the critique of pure reason-第66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！



and　as　the　elements　of；　the　composite；　I　might　term　the　antithesis

of　the　second　Antinomy；　transcendental　Atomistic。　But　as　this　word　has

long　been　employed　to　designate　a　particular　theory　of　corporeal

phenomena　（moleculae）；　and　thus　presupposes　a　basis　of　empirical

conceptions；　I　prefer　calling　it　the　dialectical　principle　of

Monadology。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ANTITHESIS。



　　Against　the　assertion　of　the　infinite　subdivisibility　of　matter

whose　ground　of　proof　is　purely　mathematical；　objections　have　been

alleged　by　the　Monadists。　These　objections　lay　themselves　open；　at

first　sight；　to　suspicion；　from　the　fact　that　they　do　not　recognize

the　clearest　mathematical　proofs　as　propositions　relating　to　the

constitution　of　space；　in　so　far　as　it　is　really　the　formal

condition　of　the　possibility　of　all　matter；　but　regard　them　merely

as　inferences　from　abstract　but　arbitrary　conceptions；　which　cannot

have　any　application　to　real　things。　just　as　if　it　were　possible　to

imagine　another　mode　of　intuition　than　that　given　in　the　primitive

intuition　of　space；　and　just　as　if　its　a　priori　determinations　did　not

apply　to　everything；　the　existence　of　which　is　possible；　from　the　fact

alone　of　its　filling　space。　If　we　listen　to　them；　we　shall　find

ourselves　required　to　cogitate；　in　addition　to　the　mathematical　point；

which　is　simple…　not；　however；　a　part；　but　a　mere　limit　of　space…

physical　points；　which　are　indeed　likewise　simple；　but　possess　the

peculiar　property；　as　parts　of　space；　of　filling　it　merely　by　their

aggregation。　I　shall　not　repeat　here　the　common　and　clear

refutations　of　this　absurdity；　which　are　to　be　found　everywhere　in

numbers：　every　one　knows　that　it　is　impossible　to　undermine　the

evidence　of　mathematics　by　mere　discursive　conceptions；　I　shall　only

remark　that；　if　in　this　case　philosophy　endeavours　to　gain　an

advantage　over　mathematics　by　sophistical　artifices；　it　is　because

it　forgets　that　the　discussion　relates　solely　to　Phenomena　and　their

conditions。　It　is　not　sufficient　to　find　the　conception　of　the

simple　for　the　pure　conception　of　the　composite；　but　we　must

discover　for　the　intuition　of　the　composite　（matter）；　the　intuition　of

the　simple。　Now　this；　according　to　the　laws　of　sensibility；　and

consequently　in　the　case　of　objects　of　sense；　is　utterly　impossible。

In　the　case　of　a　whole　composed　of　substances；　which　is　cogitated

solely　by　the　pure　understanding；　it　may　be　necessary　to　be　in

possession　of　the　simple　before　composition　is　possible。　But　this　does

not　hold　good　of　the　Totum　substantiale　phaenomenon；　which；　as　an

empirical　intuition　in　space；　possesses　the　necessary　property　of

containing　no　simple　part；　for　the　very　reason　that　no　part　of　space

is　simple。　Meanwhile；　the　Monadists　have　been　subtle　enough　to

escape　from　this　difficulty；　by　presupposing　intuition　and　the

dynamical　relation　of　substances　as　the　condition　of　the　possibility

of　space；　instead　of　regarding　space　as　the　condition　of　the

possibility　of　the　objects　of　external　intuition；　that　is；　of

bodies。　Now　we　have　a　conception　of　bodies　only　as　phenomena；　and；

as　such；　they　necessarily　presuppose　space　as　the　condition　of　all

external　phenomena。　The　evasion　is　therefore　in　vain；　as；　indeed；　we

have　sufficiently　shown　in　our　Aesthetic。　If　bodies　were　things　in

themselves；　the　proof　of　the　Monadists　would　be　unexceptionable。

　　The　second　dialectical　assertion　possesses　the　peculiarity　of　having

opposed　to　it　a　dogmatical　proposition；　which；　among　all　such

sophistical　statements；　is　the　only　one　that　undertakes　to　prove　in

the　case　of　an　object　of　experience；　that　which　is　properly　a

