the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第17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！


logical；　whereas　it　is　plainly　transcendental；　and　concerns　not　merely
the　clearness　or　obscurity；　but　the　content　and　origin　of　both。　For
the　faculty　of　sensibility　not　only　does　not　present　us　with　an
indistinct　and　confused　cognition　of　objects　as　things　in
themselves；　but；　in　fact；　gives　us　no　knowledge　of　these　at　all。　On
the　contrary；　so　soon　as　we　abstract　in　thought　our　own　subjective
nature；　the　object　represented；　with　the　properties　ascribed　to　it
by　sensuous　intuition；　entirely　disappears；　because　it　was　only　this
subjective　nature　that　determined　the　form　of　the　object　as　a
phenomenon。
　　In　phenomena；　we　monly；　indeed；　distinguish　that　which
essentially　belongs　to　the　intuition　of　them；　and　is　valid　for　the
sensuous　faculty　of　every　human　being；　from　that　which　belongs　to
the　same　intuition　accidentally；　as　valid　not　for　the　sensuous　faculty
in　general；　but　for　a　particular　state　or　organization　of　this　or　that
sense。　Accordingly；　we　are　accustomed　to　say　that　the　former　is　a
cognition　which　represents　the　object　itself；　whilst　the　latter
presents　only　a　particular　appearance　or　phenomenon　thereof。　This
distinction；　however；　is　only　empirical。　If　we　stop　here　（as　is
usual）；　and　do　not　regard　the　empirical　intuition　as　itself　a　mere
phenomenon　（as　we　ought　to　do）；　in　which　nothing　that　can　appertain　to
a　thing　in　itself　is　to　be　found；　our　transcendental　distinction　is
lost；　and　we　believe　that　we　cognize　objects　as　things　in
themselves；　although　in　the　whole　range　of　the　sensuous　world；
investigate　the　nature　of　its　objects　as　profoundly　as　we　may；　we　have
to　do　with　nothing　but　phenomena。　Thus；　we　call　the　rainbow　a　mere
appearance　of　phenomenon　in　a　sunny　shower；　and　the　rain；　the
reality　or　thing　in　itself；　and　this　is　right　enough；　if　we　understand
the　latter　conception　in　a　merely　physical　sense；　that　is；　as　that
which　in　universal　experience；　and　under　whatever　conditions　of
sensuous　perception；　is　known　in　intuition　to　be　so　and　so　determined；
and　not　otherwise。　But　if　we　consider　this　empirical　datum
generally；　and　inquire；　without　reference　to　its　accordance　with　all
our　senses；　whether　there　can　be　discovered　in　it　aught　which
represents　an　object　as　a　thing　in　itself　（the　raindrops　of　course　are
not　such；　for　they　are；　as　phenomena；　empirical　objects）；　the　question
of　the　relation　of　the　representation　to　the　object　is　transcendental；
and　not　only　are　the　raindrops　mere　phenomena；　but　even　their　circular
form；　nay；　the　space　itself　through　which　they　fall；　is　nothing　in
itself；　but　both　are　mere　modifications　or　fundamental　dispositions　of
our　sensuous　intuition；　whilst　the　transcendental　object　remains　for
us　utterly　unknown。
　　The　second　important　concern　of　our　aesthetic　is　that　it　does　not
obtain　favour　merely　as　a　plausible　hypothesis；　but　possess　as
undoubted　a　character　of　certainty　as　can　be　demanded　of　any　theory
which　is　to　serve　for　an　organon。　In　order　fully　to　convince　the
reader　of　this　certainty；　we　shall　select　a　case　which　will　serve　to
make　its　validity　apparent；　and　also　to　illustrate　what　has　been
said　in　SS　3。
　　Suppose；　then；　that　space　and　time　are　in　themselves　objective；
and　conditions　of　the…　possibility　of　objects　as　things　in　themselves。
In　the　first　place；　it　is　evident　that　both　present　us；　with　very　many
apodeictic　and　synthetic　propositions　a　priori；　but　especially
space…　and　for　this　reason　we　shall　prefer　it　for　investigation　at
present。　As　the　propositions　of　geometry　are　cognized　synthetically
a　priori；　and　with　apodeictic　certainty；　I　inquire：　Whence　do　you
obtain　propositions　of　this　kind；　and　on　what　basis　does　the
understanding　rest；　in　order　to　arrive　at　such　absolutely　necessary
and　universally　valid　truths？
　　There　is　no　other　way　than　through　intuitions　or　conceptions；　as
such；　and　these　are　given　either　a　priori　or　a　posteriori。　The　latter；
namely；　empirical　conceptions；　together　with　the　empirical　intuition
on　which　they　are　founded；　cannot　afford　any　synthetical
proposition；　except　such　as　is　itself　also　empirical；　that　is；　a
proposition　of　experience。　But　an　empirical　proposition　cannot　possess
the　qualities　of　necessity　and　absolute　universality；　which；
nevertheless；　are　the　characteristics　of　all　geometrical　propositions。
As　to　the　first　and　only　means　to　arrive　at　such　cognitions；　namely；
through　mere　conceptions　or　intuitions　a　priori；　it　is　quite　clear
that　from　mere　conceptions　no　synthetical　cognitions；　but　only
analytical　ones；　can　be　obtained。　Take；　for　example；　the
