BODY AND PRACTICE IN KANT

THE RELATIONAL CATEGORIES 283
the category of causality. This category, then, is proven to be an a priori
condition of what was taken to be evident, and the proof is concluded. In
giving his proof of the transcendental function of causality, Kant does not
require us to constantly investigate the exact causal relations of the
elements of our environment in order to objectively determine time, at
least not in the way I read him. I take Kant’s point to be that the fact that
we experience the world as a series of events taking place in an
irreversible time order confirms that we already apply the category of
causality in our experience, even if we are not explicitly aware of this.
This is possible, because, as we have seen, Kant contends that a
significant part of our cognitive process may take place at an obscure
level of consciousness.
10.3 The third analogy
In my presentation of the two previous analogies, I have tried to
emphasis their main structure, deliberately omitting a number of details.
My discussion of the third analogy will be even briefer. In short, Kant
claims that determining two objects as simultaneous require the category
of reciprocal causal interaction. He has previously stated that time has
only two modi, that is, succession and simultaneity (B 226/A182). In the
second analogy he argued that objective succession presupposes causality.
Thus, the first of the two modi of time was taken care of. The second
modus, simultaneity, is the topic of the third analogy. As I understand it,
Kant’s theory of the category of reciprocal causal interaction is little
more than an extension of his theory of the category of causality.
According to this theory, while the latter determines a causal relation to
be present between A and B, the former determines that it also, at the
same time, is present between B and A. If this is right, it follows that
causality, alongside substantiality, is the essential principle of time
determination. It also follows that simultaneity is a special case of
succession. When A and B causally influence each other reciprocally, we
may say both that A succeeds B and that B succeeds A, which can be true
only if they are simultaneous and the time between A and B is zero. 6
6 This comes close to the cases described in the second analogy at A 203ff/ B
247ff. Here Kant discusses cases in which cause and effect exist simultaneously.
Actually some of these cases, such as the iron ball resting on a pillow, might have
been used as examples of reciprocal interaction just as well as unidirectional
causality. In this case, there is causal directionality present both from the ball to
the pillow and from the pillow to the ball.