Chapter LXVI: Appendix: B (4)

[766] § 8. Cf. above, pp. l-ii; below, pp. 243, 260-3, 272-3, 327-8, 473-7, 515.

[767] A 107. It is significant that Kant in A 107 uses, in reference to apperception, the very unusual phrase, “_unwandelbares Bewusstsein_.”

[768] A 108.

[769] A 107.

[770] Reicke, _Lose Blätter_, p. 19. The bearing and date of this passage is discussed below, p. 233.

[771] _Op. cit._ p. 20.

[772] _Op. cit._ p. 22 (written on a letter dated May 20, 1775).

[773] This last statement cannot possibly be taken literally. In view of the manner in which the transcendental object is spoken of elsewhere in this section, and also in the _Dialectic_, we must regard it as standing for an independent existence, and the relation of representations to it as being, therefore, something else than simply the unity of consciousness.

[774] It may be observed that when Kant in A 107, quoted above, refers to “_a priori_ concepts,” he adds in explanation, and within brackets, “space and time.”

[775] A 105-6.

[776] The actual nature of Kant’s teaching as to the origin and constitution of the notion of the transcendental object is largely masked by the fact that he places this proof of its validity so prominently in the foreground. The general nature of this proof is, of course, identical with that of his later positions.

[777] A 109.

[778] As in the _Lose Blätter_. Cf. below, p. 233.

[779] Cf. below, pp. 227, 233-4, 268-9.

[780] Cf. below, pp. 322-8; also pp. 260-3.

[781] As above noted (p. 204 _n._) it also occurs in the _Aesthetic_ (A 46 = B 63), as signifying the thing in itself.

[782] A 238 = B 298.

[783] Cf. below, p. 238.

[784] A 238 ff. = B 298 ff.

[785] A 250-1.

[786] Cf. below, p. 407 ff.

[787] A 253.

[788] A 191 = B 236.

[789] A 277-8 = B 333-4; A 288 = B 344.

[790] Cf. _mundus phaenomenon_ in A 272 = B 328.

[791] It is so dated by Adickes (K. p. 272 _n._), owing to a single reference to schemata in A 286 = B 342.

[792] A 358 and A 361 (cf. A 355); A 366; A 372 and A 379-80; A 390-1, A 393, and A 394.

[793] A 366.

[794] “Transcendental” here means “transcendent.” Cf. A 379.

[795] A 372; so also in A 613-14 = B 641-2.

[796] The passage in A 393 is given below, p. 464.

[797] A 494 = B 522. Cf. A 492 = B 521: “The true self (_das eigentliche Selbst_) as it exists in itself, _i.e._ the transcendental subject.”

[798] A 495 = B 523.

[799] A 496 = B 524.

[800] _Loc. cit._

[801] Cf. also A 538 = B 566; A 540 = B 568; A 557 = B 585; A 564 = B 592; A 565-6 = B 593-4; A 613 = B 641-2.

[802] Above, p. 206.

[803] Cf. above, pp. liii-v; below, pp. 280, 331, 373-4, 390-1, 414-17, 429-31, 558-61.

[804] Viz. the first layer of the deduction of the first edition, the relevant sections in the chapter on phenomena and noumena (A 250 ff.), and the _Paralogisms_ with the subsequent _Reflection_.

[805] Viz. the _Note on Amphiboly_, the chapter on the _Antinomies_, and the chapter on the _Ideal_.

[806] To the statement that the alterations in the second edition cease at the close of the chapter on the _Paralogisms_, there is only one single exception, namely, the very brief note appended to A 491 = B 519. This exception, however, supports our general thesis. It is of polemical origin, referring to the nature of the distinction between transcendental and subjective idealism, and was demanded by the new _Refutation of Idealism_ which in the second edition he had attached to the _Postulates_.

[807] It follows immediately upon the passage quoted above, p. 206.

[808] _W._ x. pp. 125-6.

[809] A 89 = B 121. I adopt B. Erdmann’s reading of _auf_ for _als_.

[810] A 88 = B 120.

[811] A 90.

[812] As we have already found (above, p. 27 _n._ 1), it had not been attained at the time when the _Introduction_ to the first edition was written.

[813] A 95-96.

[814] A 97.

[815] A. 95; cf. A 96.

[816] A 111.

[817] _Loc. cit._

[818] A 112.

[819] A 111.

[820] A 112-14.

[821] A 110-14.

[822] I. § 14 C Vaihinger regards as intermediate in date, but it is a comparatively unimportant paragraph, and may for the present be left out of account. Cf. below, pp. 225-6.

[823] A 118-19.

[824] A 124.

[825] _Loc. cit._

[826] A 115.

[827] A 76-9 = B 102-4. Not yet commented upon.

[828] Cf. Vaihinger, _loc. cit._ p. 63.

[829] A 77 = B 102. Cf. above, pp. 96-7.

[830] _Loc. cit._

[831] For explanation of the exact meaning in which these terms are employed and for discussion of the complicated issues involved, cf. below, p. 270 ff.

[832] Cf. A 118.

[833] A 102.

[834] A 99-100.

[835] A 102.

[836] A 100.

[837] A 101. Cf. below, p. 255.

[838] Pp. 238, 263 ff.

[839] Cf. above, p. 211.

[840] For Vaihinger’s own statement of it, cf. _op. cit._ pp. 79-98.

[841] Nos. 64-5, 117, 140-5.

[842] No. 146.

[843] Nos. 41, 81.

[844] No. 104.

[845] Cf. Nos. 964-5.

[846] No. 947.

[847] No. 948.

[848] No. 949.

[849] No. 952.

[850] This is Erdmann’s reading. Vaihinger substitutes _allgemein_ for _allein_, but without reason given.

[851] No. 935. The translation is literal. Kant in the last sentence changes from singular to plural.

[852] No. 964.

[853] Cf. also Nos. 957, 961. The latter shows how Kant already connected the categories of relation with the logical functions of judgment.

[854] Reicke, Nos. 7, 8, 10-18 (pp. 16-26, 29-49).

[855] The chief relevant passages have been quoted above, p. 209.

[856] The letter is given in _W._ x. p. 173.

[857] Reicke, pp. 113-16.

[858] According to Adickes the _Critique_ was “brought to completion” in the first half of 1780; in Vaihinger’s view, on the other hand, Kant was occupied with it from April to September. Cf. above, p. xx.

[859] In two respects, however, fragment B 12 anticipates the teaching of the fourth stage: (_a_) in suggesting (p. 114) the necessity of a pure synthesis of pure intuition, and (_b_) in equating (p. 115) synthesis of apprehension with synthesis of imagination.

[860] Pp. 231-3.

[861] Cf. below, pp. 268-9.

