=A knowledge of objects which we call experience.=[206]--Kant does not keep to this definition. The term experience is still used in its other and narrower sense, as in the very next paragraph, when Kant states that knowledge does not, perhaps, arise solely from experience (= sense impressions). =In respect of time.=[207]--This statement, taken as an account of Kant’s teaching in the _Critique_, is subject to two reservations. In the _Aesthetic_[208] Kant sometimes claims a temporal antecedence for the _a priori_. And secondly, the _a priori_ is not for Kant merely logical. It also possesses a dynamical priority.[209] =Even experience itself is a compound.=[210]--The “even” seems to refer to the distinction drawn in A 2 between the immanent and the transcendent _a priori_.[211] =It is therefore a question whether there exists such knowledge independent of experience.=[212]--This question was not raised in the first edition.[213] The alternative methods, analytic and synthetic, are discussed above, p. 44 ff. =Such knowledge is called a priori and is distinguished from empirical knowledge.=[214]--Throughout the _Introduction_, in both editions equally, Kant fails to state the problems of the _Critique_ in a sufficiently comprehensive manner. He speaks as if the _Critique_ dealt only with the absolutely _a priori_, in its two forms, as immanent scientific knowledge and as transcendent speculation. It also deals with the equally important and still more fundamental problem of accounting for the possibility of _experience_.[215] Our empirical knowledge involves an _a priori_ element, and may not therefore be opposed to _a priori_ knowledge in the manner of the passage before us.