Second Part — How Is the Science of Nature Possible?
HOW IS THE SCIENCE OF NATURE POSSIBLE?
§14Nature is the existence of things, so far as it is determined according to universal laws. Should nature signify the existence of things in themselves, we could never cognise it either a priori or a posteriori. Not a priori, for how can we know what belongs to things in themselves, since this never can be done by the dissection of our concepts (in analytical judgments)? We do not want to know what is contained in our concept of a thing (for the [concept describes what] belongs to its logical being), but what is in the actuality of the thing superadded to our concept, and by what the thing itself is determined in its existence outside the concept. Our understanding, and the conditions on which alone it can connect the determinations of things in their existence, do not prescribe any rule to things themselves; these do not conform to our understanding, but it must conform itself to them; they must therefore be first given us in order to gather these determinations from them, wherefore they would not be cognised a priori.
A cognition of the nature of things in themselves a posteriori would be equally impossible. For, if experience is to teach us laws, to which the existence of things is subject, these laws, if they regard things in themselves, must belong to them of necessity even outside our experience. But experience teaches us what exists and how it exists, but never that it must necessarily exist so and not otherwise. Experience therefore can never teach us the nature of things in themselves.
§15We nevertheless actually possess a pure science of nature in which are propounded, a priori and with all the necessity requisite to apodeictical propositions, laws to which nature is subject. I need only call to witness that propaedeutic of natural science which, under the title of the universal Science of Nature, precedes all Physics (which is founded upon empirical principles). In it we have Mathematics applied to appearance, and also merely discursive principles (or those derived from concepts), which constitute the philosophical part of the pure cognition of nature. But there are several things in it, which are not quite pure and independent of empirical sources: such as the concept of motion, that of impenetrability (upon which the empirical concept of matter rests), that of inertia, and many others, which prevent its being called a perfectly pure science of nature. Besides, it only refers to objects of the external sense, and therefore does not give an example of a universal science of nature, in the strict sense, for such a science must reduce nature in general, whether it regards the object of the external or that of the internal sense (the object of Physics as well as Psychology), to universal laws. But among the principles of this universal physics there are a few which actually have the required universality; for instance, the propositions that "substance is permanent," and that "every event is determined by a cause according to constant laws," etc. These are actually universal laws of nature, which subsist completely a priori. There is then in fact a pure science of nature, and the question arises, How is it possible?
§16The word "nature" assumes yet another meaning, which determines the object, whereas in the former sense it only denotes the conformity to law [Gesetzmässigkeit] of the determinations of the existence of things generally. If we consider it materialiter (i.e., in the matter that forms its objects) "nature is the complex of all the objects of experience." And with this only are we now concerned, for besides, things which can never be objects of experience, if they must be cognised as to their nature, would oblige us to have recourse to concepts whose meaning could never be given in concreto (by any example of possible experience). Consequently we must form for ourselves a list of concepts of their nature, the reality whereof (i.e., whether they actually refer to objects, or are mere creations of thought) could never be determined. The cognition of what cannot be an object of experience would be hyperphysical, and with things hyperphysical we are here not concerned, but only with the cognition of nature, the actuality of which can be confirmed by experience, though it [the cognition of nature] is possible a priori and precedes all experience.
§17The formal [aspect] of nature in this narrower sense is therefore the conformity to law of all the objects of experience, and so far as it is cognised a priori, their necessary conformity. But it has just been shown that the laws of nature can never be cognised a priori in objects so far as they are considered not in reference to possible experience, but as things in themselves. And our inquiry here extends not to things in themselves (the properties of which we pass by), but to things as objects of possible experience, and the complex of these is what we properly designate as nature. And now I ask, when the possibility of a cognition of nature a priori is in question, whether it is better to arrange the problem thus: How can we cognise a priori that things as objects of experience necessarily conform to law? or thus: How is it possible to cognise a priori the necessary conformity to law of experience itself as regards all its objects generally?
