the critique of pure reason-第27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！



according　to　the　form　of　their　intuition；　but　according　to　the　laws　of

their　conjunction　or　synthesis；　and　thus；　as　it　were；　of　prescribing

laws　to　nature　and　even　of　rendering　nature　possible。　For　if　the

categories　were　inadequate　to　this　task；　it　would　not　be　evident　to　us

why　everything　that　is　presented　to　our　senses　must　be　subject　to

those　laws　which　have　an　a　priori　origin　in　the　understanding　itself。

　　I　premise　that　by　the　term　synthesis　of　apprehension　I　understand

the　combination　of　the　manifold　in　an　empirical　intuition；　whereby

perception；　that　is；　empirical　consciousness　of　the　intuition　（as

phenomenon）；　is　possible。

　　We　have　a　priori　forms　of　the　external　and　internal　sensuous

intuition　in　the　representations　of　space　and　time；　and　to　these

must　the　synthesis　of　apprehension　of　the　manifold　in　a　phenomenon

be　always　comformable；　because　the　synthesis　itself　can　only　take

place　according　to　these　forms。　But　space　and　time　are　not　merely

forms　of　sensuous　intuition；　but　intuitions　themselves　（which

contain　a　manifold）；　and　therefore　contain　a　priori　the

determination　of　the　unity　of　this　manifold。*　（See　the　Transcendent

Aesthetic。）　Therefore　is　unity　of　the　synthesis　of　the　manifold

without　or　within　us；　consequently　also　a　conjunction　to　which　all

that　is　to　be　represented　as　determined　in　space　or　time　must

correspond；　given　a　priori　along　with　（not　in）　these　intuitions；　as

the　condition　of　the　synthesis　of　all　apprehension　of　them。　But　this

synthetical　unity　can　be　no　other　than　that　of　the　conjunction　of

the　manifold　of　a　given　intuition　in　general；　in　a　primitive　act　of

consciousness；　according　to　the　categories；　but　applied　to　our

sensuous　intuition。　Consequently　all　synthesis；　whereby　alone　is

even　perception　possible；　is　subject　to　the　categories。　And；　as

experience　is　cognition　by　means　of　conjoined　perceptions；　the

categories　are　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　experience　and　are

