the critique of pure reason-第33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！



　　But　this　principle　is　not　to　be　regarded　as　a　principle　for　every

possible　understanding；　but　only　for　the　understanding　by　means　of

whose　pure　apperception　in　the　thought　I　am；　no　manifold　content　is

given。　The　understanding　or　mind　which　contained　the　manifold　in

intuition；　in　and　through　the　act　itself　of　its　own

self…consciousness；　in　other　words；　an　understanding　by　and　in　the

representation　of　which　the　objects　of　the　representation　should　at

the　same　time　exist；　would　not　require　a　special　act　of　synthesis　of

the　manifold　as　the　condition　of　the　unity　of　its　consciousness；　an

act　of　which　the　human　understanding；　which　thinks　only　and　cannot

intuite；　has　absolute　need。　But　this　principle　is　the　first

principle　of　all　the　operations　of　our　understanding；　so　that　we

cannot　form　the　least　conception　of　any　other　possible

understanding；　either　of　one　such　as　should　be　itself　intuition；　or

possess　a　sensuous　intuition；　but　with　forms　different　from　those　of

space　and　time。



　　　　　　What　Objective　Unity　of　Self…consciousness　is。　SS　14



　　It　is　by　means　of　the　transcendental　unity　of　apperception　that

all　the　manifold；　given　in　an　intuition　is　united　into　a　conception　of

the　object。　On　this　account　it　is　called　objective；　and　must　be

distinguished　from　the　subjective　unity　of　consciousness；　which　is　a

determination　of　the　internal　sense；　by　means　of　which　the　said

manifold　in　intuition　is　given　empirically　to　be　so　united。　Whether

I　can　be　empirically　conscious　of　the　manifold　as　coexistent　or　as

successive；　depends　upon　circumstances；　or　empirical　conditions。　Hence

the　empirical　unity　of　consciousness　by　means　of　association　of

representations；　itself　relates　to　a　phenomenal　world　and　is　wholly

contingent。　On　the　contrary；　the　pure　form　of　intuition　in　time；

merely　as　an　intuition；　which　contains　a　given　manifold；　is　subject　to

the　original　unity　of　consciousness；　and　that　solely　by　means　of　the

necessary　relation　of　the　manifold　in　intuition　to　the　〃I　think；〃

consequently　by　means　of　the　pure　synthesis　of　the　understanding；

which　lies　a　priori　at　the　foundation　of　all　empirical　synthesis。

The　transcendental　unity　of　apperception　is　alone　objectively　valid；

the　empirical　which　we　do　not　consider　in　this　essay；　and　which　is

merely　a　unity　deduced　from　the　former　under　given　conditions　in

concreto；　possesses　only　subjective　validity。　One　person　connects

the　notion　conveyed　in　a　word　with　one　thing；　another　with　another

thing；　and　the　unity　of　consciousness　in　that　which　is　empirical；

is；　in　relation　to　that　which　is　given　by　experience；　not

necessarily　and　universally　valid。



　　　　　The　Logical　Form　of　all　Judgements　consists　in　the　Objective

　　　　　　　　　　　　Unity　of　Apperception　of　the　Conceptions

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　contained　therein。　SS　15



　　I　could　never　satisfy　myself　with　the　definition　which　logicians

give　of　a　judgement。　It　is；　according　to　them；　the　representation　of　a

relation　between　two　conceptions。　I　shall　not　dwell　here　on　the

faultiness　of　this　definition；　in　that　it　suits　only　for　categorical

and　not　for　hypothetical　or　disjunctive　judgements；　these　latter

containing　a　relation　not　of　conceptions　but　of　judgements　themselves…

a　blunder　from　which　many　evil　results　have　followed。*　It　is　more

important　for　our　present　purpose　to　observe；　that　this　definition

does　not　determine　in　what　the　said　relation　consists。



　　*The　tedious　doctrine　of　the　four　syllogistic　figures　concerns

only　categorical　syllogisms；　and　although　it　is　nothing　more　than　an

artifice　by　surreptitiously　introducing　immediate　conclusions

（consequentiae　immediatae）　among　the　premises　of　a　pure　syllogism；

to　give　ism'　give　rise　to　an　appearance　of　more　modes　of　drawing　a

conclusion　than　that　in　the　first　figure；　the　artifice　would　not

have　had　much　success；　had　not　its　authors　succeeded　in　bringing

categorical　judgements　into　exclusive　respect；　as　those　to　which　all

