external phenomena； are beside each other in space；〃 then the rule
is valid universally； and without any limitation。 Our expositions；
consequently； teach the reality （i。e。； the objective validity） of
space in regard of all which can be presented to us externally as
object； and at the same time also the ideality of space in regard to
objects when they are considered by means of reason as things in
themselves； that is； without reference to the constitution of our
sensibility。 We maintain； therefore； the empirical reality of space in
regard to all possible external experience； although we must admit its
transcendental ideality； in other words； that it is nothing； so soon
as we withdraw the condition upon which the possibility of all
experience depends and look upon space as something that belongs to
things in themselves。
But； with the exception of space； there is no representation；
subjective and ref erring to something external to us； which could
be called objective a priori。 For there are no other subjective
representations from which we can deduce synthetical propositions a
priori； as we can from the intuition of space。 （See SS 3。）
Therefore； to speak accurately； no ideality whatever belongs to these；
although they agree in this respect with the representation of
space； that they belong merely to the subjective nature of the mode of
sensuous perception； such a mode； for example； as that of sight； of
hearing； and of feeling； by means of the sensations of colour；
sound； and heat； but which； because they are only sensations and not
intuitions； do not of themselves give us the cognition of any
object； least of all； an a priori cognition。 My purpose； in the
above remark； is merely this： to guard any one against illustrating
the asserted ideality of space by examples quite insufficient； for
example； by colour； taste； etc。； for these must be contemplated not as
properties of things； but only as changes in the subject； changes
which may be different in different men。 For； in such a case； that
which is originally a mere phenomenon； a rose； for example； is taken
by the empirical understanding for a thing in itself； though to
every different eye； in respect of its colour； it may appear
different。 On the contrary； the transcendental conception of phenomena
in space is a critical admonition； that； in general； nothing which
is intuited in space is a thing in itself； and that space is not a
form which belongs as a property to things； but that objects are quite
unknown to us in themselves； and what we call outward objects； are
nothing else but mere representations of our sensibility； whose form
is space； but whose real correlate； the thing in itself； is not
known by means of these representations； nor ever can be； but
respecting which； in experience； no inquiry is ever made。
SECTION II。 Of Time。
SS 5 Metaphysical Exposition of this Conception。
1。 Time is not an empirical conception。 For neither coexistence
nor succession would be perceived by us； if the representation of time
did not exist as a foundation a priori。 Without this presupposition we
could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and
the same time； or at different times； that is； contemporaneously； or
in succession。
2。 Time is a necessary representation； lying at the foundation of
all our intuitions。 With regard to phenomena in general； we cannot
think away time from them； and represent them to ourselves as out of
and unconnected with time； but we can quite well represent to
ourselves time void of phenomena。 Time is therefore given a priori。 In
it alone is all reality of phenomena possible。 These may all be
annihilated in thought； but time itself； as the universal condition of
their possibility； cannot be so annulled。
3。 On this necessity a priori is also founded the possibility of
apodeictic principles of the relations of time； or axioms of time in
general； such as： 〃Time has only one dimension；〃 〃Different times
are not coexistent but successive〃 （as different spaces are not
successive but coexistent）。 These principles cannot be derived from
experience； for it would give neither strict universality； nor
apodeictic certainty。 We should only be able to say； 〃so mon
experience teaches us；〃 but not 〃it must be so。〃 They are valid as
rules； through which； in general； experience is possible； and they
instruct us respecting experience； and not by means of it。
4。 Time is not a discursive； or as it is called； general conception；
but a pure form of the sensuous intuition。 Different times are
merely parts of one and the same time。 But the representation which
can only be given by a single object is an intuition。 Besides； the
proposition that different times cannot be coexistent could not be
derived from a general conception。 For this proposition is
synthetical； and therefore cannot spring out of conceptions alone。
It is therefore contained immediately in the intuition and
representation of time。
5。 The infinity of time signifies nothing more than that every
determined quantity of time is possible only through limitations of
