But the most important alteration, the introduction of the threefold division of each sub-heading, is not thus explicable, as exclusively due to one or other of the two factors. The adoption of this threefold arrangement in place of the dichotomous divisions of the logical classification and of the haphazard enumerations of Kant’s own previous lists, seems to be due to the twofold circumstance that he had already distinguished three categories of synthesis or relation (always the most important for Kant), and that this sufficiently harmonised with the logical distinction between categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive judgments. He then sought to modify the logical divisions by addition in each case of a third, and finding that this helped him to obtain the categories required, the threefold division became for him (as it remained for Hegel) an almost mystical dogma of transcendental philosophy.[701] In so far as it involved recognition that the hard and fast opposites of the traditional logic (such as the universal and the particular, the affirmative and the negative) are really aspects inseparably involved in every judgment and in all existence, it constituted an advance in the direction both of a deeper rationalism and of a more genuine empiricism. But in so far as it was due to the desire to guarantee completeness on _a priori_ grounds, and so was inspired by a persistent overestimate of our _a priori_ powers, it has been decidedly harmful. Much of the useless “architectonic” of the _Critique_ is due to this scholastic prejudice. This fundamental alteration in the table of logical judgments is introduced with the naive assertion that “varieties of thought in judgments,” unimportant in general logic, “may be of importance in the field of its pure _a priori_ knowledge.” In the _Critique of Judgment_[702] we find the following passage: “It has been made a difficulty that my divisions in pure philosophy have almost always been threefold. But this lies in the nature of the case. If an _a priori_ division is to be made, it must be either analytic, according to the principle of contradiction, and then it is always twofold (_quodlibet ens est aut A aut non A_); or else synthetic. And if in this latter case it is derived from _a priori_ concepts (not as in mathematics from the _a priori_ intuition corresponding to the concept) the division must necessarily be a trichotomy. For according to what is requisite for synthetic unity in general, there must be (1) a condition, (2) a conditioned, and (3) the concept which arises from the union of these two.”