meaning of the term。
Pure synthesis； represented generally； gives us the pure
conception of the understanding。 But by this pure synthesis； I mean
that which rests upon a basis of a priori synthetical unity。 Thus； our
numeration （and this is more observable in large numbers） is a
synthesis according to conceptions； because it takes place according
to a mon basis of unity （for example； the decade）。 By means of this
conception； therefore； the unity in the synthesis of the manifold
bees necessary。
By means of analysis different representations are brought under one
conception… an operation of which general logic treats。 On the other
hand； the duty of transcendental logic is to reduce to conceptions；
not representations； but the pure synthesis of representations。 The
first thing which must be given to us for the sake of the a priori
cognition of all objects； is the diversity of the pure intuition；
the synthesis of this diversity by means of the imagination is the
second； but this gives； as yet； no cognition。 The conceptions which
give unity to this pure synthesis； and which consist solely in the
representation of this necessary synthetical unity； furnish the
third requisite for the cognition of an object； and these
conceptions are given by the understanding。
The same function which gives unity to the different
representation in a judgement； gives also unity to the mere
synthesis of different representations in an intuition； and this unity
we call the pure conception of the understanding。 Thus； the same
understanding； and by the same operations； whereby in conceptions；
by means of analytical unity； it produced the logical form of a
judgement； introduces； by means of the synthetical unity of the
manifold in intuition； a transcendental content into its
representations； on which account they are called pure conceptions
of the understanding； and they apply a priori to objects； a result not
within the power of general logic。
In this manner； there arise exactly so many pure conceptions of
the understanding； applying a priori to objects of intuition in
general； as there are logical functions in all possible judgements。
For there is no other function or faculty existing in the
understanding besides those enumerated in that table。 These
conceptions we shall； with Aristotle； call categories； our purpose
being originally identical with his； notwithstanding the great
difference in the execution。
TABLE OF THE CATEGORIES
1 2
Of Quantity Of Quality
Unity Reality
Plurality Negation
Totality Limitation
3
Of Relation
Of Inherence and Subsistence （substantia et accidens）
Of Causality and Dependence （cause and effect）
Of munity （reciprocity between the agent and patient）
4
Of Modality
Possibility … Impossibility
Existence … Non…existence
Necessity … Contingence
This； then； is a catalogue of all the originally pure conceptions of
the synthesis which the understanding contains a priori； and these
conceptions alone entitle it to be called a pure understanding；
inasmuch as only by them it can render the manifold of intuition
conceivable； in other words； think an object of intuition。 This
division is made systematically from a mon principle； namely the
faculty of judgement （which is just the same as the power of thought）；
and has not arisen rhapsodically from a search at haphazard after pure
conceptions； respecting the full number of which we never could be
certain； inasmuch as we employ induction alone in our search；
without considering that in this way we can never understand wherefore
precisely these conceptions； and none others； abide in the pure
understanding。 It was a design worthy of an acute thinker like
Aristotle； to search for these fundamental conceptions。 Destitute；
however； of any guiding principle； he picked them up just as they
occurred to him； and at first hunted out ten； which he called
categories （predicaments）。 Afterwards be believed that he had
discovered five others； which were added under the name of post
predicaments。 But his catalogue still remained defective。 Besides；
there are to be found among them some of the modes of pure sensibility
（quando； ubi； situs； also prius； simul）； and likewise an empirical
conception （motus）… which can by no means belong to this
genealogical register of the pure understanding。 Moreover； there are
deduced conceptions （actio； passio） enumerated among the original
conceptions； and； of the latter； some are entirely wanting。
With regard to these； it is to be remarked； that the categories；
as the true primitive conceptions of the pure understanding； have also
their pure deduced conceptions； which； in a plete system of
transcendental philosophy； must by no means be passed over； though
in a merely critical essay we must be contented with the simple
mention of the fact。
Let it be allowed me to call these pure； but deduced conceptions
of the understanding； the predicables of the pure understanding； in
contradistinction to predicaments。 If we are in possession of the
original and primitive； the deduced and subsidiary conceptions can
easily be added； and the genealogical tree of the understanding
pletely delineated。 As my present aim is not to set forth a
plete system； but merely the principles of one； I reserve this task
for another time。 It may be easily executed by any one who will
refer to the ontological manuals； and subordinate to the category of
causality； for example； the predicables of force； action； passion；
to that of munity； those of presence and resistance； to the
categories of modality； those of origination； extinction； change；
and so with the rest。 The categories bined with the modes of pure
sensibility； or with one another； afford a great number of deduced a
priori conceptions； a plete enumeration of which would be a
useful and not unpleasant； but in this place a perfectly
dispensable； occupation。
I purposely omit the definitions of the categories in this treatise。
I shall analyse these conceptions only so far as is necessary for
the doctrine of method； which is to form a part of this critique。 In a
system of pure reason； definitions of them would be with justice
demanded of me； but to give them here would only bide from our view
the main aim of our investigation； at the same time raising doubts and
objections； the consideration of which； without injustice to our
main purpose； may be very well postponed till another opportunity。
Meanwhile； it ought to be sufficiently clear； from the little we
have already said on this subject； that the formation of a plete
vocabulary of pure conceptions； acpanied by all the requisite
explanations； is not only a possible； but an easy undertaking。 The
partments already exist； it is only necessary to fill them up；
and a systematic topic like the present； indicates with perfect
precision the proper place to which each conception belongs； while
it readily points out any that have not yet been filled up。
SS 7
Our table of the categories suggests considerations of some
importance； which may perhaps have significant results in regard to
the scientific form of all rational cognitions。 For； that this table
is useful in the theoretical part of philosophy； nay； indispensable
for the sketching of the plete plan of a science； so far as that
science rests upon conceptions a priori； and for dividing it
mathematically； according to fixed principles； is most manifest from
the fact that it contains all the elementary conceptions of the
understanding； nay； even the form of a system of these in the
understanding itself； and consequently indicates all the momenta；
and also the internal arrangement of a projected speculative
science； as I have elsewhere shown。* Here follow some of these
observations。
*In the Metaphysical Principles of Natural Science。
I。 This table； which contains four classes of conceptions of the
understanding； may； in the first instance； be divided into two
classes； the first of which relates to objects of intuition… pure as
well as empirical； the second； to the existence of these objects；
either in relation to one another； or to the understanding。
The former of these classes of categories I would entitle the
mathematical； and the latter the dynamical categories。 The former；
as we see； has no correlates； these are only to be found in the second
class。 This difference must have a ground in the nature of the human
understanding。
II。 The number of the categories in each class is always the same；
namely； three… a fact which also demands some consideration； because
in all other cases division a priori through conceptions is
necessarily dichotomy。 It is to be added； that the third category in
each triad always arises from the bination of the second with the
first。
Thus totality is nothing else but plurality contemplated as unity；
limitation is merely reality conjoined with negation； munity is the
causality of a substance； reciprocally determining； and determined
by other substances； and finally； necessity is nothing but
existence； which is given through the possibility itself。 Let it not
be supposed； however； that the third category is merely a deduced； and
not a primitive conception of the pure understanding。 For the
conjunction of the first and second； in order to produce the third
conception； requires a particular function of the understanding； which
is by no means identical with those which are exercised in the first
and second。 Thus； the conception of a number （which belongs to the
category of totality） is not always possible； where the conceptions of
multitude and unity exist （for example； in the representation of the
infinite）。 Or； if I conjoin the conception of a cause with that of a
substance； it does not follow that the conception of influence； that
is； how one substance can be the cause of something in anothe