the critique of pure reason-第75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！



extend〃；　whether　I　can　say：　〃It　is　a　regress　in　infinitum；〃　or　only

〃in　indefinitum〃；　and　whether；　for　example；　setting　out　from　the　human

beings　at　present　alive　in　the　world；　I　may　ascend　in　the　series　of

their　ancestors；　in　infinitum…　mr　whether　all　that　can　be　said　is；

that　so　far　as　I　have　proceeded；　I　have　discovered　no　empirical　ground

for　considering　the　series　limited；　so　that　I　am　justified；　and

indeed；　compelled　to　search　for　ancestors　still　further　back；　although

I　am　not　obliged　by　the　idea　of　reason　to　presuppose　them。

　　My　answer　to　this　question　is：　〃If　the　series　is　given　in

empirical　intuition　as　a　whole；　the　regress　in　the　series　of　its

internal　conditions　proceeds　in　infinitum；　but；　if　only　one　member

of　the　series　is　given；　from　which　the　regress　is　to　proceed　to

absolute　totality；　the　regress　is　possible　only　in　indefinitum。〃　For

example；　the　division　of　a　portion　of　matter　given　within　certain

limits…　of　a　body；　that　is…　proceeds　in　infinitum。　For；　as　the

condition　of　this　whole　is　its　part；　and　the　condition　of　the　part　a

part　of　the　part；　and　so　on；　and　as　in　this　regress　of　decomposition

an　unconditioned　indivisible　member　of　the　series　of　conditions　is　not

to　be　found；　there　are　no　reasons　or　grounds　in　experience　for

stopping　in　the　division；　but；　on　the　contrary；　the　more　remote

members　of　the　division　are　actually　and　empirically　given　prior　to

this　division。　That　is　to　say；　the　division　proceeds　to　infinity。　On

the　other　hand；　the　series　of　ancestors　of　any　given　human　being　is

not　given；　in　its　absolute　totality；　in　any　experience；　and　yet　the

regress　proceeds　from　every　genealogical　member　of　this　series　to

one　still　higher；　and　does　not　meet　with　any　empirical　limit

presenting　an　absolutely　unconditioned　member　of　the　series。　But　as

the　members　of　such　a　series　are　not　contained　in　the　empirical

intuition　of　the　whole；　prior　to　the　regress；　this　regress　does　not

proceed　to　infinity；　but　only　in　indefinitum；　that　is；　we　are　called

upon　to　discover　other　and　higher　members；　which　are　themselves　always

conditioned。

　　In　neither　case…　the　regressus　in　infinitum；　nor　the　regressus　in

indefinitum；　is　the　series　of　conditions　to　be　considered　as

actually　infinite　in　the　object　itself。　This　might　be　true　of　things

in　themselves；　but　it　cannot　be　asserted　of　phenomena；　which；　as

conditions　of　each　other；　are　only　given　in　the　empirical　regress

itself。　Hence；　the　question　no　longer　is；　〃What　is　the　quantity　of

this　series　of　conditions　in　itself…　is　it　finite　or　infinite？〃　for　it

is　nothing　in　itself；　but；　〃How　is　the　empirical　regress　to　be

commenced；　and　how　far　ought　we　to　proceed　with　it？〃　And　here　a　signal

distinction　in　the　application　of　this　rule　becomes　apparent。　If　the

whole　is　given　empirically；　it　is　possible　to　recede　in　the　series

of　its　internal　conditions　to　infinity。　But　if　the　whole　is　not　given；

and　can　only　be　given　by　and　through　the　empirical　regress；　I　can　only

say：　〃It　is　possible　to　infinity；　to　proceed　to　still　higher

conditions　in　the　series。〃　In　the　first　case；　I　am　justified　in

asserting　that　more　members　are　empirically　given　in　the　object　than　I

attain　to　in　the　regress　（of　decomposition）。　In　the　second　case；　I

am　justified　only　in　saying；　that　I　can　always　proceed　further　in

the　regress；　because　no　member　of　the　series。　is　given　as　absolutely

conditioned；　and　thus　a　higher　member　is　possible；　and　an　inquiry　with

regard　to　it　is　necessary。　In　the　one　case　it　is　necessary　to　find

other　members　of　the　series；　in　the　other　it　is　necessary　to　inquire

