Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
General Introduction (Not in the syllabus)
Kant distinguishes between three mental capacities that are relevant for knowing
objects: sensibility, understanding, and reason.
Sensibility is our capacity to perceive individual objects via our senses (such as
a particular human or a colour).
Understanding is our capacity to conceptually think what is common to many
objects in general, e.g. via the concept of human or red. Through understanding
we also form simple judgments with which we think of these things, such as
“humans are mortal” or “red is a colour”.
Reason is our capacity to infer (i.e. to reason, not merely think) via inferences,
i.e. to derive judgments from other judgments using reasoning. Thus if we
perceive via sensibility that Kant is a human, and we know that humans are
mortal, we can infer that Kant is also mortal without perceiving his mortality.
Now, typically we perceive similarities among individuals and form concepts through
experience. We see numerous red items and form the concept red. Since red is a
colour, we can infer that it will have the same properties as all colours. Such use of
reason, which is how it is commonly used, Kant calls impure because it needs input
from both sensibility (perceived experiences) and understanding (conceptualised
experience). Impure is not bad – it is just reliant on other cognitive faculties and
subject to their limitations.
The big question Kant poses in the Critique of Pure Reason is whether there is also
a pure use of reason, and whether such use is able to procure knowledge – and
under which conditions it would be able to do so. That is, could we use our pure
capacity of reasoning to derive knowledge, quite like the rationalists maintained, or
whether empiricists are right that all knowledge is fundamentally based on sense
perceptions.
Such pure use of reason would be clearly beneficial when trying to know certain
metaphysical entities such as God or such metaphysical concepts as infinity. Since
we cannot perceive God or infinity, impure use of reason is according to Kant
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
1
insufficient for gaining knowledge of them. Only pure reason could be able to, as
Kant says, transcend the bounds of experience and acquire knowledge of such
metaphysical ideas.
As it turns out, Kant argues that it is not possible to use pure reason to acquire
theoretical knowledge of objects. Hence pure entities of reason – noumena – are
beyond our knowledge. But reason has also a practical use, which governs
our actions and will rather than knowledge. While theoretical use of reason
concerns what is or exists, practical use of reason concerns what ought to be. In
the Critique of Practical Reason Kant argues that we can in fact use
pure practical reason to determine the moral law, i.e. the ethical principle that should
govern all our actions. This is the famous categorical imperative, which tells us what
ought to be or what we ought to do completely autonomously, without any reliance
on experience. Hence pure reason finds its proper place not in metaphysics but in
ethics.
Part-1 (Introduction)
On the difference between pure and empirical
cognition
Every cognition begins with experience (objects stimulating our senses and
producing representations, understanding is what compares, connects or separates
them). No cognition precedes experience and with experience, every cognition
begins.
But it doesn’t mean that all cognition commences with experience. Because it can be
the case that even our experiential cognition could be derived from something or on
its own.
This is not a question to be dismissed straightaway because some apriori cognitions
could be the ones different from empirical ones(which are aposteriori)
But even this question can not be sufficiently strong because it can be said that even
apriori(not derived immediately from exprience) experiences are derived from
experience. For a house to collapse, it must have a weak foundation and if
somebody’s house fell off, it must be the case that the foundations were weak. But it
is not entirely apriori as there must be some experience priorly that heavy bodies
collapse when not given proper support.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
2
So, we must call this apriori only when it is absolutely independent from all
experience against which stand the aposteriori which have their foundation in
experience. Apriori cognitions can be pure when nothing empirical is mixed with
them. Ex: Every alteration has a cause is not pure as the concept of alteration is
derived from experience.
We are in possession of certain a priori cognitions,
and even the common understanding is never
without them
Experience tells us that things are so and so, but it doesn’t mean that they can’t be
otherwise.
1. When a proposition is thought to be necessary and also when something is not
derived from anything else but only that proposition, then something is
absolutely apriori.
