the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第26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！


example；　the　conception　of　cause；　which　indicates　a　peculiar　kind　of
synthesis；　namely；　that　with　something；　A；　something　entirely
different；　B；　is　connected　according　to　a　law。　It　is　not　a　priori
manifest　why　phenomena　should　contain　anything　of　this　kind　（we　are　of
course　debarred　from　appealing　for　proof　to　experience；　for　the
objective　validity　of　this　conception　must　be　demonstrated　a
priori）；　and　it　hence　remains　doubtful　a　priori；　whether　such　a
conception　be　not　quite　void　and　without　any　corresponding　object
among　phenomena。　For　that　objects　of　sensuous　intuition　must
correspond　to　the　formal　conditions　of　sensibility　existing　a　priori
in　the　mind　is　quite　evident；　from　the　fact　that　without　these　they
could　not　be　objects　for　us；　but　that　they　must　also　correspond　to　the
conditions　which　understanding　requires　for　the　synthetical　unity　of
thought　is　an　assertion；　the　grounds　for　which　are　not　so　easily　to　be
discovered。　For　phenomena　might　be　so　constituted　as　not　to　correspond
to　the　conditions　of　the　unity　of　thought；　and　all　things　might　lie　in
such　confusion　that；　for　example；　nothing　could　be　met　with　in　the
sphere　of　phenomena　to　suggest　a　law　of　synthesis；　and　so　correspond
to　the　conception　of　cause　and　effect；　so　that　this　conception　would
be　quite　void；　null；　and　without　significance。　Phenomena　would
nevertheless　continue　to　present　objects　to　our　intuition；　for　mere
intuition　　does　not　in　any　respect　stand　in　need　of　the　functions　of
thought。
　　If　we　thought　to　free　ourselves　from　the　labour　of　these
investigations　by　saying：　〃Experience　is　constantly　offering　us
examples　of　the　relation　of　cause　and　effect　in　phenomena；　and
presents　us　with　abundant　opportunity　of　abstracting　the　conception　of
cause；　and　so　at　the　same　time　of　corroborating　the　objective　validity
of　this　conception〃；　we　should　in　this　case　be　overlooking　the　fact；
that　the　conception　of　cause　cannot　arise　in　this　way　at　all；　that；　on
the　contrary；　it　must　either　have　an　a　priori　basis　in　the；
understanding；　or　be　rejected　as　a　mere　chimera。　For　this　conception
demands　that　something；　A；　should　be　of　such　a　nature　that　something
else；　B；　should　follow　from　it　necessarily；　and　according　to　an
absolutely　universal　law。　We　may　certainly　collect　from　phenomena　a
law；　according　to　which　this　or　that　usually　happens；　but　the
element　of　necessity　is　not　to　be　found　in　it。　Hence　it　is　evident
that　to　the　synthesis　of　cause　and　effect　belongs　a　dignity；　which
is　utterly　wanting　in　any　empirical　synthesis；　for　it　is　no　mere
mechanical　synthesis；　by　means　of　addition；　but　a　dynamical　one；
that　is　to　say；　the　effect　is　not　to　be　cogitated　as　merely　annexed　to
the　cause；　but　as　posited　by　and　through　the　cause；　and　resulting　from
it。　The　strict　universality　of　this　law　never　can　be　a
characteristic　of　empirical　laws；　which　obtain　through　induction
only　a　parative　universality；　that　is；　an　extended　range　of
practical　application。　But　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding
would　entirely　lose　all　their　peculiar　character；　if　we　treated　them
merely　as　the　productions　of　experience。

　　　　　Transition　to　the　Transcendental　Deduction　of　the
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Categories。　SS　10

