the critique of pure reason-第25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！



abstraction　of　the　mode　in　which　the　manifold　of　an　empirical

intuition　is　given；　in　order　to　fix　my　attention　exclusively　on　the

unity　which　is　brought　by　the　understanding　into　the　intuition　by

means　of　the　category。　In　what　follows　（SS　22）；　it　will　be　shown；　from

the　mode　in　which　the　empirical　intuition　is　given　in　the　faculty　of

sensibility；　that　the　unity　which　belongs　to　it　is　no　other　than

that　which　the　category　（according　to　SS　16）　imposes　on　the　manifold

in　a　given　intuition；　and　thus；　its　a　priori　validity　in　regard　to　all

objects　of　sense　being　established；　the　purpose　of　our　deduction

will　be　fully　attained。



　　*The　proof　of　this　rests　on　the　represented　unity　of　intuition；　by

means　of　which　an　object　is　given；　and　which　always　includes　in　itself

a　synthesis　of　the　manifold　to　be　intuited；　and　also　the　relation　of

this　latter　to　unity　of　apperception。



　　But　there　is　one　thing　in　the　above　demonstration　of　which　I　could

not　make　abstraction；　namely；　that　the　manifold　to　be　intuited　must　be

given　previously　to　the　synthesis　of　the　understanding；　and

independently　of　it。　How　this　takes　place　remains　here　undetermined。

For　if　I　cogitate　an　understanding　which　was　itself　intuitive　（as；　for

example；　a　divine　understanding　which　should　not　represent　given

objects；　but　by　whose　representation　the　objects　themselves　should

be　given　or　produced）；　the　categories　would　possess　no　significance　in

relation　to　such　a　faculty　of　cognition。　They　are　merely　rules　for

an　understanding；　whose　whole　power　consists　in　thought；　that　is；　in

the　act　of　submitting　the　synthesis　of　the　manifold　which　is　presented

to　it　in　intuition　from　a　very　different　quarter；　to　the　unity　of

apperception；　a　faculty；　therefore；　which　cognizes　nothing　per　se；　but

only　connects　and　arranges　the　material　of　cognition；　the　intuition；

namely；　which　must　be　presented　to　it　by　means　of　the　object。　But　to

show　reasons　for　this　peculiar　character　of　our　understandings；　that

it　produces　unity　of　apperception　a　priori　only　by　means　of

categories；　and　a　certain　kind　and　number　thereof；　is　as　impossible　as

to　explain　why　we　are　endowed　with　precisely　so　many　functions　of

judgement　and　no　more；　or　why　time　and　space　are　the　only　forms　of　our

intuition。



　　　　In　Cognition；　its　Application　to　Objects　of　Experience　is

　　　　the　only　legitimate　use　of　the　Category。　SS　18



　　To　think　an　object　and　to　cognize　an　object　are　by　no　means　the　same

thing。　In　cognition　there　are　two　elements：　firstly；　the　conception；

whereby　an　object　is　cogitated　（the　category）；　and；　secondly；　the

intuition；　whereby　the　object　is　given。　For　supposing　that　to　the

conception　a　corresponding　intuition　could　not　be　given；　it　would

still　be　a　thought　as　regards　its　form；　but　without　any　object；　and　no

cognition　of　anything　would　be　possible　by　means　of　it；　inasmuch　as；

so　far　as　I　knew；　there　existed　and　could　exist　nothing　to　which　my

thought　could　be　applied。　Now　all　intuition　possible　to　us　is

sensuous；　consequently；　our　thought　of　an　object　by　means　of　a　pure

conception　of　the　understanding；　can　become　cognition　for　us　only　in

so　far　as　this　conception　is　applied　to　objects　of　the　senses。

Sensuous　intuition　is　either　pure　intuition　（space　and　time）　or

empirical　intuition…　of　that　which　is　immediately　represented　in　space

and　time　by　means　of　sensation　as　real。　Through　the　determination　of

pure　intuition　we　obtain　a　priori　cognitions　of　objects；　as　in

mathematics；　but　only　as　regards　their　form　as　phenomena；　whether

there　can　exist　things　which　must　be　intuited　in　this　form　is　not

thereby　established。　All　mathematical　conceptions；　therefore；　are

not　per　se　cognition；　except　in　so　far　as　we　presuppose　that　there

exist　things　which　can　only　be　represented　conformably　to　the　form

of　our　pure　sensuous　intuition。　But　things　in　space　and　time　are　given

only　in　so　far　as　they　are　perceptions　（representations　accompanied

with　sensation）；　therefore　only　by　empirical　representation。

Consequently　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding；　even　when　they

