THE CAMBRIDGE EDITION OF THE WORKS OF IMMANUEL KANT Critique of IE iaa aLIMMANUEL KANT Critique of pure reason TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY PAUL GUYER University of Penasylvama ALLEN W. WOOD Yale Untversity § CAMBRIDGE » UNIVERSITY PRESSTABLE OF CONTENTS® Marto (added in the second edition) Dedication (as in the first edition of 1781) (asin the second edition of 1787) Preface (to the first edition) Preface to the second edition Table of Contents (as in the first edition) Introduction (as in the first edition) I The idea of transcendental philosophy On the difference between analytic and synthetic judgments. II. Division of transcendental philosophy. Introduction (as in the second edition) 1. On the difference between pure and empirical cognition. Il, We are in possession of certain a priori cognitions, and even the common understanding is not without them. III. Philosophy needs a science that determines the possibility, the principles! and the domain of all a priori cognitions. IV. On the difference between analyticand synthetic judgments. V, Synthetic a priori judgments are contained as principles¢ in all theoretical sciences of reason. VL. The general prahlem* of pure reason. page ot 95 97 99 106 125 127 127 130 34 136 136 137 139. 141 143 146 * This Table of Contents is the editors’ expansion of the less detailed one provided by Kant in the first edition. The second edition contained na Table af Contents at all. A translation of Kant’s own first-edition Table of Contents follows the twoversions of the preface, corresponding to its original location * Principien « Principien “ AufgabeContents VIL. The idea and the divisions of a special science under the name of a critique of pure reason. I. Transcendental doctrine of elements First Part. Transcendental aesthetic (as in the first edition) [Introduction,] First section. On space. Second section. On time. First Part. Transcendental aesthetic (as in the second edition) Introduction. <§ r> First section. On space. <§§ 2-3> Second section. On time. <§§ 4~7> General remarks on the transcendental aesthetic. <§ 8> Second Part. Transcendental logic Introduction. The idea of a transcendental logic I. On logic in general. II. On transcendental logic. IIL. On the division of general logic into analytic and dialectic. TV. On the division of transcendental logic into the transcen- dental analytic and dialectic. Division one. Transcendental analytic Book I. Analytic of concepts Chapter I. On the clue to the discovery of all pure concepts of the understanding First section. On the logical use of the understanding in general. Second section. On the logical function of the understanding in judgments. <§ 9> Third section. On the pure concepts of the understanding or categories. <§§ 10-19> Chapter II. On the deduction of the pure concepts of the understanding First section. On the principles* ofa transcendental deduction in general. <§ 13> ‘Transition to the transcendental deduction of the categories. <§ 14> Second section. On the a priori grounds for the possibility of experience. (as in the first edition) * Principien 86 149 153 155 157 162 172 174 178 185 193 193 193 195 197 199 201 202 204 204 206 219 219 224 226‘Contents Third section. On the relation* of the understanding to objects in general and the possibility of cognizing these a priori. (as in the first edition) Second Section. Transcendental deduction of the pure concepts of the understanding. (as in the second edition) (<§§ 15~27>) Book II. Analytic of principles Introduction. On the transcendental power of judgment in general Chapter I. On the schematism of pure concepts of the understanding Chapter II. System ofall principles of pure understanding Section I. On the supreme principle of all analytic judgments. Section II. On the supreme principle of all synthetic judgments. Section IIT. Systematic representation of all synthetic principles of pure understanding. 1. Axioms of intuition 2. Anticipations of perception 3. Analogies of experience A. First analogy: principle of persistence of substance. B. Second analogy: principle of temporal succession according to the law of causality. C. Third analogy: principle of simultaneity accord- ing to the law of reciprocity or community. 4. The postulates of empirical thought in general Refutation of idealism (added in the second edition) General note on the system of principles (added in the second edition) Chapter III. On the ground of the distinction ofall objects in general into phenomena and noumena (as in the first edition) Chapter III, On the ground of the distinction of all objects in general into phenomena and noumena (as in the second edition) Appendix: On the amphiboly of concepts of reflection Remark to the amphiboly of concepts of reflection Division two. Transcendental dialectic Introduction. I. Transcendental illusion * Verbiiltnisse 87 236 245 267 268 271 278 279 283 286 290 295 299 304 316 321 326 34 338 354 371 384 384 384Contents TI. On pure reason as the seat of transcendental illusion A. On reason in general. B. On the logical use of reason. C. On the pure use of reason. Book I. On the concepts of pure reason Section I. On the ideas in general. Section II. On the transcendental ideas. Section III. The system of transcendental ideas. Book II. The dialectical inferences of pure reason Chapter I. The paralogisms of pure reason (as in the first edition) First paralogism of substantiality. Second paralogism of simplicity. Third paralogism of personality. Fourth paralogism of ideality. Observation on the sum of the pure doctrine of the soul Chapter I. The paralogisms of pure reason (as in the second edition) Refutation of Mendelssohn's proof of the persistence of the soul. General remark concerning the transition from rational psychology to rational cosmology. Chapter II. The antinomy of pure reason Section I. The system of cosmological ideas. Section I. The antithetic of pure reason. First conflict Second conflict ‘Third conflict Fourth contlict Section III. On the interest of reason in these conflicts. Section IV. On the transcendental problems* of pure reason, insofar as they absolutely must be capable of a solution. Section V. Skeptical representation of the cosmological questions raised by all four transcendental ideas. Section VI. Transcendental idealism as the key to solving the cosmological dialectic. Section VIL. Critical decision of the cosmological conflict of reason with itself. Section VIII. The regulative principle’ of pure reason in regard to the cosmological ideas. © Aufgaben © Princip 88 387 387 389 390 395 399 405 409 qtr 45 47 422 #5 432 445 449 456 459 460 467 470 476 484 49° 496 503Contents Section IX. The empirical use of the regulative principle of reason in regard to the cosmological ideas. 1. Resolution of the cosmological idea ot totality of the composition’ of the appearances into a world-whole. IL. Resolution of the cosmological idea of totality of divi- sion of a given whole in intuition. Concluding remark on the resolution of the mathemati- cal-transcendental ideas and preamble to the solu- tion of the dynamical transcendental ideas. IIL. Resolution of the cosmological idea of the totality in the derivation of occurrences in che world from their causes. The possibility of causality through freedom. Clarification of the cosmological idea of freedom. IV. Resolution of the cosmological idea of the totality of the dependence of appearances regarding their exis- tence in general. Concluding remark to the entire antinomy of pure reason. Chapter III. The ideal of pure reason Section I. The ideal in general. Section II. The transcendental ideal (ororotypon transcendentate).! Section III. The grounds of proof of speculative reason inferring the existence of a highest being. Section IV. On the impossibility of an ontological proof of God’ existence. Section V. On the impossibility of a cosmological proof of Guus existence, Discovery and explanation of the dialectical illusion in all transcendental proofs of the existence of a necessary being. Section VI. On the impossibility of the physicotheological proof. Section VIL. Critique of all theology from principles‘ of reason. Appendix to the transcendental dialectic On the regulative use of the ideas of pure reason. On the final aim of the natural dialectic of human reason. * Zusammensetzung » transcendental prototype © Principien 89 524 525 528 530 532 535 537 546 549 5st 551 553 559 563 oy 575 578 583 59° 59°Contents II. Transcendental doctrine of method Tnu oductivn. Chapter I. The discipline of pure reason Section I. The discipline of pure reason in dogmatic use. Section II. The discipline of pure reason with regard to its polemical use. On the impossibility of a skeptical satisfaction of pure reason that is divided against itself. Section III. The discipline of pure reason with regard to hypotheses. Section IV. The discipline of pure reason with regard to its proofs. Chapter II. The canon of pure reason Section I. On the ultimate end of the pure use of our reason. Section II. On the ideal of the highest good. Section III. On having an opinion, knowing, and believing. Chapter IIL. The architectonic of pure reason Chapter IV. The history of pure reason 90 62) 628 630 643 658 665 672 673, 676 684 691 7o2Contents* Introduction IL. Transcendental Doctrine of Elements Part L. ‘Transcendental Aesthetic Section I. On Space Section II. On Time Part II. Transcendental Logic Division I. Transcendental Analytic in two books and their various chapters and sections Division IL Transcendental Dialectic in two books and their various chapters and sections TI. Transcendental Doctrine of Method Chapter 1. The Discipline of Pure Reason Chapter 2. The Canon of Pure Reason Chapter 3. The Architectonic of Pure Reason Chapter 4. The History of Pure Reason * Kantincludes this table of contents only in the first edition. 