Closely considered, the solution of the problem, represented in either way, amounts, with regard to the pure cognition of nature (which is the point of the question at issue), entirely to the same thing. For the subjective laws, under which alone an empirical cognition of things is possible, hold good of these things, as Objects of possible experience (not as things in themselves, which are not considered here). Either of the following statements means quite the same:
A judgment of observation can never rank as experience, without the law, that "whenever an event is observed, it is always referred to some antecedent, which it follows according to a universal rule."
"Everything, of which experience teaches that it happens, must have a cause."
It is, however, more commendable to choose the first formula. For we can a priori and previous to all given objects have a cognition of those conditions, on which alone experience is possible, but never of the laws to which things may in themselves be subject, without reference to possible experience. We cannot therefore study the nature of things a priori otherwise than by investigating the conditions and the universal (though subjective) laws, under which alone such a cognition as experience (as to mere form) is possible, and we determine accordingly the possibility of things, as objects of experience. For if I should choose the second formula, and seek the conditions a priori, on which nature as an object of experience is possible, I might easily fall into error, and fancy that I was speaking of nature as a thing in itself, and then move round in endless circles, in a vain search for laws concerning things of which nothing is given me.
Accordingly we shall here be concerned with experience only, and the universal conditions of its possibility which are given a priori. Thence we shall determine nature as the whole object of all possible experience. I think it will be understood that I here do not mean the rules of the observation of a nature that is already given, for these already presuppose experience. I do not mean how (through experience) we can study the laws of nature; for these would not then be laws a priori, and would yield us no pure science of nature; but [I mean to ask] how the conditions a priori of the possibility of experience are at the same time the sources from which all the universal laws of nature must be derived.
§18In the first place we must state that, while all judgments of experience (Erfahrungsurtheile) are empirical (i.e., have their ground in immediate sense perception), vice versa, all empirical judgments (empirische Urtheile) are not judgments of experience, but, besides the empirical, and in general besides what is given to the sensuous intuition, particular concepts must yet be superadded—concepts which have their origin quite a priori in the pure understanding, and under which every perception must be first of all subsumed and then by their means changed into experience.{11}
=================================== {11} Empirical judgments (empirische Urtheile) are either mere statements of fact, viz., records of a perception, or statements of a natural law, implying a causal connexion between two facts. The former Kant calls "judgments of perception" (Wahrnehmungsurtheile) the latter "judgments of experience" (Erhfahrungsurtheile).—Ed. ===================================
Empirical judgments, so far as they have objective validity, are judgments of experience; but those which are only subjectively valid, I name mere judgments of perception. The latter require no pure concept of the understanding, but only the logical connexion of perception in a thinking subject. But the former always require, besides the representation of the sensuous intuition, particular concepts originally begotten in the understanding, which produce the objective validity of the judgment of experience.
All our judgments are at first merely judgments of perception; they hold good only for us (i.e., for our subject), and we do not till afterwards give them a new reference (to an object), and desire that they shall always hold good for us and in the same way for everybody else; for when a judgment agrees with an object, all judgments concerning the same object must likewise agree among themselves, and thus the objective validity of the judgment of experience signifies nothing else than its necessary universality of application. And conversely when we have reason to consider a judgment necessarily universal (which never depends upon perception, but upon the pure concept of the understanding, under which the perception is subsumed), we must consider it objective also, that is, that it expresses not merely a reference of our perception to a subject, but a quality of the object. For there would be no reason for the judgments of other men necessarily agreeing with mine, if it were not the unity of the object to which they all refer, and with which they accord; hence they must all agree with one another.
Second Part — How Is the Science of Nature Possible?
HOW IS THE SCIENCE OF NATURE POSSIBLE?
