Immanuel Kant – The Critique of Pure Reason; Part 8

PYONG!
0

You pyonged “Immanuel Kant – The Critique of Pur...”

Save Note No Thanks
Follow
Caution: You are now annotating this song as

2. ANTICIPATIONS OF PERCEPTION

The principle of these is: In all phenomena the Real, that which is an
Object of sensation, has Intensive Quantity, that is, has a Degree

PROOF

Perception is empirical consciousness, that is to say, a consciousness
Which contains an element of sensation. Phenomena as objects of
Perception are not pure, that is, merely formal intuitions, like space
And time, for they cannot be perceived in themselves

They contain, then, over and above the intuition, the materials for an
Object (through which is represented something existing in space or
Time), that is to say, they contain the real of sensation, as a
Representation merely subjective, which gives us merely the
Consciousness that the subject is affected, and which we refer to some
External object. Now, a gradual transition from empirical consciousness
To pure consciousness is possible, inasmuch as the real in this
Consciousness entirely vanishes, and there remains a merely formal
Consciousness (a priori) of the manifold in time and space; consequently
There is possible a synthesis also of the production of the quantity of
A sensation from its commencement, that is, from the pure intuition = 0
Onwards up to a certain quantity of the sensation. Now as sensation in
Itself is not an objective representation, and in it is to be found
Neither the intuition of space nor of time, it cannot possess any
Extensive quantity, and yet there does belong to it a quantity (and that
By means of its apprehension, in which empirical consciousness can
Within a certain time rise from nothing = 0 up to its given amount)
Consequently an intensive quantity. And thus we must ascribe intensive
Quantity, that is, a degree of influence on sense to all objects of
Perception, in so far as this perception contains sensation

All cognition, by means of which I am enabled to cognize and determine
A priori what belongs to empirical cognition, may be called an
Anticipation; and without doubt this is the sense in which Epicurus
Employed his expression prholepsis. But as there is in phenomena
Something which is never cognized a priori, which on this account
Constitutes the proper difference between pure and empirical cognition
That is to say, sensation (as the matter of perception), it follows
That sensation is just that element in cognition which cannot be at
All anticipated. On the other hand, we might very well term the pure
Determinations in space and time, as well in regard to figure as to
Quantity, anticipations of phenomena, because they represent a priori
That which may always be given a posteriori in experience. But suppose
That in every sensation, as sensation in general, without any particular
Sensation being thought of, there existed something which could be
Cognized a priori, this would deserve to be called anticipation in a
Special sense--special, because it may seem surprising to forestall
Experience, in that which concerns the matter of experience, and which
We can only derive from itself. Yet such really is the case here

Apprehension*, by means of sensation alone, fills only one moment, that
Is, if I do not take into consideration a succession of many sensations
As that in the phenomenon, the apprehension of which is not a successive
Synthesis advancing from parts to an entire representation, sensation
Has therefore no extensive quantity; the want of sensation in a moment
Of time would represent it as empty, consequently = 0. That which in
The empirical intuition corresponds to sensation is reality (realitas
Phaenomenon); that which corresponds to the absence of it, negation = 0
Now every sensation is capable of a diminution, so that it can decrease
And thus gradually disappear. Therefore, between reality in a phenomenon
And negation, there exists a continuous concatenation of many possible
Intermediate sensations, the difference of which from each other is
Always smaller than that between the given sensation and zero, or
Complete negation. That is to say, the real in a phenomenon has always a
Quantity, which however is not discoverable in apprehension, inasmuch as
Apprehension take place by means of mere sensation in one instant, and
Not by the successive synthesis of many sensations, and therefore does
Not progress from parts to the whole. Consequently, it has a quantity
But not an extensive quantity

Now that quantity which is apprehended only as unity, and in which
Plurality can be represented only by approximation to negation = O
I term intensive quantity. Consequently, reality in a phenomenon has
Intensive quantity, that is, a degree. If we consider this reality as
Cause (be it of sensation or of another reality in the phenomenon, for
Example, a change), we call the degree of reality in its character of
Cause a momentum, for example, the momentum of weight; and for this
Reason, that the degree only indicates that quantity the apprehension of
Which is not successive, but instantaneous. This, however, I touch upon
Only in passing, for with causality I have at present nothing to do

Accordingly, every sensation, consequently every reality in phenomena
However small it may be, has a degree, that is, an intensive quantity
Which may always be lessened, and between reality and negation there
Exists a continuous connection of possible realities, and possible
Smaller perceptions. Every colour--for example, red--has a degree
Which, be it ever so small, is never the smallest, and so is it always
With heat, the momentum of weight, etc

This property of quantities, according to which no part of them is the
Smallest possible (no part simple), is called their continuity. Space
And time are quanta continua, because no part of them can be
Given, without enclosing it within boundaries (points and moments)
Consequently, this given part is itself a space or a time. Space
Therefore, consists only of spaces, and time of times. Points and
Moments are only boundaries, that is, the mere places or positions of
Their limitation. But places always presuppose intuitions which are to
Limit or determine them; and we cannot conceive either space or time
Composed of constituent parts which are given before space or time
Such quantities may also be called flowing, because synthesis (of the
Productive imagination) in the production of these quantities is a
Progression in time, the continuity of which we are accustomed to
Indicate by the expression flowing

All phenomena, then, are continuous quantities, in respect both to
Intuition and mere perception (sensation, and with it reality). In the
Former case they are extensive quantities; in the latter, intensive
When the synthesis of the manifold of a phenomenon is interrupted, there
Results merely an aggregate of several phenomena, and not properly a
Phenomenon as a quantity, which is not produced by the mere continuation
Of the productive synthesis of a certain kind, but by the repetition of
A synthesis always ceasing. For example, if I call thirteen dollars a
Sum or quantity of money, I employ the term quite correctly, inasmuch as
I understand by thirteen dollars the value of a mark in standard silver
Which is, to be sure, a continuous quantity, in which no part is the
Smallest, but every part might constitute a piece of money, which would
Contain material for still smaller pieces. If, however, by the words
Thirteen dollars I understand so many coins (be their value in silver
What it may), it would be quite erroneous to use the expression a
Quantity of dollars; on the contrary, I must call them aggregate, that
Is, a number of coins. And as in every number we must have unity as the
Foundation, so a phenomenon taken as unity is a quantity, and as such
Always a continuous quantity (quantum continuum)

