it be given us； and by means of conjunction it is cogitated in one
self…consciousness。 An understanding； in which all the manifold should
be given by means of consciousness itself； would be intuitive； our
understanding can only think and must look for its intuition to sense。
I am； therefore； conscious of my identical self； in relation to all
the variety of representations given to me in an intuition； because
I call all of them my representations。 In other words； I am
conscious myself of a necessary a priori synthesis of my
representations； which is called the original synthetical unity of
apperception； under which rank all the representations presented to
me； but that only by means of a synthesis。
The Principle of the Synthetical Unity of Apperception
is the highest Principle of all exercise of
the Understanding。 SS 13
The supreme principle of the possibility of all intuition in
relation to sensibility was； according to our transcendental
aesthetic； that all the manifold in intuition be subject to the formal
conditions of space and time。 The supreme principle of the possibility
of it in relation to the understanding is that all the manifold in
it be subject to conditions of the originally synthetical unity or
apperception。* To the former of these two principles are subject all
the various representations of intuition； in so far as they are
given to us； to the latter； in so far as they must be capable of
conjunction in one consciousness； for without this nothing can be
thought or cognized； because the given representations would not
have in mon the act Of the apperception 〃I think〃 and therefore
could not be connected in one self…consciousness。
*Space and time； and all portions thereof； are intuitions；
consequently are； with a manifold for their content； single
representations。 （See the Transcendental Aesthetic。） Consequently；
they are not pure conceptions； by means of which the same
consciousness is found in a great number of representations； but； on
the contrary； they are many representations contained in one； the
consciousness of which is； so to speak； pounded。 The unity of
consciousness is nevertheless synthetical and； therefore； primitive。
From this peculiar character of consciousness follow many important
consequences。 （See SS 21。）
Understanding is； to speak generally； the faculty Of cognitions。
These consist in the determined relation of given representation to an
object。 But an object is that； in the conception of which the manifold
in a given intuition is united。 Now all union of representations
requires unity of consciousness in the synthesis of them。
Consequently； it is the unity of consciousness alone that
constitutes the possibility of representations relating to an
object； and therefore of their objective validity； and of their
being cognitions； and consequently； the possibility of the
existence of the understanding itself。
The first pure cognition of understanding； then； upon which is
founded all its other exercise； and which is at the same time
perfectly independent of all conditions of mere sensuous intuition； is
the principle of the original synthetical unity of apperception。
Thus the mere form of external sensuous intuition； namely； space；
affords us； per se； no cognition； it merely contributes the manifold
in a priori intuition to a possible cognition。 But； in order to
cognize something in space （for example； a line）； I must draw it；
and thus produce synthetically a determined conjunction of the given
manifold； so that the unity of this act is at the same time the
unity of consciousness （in the conception of a line）； and by this
means alone is an object （a determinate space） cognized。 The
synthetical unity of consciousness is； therefore； an objective
condition of all cognition； which I do not merely require in order
to cognize an object； but to which every intuition must necessarily be
subject； in order to bee an object for me； because in any other
way； and without this synthesis； the manifold in intuition could not
be united in one consciousness。
This proposition is； as already said； itself analytical； although it
constitutes the synthetical unity； the condition of all thought； for
it states nothing more than that all my representations in any given
intuition must be subject to the condition which alone enables me to
connect them； as my representation with the identical self； and so
to unite them synthetically in one apperception； by means of the
general expression； 〃I think。〃
But this principle is not to be regarded as a principle for every
possible understanding； but only for the understanding by means of
whose pure apperception in the thought I am； no manifold content is
given。 The understanding or mind which contained the manifold in
intuition； in and through the act itself of its own
self…consciousness； in other words； an understanding by and in the
representation of which the objects of the representation should at
the same time exist； would not require a special act of synthesis of
the manifold as the condition of the unity of its consciousness； an
act of which the human understanding； which thinks only and cannot
intuite； has absolute need。 But this principle is the first
principle of all the operations of our understanding； so that we
cannot form the least conception of any other possible
understanding； either of one such as should be itself intuition； or
possess a sensuous intuition； but with forms different from those of
space and time。
What Objective Unity of Self…consciousness is。 SS 14
It is by means of the transcendental unity of apperception that
all the manifold； given in an intuition is united into a conception of
the object。 On this account it is called objective； and must be
distinguished from the subjective unity of consciousness； which is a
determination of the internal sense； by means of which the said
manifold in intuition is given empirically to be so united。 Whether
I can be empirically conscious of the manifold as coexistent or as
successive； depends upon circumstances； or empirical conditions。 Hence
the empirical unity of consciousness by means of association of
representations； itself relates to a phenomenal world and is wholly
contingent。 On the contrary； the pure form of intuition in time；
merely as an intuition； which contains a given manifold； is subject to
the original unity of consciousness； and that solely by means of the
necessary relation of the manifold in intuition to the 〃I think；〃
consequently by means of the pure synthesis of the understanding；
which lies a priori at the foundation of all empirical synthesis。
The transcendental unity of apperception is alone objectively valid；
the empirical which we do not consider in this essay； and which is
merely a unity deduced from the former under given conditions in
concreto； possesses only subjective validity。 One person connects
the notion conveyed in a word with one thing； another with another
thing； and the unity of consciousness in that which is empirical；
is； in relation to that which is given by experience； not
necessarily and universally valid。
The Logical Form of all Judgements consists in the Objective
Unity of Apperception of the Conceptions
contained therein。 SS 15
I could never satisfy myself with the definition which logicians
give of a judgement。 It is； according to them； the representation of a
relation between two conceptions。 I shall not dwell here on the
faultiness of this definition； in that it suits only for categorical
and not for hypothetical or disjunctive judgements； these latter
containing a relation not of conceptions but of judgements themselves…
a blunder from which many evil results have followed。* It is more
important for our present purpose to observe； that this definition
does not determine in what the said relation consists。
*The tedious doctrine of the four syllogistic figures concerns
only categorical syllogisms； and although it is nothing more than an
artifice by surreptitiously introducing immediate conclusions
（consequentiae immediatae） among the premises of a pure syllogism；
to give ism' give rise to an appearance of more modes of drawing a
conclusion than that in the first figure； the artifice would not
have had much success； had not its authors succeeded in bringing
categorical judgements into exclusive respect； as those to which all
others must be referred… a doctrine； however； which； according to SS
5； is utterly false。
But if I investigate more closely the relation of given cognitions
in every judgement； and distinguish it； as belonging to the
understanding； from the relation which is produced according to laws
of the reproductive imagination （which has only subjective
validity）； I find that judgement is nothing but the mode of bringing
given cognitions under the objective unit of apperception。 This is
plain from our use of the term of relation is in judgements； in
order to distinguish the objective unity of given representations from
the subjective unity。 For this term indicates the relation of these
representations to the original apper