Aristotle’s ten categories[734] are enumerated by Kant in _Reflexionen_, ii. 522,[735] as: (1) _substantia_, _accidens_, (2) _qualitas_, (3) _quantitas_, (4) _relatio_, (5) _actio_, (6) _passio_, (7) _quando_, (8) _ubi_, (9) _situs_, (10) _habitus_; and the five post-predicaments as: _oppositum_, _prius_, _simul_, _motus_, _habere_. Eliminating _quando_, _ubi_, _situs_, _prius_, and _simul_ as being modes of sensibility; _actio_ and _passio_ as being complex and derivative; and also omitting _habitus_ (condition) and _habere_, as being too general and indefinite in meaning to constitute separate categories; we are then left with _substantia_, _qualitas_, _quantitas_, _relatio_, and _oppositum_. The most serious defect in this reduced list, from the Kantian point of view, is its omission of causality. It is, however, a curious coincidence that when substance is taken as a form of _relatio_, and _oppositum_ as a form of quality, we are left with the three groups, quality, quantity, relation. Only modality is lacking to complete Kant’s own fourfold grouping. None the less, as the study of Kant’s _Reflexionen_ sufficiently proves,[736] it was by an entirely different route that Kant travelled to his metaphysical deduction. Watson does not seem to have any ground for his contention[737] that the above modified list of Aristotle’s categories “gave Kant his starting-point.” It was there indeed, as the reference to Aristotle in his letter of 1772 to Herz shows, that he first looked for assistance, only, however, to be disappointed in his expectations. =Derivative concepts.=[738]--Cf. above, pp. 66, 71-2. =I reserve this task for another occasion.=[739]--Cf. A 204 = B 249; A 13; above, p. 66 ff., and below, pp. 379-80. =Definitions of categories omitted.=[740]--Cf. above, pp. 195-6, and A 241 there cited; also below, pp. 339-42, 404-5. =Note 1.=[741]--On this distinction between mathematical and dynamical categories cf. below, pp. 345-7, 510-11. =Note 2.=[742]--This remark is inserted to meet a criticism which had been made by Johann Schulze,[743] and to which Kant in February 1784 had replied in terms almost identical with those of the present passage.