Now, seeing all phenomena, whether considered as extensive or intensive
Are continuous quantities, the proposition: "All change (transition of a
Thing from one state into another) is continuous," might be proved here
Easily, and with mathematical evidence, were it not that the causality
Of a change lies, entirely beyond the bounds of a transcendental
Philosophy, and presupposes empirical principles. For of the possibility
Of a cause which changes the condition of things, that is, which
Determines them to the contrary to a certain given state, the
Understanding gives us a priori no knowledge; not merely because it has
No insight into the possibility of it (for such insight is absent in
Several a priori cognitions), but because the notion of change concerns
Only certain determinations of phenomena, which experience alone can
Acquaint us with, while their cause lies in the unchangeable. But seeing
That we have nothing which we could here employ but the pure fundamental
Conceptions of all possible experience, among which of course nothing
Empirical can be admitted, we dare not, without injuring the unity of
Our system, anticipate general physical science, which is built upon
Certain fundamental experiences

Nevertheless, we are in no want of proofs of the great influence
Which the principle above developed exercises in the anticipation of
Perceptions, and even in supplying the want of them, so far as to shield
Us against the false conclusions which otherwise we might rashly draw

If all reality in perception has a degree, between which and negation
There is an endless sequence of ever smaller degrees, and if
Nevertheless, every sense must have a determinate degree of receptivity
For sensations; no perception, and consequently no experience is
Possible, which can prove, either immediately or mediately, an entire
Absence of all reality in a phenomenon; in other words, it is impossible
Ever to draw from experience a proof of the existence of empty space or
Of empty time. For in the first place, an entire absence of reality in
A sensuous intuition cannot of course be an object of perception;
Secondly, such absence cannot be deduced from the contemplation of any
Single phenomenon, and the difference of the degrees in its reality; nor
Ought it ever to be admitted in explanation of any phenomenon. For if
Even the complete intuition of a determinate space or time is thoroughly
Real, that is, if no part thereof is empty, yet because every reality
Has its degree, which, with the extensive quantity of the phenomenon
Unchanged, can diminish through endless gradations down to nothing (the
Void), there must be infinitely graduated degrees, with which space or
Time is filled, and the intensive quantity in different phenomena may
Be smaller or greater, although the extensive quantity of the intuition
Remains equal and unaltered

We shall give an example of this. Almost all natural philosophers
Remarking a great difference in the quantity of the matter of different
Kinds in bodies with the same volume (partly on account of the momentum
Of gravity or weight, partly on account of the momentum of resistance
To other bodies in motion), conclude unanimously that this volume
(extensive quantity of the phenomenon) must be void in all bodies
Although in different proportion. But who would suspect that these for
The most part mathematical and mechanical inquirers into nature should
Ground this conclusion solely on a metaphysical hypothesis--a sort of
Hypothesis which they profess to disparage and avoid? Yet this they
Do, in assuming that the real in space (I must not here call it
Impenetrability or weight, because these are empirical conceptions)
Is always identical, and can only be distinguished according to its
Extensive quantity, that is, multiplicity. Now to this presupposition
For which they can have no ground in experience, and which consequently
Is merely metaphysical, I oppose a transcendental demonstration, which
It is true will not explain the difference in the filling up of spaces
But which nevertheless completely does away with the supposed necessity
Of the above-mentioned presupposition that we cannot explain the said
Difference otherwise than by the hypothesis of empty spaces. This
Demonstration, moreover, has the merit of setting the understanding
At liberty to conceive this distinction in a different manner, if the
Explanation of the fact requires any such hypothesis. For we perceive
That although two equal spaces may be completely filled by matters
Altogether different, so that in neither of them is there left a single
Point wherein matter is not present, nevertheless, every reality has its
Degree (of resistance or of weight), which, without diminution of the
Extensive quantity, can become less and less ad infinitum, before it
Passes into nothingness and disappears. Thus an expansion which fills
A space--for example, caloric, or any other reality in the phenomenal
World--can decrease in its degrees to infinity, yet without leaving the
Smallest part of the space empty; on the contrary, filling it with those
Lesser degrees as completely as another phenomenon could with greater
My intention here is by no means to maintain that this is really
The case with the difference of matters, in regard to their
Specific gravity; I wish only to prove, from a principle of the pure
Understanding, that the nature of our perceptions makes such a mode of
Explanation possible, and that it is erroneous to regard the real in
A phenomenon as equal quoad its degree, and different only quoad its
Aggregation and extensive quantity, and this, too, on the pretended
Authority of an a priori principle of the understanding

Nevertheless, this principle of the anticipation of perception must
Somewhat startle an inquirer whom initiation into transcendental
Philosophy has rendered cautious. We must naturally entertain some
Doubt whether or not the understanding can enounce any such synthetical
Proposition as that respecting the degree of all reality in phenomena
And consequently the possibility of the internal difference of sensation
Itself--abstraction being made of its empirical quality. Thus it is a
Question not unworthy of solution: "How the understanding can pronounce
Synthetically and a priori respecting phenomena, and thus anticipate
These, even in that which is peculiarly and merely empirical, that
Namely, which concerns sensation itself?"

The quality of sensation is in all cases merely empirical, and cannot
Be represented a priori (for example, colours, taste, etc.). But the
Real--that which corresponds to sensation--in opposition to negation =
0, only represents something the conception of which in itself contains
A being (ein seyn), and signifies nothing but the synthesis in an
Empirical consciousness. That is to say, the empirical consciousness in
The internal sense can be raised from 0 to every higher degree, so that
The very same extensive quantity of intuition, an illuminated surface
For example, excites as great a sensation as an aggregate of many other
Surfaces less illuminated. We can therefore make complete abstraction
Of the extensive quantity of a phenomenon, and represent to ourselves
In the mere sensation in a certain momentum, a synthesis of homogeneous
Ascension from 0 up to the given empirical consciousness, All sensations
Therefore as such are given only a posteriori, but this property
Thereof, namely, that they have a degree, can be known a priori. It
Is worthy of remark, that in respect to quantities in general, we can
Cognize a priori only a single quality, namely, continuity; but in
Respect to all quality (the real in phenomena), we cannot cognize a
Priori anything more than the intensive quantity thereof, namely, that
They have a degree. All else is left to experience

3. ANALOGIES OF EXPERIENCE

The principle of these is: Experience is possible only through the
Representation of a necessary connection of Perceptions

PROOF

Experience is an empirical cognition; that is to say, a cognition
Which determines an object by means of perceptions. It is therefore a
Synthesis of perceptions, a synthesis which is not itself contained in
Perception, but which contains the synthetical unity of the manifold of
Perception in a consciousness; and this unity constitutes the essential
Of our cognition of objects of the senses, that is, of experience (not
Merely of intuition or sensation). Now in experience our perceptions
Come together contingently, so that no character of necessity in their
Connection appears, or can appear from the perceptions themselves
Because apprehension is only a placing together of the manifold of
Empirical intuition, and no representation of a necessity in the
Connected existence of the phenomena which apprehension brings together
Is to be discovered therein. But as experience is a cognition of objects
By means of perceptions, it follows that the relation of the existence
Of the existence of the manifold must be represented in experience not
As it is put together in time, but as it is objectively in time. And as
Time itself cannot be perceived, the determination of the existence of
Objects in time can only take place by means of their connection in
Time in general, consequently only by means of a priori connecting
Conceptions. Now as these conceptions always possess the character of
Necessity, experience is possible only by means of a representation of
The necessary connection of perception

