the critique of pure reason-第62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！



cognized；　if　we　do　not　represent　to　ourselves　a　succession　in　the

series　of　phenomena；　and　in　this　succession　an　existence　which　follows

a　non…existence；　or　conversely；　consequently；　change。　For　to　say；　that

the　non…existence　of　a　thing　is　not　self…contradictory　is　a　lame

appeal　to　a　logical　condition；　which　is　no　doubt　a　necessary　condition

of　the　existence　of　the　conception；　but　is　far　from　being　sufficient

for　the　real　objective　possibility　of　non…existence。　I　can

annihilate　in　thought　every　existing　substance　without

self…contradiction；　but　I　cannot　infer　from　this　their　objective

contingency　in　existence；　that　is　to　say；　the　possibility　of　their

non…existence　in　itself。　As　regards　the　category　of　community；　it

may　easily　be　inferred　that；　as　the　pure　categories　of　substance　and

causality　are　incapable　of　a　definition　and　explanation　sufficient

to　determine　their　object　without　the　aid　of　intuition；　the　category

of　reciprocal　causality　in　the　relation　of　substances　to　each　other

（commercium）　is　just　as　little　susceptible　thereof。　Possibility；

existence；　and　necessity　nobody　has　ever　yet　been　able　to　explain

without　being　guilty　of　manifest　tautology；　when　the　definition　has

been　drawn　entirely　from　the　pure　understanding。　For　the

substitution　of　the　logical　possibility　of　the　conception…　the

condition　of　which　is　that　it　be　not　self…contradictory；　for　the

transcendental　possibility　of　things…　the　condition　of　which　is　that

there　be　an　object　corresponding　to　the　conception；　is　a　trick　which

can　only　deceive　the　inexperienced。*



　　*In　one　word；　to　none　of　these　conceptions　belongs　a　corresponding

object；　and　consequently　their　real　possibility　cannot　be

demonstrated；　if　we　take　away　sensuous　intuition…　the　only　intuition

which　we　possess…　and　there　then　remains　nothing　but　the　logical

possibility；　that　is；　the　fact　that　the　conception　or　thought　is

possible…　which；　however；　is　not　the　question；　what　we　want　to　know

being；　whether　it　relates　to　an　object　and　thus　possesses　any　meaning。



　　It　follows　incontestably；　that　the　pure　conceptions　of　the

understanding　are　incapable　of　transcendental；　and　must　always　be　of

empirical　use　alone；　and　that　the　principles　of　the　pure　understanding

relate　only　to　the　general　conditions　of　a　possible　experience；　to

objects　of　the　senses；　and　never　to　things　in　general；　apart　from

the　mode　in　which　we　intuite　them。

　　Transcendental　analytic　has　accordingly　this　important　result；　to

wit；　that　the　understanding　is　competent'　effect　nothing　a　priori；

except　the　anticipation　of　the　form　of　a　possible　experience　in

general；　and　that；　as　that　which　is　not　phenomenon　cannot　be　an　object

of　experience；　it　can　never　overstep　the　limits　of　sensibility；　within

which　alone　objects　are　presented　to　us。　Its　principles　are　merely

principles　of　the　exposition　of　phenomena；　and　the　proud　name　of　an

ontology；　which　professes　to　present　synthetical　cognitions　a　priori

of　things　in　general　in　a　systematic　doctrine；　must　give　place　to

the　modest　title　of　analytic　of　the　pure　understanding。

　　Thought　is　the　act　of　referring　a　given　intuition　to　an　object。　If

the　mode　of　this　intuition　is　unknown　to　us；　the　object　is　merely

transcendental；　and　the　conception　of　the　understanding　is　employed

only　transcendentally；　that　is；　to　produce　unity　in　the　thought　of　a

manifold　in　general。　Now　a　pure　category；　in　which　all　conditions　of

sensuous　intuition…　as　the　only　intuition　we　possess…　are

abstracted；　does　not　determine　an　object；　but　merely　expresses　the

thought　of　an　object　in　general；　according　to　different　modes。　Now；　to

employ　a　conception；　the　function　of　judgement　is　required；　by　which

an　object　is　subsumed　under　the　conception；　consequently　the　at

least　formal　condition；　under　which　something　can　be　given　in

intuition。　Failing　this　condition　of　judgement　（schema）；　subsumption

is　impossible；　for　there　is　in　such　a　case　nothing　given；　which　may　be

