the critique of pure reason- 第14部分

of　brevity；　I　have　placed　under　the　head　of　metaphysical　exposition；

that　which　is　properly　transcendental。　Here　I　shall　add　that　the

conception　of　change；　and　with　it　the　conception　of　motion；　as

change　of　place；　is　possible　only　through　and　in　the　representation　of

time；　that　if　this　representation　were　not　an　intuition　（internal）　a

priori；　no　conception；　of　whatever　kind；　could　render　comprehensible

the　possibility　of　change；　in　other　words；　of　a　conjunction　of

contradictorily　opposed　predicates　in　one　and　the　same　object；　for

example；　the　presence　of　a　thing　in　a　place　and　the　non…presence　of

the　same　thing　in　the　same　place。　It　is　only　in　time　that　it　is

possible　to　meet　with　two　contradictorily　opposed　determinations　in

one　thing；　that　is；　after　each　other。　thus　our　conception　of　time

explains　the　possibility　of　so　much　synthetical　knowledge　a　priori；　as

is　exhibited　in　the　general　doctrine　of　motion；　which　is　not　a

little　fruitful。



　　　　　　　　　SS　7　Conclusions　from　the　above　Conceptions。



　　（a）　Time　is　not　something　which　subsists　of　itself；　or　which　inheres

in　things　as　an　objective　determination；　and　therefore　remains；　when

abstraction　is　made　of　the　subjective　conditions　of　the　intuition　of

things。　For　in　the　former　case；　it　would　be　something　real；　yet

without　presenting　to　any　power　of　perception　any　real　object。　In

the　latter　case；　as　an　order　or　determination　inherent　in　things

themselves；　it　could　not　be　antecedent　to　things；　as　their

condition；　nor　discerned　or　intuited　by　means　of　synthetical

propositions　a　priori。　But　all　this　is　quite　possible　when　we　regard

time　as　merely　the　subjective　condition　under　which　all　our　intuitions

take　place。　For　in　that　case；　this　form　of　the　inward　intuition　can　be

represented　prior　to　the　objects；　and　consequently　a　priori。

　　（b）　Time　is　nothing　else　than　the　form　of　the　internal　sense；　that

is；　of　the　intuitions　of　self　and　of　our　internal　state。　For　time

cannot　be　any　determination　of　outward　phenomena。　It　has　to　do　neither

with　shape　nor　position；　on　the　contrary；　it　determines　the　relation

of　representations　in　our　internal　state。　And　precisely　because　this

internal　intuition　presents　to　us　no　shape　or　form；　we　endeavour　to

supply　this　want　by　analogies；　and　represent　the　course　of　time　by　a

line　progressing　to　infinity；　the　content　of　which　constitutes　a

series　which　is　only　of　one　dimension；　and　we　conclude　from　the

properties　of　this　line　as　to　all　the　properties　of　time；　with　this

single　exception；　that　the　parts　of　the　line　are　coexistent；　whilst

those　of　time　are　successive。　From　this　it　is　clear　also　that　the

representation　of　time　is　itself　an　intuition；　because　all　its

relations　can　be　expressed　in　an　external　intuition。

　　（c）　Time　is　the　formal　condition　a　priori　of　all　phenomena

whatsoever。　Space；　as　the　pure　form　of　external　intuition；　is

limited　as　a　condition　a　priori　to　external　phenomena　alone。　On　the

other　hand；　because　all　representations；　whether　they　have　or　have　not

external　things　for　their　objects；　still　in　themselves；　as

determinations　of　the　mind；　belong　to　our　internal　state；　and

because　this　internal　state　is　subject　to　the　formal　condition　of

the　internal　intuition；　that　is；　to　time…　time　is　a　condition　a　priori

of　all　phenomena　whatsoever…　the　immediate　condition　of　all

internal；　and　thereby　the　mediate　condition　of　all　external　phenomena。

If　I　can　say　a　priori；　〃All　outward　phenomena　are　in　space；　and

determined　a　priori　according　to　the　relations　of　space；〃　I　can

also；　from　the　principle　of　the　internal　sense；　affirm　universally；

〃All　phenomena　in　general；　that　is；　all　objects　of　the　senses；　are

in　time　and　stand　necessarily　in　relations　of　time。〃

　　If　we　abstract　our　internal　intuition　of　ourselves　and　all

external　intuitions；　possible　only　by　virtue　of　this　internal

intuition　and　presented　to　us　by　our　faculty　of　representation；　and

consequently　take　objects　as　they　are　in　themselves；　then　time　is

nothing。　It　is　only　of　objective　validity　in　regard　to　phenomena；

because　these　are　things　which　we　regard　as　objects　of　our　senses。

It　no　longer　objective　we；　make　abstraction　of　the　sensuousness　of　our

intuition；　in　other　words；　of　that　mode　of　representation　which　is

peculiar　to　us；　and　speak　of　things　in　general。　Time　is　therefore

merely　a　subjective　condition　of　our　（human）　intuition　（which　is

always　sensuous；　that　is；　so　far　as　we　are　affected　by　objects）；　and

in　itself；　independently　of　the　mind　or　subject；　is　nothing。

Nevertheless；　in　respect　of　all　phenomena；　consequently　of　all

things　which　come　within　the　sphere　of　our　experience；　it　is

necessarily　objective。　We　cannot　say；　〃All　things　are　in　time；〃

because　in　this　conception　of　things　in　general；　we　abstract　and

make　no　mention　of　any　sort　of　intuition　of　things。　But　this　is　the

proper　condition　under　which　time　belongs　to　our　representation　of

objects。　If　we　add　the　condition　to　the　conception；　and　say；　〃All