The three modi of time are permanence, succession, and coexistence
Accordingly, there are three rules of all relations of time in
Phenomena, according to which the existence of every phenomenon is
Determined in respect of the unity of all time, and these antecede all
Experience and render it possible

The general principle of all three analogies rests on the necessary
Unity of apperception in relation to all possible empirical
Consciousness (perception) at every time, consequently, as this unity
Lies a priori at the foundation of all mental operations, the principle
Rests on the synthetical unity of all phenomena according to their
Relation in time. For the original apperception relates to our internal
Sense (the complex of all representations), and indeed relates a priori
To its form, that is to say, the relation of the manifold empirical
Consciousness in time. Now this manifold must be combined in original
Apperception according to relations of time--a necessity imposed by the
A priori transcendental unity of apperception, to which is subjected all
That can belong to my (i.e., my own) cognition, and therefore all that
Can become an object for me. This synthetical and a priori determined
Unity in relation of perceptions in time is therefore the rule: "All
Empirical determinations of time must be subject to rules of the general
Determination of time"; and the analogies of experience, of which we are
Now about to treat, must be rules of this nature

These principles have this peculiarity, that they do not concern
Phenomena, and the synthesis of the empirical intuition thereof, but
Merely the existence of phenomena and their relation to each other in
Regard to this existence. Now the mode in which we apprehend a thing in
A phenomenon can be determined a priori in such a manner that the rule
Of its synthesis can give, that is to say, can produce this a priori
Intuition in every empirical example. But the existence of phenomena
Cannot be known a priori, and although we could arrive by this path at
A conclusion of the fact of some existence, we could not cognize that
Existence determinately, that is to say, we should be incapable of
Anticipating in what respect the empirical intuition of it would be
Distinguishable from that of others

The two principles above mentioned, which I called mathematical, in
Consideration of the fact of their authorizing the application of
Mathematic phenomena, relate to these phenomena only in regard to their
Possibility, and instruct us how phenomena, as far as regards their
Intuition or the real in their perception, can be generated according
To the rules of a mathematical synthesis. Consequently, numerical
Quantities, and with them the determination of a phenomenon as a
Quantity, can be employed in the one case as well as in the other. Thus
For example, out of 200,000 illuminations by the moon, I might compose
And give a priori, that is construct, the degree of our sensations
Of the sun-light.* We may therefore entitle these two principles
Constitutive

The case is very different with those principles whose province it is to
Subject the existence of phenomena to rules a priori. For as existence
Does not admit of being constructed, it is clear that they must only
Concern the relations of existence and be merely regulative principles
In this case, therefore, neither axioms nor anticipations are to be
Thought of. Thus, if a perception is given us, in a certain relation of
Time to other (although undetermined) perceptions, we cannot then say
A priori, what and how great (in quantity) the other perception
Necessarily connected with the former is, but only how it is connected
Quoad its existence, in this given modus of time. Analogies in
Philosophy mean something very different from that which they represent
In mathematics. In the latter they are formulae, which enounce the
Equality of two relations of quantity, and are always constitutive, so
That if two terms of the proportion are given, the third is also
Given, that is, can be constructed by the aid of these formulae. But in
Philosophy, analogy is not the equality of two quantitative but of two
Qualitative relations. In this case, from three given terms, I can
Give a priori and cognize the relation to a fourth member, but not this
Fourth term itself, although I certainly possess a rule to guide me in
The search for this fourth term in experience, and a mark to assist me
In discovering it. An analogy of experience is therefore only a rule
According to which unity of experience must arise out of perceptions in
Respect to objects (phenomena) not as a constitutive, but merely as
A regulative principle. The same holds good also of the postulates of
Empirical thought in general, which relate to the synthesis of mere
Intuition (which concerns the form of phenomena), the synthesis of
Perception (which concerns the matter of phenomena), and the synthesis
Of experience (which concerns the relation of these perceptions). For
They are only regulative principles, and clearly distinguishable from
The mathematical, which are constitutive, not indeed in regard to the
Certainty which both possess a priori, but in the mode of evidence
Thereof, consequently also in the manner of demonstration

But what has been observed of all synthetical propositions, and must
Be particularly remarked in this place, is this, that these
Analogies possess significance and validity, not as principles of the
Transcendental, but only as principles of the empirical use of the
Understanding, and their truth can therefore be proved only as such, and
That consequently the phenomena must not be subjoined directly under the
Categories, but only under their schemata. For if the objects to which
Those principles must be applied were things in themselves, it would
Be quite impossible to cognize aught concerning them synthetically a
Priori. But they are nothing but phenomena; a complete knowledge
Of which--a knowledge to which all principles a priori must at
Last relate--is the only possible experience. It follows that these
Principles can have nothing else for their aim than the conditions of
The empirical cognition in the unity of synthesis of phenomena. But this
Synthesis is cogitated only in the schema of the pure conception of the
Understanding, of whose unity, as that of a synthesis in general, the
Category contains the function unrestricted by any sensuous condition
These principles will therefore authorize us to connect phenomena
According to an analogy, with the logical and universal unity of
Conceptions, and consequently to employ the categories in the principles
Themselves; but in the application of them to experience, we shall use
Only their schemata, as the key to their proper application, instead of
The categories, or rather the latter as restricting conditions, under
The title of "formulae" of the former

A. FIRST ANALOGY

Principle of the Permanence of Substance

In all changes of phenomena, substance is permanent, and the quantum
Thereof in nature is neither increased nor diminished

PROOF

All phenomena exist in time, wherein alone as substratum, that is, as
The permanent form of the internal intuition, coexistence and succession
Can be represented. Consequently time, in which all changes of phenomena
Must be cogitated, remains and changes not, because it is that in which
Succession and coexistence can be represented only as determinations
Thereof. Now, time in itself cannot be an object of perception. It
Follows that in objects of perception, that is, in phenomena, there must
Be found a substratum which represents time in general, and in which
All change or coexistence can be perceived by means of the relation of
Phenomena to it. But the substratum of all reality, that is, of all that
Pertains to the existence of things, is substance; all that pertains
To existence can be cogitated only as a determination of substance
Consequently, the permanent, in relation to which alone can all
Relations of time in phenomena be determined, is substance in the
World of phenomena, that is, the real in phenomena, that which, as the
Substratum of all change, remains ever the same. Accordingly, as this
Cannot change in existence, its quantity in nature can neither be
Increased nor diminished

