This is an excerpt from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
It is, however, clear that even this apprehension of the manifold alone would bring forth no image and no connection of the impressions were
there not a subjective ground for calling back a perception, from which
the mind has passed on to another, to the succeeding ones, and thus for exhibiting entire series of perceptions, i.e., a reproductive faculty of imagination, which is then also merely empirical.
The above sentenced puzzled me because of the bold-faced part.
- Is were there not a subjective ground a literary form of if it were not for a subjective ground?
- Why is thus for used? I think thus should be used instead. I don't see how the preposition for can be appropriate here.
Best Answer
Yes, were there not is a an inverted conditional and means if there were not ("were" is subjunctive):
Such examples
As for your second query, the answer is no, you should not omit for as exhibiting is connected by the preposition for to ground, just as calling back a perception is. Think of your sentence in this way:
So two gerundial clauses modify ground: