Logic, the Analytic as well as the Dialectic. In the Analytic it is treated under the rubric of the analogies of experience, and in the dialectic, under the rubric of the antinomies. In the Analytic it is treated in an even more particular way within the question of the schematism. But the schematism is what links together the two fundamental parts of the Analytic, namely the Analytic of Concepts and the Analytic of Principles; and so the schematism belongs to both parts. Everywhere we look—the Transcendental Aesthetic, the Analytic of Concepts, the Analytic of Principles, the Dialectic—we encounter the problem of time. So even from this quick run-through it is already clear that time plays an exceptional role in the context of the whole. And within these various areas of the philosophical explanation of time within the Critique of Pure Reason, time undergoes different determinations, which of course cohere among themselves. We cannot say that as of now anyone has achieved a real interpretation drawn not just from Kant’s words and sentences but from an understanding of the issue, an interpretation that would bring to light, and above all demonstrate the intrinsic necessity of, this inner connection between the problematic of the Critique and the problem of time. This task is identical with [271] getting a real understanding of the unitary problematic of the Critique of Pure Reason.
This problem of the unity of the problematic of the Critique of Pure Reason is precisely what has occupied the attention of the Marburg School in particular. At a philosophical level, the Marburg School has far surpassed all contemporary interpretations of Kant in the one-sidedness and violence of the way they have proceeded. Cohen took transcendental apperception as the real center of Kant’s problematic, and tried to interpret the entire Critique from there, from the Transcendental Analytic and specifically from the demonstration of the origin of the categories and principles; i.e., he tried to put the Transcendental Aesthetic aside as a domain that could stand on its own. In other words, in as much as time is determined as pure intuition in the Transcendental Aesthetic, Cohen tried to determine it in terms of logic, as a concept of the understanding. He carried this out systematically in the first volume of his system, Logik der reinen Erkenntnis (1902).48 Cf. also Natorp, Die logischen Grundlagen der exakten Wissenschaften (1910).49 The principle behind the Marburg Kant-interpretation is to dissolve this twofoldness of sensibility and understanding (or of being-given and being-thought) into being-thought [Gedachtwerden] as pure thinking—i.e., to dissolve it
48. [Hermann Cohen (1842–1918), Logik der reinen Erkenntnis (The Logic of Pure Knowledge) (Berlin: B. Cassirer, 1922).]
49. [Paul Natorp (1854–1924), Die logischen Grundlagen der exakten Wissenschaften (The Logical Foundations of the Exact Sciences) (Leipzig: Teubner, 1910; 2d edition, 1921).]