the critique of pure reason-第57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！



present　them　to　the　understanding　a　priori。　But　if　we　once　have　a

completely　（and　unconditionally）　given　condition；　there　is　no

further　necessity；　in　proceeding　with　the　series；　for　a　conception

of　reason；　for　the　understanding　takes　of　itself　every　step

downward；　from　the　condition　to　the　conditioned。　Thus　the

transcendental　ideas　are　available　only　for　ascending　in　the　series　of

conditions；　till　we　reach　the　unconditioned；　that　is；　principles。　As

regards　descending　to　the　conditioned；　on　the　other　hand；　we　find　that

there　is　a　widely　extensive　logical　use　which　reason　makes　of　the　laws

of　the　understanding；　but　that　a　transcendental　use　thereof　is

impossible；　and　that　when　we　form　an　idea　of　the　absolute　totality

of　such　a　synthesis；　for　example；　of　the　whole　series　of　all　future

changes　in　the　world；　this　idea　is　a　mere　ens　rationis；　an　arbitrary

fiction　of　thought；　and　not　a　necessary　presupposition　of　reason。

For　the　possibility　of　the　conditioned　presupposes　the　totality　of　its

conditions；　but　not　of　its　consequences。　Consequently；　this　conception

is　not　a　transcendental　idea…　and　it　is　with　these　alone　that　we　are

at　present　occupied。

　　Finally；　it　is　obvious　that　there　exists　among　the　transcendental

ideas　a　certain　connection　and　unity；　and　that　pure　reason；　by　means

of　them；　collects　all　its　cognitions　into　one　system。　From　the

cognition　of　self　to　the　cognition　of　the　world；　and　through　these

to　the　supreme　being；　the　progression　is　so　natural；　that　it　seems

to　resemble　the　logical　march　of　reason　from　the　premisses　to　the

conclusion。*　Now　whether　there　lies　unobserved　at　the　foundation　of

these　ideas　an　analogy　of　the　same　kind　as　exists　between　the

logical　and　transcendental　procedure　of　reason；　is　another　of　those

questions；　the　answer　to　which　we　must　not　expect　till　we　arrive　at

a　more　advanced　stage　in　our　inquiries。　In　this　cursory　and

preliminary　view；　we　have；　meanwhile；　reached　our　aim。　For　we　have

dispelled　the　ambiguity　which　attached　to　the　transcendental

conceptions　of　reason；　from　their　being　commonly　mixed　up　with　other

conceptions　in　the　systems　of　philosophers；　and　not　properly

distinguished　from　the　conceptions　of　the　understanding；　we　have

exposed　their　origin　and；　thereby；　at　the　same　time　their

determinate　number；　and　presented　them　in　a　systematic　connection；　and

have　thus　marked　out　and　enclosed　a　definite　sphere　for　pure　reason。



　　*The　science　of　Metaphysics　has　for　the　proper　object　of　its

inquiries　only　three　grand　ideas：　GOD；　FREEDOM；　and　IMMORTALITY；　and

it　aims　at　showing；　that　the　second　conception；　conjoined　with　the

first；　must　lead　to　the　third；　as　a　necessary　conclusion。　All　the

other　subjects　with　which　it　occupies　itself；　are　merely　means　for　the

attainment　and　realization　of　these　ideas。　It　does　not　require　these

ideas　for　the　construction　of　a　science　of　nature；　but；　on　the

contrary；　for　the　purpose　of　passing　beyond　the　sphere　of　nature。　A

complete　insight　into　and　comprehension　of　them　would　render　Theology；

Ethics；　and；　through　the　conjunction　of　both；　Religion；　solely

dependent　on　the　speculative　faculty　of　reason。　In　a　systematic

representation　of　these　ideas　the　above…mentioned　arrangement…　the

synthetical　one…　would　be　the　most　suitable；　but　in　the

investigation　which　must　necessarily　precede　it；　the　analytical；　which

reverses　this　arrangement；　would　be　better　adapted　to　our　purpose；

as　in　it　we　should　proceed　from　that　which　experience　immediately

presents　to　us…　psychology；　to　cosmology；　and　thence　to　theology。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　BOOK　II。



