the critique of pure reason-第93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！


second。





　　　　　　　　　　　　　OBSERVATIONS　ON　THE　FOURTH　ANTINOMY。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ON　THE　THESIS。



　　To　demonstrate　the　existence　of　a　necessary　being；　I　cannot　be

permitted　in　this　place　to　employ　any　other　than　the　cosmological

argument；　which　ascends　from　the　conditioned　in　phenomena　to　the

unconditioned　in　conception…　the　unconditioned　being　considered　the

necessary　condition　of　the　absolute　totality　of　the　series。　The　proof；

from　the　mere　idea　of　a　supreme　being；　belongs　to　another　principle　of

reason　and　requires　separate　discussion。

　　The　pure　cosmological　proof　demonstrates　the　existence　of　a

necessary　being；　but　at　the　same　time　leaves　it　quite　unsettled；

whether　this　being　is　the　world　itself；　or　quite　distinct　from　it。

To　establish　the　truth　of　the　latter　view；　principles　are　requisite；

which　are　not　cosmological　and　do　not　proceed　in　the　series　of

phenomena。　We　should　require　to　introduce　into　our　proof　conceptions

of　contingent　beings…　regarded　merely　as　objects　of　the　understanding；

and　also　a　principle　which　enables　us　to　connect　these；　by　means　of

mere　conceptions；　with　a　necessary　being。　But　the　proper　place　for　all

such　arguments　is　a　transcendent　philosophy；　which　has　unhappily　not

yet　been　established。

　　But；　if　we　begin　our　proof　cosmologically；　by　laying　at　the

foundation　of　it　the　series　of　phenomena；　and　the　regress　in　it

according　to　empirical　laws　of　causality；　we　are　not　at　liberty　to

break　off　from　this　mode　of　demonstration　and　to　pass　over　to

something　which　is　not　itself　a　member　of　the　series。　The　condition

must　be　taken　in　exactly　the　same　signification　as　the　relation　of　the

conditioned　to　its　condition　in　the　series　has　been　taken；　for　the

series　must　conduct　us　in　an　unbroken　regress　to　this　supreme

condition。　But　if　this　relation　is　sensuous；　and　belongs　to　the

possible　empirical　employment　of　understanding；　the　supreme

condition　or　cause　must　close　the　regressive　series　according　to　the

laws　of　sensibility　and　consequently；　must　belong　to　the　series　of

time。　It　follows　that　this　necessary　existence　must　be　regarded　as　the

highest　member　of　the　cosmical　series。

　　Certain　philosophers　have；　nevertheless；　allowed　themselves　the

liberty　of　making　such　a　saltus　（metabasis　eis　allo　gonos）。　From　the

changes　in　the　world　they　have　concluded　their　empirical

contingency；　that　is；　their　dependence　on　empirically…determined

causes；　and　they　thus　admitted　an　ascending　series　of　empirical

conditions：　and　in　this　they　are　quite　right。　But　as　they　could　not

find　in　this　series　any　primal　beginning　or　any　highest　member；　they

passed　suddenly　from　the　empirical　conception　of　contingency　to　the

pure　category；　which　presents　us　with　a　series…　not　sensuous；　but

intellectual…　whose　completeness　does　certainly　rest　upon　the

existence　of　an　absolutely　necessary　cause。　Nay；　more；　this

intellectual　series　is　not　tied　to　any　sensuous　conditions；　and　is

therefore　free　from　the　condition　of　time；　which　requires　it

spontaneously　to　begin　its　causality　in　time。　But　such　a　procedure

is　perfectly　inadmissible；　as　will　be　made　plain　from　what　follows。

　　In　the　pure　sense　of　the　categories；　that　is　contingent　the

contradictory　opposite　of　which　is　possible。　Now　we　cannot　reason　from

empirical　contingency　to　intellectual。　The　opposite　of　that　which　is

changed…　the　opposite　of　its　state…　is　actual　at　another　time；　and

is　therefore　possible。　Consequently；　it　is　not　the　contradictory

opposite　of　the　former　state。　To　be　that；　it　is　necessary　that；　in　the

same　time　in　which　the　preceding　state　existed；　its　opposite　could

have　existed　in　its　place；　but　such　a　cognition　is　not　given　us　in　the

mere　phenomenon　of　change。　A　body　that　was　in　motion　=　A；　comes　into　a

state　of　rest　=　non…A。　Now　it　cannot　be　concluded　from　the　fact　that　a

state　opposite　to　the　state　A　follows　it；　that　the　contradictory

opposite　of　A　is　possible；　and　that　A　is　therefore　contingent。　To

