First Analogy

Front 1

(1)

Back 1

1) All appearances are in time, in which, as substratum (as persistent form of inner intuition), both simultaneity as well as succession can alone be represented.


From step 1, everything we perceive we perceive in time, and time is a substratum as the thing in which everything is perceived.

since Time is the form of inner intuition, everything we perceive is perceived in time. In particular, the simultaneity and succession of what we perceive, the simultaneous explosion of stars or successive impacts of meteors, the representation of those things is a representation of them as temporally related, either at the same time or one earlier than the other.

Front 2

(2)

Back 2

Therefore, the time in which all change of appearances is to be thought lasts and does not change; since succession or simultaneity can be represented only as determinations of it.


succession or simultaneity can be represented only as determinations in time – he thinks it means succession and simultaneity are properties of time, in effect.

There’s only one time, and all things that stand in temporal relations to one another, stand in a single temporal framework.

Front 3

(3)

Back 3

Time cannot be perceived by itself.

Front 4

(4) [all]

Back 4

4) Consequently, (a) it is in the objects of perception, i.e., the appearances, that the substratum must be encountered that represents time in general; and (b) it is this substratum in which all change or simultaneity can be perceived in apprehension through the relation of the appearances to it.


There must be something we can perceive that has the basic features of time that isn’t time itself.
(a) something in the field of appearance must stand in for time (b) this thing is the thing in which all change can be perceived

(4) is the crucial move of the whole argument. The basic idea is something like this: since everything we perceive is in time, and time itself cannot be perceived, there must be something that we can perceive, that has the basic features of time. Something in the field of appearances that represents [stands in for] time in general, that is a representative of time.
(b) adds that this entity that represents time in general is also the thing in which change must be perceived. Just as changes are represented as in time, properties of instance of time, so must they be represented as properties of whatever it is in perception that stands in for time.

Front 5

(4a)

Back 5

it is in the objects of perception, i.e., the appearances, that the substratum must be encountered that represents time in general;

We could say that we get on to time simply pure thought

don’t we have a pure intuition of time? Maybe that’s how we get on to time? An a priori way of getting on to time. Why isn’t that enough. We need some way to get on to time, we can’t perceive it, so there must be something that we can perceive that stands in for it. So why isn’t there a non-empirical way to do it?

Kant wouldn’t accept the first answer. Its not something he takes very seriously. We can’t get on to anything through pure thought alone. We require sensible intuition, this is what he thinks about the traditional metaphysicians they violate the boundary condition. That just can’t work. That of course is not gonna be an option that he takes seriously.


We could say we get on to time through pure intuition

It turns on Kantian notion of scientific explanation. Science is fundamentally about causal transactions in the world. That’s what science is about, that’s what its oriented towards discovering and explaining. Kant of course is willing to allow non-causal things into the scientific story like time, as well as numbers and pure space, but only because they contribute to the explanation of causal transactions in the world. That’s the bottom line for everything.

So the objective validity of our pure intuitions of time, their suitability to tell us anything at all of the subject matter of science, and not just our minds depends on their playing a role in the causal transactions that we perceive

So Sonny thinks its natural for Kant to think for their to be something in the perceptual field among the things that are causally interacting with one another to ground our cognition of time. Because everything is ultimately about that.

The only way to be confident that our pure intuitions are about something in the world, it would be natural for Kant to think (as he thinks he does) there has to be something there in perception that connects to time.

That’s why he would go from 3-4a

Front 6

(4b)

Back 6

it is this substratum in which all change or simultaneity can be perceived in apprehension through the relation of the appearances to it.


series of assumptions that Kant seems to make, increasing in strength
(A) If change is to be perceived, the change must be contrasted with something stable in perception (something stabled that is perceived in perception)
(B) If change is to be perceived, the change must be perceived in something stable in perception.
(C) If change is to be perceived, the change must be perceived in something stable and permanent in perception.

Front 7

(5)

Back 7

The substratum of everything real, i.e., everything that belongs to the existence of things, is substance, of which everything that belongs to existence can be thought only as a determination.

the representative of time to which we referred to in (4) is substance. This should be no surprise given (1), and Kant’s general emphasis that science is trying to explain causal transactions in the world, and things only get into science as they are relevant to the explanation of those causal transactions.

Substances belongs to the existence of all things, everything that belongs to the existence of substance is a property. 'Belong to' in the sense that roundness belongs to the ball.

Front 8

(6)

Back 8

Consequently, that which persists, in relation to which alone all temporal relations of appearances can be determined, is substance in the appearance, i.e., the real in the appearance, which as the substratum of all change always remains the same.


Consequently, Kant spells out what it is to identify substance as the thing that stands in for time. Just as time doesn’t change (2), substance lasts, and doesn’t “change”, substance is there to do the work of time, in the field of appearance

Front 9

(7)

Back 9

Since this substance cannot change in existence, its quantum in nature can also be neither increased nor diminished.


not only is substance always there but its quantity never diminishes nor decreases – the thought seems to be: what would it be for there to be more or less of substance? Well that would be for some of it to go in or out of existence, but that’s not anything it could do.