Nature is the existence of things, so far as it is determined according to universal laws. Should nature signify the existence of things in themselves, we could never cognise it either a priori or a posteriori. Not a priori, for how can we know what belongs to things in themselves, since this never can be done by the dissection of our concepts (in analytical judgments)? We do not want to know what is contained in our concept of a thing (for the [concept describes what] belongs to its logical being), but what is in the actuality of the thing superadded to our concept, and by what the thing itself is determined in its existence outside the concept. Our understanding, and the conditions on which alone it can connect the determinations of things in their existence, do not prescribe any rule to things themselves; these do not conform to our understanding, but it must conform itself to them; they must therefore be first given us in order to gather these determinations from them, wherefore they would not be cognised a priori.
A cognition of the nature of things in themselves a posteriori would be equally impossible. For, if experience is to teach us laws, to which the existence of things is subject, these laws, if they regard things in themselves, must belong to them of necessity even outside our experience. But experience teaches us what exists and how it exists, but never that it must necessarily exist so and not otherwise. Experience therefore can never teach us the nature of things in themselves.
Naturist dasDaseinder Dinge, so fern es nach allgemeinen Gesetzen bestimmt ist. Sollte Natur das Dasein der Dingean sich selbstbedeuten, so würden wir sie niemals, weder a priori noch a posteriori, erkennen können. Nicht a priori, denn wie wollen wir wissen, was den Dingen an sich selbst zukomme, da dieses niemals durch Zergliederung unserer Begriffe (analytische Sätze) geschehen kann, weil ich nicht wissen will, was in meinem Begriffe von einem Dinge enthalten sei (denn das gehört zu seinem logischen Wesen), sondern was in der Wirklichkeit des Dinges zu diesem Begriff hinzukomme, und wodurch das Ding selbst in seinem Dasein außer meinem Begriffe bestimmt sei. Mein Verstand, und die Bedingungen, unter denen er allein die Bestimmungen der Dinge in ihrem Dasein verknüpfen kann, schreibt den Dingen selbst keine Regel vor; diese richten sich nicht nach meinem Verstande, sondern mein Verstand müßte sich nach ihnen richten; sie müßten also mir vorher gegeben sein, um diese Bestimmungen von ihnen abzunehmen, alsdenn aber wären sie nicht a priori er kannt.
Auch a posteriori wäre eine solche Erkenntnis der Natur der Dinge an sich selbst unmöglich. Denn wenn mich ErfahrungGesetze, unter denen das Dasein der Dinge steht, lehren soll, so müßten diese, so fern sie Dinge an sich selbst betreffen, auch außer meiner Erfahrung ihnennotwendigzukommen. Nun lehrt mich die Erfahrung zwar, was dasei, und wie es sei, niemals aber, daß es notwendiger Weise so und nicht anders sein müsse. Also kann sie die Natur der Dinge an sich selbst niemals lehren.
We nevertheless actually possess a pure science of nature in which are propounded, a priori and with all the necessity requisite to apodeictical propositions, laws to which nature is subject. I need only call to witness that propaedeutic of natural science which, under the title of the universal Science of Nature, precedes all Physics (which is founded upon empirical principles). In it we have Mathematics applied to appearance, and also merely discursive principles (or those derived from concepts), which constitute the philosophical part of the pure cognition of nature. But there are several things in it, which are not quite pure and independent of empirical sources: such as the concept of motion, that of impenetrability (upon which the empirical concept of matter rests), that of inertia, and many others, which prevent its being called a perfectly pure science of nature. Besides, it only refers to objects of the external sense, and therefore does not give an example of a universal science of nature, in the strict sense, for such a science must reduce nature in general, whether it regards the object of the external or that of the internal sense (the object of Physics as well as Psychology), to universal laws. But among the principles of this universal physics there are a few which actually have the required universality; for instance, the propositions that "substance is permanent," and that "every event is determined by a cause according to constant laws," etc. These are actually universal laws of nature, which subsist completely a priori. There is then in fact a pure science of nature, and the question arises, How is it possible?
