the critique of pure reason-第28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！



in　all　other　cases　division　a　priori　through　conceptions　is

necessarily　dichotomy。　It　is　to　be　added；　that　the　third　category　in

each　triad　always　arises　from　the　combination　of　the　second　with　the

first。

　　Thus　totality　is　nothing　else　but　plurality　contemplated　as　unity；

limitation　is　merely　reality　conjoined　with　negation；　community　is　the

causality　of　a　substance；　reciprocally　determining；　and　determined

by　other　substances；　and　finally；　necessity　is　nothing　but

existence；　which　is　given　through　the　possibility　itself。　Let　it　not

be　supposed；　however；　that　the　third　category　is　merely　a　deduced；　and

not　a　primitive　conception　of　the　pure　understanding。　For　the

conjunction　of　the　first　and　second；　in　order　to　produce　the　third

conception；　requires　a　particular　function　of　the　understanding；　which

is　by　no　means　identical　with　those　which　are　exercised　in　the　first

and　second。　Thus；　the　conception　of　a　number　（which　belongs　to　the

category　of　totality）　is　not　always　possible；　where　the　conceptions　of

multitude　and　unity　exist　（for　example；　in　the　representation　of　the

infinite）。　Or；　if　I　conjoin　the　conception　of　a　cause　with　that　of　a

substance；　it　does　not　follow　that　the　conception　of　influence；　that

is；　how　one　substance　can　be　the　cause　of　something　in　another

substance；　will　be　understood　from　that。　Thus　it　is　evident　that　a

particular　act　of　the　understanding　is　here　necessary；　and　so　in　the

other　instances。

　　III。　With　respect　to　one　category；　namely；　that　of　community；

which　is　found　in　the　third　class；　it　is　not　so　easy　as　with　the

others　to　detect　its　accordance　with　the　form　of　the　disjunctive

judgement　which　corresponds　to　it　in　the　table　of　the　logical

functions。

　　In　order　to　assure　ourselves　of　this　accordance；　we　must　observe

that　in　every　disjunctive　judgement；　the　sphere　of　the　judgement　（that

is；　the　complex　of　all　that　is　contained　in　it）　is　represented　as　a

whole　divided　into　parts；　and；　since　one　part　cannot　be　contained　in

the　other；　they　are　cogitated　as　co…ordinated　with；　not　subordinated

to　each　other；　so　that　they　do　not　determine　each　other

unilaterally；　as　in　a　linear　series；　but　reciprocally；　as　in　an

aggregate…　（if　one　member　of　the　division　is　posited；　all　the　rest　are

excluded；　and　conversely）。

　　Now　a　like　connection　is　cogitated　in　a　whole　of　things；　for　one

thing　is　not　subordinated；　as　effect；　to　another　as　cause　of　its

existence；　but；　on　the　contrary；　is　co…ordinated　contemporaneously　and

reciprocally；　as　a　cause　in　relation　to　the　determination　of　the

others　（for　example；　in　a　body…　the　parts　of　which　mutually　attract

and　repel　each　other）。　And　this　is　an　entirely　different　kind　of

connection　from　that　which　we　find　in　the　mere　relation　of　the　cause

to　the　effect　（the　principle　to　the　consequence）；　for　in　such　a

connection　the　consequence　does　not　in　its　turn　determine　the

principle；　and　therefore　does　not　constitute；　with　the　latter；　a

whole…　just　as　the　Creator　does　not　with　the　world　make　up　a　whole。

The　process　of　understanding　by　which　it　represents　to　itself　the

sphere　of　a　divided　conception；　is　employed　also　when　we　think　of　a

thing　as　divisible；　and　in　the　same　manner　as　the　members　of　the

division　in　the　former　exclude　one　another；　and　yet　are　connected　in

one　sphere；　so　the　understanding　represents　to　itself　the　parts　of　the

latter；　as　having…　each　of　them…　an　existence　（as　substances）；

independently　of　the　others；　and　yet　as　united　in　one　whole。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SS　8



