the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第122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！


always　require　a　reference　to　the　intuition　of　the　object。
　　It　follows　from　all　these　considerations　that　it　is　not　consonant
with　the　nature　of　philosophy；　especially　in　the　sphere　of　pure
reason；　to　employ　the　dogmatical　method；　and　to　adorn　itself　with
the　titles　and　insignia　of　mathematical　science。　It　does　not　belong　to
that　order；　and　can　only　hope　for　a　fraternal　union　with　that　science。
Its　attempts　at　mathematical　evidence　are　vain　pretensions；　which
can　only　keep　it　back　from　its　true　aim；　which　is　to　detect　the
illusory　procedure　of　reason　when　transgressing　its　proper　limits；　and
by　fully　explaining　and　analysing　our　conceptions；　to　conduct　us
from　the　dim　regions　of　speculation　to　the　clear　region　of　modest
self…knowledge。　Reason　must　not；　therefore；　in　its　transcendental
endeavours；　look　forward　with　such　confidence；　as　if　the　path　it　is
pursuing　led　straight　to　its　aim；　nor　reckon　with　such　security　upon
its　premisses；　as　to　consider　it　unnecessary　to　take　a　step　back；　or
to　keep　a　strict　watch　for　errors；　which；　overlooked　in　the
principles；　may　be　detected　in　the　arguments　themselves…　in　which　case
it　may　be　requisite　either　to　determine　these　principles　with
greater　strictness；　or　to　change　them　entirely。
　　I　divide　all　apodeictic　propositions；　whether　demonstrable　or
immediately　certain；　into　dogmata　and　mathemata。　A　direct
synthetical　proposition；　based　on　conceptions；　is　a　dogma；　a
proposition　of　the　same　kind；　based　on　the　construction　of
conceptions；　is　a　mathema。　Analytical　judgements　do　not　teach　us　any
more　about　an　object　than　what　was　contained　in　the　conception　we
had　of　it；　because　they　do　not　extend　our　cognition　beyond　our
conception　of　an　object；　they　merely　elucidate　the　conception。　They
cannot　therefore　be　with　propriety　termed　dogmas。　Of　the　two　kinds
of　a　priori　synthetical　propositions　above　mentioned；　only　those　which
are　employed　in　philosophy　can；　according　to　the　general　mode　of
speech；　bear　this　name；　those　of　arithmetic　or　geometry　would　not　be
rightly　so　denominated。　Thus　the　customary　mode　of　speaking　confirms
the　explanation　given　above；　and　the　conclusion　arrived　at；　that
only　those　judgements　which　are　based　upon　conceptions；　not　on　the
construction　of　conceptions；　can　be　termed　dogmatical。
　　Thus；　pure　reason；　in　the　sphere　of　speculation；　does　not　contain
a　single　direct　synthetical　judgement　based　upon　conceptions。　By　means
of　ideas；　it　is；　as　we　have　shown；　incapable　of　producing
synthetical　judgements；　which　are　objectively　valid；　by　means　of　the
conceptions　of　the　understanding；　it　establishes　certain　indubitable
principles；　not；　however；　directly　on　the　basis　of　conceptions；　but
only　indirectly　by　means　of　the　relation　of　these　conceptions　to
something　of　a　purely　contingent　nature；　namely；　possible
experience。　When　experience　is　presupposed；　these　principles　are
apodeictically　certain；　but　in　themselves；　and　directly；　they　cannot
even　be　cognized　a　priori。　Thus　the　given　conceptions　of　cause　and
event　will　not　be　sufficient　for　the　demonstration　of　the　proposition：
Every　event　has　a　cause。　For　this　reason；　it　is　not　a　dogma；
although　from　another　point　of　view；　that　of　experience；　it　is　capable
of　being　proved　to　demonstration。　The　proper　term　for　such　a
proposition　is　principle；　and　not　theorem　（although　it　does　require　to
be　proved）；　because　it　possesses　the　remarkable　peculiarity　of　being
the　condition　of　the　possibility　of　its　own　ground　of　proof；　that
is；　experience；　and　of　forming　a　necessary　presupposition　in　all
empirical　observation。
　　If　then；　in　the　speculative　sphere　of　pure　reason；　no　dogmata　are　to
be　found；　all　dogmatical　methods；　whether　borrowed　from　mathematics；
or　invented　by　philosophical　thinkers；　are　alike　inappropriate　and
inefficient。　They　only　serve　to　conceal　errors　and　fallacies；　and　to
deceive　philosophy；　whose　duty　it　is　to　see　that　reason　pursues　a　safe
and　straight　path。　A　philosophical　method　may；　however；　be
systematical。　For　our　reason　is；　subjectively　considered；　itself　a
system；　and；　in　the　sphere　of　mere　conceptions；　a　system　of
investigation　according　to　principles　of　unity；　the　material　being
supplied　by　experience　alone。　But　this　is　not　the　proper　place　for
discussing　the　peculiar　method　of　transcendental　philosophy；　as　our
present　task　is　simply　to　examine　whether　our　faculties　are　capable　of
erecting　an　edifice　on　the　basis　of　pure　reason；　and　how　far　they
may　proceed　with　the　materials　at　their　mand。

