the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第75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！


totality　of　the　content　of　existing　things；　and　we　are　directing　our
attention　only　to　the　pleteness　of　the　synthesis…　although；
properly；　only　in　regression。　In　regard　to　the　fact　that　these　ideas
are　all　transcendent。　and；　although　they　do　not　transcend　phenomena　as
regards　their　mode；　but　are　concerned　solely　with　the　world　of　sense
（and　not　with　noumena）；　nevertheless　carry　their　synthesis　to　a　degree
far　above　all　possible　experience…　it　still　seems　to　me　that　we　can；
with　perfect　propriety；　designate　them　cosmical　conceptions。　As
regards　the　distinction　between　the　mathematically　and　the　dynamically
unconditioned　which　is　the　aim　of　the　regression　of　the　synthesis；　I
should　call　the　two　former；　in　a　more　limited　signification；
cosmical　conceptions；　the　remaining　two　transcendent　physical
conceptions。　This　distinction　does　not　at　present　seem　to　be　of
particular　importance；　but　we　shall　afterwards　find　it　to　be　of　some
value。


　　　　　　　　　　　SECTION　II。　Antithetic　of　Pure　Reason。

　　Thetic　is　the　term　applied　to　every　collection　of　dogmatical
propositions。　By　antithetic　I　do　not　understand　dogmatical
assertions　of　the　opposite；　but　the　self…contradiction　of　seemingly
dogmatical　cognitions　（thesis　cum　antithesis；　in　none　of　which　we
can　discover　any　decided　superiority。　Antithetic　is　not；　therefore；
occupied　with　one…sided　statements；　but　is　engaged　in　considering
the　contradictory　nature　of　the　general　cognitions　of　reason　and　its
causes。　Transcendental　antithetic　is　an　investigation　into　the
antinomy　of　pure　reason；　its　causes　and　result。　If　we　employ　our
reason　not　merely　in　the　application　of　the　principles　of　the
understanding　to　objects　of　experience；　but　venture　with　it　beyond
these　boundaries；　there　arise　certain　sophistical　propositions　or
theorems。　These　assertions　have　the　following　peculiarities：　They
can　find　neither　confirmation　nor　confutation　in　experience；　and
each　is　in　itself　not　only　self…consistent；　but　possesses　conditions
of　its　necessity　in　the　very　nature　of　reason…　only　that；　unluckily；
there　exist　just　as　valid　and　necessary　grounds　for　maintaining　the
contrary　proposition。
　　The　questions　which　naturally　arise　in　the　consideration　of　this
dialectic　of　pure　reason；　are　therefore：　1st。　In　what　propositions
is　pure　reason　unavoidably　subject　to　an　antinomy？　2nd。　What　are　the
causes　of　this　antinomy？　3rd。　Whether　and　in　what　way　can　reason
free　itself　from　this　self…contradiction？
　　A　dialectical　proposition　or　theorem　of　pure　reason　must；
according　to　what　has　been　said；　be　distinguishable　from　all
sophistical　propositions；　by　the　fact　that　it　is　not　an　answer　to　an
arbitrary　question；　which　may　be　raised　at　the　mere　pleasure　of　any
person；　but　to　one　which　human　reason　must　necessarily　encounter　in
its　progress。　In　the　second　place；　a　dialectical　proposition；　with　its
opposite；　does　not　carry　the　appearance　of　a　merely　artificial
illusion；　which　disappears　as　soon　as　it　is　investigated；　but　a
natural　and　unavoidable　illusion；　which；　even　when　we　are　no　longer
deceived　by　it；　continues　to　mock　us　and；　although　rendered
harmless；　can　never　be　pletely　removed。
　　This　dialectical　doctrine　will　not　relate　to　the　unity　of
understanding　in　empirical　conceptions；　but　to　the　unity　of　reason
in　pure　ideas。　The　conditions　of　this　doctrine　are…　inasmuch　as　it
must；　as　a　synthesis　according　to　rules；　be　conformable　to　the
understanding；　and　at　the　same　time　as　the　absolute　unity　of　the
synthesis；　to　the　reason…　that；　if　it　is　adequate　to　the　unity　of
reason；　it　is　too　great　for　the　understanding；　if　according　with　the
understanding；　it　is　too　small　for　the　reason。　Hence　arises　a　mutual
opposition；　which　cannot　be　avoided；　do　what　we　will。
　　These　sophistical　assertions　of　dialectic　open；　as　it　were；　a
battle…field；　where　that　side　obtains　the　victory　which　has　been
permitted　to　make　the　attack；　and　he　is　pelled　to　yield　who　has
been　unfortunately　obliged　to　stand　on　the　defensive。　And　hence；
champions　of　ability；　whether　on　the　right　or　on　the　wrong　side；　are
certain　to　carry　away　the　crown　of　victory；　if　they　only　take　care
to　have　the　right　to　make　the　last　attack；　and　are　not　obliged　to
sustain　another　onset　from　their　opponent。　We　can　easily　believe
that　this　arena　has　been　often　trampled　by　the　feet　of　batants；
that　many　victories　have　been　obtained　on　both　sides；　but　that　the
last　victory；　decisive　of　the　affair　between　the　contending　parties；
was　won　by　him　who　fought　for　the　right；　only　if　his　adversary　was
forbidden　to　continue　the　tourney。　As　impartial　umpires；　we　must　lay
aside　entirely　the　consideration　whether　the　batants　are　fighting
for　the　right　or　for　the　wrong　side；　for　the　true　or　for　the　false；
and　allow　the　bat　to　be　first　decided。　Perhaps；　after　they　have
wearied　more　than　injured　each　other；　they　will　discover　the
nothingness　of　their　cause　of　quarrel　and　part　good　friends。
　　This　method　of　watching；　or　rather　of　originating；　a　conflict　of
assertions；　not　for　the　purpose　of　finally　deciding　in　favour　of
either　side；　but　to　discover　whether　the　object　of　the　struggle　is　not
a　mere　illusion；　which　each　strives　in　vain　to　reach；　but　which
would　be　no　gain　even　when　reached…　this　procedure；　I　say；　may　be
termed　the　sceptical　method。　It　is　thoroughly　distinct　from
scepticism…　the　principle　of　a　technical　and　scientific　ignorance；
which　undermines　the　foundations　of　all　knowledge；　in　order；　if
possible；　to　destroy　our　belief　and　confidence　therein。　For　the
sceptical　method　aims　at　certainty；　by　endeavouring　to　discover　in　a
conflict　of　this　kind；　conducted　honestly　and　intelligently　on　both
sides；　the　point　of　misunderstanding；　just　as　wise　legislators　derive；
from　the　embarrassment　of　judges　in　lawsuits；　information　in　regard　to
the　defective　and　ill…defined　parts　of　their　statutes。　The　antinomy
which　reveals　itself　in　the　application　of　laws；　is　for　our　limited
wisdom　the　best　criterion　of　legislation。　For　the　attention　of　reason；
which　in　abstract　speculation　does　not　easily　bee　conscious　of
its　errors；　is　thus　roused　to　the　momenta　in　the　determination　of
its　principles。
　　But　this　sceptical　method　is　essentially　peculiar　to
transcendental　philosophy；　and　can　perhaps　be　dispensed　with　in
every　other　field　of　investigation。　In　mathematics　its　use　would　be
absurd；　because　in　it　no　false　assertions　can　long　remain　hidden；
inasmuch　as　its　demonstrations　must　always　proceed　under　the
guidance　of　pure　intuition；　and　by　means　of　an　always　evident
synthesis。　In　experimental　philosophy；　doubt　and　delay　may　be　very
useful；　but　no　misunderstanding　is　possible；　which　cannot　be　easily
removed；　and　in　experience　means　of　solving　the　difficulty　and　putting
an　end　to　the　dissension　must　at　last　be　found；　whether　sooner　or
later。　Moral　philosophy　can　always　exhibit　its　principles；　with
their　practical　consequences；　in　concreto…　at　least　in　possible
experiences；　and　thus　escape　the　mistakes　and　ambiguities　of
abstraction。　But　transcendental　propositions；　which　lay　claim　to
insight　beyond　the　region　of　possible　experience；　cannot；　on　the　one
hand；　exhibit　their　abstract　synthesis　in　any　a　priori　intuition；　nor；
on　the　other；　expose　a　lurking　error　by　the　help　of　experience。
Transcendental　reason；　therefore；　presents　us　with　no　other
criterion　than　that　of　an　attempt　to　reconcile　such　assertions；　and
for　this　purpose　to　permit　a　free　and　unrestrained　conflict　between
them。　And　this　we　now　proceed　to　arrange。*

