the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第128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！


aims；　the　order　and　the　greatness　which　we　observe　in　the　universe；
but　we　find　ourselves　obliged；　when　we　observe　the　evil　in　the　world
and　the　exceptions　to　these　laws；　to　employ　new　hypothesis　in
support　of　the　original　one。　We　employ　the　idea　of　the　simple　nature
of　the　human　soul　as　the　foundation　of　all　the　theories　we　may　form　of
its　phenomena；　but　when　we　meet　with　difficulties　in　our　way；　when
we　observe　in　the　soul　phenomena　similar　to　the　changes　which　take
place　in　matter；　we　require　to　call　in　new　auxiliary　hypotheses。　These
may；　indeed；　not　be　false；　but　we　do　not　know　them　to　be　true；　because
the　only　witness　to　their　certitude　is　the　hypothesis　which　they
themselves　have　been　called　in　to　explain。
　　We　are　not　discussing　the　above…mentioned　assertions　regarding　the
immaterial　unity　of　the　soul　and　the　existence　of　a　Supreme　Being　as
dogmata；　which　certain　philosophers　profess　to　demonstrate　a　priori；
but　purely　as　hypotheses。　In　the　former　case；　the　dogmatist　must
take　care　that　his　arguments　possess　the　apodeictic　certainty　of　a
demonstration。　For　the　assertion　that　the　reality　of　such　ideas　is
probable　is　as　absurd　as　a　proof　of　the　probability　of　a　proposition
in　geometry。　Pure　abstract　reason；　apart　from　all　experience；　can
either　cognize　nothing　at　all；　and　hence　the　judgements　it　enounces
are　never　mere　opinions；　they　are　either　apodeictic　certainties；　or
declarations　that　nothing　can　be　known　on　the　subject。　Opinions　and
probable　judgements　on　the　nature　of　things　can　only　be　employed　to
explain　given　phenomena；　or　they　may　relate　to　the　effect；　in
accordance　with　empirical　laws；　of　an　actually　existing　cause。　In
other　words；　we　must　restrict　the　sphere　of　opinion　to　the　world　of
experience　and　nature。　Beyond　this　region　opinion　is　mere　invention；
unless　we　are　groping　about　for　the　truth　on　a　path　not　yet　fully
known；　and　have　some　hopes　of　stumbling　upon　it　by　chance。
　　But；　although　hypotheses　are　inadmissible　in　answers　to　the
questions　of　pure　speculative　reason；　they　may　be　employed　in　the
defence　of　these　answers。　That　is　to　say；　hypotheses　are　admissible　in
polemic；　but　not　in　the　sphere　of　dogmatism。　By　the　defence　of
statements　of　this　character；　I　do　not　mean　an　attempt　at
discovering　new　grounds　for　their　support；　but　merely　the　refutation
of　the　arguments　of　opponents。　All　a　priori　synthetical　propositions
possess　the　peculiarity　that；　although　the　philosopher　who　maintains
the　reality　of　the　ideas　contained　in　the　proposition　is　not　in
possession　of　sufficient　knowledge　to　establish　the　certainty　of　his
statements；　his　opponent　is　as　little　able　to　prove　the　truth　of　the
opposite。　This　equality　of　fortune　does　not　allow　the　one　party　to
be　superior　to　the　other　in　the　sphere　of　speculative　cognition；　and
it　is　this　sphere；　accordingly；　that　is　the　proper　arena　of　these
endless　speculative　conflicts。　But　we　shall　afterwards　show　that；　in
relation　to　its　practical　exercise；　Reason　has　the　right　of
admitting　what；　in　the　field　of　pure　speculation；　she　would　not　be
justified　in　supposing；　except　upon　perfectly　sufficient　grounds；
because　all　such　suppositions　destroy　the　necessary　pleteness　of
speculation…　a　condition　which　the　practical　reason；　however；　does　not
consider　to　be　requisite。　In　this　sphere；　therefore；　Reason　is
mistress　of　a　possession；　her　title　to　which　she　does　not　require　to
prove…　which；　in　fact；　she　could　not　do。　The　burden　of　proof
accordingly　rests　upon　the　opponent。　But　as　he　has　just　as　little
knowledge　regarding　the　subject　discussed；　and　is　as　little　able　to
prove　the　non…existence　of　the　object　of　an　idea；　as　the　philosopher
on　the　other　side　is　to　demonstrate　its　reality；　it　is　evident　that
there　is　an　advantage　on　the　side　of　the　philosopher　who　maintains　his
proposition　as　a　practically　necessary　supposition　（melior　est
conditio　possidentis）。　For　he　is　at　liberty　to　employ；　in
self…defence；　the　same　weapons　as　his　opponent　makes　use　of　in
attacking　him；　that　is；　he　has　a　right　to　use　hypotheses　not　for　the
purpose　of　supporting　the　arguments　in　favour　of　his　own　propositions；
but　to　show　that　his　opponent　knows　no　more　than　himself　regarding　the
subject　under　'discussion　and　cannot　boast　of　any　speculative
advantage。
　　Hypotheses　are；　therefore；　admissible　in　the　sphere　of　pure　reason
only　as　weapons　for　self…defence；　and　not　as　supports　to　dogmatical
assertions。　But　the　opposing　party　we　must　always　seek　for　in
ourselves。　For　speculative　reason　is；　in　the　sphere　of
