the critique of pure reason-第95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！



unconditioned　beginning　of　all　synthesis…　accustomed；　as　it　is；　rather

to　follow　our　consequences　than　to　seek　for　a　proper　basis　for

cognition。　In　the　conception　of　an　absolute　first；　moreover…　the

possibility　of　which　it　does　not　inquire　into…　it　is　highly

gratified　to　find　a　firmly…established　point　of　departure　for　its

attempts　at　theory；　while　in　the　restless　and　continuous　ascent　from

the　conditioned　to　the　condition；　always　with　one　foot　in　the　air；

it　can　find　no　satisfaction。

　　On　the　side　of　the　antithesis；　or　Empiricism；　in　the　determination

of　the　cosmological　ideas：

　　1。　We　cannot　discover　any　such　practical　interest　arising　from

pure　principles　of　reason　as　morality　and　religion　present。　On　the

contrary；　pure　empiricism　seems　to　empty　them　of　all　their　power　and

influence。　If　there　does　not　exist　a　Supreme　Being　distinct　from　the

world…　if　the　world　is　without　beginning；　consequently　without　a

Creator…　if　our　wills　are　not　free；　and　the　soul　is　divisible　and

subject　to　corruption　just　like　matter…　the　ideas　and　principles　of

morality　lose　all　validity　and　fall　with　the　transcendental　ideas

which　constituted　their　theoretical　support。

　　2。　But　empiricism；　in　compensation；　holds　out　to　reason；　in　its

speculative　interests；　certain　important　advantages；　far　exceeding　any

that　the　dogmatist　can　promise　us。　For；　when　employed　by　the

empiricist；　understanding　is　always　upon　its　proper　ground　of

investigation…　the　field　of　possible　experience；　the　laws　of　which

it　can　explore；　and　thus　extend　its　cognition　securely　and　with

clear　intelligence　without　being　stopped　by　limits　in　any　direction。

Here　can　it　and　ought　it　to　find　and　present　to　intuition　its　proper

object…　not　only　in　itself；　but　in　all　its　relations；　or；　if　it　employ

conceptions；　upon　this　ground　it　can　always　present　the

corresponding　images　in　clear　and　unmistakable　intuitions。　It　is　quite

unnecessary　for　it　to　renounce　the　guidance　of　nature；　to　attach

itself　to　ideas；　the　objects　of　which　it　cannot　know；　because；　as　mere

intellectual　entities；　they　cannot　be　presented　in　any　intuition。　On

the　contrary；　it　is　not　even　permitted　to　abandon　its　proper

occupation；　under　the　pretence　that　it　has　been　brought　to　a

conclusion　（for　it　never　can　be）；　and　to　pass　into　the　region　of

idealizing　reason　and　transcendent　conceptions；　which　it　is　not

required　to　observe　and　explore　the　laws　of　nature；　but　merely　to

think　and　to　imagine…　secure　from　being　contradicted　by　facts；　because

they　have　not　been　called　as　witnesses；　but　passed　by；　or　perhaps

subordinated　to　the　so…called　higher　interests　and　considerations　of

pure　reason。

　　Hence　the　empiricist　will　never　allow　himself　to　accept　any　epoch　of

nature　for　the　first…　the　absolutely　primal　state；　he　will　not　believe

that　there　can　be　limits　to　his　outlook　into　her　wide　domains；　nor

pass　from　the　objects　of　nature；　which　he　can　satisfactorily　explain

by　means　of　observation　and　mathematical　thought…　which　he　can

determine　synthetically　in　intuition；　to　those　which　neither　sense　nor

imagination　can　ever　present　in　concreto；　he　will　not　concede　the

existence　of　a　faculty　in　nature；　operating　independently　of　the

laws　of　nature…　a　concession　which　would　introduce　uncertainty　into

the　procedure　of　the　understanding；　which　is　guided　by　necessary

laws　to　the　observation　of　phenomena；　nor；　finally；　will　he　permit

himself　to　seek　a　cause　beyond　nature；　inasmuch　as　we　know　nothing　but

it；　and　from　it　alone　receive　an　objective　basis　for　all　our

conceptions　and　instruction　in　the　unvarying　laws　of　things。

　　In　truth；　if　the　empirical　philosopher　had　no　other　purpose　in　the

establishment　of　his　antithesis　than　to　check　the　presumption　of　a

reason　which　mistakes　its　true　destination；　which　boasts　of　its

insight　and　its　knowledge；　just　where　all　insight　and　knowledge

cease　to　exist；　and　regards　that　which　is　valid　only　in　relation　to

