the critique of pure reason-第34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！



of　the　intuition　remains　equal　and　unaltered。

　　We　shall　give　an　example　of　this。　Almost　all　natural　philosophers；

remarking　a　great　difference　in　the　quantity　of　the　matter　of

different　kinds　in　bodies　with　the　same　volume　（partly　on　account　of

the　momentum　of　gravity　or　weight；　partly　on　account　of　the　momentum

of　resistance　to　other　bodies　in　motion）；　conclude　unanimously　that

this　volume　（extensive　quantity　of　the　phenomenon）　must　be　void　in　all

bodies；　although　in　different　proportion。　But　who　would　suspect　that

these　for　the　most　part　mathematical　and　mechanical　inquirers　into

nature　should　ground　this　conclusion　solely　on　a　metaphysical

hypothesis…　a　sort　of　hypothesis　which　they　profess　to　disparage　and

avoid？　Yet　this　they　do；　in　assuming　that　the　real　in　space　（I　must

not　here　call　it　impenetrability　or　weight；　because　these　are

empirical　conceptions）　is　always　identical；　and　can　only　be

distinguished　according　to　its　extensive　quantity；　that　is；

multiplicity。　Now　to　this　presupposition；　for　which　they　can　have　no

ground　in　experience；　and　which　consequently　is　merely　metaphysical；　I

oppose　a　transcendental　demonstration；　which　it　is　true　will　not

explain　the　difference　in　the　filling　up　of　spaces；　but　which

nevertheless　completely　does　away　with　the　supposed　necessity　of　the

above…mentioned　presupposition　that　we　cannot　explain　the　said

difference　otherwise　than　by　the　hypothesis　of　empty　spaces。　This

demonstration；　moreover；　has　the　merit　of　setting　the　understanding　at

liberty　to　conceive　this　distinction　in　a　different　manner；　if　the

explanation　of　the　fact　requires　any　such　hypothesis。　For　we

perceive　that　although　two　equal　spaces　may　be　completely　filled　by

matters　altogether　different；　so　that　in　neither　of　them　is　there　left

a　single　point　wherein　matter　is　not　present；　nevertheless；　every

reality　has　its　degree　（of　resistance　or　of　weight）；　which；　without

diminution　of　the　extensive　quantity；　can　become　less　and　less　ad

infinitum；　before　it　passes　into　nothingness　and　disappears。　Thus　an

expansion　which　fills　a　space…　for　example；　caloric；　or　any　other

reality　in　the　phenomenal　world…　can　decrease　in　its　degrees　to

infinity；　yet　without　leaving　the　smallest　part　of　the　space　empty；　on

the　contrary；　filling　it　with　those　lesser　degrees　as　completely　as

another　phenomenon　could　with　greater。　My　intention　here　is　by　no

means　to　maintain　that　this　is　really　the　case　with　the　difference

of　matters；　in　regard　to　their　specific　gravity；　I　wish　only　to　prove；

from　a　principle　of　the　pure　understanding；　that　the　nature　of　our

perceptions　makes　such　a　mode　of　explanation　possible；　and　that　it

is　erroneous　to　regard　the　real　in　a　phenomenon　as　equal　quoad　its

degree；　and　different　only　quoad　its　aggregation　and　extensive

quantity；　and　this；　too；　on　the　pretended　authority　of　an　a　priori

principle　of　the　understanding。

　　Nevertheless；　this　principle　of　the　anticipation　of　perception

must　somewhat　startle　an　inquirer　whom　initiation　into

transcendental　philosophy　has　rendered　cautious。　We　must　naturally

entertain　some　doubt　whether　or　not　the　understanding　can　enounce

any　such　synthetical　proposition　as　that　respecting　the　degree　of

all　reality　in　phenomena；　and　consequently　the　possibility　of　the

internal　difference　of　sensation　itself…　abstraction　being　made　of　its

empirical　quality。　Thus　it　is　a　question　not　unworthy　of　solution：

〃How　the　understanding　can　pronounce　synthetically　and　a　priori

respecting　phenomena；　and　thus　anticipate　these；　even　in　that　which　is

peculiarly　and　merely　empirical；　that；　namely；　which　concerns

sensation　itself？〃

　　The　quality　of　sensation　is　in　all　cases　merely　empirical；　and

cannot　be　represented　a　priori　（for　example；　colours；　taste；　etc。）。

But　the　real…　that　which　corresponds　to　sensation…　in　opposition　to

negation　=　O；　only　represents　something　the　conception　of　which　in

itself　contains　a　being　（ein　seyn）；　and　signifies　nothing　but　the

synthesis　in　an　empirical　consciousness。　That　is　to　say；　the　empirical

consciousness　in　the　internal　sense　can　be　raised　from　0　to　every

higher　degree；　so　that　the　very　same　extensive　quantity　of

intuition；　an　illuminated　surface；　for　example；　excites　as　great　a

sensation　as　an　aggregate　of　many　other　surfaces　less　illuminated。

We　can　therefore　make　complete　abstraction　of　the　extensive　quantity

of　a　phenomenon；　and　represent　to　ourselves　in　the　mere　sensation　in　a

certain　momentum；　a　synthesis　of　homogeneous　ascension　from　0　up　to

the　given　empirical　consciousness；　All　sensations　therefore　as　such

are　given　only　a　posteriori；　but　this　property　thereof；　namely；　that

they　have　a　degree；　can　be　known　a　priori。　It　is　worthy　of　remark；

that　in　respect　to　quantities　in　general；　we　can　cognize　a　priori　only

a　single　quality；　namely；　continuity；　but　in　respect　to　all　quality

（the　real　in　phenomena）；　we　cannot　cognize　a　priori　anything　more　than

the　intensive　quantity　thereof；　namely；　that　they　have　a　degree。　All

else　is　left　to　experience。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3。　ANALOGIES　OF　EXPERIENCE。



　　　　The　principle　of　these　is：　Experience　is　possible　only

　　　　　through　the　representation　of　a　necessary　connection

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　Perceptions。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　Experience　is　an　empirical　cognition；　that　is　to　say；　a　cognition

