the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第31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！


same　subject；　how；　therefore；　I　am　able　to　say：　〃I；　as　an　intelligence
and　thinking　subject；　cognize　myself　as　an　object　thought；　so　far　as　I
am；　moreover；　given　to　myself　in　intuition…　only；　like　other
phenomena；　not　as　I　am　in　myself；　and　as　considered　by　the
understanding；　but　merely　as　I　appear〃…　is　a　question　that　has　in　it
neither　more　nor　less　difficulty　than　the　question…　〃How　can　I　be　an
object　to　myself？〃　or　this…　〃How　I　can　be　an　object　of　my　own
intuition　and　internal　perceptions？〃　But　that　such　must　be　the　fact；
if　we　admit　that　space　is　merely　a　pure　form　of　the　phenomena　of
external　sense；　can　be　clearly　proved　by　the　consideration　that　we
cannot　represent　time；　which　is　not　an　object　of　external　intuition；
in　any　other　way　than　under　the　image　of　a　line；　which　we　draw　in
thought；　a　mode　of　representation　without　which　we　could　not　cognize
the　unity　of　its　dimension；　and　also　that　we　are　necessitated　to
take　our　determination　of　periods　of　time；　or　of　points　of　time；　for
all　our　internal　perceptions　from　the　changes　which　we　perceive　in
outward　things。　It　follows　that　we　must　arrange　the　determinations
of　the　internal　sense；　as　phenomena　in　time；　exactly　in　the　same
manner　as　we　arrange　those　of　the　external　senses　in　space。　And
consequently；　if　we　grant；　respecting　this　latter；　that　by　means　of
them　we　know　objects　only　in　so　far　as　we　are　affected　externally；
we　must　also　confess；　with　regard　to　the　internal　sense；　that　by　means
of　it　we　intuite　ourselves　only　as　we　are　internally　affected　by
ourselves；　in　other　words；　as　regards　internal　intuition；　we　cognize
our　own　subject　only　as　phenomenon；　and　not　as　it　is　in　itself。*＇2＇

　　*Motion　of　an　object　in　space　does　not　belong　to　a　pure　science；
consequently　not　to　geometry；　because；　that　a　thing　is　movable
cannot　be　known　a　priori；　but　only　from　experience。　But　motion；
considered　as　the　description　of　a　space；　is　a　pure　act　of　the
successive　synthesis　of　the　manifold　in　external　intuition　by　means　of
productive　imagination；　and　belongs　not　only　to　geometry；　but　even
to　transcendental　philosophy。
　　*＇2＇　I　do　not　see　why　so　much　difficulty　should　be　found　in
admitting　that　our　internal　sense　is　affected　by　ourselves。　Every
act　of　attention　exemplifies　it。　In　such　an　act　the　understanding
determines　the　internal　sense　by　the　synthetical　conjunction　which
it　cogitates；　conformably　to　the　internal　intuition　which
corresponds　to　the　manifold　in　the　synthesis　of　the　understanding。　How
much　the　mind　is　usually　affected　thereby　every　one　will　be　able　to
perceive　in　himself。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SS　21

　　On　the　other　hand；　in　the　transcendental　synthesis　of　the　manifold
content　of　representations；　consequently　in　the　synthetical　unity　of
apperception；　I　am　conscious　of　myself；　not　as　I　appear　to　myself；　nor
as　I　am　in　myself；　but　only　that　〃I　am。〃　This　representation　is　a
thought；　not　an　intuition。　Now；　as　in　order　to　cognize　ourselves；　in
addition　to　the　act　of　thinking；　which　subjects　the　manifold　of
every　possible　intuition　to　the　unity　of　apperception；　there　is
necessary　a　determinate　mode　of　intuition；　whereby　this　manifold　is
given；　although　my　own　existence　is　certainly　not　mere　phenomenon
（much　less　mere　illusion）；　the　determination　of　my　existence*　Can　only
take　place　conformably　to　the　form　of　the　internal　sense；　according　to
the　particular　mode　in　which　the　manifold　which　I　conjoin　is　given
in　internal　intuition；　and　I　have　therefore　no　knowledge　of　myself
as　I　am；　but　merely　as　I　appear　to　myself。　The　consciousness　of　self
is　thus　very　far　from　a　knowledge　of　self；　in　which　I　do　not　use　the
categories；　whereby　I　cogitate　an　object；　by　means　of　the
conjunction　of　the　manifold　in　one　apperception。　In　the　same　way　as
I　require；　for　the　sake　of　the　cognition　of　an　object　distinct　from
myself；　not　only　the　thought　of　an　object　in　general　（in　the
category）；　but　also　an　intuition　by　which　to　determine　that　general
conception；　in　the　same　way　do　I　require；　in　order　to　the　cognition　of
myself；　not　only　the　consciousness　of　myself　or　the　thought　that　I
think　myself；　but　in　addition　an　intuition　of　the　manifold　in
myself；　by　which　to　determine　this　thought。　It　is　true　that　I　exist　as
an　intelligence　which　is　conscious　only　of　its　faculty　of
conjunction　or　synthesis；　but　subjected　in　relation　to　the　manifold
which　this　intelligence　has　to　conjoin　to　a　limitative　conjunction
called　the　internal　sense。　My　intelligence　（that　is；　I）　can　render
that　conjunction　or　synthesis　perceptible　only　according　to　the
relations　of　time；　which　are　quite　beyond　the　proper　sphere　of　the
conceptions　of　the　understanding　and　consequently　cognize　itself　in
respect　to　an　intuition　（which　cannot　possibly　be　intellectual；　nor
given　by　the　understanding）；　only　as　it　appears　to　itself；　and　not
as　it　would　cognize　itself；　if　its　intuition　were　intellectual。