therefore　valid　a　priori　for　all　objects　of　experience。



　　*Space　represented　as　an　object　（as　geometry　really　requires　it　to

be）　contains　more　than　the　mere　form　of　the　intuition；　namely；　a

combination　of　the　manifold　given　according　to　the　form　of　sensibility

into　a　representation　that　can　be　intuited；　so　that　the　form　of　the

intuition　gives　us　merely　the　manifold；　but　the　formal　intuition　gives

unity　of　representation。　In　the　aesthetic；　I　regarded　this　unity　as

belonging　entirely　to　sensibility；　for　the　purpose　of　indicating

that　it　antecedes　all　conceptions；　although　it　presupposes　a　synthesis

which　does　not　belong　to　sense；　through　which　alone；　however；　all

our　conceptions　of　space　and　time　are　possible。　For　as　by　means　of

this　unity　alone　（the　understanding　determining　the　sensibility）　space

and　time　are　given　as　intuitions；　it　follows　that　the　unity　of　this

intuition　a　priori　belongs　to　space　and　time；　and　not　to　the

conception　of　the　understanding　（SS　20）。



　　When；　then；　for　example；　I　make　the　empirical　intuition　of　a　house

by　apprehension　of　the　manifold　contained　therein　into　a　perception；

the　necessary　unity　of　space　and　of　my　external　sensuous　intuition

lies　at　the　foundation　of　this　act；　and　I；　as　it　were；　draw　the　form

of　the　house　conformably　to　this　synthetical　unity　of　the　manifold

in　space。　But　this　very　synthetical　unity　remains；　even　when　I

abstract　the　form　of　space；　and　has　its　seat　in　the　understanding；　and

is　in　fact　the　category　of　the　synthesis　of　the　homogeneous　in　an

intuition；　that　is　to　say；　the　category　of　quantity；　to　which　the

aforesaid　synthesis　of　apprehension；　that　is；　the　perception；　must

be　completely　conformable。*



　　*In　this　manner　it　is　proved；　that　the　synthesis　of　apprehension；

which　is　empirical；　must　necessarily　be　conformable　to　the　synthesis

of　apperception；　which　is　intellectual；　and　contained　a　priori　in

the　category。　It　is　one　and　the　same　spontaneity　which　at　one　time；

under　the　name　of　imagination；　at　another　under　that　of　understanding；

produces　conjunction　in　the　manifold　of　intuition。



　　To　take　another　example；　when　I　perceive　the　freezing　of　water；　I

apprehend　two　states　（fluidity　and　solidity）；　which；　as　such；　stand

toward　each　other　mutually　in　a　relation　of　time。　But　in　the　time；

which　I　place　as　an　internal　intuition；　at　the　foundation　of　this

phenomenon；　I　represent　to　myself　synthetical　unity　of　the　manifold；

without　which　the　aforesaid　relation　could　not　be　given　in　an

intuition　as　determined　（in　regard　to　the　succession　of　time）。　Now

this　synthetical　unity；　as　the　a　priori　condition　under　which　I

conjoin　the　manifold　of　an　intuition；　is；　if　I　make　abstraction　of　the

permanent　form　of　my　internal　intuition　（that　is　to　say；　of　time）；　the

category　of　cause；　by　means　of　which；　when　applied　to　my

sensibility；　I　determine　everything　that　occurs　according　to　relations

of　time。　Consequently　apprehension　in　such　an　event；　and　the　event

itself；　as　far　as　regards　the　possibility　of　its　perception；　stands

under　the　conception　of　the　relation　of　cause　and　effect：　and　so　in

all　other　cases。



　　Categories　are　conceptions　which　prescribe　laws　a　priori　to

phenomena；　consequently　to　nature　as　the　complex　of　all　phenomena

（natura　materialiter　spectata）。　And　now　the　question　arises…

inasmuch　as　these　categories　are　not　derived　from　nature；　and　do　not

regulate　themselves　according　to　her　as　their　model　（for　in　that

case　they　would　be　empirical）…　how　it　is　conceivable　that　nature

must　regulate　herself　according　to　them；　in　other　words；　how　the

categories　can　determine　a　priori　the　synthesis　of　the　manifold　of

nature；　and　yet　not　derive　their　origin　from　her。　The　following　is　the

solution　of　this　enigma。

　　It　is　not　in　the　least　more　difficult　to　conceive　how　the　laws　of

the　phenomena　of　nature　must　harmonize　with　the　understanding　and　with

its　a　priori　form…　that　is；　its　faculty　of　conjoining　the　manifold…

than　it　is　to　understand　how　the　phenomena　themselves　must

correspond　with　the　a　priori　form　of　our　sensuous　intuition。　For

laws　do　not　exist　in　the　phenomena　any　more　than　the　phenomena　exist

as　things　in　themselves。　Laws　do　not　exist　except　by　relation　to　the

subject　in　which　the　phenomena　inhere；　in　so　far　as　it　possesses

understanding；　just　as　phenomena　have　no　existence　except　by

relation　to　the　same　existing　subject　in　so　far　as　it　has　senses。　To

things　as　things　in　themselves；　conformability　to　law　must　necessarily

