the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第82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！


unnecessary　for　it　to　renounce　the　guidance　of　nature；　to　attach
itself　to　ideas；　the　objects　of　which　it　cannot　know；　because；　as　mere
intellectual　entities；　they　cannot　be　presented　in　any　intuition。　On
the　contrary；　it　is　not　even　permitted　to　abandon　its　proper
occupation；　under　the　pretence　that　it　has　been　brought　to　a
conclusion　（for　it　never　can　be）；　and　to　pass　into　the　region　of
idealizing　reason　and　transcendent　conceptions；　which　it　is　not
required　to　observe　and　explore　the　laws　of　nature；　but　merely　to
think　and　to　imagine…　secure　from　being　contradicted　by　facts；　because
they　have　not　been　called　as　witnesses；　but　passed　by；　or　perhaps
subordinated　to　the　so…called　higher　interests　and　considerations　of
pure　reason。
　　Hence　the　empiricist　will　never　allow　himself　to　accept　any　epoch　of
nature　for　the　first…　the　absolutely　primal　state；　he　will　not　believe
that　there　can　be　limits　to　his　outlook　into　her　wide　domains；　nor
pass　from　the　objects　of　nature；　which　he　can　satisfactorily　explain
by　means　of　observation　and　mathematical　thought…　which　he　can
determine　synthetically　in　intuition；　to　those　which　neither　sense　nor
imagination　can　ever　present　in　concreto；　he　will　not　concede　the
existence　of　a　faculty　in　nature；　operating　independently　of　the
laws　of　nature…　a　concession　which　would　introduce　uncertainty　into
the　procedure　of　the　understanding；　which　is　guided　by　necessary
laws　to　the　observation　of　phenomena；　nor；　finally；　will　he　permit
himself　to　seek　a　cause　beyond　nature；　inasmuch　as　we　know　nothing　but
it；　and　from　it　alone　receive　an　objective　basis　for　all　our
conceptions　and　instruction　in　the　unvarying　laws　of　things。
　　In　truth；　if　the　empirical　philosopher　had　no　other　purpose　in　the
establishment　of　his　antithesis　than　to　check　the　presumption　of　a
reason　which　mistakes　its　true　destination；　which　boasts　of　its
insight　and　its　knowledge；　just　where　all　insight　and　knowledge
cease　to　exist；　and　regards　that　which　is　valid　only　in　relation　to
a　practical　interest；　as　an　advancement　of　the　speculative　interests
of　the　mind　（in　order；　when　it　is　convenient　for　itself；　to　break
the　thread　of　our　physical　investigations；　and；　under　pretence　of
extending　our　cognition；　connect　them　with　transcendental　ideas；　by
means　of　which　we　really　know　only　that　we　know　nothing）…　if；　I　say；
the　empiricist　rested　satisfied　with　this　benefit；　the　principle
advanced　by　him　would　be　a　maxim　remending　moderation　in　the
pretensions　of　reason　and　modesty　in　its　affirmations；　and　at　the　same
time　would　direct　us　to　the　right　mode　of　extending　the　province　of
the　understanding；　by　the　help　of　the　only　true　teacher；　experience。
In　obedience　to　this　advice；　intellectual　hypotheses　and　faith　would
not　be　called　in　aid　of　our　practical　interests；　nor　should　we
introduce　them　under　the　pompous　titles　of　science　and　insight。　For
speculative　cognition　cannot　find　an　objective　basis　any　other　where
than　in　experience；　and；　when　we　overstep　its　limits　our　synthesis；
which　requires　ever　new　cognitions　independent　of　experience；　has　no
substratum　of　intuition　upon　which　to　build。
　　But　if…　as　often　happens…　empiricism；　in　relation　to　ideas；
bees　itself　dogmatic　and　boldly　denies　that　which　is　above　the
sphere　of　its　phenomenal　cognition；　it　falls　itself　into　the　error
of　intemperance…　an　error　which　is　here　all　the　more　reprehensible；　as
thereby　the　practical　interest　of　reason　receives　an　irreparable
injury。
　　And　this　constitutes　the　opposition　between　Epicureanism*　and
Platonism。

　　*It　is；　however；　still　a　matter　of　doubt　whether　Epicurus　ever
propounded　these　principles　as　directions　for　the　objective　employment
of　the　understanding。　If；　indeed；　they　were　nothing　more　than　maxims
for　the　speculative　exercise　of　reason；　he　gives　evidence　therein　a
more　genuine　philosophic　spirit　than　any　of　the　philosophers　of
antiquity。　That；　in　the　explanation　of　phenomena；　we　must　proceed　as
if　the　field　of　inquiry　had　neither　limits　in　space　nor　mencement
in　time；　that　we　must　be　satisfied　with　the　teaching　of　experience
in　reference　to　the　material　of　which　the　world　is　posed；　that　we　must
not　look　for　any　other　mode　of　the　origination　of　events　than　that
which　is　determined　by　the　unalterable　laws　of　nature；　and　finally；
that　we　not　employ　the　hypothesis　of　a　cause　distinct　from　the　world
to　account　for　a　phenomenon　or　for　the　world　itself…　are　principles
for　the　extension　of　speculative　philosophy；　and　the　discovery　of
the　true　sources　of　the　principles　of　morals；　which；　however　little
conformed　to　in　the　present　day；　are　undoubtedly　correct。　At　the
same　time；　any　one　desirous　of　ignoring；　in　mere　speculation；　these
dogmatical　propositions；　need　not　for　that　reason　be　accused　of
denying　them。

