按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
of our pure sensuous intuition。 But things in space and time are given
only in so far as they are perceptions （representations acpanied
with sensation）； therefore only by empirical representation。
Consequently the pure conceptions of the understanding； even when they
are applied to intuitions a priori （as in mathematics）； produce
cognition only in so far as these （and therefore the conceptions of
the understanding by means of them） can be applied to empirical
intuitions。 Consequently the categories do not； even by means of
pure intuition afford us any cognition of things； they can only do
so in so far as they can be applied to empirical intuition。 That is to
say； the； categories serve only to render empirical cognition
possible。 But this is what we call experience。 Consequently； in
cognition； their application to objects of experience is the only
legitimate use of the categories。
SS 19
The foregoing proposition is of the utmost importance； for it
determines the limits of the exercise of the pure conceptions of the
understanding in regard to objects； just as transcendental aesthetic
determined the limits of the exercise of the pure form of our sensuous
intuition。 Space and time； as conditions of the possibility of the
presentation of objects to us； are valid no further than for objects
of sense； consequently； only for experience。 Beyond these limits
they represent to us nothing； for they belong only to sense； and
have no reality apart from it。 The pure conceptions of the
understanding are free from this limitation； and extend to objects
of intuition in general； be the intuition like or unlike to ours；
provided only it be sensuous； and not intellectual。 But this extension
of conceptions beyond the range of our intuition is of no advantage；
for they are then mere empty conceptions of objects； as to the
possibility or impossibility of the existence of which they furnish us
with no means of discovery。 They are mere forms of thought； without
objective reality； because we have no intuition to which the
synthetical unity of apperception； which alone the categories contain；
could be applied； for the purpose of determining an object。 Our
sensuous and empirical intuition can alone give them significance
and meaning。
If； then； we suppose an object of a non…sensuous intuition to be
given we can in that case represent it by all those predicates which
are implied in the presupposition that nothing appertaining to
sensuous intuition belongs to it； for example； that it is not
extended； or in space； that its duration is not time； that in it no
change （the effect of the determinations in time） is to be met with；
and so on。 But it is no proper knowledge if I merely indicate what the
intuition of the object is not； without being able to say what is
contained in it； for I have not shown the possibility of an object
to which my pure conception of understanding could be applicable；
because I have not been able to furnish any intuition corresponding to
it； but am only able to say that our intuition is not valid for it。
But the most important point is this； that to a something of this kind
not one category can be found applicable。 Take； for example； the
conception of substance； that is； something that can exist as subject；
but never as mere predicate； in regard to this conception I am quite
ignorant whether there can really be anything to correspond to such
a determination of thought； if empirical intuition did not afford me
the occasion for its application。 But of this more in the sequel。
Of the Application of the Categories to Objects of the
Senses in general。 SS 20
The pure conceptions of the understanding apply to objects of
intuition in general； through the understanding alone； whether the
intuition be our own or some other； provided only it be sensuous；
but are； for this very reason； mere forms of thought； by means of
which alone no determined object can be cognized。 The synthesis or
conjunction of the manifold in these conceptions relates； we have
said； only to the unity of apperception； and is for this reason the
ground of the possibility of a priori cognition； in so far as this
cognition is dependent on the understanding。 This synthesis is；
therefore； not merely transcendental； but also purely intellectual。
But because a certain form of sensuous intuition exists in the mind
a priori which rests on the receptivity of the representative
faculty （sensibility）； the understanding； as a spontaneity； is able to
determine the internal sense by means of the diversity of given
representations； conformably to the synthetical unity of apperception；
and thus to cogitate the synthetical unity of the apperception of
the manifold of sensuous intuition a priori； as the condition to which
must necessarily be submitted all objects of human intuition。 And in
this manner the categories as mere forms of thought receive
objective reality； that is； application to objects which are given
to us in intuition； but that only as phenomena； for it is only of
phenomena that we are capable of a priori intuition。
This synthesis of the manifold of sensuous intuition； which is
possible and necessary a priori； may be called figurative （synthesis
speciosa）； in contradistinction to that which is cogitated in the mere
category in regard to the manifold of an intuition in general； and
is called connection or conjunction of the understanding （synthesis
intellectualis）。 Both are transcendental； not merely because they
themselves precede a priori all experience； but also because they form
the basis for the possibility of other cognition a priori。
But the figurative synthesis； when it has relation only to the
originally synthetical unity of apperception； that is to the
transcendental unity cogitated in the categories； must； to be
distinguished from the purely intellectual conjunction； be entitled
the transcendental synthesis of imagination。 Imagination is the
faculty of representing an object even without its presence in
intuition。 Now； as all our intuition is sensuous； imagination； by
reason of the subjective condition under which alone it can give a
corresponding intuition to the conceptions of the understanding；
belongs to sensibility。 But in so far as the synthesis of the
imagination is an act of spontaneity； which is determinative； and not；
like sense； merely determinable； and which is consequently able to
determine sense a priori； according to its form； conformably to the
unity of apperception； in so far is the imagination a faculty of
determining sensibility a priori； and its synthesis of intuitions
according to the categories must be the transcendental synthesis of
the imagination。 It is an operation of the understanding on
sensibility； and the first application of the understanding to objects
of possible intuition； and at the same time the basis for the exercise
of the other functions of that faculty。 As figurative； it is
distinguished from the merely intellectual synthesis； which is
produced by the understanding alone； without the aid of imagination。
Now； in so far as imagination is spontaneity； I sometimes