Second Part: Transcendental Logic
I. Of Logic in General
a. All knowledge arises from two sources in the mind:
i. Intuition: the faculty (power) of receiving representations (impressions). Through intuition, an object is given to us. Always sensuous.
ii. Understanding: the power of cognizing by means of the representation given in intuition (production of concepts). The thinking of the object.
1. All knowledge (cognition) requires an intuition and a conception in correspondence, since “without the sensuous faculty no object could be given to us, and without the understanding no object could be thought.”
2. Pure Conception/Intuition (a priori): no sensation in the representation. Of intuition = form under which the thing is intuited; of conception = form of the thought of the object.
3. Empirical Conception/Intuition (a posteriori): when sensation (presence of object) contained in them; or there is in the cognition “matter” (content).
b. Understanding: the faculty of spontaneously producing representations (spontaneity of cognition); or of thinking an object of sensuous intuition.
i. The mind makes conceptions sensuous (joins them to an object in intuition); and intuitions intelligible (brigns them under conceptions). Without this synthesis, no knowledge is possible. The understanding cannot intuit; the sensuous faculty cannot think. They must form a unity.
c. Twofold division of Logic:
i. General Logic [universal]: necessary laws [form] of thought (relations of cognitions to each other), without which no exercise of the understanding is possible. Doesn’t regard differences in objects. Contemplates representations, not origins (transcendental logic), as a form of understanding which can be applied to representations.
1. Pure General Logic: abstracted from all empirical conditions of the exercise of the understanding (sensation); from the causes of particular cognitions (since experience required for particulars). Regards pure a priori principles of reason, in respect of the “formal part of their use.” Is not psychology, but forms of thought. Makes abstraction of specific cognitions of the understanding.
2. Applied General Logic: directed at the laws of the use of the understanding and reason, under subjective empirical [=psychological] conditions, but doesn’t regard differences in objects. Is a representation of the understanding concretely by the subject.
i. Particular Logic: contains rules for the correct use of the understanding [thinking] about a particular class of objects; specifically in reference to regional or provincial disciplines within the sciences.
II. Of Transcendental Logic
a. Like intuitions, a contrast drawn between pure and empirical thought (understanding) of objects, such that a type of thought exists whereby we do not abstract all content of cognition. Laws of pure thought of an object.
i. Intuition: the faculty (power) of receiving representations (impressions). Through intuition, an object is given to us. Always sensuous.
1. Origin of our cognitions of objects (aside from affection by the object).
a. Formal logic doesn’t regard the origin of cognition, and so cannot contemplate representations (as the laws of thought/relations to others). Consequently, general logic only treats form.
b. Transcendental Logic: treats how certain representations (intuition/conceptions) are applied and/or possible a priori.
i. I.e., the a priori possibility of cognition, and the a priori use can only properly be called transcendental (necessary conditions of experience).
ii. Space (geometry, synthetic a priori) is not an a priori cognition; the knowledge that such a representation is not of empirical origin, that it relates to objects of experience (although a priori), is transcendental.
1. Application of space to objects in general is transcendental, but not in relation to sense.
iii. The transcendental/empirical distinction belongs to the critique of cognitions, not in their relation to an object.
iv. A science of pure understanding and rational cognition, by means of which we cogitate objects entirely a priori (conceptions which relate a priori to objects as pure thought).
III. Of the Division of General Logic into Analytic and Dialectic
a. Truth is the correspondence (accordance) of a cognition with an object. Falsity occurs in lack of correspondence, although it (predicate) can be true of other objects. Therefore, the objects must be distinguished.
i. “Of the truth of cognitions in respect of their matter [content], no universal test can be demanded, because such a test is self-contradictory,” since truth relates to this excluded [abstracted] object.
b. Logic, insofar as it “exhibits” [displays] universal and necessary laws of understanding, with regards the form of our cognition, presents us a criterion of truth. Falsity is the understanding contradicting its laws of thought [itself].
i. This does not mean that (if accurate in logical form) a cognition agrees with it object; so agreement with form of understanding a negative determination.
c. General/Analytic Logic: (1) negative determination of truth; (2) formal operations of the elements of the understanding; (3) exhibits the operations as the logical critique of knowledge [cognition].
i. All knowledge (ought be) submitted to the Analytic before we determine truth of content.
ii. The Analytic is insufficient to determine predicates of objects (objectivity).
d. Dialectic Logic: general logic treated as an organ[an] (instrument) for the production of objective assertions (predications).
i. A “logic of illusion” which treats only formal conditions of correspondence of objects with the understanding, but doesn’t regard the objects themselves.
IV. Of the Division of Transcendental Logic into Analytic and Dialectic
a. Transcendental Analytic: the part of transcendental Logic which treats the elements of pure cognition of (“yielded by”) the understanding, and the principles without which no object could be thought. Logic of truth, since no cognition can contradict it without losing all content (reference to object).
b. Transcendental Dialectic: makes of the formal principles of pure understanding, by judging without distinction (of objects, which includes distinction between “sense” and “non-sense” items).
i. Misuse of the Analytic when used as an instrument of “unlimited” and “universal” exercise of understanding, and attempts to judge synthetically with pure understanding alone.
ii. Proper use is to test judgments of pure understanding.