　　In　the　transcendental　philosophy　of　the　ancients　there　exists　one

more　leading　division；　which　contains　pure　conceptions　of　the

understanding；　and　which；　although　not　numbered　among　the

categories；　ought；　according　to　them；　as　conceptions　a　priori；　to　be

valid　of　objects。　But　in　this　case　they　would　augment　the　number　of

the　categories；　which　cannot　be。　These　are　set　forth　in　the

proposition；　so　renowned　among　the　schoolmen…　〃Quodlibet　ens　est　UNUM；

VERUM；　BONUM。〃　Now；　though　the　inferences　from　this　principle　were

mere　tautological　propositions；　and　though　it　is　allowed　only　by

courtesy　to　retain　a　place　in　modern　metaphysics；　yet　a　thought

which　maintained　itself　for　such　a　length　of　time；　however　empty　it

seems　to　be；　deserves　an　investigation　of　its　origin；　and　justifies

the　conjecture　that　it　must　be　grounded　in　some　law　of　the

understanding；　which；　as　is　often　the　case；　has　only　been

erroneously　interpreted。　These　pretended　transcendental　predicates

are；　in　fact；　nothing　but　logical　requisites　and　criteria　of　all

cognition　of　objects；　and　they　employ；　as　the　basis　for　this

cognition；　the　categories　of　quantity；　namely；　unity；　plurality；　and

totality。　But　these；　which　must　be　taken　as　material　conditions；

that　is；　as　belonging　to　the　possibility　of　things　themselves；　they

employed　merely　in　a　formal　signification；　as　belonging　to　the　logical

requisites　of　all　cognition；　and　yet　most　unguardedly　changed　these

criteria　of　thought　into　properties　of　objects；　as　things　in

themselves。　Now；　in　every　cognition　of　an　object；　there　is　unity　of

conception；　which　may　be　called　qualitative　unity；　so　far　as　by　this

term　we　understand　only　the　unity　in　our　connection　of　the　manifold；

for　example；　unity　of　the　theme　in　a　play；　an　oration；　or　a　story。

Secondly；　there　is　truth　in　respect　of　the　deductions　from　it。　The

more　true　deductions　we　have　from　a　given　conception；　the　more

criteria　of　its　objective　reality。　This　we　might　call　the

qualitative　plurality　of　characteristic　marks；　which　belong　to　a

conception　as　to　a　common　foundation；　but　are　not　cogitated　as　a

quantity　in　it。　Thirdly；　there　is　perfection…　which　consists　in

this；　that　the　plurality　falls　back　upon　the　unity　of　the

conception；　and　accords　completely　with　that　conception　and　with　no

other。　This　we　may　denominate　qualitative　completeness。　Hence　it　is

evident　that　these　logical　criteria　of　the　possibility　of　cognition

are　merely　the　three　categories　of　quantity　modified　and　transformed

to　suit　an　unauthorized　manner　of　applying　them。　That　is　to　say；　the

three　categories；　in　which　the　unity　in　the　production　of　the

quantum　must　be　homogeneous　throughout；　are　transformed　solely　with

a　view　to　the　connection　of　heterogeneous　parts　of　cognition　in　one

act　of　consciousness；　by　means　of　the　quality　of　the　cognition；

which　is　the　principle　of　that　connection。　Thus　the　criterion　of　the

possibility　of　a　conception　（not　of　its　object）　is　the　definition　of

it；　in　which　the　unity　of　the　conception；　the　truth　of　all　that　may　be

immediately　deduced　from　it；　and　finally；　the　completeness　of　what　has

been　thus　deduced；　constitute　the　requisites　for　the　reproduction　of

the　whole　conception。　Thus　also；　the　criterion　or　test　of　an

hypothesis　is　the　intelligibility　of　the　received　principle　of

explanation；　or　its　unity　（without　help　from　any　subsidiary

hypothesis）…　the　truth　of　our　deductions　from　it　（consistency　with

each　other　and　with　experience）…　and　lastly；　the　completeness　of　the

principle　of　the　explanation　of　these　deductions；　which　refer　to

neither　more　nor　less　than　what　was　admitted　in　the　hypothesis；

restoring　analytically　and　a　posteriori；　what　was　cogitated

synthetically　and　a　priori。　By　the　conceptions；　therefore；　of　unity；

truth；　and　perfection；　we　have　made　no　addition　to　the

transcendental　table　of　the　categories；　which　is　complete　without

them。　We　have；　on　the　contrary；　merely　employed　the　three　categories

of　quantity；　setting　aside　their　application　to　objects　of　experience；

as　general　logical　laws　of　the　consistency　of　cognition　with　itself。

　　　CHAPTER　II　Of　the　Deduction　of　the　Pure　Conceptions　of　the

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Understanding。



　　　SECTION　I　Of　the　Principles　of　a　Transcendental　Deduction

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　in　general。　SS　9



　　Teachers　of　jurisprudence；　when　speaking　of　rights　and　claims；

distinguish　in　a　cause　the　question　of　right　（quid　juris）　from　the

quest