the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第37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！


meaning。　And　so　it　is　with　all　conceptions　without　distinction。
　　The　possibility　of　experience　is；　then；　that　which　gives　objective
reality　to　all　our　a　priori　cognitions。　Now　experience　depends　upon
the　synthetical　unity　of　phenomena；　that　is；　upon　a　synthesis
according　to　conceptions　of　the　object　of　phenomena　in　general；　a
synthesis　without　which　experience　never　could　bee　knowledge；　but
would　be　merely　a　rhapsody　of　perceptions；　never　fitting　together　into
any　connected　text；　according　to　rules　of　a　thoroughly　united
（possible）　consciousness；　and　therefore　never　subjected　to　the
transcendental　and　necessary　unity　of　apperception。　Experience　has
therefore　for　a　foundation；　a　priori　principles　of　its　form；　that　is
to　say；　general　rules　of　unity　in　the　synthesis　of　phenomena；　the
objective　reality　of　which　rules；　as　necessary　conditions　even　of
the　possibility　of　experience　can　which　rules；　as　necessary
conditions…　even　of　the　possibility　of　experience…　can　always　be　shown
in　experience。　But　apart　from　this　relation；　a　priori　synthetical
propositions　are　absolutely　impossible；　because　they　have　no　third
term；　that　is；　no　pure　object；　in　which　the　synthetical　unity　can
exhibit　the　objective　reality　of　its　conceptions。
　　Although；　then；　respecting　space；　or　the　forms　which　productive
imagination　describes　therein；　we　do　cognize　much　a　priori　in
synthetical　judgements；　and　are　really　in　no　need　of　experience　for
this　purpose；　such　knowledge　would　nevertheless　amount　to　nothing
but　a　busy　trifling　with　a　mere　chimera；　were　not　space　to　be
considered　as　the　condition　of　the　phenomena　which　constitute　the
material　of　external　experience。　Hence　those　pure　synthetical
judgements　do　relate；　though　but　mediately；　to　possible　experience；　or
rather　to　the　possibility　of　experience；　and　upon　that　alone　is
founded　the　objective　validity　of　their　synthesis。
　　While　then；　on　the　one　hand；　experience；　as　empirical　synthesis；
is　the　only　possible　mode　of　cognition　which　gives　reality　to　all
other　synthesis；　on　the　other　hand；　this　latter　synthesis；　as
cognition　a　priori；　possesses　truth；　that　is；　accordance　with　its
object；　only　in　so　far　as　it　contains　nothing　more　than　what　is
necessary　to　the　synthetical　unity　of　experience。
　　Accordingly；　the　supreme　principle　of　all　synthetical　judgements　is：
〃Every　object　is　subject　to　the　necessary　conditions　of　the
synthetical　unity　of　the　manifold　of　intuition　in　a　possible
experience。〃
　　A　priori　synthetical　judgements　are　possible　when　we　apply　the
formal　conditions　of　the　a　priori　intuition；　the　synthesis　of　the
imagination；　and　the　necessary　unity　of　that　synthesis　in　a
transcendental　apperception；　to　a　possible　cognition　of　experience；
and　say：　〃The　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　experience　in　general
are　at　the　same　time　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　the　objects　of
experience；　and　have；　for　that　reason；　objective　validity　in　an　a
priori　synthetical　judgement。〃

　　　　　SECTION　III。　Systematic　Representation　of　all　Synthetical
　　　　　　　　　　　　　Principles　of　the　Pure　Understanding。

