the critique of pure reason-第17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！



presupposes　the　perception　of　something　movable。　But　space

considered　in　itself　contains　nothing　movable；　consequently　motion

must　be　something　which　is　found　in　space　only　through　experience…

in　other　words；　an　empirical　datum。　In　like　manner；　transcendental

aesthetic　cannot　number　the　conception　of　change　among　its　data　a

priori；　for　time　itself　does　not　change；　but　only　something　which　is

in　time。　To　acquire　the　conception　of　change；　therefore；　the

perception　of　some　existing　object　and　of　the　succession　of　its

determinations；　in　one　word；　experience；　is　necessary。



　　　　　　SS　9　General　Remarks　on　Transcendental　Aesthetic。



　　I。　In　order　to　prevent　any　misunderstanding；　it　will　be　requisite；

in　the　first　place；　to　recapitulate；　as　clearly　as　possible；　what

our　opinion　is　with　respect　to　the　fundamental　nature　of　our

sensuous　cognition　in　general。　We　have　intended；　then；　to　say　that　all

our　intuition　is　nothing　but　the　representation　of　phenomena；　that　the

things　which　we　intuite；　are　not　in　themselves　the　same　as　our

representations　of　them　in　intuition；　nor　are　their　relations　in

themselves　so　constituted　as　they　appear　to　us；　and　that　if　we　take

away　the　subject；　or　even　only　the　subjective　constitution　of　our

senses　in　general；　then　not　only　the　nature　and　relations　of　objects

in　space　and　time；　but　even　space　and　time　themselves　disappear；　and

that　these；　as　phenomena；　cannot　exist　in　themselves；　but　only　in

us。　What　may　be　the　nature　of　objects　considered　as　things　in

themselves　and　without　reference　to　the　receptivity　of　our　sensibility

is　quite　unknown　to　us。　We　know　nothing　more　than　our　mode　of

perceiving　them；　which　is　peculiar　to　us；　and　which；　though　not　of

necessity　pertaining　to　every　animated　being；　is　so　to　the　whole　human

race。　With　this　alone　we　have　to　do。　Space　and　time　are　the　pure　forms

thereof；　sensation　the　matter。　The　former　alone　can　we　cognize　a

priori；　that　is；　antecedent　to　all　actual　perception；　and　for　this

reason　such　cognition　is　called　pure　intuition。　The　latter　is　that

in　our　cognition　which　is　called　cognition　a　posteriori；　that　is；

empirical　intuition。　The　former　appertain　absolutely　and　necessarily

to　our　sensibility；　of　whatsoever　kind　our　sensations　may　be；　the

latter　may　be　of　very　diversified　character。　Supposing　that　we

should　carry　our　empirical　intuition　even　to　the　very　highest　degree

of　clearness；　we　should　not　thereby　advance　one　step　nearer　to　a

knowledge　of　the　constitution　of　objects　as　things　in　themselves。

For　we　could　only；　at　best；　arrive　at　a　complete　cognition　of　our

own　mode　of　intuition；　that　is　of　our　sensibility；　and　this　always

under　the　conditions　originally　attaching　to　the　subject；　namely；

the　conditions　of　space　and　time；　while　the　question：　〃What　are

objects　considered　as　things　in　themselves？〃　remains　unanswerable　even

after　the　most　thorough　examination　of　the　phenomenal　world。

　　To　say；　then；　that　all　our　sensibility　is　nothing　but　the　confused

representation　of　things　containing　exclusively　that　which　belongs

to　them　as　things　in　themselves；　and　this　under　an　accumulation　of

characteristic　marks　and　partial　representations　which　we　cannot

distinguish　in　consciousness；　is　a　falsification　of　the　conception

of　sensibility　and　phenomenization；　which　renders　our　whole　doctrine

thereof　empty　and　useless。　The　difference　between　a　confused　and　a

clear　representation　is　merely　logical　and　has　nothing　to　do　with

content。　No　doubt　the　conception　of　right；　as　employed　by　a　sound

understanding；　contains　all　that　the　most　subtle　investigation　could

unfold　from　it；　although；　in　the　ordinary　practical　use　of　the　word；

we　are　not　conscious　of　the　manifold　representations　comprised　in

the　conception。　But　we　cannot　for　this　reason　assert　that　the　ordinary

conception　is　a　sensuous　one；　containing　a　mere　phenomenon；　for

right　cannot　appear　as　a　phenomenon；　but　the　conception　of　it　lies

in　the　understanding；　and　represents　a　property　（the　moral　property）

of　actions；　which　belongs　to　them　in　themselves。　On　the　other　hand；

the　representation　in　intuition　of　a　body　contains　nothing　which　could

belong　to　an　object　considered　as　a　thing　in　itself；　but　merely　the

phenomenon　or　appearance　of　something；　and　the　mode　in　which　we　are

affected　by　that　appearance；　and　this　receptivity　of　our　faculty　of

cognition　is　called　sensibility；　and　remains　toto　caelo　different　from

