conceptions belongs the function Of subject and to which that of
predicate。 For we could also say： 〃Some divisible is a body。〃 But
the category of substance； when the conception of a body is brought
under it； determines that； and its empirical intuition in experience
must be contemplated always as subject and never as mere predicate。
And so with all the other categories。
SECTION II Transcendental Deduction of the pure Conceptions of
the Understanding。 SS 11
Of the Possibility of a Conjunction of the manifold representations
given by Sense。
The manifold content in our representations can be given in an
intuition which is merely sensuous… in other words； is nothing but
susceptibility； and the form of this intuition can exist a priori in
our faculty of representation； without being anything else but the
mode in which the subject is affected。 But the conjunction
（conjunctio） of a manifold in intuition never can be given us by the
senses； it cannot therefore be contained in the pure form of
sensuous intuition； for it is a spontaneous act of the faculty of
representation。 And as we must； to distinguish it from sensibility；
entitle this faculty understanding； so all conjunction whether
conscious or unconscious； be it of the manifold in intuition； sensuous
or non…sensuous； or of several conceptions… is an act of the
understanding。 To this act we shall give the general appellation of
synthesis； thereby to indicate； at the same time； that we cannot
represent anything as conjoined in the object without having
previously conjoined it ourselves。 Of all mental notions； that of
conjunction is the only one which cannot be given through objects； but
can be originated only by the subject itself； because it is an act
of its purely spontaneous activity。 The reader will easily enough
perceive that the possibility of conjunction must be grounded in the
very nature of this act； and that it must be equally valid for all
conjunction； and that analysis； which appears to be its contrary；
must； nevertheless； always presuppose it； for where the
understanding has not previously conjoined； it cannot dissect or
analyse； because only as conjoined by it； must that which is to be
analysed have been given to our faculty of representation。
But the conception of conjunction includes； besides the conception
of the manifold and of the synthesis of it； that of the unity of it
also。 Conjunction is the representation of the synthetical unity of
the manifold。* This idea of unity； therefore； cannot arise out of that
of conjunction； much rather does that idea； by bining itself with
the representation of the manifold； render the conception of
conjunction possible。 This unity； which a priori precedes all
conceptions of conjunction； is not the category of unity （SS 6）； for
all the categories are based upon logical functions of judgement；
and in these functions we already have conjunction； and consequently
unity of given conceptions。 It is therefore evident that the
category of unity presupposes conjunction。 We must therefore look
still higher for this unity （as qualitative； SS 8）； in that； namely；
which contains the ground of the unity of diverse conceptions in
judgements； the ground； consequently； of the possibility of the
existence of the understanding； even in regard to its logical use。
*Whether the representations are in themselves identical； and
consequently whether one can be thought analytically by means of and
through the other； is a question which we need not at present
consider。 Our Consciousness of the one； when we speak of the manifold；
is always distinguishable from our consciousness of the other； and
it is only respecting the synthesis of this （possible） consciousness
that we here treat。
Of the Originally Synthetical Unity of Apperception。 SS 12
The 〃I think〃 must acpany all my representations； for otherwise
something would be represented in me which could not be thought； in
other words； the representation would either be impossible； or at
least be； in relation to me； nothing。 That representation which can be
given previously to all thought is called intuition。 All the diversity
or manifold content of intuition； has； therefore； a necessary relation
to the 'I think；〃 in the subject in which this diversity is found。 But
this representation； 〃I think；〃 is an act of spontaneity； that is to
say； it cannot be regarded as belonging to mere sensibility。 I call it
pure apperception； in order to distinguish it from empirical； or
primitive apperception； because it is self…consciousness which； whilst
it gives birth to the representation〃 I think；〃 must necessarily be
capable of acpanying all our representations。 It is in all acts
of consciousness one and the same； and unacpanied by it； no
representation can exist for me。 The unity of this apperception I call
the transcendental unity of self…consciousness； in order to indicate
the possibility of a priori cognition arising from it。 For the
manifold representations which are given in an intuition would not all
of them be my representations； if they did not all belong to one
self…consciousness； that is； as my representations （even although I am
not conscious of them as such）； they must conform to the condition
under which alone they can exist together in a mon
self…consciousness； because otherwise they would not all without
exception belong to me。 From this primitive conjunction follow many
important results。
For example； this universal identity of the apperception of the
manifold given in intuition contains a synthesis of representations
and is possible only by means of the consciousness of this
synthesis。 For the empirical consciousness which acpanies different
representations is in itself fragmentary and disunited； and without
relation to the identity of the subject。 This relation； then； does not
exist because I acpany every representation with consciousness； but
because I join one representation to another； and am conscious of
the synthesis of them。 Consequently； only because I can connect a
variety of given representations in one consciousness； is it
possible that I can represent to myself the identity of
consciousness in these representations； in other words； the analytical
unity of apperception is possible only under the presupposition of a
synthetical unity。* The thought； 〃These representations given in
intuition belong all of them to me；〃 is accordingly just the same
as； 〃I unite them in one self…consciousness； or can at least so
unite them〃； and although this thought is not itself the consciousness
of the synthesis of representations； it presupposes the possibility of
it； that is to say； for the reason alone that I can prehend the
variety of my representations in one consciousness； do I call them
my representations； for otherwise I must have as many…coloured and
various a self as are the representations of which I am conscious。
Synthetical unity of the manifold in intuitions； as given a priori； is
therefore the foundation of the identity of apperception itself； which
antecedes a priori all determinate thought。 But the conjunction of
representations into a conception is not to be found in objects
themselves； nor can it be； as it were； borrowed from them and taken up
into the understanding by perception； but it is on the contrary an
operation of the understanding itself； which is nothing more than
the faculty of conjoining a priori and of bringing the variety of
given representations under the unity of apperception。 This
principle is the highest in all human cognition。
*All general conceptions… as such… depend； for their existence； on
the analytical unity of consciousness。 For example； when I think of
red in general； I thereby think to myself a property which （as a
characteristic mark） can be discovered somewhere； or can be united
with other representations； consequently； it is only by means of a
forethought possible synthetical unity that I can think to myself
the analytical。 A representation which is cogitated as mon to
different representations； is regarded as belonging to such as；
besides this mon representation； contain something different；
consequently it must be previously thought in synthetical unity with
other although only possible representations； before I can think in it
the analytical unity of consciousness which makes it a conceptas
munis。 And thus the synthetical unity of apperception is the
highest point with which we must connect every operation of the
understanding； even the whole of logic； and after it our
transcendental philosophy； indeed； this faculty is the understanding
itself。
This fundamental principle of the necessary unity of apperception is
indeed an identical； and therefore analytical； proposition； but it
nevertheless explains the necessity for a synthesis of the manifold
given in an intuition； without which the identity of
self…consciousness would be incogitable。 For the ego； as a simple
representation； presents us with no manifold content； only in
intuition； which is quite different from the representation ego； can
it be given us； and by means of conjunction it is cogitated in one
s