the+critique+of+practical+reason-第17部分

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！


by　the　moral　law。
　　I　add　nothing　further　here　in　explanation　of　the　present　table；
since　it　is　intelligible　enough　of　itself。　A　division　of　this　kind
based　on　principles　is　very　useful　in　any　science；　both　for　the　sake
of　thoroughness　and　intelligibility。　Thus；　for　instance；　we　know
from　the　preceding　table　and　its　first　number　what　we　must　begin
from　in　practical　inquiries；　namely；　from　the　maxims　which　every　one
founds　on　his　own　inclinations；　the　precepts　which　hold　for　a
species　of　rational　beings　so　far　as　they　agree　in　certain
inclinations；　and　finally　the　law　which　holds　for　all　without　regard
to　their　inclinations；　etc。　In　this　way　we　survey　the　whole　plan　of
what　has　to　be　done；　every　question　of　practical　philosophy　that　has
to　be　answered；　and　also　the　order　that　is　to　be　followed。

　　Of　the　Typic　of　the　Pure　Practical　Judgement。

　　It　is　the　notions　of　good　and　evil　that　first　determine　an　object　of
the　will。　They　themselves；　however；　are　subject　to　a　practical　rule　of
reason　which；　if　it　is　pure　reason；　determines　the　will　a　priori
relatively　to　its　object。　Now；　whether　an　action　which　is　possible
to　us　in　the　world　of　sense；　es　under　the　rule　or　not；　is　a
question　to　be　decided　by　the　practical　judgement；　by　which　what　is
said　in　the　rule　universally　（in　abstracto）　is　applied　to　an　action　in
concreto。　But　since　a　practical　rule　of　pure　reason　in　the　first　place
as　practical　concerns　the　existence　of　an　object；　and　in　the　second
place　as　a　practical　rule　of　pure　reason　implies　necessity　as
regards　the　existence　of　the　action　and；　therefore；　is　a　practical
law；　not　a　physical　law　depending　on　empirical　principles　of
determination；　but　a　law　of　freedom　by　which　the　will　is　to　be
determined　independently　on　anything　empirical　（merely　by　the
conception　of　a　law　and　its　form）；　whereas　all　instances　that　can
occur　of　possible　actions　can　only　be　empirical；　that　is；　belong　to
the　experience　of　physical　nature；　hence；　it　seems　absurd　to　expect　to
find　in　the　world　of　sense　a　case　which；　while　as　such　it　depends　only
on　the　law　of　nature；　yet　admits　of　the　application　to　it　of　a　law
of　freedom；　and　to　which　we　can　apply　the　supersensible　idea　of　the
morally　good　which　is　to　be　exhibited　in　it　in　concreto。　Thus；　the
judgement　of　the　pure　practical　reason　is　subject　to　the　same
difficulties　as　that　of　the　pure　theoretical　reason。　The　latter；
however；　had　means　at　hand　of　escaping　from　these　difficulties；
because；　in　regard　to　the　theoretical　employment；　intuitions　were
required　to　which　pure　concepts　of　the　understanding　could　be　applied；
and　such　intuitions　（though　only　of　objects　of　the　senses）　can　be
given　a　priori　and；　therefore；　as　far　as　regards　the　union　of　the
manifold　in　them；　conforming　to　the　pure　a　priori　concepts　of　the
understanding　as　schemata。　On　the　other　hand；　the　morally　good　is
something　whose　object　is　supersensible；　for　which；　therefore；　nothing
corresponding　can　be　found　in　any　sensible　intuition。　Judgement
depending　on　laws　of　pure　practical　reason　seems；　therefore；　to　be
subject　to　special　difficulties　arising　from　this；　that　a　law　of
freedom　is　to　be　applied　to　actions；　which　are　events　taking　place
in　the　world　of　sense；　and　which；　so　far；　belong　to　physical　nature。
　　But　here　again　is　opened　a　favourable　prospect　for　the　pure
practical　judgement。　When　I　subsume　under　a　pure　practical　law　an
action　possible　to　me　in　the　world　of　sense；　I　am　not　concerned　with
the　possibility　of　the　action　as　an　event　in　the　world　of　sense。
This　is　a　matter　that　belongs　to　the　decision　of　reason　in　its
theoretic　use　according　to　the　law　of　causality；　which　is　a　pure
concept　of　the　understanding；　for　which　reason　has　a　schema　in　the
sensible　intuition。　Physical　causality；　or　the　condition　under　which
it　takes　place；　belongs　to　the　physical　concepts；　the　schema　of
which　is　sketched　by　transcendental　imagination。　Here；　however；　we
have　to　do；　not　with　the　schema　of　a　case　that　occurs　according　to
laws；　but　with　the　schema　of　a　law　itself　（if　the　word　is　allowable
here）；　since　the　fact　that　the　will　（not　the　action　relatively　to
its　effect）　is　determined　by　the　law　alone　without　any　other
principle；　connects　the　notion　of　causality　with　quite　different
conditions　from　those　which　constitute　physical　connection。
　　The　physical　law　being　a　law　to　which　the　objects　of　sensible
intuition；　as　such；　are　subject；　must　have　a　schema　corresponding　to
it…　that　is；　a　general　procedure　of　the　imagination　（by　which　it
exhibits　a　priori　to　the　senses　the　pure　concept　of　the
