Lecture notes on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

Delivered by Peter Rickman during Autumn 1995

Preface
Immanuel Kants Critique of Pure Reason introduces his critical philosophy.
His philosophical approach is critical in the sense that he is making a critical
analysis of the power and limits of our mind and our ability to understand the
world we find ourselves in. As such, Kant is the founder of a philosophical
tradition of critical analysis that has included many other important
philosophers since, such as Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein.
I found Peter Rickmans lecture series, delivered in 1995 at the City University
in London UK, on the Critique of Pure Reason of immense value in trying to
understand Kants work. It is my view that Kants work is so subtle and
revolutionary that one needs the guidance of a good teacher to properly
appreciate it and to avoid the common misunderstandings. Since I had these
notes in electronic form, I thought they may be of benefit to others so I have
published them here. I thank Peter Rickman for his permission to make the
notes available and for his helpful comments and suggestions. I hope they
may help others who are trying to understand Kants great work and answer
some of the riddles of philosophy.
These are my notes of the lectures, so I should make it clear that any flaws
and errors in them are mine. If you spot any, I can be contacted at the email
address below.
Tony Bellotti, January 2006
[email protected]

Page 1 of 31

Contents
Preface
Lecture 1: INTRODUCTION

The Text
Historical Background
Key Concepts

Lecture 2: TRANSCENDENTAL KNOWLEDGE

The Transcendental Deduction

Pure and Empirical Knowledge
The Forms of Space and Time

Lecture 3: LOGIC

Logical methods
The Synthesis of Concepts
The Categories

Lecture 4: DEDUCTION OF THE CATEGORIES

Stages of Understanding
Method for Deducing the Categories
Transcendental Synthesis of Apperception

Lecture 5: CONCEPTS AND OBJECTS

The Cognitive and Empirical I

The Limits of the Categories
Objects

Lecture 6: APPLICATION OF THE CATEGORIES

The Limits of the Possibilities of Experience

Faculties of Cognition
The Schematism of the Pure Concepts of Understanding

Lectures 7 & 8: THE ANALOGIES

Introduction
The Refutation of Idealism

Lecture 9: NOUMENA
Bibliography

Page 2 of 31

Lecture 1: INTRODUCTION
The Text
In these lecture notes, we shall examine the ideas in Immanuel Kants
groundbreaking philosophical work, the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant
published this work as a first edition in 1781, but followed it up in 1787 with a
substantially revised second edition. Norman Kemp Smith's translation (1929)
is the recommended text for English readers. It contains the full text from
both editions and includes a standard indexing of the works using A and B
page numbers for the first and second edition respectively.
This course will deal mostly with that part of the work called the Transcendental
Analytic. This section is considered to be the most important part of the book.
However, it should be noted that it is far from the only important part.
There is some difficulty in translating from the original old eighteenth century
German that Kant used. Additionally, Kant's particular writing style can be
awkward and difficult to understand. He tends to be very exact and to
carefully qualify his statements. This can lead to problems when reading the
Critique.
Kant uses some words in a very specialized and technical sense. For
example, the words form, intuition and synthesis all have a special
meaning. The reader should bear this in mind when reading the Critique.
Kant worked on the contents of the Critique of Pure Reason over a period of
ten years, gathering dispersed notes and papers across that time. After these
ten years Kant seemed to be concerned that he was getting old and that he
may not complete his philosophical work before he died. Thus he spent just a
single year putting all his notes and thoughts together in the Critique of Pure
Reason. Some have considered the overall work to be a little divergent.
Also, the quality of Kant's writing seems to have suffered because he felt
rushed.
Even though Kant's writing style may be difficult, it is generally accepted that
the concepts and ideas behind his words are full of clarity. Goethe is quoted
as having said of Kant's work that reading it was like "walking into a lighted

Page 3 of 31

room". Many critics have found flaws with the Critique of Pure Reason, yet it
remains a watershed in the history of philosophy.

Historical Background
It should be remembered that the work of a philosopher is both personal and
a product of and response to the age within which he or she lives.
Kant was born in 1724 in East Prussia during a time of war, the son of a poor
saddler. His family were of protestant Scottish descent. Because of his low
background, Kant struggled his way into his position at the University of
Knigsberg. He first joined the university in 1740 as a student, from 1746 he
was a private tutor, became an assistant lecturer in 1755 and in 1770 a
professor. He died in 1804. He spent his whole life in Knigsberg.
He lived most of his life whilst
Frederick the Great reigned as
King of Prussia. Frederick the Great was considered an enlightened autocrat,
encouraging free-thought and philosophical speculation.
Kant was described by others as a happy and witty man throughout his life.
His lectures were entertaining and very popular. On the other hand, Kant was
a bachelor who lived a mechanical life and required punctuality in all his
engagements. He was also very health-conscious.
Kant wrote many essays on natural philosophy prior to the Critique, but it was
the Critique that made his reputation as a great philosopher. The first edition
of the Critique of
Pure Reason was published in 1781. After this date, Kant wrote several other
important books including the Critique of Practical Reason.
When Kant was writing the Critique of Pure Reason he was very much aware
of the works of philosophers before him. Much of the book is addressed to the
works of Hume, Berkeley and Locke, delivering a refutation of their empirical
philosophies. In particular, the second edition offers a refutation of idealism.
Kant's main goal in this work was to demonstrate that empiricism and
rationalism - i.e. the sense and the reason - both necessarily complement
each other.
Page 4 of 31

