or； if this were taken away； would continue to exist。 If we wish to
call this object a noumenon； because the representation of it is
non…sensuous； we are at liberty to do so。 But as we can apply to it
none of the conceptions of our understanding； the representation is
for us quite void； and is available only for the indication of the
limits of our sensuous intuition； thereby leaving at the same time
an empty space； which we are petent to fill by the aid neither of
possible experience； nor of the pure understanding。
The critique of the pure understanding； accordingly； does not permit
us to create for ourselves a new field of objects beyond those which
are presented to us as phenomena； and to stray into intelligible
worlds； nay； it does not even allow us to endeavour to form so much as
a conception of them。 The specious error which leads to this… and
which is a perfectly excusable one… lies in the fact that the
employment of the understanding； contrary to its proper purpose and
destination； is made transcendental； and objects； that is； possible
intuitions； are made to regulate themselves according to
conceptions； instead of the conceptions arranging themselves according
to the intuitions； on which alone their own objective validity
rests。 Now the reason of this again is that apperception； and with
it thought； antecedes all possible determinate arrangement of
representations。 Accordingly we think something in general and
determine it on the one hand sensuously； but； on the other；
distinguish the general and in abstracto represented object from
this particular mode of intuiting it。 In this case there remains a
mode of determining the object by mere thought； which is really but
a logical form without content； which； however； seems to us to be a
mode of the existence of the object in itself （noumenon）； without
regard to intuition which is limited to our senses。
Before ending this transcendental analytic； we must make an
addition； which； although in itself of no particular importance； seems
to be necessary to the pleteness of the system。 The highest
conception； with which a transcendental philosophy monly begins； is
the division into possible and impossible。 But as all division
presupposes a divided conception； a still higher one must exist； and
this is the conception of an object in general… problematically
understood and without its being decided whether it is something or
nothing。 As the categories are the only conceptions which apply to
objects in general； the distinguishing of an object； whether it is
something or nothing； must proceed according to the order and
direction of the categories。
1。 To the categories of quantity； that is； the conceptions of all；
many； and one； the conception which annihilates all； that is； the
conception of none； is opposed。 And thus the object of a conception；
to which no intuition can be found to correspond； is = nothing。 That
is； it is a conception without an object （ens rationis）； like noumena；
which cannot be considered possible in the sphere of reality； though
they must not therefore be held to be impossible… or like certain
new fundamental forces in matter； the existence of which is
cogitable without contradiction； though； as examples from experience
are not forthing； they must not be regarded as possible。
2。 Reality is something； negation is nothing； that is； a
conception of the absence of an object； as cold； a shadow （nihil
privativum）。
3。 The mere form of intuition； without substance； is in itself no
object； but the merely formal condition of an object （as
phenomenon）； as pure space and pure time。 These are certainly
something； as forms of intuition； but are not themselves objects which
are intuited （ens imaginarium）。
4。 The object of a conception which is self…contradictory； is
nothing； because the conception is nothing… is impossible； as a figure
posed of two straight lines （nihil negativum）。
The table of this division of the conception of nothing （the
corresponding division of the conception of something does not require
special description） must therefore be arranged as follows：
NOTHING
AS
1
As Empty Conception
without object；
ens rationis
2 3
Empty object of Empty intuition
a conception； without object；
nihil privativum ens imaginarium
4
Empty object
without conception；
nihil negativum
We see that the ens rationis is distinguished from the nihil
negativum or pure nothing by the consideration that the former must
not be reckoned among possibilities； because it is a mere fiction…
though not self…contradictory； while the latter is pletely
opposed to all possibility； inasmuch as the conception annihilates
itself。 Both； however； are empty conceptions。 On the other hand；
the nihil privativum and ens imaginarium are empty data for
conceptions。 If light be not given to the senses； we cannot
represent to ourselves darkness； and if extended objects are not
perceived； we cannot represent space。 Neither the negation； nor the
mere form of intuition can； without something real； be an object。
INTRO
TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC。 SECOND DIVISION。
TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC。 INTRODUCTION。
I。 Of Transcendental Illusory Appearance。
We termed dialectic in general a logic of appearance。 This does
not signify a doctrine of probability； for probability is truth；
only cognized upon insufficient grounds； and though the information it
gives us is imperfect； it is not therefore deceitful。 Hence it must
not be separated from the analytical part of logic。 Still less must
phenomenon and appearance be held to be identical。 For truth or
illusory appearance does not reside in the object； in so far as it
is intuited； but in the judgement upon the object； in so far as it
is thought。 It is； therefore； quite correct to say that the senses
do not err； not because they always judge correctly； but because
they do not judge at all。 Hence truth and error； consequently also；
illusory appearance as the cause of error； are only to be found in a
judgement； that is； in the relation of an object to our understanding。
In a cognition which pletely harmonizes with the laws of the
understanding； no error can exist。 In a representation of the
senses… as not containing any judgement… there is also no error。 But
no power of nature can of itself deviate from its own laws。 Hence
neither the understanding per se （without the influence of another
cause）； nor the senses per se； would fall into error； the former could
not； because； if it acts only according to its own laws； the effect
（the judgement） must necessarily accord with these laws。 But in
accordance with the laws of the understanding consists the formal
element in all truth。 In the senses there is no judgement… neither a
true nor a false one。 But； as we have no source of cognition besides
these two； it follows that error is caused solely by the unobserved
influence of the sensibility upon the understanding。 And thus it
happens that the subjective grounds of a judgement and are
confounded with the objective； and cause them to deviate from their
proper determination；* just as a body in motion would always of itself
proceed in a straight line； but if another impetus gives to it a
different direction； it will then start off into a curvilinear line of
motion。 To distinguish the peculiar action of the understanding from
the power which mingles with it； it is necessary to consider an
erroneous judgement as the diagonal between two forces； that determine
the judgement in two different directions； which； as it were； form
an angle； and to resolve this posite operation into the simple ones
of the understanding and the sensibility。 In pure a priori
judgements this must be done by means of transcendental reflection；
whereby； as has been already shown； each representation has its
place appointed in the corresponding faculty of cognition； and
consequently the influence of the one faculty upon the other is made
apparent。
*Sensibility； subjected to the understanding； as the object upon
which the understanding employs its functions； is the source of real
cognitions。 But； in so far as it exercises an influence upon the
action of the understanding and determines it to judgement；
sensibility is itself the cause of error。
It is not at present our business to treat of empirical illusory
appearance （for example； optical illusion）； which occurs in the
empirical application of otherwise correct rules of the understanding；
and in which the judgement is misled by the influence of
imagination。 Our purpose is to speak of transcendental illusory
appearance； which influences principles… that are not even applied
to experience； for in this case we should possess a sure test of their
correctness… but which leads us； in disregard of all the warnings of
criticism； pletely beyond the empirical employment of the
categories and deludes us