understanding　which　the　law　determines）。　But　the　law　of　freedom
（that　is；　of　a　causality　not　subject　to　sensible　conditions）；　and
consequently　the　concept　of　the　unconditionally　good；　cannot　have
any　intuition；　nor　consequently　any　schema　supplied　to　it　for　the
purpose　of　its　application　in　concreto。　Consequently　the　moral　law　has
no　faculty　but　the　understanding　to　aid　its　application　to　physical
objects　（not　the　imagination）；　and　the　understanding　for　the
purposes　of　the　judgement　can　provide　for　an　idea　of　the　reason；　not　a
schema　of　the　sensibility；　but　a　law；　though　only　as　to　its　form　as
law；　such　a　law；　however；　as　can　be　exhibited　in　concreto　in　objects
of　the　senses；　and　therefore　a　law　of　nature。　We　can　therefore　call
this　law　the　type　of　the　moral　law。
　　The　rule　of　the　judgement　according　to　laws　of　pure　practical　reason
is　this：　ask　yourself　whether；　if　the　action　you　propose　were　to
take　place　by　a　law　of　the　system　of　nature　of　which　you　were　yourself
a　part；　you　could　regard　it　as　possible　by　your　own　will。　Everyone
does；　in　fact；　decide　by　this　rule　whether　actions　are　morally　good　or
evil。　Thus；　people　say：　〃If　everyone　permitted　himself　to　deceive；
when　he　thought　it　to　his　advantage；　or　thought　himself　justified　in
shortening　his　life　as　soon　as　he　was　thoroughly　weary　of　it；　or
looked　with　perfect　indifference　on　the　necessity　of　others；　and　if
you　belonged　to　such　an　order　of　things；　would　you　do　so　with　the
assent　of　your　own　will？〃　Now　everyone　knows　well　that　if　he
secretly　allows　himself　to　deceive；　it　does　not　follow　that　everyone
else　does　so；　or　if；　unobserved；　he　is　destitute　of　passion；　others
would　not　necessarily　be　so　to　him；　hence；　this　parison　of　the
maxim　of　his　actions　with　a　universal　law　of　nature　is　not　the
determining　principle　of　his　will。　Such　a　law　is；　nevertheless；　a　type
of　the　estimation　of　the　maxim　on　moral　principles。　If　the　maxim　of
the　action　is　not　such　as　to　stand　the　test　of　the　form　of　a　universal
law　of　nature；　then　it　is　morally　impossible。　This　is　the　judgement
even　of　mon　sense；　for　its　ordinary　judgements；　even　those　of
experience；　are　always　based　on　the　law　of　nature。　It　has　it　therefore
always　at　hand；　only　that　in　cases　where　causality　from　freedom　is
to　be　criticised；　it　makes　that　law　of　nature　only　the　type　of　a　law
of　freedom；　because；　without　something　which　it　could　use　as　an
example　in　a　case　of　experience；　it　could　not　give　the　law　of　a　pure
practical　reason　its　proper　use　in　practice。
　　It　is　therefore　allowable　to　use　the　system　of　the　world　of　sense　as
the　type　of　a　supersensible　system　of　things；　provided　I　do　not
transfer　to　the　latter　the　intuitions；　and　what　depends　on　them；　but
merely　apply　to　it　the　form　of　law　in　general　（the　notion　of　which
occurs　even　in　the　monest　use　of　reason；　but　cannot　be　definitely
known　a　priori　for　any　other　purpose　than　the　pure　practical　use　of
reason）；　for　laws；　as　such；　are　so　far　identical；　no　matter　from
what　they　derive　their　determining　principles。
　　Further；　since　of　all　the　supersensible　absolutely　nothing　＇is
known＇　except　freedom　（through　the　moral　law）；　and　this　only　so　far　as
it　is　inseparably　implied　in　that　law；　and　moreover　all
supersensible　objects　to　which　reason　might　lead　us；　following　the
guidance　of　that　law；　have　still　no　reality　for　us；　except　for　the
purpose　of　that　law；　and　for　the　use　of　mere　practical　reason；　and
as　reason　is　authorized　and　even　pelled　to　use　physical　nature
（in　its　pure　form　as　an　object　of　the　understanding）　as　the　type　of
the　judgement；　hence；　the　present　remark　will　serve　to　guard　against
reckoning　amongst　concepts　themselves　that　which　belongs　only　to　the
typic　of　concepts。　This；　namely；　as　a　typic　of　the　judgement；　guards
against　the　empiricism　of　practical　reason；　which　founds　the　practical
notions　of　good　and　evil　merely　on　experienced　consequences　（so…called
happiness）。　No　doubt　happiness　and　the　infinite　advantages　which　would
result　from　a　will　determined　by　self…love；　if　this　will　at　the　same
time　erected　itself　into　a　universal　law　of　nature；　may　certainly
serve　as　a　perfectly　suitable　type　of　the　morally　good；　but　it　is
not　identical　with　it。　The　same　typic　guards　also　against　the
mysticism　of　practical　reason；　which　turns　what　served　only　as　a
symbol　into　a　schema；　that　is；　proposes　to　provide　for　the　moral
concepts　actual　intuitions；　which；　however；　are　not　sensible
（intuitions　of　an　invisible　Kingdom　of　God）；　and　thus　plunges　into　the
transcendent。　What　is　befitting　the　use　of　the　moral　concepts　is
only　the　rationalism　of　the　judgement；　which　takes　from　the　sensible