2. Experience only gives its judgements by means of assumed or comparative
universality. i.e as far as we have no exception to a general rule. So, if a
judgement is very strict in universality and there is no exception to it at all, then it
is not derived from experience and is absolutely apriori.
So, necessary and strict universality is an indication of apriori cognitions.
But it is generally easier to use the unrestricted universality than the other one, it is
advisable to use these both criteria individually as both are infallible.
Kant now shows that there are actually apriori cognitions that exist. Gives an
example of the propositions of Mathematics. Or simply the statement -Every
alteration must have a cause for the concept of a cause will be necessarily
connected with the concept of an effect.
And even without requiring examples, you could accept the existence of apriori
principles because experience can’t bring them about. So where would you get them
from? Even if we remove from the concept of a body everything that is empirical, we
still are left with space that was occupied by the body and we can’t kick this concept
out from our head. So, it is by necessity that we are to be convinced of a cognition
that is apriori.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
3
Philosophy needs a science that determines the
possibility, the principles, and the domain of all
cognitions a priori.
There are cognitions that go beyond the world of experience and experience can’t do
anything about them. So, it’s better to give our Reason the task of investigating this
then our Understanding.
These problems are the problems of the topics like God, freedom and immortality.
And this task is given to Metaphysics whose approach is a little dogmatic in the start
as it takes on to execute such things without properly examining them.
It would be fair to say that anyone would not just believe the cognitions of the other
kind(than of experience) immediately after abandoning the former ones, without
proper investigation. And when something is explained by the word natural, then it is
understood as something bound to happen, than when it is not, it’s understood as
which usually happens and the second way is no way of proper investigation.
Such cognitions(apriori) can are supported by the existence of mathematics that
more such things could be existing. And when one is investigating outside of
experience, then one can’t be refuted by experience and can only be stopped by a
very clear contradiction. But even those can be avoided if the inventions are made
carefully. Again, Mathematics is a splendid example of such types of
cognitions(apriori). But one thing than can be problematic here is Intuitions but they
can be overlooked since Intuitions themselves can be said to be apriori.
When one flies in the free space of understanding there will be no resistance or no
support either, just as Plato did, by his realm of ideas of which there was no previous
analysis. It is all human to do all the work and finish it and then investigate whether
the grounds for it are accurate or not. But by then, all sorts of excuses might come in
and the work can’t be very well done.
But a great part of reason is the analysis of the concepts that we already have of
objects. So, we have something that is already treasured. This process will yield
apriori cognition by reason and sometimes reason adds something to these
concepts apriorily by itself without knowing that it did. So, Kant now decides to make
a distinction between two sorts of cognition right from the outset.
On the difference between analytic and synthetic
judgments
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
4
Analytic judgements (affirmative)- Those in which the connection of predicate to the
subject is through identity and the notion is already contained in it.
They are also called judgements of clarification. as they don’t add anything but just
break up the concept for the means of analysis which are already in it.
Ex: All bodies are extended. The concept of a body includes the concept of it being
extended. No new addition is being made here.
Synthetic judgements- In which the connection of predicate to the subject is not
through identity. They are also called judgements of amplification as it could not have
been thought of being in it by the means of analysis.
Ex: All bodies are heavy. A body does not necessarily have the concept of it being
heavy in it and something entirely different from the concept of body has been said.
Judgement of experience are all synthetic for it’s absurd to say of an analytic
judgements on experience for there is no need for testimony of such statements.
That a body is extended is apriori and not learned by experience because such
properties are from necessity and experience could never teach us such things. But
when it comes to the concept of weight, I need to first think of a body(with extension)
which is analytically known and then connect the concept of weight which is then
synthetically added. And it is ultimately that I can combine the concept of a body and
weight which are not contained in each other, with the help of experience which are
synthetic concepts.
But what about Synthetic a priori judgements? Because, in them, I cannot rely on my
experience(Because- a priori) for knowing the connection, by means of which I used
to synthesize concepts.
