substance, causality, and reciprocal action [between agent and patient]—which Kant treats very briefly, as in fact he does with the three categories of modality and their schemata. The fact that the Analogies and the concepts are treated separately (and in general, the very conception of the problem of schematism) is dictated simply by the architectonics of the book. Kant first discusses his doctrine of the concept, then his doctrine of the proposition and conclusion. But the result is that here (as in other parts of the Critique of Pure Reason) there emerge substantive issues that lack any support.—For our present treatment, we must always remember: The term “time-determination” has many meanings, and the individual meanings are themselves insufficiently determined, which in turn contributes to their ambiguity.143
* * *
It is unclear how we should understand the structure of the figurative time-determination of substance. At any rate, Kant furnishes no indication in that regard. That is all the more serious insofar as the figurative time-determination of substance is, as one can show, the most fundamental one—an insight that is not only covered-over in Kant but also kept out of the picture by the extraneous architectonics of the Table of Judgments and the Table of the Categories.
We must try to get clear about the central and substantive meaning of this schema and of the time-determination that belongs to it. So, what kind of feature does this synthesis speciosa temporis secundum substantiam have? What is it in this category that corresponds to the mode of the figurative time-determination? What corresponds to time-production and time-filling? In the passage we already referred to (B 184–185), Kant says: the a priori, rule-governed time-determination [394] that belongs to substance concerns the order of time; that of time-production concerns the time-series [i.e., quantity]; that of timefilling concerns the content of time [i.e., quality]; and that of the category of modality, concerns the ensemble of time. From this as well, little can be gathered, especially since Kant does not say how the time-series and the order of time differ from each other. But clearly by “the order of time” Kant means the reckoning of the order of time, i.e., empirical time-reckoning.
This schema of substance also includes a special relation to time insofar as, in it, the figurative time-determination is supposed to make possible not the ability to be sensed and counted, but the ability to reckon time itself: empirical time-determinability. This schema is supposed
143. [Here Heidegger ends his lecture of Tuesday, 23 February 1926, to be followed by his lecture of Thursday, 25 February, which opened with a 400-word summary (clarifying the four kinds of time-determination) which is omitted in GA 21.]