the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第41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！


it　would　be　distinguishable　from　that　of　others。
　　The　two　principles　above　mentioned；　which　I　called　mathematical；
in　consideration　of　the　fact　of　their　authorizing　the　application　of
mathematic　phenomena；　relate　to　these　phenomena　only　in　regard　to
their　possibility；　and　instruct　us　how　phenomena；　as　far　as　regards
their　intuition　or　the　real　in　their　perception；　can　be　generated
according　to　the　rules　of　a　mathematical　synthesis。　Consequently；
numerical　quantities；　and　with　them　the　determination　of　a
phenomenon　as　a　quantity；　can　be　employed　in　the　one　case　as　well　as
in　the　other。　Thus；　for　example；　out　of　200；000　illuminations　by　the
moon；　I　might　pose　and　give　a　priori；　that　is　construct；　the　degree
of　our　sensations　of　the　sunlight。　We　may　therefore　entitle　these
two　principles　constitutive。
　　The　case　is　very　different　with　those　principles　whose　province　it
is　to　subject　the　existence　of　phenomena　to　rules　a　priori。　For　as
existence　does　not　admit　of　being　constructed；　it　is　clear　that　they
must　only　concern　the　relations　of　existence　and　be　merely
regulative　principles。　In　this　case；　therefore；　neither　axioms　nor
anticipations　are　to　be　thought　of。　Thus；　if　a　perception　is　given　us；
in　a　certain　relation　of　time　to　other　（although　undetermined）
perceptions；　we　cannot　then　say　a　priori；　what　and　how　great　（in
quantity）　the　other　perception　necessarily　connected　with　the　former
is；　but　only　how　it　is　connected；　quoad　its　existence；　in　this　given
modus　of　time。　Analogies　in　philosophy　mean　something　very　different
from　that　which　they　represent　in　mathematics。　In　the　latter　they
are　formulae；　which　enounce　the　equality　of　two　relations　of　quantity；
and　are　always　constitutive；　so　that　if　two　terms　of　the　proportion
are　given；　the　third　is　also　given；　that　is；　can　be　constructed　by　the
aid　of　these　formulae。　But　in　philosophy；　analogy　is　not　the
equality　of　two　quantitative　but　of　two　qualitative　relations。　In　this
case；　from　three　given　terms；　I　can　give　a　priori　and　cognize　the
relation　to　a　fourth　member；　but　not　this　fourth　term　itself；　although
I　certainly　possess　a　rule　to　guide　me　in　the　search　for　this　fourth
term　in　experience；　and　a　mark　to　assist　me　in　discovering　it。　An
analogy　of　experience　is　therefore　only　a　rule　according　to　which
unity　of　experience　must　arise　out　of　perceptions　in　respect　to
objects　（phenomena）　not　as　a　constitutive；　but　merely　as　a
regulative　principle。　The　same　holds　good　also　of　the　postulates　of
empirical　thought　in　general；　which　relate　to　the　synthesis　of　mere
intuition　（which　concerns　the　form　of　phenomena）；　the　synthesis　of
perception　（which　concerns　the　matter　of　phenomena）；　and　the　synthesis
of　experience　（which　concerns　the　relation　of　these　perceptions）。
For　they　are　only　regulative　principles；　and　clearly　distinguishable
from　the　mathematical；　which　are　constitutive；　not　indeed　in　regard　to
the　certainty　which　both　possess　a　priori；　but　in　the　mode　of　evidence
thereof；　consequently　also　in　the　manner　of　demonstration。
　　But　what　has　been　observed　of　all　synthetical　propositions；　and　must
be　particularly　remarked　in　this　place；　is　this；　that　these
analogies　possess　significance　and　validity；　not　as　principles　of
the　transcendental；　but　only　as　principles　of　the　empirical　use　of　the
understanding；　and　their　truth　can　therefore　be　proved　only　as　such；
and　that　consequently　the　phenomena　must　not　be　subjoined　directly
under　the　categories；　but　only　under　their　schemata。　For　if　the
objects　to　which　those　principles　must　be　applied　were　things　in
themselves；　it　would　be　quite　impossible　to　cognize　aught　concerning
them　synthetically　a　priori。　But　they　are　nothing　but　phenomena；　a
plete　knowledge　of　which…　a　knowledge　to　which　all　principles　a
priori　must　at　last　relate…　is　the　only　possible　experience。　It
follows　that　these　principles　can　have　nothing　else　for　their　aim　than
the　conditions　of　the　empirical　cognition　in　the　unity　of　synthesis　of
phenomena。　But　this　synthesis　is　cogitated　only　in　the　schema　of　the
pure　conception　of　the　understanding；　of　whose　unity；　as　that　of　a
synthesis　in　general；　the　category　contains　the　function
unrestricted　by　any　sensuous　condition。　These　principles　will
therefore　authorize　us　to　connect　phenomena　according　to　an　analogy；
with　the　logical　and　universal　unity　of　conceptions；　and
consequently　to　employ　the　categories　in　the　principles　themselves；
but　in　the　application　of　them　to　experience；　we　shall　use　only
their　schemata；　as　the　key　to　their　proper　application；　instead　of　the
categories；　or　rather　the　latter　as　restricting　conditions；　under
the　title　of　〃formulae〃　of　the　former。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　A。　FIRST　ANALOGY。