　　Both　Epicurus　and　Plato　assert　more　in　their　systems　than　they　know。
The　former　encourages　and　advances　science…　although　to　the
prejudice　of　the　practical；　the　latter　presents　us　with　excellent
principles　for　the　investigation　of　the　practical；　but；　in　relation　to
everything　regarding　which　we　can　attain　to　speculative　cognition；
permits　reason　to　append　idealistic　explanations　of　natural　phenomena；
to　the　great　injury　of　physical　investigation。
　　3。　In　regard　to　the　third　motive　for　the　preliminary　choice　of　a
party　in　this　war　of　assertions；　it　seems　very　extraordinary　that
empiricism　should　be　utterly　unpopular。　We　should　be　inclined　to
believe　that　the　mon　understanding　would　receive　it　with
pleasure…　promising　as　it　does　to　satisfy　it　without　passing　the
bounds　of　experience　and　its　connected　order；　while　transcendental
dogmatism　obliges　it　to　rise　to　conceptions　which　far　surpass　the
intelligence　and　ability　of　the　most　practised　thinkers。　But　in
this；　in　truth；　is　to　be　found　its　real　motive。　For　the　mon
understanding　thus　finds　itself　in　a　situation　where　not　even　the　most
learned　can　have　the　advantage　of　it。　If　it　understands　little　or
nothing　about　these　transcendental　conceptions；　no　one　can　boast　of
understanding　any　more；　and　although　it　may　not　express　itself　in　so
scholastically　correct　a　manner　as　others；　it　can　busy　itself　with
reasoning　and　arguments　without　end；　wandering　among　mere　ideas；　about
which　one　can　always　be　very　eloquent；　because　we　know　nothing　about
them；　while；　in　the　observation　and　investigation　of　nature；　it
would　be　forced　to　remain　dumb　and　to　confess　its　utter　ignorance。
Thus　indolence　and　vanity　form　of　themselves　strong　remendations　of
these　principles。　Besides；　although　it　is　a　hard　thing　for　a
philosopher　to　assume　a　principle；　of　which　he　can　give　to　himself
no　reasonable　account；　and　still　more　to　employ　conceptions；　the
objective　reality　of　which　cannot　be　established；　nothing　is　more
usual　with　the　mon　understanding。　It　wants　something　which　will
allow　it　to　go　to　work　with　confidence。　The　difficulty　of　even
prehending　a　supposition　does　not　disquiet　it；　because…　not　knowing
what　prehending　means…　it　never　even　thinks　of　the　supposition　it
may　be　adopting　as　a　principle；　and　regards　as　known　that　with　which
it　has　bee　familiar　from　constant　use。　And；　at　last；　all
speculative　interests　disappear　before　the　practical　interests　which
it　holds　dear；　and　it　fancies　that　it　understands　and　knows　what　its
necessities　and　hopes　incite　it　to　assume　or　to　believe。　Thus　the
empiricism　of　transcendentally　idealizing　reason　is　robbed　of　all
popularity；　and；　however　prejudicial　it　may　be　to　the　highest
practical　principles；　there　is　no　fear　that　it　will　ever　pass　the
limits　of　the　schools；　or　acquire　any　favour　or　influence　in　society
or　with　the　multitude　a
　　Human　reason　is　by　nature　architectonic。　That　is　to　say；　it
regards　all　cognitions　as　parts　of　a　possible　system；　and　hence
accepts　only　such　principles　as　at　least　do　not　incapacitate　a
cognition　to　which　we　may　have　attained　from　being　placed　along　with
others　in　a　general　system。　But　the　propositions　of　the　antithesis　are
of　a　character　which　renders　the　pletion　of　an　edifice　of
cognitions　impossible。　According　to　these；　beyond　one　state　or　epoch
of　the　world　there　is　always　to　be　found　one　more　ancient；　in　every
part　always　other　parts　themselves　divisible；　preceding　every　event
another；　the　origin　of　which　must　itself　be　sought　still　higher；　and
everything　in　existence　is　conditioned；　and　still　not　dependent　on
an　unconditioned　and　primal　existence。　As；　therefore；　the　antithesis
will　not　concede　the　existence　of　a　first　beginning　which　might　be
available　as　a　foundation；　a　plete　edifice　of　cognition；　in　the
presence　of　such　hypothesis；　is　utterly　impossible。　Thus　the
architectonic　interest　of　reason；　which　requires　a　unity…　not
empirical；　but　a　priori　and　rational…　forms　a　natural　remendation
for　the　assertions　of　the　thesis　in　our　antinomy。
　　But　if　any　one　could　free　himself　entirely　from　all　considerations
of　interest；　and　weigh　without　partiality　the　assertions　of　reason；
attending　only　to　their　content；　irrespective　of　the　consequences
which　follow　from　them；　such　a　person；　on　the　supposition　that　he　knew
no　other　way　out　of　the　confusion　than　to　settle　the　truth　of　one　or
other　of　the　conflicting　doctrines；　would　l