the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第112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！


differences　between　different　kinds　of　animals　are　in　nature
monly　so　wide　separations　that　no　confidence　can　be　placed　in
such　views　（particularly　when　we　reflect　on　the　great　variety　of
things；　and　the　ease　with　which　we　can　discover　resemblances）；　and
no　faith　in　the　laws　which　are　said　to　express　the　aims　and　purposes
of　nature。　On　the　other　hand；　the　method　of　investigating　the　order　of
nature　in　the　light　of　this　principle；　and　the　maxim　which　requires　us
to　regard　this　order…　it　being　still　undetermined　how　far　it
extends…　as　really　existing　in　nature；　is　beyond　doubt　a　legitimate
and　excellent　principle　of　reason…　a　principle　which　extends　farther
than　any　experience　or　observation　of　ours　and　which；　without　giving
us　any　positive　knowledge　of　anything　in　the　region　of　experience；
guides　us　to　the　goal　of　systematic　unity。

　　Of　the　Ultimate　End　of　the　Natural　Dialectic　of　Human　Reason。

　　The　ideas　of　pure　reason　cannot　be；　of　themselves　and　in　their　own
nature；　dialectical；　it　is　from　their　misemployment　alone　that
fallacies　and　illusions　arise。　For　they　originate　in　the　nature　of
reason　itself；　and　it　is　impossible　that　this　supreme　tribunal　for　all
the　rights　and　claims　of　speculation　should　be　itself　undeserving　of
confidence　and　promotive　of　error。　It　is　to　be　expected；　therefore；
that　these　ideas　have　a　genuine　and　legitimate　aim。　It　is　true；　the
mob　of　sophists　raise　against　reason　the　cry　of　inconsistency　and
contradiction；　and　affect　to　despise　the　government　of　that　faculty；
because　they　cannot　understand　its　constitution；　while　it　is　to　its
beneficial　influences　alone　that　they　owe　the　position　and　the
intelligence　which　enable　them　to　criticize　and　to　blame　its
procedure。
　　We　cannot　employ　an　a　priori　conception　with　certainty；　until　we
have　made　a　transcendental　deduction　therefore。　The　ideas　of　pure
reason　do　not　admit　of　the　same　kind　of　deduction　as　the　categories。
But　if　they　are　to　possess　the　least　objective　validity；　and　to
represent　anything　but　mere　creations　of　thought　（entia　rationis
ratiocinantis）；　a　deduction　of　them　must　be　possible。　This　deduction
will　plete　the　critical　task　imposed　upon　pure　reason；　and　it　is　to
this　part　Of　our　labours　that　we　now　proceed。
　　There　is　a　great　difference　between　a　thing's　being　presented　to　the
mind　as　an　object　in　an　absolute　sense；　or　merely　as　an　ideal
object。　In　the　former　case　I　employ　my　conceptions　to　determine　the
object；　in　the　latter　case　nothing　is　present　to　the　mind　but　a　mere
schema；　which　does　not　relate　directly　to　an　object；　not　even　in　a
hypothetical　sense；　but　which　is　useful　only　for　the　purpose　of
representing　other　objects　to　the　mind；　in　a　mediate　and　indirect
manner；　by　means　of　their　relation　to　the　idea　in　the　intellect。
Thus　I　say　the　conception　of　a　supreme　intelligence　is　a　mere　idea；
that　is　to　say；　its　objective　reality　does　not　consist　in　the　fact
that　it　has　an　immediate　relation　to　an　object　（for　in　this　sense　we
have　no　means　of　establishing　its　objective　validity）；　it　is　merely
a　schema　constructed　according　to　the　necessary　conditions　of　the
unity　of　reason…　the　schema　of　a　thing　in　general；　which　is　useful
towards　the　production　of　the　highest　degree　of　systematic　unity　in
the　empirical　exercise　of　reason；　in　which　we　deduce　this　or　that
object　of　experience　from　the　imaginary　object　of　this　idea；　as　the
ground　or　cause　of　the　said　object　of　experience。　In　this　way；　the
idea　is　properly　a　heuristic；　and　not　an　ostensive；　conception；　it
does　not　give　us　any　information　respecting　the　constitution　of　an
object；　it　merely　indicates　how；　under　the　guidance　of　the　idea；　we
ought　to　investigate　the　constitution　and　the　relations　of　objects
in　the　world　of　experience。　Now；　if　it　can　be　shown　that　the　three
kinds　of　transcendental　ideas　（psychological；　cosmological；　and
theological）；　although　not　relating　directly　to　any　object　nor
determining　it；　do　nevertheless；　on　the　supposition　of　the　existence
of　an　ideal　object；　produce　systematic　unity　in　the　laws　of　the
empirical　employment　of　the　reason；　and　extend　our　empirical
cognition；　without　ever　being　inconsistent　or　in　opposition　with　it…
it　must　be　a　necessary　maxim　of　reason　to　regulate　its　procedure
according　to　these　ideas。　And　this　forms　the　transcendental
deduction　of　all　speculative　ideas；　not　as　constitutive　principles
of　the　extension　of　our　cognition　beyond　the　limits　of　our　experience；
but　as　regulative　principles　of　the　systematic　unity　of　empirical