proposition：　〃Two　straight　lines　cannot　enclose　a　space；　and　with
these　alone　no　figure　is　possible；〃　and　try　to　deduce　it　from　the
conception　of　a　straight　line　and　the　number　two；　or　take　the
proposition：　〃It　is　possible　to　construct　a　figure　with　three　straight
lines；〃　and　endeavour；　in　like　manner；　to　deduce　it　from　the　mere
conception　of　a　straight　line　and　the　number　three。　All　your
endeavours　are　in　vain；　and　you　find　yourself　forced　to　have
recourse　to　intuition；　as；　in　fact；　geometry　always　does。　You
therefore　give　yourself　an　object　in　intuition。　But　of　what　kind　is
this　intuition？　Is　it　a　pure　a　priori；　or　is　it　an　empirical
intuition？　If　the　latter；　then　neither　an　universally　valid；　much　less
an　apodeictic　proposition　can　arise　from　it；　for　experience　never
can　give　us　any　such　proposition。　You　must；　therefore；　give　yourself
an　object　a　priori　in　intuition；　and　upon　that　ground　your　synthetical
proposition。　Now　if　there　did　not　exist　within　you　a　faculty　of
intuition　a　priori；　if　this　subjective　condition　were　not　in　respect
to　its　form　also　the　universal　condition　a　priori　under　which　alone
the　object　of　this　external　intuition　is　itself　possible；　if　the
object　（that　is；　the　triangle）　were　something　in　itself；　without
relation　to　you　the　subject；　how　could　you　affirm　that　that　which　lies
necessarily　in　your　subjective　conditions　in　order　to　construct　a
triangle；　must　also　necessarily　belong　to　the　triangle　in　itself？
For　to　your　conceptions　of　three　lines；　you　could　not　add　anything　new
（that　is；　the　figure）；　which；　therefore；　must　necessarily　be　found
in　the　object；　because　the　object　is　given　before　your　cognition；
and　not　by　means　of　it。　If；　therefore；　space　（and　time　also）　were
not　a　mere　form　of　your　intuition；　which　contains　conditions　a　priori；
under　which　alone　things　can　bee　external　objects　for　you；　and
without　which　subjective　conditions　the　objects　are　in　themselves
nothing；　you　could　not　construct　any　synthetical　proposition
whatsoever　regarding　external　objects。　It　is　therefore　not　merely
possible　or　probable；　but　indubitably　certain；　that　space　and　time；　as
the　necessary　conditions　of　all　our　external　and　internal
experience；　are　merely　subjective　conditions　of　all　our　intuitions；　in
relation　to　which　all　objects　are　therefore　mere　phenomena；　and　not
things　in　themselves；　presented　to　us　in　this　particular　manner。　And
for　this　reason；　in　respect　to　the　form　of　phenomena；　much　may　be　said
a　priori；　whilst　of　the　thing　in　itself；　which　may　lie　at　the
foundation　of　these　phenomena；　it　is　impossible　to　say　anything。
　　II。　In　confirmation　of　this　theory　of　the　ideality　of　the　external
as　well　as　internal　sense；　consequently　of　all　objects　of　sense；　as
mere　phenomena；　we　may　especially　remark　that　all　in　our　cognition
that　belongs　to　intuition　contains　nothing　more　than　mere　relations。
（The　feelings　of　pain　and　pleasure；　and　the　will；　which　are　not
cognitions；　are　excepted。）　The　relations；　to　wit；　of　place　in　an
intuition　（extension）；　change　of　place　（motion）；　and　laws　according　to
which　this　change　is　determined　（moving　forces）。　That；　however；
which　is　present　in　this　or　that　place；　or　any　operation　going　on；
or　result　taking　place　in　the　things　themselves；　with　the　exception　of
change　of　place；　is　not　given　to　us　by　intuition。　Now　by　means　of　mere
relations；　a　thing　cannot　be　known　in　itself；　and　it　may　therefore
be　fairly　concluded；　that；　as　through　the　external　sense　nothing　but
mere　representations　of　relations　are　given　us；　the　said　external
sense　in　its　representation　can　contain　only　the　relation　of　the
object　to　the　subject；　but　not　the　essential　nature　of　the　object　as　a
thing　in　itself。
　　The　same　is　the　case　with　the　internal　intuition；　not　only
because；　in　the　internal　intuition；　the　representation　of　the　external
senses　constitutes　the　material　with　which　the　mind　is　occupied；　but
because　time；　in　which　we　place；　and　which　itself　antecedes　the
consciousness　of；　these　representations　in　experience；　and　which；　as
the　formal　condition　of　the　mode　according　to　which　objects　are　placed
in　the　mind；　lies　at　the　foundation　of　them；　contains　relations　of　the
successive；　the　coexistent；　and　of　that　which　always　must　be
coexistent　with　succession；　the　permanent。　Now　that　which；　as
representation；　can　antecede　every　exercise　of　thought　（of　an　object）；
is　intuition；　and　when　it　contains　nothing　but　relations；　it　is　the
form　of　the　intuition；　which；　as　it　presents　us　with　no
representation；　except　in　so　far　as　something　is　placed　in　the　mind；
can　be　nothing　else　than　the　mode　in　which　the　mind　is　affected　by　its
own　activity；　to　wit…　i