　　　　　　　　　　　Principle　of　the　Permanence　of　Substance。

　　　In　all　changes　of　phenomena；　substance　is　permanent；　and　the
　　　quantum　thereof　in　nature　is　neither　increased　nor　diminished。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。

　　All　phenomena　exist　in　time；　wherein　alone　as　substratum；　that　is；
as　the　permanent　form　of　the　internal　intuition；　coexistence　and
succession　can　be　represented。　Consequently　time；　in　which　all　changes
of　phenomena　must　be　cogitated；　remains　and　changes　not；　because　it　is
that　in　which　succession　and　coexistence　can　be　represented　only　as
determinations　thereof。　Now；　time　in　itself　cannot　be　an　object　of
perception。　It　follows　that　in　objects　of　perception；　that　is；　in
phenomena；　there　must　be　found　a　substratum　which　represents　time　in
general；　and　in　which　all　change　or　coexistence　can　be　perceived　by
means　of　the　relation　of　phenomena　to　it。　But　the　substratum　of　all
reality；　that　is；　of　all　that　pertains　to　the　existence　of　things；
is　substance；　all　that　pertains　to　existence　can　be　cogitated　only
as　a　determination　of　substance。　Consequently；　the　permanent；　in
relation　to　which　alone　can　all　relations　of　time　in　phenomena　be
determined；　is　substance　in　the　world　of　phenomena；　that　is；　the
real　in　phenomena；　that　which；　as　the　substratum　of　all　change；
remains　ever　the　same。　Accordingly；　as　this　cannot　change　in
existence；　its　quantity　in　nature　can　neither　be　increased　nor
diminished。
　　Our　apprehension　of　the　manifold　in　a　phenomenon　is　always
successive；　is　Consequently　always　changing。　By　it　alone　we　could；
therefore；　never　determine　whether　this　manifold；　as　an　object　of
experience；　is　coexistent　or　successive；　unless　it　had　for　a
foundation　something　fixed　and　permanent；　of　the　existence　of　which
all　succession　and　coexistence　are　nothing　but　so　many　modes　（modi
of　time）。　Only　in　the　permanent；　then；　are　relations　of　time
possible　（for　simultaneity　and　succession　are　the　only　relations　in
time）；　that　is　to　say；　the　permanent　is　the　substratum　of　our
empirical　representation　of　time　itself；　in　which　alone　all
determination　of　time　is　possible。　Permanence　is；　in　fact；　just
another　expression　for　time；　as　the　abiding　correlate　of　all　existence
of　phenomena；　and　of　all　change；　and　of　all　coexistence。　For　change
does　not　affect　time　itself；　but　only　the　phenomena　in　time　（just　as
coexistence　cannot　be　regarded　as　a　modus　of　time　itself；　seeing
that　in　time　no　parts　are　coexistent；　but　all　successive）。　If　we
were　to　attribute　succession　to　time　itself；　we　should　be　obliged　to
cogitate　another　time；　in　which　this　succession　would　be　possible。
It　is　only　by　means　of　the　permanent　that　existence　in　different　parts
of　the　successive　series　of　time　receives　a　quantity；　which　we　entitle
duration。　For　in　mere　succession；　existence　is　perpetually　vanishing
and　remencing；　and　therefore　never　has　even　the　least　quantity。
Without　the　permanent；　then；　no　relation　in　time　is　possible。　Now；
time　in　itself　is　not　an　object　of　perception；　consequently　the
permanent　in　phenomena　must　be　regarded　as　the　substratum　of　all
determination　of　time；　and　consequently　also　as　the　condition　of　the
possibility　of　all　synthetical　unity　of　perceptions；　that　is；　of
experience；　and　all　existence　and　all　change　in　time　can　only　be
regarded　as　a　mode　in　the　existence　of　that　which　abides　unchangeably。
Therefore；　in　all　phenomena；　the　permanent　is　the　object　in　itself；
that　is；　the　substance　（phenomenon）；　but　all　that　changes　or　can
change　belongs　only　to　the　mode　of　the　existence　of　this　substance
or　substances；　consequently　to　its　determinations。
　　I　find　that　in　all　ages　not　only　the　philosopher；　but　even　the
mon　understanding；　has　preposited　this　permanence　as　a　substratum
of　all　change　in　phenomena；　indeed；　I　am　pelled　to　believe　that
they　will　always　accept　this　as　an　indubitable　fact。　Only　the
philosopher　expresses　himself　in　a　more　precise　and　definite　manner；
when　he　says：　〃In　all　changes　in　the　world；　the　substance　remains；　and
the　accidents　alone　are　changeable。〃　But　of　this　decidedly　synthetical
proposition；　I　nowhere　meet　with　even　an　attempt　at　proof；　nay；　it
very　rarely　has　the　good　fortune　to　stand；　as　it　deserves　to　do；　at
the　head　of　the　pure　and　entirely　a　priori　laws　of　nature。　In　truth；
the　statement　that　substance　is　permanent；　is　tautological。　For　this
very　permanence　is　the　ground　on　which　we　apply　the　category　of
substance　to　the　phenomenon；　and　we　should　have　been　obliged　to
pro