prove　this；　we　should　require　to　know　that　the　state　of　rest　could

have　existed　in　the　very　same　time　in　which　the　motion　took　place。　Now

we　know　nothing　more　than　that　the　state　of　rest　was　actual　in　the

time　that　followed　the　state　of　motion；　consequently；　that　it　was　also

possible。　But　motion　at　one　time；　and　rest　at　another　time；　are　not

contradictorily　opposed　to　each　other。　It　follows　from　what　has　been

said　that　the　succession　of　opposite　determinations；　that　is；

change；　does　not　demonstrate　the　fact　of　contingency　as　represented　in

the　conceptions　of　the　pure　understanding；　and　that　it　cannot；

therefore；　conduct　us　to　the　fact　of　the　existence　of　a　necessary

being。　Change　proves　merely　empirical　contingency；　that　is　to　say；

that　the　new　state　could　not　have　existed　without　a　cause；　which

belongs　to　the　preceding　time。　This　cause…　even　although　it　is

regarded　as　absolutely　necessary…　must　be　presented　to　us　in　time；　and

must　belong　to　the　series　of　phenomena。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ON　THE　ANTITHESIS。



　　The　difficulties　which　meet　us；　in　our　attempt　to　rise　through　the

series　of　phenomena　to　the　existence　of　an　absolutely　necessary

supreme　cause；　must　not　originate　from　our　inability　to　establish

the　truth　of　our　mere　conceptions　of　the　necessary　existence　of　a

thing。　That　is　to　say；　our　objections　not　be　ontological；　but　must

be　directed　against　the　causal　connection　with　a　series　of　phenomena

of　a　condition　which　is　itself　unconditioned。　In　one　word；　they　must

be　cosmological　and　relate　to　empirical　laws。　We　must　show　that　the

regress　in　the　series　of　causes　（in　the　world　of　sense）　cannot

conclude　with　an　empirically　unconditioned　condition；　and　that　the

cosmological　argument　from　the　contingency　of　the　cosmical　state…　a

contingency　alleged　to　arise　from　change…　does　not　justify　us　in

accepting　a　first　cause；　that　is；　a　prime　originator　of　the　cosmical

series。

　　The　reader　will　observe　in　this　antinomy　a　very　remarkable　contrast。

The　very　same　grounds　of　proof　which　established　in　the　thesis　the

existence　of　a　supreme　being；　demonstrated　in　the　antithesis…　and　with

equal　strictness…　the　non…existence　of　such　a　being。　We　found；

first；　that　a　necessary　being　exists；　because　the　whole　time　past

contains　the　series　of　all　conditions；　and　with　it；　therefore；　the

unconditioned　（the　necessary）；　secondly；　that　there　does　not　exist　any

necessary　being；　for　the　same　reason；　that　the　whole　time　past

contains　the　series　of　all　conditions…　which　are　themselves；

therefore；　in　the　aggregate；　conditioned。　The　cause　of　this　seeming

incongruity　is　as　follows。　We　attend；　in　the　first　argument；　solely　to

the　absolute　totality　of　the　series　of　conditions；　the　one　of　which

determines　the　other　in　time；　and　thus　arrive　at　a　necessary

unconditioned。　In　the　second；　we　consider；　on　the　contrary；　the

contingency　of　everything　that　is　determined　in　the　series　of　time…

for　every　event　is　preceded　by　a　time；　in　which　the　condition　itself

must　be　determined　as　conditioned…　and　thus　everything　that　is

unconditioned　or　absolutely　necessary　disappears。　In　both；　the　mode　of

proof　is　quite　in　accordance　with　the　common　procedure　of　human

reason；　which　often　falls　into　discord　with　itself；　from　considering

an　object　from　two　different　points　of　view。　Herr　von　Mairan

regarded　the　controversy　between　two　celebrated　astronomers；　which

arose　from　a　similar　difficulty　as　to　the　choice　of　a　proper

standpoint；　as　a　phenomenon　of　sufficient　importance　to　warrant　a

separate　treatise　on　the　subject。　The　one　concluded：　the　moon　revolves

on　its　own　axis；　because　it　constantly　presents　the　same　side　to　the

earth；　the　other　declared　that　the　moon　does　not　revolve　on　its　own

axis；　for　the　same　reason。　Both　conclusions　were　perfectly　correct；

according　to　the　point　of　view　from　which　the　motions　of　the　moon　were

considered。





　　　　　　　　SECTION　III。　Of　the　Interest　of　Reason　in　these

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Self…contradictions。



　　We　have　t