which　determines　an　object　by　means　of　perceptions。　It　is　therefore

a　synthesis　of　perceptions；　a　synthesis　which　is　not　itself

contained　in　perception；　but　which　contains　the　synthetical　unity　of

the　manifold　of　perception　in　a　consciousness；　and　this　unity

constitutes　the　essential　of　our　cognition　of　objects　of　the　senses；

that　is；　of　experience　（not　merely　of　intuition　or　sensation）。　Now

in　experience　our　perceptions　come　together　contingently；　so　that　no

character　of　necessity　in　their　connection　appears；　or　can　appear　from

the　perceptions　themselves；　because　apprehension　is　only　a　placing

together　of　the　manifold　of　empirical　intuition；　and　no　representation

of　a　necessity　in　the　connected　existence　of　the　phenomena　which

apprehension　brings　together；　is　to　be　discovered　therein。　But　as

experience　is　a　cognition　of　objects　by　means　of　perceptions；　it

follows　that　the　relation　of　the　existence　of　the　existence　of　the

manifold　must　be　represented　in　experience　not　as　it　is　put　together

in　time；　but　as　it　is　objectively　in　time。　And　as　time　itself　cannot

be　perceived；　the　determination　of　the　existence　of　objects　in　time

can　only　take　place　by　means　of　their　connection　in　time　in　general；

consequently　only　by　means　of　a　priori　connecting　conceptions。　Now

as　these　conceptions　always　possess　the　character　of　necessity；

experience　is　possible　only　by　means　of　a　representation　of　the

necessary　connection　of　perception。

　　The　three　modi　of　time　are　permanence；　succession；　and

coexistence。　Accordingly；　there　are　three　rules　of　all　relations　of

time　in　phenomena；　according　to　which　the　existence　of　every

phenomenon　is　determined　in　respect　of　the　unity　of　all　time；　and

these　antecede　all　experience　and　render　it　possible。

　　The　general　principle　of　all　three　analogies　rests　on　the

necessary　unity　of　apperception　in　relation　to　all　possible

empirical　consciousness　（perception）　at　every　time；　consequently；　as

this　unity　lies　a　priori　at　the　foundation　of　all　mental　operations；

the　principle　rests　on　the　synthetical　unity　of　all　phenomena

according　to　their　relation　in　time。　For　the　original　apperception

relates　to　our　internal　sense　（the　complex　of　all　representations）；

and　indeed　relates　a　priori　to　its　form；　that　is　to　say；　the

relation　of　the　manifold　empirical　consciousness　in　time。　Now　this

manifold　must　be　combined　in　original　apperception　according　to

relations　of　time…　a　necessity　imposed　by　the　a　priori

transcendental　unity　of　apperception；　to　which　is　subjected　all　that

can　belong　to　my　（i。e。；　my　own）　cognition；　and　therefore　all　that

can　become　an　object　for　me。　This　synthetical　and　a　priori

determined　unity　in　relation　of　perceptions　in　time　is　therefore　the

rule：　〃All　empirical　determinations　of　time　must　be　subject　to　rules

