the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第5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！


representations　of　space　and　time。　and　from　the　elementary　conceptions
of　the　understanding。

　　This　attempt　to　introduce　a　plete　revolution　in　the　procedure
of　metaphysics；　after　the　example　of　the　geometricians　and　natural
philosophers；　constitutes　the　aim　of　the　Critique　of　Pure
Speculative　Reason。　It　is　a　treatise　on　the　method　to　be　followed；　not
a　system　of　the　science　itself。　But；　at　the　same　time；　it　marks　out
and　defines　both　the　external　boundaries　and　the　internal　structure　of
this　science。　For　pure　speculative　reason　has　this　peculiarity；
that；　in　choosing　the　various　objects　of　thought；　it　is　able　to　define
the　limits　of　its　own　faculties；　and　even　to　give　a　plete
enumeration　of　the　possible　modes　of　proposing　problems　to　itself；　and
thus　to　sketch　out　the　entire　system　of　metaphysics。　For；　on　the　one
hand；　in　cognition　a　priori；　nothing　must　be　attributed　to　the　objects
but　what　the　thinking　subject　derives　from　itself；　and；　on　the　other
hand；　reason　is；　in　regard　to　the　principles　of　cognition；　a　perfectly
distinct；　independent　unity；　in　which；　as　in　an　organized　body；
every　member　exists　for　the　sake　of　the　others；　and　all　for　the　sake
of　each；　so　that　no　principle　can　be　viewed；　with　safety；　in　one
relationship；　unless　it　is；　at　the　same　time；　viewed　in　relation　to
the　total　use　of　pure　reason。　Hence；　too；　metaphysics　has　this
singular　advantage…　an　advantage　which　falls　to　the　lot　of　no　other
science　which　has　to　do　with　objects…　that；　if　once　it　is　conducted
into　the　sure　path　of　science；　by　means　of　this　criticism；　it　can　then
take　in　the　whole　sphere　of　its　cognitions；　and　can　thus　plete
its　work；　and　leave　it　for　the　use　of　posterity；　as　a　capital　which
can　never　receive　fresh　accessions。　For　metaphysics　has　to　deal　only
with　principles　and　with　the　limitations　of　its　own　employment　as
determined　by　these　principles。　To　this　perfection　it　is；　therefore；
bound；　as　the　fundamental　science；　to　attain；　and　to　it　the　maxim
may　justly　be　applied：

