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

第27节

the critique of pure reason-第27节

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!




be quite void; null; and without significance。 Phenomena would

nevertheless continue to present objects to our intuition; for mere

intuition  does not in any respect stand in need of the functions of

thought。

  If we thought to free ourselves from the labour of these

investigations by saying: 〃Experience is constantly offering us

examples of the relation of cause and effect in phenomena; and

presents us with abundant opportunity of abstracting the conception of

cause; and so at the same time of corroborating the objective validity

of this conception〃; we should in this case be overlooking the fact;

that the conception of cause cannot arise in this way at all; that; on

the contrary; it must either have an a priori basis in the;

understanding; or be rejected as a mere chimera。 For this conception

demands that something; A; should be of such a nature that something

else; B; should follow from it necessarily; and according to an

absolutely universal law。 We may certainly collect from phenomena a

law; according to which this or that usually happens; but the

element of necessity is not to be found in it。 Hence it is evident

that to the synthesis of cause and effect belongs a dignity; which

is utterly wanting in any empirical synthesis; for it is no mere

mechanical synthesis; by means of addition; but a dynamical one;

that is to say; the effect is not to be cogitated as merely annexed to

the cause; but as posited by and through the cause; and resulting from

it。 The strict universality of this law never can be a

characteristic of empirical laws; which obtain through induction

only a comparative universality; that is; an extended range of

practical application。 But the pure conceptions of the understanding

would entirely lose all their peculiar character; if we treated them

merely as the productions of experience。



     Transition to the Transcendental Deduction of the

                    Categories。 SS 10



  There are only two possible ways in which synthetical representation

and its objects can coincide with and relate necessarily to each

other; and; as it were; meet together。 Either the object alone makes

the representation possible; or the representation alone makes the

object possible。 In the former case; the relation between them is only

empirical; and an a priori representation is impossible。 And this is

the case with phenomena; as regards that in them which is referable to

mere sensation。 In the latter case… although representation alone (for

of its causality; by means of the will; we do not here speak) does not

produce the object as to its existence; it must nevertheless be a

priori determinative in regard to the object; if it is only by means

of the representation that we can cognize anything as an object。 Now

there are only two conditions of the possibility of a cognition of

objects; firstly; intuition; by means of which the object; though only

as phenomenon; is given; secondly; conception; by means of which the

object which corresponds to this intuition is thought。 But it is

evident from what has been said on aesthetic that the first condition;

under which alone objects can be intuited; must in fact exist; as a

formal basis for them; a priori in the mind。 With this formal

condition of sensibility; therefore; all phenomena necessarily

correspond; because it is only through it that they can be phenomena

at all; that is; can be empirically intuited and given。 Now the

question is whether there do not exist; a priori in the mind;

conceptions of understanding also; as conditions under which alone

something; if not intuited; is yet thought as object。 If this question

be answered in the affirmative; it follows that all empirical

cognition of objects is necessarily conformable to such conceptions;

since; if they are not presupposed; it is impossible that anything can

be an object of experience。 Now all experience contains; besides the

intuition of the senses through which an object is given; a conception

also of an object that is given in intuition。 Accordingly; conceptions

of objects in general must lie as a priori conditions at the

foundation of all empirical cognition; and consequently; the objective

validity of the categories; as a priori conceptions; will rest upon

this; that experience (as far as regards the form of thought) is

possible only by their means。 For in that case they apply

necessarily and a priori to objects of experience; because only

through them can an object of experience be thought。

  The whole aim of the transcendental deduction of all a priori

conceptions is to show that these conceptions are a priori

conditions of the possibility of all experience。 Conceptions which

afford us the objective foundation of the possibility of experience

are for that very reason necessary。 But the analysis of the

experiences in which they are met with is not deduction; but only an

illustration of them; because from experience they could never

derive the attribute of necessity。 Without their original

applicability and relation to all possible experience; in which all

objects of cognition present themselves; the relation of the

categories to objects; of whatever nature; would be quite

incomprehensible。

  The celebrated Locke; for want of due reflection on these points;

and because he met with pure conceptions of the understanding in

experience; sought also to deduce them from experience; and yet

proceeded so inconsequently as to attempt; with their aid; to arrive

it cognitions which lie far beyond the limits of all experience。 David

Hume perceived that; to render this possible; it was necessary that

the conceptions should have an a priori origin。 But as he could not

explain how it was possible that conceptions which are not connected

with each other in the understanding must nevertheless be thought as

necessarily connected in the object… and it never occurred to him that

the understanding itself might; perhaps; by means of these

conceptions; be the author of the experience in which its objects were

presented to it… he was forced to drive these conceptions from

experience; that is; from a subjective necessity arising from repeated

association of experiences erroneously considered to be objective…

in one word; from habit。 But he proceeded with perfect consequence and

declared it to be impossible; with such conceptions and the principles

arising from them; to overstep the limits of experience。 The empirical

derivation; however; which both of these philosophers attributed to

these conceptions; cannot possibly be reconciled with the fact that we

do possess scientific a priori cognitions; namely; those of pure

mathematics and general physics。

  The former of these two celebrated men opened a wide door to

extravagance… (for if reason has once undoubted right on its side;

it will not allow itself to be confined to set limits; by vague

recommendations of moderation); the latter gave himself up entirely to

scepticism… a natural consequence; after having discovered; as he

thought; that the faculty of cognition was not trustworthy。 We now

intend to make a trial whether it be not possible safely to conduct

reason between these two rocks; to assign her determinate limits;

and yet leave open for her the entire sphere of her legitimate

activity。

  I shall merely premise an explanation of what the categories are。

They are conceptions of an object in general; by means of which its

intuition is contemplated as determined in relation to one of the

logical functions of judgement。 The following will make this plain。

The function of the categorical judgement is that of the relation of

subject to predicate; for example; in the proposition: 〃All bodies are

divisible。〃 But in regard to the merely logical use of the

understanding; it still remains undetermined to which Of these two

conceptions belongs the function Of subject and to which that of

predicate。 For we could also say: 〃Some divisible is a body。〃 But

the category of substance; when the conception of a body is brought

under it; determines that; and its empirical intuition in experience

must be contemplated always as subject and never as mere predicate。

And so with all the other categories。



  SECTION II Transcendental Deduction of the pure Conceptions of

                   the Understanding。 SS 11



  Of the Possibility of a Conjunction of the manifold representations

                       given by Sense。



  The manifold content in our representations can be given in an

intuition which is merely sensuous… in other words; is nothing but

susceptibility; and the form of this intuition can exist a priori in

our faculty of representation; without being anything else but the

mode in which the subject is affected。 But the conjunction

(conjunctio) of a manifold in intuition never can be given us by the

senses; it cannot therefore be contained in the pure form of

sensuous intuition; for it is a s

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 1 1

你可能喜欢的