the critique of pure reason-第105章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



like　everything　that　springs　from　nature；　must　in　its　final　purpose　be

conducive　to　the　good　of　humanity…　to　conceal　our　real　sentiments；　and

to　give　expression　only　to　certain　received　opinions；　which　are

regarded　as　at　once　safe　and　promotive　of　the　common　good。　It　is　true；

this　tendency；　not　only　to　conceal　our　real　sentiments；　but　to　profess

those　which　may　gain　us　favour　in　the　eyes　of　society；　has　not　only

civilized；　but；　in　a　certain　measure；　moralized　us；　as　no　one　can

break　through　the　outward　covering　of　respectability；　honour；　and

morality；　and　thus　the　seemingly…good　examples　which　we　which　we　see

around　us　form　an　excellent　school　for　moral　improvement；　so　long　as

our　belief　in　their　genuineness　remains　unshaken。　But　this　disposition

to　represent　ourselves　as　better　than　we　are；　and　to　utter　opinions

which　are　not　our　own；　can　be　nothing　more　than　a　kind　of　provisionary

arrangement　of　nature　to　lead　us　from　the　rudeness　of　an　uncivilized

state；　and　to　teach　us　how　to　assume　at　least　the　appearance　and

manner　of　the　good　we　see。　But　when　true　principles　have　been

developed；　and　have　obtained　a　sure　foundation　in　our　habit　of

thought；　this　conventionalism　must　be　attacked　with　earnest　vigour；

otherwise　it　corrupts　the　heart；　and　checks　the　growth　of　good

dispositions　with　the　mischievous　weed　of　air　appearances。

　　I　am　sorry　to　remark　the　same　tendency　to　misrepresentation　and

hypocrisy　in　the　sphere　of　speculative　discussion；　where　there　is　less

temptation　to　restrain　the　free　expression　of　thought。　For　what　can　be

more　prejudicial　to　the　interests　of　intelligence　than　to　falsify

our　real　sentiments；　to　conceal　the　doubts　which　we　feel　in　regard

to　our　statements；　or　to　maintain　the　validity　of　grounds　of　proof

which　we　well　know　to　be　insufficient？　So　long　as　mere　personal　vanity

is　the　source　of　these　unworthy　artifices…　and　this　is　generally　the

case　in　speculative　discussions；　which　are　mostly　destitute　of

practical　interest；　and　are　incapable　of　complete　demonstration…　the

vanity　of　the　opposite　party　exaggerates　as　much　on　the　other　side；

and　thus　the　result　is　the　same；　although　it　is　not　brought　about　so

soon　as　if　the　dispute　had　been　conducted　in　a　sincere　and　upright

spirit。　But　where　the　mass　entertains　the　notion　that　the　aim　of

certain　subtle　speculators　is　nothing　less　than　to　shake　the　very

foundations　of　public　welfare　and　morality…　it　seems　not　only　prudent；

but　even　praise　worthy；　to　maintain　the　good　cause　by　illusory

arguments；　rather　than　to　give　to　our　supposed　opponents　the　advantage

of　lowering　our　declarations　to　the　moderate　tone　of　a　merely

practical　conviction；　and　of　compelling　us　to　confess　our　inability　to

attain　to　apodeictic　certainty　in　speculative　subjects。　But　we　ought

to　reflect　that　there　is　nothing；　in　the　world　more　fatal　to　the

maintenance　of　a　good　cause　than　deceit；　misrepresentation；　and

falsehood。　That　the　strictest　laws　of　honesty　should　be　observed　in

the　discussion　of　a　purely　speculative　subject　is　the　least

requirement　that　can　be　made。　If　we　could　reckon　with　security　even

upon　so　little；　the　conflict　of　speculative　reason　regarding　the

important　questions　of　God；　immortality；　and　freedom；　would　have

been　either　decided　long　ago；　or　would　very　soon　be　brought　to　a

conclusion。　But；　in　general；　the　uprightness　of　the　defence　stands

in　an　inverse　ratio　to　the　goodness　of　the　cause；　and　perhaps　more

honesty　and　fairness　are　shown　by　those　who　deny　than　by　those　who

uphold　these　doctrines。

　　I　shall　persuade　myself；　then；　that　I　have　readers　who　do　not　wish