are　applied　to　intuitions　a　priori　（as　in　mathematics）；　produce

cognition　only　in　so　far　as　these　（and　therefore　the　conceptions　of

the　understanding　by　means　of　them）　can　be　applied　to　empirical

intuitions。　Consequently　the　categories　do　not；　even　by　means　of

pure　intuition　afford　us　any　cognition　of　things；　they　can　only　do

so　in　so　far　as　they　can　be　applied　to　empirical　intuition。　That　is　to

say；　the；　categories　serve　only　to　render　empirical　cognition

possible。　But　this　is　what　we　call　experience。　Consequently；　in

cognition；　their　application　to　objects　of　experience　is　the　only

legitimate　use　of　the　categories。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SS　19



　　The　foregoing　proposition　is　of　the　utmost　importance；　for　it

determines　the　limits　of　the　exercise　of　the　pure　conceptions　of　the

understanding　in　regard　to　objects；　just　as　transcendental　aesthetic

determined　the　limits　of　the　exercise　of　the　pure　form　of　our　sensuous

intuition。　Space　and　time；　as　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　the

presentation　of　objects　to　us；　are　valid　no　further　than　for　objects

of　sense；　consequently；　only　for　experience。　Beyond　these　limits

they　represent　to　us　nothing；　for　they　belong　only　to　sense；　and

have　no　reality　apart　from　it。　The　pure　conceptions　of　the

understanding　are　free　from　this　limitation；　and　extend　to　objects

of　intuition　in　general；　be　the　intuition　like　or　unlike　to　ours；

provided　only　it　be　sensuous；　and　not　intellectual。　But　this　extension

of　conceptions　beyond　the　range　of　our　intuition　is　of　no　advantage；

for　they　are　then　mere　empty　conceptions　of　objects；　as　to　the

possibility　or　impossibility　of　the　existence　of　which　they　furnish　us

with　no　means　of　discovery。　They　are　mere　forms　of　thought；　without

objective　reality；　because　we　have　no　intuition　to　which　the

synthetical　unity　of　apperception；　which　alone　the　categories　contain；

could　be　applied；　for　the　purpose　of　determining　an　object。　Our

sensuous　and　empirical　intuition　can　alone　give　them　significance

and　meaning。

　　If；　then；　we　suppose　an　object　of　a　non…sensuous　intuition　to　be

given　we　can　in　that　case　represent　it　by　all　those　predicates　which

are　implied　in　the　presupposition　that　nothing　appertaining　to

sensuous　intuition　belongs　to　it；　for　example；　that　it　is　not

extended；　or　in　space；　that　its　duration　is　not　time；　that　in　it　no

change　（the　effect　of　the　determinations　in　time）　is　to　be　met　with；

and　so　on。　But　it　is　no　proper　knowledge　if　I　merely　indicate　what　the

intuition　of　the　object　is　not；　without　being　able　to　say　what　is

contained　in　it；　for　I　have　not　shown　the　possibility　of　an　object

to　which　my　pure　conception　of　understanding　could　be　applicable；

because　I　have　not　been　able　to　furnish　any　intuition　corresponding　to

it；　but　am　only　able　to　say　that　our　intuition　is　not　valid　for　it。

But　the　most　important　point　is　this；　that　to　a　something　of　this　kind

not　one　category　can　be　found　applicable。　Take；　for　example；　the

conception　of　substance；　that　is；　something　that　can　exist　as　subject；

but　never　as　mere　predicate；　in　regard　to　this　conception　I　am　quite

ignorant　whether　there　can　really　be　anything　to　correspond　to　such

a　determination　of　thought；　if　empirical　intuition　did　not　afford　me

the　occasion　for　its　application。　But　of　this　more　in　the　sequel。



　　　　　Of　the　Application　of　the　Categories　to　Objects　of　the

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Senses　in　general。　SS　20