for　others；　inasmuch　as　experience　presents　no　absolute　limitation

of　the　regress。　For；　either　you　do　not　possess　a　perception　which

absolutely　limits　your　empirical　regress；　and　in　this　case　the　regress

cannot　be　regarded　as　complete；　or；　you　do　possess　such　a　limitative

perception；　in　which　case　it　is　not　a　part　of　your　series　（for　that

which　limits　must　be　distinct　from　that　which　is　limited　by　it）；　and

it　is　incumbent　you　to　continue　your　regress　up　to　this　condition；　and

so　on。

　　These　remarks　will　be　placed　in　their　proper　light　by　their

application　in　the　following　section。



　　　　SECTION　IX。　Of　the　Empirical　Use　of　the　Regulative　Principle

　　　　　　　　　of　Reason　with　regard　to　the　Cosmological　Ideas。



　　We　have　shown　that　no　transcendental　use　can　be　made　either　of　the

conceptions　of　reason　or　of　understanding。　We　have　shown；　likewise；

that　the　demand　of　absolute　totality　in　the　series　of　conditions　in

the　world　of　sense　arises　from　a　transcendental　employment　of

reason；　resting　on　the　opinion　that　phenomena　are　to　be　regarded　as

things　in　themselves。　It　follows　that　we　are　not　required　to　answer

the　question　respecting　the　absolute　quantity　of　a　series…　whether

it　is　in　itself　limited　or　unlimited。　We　are　only　called　upon　to

determine　how　far　we　must　proceed　in　the　empirical　regress　from

condition　to　condition；　in　order　to　discover；　in　conformity　with　the

rule　of　reason；　a　full　and　correct　answer　to　the　questions　proposed　by

reason　itself。

　　This　principle　of　reason　is　hence　valid　only　as　a　rule　for　the

extension　of　a　possible　experience…　its　invalidity　as　a　principle

constitutive　of　phenomena　in　themselves　having　been　sufficiently

demonstrated。　And　thus；　too；　the　antinomial　conflict　of　reason　with

itself　is　completely　put　an　end　to；　inasmuch　as　we　have　not　only

presented　a　critical　solution　of　the　fallacy　lurking　in　the　opposite

statements　of　reason；　but　have　shown　the　true　meaning　of　the　ideas

which　gave　rise　to　these　statements。　The　dialectical　principle　of

reason　has；　therefore；　been　changed　into　a　doctrinal　principle。　But　in

fact；　if　this　principle；　in　the　subjective　signification　which　we　have

shown　to　be　its　only　true　sense；　may　be　guaranteed　as　a　principle　of

the　unceasing　extension　of　the　employment　of　our　understanding；　its

influence　and　value　are　just　as　great　as　if　it　were　an　axiom　for　the　a

priori　determination　of　objects。　For　such　an　axiom　could　not　exert　a

stronger　influence　on　the　extension　and　rectification　of　our

knowledge；　otherwise　than　by　procuring　for　the　principles　of　the

understanding　the　most　widely　expanded　employment　in　the　field　of

experience。



　　I。　Solution　of　the　Cosmological　Idea　of　the　Totality　of　the

　　　　　　　　　　Composition　of　Phenomena　in　the　Universe。



　　Here；　as　well　as　in　the　case　of　the　other　cosmological　problems；　the

ground　of　the　regulative　principle　of　reason　is　the　proposition　that

in　our　empirical　regress　no　experience　of　an　absolute　limit；　and

consequently　no　experience　of　a　condition；　which　is　itself

absolutely　unconditioned；　is　discoverable。　And　the　truth　of　this

proposition　itself　rests　upon　the　consideration　that　such　an

experience　must　represent　to　us　phenomena　as　limited　by　nothing　or　the

mere　void；　on　which　our　continued　regress　by　means　of　perception

must　abut…　which　is　impossible。

　　Now　this　proposition；　which　declares　that　every　condition　attained

in　the　empirical　regress　must　itself　be　considered　empirically

conditioned；　contains　the　rule　in　terminis；　which　requires　me；　to

whatever　extent　I　may　have　proceeded　in　the　ascending　series；　always

to　look　for　some　higher　member　in　the　series…　whether　this　member　is

