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.