125 page [127] {r51] {153] [57] [162] [193] [zor] [384] [625] (628] (672] [691] (702] AxxivBvii Bviii Bix Preface to the second edition® Whether or not the treatment of the cognitions belonging to the con- cern of reason travels the secure course of a science is something which can soon be judged by its success. If after many preliminaries and prepa- rations are made, a science gets stuck as soon as it approaches its end, or if in order to reach this end it must often go back and set out on a new path; or likewise if it proves impossible for the different co-work- ers to achieve unanimity as to the way in which they should pursue’ their common aim; then we may be sure that such a study is merely groping about, that it is still far from having entered upon the secure course of a science; and it is already a service to reason if we can possi bly find that path for it, even if we have to give up as futile much of what s included in the end previously formed without deliberation. That from the earliest times logic has traveled this secure course can be seen from the fact that since the time of Aristotle it has not had to goa single step backwards, unless we count the abolition of a few dis- pensable subtleties or the more distinct determination of its presenta- tion, which improvements belong more to the elegance than to the security of that science. What is further remarkable about logic is that until now it has also been unable to take a single step forward, and therefore seems to all appearance to be finished and complete. For if some moderns have thought to enlarge it by interpolating psychologi- cal chapters about our different cognitive powers (about imagination, wit), or metaphysical chapters about the origin of cognition or the dif- ferent kinds of certainty in accordance with the diversity of objects (about idealism, skepticism, etc.), or anthropological chapters about our prejudice (about their causesand remedies), then this proceeds only from their ignorance of the peculiar nature of this science. It is not an improvement but a deformation of the sciences when their boundaries are allowed to run over into one another; the boundaries of logic, how- ever, are determined quite precisely by the fact that logic is the science that exhaustively presents and strictly proves nothing but the formal * This new preface, so entitled, replaces the preface from the first edition. + Kane's text reads “erfolgr” (result or ensue), which does not make sense here because it isan intransitive verb; we follow Grillo in reading verflgt. © Objecte 106Preface to the second edition rules of all thinking (whether this thinking be empirical or a priori, whatever origin or object’ it may have, and whatever contingent or nat- ural obstacles it may meet with in our minds). For the advantage that has made it so successful logic has solely its own limitation to thank, since it is thereby justified in abstracting — is indeed obliged to abstract — from all objects’ of cognition and all the distinctions between them; and in logic, therefore, the understanding has to do with nothing further than itself and its own form. How much more difficult, naturally, must it be for reason to enter upon the secure path of a science if it does not have to do merely with itself, but has to deal with objects‘ too; hence logic as a propadeutic constitutes only the outer courtyard, as it were, to the sciences; and when it comes to infor- mation, a logic may indeed be presupposed in judging about the latter, but its acquisition must be sought in the sciences properly and objec- tively so called. Insofar as there is to be reason in these sciences, something in them must be cognized a priori, and this cognition can relate to its object in either of two ways, either merely determining the object and its con- cept (which must be given from elsewhere), or else also making the ob- jectactual. The former is theoretical, the latter practical cognition of reason. In both the pure part, the part in which reason determines its object? wholly a priori, must be expounded all by itself, however much or little it may contain, and that part that comes from other sources must not be mixed up with it; for it is bad economy to spend blindly whatever comes in without being able later, when the economy comes to a standstill, to distinguish the part of the revenue that can cover the expenses from the part that must be cut. Mathematics and physics are the two theoretical cognitions of rea- son that are supposed to determine their objects* « priori, the former entirely purely, the latter at least in part purely but also following the standards of sources of cognition other than reason. Mathematics has, from the earliest times to which the history of human reason reaches, in that admirable people the Greeks, traveled the secure path of a science. Yet it must not be thought that it was as easy for it as for logic - in which reason has to do only with itself - to find that royal path, or rather itself to open it up; rather, I believe that mathematics was left groping about for a long time (chiefly among the Egyptians), and that its transformation is to be ascribed to a revolu- tion, brought about by the happy inspiration of a single man in an at- * Object * Objecte « Objecte 4 Object * Objecte 107 Bx BxiBxii BXili Preface tempt from which the road to be taken onward could no longer be missed, and the secure course of a science was entered on and pre- scribed for all time and to an infinite extent. The history of this rev- olution in the way of thinking - which was far more important than the discovery of the way around the famous Cape" and of the lucky one who brought it about, has not been preserved for us. But the leg- end handed down to us by Diogenes Laertius—who names the reputed inventor of the smallest elements of geometrical demonstra- tions, even of those that, according to common judgment, stand in no need of proof - proves that the memory of the alteration wrought by the discovery of this new path in its earliest footsteps must have seemed exceedingly important to mathematicians, and was thereby rendered unforgettable. A new light broke upon the first person who demonstrated the isosceles* triangle (whether he was called “Thales” or had some other name).” For he found that what he had to do was not to trace what he saw in this figure, or even trace its mere con- cept, and read off, as it were, from the properties of the figure; but rather that he had to produce the latter from what he himself thought into the object and presented (through construction) according to a priori concepts, and that in order to know something securely a priori he had to ascribe to the thing nothing except what followed nec- essarily from what he himself had put into it in accordance with its concept. Tt took natural science much longer to find the highway of science; for it is only about one and a half centuries since the suggestion of the ingenious Francis Bacon partly occasioned this discovery and partly fur- ther stimulated it, since one was already on its tracks — which discovery, therefore, can just as much be explained by a sudden revolution in the way of thinking. Here I will consider natural science only insofar as it is grounded on empirical principles? When Galileo" rolled balls of a weight chosen by himself down an inclined plane, or when Torricelli’ made the air bear a weight that he had previously thought to be equal to that ofa known column of water, or when in a later time Stahl"S changed metals into calx‘ and then changed the latter back into metal by first removing something and « Kant’s text reads “gleichsetig” (equilateral); but on the basis of his correction in a letter to Schiitz of 25 June 1787 (10:466), he appears to have meant “gleichschenklig” (isosceles). * Principien * Kale, Kemp Smith translates this as “oxides,” bur that is anachronistic; prior to the chemical revolution of Priestley and Lavoisier, the calx was conceived to be what was left of a metal after its phlogiston had been driven off; only later was it discovered that this process was actually one of oxidation, 108to the second edition then putting it back again,*a light dawned on all those who study na- ture. They comprehended that reason has insight only into what it it- self produces according to its own design; that it must take the lead with principles* for its judgments according to constant laws and compel na- ture to answer its questions, rather than letting nature guide its move- ments by keeping reason, as it were, in leading-strings; for otherwise accidental observations, made according to no previously designed plan, can never connect up into a necessary law, which is yet what rea- son seeks and requires. Reason, in order to be taught by nature, must approach nature with its principles’ in one hand, according to which alone the agreement among appearances can count as laws, and, in the other hand, the experiments thought out in accordance with these prin- ciples‘ yet in order to be instructed by nature not like a pupil, who has recited to him whatever the teacher wants to say, but like an appointed judge who compels witnesses to answer the questions he puts to them. Thus even physics owes the advantageous revolution in its way of think- ing to the inspiration that what reason would not be able to know of it- self and has to learn from nature, it has to seek in the latter (though not merely ascribe to it) in accordance with what reason itself puts into na- ture. This is how natural science was first brought to the secure course of a science after groping about for so many centuries. Metaphysics ~ a wholly isolated speculative cognition of reason that elevates itself entirely above all instruction from experience, and that through mere concepts (not, like mathematics, through the application of concepts to intuition), where reason thus is supposed to be its own pupil — has up to now not been so favored by fate as to have been able to enter upon the secure course of a science, even though itis older than all other sciences, and would remain even if all the others were swal- lowed up by an all-consuming barbarism. For in it reason continuously gets stuck, even when it claims a priori insight (as it pretends) into those laws confirmed by the commonest experience. In metaphysics we have to retrace our path countless times, because we find that it does not lead where we want to go, and it is so far from reaching unanimity in the as- sertions of its adherents that it is rather a battlefield, and indeed one that appears to be especially determined for testing one’s powers in mock combat; on this battlefield no combatant has ever gained the least * Here I am not following exactly the thread of the history of the experimental method, whose first beginnings are also not precisely known. * Principien * Principien © Principien 109 Bxiv BxvBxvi BXVii Preface bit of ground, nor has any been able to base any lasting possession on his victory. Hence there is no doubt that up to now the procedure of metaphysics has been a mere groping, and what is the worst, a groping among mere concepts. Now why is it that here the secure path of science still could not be found? Is it perhaps impossible? Why then has navure afflicted our rea- son with the restless striving for such a path, as if it were one of rea- son's most important occupationg? Still more, how little cause have we to place trust in our reason if in one of the most important parts of our desire for knowledge it does not merely forsake us but even entices us with delusions and in the end betrays us! Or if the path has merely eluded us su far, what that in renewed attempts we will be luckier than those who have gone betore us? I should think that the examples of mathematics and natural science, which have become what they now are through a revolution brought about all at once, were remarkable enough that we might reflect on the essential element in the change in the ways of thinking that has been so advantageous to them, and, at least as an experiment, imitate it insofar as their analogy with metaphysics, as rational cognition, might permit. Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but all attempts to find out something about them a priori through concepts that would extend our cognition have, on this pre- supposition, come to nothing. Hence let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the ob- jects‘ must conform to our cognition, which would agree better with the requested possibility of an a priori cognition of them, which is to estab- lish something about objects’ before they are given to us. This would be just like the first thoughts of Copernicus,** who, when he did not make good progress in the explanation of the celestial motions if he as- sumed that the entire celestial host revolves around the observer, tried to see if he might not have greater success if he made the observer re- volve and left the stars at rest. Now in metaphysics we can try in a sim- ilar way regarding the intuition of objects. If intuition has to conform to the constitution of the objects, then I do not see how we can know anything of them a priori; but if the object (as an object‘ of the senses) conforms to the constitution of our faculty of intuition, then I can very well represent this possibility to myself. Yet because I cannot stop with these intuitions, if they are to become cognitions, but must refer them as representations to something as their object and determine this ob- dications may we use drat inight lead us w hope © Objecte © Objecte © Object 110to the second edition ject through them, I can assume either that the concepts through which I bring about this determination also conform to the objects, and then. Tam once again in the same difficulty about how I could know anything about them a priori, or else I assume that the objects, or what is the same thing, the experience in which alone they can be cognized (as given ob- jects) conforms to those concepts, in which case I immediately see an easier way out of the difficulty, since experience itself is a kind of cog- nition requiring the understanding, whose rule I have to presuppose in myself before any object is given to me, hence a priori, which rule is ex- pressed in concepts a priori, to which all objects of experience must therefore necessarily conform, and with which they must agree. As for objects insofar as they are thought merely through reason, and neces- sarily at that, but that (at least as reason thinks them) cannot be given in experience at all — the attempt to think them (for they must be capa- ble of being thought) will provide a splendid touchstone of what we as- sume as the altered method of our way of thinking, namely that we can cognize of things a priori only what we ourselves have put into them.* This experiment succeeds as well as we could wish, and it promises to metaphysics the secure course of a science in its first part, where it con- cerns itself with concepts a priori to which the corresponding objects ap- propriate to them can be given in experience. For after this alteration in our way of thinking we can very well explain the possibility ofa cogni- tion @ priori, and what is still more, we can provide satisfactory proofs of the laws that are the a priori ground of nature, as the sum total of objects of experience — which were both impossible according to the earlier way of proceeding. But from this deduction of our faculty of cognizing a pri- * This method, imitated from the method of those who study nature, thus con- sists in this: to seek the elements of pure reason in that which admits otf being confirmed or refuted through an experiment. Now the proposi- tions of pure reason, especially when they venture beyond all boundaries of possible experience, admit of no test by experiment with their objects" (as in natural science}: thus to experiment will be feasible only with concepts and principles that we assume a priori by arranging the latter so that the same objects can be considered from two different sides, on the one side as ob- jects of the senses and the understanding for experience, and on the other side as objects that are merely thought at most for isolated reason striving beyond the bounds of experience. If we now find that there is agreement with the principle” of pure reason when things are considered from this twofold standpoint, but that an unavoidable conflict of reason with itself arises with a single standpoint, then the experiment decides for the correctness of that distinction. * Objecte Princip in Bxviii Bxix BXVi BxixBXX Bxxi Preface ori in the first part of metaphysics, there emerges a very strange result, and one that appears very disadvantageous to the whole purpose with which the second part of metaphysics concerns itself, namely that with this faculty we can never get beyond the boundaries of possible experi- ence, which is nevertheless precisely the most essential occupation of this science. But herein lies just the experiment providing a checkup’on the truth of the result of that first assessment of our rational cognition a priori, namely that such cognition reaches appearances only, leaving the thing? in itself as something actual for itself but uncognized by us. For that which necessarily drives us to go beyond the boundaries of ex- perience and all appearances is the unconditioned, which reason nec- essarily and with every right demands in things in themselves for everything that is conditioned, thereby demanding the series of condi- tions as something completed. Now if we find that on the assumption that our cognition from experience conforms to the objects as things in themselves, the unconditioned cannot be thought at all without con- tradiction, but that on the contrary, if we assume that our representa- tion of things as they are given to us does not conform to these things as they are in themselves but rather that these objects as appearances conform to our way of representing, then the contradiction disap- pears; and consequently that the unconditioned must not be present in things insofar as we are acquainted with them (insofar as they are given to us), but rather in things insofar as we are not acquainted with them, as things* in themselves: then this would show that what we initially as- sumed only as an experiment is well grounded.* Now after speculative reason has been denied all advance in this field of the supersensible, what still remains for us is to try whether there are not data in reason’s practical data for determining that transcendent rational concept of the unconditioned, in such a way as to reach beyond the boundaries of all possible experience, in accordance with the wishes of metaphysics, cog- nitions a priori that are possible, but only from a practical standpoint. By * This experiment of pure reason has much in common with what the chemists sometimes call the experiment of reduction, or more generally the synthetic procedure. The analysis of the metaphysician separated pure a priori knowledge into two very heterogeneous elements, namely those of the things as appearances and the things in themselves. The dialectic once again combines them, in unison with the necessary rational idea of the uncondi- ned, and finds that the unison will never come about except through that distinction, which is therefore the true one. * Gegenprobe © Sache « angetmeffin 4 Sachen 112to the second edition such procedures speculative reason has at least made room for such an extension, even if it had to leave it empty; and we remain at liberty, in- deed we are called upon hy reason to fill it if we can through practical data of reason.* Now the concern of this critique of pure speculative reason consists in that attempt to transform the accepted procedure of metaphysics, un- dertaking an entire revolution according to the example of the geome- ters and natural scientists. It is a treatise on the method, not a system of the science itself; but it catalogs the entire outline of the science of metaphysics, both in respect of its boundaries and in respect of its en- tire internal structure. For pure speculative reason has this peculiarity about it, that it can and should measure its own capacity‘ according to the different ways for choosing the objects? of its thinking, and also completely enumerate the manifold ways of putting problems‘ before it- self, so as to catalog the entire preliminary sketch of a whole system of metaphysics; because, regarding the first point, in @ priori cognition nothing can be ascribed to the objects! except what the thinking subject takes out of itself, and regarding the second, pure speculative reason is, in respect of principles‘ of cognition, a unity entirely separate and sub- sisting for itself, in which, as in an organized body, every part exists for the sake of all the others as all the others exist for its sake, and no prin- ciple’ can be taken with certainty in one relation unless it has at the * In the same way, the central laws of the motion of the heavenly bodies estab- lished with certainty what Copernicus assumed at the beginning only as a hy- pothesis, and at the same time they proved the invisible force (of Newtonian attraction) that binds the universe,‘ which would have remained forever undiscovered if Copernicus had not ventured, in a manner contradictory to the senses yet true, to seek for the observed movements not in the objects of the heavens but in their observer. In this Preface I propose the transforma- tion in our way of thinking presented in criticism? merely as a hypothesis, analogous to that other hypothesis, only in order to draw our notice to the first attempts at such a transformation, which are always hypothetical, even though in the treatise itself it will be proved not hypothetically but rather apodictically from the constitution of cur representations of space and time and from the elementary concepts of the understanding. * Vermiigen * Objecte « Aufgaben 4 Objecte © Principien S Princip ® Welthaw 4 in der Kritik, which could also be translated “in the Critique,” referring to the present book as a whole. 113Bxxiv Bx Preface same time been investigated in its thoroughgoing relation to the entire use of pure reason. But then metaphysics also has the rare good fortune, enjoyed by no other rational science that has to do with objects’ (for logic deals only with the form of thinking in general), which is that if by this critique it has been brought onto the secure course of a science, then it can fully embrace the entire field of cognitions belonging to it and thus can complete its work and lay it down for posterity as a princi- pal framework? that can never be enlarged, since it has to do solely with principles‘ and the limitations on their use, which are determined by the principles themselves. Hence as a fundamental science, metaphysics is also bound to achieve this completeness, and we must be able to say of its nil actum reputans, si quid superesset agendum.4 But it will be asked: What sort of treasure is it that we intend to leave to posterity, in the form of a metaphysics that has been purified through criticism but thereby also brought into a changeless state?’ On a cursory overview of this work, one might believe that one perceives it to be only of negative utility, teaching us never to venture with speculative reason beyond the boundaries of experience; and in fact that is its first useful- ness. But this utility soon becomes positive when we become aware that the principles with which speculative reason ventures beyond its boundaries do not in fact result in extending our use of reason, but rather, if one considers them more closely, inevitably result in narrow- ing it by threatening to extend the boundaries of sensibility, to which these principles really belong, beyond everything, and so even to dis- lodge the use of pure (practical) reason. Hence a critique that limits the speculative use of reason is, to be sure, to that extent negative, but be- cause it simultaneously removes an obstacle that limits or even threat- ens to wipe out the practical use of reason, this critique is also in fact of positive and very important utility, as soon as we have convinced our- selves that there is an absolutely necessary practical use of pure reason (the moral use), in which reason unavoidably extends itself beyond the boundaries of sensibility, without needing any assistance from specula- tive reason, but in which it must also be made secure against any coun- teraction from the latter, in order not to fall into contradiction with * Objecte * Haupestubl; Kane’s metaphor seems to te drawn from weaving (cf. Webstubl, a loom or frame for weaving). « Principien 4 “Thinking uuthing dou 2” The conicet quutativs “Caesar in ommia pracceps, nil actumt credens, cum quid superesset agendum, instat atrox” (Caesar, headlong in everything, believing nothing done while something more re- mained to be done, pressed forward fiercely) (Lucan, De bello civili 657). * bebarrlichen Zustand 114to the second edition itself. To deny that this service of criticism’ is of any positive utility would be as much as to say that the police are of no positive utility be- cause their chief business is to put a stop to the violence that citizens have to fear from other citizens, so that each can carry on his own af- fairs in peace and safety.'7 In the analytical part of the critique it is proved that space and time are only forms of sensible intuition, and therefore only conditions of the existence of the things as appearances, further that we have no concepts of the understanding and hence no el- ements for the cognition of things except insofar as an intuition can be given corresponding to these concepts, consequently that we can have cognition of no object as a thing in itself, but only insofar as it is an ob- ject’ of sensible intuition, i.c. as an appearance; from which follows the limitation of all even possible speculative cognition of reason to mere objects of experience. Yet the reservation must also be well noted, that even if we cannot cognize these same objects as things in themselves, we at least must be able to think them as things in themselves.* For otherwise there would follow the absurd proposition that there is an ap- pearance without anything that appears. Now if we were to assume that the distinction between things as objects of experience and the very same things as things in themselves, which our critique has made nec- essary, were not made at all, then the principle of causality, and hence the mechanism of nature in determining causality, would be valid of all things in general as efficient causes. I would not be able to say of one and the same thing, e.g., the human soul, that its will is free and yet that it is simultaneously subject to natural necessity, i.e., that it is not free, without falling into an obvious contradiction; because in both proposi- tions I would have taken the soul in just the same meaning; namely as a thing in general (as a thing? in itself), and without prior critique, I * To cognize an object, it is required that I be able to prove its possibility (whether by the testimony of experience from its actuality or a priori through reason). But I can think whatever I like, as long as I do not contradict myself, ice., as long as my concept is a possible thought, even if I cannot give any as- surance whether or not there is a corresponding object’ somewhere within the sum total of all possibilities. But in order to ascribe objective validity to such a concept (real possibility, for the first sort of possibility was merely logical) something more is required. This “more,” however, need not be sought in the- oretical sources of cognition; it may also lie in practical ones. * der Kritik © Object © Bedeutung; “meaning” will translate this word for the remainder of this paragraph. 4 Sache © Object 1s Bxxvi BXXVii BxXviBxXviii Bxxix Preface could not have taken it otherwise. But if the critique has not erred in teaching that the object® should be taken in a twofold meaning, namely ay appearance ur ay ching in itself," if its deduction uf the pure concepts of the understanding is correct, and hence the principle of causality applies only to things taken in the first sense, namely insofar as they are objects of experience, while things in the second meaning are not subject to it; then just the same will is thought of in the appear- ance (in visible actions) as necessarily subject to the law of nature and to this extent not free, while yet on the other hand it is thought of as belonging to a thing in itself as not subject to that law, and hence free, without any contradiction hereby occurring. Now although I can- not cognize my soul, considered from the latter side, through any spec ulative reason (still less through empirical observation), and hence I cannot cognize freedom as a property of any being to which I ascribe effects in the world of sense, because then I would have to cognize such an existence as determined, and yet not as determined in time (which is impossible, since I cannot support my concept with any intuition), nev- ertheless, I can think freedom to myself, i-e., the representation of it at least contains no contradiction in itself, so long as our critical distinc- tion prevails between the two ways of representing (sensible and intel- lectual), along with the limitation of the pure concepts of the under- standing arising from it, and hence that of the principles flowing from them. Now suppose that morality necessarily presupposes freedom (in the strictest sense) as a property of our will, citing a priori as data for this freedom certain original practical principles lying in our reason, which would be absolutely impossible without the presupposition of freedom, yet that speculative reason had proved that freedom cannot be thought at all, then that presupposition, namely the moral one, would necessarily have to yield to the other onc, whose opposite contains an obvious contradiction; consequently freedom and with it morality (for the latter would contain no contradiction if freedom were not already presupposed) would have to give way to the mechanism of nature. But then, since for morality I need nothing more than that freedom should not contradict itself, that it should at least be thinkable that it should place no hindrance in the way of the mechanism of nature in the same action (taken in another relation), without it being necessary for me to have any further insight into it: the doctrine of morality asserts its place and the doctrine of nature its own, which, however, would not have oc- curred if criticism had not first taught us of our unavoidable ignorance in respect of the things in themselves and limited everything that we can cognize theoretically to mere appearances. Just the same sort of ex- position of the positive utility of critical principles of pure reason can be * Object 116to the second edition given in respect to the concepts of God and of the simple nature of our soul, which, however, I forgo for the sake of brevity. Thus I cannot even assume God, freedom and immortality for the sake of the nec- essary practical use of my reason unless I simultaneously deprive spec- ulative reason of its pretension to extravagant insights; because in order to attain to such insights, speculative reason would have to help itself to principles that in fact reach only to objects of possible experience, and which, if they were to be applied to what cannot be an object of experi- ence, then they would always actually transform it into an appearance, and thus declare all practical extension of pure reason to be impossi- ble. Thus I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith; and the dogmatism uf metaphysics, ie., the prejudice that without e icism reason can make progress in metaphysics, is the true source of all unbelief conflicting with morality, which unbelief is always very dog- matic. — Thus even if it cannot be all that difficult to leave to posterity the legacy of a systematic metaphysics, constructed according to the cri- tique of pure reason, this is still a gift deserving of no small respect; to see this, we need merely to compare the culture of reason that is set on the course of a secure science with reason’s unfounded groping and friv- olous wandering about without critique, or to consider how much bet- ter young people hungry for knowledge might spend their time than in the usual dogmatism that gives so early and so much encouragement to their complacent quibbling about things they do not understand, and things into which neither they nor anyone else in the world will ever have any insight, or even encourages them to launch on the invention of new thoughts and opinions, and thus to neglect to learn the well- grounded sciences; but we see it above all when we take account of the way criticism puts an end for all future time to objections against moral- ity and religion in a Socratic way, namely by the clearest proof of the ignorance of the opponent. For there has always been some meta- physies or other to be met with in the world, and there will always con- tinue to be one, and with it a dialectic of pure reason, because dialectic is natural to reason. Hence it is the first and most important occupation of philosophy to deprive dialectic once and for all of all disadvantageous influence, by blocking off the source of the errors. With this important alteration in the field of the sciences, and with the loss of its hitherto imagined possessions that speculative reason must suffer, everything yet remains in the same advantageous state as it was before concerning the universal human concern and the utility that the world has so far drawn trom the doctrines of pure reason, and the loss touches only the monopoly of the schools and in no way the in- terest of human beings. I ask the most inflexible dogmatist whether the proof of the continuation of our soul after death drawn from the simplicity of substance, or the proof of freedom of the will against uni- 117 BXXX Bxxxi BxxxiiBoil BXXxiV Preface versal mechanism drawn from the subtle though powerless distinctions between subjective and objective practical necessity, or the proof of the existence of God drawn from the concept of a most real being (or from the contingency of what is alterable and the necessity of a first mover), have ever, after originating in the schools, been able to reach the pub- lic or have the least influence over its convictions? If that has never hap- pened, and if it can never be expected to happen, owing to the unsuitability of the common human understanding for such subtle speculation; if rather the conviction that reaches the public, insofar as it rests on rational grounds, had to be effected by something else — namely, as regards the first point, on that remarkable predisposi- tion of our nature, noticeable to every human being, never to be capa- ble of being satisfied by what is temporal (since the temporal is always insufficient for the predispositions of our whole vocation) leading to the hope of a future life; in respect of the second point, the mere clear ex- position of our duties in opposition to all claims of the inclinations lead- ing to the consciousness of freedom; and finally, touching on the third point, the splendid order, beauty, and providence shown forth every- where in nature leading to the faith in a wise and great author of the world — then this possession not only remains undisturbed, but it even gains in respect through the fact that now the schools are instructed to pretend to no higher or more comprehensive insight on any point touching the universal human concerns than the insight that is accessi- ble to the great multitude (who are always most worthy of our respect), and to limit themselves to the cultivation of those grounds of proof alone that can be grasped universally and are sufficient from a moral standpoint. The alteration thus concerns only the arrogant claims of the schools, which would gladly let themselves be taken for the sole ex- perts and guardians of such truths (as they can rightly be taken in many other parts of knowledge), sharing with the public only the use of such truths, while keeping the key to them for themselves (quod mecum nescit, solus vult scire videri).* Yet care is taken for a more equitable claim on the part of the speculative philosopher. He remains the exclusive trustee of a science that is useful to the public even without their knowledge, namely the critique of reason; for the latter can never become popular, but also has no need of being so; for just as little as the people want to fill their heads with fine-spun arguments for useful truths, so just as lit- tle do the equally subtle objections against these truths ever enter their minds; on the contrary, because the school inevitably falls into both, as does everyone who raises himself to speculation, the critique of reason = “What he knows no more than I, he alone wants to seem to know.” The correct quota tion is “Quod mecum ignorat, solus volt sire videri” (What is unknown to me, that alone he wants to seem to know) (Horace, Epistles 2.1.87). 118to the second edition is bound once and for all to prevent, by a fundamental investigation of the rights of speculative reason, the scandal that sooner or later has to be noticed even among the people in die disputes in which, in the ab- sence of criticism, metaphysicians (and among these in the end even clerics) inevitably involve themselves, and in which they afterwards even falsify their own doctrines. Through criticism alone can we sever the very root of materialism, fatalism, atheism, of freethinking un- belief, of enthusiasm and superstition, which can become generally injurious, and finally also of idealism and skepticism, which are more dangerous to the schools and can hardly be transmitted to the public. If governments find it good to concern themselves with the affairs of scholars, then it would accord better with their wise solicitude both for the sciences and for humanity if they favored the freedom of such a cri- tique, by which alone the treatments of reason can be put on a firm footing, instead of supporting the ridiculous despotism of the schools, which raise a loud cry of public danger whenever someone tears apart their cobwebs, of which the public has never taken any notice, and hence the loss of which it can also never feel. Criticism is not opposed to the dogmatic procedure of reason in its pure cognition as science (for science must always be dogmatic, i.e., it must prove its conclusions strictly a priori from secure principles)’; rather, it is opposed only to dogmatism, i.e., to the presumption of get- ting on solely with pure cognition from (philosophical) concepts ac- cording to principles,’ which reason has been using for a long time without first inquiring in what way and by what right it has obtained them. Dogmatism is therefore the dogmatic procedure of pure reason, without an antecedent critique of its own capacity.‘ This opposition therefore must not be viewed as putting in a good word for that loqua- civus shallowness under Ue presumed maine uf popularity, or even of skepticism, which gives short shrift to all metaphysics; rather, criticism is the preparatory activity necessary for the advancement of meta- physics as a well-grounded science, which must necessarily be dog- matic, carried out systematically in accordance with the strictest re- quirement, hence according to scholastic rigor (and not in a popular way); for this requirement is one that it may not neglect, since it un- dertakes to carry out its business wholly @ priori and thus to the full sat- isfaction of speculative reason. In someday carrying out the plan that criticism prescribes, i.e., in the future system of metaphysics, we will have to follow the strict method of the famous Wolff, the greatest among all dogmatic philosophers, who gave us the first example (an ex- * Principien Principien < Vermigen 119 BXXXV BxxxviBXXXVii Bxxxviii Preface ample by which he became the author of a spirit of well-groundedness in Germany that is still not extinguished) of the way in which the secure course of a'science is to be taken, through the regular ascertainment of the principles,’ the clear determination of concepts, the attempt at strictness in the proofs, and the prevention of audacious leaps in infer- ences; fur these reasons he had the skills for moving a science such as metaphysics into this condition, if only it had occurred to him to pre- pare the field for it by a critique of the organ, namely pure reason itself: a lack that is to be charged not so much to him as to the dogmatic way of thinking prevalent in his age; and for this the philosophers of his as of all previous times have nothing for which to reproach themselves. Those who reject his kind of teaching and simultancously the proce- dure of the critique of pure reason can have nothing else in mind except to throw off the fetters of science altogether, and to transform work into play, certainty into opinion, and philosophy into philodoxy. Concerning this second edition, I have wanted, as is only proper, not to forgo the opportunity to remove as far as possible those difficul- ties and obscurities from which may have sprung several misunder- standings into which acute men, perhaps not without some fault on my part, have fallen in their judgment of this book. I have found nothing to alter either in the propositions themselves or in their grounds of proof, or in the form and completeness of the book’s plan; this is to be ascribed partly to the long period of scrutiny to which I subjected them prior to laying it before the public; and partly to the constitution of the matter itself, namely to the nature of a pure speculative reason, which contains a truly articulated structure of members in which each thing is an organ, that is, in which everything is for the sake of each member, and each individual member is for the sake of all, so that even the least frailty, whether it be a mistake (an error) or a lack, must inevitably betray itself in its use. I hope this system will henceforth maintain itself in this un- alterability. It is not self-conceit that justifies my trust in this, but rather merely the evidence drawn from the experiment showing that the result effected is the same whether we proceed from the smallest elements to the whole of pure reason or return from the whole to every part (for this whole too is given in itself through the final intention of pure reason in the practical); while the attempt to alter even the smallest part directly introduces contradictions not merely into the system, but into univer- sal human reason. Yet in the presentation there is still much to do, and here is where I have attempted to make improvements in this edition, which should remove first, the misunderstanding of the Aesthetic, chiefly the one in the concept of time; second, the obscurity in the Deduction of the Concepts of the Understanding, next the supposed * Prinipien 120to second edition lack of sufficient evidence in the proofs of the Principles of Pure Understanding, and finally the misinterpretation of the paralogisms ad- vanced against rational psychology. My revisions" of the mode of pre sentation* extend only to this point (namely, only to the end of the first chapter of the Transcendental Dialectic) and no further, because time * The only thing I can really call a supplement, and that only in the way of proof, is what I have said at (8]273 in the form of a new refutation of psychological idealism, and a strict proof (the only possible one, I believe) of the objective reality of outer intuition, No matter how innocent idealism may be held to be as regards the essential ends af metaphysics (thangh in fact it is not so inno~ cent), it always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us (from which we after all get the whole matter for our cognitions, even for our inner sense) should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be un- able to answer him with a satisfactory proof. Because there are some obscuri- ties in the expressions of this proof between the third and sixth lines, Task leave to alter this passage as follows: “But this persisting element cannot be an intuition in me. For all the determining grounds of my existence that can be encountered in me are representations, and as such they themselves need something persisting distinct from them, in relation to which their change, and thus my existence in the time in which they change, can be determined.” Against this proof one will perhaps say: Iam immediately con- scious to myself only of what is in me, ie., of my representation of external things, consequently it still remains undecided whether there is something outside me corresponding to it or not. Yet I am conscious through inner ex perience of my existence in time (and consequently also ofits determinabil- ity in time), and this is more than merely being conscious of my representation; yet it is identical with the empirical consciousness of my existence, which is only determinable through a relation to something that, while being bound up with my existence, is outside me. This consciousness of my existence in time is thus bound up identically with the consciousness of a relation to some- thing outside me, and so it is experience and not fiction, sense and not imagi- nation, that inseparably joins the outer with my inner sense; for outer sense is already in itself a relation’ of intuition to something actual outside me; and its reality, as distinct from imagination, rests only on the fact that it is inseparably bound up with inner experience itself, as the condition of its possibility, which happens here. If I could combine a determination of my existence through in tellectual intuition simultaneously with the intellectual consciousness of my existence, in the representation I am, which accompanies all my judgments and actions of my understanding, then no consciousness of a relation® to some- thing outside me would necessarily belong to this. But