1

Some citations relating to Kants theory of space and time

1. The central place of transcendental idealism in critical philosophy

The system of the critique of pure reason turns on two cardinal points: as
system of nature and of freedom, one leading with necessity to the other. The
ideality of space and time and the reality of the concept of freedom, the first
leading inexorably and analytically to the second. According to the one,
synthetic-theoretical cognition a priori; according to the other, synthetic-practical,
likewise completely a priori. The nature of man cannot be determined a priori (to
actions) without presupposing freedom. It is therefore necessary to assume
something supersensible with respect to which the sensible can be considered
determinable, and, conversely, something sensible a priori in accordance with
which the supersensible determines sensibility in acts. (Reflexionen ber
Metaphysik,AA 18 6351, 1796-8)

2. Space and time are presupposed by perception (apprehension of a manifold),

not sensation (synopsis of a manifold)
Neither simultaneity nor succession would ever enter into perception, did
not the representation of time underlie them a priori. (A30/B46)
The representation of space cannot be obtained through experience of
the external relations of appearance; rather, this outer experience itself is
possible in the first place only through that representation Space is nothing
other than the mere form of appearances of the outer senses given prior to all
perceptions. (A23/B38 and A26/B42)
Space . . . is the form of this faculty of the mind [i.e. sensibility] for perceiving
things externally. (AA 17 4673)
An intuition which is supposed to be possible a priori can only concern the
form under which the object is intuited, for to represent something a priori means
to make a representation of it prior to and independently of perception, i.e.
empirical consciousness. (AA 20, 266)
I prove in the first place that space (and also time, which Berkeley did not
consider) and all its determinations can be cognized a priori by us because, no
less than time, it inheres in us as a pure form of our sensibility before all
perception of experience and makes possible all intuition of sensibility, and
therefore all appearances. (PFM Appendix, AA 4 375)
[P]ure intuition underlies all perception (in respect to the status of
perceptions as representations, the form of inner intuition, time, is their basis).
(A115-16)
[S]pace is however itself nothing other than an inner mode of
representation (Vorstellungsart) in which certain perceptions are connected with
one another. (A378)
 2

Space is not something existing as an object of intuition (no more than time
is) but the mere form of the composition of the manifold next to and after one
another; but being positioned next to and after one another (iuxta et post)
presupposes space and time already in the subject: not something given in itself
for sense representation, but that which is thought as its form. Not an object of
perception but a formal a priori condition for perceiving what is given for the
senses as a whole. (AA 22, 435)
We know nothing but our mode of perceiving objects, which is peculiar to
us, and not necessary to every being. (A42/B59)
[I]dealism of appearances: we are in part their creator from the standpoint
we apprehend [annhenmen] them. (AA 15 254, 1770s)
Space and time carry with them in their represetnation the concept of
necessity. Now this is not the necessity of a concept. For we can prove that their
non-existence is not contradictory. Necessity also cannot lie in the empirical
intuition. For this can, to be sure, carry with it the concept of existence, but not of
necessary existence. Thus this necessity is not in the object (Object) objective
at all; consequently it is only a necessary condition of the subject for all
perceptions of the senses. (E XVII, p. 17; 23:22-3; attached to A26-b)

3. Perceptible and imperceptible space and time

In all experience something must be sensed, and this is the real of sensible
intuition. Consequently, the space in which we are to set up experience
regarding motions must also be capable of being sensed, i.e., must be indicated
by what can be sensed; and this space as the sum total of all objects of
experience and itself an object of experience is called empirical space. Now,
such space insofar as it is material is itself movable. But a movable space, if its
motion is to be capable of being perceived, presupposes again another enlarged
material space in which it is movable, and this enlarged space presupposes just
as well another, and so to infinity The space in which motion is perceived is a
relative space, which itself moves again. (The Metaphysical Foundations of
Natural Science, AA 5, 481)
Subjectively, and in the actuality of consciousness, [time], just like any other
representation, is given only upon the occasion (Veranlassung) of perceptions.
(A453/B480 n.; see also A429/B457n.)
The mere form of intuition, without substance, is in itself no object but merely
the formal condition of the object (as appearance), as pure space and pure time,
which are indeed something as forms of intuiting, but not objects which are
intuited (ens imaginarium )... [They are nothing in that they are] empty intuition
without object, ens imaginarium... [I]f extended beings were not perceived we
could not represent space...the mere form of intuition in the absence of anything
real [is] not an object. (A290/B347 & A292/B348; see also AA18 5577, c. 1780:
"Mere form without reality (thought as thing in itself) is ens imaginarium. Space.")
 3

