possess à priori, but in the mode of evidence thereof, cou quently also in the manner of demonstration. But what has been observed of all synthetical proposition and must be particularly remarked in this place, is th that these analogies possess significance and validity, not principles of the transcendental, but only as principles of t empirical use of the understanding, and their truth c therefore be proved only as such, and that consequen the phænomena must not be subjoined directly under t categories, but only under their schemata. For if the obje to which those principles must be applied were things themselves, it would be quite impossible to cognize aught co cerning them synthetically à priori. But they are nothi but phænomena; a complete knowledge of which-a kno ledge to which all principles à priori must at last relate-is 1 only possible experience. It follows that these principles have nothing else for their aim, than the conditions of t unity of empirical cognition in the synthesis of phænome But this synthesis is cogitated only in the schema of the pr conception of the understanding, of whose unity, as that o synthesis in general, the category contains the function un stricted by any sensuous condition. These principles therefore authorize us to connect phænomena according analogy, with the logical and universal unity of concep consequently to employ the categories in the princ selves; but in the application use only their schemata, as t instead of the categories, conditions, under the tit All phæn that is, as t existence ar |