to　see　a　righteous　cause　defended　by　unfair　arguments。　Such　will　now

recognize　the　fact　that；　according　to　the　principles　of　this　Critique；

if　we　consider　not　what　is；　but　what　ought　to　be　the　case；　there　can

be　really　no　polemic　of　pure　reason。　For　how　can　two　persons　dispute

about　a　thing；　the　reality　of　which　neither　can　present　in　actual　or

even　in　possible　experience？　Each　adopts　the　plan　of　meditating　on　his

idea　for　the　purpose　of　drawing　from　the　idea；　if　he　can；　what　is　more

than　the　idea；　that　is；　the　reality　of　the　object　which　it

indicates。　How　shall　they　settle　the　dispute；　since　neither　is　able　to

make　his　assertions　directly　comprehensible　and　certain；　but　must

restrict　himself　to　attacking　and　confuting　those　of　his　opponent？　All

statements　enounced　by　pure　reason　transcend　the　conditions　of

possible　experience；　beyond　the　sphere　of　which　we　can　discover　no

criterion　of　truth；　while　they　are　at　the　same　time　framed　in

accordance　with　the　laws　of　the　understanding；　which　are　applicable

only　to　experience；　and　thus　it　is　the　fate　of　all　such　speculative

discussions　that　while　the　one　party　attacks　the　weaker　side　of　his

opponent；　he　infallibly　lays　open　his　own　weaknesses。

　　The　critique　of　pure　reason　may　be　regarded　as　the　highest

tribunal　for　all　speculative　disputes；　for　it　is　not　involved　in　these

disputes；　which　have　an　immediate　relation　to　certain　objects　and

not　to　the　laws　of　the　mind；　but　is　instituted　for　the　purpose　of

determining　the　rights　and　limits　of　reason。

　　Without　the　control　of　criticism；　reason　is；　as　it　were；　in　a

state　of　nature；　and　can　only　establish　its　claims　and　assertions　by

war。　Criticism；　on　the　contrary；　deciding　all　questions　according　to

the　fundamental　laws　of　its　own　institution；　secures　to　us　the　peace

of　law　and　order；　and　enables　us　to　discuss　all　differences　in　the

more　tranquil　manner　of　a　legal　process。　In　the　former　case；

disputes　are　ended　by　victory；　which　both　sides　may　claim　and　which　is

followed　by　a　hollow　armistice；　in　the　latter；　by　a　sentence；　which；

as　it　strikes　at　the　root　of　all　speculative　differences；　ensures　to

all　concerned　a　lasting　peace。　The　endless　disputes　of　a　dogmatizing

reason　compel　us　to　look　for　some　mode　of　arriving　at　a　settled

decision　by　a　critical　investigation　of　reason　itself；　just　as

Hobbes　maintains　that　the　state　of　nature　is　a　state　of　injustice

and　violence；　and　that　we　must　leave　it　and　submit　ourselves　to　the

constraint　of　law；　which　indeed　limits　individual　freedom；　but　only

that　it　may　consist　with　the　freedom　of　others　and　with　the　common

good　of　all。

　　This　freedom　will；　among　other　things；　permit　of　our　openly

stating　the　difficulties　and　doubts　which　we　are　ourselves　unable　to

solve；　without　being　decried　on　that　account　as　turbulent　and

dangerous　citizens。　This　privilege　forms　part　of　the　native　rights

of　human　reason；　which　recognizes　no　other　judge　than　the　universal

reason　of　humanity；　and　as　this　reason　is　the　source　of　all　progress

and　improvement；　such　a　privilege　is　to　be　held　sacred　and　inviolable。

It　is　unwise；　moreover；　to　denounce　as　dangerous　any　bold　assertions

against；　or　rash　attacks　upon；　an　opinion　which　is　held　by　the　largest

and　most　moral　class　of　the　community；　for　that　would　be　giving　them

an　importance　which　they　do　not　deserve。　When　I　hear　that　the

freedom　of　the　will；　the　hope　of　a　future　life；　and　the　existence　of

God　have　been　overthrown　by　the　arguments　of　some　able　writer；　I

feel　a　strong　desire　to　read　his　book；　for　I　expect　that　he　will　add

to　my　knowledge　and　impart　greater　clearness　and　distinctness　to　my

