*20' 
META P H Y S I C S. 
dcrfiandhig, and under which every perception muft fir ft 
be fubfumpted, in order to become experience. 
Empirical judgments, fo far as they have objective va¬ 
lidity, are Judgments of Experience; but thofe which have 
only JubjeBivc validity, are merely judgments of apprehen¬ 
sion. The latter require no conceptions of pure under- 
ftanding, but merely the logical connection of apprehen- 
fions in the thinking fubjeCt. The former, belides the fen- 
fible intuition, ftand in need of particular conceptions ori¬ 
ginally generated in the underftanding, and which alone 
give to thef'e judgments their objective validity. 
All our judgments are at firft mere judgments of appre- 
lienfon; they are valid only for ourfelves; that is, for 
our fubjeCt; we give them fubfeauently their reference, 
to an objeCt, and then require that they fhould be valid 
for every one elfe as v'ell as for ourfelves: for, if my 
judgment agrees wfith its objeCt, all judgments' of the 
lame objeCt muft agree wdth mine ; and thus the objective 
validity of a. judgment of experience means no more than 
its necefiary and univerfal validity. On the other hand, 
when a judgment is neceflarily and univerfally valid, 
(which does not depend upon the apprehenfion, but 
upon the pure conceptions of the underftanding. Catego¬ 
ries, under which it is fubfumpted,) it is then objective ; 
that is, it expreifes not only a reference of the apprehen- 
lions to our fubjeCt, but to an objeCt; for, why ihould 
the judgments of others necejfarihj agree with mine, if 
there were not a unity in the objeCt to which we all refer, 
and in agreeing with which w'e muft of courle agree 
among ourfelves ? 
Objective validity, and Univerfally-necefiary validity, are 
therefore reciprocal conceptions. Though we do not 
know the obje6t in itfelf, yet, when we confider a judg¬ 
ment as univerfally valid, and confequently uccejjkry, we 
confider it as objectively valid. By this judgment w'e 
know' the objeCt; if not, it remains unknown; for to 
know' it as it is in itfelf is impoftible. 
That the room is warm, fugar Iweet, w'ormwood bit¬ 
ter, &C. are judgments only lubjeCtively valid. It is not 
necefiary that I Ihould always be afreCted in the fame w'ay 
by them, or that others fhould be fo affeCted. 
• There are indeed judgments of apprehenfion w'hich 
never can become judgments of experience, even if a 
conception of underftanding w r ere added to them ; be- 
caufie they refer to feelings which every body acknow¬ 
ledges to be merely fubjediive. 
It is quite otherwife with judgments of experience. 
What experience teaches me, under certain circumftances, 
it muft always teach to me, and to every one elfe; for 
inftance, that air is claftic. This at firft is only a judg¬ 
ment of apprehenfion. I conned! two lenfations to each 
other. To render it a Judgment of Experience, this con- 
nedlion muft ftand under a condition which fhall make 
it. univerfally valid. 
It will therefore be necefiary to analyze experience in 
'general, in order to know w’hat this joint produdt of Sense 
and Understanding conlllts of; and how a judgment of 
experience is pofijble. The ground of it is intuition, to 
which muft be added judgment. By the latter I may 
merely compare apprehenfions, and conned! them in a 
confcioufnefs of my Hate, or I may conned! them in con- 
feioufnefs in general. The former is a judgment of ap¬ 
prehenfion, and is merely of Jubjeftive validity. 
Before an apprehenfion can become experience, the 
Intuition muft be placed under a Conception, w'hich gives 
to it the form of judgment in general, connedts the em¬ 
pirical confcioulnefs in a confcioufnefs in general, and this 
renders the empirical judgment univerfally valid. Such 
a conception is a pure produdt of underftanding a priori. 
For inftance, the conception of caufe is a pure conception 
of Underftanding, entirely diltindt from all polfibie appre¬ 
henfion, and W’hich ferves only to determine the repre- 
fentations contained under it with refpedt to the form of 
judgment in general. It therefore renders a univerfally- 
valid judgment poffible. 
It is requifite, then, in order that a judgment of aD- 
prehenfion may become a judgment of experience, that 
the apprehenfion be fubfumpted under fome fuch concep¬ 
tion of underftanding. 
Let us take the following example : When the fun ftines 
•upon a ftone, it becomes warm. Thij is a mere judgment 
of apprehenfion, and does not contain necejjity. How 
frequently foever we may have perceived thisconnexion, 
it is only a connexion of habit. But, I affirm that it is 
the Sun that warms theft one; there is therefore, befides the 
apprehenfion, a conception of Underftanding, named 
Caufe, added to it, which neceflarily connedts the con¬ 
ception of funfliine with that of heat, and the judgment 
becomes neceflarily and univerfally valid: it is confe¬ 
quently objedlive, and is changed from,apprehenfion into 
experience. 
If we analyze all our fyntlietical judgments, we fhall 
find that they do not confift merely of a companion of 
intuitions, as has been fuppofed, but that the conception ab- 
llradled from intuition fhould alfo be ranked under a pure 
conception of Underftanding ; thus forming an objeCtive- 
ly-valid judgment. Even the pure mathematics, in their 
moft fimpie axioms, are not exempt from this condition. 
The theorem, a freight line is thejhorleft between two points, 
prefuppofes that the line is fubfumpted under the con¬ 
ception of Quantity, w'hich certainly is not an intuition, 
but has its feat in the underftanding alone, and ferves to 
determine the intuition with relped! to quantity. 
In order to fliow the poflibility of experience, as refting 
upon the pure conception of Underftanding, a priori, 
(i. e. the Categories,) u'e muft firft exhibit a complete Table 
of Judgments; and add to it, that of the different aCts 
of the underftanding in judging. Thefe Tables will be 
found to run parallel to each other. A third Table may 
then be fubjoined, fhowing the principles, a priori, of all 
poffible experience. Thefe politions lerve merely to fub- 
lumpt all apprehenfion under the pure conception of un.- 
derftanding. 
Quantity. 
Singular, 
Particular, 
-Univerfal. 
I. LOGICAL TABLE 
OF JUDGMENTS. 
Quality. Relation. 
Affirmative, 
_ Negative, 
Infinite. 
Categorical, 
Hypothetical, 
Disjunctive. 
Modality. 
Problematical, 
Afiertorical, 
ApodiCtical. 
IB TRANSCENDENTAL TABLE 
OF THE CONCEPTIONS OF UNDERSTANDING. 
Quantity. 
.Unity, 
Multitude, 
Totality. 
Quality. 
Reality, 
Negation, 
.Limitation. 
Relation. 
Subftance, 
Caufe, 
Concurrence. 
2 
Modality. 
Poflibility, 
Exiftence, 
Fieceifity. 
III. PURE 
