the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第53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！


degree　of　their　a　priori　possibility；　relate　to　empirical
intuitions；　that　is；　to　data　towards　a　possible　experience。　Without
this　they　possess　no　objective　validity；　but　are　mere　play　of
imagination　or　of　understanding　with　images　or　notions。　Let　us　take；
for　example；　the　conceptions　of　mathematics；　and　first　in　its　pure
intuitions。　〃Space　has　three　dimensions〃…　〃Between　two　points　there
can　be　only　one　straight　line；〃　etc。　Although　all　these　principles；
and　the　representation　of　the　object　with　which　this　science
occupies　itself；　are　generated　in　the　mind　entirely　a　priori；　they
would　nevertheless　have　no　significance　if　we　were　not　always　able
to　exhibit　their　significance　in　and　by　means　of　phenomena
（empirical　objects）。　Hence　it　is　requisite　that　an　abstract　conception
be　made　sensuous；　that　is；　that　an　object　corresponding　to　it　in
intuition　be　forthing；　otherwise　the　conception　remains；　as　we　say；
without　sense；　that　is；　without　meaning。　Mathematics　fulfils　this
requirement　by　the　construction　of　the　figure；　which　is　a　phenomenon
evident　to　the　senses。　The　same　science　finds　support　and　significance
in　number；　this　in　its　turn　finds　it　in　the　fingers；　or　in　counters；
or　in　lines　and　points。　The　conception　itself　is　always　produced　a
priori；　together　with　the　synthetical　principles　or　formulas　from　such
conceptions；　but　the　proper　employment　of　them；　and　their
application　to　objects；　can　exist　nowhere　but　in　experience；　the
possibility　of　which；　as　regards　its　form；　they　contain　a　priori。
　　That　this　is　also　the　case　with　all　of　the　categories　and　the
principles　based　upon　them　is　evident　from　the　fact　that　we　cannot
render　intelligible　the　possibility　of　an　object　corresponding　to　them
without　having　recourse　to　the　conditions　of　sensibility；
consequently；　to　the　form　of　phenomena；　to　which；　as　their　only　proper
objects；　their　use　must　therefore　be　confined；　inasmuch　as；　if　this
condition　is　removed；　all　significance；　that　is；　all　relation　to　an
object；　disappears；　and　no　example　can　be　found　to　make　it
prehensible　what　sort　of　things　we　ought　to　think　under　such
conceptions。
　　The　conception　of　quantity　cannot　be　explained　except　by　saying　that
it　is　the　determination　of　a　thing　whereby　it　can　be　cogitated　how
many　times　one　is　placed　in　it。　But　this　〃how　many　times〃　is　based
upon　successive　repetition；　consequently　upon　time　and　the　synthesis
of　the　homogeneous　therein。　Reality；　in　contradistinction　to　negation；
can　be　explained　only　by　cogitating　a　time　which　is　either　filled
therewith　or　is　void。　If　I　leave　out　the　notion　of　permanence　（which
is　existence　in　all　time）；　there　remains　in　the　conception　of
substance　nothing　but　the　logical　notion　of　subject；　a　notion　of　which
I　endeavour　to　realize　by　representing　to　myself　something　that　can
exist　only　as　a　subject。　But　not　only　am　I　perfectly　ignorant　of　any
conditions　under　which　this　logical　prerogative　can　belong　to　a　thing；
I　can　make　nothing　out　of　the　notion；　and　draw　no　inference　from　it；
because　no　object　to　which　to　apply　the　conception　is　determined；
and　we　consequently　do　not　know　whether　it　has　any　meaning　at　all。
In　like　manner；　if　I　leave　out　the　notion　of　time；　in　which
something　follows　upon　some　other　thing　in　conformity　with　a　rule；　I
can　find　nothing　in　the　pure　category；　except　that　there　is　a
something　of　such　a　sort　that　from　it　a　conclusion　may　be　drawn　as
to　the　existence　of　some　other　thing。　But　in　this　case　it　would　not
only　be　impossible　to　distinguish　between　a　cause　and　an　effect；
but；　as　this　power　to　draw　conclusions　requires　conditions　of　which
I　am　quite　ignorant；　the　conception　is　not　determined　as　to　the　mode
in　which　it　ought　to　apply　to　an　object。　The　so…called　principle：
〃Everything　that　is　contingent　has　a　cause；〃　es　with　a　gravity
and　self…assumed　authority　that　seems　to　require　no　support　from
without。　But；　I　ask；　what　is　meant　by　contingent？　The　answer　is　that
the　non…existence　of　which　is　possible。　But　I　should　like　very　well　to
know　by　what　means　this　possibility　of　non…existence　is　to　be
cognized；　if　we　do　not　represent　to　ourselves　a　succession　in　the
series　of　phenomena；　and　in　this　succession　an　existence　which　follows
a　non…existence；　or　conversely；　consequently；　change。　For　to　say；　that
the　non…existence　of　a　thing　is　not　self…contradictory　is　a　lame
appeal　to　a　logical　condition；　which　is　no　doubt　a　necessary　condition
of　the　existence　of　the　conception；　but　is　far　from　being　sufficient
for　the　real　objective　possibility　of　non…existence。　I　can
annihilate　in　thought　every　existing　substance　without
self…contradiction；　but　I　cannot　infer　from　this　their　objective
contingency　in　existence；　that　is　to　say；　the　possibility　of　their
non…existence　in　itself。　As　regards　the　category　of　munity；　it
may　easily　be　inferred　that；　as　the　pure　categories　of　substance　and
causality　are　incapable　of　a　definition　and　explanation　sufficient
to　determine　their　object　without　the　aid　of　intuition；　the　category
of　reciprocal　causality　in　the　relation　of　substances　to　each　other
（mercium）　is　just　as　little　susceptible　thereof。　Possibility；
existence；　and　necessity　nobody　has　ever　yet　been　able　to　explain
without　being　guilty　of　manifest　tautology；　when　the　definition　has
been　drawn　entirely　from　the　pure　understanding。　For　the
substitution　of　the　logical　possibility　of　the　conception…　the
condition　of　which　is　that　it　be　not　self…contradictory；　for　the
transcendental　possibility　of　things…　the　condition　of　which　is　that
there　be　an　object　corresponding　to　the　conception；　is　a　trick　which
can　only　deceive　the　inexperienced。*