Key Concepts
1. The Aesthetics and Intuition
The first part of the Critique contains an analysis of the Aesthetics. This word,
as commonly used, has only an approximate meaning to that intended by
Kant. Although we usually use it to mean an appreciation of beauty and love
of the arts, Kant never intended this particular meaning. In the Critique of
Pure Reason, aesthetics simply refers to the study of the senses as directly
given through perception.
Kant divides the aesthetic into two parts: an intuitive aspect and a conceptual
aspect. That is, any sense perception is given as raw sense data, but
organised and understood through conceptualization.
The word intuition does not have the meaning we usually attach to it as
instinctive knowledge. In Kants technical sense, intuition means the
reception of raw sense data of an experience, prior to the application of any
concept. Intuition is the accepted English translation of the German
Anschauung which gives a much better sense of Kants usage as a view or
a looking at.
Intuition is intended to refer to that which is just given: the state of just
observing something, without any conceptualization of the data. There is no
other intended meaning behind the use of this word.
2. Kant's Copernican Revolution
One of the key consequences of
Kant's philosophy is his Copernican Revolution. This is mentioned in the
preface to the second edition (although nowhere else).
Copernicus was a sixteenth century astronomer who suggested replacing the
old Ptolemaic astronomic model, where the Sun and all the heavenly bodies
are viewed as orbiting about the Earth, with the new model where the planets,
including Earth, are viewed as orbiting the Sun. This new model turns out to
be the far simpler and more accurate model and eventually overturned the
Ptolemaic model in science. Although, in its day, it was a revolutionary theory
and Copernicus was much condemned by the Church in Rome.
Page 5 of 31

Kant's parallel theory was to view the human mind not as a passive vessel
that experiences events, but rather as active in cognition. So, instead of
viewing the mind as the passive centre of observation, Kant viewed the mind
as an active participator in observation. More radically, the consequence of
this theory was that the mind creates and shapes its experiences. The world
that we know is very much a product of the organizing effort of the mind. How
Kant arrived at these conclusions will be explored in this series of lectures.
3. The Nature of Knowledge
Another word which is given only an approximate English translation is
Understanding from the German Verstand. Kant intended this word to refer
simply to the use of reason and concepts in knowledge.
Kant's approach to the analysis of knowledge is based very much on common
sense. He did not believe there was any value in doubting our observations.
If we see a tree, then we see a tree. There is no doubting it. Thus Kant
believed that to postulate sceptical theories, such as there is really no
external world, was a bottomless pit that discredits philosophy.
Kant argued that we cannot seriously doubt our knowledge. The real task is
to explore what is involved in having knowledge. Kant looked to discover the
conditions that must be fulfilled for us to have knowledge. He saw this as an
analytic problem that could be solved by reason.
Kant asks if any of our knowledge has a privileged position. For example, our
notion of causality between events in the universe seems to be presupposed.
That is, it is a notion about the universe, yet it does not need to be shown to
be true by empirical evidence. According to Kant, it seems to be necessarily
true that every event must have a cause.
Kant categorized our knowledge as follows:

A statement is analytic if the predicate of the subject is contained in the

subject. For example, tautologies are analytic statements. For
example, every bachelor is unmarried is true since the predicate
unmarried is contained in the subject bachelor.

Page 6 of 31

If a statement is not analytic, then the predicate of the statement says

something new about the subject, thus we call such statements
synthetic.

A statement is true a priori if its truth is determined before experience,

or without reference to experience.

A statement is true a
posteriori if its truth follows after experience. That is, its truth can only
be determined with reference to empirical evidence.

All analytic statements are a priori on the grounds that they are logical truths
that are true regardless of our experience. They do not require empirical
evidence to be proved.
All a posteriori statements are synthetic, as they provide added information
from experience, which was not there prior to the experience. So, for
example, if I observe a particular chair is red then this is synthetic as the
predicate 'is red' is not in the notion of the subject 'chair'.
The question remains, however, whether there are any synthetic statements
that are a priori. Kant argued that there are and gives the idea of causality as
an example of this.
4. Synthetic A Priori Statements
Kant argued that philosophy was at its most interesting when dealing with
synthetic a priori statements.
In fact, philosophy must be synthetic a priori.
This was counter to the views of many empiricists of the time. Hume denied
that synthetic a priori statements were possible. However, Kant challenged
this by arguing that ironically Hume's denial is itself synthetic a priori (this
argument anticipated the similar argument used against the logical positivist
Verification Principle later this century: how do you verify the Verification
Principle?).
Kant argued that the synthetic a priori was essential because it was a part of
our cognitive equipment. Synthetic a priori truths are those essential truths
that are necessary conditions for knowledge to be possible at all.
Page 7 of 31

