the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第100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！


experience　and　the　peculiar　constitution　of　the　world　of　sense；　and
rise；　according　to　the　laws　of　causality；　from　it　to　the　highest　cause
existing　apart　from　the　world…　or　from　a　purely　indeterminate
experience；　that　is；　some　empirical　existence…　or　abstraction　is
made　of　all　experience；　and　the　existence　of　a　supreme　cause　is
concluded　from　a　priori　conceptions　alone。　The　first　is　the
physicotheological　argument；　the　second　the　cosmological；　the　third
the　ontological。　More　there　are　not；　and　more　there　cannot　be。
　　I　shall　show　it　is　as　unsuccessful　on　the　one　path…　the　empirical…
as　on　the　other…　the　transcendental…　and　that　it　stretches　its　wings
in　vain；　to　soar　beyond　the　world　of　sense　by　the　mere　might　of
speculative　thought。　As　regards　the　order　in　which　we　must　discuss
those　arguments；　it　will　be　exactly　the　reverse　of　that　in　which
reason；　in　the　progress　of　its　development；　attains　to　them…　the　order
in　which　they　are　placed　above。　For　it　will　be　made　manifest　to　the
reader　that；　although　experience　presents　the　occasion　and　the
starting…point；　it　is　the　transcendental　idea　of　reason　which　guides
it　in　its　pilgrimage　and　is　the　goal　of　all　its　struggles。　I　shall
therefore　begin　with　an　examination　of　the　transcendental　argument；
and　afterwards　inquire　what　additional　strength　has　accrued　to　this
mode　of　proof　from　the　addition　of　the　empirical　element。

　　SECTION　IV。　Of　the　Impossibility　of　an　Ontological　Proof　of
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　the　Existence　of　God。