now that intellectual consciousness does to be sure precede, but the inner intuition, in which alone * Verkatims * Verbalinis Bxoodx Brod Bxlxl wali sxlii xii Preface was too short, and also in respect of the rest of the book no misunder- standing on the part of expert and impartial examiners has come my way, whom [have not been able to name with the praise due to thems but the attention I have paid to their reminders will be evident to them. in the appropriate passages. This improvement, however, is bound up with a small loss for the reader, which could not be guarded against without making the book too voluminous: namely, various things that are not essentially required for the completeness of the whole had to be omitted or treated in an abbreviated fashion, despite the fact that some readers may not like doing without them, since they could still be useful in another respect; only in this way could I make room for what I hope is a more comprehensible presentation, which fundamen tally alters absolutely nothing in regard to the propositions or even their grounds of proof, but which departs so far from the previous edi- tion in the method of presentation that it could not be managed through interpolations. This small loss, which in any case can be compensated for, if anyone likes, by comparing the first and second my existence can be determined, is sensible, and is bound to a condition of- time; however, this determination, and hence inner experience itself, depends on something permanent, which is not in me, and consequently must be out- side me, and I must consider myself in relation‘ to it; thus for an experience in general to be possible, the reality of outer sense is necessarily bound up with that of inner sense, i,e., I am just as certainly conscious that there are things outside me to which my sensibility relates, as [ am conscious that I myself exist determined in time. Now which given intuitions actually correspond to outer objects, which therefore belong to outer sense, to which they are to be as- cribed rather than to the imagination ~ that must be decided in each particu- lar case according to the rules through which experience in general (even inner experience) is to be distinguished from imagination; which procedure is grounded always on the proposition that there actually is outer experience. 10 this the following remark can be added: The representation of something per- sisting in existence is not the same as a persisting representation; for that can be quite variable and changeable, as all our representations arc, even the representations of matter, while still being related to something permanent, which must therefore be a thing distinct from all my representations and ex- ternal, the existence of which is necessarily included in the determination of my own existence, which with it constitutes only a single experience, which could not take place even as inner if it were not simultaneously (in part) outer. The “How?” of this can be no more explained than we can explain further how we can think at all of what abides in time, whose simultaneity with what changes is what produces the concept of alteration. * Relation 122to the second edition editions, is, as I hope, more than compensated for by greater compre- hensibility. In various public writings (partly in the reviews of some books, partly in spccial treatiscs) I have perceived with gratitude and enjoyment that the spirit of well-groundedness has not died out in Germany, but has only been drowned out for a short time by the fash- ionable noise of a freedom of thought that fancies itself ingenious, and Isee that the thorny paths of criticism, leading to a science of pure rea- son that is scholastically rigorous but as such the only lasting and hence the most necessary science, has not hindered courageous and clear minds from mastering them. To these deserving men, who com- bine well-groundedness of insight so fortunately with the talent for a lucid presentation (something I am conscious of not having myself), I leave it to complete my treatment, which is perhaps defective here and there in this latter regard. For in this case the danger is not that I will be refuted, but that I will not be understood. For my own part, from now on I cannot let myself become involved in controversies, although T shall attend carefully to all hints, whether they come from friends or from opponents, so that I may utilize them, in accordance with this propaedeutic, in the future execution of the system. Since during these labors I have come to be rather advanced in age (this month I will at- tain my sixty-fourth year), I must proceed frugally with my time if lam to carry out my plan of providing the metaphysics both of nature and of morals, as confirmation of the correctness of the critique both of theoretical and practical reason; and I must await the illumination of those obscurities that are hardly to be avoided at the beginning of this work, as well as the defense of the whole, from those deserving men who have made it their own. Any philosophical treatise may find itself under pressure in particular passages (for it cannot be as fully armored as a mathematical treatise), while the whole structure of the system, considered as a unity, proceeds without the least danger; when a sys- tem is new, few have the adroitness of mind* to gain an overview of it, and because all innovation is an inconvenience to them, still fewer have the desire to do so. Also, in any piece of writing apparent contradic- tions can be ferreted out if individual passages are torn out of their context and compared with each other, especially in a piece of informal discourse* that in the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others cast a disadvantageous light on that piece of writing but that can be very easily resolved by someone who has mastered the idea of the whole. Meanwhile, if a theory is really durable, then in time the effect * Geist * als freie Rede fortgebenden Schrift Bxliii sxlivPreface of action and reaction, which at first seemed to threaten it with great danger, will serve only to polish away its rough spots, and if men of im- partiality, insight, and truc popularity make it their business to do this, then in a short time they will produce even the required elegance. Konigsberg, in the month of April, 1787. 124BI B2 Introduction" Is On the difference between pure and empirical cognition. There is no doubt whatever that all our cognition begins with experi- ence; for how else should the cognitive faculty be awakened into exer- cise if not through objects that stimulate our senses and in part themselves produce representations, in part bring the activity of our un- derstanding into motion to compare these, to connect or separate them, and thus to work up the raw material of sensible impressions into a cognition of objects that is called experience?? As far as time is con- cerned, then, no cognition in us precedes experience, and with experi- ence every cognition begins. But although all our cognition commences with experience, yet it does not on that account all arise from experience. For it could well be that even our experiential cognition is a composite of that which we re- ceive through impressions and that which our own cognitive faculty (merely prompted by sensible impressions) provides out of itself, which addition we cannot distinguish from that fundamental material until long practice has made us attentive to it and skilled in separating it out. It is therefore at least a question requiring closer investigation, and one not to be dismissed at first glance, whether there is any such cog- nition independent of all experience and even of all impressions of the senses. One calls such cognitions @ priori, and distinguishes them from empirical ones, which have their sources a posteriori, namely in experience’ The former expression‘ is nevertheless not yet sufficiently determi- nate to designate the whole sense of the question before us. For it is cus- tomary to say of many a cognition derived from experiential sources that we are capable of it or partake in it @ priori, because we do not derive it “ As in the second edition. * Sections I and II (e1-6) replace the first wwo paragraphs of Section I in the first edition (ar-2). « Normally set in roman type, here emphasized by Kant by the use of italies. # That is, “a priori.” 136Introduction immediately from experience, but rather from a general rule that we have nevertheless itself borrowed from experience. So one says of some- vne who undermined the foundation of his house that he could have known a priori that it would collapse, i.e., he need not have waited for the experience of it actually collapsing. Yet he could not have known this entirely « priori? For that bodies are heavy and hence fall if their support is taken away must first have become known to him through experience. In the sequel therefore we will understand by @ priori cognitions not those that occur independently of this or that experience, but rather those that occur absolutely independently of all experience. Opposed to them are empirical cognitions, or those that are possible only a posteri- ori, i.c., through experience. Among a priori cognitions, however, those are called pure with which nothing empirical is the proposition “Every alteration has its cause” is an a priori proposi- tion, only not pure, since alteration is a concept that can be drawn only from experience.” IL We are in possession of certain a priori cogni and even the common understanding is never without them. ns Atissue here is a mark by means of which we can securely distinguish a pure cognition from an empirical one.'' Experience teaches us, to be sure, that something is constituted thus and so, but not that it could not be otherwise. First, then, if a proposition is thought along with its ne- cessity, it is an @ priori judgment, if it is, moreover, also not derived from any proposition except one that in turn is valid as a necessary proposition, then it is absolutely @ priori. Second: Experience never gives its judgments true or strict but only assumed and comparative universality (through induction), so properly it must be said: as far as we have yet perceived, there is no exception to this or that rule. Thus if a judgment is thought in strict universality, i.e., in such a way that no exception at all is allowed to be possible, then it is not derived from ex- perience, but is rather valid absolutely a priori. Empirical universality is therefore only an arbitrary increase in validity from that which holds in most cases to that which holds in all, as in, e.g. the proposition “All bodies are heavy,” whereas strict universality belongs to a judgment es- sentially; this points to a special source of cognition for it, namely a fac- ulty of « priori cognition. Necessity and surict universality are dherefore secure indications" of an a priori cognition, and also belong together in- * Kennzeichen 137 BS; 34a) B6 Introduction separably, But since in their use it is sometimes easier to show the em- pirical limitation in judgments than the contingency in them, or is often more plausible to show the unrestricted universality that