This is where Kant's Copernican Revolution comes in. The mind is active in
knowledge, and the synthetic a priori is how we have that active role.
5. Phenomena and Noumena
The phenomenal world refers to the world as it appears to each of us from our
own personal perspective. For Kant, the real world is just this phenomenal
world that we perceive and conceptualize.
We can broaden our perspective to the general human point of view, and it is
from this position that we have an appreciation for the notion of objectivity.
The objective world is constructed from our human and cultural consensus
and shared knowledge. Yet ultimately, we cannot break out of our own
individual perspective. We always perceive our world from our own individual
point of view.
The phenomenal world is in contrast to what Kant calls the noumenal world
consisting of things-in-themselves that exist for themselves independently of
our perceiving them. The thing-in-itself is the thing beyond our experience,
yet it is what our phenomenal knowledge is about.
Kant argues that we can never know this noumenal world. It is forever out of
our reach because we cannot step out of our perspective on the world.
A consequence of Kant's theory of phenomena and noumena is that the world
we know and live in is the phenomenal world that our own minds organize
and synthesize from the multiplicity of data. If I see a tree, then that tree
exists because it can be seen (and touched, etc.). It is essentially
phenomenal, not noumenal. Kant supposes a thing-in-itself, beyond our
experience, which gives rise to the phenomenon of the tree, but we cannot
call this a tree-in-itself since the application of concepts such as tree is
limited to phenomena. Beyond our own experience, their application makes
no sense. There can be no tree-in-itself.
Thus the limits of the world are only as limited as my ability to actively
conceptualize and understand the world. This is reminiscent of the line "I
never had the blues until I knew the words".
We have only touched the surface of this topic. More will be said about the
noumenal world in later lectures.
Page 8 of 31

Lecture 2: TRANSCENDENTAL KNOWLEDGE

The Transcendental Deduction
The transcendental deduction is a method which is characteristic of Kant's
arguments in the Critique of Pure Reason.
By the word transcendent, Kant means that which is beyond experience. By
transcendental he intends knowledge about our having knowledge, or "our
mode of cognition". Thus the two words have slightly different meanings for
Kant.
The transcendental deduction is a logical deduction from the two premises
(1)

Only if A then B,

(2)

B from which we can infer

(3)

A.

Kant uses this syllogism to deduce the necessary conditions of experience.

Thus premise (2) denotes our having an experience and premise (1) is the
necessary condition for having that experience. Since both are true, the
transcendental element A in step (3) must follow.
Kant uses this method to discover the nature of knowledge or that which is
pre-supposed in our having knowledge.
It is important to understand that Kants method is deductive. It does not
involve psychological analysis, which is empirical, at least in the modern
sense. Since part of Kants task is to discover the faculties of human
understanding, it is tempting to refer to Kants philosophy as a transcendental
psychology, but this would be misleading. Philosophy cannot make use of
empirical methods as this would lead to a vicious circle. That is, since we are
trying to discover and justify how we come to have empirical knowledge, it is
no use trying to use empirical knowledge to do this.
An example of transcendental deduction, given by Kant, is the necessity of
the unity of the self across experience. That is, only if there is a single unified
observer across the whole of an experience, can it be experienced. So, take

Page 9 of 31

the example of the temporal experience of a piece of music. The syllogism

would be:
(1) Only if there is a unity of the self across time, can I experience music,
(2) I can experience a piece of music therefore
(3) There is a unity of the self across time.

Pure and Empirical Knowledge

Concepts are referred to as pure if they are abstracted from experience and
are not directly empirical in nature. This is the case for transcendental
knowledge.
Kant states that "though all our knowledge begins in experience, it by no means
follows that all arises out of experience". In this Kant is alluding to
transcendental knowledge. Transcendental knowledge is not of experience
itself, but it cannot be true without experience.
So in the transcendental deduction, described in the previous section, unless
premise (2), experience, is true, we cannot conclude the transcendental
premise (3). But Kant also argues that without the minds ability to organize
and conceptualize experience, we cannot have any experience.
Thus on the one hand Kant is conceding to the arguments of empiricist
thinkers, such as Hume, who claim that all knowledge begins in experience,
but on the other hand he also concedes to rationalists, such as Leibniz, that
ideas and thought are essential to knowledge. Kant's theory is a synthesis of
these two philosophical camps.
Kant provides some terms to encompass this theory.

Sensibility is the means by which we have intuitions. Sensibility is

receptive, in
that intuitions are immediately given to mind.

Page 10 of 31

Understanding is our mental faculty to conceptualize the manifold of

intuitions given by sensibility. Understanding is an active and
imaginative process of mind.

Both sensibility and understanding are needed to make sense of and

experience the world.

All phenomena of experience are given in terms of matter and form.

The matter is the raw sensation and form is the way we grasp that
matter. For example, space is the form of a visual experience and
colour and brightness are the matter.

Kant distinguishes form from concept. Form is the structure by which we

perceive phenomena, whilst concepts are the means by which we understand
and categorize phenomena to gain knowledge. Form is part of the intuition,
whilst concepts may be learnt and are applied to intuition to make sense of
them.

The Forms of Space and Time

Space and time are the forms by which we perceive the world. Space and
time are neither empirical data, nor concepts. They are the way we
experience the world.
We can imagine space and time independently of experience thus they stand
beyond experience.
Kant argues that they are not learnt, therefore they are not concepts. That
is, the way we use concepts is driven by experience, so one culture may
conceptualize the world differently to another. Yet space and time are
necessary forms in any culture.
Furthermore, spaces and moments of time are part of the notion of space
and time. This is not the case for concepts (e.g. the concept of horses does
not contain particular examples of horses themselves).
Space and time are necessary conditions for our having experience. As such
they do not need to be proved, beyond the simple fact that we have
experiences.
Page 11 of 31

Kant argues that space and time are empirically real, but by using our
method of transcendental examination - characterized by Kant's Copernican
Revolution - we also understand that space and time do not represent
properties of things-in-themselves. Rather, they are part of the way that we
perceive the world. This is an example of the distinction that Kant draws
between empirical objectivity and transcendental subjectivity. It also
demonstrates the unity of these two notions.

