But (illusory) appearance never can he
attributed
as a predicate to an object, for this very reason, that it attributes to this object in itself that which belongs to it only in relation to our sensuous faculty, or to the subject in general, e.
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason
On the other hand, we deny to time all claim to absolute reality that we deny that without having regard to the form of our sensuous intuition, absolutely inheres in things as condition or property.
Such properties
? things.
? ? a
;
It is
It is
is,
it,
is
is
;
is,
is
is,
i
in
if
a it
is
is
is
is,
is
by
? 82 TRANSCENDENTAL . ESTHETIC.
as belong to objects as things in themselves, never can be presented to us through the medium of the senses. Herein consists, therefore, the transcendental ideality of time, according to which, if we abstract the subjective conditions of sensuous intuition, it is nothing, and cannot be reckoned as subsisting or inhering in objects as things in themselves, independently of its relation to our intuition. This ideality, like that of space, is not to be proved or illustrated by fallacious analogies with sensations, for this reason, --that in such arguments or illustrations,we make the presupposition that the phenomenon, in which such and such predicates inhere, has objective reality, while in this case we can only find such an objective reality as is itself empirical, that is, regards the object as a mere phenomenon. In reference to this subject, see the remark in Section I. (p. 27).
? 8. Elueidation.
Against this theory, which grants empirical reality to time, but denies to it absolute and transcendental reality, I have hear:! from intelligent men an objection so unanimously urged, that I conclude that it must naturally present itself to every reader to whom these considerations are novel. It runs thus : " Changes are real ;" (this the continual change in our own representations demonstrates, even though the existence of ail external phsenomeua, together with their changes, is denied). Now, changes are only possible in time, and therefore time must be something real. But there is no difficulty in answer ing this. I grant the whole argument. Time, no doubt, is something real, that the real form of our internal intuition. therefore has subjective reality, in reference to our internal experience, that have really the representation of time, and of my determinations therein. Time, therefore,
not to be regarded as an object, but as the mode of repre sentation of myself as an object. But could intuite my self, or be intuited another being, without this condition of sensibility, then those very determinations which we now represent to ourselves as changes, would present to us knowledge in which the representation of time, and conse quently of change, would not appear. The empirical realit'y of time, therefore, remains, as the condition of all our expe rience. But absolute realify, accorJing tn what has bven
? ? ? a
by
if I
is
is, I
is, it is
It
? 01 SfACZ AHD TIME. --ELTCIDATOBT. REMARK8. 83
(aid above, cannot be granted it. Time is nothing but the form of our internal intuition. * If we take away from it the special condition of our sensibility, the conception of tira also vanishes ; and it inheres not in the objects themselves, but solely in the subject (or mind) which intuites them.
But the reason why this objection is so unanimously brought against our doctrine of time, and that too by disputants who cannot start any intelligible arguments against the doc trine of the ideality of space, is this, --they have no hope of demonstrating apodeictically the absolute reality of space, be cause the doctrine of idealism is against them, according to which the reality of external objects is not capable of any strict proof. On the other hand, the reality of the object of our internal sense (that is, myself and my internal state) is clear immediately through consciousness. The former --exter nal objects in space -- might be a mere delusion, but the latter -- the object of my internal perception -- is undeniably real. They do not, however, reflect that both, without question of their reality as representations, belong only to the genus phe- nomeuon, which has always two aspects, the one, the object considered as a thing in itself, without regard to the mode of intuiting and the nature of which remains for this very reason problematical, the other, the form of our intui tion of the object, which must be sought not in the object as thing itself, but the subject to which appears, -- which form of intuition nevertheless belongs really and neces
sarily to the phenomenal object.
Time and space are, therefore, two sources of knowledge,
from which, priori, various synthetical cognitions can be drawn. --Of this we find striking example in the cognitions of space and its relations, which form the foundation of pure ma thematics. --They are the two pure forms of all intuition, and thereby make synthetical propositions a priori possible. But these sources of knowledge being merely conditions of our sensibility, do therefore, and as such, strictly determine their own range and purpose, in that they do not and cannot present
can indeed >ay " my representations follow one aoother, or an successive" but this means only that we are conscious of tbrm as in succession, that is, according to the form of the internal sense. Time, therefore, not thing in itself, nor any objective determination nertaining to, or inherent things.
D
? ? ? in
I* is
a
a
in h
it,
is it
;
a
a
in
it
? 34 TRANSCENDENTAL JESTHETIC.
objects as things in themselves, but are applicable to them solely in so far as they are considered as sensuous pheno mena. The sphere of phenomena is the only sphere of their validity, and if we venture out of this, no further objective use can be made of them. For the rest, this formal reality of time and space leaves the validity of our empirical know ledge unshaken ; for our certainty in that respect is equally firm, whether these forms necessarily inhere in the things themselves, or only in our intuitions of them. On the other hand, those who maintain the absolute reality of time and space, whether as essentially subsisting, or only inhering, as modifications, in things, must find themselves at utter variance with the principles of experience itself. For, if they decide for the first view, and make space and time into substances, this being the side taken by mathematical natural philosophers, they must admit two self-subsisting nonentities, infinite and eternal, which exist (yet without there being any thing real) for the purpose of containing in themselves every thing that is real. If they adopt the second view of inherence, which is preferred by some metaphysical natural philosophers, and regard space and time as relations (contiguity in space or suc cession in time), abstracted from experience,
? though repre sented confusedly in this state of separation, they find them selves in that case necessitated to deny the validity of mathe
matical doctrines &, priori in reference to real things (for example, in space), --at all events their apodeictic cer tainty. For such certainty cannot be found in an it posteriori proposition ; and the conceptions ct priori of space and time are, according to this opinion, mere creations of the ima gination,* having their source really in experience, inasmuch as, out of relations abstracted from experience, imagination has made up something which contains, indeed, general statements of these relations, yet of which no application can be made without the restrictions attached thereto by nature. 'The former of these parties gains this advantage, that they keep the sphere of phenomena free for mathematical science. On the other hand, these very conditions (space and time) embarrass them greatly, when the understanding endeavours
? This word is hpre uNd, and will be hereafter always used, in its prraii. live tense. That meaning of it which denotes a poetical inventive piner, n S licondary one. -- Tr.
? ? ? GENERAL HEMARK8 OW TRAKSCElTDEFTAt . SSTHXTIC. 35
to pass the limits of that sphere. The latter has, indeed, this advantage, that the representations of space and time
do not come in their way when they wish to judge of ob jects, not as phenomena, bat merely in their relation to the understanding. Devoid, however, of a true and objectively valid & priori intuition, they can neither furnish any basis for the possibility of mathematical cognitions a priori, nor bring the propositions of experience into necessary accordance with those of mathematics. In our theory of the true nature of these two original forms of the sensibility, both difficulties are
sur mounted.
In conclusion, that transcendental ^Esthetic cannot con
tain any more than these two elements --space and time, is sufficiently obvious from the fact that all other con ceptions appertaining to sensibility, even that of motion, which unites in itself both elements, presuppose something empirical. Motion, for example, presupposes the perception of something moveable. Hut space considered in itself contains nothing moveable, consequently motion must be something which is found in space only through experience, -- in other words, is an empirical datum. In like manner, tran scendental yEsthetic cannot number the conception of change among its data A priori; for time itself does not change, but only something which is in time. To acquire the conception of change, therefore, the perception of some existing object and of the succession of its determinations, in one word, experience, is necessary.
? 9. -- General Remarks on Transcendental JEsthetic.
I. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, it will be requisite, in the first place, to recapitulate, as clearly as pos sible, what oar opinion is with respect to the fundamental nature of our sensuous cognition in general. We have in tended, then, to say, that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of phsenomena; that the thingswhich we intuite, are not in themselves the same as our representations of them in intuition, nor are their relations in themselves so constituted as they appear to us ; and that if we take away the subject, or . even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear ; and
? ? ? ? 30 TRAlrSOESDElrtAL -SSTHMlC .
that these, as phsenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may he the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our own mode of perceiving \hem, which is peculiar to us, and which, though not of necessity pertaining to every animated being, is so to the whole human race. With this alone we have to do. Space and time are the pure forms thereof ; sensation the matter. The former alone can we cog nize h priori, that antecedent to all actual perception and for this reason such cognition called pure intuition. The latter that in our cognition which called cognition a pos
teriori, that empirical intuition. The former appertain ab solutely and necessarily to our sensibility, of whatsoever kind our sensations may be the latter may be of very diversified character. Supposing that we should carry our empirical intuition even Co the very highest degree of clearness, we should not thereby advance one step nearer to knowledge of the constitution of objects as things in themselves. For we could only, at best, arrive at complete cognition of our own mode of intuition, that of our sensibility, and this always
under the conditions originally attaching to the subject, namely, the conditions of space and time --while the ques tion -- " What are objects considered as things in them selves? " remains unanswerable even after the most thorough examination of the phenomenal world.
To say, then, that all our sensibility nothing but the con
fused representation of things containing exclusively that which belongs to them as things themselves, and this undn an accumulation of characteristic marks and partial representa tions which we cannot distinguish in consciousness, falsifi cation of the conception of sensibility and phenomcuization, which renders our whole doctrine thereof empty and useless. The difference between confused and clear representation merely logical and has nothing to do with content. No doubt the conception of right, as employed by sound understand ing, contains all that the most subtle investigation could unfold from although, in the ordinary practical use of the word, we arc not conscious of the manifold representations com
? the conception. But we cannot for this reason assert that the ordinary concretion sensuous one con
prised
? ? is a
a a
is
it, in
is
a; is,
is
is a
;
in
is
is
;
a
a
is,
is,
? SKVnit! BEVA. RK9 OTt THAKSCBITDraTAl . SSTH1TT0. 37
taiuing a mere phenomenon, for right cannot appear as a phenomenon ; but the conception of it lies in the understand ing, and represents a property (the moral property) of actions, which belongs to them in themselves. On the other hand, the re-presentation in intuition of a body contains nothing which could belong to an object considered as a thing in itself, but merely the phenomenon or appearance of something, and the mode in which we are affected by that appearance ; and this receptivity of our faculty of cognition is called sensibility, and remains toto ecelo different from the cognition of an ob ject in itself, even though we should examine the content of the phenomenon to the very bottom.
