the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第127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　and　the　dialectical　pretensions　of　reason；　against
which；　however；　his　attacks　are　mainly　directed；　reason　does　not
feel　itself　shut　out　from　all　attempts　at　the　extension　of　a　priori
cognition；　and　hence　it　refuses；　in　spite　of　a　few　checks　in　this　or
that　quarter；　to　relinquish　such　efforts。　For　one　naturally　arms
oneself　to　resist　an　attack；　and　bees　more　obstinate　in　the　resolve
to　establish　the　claims　he　has　advanced。　But　a　plete　review　of
the　powers　of　reason；　and　the　conviction　thence　arising　that　we　are　in
possession　of　a　limited　field　of　action；　while　we　must　admit　the
vanity　of　higher　claims；　puts　an　end　to　all　doubt　and　dispute；　and
induces　reason　to　rest　satisfied　with　the　undisturbed　possession　of
its　limited　domain。
　　To　the　uncritical　dogmatist；　who　has　not　surveyed　the　sphere　of
his　understanding；　nor　determined；　in　accordance　with　principles；
the　limits　of　possible　cognition；　who；　consequently；　is　ignorant　of
his　own　powers；　and　believes　he　will　discover　them　by　the　attempts
he　makes　in　the　field　of　cognition；　these　attacks　of　scepticism　are
not　only　dangerous；　but　destructive。　For　if　there　is　one　proposition
in　his　chain　of　reasoning　which　be　he　cannot　prove；　or　the　fallacy
in　which　be　cannot　evolve　in　accordance　with　a　principle；　suspicion
falls　on　all　his　statements；　however　plausible　they　may　appear。
　　And　thus　scepticism；　the　bane　of　dogmatical　philosophy；　conducts
us　to　a　sound　investigation　into　the　understanding　and　the　reason。
When　we　are　thus　far　advanced；　we　need　fear　no　further
attacks；　for　the　limits　of　our　domain　are　clearly　marked　out；　and　we
can　make　no　claims　nor　bee　involved　in　any　disputes　regarding　the
region　that　lies　beyond　these　limits。　Thus　the　sceptical　procedure
in　philosophy　does　not　present　any　solution　of　the　problems　of　reason；
but　it　forms　an　excellent　exercise　for　its　powers；　awakening　its
circumspection；　and　indicating　the　means　whereby　it　may　most　fully
establish　its　claims　to　its　legitimate　possessions。

　　　　SECTION　III。　The　Discipline　of　Pure　Reason　in　Hypothesis。

　　This　critique　of　reason　has　now　taught　us　that　all　its　efforts　to
extend　the　bounds　of　knowledge；　by　means　of　pure　speculation；　are
utterly　fruitless。　So　much　the　wider　field；　it　may　appear；　lies　open
to　hypothesis；　as；　where　we　cannot　know　with　certainty；　we　are　at
liberty　to　make　guesses　and　to　form　suppositions。
　　Imagination　may　be　allowed；　under　the　strict　surveillance　of　reason；
to　invent　suppositions；　but；　these　must　be　based　on　something　that
is　perfectly　certain…　and　that　is　the　possibility　of　the　object。　If　we
are　well　assured　upon　this　point；　it　is　allowable　to　have　recourse
to　supposition　in　regard　to　the　reality　of　the　object；　but　this
supposition　must；　unless　it　is　utterly　groundless；　be　connected；　as
its　ground　of　explanation；　with　that　which　is　really　given　and
absolutely　certain。　Such　a　supposition　is　termed　a　hypothesis。
　　It　is　beyond　our　power　to　form　the　least　conception　a　priori　of
the　possibility　of　dynamical　connection　in　phenomena；　and　the　category
of　the　pure　understanding　will　not　enable　us　to　ex。　cogitate　any
such　connection；　but　merely　helps　us　to　understand　it；　when　we　meet
with　it　in　experience。　For　this　reason　we　cannot；　in　accordance　with
the　categories；　imagine　or　invent　any　object　or　any　property　of　an
object　not　given；　or　that　may　not　be　given　in　experience；　and　employ
it　in　a　hypothesis；　otherwise；　we　should　be　basing　our　chain　of
reasoning　upon　mere　chimerical　fancies；　and　not　upon　conceptions　of
things。　Thus；　we　have　no　right　to　assume　the　existence　of　new
powers；　not　existing　in　nature…　for　example；　an　understanding　with　a
non…sensuous　intuition；　a　force　of　attraction　without　contact；　or　some
new　kind　of　substances　occupying　space；　and　yet　without　the　property
of　impenetrability…　and；　consequently；　we　cannot　assume　that　there
is　any　other　kind　of　munity　among　substances　than　that　observable
in　experience；　any　kind　of　presence　than　that　in　space；　or　any　kind　of
duration　than　that　in　time。　In　one　word；　the　conditions　of　possible
experience　are　for　reason　the　only　conditions　of　the　possibility　of
things；　reason　cannot　venture　to　form；　independently　of　these
conditions；　any　conceptions　of　things；　because　such　conceptions；
although　not　self…contradictory；　are　without　object　and　without
application。
　　The　conceptions　of　reason　are；　as　we　have　already　shown；　mere　ideas；
and　do　not　relate　to　any　object　in　any　kind　of　experience。　At　the　same
time；　they　do　not　indicate　imaginary　or　possible　objects。　They　are
