DEDUCTION OF THE KANTIAN GATEGORIES. 551 
preceding categories. ‘The category of Rationality in Rationality is, therefore, that of 
Cause and Effect. 
362. Rationality, therefore, in the three conditions of intelligence, gives us the three 
categories of Relation: Substance and Accident, Action and Reaction, and Cause and 
Effect, all of which refer, through the rational category of Modality, to the science of the 
Necessary, and particularly to Metaphysical Science. 
363. The twelve categories thus deduced, correspond with the categories of Kant, ex- 
cept in the arrangement of the subdivisions of Quality and Relation. Kant could dis- 
cover no reason for his arrangement, or for the precise number of categories that he pro- 
pounded,* but his mind was eminently analytical, and proceeding in strict accordance 
with the necessary laws of analysis, his researches were crowned with a success nearly as 
complete, as if he had fully perceived the dependence of the result upon those laws. Per- 
haps in no portion of his great works is his genius more evident, than in his development 
of the laws of perceptive unity, with no other guides than his own discernment, and the 
meagre clue afforded by the categories of Aristotle.t 
364. So far as the categories are the representatives of ideas that we have received, 
they belong to our Motivity, and therefore have an objective reference as to their origin. 
If we apply them to the subject through Spontaneity, or to general judgments through 
Rationality, they undergo a formal modification that can be readily discerned. 
365. If we represent the judgment forms by means of symbols, their mutual relation 
and deduction will be more evident, and the defects of our nomenclature, whatever they 
may be, will disappear in the symbolic formula. In the following table, X is the symbol 
of the categorical or rational forms; Y of the subjective or spontaneous; Z of the condi- 
* « But respecting the property of our understanding, to effect unity of apperception @ priori, only by means 
of the categories, and precisely only in this manner and the number thereof, no more motive can be adduced than 
why we have exactly these, and no other functions of judgment, or why time and space are the only forms of our 
possible intuition.” Kant, pp. 96-7. 
{ Aristotle’s categories were, Being, odstav; Quantity, zooov; Quality, zocoy; Comparison or Relation, zpds te ; 
Where, z60¢; When, zoté; Posture, xeic0ar; Having, eye; Action, zorety; Passion, zdoyew. Vol. I, p. 20. 
Hamilton arranges these categories as follows: “ Being by itself corresponds to the first category of Aristotle, 
equivalent to substance ;—Being by accident is viewed either as absolute or as relative. As absolute, it flows 
either from the matter, or from the form of things. If from the matter, it is Quantity, Aristotle’s second cate- 
gory; if from the form, it is Quality, Aristotle’s third category. As relative, it corresponds to Aristotle’s fourth 
category, Felation ; and to Relation all the other six may be reduced.” Logic, p. 141. 
There are six simple ideas, “ according to the most accredited opinion, in the school of the Nyaya [founded by 
Gotama]. ‘These are substance, quality, action, the common (the general, genus), property (species, the indivi- 
dual), and relation. Some authors add a seventh element,—privation or negation; others add two more still,— 
power and resemblance.” Cousin: Hist. of Mod. Phil., Vol. 1, p. 382. 
von. X11.—70 