cognition；　which　is　by　the　aid　of　these　ideas　arranged　and　emended
within　its　own　proper　limits；　to　an　extent　unattainable　by　the
operation　of　the　principles　of　the　understanding　alone。
　　I　shall　make　this　plainer。　Guided　by　the　principles　involved　in
these　ideas；　we　must；　in　the　first　place；　so　connect　all　the
phenomena；　actions；　and　feelings　of　the　mind；　as　if　it　were　a　simple
substance；　which；　endowed　with　personal　identity；　possesses　a
permanent　existence　（in　this　life　at　least）；　while　its　states；　among
which　those　of　the　body　are　to　be　included　as　external　conditions；　are
in　continual　change。　Secondly；　in　cosmology；　we　must　investigate　the
conditions　of　all　natural　phenomena；　internal　as　well　as　external；
as　if　they　belonged　to　a　chain　infinite　and　without　any　prime　or
supreme　member；　while　we　do　not；　on　this　account；　deny　the　existence
of　intelligible　grounds　of　these　phenomena；　although　we　never　employ
them　to　explain　phenomena；　for　the　simple　reason　that　they　are　not
objects　of　our　cognition。　Thirdly；　in　the　sphere　of　theology；　we
must　regard　the　whole　system　of　possible　experience　as　forming　an
absolute；　but　dependent　and　sensuously…conditioned　unity；　and　at　the
same　time　as　based　upon　a　sole；　supreme；　and　all…sufficient　ground
existing　apart　from　the　world　itself…　a　ground　which　is　a
self…subsistent；　primeval　and　creative　reason；　in　relation　to　which　we
so　employ　our　reason　in　the　field　of　experience；　as　if　all　objects
drew　their　origin　from　that　archetype　of　all　reason。　In　other　words；
we　ought　not　to　deduce　the　internal　phenomena　of　the　mind　from　a
simple　thinking　substance；　but　deduce　them　from　each　other　under　the
guidance　of　the　regulative　idea　of　a　simple　being；　we　ought　not　to
deduce　the　phenomena；　order；　and　unity　of　the　universe　from　a
supreme　intelligence；　but　merely　draw　from　this　idea　of　a　supremely
wise　cause　the　rules　which　must　guide　reason　in　its　connection　of
causes　and　effects。
　　Now　there　is　nothing　to　hinder　us　from　admitting　these　ideas　to
possess　an　objective　and　hyperbolic　existence；　except　the　cosmological
ideas；　which　lead　reason　into　an　antinomy：　the　psychological　and
theological　ideas　are　not　antinomial。　They　contain　no　contradiction；
and　how；　then；　can　any　one　dispute　their　objective　reality；　since　he
who　denies　it　knows　as　little　about　their　possibility　as　we　who
affirm？　And　yet；　when　we　wish　to　admit　the　existence　of　a　thing；　it　is
not　sufficient　to　convince　ourselves　that　there　is　no　positive
obstacle　in　the　way；　for　it　cannot　be　allowable　to　regard　mere
creations　of　thought；　which　transcend；　though　they　do　not
contradict；　all　our　conceptions；　as　real　and　determinate　objects；
solely　upon　the　authority　of　a　speculative　reason　striving　to
pass　its　own　aims。　They　cannot；　therefore；　be　admitted　to　be　real
in　themselves；　they　can　only　possess　a　parative　reality…　that　of
a　schema　of　the　regulative　principle　of　the　systematic　unity　of　all
cognition。　They　are　to　be　regarded　not　as　actual　things；　but　as　in
some　measure　analogous　to　them。　We　abstract　from　the　object　of　the
idea　all　the　conditions　which　limit　the　exercise　of　our　understanding；
but　which；　on　the　other　hand；　are　the　sole　conditions　of　our
possessing　a　determinate　conception　of　any　given　thing。　And　thus　we
cogitate　a　something；　of　the　real　nature　of　which　we　have　not　the
least　conception；　but　which　we　represent　to　ourselves　as　standing　in　a
relation　to　the　whole　system　of　phenomena；　analogous　to　that　in
which　phenomena　stand　to　each　other。
　　By　admitting　these　ideal　beings；　we　do　not　really　extend　our
cognitions　beyond　the　objects　of　possible　experience；　we　extend　merely
the　empirical　unity　of　our　experience；　by　the　aid　of　systematic　unity；
the　schema　of　which　is　furnished　by　the　idea；　which　is　therefore
valid…　not　as　a　constitutive；　but　as　a　regulative　principle。　For
although　we　posit　a　thing　corresponding　to　the　idea…　a　something；　an
actual　existence…　we　do　not　on　that　account　aim　at　the　extension　of
our　cognition　by　means　of　transcendent　conceptions。　This　existence
is　purely　ideal；　and　not　objective；　it　is　the　mere　expression　of　the
systematic　unity　which　is　to　be　the　guide　of　reason　in　the　field　of
experience。　There　are　no　attempts　made　at　deciding　what　the　ground
of　this　unity　may　be；　or　what　the　real　nature　of　this　imaginary　being。
　　Thus　the　transcendental　and　only　determinate　conception　of　God；
which　is　presented　to　us　by　speculative　reason；　is　in　the　strictest
sense　deistic。　In　other　words；　reason　does　not　assure　us　of　the
objective　validity　of　the　conception；　it　merely　gives　us　the　idea　of
something；　on　which　the　supreme　and　necessary　unity　of　all
experience　is　based。　This　something　we　c