It must be admitted that the Leibniti-Wolfian
has assigned an entirely erroneous point of view to all investi gations into the nature and origin of our cognitions, inasmuch as it regards the distinction between the sensuous and the in tellectual as merely logical, whereas it is plainly transcenden tal, and concerns not merely the clearness or obscurity, but the content and origin of both. For the faculty of sensibility not only does not present us with an indistinct and confused cognition of objects as things in themselves, but, in fact, gives us no knowledge of these at all. On the contrary, so soon as we abstract in thought our own subjective nature, the object represented, with the properties ascribed to it by sensuous in tuition, entirely disappears, because it was only this subjective nature that determined the form of the object as a pheno menon.
In phenomena, we commonly, indeed, distinguish that which essentially belongs to the intuition of them, and is valid for the sensuous faculty of every human being, from that which belongs to the same intuition accidentally, as valid not for the sensuous faculty in general, but for a particular state or organ ization of this or that sense. Accordingly, we are accus tomed to say that the former is a cognition which represents the object itself, whilst the latter presents only a particular appearance or phsenomenon thereof. This distinction, how ever, is only empirical. If we stop here (as is usual), and do not regard the empirical intuition as itself a mere phenomenon (as we ought to do), in which nothing that can appertain to a thing in itself is to be found, our transcendental distinction is lost, and we believe that wc cognize objects as things in thcro
? philosophy
? ? ? 38 TRANSCENDENTAL JDSTHKTIC.
? elves, although in the whole range of the sensuous world,
investigate the nature of its objects as profoundly as we may, we have to do with nothing but phenomena. Thus, we call
the rainbow a mere appearance or phenomenon in a sunny shower, and the rain, the reality or thing in itself ; and this is right enough, if we understand the latter conception in a merely physical sense, that as that which in universal ex perience, and under whatever conditions of sensuous percep tion, known in intuition to be so and so determined, and not otherwise. But we consider this empirical datum gene rally, and enquire, without reference to its accordance with all our senses, whether there can be discovered in aught which represents an object as thing in itself (the raindrops of course are not such, for they are, as phenomena, empirical objects), the question of the relation of the representation to the object transcendental and not only are the raindrops mere phsenomena, but even their circular form, nay, the space itself through which they fall, nothing in itself, but both are mere modifications or fundamental dispositions of our sensuous intuition, whilst the transcendental object remains
for us utterly unknown.
The second important concern of our /Esthetic that
do not obtain favour merely as plausible hypothesis, but possess as undoubted character of certainty as can be de manded of any theory which to serve for an organon. In order fully to convince the reader of this certainty, we shall select a case which will serve to make its validity apparent, and also to illustrate what has been said in 3.
Suppose, then, that Space and Time are in themselves ob jective, and conditions of the possibility of objects as things in themselves. In the first place, evident that both present us with very many apodeictic and synthetic propositions priori, but especially space, -- and for this reason we shall prefer for
? investigation at present. As the propositions of geometry arc cognized synthetically priori, and with apodeictic certainty,
enquire, --whence do you obtain propositions of this kind, and on what basis does the understanding rest, in order to arrive it such absolutely necessary and universally valid truths
There no other way than through intuitions or conceptions, as such and these are given either priori or posteriori.
latter, namely, empirical conceptions, together with the
? ? ;
is
a
a
?
& it
is, it
I
h
a
if a
it is
is
?
is
a
;
is,
is
it
is
? GTOIBAL BEMAJJKfi 0* TRAWSCEWDENTAT. JESTHETTC. 39
empirical intuition on which they are founded, cannot afford any synthetical proposition, except such as is itself also empi
rical, that proposition of experience. But an empirical
proposition cannot possess the qualities of necessity and abso
lute universality, which, nevertheless, are the characteristics of
all geometrical propositions. As to the first and only means
to arrive at such cognitions, namely, through mere concep
tions or intuitions a priori, quite clear that from mere con
ceptions no synthetical cognitions, but only analytical ones, can
be obtained. Take, for example, the proposition, " Two straight
lines cannot enclose space, and with these alone no figure
possible," and try to deduce from the conception of
straight line, and the number two or take the proposition,
possible to construct figure with three straight lines," and endeavour, in like manner, to deduce from the mere conception of straight line and the number three. All your endeavours are in vain, and you find yourself forced to have recourse to intuition, as, in fact, geometry always does. You therefore give yourself an object in intuition. But of what kind this intuition Is a pure priori, or an em pirical intuition If the latter, then neither an universally valid, much less an apodeictic proposition can arise from
for experience never can give us any such proposition. You
must therefore give yourself an object a priori in intuition, and upon that ground your synthetical proposition. Now there did not exist within you faculty of intuition priori;
this subjective condition were not in respect to its form also the universal condition priori under which alone the object of this external intuition itself possible the object (that
the triangle,) were something in itself, without relation to you the subject how could you affirm that that which lies necessarily in your subjective conditions in order to construct
triangle, must also necessarily belong to the triangle in itself? For to your conceptions of three lines, you could not add any thing new (that the figure) which, therefore, must necessarily be found in the object, because the object
given before your cognition, and not by means of it. If, therefore, Space (and Time also) were not mere form off your intuition, which contains conditions priori, under which alone things can become external objects for you, and without which subjective conditions the objects are in them
? "
? ? &a
,; if
it
is a is, if
It is
is,
it
a
is it
;1
& is
it
a
is h it
if
it,
a is
is
a
is, a
?
a
&
;
? 40 TKAWSCEKDEITTAI, . ESTHETIC.
selves nothing, you could not construct any synthetical pre position whatsoever regarding external objects. It is therefore not merely possible or probable, but indubitably certain, that Space and Time, as the necessary conditions of all our external and internal experience, are merely subjective conditions of all our intuitions, iu relation to which all objects are therefore mere phsenomena, and not things in themselves, presented to us in this particular manner. And for this reason, in respect to the form of phenomena, much may be said it priori, whilst of the thing in itself, which may lie at the foundation of these phsenomena, it is impossible to say any thing.
II. In confirmation of this theory of the ideality of the external as well as internal sense, consequently of all objects of sense, as mere phsenomena, we may especially remark, that all in our cognition that belongs to intuition contains nothing more than mere relations. --The feelings of pain and pleasure, and the will, which are not cognitions, are excepted. --The re lations, to wit, of place in an intuition (extension), change of place (motion), and laws according to which this change is determined (moving forces). That, however, which is pre sent in this or that place, or any operation going on, or re sult taking place in the things themselves, with the exception of change of place, is not given to us by intuition. Now by means of mere relations, a thing cannot be known in itself; and it may therefore be fairly concluded, that, as through the external sense nothing but mere representations of relations are given us, the said external sense in its representation can contain only the relation of the object to the subject, but not ',Ue essential nature of the object as a thing in itself.
The same is the case with the internal intuition, not only, because, in the internal intuition, the representation of the external senses constitutes the material wi'h which the mind is occupied ; but because time, in which we place, and which itself antecedes the consciousness of, these representations in experience, and which, as the formal condition of the mode according to which objects are placed in the mind, lies at the foundation of them, contains relations of the successive, the co-existent, and of that which always must be co-existent with succession, the permanent. Now that which, as represent ation, can antecede every exercise of thought (of an object), is intuition ; and when it contain nothing but relations, it is the
? ? ? ? ? MSWEBAL BEMAEKS ON TBANBCEnDETTTAL . ESTHETIC. 41
form of the intuition, which, as it presents us with no icpre- sentation, except in so far as something is placed in the mind, can be nothing else than the mode in which the mind is affected by its own activity, to wit -- its presenting to itself represent ations, consequently the mode in which the mind is affected by itself ; that is, it can be nothing but an . internal sense in respect to its form. Everything that is represented through the medium of sense is so far phsenomenal ; consequently, we must either refuse altogether to admit an internal sense, or the subject, which is the object of that sense, could only be represented by it as phsenomenon, and not as it would judge of itself, if its intuition were pure spontaneous activity, that
were intellectual. The difficulty here lies wholly in the question --How the subject can have an internal intuition of itself? -- but this difficulty common to every theory. The consciousness " of self (apperception) the simple represent ation of the Ego and by means of that representation alone, all the manifold representations in the subject were
? then our internal intuition would be intellectual. This consciousness in man requires an internal perception of the manifold representations which are pre
viously given in the subject and the manner in which these
spontaneously given,
representations are given in the mind without spontaneity, must, on account of this difference (the want of spontaneity), oe called sensibility. If the faculty of self-consciousness to apprehend what lies in the mind, must affect that, and can in this way alone produce an intuition of self. But the form of this intuition, which lies in the original constitution of the mind, determines, in the representation of time, the manner in which the manifold representations are to combine themselves in the mind since the subject intuites itself, not as would represent itself immediately and spontaneously, but according to the manner in which the mind internally affected, conse quently, as appears, and not as is.
