the critique of pure reason-第5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！



unconditioned；　to　rise　beyond　the　limits　of　all　possible　experience

from　a　practical　point　of　view；　and　thus　to　satisfy　the　great　ends

of　metaphysics。　Speculative　reason　has　thus；　at　least；　made　room　for

such　an　extension　of　our　knowledge：　and；　if　it　must　leave　this　space

vacant；　still　it　does　not　rob　us　of　the　liberty　to　fill　it　up；　if　we

can；　by　means　of　practical　data…　nay；　it　even　challenges　us　to　make

the　attempt。*



　　*So　the　central　laws　of　the　movements　of　the　heavenly　bodies

established　the　truth　of　that　which　Copernicus；　first；　assumed　only　as

a　hypothesis；　and；　at　the　same　time；　brought　to　light　that　invisible

force　（Newtonian　attraction）　which　holds　the　universe　together。　The

latter　would　have　remained　forever　undiscovered；　if　Copernicus　had　not

ventured　on　the　experiment…　contrary　to　the　senses　but　still　just…

of　looking　for　the　observed　movements　not　in　the　heavenly　bodies；

but　in　the　spectator。　In　this　Preface　I　treat　the　new　metaphysical

method　as　a　hypothesis　with　the　view　of　rendering　apparent　the　first

attempts　at　such　a　change　of　method；　which　are　always　hypothetical。

But　in　the　Critique　itself　it　will　be　demonstrated；　not

hypothetically；　but　apodeictically；　from　the　nature　of　our

representations　of　space　and　time。　and　from　the　elementary　conceptions

of　the　understanding。



　　This　attempt　to　introduce　a　complete　revolution　in　the　procedure

of　metaphysics；　after　the　example　of　the　geometricians　and　natural

philosophers；　constitutes　the　aim　of　the　Critique　of　Pure

Speculative　Reason。　It　is　a　treatise　on　the　method　to　be　followed；　not

a　system　of　the　science　itself。　But；　at　the　same　time；　it　marks　out

and　defines　both　the　external　boundaries　and　the　internal　structure　of

this　science。　For　pure　speculative　reason　has　this　peculiarity；

that；　in　choosing　the　various　objects　of　thought；　it　is　able　to　define

the　limits　of　its　own　faculties；　and　even　to　give　a　complete

enumeration　of　the　possible　modes　of　proposing　problems　to　itself；　and

thus　to　sketch　out　the　entire　system　of　metaphysics。　For；　on　the　one

hand；　in　cognition　a　priori；　nothing　must　be　attributed　to　the　objects

but　what　the　thinking　subject　derives　from　itself；　and；　on　the　other

hand；　reason　is；　in　regard　to　the　principles　of　cognition；　a　perfectly

distinct；　independent　unity；　in　which；　as　in　an　organized　body；

every　member　exists　for　the　sake　of　the　others；　and　all　for　the　sake

of　each；　so　that　no　principle　can　be　viewed；　with　safety；　in　one

relationship；　unless　it　is；　at　the　same　time；　viewed　in　relation　to

the　total　use　of　pure　reason。　Hence；　too；　metaphysics　has　this

singular　advantage…　an　advantage　which　falls　to　the　lot　of　no　other

science　which　has　to　do　with　objects…　that；　if　once　it　is　conducted

into　the　sure　path　of　science；　by　means　of　this　criticism；　it　can　then

take　in　the　whole　sphere　of　its　cognitions；　and　can　thus　complete

its　work；　and　leave　it　for　the　use　of　posterity；　as　a　capital　which

can　never　receive　fresh　accessions。　For　metaphysics　has　to　deal　only

with　principles　and　with　the　limitations　of　its　own　employment　as

determined　by　these　principles。　To　this　perfection　it　is；　therefore；

bound；　as　the　fundamental　science；　to　attain；　and　to　it　the　maxim

may　justly　be　applied：



　　　　Nil　actum　reputans；　si　quid　superesset　agendum。*



　　*〃He　considered　nothing　done；　so　long　as　anything　remained　to　be

done。〃



　　But；　it　will　be　asked；　what　kind　of　a　treasure　is　this　that　we

propose　to　bequeath　to　posterity？　What　is　the　real　value　of　this

system　of　metaphysics；　purified　by　criticism；　and　thereby　reduced　to　a

permanent　condition？　A　cursory　view　of　the　present　work　will　lead　to

the　supposition　that　its　use　is　merely　negative；　that　it　only　serves

to　warn　us　against　venturing；　with　speculative　reason；　beyond　the

limits　of　experience。　This　is；　in　fact；　its　primary　use。　But　this；

at　once；　assumes　a　positive　value；　when　we　observe　that　the　principles

with　which　speculative　reason　endeavours　to　transcend　its　limits

lead　inevitably；　not　to　the　extension；　but　to　the　contraction　of　the

use　of　reason；　inasmuch　as　they　threaten　to　extend　the　limits　of

sensibility；　which　is　their　proper　sphere；　over　the　entire　realm　of

thought　and；　thus；　to　supplant　the　pure　（practical）　use　of　reason。

So　far；　then；　as　this　criticism　is　occupied　in　confining　speculative

reason　within　its　proper　bounds；　it　is　only　negative；　but；　inasmuch　as