[862] In B 160 Kant states that the synthesis of apprehension is only empirical; and in B 152 we find the following emphatic sentence: “In so far as the faculty of imagination is spontaneously active I sometimes also name it [i.e. in addition to entitling it transcendental and figurative] _productive_, and thereby distinguish it from the _reproductive_ imagination whose synthesis is subject only to empirical laws, i.e. those of association, and which therefore contributes nothing in explanation of the possibility of _a priori_ knowledge. Hence it belongs, not to transcendental philosophy, but to psychology.” Cf. the directly counter statement in A 102: “The reproductive synthesis of the faculty of imagination must be counted among the transcendental actions of the mind.”

[863] Though, as we shall find, the deduction of the second edition is in certain respects more mature, it is in other respects less complete.

[864] A 314 = B 370.

[865] A x-xi. Cf. above, pp. 50-1.

[866] Cf. below, pp. 543 ff., 576-7.

[867] Whether it was the chief reason is decidedly open to question. The un-Critical character of its teaching as regards the function of empirical concepts and of the transcendental object, and the unsatisfactoriness of its doctrine of a threefold synthesis, would of themselves account for the omission. The passage in the chapter on phenomena and noumena (A 250 ff.) in which the doctrine of the transcendental object is again developed was likewise omitted in the second edition.

[868] Cf. below, pp. 238, 263 ff.

[869] Cf. also in _Methodology_, below, p. 543 ff.

[870] Cf. above, pp. xxxvi, xxxvii-viii, 36; below, pp. 241-3.

[871] Cf. below, p. 543 ff.

[872] A xi.

[873] A 100-1.

[874] Kant’s failure either to distinguish or to connect the two deductions in any really clear and consistent manner is a defect which is accentuated rather than diminished in the second edition. Though the sections devoted to the subjective enquiry are omitted, and the argument of the objective deduction is so recast as to increase the emphasis laid upon its more strictly logical aspects, the teaching of the subjective deduction is retained and influences the argument at every point. For the new deduction, no less than that of the first edition, rests throughout upon the initial assumption that though connection or synthesis can never be given, it is yet the generative source of all consciousness of order and relation.

[875] It appears most clearly in Kant’s proof of the category of causality in the second _Analogy_. Cf. below, p. 364 ff.

[876] Cf. below, pp. 252-3, 258, 287, 333, 343.

[877] Cf. above, p. 208 ff.

[878] Cf. above, pp. l-ii, 207-12; below, pp. 260-3, 272-3, 327-8, 473-7, 515.

[879] P. 239.

[880] A 99.

[881] A 102.

[882] A 103.

[883] _Loc. cit._

[884] _Loc. cit._

[885] A 100-1.

[886] A 106.

[887] A 101.

[888] Such statements are in direct conflict with his own repeated assertions in other passages that reproduction and recognition are always merely empirical. Cf. above, pp. 227-31, and below, pp. 264, 268-9.

[889] B 139-40.

[890] In the first edition the subjective and objective deductions shade into one another; and this question is raised in the section on synthesis of recognition (A 104), where, as above noted (p. 204 ff.), Kant’s argument is largely pre-Critical, empirical concepts exercising the functions which Kant later ascribed to the categories. But as we have already considered the resulting doctrine of the transcendental object both in its earlier and in its subsequent form, we may at once pass to the more mature teaching of the other sections.

[891] Cf. above, p. 204 ff.

[892] Memory is only one particular mode in which recognition presents itself in our experience; Kant’s purpose is to show that it is not more fundamental, nor more truly constitutive of apperception, than is recognition in any of its other manifestations. Indeed the central contention of the objective deduction is that it is through consciousness of _objects_, _i.e._ through consciousness of _objective_ meanings, that self-consciousness comes to be actualised at all. Only in contrast with, and through relation to, an objective system is consciousness of inner experience, past or present, and therefore self-consciousness in its contingent empirical forms, possible to the mind. Cf. above, pp. li-ii; below, pp. 260-3.

[893] B 134.

[894] A 116.

[895] Cf. above, p. 242; below, pp. 258, 332-3.

[896] Cf. A 111.

[897] A 117 _n._

[898] This transcendental psychology is considered below (p. 263 ff.), in its connection with the later stages of the subjective deduction. Cf. above, p. 238.

[899] A 113-14.

[900] Cf. above, p. 229.

[901] Cf. A 100-1.

[902] A 122-3.

[903] Cf. B 140-3; B 151-2; B 164-5 5 and below, p. 286.

[904] Here again the second edition text is more explicit than the first: “This peculiarity of our understanding, that it can produce _a priori_ unity of apperception solely by means of the categories, and only by such and so many, is as little capable of further explanation as why we have just these and no other functions of judgment, or why space and time are the sole forms of our possible intuition.”--B 145-6. Cf. above, pp. xxxiii-vi, xliv, 57, 142, 186; below, pp. 291, 411.

[905] Cf. above, pp. 252-3.

[906] The second _Analogy_ embodies the argument which is implied in, and necessary to, the establishment of the assertions dogmatically made in A 111-12.

[907] A 119.

[908] Cf. A 128. On this whole question cf. above, p. 242; below, pp. 287-8.

[909] Cf. A 113, 125-9.

[910] A 107, 111.

[911] The explanation given in the second edition (B 132) is artificial, and does not reveal Kant’s real reasons. It is also obscure owing to its employment of dynamical terms to denote the relation of apperception to self-consciousness.

[912] Cf. above, pp. 251-3.

[913] Cf. A 112, 113, 128.

[914] A 114.

[915] A 94, 115, 118. Cf. also end of note to B 134.

[916] Cf. above, pp. lii, 207-12, 243; below, pp. 327-8, 473-7, 515.

[917] This is shown, not only by Kant’s ethical writings, but also by his less formal utterances, especially in his _Lectures on Metaphysics_ and on _Religion_, in his _Reflexionen_, and in his _Lose Blätter_.

[918] Cf. below, pp. 277-8.

[919] Cf. above, pp. l-lii; below, pp. 277 ff., 461-2, 473-7.

[920] In note to B 162 they are indeed identified.

[921] Kant’s vacillating attitude appears in the added phrase “of whose activity we are _hardly ever_ conscious.” Cf. A 78: it is a “blind” power.

[922] Cf. above, p. 225; below, p. 337.

[923] A 138 = B 177.

[924] A 118.

[925] Cf. above, p. 253 ff.

[926] A 123.

[927] A 121-3.

[928] A 125-6.

[929] Above, pp. 74 ff., 238, 252.

[930] Cf. above, pp. 96-7.

[931] Cf. below, pp. 367, 371-2.

[932] Cf. above, pp. 211, 227, 233-4.

[933] In direct contradiction of his previous view of transcendental imagination as purely productive, it is now stated that it is reproductive. Cf. A 102.

[934] Cf. above, pp. 225 ff., 264.

[935] It must be remembered that this was also rendered necessary by the archaic character of their teaching in regard to the transcendental object and the function of empirical concepts.

[936] Cf. B 151-2. There is no mention, however, of objective affinity.

[937] B 160-1. Cf. above, pp. 226-9.

[938] In what follows I make use of an article, entitled “The Problem of Knowledge,” which I have contributed to the _Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods_ (1912), vol. ix. pp. 113-28.

[939] The same wide sense in which Kant employs “empirical idealism.”

[940] Cf. above, pp. xliii-v, 208; below, pp. 295-6, 298 ff. Hume and Spinoza are the only pre-Kantian thinkers of whose position the last statement is not strictly descriptive, but even they failed to escape its entangling influence.

[941] Cf. A 28-9; also _Lectures on Metaphysics_ (Pölitz’s edition, 1821), p. 188 ff. In Kant’s posthumously published work, his _Transition from the Metaphysical First Principles of Natural Science to Physics_, it is asserted in at least twenty-six distinct passages that sensations are due to the action of “the moving forces of matter” upon the sense-organs. Cf. below, p. 283 _n_. 2. In his _Ueber das Organ der Seele_ (1796) (Hartenstein, vi. p. 457 ff.), Kant agrees with Sömmerring in holding that the soul has virtual, _i.e._ dynamical, though not local, presence in the fluid contained in the cavity of the brain.

[942] Cf. _Critique of Practical Reason_, Bk. i. ch. i. § iii.

[943] Cf. below, pp. 279 ff., 293-6, 312 ff., 321, 361 _n._ 3, 384-5, 464-5, 476.

[944] Cf. below, pp. 279-80, and pp. 293-4, on inner sense.

[945] i. p. 339: “Each pulse of cognitive consciousness, each Thought, dies away and is replaced by another.... Each later Thought, knowing and including thus the Thoughts which went before, is the final receptacle--and appropriating them is the final owner--of all that they contain and own. Each Thought is thus born an owner, and dies owned, transmitting whatever it realized as its Self to its own later proprietor. As Kant says [cf. below, pp. 461-2], it is as if elastic balls were to have not only motion but knowledge of it, and a first ball were to transmit both its motion and its consciousness to a second, which took both up into _its_ consciousness and passed them to a third, until the last ball held all that the other balls had held, and realized it as its own.”

[946] I here use “objective” in its modern meaning: I am not concerned with the special meaning which Descartes himself attached to the terms _objective_ and _formaliter_.

[947] Pp. 277-8.

[948] On this whole matter cf. above, p. xlv; below, pp. 312-21 on Kant’s _Refutation of Idealism_; pp. 373-4 on the _Second Analogy_; pp. 407 ff., 414 ff. on _Phenomena and Noumena_; p. 461 ff. on the Paralogisms; and p. 546. Cf. also A 277-8 = B 334.

[949] P. 267 ff.

[950] Though the posthumously published work of Kant’s old age, his _Transition from the Metaphysical First Principles of Natural Science to Physics_, bears the marks of weakening powers, and is much too incomplete and obscure to allow of any very assured deductions from its teaching, it is none the less significant that it is largely occupied in attempting to define the relation in which the objective world of physical science stands to the sensible world of ordinary consciousness. As above noted (p. 275 _n._), it is there asserted in at least twenty-six distinct passages that sensations are due to the action of “the moving forces of matter” upon the sense-organs. What is even more significant is the adoption and frequent occurrence (_Altpreussische Monatsschrift_ (1882), pp. 236, 287, 289, 290, 292, 294, 295-6, 300, 308, 429, 436, 439) of the phrase “_Erscheinung von der Erscheinung_.” Kant would seem to mean by _“Erscheinung vom ersten Range”_ (_op. cit._ p. 436) (_i.e._ appearance as such), the objective world as determined by physical science; and by “_Erscheinung vom zweiten Range_” (_i.e._ appearance of the appearance), this same objective world as known in terms of the sensations which material bodies generate by acting on the sense-organs. Kant adds that the former is known directly, and the latter indirectly--meaning, apparently, that the former is known through _a priori_ forms native to the understanding, and the latter only in terms of sense-data which are mechanically conditioned (cf. _loc. cit._ pp. 286, 292, and 444 _n._ The terms latter and former on p. 300 have got transposed).

[951] Cf. below pp. 312-21, 373-4, 414 ff., 425 ff., 558 ff.

[952] B 129.

[953] B 161 _n._

[954] B 130-1.

[955] B 131.

[956] B 131-4.

[957] B 131.

[958] Cf. B 138.

[959] B 135.

[960] B 136-40.

[961] B 140-2.

[962] B 143.

[963] §§ 21-27.

[964] Above, pp. 252-3, 258, 287.

[965] _Prolegomena_, § 18.

[966] _Op. cit._ § 20.

[967] _Op. cit._ §§ 18-19; Eng. trans. pp. 54-5.

[968] Cf. above, pp. 39-40, 286-7.

[969] Cf. below, p. 370.

[970] _Op. cit._ § 22. Cf. below, p. 311 n. 4.

[971] §§ 21-7.

[972] B 143.

[973] This leads on in the second paragraph of § 21 to further statements, already commented upon above, pp. 186, 257-8. Cf. also § 23.

[974] Cf. also § 24.

[975] Cf. above, pp. 90 ff., 171, 226-9, 267-70; below, p. 337.

[976] Cf. above, pp. 28, 47, 114, 141-2.

[977] Cf. § 21, second paragraph.

[978] Cf. above, pp. 160, 186, 257, and below, pp. 325-6, 330-1, 390-1, 404 ff.

[979] Cf. below, pp. 324, 329.

[980] Above, p. 148.

[981] Cf. above, pp. xliii-v, l-ii, 238, 261-2, 263 ff., 273 ff.; below, pp. 295 ff., 322 ff.

[982] Cf. B 67-8; A 33 = B 49.

[983] B 67.

[984] B xxxix _n._

[985] Kant very probably arrived at this view of inner sense under the influence of Tetens who teaches a similar doctrine in his _Philosophische Versuche über die menschliche Natur und ihre Entwickelung_. Cf. Bd. i.; _Versuch_ i. 7, 8. The first volume of Tetens’ work was published in 1777 (re-issued by the _Kantgesellschaft_ in 1913), and had been carefully read by Kant prior to the final preparation of the _Critique_. Cf. B. Erdmann, _Kriticismus_, p. 51.

[986] Cf. A. 128-9.

[987] As just noted, it is in the second edition that the above view of the content of inner sense is first definitely formulated.

[988] A 33 = B 49-50.

[989] A 34 = B 50.

