the critique of pure reason-第46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！



　　But　we　are　met　at　the　very　commencement　with　an　ambiguity；　which　may

easily　occasion　great　misapprehension。　The　understanding；　when　it

terms　an　object　in　a　certain　relation　phenomenon；　at　the　same　time

forms　out　of　this　relation　a　representation　or　notion　of　an　object

in　itself；　and　hence　believes　that　it　can　form　also　conceptions　of

such　objects。　Now　as　the　understanding　possesses　no　other

fundamental　conceptions　besides　the　categories；　it　takes　for　granted

that　an　object　considered　as　a　thing　in　itself　must　be　capable　of

being　thought　by　means　of　these　pure　conceptions；　and　is　thereby　led

to　hold　the　perfectly　undetermined　conception　of　an　intelligible

existence；　a　something　out　of　the　sphere　of　our　sensibility；　for　a

determinate　conception　of　an　existence　which　we　can　cognize　in　some

way　or　other　by　means　of　the　understanding。

　　If；　by　the　term　noumenon；　we　understand　a　thing　so　far　as　it　is

not　an　object　of　our　sensuous　intuition；　thus　making　abstraction　of

our　mode　of　intuiting　it；　this　is　a　noumenon　in　the　negative　sense

of　the　word。　But　if　we　understand　by　it　an　object　of　a　non…sensuous

intuition；　we　in　this　case　assume　a　peculiar　mode　of　intuition；　an

intellectual　intuition；　to　wit；　which　does　not；　however；　belong　to　us；

of　the　very　possibility　of　which　we　have　no　notion…　and　this　is　a

noumenon　in　the　positive　sense。

　　The　doctrine　of　sensibility　is　also　the　doctrine　of　noumena　in　the

negative　sense；　that　is；　of　things　which　the　understanding　is

obliged　to　cogitate　apart　from　any　relation　to　our　mode　of

intuition；　consequently　not　as　mere　phenomena；　but　as　things　in

themselves。　But　the　understanding　at　the　same　time　comprehends　that　it

cannot　employ　its　categories　for　the　consideration　of　things　in

themselves；　because　these　possess　significance　only　in　relation　to　the

unity　of　intuitions　in　space　and　time；　and　that　they　are　competent

to　determine　this　unity　by　means　of　general　a　priori　connecting

conceptions　only　on　account　of　the　pure　ideality　of　space　and　time。

Where　this　unity　of　time　is　not　to　be　met　with；　as　is　the　case　with

noumena；　the　whole　use；　indeed　the　whole　meaning　of　the　categories

is　entirely　lost；　for　even　the　possibility　of　things　to　correspond

to　the　categories　is　in　this　case　incomprehensible。　On　this　point；　I

need　only　refer　the　reader　to　what　I　have　said　at　the　commencement

of　the　General　Remark　appended　to　the　foregoing　chapter。　Now；　the

possibility　of　a　thing　can　never　be　proved　from　the　fact　that　the

conception　of　it　is　not　self…contradictory；　but　only　by　means　of　an

intuition　corresponding　to　the　conception。　If；　therefore；　we　wish　to

apply　the　categories　to　objects　which　cannot　be　regarded　as　phenomena；

we　must　have　an　intuition　different　from　the　sensuous；　and　in　this

case　the　objects　would　be　a　noumena　in　the　positive　sense　of　the　word。

Now；　as　such　an　intuition；　that　is；　an　intellectual　intuition；　is　no

part　of　our　faculty　of　cognition；　it　is　absolutely　impossible　for

the　categories　to　possess　any　application　beyond　the　limits　of

experience。　It　may　be　true　that　there　are　intelligible　existences　to

which　our　faculty　of　sensuous　intuition　has　no　relation；　and　cannot　be

applied；　but　our　conceptions　of　the　understanding；　as　mere　forms　of

thought　for　our　sensuous　intuition；　do　not　extend　to　these。　What；

therefore；　we　call　noumenon　must　be　understood　by　us　as　such　in　a

negative　sense。

　　If　I　take　away　from　an　empirial　intuition　all　thought　（by　means　of

the　categories）；　there　remains　no　cognition　of　any　object；　for　by

means　of　mere　intuition　nothing　is　cogitated；　and；　from　the

