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

第126章

the critique of pure reason-第126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!




earth; pure water; or pure air; is not to be discovered。 And yet we

require these conceptions (which have their origin in the reason; so

far as regards their absolute purity and completeness) for the purpose

of determining the share which each of these natural causes has in

every phenomenon。 Thus the different kinds of matter are all ref erred

to earths; as mere weight; to salts and inflammable bodies; as pure

force; and finally; to water and air; as the vehicula of the former;

or the machines employed by them in their operations… for the

purpose of explaining the chemical action and reaction of bodies in

accordance with the idea of a mechanism。 For; although not actually so

expressed; the influence of such ideas of reason is very observable in

the procedure of natural philosophers。

  If reason is the faculty of deducing the particular from the

general; and if the general be certain in se and given; it is only

necessary that the judgement should subsume the particular under the

general; the particular being thus necessarily determined。 I shall

term this the demonstrative or apodeictic employment of reason。 If;

however; the general is admitted as problematical only; and is a

mere idea; the particular case is certain; but the universality of the

rule which applies to this particular case remains a problem。

Several particular cases; the certainty of which is beyond doubt;

are then taken and examined; for the purpose of discovering whether

the rule is applicable to them; and if it appears that all the

particular cases which can be collected follow from the rule; its

universality is inferred; and at the same time; all the causes which

have not; or cannot be presented to our observation; are concluded

to be of the same character with those which we have observed。 This

I shall term the hypothetical employment of the reason。

  The hypothetical exercise of reason by the aid of ideas employed

as problematical conceptions is properly not constitutive。 That is

to say; if we consider the subject strictly; the truth of the rule;

which has been employed as an hypothesis; does not follow from the use

that is made of it by reason。 For how can we know all the possible

cases that may arise? some of which may; however; prove exceptions

to the universality of the rule。 This employment of reason is merely

regulative; and its sole aim is the introduction of unity into the

aggregate of our particular cognitions; and thereby the

approximating of the rule to universality。

  The object of the hypothetical employment of reason is therefore the

systematic unity of cognitions; and this unity is the criterion of the

truth of a rule。 On the other hand; this systematic unity… as a mere

idea… is in fact merely a unity projected; not to be regarded as

given; but only in the light of a problem… a problem which serves;

however; as a principle for the various and particular exercise of the

understanding in experience; directs it with regard to those cases

which are not presented to our observation; and introduces harmony and

consistency into all its operations。

  All that we can be certain of from the above considerations is

that this systematic unity is a logical principle; whose aim is to

assist the understanding; where it cannot of itself attain to rules;

by means of ideas; to bring all these various rules under one

principle; and thus to ensure the most complete consistency and

connection that can be attained。 But the assertion that objects and

the understanding by which they are cognized are so constituted as

to be determined to systematic unity; that this may be postulated a

priori; without any reference to the interest of reason; and that we

are justified in declaring all possible cognitions… empirical and

others… to possess systematic unity; and to be subject to general

principles from which; notwithstanding their various character; they

are all derivable such an assertion can be founded only upon a

transcendental principle of reason; which would render this systematic

unity not subjectively and logically… in its character of a method;

but objectively necessary。

  We shall illustrate this by an example。 The conceptions of the

understanding make us acquainted; among many other kinds of unity;

with that of the causality of a substance; which is termed power。

The different phenomenal manifestations of the same substance appear

at first view to be so very dissimilar that we are inclined to

assume the existence of just as many different powers as there are

different effects… as; in the case of the human mind; we have feeling;

consciousness; imagination; memory; wit; analysis; pleasure; desire

and so on。 Now we are required by a logical maxim to reduce these

differences to as small a number as possible; by comparing them and

discovering the hidden identity which exists。 We must inquire; for

example; whether or not imagination (connected with consciousness);

memory; wit; and analysis are not merely different forms of

understanding and reason。 The idea of a fundamental power; the

existence of which no effort of logic can assure us of; is the problem

to be solved; for the systematic representation of the existing

variety of powers。 The logical principle of reason requires us to

produce as great a unity as is possible in the system of our

cognitions; and the more the phenomena of this and the other power are

found to be identical; the more probable does it become; that they are

nothing but different manifestations of one and the same power;

which may be called; relatively speaking; a fundamental power。 And

so with other cases。

  These relatively fundamental powers must again be compared with each

other; to discover; if possible; the one radical and absolutely

fundamental power of which they are but the manifestations。 But this

unity is purely hypothetical。 It is not maintained; that this unity

does really exist; but that we must; in the interest of reason; that

is; for the establishment of principles for the various rules

presented by experience; try to discover and introduce it; so far as

is practicable; into the sphere of our cognitions。

  But the transcendental employment of the understanding would lead us

to believe that this idea of a fundamental power is not problematical;

but that it possesses objective reality; and thus the systematic unity

of the various powers or forces in a substance is demanded by the

understanding and erected into an apodeictic or necessary principle。

For; without having attempted to discover the unity of the various

powers existing in nature; nay; even after all our attempts have

failed; we notwithstanding presuppose that it does exist; and may

be; sooner or later; discovered。 And this reason does; not only; as in

the case above adduced; with regard to the unity of substance; but

where many substances; although all to a certain extent homogeneous;

are discoverable; as in the case of matter in general。 Here also

does reason presuppose the existence of the systematic unity of

various powers… inasmuch as particular laws of nature are

subordinate to general laws; and parsimony in principles is not merely

an economical principle of reason; but an essential law of nature。

  We cannot understand; in fact; how a logical principle of unity

can of right exist; unless we presuppose a transcendental principle;

by which such a systematic unit… as a property of objects

themselves… is regarded as necessary a priori。 For with what right can

reason; in its logical exercise; require us to regard the variety of

forces which nature displays; as in effect a disguised unity; and to

deduce them from one fundamental force or power; when she is free to

admit that it is just as possible that all forces should be

different in kind; and that a systematic unity is not conformable to

the design of nature? In this view of the case; reason would be

proceeding in direct opposition to her own destination; by setting

as

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的