Our apprehension of the manifold in a phenomenon is always successive
Is Consequently always changing. By it alone we could, therefore
Never determine whether this manifold, as an object of experience, is
Coexistent or successive, unless it had for a foundation something fixed
And permanent, of the existence of which all succession and coexistence
Are nothing but so many modes (modi of time). Only in the permanent
Then, are relations of time possible (for simultaneity and succession
Are the only relations in time); that is to say, the permanent is the
Substratum of our empirical representation of time itself, in which
Alone all determination of time is possible. Permanence is, in fact
Just another expression for time, as the abiding correlate of all
Existence of phenomena, and of all change, and of all coexistence. For
Change does not affect time itself, but only the phenomena in time (just
As coexistence cannot be regarded as a modus of time itself, seeing
That in time no parts are coexistent, but all successive). If we were
To attribute succession to time itself, we should be obliged to cogitate
Another time, in which this succession would be possible. It is only
By means of the permanent that existence in different parts of the
Successive series of time receives a quantity, which we entitle
Duration. For in mere succession, existence is perpetually vanishing and
Recommencing, and therefore never has even the least quantity. Without
The permanent, then, no relation in time is possible. Now, time in
Itself is not an object of perception; consequently the permanent in
Phenomena must be regarded as the substratum of all determination of
Time, and consequently also as the condition of the possibility of
All synthetical unity of perceptions, that is, of experience; and all
Existence and all change in time can only be regarded as a mode in
The existence of that which abides unchangeably. Therefore, in all
Phenomena, the permanent is the object in itself, that is, the substance
(phenomenon); but all that changes or can change belongs only to the
Mode of the existence of this substance or substances, consequently to
Its determinations

I find that in all ages not only the philosopher, but even the common
Understanding, has preposited this permanence as a substratum of all
Change in phenomena; indeed, I am compelled to believe that they
Will always accept this as an indubitable fact. Only the philosopher
Expresses himself in a more precise and definite manner, when he says:
"In all changes in the world, the substance remains, and the accidents
Alone are changeable." But of this decidedly synthetical proposition, I
Nowhere meet with even an attempt at proof; nay, it very rarely has the
Good fortune to stand, as it deserves to do, at the head of the pure and
Entirely a priori laws of nature. In truth, the statement that substance
Is permanent, is tautological. For this very permanence is the ground
On which we apply the category of substance to the phenomenon; and
We should have been obliged to prove that in all phenomena there is
Something permanent, of the existence of which the changeable is nothing
But a determination. But because a proof of this nature cannot be
Dogmatical, that is, cannot be drawn from conceptions, inasmuch as it
Concerns a synthetical proposition a priori, and as philosophers never
Reflected that such propositions are valid only in relation to possible
Experience, and therefore cannot be proved except by means of a
Deduction of the possibility of experience, it is no wonder that while
It has served as the foundation of all experience (for we feel the need
Of it in empirical cognition), it has never been supported by proof

A philosopher was asked: "What is the weight of smoke?" He answered:
"Subtract from the weight of the burnt wood the weight of the remaining
Ashes, and you will have the weight of the smoke." Thus he presumed it
To be incontrovertible that even in fire the matter (substance) does not
Perish, but that only the form of it undergoes a change. In like manner
Was the saying: "From nothing comes nothing," only another inference
From the principle or permanence, or rather of the ever-abiding
Existence of the true subject in phenomena. For if that in the
Phenomenon which we call substance is to be the proper substratum of all
Determination of time, it follows that all existence in past as well as
In future time, must be determinable by means of it alone. Hence we are
Entitled to apply the term substance to a phenomenon, only because we
Suppose its existence in all time, a notion which the word permanence
Does not fully express, as it seems rather to be referable to future
Time. However, the internal necessity perpetually to be, is inseparably
Connected with the necessity always to have been, and so the expression
May stand as it is. "Gigni de nihilo nihil; in nihilum nil posse
Reverti,"* are two propositions which the ancients never parted, and
Which people nowadays sometimes mistakenly disjoin, because they imagine
That the propositions apply to objects as things in themselves, and that
The former might be inimical to the dependence (even in respect of its
Substance also) of the world upon a supreme cause. But this apprehension
Is entirely needless, for the question in this case is only of phenomena
In the sphere of experience, the unity of which never could be possible
If we admitted the possibility that new things (in respect of their
Substance) should arise. For in that case, we should lose altogether
That which alone can represent the unity of time, to wit, the identity
Of the substratum, as that through which alone all change possesses
Complete and thorough unity. This permanence is, however, nothing but
The manner in which we represent to ourselves the existence of things in
The phenomenal world

The determinations of a substance, which are only particular modes of
Its existence, are called accidents. They are always real, because they
Concern the existence of substance (negations are only determinations
Which express the non-existence of something in the substance). Now
If to this real in the substance we ascribe a particular existence (for
Example, to motion as an accident of matter), this existence is called
Inherence, in contradistinction to the existence of substance, which we
Call subsistence. But hence arise many misconceptions, and it would be a
More accurate and just mode of expression to designate the accident
Only as the mode in which the existence of a substance is positively
Determined. Meanwhile, by reason of the conditions of the logical
Exercise of our understanding, it is impossible to avoid separating
As it were, that which in the existence of a substance is subject to
Change, whilst the substance remains, and regarding it in relation to
That which is properly permanent and radical. On this account, this
Category of substance stands under the title of relation, rather because
It is the condition thereof than because it contains in itself any
Relation

Now, upon this notion of permanence rests the proper notion of the
Conception change. Origin and extinction are not changes of that which
Originates or becomes extinct. Change is but a mode of existence, which
Follows on another mode of existence of the same object; hence all that
Changes is permanent, and only the condition thereof changes. Now since
This mutation affects only determinations, which can have a beginning
Or an end, we may say, employing an expression which seems somewhat
Paradoxical: "Only the permanent (substance) is subject to change; the
Mutable suffers no change, but rather alternation, that is, when certain
Determinations cease, others begin."

