| This completeness of the analysis of these radical conceptions, as well as of the deduction from the conceptions a priori which may be given by the analysis, we can, however, easily attain, provided only that we are in possession of all these radical conceptions, which are to serve as principles of the synthesis, and that in respect of this main purpose nothing is wanting. |
| To the Critique of Pure Reason, therefore, belongs all that constitutes transcendental philosophy; and it is the complete idea of transcendental philosophy, but still not the science itself; because it only proceeds so far with the analysis as is necessary to the power of judging completely of our synthetical knowledge a priorI. The principal thing we must attend to, in the division of the parts of a science like this, is that no conceptions must enter it which contain aught empirical; in other words, that the knowledge a priori must be completely pure. |
| Hence, although the highest principles and fundamental conceptions of morality are certainly cognitions a priori, yet they do not belong to transcendental philosophy; because, though they certainly do not lay the conceptions of pain, pleasure, desires, inclinations, etc. |
| (which are all of empirical origin), at the foundation of its precepts, yet still into the conception of duty--as an obstacle to be overcome, or as an incitement which should not be made into a motive--these empirical conceptions must necessarily enter, in the construction of a system of pure morality. |
| Transcendental philosophy is consequently a philosophy of the pure and merely speculative reason. |
| For all that is practical, so far as it contains motives, relates to feelings, and these belong to empirical sources of cognition. |
| If we wish to divide this science from the universal point of view of a science in general, it ought to comprehend, first, a Doctrine of the Elements, and, secondly, a Doctrine of the Method of pure reason. |
| Each of these main divisions will have its subdivisions, the separate reasons for which we cannot here particularize. |
| Only so much seems necessary, by way of introduction of premonition, that there are two sources of human knowledge (which probably spring from a common, but to us unknown root), namely, sense and understanding. |
| By the former, objects are given to us; by the latter, thought. |
| So far as the faculty of sense may contain representations a priori, which form the conditions under which objects are given, in so far it belongs to transcendental philosophy. |
| The transcendental doctrine of sense must form the first part of our science of elements, because the conditions under which alone the objects of human knowledge are given must precede those under which they are thought. |
| I. TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS. |
| FIRST PART. |
| TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC. |
| SS I. Introductory. |
| In whatsoever mode, or by whatsoever means, our knowledge may relate to objects, it is at least quite clear that the only manner in which it immediately relates to them is by means of an intuition. |
| To this as the indispensable groundwork, all thought points. |
| But an intuition can take place only in so far as the object is given to us. |
| This, again, is only possible, to man at least, on condition that the object affect the mind in a certain manner. |
| The capacity for receiving representations (receptivity) through the mode in which we are affected by objects, objects, is called sensibility. |