3. =System= is the complete application of such an _Organon_. This classification is, as Paulsen[311] was the first to remark, an adaptation of the _Dissertation_ standpoint. II. The second account begins: “I entitle all knowledge transcendental,” but is broken by the third account--from “Such a _Critique_” to the end of the paragraph--which has been inserted into the middle of it. It is then continued in the next section. It distinguishes: 1. =Critique= of pure reason. 2. =Transcendental philosophy.= 1. =Critique= contains the principles of all _a priori synthetical_ knowledge, tracing an architectonic plan which guarantees the completeness and certainty of all the parts. 2. =Transcendental philosophy= contains their complete analytic development, and is therefore the system of such knowledge. III. The third account (“Such a _Critique_” to end of paragraph) in its main divisions follows the first account: 1. _Critique_, 2. _Organon_ or _Canon_, 3. _System_. But they are now defined in a different manner. _Critique_ is a propaedeutic for the _Organon_. But _Organon_, which signifies the totality of the principles through which pure knowledge is attained and extended,[312] may not be possible. In that case the _Critique_ is a preparation only for a _Canon_, _i.e._ the totality of the principles of the _proper_ employment of reason.[313] The _Organon_ or _Canon_, in turn, will render possible a _System_ of the philosophy of pure reason, the former yielding a system in extension of _a priori_ knowledge, the latter a system which defines the limits of _a priori_ knowledge. It is impossible to reduce these divergencies to a single consistent view. They illustrate the varying sense in which Kant uses the term “metaphysics.” In the first account, even though that account is based on a distinction drawn in the _Dissertation_, the _system_ of metaphysics is immanent; in the second it is also transcendent; in the third it is neutral.[314] =Propaedeutic.=[315]--That the _Critique_ is only propaedeutic to a _System_ of pure reason was later denied by Kant in the following emphatic terms: “I must here observe that I cannot understand the attempt to ascribe to me the view that I have sought to supply only a Propaedeutic to transcendental philosophy, not the System of this philosophy. Such a view could never have entered my thoughts, for I have myself praised the systematic completeness (_das vollendete Ganze_) of the pure philosophy in the _Critique of Pure Reason_ as the best mark of its truth.”[316] Kant thus finally, after much vacillation in his use of the terms, came to the conclusion that _Critique_, _Transcendental Philosophy_, and _System_ all coincide. Meantime he has forgotten his own previous and conflicting utterances on this point.