transcendental　idea…　the　absolute　simplicity　of　substance。　The

proposition　is　that　the　object　of　the　internal　sense；　the　thinking

Ego；　is　an　absolute　simple　substance。　Without　at　present　entering　upon

this　subject…　as　it　has　been　considered　at　length　in　a　former　chapter…

I　shall　merely　remark　that；　if　something　is　cogitated　merely　as　an

object；　without　the　addition　of　any　synthetical　determination　of　its

intuition…　as　happens　in　the　case　of　the　bare　representation；　I…　it　is

certain　that　no　manifold　and　no　composition　can　be　perceived　in　such　a

representation。　As；　moreover；　the　predicates　whereby　I　cogitate　this

object　are　merely　intuitions　of　the　internal　sense；　there　cannot　be

discovered　in　them　anything　to　prove　the　existence　of　a　manifold　whose

parts　are　external　to　each　other；　and；　consequently；　nothing　to

prove　the　existence　of　real　composition。　Consciousness；　therefore；

is　so　constituted　that；　inasmuch　as　the　thinking　subject　is　at　the

same　time　its　own　object；　it　cannot　divide　itself…　although　it　can

divide　its　inhering　determinations。　For　every　object　in　relation　to

itself　is　absolute　unity。　Nevertheless；　if　the　subject　is　regarded

externally；　as　an　object　of　intuition；　it　must；　in　its　character　of

phenomenon；　possess　the　property　of　composition。　And　it　must　always　be

regarded　in　this　manner；　if　we　wish　to　know　whether　there　is　or　is　not

contained　in　it　a　manifold　whose　parts　are　external　to　each　other。





　　　　　　　　　　THIRD　CONFLICT　OF　THE　TRANSCENDENTAL　IDEAS。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　THESIS。



　　Causality　according　to　the　laws　of　nature；　is　not　the　only　causality

operating　to　originate　the　phenomena　of　the　world。　A　causality　of

freedom　is　also　necessary　to　account　fully　for　these　phenomena。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　Let　it　be　supposed；　that　there　is　no　other　kind　of　causality　than

that　according　to　the　laws　of　nature。　Consequently；　everything　that

happens　presupposes　a　previous　condition；　which　it　follows　with

absolute　certainty；　in　conformity　with　a　rule。　But　this　previous

condition　must　itself　be　something　that　has　happened　（that　has

arisen　in　time；　as　it　did　not　exist　before）；　for；　if　it　has　always

been　in　existence；　its　consequence　or　effect　would　not　thus

originate　for　the　first　time；　but　would　likewise　have　always

existed。　The　causality；　therefore；　of　a　cause；　whereby　something

happens；　is　itself　a　thing　that　has　happened。　Now　this　again

presupposes；　in　conformity　with　the　law　of　nature；　a　previous

condition　and　its　causality；　and　this　another　anterior　to　the

former；　and　so　on。　If；　then；　everything　happens　solely　in　accordance

with　the　laws　of　nature；　there　cannot　be　any　real　first　beginning　of

things；　but　only　a　subaltern　or　comparative　beginning。　There　cannot；

therefore；　be　a　completeness　of　series　on　the　side　of　the　causes　which

originate　the　one　from　the　other。　But　the　law　of　nature　is　that

nothing　can　happen　without　a　sufficient　a　priori　determined　cause。　The

proposition　therefore…　if　all　causality　is　possible　only　in　accordance

with　the　laws　of　nature…　is；　when　stated　in　this　unlimited　and　general

manner；　self…contradictory。　It　follows　that　this　cannot　be　the　only

kind　of　causality。

　　From　what　has　been　said；　it　follows　that　a　causality　must　be

admitted；　by　means　of　which　something　happens；　without　its　cause　being

determined　according　to　necessary　laws　by　some　other　cause

preceding。　That　is　to　say；　there　must　exist　an　absolute　spontaneity　of

cause；　which　of　itself　originates　a　series　of　phenomena　which　proceeds

according　to　natural　laws…　consequently　transcendental　freedom；

without　which　even　in　the　course　of　nature　the　succession　of　phenomena

on　the　side　of　causes　is　never　complete。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ANTITHESIS。



