This article attempts to answer the question of the completeness and origin of the table of the “functions of unity in the judgments”, namely through their complete derivation from apperception. The key to this lies, on the one hand, in the structure of synthesis borrowed from the conclusion; on the other hand, in the logical difference between analyticity and syntheticity. The proof therefore has two steps: First, the moments of the judgment ‘I think’ are grasped logically by the relation of unity and synthesis. Here, ‘I think’ is nothing other than the logical form or function of unity in judgment, which grasps itself and thus distinguishes matter and form. This leads to four logical operations that can be distinguished from one another, which we know as the four titles. Second, the derivation of the individual functions of judgment now follows with their synthetic form. Thus, the first logical functions are related according to the condition of thinking and thereby determine the logical subject of thought; the second form into the conditional object of self-thinking and the unity of the third categories determines the concept of the epitome of thinking in general.