the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第25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！


truth；　and　perfection；　we　have　made　no　addition　to　the
transcendental　table　of　the　categories；　which　is　plete　without
them。　We　have；　on　the　contrary；　merely　employed　the　three　categories
of　quantity；　setting　aside　their　application　to　objects　of　experience；
as　general　logical　laws　of　the　consistency　of　cognition　with　itself。
　　　CHAPTER　II　Of　the　Deduction　of　the　Pure　Conceptions　of　the
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Understanding。

　　　SECTION　I　Of　the　Principles　of　a　Transcendental　Deduction
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　in　general。　SS　9

　　Teachers　of　jurisprudence；　when　speaking　of　rights　and　claims；
distinguish　in　a　cause　the　question　of　right　（quid　juris）　from　the
question　of　fact　（quid　facti）；　and　while　they　demand　proof　of　both；
they　give　to　the　proof　of　the　former；　which　goes　to　establish　right　or
claim　in　law；　the　name　of　deduction。　Now　we　make　use　of　a　great　number
of　empirical　conceptions；　without　opposition　from　any　one；　and
consider　ourselves；　even　without　any　attempt　at　deduction；　justified
in　attaching　to　them　a　sense；　and　a　supposititious　signification；
because　we　have　always　experience　at　hand　to　demonstrate　their
objective　reality。　There　exist　also；　however；　usurped　conceptions；
such　as　fortune；　fate；　which　circulate　with　almost　universal
indulgence；　and　yet　are　occasionally　challenged　by　the　question；　〃quid
juris？〃　In　such　cases；　we　have　great　difficulty　in　discovering　any
deduction　for　these　terms；　inasmuch　as　we　cannot　produce　any
manifest　ground　of　right；　either　from　experience　or　from　reason；　on
which　the　claim　to　employ　them　can　be　founded。
　　Among　the　many　conceptions；　which　make　up　the　very　variegated　web　of
human　cognition；　some　are　destined　for　pure　use　a　priori；
independent　of　all　experience；　and　their　title　to　be　so　employed
always　requires　a　deduction；　inasmuch　as；　to　justify　such　use　of　them；
proofs　from　experience　are　not　sufficient；　but　it　is　necessary　to　know
how　these　conceptions　can　apply　to　objects　without　being　derived
from　experience。　I　term；　therefore；　an　examination　of　the　manner　in
which　conceptions　can　apply　a　priori　to　objects；　the　transcendental
deduction　of　conceptions；　and　I　distinguish　it　from　the　empirical
deduction；　which　indicates　the　mode　in　which　conception　is　obtained
through　experience　and　reflection　thereon；　consequently；　does　not
concern　itself　with　the　right；　but　only　with　the　fact　of　our　obtaining
conceptions　in　such　and　such　a　manner。　We　have　already　seen　that　we
are　in　possession　of　two　perfectly　different　kinds　of　conceptions；
which　nevertheless　agree　with　each　other　in　this；　that　they　both　apply
to　objects　pletely　a　priori。　These　are　the　conceptions　of　space　and
time　as　forms　of　sensibility；　and　the　categories　as　pure　conceptions
of　the　understanding。　To　attempt　an　empirical　deduction　of　either　of
these　classes　would　be　labour　in　vain；　because　the　distinguishing
characteristic　of　their　nature　consists　in　this；　that　they　apply　to
their　objects；　without　having　borrowed　anything　from　experience
towards　the　representation　of　them。　Consequently；　if　a　deduction　of
these　conceptions　is　necessary；　it　must　always　be　transcendental。
　　Meanwhile；　with　respect　to　these　conceptions；　as　with　respect　to　all
our　cognition；　we　certainly　may　discover　in　experience；　if　not　the
principle　of　their　possibility；　yet　the　occasioning　causes　of　their
production。　It　will　be　found　that　the　impressions　of　sense　give　the
first　occasion　for　bringing　into　action　the　whole　faculty　of
cognition；　and　for　the　production　of　experience；　which　contains　two
very　dissimilar　elements；　namely；　a　matter　for　cognition；　given　by　the
senses；　and　a　certain　form　for　the　arrangement　of　this　matter；　arising
out　of　the　inner　fountain　of　pure　intuition　and　thought；　and　these；　on
occasion　given　by　sensuous　impressions；　are　called　into　exercise　and
produce　conceptions。　Such　an　investigation　into　the　first　efforts　of
our　faculty　of　cognition　to　mount　from　particular　perceptions　to
general　conceptions　is　undoubtedly　of　great　utility；　and　we　have　to
thank　the　celebrated　Locke　for　having　first　opened　the　way　for　this
inquiry。　But　a　deduction　of　the　pure　a　priori　conceptions　of　course
never　can　be　made　in　this　way；　seeing　that；　in　regard　to　their
future　employment；　which　must　be　entirely　independent　of　experience；
they　must　have　a　far　different　certificate　of　birth　to　show　from
that　of　a　descent　from　experience。　This　attempted　physiological
derivation；　which　cannot　properly　be　called　deduction；　because　it
