the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第4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！


our　weightiest　concerns？　Nay；　more；　how　little　cause　should　we　have　to
place　confidence　in　our　reason；　if　it　abandons　us　in　a　matter　about
which；　most　of　all；　we　desire　to　know　the　truth…　and　not　only　so；
but　even　allures　us　to　the　pursuit　of　vain　phantoms；　only　to　betray　us
in　the　end？　Or；　if　the　path　has　only　hitherto　been　missed；　what
indications　do　we　possess　to　guide　us　in　a　renewed　investigation；
and　to　enable　us　to　hope　for　greater　success　than　has　fallen　to　the
lot　of　our　predecessors？
　　It　appears　to　me　that　the　examples　of　mathematics　and　natural
philosophy；　which；　as　we　have　seen；　were　brought　into　their　present
condition　by　a　sudden　revolution；　are　sufficiently　remarkable　to　fix
our　attention　on　the　essential　circumstances　of　the　change　which　has
proved　so　advantageous　to　them；　and　to　induce　us　to　make　the
experiment　of　imitating　them；　so　far　as　the　analogy　which；　as　rational
sciences；　they　bear　to　metaphysics　may　permit。　It　has　hitherto　been
assumed　that　our　cognition　must　conform　to　the　objects；　but　all
attempts　to　ascertain　anything　about　these　objects　a　priori；　by
means　of　conceptions；　and　thus　to　extend　the　range　of　our　knowledge；
have　been　rendered　abortive　by　this　assumption。　Let　us　then　make　the
experiment　whether　we　may　not　be　more　successful　in　metaphysics；　if　we
assume　that　the　objects　must　conform　to　our　cognition。　This　appears；
at　all　events；　to　accord　better　with　the　possibility　of　our　gaining
the　end　we　have　in　view；　that　is　to　say；　of　arriving　at　the
cognition　of　objects　a　priori；　of　determining　something　with　respect
to　these　objects；　before　they　are　given　to　us。　We　here　propose　to　do
just　what　Copernicus　did　in　attempting　to　explain　the　celestial
movements。　When　he　found　that　he　could　make　no　progress　by　assuming
that　all　the　heavenly　bodies　revolved　round　the　spectator；　he　reversed
the　process；　and　tried　the　experiment　of　assuming　that　the　spectator
revolved；　while　the　stars　remained　at　rest。　We　may　make　the　same
experiment　with　regard　to　the　intuition　of　objects。　If　the　intuition
must　conform　to　the　nature　of　the　objects；　I　do　not　see　how　we　can
know　anything　of　them　a　priori。　If；　on　the　other　hand；　the　object
conforms　to　the　nature　of　our　faculty　of　intuition；　I　can　then
easily　conceive　the　possibility　of　such　an　a　priori　knowledge。　Now
as　I　cannot　rest　in　the　mere　intuitions；　but…　if　they　are　to　bee
cognitions…　must　refer　them；　as　representations；　to　something；　as
object；　and　must　determine　the　latter　by　means　of　the　former；　here
again　there　are　two　courses　open　to　me。　Either；　first；　I　may　assume
that　the　conceptions；　by　which　I　effect　this　determination；　conform　to
the　object…　and　in　this　case　I　am　reduced　to　the　same　perplexity　as
before；　or　secondly；　I　may　assume　that　the　objects；　or；　which　is　the
same　thing；　that　experience；　in　which　alone　as　given　objects　they
are　cognized；　conform　to　my　conceptions…　and　then　I　am　at　no　loss
how　to　proceed。　For　experience　itself　is　a　mode　of　cognition　which
requires　understanding。　Before　objects；　are　given　to　me；　that　is；　a
priori；　I　must　presuppose　in　myself　laws　of　the　understanding　which
are　expressed　in　conceptions　a　priori。　To　these　conceptions；　then；　all
the　objects　of　experience　must　necessarily　conform。　Now　there　are
objects　which　reason　thinks；　and　that　necessarily；　but　which　cannot　be
given　in　experience；　or；　at　least；　cannot　be　given　so　as　reason　thinks
them。　The　attempt　to　think　these　objects　will　hereafter　furnish　an
excellent　test　of　the　new　method　of　thought　which　we　have　adopted；　and
which　is　based　on　the　principle　that　we　only　cognize　in　things　a
priori　that　which　we　ourselves　place　in　them。*

　　*This　method；　accordingly；　which　we　have　borrowed　from　the　natural
philosopher；　consists　in　seeking　for　the　elements　of　pure　reason　in
that　which　admits　of　confirmation　or　refutation　by　experiment。　Now　the
propositions　of　pure　reason；　especially　when　they　transcend　the　limits
of　possible　experience；　do　not　admit　of　our　making　any　experiment　with
their　objects；　as　in　natural　science。　Hence；　with　regard　to　those
conceptions　and　principles　which　we　assume　a　priori；　our　only　course
ill　be　to　view　them　from　two　different　sides。　We　must　regard　one　and
the　same　conception；　on　the　one　hand；　in　relation　to　experience　as
an　object　of　the　senses　and　of　the　understanding；　on　the　other　hand；
in　relation　to　reason；　isolated　and　transcending　the　limits　of
experience；　as　an　object　of　mere　thought。　Now　if　we　find　that；　when　we
regard　things　from　this　double　point　of　view；　the　result　is　in　harmony
with　the　principle　of　pure　reason；　but　that；　when　we　regard　them
from　a　single　point　of　view；　reason　is　involved　in　self…contradiction；
then　the　experiment　will　establish　the　correctness　of　this
distinction。

