the substantiality of phenomena, we shall Find sufficient opportunity to speak in the sequel B. SECOND an*lOGY Principle of the Succession of Time According to the Law of Causality All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause And Effect PROOF (That all phenomena in the succession of time are only changes, that Is, a successive being and non-being of the determinations of substance Which is permanent; consequently that a being of substance itself which Follows on the non-being thereof, or a non-being of substance which Follows on the being thereof, in other words, that the origin or Extinction of substance itself, is impossible--all this has been fully Established in treating of the foregoing principle. This principle Might have been expressed as follows: "All alteration (succession) of Phenomena is merely change"; for the changes of substance are not origin Or extinction, because the conception of change presupposes the same Subject as existing with two opposite determinations, and consequently As permanent. After this premonition, we shall proceed to the proof.) I perceive that phenomena succeed one another, that is to say, a state Of things exists at one time, the opposite of which existed in a former State. In this case, then, I really connect together two perceptions in Time. Now connection is not an operation of mere sense and intuition But is the product of a synthetical faculty of imagination, which Determines the internal sense in respect of a relation of time. But Imagination can connect these two states in two ways, so that either the One or the other may antecede in time; for time in itself cannot be an Object of perception, and what in an object precedes and what follows Cannot be empirically determined in relation to it. I am only conscious Then, that my imagination places one state before and the other after; Not that the one state antecedes the other in the object. In other Words, the objective relation of the successive phenomena remains Quite undetermined by means of mere perception. Now in order that this Relation may be cognized as determined, the relation between the two States must be so cogitated that it is thereby determined as necessary Which of them must be placed before and which after, and not conversely But the conception which carries with it a necessity of synthetical Unity, can be none other than a pure conception of the understanding Which does not lie in mere perception; and in this case it is the Conception of "the relation of cause and effect," the former of which Determines the latter in time, as its necessary consequence, and not as Something which might possibly antecede (or which might in some cases Not be perceived to follow). It follows that it is only because we Subject the sequence of phenomena, and consequently all change, to the Law of causality, that experience itself, that is, empirical cognition Of phenomena, becomes possible; and consequently, that phenomena Themselves, as objects of experience, are possible only by virtue of This law Our apprehension of the manifold of phenomena is always successive. The Representations of parts succeed one another. Whether they succeed one Another in the object also, is a second point for reflection, which Was not contained in the former. Now we may certainly give the name of Object to everything, even to every representation, so far as we are Conscious thereof; but what this word may mean in the case of phenomena Not merely in so far as they (as representations) are objects, but only In so far as they indicate an object, is a question requiring deeper Consideration. In so far as they, regarded merely as representations Are at the same time objects of consciousness, they are not to be Distinguished from apprehension, that is, reception into the synthesis Of imagination, and we must therefore say: "The manifold of phenomena is Always produced successively in the mind." If phenomena were things in Themselves, no man would be able to conjecture from the succession of Our representations how this manifold is connected in the object; for We have to do only with our representations. How things may be in Themselves, without regard to the representations through which they Affect us, is utterly beyond the sphere of our cognition. Now although Phenomena are not things in themselves, and are nevertheless the only Thing given to us to be cognized, it is my duty to show what sort of Connection in time belongs to the manifold in phenomena themselves While the representation of this manifold in apprehension is always Successive. For example, the apprehension of the manifold in the Phenomenon of a house which stands before me, is successive. Now Comes the question whether the manifold of this house is in itself Successive--which no one will be at all willing to grant. But, so Soon as I raise my conception of an object to the transcendental Signification thereof, I find that the house is not a thing in itself But only a phenomenon, that is, a representation, the transcendental Object of which remains utterly unknown. What then am I to understand By the question: "How can the manifold be connected in the phenomenon Itself--not considered as a thing in itself, but merely as a Phenomenon?" Here that which lies in my successive apprehension is Regarded as representation, whilst the phenomenon which is given Me, notwithstanding that it is nothing more than a complex of these Representations, is regarded as the object thereof, with which my Conception, drawn from the representations of apprehension, must Harmonize. It is very soon seen that, as accordance of the cognition With its object constitutes truth, the question now before us can Only relate to the formal conditions