III. When we say that the intuition of external objects, and also the self-intuition of the subject, represent both, objects and subject, in space and time, as they affect our senses, that
as they appear, -- this by no means equivalent to asserting that these objects are mere illusory appearances. For when we speak of things as phsenomena, the objects, nay, even the properties which we ascribe to them, are looked upon as really
? ? is,
is,
is
;" if
it
;
it is
it
it
is
;
is
is
? 42 TRWrsCENDENTAL JESTJIKTIC.
given ; only that, in bo far as this or that property depends upon the mode of intuition of the subject, in the relation of the given object to the subject, the object as phenomenon is to be distinguished from the object as a thing in itself. Thus I do not say that bodies seem o* appear to be external to me, or that my soul seems merely to be given in my self-con sciousness, although I maintain that the properties of space and time, in conformrty to which I set both, as the condition of their existence, abide in my mode of intuition, and not in the objects in themselves. It would be my own fault, if out of that which I should reckon as phenomenon, I made mere
? But this will not happen, because of our principle of the ideality of all sensuous intuitions. On the contrary, if we ascribe objective reality to these forms of representation, it becomes impossible to avoid changing every thing into mere appearance. For if we regard space and time as properties, which must be found in objects as things in themselves, as sine quibus non of the possibility of their
existence, and reflect on the absurdities in which we then find ourselves involved, inasmuch as we are compelled to admit the existence of two infinite things, which are nevertheless not substances, nor any thing really inhering in substances, nay, to admit that they are the necessary conditions of the exist ence of all things, and moreover, that they must continue to exist, although all existing things were annihilated, -- we can not blame the good Berkeley for degrading bodies to mere illusory appearances. Nay, even our own existence, which
* The predicates of the phenomenon can he affixed to the ohject it self in relation to our sensuous faculty ; for example, the red colour or the perfume to the rose.
But (illusory) appearance never can he attributed as a predicate to an object, for this very reason, that it attributes to this object in itself that which belongs to it only in relation to our sensuous faculty, or to the subject in general, e. g. the two handles which were formerly ascribed to Saturn. That which is never to be found in the ob ject itself, but always in the relation of the uliject to the subject, and which moreover is inseparable from our representation of the object, we
denominate phenomenon. Thus the predicates of space and time are rightly attributed to objects of the senses as st'. ch, and in this there is no illusion. On the contrary, if I ascribe redness to the rose as a thing in itself, or to Saturn bis handles, or extension to all external objects, con sidered as things in themselves, without regarding the determinate relation of these objects to the subject, and without limiting my judgment to that relation, --then, and then only, arises illusion.
illusory appearance. *
? ? ? GBNEBAi MMABKS OK TBiWSCT5nDEirrAil . SSTHETIO.
would in this case depend upon the self-existent reality of
luch a mere nonentity as time, would necessarily be changed with it into mere appearance --an absurdity which no ;ne has
as yet been guilty of. -- --IV. In natural theology, where we think of an object
God which never can be an object of intuition to us, and even to himself can never be an object of sensuous intuition, we carefully avoid attributing to his intuition the conditions or
space and time --and intuition all his cognition must be, and not thought, which always includes limitation. But with what right can we do this if we make them forms of objects as things in themselves, and such moreover, as would con tinue to exist as a priori conditions of the existence of things, even though the things themselves were annihilated ? For as conditions of all existence in general, space and time must be conditions of the existence of the Supreme Being also. But if we do not thus make them objective forms of all things, there is no other way left than to make them sub jective forms of our mode of intuition --external and internal ; which is called sensuous, because it is not primitive, that is, is not such as gives in itself the existence of the object or the intuition (a mode of intuition which, so far as we can judge, can belong only to the Creator), but is dependent on the ex istence of the object, is possible, therefore, only on condition that the representative faculty of the subject is affected by the object.
It moreover, not necessary that we should limit the mode of intuition in space and time to the sensuous faculty of man. It may well be, that all finite thinking beings must neces sarily in this respect agree with man, (though as to this we cannot decide), but sensibility does not on account of this universality cease to be sensibility, for this very reason, that
deduced (intuitu* derivative), and not an original (in tuitu* originariut), consequently not an intellectual intuition; and this intuition, as such, for reasons above mentioned, seems to belong solely to the Supreme Being, but never to being dependent, quoad its existence, as well as its intuition (which its existence determines and limits relatively to given objects). This latter remark, however, must be taken only as an illus tration, and not as any proof of the truth of our testheticW theory.
43
? ? ? a
it is a
is,
? 44 TRANSCENDENTAL . ESTHETIC.
? 10. Conclusion of the Transcendental ^Esthetic.
We have now completely before us one part of the solution
of the grand general problem of transcendental philosophy,
namely, the question --llow are synthetical propositions a priori possible '. That is to say, we have shown that we are in possession of pure a priori intuitions, namely, space and time, in which we find, when in a judgment a priori we pass out
the given conception, something which is not dis coverable in that conception, but is certainly found a prion in the intuition which corresponds to the conception, and can be united synthetically with it. But thfc judgments which these pure intuitions enable us to make, never reach farther than to objects of the senses, and are valid only for objects of pos-ible experience.
beyond
? ? ? ? TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OP ELEMENTS. PART SECOND.
TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC.
INTRODUCTION.
IDEA OF A TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC.
I.
Of Logic in general.
Oub knowledge springs from two main sources in the mind, the first of which is the faculty or power of receiving repre sentations (receptivity for impressions) ; the second is the power of cognizing by means of these representations (spon taneity in the production of conceptions). Through the first an object is given to us ; through the second, it is, in relation to the representation (which is a mere determination of the mind), thought. Intuition and conceptions constitute, there fore, the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither con ceptions without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without conceptions, can afford us a cog nition. Both are either pure or empirical. They are empi rical, when sensation (which presupposes the actual presence of the object) is contained in them ; and pure, when no sen sation is mixed with the representation. Sensations we may call the matter of sensuous cognition. Pure intuition con sequently contains merely the form under which something is intuited, and pure conception only the form of the thought of an object. Only pure intuitions and pure conceptions are
possible a priori; the empirical only a posteriori.
We apply the term sensibility to the receptivity of the mind for impressions, in so far as it is in some way affected ;
and, on the other hand, we call the faculty of spontaneously
producing representations, or the spontaneity of cognition, understanding. Our nature is so constituted, that intuition with us never can be other than sensuous, that contains
? ? ? is, it
? 46 fBAKSCENDENTAL LOGIC.
only the mode in which we are affected by objects.
other hand, the faculty of thinking the object of sensuous in tuition, is the understanding. Neither of these faculties has a preference over the other. Without the sensuous faculty no object would be given to us, and without the understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are
void ; intuitions without conceptions,
necesscry for the mind to make its conceptions
sensuous to join to them the object in intuition), as to make its
(that
intuitions intelligible (that is, to bring them under concep tions). Neither of these faculties can exchange its proper function. Understanding cannot intuite, and the sensuous faculty cannot think. In no other way than from the united operation of both, can knowledge arise. But no one ought,
blind. Hence it is as
On the
? on this account, to overlook the difference of the elements contributed each we have rather great reason carefully to separate and distinguish them. We therefore distinguish the science of the laws of sensibility, that /Esthetic, from the science of the laws of the understanding, that Logic. -- Now, logic in its turn may be considered as twofold, namely, as logic of the general [universal],* or of the particular
* Logic nothing but Me science of the lawi of thought, as thought. concerns itself only with the form of thought, and takes no cognizance
of the matter --that of the infinitude of the objects to which thought
applied.
Now Kant wrong, when he divides logic into logic of the genera)
and of the particular use of the understanding.
He says the logic of the particular use of the understanding contains
the laws of right thinking upon any particular set of objects. This sort of logic he calls the organon of this or that science. It difficult to dis cover what he means by his logic of the particular use of the understand ing. From his description, we are left in doubt whether he means
this logic induction, that is, the organon of science in general, or the laws which regulate the objects, science of which he seeks to establish. -- In either case, the application of the term logic inadmissible. To regard logic as the organon of science, absurd, as indeed Kant himself afterwards shows (p. 51). It knows nothing of this or that object. The matter em ployed in syllogisms used for the sake of example only all forms of syllogisms might be expressed in signs. Logicians have never been able clearly to see this. They have never been able clearly to define the ex tent of their science, to know, in fact, what their science really treated of.
They have never seen that has to do only with the formal, and never with the material in thought. The science has broken down ils proper barriers to let in contributions from metaphysics, psychology, &c. It common enough, for example, to say that Bacon's Novum Organum entirely super
? ? is
it
is
is,
;
a is
is
by
is
is, is,
is
It
is is
by ;
is,
? 1HTBOD0CTION. -- O1 tVOfllC ts GENBRJX 47
use of the understanding. The first contains the absolutely necessary laws of thought, without which no use whatever of the understanding is possible, and gives laws therefore to the understanding, without regard to the difference of objects on which it may be employed. The logic of the particular use of the understanding contains the laws of correct think ing upon a particular class of objects. The former may be called elemental logic, --the latter, the organon of this or that particular science. The latter is for the most part employed in the schools, as a propedeutic to the sciences, although, in
deed, according to the course of human reason, it is the last thing we arrive at, when the science has been already matured, and needs only the finishing touches towards its correction and completion ; for our knowledge of the objects of our attempted science must be tolerably extensive and complete before we can indicate the laws by which a science of these
Dbjects can be established.
General logic is again either pure or applied. In the for
mer, we abstract all the empirical conditions under which the understanding is exercised ; for example, the influence of the senses, the play of the phantasy or imagination, the laws of the memory, the force of habit, of inclination, &c. , conse quently also, the sources of prejudice, --in a word, we abstract all causes from which particular cognitions arise, because these causes regard the understanding under certain circum-
seded the Organon of Aristotle. But the one states the laws under which a knowledge of objects is possible ; the other the subjective laws of thought. The spheres of the two are utterly distinct.
Kant very properly states that pure logic is alone properly science. Strictly speaking, applied logic cannot be a division of general logic. It is more correctly applied psychology ;--psychology treating in a practical manner of the conditions under which thought is employed.
