Kant's Theory of Knowledge

by H. A. Prichard

[25] I. e. in the sense of something which exists independently of perception.

[28] This consideration disposes of the view that, if colour is relative to perception, the primary qualities, as being inseparable from colour, must also be relative to perception; for it implies that the primary qualities cannot from their very nature be relative to perception. Moreover, if the possibility of the separation of the primary qualities from colour is still doubted, it is only necessary to appeal to the blind man's ability to apprehend the primary qualities, though he may not even know what the word 'colour' means. Of course, it must be admitted that some sensuous elements are involved in the apprehension of the primary qualities, but the case of the blind man shows that these may relate to sight instead of to touch. Moreover, it, of course, does not follow from the fact that sensuous elements are inseparable from our perception of bodies that they belong to, and are therefore inseparable from, the bodies perceived.

[29] Prol., § 13, Remark iii. (Cf. p. 100 note.) Cf. the confused note B. 70, M. 42. (See Dr. Vaihinger's Commentary on the Critique, ii, 488 ff.)

[30] The case of time can be ignored, since, as will be seen later (pp. 112-14), the contention that space is 'ideal' really involves the admission that time is real.

[31] Dieses Empirische.

[32] B. 62-3, M. 37-8. Erscheinung is here translated 'appearance'.

[33] It should be noticed that the passage is, in the main, expressed in terms of the distinction between 'things' and 'appearances', and not, as it should be, in terms of the distinction between what things are and what things appear or look.

[34] Hence Kant's protest (B. 45, M. 27), against illustrating the ideality of space by the 'inadequate' examples of colour, taste, &c., must be unavailing. For his contention is that, while the assertion that space is not a property of things means that it is not a property of things in themselves, the assertion that colour, for example, is not a property of a rose only means that it is not a property of a thing in itself in an empirical sense, i. e. of an appearance of a special kind.

[35] Cf. pp. 72-3.

[36] Cf. pp. 72-3.