Nun sind wir gleichwohl wirklich im Besitze einer reinen Naturwissenschaft, die a priori und mit aller derjenigen Notwendigkeit, welche zu apodiktischen Sätzen erforderlich ist Gesetze vorträgt, unter denen die Natur steht. Ich darf hier nur diejenige Propädeutik der Naturlehre, die, unter dem Titel der allgemeinen Naturwissenschaft, vor aller Physik (die auf empirische Prinzipien gegründet ist) vorhergeht, zum Zeugen rufen. Darin findet man Mathematik, angewandt auf Erscheinungen, auch bloß diskursive Grundsätze (aus Begriffen), welche den philosophischen Teil der reinen Naturerkenntnis ausmachen. Allein es ist doch auch manches in ihr, was nicht ganz rein und von Erfahrungsquellen unabhängig ist: als der Begriff derBewegung, derUndurchdringlichkeit(worauf der empirische Begriff der Materie beruht), derTrägheitu.a.m., welche es verhindern, daß sie nicht ganz reine Naturwissenschaft heißen kann; zudem geht sie nur auf die Gegenstände äußerer Sinne, also gibt sie kein Beispiel von einer allgemeinen Naturwissenschaft in strenger Bedeutung, denn die muß die Natur überhaupt, sie mag den Gegenstand äußerer Sinne oder den des innern Sinnes (den Gegenstand der Physik sowohl als Psychologie) betreffen, unter allgemeine Gesetze bringen. Es finden sich aber unter den Grundsätzen jener allgemeinen Physik etliche, die wirklich die Allgemeinheit haben, die wir verlangen, als der Satz:daß die Substanz bleibtund beharrt, daßalles, was geschieht, jederzeitdurch eine Ursachenach beständigen Gesetzen vorherbestimmt sei, u.s.w. Diese sind wirklich allgemeine Naturgesetze, die völlig a priori bestehen. Es gibt also in der Tat eine reine Naturwissenschaft, und nun ist die Frage:wie ist sie möglich?
The word "nature" assumes yet another meaning, which determines the object, whereas in the former sense it only denotes the conformity to law [Gesetzmässigkeit] of the determinations of the existence of things generally. If we consider it materialiter (i.e., in the matter that forms its objects) "nature is the complex of all the objects of experience." And with this only are we now concerned, for besides, things which can never be objects of experience, if they must be cognised as to their nature, would oblige us to have recourse to concepts whose meaning could never be given in concreto (by any example of possible experience). Consequently we must form for ourselves a list of concepts of their nature, the reality whereof (i.e., whether they actually refer to objects, or are mere creations of thought) could never be determined. The cognition of what cannot be an object of experience would be hyperphysical, and with things hyperphysical we are here not concerned, but only with the cognition of nature, the actuality of which can be confirmed by experience, though it [the cognition of nature] is possible a priori and precedes all experience.
Noch nimmt das WortNatureine andre Bedeutung an, die nämlich dasObjektbestimmt, indessen daß in der obigen Bedeutung sie nur dieGesetzmäßigkeitder Bestimmungen des Daseins der Dinge überhaupt andeutete. Natur also materialiter betrachtet ist derInbegriff aller Gegenstände der Erfahrung. Mit dieser haben wir es hier nur zu tun, da ohnedem Dinge, die niemals Gegenstände einer Erfahrung werden können, wenn sie nach ihrer Natur erkannt werden sollten, uns zu Begriffen nötigen würden, deren Bedeutung niemals in concreto (in irgend einem Beispiele einer möglichen Erfahrung) gegeben werden könnte, und von dessen Natur wir uns also lauter Begriffe machen müßten, deren Realität, d.i. ob sie wirklich sich auf Gegenstände beziehen, oder bloße Gedankendinge sind, gar nicht entschieden werden könnte. Was nicht ein Gegenstand der Erfahrung sein kann, dessen Erkenntnis wäre hyperphysisch, und mit dergleichen haben wir hier gar nicht zu tun, sondern mit der Naturerkenntnis, deren Realität durch Erfahrung bestätigt werden kann, ob sie gleich a priori möglich ist, und vor aller Erfahrung vorhergeht.
