the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第69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！


the　predicaments　of　pure　psychology；　but　we　shall；　for　brevity's　sake；
allow　this　examination　to　proceed　in　an　uninterrupted　connection。
　　Before　entering　on　this　task；　however；　the　following　general
remark　may　help　to　quicken　our　attention　to　this　mode　of　argument。
It　is　not　merely　through　my　thinking　that　I　cognize　an　object；　but
only　through　my　determining　a　given　intuition　in　relation　to　the　unity
of　consciousness　in　which　all　thinking　consists。　It　follows　that　I
cognize　myself；　not　through　my　being　conscious　of　myself　as
thinking；　but　only　when　I　am　conscious　of　the　intuition　of　myself　as
determined　in　relation　to　the　function　of　thought。　All　the　modi　of
self…consciousness　in　thought　are　hence　not　conceptions　of　objects
（conceptions　of　the　understanding…　categories）；　they　are　mere
logical　functions；　which　do　not　present　to　thought　an　object　to　be
cognized；　and　cannot　therefore　present　my　Self　as　an　object。　Not　the
consciousness　of　the　determining；　but　only　that　of　the　determinable
self；　that　is；　of　my　internal　intuition　（in　so　far　as　the　manifold
contained　in　it　can　be　connected　conformably　with　the　general
condition　of　the　unity　of　apperception　in　thought）；　is　the　object。
　　1。　In　all　judgements　I　am　the　determining　subject　of　that　relation
which　constitutes　a　judgement。　But　that　the　I　which　thinks；　must　be
considered　as　in　thought　always　a　subject；　and　as　a　thing　which　cannot
be　a　predicate　to　thought；　is　an　apodeictic　and　identical　proposition。
But　this　proposition　does　not　signify　that　I；　as　an　object；　am；　for
myself；　a　self…subsistent　being　or　substance。　This　latter　statement…
an　ambitious　one…　requires　to　be　supported　by　data　which　are　not　to　be
discovered　in　thought；　and　are　perhaps　（in　so　far　as　I　consider　the
thinking　self　merely　as　such）　not　to　be　discovered　in　the　thinking
self　at　all。
　　2。　That　the　I　or　Ego　of　apperception；　and　consequently　in　all
thought；　is　singular　or　simple；　an；3　cannot　be　resolved　into　a
plurality　of　subjects；　and　therefore　indicates　a　logically　simple
subject…　this　is　self…evident　from　the　very　conception　of　an　Ego；
and　is　consequently　an　analytical　proposition。　But　this　is　not
tantamount　to　declaring　that　the　thinking　Ego　is　a　simple　substance…
for　this　would　be　a　synthetical　proposition。　The　conception　of
substance　always　relates　to　intuitions；　which　with　me　cannot　be
other　than　sensuous；　and　which　consequently　lie　pletely　out　of
the　sphere　of　the　understanding　and　its　thought：　but　to　this　sphere
belongs　the　affirmation　that　the　Ego　is　simple　in　thought。　It　would
indeed　be　surprising；　if　the　conception　of　〃substance；〃　which　in　other
cases　requires　so　much　labour　to　distinguish　from　the　other　elements
presented　by　intuition…　so　much　trouble；　too；　to　discover　whether　it
can　be　simple　（as　in　the　case　of　the　parts　of　matter）…　should　be
presented　immediately　to　me；　as　if　by　revelation；　in　the　poorest
mental　representation　of　all。
　　3。　The　proposition　of　the　identity　of　my　Self　amidst　all　the
manifold　representations　of　which　I　am　conscious；　is　likewise　a
proposition　lying　in　the　conceptions　themselves；　and　is　consequently
analytical。　But　this　identity　of　the　subject；　of　which　I　am
conscious　in　all　its　representations；　does　not　relate　to　or　concern
the　intuition　of　the　subject；　by　which　it　is　given　as　an　object。
This　proposition　cannot　therefore　enounce　the　identity　of　the
person；　by　which　is　understood　the　consciousness　of　the　identity　of
its　own　substance　as　a　thinking　being　in　all　change　and　variation　of
circumstances。　To　prove　this；　we　should　require　not　a　mere　analysis　of
the　proposition；　but　synthetical　judgements　based　upon　a　given
intuition。
　　4。　I　distinguish　my　own　existence；　as　that　of　a　thinking　being；　from
that　of　other　things　external　to　me…　among　which　my　body　also　is
reckoned。　This　is　also　an　analytical　proposition；　for　other　things　are
exactly　those　which　I　think　as　different　or　distinguished　from　myself。
But　whether　this　consciousness　of　myself　is　possible　without　things
external　to　me；　and　whether　therefore　I　can　exist　merely　as　a　thinking
being　（without　being　man）…　cannot　be　known　or　inferred　from　this
proposition。
　　Thus　we　have　gained　nothing　as　regards　the　cognition　of　myself　as
object；　by　the　analysis　of　the　consciousness　of　my　Self　in　thought。
The　logical　exposition　of　thought　in　general　is　mistaken　for　a
metaphysical　determination　of　the　object。
　　Our　Critique　would　be　an　investigation　utterly　superfluous；　if　there
existed　a　possibility　of　proving　a　priori；　that　all　thinking　beings
are　in　themselves　simple　substances；　as　such；　therefore；　possess　the
inseparable　attribute　of　personality；　and　are　conscious　of　their
existence　apart　from　and　unconnected　with　matter。　For　we　should　thus
have　taken　a　step　beyond　the　world　of　sense；　and　have　penetrated
into　the　sphere　of　noumena；　and　in　this　case　the　right　could　not　be
denied　us　of　extending　our　knowledge　in　this　sphere；　of　establishing
ourselves；　and；　under　a　favouring　star；　appropriating　to　ourselves
possessions　in　it。　For　the　proposition：　〃Every　thinking　being；　as
such；　is　simple　substance；〃　is　an　a　priori　synthetical　proposition；
because　in　the　first　place　it　goes　beyond　the　conception　which　is
the　subject　of　it；　and　adds　to　the　mere　notion　of　a　thinking　being　the
mode　of　its　existence；　and　in　the　second　place　annexes　a　predicate
（that　of　simplicity）　to　the　latter　conception…　a　predicate　which　it
could　not　have　discovered　in　the　sphere　of　experience。　It　would　follow
that　a　priori　synthetical　propositions　are　possible　and　legitimate；
not　only；　as　we　have　maintained；　in　relation　to　objects　of　possible
experience；　and　as　principles　of　the　possibility　of　this　experience
itself；　but　are　applicable　to　things　in　themselves…　an　inference　which
makes　an　end　of　the　whole　of　this　Critique；　and　obliges　us　to　fall
back　on　the　old　mode　of　metaphysical　procedure。　But　indeed　the
danger　is　not　so　great；　if　we　look　a　little　closer　into　the　question。
　　There　lurks　in　the　procedure　of　rational　Psychology　a　paralogism；
which　is　represented　in　the　following　syllogism：
　　That　which　cannot　be　cogitated　otherwise　than　as　subject；　does　not
exist　otherwise　than　as　subject；　and　is　therefore　substance。
　　A　thinking　being；　considered　merely　as　such；　cannot　be　cogitated
otherwise　than　as　subject。
　　Therefore　it　exists　also　as　such；　that　is；　as　substance。
　　In　the　major　we　speak　of　a　being　that　can　be　cogitated　generally　and
in　every　relation；　consequently　as　it　may　be　given　in　intuition。　But
in　the　minor　we　speak　of　the　same　being　only　in　so　far　as　it　regards
itself　as　subject；　relatively　to　thought　and　the　unity　of
consciousness；　but　not　in　relation　to　intuition；　by　which　it　is
presented　as　an　object　to　thought。　Thus　the　conclusion　is　here　arrived
at　by　a　Sophisma　figurae　dictionis。*

