the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第47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！


Now　that　alone　determines　the　position　of　another　thing　in　time
which　is　the　cause　of　it　or　of　its　determinations。　Consequently
every　substance　（inasmuch　as　it　can　have　succession　predicated　of　it
only　in　respect　of　its　determinations）　must　contain　the　causality　of
certain　determinations　in　another　substance；　and　at　the　same　time
the　effects　of　the　causality　of　the　other　in　itself。　That　is　to　say；
substances　must　stand　（mediately　or　immediately）　in　dynamical
munity　with　each　other；　if　coexistence　is　to　be　cognized　in　any
possible　experience。　But；　in　regard　to　objects　of　experience；　that
is　absolutely　necessary　without　which　the　experience　of　these
objects　would　itself　be　impossible。　Consequently　it　is　absolutely
necessary　that　all　substances　in　the　world　of　phenomena；　in　so　far
as　they　are　coexistent；　stand　in　a　relation　of　plete　munity　of
reciprocal　action　to　each　other。
　　The　word　munity　has　in　our　language*　two　meanings；　and　contains
the　two　notions　conveyed　in　the　Latin　munio　and　mercium。　We
employ　it　in　this　place　in　the　latter　sense…　that　of　a　dynamical
munity；　without　which　even　the　munity　of　place　（munio　spatii）
could　not　be　empirically　cognized。　In　our　experiences　it　is　easy　to
observe　that　it　is　only　the　continuous　influences　in　all　parts　of
space　that　can　conduct　our　senses　from　one　object　to　another；　that　the
light　which　plays　between　our　eyes　and　the　heavenly　bodies　produces
a　mediating　munity　between　them　and　us；　and　thereby　evidences　their
coexistence　with　us；　that　we　cannot　empirically　change　our　position
（perceive　this　change）；　unless　the　existence　of　matter　throughout
the　whole　of　space　rendered　possible　the　perception　of　the　positions
we　occupy；　and　that　this　perception　can　prove　the　contemporaneous
existence　of　these　places　only　through　their　reciprocal　influence；　and
thereby　also　the　coexistence　of　even　the　most　remote　objects…　although
in　this　case　the　proof　is　only　mediate。　Without　munity；　every
perception　（of　a　phenomenon　in　space）　is　separated　from　every　other
and　isolated；　and　the　chain　of　empirical　representations；　that　is；
of　experience；　must；　with　the　appearance　of　a　new　object；　begin
entirely　de　novo；　without　the　least　connection　with　preceding
representations；　and　without　standing　towards　these　even　in　the
relation　of　time。　My　intention　here　is　by　no　means　to　bat　the
notion　of　empty　space；　for　it　may　exist　where　our　perceptions　cannot
exist；　inasmuch　as　they　cannot　reach　thereto；　and　where；　therefore；　no
empirical　perception　of　coexistence　takes　place。　But　in　this　case　it
is　not　an　object　of　possible　experience。

　　*German。

　　The　following　remarks　may　be　useful　in　the　way　of　explanation。　In
the　mind；　all　phenomena；　as　contents　of　a　possible　experience；　must
exist　in　munity　（munio）　of　apperception　or　consciousness；　and　in
so　far　as　it　is　requisite　that　objects　be　represented　as　coexistent
and　connected；　in　so　far　must　they　reciprocally　determine　the　position
in　time　of　each　other　and　thereby　constitute　a　whole。　If　this
subjective　munity　is　to　rest　upon　an　objective　basis；　or　to　be
applied　to　substances　as　phenomena；　the　perception　of　one　substance
must　render　possible　the　perception　of　another；　and　conversely。　For
otherwise　succession；　which　is　always　found　in　perceptions　as
apprehensions；　would　be　predicated　of　external　objects；　and　their
representation　of　their　coexistence　be　thus　impossible。　But　this　is
a　reciprocal　influence；　that　is　to　say；　a　real　munity
（mercium）　of　substances；　without　which　therefore　the　empirical
relation　of　coexistence　would　be　a　notion　beyond　the　reach　of　our
minds。　By　virtue　of　this　mercium；　phenomena；　in　so　far　as　they
are　apart　from；　and　nevertheless　in　connection　with　each　other；
constitute　a　positum　reale。　Such　posita　are　possible　in　many
different　ways。　The　three　dynamical　relations　then；　from　which　all
others　spring；　are　those　of　inherence；　consequence；　and　position。

