the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第103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！


　　The　aim　of　the　cosmological　argument　is　to　avoid　the　necessity　of
proving　the　existence　of　a　necessary　being　priori　from　mere
conceptions…　a　proof　which　must　be　ontological；　and　of　which　we　feel
ourselves　quite　incapable。　With　this　purpose；　we　reason　from　an　actual
existence…　an　experience　in　general；　to　an　absolutely　necessary
condition　of　that　existence。　It　is　in　this　case　unnecessary　to
demonstrate　its　possibility。　For　after　having　proved　that　it　exists；
the　question　regarding　its　possibility　is　superfluous。　Now；　when　we
wish　to　define　more　strictly　the　nature　of　this　necessary　being；　we　do
not　look　out　for　some　being　the　conception　of　which　would　enable　us　to
prehend　the　necessity　of　its　being…　for　if　we　could　do　this；　an
empirical　presupposition　would　be　unnecessary；　no；　we　try　to
discover　merely　the　negative　condition　（conditio　sine　qua　non）；
without　which　a　being　would　not　be　absolutely　necessary。　Now　this
would　be　perfectly　admissible　in　every　sort　of　reasoning；　from　a
consequence　to　its　principle；　but　in　the　present　case　it　unfortunately
happens　that　the　condition　of　absolute　necessity　can　be　discovered
in　but　a　single　being；　the　conception　of　which　must　consequently
contain　all　that　is　requisite　for　demonstrating　the　presence　of
absolute　necessity；　and　thus　entitle　me　to　infer　this　absolute
necessity　a　priori。　That　is；　it　must　be　possible　to　reason　conversely；
and　say：　The　thing；　to　which　the　conception　of　the　highest　reality
belongs；　is　absolutely　necessary。　But　if　I　cannot　reason　thus…　and　I
cannot；　unless　I　believe　in　the　sufficiency　of　the　ontological
argument…　I　find　insurmountable　obstacles　in　my　new　path；　and　am
really　no　farther　than　the　point　from　which　I　set　out。　The
conception　of　a　Supreme　Being　satisfies　all　questions　a　priori
regarding　the　internal　determinations　of　a　thing；　and　is　for　this
reason　an　ideal　without　equal　or　parallel；　the　general　conception　of
it　indicating　it　as　at　the　same　time　an　ens　individuum　among　all
possible　things。　But　the　conception　does　not　satisfy　the　question
regarding　its　existence…　which　was　the　purpose　of　all　our　inquiries；
and；　although　the　existence　of　a　necessary　being　were　admitted；　we
should　find　it　impossible　to　answer　the　question：　What　of　all　things
in　the　world　must　be　regarded　as　such？
　　It　is　certainly　allowable　to　admit　the　existence　of　an
all…sufficient　being…　a　cause　of　all　possible　effects…　for　the　purpose
of　enabling　reason　to　introduce　unity　into　its　mode　and　grounds　of
explanation　with　regard　to　phenomena。　But　to　assert　that　such　a
being　necessarily　exists；　is　no　longer　the　modest　enunciation　of　an
admissible　hypothesis；　but　the　boldest　declaration　of　an　apodeictic
certainty；　for　the　cognition　of　that　which　is　absolutely　necessary
must　itself　possess　that　character。
　　The　aim　of　the　transcendental　ideal　formed　by　the　mind　is　either
to　discover　a　conception　which　shall　harmonize　with　the　idea　of
absolute　necessity；　or　a　conception　which　shall　contain　that　idea。
If　the　one　is　possible；　so　is　the　other；　for　reason　recognizes　that
alone　as　absolutely　necessary　which　is　necessary　from　its
conception。　But　both　attempts　are　equally　beyond　our　power…　we　find　it
impossible　to　satisfy　the　understanding　upon　this　point；　and　as
impossible　to　induce　it　to　remain　at　rest　in　relation　to　this
incapacity。
　　Unconditioned　necessity；　which；　as　the　ultimate　support　and　stay
of　all　existing　things；　is　an　indispensable　requirement　of　the　mind；
is　an　abyss　on　the　verge　of　which　human　reason　trembles　in　dismay。
Even　the　idea　of　eternity；　terrible　and　sublime　as　it　is；　as
depicted　by　Haller；　does　not　produce　upon　the　mental　vision　such　a
feeling　of　awe　and　terror；　for；　although　it　measures　the　duration　of
things；　it　does　not　support　them。　We　cannot　bear；　nor　can　we　rid
ourselves　of　the　thought　that　a　being；　which　we　regard　as　the　greatest
of　all　possible　existences；　should　say　to　himself：　I　am　from
eternity　to　eternity；　beside　me　there　is　nothing；　except　that　which
exists　by　my　will；　whence　then　am　I？　Here　all　sinks　away　from　under
us；　and　the　greatest；　as　the　smallest；　perfection；　hovers　without　stay
or　footing　in　presence　of　the　speculative　reason；　which　finds　it　as
easy　to　part　with　the　one　as　with　the　other。
　　Many　physical　powers；　which　evidence　their　existence　by　their
effects；　are　perfectly　inscrutable　in　their　nature；　they　elude　all　our
powers　of　observation。　The　transcendental　object　which　forms　the　basis
of　phenomena；　and；　in　connection　with　it；　the　reason　why　our
sensibility　possesses　this　rather　than　that　particular　kind　of
conditions；　are　and　must　ever　remain　hidden　from　our　mental　vision；
the　fact　is　there；　the　reason　of　the　fact　we　cannot　see。　But　an
ideal　of　pure　reason　cannot　be　termed　mysterious　or　inscrutable；
because　the　only　credential　of　its　reality　is　the　need　of　it　felt　by
reason；　for　the　purpose　of　giving　pleteness　to　the　world　of
synthetical　unity。　An　ideal　is　not　even　given　as　a　cogitable　object；
and　therefore　cannot　be　inscrutable；　on　the　contrary；　it　must；　as　a
mere　idea；　be　based　on　the　constitution　of　reason　itself；　and　on
this　account　must　be　capable　of　explanation　and　solution。　For　the　very
essence　of　reason　consists　in　its　ability　to　give　an　account；　of　all
our　conceptions；　opinions；　and　assertions…　upon　objective；　or；　when
they　happen　to　be　illusory　and　fallacious；　upon　subjective　grounds。