relates　merely　to　a　quaestio　facti；　I　shall　entitle　an　explanation
of　the　possession　of　a　pure　cognition。　It　is　therefore　manifest　that
there　can　only　be　a　transcendental　deduction　of　these　conceptions
and　by　no　means　an　empirical　one；　also；　that　all　attempts　at　an
empirical　deduction；　in　regard　to　pure　a　priori　conceptions；　are　vain；
and　can　only　be　made　by　one　who　does　not　understand　the　altogether
peculiar　nature　of　these　cognitions。
　　But　although　it　is　admitted　that　the　only　possible　deduction　of　pure
a　priori　cognition　is　a　transcendental　deduction；　it　is　not；　for
that　reason；　perfectly　manifest　that　such　a　deduction　is　absolutely
necessary。　We　have　already　traced　to　their　sources　the　conceptions
of　space　and　time；　by　means　of　a　transcendental　deduction；　and　we　have
explained　and　determined　their　objective　validity　a　priori。
Geometry；　nevertheless；　advances　steadily　and　securely　in　the　province
of　pure　a　priori　cognitions；　without　needing　to　ask　from　philosophy
any　certificate　as　to　the　pure　and　legitimate　origin　of　its
fundamental　conception　of　space。　But　the　use　of　the　conception　in　this
science　extends　only　to　the　external　world　of　sense；　the　pure　form
of　the　intuition　of　which　is　space；　and　in　this　world；　therefore；
all　geometrical　cognition；　because　it　is　founded　upon　a　priori
intuition；　possesses　immediate　evidence；　and　the　objects　of　this
cognition　are　given　a　priori　（as　regards　their　form）　in　intuition　by
and　through　the　cognition　itself。　With　the　pure　conceptions　of
understanding；　on　the　contrary；　mences　the　absolute　necessity　of
seeking　a　transcendental　deduction；　not　only　of　these　conceptions
themselves；　but　likewise　of　space；　because；　inasmuch　as　they　make
affirmations　concerning　objects　not　by　means　of　the　predicates　of
intuition　and　sensibility；　but　of　pure　thought　a　priori；　they　apply　to
objects　without　any　of　the　conditions　of　sensibility。　Besides；　not
being　founded　on　experience；　they　are　not　presented　with　any　object　in
a　priori　intuition　upon　which；　antecedently　to　experience；　they
might　base　their　synthesis。　Hence　results；　not　only　doubt　as　to　the
objective　validity　and　proper　limits　of　their　use；　but　that　even　our
conception　of　space　is　rendered　equivocal；　inasmuch　as　we　are　very
ready　with　the　aid　of　the　categories；　to　carry　the　use　of　this
conception　beyond　the　conditions　of　sensuous　intuition…　and；　for
this　reason；　we　have　already　found　a　transcendental　deduction　of　it
needful。　The　reader；　then；　must　be　quite　convinced　of　the　absolute
necessity　of　a　transcendental　deduction；　before　taking　a　single　step
in　the　field　of　pure　reason；　because　otherwise　he　goes　to　work
blindly；　and　after　he　has　wondered　about　in　all　directions；　returns　to
the　state　of　utter　ignorance　from　which　he　started。　He　ought；
moreover；　clearly　to　recognize　beforehand　the　unavoidable　difficulties
in　his　undertaking；　so　that　he　may　not　afterwards　plain　of　the
obscurity　in　which　the　subject　itself　is　deeply　involved；　or　bee
too　soon　impatient　of　the　obstacles　in　his　path；　because　we　have　a
choice　of　only　two　things…　either　at　once　to　give　up　all　pretensions
to　knowledge　beyond　the　limits　of　possible　experience；　or　to　bring
this　critical　investigation　to　pletion。
　　We　have　been　able；　with　very　little　trouble；　to　make　it
prehensible　how　the　conceptions　of　space　and　time；　although　a
priori　cognitions；　must　necessarily　apply　to　external　objects；　and
render　a　synthetical　cognition　of　these　possible；　independently　of　all
experience。　For　inasmuch　as　only　by　means　of　such　pure　form　of
sensibility　an　object　can　appear　to　us；　that　is；　be　an　object　of
empirical　intuition；　space　and　time　are　pure　intuitions；　which　contain
a　priori　the　condition　of　the　possibility　of　objects　as　phenomena；　and
an　a　priori　synthesis　in　these　intuitions　possesses　objective
validity。
　　On　the　other　hand；　the　categories　of　the　understanding　do　not
represent　the　conditions　under　which　objects　are　given　to　us　in
intuition；　objects　can　consequently　appear　to　us　without　necessarily
connecting　themselves　with　these；　and　consequently　without　any
necessity　binding　on　the　understanding　to　contain　a　priori　the
conditions　of　these　objects。　Thus　we　find　ourselves　involved　in　a
difficulty　which　did　not　present　itself　in　the　sphere　of
sensibility；　that　is　to　say；　we　cannot　discover　how　the　subjective
conditions　of　thought　can　have　objective　validity；　in　other　words；　can
bee　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　all　cognition　of　objects；
for　phenomena　may　certainly　be　given　to　us　in　intuition　without　any
help　from　the　functions　of　the　understanding。　Let　us　take；　for
example；　the　conception　of　cause；　which　indicates　a　peculiar　kind　of
synthesis；　namely；　that　with　somethin