the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第86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！


experience；　from　the　present　perception；　upwards　to　the　conditions
that　determine　it　according　to　time。
　　If　I　represent　to　myself　all　objects　existing　in　all　space　and　time；
I　do　not　thereby　place　these　in　space　and　time　prior　to　all
experience；　on　the　contrary；　such　a　representation　is　nothing　more
than　the　notion　of　a　possible　experience；　in　its　absolute
pleteness。　In　experience　alone　are　those　objects；　which　are　nothing
but　representations；　given。　But；　when　I　say　they　existed　prior　to　my
experience；　this　means　only　that　I　must　begin　with　the　perception
present　to　me　and　follow　the　track　indicated　until　I　discover　them
in　some　part　or　region　of　experience。　The　cause　of　the　empirical
condition　of　this　progression…　and　consequently　at　what　member　therein
I　must　stop；　and　at　what　point　in　the　regress　I　am　to　find　this
member…　is　transcendental；　and　hence　necessarily　incognizable。　But
with　this　we　have　not　to　do；　our　concern　is　only　with　the　law　of
progression　in　experience；　in　which　objects；　that　is；　phenomena；　are
given。　It　is　a　matter　of　indifference；　whether　I　say；　〃I　may　in　the
progress　of　experience　discover　stars；　at　a　hundred　times　greater
distance　than　the　most　distant　of　those　now　visible；〃　or；　〃Stars　at
this　distance　may　be　met　in　space；　although　no　one　has；　or　ever　will
discover　them。〃　For；　if　they　are　given　as　things　in　themselves；
without　any　relation　to　possible　experience；　they　are　for　me
non…existent；　consequently；　are　not　objects；　for　they　are　not
contained　in　the　regressive　series　of　experience。　But；　if　these
phenomena　must　be　employed　in　the　construction　or　support　of　the
cosmological　idea　of　an　absolute　whole；　and　when　we　are　discussing　a
question　that　oversteps　the　limits　of　possible　experience；　the
proper　distinction　of　the　different　theories　of　the　reality　of
sensuous　objects　is　of　great　importance；　in　order　to　avoid　the
illusion　which　must　necessarily　arise　from　the　misinterpretation　of
our　empirical　conceptions。

