the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第39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！


quantity；　and　yet　there　does　belong　to　it　a　quantity　（and　that　by
means　of　its　apprehension；　in　which　empirical　consciousness　can　within
a　certain　time　rise　from　nothing　=　0　up　to　its　given　amount）；
consequently　an　intensive　quantity。　And　thus　we　must　ascribe　intensive
quantity；　that　is；　a　degree　of　influence　on　sense　to　all　objects　of
perception；　in　so　far　as　this　perception　contains　sensation。
　　All　cognition；　by　means　of　which　I　am　enabled　to　cognize　and
determine　a　priori　what　belongs　to　empirical　cognition；　may　be
called　an　anticipation；　and　without　doubt　this　is　the　sense　in　which
Epicurus　employed　his　expression　prholepsis。　But　as　there　is　in
phenomena　something　which　is　never　cognized　a　priori；　which　on　this
account　constitutes　the　proper　difference　between　pure　and　empirical
cognition；　that　is　to　say；　sensation　（as　the　matter　of　perception）；　it
follows；　that　sensation　is　just　that　element　in　cognition　which　cannot
be　at　all　anticipated。　On　the　other　hand；　we　might　very　well　term
the　pure　determinations　in　space　and　time；　as　well　in　regard　to　figure
as　to　quantity；　anticipations　of　phenomena；　because　they　represent　a
priori　that　which　may　always　be　given　a　posteriori　in　experience。
But　suppose　that　in　every　sensation；　as　sensation　in　general；
without　any　particular　sensation　being　thought　of；　there　existed
something　which　could　be　cognized　a　priori；　this　would　deserve　to　be
called　anticipation　in　a　special　sense…　special；　because　it　may　seem
surprising　to　forestall　experience；　in　that　which　concerns　the
matter　of　experience；　and　which　we　can　only　derive　from　itself。　Yet
such　really　is　the　case　here。
　　Apprehension；　by　means　of　sensation　alone；　fills　only　one　moment；
that　is；　if　I　do　not　take　into　consideration　a　succession　of　many
sensations。　As　that　in　the　phenomenon；　the　apprehension　of　which　is
not　a　successive　synthesis　advancing　from　parts　to　an　entire
representation；　sensation　has　therefore　no　extensive　quantity；　the
want　of　sensation　in　a　moment　of　time　would　represent　it　as　empty；
consequently　=　O。　That　which　in　the　empirical　intuition　corresponds　to
sensation　is　reality　（realitas　phaenomenon）；　that　which　corresponds　to
the　absence　of　it；　negation　=　O。　Now　every　sensation　is　capable　of　a
diminution；　so　that　it　can　decrease；　and　thus　gradually　disappear。
Therefore；　between　reality　in　a　phenomenon　and　negation；　there
exists　a　continuous　concatenation　of　many　possible　intermediate
sensations；　the　difference　of　which　from　each　other　is　always
smaller　than　that　between　the　given　sensation　and　zero；　or　plete
negation。　That　is　to　say；　the　real　in　a　phenomenon　has　always　a
quantity；　which　however　is　not　discoverable　in　apprehension；
inasmuch　as　apprehension　take　place　by　means　of　mere　sensation　in
one　instant；　and　not　by　the　successive　synthesis　of　many　sensations；
and　therefore　does　not　progress　from　parts　to　the　whole。　Consequently；
it　has　a　quantity；　but　not　an　extensive　quantity。
　　Now　that　quantity　which　is　apprehended　only　as　unity；　and　in　which
plurality　can　be　represented　only　by　approximation　to　negation　=　O；
I　term　intensive　quantity。　Consequently；　reality　in　a　phenomenon　has
intensive　quantity；　that　is；　a　degree。　if　we　consider　this　reality
as　cause　（be　it　of　sensation　or　of　another　reality　in　the
phenomenon；　for　example；　a　change）；　we　call　the　degree　of　reality　in
its　character　of　cause　a　momentum；　for　example；　the　momentum　of
weight；　and　for　this　reason；　that　the　degree　only　indicates　that
quantity　the　apprehension　of　which　is　not　successive；　but
instantaneous。　This；　however；　I　touch　upon　only　in　passing；　for　with
causality　I　have　at　present　nothing　to　do。
　　Accordingly；　every　sensation；　consequently　every　reality　in
phenomena；　however　small　it　may　be；　has　a　degree；　that　is；　an
intensive　quantity；　which　may　always　be　lessened；　and　between
reality　and　negation　there　exists　a　continuous　connection　of
possible　realities；　and　possible　smaller　perceptions。　Every　colour…
for　example；　red…　has　a　degree；　which；　be　it　ever　so　small；　is　never
the　smallest；　and　so　is　it　always　with　heat；　the　momentum　of　weight；
etc。
　　This　property　of　quantities；　according　to　which　no　part　of　them　is
the　smallest　possible　（no　part　simple）；　is　called　their　continuity。
Space　and　time　are　quanta　continua；　because　no　part　of　them　can　be
given；　without　enclosing　it　within　boundaries　（points　and　moments）；
consequently；　this　given　part　is　itself　a　space　or　a　time。　Space；
therefore；　consists　only　of　spaces；　and　time　of　times。　Points　and
