the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第83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！


other　of　the　conflicting　doctrines；　would　live　in　a　state　of　continual
hesitation。　Today；　he　would　feel　convinced　that　the　human　will　is
free；　to…morrow；　considering　the　indissoluble　chain　of　nature；　he
would　look　on　freedom　as　a　mere　illusion　and　declare　nature　to　be
all…in…all。　But；　if　he　were　called　to　action；　the　play　of　the　merely
speculative　reason　would　disappear　like　the　shapes　of　a　dream；　and
practical　interest　would　dictate　his　choice　of　principles。　But；　as
it　well　befits　a　reflective　and　inquiring　being　to　devote　certain
periods　of　time　to　the　examination　of　its　own　reason…　to　divest　itself
of　all　partiality；　and　frankly　to　municate　its　observations　for　the
judgement　and　opinion　of　others；　so　no　one　can　be　blamed　for；　much
less　prevented　from；　placing　both　parties　on　their　trial；　with
permission　to　end　themselves；　free　from　intimidation；　before
intimidation；　before　a　sworn　jury　of　equal　condition　with
themselves…　the　condition　of　weak　and　fallible　men。


　　　　　　　SECTION　IV。　Of　the　necessity　imposed　upon　Pure　Reason
　　　　　　　　　　　of　presenting　a　Solution　of　its　Transcendental
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Problems。

　　To　avow　an　ability　to　solve　all　problems　and　to　answer　all　questions
would　be　a　profession　certain　to　convict　any　philosopher　of
extravagant　boasting　and　self…conceit；　and　at　once　to　destroy　the
confidence　that　might　otherwise　have　been　reposed　in　him。　There　are；
however；　sciences　so　constituted　that　every　question　arising　within
their　sphere　must　necessarily　be　capable　of　receiving　an　answer　from
the　knowledge　already　possessed；　for　the　answer　must　be　received
from　the　same　sources　whence　the　question　arose。　In　such　sciences　it
is　not　allowable　to　excuse　ourselves　on　the　plea　of　necessary　and
unavoidable　ignorance；　a　solution　is　absolutely　requisite。　The　rule　of
right　and　wrong　must　help　us　to　the　knowledge　of　what　is　right　or
wrong　in　all　possible　cases；　otherwise；　the　idea　of　obligation　or　duty
would　be　utterly　null；　for　we　cannot　have　any　obligation　to　that　which
we　cannot　know。　On　the　other　hand；　in　our　investigations　of　the
phenomena　of　nature；　much　must　remain　uncertain；　and　many　questions
continue　insoluble；　because　what　we　know　of　nature　is　far　from　being
sufficient　to　explain　all　the　phenomena　that　are　presented　to　our
observation。　Now　the　question　is：　〃Whether　there　is　in
transcendental　philosophy　any　question；　relating　to　an　object
presented　to　pure　reason；　which　is　unanswerable　by　this　reason；　and
whether　we　must　regard　the　subject　of　the　question　as　quite　uncertain；
so　far　as　our　knowledge　extends；　and　must　give　it　a　place　among
those　subjects；　of　which　we　have　just　so　much　conception　as　is
sufficient　to　enable　us　to　raise　a　question…　faculty　or　materials
failing　us；　however；　when　we　attempt　an　answer。　the　world
　　Now　I　maintain　that；　among　all　speculative　cognition；　the
peculiarity　of　transcendental　philosophy　is　that　there　is　no　question；
relating　to　an　object　presented　to　pure　reason；　which　is　insoluble
by　this　reason；　and　that　the　profession　of　unavoidable　ignorance…
the　problem　being　alleged　to　be　beyond　the　reach　of　our　faculties…
cannot　free　us　from　the　obligation　to　present　a　plete　and
satisfactory　answer。　For　the　very　conception　which　enables　us　to　raise
the　question　must　give　us　the　power　of　answering　it；　inasmuch　as　the
object；　as　in　the　case　of　right　and　wrong；　is　not　to　be　discovered　out
of　the　conception。
　　But；　in　transcendental　philosophy；　it　is　only　the　cosmological
questions　to　which　we　can　demand　a　satisfactory　answer　in　relation
to　the　constitution　of　their　object；　and　the　philosopher　is　not
permitted　to　avail　himself　of　the　pretext　of　necessary　ignorance　and
impenetrable　obscurity。　These　questions　relate　solely　to　the
cosmological　ideas。　For　the　object　must　be　given　in　experience；　and
the　question　relates　to　the　adequateness　of　the　object　to　an　idea。
If　the　object　is　transcendental　and　therefore　itself　unknown；　if　the
question；　for　example；　is　whether　the　object…　the　something；　the
phenomenon　of　which　（internal…　in　ourselves）　is　thought…　that　is　to
say；　the　soul；　is　in　itself　a　simple　being；　or　whether　there　is　a
cause　of　all　things；　which　is　absolutely　necessary…　in　such　cases　we
are　seeking　for　our　idea　an　object；　of　which　we　may　confess　that　it　is
unknown　to　us；　though　we　must　not　on　that　account　assert　that　it　is
impossible。*　The　cosmological　ideas　alone　posses　the　peculiarity
that　we　can　presuppose　the　object　of　them　and　the　empirical
synthesis　requisite　for　the　conception　of　that　object　to　be　given；　and
the　question；　which　arises　from　these　ideas；　relates　merely　to　the
progress　of　this　synthesis；　in　so　far　as　it　must　contain　absolute
totality…　which；　however；　is　not　empirical；　as　it　cannot　be　given　in
any　experience。　Now；　as　the　question　here　is　solely　in　regard　to　a
thing　as　the　object　of　a　possible　experience　and　not　as　a　thing　in
itself；　the　answer　to　the　transcendental　cosmological　question　need
not　be　sought　out　of　the　idea；　for　the　question　does　not　regard　an
object　in　itself。　The　question　in　relation　to　a　possible　experience　is
not；　〃What　can　be　given　in　an　experience　in　concreto〃　but　〃what　is
contained　in　the　idea；　to　which　the　empirical　synthesis　must
approximate。〃　The　question　must　therefore　be　capable　of　solution
from　the　idea　alone。　For　the　idea　is　a　creation　of　reason　itself；
which　therefore　cannot　disclaim　the　obligation　to　answer　or　refer　us
to　the　unknown　object。