? It may be noted here, that what Kant calls Transcendental Logic is properly not logic at all, but a division of metaphysics. For his Categories
contain matter--as regards thought at least. Take, for example, the cate gory of Existence. These categories, no doubt, are the forms of the matter given to us by experience. They are, according to Kant, not de rived from experience, but purely a priori. But logic is concerned ex clusively about the form of thought, and has nothing to do with this or that conception, whether a priori or a potteriori.
See Sir William Hamilton's Edition of Beid'a Works, pauim. It is to Sir William Hamilton, one of the greatest logicians, perhaps the greatest, since Aristotle, and certainly one of the acutest thinkers of any time, that the Translator is indebted for the above view of the subject of log<e. -- 3>
? ? ? 43 tRASSCENMEKTAL LOGIC.
Stances of its application, and, to the knowledge of them et<< pcrience is required. Pure general logic has to do, therefore, merely with pure & priori principles, and is a canon of un derstanding and reason, but only in respect of the formal pari of their use, be the content what it may, empirical or trans cendental. General logic is called applied, when it is directed to the laws of the use of the understanding, under the sub jective empirical conditions which psychology teaches us. It has therefore empirical principles, although, at the same time, it is in so far general, that it applies to the exercise of the understanding, without regard to the difference of objects. On this account, moreover, it is neither a canon of the un derstanding in general, nor an organon of a particular science, but merely a cathartic of the human understanding.
In general logic, therefore, that part which constitutes pure logic must be carefully distinguished from that which con stitutes applied (though still general) logic. The former alone is properly science, although short and dry, as the methodical exposition . of an elemental doctrine of the understanding ought to be. In this, therefore, logicians must always bear in mind two rules :--
1 . As general logic, it makes abstraction of all content of the cognition of the understanding, and of the difference of objects, and has to do with nothing but the mere form of thought.
2. As pnre logic, it has no empirical principles, and con sequently draws nothing (contrary to the common persuasion) from psychology, which therefore has no influence on the canon of the understanding. It is a demonstrated doctrine, and every thing in it must be certain completely & priori.
What I call applied logic (contrary to the common accep tation of this term, according to which it should contain cer tain exercises for the scholar, for which pure logic gives the rules), is a representation of the understanding, and of the rules of its necessary employment in concreto, that is to say, under the accidental conditions of the subject, which may either hinder or promote this employment, and which are *11 given only empirically. Thus applied logic treats of attention, its impediments and consequences, of the origin of error, of the state of doubt, hesitation, conviction, &c, and to it in related pure general loit'. c in the same way t! iat
? ? ? ? IBTBODTJOTIOH. -- OF TKANBCKlTDElTTAIi LOOIO. 49
pare morality, which contains only the necessary moral laws of a free will, is related to practical ethics, which considers these laws under all the impediments of feelings, inclinations, and passions to which men are more or less subjected, and which never can furnish us with a true -nd demonstrated science, because as well as applied logic, requires empirical and psychological principles.
II.
Of Transcendental Logic.
General logic, as we have seen, makes abstraction of all content of cognition, that of all relation of cognition to its object, and regards only the logical form the relation of cognitions to each other, that the form of thought in gene ral. But as we have both pure and empirical intuitions (as transcendental esthetic proves), in like manner distinction might be drawn between pure and empirical thought (of objects). In this case, there would exist kind of logic, in which we should not make abstraction of all content of cog nition for that logic which should comprise merely the laws of pure thought (of an object), would of course exclude all those cognitions which were of empirical content. This kind of logic would also examine the origin of our cognitions of ob
jects, so far as that origin cannot be ascribed to the objects themselves; while, on the contrary, general logic has nothing to do with the origin of our cognitions, but contemplates our representations, be they given primitively &-priori ourselves, or be they only of empirical' origin, solely according to the laws which the understanding observes in employing them in the process of thought, in relation to each other. Conse quently, general logic treats of the form of the understanding only, which can be applied to representations, from whatever source they may have arisen.
And here shall make remark, which the reader must bear well in mind in the course of the following consider- ations, to wit, that not every cognition priori, but only those through which wc cognize that and how certain repre sentations (intuitions, or conceptions) are applied or are possible
? only priori; that cognition and the Therefore neither
to say, the priori use of space, nor any
priori possibility of are transcendental.
priori geometrical
? ? is a
is
a
I
;
a itd
&
a
a
in
a
is, is,
in
it,
? LOGIC,
determination of space, a transcendental representation, but only the knowledge that such a representation is not of empirical origin, and the possibility of its relating to objects of experience, although itself & priori, can be called transcen dental. So also, the application of space to objects in general, would be transcendental ; but if it be limited to objects of sense, it is empirical. Thus, the distinction of the transcendental and empirical belongs only to the critique of cognitions, and does not concern the relation of these to their object.
Accordingly, in the expectation that there may perhaps be conceptions which relate & priori to objects, not as pure or sen suous intuitions, but merely as acts of pure thought, (which nre therefore conceptions, but neither of empirical nor estheti- cal origin), --in this expectation, I say, we form to ourselves, by anticipation, the idea of a science of pure understanding and rational* cognition, by means of which we may cogitate objects entirely a priori. A science of this kind, which should deter mine the origin, the extent, and the objective validity of such cognitions, must be called Transcendental Logic, because it has not, like general logic, to do with the laws of understanding and reason in relation to empirical as well as pure rational cognitions without distinction, but concerns itself with thes* only in an a priori relation to objects.
III.
Of the Division of General Logic into Analytic and Dialectic.
The old question with which people sought to push logi
cians into a corner, so that they must either have recourse to
pitiful sophisms or confess their ignorance, "and consequently the vanity of their whole art, is this, -- What is truth ? " The definition of the word truth, to wit, "the accordance of the cognition with its object," is presupposed in the ques tion ; but we desire to be told, in the answer to what the universal and secure criterion of the truth of every cognition.
To know what questions we may reasonably propose,
in itself strong evidence of sagacity and intelligence. For
50 TRAHSOENDENTAl
? be in itself absurd and unsusceptible of rational answer, attended with the danger-- not to
question
* Vernunfler/:enntniss.
confined in this translation to the rendering of Vernunft and its derira- tires,-- Tr
The words reason, rational, will always be
? ? it is
if a
a
is a in
it,
? nrmoDUCTioiT. -- of akalytio atcd dialectic. 51
mention the shame that falls upon the person who proposes it -- of seducing the unguarded listener into making absurd answers, and we are presented with the ridiculous spectacle of one (as the ancients said) " milking the he-goat, and the other holding a sieve. "
If truth consists in the accordance of a cognition with its object, this object must be, ipsofacto, distinguished from all others ; for a cognition is false if it does not accord with the object to which it relates, although it contains something which may be affirmed of other objects. Now an universal criterion of truth would be that which is valid for all cog nitions, without distinction of their objects. But it is evident that since, in the case of such a criterion, we make abstraction of all the content of a cognition (that of all relation to its object), and truth relates precisely to this content, must be utterly absurd to ask for mark of the truth of this content of cognition and that, accordingly, sufficient, and at the same time universal, test of truth cannot
? possibly be found. As we have already termed the content of cogni tion its matter, we shall say " Of the truth of our cog
nitions in respect of their matter, no universal test can be demanded, because such demand self-contradictory. "
On the other hand, with regard to our cognition in respect of its mere form (excluding all content), equally manifest that logic, in so far as exhibits the universal and necessary laws of the understanding, must in these very laws present us with criteria of truth. Whatever contradicts these rules
false, because thereby the understanding made to contra dict its own universal laws of thought that is, to contradict itself. These criteria, however, apply solely to the form of truth, that of thought in general, and in so far they are per fectly accurate, yet not sufficient. For although cognition may be perfectly accurate as to logical form, that not self- contradictory, notwithstanding quite possible that may not stand in agreement with its object. Consequently, the merely logical criterion of truth, namely, the accordance of cognition with the universal and formal laws of understanding and reason, nothing more than the conditio tine qui non, or negative condition of all truth. Farther than this logic cannot go, and the error which depends not on the form, but on the content of the cognition, has no test to discover.
? ? x 2
is, a it
a a
it
it
:a is
is
it
is,
a
is
;
is
it is
is,
is
it
a
;
? S2 TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC.
General logic, then, resolves the whole formal business oi
laws before we proceed to investigate them in respect of their content, in order to discover whether they contain positive truth in regard to their object. Because, however, the mere form of a cognition, accurately as it may accord with logical laws, is insufficient to supply us with material (objective) truth, no one, by means of logic alone, can venture to predi cate any thing of or decide concerning objects, unless he has obtained, independently of logic, well-grounded information about them, in order afterwards to examine, according to logical laws, into the use and connection, in a cohering whole,
of that information, or, what is still better, merely to test it by them. Notwithstanding, there lies so seductive a charm in the possession of a specious art like this--an art which gives to all our cognitions the form of the understanding, although with respect to the content thereof we may be sadly deficient --that general logic, which is merely a canon of judgment, has been employed as an organon for the actual production, or rather for the semblance of production of objective asser tions, and has thus been grossly misapplied. Now general logic, in its assumed character of organon, is called Dialectic.
Different as are the significations in which the ancients used this term for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual employment of that with them was nothing else than logic of illusion-- sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay, even intentional sophistries, the colour
ing of truth, in which the thoroughness of procedure which logic requires was imitated, and their topic* employed to cloak the empty pretensions. Now may be taken as safe and useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon,
The Topic (Topics) of the ancients was division of the intellectual instruction then prevalent, with the design of setting forth the proper method of reasoning on any given proposition --according to certain dis tinctions of the genus, the species, &c. of the subject and predicate words, analogies, and the . Ike. of course contained also code of laws iur svllogistical disputation. was nol necessarily an aid to sophistry -- 7V.
and reason into its elements, and exhibit*
nnderstanding
them as principles of all logical judging of our cognitions. This part of logic may, therefore, be called Analytic, and is at least the negative test of truth, because all cognitions must first of all be estimated and tried according to these
? ? ? It
It
a
a
; of
a
it, a
*
it
a
it
? IWTHODTTCTIOH.
