the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第88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！


sensuous　world　beyond　all　possible　experience。　It　is　merely　a
principle　for　the　enlargement　and　extension　of　experience　as　far　as　is
possible　for　human　faculties。　It　forbids　us　to　consider　any
empirical　limits　as　absolute。　It　is；　hence；　a　principle　of　reason；
which；　as　a　rule；　dictates　how　we　ought　to　proceed　in　our　empirical
regress；　but　is　unable　to　anticipate　or　indicate　prior　to　the
empirical　regress　what　is　given　in　the　object　itself。　I　have　termed　it
for　this　reason　a　regulative　principle　of　reason；　while　the
principle　of　the　absolute　totality　of　the　series　of　conditions；　as
existing　in　itself　and　given　in　the　object；　is　a　constitutive
cosmological　principle。　This　distinction　will　at　once　demonstrate
the　falsehood　of　the　constitutive　principle；　and　prevent　us　from
attributing　（by　a　transcendental　subreptio）　objective　reality　to　an
idea；　which　is　valid　only　as　a　rule。
　　In　order　to　understand　the　proper　meaning　of　this　rule　of　pure
reason；　we　must　notice　first　that　it　cannot　tell　us　what　the　object
is；　but　only　how　the　empirical　regress　is　to　be　proceeded　with　in
order　to　attain　to　the　plete　conception　of　the　object。　If　it　gave
us　any　information　in　respect　to　the　former　statement；　it　would　be　a
constitutive　principle…　a　principle　impossible　from　the　nature　of　pure
reason。　It　will　not　therefore　enable　us　to　establish　any　such
conclusions　as：　〃The　series　of　conditions　for　a　given　conditioned　is
in　itself　finite。〃　or；　〃It　is　infinite。〃　For；　in　this　case；　we
should　be　cogitating　in　the　mere　idea　of　absolute　totality；　an
object　which　is　not　and　cannot　be　given　in　experience；　inasmuch　as
we　should　be　attributing　a　reality　objective　and　independent　of　the
empirical　synthesis；　to　a　series　of　phenomena。　This　idea　of　reason
cannot　then　be　regarded　as　valid…　except　as　a　rule　for　the
regressive　synthesis　in　the　series　of　conditions；　according　to　which
we　must　proceed　from　the　conditioned；　through　all　intermediate　and
subordinate　conditions；　up　to　the　unconditioned；　although　this　goal　is
unattained　and　unattainable。　For　the　absolutely　unconditioned　cannot
be　discovered　in　the　sphere　of　experience。
　　We　now　proceed　to　determine　clearly　our　notion　of　a　synthesis
which　can　never　be　plete。　There　are　two　terms　monly　employed　for
this　purpose。　These　terms　are　regarded　as　expressions　of　different　and
distinguishable　notions；　although　the　ground　of　the　distinction　has
never　been　clearly　exposed。　The　term　employed　by　the　mathematicians　is
progressus　in　infinitum。　The　philosophers　prefer　the　expression
progressus　in　indefinitum。　Without　detaining　the　reader　with　an
examination　of　the　reasons　for　such　a　distinction；　or　with　remarks
on　the　right　or　wrong　use　of　the　terms；　I　shall　endeavour　clearly　to
determine　these　conceptions；　so　far　as　is　necessary　for　the　purpose　in
this　Critique。
　　We　may；　with　propriety；　say　of　a　straight　line；　that　it　may　be
produced　to　infinity。　In　this　case　the　distinction　between　a
progressus　in　infinitum　and　a　progressus　in　indefinitum　is　a　mere
piece　of　subtlety。　For；　although　when　we　say；　〃Produce　a　straight
line；〃　it　is　more　correct　to　say　in　indefinitum　than　in　infinitum；
because　the　former　means；　〃Produce　it　as　far　as　you　please；〃　the
second；　〃You　must　not　cease　to　produce　it〃；　the　expression　in
infinitum　is；　when　we　are　speaking　of　the　power　to　do　it；　perfectly
correct；　for　we　can　always　make　it　longer　if　we　please…　on　to
infinity。　And　this　remark　holds　good　in　all　cases；　when　we　speak　of
a　progressus；　that　is；　an　advancement　from　the　condition　to　the
conditioned；　this　possible　advancement　always　proceeds　to　infinity。　We
may　proceed　from　a　given　pair　in　the　descending　line　of　generation
from　father　to　son；　and　cogitate　a　never…ending　line　of　descendants
from　it。　For　in　such　a　case　reason　does　not　demand　absolute　totality
in　the　series；　because　it　does　not　presuppose　it　as　a　condition　and　as
given　（datum）；　but　merely　as　conditioned；　and　as　capable　of　being
given　（dabile）。
　　Very　different　is　the　case　with　the　problem：　〃How　far　the　regress；
which　ascends　from　the　given　conditioned　to　the　conditions；　must
extend〃；　whether　I　can　say：　〃It　is　a　regress　in　infinitum；〃　or　only
〃in　indefinitum〃；　and　whether；　for　example；　setting　out　from　the　human
beings　at　present　alive　in　the　world；　I　may　ascend　in　the　series　of
their　ancestors；　in　infinitum…　mr　whether　all　that　can　be　said　is；
that　so　far　as　I　have　proceeded；　I　have　discovered　no　empirical　ground
for　considering　the　series　limited；　so　that　I　am　justified；　and