Space is not something existing as an object of intuition (no more than time is)
but the mere form of the composition (Zusammenstellung) of the manifold next to
and after one another; but being positioned (gesetzt) next to and after one
another (iuxta et post) presupposes space and time already in the subject: not
something given in itself for sense representation, but that which is thought as its
form (Formale). Not an object of perception but a formal a priori condition for
perceiving what is given for the senses as a whole. (Opus Postumum, AA 22,
435)
Space and time are intuitions without an object, hence merely subjective forms
of the composition (Zusammenstellung) of the manifold into the infinite of an
absolute whole (which is not a part of a still greater whole). Not something
apprehensible which is given for perception (dabile), but the self-determination of
the subject, the form in which it itself constitutes the object, and this is its own
object. (AA 22, 74; see also 105, 364, and 435)
Space and time are not themselves things (Sachen) but only representations of
the apprehensible relationships of representation for the subject insofar as it
makes itself into an object synthetically (not analytically according to the law of
identity) in pure intuition... Space and time are not given objects of intuition but
forms of intuition itself and of the synthetic relationship of the manifold in space
and time. They precede the existence of objects of the senses a priorinot as
perceptions (empirical representations with consciousness) nor as an aggregate
of a determinate (delimited) manifold but as a system. There is only one space
and one time (therein consists their infinitude) and only one experience. (AA 22,
90)

4. Space and time are inconceivable as well as imperceptible

[T]he original representation time cannot be given through concepts... on the
contrary, such concepts must themselves rest on immediate intuition. (A32/B48;
see also B160n.)
formal intuition gives unity of representation... it precedes all concepts, though
to be sure it does presuppose a synthesis not belonging to the senses which yet
first makes possible all concepts of space and time... the unity of this a priori
intuition belongs to space and time, not to the concept of the understanding.
(B160n.)
But that space which is given metaphysically, i.e. originally but merely
subjectively, is infinite which (because there are not many of it) cannot be brought
under any concept which would admit of a construction, but rather contains the
ground of the construction of all possible geometric concepts. It may therefore
only be said that it consists in the pure form of of the sensible mode of
representation of the subject as intuition a priori; consequently in this, as an
individual representation, is given the possibility of all spaces which go into the
infinite. (AA 20, 419-21)
 4

Space and time, subjectively considered, are forms of sensibility; but in order to
form a concept of them as objects of pure intuition (without which nothing
whatever could be said of them), an a priori concept of a composite, hence of the
composition (synthesis) of the manifold, is required, and thus synthetic unity of
apperception in the combination of this manifold. This unity of consciousness in
accordance with the distinctness of intuitive representations of objects in space
and time requires distinct functions to combine them, which are called categories.
(Progress in Metaphysics, AA 20, p. 276)

5. Space and time are products of pure synthesis/composition in productive

imagination (see also #12)
One can and must concede that space and time are mere thought entities and
creatures of the imagination. But because they are the essential form of our
sensibility and the receptivity of its intuitions whereby in general objects are given
to us, and because the universal conditions of sensibility must at the same time
necessarily be a priori conditions of the possibility of all objects of the senses as
appearances and so agree with these, they are not fictitiously invented by the
imagination but underlie all its compositions and creations. (On A Discovery, AA
8, 203)
Space is not an a priori concept but an intuition, which precedes concepts. For
where indeed are synthetic a priori judgments supposed to come from? and what
kind of object then is represented if space is yet no object?
Space is itself a synthesis a priori. (AA 18 5876, 1783-4).
Space and time are of course not objects of intuition, but merely its subjective
forms. They do not exist apart from representations and are given only in the
subject; i.e. their representation is an act of the subject itself and a product of the
imagination for the sense of the subject. Yet, their representation is the cause of
the object in appearance (phnomenon), not derived (reprsentatio derivativa)
but original (originaria). (AA 22, 76)
Space and time are products (but primitive products) of our own imagination;
hence, they are generated (geschaffene) intuitions in that the subject affects
itself. (AA 22, 37)
The imagination (facultas imaginandi), as a capacity of intuitions even without
the presence of the object, is either productive, i.e. a capacity of the original
exhibition of the object (exhibitio originaria), which the precedes experience; or
reproductive, the derivative exhibition (exhibitio derivativa), which brings back a
previous empirical intuition. Pure space and time intuitions belong to the first sort
of exhibition. (Anthropology 28: 1790s)

6. Sensibility includes imagination

Sensibility, as belonging to the cognitive faculty, is sense and imagination; (the
understanding: concepts). Intuition. (AA 15 229; see also 223 & 225, as well
as Anthropology 15)
 5

