the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第40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！


phenomena　may　be　smaller　or　greater；　although　the　extensive　quantity
of　the　intuition　remains　equal　and　unaltered。
　　We　shall　give　an　example　of　this。　Almost　all　natural　philosophers；
remarking　a　great　difference　in　the　quantity　of　the　matter　of
different　kinds　in　bodies　with　the　same　volume　（partly　on　account　of
the　momentum　of　gravity　or　weight；　partly　on　account　of　the　momentum
of　resistance　to　other　bodies　in　motion）；　conclude　unanimously　that
this　volume　（extensive　quantity　of　the　phenomenon）　must　be　void　in　all
bodies；　although　in　different　proportion。　But　who　would　suspect　that
these　for　the　most　part　mathematical　and　mechanical　inquirers　into
nature　should　ground　this　conclusion　solely　on　a　metaphysical
hypothesis…　a　sort　of　hypothesis　which　they　profess　to　disparage　and
avoid？　Yet　this　they　do；　in　assuming　that　the　real　in　space　（I　must
not　here　call　it　impenetrability　or　weight；　because　these　are
empirical　conceptions）　is　always　identical；　and　can　only　be
distinguished　according　to　its　extensive　quantity；　that　is；
multiplicity。　Now　to　this　presupposition；　for　which　they　can　have　no
ground　in　experience；　and　which　consequently　is　merely　metaphysical；　I
oppose　a　transcendental　demonstration；　which　it　is　true　will　not
explain　the　difference　in　the　filling　up　of　spaces；　but　which
nevertheless　pletely　does　away　with　the　supposed　necessity　of　the
above…mentioned　presupposition　that　we　cannot　explain　the　said
difference　otherwise　than　by　the　hypothesis　of　empty　spaces。　This
demonstration；　moreover；　has　the　merit　of　setting　the　understanding　at
liberty　to　conceive　this　distinction　in　a　different　manner；　if　the
explanation　of　the　fact　requires　any　such　hypothesis。　For　we
perceive　that　although　two　equal　spaces　may　be　pletely　filled　by
matters　altogether　different；　so　that　in　neither　of　them　is　there　left
a　single　point　wherein　matter　is　not　present；　nevertheless；　every
reality　has　its　degree　（of　resistance　or　of　weight）；　which；　without
diminution　of　the　extensive　quantity；　can　bee　less　and　less　ad
infinitum；　before　it　passes　into　nothingness　and　disappears。　Thus　an
expansion　which　fills　a　space…　for　example；　caloric；　or　any　other
reality　in　the　phenomenal　world…　can　decrease　in　its　degrees　to
infinity；　yet　without　leaving　the　smallest　part　of　the　space　empty；　on
the　contrary；　filling　it　with　those　lesser　degrees　as　pletely　as
another　phenomenon　could　with　greater。　My　intention　here　is　by　no
means　to　maintain　that　this　is　really　the　case　with　the　difference
of　matters；　in　regard　to　their　specific　gravity；　I　wish　only　to　prove；
from　a　principle　of　the　pure　understanding；　that　the　nature　of　our
perceptions　makes　such　a　mode　of　explanation　possible；　and　that　it
is　erroneous　to　regard　the　real　in　a　phenomenon　as　equal　quoad　its
degree；　and　different　only　quoad　its　aggregation　and　extensive
quantity；　and　this；　too；　on　the　pretended　authority　of　an　a　priori
principle　of　the　understanding。
　　Nevertheless；　this　principle　of　the　anticipation　of　perception
must　somewhat　startle　an　inquirer　whom　initiation　into
transcendental　philosophy　has　rendered　cautious。　We　must　naturally
entertain　some　doubt　whether　or　not　the　understanding　can　enounce
any　such　synthetical　proposition　as　that　respecting　the　degree　of
all　reality　in　phenomena；　and　consequently　the　possibility　of　the
internal　difference　of　sensation　itself…　abstraction　being　made　of　its
empirical　quality。　Thus　it　is　a　question　not　unworthy　of　solution：
〃How　the　understanding　can　pronounce　synthetically　and　a　priori
respecting　phenomena；　and　thus　anticipate　these；　even　in　that　which　is
peculiarly　and　merely　empirical；　that；　namely；　which　concerns
sensation　itself？〃
　　The　quality　of　sensation　is　in　all　cases　merely　empirical；　and
cannot　be　represented　a　priori　（for　example；　colours；　taste；　etc。）。
But　the　real…　that　which　corresponds　to　sensation…　in　opposition　to
negation　=　O；　only　represents　something　the　conception　of　which　in
itself　contains　a　being　（ein　seyn）；　and　signifies　nothing　but　the
synthesis　in　an　empirical　consciousness。　That　is　to　say；　the　empirical
consciousness　in　the　internal　sense　can　be　raised　from　0　to　every
higher　degree；　so　that　the　very　same　extensive　quantity　of
intuition；　an　illuminated　surface；　for　example；　excites　as　great　a
sensation　as　an　aggregate　of　many　other　surfaces　less　illuminated。
We　can　therefore　make　plete　abstraction　of　the　extensive　quantity
of　a　phenomenon；　and　represent　to　ourselves　in　the　mere　sensation　in　a
certain　momentum；　a　synthesis　of　homogeneous　ascension　from　0　up　to
the　given　empirical　consciousness；　All　sensations　therefore　as　such
are　given　only　a　posteriori；　but　this　property　thereof；　namely；　that
they　have　a　degree；　can　be　known　a　priori。　It　is　worthy　of　remark；
that　in　respect　to　quantities　in　general；　we　can　cognize　a　priori　only
a　single　quality；　namely；　continuity；　but　in　respect　to　all　quality
（the　real　in　phenomena）；　we　cannot　cognize　a　priori　anything　more　than
the　intensive　quantity　thereof；　namely；　that　they　have　a　degree。　All
else　is　left　to　experience。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3。　ANALOGIES　OF　EXPERIENCE。