things；　as　phenomena；　that　is；　objects　of　sensuous　intuition；　are　in

time；〃　then　the　proposition　has　its　sound　objective　validity　and

universality　a　priori。

　　What　we　have　now　set　forth　teaches；　therefore；　the　empirical　reality

of　time；　that　is；　its　objective　validity　in　reference　to　all　objects

which　can　ever　be　presented　to　our　senses。　And　as　our　intuition　is

always　sensuous；　no　object　ever　can　be　presented　to　us　in

experience；　which　does　not　come　under　the　conditions　of　time。　On　the

other　hand；　we　deny　to　time　all　claim　to　absolute　reality；　that　is；　we

deny　that　it；　without　having　regard　to　the　form　of　our　sensuous

intuition；　absolutely　inheres　in　things　as　a　condition　or　property。

Such　properties　as　belong　to　objects　as　things　in　themselves　never　can

be　presented　to　us　through　the　medium　of　the　senses。　Herein

consists；　therefore；　the　transcendental　ideality　of　time；　according　to

which；　if　we　abstract　the　subjective　conditions　of　sensuous　intuition；

it　is　nothing；　and　cannot　be　reckoned　as　subsisting　or　inhering　in

objects　as　things　in　themselves；　independently　of　its　relation　to

our　intuition。　this　ideality；　like　that　of　space；　is　not　to　be

proved　or　illustrated　by　fallacious　analogies　with　sensations；　for

this　reason…　that　in　such　arguments　or　illustrations；　we　make　the

presupposition　that　the　phenomenon；　in　which　such　and　such

predicates　inhere；　has　objective　reality；　while　in　this　case　we　can

only　find　such　an　objective　reality　as　is　itself　empirical；　that　is；

regards　the　object　as　a　mere　phenomenon。　In　reference　to　this　subject；

see　the　remark　in　Section　I　（SS　4）



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SS　8　Elucidation。



　　Against　this　theory；　which　grants　empirical　reality　to　time；　but

denies　to　it　absolute　and　transcendental　reality；　I　have　heard　from

intelligent　men　an　objection　so　unanimously　urged　that　I　conclude　that

it　must　naturally　present　itself　to　every　reader　to　whom　these

considerations　are　novel。　It　runs　thus：　〃Changes　are　real〃　（this　the

continual　change　in　our　own　representations　demonstrates；　even

though　the　existence　of　all　external　phenomena；　together　with　their

changes；　is　denied）。　Now；　changes　are　only　possible　in　time；　and

therefore　time　must　be　something　real。　But　there　is　no　difficulty　in

answering　this。　I　grant　the　whole　argument。　Time；　no　doubt；　is

something　real；　that　is；　it　is　the　real　form　of　our　internal

intuition。　It　therefore　has　subjective　reality；　in　reference　to　our

internal　experience；　that　is；　I　have　really　the　representation　of　time

and　of　my　determinations　therein。　Time；　therefore；　is　not　to　be

regarded　as　an　object；　but　as　the　mode　of　representation　of　myself

as　an　object。　But　if　I　could　intuite　myself；　or　be　intuited　by　another

being；　without　this　condition　of　sensibility；　then　those　very

determinations　which　we　now　represent　to　ourselves　as　changes；　would

present　to　us　a　knowledge　in　which　the　representation　of　time；　and

consequently　of　change；　would　not　appear。　The　empirical　reality　of

time；　therefore；　remains；　as　the　condition　of　all　our　experience。

But　absolute　reality；　according　to　what　has　been　said　above；　cannot　be

granted　it。　Time　is　nothing　but　the　form　of　our　internal　intuition。*

If　we　take　away　from　it　the　special　condition　of　our　sensibility；

the　conception　of　time　also　vanishes；　and　it　inheres　not　in　the

objects　themselves；　but　solely　in　the　subject　（or　mind）　which　intuites

them。



　　*I　can　indeed　say　〃my　representations　follow　one　another；　or　are

successive〃；　but　this　means　only　that　we　are　conscious　of　them　as　in　a

succession；　that　is；　according　to　the　form　of　the　internal　sense。

Time；　therefore；　is　not　a　thing　in　itself；　nor　is　it　any　objective

determination　pertaining　to；　or　inherent　in　things。



　　But　the　reason　why　this　objection　is　so　unanimously　brought

against　our　doctrine　of　time；　and　that　too　by　disputants　who　cannot

start　any　intelligible　arguments　against　the　doctrine　of　the

ideality　of　space；　is　this…　they　have　no　hope　of　demonstrating

apodeictically　the　absolute　reality　of　space；　because　the　doctrine

of　idealism　is　against　them；　according　to　which　the　reality　of

external　objects　is　not　capable　of　any　strict　proof。　On　the　other

hand；　the　reality　of　the　object　of　our　internal　sense　（that　is；　myself

and　my　internal　state）　is　clear　immediately　through　consciousness。　The

former…　external　objects　in　space…　might　be　a　mere　delusion；　but　the

latter…　the　object　of　my　internal　perception…　is　undeniably　real。　They

do　not；　however；　reflect　that　both；　without　question　of　their

reality　as　representations；　belong　only　to　the　genus　phenomenon；　which

has　always　two　aspects；　the　one；　the　object　considered　as　a　thing　in

itself；　without　regard　to　the　mode　of　intuiting　it；　and　the　nature

of　which　remains　for　this　very　reason　problematical；　the　other；　the

form　of　our　intuition　of　the　object；　which　must　be　sought　not　in　the

object　as　a　thing　in　itself；　but　in　the　subject　to　which　it　appears…

which