Change, when, cannot be perceived by us except in substances, and origin
Or extinction in an absolute sense, that does not concern merely a
Determination of the permanent, cannot be a possible perception, for
It is this very notion of the permanent which renders possible the
Representation of a transition from one state into another, and from
Non-being to being, which, consequently, can be empirically cognized
Only as alternating determinations of that which is permanent. Grant
That a thing absolutely begins to be; we must then have a point of time
In which it was not. But how and by what can we fix and determine
This point of time, unless by that which already exists? For a void
Time--preceding--is not an object of perception; but if we connect this
Beginning with objects which existed previously, and which continue to
Exist till the object in question in question begins to be, then the
Latter can only be a determination of the former as the permanent. The
Same holds good of the notion of extinction, for this presupposes the
Empirical representation of a time, in which a phenomenon no longer
Exists

Substances (in the world of phenomena) are the substratum of all
Determinations of time. The beginning of some, and the ceasing to be of
Other substances, would utterly do away with the only condition of the
Empirical unity of time; and in that case phenomena would relate to two
Different times, in which, side by side, existence would pass; which is
Absurd. For there is only one time in which all different times must be
Placed, not as coexistent, but as successive

Accordingly, permanence is a necessary condition under which alone
Phenomena, as things or objects, are determinable in a possible
Experience. But as regards the empirical criterion of this necessary
Permanence, and with it of the substantiality of phenomena, we shall
Find sufficient opportunity to speak in the sequel

B. SECOND ANALOGY

Principle of the Succession of Time According to the Law of Causality
All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause
And Effect

PROOF

(That all phenomena in the succession of time are only changes, that
Is, a successive being and non-being of the determinations of substance
Which is permanent; consequently that a being of substance itself which
Follows on the non-being thereof, or a non-being of substance which
Follows on the being thereof, in other words, that the origin or
Extinction of substance itself, is impossible--all this has been fully
Established in treating of the foregoing principle. This principle
Might have been expressed as follows: "All alteration (succession) of
Phenomena is merely change"; for the changes of substance are not origin
Or extinction, because the conception of change presupposes the same
Subject as existing with two opposite determinations, and consequently
As permanent. After this premonition, we shall proceed to the proof.)

I perceive that phenomena succeed one another, that is to say, a state
Of things exists at one time, the opposite of which existed in a former
State. In this case, then, I really connect together two perceptions in
Time. Now connection is not an operation of mere sense and intuition
But is the product of a synthetical faculty of imagination, which
Determines the internal sense in respect of a relation of time. But
Imagination can connect these two states in two ways, so that either the
One or the other may antecede in time; for time in itself cannot be an
Object of perception, and what in an object precedes and what follows
Cannot be empirically determined in relation to it. I am only conscious
Then, that my imagination places one state before and the other after;
Not that the one state antecedes the other in the object. In other
Words, the objective relation of the successive phenomena remains
Quite undetermined by means of mere perception. Now in order that this
Relation may be cognized as determined, the relation between the two
States must be so cogitated that it is thereby determined as necessary
Which of them must be placed before and which after, and not conversely
But the conception which carries with it a necessity of synthetical
Unity, can be none other than a pure conception of the understanding
Which does not lie in mere perception; and in this case it is the
Conception of "the relation of cause and effect," the former of which
Determines the latter in time, as its necessary consequence, and not as
Something which might possibly antecede (or which might in some cases
Not be perceived to follow). It follows that it is only because we
Subject the sequence of phenomena, and consequently all change, to the
Law of causality, that experience itself, that is, empirical cognition
Of phenomena, becomes possible; and consequently, that phenomena
Themselves, as objects of experience, are possible only by virtue of
This law

Our apprehension of the manifold of phenomena is always successive. The
Representations of parts succeed one another. Whether they succeed one
Another in the object also, is a second point for reflection, which
Was not contained in the former. Now we may certainly give the name of
Object to everything, even to every representation, so far as we are
Conscious thereof; but what this word may mean in the case of phenomena
Not merely in so far as they (as representations) are objects, but only
In so far as they indicate an object, is a question requiring deeper
Consideration. In so far as they, regarded merely as representations
Are at the same time objects of consciousness, they are not to be
Distinguished from apprehension, that is, reception into the synthesis
Of imagination, and we must therefore say: "The manifold of phenomena is
Always produced successively in the mind." If phenomena were things in
Themselves, no man would be able to conjecture from the succession of
Our representations how this manifold is connected in the object; for
We have to do only with our representations. How things may be in
Themselves, without regard to the representations through which they
Affect us, is utterly beyond the sphere of our cognition. Now although
Phenomena are not things in themselves, and are nevertheless the only
Thing given to us to be cognized, it is my duty to show what sort of
Connection in time belongs to the manifold in phenomena themselves
While the representation of this manifold in apprehension is always
Successive. For example, the apprehension of the manifold in the
Phenomenon of a house which stands before me, is successive. Now
Comes the question whether the manifold of this house is in itself
Successive--which no one will be at all willing to grant. But, so
Soon as I raise my conception of an object to the transcendental
Signification thereof, I find that the house is not a thing in itself
But only a phenomenon, that is, a representation, the transcendental
Object of which remains utterly unknown. What then am I to understand
By the question: "How can the manifold be connected in the phenomenon
Itself--not considered as a thing in itself, but merely as a
Phenomenon?" Here that which lies in my successive apprehension is
Regarded as representation, whilst the phenomenon which is given
Me, notwithstanding that it is nothing more than a complex of these
Representations, is regarded as the object thereof, with which my
Conception, drawn from the representations of apprehension, must
Harmonize. It is very soon seen that, as accordance of the cognition
With its object constitutes truth, the question now before us can
Only relate to the formal conditions of empirical truth; and that the
Phenomenon, in opposition to the representations of apprehension, can
Only be distinguished therefrom as the object of them, if it is subject
To a rule which distinguishes it from every other apprehension, and
Which renders necessary a mode of connection of the manifold. That in
The phenomenon which contains the condition of this necessary rule of
Apprehension, is the object

Let us now proceed to our task. That something happens, that is to say
That something or some state exists which before was not, cannot be
Empirically perceived, unless a phenomenon precedes, which does not
Contain in itself this state. For a reality which should follow upon
A void time, in other words, a beginning, which no state of things
Precedes, can just as little be apprehended as the void time itself
Every apprehension of an event is therefore a perception which follows
Upon another perception. But as this is the case with all synthesis
Of apprehension, as I have shown above in the example of a house, my
Apprehension of an event is not yet sufficiently distinguished from
Other apprehensions. But I remark also that if in a phenomenon which
Contains an occurrence, I call the antecedent state of my perception
A, and the following state, B, the perception B can only follow A in
Apprehension, and the perception A cannot follow B, but only precede
It. For example, I see a ship float down the stream of a river. My
Perception of its place lower down follows upon my perception of its
Place higher up the course of the river, and it is impossible that
In the apprehension of this phenomenon, the vessel should be perceived
First below and afterwards higher up the stream. Here, therefore, the
Order in the sequence of perceptions in apprehension is determined;
And by this order apprehension is regulated. In the former example, my
Perceptions in the apprehension of a house might begin at the roof and
End at the foundation, or vice versa; or I might apprehend the manifold
In this empirical intuition, by going from left to right, and from right
To left. Accordingly, in the series of these perceptions, there was no
Determined order, which necessitated my beginning at a certain point, in
Order empirically to connect the manifold. But this rule is always to be
Met with in the perception of that which happens, and it makes the order
Of the successive perceptions in the apprehension of such a phenomenon
Necessary

