the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第80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！


time；　and　consequently　to　the　sum　total　of　phenomena；　that　is；　to
the　world。　It　follows　that　the　cause　cannot　be　out　of　the　world；　which
is　contradictory　to　the　hypothesis。　Therefore；　neither　in　the　world；
nor　out　of　it　（but　in　causal　connection　with　it）；　does　there　exist　any
absolutely　necessary　being。

　　*The　word　begin　is　taken　in　two　senses。　The　first　is　active…　the
cause　being　regarded　as　beginning　a　series　of　conditions　as　its　effect
（infit）。　The　second　is　passive…　the　causality　in　the　cause　itself
beginning　to　operate　（fit）。　I　reason　here　from　the　first　to　the
second。


　　　　　　　　　　　　　OBSERVATIONS　ON　THE　FOURTH　ANTINOMY。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ON　THE　THESIS。

　　To　demonstrate　the　existence　of　a　necessary　being；　I　cannot　be
permitted　in　this　place　to　employ　any　other　than　the　cosmological
argument；　which　ascends　from　the　conditioned　in　phenomena　to　the
unconditioned　in　conception…　the　unconditioned　being　considered　the
necessary　condition　of　the　absolute　totality　of　the　series。　The　proof；
from　the　mere　idea　of　a　supreme　being；　belongs　to　another　principle　of
reason　and　requires　separate　discussion。
　　The　pure　cosmological　proof　demonstrates　the　existence　of　a
necessary　being；　but　at　the　same　time　leaves　it　quite　unsettled；
whether　this　being　is　the　world　itself；　or　quite　distinct　from　it。
To　establish　the　truth　of　the　latter　view；　principles　are　requisite；
which　are　not　cosmological　and　do　not　proceed　in　the　series　of
phenomena。　We　should　require　to　introduce　into　our　proof　conceptions
of　contingent　beings…　regarded　merely　as　objects　of　the　understanding；
and　also　a　principle　which　enables　us　to　connect　these；　by　means　of
mere　conceptions；　with　a　necessary　being。　But　the　proper　place　for　all
such　arguments　is　a　transcendent　philosophy；　which　has　unhappily　not
yet　been　established。
　　But；　if　we　begin　our　proof　cosmologically；　by　laying　at　the
foundation　of　it　the　series　of　phenomena；　and　the　regress　in　it
according　to　empirical　laws　of　causality；　we　are　not　at　liberty　to
break　off　from　this　mode　of　demonstration　and　to　pass　over　to
something　which　is　not　itself　a　member　of　the　series。　The　condition
must　be　taken　in　exactly　the　same　signification　as　the　relation　of　the
conditioned　to　its　condition　in　the　series　has　been　taken；　for　the
series　must　conduct　us　in　an　unbroken　regress　to　this　supreme
condition。　But　if　this　relation　is　sensuous；　and　belongs　to　the
possible　empirical　employment　of　understanding；　the　supreme
condition　or　cause　must　close　the　regressive　series　according　to　the
laws　of　sensibility　and　consequently；　must　belong　to　the　series　of
time。　It　follows　that　this　necessary　existence　must　be　regarded　as　the
highest　member　of　the　cosmical　series。
　　Certain　philosophers　have；　nevertheless；　allowed　themselves　the
liberty　of　making　such　a　saltus　（metabasis　eis　allo　gonos）。　From　the
changes　in　the　world　they　have　concluded　their　empirical
contingency；　that　is；　their　dependence　on　empirically…determined
causes；　and　they　thus　admitted　an　ascending　series　of　empirical
conditions：　and　in　this　they　are　quite　right。　But　as　they　could　not
find　in　this　series　any　primal　beginning　or　any　highest　member；　they
passed　suddenly　from　the　empirical　conception　of　contingency　to　the
pure　category；　which　presents　us　with　a　series…　not　sensuous；　but
intellectual…　whose　pleteness　does　certainly　rest　upon　the
existence　of　an　absolutely　necessary　cause。　Nay；　more；　this
intellectual　series　is　not　tied　to　any　sensuous　conditions；　and　is
therefore　free　from　the　condition　of　time；　which　requires　it
spontaneously　to　begin　its　causality　in　time。　But　such　a　procedure
is　perfectly　inadmissible；　as　will　be　made　plain　from　what　follows。
　　In　the　pure　sense　of　the　categories；　that　is　contingent　the
contradictory　opposite　of　which　is　possible。　Now　we　cannot　reason　from
empirical　contingency　to　intellectual。　The　opposite　of　that　which　is
changed…　the　opposite　of　its　state…　is　actual　at　another　time；　and
is　therefore　possible。　Consequently；　it　is　not　the　contradictory
opposite　of　the　former　state。　To　be　that；　it　is　necessary　that；　in　the
same　time　in　which　the　preceding　state　existed；　its　opposite　could
have　existed　in　its　place；　but　such　a　cognition　is　not　given　us　in　the
mere　phenomenon　of　change。　A　body　that　was　in　motion　=　A；　es　into　a
state　of　rest　=　non…A。　Now　it　cannot　be　concluded　from　the　fact　that　a
state　opposite　to　the　state　A　follows　it；　that　the　contradictory
opposite　of　A　is　possible；　and　that　A　is　therefore　contingent。　To
prove　this；　we　should　require　to　know　that　the　state　of　rest　could
have　existed　in　the　very　same　time　in　which　the　motion　took　place。　Now
we　know　nothing　more　than　that　the　state　of　rest　was　actual　in　the
time　that　followed　the　state　of　motion；　consequently；　that　it　was　also
possible。　But　motion　at　one　time；　and　rest　at　another　time；　are　not
contradictorily　opposed　to　each　other。　It　follows　from　what　has　been
said　that　the　succession　of　opposite　determinations；　that　is；
change；　does　not　demonstrate　the　fact　of　contingency　as　represented　in
the　conceptions　of　the　pure　understanding；　and　that　it　cannot；
therefore；　conduct　us　to　the　fact　of　the　existence　of　a　necessary
being。　Change　proves　merely　empirical　contingency；　that　is　to　say；
that　the　new　state　could　not　have　existed　without　a　cause；　which
belongs　to　the　preceding　time。　This　cause…　even　although　it　is
regarded　as　absolutely　necessary…　must　be　presented　to　us　in　time；　and
must　belong　to　the　series　of　phenomena。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ON　THE　ANTITHESIS。

　　The　difficulties　which　meet　us；　in　our　attempt　to　rise　through　the
series　of　phenomena　to　the　existence　of　an　absolutely　necessary
supreme　cause；　must　not　originate　from　our　inability　to　establish
the　truth　of　our　mere　conceptions　of　the　necessary　existence　of　a
thing。　That　is　to　say；　our　objections　not　be　ontological；　but　must
be　directed　against　the　causal　connection　with　a　series　of　phenomena
of　a　condition　which　is　itself　unconditioned。　In　one　word；　they　must
be　cosmological　and　relate　to　empirical　laws。　We　must　show　that　the
regress　in　the　series　of　causes　（in　the　world　of　sense）　cannot
conclude　with　an　empirically　unconditioned　condition；　and　that　the
cosmological　argument　from　the　contingency　of　the　cosmical　state…　a
contingency　alleged　to　arise　from　change…　does　not　justify　us　in
accepting　a　first　cause；　that　is；　a　prime　originator　of　the　cosmical
series。
　　The　reader　will　observe　in　this　antinomy　a　very　remarkable　contrast。
The　very　same　grounds　of　proof　which　established　in　the　thesis　the
existence　of　a　supreme　being；　demonstrated　in　the　antithesis…　and　with
equal　strictness…　the　non…existence　of　such　a　being。　We　found；
first；　that　a　necessary　being　exists；　because　the　whole　time　past
contains　the　series　of　all　conditions；　and　with　it；　therefore；　the
unconditioned　（the　necessary）；　secondly；　that　there　does　not　exist　any
necessary　being；　for　the　same　reason；　that　the　whole　time　past
contains　the　series　of　all　conditions…　which　are　themselves；
therefore；　in　the　aggregate；　conditioned。　The　cause　of　this　seeming
incongruity　is　as　follows。　We　attend；　in　the　first　argument；　solely　to
the　absolute　totality　of　the　series　of　conditions；　the　one　of　which
determines　the　other　in　time；　and　thus　arrive　at　a　necessary
unconditioned。　In　the　second；　we　consider；　on　the　contrary；　the
contingency　of　everything　that　is　determined　in　the　series　of　time…
for　every　event　is　preceded　by　a　time；　in　which　the　condition　itself
must　be　determined　as　conditioned…　and　thus　everything　that　is
unconditioned　or　absolutely　necessary　disappears。　In　both；　the　mode　of
proof　is　quite　in　accordance　with　the　mon　procedure　of　human
reason；　which　often　falls　into　discord　with　itself；　from　considering
an　object　from　two　different　points　of　view。　Herr　von　Mairan
regarded　the　controversy　between　two　celebrated　astronomers；　which
arose　from　a　similar　difficulty　as　to　the　choice　of　a　proper
standpoint；　as　a　phenomenon　of　sufficient　importance　to　warrant　a
separate　treatise　on　the　subject。　The　one　concluded：　the　moon　revolves
on　its　own　axis；　because　it　constantly　presents　the　same　side　to　the
earth；　the　other　declared　that　the　moon　does　not　revolve　on　its　own
axis；　for　the　same　reason。　Both　conclusions　were　perfectly　correct；
according　to　the　point　of　view　from　which　the　motions　of　the　moon　were
considered。


　　　　　　　　SECTION　III。　Of　the　Interest　of　Reason　in　these
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Self…contradictions。

　　We　have　thus　pletely　before　us　the　dialectical　procedure　of　the
cosmological　ideas。　No　possible　experience　can　present　us　with　an
object　adequate　to　them　in　extent。　Nay；　more；　reason　itself　cannot
cogitate　them　as　according　with　the　general　laws　of　experience。　And
yet　they　are　not　arbitrary　fictions　of　thought。　On　the　contrary；
reason；　in　its　uninterrupted　progress　in　the　empirical　synthesis；　is
necessarily　conducted　to　them；　when　it　endeavours　to　free　from　all
conditions　and　to　prehend　in　its　unconditioned　totality　that
which　can　only　be　determined　conditionally　in　accordance　with　the　laws
of　experience。　These　dialectical　propositions　are　so　many　attempts
to　solve　four　natural　and　unavoidable　problems　of