the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第68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！


　　We　now　e　to　a　conception　which　was　not　inserted　in　the　general
list　of　transcendental　conceptions。　and　yet　must　be　reckoned　with
them；　but　at　the　same　time　without　in　the　least　altering；　or
indicating　a　deficiency　in　that　table。　This　is　the　conception；　or；
if　the　term　is　preferred；　the　judgement；　〃I　think。〃　But　it　is
readily　perceived　that　this　thought　is　as　it　were　the　vehicle　of　all
conceptions　in　general；　and　consequently　of　transcendental　conceptions
also；　and　that　it　is　therefore　regarded　as　a　transcendental
conception；　although　it　can　have　no　peculiar　claim　to　be　so　ranked；
inasmuch　as　its　only　use　is　to　indicate　that　all　thought　is
acpanied　by　consciousness。　At　the　same　time；　pure　as　this
conception　is　from　empirical　content　（impressions　of　the　senses）；　it
enables　us　to　distinguish　two　different　kinds　of　objects。　〃I；〃　as
thinking；　am　an　object　of　the　internal　sense；　and　am　called　soul。　That
which　is　an　object　of　the　external　senses　is　called　body。　Thus　the
expression；　〃I；〃　as　a　thinking　being；　designates　the　object…matter
of　psychology；　which　may　be　called　〃the　rational　doctrine　of　the
soul；〃　inasmuch　as　in　this　science　I　desire　to　know　nothing　of　the
soul　but　what；　independently　of　all　experience　（which　determines　me　in
concreto）；　may　be　concluded　from　this　conception　〃I；〃　in　so　far　as
it　appears　in　all　thought。
　　Now；　the　rational　doctrine　of　the　soul　is　really　an　undertaking　of
this　kind。　For　if　the　smallest　empirical　element　of　thought；　if　any
particular　perception　of　my　internal　state；　were　to　be　introduced
among　the　grounds　of　cognition　of　this　science；　it　would　not　be　a
rational；　but　an　empirical　doctrine　of　the　soul。　We　have　thus　before
us　a　pretended　science；　raised　upon　the　single　proposition；　〃I　think；〃
whose　foundation　or　want　of　foundation　we　may　very　properly；　and
agreeably　with　the　nature　of　a　transcendental　philosophy；　here
examine。　It　ought　not　to　be　objected　that　in　this　proposition；　which
expresses　the　perception　of　one's　self；　an　internal　experience　is
asserted；　and　that　consequently　the　rational　doctrine　of　the　soul
which　is　founded　upon　it；　is　not　pure；　but　partly　founded　upon　an
empirical　principle。　For　this　internal　perception　is　nothing　more　than
the　mere　apperception；　〃I　think；〃　which　in　fact　renders　all
transcendental　conceptions　possible；　in　which　we　say；　〃I　think
substance；　cause；　etc。〃　For　internal　experience　in　general　and　its
possibility；　or　perception　in　general；　and　its　relation　to　other
perceptions；　unless　some　particular　distinction　or　determination
thereof　is　empirically　given；　cannot　be　regarded　as　empirical
cognition；　but　as　cognition　of　the　empirical；　and　belongs　to　the
investigation　of　the　possibility　of　every　experience；　which　is
certainly　transcendental。　The　smallest　object　of　experience　（for
example；　only　pleasure　or　pain）；　that　should　be　included　in　the
general　representation　of　self…consciousness；　would　immediately　change
the　rational　into　an　empirical　psychology。
　　〃I　think〃　is　therefore　the　only　text　of　rational　psychology；　from
which　it　must　develop　its　whole　system。　It　is　manifest　that　this
thought；　when　applied　to　an　object　（myself）；　can　contain　nothing　but
transcendental　predicates　thereof；　because　the　least　empirical
predicate　would　destroy　the　purity　of　the　science　and　its　independence
of　all　experience。
　　But　we　shall　have　to　follow　here　the　guidance　of　the　categories…
only；　as　in　the　present　case　a　thing；　〃I；〃　as　thinking　being；　is　at
first　given；　we　shall…　not　indeed　change　the　order　of　the　categories
as　it　stands　in　the　table…　but　begin　at　the　category　of　substance；
by　which　at　the　a　thing　a　thing　is　represented　and　proceeds
backwards　through　the　series。　The　topic　of　the　rational　doctrine　of
the　soul；　from　which　everything　else　it　may　contain　must　be　deduced；
is　accordingly　as　follows：

　　　　　　　　　　　　1　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　The　Soul　is　SUBSTANCE　　　　　　　As　regards　its　quality
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　it　is　SIMPLE

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　　　　　　　As　regards　the　different
　　　　　　　　　　times　in　which　it　exists；
　　　　　　　　　　it　is　numerically　identical；
　　　　　　　　　　that　is　UNITY；　not　Plurality。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　It　is　in　relation　to　possible　objects　in　space*

　　*The　reader；　who　may　not　so　easily　perceive　the　psychological
sense　of　these　expressions；　taken　here　in　their　transcendental
abstraction；　and　cannot　guess　why　the　latter　attribute　of　the　soul
belongs　to　the　category　of　existence；　will　find　the　expressions
sufficiently　explained　and　justified　in　the　sequel。　I　have；
moreover；　to　apologize　for　the　Latin　terms　which　have　been
employed；instead　of　their　German　synonyms；　contrary　to　the　rules　of
correct　writing。　But　I　judged　it　better　to　sacrifice　elegance　to
perspicuity。