it　thereby；　at　the　same　time；　removes　an　obstacle　which　impedes　and

even　threatens　to　destroy　the　use　of　practical　reason；　it　possesses

a　positive　and　very　important　value。　In　order　to　admit　this；　we　have

only　to　be　convinced　that　there　is　an　absolutely　necessary　use　of　pure

reason…　the　moral　use…　in　which　it　inevitably　transcends　the　limits　of

sensibility；　without　the　aid　of　speculation；　requiring　only　to　be

insured　against　the　effects　of　a　speculation　which　would　involve　it　in

contradiction　with　itself。　To　deny　the　positive　advantage　of　the

service　which　this　criticism　renders　us　would　be　as　absurd　as。　to

maintain　that　the　system　of　police　is　productive　of　no　positive

benefit；　since　its　main　business　is　to　prevent　the　violence　which

citizen　has　to　apprehend　from　citizen；　that　so　each　may　pursue　his

vocation　in　peace　and　security。　That　space　and　time　are　only　forms

of　sensible　intuition；　and　hence　are　only　conditions　of　the

existence　of　things　as　phenomena；　that；　moreover；　we　have　no

conceptions　of　the　understanding；　and；　consequently；　no　elements　for

the　cognition　of　things；　except　in　so　far　as　a　corresponding　intuition

can　be　given　to　these　conceptions；　that；　accordingly；　we　can　have　no

cognition　of　an　object；　as　a　thing　in　itself；　but　only　as　an　object　of

sensible　intuition；　that　is；　as　phenomenon…　all　this　is　proved　in

the　analytical　part　of　the　Critique；　and　from　this　the　limitation　of

all　possible　speculative　cognition　to　the　mere　objects　of

experience；　follows　as　a　necessary　result。　At　the　same　time；　it　must

be　carefully　borne　in　mind　that；　while　we　surrender　the　power　of

cognizing；　we　still　reserve　the　power　of　thinking　objects；　as　things

in　themselves。*　For；　otherwise；　we　should　require　to　affirm　the

existence　of　an　appearance；　without　something　that　appears…　which

would　be　absurd。　Now　let　us　suppose；　for　a　moment；　that　we　had　not

undertaken　this　criticism　and；　accordingly；　had　not　drawn　the

necessary　distinction　between　things　as　objects　of　experience　and

things　as　they　are　in　themselves。　The　principle　of　causality；　and；

by　consequence；　the　mechanism　of　nature　as　determined　by　causality；

would　then　have　absolute　validity　in　relation　to　all　things　as

efficient　causes。　I　should　then　be　unable　to　assert；　with　regard　to

one　and　the　same　being；　e。g。；　the　human　soul；　that　its　will　is　free；

and　yet；　at　the　same　time；　subject　to　natural　necessity；　that　is；

not　free；　without　falling　into　a　palpable　contradiction；　for　in　both

propositions　I　should　take　the　soul　in　the　same　signification；　as　a

thing　in　general；　as　a　thing　in　itself…　as；　without　previous

criticism；　I　could　not　but　take　it。　Suppose　now；　on　the　other　hand；

that　we　have　undertaken　this　criticism；　and　have　learnt　that　an　object

may　be　taken　in　two　senses；　first；　as　a　phenomenon；　secondly；　as　a

thing　in　itself；　and　that；　according　to　the　deduction　of　the

conceptions　of　the　understanding；　the　principle　of　causality　has

reference　only　to　things　in　the　first　sense。　We　then　see　how　it　does

not　involve　any　contradiction　to　assert；　on　the　one　hand；　that　the

will；　in　the　phenomenal　sphere…　in　visible　action…　is　necessarily

obedient　to　the　law　of　nature；　and；　in　so　far；　not　free；　and；　on　the

other　hand；　that；　as　belonging　to　a　thing　in　itself；　it　is　not　subject

to　that　law；　and；　accordingly；　is　free。　Now；　it　is　true　that　I　cannot；

by　means　of　speculative　reason；　and　still　less　by　empirical

observation；　cognize　my　soul　as　a　thing　in　itself　and　consequently；

cannot　cognize　liberty　as　the　property　of　a　being　to　which　I　ascribe

effects　in　the　world　of　sense。　For；　to　do　so；　I　must　cognize　this

being　as　existing；　and　yet　not　in　time；　which…　since　I　cannot

support　my　conception　by　any　intuition…　is　impossible。　At　the　same

time；　while　I　cannot　cognize；　I　can　quite　well　think　freedom；　that

is　to　say；　my　representation　of　it　involves　at　least　no　contradiction；

if　we　bear　in　mind　the　critical　distinction　of　the　two　modes　of

representation　（the　sensible　and　the　intellectual）　and　the

consequent　limitation　of　the　conceptions　of　the　pure　understanding　and

of　the　principles　which　flow　from　them。　Suppose　now　that　morality

necessarily　presupposed　liberty；　in　the　strictest　sense；　as　a　property

of　our　will；　suppose　that　reason　contained　certain　practical；　original

principles　a　priori；　which　were　absolutely　impossible　without　this

presupposition；　and　suppose；　at　the　same　time；　that　speculative　reason

had　proved　that　liberty　was　incapable　of　being　thought　at　all。　It

would　then　follow　that　the　moral　presuppo