Page:Critique of Pure Reason 1855 Meiklejohn tr.djvu/116

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

74

TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC.

solute necessity of seeking a transcendental deduction, not only of these conceptions themselves, but likewise of space, because, inasmuch as they make affirmations^[1] concerning objects not by means of the predicates of intuition and sensibility, but of pure thought à priori, they apply to objects without any of the conditions of sensibility. Besides, not being founded on experience, they are not presented with any objectin à priori intuition upon which, antecedently to experience, they might base their synthesis. Hence results, not only doubt as to the objective validity and proper limits of their use, but that even our conception of space is rendered equivocal; inasmuch as we are very ready with the aid of the categories, to carry the use of this conception beyond the conditions of sensuous intuition;—and for this reason, we have already found a transcendental deduction of it needful. The reader, then, must be quite convinced of the absolute necessity of a transcendental deduction, before taking a single step in the field of pure reason; because otherwise he goes to work blindly, and after he has wandered about in: all directions, returns to the state of utter ignorance from which he started. He ought, moreover, clearly to recognize beforehand, the un-

↑ I have been compelled to adopt a conjectural reading here. All the editions of the Critik der reinen Vernunft, both those published during Kant’s lifetime, and those published by various editors after his death, have sie. . von Gegenständen. . . . redet. But it is quite plain that the sie is the pronoun for die reine Verstandesbegriffe; and we ought, therefore, to read reden. In the same sentence, all the editions (except Hartenstein’s) insert die after the first und, which makes nonsense. In page 75 also, sentence beginning “For that objects,” I have altered “synthetischen Etnsicht des Denkens” into “synthetischen Einheit.” And in page 77, sentence beginning, “But it is evident,” we find “die erste Bedingung liegen.” Some such word as muss is plainly to be understood.
Indeed, I have not found a single edition of the Critique trustworthy. Kant must not have been very careful in his correction of the press. Those published by editors after Kant’s death seem in most cases to follow Kant’s own editions closely. That by Rosencrantz is perhaps the best; and he has corrected a number of Kant’s errors. But although I have adopted several uncommon and also conjectural readings, I have not done so hastily or lightly. It is only after diligent comparison of all the editions I could gain access to, that I have altered the common reading; while a conjectural reading has been adopted only when it was quite clear that the reading of every edition was a misprint.
Other errors,occurring previously to those mentioned above, have been, and others after them will be. corrected in silence.—Tr.

[1] I have been compelled to adopt a conjectural reading here. All the editions of the Critik der reinen Vernunft, both those published during Kant’s lifetime, and those published by various editors after his death, have sie. . von Gegenständen. . . . redet. But it is quite plain that the sie is the pronoun for die reine Verstandesbegriffe; and we ought, therefore, to read reden. In the same sentence, all the editions (except Hartenstein’s) insert die after the first und, which makes nonsense. In page 75 also, sentence beginning “For that objects,” I have altered “synthetischen Etnsicht des Denkens” into “synthetischen Einheit.” And in page 77, sentence beginning, “But it is evident,” we find “die erste Bedingung liegen.” Some such word as muss is plainly to be understood.
Indeed, I have not found a single edition of the Critique trustworthy. Kant must not have been very careful in his correction of the press. Those published by editors after Kant’s death seem in most cases to follow Kant’s own editions closely. That by Rosencrantz is perhaps the best; and he has corrected a number of Kant’s errors. But although I have adopted several uncommon and also conjectural readings, I have not done so hastily or lightly. It is only after diligent comparison of all the editions I could gain access to, that I have altered the common reading; while a conjectural reading has been adopted only when it was quite clear that the reading of every edition was a misprint.
Other errors,occurring previously to those mentioned above, have been, and others after them will be. corrected in silence.—Tr.

[1]