the critique of pure reason-第47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！



subject。　But　I　cannot　at　present　refrain　from　making　a　few　remarks

on　the　empirical　criterion　of　a　substance；　in　so　far　as　it　seems　to　be

more　evident　and　more　easily　recognized　through　the　conception　of

action　than　through　that　of　the　permanence　of　a　phenomenon。

　　Where　action　（consequently　activity　and　force）　exists；　substance

also　must　exist；　and　in　it　alone　must　be　sought　the　seat　of　that

fruitful　source　of　phenomena。　Very　well。　But　if　we　are　called　upon

to　explain　what　we　mean　by　substance；　and　wish　to　avoid　the　vice　of

reasoning　in　a　circle；　the　answer　is　by　no　means　so　easy。　How　shall　we

conclude　immediately　from　the　action　to　the　permanence　of　that　which

acts；　this　being　nevertheless　an　essential　and　peculiar　criterion　of

substance　（phenomenon）？　But　after　what　has　been　said　above；　the

solution　of　this　question　becomes　easy　enough；　although　by　the

common　mode　of　procedure…　merely　analysing　our　conceptions…　it　would

be　quite　impossible。　The　conception　of　action　indicates　the　relation

of　the　subject　of　causality　to　the　effect。　Now　because　all　effect

consists　in　that　which　happens；　therefore　in　the　changeable；　the

last　subject　thereof　is　the　permanent；　as　the　substratum　of　all　that

changes；　that　is；　substance。　For　according　to　the　principle　of

causality；　actions　are　always　the　first　ground　of　all　change　in

phenomena　and；　consequently；　cannot　be　a　property　of　a　subject　which

itself　changes；　because　if　this　were　the　case；　other　actions　and

another　subject　would　be　necessary　to　determine　this　change。　From

all　this　it　results　that　action　alone；　as　an　empirical　criterion；　is　a

sufficient　proof　of　the　presence　of　substantiality；　without　any

necessity　on　my　part　of　endeavouring　to　discover　the　permanence　of

substance　by　a　comparison。　Besides；　by　this　mode　of　induction　we　could

not　attain　to　the　completeness　which　the　magnitude　and　strict

universality　of　the　conception　requires。　For　that　the　primary

subject　of　the　causality　of　all　arising　and　passing　away；　all　origin

and　extinction；　cannot　itself　（in　the　sphere　of　phenomena）　arise　and

pass　away；　is　a　sound　and　safe　conclusion；　a　conclusion　which　leads　us

to　the　conception　of　empirical　necessity　and　permanence　in

existence；　and　consequently　to　the　conception　of　a　substance　as

phenomenon。

　　When　something　happens；　the　mere　fact　of　the　occurrence；　without

regard　to　that　which　occurs；　is　an　object　requiring　investigation。　The

transition　from　the　non…being　of　a　state　into　the　existence　of　it；

supposing　that　this　state　contains　no　quality　which　previously　existed

in　the　phenomenon；　is　a　fact　of　itself　demanding　inquiry。　Such　an

event；　as　has　been　shown　in　No。　A；　does　not　concern　substance　（for

substance　does　not　thus　originate）；　but　its　condition　or　state。　It

is　therefore　only　change；　and　not　origin　from　nothing。　If　this

origin　be　regarded　as　the　effect　of　a　foreign　cause；　it　is　termed

creation；　which　cannot　be　admitted　as　an　event　among　phenomena；

because　the　very　possibility　of　it　would　annihilate　the　unity　of

experience。　If；　however；　I　regard　all　things　not　as　phenomena；　but

as　things　in　themselves　and　objects　of　understanding　alone；　they；

although　substances；　may　be　considered　as　dependent；　in　respect　of

their　existence；　on　a　foreign　cause。　But　this　would　require　a　very

different　meaning　in　the　words；　a　meaning　which　could　not　apply　to

phenomena　as　objects　of　possible　experience。

　　How　a　thing　can　be　changed；　how　it　is　possible　that　upon　one　state

existing　in　one　point　of　time；　an　opposite　state　should　follow　in

another　point　of　time…　of　this　we　have　not　the　smallest　conception　a

priori。　There　is　requisite　for　this　the　knowledge　of　real　powers；

which　can　only　be　given　empirically；　for　example；　knowledge　of

moving　forces；　or；　in　other　words；　of　certain　successive　phenomena　（as

movements）　which　indicate　the　presence　of　such　forces。　But　the　form　of

every　change；　the　condition　under　which　alone　it　can　take　place　as　the

coming　into　existence　of　another　state　（be　the　content　of　the

change；　that　is；　the　state　which　is　changed；　what　it　may）；　and

consequently　the　succession　of　the　states　themselves　can　very　well

be　considered　a　priori；　in　relation　to　the　law　of　causality　and　the

conditions　of　time。*



　　*It　must　be　remarked　that　I　do　not　speak　of　the　change　of　certain

relations；　but　of　the　change　of　the　state。　Thus；　when　a　body　moves

in　a　uniform　manner；　it　does　not　change　its　state　（of　motion）；　but