of empirical truth; and that the Phenomenon, in opposition to the representations of apprehension, can Only be distinguished therefrom as the object of them, if it is subject To a rule which distinguishes it from every other apprehension, and Which renders necessary a mode of connection of the manifold. That in The phenomenon which contains the condition of this necessary rule of Apprehension, is the object Let us now proceed to our task. That something happens, that is to say That something or some state exists which before was not, cannot be Empirically perceived, unless a phenomenon precedes, which does not Contain in itself this state. For a reality which should follow upon A void time, in other words, a beginning, which no state of things Precedes, can just as little be apprehended as the void time itself Every apprehension of an event is therefore a perception which follows Upon another perception. But as this is the case with all synthesis Of apprehension, as I have shown above in the example of a house, my Apprehension of an event is not yet sufficiently distinguished from Other apprehensions. But I remark also that if in a phenomenon which Contains an occurrence, I call the antecedent state of my perception A, and the following state, B, the perception B can only follow A in Apprehension, and the perception A cannot follow B, but only precede It. For example, I see a ship float down the stream of a river. My Perception of its place lower down follows upon my perception of its Place higher up the course of the river, and it is impossible that In the apprehension of this phenomenon, the vessel should be perceived First below and afterwards higher up the stream. Here, therefore, the Order in the sequence of perceptions in apprehension is determined; And by this order apprehension is regulated. In the former example, my Perceptions in the apprehension of a house might begin at the roof and End at the foundation, or vice versa; or I might apprehend the manifold In this empirical intuition, by going from left to right, and from right To left. Accordingly, in the series of these perceptions, there was no Determined order, which necessitated my beginning at a certain point, in Order empirically to connect the manifold. But this rule is always to be Met with in the perception of that which happens, and it makes the order Of the successive perceptions in the apprehension of such a phenomenon Necessary I must, therefore, in the present case, deduce the subjective sequence Of apprehension from the objective sequence of phenomena, for Otherwise the former is quite undetermined, and one phenomenon is not Distinguishable from another. The former alone proves nothing as to the Connection of the manifold in an object, for it is quite arbitrary The latter must consist in the order of the manifold in a phenomenon According to which order the apprehension of one thing (that which Happens) follows that of another thing (which precedes), in conformity With a rule. In this way alone can I be authorized to say of the Phenomenon itself, and not merely of my own apprehension, that a certain Order or sequence is to be found therein. That is, in other words, I Cannot arrange my apprehension otherwise than in this order In conformity with this rule, then, it is necessary that in that which Antecedes an event there be found the condition of a rule, according to Which in this event follows always and necessarily; but I cannot reverse This and go back from the event, and determine (by apprehension) that Which antecedes it. For no phenomenon goes back from the succeeding Point of time to the preceding point, although it does certainly relate To a preceding point of time; from a given time, on the other hand There is always a necessary progression to the determined succeeding Time. Therefore, because there certainly is something that follows, I Must of necessity connect it with something else, which antecedes, and Upon which it follows, in conformity with a rule, that is necessarily So that the event, as conditioned, affords certain indication of a Condition, and this condition determines the event Let us suppose that nothing precedes an event, upon which this event Must follow in conformity with a rule. All sequence of perception Would then exist only in apprehension, that is to say, would be merely Subjective, and it could not thereby be objectively determined what Thing ought to precede, and what ought to follow in perception. In such A case, we should have nothing but a play of representations, which Would possess no application to any object. That is to say, it would Not be possible through perception to distinguish one phenomenon from Another, as regards relations of time; because the succession in the act Of apprehension would always be of the same sort, and therefore there Would be nothing in the phenomenon to determine the succession, and to Render a certain sequence objectively necessary. And, in this case, I Cannot say that two states in a phenomenon follow one upon the other But only that one apprehension follows upon another. But this is merely Subjective, and does not determine an object, and consequently cannot be Held to be cognition of an object--not even in the phenomenal world Accordingly, when we know in experience that something happens, we Always presuppose that something precedes, whereupon it follows in Conformity with a rule. For otherwise I could not say of the object that It follows; because the mere succession in my apprehension, if it be Not determined by a rule in relation to something preceding, does not Authorize succession in the object. Only, therefore, in reference to A rule, according to which phenomena are determined in their