[990] Cf. above, pp. 208-9, 251-2, 260-4; below, 311 _n._ 4. It may be observed that Caird (i. pp. 625-7) interprets inner sense as equivalent to inner _reflection_. This is one of the respects in which Caird’s Hegelian standpoint has led him to misrepresent even Kant’s most central doctrines.

[991] Cf. below, pp. 399-400, and A 277-8 = B 333-4.

[992] Above, p. 292.

[993] Cf. above, p. 155.

[994] Cf. Vaihinger in _Strassburger Abhandlungen zur Philosophie_ (1884), p. 106 ff.

[995] Section III., Prop. _XII Usus_.

[996] Theil II. Hauptstück II. _W._ ii. p. 364.

[997] § 11.

[998] Pölitz’s edition (1821), pp. 100-2.

[999] _W._ iv. p. 373 ff.

[1000] It may be noted that in the _Aesthetic_ (A 38 = B 55) Kant employs the term idealism, without descriptive epithet, in the same manner as in his pre-Critical writings, as signifying a position that must be rejected.

[1001] Cf. below, p. 301 ff.

[1002] Pp. 307-8.

[1003] Cf. A 368-9 and 372.

[1004] A 377: a passage which bears signs of being a later interpolation.

[1005] B 274.

[1006] A 368-9.

[1007] A 369.

[1008] A 28 = B 44. Cf. above, pp. 76, 116-17.

[1009] A 370.

[1010] _Loc. cit._

[1011] A 372.

[1012] A 373: _Weil indessen_, etc.

[1013] Adickes regards them as _later_ additions. To judge by their content (cf. above, pp. 204 ff., 215-16, on Kant’s doctrine of the transcendental object), they are more probably of quite early origin.

[1014] A 377-8.

[1015] Adickes argues that this paragraph is subsequent to the main body of the _Analytic_, but that is in keeping with the tendency which he seems to show of dating passages, which cannot belong to the “Brief Outline,” later rather than earlier.

[1016] A 375.

[1017] The remaining passages in the fourth _Paralogism_, together with the corresponding passages in B 274 ff., in Kant’s note to B xxxix, and in B 291-3, are separately dealt with below, pp. 308 ff., 322 ff., 462-3.

[1018] A 377.

[1019] _Loc. cit._

[1020] _E.g._ Garve.

[1021] § 13, _W._ iv. pp. 288-9: Eng. trans. p. 42.

[1022] _Loc. cit._

[1023] _Op. cit._ pp. 289-90: Eng. trans. pp. 43-4.

[1024] In Note II.

[1025] § 49, _W._ iv. 336: Eng. trans. p. 99.

[1026] _Anhang_, _W._ iv. p. 375 n.

[1027] _W._ iv. p. 374: Eng. trans. p. 147.

[1028] Cf. above, p. 155 ff.

[1029] _W._ iv. p. 375.

[1030] _W._ iv. p. 375: Eng. trans. p. 147-8.

[1031] Cf. above, p. 156.

[1032] As already noted above, p. 299, it is employed by Kant in his lectures on Metaphysics.

[1033] Kant’s phrase “in space outside me” is on Kant’s principles really pleonastic. Cf. _Prolegomena_, § 49; Eng. trans, p. 101: “the notion ‘outside me’ only signifies existence in space.” Cf. A 373.

[1034] Cf. text as altered by note to B xxxviii.

[1035] B xxxix.

[1036] B 291-2. The remaining points in B 274 ff. as well as in B xxxix _n._ are separately dealt with below, p. 322 ff.

[1037] The nearest approach to such teaching in the first edition is in A 33 = B 50. Cf. above, pp. 135-8.

[1038] Cf. below, pp. 333, 341, 360, 384-5.

[1039] Adamson (_Development of Modern Philosophy_, i. p. 241) takes the opposite view as to what is Kant’s intended teaching, but remarks upon its inconsistency with Kant’s own fundamental principles. “Now, in truth, Kant grievously endangers his own doctrine by insisting on the absence of _a priori_ elements from our apprehension of the mental life; for it follows from that, if taken rigorously, that according to Kant sense and understanding are not so much sources which unite in producing knowledge, as, severally, sources of distinct kinds of apprehension. If we admit at all, in respect to inner sense, that there is some kind of apprehension without the work of understanding, then it has been acknowledged that sense is _per se_ adequate to furnish a kind of apprehension.” As pointed out above (p. 296), by the same line of reasoning Kant is disabled from viewing inner consciousness as merely reflective. In other words it can neither be more immediate nor less sensuous than outer perception. Cf. below, pp. 361, _n._ 3, 384-5.

[1040] Above, pp. xlvi, 275-82; below, pp. 313-14, 384-5.

[1041] Above, pp. 276, 279-80; below, pp. 312, 384-5.

[1042] Cf. below, p. 361.

[1043] Cf. _Metaphysical First Principles of Natural Science_ (1786), _W._ iv. pp. 470-1. It should be observed, however, that the reasons which Kant gives in this treatise for denying that psychology can ever become more than a merely historical or descriptive discipline are not that the objects of inner sense fall outside the realm of mechanically determined existence. Kant makes no assertion that even distantly implies any such view. His reasons are--(1) that, as time has only one dimension, the main body of mathematical science is not applicable to the phenomena of inner sense and their laws; (2) that such phenomena are capable only of a merely ideal, not of an experimental, analysis; (3) that, as the objects of inner sense do not consist of parts outside each other, their parts are not substances, and may therefore be conceived as diminishing in intensity or passing out of existence without prejudice to the principle of the permanence of substance (_op. cit._ p. 542, quoted below, p. 361, _n._ 2); (4) that inner observation is limited to the individual’s own existence; (5) that the very act of introspection alters the state of the object observed.

[1044] A 370.

[1045] B 275. These two sentences are cited in this connection by Vaihinger: _Strassburger Abhandlungen zur Philosophie_ (1884), p. 131.

[1046] Above, pp. xlv-vii, 279 ff.

[1047] Cf. also above, pp. 275-7.

[1048] § 13, _Anmerkung II_.

[1049] _Kriticismus_, p. 197 ff.

[1050] _Mind_ (1879), iv. p. 408 ff.; (1880), v. p. 111.

[1051] _A Defence of Philosophic Doubt_ (1879), p. 107 ff.; _Mind_ (1878), iii. p. 481; iv. p. 115; vi. p. 260.

[1052] _Op. cit._ p. 128 ff.

[1053] _Critical Philosophy_, i. 632 ff.; _Mind_ (1879), iv. pp. 112, 560-1; v. p. 115.

[1054] _The Philosophy of Kant_, p. 249 ff.

