the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第90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！


the　regress　and　not　prior　to　it…　in　a　collective　intuition。　But　the
regress　itself　is　really　nothing　more　than　the　determining　of　the
cosmical　quantity；　and　cannot　therefore　give　us　any　determined
conception　of　it…　still　less　a　conception　of　a　quantity　which　is；　in
relation　to　a　certain　standard；　infinite。　The　regress　does　not；
therefore；　proceed　to　infinity　（an　infinity　given）；　but　only　to　an
indefinite　extent；　for　or　the　of　presenting　to　us　a　quantity…　realized
only　in　and　through　the　regress　itself。

　　　　II。　Solution　of　the　Cosmological　Idea　of　the　Totality　of
　　　　　　　　the　Division　of　a　Whole　given　in　Intuition。

　　When　I　divide　a　whole　which　is　given　in　intuition；　I　proceed　from
a　conditioned　to　its　conditions。　The　division　of　the　parts　of　the
whole　（subdivisio　or　depositio）　is　a　regress　in　the　series　of　these
conditions。　The　absolute　totality　of　this　series　would　be　actually
attained　and　given　to　the　mind；　if　the　regress　could　arrive　at
simple　parts。　But　if　all　the　parts　in　a　continuous　deposition　are
themselves　divisible；　the　division；　that　is　to　say；　the　regress；
proceeds　from　the　conditioned　to　its　conditions　in　infinitum；
because　the　conditions　（the　parts）　are　themselves　contained　in　the
conditioned；　and；　as　the　latter　is　given　in　a　limited　intuition；　the
former　are　all　given　along　with　it。　This　regress　cannot；　therefore；　be
called　a　regressus　in　indefinitum；　as　happened　in　the　case　of　the
preceding　cosmological　idea；　the　regress　in　which　proceeded　from　the
conditioned　to　the　conditions　not　given　contemporaneously　and　along
with　it；　but　discoverable　only　through　the　empirical　regress。　We　are
not；　however；　entitled　to　affirm　of　a　whole　of　this　kind；　which　is
divisible　in　infinitum；　that　it　consists　of　an　infinite　number　of
parts。　For；　although　all　the　parts　are　contained　in　the　intuition　of
the　whole；　the　whole　division　is　not　contained　therein。　The　division
is　contained　only　in　the　progressing　deposition…　in　the　regress
itself；　which　is　the　condition　of　the　possibility　and　actuality　of　the
series。　Now；　as　this　regress　is　infinite；　all　the　members　（parts）　to
which　it　attains　must　be　contained　in　the　given　whole　as　an　aggregate。
But　the　plete　series　of　division　is　not　contained　therein。　For　this
series；　being　infinite　in　succession　and　always　inplete；　cannot
represent　an　infinite　number　of　members；　and　still　less　a
position　of　these　members　into　a　whole。
　　To　apply　this　remark　to　space。　Every　limited　part　of　space　presented
to　intuition　is　a　whole；　the　parts　of　which　are　always　spaces…　to
whatever　extent　subdivided。　Every　limited　space　is　hence　divisible
to　infinity。
　　Let　us　again　apply　the　remark　to　an　external　phenomenon　enclosed
in　limits；　that　is；　a　body。　The　divisibility　of　a　body　rests　upon
the　divisibility　of　space；　which　is　the　condition　of　the　possibility
of　the　body　as　an　extended　whole。　A　body　is　consequently　divisible
to　infinity；　though　it　does　not；　for　that　reason；　consist　of　an
infinite　number　of　parts。
　　It　certainly　seems　that；　as　a　body　must　be　cogitated　as　substance　in
space；　the　law　of　divisibility　would　not　be　applicable　to　it　as
substance。　For　we　may　and　ought　to　grant；　in　the　case　of　space；　that
division　or　deposition；　to　any　extent；　never　can　utterly　annihilate
position　（that　is　to　say；　the　smallest　part　of　space　must　still
consist　of　spaces）；　otherwise　space　would　entirely　cease　to　exist…
which　is　impossible。　But；　the　assertion　on　the　other　band　that　when
all　position　in　matter　is　annihilated　in　thought；　nothing
remains；　does　not　seem　to　harmonize　with　the　conception　of
substance；　which　must　be　properly　the　subject　of　all　position　and
must　remain；　even　after　the　conjunction　of　its　attributes　in　space…
which　constituted　a　body…　is　annihilated　in　thought。　But　this　is　not
the　case　with　substance　in　the　phenomenal　world；　which　is　not　a
thing　in　itself　cogitated　by　the　pure　category。　Phenomenal　substance
is　not　an　absolute　subject；　it　is　merely　a　permanent　sensuous　image；
and　nothing　more　than　an　intuition；　in　which　the　unconditioned　is
not　to　be　found。
　　But；　although　this　rule　of　progress　to　infinity　is　legitimate　and
applicable　to　the　subdivision　of　a　phenomenon；　as　a　mere　occupation　or
filling　of　space；　it　is　not　applicable　to　a　whole　consisting　of　a
number　of　distinct　parts　and　constituting　a　quantum　discretum…　that　is
to　say；　an　organized　body。　It　cannot　be　admitted　that　every　part　in　an
organized　whole　is　itself　organized；　and　that；　in　analysing　it　to
infinity；　we　must　always　meet　with　organized　parts；　although　we　may
allow　that　the　parts　of　the　matter　which　we　depose　in　infinitum；
may　be　organized。　For　the　infinity　of　the　division　of　a　phenomenon
in　space　rests　altogether　on　the　fact　that　the　divisibility　of　a
phenomenon　is　given　only　in　and　through　this　infinity；　that　is；　an
undetermined　number　of　parts　is　given；　while　the　parts　themselves
are　given　and　determined　only　in　and　through　the　subdivision；　in　a
word；　the　infinity　of　the　division　necessarily　presupposes　that　the
whole　is　not　already　divided　in　se。　Hence　our　division　determines　a
number　of　parts　in　the　whole…　a　number　which　extends　just　as　far　as
the　actual　regress　in　the　division；　while；　on　the　other　hand；　the　very
notion　of　a　body　organized　to　infinity　represents　the　whole　as　already
and　in　itself　divided。　We　expect；　therefore；　to　find　in　it　a
determinate；　but　at　the　same　time；　infinite；　number　of　parts…　which　is
self…contradictory。　For　we　should　thus　have　a　whole　containing　a
series　of　members　which　could　not　be　pleted　in　any　regress…　which
is　infinite；　and　at　the　same　time　plete　in　an　organized
posite。　Infinite　divisibility　is　applicable　only　to　a　quantum
continuum；　and　is　based　entirely　on　the　infinite　divisibility　of
space；　But　in　a　quantum　discretum　the　multitude　of　parts　or　units　is
always　determined；　and　hence　always　equal　to　some　number。　To　what
extent　a　body　may　be　organized；　experience　alone　can　inform　us；　and
although；　so　far　as　our　experience　of　this　or　that　body　has
extended；　we　may　not　have　discovered　any　inorganic　part；　such　parts
must　exist　in　possible　experience。　But　how　far　the　transcendental
division　of　a　phenomenon　must　extend；　we　cannot　know　from
experience…　it　is　a　question　which　experience　cannot　answer；　it　is
answered　only　by　the　principle　of　reason　which　forbids　us　to
consider　the　empirical　regress；　in　the　analysis　of　extended　body；　as
ever　absolutely　plete。

