the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第24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！


and　a　systematic　topic　like　the　present；　indicates　with　perfect
precision　the　proper　place　to　which　each　conception　belongs；　while
it　readily　points　out　any　that　have　not　yet　been　filled　up。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SS　7

　　Our　table　of　the　categories　suggests　considerations　of　some
importance；　which　may　perhaps　have　significant　results　in　regard　to
the　scientific　form　of　all　rational　cognitions。　For；　that　this　table
is　useful　in　the　theoretical　part　of　philosophy；　nay；　indispensable
for　the　sketching　of　the　plete　plan　of　a　science；　so　far　as　that
science　rests　upon　conceptions　a　priori；　and　for　dividing　it
mathematically；　according　to　fixed　principles；　is　most　manifest　from
the　fact　that　it　contains　all　the　elementary　conceptions　of　the
understanding；　nay；　even　the　form　of　a　system　of　these　in　the
understanding　itself；　and　consequently　indicates　all　the　momenta；
and　also　the　internal　arrangement　of　a　projected　speculative
science；　as　I　have　elsewhere　shown。*　Here　follow　some　of　these
observations。

　　*In　the　Metaphysical　Principles　of　Natural　Science。

　　I。　This　table；　which　contains　four　classes　of　conceptions　of　the
understanding；　may；　in　the　first　instance；　be　divided　into　two
classes；　the　first　of　which　relates　to　objects　of　intuition…　pure　as
well　as　empirical；　the　second；　to　the　existence　of　these　objects；
either　in　relation　to　one　another；　or　to　the　understanding。
　　The　former　of　these　classes　of　categories　I　would　entitle　the
mathematical；　and　the　latter　the　dynamical　categories。　The　former；
as　we　see；　has　no　correlates；　these　are　only　to　be　found　in　the　second
class。　This　difference　must　have　a　ground　in　the　nature　of　the　human
understanding。
　　II。　The　number　of　the　categories　in　each　class　is　always　the　same；
namely；　three…　a　fact　which　also　demands　some　consideration；　because
in　all　other　cases　division　a　priori　through　conceptions　is
necessarily　dichotomy。　It　is　to　be　added；　that　the　third　category　in
each　triad　always　arises　from　the　bination　of　the　second　with　the
first。
　　Thus　totality　is　nothing　else　but　plurality　contemplated　as　unity；
limitation　is　merely　reality　conjoined　with　negation；　munity　is　the
causality　of　a　substance；　reciprocally　determining；　and　determined
by　other　substances；　and　finally；　necessity　is　nothing　but
existence；　which　is　given　through　the　possibility　itself。　Let　it　not
be　supposed；　however；　that　the　third　category　is　merely　a　deduced；　and
not　a　primitive　conception　of　the　pure　understanding。　For　the
conjunction　of　the　first　and　second；　in　order　to　produce　the　third
conception；　requires　a　particular　function　of　the　understanding；　which
is　by　no　means　identical　with　those　which　are　exercised　in　the　first
and　second。　Thus；　the　conception　of　a　number　（which　belongs　to　the
category　of　totality）　is　not　always　possible；　where　the　conceptions　of
multitude　and　unity　exist　（for　example；　in　the　representation　of　the
infinite）。　Or；　if　I　conjoin　the　conception　of　a　cause　with　that　of　a
substance；　it　does　not　follow　that　the　conception　of　influence；　that
is；　how　one　substance　can　be　the　cause　of　something　in　another
substance；　will　be　understood　from　that。　Thus　it　is　evident　that　a
particular　act　of　the　understanding　is　here　necessary；　and　so　in　the
other　instances。
　　III。　With　respect　to　one　category；　namely；　that　of　munity；
which　is　found　in　the　third　class；　it　is　not　so　easy　as　with　the
others　to　detect　its　accordance　with　the　form　of　the　disjunctive
judgement　which　corresponds　to　it　in　the　table　of　the　logical
functions。
　　In　order　to　assure　ourselves　of　this　accordance；　we　must　observe
that　in　every　disjunctive　judgement；　the　sphere　of　the　judgement　（that
is；　the　plex　of　all　that　is　contained　in　it）　is　represented　as　a
whole　divided　into　parts；　and；　since　one　part　cannot　be　contained　in
the　other；　they　are　cogitated　as　co…ordinated　with；　not　subordinated
to　each　other；　so　that　they　do　not　determine　each　other
unilaterally；　as　in　a　linear　series；　but　reciprocally；　as　in　an
aggregate…　（if　one　member　of　the　division　is　posited；　all　the　rest　are
excluded；　and　conversely）。
　　Now　a　like　connection　is　cogitated　in　a　whole　of　things；　for　one
thing　is　not　subordinated；　as　effect；　to　another　as　cause　of　its
existence；　but；　on　the　contrary；　is　co…ordinated　contemporaneously　and
reciprocally；　as　a　cause　in　relation　to　the　determination　of　the
others　（for　example；　in　a　body…　the　parts　of　which　mutually　attract
and　repel　each　other）。　And　this　is　an　entirely　different　kind　of
connection　from　that　which　we　find　in　the　mere　relation　of　the　cause
to　the　effect　（the　principle　to　the　consequence）；　for　in　such　a
connection　the　consequence　does　not　in　its　turn　determine　the
principle；　and　therefore　does　not　constitute；　with　the　latter；　a
whole…　just　as　the　Creator　does　not　with　the　world　make　up　a　whole。
The　process　of　understanding　by　which　it　represents　to　itself　the
sphere　of　a　divided　conception；　is　employed　also　when　we　think　of　a
thing　as　divisible；　and　in　the　same　manner　as　the　members　of　the
division　in　the　former　exclude　one　another；　and　yet　are　connected　in
one　sphere；　so　the　understanding　represents　to　itself　the　parts　of　the
latter；　as　having…　each　of　them…　an　existence　（as　substances）；
independently　of　the　others；　and　yet　as　united　in　one　whole。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SS　8

