PHILOSOPHY. 
157 
advantage to fcience. Thus he foon afterwards wrote to 
me, on communicating the review of his Critic in the All- 
gemeine Deutfche Bibliothek, in thefe terms: ‘Since you, 
as I am informed, have already committed to writing the 
refult of your obfervations, I confider this your partici¬ 
pation of fo much importance, that I Ihould wilh you to 
poftpone a little longer the completion of your work, in 
order to give if poffible to the metaphyfical public a hint 
to what effential points the attention ought at firft to 
be exclufively directed, and in what manner the inveftiga- 
tion of this fubjeft fiiould be conducted, and how the 
limits of all our views in this field are to be determined 
with certainty. For in this way alone can any beneficial 
refult to fcience be hoped for, whether much or little be 
accomplithed by my efforts.’ 
“Repeated declarations of this kind, which fully con¬ 
vinced me that I had formed accurate notions of the 
meaning of the Critic of Pure Reafon, together with the 
aftual experience that my eflay was perfectly clear and 
intelligible to others who were either but little or not 
at all acquainted with the original work, feemed to chal¬ 
lenge me to comply with the wilh of the author, and, 
by extending my eflay, to render it more generally ufeful. 
As I foon perceived, however, that I Ihould Hill but im¬ 
perfectly attain my objeft, and that, notvvithftanding the 
clearnefs of my analyfis of the fyltem of the Critic, I 
Ihould fcarcely be able to obviate mifconception, unlefs I 
entered into detail, and clofely followed the track of the 
author’s thoughts through all the divifions of the Critic ; 
I at length refolved to undertake the laborious talk of 
making fo complete an abridgment of the Critic through 
all its pofitions and their demonftrations, that any perfon 
might by means of it obtain an accurate knowledge of 
the whole of its contents, without being obliged to take 
the pains to ftudythat voluminous work. Bur, to facili¬ 
tate the reading of the Critic as much as poffible to thofe 
who prefer feeing with their own eyes, and drawing from 
the fource itfelf, I changed my original refolution to 
omit entirely the author’s new phraleology, and deter¬ 
mined to give at the outfet of each fubjeft a clear expla¬ 
nation of the new technical terms belonging to it, but 
afterwards to ufe them very fparingly. In this manner 
I trull that I have confulted the advantage of every clafs 
of my readers. 
“ Having made myfelf fo familiar with the Critic of 
Pure Reafon, I fully intended to fubjoin to my explana¬ 
tion of the ICantefian fyltem, and the hints for its due 
invelMgation, a diftinft: eflay of an impartial and circum- 
ffantial examination. As, however, the near approach of 
the fair rendered the' execution of this defign impoflible; 
I referve it the more cheerfully, in cafe the public Ihould 
deem it not unworthy of its notice, till one of the ap- 
V proaching fairs, fince there is no cafe in which precipita¬ 
tion would be lefs excufable than this. It would be ftill 
more agreeable to me if, in the mean time, men of more 
profound and more extenfive knowledge were, by a full 
difcuflion of the Kantefian fyftem, to render the contribu¬ 
tion of my humble efforts fuperfluous. To me it will 
prove an abundant gratification if my work is fo fortu¬ 
nate as but partially to fulfil the high expectation formed 
of it by a writer, to me unknown, in the 12th number of 
the Gelehrte Zeitung of Gotha for the prefentyear, and to 
diffufeover the Critic of Pure Reafon only fo much light, 
that every experienced thinker may, without extraordinary 
exertion, make himfelf acquainted with, its genuine meaning; 
and that no phi/ofopher may henceforward be deterred by the 
fear of mifunderjlanding the author, from the invefligation of 
this important work; fo that the real nature and limits of 
our philofophical enquiries may at length be definitively 
determined.” 