? things.
? ? a
;
It is
It is
is,
it,
is
is
;
is,
is
is,
i
in
if
a it
is
is
is
is,
is
by
? 82 TRANSCENDENTAL . ESTHETIC.
as belong to objects as things in themselves, never can be presented to us through the medium of the senses. Herein consists, therefore, the transcendental ideality of time, according to which, if we abstract the subjective conditions of sensuous intuition, it is nothing, and cannot be reckoned as subsisting or inhering in objects as things in themselves, independently of its relation to our intuition. This ideality, like that of space, is not to be proved or illustrated by fallacious analogies with sensations, for this reason, --that in such arguments or illustrations,we make the presupposition that the phenomenon, in which such and such predicates inhere, has objective reality, while in this case we can only find such an objective reality as is itself empirical, that is, regards the object as a mere phenomenon. In reference to this subject, see the remark in Section I. (p. 27).
? 8. Elueidation.
Against this theory, which grants empirical reality to time, but denies to it absolute and transcendental reality, I have hear:! from intelligent men an objection so unanimously urged, that I conclude that it must naturally present itself to every reader to whom these considerations are novel. It runs thus : " Changes are real ;" (this the continual change in our own representations demonstrates, even though the existence of ail external phsenomeua, together with their changes, is denied). Now, changes are only possible in time, and therefore time must be something real. But there is no difficulty in answer ing this. I grant the whole argument. Time, no doubt, is something real, that the real form of our internal intuition. therefore has subjective reality, in reference to our internal experience, that have really the representation of time, and of my determinations therein. Time, therefore,
not to be regarded as an object, but as the mode of repre sentation of myself as an object. But could intuite my self, or be intuited another being, without this condition of sensibility, then those very determinations which we now represent to ourselves as changes, would present to us knowledge in which the representation of time, and conse quently of change, would not appear. The empirical realit'y of time, therefore, remains, as the condition of all our expe rience. But absolute realify, accorJing tn what has bven
? ? ? a
by
if I
is
is, I
is, it is
It
? 01 SfACZ AHD TIME. --ELTCIDATOBT. REMARK8. 83
(aid above, cannot be granted it. Time is nothing but the form of our internal intuition. * If we take away from it the special condition of our sensibility, the conception of tira also vanishes ; and it inheres not in the objects themselves, but solely in the subject (or mind) which intuites them.
But the reason why this objection is so unanimously brought against our doctrine of time, and that too by disputants who cannot start any intelligible arguments against the doc trine of the ideality of space, is this, --they have no hope of demonstrating apodeictically the absolute reality of space, be cause the doctrine of idealism is against them, according to which the reality of external objects is not capable of any strict proof. On the other hand, the reality of the object of our internal sense (that is, myself and my internal state) is clear immediately through consciousness. The former --exter nal objects in space -- might be a mere delusion, but the latter -- the object of my internal perception -- is undeniably real. They do not, however, reflect that both, without question of their reality as representations, belong only to the genus phe- nomeuon, which has always two aspects, the one, the object considered as a thing in itself, without regard to the mode of intuiting and the nature of which remains for this very reason problematical, the other, the form of our intui tion of the object, which must be sought not in the object as thing itself, but the subject to which appears, -- which form of intuition nevertheless belongs really and neces
sarily to the phenomenal object.
Time and space are, therefore, two sources of knowledge,
from which, priori, various synthetical cognitions can be drawn. --Of this we find striking example in the cognitions of space and its relations, which form the foundation of pure ma thematics. --They are the two pure forms of all intuition, and thereby make synthetical propositions a priori possible. But these sources of knowledge being merely conditions of our sensibility, do therefore, and as such, strictly determine their own range and purpose, in that they do not and cannot present
can indeed >ay " my representations follow one aoother, or an successive" but this means only that we are conscious of tbrm as in succession, that is, according to the form of the internal sense. Time, therefore, not thing in itself, nor any objective determination nertaining to, or inherent things.
D
? ? ? in
I* is
a
a
in h
it,
is it
;
a
a
in
it
? 34 TRANSCENDENTAL JESTHETIC.
objects as things in themselves, but are applicable to them solely in so far as they are considered as sensuous pheno mena. The sphere of phenomena is the only sphere of their validity, and if we venture out of this, no further objective use can be made of them. For the rest, this formal reality of time and space leaves the validity of our empirical know ledge unshaken ; for our certainty in that respect is equally firm, whether these forms necessarily inhere in the things themselves, or only in our intuitions of them. On the other hand, those who maintain the absolute reality of time and space, whether as essentially subsisting, or only inhering, as modifications, in things, must find themselves at utter variance with the principles of experience itself. For, if they decide for the first view, and make space and time into substances, this being the side taken by mathematical natural philosophers, they must admit two self-subsisting nonentities, infinite and eternal, which exist (yet without there being any thing real) for the purpose of containing in themselves every thing that is real. If they adopt the second view of inherence, which is preferred by some metaphysical natural philosophers, and regard space and time as relations (contiguity in space or suc cession in time), abstracted from experience,
? though repre sented confusedly in this state of separation, they find them selves in that case necessitated to deny the validity of mathe
matical doctrines &, priori in reference to real things (for example, in space), --at all events their apodeictic cer tainty. For such certainty cannot be found in an it posteriori proposition ; and the conceptions ct priori of space and time are, according to this opinion, mere creations of the ima gination,* having their source really in experience, inasmuch as, out of relations abstracted from experience, imagination has made up something which contains, indeed, general statements of these relations, yet of which no application can be made without the restrictions attached thereto by nature. 'The former of these parties gains this advantage, that they keep the sphere of phenomena free for mathematical science. On the other hand, these very conditions (space and time) embarrass them greatly, when the understanding endeavours
? This word is hpre uNd, and will be hereafter always used, in its prraii. live tense. That meaning of it which denotes a poetical inventive piner, n S licondary one. -- Tr.
? ? ? GENERAL HEMARK8 OW TRAKSCElTDEFTAt . SSTHXTIC. 35
to pass the limits of that sphere. The latter has, indeed, this advantage, that the representations of space and time
do not come in their way when they wish to judge of ob jects, not as phenomena, bat merely in their relation to the understanding. Devoid, however, of a true and objectively valid & priori intuition, they can neither furnish any basis for the possibility of mathematical cognitions a priori, nor bring the propositions of experience into necessary accordance with those of mathematics. In our theory of the true nature of these two original forms of the sensibility, both difficulties are
sur mounted.
In conclusion, that transcendental ^Esthetic cannot con
tain any more than these two elements --space and time, is sufficiently obvious from the fact that all other con ceptions appertaining to sensibility, even that of motion, which unites in itself both elements, presuppose something empirical. Motion, for example, presupposes the perception of something moveable. Hut space considered in itself contains nothing moveable, consequently motion must be something which is found in space only through experience, -- in other words, is an empirical datum. In like manner, tran scendental yEsthetic cannot number the conception of change among its data A priori; for time itself does not change, but only something which is in time. To acquire the conception of change, therefore, the perception of some existing object and of the succession of its determinations, in one word, experience, is necessary.
? 9. -- General Remarks on Transcendental JEsthetic.
I. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, it will be requisite, in the first place, to recapitulate, as clearly as pos sible, what oar opinion is with respect to the fundamental nature of our sensuous cognition in general. We have in tended, then, to say, that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of phsenomena; that the thingswhich we intuite, are not in themselves the same as our representations of them in intuition, nor are their relations in themselves so constituted as they appear to us ; and that if we take away the subject, or . even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear ; and
? ? ? ? 30 TRAlrSOESDElrtAL -SSTHMlC .
that these, as phsenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may he the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our own mode of perceiving \hem, which is peculiar to us, and which, though not of necessity pertaining to every animated being, is so to the whole human race. With this alone we have to do. Space and time are the pure forms thereof ; sensation the matter. The former alone can we cog nize h priori, that antecedent to all actual perception and for this reason such cognition called pure intuition. The latter that in our cognition which called cognition a pos
teriori, that empirical intuition. The former appertain ab solutely and necessarily to our sensibility, of whatsoever kind our sensations may be the latter may be of very diversified character. Supposing that we should carry our empirical intuition even Co the very highest degree of clearness, we should not thereby advance one step nearer to knowledge of the constitution of objects as things in themselves. For we could only, at best, arrive at complete cognition of our own mode of intuition, that of our sensibility, and this always
under the conditions originally attaching to the subject, namely, the conditions of space and time --while the ques tion -- " What are objects considered as things in them selves? " remains unanswerable even after the most thorough examination of the phenomenal world.
To say, then, that all our sensibility nothing but the con
fused representation of things containing exclusively that which belongs to them as things themselves, and this undn an accumulation of characteristic marks and partial representa tions which we cannot distinguish in consciousness, falsifi cation of the conception of sensibility and phenomcuization, which renders our whole doctrine thereof empty and useless. The difference between confused and clear representation merely logical and has nothing to do with content. No doubt the conception of right, as employed by sound understand ing, contains all that the most subtle investigation could unfold from although, in the ordinary practical use of the word, we arc not conscious of the manifold representations com
? the conception. But we cannot for this reason assert that the ordinary concretion sensuous one con
prised
? ? is a
a a
is
it, in
is
a; is,
is
is a
;
in
is
is
;
a
a
is,
is,
? SKVnit! BEVA. RK9 OTt THAKSCBITDraTAl . SSTH1TT0. 37
taiuing a mere phenomenon, for right cannot appear as a phenomenon ; but the conception of it lies in the understand ing, and represents a property (the moral property) of actions, which belongs to them in themselves. On the other hand, the re-presentation in intuition of a body contains nothing which could belong to an object considered as a thing in itself, but merely the phenomenon or appearance of something, and the mode in which we are affected by that appearance ; and this receptivity of our faculty of cognition is called sensibility, and remains toto ecelo different from the cognition of an ob ject in itself, even though we should examine the content of the phenomenon to the very bottom.