sequence That is, as they happen, by the preceding state, can I make my Subjective synthesis (of apprehension) objective, and it is only under This presupposition that even the experience of an event is possible No doubt it appears as if this were in thorough contradiction to all The notions which people have hitherto entertained in regard to the Procedure of the human understanding. According to these opinions, it Is by means of the perception and comparison of similar consequences Following upon certain antecedent phenomena that the understanding is Led to the discovery of a rule, according to which certain events always Follow certain phenomena, and it is only by this process that we attain To the conception of cause. Upon such a basis, it is clear that this Conception must be merely empirical, and the rule which it furnishes Us with--"Everything that happens must have a cause"--would be just as Contingent as experience itself. The universality and necessity of the Rule or law would be perfectly spurious attributes of it. Indeed, it Could not possess universal validity, inasmuch as it would not in this Case be a priori, but founded on deduction. But the same is the case With this law as with other pure a priori representations (e.g., space And time), which we can draw in perfect clearness and completeness from Experience, only because we had already placed them therein, and by that Means, and by that alone, had rendered experience possible. Indeed The logical clearness of this representation of a rule, determining The series of events, is possible only when we have made use thereof in Experience. Nevertheless, the recognition of this rule, as a condition Of the synthetical unity of phenomena in time, was the ground of Experience itself and consequently preceded it a priori It is now our duty to show by an example that we never, even in Experience, attribute to an object the notion of succession or effect (of an event--that is, the happening of something that did not Exist before), and distinguish it from the subjective succession of Apprehension, unless when a rule lies at the foundation, which compels Us to observe this order of perception in preference to any other, and That, indeed, it is this necessity which first renders possible the Representation of a succession in the object We have representations within us, of which also we can be conscious But, however widely extended, however accurate and thoroughgoing this Consciousness may be, these representations are still nothing more than Representations, that is, internal determinations of the mind in this or That relation of time. Now how happens it that to these representations We should set an object, or that, in addition to their subjective Reality, as modifications, we should still further attribute to them A certain unknown objective reality? It is clear that objective Significancy cannot consist in a relation to another representation (of that which we desire to term object), for in that case the question Again arises: "How does this other representation go out of itself, and Obtain objective significancy over and above the subjective, which Is proper to it, as a determination of a state of mind?" If we try to Discover what sort of new property the relation to an object gives to Our subjective representations, and what new importance they thereby Receive, we shall find that this relation has no other effect than That of rendering necessary the connection of our representations in a Certain manner, and of subjecting them to a rule; and that conversely It is only because a certain order is necessary in the relations of time Of our representations, that objective significancy is ascribed to them In the synthesis of phenomena, the manifold of our representations is Always successive. Now hereby is not represented an object, for by means Of this succession, which is common to all apprehension, no one thing is Distinguished from another. But so soon as I perceive or a**ume that in This succession there is a relation to a state antecedent, from which The representation follows in accordance with a rule, so soon do I Represent something as an event, or as a thing that happens; in other Words, I cognize an object to which I must a**ign a certain determinate Position in time, which cannot be altered, because of the preceding State in the object. When, therefore, I perceive that something happens There is contained in this representation, in the first place, the fact That something antecedes; because, it is only in relation to this that The phenomenon obtains its proper relation of time, in other words Exists after an antecedent time, in which it did not exist. But it can Receive its determined place in time only by the presupposition That something existed in the foregoing state, upon which it follows Inevitably and always, that is, in conformity with a rule. From all this It is evident that, in the first place, I cannot reverse the order Of succession, and make that which happens precede that upon which It follows; and that, in the second place, if the antecedent state be Posited, a certain determinate event inevitably and necessarily Follows. Hence it follows that there exists a certain order in our Representations, whereby the present gives a sure indication of some Previously existing state, as a correlate, though still undetermined, of The existing event which is given--a correlate which itself relates to The event as its consequence, conditions it, and connects it necessarily With itself in the series of time If then it be admitted as a necessary law of sensibility, and Consequently a formal condition of all perception, that the preceding Necessarily determines the succeeding time (inasmuch