the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第52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！


Change　is　the　connection　of　determinations　contradictorily　opposed
to　each　other　in　the　existence　of　one　and　the　same　thing。　Now；　how
it　is　possible　that　out　of　a　given　state　one　quite　opposite　to　it　in
the　same　thing　should　follow；　reason　without　an　example　can　not　only
not　conceive；　but　cannot　even　make　intelligible　without　intuition；　and
this　intuition　is　the　motion　of　a　point　in　space；　the　existence　of
which　in　different　spaces　（as　a　consequence　of　opposite
determinations）　alone　makes　the　intuition　of　change　possible。　For；
in　order　to　make　even　internal　change　cognitable；　we　require　to
represent　time；　as　the　form　of　the　internal　sense；　figuratively　by　a
line；　and　the　internal　change　by　the　drawing　of　that　line　（motion）；
and　consequently　are　obliged　to　employ　external　intuition　to　be　able
to　represent　the　successive　existence　of　ourselves　in　different
states。　The　proper　ground　of　this　fact　is　that　all　change　to　be
perceived　as　change　presupposes　something　permanent　in　intuition；
while　in　the　internal　sense　no　permanent　intuition　is　to　be　found。
Lastly；　the　objective　possibility　of　the　category　of　munity
cannot　be　conceived　by　mere　reason；　and　consequently　its　objective
reality　cannot　be　demonstrated　without　an　intuition；　and　that　external
in　space。　For　how　can　we　conceive　the　possibility　of　munity；　that
is；　when　several　substances　exist；　that　some　effect　on　the　existence
of　the　one　follows　from　the　existence　of　the　other；　and
reciprocally；　and　therefore　that；　because　something　exists　in　the
latter；　something　else　must　exist　in　the　former；　which　could　not　be
understood　from　its　own　existence　alone？　For　this　is　the　very
essence　of　munity…　which　is　inconceivable　as　a　property　of　things
which　are　perfectly　isolated。　Hence；　Leibnitz；　in　attributing　to　the
substances　of　the　world…　as　cogitated　by　the　understanding　alone…　a
munity；　required　the　mediating　aid　of　a　divinity；　for；　from　their
existence；　such　a　property　seemed　to　him　with　justice　inconceivable。
But　we　can　very　easily　conceive　the　possibility　of　munity　（of
substances　as　phenomena）　if　we　represent　them　to　ourselves　as　in
space；　consequently　in　external　intuition。　For　external　intuition
contains　in　itself　a　priori　formal　external　relations；　as　the
conditions　of　the　possibility　of　the　real　relations　of　action　and
reaction；　and　therefore　of　the　possibility　of　munity。　With　the　same
ease　can　it　be　demonstrated；　that　the　possibility　of　things　as
quantities；　and　consequently　the　objective　reality　of　the　category
of　quantity；　can　be　grounded　only　in　external　intuition；　and　that　by
its　means　alone　is　the　notion　of　quantity　appropriated　by　the　internal
sense。　But　I　must　avoid　prolixity；　and　leave　the　task　of
illustrating　this　by　examples　to　the　reader's　own　reflection。
　　The　above　remarks　are　of　the　greatest　importance；　not　only　for　the
confirmation　of　our　previous　confutation　of　idealism；　but　still　more
when　the　subject　of　self…cognition　by　mere　internal　consciousness
and　the　determination　of　our　own　nature　without　the　aid　of　external
empirical　intuitions　is　under　discussion；　for　the　indication　of　the
grounds　of　the　possibility　of　such　a　cognition。
　　The　result　of　the　whole　of　this　part　of　the　analytic　of　principles
is；　therefore：　〃All　principles　of　the　pure　understanding　are　nothing
more　than　a　priori　principles　of　the　possibility　of　experience；　and　to
experience　alone　do　all　a　priori　synthetical　propositions　apply　and
relate〃；　indeed；　their　possibility　itself　rests　entirely　on　this
relation。
　　　　CHAPTER　III　Of　the　Ground　of　the　Division　of　all　Objects
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　into　Phenomena　and　Noumena。

　　We　have　now　not　only　traversed　the　region　of　the　pure
understanding　and　carefully　surveyed　every　part　of　it；　but　we　have
also　measured　it；　and　assigned　to　everything　therein　its　proper　place。
But　this　land　is　an　island；　and　enclosed　by　nature　herself　within
unchangeable　limits。　It　is　the　land　of　truth　（an　attractive　word）；
surrounded　by　a　wide　and　stormy　ocean；　the　region　of　illusion；　where
many　a　fog…bank；　many　an　iceberg；　seems　to　the　mariner；　on　his
voyage　of　discovery；　a　new　country；　and；　while　constantly　deluding　him
with　vain　hopes；　engages　him　in　dangerous　adventures；　from　which　he
never　can　desist；　and　which　yet　he　never　can　bring　to　a　termination。
But　before　venturing　upon　this　sea；　in　order　to　explore　it　in　its
whole　extent；　and　to　arrive　at　a　certainty　whether　anything　is　to　be
discovered　there；　it　will　not　be　without　advantage　if　we　cast　our　eyes
