the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第35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！


　　For　the　external　sense　the　pure　image　of　all　quantities
（quantorum）　is　space；　the　pure　image　of　all　objects　of　sense　in
general；　is　time。　But　the　pure　schema　of　quantity　（quantitatis）　as　a
conception　of　the　understanding；　is　number；　a　representation　which
prehends　the　successive　addition　of　one　to　one　（homogeneous
quantities）。　Thus；　number　is　nothing　else　than　the　unity　of　the
synthesis　of　the　manifold　in　a　homogeneous　intuition；　by　means　of　my
generating　time　itself　in　my　apprehension　of　the　intuition。
　　Reality；　in　the　pure　conception　of　the　understanding；　is　that
which　corresponds　to　a　sensation　in　general；　that；　consequently；　the
conception　of　which　indicates　a　being　（in　time）。　Negation　is　that
the　conception　of　which　represents　a　not…being　（in　time）。　The
opposition　of　these　two　consists　therefore　in　the　difference　of　one
and　the　same　time；　as　a　time　filled　or　a　time　empty。　Now　as　time　is
only　the　form　of　intuition；　consequently　of　objects　as　phenomena；　that
which　in　objects　corresponds　to　sensation　is　the　transcendental　matter
of　all　objects　as　things　in　themselves　（Sachheit；　reality）。　Now
every　sensation　has　a　degree　or　quantity　by　which　it　can　fill　time；
that　is　to　say；　the　internal　sense　in　respect　of　the　representation　of
an　object；　more　or　less；　until　it　vanishes　into　nothing　（=　0　=
negatio）。　Thus　there　is　a　relation　and　connection　between　reality
and　negation；　or　rather　a　transition　from　the　former　to　the　latter；
which　makes　every　reality　representable　to　us　as　a　quantum；　and　the
schema　of　a　reality　as　the　quantity　of　something　in　so　far　as　it　fills
time；　is　exactly　this　continuous　and　uniform　generation　of　the　reality
in　time；　as　we　descend　in　time　from　the　sensation　which　has　a
certain　degree；　down　to　the　vanishing　thereof；　or　gradually　ascend
from　negation　to　the　quantity　thereof。
　　The　schema　of　substance　is　the　permanence　of　the　real　in　time；
that　is；　the　representation　of　it　as　a　substratum　of　the　empirical
determination　of　time；　a　substratum　which　therefore　remains；　whilst
all　else　changes。　（Time　passes　not；　but　in　it　passes　the　existence
of　the　changeable。　To　time；　therefore；　which　is　itself　unchangeable
and　permanent；　corresponds　that　which　in　the　phenomenon　is
unchangeable　in　existence；　that　is；　substance；　and　it　is　only　by　it
that　the　succession　and　coexistence　of　phenomena　can　be　determined
in　regard　to　time。）
　　The　schema　of　cause　and　of　the　causality　of　a　thing　is　the　real
which；　when　posited；　is　always　followed　by　something　else。　It
consists；　therefore；　in　the　succession　of　the　manifold；　in　so　far　as
that　succession　is　subjected　to　a　rule。
　　The　schema　of　munity　（reciprocity　of　action　and　reaction）；　or　the
reciprocal　causality　of　substances　in　respect　of　their　accidents；　is
the　coexistence　of　the　determinations　of　the　one　with　those　of　the
other；　according　to　a　general　rule。
　　The　schema　of　possibility　is　the　accordance　of　the　synthesis　of
different　representations　with　the　conditions　of　time　in　general
（as；　for　example；　opposites　cannot　exist　together　at　the　same　time
in　the　same　thing；　but　only　after　each　other）；　and　is　therefore　the
determination　of　the　representation　of　a　thing　at　any　time。
　　The　schema　of　reality　is　existence　in　a　determined　time。
　　The　schema　of　necessity　is　the　existence　of　an　object　in　all　time。
　　It　is　clear；　from　all　this；　that　the　schema　of　the　category　of
quantity　contains　and　represents　the　generation　（synthesis）　of　time
itself；　in　the　successive　apprehension　of　an　object；　the　schema　of
quality　the　synthesis　of　sensation　with　the　representation　of　time；　or
the　filling　up　of　time；　the　schema　of　relation　the　relation　of
perceptions　to　each　other　in　all　time　（that　is；　according　to　a　rule　of
the　determination　of　time）：　and　finally；　the　schema　of　modality　and
its　categories；　time　itself；　as　the　correlative　of　the　determination
of　an　object…　whether　it　does　belong　to　time；　and　how。　The　schemata；
therefore；　are　nothing　but　a　priori　determinations　of　time　according
to　rules；　and　these；　in　regard　to　all　possible　objects；　following
the　arrangement　of　the　categories；　relate　to　the　series　in　time；　the
content　in　time；　the　order　in　time；　and　finally；　to　the　plex　or
totality　in　time。
　　Hence　it　is　apparent　that　the　schematism　of　the　understanding；　by
means　of　the　transcendental　synthesis　of　the　imagination；　amounts　to
nothing　else　than　the　unity　of　the　manifold　of　intuition　in　the
internal　sense；　and　thus　indirectly　to　the　unity　of　apperception；　as　a
function　corresponding　to　the　internal　sense　（a　receptivity）。　Thus；