It must be admitted that the Leibniti-Wolfian
has assigned an entirely erroneous point of view to all investi gations into the nature and origin of our cognitions, inasmuch as it regards the distinction between the sensuous and the in tellectual as merely logical, whereas it is plainly transcenden tal, and concerns not merely the clearness or obscurity, but the content and origin of both. For the faculty of sensibility not only does not present us with an indistinct and confused cognition of objects as things in themselves, but, in fact, gives us no knowledge of these at all. On the contrary, so soon as we abstract in thought our own subjective nature, the object represented, with the properties ascribed to it by sensuous in tuition, entirely disappears, because it was only this subjective nature that determined the form of the object as a pheno menon.
In phenomena, we commonly, indeed, distinguish that which essentially belongs to the intuition of them, and is valid for the sensuous faculty of every human being, from that which belongs to the same intuition accidentally, as valid not for the sensuous faculty in general, but for a particular state or organ ization of this or that sense. Accordingly, we are accus tomed to say that the former is a cognition which represents the object itself, whilst the latter presents only a particular appearance or phsenomenon thereof. This distinction, how ever, is only empirical. If we stop here (as is usual), and do not regard the empirical intuition as itself a mere phenomenon (as we ought to do), in which nothing that can appertain to a thing in itself is to be found, our transcendental distinction is lost, and we believe that wc cognize objects as things in thcro
? philosophy
? ? ? 38 TRANSCENDENTAL JDSTHKTIC.
? elves, although in the whole range of the sensuous world,
investigate the nature of its objects as profoundly as we may, we have to do with nothing but phenomena. Thus, we call
the rainbow a mere appearance or phenomenon in a sunny shower, and the rain, the reality or thing in itself ; and this is right enough, if we understand the latter conception in a merely physical sense, that as that which in universal ex perience, and under whatever conditions of sensuous percep tion, known in intuition to be so and so determined, and not otherwise. But we consider this empirical datum gene rally, and enquire, without reference to its accordance with all our senses, whether there can be discovered in aught which represents an object as thing in itself (the raindrops of course are not such, for they are, as phenomena, empirical objects), the question of the relation of the representation to the object transcendental and not only are the raindrops mere phsenomena, but even their circular form, nay, the space itself through which they fall, nothing in itself, but both are mere modifications or fundamental dispositions of our sensuous intuition, whilst the transcendental object remains
for us utterly unknown.
The second important concern of our /Esthetic that
do not obtain favour merely as plausible hypothesis, but possess as undoubted character of certainty as can be de manded of any theory which to serve for an organon. In order fully to convince the reader of this certainty, we shall select a case which will serve to make its validity apparent, and also to illustrate what has been said in 3.
Suppose, then, that Space and Time are in themselves ob jective, and conditions of the possibility of objects as things in themselves. In the first place, evident that both present us with very many apodeictic and synthetic propositions priori, but especially space, -- and for this reason we shall prefer for
? investigation at present. As the propositions of geometry arc cognized synthetically priori, and with apodeictic certainty,
enquire, --whence do you obtain propositions of this kind, and on what basis does the understanding rest, in order to arrive it such absolutely necessary and universally valid truths
There no other way than through intuitions or conceptions, as such and these are given either priori or posteriori.
latter, namely, empirical conceptions, together with the
? ? ;
is
a
a
?
& it
is, it
I
h
a
if a
it is
is
?
is
a
;
is,
is
it
is
? GTOIBAL BEMAJJKfi 0* TRAWSCEWDENTAT. JESTHETTC. 39
empirical intuition on which they are founded, cannot afford any synthetical proposition, except such as is itself also empi
rical, that proposition of experience. But an empirical
proposition cannot possess the qualities of necessity and abso
lute universality, which, nevertheless, are the characteristics of
all geometrical propositions. As to the first and only means
to arrive at such cognitions, namely, through mere concep
tions or intuitions a priori, quite clear that from mere con
ceptions no synthetical cognitions, but only analytical ones, can
be obtained. Take, for example, the proposition, " Two straight
lines cannot enclose space, and with these alone no figure
possible," and try to deduce from the conception of
straight line, and the number two or take the proposition,
possible to construct figure with three straight lines," and endeavour, in like manner, to deduce from the mere conception of straight line and the number three. All your endeavours are in vain, and you find yourself forced to have recourse to intuition, as, in fact, geometry always does. You therefore give yourself an object in intuition. But of what kind this intuition Is a pure priori, or an em pirical intuition If the latter, then neither an universally valid, much less an apodeictic proposition can arise from
for experience never can give us any such proposition. You
must therefore give yourself an object a priori in intuition, and upon that ground your synthetical proposition. Now there did not exist within you faculty of intuition priori;
this subjective condition were not in respect to its form also the universal condition priori under which alone the object of this external intuition itself possible the object (that
the triangle,) were something in itself, without relation to you the subject how could you affirm that that which lies necessarily in your subjective conditions in order to construct
triangle, must also necessarily belong to the triangle in itself? For to your conceptions of three lines, you could not add any thing new (that the figure) which, therefore, must necessarily be found in the object, because the object
given before your cognition, and not by means of it. If, therefore, Space (and Time also) were not mere form off your intuition, which contains conditions priori, under which alone things can become external objects for you, and without which subjective conditions the objects are in them
? "
? ? &a
,; if
it
is a is, if
It is
is,
it
a
is it
;1
& is
it
a
is h it
if
it,
a is
is
a
is, a
?
a
&
;
? 40 TKAWSCEKDEITTAI, . ESTHETIC.
selves nothing, you could not construct any synthetical pre position whatsoever regarding external objects. It is therefore not merely possible or probable, but indubitably certain, that Space and Time, as the necessary conditions of all our external and internal experience, are merely subjective conditions of all our intuitions, iu relation to which all objects are therefore mere phsenomena, and not things in themselves, presented to us in this particular manner. And for this reason, in respect to the form of phenomena, much may be said it priori, whilst of the thing in itself, which may lie at the foundation of these phsenomena, it is impossible to say any thing.
II. In confirmation of this theory of the ideality of the external as well as internal sense, consequently of all objects of sense, as mere phsenomena, we may especially remark, that all in our cognition that belongs to intuition contains nothing more than mere relations. --The feelings of pain and pleasure, and the will, which are not cognitions, are excepted. --The re lations, to wit, of place in an intuition (extension), change of place (motion), and laws according to which this change is determined (moving forces). That, however, which is pre sent in this or that place, or any operation going on, or re sult taking place in the things themselves, with the exception of change of place, is not given to us by intuition. Now by means of mere relations, a thing cannot be known in itself; and it may therefore be fairly concluded, that, as through the external sense nothing but mere representations of relations are given us, the said external sense in its representation can contain only the relation of the object to the subject, but not ',Ue essential nature of the object as a thing in itself.
The same is the case with the internal intuition, not only, because, in the internal intuition, the representation of the external senses constitutes the material wi'h which the mind is occupied ; but because time, in which we place, and which itself antecedes the consciousness of, these representations in experience, and which, as the formal condition of the mode according to which objects are placed in the mind, lies at the foundation of them, contains relations of the successive, the co-existent, and of that which always must be co-existent with succession, the permanent. Now that which, as represent ation, can antecede every exercise of thought (of an object), is intuition ; and when it contain nothing but relations, it is the
? ? ? ? ? MSWEBAL BEMAEKS ON TBANBCEnDETTTAL . ESTHETIC. 41
form of the intuition, which, as it presents us with no icpre- sentation, except in so far as something is placed in the mind, can be nothing else than the mode in which the mind is affected by its own activity, to wit -- its presenting to itself represent ations, consequently the mode in which the mind is affected by itself ; that is, it can be nothing but an . internal sense in respect to its form. Everything that is represented through the medium of sense is so far phsenomenal ; consequently, we must either refuse altogether to admit an internal sense, or the subject, which is the object of that sense, could only be represented by it as phsenomenon, and not as it would judge of itself, if its intuition were pure spontaneous activity, that
were intellectual. The difficulty here lies wholly in the question --How the subject can have an internal intuition of itself? -- but this difficulty common to every theory. The consciousness " of self (apperception) the simple represent ation of the Ego and by means of that representation alone, all the manifold representations in the subject were
? then our internal intuition would be intellectual. This consciousness in man requires an internal perception of the manifold representations which are pre
viously given in the subject and the manner in which these
spontaneously given,
representations are given in the mind without spontaneity, must, on account of this difference (the want of spontaneity), oe called sensibility. If the faculty of self-consciousness to apprehend what lies in the mind, must affect that, and can in this way alone produce an intuition of self. But the form of this intuition, which lies in the original constitution of the mind, determines, in the representation of time, the manner in which the manifold representations are to combine themselves in the mind since the subject intuites itself, not as would represent itself immediately and spontaneously, but according to the manner in which the mind internally affected, conse quently, as appears, and not as is.