Ex: Everything happens for a reason- In this ‘something happens’ has in it the
existence of something in the past that can be analytically drawn from it, but the
concept of a cause is something outside and completely different from it. What is
then, the unknown concept with which I can discover concepts belonging to a
subject A with predicates that are foreign to it but nevertheless connected to it? It
can’t be experience(because a priori). So now, the entire aim of the a priori
cognition rests upon the synthetic statements, for as the analytic ones are most
important and necessary.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
5
Synthetic a priori judgments are contained as
principles in all theoretical sciences of reason
1. Mathematical judgements are all synthetic
This proposition might have escaped from a view of a lot of people. But when
people found out that inference of mathematics can be in accordance with the
contradiction principle, they thought they could also be cognized with the
principle of contradictions, but that was wrong as a synthetic proposition can be
inferred from contradiction principle only when another synthetic proposition is
presupposed from it.
Though mathematical propositions are always a priori and never empirical, Kant
still limits his proposition to pure mathematics (which already pertains to only
apriori cognitions)
Gives an example of 7+5= 12 and says that one might think that this is an
analytic statement but it is not. As the mere concepts of 7 & 5 do not contain in
them, the concept of 12. All these concepts are distinct in themselves. So, the
arithmetic propositions are also always synthetic. It becomes more clear as we
take up huge numbers. For ex: 1276232 + 8902702109 = ?????? can’t be
analytic as the sum isn’t present in the numbers but has to be calculated
synthetically.
Similarly, geometry is also not analytic. Ex: ‘Straight line is the shortest between
two points.’ Here, the Straight contains no quantity but only quality and the
concept of Shortest is only additional to it. And if help is provided with intuition,
then it’s only because of it being synthetic.
A few principles accepted by geometers are analytic like - the whole is greater
than its parts etc. but when they come in mathematics, they’re admitted by
intuition only. What makes us believe them to be analytic is the ambiguity of the
expression. We might, when hear of a concept, think of something in addition to
it, but it can only be analytic if we think of it with necessity.
2. Natural Science contains within itself synthetic a priori judgements as
principles
Ex: In the corporeal world, the quantity of matter remains unaltered
Here, when we talk of matter, I can only think of it occupying some space, but it
being persistent and unaltered in quantity is a new addition to it. So, the
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
6
proposition has been added to something that is synthetic and apriori.
3. Metaphysics
Metaphysics particularly, is not just interested in analyzing statements, but also
amplifying our cognitions a priori with the help of principles that add something to
the given concepts not already contained in them.
The general problem of pure reason
The real problem: How are synthetic a priori judgements possible?
The reason for metaphysics being in such a confused state is because that this
problem was never considered. And there is no such solution to it. Metaphysics
either stands or falls. David Hume came closest and discovered the synthetic
propositions, but didn’t take account of universality of things. Hume said that such
apriori stuff is impossible and that Metaphysics would fall down because what is
being called reason is just a mere delusion of experience and habit in the
appearance of necessity. But he would’ve not done this error if our problem came in
front of his eyes because if it did, then acc to his argument, he’d have said that there
can’t be any pure mathematics as it contains synthetic a priori propositions.
When we find out the solution to the above problem, at the same time we can also
find out the answers to the questions that contain a priori cognition of objects like:
How is pure mathematics possible?
How is pure natural science possible?
For these sciences, How they are possible is a question because we know that they
exist. For Metaphysics, this can’t be a question because it is in such an unstable
stage that we doubt its possibility.
But it has to be accepted that Metaphysics, if not as a science, exists still as a
natural predisposition because human reason, pushes itself in need to find the
answers to such questions. And so, a form of Metaphysics is present in all human
beings as soon as they make use of reason. So, now the question : ‘How is
metaphysics as a natural predisposition possible? arises.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
7
A lot of contradictions have previously arose in answering such questions and
hence, one cannot leave it to metaphysics to answer. It should be brought to
certainty about the knowledge or ignorance of objects i.e to come to a decision about
objects or questions concerning the capacity or incapacity of reason which will then
tell us to rely on our pure reason or to set limits for it. This last question would rightly
be framed as: How is metaphysics possible as a science?
