the critique of pure reason-第58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！


understanding　（although；　on　account　of　the　confused　nature　of　their

representations；　he　gave　them　the　name　of　phenomena）；　and　in　this　case

his　principle　of　the　indiscernible　（principium　identatis

indiscernibilium）　is　not　to　be　impugned。　But；　as　phenomena　are　objects

of　sensibility；　and；　as　the　understanding；　in　respect　of　them；　must　be

employed　empirically　and　not　purely　or　transcendentally；　plurality　and

numerical　difference　are　given　by　space　itself　as　the　condition　of

external　phenomena。　For　one　part　of　space；　although　it　may　be

perfectly　similar　and　equal　to　another　part；　is　still　without　it；

and　for　this　reason　alone　is　different　from　the　latter；　which　is　added

to　it　in　order　to　make　up　a　greater　space。　It　follows　that　this　must

hold　good　of　all　things　that　are　in　the　different　parts　of　space　at

the　same　time；　however　similar　and　equal　one　may　be　to　another。

　　2。　Agreement　and　Opposition。　When　reality　is　represented　by　the　pure

understanding　（realitas　noumenon）；　opposition　between　realities　is

incogitable…　such　a　relation；　that　is；　that　when　these　realities　are

connected　in　one　subject；　they　annihilate　the　effects　of　each　other

and　may　be　represented　in　the　formula　3　…　3　=　0。　On　the　other　hand；

the　real　in　a　phenomenon　（realitas　phaenomenon）　may　very　well　be　in

mutual　opposition；　and；　when　united　in　the　same　subject；　the　one　may

completely　or　in　part　annihilate　the　effect　or　consequence　of　the

other；　as　in　the　case　of　two　moving　forces　in　the　same　straight　line

drawing　or　impelling　a　point　in　opposite　directions；　or　in　the　case　of

a　pleasure　counterbalancing　a　certain　amount　of　pain。

　　3。　The　Internal　and　External。　In　an　object　of　the　pure

understanding；　only　that　is　internal　which　has　no　relation　（as　regards

its　existence）　to　anything　different　from　itself。　On　the　other　hand；

the　internal　determinations　of　a　substantia　phaenomenon　in　space　are

nothing　but　relations；　and　it　is　itself　nothing　more　than　a　complex　of

mere　relations。　Substance　in　space　we　are　cognizant　of　only　through

forces　operative　in　it；　either　drawing　others　towards　itself

（attraction）；　or　preventing　others　from　forcing　into　itself　（repulsion

and　impenetrability）。　We　know　no　other　properties　that　make　up　the

conception　of　substance　phenomenal　in　space；　and　which　we　term　matter。

On　the　other　hand；　as　an　object　of　the　pure　understanding；　every

substance　must　have　internal　determination　and　forces。　But　what

other　internal　attributes　of　such　an　object　can　I　think　than　those

which　my　internal　sense　presents　to　me？　That；　to　wit；　which　in

either　itself　thought；　or　something　analogous　to　it。　Hence　Leibnitz；

who　looked　upon　things　as　noumena；　after　denying　them　everything

like　external　relation；　and　therefore　also　composition　or　combination；

declared　that　all　substances；　even　the　component　parts　of　matter；　were

simple　substances　with　powers　of　representation；　in　one　word；　monads。

　　4。　Matter　and　Form。　These　two　conceptions　lie　at　the　foundation　of

all　other　reflection；　so　inseparably　are　they　connected　with　every

mode　of　exercising　the　understanding。　The　former　denotes　the

determinable　in　general；　the　second　its　determination；　both　in　a

transcendental　sense；　abstraction　being　made　of　every　difference　in

that　which　is　given；　and　of　the　mode　in　which　it　is　determined。

Logicians　formerly　termed　the　universal；　matter；　the　specific

difference　of　this　or　that　part　of　the　universal；　form。　In　a　judgement

one　may　call　the　given　conceptions　logical　matter　（for　the　judgement）；

the　relation　of　these　to　each　other　（by　means　of　the　copula）；　the　form

of　the　judgement。　In　an　object；　the　composite　parts　thereof

（essentialia）　are　the　matter；　the　mode　in　which　they　are　connected

in　the　object；　the　form。　In　respect　to　things　in　general；　unlimited

reality　was　regarded　as　the　matter　of　all　possibility；　the

limitation　thereof　（negation）　as　the　form；　by　which　one　thing　is

distinguished　from　another　according　to　transcendental　conceptions。

The　understanding　demands　that　something　be　given　（at　least　in　the

conception）；　in　order　to　be　able　to　determine　it　in　a　certain

manner。　Hence；　in　a　conception　of　the　pure　understanding；　the　matter

precedes　the　form；　and　for　this　reason　Leibnitz　first　assumed　the

existence　of　things　（monads）　and　of　an　internal　power　of

representation　in　them；　in　order　to　found　upon　this　their　external

relation　and　the　community　their　state　（that　is；　of　their