as I cannot arrive At the succeeding except through the preceding), it must likewise be an Indispensable law of empirical representation of the series of time That the phenomena of the past determine all phenomena in the succeeding Time, and that the latter, as events, cannot take place, except in so Far as the former determine their existence in time, that is to say Establish it according to a rule. For it is of course only in phenomena That we can empirically cognize this continuity in the connection of Times For all experience and for the possibility of experience, understanding Is indispensable, and the first step which it takes in this sphere is Not to render the representation of objects clear, but to render the Representation of an object in general, possible. It does this by Applying the order of time to phenomena, and their existence. In other Words, it a**igns to each phenomenon, as a consequence, a place in Relation to preceding phenomena, determined a priori in time, without Which it could not harmonize with time itself, which determines a place A priori to all its parts. This determination of place cannot be derived From the relation of phenomena to absolute time (for it is not an Object of perception); but, on the contrary, phenomena must reciprocally Determine the places in time of one another, and render these necessary In the order of time. In other words, whatever follows or happens, must Follow in conformity with a universal rule upon that which was contained In the foregoing state. Hence arises a series of phenomena, which, by Means of the understanding, produces and renders necessary exactly The same order and continuous connection in the series of our possible Perceptions, as is found a priori in the form of internal intuition (time), in which all our perceptions must have place That something happens, then, is a perception which belongs to a Possible experience, which becomes real only because I look upon the Phenomenon as determined in regard to its place in time, consequently as An object, which can always be found by means of a rule in the connected Series of my perceptions. But this rule of the determination of a thing According to succession in time is as follows: "In what precedes may be Found the condition, under which an event always (that is, necessarily) Follows." From all this it is obvious that the principle of cause and Effect is the principle of possible experience, that is, of objective Cognition of phenomena, in regard to their relations in the succession Of time The proof of this fundamental proposition rests entirely on the Following momenta of argument. To all empirical cognition belongs the Synthesis of the manifold by the imagination, a synthesis which is Always successive, that is, in which the representations therein always Follow one another. But the order of succession in imagination is not Determined, and the series of successive representations may be taken Retrogressively as well as progressively. But if this synthesis is a Synthesis of apprehension (of the manifold of a given phenomenon), then The order is determined in the object, or to speak more accurately There is therein an order of successive synthesis which determines an Object, and according to which something necessarily precedes, and When this is posited, something else necessarily follows. If, then My perception is to contain the cognition of an event, that is, of Something which really happens, it must be an empirical judgement Wherein we think that the succession is determined; that is, it Presupposes another phenomenon, upon which this event follows Necessarily, or in conformity with a rule. If, on the contrary, when I Posited the antecedent, the event did not necessarily follow, I should Be obliged to consider it merely as a subjective play of my imagination And if in this I represented to myself anything as objective, I must Look upon it as a mere dream. Thus, the relation of phenomena (as Possible perceptions), according to which that which happens is, as To its existence, necessarily determined in time by something which Antecedes, in conformity with a rule--in other words, the relation of Cause and effect--is the condition of the objective validity of Our empirical judgements in regard to the sequence of perceptions Consequently of their empirical truth, and therefore of experience. The Principle of the relation of causality in the succession of phenomena is Therefore valid for all objects of experience, because it is itself the Ground of the possibility of experience Here, however, a difficulty arises, which must be resolved. The Principle of the connection of causality among phenomena is limited in Our formula to the succession thereof, although in practice we find that The principle applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same Time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous. For example, there Is heat in a room, which does not exist in the open air. I look about For the cause, and find it to be the fire, Now the fire as the cause is Simultaneous with its effect, the heat of the room. In this case, then There is no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but They are simultaneous; and still the law holds good. The greater part of Operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and The succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause Cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the Moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the Causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before Ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen. Here it must be Specially remembered that we must consider the order of time and not the Lapse