the critique of pure reason-第35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！



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

aid　of　these　formulae。　But　in　philosophy；　analogy　is　not　the

equality　of　two　quantitative　but　of　two　qualitative　relations。　In　this

case；　from　three　given　terms；　I　can　give　a　priori　and　cognize　the

relation　to　a　fourth　member；　but　not　this　fourth　term　itself；　although

I　certainly　possess　a　rule　to　guide　me　in　the　search　for　this　fourth

term　in　experience；　and　a　mark　to　assist　me　in　discovering　it。　An

analogy　of　experience　is　therefore　only　a　rule　according　to　which

unity　of　experience　must　arise　out　of　perceptions　in　respect　to

objects　（phenomena）　not　as　a　constitutive；　but　merely　as　a

regulative　principle。　The　same　holds　good　also　of　the　postulates　of

empirical　thought　in　general；　which　relate　to　the　synthesis　of　mere

intuition　（which　concerns　the　form　of　phenomena）；　the　synthesis　of

perception　（which　concerns　the　matter　of　phenomena）；　and　the　synthesis

of　experience　（which　concerns　the　relation　of　these　perceptions）。

For　they　are　only　regulative　principles；　and　clearly　distinguishable

from　the　mathematical；　which　are　constitutive；　not　indeed　in　regard　to

the　certainty　which　both　possess　a　priori；　but　in　the　mode　of　evidence

thereof；　consequently　also　in　the　manner　of　demonstration。

　　But　what　has　been　observed　of　all　synthetical　propositions；　and　must

be　particularly　remarked　in　this　place；　is　this；　that　these

analogies　possess　significance　and　validity；　not　as　principles　of

the　transcendental；　but　only　as　principles　of　the　empirical　use　of　the

understanding；　and　their　truth　can　therefore　be　proved　only　as　such；

and　that　consequently　the　phenomena　must　not　be　subjoined　directly

under　the　categories；　but　only　under　their　schemata。　For　if　the

objects　to　which　those　principles　must　be　applied　were　things　in

themselves；　it　would　be　quite　impossible　to　cognize　aught　concerning

them　synthetically　a　priori。　But　they　are　nothing　but　phenomena；　a

complete　knowledge　of　which…　a　knowledge　to　which　all　principles　a

priori　must　at　last　relate…　is　the　only　possible　experience。　It

follows　that　these　principles　can　have　nothing　else　for　their　aim　than

the　conditions　of　the　empirical　cognition　in　the　unity　of　synthesis　of

phenomena。　But　this　synthesis　is　cogitated　only　in　the　schema　of　the

pure　conception　of　the　understanding；　of　whose　unity；　as　that　of　a

synthesis　in　general；　the　category　contains　the　function

unrestricted　by　any　sensuous　condition。　These　principles　will

therefore　authorize　us　to　connect　phenomena　according　to　an　analogy；

with　the　logical　and　universal　unity　of　conceptions；　and

consequently　to　employ　the　categories　in　the　principles　themselves；

but　in　the　application　of　them　to　experience；　we　shall　use　only

their　schemata；　as　the　key　to　their　proper　application；　instead　of　the

categories；　or　rather　the　latter　as　restricting　conditions；　under

the　title　of　〃formulae〃　of　the　former。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　A。　FIRST　ANALOGY。



　　　　　　　　　　　Principle　of　the　Permanence　of　Substance。



　　　In　all　changes　of　phenomena；　substance　is　permanent；　and　the

　　　quantum　thereof　in　nature　is　neither　increased　nor　diminished。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　All　phenomena　exist　in　time；　wherein　alone　as　substratum；　that　is；

as　the　permanent　form　of　the　internal　intuition；　coexistence　and

succession　can　be　represented。　Consequently　time；　in　which　all　changes

of　phenomena　must　be　cogitated；　remains　and　changes　not；　because　it　is

that　in　which　succession　and　coexistence　can　be　represented　only　as

determinations　thereof。　Now；　time　in　itself　cannot　be　an　object　of

perception。　It　follows　that　in　objects　of　perception；　that　is；　in

phenomena；　there　must　be　found　a　substratum　which　represents　time　in

general；　and　in　which　all　change　or　coexistence　can　be　perceived　by

means　of　the　relation　of　phenomena　to　it。　But　the　substratum　of　all

reality；　that　is；　of　all　that　pertains　to　the　existence　of　things；

is　substance；　all　that　pertains　to　existence　can　be　cogitated　only

as　a　determination　of　substance。　Consequently；　the　permanent；　in

relation　to　which　alone　can　all　relations　of　time　in　phenomena　be

determined；　is　substance　in　the　world　of　phenomena；　that　is；　the

real　in　phenomena；　that　which；　as　the　substratum　of　all　change；

remains　ever　the　same。　Accordingly；　as　this　cannot　change　in

existence；　its　quantity　in　nature　can　neither　be　increased　nor

diminished。

　　Our　apprehension　of　the　manifold　in　a　phenomenon　is　always

successive；　is　Consequently　always　changing。　By　it　alone　we　could；

therefore；　never　determine　whether　this　manifold；　as　an　object　of

experience；　is　coexistent　or　successive；　unless　it　had　for　a

foundation　something　fixed　and　permanent；　of　the　existence　of　which

all　succession　and　coexistence　are　nothing　but　so　many　modes　（modi

of　time）。　Only　in　the　permanent；　then；　are　relations　of　time

possible　（for　simultaneity　and　succession　are　the　only　relations　in

time）；　that　is　to　say；　the　permanent　is　the　substratum　of　our

empirical　representation　of　time　itself；　in　which　alone　all

determination　of　time　is　possible。　Permanence　is；　in　fact；　just

another　expression　for　time；　as　the　abiding　correlate　of　all　existence

of　phenomena；　and　of　all　change；　and　of　all　coexistence。　For　change

does　not　affect　time　itself；　but　only　the　phenomena　in　time　（just　as

coexistence　cannot　be　regarded　as　a　modus　of　time　itself；　seeing

that　in　time　no　parts　are　coexistent；　but　all　successive）。　If　we

were　to　attribute　succession　to　time　itself；　we　should　be　obliged　to

cogitate　another　time；　in　which　this　succession　would　be　possible。

It　is　only　by　means　of　the　permanent　that　existence　in　different　parts

of　the　successive　series　of　time　receives　a　quantity；　which　we　entitle

duration。　For　in　mere　succession；　existence　is　perpetually　vanishing

and　recommencing；　and　therefore　never　has　even　the　least　quantity。

Without　the　permanent；　then；　no　relation　in　time　is　possible。　Now；

time　in　itself　is　not　an　object　of　perception；　consequently　the

permanent　in　phenomena　must　be　regarded　as　the　substratum　of　all

determination　of　time；　and　consequently　also　as　the　condition　of　the

possibility　of　all　synthetical　unity　of　perceptions；　that　is；　of

experience；　and　all　existence　and　all　change　in　time　can　only　be

regarded　as　a　mode　in　the　existence　of　that　which　abides　unchangeably。

Therefore；　in　all　phenomena；　the　permanent　is　the　object　in　itself；

that　is；　the　substance　（phenomenon）；　but　all　that　changes　or　can

change　belongs　only　to　the　mode　of　the　existence　of　this　substance

or　substances；　consequently　to　its　determinations。

　　I　find　that　in　all　ages　not　only　the　philosopher；　but　even　the

common　understanding；　has　preposited　this　permanence　as　a　substratum

of　all　change　in　phenomena；　indeed；　I　am　compelled　to　believe　that

they　will　always　accept　this　as　an　indubitable　fact。　Only　the

philosopher　expresses　himself　in　a　more　precise　and　definite　manner；

when　he　says：　〃In　all　changes　in　the　world；　the　substance　remains；　and

the　accidents　alone　are　changeable。〃　But　of　this　decidedly　synthetical

proposition；　I　nowhere　meet　with　even　an　attempt　at　proof；　nay；　it

very　rarely　has　the　good　fortune　to　stand；　as　it　deserves　to　do；　at

the　head　of　the　pure　and　entirely　a　priori　laws　of　nature。　In　truth；

the　statement　that　substance　is　permanent；　is　tautological。　For　this

very　permanence　is　the　ground　on　which　we　apply　the　category　of

substance　to　the　phenomenon；　and　we　should　have　been　obliged　to

prove　that　in　all　phenomena　there　is　something　permanent；　of　the

existence　of　which　the　changeable　is　nothing　but　a　determination。

But　because　a　proof　of　this　nature　cannot　be　dogmatical；　that　is；

cannot　be　drawn　from　conceptions；　inasmuch　as　it　concerns　a

synthetical　proposition　a　priori；　and　as　philosophers　never

reflected　that　such　propositions　are　valid　only　in　relation　to

possible　experience；　and　therefore　cannot　be　proved　except　by　means　of

a　deduction　of　the　possibility　of　experience；　it　is　no　wonder　that

while　it　has　served　as　the　foundation　of　all　experience　（for　we　feel

the　need　of　it　in　empirical　cognition）；　it　has　never　been　supported　by

proof。

　　A　philosopher　was　asked：　〃What　is　the　weight　of　smoke？〃　He　answered：

〃Subtract　from　the　weight　of　the　burnt　wood　the　weight　of　the

remaining　ashes；　and　you　will　have　the　weight　of　the　smoke。〃　Thus　he

presumed　it　to　be　incontrovertible　that　even　in　fire　the　matter

（substance）　does　not　perish；　but　that　only　the　form　of　it　undergoes

a　change。　In　like　manner　was　the　saying：　〃From　nothing　comes　nothing；〃

only　another　inference　from　the　principle　or　permanence；　or　rather

of　the　ever…abiding　existence　of　the　true　subject　in　phenomena。　For　if

that　in　the　phenomenon　which　we　call　substance　is　to　be　the　proper

substratum　of　all　determination　of　time；　it　follows　that　all　existence

in　past　as　well　as　in　future　time；　must　be　determinable　by　means　of　it

alone。　Hence　we　are　entitled　to　apply　the　term　substance　to　a

phenomenon；　only　because　we　suppose　its　existence　in　all　time；　a

notion　which　the　word　permanence　does　not　fully　express；　as　it　seems

rather　to　be　referable　to　future　time。　However；　the　internal　necessity

perpetually　to　be；　is　inseparably　connected　with　the　necessity

always　to　have　been；　and　so　the　expression　may　stand　as　it　is。

〃Gigni　de　nihilo　nihil；　in　nihilum　nil　posse　reverti；〃*　are　two

propositions　which　the　ancients　never　parted；　and　which　people

nowadays　sometimes　mistakenly　disjoin；　because　they　imagine　that　the

propositions　apply　to　objects　as　things　in　themselves；　and　that　the

former　might　be　inimical　to　the　dependence　（even　in　respect　of　its

substance　also）　of　the　world　upon　a　supreme　cause。　But　this

apprehension　is　entirely　needless；　for　the　question　in　this　case　is

only　of　phenomena　in　the　sphere　of　experience；　the　unity　of　which

never　could　be　possible；　if　we　admitted　the　possibility　that　new

things　（in　respect　of　their　substance）　should　arise。　For　in　that　case；

we　should　lose　altogether　that　which　alone　can　represent　the　unity

of　time；　to　wit；　the　identity　of　the　substratum；　as　that　through　which

alone　all　change　possesses　complete　and　thorough　unity。　This

permanence　is；　however；　nothing　but　the　manner　in　which　we　represent

to　ourselves　the　existence　of　things　in　the　phenomenal　world。



　　*＇Persius；　Satirae；　iii。83…84。　〃Nothing　can　be　produced　from

nothing；　nothing　can　be　returned　into　nothing。〃＇



　　The　determinations　of　a　substance；　which　are　only　particular　modes

of　its　existence；　are　called　accidents。　They　are　always　real；

because　they　concern　the　existence　of　substance　（negations　are　only

determinations；　which　express　the　non…existence　of　something　in　the

substance）。　Now；　if　to　this　real　in　the　substance　we　ascribe　a

particular　existence　（for　example；　to　motion　as　an　accident　of

matter）；　this　existence　is　called　inherence；　in　contradistinction　to

the　existence　of　substance；　which　we　cal