The formal [aspect] of nature in this narrower sense is therefore the conformity to law of all the objects of experience, and so far as it is cognised a priori, their necessary conformity. But it has just been shown that the laws of nature can never be cognised a priori in objects so far as they are considered not in reference to possible experience, but as things in themselves. And our inquiry here extends not to things in themselves (the properties of which we pass by), but to things as objects of possible experience, and the complex of these is what we properly designate as nature. And now I ask, when the possibility of a cognition of nature a priori is in question, whether it is better to arrange the problem thus: How can we cognise a priori that things as objects of experience necessarily conform to law? or thus: How is it possible to cognise a priori the necessary conformity to law of experience itself as regards all its objects generally?
Closely considered, the solution of the problem, represented in either way, amounts, with regard to the pure cognition of nature (which is the point of the question at issue), entirely to the same thing. For the subjective laws, under which alone an empirical cognition of things is possible, hold good of these things, as Objects of possible experience (not as things in themselves, which are not considered here). Either of the following statements means quite the same:
A judgment of observation can never rank as experience, without the law, that "whenever an event is observed, it is always referred to some antecedent, which it follows according to a universal rule."
"Everything, of which experience teaches that it happens, must have a cause."
It is, however, more commendable to choose the first formula. For we can a priori and previous to all given objects have a cognition of those conditions, on which alone experience is possible, but never of the laws to which things may in themselves be subject, without reference to possible experience. We cannot therefore study the nature of things a priori otherwise than by investigating the conditions and the universal (though subjective) laws, under which alone such a cognition as experience (as to mere form) is possible, and we determine accordingly the possibility of things, as objects of experience. For if I should choose the second formula, and seek the conditions a priori, on which nature as an object of experience is possible, I might easily fall into error, and fancy that I was speaking of nature as a thing in itself, and then move round in endless circles, in a vain search for laws concerning things of which nothing is given me.
Accordingly we shall here be concerned with experience only, and the universal conditions of its possibility which are given a priori. Thence we shall determine nature as the whole object of all possible experience. I think it will be understood that I here do not mean the rules of the observation of a nature that is already given, for these already presuppose experience. I do not mean how (through experience) we can study the laws of nature; for these would not then be laws a priori, and would yield us no pure science of nature; but [I mean to ask] how the conditions a priori of the possibility of experience are at the same time the sources from which all the universal laws of nature must be derived.
DasFormaleder Natur in dieser engern Bedeutung ist also die Gesetzmäßigkeit aller Gegenstände der Erfahrung, und, sofern sie a priori erkannt wird, dienotwendigeGesetzmäßigkeit derselben. Es ist aber eben dargetan: daß die Gesetze der Natur an Gegenständen, so fern sie nicht in Beziehung auf mögliche Erfahrung, sondern als Dinge an sich selbst betrachtet werden, niemals a priori können erkannt werden. Wir haben es aber hier auch nicht mit Dingen an sich selbst (dieser ihre Eigenschaften lassen wir dahin gestellt sein) sondern bloß mit Dingen, als Gegenständen einer möglichen Erfahrung zu tun, und der Inbegriff derselben ist es eigentlich, was wir hier Natur nennen. Und nun frage ich, ob, wenn von der Möglichkeit einer Naturerkenntnis a priori die Rede ist, es besser sei, die Aufgabe so einzurichten: wie ist die notwendige Gesetzmäßigkeitder Dingeals Gegenstände der Erfahrung, oder: wie ist die notwendige Gesetzmäßigkeitder Erfahrungselbst in Ansehung aller ihrer Gegenstände überhaupt a priori zu erkennen möglich?
