object； disappears； and no example can be found to make it
prehensible what sort of things we ought to think under such
conceptions。
The conception of quantity cannot be explained except by saying that
it is the determination of a thing whereby it can be cogitated how
many times one is placed in it。 But this 〃how many times〃 is based
upon successive repetition； consequently upon time and the synthesis
of the homogeneous therein。 Reality； in contradistinction to negation；
can be explained only by cogitating a time which is either filled
therewith or is void。 If I leave out the notion of permanence （which
is existence in all time）； there remains in the conception of
substance nothing but the logical notion of subject； a notion of which
I endeavour to realize by representing to myself something that can
exist only as a subject。 But not only am I perfectly ignorant of any
conditions under which this logical prerogative can belong to a thing；
I can make nothing out of the notion； and draw no inference from it；
because no object to which to apply the conception is determined；
and we consequently do not know whether it has any meaning at all。
In like manner； if I leave out the notion of time； in which
something follows upon some other thing in conformity with a rule； I
can find nothing in the pure category； except that there is a
something of such a sort that from it a conclusion may be drawn as
to the existence of some other thing。 But in this case it would not
only be impossible to distinguish between a cause and an effect；
but； as this power to draw conclusions requires conditions of which
I am quite ignorant； the conception is not determined as to the mode
in which it ought to apply to an object。 The so…called principle：
〃Everything that is contingent has a cause；〃 es with a gravity
and self…assumed authority that seems to require no support from
without。 But； I ask； what is meant by contingent？ The answer is that
the non…existence of which is possible。 But I should like very well to
know by what means this possibility of non…existence is to be
cognized； if we do not represent to ourselves a succession in the
series of phenomena； and in this succession an existence which follows
a non…existence； or conversely； consequently； change。 For to say； that
the non…existence of a thing is not self…contradictory is a lame
appeal to a logical condition； which is no doubt a necessary condition
of the existence of the conception； but is far from being sufficient
for the real objective possibility of non…existence。 I can
annihilate in thought every existing substance without
self…contradiction； but I cannot infer from this their objective
contingency in existence； that is to say； the possibility of their
non…existence in itself。 As regards the category of munity； it
may easily be inferred that； as the pure categories of substance and
causality are incapable of a definition and explanation sufficient
to determine their object without the aid of intuition； the category
of reciprocal causality in the relation of substances to each other
（mercium） is just as little susceptible thereof。 Possibility；
existence； and necessity nobody has ever yet been able to explain
without being guilty of manifest tautology； when the definition has
been drawn entirely from the pure understanding。 For the
substitution of the logical possibility of the conception… the
condition of which is that it be not self…contradictory； for the
transcendental possibility of things… the condition of which is that
there be an object corresponding to the conception； is a trick which
can only deceive the inexperienced。*
*In one word； to none of these conceptions belongs a corresponding
object； and consequently their real possibility cannot be
demonstrated； if we take away sensuous intuition… the only intuition
which we possess… and there then remains nothing but the logical
possibility； that is； the fact that the conception or thought is
possible… which； however； is not the question； what we want to know
being； whether it relates to an object and thus possesses any meaning。
It follows incontestably； that the pure conceptions of the
understanding are incapable of transcendental； and must always be of
empirical use alone； and that the principles of the pure understanding
relate only to the general conditions of a possible experience； to
objects of the senses； and never to things in general； apart from
the mode in which we intuite them。
Transcendental analytic has accordingly this important result； to
wit； that the understanding is petent' effect nothing a priori；
except the anticipation of the form of a possible experience in
general； and that； as that which is not phenomenon cannot be an object
of experience； it can never overstep the limits of sensibility； within
which alone objects are presented to us。 Its principles are merely
principles of the exposition of phenomena； and the proud name of an
ontology； which professes to present synthetical cognitions a priori
of things in general in a systematic doctrine； must give place to