　　There　is　no　such　thing　as　freedom；　but　everything　in　the　world

happens　solely　according　to　the　laws　of　nature。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　Granted；　that　there　does　exist　freedom　in　the　transcendental

sense；　as　a　peculiar　kind　of　causality；　operating　to　produce　events　in

the　world…　a　faculty；　that　is　to　say；　of　originating　a　state；　and

consequently　a　series　of　consequences　from　that　state。　In　this　case；

not　only　the　series　originated　by　this　spontaneity；　but　the

determination　of　this　spontaneity　itself　to　the　production　of　the

series；　that　is　to　say；　the　causality　itself　must　have　an　absolute

commencement；　such　that　nothing　can　precede　to　determine　this　action

according　to　unvarying　laws。　But　every　beginning　of　action　presupposes

in　the　acting　cause　a　state　of　inaction；　and　a　dynamically　primal

beginning　of　action　presupposes　a　state；　which　has　no　connection…　as

regards　causality…　with　the　preceding　state　of　the　cause…　which　does

not；　that　is；　in　any　wise　result　from　it。　Transcendental　freedom　is

therefore　opposed　to　the　natural　law　of　cause　and　effect；　and　such　a

conjunction　of　successive　states　in　effective　causes　is　destructive　of

the　possibility　of　unity　in　experience　and　for　that　reason　not　to　be

found　in　experience…　is　consequently　a　mere　fiction　of　thought。

　　We　have；　therefore；　nothing　but　nature　to　which　we　must　look　for

connection　and　order　in　cosmical　events。　Freedom…　independence　of

the　laws　of　nature…　is　certainly　a　deliverance　from　restraint；　but

it　is　also　a　relinquishing　of　the　guidance　of　law　and　rule。　For　it

cannot　be　alleged　that；　instead　of　the　laws　of　nature；　laws　of　freedom

may　be　introduced　into　the　causality　of　the　course　of　nature。　For；

if　freedom　were　determined　according　to　laws；　it　would　be　no　longer

freedom；　but　merely　nature。　Nature；　therefore；　and　transcendental

freedom　are　distinguishable　as　conformity　to　law　and　lawlessness。

The　former　imposes　upon　understanding　the　difficulty　of　seeking　the

origin　of　events　ever　higher　and　higher　in　the　series　of　causes；

inasmuch　as　causality　is　always　conditioned　thereby；　while　it

compensates　this　labour　by　the　guarantee　of　a　unity　complete　and　in

conformity　with　law。　The　latter；　on　the　contrary；　holds　out　to　the

understanding　the　promise　of　a　point　of　rest　in　the　chain　of　causes；

by　conducting　it　to　an　unconditioned　causality；　which　professes　to

have　the　power　of　spontaneous　origination；　but　which；　in　its　own　utter

blindness；　deprives　it　of　the　guidance　of　rules；　by　which　alone　a

completely　connected　experience　is　possible。





　　　　　　　　　　　　　OBSERVATIONS　ON　THE　THIRD　ANTINOMY。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ON　THE　THESIS。



　　The　transcendental　idea　of　freedom　is　far　from　constituting　the

entire　content　of　the　psychological　conception　so　termed；　which　is　for

the　most　part　empirical。　It　merely　presents　us　with　the　conception

of　spontaneity　of　action；　as　the　proper　ground　for　imputing　freedom　to

the　cause　of　a　certain　class　of　objects。　It　is；　however；　the　true

stumbling…stone　to　philosophy；　which　meets　with　unconquerable

difficulties　in　the　way　of　its　admitting　this　kind　of　unconditioned

causality。　That　element　in　the　question　of　the　freedom　of　the　will；

which　bas　for　so　long　a　time　placed　speculative　reason　in　such

perplexity；　is　properly　only　transcendental；　and　concerns　the

question；　whether　there　must　be　held　to　exist　a　faculty　of　spontaneous

origination　of　a　series　of　successive　things　or　states。　How　such　a

faculty　is　possible　is　no