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

第71章

the critique of pure reason-第71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!




from a want of due attention to logical rules。 So soon as the

attention is awakened to the case before us; this illusion totally

disappears。 Transcendental illusion; on the contrary; does not cease

to exist; even after it has been exposed; and its nothingness

clearly perceived by means of transcendental criticism。 Take; for

example; the illusion in the proposition: 〃The world must have a

beginning in time。〃 The cause of this is as follows。 In our reason;

subjectively considered as a faculty of human cognition; there exist

fundamental rules and maxims of its exercise; which have completely

the appearance of objective principles。 Now from this cause it happens

that the subjective necessity of a certain connection of our

conceptions; is regarded as an objective necessity of the

determination of things in themselves。 This illusion it is

impossible to avoid; just as we cannot avoid perceiving that the sea

appears to be higher at a distance than it is near the shore;

because we see the former by means of higher rays than the latter; or;

which is a still stronger case; as even the astronomer cannot

prevent himself from seeing the moon larger at its rising than some

time afterwards; although he is not deceived by this illusion。

  Transcendental dialectic will therefore content itself with exposing

the illusory appearance in transcendental judgements; and guarding

us against it; but to make it; as in the case of logical illusion;

entirely disappear and cease to be illusion is utterly beyond its

power。 For we have here to do with a natural and unavoidable illusion;

which rests upon subjective principles and imposes these upon us as

objective; while logical dialectic; in the detection of sophisms;

has to do merely with an error in the logical consequence of the

propositions; or with an artificially constructed illusion; in

imitation of the natural error。 There is; therefore; a natural and

unavoidable dialectic of pure reason… not that in which the bungler;

from want of the requisite knowledge; involves himself; nor that which

the sophist devises for the purpose of misleading; but that which is

an inseparable adjunct of human reason; and which; even after its

illusions have been exposed; does not cease to deceive; and

continually to lead reason into momentary errors; which it becomes

necessary continually to remove。



    II。 Of Pure Reason as the Seat of Transcendental Illusory

                        Appearance。



                  A。 OF REASON IN GENERAL。



  All our knowledge begins with sense; proceeds thence to

understanding; and ends with reason; beyond which nothing higher can

be discovered in the human mind for elaborating the matter of

intuition and subjecting it to the highest unity of thought。 At this

stage of our inquiry it is my duty to give an explanation of this; the

highest faculty of cognition; and I confess I find myself here in some

difficulty。 Of reason; as of the understanding; there is a merely

formal; that is; logical use; in which it makes abstraction of all

content of cognition; but there is also a real use; inasmuch as it

contains in itself the source of certain conceptions and principles;

which it does not borrow either from the senses or the

understanding。 The former faculty has been long defined by logicians

as the faculty of mediate conclusion in contradistinction to immediate

conclusions (consequentiae immediatae); but the nature of the

latter; which itself generates conceptions; is not to be understood

from this definition。 Now as a division of reason into a logical and a

transcendental faculty presents itself here; it becomes necessary to

seek for a higher conception of this source of cognition which shall

comprehend both conceptions。 In this we may expect; according to the

analogy of the conceptions of the understanding; that the logical

conception will give us the key to the transcendental; and that the

table of the functions of the former will present us with the clue

to the conceptions of reason。

  In the former part of our transcendental logic; we defined the

understanding to be the faculty of rules; reason may be

distinguished from understanding as the faculty of principles。

  The term principle is ambiguous; and commonly signifies merely a

cognition that may be employed as a principle; although it is not in

itself; and as regards its proper origin; entitled to the distinction。

Every general proposition; even if derived from experience by the

process of induction; may serve as the major in a syllogism; but it is

not for that reason a principle。 Mathematical axioms (for example;

there can be only one straight line between two points) are general

a priori cognitions; and are therefore rightly denominated principles;

relatively to the cases which can be subsumed under them。 But I cannot

for this reason say that I cognize this property of a straight line

from principles… I cognize it only in pure intuition。

  Cognition from principles; then; is that cognition in which I

cognize the particular in the general by means of conceptions。 Thus

every syllogism is a form of the deduction of a cognition from a

principle。 For the major always gives a conception; through which

everything that is subsumed under the condition thereof is cognized

according to a principle。 Now as every general cognition may serve

as the major in a syllogism; and the understanding presents us with

such general a priori propositions; they may be termed principles;

in respect of their possible use。

  But if we consider these principles of the pure understanding in

relation to their origin; we shall find them to be anything rather

than cognitions from conceptions。 For they would not even be

possible a priori; if we could not rely on the assistance of pure

intuition (in mathematics); or on that of the conditions of a possible

experience。 That everything that happens has a cause; cannot be

concluded from the general conception of that which happens; on the

contrary the principle of causality instructs us as to the mode of

obtaining from that which happens a determinate empirical conception。

  Synthetical cognitions from conceptions the understanding cannot

supply; and they alone are entitled to be called principles。 At the

same time; all general propositions may be termed comparative

principles。

  It has been a long…cherished wish… that (who knows how late); may

one day; be happily accomplished… that the principles of the endless

variety of civil laws should be investigated and exposed; for in

this way alone can we find the secret of simplifying legislation。

But in this case; laws are nothing more than limitations of our

freedom upon conditions under which it subsists in perfect harmony

with itself; they consequently have for their object that which is

completely our own work; and of which we ourselves may be the cause by

means of these conceptions。 But how objects as things in themselves…

how the nature of things is subordinated to principles and is to be

determined。 according to conceptions; is a question which it seems

well nigh impossible to answer。 Be this; however; as it may… for on

this point our investigation is yet to be made… it is at least

manifest from what we have said that cognition from principles is

something very different from cognition by means of the understanding;

which may indeed precede other cognitions in the form of a

principle; but in itself… in so far as it is synthetical… is neither

based upon mere thought; nor contains a general proposition drawn from

conceptions alone shall comprehend

  The understanding may be a faculty for the production of unity of

phenomena by virtue of rules; the reason is a faculty for the

production of unity of rules (of the understanding) under

principles。 Reason; therefore; never applies directly to experience;

or to any sensuous object; its object is; on the contrary; the

understanding; to the manifold cognition of which it gi

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的