means of which an object is given； and which always includes in itself
a synthesis of the manifold to be intuited； and also the relation of
this latter to unity of apperception。
But there is one thing in the above demonstration of which I could
not make abstraction； namely； that the manifold to be intuited must be
given previously to the synthesis of the understanding； and
independently of it。 How this takes place remains here undetermined。
For if I cogitate an understanding which was itself intuitive （as； for
example； a divine understanding which should not represent given
objects； but by whose representation the objects themselves should
be given or produced）； the categories would possess no significance in
relation to such a faculty of cognition。 They are merely rules for
an understanding； whose whole power consists in thought； that is； in
the act of submitting the synthesis of the manifold which is presented
to it in intuition from a very different quarter； to the unity of
apperception； a faculty； therefore； which cognizes nothing per se； but
only connects and arranges the material of cognition； the intuition；
namely； which must be presented to it by means of the object。 But to
show reasons for this peculiar character of our understandings； that
it produces unity of apperception a priori only by means of
categories； and a certain kind and number thereof； is as impossible as
to explain why we are endowed with precisely so many functions of
judgement and no more； or why time and space are the only forms of our
intuition。
In Cognition； its Application to Objects of Experience is
the only legitimate use of the Category。 SS 18
To think an object and to cognize an object are by no means the same
thing。 In cognition there are two elements： firstly； the conception；
whereby an object is cogitated （the category）； and； secondly； the
intuition； whereby the object is given。 For supposing that to the
conception a corresponding intuition could not be given； it would
still be a thought as regards its form； but without any object； and no
cognition of anything would be possible by means of it； inasmuch as；
so far as I knew； there existed and could exist nothing to which my
thought could be applied。 Now all intuition possible to us is
sensuous； consequently； our thought of an object by means of a pure
conception of the understanding； can bee cognition for us only in
so far as this conception is applied to objects of the senses。
Sensuous intuition is either pure intuition （space and time） or
empirical intuition… of that which is immediately represented in space
and time by means of sensation as real。 Through the determination of
pure intuition we obtain a priori cognitions of objects； as in
mathematics； but only as regards their form as phenomena； whether
there can exist things which must be intuited in this form is not
thereby established。 All mathematical conceptions； therefore； are
not per se cognition； except in so far as we presuppose that there
exist things which can only be represented conformably to the form
of our pure sensuous intuition。 But things in space and time are given
only in so far as they are perceptions （representations acpanied
with sensation）； therefore only by empirical representation。
Consequently the pure conceptions of the understanding； even when they
are applied to intuitions a priori （as in mathematics）； produce
cognition only in so far as these （and therefore the conceptions of
the understanding by means of them） can be applied to empirical
intuitions。 Consequently the categories do not； even by means of
pure intuition afford us any cognition of things； they can only do
so in so far as they can be applied to empirical intuition。 That is to
say； the； categories serve only to render empirical cognition
possible。 But this is what we call experience。 Consequently； in
cognition； their application to objects of experience is the only
legitimate use of the categories。
SS 19
The foregoing proposition is of the utmost importance； for it
determines the limits of the exercise of the pure conceptions of the
understanding in regard to objects； just as transcendental aesthetic
determined the limits of the exercise of the pure form of our sensuous
intuition。 Space and time； as conditions of the possibility of the
presentation of objects to us； are valid no further than for objects
of sense； consequently； only for experience。 Beyond these limits
they represent to us nothing； for they belong only to sense； and
have no reality apart from it。 The pure conceptions of the
understanding are free from this limitation； and extend to objects
of intuition in general； be the intuition like or unlike to ours；
provided only it be sensuous； and not intellectual。 But this extension
of conceptions beyond the range of our intuition is of no advantage；
for they are then mere empty conceptions of objects； as to the
possibility or impossibility of the existence of which they furnish us
with no means of discovery。 They are mere forms of thought； without
objective reality； because we have no intuition to which the
synthetical unity of apperception； which alone the categories contain；
could be applied； for the purpose of determining an object。 Our
sensuous and empirical intuition can alone give them significance
and meaning。
If； then； we suppose an object of a non…sensuous intuition to be
given we can in that case represent it by all those predicates which
are implied in the presupposition that nothing appertaining to
sensuous intuition belongs to it； for example； that it is not
extended； or in space； that its duration is not time； that in it no
change （the effect of the determinations in time） is to be met with；
and so on。 But it is no proper knowledge if I merely indicate what the
intuition of the object is not； without being able to say what is
contained in it； for I have not shown the possibility of an object
to which my pure conception of understanding could be applicable；
because I have not been able to furnish any intuition corresponding to
it； but am only able to say that our intuition is not valid for it。
But the most important point is this； that to a something of this kind
not one category can be found applicable。 Take； for example； the
conception of substance； that is； something that can exist as subject；
but never as mere predicate； in regard to this conception I am quite
ignorant whether there can really be anything to correspond to such
a determination of thought； if empirical intuition did not afford me
the occasion for its application。 But of this more in the sequel。
Of the Application of the Categories to Objects of the
Senses in general。 SS 20
The pure conceptions of the understanding apply to objects of
intuition in general； through the understanding alone； whether the
intuition be our own or some other； provided only it be sensuous；
but are； for this very reason； mere forms of thought； by means of
which alone no determined object can be cognized。 The synthesis or
conjunction of the manifold in these conceptions relates； we have
said； only to the unity of apperception； and is for this reason the
ground of the possibility of a priori cognition； in so far as this
cognition is dependent on the understanding。 This synthesis is；
therefore； not merely transcendental； but also purely intellectual。
But because a certain form of sensuous intuition exists in the mind
a priori which rests on the receptivity of the representative
faculty （sensibility）； the understanding； as a spontaneity； is able to
determine the internal sense by means of the diversity of given
representations； conformably to the synthetical unity of apperception；
and thus to cogitate the synthetical unity of the apperception of
the manifold of sensuous intuition a priori； as the condition to which
must necessarily be submitted all objects of human intuition。 And in
this manner the categories as mere forms of thought receive
objective reality； that is； application to objects which are given
to us in intuition； but that only as phenomena； for it is only of
phenomena that we are ca