the critique of pure reason-第44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！



motion；　but　we　cannot　infer　the　contingency　of　the　motion　from　the

fact　that　the　former　is　the　opposite　of　the　latter。　For　this

opposite　is　merely　a　logical　and　not　a　real　opposite　to　the　other。

If　we　wish　to　demonstrate　the　contingency　of　the　motion；　what　we　ought

to　prove　is　that；　instead　of　the　motion　which　took　place　in　the

preceding　point　of　time；　it　was　possible　for　the　body　to　have　been

then　in　rest；　not；　that　it　is　afterwards　in　rest；　for　in　this　case；

both　opposites　are　perfectly　consistent　with　each　other。



　　But　it　is　still　more　remarkable　that；　to　understand　the

possibility　of　things　according　to　the　categories　and　thus　to

demonstrate　the　objective　reality　of　the　latter；　we　require　not　merely

intuitions；　but　external　intuitions。　If；　for　example；　we　take　the　pure

conceptions　of　relation；　we　find　that　（1）　for　the　purpose　of

presenting　to　the　conception　of　substance　something　permanent　in

intuition　corresponding　thereto　and　thus　of　demonstrating　the

objective　reality　of　this　conception；　we　require　an　intuition　（of

matter）　in　space；　because　space　alone　is　permanent　and　determines

things　as　such；　while　time；　and　with　it　all　that　is　in　the　internal

sense；　is　in　a　state　of　continual　flow；　（2）　in　order　to　represent

change　as　the　intuition　corresponding　to　the　conception　of

causality；　we　require　the　representation　of　motion　as　change　in　space；

in　fact；　it　is　through　it　alone　that　changes；　the　possibility　of　which

no　pure　understanding　can　perceive；　are　capable　of　being　intuited。

Change　is　the　connection　of　determinations　contradictorily　opposed

to　each　other　in　the　existence　of　one　and　the　same　thing。　Now；　how

it　is　possible　that　out　of　a　given　state　one　quite　opposite　to　it　in

the　same　thing　should　follow；　reason　without　an　example　can　not　only

not　conceive；　but　cannot　even　make　intelligible　without　intuition；　and

this　intuition　is　the　motion　of　a　point　in　space；　the　existence　of

which　in　different　spaces　（as　a　consequence　of　opposite

determinations）　alone　makes　the　intuition　of　change　possible。　For；

in　order　to　make　even　internal　change　cognitable；　we　require　to

represent　time；　as　the　form　of　the　internal　sense；　figuratively　by　a

line；　and　the　internal　change　by　the　drawing　of　that　line　（motion）；

and　consequently　are　obliged　to　employ　external　intuition　to　be　able

to　represent　the　successive　existence　of　ourselves　in　different

states。　The　proper　ground　of　this　fact　is　that　all　change　to　be

perceived　as　change　presupposes　something　permanent　in　intuition；

while　in　the　internal　sense　no　permanent　intuition　is　to　be　found。

Lastly；　the　objective　possibility　of　the　category　of　community

cannot　be　conceived　by　mere　reason；　and　consequently　its　objective

reality　cannot　be　demonstrated　without　an　intuition；　and　that　external

in　space。　For　how　can　we　conceive　the　possibility　of　community；　that

is；　when　several　substances　exist；　that　some　effect　on　the　existence

of　the　one　follows　from　the　existence　of　the　other；　and

reciprocally；　and　therefore　that；　because　something　exists　in　the

latter；　something　else　must　exist　in　the　former；　which　could　not　be

understood　from　its　own　existence　alone？　For　this　is　the　very

essence　of　community…　which　is　inconceivable　as　a　property　of　things

which　are　perfectly　isolated。　Hence；　Leibnitz；　in　attributing　to　the

substances　of　the　world…　as　cogitated　by　the　understanding　alone…　a

community；　required　the　mediating　aid　of　a　divinity；　for；　from　their

existence；　such　a　property　seemed　to　him　with　justice　inconceivable。

But　we　can　very　easily　conceive　the　possibility　of　community　（of

substances　as　phenomena）　if　we　represent　them　to　ourselves　as　in

space；　consequently　in　external　intuition。　For　external　intuition

contains　in　itself　a　priori　formal　external　relations；　as　the

conditions　of　the　possibility　of　the　real　relations　of　action　and

reaction；　and　therefore　of　the　possibility　of　community。　With　the　same

ease　can　it　be　demonstrated；　that　the　possibility　of　things　as

quantities；　and　consequently　the　objective　reality　of　the　category

of　quantity；　can　be　grounded　only　in　external　intuition；　and　that　by

its　means　alone　is　the　notion　of　quantity　appropriated　by　the　internal

sense。　But　I　must　avoid　prolixity；　and　leave　the　task　of

illustrating　this　by　examples　to　the　reader's　own　reflection。

　　The　above　remarks　are　of　the　greatest　importance；　not　only　for　the

confirmation　of　our　previous　confutation　of　idealism；　but　still　more

when　the　subject　of　self…cognition　by　mere　internal　consciousness

and　the　determination　of　our　own　nature　without　the　aid　of　external

empirical　intuitions　is　under　discussion；　for　the　indication　of　the

grounds　of　the　possibility　of　such　a　cognition。

　　The　result　of　the　whole　of　this　part　of　the　analytic　of　principles

is；　therefore：　〃All　principles　of　the　pure　understanding　are　nothing

more　than　a　priori　principles　of　the　possibility　of　experience；　and　to

experience　alone　do　all　a　priori　synthetical　propositions　apply　and

relate〃；　indeed；　their　possibility　itself　rests　entirely　on　this

relation。

　　　　CHAPTER　III　Of　the　Ground　of　the　Division　of　all　Objects

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　into　Phenomena　and　Noumena。