After the perufal of thefe repeated proofs of the poffi- 
bility of underftanding Tranfcendental Philofophy, as 
well as of the value and importance of this fcience of 
fciences, it furely muff be quite puerile to defift from the 
inveftigation of fuch a profound fcience on fo flight and 
Vol. XX. No. 1358. 
frivolous a pretence. Should, however, the inltances 
already adduced not be perfeftly convincing to the reader, 
I can allure him that I could with facility inundate him 
with additional teftimoniesin favour of the intelligibility 
and importance of thefe new difcoveries. The worthy 
Profeflor Beck of Halle, one of the pillars of Tranfcenden¬ 
tal Philofophy, fays, in the Preface to his excellent work 
entitled Principles of Critical Philofophy; “For fome 
years pall I have been fully convinced, that the Critical 
Philofophy is the only true philofophy ; and the objeCt of 
this book is to operate the fame conviction in others. 
This aflertion, that the Critical Philofophy is the only 
true philofophy, will, no doubt, atfirll fight, appear fome- 
what infulting to thofe who are blinded by, and wedded 
to, oldlyltems; but will, we hope, be fully juftified in the 
courfe of the candid and attentive reader’s progrefs in this 
fcience. The mere repeating the Kantefian formularies, 
fuch as, We do not know the things in themfelves, but only as 
they appear to us ; Time and Space are only properties of our 
own mind, therefore only fubjedive realities, fc. does not 
denote the critical philofopher. That, however, which 
conllitutes the critical philofopher, and, according to my 
judgment, the only true philofopher, is the fpirit of Tranf¬ 
cendental Philofophy; and Kant’s great merit is the having 
been the author of this. The objeSt of this fcience is tojhow 
the foil in which all Conceptions mufi have their root. But it 
mult be remarked, that Tranfcendental Philofophy mull 
be apprehended originally, and not by conceptions, as it 
is the foundation upon which all conceptions bottom. 
The completely underjlanding the nature of the Categories 
is of the greatejl importance, as their office is to conftitute the 
very objects that are underjlood by the word Nature. It is 
this difcovery of Kant’s that merits the higheft degree of 
admiration. The Critic of Pure Reafon propofes this 
problem : What jujlifies us in applying the Categories to 
the objects of experience, fince they are notions which are not 
derived from experience? and folves it by flowing that the 
Categories are the original ufe of Under ft audio g itfelf, 
becaufe they conllitute the very underftanding. What is 
here molt remarkable is, that this pofition cannot be 
conceived till after its folution. The whole meaning of 
the ‘Critic’ is, that thefe predicaments are the primary ufe 
of the underftanding itfelf; and it is only by means of 
them that we can have a conception of underftanding 
at all. If the reader, to whom the ‘ Critic’ itfelf ap¬ 
pears difficult and unintelligible? will endeavour, with 
perfeverance, to make ufe of his own underftanding in the 
way which I fliall here point out, to refolve the problems 
of this great work, he will difcoverthe refults of it with 
a clearnefs, in which he will have much more fatisfaftion 
than many who merely repeat the formularies, that Space 
and Time are only forms of the Senfitive Faculty, therefore 
the things in them are but phenomena, and we know nothing at 
all of the things in themfelves, SfC. In Ihort, all this is fo 
eafy to me, that I engage to render the fecrets of the 
Critical Philofophy perfeftly intelligible to one of the 
Howell apprehenfion, and to convince him fully of its 
doftrines. My mode of proceeding in Tranfcendental 
Philofophy, is no other than that of the ‘ Critic of Pure 
Reafon ’ itfelf. But I endeavour to point out to the 
reader the proper llation fooner than the ‘ Critic’, which 
in the beginning confiders the Categories merely as con¬ 
ceptions; that is, as predicates of objefts, which is mere 
Dogmatifm, and does not unfold them, as the conftitutors 
of the objefts themfelves, till theChapterentitled Deduc¬ 
tion of the Categories. When we enquire upon what 
principle we apply the Categories, which are not concep¬ 
tions derived from experience, to objefts of experience, 
it mull be difficult for the reader of the ‘Critic’ to uti- 
derftand this problem, as it is only intelligible to thofe 
who are familiar with the true nature of the Categories. 
My objeft is immediately to introduce the reader to this 
llation. Thefe obfervations, however, will not I hope be 
conftrued into a wifii to mailer this great man ; for nobody 
can either entertain more refpeft, or harbour fentiments 
S s of 