Beim Lichte besehen, wird die Auflösung der Frage, sie mag auf die eine oder die andre Art vorgestellt sein, in Ansehung der reinen Naturerkenntnis (die eigentlich den Punkt der Quästion ausmacht) ganz und gar auf einerlei hinauslaufen, Denn die subjektiven Gesetze, unter denen allein eine Erfahrungserkenntnis von Dingen möglich ist, gelten auch von diesen Dingen, als Gegenständen einer möglichen Erfahrung (freilich aber nicht von ihnen als Dingen an sich selbst, dergleichen aber hier auch in keine Betrachtung kommen). Es ist gänzlich einerlei, ob ich sage: ohne das Gesetz, daß, wenn eine Begebenheit wahrgenommen wird, sie jederzeit auf etwas, was vorhergeht, bezogen werde, worauf sie nach einer allgemeinen Regel folgt, kann niemals ein Wahrnehmungsurteil vor Erfahrung gelten; oder ob ich mich so ausdrücke: alles, wovon die Erfahrung lehrt, daß es geschieht, muß eine Ursache haben.
Es ist indessen doch schicklicher, die erstere Formel zu wählen. Denn da wir wohl a priori und vor allen gegebenen Gegenständen eine Erkenntnis derjenigen Bedingungen haben können, unter denen allein eine Erfahrung in Ansehung ihrer möglich ist, niemals aber, welchen Gesetzen sie, ohne Beziehung auf mögliche Erfahrung an sich selbst unterworfen sein mögen, so werden wir die Natur der Dinge a priori nicht anders studieren können, als daß wir die Bedingungen und allgemeine (obgleich subjektive) Gesetze erforschen, unter denen allein ein solches Erkenntnis, als Erfahrung, (der bloßen Form nach) möglich ist, und darnach die Möglichkeit der Dinge, als Gegenstände der Erfahrung bestimmen; denn, würde ich die zweite Art des Ausdrucks wählen, und die Bedingungen a priori suchen, unter denen Natur alsGegenstandder Erfahrung möglich ist, so würde ich leichtlich in Mißverstand geraten können, und mir einbilden, ich hätte von der Natur als einem Dinge an sich selbst zu reden, und da würde ich fruchtlos in endlosen Bemühungen herumgetrieben werden, vor Dinge, von denen mir nichts gegeben ist, Gesetze zu suchen.
Wir werden es also hier bloß mit der Erfahrung und den allgemeinen und a priori gegebenen Bedingungen ihrer Möglichkeit zu tun haben, und daraus die Natur, als den ganzen Gegenstand aller möglichen Erfahrung, bestimmen. Ich denke, man werde mich verstehen: daß ich hier nicht die Regeln derBeobachtungeiner Natur, die schon gegeben ist, verstehe, die setzen schon Erfahrung voraus; also nicht, wie wir (durch Erfahrung) der Natur die Gesetze ablernen können, denn diese wären alsdenn nicht Gesetze a priori, und gäben keine reine Naturwissenschaft, sondern wie die Bedingungen a priori von der Möglichkeit der Erfahrung zugleich die Quellen sind, aus denen alle allgemeine Naturgesetze hergeleitet werden müssen.
In the first place we must state that, while all judgments of experience (Erfahrungsurtheile) are empirical (i.e., have their ground in immediate sense perception), vice versa, all empirical judgments (empirische Urtheile) are not judgments of experience, but, besides the empirical, and in general besides what is given to the sensuous intuition, particular concepts must yet be superadded—concepts which have their origin quite a priori in the pure understanding, and under which every perception must be first of all subsumed and then by their means changed into experience.{11}
=================================== {11} Empirical judgments (empirische Urtheile) are either mere statements of fact, viz., records of a perception, or statements of a natural law, implying a causal connexion between two facts. The former Kant calls "judgments of perception" (Wahrnehmungsurtheile) the latter "judgments of experience" (Erhfahrungsurtheile).—Ed. ===================================
Empirical judgments, so far as they have objective validity, are judgments of experience; but those which are only subjectively valid, I name mere judgments of perception. The latter require no pure concept of the understanding, but only the logical connexion of perception in a thinking subject. But the former always require, besides the representation of the sensuous intuition, particular concepts originally begotten in the understanding, which produce the objective validity of the judgment of experience.