　　　　　　　　OF　THE　DIALECTICAL　PROCEDURE　OF　PURE　REASON。



　　It　may　be　said　that　the　object　of　a　merely　transcendental　idea　is

something　of　which　we　have　no　conception；　although　the　idea　may　be　a

necessary　product　of　reason　according　to　its　original　laws。　For；　in

fact；　a　conception　of　an　object　that　is　adequate　to　the　idea　given

by　reason；　is　impossible。　For　such　an　object　must　be　capable　of

being　presented　and　intuited　in　a　Possible　experience。　But　we　should

express　our　meaning　better；　and　with　less　risk　of　being　misunderstood；

if　we　said　that　we　can　have　no　knowledge　of　an　object；　which　perfectly

corresponds　to　an　idea；　although　we　may　possess　a　problematical

conception　thereof。

　　Now　the　transcendental　（subjective）　reality　at　least　of　the　pure

conceptions　of　reason　rests　upon　the　fact　that　we　are　led　to　such

ideas　by　a　necessary　procedure　of　reason。　There　must　therefore　be

syllogisms　which　contain　no　empirical　premisses；　and　by　means　of　which

we　conclude　from　something　that　we　do　know；　to　something　of　which　we

do　not　even　possess　a　conception；　to　which　we；　nevertheless；　by　an

unavoidable　illusion；　ascribe　objective　reality。　Such　arguments　are；

as　regards　their　result；　rather　to　be　termed　sophisms　than　syllogisms；

although　indeed；　as　regards　their　origin；　they　are　very　well

entitled　to　the　latter　name；　inasmuch　as　they　are　not　fictions　or

accidental　products　of　reason；　but　are　necessitated　by　its　very

nature。　They　are　sophisms；　not　of　men；　but　of　pure　reason　herself；

from　which　the　Wisest　cannot　free　himself。　After　long　labour　he　may　be

able　to　guard　against　the　error；　but　he　can　never　be　thoroughly　rid　of

the　illusion　which　continually　mocks　and　misleads　him。

　　Of　these　dialectical　arguments　there　are　three　kinds；

corresponding　to　the　number　of　the　ideas　which　their　conclusions

present。　In　the　argument　or　syllogism　of　the　first　class；　I

conclude；　from　the　transcendental　conception　of　the　subject　contains

no　manifold；　the　absolute　unity　of　the　subject　itself；　of　which　I

cannot　in　this　manner　attain　to　a　conception。　This　dialectical

argument　I　shall　call　the　transcendental　paralogism。　The　second

class　of　sophistical　arguments　is　occupied　with　the　transcendental

conception　of　the　absolute　totality　of　the　series　of　conditions　for

a　given　phenomenon；　and　I　conclude；　from　the　fact　that　I　have　always　a

self…contradictory　conception　of　the　unconditioned　synthetical　unity

of　the　series　upon　one　side；　the　truth　of　the　opposite　unity；　of　which

I　have　nevertheless　no　conception。　The　condition　of　reason　in　these

dialectical　arguments；　I　shall　term　the　antinomy　of　pure　reason。

Finally；　according　to　the　third　kind　of　sophistical　argument；　I

conclude；　from　the　totality　of　the　conditions　of　thinking　objects　in

general；　in　so　far　as　they　can　be　given；　the　absolute　synthetical

unity　of　all　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　things　in　general；