views　by　the　argumentative　power　shown　in　his　writings。　But　I　am

perfectly　certain；　even　before　I　have　opened　the　book；　that　he　has　not

succeeded　in　a　single　point；　not　because　I　believe　I　am　in

possession　of　irrefutable　demonstrations　of　these　important

propositions；　but　because　this　transcendental　critique；　which　has

disclosed　to　me　the　power　and　the　limits　of　pure　reason；　has　fully

convinced　me　that；　as　it　is　insufficient　to　establish　the　affirmative；

it　is　as　powerless；　and　even　more　so；　to　assure　us　of　the　truth　of　the

negative　answer　to　these　questions。　From　what　source　does　this

free…thinker　derive　his　knowledge　that　there　is；　for　example；　no

Supreme　Being？　This　proposition　lies　out　of　the　field　of　possible

experience；　and；　therefore；　beyond　the　limits　of　human　cognition。

But　I　would　not　read　at；　all　the　answer　which　the　dogmatical

maintainer　of　the　good　cause　makes　to　his　opponent；　because　I　know

well　beforehand；　that　he　will　merely　attack　the　fallacious　grounds

of　his　adversary；　without　being　able　to　establish　his　own

assertions。　Besides；　a　new　illusory　argument；　in　the　construction　of

which　talent　and　acuteness　are　shown；　is　suggestive　of　new　ideas　and

new　trains　of　reasoning；　and　in　this　respect　the　old　and　everyday

sophistries　are　quite　useless。　Again；　the　dogmatical　opponent　of

religion　gives　employment　to　criticism；　and　enables　us　to　test　and

correct　its　principles；　while　there　is　no　occasion　for　anxiety　in

regard　to　the　influence　and　results　of　his　reasoning。

　　But；　it　will　be　said；　must　we　not　warn　the　youth　entrusted　to

academical　care　against　such　writings；　must　we　not　preserve　them

from　the　knowledge　of　these　dangerous　assertions；　until　their

judgement　is　ripened；　or　rather　until　the　doctrines　which　we　wish　to

inculcate　are　so　firmly　rooted　in　their　minds　as　to　withstand　all

attempts　at　instilling　the　contrary　dogmas；　from　whatever　quarter　they

may　come？

　　If　we　are　to　confine　ourselves　to　the　dogmatical　procedure　in　the

sphere　of　pure　reason；　and　find　ourselves　unable　to　settle　such

disputes　otherwise　than　by　becoming　a　party　in　them；　and　setting

counter…assertions　against　the　statements　advanced　by　our　opponents；

there　is　certainly　no　plan　more　advisable　for　the　moment；　but；　at

the　same　time；　none　more　absurd　and　inefficient　for　the　future；　than

this　retaining　of　the　youthful　mind　under　guardianship　for　a　time；　and

thus　preserving　it…　for　so　long　at　least…　from　seduction　into　error。

But　when；　at　a　later　period；　either　curiosity；　or　the　prevalent

fashion　of　thought　places　such　writings　in　their　hands；　will　the

so…called　convictions　of　their　youth　stand　firm？　The　young　thinker；

who　has　in　his　armoury　none　but　dogmatical　weapons　with　which　to

resist　the　attacks　of　his　opponent；　and　who　cannot　detect　the　latent

dialectic　which　lies　in　his　own　opinions　as　well　as　in　those　of　the

opposite　party；　sees　the　advance　of　illusory　arguments　and　grounds

of　proof　which　have　the　advantage　of　novelty；　against　as　illusory

grounds　of　proof　destitute　of　this　advantage；　and　which；　perhaps；

excite　the　suspicion　that　the　natural　credulity　of　his　youth　has

been　abused　by　his　instructors。　He　thinks　he　can　find　no　better

means　of　showing　that　he　has　out　grown　the　discipline　of　his

minority　than　by　despising　those　well…meant　warnings；　and；　knowing

no　system　of　thought　but　that　of　dogmatism；　he　drinks　deep　draughts　of

the　poison　that　is　to　sap　the　principles　in　which　his　early　years　were

trained。

　　Exactly　the　opposite　of　the　system　here　recommended　ought　to　be

pursued　in　academical　instruction。　This　can　only　be　effected；　however；

by　a　thorough　training　in　the　critical　investigation　of　pure　reason。

For；　in　order