I must, therefore, in the present case, deduce the subjective sequence
Of apprehension from the objective sequence of phenomena, for
Otherwise the former is quite undetermined, and one phenomenon is not
Distinguishable from another. The former alone proves nothing as to the
Connection of the manifold in an object, for it is quite arbitrary
The latter must consist in the order of the manifold in a phenomenon
According to which order the apprehension of one thing (that which
Happens) follows that of another thing (which precedes), in conformity
With a rule. In this way alone can I be authorized to say of the
Phenomenon itself, and not merely of my own apprehension, that a certain
Order or sequence is to be found therein. That is, in other words, I
Cannot arrange my apprehension otherwise than in this order

In conformity with this rule, then, it is necessary that in that which
Antecedes an event there be found the condition of a rule, according to
Which in this event follows always and necessarily; but I cannot reverse
This and go back from the event, and determine (by apprehension) that
Which antecedes it. For no phenomenon goes back from the succeeding
Point of time to the preceding point, although it does certainly relate
To a preceding point of time; from a given time, on the other hand
There is always a necessary progression to the determined succeeding
Time. Therefore, because there certainly is something that follows, I
Must of necessity connect it with something else, which antecedes, and
Upon which it follows, in conformity with a rule, that is necessarily
So that the event, as conditioned, affords certain indication of a
Condition, and this condition determines the event

Let us suppose that nothing precedes an event, upon which this event
Must follow in conformity with a rule. All sequence of perception
Would then exist only in apprehension, that is to say, would be merely
Subjective, and it could not thereby be objectively determined what
Thing ought to precede, and what ought to follow in perception. In such
A case, we should have nothing but a play of representations, which
Would possess no application to any object. That is to say, it would
Not be possible through perception to distinguish one phenomenon from
Another, as regards relations of time; because the succession in the act
Of apprehension would always be of the same sort, and therefore there
Would be nothing in the phenomenon to determine the succession, and to
Render a certain sequence objectively necessary. And, in this case, I
Cannot say that two states in a phenomenon follow one upon the other
But only that one apprehension follows upon another. But this is merely
Subjective, and does not determine an object, and consequently cannot be
Held to be cognition of an object--not even in the phenomenal world

Accordingly, when we know in experience that something happens, we
Always presuppose that something precedes, whereupon it follows in
Conformity with a rule. For otherwise I could not say of the object that
It follows; because the mere succession in my apprehension, if it be
Not determined by a rule in relation to something preceding, does not
Authorize succession in the object. Only, therefore, in reference to
A rule, according to which phenomena are determined in their sequence
That is, as they happen, by the preceding state, can I make my
Subjective synthesis (of apprehension) objective, and it is only under
This presupposition that even the experience of an event is possible

No doubt it appears as if this were in thorough contradiction to all
The notions which people have hitherto entertained in regard to the
Procedure of the human understanding. According to these opinions, it
Is by means of the perception and comparison of similar consequences
Following upon certain antecedent phenomena that the understanding is
Led to the discovery of a rule, according to which certain events always
Follow certain phenomena, and it is only by this process that we attain
To the conception of cause. Upon such a basis, it is clear that this
Conception must be merely empirical, and the rule which it furnishes
Us with--"Everything that happens must have a cause"--would be just as
Contingent as experience itself. The universality and necessity of the
Rule or law would be perfectly spurious attributes of it. Indeed, it
Could not possess universal validity, inasmuch as it would not in this
Case be a priori, but founded on deduction. But the same is the case
With this law as with other pure a priori representations (e.g., space
And time), which we can draw in perfect clearness and completeness from
Experience, only because we had already placed them therein, and by that
Means, and by that alone, had rendered experience possible. Indeed
The logical clearness of this representation of a rule, determining
The series of events, is possible only when we have made use thereof in
Experience. Nevertheless, the recognition of this rule, as a condition
Of the synthetical unity of phenomena in time, was the ground of
Experience itself and consequently preceded it a priori

It is now our duty to show by an example that we never, even in
Experience, attribute to an object the notion of succession or effect
(of an event--that is, the happening of something that did not
Exist before), and distinguish it from the subjective succession of
Apprehension, unless when a rule lies at the foundation, which compels
Us to observe this order of perception in preference to any other, and
That, indeed, it is this necessity which first renders possible the
Representation of a succession in the object

We have representations within us, of which also we can be conscious
But, however widely extended, however accurate and thoroughgoing this
Consciousness may be, these representations are still nothing more than
Representations, that is, internal determinations of the mind in this or
That relation of time. Now how happens it that to these representations
We should set an object, or that, in addition to their subjective
Reality, as modifications, we should still further attribute to them
A certain unknown objective reality? It is clear that objective
Significancy cannot consist in a relation to another representation
(of that which we desire to term object), for in that case the question
Again arises: "How does this other representation go out of itself, and
Obtain objective significancy over and above the subjective, which
Is proper to it, as a determination of a state of mind?" If we try to
Discover what sort of new property the relation to an object gives to
Our subjective representations, and what new importance they thereby
Receive, we shall find that this relation has no other effect than
That of rendering necessary the connection of our representations in a
Certain manner, and of subjecting them to a rule; and that conversely
It is only because a certain order is necessary in the relations of time
Of our representations, that objective significancy is ascribed to them

In the synthesis of phenomena, the manifold of our representations is
Always successive. Now hereby is not represented an object, for by means
Of this succession, which is common to all apprehension, no one thing is
Distinguished from another. But so soon as I perceive or assume that in
This succession there is a relation to a state antecedent, from which
The representation follows in accordance with a rule, so soon do I
Represent something as an event, or as a thing that happens; in other
Words, I cognize an object to which I must assign a certain determinate
Position in time, which cannot be altered, because of the preceding
State in the object. When, therefore, I perceive that something happens
There is contained in this representation, in the first place, the fact
That something antecedes; because, it is only in relation to this that
The phenomenon obtains its proper relation of time, in other words
Exists after an antecedent time, in which it did not exist. But it can
Receive its determined place in time only by the presupposition
That something existed in the foregoing state, upon which it follows
Inevitably and always, that is, in conformity with a rule. From all this
It is evident that, in the first place, I cannot reverse the order
Of succession, and make that which happens precede that upon which
It follows; and that, in the second place, if the antecedent state be
Posited, a certain determinate event inevitably and necessarily
Follows. Hence it follows that there exists a certain order in our
Representations, whereby the present gives a sure indication of some
Previously existing state, as a correlate, though still undetermined, of
The existing event which is given--a correlate which itself relates to
The event as its consequence, conditions it, and connects it necessarily
With itself in the series of time