　　That　principles　exist　at　all　is　to　be　ascribed　solely　to　the　pure
understanding；　which　is　not　only　the　faculty　of　rules　in　regard　to
that　which　happens；　but　is　even　the　source　of　principles　according
to　which　everything　that　can　be　presented　to　us　as　an　object　is
necessarily　subject　to　rules；　because　without　such　rules　we　never
could　attain　to　cognition　of　an　object。　Even　the　laws　of　nature；　if
they　are　contemplated　as　principles　of　the　empirical　use　of　the
understanding；　possess　also　a　characteristic　of　necessity；　and　we
may　therefore　at　least　expect　them　to　be　determined　upon　grounds　which
are　valid　a　priori　and　antecedent　to　all　experience。　But　all　laws　of
nature；　without　distinction；　are　subject　to　higher　principles　of　the
understanding；　inasmuch　as　the　former　are　merely　applications　of　the
latter　to　particular　cases　of　experience。　These　higher　principles
alone　therefore　give　the　conception；　which　contains　the　necessary
condition；　and；　as　it　were；　the　exponent　of　a　rule；　experience；　on　the
other　hand；　gives　the　case　which　es　under　the　rule。
　　There　is　no　danger　of　our　mistaking　merely　empirical　principles
for　principles　of　the　pure　understanding；　or　conversely；　for　the
character　of　necessity；　according　to　conceptions　which　distinguish　the
latter；　and　the　absence　of　this　in　every　empirical　proposition；　how
extensively　valid　soever　it　may　be；　is　a　perfect　safeguard　against
confounding　them。　There　are；　however；　pure　principles　a　priori；
which　nevertheless　I　should　not　ascribe　to　the　pure　understanding…　for
this　reason；　that　they　are　not　derived　from　pure　conceptions；　but
（although　by　the　mediation　of　the　understanding）　from　pure　intuitions。
But　understanding　is　the　faculty　of　conceptions。　Such　principles
mathematical　science　possesses；　but　their　application　to　experience；
consequently　their　objective　validity；　nay　the　possibility　of　such　a
priori　synthetical　cognitions　（the　deduction　thereof）　rests　entirely
upon　the　pure　understanding。
　　On　this　account；　I　shall　not　reckon　among　my　principles　those　of
mathematics；　though　I　shall　include　those　upon　the　possibility　and
objective　validity　a　priori；　of　principles　of　the　mathematical
science；　which；　consequently；　are　to　be　looked　upon　as　the　principle
of　these；　and　which　proceed　from　conceptions　to　intuition；　and　not
from　intuition　to　conceptions。
　　In　the　application　of　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　to
possible　experience；　the　employment　of　their　synthesis　is　either
mathematical　or　dynamical；　for　it　is　directed　partly　on　the
intuition　alone；　partly　on　the　existence　of　a　phenomenon。　But　the　a
priori　conditions　of　intuition　are　in　relation　to　a　possible
experience　absolutely　necessary；　those　of　the　existence　of　objects
of　a　possible　empirical　intuition　are　in　themselves　contingent。
Hence　the　principles　of　the　mathematical　use　of　the　categories　will
possess　a　character　of　absolute　necessity；　that　is；　will　be
apodeictic；　those；　on　the　other　hand；　of　the　dynamical　use；　the
character　of　an　a　priori　necessity　indeed；　but　only　under　the
condition　of　empirical　thought　in　an　experience；　therefore　only
mediately　and　indirectly。　Consequently　they　will　not　possess　that
immediate　evidence　which　is　peculiar　to　the　former；　although　their
application　to　experience　does　not；　for　that　reason；　lose　its　truth
and　certitude。　But　of　this　point　we　shall　be　better　able　to　judge　at
the　conclusion　of　this　system　of　principles。
　　The　table　of　the　categories　is　naturally　our　guide　to　the　table　of
principles；　because　these　are　nothing　else　than　rules　for　the
objective　employment　of　the　former。　Accordingly；　all　principles　of　the
pure　understanding　are：

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　1
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Axioms
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　Intuition

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　　　　　　　Anticipations　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Analogies
　　　　　　　　　　of　Perception　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　Experience
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Postulates　of
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Empirical　Thought
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　in　general

　　These　appellations　I　have　chosen　advisedly；　in　order　that　we　might
not　lose　sight　of　the　distinctions　in　respect　of　the　evidence　and
the　employment　of　these　principles。　It　will；　however；　soon　appear
that…　a　fact　which　concerns　both　the　evidence　of　these　principles；　and
the　a　priori　determination　of　phenomena…　according　to　the　categories
of　quantity　and　quality　（if　we　attend　merely　to　the　form　of　these）；
the　principles　of　these　categories　are　distinguishable　from　those　of
the　two　others；　in　as　much　as　the　former　are　possessed　of　an
intuitive；　but　the　latter　of　a　merely　discursive；　though　in　both
instances　a　plete；　certitude。　I　shall　therefore　call　the　former
mathematical；　and　the　latter　dynamical　principles。*　It　must　be
observed；　however；　that　by　these　terms　I　mean　just　as　little　in　the
one　case　the　principles　of　mathematics　as　those　of　general
（physical）　dynamics　in　the　other。　I　have　here　in　view　merely　the
principles　of　the　pure　understanding；　in　their　application　to　the
internal　sense　（without　distinction　of　the　representations　given
therein）；　by　means　of　which　the　sciences　of　mathematics　and　dynamics
bee　possible。　Accordingly；　I　have　named　these　principles　rather
with　reference　to　their　application　than　their　content；　and　I　shall
now　proceed　to　consider　them　in　the　order　in　which　they　stand　in　the
table。

　　*All　bination　（conjunctio）　is　either　position　（positio）
or　connection　（nexus）。　The　former　is　the　synthesis　of　a　manifold；
the　parts　of　which　do　not　necessarily　belong　to　each　other。　For
example；　the　two　triangles　into　which　a　square　is　divided　by　a
diagonal；　do　not　necessarily　belong　to　each　other；　and　of　this　kind　is
the　synthesis　of　the　homogeneous　in　everything　that　can　be
mathematically　considered。　This　synthesis　can　be　divided　into　those　of
aggregation　and　coalition；　the　former　of　which　is　applied　to
extensive；　the　latter　to　intensive　quantities。　The　second　sort　of
bination　（nexus）　is　the　synthesis　of　a　manifold；　in　so　far　as　its
parts　do　belong　necessarily