the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第48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！


conception）　of　experience；　is　possible。
　　2。　That　which　coheres　with　the　material　conditions　of　experience
（sensation）；　is　real。
　　3。　That　whose　coherence　with　the　real　is　determined　according　to
universal　conditions　of　experience　is　（exists）　necessary。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Explanation。

　　The　categories　of　modality　possess　this　peculiarity；　that　they　do
not　in　the　least　determine　the　object；　or　enlarge　the　conception　to
which　they　are　annexed　as　predicates；　but　only　express　its　relation　to
the　faculty　of　cognition。　Though　my　conception　of　a　thing　is　in　itself
plete；　I　am　still　entitled　to　ask　whether　the　object　of　it　is
merely　possible；　or　whether　it　is　also　real；　or；　if　the　latter；
whether　it　is　also　necessary。　But　hereby　the　object　itself　is　not　more
definitely　determined　in　thought；　but　the　question　is　only　in　what
relation　it；　including　all　its　determinations；　stands　to　the
understanding　and　its　employment　in　experience；　to　the　empirical
faculty　of　judgement；　and　to　the　reason　of　its　application　to
experience。
　　For　this　very　reason；　too；　the　categories　of　modality　are　nothing
more　than　explanations　of　the　conceptions　of　possibility；　reality；　and
necessity；　as　employed　in　experience；　and　at　the　same　time；
restrictions　of　all　the　categories　to　empirical　use　alone；　not
authorizing　the　transcendental　employment　of　them。　For　if　they　are
to　have　something　more　than　a　merely　logical　significance；　and　to　be
something　more　than　a　mere　analytical　expression　of　the　form　of
thought；　and　to　have　a　relation　to　things　and　their　possibility；
reality；　or　necessity；　they　must　concern　possible　experience　and　its
synthetical　unity；　in　which　alone　objects　of　cognition　can　be　given。
　　The　postulate　of　the　possibility　of　things　requires　also；　that　the
conception　of　the　things　agree　with　the　formal　conditions　of　our
experience　in　general。　But　this；　that　is　to　say；　the　objective　form　of
experience；　contains　all　the　kinds　of　synthesis　which　are　requisite
for　the　cognition　of　objects。　A　conception　which　contains　a
synthesis　must　be　regarded　as　empty　and；　without　reference　to　an
object；　if　its　synthesis　does　not　belong　to　experience…　either　as
borrowed　from　it；　and　in　this　case　it　is　called　an　empirical
conception；　or　such　as　is　the　ground　and　a　priori　condition　of
experience　（its　form）；　and　in　this　case　it　is　a　pure　conception；　a
conception　which　nevertheless　belongs　to　experience；　inasmuch　as　its
object　can　be　found　in　this　alone。　For　where　shall　we　find　the
criterion　or　character　of　the　possibility　of　an　object　which　is
cogitated　by　means　of　an　a　priori　synthetical　conception；　if　not　in
the　synthesis　which　constitutes　the　form　of　empirical　cognition　of
objects？　That　in　such　a　conception　no　contradiction　exists　is　indeed　a
necessary　logical　condition；　but　very　far　from　being　sufficient　to
establish　the　objective　reality　of　the　conception；　that　is；　the
possibility　of　such　an　object　as　is　thought　in　the　conception。　Thus；
in　the　conception　of　a　figure　which　is　contained　within　two　straight
lines；　there　is　no　contradiction；　for　the　conceptions　of　two
straight　lines　and　of　their　junction　contain　no　negation　of　a
figure。　The　impossibility　in　such　a　case　does　not　rest　upon　the
conception　in　itself；　but　upon　the　construction　of　it　in　space；　that
is　to　say；　upon　the　conditions　of　space　and　its　determinations。　But
these　have　themselves　objective　reality；　that　is；　they　apply　to
possible　things；　because　they　contain　a　priori　the　form　of
experience　in　general。
　　And　now　we　shall　proceed　to　point　out　the　extensive　utility　and
influence　of　this　postulate　of　possibility。　When　I　represent　to　myself
a　thing　that　is　permanent；　so　that　everything　in　it　which　changes
belongs　merely　to　its　state　or　condition；　from　such　a　conception　alone
I　never　can　cognize　that　such　a　thing　is　possible。　Or；　if　I
represent　to　myself　something　which　is　so　constituted　that；　when　it　is
posited；　something　else　follows　always　and　infallibly；　my　thought
contains　no　self…contradiction；　but　whether　such　a　property　as
causality　is　to　be　found　in　any　possible　thing；　my　thought　alone
affords　no　means　of　judging。　Finally；　I　can　represent　to　myself
different　things　（substances）　which　are　so　constituted　that　the
state　or　condition　of　one　causes　a　change　in　the　state　of　the　other；
and　reciprocally；　but　whether　such　a　relation　is　a　property　of
things　cannot　be　perceived　from　these　conceptions；　which　contain　a
merely　arbitrary　synthesis。　Only　from　the　fact；　therefore；　that