Only the critique of reason has thus led us to metaphysics being a science.
This science can’t be vast as it doesn’t deal with objects of reason but with its own
problems come about from its own nature.
The idea and division of a special science under the
name of a critique of pure reason
This special science is called the critique of pure reason as reason is faculty with
which we cognition of A priori things.
An organon would be sum total of all such principles and the exhaustive application
of this organon would create a system of pure reason. But since it requires a lot of
effort, the mere estimation of pure reason hence, can be called as The Critique of
Pure Reason.
All cognition is Transcendental that which is not occupied with the object itself, but
the mode of cognition of the object as far as this is apriori.
And a system of such concepts is Transcendental Philosophy.
Such a critique would be a starting point for the organon or a complete system of
philosophy of pure reason. And we have to know that our object is not the nature of
things but the understanding of the nature of things only regard to apriori cognition.
This critique of pure reason, when used to analyze all the principles pertaining to the
synthesis of apriori cognitions exhaustively, would give rise to the transcendental
philosophy.
Main aim- That nothing enters this science which is empirical. That is the reason why
Kant even excludes all the Moral Philosophy as well. There are two thingsSensibility and Understanding.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
8
S- That which is given to us.
U- That which are thought of.
And that which is sensible and a priori enters the realm of transcendental philosophy.
Part-2 (The Transcendental Doctrine of
Elements- First Part)
The Transcendental Aesthetic
Intuition- A cognition, related to objects in whatever means, but immediately related
to them, and directed as an end is Intuition.
Sensibility- The capacity to acquire representations through a way in which we are
affected by objects.
So, all in all, Objects are given to us by Sensibility, and due to that, we can have
Intuitions; They are thought through the Understanding and from it, arise our
Concepts.
But in direct or indirect way, objects are ultimately related to intuitions, and in our
case, Sensibility as it is the only way in which objects are given to us.
The effects of an object on the capacity of representations in called Sensation.
And the Intuition related to the object through sensation is Empirical.
The object of empirical intuitions is appearance.
Appearance that corresponds to sensations is Matter.
That allows the manifold of appearance to be ordered in certain relations is the Form
of the appearance.
The matter of all appearance is a posteriori but the form of the appearance is always
a priori and lies in the mind.
Kant calls all representations pure that do not belong to sensation at all. The pure
form of sensible intuitions are also in the mind a priori. The pure form of sensibility is
called pure intuition.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
9
If you separate the body from the things of understanding- substance, force,
divisibility etc. and also separate it from the things that belong to sensations impenetrability, hardness, color etc. , the thing that’s left is extension and form which
is pure intuition and exists a priori in the mind.
Transcendental Aesthetic- The science of all principles of such a priori sensibility.
Transcendental Logic- The science that constitutes the principles of pure thinking.
The aim of the Transcendental Aesthetic is to isolate sensibility from
understanding and concepts so that only Empirical Intuitions remain.
The next step is to detach everything from the Empirical Intuitions that belongs to
sensation so that only pure intuition is left.
And while doing this, we will know that space and time are the only two things that
are pure forms of sensible intuitions.
First Section - On Space
Metaphysical Exposition of Space
By outer sense, we mean objects outside us, as all in space. In space, we can
determine their shape, magnitude, relation to one another.
Inner sense, we mean of things of which the mind intuits itself or inner state. This
inner sense is related to Time.
Now, each of space and time will go through expositions(distinct representation of all
that belongs to a concept); and these expositions are Metaphysical as it contains
that which has the concept as Given a priori.
1. Space is not an empirical concept drawn from outer experience because for
something to be outside me, they have to be different and be at different places
in space, so, the representation of space is already in them. So, relation of
space can’t be derived from outer appearance as the outer appearance is itself
possible because of the representation of space.