　　This　attempt　succeeds　as　well　as　we　could　desire；　and　promises　to
metaphysics；　in　its　first　part…　that　is；　where　it　is　occupied　with
conceptions　a　priori；　of　which　the　corresponding　objects　may　be
given　in　experience…　the　certain　course　of　science。　For　by　this　new
method　we　are　enabled　perfectly　to　explain　the　possibility　of　a　priori
cognition；　and；　what　is　more；　to　demonstrate　satisfactorily　the　laws
which　lie　a　priori　at　the　foundation　of　nature；　as　the　sum　of　the
objects　of　experience…　neither　of　which　was　possible　according　to
the　procedure　hitherto　followed。　But　from　this　deduction　of　the
faculty　of　a　priori　cognition　in　the　first　part　of　metaphysics；　we
derive　a　surprising　result；　and　one　which；　to　all　appearance；
militates　against　the　great　end　of　metaphysics；　as　treated　in　the
second　part。　For　we　e　to　the　conclusion　that　our　faculty　of
cognition　is　unable　to　transcend　the　limits　of　possible　experience；
and　yet　this　is　precisely　the　most　essential　object　of　this　science。
The　estimate　of　our　rational　cognition　a　priori　at　which　we　arrive
is　that　it　has　only　to　do　with　phenomena；　and　that　things　in
themselves；　while　possessing　a　real　existence；　lie　beyond　its
sphere。　Here　we　are　enabled　to　put　the　justice　of　this　estimate　to　the
test。　For　that　which　of　necessity　impels　us　to　transcend　the　limits　of
experience　and　of　all　phenomena　is　the　unconditioned；　which　reason
absolutely　requires　in　things　as　they　are　in　themselves；　in　order　to
plete　the　series　of　conditions。　Now；　if　it　appears　that　when；　on
the　one　hand；　we　assume　that　our　cognition　conforms　to　its　objects
as　things　in　themselves；　the　unconditioned　cannot　be　thought　without
contradiction；　and　that　when；　on　the　other　hand；　we　assume　that　our
representation　of　things　as　they　are　given　to　us；　does　not　conform
to　these　things　as　they　are　in　themselves；　but　that　these　objects；
as　phenomena；　conform　to　our　mode　of　representation；　the　contradiction
disappears：　we　shall　then　be　convinced　of　the　truth　of　that　which　we
began　by　assuming　for　the　sake　of　experiment；　we　may　look　upon　it　as
established　that　the　unconditioned　does　not　lie　in　things　as　we　know
them；　or　as　they　are　given　to　us；　but　in　things　as　they　are　in
themselves；　beyond　the　range　of　our　cognition。*

　　*This　experiment　of　pure　reason　has　a　great　similarity　to　that　of
the　chemists；　which　they　term　the　experiment　of　reduction；　or；　more
usually；　the　synthetic　process。　The　analysis　of　the　metaphysician
separates　pure　cognition　a　priori　into　two　heterogeneous　elements；
viz。；　the　cognition　of　things　as　phenomena；　and　of　things　in
themselves。　Dialectic　bines　these　again　into　harmony　with　the
necessary　rational　idea　of　the　unconditioned；　and　finds　that　this
harmony　never　results　except　through　the　above　distinction；　which
is；　therefore；　concluded　to　be　just。

　　But；　after　we　have　thus　denied　the　power　of　speculative　reason　to
make　any　progress　in　the　sphere　of　the　supersensible；　it　still　remains
for　our　consideration　whether　data　do　not　exist　in　practical　cognition
which　may　enable　us　to　determine　the　transcendent　conception　of　the
unconditioned；　to　rise　beyond　the　limits　of　all　possible　experience
from　a　practical　point　of　view；　and　thus　to　satisfy　the　great　ends
of　metaphysics。　Speculative　reason　has　thus；　at　least；　made　room　for
such　an　extension　of　our　knowledge：　and；　if　it　must　leave　this　space
vacant；　still　it　does　not　rob　us　of　the　liberty　to　fill　it　up；　if　we
can；　by　means　of　practical　data…　nay；　it　even　challenges　us　to　make
the　attempt。*

　　*So　the　central　laws　of　the　movements　of　the　heavenly　bodies
established　the　truth　of　that　which　Copernicus；　first；　assumed　only　as
a　hypothesis；　and；　at　the　same　time；　brought　to　light　that　invisible
force　（Newtonian　attraction）　which　holds　the　universe　together。　The
latter　would　have　remained　forever　undiscovered；　if　Copernicus　had　not
ventured　on　the　experiment…　contrary　to　the　senses　but　still　just…
of　looking　for　the　observed　movements　not　in　the　heavenly　bodies；
but　in　the　spectator。　In　this　Preface　I　treat　the　new　metaphysical
method　as　a　hypothesis　with　the　view　of　rendering　apparent　the　first
attempts　at　such　a　change　of　method；　which　are　always　hypothetical。
But　in　the　Critique　itself　it　will　be　demonstrated；　not
hypothetically；　but　apodeictically；　from　the　nature　of　our
representations　of　space　and　time。　and　from　the　elementary　conceptions
of　the　understanding。

　　This　a