belong　independently　of　an　understanding　to　cognize　them。　But

phenomena　are　only　representations　of　things　which　are　utterly　unknown

in　respect　to　what　they　are　in　themselves。　But　as　mere

representations；　they　stand　under　no　law　of　conjunction　except　that

which　the　conjoining　faculty　prescribes。　Now　that　which　conjoins　the

manifold　of　sensuous　intuition　is　imagination；　a　mental　act　to　which

understanding　contributes　unity　of　intellectual　synthesis；　and

sensibility；　manifoldness　of　apprehension。　Now　as　all　possible

perception　depends　on　the　synthesis　of　apprehension；　and　this

empirical　synthesis　itself　on　the　transcendental；　consequently　on

the　categories；　it　is　evident　that　all　possible　perceptions；　and

therefore　everything　that　can　attain　to　empirical　consciousness；

that　is；　all　phenomena　of　nature；　must；　as　regards　their

conjunction；　be　subject　to　the　categories。　And　nature　（considered

merely　as　nature　in　general）　is　dependent　on　them。　as　the　original

ground　of　her　necessary　conformability　to　law　（as　natura　formaliter

spectata）。　But　the　pure　faculty　（of　the　understanding）　of

prescribing　laws　a　priori　to　phenomena　by　means　of　mere　categories；　is

not　competent　to　enounce　other　or　more　laws　than　those　on　which　a

nature　in　general；　as　a　conformability　to　law　of　phenomena　of　space

and　time；　depends。　Particular　laws；　inasmuch　as　they　concern

empirically　determined　phenomena；　cannot　be　entirely　deduced　from　pure

laws；　although　they　all　stand　under　them。　Experience　must　be

superadded　in　order　to　know　these　particular　laws；　but　in　regard　to

experience　in　general；　and　everything　that　can　be　cognized　as　an

object　thereof；　these　a　priori　laws　are　our　only　rule　and　guide。



　　　　　　　Result　of　this　Deduction　of　the　Conceptions　of　the

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Understanding。　SS　23



　　We　cannot　think　any　object　except　by　means　of　the　categories；　we

cannot　cognize　any　thought　except　by　means　of　intuitions　corresponding

to　these　conceptions。　Now　all　our　intuitions　are　sensuous；　and　our

cognition；　in　so　far　as　the　object　of　it　is　given；　is　empirical。　But

empirical　cognition　is　experience；　consequently　no　a　priori

cognition　is　possible　for　us；　except　of　objects　of　possible

experience。*



　　*Lest　my　readers　should　stumble　at　this　assertion；　and　the

conclusions　that　may　be　too　rashly　drawn　from　it；　I　must　remind　them

that　the　categories　in　the　act　of　thought　are　by　no　means　limited　by

the　conditions　of　our　sensuous　intuition；　but　have　an　unbounded　sphere

of　action。　It　is　only　the　cognition　of　the　object　of　thought；　the

determining　of　the　object；　which　requires　intuition。　In　the　absence　of

intuition；　our　thought　of　an　object　may　still　have　true　and　useful

consequences　in　regard　to　the　exercise　of　reason　by　the　subject。　But

as　this　exercise　of　reason　is　not　always　directed　on　the　determination

of　the　object；　in　other　words；　on　cognition　thereof；　but　also　on　the

determination　of　the　subject　and　its　volition；　I　do　not　intend　to

treat　of　it　in　this　place。



　　But　this　cognition；　which　is　limited　to　objects　of　experience；　is

not　for　that　reason　derived　entirely；　from；　experience；　but…　and

this　is　asserted　of　the　pure　intuitions　and　the　pure　conceptions　of

the　understanding…　there　are；　unquestionably；　elements　of　cognition；

which　exist　in　the　mind　a　priori。　Now　there　are　only　two　ways　in　which

a　necessary　harmony　of　experience　with　the　conceptions　of　its

objects　can　be　cogitated。　Either　experience　makes　these　conceptions

possible；　or　the　conceptions　make　experience　possible。　The　former　of

these　statements　will　not　bold　good　with　respect　to　the　categories

（nor　in　regard　to　pure　sensuous　intuition）；　for　they　are　a　priori

conceptions；　and　therefore　independent　of　experience。　The　assertion　of

an　empirical　origin　would　attribute　to　them　a　sort　of　generatio

aequivoca。　Consequently；　nothing　remains　but　to　adopt　the　second

alternative　（which　presents　us　with　a　system；　as　it　were；　of　the

epigenesis　of　pure　reason）；　namely；　that　on　the　part　of　the

understanding　the　categories　do　contain　the　grounds　of　the　possibility

of　all　experience。　But　with　respect　to　the　questions　how　they　make

experience　possible；　and　what　are　the　principles　of　the　possibility

thereof　with　which　they　present　us　in　their　application　to

phenomena；　the　following　section　on　the　transcendental　exercise　of　the

faculty　of　judgement　will　inform　the　reader。

　　It　is　quite　possible　that　someone　may　propose　a　species　of

preformation…system　of　pure