　　　　The　principle　of　these　is：　Experience　is　possible　only
　　　　　through　the　representation　of　a　necessary　connection
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　Perceptions。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。

　　Experience　is　an　empirical　cognition；　that　is　to　say；　a　cognition
which　determines　an　object　by　means　of　perceptions。　It　is　therefore
a　synthesis　of　perceptions；　a　synthesis　which　is　not　itself
contained　in　perception；　but　which　contains　the　synthetical　unity　of
the　manifold　of　perception　in　a　consciousness；　and　this　unity
constitutes　the　essential　of　our　cognition　of　objects　of　the　senses；
that　is；　of　experience　（not　merely　of　intuition　or　sensation）。　Now
in　experience　our　perceptions　e　together　contingently；　so　that　no
character　of　necessity　in　their　connection　appears；　or　can　appear　from
the　perceptions　themselves；　because　apprehension　is　only　a　placing
together　of　the　manifold　of　empirical　intuition；　and　no　representation
of　a　necessity　in　the　connected　existence　of　the　phenomena　which
apprehension　brings　together；　is　to　be　discovered　therein。　But　as
experience　is　a　cognition　of　objects　by　means　of　perceptions；　it
follows　that　the　relation　of　the　existence　of　the　existence　of　the
manifold　must　be　represented　in　experience　not　as　it　is　put　together
in　time；　but　as　it　is　objectively　in　time。　And　as　time　itself　cannot
be　perceived；　the　determination　of　the　existence　of　objects　in　time
can　only　take　place　by　means　of　their　connection　in　time　in　general；
consequently　only　by　means　of　a　priori　connecting　conceptions。　Now
as　these　conceptions　always　possess　the　character　of　necessity；
experience　is　possible　only　by　means　of　a　representation　of　the
necessary　connection　of　perception。
　　The　three　modi　of　time　are　permanence；　succession；　and
coexistence。　Accordingly；　there　are　three　rules　of　all　relations　of
time　in　phenomena；　according　to　which　the　existence　of　every
phenomenon　is　determined　in　respect　of　the　unity　of　all　time；　and
these　antecede　all　experience　and　render　it　possible。
　　The　general　principle　of　all　three　analogies　rests　on　the
necessary　unity　of　apperception　in　relation　to　all　possible
empirical　consciousness　（perception）　at　every　time；　consequently；　as
this　unity　lies　a　priori　at　the　foundation　of　all　mental　operations；
the　principle　rests　on　the　synthetical　unity　of　all　phenomena
according　to　their　relation　in　time。　For　the　original　apperception
relates　to　our　internal　sense　（the　plex　of　all　representations）；
and　indeed　relates　a　priori　to　its　form；　that　is　to　say；　the
relation　of　the　manifold　empirical　consciousness　in　time。　Now　this
manifold　must　be　bined　in　original　apperception　according　to
relations　of　time…　a　necessity　imposed　by　the　a　priori
transcendental　unity　of　apperception；　to　which　is　subjected　all　that
can　belong　to　my　（i。e。；　my　own）　cognition；　and　therefore　all　that
can　bee　an　object　for　me。　This　synthetical　and　a　priori
determined　unity　in　relation　of　perceptions　in　time　is　therefore　the
rule：　〃All　empirical　determinations　of　time　must　be　subject　to　rules
of　the　general　determination　of　time〃；　and　the　analogies　of
experience；　of　which　we　are　now　about　to　treat；　must　be　rules　of
this　nature。
　　These　principles　have　this　peculiarity；　that　they　do　not　concern
phenomena；　and　the　synthesis　of　the　empirical　intuition　thereof；　but
merely　the　existence　of　phenomena　and　their　relation　to　each　other
in　regard　to　this　existence。　Now　the　mode　in　which　we　apprehend　a
thing　in　a　phenomenon　can　be　determined　a　priori　in　such　a　manner　that
the　rule　of　its　synthesis　can　give；　that　is　to　say；　can　produce　this　a
priori　intuition　in　every　empirical　example。　But　the　existence　of
phenomena　cannot　be　known　a　priori；　and　although　we　could　arrive　by
this　path　at　a　conclusion　of　the　fact　of　some　existence；　we　could
not　cognize　that　existence　determinately；　that　is　to　say；　we　should　be
incapable　of　anticipating　in　what　respect　the　empirical　intuition　of
it　would　be　distinguishable　from　that　of　others。
　　The　two　principles　above　mentioned；　which　I　called　mathematical；
in　consideration　of　the　fact　of