the critique of practical reason-第33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！


expression。　For　nothing　glorifies　God　more　than　that　which　is　the　most　estimable　thing　in　the　world；　respect　for　his　command；　the　observance　of　the　holy　duty　that　his　law　imposes　on　us；　when　there　is　added　thereto　his　glorious　plan　of　crowning　such　a　beautiful　order　of　things　with　corresponding　happiness。　If　the　latter　（to　speak　humanly）　makes　Him　worthy　of　love；　by　the　former　He　is　an　object　of　adoration。　Even　men　can　never　acquire　respect　by　benevolence　alone；　though　they　may　gain　love；　so　that　the　greatest　beneficence　only　procures　them　honour　when　it　is　regulated　by　worthiness。

　　*In　order　to　make　these　characteristics　of　these　conceptions　clear；　I　add　the　remark　that　whilst　we　ascribe　to　God　various　attributes；　the　quality　of　which　we　also　find　applicable　to　creatures；　only　that　in　Him　they　are　raised　to　the　highest　degree；　e。g。；　power；　knowledge；　presence；　goodness；　etc。；　under　the　designations　of　omnipotence；　omniscience；　omnipresence；　etc。；　there　are　three　that　are　ascribed　to　God　exclusively；　and　yet　without　the　addition　of　greatness；　and　which　are　all　moral　He　is　the　only　holy；　the　only　blessed；　the　only　wise；　because　these　conceptions　already　imply　the　absence　of　limitation。　In　the　order　of　these　attributes　He　is　also　the　holy　lawgiver　（and　creator）；　the　good　governor　（and　preserver）　and　the　just　judge；　three　attributes　which　include　everything　by　which　God　is　the　object　of　religion；　and　in　conformity　with　which　the　metaphysical　perfections　are　added　of　themselves　in　the　reason。

　　That　in　the　order　of　ends；　man　（and　with　him　every　rational　being）　is　an　end　in　himself；　that　is；　that　he　can　never　be　used　merely　as　a　means　by　any　（not　even　by　God）　without　being　at　the　same　time　an　end　also　himself；　that　therefore　humanity　in　our　person　must　be　holy　to　ourselves；　this　follows　now　of　itself　because　he　is　the　subject　of　the　moral　law；　in　other　words；　of　that　which　is　holy　in　itself；　and　on　account　of　which　and　in　agreement　with　which　alone　can　anything　be　termed　holy。　For　this　moral　law　is　founded　on　the　autonomy　of　his　will；　as　a　free　will　which　by　its　universal　laws　must　necessarily　be　able　to　agree　with　that　to　which　it　is　to　submit　itself。

　　　　VI。　Of　the　Postulates　of　Pure　Practical　Reason　Generally。

　　They　all　proceed　from　the　principle　of　morality；　which　is　not　a　postulate　but　a　law；　by　which　reason　determines　the　will　directly；　which　will；　because　it　is　so　determined　as　a　pure　will；　requires　these　necessary　conditions　of　obedience　to　its　precept。　These　postulates　are　not　theoretical　dogmas　but；　suppositions　practically　necessary；　while　then　they　do　＇not＇　extend　our　speculative　knowledge；　they　give　objective　reality　to　the　ideas　of　speculative　reason　in　general　（by　means　of　their　reference　to　what　is　practical）；　and　give　it　a　right　to　concepts；　the　possibility　even　of　which　it　could　not　otherwise　venture　to　affirm。　　　These　postulates　are　those　of　immortality；　freedom　positively　considered　（as　the　causality　of　a　being　so　far　as　he　belongs　to　the　intelligible　world）；　and　the　existence　of　God。　The　first　results　from　the　practically　necessary　condition　of　a　duration　adequate　to　the　complete　fulfilment　of　the　moral　law；　the　second　from　the　necessary　supposition　of　independence　of　the　sensible　world；　and　of　the　faculty　of　determining　one's　will　according　to　the　law　of　an　intelligible　world；　that　is；　of　freedom；　the　third　from　the　necessary　condition　of　the　existence　of　the　summum　bonum　in　such　an　intelligible　world；　by　the　supposition　of　the　supreme　independent　good；　that　is；　the　existence　of　God。　　　Thus　the　fact　that　respect　for　the　moral　law　necessarily　makes　the　summum　bonum　an　object　of　our　endeavours；　and　the　supposition　thence　resulting　of　its　objective　reality；　lead　through　the　postulates　of　practical　reason　to　conceptions　which　speculative　reason　might　indeed　present　as　problems；　but　could　never　solve。　Thus　it　leads：　1。　To　that　one　in　the　solution　of　which　the　latter　could　do　nothing　but　commit　paralogisms　（namely；　that　of　immortality）；　because　it　could　not　lay　hold　of　the　character　of　permanence；　by　which　to　complete　the　psychological　conception　of　an　ultimate　subject　necessarily　ascribed　to　the　soul　in　self…consciousness；　so　as　to　make　it　the　real　conception　of　a　substance；　a　character　which　practical　reason　furnishes　by　the　postulate　of　a　duration　required　for　accordance　with　the　moral　law　in　the　summum　bonum；　which　is　the　whole　end　of　practical　reason。　2。　It　leads　to　that　of　which　speculative　reason　contained　nothing　but　antinomy；　the　solution　of　which　it　could　only　found　on　a　notion　Problematically　conceivable　indeed；　but　whose　objective　reality　it　could　not　prove　or　determine；　namely；　the　cosmological　idea　of　an　intelligible　world　and　the　consciousness　of　our　existence　in　it；　by　means　of　the　postulate　of　freedom　（the　reality　of　which　it　lays　down　by　virtue　of　the　moral　law）；　and　with　it　likewise　the　law　of　an　intelligible　world；　to　which　speculative　reason　could　only　point；　but　could　not　define　its　conception。　3。　What　speculative　reason　was　able　to　think；　but　was　obliged　to　leave　undetermined　as　a　mere　transcendental　ideal；　viz。；　the　theological　conception　of　the　first　Being；　to　this　it　gives　significance　（in　a　practical　view；　that　is；　as　a　condition　of　the　possibility　of　the　object　of　a　will　determined　by　that　law）；　namely；　as　the　supreme　principle　of　the　summum　bonum　in　an　intelligible　world；　by　means　of　moral　legislation　in　it　invested　with　sovereign　power。　　　Is　our　knowledge；　however；　actually　extended　in　this　way　by　pure　practical　reason；　and　is　that　immanent　in　practical　reason　which　for　the　speculative　was　only　transcendent？　Certainly；　but　only　in　a　practical　point　of　view。　For　we　do　not　thereby　take　knowledge　of　the　nature　of　our　souls；　nor　of　the　intelligible　world；　nor　of　the　Supreme　Being；　with　respect　to　what　they　are　in　themselves；　but　we　have　merely　combined　the　conceptions　of　them　in　the　practical　concept　of　the　summum　bonum　as　the　object　of　our　will；　and　this　altogether　a　priori；　but　only　by　means　of　the　moral　law；　and　merely　in　reference　to　it；　in　respect　of　the　object　which　it　commands。　But　how　freedom　is　possible；　and　how　we　are　to　conceive　this　kind　of　causality　theoretically　and　positively；　is　not　thereby　discovered；　but　only　that　there　is　such　a　causality　is　postulated　by　the　moral　law　and　in　its　behoof。　It　is　the　same　with　the　remaining　ideas；　the　possibility　of　which　no　human　intelligence　will　ever　fathom；　but　the　truth　of　which；　on　the　other　hand；　no　sophistry　will　ever　wrest　from　the　conviction　even　of　the　commonest　man。