2. Space is a necessary representations a priori, and is the ground of all other
intuitions. One can never think of there being no space, though it can be thought
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
10
that there are no objects in space. So, space is the condition for the
representations to be possible and is not dependent upon them.
3. Space is not discursive(not reached to by reason but by intuition), but a pure
intuition. There can be only one space and if one thinks of multiple spaces, it
must be that one thinks of the singular space in its parts or components.
Similarly, all geometric principles like ‘Two sides of the triangle combined are
greater than the third’ are not derived from the concepts of line or a triangle but
rather from intuition and a priori.
4. Space is an infinite given magnitude. So, every concept is a representation
contained in an infinite set of different possible representations which contains
these concepts Under Itself; But no concept can be thought of being contained
in an infinite set of different representations Within Itself. So, space is an a
priori intuition & not a concept.
Transcendental Exposition of Space
Transcendental Exposition is the explanation of a concept as a principle which gives
us insight into the possibility of other synthetic a priori cognitions.
2 Requirements for this aim:
1. That such cognitions actually flow from the given concept.
2. These cognitions are only possible under the presupposition of a given way of
explaining this concept.
Geometry is synthetic yet a priori. The representation of space must be from intuition
only for it to be possible as there can’t be any propositions in the concept that go
beyond the concept itself.(Intuition is synthetic yet a priori as well) And this intuition
must be a priori and pure & not empirical.
So, this explanation makes geometry synthetic a priori and hence, any explanation
that doesn’t accomplish this, must be distinguished from it by means of
characteristic.
Conclusion of Space:
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
11
Space doesn’t represent any property of things in themselves or in relation to
each other.
Space is the form of all appearance of outer sense, the receptivity of the subject
to be affected comes before any intuition, so, the form of all appearances must be
a priori to all actual perceptions.
So, we are speaking of all these things from a human standpoint and when we move
away from the subjective condition from which we get outer intuition, then the
concept of space is null void. This predicate is attached to things insofar as they
appear to us. And the constant form of this receptivity, is called sensibility and is a
necessary condition of all relations from which objects outside us are intuited.
Space comprehends things that are external to us and not things in themselves as
we can’t judge if intuitions of all other beings are the same.
The proposition “All things in space are next to each other” is valid only so far as
these things are limited to be the objects of our sensible intuitions.
But if I add this condition to the concept and say “All things as outer intuitions are
next to each other in space”, then this rule is valid universally without any limitation.
The Empirical Reality of space- That what is with respect to all possible outer
experince.
The Transcendental Reality- Space is nothing as soon as we leave aside the
condition of possibility of all experience.
There is no other subjective representation of something external that could be
called a priori objective other than space.
The whole point of this was to explain that things like color, taste etc are not like
space as they are not qualities but mere alterations of subjects, different in different
people.
What is originally itself is the appearance in an empirical sense can also be different
to different people and this is Form. Outer objects are nothing else but mere
representations of our sensibility whose form is space and the objects in themselves
are not known to us at all.
Second Section - On Time
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
12
Metaphysical Exposition of Time
1. Time is not an empirical concept that is drawn from experience as succession
can’t come into perception until representation of time grounds it as a priori.
2. Time is a necessary representation. Time cannot be removed at all, although the
appearances can be taken away from time, but not time itself. Therefore, it is a
priori.
3. This a priori necessity of time also comes with the possibility of apodictic(clear &
precise) principles and axioms of time. Time has only one dimension, different
times are not simultaneous but successive only.
4. Time is not discursive(found by reason), but is pure form of sensible intuition.
Different times are only a part of one and this can be represented by intuition
only.
5. Time is infinite and any determination of time in magnitude is possible only
through limitations. The original representation of time is unlimited.
Transcendental Exposition of Time
The concept of alteration or motion is only possible because of time. Because if the
representation of time was not a priori. then no concept could have been possible for
an alteration( A thing’s being and non-being at the same place). Though it is to be
noted that these alterations are encountered successively and not simultaneously.
Conclusion of Time:
Time is not something that attaches itself to anything as then it would be
something actual without an actual object.
