accordingly we find existing in the mind a priori； the pure form of
sensuous intuitions in general； in which all the manifold content of
the phenomenal world is arranged and viewed under certain relations。
This pure form of sensibility I shall call pure intuition。 Thus； if
I take away from our representation of a body all that the
understanding thinks as belonging to it； as substance； force；
divisibility； etc。； and also whatever belongs to sensation； as
impenetrability； hardness； colour； etc。； yet there is still
something left us from this empirical intuition； namely； extension and
shape。 These belong to pure intuition； which exists a priori in the
mind； as a mere form of sensibility； and without any real object of
the senses or any sensation。
The science of all the principles of sensibility a priori； I call
transcendental aesthetic。* There must； then； be such a science forming
the first part of the transcendental doctrine of elements； in
contradistinction to that part which contains the principles of pure
thought； and which is called transcendental logic。
*The Germans are the only people who at present use this word to
indicate what others call the critique of taste。 At the foundation
of this term lies the disappointed hope； which the eminent analyst；
Baumgarten； conceived； of subjecting the criticism of the beautiful to
principles of reason； and so of elevating its rules into a science。
But his endeavours were vain。 For the said rules or criteria are； in
respect to their chief sources； merely empirical； consequently never
can serve as determinate laws a priori； by which our judgement in
matters of taste is to be directed。 It is rather our judgement which
forms the proper test as to the correctness of the principles。 On this
account it is advisable to give up the use of the term as
designating the critique of taste； and to apply it solely to that
doctrine； which is true science… the science of the laws of
sensibility… and thus e nearer to the language and the sense of the
ancients in their well…known division of the objects of cognition into
aiotheta kai noeta； or to share it with speculative philosophy； and
employ it partly in a transcendental； partly in a psychological
signification。
In the science of transcendental aesthetic accordingly； we shall
first isolate sensibility or the sensuous faculty； by separating
from it all that is annexed to its perceptions by the conceptions of
understanding； so that nothing be left but empirical intuition。 In the
next place we shall take away from this intuition all that belongs
to sensation； so that nothing may remain but pure intuition； and the
mere form of phenomena； which is all that the sensibility can afford a
priori。 From this investigation it will be found that there are two
pure forms of sensuous intuition； as principles of knowledge a priori；
namely； space and time。 To the consideration of these we shall now
proceed。
SECTION I。 Of Space。
SS 2。 Metaphysical Exposition of this Conception。
By means of the external sense （a property of the mind）； we
represent to ourselves objects as without us； and these all in
space。 Herein alone are their shape； dimensions； and relations to each
other determined or determinable。 The internal sense； by means of
which the mind contemplates itself or its internal state； gives；
indeed； no intuition of the soul as an object； yet there is
nevertheless a determinate form； under which alone the contemplation
of our internal state is possible； so that all which relates to the
inward determinations of the mind is represented in relations of time。
Of time we cannot have any external intuition； any more than we can
have an internal intuition of space。 What then are time and space？ Are
they real existences？ Or； are they merely relations or
determinations of things； such； however； as would equally belong to
these things in themselves； though they should never bee objects of
intuition； or； are they such as belong only to the form of
intuition； and consequently to the subjective constitution of the
mind； without which these predicates of time and space could not be
attached to any object？ In order to bee informed on these points；
we shall first give an exposition of the conception of space。 By
exposition； I mean the clear； though not detailed； representation of
that which belongs to a conception； and an exposition is
metaphysical when it contains that which represents the conception
as given a priori。
1。 Space is not a conception which has been derived from outward
experiences。 For； in order that certain sensations may relate to
something without me （that is； to something which occupies a different
part of space from that in which I am）； in like manner； in order
that I may represent them not merely as without； of； and near to
each other； but also in separate places； the representation of space
must already exist as a foundation。 Consequently； the representation
of space cannot be borrowed from the relations of external phenomena
through experience； but； on the contrary； this external experience
is itself only possible through the said antecedent representation。
2。 Space then is a necessary representation a priori； which serves
for the foundation of all external intuitions。 We never can imagine or
make a representation to ourselves of the non…existence of space；
though we may easily enough think that no objects are found in it。
It must； therefore； be considered as the condition of the
possibility of phenomena； and by no means as a determination dependent
on them； and is a representation a priori； which necessarily
supplies the basis for external phenomena。
3。 Space is no discursive； or as we say； general conception of the
relations of things； but a pure intuition。 For； in the first place； we
can only represent to ourselves one space； and； when we talk of divers
spaces； we mean only parts of one and the same space。 Moreover；
these parts cannot antecede this one all…embracing space； as the
ponent parts from which the aggregate can be made up； but can be
cogitated only as existing in it。 Space is essentially one； and
multiplicity in it； consequently the general notion of spaces； of this
or that space； depends solely upon limitations。 Hence it follows
that an a priori intuition （which is not empirical） lies at the root
of all our conceptions of space。 Thus； moreover； the principles of
geometry… for example； that 〃in a triangle； two sides together are
greater than the third；〃 are never deduced from general conceptions of
line and triangle； but from intuition； and this a priori； with
apodeictic certainty。
4。 Space is represented as an infinite given quantity。 Now every
conception must indeed be considered as a representation which is
contained in an infinite multitude of different possible
representations； which； therefore； prises these under itself； but
no conception； as such； can be so conceived； as if it contained within
itself an infinite multitude of representations。 Nevertheless； space
is so conceived of； for all parts of space are equally capable of
being produced to infinity。 Consequently； the original
representation of space is an intuition a priori； and not a
conception。
SS 3。 Transcendental Exposition of the Conception of Space。
By a transcendental exposition； I mean the explanation of a
conception； as a principle； whence can be discerned the possibility of
other synthetical a priori cognitions。 For this purpose； it is
requisite； firstly； that such cognitions do really flow from the given
conception； and； secondly； that the said cognitions are only
possible under the presupposition of a given mode of explaining this
conception。
Geometry is a science which determines the properties of space
synthetically； and yet a priori。 What； then； must be our
representation of space； in order that such a cognition of it may be
possible？ It must be originally intuition； for from a mere conception；
no propositions can be deduced which go out beyond the conception； and
yet this happens in geometry。 （Introd。 V。） But this intuition must
be found in the mind a priori； that is； before any perception of
objects； consequently must be pure； not empirical； intuition。 For
geometrical principles are always apodeictic； that is； united with the
consciousness of their necessity； as： 〃Space has only three
dimensions。〃 But propositions of this kind cannot be empirical
judgements； nor conclusions from them。 （Introd。 II。） Now； how can an
external intuition anterior to objects themselves； and in which our
conception of objects can be determined a priori； exist in the human
mind？ Obviously not otherwise than in so far as it has its seat in the
subject only； as the formal capacity of the subject's being affected
by objects； and thereby of obtaining immediate representation； that
is； intuition； consequently； only as the form of the external sense in
general。
Thus it is only by means of our explanation that the possibility
of geometry； as a synthetical science a priori； bees
prehensible。 Every mode of explanation which does not show us
this possibility； although in appearance it may be similar to ours；
can