the critique of pure reason-第142章

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！



are　employed　in　philosophy　can；　according　to　the　general　mode　of

speech；　bear　this　name；　those　of　arithmetic　or　geometry　would　not　be

rightly　so　denominated。　Thus　the　customary　mode　of　speaking　confirms

the　explanation　given　above；　and　the　conclusion　arrived　at；　that

only　those　judgements　which　are　based　upon　conceptions；　not　on　the

construction　of　conceptions；　can　be　termed　dogmatical。

　　Thus；　pure　reason；　in　the　sphere　of　speculation；　does　not　contain

a　single　direct　synthetical　judgement　based　upon　conceptions。　By　means

of　ideas；　it　is；　as　we　have　shown；　incapable　of　producing

synthetical　judgements；　which　are　objectively　valid；　by　means　of　the

conceptions　of　the　understanding；　it　establishes　certain　indubitable

principles；　not；　however；　directly　on　the　basis　of　conceptions；　but

only　indirectly　by　means　of　the　relation　of　these　conceptions　to

something　of　a　purely　contingent　nature；　namely；　possible

experience。　When　experience　is　presupposed；　these　principles　are

apodeictically　certain；　but　in　themselves；　and　directly；　they　cannot

even　be　cognized　a　priori。　Thus　the　given　conceptions　of　cause　and

event　will　not　be　sufficient　for　the　demonstration　of　the　proposition：

Every　event　has　a　cause。　For　this　reason；　it　is　not　a　dogma；

although　from　another　point　of　view；　that　of　experience；　it　is　capable

of　being　proved　to　demonstration。　The　proper　term　for　such　a

proposition　is　principle；　and　not　theorem　（although　it　does　require　to

be　proved）；　because　it　possesses　the　remarkable　peculiarity　of　being

the　condition　of　the　possibility　of　its　own　ground　of　proof；　that

is；　experience；　and　of　forming　a　necessary　presupposition　in　all

empirical　observation。

　　If　then；　in　the　speculative　sphere　of　pure　reason；　no　dogmata　are　to

be　found；　all　dogmatical　methods；　whether　borrowed　from　mathematics；

or　invented　by　philosophical　thinkers；　are　alike　inappropriate　and

inefficient。　They　only　serve　to　conceal　errors　and　fallacies；　and　to

deceive　philosophy；　whose　duty　it　is　to　see　that　reason　pursues　a　safe

and　straight　path。　A　philosophical　method　may；　however；　be

systematical。　For　our　reason　is；　subjectively　considered；　itself　a

system；　and；　in　the　sphere　of　mere　conceptions；　a　system　of

investigation　according　to　principles　of　unity；　the　material　being

supplied　by　experience　alone。　But　this　is　not　the　proper　place　for

discussing　the　peculiar　method　of　transcendental　philosophy；　as　our

present　task　is　simply　to　examine　whether　our　faculties　are　capable　of

erecting　an　edifice　on　the　basis　of　pure　reason；　and　how　far　they

may　proceed　with　the　materials　at　their　command。



　　　　　SECTION　II。　The　Discipline　of　Pure　Reason　in　Polemics。



　　Reason　must　be　subject；　in　all　its　operations；　to　criticism；　which

must　always　be　permitted　to　exercise　its　functions　without

restraint；　otherwise　its　interests　are　imperilled　and　its　influence

obnoxious　to　suspicion。　There　is　nothing；　however　useful；　however

sacred　it　may　be；　that　can　claim　exemption　from　the　searching

examination　of　this　supreme　tribunal；　which　has　no　respect　of　persons。

The　very　existence　of　reason　depends　upon　this　freedom；　for　the

voice　of　reason　is　not　that　of　a　dictatorial　and　despotic　power；　it　is

rather　like　the　vote　of　the　citizens　of　a　free　state；　every　member

of　which　must　have　the　privilege　of　giving　free　expression　to　his

doubts；　and　possess　even　the　right　of　veto。

　　But　while　reason　can　never　decline　to　submit　itself　to　the

tribunal　of　criticism；　it　has　not　always　cause　to　dread　the

judgement　of　this　court。　Pure　reason；　however；　when　engaged　in　the

sphere　of　dogmatism；　is　not　so　thoroughly　conscious　of　a　strict

observance　of　its　highest　laws；　as　to　appear　before　a　higher

judicial　reason　with　perfect　confidence。　On　the　contrary；　it　must

renounce　its　magnificent　dogmatical　pretensions　in　philosophy。

　　Very　different　is　the　case　when　it　has　to　defend　itself；　not

before　a　judge；　but　against　an　equal。　If　dogmatical　assertions　are

