example； the conception of cause； which indicates a peculiar kind of
synthesis； namely； that with something； A； something entirely
different； B； is connected according to a law。 It is not a priori
manifest why phenomena should contain anything of this kind （we are of
course debarred from appealing for proof to experience； for the
objective validity of this conception must be demonstrated a
priori）； and it hence remains doubtful a priori； whether such a
conception be not quite void and without any corresponding object
among phenomena。 For that objects of sensuous intuition must
correspond to the formal conditions of sensibility existing a priori
in the mind is quite evident； from the fact that without these they
could not be objects for us； but that they must also correspond to the
conditions which understanding requires for the synthetical unity of
thought is an assertion； the grounds for which are not so easily to be
discovered。 For phenomena might be so constituted as not to correspond
to the conditions of the unity of thought； and all things might lie in
such confusion that； for example； nothing could be met with in the
sphere of phenomena to suggest a law of synthesis； and so correspond
to the conception of cause and effect； so that this conception would
be quite void； null； and without significance。 Phenomena would
nevertheless continue to present objects to our intuition； for mere
intuition does not in any respect stand in need of the functions of
thought。
If we thought to free ourselves from the labour of these
investigations by saying： 〃Experience is constantly offering us
examples of the relation of cause and effect in phenomena； and
presents us with abundant opportunity of abstracting the conception of
cause； and so at the same time of corroborating the objective validity
of this conception〃； we should in this case be overlooking the fact；
that the conception of cause cannot arise in this way at all； that； on
the contrary； it must either have an a priori basis in the；
understanding； or be rejected as a mere chimera。 For this conception
demands that something； A； should be of such a nature that something
else； B； should follow from it necessarily； and according to an
absolutely universal law。 We may certainly collect from phenomena a
law； according to which this or that usually happens； but the
element of necessity is not to be found in it。 Hence it is evident
that to the synthesis of cause and effect belongs a dignity； which
is utterly wanting in any empirical synthesis； for it is no mere
mechanical synthesis； by means of addition； but a dynamical one；
that is to say； the effect is not to be cogitated as merely annexed to
the cause； but as posited by and through the cause； and resulting from
it。 The strict universality of this law never can be a
characteristic of empirical laws； which obtain through induction
only a parative universality； that is； an extended range of
practical application。 But the pure conceptions of the understanding
would entirely lose all their peculiar character； if we treated them
merely as the productions of experience。
Transition to the Transcendental Deduction of the
Categories。 SS 10
There are only two possible ways in which synthetical representation
and its objects can coincide with and relate necessarily to each
other； and； as it were； meet together。 Either the object alone makes
the representation possible； or the representation alone makes the
object possible。 In the former case； the relation between them is only
empirical； and an a priori representation is impossible。 And this is
the case with phenomena； as regards that in them which is referable to
mere sensation。 In the latter case… although representation alone （for
of its causality； by means of the will； we do not here speak） does not
produce the object as to its existence； it must nevertheless be a
priori determinative in regard to the object； if it is only by means
of the representation that we can cognize anything as an object。 Now
there are only two conditions of the possibility of a cognition of
objects； firstly； intuition； by means of which the object； though only
as phenomenon； is given； secondly； conception； by means of which the
object which corresponds to this intuition is thought。 But it is
evident from what has been said on aesthetic that the first condition；
under which alone objects can be intuited； must in fact exist； as a
formal basis for them； a priori in the mind。 With this formal
condition of sensibility； therefore； all phenomena necessarily
correspond； because it is only through it that they can be phenomena
at all； that is； can be empirically intuited and given。 Now the
question is whether there do not exist； a priori in the mind；
conceptions of understanding also； as conditions under which alone
something； if not intuited； is yet thought as object。 If this question
be answered in the affirmative； it follows that all empirical
cognition of objects is necessarily conformable to such conceptions；
since； if they are not presupposed； it is impossible that anything can
be an object of experience。 Now all experience contains； besides the
intuition of the senses through which an object is given； a conception
also of an object that is given in intuition。 Accordingly； conceptions
of objects in general must lie as a priori conditions at the
foundation of all empirical cognition； and consequently； the objective
validity of the categories； as a priori conceptions； will rest upon
this； that experience （as far as regards the form of thought） is
possible only by their means。 For in that case they apply
necessarily and a priori to objects of experience； because only
through them can an object of experience be thought。
The whole aim of the transcendental deduction of all a priori
conceptions is to show that these conceptions are a priori
conditions of the possibility of all experience。 Conceptions which
afford us the objective foundation of the possibility of experience
are for that very reason necessary。 But the analysis of the
experiences in which they are met with is not deduction； but only an
illustration of them； because from experience they could never
derive the attribute of necessity。 Without their original
applicability and relation to all possible experience； in which all
objects of cognition present themselves； the relation of the
categories to objects； of whatever nature； would be quite
inprehensible。
The celebrated Locke； for want of due reflection on these points；
and because he met with pure conceptions of the understanding in
experience； sought also to deduce them from experience； and yet
proceeded so inconsequently as to attempt； with their aid； to arrive
it cognitions which lie far beyond the limits of all experience。 David
Hume perceived that； to render this possible； it was necessary that
the conceptions should have an a priori origin。 But as he could not
explain how it was possible that conceptions which are not connected
with each other in the understanding must nevertheless be thought as
necessarily connected in the object… and it never occurred to him that
the understanding itself might； perhaps； by means of these
conceptions； be the author of the experience in which its objects were
presented to it… he was forced to drive these conceptions from
experience； that is； from a subjective necessity arising from repeated
association of experiences erroneously considered to be objective…
in one word； from habit。 But he proceeded with perfect consequence and
declared it to be impossible； with such conceptions and the principles
arising from them； to overstep the limits of experience。 The empirical
derivation； however； which both of these philosophers attributed to
these conceptions； cannot possibly be reconciled with the fact that we
do possess scientific a priori cognitions； namely； those of pure
mathematics and general physics。
The former of these two celebrated men opened a wide door to
extravagance… （for if reason has once undoubted right on its side；
it will not allow itself to be confined to set limits； by vague
remendations of moderation）； the latter gave himself up entirely to
scepticism… a natural consequence； after having discovered； as he
thought； that the faculty of cognition was not trustworthy。 We now
intend to make a trial whether it be not possible safely to conduct
reason between these two rocks； to assign her determinate limits；
and yet leave open for her the entire sphere of her legitimate
activity。
I shall merely premise an explanation of what the categories are。
They are conceptions of an object in general； by means of which its
intuition is contemplated as determined in relation to one of the
logical functions of judgement。 The following will make this plain。
The function of the categorical judgement is that of the relation of
subject to predicate； for example； in the proposition： 〃All bodies are
divisible。〃 But in regard to the merely logical use of the
understanding； it still remains undetermined to which Of these two
conceptions belongs the function Of subject and to which that of
predicate。 For we could also say： 〃Som