　　We　have　now　not　only　traversed　the　region　of　the　pure

understanding　and　carefully　surveyed　every　part　of　it；　but　we　have

also　measured　it；　and　assigned　to　everything　therein　its　proper　place。

But　this　land　is　an　island；　and　enclosed　by　nature　herself　within

unchangeable　limits。　It　is　the　land　of　truth　（an　attractive　word）；

surrounded　by　a　wide　and　stormy　ocean；　the　region　of　illusion；　where

many　a　fog…bank；　many　an　iceberg；　seems　to　the　mariner；　on　his

voyage　of　discovery；　a　new　country；　and；　while　constantly　deluding　him

with　vain　hopes；　engages　him　in　dangerous　adventures；　from　which　he

never　can　desist；　and　which　yet　he　never　can　bring　to　a　termination。

But　before　venturing　upon　this　sea；　in　order　to　explore　it　in　its

whole　extent；　and　to　arrive　at　a　certainty　whether　anything　is　to　be

discovered　there；　it　will　not　be　without　advantage　if　we　cast　our　eyes

upon　the　chart　of　the　land　that　we　are　about　to　leave；　and　to　ask

ourselves；　firstly；　whether　we　cannot　rest　perfectly　contented　with

what　it　contains；　or　whether　we　must　not　of　necessity　be　contented

with　it；　if　we　can　find　nowhere　else　a　solid　foundation　to　build　upon；

and；　secondly；　by　what　title　we　possess　this　land　itself；　and　how　we

hold　it　secure　against　all　hostile　claims？　Although；　in　the　course

of　our　analytic；　we　have　already　given　sufficient　answers　to　these

questions；　yet　a　summary　recapitulation　of　these　solutions　may　be

useful　in　strengthening　our　conviction；　by　uniting　in　one　point　the

momenta　of　the　arguments。

　　We　have　seen　that　everything　which　the　understanding　draws　from

itself；　without　borrowing　from　experience；　it　nevertheless　possesses

only　for　the　behoof　and　use　of　experience。　The　principles　of　the

pure　understanding；　whether　constitutive　a　priori　（as　the　mathematical

principles）；　or　merely　regulative　（as　the　dynamical）；　contain

nothing　but　the　pure　schema；　as　it　were；　of　possible　experience。　For

experience　possesses　its　unity　from　the　synthetical　unity　which　the

understanding；　originally　and　from　itself；　imparts　to　the　synthesis　of

the　imagination　in　relation　to　apperception；　and　in　a　priori

relation　to　and　agreement　with　which　phenomena；　as　data　for　a　possible

cognition；　must　stand。　But　although　these　rules　of　the　understanding

are　not　only　a　priori　true；　but　the　very　source　of　all　truth；　that　is；

of　the　accordance　of　our　cognition　with　objects；　and　on　this　ground；

that　they　contain　the　basis　of　the　possibility　of　experience；　as　the

ensemble　of　all　cognition；　it　seems　to　us　not　enough　to　propound

what　is　true…　we　desire　also　to　be　told　what　we　want　to　know。　If；

then；　we　learn　nothing　more　by　this　critical　examination　than　what

we　should　have　practised　in　the　merely　empirical　use　of　the

understanding；　without　any　such　subtle　inquiry；　the　presumption　is

that　the　advantage　we　reap　from　it　is　not　worth　the　labour　bestowed

