=A 3-4 = B 7-8.=--The reasons, here cited by Kant, for the failure of philosophical thinking to recognise the difference between immanent and transcendent judgments are: (1) the misunderstood character, and consequent misleading influence, of _a priori_ mathematical judgments; (2) the fact that once we are beyond the sensible sphere, experience can never contradict us; (3) natural delight in the apparent enlargement of our knowledge; (4) the ease with which logical contradictions can be avoided; (5) neglect of the distinction between analytic and synthetic _a priori_ judgments. Vaihinger points out[238] that in the _Fortschritte_[239] Kant adds a sixth reason--confusion of the concepts of understanding with the Ideas of Reason. Upon the first of the above reasons the best comment is that of the _Methodology_.[240] But the reader must likewise bear in mind that in B xvi Kant develops his new philosophical method on the analogy of the mathematical method. The latter is, he claims, _mutatis mutandis_, the true method of _legitimate_ speculation, _i.e._ of immanent metaphysics. The one essential difference (as noted by Kant[241]), which has been overlooked by the dogmatists, is that philosophy gains its knowledge from concepts, mathematics from the construction of concepts. =Remain investigations only.=[242]--Cf. _Prolegomena_, § 35. =The analysis of our concepts of objects.=[243]--Vaihinger’s interpretation, that the concepts here referred to are those which we “form _a priori_ of things,”[244] seems correct.[245] The rationalists sought to deduce the whole body of rational psychology from the _a priori_ conception of the soul as a simple substance, and of rational theology from the _a priori_ conception of God as the all-perfect Being.