[1055] The one fundamental question to which Erdmann would seem to allow that Kant gives conflicting answers is as to whether or not categories can be transcendently employed. The assumption of a uniform teaching is especially obvious in Sidgwick’s comments; cf. _Mind_ (1880), v. p. 113; _Lectures on the Philosophy of Kant_ (1905), p. 28.

[1056] Cf. above, pp. 303-4.

[1057] A 491 = B 520.

[1058] A 225-6 = B 273.

[1059] A 495-6 = B 523-4.

[1060] Cf. below, p. 506.

[1061] Viz. A 225-6 = B 273.

[1062] B 277.

[1063] Above, p. 208 ff.

[1064] A 346 = B 404.

[1065] A 224-5 = B 272-3.

[1066] Cf. B 277.

[1067] Quoted by B. Erdmann: _Kriticismus_, p. 107.

[1068] B xxxix _n._, 67-8, 70, 157-8 with appended note, 276-8, 422 _n._, 427-9.

[1069] B 70, 157, 428.

[1070] B 157.

[1071] B 157 _n._ Regarding the un-Critical character of Kant’s language in this passage, and of the tendencies which inspire it, cf. below, p. 329.

[1072] B 157.

[1073] B 429.

[1074] Cf. B 277-8 and B 157.

[1075] B 278.

[1076] B 420 and B 422 _n._

[1077] B 422 _n._

[1078] Cf. above, pp. 204 ff., 404 ff.

[1079] Cf. above, p. 204 ff.

[1080] B 406.

[1081] B 422 _n._ Though both concepts are denoted by the same term, they may not--such is the implication--be for that reason identified.

[1082] B 429. Kant does not, however, even in the second edition, hold consistently to this position. In the sentence immediately preceding that just quoted he equates the transcendental self with the notion of “object in general.” “I represent myself to myself neither as I am nor as I appear to myself, but think myself only as I do any object in general from whose mode of intuition I abstract.”

[1083] The broader bearing of this view may be noted. If consistently developed, it must involve the assertion that noumenal reality is apprehended in terms of the Ideas of reason, for these are the only other concepts at the disposal of the mind. Cf. above, pp. liii-v, 217-18; below, pp. 331, 390-1, 414-17, 426 ff., 558-61.

[1084] A 402.

[1085] It is doubtful whether A 401-2 represents a genuinely Critical position. Several of its phrases seem reminiscent of Kant’s semi-Critical view of the nature of apperception. This is especially true of the assertion that self-consciousness is “itself unconditioned.”

[1086] A 346 = B 404. Cf. below, pp. 456, 461-2.

[1087] Cf. A 345.

[1088] That he does not really do so is clear from the context and also from the manner in which he restated this argument in the second edition (B 421-2).

[1089] A 401-2, B 421-2; below, pp. 461-2.

[1090] A 402; cf. B 407.

[1091] Cf. B 421-2.

[1092] Cf. above, pp. l-ii, 208-9, 260-3.

[1093] Cf. above, _loc. cit._

[1094] Cf. B 157-8 and 157 _n._, B 278, B 428-9.

[1095] Above, pp. 295-6, 311 _n._ 4.

[1096] There is this difference between the category of existence and the categories of relation, namely, that it would seem to be impossible to distinguish between a determinate and an indeterminate application of it. Either we assert existence or we do not; there is no such third alternative as in the case of the categories of substance and causality. The category of substance, determinately used, signifies material existence in space and time; indeterminately applied it is the purely problematic and merely logical notion of something that is always a subject and never a predicate. The determinate category of causality is the conception of events conditioning one another in time; indeterminately employed it signifies only the quite indefinite notion of a ground or condition. Also, Kant’s explicit teaching (A 597 ff. = B 625 ff.) is that the notion of existence stands in an altogether different position from other predicates. It is not an attribute constitutive of the concept of the subject to which it is applied, but is simply the positing of the content of that concept as a whole. Nor, again, is it a relational form for the articulation of content. These would seem to be the reasons why no distinction is possible between a determinate and an indeterminate application of the notion of existence, and why, therefore, Kant, in defending the possible dual employment of it, has difficulty in holding consistently to the doctrines expounded in the _Postulates_. He is, by his own explicit teaching, interdicted from declaring that the notion of existence is both a category and not a category, or, in other words, that it may vary in meaning according as empirical or noumenal reality is referred to, and that only in the former case is it definite and precise. Yet such a view would, perhaps, better harmonise with certain other lines of thought which first obtain statement in the _Dialectic_. For though it is in the _Dialectic_ that Kant expounds his grounds for holding that existence and content are separate and independent, it is there also that he first begins to realise the part which the Ideas of Reason are called upon to play in the drawing of the distinction between appearance and reality.

[1097] In the _Fortschritte_ (_Werke_ (Hartenstein), viii. p. 548 ff.) this final step is quite definitely taken. Cf. below, pp. 390-1, 414-17, 426 ff., 558-61. We have, as we shall find, to recognise a second fundamental conflict in Kant’s thinking, additional to that between subjectivism and phenomenalism. He alternates between what may be entitled the sceptical and the Idealist views of the function of Reason and of its relation to the understanding, or otherwise stated, between the regulative and the absolutist view of the nature of thought. But this conflict first gains explicit expression in the _Dialectic_.

[1098] For Kant’s use of the terms ‘canon’ and ‘dialectic’ cf. above, pp. 72, 77-8, 173-4, and below, p. 425 ff.

[1099] Above, pp. 181-2.

[1100] As we shall have occasion to observe below (p. 336), when Kant defines judgment as “the faculty of subsumption under rules,” he is really defining it in terms of the process of reasoning, and thus violating the principle which he is professedly following in dividing the _Transcendental Logic into the Analytic of Concepts_, the _Analytic of Judgment_, and the _Dialectic of Reasoning_.

[1101] A 132 = B 171.

[1102] Pp. 252-3, 258-9, 287-8.

[1103] The passages that have gone to constitute this chapter are probably quite late in date of writing. This would seem to be proved by the view taken of productive imagination, and also by the fact that in the _Reflexionen_ there is no mention of schematism.

[1104] Cf. above, p. 176 ff.

[1105] Cf. A 137 = B 176. “The empirical concept of a plate is homogeneous with the pure geometrical concept of a circle, since the roundness which is thought in the former can be intuited in the latter.”

[1106] A 138 = B 177.

[1107] Above, p. 334.

[1108] Cf. E. Curtius, _Das Schematismuskapitel in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Kantstudien_, Bd. xix. p. 348 ff.).

[1109] _Op. cit._ § 58.

[1110] A 138 = B 177. Cf. above, pp. 96-7.

[1111] A 141 = B 180.

[1112] Cf. above, pp. 268-9.

[1113] Cf. above, pp. 133-4.

[1114] A 140 = B 179.