Space and time have

empirical objectivity since they are a necessary precondition for
experiencing (empirically) the world objectively.

Space and time have transcendental subjectivity since they are forms
through which the mind understands the world.

Time is the continuity and ordering of experience. Space is the form of

appearance. Space is not discursive: there is only one space. It is an
infinitely given magnitude.
Geometry is the science for studying space and relations in space. As such
geometry is synthetic a priori. This view is in contrast to the analytic school of
mathematics that attempts to found all mathematics in logic.
It may be argued, against Kant, that space is not a necessarily given form. It
may be argued that the development of non-Euclidean geometries shows how
we can learn to conceptualize space in a different way and how Kant's own
Euclidean view of space was itself limited. However, in Kant's defence, this
claim can be countered by arguing that, nevertheless, there is a fundamental
way we, as humans, perceive the world in space, and that this is not affected
by modern developments. Thus, nonEuclidean geometries are cultural
devices that we use to refine our understanding of the world at an objective
level, not at the experiential level. The form of experience is still the basic
spatial form that Kant was familiar with and we are all familiar with. This does
not make non-Euclidean geometries less real, as such concepts are part of
the way the world is, in the context of Kant's philosophy.

Page 12 of 31

Lecture 3: LOGIC
Logical Methods
The understanding is our faculty to think about intuitions and so to form
concepts. Kant states that understanding is essential since knowledge must
always involve the two components: intuition and concept. "Thoughts without
content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind" (A51/B75).
Kant presents Logic as the science of the laws of understanding. He divides
it into three categories: General Logic, Particular Logic, and Transcendental
Logic.

General Logic is the study of the understanding in general. That is,

understanding of empirical intuitions in forming concepts.

(1) Particular Logic is the logic that pertains to a particular area of

knowledge. For example, there would be a logic of scientific
discovery. Such logics are organons for these fields of knowledge;
that is, they are the rules and methods used in these fields. Kant
says that Particular Logic is descriptive and analytic. It does not
precede its subject; it is a reflection of the methodology of a mature
subject area.

Transcendental Logic is the study of pure understanding, without

reference to experience. Thus Transcendental Logic is the science of
the pure concepts of understanding. A consequence of this is that
Transcendental Logic is the study of the origin, the extent, and the
objective validity of pure understanding.

The philosopher is mainly interested in the Transcendental Logic.

Kant makes reference to the Dialectic method of logic. He describes it as an
attempt to infer empirical truth using pure logic. He dismisses the Dialectic as
a logic of illusion and sophistry. Thus, in the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant
makes reference to the Dialectic only as a critique of the method.
Instead, Kant proposes the Analytic as the proper method of logic. The
Analytic is the method of dissecting our faculty of understanding and reason
into their elements. Kant is not interested in the analysis of concepts in
Page 13 of 31

general. This is not the proper study of philosophy. Kant means to analyse
only those concepts that are necessarily in the nature of reason and
knowledge. Thus philosophical analysis should only be about the pure
concepts of the understanding, free from the empirical conditions attached to
them.
In answer to the question "What is truth?", Kant asserts that some questions
are just absurd since any answer to them would be nonsensical. This is one
of them. It is part of the art of philosophy to distinguish the proper questions
from the meaningless questions. Kant gives a simple definition of truth as
the "accordance of the cognition with its object", and suggests that the
question "What is truth?" is absurd (if it is not simply that definition) because
its answer would require a universal criterion of truth that would contradict this
definition which tells us that the truth of a cognition can only be ascertained
with respect to its particular object, not by universal criteria. Note however
that Kant does state that such a universal criterion is possible for the case of
pure cognitions.

The Synthesis of Concepts

As intuitions rest on the function of affection upon the mind by sensibility, so
concepts rest on the function of unifying and generalizing upon the manifold
representations that are given to the mind.
This act of conceptualizing (i.e. the act of unification of disparate
representations) is performed through the understanding mind, and is referred
to as the synthesis of representations. Imagination is the faculty of mind
which is able to generate syntheses and is essential for us to have knowledge
at all. The imagination is able to hold concepts, compare representations,
and perform such functions necessary for synthesis.
Kant introduces the notion of judgement. He does not intend the word to
have any moral connotations. It is simply meant to refer to that knowledge
about objects which is derived from concepts. For example, the statement
"this is a table" is a judgement based on the concept "table" and the series of
sensory intuition of which the "this" refers to.
Because the learning and application of concepts rest on a function of the
mind, it follows that judgements are mediated knowledge. That is, they do not
Page 14 of 31

