the critique of pure reason-第36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！



unveil。　Thus　much　only　can　we　say：　〃The　image　is　a　product　of　the

empirical　faculty　of　the　productive　imagination…　the　schema　of

sensuous　conceptions　（of　figures　in　space；　for　example）　is　a

product；　and；　as　it　were；　a　monogram　of　the　pure　imagination　a　priori；

whereby　and　according　to　which　images　first　become　possible；　which；

however；　can　be　connected　with　the　conception　only　mediately　by

means　of　the　schema　which　they　indicate；　and　are　in　themselves　never

fully　adequate　to　it。〃　On　the　other　hand；　the　schema　of　a　pure

conception　of　the　understanding　is　something　that　cannot　be　reduced

into　any　image…　it　is　nothing　else　than　the　pure　synthesis　expressed

by　the　category；　conformably；　to　a　rule　of　unity　according　to

conceptions。　It　is　a　transcendental　product　of　the　imagination；　a

product　which　concerns　the　determination　of　the　internal　sense；

according　to　conditions　of　its　form　（time）　in　respect　to　all

representations；　in　so　far　as　these　representations　must　be

conjoined　a　priori　in　one　conception；　conformably　to　the　unity　of

apperception。

　　Without　entering　upon　a　dry　and　tedious　analysis　of　the　essential

requisites　of　transcendental　schemata　of　the　pure　conceptions　of　the

understanding；　we　shall　rather　proceed　at　once　to　give　an

explanation　of　them　according　to　the　order　of　the　categories；　and　in

connection　therewith。

　　For　the　external　sense　the　pure　image　of　all　quantities

（quantorum）　is　space；　the　pure　image　of　all　objects　of　sense　in

general；　is　time。　But　the　pure　schema　of　quantity　（quantitatis）　as　a

conception　of　the　understanding；　is　number；　a　representation　which

comprehends　the　successive　addition　of　one　to　one　（homogeneous

quantities）。　Thus；　number　is　nothing　else　than　the　unity　of　the

synthesis　of　the　manifold　in　a　homogeneous　intuition；　by　means　of　my

generating　time　itself　in　my　apprehension　of　the　intuition。

　　Reality；　in　the　pure　conception　of　the　understanding；　is　that

which　corresponds　to　a　sensation　in　general；　that；　consequently；　the

conception　of　which　indicates　a　being　（in　time）。　Negation　is　that

the　conception　of　which　represents　a　not…being　（in　time）。　The

opposition　of　these　two　consists　therefore　in　the　difference　of　one

and　the　same　time；　as　a　time　filled　or　a　time　empty。　Now　as　time　is

only　the　form　of　intuition；　consequently　of　objects　as　phenomena；　that

which　in　objects　corresponds　to　sensation　is　the　transcendental　matter

of　all　objects　as　things　in　themselves　（Sachheit；　reality）。　Now

every　sensation　has　a　degree　or　quantity　by　which　it　can　fill　time；

that　is　to　say；　the　internal　sense　in　respect　of　the　representation　of

an　object；　more　or　less；　until　it　vanishes　into　nothing　（=　0　=

negatio）。　Thus　there　is　a　relation　and　connection　between　reality

and　negation；　or　rather　a　transition　from　the　former　to　the　latter；

which　makes　every　reality　representable　to　us　as　a　quantum；　and　the

schema　of　a　reality　as　the　quantity　of　something　in　so　far　as　it　fills

time；　is　exactly　this　continuous　and　uniform　generation　of　the　reality

in　time；　as　we　descend　in　time　from　the　sensation　which　has　a

certain　degree；　down　to　the　vanishing　thereof；　or　gradually　ascend

from　negation　to　the　quantity　thereof。

　　The　schema　of　substance　is　the　permanence　of　the　real　in　time；

that　is；　the　representation　of　it　as　a　substratum　of　the　empirical

determination　of　time；　a　substratum　which　therefore　remains；　whilst

all　else　changes。　（Time　passes　not；　but　in　it　passes　the　existence

of　the　changeable。　To　time；　therefore；　which　is　itself　unchangeable

and　permanent；　corresponds　that　which　in　the　phenomenon　is

unchangeable　in　existence；　that　is；　substance；　and　it　is　only　by　it

that　the　succession　and　coexistence　of　phenomena　can　be　determined

in　regard　to　time。）

　　The　schema　of　cause　and　of　the　causality　of　a　thing　is　the　real

which；　when　posited；　is　always　followed　by　something　else。　It

consists；　therefore；　in　the　succession　of　the　manifold；　in　so　far　as

that　succession　is　subjected　to　a　rule。

　　The　schema　of　community　（reciprocity　of　action　and　reaction）；　or　the

reciprocal　causality　of　substances　in　respect　of　their　accidents；　is

the　coexistence　of　the　determinations　of　the　one　with　those　of　the

other；　according　to　a　general　rule。

　　The　schema　of　possibility　is　the　accordance　of　the　synthesis　of

different　representations　with　the　conditions　of　time　in　general

（as；　for　example；　opposites　cannot　exist　together　at　the　same　time

