=Two stems, sensibility and understanding, which may perhaps spring from a common root.=[340]--Kant sometimes seems to suggest[341] that imagination is this common root. It belongs both to sensibility and to understanding, and is passive as well as spontaneous. But when so viewed, imagination is virtually regarded as an unknown supersensuous power, “concealed in the depths of the soul.”[342] The supersensuous is the point of union of our disparate human faculties, as well as of nature and freedom, mechanism and teleology. =The transcendental doctrine of sense would necessarily constitute the first part of the Science of Elements.=[343]--“Necessarily constitute the first part” translates _zum ersten Theile gehören müssen_. This Vaihinger explains as an archaic mode of expression, equivalent to _ausmachen_. The point is important because, if translated quite literally, it might seem to conflict with the division actually followed, and to support the alternative division given in the _Critique of Practical Reason_. The first _Critique_ is divided thus: I. Doctrine of Elements. 1. Aesthetic. 2. Logic. (_a_) Analytic. (_b_) Dialectic. II. Doctrine of Methods. In the _Critique of Practical Reason_[344] a much more satisfactory division is suggested: I. Doctrine of Elements. 1. Analytic. (_a_) Aesthetic (Sense). (_b_) Logic (Understanding). 2. Dialectic. II. Doctrine of Methods. The first division rests on somewhat irrelevant distinctions derived from the traditional logic; the other is more directly inspired by the distinctions which naturally belong to Kant’s own philosophical system. THE TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS PART I THE TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC