the critique of pure reason-第43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！



synthetic　solution；　questions；　however；　which　come　under　the

jurisdiction　of　reason　alone。　For　they　are　tantamount　to　asking

whether　all　things　as　phenomena　do　without　exception　belong　to　the

complex　and　connected　whole　of　a　single　experience；　of　which　every

given　perception　is　a　part　which　therefore　cannot　be　conjoined　with

any　other　phenomena…　or；　whether　my　perceptions　can　belong　to　more

than　one　possible　experience？　The　understanding　gives　to　experience；

according　to　the　subjective　and　formal　conditions；　of　sensibility　as

well　as　of　apperception；　the　rules　which　alone　make　this　experience

possible。　Other　forms　of　intuition　besides　those　of　space　and　time；

other　forms　of　understanding　besides　the　discursive　forms　of

thought；　or　of　cognition　by　means　of　conceptions；　we　can　neither

imagine　nor　make　intelligible　to　ourselves；　and　even　if　we　could；　they

would　still　not　belong　to　experience；　which　is　the　only　mode　of

cognition　by　which　objects　are　presented　to　us。　Whether　other

perceptions　besides　those　which　belong　to　the　total　of　our　possible

experience；　and　consequently　whether　some　other　sphere　of　matter

exists；　the　understanding　has　no　power　to　decide；　its　proper

occupation　being　with　the　synthesis　of　that　which　is　given。

Moreover；　the　poverty　of　the　usual　arguments　which　go　to　prove　the

existence　of　a　vast　sphere　of　possibility；　of　which　all　that　is　real

（every　object　of　experience）　is　but　a　small　part；　is　very

remarkable。　〃All　real　is　possible〃；　from　this　follows　naturally；

according　to　the　logical　laws　of　conversion；　the　particular

proposition：　〃Some　possible　is　real。〃　Now　this　seems　to　be

equivalent　to：　〃Much　is　possible　that　is　not　real。〃　No　doubt　it　does

seem　as　if　we　ought　to　consider　the　sum　of　the　possible　to　be

greater　than　that　of　the　real；　from　the　fact　that　something　must　be

added　to　the　former　to　constitute　the　latter。　But　this　notion　of

adding　to　the　possible　is　absurd。　For　that　which　is　not　in　the　sum

of　the　possible；　and　consequently　requires　to　be　added　to　it；　is

manifestly　impossible。　In　addition　to　accordance　with　the　formal

conditions　of　experience；　the　understanding　requires　a　connection　with

some　perception；　but　that　which　is　connected　with　this　perception　is

real；　even　although　it　is　not　immediately　perceived。　But　that

another　series　of　phenomena；　in　complete　coherence　with　that　which

is　given　in　perception；　consequently　more　than　one　all…embracing

experience　is　possible；　is　an　inference　which　cannot　be　concluded　from

the　data　given　us　by　experience；　and　still　less　without　any　data　at

all。　That　which　is　possible　only　under　conditions　which　are　themselves

merely　possible；　is　not　possible　in　any　respect。　And　yet　we　can　find

no　more　certain　ground　on　which　to　base　the　discussion　of　the　question

whether　the　sphere　of　possibility　is　wider　than　that　of　experience。

　　I　have　merely　mentioned　these　questions；　that　in　treating　of　the

conception　of　the　understanding；　there　might　be　no　omission　of

anything　that；　in　the　common　opinion；　belongs　to　them。　In　reality；

however；　the　notion　of　absolute　possibility　（possibility　which　is

valid　in　every　respect）　is　not　a　mere　conception　of　the　understanding；

which　can　be　employed　empirically；　but　belongs　to　reason　alone；

which　passes　the　bounds　of　all　empirical　use　of　the　understanding。

We　have；　therefore；　contented　ourselves　with　a　merely　critical　remark；

leaving　the　subject　to　be　explained　in　the　sequel。

　　Before　concluding　this　fourth　section；　and　at　the　same　time　the

system　of　all　principles　of　the　pure　understanding；　it　seems　proper　to