one time lying at the foundation。 Consequently； the original
representation； time； must be given as unlimited。 But as the
determinate representation of the parts of time and of every
quantity of an object can only be obtained by limitation； the plete
representation of time must not be furnished by means of
conceptions； for these contain only partial representations。
Conceptions； on the contrary； must have immediate intuition for
their basis。
SS 6 Transcendental Exposition of the Conception of Time。
I may here refer to what is said above （SS 5； 3）； where； for or sake
of brevity； I have placed under the head of metaphysical exposition；
that which is properly transcendental。 Here I shall add that the
conception of change； and with it the conception of motion； as
change of place； is possible only through and in the representation of
time； that if this representation were not an intuition （internal） a
priori； no conception； of whatever kind； could render prehensible
the possibility of change； in other words； of a conjunction of
contradictorily opposed predicates in one and the same object； for
example； the presence of a thing in a place and the non…presence of
the same thing in the same place。 It is only in time that it is
possible to meet with two contradictorily opposed determinations in
one thing； that is； after each other。 thus our conception of time
explains the possibility of so much synthetical knowledge a priori； as
is exhibited in the general doctrine of motion； which is not a
little fruitful。
SS 7 Conclusions from the above Conceptions。
（a） Time is not something which subsists of itself； or which inheres
in things as an objective determination； and therefore remains； when
abstraction is made of the subjective conditions of the intuition of
things。 For in the former case； it would be something real； yet
without presenting to any power of perception any real object。 In
the latter case； as an order or determination inherent in things
themselves； it could not be antecedent to things； as their
condition； nor discerned or intuited by means of synthetical
propositions a priori。 But all this is quite possible when we regard
time as merely the subjective condition under which all our intuitions
take place。 For in that case； this form of the inward intuition can be
represented prior to the objects； and consequently a priori。
（b） Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense； that
is； of the intuitions of self and of our internal state。 For time
cannot be any determination of outward phenomena。 It has to do neither
with shape nor position； on the contrary； it determines the relation
of representations in our internal state。 And precisely because this
internal intuition presents to us no shape or form； we endeavour to
supply this want by analogies； and represent the course of time by a
line progressing to infinity； the content of which constitutes a
series which is only of one dimension； and we conclude from the
properties of this line as to all the properties of time； with this
single exception； that the parts of the line are coexistent； whilst
those of time are successive。 From this it is clear also that the
representation of time is itself an intuition； because all its
relations can be expressed in an external intuition。
（c） Time is the formal condition a priori of all phenomena
whatsoever。 Space； as the pure form of external intuition； is
limited as a condition a priori to external phenomena alone。 On the
other hand； because all representations； whether they have or have not
external things for their objects； still in themselves； as
determinations of the mind； belong to our internal state； and
because this internal state is subject to the formal condition of
the internal intuition； that is； to time… time is a condition a priori
of all phenomena whatsoever… the immediate condition of all
internal； and thereby the mediate condition of all external phenomena。
If I can say a priori； 〃All outward phenomena are in space； and
determined a priori according to the relations of space；〃 I can
also； from the principle of the internal sense； affirm universally；
〃All phenomena in general； that is； all objects of the senses； are
in time and stand necessarily in relations of time。〃
If we abstract our internal intuition of ourselves and all
external intuitions； possible only by virtue of this internal
intuition and presented to us by our faculty of representation； and
consequently take objects as they are in themselves； then time is
nothing。 It is only of objective validity in regard to phenomena；
because these are things which we regard as objects of our senses。
It no longer objective we； make abstraction of the sensuousness of our
intuition； in other words； of that mode of representation which is
peculiar to us； and speak of things in general。 Time is therefore
merely a subjective condition of our （human） intuition （which is
always sensuous； that is； so far as we are affected by objects）； and
in itself； independently of the mind or subject； is noth