that there is no image for pure concepts means that, insofar as they are concepts, they cannot be by way of a copy [abgebildet]. “No image” means no empirical image, i.e., no directly accessible empirical schemaimage like the five dots. Nonetheless, if the talk about the schema of a category is to have any meaning at all, there must be an image in the sense of a schema-image. The category must be able to be sensibly depicted. And the way in which it can and must be depicted is precisely what should be shown by the explanation of the schematism of the pure categories of understanding.

Why then did Kant deny so abruptly the possibility of a pure schema having an image? That is his way of saying that a pure schema must have an a priori image because the depiction of the pure concepts of the understanding must be a priori necessary and possible. The a priori concept must be able to be sensibilized and to show up in and as something that can show up a priori. But the one thing that antecedently and a priori shows up and in every appearances that shows up—is time. Time is the a priori of sensibility and the a priori of any possible a priori sensibilization.

However, as Kant constantly emphasizes (in the demonstrations of the Analogies: cf. the passages cited above), time is something that cannot be perceived, something that does not directly show up to any empirical view as, and only as, itself. Therefore, the sentence above, in which Kant says that a pure schema cannot have an image, can only mean: The pure understanding cannot have a sensible image. Rather, [377] the only possible image it can have is the a priori condition of sensibility itself, namely time, that which is unthematically pre-viewed in the pre-view that is antecedent in all intuiting. This pre-viewed [viz., time], which shows up constantly but unthematically in the pre-view—this peculiar sight that is seen in the unthematic pre-view—this is a particular and pre-eminent “self-showing”: it is a species, an image. And therefore, even though Kant denies that a pure schema can have an image, he can still speak of time as an image. Time is a pre-eminent a priori image, a “pure image”: “The pure image . . . for all objects of the senses in general is time” (B 182).¹²⁷

* * *

We say that the pure schema of the categories cannot be brought into any image at all; that means it can be brought only into a “pure image.” This means that there is only one thing in which the pure concepts of the understanding can and must be depicted, only one thing in which they must show themselves as what they are—and that is a single pos-

127. [Here (Moser, p. 756) Heidegger ends his lecture of Friday, 19 February 1926, to be followed by that of Monday, 22 February, which opened with a 450word summary that is omitted in GA 21.]