Time remains even if one abstracts the object from all its subjective conditions.
But it can occur if time is taken as a subjective condition for all intuitions.
Time is only a form of inner sense - intuition of our inner state or self. It can’t be
an outer state as it doesn’t belong to either shape or positions but rather
determines the relation of representations of our inner state. Representation of time
is itself an intuition.
Time is the a priori condition of all appearances. Space is limited as a priori only
to outer intuitions. For space- All outer appearances are in space an determined a
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
13
priori according to the relations of space. For time- All appearances in general (all
objects of our senses) are in time and determined in relation to time.
If we only consider our outer intuitions, time is nothing, however, if we consider
all appearances in general, time makes sense. So, time is just a subjective
condition of our intuition insofar as we consider the object in itself, outside the
object, time is nothing. We can’t say all things are in time but when the condition of
all things being as appearances is added, then time becomes a sound objective a
priori principle.
Elucidation
There is an objection that Time is absolutely real as since alterations are real. And
real alterations can only happen if time was real. But Kant says the time is real, yes,
but only as a form of inner intuition and has subjective reality regard to our inner
experiences. The empirical reality of time is a condition of our experiences.
Time and space hence, are two sources of cognition from which different synthetic
cognitions are drawn a priori. Both taken together are the pure forms of sensible
intuition. But these have their own boundaries like they apply to objects only so far
as they’re considered as appearances, but not present things in themselves.
There are two alternatives that people go for:
1. That space and time are two eternal & infinite self- subsisting non-entities which
comprehend everything within themselves. They succeed in opening the field of
appearances for mathematical assertions but they become confused about
these conditions & if the understanding would go beyond this field.
2. That space and time are relation of appearances abstracted from experience.
That space and time are a priori concepts. They succeed in the way that the
representation of space and time don’t interfere when they judge objects not as
appearances but only as relation to understanding but they can’t offer any
ground for the possibility of a priori mathematical cognitions.
Kant’s theory has the remedies for both these difficulties
The transcendental aesthetic only has these two elements: space and time. And
nothing can be added because they belong to sensibility which presupposes
something empirical. Ex: Motion
Ex: We can’t count alteration either as it is not time that itself alters but things that
are within time alter.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
14
Part-3 (Of the Deduction of the Pure
Concepts of the Understanding)
Transcendental deduction of the pure concepts of the
understanding
On ,the possibility of a combination in general
Manifold- Unorganized data with the senses, but not experienced.
Understanding- Our capacity to think what is common to many objects in general.
Ex: What is common in all humans?
Representations- Immediate objects of our awareness.
The manifold of representations can be given by an intuition totally sensible (nothing
else apart from receptivity). But the combination of manifold can’t be given by
senses, because it is an act of spontaneity and it is done by understanding. This act
is denoted by the name of Synthesis. It is important to know that we can’t combine
some things in the object before we’ve combined it within ourselves.
So, combination is not given through objects but can only be executed by the
subject itself (It is a self-activity)
The action must be valid and capable of combination, and that Dissolution (It’s
opposite) always presupposes it. Because understanding, when it has not combined
anything, can’t dissolve it either.
The concept of Combination comes with the concept of Unity of the manifold. i.e
Combination is the synthetic Unity of the manifold.
The representation of this unity can’t come from combination, but rather comes by
being added to the representation of the manifold in which it first makes the concept
of combination possible.
So, it implies that Unity precedes all concept of combinations a priori.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
15
But this Unity is not the Category of Unity as all categories are grounded on logical
functions in judgements. But in this Unity, it is already thought in combination. So,
this Unity is somewhere higher. even before the cateogories.
On the original-synthetic unity of apperception(Self
Consciousness)
I think
This phrase it to contain all representations as otherwise, something represented
couldn’t be thought at all. So, representation in this case would be impossible.
(It is not that I should always consciously think about all my representations, but all
my representations are to be capable of being in my self-consciousness.)
