the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第108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！


immanent。　An　idea　is　employed　transcendently；　when　it　is　applied　to　an
object　falsely　believed　to　be　adequate　with　and　to　correspond　to　it；
imminently；　when　it　is　applied　solely　to　the　employment　of　the
understanding　in　the　sphere　of　experience。　Thus　all　errors　of
subreptio…　of　misapplication；　are　to　be　ascribed　to　defects　of
judgement；　and　not　to　understanding　or　reason。
　　Reason　never　has　an　immediate　relation　to　an　object；　it　relates
immediately　to　the　understanding　alone。　It　is　only　through　the
understanding　that　it　can　be　employed　in　the　field　of　experience。　It
does　not　form　conceptions　of　objects；　it　merely　arranges　them　and
gives　to　them　that　unity　which　they　are　capable　of　possessing　when　the
sphere　of　their　application　has　been　extended　as　widely　as　possible。
Reason　avails　itself　of　the　conception　of　the　understanding　for　the
sole　purpose　of　producing　totality　in　the　different　series。　This
totality　the　understanding　does　not　concern　itself　with；　its　only
occupation　is　the　connection　of　experiences；　by　which　series　of
conditions　in　accordance　with　conceptions　are　established。　The
object　of　reason　is；　therefore；　the　understanding　and　its　proper
destination。　As　the　latter　brings　unity　into　the　diversity　of
objects　by　means　of　its　conceptions；　so　the　former　brings　unity　into
the　diversity　of　conceptions　by　means　of　ideas；　as　it　sets　the　final
aim　of　a　collective　unity　to　the　operations　of　the　understanding；
which　without　this　occupies　itself　with　a　distributive　unity　alone。
　　I　accordingly　maintain　that　transcendental　ideas　can　never　be
employed　as　constitutive　ideas；　that　they　cannot　be　conceptions　of
objects；　and　that；　when　thus　considered；　they　assume　a　fallacious
and　dialectical　character。　But；　on　the　other　hand；　they　are　capable　of
an　admirable　and　indispensably　necessary　application　to　objects…　as
regulative　ideas；　directing　the　understanding　to　a　certain　aim；　the
guiding　lines　towards　which　all　its　laws　follow；　and　in　which　they　all
meet　in　one　point。　This　point…　though　a　mere　idea　（focus　imaginarius）；
that　is；　not　a　point　from　which　the　conceptions　of　the　understanding
do　really　proceed；　for　it　lies　beyond　the　sphere　of　possible
experience…　serves；　notwithstanding；　to　give　to　these　conceptions
the　greatest　possible　unity　bined　with　the　greatest　possible
extension。　Hence　arises　the　natural　illusion　which　induces　us　to
believe　that　these　lines　proceed　from　an　object　which　lies　out　of
the　sphere　of　empirical　cognition；　just　as　objects　reflected　in　a
mirror　appear　to　be　behind　it。　But　this　illusion…　which　we　may
hinder　from　imposing　upon　us…　is　necessary　and　unavoidable；　if　we
desire　to　see；　not　only　those　objects　which　lie　before　us；　but　those
which　are　at　a　great　distance　behind　us；　that　is　to　say；　when；　in
the　present　case；　we　direct　the　aims　of　the　understanding；　beyond
every　given　experience；　towards　an　extension　as　great　as　can
possibly　be　attained。
　　If　we　review　our　cognitions　in　their　entire　extent；　we　shall　find
that　the　peculiar　business　of　reason　is　to　arrange　them　into　a　system；
that　is　to　say；　to　give　them　connection　according　to　a　principle。　This
unity　presupposes　an　idea…　the　idea　of　the　form　of　a　whole　（of
cognition）；　preceding　the　determinate　cognition　of　the　parts；　and
containing　the　conditions　which　determine　a　priori　to　every　part　its
place　and　relation　to　the　other　parts　of　the　whole　system。　This
idea；　accordingly；　demands　plete　unity　in　the　cognition　of　the
understanding…　not　the　unity　of　a　contingent　aggregate；　but　that　of
a　system　connected　according　to　necessary　laws。　It　cannot　be
affirmed　with　propriety　that　this　idea　is　a　conception　of　an　object；
it　is　merely　a　conception　of　the　plete　unity　of　the　conceptions
of　objects；　in　so　far　as　this　unity　is　available　to　the
understanding　as　a　rule。　Such　conceptions　of　reason　are　not　derived
from　nature；　on　the　contrary；　we　employ　them　for　the　interrogation　and
investigation　of　nature；　and　regard　our　cognition　as　defective　so　long
as　it　is　not　adequate　to　them。　We　admit　that　such　a　thing　as　pure
earth；　pure　water；　or　pure　air；　is　not　to　be　discovered。　And　yet　we
require　these　conceptions　（which　have　their　origin　in　the　reason；　so
far　as　regards　their　absolute　purity　and　pleteness）　for　the　purpose
of　determining　the　share　which　each　of　these　natural　causes　has　in
every　phenomenon。　Thus　the　different　kinds　of　matter　are　all　ref　erred
to　earths；　as　mere　weight；　to　salts　and　inflammable　bodies；　as　pure
force；　and　finally；　to　water　and　air；　as　the　vehicula　of　the　former；