moments　are　only　boundaries；　that　is；　the　mere　places　or　positions
of　their　limitation。　But　places　always　presuppose　intuitions　which　are
to　limit　or　determine　them；　and　we　cannot　conceive　either　space　or
time　posed　of　constituent　parts　which　are　given　before　space　or
time。　Such　quantities　may　also　be　called　flowing；　because　synthesis
（of　the　productive　imagination）　in　the　production　of　these
quantities　is　a　progression　in　time；　the　continuity　of　which　we　are
accustomed　to　indicate　by　the　expression　flowing。
　　All　phenomena；　then；　are　continuous　quantities；　in　respect　both　to
intuition　and　mere　perception　（sensation；　and　with　it　reality）。　In　the
former　case　they　are　extensive　quantities；　in　the　latter；　intensive。
When　the　synthesis　of　the　manifold　of　a　phenomenon　is　interrupted；
there　results　merely　an　aggregate　of　several　phenomena；　and　not
properly　a　phenomenon　as　a　quantity；　which　is　not　produced　by　the　mere
continuation　of　the　productive　synthesis　of　a　certain　kind；　but　by　the
repetition　of　a　synthesis　always　ceasing。　For　example；　if　I　call
thirteen　dollars　a　sum　or　quantity　of　money；　I　employ　the　term　quite
correctly；　inasmuch　as　I　understand　by　thirteen　dollars　the　value　of　a
mark　in　standard　silver；　which　is；　to　be　sure；　a　continuous
quantity；　in　which　no　part　is　the　smallest；　but　every　part　might
constitute　a　piece　of　money；　which　would　contain　material　for　still
smaller　pieces。　If；　however；　by　the　words　thirteen　dollars　I
understand　so　many　coins　（be　their　value　in　silver　what　it　may）；　it
would　be　quite　erroneous　to　use　the　expression　a　quantity　of
dollars；　on　the　contrary；　I　must　call　them　aggregate；　that　is；　a
number　of　coins。　And　as　in　every　number　we　must　have　unity　as　the
foundation；　so　a　phenomenon　taken　as　unity　is　a　quantity；　and　as
such　always　a　continuous　quantity　（quantum　continuum）。
　　Now；　seeing　all　phenomena；　whether　considered　as　extensive　or
intensive；　are　continuous　quantities；　the　proposition：　〃All　change
（transition　of　a　thing　from　one　state　into　another）　is　continuous；〃
might　be　proved　here　easily；　and　with　mathematical　evidence；　were　it
not　that　the　causality　of　a　change　lies；　entirely　beyond　the　bounds　of
a　transcendental　philosophy；　and　presupposes　empirical　principles。　For
of　the　possibility　of　a　cause　which　changes　the　condition　of　things；
that　is；　which　determines　them　to　the　contrary　to　a　certain　given
state；　the　understanding　gives　us　a　priori　no　knowledge；　not　merely
because　it　has　no　insight　into　the　possibility　of　it　（for　such　insight
is　absent　in　several　a　priori　cognitions）；　but　because　the　notion　of
change　concerns　only　certain　determinations　of　phenomena；　which
experience　alone　can　acquaint　us　with；　while　their　cause　lies　in　the
unchangeable。　But　seeing　that　we　have　nothing　which　we　could　here
employ　but　the　pure　fundamental　conceptions　of　all　possible
experience；　among　which　of　course　nothing　empirical　can　be　admitted；
we　dare　not；　without　injuring　the　unity　of　our　system；　anticipate
general　physical　science；　which　is　built　upon　certain　fundamental
experiences。
　　Nevertheless；　we　are　in　no　want　of　proofs　of　the　great　influence
which　the　principle　above　developed　exercises　in　the　anticipation　of
perceptions；　and　even　in　supplying　the　want　of　them；　so　far　as　to
shield　us　against　the　false　conclusions　which　otherwise　we　might
rashly　draw。
　　If　all　reality　in　perception　has　a　degree；　between　which　and
negation　there　is　an　endless　sequence　of　ever　smaller　degrees；　and　if；
nevertheless；　every　sense　must　have　a　determinate　degree　of
receptivity　for　sensations；　no　perception；　and　consequently　no
experience　is　possible；　which　can　prove；　either　immediately　or
mediately；　an　entire　absence　of　all　reality　in　a　phenomenon；　in
other　words；　it　is　impossible　ever　to　draw　from　experience　a　proof
of　the　existence　of　empty　space　or　of　empty　time。　For　in　the　first
place；　an　entire　absence　of　reality　in　a　sensuous　intuition　cannot
of　course　be　an　object　of　perception；　secondly；　such　absence　cannot　be
deduced　from　the　contemplation　of　any　single　phenomenon；　and　the
difference　of　the　degrees　in　its　reality；　nor　ought　it　ever　to　be
admitted　in　explanation　of　any　phenomenon。　For　if　even　the　plete
intuition　of　a　determinate　space　or　time　is　thoroughly　real；　that
is；　if　no　part　thereof　is　empty；　yet　because　every　reality　has　its
degree；　which；　with　the　extensive　quantity　of　the　phenomenon
unchanged；　can　diminish　through　endless　gradations　down　to　nothing
（the　void）；　there　must　be　infinitely　graduated　degrees；　with　which
space　or　time　is　filled；　and　the　intensive　quantity　in　different
phenomena　may　be　smaller　or　greater；　although　the　extensive　quantity
of　the　intuit