太子爷小说网 > 英语电子书 > the critique of judgement >

第5节

the critique of judgement-第5节

小说: the critique of judgement 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!



e) applies to body。 In this way; as I shall show presently; the principle of the finality of nature (in the multiplicity of its empirical laws) is a transcendental principle。 For the concept of objects; regarded as standing under this principle; is only the pure concept of objects of possible empirical cognition generally; and involves nothing empirical。 On the other band; the principle of practical finality; implied in the idea of the determination of a free will; would be a metaphysical principle; because the concept of a faculty of desire; as will; has to be given empirically; i。e。; is not included among transcendental predicates。 But both these principles are; none the less; not empirical; but a priori principles; because no further experience is required for the synthesis of the predicate with the empirical concept of the subject of their judgements; but it may be apprehended quite a priori。   That the concept of a finality of nature belongs to transcendental principles is abundantly evident from the maxims of judgement upon which we rely a priori in the investigation of nature; and which yet have to do with no more than the possibility of experience; and consequently of the knowledge of nature…but of nature not merely in a general way; but as determined by a manifold of particular laws。 These maxims crop up frequently enough in the course of this science; though only in a scattered way。 They are aphorisms of metaphysical wisdom; making their appearance in a number of rules the necessity of which cannot be demonstrated from concepts。 〃Nature takes the shortest way (lex parsimoniae); yet it makes no leap; either in the sequence of its changes; or in the juxtaposition of specifically different forms (lex continui in natura); its vast variety in empirical laws is for all that; unity under a few principles (principia praeter necessitatem non sunt multiplicanda)〃; and so forth。   If we propose to assign the origin of these elementary rules; and attempt to do so on psychological lines; we go straight in the teeth of their sense。 For they tell us; not what happens; i。e。; according to what rule our powers of judgement actually discharge their functions; and how we judge; but how we ought to judge; and we cannot get this logical objective necessity where the principles are merely empirical。 Hence the finality of nature for our cognitive faculties and their employment; which manifestly radiates from them; is a transcendental principle of judgements; and so needs also a transcendental deduction; by means of which the ground for this mode of judging must be traced to the a priori sources of knowledge。   Now; looking at the grounds of the possibility of an experience; the first thing; of course; that meets us is something necessary…namely; the universal laws apart from which nature in general (as an object of sense) cannot be thought。 These rest on the categories; applied to the formal conditions of all intuition possible for us; so far as it is also given a priori。 Under these laws; judgement is determinant; for it bas nothing else to do than to subsume under given laws。 For instance; understanding says: all change has its cause (universal law of nature); transcendental judgement has nothing further to do than to furnish a priori the condition of subsumption under the concept of understanding placed before it: this we get in the succession of the determinations of one and the same thing。 Now for nature in general; as an object of possible experience; that law is cognized as absolutely necessary。 But besides this formal time…condition; the objects of empirical cognition are determined; or; so far as we can judge a priori; are determinable; in divers ways; so that specifically differentiated natures; over and above what they have in common as things of nature in general; are further capable of being causes in an infinite variety of ways; and each of these modes must; on the concept of a cause in general; have its rule; which is a law; and; consequently; imports necessity: although owing to the constitution and limitations of our faculties of cognition we may entirely fail to see this necessity。 Accordingly; in respect of nature's merely empirical laws; we must think in nature a possibility of an endless multiplicity of empirical laws; which yet are contingent so far as our insight goes; i。e。; cannot be cognized a priori。 In respect of these we estimate the unity of nature according to empirical laws; and the possibility of the unity of experience; as a system according to empirical laws; to be contingent。 But; now; such a unity is one which must be necessarily presupposed and assumed; as otherwise we should not have a thoroughgoing connection of empirical cognition in a whole of experience。 For the universal laws of nature; while providing; certainly; for such a connection among things generically; as things of nature in general; do not do so for them specifically as such particular things of nature。 Hence judgement is compelled; for its own guidance; to adopt it as an a priori principle; that what is for human insight contingent in the particular (empirical) laws of nature contains nevertheless unity of law in the synthesis of its manifold in an intrinsically possible experience…unfathomable; though still thinkable; as such unity may; no doubt; be for us。 Consequently; as the unity of law in a synthesis; which is cognized by us in obedience to a necessary aim (a need of understanding); though recognized at the same time as contingent; is represented as a finality of objects (here of nature); so judgement; which; in respect of things under possible (yet to be discovered) empirical laws; is merely reflective; must regard nature in respect of the latter according to a principle of finality for our cognitive faculty; which then finds expression in the above maxims of judgement。 Now this transcendental concept of a finality of nature is neither a concept of nature nor of freedom; since it attributes nothing at all to the object; i。e。; to nature; but only represents the unique mode in which we must proceed in our reflection upon the objects of nature with a view to getting a thoroughly interconnected whole of experience; and so is a subjective principle; i。e。; maxim; of judgement。 For this reason; too; just as if it were a lucky chance that favoured us; we are rejoiced (properly speaking; relieved of a want) where we meet with such systematic unity under merely empirical laws: although we must necessarily assume the presence of such a unity; apart from any ability on our part to apprehend or prove its existence。   In order to convince ourselves of the correctness of this deduction of the concept before us; and the necessity of assuming it as a transcendental principle of cognition; let us just bethink ourselves of the magnitude of the task。 We have to form a connected experience from given perceptions of a nature containing a maybe endless multiplicity of empirical laws; and this problem has its seat a priori in our understanding。 This understanding is no doubt a priori in possession of universal laws of nature; apart from which nature would be incapable of being an object of experience at all。 But over and above this it needs a certain order of nature in its particular rules which are only capable of being brought to its knowledge empirically; and which; so far as it is concerned are contingent。 These rules; without which we would have no means of advance from the universal analogy of a possible experience in general to a particular; must be regarded by understanding as laws; i。e。; as necessary…for otherwise they would not form an order of nature…though it be unable to cognize or ever get an insight into their necessity。 Albeit; then; it can determine nothing a priori in respect of these (objects); it must; in pursuit of such empirical so…called laws; lay at the basis of all reflection upon them an a priori principle; to the effect; namely; that a cognizable order of nature is possible according to them。 A principle of this kind is expressed in the following propositions。 There is in nature a subordination of genera and species comprehensible by us: Each of these genera again approximates to the others on a common principle; so that a transition may be possible from one to the other; and thereby to a higher genus: While it seems at outset unavoidable for our understanding to assume for the specific variety of natural operations a like number of various kinds of causality; yet these may all be reduced to a small number of principles; the quest for which is our business; and so forth。 This adaptation of nature to our cognitive faculties is presupposed a priori by judgement on behalf of its reflection upon it according to empirical laws。 But understanding all the while recognizes it objectively as contingent; and it is merely judgement that attributes it to nature as transcendental finality; i。e。; a finality in respect of the subject's faculty of cognition。 For; were it not for this presupposition; we should have no order of nature in accordance with empirical laws; and; consequently; no guiding…thread for an experience that has to be brought to bear upon these in all their variety; or for an investigation of them。   For it is quite conceivable that; des

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 1

你可能喜欢的