III. When we say that the intuition of external objects, and also the self-intuition of the subject, represent both, objects and subject, in space and time, as they affect our senses, that
as they appear, -- this by no means equivalent to asserting that these objects are mere illusory appearances. For when we speak of things as phsenomena, the objects, nay, even the properties which we ascribe to them, are looked upon as really
? ? is,
is,
is
;" if
it
;
it is
it
it
is
;
is
is
? 42 TRWrsCENDENTAL JESTJIKTIC.
given ; only that, in bo far as this or that property depends upon the mode of intuition of the subject, in the relation of the given object to the subject, the object as phenomenon is to be distinguished from the object as a thing in itself. Thus I do not say that bodies seem o* appear to be external to me, or that my soul seems merely to be given in my self-con sciousness, although I maintain that the properties of space and time, in conformrty to which I set both, as the condition of their existence, abide in my mode of intuition, and not in the objects in themselves. It would be my own fault, if out of that which I should reckon as phenomenon, I made mere
? But this will not happen, because of our principle of the ideality of all sensuous intuitions. On the contrary, if we ascribe objective reality to these forms of representation, it becomes impossible to avoid changing every thing into mere appearance. For if we regard space and time as properties, which must be found in objects as things in themselves, as sine quibus non of the possibility of their
existence, and reflect on the absurdities in which we then find ourselves involved, inasmuch as we are compelled to admit the existence of two infinite things, which are nevertheless not substances, nor any thing really inhering in substances, nay, to admit that they are the necessary conditions of the exist ence of all things, and moreover, that they must continue to exist, although all existing things were annihilated, -- we can not blame the good Berkeley for degrading bodies to mere illusory appearances. Nay, even our own existence, which
* The predicates of the phenomenon can he affixed to the ohject it self in relation to our sensuous faculty ; for example, the red colour or the perfume to the rose.
But (illusory) appearance never can he attributed as a predicate to an object, for this very reason, that it attributes to this object in itself that which belongs to it only in relation to our sensuous faculty, or to the subject in general, e. g. the two handles which were formerly ascribed to Saturn. That which is never to be found in the ob ject itself, but always in the relation of the uliject to the subject, and which moreover is inseparable from our representation of the object, we
denominate phenomenon. Thus the predicates of space and time are rightly attributed to objects of the senses as st'. ch, and in this there is no illusion. On the contrary, if I ascribe redness to the rose as a thing in itself, or to Saturn bis handles, or extension to all external objects, con sidered as things in themselves, without regarding the determinate relation of these objects to the subject, and without limiting my judgment to that relation, --then, and then only, arises illusion.
illusory appearance. *
? ? ? GBNEBAi MMABKS OK TBiWSCT5nDEirrAil . SSTHETIO.
would in this case depend upon the self-existent reality of
luch a mere nonentity as time, would necessarily be changed with it into mere appearance --an absurdity which no ;ne has
as yet been guilty of. -- --IV. In natural theology, where we think of an object
God which never can be an object of intuition to us, and even to himself can never be an object of sensuous intuition, we carefully avoid attributing to his intuition the conditions or
space and time --and intuition all his cognition must be, and not thought, which always includes limitation. But with what right can we do this if we make them forms of objects as things in themselves, and such moreover, as would con tinue to exist as a priori conditions of the existence of things, even though the things themselves were annihilated ? For as conditions of all existence in general, space and time must be conditions of the existence of the Supreme Being also. But if we do not thus make them objective forms of all things, there is no other way left than to make them sub jective forms of our mode of intuition --external and internal ; which is called sensuous, because it is not primitive, that is, is not such as gives in itself the existence of the object or the intuition (a mode of intuition which, so far as we can judge, can belong only to the Creator), but is dependent on the ex istence of the object, is possible, therefore, only on condition that the representative faculty of the subject is affected by the object.
It moreover, not necessary that we should limit the mode of intuition in space and time to the sensuous faculty of man. It may well be, that all finite thinking beings must neces sarily in this respect agree with man, (though as to this we cannot decide), but sensibility does not on account of this universality cease to be sensibility, for this very reason, that
deduced (intuitu* derivative), and not an original (in tuitu* originariut), consequently not an intellectual intuition; and this intuition, as such, for reasons above mentioned, seems to belong solely to the Supreme Being, but never to being dependent, quoad its existence, as well as its intuition (which its existence determines and limits relatively to given objects). This latter remark, however, must be taken only as an illus tration, and not as any proof of the truth of our testheticW theory.
43
? ? ? a
it is a
is,
? 44 TRANSCENDENTAL . ESTHETIC.
? 10. Conclusion of the Transcendental ^Esthetic.
We have now completely before us one part of the solution
of the grand general problem of transcendental philosophy,
namely, the question --llow are synthetical propositions a priori possible '. That is to say, we have shown that we are in possession of pure a priori intuitions, namely, space and time, in which we find, when in a judgment a priori we pass out
the given conception, something which is not dis coverable in that conception, but is certainly found a prion in the intuition which corresponds to the conception, and can be united synthetically with it. But thfc judgments which these pure intuitions enable us to make, never reach farther than to objects of the senses, and are valid only for objects of pos-ible experience.
beyond
? ? ? ? TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OP ELEMENTS. PART SECOND.
TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC.
INTRODUCTION.
IDEA OF A TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC.
I.
Of Logic in general.
Oub knowledge springs from two main sources in the mind, the first of which is the faculty or power of receiving repre sentations (receptivity for impressions) ; the second is the power of cognizing by means of these representations (spon taneity in the production of conceptions). Through the first an object is given to us ; through the second, it is, in relation to the representation (which is a mere determination of the mind), thought. Intuition and conceptions constitute, there fore, the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither con ceptions without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without conceptions, can afford us a cog nition. Both are either pure or empirical. They are empi rical, when sensation (which presupposes the actual presence of the object) is contained in them ; and pure, when no sen sation is mixed with the representation. Sensations we may call the matter of sensuous cognition. Pure intuition con sequently contains merely the form under which something is intuited, and pure conception only the form of the thought of an object. Only pure intuitions and pure conceptions are
possible a priori; the empirical only a posteriori.
We apply the term sensibility to the receptivity of the mind for impressions, in so far as it is in some way affected ;
and, on the other hand, we call the faculty of spontaneously
producing representations, or the spontaneity of cognition, understanding. Our nature is so constituted, that intuition with us never can be other than sensuous, that contains
? ? ? is, it
? 46 fBAKSCENDENTAL LOGIC.
only the mode in which we are affected by objects.
other hand, the faculty of thinking the object of sensuous in tuition, is the understanding. Neither of these faculties has a preference over the other. Without the sensuous faculty no object would be given to us, and without the understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are
void ; intuitions without conceptions,
necesscry for the mind to make its conceptions
sensuous to join to them the object in intuition), as to make its
(that
intuitions intelligible (that is, to bring them under concep tions). Neither of these faculties can exchange its proper function. Understanding cannot intuite, and the sensuous faculty cannot think. In no other way than from the united operation of both, can knowledge arise. But no one ought,
blind. Hence it is as
On the
? on this account, to overlook the difference of the elements contributed each we have rather great reason carefully to separate and distinguish them. We therefore distinguish the science of the laws of sensibility, that /Esthetic, from the science of the laws of the understanding, that Logic. -- Now, logic in its turn may be considered as twofold, namely, as logic of the general [universal],* or of the particular
* Logic nothing but Me science of the lawi of thought, as thought. concerns itself only with the form of thought, and takes no cognizance
of the matter --that of the infinitude of the objects to which thought
applied.
Now Kant wrong, when he divides logic into logic of the genera)
and of the particular use of the understanding.
He says the logic of the particular use of the understanding contains
the laws of right thinking upon any particular set of objects. This sort of logic he calls the organon of this or that science. It difficult to dis cover what he means by his logic of the particular use of the understand ing. From his description, we are left in doubt whether he means
this logic induction, that is, the organon of science in general, or the laws which regulate the objects, science of which he seeks to establish. -- In either case, the application of the term logic inadmissible. To regard logic as the organon of science, absurd, as indeed Kant himself afterwards shows (p. 51). It knows nothing of this or that object. The matter em ployed in syllogisms used for the sake of example only all forms of syllogisms might be expressed in signs. Logicians have never been able clearly to see this. They have never been able clearly to define the ex tent of their science, to know, in fact, what their science really treated of.
They have never seen that has to do only with the formal, and never with the material in thought. The science has broken down ils proper barriers to let in contributions from metaphysics, psychology, &c. It common enough, for example, to say that Bacon's Novum Organum entirely super
? ? is
it
is
is,
;
a is
is
by
is
is, is,
is
It
is is
by ;
is,
? 1HTBOD0CTION. -- O1 tVOfllC ts GENBRJX 47
use of the understanding. The first contains the absolutely necessary laws of thought, without which no use whatever of the understanding is possible, and gives laws therefore to the understanding, without regard to the difference of objects on which it may be employed. The logic of the particular use of the understanding contains the laws of correct think ing upon a particular class of objects. The former may be called elemental logic, --the latter, the organon of this or that particular science. The latter is for the most part employed in the schools, as a propedeutic to the sciences, although, in
deed, according to the course of human reason, it is the last thing we arrive at, when the science has been already matured, and needs only the finishing touches towards its correction and completion ; for our knowledge of the objects of our attempted science must be tolerably extensive and complete before we can indicate the laws by which a science of these
Dbjects can be established.
General logic is again either pure or applied. In the for
mer, we abstract all the empirical conditions under which the understanding is exercised ; for example, the influence of the senses, the play of the phantasy or imagination, the laws of the memory, the force of habit, of inclination, &c. , conse quently also, the sources of prejudice, --in a word, we abstract all causes from which particular cognitions arise, because these causes regard the understanding under certain circum-
seded the Organon of Aristotle. But the one states the laws under which a knowledge of objects is possible ; the other the subjective laws of thought. The spheres of the two are utterly distinct.
Kant very properly states that pure logic is alone properly science. Strictly speaking, applied logic cannot be a division of general logic. It is more correctly applied psychology ;--psychology treating in a practical manner of the conditions under which thought is employed.
? It may be noted here, that what Kant calls Transcendental Logic is properly not logic at all, but a division of metaphysics. For his Categories
contain matter--as regards thought at least. Take, for example, the cate gory of Existence. These categories, no doubt, are the forms of the matter given to us by experience. They are, according to Kant, not de rived from experience, but purely a priori. But logic is concerned ex clusively about the form of thought, and has nothing to do with this or that conception, whether a priori or a potteriori.
