hypotyposes

Kant's text even illustrates hypotyposis by hypotyposis: His verbal comparison between the comparison between tyrannies and pepper grinders, on one hand, and symbolic and schematic hypotyposes, on the other, shows by symbolic hypotyposis how symbols and schemata are both hypotyposes.

Seeing Is Reading 2005

So we can now say about hypotyposes that when they are schematic, they are natural, that is, they are plunged in space and time and in the natural world.

Seeing Is Reading 2005

But hypotyposes — I return now to §59 — can also be symbolic:

Seeing Is Reading 2005

He also specifies what hypotyposes are not: mere characterizations, i.e. designations of concepts by accompanying sensible signs

Seeing Is Reading 2005

Locke puts it), and countless others are not schematic but symbolic hypotyposes; they express concepts not by means of a direct intuition but only according to an analogy with one, i.e., a transfer of our reflection on an object of intuition to an entirely different concept, to which perhaps no intuition can ever directly correspond.

Seeing Is Reading 2005