　　These；　then；　are　the　three　analogies　of　experience。　They　are　nothing
more　than　principles　of　the　determination　of　the　existence　of
phenomena　in　time；　according　to　the　three　modi　of　this
determination；　to　wit；　the　relation　to　time　itself　as　a　quantity
（the　quantity　of　existence；　that　is；　duration）；　the　relation　in　time
as　a　series　or　succession；　finally；　the　relation　in　time　as　the
plex　of　all　existence　（simultaneity）。　This　unity　of　determination
in　regard　to　time　is　thoroughly　dynamical；　that　is　to　say；　time　is　not
considered　as　that　in　which　experience　determines　immediately　to　every
existence　its　position；　for　this　is　impossible；　inasmuch　as　absolute
time　is　not　an　object　of　perception；　by　means　of　which　phenomena　can
be　connected　with　each　other。　On　the　contrary；　the　rule　of　the
understanding；　through　which　alone　the　existence　of　phenomena　can
receive　synthetical　unity　as　regards　relations　of　time；　determines　for
every　phenomenon　its　position　in　time；　and　consequently　a　priori；
and　with　validity　for　all　and　every　time。
　　By　nature；　in　the　empirical　sense　of　the　word；　we　understand　the
totality　of　phenomena　connected；　in　respect　of　their　existence；
according　to　necessary　rules；　that　is；　laws。　There　are　therefore
certain　laws　（which　are　moreover　a　priori）　which　make　nature　possible；
and　all　empirical　laws　can　exist　only　by　means　of　experience；　and　by
virtue　of　those　primitive　laws　through　which　experience　itself　bees
possible。　The　purpose　of　the　analogies　is　therefore　to　represent　to　us
the　unity　of　nature　in　the　connection　of　all　phenomena　under　certain
exponents；　the　only　business　of　which　is　to　express　the　relation　of
time　（in　so　far　as　it　contains　all　existence　in　itself）　to　the　unity
of　apperception；　which　can　exist　in　synthesis　only　according　to　rules。
The　bined　expression　of　all　is　this：　〃All　phenomena　exist　in　one
nature；　and　must　so　exist；　inasmuch　as　without　this　a　priori　unity；　no
unity　of　experience；　and　consequently　no　determination　of　objects　in
experience；　is　possible。〃
　　As　regards　the　mode　of　proof　which　we　have　employed　in　treating　of
these　transcendental　laws　of　nature；　and　the　peculiar　character　of
we　must　make　one　remark；　which　will　at　the　same　time　be　important　as　a
guide　in　every　other　attempt　to　demonstrate　the　truth　of
intellectual　and　likewise　synthetical　propositions　a　priori。　Had　we
endeavoured　to　prove　these　analogies　dogmatically；　that　is；　from
conceptions；　that　is　to　say；　had　we　employed　this　method　in　attempting
to　show　that　everything　which　exists；　exists　only　in　that　which　is
permanent…　that　every　thing　or　event　presupposes　the　existence　of
something　in　a　preceding　state；　upon　which　it　follows　in　conformity
with　a　rule…　lastly；　that　in　the　manifold；　which　is　coexistent；　the
states　coexist　in　connection　with　each　other　according　to　a　rule…
all　our　labour　would　have　been　utterly　in　vain。　For　more　conceptions
of　things；　analyse　them　as　we　may；　cannot　enable　us　to　conclude　from
the　existence　of　one　object　to　the　existence　of　another。　What　other
course　was　left　for　us　to　pursue？　This　only；　to　demonstrate　the
possibility　of　experience　as　a　cognition　in　which　at　last　all
objects　must　be　capable　of　being　presented　to　us；　if　the
representation　of　them　is　to　possess　any　objective　reality。　Now　in
this　third；　this　mediating　term；　the　essential　form　of　which
consists　in　the　synthetical　unity　of　the　apperception　of　all
phenomena；　we　found　a　priori　conditions　of　the　universal　and　necessary
determination　as　to　time　of　all　existences　in　the　world　of
phenomena；　without　which　the　empirical　determination　thereof　as　to
time　would　itself　be　impossible；　and　we　also　discovered　rules　of
synthetical　unity　a　priori；　by　means　of　which　we　could　anticipate
experience。　For　want　of　this　method；　and　from　the　fancy　that　it　was
possible　to　discover　a　dogmatical　proof　of　the　synthetical
propositions　which　are　requisite　in　the　empirical　employment　of　the
understanding；　has　it　happened　that　a　proof　of　the　principle　of
sufficient　reason　has　been　so　often　attempted；　and　always　in　vain。　The
other　two　analogies　nobody　has　ever　thought　of；　although　they　have
always　been　silently　employed　by　the　mind；*　because　the　guiding　thread
furnished　by　the　categories　was　wanting；　the　guide　which　alone　can
enable　us　to　discover　every　hiatus；　both　in　the　system　of
conceptions　and　of　principles。

　　*The　unity　of　the　universe；　in　which　all　phenomena　to　be
connected；　is　evidently　a　mere　consequence　of　the　admitted　principle
of　the　munity　of　all　substances　which　are　coexistent。　For　were
substances　isolated；　they　could　not　as　parts　constitute　a　whole；　and
were　their　connection　（reciprocal　action　of　the　manifold）　not
necessary　from　the　very　fact　of　coexistence；　we　could　not　conclude
from　the　fact　of　the　latter　as　a　merely　ideal　relation　to　the　former
as　a　real　one。　We　have；　however；　shown　in　its　place　that　munity
is　the　proper　ground　of　the　possibility　of　an　empirical　cognition　of
coexistence；　and　that　we　may　therefore　properly　reason　from　the　latter
to　the　former　as　its　condition。

　　　　　　　　　　　4。　THE　POSTULATES　OF　EMPIRICAL　THOUGHT。

　　1。　That　which　agrees　with　the　formal　conditions　（intuition　and
conception）　of　experience；　is　possible。
　　2。　That　which　coheres　with　the　material　conditions　of