existence　of　such　or　such　an　affection　of　sensibility　in　me；　it　does

not　follow　that　this　affection　or　representation　has　any　relation　to

an　object　without　me。　But　if　I　take　away　all　intuition；　there　still

remains　the　form　of　thought；　that　is；　the　mode　of　determining　an

object　for　the　manifold　of　a　possible　intuition。　Thus　the　categories

do　in　some　measure　really　extend　further　than　sensuous　intuition；

inasmuch　as　they　think　objects　in　general；　without　regard　to　the

mode　（of　sensibility）　in　which　these　objects　are　given。　But　they　do

not　for　this　reason　apply　to　and　determine　a　wider　sphere　of

objects；　because　we　cannot　assume　that　such　can　be　given；　without

presupposing　the　possibility　of　another　than　the　sensuous　mode　of

intuition；　a　supposition　we　are　not　justified　in　making。

　　I　call　a　conception　problematical　which　contains　in　itself　no

contradiction；　and　which　is　connected　with　other　cognitions　as　a

limitation　of　given　conceptions；　but　whose　objective　reality　cannot　be

cognized　in　any　manner。　The　conception　of　a　noumenon；　that　is；　of　a

thing　which　must　be　cogitated　not　as　an　object　of　sense；　but　as　a

thing　in　itself　（solely　through　the　pure　understanding）；　is　not

self…contradictory；　for　we　are　not　entitled　to　maintain　that

sensibility　is　the　only　possible　mode　of　intuition。　Nay；　further；　this

conception　is　necessary　to　restrain　sensuous　intuition　within　the

bounds　of　phenomena；　and　thus　to　limit　the　objective　validity　of

sensuous　cognition；　for　things　in　themselves；　which　lie　beyond　its

province；　are　called　noumena　for　the　very　purpose　of　indicating　that

this　cognition　does　not　extend　its　application　to　all　that　the

understanding　thinks。　But；　after　all；　the　possibility　of　such

noumena　is　quite　incomprehensible；　and　beyond　the　sphere　of　phenomena；

all　is　for　us　a　mere　void；　that　is　to　say；　we　possess　an　understanding

whose　province　does　problematically　extend　beyond　this　sphere；　but

we　do　not　possess　an　intuition；　indeed；　not　even　the　conception　of　a

possible　intuition；　by　means　of　which　objects　beyond　the　region　of

sensibility　could　be　given　us；　and　in　reference　to　which　the

understanding　might　be　employed　assertorically。　The　conception　of　a

noumenon　is　therefore　merely　a　limitative　conception　and　therefore

only　of　negative　use。　But　it　is　not　an　arbitrary　or　fictitious　notion；

but　is　connected　with　the　limitation　of　sensibility；　without；　however；

being　capable　of　presenting　us　with　any　positive　datum　beyond　this

sphere。

　　The　division　of　objects　into　phenomena　and　noumena；　and　of　the　world

into　a　mundus　sensibilis　and　intelligibilis　is　therefore　quite

inadmissible　in　a　positive　sense；　although　conceptions　do　certainly

admit　of　such　a　division；　for　the　class　of　noumena　have　no　determinate

object　corresponding　to　them；　and　cannot　therefore　possess　objective

validity。　If　we　abandon　the　senses；　how　can　it　be　made　conceivable

that　the　categories　（which　are　the　only　conceptions　that　could　serve

as　conceptions　for　noumena）　have　any　sense　or　meaning　at　all；　inasmuch

as　something　more　than　the　mere　unity　of　thought；　namely；　a　possible

intuition；　is　requisite　for　their　application　to　an　object？　The

conception　of　a　noumenon；　considered　as　merely　problematical；　is；

however；　not　only　admissible；　but；　as　a　limitative　conception　of

sensibility；　absolutely　necessary。　But；　in　this　case；　a　noumenon　is

not　a　particular　intelligible　object　for　our　understanding；　on　the

contrary；　the　kind　of　understanding　to　which　it　could　belong　is　itself

a　problem；　for　we　cannot　form　the　most　distant　conception　of　the

possibility　of　an　understanding　which　should　cognize　an　object；　not