　　　　　SECTION　II。　The　Discipline　of　Pure　Reason　in　Polemics。

　　Reason　must　be　subject；　in　all　its　operations；　to　criticism；　which
must　always　be　permitted　to　exercise　its　functions　without
restraint；　otherwise　its　interests　are　imperilled　and　its　influence
obnoxious　to　suspicion。　There　is　nothing；　however　useful；　however
sacred　it　may　be；　that　can　claim　exemption　from　the　searching
examination　of　this　supreme　tribunal；　which　has　no　respect　of　persons。
The　very　existence　of　reason　depends　upon　this　freedom；　for　the
voice　of　reason　is　not　that　of　a　dictatorial　and　despotic　power；　it　is
rather　like　the　vote　of　the　citizens　of　a　free　state；　every　member
of　which　must　have　the　privilege　of　giving　free　expression　to　his
doubts；　and　possess　even　the　right　of　veto。
　　But　while　reason　can　never　decline　to　submit　itself　to　the
tribunal　of　criticism；　it　has　not　always　cause　to　dread　the
judgement　of　this　court。　Pure　reason；　however；　when　engaged　in　the
sphere　of　dogmatism；　is　not　so　thoroughly　conscious　of　a　strict
observance　of　its　highest　laws；　as　to　appear　before　a　higher
judicial　reason　with　perfect　confidence。　On　the　contrary；　it　must
renounce　its　magnificent　dogmatical　pretensions　in　philosophy。
　　Very　different　is　the　case　when　it　has　to　defend　itself；　not
before　a　judge；　but　against　an　equal。　If　dogmatical　assertions　are
advanced　on　the　negative　side；　in　opposition　to　those　made　by　reason
on　the　positive　side；　its　justification　kat　authrhopon　is　plete；
although　the　proof　of　its　propositions　is　kat　aletheian
unsatisfactory。
　　By　the　polemic　of　pure　reason　I　mean　the　defence　of　its　propositions
made　by　reason；　in　opposition　to　the　dogmatical　counter…propositions
advanced　by　other　parties。　The　question　here　is　not　whether　its　own
statements　may　not　also　be　false；　it　merely　regards　the　fact　that
reason　proves　that　the　opposite　cannot　be　established　with
demonstrative　certainty；　nor　even　asserted　with　a　higher　degree　of
probability。　Reason　does　not　hold　her　possessions　upon　sufferance；
for；　although　she　cannot　show　a　perfectly　satisfactory　title　to
them；　no　one　can　prove　that　she　is　not　the　rightful　possessor。
　　It　is　a　melancholy　reflection　that　reason；　in　its　highest
exercise；　falls　into　an　antithetic；　and　that　the　supreme　tribunal
for　the　settlement　of　differences　should　not　be　at　union　with
itself。　It　is　true　that　we　had　to　discuss　the　question　of　an
apparent　antithetic；　but　we　found　that　it　was　based　upon　a
misconception。　In　conformity　with　the　mon　prejudice；　phenomena　were
regarded　as　things　in　themselves；　and　thus　an　absolute　pleteness　in
their　synthesis　was　required　in　the　one　mode　or　in　the　other　（it　was
shown　to　be　impossible　in　both）；　a　demand　entirely　out　of　place　in
regard　to　phenomena。　There　was；　then；　no　real　self…contradiction　of
reason　in　the　propositions：　The　series　of　phenomena　given　in
themselves　has　an　absolutely　first　beginning；　and：　This　series　is
absolutely　and　in　itself　without　beginning。　The　two　propositions　are
perfectly　consistent　with　each　other；　because　phenomena　as　phenomena
are　in　themselves　nothing；　and　consequently　the　hypothesis　that　they
are　things　in　themselves　must　lead　to　self…contradictory　inferences。
　　But　there　are　cases　in　which　a　similar　misunderstanding　cannot　be
provided　against；　and　the　dispute　must　remain　unsettled。　Take；　for
example；　the　theistic　proposition：　There　is　a　Supreme　Being；　and　on
the　other　hand；　the　atheistic　counter…statement：　There　exists　no
Supreme　Being；　or；　in　psychology：　Everything　that　thinks　possesses　the
attribute　of　absolute　and　permanent　unity；　which　is　utterly
different　from　the　transitory　unity　of　material　phenomena；　and　the
counter…proposition：　The　soul　is　not　an　immaterial　unity；　and　its
nature　is　transitory；　like　that　of　phenomena。　The　objects　of　these
questions　contain　no　heterogeneous　or　contradictory　elements；　for　they
relate　to　things　in　themselves；　and　not　to　phenomena。　There　would
arise；　indeed；　a　real　contradiction；　if　reason　came　forward　with　a
statement　on　the　negative　side　of　these　questions　alone。　As　regards
the　criticism　to　which　the　grounds　of　proof　on　the　affirmative　side
must　be　subjected；　it　may　be　freely　admitted；　without　necessitating
the　surrender　of　the　affirmative　propositions；　which　have；　at　least；
the　interest　of　reason　in　their　favour…　an　advantage　which　the
opposite　party　cannot　lay　claim　to。
　　I　cannot　agree　with　the　opinion　of　several　admirable　thinkers…
Sulzer　among　the　rest…　that；　in　spite　of　the　weakness　of　the　arguments
hitherto　in　use；　we　may　hope；　one　day；　to　see　sufficient
demonstrations　of　the　two　cardinal　propositions　of　pure　reason…　the
existence　of　a　Supreme　Being；　and　the　immortality　of　the　soul。