　　There　are　only　two　possible　ways　in　which　synthetical　representation
and　its　objects　can　coincide　with　and　relate　necessarily　to　each
other；　and；　as　it　were；　meet　together。　Either　the　object　alone　makes
the　representation　possible；　or　the　representation　alone　makes　the
object　possible。　In　the　former　case；　the　relation　between　them　is　only
empirical；　and　an　a　priori　representation　is　impossible。　And　this　is
the　case　with　phenomena；　as　regards　that　in　them　which　is　referable　to
mere　sensation。　In　the　latter　case…　although　representation　alone　（for
of　its　causality；　by　means　of　the　will；　we　do　not　here　speak）　does　not
produce　the　object　as　to　its　existence；　it　must　nevertheless　be　a
priori　determinative　in　regard　to　the　object；　if　it　is　only　by　means
of　the　representation　that　we　can　cognize　anything　as　an　object。　Now
there　are　only　two　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　a　cognition　of
objects；　firstly；　intuition；　by　means　of　which　the　object；　though　only
as　phenomenon；　is　given；　secondly；　conception；　by　means　of　which　the
object　which　corresponds　to　this　intuition　is　thought。　But　it　is
evident　from　what　has　been　said　on　aesthetic　that　the　first　condition；
under　which　alone　objects　can　be　intuited；　must　in　fact　exist；　as　a
formal　basis　for　them；　a　priori　in　the　mind。　With　this　formal
condition　of　sensibility；　therefore；　all　phenomena　necessarily
correspond；　because　it　is　only　through　it　that　they　can　be　phenomena
at　all；　that　is；　can　be　empirically　intuited　and　given。　Now　the
question　is　whether　there　do　not　exist；　a　priori　in　the　mind；
conceptions　of　understanding　also；　as　conditions　under　which　alone
something；　if　not　intuited；　is　yet　thought　as　object。　If　this　question
be　answered　in　the　affirmative；　it　follows　that　all　empirical
cognition　of　objects　is　necessarily　conformable　to　such　conceptions；
since；　if　they　are　not　presupposed；　it　is　impossible　that　anything　can
be　an　object　of　experience。　Now　all　experience　contains；　besides　the
intuition　of　the　senses　through　which　an　object　is　given；　a　conception
also　of　an　object　that　is　given　in　intuition。　Accordingly；　conceptions
of　objects　in　general　must　lie　as　a　priori　conditions　at　the
foundation　of　all　empirical　cognition；　and　consequently；　the　objective
validity　of　the　categories；　as　a　priori　conceptions；　will　rest　upon
this；　that　experience　（as　far　as　regards　the　form　of　thought）　is
possible　only　by　their　means。　For　in　that　case　they　apply
necessarily　and　a　priori　to　objects　of　experience；　because　only
through　them　can　an　object　of　experience　be　thought。
　　The　whole　aim　of　the　transcendental　deduction　of　all　a　priori
conceptions　is　to　show　that　these　conceptions　are　a　priori
conditions　of　the　possibility　of　all　experience。　Conceptions　which
afford　us　the　objective　foundation　of　the　possibility　of　experience
are　for　that　very　reason　necessary。　But　the　analysis　of　the
experiences　in　which　they　are　met　with　is　not　deduction；　but　only　an
illustration　of　them；　because　from　experience　they　could　never
derive　the　attribute　of　necessity。　Without　their　original
applicability　and　relation　to　all　possible　experience；　in　which　all
objects　of　cognition　present　themselves；　the　relation　of　the
categories　to　objects；　of　whatever　nature；　would　be　quite
inprehensible。
　　The　celebrated　Locke；　for　want　of　due　reflection　on　these　points；
and　because　he　met　with　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　in
experience；　sought　also　to　deduce　them　from　experience；　and　yet
proceeded　so　inconsequently　as　to　attempt；　with　their　aid；　to　arrive
it　cognitions　which　lie　far　beyond　the　limits　of　all　experience。　David
Hume　perceived　that；　to　render　this　possible；　it　was　necessary　that
the　conceptions　should　have　an　a　priori　origin。　But　as　he　could　not
explain　how　it　was　possible　that　conceptions　which　are　not　connected
with　each　other　in　the　understanding　must　nevertheless　be　thought　as
necessarily　connected　in　the　object…　and　it　never　occurred　to　him　that
the　understanding　itself　might；　perhaps；　by　means　of　these
conceptions；　be　the　author　of　the　experience　in　which　its　objects　were
presented　to　it…　he　was　forced　to　drive　these　conceptions　from
experience；　that　is；　from　a　subjective　necessity　arising　from　repeated
association　of　experiences　erroneously　considered　to　be　objective…
in　one　word；　from　habit。　But　he　proceeded　with　perfect　consequence　and
declared　it　to　be　impossible；　with　such　conceptions　and　the　principles
arising　from　them；　to　overstep　the　limits　of　experience。　The　empirical
derivation；　however；　which　both　of　these　philosophers　attributed　to
these　conceptions；　cannot　possibly　be　reconciled　with　the　fact　that　we
do　possess　scientific　a　priori　cognitions；　namely；　those　of　pure
mathematics　and　general　physics。
　　The　former　of　these　two　celebrated　men　opened　a　wide　door　to
extravagance…　（for　if　reason　has　once　undoubted　right　on　its　side；
it　will　not　allow　itself　to　be　confined　to　set　limits；　by　vague
remendations　of　moderation）；　the　latter　gave　himself　up　entirely　to
scepticism…　a　natural　consequence；　after　having　discovered；　as　he
thought；　that　the　faculty　of　cognition　was　not　trustworthy。　We　now
intend　to　make　a　trial　whether　it　be　not　possible　safely　to　conduct
reason　between　these　two　rocks；　to　assign　her　determinate　limits；
and　yet　leave　open　for　her　the　entire　sphere　of　her　legitimate
activity。
　　I　shall　merely　premise　an　explanation　of　what　the　categories　are。
They　are　conceptions　of　an　object　in　general；　by　means　of　which　its
intuition　is　contemplated　as　determined　in　relation　to　one　of　the
logical　functions　of　judgement。　The　following　will　make　this　plain。
The　function　of　the　categorical　judgement　is　that　of　the　relation　of
subject　to　predicate；　for　example；　in　the　proposition：　〃All　bodies　are
divisible。〃　But　in　regard　to　the　merely　logical　use　of　the
understanding；　it　still　remains　undetermined　to　which　Of　these　two
conceptions　belongs　the　function　Of　subject　and　to　which　that　of
predicate。　For　we　could　also　say：　〃Som