[1115] _Loc. cit._

[1116] Cf. E. Curtius, _op. cit._ p. 356.

[1117] Kant’s other definition of the schema as “a rule for the determination of our intuition in accordance with a certain universal concept” (A 141 = B 180) is open to similar objections. When, however, Kant states that “schemata, and not images, _underlie_ our pure sensuous concepts,” he seems to be inclining to the truer view that the schema _is_ the concept.

[1118] Above, pp. 131-3.

[1119] Cf. Riehl, _Philos. Krit._ 2nd ed. i. pp. 488, 533. Cf. above, pp. 195-6, 198; below, pp. 404-5.

[1120] _Critical Philosophy_, i. bk. i. chap. v., especially pp. 437 and 440.

[1121] _Theorie der Erfahrung_, second edition, p. 384.

[1122] _Op. cit._ p. 532.

[1123] Cf. above, pp. 240-3.

[1124] For comment upon the definition of number, which Kant takes as being the schema of quantity, and upon the view of arithmetic which this definition may seem to imply, cf. above, p. 128 ff.

[1125] Cf. above, p. 192.

[1126] Cf. above, pp. 339-40, and below, pp. 357, 404 ff.

[1127] Cf. above, pp. 20, 25, 290-1; below, pp. 407, 412, 414-17.

[1128] _E.g._ Riehl, _Philos. Krit._ 2nd ed. i. pp. 535-6.

[1129] Above, pp. 258, 332-3.

[1130] A 148 = B 188.

[1131] A 156 = B 195.

[1132] A 157 = B 196.

[1133] A 24.

[1134] § 13, _Anmerkung_ i.

[1135] B 40-1.

[1136] B 110.

[1137] A 160 = B 199-200.

[1138] Cf. above, pp. 288-9.

[1139] A 161-2 = B 201-2.

[1140] Cf. below, pp. 510-11.

[1141] A 178-9 = B 221.

[1142] Cf. above, pp. 94-5.

[1143] Cf. below, pp. 358-9, 367-8, 371-2, 381-2.

[1144] Above, p. 309 ff.

[1145] Cf. Adickes, _K._ p. 190 _n._

[1146] Cf. above, p. 127 ff.

[1147] That is to say, in the first edition.

[1148] The phrase is followed, it may be observed, by a verb in the irregular.

[1149] A 143 = B 182.

[1150] _Loc. cit._ in the chapter on _Schematism_.

[1151] _Loc. cit._ Italics not in Kant.

[1152] Cf. A 175 = B 217. Cf. above, pp. 350-1.

[1153] B 217-18.

[1154] Cf. above, pp. 192, 341.

[1155] A 169-70 = B 211-12. For comment upon Kant’s view of the point as a limit, cf. below, p. 489 ff.

[1156] Though Kant maintains in A 171 = B 212-13 that owing to our dependence upon empirical data and our necessary ignorance of the nature of the causal relation we cannot similarly demonstrate the principle of the continuity of change, he has himself, in characteristically inconsistent fashion, given three such demonstrations. Cf. below, pp. 380-1.

[1157] Cf. Kant’s _Monadologia physica_ (1756), and _New Doctrine of Motion and Rest_ (1758). Kant’s final statement of this dynamical theory is given in his _Metaphysical First Principles of Natural Science_ (1786).

[1158] In this matter Kant regards himself as defending the Newtonian theory of an attractive gravitational force. The mechanistic view admits only one form of action, viz. transference of motion through impact and pressure. “From ... Democritus to Descartes, indeed up to our own day, the mechanistic method of explanation ... has, under the title of atomism or corpuscular philosophy, maintained its authority with but slight modification; and has continued to exercise its influence upon the principles of natural science. Its essential teaching consists in the assumption of the _absolute impenetrability_ of primitive matter, in the _absolute homogeneity_ of its constitution (difference of shape being the sole remaining difference), and in the _absolutely indestructible coherence_ of matter in its fundamental corpuscles” (_Metaphysical First Principles_, _W._ vol. iv. p. 533; ii. Allgemeine Anmerkung, 4).

[1159] This is additional to its other correlative assumption of the absolute void. “The absolute void and the absolutely full are in the doctrine of nature very much what blind chance and blind fate are in metaphysical cosmology, namely, a barrier to the enquiring reason, which either causes its place to be taken by arbitrary fictions, or lays it to rest on the pillow of obscure qualities” (_Metaphysical First Principles_, _W._ vol. iv. p. 532 (I read _forschende_ for _herrschende_)). “There are only two methods of procedure ...: the mechanistic, through combination of the absolutely full with the absolute void, or an opposite dynamical method, that of explaining all material differences through mere differences in the combination of the original forces of repulsion and attraction” (_loc. cit._).

[1160] In the first edition Kant formulates this principle in the light of his extremely misleading distinction between mathematical and dynamical principles (cf. above, pp. 345-7): “All appearances, _as regards their existence_, are subject _a priori_ to rules determining their relation to one another in one time.”

[1161] Cf. below, p. 358.

[1162] In A 182 = B 225 the stronger term change (_Wechsel_) is employed.

[1163] A 178-80 = B 221-3 (on the distinction between mathematical and dynamical principles) has been commented upon above, pp. 345-7.

[1164] _Philos. Krit._ 2nd ed. i. p. 545. Caird adopts a similar view, i. pp. 540, 580.

[1165] A 181 = B 224.

[1166] Cf. below, pp. 373-4.

[1167] That is to say, in the first edition.

[1168] Cf. above, pp. 332-3, 343-4.

[1169] Cf. above, p. 348; below, pp. 367-8, 371-2, 381-2.

[1170] Cf. above, pp. 94, 135-8, 309 ff., 347-8.

[1171] That is to say, in the first edition.

[1172] The new proof added in the second edition calls for no special comment. In all essentials it agrees with this second proof of the first edition. It differs only in such ways as are called for by the mode of formulating the principle in the second edition.

[1173] This statement, as Caird has pointed out (i. p. 541), is extremely questionable. “It may be objected that to say that ‘time itself does not change’ is like saying that passing away does not itself pass away. So far the endurance of time and the permanence of the changing might even seem to mean only that the moments of time never cease to pass away, and the changing never ceases to change. A perpetual flux would therefore sufficiently ‘represent’ all the permanence that is in time.” This is not, however, in itself a vital objection to Kant’s argument. For he is here stating more than his argument really requires. Events are dated in a _single_ time, not in an unchanging time. Kant’s statement betrays the extent to which, as Bergson has very justly pointed out, Kant spatialises time, _i.e._ interprets it on the analogy of space. It is based on “the mixed idea of a measurable time, which is space in so far as it is homogeneity, and duration in so far as it is succession; that is to say, at bottom, the contradictory idea of succession in simultaneity” (_Les Données immédiates_, p. 173, Eng. trans. p. 228).