　　In　the　transcendental　philosophy　of　the　ancients　there　exists　one
more　leading　division；　which　contains　pure　conceptions　of　the
understanding；　and　which；　although　not　numbered　among　the
categories；　ought；　according　to　them；　as　conceptions　a　priori；　to　be
valid　of　objects。　But　in　this　case　they　would　augment　the　number　of
the　categories；　which　cannot　be。　These　are　set　forth　in　the
proposition；　so　renowned　among　the　schoolmen…　〃Quodlibet　ens　est　UNUM；
VERUM；　BONUM。〃　Now；　though　the　inferences　from　this　principle　were
mere　tautological　propositions；　and　though　it　is　allowed　only　by
courtesy　to　retain　a　place　in　modern　metaphysics；　yet　a　thought
which　maintained　itself　for　such　a　length　of　time；　however　empty　it
seems　to　be；　deserves　an　investigation　of　its　origin；　and　justifies
the　conjecture　that　it　must　be　grounded　in　some　law　of　the
understanding；　which；　as　is　often　the　case；　has　only　been
erroneously　interpreted。　These　pretended　transcendental　predicates
are；　in　fact；　nothing　but　logical　requisites　and　criteria　of　all
cognition　of　objects；　and　they　employ；　as　the　basis　for　this
cognition；　the　categories　of　quantity；　namely；　unity；　plurality；　and
totality。　But　these；　which　must　be　taken　as　material　conditions；
that　is；　as　belonging　to　the　possibility　of　things　themselves；　they
employed　merely　in　a　formal　signification；　as　belonging　to　the　logical
requisites　of　all　cognition；　and　yet　most　unguardedly　changed　these
criteria　of　thought　into　properties　of　objects；　as　things　in
themselves。　Now；　in　every　cognition　of　an　object；　there　is　unity　of
conception；　which　may　be　called　qualitative　unity；　so　far　as　by　this
term　we　understand　only　the　unity　in　our　connection　of　the　manifold；
for　example；　unity　of　the　theme　in　a　play；　an　oration；　or　a　story。
Secondly；　there　is　truth　in　respect　of　the　deductions　from　it。　The
more　true　deductions　we　have　from　a　given　conception；　the　more
criteria　of　its　objective　reality。　This　we　might　call　the
qualitative　plurality　of　characteristic　marks；　which　belong　to　a
conception　as　to　a　mon　foundation；　but　are　not　cogitated　as　a
quantity　in　it。　Thirdly；　there　is　perfection…　which　consists　in
this；　that　the　plurality　falls　back　upon　the　unity　of　the
conception；　and　accords　pletely　with　that　conception　and　with　no
other。　This　we　may　denominate　qualitative　pleteness。　Hence　it　is
evident　that　these　logical　criteria　of　the　possibility　of　cognition
are　merely　the　three　categories　of　quantity　modified　and　transformed
to　suit　an　unauthorized　manner　of　applying　them。　That　is　to　say；　the
three　categories；　in　which　the　unity　in　the　production　of　the
quantum　must　be　homogeneous　throughout；　are　transformed　solely　with
a　view　to　the　connection　of　heterogeneous　parts　of　cognition　in　one
act　of　consciousness；　by　means　of　the　quality　of　the　cognition；
which　is　the　principle　of　that　connection。　Thus　the　criterion　of　the
possibility　of　a　conception　（not　of　its　object）　is　the　definition　of
it；　in　which　the　unity　of　the　conception；　the　truth　of　all　that　may　be
immediately　deduced　from　it；　and　finally；　the　pleteness　of　what　has
been　thus　deduced；　constitute　the　requisites　for　the　reproduction　of
the　whole　conception。　Thus　also；　the　criterion　or　test　of　an
hypothesis　is　the　intelligibility　of　the　received　principle　of
explanation；　or　its　unity　（without　help　from　any　subsidiary
hypothesis）…　the　truth　of　our　deductions　from　it　（consistency　with
each　other　and　with　experience）…　and　lastly；　the　pleteness　of　the
principle　of　the　explanation　of　these　deductions；　which　refer　to
neither　more　nor　less　than　what　was　admitted　in　the　hypothesis；
restoring　analytically　and　a　posteriori；　what　was　cogitated
synthetically　and　a　priori。　By　the　conceptions；　therefore；　of　unity；
truth；　and　perfection；　we　have　made　no　addition　to　the
transcendental　table　of　the　categories；　which　is　plete　without
them。　We　have