/lit/ - Literature

The rest of the Critique has been a breeze except for one section in the Transcendental Aesthetic about apperception, but now I am starting to reach some difficulty. Is my understanding correct so far:

The point of the transcendental deduction is to explain why the pure concepts of the understanding apply to representations necessarily. Kant says for cognition of an object, we need a threefold synthesis.

1) The synthesis of apprehension, this is basically just taking a manifold of intuitions and ordering them in time (and presumably space?) so they can be cognized as one unified object.

2) Reproduction in imagination is being able to “remember” prior representations, so if you were to draw a line in your mind like Kant says, you would be able to remember the whole by the time you reach the end of the line because you can reproduce each prior state. Or if you were to look at a tree from top to bottom, you would be able to reproduce the leaves while looking at the trunk. This also applies to space and time themselves, because to be aware of something’s determination in space or time you must reproduce the other extensions of space and past times in imagination.

3) Recognition in a concept is where things begin to go off the rails for me. At A103 Kant seems to say that we must also be aware that our reproductions belong to the same “object” in representation, because if each representation was not tied together it would seem as if we are experiencing a new object each representation. He uses the example of counting because you need to be aware of the prior steps to understand what number you are counting to. E.g if I am trying to count to 6 and I reach 5 and forget my place, I can no longer count to 6 because I don’t know where I am at. Then he talks about objects and how our manifold of intuitions must agree with each other to cognize an object, and this is done through a concept.

From A107 to the end of 3, I am lost. I can understand some of the individual sentences, but I am not sure how they tie together at all. If any anon can explain to me how the first two syntheses and the following sections about “transcendental apperception” reach the conclusion of “pure concepts of the understanding must necessarily apply to our experience”, I would be extremely grateful. This section is the only one holding me back from the rest of the book, and presumably the Deduction in B will be hard as well.