University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
Critique of Pure Reason

  
[title page]
  
Baco de Verulamio,Instauratio Magna-Præfatio.
  
[contents]
  
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. — (1781.)
  
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. — (1787.)
expand section 
INTRODUCTION.

expand section1. 
TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS.
collapse section2. 
TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC.
collapse section1. 
FIRST work.
 0. 
[book]
collapse section1. 
TRANSCENDENTAL ANALYTICBOOK I.
 0. 
[chapter]
expand section1. 
CHAPTER I. OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL CLUE TO THE DISCOVERY OF ALL PURE CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNDERSTANDING.
collapse section2. 
CHAPTER II.OF THE DEDUCTION OF THE PURE CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNDERSTANDING.
expand section1. 
SECT. I. — Of the Principles of a Transcendental Deduction in general.
collapse section2. 
SECT. II. — TRANSCENDENTAL DEDUCTION OF THE PURE CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNDERSTANDING.
 11. 
SS 11.Of the Possibility of a Conjunction of the manifold representations given by Sense.
 12. 
Of the Originally Synthetical Unity of Apperception.SS 12.
 13. 
The principle of the Synthetical Unity of Apperception is the highest principle of all exercise of the Understanding.SS 13.
 14. 
What Objective Unity of Self—consciousness is.SS 14.
 15. 
The Logical Form of all Judgements consists in the Objective Unity of Apperception of the Conceptions contained therein. SS 15.
 16. 
All Sensuous Intuitions are subject to the Categories, as Conditions under which alone the manifold Content of them can be united in one Consciousness. SS 16.
 17. 
Observation.SS 17.
 18. 
SS 18.In Cognition, its Application to Objects of Experience is the only legitimate use of the Category.
 19. 
SS 19.
  
SS 20.Of the Application of the Categories to Objects of the Senses in general.
 21. 
SS 21.
 22. 
SS 22.Transcendental Deduction of the universally possible employment in experience of the Pure Conceptions of the Understanding.
 23. 
SS 23. Result of this Deduction of the Conceptions of the Understanding.
 0. 
Short view of the above Deduction.
expand section2. 
BOOK II.Analytic of Principles.
expand section2. 
TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC.SECOND work.
 3. 
II.TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD.

  
Errata
collapse section Collapse All | Expand All expand section
previous sectionCHAPTER II.OF THE DEDUCTION OF THE PURE CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNDERSTANDING. Critique of Pure Reason
next section

The Logical Form of all Judgements consists in the Objective
Unity of Apperception of the Conceptions contained therein.
SS 15.

I could never satisfy myself with the definition which logicians give of a judgement. It is, according to them, the

87

representation of a relation between two conceptions. I shall not dwell here on the faultiness of this definition, in that it suits only for categorical and not for hypothetical or disjunctive judgements, these latter containing a relation not of conceptions but of judgements themselves— a blunder from which many evil results have followed.* It is more important for our present purpose to observe, that this definition does not determine in what the said relation consists.

[*]

The tedious doctrine of the four syllogistic figures concerns only categorical syllogisms; and although it is nothing more than an artifice by surreptitiously introducing immediate conclusions (consequentiæ immediatæ) among the premises of a pure syllogism, to give ism' give rise to an appearance of more modes of drawing a conclusion than that in the first figure, the artifice would not have had much success, had not its authors succeeded in bringing categorical judgements into exclusive respect, as those to which all others must be referred— a doctrine, however, which, according to SS 5, is utterly false.

But if I investigate more closely the relation of given cognitions in every judgement, and distinguish it, as belonging to the understanding, from the relation which is produced according to laws of the reproductive imagination (which has only subjective validity), I find that judgement is nothing but the mode of bringing given cognitions under the objective unit of apperception. This is plain from our use of the term of relation is in judgements, in order to distinguish the objective unity of given representations from the subjective unity. For this term indicates the relation of these representations to the original apperception, and also their necessary unity, even although the judgement is empirical, therefore contingent, as in the judgement: "All bodies are heavy." I do not mean by this, that these representations do necessarily belong to each other in empirical intuition, but that by means of the necessary unity of appreciation they belong to each other in the synthesis of intuitions, that is to say, they belong to each other according to principles of the objective determination of all our representations, in so far as cognition can arise from them, these principles being all deduced from the main principle of the transcendental unity of apperception. In this way alone can there arise from this relation a judgement, that is, a relation which has objective validity, and is perfectly distinct from that relation of the very same representations which

88

has only subjective validity— a relation, to wit, which is produced according to laws of association. According to these laws, I could only say: "When I hold in my hand or carry a body, I feel an impression of weight"; but I could not say: "It, the body, is heavy"; for this is tantamount to saying both these representations are conjoined in the object, that is, without distinction as to the condition of the subject, and do not merely stand together in my perception, however frequently the perceptive act may be repeated.

previous sectionCHAPTER II.OF THE DEDUCTION OF THE PURE CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNDERSTANDING. Critique of Pure Reason
next section