　　　　　Concluding　Remark　on　the　Solution　of　the　Transcendental
　　　　　　　　　　Mathematical　Ideas…　and　Introductory　to　the
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Solution　of　the　Dynamical　Ideas。

　　We　presented　the　antinomy　of　pure　reason　in　a　tabular　form；　and　we
endeavoured　to　show　the　ground　of　this　self…contradiction　on　the
part　of　reason；　and　the　only　means　of　bringing　it　to　a　conclusion…
znamely；　by　declaring　both　contradictory　statements　to　be　false。　We
represented　in　these　antinomies　the　conditions　of　phenomena　as
belonging　to　the　conditioned　according　to　relations　of　space　and　time…
which　is　the　usual　supposition　of　the　mon　understanding。　In　this
respect；　all　dialectical　representations　of　totality；　in　the　series　of
conditions　to　a　given　conditioned；　were　perfectly　homogeneous。　The
condition　was　always　a　member　of　the　series　along　with　the
conditioned；　and　thus　the　homogeneity　of　the　whole　series　was　assured。
In　this　case　the　regress　could　never　be　cogitated　as　plete；　or；
if　this　was　the　case；　a　member　really　conditioned　was　falsely　regarded
as　a　primal　member；　consequently　as　unconditioned。　In　such　an
antinomy；　therefore；　we　did　not　consider　the　object；　that　is；　the
conditioned；　but　the　series　of　conditions　belonging　to　the　object；　and
the　magnitude　of　that　series。　And　thus　arose　the　difficulty…　a
difficulty　not　to　be　settled　by　any　decision　regarding　the　claims　of
the　two　parties；　but　simply　by　cutting　the　knot…　by　declaring　the
series　proposed　by　reason　to　be　either　too　long　or　too　short　for　the
understanding；　which　could　in　neither　case　make　its　conceptions
adequate　with　the　ideas。
　　But　we　have　overlooked；　up　to　this　point；　an　essential　difference
existing　between　the　conceptions　of　the　understanding　which　reason
endeavours　to　raise　to　the　rank　of　ideas…　two　of　these　indicating　a
mathematical；　and　two　a　dynamical　synthesis　of　phenomena。　Hitherto；　it
was　necessary　to　signalize　this　distinction；　for；　just　as　in　our
general　representation　of　all　transcendental　ideas；　we　considered　them
under　phenomenal　conditions；　so；　in　the　two　mathematical　ideas；　our
discussion　is　concerned　solely　with　an　object　in　the　world　of
phenomena。　But　as　we　are　now　about　to　proceed　to　the　consideration
of　the　dynamical　conceptions　of　the　understanding；　and　their
adequateness　with　ideas；　we　must　not　lose　sight　of　this　distinction。
We　shall　find　that　it　opens　up　to　us　an　entirely　new　view　of　the
conflict　in　which　reason　is　involved。　For；　while　in　the　first　two
antinomies；　both　parties　were　dismissed；　on　the　ground　of　having
advanced　statements　based　upon　false　hypothesis；　in　the　present　case
the　hope　appears　of　discovering　a　hypothesis　which　may　be　consistent
with　the　demands　of　reason；　and；　the　judge　pleting　the　statement　of
the　grounds　of　claim；　which　both　parties