thereof. The relation remains, even though no time has elapsed The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may Entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the Relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according To time. If, for example, I consider a leaden ball, which lies upon a Cushion and makes a hollow in it, as a cause, then it is simultaneous With the effect. But I distinguish the two through the relation of time Of the dynamical connection of both. For if I lay the ball upon the Cushion, then the hollow follows upon the before smooth surface; but Supposing the cushion has, from some cause or another, a hollow, there Does not thereupon follow a leaden ball Thus, the law of succession of time is in all instances the only Empirical criterion of effect in relation to the causality of the Antecedent cause. The gla** is the cause of the rising of the Water above its horizontal surface, although the two phenomena are Contemporaneous. For, as soon as I draw some water with the gla** from A larger vessel, an effect follows thereupon, namely, the change of the Horizontal state which the water had in the large vessel into a concave Which it a**umes in the gla** This conception of causality leads us to the conception of action; that Of action, to the conception of force; and through it, to the conception Of substance. As I do not wish this critical essay, the sole purpose of Which is to treat of the sources of our synthetical cognition a priori To be crowded with an*lyses which merely explain, but do not enlarge The sphere of our conceptions, I reserve the detailed explanation of the Above conceptions for a future system of pure reason. Such an an*lysis Indeed, executed with great particularity, may already be found in Well-known works on this subject. But I cannot at present refrain from Making a few remarks on the empirical criterion of a substance, in so Far as it seems to be more evident and more easily recognized through The conception of action than through that of the permanence of a Phenomenon Where action (consequently activity and force) exists, substance also Must exist, and in it alone must be sought the seat of that fruitful Source of phenomena. Very well. But if we are called upon to explain What we mean by substance, and wish to avoid the vice of reasoning in A circle, the answer is by no means so easy. How shall we conclude Immediately from the action to the permanence of that which acts, this Being nevertheless an essential and peculiar criterion of substance (phenomenon)? But after what has been said above, the solution of This question becomes easy enough, although by the common mode Of procedure--merely an*lysing our conceptions--it would be quite Impossible. The conception of action indicates the relation of the Subject of causality to the effect. Now because all effect consists In that which happens, therefore in the changeable, the last subject Thereof is the permanent, as the substratum of all that changes, that Is, substance. For according to the principle of causality, actions are Always the first ground of all change in phenomena and, consequently Cannot be a property of a subject which itself changes, because if this Were the case, other actions and another subject would be necessary to Determine this change. From all this it results that action alone, as An empirical criterion, is a sufficient proof of the presence of Substantiality, without any necessity on my part of endeavouring to Discover the permanence of substance by a comparison. Besides, by this Mode of induction we could not attain to the completeness which the Magnitude and strict universality of the conception requires. For that The primary subject of the causality of all arising and pa**ing away All origin and extinction, cannot itself (in the sphere of phenomena) Arise and pa** away, is a sound and safe conclusion, a conclusion which Leads us to the conception of empirical necessity and permanence In existence, and consequently to the conception of a substance as Phenomenon When something happens, the mere fact of the occurrence, without Regard to that which occurs, is an object requiring investigation The transition from the non-being of a state into the existence of it Supposing that this state contains no quality which previously existed In the phenomenon, is a fact of itself demanding inquiry. Such an event As has been shown in No. A, does not concern substance (for substance Does not thus originate), but its condition or state. It is therefore Only change, and not origin from nothing. If this origin be regarded as The effect of a foreign cause, it is termed creation, which cannot be Admitted as an event among phenomena, because the very possibility of It would annihilate the unity of experience. If, however, I regard all Things not as phenomena, but as things in themselves and objects of Understanding alone, they, although substances, may be considered as Dependent, in respect of their existence, on a foreign cause. But this Would require a very different meaning in the words, a meaning which Could not apply to phenomena as objects of possible experience How a thing can be changed, how it is possible that upon one state Existing in one point of time, an opposite state should follow in Another point of time--of this we have not the smallest conception a Priori. There is requisite for this the knowledge of real powers, which Can only be given empirically; for example, knowledge of moving forces Or, in other words, of certain successive phenomena (as movements) which Indicate the presence of such forces. But the form of every change The condition under which alone it can take place as the coming into Existence of another state (be the content of the change, that is, the State which is changed, what it may), and consequently the succession of The states themselves can very well be considered a priori, in relation To the law of causality and the conditions of time.