If then it be admitted as a necessary law of sensibility, and
Consequently a formal condition of all perception, that the preceding
Necessarily determines the succeeding time (inasmuch as I cannot arrive
At the succeeding except through the preceding), it must likewise be an
Indispensable law of empirical representation of the series of time
That the phenomena of the past determine all phenomena in the succeeding
Time, and that the latter, as events, cannot take place, except in so
Far as the former determine their existence in time, that is to say
Establish it according to a rule. For it is of course only in phenomena
That we can empirically cognize this continuity in the connection of
Times

For all experience and for the possibility of experience, understanding
Is indispensable, and the first step which it takes in this sphere is
Not to render the representation of objects clear, but to render the
Representation of an object in general, possible. It does this by
Applying the order of time to phenomena, and their existence. In other
Words, it assigns to each phenomenon, as a consequence, a place in
Relation to preceding phenomena, determined a priori in time, without
Which it could not harmonize with time itself, which determines a place
A priori to all its parts. This determination of place cannot be derived
From the relation of phenomena to absolute time (for it is not an
Object of perception); but, on the contrary, phenomena must reciprocally
Determine the places in time of one another, and render these necessary
In the order of time. In other words, whatever follows or happens, must
Follow in conformity with a universal rule upon that which was contained
In the foregoing state. Hence arises a series of phenomena, which, by
Means of the understanding, produces and renders necessary exactly
The same order and continuous connection in the series of our possible
Perceptions, as is found a priori in the form of internal intuition
(time), in which all our perceptions must have place

That something happens, then, is a perception which belongs to a
Possible experience, which becomes real only because I look upon the
Phenomenon as determined in regard to its place in time, consequently as
An object, which can always be found by means of a rule in the connected
Series of my perceptions. But this rule of the determination of a thing
According to succession in time is as follows: "In what precedes may be
Found the condition, under which an event always (that is, necessarily)
Follows." From all this it is obvious that the principle of cause and
Effect is the principle of possible experience, that is, of objective
Cognition of phenomena, in regard to their relations in the succession
Of time

The proof of this fundamental proposition rests entirely on the
Following momenta of argument. To all empirical cognition belongs the
Synthesis of the manifold by the imagination, a synthesis which is
Always successive, that is, in which the representations therein always
Follow one another. But the order of succession in imagination is not
Determined, and the series of successive representations may be taken
Retrogressively as well as progressively. But if this synthesis is a
Synthesis of apprehension (of the manifold of a given phenomenon), then
The order is determined in the object, or to speak more accurately
There is therein an order of successive synthesis which determines an
Object, and according to which something necessarily precedes, and
When this is posited, something else necessarily follows. If, then
My perception is to contain the cognition of an event, that is, of
Something which really happens, it must be an empirical judgement
Wherein we think that the succession is determined; that is, it
Presupposes another phenomenon, upon which this event follows
Necessarily, or in conformity with a rule. If, on the contrary, when I
Posited the antecedent, the event did not necessarily follow, I should
Be obliged to consider it merely as a subjective play of my imagination
And if in this I represented to myself anything as objective, I must
Look upon it as a mere dream. Thus, the relation of phenomena (as
Possible perceptions), according to which that which happens is, as
To its existence, necessarily determined in time by something which
Antecedes, in conformity with a rule--in other words, the relation of
Cause and effect--is the condition of the objective validity of
Our empirical judgements in regard to the sequence of perceptions
Consequently of their empirical truth, and therefore of experience. The
Principle of the relation of causality in the succession of phenomena is
Therefore valid for all objects of experience, because it is itself the
Ground of the possibility of experience

Here, however, a difficulty arises, which must be resolved. The
Principle of the connection of causality among phenomena is limited in
Our formula to the succession thereof, although in practice we find that
The principle applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same
Time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous. For example, there
Is heat in a room, which does not exist in the open air. I look about
For the cause, and find it to be the fire, Now the fire as the cause is
Simultaneous with its effect, the heat of the room. In this case, then
There is no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but
They are simultaneous; and still the law holds good. The greater part of
Operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and
The succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause
Cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the
Moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the
Causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before
Ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen. Here it must be
Specially remembered that we must consider the order of time and not the
Lapse thereof. The relation remains, even though no time has elapsed
The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may
Entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the
Relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according
To time. If, for example, I consider a leaden ball, which lies upon a
Cushion and makes a hollow in it, as a cause, then it is simultaneous
With the effect. But I distinguish the two through the relation of time
Of the dynamical connection of both. For if I lay the ball upon the
Cushion, then the hollow follows upon the before smooth surface; but
Supposing the cushion has, from some cause or another, a hollow, there
Does not thereupon follow a leaden ball

Thus, the law of succession of time is in all instances the only
Empirical criterion of effect in relation to the causality of the
Antecedent cause. The glass is the cause of the rising of the
Water above its horizontal surface, although the two phenomena are
Contemporaneous. For, as soon as I draw some water with the glass from
A larger vessel, an effect follows thereupon, namely, the change of the
Horizontal state which the water had in the large vessel into a concave
Which it assumes in the glass

This conception of causality leads us to the conception of action; that
Of action, to the conception of force; and through it, to the conception
Of substance. As I do not wish this critical essay, the sole purpose of
Which is to treat of the sources of our synthetical cognition a priori
To be crowded with analyses which merely explain, but do not enlarge
The sphere of our conceptions, I reserve the detailed explanation of the
Above conceptions for a future system of pure reason. Such an analysis
Indeed, executed with great particularity, may already be found in
Well-known works on this subject. But I cannot at present refrain from
Making a few remarks on the empirical criterion of a substance, in so
Far as it seems to be more evident and more easily recognized through
The conception of action than through that of the permanence of a
Phenomenon

