APPLICATION OF CATEGORIES,—SPACE, TIME, AND POSITION. 559 
cannot be envisaged,—or by whatever subject we choose. . . . If I join in this case the 
condition of the conception, and say ‘all things as external phenomena are coexistent in 
space,’ this rule is valid universally and without restriction. Our exposition, consequently, 
teaches the Reality (that is the objective validity) of space in reference to all that exter- 
nally as object can be presented to us, but at the same time the Mdeality of space, in re- 
ference to things, if they are considered in themselves by means of reason,—that is, with- 
out regard to the nature of our sensibility. We maintain, therefore, the empirical reality 
of Space (in respect to all possible external experience), although, indeed, we acknow- 
ledge the transcendental ideality of the same,—that is, that it is nothing,—so soon as we 
omit the condition of the possibility of all experience, and assume space as something 
which lies at the foundation of things in themselves. 
397. “ But in fact independent of space, there is no other representation, subjective and 
referring to something external, which could be termed objective @ prior. For we cannot 
deduce from any of them synthetical propositions @ priori, in the same way as from intul- 
tions in space. (3.) Consequently, to speak strictly, no ideality belongs to them, although 
they accord in this respect with the representation of space, that they belong merely to 
the subjective property of a mode of sense, as for example, seeing, hearing, feeling, by 
means of the sensations of colors, sounds, and heat, but which, since they are simply 
sensations and not intuitions, do not give any object to be known in itself, at least @ 
prior. 
398. “The object of this observation only goes as far as this,—to prevent us from think- 
ing to explain the asserted ideality of space from extremely insufficient examples: since, 
namely, perhaps colors, taste, &c., with propriety may be considered not as the property 
of things, but merely as change of our subject, which may be different even in different 
men. For in such a case, that which itself originally is only phenomenon, as for example 
a rose, is held to be valid in the empirical sense, as a thing in itself, which, nevertheless, 
to each eye, in respect of the color, may appear different. On the contrary, the transcen- 
dental conception of phenomena in space is a critical reminding, that nothing generally 
which is envisaged in space is a thing in itself—that space is not a form of things which 
perhaps was proper to them in themselves; but that objects in themselves are not at all 
known to us, and that what we term external objects, are nothing else but mere represen- 
tations of our sensibility, whose form is space, but whose true correlative, that is to say, 
the thing in itself, is not thereby known, and cannot be, but in respect of which also 
neither is inquiry ever made in experience.”* 
399. Kant expressly admits “the empirical reality ” of both space and time, or their 
* Kant, p. 23 et seg. 
Vou. x11.—71 