Intuition- The representation that can be given prior to all thinking.
So, all manifolds of Intuition is related to I think.
This representation is an act of spontaneity and can’t be ascribed to sensibility. This
is called Pure Apperception/ Original Apperception which is different from the
Empirical one.
This Pure Apperception has self-consciousness which produces this I think. The
unity of this self-consciousness is called the Transcendental Unity to ascribe a priori
cognition to it. It is so because the representations given in an intuition would not be
My representations if they didn’t belong to self-consciousness.
That this apperception of manifold Intuitions is not bound together by anything
empirical but rather by self-consciousness itself. It is an a priori thing that an
experience is related to the transcendental unity of self-consciousness.
And for all these experiences to be bound to a unity of this one self-consciousness
requires a synthetic relationship/unity. And it is only possible by this unity of
representations into one self-consciousness that I’m able to think of them together.
The principle of the synthetic unity of apperception is the
supreme principle of all use of the understanding
We saw in the Transcendental Aesthetic that for intuition to be related to sensibility, it
was Given to us in the manifold of sensibility in space and time.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
16
But here, all intuition to be related to the Understanding, it has to be under
conditions of the synthetic unity of apperception or in simple words, be capable of
being combined in one consciousness.
In other words, that intuition, by itself, can’t have the categories applied to it but by
only when it is together with understanding playing a role in it.
Understanding - The faculty of cognitions.
An Object is something in which the concept of manifold of all intuitions is united.
The unification of these intuitions to form one single thing. Requires the unity of selfconsciousness. As if there were numerous consciousnesses, then the idea of a
unified object couldn’t be possible. And it is the only way in which an object(Unified
Intuitions) can be. i.e to be in a unity of consciousness.
”The synthetic unity of consciousness is therefore an objective condition of all
cognition, not merely something I myself need in order to cognize an object
but rather something under which every intuition must stand in order to
become an object for me, since in any other way, and without this synthesis,
the manifold would not be united in one consciousness”
What objective unity of self-consciousness is
The Transcendental Unity of Apperception(Self-Consciousness) is objective Unity
and The Empirical Unity is Subjective.
The empirical Unity of Consciousness concerns an appearance, and is contingent.
But the pure form of intuition, given manifold, stands under the Unity of
Consciousness, by the means of a necessary relation to I think, through the
synthesis of Understanding(Objective Validity) which already has a priorily contained
in it, the Empirical Unity(which has subjective validity).
The logical form of all judgments consists in the objective unity
of the apperception of the concepts contained therein
Introduces the concept of a Judgement.
Judgement is a way to bring cognitions to the objective unity of apperception.
To distinguish the objective unity from the subjective for any given representation is a
task of the copula ‘Is’
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
17
Ex: When I say, “A body Is heavy, the Is here represents the necessary relation that
the bodies always come with heaviness and hence, is a necessary unity.
It is not necessary that this body had to be heavy, but they are brought together by
the necessary synthesis of unity so as to be the contents of our self-consciousness.
In this part, (19), we are confirming what we said in the 17th part. That there had to
be the unity of self-consciousness to have an idea of the unified intuitions of an
object, is done by the Judgement here.
Judgements hence, are necessary for the combination of manifold of intuitions into
an objective unity of our single self-consciousness.
All sensible intuitions stand under the categories, as conditions
under which alone their manifold can come together in one
consciousness
With the knowledge of the last paragraph and the knowledge of categories, it can be
said that categories are nothing but the very functions of judging/ judgement.
Part-4 (The Transcendental Doctrine of the
Power of Judgment (or Analytic of
Principles)
On the schematism of the pure concepts of the
understanding
The (Empirical) concept of an object is such a thing that the object must be
homogenous with the concept, in other words. the concept must contain what is
represented in the object.
Ex: The concept of a plate contains the concept of a circle, when thought of.
But the pure concept of Understanding are contrastingly, entirely homogenous and
can’t be encountered in an intuition.