upon　the　chart　of　the　land　that　we　are　about　to　leave；　and　to　ask
ourselves；　firstly；　whether　we　cannot　rest　perfectly　contented　with
what　it　contains；　or　whether　we　must　not　of　necessity　be　contented
with　it；　if　we　can　find　nowhere　else　a　solid　foundation　to　build　upon；
and；　secondly；　by　what　title　we　possess　this　land　itself；　and　how　we
hold　it　secure　against　all　hostile　claims？　Although；　in　the　course
of　our　analytic；　we　have　already　given　sufficient　answers　to　these
questions；　yet　a　summary　recapitulation　of　these　solutions　may　be
useful　in　strengthening　our　conviction；　by　uniting　in　one　point　the
momenta　of　the　arguments。
　　We　have　seen　that　everything　which　the　understanding　draws　from
itself；　without　borrowing　from　experience；　it　nevertheless　possesses
only　for　the　behoof　and　use　of　experience。　The　principles　of　the
pure　understanding；　whether　constitutive　a　priori　（as　the　mathematical
principles）；　or　merely　regulative　（as　the　dynamical）；　contain
nothing　but　the　pure　schema；　as　it　were；　of　possible　experience。　For
experience　possesses　its　unity　from　the　synthetical　unity　which　the
understanding；　originally　and　from　itself；　imparts　to　the　synthesis　of
the　imagination　in　relation　to　apperception；　and　in　a　priori
relation　to　and　agreement　with　which　phenomena；　as　data　for　a　possible
cognition；　must　stand。　But　although　these　rules　of　the　understanding
are　not　only　a　priori　true；　but　the　very　source　of　all　truth；　that　is；
of　the　accordance　of　our　cognition　with　objects；　and　on　this　ground；
that　they　contain　the　basis　of　the　possibility　of　experience；　as　the
ensemble　of　all　cognition；　it　seems　to　us　not　enough　to　propound
what　is　true…　we　desire　also　to　be　told　what　we　want　to　know。　If；
then；　we　learn　nothing　more　by　this　critical　examination　than　what
we　should　have　practised　in　the　merely　empirical　use　of　the
understanding；　without　any　such　subtle　inquiry；　the　presumption　is
that　the　advantage　we　reap　from　it　is　not　worth　the　labour　bestowed
upon　it。　It　may　certainly　be　answered　that　no　rash　curiosity　is　more
prejudicial　to　the　enlargement　of　our　knowledge　than　that　which　must
know　beforehand　the　utility　of　this　or　that　piece　of　information　which
we　seek；　before　we　have　entered　on　the　needful　investigations；　and
before　one　could　form　the　least　conception　of　its　utility；　even　though
it　were　placed　before　our　eyes。　But　there　is　one　advantage　in　such
transcendental　inquiries　which　can　be　made　prehensible　to　the
dullest　and　most　reluctant　learner…　this；　namely；　that　the
understanding　which　is　occupied　merely　with　empirical　exercise；　and
does　not　reflect　on　the　sources　of　its　own　cognition；　may　exercise　its
functions　very　well　and　very　successfully；　but　is　quite　unable　to　do
one　thing；　and　that　of　very　great　importance；　to　determine；　namely；
the　bounds　that　limit　its　employment；　and　to　know　what　lies　within
or　without　its　own　sphere。　This　purpose　can　be　obtained　only　by　such
profound　investigations　as　we　have　instituted。　But　if　it　cannot
distinguish　whether　certain　questions　lie　within　its　horizon　or　not；
it　can　never　be　sure　either　as　to　its　claims　or　possessions；　but
must　lay　its　account　with　many　humiliating　corrections；　when　it
transgresses；　as　it　unavoidably　will；　the　limits　of　its　own　territory；
and　loses　itself　in　fanciful　opinions　and　blinding　illusions。
　　That　the　understanding；　therefore；　cannot　make　of　its　a　priori
principles；　or　even　of　its　conceptions；　other　than　an　empirical　use；
is　a　proposition　which　leads　to　the　most　important　results。　A
transcendental　use　is　made　of　a　conception　in　a　fundamental
proposition　or　principle；　when　it　is　referred　to　things　in　general　and
considered　as　things　in　themselves；　an　empirical　use；　when　it　is
referred　merely　to　phenomena；　that　is；　to　objects　of　a　possible
experience。　That　the　latter　use　of　a　conception　is　the　only　admissible
one　is　evident　from　the　reasons　following。　For　every　conception　are
requisite；　firstly；　the　logical　form　of　a　conception　（of　thought）
general；　and；　secondly；　the　possibility　of　presenting　to　this　an
object　to　which　it　may　apply。　Failing　this　latter；　it　has　no　sense；
and　utterly　void　of　content；　although　it　may　contain　the　logical
function　for　constructing　a　conception　from　certain　data。　Now；
object　cannot　be　given　to　a　conception　otherwise　than　by　intuition；
and；　even　if　a　pure　intuition　antecedent　to　the　object　is　a　priori
possible；　this　pure　intuition　can　itself　obtain　objective　validity
only　from　empirical　intuition；　of　which　it　is　itself　but　the　form。　All
conceptions；　therefore；　and　with　them　all　principles；　however　high　the
degree　of　their　a　priori　possibility；　relate　to　empirical
intuitions；　that　is；　to　data　towards　a　possibl