upon　it。　It　may　certainly　be　answered　that　no　rash　curiosity　is　more

prejudicial　to　the　enlargement　of　our　knowledge　than　that　which　must

know　beforehand　the　utility　of　this　or　that　piece　of　information　which

we　seek；　before　we　have　entered　on　the　needful　investigations；　and

before　one　could　form　the　least　conception　of　its　utility；　even　though

it　were　placed　before　our　eyes。　But　there　is　one　advantage　in　such

transcendental　inquiries　which　can　be　made　comprehensible　to　the

dullest　and　most　reluctant　learner…　this；　namely；　that　the

understanding　which　is　occupied　merely　with　empirical　exercise；　and

does　not　reflect　on　the　sources　of　its　own　cognition；　may　exercise　its

functions　very　well　and　very　successfully；　but　is　quite　unable　to　do

one　thing；　and　that　of　very　great　importance；　to　determine；　namely；

the　bounds　that　limit　its　employment；　and　to　know　what　lies　within

or　without　its　own　sphere。　This　purpose　can　be　obtained　only　by　such

profound　investigations　as　we　have　instituted。　But　if　it　cannot

distinguish　whether　certain　questions　lie　within　its　horizon　or　not；

it　can　never　be　sure　either　as　to　its　claims　or　possessions；　but

must　lay　its　account　with　many　humiliating　corrections；　when　it

transgresses；　as　it　unavoidably　will；　the　limits　of　its　own　territory；

and　loses　itself　in　fanciful　opinions　and　blinding　illusions。

　　That　the　understanding；　therefore；　cannot　make　of　its　a　priori

principles；　or　even　of　its　conceptions；　other　than　an　empirical　use；

is　a　proposition　which　leads　to　the　most　important　results。　A

transcendental　use　is　made　of　a　conception　in　a　fundamental

proposition　or　principle；　when　it　is　referred　to　things　in　general　and

considered　as　things　in　themselves；　an　empirical　use；　when　it　is

referred　merely　to　phenomena；　that　is；　to　objects　of　a　possible

experience。　That　the　latter　use　of　a　conception　is　the　only　admissible

one　is　evident　from　the　reasons　following。　For　every　conception　are

requisite；　firstly；　the　logical　form　of　a　conception　（of　thought）

general；　and；　secondly；　the　possibility　of　presenting　to　this　an

object　to　which　it　may　apply。　Failing　this　latter；　it　has　no　sense；

and　utterly　void　of　content；　although　it　may　contain　the　logical

function　for　constructing　a　conception　from　certain　data。　Now；

object　cannot　be　given　to　a　conception　otherwise　than　by　intuition；

and；　even　if　a　pure　intuition　antecedent　to　the　object　is　a　priori

possible；　this　pure　intuition　can　itself　obtain　objective　validity

only　from　empirical　intuition；　of　which　it　is　itself　but　the　form。　All

conceptions；　therefore；　and　with　them　all　principles；　however　high　the

degree　of　their　a　priori　possibility；　relate　to　empirical

intuitions；　that　is；　to　data　towards　a　possible　experience。　Without

this　they　possess　no　objective　validity；　but　are　mere　play　of

imagination　or　of　understanding　with　images　or　notions。　Let　us　take；

for