the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第16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！


reality　as　representations；　belong　only　to　the　genus　phenomenon；　which
has　always　two　aspects；　the　one；　the　object　considered　as　a　thing　in
itself；　without　regard　to　the　mode　of　intuiting　it；　and　the　nature
of　which　remains　for　this　very　reason　problematical；　the　other；　the
form　of　our　intuition　of　the　object；　which　must　be　sought　not　in　the
object　as　a　thing　in　itself；　but　in　the　subject　to　which　it　appears…
which　form　of　intuition　nevertheless　belongs　really　and　necessarily　to
the　phenomenal　object。
　　Time　and　space　are；　therefore；　two　sources　of　knowledge；　from　which；
a　priori；　various　synthetical　cognitions　can　be　drawn。　Of　this　we　find
a　striking　example　in　the　cognitions　of　space　and　its　relations；　which
form　the　foundation　of　pure　mathematics。　They　are　the　two　pure　forms
of　all　intuitions；　and　thereby　make　synthetical　propositions　a
priori　possible。　But　these　sources　of　knowledge　being　merely
conditions　of　our　sensibility；　do　therefore；　and　as　such；　strictly
determine　their　own　range　and　purpose；　in　that　they　do　not　and
cannot　present　objects　as　things　in　themselves；　but　are　applicable
to　them　solely　in　so　far　as　they　are　considered　as　sensuous　phenomena。
The　sphere　of　phenomena　is　the　only　sphere　of　their　validity；　and　if
we　venture　out　of　this；　no　further　objective　use　can　be　made　of
them。　For　the　rest；　this　formal　reality　of　time　and　space　leaves　the
validity　of　our　empirical　knowledge　unshaken；　for　our　certainty　in
that　respect　is　equally　firm；　whether　these　forms　necessarily　inhere
in　the　things　themselves；　or　only　in　our　intuitions　of　them。　On　the
other　hand；　those　who　maintain　the　absolute　reality　of　time　and　space；
whether　as　essentially　subsisting；　or　only　inhering；　as　modifications；
in　things；　must　find　themselves　at　utter　variance　with　the
principles　of　experience　itself。　For；　if　they　decide　for　the　first
view；　and　make　space　and　time　into　substances；　this　being　the　side
taken　by　mathematical　natural　philosophers；　they　must　admit　two
self…subsisting　nonentities；　infinite　and　eternal；　which　exist　（yet
without　there　being　anything　real）　for　the　purpose　of　containing　in
themselves　everything　that　is　real。　If　they　adopt　the　second　view　of
inherence；　which　is　preferred　by　some　metaphysical　natural
philosophers；　and　regard　space　and　time　as　relations　（contiguity　in
space　or　succession　in　time）；　abstracted　from　experience；　though
represented　confusedly　in　this　state　of　separation；　they　find
themselves　in　that　case　necessitated　to　deny　the　validity　of
mathematical　doctrines　a　priori　in　reference　to　real　things　（for
example；　in　space）…　at　all　events　their　apodeictic　certainty。　For　such
certainty　cannot　be　found　in　an　a　posteriori　proposition；　and　the
conceptions　a　priori　of　space　and　time　are；　according　to　this　opinion；
mere　creations　of　the　imagination；　having　their　source　really　in
experience；　inasmuch　as；　out　of　relations　abstracted　from
experience；　imagination　has　made　up　something　which　contains；
indeed；　general　statements　of　these　relations；　yet　of　which　no
application　can　be　made　without　the　restrictions　attached　thereto　by
nature。　The　former　of　these　parties　gains　this　advantage；　that　they
keep　the　sphere　of　phenomena　free　for　mathematical　science。　On　the
other　hand；　these　very　conditions　（space　and　time）　embarrass　them
greatly；　when　the　understanding　endeavours　to　pass　the　limits　of
that　sphere。　The　latter　has；　indeed；　this　advantage；　that　the
representations　of　space　and　time　do　not　e　in　their　way　when　they
wish　to　judge　of　objects；　not　as　phenomena；　but　merely　in　their
relation　to　the　understanding。　Devoid；　however；　of　a　true　and
objectively　valid　a　priori　intuition；　they　can　neither　furnish　any
basis　for　the　possibility　of　mathematical　cognitions　a　priori；　nor
bring　the　propositions　of　experience　into　necessary　accordance　with
those　of　mathematics。　In　our　theory　of　the　true　nature　of　these　two
original　forms　of　the　sensibility；　both　difficulties　are　surmounted。
　　In　conclusion；　that　transcendental　aesthetic　cannot　contain　any　more
than　these　two　elements…　space　and　time；　is　sufficiently　obvious
from　the　fact　that　all　other　conceptions　appertaining　to
sensibility；　even　that　of　motion；　which　unites　in　itself　both
elements；　presuppose　something　empirical。　Motion；　for　example；
presupposes　the　perception　of　something　movable。　But　space
considered　in　itself　contains　nothing　movable；　consequently　motion
must　be　something　which　is　found　in　space　only　through　experience…
in　other　words；　an　empirical　datum。　In　like　manner；　transcendental
aesthetic　cannot　number　the　conception　of　change　among　its　data　a
priori；　for　time　itself　does　not　change；　but　only　something　which　is
in　time。　To　acquire　the　conception　of　change；　therefore；　the
perception　of　some　existing　object　and　of　the　succession　of　its
determinations；　in　one　word；　experience；　is　necessary。

