priori； no conception； of whatever kind； could render prehensible
the possibility of change； in other words； of a conjunction of
contradictorily opposed predicates in one and the same object； for
example； the presence of a thing in a place and the non…presence of
the same thing in the same place。 It is only in time that it is
possible to meet with two contradictorily opposed determinations in
one thing； that is； after each other。 thus our conception of time
explains the possibility of so much synthetical knowledge a priori； as
is exhibited in the general doctrine of motion； which is not a
little fruitful。
SS 7 Conclusions from the above Conceptions。
（a） Time is not something which subsists of itself； or which inheres
in things as an objective determination； and therefore remains； when
abstraction is made of the subjective conditions of the intuition of
things。 For in the former case； it would be something real； yet
without presenting to any power of perception any real object。 In
the latter case； as an order or determination inherent in things
themselves； it could not be antecedent to things； as their
condition； nor discerned or intuited by means of synthetical
propositions a priori。 But all this is quite possible when we regard
time as merely the subjective condition under which all our intuitions
take place。 For in that case； this form of the inward intuition can be
represented prior to the objects； and consequently a priori。
（b） Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense； that
is； of the intuitions of self and of our internal state。 For time
cannot be any determination of outward phenomena。 It has to do neither
with shape nor position； on the contrary； it determines the relation
of representations in our internal state。 And precisely because this
internal intuition presents to us no shape or form； we endeavour to
supply this want by analogies； and represent the course of time by a
line progressing to infinity； the content of which constitutes a
series which is only of one dimension； and we conclude from the
properties of this line as to all the properties of time； with this
single exception； that the parts of the line are coexistent； whilst
those of time are successive。 From this it is clear also that the
representation of time is itself an intuition； because all its
relations can be expressed in an external intuition。
（c） Time is the formal condition a priori of all phenomena
whatsoever。 Space； as the pure form of external intuition； is
limited as a condition a priori to external phenomena alone。 On the
other hand； because all representations； whether they have or have not
external things for their objects； still in themselves； as
determinations of the mind； belong to our internal state； and
because this internal state is subject to the formal condition of
the internal intuition； that is； to time… time is a condition a priori
of all phenomena whatsoever… the immediate condition of all
internal； and thereby the mediate condition of all external phenomena。
If I can say a priori； 〃All outward phenomena are in space； and
determined a priori according to the relations of space；〃 I can
also； from the principle of the internal sense； affirm universally；
〃All phenomena in general； that is； all objects of the senses； are
in time and stand necessarily in relations of time。〃
If we abstract our internal intuition of ourselves and all
external intuitions； possible only by virtue of this internal
intuition and presented to us by our faculty of representation； and
consequently take objects as they are in themselves； then time is
nothing。 It is only of objective validity in regard to phenomena；
because these are things which we regard as objects of our senses。
It no longer objective we； make abstraction of the sensuousness of our
intuition； in other words； of that mode of representation which is
peculiar to us； and speak of things in general。 Time is therefore
merely a subjective condition of our （human） intuition （which is
always sensuous； that is； so far as we are affected by objects）； and
in itself； independently of the mind or subject； is nothing。
Nevertheless； in respect of all phenomena； consequently of all
things which e within the sphere of our experience； it is
necessarily objective。 We cannot say； 〃All things are in time；〃
because in this conception of things in general； we abstract and
make no mention of any sort of intuition of things。 But this is the
proper condition under which time belongs to our representation of
objects。 If we add the condition to the conception； and say； 〃All
things； as phenomena； that is； objects of sensuous intuition； are in
time；〃 then the proposition has its sound objective validity and
universality a priori。
What we have now set forth teaches； therefore； the empirical reality
of time； that is； its objective validity in reference to all objects
which can ever be presented to our senses。 And as our intuition is
always sensuous； no object ever can be presented to us in
experience； which does not e under the conditions of time。 On the
other hand； we deny to time all claim to absolute reality； that is； we
deny that it； without having regard to the form of our sensuous
intuition； absolutely inheres in things as a condition or property。
Such properties as belong to objects as things in themselves never can
be presented to us through the medium of the senses。 Herein
consists； therefore； the transcendental ideality of time； according to
which； if we abstract the subjective conditions of sensuous intuition；
it is nothing； and cannot be reckoned as subsisting or inhering in
objects as things in themselves； independently of its relation to
our intuition。 this ideality； like that of space； is not to be
proved or illustrated by fallacious analogies with sensations； for
this reason… that in such arguments or illustrations； we make the
presupposition that the phenomenon； in which such and such
predicates inhere； has objective reality； while in this case we can
only find such an objective reality as is itself empirical； that is；
regards the object as a mere phenomenon。 In reference to this subject；
see the remark in Section I （SS 4）
SS 8 Elucidation。
Against this theory； which grants empirical reality to time； but
denies to it absolute and transcendental reality； I have heard from
intelligent men an objection so unanimously urged that I conclude that
it must naturally present itself to every reader to whom these
considerations are novel。 It runs thus： 〃Changes are real〃 （this the
continual change in our own representations demonstrates； even
though the existence of all external phenomena； together with their
changes； is denied）。 Now； changes are only possible in time； and
therefore time must be something real。 But there is no difficulty in
answering this。 I grant the whole argument。 Time； no doubt； is
something real； that is； it is the real form of our internal
intuition。 It therefore has subjective reality； in reference to our
internal experience； that is； I have really the representation of time
and of my determinations therein。 Time； therefore； is not to be
regarded as an object； but as the mode of representation of myself
as an object。 But if I could intuite myself； or be intuited by another
being； without this condition of sensibility； then those very
determinations which we now represent to ourselves as changes； would
present to us a knowledge in which the representation of time； and
consequently of change； would not appear。 The empirical reality of
time； therefore； remains； as the condition of all our experience。
But absolute reality； according to what has been said above； cannot be
granted it。 Time is nothing but the form of our internal intuition。*
If we take away from it the special condition of our sensibility；
the conception of time also vanishes； and it inheres not in the
objects themselves； but solely in the subject （or mind） which intuites
them。
*I can indeed say 〃my representations follow one another； or are
successive〃； but this means only that we are conscious of them as in a
succession； that is； according to the form of the internal sense。
Time； therefore； is not a thing in itself； nor is it any objective
determination pertaining to； or inherent in things。
But the reason why this objection is so unanimously brought
against our doctrine of time； and that too by disputants who cannot
start any intelligible arguments against the doctrine of the
ideality of space； is this… they have no hope of demonstrating
apodeictically the absolute reality of space； because the doctrine
of idealism is against them； according to which the reality of
external objects is not capable of any strict proof。 On the other
hand； the reality of the object of our internal sense （that is； myself
and my internal state） is clear immediately through consciousness。 The
former… external objects in space… might be a mere delusion； but the
latter… the object of my internal perception… is undeniably real。 They
do not； however； reflect that both； without question of their
reality as representations； belong only to the genus phenomenon； whic