To empirical intuition belongs sense; to pure intuition imagination. The latter is

the capacity for intuition even in the absence of objects. Both together, sense
and imagination, constitute the sensibility. For intuition without relation to an
object is mere sensation and intuitions cannot be referred to an object except
through categories. (AA 18, p. 473)

7. Space and time are not fictions but principles of intuition (see PFM Pt. I, Rem.
1)
[Space] is not imagined [eingebildetes] (ens imaginarium). For it is the actual,
unique condition of the representation of actual external things. (AA 17 4673, p.
639: mid 1770s)
Time is actual as form of inner sensibility; it is thereby opposed to the fictitious
(ficto). (AA 18 5320)
Although time, posited in itself and absolutely, is an imaginary entity (ens
imaginarium), it is nonetheless a true concept and a condition of intuitive
representation, extending to infinity in all possible objects of the senses, insofar
as it concerns the immutable law of the sensible as such. (1770 Inaugural
Dissertation 14,6)

8. Space and time are essential to the possibility of synthetic a priori judgment
(see B73)
Space and time themselves are nothing other than forms of the composition
(Zusammensetzung) of the objects of sensation; hence, if all composition were
eliminated nothing would be left over. The unity of consciousness in this
composition, insofar as it is considered universally, is the pure concept of the
understanding. (AA 18 5926, 1783-4)
Synthetic a priori cognition is possible because there are two intuitus a priori:
space and time, in which a synthesis of composition is possible a priori. The two
objects are quanta and indeed originaria. All concepts of quantis may be
constructed in them, i.e. given a priori in intuition The universale is here given
in the singulari in intuition, and the universal of synthesis considered in the
singulari. (AA 18 5593,1770s or early 1780s; see also 5585, 6349 & 6357)
Hume has already performed the service of adducing a case in point, namely
the law of causality, by means of which he put all metaphysics into difficulty.
What would have happened had another formulated this difficulty in universal
terms?... How is a priori cognition possible from synthetic judgments? Cognition
is a judgment out of which arises a concept having objective reality, i.e. a concept
to which a corresponding object can be given in experience. However, all
experience consists of an intuition of an object, i.e. an immediate and individual
representation through which the object is given for cognition, and of a concept,
i.e. a representation mediated by a mark common to various objects whereby the
object is thought. Neither of these modes of representations constitutes a
cognition by itself; and if synthetic a priori cognitions are to be given, then there
 6

must be a priori intuitions as well as a priori concepts, the possibility of which

must be discussed before anything else; and then their objective reality must be
proved by [showing that] their use is necessary in respect of the possibility of
experience. (Progress AA 20, 266)
The first thought from which the faculty of representation proceeds is the
intuition of itself and the category of the synthetic unity of the manifold, i.e. of pure
(not empirical) representation which precedes perception under the a priori
principle, how are synthetic a priori propositions possible? The answer to which
is: they are contained by way of identity in the unconditioned unity of space and
time as pure intuitions... These forms [viz. space and time] lie a priori in the
faculty of representation and are actually the real in the subject from which the
cognition of the object can alone take place (Forma dat Esse rei). The possibility
of a system of perceptions as belonging to the unity of experience is at the same
time the ground of the coexistence of perceptions and succession of appearances
which these can produce and which already have their place a priori in the
understanding. That the forms in the synthesis of intuition and the principles of
its unity at the same time contain the construction of these concepts as in
mathematics this is an analytic proposition according to the principle of
identity. No Theaetetus, no skepticism, can work against it. (AA 22, 11)1
How are synthetic a priori propositions, i.e. how is a metaphysics of nature
possible? Answer: through the representation of objects in space and time
(coexistentia et successio) as in one relationship of the subject to itself as an
object within appearance, hence according to a formal principle of combination.
(AA 22, 67)

9. Do not confound the space presupposed by geometry with the space it

constructs (a particular risk when interpreting formal intuition at B160n. and
PFM, Pt. I, Rem. I)
Metaphysics must show how one can have the representation of space, but
geometry teaches us how to describe a space, i.e. exhibit (not by drawing) in
representation a priori. In the former, space is considered as given, prior to

