Beyonditsfield，however，probabilityandcommonsensemaybeusedwithadvantageandjustly，butonquitespecialprinciples，ofwhichtheimportancealwaysdependsonthereferencetopracticallife。ThisiswhatIholdmyselfjustifiedinrequiringforthepossibilityofmetaphysicsasascience。Kant’s\"Prolegomena\"—Appendix（InternetEncyclopediaofPhilosophy）Appendix：OnWhatCanBeDoneToMakeMetaphysicsActualAsAScience。Sinceallthewaysheretoforetakenhavefailedtoattainthegoal，andsincewithoutaprecedingcritiqueofpurereasonitisnotlikelyevertobeattained，thepresentessaynowbeforethepublichasafairtitletoanaccurateandcarefulinvestigation，exceptitbethoughtmoreadvisabletogiveupallpretensionstometaphysics，towhich，ifmenbutwouldconsistentlyadheretotheirpurpose，noobjectioncanbemade。Ifwetakethecourseofthingsasitis，notasitoughttobe，therearetwosortsofjudgments：（1）oneajudgmentwhichprecedesinvestigation（inourcaseoneinwhichthereaderfromhisownmetaphysicspronouncesjudgmentontheCritiqueofPureReasonwhichwasintendedtodiscusstheverypossibilityofmetaphysics）;（2）theotherajudgmentsubsequenttoinvestigation。Inthelatterthereaderisenabledtowaiveforawhiletheconsequencesofthecriticalresearchesthatmayberepugnanttohisformerlyadoptedmetaphysics，andfirstexaminesthegroundswhencethoseconsequencesarederived。Ifwhatcommonmetaphysicspropoundsweredemonstrablycertain，asforinstancethetheoremsofgeometry，theformerwayofjudgingwouldboldgood。Foriftheconsequencesofcertainprinciplesarerepugnanttoestablishedtruths，theseprinciplesarefalseandwithoutfurtherinquirytoberepudiated。Butifmetaphysicsdoesnotpossessastockofindisputablycertain（synthetical）propositions，andshoulditevenbethecasethatthereareanumberofthem，which，thoughamongthemostspecious，arebytheirconsequencesinmutualcollision，andifnosurecriterionofthetruthofpeculiarlymetaphysical（synthetical）propositionsistobemetwithinit，thentheformerwayofjudgingisnotadmissible，buttheinvestigationoftheprinciplesofthecritiquemustprecedealljudgmentsastoitsvalue。OnASpecimenOfAJudgmentOfTheCritiquePriorToItsExamination。ThisjudgmentistobefoundintheGottingischengelehrtenAnzeigen，inthesupplementtothethirddivision，ofJanuary19，1782，pages40etseq。Whenanauthorwhoisfamiliarwiththesubjectofhisworkandendeavorstopresenthisindependentreflectionsinitselaboration，fallsintothehandsofareviewerwhoinhisturn，iskeenenoughtodiscernthepointsonwhichtheworthorworthlessnessofthebookrests，whodoesnotclingtowords，butgoestotheheartofthesubject，siftingandtestingmorethanthemereprincipleswhichtheauthortakesashispointofdeparture，theseverityofthejudgmentmayindeeddispleasethelatter，butthepublicdoesnotcare，asitgainsthereby;andtheauthorhimselfmaybecontented，asanopportunityofcorrectingorexplaininghispositionsisaffordedtohimatanearlydatebytheexaminationofacompetentjudge，insuchamanner，thatifhebelieveshimselffundamentallyright，hecanremoveintimeanystoneofoffensethatmighthurtthesuccessofhiswork。Ifindmyself，withmyreviewer，inquiteanotherposition。Heseemsnottoseeatalltherealmatteroftheinvestigationwithwhich（successfullyorunsuccessfully）Ihavebeenoccupied。Itiseitherimpatienceatthinkingoutalengthywork，orvexationatathreatenedreformofascienceinwhichhebelievedhehadbroughteverythingtoperfectionlongago，or，whatIamunwillingtoimagine，realnarrow—mindedness，thatpreventshimfromevercarryinghisthoughtsbeyondhisschool—metaphysics。Inshort，hepassesimpatientlyinreviewalongseriesofpropositions，bywhich，withoutknowingtheirpremises，wecanthinknothing，intersperseshereandtherehiscensure，thereasonofwhichthereaderunderstandsjustaslittleasthepropositionsagainstwhichitisdirected;andhence[hisreport]canneitherservethepublicnordamageme，inthejudgmentofexperts。Ishould，forthesereasons，havepassedoverthisjudgmentaltogether，wereitnotthatitmayaffordmeoccasionforsomeexplanationswhichmayinsomecasessavethereadersoftheseProlegomenafromamisconception。Inordertotakeapositionfromwhichmyreviewercouldmosteasilysetthewholeworkinamostunfavorablelight，withoutventuringtotroublehimselfwithanyspecialinvestigation，hebeginsandendsbysaying：\"Thisworkisasystemoftranscendent（or，ashetranslatesit，ofhigher）Idealism。\"42AglanceatthislinesoonshowedmethesortofcriticismthatIhadtoexpect，muchasthoughthereviewerwereonewhohadneverseenorheardofgeometry，havingfoundaEuclid，andcominguponvariousfiguresinturningoveritsleaves，weretosay，onbeingaskedhisopinionofit：
