-Transcendental Aesthetic;

Whatever the process and the means may be by which knowledge refers to its
objects, intuition is that through which it refers to them immediately, and at
which all thought aims as a means. But intuition takes place only insofar as the
object is given to us at least. (p.59)
The capacity to obtain representations through the way in which we are affected
by objects is called sensibility. Objects are therefore given to us by means of our
sensibility. Sensibility alone supplies us with intuitions. (p.59)
These intuitions are thought through the understanding, and from the
understanding there arise concepts. But all thought must, directly or indirectly,
by way of certain characteristics, refer ultimately to intuitions, and therefore,
with us, to sensibility. (p.59)
The effect produced by an object upon the capacity for representation... is
sensation. An intuition that refers to an object through sensation is called
empirical. The undetermined object of an empirical intuition is called
appearance. (p.59)
That in an appearance which corresponds to sensation I call its matter; but that
which brings out the fact that the manifold of the appearance can be ordered in
certain relations, I call the form of appearance. (p.60)
Consequently, despite the fact that the matter of all appearance is given to us a
posteriori, its form must lie ready for the sensations a priori in the mind, and
must therefore allow of being considered apart from all sensation. (p.60)
I call representation pure in which there is nothing that belongs to sensation. The
pure form therefore, of sensible intuitions in general, in which everything
manifold in the appearances in intuited in certain relations, must be found a
priori in the mind. And this pure form of sensibility may itself be called pure
intuition. (p.60)
The science of all principles of a priori sensibility I call transcendental aesthetic.
(p.60)
- Metaphysical Exposition of this Concept;
By means of outer sense, a property of our mind, we represent to ourselves
objects as outside us, and represent all of these in space. (p.61)
Inner sense, by means of which the mind intuits itself or its inner state, yields
indeed no intuition of the soul itself as an object, but there is nevertheless a
determinate form under which alone an intuition of its inner state is possible, so
that whatever belong to inner determinations is represented in relations of time.
(p.61)
What then are space and time? Are they things which actually exist? Are they
only determinations or relations of things, but such as would belong to things

even if they were not intuited? Or are they determinations and relations which
adhere only to the form of intuition and therefore to the subjective nature of our
mind, without which there predicates of space and time can never be ascribed to
anything at all? (p.61)
1) Space is not an empirical concept which has been derived from outer
experiences. For in order that certain sensations be referred to something
outside me... the representation of space must already be the basis. [T]he
representation of space cannot be borrowed from the relations of outer
appearance through experience... this outer experience is possible only
through that representation of space.
2) Space is a necessary a priori intuition which underlies all outer intuitions. It
is impossible to have a representation of there being no space, though one
can very well think of space without objects to fill it. Space is therefore to
be regarded as the condition of the possibility of appearances... it is an a
priori representation which necessarily underlies all outer appearances.
3) Space is not discursive... but a pure intuition. For, first of all, we can
represent one space only; and when we speak of many spaces, we mean
only parts of one and the same unique space. Space is essentially one;
the manifold in it, and therefore the general concept of spaces in general,
arises entirely from limitations. Hence it follows that, with respect to
space, an a priori intuition of it must underlie all concepts of it.
4) Space is represented as an infinite given magnitude. Every concept must
be thought as a representation which is contained in an infinite number of
different possible representations, and therefore the concept contains
these under itself; but no concept can be thought as containing an infinite
number of representations within itself. The original representation of
space is an a priori intuition, not a concept. (p.62-63)

-Transcendental Exposition of the Concept of Space

By transcendental exposition I understand the explanation of a concept as a
principle from which the possibility of other synthetic a priori knowledge can be
understood. For this purpose it is required, (i) that knowledge if this kind actually
flows from the given concept, (ii) that this knowledge is possible under the
presupposition if a given mode of explaining this concept. (p.63)
How then can an outer intuition, which precedes the objects themselves and in
which the concept of these objects be determined a priori, dwell in the mind?
The intuition has its seat merely in the subject, as the subjects formal
constitution of being affected by objects and of thereby receiving an immediate
representation, that is, intuition of them; and therefore only as a form of the
outer sense in general. (p.64)

