the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第32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！


that　it　antecedes　all　conceptions；　although　it　presupposes　a　synthesis
which　does　not　belong　to　sense；　through　which　alone；　however；　all
our　conceptions　of　space　and　time　are　possible。　For　as　by　means　of
this　unity　alone　（the　understanding　determining　the　sensibility）　space
and　time　are　given　as　intuitions；　it　follows　that　the　unity　of　this
intuition　a　priori　belongs　to　space　and　time；　and　not　to　the
conception　of　the　understanding　（SS　20）。

　　When；　then；　for　example；　I　make　the　empirical　intuition　of　a　house
by　apprehension　of　the　manifold　contained　therein　into　a　perception；
the　necessary　unity　of　space　and　of　my　external　sensuous　intuition
lies　at　the　foundation　of　this　act；　and　I；　as　it　were；　draw　the　form
of　the　house　conformably　to　this　synthetical　unity　of　the　manifold
in　space。　But　this　very　synthetical　unity　remains；　even　when　I
abstract　the　form　of　space；　and　has　its　seat　in　the　understanding；　and
is　in　fact　the　category　of　the　synthesis　of　the　homogeneous　in　an
intuition；　that　is　to　say；　the　category　of　quantity；　to　which　the
aforesaid　synthesis　of　apprehension；　that　is；　the　perception；　must
be　pletely　conformable。*

　　*In　this　manner　it　is　proved；　that　the　synthesis　of　apprehension；
which　is　empirical；　must　necessarily　be　conformable　to　the　synthesis
of　apperception；　which　is　intellectual；　and　contained　a　priori　in
the　category。　It　is　one　and　the　same　spontaneity　which　at　one　time；
under　the　name　of　imagination；　at　another　under　that　of　understanding；
produces　conjunction　in　the　manifold　of　intuition。

　　To　take　another　example；　when　I　perceive　the　freezing　of　water；　I
apprehend　two　states　（fluidity　and　solidity）；　which；　as　such；　stand
toward　each　other　mutually　in　a　relation　of　time。　But　in　the　time；
which　I　place　as　an　internal　intuition；　at　the　foundation　of　this
phenomenon；　I　represent　to　myself　synthetical　unity　of　the　manifold；
without　which　the　aforesaid　relation　could　not　be　given　in　an
intuition　as　determined　（in　regard　to　the　succession　of　time）。　Now
this　synthetical　unity；　as　the　a　priori　condition　under　which　I
conjoin　the　manifold　of　an　intuition；　is；　if　I　make　abstraction　of　the
permanent　form　of　my　internal　intuition　（that　is　to　say；　of　time）；　the
category　of　cause；　by　means　of　which；　when　applied　to　my
sensibility；　I　determine　everything　that　occurs　according　to　relations
of　time。　Consequently　apprehension　in　such　an　event；　and　the　event
itself；　as　far　as　regards　the　possibility　of　its　perception；　stands
under　the　conception　of　the　relation　of　cause　and　effect：　and　so　in
all　other　cases。

　　Categories　are　conceptions　which　prescribe　laws　a　priori　to
phenomena；　consequently　to　nature　as　the　plex　of　all　phenomena
（natura　materialiter　spectata）。　And　now　the　question　arises…
inasmuch　as　these　categories　are　not　derived　from　nature；　and　do　not
regulate　themselves　according　to　her　as　their　model　（for　in　that
case　they　would　be　empirical）…　how　it　is　conceivable　that　nature
must　regulate　herself　according　to　them；　in　other　words；　how　the
categories　can　determine　a　priori　the　synthesis　of　the　manifold　of
nature；　and　yet　not　derive　their　origin　from　her。　The　following　is　the
solution　of　this　enigma。
　　It　is　not　in　the　least　more　difficult　to　conceive　how　the　laws　of
the　phenomena　of　nature　must　harmonize　with　the　understanding　and　with
its　a　priori　form…　that　is；　its　faculty　of　conjoining　the　manifold…
than　it　is　to　understand　how　the　phenomena　themselves　must
correspond　with　the　a　priori　form　of　our　sensuous　intuition。　For
laws　do　not　exist　in　the　phenomena　any　more　than　the　phenomena　exist
as　things　in　themselves。　Laws　do　not　exist　except　by　relation　to　the
subject　in　which　the　phenomena　inhere；　in　so　far　as　it　possesses
understanding；　just　as　phenomena　have　no　existence　except　by
relation　to　the　same　existing　subject　in　so　far　as　it　has　senses。　To
things　as　things　in　themselves；　conformability　to　law　must　necessarily
belong　independently　of　an　understanding　to　cognize　them。　But
phenomena　are　only　representations　of　things　which　are　utterly　unknown
in　respect　to　what　they　are　in　themselves。　But　as　mere
representations；　they　stand　under　no　law　of　conjunction　except　that
which　the　conjoining　faculty　prescribes。　Now　that　which　conjoins　the
manifold　of　sensuous　intuition　is　imagination；　a　mental　act　to　which
understanding　contributes　unity　of　intellectual　synthesis；　and
sensibility；　manifoldness　of　apprehension。　Now　as　all　possible
perception　depends　on　the　synthesis　of　apprehension；　and　this
empirical　synthesis　itself　on　the　transcendental；　consequently　on
the　categories；　it　is　evident　that　all　possible　perceptions；　and
therefore　everything　that　can　attain　to　empirical　consciousness；
that　is；　all　phenomena　of　nature；　must；　as　regards　their
conjunction；　be　subject　to　the　categories。　And　nature　（considered
merely　as　nature　in　general）　is　dependent　on　them。　as　the　original
ground　of　her　necessary　conformability　to　law　（as　natura　formaliter
spectata）。　But　the　pure　faculty　（of　the　understanding）　of
prescribing　laws　a　priori　to　phenomena　by　means　of　mere　categories；　is
not　petent　to　enounce　other　or　more　laws　than　those　on　which　a
nature　in　general；　as　a　conformability　to　law　of　phenomena　of　space
and　time；　depends。　Particular　laws；　inasmuch　as　they　concern
empirically　determined　phenomena；　cannot　be　entirely　deduced　from　pure
laws；　although　they　all　stand　under　them。　Experience　must　be
superadded　in　order　to　know　these　particular　laws；　but　in　regard　to
experience　in　general；　and　everything　that　can　be　cognized　as　an
object　thereof；　these　a　priori　laws　are　our　only　rule　and　guide。