　　*Thought　is　taken　in　the　two　premisses　in　two　totally　different
senses。　In　the　major　it　is　considered　as　relating　and　applying　to
objects　in　general；　consequently　to　objects　of　intuition　also。　In
the　minor；　we　understand　it　as　relating　merely　to
self…consciousness。　In　this　sense；　we　do　not　cogitate　an　object；　but
merely　the　relation　to　the　self…consciousness　of　the　subject；　as　the
form　of　thought。　In　the　former　premiss　we　speak　of　things　which　cannot
be　cogitated　otherwise　than　as　subjects。　In　the　second；　we　do　not
speak　of　things；　but　of　thought　all　objects　being　abstracted）；　in
which　the　Ego　is　always　the　subject　of　consciousness。　Hence　the
conclusion　cannot　be；　〃I　cannot　exist　otherwise　than　as　subject〃；
but　only　〃I　can；　in　cogitating　my　existence；　employ　my　Ego　only　as　the
subject　of　the　judgement。〃　But　this　is　an　identical　proposition；　and
throws　no　light　on　the　mode　of　my　existence。

　　That　this　famous　argument　is　a　mere　paralogism；　will　be　plain　to　any
one　who　will　consider　the　general　remark　which　precedes　our　exposition
of　the　principles　of　the　pure　understanding；　and　the　section　on
noumena。　For　it　was　there　proved　that　the　conception　of　a　thing；　which
can　exist　per　se…　only　as　a　subject　and　never　as　a　predicate；
possesses　no　objective　reality；　that　is　to　say；　we　can　never　know
whether　there　exists　any　object　to　correspond　to　the　conception；
consequently；　the　conception　is　nothing　more　than　a　conception；　and
from　it　we　derive　no　proper　knowledge。　If　this　conception　is　to
indicate　by　the　term　substance；　an　object　that　can　be　given；　if　it
is　to　bee　a　cognition；　we　must　have　at　the　foundation　of　the
cognition　a　permanent　intuition；　as　the　indispensable　condition　of　its
objective　reality。　For　through　intuition　alone　can　an　object　be　given。
But　in　internal　intuition　there　is　nothing　permanent；　for　the　Ego　is
but　the　consciousness　of　my　thought。　If　then；　we　appeal　merely　to
thought；　we　cannot　discover　the　necessary　condition　of　the　application
of　the　conception　of　substance…　that　is；　of　a　subject　existing　per　se…
to　the　subject　as　a　thinking　being。　And　thus　the　conception　of　the
simple　nature　of　substance；　which　is　connected　with　the　objective
reality　of　this　conception；　is　shown　to　be　also　invalid；　and　to　be；　in
fact；　nothing　more　than　the　logical　qualitative　unity　of
self…consciousness　in　thought；　whilst　we　remain　perfectly　ignorant