　　The　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　apply　to　objects　of

intuition　in　general；　through　the　understanding　alone；　whether　the

intuition　be　our　own　or　some　other；　provided　only　it　be　sensuous；

but　are；　for　this　very　reason；　mere　forms　of　thought；　by　means　of

which　alone　no　determined　object　can　be　cognized。　The　synthesis　or

conjunction　of　the　manifold　in　these　conceptions　relates；　we　have

said；　only　to　the　unity　of　apperception；　and　is　for　this　reason　the

ground　of　the　possibility　of　a　priori　cognition；　in　so　far　as　this

cognition　is　dependent　on　the　understanding。　This　synthesis　is；

therefore；　not　merely　transcendental；　but　also　purely　intellectual。

But　because　a　certain　form　of　sensuous　intuition　exists　in　the　mind

a　priori　which　rests　on　the　receptivity　of　the　representative

faculty　（sensibility）；　the　understanding；　as　a　spontaneity；　is　able　to

determine　the　internal　sense　by　means　of　the　diversity　of　given

representations；　conformably　to　the　synthetical　unity　of　apperception；

and　thus　to　cogitate　the　synthetical　unity　of　the　apperception　of

the　manifold　of　sensuous　intuition　a　priori；　as　the　condition　to　which

must　necessarily　be　submitted　all　objects　of　human　intuition。　And　in

this　manner　the　categories　as　mere　forms　of　thought　receive

objective　reality；　that　is；　application　to　objects　which　are　given

to　us　in　intuition；　but　that　only　as　phenomena；　for　it　is　only　of

phenomena　that　we　are　capable　of　a　priori　intuition。

　　This　synthesis　of　the　manifold　of　sensuous　intuition；　which　is

possible　and　necessary　a　priori；　may　be　called　figurative　（synthesis

speciosa）；　in　contradistinction　to　that　which　is　cogitated　in　the　mere

category　in　regard　to　the　manifold　of　an　intuition　in　general；　and

is　called　connection　or　conjunction　of　the　understanding　（synthesis

intellectualis）。　Both　are　transcendental；　not　merely　because　they

themselves　precede　a　priori　all　experience；　but　also　because　they　form

the　basis　for　the　possibility　of　other　cognition　a　priori。

　　But　the　figurative　synthesis；　when　it　has　relation　only　to　the

originally　synthetical　unity　of　apperception；　that　is　to　the

transcendental　unity　cogitated　in　the　categories；　must；　to　be

distinguished　from　the　purely　intellectual　conjunction；　be　entitled

the　transcendental　synthesis　of　imagination。　Imagination　is　the

faculty　of　representing　an　object　even　without　its　presence　in

intuition。　Now；　as　all　our　intuition　is　sensuous；　imagination；　by

reason　of　the　subjective　condition　under　which　alone　it　can　give　a

corresponding　intuition　to　the　conceptions　of　the　understanding；

belongs　to　sensibility。　But　in　so　far　as　the　synthesis　of　the

imagination　is　an　act　of　spontaneity；　which　is　determinative；　and　not；

like　sense；　merely　determinable；　and　which　is　consequently　able　to

determine　sense　a　priori；　according　to　its　form；　conformably　to　the

unity　of　apperception；　in　so　far　is　the　imagination　a　faculty　of

determining　sensibility　a　priori；　and　its　synthesis　of　intuitions

according　to　the　categories　must　be　the　transcendental　synthesis　of

the　imagination。　It　is　an　operation　of　the　understanding　on

sensibility；　and　the　first　application　of　the　understanding　to　objects

of　possible　intuition；　and　at　the　same　time　the　basis　for　the　exercise

of　the　other　functions　of　that　faculty。　As　figurative；　it　is

distinguished　from　the　merely　intellectual　synthesis；　which　is

produced　by　the　understanding　alone