purely　problematical　in　their　nature　and；　as　aids　to　the　heuristic
exercise　of　the　faculties；　form　the　basis　of　the　regulative　principles
for　the　systematic　employment　of　the　understanding　in　the　field　of
experience。　If　we　leave　this　ground　of　experience；　they　bee　mere
fictions　of　thought；　the　possibility　of　which　is　quite　indemonstrable；
and　they　cannot；　consequently；　be　employed　as　hypotheses　in　the
explanation　of　real　phenomena。　It　is　quite　admissible　to　cogitate
the　soul　as　simple；　for　the　purpose　of　enabling　ourselves　to　employ
the　idea　of　a　perfect　and　necessary　unity　of　all　the　faculties　of
the　mind　as　the　principle　of　all　our　inquiries　into　its　internal
phenomena；　although　we　cannot　cognize　this　unity　in　concreto。　But　to
assume　that　the　soul　is　a　simple　substance　（a　transcendental
conception）　would　be　enouncing　a　proposition　which　is　not　only
indemonstrable…　as　many　physical　hypotheses　are…　but　a　proposition
which　is　purely　arbitrary；　and　in　the　highest　degree　rash。　The
simple　is　never　presented　in　experience；　and；　if　by　substance　is
here　meant　the　permanent　object　of　sensuous　intuition；　the　possibility
of　a　simple　phenomenon　is　perfectly　inconceivable。　Reason　affords　no
good　grounds　for　admitting　the　existence　of　intelligible　beings；　or　of
intelligible　properties　of　sensuous　things；　although…　as　we　have　no
conception　either　of　their　possibility　or　of　their　impossibility…　it
will　always　be　out　of　our　power　to　affirm　dogmatically　that　they　do
not　exist。　In　the　explanation　of　given　phenomena；　no　other　things
and　no　other　grounds　of　explanation　can　be　employed　than　those　which
stand　in　connection　with　the　given　phenomena　according　to　the　known
laws　of　experience。　A　transcendental　hypothesis；　in　which　a　mere
idea　of　reason　is　employed　to　explain　the　phenomena　of　nature；　would
not　give　us　any　better　insight　into　a　phenomenon；　as　we　should　be
trying　to　explain　what　we　do　not　sufficiently　understand　from　known
empirical　principles；　by　what　we　do　not　understand　at　all。　The
principles　of　such　a　hypothesis　might　conduce　to　the　satisfaction　of
reason；　but　it　would　not　assist　the　understanding　in　its　application
to　objects。　Order　and　conformity　to　aims　in　the　sphere　of　nature
must　be　themselves　explained　upon　natural　grounds　and　according　to
natural　laws；　and　the　wildest　hypotheses；　if　they　are　only　physical；
are　here　more　admissible　than　a　hyperphysical　hypothesis；　such　as　that
of　a　divine　author。　For　such　a　hypothesis　would　introduce　the
principle　of　ignava　ratio；　which　requires　us　to　give　up　the　search　for
causes　that　might　be　discovered　in　the　course　of　experience　and　to
rest　satisfied　with　a　mere　idea。　As　regards　the　absolute　totality　of
the　grounds　of　explanation　in　the　series　of　these　causes；　this　can
be　no　hindrance　to　the　understanding　in　the　case　of　phenomena；
because；　as　they　are　to　us　nothing　more　than　phenomena；　we　have　no
right　to　look　for　anything　like　pleteness　in　the　synthesis　of　the
series　of　their　conditions。
　　Transcendental　hypotheses　are　therefore　inadmissible；　and　we
cannot　use　the　liberty　of　employing；　in　the　absence　of　physical；
hyperphysical　grounds　of　explanation。　And　this　for　two　reasons；　first；
because　such　hypothesis　do　not　advance　reason；　but　rather　stop　it　in
its　progress；　secondly；　because　this　licence　would　render　fruitless
all　its　exertions　in　its　own　proper　sphere；　which　is　that　of
experience。　For；　when　the　explanation　of　natural　phenomena　happens
to　be　difficult；　we　have　constantly　at　hand　a　transcendental　ground　of
explanation；　which　lifts　us　above　the　necessity　of　investigating
nature；　and　our　inquiries　are　brought　to　a　close；　not　because　we
have　obtained　all　the　requisite　knowledge；　but　because　we　abut　upon
a　principle　which　is　inprehensible　and　which；　indeed；　is　so　far
back　in　the　track　of　thought　as　to　contain　the　conception　of　the
absolutely　primal　being。
　　The　next　requisite　for　the　admissibility　of　a　hypothesis　is　its
sufficiency。　That　is；　it　must　determine　a　priori　the　consequences
which　are　given　in　experience　and　which　are　supposed　to　follow　from
the　hypothesis　itself。　If　we　require　to　employ　auxiliary　hypotheses；
the　suspicion　naturally　arises　that　they　are　mere　fictions；　because
the　necessity　for　each　of　them　requires　the　same　justification　as　in
the　case　of　the　original　hypothesis；　and　thus　their　testimony　is
invalid。　If　we　suppose　the　existence　of　an　infinitely　perfect　cause；
we　possess　sufficient　grounds　for　the　explanation　of　the　conformity　to
aims；　the　order　and　the　greatness　which　we　observe　in　the　universe；
but　we　find　ourselves　obliged；　when　we　observe　the　evil　in　the　world
and　the　ex