mention　the　reasons　which　induced　me　to　term　the　principles　of

modality　postulates。　This　expression　I　do　not　here　use　in　the　sense

which　some　more　recent　philosophers；　contrary　to　its　meaning　with

mathematicians；　to　whom　the　word　properly　belongs；　attach　to　it…

that　of　a　proposition；　namely；　immediately　certain；　requiring

neither　deduction　nor　proof。　For　if；　in　the　case　of　synthetical

propositions；　however　evident　they　may　be；　we　accord　to　them　without

deduction；　and　merely　on　the　strength　of　their　own　pretensions；

unqualified　belief；　all　critique　of　the　understanding　is　entirely

lost；　and；　as　there　is　no　want　of　bold　pretensions；　which　the　common

belief　（though　for　the　philosopher　this　is　no　credential）　does　not

reject；　the　understanding　lies　exposed　to　every　delusion　and

conceit；　without　the　power　of　refusing　its　assent　to　those　assertions；

which；　though　illegitimate；　demand　acceptance　as　veritable　axioms。

When；　therefore；　to　the　conception　of　a　thing　an　a　priori

determination　is　synthetically　added；　such　a　proposition　must

obtain；　if　not　a　proof；　at　least　a　deduction　of　the　legitimacy　of

its　assertion。

　　The　principles　of　modality　are；　however；　not　objectively

synthetical；　for　the　predicates　of　possibility；　reality；　and　necessity

do　not　in　the　least　augment　the　conception　of　that　of　which　they　are

affirmed；　inasmuch　as　they　contribute　nothing　to　the　representation　of

the　object。　But　as　they　are；　nevertheless；　always　synthetical；　they

are　so　merely　subjectively。　That　is　to　say；　they　have　a　reflective

power；　and　apply　to　the　conception　of　a　thing；　of　which；　in　other

respects；　they　affirm　nothing；　the　faculty　of　cognition　in　which　the

conception　originates　and　has　its　seat。　So　that　if　the　conception

merely　agree　with　the　formal　conditions　of　experience；　its　object　is

called　possible；　if　it　is　in　connection　with　perception；　and

determined　thereby；　the　object　is　real；　if　it　is　determined

according　to　conceptions　by　means　of　the　connection　of　perceptions；

the　object　is　called　necessary。　The　principles　of　modality　therefore

predicate　of　a　conception　nothing　more　than　the　procedure　of　the

faculty　of　cognition　which　generated　it。　Now　a　postulate　in

mathematics　is　a　practical　proposition　which　contains　nothing　but

the　synthesis　by　which　we　present　an　object　to　ourselves；　and

produce　the　conception　of　it；　for　example…　〃With　a　given　line；　to

describe　a　circle　upon　a　plane；　from　a　given　point〃；　and　such　a

proposition　does　not　admit　of　proof；　because　the　procedure；　which　it

requires；　is　exactly　that　by　which　alone　it　is　possible　to　generate

the　conception　of　such　a　figure。　With　the　same　right；　accordingly；　can

we　postulate　the　principles　of　modality；　because　they　do　not

augment*　the　conception　of　a　thing　but　merely　indicate　the　manner　in

which　it　is　connected　with　the　faculty　of　cognition。



　　*When　I　think　the　reality　of　a　thing；　I　do　really　think　more　than

the　possibility；　but　not　in　the　thing；　for　that　can　never　contain　more

in　reality　than　was　contained　in　its　complete　possibility。　But　while

the　notion　of　possibility　is　merely　the　notion　of　a　position　of

thing　in　relation　to　the　understanding　（its　empirical　use）；　reality　is

the　conjunction　of　the　thing　with　perception。



　　　　　　　　　　　GENERAL　REMARK　ON　THE　SYSTEM　OF　PRINCIPLES。



　　It　is　very　remarkable　that　we　cannot　perceive　the　possibility　of　a

thing　from　the　category　alone；　but　must　always　have　an　intuition；　by

which　to　make　evident　the　objective　reality　of　the　pure　conception

of　the　understanding。　Take；　for　example；　the　categories　of　relation。

How　（1）　a　thing　can　exist　only　as　a　subject；　and　not　as　a　mere