　　It　is　evident　from　what　has　been　said　that　the　conception　of　an
absolutely　necessary　being　is　a　mere　idea；　the　objective　reality　of
which　is　far　from　being　established　by　the　mere　fact　that　it　is　a　need
of　reason。　On　the　contrary；　this　idea　serves　merely　to　indicate　a
certain　unattainable　perfection；　and　rather　limits　the　operations
than；　by　the　presentation　of　new　objects；　extends　the　sphere　of　the
understanding。　But　a　strange　anomaly　meets　us　at　the　very　threshold；
for　the　inference　from　a　given　existence　in　general　to　an　absolutely
necessary　existence　seems　to　be　correct　and　unavoidable；　while　the
conditions　of　the　understanding　refuse　to　aid　us　in　forming　any
conception　of　such　a　being。
　　Philosophers　have　always　talked　of　an　absolutely　necessary　being；
and　have　nevertheless　declined　to　take　the　trouble　of　conceiving
whether…　and　how…　a　being　of　this　nature　is　even　cogitable；　not　to
mention　that　its　existence　is　actually　demonstrable。　A　verbal
definition　of　the　conception　is　certainly　easy　enough：　it　is　something
the　non…existence　of　which　is　impossible。　But　does　this　definition
throw　any　light　upon　the　conditions　which　render　it　impossible　to
cogitate　the　non…existence　of　a　thing…　conditions　which　we　wish　to
ascertain；　that　we　may　discover　whether　we　think　anything　in　the
conception　of　such　a　being　or　not？　For　the　mere　fact　that　I　throw
away；　by　means　of　the　word　unconditioned；　all　the　conditions　which　the
understanding　habitually　requires　in　order　to　regard　anything　as
necessary；　is　very　far　from　making　clear　whether　by　means　of　the
conception　of　the　unconditionally　necessary　I　think　of　something；　or
really　of　nothing　at　all。
　　Nay；　more；　this　chance…conception；　now　bee　so　current；　many
have　endeavoured　to　explain　by　examples　which　seemed　to　render　any
inquiries　regarding　its　intelligibility　quite　needless。　Every
geometrical　proposition…　a　triangle　has　three　angles…　it　was　said；
is　absolutely　necessary；　and　thus　people　talked　of　an　object　which　lay
out　of　the　sphere　of　our　understanding　as　if　it　were　perfectly　plain
what　the　conception　of　such　a　being　meant。
　　All　the　examples　adduced　have　been　drawn；　without　exception；　from
judgements；　and　not　from　things。　But　the　unconditioned　necessity　of
a　judgement　does　not　form　the　absolute　necessity　of　a　thing。　On　the
contrary；　the　absolute　necessity　of　a　judgement　is　only　a
conditioned　necessity　of　a　thing；　or　of　the　predicate　in　a
judgement。　The　proposition　above…mentioned　does　not　enounce　that　three
angles　necessarily　exist；　but；　upon　condition　that　a　triangle
exists；　three　angles　must　necessarily　exist…　in　it。　And　thus　this
logical　necessity　has　been　the　source　of　the　greatest　delusions。
Having　formed　an　a　priori　conception　of　a　thing；　the　content　of
which　was　made　to　embrace　existence；　we　believed　ourselves　safe　in
concluding　that；　because　existence　belongs　necessarily　to　the　object
of　the　conception　（that　is；　under　the　condition　of　my　positing　this
thing　as　given）；　the　existence　of　the　thing　is　also　posited
necessarily；　and　that　it　is　therefore　absolutely　necessary…　merely
because　its　existence　has　been　cogitated　in　the　conception。
　　If；　in　an　identical　judgement；　I　annihilate　the　predicate　in
thought；　and　retain　the　subject；　a　contradiction　is　the　result；　and
hence　I　say；　the　former　belongs　necessarily　to　the　latter。　But　if　I
suppress　both　subject　and　predicate　in　thought；　no　contradiction
arises；　for　there　is　nothing　at　all；　and　therefore　no　means　of　forming
a　contradiction。　To　suppose　the　existence　of　a　triangle　and　not　that
of　its　three　angles；　is　self…contradictory；　but　to　suppose　the
non…existence　of　both　triangle　and　angles　is　perfectly　admissible。　And
so　is　it　with　the　conception　of　an　absolutely　necessary　being。
Annihilate　its　existence　in　thought；　and　you　annihilate　the　thing
itself　with　all　its　predicates；　how　then　can　there　be　any　room　for
contradiction？　Externally；　there　is　nothing　to　give　rise　to　a
contradiction；　for　a　thing　cannot　be　necessary　externally；　nor
internally；　for；　by　the　annihilation　or　suppression　of　the　thing
itself；　its　internal　properties　are　also　annihilated。　God　is
omnipotent…　that　is　a　necessary　judgement。　His　omnipotence　cannot　be
denied；　if　the　existence　of　a　Deity　is　posited…　the　existence；　that
is；　of　an　infinite　being；　the　two　conceptions　being　identical。　But
when　you　say；　God　does　not　exist；　neither　omnipotence　nor　any　other
predicate　is　affirmed；　they　must　all　disappear　with　the　subject；　and
in　this　judgement　there　cannot　exist　the　least　self…contradiction。
　　You　have　thus　seen　that　when　the　predicate　of　a　judgement　is
annihilated　in　thought　along　with　the　subject；　no　internal
contradiction　can　arise；　be　the　predicate　what　it　may。　There　is　no
possibility　of　evading　the　conclusion…　you　find　yourselves　pelled
to　declare：　There　are　certain　subjects　which　cannot　be　annihilated
in　thought。　But　this　is　nothing　more　than　saying：　There　exist　subjects
which　are　absolutely　necessary…　the　very　hypothesis　which　you　are
called　upon　to　establish。　For　I　find　myself　unable　to　form　the
slightest　conception　of　a　thing　which　when　annihilated　in　thought　with
all　its　predicates；　leaves　behind　a　contradiction；　and　contradiction
is　the　only　criterion　of　impossibility　in　the　sphere　of　pure　a
priori　conceptions。
　　Against　these　general　considerations；　the　justice　of　which　no　one
can　dispute；　one　argument　is　adduced；　which　is　regarded　as
furnishing　a　satisfactory　demonstration　from　the　fact。　It　is
affirmed　that　there　is　one　and　only　one　conception；　in　which　the
non…being　or　annihilation　of　the　object　is　self…contradictory；　and
this　is　the　conception　of　an　ens　realissimum。　It　possesses；　you　say；
all　reality；　and　you　feel　yourselves　justified　in　admitting　the
possibility　of　such　a　being。　（This　I　am　willing　to　grant　for　the
present；　although　the　existence　of　a　conception　which　is　not
self…contradictory　is　far　from　being　sufficient　to　prove　the
possibility　of　an　object。）*　Now　the　notion　of　all　reality　embraces
in　it　that　of　existence；　the　notion　of　existence　lies；　therefore；　in
the　conception　of　this　possible　thing。　If　this　thing　is　annihilated　in
thought；　the　internal　possibility　of　the　thing　is　also　annihilated；
which　is　self…contradictory。

　　*A　conception　is　always　possible；　if　it　is　not　self…contradictory。
This　is　the　logical　criterion　of　possibility；　distinguishing　the
object　of　such　a　conception　from　the　nihil　negativum。　But　it　may　be；
notwithstanding；　an　empty　conception；　unless　the　objective　reality
of　this　synthesis；　but　which　it　is　generated；　is　demonstrated；　and　a
proof　of　this　kind　must　be　based　upon　principles　of　possible
experience；　and　not　upon　the　principle　of　analysis　or　contradiction。
This　remark　may　be　serviceable　as　a　warning　against　concluding；　from
the　possibility　of　a　conception…　which　is　logical…　the　possibility
of　a　thing…　which　is　real。

　　I　answer：　It　is　absurd　to　introduce…　under　whatever　term
disguised…　into　the　conception　of　a　thing；　which　is　to　be　cogitated
solely　in　reference　to　its　possibility；　the　conception　of　its
existence。　If　this　is　admitted；　you　will　have　apparently　gained　the
day；　but　in　reality　have　enounced　nothing　but　a　mere　tautology。　I　ask；
is　the　proposition；　this　or　that　thing　（which　I　am　admitting　to　be
possible）　exists；　an　analytical　or　a　synthetical　proposition？　If　the
former；　there　is　no　addition　made　to　the　subject　of　your　thought　by
the　affirmation　of　its　existence；　but　then　the　conception　in　your
minds　is　identical　with　the　thing　itself；　or　you　have　supposed　the
existence　of　a　thing　to　be　possible；　and　then　inferred　its　existence
from　its　internal　possibility…　which　is　but　a　miserable　tautology。　The
word　reality