贝壳电子书 > 英文原著电子书 > the critique of pure reason >

第101章

the critique of pure reason-第101章

小说: the critique of pure reason 字数: 每页4000字

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!




skill in discussion; maintained and subverted the same proposition

by arguments as powerful and convincing on the one side as on the

other。 He maintained; for example; that God (who was probably

nothing more; in his view; than the world) is neither finite nor

infinite; neither in motion nor in rest; neither similar nor

dissimilar to any other thing。 It seemed to those philosophers who

criticized his mode of discussion that his purpose was to deny

completely both of two self…contradictory propositions… which is

absurd。 But I cannot believe that there is any justice in this

accusation。 The first of these propositions I shall presently consider

in a more detailed manner。 With regard to the others; if by the word

of God he understood merely the Universe; his meaning must have

been… that it cannot be permanently present in one place… that is;

at rest… nor be capable of changing its place… that is; of moving…

because all places are in the universe; and the universe itself is;

therefore; in no place。 Again; if the universe contains in itself

everything that exists; it cannot be similar or dissimilar to any

other thing; because there is; in fact; no other thing with which it

can be compared。 If two opposite judgements presuppose a contingent

impossible; or arbitrary condition; both… in spite of their opposition

(which is; however; not properly or really a contradiction)… fall

away; because the condition; which ensured the validity of both; has

itself disappeared。

  If we say: 〃Everybody has either a good or a bad smell;〃 we have

omitted a third possible judgement… it has no smell at all; and thus

both conflicting statements may be false。 If we say: 〃It is either

good…smelling or not good…smelling (vel suaveolens vel

non…suaveolens);〃 both judgements are contradictorily opposed; and the

contradictory opposite of the former judgement… some bodies are not

good…smelling… embraces also those bodies which have no smell at

all。 In the preceding pair of opposed judgements (per disparata);

the contingent condition of the conception of body (smell) attached to

both conflicting statements; instead of having been omitted in the

latter; which is consequently not the contradictory opposite of the

former。

  If; accordingly; we say: 〃The world is either infinite in extension;

or it is not infinite (non est infinitus)〃; and if the former

proposition is false; its contradictory opposite… the world is not

infinite… must be true。 And thus I should deny the existence of an

infinite; without; however affirming the existence of a finite

world。 But if we construct our proposition thus: 〃The world is

either infinite or finite (non…infinite);〃 both statements may be

false。 For; in this case; we consider the world as per se determined

in regard to quantity; and while; in the one judgement; we deny its

infinite and consequently; perhaps; its independent existence; in

the other; we append to the world; regarded as a thing in itself; a

certain determination… that of finitude; and the latter may be false

as well as the former; if the world is not given as a thing in itself;

and thus neither as finite nor as infinite in quantity。 This kind of

opposition I may be allowed to term dialectical; that of

contradictories may be called analytical opposition。 Thus then; of two

dialectically opposed judgements both may be false; from the fact;

that the one is not a mere contradictory of the other; but actually

enounces more than is requisite for a full and complete contradiction。

  When we regard the two propositions… 〃The world is infinite in

quantity;〃 and; 〃The world is finite in quantity;〃 as contradictory

opposites; we are assuming that the world… the complete series of

phenomena… is a thing in itself。 For it remains as a permanent

quantity; whether I deny the infinite or the finite regress in the

series of its phenomena。 But if we dismiss this assumption… this

transcendental illusion… and deny that it is a thing in itself; the

contradictory opposition is metamorphosed into a merely dialectical

one; and the world; as not existing in itself… independently of the

regressive series of my representations… exists in like manner neither

as a whole which is infinite nor as a whole which is finite in itself。

The universe exists for me only in the empirical regress of the series

of phenomena and not per se。 If; then; it is always conditioned; it is

never completely or as a whole; and it is; therefore; not an

unconditioned whole and does not exist as such; either with an

infinite; or with a finite quantity。

  What we have here said of the first cosmological idea… that of the

absolute totality of quantity in phenomena… applies also to the

others。 The series of conditions is discoverable only in the

regressive synthesis itself; and not in the phenomenon considered as a

thing in itself… given prior to all regress。 Hence I am compelled to

say: 〃The aggregate of parts in a given phenomenon is in itself

neither finite nor infinite; and these parts are given only in the

regressive synthesis of decomposition… a synthesis which is never

given in absolute completeness; either as finite; or as infinite。〃 The

same is the case with the series of subordinated causes; or of the

conditioned up to the unconditioned and necessary existence; which can

never be regarded as in itself; ind in its totality; either as

finite or as infinite; because; as a series of subordinate

representations; it subsists only in the dynamical regress and

cannot be regarded as existing previously to this regress; or as a

self…subsistent series of things。

  Thus the antinomy of pure reason in its cosmological ideas

disappears。 For the above demonstration has established the fact

that it is merely the product of a dialectical and illusory

opposition; which arises from the application of the idea of

absolute totality… admissible only as a condition of things in

themselves… to phenomena; which exist only in our representations;

and… when constituting a series… in a successive regress。 This

antinomy of reason may; however; be really profitable to our

speculative interests; not in the way of contributing any dogmatical

addition; but as presenting to us another material support in our

critical investigations。 For it furnishes us with an indirect proof of

the transcendental ideality of phenomena; if our minds were not

completely satisfied with the direct proof set forth in the

Trancendental Aesthetic。 The proof would proceed in the following

dilemma。 If the world is a whole existing in itself; it must be either

finite or infinite。 But it is neither finite nor infinite… as has been

shown; on the one side; by the thesis; on the other; by the

antithesis。 Therefore the world… the content of all phenomena… is

not a whole existing in itself。 It follows that phenomena are nothing;

apart from our representations。 And this is what we mean by

transcendental ideality。

  This remark is of some importance。 It enables us to see that the

proofs of the fourfold antinomy are not mere sophistries… are not

fallacious; but grounded on the nature of reason; and valid… under the

supposition that phenomena are things in themselves。 The opposition of

the judgements which follow makes it evident that a fallacy lay in the

initial supposition; and thus helps us to discover the true

constitution of objects of sense。 This transcendental dialectic does

not favour scepticism; although it presents us with a triumphant

demonstration of the advantages of the sceptical method; the great

utility of which is apparent in the antinomy; where the arguments of

reason were allowed to confront each other in undiminished force。

And although the result of these conflicts of reason is not what we

expected… although we have obtained no positive dogmatical addition to

metaphysical science… we have still reaped a great advantage in the

correction of our judgements on these subjects of thought。



     SECTION VIII。 Regulati

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的