we ascribe to a judgment than its necessity, it is advisable to employ separately these two criteria, each of which is in itself infallible. * Now it is easy to show that in human cognition there actually are such necessary and in the strictest sense universal, thus pure a priori judgments. If one wants an example from the sciences, one need only look at all the propositions of imathematies; if one would have one from the commonest use of the understanding, the proposition that every alteration must have a cause will do; indeed in the latter the very concept of a cause su obvivusly Contains Ute concept of a necessity of connection with an effect and a strict universality of rule that it would be entirely lost if one sought, as Hume did, to derive it from a frequent association of that which happens with that which precedes and a habit (thus a merely subjective necessity) of connecting representations aris- ing from that association."3 Even without requiring such examples for the proof of the reality of pure a priori principles in our cognition, one could establish their indispensability for the possibility of experience itself, thus establish it @ priori. For where would experience itself get its certainty if all rules in accordance with which it proceeds were themselves in turn always empirical, thus contingent?;” hence one could hardly allow these to count as first principles. Yet here we can content ourselves with having displayed the pure use of our cognitive faculty as a fact together with its indication. Not merely in judgments, however, but even in concepts is an origin of some of them revealed @ priori. Gradually remove from your experiential concept of a body everything that is empirical in it - the color, the hardness or softness, the weight, even the impenetrability - there still remains the space that was occupied by the body (which has now entirely disappeared), and you cannot leave that out. Likewise, if you remove from your em- pirical concept of every object, whether corporeal or incorporeal, all those properties of which experience teaches you, you could still not take from it that by means of which you think of it as a substance or as dependent on a substance (even though this concept contains more determination than that of an object’ in general). Thus, convinced by the necessity with which this concept presses itself on you, you must concede that it has its seat in your faculty of cognition a priori. * Question mark not in original. © Kennaeichen, ie, sign. « Objects : ¢ Objects 138Introduction 1m Philosophy needs a science that determines the possibility, the principles,’ and the domain of all cognitions a priori. But what says still more than all the foregoing’ is this, that certain cognitions even abandon the field of all possible experiences, and seem to expand the domain of our judgments beyond all bounds of experi- ence through concepts to which no corresponding object at all can be given in experience. And precisely in these latter cognitions, which go beyond the world of the senses, where experience can give neither guidance nor correc- don, lic Uhe investigations of our teasun Urat we huld w be far more preeminent in their importance and sublime in their final aim than everything that the understanding can learn in the field of appearances, in which we would rather venture everything, even at the risk of erring, than give up such important investigations because of any sort of reser- vation or from contempt and indifference. “These unavoidable prob- lems of pure reason itself are God, freedom and immortality. But the science whose final aim in all its preparations is directed properly only to the solution of these problems is called metaphysics, whose proce- dure is in the beginning dogmatic, i.e., it confidently takes on the exe- cution of this task without an antecedent examination of the capacity or incapacity‘ of reason for such a great undertaking. Now it may seem natural that as soon as one has abandoned the ter- rain of experience one would not immediately erect an edifice with cog- nitions that one possesses without knowing whence, and on the credit of principles whose origin one does not know, without having first as- sured oneself of its foundation through careful investigations, thus that one would all the more‘ have long since raised the question how the un- derstanding could come to all these cognitions a priori and what do- main, validity, and value they might have. And in fact nothing is more natural, if one understands by the word naturalé that which properly and reasonably ought to happen; but if one understands by it that which usually happens, then conversely nothing is more natural and compre- # This section number and title added in the second edition. The ensuing paragraph com- mences the first part of the introduction common to both editions, extending from here to #14, though with one major interpolation in the next paragraph and another change at p1r12, * Principien * “than all the foregoing” added in the second edition. 4 ‘The remainder of this paragraph added in the second edition. « des Vermiigens oder Unvermiigens F “ielmebr” added in the second edition. © “dem Wort natiirlicb” substituted for “unter diesem Worte” in the second edition. 139 a3 ea 4 38AS ao AG Introduction hensible than that this investigation should long have been neglected." For one part of these cognitions, the mathematical, has long been reli- able, and thereby gives risc to a favorable cxpcctation about others as well, although these may be of an entirely different nature. Further- more, if one is beyond the circle of experience, then one is sure of not being refuted? through experience. The charm in expanding one’s cog- nitions is so great that one can be stopped in one’s progress only by bumping into a clear contradiction. This, however, one can avoid if one makes his inventions carefully, eventhough they are not thereby inven- tions any the less, Mathematics gives us a splendid example of how far we can go with @ priori cognition independently of experience. Now it is occupied, to be sure, with objects and cognitions only so far as these can be exhibited in intuitions. This circumstance, however, is easily overlooked, since the intuition in question can itself be given a priori, and thus can hardly be distinguished from a mere pure concept. Captivated’ by such a proof of the power of reason, the drive for ex- pansion sees no bounds. The light dove, in free flight cutting through the air the resistance of which it feels, could get the idea‘ that it could do even better in airless space. Likewise, Plato abandoned the world of the senses because it set such narrow limits‘ for the understanding, and dared to go beyond it on the wings of the ideas, in the empty space of pure understanding. He did not notice that he made no headway by his efforts, for he had no resistance, no support, as it were, by which he could stiffen himself, and to which he could apply his powers in order to put his understanding into motion. It is, however, a customary fate of human reason in speculation to finish its edifice as carly as possible and only then to investigate whether the ground has been adequately prepared for it. But at that point all sorts of excuses will be sought to as- sure us of its sturdiness or also, even better/ to refuse such a late and dangerous examination. What keeps us free of all worry and suspicion during the construction, however, and flatters us with apparent thor- oughness, is this. A great part, perhaps the greatest part, of the business of our reason consists in analyses of the concepts that we already have of objects. This affords us a multitude of cognitions that, although they are nothing more than illuminations or clarifications of that which is al- ready thought in our concepts (though still in a confused way), are, at least as far as their form is concerned, treasured as if they were new in- * "The second edition reads “lange” instead of “lange Zeit.” ® The accond edition reada “widerlege” inatesd of “widersprocben.” « The second edition reads “eingenommen’” instead of “aufgentuntert.” 4 Vorstellung © The second edition reads “so enge Schranken setzt” instead of “so vielfttige Hindernisse legt.” f The second edition inserts the words “auch” and “lieber gar.” 140Introduction sights, though they do not extend the concepts that we have in either matter or content, but only set them apart from each other. Now since Uhis procedure dues yield a real « priori cognition, which makes secure and useful progress, reason, without itself noticing it, under these pre- tenses surreptitiously makes assertions of quite another sort, in which reason adds something entirely alicn to given concepts and indced* docs so a priori, without one knowing how it was able to do this and without such a question even being allowed to come to mind. I will therefore deal with the distinction between these two sorts of cognition right at the outset. ve On the difference between analytic and synthetic judgments." In all judgments in which the relation of a subject to the predicate is thought (if I consider only affirmative judgments, since the application to negative ones is easy) this relation is possible in two different ways. Either the predicate B belongs to the subject 4 as something that is (covertly) contained in this concept 4; or B lies entirely outside the con cept, though to be sure it stands in connection with it. In the first case I call the judgment analytic, in the second synthetic. Analytic judg- ments (affirmative ones) are thus those in which the connection of the predicate is thought through identity, but those in which this connec- tion is thought without identity are to be called synthetic judgments. One could also call the former judgments of clarification, and the lat- ter judgments of amplification,‘ since through the predicate the for- mer do not add anything to the concept of the subject, but only break it up by means of analysis into its component concepts, which were al- ready thought in it (though confusedly); while the latter, on the con- wary, add to the concept of the subject a predicate that was not thought in it atall, and could not have been extracted from itthrough any analy- sis. E.g., if I say: “All bodies are extended,” then this is an analytic judg- ment. For I do not need to go beyond! the concept that I combine with the body in order to find that extension is connected with it, but rather I need only to analyze that concept, ie., become conscious of the man- ifold that I always think in it, in order to encounter this predicate therein; it is therefore an analytic judgment. On the contrary, if I say: + ‘The secon editivn als ve words “wd sur.” * The second edition replaces “diese” with “eine solcbe.” « Section number “IV” added in the second edition. 4 “Bylauterungs-” and “Erweiterungsurtile.” * The second edition reads “iber” instead of “aus.” # The second edition reads “dem Knper” instead of “dem Wort Karper.” 