-Conclusions from the above objects:

(a) Space does not represent any property of any things in themselves, nor
does it represent them in their relations to one another.
(b) Space is nothing but the form of all appearances of outer space; i.e, it is
the subjective condition of sensibility, under which alone outer intuition is
possible for us... It is therefore, only from a human standpoint that we can
speak of space, extended objects, etc. If we depart from the subjective
condition under which alone we can gain outer intuition, namely, as far as
we ourselves may be affected by objects, the representation of space
means nothing whatsoever. This predicate is ascribed to things only
insofar as they appear to us, that is, only to objects of sensibility. This
constant form of sensibility is a necessary condition of all relations in
which objects can be intuited as outside us; and when we abstract from
these objects then the form of that receptivity is a pure intuition which we
call space.
(c) As the special conditions of our sensibility cannot be made the conditions
of the possibility of things, but only of their appearances, we may indeed
say that space comprehends all things which appear to us externally, but
not things in themselves... If we add the limitation of a judgement to the
concept of a subject, the judgment gains unconditional validity.
(d) If here I add the condition to the concept and say, All things, as outer
appearances, are side by side in space, then the rule obtains universal and
unlimited validity. Our discussions therefore establish the reality; the
objective validity of space with regard to everything that can come to us
externally as an object, and at the same time establishing the ideality of
space with regard to things when considered in themselves by reason, that
is without taking into account the constitution of our sensibility.
(e) Hence we assert the empirical reality of space, but at the same time we
assert its transcendental ideality; that is to say, we assert that space is
nothing once we leave out of consideration the condition of the possibility
of all experience, and accept space as something underlying things in
themselves.
(f) The transcendental concept of appearances in space is a critical
remainder that nothing intuited in space is a thing in itself, and that space
is not a form of things which might belong to them in themselves, but that
objects in themselves are not known to us at all, and that what we call
external objects are nothing but mere representations of our sensibility,
the form of which is space. The true correlate of sensibility, that is, the
thing in itself, is not known, nor can it be known at all through these

representations, nor do we ever ask any questions about it in experience.

(p.64- p.66)

-Metaphysical Exposition of the concept of Time

Time is not an empirical concept that in some way has been derived from
experience, for neither simultaneity nor succession would even enter our
perception if the representation of time did not underlie them a priori.
Time is a necessary representation that underlies all intuitions. We cannot
remove time itself from appearances in general, though we can quite well take
away appearances from time. Time therefore is given a priori. In time alone is the
actuality of appearances possible. All appearances may vanish, but tune itself
cannot be removed.
This a priori necessity also grounds the possibility of apodictic principles if the
relations of timte, or of axioms about time in general. Time has only one
dimension; different times are not simultaneous but successive. These principles
cannot be derived from experience, because experience could not impart to
them either strict universality or apodictic certainty... These principles are valid
as rules under which alone experiences are possible; they instruct us prior to
experience, not by means of experience.
Time is not discursive... but a pure form of sensible intuition. Different times are
only parts of one and the same time.

-Conclusions from these concepts

Time is not something which exists by itself, or which adheres to things as an
objective determination, not something, therefore, that might remain when
abstraction is made from all subjective conditions of our intuition of them.
Time is nothing but the form of inner sense, that is, of our intuition of ourselves,
and of our inner state. Time cannot be a determination of outer appearances. As
opposed to belonging to shape or location, etc, time determines the relation of
representations in our inner state.

Time is the formal a priori condition of all appearances in general, Space, as the
pure form of all outer intuition is restricted as an a priori condition to just outer
appearances. But as all representations, whether they have as their objects outer
things or not, themselves belong, as determinations of the mind, to our inner
state, whereas this inner state is subject to the formal condition of inner
intuition, and therefore to time, so time is the a priori condition of all
appearances in general. All outer appearances are in space, and are determined
a priori according to relation of space, therefore in accordance with the principles
of inner sense, I can make a universal assertion that all appearances in general ,
objects of the senses, stand in relations to time.