　　*The　question；　〃What　is　the　constitution　of　a　transcendental
object？〃　is　unanswerable…　we　are　unable　to　say　what　it　is；　but　we
can　perceive　that　the　question　itself　is　nothing；　because　it　does
not　relate　to　any　object　that　can　be　presented　to　us。　For　this　reason；
we　must　consider　all　the　questions　raised　in　transcendental　psychology
as　answerable　and　as　really　answered；　for　they　relate　to　the
transcendental　subject　of　all　internal　phenomena；　which　is　not
itself　phenomenon　and　consequently　not　given　as　an　object；　in　which；
moreover；　none　of　the　categories…　and　it　is　to　them　that　the
question　is　properly　directed…　find　any　conditions　of　its　application。
Here；　therefore；　is　a　case　where　no　answer　is　the　only　proper
answer。　For　a　question　regarding　the　constitution　of　a　something　which
cannot　be　cogitated　by　any　determined　predicate；　being　pletely
beyond　the　sphere　of　objects　and　experience；　is　perfectly　null　and
void。

　　It　is　not　so　extraordinary；　as　it　at　first　sight　appears；　that　a
science　should　demand　and　expect　satisfactory　answers　to　all　the
questions　that　may　arise　within　its　own　sphere　（questiones
domesticae）；　although；　up　to　a　certain　time；　these　answers　may　not
have　been　discovered。　There　are；　in　addition　to　transcendental
philosophy；　only　two　pure　sciences　of　reason；　the　one　with　a
speculative；　the　other　with　a　practical　content…　pure　mathematics
and　pure　ethics。　Has　any　one　ever　heard　it　alleged　that；　from　our
plete　and　necessary　ignorance　of　the　conditions；　it　is　uncertain
what　exact　relation　the　diameter　of　a　circle　bears　to　the　circle　in
rational　or　irrational　numbers？　By　the　former　the　sum　cannot　be
given　exactly；　by　the　latter　only　approximately；　and　therefore　we
decide　that　the　impossibility　of　a　solution　of　the　question　is
evident。　Lambert　presented　us　with　a　demonstration　of　this。　In　the
general　principles　of　morals　there　can　be　nothing　uncertain；　for　the
propositions　are　either　utterly　without　meaning；　or　must　originate
solely　in　our　rational　conceptions。　On　the　other　hand；　there　must　be
in　physical　science　an　infinite　number　of　conjectures；　which　can　never
bee　certainties；　because　the　phenomena　of　nature　are　not　given　as
objects　dependent　on　our　conceptions。　The　key　to　the　solution　of
such　questions　cannot；　therefore；　be　found　in　our　conceptions；　or　in
pure　thought；　but　must　lie　without　us　and　for　that　reason　is　in　many
cases　not　to　be　discovered；　and　consequently　a　satisfactory
explanation　cannot　be　expected。　The　questions　of　transcendental
analytic；　which　relate　to　the　deduction　of　our　pure　cognition；　are　not
to　be　regarded　as　of　the　same　kind　as　those　mentioned　above；　for　we
are　not　at　present　treating　of　the　certainty　of　judgements　in　relation
to　the　origin　of　our　conceptions；　but　only　of　that　certainty　in
relation　to　objects。
　　We　cannot；　therefore；　escape　the　responsibility　of　at　least　a
critical　solution　of　the　questions　of　reason；　by　plaints　of　the
limited　nature　of　our　faculties；　and　the　seemingly　humble　confession
that　it　is　beyond　the　power　of　our　reason　to　decide；　whether　the　world
has　existed　from　all　eternity　or　had　a　beginning…　whether　it　is
infinitely　extended；　or　enclosed　within　certain　limits…　whether
anything　in　the　world　is　simple；　or　whether　everything　must　be　capable
of　infinite　divisibility…　whether　freedom　can　originate　phenomena；
or　whether　everything　is　absolutely　dependent　on　the　laws　and　order　of
nature…　and；　finally；　whether　there　exists　a　being　that　is
pletely　unconditioned　and　necessary；　or　whether　the　existence　of
everything　is　conditioned　and　consequently　dependent　on　something
external　to　itself；　and　therefore　in　its　own　nature　contingent。　For
all　these　questions　relate　to　an　object；　which　can　be　given　nowhe