these　conceptions　express　a　priori　the　relations　of　perceptions　in
every　experience；　do　we　know　that　they　possess　objective　reality；　that
is；　transcendental　truth；　and　that　independent　of　experience；　though
not　independent　of　all　relation　to　form　of　an　experience　in　general
and　its　synthetical　unity；　in　which　alone　objects　can　be　empirically
cognized。
　　But　when　we　fashion　to　ourselves　new　conceptions　of　substances；
forces；　action；　and　reaction；　from　the　material　presented　to　us　by
perception；　without　following　the　example　of　experience　in　their
connection；　we　create　mere　chimeras；　of　the　possibility　of　which　we
cannot　discover　any　criterion；　because　we　have　not　taken　experience
for　our　instructress；　though　we　have　borrowed　the　conceptions　from
her。　Such　fictitious　conceptions　derive　their　character　of　possibility
not；　like　the　categories；　a　priori；　as　conceptions　on　which　all
experience　depends；　but　only；　a　posteriori；　as　conceptions　given　by
means　of　experience　itself；　and　their　possibility　must　either　be
cognized　a　posteriori　and　empirically；　or　it　cannot　be　cognized　at
all。　A　substance　which　is　permanently　present　in　space；　yet　without
filling　it　（like　that　tertium　quid　between　matter　and　the　thinking
subject　which　some　have　tried　to　introduce　into　metaphysics）；　or　a
peculiar　fundamental　power　of　the　mind　of　intuiting　the　future　by
anticipation　（instead　of　merely　inferring　from　past　and　present
events）；　or；　finally；　a　power　of　the　mind　to　place　itself　in　munity
of　thought　with　other　men；　however　distant　they　may　be…　these　are
conceptions　the　possibility　of　which　has　no　ground　to　rest　upon。　For
they　are　not　based　upon　experience　and　its　known　laws；　and；　without
experience；　they　are　a　merely　arbitrary　conjunction　of　thoughts；
which；　though　containing　no　internal　contradiction；　has　no　claim　to
objective　reality；　neither；　consequently；　to　the　possibility　of　such
an　object　as　is　thought　in　these　conceptions。　As　far　as　concerns
reality；　it　is　self…evident　that　we　cannot　cogitate　such　a　possibility
in　concreto　without　the　aid　of　experience；　because　reality　is
concerned　only　with　sensation；　as　the　matter　of　experience；　and　not
with　the　form　of　thought；　with　which　we　can　no　doubt　indulge　in
shaping　fancies。
　　But　I　pass　by　everything　which　derives　its　possibility　from
reality　in　experience；　and　I　purpose　treating　here　merely　of　the
possibility　of　things　by　means　of　a　priori　conceptions。　I　maintain；
then；　that　the　possibility　of　things　is　not　derived　from　such
conceptions　per　se；　but　only　when　considered　as　formal　and　objective
conditions　of　an　experience　in　general。
　　It　seems；　indeed；　as　if　the　possibility　of　a　triangle　could　be
cognized　from　the　conception　of　it　alone　（which　is　certainly
independent　of　experience）；　for　we　can　certainly　give　to　the
conception　a　corresponding　object　pletely　a　priori；　that　is　to　say；
we　can　construct　it。　But　as　a　triangle　is　only　the　form　of　an
object；　it　must　remain　a　mere　product　of　the　imagination；　and　the
possibility　of　the　existence　of　an　object　corresponding　to　it　must
remain　doubtful；　unless　we　can　discover　some　other　ground；　unless　we
know　that　the　figure　can　be　cogitated　under　the　conditions　upon
which　all　objects　of　experience　rest。　Now；　the　facts　that　space　is　a
formal　condition　a　priori　of　external　experience；　that　the　formative
synthesis；　by　which　we　construct　a　triangle　in　imagination；　is　the
very　same　as　that　we　employ　in　the　apprehension　of　a　phenomenon　for
the　purpose　of　making　an　empirical　conception　of　it；　are　what　alone
connect　the　notion　of　the　possibility　of　such　a　thing；　with　the
conception　of　it。　In　the　same　manner；　the　possibility　of　continuous
quantities；　indeed　of　quantities　in　general；　for　the　conceptions　of
them　are　without　exception　synthetical；　is　never　evident　from　the
conceptions　in　themselves；　but　only　when　they　are　considered　as　the
formal　conditions　of　the　determination　of　objects　in　experience。　And
where；　indeed；　should　we　look　for　objects　to　correspond　to　our
conceptions；　if　not　in　experience；　by　which　alone　objects　are
presented　to　us？　It　is；　however；　true　that　without　antecedent
experience　we　can　cognize　and　characterize　the　possibility　of
things；　relatively　to　the　formal　conditions；　under　which　something
is　determined　in　experience　as　an　object；　consequently；　pletely　a
priori。　But　still　this　is　possible　only　in　relation　to　experience
and　within　its　limits。
　　The　postulate　concerning　the　cognition　of　the　reality　of　things
requires　perception；　consequently　conscious　sensation；　not　indeed
immediately；　that　is；　of　the　object　itself；　whose　existence　is　to　be
cognized；　but　still　that　the　object　have　some　connection　with　a　real
perceptio