the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第109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！


to　be　solved；　for　the　systematic　representation　of　the　existing
variety　of　powers。　The　logical　principle　of　reason　requires　us　to
produce　as　great　a　unity　as　is　possible　in　the　system　of　our
cognitions；　and　the　more　the　phenomena　of　this　and　the　other　power　are
found　to　be　identical；　the　more　probable　does　it　bee；　that　they　are
nothing　but　different　manifestations　of　one　and　the　same　power；
which　may　be　called；　relatively　speaking；　a　fundamental　power。　And
so　with　other　cases。
　　These　relatively　fundamental　powers　must　again　be　pared　with　each
other；　to　discover；　if　possible；　the　one　radical　and　absolutely
fundamental　power　of　which　they　are　but　the　manifestations。　But　this
unity　is　purely　hypothetical。　It　is　not　maintained；　that　this　unity
does　really　exist；　but　that　we　must；　in　the　interest　of　reason；　that
is；　for　the　establishment　of　principles　for　the　various　rules
presented　by　experience；　try　to　discover　and　introduce　it；　so　far　as
is　practicable；　into　the　sphere　of　our　cognitions。
　　But　the　transcendental　employment　of　the　understanding　would　lead　us
to　believe　that　this　idea　of　a　fundamental　power　is　not　problematical；
but　that　it　possesses　objective　reality；　and　thus　the　systematic　unity
of　the　various　powers　or　forces　in　a　substance　is　demanded　by　the
understanding　and　erected　into　an　apodeictic　or　necessary　principle。
For；　without　having　attempted　to　discover　the　unity　of　the　various
powers　existing　in　nature；　nay；　even　after　all　our　attempts　have
failed；　we　notwithstanding　presuppose　that　it　does　exist；　and　may
be；　sooner　or　later；　discovered。　And　this　reason　does；　not　only；　as　in
the　case　above　adduced；　with　regard　to　the　unity　of　substance；　but
where　many　substances；　although　all　to　a　certain　extent　homogeneous；
are　discoverable；　as　in　the　case　of　matter　in　general。　Here　also
does　reason　presuppose　the　existence　of　the　systematic　unity　of
various　powers…　inasmuch　as　particular　laws　of　nature　are
subordinate　to　general　laws；　and　parsimony　in　principles　is　not　merely
an　economical　principle　of　reason；　but　an　essential　law　of　nature。
　　We　cannot　understand；　in　fact；　how　a　logical　principle　of　unity
can　of　right　exist；　unless　we　presuppose　a　transcendental　principle；
by　which　such　a　systematic　unit…　as　a　property　of　objects
themselves…　is　regarded　as　necessary　a　priori。　For　with　what　right　can
reason；　in　its　logical　exercise；　require　us　to　regard　the　variety　of
forces　which　nature　displays；　as　in　effect　a　disguised　unity；　and　to
deduce　them　from　one　fundamental　force　or　power；　when　she　is　free　to
admit　that　it　is　just　as　possible　that　all　forces　should　be
different　in　kind；　and　that　a　systematic　unity　is　not　conformable　to
the　design　of　nature？　In　this　view　of　the　case；　reason　would　be
proceeding　in　direct　opposition　to　her　own　destination；　by　setting
as　an　aim　an　idea　which　entirely　conflicts　with　the　procedure　and
arrangement　of　nature。　Neither　can　we　assert　that　reason　has
previously　inferred　this　unity　from　the　contingent　nature　of
phenomena。　For　the　law　of　reason　which　requires　us　to　seek　for　this
unity　is　a　necessary　law；　inasmuch　as　without　it　we　should　not　possess
a　faculty　of　reason；　nor　without　reason　a　consistent　and
self…accordant　mode　of　employing　the　understanding；　nor；　in　the
absence　of　this；　any　proper　and　sufficient　criterion　of　empirical
truth。　In　relation　to　this　criterion；　therefore；　we　must　suppose　the
idea　of　the　systematic　unity　of　nature　to　possess　objective　validity
and　necessity。
　　We　find　this　transcendental　presupposition　lurking　in　different
forms　in　the　principles　of　philosophers；　although　they　have　neither
recognized　it　nor　confessed　to　themselves　its　presence。　That　the
diversities　of　individual　things　do　not　exclude　identity　of　species；
that　the　various　species　must　be　considered　as　merely　different
determinations　of　a　few　genera；　and　these　again　as　divisions　of
still　higher　races；　and　so　on…　that；　accordingly；　a　certain　systematic
unity　of　all　possible　empirical　conceptions；　in　so　far　as　they　can
be　deduced　from　higher　and　more　general　conceptions；　must　be　sought
for；　is　a　scholastic　maxim　or　logical　principle；　without　which
reason　could　not　be　employed　by　us。　For　we　can　infer　the　particular
from　the　general；　only　in　so　far　as　general　properties　of　things
constitute　the　foundation　upon　which　the　particular　rest。
　　That　the　same　unity　exists　in　nature　is　presupposed　by
philosophers　in　the　well…known　scholastic　maxim；　which　forbids　us
unnecessarily　to　augment　the　number　of　entities　or　principles　（entia