* [*Footnote: It must be remarked that I do not speak of the change of Certain relations, but of the change of the state. Thus, when a body Moves in a uniform manner, it does not change its state (of motion); but Only when all motion increases or decreases.] When a substance pa**es from one state, a, into another state, b The point of time in which the latter exists is different from, and Subsequent to that in which the former existed. In like manner, the Second state, as reality (in the phenomenon), differs from the first, in Which the reality of the second did not exist, as b from zero. That is To say, if the state, b, differs from the state, a, only in respect to Quantity, the change is a coming into existence of b -a, which in the Former state did not exist, and in relation to which that state is = O Now the question arises how a thing pa**es from one state = a, into Another state = b. Between two moments there is always a certain time And between two states existing in these moments there is always a Difference having a certain quantity (for all parts of phenomena are in Their turn quantities). Consequently, every transition from one state Into another is always effected in a time contained between two moments Of which the first determines the state which leaves, and the second Determines the state into the thing pa**es. The thing leaves, and the Second determines the state into which the thing Both moments, then, are Limitations of the time of a change, consequently of the intermediate State between both, and as such they belong to the total of the change Now every change has a cause, which evidences its causality in the whole Time during which the charge takes place. The cause, therefore, does not Produce the change all at once or in one moment, but in a time, so that As the time gradually increases from the commencing instant, a, to its Completion at b, in like manner also, the quantity of the reality (b - A) is generated through the lesser degrees which are contained between The first and last. All change is therefore possible only through a Continuous action of the causality, which, in so far as it is uniform We call a momentum. The change does not consist of these momenta, but is Generated or produced by them as their effect Such is the law of the continuity of all change, the ground of which is That neither time itself nor any phenomenon in time consists of parts Which are the smallest possible, but that, notwithstanding, the state Of a thing pa**es in the process of a change through all these parts, as Elements, to its second state. There is no smallest degree of reality In a phenomenon, just as there is no smallest degree in the quantity of Time; and so the new state of reality grows up out of the former state Through all the infinite degrees thereof, the differences of which one From another, taken all together, are less than the difference between o And a It is not our business to inquire here into the utility of this Principle in the investigation of nature. But how such a proposition Which appears so greatly to extend our knowledge of nature, is possible Completely a priori, is indeed a question which deserves investigation Although the first view seems to demonstrate the truth and reality of The principle, and the question, how it is possible, may be considered Superfluous. For there are so many groundless pretensions to the Enlargement of our knowledge by pure reason that we must take it as a General rule to be mistrustful of all such, and without a thoroughgoing And radical deduction, to believe nothing of the sort even on the Clearest dogmatical evidence Every addition to our empirical knowledge, and every advance made in The exercise of our perception, is nothing more than an extension of the Determination of the internal sense, that is to say, a progression In time, be objects themselves what they may, phenomena, or pure Intuitions. This progression in time determines everything, and is Itself determined by nothing else. That is to say, the parts of the Progression exist only in time, and by means of the synthesis thereof And are not given antecedently to it. For this reason, every transition In perception to anything which follows upon another in time, is a Determination of time by means of the production of this perception And as this determination of time is, always and in all its parts, a Quantity, the perception produced is to be considered as a quantity Which proceeds through all its degrees--no one of which is the smallest Possible--from zero up to its determined degree. From this we perceive The possibility of cognizing a priori a law of changes--a law However, which concerns their form merely. We merely anticipate our own Apprehension, the formal condition of which, inasmuch as it is itself to Be found in the mind antecedently to all given phenomena, must certainly Be capable of being cognized a priori Thus, as time contains the sensuous condition a priori of the Possibility of a continuous progression of that which exists to That which follows it, the understanding, by virtue of the unity of Apperception, contains the condition a priori of the possibility of a Continuous determination of the position in time of all phenomena, and This by means of the series of causes and effects, the former of which Necessitate the sequence of the latter, and thereby render universally And for all time, and by consequence, objectively, valid the empirical Cognition of the relations of time