have a direct connection to their subject. The function of understanding

mediates between subject and judgement.
Notice that the range of concepts that are entertained in our minds is only
limited by the power of imagination. However, the application of a concept is
restricted by the representations given in the manifold intuitions. So, for
example, it may be easy to imagine a unicorn, but this does not mean they
can be found in the real world. However, it is because of this restriction, that
it is wrong to characterize Kant as claiming that the world is in some way
constructed by mind. It is more correct to say the world is interpreted by mind.
Hence, Kants philosophy is only a form of idealism in this weak sense.
The Categories
Kant presents the categories as the pure concepts of the understanding. He
derives twelve such categories. They are pure in the sense that they do not
refer directly to experience, but are concepts superimposed on empirical
content.
The categories form the rules by which synthesis of concepts can be
achieved. They are necessary conditions of acts of synthesis.
Kant derives the categories by using transcendental deduction. Thus the
categories are necessary conditions for us to have knowledge.
It should be noted that the categories are not about the world of things-inthemselves (i.e. the noumenal world), but are only true of our understanding
of the world. Thus the category of causality only holds true of the world as it
is represented and within our understanding.
An apt metaphor is as follows. When fishing, the size of fish one catches is
dependent on the size of hole in the net used to catch them. Thus big holes
will mean only big fish are caught. However, just because we only catch big
fish, it does not mean that there are no little fish in the ocean. Thus, Kant is
saying that the categories are necessary conditions which are also restrictions
on our knowledge of the world. We are necessarily bound, or trapped, within
the categorical framework with which we come to know the world. Yet, there
may be more to the world than what we are capable of perceiving.

Page 15 of 31

Lecture 4: DEDUCTION OF THE CATEGORIES

Stages of Understanding
Kant describes the understanding as an intellectual faculty that is
spontaneous, active and creative in forming concepts. Understanding is always
mediate. Understanding can be contrasted with sensibility which is sensuous,
passive and receptive. Yet the intuitions given by sensibility provide us with
our immediate impressions of the external world.
The understanding is two-fold:
a) it is the faculty of conceptualization,
b) it is the faculty of
judgement, being the application of concepts to objects.
Kant derives three stages to the process of understanding.
1.

Synopsis

Experiencing a manifold of intuitions

together.

2.

Imagination

Bringing together, holding and comparing

impressions across the range of our
experience.

3.

Recognition

The representation of objects of experience

by concepts.

These three stages are ordered so imagination is dependent on the synopsis,

and recognition is dependent on the imagination, but they are simultaneous in
time. The stages represent a logical dependency, not a temporal one.
These stages of understanding are true of the most complex scientific
theories, and also of very simple statements, such as "This is a tree" formed
when perceiving a tree.
The Method For Deducing The Categories
The rationalist philosophers thought of categories such as substance and
causality as innate knowledge, the building blocks of all knowledge. The
empiricists thought of them as rules or theorems that could be arrived at by
empirical analysis. So, for example, Hume thought that causality was an
empirical concept that we arrive at by habit. Kant disagreed with both of
Page 16 of 31

these views. He says that the categories are a means by which we know
things about the world. He used the transcendental deduction to establish
them.
Kant was critical of the empiricists
Locke and Hume. He writes that Locke is "extravagant" in his attempt to
show that pure concepts (ie categories) could be derived empirically. He
writes of Hume that, though he realized correctly that they could not be
derived so, he remained "sceptical" since he was unable to see that pure
concepts could be deduced.
The transcendental deduction of categories is a subjective task, yet the
deduction provides for the categories an objective validity.
Transcendental Synthesis of Apperception
Kant uses the term apperception to denote experience coming together in the
transcendental unity of self-consciousness. He argues that this
transcendental unity of experience must hold, since without it we would not be
able to have any synthesis of intuitions. That is, for a manifold of separate
intuitions to come together to form a single concept, there must be a unified
cognitive self to perceive and bring together the disparate intuitions.
For example, when seeing an elephant, one may see four legs, a trunk, two
ears, a body, a tail, and so on; that is, a disparate set of components. To see
them all as a whole elephant requires that there be a single unified observer:
the transcendental self. If the self were not unified it would be several distinct
consciousnesses, each perceiving just one part of the presented phenomena
and the concept of the whole elephant would never arise.
Note that this argument for the transcendental unity is achieved through the
transcendental deduction. That is:
(1) Only if there is transcendental unity can synthesis of concepts be
achieved,
(2) I experience the synthesis of concepts (e.g. the concept of the elephant) in
the world, therefore,
(3) There is transcendental unity.
Page 17 of 31

Kant's notion of the transcendental unity is the same as the 'I' we refer to that
perceives and understands the world around it. Many have found this
transcendental 'I' difficult to comprehend because it does not seem to relate to
the bodily self that we are familiar with. It seems a ghostly, disembodied
representation of the self. Indeed Kant considered the transcendental 'I' to be
distinct from the bodily or the psychological person. We shall look at this
more closely in the next lecture.
Substance and causality are two of the twelve categories derived by Kant. In
these lectures we will focus on these two in particular, as these two concepts
were of importance to the rationalist philosophers. It will be useful to compare
Kant's approach to theirs.
Substance and causality are ways that we organize the data we receive
through intuitions. They are only necessary for understanding. We can
imagine the world of intuitions without them. However, Kant says that if we
did not have and use these categories the world would appear to us as a
rhapsody of experience, "something less than a dream".
Categories are rules which provide a relation between predicate and subject
in a statement. For example, in the statement "All bodies are divisible" it is
difficult to determine which is the predicate and which is the subject, for the
statement could equally be written as "There exists a divisible thing which is a
body, for all bodies." Which is the subject: "divisible thing" or "body"? By
merely using logic we cannot tell. Only by using the categories can we
decide, for the categories provide the proper relations between
representations. So, with this example, based on the category of substance,
we determine that "body" must be the subject, since it is substance, and
"divisible" is thus the predicate.