　　　　Nil　actum　reputans；　si　quid　superesset　agendum。*

　　*〃He　considered　nothing　done；　so　long　as　anything　remained　to　be
done。〃

　　But；　it　will　be　asked；　what　kind　of　a　treasure　is　this　that　we
propose　to　bequeath　to　posterity？　What　is　the　real　value　of　this
system　of　metaphysics；　purified　by　criticism；　and　thereby　reduced　to　a
permanent　condition？　A　cursory　view　of　the　present　work　will　lead　to
the　supposition　that　its　use　is　merely　negative；　that　it　only　serves
to　warn　us　against　venturing；　with　speculative　reason；　beyond　the
limits　of　experience。　This　is；　in　fact；　its　primary　use。　But　this；
at　once；　assumes　a　positive　value；　when　we　observe　that　the　principles
with　which　speculative　reason　endeavours　to　transcend　its　limits
lead　inevitably；　not　to　the　extension；　but　to　the　contraction　of　the
use　of　reason；　inasmuch　as　they　threaten　to　extend　the　limits　of
sensibility；　which　is　their　proper　sphere；　over　the　entire　realm　of
thought　and；　thus；　to　supplant　the　pure　（practical）　use　of　reason。
So　far；　then；　as　this　criticism　is　occupied　in　confining　speculative
reason　within　its　proper　bounds；　it　is　only　negative；　but；　inasmuch　as
it　thereby；　at　the　same　time；　removes　an　obstacle　which　impedes　and
even　threatens　to　destroy　the　use　of　practical　reason；　it　possesses
a　positive　and　very　important　value。　In　order　to　admit　this；　we　have
only　to　be　convinced　that　there　is　an　absolutely　necessary　use　of　pure
reason…　the　moral　use…　in　which　it　inevitably　transcends　the　limits　of
sensibility；　without　the　aid　of　speculation；　requiring　only　to　be
insured　against　the　effects　of　a　speculation　which　would　involve　it　in
contradiction　with　itself。　To　deny　the　positive　advantage　of　the
service　which　this　criticism　renders　us　would　be　as　absurd　as。　to
maintain　that　the　system　of　police　is　productive　of　no　positive
benefit；　since　its　main　business　is　to　prevent　the　violence　which
citizen　has　to　apprehend　from　citizen；　that　so　each　may　pursue　his
vocation　in　peace　and　security。　That　space　and　time　are　only　forms
of　sensible　intuition；　and　hence　are　only　conditions　of　the
existence　of　things　as　phenomena；　that；　moreover；　we　have　no
conceptions　of　the　understanding；　and；　consequently；　no　elements　for
the　cognition　of　things；　except　in　so　far　as　a　corresponding　intuition
can　be　given　to　these　conceptions；　that；　accordingly；　we　can　have　no
cognition　of　an　object；　as　a　thing　in　itself；　but　only　as　an　object　of
sensible　intuition；　that　is；　as　phenomenon…　all　this　is　proved　in
the　analytical　part　of　the　Critique；　and　from　this　the　limitation　of
all　possible　speculative　cognition　to　the　mere　objects　of
experience；　follows　as　a　necessary　result。　At　the　same　time；　it　must
be　carefully　borne　in　mind　that；　while　we　surrender　the　power　of
cognizing；　we　still　reserve　the　power　of　thinking　objects；　as　things
in　themselves。*　For；　otherwise；　we　should　require　to　affirm　the
existence　of　an　appearance；　without　something　that　appears…　which
would　be　absurd。　Now　let　us　suppose；　for　a　moment；　that　we　had　not
undertaken　this　criticism　and；　accordingly；　had　not　drawn　the
necessary　distinction　between　things　as　objects　of　experience　and
things　as　they　are　in　themselves。　The　principle　of　causality；　and；
by　consequence；　the　mechanism　of　nature　as　determined　by　causality；
would　then　have　absolute　validity　in　relation　to　all　things　as
efficient　causes。　I　should　then　be　unable　to　assert；　with　regard　to
one　and　the　same　being；　e。g。；　the　human　soul；　that　its　will　is　free；
and　yet；　at　the　same　time；　subject　to　natural　necessity；　that　is；
not　free；　without　falling　into　a　palpable　contradiction；　for　in　both
propositions　I　should　take　the　soul　in　the　same　signification；　as　a
thing　in　general；　as　a　thing　in　itself…　as；　without　previous
criticism；　I　could　not　but　take　it。　Suppose　now；　on　the　other　hand；
that　we　have　undertaken　this　criticism；　and　have　learnt　that　an　object
may　be　taken　in　two　senses；　first；　as　a　phenomenon；　secondly；　as　a
thing　in　itself；　and　that；　according　to　the　deduction　of　the
conceptions　of　the　understanding；　the　principle　of　causality　has
reference　only　to　things　in　the　first　sense。　We　then　see　how　it　does
not　involve　any　contradiction　to　assert；　on　the　one　hand；　that　the
will；　in　the　phenomenal　sphere…　in　visible　action…　is　necessarily
obedient　to　the　law　of　nature；　and；　in　so　far；　not　free；　and；　on　the
other　hand；　that；　as　belonging　to　a　thing　in　itself；　it　is　not　subject
to　that　law；　and；　accordingly；　is　free。　Now；　it　is　true　that　I　cannot；
by　means　of　speculative　reason；　and　still　less　by　empirical
observation；　cognize　my　soul　as　a　thing　in　itself　and　consequently；
cannot　cognize　liberty　as　the　property　of　a　being　to　which　I　ascribe
effects　in　the　world　of　sense。　For；　to　do　so；　I　must　cognize　this
being　as　existing；　and　yet　not　in　time；　which…　since　I　cannot
support　my　conception　by　any　intuition…　is　impossible。　At　the　same
time；　while　I　cannot　cognize；　I　can　quite　well　think　freedom；　that
is　to　say；　my　representation　of　it　involves　at　least　no　contradiction；
if　we　bear　in　mind　the　critical　distinction　of　the　two　modes　of
representation　（the　sensible　and　the　intellectual）　and　the
consequent　limitation　of　the　conceptions　of　the　pure　understanding　and
of　the　principles　which　flow　from　them。　Suppose　now　that　morality
necessarily　presupposed　liberty；　in　the　strictest　sense；　as　a　property
of　our　will；　suppose　that　reason　contained　certain　practical；　original
principles　a　priori；　which　were　absolutely　impossible　without　this
presupposition；　and　suppose；　at　the　same　time；　that　speculative　reason
had　proved　that　liberty　was　incapable　of　being　thought　at　all。　It
would　then　follow　that　the　moral　presupposition　must　give　way　to　the
speculative　affirmation；　the　opposite　of　which　involves　an　obvious
contradiction；　and　that　liberty　and；　with　it；　morality　must　yield　to
the　mechanism　of　nature；　for　the　negation　of　morality　involves　no
contradiction；　except　on　the　presupposition　of　liberty。　Now　morality
does　not　require　the　speculative　cognition　of　liberty；　it　is　enough
that　I　can　think　it；　that　its　conception　involves　no　contradiction；
that　it　does　not　interfere　with　the　mechanism　of　nature。　But　even　this
requirement　we　could　not　satisfy；　if　we　had　not　learnt　the　twofold
sense　in　which　things　may　be　taken；　and　it　is　only　in　this　way　that
the　doctrine　of　morality　and　the　doctrine　of　nature　are　confined
within　their　proper　limits。　For　this　result；　then；　we　are　indebted
to　a　criticism　which　warns　us　of　our　unavoidable　ignorance　with　regard
to　things　in　themselves；　and　establishes　the　necessary　limitation　of
our　theoretical　cognition　to　mere　phenomena。

　　*In　order　to　cognize　an　object；　I　must　be　able　to　prove　its
possibility；　either　from　its　reality　as　attested　by　experience；　or　a
priori；　by　means　of　reason。　But　I　can　think　what　I　please；　provided
only　I　do　not　contradict　myself；　that　is；　provided　my　conception　is
a　possible　thought；　though　I　may　be　unable　to　answer　for　the　existence
of　a　corresponding　object　in　the　sum　of　possibilities。　But　something
more　is　required　before　I　can　attribute　to　such　a　conception　objective
validity；　that　is　real　possibility…　the　other　possibility　being　merely