in　the　same　thing；　but　only　after　each　other）；　and　is　therefore　the

determination　of　the　representation　of　a　thing　at　any　time。

　　The　schema　of　reality　is　existence　in　a　determined　time。

　　The　schema　of　necessity　is　the　existence　of　an　object　in　all　time。

　　It　is　clear；　from　all　this；　that　the　schema　of　the　category　of

quantity　contains　and　represents　the　generation　（synthesis）　of　time

itself；　in　the　successive　apprehension　of　an　object；　the　schema　of

quality　the　synthesis　of　sensation　with　the　representation　of　time；　or

the　filling　up　of　time；　the　schema　of　relation　the　relation　of

perceptions　to　each　other　in　all　time　（that　is；　according　to　a　rule　of

the　determination　of　time）：　and　finally；　the　schema　of　modality　and

its　categories；　time　itself；　as　the　correlative　of　the　determination

of　an　object…　whether　it　does　belong　to　time；　and　how。　The　schemata；

therefore；　are　nothing　but　a　priori　determinations　of　time　according

to　rules；　and　these；　in　regard　to　all　possible　objects；　following

the　arrangement　of　the　categories；　relate　to　the　series　in　time；　the

content　in　time；　the　order　in　time；　and　finally；　to　the　complex　or

totality　in　time。

　　Hence　it　is　apparent　that　the　schematism　of　the　understanding；　by

means　of　the　transcendental　synthesis　of　the　imagination；　amounts　to

nothing　else　than　the　unity　of　the　manifold　of　intuition　in　the

internal　sense；　and　thus　indirectly　to　the　unity　of　apperception；　as　a

function　corresponding　to　the　internal　sense　（a　receptivity）。　Thus；

the　schemata　of　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　are　the　true

and　only　conditions　whereby　our　understanding　receives　an

application　to　objects；　and　consequently　significance。　Finally；

therefore；　the　categories　are　only　capable　of　empirical　use；

inasmuch　as　they　serve　merely　to　subject　phenomena　to　the　universal

rules　of　synthesis；　by　means　of　an　a　priori　necessary　unity　（on

account　of　the　necessary　union　of　all　consciousness　in　one　original

apperception）；　and　so　to　render　them　susceptible　of　a　complete

connection　in　one　experience。　But　within　this　whole　of　possible

experience　lie　all　our　cognitions；　and　in　the　universal　relation　to

this　experience　consists　transcendental　truth；　which　antecedes　all

empirical　truth；　and　renders　the　latter　possible。

　　It　is；　however；　evident　at　first　sight；　that　although　the　schemata

of　sensibility　are　the　sole　agents　in　realizing　the　categories；　they

do；　nevertheless；　also　restrict　them；　that　is；　they　limit　the

categories　by　conditions　which　lie　beyond　the　sphere　of　understanding…

namely；　in　sensibility。　Hence　the　schema　is　properly　only　the

phenomenon；　or　the　sensuous　conception　of　an　object　in　harmony　with

the　category。　（Numerus　est　quantitas　phaenomenon…　sensatio　realitas

phaenomenon；　constans　et　perdurabile　rerum　substantia　phaenomenon…

aeternitas；　necessitas；　phaenomena；　etc。）　Now；　if　we　remove　a

restrictive　condition；　we　thereby　amplify；　it　appears；　the　formerly

limited　conception。　In　this　way；　the　categories　in　their　pure

signification；　free　from　all　conditions　of　sensibility；　ought　to　be

valid　of　things　as　they　are；　and　not；　as　the　schemata　represent

them；　merely　as　they　appear；　and　consequently　the　categories　must　have

a　significance　far　more　extended；　and　wholly　independent　of　all

schemata。　In　truth；　there　does　always　remain　to　the　pure　conceptions

of　the　understanding；　after　abstracting　every　sensuous　condition；　a

value　and　significance；　which　is；　however；　merely　logical。　But　in　this

case；　no　object　is　given　them；　and　therefore　they　have　no　meaning

sufficient　to　afford　us　a　conception　of　an　object。　The　notion　of

substance；　for　example；　if　we　leave　out　the　sensuous　determination

of　permanence；　would　mean　nothing　more　than　a　something　which　can　be

cogitated　as　subject；　without　the　possibility　of　becoming　a

predicate　to　anything　else。　Of　this　representation　I　can　make　nothing；

inasmuch　as　it　does　not　indicate　to　me　what　determinations　the　thing

possesses　which　must　thus　be　valid　as　premier　subject。　Consequently；

the　categories；　without　schemata　are　merely　functions　of　the

understanding　for　the　production　of　conceptions；　but　do　not

represent　any　object。　This　significance　they　derive　from

sensibility；　which　at　the　same　time　realizes　the　understanding　and

restricts　it。

　　　CHAPTER　II。　System　of　all　Principles　of　the　Pure　Understanding。



　　In　the　foregoing　chapter　we　have　merely　considered　the　general

conditions　under　which　alone　the　transcendental　faculty　of　judgement

is　justified　in　using　the　pure　co