the critique of pure reason-第115节

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！



continually　approximate；　without　ever　being　able　to　attain　to　them；

they　possess；　notwithstanding；　as　a　priori　synthetical　propositions；

objective　though　undetermined　validity；　and　are　available　as　rules　for

possible　experience。　In　the　elaboration　of　our　experience；　they　may

also　be　employed　with　great　advantage；　as　heuristic*　principles。　A

transcendental　deduction　of　them　cannot　be　made；　such　a　deduction

being　always　impossible　in　the　case　of　ideas；　as　has　been　already

shown。



　　*From　the　Greek；　eurhioko。



　　We　distinguished；　in　the　Transcendental　Analytic；　the　dynamical

principles　of　the　understanding；　which　are　regulative　principles　of

intuition；　from　the　mathematical；　which　are　constitutive　principles　of

intuition。　These　dynamical　laws　are；　however；　constitutive　in　relation

to　experience；　inasmuch　as　they　render　the　conceptions　without　which

experience　could　not　exist　possible　a　priori。　But　the　principles　of

pure　reason　cannot　be　constitutive　even　in　regard　to　empirical

conceptions；　because　no　sensuous　schema　corresponding　to　them　can　be

discovered；　and　they　cannot　therefore　have　an　object　in　concreto。　Now；

if　I　grant　that　they　cannot　be　employed　in　the　sphere　of　experience；

as　constitutive　principles；　how　shall　I　secure　for　them　employment　and

objective　validity　as　regulative　principles；　and　in　what　way　can

they　be　so　employed？

　　The　understanding　is　the　object　of　reason；　as　sensibility　is　the

object　of　the　understanding。　The　production　of　systematic　unity　in　all

the　empirical　operations　of　the　understanding　is　the　proper　occupation

of　reason；　just　as　it　is　the　business　of　the　understanding　to

connect　the　various　content　of　phenomena　by　means　of　conceptions；

and　subject　them　to　empirical　laws。　But　the　operations　of　the

understanding　are；　without　the　schemata　of　sensibility；

undetermined；　and；　in　the　same　manner；　the　unity　of　reason　is

perfectly　undetermined　as　regards　the　conditions　under　which；　and

the　extent　to　which；　the　understanding　ought　to　carry　the　systematic

connection　of　its　conceptions。　But；　although　it　is　impossible　to

discover　in　intuition　a　schema　for　the　complete　systematic　unity　of

all　the　conceptions　of　the　understanding；　there　must　be　some

analogon　of　this　schema。　This　analogon　is　the　idea　of　the　maximum　of

the　division　and　the　connection　of　our　cognition　in　one　principle。　For

we　may　have　a　determinate　notion　of　a　maximum　and　an　absolutely

perfect；　all　the　restrictive　conditions　which　are　connected　with　an

indeterminate　and　various　content　having　been　abstracted。　Thus　the

idea　of　reason　is　analogous　with　a　sensuous　schema；　with　this

difference；　that　the　application　of　the　categories　to　the　schema　of

reason　does　not　present　a　cognition　of　any　object　（as　is　the　case　with

the　application　of　the　categories　to　sensuous　schemata）；　but　merely

provides　us　with　a　rule　or　principle　for　the　systematic　unity　of　the

exercise　of　the　understanding。　Now；　as　every　principle　which　imposes

upon　the　exercise　of　the　understanding　a　priori　compliance　with　the

rule　of　systematic　unity　also　relates；　although　only　in　an　indirect

manner；　to　an　object　of　experience；　the　principles　of　pure　reason　will

also　possess　objective　reality　and　validity　in　relation　to　experience。

But　they　will　not　aim　at　determining　our　knowledge　in　regard　to　any

empirical　object；　they　will　merely　indicate　the　procedure；　following

which　the　empirical　and　determinate　exercise　of　the　understanding

may　be　in　complete　harmony　and　connection　with　itself…　a　result

which　is　produced　by　its　being　brought　into　harmony　with　the　principle

of　systematic　unity；　so　far　as　that　is　possible；　and　deduced　from　it。

　　I　term　all　subjective　principles；　which　are　not　derived　from

observation　of　the　constitution　of　an　object；　but　from　the　interest

which　Reason　has　in　producing　a　certain　completeness　in　her

cognition　of　that　object；　maxims　of　reason。　Thus　there　are　maxims　of

speculative　reason；　which　are　based　solely　upon　its　speculative

interest；　although　they　appear　to　be　objective　principles。

　　When　principles　which　are　really　regulative　are　regarded　as

constitutive；　and　employed　as　objective　principles；　contradictions

must　arise；　but　if　they　are　considered　as　mere　maxims；　there　is　no

room　for　contradictions　of　any　kind；　as　they　then　merely　indicate

the　different　interests　of　reason；　which　occasion　differences　in　the

mode　of　thought。　In　effect；　Reason　has　only　one　single　interest；　and