discursively　by　means　of　categories；　but　intuitively　in　a　non…sensuous

intuition。　Our　understanding　attains　in　this　way　a　sort　of　negative

extension。　That　is　to　say；　it　is　not　limited　by；　but　rather　limits；

sensibility；　by　giving　the　name　of　noumena　to　things；　not　considered

as　phenomena；　but　as　things　in　themselves。　But　it　at　the　same　time

prescribes　limits　to　itself；　for　it　confesses　itself　unable　to　cognize

these　by　means　of　the　categories；　and　hence　is　compelled　to　cogitate

them　merely　as　an　unknown　something。

　　I　find；　however；　in　the　writings　of　modern　authors；　an　entirely

different　use　of　the　expressions；　mundus　sensibilis　and

intelligibilis；　which　quite　departs　from　the　meaning　of　the

ancients…　an　acceptation　in　which；　indeed；　there　is　to　be　found　no

difficulty；　but　which　at　the　same　time　depends　on　mere　verbal

quibbling。　According　to　this　meaning；　some　have　chosen　to　call　the

complex　of　phenomena；　in　so　far　as　it　is　intuited；　mundus

sensibilis；　but　in　so　far　as　the　connection　thereof　is　cogitated

according　to　general　laws　of　thought；　mundus　intelligibilis。

Astronomy；　in　so　far　as　we　mean　by　the　word　the　mere　observation　of

the　starry　heaven；　may　represent　the　former；　a　system　of　astronomy；

such　as　the　Copernican　or　Newtonian；　the　latter。　But　such　twisting

of　words　is　a　mere　sophistical　subterfuge；　to　avoid　a　difficult

question；　by　modifying　its　meaning　to　suit　our　own　convenience。　To

be　sure；　understanding　and　reason　are　employed　in　the　cognition　of

phenomena；　but　the　question　is；　whether　these　can　be　applied　when

the　object　is　not　a　phenomenon　and　in　this　sense　we　regard　it　if　it　is

cogitated　as　given　to　the　understanding　alone；　and　not　to　the

senses。　The　question　therefore　is　whether；　over　and　above　the

empirical　use　of　the　understanding；　a　transcendental　use　is

possible；　which　applies　to　the　noumenon　as　an　object。　This　question　we

have　answered　in　the　negative。

　　When　therefore　we　say；　the　senses　represent　objects　as　they

appear；　the　understanding　as　they　are；　the　latter　statement　must　not

be　understood　in　a　transcendental；　but　only　in　an　empirical

signification；　that　is；　as　they　must　be　represented　in　the　complete

connection　of　phenomena；　and　not　according　to　what　they　may　be；

apart　from　their　relation　to　possible　experience；　consequently　not

as　objects　of　the　pure　understanding。　For　this　must　ever　remain

unknown　to　us。　Nay；　it　is　also　quite　unknown　to　us　whether　any　such

transcendental　or　extraordinary　cognition　is　possible　under　any

circumstances；　at　least；　whether　it　is　possible　by　means　of　our

categories。　Understanding　and　sensibility；　with　us；　can　determine

objects　only　in　conjunction。　If　we　separate　them；　we　have　intuitions

without　conceptions；　or　conceptions　without　intuitions；　in　both　cases；

representations；　which　we　cannot　apply　to　any　determinate　object。

　　If；　after　all　our　inquiries　and　explanations；　any　one　still

hesitates　to　abandon　the　mere　transcendental　use　of　the　categories；

let　him　attempt　to　construct　with　them　a　synthetical　proposition。　It

would；　of　course；　be　unnecessary　for　this　purpose　to　construct　an

analytical　proposition；　for　that　does　not　extend　the　sphere　of　the

understanding；　but；　being　concerned　only　about　what　is　cogitated　in

the　conception　itself；　it　leaves　it　quite　undecided　whether　the

conception　has　any　relation　to　objects；　or　merely　indicates　the

unity　of　thought…　complete　abstraction　being　made　of　the　modi　in　which

an　object　may　be　given：　in　such　a　proposition；　it　is　sufficient　for

the　understanding　to　know　what　lies　in　the　conception…　to　what　it

applies　is　to　it　indifferent。　The　attempt　must　therefore　be　made

with　a　synthetical　and　so…called　transcenden