this purpose, the _content_ of the new science is embodied in the _Analytic_. In the second edition of the _Critique_ the confusion between natural science and immanent metaphysics still persists, and a new source of ambiguity is added through the reformulation of the third question. It is now limited to the problem of the _subjective_ origin of metaphysics as a natural disposition. The fourth question has therefore to be widened, so as to include transcendent as well as immanent, the old as well as the new, metaphysics. But save for this one alteration the entire section is inspired by considerations foreign to the _Critique_; this section, like B 17, must be recast before it will harmonise with the subsequent argument. =Every kind of knowledge is called pure, etc.=[305]--These sentences are omitted in the second edition. They have been rendered unnecessary by the further and more adequate definition of “pure” given in B 3 ff. =Reason is the faculty which supplies the principles of knowledge a priori.=[306]--This statement should, as Vaihinger points out, be interpreted in the light of A 299 = B 355. “Reason, like understanding, can be employed in a merely formal, _i.e._ logical manner, wherein it abstracts from all content of knowledge. But it is also capable of a real use,[307] since it contains within itself the source of certain concepts and principles, which it does not borrow either from the senses or from the understanding.” Reason is taken in the first of the above meanings. Reason in its real use, when extended so as to include pure sensibility and understanding,[308] is the pure reason referred to in the next sentence of the _Critique. A priori_ is here used to signify the relatively _a priori_; in the next sentence it denotes the absolutely _a priori_. =An Organon of pure reason.=[309]--What follows, from this point to the middle of the next section, is a good example of Kant’s patchwork method of piecing together old manuscript in the composition of the _Critique_. There seems to be no way of explaining its bewildering contradictions save by accepting Vaihinger’s[310] conclusion that it consists of three separate accounts, written at different times, and representing different phases in the development of Kant’s views. I. The first account, beginning with the above words and ending with “already a considerable gain” (_schon sehr viel gewonnen ist_), is evidently the oldest. It reveals the influence of the _Dissertation_. It distinguishes: 1. =Critique= of pure reason ( = _Propaedeutic_). 2. =Organon= of pure reason. 3. =System= of pure reason. 1. =Critique= is a critical examination (_Beurtheilung_) of pure reason, its sources and limits. The implication (obscured by the direct relating of _Critique_ to _System_) is that it prepares the way for the _Organon_. 2. =Organon= comprehends all the principles by which pure knowledge can be acquired and actually established.