　　　　　Detection　and　Explanation　of　the　Dialectical　Illusion　in
　　　　　　　all　Transcendental　Arguments　for　the　Existence　of　a
　　　　　　　Necessary　Being。

　　Both　of　the　above　arguments　are　transcendental；　in　other　words；　they
do　not　proceed　upon　empirical　principles。　For；　although　the
cosmological　argument　professed　to　lay　a　basis　of　experience　for　its
edifice　of　reasoning；　it　did　not　ground　its　procedure　upon　the
peculiar　constitution　of　experience；　but　upon　pure　principles　of
reason…　in　relation　to　an　existence　given　by　empirical
consciousness；　utterly　abandoning　its　guidance；　however；　for　the
purpose　of　supporting　its　assertions　entirely　upon　pure　conceptions。
Now　what　is　the　cause；　in　these　transcendental　arguments；　of　the
dialectical；　but　natural；　illusion；　which　connects　the　conceptions
of　necessity　and　supreme　reality；　and　hypostatizes　that　which　cannot
be　anything　but　an　idea？　What　is　the　cause　of　this　unavoidable　step　on
the　part　of　reason；　of　admitting　that　some　one　among　all　existing
things　must　be　necessary；　while　it　falls　back　from　the　assertion　of
the　existence　of　such　a　being　as　from　an　abyss？　And　how　does　reason
proceed　to　explain　this　anomaly　to　itself；　and　from　the　wavering
condition　of　a　timid　and　reluctant　approbation…　always　again
withdrawn…　arrive　at　a　calm　and　settled　insight　into　its　cause？
　　It　is　something　very　remarkable　that；　on　the　supposition　that
something　exists；　I　cannot　avoid　the　inference　that　something　exists
necessarily。　Upon　this　perfectly　natural…　but　not　on　that　account
reliable…　inference　does　the　cosmological　argument　rest。　But；　let　me
form　any　conception　whatever　of　a　thing；　I　find　that　I　cannot　cogitate
the　existence　of　the　thing　as　absolutely　necessary；　and　that　nothing
prevents　me…　be　the　thing　or　being　what　it　may…　from　cogitating　its
non…existence。　I　may　thus　be　obliged　to　admit　that　all　existing　things
have　a　necessary　basis；　while　I　cannot　cogitate　any　single　or
individual　thing　as　necessary。　In　other　words；　I　can　never　plete
the　regress　through　the　conditions　of　existence；　without　admitting　the
existence　of　a　necessary　being；　but；　on　the　other　hand；　I　cannot
make　a　mencement　from　this　being。
　　If　I　must　cogitate　something　as　existing　necessarily　as　the　basis　of
existing　things；　and　yet　am　not　permitted　to　cogitate　any　individual
thing　as　in　itself　necessary；　the　inevitable　inference　is　that
necessity　and　contingency　are　not　properties　of　things　themselves…
otherwise　an　internal　contradiction　would　result；　that　consequently
neither　of　these　principles　are　objective；　but　merely　subjective
principles　of　reason…　the　one　requiring　us　to　seek　for　a　necessary
ground　for　everything　that　exists；　that　is；　to　be　satisfied　with　no
other　explanation　than　that　which　is　plete　a　priori；　the　other
forbidding　us　ever　to　hope　for　the　attainment　of　this　pleteness；
that　is；　to　regard　no　member　of　the　empirical　world　as
unconditioned。　In　this　mode　of　viewing　them；　both　principles；　in　their
purely　heuristic　and　regulative　character；　and　as　concerning　merely
the　formal　interest　of　reason；　are　quite　consistent　with　each　other。
The　one　says：　〃You　must　philosophize　upon　nature；〃　as　if　there　existed
a　necessary　primal　basis　of　all　existing　things；　solely　for　the
purpose　of　introducing　systematic　unity　into　your　knowledge；　by
pursuing　an　idea　of　this　character…　a　foundation　which　is
arbitrarily　admitted　to　be　ultimate；　while　the　other　warns　you　to
consider　no　individual　determination；　concerning　the　existence　of
things；　as　such　an　ultimate　foundation；　that　is；　as　absolutely
necessary；　but　to　keep　the　way　always　open　for　further　progress　in　the
deduction；　and　to　treat　every　determination　as　determined　by　some
other。　But　if　all　that　we　perceive　must　be　regarded　as　conditionally
necessary；　it　is　impossible　that　anything