In paragraph B151 of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (CPR), he defines the imagination as follows:
Imagination is the faculty for representing an object even without its presence in intuition.
However, from the very first line of the Transcendental Ascetic, intuition is defined as everything related to the cognition of objects. These two definitions taken together introduce something of a contradiction, as one cannot define an object outside of intuition when intuition itself is defined as relating only to objects. It seems, however, that in intuition is used throughout the text basically synonymously with in sensibility. Am I correct is claiming that intuition in the CPR in fact has two different meanings, one when referring to something as an intuition, and another when speaking of something in intuition?