others　must　be　referred…　a　doctrine；　however；　which；　according　to　SS

5；　is　utterly　false。



　　But　if　I　investigate　more　closely　the　relation　of　given　cognitions

in　every　judgement；　and　distinguish　it；　as　belonging　to　the

understanding；　from　the　relation　which　is　produced　according　to　laws

of　the　reproductive　imagination　（which　has　only　subjective

validity）；　I　find　that　judgement　is　nothing　but　the　mode　of　bringing

given　cognitions　under　the　objective　unit　of　apperception。　This　is

plain　from　our　use　of　the　term　of　relation　is　in　judgements；　in

order　to　distinguish　the　objective　unity　of　given　representations　from

the　subjective　unity。　For　this　term　indicates　the　relation　of　these

representations　to　the　original　apperception；　and　also　their　necessary

unity；　even　although　the　judgement　is　empirical；　therefore　contingent；

as　in　the　judgement：　〃All　bodies　are　heavy。〃　I　do　not　mean　by　this；

that　these　representations　do　necessarily　belong　to　each　other　in

empirical　intuition；　but　that　by　means　of　the　necessary　unity　of

appreciation　they　belong　to　each　other　in　the　synthesis　of　intuitions；

that　is　to　say；　they　belong　to　each　other　according　to　principles　of

the　objective　determination　of　all　our　representations；　in　so　far　as

cognition　can　arise　from　them；　these　principles　being　all　deduced　from

the　main　principle　of　the　transcendental　unity　of　apperception。　In

this　way　alone　can　there　arise　from　this　relation　a　judgement；　that

is；　a　relation　which　has　objective　validity；　and　is　perfectly　distinct

from　that　relation　of　the　very　same　representations　which　has　only

subjective　validity…　a　relation；　to　wit；　which　is　produced　according

to　laws　of　association。　According　to　these　laws；　I　could　only　say：

〃When　I　hold　in　my　hand　or　carry　a　body；　I　feel　an　impression　of

weight〃；　but　I　could　not　say：　〃It；　the　body；　is　heavy〃；　for　this　is

tantamount　to　saying　both　these　representations　are　conjoined　in　the

object；　that　is；　without　distinction　as　to　the　condition　of　the

subject；　and　do　not　merely　stand　together　in　my　perception；　however

frequently　the　perceptive　act　may　be　repeated。



　　　　All　Sensuous　Intuitions　are　subject　to　the　Categories；　as

　　　　　　Conditions　under　which　alone　the　manifold　Content　of

　　　　　　　　them　can　be　united　in　one　Consciousness。　SS　16



　　The　manifold　content　given　in　a　sensuous　intuition　comes　necessarily

under　the　original　synthetical　unity　of　apperception；　because

thereby　alone　is　the　unity　of　intuition　possible　（SS　13）。　But　that　act

of　the　understanding；　by　which　the　manifold　content　of　given

representations　（whether　intuitions　or　conceptions）　is　brought　under

one　apperception；　is　the　logical　function　of　judgements　（SS　15）。　All

the　manifold；　therefore；　in　so　far　as　it　is　given　in　one　empirical

intuition；　is　determined　in　relation　to　one　of　the　logical　functions

of　judgement；　by　means　of　which　it　is　brought　into　union　in　one

consciousness。　Now　the　categories　are　nothing　else　than　these

functions　of　judgement　so　far　as　the　manifold　in　a　given　intuition

is　determined　in　relation　to　them　（SS　9）。　Consequently；　the　manifold

in　a　given　intuition　is　necessarily　subject　to　the　categories　of　the

understanding。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Observation。　SS　17



　　The　manifold　in　an　intuition；　which　I　call　mine；　is　represented　by

means　of　the　synthesis　of　the　understanding；　as　belonging　to　the

necessary　unity　of　self…consciousness；　and　this　takes　place　by　means

of　the　category。*　The　category　indicates　accordingly　that　the

empirical　consciousness　of　a　given　manifold　in　an　intuition　is　subject

to　a　pure　self…consciousness　a　priori；　in　the　same　manner　as　an

empirical　intuition　is　subject　to　a　pure　sensuous　intuition；　which

is　also　a　priori。　In　the　above　proposition；　then；　lies　the　beginning

of　a　deduction　of　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding。　Now；　as

the　categories　have　their　origin　in　the　understanding　alone；

independently　of　sensibility；　I　must　in　my　deduction　make

abstraction　of　the　mode　in　which　the　manifold　of　an　emp