Page 18 of 31

Lecture 5: CONCEPTS AND OBJECTS

The Cognitive and Empirical 'I'
The transcendental synthesis of apperception is the cognitive 'I', whereby all
our intuitions are understood together meaningfully. The cognitive 'I' should
not be confused with the person. A person is a psychological, thus empirical,
self formed of memories, body image, personality and so on. This may be
referred to as the empirical 'I'. In Descartes' sceptical philosophy, the
assumption was made that the cognitive 'I' and empirical 'I' were one and the
same thing. From Kant's point of view, this was the error which was the
source of his scepticism.
A consequence of Kants view is that the empirical 'I' is phenomenal, just like
any other empirical object. Thus the empirical 'I' is only ourselves as we
appear to ourselves. Ultimately, our real self remains an unknown noumenal
self. For example, if I experience anger, it is only the impression of anger that
I have. This outcome of Kant's view seems to be nonintuitive, in the sense
that we believe that we have direct awareness of our own characteristics.
However, it turns out that modern psychology, following Freud, has revealed
that much of our self is not directly known to us, remaining below the directly
conscious level. Quite often we cannot be sure what motivates us. This new
insight vindicates Kant's analysis of the empirical self.
Many philosophers have been unhappy with Kant's, almost ghostly, concept
of the cognitive 'I'. They have attempted to embody the concept. Marx
formulated it in materialist terms: man's consciousness stands in relation to
his economic and social conditions. Nietzsche stressed the animal side of
the self and that our animal instincts always influence the way we think and
understand the world. But for Kant, the cognitive 'I' is a pure notion which is
independent of psychological state. For example, the cognitive 'I' does not
get headaches or experience elation: these are properties of the empirical 'I'.
The cognitive 'I' only stands in relation to our understanding. It is a
necessary pre-supposition of knowledge.
The Limits of The Categories
The categories are the rules by which we understand the world given through
intuitions. As such, they cannot be applied beyond experience to formulate
knowledge. For example, Kant said that statements about God, not being
Page 19 of 31

based on experience, could never be derived from the categories, and as

such were not knowledge proper. He suggests that such statements are
simply beliefs. This was in opposition to the rationalist philosophers who
attempted to derive a proof of Gods existence using dialectic logic. At the
time, the Roman Church were unhappy with Kant's conclusion. However,
later, other philosophers, like Kierkegaard, saw that Kant's conclusion was
satisfactory since it would not be correct for there to be a proof of God. God
must remain elusive and belief should be based on faith.
The Critique of Pure Reason was written by Kant in order to draw the
boundaries of the range and limitations of reason. The second half of the
Critique is more concerned with these limits and explores those aspects of
reason whereby it is drawn into the logic of illusion. Kant stresses that there
are perfectly meaningful statements and questions which have a nature that is
fundamentally paradoxical, in that both their affirmation and their negation are
false. He calls such statements antinomies. An example is 'Does time have a
beginning?' which Kant shows is false for both the answer 'yes' and 'no'.

Objects
Objects are conceived through the faculty of understanding using the
categories. It is by holding our experience in terms of objects that prevents
our knowledge being haphazard and arbitrary. We receive intuitions and we
synthesize these intuitions, through the categories, into concepts of objects.
The categories are necessary a priori rules that impose the way that the
intuitions must come together as objects in space. This act of synthesis is
spontaneous.
As intuitions are compelled to be viewed in particular relations as objects by
the categories, it follows that the categories are the intellectual form of all
such knowledge about objects.
Events can be conceived in a similar way, except in relation to time, rather
than space. We are compelled to conceptualize events in a certain way
because of the rules of the categories in our faculty of understanding.
Thus objects are just a question of experience. Their sensuality is presented
in the manifold of intuitions, yet their relational conception is given by the
understanding.
Page 20 of 31

Laws of nature about our world of objects and events are also formulated as
the aggregate of experience, and this aggregation is achieved in the
understanding. Thus, the laws of nature are not out there in the things-inthemselves, but only within the context of our understanding of the world.
The categories provide the possibility of synthesis of the laws of nature.
Thus, we derive the laws of nature from the manifold of intuitions in
understanding. Thus, if laws of nature have any objectivity then it is only by
consensus to agree to the truth of laws. Again, this is an example of
objectivity through intersubjectivity (being the interaction by communication of
disparate individuals).
This analysis of object shows that the unity of apperception arising from the
concept of objects is an objective unity.

Page 21 of 31

Lecture 6: APPLICATION OF THE CATEGORIES

The Limits of the Possibilities of Experience
The categories only have meaning and significance in relation to intuitions to
which they apply. But, equally, the categories present conditions of the
possibility of experience. This is because they are the rules, and the only
rules, by which we can understand the world. Therefore it is only according to
the categories that we can experience the world.
For example, if I propose the concept of intangible spirits that fly around in
space around me, such a concept is unintelligible since it does not conform to
the rules of categories. That is, there is no way for us to make sense of such
a concept in empirical application.
This limitation is due only to the peculiarity of the categories that we have as
humans. It is possible to imagine a race of other intelligent beings
somewhere else in the Universe that might have a different set of
categories.
Ultimately, then, the categories provide laws a priori, under which all our
natural laws of the physical world must sit. Thus the categories are limits to
our knowledge, and therefore also limits of our world.
The Faculties of Cognition
There are three faculties of cognition: the understanding, judgement and
reason.
Understanding gives rise to concepts, the faculty of judgement gives rise to
judgements and reason gives rise to conclusions. These three faculties are
the proper area of study of general logic.
Kant terms the application of a concept to an object of intuition, the
subsumption of the object under the concept. This subsumption is thus a
judgement.
Kant says there is a distinction between knowing concepts and applying them
in judgements. That is, the concept, in abstract, is distinct from the concept
as applied in any concrete example.

