There is a use of the word _symbolical_ that has been adopted by modern logicians, which is misleading and incorrect, _i.e._ to speak of the _symbolical_ mode of representation as if it were opposed to the _intuitive_; for the symbolical is only a mode of the intuitive. The latter (the intuitive), that is, may be divided into the _schematical_ and the _symbolical_ modes of representation. Both are hypotyposes, _i.e._ presentations (_exhibitiones_); not mere _characterisations_, or designations of concepts by accompanying sensible signs which contain nothing belonging to the intuition of the Object, and only serve as a means for reproducing the concepts, according to the law of association of the Imagination, and consequently in a subjective point of view. These are either words, or visible (algebraical, even mimetical) signs, as mere expressions for concepts.[103] All intuitions, which we supply to concepts _a priori_, are therefore either _schemata_ or _symbols_, of which the former contain direct, the latter indirect, presentations of the concept. The former do this demonstratively; the latter by means of an analogy (for which we avail ourselves even of empirical intuitions) in which the Judgement exercises a double function; first applying the concept to the object of a sensible intuition, and then applying the mere rule of the reflection made upon that intuition to a quite different object of which the first is only the symbol. Thus a monarchical state is represented by a living body, if it is governed by national laws, and by a mere machine (like a hand-mill) if governed by an individual absolute will; but in both cases only _symbolically_. For between a despotic state and a hand-mill there is, to be sure, no similarity; but there is a similarity in the rules according to which we reflect upon these two things and their causality. This matter has not been sufficiently analysed hitherto, for it deserves a deeper investigation; but this is not the place to linger over it. Our language [_i.e._ German] is full of indirect presentations of this sort, in which the expression does not contain the proper schema for the concept, but merely a symbol for reflection. Thus the words _ground_ (support, basis), _to depend_ (to be held up from above), to _flow_ from something (instead of, to follow), _substance_ (as _Locke_ expresses it, the support of accidents), and countless others, are not schematical but symbolical hypotyposes and expressions for concepts, not by means of a direct intuition, but only by analogy with it, _i.e._ by the transference of reflection upon an object of intuition to a quite different concept to which perhaps an intuition can never directly correspond. If we are to give the name of cognition to a mere mode of representation (which is quite permissible if the latter is not a principle of the theoretical determination of what an object is in itself, but of the practical determination of what the Idea of it