　　From　these　elements　originate　all　the　conceptions　of　pure
psychology；　by　bination　alone；　without　the　aid　of　any　other
principle。　This　substance；　merely　as　an　object　of　the　internal
sense；　gives　the　conception　of　Immateriality；　as　simple　substance；
that　of　Incorruptibility；　its　identity；　as　intellectual　substance；
gives　the　conception　of　Personality；　all　these　three　together；
Spirituality。　Its　relation　to　objects　in　space　gives　us　the　conception
of　connection　（mercium）　with　bodies。　Thus　it　represents　thinking
substance　as　the　principle　of　life　in　matter；　that　is；　as　a　soul
（anima）；　and　as　the　ground　of　Animality；　and　this；　limited　and
determined　by　the　conception　of　spirituality；　gives　us　that　of
Immortality。
　　Now　to　these　conceptions　relate　four　paralogisms　of　a　transcendental
psychology；　which　is　falsely　held　to　be　a　science　of　pure　reason。
touching　the　nature　of　our　thinking　being。　We　can；　however；　lay　at　the
foundation　of　this　science　nothing　but　the　simple　and　in　itself
perfectly　contentless　representation　〃I　which　cannot　even　be　called
a　conception；　but　merely　a　consciousness　which　acpanies　all
conceptions。　By　this　〃I；〃　or　〃He；〃　or　〃It；〃　who　or　which　thinks；
nothing　more　is　represented　than　a　transcendental　subject　of　thought　=
x；　which　is　cognized　only　by　means　of　the　thoughts　that　are　its
predicates；　and　of　which；　apart　from　these；　we　cannot　form　the　least
conception。　Hence　in　a　perpetual　circle；　inasmuch　as　we　must　always
employ　it；　in　order　to　frame　any　judgement　respecting　it。　And　this
inconvenience　we　find　it　impossible　to　rid　ourselves　of；　because
consciousness　in　itself　is　not　so　much　a　representation　distinguishing
a　particular　object；　as　a　form　of　representation　in　general；　in　so　far
as　it　may　be　termed　cognition；　for　in　and　by　cognition　alone　do　I
think　anything。
　　It　must；　however；　appear　extraordinary　at　first　sight　that　the
condition　under　which　I　think；　and　which　is　consequently　a　property　of
my　subject；　should　be　held　to　be　likewise　valid　for　every　existence
which　thinks；　and　that　we　can　presume　to　base　upon　a　seemingly
empirical　proposition　a　judgement　which　is　apodeictic　and　universal；
to　wit；　that　everything　which　thinks　is　constituted　as　the　voice　of　my
consciousness　declares　it　to　be；　that　is；　as　a　self…conscious　being。
The　cause　of　this　belief　is　to　be　found　in　the　fact　that　we
necessarily　attribute　to　things　a　priori　all　the　properties　which
constitute　conditions　under　which　alone　we　can　cogitate　them。　Now　I
cannot　obtain　the　least　representation　of　a　thinking　being　by　means　of
external　experience；　but　solely　through　self…consciousness。　Such
objects　are　consequently　nothing　more　than　the　transference　of　this
consciousness　of　mine　to　other　things　which　can　only　thus　be
represented　as　thinking　beings。　The　proposition；　〃I　think；〃　is；　in　the
present　case；　understood　in　a　problematical　sense；　not　in　so　far　as　it
contains　a　perception　of　an　existence　（like　the　Cartesian　〃Cogito；
ergo　sum〃）；*　but　in　regard　to　its　mere　possibility…　for　the　purpose　of
discovering　what　properties　may　be　inferred　from　so　simple　a
proposition　and　predicated　of　the　subject　of　it。

　　*＇〃I　think；　therefore　I　am。〃＇

　　If　at　the　foundation　of　our　pure　rational　cognition　of　thinking
beings　there　lay　more　than　the　mere　Cogito…　if　we　could　likewise
call　in　aid　observations　on　the　play　of　our　thoughts；　and　the　thence
derived　natural　laws　of　the　thinking　self；　there　would　arise　an
empirical　psychology　which　would　be　a　kind　of　physiology　of　the
internal　sense　and　might　possibly　be　capable　of　explaining　the
phenomena　of　that　sense。　But　it　could　never　be　available　for
discovering　those　properties　which　do　not　belong　to　possible
experience　（such　as　the　quality　of　simplicity）；　nor　could　it　make
any　apodeictic　enunciation　on　the　nature　of　thinking　beings：　it
would　therefore　not　be　a　rational　psychology。
　　Now；　as　the　proposition　〃I　think〃　（in　the　problematical　sense）
contains　the　form　of　every　judgement　in　general　and　is　the　constant
acpaniment　of　all　the　categories；　it　is　manifest　that　conclusions
are　drawn　from　it　only　by　a　transcendental　employment　of　the
understanding。　This　use　of　the　understanding　excludes　all　empirical
elements；　and　we　cannot；　as　has　been　shown　above；　have　any
favourable　conception　beforehand　of　its　procedure。　We　shall
therefore　follow　with　a　critical　eye　this　proposition　through　all
the　predicaments　of　pure　psychology；　but　we　shall