the modest title of analytic of the pure understanding。
Thought is the act of referring a given intuition to an object。 If
the mode of this intuition is unknown to us； the object is merely
transcendental； and the conception of the understanding is employed
only transcendentally； that is； to produce unity in the thought of a
manifold in general。 Now a pure category； in which all conditions of
sensuous intuition… as the only intuition we possess… are
abstracted； does not determine an object； but merely expresses the
thought of an object in general； according to different modes。 Now； to
employ a conception； the function of judgement is required； by which
an object is subsumed under the conception； consequently the at
least formal condition； under which something can be given in
intuition。 Failing this condition of judgement （schema）； subsumption
is impossible； for there is in such a case nothing given； which may be
subsumed under the conception。 The merely transcendental use of the
categories is therefore； in fact； no use at all and has no determined；
or even； as regards its form； determinable object。 Hence it follows
that the pure category is inpetent to establish a synthetical a
priori principle； and that the principles of the pure understanding
are only of empirical and never of transcendental use； and that beyond
the sphere of possible experience no synthetical a priori principles
are possible。
It may be advisable； therefore； to express ourselves thus。 The
pure categories； apart from the formal conditions of sensibility； have
a merely transcendental meaning； but are nevertheless not of
transcendental use； because this is in itself impossible； inasmuch
as all the conditions of any employment or use of them （in judgements）
are absent； to wit； the formal conditions of the subsumption of an
object under these conceptions。 As； therefore； in the character of
pure categories； they must be employed empirically； and cannot be
employed transcendentally； they are of no use at all； when separated
from sensibility； that is； they cannot be applied to an object。 They
are merely the pure form of the employment of the understanding in
respect of objects in general and of thought； without its being at the
same time possible to think or to determine any object by their means。
But there lurks at the foundation of this subject an illusion
which it is very difficult to avoid。 The categories are not based；
as regards their origin； upon sensibility； like the forms of
intuition； space； and time； they seem； therefore； to be capable of
an application beyond the sphere of sensuous objects。 But this is
not the case。 They are nothing but mere forms of thought； which
contain only the logical faculty of uniting a priori in
consciousness the manifold given in intuition。 Apart； then； from the
only intuition possible for us； they have still less meaning than
the pure sensuous forms； space and time； for through them an object is
at least given； while a mode of connection of the manifold； when the
intuition which alone gives the manifold is wanting； has no meaning at
all。 At the same time； when we designate certain objects as
phenomena or sensuous existences； thus distinguishing our mode of
intuiting them from their own nature as things in themselves； it is
evident that by this very distinction we as it were place the
latter； considered in this their own nature； although we do not so
intuite them； in opposition to the former； or； on the other hand； we
do so place other possible things； which are not objects of our
senses； but are cogitated by the understanding alone； and call them
intelligible existences （noumena）。 Now the question arises whether the
pure conceptions of our understanding do possess significance in
respect of these latter； and may possibly be a mode of cognizing them。
But we are met at the very mencement with an ambiguity； which may
easily occasion great misapprehension。 The understanding； when it
terms an object in a certain relation phenomenon； at the same time
forms out of this relation a representation or notion of an object
in itself； and hence believes that it can form also conceptions of
such objects。 Now as the understanding possesses no other
fundamental conceptions besides the categories； it takes for granted
that an object considered as a thing in itself must be capable of
being thought by means of these pure conceptions； and is thereby led
to hold the perfectly undetermined conception of an intelligible
existence； a something out of the sphere of our sensibility； for a
determinate conception of an existence which we can cognize in some
way or other by means of the understanding。
If； by the term noumenon； we understand a thing so far as it is
not an object of our sensuous intuition； thus making abstraction of
our mode of intuiting it； this is a noumenon in the negative sense
of the word。 But if we understand by it an object of a non…sensuous
intuition； we in this case assume a peculiar mode of intuition； an
intellectual intuition； to wit； which does not； however； belong to us；
of the very possibility of which we