or　the　machines　employed　by　them　in　their　operations…　for　the
purpose　of　explaining　the　chemical　action　and　reaction　of　bodies　in
accordance　with　the　idea　of　a　mechanism。　For；　although　not　actually　so
expressed；　the　influence　of　such　ideas　of　reason　is　very　observable　in
the　procedure　of　natural　philosophers。
　　If　reason　is　the　faculty　of　deducing　the　particular　from　the
general；　and　if　the　general　be　certain　in　se　and　given；　it　is　only
necessary　that　the　judgement　should　subsume　the　particular　under　the
general；　the　particular　being　thus　necessarily　determined。　I　shall
term　this　the　demonstrative　or　apodeictic　employment　of　reason。　If；
however；　the　general　is　admitted　as　problematical　only；　and　is　a
mere　idea；　the　particular　case　is　certain；　but　the　universality　of　the
rule　which　applies　to　this　particular　case　remains　a　problem。
Several　particular　cases；　the　certainty　of　which　is　beyond　doubt；
are　then　taken　and　examined；　for　the　purpose　of　discovering　whether
the　rule　is　applicable　to　them；　and　if　it　appears　that　all　the
particular　cases　which　can　be　collected　follow　from　the　rule；　its
universality　is　inferred；　and　at　the　same　time；　all　the　causes　which
have　not；　or　cannot　be　presented　to　our　observation；　are　concluded
to　be　of　the　same　character　with　those　which　we　have　observed。　This
I　shall　term　the　hypothetical　employment　of　the　reason。
　　The　hypothetical　exercise　of　reason　by　the　aid　of　ideas　employed
as　problematical　conceptions　is　properly　not　constitutive。　That　is
to　say；　if　we　consider　the　subject　strictly；　the　truth　of　the　rule；
which　has　been　employed　as　an　hypothesis；　does　not　follow　from　the　use
that　is　made　of　it　by　reason。　For　how　can　we　know　all　the　possible
cases　that　may　arise？　some　of　which　may；　however；　prove　exceptions
to　the　universality　of　the　rule。　This　employment　of　reason　is　merely
regulative；　and　its　sole　aim　is　the　introduction　of　unity　into　the
aggregate　of　our　particular　cognitions；　and　thereby　the
approximating　of　the　rule　to　universality。
　　The　object　of　the　hypothetical　employment　of　reason　is　therefore　the
systematic　unity　of　cognitions；　and　this　unity　is　the　criterion　of　the
truth　of　a　rule。　On　the　other　hand；　this　systematic　unity…　as　a　mere
idea…　is　in　fact　merely　a　unity　projected；　not　to　be　regarded　as
given；　but　only　in　the　light　of　a　problem…　a　problem　which　serves；
however；　as　a　principle　for　the　various　and　particular　exercise　of　the
understanding　in　experience；　directs　it　with　regard　to　those　cases
which　are　not　presented　to　our　observation；　and　introduces　harmony　and
consistency　into　all　its　operations。
　　All　that　we　can　be　certain　of　from　the　above　considerations　is
that　this　systematic　unity　is　a　logical　principle；　whose　aim　is　to
assist　the　understanding；　where　it　cannot　of　itself　attain　to　rules；
by　means　of　ideas；　to　bring　all　these　various　rules　under　one
principle；　and　thus　to　ensure　the　most　plete　consistency　and
connection　that　can　be　attained。　But　the　assertion　that　objects　and
the　understanding　by　which　they　are　cognized　are　so　constituted　as
to　be　determined　to　systematic　unity；　that　this　may　be　postulated　a
priori；　without　any　reference　to　the　interest　of　reason；　and　that　we
are　justified　in　declaring　all　possible　cognitions…　empirical　and
others…　to　possess　systematic　unity；　and　to　be　subject　to　general
principles　from　which；　notwithstanding　their　various　character；　they
are　all　derivable　such　an　assertion　can　be　founded　only　upon　a
transcendental　principle　of　reason；　which　would　render　this　systematic
unity　not　subjectively　and　logically…　in　its　character　of　a　method；
but　objectively　necessary。
　　We　shall　illustrate　this　by　an　example。　The　conceptions　of　the
understanding　make　us　acquainted；　among　many　other　kinds　of　unity；
with　that　of　the　causality　of　a　substance；　which　is　termed　power。
The　different　phenomenal　manifestations　of　the　same　substance　appear
at　first　view　to　be　so　very　dissimilar　that　we　are　inclined　to
assume　the　existence　of　just　as　many　different　powers　as　there　are
different　effects…　as；　in　the　case　of　the　human　mind；　we　have　feeling；
consciousness；　imagination；　memory；　wit；　analysis；　pleasure；　desire
and　so　on。　Now　we　are　required　by　a　logical　maxim　to　reduce　these
differences　to　as　small　a　number　as　possible；　by　paring　them　and
discovering　the　hidden　identity　which　exists。　We　must　inquire；　for
example；　whether　or　not　imagination　（connected　with　consciousness）；
memory；　wit；　and　analysis　are　not　merely　different　forms　of
understanding　and　reason。　The　idea　of　a　fundamental　power；　the
existence　of　which　no　effort　of　logic　can　assure　us　of；　is　the　problem
to　be　solved；　for　the　systemati