the critique of pure reason-第54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！



ease　can　it　be　demonstrated；　that　the　possibility　of　things　as

quantities；　and　consequently　the　objective　reality　of　the　category

of　quantity；　can　be　grounded　only　in　external　intuition；　and　that　by

its　means　alone　is　the　notion　of　quantity　appropriated　by　the　internal

sense。　But　I　must　avoid　prolixity；　and　leave　the　task　of

illustrating　this　by　examples　to　the　reader's　own　reflection。

　　The　above　remarks　are　of　the　greatest　importance；　not　only　for　the

confirmation　of　our　previous　confutation　of　idealism；　but　still　more

when　the　subject　of　self…cognition　by　mere　internal　consciousness

and　the　determination　of　our　own　nature　without　the　aid　of　external

empirical　intuitions　is　under　discussion；　for　the　indication　of　the

grounds　of　the　possibility　of　such　a　cognition。

　　The　result　of　the　whole　of　this　part　of　the　analytic　of　principles

is；　therefore：　〃All　principles　of　the　pure　understanding　are　nothing

more　than　a　priori　principles　of　the　possibility　of　experience；　and　to

experience　alone　do　all　a　priori　synthetical　propositions　apply　and

relate〃；　indeed；　their　possibility　itself　rests　entirely　on　this

relation。

　　　　CHAPTER　III　Of　the　Ground　of　the　Division　of　all　Objects

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　into　Phenomena　and　Noumena。