But if this is the case, then how is it possible that the categories would apply to
intuitions(appearance)? As The (12) categories, mentioned somewhere else in the
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
18
text, are not in the spatio-temporal arena but what is in this space and time are the
intuitions(Appearances). So how are these two to be connected with each other?
So, there must be a bridge that makes the categories and intuition(appearance)
homogenous. This bridge must be pure, intellectual as well as sensible. This is
called the Transcendental Schema.
Categories are, in general, rules that are applied to an object. And they are not
just rules applied, but rules applied in determination to time. Time is also the
Universal form of synthesis of all sensible manifold. Hence, the bridge is Time.
These categories, being the pure concepts of the understanding are merely of
empirical use and not of transcendent use, i.e. they can be applied to appearance of
objects and not objects in themselves.
The schemata is a product of the imagination. It is a kind of a rule. A rule for
constructing images but not images themselves.
Ex: An image of a triangle won’t help me understand the concept of a triangle as it
would only be a part of the whole concept of triangles.
So, schemata is a rule in itself and not images. This schema or rule can exist
nowhere but in thought. And this can have a lot of different examples such as the
concept of red or of a dog.
So, both empirical and non-empirical concepts have schema.
This schema is an a priori imagination, and it is through it that the concrete formation
of an image becomes possible.
Why can’t this bridge be space?
It is because space is the outer form of sense and the manifold subsumed under
things like emotions, feelings, sensations etc and not subsumed under the form of
outer sense.
And since synthesis in time pertains to all sensible manifold, even a set of intuitions
of the outer sense have to be turned into an inner form so as it can be synthesized
under the synthetic unity of apperception. And that is why time is used as the
universal bridge for the schemata.
If I’m hit by something outside of myself, I’m being determined by all 3 dimensions in
space. But converting this outer sense into inner sense means that I’m also ascribing
to the input of- Simultaneity and Succession. Without these dimensions of time,
spatial dimensions won’t be effective.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
19
And so, every category (12) must have a respective mode of temporal synthesis (it
being connected to time) or a respective schema. In other words, every category
must have an a priori form of time in it.
Contrast with Locke’s Representative Realism
Representative realism is when we have the representation(idea) of an object that is
derived from the object that is present in the real world and actually exists.
Ex: When I see a candle with my sensory organs, it is then that the idea or
representation of a candle is formed in my mind. And this representation is real
because the candle really exists in the real world.
But Kant’s schematism is different from this as it is totally imaginary concept. The
schemata or the rule for a particular object lies a priori in my mind and I am not
dependent on my senses to have an idea./representation of it in my mind.
Each Category (12) has a respective schemata in the synthesis of time.
1. The Schema for the first category of Quantity (Magnitude) is number. Such as
Singular, Particular, Universal, one, some or all. The number is nothing but a
successive addition of a unit to another. This successiveness is provided in time.
2. The second category of Quality. Before any empirical reality takes place, we
have to understand reality itself before how many or how much. Reality is hence
a concept of being(in time). Negation is the concept of non being (in time) and
also Limitation of something (in time). Every sensible quality in a judgement, Ex:
Ram is tall, involves sensible manifold which has to be filled out in a span of
time.
3. The third category of Relation which means the relation of one reality with
another reality. The relation of something being permanent and temporary. Only
time as an inner structure can allow this permanent-temporary structure and
something is permanent and temporary with respect to time only. Time itself
doesn’t elapse but the existence of something that is in time, elapses in it. Time
doesn’t fleet. Rather it acts as a background of permanence in which the fleeting
moments of substances take place.
The schema of causality is explained by something in succession to something
with respect to time. One being the cause (previous in time) and the other being
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
20
the effect (later in time)
4. The fourth category of Modality, in which the thing might be in the schema of:
a. Actuality- Existence at a determinate time
b. Necessity- Existence of the object at all times
c. Possibility- Possibility of existence of the object at some time.
So, the schemata is nothing but a priori time determinations in accordance with the
rules.
Kant- Critique of Pure Reason
21