a　practical　interest；　as　an　advancement　of　the　speculative　interests

of　the　mind　（in　order；　when　it　is　convenient　for　itself；　to　break

the　thread　of　our　physical　investigations；　and；　under　pretence　of

extending　our　cognition；　connect　them　with　transcendental　ideas；　by

means　of　which　we　really　know　only　that　we　know　nothing）…　if；　I　say；

the　empiricist　rested　satisfied　with　this　benefit；　the　principle

advanced　by　him　would　be　a　maxim　recommending　moderation　in　the

pretensions　of　reason　and　modesty　in　its　affirmations；　and　at　the　same

time　would　direct　us　to　the　right　mode　of　extending　the　province　of

the　understanding；　by　the　help　of　the　only　true　teacher；　experience。

In　obedience　to　this　advice；　intellectual　hypotheses　and　faith　would

not　be　called　in　aid　of　our　practical　interests；　nor　should　we

introduce　them　under　the　pompous　titles　of　science　and　insight。　For

speculative　cognition　cannot　find　an　objective　basis　any　other　where

than　in　experience；　and；　when　we　overstep　its　limits　our　synthesis；

which　requires　ever　new　cognitions　independent　of　experience；　has　no

substratum　of　intuition　upon　which　to　build。

　　But　if…　as　often　happens…　empiricism；　in　relation　to　ideas；

becomes　itself　dogmatic　and　boldly　denies　that　which　is　above　the

sphere　of　its　phenomenal　cognition；　it　falls　itself　into　the　error

of　intemperance…　an　error　which　is　here　all　the　more　reprehensible；　as

thereby　the　practical　interest　of　reason　receives　an　irreparable

injury。

　　And　this　constitutes　the　opposition　between　Epicureanism*　and

Platonism。



　　*It　is；　however；　still　a　matter　of　doubt　whether　Epicurus　ever

propounded　these　principles　as　directions　for　the　objective　employment

of　the　understanding。　If；　indeed；　they　were　nothing　more　than　maxims

for　the　speculative　exercise　of　reason；　he　gives　evidence　therein　a

more　genuine　philosophic　spirit　than　any　of　the　philosophers　of

antiquity。　That；　in　the　explanation　of　phenomena；　we　must　proceed　as

if　the　field　of　inquiry　had　neither　limits　in　space　nor　commencement

in　time；　that　we　must　be　satisfied　with　the　teaching　of　experience

in　reference　to　the　material　of　which　the　world　is　posed；　that　we　must

not　look　for　any　other　mode　of　the　origination　of　events　than　that

which　is　determined　by　the　unalterable　laws　of　nature；　and　finally；

that　we　not　employ　the　hypothesis　of　a　cause　distinct　from　the　world

to　account　for　a　phenomenon　or　for　the　world　itself…　are　principles

for　the　extension　of　speculative　philosophy；　and　the　discovery　of

the　true　sources　of　the　principles　of　morals；　which；　however　little

conformed　to　in　the　present　day；　are　undoubtedly　correct。　At　the

same　time；　any　one　desirous　of　ignoring；　in　mere　speculation；　these

dogmatical　propositions；　need　not　for　that　reason　be　accused　of

denying　them。



　　Both　Epicurus　and　Plato　assert　more　in　their　systems　than　they　know。

The　former　encourages　and　advances　science…　although　to　the

prejudice　of　the　practical；　the　latter　presents　us　with　excellent

principles　for　the　investigation　of　the　practical；　but；　in　relation　to

everything　regarding　which　we　can　attain　to　speculative　cognition；

permits　reason　to　append　idealistic　explanations　of　natural　phenomena；

to　the　great　injury　of　physical　investigation。

　　3。　In　regard　to　the　third　motive　for　the　preliminary　choice　of　a

party　in　this　war　of　assertions；　it　seems　very　extraordinary　that

empiricism　should　be　utterly　unpopular。　We　should　be　inclined　to

believe　that　the　common　understanding　would　receive　it　with

pleasure…　promising　as　it　does　to　satisfy　it　without　passing　the

bounds　of　experience　and　its　connected　order；　while　transcendental

dogmatism　obliges　it　to　rise　to　conceptions　which　far　surpass　the

intelligence　and　ability　of　the　most　practised　thinkers。　But　in

this；　in　truth；　is　to　be　found　its　real　motive。　For　the　common

understanding　thus　finds　itself　in　a　situation　where　not　even　the　most

learned　can　have　the　advantage　of　it。　If　it　understands　little　or

nothing　about　these　transcendental　conceptions；　no　one　can　boast　of