　　We　have　now　not　only　traversed　the　region　of　the　pure

understanding　and　carefully　surveyed　every　part　of　it；　but　we　have

also　measured　it；　and　assigned　to　everything　therein　its　proper　place。

But　this　land　is　an　island；　and　enclosed　by　nature　herself　within

unchangeable　limits。　It　is　the　land　of　truth　（an　attractive　word）；

surrounded　by　a　wide　and　stormy　ocean；　the　region　of　illusion；　where

many　a　fog…bank；　many　an　iceberg；　seems　to　the　mariner；　on　his

voyage　of　discovery；　a　new　country；　and；　while　constantly　deluding　him

with　vain　hopes；　engages　him　in　dangerous　adventures；　from　which　he

never　can　desist；　and　which　yet　he　never　can　bring　to　a　termination。

But　before　venturing　upon　this　sea；　in　order　to　explore　it　in　its

whole　extent；　and　to　arrive　at　a　certainty　whether　anything　is　to　be

discovered　there；　it　will　not　be　without　advantage　if　we　cast　our　eyes

upon　the　chart　of　the　land　that　we　are　about　to　leave；　and　to　ask

ourselves；　firstly；　whether　we　cannot　rest　perfectly　contented　with

what　it　contains；　or　whether　we　must　not　of　necessity　be　contented

with　it；　if　we　can　find　nowhere　else　a　solid　foundation　to　build　upon；

and；　secondly；　by　what　title　we　possess　this　land　itself；　and　how　we

hold　it　secure　against　all　hostile　claims？　Although；　in　the　course

of　our　analytic；　we　have　already　given　sufficient　answers　to　these

questions；　yet　a　summary　recapitulation　of　these　solutions　may　be

useful　in　strengthening　our　conviction；　by　uniting　in　one　point　the

momenta　of　the　arguments。

　　We　have　seen　that　everything　which　the　understanding　draws　from

itself；　without　borrowing　from　experience；　it　nevertheless　possesses

only　for　the　behoof　and　use　of　experience。　The　principles　of　the

pure　understanding；　whether　constitutive　a　priori　（as　the　mathematical

principles）；　or　merely　regulative　（as　the　dynamical）；　contain

nothing　but　the　pure　schema；　as　it　were；　of　possible　experience。　For

experience　possesses　its　unity　from　the　synthetical　unity　which　the

understanding；　originally　and　from　itself；　imparts　to　the　synthesis　of

the　imagination　in　relation　to　apperception；　and　in　a　priori

relation　to　and　agreement　with　which　phenomena；　as　data　for　a　possible

cognition；　must　stand。　But　although　these　rules　of　the　understanding

are　not　only　a　priori　true；　but　the　very　source　of　all　truth；　that　is；

of　the　accordance　of　our　cognition　with　objects；　and　on　this　ground；

that　they　contain　the　basis　of　the　possibility　of　experience；　as　the

ensemble　of　all　cognition；　it　seems　to　us　not　enough　to　propound

what　is　true…　we　desire　also　to　be　told　what　we　want　to　know。　If；

then；　we　learn　nothing　more　by　this　critical　examination　than　what

we　should　have　practised　in　the　merely　empirical　use　of　the

understanding；　without　any　such　subtle　inquiry；　the　presumption　is

that　the　advantage　we　reap　from　it　is　not　worth　the　labour　bestowed

upon　it。　It　may　certainly　be　answered　that　no　rash　curiosity　is　more

prejudicial　to　the　enlargement　of　our　knowledge　than　that　which　must

know　beforehand　the　utility　of　this　or　that　piece　of　information　which

we　seek；　before　we　have　entered　on　the　needful　investigations；　and

before　one　could　form　the　least　conception　of　its　utility；　even　though

it　were　placed　before　our　eyes。　But　there　is　one　advantage　in　such

transcendental　inquiries　which　can　be　made　comprehensible　to　the

dullest　and　most　reluctant　learner…　this；　namely；　that　the

understanding　which　is　occupied　merely　with　empirical　exercise；　and

does　not　reflect　on　the　sources　of　its　own　cognition；　may　exercise　its

functions　very　well　and　very　successfully；　but　is　quite　unable　to　do

one　thing；　and　that　of　very　great　importance；　to　determine；　namely；

the　bounds　that　limit　its　employment；　and　to　know　what　lies　within

or　without　its　own　sphere。　This　purpose　can　be　obtained　only　by　such

profound　investigations　as　we　have　instituted。　But　if　it　cannot

distinguish　whether　certain　questions　lie　within　its　horizon　or　not；

it　can　never　be　sure　either　as　to　its　claims　or　possessions；　but

must　lay　its　account　with　many　humiliating　corrections；　when　it

transgresses；　as　it　unavoidably　will；　the　limits　of　its　own　territory；

and　loses　itself　in　fanciful　opinions　and　blinding　illusions。

　　That　the　understanding；　therefore；　cannot　make　of　its　a　priori

principles；　or　even　of　its　conceptions；　other　than　an　empirical　use；

is　a　proposition　which　leads　to　the　most　important　results。　A

transcendental　use　is　made　of　a　conception　in　a　fundamental

proposition　or　principle；　when　it　is　referred　to　things　in　general　and

considered　as　things　in　themselves；　an　empirical　use；　when　it　is

referred　merely　to　phenomena；　that　is；　to　objects　of　a　possible

experience。　That　the　latter　use　of　a　conception　is　the　only　admissible

one　is　evident　from　the　reasons　following。　For　every　conception　are

requisite；　firstly；　the　logical　form　of　a　conception　（of　thought）

general；　and；　secondly；　the　possibility　of　presenting　to　this　an

object　to　which　it　may　apply。　Failing　this　latter；　it　has　no　sense；

and　utterly　void　of　content；　although　it　may　contain　the　logical

function　for　constructing　a　conception　from　certain　data。　Now；

object　cannot　be　given　to　a　conception　otherwise　than　by　intuition；

and；　even　if　a　pure　intuition　antecedent　to　the　object　is　a　priori

possible；　this　pure　intuition　can　itself　obtain　objective　validity

only　from　empirical　intuition；　of　which　it　is　itself　but　the　form。　All

conceptions；　therefore；　and　with　them　all　principles；　however　high　the

degree　of　their　a　priori　possibility；　relate　to　empirical

intuitions；　that　is；　to　data　towards　a　possible　experience。　Without

this　they　possess　no　objective　validity；　but　are　mere　play　of

imagination　or　of　understanding　with　images　or　notions。　Let　us　take；

for　example；　the　conceptions　of　mathematics；　and　first　in　its　pure

intuitions。　〃Space　has　three　dimensions〃…　〃Between　two　points　there

can　be　only　one　straight　line；〃　etc。　Although　all　these　principles；

and　the　representation　of　the　object　with　which　this　science

occupies　itself；　are　generated　in　the　mind　entirely　a　priori；　they

would　nevertheless　have　no　significance　if　we　were　not　always　able

to　exhibit　their　significance　in　and　by　means　of　phenomena

（empirical　objects）。　Hence　it　is　requisite　that　an　abstract　conception

be　made　sensuous；　that　is；　that　an　object　corresponding　to　it　in

intuition　be　forthcoming；　otherwise　the　conception　remains；　as　we　say；

without　sense；　that　is；　without　meaning。　Mathematics　fulfils　this

requirement　by　the　construction　of　the　figure；　which　is　a　phenomenon

evident　to　the　senses。　The　same　science　finds　support　and　significance

in　number；　this　in　its　turn　finds　it　in　the　fingers；　or　in　counters；

or　in　lines　and　points。　The　conception　itself　is　always　produced　a

priori；　together　with　the　synthetical　principles　or　formulas　from　such

conceptions；　but　the　proper　employment　of　them；　and　their

application　to　objects；　can　exist　nowhere　but　in　experience；　the

possibility　of　which；　as　regards　its　form；　they　contain　a　priori。

　　That　this　is　also　the　case　with　all　of　the　categories　and　the

principles　based　upon　them　is　evident　from　the　fact　that　we　cannot

render　intelligible　the　possibility　of　an　object　corresponding　to　them

without　having　recourse　to　the　conditions　of　sensibility；

consequently；　to　the　form　of　phenomena；　to　which；　as　their　only　proper

objects；　their　use　must　therefore　be　confined；　inasmuch　as；　if　this

condition　is　removed；　all　significance；　that　is；　all　relation　to　an

object；　disappears；　and　no　example　can　be　found　to　make　it

comprehensible　what　sort　of　things　we　ought　to　think　under　such

conceptions。

　　The　conception　of　quantity　cannot　be　explained　except　by　saying　that

it　is　t