All our judgments are at first merely judgments of perception; they hold good only for us (i.e., for our subject), and we do not till afterwards give them a new reference (to an object), and desire that they shall always hold good for us and in the same way for everybody else; for when a judgment agrees with an object, all judgments concerning the same object must likewise agree among themselves, and thus the objective validity of the judgment of experience signifies nothing else than its necessary universality of application. And conversely when we have reason to consider a judgment necessarily universal (which never depends upon perception, but upon the pure concept of the understanding, under which the perception is subsumed), we must consider it objective also, that is, that it expresses not merely a reference of our perception to a subject, but a quality of the object. For there would be no reason for the judgments of other men necessarily agreeing with mine, if it were not the unity of the object to which they all refer, and with which they accord; hence they must all agree with one another.
Wir müssen denn also zuerst bemerken: daß, obgleich alle Erfahrungsurteile empirisch sein, d.i. ihren Grund in der unmittelbaren Wahrnehmung der Sinne haben, dennoch nicht umgekehrt alle empirische Urteile darum Erfahrungsurteile sind, sondern, daß über das Empirische, und überhaupt über das der sinnlichen Anschauung Gegebene, noch besondere Begriffe hinzukommen müssen, die ihren Ursprung gänzlich a priori im reinen Verstande haben, unter die jede Wahrnehmung allererst subsumiert, und dann vermittelst derselben in Erfahrung kann verwandelt werden.
Empirische Urteile, so fern sie objektive Gültigkeit haben, sindErfahrungsurteile; die aber, sonur subjektiv gültigsind, nenne ich bloßeWahrnehmungsurteile. Die letztern bedürfen keines reinen Verstandesbegriffs, sondern nur der logischen Verknüpfung der Wahrnehmungen in einem denkenden Subjekt. Die erstern aber erfordern jederzeit, über die Vorstellungen der sinnlichen Anschauung, noch besondereim Verstande ursprünglich erzeugte Begriffe, welche es eben machen, daß das Erfahrungsurteilobjektiv gültigist.
Alle unsere Urteile sind zuerst bloße Wahrnehmungsurteile: sie gelten bloß vor uns, d.i. vor unser Subjekt, und nur hinten nach geben wir ihnen eine neue Beziehung, nämlich auf ein Objekt, und wollen, daß es auch vor uns jederzeit und eben so vor jedermann gültig sein solle; denn wenn ein Urteil mit einem Gegenstande übereinstimmt, so müssen alle Urteile über denselben Gegenstand auch unter einander übereinstimmen, und so bedeutet die objektive Gültigkeit des Erfahrungsurteils nichts anders, als die notwendige Allgemeingültigkeit desselben. Aber auch umgekehrt, wenn wir Ursache finden, ein Urteil vor notwendig allgemeingültig zu halten (welches niemals auf der Wahrnehmung, sondern dem reinen Verstandesbegriffe beruht, unter dem die Wahrnehmung subsumiert ist), so müssen wir es auch vor objektiv halten, d.i. daß es nicht bloß eine Beziehung der Wahrnehmung auf ein Subjekt, sondern eine Beschaffenheit des Gegenstandes ausdrücke; denn es wäre kein Grund, warum anderer Urteile notwendig mit dem meinigen übereinstimmen müßten, wenn es nicht die Einheit des Gegenstandes wäre, auf den sie sich alle beziehen, mit dem sie übereinstimmen, und daher auch alle unter einander zusammenstimmen müssen.
Page 9 of 27 · Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant , tr. Paul Carus · Project Gutenberg