[1174] Cf. A 184 = B 227: “the proposition, that substance is permanent, is tautological.”

[1175] Cf. A 188 = B 231.

[1176] Above, p. 341.

[1177] Cf. above, p. 309 ff.

[1178] B. Erdmann’s edition of the _Nachträge_, lxxx. p. 32. Cited by Caird, i. pp. 541-2.

[1179] _Op. cit._ pp. 33-4.

[1180] That Kant does not mean to imply that the category of substance has no application to the contents of inner sense is made clear by a curious argument in the _Metaphysical First Principles of Natural Science_ (1786), _W._ iv. p. 542: “What in this proof essentially characterises substance, which is possible only in space and under spatial conditions, and therefore only as object of the outer senses, is that its quantity cannot be increased or diminished without substance coming into being or ceasing to be. For the quantity of an object which is possible only in space must consist of parts which are external to one another, and these, therefore, if they are real (something movable), must necessarily be substances. On the other hand, that which is viewed as object of inner sense can, _as substance_, have a quantity which does not consist of parts external to one another. Its parts are therefore not substances, and their coming into being and ceasing to be must not be regarded as creation or annihilation of a substance. Their increase or diminution is therefore possible without prejudice to the principle of the permanence of substance.” (Italics not in Kant.) Cf. also _Prolegomena_, § 49, and below, pp. 367, 377 _n._ 3.

[1181] A 187 = B 230.

[1182] _K._ p. 211 _n._

[1183] C. A 205-7 = B 252.

[1184] _Werke_ (Frauenstädt, 1873), i. p. 85 ff.

[1185] As evidence of this failure I may cite Schopenhauer’s comment upon A 371 and 372: “From these passages it is quite clear that for Kant the perception of outer things in space is antecedent to all application of the causal law, and that this law does not therefore enter into it as its element and condition: mere sensation amounts in Kant’s view to perception” (_Werke_, i. p. 81). Even when, as in the passages referred to, Kant is speaking in his most subjectivist vein, he gives no justification for any such assertion. Schopenhauer, notwithstanding his sincere admiration for Kant--“I owe what is best in my own system to the impression made upon me by the works of Kant, by the sacred writings of the Hindoos, and by Plato” (_World as Will and Idea, Werke_, ii. p. 493, Eng. trans. ii. p. 5)--is one of the most unreliable of Kant’s critics. His comments are extremely misleading, and largely for the reason that he was interested in Kant only as he could obtain from him confirmation of his own philosophical tenets. Several of these tenets he certainly derived directly from the _Critique_; but they are placed by him in so entirely different a setting that their essential meaning is greatly altered. We have already noted (above, p. 41) Schopenhauer’s exaggerated statement of Kant’s intuitive theory of mathematics. Kant’s subjectivism is similarly expounded in a one-sided and quite unrepresentative manner (cf. below, p. 407 _n._). Hutchison Stirling’s criticisms of Kant in his _Text Book to Kant_ are vitiated by a similar failure to recognise the completely un-Critical character of the occasional passages in which Kant admits a distinction between “judgments of perception” and “judgments of experience” (cf. above, pp. 288-9). Stirling (cf. below, p. 377) has amplified his criticism of Kant in _Princeton Review_ (Jan. 1879, pp. 178-210), _Fortnightly Review_ (July 1872), and in _Mind_ (ix., 1884, p. 531, and x., 1885, p. 45).

[1186] Cf. above, pp. 240-2, 365, and below, p. 377.

[1187] Cf. Stout, _Manual of Psychology_, third edition, pp. 444-6: “Unless we assume from the outset that the primitive mind treats a perceived change which challenges its interest and attention, not as something self-existent in isolation, but as something conditioned by and conditioning other changes, it seems hopeless to attempt to show how this causal point of view could have arisen through any extension of knowledge in accordance with ascertained psychological laws and conditions.... There is good reason for denying that customary repetition is even required to furnish a first occasion or opportunity for the first emergence of the apprehension of causal relations. For, as we have already insisted, the process of learning by experience is from the first experimental.... Regularities are only found because they are sought. But it is in the seeking that the category of causal unity is primarily involved.” Cf. below, pp. 371-2.

[1188] A 193 = B 238.

[1189] A 191 = B 236.

[1190] By an “arbitrary” order Kant does not, of course, mean an order of succession that is not determined, but only one that is determined by subjectively conditioned direction of attention. Cf. below, p. 377.

[1191] Cf. A 199 = B 244, and above, pp. 133, 288-9; below, p. 377.

[1192] Cf. A 195-6 = B 240-1, and above, pp. 172, 176 ff., 182-3, 263 ff., 277-8.

[1193] A 736-7 = B 765. Italics of last sentence not in Kant.

[1194] A 189-94 = B 234-9: first to fourth paragraphs (first edition).

[1195] Cf. above, pp. 348, 358.

[1196] Cf. A 192-3 = B 238-9.

[1197] Cf. Riehl, _Philosophischer Kriticismus_ (second edition), i. pp. 551-2. While recognising the above main point, Riehl seems to assert that empirical sequence determines the _application_ of the causal concept. It would be truer, and more in accordance with the position which Kant is endeavouring to establish, to assert that appeal to constancy of sequence enables us to determine which antecedents of any given event are causal conditions. The principle of causality is already applied when the sequent experiences are apprehended as sequent events. This ambiguity, however, would seem to be due only to Riehl’s mode of expression. For, as he himself says (p. 551), the law of causality is a ground of experience, and cannot therefore be derived from it. Cf. above, pp. 267-8, 367.

[1198] Pp. 365-71, 377.

[1199] A 191 = B 236. Cf. above, pp. 216-18.

[1200] As pointed out above, this is really a secondary meaning which Kant reads into the term analogy; it is not the true explanation of his choice of the term.

[1201] _Critical Philosophy of Kant_, vol. i. pp. 540, 580.

[1202] _Kant_, p. 198: trans. by Creighton and Lefevre, p. 196.

[1203] Cf. above, pp. 270 ff., 313-21.

[1204] Kant, of course, recognises that we cannot make any such positive assertion; to do so would be to transcend the limits imposed by Critical principles. Cf. below, p. 382.

[1205] A 194-6 = B 239-41: fifth to seventh paragraphs (first edition).

[1206] A 196-9 = B 241-4: eighth to tenth paragraphs (first edition).

[1207] A 199-201 = B 244-6: eleventh to thirteenth paragraphs (first edition).

[1208] Cf. above, pp. 224 ff., 264 ff.; below, 377.

[1209] A 201-2 = B 246-7: fourteenth paragraph (first edition).

[1210] B 233-4: second paragraph (second edition).

