universally and for all time； and by consequence； objectively； valid
the empirical cognition of the relations of time。
C。 THIRD ANALOGY。
Principle of Coexistence； According to the Law
of Reciprocity or munity。
All substances； in so far as they can be perceived in space
at the same time； exist in a state of plete reciprocity
of action。
PROOF。
Things are coexistent； when in empirical intuition the perception of
the one can follow upon the perception of the other； and vice versa…
which cannot occur in the succession of phenomena； as we have shown in
the explanation of the second principle。 Thus I can perceive the
moon and then the earth； or conversely； first the earth and then the
moon； and for the reason that my perceptions of these objects can
reciprocally follow each other； I say； they exist contemporaneously。
Now coexistence is the existence of the manifold in the same time。 But
time itself is not an object of perception； and therefore we cannot
conclude from the fact that things are placed in the same time； the
other fact； that the perception of these things can follow each
other reciprocally。 The synthesis of the imagination in apprehension
would only present to us each of these perceptions as present in the
subject when the other is not present； and contrariwise； but would not
show that the objects are coexistent； that is to say； that； if the one
exists； the other also exists in the same time； and that this is
necessarily so； in order that the perceptions may be capable of
following each other reciprocally。 It follows that a conception of the
understanding or category of the reciprocal sequence of the
determinations of phenomena （existing； as they do； apart from each
other； and yet contemporaneously）； is requisite to justify us in
saying that the reciprocal succession of perceptions has its
foundation in the object； and to enable us to represent coexistence as
objective。 But that relation of substances in which the one contains
determinations the ground of which is in the other substance； is the
relation of influence。 And； when this influence is reciprocal； it is
the relation of munity or reciprocity。 Consequently the coexistence
of substances in space cannot be cognized in experience otherwise than
under the precondition of their reciprocal action。 This is therefore
the condition of the possibility of things themselves as objects of
experience。
Things are coexistent； in so far as they exist in one and the same
time。 But how can we know that they exist in one and the same time？
Only by observing that the order in the synthesis of apprehension of
the manifold is arbitrary and a matter of indifference； that is to
say； that it can proceed from A； through B； C； D； to E； or
contrariwise from E to A。 For if they were successive in time （and
in the order； let us suppose； which begins with A）； it is quite
impossible for the apprehension in perception to begin with E and go
backwards to A； inasmuch as A belongs to past time and； therefore；
cannot be an object of apprehension。
Let us assume that in a number of substances considered as phenomena
each is pletely isolated； that is； that no one acts upon another。
Then I say that the coexistence of these cannot be an object of
possible perception and that the existence of one cannot； by any
mode of empirical synthesis； lead us to the existence of another。
For we imagine them in this case to be separated by a pletely
void space； and thus perception； which proceeds from the one to the
other in time； would indeed determine their existence by means of a
following perception； but would be quite unable to distinguish whether
the one phenomenon follows objectively upon the first； or is
coexistent with it。
Besides the mere fact of existence； then； there must be something by
means of which A determines the position of B in time and； conversely；
B the position of A； because only under this condition can
substances be empirically represented as existing contemporaneously。
Now that alone determines the position of another thing in time
which is the cause of it or of its determinations。 Consequently
every substance （inasmuch as it can have succession predicated of it
only in respect of its determinations） must contain the causality of
certain determinations in another substance； and at the same time
the effects of the causality of the other in itself。 That is to say；
substances must stand （mediately or immediately） in dynamical
munity with each other； if coexistence is to be cognized in any
possible experience。 But； in regard to objects of experience； that
is absolutely necessary without which the experience of these
objects would itself be impossible。 Consequently it is absolutely
necessary that all substances in the world of phenomena； in so far
as they are coexistent； stand in a relation of plete munity of
reciprocal action to each other。
The word munity has in our language* two meanings； and contains
the two notions conveyed in the Latin munio and mercium。 We
employ it in this place in the latter sense… that of a dynamical
munity； without which even the munity of place （munio spatii）
could not be empirically cognized。 In our experiences it is easy to
observe that it is only the continuous influences in all parts of
space that can conduct our senses from one object to another； that the
light which plays between our eyes and the heavenly bodies produces
a mediating munity between them and us； and thereby evidences their
coexistence with us； that we cannot empirically change our position
（perceive this change）； unless the existence of matter throughout
the whole of space rendered possible the perception of the positions
we occupy； and that this perception can prove the contemporaneous
existence of these places only through their reciprocal influence； and
thereby also the coexistence of even the most remote objects… although
in this case the proof is only mediate。 Without munity； every
perception （of a phenomenon in space） is separated from every other
and isolated； and the chain of empirical representations； that is；
of experience； must； with the appearance of a new object； begin
entirely de novo； without the least connection with preceding
representations； and without standing towards these even in the
relation of time。 My intention here is by no means to bat the
notion of empty space； for it may exist where our perceptions cannot
exist； inasmuch as they cannot reach thereto； and where； therefore； no
empirical perception of coexistence takes place。 But in this case it
is not an object of possible experience。
*German。
The following remarks may be useful in the way of explanation。 In
the mind； all phenomena； as contents of a possible experience； must
exist in munity （munio） of apperception or consciousness； and in
so far as it is requisite that objects be represented as coexistent
and connected； in so far must they reciprocally determine the position
in time of each other and thereby constitute a whole。 If this
subjective munity is to rest upon an objective basis； or to be
applied to substances as phenomena； the perception of one substance
must render possible the perception of another； and conversely。 For
otherwise succession； which is always found in perceptions as
apprehensions； would be predicated of external objects； and their
representation of their coexistence be thus impossible。 But this is
a reciprocal influence； that is to say； a real munity
（mercium） of substances； without which therefore the empirical
relation of coexistence would be a notion beyond the reach of our
minds。 By virtue of this mercium； phenomena； in so far as they
are apart from； and nevertheless in connection with each other；
constitute a positum reale。 Such posita are possible in many
different ways。 The three dynamical relations then； from which all
others spring； are those of inherence； consequence； and position。
These； then； are the three analogies of experience。 They are nothing
more than principles of the determination of the existence of
phenomena in time； according to the three modi of this
determination； to wit； the relation to time itself as a quantity
（the quantity of existence； that is； duration）； the relation in time
as a series or succession； finally； the relation in time as the
plex of all existence （simultaneity）。 This unity of determination
in regard to time is thoroughly dynamical； that is to say； time is not
considered as that in which experience determines immediately to every
existence its position； for this is impossible； inasmuch as absolute
time is not an object of perception； by means of which phenomena can
be connected with each other。 On the contrary； the rule of the
understanding； through which alone the existence of phenomena can
receive synthetical unity as regards relations of time； determines for
every phenomenon its position in time； and consequently a priori；
and with validity for all and every time。
By nature； in the empirical sense of the word； we understand the
totality of phenomena connected； in respect of their existence；
according to necessary rules； that is； laws。 There are therefore
certain laws （which are moreover a priori） which make nature possible；
and all empirical laws can exist only by means of experience； and by
virtue of those primitive laws through which experience itself bees
possible。 The purpose of the analogies is therefore to represent to us
the unity of nature in the connection of all phenomena under certain
exponents； the only business of which is to express the relation of
time （in so far as it contains all existence in itself） to the unity
of apperception； which can exist in synthesis only according to rules。
The bined expression of all is this： 〃All phenomena exist in one
nature； and must so exist； inasmuch as without this a priori unity； no
unity of experience； and consequently no determination of objects in
experience； is possible。〃
As regards the mode of proof which we have employed in treating of
these transcendental laws of nature； and the peculiar character of
we must make one remark； which