the　seeming　contradiction　existing　between　her　maxims　merely　indicates

a　difference　in；　and　a　reciprocal　limitation　of；　the　methods　by

which　this　interest　is　satisfied。

　　This　reasoner　has　at　heart　the　interest　of　diversity…　in

accordance　with　the　principle　of　specification；　another；　the

interest　of　unity…　in　accordance　with　the　principle　of　aggregation。

Each　believes　that　his　judgement　rests　upon　a　thorough　insight　into

the　subject　he　is　examining；　and　yet　it　has　been　influenced　solely

by　a　greater　or　less　degree　of　adherence　to　some　one　of　the　two

principles；　neither　of　which　are　objective；　but　originate　solely

from　the　interest　of　reason；　and　on　this　account　to　be　termed　maxims

rather　than　principles。　When　I　observe　intelligent　men　disputing　about

the　distinctive　characteristics　of　men；　animals；　or　plants；　and　even

of　minerals；　those　on　the　one　side　assuming　the　existence　of　certain

national　characteristics；　certain　well…defined　and　hereditary

distinctions　of　family；　race；　and　so　on；　while　the　other　side　maintain

that　nature　has　endowed　all　races　of　men　with　the　same　faculties　and

dispositions；　and　that　all　differences　are　but　the　result　of

external　and　accidental　circumstances…　I　have　only　to　consider　for　a

moment　the　real　nature　of　the　subject　of　discussion；　to　arrive　at

the　conclusion　that　it　is　a　subject　far　too　deep　for　us　to　judge　of；

and　that　there　is　little　probability　of　either　party　being　able　to

speak　from　a　perfect　insight　into　and　understanding　of　the　nature　of

the　subject　itself。　Both　have；　in　reality；　been　struggling　for　the

twofold　interest　of　reason；　the　one　maintaining　the　one　interest；

the　other　the　other。　But　this　difference　between　the　maxims　of

diversity　and　unity　may　easily　be　reconciled　and　adjusted；　although；

so　long　as　they　are　regarded　as　objective　principles；　they　must

occasion　not　only　contradictions　and　polemic；　but　place　hinderances　in

the　way　of　the　advancement　of　truth；　until　some　means　is　discovered　of

reconciling　these　conflicting　interests；　and　bringing　reason　into

union　and　harmony　with　itself。

　　The　same　is　the　case　with　the　so…called　law　discovered　by

Leibnitz；　and　supported　with　remarkable　ability　by　Bonnet…　the　law

of　the　continuous　gradation　of　created　beings；　which　is　nothing　more

than　an　inference　from　the　principle　of　affinity；　for　observation

and　study　of　the　order　of　nature　could　never　present　it　to　the　mind　as

an　objective　truth。　The　steps　of　this　ladder；　as　they　appear　in

experience；　are　too　far　apart　from　each　other；　and　the　so…called　petty

differences　between　different　kinds　of　animals　are　in　nature

commonly　so　wide　separations　that　no　confidence　can　be　placed　in

such　views　（particularly　when　we　reflect　on　the　great　variety　of

things；　and　the　ease　with　which　we　can　discover　resemblances）；　and

no　faith　in　the　laws　which　are　said　to　express　the　aims　and　purposes

of　nature。　On　the　other　hand；　the　method　of　investigating　the　order　of

nature　in　the　light　of　this　principle；　and　the　maxim　which　requires　us

to　regard　this　order…　it　being　still　undetermined　how　far　it

extends…　as　really　existing　in　nature；　is　beyond　doubt　a　legitimate

and　excellent　principle　of　reason…　a　principle　which　extends　farther

than　any　experience　or　observation　of　ours　and　which；　without　giving

us　any　positive　knowledge　of　anything　in　the　region　of　experience；

guides　us　to　the　goal　of　systematic　unity。



　　Of　the　Ultimate　End　of　the　Natural　Dialectic　of　Human　Reason。



　　The　ideas　of　pure　reason　cannot　be；　of　themselves　and　in　their　own

nature；　dialectical；　it　is　from　their　misemployment　alone　that

fallacies　and　illusions　arise。　For　they　originate　in　the　nature　of

reason　itself；　and　it　is　impossible　that　this　supreme　tribunal　for　all

the　rights　and　claims　of　speculation　should　be　itself　undeserving　of

confidence　and　promotive　of　error。　It　is　to　be　expected；　therefore；

that　these　ideas　have　a　genuine　and　legitimate　aim。　It　is　true；　the

mob　of　sophists　raise　against　reason　the　cry　of　inconsistency　and

contradiction；　and　affect　to　despise　the　government　of　that　faculty；

because　they　cannot　understand　its　constitution；　while　it　is　to　its

beneficial　influences　alone　that　they　owe　the　position　and　the

intelligence　which　enable　them　to　criticize　and　to　blame　its

procedure。

　　We　cannot　employ　an　a　priori　conception　with　certainty；　until　we

have　made　a　transcendental　deduction　therefore。　The　ideas　of　pure

reason　do　not　admit　of　the　same　kind　of　deduction　as　the　categories。

But　if　the