to　become　known　to　me　through　experience；　or　not。

　　Nothing　further　is　necessary；　then；　for　the　solution　of　the　first

cosmological　problem；　than　to　decide；　whether；　in　the　regress　to　the

unconditioned　quantity　of　the　universe　（as　regards　space　and　time）；

this　never　limited　ascent　ought　to　be　called　a　regressus　in

infinitum　or　indefinitum。

　　The　general　representation　which　we　form　in　our　minds　of　the

series　of　all　past　states　or　conditions　of　the　world；　or　of　all　the

things　which　at　present　exist　in　it；　is　itself　nothing　more　than　a

possible　empirical　regress；　which　is　cogitated…　although　in　an

undetermined　manner…　in　the　mind；　and　which　gives　rise　to　the

conception　of　a　series　of　conditions　for　a　given　object。*　Now　I　have　a

conception　of　the　universe；　but　not　an　intuition…　that　is；　not　an

intuition　of　it　as　a　whole。　Thus　I　cannot　infer　the　magnitude　of　the

regress　from　the　quantity　or　magnitude　of　the　world；　and　determine　the

former　by　means　of　the　latter；　on　the　contrary；　I　must　first　of　all

form　a　conception　of　the　quantity　or　magnitude　of　the　world　from　the

magnitude　of　the　empirical　regress。　But　of　this　regress　I　know　nothing

more　than　that　I　ought　to　proceed　from　every　given　member　of　the

series　of　conditions　to　one　still　higher。　But　the　quantity　of　the

universe　is　not　thereby　determined；　and　we　cannot　affirm　that　this

regress　proceeds　in　infinitum。　Such　an　affirmation　would　anticipate

the　members　of　the　series　which　have　not　yet　been　reached；　and

represent　the　number　of　them　as　beyond　the　grasp　of　any　empirical

synthesis；　it　would　consequently　determine　the　cosmical　quantity　prior

to　the　regress　（although　only　in　a　negative　manner）…　which　is

impossible。　For　the　world　is　not　given　in　its　totality　in　any

intuition：　consequently；　its　quantity　cannot　be　given　prior　to　the

regress。　It　follows　that　we　are　unable　to　make　any　declaration

respecting　the　cosmical　quantity　in　itself…　not　even　that　the

regress　in　it　is　a　regress　in　infinitum；　we　must　only　endeavour　to

attain　to　a　conception　of　the　quantity　of　the　universe；　in

conformity　with　the　rule　which　determines　the　empirical　regress　in　it。

But　this　rule　merely　requires　us　never　to　admit　an　absolute　limit　to

our　series…　how　far　soever　we　may　have　proceeded　in　it；　but　always；　on

the　contrary；　to　subordinate　every　phenomenon　to　some　other　as　its

condition；　and　consequently　to　proceed　to　this　higher　phenomenon。　Such

a　regress　is；　therefore；　the　regressus　in　indefinitum；　which；　as　not

determining　a　quantity　in　the　object；　is　clearly　distinguishable

from　the　regressus　in　infinitum。



　　*The　cosmical　series　can　neither　be　greater　nor　smaller　than　the

possible　empirical　regress；　upon　which　its　conception　is　based。　And　as

this　regress　cannot　be　a　determinate　infinite　regress；　still　less　a

determinate　finite　（absolutely　limited）；　it　is　evident　that　we

cannot　regard　the　world　as　either　finite　or　infinite；　because　the

regress；　which　gives　us　the　representation　of　the　world；　is　neither

finite　nor　infinite。



　　It　follows　from　what　we　have　said　that　we　are　not　justified　in

declaring　the　world　to　be　infinite　in　space；　or　as　regards　past

time。　For　this　conception　of　an　infinite　given　quantity　is

empirical；　but　we　cannot　apply　the　conception　of　an　infinite

quantity　to　the　world　as　an　object　of　the　senses。　I　cannot　say；　〃The

regress　from　a　given　perception　to　everything　limited　either　in

space　or　time；　proceeds　in　infinitum；〃　for　this　presupposes　an

infinite　cosmical　quantity；　neither　can　I　say；　〃It　is　finite；〃　for

an　absolute　limit　is　likewise　impossible　in　experience。　It　follows

that　I　am　not　entitled　to　make　any　assertion　at　all　respecting　th