　　*The　antinomies　stand　in　the　order　of　the　four　transcendental
ideas　above　detailed。


　　　　　　　　　　FIRST　CONFLICT　OF　THE　TRANSCENDENTAL　IDEAS。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　THESIS。

　　　　　The　world　has　a　beginning　in　time；　and　is　also　limited　in
regard　to　space。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。

　　Granted　that　the　world　has　no　beginning　in　time；　up　to　every　given
moment　of　time；　an　eternity　must　have　elapsed；　and　therewith　passed
away　an　infinite　series　of　successive　conditions　or　states　of　things
in　the　world。　Now　the　infinity　of　a　series　consists　in　the　fact　that
it　never　can　be　pleted　by　means　of　a　successive　synthesis。　It
follows　that　an　infinite　series　already　elapsed　is　impossible　and
that；　consequently；　a　beginning　of　the　world　is　a　necessary
condition　of　its　existence。　And　this　was　the　first　thing　to　be　proved。
　　As　regards　the　second；　let　us　take　the　opposite　for　granted。　In　this
case；　the　world　must　be　an　infinite　given　total　of　coexistent
things。　Now　we　cannot　cogitate　the　dimensions　of　a　quantity；　which
is　not　given　within　certain　limits　of　an　intuition；*　in　any　other
way　than　by　means　of　the　synthesis　of　its　parts；　and　the　total　of　such
a　quantity　only　by　means　of　a　pleted　synthesis；　or　the　repeated
addition　of　unity　to　itself。　Accordingly；　to　cogitate　the　world；　which
fills　all　spaces；　as　a　whole；　the　successive　synthesis　of　the　parts　of
an　infinite　world　must　be　looked　upon　as　pleted；　that　is　to　say；　an
infinite　time　must　be　regarded　as　having　elapsed　in　the　enumeration　of
all　co…existing　things；　which　is　impossible。　For　this　reason　an
infinite　aggregate　of　actual　things　cannot　be　considered　as　a　given
whole；　consequently；　not　as　a　contemporaneously　given