that　is；　from　things　which　I　do　not　know　in　their　mere

transcendental　conception；　I　conclude　a　being　of　all　beings　which　I

know　still　less　by　means　of　a　transcendental　conception；　and　of

whose　unconditioned　necessity　I　can　form　no　conception　whatever。

This　dialectical　argument　I　shall　call　the　ideal　of　pure　reason。

　　　　　　　　　　CHAPTER　I。　Of　the　Paralogisms　of　Pure　Reason。



　　The　logical　paralogism　consists　in　the　falsity　of　an　argument　in

respect　of　its　form；　be　the　content　what　it　may。　But　a

transcendental　paralogism　has　a　transcendental　foundation；　and

concludes　falsely；　while　the　form　is　correct　and　unexceptionable。　In

this　manner　the　paralogism　has　its　foundation　in　the　nature　of　human

reason；　and　is　the　parent　of　an　unavoidable；　though　not　insoluble；

mental　illusion。

　　We　now　come　to　a　conception　which　was　not　inserted　in　the　general

list　of　transcendental　conceptions。　and　yet　must　be　reckoned　with

them；　but　at　the　same　time　without　in　the　least　altering；　or

indicating　a　deficiency　in　that　table。　This　is　the　conception；　or；

if　the　term　is　preferred；　the　judgement；　〃I　think。〃　But　it　is

readily　perceived　that　this　thought　is　as　it　were　the　vehicle　of　all

conceptions　in　general；　and　consequently　of　transcendental　conceptions

also；　and　that　it　is　therefore　regarded　as　a　transcendental

conception；　although　it　can　have　no　peculiar　claim　to　be　so　ranked；

inasmuch　as　its　only　use　is　to　indicate　that　all　thought　is

accompanied　by　consciousness。　At　the　same　time；　pure　as　this

conception　is　from　empirical　content　（impressions　of　the　senses）；　it

enables　us　to　distinguish　two　different　kinds　of　objects。　〃I；〃　as

thinking；　am　an　object　of　the　internal　sense；　and　am　called　soul。　That

which　is　an　object　of　the　external　senses　is　called　body。　Thus　the

expression；　〃I；〃　as　a　thinking　being；　designates　the　object…matter

of　psychology；　which　may　be　called　〃the　rational　doctrine　of　the

soul；〃　inasmuch　as　in　this　science　I　desire　to　know　nothing　of　the

soul　but　what；　independently　of　all　experience　（which　determines　me　in

concreto）；　may　be　concluded　from　this　conception　〃I；〃　in　so　far　as

it　appears　in　all　thought。

　　Now；　the　rational　doctrine　of　the　soul　is　really　an　undertaking　of

this　kind。　For　if　the　smallest　empirical　element　of　thought；　if　any

particular　perception　of　my　internal　state；　were　to　be　introduced

among　the　grounds　of　cognition　of　this　science；　it　would　not　be　a

rational；　but　an　empirical　doctrine　of　the　soul。　We　have　thus　before

us　a　pretended　science；　raised　upon　the　single　proposition；　〃I　think；〃

whose　foundation　or　want　of　foundation　we　may　very　properly；　and

agreeably　with　the　nature　of　a　transcendental　philosophy；　here

examine。　It　ought　not　to　be　objected　that　in　this　proposition；　which

expresses　the　perception　of　one's　self；　an　internal　experience　is

asserted；　and　that　consequently　the　rational　doctrine　of　the　soul

which　is　founded　upon　it；　is　not　pure；　but　partly　founded　upon　an

empirical　principle。　For　this　internal　perception　is　nothing　more　than

the　mere　apperception；　〃I　think；〃　which　in　fact　renders　all

transcendental　conceptions　possible；　in　which　we　say；　〃I　think

substance；　cause；　etc。〃　For　internal　experience　in　general　and　its

possibility；　or　perception　in　general；　and　its　relation　to　other

perceptions；　unless　some　particular　distinction　or　determination

thereof　is　empirically　given；　cannot　be　regarded　as　empirical

cognition；　but　as　cognition　of　the　empirical；　and　belongs　to　the

investigation　of　the　possibility　of　every　experience；　which　is

certainly　transcendental。　The　smallest　object　of　experience　（for

example；　only　pleasure　or　pain）；　that　should　be　included　in　the

general　representation　of　self…consciousness；　would　immediately　change

the　rational　into　an　empirical　psychology。

　　〃I　think〃　is　therefore　the　only　text　of　rational　psychology；　from

which　it　must　develop　its　whole　system。　It　is　manifest　that　this

thought；　when　applied　to　an　object　（myself）；　can　contain　nothing　but

transcendental　predicates　thereof；　because　the　least　empirical

predicate　would　destroy　the　purity　of　the　science　and　its　independence

of　all　experience。

　　But　we　shall　have　to　follow　here　the　guidance　of　the　categories…

only；　as　in　the　present　case　a　thing；　〃I；〃　as　thinking　being；　is　at

first　given；　we　shall…　not　indeed　change　the　order　of　the　categories

as　it　stands　in　the　table…　but　begin　at　the　category　of　substance；

by　which　at　the　a　th