only　when　all　motion　increases　or　decreases。



　　When　a　substance　passes　from　one　state；　a；　into　another　state；　b；

the　point　of　time　in　which　the　latter　exists　is　different　from；　and

subsequent　to　that　in　which　the　former　existed。　In　like　manner；　the

second　state；　as　reality　（in　the　phenomenon）；　differs　from　the

first；　in　which　the　reality　of　the　second　did　not　exist；　as　b　from

zero。　That　is　to　say；　if　the　state；　b；　differs　from　the　state；　a；　only

in　respect　to　quantity；　the　change　is　a　coming　into　existence　of　b　…

a；　which　in　the　former　state　did　not　exist；　and　in　relation　to　which

that　state　is　=　O。

　　Now　the　question　arises　how　a　thing　passes　from　one　state　=　a；

into　another　state　=　b。　Between　two　moments　there　is　always　a

certain　time；　and　between　two　states　existing　in　these　moments　there

is　always　a　difference　having　a　certain　quantity　（for　all　parts　of

phenomena　are　in　their　turn　quantities）。　Consequently；　every

transition　from　one　state　into　another　is　always　effected　in　a　time

contained　between　two　moments；　of　which　the　first　determines　the　state

which　leaves；　and　the　second　determines　the　state　into　the　thing

passes。　the　thing　leaves；　and　the　second　determines　the　state　into

which　the　thing　Both　moments；　then；　are　limitations　of　the　time　of　a

change；　consequently　of　the　intermediate　state　between　both；　and　as

such　they　belong　to　the　total　of　the　change。　Now　every　change　has　a

cause；　which　evidences　its　causality　in　the　whole　time　during　which

the　charge　takes　place。　The　cause；　therefore；　does　not　produce　the

change　all　at　once　or　in　one　moment；　but　in　a　time；　so　that；　as　the

time　gradually　increases　from　the　commencing　instant；　a；　to　its

completion　at　b；　in　like　manner　also；　the　quantity　of　the　reality

（b　…　a）　is　generated　through　the　lesser　degrees　which　are　contained

between　the　first　and　last。　All　change　is　therefore　possible　only

through　a　continuous　action　of　the　causality；　which；　in　so　far　as　it

is　uniform；　we　call　a　momentum。　The　change　does　not　consist　of　these

momenta；　but　is　generated　or　produced　by　them　as　their　effect。

　　Such　is　the　law　of　the　continuity　of　all　change；　the　ground　of　which

is　that　neither　time　itself　nor　any　phenomenon　in　time　consists　of

parts　which　are　the　smallest　possible；　but　that；　notwithstanding；

the　state　of　a　thing　passes　in　the　process　of　a　change　through　all

these　parts；　as　elements；　to　its　second　state。　There　is　no　smallest

degree　of　reality　in　a　phenomenon；　just　as　there　is　no　smallest　degree

in　the　quantity　of　time；　and　so　the　new　state　of　reality　grows　up

out　of　the　former　state；　through　all　the　infinite　degrees　thereof；　the

differences　of　which　one　from　another；　taken　all　together；　are　less

than　the　difference　between　o　and　a。

　　It　is　not　our　business　to　inquire　here　into　the　utility　of　this

principle　in　the　investigation　of　nature。　But　how　such　a

proposition；　which　appears　so　greatly　to　extend　our　knowledge　of

nature；　is　possible　completely　a　priori；　is　indeed　a　question　which

deserves　investigation；　although　the　first　view　seems　to　demonstrate

the　truth　and　reality　of　the　principle；　and　the　question；　how　it　is

possible；　may　be　considered　superfluous。　For　there　are　so　many

groundless　pretensions　to　the　enlargement　of　our　knowledge　by　pure

reason　that　we　must　take　it　as　a　general　rule　to　be　mistrustful　of　all

such；　and　without　a　thoroughgoing　and　radical　deduction；　to　believe

nothing　of　the　sort　even　on　the　clearest　dogmatical　evidence。

　　Every　addition　to　our　empirical　knowledge；　and　every　advance　made　in

the　exercise　of　our　perception；　is　nothing　more　than　an　extension　of

the　determination　of　the　internal　sense；　that　is　to　say；　a　progression

in　time；　be　objects　themselves　what　they　may；　phenomena；　or　pure

intuitions。　This　progression　in　time　determines　everything；　and　is

itself　determined　by　nothing　else。　That　is　to　say；　the　parts　of　the

progression　exist　only　in　time；　and　by　means　of　the　synthesis　thereof；

and　are　not　given　antecedently　to　it。　For　this　reason；　every

transition　in　perception　to　anything　which　follows　upon　another　in

time；　is　a　determination　of　time　by　means　of　the　production　of　this

perception。　And　as　this　determination　of　time　is；　always　and　in　all

its　parts；　a　quantity；　the　perception　produced　is　to　be　considered

as　a　quantity　which　proceeds　through　all　its　degrees…　no　one　of

which　is　the　smallest　possible…　from　zero　up　to　its　determined　degree。

From　this　we　perceive　the　possibility　of　cognizing　a　priori　a　law　of

changes…　a　law；