1 Hegel seems to have grasped this point (on the basis mainly of B160 + n.): "How are synthetic judgments
possible a priori? The problem expresses nothing other than the idea that in the subject and predicate of the
synthetic judgment the former the particular, in the form of being, the latter the universal, in the form of thought
the heterogeneous are concomitant a priori, i.e. absolutely identical One catches sight of this idea through the
shallowness of the deduction of the categories. With respect to space and time, it is not where it ought to be, in
the transcendental exposition of these forms, but only in the sequel, when, in the deduction of the categories, the
original synthetic unity of apperception finally comes to the fore, and is recognized as the principle of figurative
synthesis, or the forms of intuition [re: formal intuitions]; there, space and time are conceived as synthetic unities,
and the productive imagination, i.e. spontaneity and absolute synthetic activity, as the principle of sensibility which
previously had been characterized only as a receptivity." (Faith and Knowledge, p. 297) It may be doubted
whether Kant should, or even could, have made this point clear in the Aesthetic: as he remarks at B160n., this
unity belongs to sensibility, yet it is founded on the understanding; it thus relates to a sense of understandingprior
to the division between aesthetic and logic, namely, understanding as the faculty of the unity of apperception.
This faculty could not be elucidated until the subjective transcendental deduction of the categories, the brief of
which is to explain the possibility of the understanding itself, and therefore even of logic (see B131 and B133-4n.).
 7

receiving any determination conformable to a definite concept; in the latter, it is

considered as constructed (gemacht). In the first, space is original and there is
only one (singular) space; in the second, space is derived and there then exist
spaces (many); but, with regard to those spaces, the geometer must, in
agreement with the metaphysician and as a consequence of the fundamental
representation of space, admit that they can only be thought as parts of the
single, original space. Now one cannot denominate a magnitude in comparison
with which every specified homogeneous magnitude is equal only to a part
anything other than infinite. Hence, the geometer, just like the metaphysician,
represents the original space as infinite and indeed as infinite//given. For the
space-representation (and beyond that time as well) has in it (an sich) something
peculiar (Eigenthmliches) the like of which can be found in no other concept
whatsoever: that all spaces are possibleand thinkable only as parts of a single
(einzigen) space. Now, if the geometer says a line, however far it has been
drawn, can always be lengthened still farther, this ... means: the space in which I
describe the line is greater than any given line which I may describe in it; and so
the geometer grounds the possibility of his task (Aufgabe) of increasing a space
(of which there are many) into the infinite on the original representation of a
unitary (einigen) infinite subjectively givenspace. It agrees perfectly with this that
the geometrical and objectively given space is invariably finite; for it is only given
by being made. But that space which is given metaphysically, i.e. originally but
merely subjectively, is infinitewhich (because there are not many of it) cannot be
brought under any concept which would admit of a construction, but rather
contains the ground of the construction of all possible geometric concepts. It may
therefore only be said that it consists in the pure form of of the sensible mode of
representation of the subject as intuition a priori; consequently in this, as an
individual representation, is given the possibility of all spaces which go into the
infinite. (Comments on a Dissertation by Kstner, AA 20, 419-21)
Synthetic a priori cognition is possible because there are two intuitus a priori:
space and time, in which a synthesis of composition is possible a priori. The two
objects are quanta and indeed originaria. All concepts of quantis may be
constructed in them, i.e. given a priori in intuition The universale is here given
in the singulari in intuition, and the universal of synthesis considered in the
singulari. (AA 18 5593, 1770s or early 1780s)
Space is represented as mathematically infinite, i.e. not as we could extend a
line ever farther (that would be indefinitum) but the ens imaginarium we call
'space' is itself infinite. Mathematical infinity underlies the extending of lines; [it is]
the possibility of magnitudes, which is given in my being able to advance into
infinity. The possibility of the advance is only indefinitum. (AA 18, 644-5; see also
AA 22, 420-1)

10. The infinity and non-composite character of space and time

 8

Space is represented as mathematically infinite, i.e. not as we could extend a

line ever farther (that would be indefinitum) but the ens imaginarium we call
'space' is itself infinite. Mathematical infinity underlies the extending of lines; [it is]
the possibility of magnitudes, which is given in my being able to advance into
infinity. The possibility of the advance is only indefinitum. (AA 18 p. 644-5; see
also AA 22, 420-1)
Compositum is that whose parts can precede the composition and do not arise
only though composition and combination... Spatium est quantum, sed non
compositum. Because space does not arise as a result of the positing of its parts
but the parts are only possible through space; so too time. (AA 17 4424-5)
[NB: A quantum is a whole but not necessarily the sum of its parts (its parts may
be by limitation only: true only of metaphysical pure space and time, not
geometrical: see A24-5/B39, A31-2/B47, and B71); a composite is a whole that
is the sum of its parts, i.e. a mathematically determinate extensive magnitude
(see A162-6/B202-7)]
The whole of the objects of intuition the world is merely within me
(transcendental idealism). (AA 22, 97)

11. Time has wider scope than space (see also A34/B50 and B427) , although
space, as the form of perception through sensation, is the material of all intuition
(see B67)
Not all that is in time is at the same time in space, e.g. my representations;
but all that is in space is in time. (AA 18 5653, p. 309)