\"Theworkisatext—bookofdrawing;theauthorintroducesapeculiarterminology，inordertogivedark，incomprehensibledirections，whichintheendteachnothingmorethanwhateveryonecaneffectbyafairnaturalaccuracyofeye，etc。\"Letussee，inthemeantime，whatsortofanidealismitisthatgoesthroughmywholework，althoughitdoesnotbyalongwayconstitutethesoulofthesystem。ThedictumofallgenuineidealistsfromtheEleaticschooltoBishopBerkeley，iscontainedinthisformula：\"Allcognitionthroughthesensesandexperienceisnothingbutsheerillusion，andonly，intheideasofthepureunderstandingandreasonthereistruth。\"TheprinciplethatthroughoutdominatesanddeterminesmyIdealism，isonthecontrary：\"Allcognitionofthingsmerelyfrompureunderstandingorpurereasonisnothingbutsheerillusion，andonlyinexperienceistheretruth。\"Butthisisdirectlycontrarytoidealismproper。HowcameIthentousethisexpressionforquiteanoppositepurpose，andhowcamemyreviewertoseeiteverywhere？Thesolutionofthisdifficultyrestsonsomethingthatcouldhavebeenveryeasilyunderstoodfromthegeneralbearingofthework，ifthereaderhadonlydesiredtodoso。Spaceandtime，togetherwithallthattheycontain，arenotthingsnorqualitiesinthemselves，butbelongmerelytotheappearancesofthelatter：uptothispointIamoneinconfessionwiththeaboveidealists。Butthese，andamongstthemmoreparticularlyBerkeley，regardedspaceasamereempiricalpresentationthat，likethephenomenonitcontains，isonlyknowntousbymeansofexperienceorperception，togetherwithitsdeterminations。I，onthecontrary，proveinthefirstplace，thatspace（andalsotime，whichBerkeleydidnotconsider）andallitsdeterminationsapriori，canbeknownbyus，because，nolessthantime，itinheresinoursensibilityasapureformbeforeallperceptionorexperienceandmakesallintuitionofthesame，andthereforeallitsphenomena，possible。Itfollowsfromthis，thatastruthrestsonuniversalandnecessarylawsasitscriteria，experience，accordingtoBerkeley，canhavenocriteriaoftruth，becauseitsphenomena（accordingtohim）havenothingaprioriattheirfoundation;whenceitfollows，thattheyarenothingbutsheerillusion;whereaswithus，spaceandtime（inconjunctionwiththepureconceptionsoftheunderstanding）prescribetheirlawtoallpossibleexperienceapriori，andatthesametimeaffordthecertaincriterionfordistinguishingtruthfromillusiontherein。43Myso—called（properlycritical）Idealismisofquiteaspecialcharacter，inthatitsubvertstheordinaryidealism，andthatthroughitallcognitionapriori，eventhatofgeometry，firstreceivesobjectivereality，which，withoutmydemonstratedidealityofspaceandtime，couldnotbemaintainedbythemostzealousrealists。Thisbeingthestateofthecase，Icouldhavewished，inordertoavoidallmisunderstanding，tohavenamedthisconceptionofmineotherwise，buttoalteritaltogetherwasimpossible。
Itmaybepermittedmehowever，infuture，ashasbeenaboveintimated，totermittheformal，orbetterstill，thecriticalIdealism，todistinguishitfromthedogmaticIdealismofBerkeley，andfromtheskepticalIdealismofDescartes。Beyondthis，Ifindnothingfurtherremarkableinthejudgmentofmybook。
Thereviewercriticizeshereandthere，makessweepingcriticisms，amodeprudentlychosen，sinceitdoesnotbetrayone’sownknowledgeorignorance;
asinglethoroughcriticismindetail，hadittouchedthemainquestion，asisonlyfair，wouldhaveexposed，itmaybemyerror，oritmaybemyreviewer’smeasureofinsightintothisspeciesofresearch。Itwas，moreover，notabadlyconceivedplan，inorderatoncetotakefromreaders（whoareaccustomedtoformtheirconceptionsofbooksfromnewspaperreports）