praeter　necessitatem　non　esse　multiplicanda）。　This　maxim　asserts
that　nature　herself　assists　in　the　establishment　of　this　unity　of
reason；　and　that　the　seemingly　infinite　diversity　of　phenomena
should　not　deter　us　from　the　expectation　of　discovering　beneath　this
diversity　a　unity　of　fundamental　properties；　of　which　the　aforesaid
variety　is　but　a　more　or　less　determined　form。　This　unity；　although
a　mere　idea；　thinkers　have　found　it　necessary　rather　to　moderate　the
desire　than　to　encourage　it。　It　was　considered　a　great　step　when
chemists　were　able　to　reduce　all　salts　to　two　main　genera…　acids　and
alkalis；　and　they　regard　this　difference　as　itself　a　mere　variety；
or　different　manifestation　of　one　and　the　same　fundamental　material。
The　different　kinds　of　earths　（stones　and　even　metals）　chemists　have
endeavoured　to　reduce　to　three；　and　afterwards　to　two；　but　still；
not　content　with　this　advance；　they　cannot　but　think　that　behind　these
diversities　there　lurks　but　one　genus…　nay；　that　even　salts　and　earths
have　a　mon　principle。　It　might　be　conjectured　that　this　is　merely
an　economical　plan　of　reason；　for　the　purpose　of　sparing　itself
trouble；　and　an　attempt　of　a　purely　hypothetical　character；　which；
when　successful；　gives　an　appearance　of　probability　to　the　principle
of　explanation　employed　by　the　reason。　But　a　selfish　purpose　of　this
kind　is　easily　to　be　distinguished　from　the　idea；　according　to　which
every　one　presupposes　that　this　unity　is　in　accordance　with　the　laws
of　nature；　and　that　reason　does　not　in　this　case　request；　but
requires；　although　we　are　quite　unable　to　determine　the　proper
limits　of　this　unity。
　　If　the　diversity　existing　in　phenomena…　a　diversity　not　of　form　（for
in　this　they　may　be　similar）　but　of　content…　were　so　great　that　the
subtlest　human　reason　could　never　by　parison　discover　in　them　the
least　similarity　（which　is　not　impossible）；　in　this　case　the　logical
law　of　genera　would　be　without　foundation；　the　conception　of　a
genus；　nay；　all　general　conceptions　would　be　impossible；　and　the
faculty　of　the　understanding；　the　exercise　of　which　is　restricted　to
the　world　of　conceptions；　could　not　exist。　The　logical　principle　of
genera；　accordingly；　if　it　is　to　be　applied　to　nature　（by　which　I　mean
objects　presented　to　our　senses）；　presupposes　a　transcendental
principle。　In　accordance　with　this　principle；　homogeneity　is
necessarily　presupposed　in　the　variety　of　phenomena　（although　we　are
unable　to　determine　a　priori　the　degree　of　this　homogeneity）；
because　without　it　no　empirical　conceptions；　and　consequently　no
experience；　would　be　possible。
　　The　logical　principle　of　genera；　which　demands　identity　in
phenomena；　is　balanced　by　another　principle…　that　of　species；　which
requires　variety　and　diversity　in　things；　notwithstanding　their
accordance　in　the　same　genus；　and　directs　the　understanding　to
attend　to　the　one　no　less　than　to　the　other。　This　principle　（of　the
faculty　of　distinction）　acts　as　a　check　upon　the　reason　and　reason
exhibits　in　this　respect　a　double　and　conflicting　interest…　on　the　one
hand；　the　interest　in　the　extent　（the　interest　of　generality）　in
relation　to　genera；　on　the　other；　that　of　the　content　（the　interest　of
individuality）　in　relation　to　the　variety　of　species。　In　the　former
case；　the　understanding　cogitates　more　under　its　conceptions；　in　the
latter　it　cogitates　more　in　them。　This　distinction　manifests　itself
likewise　in　the　habits　of　thought　peculiar　to　natural　philosophers；
some　of　whom…　the　remarkably　speculative　heads…　may　be　said　to　be
hostile　to　heterogeneity　in　phenomena；　and　have　their　eyes　always
fixed　on　the　unity　of　genera；　while　others…　with　a　strong　empirical
tendency…　aim　unceasingly　at　the　analysis　of　phenomena；　and　almost
destroy　in　us　the　hope　of　ever　being　able　to　estimate　the　character　of
these　according　to　general　principles。
　　The　latter　mode　of　thought　is　evidently　based　upon　a　logical
principle；　the　aim　of　which　is　the　systematic　pleteness　of　all
cognitions。　This　principle　authorizes　me；　beginning　at　the　genus；　to
descend　to　the　various　and　diverse　contained　under　it；　and　in　this　way
extension；　as　in　the　former　case　unity；　is　assured　to　the　system。
For　if　we　merely　examine　the　sphere　of　the　conception　which
indicates　a　genus；　we　cannot　discover　how　far　it　is　possible　to
proceed　in　the　division　of　that　sphere；　just　as　it　is　impossible；　from
the　consideration　of　the　space　occupied　by　matter；　to　determine　how
far　we　can　proceed　in　the　division　of　it。　Hence　every　genus　must
contain　different　species；　and　these　again　different　subspecies；　and
as　each　of　the　latter　must　itself　contain　a　sphere　（must　be　of　a
certain　ext