the　cognition　of　an　object　in　itself；　even　though　we　should　examine

the　content　of　the　phenomenon　to　the　very　bottom。

　　It　must　be　admitted　that　the　Leibnitz…Wolfian　philosophy　has

assigned　an　entirely　erroneous　point　of　view　to　all　investigations

into　the　nature　and　origin　of　our　cognitions；　inasmuch　as　it　regards

the　distinction　between　the　sensuous　and　the　intellectual　as　merely

logical；　whereas　it　is　plainly　transcendental；　and　concerns　not　merely

the　clearness　or　obscurity；　but　the　content　and　origin　of　both。　For

the　faculty　of　sensibility　not　only　does　not　present　us　with　an

indistinct　and　confused　cognition　of　objects　as　things　in

themselves；　but；　in　fact；　gives　us　no　knowledge　of　these　at　all。　On

the　contrary；　so　soon　as　we　abstract　in　thought　our　own　subjective

nature；　the　object　represented；　with　the　properties　ascribed　to　it

by　sensuous　intuition；　entirely　disappears；　because　it　was　only　this

subjective　nature　that　determined　the　form　of　the　object　as　a

phenomenon。

　　In　phenomena；　we　commonly；　indeed；　distinguish　that　which

essentially　belongs　to　the　intuition　of　them；　and　is　valid　for　the

sensuous　faculty　of　every　human　being；　from　that　which　belongs　to

the　same　intuition　accidentally；　as　valid　not　for　the　sensuous　faculty

in　general；　but　for　a　particular　state　or　organization　of　this　or　that

sense。　Accordingly；　we　are　accustomed　to　say　that　the　former　is　a

cognition　which　represents　the　object　itself；　whilst　the　latter

presents　only　a　particular　appearance　or　phenomenon　thereof。　This

distinction；　however；　is　only　empirical。　If　we　stop　here　（as　is

usual）；　and　do　not　regard　the　empirical　intuition　as　itself　a　mere

phenomenon　（as　we　ought　to　do）；　in　which　nothing　that　can　appertain　to

a　thing　in　itself　is　to　be　found；　our　transcendental　distinction　is

lost；　and　we　believe　that　we　cognize　objects　as　things　in

themselves；　although　in　the　whole　range　of　the　sensuous　world；

investigate　the　nature　of　its　objects　as　profoundly　as　we　may；　we　have

to　do　with　nothing　but　phenomena。　Thus；　we　call　the　rainbow　a　mere

appearance　of　phenomenon　in　a　sunny　shower；　and　the　rain；　the

reality　or　thing　in　itself；　and　this　is　right　enough；　if　we　understand

the　latter　conception　in　a　merely　physical　sense；　that　is；　as　that

which　in　universal　experience；　and　under　whatever　conditions　of

sensuous　perception；　is　known　in　intuition　to　be　so　and　so　determined；

and　not　otherwise。　But　if　we　consider　this　empirical　datum

generally；　and　inquire；　without　reference　to　its　accordance　with　all

our　senses；　whether　there　can　be　discovered　in　it　aught　which

represents　an　object　as　a　thing　in　itself　（the　raindrops　of　course　are

not　such；　for　they　are；　as　phenomena；　empirical　objects）；　the　question

of　the　relation　of　the　representation　to　the　object　is　transcendental；

and　not　only　are　the　raindrops　mere　phenomena；　but　even　their　circular

form；　nay；　the　space　itself　through　which　they　fall；　is　nothing　in

itself；　but　both　are　mere　modifications　or　fundamental　dispositions　of

our　sensuous　intuition；　whilst　the　transcendental　object　remains　for

us　utterly　unknown。

　　The　second　important　concern　of　our　aesthetic　is　that　it　does　not

obtain　favour　merely　as　a　plausible　hypothesis；　but　possess　as

undoubted　a　character　of　certainty　as　can　be　demanded　of　any　theory

which　is　to　serve　for　an　organon。　In　order　fully　to　convince　the

reader　of　this　certainty；　we　shall　select　a　case　which　will　serve　to

make　its　validity　apparent；　and　also　to　illustrate　what　has　been

said　in　SS　3。

　　Suppose；　then；　that　space　and　time　are　in　themselves　objective；

and　conditions　of　the…　possibility　of　objects　as　things　in　themselves。

In　the　first　place；　it　is　evident　that　both　present　us；　with　very　many

apodeictic　and　synthetic　propositions　a　priori；　but　especially

space…　and　for　this　reason　we　shall　prefer　it　for　investigation　at

present。　As　the　propositions　of　geometry　are　cognized　synthetically

a　priori；　and　with　apodeictic　certainty；　I　inquire：　Whence　do　you

obtain　propositions　of　this　kind；　and　on　what　basis　does　the

understanding　rest；　in　order　to　arrive　at　such　absolutely　necessary

and　universally　valid　truths？

　　There　is　no　other　way　than　through　intuitions　or　conceptions；　as

such；　and　these　are　given　either　a　priori　or　a　posteriori。　The　latter；

namely；　empirical　conceptions；　together　with　the　empirical　intuition

on　which　they　are　founded；　cannot　afford　any　synthetical

proposition；　except　such　as　is　itself　also　empirical；　that　is；　a

proposition　of　experience。　But　an　empirical　propos