　　VII。　How　is　it　possible　to　conceive　an　Extension　of　Pure　　　　　　　　Reason　in　a　Practical　point　of　view；　without　its　　　　　　　　　　　Knowledge　as　Speculative　being　enlarged　at　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　the　same　time？

　　In　order　not　to　be　too　abstract；　we　will　answer　this　question　at　once　in　its　application　to　the　present　case。　In　order　to　extend　a　pure　cognition　practically；　there　must　be　an　a　priori　purpose　given；　that　is；　an　end　as　object　（of　the　will）；　which　independently　of　all　theological　principle　is　presented　as　practically　necessary　by　an　imperative　which　determines　the　will　directly　（a　categorical　imperative）；　and　in　this　case　that　is　the　summum　bonum。　This；　however；　is　not　possible　without　presupposing　three　theoretical　conceptions　（for　which；　because　they　are　mere　conceptions　of　pure　reason；　no　corresponding　intuition　can　be　found；　nor　consequently　by　the　path　of　theory　any　objective　reality）；　namely；　freedom；　immortality；　and　God。　Thus　by　the　practical　law　which　commands　the　existence　of　the　highest　good　possible　in　a　world；　the　possibility　of　those　objects　of　pure　speculative　reason　is　postulated；　and　the　objective　reality　which　the　latter　could　not　assure　them。　By　this　the　theoretical　knowledge　of　pure　reason　does　indeed　obtain　an　accession；　but　it　consists　only　in　this；　that　those　concepts　which　otherwise　it　had　to　look　upon　as　problematical　（merely　thinkable）　concepts；　are　now　shown　assertorially　to　be　such　as　actually　have　objects；　because　practical　reason　indispensably　requires　their　existence　for　the　possibility　of　its　object；　the　summum　bonum；　which　practically　is　absolutely　necessary；　and　this　justifies　theoretical　reason　in　assuming　them。　But　this　extension　of　theoretical　reason　is　no　extension　of　speculative；　that　is；　we　cannot　make　any　positive　use　of　it　in　a　theoretical　point　of　view。　For　as　nothing　is　accomplished　in　this　by　practical　reason；　further　than　that　these　concepts　are　real　and　actually　have　their　（possible）　objects；　and　nothing　in　the　way　of　intuition　of　them　is　given　thereby　（which　indeed　could　not　be　demanded）；　hence　the　admission　of　this　reality　does　not　render　any　synthetical　proposition　possible。　Consequently；　this　discovery　does　not　in　the　least　help　us　to　extend　this　knowledge　of　ours　in　a　speculative　point　of　view；　although　it　does　in　respect　of　the　practical　employment　of　pure　reason。　The　above　three　ideas　of　speculative　reason　are　still　in　themselves　not　cognitions；　they　are　however　（transcendent）　thoughts；　in　which　there　is　nothing　impossible。　Now；　by　help　of　an　apodeictic　practical　law；　being　necessary　conditions　of　that　which　it　commands　to　be　made　an　object；　they　acquire　objective　reality；　that　is；　we　learn　from　it　that　t