the　schemata　of　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　are　the　true
and　only　conditions　whereby　our　understanding　receives　an
application　to　objects；　and　consequently　significance。　Finally；
therefore；　the　categories　are　only　capable　of　empirical　use；
inasmuch　as　they　serve　merely　to　subject　phenomena　to　the　universal
rules　of　synthesis；　by　means　of　an　a　priori　necessary　unity　（on
account　of　the　necessary　union　of　all　consciousness　in　one　original
apperception）；　and　so　to　render　them　susceptible　of　a　plete
connection　in　one　experience。　But　within　this　whole　of　possible
experience　lie　all　our　cognitions；　and　in　the　universal　relation　to
this　experience　consists　transcendental　truth；　which　antecedes　all
empirical　truth；　and　renders　the　latter　possible。
　　It　is；　however；　evident　at　first　sight；　that　although　the　schemata
of　sensibility　are　the　sole　agents　in　realizing　the　categories；　they
do；　nevertheless；　also　restrict　them；　that　is；　they　limit　the
categories　by　conditions　which　lie　beyond　the　sphere　of　understanding…
namely；　in　sensibility。　Hence　the　schema　is　properly　only　the
phenomenon；　or　the　sensuous　conception　of　an　object　in　harmony　with
the　category。　（Numerus　est　quantitas　phaenomenon…　sensatio　realitas
phaenomenon；　constans　et　perdurabile　rerum　substantia　phaenomenon…
aeternitas；　necessitas；　phaenomena；　etc。）　Now；　if　we　remove　a
restrictive　condition；　we　thereby　amplify；　it　appears；　the　formerly
limited　conception。　In　this　way；　the　categories　in　their　pure
signification；　free　from　all　conditions　of　sensibility；　ought　to　be
valid　of　things　as　they　are；　and　not；　as　the　schemata　represent
them；　merely　as　they　appear；　and　consequently　the　categories　must　have
a　significance　far　more　extended；　and　wholly　independent　of　all
schemata。　In　truth；　there　does　always　remain　to　the　pure　conceptions
of　the　understanding；　after　abstracting　every　sensuous　condition；　a
value　and　significance；　which　is；　however；　merely　logical。　But　in　this
case；　no　object　is　given　them；　and　therefore　they　have　no　meaning
sufficient　to　afford　us　a　conception　of　an　object。　The　notion　of
substance；　for　example；　if　we　leave　out　the　sensuous　determination
of　permanence；　would　mean　nothing　more　than　a　something　which　can　be
cogitated　as　subject；　without　the　possibility　of　being　a
predicate　to　anything　else。　Of　this　representation　I　can　make　nothing；
inasmuch　as　it　does　not　indicate　to　me　what　determinations　the　thing
possesses　which　must　thus　be　valid　as　premier　subject。　Consequently；
the　categories；　without　schemata　are　merely　functions　of　the
understanding　for　the　production　of　conceptions；　but　do　not
represent　any　object。　This　significance　they　derive　from
sensibility；　which　at　the　same　time　realizes　the　understanding　and
restricts　it。
　　　CHAPTER　II。　System　of　all　Principles　of　the　Pure　Understanding。

　　In　the　foregoing　chapter　we　have　merely　considered　the　general
conditions　under　which　alone　the　transcendental　faculty　of　judgement
is　justified　in　using　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　for
synthetical　judgements。　Our　duty　at　present　is　to　exhibit　in
systematic　connection　those　judgements　which　the　understanding
really　produces　a　priori。　For　this　purpose；　our　table　of　the
categories　will　certainly　afford　us　the　natural　and　safe　guidance。　For
it　is　precisely　the　categories　whose　application　to　possible
experience　must　constitute　all　pure　a　priori　cognition　of　the
understanding；　and　the　relation　of　which　to　sensibility　will；　on
that　very　account；　present　us　with　a　plete　and　systematic　catalogue
of　all　the　transcendental　principles　of　the　use　of　the　understanding。
　　Principles　a　priori　are　so　called；　not　merely　because　they　contain
in　themselves　the　grounds　of　other　judgements；　but　also　because　they
themselves　are　not　grounded　in　higher　and　more　general　cognitions。
This　peculiarity；　however；　does　not　raise　them　altogether　above　the
need　of　a　proof。　For　although　there　could　be　found　no　higher
cognition；　and　therefore　no　objective　proof；　and　although　such　a
principle　rather　serves　as　the　foundation　for　all　cognition　of　the
object；　this　by　no　means　hinders　us　from　drawing　a　proof　from　the
subjective　sources　of　the　possibility　of　the　cognition　of　an　object。
Such　a　proof　is　necessary；　moreover；　because　without　it　the
principle　might　be　liable　to　the　imputation　of　being　a　mere　gratuitous
assertion。
　　In　the　second　place；　we　shall　limit　our　investigations　to　those
principles　which　relate　to　the　categories。　For　as　to　the　principles　of
transcendental　aesthetic；　according　to　which　space　and　time　are　the
conditions　of　the　possibility　of　things　as　phenomena；　as　also　the
res