representations）。　Hence；　with　him；　space　and　time　were　possible…　the

former　through　the　relation　of　substances；　the　latter　through　the

connection　of　their　determinations　with　each　other；　as　causes　and

effects。　And　so　would　it　really　be；　if　the　pure　understanding　were

capable　of　an　immediate　application　to　objects；　and　if　space　and

time　were　determinations　of　things　in　themselves。　But　being　merely

sensuous　intuitions；　in　which　we　determine　all　objects　solely　as

phenomena；　the　form　of　intuition　（as　a　subjective　property　of

sensibility）　must　antecede　all　matter　（sensations）；　consequently　space

and　time　must　antecede　all　phenomena　and　all　data　of　experience；　and

rather　make　experience　itself　possible。　But　the　intellectual

philosopher　could　not　endure　that　the　form　should　precede　the　things

themselves　and　determine　their　possibility；　an　objection　perfectly

correct；　if　we　assume　that　we　intuite　things　as　they　are；　although

with　confused　representation。　But　as　sensuous　intuition　is　a

peculiar　subjective　condition；　which　is　a　priori　at　the　foundation

of　all　perception；　and　the　form　of　which　is　primitive；　the　form　must

be　given　per　se；　and　so　far　from　matter　（or　the　things　themselves

which　appear）　lying　at　the　foundation　of　experience　（as　we　must

conclude；　if　we　judge　by　mere　conceptions）；　the　very　possibility　of

itself　presupposes；　on　the　contrary；　a　given　formal　intuition　（space

and　time）。



　　　　REMARK　ON　THE　AMPHIBOLY　OF　THE　CONCEPTIONS　OF　REFLECTION。



　　Let　me　be　allowed　to　term　the　position　which　we　assign　to　a

conception　either　in　the　sensibility　or　in　the　pure　understanding；　the

transcendental　place。　In　this　manner；　the　appointment　of　the

position　which　must　be　taken　by　each　conception　according　to　the

difference　in　its　use；　and　the　directions　for　determining　this　place

to　all　conceptions　according　to　rules；　would　be　a　transcendental

topic；　a　doctrine　which　would　thoroughly　shield　us　from　the

surreptitious　devices　of　the　pure　understanding　and　the　delusions

which　thence　arise；　as　it　would　always　distinguish　to　what　faculty

of　cognition　each　conception　properly　belonged。　Every　conception；

every　title；　under　which　many　cognitions　rank　together；　may　be

called　a　logical　place。　Upon　this　is　based　the　logical　topic　of

Aristotle；　of　which　teachers　and　rhetoricians　could　avail

themselves；　in　order；　under　certain　titles　of　thought；　to　observe　what

would　best　suit　the　matter　they　had　to　treat；　and　thus　enable

themselves　to　quibble　and　talk　with　fluency　and　an　appearance　of

profundity。

　　Transcendental　topic；　on　the　contrary；　contains　nothing　more　than

the　above…mentioned　four　titles　of　all　comparison　and　distinction；

which　differ　from　categories　in　this　respect；　that　they　do　not

represent　the　object　according　to　that　which　constitutes　its

conception　（quantity；　reality）；　but　set　forth　merely　the　comparison　of

representations；　which　precedes　our　conceptions　of　things。　But　this

comparison　requires　a　previous　reflection；　that　is；　a　determination　of

the　place　to　which　the　representations　of　the　things　which　are

compared　belong；　whether；　to　wit；　they　are　cogitated　by　the　pure

understanding；　or　given　by　sensibility。

　　Conceptions　may　be　logically　compared　without　the　trouble　of

inquiring　to　what　faculty　their　objects　belong；　whether　as　noumena；　to

the　understanding；　or　as　phenomena；　to　sensibility。　If；　however；　we

wish　to　employ　these　conceptions　in　respect　of　objects；　previous

transcendental　reflection　is　necessary。　Without　this　reflection　I

should　make　a　very　unsafe　use　of　these　conceptions；　and　construct

pretended　synthetical　propositions　which　critical　reason　cannot

acknowledge　and　which　are　based　solely　upon　a　transcendental

amphiboly；　that　is；　upon　a　substitution　of　an　object　of　pure

understanding　for　a　phenomenon。

　　For　want　of　this　doctrine　of　transcendental　topic；　and

consequently　deceived　by　the　amphiboly　of　the　conceptions　of

reflection；　the　celebrated　Leibnitz　constructed　an　intellectual　system

of　the　world；　or　rather；　believed　himself　competent　to　cognize　the

internal　nature　of　things；　by　comparing　all　objects　merely　with　the

understanding　and　the　abstract　formal　conceptions　of　thought。　Our

table　of　the　conceptions　of　reflection　gives　us　the　unexpected

advantage　of　being　able　to　exhibit　the　distinctive　peculiarities　of

his　system　in　all　its　parts；　and　at　the　same　time　of　exposing　the

fundamental　principle　of　this　peculiar　mode　of　thought；　which　rested

upon　naught　but　a　misconception。　He　compared　all　things　with　each

other　me