[1211] B 233-4.

[1212] From A 202 = B 247 to the end.

[1213] Kant’s phenomenalist substitute for the Cartesian subjectivism (cf. above, pp. 270 ff., 312 ff.) enables him to develop this thesis in a consistent and thoroughgoing manner. The subjective is a subspecies within the class of what is determined by natural law; and the principle of causality is therefore applicable to subjective change in the same rigorous fashion as to the objectively sequent.

[1214] A 204 = B 249.

[1215] _W._ i. pp. 87-92.

[1216] _Grundsätze der reinen Erkenntniss-Theorie_, p. 151. Quoted and translated by Caird, i. p. 572. Caird sums up the matter in a sentence (p. 571): “Kant is showing, not that objective succession is always causal, but that the determination of a succession of perceptions as referring to a succession of states in an object, involves the principle of causality.”

[1217] _Loc. cit._

[1218] The connected question how we can determine the ball and the cushion as objectively coexistent is the problem of the third _Analogy_.

[1219] III. _Erklärung_ 1 and 2, _Lehrsatz_ 1 (especially _Anmerkung_ thereto). Cf. also II. _Erklärung_ 1 and 5, and the last pages of the _Allgemeine Anmerkung_.

[1220] Pp. 351, 373-4. Cf. pp. 318-21.

[1221] A 170-1 = B 212-13, above, p. 353, _n._ 2.

[1222] A 208 = B 253-4.

[1223] _Metaphysical First Principles, II. Lehrsatz 4, Anmerkung 2._

[1224] A 209-10 = B 255-6.

[1225] A 210 = B 256.

[1226] _W._ ii. p. 22.

[1227] _W._ ii. p. 168.

[1228] _Loc. cit._

[1229] For lack of a more suitable English equivalent I have translated _Gemeinschaft_ as “communion.” As Kant points out in A 213 = B 260, the German term is itself ambiguous, signifying _commercium_ (_i.e._ dynamical interaction) as well as _communio_.

[1230] Cf. above, pp. 348, 358-9, 367-8, 371-2.

[1231] § 17 ff. Cf. _Nachträge zu Kants Kritik_, lxxxvi, with B. Erdmann’s comment, p. 35.

[1232] A 211-12 = B 258. Cf. A 211 = B 257.

[1233] A 211 = B 257.

[1234] A 211-13 = B 258-60: first three paragraphs (first edition).

[1235] A 213-14 = B 260-1: fourth paragraph (first edition).

[1236] A 214-15 = B 261-2: fifth paragraph (first edition).

[1237] Cf. above, pp. 189-90, 208 ff.

[1238] B 257-8: first paragraph (second edition).

[1239] Cf. B 291-3, partially quoted above, pp. 310-11. In the _Metaphysical First Principles_ (_III. Lehrsatz_, 4) the principle that action and reaction are always equal is similarly limited to the outer relations of material bodies in space, and Kant adds that all change in bodies is motion. Cf. _W._ xi. p. 234; and above, p. 147.

[1240] Above pp. 311-12; below, pp. 473-7.

[1241] A 213 = B 260.

[1242] The inconsistency of Kant’s view of pure manifolds of time and space with the argument of the _Analytic of Principles_ is too obvious to call for detailed comment.

[1243] Cf. B 257.

[1244] A 213-14 = B 260-1.

[1245] B 257.

[1246] Third edition, p. 438.

[1247] Stout does not himself offer it as complete.

[1248] _World as Will and Idea, W._ ii. pp. 544-5: Eng. trans. ii. pp. 61-3.

[1249] Cf. above, p. 197.

[1250] A 212-13 = B 259.

[1251] B 258.

[1252] _Op. cit._ pp. 545-6: Eng. trans. p. 63.

[1253] _Op. cit._ pp. 546-7: Eng. trans. pp. 63-5.

[1254] Cf. above, p. 379.

[1255] Cf. Stadler, _Grundsätze_, p. 124.

[1256] _Op. cit._ p. 546: Eng. trans. p. 63.

[1257] Cf. above, pp. 97-8, 102 _n._, 165-6; below, pp. 429 ff., 447 ff., 547 ff.

[1258] Cf. Adickes, K. p. 233 _n._

[1259] A 222 = B 269. Cf. A 220 = B 268.

[1260] A 148 ff. = B 187 ff.

[1261] A 219 = B 266.

[1262] This, by Kant’s own account (A 232-4 = B 285-7), is what led him to adopt the title ‘postulates.’ A geometrical postulate does not add anything to the concept of its object but only defines the conditions of its production.

[1263] Cf. above, pp. 38-9; below, pp. 398-9, 418 ff.

[1264] Cf. A 220-3 = B 267-71.

[1265] A 223 = B 270.

[1266] Cf. A 220 = B 268.

[1267] A 223 = B 270-1.

[1268] K. p. 223 _n._

[1269] A 224 = B 272.

[1270] Cf. above, pp. 288-9.

[1271] A 225 = B 272. Cf. above, pp. 394-6.

[1272] A 225 = B 273. Italics not in Kant.

[1273] _The Critical Philosophy of Kant_, i. p. 591.

[1274] _Op. cit._ p. 595.

[1275] A 226 = B 273-4.

[1276] A 226 ff. = B 279 ff.

[1277] A 218 = B 281.

[1278] A 232 = B 284.

[1279] A 231 = B 284.

[1280] Cf. above, p. 309 ff.

[1281] Kant’s argument in the note to B 290 is that of his early essay on _Negative Quantity_. Cf. below, pp. 527 ff., 533 ff., 536.

[1282] A 236 = B 295.

[1283] Cf. above, pp. xxxv-vi, xxxviii, 185-6, 191, 195-6, 257-8, 290-1, 325 ff., 339.

[1284] The mathematical illustrations which Kant proceeds to give (A 239 = B 299) are peculiarly crude and off-hand in manner of statement. Cf. _per contra_ A 140 = B 179 for Kant’s real view of the distinction between image, schema, and concept.

[1285] Cf. above, pp. 195-6, 198, 339-42.

[1286] A 243 = B 301.

[1287] A 242 = B 302.

[1288] Cf. A 248 = B 305.

[1289] A 246-7 = B 303-4. A 247-8 = B 304-5 (beginning “Thought is the action,” etc.) is merely a repetition of the preceding argument, and probably represents a later intercalation.

[1290] Beginning “Appearances, so far as ...,” which was omitted in the second edition. It probably constitutes, as Adickes maintains (_K._ p. 254 _n._), the original beginning of this chapter. The “as we have hitherto maintained” of its second paragraph, which obviously cannot apply to the pages which precede it in its present position, must refer to the argument of the _Analytic_.

[1291] A 249, 251.

[1292] Above, p. 204 ff.