advanced　on　the　negative　side；　in　opposition　to　those　made　by　reason

on　the　positive　side；　its　justification　kat　authrhopon　is　complete；

although　the　proof　of　its　propositions　is　kat　aletheian

unsatisfactory。

　　By　the　polemic　of　pure　reason　I　mean　the　defence　of　its　propositions

made　by　reason；　in　opposition　to　the　dogmatical　counter…propositions

advanced　by　other　parties。　The　question　here　is　not　whether　its　own

statements　may　not　also　be　false；　it　merely　regards　the　fact　that

reason　proves　that　the　opposite　cannot　be　established　with

demonstrative　certainty；　nor　even　asserted　with　a　higher　degree　of

probability。　Reason　does　not　hold　her　possessions　upon　sufferance；

for；　although　she　cannot　show　a　perfectly　satisfactory　title　to

them；　no　one　can　prove　that　she　is　not　the　rightful　possessor。

　　It　is　a　melancholy　reflection　that　reason；　in　its　highest

exercise；　falls　into　an　antithetic；　and　that　the　supreme　tribunal

for　the　settlement　of　differences　should　not　be　at　union　with

itself。　It　is　true　that　we　had　to　discuss　the　question　of　an

apparent　antithetic；　but　we　found　that　it　was　based　upon　a

misconception。　In　conformity　with　the　common　prejudice；　phenomena　were

regarded　as　things　in　themselves；　and　thus　an　absolute　completeness　in

their　synthesis　was　required　in　the　one　mode　or　in　the　other　（it　was

shown　to　be　impossible　in　both）；　a　demand　entirely　out　of　place　in

regard　to　phenomena。　There　was；　then；　no　real　self…contradiction　of

reason　in　the　propositions：　The　series　of　phenomena　given　in

themselves　has　an　absolutely　first　beginning；　and：　This　series　is

absolutely　and　in　itself　without　beginning。　The　two　propositions　are

perfectly　consistent　with　each　other；　because　phenomena　as　phenomena

are　in　themselves　nothing；　and　consequently　the　hypothesis　that　they

are　things　in　themselves　must　lead　to　self…contradictory　inferences。

　　But　there　are　cases　in　which　a　similar　misunderstanding　cannot　be

provided　against；　and　the　dispute　must　remain　unsettled。　Take；　for

example；　the　theistic　proposition：　There　is　a　Supreme　Being；　and　on

the　other　hand；　the　atheistic　counter…statement：　There　exists　no

Supreme　Being；　or；　in　psychology：　Everything　that　thinks　possesses　the

attribute　of　absolute　and　permanent　unity；　which　is　utterly

different　from　the　transitory　unity　of　material　phenomena；　and　the

counter…proposition：　The　soul　is　not　an　immaterial　unity；　and　its

nature　is　transitory；　like　that　of　phenomena。　The　objects　of　these

questions　contain　no　heterogeneous　or　contradictory　elements；　for　they

relate　to　things　in　themselves；　and　not　to　phenomena。　There　would

arise；　indeed；　a　real　contradiction；　if　reason　came　forward　with　a

statement　on　the　negative　side　of　these　questions　alone。　As　regards

the　criticism　to　which　the　grounds　of　proof　on　the　affirmative　side

must　be　subjected；　it　may　be　freely　admitted；　without　necessitating

the　surrender　of　the　affirmative　propositions；　which　have；　at　least；

the　interest　of　reason　in　their　favour…　an　advantage　which　the

opposite　party　cannot　lay　claim　to。

　　I　cannot　agree　with　the　opinion　of　several　admirable　thinkers…

Sulzer　among　the　rest…　that；　in　spite　of　the　weakness　of　the　arguments

hitherto　in　use；　we　may　hope；　one　day；　to　see　sufficient

demonstrations　of　the　two　cardinal　propositions　of　pure　reason…　the

existence　of　a　Supreme　Being；　and　the　immortality　of　the　soul。　I　am

certain；　on　the　contrary；　that　this　will　never　be　the　case。　For　on

what　ground　can　reason　base　such　synthetical　propositions；　which　do

not　relate　to　the　objects　of　experience　and　their　internal

possibility？　But　it　is　also　demonstratively　certain　that　no　one　will

ever　be　able　to　maintain　the　contrary　with　the　least　show　of

probability。　For；　as　he　can　attempt　such　a　proof　solely　upon　the　basis

of　pure　reason；　he　is　bound　to　prove　that　a　Supreme　Being；　and　a

thinking　subject　in　the　character　of　a　pure　intelligence；　are

impossible。　But　where　will　he　find　the　knowledge　which　can　enable

him　to　enounce　synthetical　ju