141 BIO ATBI2 a8 vy BI3 Introduction “All bodies are heavy,” then the predicate is something entirely differ- ent from that which I think in the mere concept of a body in general. The addition of such a predicate thus yields a synthetic judgment. “Judgments of experience, as such, are all synthetic. For it would be absurd to ground an analytic judgment on experience, since I do not need to go beyond my concept at all in order to formulate the judg- ment, and therefore need no testimony from experience for that. That a body is extended is a proposition that is established @ priori, and is not a judgment of experience. For before I go to experience, I already have all the conditions for my judgment in the concept, from which I merely draw out the predicate in accordance with the principle of contradic- tion, and can thereby at che same time become conscivus of Ute neces- sity of the judgment, which experience could never teach me. On the contrary, although I “do not at all include the predicate of weight in the concept of a body in general, the concept nevertheless designates an ob- ject of experience‘ through a part of it, to which I can therefore add still other parts of the same experience as belonging with the former. I can first cognize the concept of body analytically through the marks of ex- tension, of impenetrability, of shape, etc., which are all thought in this concept. But now I amplify my cognition and, looking back to the ex- perience from which I had extracted this concept of body, I find that weight is also always connected with the previous marks, “and I there- fore add this synthetically as predicate to that concept. It is thus expe- rience ‘on which the possibility of the synthesis of the predicate of weight with the concept of body is grounded, since both concepts, though the one is not contained in the other, nevertheless belong to- gether, though only contingently, as parts of a whole, namely experi- ence, which is itself a synthetic combination of intuitions. /But in synthetic @ priori judgments this means of help is entirely lacking.'5 If I am to go beyond® the concept A in order to cognize an- other B as combined with it, what is it on which I depend and by means of which the synthesis becomes possible, since I here do not have the advantage of looking around for it in the field of experience? Take the proposition: “Everything that happens has its cause.” In the concept of # ‘The first part of the following paragraph replaces two paragraphs in the first edition; see A7-8 above. * "The text common to the first edition resumes here, © The second edition has “einen Gegenstand der Erfabrung” instead of the first edition’s “die vollsiinaige Bxfabrang.” 4 ‘The remainder of this sentence is added in the second edition. © ‘The remainder of this sentence is modified and expanded in the second edition. £ The common text resumes here. 4 “aber” substituted in the second edition for “ausser” in the first. 142Introduction something that happens, I think, to be sure, of an existence that was preceded by a time, etc, and from that analytic judgments can be drawn. But the concept of a cause lies entirely outside that concept, and* indicates something different than the concept of what happens in general, and is therefore’ not contained in the latter representation at all. How then do I come to say something quite different about that which happens in general, and to cognize the concept of cause as be- longing to it, indeed necessarily, even though not contained in it?4 What is the unknown ="X here on which the understanding depends when it believes itself to discover beyond the concept of 4 a predicate that is foreign to it yet which it nevertheless believes to be connected with i2/Tt cannot be experience, for the principle that has been adduced adds the latter representations to the former not only with greater gen- erality than experience can provide, but also with the expression of ne- cessity, hence entirely a priori and from mere concepts. Now the entire final aim of our speculative @ priori cognition rests on such synthetic, i.e., ampliative principles; for the analytic ones are, to be sure, most im- portant and necessary, but only for attaining that distinctness of con- cepts which is requisite for a secure and extended synthesis as a really new acquisition. ™, Synthetic @ priori judgments are contained as principles! in all theoretical sciences of reason. J. Mathematical judgments are all synthetic." This proposition seems to have escaped the notice of the analysts of human reason until now, indeed to be diametrically opposed to all of their conjectures, al- though it is incontrovertibly certain and is very important in the sequel. For since one found that the inferences of the mathematicians all pro- ceed in accordance with the principle of contradiction (which is re- * “Liege ganz. auffer jenem Begriffe, und” added in the second edition. + “ist also” in the second edition instead of “und ist” in the first. « “und so gar notwendig” added in the second edition, 4 Kant ends this and the next sentence with periods, for which we have substituted ques- tion marks * “unbekannte =” added in the second edition. F In the second edition, “welches er gleichwohl damit verkniipft cu sein erachtet?” substituted for “das gleichwobl damit verknipft sei.” « In the second edition, “Erwerb™ replaces “cinbau." + Atthis pointone paragraph from the first edition is omitted and replaced with the fol- lowing Sections V and VI, 214 through nas. ' Principien + Kant adapts the following five paragraphs from the Prolegomena, § 2 (4:268-9). 143 AIO BIgBIS BIO Introduction quired by the nature of any apodictic certainty), one was persuaded that the principles could also be cognized from the principle! of contradic- ton, in which, however, they’ erred; for a synthetic proposition can of course be comprehended in accordance with the principle of contradic- tion, but only insofar as another synthetic proposition is presupposed from which it can be deduced, never in itself. It must first be remarked that properly mathematical propositions are always a priori judgments and are never empirical, because they carry necessity with them, which cannot be derived from experience. But if ‘one does not want to concede this, well then, I will restrict my proposi- tion to pure mathematics, the concept of which already implies that it does not contain empirical but merely pure a priori cognition. To be sure, one might initially think that the proposition “7 + 5 = 12” is a merely analytic proposition that follows from the concept of a sum of seven and five in accordance with the principle of contradiction. Yet if one considers it more closely, one finds that the concept of the sum of 7 and 5 contains nothing more than the unification of both numbers in a single one, through which it is not at all thought what this single number is which comprehends the two of them. The concept of twelve is by no means already thought merely by my thinking of that unifica- tion of seven and five, and no matter how long analyze my concept of such a possible sum I will still not find twelve in it. One must go beyond these concepts, seeking assistance in the intuition that corresponds to one of the two, one’s five fingers, say, or (as in Segner’s arithmetic)” five points, and one after another add the units of the five given in the intu- ition to the concept of seven. ‘For I take first the number 7, and, as I take the fingers of my hand as an intuition for assistance with the con- cept of 5, to that image of mine I now add the units that I have previ- ously taken together in order to constitute the number 5 one after another to the number 7, and thus see the number 12 arise. That 7 should be added to 5 I have, to be sure, thought in the concept of a sum = 7 + 5, but not that this sum is equal to the number 12. The arith- metical proposition is therefore always synthetic; one becomes all the more distinctly aware of that if one takes somewhat larger numbers, for it is then clear that, twist and turn our concepts as we will, without get- ting help from intuition we could never find the sum by means of the mere analysis of our concepts. shes number from “man” to “sie.” © This and the following sentence are substituted here for the clause “Man erweitet also ‘wirklich seinen Begriff durch diesen Satz.7 + 5 = 12 und thut 2u dem ersteren Begriff einen neuen hinzut, der in jenem gar nicht gedacht war” (One therefore really amplifies his con- cept through this proposition “7 + 5 = 12” and adds a new concept to the former, which was not thought in it) in the Prolegomena (4:269). 144Introduction Just as little is any principle of pure geometry analytic. That the straight line between two points is the shortest is a synthetic proposi- tion. For my concept of the straight contains nothing of quantity, but only a quality.’ The concept of the shortest is therefore entirely addi- tional to it, and cannot be extracted out of the concept of the straight line by any analysis. Help must here be gotten frou intuition, by means of which alone the synthesis is possible. To be sure, a few principles that the geometers presuppose are actu- ally analytic and rest on the principle of contradiction; but they also” only serve, as identical propositions, for the chain of method and not as principles? e.g., a= a, the whole is equal to itself, or (a+b) > a, ie., the whole is greater than its part. And yct cven thesc, although they are valid in accordance with mere concepts, are admitted in mathematics only because they can be exhibited in intuition. ¥ What usually makes us believe here that the predicate of such apodictic judgments already lies in our concept, and that the judgment is therefore analytic, is merely the ambiguity of the expression. We should, namely, add a cer- tain predicate to a given concept in thought, and this necessity already attaches to the concepts. But the question is not what we should think in addition to the given concept, but what we actually think in it, though only obscurely, and there it is manifest that the predicate cer tainly adheres to those concepts necessarily, though not as thought in the concept itself,“ but by means of an intuition that must be added to the concept. 2. Natural science (Physica) contains within itself synthetic a pri- ori judgments as principles.“ I will adduce only a couple of proposi- tions as examples, such as the proposition that in all alterations of the corporeal world the quantity of matter remains unaltered, or that in all communication of motion effect and counter-effect must always be equal. In both of these not only the necessity, thus their a priori origin, but also that they are synthetic propositions is clear. For in the concept of matter I do not think persistence, but only its presence in space through the filling of space. Thus I actually go beyond the concept of matter in order to add something to it a priori that I did not think in it. The proposition is thus not analytic, but synthetic, and nevertheless thought a priori, and likewise with the other propositions of the pure part of natural science. 3- In metaphysics, even if one regards it as a science that has thus far * “auch” added to text from Prolegomena (4:269) © Principien < “als im Begriffe selbst gedach” substituted here for the word “unmittelbar” in the Prolegomena (4:269). # Principien 145 BIT Bi8