the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第84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！


external　to　itself；　and　therefore　in　its　own　nature　contingent。　For
all　these　questions　relate　to　an　object；　which　can　be　given　nowhere
else　than　in　thought。　This　object　is　the　absolutely　unconditioned
totality　of　the　synthesis　of　phenomena。　If　the　conceptions　in　our
minds　do　not　assist　us　to　some　certain　result　in　regard　to　these
problems；　we　must　not　defend　ourselves　on　the　plea　that　the　object
itself　remains　hidden　from　and　unknown　to　us。　For　no　such　thing　or
object　can　be　given…　it　is　not　to　be　found　out　of　the　idea　in　our
minds。　We　must　seek　the　cause　of　our　failure　in　our　idea　itself；　which
is　an　insoluble　problem　and　in　regard　to　which　we　obstinately　assume
that　there　exists　a　real　object　corresponding　and　adequate　to　it。　A
clear　explanation　of　the　dialectic　which　lies　in　our　conception；
will　very　soon　enable　us　to　e　to　a　satisfactory　decision　in
regard　to　such　a　question。
　　The　pretext　that　we　are　unable　to　arrive　at　certainty　in　regard　to
these　problems　may　be　met　with　this　question；　which　requires　at
least　a　plain　answer：　〃From　what　source　do　the　ideas　originate；　the
solution　of　which　involves　you　in　such　difficulties？　Are　you　seeking
for　an　explanation　of　certain　phenomena；　and　do　you　expect　these　ideas
to　give　you　the　principles　or　the　rules　of　this　explanation？〃　Let　it
be　granted；　that　all　nature　was　laid　open　before　you；　that　nothing　was
hid　from　your　senses　and　your　consciousness。　Still；　you　could　not
cognize　in　concreto　the　object　of　your　ideas　in　any　experience。　For
what　is　demanded　is　not　only　this　full　and　plete　intuition；　but
also　a　plete　synthesis　and　the　consciousness　of　its　absolute
totality；　and　this　is　not　possible　by　means　of　any　empirical
cognition。　It　follows　that　your　question…　your　idea…　is　by　no　means
necessary　for　the　explanation　of　any　phenomenon；　and　the　idea　cannot
have　been　in　any　sense　given　by　the　object　itself。　For　such　an
object　can　never　be　presented　to　us；　because　it　cannot　be　given　by　any
possible　experience。　Whatever　perceptions　you　may　attain　to；　you　are
still　surrounded　by　conditions…　in　space；　or　in　time…　and　you　cannot
discover　anything　unconditioned；　nor　can　you　decide　whether　this
unconditioned　is　to　be　placed　in　an　absolute　beginning　of　the
synthesis；　or　in　an　absolute　totality　of　the　series　without　beginning。
A　whole；　in　the　empirical　signification　of　the　term；　is　always
merely　parative。　The　absolute　whole　of　quantity　（the　universe）；
of　division；　of　derivation；　of　the　condition　of　existence；　with　the
question…　whether　it　is　to　be　produced　by　finite　or　infinite
synthesis；　no　possible　experience　can　instruct　us　concerning。　You　will
not；　for　example；　be　able　to　explain　the　phenomena　of　a　body　in　the
least　degree　better；　whether　you　believe　it　to　consist　of　simple；　or
of　posite　parts；　for　a　simple　phenomenon…　and　just　as　little　an
infinite　series　of　position…　can　never　be　presented　to　your
perception。　Phenomena　require　and　admit　of　explanation；　only　in　so　far
as　the　conditions　of　that　explanation　are　given　in　perception；　but　the
sum　total　of　that　which　is　given　in　phenomena；　considered　as　an
absolute　whole；　is　itself　a　perception…　and　we　cannot　therefore　seek
for　explanations　of　this　whole　beyond　itself；　in　other　perceptions。
The　explanation　of　this　whole　is　the　proper　object　of　the
transcendental　problems　of　pure　reason。
　　Although；　therefore；　the　solution　of　these　problems　is
unattainable　through　experience；　we　must　not　permit　ourselves　to　say
that　it　is　uncertain　how　the　object　of　our　inquiries　is　constituted。
For　the　object　is　in　our　own　mind　and　cannot　be　discovered　in
experience；　and　we　have　only　to　take　care　that　our　thoughts　are
consistent　with　each　other；　and　to　avoid　falling　into　the　amphiboly　of
regarding　our　idea　as　a　representation　of　an　object　empirically　given；
and　therefore　to　be　cognized　according　to　the　laws　of　experience。　A
dogmatical　solution　is　therefore　not　only　unsatisfactory　but
impossible。　The　critical　solution；　which　may　be　a　perfectly　certain
one；　does　not　consider　the　question　objectively；　but　proceeds　by
inquiring　into　the　basis　of　the　cognition　upon　which　the　question
rests。

　　　　　SECTION　V。　Sceptical　Exposition　of　the　Cosmological　Problems
　　　　　　　　　　　presented　in　the　four　Transcendental　Ideas。