　　　　　　SS　9　General　Remarks　on　Transcendental　Aesthetic。

　　I。　In　order　to　prevent　any　misunderstanding；　it　will　be　requisite；
in　the　first　place；　to　recapitulate；　as　clearly　as　possible；　what
our　opinion　is　with　respect　to　the　fundamental　nature　of　our
sensuous　cognition　in　general。　We　have　intended；　then；　to　say　that　all
our　intuition　is　nothing　but　the　representation　of　phenomena；　that　the
things　which　we　intuite；　are　not　in　themselves　the　same　as　our
representations　of　them　in　intuition；　nor　are　their　relations　in
themselves　so　constituted　as　they　appear　to　us；　and　that　if　we　take
away　the　subject；　or　even　only　the　subjective　constitution　of　our
senses　in　general；　then　not　only　the　nature　and　relations　of　objects
in　space　and　time；　but　even　space　and　time　themselves　disappear；　and
that　these；　as　phenomena；　cannot　exist　in　themselves；　but　only　in
us。　What　may　be　the　nature　of　objects　considered　as　things　in
themselves　and　without　reference　to　the　receptivity　of　our　sensibility
is　quite　unknown　to　us。　We　know　nothing　more　than　our　mode　of
perceiving　them；　which　is　peculiar　to　us；　and　which；　though　not　of
necessity　pertaining　to　every　animated　being；　is　so　to　the　whole　human
race。　With　this　alone　we　have　to　do。　Space　and　time　are　the　pure　forms
thereof；　sensation　the　matter。　The　former　alone　can　we　cognize　a
priori；　that　is；　antecedent　to　all　actual　perception；　and　for　this
reason　such　cognition　is　called　pure　intuition。　The　latter　is　that
in　our　cognition　which　is　called　cognition　a　posteriori；　that　is；
empirical　intuition。　The　former　appertain　absolutely　and　necessarily
to　our　sensibility；　of　whatsoever　kind　our　sensations　may　be；　the
latter　may　be　of　very　diversified　character。　Supposing　that　we
should　carry　our　empirical　intuition　even　to　the　very　highest　degree
of　clearness；　we　should　not　thereby　advance　one　step　nearer　to　a
knowledge　of　the　constitution　of　objects　as　things　in　themselves。
For　we　could　only；　at　best；　arrive　at　a　plete　cognition　of　our
own　mode　of　intuition；　that　is　of　our　sensibility；　and　this　always
under　the　conditions　originally　attaching　to　the　subject；　namely；
the　conditions　of　space　and　time；　while　the　question：　〃What　are
objects　considered　as　things　in　themselves？〃　remains　unanswerable　even
after　the　most　thorough　examination　of　the　phenomenal　world。
　　To　say；　then；　that　all　our　sensibility　is　nothing　but　the　confused
representation　of　things　containing　exclusively　that　which　belongs
to　them　as　things　in　themselves；　and　this　under　an　accumulation　of
characteristic　marks　and　partial　representations　which　we　cannot
distinguish　in　consciousness；　is　a　falsification　of　the　conception
of　sensibility　and　phenomenization；　which　renders　our　whole　doctrine
thereof　empty　and　useless。　The　difference　between　a　confused　and　a
clear　representation　is　merely　logical　and　has　nothing　to　do　with
content。　No　doubt　the　conception　of　right；　as　employed　by　a　sound
understanding；　contains　all　that　the　most　subtle　investigation　could
unfold　from　it；　although；　in　the　ordinary　practical　use　of　the　word；
we　are　not　conscious　of　the　manifold　representations　prised　in
the　conception。　But　we　cannot　for　this　reason　assert　that　the　ordinary
conception　is　a　sensuous　one；　containing　a　mere　phenomenon；　for
right　cannot　appear　as　a　phenomenon；　but　the　conception　of　it　lies
in　the　understanding；　and　represents　a　property　（the　moral　property）
of　actions；　which　belongs　to　them　in　themselves。　On　the　other　hand；
the　representation　in　intuition　of　a　body　contains　nothing　which　could
belong　to　an　object　considered　as　a　thing　in　itself；　but　merely　the
phenomenon　or　appearance　of　something；　and　the　mode　in　which　we　are
affected　by　that　appearance；　and　this　receptivity　of　our　faculty　of
cognition　is　called　sensibility；　and　remains　toto　caelo　different　from
the　cognition　of　an　object　in　itself；　even　though　we　should　examine
the　content　of　the　phenomenon　to　the　very　bottom。
　　It　must　be　admitted　that　the　Leibnitz…Wolfian　philosophy　has
assigned　an　entirely　erroneous　point　of　view　to　all　investigations
into　the　nature　and　origin　of　our　cognitions；　inasmuch　as　it　regards
the　distinction　between　the　sensuous　and　the　intellectual　as　merely
logical；　whereas　it　is　plainly　transcendental；　and　concerns　not　merely
the　clearness　or　obscurity；　but　the　content　and　origin　of　both