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

第18章

the critique of pure reason-第18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!




it is nothing; and cannot be reckoned as subsisting or inhering in

objects as things in themselves; independently of its relation to

our intuition。 this ideality; like that of space; is not to be

proved or illustrated by fallacious analogies with sensations; for

this reason… that in such arguments or illustrations; we make the

presupposition that the phenomenon; in which such and such

predicates inhere; has objective reality; while in this case we can

only find such an objective reality as is itself empirical; that is;

regards the object as a mere phenomenon。 In reference to this subject;

see the remark in Section I (SS 4)



                    SS 8 Elucidation。



  Against this theory; which grants empirical reality to time; but

denies to it absolute and transcendental reality; I have heard from

intelligent men an objection so unanimously urged that I conclude that

it must naturally present itself to every reader to whom these

considerations are novel。 It runs thus: 〃Changes are real〃 (this the

continual change in our own representations demonstrates; even

though the existence of all external phenomena; together with their

changes; is denied)。 Now; changes are only possible in time; and

therefore time must be something real。 But there is no difficulty in

answering this。 I grant the whole argument。 Time; no doubt; is

something real; that is; it is the real form of our internal

intuition。 It therefore has subjective reality; in reference to our

internal experience; that is; I have really the representation of time

and of my determinations therein。 Time; therefore; is not to be

regarded as an object; but as the mode of representation of myself

as an object。 But if I could intuite myself; or be intuited by another

being; without this condition of sensibility; then those very

determinations which we now represent to ourselves as changes; would

present to us a knowledge in which the representation of time; and

consequently of change; would not appear。 The empirical reality of

time; therefore; remains; as the condition of all our experience。

But absolute reality; according to what has been said above; cannot be

granted it。 Time is nothing but the form of our internal intuition。*

If we take away from it the special condition of our sensibility;

the conception of time also vanishes; and it inheres not in the

objects themselves; but solely in the subject (or mind) which intuites

them。



  *I can indeed say 〃my representations follow one another; or are

successive〃; but this means only that we are conscious of them as in a

succession; that is; according to the form of the internal sense。

Time; therefore; is not a thing in itself; nor is it any objective

determination pertaining to; or inherent in things。



  But the reason why this objection is so unanimously brought

against our doctrine of time; and that too by disputants who cannot

start any intelligible arguments against the doctrine of the

ideality of space; is this… they have no hope of demonstrating

apodeictically the absolute reality of space; because the doctrine

of idealism is against them; according to which the reality of

external objects is not capable of any strict proof。 On the other

hand; the reality of the object of our internal sense (that is; myself

and my internal state) is clear immediately through consciousness。 The

former… external objects in space… might be a mere delusion; but the

latter… the object of my internal perception… is undeniably real。 They

do not; however; reflect that both; without question of their

reality as representations; belong only to the genus phenomenon; which

has always two aspects; the one; the object considered as a thing in

itself; without regard to the mode of intuiting it; and the nature

of which remains for this very reason problematical; the other; the

form of our intuition of the object; which must be sought not in the

object as a thing in itself; but in the subject to which it appears…

which form of intuition nevertheless belongs really and necessarily to

the phenomenal object。

  Time and space are; therefore; two sources of knowledge; from which;

a priori; various synthetical cognitions can be drawn。 Of this we find

a striking example in the cognitions of space and its relations; which

form the foundation of pure mathematics。 They are the two pure forms

of all intuitions; and thereby make synthetical propositions a

priori possible。 But these sources of knowledge being merely

conditions of our sensibility; do therefore; and as such; strictly

determine their own range and purpose; in that they do not and

cannot present objects as things in themselves; but are applicable

to them solely in so far as they are considered as sensuous phenomena。

The sphere of phenomena is the only sphere of their validity; and if

we venture out of this; no further objective use can be made of

them。 For the rest; this formal reality of time and space leaves the

validity of our empirical knowledge unshaken; for our certainty in

that respect is equally firm; whether these forms necessarily inhere

in the things themselves; or only in our intuitions of them。 On the

other hand; those who maintain the absolute reality of time and space;

whether as essentially subsisting; or only inhering; as modifications;

in things; must find themselves at utter variance with the

principles of experience itself。 For; if they decide for the first

view; and make space and time into substances; this being the side

taken by mathematical natural philosophers; they must admit two

self…subsisting nonentities; infinite and eternal; which exist (yet

without there being anything real) for the purpose of containing in

themselves everything that is real。 If they adopt the second view of

inherence; which is preferred by some metaphysical natural

philosophers; and regard space and time as relations (contiguity in

space or succession in time); abstracted from experience; though

represented confusedly in this state of separation; they find

themselves in that case necessitated to deny the validity of

mathematical doctrines a priori in reference to real things (for

example; in space)… at all events their apodeictic certainty。 For such

certainty cannot be found in an a posteriori proposition; and the

conceptions a priori of space and time are; according to this opinion;

mere creations of the imagination; having their source really in

experience; inasmuch as; out of relations abstracted from

experience; imagination has made up something which contains;

indeed; general statements of these relations; yet of which no

application can be made without the restrictions attached thereto by

nature。 The former of these parties gains this advantage; that they

keep the sphere of phenomena free for mathematical science。 On the

other hand; these very conditions (space and time) embarrass them

greatly; when the understanding endeavours to pass the limits of

that sphere。 The latter has; indeed; this advantage; that the

representations of space and time do not come in their way when they

wish to judge of objects; not as phenomena; but merely in their

relation to the understanding。 Devoid; however; of a true and

objectively valid a priori intuition; they can neither furnish any

basis for the possibility of mathematical cognitions a priori; nor

bring the propositions of experience into necessary accordance with

those of mathematics。 In our theory of the true nature of these two

original forms of the sensibility; both difficulties are surmounted。

  In conclusion; that transcendental aesthetic cannot contain any more

than these two elements… space and time; is sufficiently obvious

from the fact that all other conceptions appertaining to

sensibility; even that of motion; which unites in itself both

elements; presuppose something empirical。 Motion; for example;

presupposes the perception of something movable。 But space

considered in itself contains nothing movabl

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的