truth； and perfection； we have made no addition to the
transcendental table of the categories； which is plete without
them。 We have； on the contrary； merely employed the three categories
of quantity； setting aside their application to objects of experience；
as general logical laws of the consistency of cognition with itself。
CHAPTER II Of the Deduction of the Pure Conceptions of the
Understanding。
SECTION I Of the Principles of a Transcendental Deduction
in general。 SS 9
Teachers of jurisprudence； when speaking of rights and claims；
distinguish in a cause the question of right （quid juris） from the
question of fact （quid facti）； and while they demand proof of both；
they give to the proof of the former； which goes to establish right or
claim in law； the name of deduction。 Now we make use of a great number
of empirical conceptions； without opposition from any one； and
consider ourselves； even without any attempt at deduction； justified
in attaching to them a sense； and a supposititious signification；
because we have always experience at hand to demonstrate their
objective reality。 There exist also； however； usurped conceptions；
such as fortune； fate； which circulate with almost universal
indulgence； and yet are occasionally challenged by the question； 〃quid
juris？〃 In such cases； we have great difficulty in discovering any
deduction for these terms； inasmuch as we cannot produce any
manifest ground of right； either from experience or from reason； on
which the claim to employ them can be founded。
Among the many conceptions； which make up the very variegated web of
human cognition； some are destined for pure use a priori；
independent of all experience； and their title to be so employed
always requires a deduction； inasmuch as； to justify such use of them；
proofs from experience are not sufficient； but it is necessary to know
how these conceptions can apply to objects without being derived
from experience。 I term； therefore； an examination of the manner in
which conceptions can apply a priori to objects； the transcendental
deduction of conceptions； and I distinguish it from the empirical
deduction； which indicates the mode in which conception is obtained
through experience and reflection thereon； consequently； does not
concern itself with the right； but only with the fact of our obtaining
conceptions in such and such a manner。 We have already seen that we
are in possession of two perfectly different kinds of conceptions；
which nevertheless agree with each other in this； that they both apply
to objects pletely a priori。 These are the conceptions of space and
time as forms of sensibility； and the categories as pure conceptions
of the understanding。 To attempt an empirical deduction of either of
these classes would be labour in vain； because the distinguishing
characteristic of their nature consists in this； that they apply to
their objects； without having borrowed anything from experience
towards the representation of them。 Consequently； if a deduction of
these conceptions is necessary； it must always be transcendental。
Meanwhile； with respect to these conceptions； as with respect to all
our cognition； we certainly may discover in experience； if not the
principle of their possibility； yet the occasioning causes of their
production。 It will be found that the impressions of sense give the
first occasion for bringing into action the whole faculty of
cognition； and for the production of experience； which contains two
very dissimilar elements； namely； a matter for cognition； given by the
senses； and a certain form for the arrangement of this matter； arising
out of the inner fountain of pure intuition and thought； and these； on
occasion given by sensuous impressions； are called into exercise and
produce conceptions。 Such an investigation into the first efforts of
our faculty of cognition to mount from particular perceptions to
general conceptions is undoubtedly of great utility； and we have to
thank the celebrated Locke for having first opened the way for this
inquiry。 But a deduction of the pure a priori conceptions of course
never can be made in this way； seeing that； in regard to their
future employment； which must be entirely independent of experience；
they must have a far different certificate of birth to show from
that of a descent from experience。 This attempted physiological
derivation； which cannot properly be called deduction； because it
relates merely to a quaestio facti； I shall entitle an explanation
of the possession of a pure cognition。 It is therefore manifest that
there can only be a transcendental deduction of these conceptions
and by no means an empirical one； also； that all attempts at an
empirical deduction； in regard to pure a priori conceptions； are vain；
and can only be made by one who does not understand the altogether
peculiar nature of these cognitions。
But although it is admitted that the only possible deduction of pure
a priori cognition is a transcendental deduction； it is not； for
that reason； perfectly manifest that such a deduction is absolutely
necessary。 We have already traced to their sources the conceptions
of space and time； by means of a transcendental deduction； and we have
explained and determined their objective validity a priori。
Geometry； nevertheless； advances steadily and securely in the province
of pure a priori cognitions； without needing to ask from philosophy
any certificate as to the pure and legitimate origin of its
fundamental conception of space。 But the use of the conception in this
science extends only to the external world of sense； the pure form
of the intuition of which is space； and in this world； therefore；
all geometrical cognition； because it is founded upon a priori
intuition； possesses immediate evidence； and the objects of this
cognition are given a priori （as regards their form） in intuition by
and through the cognition itself。 With the pure conceptions of
understanding； on the contrary； mences the absolute necessity of
seeking a transcendental deduction； not only of these conceptions
themselves； but likewise of space； because； inasmuch as they make
affirmations concerning objects not by means of the predicates of
intuition and sensibility； but of pure thought a priori； they apply to
objects without any of the conditions of sensibility。 Besides； not
being founded on experience； they are not presented with any object in
a priori intuition upon which； antecedently to experience； they
might base their synthesis。 Hence results； not only doubt as to the
objective validity and proper limits of their use； but that even our
conception of space is rendered equivocal； inasmuch as we are very
ready with the aid of the categories； to carry the use of this
conception beyond the conditions of sensuous intuition… and； for
this reason； we have already found a transcendental deduction of it
needful。 The reader； then； must be quite convinced of the absolute
necessity of a transcendental deduction； before taking a single step
in the field of pure reason； because otherwise he goes to work
blindly； and after he has wondered about in all directions； returns to
the state of utter ignorance from which he started。 He ought；
moreover； clearly to recognize beforehand the unavoidable difficulties
in his undertaking； so that he may not afterwards plain of the
obscurity in which the subject itself is deeply involved； or bee
too soon impatient of the obstacles in his path； because we have a
choice of only two things… either at once to give up all pretensions
to knowledge beyond the limits of possible experience； or to bring
this critical investigation to pletion。
We have been able； with very little trouble； to make it
prehensible how the conceptions of space and time； although a
priori cognitions； must necessarily apply to external objects； and
render a synthetical cognition of these possible； independently of all
experience。 For inasmuch as only by means of such pure form of
sensibility an object can appear to us； that is； be an object of
empirical intuition； space and time are pure intuitions； which contain
a priori the condition of the possibility of objects as phenomena； and
an a priori synthesis in these intuitions possesses objective
validity。
On the other hand； the categories of the understanding do not
represent the conditions under which objects are given to us in
intuition； objects can consequently appear to us without necessarily
connecting themselves with these； and consequently without any
necessity binding on the understanding to contain a priori the
conditions of these objects。 Thus we find ourselves involved in a
difficulty which did not present itself in the sphere of
sensibility； that is to say； we cannot discover how the subjective
conditions of thought can have objective validity； in other words； can
bee conditions of the possibility of all cognition of objects；
for phenomena may certainly be given to us in intuition without any
help from the functions of the understanding。 Let us take； for
example； the conception of cause； which indicates a peculiar kind of
synthesis； namely； that with somethin