indeed；　pelled　to　search　for　ancestors　still　further　back；　although
I　am　not　obliged　by　the　idea　of　reason　to　presuppose　them。
　　My　answer　to　this　question　is：　〃If　the　series　is　given　in
empirical　intuition　as　a　whole；　the　regress　in　the　series　of　its
internal　conditions　proceeds　in　infinitum；　but；　if　only　one　member
of　the　series　is　given；　from　which　the　regress　is　to　proceed　to
absolute　totality；　the　regress　is　possible　only　in　indefinitum。〃　For
example；　the　division　of　a　portion　of　matter　given　within　certain
limits…　of　a　body；　that　is…　proceeds　in　infinitum。　For；　as　the
condition　of　this　whole　is　its　part；　and　the　condition　of　the　part　a
part　of　the　part；　and　so　on；　and　as　in　this　regress　of　deposition
an　unconditioned　indivisible　member　of　the　series　of　conditions　is　not
to　be　found；　there　are　no　reasons　or　grounds　in　experience　for
stopping　in　the　division；　but；　on　the　contrary；　the　more　remote
members　of　the　division　are　actually　and　empirically　given　prior　to
this　division。　That　is　to　say；　the　division　proceeds　to　infinity。　On
the　other　hand；　the　series　of　ancestors　of　any　given　human　being　is
not　given；　in　its　absolute　totality；　in　any　experience；　and　yet　the
regress　proceeds　from　every　genealogical　member　of　this　series　to
one　still　higher；　and　does　not　meet　with　any　empirical　limit
presenting　an　absolutely　unconditioned　member　of　the　series。　But　as
the　members　of　such　a　series　are　not　contained　in　the　empirical
intuition　of　the　whole；　prior　to　the　regress；　this　regress　does　not
proceed　to　infinity；　but　only　in　indefinitum；　that　is；　we　are　called
upon　to　discover　other　and　higher　members；　which　are　themselves　always
conditioned。
　　In　neither　case…　the　regressus　in　infinitum；　nor　the　regressus　in
indefinitum；　is　the　series　of　conditions　to　be　considered　as
actually　infinite　in　the　object　itself。　This　might　be　true　of　things
in　themselves；　but　it　cannot　be　asserted　of　phenomena；　which；　as
conditions　of　each　other；　are　only　given　in　the　empirical　regress
itself。　Hence；　the　question　no　longer　is；　〃What　is　the　quantity　of
this　series　of　conditions　in　itself…　is　it　finite　or　infinite？〃　for　it
is　nothing　in　itself；　but；　〃How　is　the　empirical　regress　to　be
menced；　and　how　far　ought　we　to　proceed　with　it？〃　And　here　a　signal
distinction　in　the　application　of　this　rule　bees　apparent。　If　the
whole　is　given　empirically；　it　is　possible　to　recede　in　the　series
of　its　internal　conditions　to　infinity。　But　if　the　whole　is　not　given；
and　can　only　be　given　by　and　through　the　empirical　regress；　I　can　only
say：　〃It　is　possible　to　infinity；　to　proceed　to　still　higher
conditions　in　the　series。〃　In　the　first　case；　I　am　justified　in
asserting　that　more　members　are　empirically　given　in　the　object　than　I
attain　to　in　the　regress　（of　deposition）。　In　the　second　case；　I
am　justified　only　in　saying；　that　I　can　always　proceed　further　in
the　regress；　because　no　member　of　the　series。　is　given　as　absolutely
conditioned；　and　thus　a　higher　member　is　possible；　and　an　inquiry　with
regard　to　it　is　necessary。　In　the　one　case　it　is　necessary　to　find
other　members　of　the　series；　in　the　other　it　is　necessary　to　inquire
for　others；　inasmuch　as　experience　presents　no　absolute　limitation
of　the　regress。　For；　either　you　do　not　possess　a　perception　which
absolutely　limits　your　empirical　regress；　and　in　this　case　the　regress
cannot　be　regarded　as　plete；　or；　you　do　possess　such　a　limitative
perception；　in　which　case　it　is　not　a　part　of　your　series　（for　that
which　limits　must　be　distinct　from　that　which　is　limited　by　it）；　and
it　is　incumbent　you　to　continue　your　regress　up　to　this　condition；　and
so　on。
　　These　remarks　will　be　placed　in　their　proper　light　by　their
application　in　the　following　section。

　　　　SECTION　IX。　Of　the　Empirical　Use　of　the　Regulative　Principle
　　　　　　　　　of　Reason　with　regard　to　the　Cosmological　Ideas。

　　We　have　shown　that　no　transcendental　use　can　be　made　either　of　the
conceptions　of　reason　or　of　understanding。　We　have　shown；　likewise；
that　the　demand　of　absolute　totality　in　the　series　of　conditions　in
the　world　of　sense　arises　from　a　transcendental　employment　of
reason；　resting　on　the　opinion　that　phenomena　are　to　be　regarded　as
things　in　themselves。　It　follows　that　we　are　not　required　to　answer
the　question　respecting　the　absolute　quantity　of　a　series…　whether
it　is　in　itself　limited　or　unlimited。　We　are　only　called　upon　to
determine　how　far　we　must　proceed　in　the　empirical　regress　from
condition　to　condition；　in　order　to　discover；　in　conformity　with　the
rule　of　reason；　a　full　and　correct　answer　to　the　questions　proposed　by
reason　itself。
　　This　principle　of　reason　is　hence　valid　only　as　a　rule　for　the