Where action (consequently activity and force) exists, substance also
Must exist, and in it alone must be sought the seat of that fruitful
Source of phenomena. Very well. But if we are called upon to explain
What we mean by substance, and wish to avoid the vice of reasoning in
A circle, the answer is by no means so easy. How shall we conclude
Immediately from the action to the permanence of that which acts, this
Being nevertheless an essential and peculiar criterion of substance
(phenomenon)? But after what has been said above, the solution of
This question becomes easy enough, although by the common mode
Of procedure--merely analysing our conceptions--it would be quite
Impossible. The conception of action indicates the relation of the
Subject of causality to the effect. Now because all effect consists
In that which happens, therefore in the changeable, the last subject
Thereof is the permanent, as the substratum of all that changes, that
Is, substance. For according to the principle of causality, actions are
Always the first ground of all change in phenomena and, consequently
Cannot be a property of a subject which itself changes, because if this
Were the case, other actions and another subject would be necessary to
Determine this change. From all this it results that action alone, as
An empirical criterion, is a sufficient proof of the presence of
Substantiality, without any necessity on my part of endeavouring to
Discover the permanence of substance by a comparison. Besides, by this
Mode of induction we could not attain to the completeness which the
Magnitude and strict universality of the conception requires. For that
The primary subject of the causality of all arising and passing away
All origin and extinction, cannot itself (in the sphere of phenomena)
Arise and pass away, is a sound and safe conclusion, a conclusion which
Leads us to the conception of empirical necessity and permanence
In existence, and consequently to the conception of a substance as
Phenomenon

When something happens, the mere fact of the occurrence, without
Regard to that which occurs, is an object requiring investigation
The transition from the non-being of a state into the existence of it
Supposing that this state contains no quality which previously existed
In the phenomenon, is a fact of itself demanding inquiry. Such an event
As has been shown in No. A, does not concern substance (for substance
Does not thus originate), but its condition or state. It is therefore
Only change, and not origin from nothing. If this origin be regarded as
The effect of a foreign cause, it is termed creation, which cannot be
Admitted as an event among phenomena, because the very possibility of
It would annihilate the unity of experience. If, however, I regard all
Things not as phenomena, but as things in themselves and objects of
Understanding alone, they, although substances, may be considered as
Dependent, in respect of their existence, on a foreign cause. But this
Would require a very different meaning in the words, a meaning which
Could not apply to phenomena as objects of possible experience

How a thing can be changed, how it is possible that upon one state
Existing in one point of time, an opposite state should follow in
Another point of time--of this we have not the smallest conception a
Priori. There is requisite for this the knowledge of real powers, which
Can only be given empirically; for example, knowledge of moving forces
Or, in other words, of certain successive phenomena (as movements) which
Indicate the presence of such forces. But the form of every change
The condition under which alone it can take place as the coming into
Existence of another state (be the content of the change, that is, the
State which is changed, what it may), and consequently the succession of
The states themselves can very well be considered a priori, in relation
To the law of causality and the conditions of time.*

[*Footnote: It must be remarked that I do not speak of the change of
Certain relations, but of the change of the state. Thus, when a body
Moves in a uniform manner, it does not change its state (of motion); but
Only when all motion increases or decreases.]

When a substance passes from one state, a, into another state, b
The point of time in which the latter exists is different from, and
Subsequent to that in which the former existed. In like manner, the
Second state, as reality (in the phenomenon), differs from the first, in
Which the reality of the second did not exist, as b from zero. That is
To say, if the state, b, differs from the state, a, only in respect to
Quantity, the change is a coming into existence of b -a, which in the
Former state did not exist, and in relation to which that state is = O

Now the question arises how a thing passes from one state = a, into
Another state = b. Between two moments there is always a certain time
And between two states existing in these moments there is always a
Difference having a certain quantity (for all parts of phenomena are in
Their turn quantities). Consequently, every transition from one state
Into another is always effected in a time contained between two moments
Of which the first determines the state which leaves, and the second
Determines the state into the thing passes. The thing leaves, and the
Second determines the state into which the thing Both moments, then, are
Limitations of the time of a change, consequently of the intermediate
State between both, and as such they belong to the total of the change
Now every change has a cause, which evidences its causality in the whole
Time during which the charge takes place. The cause, therefore, does not
Produce the change all at once or in one moment, but in a time, so that
As the time gradually increases from the commencing instant, a, to its
Completion at b, in like manner also, the quantity of the reality (b -
A) is generated through the lesser degrees which are contained between
The first and last. All change is therefore possible only through a
Continuous action of the causality, which, in so far as it is uniform
We call a momentum. The change does not consist of these momenta, but is
Generated or produced by them as their effect

Such is the law of the continuity of all change, the ground of which is
That neither time itself nor any phenomenon in time consists of parts
Which are the smallest possible, but that, notwithstanding, the state
Of a thing passes in the process of a change through all these parts, as
Elements, to its second state. There is no smallest degree of reality
In a phenomenon, just as there is no smallest degree in the quantity of
Time; and so the new state of reality grows up out of the former state
Through all the infinite degrees thereof, the differences of which one
From another, taken all together, are less than the difference between o
And a

It is not our business to inquire here into the utility of this
Principle in the investigation of nature. But how such a proposition
Which appears so greatly to extend our knowledge of nature, is possible
Completely a priori, is indeed a question which deserves investigation
Although the first view seems to demonstrate the truth and reality of
The principle, and the question, how it is possible, may be considered
Superfluous. For there are so many groundless pretensions to the
Enlargement of our knowledge by pure reason that we must take it as a
General rule to be mistrustful of all such, and without a thoroughgoing
And radical deduction, to believe nothing of the sort even on the
Clearest dogmatical evidence

Every addition to our empirical knowledge, and every advance made in
The exercise of our perception, is nothing more than an extension of the
Determination of the internal sense, that is to say, a progression
In time, be objects themselves what they may, phenomena, or pure
Intuitions. This progression in time determines everything, and is
Itself determined by nothing else. That is to say, the parts of the
Progression exist only in time, and by means of the synthesis thereof
And are not given antecedently to it. For this reason, every transition
In perception to anything which follows upon another in time, is a
Determination of time by means of the production of this perception
And as this determination of time is, always and in all its parts, a
Quantity, the perception produced is to be considered as a quantity
Which proceeds through all its degrees--no one of which is the smallest
Possible--from zero up to its determined degree. From this we perceive
The possibility of cognizing a priori a law of changes--a law
However, which concerns their form merely. We merely anticipate our own
Apprehension, the formal condition of which, inasmuch as it is itself to
Be found in the mind antecedently to all given phenomena, must certainly
Be capable of being cognized a priori

Thus, as time contains the sensuous condition a priori of the
Possibility of a continuous progression of that which exists to
That which follows it, the understanding, by virtue of the unity of
Apperception, contains the condition a priori of the possibility of a
Continuous determination of the position in time of all phenomena, and
This by means of the series of causes and effects, the former of which
Necessitate the sequence of the latter, and thereby render universally
And for all time, and by consequence, objectively, valid the empirical
Cognition of the relations of time

Edit news description to add:

  • Historical context: how the event or text affects the world and history
  • An explanation of the work's overall story (example: "Here, President Obama confirms the legality of drone strikes...")
  • The work's impact on current issues
This text has been changed by someone else. Copy your work to your clipboard and click here to reload.