　　*In　one　word；　to　none　of　these　conceptions　belongs　a　corresponding
object；　and　consequently　their　real　possibility　cannot　be
demonstrated；　if　we　take　away　sensuous　intuition…　the　only　intuition
which　we　possess…　and　there　then　remains　nothing　but　the　logical
possibility；　that　is；　the　fact　that　the　conception　or　thought　is
possible…　which；　however；　is　not　the　question；　what　we　want　to　know
being；　whether　it　relates　to　an　object　and　thus　possesses　any　meaning。

　　It　follows　incontestably；　that　the　pure　conceptions　of　the
understanding　are　incapable　of　transcendental；　and　must　always　be　of
empirical　use　alone；　and　that　the　principles　of　the　pure　understanding
relate　only　to　the　general　conditions　of　a　possible　experience；　to
objects　of　the　senses；　and　never　to　things　in　general；　apart　from
the　mode　in　which　we　intuite　them。
　　Transcendental　analytic　has　accordingly　this　important　result；　to
wit；　that　the　understanding　is　petent'　effect　nothing　a　priori；
except　the　anticipation　of　the　form　of　a　possible　experience　in
general；　and　that；　as　that　which　is　not　phenomenon　cannot　be　an　object
of　experience；　it　can　never　overstep　the　limits　of　sensibility；　within
which　alone　objects　are　presented　to　us。　Its　principles　are　merely
principles　of　the　exposition　of　phenomena；　and　the　proud　name　of　an
ontology；　which　professes　to　present　synthetical　cognitions　a　priori
of　things　in　general　in　a　systematic　doctrine；　must　give　place　to
the　modest　title　of　analytic　of　the　pure　understanding。
　　Thought　is　the　act　of　referring　a　given　intuition　to　an　object。　If
the　mode　of　this　intuition　is　unknown　to　us；　the　object　is　merely
transcendental；　and　the　conception　of　the　understanding　is　employed
only　transcendentally；　that　is；　to　produce　unity　in　the　thought　of　a
manifold　in　general。　Now　a　pure　category；　in　which　all　conditions　of
sensuous　intuition…　as　the　only　intuition　we　possess…　are
abstracted；　does　not　determine　an　object；　but　merely　expresses　the
thought　of　an　object　in　general；　according　to　different　modes。　Now；　to
employ　a　conception；　the　function　of　judgement　is　required；　by　which
an　object　is　subsumed　under　the　conception；　consequently　the　at
least　formal　condition；　under　which　something　can　be　given　in
intuition。　Failing　this　condition　of　judgement　（schema）；　subsumption
is　impossible；　for　there　is　in　such　a　case　nothing　given；　which　may　be
subsumed　under　the　conception。　The　merely　transcendental　use　of　the
categories　is　therefore；　in　fact；　no　use　at　all　and　has　no　determined；
or　even；　as　regards　its　form；　determinable　object。　Hence　it　follows
that　the　pure　category　is　inpetent　to　establish　a　synthetical　a
priori　principle；　and　that　the　principles　of　the　pure　understanding
are　only　of　empirical　and　never　of　transcendental　use；　and　that　beyond
the　sphere　of　possible　experience　no　synthetical　a　priori　principles
are　possible。
　　It　may　be　advisable；　therefore；　to　express　ourselves　thus。　The
pure　categories；　apart　from　the　formal　conditions　of　sensibility；　have
a　merely　transcendental　meaning；　but　are　nevertheless　not　of
transcendental　use；　because　this　is　in　itself　impossible；　inasmuch
as　all　the　conditions　of　any　employment　or　use　of　them　（in　judgements）
are　absent；　to　wit；　the　formal　conditions　of　the　subsumption　of　an
object　under　these　conceptions。　As；　therefore；　in　the　character　of
pure　categories；　they　must　be　employed　empirically；　and　cannot　be
employed　transcendentally；　they　are　of　no　use　at　all；　when　separated
from　sensibility；　that　is；　they　cannot　be　applied　to　an　object。　They
are　merely　the　pur