Page 22 of 31

Therefore it is possible to be learned, i.e. in possession of a great number of

useful concepts, yet be stupid, in the sense that one finds it difficult or
impossible to apply these concepts properly. Kant sets the greatest virtue in
the ability to apply, as he suggests that it is always possible to learn more
concepts, but never possible to learn how to apply them effectively. This is
because the faculty of judgement is a purely innate quality.
Although empirical judgements require a level of innate ability to be
constructed, Kant says that this is not true for transcendental judgements,
which are judgements about the way we understand the world.
Transcendental judgements can specify a priori the situations to which their
concepts, ie the categories, can apply.
The Schematism of the Pure Concepts of Understanding
This section (A137/B176) of the Critique of Pure Reason can be considered
the inner sanctum of the work. It is the heart of the enterprise, within which
Kant presents the necessary conditions by which we can transcendentally
deduce the categories from experience.
There is a general philosophical problem about how we can represent
concepts to ourselves, in the abstract, and further how we can come to
recognise those abstract concepts in objects.
For example, there is no single image which will fit the general concept of a
dog. I may imagine a dog, but this will always be a particular kind of dog, say
an Alsatian or a Greyhound, and so on. Thus the general concept of a dog
cannot be imagined. Nor is the concept a simple composite of these images
because each of the images is only a particular example, and together are not
sufficient to represent the concept of dog, in general, since there is bound to
be many dogs we will not have seen.
Kant answers this question by saying that concepts exist through schemas,
which are rules of how they may be applied. These schemas, then, are
agents for the application of concepts to object. The schemas, themselves,
must be pure; that is, they should not be empirical. But they must also bridge
the gap between the intellectual concepts, in abstract, and sensuous objects.
Thus the only candidates for this task are the pure forms of intuition, which
are at once pure and also the structure of experience. In particular, Kant

Page 23 of 31

argues that the pure form of time is the schema that mediates the
subsumption of objects under concepts.
A consequence of this result is that it is only through time that we can
understand and perceive the world, and so all our experience must by
necessity be temporal.
This then is the first transcendental deduction, in two steps:
(1a)
Only if we have the form of time, can we subsume objects under
concepts;
(1b)
Only if we can subsume objects under concepts, can we
experience the world;
(2) We experience the world; therefore
(3) We must have the form of time.
Kant goes on to define the categories of substance and causality as further
schemas in relation to time as follows.

Substance is the permanence of objects within time.

Causality is the following, or succession, of changing events in time.

It is only with respect to permanence that change can occur, for we know that
changes must always occur in relation to a something which remains
permanent. For example, if someone, say Fred, has a haircut, it is usual to
say that Fred is something that is permanent, and the haircut is a change that
has occurred to him. It makes no sense to say that since the haircut he is a
different something from the Fred before the haircut. Nor does it make sense
to refer to the haircut in the abstract without relation to Fred. That is, the
haircut is essentially a process happening to Fred. Consequently substance,
as defined as permanence of object, is a necessary condition of the
experience of change.
Causality is this succession of changes in time. Without succession, it would
be impossible to perceive time, for time is simply the form by which
successive events are presented. This gives us the second transcendental
deduction:

Page 24 of 31

(1)
Only if we have the categories of substance (as permanence) and
causality (as succession of events), can we experience time;
(2)
We have the form of time (from the first deduction); therefore
(3)

We have the categories of substance and causality.

The schemata of the pure concepts (i.e. categories) are the only grounds for
understanding. They are the necessary organising principles and it is only
through schemata that we represent experience with concepts, in general,
and not just as a collection of impressions.

Page 25 of 31

Lectures 7 & 8: THE ANALOGIES

The Analogies
The three Analogies of the Critique of Pure Reason are proofs of the
necessary conditions of the categories of substance, causality and
community. Substance and causality formed the battlefield between
rationalism and empiricism. The former taking them for granted as innate
properties, and the latter denying their innate nature beyond experience.
Kant shows that they are necessary conditions of the understanding, and so
are a priori, but only meaningful in relation to experience, and so are
synthetic.
The arguments used in the Analogies follow from an application of the pure
forms of intuition. That is, the categories are derived as conditions of our
experiencing space and time.
The first analogy is the Principle of the Permanence of Substance and
explores the problem of envisaging time. How are we to present the notion of
time in general? Kant shows that experience is always apprehended in
succession. It follows from the act of knowing this succession follows from the
rules provided by the categories of substance and causality. We just could
not understand temporal events without these categories.
Kant points out that sometimes these sequences are not simply temporal, but
are logical. For example, consider a heavy metal ball indenting a cushion. It
is obvious that the causality is directed from the heavy ball to the cushion, and
that this causality is immediate. According to Kant, the reason that we see
the necessity of the heavy ball causing the indentation in the cushion, and not
vice versa, is because of the categories we use.
The categories are only meaningful in relation to temporal experience. Thus,
as the categories are our only forms of thought, it follows that we can only
have experiences in time. Of the categories, substance is that which persists
in time, and causality is the necessary ordering of changes in time.
The Analogies of experience show how the categories make experience
possible. Therefore they are a central argument within Kant's system.