　　　　SECTION　VII。　Critical　Solution　of　the　Cosmological　Problem。

　　The　antinomy　of　pure　reason　is　based　upon　the　following
dialectical　argument：　〃If　that　which　is　conditioned　is　given；　the
whole　series　of　its　conditions　is　also　given；　but　sensuous　objects　are
given　as　conditioned；　consequently。。。〃　This　syllogism；　the　major　of
which　seems　so　natural　and　evident；　introduces　as　many　cosmological
ideas　as　there　are　different　kinds　of　conditions　in　the　synthesis　of
phenomena；　in　so　far　as　these　conditions　constitute　a　series。　These
ideas　require　absolute　totality　in　the　series；　and　thus　place　reason
in　inextricable　embarrassment。　Before　proceeding　to　expose　the　fallacy
in　this　dialectical　argument；　it　will　be　necessary　to　have　a　correct
understanding　of　certain　conceptions　that　appear　in　it。
　　In　the　first　place；　the　following　proposition　is　evident；　and
indubitably　certain：　〃If　the　conditioned　is　given；　a　regress　in　the
series　of　all　its　conditions　is　thereby　imperatively　required。〃　For
the　very　conception　of　a　conditioned　is　a　conception　of　something
related　to　a　condition；　and；　if　this　condition　is　itself
conditioned；　to　another　condition…　and　so　on　through　all　the　members
of　the　series。　This　proposition　is；　therefore；　analytical　and　has
nothing　to　fear　from　transcendental　criticism。　It　is　a　logical
postulate　of　reason：　to　pursue；　as　far　as　possible；　the　connection
of　a　conception　with　its　conditions。
　　If；　in　the　second　place；　both　the　conditioned　and　the　condition
are　things　in　themselves；　and　if　the　former　is　given；　not　only　is
the　regress　to　the　latter　requisite；　but　the　latter　is　really　given
with　the　former。　Now；　as　this　is　true　of　all　the　members　of　the
series；　the　entire　series　of　conditions；　and　with　them　the
unconditioned；　is　at　the　same　time　given　in　the　very　fact　of　the
conditioned；　the　existence　of　which　is　possible　only　in　and　through
that　series；　being　given。　In　this　case；　the　synthesis　of　the
conditioned　with　its　condition；　is　a　synthesis　of　the　understanding
merely；　which　represents　things　as　they　are；　without　regarding　whether
and　how　we　can　cognize　them。　But　if　I　have　to　do　with　phenomena；
which；　in　their　character　of　mere　representations；　are　not　given；　if　I
do　not　attain　to　a　cognition　of　them　（in　other　words；　to　themselves；
for　they　are　nothing　more　than　empirical　cognitions）；　I　am　not
entitled　to　say：　〃If　the　conditioned　is　given；　all　its　conditions
（as　phenomena）　are　also　given。〃　I　cannot；　therefore；　from　the　fact
of　a　conditioned　being　given；　infer　the　absolute　totality　of　the
series　of　its　conditions。　For　phenomena　are　nothing　but　an　empirical
synthesis　in　apprehension　or　perception；　and　are　therefore　given
only　in　it。　Now；　in　speaking　of　phenomena　it　does　not　follow　that；
if　the　conditioned　is　given；　the　synthesis　which　constitutes　its
empirical　condition　is　also　thereby　given　and　presupposed；　such　a
synthesis　can　be　established　only　by　an　actual　regress　in　the　series
of　conditions。　But　we　are　entitled　to　say　in　this　case　that　a
regress　to　the　conditions　of　a　conditioned；　in　other　words；　that　a
continuous　empirical　synthesis　is　enjoined；　that；　if　the　conditions
are　not　given；　they　are　at　least　required；　and　that　we　are　certain
to　discover　the　conditions　in　this　regress。
　　We　can　now　see　that　the　major；　in　the　above　cosmological
syllogism；　takes　the　conditioned　in　the　transcendental　signification
which　it　has　in　the　pure　category；　while　the　minor　speaks　of　it　in　the
empirical　signification　which　it　has　in　the　category　as　applied　to
phenomena。　There　is；　therefore；　a　dialectical　fallacy　in　the
syllogism…　a　sophisma　figurae　dictionis。　But　this　fallacy　is　not　a
consciously　devised　one；　but　a　perfectly　natural　illusion　of　the
mon　reason　of　man。　For；　when　a　thing　is　given　as　conditioned；　we
presuppose　in　the　major　its　conditions　and　their　series；
unperceived；　as　it　were；　and　unseen；　because　this　is　nothing　more　than
the　logical　requirement　of　plete　and　satisfactory　premisses　for　a
given　conclusion。　In　this　case；　time　is　altogether　left　out　in　the
connection　of　the　conditioned　with　the　condition；　they　are　supposed　to
be　given　in　themselves；　and　contemporaneously。　It　is；　moreover；　just
as　natural　to　regard　phenomena　（in　the　minor）　as　things　in
themselves　and　as　objects　presented　to　the　pure　understanding；　as　in
the　major；　in　which　plete　abstraction　was　made　of　all　conditions　of
intuition。　But　it　is　under　these　conditions　alone　that　objects　are
given。　Now　we　overlooked　a　remarkable　distinction　between　the
conceptions。　The　synthesis　of　the　conditioned　with　its　condition；
and　the　plete　series　of　the　latter　（in　the　major）　are　not　limited
by　time；　and　do　not　contain　the　conception　of　succession。　On　the
contrary；　the　empirical　synthesis　and　the　series　of　conditions　in
the　phenomenal　world…　subsumed　in　the　minor…　are　necessarily
successive　and　given　in　time　alone。　It　follows　that　I　cannot
presuppose　in　the　minor；　as　I　did　in　the　major；　the　absolute
totality　of　the　synthesis　and　of　the　series　therein　represented；　for
in　the　major　all　the　members　of　the　series　are　given　as　things　in
themselves…　without　any　limitations　or　conditions　of　time；　while　in
the　minor　they　are　possible　only　in　and　through　a　successive
regress；　which　cannot　exist；　except　it　be　actually　carried　into
execution　in　the　world　of　phenomena。
　　After　this　proof　of　the　viciousness　of　the　argument　monly
employed　in　maintaining　cosmological　assertions；　both　parties　may
now　be　justly　dismissed；　as　advancing　claims　without　grounds　or　title。
But　the　process　has　not　been　ended　by　convincing　them　that　one　or　both
were　in　the　wrong　and　had　maintained　an　assertion　which　was　without
valid　grounds　of　proof。　Nothing　seems　to　be　clearer　than　that；　if
one　maintains：　〃The　world　has　a　beginning；〃　and　another：　〃The　world
has　no　beginning；〃　one　of　the　two　must　be　right。　But　it　is　likewise
clear　that；　if　the　evidence　on　both　sides　is　equal；　it　is　impossible
to　discover　on　what　side　the　truth　lies；　and　the　controversy
continues；　although　the　parties　have　been　remended　to　peace
before　the　tribunal　of　reason。　There　remains；　then；　no　other　means
of　settling　the　question　than　to　convince　the　parties；　who　refute　each
other　with　such　conclusiveness　and　ability；　that　they　are　disputing
about　nothing；　and　that　a　transcendental　illusion　has　been　mocking
them　with　visions　of　reality　where　there　is　none。　The　mode　of
adjusting　a　dispute　which　cannot　be　decided　upon　its　own　merits；　we
shall　now　proceed　to　lay　before　our　readers。

　　Zeno　of　Elea；　a　subtle　dialectician；　was　severely　reprimanded　by
Plato　as　a　sophist；　who；　merely　from　the　base　motive　of　exhibiting　his
skill　in　discussion；　maintained　and　subverted　the　same　proposition
by　arguments　as　powerful　and　convincing　on　the　one　side　as　on　the
other。　He　maintained；　for　example；　that　God　（who　was　probably
nothing　more；　in　his　view；　than　the　world）　is　neither　finite　nor
infinite；　neither　in　motion　nor　in　rest；　neither　similar　nor
dissimilar　to　any　other　thing。　It　seemed　to　those　philosophers　who
criticized　his　mode　of　discussion　that　his　purpose　was　to　deny
pletely　both　of　two　self…contradictory　propositions…　which　is
absurd。　But　I　cannot　believe　that　there　is　any　justice　in