See Sir William Hamilton's Edition of Beid'a Works, pauim. It is to Sir William Hamilton, one of the greatest logicians, perhaps the greatest, since Aristotle, and certainly one of the acutest thinkers of any time, that the Translator is indebted for the above view of the subject of log<e. -- 3>
? ? ? 43 tRASSCENMEKTAL LOGIC.
Stances of its application, and, to the knowledge of them et<< pcrience is required. Pure general logic has to do, therefore, merely with pure & priori principles, and is a canon of un derstanding and reason, but only in respect of the formal pari of their use, be the content what it may, empirical or trans cendental. General logic is called applied, when it is directed to the laws of the use of the understanding, under the sub jective empirical conditions which psychology teaches us. It has therefore empirical principles, although, at the same time, it is in so far general, that it applies to the exercise of the understanding, without regard to the difference of objects. On this account, moreover, it is neither a canon of the un derstanding in general, nor an organon of a particular science, but merely a cathartic of the human understanding.
In general logic, therefore, that part which constitutes pure logic must be carefully distinguished from that which con stitutes applied (though still general) logic. The former alone is properly science, although short and dry, as the methodical exposition . of an elemental doctrine of the understanding ought to be. In this, therefore, logicians must always bear in mind two rules :--
1 . As general logic, it makes abstraction of all content of the cognition of the understanding, and of the difference of objects, and has to do with nothing but the mere form of thought.
2. As pnre logic, it has no empirical principles, and con sequently draws nothing (contrary to the common persuasion) from psychology, which therefore has no influence on the canon of the understanding. It is a demonstrated doctrine, and every thing in it must be certain completely & priori.
What I call applied logic (contrary to the common accep tation of this term, according to which it should contain cer tain exercises for the scholar, for which pure logic gives the rules), is a representation of the understanding, and of the rules of its necessary employment in concreto, that is to say, under the accidental conditions of the subject, which may either hinder or promote this employment, and which are *11 given only empirically. Thus applied logic treats of attention, its impediments and consequences, of the origin of error, of the state of doubt, hesitation, conviction, &c, and to it in related pure general loit'. c in the same way t! iat
? ? ? ? IBTBODTJOTIOH. -- OF TKANBCKlTDElTTAIi LOOIO. 49
pare morality, which contains only the necessary moral laws of a free will, is related to practical ethics, which considers these laws under all the impediments of feelings, inclinations, and passions to which men are more or less subjected, and which never can furnish us with a true -nd demonstrated science, because as well as applied logic, requires empirical and psychological principles.
II.
Of Transcendental Logic.
General logic, as we have seen, makes abstraction of all content of cognition, that of all relation of cognition to its object, and regards only the logical form the relation of cognitions to each other, that the form of thought in gene ral. But as we have both pure and empirical intuitions (as transcendental esthetic proves), in like manner distinction might be drawn between pure and empirical thought (of objects). In this case, there would exist kind of logic, in which we should not make abstraction of all content of cog nition for that logic which should comprise merely the laws of pure thought (of an object), would of course exclude all those cognitions which were of empirical content. This kind of logic would also examine the origin of our cognitions of ob
jects, so far as that origin cannot be ascribed to the objects themselves; while, on the contrary, general logic has nothing to do with the origin of our cognitions, but contemplates our representations, be they given primitively &-priori ourselves, or be they only of empirical' origin, solely according to the laws which the understanding observes in employing them in the process of thought, in relation to each other. Conse quently, general logic treats of the form of the understanding only, which can be applied to representations, from whatever source they may have arisen.
And here shall make remark, which the reader must bear well in mind in the course of the following consider- ations, to wit, that not every cognition priori, but only those through which wc cognize that and how certain repre sentations (intuitions, or conceptions) are applied or are possible
? only priori; that cognition and the Therefore neither
to say, the priori use of space, nor any
priori possibility of are transcendental.
priori geometrical
? ? is a
is
a
I
;
a itd
&
a
a
in
a
is, is,
in
it,
? LOGIC,
determination of space, a transcendental representation, but only the knowledge that such a representation is not of empirical origin, and the possibility of its relating to objects of experience, although itself & priori, can be called transcen dental. So also, the application of space to objects in general, would be transcendental ; but if it be limited to objects of sense, it is empirical. Thus, the distinction of the transcendental and empirical belongs only to the critique of cognitions, and does not concern the relation of these to their object.
Accordingly, in the expectation that there may perhaps be conceptions which relate & priori to objects, not as pure or sen suous intuitions, but merely as acts of pure thought, (which nre therefore conceptions, but neither of empirical nor estheti- cal origin), --in this expectation, I say, we form to ourselves, by anticipation, the idea of a science of pure understanding and rational* cognition, by means of which we may cogitate objects entirely a priori. A science of this kind, which should deter mine the origin, the extent, and the objective validity of such cognitions, must be called Transcendental Logic, because it has not, like general logic, to do with the laws of understanding and reason in relation to empirical as well as pure rational cognitions without distinction, but concerns itself with thes* only in an a priori relation to objects.
III.
Of the Division of General Logic into Analytic and Dialectic.
The old question with which people sought to push logi
cians into a corner, so that they must either have recourse to
pitiful sophisms or confess their ignorance, "and consequently the vanity of their whole art, is this, -- What is truth ? " The definition of the word truth, to wit, "the accordance of the cognition with its object," is presupposed in the ques tion ; but we desire to be told, in the answer to what the universal and secure criterion of the truth of every cognition.
To know what questions we may reasonably propose,
in itself strong evidence of sagacity and intelligence. For
50 TRAHSOENDENTAl
? be in itself absurd and unsusceptible of rational answer, attended with the danger-- not to
question
* Vernunfler/:enntniss.
confined in this translation to the rendering of Vernunft and its derira- tires,-- Tr
The words reason, rational, will always be
? ? it is
if a
a
is a in
it,
? nrmoDUCTioiT. -- of akalytio atcd dialectic. 51
mention the shame that falls upon the person who proposes it -- of seducing the unguarded listener into making absurd answers, and we are presented with the ridiculous spectacle of one (as the ancients said) " milking the he-goat, and the other holding a sieve. "
If truth consists in the accordance of a cognition with its object, this object must be, ipsofacto, distinguished from all others ; for a cognition is false if it does not accord with the object to which it relates, although it contains something which may be affirmed of other objects. Now an universal criterion of truth would be that which is valid for all cog nitions, without distinction of their objects. But it is evident that since, in the case of such a criterion, we make abstraction of all the content of a cognition (that of all relation to its object), and truth relates precisely to this content, must be utterly absurd to ask for mark of the truth of this content of cognition and that, accordingly, sufficient, and at the same time universal, test of truth cannot
? possibly be found. As we have already termed the content of cogni tion its matter, we shall say " Of the truth of our cog
nitions in respect of their matter, no universal test can be demanded, because such demand self-contradictory. "
On the other hand, with regard to our cognition in respect of its mere form (excluding all content), equally manifest that logic, in so far as exhibits the universal and necessary laws of the understanding, must in these very laws present us with criteria of truth. Whatever contradicts these rules
false, because thereby the understanding made to contra dict its own universal laws of thought that is, to contradict itself. These criteria, however, apply solely to the form of truth, that of thought in general, and in so far they are per fectly accurate, yet not sufficient. For although cognition may be perfectly accurate as to logical form, that not self- contradictory, notwithstanding quite possible that may not stand in agreement with its object. Consequently, the merely logical criterion of truth, namely, the accordance of cognition with the universal and formal laws of understanding and reason, nothing more than the conditio tine qui non, or negative condition of all truth. Farther than this logic cannot go, and the error which depends not on the form, but on the content of the cognition, has no test to discover.
? ? x 2
is, a it
a a
it
it
:a is
is
it
is,
a
is
;
is
it is
is,
is
it
a
;
? S2 TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC.
General logic, then, resolves the whole formal business oi
laws before we proceed to investigate them in respect of their content, in order to discover whether they contain positive truth in regard to their object. Because, however, the mere form of a cognition, accurately as it may accord with logical laws, is insufficient to supply us with material (objective) truth, no one, by means of logic alone, can venture to predi cate any thing of or decide concerning objects, unless he has obtained, independently of logic, well-grounded information about them, in order afterwards to examine, according to logical laws, into the use and connection, in a cohering whole,
of that information, or, what is still better, merely to test it by them. Notwithstanding, there lies so seductive a charm in the possession of a specious art like this--an art which gives to all our cognitions the form of the understanding, although with respect to the content thereof we may be sadly deficient --that general logic, which is merely a canon of judgment, has been employed as an organon for the actual production, or rather for the semblance of production of objective asser tions, and has thus been grossly misapplied. Now general logic, in its assumed character of organon, is called Dialectic.
Different as are the significations in which the ancients used this term for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual employment of that with them was nothing else than logic of illusion-- sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay, even intentional sophistries, the colour
ing of truth, in which the thoroughness of procedure which logic requires was imitated, and their topic* employed to cloak the empty pretensions. Now may be taken as safe and useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon,
The Topic (Topics) of the ancients was division of the intellectual instruction then prevalent, with the design of setting forth the proper method of reasoning on any given proposition --according to certain dis tinctions of the genus, the species, &c. of the subject and predicate words, analogies, and the . Ike. of course contained also code of laws iur svllogistical disputation. was nol necessarily an aid to sophistry -- 7V.
and reason into its elements, and exhibit*
nnderstanding
them as principles of all logical judging of our cognitions. This part of logic may, therefore, be called Analytic, and is at least the negative test of truth, because all cognitions must first of all be estimated and tried according to these
? ? ? It
It
a
a
; of
a
it, a
*
it
a
it
? IWTHODTTCTIOH.