subsumed　under　the　conception。　The　merely　transcendental　use　of　the

categories　is　therefore；　in　fact；　no　use　at　all　and　has　no　determined；

or　even；　as　regards　its　form；　determinable　object。　Hence　it　follows

that　the　pure　category　is　incompetent　to　establish　a　synthetical　a

priori　principle；　and　that　the　principles　of　the　pure　understanding

are　only　of　empirical　and　never　of　transcendental　use；　and　that　beyond

the　sphere　of　possible　experience　no　synthetical　a　priori　principles

are　possible。

　　It　may　be　advisable；　therefore；　to　express　ourselves　thus。　The

pure　categories；　apart　from　the　formal　conditions　of　sensibility；　have

a　merely　transcendental　meaning；　but　are　nevertheless　not　of

transcendental　use；　because　this　is　in　itself　impossible；　inasmuch

as　all　the　conditions　of　any　employment　or　use　of　them　（in　judgements）

are　absent；　to　wit；　the　formal　conditions　of　the　subsumption　of　an

object　under　these　conceptions。　As；　therefore；　in　the　character　of

pure　categories；　they　must　be　employed　empirically；　and　cannot　be

employed　transcendentally；　they　are　of　no　use　at　all；　when　separated

from　sensibility；　that　is；　they　cannot　be　applied　to　an　object。　They

are　merely　the　pure　form　of　the　employment　of　the　understanding　in

respect　of　objects　in　general　and　of　thought；　without　its　being　at　the

same　time　possible　to　think　or　to　determine　any　object　by　their　means。

　　But　there　lurks　at　the　foundation　of　this　subject　an　illusion

which　it　is　very　difficult　to　avoid。　The　categories　are　not　based；

as　regards　their　origin；　upon　sensibility；　like　the　forms　of

intuition；　space；　and　time；　they　seem；　therefore；　to　be　capable　of

an　application　beyond　the　sphere　of　sensuous　objects。　But　this　is

not　the　case。　They　are　nothing　but　mere　forms　of　thought；　which

contain　only　the　logical　faculty　of　uniting　a　priori　in

consciousness　the　manifold　given　in　intuition。　Apart；　then；　from　the

only　intuition　possible　for　us；　they　have　still　less　meaning　than

the　pure　sensuous　forms；　space　and　time；　for　through　them　an　object　is

at　least　given；　while　a　mode　of　connection　of　the　manifold；　when　the

intuition　which　alone　gives　the　manifold　is　wanting；　has　no　meaning　at

all。　At　the　same　time；　when　we　designate　certain　objects　as

phenomena　or　sensuous　existences；　thus　distinguishing　our　mode　of

intuiting　them　from　their　own　nature　as　things　in　themselves；　it　is

evident　that　by　this　very　distinction　we　as　it　were　place　the

latter；　considered　in　this　their　own　nature；　although　we　do　not　so

intuite　them；　in　opposition　to　the　former；　or；　on　the　other　hand；　we

do　so　place　other　possible　things；　which　are　not　objects　of　our

senses；　but　are　cogitated　by　the　understanding　alone；　and　call　them

intelligible　existences　（noumena）。　Now　the　question　arises　whether　the

pure　conceptions　of　our　understanding　do　possess　significance　in

respect　of　these　latter；　and　may　possibly　be　a　mode　of　cognizing　them。

　　But　we　are　met　at　the　very　commencement　with　an　ambiguity；　which　may

easily　occasion　great　misapprehension。　The　understanding；　when　it

terms　an　object　in　a　certain　relation　phenomenon；　at　the　same　time

forms　out　of　this　relation　a　representation　or　notion　of　an　object

in　itself；　and　hence　believes　that　it　can　form　also　conceptions　of

such　objects。　Now　as　the　understanding　possesses　no　other

fundamental　conceptions　besides　the　categories；　it　takes　for　granted

that　an　object　considered　as　a　thing　in　itself　must　be　capable　of

being　thought　by　means　of　these　pure　conceptions；　and　is　thereby　led

to　hold　the　perfectly　undetermined　conception　of　an　intelligible

existence；　a　something　out　of　the　sphere　of　our　sensibility；　for　a

determinate　conception　of　an　existence　which　we　can　cognize　in　some

way　or　other　by　means　of　the　understanding。

　　If；　by　the　term　noumenon；　we　understand　a　thing　so　far　as　it　is

not　an　object　of　our　sensuous　intuition；　thus　making　abstraction　of

our　mode　of　intuiting　it；　this　is　a　noumenon　in　the　negative　sense

of　the　word。　But　if　we　understand　by　it　an　obje