　　　　　　　Result　of　this　Deduction　of　the　Conceptions　of　the
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Understanding。　SS　23

　　We　cannot　think　any　object　except　by　means　of　the　categories；　we
cannot　cognize　any　thought　except　by　means　of　intuitions　corresponding
to　these　conceptions。　Now　all　our　intuitions　are　sensuous；　and　our
cognition；　in　so　far　as　the　object　of　it　is　given；　is　empirical。　But
empirical　cognition　is　experience；　consequently　no　a　priori
cognition　is　possible　for　us；　except　of　objects　of　possible
experience。*

　　*Lest　my　readers　should　stumble　at　this　assertion；　and　the
conclusions　that　may　be　too　rashly　drawn　from　it；　I　must　remind　them
that　the　categories　in　the　act　of　thought　are　by　no　means　limited　by
the　conditions　of　our　sensuous　intuition；　but　have　an　unbounded　sphere
of　action。　It　is　only　the　cognition　of　the　object　of　thought；　the
determining　of　the　object；　which　requires　intuition。　In　the　absence　of
intuition；　our　thought　of　an　object　may　still　have　true　and　useful
consequences　in　regard　to　the　exercise　of　reason　by　the　subject。　But
as　this　exercise　of　reason　is　not　always　directed　on　the　determination
of　the　object；　in　other　words；　on　cognition　thereof；　but　also　on　the
determination　of　the　subject　and　its　volition；　I　do　not　intend　to
treat　of　it　in　this　place。

　　But　this　cognition；　which　is　limited　to　objects　of　experience；　is
not　for　that　reason　derived　entirely；　from；　experience；　but…　and
this　is　asserted　of　the　pure　intuitions　and　the　pure　conceptions　of
the　understanding…　there　are；　unquestionably；　elements　of　cognition；
which　exist　in　the　mind　a　priori。　Now　there　are　only　two　ways　in　which
a　necessary　harmony　of　experience　with　the　conceptions　of　its
objects　can　be　cogitated。　Either　experience　makes　these　conceptions
possible；　or　the　conceptions　make　experience　possible。　The　former　of
these　statements　will　not　bold　good　with　respect　to　the　categories
（nor　in　regard　to　pure　sensuous　intuition）；　for　they　are　a　priori
conceptions；　and　therefore　independent　of　experience。　The　assertion　of
an　empirical　origin　would　attribute　to　them　a　sort　of　generatio
aequivoca。　Consequently；　nothing　remains　but　to　adopt　the　second
alternative　（which　presents　us　with　a　system；　as　it　were；　of　the
epigenesis　of　pure　reason）；　namely；　that　on　the　part　of　the
understanding　the　categories　do　contain　the　grounds　of　the　possibility
of　all　experience。　But　with　respect　to　the　questions　how　they　make
experience　possible；　and　what　are　the　principles　of　the　possibility
thereof　with　which　they　present　us　in　their　application　to
phenomena；　the　following　section　on　the　transcendental　exercise　of　the
faculty　of　judgement　will　inform　the　reader。
　　It　is　quite　possible　that　someone　may　propose　a　species　of
preformation…system　of　pure　reason…　a　middle　way　between　the　two…　to
wit；　that　the　categories　are　neither　innate　and　first　a　priori
principles　of　cognition；　nor　derived　from　experience；　but　are　merely
subjective　aptitudes　for　thought　implanted　in　us　contemporaneously
with　our　existence；　which　were　so　ordered　and　disposed　by　our　Creator；
that　their　exercise　perfectly　harmonizes　with　the　laws　of　nature　which
regulate　experience。　Now；　not　to　mention　that　with　such　an
hypothesis　it　is　impossible　to　say　at　what　point　we　must　stop　in　the
employment　of　predetermined　aptitudes；　the　fact　that　the　categories
would　in　this　case　entirely　lose　that　character　of　necessity　which
is　essentially　involved　in　the　very　conception　of　them；　is　a
conclusive　objection　to　it。　The　conception　of　cause；　for　example；
which　expresses　the　necessity　of　an　effect　u