of　the　general　determination　of　time〃；　and　the　analogies　of

experience；　of　which　we　are　now　about　to　treat；　must　be　rules　of

this　nature。

　　These　principles　have　this　peculiarity；　that　they　do　not　concern

phenomena；　and　the　synthesis　of　the　empirical　intuition　thereof；　but

merely　the　existence　of　phenomena　and　their　relation　to　each　other

in　regard　to　this　existence。　Now　the　mode　in　which　we　apprehend　a

thing　in　a　phenomenon　can　be　determined　a　priori　in　such　a　manner　that

the　rule　of　its　synthesis　can　give；　that　is　to　say；　can　produce　this　a

priori　intuition　in　every　empirical　example。　But　the　existence　of

phenomena　cannot　be　known　a　priori；　and　although　we　could　arrive　by

this　path　at　a　conclusion　of　the　fact　of　some　existence；　we　could

not　cognize　that　existence　determinately；　that　is　to　say；　we　should　be

incapable　of　anticipating　in　what　respect　the　empirical　intuition　of

it　would　be　distinguishable　from　that　of　others。

　　The　two　principles　above　mentioned；　which　I　called　mathematical；

in　consideration　of　the　fact　of　their　authorizing　the　application　of

mathematic　phenomena；　relate　to　these　phenomena　only　in　regard　to

their　possibility；　and　instruct　us　how　phenomena；　as　far　as　regards

their　intuition　or　the　real　in　their　perception；　can　be　generated

according　to　the　rules　of　a　mathematical　synthesis。　Consequently；

numerical　quantities；　and　with　them　the　determination　of　a

phenomenon　as　a　quantity；　can　be　employed　in　the　one　case　as　well　as

in　the　other。　Thus；　for　example；　out　of　200；000　illuminations　by　the

moon；　I　might　compose　and　give　a　priori；　that　is　construct；　the　degree

of　our　sensations　of　the　sunlight。　We　may　therefore　entitle　these

two　principles　constitutive。

　　The　case　is　very　different　with　those　principles　whose　province　it

is　to　subject　the　existence　of　phenomena　to　rules　a　priori。　For　as

existence　does　not　admit　of　being　constructed；　it　is　clear　that　they

must　only　concern　the　relations　of　existence　and　be　merely

regulative　principles。　In　this　case；　therefore；　neither　axioms　nor

anticipations　are　to　be　thought　of。　Thus；　if　a　perception　is　given　us；

in　a　certain　relation　of　time　to　other　（although　undetermined）

perceptions；　we　cannot　then　say　a　priori；　what　and　how　great　（in

quantity）　the　other　perception　necessarily　connected　with　the　former

is；　but　only　how　it　is　connected；　quoad　its　existence；　in　this　given

modus　of　time。　Analogies　in　philosophy　mean　something　very　different

from　that　which　they　represent　in　mathematics。　In　the　latter　they

are　formulae；　which　enounce　the　equality　of　two　relations　of　quantity；

and　are　always　constitutive；　so　that　if　two　terms　of　the　proportion

are　given；　the　third　is　also　given；　that　is；　can　be　constructed　by　the

aid　of　these　formulae。　But　in　philosophy