transcendentalism；　dialectical　in　its　own　nature。　The　difficulties　and
objections　we　have　to　fear　lie　in　ourselves。　They　are　like　old　but
never　superannuated　claims；　and　we　must　seek　them　out；　and　settle　them
once　and　for　ever；　if　we　are　to　expect　a　permanent　peace。　External
tranquility　is　hollow　and　unreal。　The　root　of　these　contradictions；
which　lies　in　the　nature　of　human　reason；　must　be　destroyed；　and
this　can　only　be　done　by　giving　it；　in　the　first　instance；　freedom
to　grow；　nay；　by　nourishing　it；　that　it　may　send　out　shoots；　and
thus　betray　its　own　existence。　It　is　our　duty；　therefore；　to　try　to
discover　new　objections；　to　put　weapons　in　the　bands　of　our
opponent；　and　to　grant　him　the　most　favourable　position　in　the　arena
that　he　can　wish。　We　have　nothing　to　fear　from　these　concessions；　on
the　contrary；　we　may　rather　hope　that　we　shall　thus　make　ourselves
master　of　a　possession　which　no　one　will　ever　venture　to　dispute。
　　The　thinker　requires；　to　be　fully　equipped；　the　hypotheses　of　pure
reason；　which；　although　but　leaden　weapons　（for　they　have　not　been
steeled　in　the　armoury　of　experience）；　are　as　useful　as　any　that　can
be　employed　by　his　opponents。　If；　accordingly；　we　have　assumed；　from　a
non…speculative　point　of　view；　the　immaterial　nature　of　the　soul；
and　are　met　by　the　objection　that　experience　seems　to　prove　that　the
growth　and　decay　of　our　mental　faculties　are　mere　modifications　of　the
sensuous　organism…　we　can　weaken　the　force　of　this　objection　by　the
assumption　that　the　body　is　nothing　but　the　fundamental　phenomenon；　to
which；　as　a　necessary　condition；　all　sensibility；　and　consequently　all
thought；　relates　in　the　present　state　of　our　existence；　and　that　the
separation　of　soul　and　body　forms　the　conclusion　of　the　sensuous
exercise　of　our　power　of　cognition　and　the　beginning　of　the
intellectual。　The　body　would；　in　this　view　of　the　question；　be
regarded；　not　as　the　cause　of　thought；　but　merely　as　its　restrictive
condition；　as　promotive　of　the　sensuous　and　animal；　but　as　a　hindrance
to　the　pure　and　spiritual　life；　and　the　dependence　of　the　animal
life　on　the　constitution　of　the　body；　would　not　prove　that　the　whole
life　of　man　was　also　dependent　on　the　state　of　the　organism。　We
might　go　still　farther；　and　discover　new　objections；　or　carry　out　to
their　extreme　consequences　those　which　have　already　been　adduced。
　　Generation；　in　the　human　race　as　well　as　among　the　irrational
animals；　depends　on　so　many　accidents…　of　occasion；　of　proper
sustenance；　of　the　laws　enacted　by　the　government　of　a　country　of　vice
even；　that　it　is　difficult　to　believe　in　the　eternal　existence　of　a
being　whose　life　has　begun　under　circumstances　so　mean　and　trivial；
and　so　entirely　dependent　upon　our　own　control。　As　regards　the
continuance　of　the　existence　of　the　whole　race；　we　need　have　no
difficulties；　for　accident　in　single　cases　is　subject　to　general　laws；
but；　in　the　case　of　each　individual；　it　would　seem　as　if　we　could
hardly　expect　so　wonderful　an　effect　from　causes　so　insignificant。
But；　in　answer　to　these　objections；　we　may　adduce　the　transcendental
hypothesis　that　all　life　is　properly　intelligible；　and　not　subject
to　changes　of　time；　and　that　it　neither　began　in　birth；　nor　will　end
in　death。　We　may　assume　that　this　life　is　nothing　more　than　a　sensuous
representation　of　pure　spiritual　life；　that　the　whole　world　of　sense
is　but　an　image；　hovering　before　the　faculty　of　cognition　which　we
exercise　in　this　sphere；　and　with　no　more　objective　reality　than　a
dream；　and　that　if　we　could　intuite　ourselves　and　other　things　as　they
really　are；　we　should　see　ourselves　in　a　world　of　spiritual　natures；
our　connection　with　which　did　not　begin　at　our　birth　and　will　not
cease　with　the　destruction　of　the　body。　And　so　on。
　　We　cannot　be　said　to　know　what　has　been　above　asserted；　nor　do　we
seriously　maintain　the　truth　of　these　assertions；　and　the　notions
therein　indicated　are　not　even　ideas　of　reason；　they　are　purely
fictitious　conceptions。　But　this　hypothetical　procedure　is　in
perfect　conformity　with　the　laws　of　reason。　Our　opponent　mistakes
the　absence　of　empirical　conditions　for　a　proof　of　the　plete
impossibility　of　all　that　we　have　asserted；　and　we　have　to　show　him
that　be　has　not　exhausted　the　whole　sphere　of　possibility　and　that
he　can　as　little　pass　that　sphere　by　the　laws　of　experience　and
nature；　as　we　can　lay　a　secure　foundation　for　the　operations　of　reason
beyond　the　region　of　experience。　Such　hypothetical　defences　against
the　pretensions　of　an　opponent　must　not　be　regarded　as　declarations　of
opinion。　The　philosopher　abandons　them；　so　soon　as　the　opposite
party　renounces　its　dogmatical　conceit。　To　m