determination　of　other　things；　that　is；　can　be　substance；　or　how

（2）；　because　something　exists；　some　other　thing　must　exist；

consequently　how　a　thing　can　be　a　cause；　or　how　（3）；　when　several

things　exist；　from　the　fact　that　one　of　these　things　exists；　some

consequence　to　the　others　follows；　and　reciprocally；　and　in　this　way　a

community　of　substances　can　be　possible…　are　questions　whose

solution　cannot　be　obtained　from　mere　conceptions。　The　very　same　is

the　case　with　the　other　categories；　for　example；　how　a　thing　can　be　of

the　same　sort　with　many　others；　that　is；　can　be　a　quantity；　and　so　on。

So　long　as　we　have　not　intuition　we　cannot　know　whether　we　do　really

think　an　object　by　the　categories；　and　where　an　object　can　anywhere　be

found　to　cohere　with　them；　and　thus　the　truth　is　established；　that　the

categories　are　not　in　themselves　cognitions；　but　mere　forms　of　thought

for　the　construction　of　cognitions　from　given　intuitions。　For　the　same

reason　is　it　true　that　from　categories　alone　no　synthetical

proposition　can　be　made。　For　example：　〃In　every　existence　there　is

substance；〃　that　is；　something　that　can　exist　only　as　a　subject　and

not　as　mere　predicate；　or；　〃Everything　is　a　quantity〃…　to　construct

propositions　such　as　these；　we　require　something　to　enable　us　to　go

out　beyond　the　given　conception　and　connect　another　with　it。　For　the

same　reason　the　attempt　to　prove　a　synthetical　proposition　by　means　of

mere　conceptions；　for　example：　〃Everything　that　exists　contingently

has　a　cause；〃　has　never　succeeded。　We　could　never　get　further　than

proving　that；　without　this　relation　to　conceptions；　we　could　not

conceive　the　existence　of　the　contingent；　that　is；　could　not　a

priori　through　the　understanding　cognize　the　existence　of　such　a

thing；　but　it　does　not　hence　follow　that　this　is　also　the　condition　of

the　possibility　of　the　thing　itself　that　is　said　to　be　contingent。　If；

accordingly；　we　look　back　to　our　proof　of　the　principle　of

causality；　we　shall　find　that　we　were　able　to　prove　it　as　valid　only

of　objects　of　possible　experience；　and；　indeed；　only　as　itself　the

principle　of　the　possibility　of　experience；　Consequently　of　the

cognition　of　an　object　given　in　empirical　intuition；　and　not　from　mere

conceptions。　That；　however；　the　proposition：　〃Everything　that　is

contingent　must　have　a　cause；〃　is　evident　to　every　one　merely　from

conceptions；　is　not　to　be　denied。　But　in　this　case　the　conception　of

the　contingent　is　cogitated　as　involving　not　the　category　of

modality　（as　that　the　non…existence　of　which　can　be　conceive　but

that　of　relation　（as　that　which　can　exist　only　as　the　consequence　of

something　else）；　and　so　it　is　really　an　identical　proposition：　〃That

which　can　exist　only　as　a　consequence；　has　a　cause。〃　In　fact；　when

we　have　to　give　examples　of　contingent　existence；　we　always　refer　to

changes；　and　not　merely　to　the　possibility　of　conceiving　the

opposite。*　But　change　is　an　event；　which；　as　such；　is　possible　only

through　a　cause；　and　considered　per　se　its　non…existence　is

therefore　possible；　and　we　become　cognizant　of　its　contingency　from

the　fact　that　it　can　exist　only　as　the　effect　of　a　cause。　Hence；　if

a　thing　is　assumed　to　be　contingent；　it　is　an　analytical　proposition

to　say；　it　has　a　cause。



　　*We　can　easily　conceive　the　non…existence　of　matter；　but　the

ancients　did　not　thence　infer　its　contingency。　But　even　the

alternation　of　the　existence　and　non…existence　of　a　given　state　in　a

thing；　in　which　all　change　consists；　by　no　means　proves　the

contingency　of　that　state…　the　ground　of　proof　being　the　reality　of

its　opposite。　For　example；　a　body　is　in　a　state　of　rest　after

motion；　but　we　cannot　infer　the　contingency　of　the　motio