12. Space and time entail not only (imaginative) synthesis (see #4 above) but
also (apperceptual) unity (composition), i.e. space and time depend on
understanding (qua faculty of the unity of apperception) as well as imagination
and sense. [See A99-100, A107, B136n., B160n.]
Consciousness of oneself (apperceptio) is an act whereby in general the
subject makes itself into an object. It is yet no perception (apprehensio simplex),
i.e. no sense representation (for which it is required that the subject be affected
by means of some object, and the intuition becomes empirical), but pure intuition,
which under the names of space and time contain merely the form of composition
(coordinatio, et subordinatio) of the manifold of intuition; with them [arises] an a
priori principle of synthetic cognition of the manifold which for just this reason
makes the object in appearance representable. (AA 22, 413)
The original act of sense intuition of itself in the subject is at the same time
valid for the object, because the latter can be given only through the former and
the forms of space and time are identical with the combination of the manifold of
these forms into a unity. (AA 22, 16)

13. Space and time and the categories

 9

Space and time are the forms of combination in intuition and serve for applying
the categories in concreto. (AA 18 5934, 1783-4)
Space and time themselves are nothing other than forms of the composition of
the objects of sensation; hence, if all composition were eliminated nothing would
be leftover. The unity of consciousness in this composition, insofar as it is
considered universally, is the pure concept of the understanding. (AA 18 5926,
1783-4, emphasis mine)
We could never gather together (zusammennehmen) a manifold as a manifold
in perception without having to do with space and time. But since we cannot intuit
these in their own right (fr sich), we must gather together the manifold
homogeneous in general in accordance with concepts of quantity. (AA 23, L20
E30, p. 29 written by Kant in the margin at A163 of his own copy of the first
edition version of the Critique of Pure Reason)
The categories are nothing other than the conditions of thought in a possible
experience, just as space and time contain the conditions of intuition in this same
experience. (A111)
Space and time, subjectively considered, are forms of sensibility; but in order to
form a concept of them as objects of pure intuition (without which nothing
whatever could be said of them), an a priori concept of a composite, hence of the
composition (synthesis) of the manifold, is required, and thus synthetic unity of
apperception in the combination of this manifold. This unity of consciousness in
accordance with the diversity of intuitive representations of objects in space and
time requires various functions to combine them, which are called categories.
These are a priori concepts of the understanding, which, by themselves alone,
are indeed not yet cognition of an object in general, but are none the less the
ground of that which is given in empirical intuition, which would then be
experience. The empirical, i.e. that whereby an object is represented as given
according to its existence, is called sensation (sensatio, impressio); it constitutes
the matter of experience and, combined with consciousness, is called perception.
To this matter there must be added form, that is, the synthetic unity of its
apperception in the understanding For this purpose, a priori principles in
accordance with mere concepts of the understanding are necessary because
space and time themselves, as that in which every object of perception must be
allotted its place through concepts, are not immediately perceived. These
concepts of the understanding demonstrate their reality through sensible intuition,
and in combination with such intuition, in accordance with its a priori given form,
make possible experience, which is an absolutely certain cognition a posteriori.
(AA 20, p. 276)

14. Things in themselves are in no way spatial or temporal

[S]pace and time, together with the appearances in them, are nothing existing
in themselves and outside of my representations, but only modes of
representation, and it is palpably contradictory to say that a mere mode of
 10

representation exists outside our representation. (Prolegomena, AA 4, 341-2; see

also 374-5)
To avoid all misinterpretation, it is necessary first of all to explain, as clearly as
possible, what our view is regarding the fundamental constitution of sensible
cognition in general.
We have thus wanted to say: that all our intuition is nothing but the
representation of appearance; that the things we intuit are not in themselves what
we intuit them as being, nor are their relations so constituted in themselves as
they appear to us; and that if we were to eliminate our subject, or even merely the
subjective constitution of the senses in general, the entire constitution all
relations of the object in space and time, indeed space and time themselves
would disappear, and that as appearances they cannot exist in themselves but
only in us. We are not acquainted with the condition of objects in themselves and
severed altogether from this receptivity of our sensibility The difference of
sensibility from understanding is manifestly transcendental and concerns
the origin and content of our cognitions, so that through sensibility the constitution
of things in themselves is not only not cognized indistinctly, it is not cognized at
all; and as soon as we set aside our subjective constitution, the represented
object, with the properties which we accord to it in sensible intuition, is nowhere to
be met with, nor can be met with, since precisely this subjective constitution
determines the form of the object as appearance. (A42-4/B59-62 emphasis
mine; see also A38/B55, B149, A359, A375-6, and A385)