　　We　should　be　quite　willing　to　desist　from　the　demand　of　a　dogmatical
answer　to　our　questions；　if　we　understood　beforehand　that；　be　the
answer　what　it　may；　it　would　only　serve　to　increase　our　ignorance；
to　throw　us　from　one　inprehensibility　into　another；　from　one
obscurity　into　another　still　greater；　and　perhaps　lead　us　into
irreconcilable　contradictions。　If　a　dogmatical　affirmative　or　negative
answer　is　demanded；　is　it　at　all　prudent　to　set　aside　the　probable
grounds　of　a　solution　which　lie　before　us　and　to　take　into
consideration　what　advantage　we　shall　gain；　if　the　answer　is　to　favour
the　one　side　or　the　other？　If　it　happens　that　in　both　cases　the　answer
is　mere　nonsense；　we　have　in　this　an　irresistible　summons　to　institute
a　critical　investigation　of　the　question；　for　the　purpose　of
discovering　whether　it　is　based　on　a　groundless　presupposition　and
relates　to　an　idea；　the　falsity　of　which　would　be　more　easily
exposed　in　its　application　and　consequences　than　in　the　mere
representation　of　its　content。　This　is　the　great　utility　of　the
sceptical　mode　of　treating　the　questions　addressed　by　pure　reason　to
itself。　By　this　method　we　easily　rid　ourselves　of　the　confusions　of
dogmatism；　and　establish　in　its　place　a　temperate　criticism；　which；　as
a　genuine　cathartic；　will　successfully　remove　the　presumptuous　notions
of　philosophy　and　their　consequence…　the　vain　pretension　to
universal　science。
　　If；　then；　I　could　understand　the　nature　of　a　cosmological　idea　and
perceive；　before　I　entered　on　the　discussion　of　the　subject　at　all；
that；　whatever　side　of　the　question　regarding　the　unconditioned　of　the
regressive　synthesis　of　phenomena　it　favoured…　it　must　either　be　too
great　or　too　small　for　every　conception　of　the　understanding…　I
would　be　able　to　prehend　how　the　idea；　which　relates　to　an　object
of　experience…　an　experience　which　must　be　adequate　to　and　in
accordance　with　a　possible　conception　of　the　understanding…　must　be
pletely　void　and　without　significance；　inasmuch　as　its　object　is
inadequate；　consider　it　as　we　may。　And　this　is　actually　the　case
with　all　cosmological　conceptions；　which；　for　the　reason　above
mentioned；　involve　reason；　so　long　as　it　remains　attached　to　them；
in　an　unavoidable　antinomy。　For　suppose：
　　First；　that　the　world　has　no　beginning…　in　this　case　it　is　too　large
for　our　conception；　for　this　conception；　which　consists　in　a
successive　regress；　cannot　overtake　the　whole　eternity　that　has
elapsed。　Grant　that　it　has　a　beginning；　it　is　then　too　small　for　the
conception　of　the　understanding。　For；　as　a　beginning　presupposes　a
time　preceding；　it　cannot　be　unconditioned；　and　the　law　of　the
empirical　employment　of　the　understanding　imposes　the　necessity　of
looking　for　a　higher　condition　of　time；　and　the　world　is；　therefore；
evidently　too　small　for　this　law。
　　The　same　is　the　case　with　the　double　answer　to　the　question
regarding　the　extent；　in　space；　of　the　world。　For；　if　it　is　infinite
and　unlimited；　it　must　be　too　large　for　every　possible　empirical
conception。　If　it　is　finite　and　limited；　we　have　a　right　to　ask：　〃What
determines　these　limits？〃　Void　space　is　not　a　self…subsistent
correlate　of　things；　and　cannot　be　a　final　condition…　and　still　less
an　empirical　condition；　forming　a　part　of　a　possible　experience。　For
how　can　we　have　any　experience　or　perception　of　an　absolute　void？
But　the　absolute　totality　of　the　empirical　synthesis　requires　that　the
unconditioned　be　an　empirical　conception。　Consequently；　a　finite　world
is　too　small　for　our　conception。
　　Secondly；　if　every　phenomenon　（matter）　in　space　consists　of　an
infinite　number　of　parts；　the　regress　of　the　division　is　always　too
great　for　our　conception；　and　if　the　division　of　space　must　cease　with
some　member　of　the　division　（the　simple）；　it　is　too　small　for　the　idea
of　the　unconditioned。　For　the　member　at　which　we　have　discontinued　our
division　still　admits　a　regress　to　many　more　parts　contained　in　the
object。
　　Thirdly；　suppose　that　every　event　in　the　world　happens　in　accordance
with　the　laws　of　nature；　the　causality　of　a　cause　must　itself　be　an
event　and　necessitates　a　regress　to　a　still　higher　cause；　and
consequently　the　unceasing　prolongation　of　the　series　of　conditions
a　parte　priori。　Operative　nature　is　therefore　too　large　for　every
conception　we　can　form　in　the　synthesis　of　cosmical　events。
　　If　we　admit　the　existence　of　spontaneously　produced　events；　that　is；
of　free　agency；　we　are　driven；　in　our　search　for　sufficient　reasons；
on　an　unavoidable　law　of　nature　and　are　pelled　to　appeal　to　the
empirical　law　of　causality；　and　we　find　that　any　such　totality　of
connection　in　our　synthesis　is　too　small　for　our　necessary　empirical
conception。
　　Fourthly；　if　we　assume　the　existence　of　an　absolutely　necessary
being…　whether　it　be　the　world　or　something　in　the　world；　or　the　cause
of　the　world…　we　must　place　it　in　a　time　at　an　infinite　distance
from　any　given　moment；　for；