Page 26 of 31

The Refutation of Idealism

Kant considered it important to give a refutation of material idealism. This is
the idealism which follows from a materialist or empiricist account of the
world. He identifies idealism in two ways:
1. the problematic idealism of Descartes;
2. the dogmatic idealism of Berkeley.
The first espouses a philosophy that is doubtful of the existence of external
objects, and that such existence is indemonstrable. The second makes a
stronger claim that the notion of external objects is wholly false and
impossible.
Kant rejected both these sceptical conclusions.
Firstly, Kant rejected the empiricist foundations that lead to them. Empiricists
claim that space and time is a structure external to perception. Within such a
framework, it is easy to argue for dogmatic idealism. However, Kant shows
that space and time are forms of sensibility and so the usual sceptical
arguments do not follow.
Secondly, to counter Descartes scepticism, Kant argues that without an
objective world, there is no way to determine a subject experiencing and living
in the world. That is, without a means to experience distinct objects, I cannot
find myself in this world. Since it is clear that I do exist and
Descartes takes this as indubitable it follows that an external objective world
must exist too. That is, Kant shows that there must be an external world that
brings forth the appearances in consciousness. Kant insists that there must
be something that appears. We must be modest, knowing that we can see it
only in a certain way, depending on our particular perspective, but it must be
there as an objective reality nonetheless.
Kants argument is straightforwardly dialectical. His reply to the Cartesian who
says I know I exist but I am not sure about the table, is: If it were not
possible to have empirical knowledge of the table, it would be impossible to
have empirical knowledge of yourself as a subject of experience.

Page 27 of 31

In other words you could not know the truth of, I seem to see a table in front
of me where previously there was no table and other similar propositions.
The I need not be self-conscious in the full sense that it involves
recognizing others, as Strawson suggests. Arguably it neednt even have a
body, although Kant never considers this possibility. It is not even necessary
for the I to trace a single path in space and time. All that is necessary is the
idea of limitation implied by a subjective view. The limitation implies a wider
world within which we are limited.
Whatever the form of limitation, there will be a story to tell about how things
seem to the subject at different times which coheres with an empirical theory
about the places actually visited by the subject at those times. That theory in
turn presupposes a theory about how things are both in the vicinity of the
subject and elsewhere: a theory of the world as objects distributed in space.
(I am grateful to Dr. Geoffrey Klempner for these additional notes).
The Refutation of Idealism is one of the more important passages in the
Critique. The proof is only half a page long (B275) but this brevity hides its
underlying difficulty. It would seem that Kant himself was not totally satisfied
with his account, since he added two pages of additional notes on the proof
along with a long footnote in the
Preface (Bxl) about the refutation.

Page 28 of 31

Lecture 9: NOUMENA
Noumena
Our knowledge is ultimately limited by our faculty of understanding through
the categories. This culmination of Kant's philosophy distinguished it from the
previous schools of empiricism and rationalism which conceived of no such
limits. This limited knowledge is the everyday knowledge of our phenomenal
world.
The phenomenal world is the limit of our knowledge. We cannot go beyond it
to have knowledge of that which gives rise to phenomena: that is, the thingsin-themselves. In the Critique of Pure Reason, there is an inconsistency in
the use of the term 'noumena', but usually the term 'thing-in-itself' is meant to
denote an object whilst 'noumena' is the thought of the thing-in-itself.
Thus the noumena stands as an intellectual marker of that which we cannot
know, but stands beyond phenomena.
Many thinkers were unhappy with Kant's notion of the unknowable things-inthemselves. If we do not know anything about them, how do we know they
are there at all? And, how do noumena relate to the phenomena? Since
causality is a category applicable only in the world of experience, it means
that causality cannot be proposed as the relation between the two. Unable to
find satisfactory answers to these questions, some followers of Kant revised
his notion of noumena.
The German idealist Hegel removed noumena altogether and took
phenomena as the only reality within an Absolute spirit.
Others have taken noumena to be the objects of modern physics. However,
this is not convincing, as ultimately evidence of the objects of physics, e.g.
atoms, can still be given phenomenally, and we conceive concepts within the
atomic realm. These properties were necessarily excluded from what Kant
termed noumena. Kant's notion of the noumena was a negative one:
noumena is the thinking about that ultimate reality that we can never know. It
is the thought of the limitation of understanding.

Page 29 of 31

Our phenomenal knowledge is transcendentally valid, but also objectively

real. Yet, beyond the phenomena there must be a noumenal world of
unknowable things-in-themselves.

Page 30 of 31

Bibliography
This is a brief list of books I have found useful in understanding the Critique
of Pure Reason.

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, translated by

Norman Kemp Smith (1929)
The recommended English translation of both editions.

Roger Scruton, Kant

(OUP 1982)
This very short book clearly introduces the main points of Kants
philosophy.

P.F. Strawson, The

Bounds of Sense (1966)
A
thorough commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason, providing
insight into many areas of Kants thought. However, Strawsons
commentary is skewed by his unsympathetic analysis of the doctrine of
transcendental idealism. Therefore, Strawson is at pains to understand
Kant without reliance on that framework. However, arguably, without
the context of transcendental idealism, the impact of Kants work
diminishes considerably.

Henry E. Allison, Kants Transcendental Idealism

(1983)
A
thorough and highly technical account of Kants transcendental
idealism, providing both an interpretation and a defence.

Matthew C. Altman, A Companion to Kants

Critique of Pure Reason
(2008)

Page 31 of 31