　　*The　〃I　think〃　expresses　the　act　of　determining　my　own　existence。　My
existence　is　thus　already　given　by　the　act　of　consciousness；　but　the
mode　in　which　I　must　determine　my　existence；　that　is；　the　mode　in
which　I　must　place　the　manifold　belonging　to　my　existence；　is　not
thereby　given。　For　this　purpose　intuition　of　self　is　required；　and
this　intuition　possesses　a　form　given　a　priori；　namely；　time；　which　is
sensuous；　and　belongs　to　our　receptivity　of　the　determinable。　Now；
as　I　do　not　possess　another　intuition　of　self　which　gives　the
determining　in　me　（of　the　spontaneity　of　which　I　am　conscious）；
prior　to　the　act　of　determination；　in　the　same　manner　as　time　gives
the　determinable；　it　is　clear　that　I　am　unable　to　determine　my　own
existence　as　that　of　a　spontaneous　being；　but　I　am　only　able　to
represent　to　myself　the　spontaneity　of　my　thought；　that　is；　of　my
determination；　and　my　existence　remains　ever　determinable　in　a
purely　sensuous　manner；　that　is　to　say；　like　the　existence　of　a
phenomenon。　But　it　is　because　of　this　spontaneity　that　I　call　myself
an　intelligence。

　　　　　　Transcendental　Deduction　of　the　universally　possible
　　　　　　　　employment　in　experience　of　the　Pure　Conceptions
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　the　Understanding。　SS　22

　　In　the　metaphysical　deduction；　the　a　priori　origin　of　categories　was
proved　by　their　plete　accordance　with　the　general　logical　of
thought；　in　the　transcendental　deduction　was　exhibited　the　possibility
of　the　categories　as　a　priori　cognitions　of　objects　of　an　intuition　in
general　（SS　16　and　17）。At　present　we　are　about　to　explain　the
possibility　of　cognizing；　a　priori；　by　means　of　the　categories；　all
objects　which　can　possibly　be　presented　to　our　senses；　not；　indeed；
according　to　the　form　of　their　intuition；　but　according　to　the　laws　of
their　conjunction　or　synthesis；　and　thus；　as　it　were；　of　prescribing
laws　to　nature　and　even　of　rendering　nature　possible。　For　if　the
categories　were　inadequate　to　this　task；　it　would　not　be　evident　to　us
why　everything　that　is　presented　to　our　senses　must　be　subject　to
those　laws　which　have　an　a　priori　origin　in　the　understanding　itself。
　　I　premise　that　by　the　term　synthesis　of　apprehension　I　understand
the　bination　of　the　manifold　in　an　empirical　intuition；　whereby
perception；　that　is；　empirical　consciousness　of　the　intuition　（as
phenomenon）；　is　possible。
　　We　have　a　priori　forms　of　the　external　and　internal　sensuous
intuition　in　the　representations　of　space　and　time；　and　to　these
must　the　synthesis　of　apprehension　of　the　manifold　in　a　phenomenon
be　always　formable；　because　the　synthesis　itself　can　only　take
place　according　to　these　forms。　But　space　and　time　are　not　merely
forms　of　sensuous　intuition；　but　intuitions　themselves　（which
contain　a　manifold）；　and　therefore　contain　a　priori　the
determination　of　the　unity　of　this　manifold。*　（See　the　Transcendent
Aesthetic。）　Therefore　is　unity　of　the　synthesis　of　the　manifold
without　or　within　us；　consequently　also　a　conjunction　to　which　all
that　is　to　be　represented　as　determined　in　space　or　time　must
correspond；　given　a　priori　along　with　（not　in）　these　intuitions；　as
the　condition　of　the　synthesis　of　all　apprehension　of　them。　But　this
synthetical　unity　can　be　no　other　than　that　of　the　conjunction　of
the　manifold　of　a　given　intuition　in　general；　in　a　primitive　act　of
consciousness；　according　to　the　categories；　but　applied　to　our
sensuous　intuition。　Consequently　all　synthesis；　whereby　alone　is
even　perception　possible；　is　subject　to　the　categories。　And；　as
experience　is　cognition　by　means　of　conjoined　perceptions；　the
categories　are　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　experience　and　are
therefore　valid　a　priori　for　all　objects　of　experience。

　　*Space　represented　as　an　object　（as　geometry　really　requires　it　to
be）　contains　more　than　the　mere　form　of　the　intuition；　namely；　a
bination　of　the　manifold　given　according　to　the　form　of　sensibility
into　a　representation　that　can　be　intuited；　so　that　the　form　of　the
intuition　gives　us　merely　the　manifold；　but　the　formal　intuition　gives
unity　of　representation。　In　the　aesthetic；　I　regarded　this　unity　as
belonging　entirely　to　sensibility；　for　the　purpose　of　indicating
that　it　antecedes　all　conceptions；　although　it　presupposes　a　synthesis
which　does　not　belong　to　sense；　thr